Islamic Trial-by-Ordeal

[Kanastrous]

Not exactly... but it seems kind of close.

---

TEHRAN, Iran - Two men convicted of adultery were stoned to death in northeastern Iran last month but a third convicted man managed to escape, Iran's judiciary spokesman said Tuesday.

Ali Reza Jamshidi said the stoning took place in the city of Mashhad in late December but did not provide the names of the convicted men.

Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery is punishable by stoning, but such sentences are rare. International human rights groups have long criticized stoning in Iran as a cruel form of punishment.

Jamshidi did not describe how the stonings were carried out. But typically under Islamic rulings, a man is buried up to his waist, while a woman is buried up to her neck. Those carrying out the verdict then throw stones until the person dies. If the person manages to escape from the hole, he or she will remain free under Islamic law.

"Given that the third person managed to pull himself out of the hole, the verdict was not carried out," Jamshidi told reporters.

Stonings were widely carried out in the early years after the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the pro-Western government and brought hard-line clerics to power. But in recent years, it has seldom been applied, although the government rarely confirms when it carries out stoning sentences.

The last time Iran reported a death by stoning was in July 2007 when Jamshidi said a man convicted of adultery was stoned to death in a village in northern Iran.

Women's rights activists headed by feminist lawyer Shadi Sadr have been campaigning to have the sentence removed from Iran's statutes.

Iran's reformist legislators have demanded an end to death by stoning as a punishment for adultery, but opposition from hard-line clerics has sidelined their efforts.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28634522/

---

Seems kind of like allowing the condemned to go free if they can evade the imposition of sentence, is sort of like reducing the proceedings to a trial-by-ordeal.

[Count Chocula]

Or a way to assuage the guilt of the stoners? IIRC, even in combat, a large percentage of soldiers simply do not pull the trigger. Also IIRC, the reason firing squads have more than one man in them is so that the shooters in the firing squad don't know for sure whose bullet killed the sentenced man.

[Kanastrous]

More like a way to assuage the guilt of the guys with shovels.

Not that anyone will be asking them to bury any more stoning victims, any time soon.

[Mayabird]

Note how much easier it is for men to escape than women - they have much less of their body buried and their arms are free. For women it's impossible, even if they're not using the more 'modern' method of stoning where a bulldozer pushes a stone wall on top of them.

[Kanastrous]

Coincidence, pure unadulterated coincidence, to be sure.

Gah. Give these people access to bulldozers, and look how they employ them.

[Adrian Laguna]

Look at the bright side. The bulldozer method is likely to crush your skull and kill you in a split second. The traditional method takes longer, and is thus rather more painful.

[Count Chocula]

Great! Way to lighten up the subject, Adrian.

I guess modernization in China means death by a hundred cuts. Efficient!

[Kanastrous]

I hear than in particularly enlightened districts, they've got it down to a mere fifty.

[Singular Intellect]

Note how much easier it is for men to escape than women - they have much less of their body buried and their arms are free.

Yeah, I immediately noticed that too; the sexist nature of Islam countries makes me grit my teeth every time.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Its kinda like how in bullfighting, if the bull puts up an heroic and valiant fight, he gets spared by the crowd. It doesn't happen hardly ever, but it can happen, and that's how they justify torturing an animal.

[Garlak]

... the men would probably have more muscle than the women too...

Maybe they should bury the men to the waist... upside down?

[Kanastrous]

Its kinda like how in bullfighting, if the bull puts up an heroic and valiant fight, he gets spared by the crowd. It doesn't happen hardly ever, but it can happen, and that's how they justify torturing an animal.

A bull in the ring at least has a chance. A steer in the slaughterhouse has none at all. Now, do you want to die like a bull, or like a steer?

- Boris Vaslov, Ice Station Zebra

[Samuel]

Its kinda like how in bullfighting, if the bull puts up an heroic and valiant fight, he gets spared by the crowd. It doesn't happen hardly ever, but it can happen, and that's how they justify torturing an animal.

A bull in the ring at least has a chance. A steer in the slaughterhouse has none at all. Now, do you want to die like a bull, or like a steer?

- Boris Vaslov, Ice Station Zebra

A steer. It is alot quicker and less painful. I don't buy "where there is life there is hope" when it comes to cases that have been heavily rigged in favor of the matador.

[Stargate Nerd]

Its kinda like how in bullfighting, if the bull puts up an heroic and valiant fight, he gets spared by the crowd. It doesn't happen hardly ever, but it can happen, and that's how they justify torturing an animal.

A bull in the ring at least has a chance. A steer in the slaughterhouse has none at all. Now, do you want to die like a bull, or like a steer?

