Iranian Sharia Court Sentences Man To Death For Critical Comments About the Quran On Social Media

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”

  1. Bravo Iran! You know, I think I have to agree with the Leftists that we need to EXPAND the Islamization of the World. And it’s not just a question of fighting Islamophobia. I truly believe that with 100% Islamization, that the World will, at last, be able to secure World peace. Sure, hundreds of millions of people will have to be slaughtered in the process (and even after the process), but achieving the end of “World peace,” I believe, justifies taking the necessary actions to spread the law of Islam everywhere and every place.

  2. Sooo, what is different here than the Democrats and the SJWs who believe it is morally justifiable to “Hit Nazis”??? Aren’t they on the same path as the Muslims?

    Plus, at least the Iranians are going to kill this dude for what to them is a good purpose, that is reducing the desire of their citizens to degrade their religion. Maybe if Christians had done more of this over the years, we would not be the lost, goalless, soulless people that we have become. In the Western world, we have no idea of why we are here, what we are supposed to do with our lives, or what our relationship to our fellow people is supposed to be. We smoke dope, become drunks, meth addicts, heroin addicts, anti-depressive drug addicts,and coke fiends. Our women are pretty much a bunch of tatted up whores, with STDs, and piercings all over our bodies. Our men are pretty lazy and lost little boys out for a good time. And all of this while prissing and prancing around telling everybody how superior our system of life is, and how wonderful it is that we can be “ourselves” and do our own thing!

    Plus, if this Iranian was stupid enough to criticize Islam and the Prophet, while living in a country that routinely punishes such things with death, it looks to me like he was pretty stupid. So no big loss to humanity.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  3. We need to outlaw Sharia behavior. No more turban heads for the males and no more face masks or head scarves for the females. No mosques– burn em. When they pray in public- shoot em. There are some decent religions on Earth. Bhuddism and Hinduism are not bad. Mormons are good because the men will marry a number of humble ugly wives. Mark Twain discussed that in Roughing It. I am going to go read his book called Innocents Abroad. I will report back.

  4. When Muslims immigrate to the US, apparently they are still under threat of maiming or death by other Muslims if they fail to follow Sharia law. Maybe those laws being introduced in State legislatures outlawing Sharia Law, aren’t as stupid as they seem.

    1. Agreed Doglover. Unless I’m not understanding the word “Supreme”, our constitution is still the law of the land.

      1. Agree that we should not continue to try to convert the middle east to a progressive liberal utopia! Also agree that no “culture” should be supreme to our legal system. Unfortunately, our youth don’t seem to understand the dangers of content-based restrictions.

        1. No one ever attempted to ‘convert the middle east to a progressive liberal utopia’. That’s a witless palaeotrash caricature of Bush Administration policy. What they actually did do was attempt to promote electoral institutions in the Near East (which implicates some level of free public deliberation). Their primary efforts were directed at Afghanistan and Iraq, which the U.S. military was occupying.

      2. Sharia does not have the force of law in the U.S., so I’m not seeing what ‘doglover’ fancies he’s doing in ‘outlawing’ Sharia. You could have a situation where people could freely contract to submit disputes to arbitration panels making use of Sharia law. Not sure what’s wrong with that per se, so long as freedom of contract remains a principle of action.

        1. “Not sure what’s wrong with that per se, so long as freedom of contract remains a principle of action.”

          Of course. And freedom of contract is a protected right by our constitution, is it not? In our country however, I do not see how any private or public institution has the legal authority to build within that contract penalties that infringe the life, liberty and property of its members. Every law in this country is subordinate to our constitution or we are no longer a “nation of laws”; or at least one established on the principles found in our DoI.

  5. Western nations will not gain national security by bombing away Islam. Only Muslims can reform Islam and only on a time scale that entire cultures will transform. What western nations should be doing is not enabling the expansion of Sharia Law into their own countries. If one wants to observe Islam in a non-predominantly Muslim country, then that individual should fully assimilate into that country with its laws and reject Sharia law.

    1. They’re coming to get you! Look at what big teeth they have! They control the Senate, they control the House, OMG, they control the Executive branch!! H-I-D-E!!!!

      Er, wait a sec…

      Oh never mind.

      1. Snarkasm. Just like Obama to Romney re: Russia “the 1980’s are calling.” yuck. yuck.

        1. I like the term, “snarkasm.” Do you think liberals have a monopoly on it? Ha, ha,ha,ha. Boy, the yucks keep on coming today.

