Barbarism. Beheadings, honor killings, sentences of rape, lapidation, maimings, etc. demonstrate the barbaric nature of this culture that we have invited into our homes, with which we have do business to maintain our comfortable lifestyle, the culture that has swallowed up thousands of past cultures and civilizations because they are barbaric and ruthless beyond the capability of understanding of most Westerners.

Posted by: epg at December 10, 2005 5:25 AM

Abdul Lateef Naushad,is muslim- a true Believer. He should respect the judgement of Shariat Court. Indian Government is a Kafir one and its appeal, if any (made to Saudi govt.),should be rejected by Naushad. By this true islamic act of him he will be rewarded with Islamic Heaven along with seventy two Houris.

Posted by: iqbal at December 10, 2005 8:10 AM

Man, I just can't wait for those 10,000 Saudis.

I now understand why the Peninsula Arabs who lived near us in our last (thankfully) apartment complex were such standoffish snobs and completely immoral ingrate students. They treated girls like garbage (based on the number who stormed out angry or crying) and drank like alcohol was going away forever.

Posted by: Beagle at December 10, 2005 8:21 AM

"Yes, yes, the Bible also prescribes "an eye for an eye" (Leviticus 24:20). So where are Jews (for Christians, Matthew 5:38-39 mitigates this) carrying out this sentence today?"
There is a long Jewish tradition that asserts that the proper interpretation of the eye for an eye text is to give monetary payment in that amount. You could look it up, as Casey Stengel said.
I am so, so, so tired of theological equivalence arguments. I said in the Dhimmi of the Year category that while I would not vote for Bush, I, too, am disgusted by the “Islam means peace” mantra.
As Mr. Spencer correctly noted above, Christianity EXPLICITLY disavows Levitical law. In the Christian Bible, it is explained that Christians do not need to be circumcised nor need they keep kosher. And above all, Jesus reaction to an adulterous woman is "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" a response that is quite a contrast to Mohammed's "Hey, don't kill her till the baby is weaned" solution.
Orthodox Jews believe that the oral law (i.e. the unwritten explanation of what the Torah means) was given at Mt. Sinai although. I, along with most reform Jews, believe that it evolved in response to the Jews losing the right to govern themselves once they were conquered.
Whatever the case, Judaism and Christianity have texts and traditions that show how these texts are to be interpreted and a tradition of interpreting them in a non-literal way.
What tradition to Muslims have to show that they don’t interpret these eye-for-an-eye verses literally? They do not seem to have one. Indeed, looking at the Muslim world, one would have to at least concede that there are a lot of people who take those words at face value, and that they would like to extend the scope of their power.

Posted by: Miss Moneypenney at December 10, 2005 9:53 AM

A country such as this is allowed to sit with the others in world bodies such as the UN??? Its time the Saudis are treated for what they are; Pariahs of the human race.

Posted by: faqi at December 10, 2005 12:29 PM

And the Qur'an tells the reader in several places, directly and indirectly, to take the text at face value, to follow what the 'Messenger' says strictly, and threatens readers who would dare disobey.

Jewish scriptural traditions, and even the more simple-minded Gospels and Acts, are utterly different in character.

Posted by: JTF at December 10, 2005 1:18 PM

[Will King Abdullah heed the call of Human Rights Watch, or the call of Sharia. Hmmmm. Tough call, eh?]

Well, there are two separate issues here. One is that the law in Saudi Arabia is clear: that personal injuries are dealt with on a retaliatory basis. That means an eye for an eye, literally - as opposed to the western law which mandates a jail sentence at the discretion of the judge (sometimes).

This is a lottery, in which it could be the sort of prison sometimes described as Butlin's with locked gates (or sometimes without), or it could be a hell-hole ruled by drug gangs in which you can get your head kicked in, or worse, for looking at someone the wrong way. (That can happen to you on the streets of some cities, but that is beside the point.)

