Punishments Under Islamic Law
in the Islamic Republic of Iran

by Mehrtash Rastegar

It is needless to state that the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has issued and carried out innumerous physical punishments that have not only shocked the very moral conscience of humanity, but have violated the international human rights laws that bind the IRI. The punishments of flogging, amputation and stoning that take place in the IRI have been proven to violate the human right to be free from torture, cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1. The authorities in the IRI rely on Islamic law (Shari'a) to justify their barbaric acts 2 . Given the IRI hides behind the dictates of the Shari'a when violating human rights, the relevant provisions of the Shari'a will be explored in assessing whether the IRI have in fact honoured the dictates of Shari'a, or whether they have deviated grossly from its guidance. In any event, this paper does not seek to promote nor attack the religion of Islam.

Crime and Punishment Under Shari'a

By virtue of the Quran:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides" 3

The interpretation of this verse is that one who makes 'mischief in the land', or wages war against God is one who violates the Islamic criminal laws by perpetrating either apostasy, transgression, murder, adultery or theft; one who breaches the peace of society 4 . Bassiouni 5 argues that the extreme nature of physical punishments is designed for those with a tendency to commit crime, that if the penalty is not an effective deterrent then people with criminal tendencies will commit crimes without fear, and may even encourage others to do so 6. This may serve as an explanation as to why such physical punishments are harsh in nature - the defence of the 'deterrent argument'; however, where the human right to physical integrity 7 is concerned, such reasoning may be weak as it directly conflicts with such a human right.

Nevertheless, harsh physical punishments are implemented in both Sunni and Shiite criminal law. In Shia jurisprudence 8, Shiite Muslims follow the dictates of the Quran, and the hadith of the Shia Imams of the Jafari Madhab - the recognised Shia school of jurisprudence , which comprises of the practices of the Prophet and of Imam Ali 9 and his descending blood-line as legitimate sources of Shari'a 10. Shia Iran, being a follower of the Jafari Madhab School of jurisprudence11 , endorses a patriarchal hierarchical structure of the clergy; thus, Islamic rulings are created by Imams, who interpret Islamic law for Shiites to follow. However, both Sunni and Shiites implement the revelations of the Quran into Islamic Shari'a and share similarities in their hadith; thus, the physical punishments stipulated in the Shari'a are administered in both branches of Islam.

Referring to the Constitution of Iran, Article 71 empowers the Islamic Consultative Assembly with the authority to 'establish laws on all matters, within the limits of its competence as laid down in the Constitution'. Article 73 of the Constitution accords the judiciary with discretionary interpretative powers on points of law. Thus, the interpretation of the criminal code stipulated in the Quran is determined by the ruling clerics in Iran. Such systems of the hierarchical clergy act as the intermediary link between the Muslims in Iran and the Shari'a. Most Iranians, for example, cannot speak Arabic, as they can only speak their native language - Farsi; as a result, they cannot directly consult the Quran in understanding it, they need to consult the clerics in order to comprehend what the revelations dictate. Even then, such people are receiving the cleric's version of the revelations, rather than being able to draw their own inferences from the Quran. This is a main component in the clergy's mechanics in maintaining power in Iran 12 - for as long as Iranian people follow Islam and need the clergy as intermediary agents, the clergy remain in power.

Ultimately, the hadd punishments (punishments prescribed directly from Islam's primary source - Quran/Hadith) remain the same amongst Sunnis and Shiites; the relevant prescribed Shari'a punishments will be addressed, in analysing the practice and Penal Code of Iran.

Amputation

This punishment is commonly applied for the offence of theft. In order for such a punishment to be executed, the theft must have occurred by the trespassing and taking of, without permission, property belonging to another person; the act must not be a result of state-neglect nor famine in order for the hadd to apply 13 . The Iranian Penal Code also stipulates such provisions 14 . In executing the sentence, the first four fingers of the right hand is severed so that the thumb and palm remain; the wound is then cauterised in boiling oil 15 .

