islamic criminal law + honour killings

[Lynx]

Hi all,
I hope this isn't repeating a question that has been asked before but something I read over at another website mentioned that although Islam does not advocate or encourage (it in fact condemns it) honour killings, there's a loop hole that allows one to get away with an honour killing. If the family hires another member of their family to kill their daughter and subsequently forgives the killer then doesn't that mean the killer will go free? I thought about this for a while and it made sense so I was wondering if anyone knows if there are any clauses or rules under Shariah that would prevent this from taking place.

[جوري]

Name of Questioner

Muslima

Title

Honor Killing from an Islamic Perspective

Question

Respected scholars, As-Salamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatu Allah wa Barakatuh. What does Islam say about honor killings? Does Islam really have a concept of honor killings, most of the victims here are females; so does Islam really order to kill females in the name of honor?

Date

17/Jun/2002

Name of Counsellor

Islam Online Fatwa Editing Desk

Topic

Retaliation (Qisas), Customs & Traditions

Answer

Wa`alykum As-Salaamu Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear sister in Islam, we do really appreciate your question, which shows how far you are interested in getting yourself well-acquainted with the sound teachings of Islam. May Allah bless your efforts in pursuit of knowledge and may He keep us all firm in the straight path!

Sister, it’s a well-known fact that Islam maintains the protection of life and does not sanction any violation against it. In the Glorious Qur’an, Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93)

`Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "The blood of a Muslim may not be legally spilt other than in one of three [instances]: the married person who commits adultery; a life for a life; and one who forsakes his religion and abandons the community." (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Focusing more on your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:

“There is no such concept in Islam that is called “honor killing”. Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it. It does not allow people to take the law in their own hands and administer justice, because doing so will be leading to chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, based on this, Islam does not permit such killings.

First of all, in order to sanction killing, it must be through a binding verdict issued by an authoritative law court. Individuals themselves have no authority either to judge cases or pass judgments. Therefore, a Muslim should not sanction such killing because doing so will be leading to the rule of the law of the jungle. A civilized society cannot be run by such laws.”

Shedding more light on it, Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:

“Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93)

The so-called “honor killing” is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments.

It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it’s the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society.”

Moreover, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanooti, member of the North American Fiqh Council, adds:

“In Islam, there is no place for unjustifiable killing. Even in case of capital punishment, only the government can apply the law through the judicial procedures. No one has the authority to execute the law other than the officers who are in charge.

Honor killing could be a wrong cultural tradition. It is unjust and inhumane action. The murderer of that type deserves punishment.”

Sister, if you are still in need of more information, don't hesitate to contact us. Do keep in touch. May Allah guide us all to the straight path!

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503543392

[Lynx]

Thanks, I do understand that killing for unjustified reasons (i.e., killing for reasons other htan the ones mentioned in either the Quran or Sunnah) is forbidden in Islam (as clearly explained in the verses you cited) but the discussion in Islamonline has more to do with honour killing in general. My question has more to do with the case where the family decides to forgive the killer. Consider this verse:
"O you who believe, equivalence is the law decreed for you when dealing with murder - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female. If one is pardoned by the victim's kin, an appreciative response is in order, and an equitable compensation shall be paid. This is an alleviation from your Lord and mercy. Anyone who transgresses beyond this incurs a painful retribution. (Surah 2: 178)

Let me use an example to help illustrate the question. Suppose Abdullah has a daughter named Fatima and a friend named Ibrahim. Imagine further than they live under a true Shariah legal system. Now Abdullah decides to kill Fatima in an honour killing so he asks his good friend Ibrahim to do the deed. He kills her and the surrounding authority decides to take Ibrahim to court because, as you pointed out, it is forbidden to kill for this reason. In the court Abdullah says that he forgives Ibrahim for killing his daughter. They also decide on a trivially small 'compensation' before hand. Now according to the verses you pointed out, on the face of it, Ibrahim is guilty for breaking a law according to Shariah; however, according to the verse I have cited, which I assume elaborates on what should be done with murderers, offers the option of forgiving the killer and dismissing an execution which would otherwise be the punishment for the killer. Doesn't this allow honour killings to go unpunished? This is probably a legal question that I should ask a scholar but I don't know where to find them; those ask an imam online things are always full or out of time...

[aadil77]

Forgiving someone is a seperate issue, its not exclusive to honour killings, nor does it make them permissable

If the family does choose to forgive the person, it does not automatically mean that Allah has forgiven them, they might have a much worse punishment awaiting them in the afterlife - unless they repent and are forgiven

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Sigma]

An interesting predicament, I'm no scholar but i reckon the Islamic law needs to be looked at holistically. If these people did get away with it, then they would get their just desserts in the afterlife.

[Tyrion]

Forgiving someone is a seperate issue, its not exclusive to honour killings, nor does it make them permissable

If the family does choose to forgive the person, it does not automatically mean that Allah has forgiven them, they might have a much worse punishment awaiting them in the afterlife - unless they repent and are forgiven

Right. Even if there is a loop hole in the law, that doesn't mean they're in good standing with God...

[Lynx]

But isn't there something unsettling about all this? I understand what you're all saying but the old 'he'll get his' is rather unsatisfying considering this could be fixed with some minor adjustments...I am going to take a wild guess and say this is why so many honour killings are unpunished in Pakistan.

[جوري]

Thanks, I do understand that killing for unjustified reasons (i.e., killing for reasons other htan the ones mentioned in either the Quran or Sunnah) is forbidden in Islam (as clearly explained in the verses you cited) but the discussion in Islamonline has more to do with honour killing in general. My question has more to do with the case where the family decides to forgive the killer. Consider this verse:
"O you who believe, equivalence is the law decreed for you when dealing with murder - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female. If one is pardoned by the victim's kin, an appreciative response is in order, and an equitable compensation shall be paid. This is an alleviation from your Lord and mercy. Anyone who transgresses beyond this incurs a painful retribution. (Surah 2: 178)

Let me use an example to help illustrate the question. Suppose Abdullah has a daughter named Fatima and a friend named Ibrahim. Imagine further than they live under a true Shariah legal system. Now Abdullah decides to kill Fatima in an honour killing so he asks his good friend Ibrahim to do the deed. He kills her and the surrounding authority decides to take Ibrahim to court because, as you pointed out, it is forbidden to kill for this reason. In the court Abdullah says that he forgives Ibrahim for killing his daughter. They also decide on a trivially small 'compensation' before hand. Now according to the verses you pointed out, on the face of it, Ibrahim is guilty for breaking a law according to Shariah; however, according to the verse I have cited, which I assume elaborates on what should be done with murderers, offers the option of forgiving the killer and dismissing an execution which would otherwise be the punishment for the killer. Doesn't this allow honour killings to go unpunished? This is probably a legal question that I should ask a scholar but I don't know where to find them; those ask an imam online things are always full or out of time...

The verse you quoted is about involuntary manslaughter not premeditated murder (I am not a scholar on Islamic jurisprudence) and not familiar with Islamic law or any law for that matter, but some things are a question of common sense and basic knowledge of Quran and Sunnah.. as the scholar said, this is a judicial matter.. Islamic jurors aren't picked off the streets as they're in the west or at least the U.S, they're studied in matters of law and I imagine would make good use of witnesses and circumstantial evidence!

all the best

[Tyrion]

But isn't there something unsettling about all this? I understand what you're all saying but the old 'he'll get his' is rather unsatisfying considering this could be fixed with some minor adjustments...I am going to take a wild guess and say this is why so many honour killings are unpunished in Pakistan.

