Comments on: The Saudi Crucifixion – Human Rights Violation or Not?

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 02:45:24 +0000

There is irrefutable proof that execution does indeed deter violent crime. No convicted criminal that has been successfully executed has ever committed another violent crime, or any other crime for that matter.

Concerning “Saudi Crucifixion”; not being a Saudi citizen, any opinion I may have about what they choose to do with criminals within their own country is irrelevant. Just as non-citizen’s opinions about U.S. policies within the U.S. are irrelevant.

By: American Bedu

American Bedu — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:08:41 +0000

I’m curious as to how many countries around the world now still institute the death penalty? The US, at least in some states, is among countries which still use the death penalty.

And stay tuned, I have an upcoming post specific to the lashing of the 13 year old girl so I request comments be forth held until that post is published.

Regards, Carol

By: Vlad

Vlad — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:13:16 +0000

Forget beheading of a violent criminal, how about flogging of a 13 year old girl? Is that human rights violation enough for you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1244689/Saudi-girl-13–sentenced-90-lashes-took-mobile-phone-school.html

By: Vlad

Vlad — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:10:54 +0000

Death penalty is barbaric by default. The way it’s executed in Saudi Arabia is extremely barbaric. Beheading in the third millennium?!

The “death penalty as a deterrent” argument has been proven wrong repeatedly by many countries that abolished it and some that re-introduced it after years of abolition.

By: Chiara

Chiara — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:28:44 +0000

It would be important to remember that the cross in various forms is a universal shape and pre-dated Christianity. That it has come in certain shapes to be associated with the life and death of Jesus as the Christian saviour does not eliminated other uses and meanings.

Crucifixion–fixing to a cross of whatever specific shape until death–was a Roman form of deliberately slow execution, and had nothing to do with Christianity. The Romans got it from the Greeks, and the Persians also used it for centuries. It was abolished in the Christian world as form of execution only in the 4th century as a tribute to Jesus.

Someone else will have to address the actual Arabic word, but as the Bible exists in Arabic presumably the same word has both the secular meaning as a means of execution, and the religious meaning in the Christian Bible as well as the Sharia meaning in the Quran.

By: Jerry M

Jerry M — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:54:21 +0000

It may be barbarity but one can hardly call it a ‘human rights violation’ when it is done to an already dead body. If it is recommended in the Koran, that doesn’t make it anything other than a barbarous practice.

A question. Does the Arabic word that is translated as crucifixion actually mean crucifixion? The practice as described is certainly not crucifixion as we know it, but words to get mangled when they cross linguistic boundaries.

By: Solomon2

Solomon2 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:51:45 +0000

“The Saudi Crucifixion – Human Rights Violation or Not?”

In what other country would such a question even be asked? In what other country would such a thing NOT be considered barbarity?

By: Angie Nader

Angie Nader — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:02:20 +0000

well fromt he article in not so many words it sounds as though tis man may have kidnapped the boy for rape. and then killed him and his father…he is a animal.
i always go back and forth on the death penalty…but then i hear stories like this..and realize there are some people that cannot be saved from themselves..and are usless to everyone else

By: Chiara

Chiara — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:01:30 +0000

Coolred– maybe they will repent (Quran 5: 34)?

By: Chiara

Chiara — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:00:15 +0000

Munaqabah–crucifixion prior to and aside from Christianity refers to a painful slow form of execution on a “cross” of any form: a pole (crux simplex), X T t yY, etc.
If the criminal is partially beheaded then perhaps the display is also a residual dying, or if fully beheaded then a further display of dying (as the dead body would go through further dying, eg organ death, cell death, rigor mortis eventually setting in).

Perhaps it is also one of those words that is retained but evolves in meaning over time.

Currently, it is a confusing term since most Western readers would need to be reminded each time that this was not a Christian Jesus-like crucifixion, but a display of a dead or dying body, or a non-Christian method of public execution (as is was for Jesus–who was executed according to the Roman practice of his time).