The other issue is that this seems to be (stereo)typical Saudi pseudo-Shari'ah "justice" in which the rich win out over the strong, the local over the foreigner, the man over the woman and so on. If the man is claiming that the man's blinding was the result of something he did in self-defence and that the Saudi's word is believed because he's a Saudi rather than a poor dark-skinned Indian migrant worker, the case is against the Saudis and not the Shari'ah, because poking out a man's eyes for accidentally blinding someone else in a legitimate act of self-defence is certainly not Shari'ah.

Posted by: Yusuf Smith at December 10, 2005 1:45 PM

While the principle of eye for eye(the lex-talionis) is found in the Scripture, for Christians it was specifically abrogated by Christ. When Christ replaced "eye for eye" with "turn the other cheek" he was definitely speaking in the mainstream of Jewish tradition proclaimed by the Holy Prophets and teachings of the great Rabbis such as Hillel. No Christian or Jew who truly follows his or her Tradition will take the Mosaic dictum as a literal command.

"Vengeance is Mine, I (alone) will repay, says the Lord" is an absolute standard for both Jews and Christians. Unfortunately for Mr. Naushad, although the Islamic version of Allah may be merciful and compassionate, his fellow Muslims aren't required to be.

On the other hand(but consistent with this principle), we are never required to turn a blind eye to the oppression of others. Thus, being willing to suffer ourselves, we must always be prepared to fight to end the suffering of others. Jews and Christians see every human person in the image of God while Muslims see us only in the image of slaves.

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 10, 2005 1:47 PM

Jesus has replaced the old Jewish law of 'an eye for an eye' to the 'turn your other cheek' and 'Love your enemy' law. There is an old German saying -'tell me how your friend treat his strangers and I will tell his religion'.
Though the Victim is Muslim,so many other factors go in to this punishment for the crime.Probably the muslim is a Shia. There goes the 'Roof-top yelling' of Islamic brotherhood!!

Posted by: rafia at December 10, 2005 2:19 PM

Saudi courts do not admit the testimony of non-Saudis in cases concerning Saudis, according to some article I read. So eyewitnesses who were also hired (obviously, Muslim) labor from overseas couldn't testify.

Posted by: kufr at December 10, 2005 3:12 PM

WHERE IS THE OUTCRY FROM ALL HUMANITARIAN MUSLIMS AT THIS BARBARIC SENTENCE! Do we hear 'Gorgeous' George Galloway or Sister Yvonne
Ridley denouncing this act as 'Hijacking the wonderful Religion of Peace and making Muslims appear in a bad light??' Hell no - those two haven't got time for that : they're too busy promising 'rioting on every street in London' if
demands of Jihadists aren't met. What about 'Human Rights' advocate Vanessa Redgrave who thought' children of Beslan deserved their fate' because children in Chechyna have died -
the spurious morality of this claim is laughable it it weren't so tragic. This silly actress who openly supports Chechen terrorists on her own money no doubt regards herself as a virtuous and
'humane' woman.[Regardless of the fact that all musicians,actresses and working women will not be
allowed in glorious Islamic Caliphate of Britain.]
No, the intended recipient of Eye Gouging has few
to speak for him. As for King Abdullah he is
too busy eating huge meals [trying to keep his farts away from Mecca], shagging available wives & concubines & anything else which takes his fancy, counting his immense fortune; to care about the fate of anyone else in his Stone Age
Kingdom...

Posted by: Morgane at December 10, 2005 4:13 PM

Why doesn't HRW speak up for the Bulgarian nurses [and one Arab doctor] sentenced to death in Libya for allegedly giving kids AIDS in a hospital?
What's new about the Bulgarian nurses?

Posted by: Eliyahu at December 10, 2005 6:03 PM

It has been said that the Christians and Jews are encrouching upon the religion of Islam even while they are establishing a permanent and repugnant presence in our own countries.

Perhaps absolute equality of ideas and respect for each others religion is the answer.

I propose to the U.N. (lol) and to all serious contenders in this conflict that we have absolute equality and reciprocity.

If a muslim nation allows Christian Churches and Jewish Synagogues to be built and freedom of worship for those people, then we should allow mosques to be built and freedom of religious practice in our countries.

