Talk:Stoning/Archive 1

Archive 1

Map needs updating

Stoning will become judicial in Brunei from 3 April 2019. So the map showing countries where public stoning is judicial or extrajudicial form of punishment needs updating. Minussquareofa (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Stoning in Pakistan

The text for Pakistan is unsupported by citation. Currently footnote 7 refers to a BBC article which discusses a single instance of a sentence of stoning being overturned. But the article does NOT support the article's claim that the sentence has "not been carried out in recent times." Moreover, 'recent times' is rather in need of definition itself - 1, 5, 10 or 50 years?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.111.249 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are two articles from 2008 about one possible stoning in Pakistan: http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.2031812946 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/04/02/Man-woman-stoned-to-death-in-Pakistan/UPI-44761207133892/ Mikael Lönnroth (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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, 2007, 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.

I can't really see why Iran is given special status as "alleged/disputed" use, when it's clear the punishment is carried out in Iran. Therefore I am moving the section together with others. --109.84.154.123 (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There was an edit war about this about a month ago. That was a remnant, and you were correct to remove it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The section currently seems to be in need of more help... "Also the iranian communist activists from Mujaheddin-e-Khalq, regularly invent stories of stoning and death condemnation in Iran, alike the story of Sakineh Mohammadi which was in fact a creation of 2 german iranian journalists" Besides being poorly written, it seems very non-POV, and the linked source dosn't really even back it up factually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.205.16 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have put an NPOV tag on the Iran section then noticed this discussion is already underway. There's contradictory claims being made, and POV is creeping in.--Dmol (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The section appears to have changed more since the discussion above, but I've removed remaining unsourced information and added the stoning death the IP mentions. Since the discussion here appears to be dormant (and hopefully resolved), I've also removed the POV tag per the instructions at Template:POV. However, if I've done so in error, please feel free to revert me, and I'll be glad to discuss further. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Stoning in Nigeria

"Homosexuality" or for same-sex sex acts? there's often a conflation and confusion of the two, of course. but are people stoned in Northern Nigeria merely for being homosexual or for same-sex sex acts? and of course not everyone who commits same-sex sex acts are homosexual as well.

13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Michael Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 (talk)

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 [http://www.stopstoningnow.no-ip.com/main.htm 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)

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

A question about photographs

There is currently a photo in this article of a woman being stoned, and another user on this discussion page has posted a link to a video of a stoning. These items raise some big questions. On the one hand, we're all trying to be fair and show what stoning really is. On the other hand, I think some attention must be paid to the victim's humanity, and some protection should be afforded to her privacy. This might sound like an odd comment, but if I were executed, I wouldn't want the suffering on my face to be shown to millions... I especially would not want my family to stumble across such pictures. It's also worth pointing out that we're not dealing with the execution of a publicly important figure whose death might be tied up with history and/or might bring relief to millions of people (e.g. a Nazi war criminal).

So how are these images to be handled? One idea would be to leave the photo but put a black box over the woman's face. This is not censorship per se, and does keep within the confines of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It would simply be an acknowledgment of the human misery associated with the scene, something that I don't think neutrality prevents us from doing. Another possibility, which I don't like as much, is to just place a link to the photo under external links. What do people think?Nojamus (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2009 (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)

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)

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)

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)

>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)

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.

• • • NOTE TO PERSON ABOVE*** Actually,a maratorium on stoning was issued by the Head of the Judiciary Shahroudi in 2002, but the law did not change. The fact that stoning is still "in the boooks" IS very important, because it still allows individual judges the option of issuing stoning in their cases. This is exactly what has happened, and since 2002 over a dozen people have been sentenced to stoning, and several of those sentences have been carried out. The most recent is Jafar Kiani, who was killed by stoning in Iran in July, 2007. We also need to change the Iran section to reflect the recent developments in the last few weeks. The current 9 cases of individuals awaiting stoning sentences have been sent for reevaluation by the Ministry of Justice, so the imminent risk of stoning for these people has gone away. BUT, because the law is still "in the books" there is no way to prevent judges from continuing to issue stoning as a punishment for adultery. See: www.stop-stoning.org for more information.*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.182.47 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I removed the section mentioning that a woman not being a virgin upon marriage warranted stoning, as is indicated by the word "זונה" which is only used in cases where the consumation produced a Mamzer (bastard is a gross mistranslation), of which the child of two unmarried people would not qualify. This section only refers to a betrothed woman (married for all practicaly purposes) having been found to not be a virgin on marriage, when she had been previously.

additionaly the page uses few jewish sources in its explanation of jewish traditions at the time of jesus, and has a distorted view of things. Factualy the sanhedrin had lost authority over capital cases from the time of the roman occupation, long before jesus ever lived.

also I think it is grossly unfair to call the tenach a "christian" text. 74.128.36.101 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of stone size in article. No mention of stone throwing etiquette. If I end up at a stone throwing, is it rood to not participate or even illegal? This article includes a philosophy entry in a non-philosophy section. Should the philosophy entry against throwing stones be moved? I came to this article to get the facts about the practice. I took a class in botched executions recently in Justice studies and this was not included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.204.228.36 (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not related to subbject=delited

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)

The examples of "pressing" I have studied occurred in England and the USA. It differs from stoning in being applied usually when guilt can not be proven and was not admitted to, such as religious persecution. Also, the victim could live two to three days. Cwilsym 69.153.48.173 (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think the section labeled "support for stoning" and "groups against stoning" needs to be redone. This is not an issue where an equal number of groups are for and against it. To make it more true to reality, putting it with the section with "Usage Today" would be more appropriate. Starting off with the section with an explanation that this practice is a violation of human rights, and is considered torture. The view that this is torture is accepted by a great majority of NATIONS, not just a few "groups". And any argument saying it is not torture because it is a Western idea should know that the Arab Charter on Human Rights accepts the same principles contained in the various charters on human rights including the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. And torture is one of the principles included in the Arab Charter.

Petit9621 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)petit9621

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)

Given that females being stoned are buried deep enough that their breasts cannot be revealed, and that both sexes are buried 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)

"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)

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)

I agree. In fact, Jesus's preventing the crowd from stoning the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John could be taken as forbidding it for Christians to use (and I think some anti-death penalty Christian groups have taken it as forbidding the death penalty, in any form). 98.199.17.94 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For all these reasons, but mainly because the section titled 'Stoning in historical Christianity and Judaism' gives examples only from Judaism, I changed the section title to 'Stoning Judaism'. It should remain like that unless someone can offer examples from Christianity.

Reason for removing photo

File:Muslim Woman Stoning.jpg

A Muslim woman being prepared for stoning

I removed this photo from the article for two reasons.

1. The source of an article is a religious advocacy organisation that is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.
2. The photo cannot be what the caption claims. The clothing indicates it is a woman, not a man, but women are buried at least up to their shoulders.

I suspect the photo was made with the help of Photoshop. I guess it is possible that it is a man, but are men dressed like that? If we can find a photo from a more reliable source, we can use that. McKay (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --92.74.23.50 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Off a quick glance it appears the original photo was of some men digging a hole and photoshop was used to insert a person since the color balance and shadowing of the body of the woman is way off from the rest of the photo. On another glance it also appears that the 2 hooded folk in the right side of the photo were also digitally added as well.150.135.245.202 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Names

I think the ==People who were stoned== and ==People who were almost stoned== titles should be rewritten, for obvious reasons. Maybe people who died by stoning? --Flashflash; 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Structure of article

We need an etymology of the terms according to language, and then history section (including greeks and islam and others), and then a small section regarding today, and a link to an article like "Stoning in the modern word". The current structure is far too much like a piece against Islam. Faro0485 (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of these suggestions except for creating a new article on "Stoning in the modern world." I think that section does belong here, after the definition and historical sections. Because of the recent theatrical release, this article deserves prompt attention. 69.153.48.173 (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish law

Under Stoning in historical Christianity and Judaism there are some unreferenced sentences which read

According to the Jewish Oral Law, after the Jewish criminal has been determined as guilty before the Great Sanhedrin, the two valid witnesses and the sentenced criminal go to the edge of a high place. From there the two witnesses are to push the criminal off. After the criminal has fallen, the two witnesses are to drop a large boulder onto the criminal - requiring both of the witnesses to lift the boulder together. If the criminal did not die from the fall or from the crushing of the large boulder, then any people in the surrounding area are to quickly cause him to die by stoning with whatever rocks they can find.

However it says here

The Mishna in tractate Sanhedrin (45a) describes execution by "stoning." The condemned defendant was pushed from a platform set high enough above a stone floor that his fall would probably result in instantaneous death6.

The Talmud explains that the height from which the accused was pushed was substantial enough that death was virtually certain. Providing for an immediate death was, according to the Talmud, derived from the Biblical commandment (Leviticus 19:18), "You shall love your fellow as yourself." This commandment requires a court to select for a condemned man a humane (i.e., painless) death (Sanhedrin 45a). Rashi, the leading medieval commentator on the Talmud,7 explained that when the Talmud says a "humane death" it means a "quick death."

The continuation of the discourse in Sanhedrin reveals that the rabbis’ ultimate concern was that the mode of execution be as quick and as painless as possible, and that it cause as little disfigurement as possible. When one rabbi suggested that the height of the platform should be increased so that death from the fall would be certain, another rabbi responded that raising the platform is unacceptable because a fall from too high a platform would result in disfigurement.

