Diyya, or ‘blood money’ is the amount of money that is paid to the family of a victim of a killing. The amount of money is, according to this Arab News piece, established by Shariah law and is based on the value of camels. As the price of camels has risen of late, the value fixed for diyya needs to be adjusted. The article tells how it is being done.
The article does not address what strikes me as a conflict between the lawfully established amount (roughly equal to US $27,000-29,000) and the amounts claimed by some families that range into the tens of millions of Saudi Riyals, that is, up to US $2 million-plus. I’m not sure what ‘semi-intentional murder’ means, either. Perhaps it is what would be called ‘manslaughter’.
Judicial authorities set to fix value of blood money anew
Muhammad Al-Sulami I Arab NewsJEDDAH: Judiciary authorities in Saudi Arabia have started checking the prices of camels all over the Kingdom to determine a more accurate value for blood money (diyyah).
The Supreme Judiciary Council’s value for blood money, which is paid after a conviction for semi-intentional (SR110,000) and unintentional murder (SR100,000), was last fixed in 1980.
The move to re-evaluate these figures has come in the wake of huge rises in camel prices in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. Some breeds cost millions of riyals.
According to Islamic tradition, blood money is calculated on the basis of the market value of camels as the Shariah stipulates that a victim’s family must be compensated by giving them 100 camels — 80 female and 20 male. The male camels should be no more than one year old, while the females should be split into four of groups of 20. The age of the animals in the first female group should be one year, the second group two years, and so forth.
Members of the General Commission of the Riyadh High Court will check the prices of camels in various parts of the Kingdom with the help of chief auctioneers at livestock markets.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
February:12:2010 - 03:29
“semi-intentional murder” is indeed the Islamic term for manslaughter. As for the seven figure Diyyas that always hit the news, those are for “intentional murders”, where the victim’s family/tribe have the right to choose between an execution sentence or Diyya to their acceptance. Things get pretty expensive when it’s two big tribes pitted against each other.
February:12:2010 - 11:31
Interesting! It seems as if somehow (wonder how LOL
) the rich families are getting away with prices in the “rare breed camels” category as the article itself seems apprehensive of and attempting to curb this practice.
M–thanks for the info and clarification.
February:13:2010 - 02:18
But them what’s “unintentional murder”? Sound contradictory to me since one of the requirements for murder is intent to kill. I know! If you’re Saudi with money and connections it’s “unintentional murder” but if you’re a Bangladeshi it’s “completely intentional murder.”
Diyya is basically the best innocence money can buy, by the way. If you’re poor and don’t have the sympathy of “Reconciliation Committees” or charity groups or the king’s eye, or you can’t afford a lawyer and nobody provides you with one (having a lawyer is optional in Islamic law), then you’re screwed. I really don’t like this aspect of Islamic law.
Also this CPI (Camel Price Index) for determining diyya amounts? They’re kidding me right? The fact Islamic diyya law is based on the price of a camel seems to indicate that this law was created and designed by and for man, and particularly man in places where camels existed when the “God’s law” was created to keep people from acting like savages against one another. (Makes you wonder why the Quran talks about orphans so much. They must have been ubiquitous at the time. They must have had a major orphan problem and it’s nice to see they tried to do something about it.)
How can diyya be “God’s law” based on the value of a camel? How do the Innuit become Shariah-abiding Muslims, by looking to Saudi Arabia for the CPI? Obviously I am being sarcastic. The answer is simple: Shariah doesn’t work, but you can still be a Muslim without calling for Shariah. And if you can toss Shariah in the dustbin, then what else can we we toss out to create a “Jefferson Koran.”
All people who read “living” words pick and choose verses and ignore other verses. And I think both sides of the “clash of civilizations” need to recognize this evolving interpretive process that takes place in religions (so we can get rid of the silly things like: “let’s base diyya on the the price bedou shepherds are paying for livestock).
PS: When I say both sides of the clash of civilizations I mean:
#1.) The bigots that say all Muslims are terrorists who should be discriminated against because their book has passages that say kill non-believers, and
#2.) Muslims who pretend passages like Quran 4:34 are being “misinterpreted” or “mistranslated” instead of just admitting that those passages are there and just need to be placed in “historical context” and ignored.
