Iranian neocons go after Obama

Responding to an Open Letter to Senator Obama on Iran


Share/Save/Bookmark

Iranian neocons go after Obama
by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
03-Jun-2008
 

It deeply saddens me that two women from my native country of Iran have chosen to degrade feminism. Under the misconception that their gender will shield their hatred and deception, Manda Zand-Ervin & Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi hope that even with flawed logic they can dissuade you from seeking dialogue with Iran. Sir, I reach out to you not as a woman, but as one humanitarian to another with a common goal: the imperative for peace.

I have to wonder if these hyphenated women and others like them who so loosely use the term ‘appeasement’ are sufficiently familiar with history, or is this a mindless repetition of a word ill-understood? Perhaps these two ought to seek education and reject propaganda.

More importantly, they should realize that as citizens of the United States they should remain hyphenated in name only and not in loyalty. President Wilson had much foresight when he proposed “ an “infallible test” for the hyphenated American so that in spite of maintaining affections for the old country, when voting or fighting, the heart and mind are centered around America.” These hyphenated women have the audacity not only to insult you, Mr. Senator, for they imply that you are proposing policies to win the election, but they have the impudence to suggest that even though they think these policies are what Americans want, should be changed to please Iranians and Iranians in exile.

Obviously there are several issues amiss here. They are not loyal to their adopted country, America; they believe that you should give priority to Iranians and not Americans, yet in an accusatory tone, they have used the world “appeasement”, probably unaware of history; and they misinform you about the true sentiments of Iranians.

While they like to grossly exaggerate the crimes against the Iranians by the regime, they neglect to mention that the 8-year Iran-Iraq war was provoked, and Iran was the victim. No doubt there is oppression in Iran, but given that the country is under constant threat and it is facing treachery so blatant as witnessed by the letter addressed to you by these two, is it any wonder that those who truly seek to reform the system fall victim to suspicion?

Senator Obama, I am truly amazed that these two hyphenated women insult you incessantly. My respect for your intelligence and dignity will not allow me to do likewise. I think that with the exception of a very a few Iranians who have sold their soul along with their country, given Mr. Bush’ policies, no other Iranian would think that America has much moral authority left. Far more importantly, Iranians would never concede that America “mirrors the true character of the once great Persian Empire” as these ladies falsely state.

The regime, regardless of its shortcomings, has negotiated in good faith with various American administrations. While Mrs. Albright made a half-hearted apology to the proud people of Iran for aborting their democracy in 1953 with the CIA-backed coup and installing the oppressive Shah, in return for which she allowed pistachios to be exported, Iran was making every effort to negotiate with the United State in good faith. Iran has even indirectly approached the Bush Administration to negotiate, and it has been the administration, according to recent revelations, which solely and single-handedly has squandered at least four excellent opportunities to make peace with Iran.

The first three have been well chronicled by Flynt L. Leverett (New York Times) of the Brookings Institute who was in the administration until 2003. The last one was a letter addressed to Mr. Bush by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that proposed direct negotiations with Washington on the nuclear program. As the former US secretary of state, Dr. Henry Kissinger opined (Washington Post) the Iranian letter was significant since it was “the first direct approach by an Iranian to a US. President in more than 25 years may also have intentions beyond the tactical and propagandistic.”


In addition, at no time did Iran violate its international obligations under the NPT – and it has not done so to this date. As signatory to the NPT, the Safeguard Agreements do not demand that Iran notify the IAEA of construction sites, however, 180 days prior to the introduction of uranium processing equipment, Iran is obligated to notify the IAEA of the installation of such equipment. Those who claim that Iran was pursuing nuclear technology in secret are grossly uninformed propagandists. Iran sought several bids from various countries seeking assistance with its nuclear plant.

These women would also have you believe that it was Iran that violated treaties, attempting to hide from you, a lawyer and a senator, that in spite of the 1955 Treaty of Amity signed between the United States and Iran, which due to its 2/3 majority approval was signed into the constitution, sanctions have been imposed in Iran. That the Algiers Accord, a bi-lateral treaty signed in 1981 between the United States and Iran has been violated and continues to be violated to this day by the U.S.

These two hyphenated women allege that Iran has ‘openly admitted to exporting its kind of rule’ outside its borders, giving Syria and Lebanon as examples. It is hard to imagine how theocratic Shia Iran has fashioned secular Syria with 74% Sunni Muslim after itself. Nor is it apprehensible to fathom how Lebanon, the country that America is so proud of having achieved a ‘young democracy’ can be under the influence of the regime the two women seek to destroy at the expense of the rest of the nation.

