Videos: The upcoming stoning of Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani

posted at 8:07 pm on July 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Over the last two years, I have repeatedly written about an unbelievably heartbreaking film, The Stoning of Soraya M, which detailed the true story of a young woman stoned to death in Iran over twenty years ago.  The filmmaker, Cyrus Nowrasteh, hoped to focus international attention on the barbaric practice still used in Iran and other nations against men and women, but primarily against women.  Unfortunately, Iran has chosen to stone another woman to death, this time a 43-year-old mother of two, Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani.  CNN covers the story well:

Cyrus, whom I interviewed at CPAC, spoke to CNN about the case:

CNN also published this scathing indictment of Iran and the practice of stoning by Arsalan Iftikhar, founder of TheMuslimGuy.com and legal fellow for the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding in Washington:

Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani — a mother of two — could be stoned to death at any moment under the terms of a death sentence that Iranian authorities handed down in 2006.

Originally sentenced to 99 lashes for her alleged “illicit relationship outside of marriage,” Ashtiani endured that corporal punishment in front of her then-17-year-old son in 2006. She was subsequently cleared of murder charges against her husband, but the judicial panel then re-examined Ashtiani’s adultery sentence, and based on unspecified “judges’ knowledge,” bizarrely decided that she should be put to death by stoning for the alleged affair.

“At that time, it should have been finished. They should have punished her only once,” said her son Sajjad, now 22. “Her documents say she is innocent. She already paid for the crime.”

According to Amnesty International, the Iranian penal code specifies the procedures for death penalties and also specifies the types of rocks that should be used in stoning executions. Article 102 of the Iranian penal code states that “men will be buried up to their waists and women up to their breasts” for the purpose of execution by stoning. …

Sakineh Ashtiani, who is from the northern city of Tabriz, was convicted of adultery in 2006. Some human rights lawyers believe that a language barrier prevented her from fully comprehending court proceedings at the time. She is of Azerbaijani descent and speaks Turkish, not Farsi.

In 2006, she was forced to confess after being subjected to 99 lashes, according to human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei in Tehran. She later retracted that confession and has denied wrongdoing in the matter.

Furthermore, her conviction was based on the determination of three out of five judges, which is strange because Article 74 of the Iranian penal code clearly requires at least four eyewitnesses — four men or three men and two women — for an adulterer to receive a stoning death sentence.

When the book on which Stoning is based came out, Iran was embarrassed enough to deny that it ever took place. Now they apparently have no trouble putting their barbarity on display for the whole world to see.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

By the way, my father was supposed to be one of the invasion forces. Instead he arrived in Japan within days after the armistice was signed. He was stationed near Nagasaki. He doesn’t talk much about it except that the occupation force did a lot for the Japanese population from feeding them to entertaining them. He was there 9 months.

The nukes, though horrifying, stopped a war that would have taken more lives had the war continued.

Voter from WA State on July 9, 2010 at 12:31 PM

I concur. My granddad was in the same situation.

Mary in LA on July 9, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Rod, maybe you missed this in your history classes.

Voter from WA State on July 9, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Thanks but I didn’t miss anything and agree with you wholeheartedly. And as a veteran myself I salute your father and his service.

As to my simple statement and question, my mistake was posting it in the first place knowing that, as brief as it was, some would be unable to read it without tainting it with their own viewpoint.

Mr. RINO sees it as my support for nuking innocent civilians which requires him to make a silly, flippant remark.

You see it as the exact opposite while implying that I’m a naive fool in need of a history lesson.

So either I’m a schizophrenic-war-mongering-peace-loving-naive-idiot or neither of you are capable of reading a simple statement(which was an answer to a previously posted question) and addressing another difficult question without tying to decern the intent of the author then disparaging that author after deciding that, whatever the intent was, it must be wrong.

Rod on July 9, 2010 at 1:45 PM

AS IF 99 BLOODY LASHES isn’t inhumane.
Charge the woman with murder.
Top that off with prison.
Though proven innocent, consign her to stoning.

The only thing Ashtiani was originally convicted of was “illicit behavior”–not specifically adultery. Theocratic judicial gossip benches just kept painting her with their own evil intentions, driven by their OWN guilt, victimizing her as their scapegoat. He who is without sin…judge not, lest ye be judged. Ultimately, they will will beg for Lazarus! “One drop!” of mercy denied.