These two don't match up so the way to resolve this would be to say after the text about the oral tradition "However, the Talmud explains....etc. The problem with this approach is that the first part is unreferenced and may just be wrong. Does anyone know of a reference for it? Richerman (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Judaic law sanctioned stoning as a a form of captial punishment. It may be that over 2000 years stoning has been "overcome". But I suggest that the section appears very much as if written by a Jewish apologist for the more backward elements of Judaism. Very defensive and POV.124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Has it been reported before that 4 witnesses saw a woman committing adultry in Islamic History till the day?

Does anybody know an incident at which four eye witnesses have said that someone had committed adultry in the whole islamic history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibo1978 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Stonings in Iran

As documented with names and dates by Amnesty and other organizations, and reported in both Iranian and external press, at least 5 people have been stoned to death in Iran since the "moratorium" announced in 2002, most recently in 2009. This is easy to verify. The government has several times announced the end of stoning, but it has not ended and several people are right now on death row with sentences of stoning. The basic problem is that courts do not necessarily follow the directions of government ministers; they consider themselves first of all bound to uphold Islamic law as they see it The current text is also highly misleading when it says "Many Muslim jurists in Iran are of the opinion that while stoning can be considered Islamic, the conditions under which it can be sentenced are nearly impossible to occur. Because of the large burden of proof needed to reach a guilty sentence of adultery, its penalty is hardly ever applicable." This is quite false! In fact Iranian law law allows an alternative mode of conviction called "knowledge of the judge" that does not require any witnesses at all and doesn't even need to be explained by the court. Examples of articles which describe this system (not necessarily all WP-citable) are [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. A detailed description by Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi is here and here. (Q: "In case of contradiction between knowledge of the judge and confession and proof, which one is prior?" A: "Knowledge of the judge, if it has been achieved by sensory or close to sensory means.") By this path many people have been sentenced to death for various offenses without the strict evidentiary requirements of Islamic law being met. Astarabadi (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are a couple of problems with your edit. For starters, this is an encyclopedia article which should only provide a summery of facts, supported by secondary sources. This page is not a petition, or a place to list of every victim of this horrible practice in every country. Secondly, you can not cite a search Amnesty reports (which maybe considered by some as a primary source) as proof to refute existing secondary sources, this would be against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. AlexanderPar (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at your version please.

• You write "finally, in 2002 Iran's judiciary indicated that stoning will no longer be practiced in Iran" but the reference you give for it has as its very first sentence "On May 7, 2006, two individuals were stoned to death in Mashhad, Iran." If this source is "reliable" (which can be debated), you should at least accurately convey its contents.
• Then you write "In 2008, Iran's judiciary decided to scrap the punishment of stoning in draft legislation submitted to parliament for approval." (which is correct except that "decided" should be "proposed"), but you didn't report from the same source "However, in July 2007 the Islamic republic drew international outrage by stoning to death a man convicted of adultery" In other words your own sources do not give the same impression that your text gives. What is your reason for suppressing the fact that stonings have continued from 2002 to 2009, when your own sources provide that information?
• As for your other text, let's consider "Because of the large burden of proof needed to reach a guilty sentence of adultery, its penalty is hardly ever applicable." However, your own source (the first one) says "As Asieh Amini explains: “If we go by the rules of Sharia, the conditions that must exist in order to prove the crime of ‘ehsan’, adultery, are extremely difficult. The burden of proof is high.” Most stoning sentences are issued not on the basis of testimony or confession but on the judges “knowledge” or “intuition.”" Why did you report just the first part and not the second part?

So in sum total, your version does not even properly report what is in the sources that you yourself brought. It is really quite unacceptable. The article should state the truth of the matter, and it should at least summarise the recent events (I can agree to dispense with the explicit list). Astarabadi (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Individual cases should not be the focus here, this is an encyclopedia not Amnesty International, that answers your point 1 and 2. And "decided" is correct, judiciary decides something, and then proposes it to parliament to make it law. In regards to Asieh Amin's quote, it can be expanded to include what you have highlighted. I also have no objection to adding a line that despite the proposal under review in the parliaments, there have been some rare cases of rural-area judges handing out the sentence, but there have been no report of the sentence being carried out since 2007. Does that work for you? AlexanderPar (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would I agree to misleading and factually incorrect information? I'll start at the end and reply to the rest later. You claim "there have been no report of the sentence being carried out since 2007" but you are not correct.

1. DECLARATION BY PRESIDENCY ON BEHALF OF EUROPEAN UNION CONCERNING EXECUTION BY STONING IN RASHT, IRAN - 18 May 2009 US Fed News BRUSSELS, Belgium, April 30 -- The European Union issued the following common foreign and security policy statement: "The European Union strongly condemns the new case of execution by stoning in the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to the various reports, Vali Azad has been executed by stoning as a punishment for adultery in the Lakan Prison in city of Rasht around 5 March 2009. The European Union is further deeply concerned at reports that Mohammad Ali Navid Khomami and Ashraf Kalhori have been sentenced to the death by stoning and are under threat of imminent execution." (The specs for the European Union declaration are C2009/263E/04; Minutes of the sitting of 7 May 2009 OJ C 263E , 5.11.2009, p. 265–356 in case you want to look it up).
2. (same case, another source) Iran stones to death adulterer. 5 May 2009 - Agence France Presse A man convicted of committing adultery has been stoned to death in a northern Iranian city, a top judiciary official told reporters on Tuesday. "The stoning was carried out in the city of Rasht during the Iranian month of Esfand which ended on March 20, judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi said. He said the woman involved in the case has "repented and so has not been stoned."
3. (2008 case) Press Releases: Call for Iran to End Stoning. 16 January 2009; State Department Press Releases And Documents; State Department Press Release; Press Releases: Call for Iran to End Stoning; Fri, 16 Jan 2009; Press Statement; Sean McCormack, Spokesman; Washington, DC; January 16, 2009; Call for Iran to End Stoning; "The United States joins the international community in expressing concern about the inhumane practice of stoning in the Islamic Republic of Iran. On January 13, an Iranian judiciary spokesman confirmed that two men had been stoned to death for the charge of adultery in the city of Mashhad. This cruel and unusual punishment is an inhumane practice that does not meet the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Iran has ratified. We call on Iran not only to permanently abolish the practice of stoning, but to offer all defendants fair and transparent trials." 2009/ 065; Released on January 16, 2009; Office of State Department Public Communication Division, 202-647-6575."

Both these are reported in lots of other places. Like I said, there have been at least 5 cases since the "moratorium" was announced in 2002 and in fact all of the five cases were officially acknowledged. The article is going to say so. Astarabadi (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC) And neither Rasht nor Mashad are rural areas; they are major cities. Astarabadi (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As for "decided", what the judiciary decided was to submit a bill to the parliament for consideration. It is the parliament that decides whether to pass the bill. Astarabadi (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "Most stoning sentences are issued not on the basis of testimony or confession but on the judges “knowledge” or “intuition.”" is not a continuation of the quotation of Asieh Amini, but the source author's next sentence. What the source says is (summarised): According to Sharia law, which is written in the adultery section of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, the burden of proof is very large and conviction should be very difficult. However, in practice most convictions are made under a clause that allows the judge to decide on the basis of his own "knowledge". Incidentally a translation of the relevant section of law is here. The problematic article is #105. WIthout article 105, convictions for adultery would be essentially restricted to persons foolish or insane enough to confess four times. However getting rid of article 105 would be very difficult in the Iranian system since it was the personal addition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Astarabadi (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Within a day, I will suggest new text. I will put it here first so you will have a chance to comment on it. Astarabadi (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why all the parentheticals?

I don't understand the use of parentheses in the following paragraph, but it seems so intentional that I didn't edit it. Does this look strange to anyone else? Can anyone explain why it is written this way? Here is the paragraph: "Husbands can also launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own - their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth. The fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie. But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie. The fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth.[4]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.39.210.200 (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

POV organization

Why do Judaism and Christianity precede Islam when there are no examples of Jews or Christiand stoning anybody, albeit ancient sources list the punishment. This unbalances the article pretty strongly.Broad Wall (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph

I have removed the following paragraph: "Husbands can also launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own - their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth. The fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie. But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie. The fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth."