These propagandists even defy what was captured on television by claiming that those who held a candle light vigil for the victims of September 11 were punished. One must surely wonder where these women were at the time, or more pertinently, who is their informant given that although they have claim to stand for ‘Alliance for Women of Iran’, they regularly participate at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a neoconservative think-tank given to warmongering. A panel in which Mandana Zand-Ervin participated was destroying the integrity of Iran by dividing it into minority groups. [See AEI event: The Unknown Iran, Another Case for Federalism?]

Senator Obama, the hyphenated ladies propose that you “declare Iran a Gender Apartheid country”. This is most peculiar given that prior to the 1979 revolution Iranians were effectively living in a caste system; hidden from the world, and denied many opportunities they have today. While there are indeed many discriminatory laws against women, they have been changing gradually. The significant advantage is that all the accomplishments have been made as a result of feminist movement in the broader coalition of the democracy movement. This means that not only are women, shoulder to shoulder with men, full participants in the movement, but that the changes are irreversible due to them being the result of a struggle, not bestowed by the Shah.

While during the Shah’s regime the chador was a hindrance to a woman’s progress, in today’s Iran those same women enter universities. In fact, 63% of all university students are women. A full 45% of the work force is women. Moreover, the leadership board of the largest university students union, Office for Consolidation of Unity, has women members. Both the reformist and conservative political groups have women in leadership posts. Women vote and sit in parliament. They choose their own husbands and those who do not are victims of their social status, not the Islamic rule. It took decades for the women in America to earn the right to vote, yet Iran boasts of 13 members of parliament. It sent a female vice president to the world economic forum – Davos.

According to the United Nations figures, the illiteracy rate has been reduced from 52.5 per cent in 1976 to just 6.2 per cent, at the last count in 2002. Indeed, it would be odd for Iran to be declared gender apartheid, as these women wish it. They say that life is a self-reflection. How these two women hate.

Dear Senator Obama, these contrary women who are bent on propagating misinformation without the aptitude to convince are appealing to a leader by saying: “A nation is made up of people, not its leaders.” Sir, I like to believe what is said about a leader: ‘a good leader is not the person who does things right, but the person who finds the right things to do.’ Senator Obama, it is not just America that is looking to you to find the right thing to do, but the world. This is why contrary to what these hyphenated women allege, your comments have been welcomed world-over by those who have a heart and an appetite for peace. Peace can only come about if we talk and we listen.

It is my firm belief that the majority of Iranians wish to renew their relationship with the Americans and have a dialogue established between the two countries. It is only normal to seek out and heal old wounds and renew friendships – to be otherwise is not normal. I ask that you not be swayed by those who seek to betray their roots and the country which has so generously adopted them. I do not appeal to you as a woman for I know that under your leadership there will be no partiality. Partiality is generally supplemented by prejudice, and I know that has no place in leadership.

I was born in Iran and raised in many countries, but I have chosen to settle here. I believe that together we can make a difference. Yes, We Can!

Respectfully,

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
Public Diplomacy Program
USC Annenberg for Communication/USC School of International Relations
Los Angeles, California


Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Soraya Sepahpour-UlrichCommentsDate
Patriots who want their country destroyed
123
Sep 12, 2008
The Dutch Connection
55
Sep 01, 2008
more from Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
default

I think many Iranian pocket

by ... (not verified) on

I think many Iranian pocket book supporters of the regime and those who think the US democratic party's prescription for Iran is the right course of action for Iran, need to use their own mind and their own knowledge honestly instead of repeating democratic establishment mantra dutifully; in essence being used by the "Realists" (i.e. oil lobby who are given billions in funds by Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Carter, Breizinski, Baker, institute of peace, et al) in the democratic party for their own short-term gains.

The realists are moral relativists who will deal with the devil to enrich themselves. However, the amorality of their behavior is unconscionable and will eventually lead to a more catastrophic conflagration.

Does the end justify the means??? Never.


default

To: Mrs. Ulrich

by Maryam Hojjat.ph.d (not verified) on

I do not understand how you can talk like this in your letter about Iranian women and their every day clashes with this brutal regim since you have been living in different countries.

Obviously, you do not see or read the plight of Iranians under this criminal regim. I hope you have read or you are going to read Amil Imani letter to Mr. Obama in this section in reaction to your letter to Mr. Obama.


default

Thank you for being honest

by Anonymous500 (not verified) on

To Mr. Mohamamd Ala:

Mr. Ala you say above that it is "pay back time" which I believe is a kind of threatening reference to a defemation suit that Trita Parsi has filed in Federal court against Hossein Daialislm. Am I right?

