The Stoning of Soraya M. ---film

[Pure]

this is a film recreating events surrounding the stoning of a woman accused of adultery.
the events actually took place in iran in 1986, and were reported afterwards by a french-iranian journalist. the director is iranian-american, and the lead actress, agadashloo, is a famous iranian, who appeared in "house of sand and fog." the director gives a lot of attention, besides the event itself, to reactions of others to this obvious evil. who opposes, who goes along with, and so on.

lest this become a "compare Christianity and Islam" thread, i remind readers of the execution of Mary Latham in Massachusetts colony in 1642. death for adultery being what this xian colony had on its books.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3643/is_199701/ai_n8750709/pg_4/


trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XyKyOhNsSA

http://incontention.com/?p=9115

director interview on radio:
http://odeo.com/episodes/24755139-The-Stoning-of-Soraya-M-Cyrus-Nowrasteh-interview

the filmmaker references this older film of the same theme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ox-Bow_Incident

 

[Teloz]

I've not watched it, I couldn't bear to. Evil! Evil! Evil!

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Thank you, Pure, for bringing this film to my attention. I had not heard of it until today. But, I was aware of this horrible form of punishment because of a stoning I saw a while ago on the Internet. The woman wore the blue veil and burka required by the Taliban in Afghanistan and she was stoned for "adultery." It was truly one of the most horrible things I have ever seen, and the fact that such things still happen amazes me. I realize of course that these events took place in the 1980s and 90s, but it's hard to believe that. Awful.

 

[Boxlicker101]

this is a film recreating events surrounding the stoning of a woman accused of adultery.
the events actually took place in iran in 1986, and were reported afterwards by a french-iranian journalist. the director is iranian-american, and the lead actress, agadashloo, is a famous iranian, who appeared in "house of sand and fog." the director gives a lot of attention, besides the event itself, to reactions of others to this obvious evil. who opposes, who goes along with, and so on.

lest this become a "compare Christianity and Islam" thread, i remind readers of the execution of Mary Latham in Massachusetts colony in 1642. death for adultery being what this xian colony had on its books.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3643/is_199701/ai_n8750709/pg_4/


trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XyKyOhNsSA

http://incontention.com/?p=9115

director interview on radio:
http://odeo.com/episodes/24755139-The-Stoning-of-Soraya-M-Cyrus-Nowrasteh-interview

the filmmaker references this older film of the same theme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ox-Bow_Incident

I don't think of it as comparing the two faiths; I think of it as being illustrative of what happens when religious fanatics are in charge. Plymouth Colony was another example, and here is another one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_Parliament

It was also the reason why two wives of King Henry VIII were put to death.

ETA: I have said many negative things about Muslim fanatics, but I have never said anything negative without including such words as terrorists or fundies or similar words.

 

[Pure]

thanks, box,

for drawing my attention to the rump parliament, of which wiki says,

During the time of the Commonwealth of England (1649–1653), the Rump passed a number of acts in the areas of religion, law, and finance. Most of the members of the Rump wanted to promote "godliness", but also to restrict the more extreme puritan sects like the Quakers and the Ranters. An Adultery Act of May 1650 imposed the death penalty for incest and adultery and 3 months imprisonment for fornication;[2]

you mention 'fanatics' being in charge. yes. but they don't seem so at the time.

however your mention of Henry VIII, and his execution of wives, brings up a key point of the movie: corruption. the wives weren't guilty of anything, nor was Soraya.

so one point of the movie, beyond 'here's a case of a terrible penalty being exacted' [world history rife with examples]. is that it was a set up. a corrupt move that was approved or permitted by the majority.

do you see my point? it's one thing to say 'string up the rapist'; it's another to say, of someone "inconvenient", "he is a rapist", then lynch him.
==

NOTE: the original account [the stoning of soraya m], by journalist sahebjam, is a google book, at

http://books.google.ca/books?id=2ZQ...esult&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The problem with the ultraconservative muslims in the middle east is they are still trying to adjudicate in the middle ages by keeping women in a second class role. How many men are stoned for adultry? And this is not the only case of the sexist judicial system in the muslim world - the princess beheaded in Saudi Arabia some years back comes to mind.

These case may get the headlines, but they are not the mainstream. I have friends who are muslims living here. Do you ever hear of this kind of thing in Indonesia? Or other non-arab countries? Of course not.

It's a terrible tragidy that this still occurs.

