The Saudi Judge’s Action
Responding to a request from a paralysed man for tit-for-tat retribution for his assailant, a judge in the northwestern Saudi province of Tabuk has written to several hospitals in Saudi Arabia whether they could sever the assailant’s spinal cord.
The Case
The victim, Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, aged 22, was paralysed and later lost his foot after a fight more than 2 years ago. The unidentified attacker is said to have been sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, but was released after 7 months and reportedly is now working as a teacher.
Eye-For-Eye Punishment In Saudi Arabia
Strict Islamic law is applied in Saudi Arabia, and it allows victims to ask for eye-for-eye punishment for people who have wronged them. Cutting off the hands of thieves is common, However, this request to paralyse an assailant is considered unusual and extreme. The law also allows the victim to receive blood money to settle the case, but the victim’s brother said the family is not interested in money, and is prepared to send the assailant abroad for the operation if necessary.
Despite enforcement of strict Islamic law in Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, in his effort to modernize the country, has been trying to clamp down on extremism, including religious bizarre decrees issued by unauthorized clerics. In 2006 Abdul Lateef Noushad could have lost his eye in a similar situation, but he was pardoned by King Abdullah.
Response By Hospitals
According to the victim’s brother, the King Khaled Hospital in Tabuk has replied that the operation is possible but would have to be done at a specialist hospital. However, Saudi newspapers have reported that the King Faisal Specialist Hospital in the capital, Riyadh, has declined, probably on ethical grounds. The judge, Saoud Suleiman al-Youssef, is awaiting replies from other hospitals.
An Alternative Punishment
Horrified by the intended punishment of deliberately paralyzing a man, Amnesty International has suggested flogging instead. “We urge the Saudi Arabian authorities not to carry out such a punishment, which amounts to nothing less than torture” Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, acting director of Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa Program, said in a statement. “While those guilty of a crime should be held accountable, intentionally paralyzing a man in this way would constitute torture, and be a breach of its international human rights obligations.”
Is Eye-For-Eye Retribution Possible?
Somebody commenting online on the news reports has pointed out that if the assailant were to be paralysed and if he then outlived the victim by many years, then he would be suffering much longer than the victim, in which case the punishment meted out does not become equal to the suffering of the victim.
Think About It
Is Islam a religion of love? If so, how do requests for eye-for-eye punishments fit in? Will all Saudi hospitals, including those in the provinces, adhere to medical ethics and decline the judge’s request?
In response to the idea that if the “accused” were paralyzed and then out lived the “victim” that the punishment would then be too severe… how long has the “victim” been paralyzed? The “accused” would have to outlive him by at least that much. Also, what if the “accused” were paralyzed and then died first? The “victim” would not have gotten full retribution. So, would the “victim” then be able to seek out another one of the “accused’s” family members to finish the punishment?