So taking one's political opponents to court is a form of "pay-back" in your view, but it can also be be construed as a form of "legal intimidation" by a bunch of "Brave" Iran-Lovers, who live in this country, enjoy all the good and deent things that this country provides for them, but root for one of the most vile, criminal, and terrorist entities that we call the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Since it is supposed to be a "pay-back" in your Orwellian mind-set where all are equal, but some are more "equal," let me present you and your "Brave" comrades and Iran-Lovers ala NIAC and CASMII, a probable scenario and you tell me what you think:

When and if the IRI were to be overthrown by our brave people, we, the People of Iran, will go for what is known as "Hesab-Rasi," a term that implies the use of the Democratic Legal System for going after those who might have had been in cahoot with the IRI as accomplices to its three dedaceds of continuous crime, thievery, and of looting Iran's national wealth.

This would be only fair, considering that the amount of crime of the IRI has committed against our people is reaching a new heights as it has been reported by the world Human Rights Orags., including the General Assesmbly of the Uited Nations.

At that time, do you think that those who seek justice against the IRI collaborators should look at that Hesab-Rasi" as a "pay-back," or as serving the cause of justice?

My point is that your terminology above is indicative of a guilty-mind set that seeks to use the US Federal court system for intimidation rather than seeking justice. You are a highly educated and politicly savvy Iran-Lover and it is highly improbable that you ain't cognizant of the implications of your words unless it is a Freudian slip! Is it?

I understand if you and other "Brave" Iran-Lovers, would not respond to this simple question!!! Afterall, the beauty of the American Democracy is that it allows all to express our thoughts even those who put such outrageous LIES as Ms. Ulrich has done in her melo-dramatic letter to one Senator Obama, imploring him to hear Ms. Ulrich's dated, "Rozeh-Khooni" on behalf of one of the most vile regimes of the 20th century that is carrying its decomposed crime ridden body to the 21st century.


Amil Imani

Edited

by Amil Imani on

Edited

default

thank you for being so brave

by openminded (not verified) on

thank you for being so brave to bring this issue up. it is time the iranian community stands up to gross distortion of facts regarding iran. whatever personal injustice one may have suffered from, we have to stick together in face of this serious threat against Iran's sovereignty. the Iraqis did not and look where they are. if you think Iran's fate will be different well just speak to Iraqis...


default

Obama needs to be educated

by bulrich (not verified) on

Obama needs to be educated about Iran and how its revolution was hijacked. He should learn from Carter's mistake in thinking that the Islamic Republic is a rational actor.

Obamas also needs to read Khomeini's book on militant Islam, "the Islamic Government".

//www.democratiya.com/interview.asp?issueid=9

Someone needs to send him, Abbas Milani's book, "The Lost Wisdom". He should also study all of IR's past and current human rights violations, assassinations, it's propaganda machinary in the US/West, and crimes against humanity recorded by Human rights organizations.

Obama also needs to be told that the Islamic Republic does not represent Islam. In fact, it disgraces it.

Once he is given all the facts, he would have enough information (the right information) to make a judgment on how to talk and deal with the Islamic Republic.


default

Mrs. Ulrich: I hope you've

by mm (not verified) on

Mrs. Ulrich: I hope you've actually send this letter to Obama or his staff.

Obama more than anything else hates innuendos and name calling. You have lost your credibility as a writer and a "peace activist" by sounding so militant and hostile...

Obama is also a lawyer and he also taught as a professor. Suppose, you were his student and wrote an essay such as this one to defend your position, what kind of grade do you think you would have gotten??? He would have probably marked your paper as *ungradable"! You would have failed the course. You might be able to get away with essays like this one at USC or Utah, but not in Harvard or UCLA!

This could have not happened to a more deserving individual.You made my day! Thanks.


default

Obama will never win the

by ... (not verified) on

Obama will never win the presidency. He is toast. Michele Obama's whitey rant will be released tomorrow:

"The Michelle Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th - July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women’s Event.

Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks.

Bill Clinton spoke during the Conference, as did Bill Cosby and other speakers, but not at the panel Michelle attended.

Michelle Obama spoke at the Women’s Event, but referenced Bill Clinton in her rant — his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems.

For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on “whitey”, and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America."


Asghar Taragheh

Dear JJ, You may be right but......

by Asghar Taragheh on

Ms. Ulrich has engaged in the same practice in her letter to
Obama. Should we not delete her personal insults at these two woman?

For Example, she makes the following insults at these two ladies.
Sure, its her OPINION, but they are clear insults at them and their
writings:

1) "It deeply saddens me that two women from my native
country of Iran have chosen to degrade feminism."

2) "They are not loyal to their adopted country, America;"

3) "I think that with the exception of a very a few Iranians
who have sold their soul along with their country"

In general she is also insulting the intelligence of many readers
here; and at the same time she is engaged in propaganda herself.

