in the Tradition of Judgment: Eva Braun, Sharia Law & Iranian women

Hitler & Eva Braun, photo AP

In Hitler's lifetime he was evil by all estimations. Most historically accounts divorce him from the intimate pleasures of sex, and vulnerability. The pictures of him with Eva Braun I never saw until I was well into my adult years. Schools in my era did not fancy depicting anything remotely attuned to sentimentality in relationship to Adolph Hitler. But, he like other men had women. There was a niece of his he obsessed over whom he allegedly liked to defecate and vomit upon, and there was Eva Braun, his love and lover, the only two I know of.

Hitler has been called a 'sick fucker' by a lot of people over the decades. It is a deserved moniker. But I am not here to denounce his life. I am thinking about him oddly in relationship to the hanging of an Iranian woman who allegedly killed Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, a former intelligence officer, for trying to rape her seven (7) years ago. The courts did not believe her statement.

Columnist, David Blair for the Telegraph reported: "... Miss Jabbari was sentenced to death in 2009 after what Amnesty called a “deeply flawed investigation”. She admitted stabbing Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, a former intelligence ministry official, but pleaded self-defence. On her account, she stabbed Sarbandi in the back as he was trying to rape her – but the victim was actually killed by another named person, who was never the focus of inquiry.

Amnesty said these claims “if proven” could have exonerated Miss Jabari. But they were never “properly investigated, raising many questions about the circumstances of the killing”.

Amnesty added that the judiciary had “pressured” Miss Jabbari to “replace her lawyer, Mohammad Ali Jedari Foroughi, for a more inexperienced one, in an apparent attempt to prevent an investigation of her claims”...

According to 2009 testimony Miss Jabbari purchased a knife two days prior to the stabbing. That can be read as a woman, or an American, or as a man. It was read and judged by men.

Her execution could have been avoided in the end had the victim's family accepted the offering of 'blood money'. They didn't, or couldn't or wouldn't forgive her. Probably in the spirit of deep grieving, and a need for retaliation they couldn't accept the chance to be merciful. What is troubling is that any of the women in the victim's family could easily have been in the same situation, or have acid thrown in their faces by a husband for reasons that are always judging and accessing the value of women's actions against the honor of a man and/or his family. This reality is integral to Iranian life, it seems, and its interpretation of the Holy Qu'ran.

The Tehran prosecution office rejected the claim of rape.  The evidence showed otherwise. I don't know the evidence the prosecution looked at, but with the name of the man who actually killed Mr. Sarbani the courts rejected following that line of evidence and bent itself into prosecuting Miss Jabbari to her death! That leads to a question: Who is this man she killed? Another logical question follows good reasoning: What is being protected in a severe male-dominated country like Iran? Is it the right to power over women's destiny and their bodies?

I was asked to participate in the Women's Federation For World Peace USA yesterday in Washington DC in a ceremonial capacity. As I shared before the assembly of mostly women from around the globe the deep feeling of honesty settled within me. In my words I shared several things, a story, and the drum. The first thing I noticed in the eyes of a few of the women when my wife and I entered the lobby was women just learning how to look in a man's eyes and smile. Sharing that insight in front of a room of women deeply involved in the many issues of world peace, inner strength and beauty of spirit and women's issues at the international level provided an elder's insight into the depth of what is treated, often, with trepidation and a fear of boldness in other circles.

But in the Islamic world ideas of women's freedom are measured differently by men, and regarded fearfully (I imagine) by women in those Islamic run countries! The fundamentalist group literally scare the shit out me, and out of reason when you get right down to it and also create a growing desire to do something concrete in either the physical or the intangible worlds of power to disintegrate their power. But, this process starts with study and research into the belief systems and laws at work here. If you are not willing to do this and war seems to be the only option then these bloody wars will continue to add nausea to life. - Gregory E. Woods, Keeper of Stories 10.26.14

Iranian Reyhaneh Jabbari takes the stand at her trail in 2008

ISIS Points to Sharia Law to Justify Slavery of Women

While 126 contemporary Islamist leaders, including the executive director of CAIR, signed a letter denouncing the actions of the Islamic State, the letter also endorses sharia law.