The amputation of the thief's limb is articulated in the Quran:

"As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands, a punishment by way of example, from God for their crime" 16

Thus, declaring that Islamic Shari'a prescribes the amputation of the limb(s) of the offending thief. However, if the theft is a result of state-neglect, rendering the thief destitute or impoverished, then the prescribed punishment shall be waived 17. By virtue of this rule, no thief should suffer the punishment of amputation in Iran at current, due to the fact that 'at least fourteen million Iranians live below the poverty line'18 . Inflation rates are reaching thirty percent, which makes it one of the highest rates in the world; poverty had increased, from 18 to 19 percent, between the first and second year of President Ahmadinejad's administration 19 . Yet, in light of such circumstances, 'double-amputations' were carried out in January 200820 . Given that such is the dismal state of welfare and economics in Iran, hungry and desperate thieves should be excused from amputation under the reasoning of the Shari'a. The ruling powers in Iran have evidently disregarded the dictates of the Shari'a concerning the criminal procedure of theft; they have demonstrated that they adopt the provisions of the Shari'a that best suits their desires and interests, such as that of a 'pick 'n mix' buffet.

Flogging

The corporal punishment of flogging has been established as the hadd for certain types of Hudud offences, such as fornication, consuming alcohol, and slander. Furthermore, flogging has been implemented by various Islamic countries as punishment for Ta'zir - where punishment is not prescribed by the primary sources, jurists are at liberty to determine the punishment - offences. Under Ta'zir, issues pertaining to the infringement of private or community interests of the public order are addressed 21. Flogging, therefore, is a type of punishment that can readily be applied; once the flogging has been completed, the individual may return to their daily affairs, rather than endure the loss of liberty through imprisonment. The number of lashes administered varies from scholar to scholar; thereby, the number of lashes prescribed by judges varies from case to case.

The hadd for fornication is prescribed by the Quran as "[T]he woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes"22 . Evidently, flogging applies to fornication; however, the conditions of having four credible male witnesses present to testify to the commission of the act must be satisfied 23. This would require the act of fornication to be conducted in what may be tantamount to performing in public - something that in reality would not occur. In the event of the individual confessing to having committed fornication, such a punishment can be administered.

The consumption of alcohol has been prohibited in the Quran 24, and it has been held that the Prophet of Islam prescribed flogging as its punishment. However, the number of lashes has not been specified; therefore, the administration of lashes for consuming alcohol falls within the scope of Ta'zir 25 . However, there are some reports that the hadith has prescribed eighty lashes as punishment 26 . In light of such, it prima facie appears that Iran has, to some degree, complied with the Shari'a pertaining to the administration of flogging as a punishment27 . However, for cases concerning political detainees, and detainees such as Zahra Kazemi, there is no rule of law contained within the Shari'a that promotes or prescribes flogging to be administered. One may spend hours searching through the vast records of the hadith and the Quran, and all that one will find with regards to the treatment of prisoners is one must "...feed with food the…prisoner, for love of Him" 28. In providing the prisoner with 'food', the Quran illustrates that one must demonstrate a standard of humanity towards their prisoner, respecting the human dignity of the detained. Therefore, the government of Iran are in breach of this revelation by resorting to the use of flogging, and inflicting reprehensible acts of violence against detainees.

The reader will find that people are being executed and publicly flogged in Iran at incredible rates, where some 36 people in one month were flogged up to 99 lashes each for being present at a party and providing tuition on musical instruments 29. 'Threatening state-security', 'insulting the Supreme Leader', and 'acting against the Islamic Republic of Iran'30 are charges that have been exhausted and over-used in arresting and incarcerating ordinary Iranian civilians. The Islamic Government of Iran are abusing their power and are manipulating the texts of the Shari'a in order to further their own interests - to maintain power.

