Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.

The state-run daily Etemaad reported on Saturday that 18-year-old Nazanin confessed to stabbing one of three men who had attacked the pair along with their boyfriends while they were spending some time in a park west of the Iranian capital in March 2005.

Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls’ boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.

She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.

As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.

The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.

Last week, a court in the city of Rasht, northern Iran, sentenced Delara Darabi to death by hanging charged with murder when she was 17 years old. Darabi has denied the charges.

In August 2004, Iran’s Islamic penal system sentenced a 16-year-old girl, Atefeh Rajabi, to death after a sham trial, in which she was accused of committing “acts incompatible with chastity”.

The teenage victim had no access to a lawyer at any stage and efforts by her family to retain one were to no avail. Atefeh personally defended herself and told the religious judge that he should punish those who force women into adultery, not the victims. She was eventually hanged in public in the northern town of Neka.

I just read an article in a recent People magazine (yes, I subscribe, so sue me) profiling several individuals who converted to Islam. One of the women actually said that she chose to become a Muslim because she feels that the religion empowers women.

Gag me with a hijab.

In future please quote the source where you got this information from.

Here you go, Culture:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0329?hub=Canada

Thanks indeed!

Why you always consider Iran the only source of Islam, Shia has many different things different from the Sunni Islam.

You can always refer to texts about Islam, not People's acts, or else I can say bad words about Christianity if USA (by Bush) issued injustice laws.

Double measures?

many Westerners try to be objective about Islam but it's hard when extremists sully the name.

Oh, go ahead and bash Bush. You'll be in good company with a whole lot of US citizens, including many on this board. The same goes for Christianity. (Nothing is sacred at brainmeta.) Feel free to criticize the United States, too. We deserve it. But remember, at least we have separation of government and religion. Christianity holds that adultery is a serious sin, but nobody in the United States is ever legally stoned to death for committing adultery. When religion and government are fused, we risk the danger of mere mortals attempting to interpret and enforce laws that they think were made by God. Of course, anyone who goes against a law made by God deserves to be tortured and/or put to death.

http://www.learningpartnership.org/resourc...ationallaw/iran

I certainly don't consider Iran the only source of Islam. However, if Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons, I'm a little concerned about the way those in charge of that particular country might interpret Islam. Call me crazy, but any country that has a law believed to have come from God whereby a teenaged rape victim could be hanged for defending herself is likely capable of other unreasonable acts in the name of religion. I'm uncomfortable when the leader of that country has the religious goal of wiping out one nation and likely considers my country "The Great Satan". (How can you possibly negotiate with someone who thinks that way?) I'm uneasy knowing that one widely-held interpretation of Islam holds that martyrdom and destruction of the "infidels" (which apparently includes me) is God's will and brings everlasting utopia with 72 virgins. I wouldn't mind so much if those with such beliefs weren't intent on developing weapons of mass destruction. Fear of retaliation is generally a deterrent, but all bets are off when the aggressors would love nothing better than to become martyrs. If the dictatorial president of a country with nuclear weaponry fervently believes that dying for a perceived cause brings the ultimate glory in the afterlife, then it matters little if most of the common people think otherwise. Such a leader might figure that dropping a nuclear bomb on the Infidels is what God wants him to do--and he could make that happen in the wink of an eye. If such an action were to trigger a nuclear holocaust, so much the better.

I don't know exactly what is going on in the head of President Ahmadinejad. And yes, I know that the claim is that nuclear energy is the goal, not weapons. So maybe I'm overreacting. I hope so. But Mr. Ahmadinejad doesn't seem to even entertain a viewpoint that transcends his religion. That in itself is worrisome. Indeed, he seems to believe that he has been called to an apocalyptic divine mission. This can't be a good thing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...14/ixworld.html

double post

Sorry but...

China has a worse report in the field of Human Rights, but USA can't talk, why? Because China is a super power, at least econommically. I don't sawy Iran is good in Human Rights, I'm talking about double measures. We have a proverb here in Egypt, we say He couldn't play with the donkey, play with the Serg (The thing which the horse rider put on the back of the horse to ride on, I don't remember the English expression).

It is the same thing, when I have enough power, they can't do me anything. They become cowards and afraid, while they shoot the weak ones. This is not just. Even in police they leave the weak ones to capture the big heads, while the opposite happens in International Politics.

I read a lot about Religion Comparison and so, and I see that Iran is performing the policies which was applied by the Church in the Middle Ages. Even the Imam position is something really like the Pope in that time. Not to mention that Shiites are really not one group, a big number of sects, just like Christianity. I'm comparing theological matters only, not mocking and I don't have bad intentions in comparing.

Unlike Sunnis, Sunnis doesn't have sects by the means of sects, they are four Sheikhs which some people always attach to their opinions (Cuz they died long ago), while most of the people just take the most suitable opinions from each Sheikh to their Circumstances, this is talking deeply in Sunni Theological details.

There is no country represents the true face of a religion, what represents it is their Sacred Book.

If you have any question about Islam you can just ask me.

Agreed that human rights are bad in China. Believe me, nobody here is afraid to talk about that situation, superpower or not. But the leader of China isn't on a messianic doomsday mission. The focus is on Iran right now because the current president just might be--and he wants to continue Iran's nuclear program full-throttle.

Read my second link, above. Ahmadinejad is a fan of martyrdom and has openly prayed for (and appears to be preparing for) an imminent return of the Mahdi--a savior who is supposed to emerge only after cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. Ahmadinejad has declared that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and he's willing to sacrifice half of Iran to do so.

