Talk:Stoning

Stoning in Iran

The article claims that the practice is no longer carried out in Iran, which is no longer the case as on 5th July, Mr Kiani, convicted for adultery was stoned to death in Aghche Kand, north-west Iran. BBC article reporting on this execution

Given this new development, I have removed the aforementioned claim.

problematic paragraph

This paragraph is problematic in many ways, yet keeps getting replaced verbatim: However, the method is still popular in some countries. The person is wrapped into a sheet to ensure anonymity, and burried waist down in ground. The mob then pelts the culprit with rocks. The stones are small enough so that a single stone cannot cause death. If the criminal manages to become free, and escapes, then the punishment is canceled.

it seems odd to say that a method of execution is 'popular'.
it's buried, not "burried", no matter how many times it gets changed.
it's from the waist down not waist down.
the word anonymity makes no sense here.
a local custom of not executing someone who escapes is being misconstrued as universal. -- Someone else 03:23 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

In addition, I'm not aware of stoning ever being practiced in the U.S. - article could be read to imply that it was. 209.149.235.254 14:04, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

What's the point of a spoiler warning when it's not clear what the spoiler warning is for? And it seems impossible to say what it is for without spoiling the story. Don't know what we should do about that. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TTB, you can read about the spoiler warning here: Spoiler_warning

Resource section

I want to add a section for Stoning resources here (see below). The video link (first link) was there in the history when I was checking the article and I want to add it back as it seems relevant. Please let me know your comments and if you have any other relevant resources to share.


Resources Video of four men being stoned in Iran - note: may be disturbing to some readers International Committee against Stoning Muslims against Stoning

Please remove the Islamophobic crap from that video or I will request that the link is deleted. As a content item, I can't see that there would be any problem with it, but the subtitles and pre-credits clearly display religious and political bias and incitment to racial hatred. --Dazzla 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be unbiased by hailing those who stone for their kindness.--10:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Replacement by more humane methods

The electric chair and lethal injection replaced hanging and the firing squad, not stoning.

Re: Replacement by more humane methods

Its hard to say whether the electric chair is more humane than stoning, I recall national Geographic describing electrocution as being medically equivalent to being burnt at the stake. Stoning is more graphic, and more disturbing to western sensibilities, but all methods of execution are fundamentally cruel. 80.73.221.55 20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

idea

I think it may be useful to draw up a table of offenses under various religious law for which one may be stoned; Sharia, Old Testament, etc 80.73.221.55 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cliché du Jour

"People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." "People who live in grass houses should not stow thrones." "People who toke in bong houses could well get stoned." 204.52.215.107 14:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The article claims that one needs to be a serial offender to be stoned, while the deuternomy 13:6-10 says that a secret whisper is enough. It also failed to say that it is the punishment for apostacy, which i corrected. Then it says that its about one giant stone faling on the almost dead guy, without any sources. Then the pov part: it accuses Islam of doing what it (without showing sources) claims Jews never did. Unaccaptable. --Striver 21:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>The article claims that one needs to be a serial offender to be stoned:

Wrong, the article claims that offenders -according to the Deuteronomy - be stoned who were warned not to commit the crime in the presence of two witnesses, and persisted. Thus they were serious and persisting, not serial offenders, neither literally nor figuratively.

>while the deuternomy 13:6-10 says that a secret whisper is enough:

Literally wrong, the Deuteronomy speaks of If thy brother [...] entice[s] thee secretly. This allows for a range of communication methods. Figuratively it could be considered correct, though. However, the remark is pointless, as it doesn't contradict the above: The Deuteronomy states unmistakably that even the secret enticement is a serious crime to be punished by death.

>Then it says that its about one giant stone faling on the almost dead guy, without any sources

The only valid point - sources are provided now.

>Then the pov part: it accuses Islam of doing what it (without showing sources) claims Jews never did.

Wrong, it states that islam does and judaism did know stoning as punishment - while not being explicit about other legislatures. As to missing sources: see above. --tickle me 03:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of accurate information / bias

I have removed Iran from the list of countries who practice stoning since the punishment is officially outlawed since 2001. Even before that it was practiced in special cases, like with this woman who killed her husband and burned his body with the help of another man. It ocurrs very rarely now, perhaps 1-2 times a year, in remote villages. I'm not sure about UAE. Actually I'm not sure about any of them, besides Soudan. We have to see anyways if the law is effectively practiced or it is just "in the book" but not practiced anymore, like it happens in some states of the US with the prison punishment for adultery. Maybe you should check your info before posting it in an online enciclopedy visited by thousand people every day.

The efforts to minimize stoning in OT and the ridiculous emotional crap about the stoning video also leads me to think if the author is not considerably biased. Stoning in OT was far from being "only for criminals". Hell, if your son was disobedient, you had to get him stoned by the whole village.

