Thursday, August 19, 2010

Saudi Judge Considers Paralysis Punishment

Can you imagine a judge considering paralyzing another human being as a punishment because of a crime committed upon another that caused the victim to be paralyzed?

That’s exactly what a judge in Saudia Arabia is considering, according to this story.

What kind of sick idealogy would consider deliberately paralyzing another human being as a punishment? Or cutting of a person's nose, or ears, or torture by stoning?

I don’t know about you, but I am getting sick of hearing from the media  that Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries enforces Islamic law to justify their barbaric and inhumane treatment to  control  others through Islamic law they call a religion.

If the judge looks hard enough, I am sure he will find other more civil options open to him as a punishment for the crime.

Jesus said He who is without sin cast the first stone to the Pharisees, John 8:7; in this case the judge, when the Pharisees were going to stone a woman caught in the act of adultery, which at the time, required the death penalty by stoning under Old Testament law. Even in the death penalty under Old Testament law,
God often showed mercy when it came to punishment. David committed adultery and murder, yet God did not demand his life.

In the case of the woman who the Pharisees wanted to stone to death, this is not to say that Jesus rejected capital punishment in all cases, but used this example in scripture to show mercy and the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, (the judge in this case) who could have cared less about the crime of adultery and the woman being stoned; as in Islamic law, where was the man's punishment who was  involved in the adultery and rape,  when the women are always the ones to be blamed, even if it is not true?

Furthermore, in Matthew 5:39, Jesus instructs us not to perpetrate an additional offense, and the Apostle Paul wrote , "Repay no one evil for evil” in Romans 12:17. If offended, do not offend in return. If injured, do not inflict an injury in payment. In other words, an eye for an eye is not the answer.

In the case of the Saudi judge, how does it make the judge any better than the criminal by deliberately inflicting paralysis upon another human being? An eye for an eye. It doesn’t.

Perhaps it would bring King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who has been listed as one of the world’s 10 most respected leaders  by Newsweek greater respect  by  proving  he believes in the spirit of tolerance, moderation and balance, by taking a pro-active initiative and speaking to this Saudi judge about this eye for an eye, excessive and extraordinary punishment consideration.

Spread The News
To share this post, click the "share icon" at the end of the post.

No comments:

Post a Comment