We all remember the phrase "Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", right? Well, the modern social response to this is "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind". We see the prior phrase appear in the Bible (a quotation from Exodus 21:23-27), and expresses a principle of retributive justice also known as lex talionis (Latin for "law of retaliation"). The basis of this form of law is the principle of proportionate punishment, often expressed under the motto "Let the punishment fit the crime", which particularly applies to mirror punishments (which may or may not be proportional). At the root of the non-biblical form of this principle is the belief that one of the purposes of the law is to provide retaliation for an offended party. This early belief is reflected in the code of Hammurabi and later brought up in the Bible, Torah and Quran (though only implicitly).
Now Hammurabi had some pretty good laws. He said:
* If one accuses another, but cannot prove it, the accuser will be killed.
* If one accuses another, and can prove it, he shall be rewarded with money.
Now, that is an extreme burden of proof, but it would cut back on the crap we see flying around the media if these laws were in place today. This is also pretty fair when you think about it. It implies that if you can't back up what you've said, you probably would do best not saying it unless you've got proof in hand. Hammurabi probably hated drama and I can't say I blame him.
Let take a moment and look a little further in the kind of laws these were, shall we.
Lex Talionis
As I said before, 'lex talinosis' is a kind of set of laws express retribution. It appears in religious texts in some form or another, both explicitly and implicitly, and remains important in figuring out some of today’s current events; specifically Israel and Hezbollah
In Judaism
The Torah's first mentions the phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, and a foot for a foot " in Exodus (stated above). The Talmud explains that this biblical concept entails monetary compensation in tort cases. The same interpretation applies to this phrase as it appears in Leviticus. Personal retribution is explicitly forbidden by the Torah and such reciprocal justice is strictly reserved for the social magistrate.
The Oral Law explains, based upon the biblical verses, that the Bible mandates a sophisticated five-part monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for "Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish" - which underlie many modern legal codes. Some rabbinic literature explains, moreover, that the expression, "An eye for an eye, etc." suggests that the perpetrator deserves to lose his own eye, but that biblical law treats him leniently. - (Paraphrased from Union of Orthodox Congregations website)
However, the Torah also discusses a form of direct reciprocal justice, where the phrase "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" makes another appearance in Deuteronomy. Here, the Torah discusses false witnesses who conspire to testify against another person. The Torah requires the court to "do to him as he had conspired to do to his brother" (the Bible would vaguely correlate with this by stating "Do unto others as you have do unto you" / "Judge not, lest ye first be judged"). Assuming the fulfillment of certain technical criteria (such the sentencing of the accused whose punishment was not yet executed), wherever it is possible to punish the conspirators with the exact same punishment through which they had planned to harm their fellow, the court carries out this direct reciprocal justice (including when the punishment constitutes the death penalty). Otherwise, the offenders received lashes (which I'm sure will cause someone to rethink their position during that process).
In Christianity
Christian interpretation of the biblical passage has been heavily influenced by the quotation from Leviticus:
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD"
In Jesus' 'Sermon on the Mount', he urges his followers to turn the other cheek when confronted by violence: This was the Expounding of the Law.
'You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also..
- (Matthew 5:38-39)
The passage continues with the importance of showing forgiveness to enemies and those who harm you. This saying of Jesus is frequently interpreted as criticism of the Old Testament teaching, and often taken as implying that "an eye for an eye" encourages excessive vengeance rather than an attempting to limit it.
Most Christian scholars and commentators have agreed that such an interpretation is a misunderstanding of this section of Matthew. The "Expounding of the Law" includes a series of six sayings in similar format, known as the "antitheses". In each of them Jesus quotes the provisions of the Jewish Law without criticism - indeed, the passage is prefaced by a ringing endorsement of the Law as whole. However he then calls on his followers to go further than the Law demands, in order to "Be perfect". It seems clear Jesus was not criticizing the law, but calling on his followers not only to refrain from the abuses the Law condemns, but to go to the opposite extreme by exercising forgiveness and love — even when one has a just claim to vengeance.
Now, I can't write a fair piece without discussing the other side of this; Hezbollah.
See, the Code of Hammurabi is a Cuneiform Law, which branched out to Babylonian Law. Babylonian Law has direct ties to Syro-Roman and Islamic laws in Mesopotamia, and so enters Hezbollah.