The reference indicated does not support this claim, I have no idea where this comes from, even the verse in the reference states that a man who accuses a chaste woman of adultery is flogged. I am a practicing Muslim myself and have been studying Islam since childhood yet never ran into such claims, please avoid bias and help Wikipedia become a better accurate source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.191.241 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Adultery defined

we have something of a definitional problem here. wiktionary, and,i would venture, most u.s. state penal codes,(yes, in every state in the union, adultery is a crime. in maryland, it is a misdemeanour punishable by a .........$10 fine. in michigan and wisconsin,it is a felony, punishable by as much as .....LIFE IMPRISONMENT!) define adultery as 'sexual intercourse by a married person with someone other than their spouse'. obviously, islamic law uses a different definition, but that is the meaning of the word in english. no marriage, no adultery.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC

This dispute is regarding how to represent stoning in Iran. There are essentially two competing version of the text seen in this diff. The question is how to represent the sources. In this case, the bit about "However, there were a few reports of judges handing down stoning sentences in 2006 and 2007, and 2010" is completely unsourced. But of course any attempt to remove it is reverted as "censorship." There is also the matter of the phrasing regarding legislation to ban stoning. At this point in time, according to the sources, this motion is at the very beginning of the legislative process, and as such stoning is still a part of Iranian law. Infact, the source that is used to cite the claim, "no such verdicts have been carried out," also says, "Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery has still been theoretically punishable by stoning." But this has been removed/omitted as a "contradiction with other sources" (none were presented) which I am supposedly censoring...? Finally, there is a question of weight. There have been cases of stoning executions and sentences in the last 5 years. Yet this sentence remains in the section, "Stoning has been dropped from the penal code for a long time, and in the Islamic republic, we do not see such punishments being carried out." This is on top of the following sentence which states, "if stoning sentences were passed by lower courts, they were over-ruled by higher courts." Deleting the first sentence and leaving the second per WP:WEIGHT (and the fact that the first sentence could not be more objectively false) was reverted as "censorship." This article really needs the attention of objective editors. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You should find a source that explains this clearly. Apparently stoning is a traditional punishment still handed down by some courts although the supreme court considers it illegal. Yet the sentence may be carried out anyway and the supreme court may not intervene. Obviously not how the law works in most countries. TFD (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Mohammadi Ashtiani's stoning has been approved by Iran's supreme court."[10] I need to write down the names of every editor who pushes these lies about Iran so I can ignore your comments more efficiently. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It says there has been a stay of execution. TFD (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, due to the international outcry. Btw, what page in the source in the article says the supreme court considers stoning illegal? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi declared a moritorium on stoning in 2002. However last year Alireza Jamshidi said it was only advisory. In the meantime several people were stoned.[11] I cannot find the reasoning they gave at the time. Here is a link to a site with links to sources for Iranian law. TFD (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why I waste my time as I've already caught you in a lie. The source in the article[12] is from 2005 and says Iran still has stoning in the books. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User User:AzureFury, you asked for other opinions on this discussion so here's mine. TFD tries to make reasoned arguments but all you seem to do is accuse him/her of lying, when the simple fact is that the sources don't always agree, and probably never will, because this is such an emotive subject. Obviously, the sensible way to deal with this is to say in the article that the legal situation in Iran is unclear rather than make personal attacks on other editors whose interpretation of the situation is different from yours. Richerman (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD said this, "You should find a source that explains this clearly. Apparently stoning is a traditional punishment still handed down by some courts although the supreme court considers it illegal." I asked for a page number. None was provided. There goes the assumption of good faith. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Incivility appears to be epidemic when it comes to User:AzureFury. Earlier, I left him a series of warnings about his personal attacks and canvassing, which were were abruptly deleted and labeled "vandalism" by him. He has also been making personal attacks against me, calling me a "POV warrior" and various other names, which is kind of ironic, given the fact that he has been blocked no less than six times for POV-pushing and disruption. AlexanderPar (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually you did not ask for a page number, you said, "I need to write down the names of every editor who pushes these lies about Iran so I can ignore your comments more efficiently". I suppose one could interpret this as a request for a page number, but you should have been more clear. You then said, "The source in the article is from 2005 and says Iran still has stoning in the books". What does that have to do with a court saying something is illegal? Courts do not write the books, but they do determine whether or not laws on the books are legal. For example the U. S. Supreme Court frequently determines that laws on the books are not legal, the most recently major example involving gun control laws in D. C. and Chicago, the most notorious being Dred Scott. We may wish to look at the decision of the court in 2002, to see what their reasoning was. We may also wish to know the commentaries of the Assembly of Qom Seminary Scholars and Researchers. But I do not see any attempt to engage in a discussion on this matter. TFD (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I don't think I've ever had to copy and paste something that was on the very same page before. Ok, since you missed it when I said it and then you missed it when you reviewed what I said, I will paste my comment only a few posts up, for you to read: "Right, due to the international outcry. Btw, what page in the source in the article says the supreme court considers stoning illegal? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)"

Here's another source that says stoning is in the Iranian penal code, and never mentions Sharia.[13] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Iranian penal code is based on Sharia, anyone with any clue about the topic, knows that. You can't cite campaign/advocacy website as citation for a fact. Furthermore, you can not interpret sources, and say "X is in Y" citing outdated reports or reports. Finally, the sentence you removed about public outrage, is now backed by a citation. AlexanderPar (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Iranian penal code is based on Sharia"

• This does not contradict the fact that stoning is included in the Iranian penal code.
• Every single reliable source we have says only that the "Iranian penal code" or "Iranian law" includes stoning, and does not mention Sharia. You have not provided a single reliable source to support your position. I don't know how long you've been on Wikipedia or how long you intend to stay, but here, we base our statements on sources and not our own perverted understanding of reality.

Paste the source and page number of the bit about public outrage. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors who oppose my version of the article, please sign your own comments below. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

With 0 editors opposing my version, that is consensus. You have not yet provided a single reliable source that supports your edits. Given that we have so many reliable sources reporting that stoning is part of the Iranian penal code, there is not a thing you could do to justify your edits. Even if you found reliable sources that specifically said that stoning is not part of the Iranian penal code (which you haven't), we would be required by policy to report it as a controversy and cover both sides of the issue. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a RFC and everyone who commented opposed your version. AlexanderPar (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with your one sentence argument. Let's count.

1. There are 3 people besides myself who commented in this section of the talk page. TFD commented on facts about Iran, some erroneously, and that there had been no discussion of them. Richerman said that "the sources don't always agree," which is debatable as we have no contradictory sources at this point. I see no editors besides yourself disagreeing with the fact that Iran's Penal Code includes stoning.
2. I have specifically asked editors who oppose my version to explicitly identify themselves, and none, not even you, have done so. Per WP:SILENCE, I am assuming consensus with the nearly quoting of the sources.
3. As you yourself love to quote in the edit summary while reverting at Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran where you are outnumbered, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Our decisions should be based on the sources, and you have provided none to contradict the existence of stoning in Iran's Penal Code. While I on the other hand have provided several mainstream sources that mention it. The weight of the arguments is entirely one sided. You have literally no sources in your favor and I have several.

So I'll give you another chance to explain why we should neglect this information published in several reliable sources, and contradicted in none. And "Sharia also includes stoning" does not cut it. If you revert on the grounds of this supposed clear consensus from the RFC, I am going to take this to ANI and I will provide diffs of all the little hypocritical things you've done for the last few weeks, and you can try to explain them there. Your actions speak for themselves, regardless of your hollow rhetoric. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to realize that you're just another editor, and other editors do no have to accept your POV as an absolute fact. You also need to learn that due process requires you to abide by RFC results, instead of ignoring it, and trying to impose your version by bullying. AlexanderPar (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What is this dispute about? I do not find here (or in my own searching) a source stating clearly that stoning is not currently in the Iranian Penal Code. DId I miss something? Astarabadi (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that one or more editors are determined to promote the idea that Iran does not stone people as a legal sentence. There is some doubt as to the current status, because of the way the Iranian justice system works. The courts are based on sharia, which does include stoning, and is not supposed to be monkeyed around with by mere politicians. The Iranian authorities imposed a moratorium on actually stoning people in 2002, in response to international criticism, but they didn't remove it from the penal code, and it may be possible that they can't actually remove it (sharia being supposed to be handed down by G-d). This apparently does not stop local courts handing down sentences of stoning (as in the recent case that was plastered everywhere) or in some cases carrying out sentences of stoning (although I suspect this last is hard to find reliable sources for). I am concerned that if you read the section on Iran, it really sounds as if stoning has been abandoned, whereas the latest case has indicated that the sentence is still being handed down, and reports from groups opposed to stoning suggest some sentences may be still being carried out.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

[14] contains a list of people convicted, some of which are certainly since 2002. [15] source (Guardian again, I'm afraid) that the Iranian parliament voted to strike out the clause last year, but nothing has been done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see more on that vote, as I am dubious. Anyway, it is necessary that the Guardian Council approve anything passed by the parliament before it becomes law. Since 2002 there have been several actual stonings. At least 5 can be documented well enough. Contrary to the stereotype, most were men. See the section "Stonings in Iran" above on this page for good sources for the most recent ones. Astarabadi (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was the Grauniad editorial, so one would want a separate source. In fact The times carried a similar report the day or so before, but I can't access that (they want money) - although both might be from the same source. There is no doubt there have been both sentences and actual stonings. The Times report did say that most were men - they also had pictures :( Both initial protagonists in the RFC - Alexander Par and AzureFury are currently blocked for edit warring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You've essentialy repeated the points I've made for the last few weeks. Specifically that every reliable source says the same thing (the Iranian Penal Code includes stoning) and the fact that Sharia also includes stoning does not contradict this. Here are the two versions in question: mine[16] and his[17]. The differences between them are...

1. Mine explicitly and neutrally mentions that the Iranian Penal Code includes stoning.
2. Mine more neutrally states the legal status. "Decided to scrap the punishment of stoning" implies that something was done. And infact, only the first step has been taken and there are several votes to be passed before anything is official, as Elen and Astarabadi have indicated.
3. His includes this passage: "Nevertheless, much of the public was outraged that such a backward and tortuous ritual became instituted in the laws of their country." I asked him what page this claim was on and he did not respond. So at this point we can consider this an unsourced statement.
4. He also changes this: "However, the election of Ahmadinejad saw a revival in stoning sentences." which is copied nearly verbatim from the source, to this: "However, following the election of Ahmadinejad, there were a few reports of judges handing down stoning sentences in 2006 and 2007, and 2010." The bit about "few reports" is completely uncited.