If there exists a loophole that is being abused, then I'm sure the Islamic lawmakers have the right to adjust it accordingly. The fact that this isn't being done in Pakistan can only show us the weaknesses of the country and its government, not Islamic law. Based on my understanding (which is a rather weak one, as I'm also not very learned in jurisprudence) Islamic law is flexible enough to avoid this kind of thing and adapt. Pakistan's refusal to tackle the issue (assuming that what you've said is true) is Pakistan's problem...

[Ramadhan]

I am going to take a wild guess and say this is why so many honour killings are unpunished in Pakistan.

Your guess is pretty wild indeed.

You don't even know how legal system works in Pakistan. My guess is why some honor killings go unpunished in Pakistan is, just like in any other still developing country, because the generally weak law enforcement there. Next you will claim that corruption is not punishable in Islam just because you see many corruptions and corruptors go unpunished in Pakistan.

I suspect you are already aware that the issue of honor killings is cultural rather than Islam, but you just want to extend it to Islam anyway by saying it goes unpunished.
It is clearly pre-meditated murder, and in Sharia law, will be punished.

[Lynx]

The verse you quoted is about involuntary manslaughter not premeditated murder (I am not a scholar on Islamic jurisprudence) and not familiar with Islamic law or any law for that matter, but some things are a question of common sense and basic knowledge of Quran and Sunnah.. as the scholar said, this is a judicial matter.. Islamic jurors aren't picked off the streets as they're in the west or at least the U.S, they're studied in matters of law and I imagine would make good use of witnesses and circumstantial evidence!

all the best

I did some reading on the verse in question and it appears that the verse is in fact about deliberate killing http://islamqa.com/en/ref/104855/

I think what you might be referring to is al-Nisa 4:92

@Adil

Your guess is pretty wild indeed.

You don't even know how legal system works in Pakistan. My guess is why some honor killings go unpunished in Pakistan is, just like in any other still developing country, because the generally weak law enforcement there. Next you will claim that corruption is not punishable in Islam just because you see many corruptions and corruptors go unpunished in Pakistan.

Well my comment about Pakistan was mere speculation but I shouldn't have brought it up as it has nothing to do with my OP. I retract it.

@adil

I suspect you are already aware that the issue of honor killings is cultural rather than Islam, but you just want to extend it to Islam anyway by saying it goes unpunished.
It is clearly pre-meditated murder, and in Sharia law, will be punished.

I know it's cultural rather than Islamic. I also know most Muslims are vehemently against honour killing. What I outlined in my OP was something I came across and I wanted to see if anyone could clear it up for me as I found it to be an interesting matter.

@Tyrion

If there exists a loophole that is being abused, then I'm sure the Islamic lawmakers have the right to adjust it accordingly. The fact that this isn't being done in Pakistan can only show us the weaknesses of the country and its government, not Islamic law. Based on my understanding (which is a rather weak one, as I'm also not very learned in jurisprudence) Islamic law is flexible enough to avoid this kind of thing and adapt. Pakistan's refusal to tackle the issue (assuming that what you've said is true) is Pakistan's problem...

I don't know if it is theologically acceptable to make those minor adjustments.

I think this is something better asked to a scholar directly. Anyone know what the best way would be to contact one?

[جوري]

I did some reading on the verse in question and it appears that the verse is in fact about deliberate killing http://islamqa.com/en/ref/104855/ I think what you might be referring to is al-Nisa 4:92

You have done no reading least of which from the link you yourself posted.

Qisaas by killing the killer can only be in cases of deliberate killing, according to scholarly consensus. Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni (8/214): The scholars are unanimously agreed that qisaas is not required except in the case of deliberate killing, and we do not know of any difference of opinion with regard to qisaas being required for deliberate killing if all conditions are met. This is indicated by the general meaning of the verses and reports. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):


Repeatedly you engage in topics completely outside your sphere of expertise, while posing yourself an expert and worse yet you do it with Muslims.. Believe me I can see the desire to pose yourself as some sort of cognoscente but this is the wrong crowd for it.

Islamic jurisprudence is built on supreme justice even if it be in the life of an ant!

Saheeh Muslim

Book 026, Number 5569:

Abu Huraira reported so many ahadith and one of them was this that Allah' Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When an Apostle from amongst the Apostles of Allah came to sit under a tree an ant bit him. He commanded his luggage to be removed from under the tree and he commanded it to be burnt in the fire and Allah revealed to him:" Why one ant (which had bitten you) was not killed (and why did you burn the others)?

I really wish you'd desist with your pathetic attempts to create absurd premises, and expect that others should tailor the responses to acquiesce to your faulty logic.. worse yet allege to claim of the law what us native Muslims don't even know without proper schooling!

[Lynx]

You have done no reading least of which from the link you yourself posted.

Qisaas by killing the killer can only be in cases of deliberate killing, according to scholarly consensus. Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni (8/214): The scholars are unanimously agreed that qisaas is not required except in the case of deliberate killing, and we do not know of any difference of opinion with regard to qisaas being required for deliberate killing if all conditions are met. This is indicated by the general meaning of the verses and reports. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):


Repeatedly you engage in topics completely outside your sphere of expertise, while posing yourself an expert and worse yet you do it with Muslims.. Believe me I can see the desire to pose yourself as some sort of cognoscente but this is the wrong crowd for it.

Islamic jurisprudence is built on supreme justice even if it be in the life of an ant!

Saheeh Muslim

Book 026, Number 5569:

Abu Huraira reported so many ahadith and one of them was this that Allah' Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When an Apostle from amongst the Apostles of Allah came to sit under a tree an ant bit him. He commanded his luggage to be removed from under the tree and he commanded it to be burnt in the fire and Allah revealed to him:" Why one ant (which had bitten you) was not killed (and why did you burn the others)?

I really wish you'd desist with your pathetic attempts to create absurd premises, and expect that others should tailor the responses to acquiesce to your faulty logic.. worse yet allege to claim of the law what us native Muslims don't even know without proper schooling!

"The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a person’s relative is killed, he has the choice of two options: either (the killer) may be killed or the fidyah (ransom, blood money) may be paid.” Agreed upon. Abu Shurayh al-Khuzaa’i said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever is killed or is wounded, has the choice of three things, and if he wants the fourth then restrain him. He may kill (the killer), or forgive him, or take the diyah (blood money). Narrated by Abu Dawood. According to another version: “Whoever has a relative killed after what I have said, his family has two options: to accept the diyah or kill (the killer).” And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is qisaas for deliberate killing, unless the heir of the slain lets him off.” End quote.

There was no difference of opinion among the scholars that it is valid for the heirs of the victim to forego qisaas and accept the diyah. This is what is indicated by the ahaadeeth quoted above.

In that case, the killer may be set free and he should be obliged to pay the diyah."

From the same site I just linked. I read it, did you?

