Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

An Eye for an Eye

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-11 of 11 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 5 Apr 2013 11:50:00 BDT
Dan Fante says:
I just wonder what people thought of the recent case in Saudi Arabia where a lad who (some 10 years ago when he was 14) stabbed his friend, leaving him paralysed. The court has decided the sentence should be that he himself is to be paralysed from the waist down. Apparently if he pays £250k compensation the sentence will be commuted.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Apr 2013 12:22:53 BDT
Yeah I read that myself the other day and Saudi Arabia continues to astound me with their medival backwards laws. How many Witches and Warlocks have they beheaded this year? Think the count was up to like 24 for last year and now this eye for an eye... unless you can pay blood money nonsense

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be the same species as these people...

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Apr 2013 12:32:22 BDT
Spin says:
Dan: Is it not part of Islamic law that the victim can decide the punishment, if he/she so wishes? Or have I been misinformed?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Apr 2013 12:40:49 BDT
Bellatori says:
No you haven't, Spin. This, however is a particularly nasty form of retributive justice rather than restorative justice.

Stephen Gallagher says: "Sometimes I'm ashamed to be the same species as these people... " In my mind I like to think that I am not. I may not truly be Homo Sapiens Sapiens Superior but at least I occasionally give it a go. These people.... well what can one say except they ARE Muslim and this seems to be one of the unfortunate side effects of that religion. As with Jesus I often wonder what Mohammed would say if he looked at what they have made of his religion today.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Apr 2013 12:55:24 BDT
Dan Fante says:
To quote the beeb:
"The judge in the case has reportedly interpreted the Islamic law of qisas, or retribution, that Saudi Arabia follows as meaning that he in turn could face being paralysed."

Posted on 5 Apr 2013 13:05:41 BDT
Spin says:
The very concept of "punishment" is not based on any religion or secular ideology. The concept is addressed by theistic and atheistic ideologies to accommodate the human instinct for retaliation and retribution which cannot be exercised in a lawful society and are "crimes" in themselves. So the "punishment" of criminals is based on the idea that " legal justice" is some kind of morally neutral alternative to "revenge". But it is not "morally neutral"; it is based on prior moralities and ethics held by those who exercise the law. Thus it is that some sentences are considered too lenient and others too severe. So I can see the point in a religious society allowing the victim to choose the punishment. Responsibility for the morality and consequences of the punishment is placed on the individual, not society. The victim is answerable to God, not society.

Posted on 5 Apr 2013 17:42:15 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Apr 2013 17:46:58 BDT
Roma says:
Hi I think this where the expression blood money came from. I read recently about another case where a woman had had acid thrown at her face and was allowed to choose between money and the perpetrator having acid injected into his eyes- a literal case of an eye for an eye extending blindness. Our justice system is not perfect but at least we don t expect the victim to be responsible for the punishment of the convicted. Personally, i would feel ihad dragged myself to their low level. In SA one gets the feeling that there must be an all pervasive fear. What matters human rights, though, when you ve got oil.

Another thought - was an eye for an eye etc not originally intended to limit excessive punishment?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Apr 2013 19:54:35 BDT
Pendragon says:

"was an eye for an eye etc not originally intended to limit excessive punishment?"

Some argue that this is the correct meaning. It has some sense to it.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Apr 2013 20:06:13 BDT
Bellatori says:
What flits through my mind is... Just for a moment let us assume that the eye for an eye punishment is just. I then have to ask who administers this punishment? Again hypothesise that the crime actually caused a loss of an eye, who will remove the eye from the offender? If it is not the person who lost the eye originally then we run in to the problem of someone unaffected by the crime committing an immoral act.
I am not putting this very well as I am sort of unconvinced about what I am saying. I hope someone can help me out here. I feel there is an issue about third party involvement that feels wrong.

I am busy packing for a long drive home so I am a bit tired and not really getting this sorted in my mind.

It is the pound of flesh issue in Shakespeare I have just realised.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Apr 2013 20:20:55 BDT
Roma says:
I ve said it before - Shakespeare has a quotation to suit every occasion. I hope you and your family had a lovely holiday in Spain. I remember in Spain, under, Franco s falangist regime, how Spaniards used to be so frightened of the Guardia Civil. Thankfully, that has changed, so maybe there s hope for countries like Saudi.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Apr 2013 23:20:33 BDT
i might be mistaken here but i thought much of Mohammed's thinking was based around existing tribal law anyway. wasn't he giving them the laws and customs they already understood but in a new religious package. i think the cultural vengeance and retribution customs of Arab tribes was well established before he came on the scene. 'blood feud' was the term i was thinking of.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Important Announcement from Amazon
154 12 Aug 2015
Morality and ethics. 84 45 minutes ago
New Evidence That Christianity is Fake and Jesus Never Existed 1064 2 hours ago
Christopher Hicthens 4149 3 hours ago
God, the referendum. God LEAVE or God REMAIN. Only one vote each until you don't like the result and start a petition. Then you can have hundreds of votes 1 5 hours ago
Religion, No Religion - Who Really Cares? 2 6 hours ago
If an all knowledgeable God created life, why is there cancer? 1334 10 hours ago
Today's most intelligent and outspoken atheist is .... 296 10 hours ago
The Power of Prayer. 1888 14 hours ago
Atheism has no Justice 192 1 day ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 789 1 day ago
2nd referendum, for those that don't believe in democracy. 86 1 day ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  7
Total posts:  11
Initial post:  5 Apr 2013
Latest post:  5 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions