Recently we heard about a Saudi national who was let scot free by paying blood money for the murder of his daughter. Do you think that this rule is right. Are’nt the rich at a major advantage here. Just wanted to understand this rule better.
I think the law can be justified when the killing happened by mistake. Is there any condition on when the law can be applied or is it applicable in each and every case however gory the crime might be.
Re: Concept of Blood money
In Quran there are ayahs that tell Muslims that in crime of physical injury one should follow law of equal retaliation (Qisas), but if acceptable to grieved party than financial or any other type of compensation (Diya) is possible without going through retaliation. The relevant ayahs are:
Ayahs in Quran are:
2:178 (Yusuf Ali): O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.
5:45(Yusuf Ali): We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.
Now, as you can see, equal retaliation (Qisas) is right of grieved party … and compensation is only possible IF and only IF grieved party is willing to forgo retaliation (Qisas) and accepts compensation (Diya) in its place (and that also is allowed as mercy from Allah).
Above ayahs do not differentiates between intentional or unintentional inflicted injuries, neither specified compensation, thus leaving all this on grieved party concerned and government of the time.
Above is shariah law.
Anyhow, Islamic laws that developed over time, using above principle, at various places and period, is that, regimes enforced compensation (Diya) through courts. In enforcing ‘Diya’ governments also specified financial compensation for different injuries, taking into account intentional, unintentional and severity of injuries (unfortunately, at places, governments also took into account nature of grieved party when determining compensation … that is taking into account religion, nationality and other variables of grieved party). The reason for specified compensation could be that compensation does not become un-realistic, un-natural, and un-affordable.
Nevertheless, as one can see from Quranic ayah, acceptance of compensation or demanding retribution is right of grieved party, and by law, they should have this right especially if injuries inflicted are intentional … and if grieved party is not given this right by government (however limited in nature), especially for intentional injuries, than that (in my opinion) is wrong.
Note: In Islam, if there are valid justifiable reasons that are also acceptable following principles given in Quran, then governments can enact and enforce laws.
Thus, if governments do not make accepting fixed compensation as law than rich would always going to go for retribution (especially against poor who cannot compensate reasonably) and poor would most likely going to accept compensation from rich (especially when rich would keep increasing compensation) … and that would be unjust.
So fixed and enforced compensation in many ways is preferable option government adopts, that is acceptable using Quranic principle ... as compensation (Diya) is mentioned in Quran that Allah likes better than retribution and called that 'concession and a Mercy' from Allah.
Re: Concept of Blood money
Recently we heard about a Saudi national who was let scot free by paying blood money for the murder of his daughter. Do you think that this rule is right. Are'nt the rich at a major advantage here. Just wanted to understand this rule better.
I think the law can be justified when the killing happened by mistake. Is there any condition on when the law can be applied or is it applicable in each and every case however gory the crime might be.
The rich aren't at an advantage, because the poor are not obligated to ask for money. There is a choice that the victim's next of kin have in shariah upon someone being found guilty of murder - execution, or mercy, with financial compensation.
The victim's next of kin is not obligated to accept compensation - they can insist on execution. This is what prevents the systems from meaning that the rich get off all the time.
Re: Concept of Blood money
But the problem is that the poor would have no choice..They would have to undergo the punishment since they would not be able to pay the blood money. Ideally it would have been better if the state could play the blood money based on the crime. This would have led to a level playing field.
Re: Concept of Blood money
The rich aren't at an advantage, because the poor are not obligated to ask for money. There is a choice that the victim's next of kin have in shariah upon someone being found guilty of murder - execution, or mercy, with financial compensation.
The victim's next of kin is not obligated to accept compensation - they can insist on execution. This is what prevents the systems from meaning that the rich get off all the time.
I have few questions regarding this. Plz let me know.
Is it true that if the murderer is a muslim and victim is a dhimmi than the muslim cant be awarded death sentence but he is only obligated to pay diya to the victim's family? ie separate rules for believer and kuffar?
I watched Asma Jahangir narrating a story from Lahore Pakistan, that some parents hired a contract killer to kill their own daughter, and after mission accomplished, they accepted blood money from the killer and forgave him. A bizarre misuse of laws that are supposed not to be misused.
Thanks.
Re: Concept of Blood money
I have few questions regarding this. Plz let me know.
There is a single hadith to that effect, but it is considered weak as it is not backed by any other statements of the Prophet (pbuh), and runs contrary to principles established in the Quran and other Hadiths.
Re: Concept of Blood money
But the problem is that the poor would have no choice..They would have to undergo the punishment since they would not be able to pay the blood money. Ideally it would have been better if the state could play the blood money based on the crime. This would have led to a level playing field.
Islam has provision for what you mentioned (all depends on state and how they care for people).
As I wrote earlier, state can enforce blood-money (Diya) for all sorts of injuries and even death (or murder), instead of equal retaliation (Qisas). Anyhow, along with ‘Diya’ state normally gives other punishments too, like imprisonment, especially in cases where injuries are inflicted intentionally.
Now, if an injury happened by mistake and grieved party is willing to accept blood-money that guilty person cannot afford to give to grieved party, then state can use public fund to give that money, especially in case where injuries are unintentional (or even intentional). For the purpose (according to what I know), state can also use Zakat or Sadqa fund (both can be used to support needy in need).