          Anyway Thanks. I’ll use it (often in admiration) when ever I read Squeeky’s comments (Squeeky, our radical leftist on this site 🙂 ).

  6. The harder a religion tries to impose itself on whomever it can reach, the weaker the argument, as that is all it is, an argument between who has the real super hero. Our Jesus can whoop your Mohamed, or my Moses can beat your whatever. The harder they try the stupider they get. If your god is that great, why the f*c^ does it need the protection of mere mortals. Sounds like Joey Clams running the corner.

      1. Fools have been slaughtering those who don’t ‘follow’ since the beginning. Religion is an instrument of power based on human needs to understand and feel protected, kind of like staying in the womb. In this case the blame is entirely on the Islamic religion. Christianity has, for the most part evolved into its proper place, to massage the worries out of the individual. However, religion as the weapon, is to blame. In every religion there lies a smoldering the justification for this barbarism, as it is found in Islam openly, direct, and defended, and as it is found in the West, indirect, with double talk, and defended as well, just not clearly explained.

        1. I agree issac but what lies “smoldering” is not the religion but human nature. Religion is the means. And we have many means that are used to justify the infringement of the right to life, liberty and property. We lose the moral high ground when we support ANY means that will infringe those rights.

  7. The harder a religion tries to impose itself on whomever it can reach, the weaker the argument, as that is all it is, an argument between who has the real super hero. Our Jesus can whoop your Mohamed, or my Moses can beat your whatever. The harder they try the stupider they get. If your god is that great, why the f*c^ does it need the protection of mere mortals. Sounds like Joey Clams running the corner.

    1. issac, you do realize that “whatever” is a reference to female genitalia?

  8. It would be interesting to note whether or not Iran allows it’s Internet Service Providers to destroy online privacy the way the GOP has just voted to allow American ISP’s to do.

    Glen Greenwald, as usual, sums it up nicely.

    Clarifying events in politics are often healthy even when they produce awful outcomes. Such is the case with yesterday’s vote by House Republicans to free internet service providers (ISPs) – primarily AT&T, Comcast and Verizon – from the Obama-era FCC regulations barring them from storing and selling their users’ browsing histories without their consent. The vote followed an identical one last week in the Senate exclusively along party lines.

    It’s hard to overstate what a blow to individual privacy this is. Unlike Silicon Valley giants like Facebook and Google – which can track and sell only those activities of yours which you engage in while using their specific service – ISPs can track everything you do online. “These companies carry all of your Internet traffic and can examine each packet in detail to build up a profile on you,” explained two experts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Worse, it is not particularly difficult to avoid using specific services (such as Facebook) that are known to undermine privacy, but consumers often have very few choices for ISPs; it’s a virtual monopoly.


    But what distinguishes this latest vote is that this pretext is unavailable. Nobody can claim with a straight face that allowing AT&T and Comcast to sell their users’ browser histories has any relationship to national security. Indeed, there’s no minimally persuasive rationale that can be concocted for this vote. It manifestly has only one purpose: maximizing the commercial interests of these telecom giants at the expense of ordinary citizens. It’s so blatant here that it cannot even be disguised.

    That’s why, despite its devastating harm for individual privacy, there is a beneficial aspect to this episode. It illustrates – for those who haven’t yet realized it – who actually dominates Congress and owns its members: the corporate donor class.

    President Trump doesn’t like to be spied on but does he believe the rest of us are totally fair game because P=R=O=F=I=T? Privacy for me but not for thee (as usual).

    Let us see whether or not Trump gets behind this vote – he still has veto power. Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!

    In the meantime, look over there at Sharia law!

      1. Of course Trump will sign this. Elections have consequences as we have been told over and over again.

        1. Oh, so you think the Democrats would protect you for an instant if they were in power? Sap. They voted against this only because they knew it would pass anyway.

            1. Obama is the ultimate VICHY neoliberal. He, along with Rahm Emanuel, was all for selling out privacy rights along with net neutrality until there was an overwhelming reaction against it, not only by the public, but by large companies like Google (who couldn’t care less about your privacy but who didn’t want to be throttled by ISP’s controlling user throughput on a site by site basis – making sites pay for better throughput). How quickly we forget.

              Moreover, Obama’s history regarding spying on American citizens, not to mention killing them by drone with no due process, is abysmal.