 

[Boxlicker101]

for drawing my attention to the rump parliament, of which wiki says,

During the time of the Commonwealth of England (1649–1653), the Rump passed a number of acts in the areas of religion, law, and finance. Most of the members of the Rump wanted to promote "godliness", but also to restrict the more extreme puritan sects like the Quakers and the Ranters. An Adultery Act of May 1650 imposed the death penalty for incest and adultery and 3 months imprisonment for fornication;[2]

you mention 'fanatics' being in charge. yes. but they don't seem so at the time.

however your mention of Henry VIII, and his execution of wives, brings up a key point of the movie: corruption. the wives weren't guilty of anything, nor was Soraya.

so one point of the movie, beyond 'here's a case of a terrible penalty being exacted' [world history rife with examples]. is that it was a set up. a corrupt move that was approved or permitted by the majority.

do you see my point? it's one thing to say 'string up the rapist'; it's another to say, of someone "inconvenient", "he is a rapist", then lynch him.
==

NOTE: the original account [the stoning of soraya m], by journalist sahebjam, is a google book, at

http://books.google.ca/books?id=2ZQ...esult&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false

There are probably some people who do not regard the Taliban or the rulers of Iran as fanatics, but most people in the world think they are. The people of England at the time of Cromwell probably thought of him and his minions as fanatics, but there wasn't much they could do about it. The Puritan rulers of the Plymouth Colony were fanatics, but many of their followers stuck with them because they shared the beliefs and indoctrinated their children in them. Some, such as Roger Williams, saw them for what they were and left, but this was a drastic thing to do at the time.

Anne Bolyn was probably innocent of any wrong doing, but she was an inconvenience to Henry, so the charges were trumped up. At least, that is what I believe to be the truth. Kathryn Howard was probably guilty of adultery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Howard Even so, the penalty was much to severe. I don't know about Soraya but, even if she did commit adultery, her punishment even more excessive.

I fully agree that the law must protect the innocent, even from itself.

ETA: I fully agree with what Jenny says, that the laws throughout the Muslim world are frequently sexist in the extreme. Much of the western world has had similar laws, although usually not as extreme, but not for a long time. They were wrong then and they are still wrong.

 

[Pure]

note to box.

you say,
Much of the western world has had similar laws, although usually not as extreme, but not for a long time.

our examples of executions in the 1600s create, in some ways, a misleading impression. it would be more accurate to say that England and W European nations, in the last centurey, did not have a law imposing a death penalty on adulteresses. rather, the law simply excused those carrying out the penalty on private initiative, through including an explicit 'loophole'. note the date on the following article, as to when England closed hole--officially, at least, for wife killing.


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4419708.ece

July 29, 2008

Murder law shake-up ends ‘crime of passion’

Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

The traditional crime of passion is to be swept away in the most radical overhaul of the murder laws in 50 years.
The reforms, including a defence for people who kill when they feel “seriously wronged”, would result in life sentences for about 100 killers a year who currently escape murder convictions by claiming that they were provoked by unfaithful or nagging spouses. At the same time, people who kill because they feel seriously wronged by someone’s “words and conduct” could escape a murder conviction under a new partial defence.

==
earlier story in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jan/19/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

Crime of passion' is no defence

[[The Observer, Sunday 19 January 2003 02.22 GMT ]]


Husbands who claim their partner's nagging or infidelity drove them to kill will face much tougher sentences under a government shake-up of so-called 'crimes of passion'.
Ministers are secretly reviewing the defence of provocation, which has its origins in the bygone tradition of men fighting duels, under which a defendant can evade a murder charge by arguing that their victim did or said something that made them lose control.
Ministers argue that it reflects a medieval view of marriage, in which a man whose honour is insulted by a domineering or unfaithful wife is entitled to fatal revenge rather than a divorce. It also encourages defendants to blacken the victim's name in court, painting her as a bad wife.
The review will prompt impassioned debate over modern relationships, with critics likely to argue that men instinctively respond differently than women to infidelity and that 'feminising' the law is unfair.

 

[Boxlicker101]

you say,
Much of the western world has had similar laws, although usually not as extreme, but not for a long time.

our examples of executions in the 1600s create, in some ways, a misleading impression. it would be more accurate to say that England and W European nations, in the last centurey, did not have a law imposing a death penalty on adulteresses. rather, the law simply excused those carrying out the penalty on private initiative, through including an explicit 'loophole'. note the date on the following article, as to when England closed hole--officially, at least, for wife killing.


