islamic criminal law + honour killings

[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.