              Had you even bothered to read the article, you just might have noticed Greenwald does not spare the moribund VICHY Democrats, including Obama, from his article,

              This recognition – of who owns and controls Congress – is absolutely fundamental to understanding any U.S. political issue. And it does – or at least should – transcend both partisan and ideological allegiance because it prevails in both parties.

              I still recall very vividly when I attended the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver. It was just months after the Democratic Congress (with ample help from the Bush White House and GOP members) spearheaded a truly corrupt bill to vest the telecom industry with retroactive immunity for having broken the law in allowing the NSA to access their American customers’ calls and records without the warrants required by law (that was the 2008 bill which Obama, when seeking the Democratic nomination, vowed to filibuster, only to then flagrantly violate his promise by voting against a filibuster and for the bill itself once he had the nomination secured).

              The sole beneficiaries of that bill were AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and the other telecom giants who faced serious civil and even criminal liability for this lawbreaking. The main forces ensuring its passage were the Bush White House and the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, whose campaign coffers enjoyed a massive surge of telecom donations immediately before he championed their cause.

              Come on now, tell us how this is sooooo much better than Republicans.

              1. Have fun with the republicans… less privacy, more war with even less regard for the lives of civilians, dirtier air and water, and far less regard forcivil liberties and civil rights. Whatever floats your boat.

                1. I’ll say this much for you. At least you recognize why this is worth some argument.

                  1. Usually the legislators that give the telcos what they want are republicans. The democrats are beholdened to Silicon Valley. The tend to favor net neutrality. You are right in that Obama is very bad on privacy issues.

                2. That said, what you fail to recognize is that the Democrats now use your relativism to pass ever more corporate friendly, ever more right wing legislation when they are in power – all in the guise of, “But, but, but, it’s not as bad as what the scary Republicans would do…” You keep saying not as bad, but fail to notice just how far right we keep moving; how much it all adds up. And how you have been trained to accept (always regretfully but accept nonetheless – which is what counts) absolutely horrible things, such as killing American citizens with no judicial review, all in the name of lessor-evilism.

                  At some point you have to ask yourself whether corruption is any less evil simply because you get into the tub more slowly.

                  1. Point taken…the country has moved far to the right and most democrats have moved with it.

          1. Al Franken is the biggest advocate for net neutrality and privacy we have in the congress. Trump’s appointment to the FCC signaled what he was going to do months ago if anyone was paying attention.

            1. Right. And Al Franken commands the Senate right? Just one more bit of Kabuki theater and you fall flat on your face for it.

              Al Franken, like any Democrat, wouldn’t go near a vote for net neutrality, or for net privacy from ISPs selling your data including Social Security Number if it actually meant something.

                1. Actually no, it is true. Even if Franken wanted to vote for it, he would be prevented if it was going to make any difference against the all important corporate sponsors. But I haven’t time right now to prove it other than by suggesting you do a little research (and of course you could request the same of me – but I think if you did your research thoroughly, you’d find the Democrats are pretty damn sneaky in the way they vote. It always ends up in favor of their corporate sponsors).

  9. I agree with Anonemouse! Substitute the words “PC” for “Islam” and you have the path the left wants us to “move on” to. The most alarming thing to me is that NO ONE on the left seems to recognize the danger! (Remember when Hillary Clinton’s first reaction to Benghazi was to criticize the U.S. Courts’ interpretation of the First Amendment)? It is an agonizing irony that this era of American-sharia law was ushered in by a Harvard Con Law professor-president. But, given the preachings of Harvard’s Cass Sunstein it’s hardly surprising that – given real power – this group would proceed to dismantle the foundations of democracy and replace it with their non-sensical, subjective “re-ified” PC logic. And all this was accomplished because eight years ago, Americans wanted so desperately to come together to soothe racial tensions and calm political divisiveness. Ironic. Tragic.

    1. And don’t forget that Cass Sunstein is married to Samantha Power who was Obama’s Ambassador to the United Nations.

    2. Great post

      Harvard has become an indoctrination center

      IMO, a Harvard Law degree just states that the person is most likely a brainwashed Bolshevik lemming out to destroy America

  10. This is the path that the Left is also on

    U.K. Criminalization of Speech Is Really Starting to Scare Me

    Earlier this week, British reality TV star Katie Hopkins tweeted some fears about a Scottish Ebola patient coming to London for treatment. She’s now facing a criminal investigation.

