Iran Hangs Former Soccer Player's Mistress

reply to post by Xcathdra


My dear friend this is not due to anti American sentiment.

Americans are good people, their governors are not. I as well live in a corrupt country (Canada) that does not represent the majority of the people or their opinions.

Do not take offense when we point out the wrongful doings of your elected officials. It is not directed towards you or the American people.

The same goes to Iranian folk, they know that the majority of Americans do not share the same opinion of your government. I doubt you would blame all Iranians for the extreme laws enforced by the Ayotallah.

I apologize to the OP, I just read the rest of the posts from the time I posted until now.


Mahmoud is just a figurehead just like Obama and has no say in any decision making.

There are many countries that practice barbaric acts such as killing people unjustly for crimes they MAY have committed.

This thread was against Iranian practice of the death penalty, and some posters pointed out that many other countries such as the USA do this as well.

I am a Canadian, and love my American neighbors. This divide that his been happening lately is what the TPTB want. We need to overcome the BS and stick together, as all citizens of the world deserve true freedom and democracy.

Sadly none of us truly experience this. I doubt any civilization EVER has really been a true democracy.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I dont take offense to it when people go after the US. Its a free society here, and all it does is reinforce the belief that its ok to question and criticise government and laws without fear of being killed.

My irritation is the defensiveness from people who ignore the post, and go off on a seperate tangent to fire back at the US, which has nothing to do with the post or the questions it asks.

People constantly say the US ignores issues, yet these very same people saying this, ignore their own issues.

The underlying issue is:

The Quran lays out how the legal system works, and how muslims are to live their lives, and their is nothing wrong with that to those who freely choose to live that way of life.

I fail to understand how the Quran, which spells it out, can have such a wide interpretation by people in positions of authority in IRan. How do these people justify their actions when its in clear oppostiion to whats expected.

Its like the boy who had his hand amputated for stealing food (somalia I beleive). They invoked Sharia Law for the judgment. The problem is it forbids the amputation of a hand when the theft is solely for stealing food.

reply to post by Xcathdra



You are correct, it appears we have gone off topic and have turned your thread around on you. I hate it when this happens. I apologize, and we should focus on your original topic. Even though some of the other posters were making good points. It seems we were kind of trolling you in an unintentional way.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Iran Hangs Former Soccer Player's Mistress

Source

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran on Wednesday hanged a former soccer player's mistress — known as a "temporary wife — who was convicted of murdering her love rival in a case that captivated the Iranian public for several years.
Shahla Jahed was hanged at dawn, after spending more than eight years in jail for the slaying of the player's wife, the official IRNA news agency reported.
Jahed had become what is known as a "temporary wife" of former soccer star Nasser Mohammad Khani. She was charged in 2002 with stabbing his wife, Laleh Saharkhizan, to death and convicted of murder in 2004 and again in 2009, after her appeal was denied.
Contracts with "temporary wives" are a legal way for Iranian men to have mistresses outside marriage, with the agreements lasting from between several hours to a few years.

edit on 1-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

No no no.
This can't be right!
I thought that wholy Koran forbids a man to have a mistress.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You are correct, it appears we have gone off topic and have turned your thread around on you. I hate it when this happens. I apologize, and we should focus on your original topic. Even though some of the other posters were making good points. It seems we were kind of trolling you in an unintentional way.

I appologize as well, as I am not trying to attack Islam or anyones views.

I dont mind drawing paralells and debating the pros and cons of respective systems. My post was not to single out Islam, or Sharia law. It was to put a spotlight on the people who are considered experts in Sharia Law, and how the interpretations can be so different.

Its very structured, yet highly interchangable with no apparent consitency. This is what I am going for, in that how does a person knowthey are breaking the law, when the law is in place after the crime took place.

reply to post by Xcathdra


"Iran Hangs Former Soccer Player's Mistress "

"She was executed for committing a murder"

"the judges said her confession was thrown out because it was acquired under duress. "

"The cause of this was the murder. I know you are looking for a way to attack Islam"

"After she was executed, her confession was thrown out. Sadly this happens in the US too"

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

"Iran Hangs Former Soccer Player's Mistress "

"She was executed for committing a murder"

"the judges said her confession was thrown out because it was acquired under duress. "

"The cause of this was the murder. I know you are looking for a way to attack Islam"

"After she was executed, her confession was thrown out. Sadly this happens in the US too"

Was there something you wanted to add or just pointing out the post again?

It seems that whenever any internal issues about Iran is the topic it is "Automatically assumed" that it is an attack on Islam....


While if it was the US in the story it is viewed as proof of how corrupt the US is.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I do not think the OP was attacking Islam. I think the OP was diplomatic in the manner they approached their point of view.

If anything the OP has a misunderstanding of the Koran and Islam. But I myself am no expert.