[جوري]

"The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a person’s relative is killed, he has the choice of two options: either (the killer) may be killed or the fidyah (ransom, blood money) may be paid.” Agreed upon. Abu Shurayh al-Khuzaa’i said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever is killed or is wounded, has the choice of three things, and if he wants the fourth then restrain him. He may kill (the killer), or forgive him, or take the diyah (blood money). Narrated by Abu Dawood. According to another version: “Whoever has a relative killed after what I have said, his family has two options: to accept the diyah or kill (the killer).” And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is qisaas for deliberate killing, unless the heir of the slain lets him off.” End quote.

There was no difference of opinion among the scholars that it is valid for the heirs of the victim to forego qisaas and accept the diyah. This is what is indicated by the ahaadeeth quoted above.

In that case, the killer may be set free and he should be obliged to pay the diyah."

From the same site I just linked. I read it, did you?

Perhaps you read and simply don't understand or plain flat desire to play dumb?
If the murder is involuntary then the family has a right to request a ransom money, if it is deliberate and let me re-quote from the same page:
Qisaas by killing the killer can only be in cases of deliberate killing, according to scholarly consensus
perhaps breaking it down for you line by line will make things easier.. and this is an example of exactly why laymen aren't to interpret the law for themselves .. another google scholar masha'Allah the world if filled with doctors and engineers and lawyers, all one needs do is google and is instantly qualified! ugh

[Lynx]

Perhaps you read and simply don't understand or plain flat desire to play dumb?
If the murder is involuntary then the family has a right to request a ransom money, if it is deliberate and let me re-quote from the same page:
Qisaas by killing the killer can only be in cases of deliberate killing, according to scholarly consensus
perhaps breaking it down for you line by line will make things easier.. and this is an example of exactly why laymen aren't to interpret the law for themselves .. another google scholar masha'Allah the world if filled with doctors and engineers and lawyers, all one needs do is google and is instantly qualified! ugh

oh my god.......
Do you not see this? “There is qisaas for deliberate killing, unless the heir of the slain lets him off.

The very last end of the Hadith. Isn't it important for you to read stuff said by your prophet?

[جوري]

oh my god....... Do you not see this? “There is qisaas for deliberate killing, unless the heir of the slain lets him off. The very last end of the Hadith. Isn't it important for you to read stuff said by your prophet?

What is more important you ignoramus reading a hadith by the prophet or understanding the lawful implications behind it?

[Lynx]

What is more important you ignoramus reading a hadith by the prophet or understanding the lawful implications behind it?

lol

name calling? really? humility is an admirable trait; i hope you learn to accept when you're wrong or you will never grow as a person.

hopefully someone else might shed some light into this topic.

I am starting to think perhaps a plausible alternative would be to interpret such rulings as appropriate for a certain time, namely when muslims were living under a tribal system?

[Dagless]

Lynx you've taken a very simple issue and tried to make it into something very confusing. The question has been answered more than once in this thread.

Let's say a man hired his friend to rob his shop for insurance fraud, and then the friend ends up getting caught by police. Yes the man could say the friend was not robbing his shop and the friend would no longer be charged for robbery. However, they would both be charged with different things.
Can't you see that if someone conspired to kill another Muslim that in itself would be an offence? It has been stated already in this thread. The point of forgiveness is irrelevant since it changes the whole premise.

I think this is something better asked to a scholar directly. Anyone know what the best way would be to contact one?

This also seemed odd to me. You are a self-confessed atheist and don't appear to be interested in Islam in anything other than an argumentative capacity, so why would you be eager to contact a scholar for a law which should be irrelevant to you. I don't have much knowledge on Amish marriage laws but I also wouldn't want to find out about them. Please don't take offence, although I hope you at least see my point.

[جوري]

lol

name calling? really? humility is an admirable trait; i hope you learn to accept when you're wrong or you will never grow as a person.

hopefully someone else might shed some light into this topic.

I am starting to think perhaps a plausible alternative would be to interpret such rulings as appropriate for a certain time, namely when muslims were living under a tribal system?

Name calling? I rather think it an adequate assessment of your person.
I invite you otherwise to attend Islamic schooling before you decide you're the expert on interpreting hadiths or passing a judicial law based on a hadith or a collection thereof!

Also who is your God? I am rather curious.. for folks so adamant on denying God, seems like you're constantly calling out to him!

[aamirsaab]

There is no loophole. Conspiracy to murder is a crime in Islam (and it is a pretty big sin too, especially in cases of family members). Yeah I suppose someone crazy and sick enough could hire someone else to do the killing and then they as the family member accept the blood money, but that doesn't let the guy off who hired the assassin in the first place. That is a crime.

Even if it isn't stated in sharia law, the power a judge has in an Islamic court would cover stuff like this. You can't go round hiring assassins to kill your family off. And you can't go around killing people full stop.

[Ramadhan]

I don't know if it is theologically acceptable to make those minor adjustments.

Why make minor adjustments?

Anyone with clear mind and understanding of the Qur'an would have no issue with it all. Only an atheist who can't read the Qur'an and tries hard to pick up "issues" from anti muslims sites would concoct ideas that they got lost in them.

As muslims we take the Qur'an as whole and we implement it with sunnah as guidance, we don't pick and choose verses what suit us.

In your "situation", the family who hires the killer would be considered as murderer in the case too in shariah law, and that makes the principle of qisas off (they lost the right to qisas or blood money as being the murderers).

I am starting to think perhaps a plausible alternative would be to interpret such rulings as appropriate for a certain time, namely when muslims were living under a tribal system?

LOL. no. see above explanation.
That is what you get for being an atheist but suddenly thinking you are an expert in Islamic jurisprudence or Islamic sharia

[peaceandlove]

Brother I think there is a loophole in your question , as there is no lope hole in Islamic laws.It might be our lack of knowlege that we did not getting point and donot have much knoledge.

As what I know (I am not scholar just writing what i learn so correct me if i was wrong) , muslim ruler/court also have the right to not to accept their forgiveness as basically the orgnal murderer will be parents itself , so how can a murderer by themself forgive himself , Did not make sense to me.

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),

I am extremely sure that someone who Murders the daughter of the family (who is also apart of the family) can't be forgiven if his/her own family forgive them. I'm sure Judges aren't that stupid to let anything like that ever happen.

Although I am unlearned about these things, maybe you can try to relate the following situations;

1. Abortion (you can't do this in Islam, if someone does this, do you think they can say "we forgive the mother")?
2. Child burying (This happened alot in pre-Islam, especially to daughters as they were then considered weak and a burden. Do you think if they did that today, they would be forgiven by saying "our family forgives our own actions"?)

[GuestFellow]

Hi all,
I hope this isn't repeating a question that has been asked before but something I read over at another website mentioned that although Islam does not advocate or encourage (it in fact condemns it) honour killings, there's a loop hole that allows one to get away with an honour killing. If the family hires another member of their family to kill their daughter and subsequently forgives the killer then doesn't that mean the killer will go free? I thought about this for a while and it made sense so I was wondering if anyone knows if there are any clauses or rules under Shariah that would prevent this from taking place.

This is a unique case. The Islamic judge will create a new legal precedent for this case.

[Lynx]

This also seemed odd to me. You are a self-confessed atheist and don't appear to be interested in Islam in anything other than an argumentative capacity, so why would you be eager to contact a scholar for a law which should be irrelevant to you. I don't have much knowledge on Amish marriage laws but I also wouldn't want to find out about them. Please don't take offence, although I hope you at least see my point.