I've cited policy, while Alexander has cited some objectively proven non-existent "result of the RFC" to justify pushing his POV. Please, anyone who has not lost their mind compare these two versions and tell me which is more appropriate. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To point out a certain report about a certain individual as proof that stoning continues to be officially sanctioned by the judiciary or to dismiss a cited report about a law banning stoning, is considered original research. What we can report here is that despite the moratorium, there were 4 cases in year X, which is what we have already done in the article. Also, the judiciary spokesperson makes it clear that the lower courts sometimes act on their own and hand out this sentences, which is later overturned by the judiciary. But we should list the cases where the punishment was actually carried out, which is what I have done. I also want to make a note that this is a very complicated issue. I urge people who are not familiar enough with the topic, to refrain from "supporting" X and Y, just because they were asked to on their talk pages, by a certain user. Also, there will be no consensus based on yays and nays of anyone who is canvassed on their talk page by AzureFury. AlexanderPar (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AlexanderPar, you're on a loser here. I can turn up dozens of sources that say that stoning is still in the penal code, and that stoning is in Sharia, and that sentences are still being handed down, that the higher courts are not overturning the sentence, and that people are still being stoned if it can be done without attracting the attention of the rest of the world. There's nothing particularly complicated about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I am saddened by attempts to water down the section on stoning in Iran. You'll note that the objection to the information on stoning in Iran was July 2010. I do not think it is coincidence that this came up just as the most recent and well known case of stoning in Iran became publicized (that of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani). (Of course, the problems with the editing on that page are well documented, but I digress.) So here's what may be tripping some people up. While there may have been a moratorium on stoning by the head of the judiciary in 2002, a report in 2008 by the United Nations confirms that stoning has been carried out since then. Additionally, a report by the UN in 2009 indicated that at least eight women and one man had been sentenced to death by stoning. Since the sources are reports by the UN, as I understand it this may be considered original work (?). Included in the 2nd report, in a few of the cases detailed in the report, there is indication that the stoning sentences listed have been confirmed by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the response by the government stated that it follows Islamic law, and that it uses stoning as a deterrent to preserve sacredness of the family. This report can be found here http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/women/rapporteur/annual.htm I don't know how this could be integrated into the page, but I think this is about as neutral of a source as you are likely to get on this subject. (I would add it myself, however, I am much better at researching this topic than I am at making sure I follow all the required Wiki markup.)Petit9621 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC) petit9621

References

Stoning in Christianity

This section needs a reliable source that explains Christian attitudes toward stoning. Although the NT says that Jesus prevented a stoning we need a source that explains the significance of this. TFD (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus came not to "soften" the Old Testament, but to enforce it. He fully supported everything in the Old Testament so the Torah laws on stoning still hold for Christians, just like everything else that is there in the Holy Scripture:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

--Bishop Morehouse (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone feel this article is off-base?

After running my eye over this article I have to say it seems seriously off-base and in need of a complete rewrite. Frankly, as it stands, we could probably just move this entire article to Religous viewpoints on stoning. Very little of this article seems to be about stoning itself. It's more about the religous context of stoning.

Additionally, there is a semi-overt attempt in this article to demonize Islam by linking it to the practice of stoning, while mitigating/minimalizing stoning in Judeao-Christain history. I detect the rank stench of religous bigotry hanging over this article. Aren't we wikipedians above this kind of behavior?

I motion for a complete rewrite, aimed primarily at removing/summarizing the "religous" material from this article. Anyone want to support? NickCT (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, they're still stoning people in Islam. I don't know of any Judeao-Christian countries that still stone people. It's not our job to whitewash reality. Further, we write material based on the weight given by the sources. So if the sources tie stoning to religion, so should we. If you feel that something has been neglected regarding the actual practice of stoning, feel free to add it. But I don't think you'll ever get consensus for massive deletions of all the religion themed material. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@Azure I'm not trying to "whitewash" anything. I'm simply pointing out that the huge majority of this article is about stoning in the context of religon. The title of the article is simply stoning, which isn't an inherently religous topic. The article should be sectioned like this -

1) Lede - I think the current lead is fine,

2) History of Stoning Brief describing points in history in which is was used.

3) Notable stonings List of people stoned.

4) Relgious context for stoning

4.1) In Islam - Summarize and fork the current material

4.2) In Judaism - Summarize and fork the current material

4.3) In Christanity - Summarize and fork the current material NickCT (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's enough material to justify or necessitate forking at this point. In any case, it's pretty easy to throw around sweeping propositions. Much harder to find someone to do it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Re "it's pretty easy to throw around sweeping propositions" - I'd agree. I'll consider doing it, but I want to reach consensus it being needed.

Re "there's enough material to justify or necessitate forking" - That's not really the point. I'm not saying there is too much material. I'm saying the material that is here, is not primarily about stoning. I challenge to take a look at all the other capital punishment articles on WP and find me one that talks about a mode of capital punishment solely/predominantly in the context of how it is regarded in Judaism/Christainity/Islam. NickCT (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The assumption here is that stoning is just like any other form of capital punishment. I think burying someone in the ground and then throwing small stones at them until they die is a little bit different than say lethal injection or firing squad. It's ritualistic. So yes, this article may differ from other forms of capital punishment, but I think appropriately so. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not an assumption. It's an obligation on our part. Stoning is the same as any other form of capital punishment from the perspective of a policy compliant wiki editor. They're all 'ritualistic' forms of execution set within legal frameworks that are discussed by many reliable sources from our perspective. Where an editor happens to personally place the execution methods of Texas and Tehran on their personal morality/cruelty/etc axes can't come into it because it's not about us. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The one to compare it with is probably Crucifixion or Burning, as both punishments have a religious and ritual component. I can't see any reason to fork the content - it all belongs in this article. Stoning - unlike hanging or beheading, arose specifically as a religious punishment prescribed by the Abrahamic religions for certain offenses which transgress their religious code, so most of the article is bound to have that religious component. If there is evidence that the Polynesians or the Aztecs used stoning as a method of execution, that should certainly be included, but as it is, the only evidence for its use as a method of formal execution is in Judaism and Islam. If you want to remove information which is more about the religion and less about the practice of executing people by stoning, I suggest you propose alternative wording, but I can't see any merit in your alternative structure.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I can see I'm not gaining much traction here, but a few counter points before I drop it.

@Elen - re "probably Crucifixion or Burning, " - Ok.... So LOOK at those pages! Death by burning talks about religous aspects as a sidenote, not as the primary focus of the article. Even Crucifixion, which is strongly tied to Christianity, takes a more secular historical approach than this article on stoning.

re "arose specifically as a religious punishment" - Well, if it's true that no one has ever been stoned outside somekind Judaism/Islamic punishment, then perhaps that would be an excuse for this article focusing so heavily on religious aspects of stoning. But are you really going to tell me that no one was ever stoned pre-Abrahamic religions, or that no one was ever stoned outside those religions? This seems like a fairly bold assertion. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your points about Death by burning and Crucifixion seem to more imply incompleteness in articles, rather than a need to fork them. Death by burning is really not a great example as even from reading the lede, it is apparent that the article is suffering from WP:Systemic bias. It's not a high traffic article, so not a lot of people have read it/contributed to it, making it a poor source of precedence. Crucifixion is very similar to Stoning, but rather than viewing the differences as "we cover the religious aspect more," I think it would be more useful to observe that, "they cover the empirical more thoroughly." Which would imply that this article should also cover the secular aspect more thoroughly, rather than forking/reweighting the religious parts. In any case, we have a sample size of about 1 here when try to decide what action to take. I think we could consider this fairly unfamiliar territory, which would mean that whatever decisions we make need to be supported by the sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@NickCT - I'm certainly not saying that, so please don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that all the evidence I have pertains to the Abrahamic religions. Without sources I can add nothing - as I am sure you would agree. If you feel the need to prune the religious content, then be WP:BOLD. Who knows, it may be an improvement, but more information would be more of an improvement Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@AzureFury - re " Which would imply that this article should also cover the secular aspect more thoroughly " - And that's my point. I think we are closer to seeing eye-to-eye here. I would however go further by saying that this article doesn't even really scratch the secular aspect. It only deals with stoning from a religous perspective.

@Elen of the Roads - re "please don't put words in my mouth" - I wouldn't dream of it. I thought it was implicit in your argument that stoning only occurred in the context of Abrahamic religons. You seem to be saying now that you simply see no RS to suggest that stoning occurred outside Abrahamic religions. Frankly, I would have thought it was a safe assumption to believe that stoning probably occurred elsewhere in some other culture. Perhaps I should research though before saying that though. NickCT (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Emerentiana would be an example of alleged stoning to death by folks who weren't fans of an Abrahamic religion. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Sean.hoyland. Thanks for the point. NickCT (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@NickCT - apology for crankiness. Yes, what I meant to say was that I have not seen RS for stoning practiced as a formal method of execution anywhere else in the world. I'm sure I recall news reports of people being stoned by mobs ... India, Kenya, India again, but in the 1850s, this one's from England, Kashmir.