Stoning

The rule of the Islamic Government has a stranglehold over the people of Iran; so much so that within the thirty-one years of their reign of tyranny, Iran has become notorious for having one of the most shamefully highest rates of executions in the international community 31 . Unfortunately, a high proportion of the executions include the hanging of minors 32, and the stoning of what appears to be mostly women for charges of extra-marital sexual relations. The Shari'a regards extra-marital sexual relations as an offence , labeling it as the offence of 'Zina' (adultery); Zina is one of the Islamic offences that falls within the hudud category. The pertinent hadd applies to any Muslim adulterer/adulteress who is of sound mind, and is fully aware of their actions and performs such actions with intent; they must be of full age and understanding at the time of the offence33 . There is no provision in the Quran that expressly accounts for the commission of 'adultery'. The Quran prescribes the punishment of one hundred lashes, "stripes", against the 'fornicatress' and 'fornicator' 34. To fornicate is to engage in pre-marital sex, whereas adultery pertains to extra-marital sex. Therefore, the Quran prima facie addresses the offence of fornication rather than adultery, and prescribes flogging as punishment and not stoning.

The only other primary source of the Shari'a is the Sunnah, which has been recorded in the hadith, prescribing lapidation for the offence of adultery:

"A man came to Allah's Apostle...saying 'I have committed an illegal sexual intercourse'...The Prophet turned his face away from him...and when he confessed four times, the Prophet...said 'Are you mad?'... 'No'... 'Are you married?'... 'Yes'. The Prophet said 'take him away and stone him to death' ... and we stoned him ... to death" 35

It is evident from this hadith that the Prophet applied the hadd of stoning for the offence of adultery; therefore, one may infer that, in effect the, Shari'a does in fact prescribe death by stoning as the punishment for adultery.

However, there have been some interpretational difficulties with the arguments of scholars regarding the actual prescribed punishment of stoning for committing adultery - Bassiouni argues that the Prophet ordered the adulterers to be stoned before the 'advent of the Quran's provision that provides flogging'36 . However, according to a hadith 37, it is not known whether the Prophet ordered the punishment of stoning before or after the revelation of Surat An-Nur. If the Prophet made the order for stoning after the Quranic revelation, then one would infer that the flogging is administered against the fornicator, as stipulated in the Quran, and stoning applies to the adulterer; thus, regarding the Prophet's practice as a complementary expansion on the offence of Zina. Otherwise, one would adopt Bassiouni's interpretation that the latter revelation of Surat al-Nur overrides the Prophet's prescribed punishment of stoning. This uncertainty has left the faith of Islam in a serious dilemma, one that has provoked international condemnation; given Muslim States, such as Sudan, Nigeria and Iran, implement and enforce stoning as the hadd for adultery 38.

Nevertheless, even in accepting that perhaps the Shari'a does prescribe stoning against the adulterer, there are a series of stringent conditions that need to be satisfied in order for stoning to apply, as was unanimously agreed upon by Muslim scholars 39. There are two types of evidence that support the charge of adultery - a confession, and/or eye-witness testimony. Where confessionary evidence is concerned, such must be as explicit as possible, in that it should ideally state that actual sexual intercourse by way of penetration took place; this is in order to prevent any doubts or misinterpretations of the confession from arising so that an innocent individual is not punished 40 . In Shiite jurisprudence, if the confession is retracted by the accused, then the punishment will be reduced from stoning to flogging 41 . In the case of witness testimony, the testimony should be made by four males, who are of justifiable credible character; their testimonies must corroborate each others accurately with regards to the time, place, date, act and parties concerned 42. If any one or more of the witness testimonies are inaccurate or in conflict with each other, then, essentially, the punishment of stoning is waived, given doubt on the guilt of the defendant has arisen. In such a case, the witnesses will be charged under Islamic law for 'false accusation', and may be sentenced to eighty lashes 43.

In assessing the stringent requirements for establishing culpability, a number of issues arise with regards to the practicality of satisfying the requirements that could result in condemning the accused to a slow and barbaric death. The burden of providing eye-witness testimony against the accused is very heavy, as no one would be willing to risk receiving eighty lashes for providing what may consequently be false or inaccurate information; therefore it is highly improbable to find four individuals who are unequivocally certain of the accuracy of their testimonies. Furthermore, it is even more unlikely that any such witnesses would exist, given that one who seeks to engage in an extra-marital affair, involving sexual intercourse, would be absolutely cautious in order to avoid detection; such an individual would have to engage in the act in public in order for the requirement of 'four witnesses' to be satisfied in the first instance. It is highly improbable, and unlikely, that four people would witness such an act at all. As a result, the prescription of stoning can, at best, exist as a theoretical deterrent, where it can be deemed merely a threat and form of intimidation to those contemplating betraying the trust of their spouse.

