|
Thursday * Understanding its context Bravo to Mr. Shamolki for his capacity to understand Islamic law without vilifying it. ["Virtually impossible"] The concept of stoning in Islamic law is one of the most misunderstood concepts. While this kind of punishment has no place in a society governed by a modern legal system, and while it appalls us because on the surface it hints at our lowest instincts, nonetheless stoning is there, in the books, for a reason, and understanding its context is key to gain some perspective about Islam. Stoning is an example of extreme punishment, one that almost never can be carried out. It demonstrates the extreme emphasis Islam places on the concept of family and how it views adultery as an extreme anti-thesis to the continuation of family. Stoning is ultimately enforceable under two conditions, first if there is a moral and just society (which is very difficult to define or achieve) and then, and only then, stoning is warranted if "the offender is reckless enough to commit the act openly as to be seen by four eyewitnesses. Both conditions, a moral, just society and obtaining four eyewitnesses for proof are so improbable that any rational and just judge would shy away from applying this extreme punishment as Mr. Shamoli has eloquently showed. Stoning is more or less an ornament piece in Islamic law since it cannot be carried out unless there exists a convergence of highly improbable factors. The fact that a state, namely the Islamic Republic, chooses to apply stoning reveals more about the state and Iranian culture than about religion itself. What we often do, and no one can blame us, is equating Islam with the Islamic Republic. Let's face it, it is hard to swallow that 2,500 or 3,000 years of culture and history culminates in throwing stones at the face and head of a woman who is bruied neck deep, but our countrymen, the sons of Iranian mothers and fathers do that, and they do it because of their family upbringings, and their political culture and their socialization, not based on their vigilant following of Islam. Islam in this case is more or less a stamp to justify individual and state-sanctioned cruelty, nothing more. For a discussion of stoning see here. * Mere inclusion This letter is in response to Shahmolki's article on stoning ["Virtually impossible"]. Shahmolki tries to show the difficulties, virtually the impossibility, of convicting someone to stoning within an Islamic jurdicial system. The need for the testimony of four just witnesses and the willing confession of the accused, etc, were examples Shahmolki cited to prove presumably that the Islamic legislator has intended for stoning to function merely as a deterrent to potential adulturers not as an practical instrument of punishment. There are more examples that Shahmolki failed to mention in the regulation of stoning that can show the difficulty in carrying out the punishment, such as the size of the stones, which have to be neither too big nor too small and the participation of the witnesses themselves in the act. Shahmolki's arguments are by no means new to the more progressive elements of Islamic thinking who are embarassed by the concept but can't bring themselves to condemn it. Here are a few points in response. 1. If it's true as some Islamic sources describe, that four people were stoned during Prophet Mohammad's tenure, Shahmolki's argument falls apart. Prophet Mohammad's system of governance, the undisputed parts of it, sets an accurate source of reference for those who base law on precedence. If four people can be convicted of adultry despite all the difficulties cited, in a 13-year period, in a geographically limited jurisdcition like Madina, among a small population, then it must only be easier nowadays to prove an adulterer's guilt considering expansions in all the three areas mentioned. To accept Shahmolki's arguments, one has to dismiss those sources who say the prophet himself carried four act of stoning. 2. Let's suppose the punishment of stoning was not carried out by the prophet or his legitimate successors. If the intention of the legislator was to deter, then why did he come up with stoning as a punishment? I can think of much harsher punishments, to function as a deterrent, and much more difficult requirements to prove that the accused is guilty. One can say, "five just, persons must have witnessed an act of adultery for at least 10 minutes (no just and honest Muslim would want to witness a scene of adultry for that long) and have made an effort to stop it and testify 20 times to what they saw and be willing to actively take part in the punishment that should involve no less than 4000 spectators and include dragging the culprit with a golden chain by 12 pure-bred Arabian horses non- stop across a five kilometer strip of land and shallow water." I am sure codifying this kind of punishment serves the purposes of both deterence and of making the punishment more difficult to implement. 3. Let's give the legislator the benefit of the doubt and again suppose that he genuinely was trying to make stoning a difficult if not impossible punsihment to condemn one to. If this was really his aim then its worth considering why he would have such an aim. One can only assume that the legislator had some sense of believing that stoning is a harsh, unusual and cruel punishment and hence wanted to make it impossible to carry out. If he had such a concept of morality to think that way, then his moral system of thought would also make him consider that the mere inclusion of stoning in the Sharia, albeit only on paper, itself demonstrates a disregard for human rights. The legislator had no problem with stoning because the act of stoning did not violate his sense of morality. He could have condemned an adulter to witness his own wife sleeping with another man (say a blind man) but setting such a punishment for an adulterer would not fit into the legislator's own moral system, so he came up with stoning. These points were meant to refute once and for all arguments that maintain that the regulation of stoning has been designed to render it in a state of defacto abolition. * Not in Quran Dear Shahmolki: ["Virtually impossible"] I am very happy that someone has brought this issue into the open. It is intersting to note that all the exhaustive arguments for and against stoning will not be nessasery if interested people (if any) would realize that such code of punishement is not referred to or even condoned in the same book (Quran) that these people are basing thier jurisprodence from. There is no refernce of stoning to death for any sex crimes anywhere in the Quran. Islam like many other religions has deterioded into secterain factions with thier own man-made laws that has no resemblance to the books of God. If these monsters will ever have to justify this act of cruelty, they will not be able to blame God or his book for