This probably ought also to be in the article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@Elen of the Roads - No need to apologize for crankiness. Sometimes it's called for. I agree your link should be included. I really should try to allot some time to be WP:BOLD and engage in a large-scale rewrite. I'm going to put it on my "to do" list. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

On this one, I totally agree with NickCT. This article is really bad. Either the title should be changed in "Stoning in Abrahmic religion", either the article should be rewritten as the other articles on forms of capital punishment, with a structure based on what is Stoning (1. Principle 2. Historical usage 3. Contemporary usage 4. Religious recommandation or so) and not which God stones more people (in any case, it would probably be Jah...) The exemples of Death by burning and Crucifixion are eloquents! Kromsson (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Kromsson. I was beginning to think I was all alone and slightly crazy.... NickCT (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

The intro should be re-written. It is poorly thought out ("person" and "individual" used in one sentence to refer alternately to both the accused and the crowd), and the definition somewhat unusual. The idea of individual anonymity is probably wrong, more likely is the idea of collective/community justice.124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the Reality of Stoning

I have no appetite to follow the links to videos of stonings, but what is the reality of this practice? Is it a relatively quick death - is a person bombarded with large rocks becoming unconscious rapidly, or is it drawn out and slow? The article doesn't even make it clear if the victim(POV) is buried, bound or otherwise constrained. I'm sure the reality isn't pleasant, but a neutral non-sensationalist report of what actually happens, and some medical information on the mode of death (concussion, shock, internal/external bleeding?) would help with getting a true perspective on the subject.The Yowser (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This would be of interest to me as well. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This Amnesty report contains some details spread throughout together with procedural details in APPENDIX 3: Ritual of Stoning Punishment in Iran. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Amnesty are a voice of sanity in an insane world. The Yowser (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about "The 18 crimes related to stoning" (stoning in judaism)

Does "criminal conversation" in this context mean "to have sex with", or does it actually mean discussing some sort of forbidden topic (or talking without the womans master being present, perhaps)? And if it means "to have sex with", could this be made clear in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian Stoning

The statement made in the "Views" section "because capital punishment does not exist in Indonesian law" is incorrect. There is currently one Australian in Indonesia who has been given the death penalty for drug smuggling. he is currently going through his final appeal to have it changed to a prison trem. I would say that certain forms of capital punishment are against the constitution as cruelty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.161.45 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

I copyedited this article as part of the September 2010 copyediting drive. I haven't deliberately changed meaning or emphasis. The section on Iran had redundant paragraphs when I got to it, which I merged; I also re-ordered the countries alphabetically. I removed the {{citation needed}} below Usage today as there are citations in the subsections immediately beneath. The organisation of the "In Islam" section seems a bit off, but I'm reluctant to change it as I know little about such things. It looks like someone has mischievously edited this article in the past, as the quote from Jamal Karimirad was given as coming a few years after his death. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

pederasty in "the 18 crimes..."

I wonder where pederasty comes from in that list, since the source (Lev. xx 13) only mentions homosexuality (specifically, male - male homosexuality) without any mention of the age of the participants. WhiteDragon (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know. I'm going to be bold and change it; if it's an issue of debate, let's have the debate here. Otherwise, it's a question that's now 3 months old, and still without a good answer, when the text obviously says otherwise. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon further review, it seems that this article might want to be forked into "Judaism and stoning" or something like that. I'm going to have to look at it more before making a change on a contentious article. Or maybe I'll make the change anyway; the part I'm changing isn't in itself contentious; it just might wind up being deleted or moved soon. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much WhiteDragon; only if they bite the penis do the Cains stone the child; although they, sometimes kill the sucker with a military blow job. Gnostics (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Both male to male homosexuals as well as female on female homosexuals are equally convicted in the Holy Script.Bishop Morehouse (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Stoning in Iraq

I would like someone provide me with some proof that the Iraqi government stone peoples. And please don't tell me about Doa, just because she was hit with a building block by a murderer it doesn't make Iraq one of them, it is prohibited just like in European countries, otherwise you will have to include Canada, USA, France, Germany, UK, and almost all other countries. Iraq will be removed one week from now. feb.08.11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted Iraq from the "as of 2010" list due to total absence of sources. The only mentions I can find either refer to a 2007 incident (whose source calls it a murder and not an execution) and a variety of web pages that don't seem to know the difference between Iraq and Iran. Astarabadi (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Practices and Methods of Implementation

I notice that this article right now focuses entirely on the legality, history and religious connections to stoning, with no mention of how the actual practice is carried. A section in this article explaining *how* stoning is implemented and any variations upon it would be helpful. Do all jurisdictions stone people to the point of death? Are the people buried in a pit before stoning? Are there limits on the type of stones that may be used? How long does it typically take before they die? What is the most common medical cause of death from stoning?

All of this information is completely absent from the article in its current state.Spudst3r (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay I've added a Practices and Methods of Implementation section to rectify some of this, but if anyone has information on the medical cause of death that would be worth placing in another section of the article.Spudst3r (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible bias/non-clarity on Stoning in Islam

"Because the word used in the Quran, 'zina', is exactly parallel to the Hebrew 'zanah', which strictly refers to fornication and not adultery (which is 'na'aph'), the Quran may not even be speaking of adultery at all. In that case, the point could be made that the command of the Torah on the punishment of adultery, namely, stoning to death, still stands. However, this is not the usual reason that Muslims support stoning for adultery, as most do not hold the Bible to be reliable, and instead derive from the hadiths."

This is untrue. "zina", according to Arabic lexicons, means any sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other.

- There is also a need for clarification on the stoning punishment in Islam:

• An adulterous man/woman cannot be sentenced to death by stoning until he/she confesses the offence four times.

• If the adulterer man/woman while exposed to stoning is no more able to endure the punishment he/she shall be left alone. The punishment shall stop.

I am new to the editing. Can I go ahead and edit the article by citing relevant references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aburisha (talk • contribs) 08:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"This is untrue. "zina", according to Arabic lexicons, means any sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other."

But that is exactly the definition of "fornication" in English also. Fornication is defined as "sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person" and "the act of such illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman which does not by law amount to adultery."

However, isn't this all somewhat irrelevant. The fact is that stoning has been allegedly imposed as a penalty for things other than "adultery" by various Islamic courts, and that it has certainly been continued beyond the point that the person sentenced "is no more able to endure the punishment", to the point where they are dead.

In answer to your other question, anyone is free to amend Wikipedia. It is certainly advisable to include reliable citations, otherwise your amendment could well be reverted, and, as you have done here, to attempt to discuss anything which you think may be controversial. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan

How reliable is the alleged stoning of Arifa Bibi? I have searched long and hard to find a reliable source to back up this story. All I can find is an article in the Independent, cited in the story, which fails to mention where the alleged incident occurred (other than "Pakistan"), and seems to be merely background fluff to a story about attempts being made to get the United Nations to outlaw death by stoning. Other than that, the most comprehensive article appears to be a Pakistani tabloid, Pakistan Times, which repeats what appears to be a 10 line news agency feed reporting on the alleged woman's cousins mentioning the incident on a television programme (I have added this to the citations). Various other Pakistani websites repeat the same 10 lines, either with or without attribution, as do numerous blogs, where the writer uses the alleged incident to support their personal views. There are also numerous examples where Wikipedia is being cited as the confirmation that the alleged incident occurred. However, I can find no reliable comprehensive report, and the reputable Pakistani papers appear to have ignored it completely (usually they would flash this sort of story across their front pages, with editorials condemning "backwards religious fundamentalists"). The lack of any reliable corroborating evidence seems to suggest that this is little more than an urban myth.

Perhaps someone who can read Urdu or Punjabi (the incident is alleged to have occurred in Punjab) could see if anything more reliable can be found in the Pakistani press in those languages. If not, I suggest that the incident is removed until better sources can be found. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC - Lede, map, sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a need for a third opinion from neutral editors on the lede of this article.

An editor is removing sourced information from the lede; is removing a map on the legality of stoning; and is misrepresenting sources.

The originl lede included this:

Stoning remains a legal form of judicial punishment in Iran, Qatar, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Northern Nigeria, Terengganu in Malaysia, Aceh in Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan. Stonings after legal procedures have been reported only in Iran and Somalia; although several other countries practice extrajudicial stoning, while several others have sentenced people to death by stoning, but have not carried out the sentences.

and this map:

Countries with stoning as a legal penalty

  In law but no longer in use

−

  In law and in use

−

  In law, not actively in use at a regional level

The user has removed much of the information, as well as the map. The user has added to the lede: "In modern times, false allegations of stoning become part of political propaganda, as in case of Iran

and has refused a compromise that would read:"Iran has claimed that in modern times false allegations of stoning have become part of political propaganda."