In applying the above to the cases of stoning in Iran, it ensues that there should be very little or none occurring whatsoever. It is likely that one who confesses was coerced into confessing, given that no sane individual would confess to having committed adultery in knowledge that the stoning pit awaits them. Even then, such a person, according to the Shiite rule of law, which dictates the laws and practices of Iran, would almost certainly withdraw their confession and accept a hundred lashes in order to escape the abominable punishment of stoning. Yet more and more women are stoned in Iran. By this it is evident that the authorities are not only abusing, but are blatantly violating the rules of due process with regards to the evidentiary requirements in establishing the application of stoning upon the accused adulterer.

However, the IRI routinely abuse such guidelines and stringent evidential requirement, and in doing so breach international human rights law. Articles 63-104 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran pertain to the punishment of stoning. Article 104 demands that the stones that are to be cast are not to be big enough to kill by one or two throws, nor must they be so small that they cannot be called a stone. In essence, Article 104 has facilitated the provision of death by torture - the condemned is struck by stones of a size that will take a long time to die. In the case of Ng v Canada 44, in assessing the validity of such methods, the Human Rights Committee re-affirmed, as it did in its General Comment 20 45, that the execution of a death sentence "…must be carried out in such a way as to cause the least possible physical and mental suffering". Death in the 'gas chamber' is brought about by asphyxiation, which involves prolonged pain and suffering; therefore, breaching Article 7. However, Messrs Sadi and Mavrommatis dissented, arguing that death by 'stoning' was a clear and more accurate example of death by 'prolonged physical and mental suffering', which ultimately violated Article 7. Article 104 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran stipulates that the stone should not be of a size that would kill in a couple of castings - such is a blatant illustration that death by stoning is intended to result from 'prolonged physical and mental suffering'; thus, demonstrating the barbarity of the government of Iran, who are all too ready to enforce such punishments. Given that the Islamic Penal Code of Iran prescribes and practices death by stoning 46 , the dissenting judgement of the Human Rights Committee in Ng is a clear and unequivocal illustration of the illegality of such a practice, as well as the fact that it is considered to be torture; thus, violating Article 7 ICCPR.

Conclusion

In concurring with Steiner 47, torture is inherently wrong; an unjustifiable evil that violates the physical and mental integrity of the person subjected to it, negating their autonomy and human dignity. Torture is wrong because it has corrupting and depraving effects on the torturer, as well as on society at large - it can give rise to the slippery slope for resorting to the use of torture in any circumstance. The current regime in Iran has demonstrated its blatant disregard for humanity and international law by constantly and systematically violating the international prohibition of torture; the regime has expressed contempt towards the tenets of humanity by sanctioning brutal punishments, such as the stoning to death of human beings, as sentenced by its courts.

In evaluating the requisite criteria in establishing the commission of torture, cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the acts of the Islamic authorities in Iran satisfy every condition. The unofficial practices of tormenting the detainees held in State-run detention centres, such as Evin; abusing their physical and mental right to dignity; and forcing confessions by unacceptable means are commonly exercised by the authorities, so much so, that the reported deaths of some detainees have ensued 48.

The practices of Iran that have amounted to torture, cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment have sparked condemnation by the United Nations, which are largely illustrated in the U.N. Concluding Observations and Special Rapporteur reports. The provisions of the ICCPR, which bind Iran, have been breached in epic proportions; such as the Article 7 prohibition of torture, cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, as well as the Article 10 right to the humane and dignified treatment of detainees. In addition, the recognition and protection of the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of the human family - the very essence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - has been insulted, in that the Article 5 prohibition of torture, cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has been blatantly disregarded. The binding mechanisms of the Declaration, such as jus cogens and customary acceptance by way of practice, have been dishonoured; thus, violating Article 64 of the Vienna Convention.