Note: once agreed, depriving blood-money to grieved party (for whatever reason, including guilty could not afford) is unjust, and it is duty of state to not let anything unjust happen. Thus, state should pay grieved party whatever blood-money they deserve, and later take that blood-money from guilty in whatever means state can, that include selling their property or whatever, and if guilty party cannot afford that, then state can decide to give them extra punishment in prison (if guilt was intentional) or let them go by paying blood-money from Zakat, Kharaat, Sadqa, or treasury as grant (for payment of blood-money).
Re: Concept of Blood money
I have few questions regarding this. Plz let me know.
Though you are right that some countries (regimes) did implemented Islamic laws with this view, but that is not justifiable in Islam, as all humans are creation of Allah and deserve same treatment.
[quote]
2. I watched Asma Jahangir narrating a story from Lahore Pakistan, that some parents hired a contract killer to kill their own daughter, and after mission accomplished, they accepted blood money from the killer and forgave him. A bizarre misuse of laws that are supposed not to be misused.
[/quote]
I think there is misunderstanding here regarding Islamic law of ‘Qisas and Diya’. When people think of crimes where injuries or loss of life is involved, people make mistake that crime is only between two parties. Fact is that, crime only involves two parties if that crime is unintentional. If crime is intentional (Qasadan) then society is third party and state as representative of society should punish the perpetrator. Thus:
Intentional killing (murder) as mentioned in story is not just crime against grieved party but also crime against society and thus apart of blood-money to grieved party, state should also punish that person with imprisonment. So, any murderer (intentional killer) cannot get away by just giving blood-money but would go to prison for crime committed.
Re: Concept of Blood money
There is a single hadith to that effect, but it is considered weak as it is not backed by any other statements of the Prophet (pbuh), and runs contrary to principles established in the Quran and other Hadiths.
I think that U are absolutely correct. But this calls for just another question. The single hadith in question is from Sahih Bukhari, are ahadith from Sahih Bukhari also considered weak? And arent there many more ahadith in Sahih Bukhari that runs contrary to principals established in Holy Quran and Sirah of the Holy Prophet? Just curious to know.
Thanks for ur kind response.
Re: Concept of Blood money
Though you are right that some countries (regimes) did implemented Islamic laws with this view, but that is not justifiable in Islam, as all humans are creation of Allah and deserve same treatment.
No reason for me to differ with ur views. But laws wont be justified on my or ur personal views. As for me I dont believe that these are laws which could be prescribed by our Beloved Prophet. Automatically putting a big question mark on the scripture. And if U believe, do U have right to pick and choose which law U like and which not? Just a humble question.
[QUOTE]
I think there is misunderstanding here regarding Islamic law of ‘Qisas and Diya’. When people think of crimes where injuries or loss of life is involved, people make mistake that crime is only between two parties. Fact is that, crime only involves two parties if that crime is unintentional. If crime is intentional (Qasadan) then society is third party and state as representative of society should punish the perpetrator. Thus:
Intentional killing (murder) as mentioned in story is not just crime against grieved party but also crime against society and thus apart of blood-money to grieved party, state should also punish that person with imprisonment. So, any murderer (intentional killer) cannot get away by just giving blood-money but would go to prison for crime committed.
[/QUOTE]
Misunderstanding or manipulating? This could be a perfect answer for those who claim that Islamic laws cant be misused or manipulated. Shaitan within ourselves is capable of doing more than that.
Thanks for ur kind response.
Re: Concept of Blood money
Recently we heard about a Saudi national who was let scot free by paying blood money for the murder of his daughter. Do you think that this rule is right. Are'nt the rich at a major advantage here. Just wanted to understand this rule better.
I think the law can be justified when the killing happened by mistake. Is there any condition on when the law can be applied or is it applicable in each and every case however gory the crime might be.
The case that you have quoted is quite different. This man killed his minor daughter and did that since he suspected that his five year old daughter is not virgin. I am not taking into account alleged rape for the time being.
So how can a person be entitled for 'diya' when he
1) Killed a minor who had no chance of protecting herself nor any reason can be given that caused the man to loose his temper and kill her.
2) She was his own daughter whom he was supposed to protect.
3) How can this man give compensation to his own wife when the marriage is still intact. There is a huge chance of coercing
4) This man is an influential and famous preacher. and he did the insane act of getting his daughter examined for virginity and held the 5 year old responsible. The man who might have been a role model and guide for many should have been given harsher punishment in comparison to if that man were an ordinary person.
It really pains when people make a mockery of religion in the name of religion.
Re: Concept of Blood money
This is not the first time Saudis have made a mockery of Islam, and wont be the last. Their stupidity doesnt seem to have any bounds
Re: Concept of Blood money
I think that U are absolutely correct. But this calls for just another question. The single hadith in question is from Sahih Bukhari, are ahadith from Sahih Bukhari also considered weak? And arent there many more ahadith in Sahih Bukhari that runs contrary to principals established in Holy Quran and Sirah of the Holy Prophet? Just curious to know.
Thanks for ur kind response.
Sahih Bukhari is one man's best effort to collect the Hadith that he personally felt were accurate. It is not believed to be an infallible book like the Quran. There are many hadiths in both Bukhari and Muslim's collections that many modern Islamic scholars consider to be weak in light of further scholarship that Bukhari and Muslim did not carry out.
Re: Concept of Blood money
Sahih Bukhari is one man's best effort to collect the Hadith that he personally felt were accurate. It is not believed to be an infallible book like the Quran. There are many hadiths in both Bukhari and Muslim's collections that many modern Islamic scholars consider to be weak in light of further scholarship that Bukhari and Muslim did not carry out.
Okay, I get ur views on this. Thanks.