I don't know if you have someone else in mind but I have never 'confessed' to be an atheist because I am not an atheist. I also happen to think arguing is the best way of learning :)

Anyone with clear mind and understanding of the Qur'an would have no issue with it all. Only an atheist who can't read the Qur'an and tries hard to pick up "issues" from anti muslims sites would concoct ideas that they got lost in them.

As muslims we take the Qur'an as whole and we implement it with sunnah as guidance, we don't pick and choose verses what suit us.

In your "situation", the family who hires the killer would be considered as murderer in the case too in shariah law, and that makes the principle of qisas off (they lost the right to qisas or blood money as being the murderers).

Um I don't read anti Muslim websites; they don't make for quality reading material and their main aim, as I see it, is to spread their hatred.

In any case, the general consensus in this thread seems to be that the judge in the given situation can give a legal punishment for the act of plotting to kill a family member. I take from this that Shariah is not black and white and the deliberation of judges is very important in determining odd situations like the one I presented. That's fair enough in the case where the family member hires an assassin.

Here's a follow up question: what if there is no conspiracy to kill the daughter; a family member just takes initiative and kills the daughter (let's say it's the dad) and all the male relatives (or whoever) are okay with it because they come from an area where this sort of thing is respected. The important thing to note in this modified situation is that there is a genuine forgiveness for the killer and it was not pre-planned (nor did any conspiracy take place).

I am not trying to split hairs here. I think through argument all sides of an issue can be brought out and rigorously scrutinized. Even if no body in the argument changes their mind afterwards, at the very least, everyone's been exposed to the opposite side which might develop into something significant years down the road.


@peaceandlove: your answer would work if you can provide some sort of source showing that the judges have the authority to reject the forgiveness

@Lily
You can start a new thread entitled "the religious beliefs (or lack of) of Lynx" and I will be glad to answer your question. For now it is irrelevant :P We can also discuss that whole wahabi thing ;)

[Lynx]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),

I am extremely sure that someone who Murders the daughter of the family (who is also apart of the family) can't be forgiven if his/her own family forgive them. I'm sure Judges aren't that stupid to let anything like that ever happen.

Although I am unlearned about these things, maybe you can try to relate the following situations;

1. Abortion (you can't do this in Islam, if someone does this, do you think they can say "we forgive the mother")?
2. Child burying (This happened alot in pre-Islam, especially to daughters as they were then considered weak and a burden. Do you think if they did that today, they would be forgiven by saying "our family forgives our own actions"?)

I understand what you're getting at and the answer to those questions might answer the question I have brought up so I really don't know what to say. Incidentally, there was a member here (who said he was Muslim) named Karl who maintained the parents have the right to kill their own children if they pay themselves the blood money. He felt that Islam made it so that children are the private property of their parents. Unless there are answers and guidelines for situations like this I think either a) judges will have too much power to basically do what they want or b) the murder laws need to be in full control of the state so that no matter what the family wants (except in manslaughter) the state must follow through with certain punishments.

[aadil77]

I understand what you're getting at and the answer to those questions might answer the question I have brought up so I really don't know what to say. Incidentally, there was a member here (who said he was Muslim) named Karl who maintained the parents have the right to kill their own children if they pay themselves the blood money. He felt that Islam made it so that children are the private property of their parents. Unless there are answers and guidelines for situations like this I think either a) judges will have too much power to basically do what they want or b) the murder laws need to be in full control of the state so that no matter what the family wants (except in manslaughter) the state must follow through with certain punishments.

To me these issues you bring up are trivial, thats because I know that no one can recieve true justice in this world - even the death penalty in some cases is not enough. I believe true justice will be served in the next life.

You bring up these issues because you don't believe in an afterlife where mankind will be judged, what I see is that even if there were any 'loopholes' where it would seem that people can get away without punishment; I know that at the end of the day god will know their intentions and they will get what they've earnt at some point.

Many people have escaped punishments, have gotten away with evil in non-sharia courts.

[GuestFellow]

Unless there are answers and guidelines for situations like this I think either a) judges will have too much power to basically do what they want or b) the murder laws need to be in full control of the state so that no matter what the family wants (except in manslaughter) the state must follow through with certain punishments.

Islamic Law: Myths and Realities

I think this will be applied but I'm not sure:

The third element of Shar'iah Law is known as the Ijma. The Muslim religion uses the term Ulama as a label for its religious scholars. These Ulama's are consulted on many matters both personal and political. When the Ulama's reach a consensus on an issue, it is interpreted as Ijma. The concepts and ideas found in the Ijma are not found explicitly in the Qur’an or the teachings of the Prophet (Sunna). Islamic judges are able to examine the Ijma for many possible solutions which can be applied in a modern technical society. They are free to create new and innovative methods to solve crime and social problems based upon the concepts found in the Ijma.These judges have great discretion in applying the concepts to a specific problem.

[Dagless]

I don't know if you have someone else in mind but I have never 'confessed' to be an atheist because I am not an atheist. I also happen to think arguing is the best way of learning :)

Your threads indicate otherwise. Arguing about concepts is one thing; not accepting answers when given and trying to nitpick at non-issues is another.

Here's a follow up question: what if there is no conspiracy to kill the daughter; a family member just takes initiative and kills the daughter (let's say it's the dad) and all the male relatives (or whoever) are okay with it because they come from an area where this sort of thing is respected. The important thing to note in this modified situation is that there is a genuine forgiveness for the killer and it was not pre-planned (nor did any conspiracy take place).

This is a prime example of what I've said above. You have been given a logical answer for your query but now you've decided to go into random what if's. You can do that with anything. What if someone is killed in New York and the killer wears gloves, what if a room full of people see him but don't want to testify, what if they don't care or are paid off, what if the killer is the secret brother of the judge who is trying the case but nobody knows apart from them.

Your initial question has been more than answered.

[Lynx]

Your threads indicate otherwise. Arguing about concepts is one thing; not accepting answers when given and trying to nitpick at non-issues is another.




This is a prime example of what I've said above. You have been given a logical answer for your query but now you've decided to go into random what if's. You can do that with anything. What if someone is killed in New York and the killer wears gloves, what if a room full of people see him but don't want to testify, what if they don't care or are paid off, what if the killer is the secret brother of the judge who is trying the case but nobody knows apart from them.

Your initial question has been more than answered.

First, if you think I don't accept logical answers then you are free to leave the discussion whenever you want. Pestering me about my own threads is annoying as I obviously don't think anyone has answered satisfactorily (well that's not true since I've accepted the answer for my previous situation; hence I created another hypothetical). Second, what you think is implied by my threads is far far away from 'confessions' of any kind.

Anyway, here's the problem with what you're saying. The examples you brought up (besides the gloves one) have a simple answer: the killer will get away. Unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do in those situations to bring the killer the justice if he manages to bribe everyone involved to the point where no one is going to do anything (I gues kings and the like can do that); however, in the situation brought up the OP the failing is in the system itself, don't you think? If all it takes is forgiveness by the family to let a killer go then I can't help but think there's something wrong with the legal system within Shariah. This seems like such an obvious problem that there must be some other clause to make it less like tribal justice.

Oh and this stuff happens all the time in many parts of the world :(


@GuestFellow

Correct me if I am wrong but the ijma of the ulama cannot go against rights given in the Quran or by the Prophet. It would seem that the only way out (in the case of the second situation) is to disregard what the Prophet said...

