The Washington Post reports on the situation concerning diyah (also diyyah), blood money paid as compensation to the family of a victim of a capital crime (murder, armed robbery, drug smuggling and rape) in order to prevent the execution of his antagonist. A committee exists to arbitrate demands for blood money, though they do not takes cases involving rape, or a combined kidnapping/murder. The committee’s efforts, however, are running into problems as more and more families and tribes demand impossible sums of money, seeing the higher amounts equating to higher social status.
There are suggestions that the government, which already places a lower limit on diyah of US $32,000, to also place a cap of no more than US $130,000.
There is a real problem of addressing the impact of crime on not just its victims, but the families of victims. In the US, it’s dealt with both in ‘victim impact statements’ heard a trials or hearings to establish the sentences of those convicted of the crime. There are also civil suits that seek to recover monetary damages. Famously, the family of a young man killed at the same time as Nicole Simpson civilly sued O.J. Simpson and essentially won his entire financial worth.
These attempts to compensate, somehow, the families of victims do not reach so far as to determine whether one lives or dies in return for a monetary sum. The idea of blood money was certainly part of many Western cultures including Scandinavians, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Russians, and Poles and went under names like weregeld, ericfine, and vira. The issue is that this practice essentially disappeared in the West around 400 years ago. That it continues in Saudi Arabia seems primitive by comparison as those European cultures are certainly viewed as primitive today.
The problem, of course, is that there is strong religious support for the concept, starting with the Quran (5:45) and many ahadith. Changing things deemed to have been said by God is not an easy task. Far more likely of success is establishing reasonable caps.
Saudis Face Soaring Blood-Money Sums
Tribes, Families Are Demanding Millions
Faiza Saleh AmbahMECCA, Saudi Arabia — Badr al-Hasnani was 18 when he got into a fight with a soccer rival and fatally stabbed him. He confessed and was sentenced to death by beheading, as prescribed by sharia, or Islamic law.
For more than two years, Hasnani has been in a juvenile detention center awaiting execution while his family has tried to save him.
The parents of the victim, Majid al-Mahmoudi, have three options under sharia: to demand punishment, to spare Hasnani’s life to receive blessings from God, or to grant clemency in exchange for diyah, or blood money.
The Mahmoudis agreed to accept diyah, setting the sum at $2 million in cash, much more than Hasnani’s family can afford.
Hasnani’s case highlights the growing trend of exorbitant blood-money demands, which many say are fueled by greed and tribal rivalries. Last month, tribal leaders in the central city of Kharj demanded nearly $11 million to pardon a man who had killed a member of their tribe.
ad_iconOfficials, clerics and writers have spoken out against the excessive requests, saying an ancient Islamic practice meant to financially support those who lose loved ones has been corrupted.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
July:28:2008 - 04:13
I really don’t see how anyone can consider Shariah to be “blind justice” when clearly the more money you have the easier it is to meet blood-money demands (the rest of us are at the mercy of the media advertising the case and charity groups subsequently stepping up to come up with the cash). This is not simply a “Saudi problem” — it’s a fundamental flaw in Islamic law. Also: the fact that lawyers are option is another flaw. Both of these facts show that Shariah isn’t “divine justice” — it’s tribal justice from hundreds of years ago that somehow became “divine law”. The sooner everyone recognizes this the better.
This is slightly OT: but I’m also tired of this qualifier in Arab News of “the divine religions”. The implication is that there are only three religions. The other day a Muslim friend referred to non-Abrahamic faiths as “creeds”. I find that condescending, judgment and elitist. I’d hate too see what would happen to a non-Muslim facing the sword for killing a Muslim Saudi — the blood money would probably be astronomical, and there would likely not be much compassion from charity and reconciliation groups. It’s pretty disgraceful if you think about it too much.
July:28:2008 - 08:21
You raise a good point about how the wealth of individuals seems to have an effect on judicial outcomes.
And you’re right that in focusing on the ‘three Ibrahimic religions’ the dialogue seems to put other religions in a secondary position, ‘pagan idolaters’ rather than ‘believers of the book’. That’s a distinction made in Quran, though, so it’s going to be a harder push to change minds on it.
I wouldn’t worry much about the ‘creed’ v. ‘religion’ thing, though. The words truly are synonyms, at least in American English. Many US laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of ‘race, creed, or color’, for example, and use ‘creed’ as completely interchangeable with ‘religion’. ‘Creed’ places the emphasis on belief, with the word coming from the Latin credere, ‘to believe’. ‘Religion’, also from Latin, seems to be coming from ligare, ‘to be bound or tied, connected’, in this case, to God.