Some help here would be appreciated.188.25.158.94 (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Map is incorrect and sources are not reliable - tabloids with rumors. This is what serious sources says:

- It was Khomeini-Ardebili order at High court to forbid stoning as capital punishment in 1981: [18]

- Official moratorium has been put in 2002

- Finally, stoning has been scraped from civil law even as word in 2012 [19]

Iran hasn't "claim" anything, facts are clear from law and practice, only other side made claims without any proper evidence. No laws, no documents, no photos/videos. Their goal is clear, not any kind of "concert for human rights" but to represent Iranians as some "cruel savages" for political purposes. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Questions: do editors here see any significant difference between trying to kill someone with a bullet, knife, club or stone? I have no idea whether Iran stones people, but I am interested to learn whether they practice capital punishment. If so, what has their self-reported wrongful execution rate been in proportion to the retrospective wrongful execution rate based on DNA testing? Also, who bears responsibility for wrongful stoning executions? The person who casts the first stone, the last stone, any stone equally, or the people who allow capital punishment? EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT - Your comment seems off point. But, for kicks and giggles, I'll answer your question. Yes I see a significant difference between methods of execution. If someone told me I was going to die, I'd far prefer it be by something like lethal injection than by stoning. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I imagine when societies get ashamed about stoning, they move up to firing squads or the guillotine, which are indistinguishable to me. Since the basis of this controversy appears to be shame over accusations of barbarism, it makes sense to point out that the retrospective wrongful execution rate compared to earlier claims is a much greater source of shame about barbarism, and the ultimate reason for shame about any particular method. I imagine wrongful executions get swept under the rug in authoritarian societies, but they should be considered in reference material on the topic. In the developed world, the retrospective wrongful execution rate has been much higher compared to claims of certainty prior to individual executions than any reasonable legal theory of responsibility for deliberate and premeditated wrongful killing could possibly accommodate. EllenCT (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support first lede: The second lede give undue weight to a claim not completely stated by the BBC article ("Iran claims..."), and the other article cited is not even reliable. Information from the BBC article can go in the body. --Precision123 (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose first lede - After looking at this briefly, the last case of reliably confirmed stoning I can find in Iran seems to be Soraya Manutchehri in 1986. I can't find any sources which definitively state that there has a been a stoning in Iran since then. Can anyone else find a definitive case of stoning in Iran since 1986? If not, I think User:Qizilbash123 got this right. The content about Iran appears to be more motivated out of political propaganda than actual fact. NickCT (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

After further research, there appears to be some evidence that a Jafar Kiani was stoned in 2007.ref, but it appears the Iranian government stopped the practice in 2008.ref. I think I still weakly oppose the first lede. NickCT (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

After yet further research, the Iranian judiciary claimed a stoning had taken place in 2009 ref, but I'm having trouble finding independent confirmation. NickCT (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

After yet further consideration; though I still weakly oppose the first lead, I'd support if it were slightly reworded to something like "In the past decade, stonings after legal procedures have been reported only in Iran and Somalia;". The legal status of stoning in Iran seems unclear. Changing the wording to reflect the ambiguous legal status seems like a good idea. It would also seem wise to add a time frame (i.e. a decade) to clarify what currently "in use" means. NickCT (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT, I agree with NickCT about that issue, stoning is considered as backward and cruel even by clerics who lead revolution. That's why Khomeini (head of state) and Ardebili (chief of judiciary) in 1981 give order to High court to block all such verdicts by local courts. There's information about it in research work above written by Jamileh Kadivar, former member of parliament. I guess no one here speaks Persian, but I hope you can translate page 151 (۱۵۱).

@Precision123, beside BBC there's plenty of other sources about denial also [20][21][22], there's even official statement by Iranian parliament about it. Other article is written by Pascal Riché and surely more reliable considering mainstream media.

@NickCT, story about Soraya Manutchehri is actually based on novel by Freidoune Sahebjam, political dissident and monarchist who claimed on cover that from 1979 revolution to mid 1990's "thousand women have been stoned". This is sheer innuendo, even Amnesty Internation (organization heavily criticized by Iran for disorting) around 2010 claimed there's has been "70 stonings". If you want to check reability of that organization compare alleged articles 102-104 about burial and size of stones which I removed with official Iranian penal code. Articles 102-104 actually speaks only about complaints and fines. Newest penal code is from 21 April 2013 while article from Amnesty is from 2008, but even earlier Iranian penal code from 11 December 2007 has same rules in 102-104 articles. So such claims by Sahebjam or Amnesty make very little sense, if stoning really is practiced in Iran there would be official source about it or even kind of photo or video (some 2/3 of population has camera/cellphone), but there's nothing like it. General problem is that stoning is massively attributed to Iran in thousands of mainstream media articles, but officials denied everything. There's even Persian article where judiciary spokesman Mohammad-Reza Asfanani cleary states there was no any stoning in Iran since 1979. Official statement (2013) about stoning by Iranian parliament says this - it's part of religious law but it has been excluded from civil law. Misunderstanding is based on mistake that religious law is above civil one, and before deletion of stoning from civil law major misunderstanding was confusing procedural and executive penal code. What does it means? Jamal Karimi-Rad, Mohammad-Javad Larijani, Mohammad-Reza Asfanani and many others already expained it: since Iran's procedural judiciary is decentralized on local level some judges may give stoning verdict (mainly in Sunni areas), but since executive one is strongly centralized such verdicts will be replaced by High court. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Qizilbash123 - So when the BBC says "The Iranian judiciary says a man has been stoned to death for adultery"ref in 2007, what does that mean? Did the Iranian judiciary lie? Is the BBC lying? NickCT (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT, Here's explanation (Persian language) of that 2007 case by Iranian jurists - third section of article is completely dedicated to it. That was the first time since official moratorium (2002) that local judge issued verdict of stoning for one man, and it was controversy in Iran ifself. Alireza Jamshidi, official spokesman for Iran's judiciary, said local judge really gave such verdict but he denied practice took place as some organizations claimed. This is one of numerous cases of mixing procedural and executive penalties as explained above. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Procedural verdicts are often taken de facto by outsiders, althought numerous legal experts explained High court always changes executive pentalty (replacing with hanging or long-term jail sentence instead of death penalty). BBC actually again refers to Amnesty, I wonder from where they took informations (wrong translation or intentionaly manipulated by some political dissident group). --Qizilbash123 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

re " Alireza Jamshidi, official spokesman for Iran's judiciary, ....... as some organizations claimed." - Do you have an Englsih language RS for this? All the sources I can find read like the following : "Dr. Alireza Jamshidi ... announced ... on 10 July 2007, that the stoning of Jafar Kiani had indeed taken place"ref. NickCT (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry (NickCT but since you forgot to tag me I didn't reply on time. In given Persian article official spokesman Alireza Jamshidi actually says only verdicts has been given (first one after 5 years of moratorium), not that stoning actually took place (section برخلاف دستور، اجرا شد = Unlike the orders were carried out). There's also another Persian article where new spokesmen Mohammad-Ali Asfanani clearly states there was no any stoning practice in Iran since 1979. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support first lede: Is a sourced and accurate statement LordFixit (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

LordFixit, do you know what's meaning of word "accurate"? It's not something you believe coz you saw it in media. You imply Iranian parliament and highest judiciary officers are wrong? Person in West poisoned by all media manipulations may preceive it as "accurate", but for average Iranian it sounds as science fiction since stoning isn't even part of Shia religious literature. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• The second lede is unacceptable. It's just POV pushing. If there is enough reliable sources then change it accordingly. If Iran no longer does it and what ever else provide a reliable source. If this is not done change it back to what it was originally.Serialjoepsycho (talk)

Serialjoepsycho, I provided many links with statesments of highest officials and there's also link to website of Iranian parliament. What's more reliable then that? --Qizilbash123 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not actually interested in debating with you. If your sources meet scrutiny then it should definitely stay. However if you are the one responsible for, "In modern times, false allegations of stoning become part of political propaganda, as in case of Iran." I then must tell you that (wp:redflag) exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Your sources for that aren't. If you are going to propose a Western conspiracy theory against Iran you'll need more than a BBC article that doesn't support your claim and a questionable source. If you are the editor responsible for that your other additions should also be put under scrutiny to insure they comply with wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does offer mentorship and other help to new users. wp:adopt for mentorship or just go ask some questions at Wikipedia:Teahouse.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support first lede with one change I would exclude any extra sentence about Iran and propaganda, since it gives the article an Iran-centric focus. I think that sentence should go in the Iran section within the body of the article. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Useitorloseit, I have no problem with putting it within the body of the article if considered Iran-centric focus. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Against second lede I don't know enough about the accuracy of the graphic to speak. Maybe it needs to be modified. However, the second lede is not at all supported by the BBC source, and the second source is highly unreliable and partisan.—140.153.24.155 (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Non-Islamic stoning considerations

Stoning is a method of execution that is intentionally meant to be torture, but from the article and comments here, it appears to be disappearing in practice. It is also clearly a ritual and usually has involved punishment for offenses of a consensual sexual nature, rather than for civil offenses.

It is not advocated for in the Koran.

Most of Western Europe has rejected executions but the U.S. has preserved it in many states and there are elements of ritualism in it as well. In those states that retain it, most have sought less barbaric methods that aim to reduce the pain involved, though they have variously remained problematic.

While mainstream religious thought has generally opposed executions, there is a element of religion that has supported their retention, even including a stated desire in the U.S. for the initiation of actual stoning. This is found most especially amongst Dominionists and Reconstructionists such as the late Rousas Rushdoony. His son Mark has continued in that tradition.

So my question is, should the article reflect those various features and tendencies? Activist (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Cain and Stoning of Able

Stoning began with Cain, and all which practice such are kids of Cain. Gnostics (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)(sorry, appears to be a bug in the Wikipedia software that does not bind the citations to the above section)

The map

@103.27.229.56 - What is in the map that is not consistent with the source? I welcome your comments to help improve it. RLoutfy (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Basic points:

1. There's explanation about map at #RFC - Lede, map, sources.
2. Section "Practices and methods of implementation" is simply fake because there are no such Iranian law.
3. Claims about alleged stoning in Iran are all based on Western propaganda news, everything was denied by judicary officials.
4. You removed this source which was written by member of Iranian parliament, and instead of it you put some BBC crap. Amazing.