But I don't have the time to edit all this right now.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.41.133.126 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2006

i don't know what OT is. If you have some statistics regarding the present frequency of lapidation in Iran, as "a couple of times per year in remote villages", please give the URL and attribute it properly. If you think that the recent (2005/2006) reports cited in the present version are false, please provide sources external to the wikipedia (see WP:NOR) which make the counterclaims. You can go to Portal:Iran and look around there to find people who can read farsi and can help translate and fact check. Boud 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's using OT as an abbreviation for Old Testament. "Disobedience" (probably not what we mean by the term today, but more like being incorrigible and possibly violent) was considered a crime. 98.199.17.94 (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR URGENT ATTENTION AND ACTION NEEDED:

Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi has been sentenced to death by hanging. WHen she was 17 she defended herself and her niece when three men tried to rape her. One of them died from stab wounds.

Now Nazanin is Iranian. In a western country she would probably be acquitted or get a short prison sentence, as the death was obviously committed in self-defense. Also as a 17 years old, she could be treated as a minor. In Iran however, the minimum age for the death penalty is 15 years for males, and nine years for females.

Oh by the way if she had let the men rape her, then she may have got 100 lashes for being found guilty of having pre-maritial sex.

Overseas pressure can and often has saved people from the death penalty. If enough people pressure their Governments to register concern, it will have an impact.

read more: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.40 (talk)

Moved from main article. -- Vary | Talk 13:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOES "PRESSING" EQUAL "STONING"?

"Pressing" is a process where the criminal is placed on the ground, and one or more heavy stones are lowered onto the miscreant. How death is achieved is obvious. Is this the same as "stoning"? SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 17:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reorganization

Major notes. Addition of christianity as the quotes are pertinent to both Jewish and Christian texts.
Removed Iran from the Islam section and put it under the section which would includes countries that practice stoning
Added a Stoning in TV media but question whether it is of any value since the subject is not that large
Added needed references for Afghanistan, Sudan, & Iran.
Added groups publically opposed to stoning
As usual did my best to keep it clinical and non-judgemental on Stoning itself, and when 'opinion' entered in made sure it referenced the appropriate organizations and referenced it
Added groups against stoning
Didnt add groups for stoning, as the only groups appear to be religious political governments that practice it.
Added a politicians comments on stoning (trying again to make sure we globalize opinions) with references.
Did not add any videos of stoning etc, there is one existing already... didnt check it out, seen it before... once is enough.
--User:greroja Aug 14, 2006

I rewrote the "groups opposed" section and removed the rewrite tag. Ethan Mitchell 16:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue

One issue I've noticed with the introduction to the article is that it doesn't explain exactly what "stoning" is, and what this particular executing process involves or has involved.

Stoning vs Stoning to death

There is a misunderstanding here about stoning in Shia Islam. Stoning" in Islam is not "Stoning to death". If the buried person manages to take his/her body out of the ground, he/she can survive the punishment. That`s why no one is allowed to use big stones so that the person has enough time to release his/her body. However in practice, there are usually some mad people who use big stones and will immediately kill the person. Let`s hope there will be no report of such brutal punishments in future. Sina Kardar 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that female's being stoned are buried deep enough that their breasts cannot be revealed, and that both sexes are burried wrapped in a sheet to prevent their arms from being used to free themselves what chance is there *at all* that they get free? Sounds like a cop-out to me. See video above. Demerphq 18:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor Infraction"

Hey, I don't want to change this myself without discussion but I am not sure it is appropriate to call 'blasphemy' a minor infraction. Seems like a normative statement and one which would not apply in a place where they kill you for it (minor to one person is very serious to another in a different culture and religion). It would probably be best to avoid the issue and lose the word.

sharia doesnt imply stoning

Hi, I just removed Indonesia and Malaysia from the list. The list stated that some of the areas apply sharia law, but if one writes this in an article about stoning it suggests that stoning is done in these countries. This is just not true. Have a look at this [2] if you want to know how sharia law is implemented in Aceh. Andreask 02:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to modern Christianity.

In the article (as it currently stands), the statement:

At present, there are no Christian traditions that are vested with civil power, and even had it wished to impose such punishments as stoning, organized Christianity lacks courts with suitable jurisdiction.

is just speculation, and is incorrect anyway. If there was a state in which Christianity did dictate the law, it is practically certain that stoning would not be considered an appropriate form of punishment. While it is true that the Bible (Old Testament only, from memory) does mention stoning as an acceptable form of punishment, no major Christian church in this day and age supports it as a method of punishment. If the quoted statement above is in any way true, I'd like to see some source references to support the claim, please. Further, the statement:

However, even when not actually implemented...

when taken in conjunction with the paragraph above it, seems to imply that Christianity would support stoning as an acceptable form of punishment if they did have the jurisdiction to implement it. I would love to see some evidence for this via references, please, since it seems to me to be obviously untrue. Otherwise, both these quoted passages should be deleted as irrelevant and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.15.29 (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]