I love all religions and race and do not judge people for any of these things, and I also try to learn as much as I can about all cultures. It has always been an interest of mine.

Is anyone here familiar with the Koran?

From what I hear there are Islamic laws that allow temporary marriage contracts. If this is true, then it is not a breach of Islamic faith.

Any experts able to clarify this?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Thank you... This is what I was going for.. and the one time Ooozzy is nowhere to be found. This is all I am looking at is what the basis of law is, and how the laws interpretation is extrapolated. When a judge passes a sentence what is the criteria he is required (if applicable) to use, and where does it come from?

How is evidence weighed by the judge, and what criteria, if any, is in place when considering evidence.

As a side note to others who might take offense to this thread I ask this.

Instead of bringing up other issues in other countries, take the time and try to explain how this one topic works so we can better understand the process. Whether or not we agree with each other is irrelevant in this case, because I am looking to learn something new.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I sent a msg to Ooozzyy asking him to read and offer info on this.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
This is right up there with jailers being allowed to "marry" females who are sentenced to death so they can "legally" rape them before sentece is carried out.

Wait, what? Is there a specific case you're referring to? Consider my morbid curiosity piqued.

Muta have been argued between Muslims for a long time.

- The pros for Muta claim that it is legal and OK because marriage is simply a contract between a woman and a man. If both parties agree to it, then it is OK.

- The pros use culture to prove it is OK, for example there are instances in Hadith where Muta is referred to as being OK.

---------

_ The cons for Muta claim that it is illegal and bad because it equates to prostitution. It is bad because it creates rifts within society, and destroys the fabric of society, which is a family.

_ The cons also use culture but to prove it is not OK, because there are other instances of Hadith where Muta is said to be wrong and illegal.

---------

What does the Quran say?
The Quran describes marriage as a contract between a man and a woman.

The Quran describes marriage as long term, it isn't for lust.
Why do I say the Quran describes marriage as long term? Because the terms for divorce is "disagreements":

004.130
"BUT IF THEY DISAGREE (AND MUST PART), Allah will provide abundance for all from His all-reaching bounty: for Allah is He that careth for all and is Wise."

What does the above mean? The above means that you are to separate (divorce), if you have disagreements amongst each other.
The above means that Muta is not legal, because Muta causes separation (divorce), not due to disagreements, but due to agreements (hence you agree to separate after a period of time).




If it was allowed for you to marry and then divorce based on the marriage contract, on a specified time, then the Quran wouldn't have set conditions for divorce.

Hence

The Quran has many conditions for divorce, some more examples include the fear of hardship, the fear of assault, mental stress etc..


Hope the above adds a little to the discussion, I discussed this issue many times with my Shiite Afghani friend in University, he said his dad used to go to Iran and do his thing (you know, marry then jiggy jiggy).

reply to post by Pseudonaut


New Prison-Rape Allegations In Iran Bring Practice To Light

Iran virgin prisoners raped for 'legal' executions

Report: Iranian Militias Marry, Rape Virgin Prisoners Before Executions

Execution of a teenage girl

reply to post by oozyism


Thank you for responding, I appriciate it. A few follow up questions though, although I am going to single out Iran specifically here because its the topic, so not sure if you can answer the questions or not. If not if you wouldnt mind using any paralells that might shed light on the subject.

In what manner can discretion be used when dealing with issues like this in terms of criminal behavior? If Sharia law is specific in terms of what is a crime and what is not, how are judges able to "ignore" Sharia law to use their own view?

Or are their interpretations considered to be in bounds because of there knowledge o the law?

Is that not violating Sharia law or the Quran to act beyond or whats intended?

How exactly does a person become a judge for a Sharia court?

Based on any experiences or stories, has there ever been a case of a judge being removed for violating doctrine?

The focus of my questions is on the people who interpret and hand down sentences based on the law, and not so much the law itself.

I am not sure if I am askin these questions correctly, so my bad if not.

Also, reference the post above with the articles linked. If you have time and you dont mind, can you check a few out and offer some insight as to the acceptability of the alledged violations in Sharia law and how the standard being used to make it "legal" to rape then execute a person.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Sharia law is culture mixed with Quran.

That is what most of the Muslim nations in the world uses for their courts.

Quran is supposed to be the only source of Islam.

Muslims have taken culture today because they refuse to advance, why>? Because they think they can't do any better, they think that culture of the past, the culture from the Golden Age of Islam can't be surpassed. I for one believe they are dead wrong, and the Quran thinks they are dead wrong, because they Quran says those who follow their forefathers blindly are misguided.

How can a judge be fired? If the judge makes judgement outside the boundary of Quran.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Pseudonaut

 

New Prison-Rape Allegations In Iran Bring Practice To Light

Iran virgin prisoners raped for 'legal' executions

Report: Iranian Militias Marry, Rape Virgin Prisoners Before Executions

Execution of a teenage girl

It is illegal to forcefully marry anyone.