--Qizilbash123 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That RfC is closed. The consensus did not agree with you. The consensus supports the Iran content and the map.

The practices and implementation section is well sourced. I replaced the dead link with live one.

The commentary by one judiciary official has be mentioned in the article. WP:NPOV requires that all sides be summarized, not just one judiciary official's.

That article by Jamileh Kadivar is now in the article. It is a Persian language document (a language I can read). Please don't cherry pick. I have included a relevant translation. RLoutfy (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Answer:

1. RfC was about WP:LEAD, and I stated I'm not against excluding Iranian statements about media manipulations because it can be inserted in section about Iran itself.
2. "Well sourced"? Learn some elementary points about WP:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV. I've inserted reliable Iranian links, and you're just removing them and replacing it with yellow press. Basic question here is: if stoning is applied by "law" and "religion", then why every single Iranian official denied it in past years (even decades)? Not single case of stoning implementation has been recorded since 1979 according official sources so reports by Western "human rights" groups makes little sense. They have no names, no videos, no photos, no nothing. Only they have is strong desire to present Iranians as barbarians for political purposes. Nothing more, nothing less.
3. You have been forcing section called "Practices and methods of implementation" which allegedly details "how stoning punishments are to be carried out", and it's sourced by Amnesty International. Now let's see what real law says in articles 102-104:

ماده 102- هرگاه متضررین از جرم، متعدد باشند تعقیب جزایی با شکایت هر یک از آنان شروع می شود ولی موقوفی تعقیب، رسیدگی و اجرای مجازات موکول به گذشت تمام کسانی است که شکایت کرده اند. تبصره- حق گذشت، به وراث قانونی متضرر از جرم، منتقل و در صورت گذشت همگی وراث حسب مورد تعقیب، رسیدگی یا اجرای مجازات موقوف می گردد. ماده 103- چنانچه قابل گذشت بودن جرمی در قانون تصریح نشده باشد، غیرقابل گذشت محسوب می شود مگر اینکه از حق الناس بوده و شرعاً قابل گذشت باشد. ماده 104- علاوه بر جرائم تعزیری مندرج در کتاب دیات و فصل حدقذف این قانون و جرائمی که به موجب قوانین خاص قابل گذشت می باشند، جرائم مندرج در قسمت أخیر ماده (596) و مواد (608)، (622)، (632)، (633)، (642)، (648)، (668)، (669)، (676)، (677)، (679)، (682)، (684)، (685)، (690)، (692)، (694)، (697)، (698)، (699) و (700) از کتاب پنجم «تعزیرات» نیز قابل گذشت محسوب میشوند.

Not a single word about stoning or capital punishment, which clearly proves AI's claims are fake. Regarding cherry pick, that's precisely what you have done with Kadivar's work, because you took something completely irrelevant, about flogging. Document clearly states Khomeini and Ardebili blocked it in 1981 after clerical discussions motivated by one European conference where Islam was shown as barbaric because of stoning. It also clearly says that stoning isn't compatible with Shiism which is known to every single scholar of Islam (stoning is found only in Sunni hadits). --Qizilbash123 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The use of stoning as a punishment is permitted by the Iranian penal code, whether it applies to Shias (and I'm not persuaded that it doesn't) is irrelevant, it's the law of the land in any case. If you intend to prove that AI is wrong Wikipedia is the wrong venue, their reports are accepted as reliable sources and that is unlikely to change any time soon.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Baseless nonsense. It is not permitted by Iranian penal code because it rahbar and highest court blocked it's application 33 years ago, and local Sunni courts can't do anything about capital punishment without approval of high court. Since you reverted disputable version with obviously faked law articles, it's clearly that you're not interested in spreading knowledge but misinformation and propaganda. If you continue with it you'll get reported to admins. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the consensus in the RFC, I propose that we go back to the previous version with the map. A new RFC can be held later to see if there's consensus for this new change. It looks to me like the content was reliably sourced, and I can't really see any reason to remove it. Claims of bias in Western media really aren't policy-based arguments; WP:BIASED specifically allows biased sources, as long as they are reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this is moot now. Still, there's some new content that was added since the deep reversion, and maybe we should discuss this. I'm honestly not all that concerned with using a specific version of the page, and I'm open to any policy-based arguments about how to proceed. I watchlisted this page because a vandal targeted this page along with "The Lottery", a famous American short story, and I thought it might get targeted again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added a 2014 translation of Iran's 2013 penal code on stoning. Instead of citing Persian documents, I have cited English language translation of Iran's penal code by a reliable source (even United Nations and EU uses this source). Book 5, Article 549 of Iran penal code also covers stoning, but Book 1 and 2 should suffice for now. I have not removed the tag yet, and welcome any additional concerns. RLoutfy (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The map is inaccurate, stoning is legal in the UAE. An Asian housemaid in Abu Dhabi was recently sentenced to stoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.27.225.53 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of Islamic State

This was removed from the section "Usage today", by Qizilbash123, without offering any valid reason for the removal.

Edit Request: Please add this back (if you think it's not well written, then add it in a modified form). I think it is very relevant to discuss Islamic State stoning here.

Section which was removed is this:

Islamic State (IS)

Further information: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Several adultery executions by stoning commited by IS have been reported in the autumn of 2014.

In October 2014, IS released a video appearing to show a Syrian man stone his daughter to death for alleged adultery.

References

Reuters and the BBC are reliable sources. This seems reliably sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The blanking carried out by Qizilbash should be reverted wholesale, it has no purpose other than to push his POV.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I added back the section.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4500 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Torah is the 1st of 5 books of the Hebrew Bible"

This does not make sense - all the books together are called torah--173.178.52.74 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User Krzyhorse22, tribal leaders and stoning in Afghanistan

Krzyhorse22 please stop removing the part about tribal leaders from the section on Afghanistan. That part was backed up by the citation of this news article (from The Independent), which explicitly states that tribal leaders carry out stoning extrajudicially in Afghanistan. The wiki page previously read: "Stoning is illegal in Afghanistan but is sometimes carried out by tribal leaders and Taliban insurgents extrajudicially in certain parts of the country." You are repeatedly editing out the mention of tribal leaders and that news article, ignoring my requests to resolve this dispute, instead opting for edit warring, which is very unconstructive.

On 8 November 2015, you removed the mention of that news article from the wiki page on stoning and gave no reason for doing so in the edit summary. On 16 November 2015, you removed the mention of tribal leaders as well and gave no reason for doing so in the edit summary. When I re-added that information on 18 November 2015, you removed it again and claimed that "That article about stoning in Iran and Pakistan (not about Afghanistan), you're wording implies that tribal leaders are allowed to stone women in Afghanistan."

I then reverted your removal of content, re-phrased the relevant sentence to (redundantly) emphasize that what the tribal leaders (and Taliban) are doing is extrajudicial (i.e. illegal acc. to current Afghan law) and requested you to read the Independent article in full so that you could see that it does mention stoning in Afghanistan, which qualifies it to be used as a source in the section on Afghanistan. I also posted on your talk page (under the heading "Stoning in Afghanistan") where I quoted the exact words of the Independent article about tribal leaders carrying out stoning extrajudicially in Afghanistan and explained to you that the wiki page on stoning already mentions that the act is illegal in Afghanistan so any mention of tribal leaders and the Taliban carrying it out necessarily implies that what they're doing is illegal (contrary to your accusation, my wording did not at all imply that tribal leaders were "allowed" to stone people). I also mentioned how I had nonetheless re-phrased the relevant sentence in the section on Afghanistan to (redundantly) emphasize that what the tribal leaders and Taliban are doing is extrajudicial and then requested you to not edit the stoning page again until we discussed all our reservations on your talk page.

You did not honor my request, instead you deleted the mention of tribal leaders and the Independent article again, stating (in the edit summary) that "I've read all of it, that UK news article is about stoning in Iran and Pakistan. A mere mention of something in that report doesn't mean much, I deal with Afghanistan, which tribal leader is stoning women? What's his name? Which tribe he represents?"

I again reverted your deletion of text, told you to see my answers to your queries on your talk page and requested you not to edit out the mention of tribal leaders until we settled the dispute on your talk page. On your talk page, I explained to you that that "mere mention" of tribal leaders carrying out stoning extrajudicially in Afghanistan was enough to add the mention of tribal leaders in the section on Afghanistan. I also explained to you how there was no compulsion to name each and every Afghan tribal leader that had ordered/engaged in stoning and that, if you thought mentioning names was important, you could add them yourself. I also told you that if you thought it would be more apt to say that "some" tribal leaders carried out stoning, then you could re-phrase the relevant sentence to say that but I also requested you again to not remove the very mention of tribal leaders from the stoning page because it was backed up by a reliable source. (Personally I think it was already abundantly clear from the wording of the section on Afghanistan that only some tribal leaders had carried out stoning, not all of them but anyways).

