Saudia Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, so which do you suppose merits a harsher penalty there - stealing sheep or beating your wife to death?
"We have an entrenched judicial system that is based on Divine Law and not personal whims. This is the reason why I could not understand two recent court verdicts handed out on the same day.
In the first ruling, two thieves who stole two rams were sentenced to three years imprisonment and 1,000 lashes each.
The second ruling of two years imprisonment and 200 whiplashes was for a husband who beat his wife until she swallowed her tongue and died.
I could not find any explanation for the great difference in the two rulings although they were reached under the same law. Are the two rams more valuable than the woman or is the life of a human being cheaper than that of livestock?
I am not evaluating the judicial system or delving into the parameters of the rulings. I’m just trying to understand how some judges think and issue their verdicts? It might be true that the woman was killed unintentionally and the rams were stolen with intent, but this will not answer the questions that arise from the two verdicts.
I doubt very much the Ministry of Justice will include the two verdicts in its records because they contradict the picture that the ministry is trying to draw that court verdicts are based on principles of fairness and not the personal views of judges.
I know that the judiciary has a spirit that is not separated from the recorded text and which judges cannot do without while carrying out their duties. However, some amazing rulings make us doubtful of this spirit.
In the West, we often hear about contradicting rulings in almost identical cases. However, these contradictions should not exist here as our justice is based on Shariah, not personal assessment or whims even if the case was of two rams whose destiny we do not know."