The Stoning of Soraya M.': Film Analysis

‘The Stoning of Soraya M.’ is a film by a French-Iranian journalist named Freidoune Sahebjam. The film makes an evident case against the Iranian Sharia Law system, which is supported by Zahra, the aunt of the main character, Soraya. While acknowledgement of an individual’s right to choose and freely practice their religion is commendable, more important is the recognition that there is a clear moral differentiation between right and wrong. The events depicted in this film fit unambiguously and certainly into the category of wrong. In inherent failings and obvious unfair treatment for women due to a strict and barbarous interpretation of religious law are made.

From the title, the plot of the film is immediately transparent. Despite the viewer’s knowledge of Soraya’s fate from the beginning, watching it unfold is still beyond belief. Soraya is portrayed as a beautiful young woman, harassed by her abusive and unfaithful husband, Ali. Despite the whole village’s familiarity of her husband’s affairs, Soraya is helpless in separating from him on her own terms. Her two sons, far too young to make conscious decisions, mirror their father, and are cold and cruel toward their mother and sisters, while their daughters are equitably abused and neglected by the men. When Ali yearns a divorce from Soraya in order to marry a fourteen-year-old from the city, he composes what he believes is a ‘fair’ proposal for conclusion, which includes disregarding Soraya and their daughters for whom he does not want.

Thereafter, Soraya is left with no remedy under Islamic law. According to the beliefs in regards to honor and disgrace in the village, to seek safety elsewhere in order to escape her husband’s assault will place fault justly on Soraya, but to settle for divorce will make her unmarriageable and make lack of resources to care for her daughters. Obviously, the system is skewed in favor of men and makes it impossible for women to dwindle them anything. In fact, both the village imam and Ali are quick to note Soraya that under Sharia law the husband has all the rights, and she has none. The village imam offers provisional marriage, condemned by Zahra as despicable, and he vows vengeance on both women.

With a common cause, Ali and the imam connive against Soraya. They demand her to care for the recently widowed village mechanic, all the while looking for source to accuse Soraya for wrongdoing. When no grounds for divorce can be attained, the men begin a secret operation against Soraya. Shortly after, they force the mechanic to falsely adhere with their charge of adultery against Soraya by threatening to kill him and abandon his orphaned son at the mercy of the justice system that does not protect the young. This is yet another illustration of the failings of this particular brand of religious law.

With the supposed proof of indecency, Ali provokes a mob and beats Soraya publicly in the streets of the village while its citizens observe. Enraged, Zahra steps in and lashes out against Ali for failing to take the matter before the mayor, and rescues Soraya temporarily. She then goes to the mayor herself to demand justice, but he is eventually persuaded by the imam to pursue the matter to the detriment of Soraya. When asked what proof of her transgressions beyond the feeble affirmation of the mechanic and her husband exists, Soraya and Zahra are informed that under the modern regime’s interpretation of Islam, none is needed. When a woman is accused by a man, she is inferred guilty and must provide proof of her innocence, whereas if a woman accuses a man, she must have at least two witnesses to confirm he is guilty. This is literally a strict interpretation of the verses of the Qur'an which states that the testimony of two women is equal to the testimony of one man. All the women of the village rally around Soraya who attest to her innocence, but these protestations and Soraya’s own assertion of guiltlessness are insignificant because they come from women, not men, further revealing women’s lack of significance under this interpretation of Islamic law.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

At this point, the court is assembled, consisting of only men of the village. Soraya is not welcomed to defend herself nor are the witnesses called on her behalf. A guilty verdict is returned shortly thereafter and the men take her away to the village square to be stoned. The villagers walk her through the streets, clapping stones together and reciting that they are acting in the name of God. A group of gypsies passing through provide a carnival-like ambience for the execution.

The film then takes an even darker turn. It becomes overwhelmingly clear that Islamic law as it has been applied to Soraya’s case is contradictory. The most basic unit of society, the family, is torn apart. Male relatives who by rights should be Soraya’s protectors are her executioners. Soraya’s father condemns her, alleging that she is no longer his daughter due to her misbehavior. He casts the first two stones at her. Soraya’s sons approach her and ask why she must be killed. She tells them of her innocence, and begs them to leave and not take part. In a heart-wrenching scene, their father places stones in their hands and tells them they must participate in order to rid their family of shame, and they do.

The men of the village all join in claiming “God is great” each time. The film does not skirt the issue of brutality. The sequence depicting Soraya’s ultimate fate is one of prolonged horrors, and intended to show the viewer quite starkly the harsh reality of the situation. The individual who is not sickened by the drawn-out savagery is a monster, on the same level as the mob who imposed such sadistic punishment on an innocent woman. Criticism of the film for being overly gory and ugly are right on the mark. The scene is gory. It is intended to shock. It is painful to watch. Its purpose is to disgust the viewer. It does not attempt to justify, placate, or interpret the scene as anything other than evil. In doing so, it shows unequivocally that Islamic law interpreted stringently like this is wrong.

Soraya dies slowly and painfully. She is unable to flee from the brutality until the very end. It is upsetting to watch; however, before she passes, Zahra promises the world will know what happened. Zahra appears as the true hero of the story, courageously and daringly seeking justice for her niece. She refuses to adhere to social pressure to be quiet about what occurred in the village. She bravely draws the attention of a passing journalist, and tells her story. When at first skeptical, he comes to acknowledge the asperity of the situation and ensures to take her voice from Iran and to the rest of the world where it will be heard and be of importance.

Although the events shown in this film took place over twenty years ago, they very well could have taken place in several Islamic states today. Whether authorized by the government or not, it occurs throughout the Middle East, as well as in some African countries. This film makes evident that stoning and women’s rights are closely related. Women are far more likely to be executed this way than men, and are almost never given legal representation. A mob mindset often surfaces, with no one willing to go against the majority regardless of the corruption of the case. Stoning is not authorized by Islam, yet it is carried out in the name of God as if it were. While not limited to Islamic countries, it is here that it is most prevalent and sanctioned by the public as appropriate punishment for delinquency. The public acknowledge to such laws under the authority of religious scholars as it was portrayed in the film is another example of the ways in which Islam is crooked and constructed to cripple women.

Conclusively, the lesson learned from this film is that apparent and unjustifiable inequality must be recognized and amended in order for such obscenities to continue. The acceptance of atrocious behavior in the name of religious freedom is unacceptable. Killing in the form of violent public bloodshed is unlawful, immoral, and disgraceful. While it is far from this journalist to presume to know the will of God, it is plainly not execution as portrayed in this film. Stoning is a distinct violation of human rights, constructed to punitively undermine women exclusively. Regardless of religion or spiritual devotion, basic human decency dictates that we should be disgusted and deeply saddened that violence is preserved in the name of religion. This film reveals how privileged we are to live in a nation where we can voice our own opinions, vote for equal rights, and have the freedom of decision. We are able to wear what we like, or eat whatever we please. We, Americans, are not subjected to rules of any religion, but rather the laws of the government.