In Islam
A form of lex talionis in Islam is called "Sharia". Sharia refers to a body of Islamic law. In the Islamic state Sharia governs both public and private lives of those living within the state. Sharia governs many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, and social issues. Some accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include reform Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.
Now, don't get me wrong... Sharia is pretty fair as far as practical common law is concerned, but when it comes to religion, it is extremely strict. I'd go so far as to say that it parallels the ideals held by the Spanish Inquisition.
So, let’s look at two Sharia laws:
In regards to theft -
In accordance with the Qur'an and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet, depending on the number of times it was committed.
I think we can agree that this is pretty fair. If you steal from someone, the body as a whole is not punished, but the offending part is. Steal, and the hand that steals is removed. It is the responsiblity of the body to keep the other hand in check.
In regards to apostasy (rejection of ones religion) -
In most interpretations of Shariah, conversion by Muslims to other religions is forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of shariah, the penalty for apostasy is death.
.
Wow, that's pretty harsh. Infidels must die, but not only infidels; anyone who turns from the faith is to be punished by death. These are strong punishments for non-conformity. Since man y of the Islamic nations have little to no separation of church and state, it makes perfect sense that it is considered treason as well.
Where am I going with this? I'm going to Israel VS Hezbollah. Israel a Jewish nation doesn't recognize the New Testament so the teachings of Christ are not something they'd be prone to adhere to very closely. This leaves open the Old Testament views of "an eye for an eye".
With this is becomes clear as to the philosophy behind the continued retaliation that Zionists are putting forth. Is it racist? Not really. For their concern, they're doing nothing more than practicing the word of God. As far as Hezbollah is concerned they are doing the same. If you take their advanced laws back to their basics within Hammurabi, they're just following orders of their respective Gods.
The Point
Without getting deep into political agenda, humanitarian issues, and propaganda shamelessly fed to everyone from both sides of any proverbial fence, I want to look at the basic drive behind this. What causes two religions who profess to be "peaceful" into such a tragic and drawn out 'temper tantrum?.
By expressing my thoughts and ideas on this, I hope to better understand the more important question of WHY this is being done. HOW and WHAT make themselves known through actions, yet everyone wants to ask "HOW?" and "WHAT?" questions anyway.
Agenda aside, both Israel and Hezbollah do have a right to defend themselves; that’s a moot point. Anyone under attack has that human right and instinct. Debating that is pointless, however, a point overlooked frequently is do they have reason?
If we strip away all the layers of "he said, she said", "they started it", "I'm taking my ball and going home", and "he's bigger than I am"... we can see that both, as far as their rooted beliefs go, have good reason to carry on the way they are. Nothing else really matters here. Lives are lost in ways just as tragic in our own backyards. Racism is around America and Europe (and we're only trying to work on it from the outside to tell the truth), so bringing it up in Israel and trying to rally everyone on that point is making hypocrites out of us all. Religion around the world is under fire (Catholics and the molestations, Baptists and the money laundering, Muslims and terrorist connections, Jews and exclusion), so it's not overly shocking when it also happens in the Middle East
In terms of religion, nobody here is right. A sin is a sin, and as far as I can tell, God doesn’t base sins on degrees of wrong. Rape and Murder are of equal value to Him in terms of disobedience and will both be punished accordingly. God even explains that the thought of a sin is just as bad as the sin itself ( NOTE - these are links to the verse in the Bible. If you do not believe the Bible, that is fine, but they are added to shed light on the subject, not to force a belief system on the reader - Matthew 12:31, Romans 6:23, Matthew 6:23, Deuteronomy 15:9). The variance in degree comes from man, and if both sides are fighting under religious pretexts, then why would they bind themselves to secular laws to wage a Holy War? It's time to either tell the truth and have each side own up to their true agenda, or let them wage that war with zero support from anyone. Syria and Iran back away and stop funding Hezbollah while the US and Europe stop sending help and materials to Israel. Either believe God is on their side, and if this is true, then they’ll both co-exist just fine or one will wipe the other out. Either way, they fall under their own guise of “God's will". If this war is waged on the false pretexts of a Holy War, then well... the verses listed pretty much indicate - you die. It's pretty clear.
If you want to take a totally Atheist approach, then I'd refer to Darwinism in relation to Herbert Spencer - Survival of the fittest, while keeping the idea that no support be given to either side.
Good idea or bad idea; it's still an idea, which many politicians have yet to even attempt.
