Expiation for killing a non muslim?

[TDWT]

I was wondering, I know that if a muslim kills a non muslim, expiation is to be payed but i was wondering, is the expiation amount the same?

 

[TDWT]

I read this by suyuti:

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Arial, sans-serif] If he, the slain, belongs to a people between whom and you there is a covenant, a treaty, as is the case with the Protected People (ahl al-dhimma), then the blood-money, for him, must be paid to his family, and it constitutes a third of the blood-money for a believer, if the slain be a Jew or a Christian, and two thirds of a tenth of it, if he be a Magian; and the setting free of a believing slave, is incumbent upon the slayer. But if he has not the wherewithal, for [setting free] a slave, failing to find one, or the means to obtain one, then the fasting of two successive months, is incumbent upon him as a redemption: here God does not mention the transition to [an alternative to fasting which is] giving food [to the needy], as in the case of [repudiating one’s wife by] zihār, something which al-Shāfi‘ī advocates in the more correct of two opinions of his; a relenting from God (tawbatan, ‘relenting’, is the verbal noun, and is in the accusative because of the implied verb)[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Arial, sans-serif]Is it just his opinion?[/FONT]

 

[Grandad]

I was wondering, I know that if a muslim kills a non muslim, expiation is to be payed but i was wondering, is the expiation amount the same?

As-Salāmu ‘alaykum.

As you know, the general rule in the Qur’an is that of ‘equality in punishment’. This means that in every case the punishment should fit the crime. In the case of murder, a Muslim would be executed for murdering any person regardless of their religion unless the victim’s family waives their right of retaliation as an act of charity.

Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) says: ‘You who believe, fair retribution is prescribed for you in cases of murder: the free man for the free man, the slave for the slave, the female for the female. ** But if the culprit is pardoned by his aggrieved brother, this shall be adhered to fairly, and the culprit shall pay what is due in a good way. This is an alleviation from your Lord and an act of mercy. If anyone then exceeds these limits, grievous suffering awaits him. Fair retribution saves life for you, people of understanding, so that you may guard yourselves against what is wrong.’ (Al-Baqara: 178-179).

** Before Islam, the Arabs did not observe equality in retribution, but a stronger tribe would demand more, e.g. a man for a woman, a free man for a slave, or several men for one man, likewise for financial compensation. The intention of this verse is to insist on equality.

Caliph ‘Umar ibn Abdul Aziz was noted for his piety and wisdom. He was asked about the case of a Muslim man who had killed a man from among the non-Muslim citizens. ‘Umar replied that the victim’s family could claim compensation; request execution in retaliation; or else pardon the killer if they so wished. (cf. Musannaf Abdur Razzaq; 17904).

Those who claim that a Muslim is not to be punished for killing a non-Muslim cite the following hadith; and they do so out of context:

‘Abu Juhaifa reported: ‘The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, judged that a believer should not be killed for killing a disbeliever.’ (Sahih Bukhari: 6517).

Some Muslims have interpreted this hadith as though it were a general rule; however, the statement was made in the context of those who independently kill the soldiers of a hostile army in a declared war. This would cover partisan activity against armed and hostile troops, for example.

Commenting on this hadith, Al-Mawsalai Al-Hanafi says: ‘The meaning is of this tradition is that a Muslim is not executed in retaliation for killing a combatant in war.’ (Al-Ikhtiyar li Ta’leel; 506).

Abu Bakr Al-Jassas writes: ‘The tradition means that a believer is not killed in retaliation for (killing) an unbelieving combatant, for it has not been established that the Prophet nullified the punishment of execution for a believer who kills a non-Muslim citizen.’ (Ahkam Al-Quran; 1/176).

And Ibn Hajar writes: ‘It is not the right of a Muslim to kill every unbeliever. Rather, it is forbidden for him to kill a citizen or protected person without a just cause.’ (Fath ul-Bari; 6517).

Muslims must adhere to their peace treaties and covenants, and it is forbidden to harm an enemy who has been granted security (this includes prisoners of war under the protection of the Geneva Convention) or diplomatic immunity.

It is a fact that jurists of different schools of Islamic jurisprudence assign different values to non-Muslims. According to the Hanbali, Hanafi and Maliki schools, the diyah awarded to a Jew or Christian should be half that awarded to a Muslim (male); however, the Shafi'i school says that the diyah should be a third that of a Muslim. It is reported that Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi'i Sunnis, as well as the scholars Shia Islam, have valued the life of polytheists and atheists as one-fifteenth that of a Muslim during sentencing. (see Anver M. Emon: ‘Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law’).

I hope this helps.

 

[aaj]

The majority of scholars are of the view that expiation must be offered by one who kills a kaafir who is protected by sharee’ah.


The kaafirs who are protected by sharee’ah are of three types:


1 – Al-dhimmi. This is one with whom we have a contract or treaty of al-dhimmah (i.e., one who lives in a Muslim state)


2 – Al-mu’aahad. This is one with whose people we have a peace treaty.


3 – Al-musta’man. This is one who has entered the Muslim land and has been guaranteed safety, such as those who come to do business, to work, to visit relatives, and so on.


Whoever kills a kaafir who is protected by sharee’ah has to do two things:


1 – Diyah (blood-money). He has to pay the diyah to the family of the deceased. This applies so long as his family are not muhaaribeen (i.e., belong to a people who are at war with the Muslim state). If his family are muhaaribeen, then they do not deserve the diyah, because their wealth and their blood are not sacred. Tafseer al-Sa’di, p. 277.


2 – Kafaarah (expiation). This is the view of the majority.


https://islamqa.info/en/33683



If a Kafir (Harbi) who is in state of war with Muslim is killed, he does not deserve any blood money.

If the Kafir is not Harbi and he is among the People of the Book then his blood money is the same as the blood money of a Muslim according to Abu Hanifa .

Imam Malik is of the opinion that his blood money is only half that of the blood money of a Muslim.

Imam Shafie said: he deserves one third of the blood money of a Muslim.

Every one of them based his opinion on some evidences. There is a Hadith that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: The blood money of the People of the Book is half that of Muslims . Ibn Hajar said, it is reported by Ahmad and four complier of Sunan.

Imam al-Khattabi said: there is no clearer evidence concerning the blood money of the People of the Book than the above Hadith .

Therefore, you may know that the opinion of al-Malikiyah in this subject is stronger than the others.

Allah knows best.

https://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=86122

 

[Aaqib]

So if one muslim kills non-muslims in America = expiation?

 

[Grandad]

So if one muslim kills non-muslims in America = expiation?

As-Salāmu ‘alaykum.

As you know, there are three categories of crime in Sharīʿa: Qisas, Hudud, and Tazir.

Qisas involves personal injury, and includes murder; manslaughter; and battery.

A Qisas offence is treated as a civil rather than a criminal matter. If the accused is found guilty, the victim (or victim's family) determines the punishment. They can forgive (the preferred option); demand retribution (which means execution in the case of murder); or accept compensation for the victim’s loss of life, limb or injury.

In the USA, and all other Western States (and in secular Muslim states, such as Turkey, Kazakhstan and Mali) religious ‘interference’ in state affairs, law and politics is prohibited. In these countries, the role of Sharīʿa is limited to personal and family matters.

In the UK, murder and manslaughter are criminal offences, and the state will always prosecute, regardless of what the victim's family have to say. I imagine the same is true in the USA.