Ultimately, the Islamic authorities in Iran have violated every relevant and applicable international legal instrument, rendering them criminals of international law. They have proven to be higher than any peremptory norm of customary international law due to the fact that for all of their violations, they have managed to continue their practices without having to succumb to the principles of accountability. The powers of the international community have not yet managed to disrupt and end their heinous and barbaric practices. The worst threat the Islamic Republic of Iran has faced so far has been a growl from the mighty paper tigers sitting in the cages that form the United Nations; it is no wonder that 'Islamic' government of Iran continues to conduct herself defiantly of international laws, when all she has to fear is a resonating roar from the international community, and no bite.

As Afshari argues, some will maintain that it is the interpretation of Islam that determines the jurisprudential effect on the people in Iran; however, problems arise when those who seek political power manipulate any interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence on State policy 49 . The result is the abuse of human rights, as conveyed in this paper, perpetrated by the Islamic government in Iran. Some views held by the ruling clerics in Iran are that violence is in the 'heart of Islam':

"We must wipe away the shameful stain whereby some people imagine that violence has no place in Islam ... violence is at the heart of Islam" 50

The previous Supreme Leader advocated men to gain sexual pleasure from babies 51 ; the current Supreme Leader, Khamenei, has argued that the UDHR is nothing more than the 'mumbo jumbo by disciples of Satan' 52. The ruling elites in Iran have demonstrated the flaws in combining State governance with religion; thus, it is imperative to have a separation of State and religion in Iran. The Islamic rule in Iran is coercive and abusive. As An-Na'im 53 maintains, there is no religious merit in coercive compliance; that no human being should have the power to control what one believes or disbelieves 54 . The vital functions of an Islamic consensus would become distorted and corrupted if State officials could control debates and disputes amongst Muslims 55; effectively, the essence contained in this warning has materialised in Iran. In addressing whether the IRI has indeed adhered to the dictates of Shari'a or whether it has grossly deviated from it, the government of the IRI have proven endlessly that they distort and violate the dictates of religion, and do not adhere to its stringent evidential requirement. The problem is they abuse religion for their own gain; the solution is the establishment of a secular and democratic govenrment. Unfortunately, ascertaining such a desirable solution has proven to be long, cumbersome and bloody; and yet the journey continues.

Bibliography

  • "Human Rights in Iran - 2004", Committee in Support of a Referendum in Iran, at http://www.referendum-iran.org/Docs/CSRI/Human%20Rights-%20in-%20Iran-CSRI%20June-2004.pdf
  • Abdel Salam Sidahmed, "Problems in Contemporary Applications of Islamic Criminal Sanctions: The Penalty for Adultery in Relation to Women", Vol.2 (Nov. 2001), British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 187-204.
  • Abdullah Ahmed An-Na'im, Islam and the Secular State, Harvard University Press, 2008.
  • Ayatollah Khomeini, Tahrirolvasyleh, 4th Edition, Darol Elm, Qom, 1990.
  • BBC News "Nine Face Stoning Death in Iran", 20 July, 2008.
  • Charles Kurzman, Liberal Islam - A Sourcebook, Oxford University Press, 1998.
  • Cherif Bassiouni, "The Death Penalty: Condemned", International Commission of Jurists, September 2000.
  • Cherif Bassiouni, The Islamic Criminal Justice System, Oceana Publications, 1984.
  • Compendium of Muslim Texts, University of Southern California, at http://www.usc.edu
  • Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, "Has Poverty Increased in Iran Under Ahmadinejad?", The Brooking Institute, 5th August, 2008.
  • Dr Mohsin Tariq Mandiwala, "Philosophy of the Concept of Punishment in Islam", Studying Islam, 6th September 2005.
  • Edward Mortimer, Islam and Human Rights, Index on Censorship, 1983.
  • Hadith compiled by Sahih Bukhari, Vol. VIII, Book 82.
  • Henry J. Steiner et al, International Human Rights in Context - Law, Politics, Morals, 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Hisham M. Ramadan, Understanding Islamic Law: From Classical to Contemporary, AltaMira Press, 2006. Moojan Momen, An Introduction to Shi'i Islam, Yale University Press, 1985.
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966.
  • Islamic Constitution of Iran.
  • Kasra Nji, "Ahmadinejad", I.B. Taurus, 2008,
  • Nazila Fathi, "Spate of Executions and Amputations in Iran", New York Times, January 11 2008.
  • Ng v Canada, Case 469/91 (5/11/93).
  • Reza Afshari, Human Rights in Iran: The Abuse of Cultural Relativism, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
  • Rudolph Peters, Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law - Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth To the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  • See "One in Five Iranians Destitute", 4 August, 2008, at http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?ArticleId=1518-1783_2369543, last visited at 12 August, 2008.
  • The Islamic Penal Code of Iran.
  • The Qur'an, Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an Inc., 1991.
  • U.N. General Comment 20 (44) on Article 7 of the Covenant (CCPR/C/21/Add.3 para.6).
  • UN Press Document, "UN Experts Appeal to Iran to Comply with Human Rights Norms in Case of Dead Journalist", 27 August 2004, at http://www2.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/hr04070e.htm.