Mr. Obama,

Arguing as POTUS, you yourself publicly projected your own daughters becoming pregnant BY MISTAKE out of wedlock requiring an abortion to remove THE PROBLEM. Take an official stand on behalf of this poor woman, victimized by the Iranian Theocracy! See her as your daughter and show some compassion by diplomatically offering her asylum.

maverick muse on July 9, 2010 at 1:48 PM

When the book on which Stoning is based came out, Iran was embarrassed enough to deny that it ever took place. Now they apparently have no trouble putting their barbarity on display for the whole world to see.

What we know to be barbarity, Sharian Muslims know to be righteous Jihad. Pres.Obama himself called Jihad righteousness and essentially told Americans to STFU because he’s all for Jihad, and HE WON (and btw he’s Christian, too).

Mercy is a virtue. But Muslims evidently eshew practicing mercy themselves, because for them God/Allah must own the monopoly on mercy and all virtues. Allah would be the fanatically jealous old testament god, only Allah is deprived of any affection for creation. Exactly what does “mercy” mean to Muslims that they refuse to exercise it?

maverick muse on July 9, 2010 at 1:57 PM

neither of you are capable of reading a simple statement(which was an answer to a previously posted question) and addressing another difficult question without tying to decern the intent of the author then disparaging that author after deciding that, whatever the intent was, it must be wrong.

Rod on July 9, 2010 at 1:45 PM

….orrrr, you will be more accurate in your posting. So we have three choices, war-monger, naive, and a post that is so vague that you can hide behind it when called out.
The implication I read is that you thought we killed citizens indiscriminately…

right2bright on July 9, 2010 at 2:03 PM

….orrrr, you will be more accurate in your posting.

right2bright on July 9, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Dear God, not you too, right2bright??

Okay, I’ll defer to you: please point out where I was not accurate in answering the question posed by Dr. ZhivBlago.

Next, please let me know what’s vague about the question I posed to him. Following your advice, I’ll make it “less vague.”

Next, what exactly are you calling me out on and why?? Or at least copy and paste that portion of my statement that implies that I thought we killed Japanese citizens indiscriminately. (RINO thinks I’m all for it. Voter agree with you.)

And lastly, and this is the hard part: answer the question I posed instead of ignoring it like the other two while agonizing over what I did or did not mean by posting it.

BTW: If you can answer it, you’ll be up for the Nobel Peace Prize (even if it is nothing more than a worthless liberal sham of an award)

Rod on July 9, 2010 at 2:39 PM

As bad as the nukes were it actually saved lives.

The nukes, though horrifying, stopped a war that would have taken more lives had the war continued.

Voter from WA State on July 9, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Had MacArthur’s strategy been adopted by Truman, we would have not only WON the Korean War, but fewer troops on all sides would have been killed because MacArthur’s plan to bomb a no-man-zone included a warning for the enemy to withdraw in advance.

Goldwater’s campaign pledged using some nuclear bombs in N.Vietnam for deforestation to provide S.Vietnam a buffer zone. Instead of admitting what is required to WIN any war since WWII, voters elected LBJ who plunged America’s military headstrong into Vietnam, horrible troop losses and disillusionment given all sides government corruption supporting the drug trade. Of course, Johnson DID deforest Vietnam with a more potent poison that radiation given agent orange. AND we lost that war with Kissinger claiming “peace with honor”.

Nuclear weapons come in all sizes for all purposes.

Before America engages in war, we must define the realistic objective and actual strategy to achieve the goal. Otherwise, Americans are left supporting volunteer troops sent as we are to nation build where America remains the great satan; all such warfare abroad claiming that by removing our National Guard from America, we won’t have any problems at home where our borders are invaded and illegal aliens are federally protected stateside.

Nine years in Afghanistan with the circumstances progressively worsening, troop deaths mounting, the cost to medically treat our wounded reaching $50billion annually, and not enough budget available without higher taxes on unemployed Americans to provide the troops with the basic needs in battle. It isn’t as if this Afghan war is going to win any victory as Americans were initially promised, to kill bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda, even if the conflict perpetuates forever on the premise of nation building there or ANYWHERE in the Middle East. According to the same international intelligence sources that America used entering into the Afghan war (British), bin Laden has been dead for years and whatever Afghan al Qaeda existed is destroyed; any new terrorists claiming to be al Qaeda do so merely for recognition and to play with the Americans.

