Mohammad J. Larijani: The West Does Not Know The Difference Between Qesas and Execution, We Stand Firmly By Islamic Dictates
Excerpt
Provinces Section, Qazvin Region
The Secretary of the Judiciary’s Human Rights Headquarters stated: “The trouble is that the West doesn’t understand that Qesas is different than execution. In fact, [the rule of] Qesas [is that the right whether to exercise it or not] belongs to the plaintiff. [The latter] is free to either implement it, or forgive the condemned so that Qesas won’t be carried out.”
The West takes pride in committing adultery, then we should defend the rule of stoning, strictly and decisively
Fars News Agency reports from [the city of] Qazvin: In a meeting with Qazvin Province’s judicial authorities which took place in the province’s Judiciary’s Meetings Hall, Mohammad Javad Larijani stated: “… The Judiciary’s task is not an easy one. That’s why everyone must know what [ideals] the Judiciary stands for, since its activities are being carefully monitored by friend and foe alike.”
The Secretary of the Judiciary’s Human Rights Headquarters added: “Judges and those involved in judicial work must be cognizant of the fact that the ruling they issue is not a simple one that affects only the plaintiff and the defendant; it has broad and multiple dimensions [and repercussions.]”
He stressed: “Presently, there is a good opportunity for judges to seize; it is an appropriate time for us to show what and how adjudication is in the Ahl al-Beit (Peace Be Upon Them) and Ja’fari school of thought.”
We are not ashamed of stoning or any other Islamic rule and dictate. No one, therefore, has the right to tell the judge not to invoke certain dictates because they might offend the United Nations
He further stated: “Those of us in the Judiciary, must be aware of the critique that is going on outside the judiciary; we must know what the enemy is sensitive about [and zooms on.] If, [for instance,] the West takes pride in committing adultery, then we should defend the rule of stoning, strictly and decisively.”
Larijani continued: “The trouble is that the West doesn’t understand that Qesas is different than execution. In fact, [the rule of] Qesas [is that the right whether to exercise it or not] belongs to the plaintiff. [The latter] is free to either implement it, or forgive the condemned so that Qesas won’t be carried out.”
He added: “We are not ashamed of stoning or any other Islamic rule and dictate; we must stand firmly by Islamic dictates. No one, therefore, has the right to tell the judge not to invoke certain dictates because they might offend the United Nations. When making a ruling, however, the judge himself must have reached a level [of awareness and expertise] to carry out justice and at the same time, keep the regime’s prestige intact.”
Larijani further added: “The Human Rights Headquarters is composed of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Justice, [Culture and Islamic] Guidance, and of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Head of the General Inspection Organization, the Head of the Organization for Prisons and Security and Rehabilitation Activities, and the Commander of the Police Force.”
He stated: “The Supreme Leader is of the opinion that we should be prepared for the enemy’s aggression, and that the Judiciary is on the front line. Today, we have human rights programs in universities and we have judges and professors who are familiar with this field.”
The West says it does not accept the death penalty and that it must be stopped because a mistake might occur that cannot be reversed. If we’re supposed to refrain from doing something because there is a possibility of making a mistake, then there are so many things we shouldn’t attempt to do
The Secretary of the Judiciary’s Human Rights Headquarters emphasized: “Today, judges must be familiar with the arguments, and identify global conspiracies. The European Parliament has issued 100 resolutions against us which have become more prominent after the 2009 sedition.”
He said: “There are those in the world that have condemned us for our strict laws against homosexuality, claiming that everyone is free to choose a mate. We agree that everyone is free to choose a mate. For 50 years, this law was implemented [and interpreted] a certain way, but now, some are putting forth unreasonable interpretations [to the effect] that a spouse can be human or animal. Our response is if we have accepted the law [which provides for the freedom to choose a spouse], it doesn’t mean that we will accept subsequent interpretations thereof.
Larijani continued: “The West says it does not accept the death penalty and that it must be stopped because a mistake might occur that cannot be reversed. This is not a valid point, however, because great care and precision is exercised in issuing [death] sentences. Also, if we’re supposed to refrain from doing something because there is a possibility of making a mistake, then there are so many things we shouldn’t attempt to do.”