@aadil
I understand that in a greater court of God people will be brought to some divine justice. I am only talking about the application of real world laws.

[Zafran]

Theres a few problems here

1 - Getting a single hadith and making a ruling on it is crazy especially if you dont even know how the hadith works - Just to add we take hadiths from qualified people who have Ijazah to teach that hadith - we dont take it from non muslim or muslim laymen who havent got a clue about the hadith except from Google or some random books.
2 - the main purpose of the shariah is to obey God - if your sceptical about God clearly you wont understand shariah
3 - You' ll have to prove that the family was involved with the murderer just like adultery or stealing - we dont just magically know what peoples plans are. If they are found guilty through proof then its up to the Judge to decide the punishment in a fair trial.

[Dagless]

Anyway, here's the problem with what you're saying. The examples you brought up (besides the gloves one) have a simple answer: the killer will get away. Unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do in those situations to bring the killer the justice if he manages to bribe everyone involved to the point where no one is going to do anything (I gues kings and the like can do that); however, in the situation brought up the OP the failing is in the system itself, don't you think? If all it takes is forgiveness by the family to let a killer go then I can't help but think there's something wrong with the legal system within Shariah. This seems like such an obvious problem that there must be some other clause to make it less like tribal justice.

The examples I've given are as believable as your example. The failing in that system would be that people are given a choice to testify or not to testify.

I cannot see a failing in the Shariah system because it's already been stated that if the person was in cahoots with the killer then they themselves would be judged. If they accept the blood money and let off the killer (but were in no way involved in the killing) then that is their right. Whether they hate their family member and love money only they themselves and God know. You cannot judge such a thing.

The same way if a man was very rich and passed away then his family would get his money. You could argue that there are people more deserving of the money than his family but that is the families right despite what you think. You can't get away from what is just by trying to bring up ever crazier scenarios.

Even the threat of there being the possibility of a life for a life is very preventative. The potential killer wouldn't know whether he may die if he dares commit a murder. That is much more of a deterrent than a few years in a jail.

[Ramadhan]

Correct me if I am wrong but the ijma of the ulama cannot go against rights given in the Quran or by the Prophet. It would seem that the only way out (in the case of the second situation) is to disregard what the Prophet said...

Either you are not capable of discerning what we all here have explained or you are very arrogant and have fixed idea in your mind about sharia law that you are not willing to change despite more than enough refutations and explanations given.

As I said in my previous post, we do NOT take one or two qur'an verses and apply it exclusively while disregarding the rest, and certainly NOT with one or two hadiths.

What you are doing is isolating a single hadith and try to forcibly implement it in a situation, disregarding other hadiths and qur'an.

Which is the silliest and most basic mistake a person who does not understand Islam can make.

I give you an example:
in a qur'an verse Allah SWT commands us not to perform shalah when we are drunk.
Now, if you ONLY use this verse, you may think that drinking is allowed, just do not get drunk or do not do shalah after drinking.
which is wrong, because in other verses Allah SWT says that drinking is haram. period.
So, the approach to QUr'an is totality/whole, that is why in more complicated cases we require scholars and imams or judges to derive rulings.

In your case of a father killing a daughter, it may look like he is free from punishment based on ONE hadith, but everywhere in the Qur'an and hadiths the principles of justice is so strong and pervasive (such as the verses that say murder of innocents is like murder of all humanity) that the father who killed the daughter will get punished in sharia law even though he is forgiven by all other family members.
The forgiveness from the family only free him from his mistake/debt to the family, but not to Allah SWT and to the daughter.

I am saying again, I don't get you:
you are an atheist who cannot even read the qur'an, but thinking you are an expert in Islamic sharia.

[aamirsaab]

....Here's a follow up question: what if there is no conspiracy to kill the daughter; a family member just takes initiative and kills the daughter (let's say it's the dad) and all the male relatives (or whoever) are okay with it because they come from an area where this sort of thing is respected. The important thing to note in this modified situation is that there is a genuine forgiveness for the killer and it was not pre-planned (nor did any conspiracy take place)....

It's still not a legal loophole because no one has been bought to trial. As far as the judge is concerned, he doesn't know this event has even occured and the only people that do are fine with it. It is basically an unreported case.

[Lynx]

It's still not a legal loophole because no one has been bought to trial. As far as the judge is concerned, he doesn't know this event has even occured and the only people that do are fine with it. It is basically an unreported case.

Interesting point, but if the girl stops showing up to school or they find her dead body or someone sees the killer in action or some other evidence proves the killer was part of the family then it would have to go to court, no? I don't think the family's acceptance of the murder would stop it from reaching the court unless there was a law that said if the family didn't want it to be investigated then it won't be investigated.

@naidamar

In your case of a father killing a daughter, it may look like he is free from punishment based on ONE hadith, but everywhere in the Qur'an and hadiths the principles of justice is so strong and pervasive (such as the verses that say murder of innocents is like murder of all humanity) that the father who killed the daughter will get punished in sharia law
even though he is forgiven by all other family members.

The forgiveness from the family only free him from his mistake/debt to the family, but not to Allah SWT and to the daughter.

I am talking about the real world application of this law; I am not in anyway questioning God's judgment. Your last line appears to agree with the conclusion I've drawn out in the OP, but you think it's okay because God will sort it out at the end; is that right?

I am saying again, I don't get you:
you are an atheist who cannot even read the qur'an, but thinking you are an expert in Islamic sharia.

I've already explained to Dagless that I am not an atheist. I also don't understand what you mean by 'can't read the Quran'. Do you mean I don't speak the language? Well I am pretty sure a giant portion of Muslims also don't understand the language.

I don't know what your drinking example has to do with anything I've said. The verses you guys cited talk about general principles of justice and one person pointed out that a lawful killing can only take place under 3 conditions. The question I am bringing up has to do with how to deal with a proven murderer...

@Dagless

If they accept the blood money and let off the killer (but were in no way involved in the killing) then that is their right. Whether they hate their family member and love money only they themselves and God know. You cannot judge such a thing.

So you agree then that the laws in question can allow for honour killers being let off as long as they don't plot the murder.

The same way if a man was very rich and passed away then his family would get his money. You could argue that there are people more deserving of the money than his family but that is the families right despite what you think. You can't get away from what is just by trying to bring up ever crazier scenarios.

First of all I don't bring up any crazy scenarios; this is an important topic and for all we know, and there is some material written on this, the reason why so many of these killers get away with it in places like Pakistan is because there is a religious understanding that the state has no right to interfere with a family that is okay with their daughter being killed. Second, you're right that an argument can me made about inheritance; I can argue that a person's wealth is their private property and he/she should be able to distribute that inheritance to whoever he wants, despite the stipulations set forth in the Quran. I don't understand your reason for bringing this up; please explain.

Even the threat of there being the possibility of a life for a life is very preventative. The potential killer wouldn't know whether he may die if he dares commit a murder. That is much more of a deterrent than a few years in a jail.

An even better deterrent would be if they were executed no matter what the family says.

@Zafran

1 - Getting a single hadith and making a ruling on it is crazy especially if you dont even know how the hadith works - Just to add we take hadiths from qualified people who have Ijazah to teach that hadith - we dont take it from non muslim or muslim laymen who havent got a clue about the hadith except from Google or some random books.