Notes

  1. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Iran ratified this binding international legal instrument in 1975.
  2. Article 4 Islamic Constitution of Iran maintains that all matters (civil, political, penal, economic, financial and administrative) are regulated by the full effect of Islamic 'criteria'; in other words, the full effect of the Shari'a "...applies absolutely…to all articles of the constitution".
  3. Quran, 5:33, M. H. Shakir, English Translation, The Qur'an, Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an Inc., 1991.
  4. Rudolph Peters, Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law - Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth To the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  5. Cherif Bassiouni, The Islamic Criminal Justice System, Oceana Publications, 1984; see also Bassiouni, "The Death Penalty: Condemned", International Commission of Jurists, September 2000.
  6. Cherif Bassiouni, The Islamic Criminal Justice System, supra note 5, at 195-196.
  7. Article 6 ICCPR Right to Life, Article 7 ICCPR Prohibition of Torture, Cruel and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment; Article 10 ICCPR Right to Humane Treatment and Respect for Human Dignity in Detention.
  8. Hisham M. Ramadan, Understanding Islamic Law: From Classical to Contemporary, AltaMira Press, 2006, at 29. The hadith are collections of the traditions and sayings of the Prophet and his companions.
  9. According to Sunni texts, Ali ibn Abi-Talib was the fourth Caliph; whereas Shiites considered him as the first Caliph after the Prophet. Ali was the Prophet's son-in-law, as well as his cousin. Jafar Al-Sadiq was the sixth Imam, and the descendant of the Prophet.
  10. See Moojan Momen, An Introduction to Shi'i Islam, Yale University Press, 1985, at pp. 173 and 174.
  11. As articulated in Article 12 of the Iranian Constitution.
  12. M. Cherif Bassiouni, "The Death Penalty: Condemned", International Commission of Jurists, September 2000 at 72.
  13. Ibid, at 77; Bassiouni, supra note 5, at 198.
  14. Article 198 (j) and (l).
  15. See Peters, supra note 4, at 36.
  16. Quran, 5:38.
  17. See Bassiouni, "The Death Penalty: Condemned", supra note 5, at 77; also see Dr Mohsin Tariq Mandiwala, "Philosophy of the Concept of Punishment in Islam", Studying Islam, 6th September 2005, at http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=1012, last visited 3 August, 2008.
  18. See "One in Five Iranians Destitute", 4 August, 2008, at http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?ArticleId=1518-1783_2369543, last visited at 12 August, 2008.
  19. Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, "Has Poverty Increased in Iran Under Ahmadinejad?", The Brooking Institute, 5th August 2008, at http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0805_iran_salehi_isfahani.aspx, last visited 12 August 2008.
  20. See Nazila Fathi, "Spate of Executions and Amputations in Iran", New York Times, January 11 2008. Double amputations refer to the amputation of the hand and the foot.
  21. See Bassiouni, The Islamic Criminal Justice System, supra note 5, at 213.
  22. Quran 24:2.
  23. Charles Kurzman, Liberal Islam - A Sourcebook, Oxford University Press, 1998, at 53,
  24. Quran 5:91.
  25. See Bassiouni, "The Death Penalty Condemned" at 79-80; Bassiouni, "The Islamic Criminal Justice System", at 200.
