Iranian Father Beheads 14 year-old Daughter For Running Away With Boyfriend

That is one way of to look at it. Another way is to look at it the way many people, of very diverse backgrounds, have looked at it visiting Iran. Either way, what is ultimately true is this: Iran doesn't want to follow anyone else in how things should be done. Not the 'rest of the Middle East" nor the West. There is a reason for that too: Iran was home of the first true empire in the world (the Persian empire) - and home to several other empires that each stood out because Iran didn't want to be part of another empire, be it the Roman empire, the Arab caliphate of the Umayads, or the Ottoman empire. Or, these days, the "American one" either" Iran has always wanted to chart its own path.

 

The court and justice system in Iran also leaves much to be desired as well.


Interesting article here:
https://www.thejournal.ie/blood-money-has-saved-hundreds-in-iran-1438064-Apr2014/

 

I can't argue with that, but then the court and justice system in the US also leaves much to be desired.

 

To be clear, "blood money" (if accepted by the family of the victim) only pardons the criminal as it relates to Qisas (meaning the punishment under Islamic law which the victim's family can demand). It doesn't allow a convicted murderer to escape punishment for his crime against society, meaning serving his time in prison, even if he/she is spared the death penalty (or whatever other penalty) that Islamic Penal Code would permit the victim's family to demand.

One of the issues about "blood money" in Iran is whether its payment then releases the person of civil liability (i.e., suit by the family to recover damages)? That issue is not settled with different viewpoints and rulings.

 

Since you seem to be more knowledgeable about the situation in Iran, supposing blood money is accepted by the victim's family, what would be the typical civil penalty, or length of prison sentence, for a father who killed his daughter because she brought dishonor to the family?

Are we talking life in prison? 15 years? 10 years? Less than that?

According to one article, the father in that story who beheaded his daughter "faces up to 10 years in prison".
https://news.sky.com/story/brutal-a...ather-may-lead-to-law-change-in-iran-11995634

That to me shows there is clearly at least some amount of sympathy in Iranian culture for what this father did.
(Especially considering that punishments in Iran tend to be in general much harsher than they are in America)

 

Here the father would probably behead the 35 yr old "boyfriend"

 

The punishment would be 3-10 years in prison ordinarily, in the discretion of the judge. However, this particular case will not be tried under ordinary provisions. The head of Iran's judiciary has indicated that due to the outrageous nature of the crime, this particular father will be tried by a special court under other provisions that allow harsher punishments to be applied.

 

If I can ask, what is so outrageous about this particular crime? Is it the fact that the father cut off her head, rather than merely just killing her?

 

The way the crime was committed made it even more outrageous, that is true. Although another factor is the political pressure brought by public uproar over this case. And the political arguments about who is at fault for this heinous crime?

https://www.barrons.com/news/top-iran-body-denies-negligence-in-teenage-girl-s-killing-01590852905
Top Iran Body Denies Negligence In Teenage Girl's Killing

 

I find the comparison to Saudi Arabia absurd. A product of ignorance, where concepts and labels which might be similar in name, are imagined to mean the same thing too. Other than labels, however, the two have nothing in common. The differences aren't simply a matter 'degree'. Those differences lead to opposite outcomes.

Nothing brings this out as much as the Islamic marriage contract in Iran and how it differs from anywhere else. How that "Islamic" marriage contract actually empowers women in Iran (even compared to their western counterparts), while the same name given to the contract hold them in bondage in places such as Saudi Arabia. Yet, while this actually is something that affects millions of Iranians (as opposed to being some unusual case), and has thousands of Iranians in jail even, you don't get to hear much about it at all in the western press!

In Iran, when a groom wants to get married, he signs a promissory note, payable on demand, by the wife that allows the wife to seek a huge sum (usually in gold coins and intended specifically to be in an amount way beyond the means of the person to pay), anytime she wishes to demand this sum. During the marriage or when it is ending. That basically gives the wife a huge stick to hold over the husband, because the failure of the husband to pay the mehriyeh (that was designed to be un-affordable to him) would often land him in jail. Regardless of whatever western 'feminists' might wish to claim, none of them typically have the same stick over their husbands head that Iranian wives had! There are thousands of Iranian men languishing in prison for no crime other than being unable to pay the meyriyeh demanded by the wife.

