yes
2006-12-29 10:15:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by nermil 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
No...it's Allah's law on earth so as to perform justice
Allah doesn't want us to fight all time, and that is why this law is not for the mistaken, but it is for intentional deeds because when we know that if we are going to hurt somebody we're going to be punished the same way we'll think a thousand times before doing anything....So an eye for an eye won't leave the world blind but it makes us think before hurting each other.....The opposite would make the whole world blind because people know that they are not going to "pay back" for whatever they do...
What do you personnaly think...?!
2006-12-29 10:28:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Imagination 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not blind, just winking! And not the whole world because we're not all bad people so we all wouldn't lose an eye. Revenge is not good for the soul, however, so leave the sighted their eyes and hopefully someday they will "see" the error of their ways.
2006-12-29 10:17:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Grá 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It has that potential, yes. It is in the nature of humans to make mistakes and tread on one another's toes (usually without even realizing we're doing it), so we are all likely to offend our neighbors now and then. If each person were to take revenge against everyone who offended him--an eye for an eye, so to speak--then, yes, eventually the whole world would be blind.
That's not to say that every injustice should be automatically forgiven, but it's also important to remember that revenge is not justice.
2006-12-29 10:31:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
As I recall the passage from before my defection to atheism, the deal was that "an eye for an eye" meant to take no MORE than an eye for an eye. Proportionality was the message.
No, the whole world won't be blind. Presumably the last guy with an eye will be nimble enough to dodge the angry blind people's jabs.
2006-12-29 10:19:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
The demise penalty is a leftover from the old testomony. that is going to have been deserted in the previous then. that is used specifically as revenge. that is not any longer a deterrent. If it have been, Texas could have the backside homicide fee contained in the international. Prosecutors, juries and judges make too many errors. The demise penalty isn't reversible contained in the shape of an blunders. Execution regularly makes a martyr of the accused. that is for particular as hell no longer a deterrent. The crimes maximum persons are carried out for are crimes of "hobby" and that they gained't ever be repeated. that is revenge and does not talk nicely of our declare of being civilized. It costs so lots greater to execute a prisoner than to incarcerate him for existence. it is not even low in fee!!
2016-12-18 21:23:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That was a Gandhi quote. The original quote in the Bible is not a valid justification for the death penalty. In Biblical times kings would have a person killed for very insignificant reasons. An eye for an eye simply means that the punishment should fit the crime.
2006-12-29 10:28:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by wyldfyr 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
In a metaphorical sense yes. If everyone keeps doing things in retaliation, then the world is "blind" to forgiveness.
2006-12-29 10:16:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by lalala 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think that was the full verse...I believe it explained something about how in the old days, it was 'an eye for an eye'...but not anymore. I wish I could place the verse but I can't remember it. If you ask around i'm sure someone will recall it. Sorry... :)
2006-12-29 11:08:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by Strange Design 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes the revenge is bad like others say But,
when u think of that "an eye for an eye" u wont make someone blind
However the God give the oppressed person the choice to forgive or take his revenge
2006-12-29 10:24:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by sama 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
If not blind but at least with one eye. No one is perfect
2006-12-29 10:16:08
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