BY MEIRA SVIRSKY

Mon, October 13, 2014

In the latest edition of Dabiq, the Islamic State’s slick, English magazine, the group offers a theological justification for capturing "infidel" women to be used as sex slaves. The brutal group is holding thousands of Yazidi women and girls and subjecting them to horrific violent, sexual abuse.

In an article titled, “The Revival of Slavery Before the Hour” (“Hour” referring to “Judgment Day”), the magazine concludes that since the Yazidi religion pre-dates Islam, its followers are to be dealt with according to the laws of the mushrik (polytheists). The article explains:

“Accordingly, the Islamic State dealt with this group as the majority of fuqaha [experts in Islamic jurisprudence] have indicated … Unlike the Jews and Christians, there was no room for the jizyah payment. Also, their women could be enslaved unlike female apostates who the majority of fuqaha say cannot be enslaved and can only be given an ultimatum to repent or face the sword.”

The magazine goes on to explain what happened when Islamic State fighters captured the Sinjar region of Iraq, which was inhabited by the ancient population of the Yazidis:

“After capture, the Yazidi women and children were then divided according to the Shari’ah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations, after one fifth of the slaves were transferred to the Islamic State’s authority to be divided as khums [the obligatory tithe of one-fifth of all war spoils that jihadi fighters must pay to the caliph].”

The article proudly announces the revival of the sharia institution of slavery of infidels, saying, “This large-scale enslavement of mushrik families is probably the first since the abandonment of this Sharia’ah law. The only other known case – albeit much smaller – is that of the enslavement of Christian women and children in the Philippines and Nigeria by the mujahidin [jihadis] there.”

The article reminds its readers that the legality of slavery is established in sharia (Islamic) law, saying, “Before Shaytan [Satan] reveals his doubts to the weak-minded and weak hearted, one should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar [infidels] and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shari’ah that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Qur’an and the narration of the Prophet … and thereby apostatizing from Islam.”

Indeed, the Quran condones and justifies slavery in a number of verses, specifically in the context of war booty and concubines. Hundreds of the Hadiths (saying of the Islamic prophet Mohammed) deal with the jurisprudence of Islamic slaves. Both indicate the institution's clear sanction by sharia law.

Although 126 contemporary Islamist leaders and scholars recently signed a letter denouncing the actions of the Islamic State, the letter unfortunately endorses the Islamic State’s goals of rebuilding the caliphate, establishing sharia law and instituting the brutal hudud [punishments for the most severe crimes].

The letter, which was addressed to the self-declared caliph of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was signed and presented in Washington by Nihad Awad, executive director and founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The criticism of the Islamic State by the scholars that signed the letter is that the terrorist group is not “following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.”

However, endorsing sharia law, point 5 of the letter states, “What is meant by ‘practical jurisprudence’ is the process of applying Shari’ah rulings and dealing with them according to the realities and circumstances that people are living under.”

The letter continues, “Practical jurisprudence [fiqh al-waq’i] considers the texts that are applicable to peoples realities at a particular time, and the obligations that can be postponed until they are able to be met or delayed based on their capabilities.”

Far from distancing themselves from the implementation of sharia law by the Islamic State, the above statements are an endorsement of the Islamist doctrine of "gradualism." This is an incremental strategy for establishing sharia governance, supporting jihad and advancing the Islamist cause.

Point 16 of the letter states, “Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qu’ran and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law.”

Point 22 of the letter states, “There is agreement (ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah. The Ummah has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE. However, a new caliphate requires consensus from Muslims and not just from those in a small corner of the world.”

Thus, it is clear that the signatories of the letter, while purporting to be “moderate,” endorse the principles of the Islamic State and other jihadists but criticize their implementation.

Just as the West has been firm in rejecting the objectives of the Islamic State, it should not be swayed by the Islamic State’s contemporary counterparts who equally endorse Islamic extremism through the implementation of sharia law -- however gradual.

If we were sons in these cultures where would our hearts be, how would our states of mind be in what is unavoidably a clusterfuck of ideals and delusions?

Iranian Reyhaneh Jabbari is 967th person to be executed since Hassan Rouhani became Iran's president in August last year 2013

"Stealthy Freedoms of Iranian women" showing hundreds of women without the hijab