An Eye For An Eye: Iranian Court Orders The Blinding Of Man In Retribution For Brawl

220px-Eye_iris220px-Eye_irisThe Iranian Supreme Court has again shocked the world with the application of the medieval Islamic Sharia law. In the most recent case, the court literally ordered “an eye for any eye” in sentencing a man (identified only as 28-year-old Saman) have his eye gouged out in retribution for blinding another man.

The victim, a 25-year-old named Jalal, was blinded unintentionally during a brawl with a metal rod. That means that under the primitive Sharia system Saman owes Jalal an eye. Just last year, another court ordered the removal of a man’s left eye in the city of Qoms under Sharia law. In 2010, a Sharia court ordered the actual pouring of acid into the eye of a defendant as retribution for an acid attack.

These “courts” are merely extensions of the Islamic clerics who maintain control over the political and legal systems in the country. The ordering of such barbaric punishments make it difficult to discern the true difference with groups like ISIS other than a pretense of judicial process. Yet even in countries like Saudi Arabia (which are close allies to the United States) sharia law is portrayed as a test of faith and some ideal system of justice. In reality, it is a crude version of retributive justice that is only slightly more developed than the state of nature.

13 thoughts on “An Eye For An Eye: Iranian Court Orders The Blinding Of Man In Retribution For Brawl

  1. Actually, I think some of this kind of thinking goes all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi, and even the Bible. The old eye for an eye stuff.

    § 196–201 – If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man’s bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one mana of silver. If one destroy the eye of a man’s slave or break a bone of a man’s slave he shall pay one-half his price. If a man knock out a tooth of a man of his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth. If one knock out a tooth of a freeman, he shall pay one-third mana of silver.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  2. Matthew 5:38-48King James Version (KJV)

    38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

    39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

    40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

    41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

    42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

    43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

    44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

    46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

    47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

    48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

    Matthew 5:29-30King James Version (KJV) 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
    Quran followers are offended by everything. ISIS people too. All that follow the Quran are taught to be offended by something. People being offended by what is will be offende3d by what is in God’s kingdom that has not been seen or heard. We cannot even visualize what it will be like in our sinful body. Muslims will not be allowed to be there thinking like they think.

  3. Is taking the eye better than demanding blood money for the damage? Accident or not, he caused the damage, so how does he make the man whole. He cannot. He cannot do it financially. So, he sacrifices his eye.

  4. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
    That works. It gets bad when the punishments do not actually fit the crime. Like when they simply lock up a rapist without cutting off the dong or jail a butt kicker without stomping on his foot. Corporal punishment seems to be appropriate for rapists and pedophile priests.

    But corporal punishment should be shown to the public, The surgery should be shown on CNN and the part cut off should be shoved down the guy’s throat on CNN at noon. It does no good to feed a serial rapist Cheerios. They take the word “serial” in the wrong context. Those who steal should be made poor.

  5. “it is a crude version of retributive justice that is only slightly more developed than the state of nature.”

    Great point JT. Which brings us to our Declaration’s 3rd self evident-truth: “That to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    If any of you recall the scene in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles where John Candy and Steve Martin are driving parallel with another car but on the wrong side of the road. Well progressivism is Candy and Martin. They think we are making progress and that everyone else is nuts for arguing against them. In reality our country is regressing in its primary obligation, to secure rights. We are “going the wrong way” and unless we put an end to that slide, we will be back literally fighting our government. We will only be slightly better than being in the state of nature. We will be executing the 4th self-evident truth.

  6. Blind Mellon Chitlins says to see what you can when you can. But don’t pee in the can. And if you miss its because you can’t see when you pee.

  7. Rather than lead by example as civilized human beings with respect for different perspectives, we need to bomb the shi’ite out of Iran to teach them that our way is better than theirs. Bring it on! Mission accomplished!

  8. Sick.

    Thousands of years ago, an eye for an eye was a prohibition against escalating violence and interminable blood feuds. It was an early attempt to make the punishment fit the crime, according to the mores of antiquity.

    The idea of justice has not evolved with modern times everywhere, which is why we are so lucky to live here. Hopefully we won’t throw away our own rights and freedoms.

  9. The old concept of “an eye for eye” is not to be taken literally, and there are no indications that such punishments were carried out in such a literal manner under Mosaic Law. Islamic Law merely steals the concepts of Mosaic Law and then perverts them to serve the inherent sadism in the Islamic belief system.

    I found the following discussion of the original concept on gotquestions.org to be informative and enlightening.

    The concept of “an eye for eye,” sometimes called jus talionis or lex talionis, is part of the Mosaic Law used in the Israelites’ justice system. The principle is that the punishment must fit the crime and there should be a just penalty for evil actions: “If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23–25). Justice should be equitable; excessive harshness and excessive leniency should be avoided.

    We have no indication that the law of “an eye for an eye” was followed literally; there is never a biblical account of an Israelite being maimed as a result of this law. Also, before this particular law was given, God had already established a judicial system to hear cases and determine penalties (Exodus 18:13–26)—a system that would be unnecessary if God had intended a literal “eye for an eye” penalty. Although capital crimes were repaid with execution in ancient Israel, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6), most other crimes were repaid with payment in goods—if you injured a man’s hand so that he could not work, you compensated that man for his lost wages.

    Besides Exodus 21, the law of “an eye for an eye” is mentioned twice in the Old Testament (Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Each time, the phrase is used in the context of a case being judged before a civil authority such as a judge. “An eye for an eye” was thus intended to be a guiding principle for lawgivers and judges; it was never to be used to justify vigilantism or settling grievances personally.

    Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/eye-for-an-eye.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s