Marriage is agreements from both sides, and if their is disagreements divorce is filed.

No one is to be married forcefully, it is strictly against Islam and Quran.

reply to post by oozyism


Thank you...

If the judge is outside of the Quran, how is it handled? We have a few examples from the links above talking about the forced marriage, yet the judges are still in their job.

Is it because they are considered experts in Sharia / Islam, or does it fall on the side of the Iranian Government making it up as they go along?

reply to post by Xcathdra

I fail to understand how Iran thinks it has any right to criticise any nation on their internal laws aftr seeing these types of stories coming out of their country.

Then you must feel the same way about every country, unless of course, you feel that your country is perfect.(don't worry, I'll shatter that bubble too)

So while its forbidden to have any type of relationship outside of marriage, with the result being death if you do, its permissable to get around that by having a temporary wife. How is that not a violation of the Quran?

It is okay that you don't understand what is going on here, as I'm pretty sure there are a lot of things you cannot understand. You obviously need to grow up when you say "while it is forbidden" - as if that puts a magical seal on the action enabling you, the non-believer and not-knowledgable, to point your finger and judge. It is a valid question yes, but also one that shows the lack of insight in the real world.

First and foremost, and this is a very serious question, how do you KNOW that the clergies, judges and lawyers who say they uphold some law based on the Quran actually do so? How do you know that individual judges etc. do not interpret laws based on bribes/threats?

I fail to understand how Islam, which we have seen as being very strict in these areas, is able to be interprested in such a broad manner when it comes to men in their society.

This is because you don't understand a lot of things. You ASSUME that because people say they are experts on the Koran they are. You ASSUME that because people say certain things or behave in a certain way it is according to the Koran, and not their individual social standing which enables them to interpret whatever they want in whichever way, and have dumb folks(much like yourself) join them or fight them.

Ah, another expert on US law, and judging by the comment I am assuming you are not American, which explains the blanket comment about the US while placing it in the wrong context to divert.

I can string words together in long sentences too as you may have read, the thing is though, that mine make sense while you hardly understand the meaning of the words you use. However, I will make it easy to understand(how the hell you didn't get what the poster meant is beyond me but your ignorance explains a lot):

WHEN A FAMOUS PERSON IN THE US IS INVOLVED IN A MURDER, RAPE, DRUG-CASE etc. etc. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT JUSTICE IS NEVER SERVED? HOW ABOUT A POLITICIAN?(caps are apt)

I am attacking the manner in which Islamic Law is applied to people.

Of which you know nothing, but that's okay, let's all assume stuff and point fingers at entire countries, generalizing, while demanding the same not be done to America without realizing that our Western democractic law is also not applied to people in a way that screams justice, but rather MONEY.

I was referring to Iran being blocked from the UN comission on Womens rights.

As it should be, as well as America for its abuse of women on such a large scale, most of the modern Western world for molding women into sex objects in the eyes of the many - in fact, NOBODY should be part of that because womens rights are still not represented ANYWHERE! Though, I will give you credit for the sneak attack.

No its does not. Provide evidence to back this claim up please.

What an utter fail. Do you think that kind of information would be released without a fight? Of course not. Take a look at wikileaks! Take a look at all the corruption in the US justice system.

If a women in this country kills someone, their is an investigation. The difference betwen our legal system and IRans is we dont beat confessions out of people.

Of course you don't, you just waterboard the confessions out of people.

It has everything to do with Islamic Law, because it is the foundation of the elgal system of Iran, and invoked in criminal cases. How can the Quran, which is specific in terms of how Muslims live their lives and treat others, yet be interpreted by people in such a broad manner it almost appears to be contradictory.

How can your CONSTITUTION be interpreted in such a broad manner that it doesn't appear contradictory but it is contradictory? Could it have something to do with the corrupt folks at the top of the pyramid?

I dont take offense to it when people go after the US. Its a free society here, and all it does is reinforce the belief that its ok to question and criticise government and laws without fear of being killed.

Unless of course, you have something of value to share with the world about the US. You are free to sell your ass, do drugs, rave and rant all you want, as long as it doesn't make people aware of certain sticky situations the US is in. Wikileaks, banning of Alex Jones, TSA, etc. etc.

Is it because they are considered experts in Sharia / Islam, or does it fall on the side of the Iranian Government making it up as they go along?

You have a LOT to learn about the world you live in, as most people in power make things up as they go along.

All in all you posed a very good question and now you know that the bastards in power only act out of self-interest.

I fail to understand how Iran thinks it has any right to criticise any nation

Same goes for you and America. Same goes for every country on this planet.

reply to post by Zamini


Next time please read the thread all the way through before attacking me. If you did you would have seen the topic placed back on track with a civil discussion resulting from it.