If she can claim that these two woman have degraded feminism for
example, others can claim (and should be able to claim) that Ms.
Ulrich is an IRI apologist, IRI Supporter, Lefty Lunatic, an American
Treasonist for protecting an American enemy (the IRI). Yes - these
are insults or can be perceived as insults but people engage in this
type of insult and rhetoric on a daily basis. I could understand the
deletions of curses, anti moslem garbage, anti semitic garbage which
are of no use here.

I just did not see the difference in Fred's insults and Ms.
Ulrichs insults. If anything, Fred was more artful in it than her
(but Fred was not writing to Obama).

I understand that this is you site. You have the final say.
Notwithstanding, these arbitrary actions make it seem that you favor
some writers as opposed to others and some views as apposed to other
views which may diminish the value of many good arguments as a
consequence (even if they are insults).

I hope I did not insult anyone in the process.

Asghar


Mohammad Ala

Thank you for being honest

by Mohammad Ala on

Thank you for being honest by using your real name and picture.   I agree with JJ to stick to issues and do NOT attack someone personally.   Some people started attacking other individuals and organizations such as NIAC or CASMII.  After one or two years, others started believing their accusations.  Now it is payback time: Bring your evidences to court. Iran will not change by hiding behind a pseudo name and sitting in convince of your adopted country. 

Iranian women are strong and educated.  They must participate in decision making processes and election.  They must demand and vote for changes. 

 Everyone must participate in changing Iran for better for all Iranians and non-Iranians who choose to live in Iran.  Iran has survived and will survive because there are those who care about it and will put their lives above anything else to protect it against internal and external enemies: choo Iran nabashad, tan-e-man mabad.


default

Mrs. Ulrich: Obama will

by mm (not verified) on

Mrs. Ulrich: Obama will review all the historical documents in regards to Iran and its revolution and the history of backdoor negotiations with the Islamic Republic. He is a scholar and he will form his own opinion. You or any other ideologue will not and cannot influence him. Obama will do what's in the interest of the United States and the world, not what's in the interest of Iran. I can assure you that Obama is not a dummy to be manipulated by emotionally-ridden, hysterical, partisan diatribes by either side:

//iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2008...


Jahanshah Javid

because

by Jahanshah Javid on

Asghar Taragheh,

Comments that concentrate attacks on the author rather than replying to the points in the article itself will be deleted.

Thank you for making an actual argument and bringing examples to back it up.

Thank you for not making personal attacks.


samsam1111

Parthian..check Mr Nooriala,s comment section

by samsam1111 on

in contrast it,s full of insult & accusations to a well respected scholar and a Nationalist. We are kinda blacklisted...:)


Asghar Taragheh

So You Say the IRI is not an Apartheid State?

by Asghar Taragheh on

Dear Ms ULRICH,

Please read the penal codes below from our beloved IRI. Please reconsider your position. It is not consistent with the facts as evidenced below. This is just one example of how the IRI difrentiates between groups and individuals.

AND TO JJ- WHY DID YOU DELETE FRED'S AND JIMZ BUND"S POSTS? THAT IS AN OUTRAGE. THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO FAR.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Penal Code Excerpts Relating to Women


Source: Afkhami, Mahnaz and Erika Friedl, eds. In the Eye of the Storm: Women in Post-Revolutionary Iran. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1994.

Pursuant to Article 85 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic,
the Islamic Penal Code was passed by the Judiciary Committee of the
Islamic Consultative Assembly on 8 Mordad 1370 (30 July 1991) and was
subsequently approved by the Council on the Determination of the
Regime's Welfare (Majma'-e Tashkhis-e Maslehat-e Nezam) on 7
Azar 1370 (28 November 1991) and was received on 30 Azar 1370 (21
December 1991) by President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani for implementation.

The Code contains four basic sections: general, hodud (punishment prescribed in religious law; singular, hadd), qasas (retribution), and diyeh (money paid in lieu of criminal damage). Article 12 of the Code establishes criminal punishments as follows.

Punishments established by this law are of five kinds: (1) Hodud; (2) Qasas; (3) Diyat; (4) Ta'zirat; (5) Prohibitive punishments.

Each category is then defined. Hadd is a punishment whose kind, extent, and quality are defined in the shari'a (religious law). Qasas is a punishment that is inflicted on the condemned criminal and must be equal to the crime committed. Diyeh is the amount of money or property that the religious law-giver has determined for the crime. Ta'zir
is a punishment the kind and extent of which are not defined in the law
and therefore are left to the judge's discretion. Prohibitive
punishments are punishments established by the government against civil
and other wrong-doings for the purpose of maintaining peace and social
tranquility.

