SHARIA

Dear Mrs. Hojjat,

Unfortunately, the Islamic barbarism imposed on Iranian society is deep and multilayered. The gender segregation and its social effects are the lower priority in terms of their degree of barbarism with respect to the greater Islamic criminal enterprise. Among the highest priorities in fighting Islamism is the Ghesas law, or the Islamic bill of retribution. This is an unprecedented written-law in Iranian history that has been on the books for only the last 26-27 years. There is no room in human society for this barbarism. I am posting some excerpts of this unprecedented barbarism below (By Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Ann Russo and Lourdes Torres):

The Bill of Retribution

The following is a selection of the articles from the Bill of Retribution (Qasas) which affects women. This bill was developed and passed by the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Article 5: If a Muslim man willfully murders a Muslim woman, he will be sentenced to Qasas (retaliation), but the woman's guardian must pay the murderer one-half of a man's blood-money before he receives Qasas.

Article 33: Testimony: (a) A case of willful murder is proved only on the bases of two righteous men's testimony; (b) A case of semiwillful or unintentional murder is proved on the basis of the testimony of two righteous men, or of one righteous man and two righteous women, or the testimony of one righteous man and the plaintiff's oath.

Article 23: Murder requires Qasas provided the victim does not religiously deserve to be killed -- e.g., someone who swears at the Great Prophet (may Praise be Upon Him), the Chaste Imams (may Peace be Upon Them), or Saint Zahra (may Peace be Upon Her); or someone who violates one's harim (bounds) and could not be repulsed but by murder; or that the husband should see someone committing adultery with his wife, in which case it is only permissible for the husband to kill both of them. In all of the above cases it is not admissible to carry out qasas on the murderer.

There is only one solution:
Eradicate Islam !

Well wisher and other well wishers

Have anyone of you ever been to an Iranian court house? The Sharia laws can be interpreted in your favour if you are part of the IRI system! But, in the case of other poor people without moeny or any connections, it is a disaster!

This is about putting the responsibility back on shoulders of the victim!

God knows how many illiterate Mullas and civilian judges are put there to exercise the "Sharia"!
It is a barbaric way of enforcing law and order.

Well Wisher, you should move back to Iran or Saudi Arabia!

Mr. Faribors M.

The nature of their relationship is irrelevant and beside the point! Why focus on that?

Mr. James Bond - are you for real!?

You are either ignorant or such a naive person! The Islamic sharia laws are there to serve the IRI! not people of Iran. A mullah judge can interpret the same sharia differently in Mashad then a Mullah in Shiraz or any other province in Iran! as long as it suits the IRI agenda! By the way, did you read the article closely? Did you reflect on the content? It has taken this young lady years to fight for her cause which is to demand justice! One can only imgaine what pain this young lady has gone through! I don't think you are capable of comprehending what this article is all about! Now, the legal system is asking 20,000,000 toman of her to pay to this idiots family so that they can start applying ghessas procedure which means another year or two depending on how determent this lady is! Do you get the picture now? I don't think so! Think before spewing your nonsense all over ...

Addendum to Reasoning Cautiously

There was a typo in my last note.

I wrote:

... no capital punishment might not deter crime as much as *optional* capital punishment

I meant:

... having no capital punishment might not deter crime as much as having *optional* capital punishment

Reasoning cautiously (II)

Mr. Bagherzadeh, If I'm not mistaken, you're against punishment in the form of physical disfigurement or the death penalty. Now, it seems to me that, *intuitively*, no capital punishment might not deter crime as much as *optional* capital punishment, and optional capital punishment might not deter crime as much as mandatory capital punishment. I would say that same if the word "capital" were replaced with "corporeal."

(I say "intuitively" above because I have no data to back up this guess, and my guess could very well be wrong. What deters a crime probably depends on a variety of factors, and a facile generalization could easily be wrong.)

* * *

I disagree with the idea that a harsh punishment should be mandatory in cases such acid throwing. I think judges need to be given some discretion to take special circumstances into consideration.

For example, consider a scenario where a man named 'X' rapes and kills the children of woman named 'Y'. Then lady Y takes the law into her own hand and, in revenge, throws acid in X's face.

Lady Y certainly deserves punishment, but her crime is not as heinous as the acid-throwing case discussed in your article. In such a case, a very short prison term plus a fine (blood-money) might be the appropriate response. I might even waive the prison term. After all, her children were raped and killed by that man.

So, rather than making things mandatory, it is good to leave lee-way for judges to take any extenuating circumstances into consideration. To be sure, that introduces an element of subjectivity and lack of uniformity in the application of the law. But, sadly, I don't think there is any such thing as a perfect solution in this matter. Every solution will have its draw-backs.

Iran's system has shortcomings that need to be addressed. But it seems to me that it has some positives as well. The fact that a victim can choose to reduce the punishment of the criminal seems to me a very interesting and possibly valuable feature of Iran's penal code. It makes Iran's system an interesting mixture of harshness and mercy.

