It's estimated stoning isn't used that much ( if at all anymore), but there's an interesting inequality about it too

Individuals sentenced to stoning are placed in a stoning pit, buried to the neck (women) or waist (men), and others hurl stones at them until they escape the stoning pit, are incapacitated, or are killed. Because men (unlike women) are only buried to the waist, men occasionally do escape the stoning pit, which terminates the penalty.

Mohammad-Javad Larijani, chief of Iran's Human Rights Council (in 2010), rejected international condemnations of stoning, saying that, "in the eyes of some people, stoning is a lesser punishment than execution because there is a chance you should survive."[66] However, there are at least two newspaper reports of women managing to pull themselves out of their hole while being stoned, but being killed nonetheless after being forced back into the hole.

Overall death penalty seems to be really popular in Iran, estimated to be the biggest death penalty country per capita. And no wonder when you look at the offenses that merit death penalty

Death sentences in Iran are, in theory, legal for a variety of crimes, such as armed robbery, treason, espionage, murder, certain military offenses, drug trafficking, rape, homosexuality, sodomy, sexual misconduct, incestuous relations, fornication, prostitution, plotting to overthrow the Islamic regime, political dissidence, sabotage, apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, producing and publishing pornography, burglary, recidivist consumption of alcohol, recidivist theft, rebellion, some economic crimes, kidnapping, terrorism and few others.

And because you personally never saw a stoning, you believe that they never happened?

That film was based on a book. The book was based on events that actually happened. Just a quick cursory search finds many other cases, here's an old incomplete list: https://mehr.org/stoning_list.htm

Propaganda works on everyone. Especially those who think it does not.

How about you work on your reading comprehension? Oh you were there, with the 'burkhas'?! Anyone who knows anything about Iran knows that burkhas are not a common thing in Iran, so how about you cut the crap? So the rights of women were 'evolving' by 'leaps and bounds' huh? Does that include the 37% literacy rate for women at the time of the revolution? Improvement by leaps and bounds better describes the current close to 90% rate I'd say, or perhaps the 60% of college graduates being women. Again how about you tell us where women had more rights before the revolution other than the right to show more skin? I'm all for anyone wearing anything they like, but you equate a western dress code to progress it seems. It doesn't matter if they can read or write it seems, as long as you get to see more skin.

I clearly wrote that women are fighting for their rights and are far from reaching that goal. You interpreting that as 'thinly veiled support' for the regime just exposes your thinly veiled royalist sentiment. Maybe you should ask yourself why in 2025 you are still clamoring for the return of a king? If that's the 'progress' you speak of, most people in Iran would reject it wholeheartedly.

You may know some facts but you'll never be able to convince people because you're an insulting git.

I wish your reading comprehension was as good as your ad hominems.

Maybe give Mossadegh more than a sentence in a wall of text next time?