    “Inquiries are ongoing into the nature of these tweets and to establish any potential criminality,” a Scottish law enforcement official told the BBC. “Police Scotland will thoroughly investigate any reports of offensive or criminal behaviour online and anyone found to be responsible will be robustly dealt with.”

    Here are Hopkins’ possibly criminally offensive statements:

      1. How long before tourism feels safe in Europe? I convinced my husband to see Europe when we were much younger. I’m so glad I did.

    1. The Left has become a plague upon Western Civilization. Not that the Right is anything great but Id prefer the Right over the insane Left.

      Democrats will be the ruin of America unless we stop them here and now.

        1. Fire every teacher/professor in our colleges and universities. Indoctrination starts day one. Be sure your children study history (with books you have read and agree with). Read d’Touqueville’s Democracy in America. Read the Freedom Papers, an explanation of items in Constitution.

          I’m sure followers of Professor Turley can add to that. Even if your children go to school, talk to them every night about what they learned. Have them read differing viewpoints.

      1. So many historical things destroyed (First Christian church, antiquities in Iraq). Whole town of Mosul. So far Two Million refugees at Jordan border. The giant Buddhas in northern Afghanistan. Is it possible to recreate towns for people to live? Barack Obama should be given an award for the most destructive President. Since Oslo wants Al Gore to return Nobel Prize, shouldn’t Obama return his Nobel for Peace?

  11. They have Four ports on their coastline maybe five. Doesn’t take nukes to take out their Navy and their port infrastructures. FAE bombs will do just fine. The next step is air fields and oil fields. The big step is all the nuclear research, manufacturing and storage facilities. Most were build underground…easily buried with penatrator bombs IFwe have any left and the launch platforms are F111’s with GBU 28/29 made from tank gun barrels or 8″ artillery barrels worn out and converted.

    Latest was the F111B was never made but cancelled the F15 Strike Eagles were the replacemet but…I found no definitive information on capabilities for the BLU 109 50,500 pound bombs.

    One runs the risk of finding out the replacements for something don’t exist but the item replaced is gone. A10’sa for example were supposedly to be replaced by F35’s except the results of the F35 in ground attack CAS role was never released WHEN evaluated by A10 pilots. That little item was surpressed.

    The USAF is not known for being big fans of CAS or close air suipport also known as frontal aviation except in the A10 squadrons BUT they are far from worn out dead and gone as new ones are being built for foreign sale USAF can’t keep their eyes on the missioin but instead is floating arouond in outer space. which does USMC “and USA ground troops no good at all.

    I mentioned the penetrators but the first Gulf war they had to be made from scratch as their were Zero stocks and they had to be carried by the F111’s which had the only bomb racks to suit. the job.

    Which brings us back to nuclear or FAE dropped by what C130’s in their improved Daisy cutter role?

    Who knows what damage was done to capabilities by the previous admininistration but nukes may well indeed be the only choice left. for those deeply buried targets.

      1. Hmmm. I believe it stems from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. But what’s your suggestion? React to violence with . . . psychoanalysis?

        1. No, silly Debbie. They just need jobs, or less climate change, or something.

  12. God invented nuclear bombs for a reason. There was a song on Saturday Night Live about 30 years ago or more called Bomb, Bomb, Iran. I think Gilda Radner sang it. Probably five nukes would kill them all. Then we could sing the song with pride. They are not humans. They are two legged donkeys. And that is an insult to donkeys. Four legs good, two legs baaaad! I think Trump will have the guts to nuke em if they warrant it.

    1. I think killing all Iranians over a single execution under a law that probably a large number of them don’t agree with would seem to make us more barbaric than them. Just sayin’

    1. Before she sorts out the dead, she will deal with the satanic lunatics who killed them.

  13. All religions are evil, stupid, lame, full of feces, completely false, scams, and unfit for human consideration. Went in dumb, come out dumb too. A Bible thumper and a Koran thumper are one and the same.
    The world does not need these turban heads to get a nuclear weapon.

    1. All religions are “cults” (dictionay definition). Now that we have gay marriage, how long before we accept polygamy?

  14. It seems tragically ironic that he would be sentenced to death for criticizing Islam…thus demonstrating to the world the barbarity that inspires such criticism.

    That poor man. So young. I wish our country could help him.

    It’s so strange to think that millions upon millions of people live in countries where they are killed if they merely criticize the dominant religion. We are so very luck to enjoy free speech here in the US. If they cannot criticize the religion, it is hopeless to hope it will be reformed. And in my personal opinion, any religion that metes out death to gays, apostates, and anyone critical of the faith does need reform. Moderates who do not practice such an extremist interpretation may be considered reformers in some circles.

