Date: Apr 22, 1998 [ 0: 0: 0]

Subject: DNI-NEWS Digest - 20 Apr 1998 to 21 Apr 1998

From: Automatic digest processor

Return-Path: <owner-DNI-NEWS@D-N-I.ORG>
Delivered-To: farhad@ALGONET.SE
Received: (qmail 3828 invoked from network); 22 Apr 1998 09:00:01 +0200
Received: from (
by with SMTP; 22 Apr 1998 09:00:01 +0200
Received: from simorgh (simorgh [])
by (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA13034;
Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:00:00 -0700
Reply-To: DNI news list <DNI-NEWS@D-N-I.ORG>
Sender: DNI news list <DNI-NEWS@D-N-I.ORG>
From: Automatic digest processor <D-N-I@D-N-I.ORG>
Subject: DNI-NEWS Digest - 20 Apr 1998 to 21 Apr 1998
To: Recipients of DNI-NEWS digests <DNI-NEWS@D-N-I.ORG>

There are 7 messages totalling 1062 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

1. your mail
2. editing quran, or Re: Stoning in Open Air or Restricted Area
3. Islamic HR Commission says Capithorne report "dishonest"
4. Fwd: USCFL
5. Copithorne's report on the IRI
6. Sarkuhi given back passport
7. PEN PRESS COMMUNIQUE: Faraj Sarkouhi's passport returned to him


Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:26:02 +1000
From: Mehdi Ardalan <mardalan@LAUREL.OCS.MQ.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: your mail

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 mosalemy@DIRECT.CA wrote:

> mehdi wrote;
> If this quote from Mohajerani is true, it certainly raises doubts as to
> the qualification of him and his likes in paving the way for improved
> changes in Iran. However, I am extremely suspicious of such a report as
> quoted by a paper like Resalat of a person like Mohajerani and
> furthermore the whole story being reported by a group like NCRI.
> Cheers
> Mehdi
> he has said, about stonning, that it is a cultural matter and its not any
> body's business. and that piece of news was reproted by reuter etcc. what
> do you have to say about that?
> mo
I'm not denying that it could have been said by anyone so I will not be
pushed in a position to have to defend anyone who endorses stoning. As
far as Mohammdi's remark which was reported by Reuters I have to say that
the title of the Reuter's report surprisingly made that insinuation but
in fact Mohammadi defended IRI's punitive laws as a cultural thing but
did not refer to stoning in particular. Now that can be taken as
anything. I'm sure ommitting reference to stoning was deliberate. What
was the motive, only they know.



Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:31:30 +1000
From: Mehdi Ardalan <mardalan@LAUREL.OCS.MQ.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: editing quran, or Re: Stoning in Open Air or Restricted Area

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 mosalemy@DIRECT.CA wrote:

> A secular society does not seek to eliminate religion. Only its
> intergration with politics and it certainly does not mean that tax payers
> money should go into an "anti-Islamic public education campaign".
> if tax money right now is being spent on killing bahaees and shoving islam
> up any human hole, i think the very same tax fund can warn people not
> against islam per say, but against anti human aspects and teachings of it.
> i think telling people dont beat up your wife despite the teaching of kuran
> should be part of a secular government mandate. i think educating people
> about not letting their 9 year old daughter to get married to an adult man,
> despite the teachings of islam should be part of the agenda of a true
> secular government.
> now this shouldne directly be anti islamic, but as long as the education
> campaign is against the teachings of islam. it remains an anti islamic
> campaign.
> mo

Sounds cool. However if you have any background in Islamic discourse you
will notice that some interpertations offered by Islamic thinkers differ
tremendously so the term antiIslamic is sometimes used by some Islamic
schools of thought against the other. If some Christians could
interpert their christianity so as to accept homosexuality for example,
there is no reason why in the future some Muslim thinkers couldnt do the
same. Maybe then you might reconcil with Islam.



Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:38:27 PDT
From: Arash Alavi <arash__@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Islamic HR Commission says Capithorne report "dishonest"

Iran Criticizes Unhrc for Unfair Report


TEHRAN (April 21) XINHUA - Iran has criticized the United Nations
Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) for failing to post a fair report on
human rights status, the Tehran Times newspaper reported on Tuesday.

In an interview with the English-language paper, Secretary of Iran's
Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) Hassan Ziaiefar said the
UNHRC rapporteur Maurice Capithorne has been "dishonest" in his
report submitted to the U.N. General Assembly.

Capithorne has not based his report on reliable sources, but mainly on
groups "which are terrorist by nature and are opponents of the Islamic
system," Ziaiefar said.

He accused the U.N. rapporteur of not taking a comprehensive look
at the Iranian society as a religious one, and neglecting the positive
developments of human rights in Iran.

The IHRC was formed in 1995 to defend Iran's stance on human rights
against western countries' criticism in this regard.

Iran maintains that human rights should be based on the Islamic laws
and regulations.

Get Your Private, Free Email at


Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:09:57 PDT
From: Democracy_Network_of_Iran DNI <dni_contact@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Fwd: USCFL