The brutal character of Sharia criminal law was evident in Iran this week after a man was forcibly blinded in one eye after being convicted for an acid attack that blinded another man. It was the literal application of the concept of “an eye for an eye.” We discussed the Iranian judicial ruling on blinding people for such crimes ten years ago. In this case, the man was blinded in his left eye and will later be blinded in his right eye unless “blood money is paid.”
The punishment is a form of Qasas, meaning retribution in kind.
If the defendant or his family pays “blood money: to the victim, he will be spared the second blinding and spend 10 years in prison. In another case, a man is scheduled to be both blinded and made deaf.
The primitive character of such punishment is shielded behind the religious orthodoxy in Iran supporting Sharia law under Islam. The medieval values prompt the same medieval practices of Qasas.
In Saudi Arabia, the government is defending its horrific order to imprison and impose 1000 lashes on a blogger who merely exercised free speech. We discussed the case earlier. Now the Kingdom is responding with indignation at the criticism with an official saying that “Saudi Arabia expresses its intense surprise and dismay at what is being reported by some media about the case of citizen Raif Badawi and his sentence.” The official said that by definition the punishment was not a denial of human rights because it is based on Sharia law. It is that simple. If the law is based on religious belief, it is by definition fair and correct. End of discussion.
Source: CNN
Maybe if enough of these inbred lunatics blind and maim one another then we don’t have to worry about Barry signing a bad nuclear agreement with the mullahs. After all, no hands, no eyes, no problem. Instead of criticizing the morbid and insane form of law known as Sharia, please, Iran. . .go for it.
What these people need is a good jobs program.
Oh, and don’t forget the Islamophobe taunts.
DBQ – that was awesome. I can just read your Cliffs Notes and skip the inevitable.
What do they do if further evidence turns out they were wrongly accused? Does the one who carried out the sentence lose a body part, or the judge?
Wade, that’s because we know y’all so well.
I just thought we should get the inevitable over with sooner than later and save you guys all the work
;-P
Once again the right leads the pack in mentioning:
Bush
Koch
Walker
This is the Islam that Po wants to bring to a town near you.
Islam.
Civilization.
Choose one.
Also Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers fault as well, DBQ.
It’s all good. Soon Po will be along to lecture us and in great tedious detail tell us how Sharia Law is the uber bestest law in the world. Drag in some false comparisons to other religions. And shortly after Inga will chime in with how we are all horrible evangelists or fundamentalists or something and it is all OUR fault. Shame shame shame on the west.
And of course it is all Bush’s fault. 🙂
Oxa wins the worst analogy in the world contest. NOT wanting to abort a child is the same as Sharia Law. I doubt anyone can top that one.
“If the law is based on religious belief, it is by definition fair and correct.” It’s easy to be critical of such a stance in a foreign country, but in fact, a good share of the American public would agree with it. Although they might not express their opinion in such a way, most Americans who try to push their religious agendas in the political arena (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-birth control, no same-sex marriage, etc.) are acting in accord with this stance. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Oxa – there are a lot of things people in glass houses should not do unless they draw the curtains. 😉
“The official said that by definition the punishment was not a denial of human rights because it is based on Sharia law. It is that simple. If the law is based on religious belief, it is by definition fair and correct. End of discussion.”
This would be known as ensuring and effectuating proper procedural due process, but denying substantive due process.
However substantive due process is peculiar to the society that defines it.
If there is no fundamental substantial right to your eye, then that due process hasn’t been violated either.
We should not be allies with nations that violate human rights with no intention of improving human rights in the future.
In the Bronze Age the moral ethic was “Might makes right.”
“Ours is not to reason why.” — such is the nature of obedience.
The mightiest of leaders has given orders. Obey.
Sharia is a law of and for the Bronze Age.
I’m wondering how sharia law addresses more sophisticated crimes that were unknown in pre-history. For example, if I go into the marketplace and steal a pomegranate, under sharia law my hand will be chopped off. But what if I engage in theft through a Ponzi scheme? Do they cut off my hand or gouge out my eyes? What about the equivalent of IRS agents in Saudi Arabia….do they sentence tax cheats to jail or do the agents pull a sword out of their briefcases and dismember the cheating taxpayers? Just wondering…..
Islam is still practicing an ethic that predates written history. Much of the middle east practiced this form of retribution in ancient eras.
Around 1300 BC, Judaism diverged from this brutal practice. Their code of laws demanded a monetary equivalent of an eye for an eye, not physical enucleation.
Islam.
Civilization.
Choose one.
Just to be clear, I am not in favor of flogging or caning.
To me this are seperate issues. Where there has been permanent damage to another human on purpose, I do agree with an “eye for an eye.”
The Justice minister of Saudi Arabia has said that their law, Sharia, is perfect because it was given to them by god. I assume the Mustice Minister of Iran would say the same thin. But we have nothing to fear from Sharia law because as we have been told it is a law which encourages compassion. Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, ISIS all different strains of the same song.