« Shia Seeking Something? | Main | Gives New Meaning to 'Family Film' »

June 28, 2009

'Stoning' Actress Gets It Wrong

Aghdashloo makes false claims about stoning: 'nothing to do with Islam'

shohreh.jpg
Robert Spencer of American Thinker calls out Iranian actress Shohreh Aghdashloo (pictured here) for statements she made when publicizing her new film, The Stoning of Soraya M.

Spencer cites of few of Aghdashloo's comments in an interview with the Staten Island Advance, in which she says that stoning "has been happening since the Stone Age, in Judaism, Christianity, Islam." Spencer replies, "In fact, no," and goes on to state his case, showing where Aghdashloo gets it wrong.

Writes Spencer: "The Hebrew Scriptures mandate stoning but it has not been carried out in Judaism since the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., or before that. Islamic tradition contains stories of Muhammad confronting Jewish rabbis who try to conceal the fact that the Torah teaches stoning -- they seem to know that Muhammad was a brutal flat-footed literalist who would demand they carry out these teachings literally, when they understood them in a quite different way.

"As for Christianity, stoning has never been practiced except among those strange Christians one encounters only in TV dramas. Jesus famously raised the bar for stoning beyond human reach when he said to a crowd that was poised to stone an adulteress, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7)."

Spencer then goes into a lengthy discussion about Islam's history with stoning, disputing Aghdashloo's claim that stoning isn't mentioned in the Koran and has nothing to do with Islamic law. Spencer: "Stoning has everything to do with Islam and Islamic law."

Meanwhile, see our interview with producer Steve McEveety and actor Jim Caviezel, read our review, and watch the trailer:

Related Tags: Shohreh Aghdashloo, The Stoning of Soraya M.

Comments

Don't quote Bible when even chritians don't believe that it is the same to start with. Allah only knows how many kings and courtier have used their pens.

Hi, Safdar.

I don't know where or why you think that most Christians don't believe that the Bible isn't the same today as it was when it was first written, but this is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted .

The "telephone" analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one. The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn't fit the Bible at all.

The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten.

Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly.

But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.

So when that we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well.

This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into. We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

I hope this has helped to broaden your view on exactly how the Bible came to be, and how Christians have the confidence to claim that the Bible really is inerrant.

I can't believe CT would feature the bigot Robert Spencer. He's afraid of debating Muslims and tries to attack this Muslim woman.

Muhammed never confronted Jews about stoning, thats a lie. Secondly I have no clue why Christians resort to 'oh it hasn't been practiced since...' when the Bible CLEARLY states stoning. The OT is Jesus' as well so denying the OT is denying Jesus.

From Muhammed's time to the last Caliphate in Turkey, stoning was only carried out 13 times. There's rules, regulations, limits and restrictions on Islamic law, if you don't want to understand it Robert Spencer will only confuse you even further. Stoning is carried out for rape and adultery (for those who are married individuals). However adultery is very hard to prove in Islam so really stoning is for rapists.

And please don't look at Muslim countries, there is not a single proper Sharia that exists today, just read from scripture.

shopping