This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Iran Infuriated By Film Of Woman's Stoning

Iran Infuriated By Film Of Woman's Stoning - Comments

Jim Callum's Avatar Comment 1 by Jim Callum

I don’t understand how, if they believe this is the right thing to do in response to adultery (which by any civilised definition of morality it clearly is not) why are the Iranian Government protesting about the film. If they are protesting because they are embarrassed by their own actions or know they are wrong then surely the answer is simple – stop enforcing antiquated laws that fly in the face of modern morality. The easiest way to stop such films being made would surely be to stop the behaviour they depict.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:25:46 UTC | #535637

Quill Mob's Avatar Comment 2 by Quill Mob

This makes me shudder in disgust. A Muslim snuff film. Barbaric and pornographic. If such a thing as evil exists, this is it. One gets the feeling that the stoners were actually enjoying themselves. I have little use for Christianity, but I have even less for Islam. As bad as the Christian world is at least it appears to be evolving, however haltingly, into something more humane. The Islamic world is stuck in the 10th century and seems incapable of breaking out of a medieval mindset.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:28:46 UTC | #535639

Saerain's Avatar Comment 3 by Saerain

Quill, the film is a dramatization of the stoning, intended to draw criticism of it, not a snuff film. It's on our side.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:43:37 UTC | #535650

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 4 by Stafford Gordon

It's a glimps into the tenth century.

Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury should see it. It might go some way to inlfuencing his call for parts of Sharia law to be introduced into the UK.

An expression springs to mind which contains the words "thin" and "wedge".

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:47:29 UTC | #535656

rsharvey's Avatar Comment 5 by rsharvey

Comment 3 by Saerain :

Quill, the film is a dramatization of the stoning, intended to draw criticism of it, not a snuff film. It's on our side.

Yeah the write up in the post is a bit misleading

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:48:04 UTC | #535657

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 6 by SaganTheCat

Comment 1 says it all

the only thing I can think is that the iranian government beleive they're right to torture women to death but don't want the west to know in case it puts us off embracing sharia law.

just careful marketing

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:03:30 UTC | #535671

sbooder's Avatar Comment 7 by sbooder

The article makes a point of saying that the woman is wrongly accused of adultery. This form of punishment would not be acceptable even if she were guilty of adultery. Surly adultery is something to be worked out between husband and wife and maybe a divorce court if one or both want that, no matter who carries out the adultery.

Stoning is nothing more than aggressive male lack of respect and equality shown to women, as is a lot more of Islamic societal norms. We must stop pussyfooting around this religion and force it to catch up with the rest of the civilised world and show women the respect and equality that they are born with as a natural human right not a privilege.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:30:18 UTC | #535693

AsylumWarden's Avatar Comment 8 by AsylumWarden

Surly adultery is something to be worked out between husband and wife and maybe a divorce court if one or both want that, no matter who carries out the adultery.

It doesn't even have to be between man and wife. Adultery is defined as 'sex outside of marriage'. This could merely have been a young woman, having consenting sex with her boyfriend before they were married, nothing more, nothing less. You still make a good point though sbooder; sex takes 2 people and it is quite telling that you don't generally hear of the bloke facing the same punishment.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:46:24 UTC | #535700

Narvi's Avatar Comment 9 by Narvi

"Iran Infuriated by Film of Woman's Stoning"

Rest of World Infuriated by the Stoning Itself

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:57:02 UTC | #535706

CarolineMary's Avatar Comment 10 by CarolineMary

It's even worse than that. A woman can be 'guilty' of adultery if she was raped but cannot prove it was rape.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:04:59 UTC | #535709

sbooder's Avatar Comment 11 by sbooder

Comment 8 by AsylumWarden :

Surly adultery is something to be worked out between husband and wife and maybe a divorce court if one or both want that, no matter who carries out the adultery.

It doesn't even have to be between man and wife. Adultery is defined as 'sex outside of marriage'. This could merely have been a young woman, having consenting sex with her boyfriend before they were married, nothing more, nothing less. You still make a good point though sbooder; sex takes 2 people and it is quite telling that you don't generally hear of the bloke facing the same punishment.