  26. See Peters, supra note 4, at 64; "The Lightest of all fixed penalties is eighty [strokes]" - Asqalani, Bulugh, no. 1061
  27. Article 174 Islamic Penal Code of Iran; however if the consumption of alcohol has been charged a third time the punishment is death.
  28. Quran 76:8, see Compendium of Muslim Texts, University of Southern California, at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/076.qmt.html#076.008; last visited 17 August, 2008.
  29. "Human Rights in Iran - 2004", Committee in Support of a Referendum in Iran, at http://www.referendum-iran.org/Docs/CSRI/Human%20Rights-%20in-%20Iran-CSRI%20June-2004.pdf; last visited 13 August, 2008.
  30. Article 5(a) Islamic Penal Code of Iran.
  31. BBC News, "Nine Face Stoning Death in Iran", 20 July 2008.
  32. For reference, please consult http://www.stopchildexecutions.com.
  33. Abdel Salam Sidahmed, "Problems in Contemporary Applications of Islamic Criminal Sanctions: The Penalty for Adultery in Relation to Women", Vol.2 (Nov. 2001), British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 187-204, at 190.
  34. Quran 24:002 Surat An-Nur.
  35. Hadith compiled by Sahih Bukhari, Vol. VIII, Book 82, number 806 - Compendium of Muslim Texts, University of Southern California.
  36. See Bassiouni "The Death Penalty: Condemned", supra note 5, at 78.
  37. Hadith compiled by Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 824, Compendium of Muslim Texts, University of Southern California. The hadith reads "I asked…about…(stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied 'The Prophet carried out the penalty', I asked 'was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?' He replied, 'I do not know'".
  38. See Rudolph Peters, supra note 4.
  39. See Abdel Salam Sidahmed, Problems in Contemporary Applications of Islamic Criminal Sanctions: The Penalty for Adultery in Relation to Women", Vol.2 (Nov. 2001), British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 187-204, at 192.
  40. Ibid.
  41. Ibid.
  42. Ibid., at 192. See also, Bassiouni in "The Death Penalty: Condemned" , supra note 5, at 78; Bassiouni (Editor) in The Islamic Criminal Justice System by Aly Aly Mansouri at 199, supra note 5.
  43. Quran 24:4 - "Those who make a charge [of adultery] ... and do not bring four witnesses, scourge them with eighty stripes...".
  44. Case 469/91 (5/11/93).
  45. General Comment 20 (44) on Article 7 of the Covenant (CCPR/C/21/Add.3 para.6).
  46. Articles 63-104.
  47. Henry J. Steiner et al, International Human Rights in Context - Law, Politics, Morals, 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2008.
  48. For example, the death of Zahra Kazemi, UN Press Document, "UN Experts Appeal to Iran to Comply with Human Rights Norms in Case of Dead Journalist", 27 August 2004, at http://www2.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/hr04070e.htm, last visited at 20 July, 2008.
  49. See Reza Afshari, Human Rights in Iran: The Abuse of Cultural Relativism, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
  50. Kasra Nji, "Ahmadinejad", I.B. Taurus, 2008, at page 98.
  51. See Ayatollah Khomeini, Tahrirolvasyleh, 4th Edition, Darol Elm, Qom, 1990, at page 12.
  52. Edward Mortimer, Islam and Human Rights, Index on Censorship, 1983, at page 5.
  53. Abdullah Ahmed An-Na'im, Islam and the Secular State, Harvard University Press, 2008.
  54. Ibid., at page 290.
  55. Ibid., at page 293.

 
Home | Petitions | Photo Gallery | Links | Articles | Campaigns | About Us |

 

ShareThis