Crimes that require hadd punishments include adultery, male
homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual procurement, accusations of adultery
or homosexuality, use of alcoholic beverages, fighting, corruption on
earth, and robbery. Qasas is used in cases of homicide or damage to bodily organs. Diyeh is used when a crime against life or a bodily organ has been committed. The Code details the extent, amount, and conditions of qasas and payment of diyeh in relation to practically all parts of the human body.

This section contains articles and sub-articles in the code that
specifically concern women. The materials presented are representative
rather than inclusive.

 

Hodud (Punishment prescribed in religious law)

Article 63. Adultery is the act of intercourse, including anal
intercourse, between a man and a woman who are forbidden to each other,
unless the act is committed unwittingly.

Article 64. Adultery shall be punishable (subject to hadd)
when the adulterer or the adulteress is of age, sane, in control of his
or her action and cognizant of the illicit nature of his or her act.

Article 65. Only the adulterer or the adulteress who is cognizant of
the illicit nature of his or her act shall be punished for adultery.

Article 66. If either the adulterer or the adulteress claims
ignorance of law or fact, he or she shall not be punished for adultery
if his or her claim is presumed to have prima facie validity, even if no witnesses to verify said claim are produced.

Article 67. If either the adulterer or the adulteress claims to have
been under duress while committing the act of adultery, he or she shall
not be punished if his or her claim is not otherwise clearly disproved.

Article 68. If a man or a woman repeats his or her confession of
adultery four times before the judge, he or she shall receive the
designated punishment, but if he or she repeats his or her confession
fewer than four times, the punishment shall be at the judge's
discretion.

Article 73. Pregnancy of an unmarried woman shall not by itself be
the cause of punishment unless relevant evidence, as defined in this
code, proves that she has committed the act of adultery.

Article 74. Adultery, whether punishable by flogging or stoning, may
be proven by the testimony of four just men or that of three just men
and two just women.

Article 75. If adultery is punishable only by flogging it can be proven by the testimony of two just men and four just women.

Article 76. The testimony of women alone or in conjunction with the
testimony of only one just man shall not prove adultery but it shall
constitute false accusation which is a punishable act.

Article 81. If the adulterer or the adulteress repents prior to
confessing to the act of adultery, he or she shall not be punished
(subject to hadd). If, however, he or she repents following his or her confession the punishment for adultery shall apply.

Article 82. The penalty for adultery in the following cases shall be
death, regardless of the age or marital status of the culprit: (1)
Adultery with one's consanguineous relatives (close blood relatives
forbidden to each other by religious law); (2) Adultery with one's
stepmother in which the adulterer's punishment shall be death; (3)
Adultery between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman, in which case the
adulterer (non-Muslim man) shall receive the death penalty; (4)
Forcible rape, in which case the rapist shall receive the death
penalty.

Article 83. Adultery in the following cases shall be punishable by
stoning: (1) Adultery by a married man who is wedded to a permanent
wife with whom he has had intercourse and may have intercourse when he
so desires; (2) Adultery of a married woman with an adult man provided
the woman is permanently married and has had intercourse with her
husband and is able to do so again.

Note. Adultery of a married woman with a minor is punishable by flogging.

Article 84. Old married adulterers and adulteresses shall be flogged before being stoned.

Article 85. Revocable divorce shall not relieve the husband or wife
from the bond of marriage during the waiting period whereas irrevocable
divorce shall do so.

Article 86. Adultery of a permanently married man or a permanently
married woman who does not have access to his or her spouse, due to
travel, incarceration or similar impediments, shall not require
stoning.

Article 88. The punishment for an unmarried adulterer or adulteress shall be one hundred lashes.

Article 90. If a man or a woman has committed the act of adultery
several times and has been punished after each act, he or she shall be
put to death following his or her fourth act of adultery.

Article 91. An adulteress shall not be punished while pregnant or in
menstruation or when, following birth and in the absence of a guardian,
the newborn's life is in danger. If, however, the newborn becomes the
ward of a guardian the punishment shall be carried out.

Article 92. If the flogging of a pregnant woman or a woman nursing
her child poses risks to the unborn or to the child respectively, the
execution of the punishment shall be delayed until the said risk is no
longer present.

Article 93. If an ailing woman or a woman in menstruation has been
condemned to death or stoning, the punishment shall be carried out. If,
however, she is condemned to flogging, the punishment shall be delayed
until she is recovered or her menstruation period is over.

Article 100. The flogging of an adulterer shall be carried out while
he is standing upright and his body bare except for his genitals. The
lashes shall strike all parts of his body–- except his face, head and
genitals-- with full force. The adulteress shall be flogged while she
is seated and her clothing tightly bound to her body.

