Did You Know?

From the Star (which sources it from the Daily Telegraph)

Not just any stones will do for Iranian adulterers Iran's penal code lays down the size of stones that crowds should use to bludgeon adulterers to death, Amnesty International has discovered. This regulation is "specifically designed to increase the suffering of the victims", accroding to an Amnesty International report. Article 104 of the Iranian penal code states that the stones used should "not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes, nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones". Typically the victim takes 20 minutes to die. Under article 102, men must be buried up to their waist for stoning, while women are buried up to their chest. Although Iran imposed a moratorium on such executions in 2002, two people were stoned to death in 2006 and one last year. Nine women and two men are under sentence of death by stoning. More women suffer the punishment because evidence from a man carries twice as much weight as a woman's in Iran's courts.

Nice people. We should let them have nuclear weapons.

Comments

[Gary]

The sick thing is that the feminist leftists will stay silent on this and then will march alongside the Islamists when the USA or Israel react to Iran's threats and provocation.

[Hillel]

A morbid/actuarial question:

Does anyone know on what basis AI makes the assertion "This regulation is "specifically designed to increase the suffering of the victims",?
Is it a specific religious requirement of the koran, or is it based on later interpretations, i.e. of the crazies who run the operation - or is it AI's spin?

[Steve]

Come now Hillel, since when have AI ever spun anything? haha

But the question is important actually. Does the Gemorrah say anything about the size of stones that we are supposed to use?

[Hillel]

I'm no expert so I'll defer to someone with more knowledge to answer comprehensively.

However, to the best of my knowledge the gemora's idea of "stoning" consisted of throwing the person off a cliff or building high enough to result in certain immediate death and then tossing a "ceremonial" stone on top afterwards.

In general, in all the capital punishments, the idea was to minimise the pain inflicted - and if I'm not mistaken - to the point of using sedatives etc. to further reduce the suffering.

But then, what would I know, I'm just an infidel.

[Dsinc]

http://www.geocities.com/realitywithbite/stoning.htm

[Brett]

Steve, I'm also no expert but there is a Gemorrah, I think its in Makot but I learnt it quoted in Sotah, that discuss when stoning a person (and as Hillel pointed out this meant throwing off a cliff) whether it was better for them to be naked and therefor die quicker with less pain (as the clothing could add padding and make the death slower) or to let them have clothes and feel less embarrassment during the execution. Either way this illustrates the Gemorrah's concern for both the physical and psychological pain one might suffer. I would also remind people how rare executions were - that one opinion said that if a Sanhedrin executed one person in 70 years it was considered to be brutal. The conditions needed to be met were so rare and exacting that it was almost impossible to execute someone.

I also want to reiterate Hillel's point. Although I am not hasty to defend those lovers of peace and serenity, our cousins the Ishmaelites, I would sooner believe Komeini is converting than AI if they told me the sky was blue. What is their source for the reasons for the size of the stones. I would suggest that if that is the reason for size of the stones it is purely coincidental and whatever left wing commy wrote the AI report assumed the reason without researching it.

[Gary]

Brett, it was clearly not a leftwing commie who wrote the AI report.
Leftwing Commies love Moslem radicals and cover up for their crimes.
These Commies and Moslems kill for each other.
They go together like mould and slime.
AI doesn't always get it right so give it credit when it does what it should be doing!

[Brett]

Accepted, my emotive language totally bludgeoned the meaning. Name calling aside, the point I was trying to make was that the type of people who right AI reports do so based on their own interpretations of events often letting their own bias shade the accuracy of their view and believing that good intentions compensate for untruths. Again, I am not saying that it s not possible that the stones dimensions are specified in order to exact maximum pain, I am saying I want to see the source. AI's track record is not good enough (to be polite) for a massive statement, such as the interpretation of the Koran's intent, to go unreferenced. Just because they are finally saying something we like doesn't mean its true. If they lie about us they can do the same for them.

[Gary]

Don't worry Brett, the Leftists would never lie to make the Moslems look worse.
They usually are very quiet about Moslem atrocties and they really have to be glaring and horrific to get a response from anyone on the Left (and even then never erybody on the Left)

Believe me, these are their allies, they won't lie to make them look worse.