it. Only their ignorance and stupidity can be any justification of this crime against humanity. * Applying logic to illogical hotchpotch ideas Would it not make more sense to channel our energy and cool application of logic to the fundamental flaws of Islam rather than applying logic to an illogical hotchpotch of Arab pagan ideas (Haj), Jewish customs (stoning) and whatever the prophet made up as he went along (evidenced by contradictory verses in the Quran)? ["Virtually impossible"] It is a historical fact that stoning was derived from Jewish law along with other rules such as food prohibitions, circumcision and many other practices. In any event didn't the Jesus, some 622 years before the Mohammad, very logically address the problem without the need to apply legalese logic to Sharia (made up by the clergy as they go along) or whatever the Jewish equivalent was called, by saying let those who have not sinned cast the first stone (or words to that effect)? Thus he made it impossible to carry out this hideous form of punishment. The above is not in support of Christianity. Any one with a grain of logic would not take up any religion in this day and age. Let's be honest about Islam. Let's also not lose sight of who we really are. We (the recent generations of Iranians) let 1,400 years of struggle to rid ourselves of Tazi religion, language and influence, suffer a crippling setback by rallying around a power-hungry religious figure to rid ourselves of the Shah. As the English saying goes, we jumped out of the frying pan into the fire, or as the Persian one goes, we jumped out of a hole into the abyss (az chaaleh be chaah oftadeem). * Why generalize? Dear Khaanoom Tannaz Ebadollahi, I just read your story "Mary". Thank you for your depth of vision and gentleness of your spirit. What I see in "Khan" and his behavior is a culturally-confused, broken, and emotionally disturbed immigrant "human being" from Iran (in the confusing initial stages of the migration process) who just happens to be male, and is perhaps struggling to find himself as a "man" human being on top of all these other stressors. I could have just as easily seen a woman in his situation who is also confused and abusive. Could you possibly try to see him in this light? Why do you "genderize" something that is a human condition? Afterall, you demonstrated quite amply such sensibility (i.e., discernment of that which belongs to the human realm condition) in your recent poem about "black hair" in response ["Beh jorme aan mooye siaah"] to Sadaf ["Moohaaye siaahe man"]. Why do you genderize something that afflicts humans and its only difference is that it takes a different external form within femininity and masculinity? Why? Thanks again for your depth of vision and the gentleness of your heart, which is again a human characteristic and takes a different appearance in male or female bodies and spirits. Blessings, * I'm looking too I was truly touched by your story ["Am I homeless?"]. I really don't think there is an Iranian out of Iran that hasn't had the same thoughts as yourself. I myself have been out of Iran for 16 years. Upon reading your story, I cried. I put myself in your shoes, and tried to imagine the feeling I would have when I go back to Iran after all these years. I've tried to imagine the scenes, the smell, the tastes, the euphoric feeling ill have when I see Tochal", my old neighborhood, cousins I played with, and the love that I have missed out on all these years. I'm scared though. Scared that I won't be able to handle the truth about some of my loved ones no longer being there. My grandmother. How can I go to Tehran, and know that she is no longer there? How can I visit my relatives, and know that I can no longer visit my aunt (ameh), as she too passed away a few years ago. I live with my memories. Memories that will stay with me forever. Maybe im just scared that if go back to Iran, new memories, will replace the old ones. I feel sorry for all the young Iranians in Iran, and the problems they have to deal with every day. Not being able to do many things that we here in the West take for granted. You're right. Living in the west has given us freedom. We cannot be compared to our relatives or friends in Iran in anyway, but at least they have a place to call home. I too, am looking for a place to call home. * Opens the forbidden gates Once Yari Ostovany wrote for Iranian.com and his sentences has a lot in common with Sheema Kalbasi's message in "Salam Makhroobeh". Yari wrote: "... a grim reminder of how little, as a species, we have progressed since our kind left the caves". In my opinion "Salam Makhroobeh" opens the forbidden gates to an important issue. This story shows a cruel and blind nation when it comes to killing, an uncivil, undemocratic society in chaos. In my humble opinion Kalbasi's writings are a true existence of honesty and knowledge. I have never seen anyone as truthful with herself and her talent. Delightful and irresistible. Please keep up the good work. * A pearl I am not particularly foud of Iranian women or writers but when one comes along and writes the way Sheema Kalbasi does, I cannot hold myself from saying the truth. These days in the crappy world of Iranian poetry and story telling, where everyone is called a writer or poet, finding such a pearl as talented, and fresh as Sheema Kalbasi, is pretty difficult. She is an excellent and bright writer and is very very expressive in her style. She puts herself at her character's place and feels their pain, fears and happiness before she lets her self release a sentence, or so it appears to me. Everything flows and becomes easy in her writings. No one could have described this madness of stoning ["Salam Makhroobeh"] in a better way! Her other story, "Tak savaare jaadeye abreesham", was unlike anything I had read in my entire life and I have been a scholar in Persian literature for many years now. Dear Sheema Kalbasi, you've brightened our world of literature and the hearts of our people with your amazing talent and beauty. You are baanuye sher va ghesshye Farsi. Wishing you a successful writing career! * From Uzbekistan Dear Leila [Forouhar], We are four sisters from Uzbekistan. We all admire you. We alwyas listen to your songs. We have so many disks of your's. You are a very beautiful and talented woman. Our best wishes to you. We dream that we'll ever get a chance to be at your concert in the U.S. We are also Iranians from Tabriz. We are very proud of you. Best regards, Madina, Nazila, Dilara, Elnara, (Our daughters Nadira and Yasmeen) * Farhang & Shamira I am looking for a friend called Farhang whose sister was called Shamira. They had another brother who I think was called Amir. They were living in Colchester, UK, with their mother in Late 1970 's, early 1980's. If anybody knows of them please contact me. Regards,
|
|
|
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group