Google is a search engine; it can give you dubious sources and it can give you scholarly sources. You can find books written by all the famous and well known scholars of Islam and you can find stuff written by not-so-smart people. Now is it in your opinion that islam-qa is a dubious source? If so, I will find you another source since I am pretty sure the rules for punishing a murderer are well-known and accepted by all scholars.

2 - the main purpose of the shariah is to obey God - if your sceptical about God clearly you wont understand shariah

I can't imagine how one's belief in God could affect one's reading comprehension...

3 - You' ll have to prove that the family was involved with the murderer just like adultery or stealing - we dont just magically know what peoples plans are. If they are found guilty through proof then its up to the Judge to decide the punishment in a fair trial.

And what I am saying is at the end of the trial does the killer get off if the family lets him go and if so, then is it possible that the family could let themselves off if they are the killers (and let's say there was no explicit conspiracy to commit murder; the family just takes the role out of initiative).

[Dagless]

@DaglessSo you agree then that the laws in question can allow for honour killers being let off as long as they don't plot the murder.

If they don't plot the murder how can they be honour killers? It doesn't make sense.
Honour killing is against the law so no the law does not allow for honour killings.
Your question is basically like "if a murderer kills someone but doesn't leave any evidence behind and denies it then doesn't the law allow for murder?". The answer is no.

First of all I don't bring up any crazy scenarios; this is an important topic and for all we know, and there is some material written on this, the reason why so many of these killers get away with it in places like Pakistan is because there is a religious understanding that the state has no right to interfere with a family that is okay with their daughter being killed. Second, you're right that an argument can me made about inheritance; I can argue that a person's wealth is their private property and he/she should be able to distribute that inheritance to whoever he wants, despite the stipulations set forth in the Quran. I don't understand your reason for bringing this up; please explain.

You stated earlier than you actually didn't know about Pakistan, but here you are bringing it into the topic again. How can the cases you describe exist? let alone be a problem if the family is not indicated in the killing? If they were indicated then they would be charged. Accusing people of conspiring to kill and then saying it's a big problem in some countries like Pakistan is unacceptable without evidence (of which you have none).

The inheritance scenario was given to show that your opinion may appeal to you but may not be most just.

An even better deterrent would be if they were executed no matter what the family says.

But it may not be just.

[Muezzin]

And what I am saying is at the end of the trial does the killer get off if the family lets him go and if so, then is it possible that the family could let themselves off if they are the killers (and let's say there was no explicit conspiracy to commit murder; the family just takes the role out of initiative).

Perhaps your real question is 'can the judge in a sharia court choose to reject the family's forgiveness if to do otherwise would be unjust, un-Islamic or both in light of the evidence presented to him or her in a particular case?'

[Lynx]

If they don't plot the murder how can they be honour killers? It doesn't make sense.
Honour killing is against the law so no the law does not allow for honour killings.
Your question is basically like "if a murderer kills someone but doesn't leave any evidence behind and denies it then doesn't the law allow for murder?". The answer is no.

Not all murders are premeditated. Look, even if we say all honour killings are conspiracies, how would anyone even prove that? It would make more sense to just punish the person for the honour killing itself, don't you think?? This doesn't make any sense. Girl gets murdered; family forgives killer; judge has no evidence of any conspiracy since no body recorded the conversation; killer gets off. Compare that with: girl gets murdered; family forgives killer; judge puts killer in jail because he murdered an innocent person. I think scenario 2 does a better job at illustrating the general principles of justice mentioned so many times in the Quran.

You stated earlier than you actually didn't know about Pakistan, but here you are bringing it into the topic again. How can the cases you describe exist? let alone be a problem if the family is not indicated in the killing? If they were indicated then they would be charged. Accusing people of conspiring to kill and then saying it's a big problem in some countries like Pakistan is unacceptable without evidence (of which you have none).

Government Blamed

Many blamed the government for failing to stem this social cancer.

"The government is not serious to take any concrete step to curb this menace," Iqbal Haider, Secretary General of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), told IOL.

Haider, a former federal law minister, said that different women rights organizations had constituted a committee under his chairmanship last year, which proposed to the government declaring honor killing an "uncompromisable" crime.

"In 90 percent cases of honor killings, the culprits are close relatives (father, brother, uncle or cousin) and therefore they are easily forgiven by the family of the deceased," he noted.

"If the government is serious to curb this phenomenon, it has to repeal the clause of Wali (guardian) vis-à-vis honor killings from Pakistan Penal Code," insisted the HRC chief.


Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...#ixzz19YK3f1F5

The inheritance scenario was given to show that your opinion may appeal to you but may not be most just.

Sure, and killing babies for no reason might be a good thing.


@Muezzin

Perhaps your real question is 'can the judge in a sharia court choose to reject the family's forgiveness if to do otherwise would be unjust, un-Islamic or both in light of the evidence presented to him or her in a particular case?'

Yes. Peaceandlove said that the judges do reserve this right but he did not provide me with a source for the claim and I have been unable to find a source either. maybe you can help :) If there are instances where certain laws produced paradoxical results like the murder law has in this case during the time of the 4 caliphs or the Prophets time and a principle was created allowing one to let general principles Islam override specifics in the legal code then THAT would work.

[aamirsaab]

Interesting point, but if the girl stops showing up to school or they find her dead body or someone sees the killer in action or some other evidence proves the killer was part of the family then it would have to go to court, no? I don't think the family's acceptance of the murder would stop it from reaching the court unless there was a law that said if the family didn't want it to be investigated then it won't be investigated.

Ok let's say someone outside the family notices and let's say the matter goes to court. Father is found guilty of murdering his daughter (as per your example). Now, usually in homicide cases there are 2 options: the guilty party either has to pay blood money to the deceased's family OR faces a punishment. The defendant doesn't have the option to claim blood money because they are not the family of the deceased. So the guilty party would receive whatever the punishment prescribed by the judge.

Hope that cleared it up.

[Dagless]

Not all murders are premeditated. Look, even if we say all honour killings are conspiracies, how would anyone even prove that? It would make more sense to just punish the person for the honour killing itself, don't you think?? This doesn't make any sense. Girl gets murdered; family forgives killer; judge has no evidence of any conspiracy since no body recorded the conversation; killer gets off. Compare that with: girl gets murdered; family forgives killer; judge puts killer in jail because he murdered an innocent person. I think scenario 2 does a better job at illustrating the general principles of justice mentioned so many times in the Quran.

er... no. The killer never gets off, if he doesn't get killed he pays money.

Government Blamed

Many blamed the government for failing to stem this social cancer.

"The government is not serious to take any concrete step to curb this menace," Iqbal Haider, Secretary General of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), told IOL.

Haider, a former federal law minister, said that different women rights organizations had constituted a committee under his chairmanship last year, which proposed to the government declaring honor killing an "uncompromisable" crime.

"In 90 percent cases of honor killings, the culprits are close relatives (father, brother, uncle or cousin) and therefore they are easily forgiven by the family of the deceased," he noted.

"If the government is serious to curb this phenomenon, it has to repeal the clause of Wali (guardian) vis-à-vis honor killings from Pakistan Penal Code," insisted the HRC chief.


Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...#ixzz19YK3f1F5

That same link also says:

"Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification," said the expert.

"The so-called honor killing is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws."

Some 40 Pakistani religious scholars belonging to different schools of thought have recently issued a joint fatwa against honor killings.