وقتی قانون جنایت می‌آفریند قانون در جمهوری اسلامی

if there were no JIHAD so could SOLTAN MAHMMOD GHAZNAVI not have been gone to India to masacre the Indians.
The article says: If there were no sharia there were no such crimes.
There is apparent similarity between these two statements. by critical observation one sees the lack of objectivity in both of them.
The article does not expresses the whole story. How begann it? How developped that young man to wish the marriage with that girl. Were they not several times together? behind locked doors and closed curtains? hadent she let him hadent she begged him to carressing her thighs and kissing what she possesed inbetwwen? the young man was then sure that the Interesst is by bothsides. For him existed no other choice accept marriage after having spent those nice hours and lucks days together. what he has done can not be justified if there had not been any prococations and letting the first steps beeing done by the girl. Also in this case I can not justify his unexcusable action. However he will have to and he has paid with money and jailsentence. The article is written in a way as if it is the Sharia which brings the mass in these situations. It let all the crimes which happen almost secondly specially in the areas wrere Sharia is damned und put asside. Although the most crimes in the world happen just in these areas.
I mean all the young girls and young men should realize what Iranians believe since allways: CHE KHOSH BE MEHRABANI AZ DOE SSAR BE. If one side does not want let Him/Her better go. And Sharia will someday govern the universe. All likewise strugglings to defame sharia will not prevent it. better lokk arround with more objectivity and less emotions. Single examples have never been a generally valid argument. Greeting

to: Well-wisher & James Bond

Let's Reason More Cautiously

Mr. Bagherzadeh,

I see no convincing evidence that the Qisas law has caused an increase in crime.

Crime rates correlate with a variety of social factors. High crime rates tend to be a problem in rapidly changing societies in the throes of industrialization, demographic change, etc. with a large gap between the rich and the poor and a lack of sufficient social cohesion.

Intuitively, it seems that the threat of being blinded would DETER potential acid-throwers, not encourage them. Therefore, intuitively, I suspect you're wrong.

Best wishes,

Well-wisher

1400 years

1400 years of retarded islamic laws have not taught these people anything ... nothing helps unless we educate ourselves that islamic laws and regulations are for people who lived in deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago and these laws do not pertain to everywhere and most importantly to today!

Educate your children, teach them respect for human being, respect for life ... and keep them away from islam.

KavehV

Well said.  I agree with you 100%.

Payandeh IRAN 

To Anonymous123

Your point is well taken. however there is a clear difference in punishing (aka hanging) a political prisoner for his or her own view, than some one
that inflicts so much irreversable damage to some one else. All I am saying is if we had harsh laws enforced aganist men abusing women, may be it will deter most guys from doing this kind of harm, it surely won't stop all.

To MRX1

If there were any lessons to be learned from all the hangings, executions, hand and foot choppings, eye gougings, stonings, etc. etc. as means of punishment for various crimes in Iran since 1979, there would be no more crime or criminals left in Iran after 30 years, yet we see just the opposite, according to the mullahs' own government sponosred news sources.

Another Islam assisted criminal

This is all Islam related, from the barbaric Ghesas laws to the segregated Islamic upbringings that isolates sexes from infants to elderly. Most moslem men lack social skills in dealing with opposite gender which is primarily because of their segregated upbringing. Had there been male-female socialization, this Islamic animal, Movahedi, would have been much better adjusted to a male-female relationship from a much younger age. Often times, these Islamic animals, in their adulthood, view women as their property and their blood boils over when the woman decides to dump the jerk. These are extensive problems in Islamic countries and most cases can be avoided by socializing male and females from early age. Let the nature take its course, don't separate!

Eradicate Islam !

I say

hang the bastered! let that be a lesson for all the low life's out there.

Male Domination

All major world religion in general, Islam in particular, have been, and still are, dominated by men. Historically, they attend the mosques; they listen to, and often act upon, the exhortations of Mullahs and Sheikhs. All the Islamic reference books are written by men, all the religious leaders are men. Consequently all the rules are tilted toward men, who enjoy preferential treatments under Islamic rules. And, often these men have created travesties out of the privileges they have been provided by the Islamic laws. The kinds we see in many Moslem countries including in our own. Whatever is the justification, it doesn’t sound acceptable to people who live in modern democratic societies. It is not surprising that people in the west think that Islam is the religion of bunch of misogynists.

On word:

Mindboggling!

Ghessass Is a Very Fair Law

Ghessass is a very fair law. Actually, it is an excellent one because the victim decides what the kind of punishment the criminal should get. That is the fairest treatment of a crime. If someone does some wrong to me, I only want the same thing done to him or her. It seems that your intense hate for IRI has blinded your feeling for the pain a victim suffers. Have not you seen how easily criminals escape punishment in the west with its elaborate laws and judicial system?