Do you mean in Islam "Adultery is defined as 'sex outside of marriage'."?

In the English language it means sexual unfaithfulness of a husband or wife.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:07:25 UTC | #535711

AsylumWarden's Avatar Comment 12 by AsylumWarden

I believe that's what it means in biblical terms (rather than OED ones) and hence carries over to the Koran as well. I am willing to be corrected on this though.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:27:45 UTC | #535725

sbooder's Avatar Comment 13 by sbooder

OK, I get it, you learn something every day.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:36:24 UTC | #535727

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 14 by Stevehill

A brave film, and the right decision to screen it.

But it's hard to criticise Iran when so-called civilized countries execute people, sometimes mentally ill people, decades after sentencing them to a solitary existence on Death Row.

If you are going to maintain a regime of cruel and unusual punishments, it's a pretty pathetic argument to start saying your way of killing is better than theirs.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:43:24 UTC | #535730

Sciros's Avatar Comment 15 by Sciros

If you are going to maintain a regime of cruel and unusual punishments, it's a pretty pathetic argument to start saying your way of killing is better than theirs.

You're begging the question with your "cruel and unusual" critique. But that aside, I'd think the contrast is more that civilized countries have somewhat more heinous crimes corresponding to a death sentence than something like sex outside of marriage and so forth. I'd be pretty pissed about someone being incinerated Equilibrium-style over something like that even though the procedure seems pretty quick, y'know?

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:53:14 UTC | #535733

KRKBAB's Avatar Comment 16 by KRKBAB

Comment 14 by Stevehill- WRONG. Just as there is a scale of probability between unprovable things (an omnipotent god...or a Deists deity) there is surely a scale of suffering between methods of execution, regardless if it is a state sanctioned execution or if it is a morally defensible execution or not.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:59:11 UTC | #535735

aliensmack's Avatar Comment 17 by aliensmack

Comment 7 by sbooder :

The article makes a point of saying that the woman is wrongly accused of adultery. This form of punishment would not be acceptable even if she were guilty of adultery. Surly adultery is something to be worked out between husband and wife and maybe a divorce court if one or both want that, no matter who carries out the adultery.

Stoning is nothing more than aggressive male lack of respect and equality shown to women, as is a lot more of Islamic societal norms. We must stop pussyfooting around this religion and force it to catch up with the rest of the civilised world and show women the respect and equality that they are born with as a natural human right not a privilege.

"Surly adultery is something to be worked out between husband and wife"

We need to be very careful with the phrasing of that . There are lobby groups here in Canada and the USA that are pushing to allow Muslim people to practice Sharia in their own homes . This would absolutely lead to killings done in secret in the home.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:59:59 UTC | #535736

sbooder's Avatar Comment 18 by sbooder

There are two hypocrisies here. One is yet to come to light, but the other is plain to see from this article, and that is the hypocrisy of President Ahmadinejad shouting unfair. His claim that showing the film will prejudice the west against Iran set against the backdrop of the prejudice that his country and faith are showing towards women is laughable.

The hypocrisy that is yet to come to light is what the “I am atheist but” crowd are going to say to this, surly they can not attack religion because religion is a fluffy harmless personal faith that should be allowed to go on its merry way. I can not wait to see what they will be able to excuse here.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:03:24 UTC | #535739

sbooder's Avatar Comment 19 by sbooder

Bloody hell I am getting it in the neck today.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:05:40 UTC | #535742

AlexYoung's Avatar Comment 20 by AlexYoung

I've just had a debate with a friend of mine and his fellows of the far-left. They were unwilling to admit Islam is a problem worthy of their attention -- most of the bad things done in Islam's name are really the fault of capitalism, according to them. I wonder how they can explain the desire for this sort of justice in terms of class struggle and imperialism, instead of the obvious direct link to unchecked religious insanity.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:17:55 UTC | #535749

jel's Avatar Comment 21 by jel

simple solution to the Iranians problems, if they don't like this type of film all they have to do is stop this type of punishment.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:22:38 UTC | #535752

frax71's Avatar Comment 22 by frax71

so sharia law, or at least a watered down version of it, is supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in other words theists get their own legal system, works for me, canon law anyone!