By contrast, in Saudi Arabia, the groom negotiates with the bride's family a payment that is made when the marriage is to be consummated. The money is paid to the bride's family, who take the money and basically sell their daughter to the groom. And once sold, only the husband can end the contract immediately and without any formalities even. No right of divorce for the wife. In Iran, the right for wives to seek divorce is part of the marriage contract provisions pushed by the state for people to sign, but even if a husband refuses to sign the part that allows the right to divorce to the wife, that right can still be obtained through courts (and is usually obtained by the stick of the promissory note I mentioned dangling over the husband's head).

The difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran, even when things look similar from the outside because of labels, isn't a question of degree: it is black and white!* And the irony is that almost all the unusual cases (when not fabricated) about Iran involve, not the practices among the dominant, Shia Persian Iranian community and courts, but local courts in Iran which administer something like the Saudi version of justice among some of Iran's ethnic minorities (who are mostly Sunni)
----------
*Even on Qisas (analogous corporal punishment under Islamic law), this is true as well. Qisas, for instance, is the only punishment for murder and manslaughter in Saudi Arabia, which treats these crimes as 'private disputes'. In Iran, it is only the part of the punishment (retribution) or, alternatively, compensation (depending on your interpretation) which is reserved exclusively for the victim's family. The crime is still punishable by the state (regardless of the criminal settling his debts with the victim's family) to advance the interests of the state, including to protect it citizens and to deter future wrong doing.

 

With massive and general ... not just Iran ... criticism of the USA, which can be summarized with 3 headings ...

1. Hypocrisy
2. Ignorance
3. Arrogance

you have to stick to the truth and the facts!

Let's start with the Sharia, which is indisputably the basis for any jurisdiction in Iran (and Saudi Arabia and others). If you take a look at your own criminal law, then please take a closer look at §225 what "stoning" as a death penalty and what crimes it is used for ... especially adultery!
It is true that the paragraph has been reformed and also gives the decisive judge scope for other types of execution ... and the head of the Iranian judiciary has to approve the judgment and the type of execution, but stoning is still possible and has been and will continue to be used! So it doesn't matter whether they are "Persian areas" in Iran or not ... because Theran ultimately decides!

The basic problem is somewhere else, because in the past there was something in the past called laicism and secularism in the so called "West" ... means the strict separation of state and (all !!!) religions. This was ... aside Turkey under Kemal Attaturk ... until today in no Islamic country done!
I don't want to start a discussion about how good or bad that is now ... because such a discussion is endless and without result, because it is a mere coincidence of personal views and opinions at least.

I definitely share your opinion that cultural differences should be respected and it is nonsense that everything and everyone has to comply with Western values and rules, or put them above their own culture. However, there are limits to my acceptance ... 2 examples:

Whether it is allowed in Iran or in Saudi Arabia or in any other Islamic country, is it that Christians living there can openly celebrate their services or even ring the bells of churches? No ...
So why should one in Europe then allow the muezzin of the mosque to call Muslims etc. ... as it e.g. Serious Salafist groups and others also demand ... partly with the justification of the secular guaranteed, free practice of religion, which in turn does not exist with you?
Or as another example, the above-mentioned wearing of a scarf or veil on the head at women, from a certain age.
Among other things, this is also a legal obligation for emergency Muslims, e.g. Tourists ... even if in practice it is often treated more loosely by tourists, it is still mandatory on paper and non-compliance can have consequences!
Why should one in Europe then wear a veil ... especially the well-known all-black clothes where at best only the face is visible, or even the completely covering burqa ...
The reason given to me by somebody "due of respect for the Islamic belief of women" is nonsense with respect ... because in the Islamic country with the force of the headscarf you respect the non-Islamic religion of a tourist etc.? No.

 

Please. Please stick to the truth and facts. That is all I ask.

Don't confuse yourself with mere labels. First, "Sharia" does not necessarily mean the same thing in Iran as it does elsewhere. Iran is the follower of the Shia Jafari school of Islam, enshrined in Iran's constitution as the official religion of the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ja'fari_jurisprudence

Second, it is widely understood that Iran's legal system is (despite its contrary claim) not really based on the Sharia so much as other things. I will expand on that later.

They say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". If you actually looked the the provisions of Islamic Penal Code on adultery, you would immediately realize (even being unfamiliar with anything else, including specific directives by the judiciary on the subject), adultery is not mean to be an offense that can be proven in court. And that the condemnation of adultery in the penal code (like the same for sodomy) is meant as a moral statement, not more.