Article 102. The stoning of an adulterer or adulteress shall be
carried out while each is placed in a hole and covered with soil, he up
to his waist and she up to a line above her breasts.

Article 119. Testimony of women alone or in conjunction with that of a single man shall not prove sodomy.

Article 127. Lesbianism consists in genital sexual acts carried out between women.

Article 128. Evidence for proof of lesbianism and sodomy is the same.

Article 129. The punishment for lesbianism is a hundred lashes for both parties to the act.

Article 130. Punishment for lesbianism applies only to the person
who is of age, sane, in control of her actions and who has been a
willing party to the act of lesbianism.

Note. In the application of the penalty for lesbianism there shall
be no distinction as to whether the culprit has been passive or active
or as to whether she is a Muslim or non-Muslim.

Article 131. If the act of lesbianism has been repeated three times
and punishment has been carried out each time, the death penalty shall
apply if the act is committed a fourth time.

Article 132. If the perpetrator of the act of lesbianism repents prior to the testimony of witnesses, the penalty of hadd shall not apply. Repentance following the witnesses' testimony, however, shall not bar hadd punishment.

Article 133. If the act of lesbianism is proved through confession
and the culprit repents afterwards, the judge may ask the supreme
jurist (vali-ye amr) for waiver of punishment.

Article 134. If two women, who are not consanguineous, go under the
same bed cover while nude and without justification, they shall be
given fewer than one hundred lashes. In case of repetition of the act
for a third time each shall be given one hundred lashes.

Article 138. The penalty for procurement is in the case of a male
procurer 75 lashes and banishment between three months and a year and
in the case of a female procurer only 75 lashes.

Article 140. The penalty for false accusation is 80 lashes regardless of the gender of the culprit.

Article 145. Any insult that causes indignation to the victim but
which does not constitute false accusation of adultery or male
homosexuality, such as when a husband tells his wife: 'You were not a
virgin,' is punishable by up to 74 lashes.

Article 150. If the husband falsely accuses of adultery his deceased
wife who is survived only by a child from him, no punishment shall
apply. If, however, the said deceased wife is survived by inheritors
other than the said child, the penalty shall apply.

Article 164. The right to demand punishment for false accusation
belongs to all survivors except the husband and the wife. Any one of
the survivors may demand the application of said punishment even if
other survivors waive their right.

Article 174. The punishment for intoxication is 80 lashes for both men and women.

Article 176. When flogging is carried out, the man being flogged
shall be in a standing position and be bared except for his genitals,
whereas the woman being flogged shall be seated and her clothing
tightly bound to her body.

Note. The face and head and genitals of the condemned shall not be struck by the lashes during flogging.

 

Qasas (Retribution)

Article 209. If a Muslim man commits first-degree murder against a
Muslim woman, the penalty of retribution shall apply. The victim's next
of kin, however, shall pay to the culprit half of his blood money
before the act of retribution is carried out.

Article 210. If a non-Muslim commits first-degree murder against
another non-Muslim, retribution shall apply even if the culprit and his
or her victim profess to two different religions. In the said case, if
the victim is a woman her next of kin shall pay the culprit half his
blood money before retribution is carried out.

Article 237. (1) First degree murder shall be proven by testimony of
two just men; (2) Evidence for second-degree murder or manslaughter
shall consist in the testimony of two just men, or that of one just man
and two just women, or the testimony of one just man and the sworn
testimony of the accuser.

Article 243. The claimant [in the case of murder] may be either a
man or a woman but in either case he or she must be one of the victim's
inheritors.

Article 248. In case of doubt, first-degree murder may be proved by
the sworn testimony of 50 men who must be sanguineous relatives of the
claimant.

Note 2. If the number of the sworn testimonies does not reach 50,
any of the male testifiers may repeat his oath as many times as it is
necessary to constitute 50 testimonies.

Note 3. If the claimant cannot present any of his sanguineous male
relatives to provide sworn testimony in support of his or her claim,
the claimant may repeat the sworn testimony 50 times, even if she is a
woman.

Article 258. If a man murders a woman, the woman's next of kin may
ask for retribution if he pays the murderer half of his blood money or
they may agree to a settlement whereby the murderer pays him an amount
less or more than the victim's blood money.

Article 261. Only the inheritors of the victim of a murder shall
have the option of retribution or pardon. The victim's husband or wife,
however, shall have no say in either retribution, pardon or execution
of the punishment.

Article 262. Retribution shall not be carried out against a pregnant
woman. In said case, if post-delivery retribution endangers the
newborn's survival it shall be delayed until such time as the child's
life is no longer in danger.