Do we really want such a person to have access to technology that could be used to wipe out hundreds of thousands of people in one fell swoop?

As an aside, whether or not you hate the Jews--Anyone who thinks the holocaust never happened doesn't have a good grip on reality.

I don't think any church should rule any country, precisely because of the possibility of what is currently unfolding in Iran. Isn't it clear that the Koran is subject to a wide variety of interpretations? I'm thinking that Iran's president sincerely believes he is following Islam to the letter. This situation might be compared to the Christian Crusades in the middle ages, but in a nuclear age, the stakes are much, much higher.

one of the problems is that the muslim extremists like to portray Westerners as Crusaders, which is ridiculous. Christianity is dead. It has been for over a century. Islam will die too as soon as the Middle East becomes more civilized and advanced. Education destroys antiquated religions. That's not to say religion is bad. Just that Christianity and Islam are both false. Most Westerners already know this. Most in the Middle East do not because they lack education and are living in the Dark Ages.

I suspect the iranian leader knows this, but if the "us versus Crusaders" nonsense rallies the mentally, educationally, physically, and financially impoverished iranian masses, then why not spout such nonsense in order to exert control over the masses, which is no doubt what he wants? One day the iranians will wake up, and they will be ashamed of their ignorance and gullibility.

You really think he knows? I can only hope. And I also hope that the rest of them will figure it out sooner rather than later.

Unfortunately, a lot of what is happening has been made worse by U.S. policies:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/2838...olumntwo05.html

Now we've got to figure out how to contain the damage. How do I hate the Bush administration? Let me count the ways.

Not as much as i would like.

LOL Bush is the least example you can assure on for sepration of Religion and Politics, but this is not the point.

As a reader of Shiites and Sunni's differences and history, I know this martyrdom thing, and it is really originated in the Middle East in Iran, although it was present in WWII in Japan represented in the KamiKazi pilots

As I compared Shiites to Christianity, I compared it in the Medieval Era, I guess this makes me clear.

Again, China has ALREADY Nuclear Bombs, Pakistan and India too. No body talked for Israel already having more than 300 Bombs in the latest reports. We are talking about countries already having bombs. No one can deny Double Measures and Power Balance.

This is my point of view.

And now talking about religions being dead. I guess that USA is most responsible factor in raising up religious extremism when using it against the old enemy, Red Army. In afghanistan who armed and trained Bin Ladin? USA!

Which means:

USA tax payers are the people who paid for terrorism to emerge.

And...please don't talk about Islam before reading about it from liable sources. (Positive talk or negative talk).

U.S. leaders often pull the '"God card" to their advantage, but at least we aren't governed and forced to live by an official "Christian Penal Code" derived verbatim from the New Testament. Granted, the religious right is a constant force to be reckoned with, and many of our laws are far from perfect. But again, nobody gets stoned to death for adultery, homosexuality or other victimless Christian transgressions. I might add that there are few current laws (if any) that assume women to be less worthy than men.

Irc--I'm not really trying to make educated declarations about Islam. I don't care if the head of a country is driven by Islam, Christianity, Buddhism or any other religion--or even if he's simply delusional. If that person believes he's divinely inspired to hasten doomsday, he ought not have the power to detonate weapons of mass destruction. That potential is what distinguishes Iran from the other countries you named.

I, too, detest much of what the USA has done to incite the violence of the Middle East.

Religion when accompanied with violence, is just a tool for politics. The matter is all political in the end. How to use religion to make people with you. This happenes in countries with oppression the most. It lis like an equation. More oppression, more religion use, the less the less. You have very little oppression in the US, (though there are still illegal violation of privacies like that of recording calls and so), there is still a use of religion at least in the circle of the President, the Zionist Christian.

Anyway, you can always attack a country, a ruler or whatsoever human related. But don't connect Islam as a religion to it.

Jesus Christ said: My kingdom is in heaven. He reffered to the errorness of the humans to apply what he taught.

It's getting worse. See this new article on Sharia law in Pakistan:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0912-05.htm

Politics and Religion are always in bed with each other. From the beginning of recoreded history untill now, e.g the Roman Catholic church

I suppose the alternative to religion of atheism is preferable, but anarchy as an alternative to politics? How about if we just separate church and state? That's a tried and true approach (US Constitution).

From the article provided by Rick:

The article also speaks of a woman named Mukhtar Mai, whose gang rape led to reforms in Pakistan--which have now been reversed. Here's what happened to her:

http://www.time.com/time/asia/2004/heroes/hmukhtar_mai.html


Now, according to this publication http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/ , sharia law is basically Islamic law and is derived from four sources:
1. the Quran
2. the hadith, or record of the actions and sayings of the Prophet Mohammed
3. ijma, the consensus of Islamic scholars
4 qiyas, a kind of reasoning that uses analogies to apply precedents established by the holy texts to problems not covered by them

The article also says that sharia law is subject to more than one interpretation, as five major schools have developed over time. A school consists of a guild, or group of scholars, that develop specific interpretations of Islamic law which are legally binding. Muslims in different geographical regions favor different sharia schools.

Our Egyption friend, IRC^President, invited me to ask questions:

If there are at least five interpretations of sharia, how do you know for sure which one God wants y'all to follow?

After reading the articles above, do you feel that this particular enforcement of sharia law is fair, empowering or beneficial to women?

Why would they want to empower women? Total chauvenism is what they want. Enslavement of women is akin to rape anyway. Personally, I don't find that sexy at all. I like women who are equal.