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:23:59 UTC | #535753

zengardener's Avatar Comment 23 by zengardener

It doesn't matter if she was wrongly or rightly accused.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:28:21 UTC | #535756

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 24 by Jos Gibbons

Comment #535730 by Stevehill

Please don't equate chemical injection of serial killers with stoning of women for their sexual "indiscretions". The honest truth is I disapprove of capital punishment too. But I don't see why I should shut up about the insanity of Shariah because the US government permits a form of punishment of which I disapprove. That argument would not work if I lived in a US state with capital punishment (since no person is his home's law), let alone one without, let alone a different nation entirely (the UK) with no capital punishment whatsoever.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:49:14 UTC | #535766

dpicts's Avatar Comment 25 by dpicts

FYI: Anyone wanting to watch this film: it is available for instant streaming on Netflix.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:59:24 UTC | #535768

Austin K's Avatar Comment 26 by Austin K

If you are going to maintain a regime of cruel and unusual punishments, it's a pretty pathetic argument to start saying your way of killing is better than theirs.

except it is better than theirs. I'm absolutely against the death penalty, but I'd rather go out under lethal injection than by having my bones slowly shattered by rocks thrown at me by sexually deprived sadists.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:47:50 UTC | #535788

Ryou Concord's Avatar Comment 27 by Ryou Concord

Iran: "You can't release that film in your country!"
Britain: "Lol."

It's arrogant to think you can stop something so petty, especially in a country (that isn't yours) that has laws that protect freedom of expression.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:10:41 UTC | #535808

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 28 by SomersetJohn

Comment 14 by Stevehill :

A brave film, and the right decision to screen it.

But it's hard to criticise Iran when so-called civilized countries execute people, sometimes mentally ill people, decades after sentencing them to a solitary existence on Death Row.

No it isn't! Both need to be exposed as inhuman torture, equally.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:16:43 UTC | #535811

El Bastardo's Avatar Comment 29 by El Bastardo

You don't want lethal injection neither, it's not doze to sleep and not wake up, it's lie there for 30 mins after the needle goes in, slowly more and more paralyzed and waiting for death.

Stoning is barbaric and should have been left in the dark ages, but to stay off topic as it were, hanging would be the way to go, bribe the hangs man to make sure your neck is broken by the noose and you've got a good chance of a quick and painless death.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:22:39 UTC | #535812

SoHelpMeReason's Avatar Comment 30 by SoHelpMeReason

Barbarians! Animals! Fucked up stone-flinging religious bastards! (Excuse my eloquent language, I'm only outraged beyond civil words.)

What dirt. What filth. I spent a great deal of energy protesting the treatment of Sakineh Ashtiani myself--I made donations to human rights groups, signed a petition, called to see if there was anything I could personally do, spread the news around like crazy, and erupted with a long string of expletives aimed at the Iranian government--and that was only me. Millions were just as indignant. I saw all the fury on the news. I JUST don't understand why Iran reserves such an arrogant and appalling right to slaughter people.

I hear "shar'ia law" and despite all the pains I've suffered for political correctness over the years, I immediately think "breath-taking imbeciles".

If there's anything that makes me want to explode, it's probably the senseless and blatantly evil murder of innocent people, especially in the name of religion. That is why I am not against the death penalty, provided it is humane. I know that seems contradictory, but truly, if you can take someone else's life, you'd better be prepared to hand over your own--you cannot have two. There are people out there that really, ruthlessly and violently oppose all that is worth living for for the rest of us. They're bigots and they live for themselves and they have no qualms with molesting us all into mediocrity. The stoners in the video who popped in, had themselves a time, and left a bloody slop of humanity in the sand deserve themselves nothing else but to quickly meet their maker. Grotesquely ironic, since there isn't one.

UGH! I'm SO mad!

P.S. After the "postponement" of the stoning, no other news of Ashtiani surfaced. It's been weeks. I've been looking tirelessly. That's infuriating. The poor woman may already be dead. I'm betting they're hoping we forget with time.

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:43:35 UTC | #535827