Article 273. In retribution for injury to, or loss of, bodily organs
men and women shall be treated equally. Thus, a male culprit who has
maimed a woman or otherwise caused her bodily injury shall be subject
to commensurate retribution unless the blood money for the lost organ
is a third or more than a third of the full blood money, in which case
the female victim pay the culprit half of the blood money for said
organ.

 

Diyeh (Money paid in lieu of criminal damage)

Article 300. The blood money for the first- or second-degree murder of a Muslim woman is half of that of a murdered Muslim man.

Article 301. The blood money is the same for men and women except
when it reaches a third of full blood money, in which case a woman's
blood money shall be half of a man's.

Article 441. Defloration of a virgin by insertion of a finger that
results in incontinence shall entitle the victim to her full blood
money plus a sum equal to her potential dowry.

Article 459. In case of disagreement between the culprit and the
victim, the testimony of two just male experts or that of one male
expert and two just female experts asserting unrecoverable loss of
sight or loss of sight for an indeterminate period shall entitle the
victim to blood money. In the said case, the blood money is due the
victim if the eyesight is not recovered at the time predicted by the
experts, or if the victim dies before his or her eyesight is restored,
or if someone else gouges his or her eye.

Article 478. If a man's reproductive organ is severed from the
circumcision line or lower he shall be entitled to his full blood
money, otherwise the amount of blood money shall be proportional to the
size of the severed part.

Article 479. If a woman's genital is totally severed she shall be
entitled to her full blood money and if only half of her genital is
severed half of her blood money is due her.

Article 483. Compensation for injury to hand or foot caused by spear
or bullet shall be 100 diners if the injured party is male and
commensurate with the injury if the injured party is female.

Article 487. Section 6. Blood money for the aborted fetus which has
taken in the human spirit shall be paid in full if it is male, one-half
if it is female, and three-quarters if its gender is in doubt.

Article 488. If the fetus is destroyed as a result of its mother's
murder its blood money shall be added to the blood money of its mother.

Article 489. If a woman aborts her fetus at any stage of pregnancy
she shall pay its full blood money and no share of the blood money
shall go to her.

Article 490. Separate blood monies shall be paid for each aborted fetus if more than one is involved in an abortion.

Article 491. Blood money for loss of limb of, or injuries to, the fetus shall be proportionate to its full blood money.

Article 492. The blood money for the aborted fetus in cases
involving deliberate intent shall be paid by the culprit, otherwise by
the fetus's next of kin.


samsam1111

Mrs Ul rich

by samsam1111 on

"as a woman, but as one humanitarian to another with a common goal"

 

so Mrs "humanitarian", you are kinda half sleep when it comes to the daily hardship of millions of Iranian women under mullah rule.

btw; next time write your own letter to Obama in defence of status que without demeaning other individuals.otherwise it,s all lynching & rethoric(kinda like what Mr Obama does best)...

I was gone say as habit "best wishes" but I won,t .because by doing that the mullah regime will be on another 100 years..


default

On what authority, missus Zands?

by Anonymous-today (not verified) on

Why would the Zands think they represent the "Iranian people and the Iranian Diaspora?" Who has given them this mandate to speak on behalf of 70 million Iranians and several millions outside of Iran? It's puzzling to me that these ladies coming out of nowhere make these claims? And "US is the only country with moral authority to help Iranian people"? Really, the US has the moral authority becuase its melting pot mirrors the Persian Empire? What drug are these ladies on anyway?


Q

Thank You Soraya,

by Q on

I, too was going to write something about the Zand-Bonazzi's. They are just getting rediculous.


Qioumars

To jahanshah

by Qioumars on

 

Jahanshah, I've send you a cartoon of mine in which there was an ahura-mazda similar to Amil's avator. Why don't you post it? it's surely not an artistic realization but funny in many senses.

 

To Soraya khanoom, In french 'con' means stupid so 'neo-cons'is literally 'new-stupids'. That's so right with cheney and Bush's friends isn't it?

 


default

Powers That Be

by Anonymous Iranian (not verified) on

I hate to break it to you, but neither senator obama, nor mccain really care what any of you have to say about anything, especially iran. when deciding matters of national security the last place the powers that be look for guidance is web forums hosting the diaspora of the country in question. i know this reality will be shattering to some here, but the universe does not revolve around you and your pseudo-intellectual rants. so sit back, grab some popcorn and relax. because no one really cares what you have to say about anything, especially iran!


Amil Imani

Honorable Senator Barack Obama

by Amil Imani on

On numerous occasions, you have  boasted, if you would become our President, you would embark on a personal diplomacy to solve our foreign policy problems with such rough States such as Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

When a summit meeting occurs, there is considerable pressure to "accomplish" something, to come to an agreement. What exactly would President Obama be willing to give to the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to get back something that could be touted as an achievement of his summitry?