We pride ourselves for having “given Iraq free elections and democracy”. That’s shortsighted, given that Iraq has held elections since 1925, and was a democracy under Saddam Hussein. Democracy only represents the people involved. Those same people in Iraq are corrupting whatever “perfection” we offered them. Bush promised Americans reparations from Iraq, we have none. Bush argued for the American necessity to have a permanent military installation in Iraq in order to engage public support for his war effort extending into Iraq, but failed to negotiate or to co-opt a single installation from those that we maintained while in Iraq. The Iraqi government that we established is not only as corrupt and cruel to its citizens now as Saddam Hussein’s was, but has exterminated its historical indigenous Jewish and Christian populations who existed peaceably during Hussein’s rule.

America needs to re-evaluate everything, not simply because of the futility of our losses in Islam, but because of our economy, and because of the invasion of terrorists from Mexico through our open southwest border. Those targets to be destroyed in Afghanistan are the same people with the same beliefs and habits and objectives as Reagan considered to be America’s allies and empowered to govern Afghanistan. Yes, the Taliban. Don’t fume with the hollow argument that they were good then when fighting Russia but are bad now when fighting us as invaders. They know the score with international government involvement in their country.

1984 “Who are we fighting? Who is our ally?”

maverick muse on July 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Before America engages in war, we must define the realistic objective and actual strategy to achieve the goal.

In WWII, Korea and Vietnam, the nuclear options were directed at a limited location against enemies vulnerable to technology but whose numbers left us at the disadvantage. The ancient size of armies was left the determining factor, as all soldiers were determined.

Given the global proliferation of nuclear power, obviously, a limited destruction of a target is no longer an option. The chain reaction of response is inevitable, whether ineffective or too effective.

However, Afghanistan has neither technology nor a huge army. Were Afghanistan’s own US installed Karzai government “hired” mercenaries with Karzai Rules of Engagement to apply limited nuclear weapons against the Taliban in the mountains, pigs would fly. It will never happen that way.

maverick muse on July 9, 2010 at 3:09 PM

The latest is that she still might face the death penalty but not by stoning (Iran likes hangings).

Iran has ordered a blackout on any reporting of the case now.

lexhamfox on July 9, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Let’s not forget that Iran is on the human rights council at the UN. So stoning people to death can’t be that bad, otherwise they wouldn’t be on that particular council. Right? Right??

dczombie on July 9, 2010 at 4:26 PM

maverick muse on July 9, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Peace through overwhelming firepower has always worked before.
The most powerful country in the world has allowed itself to be neutered by its enemies.

The United States of America is the only government to ever encourage its citizens to make the most of themselves. To defend themselves and to enrich themselves.

According to our communist masters, our 234 years are errors and must be buried by the usual lies.

You want peace on Earth? A few nukes will get attention and a couple more will concentrate it.

That may last two hundred years until folks again forget/believe lies again.

Free citizens must always resist the greedy/lazy.

Caststeel on July 10, 2010 at 3:25 AM

If the word of Allah through his prophet (who approved of stonings in the ahadith) can be changed by infidel pressure then surely Islam is a false religion! (Of course this means little since all religions are man made nonsense.)

Annar on July 10, 2010 at 7:14 AM

If the word of Allah through his prophet (who approved of stonings in the ahadith) can be changed by infidel pressure then surely Islam is a false religion! (Of course this means little since all religions are man made nonsense.)

Annar on July 10, 2010 at 7:14 AM

Does that include your own of worshiping your own “brilliance”. You do not speak for anything, and certainly not God.

Noelie on July 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM

If you have not seen “The Stoning of Sonja M” you have missed one of the greatest movie of the time and puts the enemy in proper perspective.

Also, if you have missed the movie “Unthinkable” you have also missed the true meaning of how this enemy must be dealt with. The only thing they fear is harm coming to their family or children.

MSGTAS on July 10, 2010 at 10:58 AM

I am sure Amnesty International is right on it.

Irenaeus on July 10, 2010 at 1:47 PM

I completely agreee that The Stoning of Soraya M. is a MUST SEE movie!

The movie is extremely well done and will give you a whole new understanding of how women are treated in Iran.

Rent the DVD and watch it with a liberal feminist.

The more people who see this movie, the sooner Iran will be forced to stop this barbaric practice.

wren on July 10, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2