Execution of Sakineh Ashtiani is imminent

You have to love how crazy Iran is sometimes. In 2006 they arrested a woman by the name of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani for having “illicit relationships” with two men after her husband’s death. She was then judiciously tortured, and made to confess she had also been adulterous. This conviction under Sharia Law meant she was to be executed via stoning, although recently it was changed to hanging after all the bad press stoning has been getting recently.

Iran is playing aloof, claiming that Ashtiani will not be executed, but France’s Foreign Minister isn’t convinced. He says her sentence could be carried out any day now.

While I was reading this article on the rag that is the Huffington Post, I noticed an article by a Muslim apologist claiming Sharia Law is compatible with the Bill of Rights, and sensationalism was being used to tarnish it.

The Center for Security Policy wants Americans to think that stoning and amputations are around the corner, but the report can’t quite explain why stonings are so rare and the streets of Saudi Arabia and Iran are not filled with one-armed thieves.

The Qur’an never mentions stoning as a punishment and there are conflicting interpretations of the Prophet’s involvement in implementing it. The most common interpretation is of a woman consumed with guilt over an adulterous affair that resulted in a child. She pestered the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) literally for years for him to wash away her sins with a death sentence. He refused, but when he could no longer find an excuse to send her away, he reluctantly agreed to punish her. What non-Muslim Sharia “experts” fail to mention is that stoning a person who commits adultery requires four eyewitnesses to the actual act of sexual intercourse. This fantastical burden of proof is almost impossible to fulfill. And rightly so. It’s designed as prevention, not an actual punishment.

So I guess this burden of proof was fulfilled in the case of Ashtiani, right? So much for “impossible to fulfill”. This is what angers me about moderate Muslims; they are in complete denial over the fact Sharia Law is actually killing and dismembering people on a regular basis. As far as they are concerned, these are just the actions of rogue Muslims who don’t represent the majority. What the fuck are we supposed to believe here? The author of this article claims Ashtiani’s conviction is in fact not Sharia, but rather simply politics. How are you supposed to make that distinction, lady?

Should we really be surprised moderate Muslims are in denial over the reality of their barbaric religious traditions? Denial of reality is their specialty, people!

Comments (5)

  • avatar


    Whats wrong with huffpo?

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    ^ Apart from them supporting woo-woo bullshit, and for allowing Jenny McCarthy and her lapdog to erode confidence in vaccines? They may agree with some of the issues politically speaking, but they are certainly no friend to reason.

  • avatar


    Ah I see. I’ve only recently become familiar with the Huffington Post. I knew of it, but never really visited the site. But if they let that Bimbo do what she did than they just lost a big chunk of my respect.

    And Hitchens recently did a debate with some guy who made that same point about Sharia. Comparing it to the bill of rights. Lets just say I ain’t buying that shit. Tariq Ramadan was the guy, the debate is on youtube, check it out.

  • avatar

    J.N. Hudson

    “an article by a Muslim apologist claiming that Sharia Law is compatible with the Bill of Rights, and that sensationalism was being used to tarnish it.”

    That’s a load of bullshit if I’ve ever heard one. While the comment was strictly about Sharia law, I’m adressing my response to the religions that would seek to impose an authoritarian set of “laws” on it’s folloers. In other words… nearly all of them.

    There is no such thing as a set of religious laws that are compatible with the US Bill of Rights. Period. Religious laws are, in almost every example, intended, or interprated to apply to ALL members of that particulqr religion and/or denomnation, and problems will inevitably arise when holier-than-thou theists insist on applying their religious doctrine to the less theocratically minded. Moreover, allowing disparete religious laws to exist alongside US law is a frank and outright violation of the 1st Ammendment’s Establishment Clause, no if’a, and’s, or but’s about it.

    And all that is not even gently wiping the dust of the surface, much less scratching it. Another, possibly far, far more important fact in demonstrating the incompatibility of Sharia, and all other relgious laws, is that they would criminalize acts which only apply to a portion of the population and vise versa. It’s one thing to personally observe aspects of a religious code in civil matters to which all involved parties consent to it’s use. But it’ a whole different can of worms to have religious institutions, who’s authority is dubious at best, imposing criminal sanctions without regard to US criminal law. Further more, a core principle of the US constitution is that ALL people have equality under the law, that equality vanishes when some people are subject to criminal prosecution for actions that are legal to everybody else. Who is going to be empowered to enforce these religious laws and by what authority? What happens when the dozens to hundreds of religions and their thousands of different denominations when each one decides to impose it’s own set of laws?

  • avatar


    I think its a hoot that many people long for the ten commandments to remain in courthouses and government, yet complain how archaic and backwards sharia law is. Can we just evolve a little more so we don’t need religion.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top