Retribution: Establishing Justice or Seeking Revenge?

"And for you in retribution is life." Verse 179 of Surah Al-Baqarah. This verse has been added to the Islamic penal laws in Iran, stating that the punishment of the offender should match the crime committed; an eye for an eye, execution for murder. Critics view this method of punishment as pre-modern and a remnant of times before modern rights, arguing that it fuels violence in society. Supporters, however, see it as a divine solution for preserving individual rights and actually reducing violence. Roya Boroumand, the executive director and co-founder of the Boroumand Foundation, which focuses on documenting retribution and executions in Iran, and Abdolali Bazargan, a Quranic researcher, are our guests this week to discuss this topic. Abdolali Bazargan: To begin with, we need to define what retribution means so that it is clear what retribution is. The law of retribution was not introduced purely for punishment. In fact, it was meant to counter extremism. As you know, historically, especially in Arabia, when conflicts arose between tribes and one tribe killed a member of another tribe, they would kill ten or a hundred in return. The meaning of retribution is maximum equivalence. This was first mentioned in the Torah, which states an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Throughout the Quran, it is stated that if you do not retaliate, it is much better. For example, the most famous verse, which is verse 45 of Surah Al-Ma'idah, states that an eye for an eye is mentioned, but whoever can refrain from this will have their wrongs erased, meaning they will gain the power to forgive, and all their ugliness will be removed from their character. In another place, in verse 178 of Al-Baqarah, it establishes a brotherly relationship between the families of the murderer and the victim, saying: "So if your brother forgives you anything..." In other places, it states that every severe punishment is equivalent to the crime, but "if you are patient, it is better for the patient." In Surah Ash-Shura, it also says, "And the recompense for an evil is an evil like it," but "whoever forgives and reconciles, their reward is with Allah." Without exception, wherever the Quran speaks of retribution or equivalence, it says not to do it for the sake of God, and if you cannot control yourself, then the maximum is to settle for that. This is a misunderstanding, in my opinion, of the meaning of retribution. Since the beginning of the revolution, if you remember, those who were executed and shown on television had a sign behind them that said, "And for you in retribution is life, O people of understanding." They completely misunderstood its meaning and continue to do so. If you do not want to retaliate and become vengeful, the society will not survive. Therefore, the maximum is to settle for what happened, and this will ensure the survival of society. Of course, Ms. Boroumand may also want to add something regarding this, but besides that, Ms. Boroumand, Mr. Bazargan explained that the discussion is not about revenge and speaks of moral recommendations that exist alongside the permission for retribution, for example, in the text of the Quran. However, one of the criticisms that we see regarding this issue is the privatization of punishment and entrusting the decision of whether to punish or not to individuals. Instead of entrusting it to a just, impartial institution and executing the law, critics say this matter is handed over to individuals, and what difference does this make from seeking revenge? Roya Boroumand: Several issues are raised here. One is the issue of revenge, and another is the issue of the rule of law and equality before the law. Mr. Bazargan spoke about the executions at the beginning of the revolution, and I want to point out that punishment has been intertwined with revenge since that time, after the revolution. In the case of retribution, the law places the decision of life and death of a person, who may have caused death without even intending to kill, in the hands of a grieving and angry family, offering no option other than killing or releasing, which naturally does not help in executing justice and only encourages our worst instincts and places a grieving family in a very difficult decision regarding the life and death of another person, making them responsible for grieving another family and, in a way, involving a grieving family in state violence. One of the major problems with privatization is that individuals are not equal before the law, and punishment does not have accountability. For example, in retribution, individuals do not have the same punishment for committing a murder. Because one person can be freed, and another can be executed. There is discrimination between Muslims and non-Muslims. The punishment for a Muslim killing a non-Muslim is less than the punishment for a non-Muslim killing a Muslim. There is discrimination between men and women regarding the value of their lives; if a woman is killed, her killer is not punished unless her family can pay half the blood money to the family of the man. And the greatest discrimination in execution and retribution is between wealthy and impoverished individuals. That is, if you have easy access to money, you can buy punishment, and in our work documenting executions over the past 17 years, we continually encounter cases where an innocent person has been accused, and the decision is solely in the hands of one family. Is the law not fundamentally established so that we cannot make decisions based on our personal feelings and instincts? The issue of discrimination in retribution is a deeply rooted issue: Muslim, non-Muslim, man, woman, or even economic discrimination. How does Islamic jurisprudence intend to respond to these? Bazargan: You see, for about seven or eight centuries in Europe, in the name of Christianity, in the name of the kind Jesus, and in the name of the Gospel, inquisitions were held, intellectuals were killed, and we all know the story. Neither that book has changed nor that prophet, but humans have evolved, and now they act differently. What has happened in Islam has practically become a club and a weapon in the hands of politicians