Saudi Arabia continues the practice of ‘diyyah’ otherwise known as blood money. According to Wikipedia, Diyya (plural: Diyyat; Arabic: دية) is compensation paid to the heirs of a victim. In Arabic the word means both blood money and ransom. Diyyah comes into effect when the death of one person has been caused by another such as committing an act of murder or a driver being held responsible for ones who died in an auto accident with him. Under Shari’a or Islamic law which follows the “eye for an eye” precept, the surviving family members of the deceased will hold the fate of the one who is responsible for deaths on whether that individual will live or die. If the family wishes to avenge the death of their loved one through death then the responsible individual will be put to death through public execution. However the family of the person held responsible for a death may also try to appeal to the deceased family by offering up ‘diyyah’ in order to save the life. Naturally Islam prefers that a family seek diyyah rather than retribution.
It is unlawful for a believer to kill a believer except if it happens by accident. And he who kills a believer accidentally must pay diyyat to the heirs of the victim except if they forgive him. The tradition finds repeated endorsement in Islamic tradition; several instances are recorded in the Hadith, which are the acts of Muhammad.
There is no specific amount for Diyyat and the fine does not differ based on the gender, victim, or state of freedom of the victim. However, the Qur’an leaves open its quantity, nature and other related affairs to the customs and traditions of a society. The Qur’an directs to pay Diyyat according to this law both in case of intentional as well as unintentional murder.
However in direct contradiction to the above paragraph citing from the Quran, in Saudi Arabia, when a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the prescribed blood money rates are as follows[7]:
- 100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
- 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
- 50,000 riyals if a Christian man
- 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
- 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
- 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.
Although Wikipedia states that the amount of Diyyah is open, I found it interesting that according to Encyclopedia Britannica in pre-Islāmic times, the compensation or diyyah required for taking a life was 10 she-camels.
Frankly speaking, the whole issue of diyyah brings up the question, how can one put a price on a life?
Filed under: Charity, Freedoms, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Living, Saudi blogs, Saudi culture, Saudi customs, Saudi education, Women Issues, culture, friendship, gender, islam, religion, travel | Tagged: culture, culture shock, customs, gender, gender issues, heritage, history, islam, KSA, religion, Riyadh, Saudi, Saudi Arabia, Saudi culture, Saudi customs, travel
I think the name “blood money” automatically causes a feeling of repulsion in someone who’s not used to the term.
How about if we use terms like lawyers, (including “ambulance chasers”), actuary tables, million dollar judgments, etc. Isn’t it the same thing? In the West, an expert witness refers to actuarial tables which are supposed to show what deceased would have been worth to his or her family if s/he had lived to an average life expectancy. The payoff is much bigger than what we’re talking about in Saudi Arabia, and the lawyer takes one-third of it, if the case was taken on a contingency basis. We might ask how anyone puts a price on life there – or a limb or an organ, since the same thing is done in personal injury cases.
In societies where people don’t have life insurance and social security, when they lose a breadwinner, it may be much more helpful for his family to actually get some money than to see the murderer killed. And the rates quoted here are extremely low, compared to what one might expect in an American courtroom. The highest, 100,000 Saudi riyals, is about 27,000 U.S. dollars.
By the way, there is a lot more to this as defined in Islamic law, and Wikipedia is not always a credible source for this information. In English, “diyyah” can be translated as “indemntiy”, and there are specified amounts for various situations. The 100 camels was from the time of the Prophet (pbuh), too, but it was for an unintentional killing. There are other amounts stipulated for intentional killing, wounding, killing the fetus of a pregnant woman, etc.
The rumor here in Bahrain is that because of diyyah…the slaves…I mean the laborers… who find themselves in burdensome debts will willfully step out into the path of moving vehicles in hopes that their death will allow their families to get diyyah as compensation.
At first I was sceptical that this was true…except that 23 years later Ive seen it with my own eyes numerous times…thankfully no actual hits…but it was so obvious that the person waited until a car was coming before he (has always been a he in my experience) steps out. It has happened to me more times then I care to count…only through luck and my willingness to not speed etc that has kept from actually hitting one of them.
Because legally pedestrians have the right of way…as a driver you are at fault no matter what…so the compensation is paid. Not much in the end but it must be worth it to these men willing to have their lives taken in this manner.
I might add that so often when you hear of someone being hit by a car in this manner (laborer) the car in question is usuall (but not always) a higher class car…mercedes, beemer, jeep of some sort. Makes you wonder if the one deciding to end his life in this manner hopes that a higher class of car means a bigger pay off…just thinking out loud.
munaqabah,
Not at all the same as a civil lawsuit against someone who is responsible for a death of someone. And the main reason is that the ‘civil suit’ has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘criminal’ case. A person who is sued for the wrongful death of someone is not then immune to the prosecution of the crime. They pay the money AND do the time (if they are found guilty). Case in point, O.J. Simpson murdered his ex wife and a friend of hers and was found not guilty by a jury, then the family of the victims brought a civil suit against him and he lost that case and was ordered to pay for the wrongful deaths.
In societies where people don’t have life insurance and social security they should work on getting it so that their citizens do not have to resort to suicide as a means to support their family as Coolred has seen.