Dear Senator Obama, Iranians are heirs to a culture that was historically very cosmopolitan and proud of its sophistication and openness to the outside world. Already the majority of Iranians complain of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s policies that have led to global isolation. In a poll taken by the regime itself, one half (and this is probably understated because the regime itself was running the poll) affirmed that Washington's attitude towards Iran are "to some extent" correct. As much as they abhor the regime, the Iranian people also have the most positive feelings towards America of any population in the region.

Dear Senator Obama, the best predictor of the future is the past. The religious fanatic mullahs’ record is one of deception, dissimulation, treachery, violence and much more. These trained killers can never be trusted. They are master schemers. They have been at the business of scheming for centuries. They have perfected the art of deception, doubletalk, double-dealing and treachery. Hence, for the NIE’s report to be based primarily on supposed interception of secret conversations of high-ranking Iranian leaders is nothing more than a practice in gullibility. Prudence demands better proofs, much better proofs.

Therefore, it is "Carteresque" (dangerous risk-taking a la Jimmy Carter’s throwing in the nation’s lot with the Mullahs during the 1979 Iranian Revolution) to overlook the fact that the regime is rotten to the core and does not need to be resurrected by your presence.

The Mullahs are proven vicious mass killers. They summarily executed tens of thousands of Iranian dissidents. They had no qualms about sending thousands of children to clear the minefields ahead of their tanks during the 1980s war with Iraq and they have thousands of “martyrs” brainwashed and prepared to serve as bomb mules to be dispatched to any place in the world.

We are aware that the situation in Iran is dire indeed. Anyone who believes that sane rational people on both sides are engaged in brinksmanship to secure the best advantage but would eventually work out a compromise is deluding himself. In some cases time works as a healer and even as a solution of thorny problems. Yet, this problem will not go away, and time would only make the cataclysmic clash more likely and deadly. There is, however, a non-violent solution, without appeasement that offers the best chance for resolving the impasse: change of regime in Iran.

If you were to meet with President Ahmadinejad, it would send a signal to the Iranian people that the Mullahs are not isolated but that the rest of the world has come to respect them and to have to deal with them. The leading argument for toppling the current regime will have been fatally undermined.

If you do indeed believe in the value of such meetings, perhaps you are bold enough to meet with Iranian dissidents and reformers, to use the prestige of your office and that of America (remember Iranians admire America) to help them and not their oppressors.

President Reagan -- whom you, Senator Barack Obama profess to admire -- offered such support to Soviet dissidents. You can do the same to Iranian dissidents.

Dear Senator Obama, we respectfully ask you to reconsider your comments regarding your unconditional meeting with Ahmadinejad during your first year of Presidency for the sake of having a dialogue with mass-murderers who are currently ruling Iran.

The best match for the ruthless Mullahs and their hired Islamic storm troopers are the Iranian warriors themselves. The people of Iran themselves are the best solution for the present Iranian conundrum. The valiant Iranians need a bit of help though. And the last thing they need is appeasing negotiators to give the Mullahs a new lease on life, or invasion by the Marines, or a shower of bombs from the skies.


Parthian

why James Bund's post was deleted?

by Parthian on

There was nothing offensive in that post? why was his post deleted? IF you continue to delete people's post that have no curse or offensive words in them, I will start a boycott campaign against your website. Soraya has just called those two women traitors, something far more offensive than James said. Why is it that her article not deleted?

JJ, you have gone all the way to the other side. Get a hold of yourself, and your God-complex plagued editors.


default

it was a beautiful letter

by Anonymous** (not verified) on

their letter was beautiful and heartfelt; it contained the true iranian mission that is to bolster the people. face it soraya, no one in iran wants to see this regime in power for another 60 years...yes this regime has gained regional supremacy, but domestically it has lost all of the khatami era's legitmacy. or what was slightly made then.


default

it is payback time

by Iroooni (not verified) on

Well, the news is out, Obama is the man on the hour now and attacks are focused against him.

It is very sad to see that neocons are not hesitating of using every bullet that they can get against Obama, even the Iranian ones.

Well, it is the payback time guys. All of those who had been by Cheney’s daughter have to come and defend the last republican stand.

But, rest assure that Zand family is not the last ones..


Javadagha

Be nice to America, otherwise, it will bring democracy to you

by Javadagha on

Be nice to America, otherwise, it will bring democracy to your country :-) I am not sure whether or not he will get elected because his race will work against him in the final tally. 

Thanks for your passionate plea.  One wonders what did Iran do to produce so many people who betrayed it.  Whose fault was it?  How can one ignore her or his roots? 

 


FACEBOOK