If an unfortunate non-citizen in a muslim country is not permitted to a defence in court than we should not allow muslims to such rights in our courts.

If they insist on shariia law as the basis of law, and punishment is based on such, then we should also apply that same perverted justice to
muslims who transgress within our borders. If applied appropriately we would have far less danger of terrorism, fewer arrogant, obnoxious, rude Hussein clones running around our streets wrecking havoc with our social systems and endangering our society.

If they consider it legitimate to call for the destruction of all non-muslim nations, then we should certainly apply that privilege equally and pursue that thought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Having exposure to all the horror and remembering the past, check out Smyrna, Oct. 1922, our inaction has only served to encourage their pushing the envelope.

You cannot coexist with a junkyard dog without dire consequence. The only thing in this world islam respects, as with the junkyard dog, is brutal unforgiving and absolute power of authority.

Our weakness, as life and liberty loving democratic countries, is we have as yet to realize there is only one way to deal with this global problem. That would be directly, forcefully and unforgiving in our conviction that we will certainly overcome the insideous threat with which we are confronted.

Islam has no concept of "just" or "unjust", no concept of a loving personal God who deals directly with each individual. So, unfortunately, the only way to rationally deal with them is as a group who can respect the untimate will of their little piece of comet and accept whatever comes their way, and please let it happen without apology.

They cannot be accepted as equals, because they see no equality in a non-believer.

Posted by: fr2u at December 10, 2005 6:10 PM

I have a different suggestion---infidels should avoid visiting or working in Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: US_infidel at December 10, 2005 6:45 PM

okay, an eye-gouging is passed as a sentence by a sharia court in an islamic country.

does that not serve as hint to you about the true beliefs of islam?

surely by now all thinking people would realize that something is wrong with this picture. perhaps something about islam might not be right. maybe islam contains moral flaws that render it unfit for westerners. that this flawed religion goes against our basic beliefs. could it be, perhaps, that islam is not worthy to be compared to other religions? doesn't such an act of the law under islam not make you think that these people are somewhat savage? does the brutality in the name of Allah not make you question your liberal, open, and innocent acceptance of this religion as being as worthy as others?

islam does not mean peace. it means SUBMISSION.

Posted by: Jim at December 10, 2005 7:59 PM

I have heard one rabbi say that when the 'eye for an eye' rule recorded in the Bible was established, it was actually a mitigation of what were often harsher standards of punishment -- the rabbi in question claimed that, in those ancient times, if you took someone's eye, it could mean losing a lot more than an eye in return. So this 'eye for an eye' rule was actually an attempt to gentle the law of that long ago time, and to emphasize the careful weighing of the scales of justice to assure balance instead of an over-reaction -- it did not mean an automatic and mindless punishment in slavish obedience to some divine law. Unlike the Muslims, the Jews have often wrestled with angels (like Jacob) and argued with, complained, bitched to God (like Job)...because the Jews saw human beings as in God's image, creators in miniature, but the Muslims see human beings as blasphemous in creating, and only fit for what the word "Islam" means: submission

Posted by: eduardo odraude at December 10, 2005 10:17 PM

Eduardo: Beautifully said!

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 10, 2005 10:54 PM

Yes, in Jewish law, I'm pretty sure that 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is intended to limit the scope of revenge. Remember, in the bad old days, if you messed someone up, you could get a blood feud going with lots of death and destruction.

It's mocked these days since Gandhi made his asinine put down, but it's a good rule of thumb, and has the same kind of self evident nature as
the Golden Rule.

There's no comparing the whole Jewish approach to law and punishment to the islamic. When Christianity arose, some of the first Jewish Christians were driven from synagogues where they
were preaching (preaching blasphemy, according to the Jews) and sometimes beaten. But not killed!
And that was about two thousand years ago. So the
Jews of two thousand years ago were more morally advanced than the mohammadans of today. Scary thought!

Posted by: American at December 11, 2005 12:11 AM