But I digress. . . What’s the running price of a camel today? I need to know how much money I need to save up before I commit a capital crime or run over some Pakistani haris on a bicycle semi-intentionally.
And I’d ask the same question I ask followers of other proselytizing religions: what about all those people who weren’t exposed to Islam or Christianity? They’re burning in hell because a DAWA representative (or a church group offering aid in exchange for your submission) didn’t make it to their part of the world by the time they passed?
February:13:2010 - 03:14
@anonymous
“Non-intentional murder” and “semi-intentional murder” in Islamic jurisprudence are both manslaughter, as western courts usually see it. The difference is that “non-intentional” is that there is no intention of harming the victim, a good example are traffic accidents where the perpetrator is only guilty of breaking traffic regulations. “Semi-intentional” on the other hand has the perpetrator having an intention of harming (but not killing) the victim. An example would be a fist fight that got out of hand. So if the courts find you guilty of having the intention to kill when “Running over some Pakistani haris on a bicycle” it becomes “qatl amd” (intentional murder), and it’s up the haris’ family whether to accept a Diyya and how large it is (as opposed to seeing you having a date with local headsman
)
February:13:2010 - 06:44
M–thanks for the information, which clarifies greatly.
February:13:2010 - 06:45
@M:
Actually “western courts” have the same thing. It’s called voluntary vs. involuntary manslaughter — neither of which are murder.
The example you cite of a fistfight that results in death would be considered voluntary manslaughter on the premise that the perpetrator had “malice prepense,” or intent to harm without intention to kill (also called “malice aforethought” or “willful disregard for life”).
Hitting and killing a person on a bicycle accidentally would likely be considered involuntary manslaughter. (Though I suppose if you drive recklessly, one could argue willful disregard for life.)
Technically speaking, neither of these things are “murder” and therefore if applied in a Islamic context, neither could be punishable by death.
However, as I suggested above, a foreigner hitting and killing a Saudi is more likely to be slapped with the prospect of a “date with a local headsman” (by claiming “murder” than if a Saudi hits and kills a lowly foreign laborer).
There’s a maid facing the sword for “murdering” an infant. She was trafficked to the country underage to be a house cleaner and the family handed this teenage girl a newborn infant to be a nanny (as well as slapping her with cleaning duties and taking care of the other kids). She claims the newborn choked while she was bottle feeding on her second week on the job working underage as a nanny instead of her stated position as a maid. The family is crying “murderer!” and she’s appealing a sentence of public beheading.
So this is serious stuff and it’s careless of the report to use terms like “semi-intentional” murder — because it’s either murder or it isn’t.
February:13:2010 - 08:15
@anonymous
You have a point there. The usage of the word murder might be wrong. Perhaps “killing” would be better?
February:13:2010 - 09:56
It’s a tricky area, filled with ‘terms of art’, i.e., special meanings for words and terms.
Wikipedia has useful entries on both Murder and Manslaughter, offering a cross section of various countries’ laws. Unfortunately, Shariah law isn’t among the legal systems discussed.
February:13:2010 - 13:10
But Shariah is pretty clear on which crimes elicit cutting people’s heads off. There is a sad loophole in that, however. A judge may sentence somebody to death for the public right to be guarded from “social corruption” — this is how they behead drug traffickers even though drug trafficking does not elicit a “prescribed” sentence of death in the Quran. I guess they didn’t have any problems with heroin back in the day
This loophole leaves the sentence ultimately at the discretion on whatever judge ministers the case. That judicial discretion is very scary. For example that case in Kamis Mushayt were a 13-year-old was interrogated, tried, sentenced, beheaded and buried quickly before the parent even knew he was in trouble. He allegedly raped and choked to death an 8-year-old, but I suspect the judge had special connections to the tribe of the victim’s family. (It’s a small town.) Of course this judge and the prosecution violated Saudi law (because death sentences can be appealed within I think six months), but the judge didn’t get in trouble and the case was forgotten.
February:14:2010 - 02:08
Agreed. That is why it is of paramount importance that Saudi laws be codified as quickly as possible. Judges have way too much power.