You did not cooperate. Instead you deleted the mention of tribal leaders and the supporting news article for a third time and stated in your edit summary that: "ONLY you are accusing Afghanistan's tribal leaders, which includes Hamid Karzai, of stoning people to death. Either stop reading this unsourced POV or provide sources. That UK news piece is focusing on legal stoning in Iran and Pakistan." I was very surprised to read this. I have not accused every tribal leader in all of Afghanistan of stoning, nor have I accused Hamid Karzai of being in the legion of tribal leaders who have done so. Can you seriously not discern that the stoning page (and the news article) are not accusing all tribal leaders? I gave you the option of re-phrasing the section on Afghanistan to say that "some" tribal leaders carried out stoning extrajudicially. Surely you cannot suggest that stoning has never been carried out by the order of "some" tribal leaders. I did provide a source, it was the news article from The Independent, which is reliable and is not pushing a POV, it is stating a fact. Please bring a source that states no tribal leader in Afghanistan has carried out stoning. And yes, I know that the news article's primary focus is on stoning in Iran and Pakistan but it also mentions stoning in Afghanistan, which qualifies it to be used as a source in the section on Afghanistan. Why do you keep overlooking that? You've also made this edit in the lede where it seems you are trying to cast doubt on stoning in Afghanistan again. To be honest I feel you're trying to hide that tribal leaders have engaged in stoning because it is an unflattering fact and you are conscious about how your nation's tribal leaders are perceived (I say "your nation" because you are Afghan).

It is very difficult for me to assume good faith when you have made this edit to your talk page whereby you have edited the heading of the section I created ("Stoning in Afghanistan"), thereby merging my section with another one made by someone else. Anyone who goes to your talk page now will not be able to see my section's heading in the table of contents and will glance over my comments as they have become part of some other section now and are not prominent anymore. Why did you make that edit to your talk page? It seems you are trying to conceal the section I made and the conversation we had.

And how can this dispute be solved? If an admin or a third party could step in, that would be appreciated. —Human10.0 (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You're accusing me of being a sock now, Krzyhorse22? All because I won't let you push your POV on this wiki page? Unbelievable. —Human10.0 (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I see you have now removed the sock accusation you made about me. I have nonetheless edited the link "You're accusing me of being a sock now, Krzyhorse22?" to link to where you had made that accusation. —Human10.0 (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22, regarding the significance of this article, I would encourage you to pay close attention to the following part of the article:

According to Tolo News Agency, Police Chief General Mustafa said: “The Taliban ordered stoning of the girl after she was caught eloping with a man on the mountains. Police has started investigations and will arrest the perpetrators soon.” But Wazhma Frogh, co-founder of the Research Institute for Women, Peace and Security, said the attackers could have been tribal leaders as local officials were known to blame Taliban insurgents “to cover up their own kind”. She told The Guardian: “Of course the Taliban do these things, but we can’t deny that tribal leaders also do the same things.”

The first bold text implies that tribal leaders carrying out stonings is not something unrealistic and that local officials were known to cover up such crimes if they were carried out by their tribal leaders. The second bold text clearly says that tribal leaders are known to carry out stonings and that this cannot be denied. I hope the significance of the article is clear now. —Human10.0 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Stoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/sultan-of-brunei-puts-flogging-stoning-on-the-statute-book/story-fnb64oi6-1226745083176#
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140313092405/http://www.stopstoning.net/IMG/article_PDF/article_20.pdf to http://www.stopstoning.net/IMG/article_PDF/article_20.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Numbers not found in references

The numbers in the part Views- Support for stoning - among muslims is NOT supported by the Pew Polls that are referenced. Only those that supported making sharia the law of the land were asked about stoning, not all muslims. For example, 74% of egyptians favored making sharia the law of the land. Among those, 81% supported stoning for adultery. But this article also claims that 80% of all muslims in Egypt supported stoning. This number cannot be found in the Pew polls referenced.

And it also seems very unlikely that approx. 77% of those who do NOT support making sharia the law of the land would still support stoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.173.71 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

213.114.173.71 (talk), I do not think you checked out the 226-pages long full Pew report (it is cited as a reference in the section you are talking about). Please show where that report says "Only those that supported making sharia the law of the land were asked about stoning, not all muslims." The section you are talking about has two references for each sentence that contains a number/percentage/stat. The first reference shows support for stoning in Muslims who favor making Sharia the law of the land (i.e., the law of their particular country) while the second reference shows support for stoning in all Muslims of a particular country. This second reference is the full Pew report.

You are right, 74% of Egyptians favor making Sharia the law of the land and among those, 81% support stoning (this is exactly what the Wiki article currently says). The 80% statistic you seem to find objectionable is mentioned in a table in the full Pew report. Please read the full report.

I do not know which country's statistic you're talking about when you mention "77%". Regardless, there is no good reason to believe that just because some people oppose making their religious law the law of the land, they must oppose stoning as well. Hence, there is no good reason to make any edits to the relevant section at the moment (in case that is what you were implying). Your personal view about such a thing being "unlikely" is not a good enough reason. I hope my response has clarified things. Regards —Human10.0 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/archive/other/2007/20070427.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

What is this article about?

Is this article about stoning as capital punishment or the practice of stoning in general? If the former, it should not be covering homicide; if the latter, the opening definition needs to be changed. Currently the lead defines stoning as capital punishment (def: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime) and then proceeds to lists countries where it occurs as illegal mob violence. It also consistently misuses the term "extrajudicial", which implies government action (see Extrajudicial killing). Eperoton (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Xenophon

In book Seven, [6] (pg 179 in OUP), The Expedition of Cyrus, Xenophon mentions an Arcadian who would like to see Xenophon stoned. It's not even the first occurrence of suggesting someone be stoned in the Anabasis. I have no idea if stoning ever was practiced by the Greeks, but should a mention of this potential be made in the article? --StephanNaro (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

perhaps we should change the definition of stoning

Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism#Punishment_by_Sekila_.28stoning.29 according to this article stoning was also done by taking a very big rock and killing them, which would probably be quick.123.231.110.222 (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please help me to edit the section 'Islam'

I made some changes in the article under the section islam. When I read the article, the first sentence said: 'Islamic sharia law is based on the Quran and the hadith as primary sources'. That is true although in different branches of Islam there is quite a difference between the acceptance of the Quran and the Hadith. There are branches that don't accept any Hadith at all. Only the Quran is the word of god. It was forbidden under the first 4 Caliphs after the death of Muhammed to record any Hadith (oral traditions attributed to the prophet Muhammed) and later Caliphs. The first Hadith were recorded 200 years after the prophets death. There were thousands of Hadith and 99% percent of them were rejected and about 1% were declared sahih (thrutful). Muslims vary in degrees of acceptance of these Hadith. To some muslims the hadith are almost on par with the quran itself. To others the Quran is the word of Allah but the Hadith are the words and deeds of a human (the prophet Muhammed) handed down by the 200 year old memory of lesser and lesser men. They are not infallible. Some muslims give little to no credence to the Hadith. Then there is also the different set of Hadith accepted by different branches of Islam (Temporary marriage or Female genital mutilation) who consider others Hadith as fake and unislamic.

I saw that the information on Judaism was categorized by religious scripture/sources. The Headings 'Torah' and 'Mishna'. Í wanted to do the same with Islam. A category/heading 'Quran' and 'Hadith' because of clarity and the various degrees of acceptance. I basically moved the information around that was already in the article, made a heading 'Quran' (because there was a heading 'Hadith' but not 'Quran') and put the information under the correct headings. Maybe it looked like I removed a lot of content (because of the extra heading?) cause my edit got reverted by NinjaRobotPirate.

I removed the part below because A) it was under the heading 'Hadith' when it claims to be about crimes in the Quran, B) it is incorrect. There is no mention of stoning in the Quran. Zina is not punished by stoning in the Quran but by Flogging with 100 lashes (and only when the accuser can provide 4 witnesses). Zina (at least according to the Quran) does not include Homosexuality or rape. Read the following link about Homosexuality and Zina to understand why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zina#Please_help_me_to_edit_the_section_'Homosexuality_and_Zina' Altough rape is extramarital sex, it does not fall under Zina and is radically different from consensual adultery and fornication. Rape is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran. It is not clear what Quranic crime it falls under. Because it involves sex it is easy to cluster it under Zina but it is much worser than that. It is a violent crime akin to severe abuse and terrorism, more like Hirabah]]. More than that it is unfair because it reverses everything and does great, great injustice to the woman that has been raped. The Zina verse was meant to help women and protect them from false slander. If rape occurs to a woman the burden of proof automatically reverses. There have to be (4?) witnesses present AND they have to be convinced that the woman did not have consensual sex. It must be really obvious to the witnesses that she is raped, resisting and she must risk getting beaten up, stabbed or even killed. If she is scared and does not visually resist a rapist and there are witnesses she risks getting flogged or even capital punishment on top of being raped. I heard of a case in Iran where a girl went to the police to report a rape, she was medically examined, sperm was found in her vagina. She didn't have witnesses to the rape, the rapist was never found, she was not married and there was proof that she had had sexual intercourse. Because of the apliance of the zina verse (and probably also some sick Hadith) to a case which was clearly rape she was arrested for Zina. I don't know what happened to her. I wonder if there were witnesses but only 2 instead of 4 what would happen? What if two witnesses said it was rape and one witness had doubts because she didn't really resist that much. Why was she outside at that time? Why was she not wearing a headscarf? If they couldn't provide proof would the witnesses get 80 lashes for slander or would the girl get those lashes?

Crimes in the Qur'an are divided into three categories based on the prescribed punishment for the offence. The first category is Hudud, which is considered a religious crime against God. Zina is one of the Hudud crimes, stated to deserve the stoning punishment. Zina includes extramarital sex, rape, premarital sex and homosexuality.

— 9:89:303

References