Iran is again showing the world the true meaning of Sharia law as a medieval system enforcing religious doctrine and orthodoxy. Sina Dehghan, 21, has been sentenced to death for criticism of Islam on social media. He was charged under article 262 of Iran’s Islamic Penal Code for ‘insulting the prophet’ of Islam.
Dehghan’s friends allege that he was promised that he would be spared if he confessed to making critical comments on the LINE instant messaging application about the Quran. He did and was then was convicted in the city of Arak and sentencing to death.
So the Sharia judge can now claim a major moral victory in executing a person who simply expressed his views of the Quran. Sharia courts continue to arrest and execute those who do not yield to Islamic orthodoxy or seek to exercise their right to free speech. It is an abuse shared with some of our closest allies like Saudi Arabia.
90 thoughts on “Iranian Sharia Court Sentences Man To Death For Critical Comments About the Quran On Social Media”
What’s missing from Professor Turley’s article is how Iran’s court system specifically addressed this case. And it’s not as simple as Squeeky implies.
So, if I may be serious here for a moment, first, let’s look at how Iran’s Penal Code works. Under Article 262, the act of insulting the prophet is punishable by death. However, Article 263 states that the accused can have their sentence reduced if they tell the court the insults were the result of anger or a mistake.
The accused, Sina Dehghan, did want to plead the defense that his insults were the result of anger or a mistake, and that he wished to repent in accordance with Article 262. However, the Islamic court system did not permit Dehghan to use his own attorney and required him to use only a court-appointed attorney. But the court-appointed attorney failed to argue Dehghan’s defense that his insult was a mistake.
Thus the Islamic Court of Iran applied a Catch 22 to Dehghan. He could only escape the punishment of death if his attorney argued the “anger/mistake” defense, but he could also only hire a court-appointed attorney who would refuse to argue that defense.
Pretty clever, huh, those Islamic judges?
In short, Sharia Law is no law at all and is a load of crap that they don’t even follow anyway because the purpose of Islam is to attack civilization.
Sorry, just to clarify, under Article 262, the act of insulting the prophet is punishable by death, but under Article 263, the accused can have his/her sentence reduced if he/she advises the court the insults were the result of anger or a mistake.
In short, Sharia Law is no law at all and is a load of crap that they don’t even follow anyway because the purpose of Islam is to civilization.
You think the lawyers who say with a straight face that the U.S. Constitution grants perverted gynacologists a right to ply their trade and requires state agencies grant marriage licenses to pairs of dudes are paragons of intellectual honesty? What does that say about ‘constitutional law’ in this country? (Or in Canada, where judges engaged in similar shenanigans as soon as Pierre-Elliot Trudeau’s bumwipe charter gave them an excuse?).
desperatelyseekingleftism: While the US courts and those in Canada are far from perfect, insofar as following procedures is concerned, there is no comparison whatsoever that can be made between Iran’s court system and those of North America.
Has there been a case anywhere in North America where the court required a defendant to use only a court-appointed attorney, rather than some other attorney?
Has there been a case anywhere in North America where a court-appointed attorney knowingly and deliberately refused to apply an obvious and permissible defense that would enable the defendant to escape a death sentence?
Has there been a case anywhere in North America where the court system refused to re-examine the case when a court-appointed attorney clearly committed malpractice by refusing to plead an obvious, permissible, and 100% applicable defense that could save the life of his client?
Hint: The answer is no.
Comments are closed.