    1. Karen, Indeed it is tragic to see the young man suffer such a consequence. I can understand your anger and despair, but you must go back in history and examine the causes of what is happening in today’s Iran. In 1953, Iran was a very much “European” country, both socially and politically, led by a democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh. He nationalized Iran’s oil and angered the British and the Americans. With the help of the CIA, he was removed in a coup and replaced by the Shah. The Shah was our man and reigned brutally. This brought on an expected reaction that deposed him and brought on a variety of militantly religious regimes, the consequence of which we see today. It is tragic, but you/we must look for the causes. Nothing ever happens in a vacuum. Ditto Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. etc. etc. Anything, even good things, is harmful if carried to an extreme. That includes religions.

      1. Savage, spot on post! My hope is still that that the Iranians will come together and overthrow the theocrats who are controlling them…

      2. The secular Shaw took the markets away from the control of the clergy, who conspired against them, thoroughly fooling gullible Jimmy Carter. We are responsible for the fall of the Shah. My father worked for the Pentagon at that time, and was disgusted by what happened.

        I knew a Persian woman who appeared to suffer from PTSD. She would shake uncontrollably recounting how her entire family who worked for the Shah’s military were murdered when he fell and the country was taken back over by extremists. She’s the only survivor, and she’ll never be the same.

        1. We are responsible for the fall of the Shah. My father worked for the Pentagon at that time, and was disgusted by what happened.

          Rubbish. The Shah was responsible for public policy in Iran (such as it was) for 25 years and responded to the political crisis he faced in 1978 the way he did (or, as military chief of staff put it, “You must know this and you must tell it to your government. The country is lost because the king cannot make up his mind”).

    2. Pakistan just gave the death sentence to an ex-Muslim turned atheist blogger. With the help of Facebook.
      Where is the atheist left-wing outcry?
      Christians are horrified because it’s business as usual for us….

    3. It’s so strange to think that millions upon millions of people live in countries where they are killed if they merely criticize the dominant religion.

      ‘Millions upon millions’ are not. You know this man’s name, because it’s not that common even in Iran. The six countries in the Muslim world where executions are most common dispatch about 450 people a year between them, generally for what would be considered common crimes in any occidental country.

      The most wretched misery in this world derived from the political order is to be found in places where the state has evaporated (much of the Congo, and adjacent areas in Equatorial Africa), where the state is contested by armed gangs (South Sudan, Syria, Libya, and much of Iraq), and where the state is in the hands of a bizarro political cult (North Korea).

      1. DSS –

        Plenty of goobermint in Chicago. Care to compare the murder rate there vs the locales YOU listed?

        1. Plenty of goobermint in Chicago.

          Up until about two years ago, the homicide rate in the City of Chicago was about the same as the mean for Tropical and Southern Africa (per the figures compiled by the UN agency which tracks that particular statistic). I’d say it’s likely very soft data for loci like the Eastern Congo or Somalia, of course.

          The elevated homicide rate in Chicago is to be found in four territories: a bloc of neighborhoods on the South Side with a population of about 600,000, a bloc of neighborhoods on the west side with a population of about 350,000; Gary and East Chicago in Lake County, Indiana; and the town of Harvey, Illinois. These areas have a homicide rate of about 47 per 100,000 and account for about 12% of the population of the metropolitan settlement. The remainder of the City of Chicago and some inner ring suburbs account for shy of 25% of the local population and have a homicide rate of 5.6 per 100,000. The rest of the metropolitan settlement has a homicide rate of 2.3 per 100,000 or thereabouts. Chicago’s police census given its demographics is comparable to New York’s. They just perform comparatively poorly in order maintenance. You can blame the Mayor for that.

          I think if you fancy Chicago’s slums are disorderly because there’s to much ‘gub’mint’, by my bridge. If you fancy Chicago’s slums suffer anywhere near the economic deprivation of the eastern Congo, a have an array of bridges to sell you.

      1. And this is a surprise to you?
        Bushes and Obama were go little water boys. And this is why I believe in conspiracies of evil men. There is a shadow government people. And you did not elect them.

      2. Well, hardly news. And I did not support any of those wars, earlier or now. When we execute a 21 year old for speaking out against the Bible, let me know.

Comments are closed.