Why: because long before you get to the "punishments for adultery", you need to overcome the obstacles to proving it. Regardless of the punishment you are seeking for "adultery", before you can make the allegation and NOT LAND IN JAIL yourself, you need several witnesses who can testify the have seen the acts constituting adultery. See Article 74 of the Islamic Penal Code in Iran. If you don't, or if any of them change their minds, under Article 76, you will be the one subjected to punishment for false accusation.

In practice, every day in family courts in Iran where the divorce rate is very high these days, the actual laws that are practiced and enforced are the ones that determine the fate of disputes. On the other hand, a person 'with little knowledge' who tells a husband who has even caught his wife cheating with someone else, that he can bring charges of adultery on that basis, will only be putting the husband in even more pain and trouble! Will be putting him in jail!

If I see you have absorbed this much, which is pretty much black letter law and not all that complicated, then I can go and deal with other issues you raise.
p.s.
It is the same with SODOMY: which is why tens of thousands of Iranians gays obtain military exemption under provisions allowing such exemptions for homosexuals, even as new regulations which were enacted to deter false claims to these exemptions (false claims of people saying they are homosexual!) now require a signed statement admitting to sodomy. None of that is either sufficient or, more importantly in practice, used by anyone to prosecute people for sodomy.

 

they want to bring this sharia culture to America, already started with face masks.

 

I don't know where you got the idea that Christians in Iran cannot celebrate their services! This is false. Amazing that you even believe this. Except for the same folks behind the WMD nonsense about Iraq, and those who get their views from them, I wasn't even aware that anyone else believed this. This more than 20 active churches in Iran, holding regular services, it is a rather hard claim to make. But I know some have not been deterred from making the claim nonetheless.

Iran has a Christian community which openly practices their religion. They are discouraged from proselytizing (seek to convert Muslims to Christianity), which is what some 'evangelical Christian groups" complain about. Otherwise, Christians (like Jews) are free to practice their religion, have their churches (and the Jews their synagogues) and have their representatives in the Iranian parliament.

 

All well and good ... but it doesn't change the fact that there is §225 in Iran and that it is also used ... and that it is based on the Sharia ... i.e. on the religion of Islam.
In other words, adultery in Iran is a criminal offense under Islamic law that is punishable by the death penalty. This is not the case in Europe ... because religion does not play a role in criminal law and, in my opinion, as an atheist, it must never play a role, no matter what religion it is.

I personally am ... as told ... a convinced atheist. but I respect every religion and I don't care whether it's the Jewish, Christian or Islamic way of worshiping the same god or whether someone is Buddhist or Hindu or just worshiping the next tree as his god.

My respect for and acceptance of any religion ends immediately when a religion begins to want to prescribe rules that I should follow, even though I am not part of that religion.

To put it another way, if I were a woman and would travel to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or another Islamic country with a headscarf requirement ... I would have a significant problem adhering to this religiously motivated regulation. Why should I be interested in any religious motivated laws and regulations if I do not belong to this religion and why should I obey it?
The answer "out of respect" has a bad aftertaste ... because if, like in France, a headscarf ban is pronounced, then in a country where there is no religion Islam playing a role in the law, the religion Islam should suddenly be respected. This is rediculous!

 

Iran has a head scarf requirement. It is not even part of its Islamic rules per se, but regardless, if you have trouble with the maxim "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", then definitely Iran is not for you. In Iran, you do need to observe certain rules, which aren't like the ones people have fed into your minds, but do include the rule that women need to cover their hair with a head scarf (and their bodies with something like a "monteau").

In the meantime, whenever you go any place, you are forced to comply with the rules on attire of that place. And there are such rules almost everywhere you go.

 

I told you already: NO. It is NOT used. It cannot be used because of the other articles I cited. No cases can be cited using it. Except in propaganda outfits. Which is odd, since if Iran wanted to use this provision to outlaw and punish certain behavior, it would be the one publicizing cases under the provision not the usual suspects.

 

Sorry .... but this is not true!

Fact #1
The ringing of Christian church bells is prohibited in Iran

Fact # 2
The approximately 300,000 Christians, most of whom belong to the Armenian Church and related currents, have largely got used to existing restrictions and can exercise their faith with restrictions as far as possible ... Restrictions such as any procession by the place in public are prohibited.
But otherwise, their religious freedom as a minority is guaranteed in Iran.