and governments, justified for their benefit. What is presented as Islamic penal law, which has been formulated by jurists, is miles away from the Quran. I absolutely do not defend them. These distinctions between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, and religious and non-religious, and rich and poor... all of these are being practiced. But Mr. Bazargan, I apologize, do you mean that these are the products of the Islamic Republic, meaning a government that has formulated and implemented Islamic penal law for the past 40 years? Because these differences in the case of retribution exist in the text of Islam. Bazargan: You see, we do not talk about apostasy and heresy in the Quran at all. These are not in the Quran. In the entire Quran, there are only four punishments, and those four punishments exist everywhere in the world. One is theft, one is retribution for life, which no place in the world is indifferent to, one is disrupting community security (armed), and one is public adultery in front of people. In the entire Quran, you cannot find a single other punishment in any case. What has been organized in jurisprudence, that retribution differs for men and women, is actually a juristic interpretation. My discussion is about the Quran and the book. It never says that this matter is private. At that time, there were tribes, there was a state, there was a judiciary, and this is how it happened. It is not the case in the Islamic Republic that they say everyone should go and take retribution themselves. In America, it is the same. If someone comes into a person's house, hits and kills them, they say why did he come into this house? Does the state and society have the right to overlook my material rights? If someone has invaded your home, stolen your car, what right does the state have to say let it go? What right do people have to say it doesn't matter? So if we have rights over our property, if a beloved child of a family is killed, if a beloved daughter of a family is taken and killed, does society have the right to say it doesn't matter? This (retribution) fuels violence in society. What right does the state have to come and say you have no rights? What the Quran recommends is cultural development for moral growth. In fact, the Quran has this superiority because it has said everywhere to forgive. But the law does not allow for forgiveness. The law imprisons him for life or for 15 years. What does this create? The family that has lost their child, do they not become resentful? In fact, we must differentiate. One is the right of the people, and one is the right of God. God does not overlook the right of the people. People must forgive themselves. In my opinion, governments do not have such a right either. I will return to Ms. Boroumand with your permission. I think she certainly has a response, but the critics' discussion is not that a family that has lost a loved one has no rights. The discussion is that if someone steals from your house, you are not allowed to steal from their house. Should this same behavior be repeated, or do modern laws offer other solutions for today's society? Boroumand: Well, yes, the issue is that families have no option other than killing or releasing. You see, after the revolution, our justice has become punishment-oriented and punitive. Generally, the goal of justice is to improve society, and the offender is also part of society who has the potential for change, and therefore rehabilitation is more important than punishment. For example, consider the amputation of a hand. A person who has stolen due to poverty and unemployment has a hand cut off, and after prison and release, everywhere he goes, everyone knows he has stolen, making it harder for him to find work. What kind of healthy living does this offer? In the Islamic Republic, we have nearly 200 crimes that carry the death penalty, while for example, Pakistan has less than 30 crimes with the death penalty. It is not that they are indifferent. The issue is that you privatize a crime that has had a public aspect since the early 20th century, and then you allow someone who has committed murder without a complainant to go unpunished, which is entirely contrary to the rule of law. Mr. Bazargan, many critics view retribution as a behavior—perhaps pre-modern and belonging to an era when human societies did not have codified and modern rights. Has the concept of retribution and what is mentioned in the Quran, in light of the advancements in human rights over these years, still superiority over modern rights that offer alternative solutions? Bazargan: This is not something we can say has superiority or not. Because suppose in recent years, young Palestinians have been throwing stones, and on the other side, they have been throwing stones back. In fact, the maximum is that if someone throws a stone, you throw a stone back. The literal meaning of retribution and what is mentioned in the Quran means pursuing the crime to that extent. It means tracing and following the issue; recognize and respond in kind. It says do not do it everywhere. What we have experienced in the Islamic Republic for 40 years is because the authorities have looked at this issue from the perspective of executing laws and not from the ethical aspects. Now, on the other hand, if we think that Western societies have solved the issue; firstly, they have harsher retribution. In America, on average, one in five people has gone to prison, meaning about 70 million people. At least five to six thousand dollars are spent on each one monthly. There are so many legal cases in America, and all of these are signs that they take this issue seriously. The meaning of retribution is the same, meaning do not let it go. Mr. Bazargan, I apologize, but I do not think the meaning of retribution is to not let the crime go and pursue it. Because the discussion is not whether the crime is pursued or not; it is clear that this must happen. The discussion is how and with what mechanism this should happen, and whether the mechanism of retribution, which states if someone blinds another, they should also be blinded, or in another case, a hand should be cut off, or such actions, is this mechanism superior and leads to a resolution?