Islamic Republic: Stoning is not against any International Treaty
By Kamangir • Jul 15th, 2007 • Category: Human Rights, Iran, Islam, Islamic RepublicMohammad-Javad Larijani, former MP, is one of those Iranian politicians, who partly because of being a son of a high-ranking cleric, has always been in the administration, even though on the surface he is only an academician. His rule, in many instances, has been to theorize what the Islamic Republic does. This is how he “theorized” stoning and in particular the stoning of Jafar Kiani.
Interviewer: Dr, let me start with an explicit question. Recently, a stoning was carried out in Takistan, despite the head of the Judiciary’s opposition. What happened?
Larijani: In the of name Allah, the compassionate, the merciful. Stoning does exist in our law and it is based on Islamic Sharia. While it exists, it will be practiced. On top of that, it is not against any of our international commitments. We have signed four important international treaties on human rights, none of which is against stoning. Westerners oppose stoning based on their interpretation of these treaties. For example, they call it torture, and not punishment. Or, they question the relevance of the punishment to the committed offense. Or, they say the sentence involves humiliation. These are all impressions. So, one important fact is that stoning does exist in the Iranian law and is unquestionably based on Sharia. So, it not something which could change based on expediency. However, when it comes to its practice, stoning can be proven very hardly and is practiced very rarely. Stoning is not a revenge, it is a preventive action. So, proving that it has happened, or its practice have very specific conditions.
Interviewer: But Mr Shahroudi [the head of Judiciary] has explicitly opposed to this.
Larijani: His opposition is obviously not to the sentence itself, because it is based on Islam. He is very concerned about how this sentence is carried out. This concern, however, is not because Westerners are very cautious about this, it is because the sentence itself involves very specific concerns, like other major prosecutions.
Interviewer: So, he and you, both, were agreed that the sentence should have been carried out and your concerns were only on the way it was to be done.
Larijani: This is not about he and I, this sentence is a part of the law in this country and is a part of the Islamic Sharia. This is one very true very strong sentence.
By the way, this gentleman is the head of the human rights committee in the Judiciary.
Posted by Kamangir
Author's email address: arash@kamangir.net | All posts by Kamangir
Previous Post: Blood Splashes, “They Stoned Him Here”
Next Post: Kamangir, not very good for kids…
How strange he starts by saying, “ame Allah, the compassionate, the merciful” and then he says,” Stoning does exist in our law”. If they believe in compassionate and merciful God, how can that kind of God approves stoning??
Where is the mercy and compassionate among God’s children?
Where is the mercy and compassionate among Muslim religion they follow, which they believe is the religion of God?
Kamangir: I did have the same feeling when I heard him say those words in Persian, or rather in Arabic.
It’s a pity that Larijani and others who support stoning can not be sentenced to this particular way of execution and during stoning be asked about their impression on this method of carrying a death sentence. I bet their opinion on stoning would be then quite dissimilar from the one they have now.
Kamangir: Good idea. I bet they’ll come up with another “theory” about stoning.
I have long been puzzled by the phrase “for Allah is compassionate, merciful” when it is juxtaposed with descriptions of punishment. There are many passages in the Quran detailing the horrific fate of sinners and unbelievers in hell, that conclude with some variation of that phrase. My simple-minded explanation of this apparent contradiction is the theory that only faithful believers deserve or receive Allah’s mercy and compassion, and descriptions of the punishment they have thus escaped serve to reinforce their faith. Does this make sense?