The issue might be with enforcement in the country rather than the law. This is only one article though.

Sure, and killing babies for no reason might be a good thing.

Not sure where that came from :S

Yes. Peaceandlove said that the judges do reserve this right but he did not provide me with a source for the claim and I have been unable to find a source either. maybe you can help :) If there are instances where certain laws produced paradoxical results like the murder law has in this case during the time of the 4 caliphs or the Prophets time and a principle was created allowing one to let general principles Islam override specifics in the legal code then THAT would work.

You're saying reserve the right to dish out the death penalty on a whim? The judge would need strong evidence for something like that, and the scenario you suggest has none.

[Lynx]

er... no. The killer never gets off, if he doesn't get killed he pays money.

Or he can be forgiven or the blood money can be some trivially small amount in which case we might as well say he got free.

That same link also says:

"Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification," said the expert.

"The so-called honor killing is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws."

Some 40 Pakistani religious scholars belonging to different schools of thought have recently issued a joint fatwa against honor killings.

The issue might be with enforcement in the country rather than the law. This is only one article though.

I know that Islam prohibits honour killings. I have never claimed otherwise. What am I bringing into question is the possibility (and the article shows that this is being done) that the family will forgive their brothers/fathers who are performing the honour killings. The article is empirical evidence that shows the application of the problem I am presenting.

Not sure where that came from :S

You were implying some sort of relativity in what constitutes as 'just' and I pointed out a consequence of a relative standpoint. Maybe I misunderstood what you said so feel free to clarify.

You're saying reserve the right to dish out the death penalty on a whim? The judge would need strong evidence for something like that, and the scenario you suggest has none.

The scenario I presented assumes that everyone knows who the killer is. What I am saying is the clause that allows the family to forgive the killer can make the whole Islamic Judicial system powerless at stopping honour killings.

Ok let's say someone outside the family notices and let's say the matter goes to court. Father is found guilty of murdering his daughter (as per your example). Now, usually in homicide cases there are 2 options: the guilty party either has to pay blood money to the deceased's family OR faces a punishment. The defendant doesn't have the option to claim blood money because they are not the family of the deceased. So the guilty party would receive whatever the punishment prescribed by the judge.

Seeing as how honour killings are done by the family and if the father is the killer the next male relatives will inherit the right to punish him or ask for blood money or w/e it stands to reason that they will choose to forgive him. If there is something that stops this from happening then I'd like to see it and that is precisely the point of this thread; I want to see if anyone knows of anything in the Quran or Sunnah that might take away the right of the family to forgive the killer because if there isn't then honour killings can be legal under Shariah ..

[Dagless]

Or he can be forgiven or the blood money can be some trivially small amount in which case we might as well say he got free.

I don't know Shariah law that well but I've only ever heard of death or blood money. You also can't make a statement like "the money can be some trivially small amount" since you don't know the system enough or even who decides the amount. That's like someone unfamiliar with British law to come out and say "a judge could give a murderer 7 days in jail". Neither of us know Shariah law well enough for those types of statements.

You were implying some sort of relativity in what constitutes as 'just' and I pointed out a consequence of a relative standpoint. Maybe I misunderstood what you said so feel free to clarify.

My point was that God is most just. Your opinion isn't.

[aamirsaab]

...Seeing as how honour killings are done by the family and if the father is the killer the next male relatives will inherit the right to punish him or ask for blood money or w/e it stands to reason that they will choose to forgive him. If there is something that stops this from happening then I'd like to see it and that is precisely the point of this thread; I want to see if anyone knows of anything in the Quran or Sunnah that might take away the right of the family to forgive the killer because if there isn't then honour killings can be legal under Shariah ..

The option of blood money would be negated in this particular case because there is clear conflict of interest.

But, to answer your crux question (which could have been phrased a lot better imo) the judge in sharia court has supreme power. So while it may not be stated explicitly in the hadith they can overrule a pardon (I personally haven't come across any that talk about this matter specifically), it is heavily implied, especially given what else the judge is explicitly allowed to do, like sentence him to death, that such powers would be available to him.

[TheRationalizer]

Just a bit of logical thought here, but it says that if you forgive the killer they must pay you equitable compensation. If you pay someone to kill your daughter then any amount of money not substantially more than the amount you paid them cannot be considered equitable.

[TheRationalizer]

On a related issue, what is the punishment for a Muslim if he kills atheist without just cause?

[جوري]

Has this problem actually occurred in a shari3a run state, or do you simply wish to create a defective assumption and expect that it should be dignified with a response?

[TheRationalizer]

Has this problem actually occurred in a shari3a run state, or do you simply wish to create a defective assumption and expect that it should be dignified with a response?

I have no idea what happens in Shariah states. It is a genuine question.

[جوري]

I have no idea what happens in Shariah states. It is a genuine question.

It is an imaginary question, a hypothetical one. One that can't be answered for a few reasons.
1- There are no Shria'a run states currently
2- Even if there were, it is a judicial matter
3-A Judicial matter requires one to be taught in Islamic jurisprudence not google something from the web, anymore than googling your symptoms on line guarantees you a correct diagnosis or proper medical management!
4- lastly the premise itself is absurd, it is created with the intention to pose certain Muslims as immoral cowards who desire to kill their own flesh and blood and worse yet with the intention to create such an immaculate murder that even a Sage judge won't be able to see through..

I mean exactly what kind of reply you're looking for? Can someone get a way with a perfect crime? I guess anything is possible.. but we Muslims also believe in higher justice. If one gets away with murder in this world surely they'll not get away with it in the hereafter!

hope that puts an end to this absurd thread!

all the best

[TheRationalizer]

You are grossly in error.

A Muslim is capable of killing someone unjustly as is every other group, if Muslims never killed anyone then there would be no need to mention retribution in the Quran.

If you don't know the answer that's fine, just leave it for someone else to respond rather than posting unwarranted hostility toward me.

I look forward to more civil and informative responses from you others.

[aamirsaab]

On a related issue, what is the punishment for a Muslim if he kills atheist without just cause?

The same as it would be for anyone else; excution or blood money (to the family of deceased) or whatever else the judge deems fitting.



Side note: Please don't turn this thread into a what about xyz situation. And keep any sly remarks you may have about Sharia law out of the thread.

[جوري]

You are grossly in error.

Prove it! Give a real life example that fits exactly that premise!
I never said a Muslim wasn't capable of murder, I am speaking of the very rigid scenario that is created around this hypothetical murder!

A Muslim is capable of killing someone unjustly as is every other group, if Muslims never killed anyone then there would be no need to mention retribution in the Quran.

See above reply!

If you don't know the answer that's fine, just leave it for someone else to respond rather than posting unwarranted hostility toward me.

Non-Questions deserve non-answers!

I look forward to more civil and informative responses from you others.

I pity anyone who plays along with this deep a level of stupidity!

all the best

[TheRationalizer]

I only ask because the verse in question says this is if a believer kills another believer, not if they kill another person.

[aamirsaab]

I only ask because the verse in question says this is if a believer kills another believer, not if they kill another person.

Posting the full verse might help...

[Lynx]

The option of blood money would be negated in this particular case because there is clear conflict of interest.