- Boris Vaslov, Ice Station Zebra

A steer. It is alot quicker and less painful. I don't buy "where there is life there is hope" when it comes to cases that have been heavily rigged in favor of the matador.

Does that quote actually promote "where there is life there is hope". I mean the way a bull dies is a very torturous death.

[Junghalli]

A steer. It is alot quicker and less painful. I don't buy "where there is life there is hope" when it comes to cases that have been heavily rigged in favor of the matador.

I'd still take a small chance over no chance at all myself.

[Kelp]

A steer. It is alot quicker and less painful. I don't buy "where there is life there is hope" when it comes to cases that have been heavily rigged in favor of the matador.

I'd still take a small chance over no chance at all myself.

The target does not neccesarily have to be the matador's red cape. Or even the matador himself... But the saddistic crowd out for blood.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see the statistic on how many people got out of the hole alive. Though considering that the "government rarely confirms when it carries out stoning sentences," I don't believe they even keep records of "trivial" things as capital punishment.

[Adrian Laguna]

Its kinda like how in bullfighting, if the bull puts up an heroic and valiant fight, he gets spared by the crowd. It doesn't happen hardly ever, but it can happen, and that's how they justify torturing an animal.

Um, no, the justification for torturing an animal is that it's entertaining. The part where the crowd spares just adds to that.

[Edi]

Its kinda like how in bullfighting, if the bull puts up an heroic and valiant fight, he gets spared by the crowd. It doesn't happen hardly ever, but it can happen, and that's how they justify torturing an animal.

The reason why it doesn't happen is that they usually do a cut to some important muscle beforehand, so the bull is weakened and can't use its full strength and mobility. So it's nothig more than a prolonged ritual slaughter, really.

[Akkleptos]

Its kinda like how in bullfighting, if the bull puts up an heroic and valiant fight, he gets spared by the crowd. It doesn't happen hardly ever, but it can happen, and that's how they justify torturing an animal.

The reason why it doesn't happen is that they usually do a cut to some important muscle beforehand, so the bull is weakened and can't use its full strength and mobility. So it's nothig more than a prolonged ritual slaughter, really.

I don't like bullfighting. I think it should be banned everywhere. However, it still puzzles me that most people cannot conceive of it being both an art form and an atrocious, sadistic ritual slaughtering or an animal, considering that both concepts are not mutually exclusive, and it doesn't say anywhere that art cannot be cruel.

Another problem with bullfighting is that the bulls, according to many accounts, are hit repeatedly with heavy sand-filled sacks as to cause internal injuries and bleeding, grease or chili peppers are applied to their eyes as to impair their sight, and even their hornes are filed dull. When it is done like this, it's not done the right way (well, considering it shouldn't be done at all) as it wouldn't be a true "honourable" man vs beast contest, a duel of wit vs brute force, a single man against a 500 kilo beast that can lift a small car with an upwards thrust of its head and neck.

Still, even if it is truly an art form, it is my humble opinion this is an art form the world could do without.

Note how much easier it is for men to escape than women - they have much less of their body buried and their arms are free. For women it's impossible, even if they're not using the more 'modern' method of stoning where a bulldozer pushes a stone wall on top of them.

This comes as no surprise considering sexism IS a cherished traditional trait of Judaism - Christianity - Islam alike.

And, if anyone anywhere were to be executed by stoning (a punishment I don't condone in any way, mind you), anyway, why couldn't follow old Jewish tradition and have the victim be smashed with a really big stone slab dropped on him/her by specialised executioners (and then, only if the victim survives, the populace gets to throw stones).

And, as per the OP; yeah, it IS a trial by ordeal, of sorts.

[Marcus Aurelius]

This comes as no surprise considering sexism IS a cherished traditional trait of Judaism - Christianity - Islam alike.

It's worse than that. Sexism is pretty much the cherished traditional trait of all significant agricultural civilizations and their associated religions. It's not like the Indian, Chinese or even ancient Native American civilizations were egalitarian. From major world religions only Buddhism could be considered somewhat gender neutral, but that was historically soon suppressed and sidelined by the traditional patriarchal society in India and Southeast Asia. Hinduism was perhaps not very chauvinistic in its early animistic stages either, but as the Aryans settled in India and started to culticate land, it adopted the patriarchal values as well.

The most common explanation for the dominance of patriarchy in agricultular civilizations is that agriculture freed parts of the male population to become the rulers of society, whereas the work load of women taking care of domestic matters remained pretty much unchanged until the introduction of industrial production.

[Kanastrous]

Does that quote actually promote "where there is life there is hope". I mean the way a bull dies is a very torturous death.

I think it's intended to tell you something about the characters having the conversation.

Plus - at least, IMO - it's a pretty cool line.