Iran’s Supreme Court orders removal of man’s eye


Iran’s Supreme Court has reportedly ordered removing the eye of a man who was accused of blinding another man during a street fight, according to the NGO Iran Human Rights.

  • ‘An eye for an eye’ was an ancient, pre-Biblical law, which also appears in the Torah. However, the rabbis understood the expression as metaphorical. Because obviously, logically, you cannot apply such a law to a blind man who blinds someone, or any other similar situation. Therefore, the law was taken to refer financial compensation.

    The Muslims, however, when they stole snippets of Jewish law to formulate their own code of law, did not grasp this simple reasoning. This is why, still today, they take it literally, as this case makes clear. Moreover, being a cruel lot, basically still savages, they love blood and gore.

    • Etobicoke_Gladiator

      Years ago I read some Torah commentaries elucidating the brutality of punishments under the Roman Empire (I cannot recall when and where, exactly, alas), something to the effect that for every eye lost the Romans would gouge out ten eyes, for every one Roman citizen murdered the Romans would murder ten of the other. Often, this occurred randomly.

      The term derived from this practice is “decimation”. To decimate is to destroy and conquer, but the origin of the term refers to the random killing or mutilation of one in every ten people randomly.

      As for the Muslims, their barbarism and utter depravity knows no limits.

      • A commentary I read somewhere concerning the Torah law of ‘an eye for an eye’ is that it was originally meant to limit the retribution for destroying one eye to just one eye (davka one) – because the tendency before was to go for both the culprit’s eyes even if he only destroyed the victim’s one eye. In this sense, the law was at the time, even if taken literally, an improvement on what preceded it, i.e. a more humane practice.

        • Interesting.

        • Waffle

          When Portia, the judge, admonishes Shylock as a Jew to show mercy to Antonio, she says:

          “The quality of mercy is not strained.
          It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
          Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed:
          It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”

          • This lovely speech (inspired, by the way, by Psalms of David) of course reflects the wrong Christian notion that Judaism is all about Justice and has no Mercy. The truth of the matter, to anyone who knows Judaism, is the opposite – or more precisely, Judaism recommends a wise balance of both Justice and Mercy (and attributes this balance to God, of course). Why? Because either of these principles taken alone alone would destroy the world.

            On the other hand, while Christianity has through the ages flattered itself on its boundless Love, in practice it has often been merciless towards the Jews. In The Merchant of Venice, this negative attitude is evident in relation to Shylock, even whose own daughter (very untypically for a Jewish girl) rejects him.

            To give an example of the wisdom of balance: if we look at the political situation today, the leftists are advocates of blind, unlimited love (open-armed welcome) towards the Muslim “refugees”, without regard as to the character of these people and of their impact on the host population, i.e. without making sure of the justice of such policy. Wisdom is proper balance.

          • Waffle

            Thanks for this perspective. I am still contending with the fate of growing up with a Shakespeare-spouting Jewish mother. It just slips out 😉

          • Actually, I’ve always been a fan of Shakespeare’s plays. I enjoy the language very much. A bit less so now, I must admit, after reading a biography of his which claims that he was (at least part-time, or at least in his desires) a homosexual – based on certain interpretations of some of his poems. This said in passing.
            For a possible influence of Psalms on said speech, see for instance Ps. 133, which has this same image of blessings dropping down from above.

          • Waffle

            LOL!! To bi- or not to bi-? That is the question!

          • Very well put!

          • Waffle
          • Waffle – I just read his conclusions. As far as I am concerned, each Jew is free to choose whether to be or not to be part of the living Jewish people. Am Israel chai is true and will remain true, no matter how many people choose to leave it. Those who stay have the privilege to be Jewish, those who go will lack it. Too bad for them. And to be Jewish, to my mind, means to believe in God and to love the Jewish people and to love Israel. The author of the linked article who wants “to resist the soft messianism and aggressive desperation of the West Bank Occupation” is already gone, an outsider. He does not speak for real Jews, those who feel good as Jews.

          • Waffle

            I know. Boy, have you opened a can of worms Yes, each Jew is free to choose. Personally, I am by no means religious but I proudly identify as Jewish. Ironically, I have not yet touched the soil of our ancient homeland, nor have I travelled to the diaspora homes of my ancestors. But I grew up as a Zionist and have became increasingly so as times goes on.

            Referring back to our discusion on the law of retribution, I grew up before the age of p.c. (I am older than Methusala) and although I recall feeling uncomfortable when we studied “Merchant” in highschool, the topic of Shakespeare’s possible anitsemitism never came up. There were so few Jews in the little mining town I grew up in, most times I was the only Jewish kid in my class.

            Ironically, it was a meshugga Hungarian Jewess who was responsible for the discovery of the richest gold mine outside South Africa. She lived in a little village junction town on the T&NO (later to become the ONR) named Swastika. I have a lot of stories to tell about Swastika (which always raises a few eyebrows when I mention the name), but I suffer from the curse of procrastination. Although I have done all my research and started to write, I have yet to finish.

          • Waffle

            Re the Tablet piece: just finished it. What an ignorant polemic!

          • Etobicoke_Gladiator

            …ha ha ha! Oy vay, to be or not to be, etc. etc.

          • Waffle

            My old mother spoke with a very cultured British accent. She didn’t speak Yiddish but she tried to learn in her old age. She gave elocution lessons to the daughters of the town’s “elite” and was responsible for getting the Canadian players to add our town to their annual whistle-stop tour. So I saw Shakespeare performed live with a bare minimum of props and costumes,

        • Etobicoke_Gladiator

          Oh yes, of course… this and above is obvious. I know the standard Talmudic interpretation. I just think that even taken literally, “an eye for an eye” is much better than “an eye for ten eyes”, etc., as was the Roman custom or the current literal interpretation of sharia law.

      • Bataviawillem

        Decimating in the Roman time was, one in ten of a group/village/city was killed.

    • BillyHW

      Muslims don’t do metaphors.

      • Etobicoke_Gladiator

        They often wipe the simile off my face, though, reading about them… (metaphorically speaking)

    • Waffle

      The law of retribution (lex talionis) goes back to the Code of Hammurabi, but you’re right. The rabbis humanized it.

      When I saw the headline, I thought it might be a nod to that famous quote from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) “If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out”. But I assumed wrongly. Jesus was metaphorically referring to a remedy for lust. (in other words, “Don’t look”).

      In this case, this barbaric punishment hearkens back to the ancient code for retributive justice. Obviously, the mullahs have no understanding of metaphor, the evolution of law or humanity.

  • Barrington Minge

    Filthy savages. Beneath contempt.

  • Ed

    If that’s his lawyer sitting beside him, at least he understands there’s no point in opening the briefcase…

  • Hard Little Machine

    Anything they can do to further drive their society back to the Dark Ages is to be applauded.