But, to answer your crux question (which could have been phrased a lot better imo) the judge in sharia court has supreme power. So while it may not be stated explicitly in the hadith they can overrule a pardon (I personally haven't come across any that talk about this matter specifically), it is heavily implied, especially given what else the judge is explicitly allowed to do, like sentence him to death, that such powers would be available to him.

Well like I said if this was true then it would answer the question. I am just waiting to see a source for this because at the moment it seems the Judge has to go against something that is otherwise permitted by the Shariah :s. Do you know of any examples where exceptions were made for specific laws in order to promote the 'spirit of the law' rather than the 'letter of the law' (if I may use that terminology; it seems fitting)? If there is such a case then at least by analogy there is some precedent to what you say.

[aamirsaab]

Well like I said if this was true then it would answer the question. I am just waiting to see a source for this because at the moment it seems the Judge has to go against something that is otherwise permitted by the Shariah :s. Do you know of any examples where exceptions were made for specific laws in order to promote the 'spirit of the law' rather than the 'letter of the law' (if I may use that terminology; it seems fitting)? If there is such a case then at least by analogy there is some precedent to what you say.

I think there was a case where a particular society was facing famine, so the annual zakat tax was levied for a while. Although I can't recall the source (and I don't think google will yield any results, either). I will ask my contacts, see if they know anything.

[TheRationalizer]

Posting the full verse might help...

4:92
It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood-money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave. And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and (also) a believing slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise. (92) Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom

This highlights my query, and the next verse answers Lynx's query I think.

[TheRationalizer]

Well like I said if this was true then it would answer the question. I am just waiting to see a source for this because at the moment it seems the Judge has to go against something that is otherwise permitted by the Shariah :s. Do you know of any examples where exceptions were made for specific laws in order to promote the 'spirit of the law' rather than the 'letter of the law' (if I may use that terminology; it seems fitting)? If there is such a case then at least by analogy there is some precedent to what you say.

Does this answer your question?


An-Nisa
Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom. (93)

4.92 only applies to accidental killings.

[aamirsaab]

4:92
It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood-money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave. And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and (also) a believing slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise. (92) Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom

Yeah I did some background reading, non-believers are also included in the statement (implication). The Shariah punishments for murder pretty much derive from that ayah.

As for lynx's bit, until I get information from my contacts, you'll have to settle with some link dropping:

Islamic law stuff That should do for now

EDIT: Found the source for overruling, will update tomorrow.

[aamirsaab]

The Caliph Umar wrote a letter to Abu Musa al-As'hari on the eve of his appointment as a Qadi (judge) that outlined the functions and responsibilities of a muslim judge. I'll drop part of the exercpt given in the book I'm using (cus it's massive and whilst very important, you probably aren't going to read it. So let's just roll with this)

"If you have given a judgement yesterday and today you may arrive to a correct opinion upon re-thinking, you must not feel prevented ffrom retracting from your first judgement, because justice is primeval, and it is better to retract than to coninue in error''

Shariah: The Islamic Law, P.14, Abdur Rahman I. Doi (there's a link to that book in my sig; Buy it)

[TheRationalizer]

As for lynx's bit, until I get information from my contacts, you'll have to settle with some link dropping:

I think 4.93 makes Lynx's situation 100% clear
"Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom."

Looks to me like it says you cannot deliberately kill a Muslim, which suggests that 4.92 is only about accidental killing.

Aamirsaab: I looked it up in Tafsir Jalalayn. It said it was about different groups of people, where if someone from group A kills someone from group B then they are in a position to demand that someone in group A is killed in retribution - or if they think it will aid peace between the two parties they can demand a sufficient payment instead.

He explains that is what "slave for slave" etc means, so if you accidentally kill one of their slaves they cannot demand you kill a Muslim but only a slave. Though that seems very harsh to me, sparing the life of a guilty person and killing an innocent person in his place.

I queried this because I only recall the Quran talking about "Cannot kill a believer" rather than "Cannot kill another person". I was just curious as to how a sentence would look for a Muslim who accidentally killed an atheist where the atheist's parents refused compensation money.

Any references anyone has would be appreciated.

[aamirsaab]

I think 4.93 makes Lynx's situation 100% clear
"Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom."

Lynx is/was talking about overruling. Which I have now covered.

Aamirsaab: I looked it up in Tafsir Jalalayn. It said it was about different groups of people, where if someone from group A kills someone from group B then they are in a position to demand that someone in group A is killed in retribution - or if they think it will aid peace between the two parties they can demand a sufficient payment instead.
...

I am not qualified to talk about tafsir. So cannot help you there.

I queried this because I only recall the Quran talking about "Cannot kill a believer" rather than "Cannot kill another person". I was just curious as to how a sentence would look for a Muslim who accidentally killed an atheist where the atheist's parents refused compensation money.

Any references anyone has would be appreciated.

There's a link in my sig to a sharia law book; click on it and purchase it. It will answer any and all your queries about Shariah, far more quickly than me looking it up and posting it any time you have a question.

[TheRationalizer]

Lynx is/was talking about overruling. Which I have now covered.

I was talking about Lynx's initial statement that Shariah law has a loophole which allows people to have their children killed by a 3rd party.

There's a link in my sig to a sharia law book; click on it and purchase it. Everything you could possibly want regarding Shariah is in there.

I don't currently have the time to read a book. I'm only mildly curious which is why I thought I'd ask here in case someone was already aware of something. Thanks for the info though.

[Lynx]

The Caliph Umar wrote a letter to Abu Musa al-As'hari on the eve of his appointment as a Qadi (judge) that outlined the functions and responsibilities of a muslim judge. I'll drop part of the exercpt given in the book I'm using (cus it's massive and whilst very important, you probably aren't going to read it. So let's just roll with this)

"If you have given a judgement yesterday and today you may arrive to a correct opinion upon re-thinking, you must not feel prevented ffrom retracting from your first judgement, because justice is primeval, and it is better to retract than to coninue in error''

Shariah: The Islamic Law, P.14, Abdur Rahman I. Doi (there's a link to that book in my sig; Buy it)

Hi, that quote seems to just say a judge is able to recant his initial judgment if he realizes it was in err; it does not talk about overriding a Quranic/Sunah rule (such as ignoring the option of forgiving your killer) in the case where there is an obvious 'conflict of interest' or something similar. This is important because any judgment that does not accept the forgiveness by the family would be in direct contradiction to what the Prophet said so an example where a general rule was ignored for a 'higher' purpose or something would suffice. Since you went through the trouble of finding a piece of reading I will try my best to take a look through it and see if the stuff you couldn't type out will shed more light. Thanks

[aamirsaab]

Hi, that quote seems to just say a judge is able to recant his initial judgment if he realizes it was in err; it does not talk about overriding a Quranic/Sunah rule (such as ignoring the option of forgiving your killer) in the case where there is an obvious 'conflict of interest' or something similar. This is important because any judgment that does not accept the forgiveness by the family would be in direct contradiction to what the Prophet said so an example where a general rule was ignored for a 'higher' purpose or something would suffice. Since you went through the trouble of finding a piece of reading I will try my best to take a look through it and see if the stuff you couldn't type out will shed more light. Thanks

Tbh that excerpt covers your query by extension of ruling. But, the rest of the letter (that I didn't post cus it was too long) is certainly worth a read and the book as a whole is definitely worth your purchase. Anytime I get stumped on a particular legal matter, I take a look in that book and I get an answer.