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4419708.ece

July 29, 2008

Murder law shake-up ends ‘crime of passion’

Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

The traditional crime of passion is to be swept away in the most radical overhaul of the murder laws in 50 years.
The reforms, including a defence for people who kill when they feel “seriously wronged”, would result in life sentences for about 100 killers a year who currently escape murder convictions by claiming that they were provoked by unfaithful or nagging spouses. At the same time, people who kill because they feel seriously wronged by someone’s “words and conduct” could escape a murder conviction under a new partial defence.

==
earlier story in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jan/19/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

Crime of passion' is no defence

[[The Observer, Sunday 19 January 2003 02.22 GMT ]]


Husbands who claim their partner's nagging or infidelity drove them to kill will face much tougher sentences under a government shake-up of so-called 'crimes of passion'.
Ministers are secretly reviewing the defence of provocation, which has its origins in the bygone tradition of men fighting duels, under which a defendant can evade a murder charge by arguing that their victim did or said something that made them lose control.
Ministers argue that it reflects a medieval view of marriage, in which a man whose honour is insulted by a domineering or unfaithful wife is entitled to fatal revenge rather than a divorce. It also encourages defendants to blacken the victim's name in court, painting her as a bad wife.
The review will prompt impassioned debate over modern relationships, with critics likely to argue that men instinctively respond differently than women to infidelity and that 'feminising' the law is unfair.

The 1600's were a long time ago. When I said the laws were less extreme, I meant the punishments were hanging or beheading, not stoning to death.

There used to be something called "The unwritten law" which would partially excuse a man who murdered his wife when he caught her in the act of adultery. I suppose the law also applied to women who killed their husbands under the same circumstances. At least, I like to think it would have.

It amounted to a defense of temporary insanity. Of course, that would have been an impulsive act. Gathering up friends and relatives and dragging your wife out into a field and partially burying her and stoning her to death would never have been found to be anything but First Degree Murder.

Even now, a "crime of passion" is punished less severely than poisoning somebudy or setting a trap or an ambush or some other planned thing. A homocide that is a sudden, impulsive act would usually result in a conviction of Manslaughter, which rates less of a sentence than Firsdt Degree Murder.

 

[Pure]

Christians on stoning and adultery

St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica, Question 60 [Of Wife Murder], Article 1.

I answer that, It happens in two ways that a husband kills his wife. First, by a civil judgment; and thus there is no doubt that a husband, moved by zeal for justice and not by vindictive anger or hatred can, without sin, bring a criminal accusation of adultery upon his wife before a secular court, and demand that she receive capital punishment as appointed by the law; just as it is lawful to accuse a person of murder or any other crime.

===
Calvin in the Commentary on Genesis

"The Law commands that adulterers be stoned..."

Calvin downplays the incident in John, of the woman taken in adultery.

[cited in The Christian Polity of John Calvin, by H. Hopfl, p. 183]

==

Present day British Christian site endorsing Calvin's view that Christ did not abolish the death penalty for adultery; IOW stoning is the correctly prescribed penalty in the law*, one affirmed by Christians.

*though some variation in method of execution might be considered. as i, pure, read it.

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Articles/Adultery.html

 

[Boxlicker101]

St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica, Question 60 [Of Wife Murder], Article 1.

I answer that, It happens in two ways that a husband kills his wife. First, by a civil judgment; and thus there is no doubt that a husband, moved by zeal for justice and not by vindictive anger or hatred can, without sin, bring a criminal accusation of adultery upon his wife before a secular court, and demand that she receive capital punishment as appointed by the law; just as it is lawful to accuse a person of murder or any other crime.

===
Calvin in the Commentary on Genesis

"The Law commands that adulterers be stoned..."

Calvin downplays the incident in John, of the woman taken in adultery.

[cited in The Christian Polity of John Calvin, by H. Hopfl, p. 183]

==

Present day British Christian site endorsing Calvin's view that Christ did not abolish the death penalty for adultery; IOW stoning is the correctly prescribed penalty in the law*, one affirmed by Christians.

*though some variation in method of execution might be considered. as i, pure, read it.

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Articles/Adultery.html

After reading that crackpot's opinion, I am really glad of the Separation of Churgh and State in western nations.

Even then, I doubt that very many people would actually endorse such views. Partly because there are so few who are without sin and could cast the first stone, and partly because it is a dumb idea in the first place.