Fact # 3
Any form of Christian missionary activity in Iran is subject to death penalty under Iranian law!

Fact # 4
Anyone who converts from Islam to Christianity in Iran faces the long term prison sentence of up to and including the death penalty under Iranian law.

 

The difference is that there are cultural rules and religious rules ... the covering of at least a woman's hair in public and / or in the presence of strangers is clearly in the Koran ... which you surely know ... and that the Koran is a religious book is undeniable.

That I should order a cappuccino or espress in Rome at the right time of the day is a cultural thing ... not a religious thing, even if coffee culture in Italy has some religious traits

Examples?

Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery by an Iranian court in 2009, subjected to international protests in 2010, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2011 for a petition from the children.
She didn't commit any crime in Europe ... but she did in Iran under Islamic law!

And lastly there were two Kurdish women in Iran ... Gulistan Jnikanlou and Zahra Derakhshani ... who were sentenced by the criminal court in the city of Khoy to death by stoning for adultery , or "Zina" = a form of sexual intercourse that is forbidden in the Sharia law, in 2019. Both are waiting in prison currently...

Also ... on your objection: Iranian criminal law gives judges considerable leeway to rely on "their own knowledge" when making their verdict ... "adultery either through a confession by the accused or through the testimony of four men or three men and must be proven to two women "is therefore not fundamentally the case!

And besides, one more difference: according to Iranian law the husband is allowed to kill his wife and her lover in case of flagranti caught adultery ... here in Europe this is first degree murder!

 

I am not in the habit of saying things which aren't true. What I said and wrote is true.

False. This is a random report from Iran's official news agency -- hardly a site to wish to encourage illegal activity or Christianity. But more significantly, I know it is false. I lived in Iran, not far from one of the Armenian church's in the Vanak area in Tehran.
https://en.irna.ir/news/80481551/New-Year-bells-ring-in-churches-in-Islamic-Iran

What restrictions? And it isn't just Armenians. Iran's Christians are either Armenian or Assyrian and both are protected fully in their practice of religion. And have representatives in the Iranian parliament.

In theory, if someone didn't understand Iranian law in its totality, but certainly not in practice. No one has ever been executed for such activity -- and a single provision of Iranian law on the subject has to live with the entire corpus of Iranian law and practice. Missionary activity, as I mentioned, is discouraged and there are occasional arrests made. But unless the person has done much worse things, they are let go pretty much immediately.

Again, in theory, but none in practice. In practice, conversion is discouraged. And when it is notorious and done in a way to further encouragement conversion, it can lead to legal prosecution and usually a light sentence unless it involves a repeat offender, in which case longer sentences may be applied.

 

A good example of lies, nonsense, and propaganda. She was arrested and charged with conspiracy (with her lover) in the murder of her husband. She was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, served a 9 year sentence, was freed from jail in 2014. The rest was a sad example of how criminal cases in Iran are misreported and made into things they are not.

 

It is hard to cite a western report about a criminal case in IRAN, since all these reports are infested with lies fed to them by the usual suspects. Otherwise, the charges against Sakineh Ashtiani and the evidence against her were both clear. The charge had been murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The person she and her lover killed was her husband. She confessed to the crime, with her confession carried on Iranian television. It was an open and shut case, with a lot of evidence against her. But because she had a lover, and they had both conspired to commit the murder, her lawyer decided the best way to represent her client was to make this case about something else.

The fantasy land reporting continued even AFTER she was freed. But a few years after the manufactured outrage over this women facing a death sentence (even stoning) for adultery, when the case against her was ALWAYS about murder (the poor husband was murdered after all), there was a small piece in one of the media which had been running the lies about her case in the first place. The lies still embedded in the piece.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ashtiani-freed-after-9-years-on-death-row-5gk8c3nnds7

I hope you guys can follow the inconsistencies in this report. But regardless, I am pretty sure most of you would prefer to be in Ms. Sakineh Ashtiani's shoes than her poor murdered husband!
Great society some of you have in mind!

 

Yeah, but secular psychotics are mainly on the left. ANTIFA? BLM? Others too numerous to mention.

 

3rd World craphole where the “men” try to make themselves feel like men by beating women...