In many cases, the person isn’t sued in both criminal and civil court. Car accidents, malpractice cases, occupational safety, etc. are normally only civil cases. But either way, so what? Is it not “putting a price on life” if it’s done by lawyers in civil courts?
Lynn, I would advise you to take everything Coolred says with a large grain of salt. There are plenty of dangers lurking in traffic, but it’s not as if you have to constantly look out for would-be suicide victims as you drive along the streets.
Diyyeh seems to cover the ideas of compensation, indemnity, restitution, and retribution where there has been loss of life through death (blood money) or loss or availability through hostage taking, prisoners of war, etc. (ransom).
It is for example part of the military code of Iran where there is both criminal responsibility and punishment, and civil accountability and compensation (diyyeh according to the Diyyat Act). (Chapter 5 Article 78 note 2).
Of the “West” the USA is particularly litigious with very high monetary rewards. Other countries are less litigious and less likely to give high monetary compensation, eg. Canada is less litigious, and monetary rewards are much lower; France is less litigious and often (most often?–the only award I’ve ever seen given) a symbolic 1 FF or 1 Euro is awarded.
Pedestrians committing “auto accident fraud” for personal injury claims is common enough to be a legal specialty.
I’m not sure, since it is hard to assess in any situation, whether those who throw themselves in front of an oncoming vehicle are suicidal or hoping for injury. In any case it speaks to a certain level of desperation.
Those who drive expensive cars, or are perceived by their social status to have more money, are targets for increased compensation demands for legitimate or illegitimate claims.
eg. an extended family member in Morocco, chauffering his aristocratic niece from school in one city to home in another, was most concerned after ascertaining there were no personal injuries from a highway accident, that the other driver would become aware of the identity of his passenger.
* 100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
* 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
* 50,000 riyals if a Christian man
* 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
* 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
* 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.
Apart from anything else I find the above amounts a sad commentary on what a person believes in and what gender they are.
Indeed!
0000 riyals if a Jewish Man?
-3333 riyals if a Jewish Woman?
I agree with wendy, those diyyah amounts are not humane or justified in today’s world, no human life worths less or more than others, In Islam, I know that Diyyah is paid for the unintentional killing, and the amount is a mere Ijtihad or decisions of the scholars, which can of course change with different circumstances or times, it resembles the monetary compensations in modern legal systems and can proove beneficial for the family if they were dependent on the deceased for living… But I agree that this is not well-legalized concept in modern times and need to be thoughtfully worked on… Great post as usual American Bedu and thanks for the reading-friendly font too
The 3,333nSAR for a Hindu woman is less than $1000 US! That alone is tragic.
‘those diyyah amounts are not humane or justified in today’s world’
I can’t understand how they could have been EVER justified especially by God who supposedly created everyone. Why would some of his creation be worth more than others?
The diyyeh amounts probably do make sense contextually in terms of replacement value for work time/ family financial contribution lost, and social priorities. Since men are financially responsible for the family, and children are considered orphaned when their father dies (even if mother is alive), the higher award for a man is in keeping with other Sharia laws (eg. family law–inheritence).
Insurance awards in the West are similarly based on earning potential (higher for a man than a woman, higher for a young man than an elderly man, higher for a star hockey player than a plumber etc), loss of a someone with parental responsibilities, how much a negligent company can be made to pay (John Edward’s famous swimming pool accidental death landmark award) etc.
‘…the higher award for a man is in keeping with other Sharia laws (eg. family law–inheritence)…’
Does not speak to the disparity between a Muslim and a non Muslim man with equal responsibilities.
I assume this was made long time ago by religious scholars, it’s not stated as exact law in Qura’an or Sunnah, so this assumption of demographic distinction is referenced to some ancient practice where some older scholars have seen fit for their own time and circumstances, it doesn’t and shouldn’t hold today as a basic Sharia’a law in such incidents, all humans are equal, and the compensation should be ruled for each case based on the amount of harm caused by the accidental death and not by the demographics of the deceased individual…
Sharia law is always determined country by country, era by era, fikh by fikh, by the legal scholars of the day and so varies, even though the Quran, for example, doesn’t.
Muslim, non-Muslim does apply in terms of perceived value to the community, and separate legal, political and taxation (jizya) status. This is understandable in the history of Islam’s rise and expansion during the feudal era. Non-Muslims were/are not under the same legal and financial obligations. eg. even today in Morocco Sharia family is applied to only Muslims, and Christians and Jews have the right to use their own religion’s family laws (of marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc).
I’m not saying any person’s life is inherently of greater or lesser value of course, just that restitutions (including in the West) do make these types of calculation.
“…compensation should be ruled for each case based on the amount of harm caused by the accidental death and not by the demographics of the deceased individual”
The amount of harm caused is based on the demographics of the deceased individual both in Sharia (as above) and in Western law. A young man with a wife and children who dies is the loss of the provider.
An NHL hockey player Steve Moore, whose career was ended in an altercation, is suing Bertuzzi [the perpetrator], the Canucks [Bertuzzi's then team], and Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment [the company that owns the team] for $15 million for loss of income, $1 million for aggravated damages, and $2 million for punitive damages. His parents are suing for $1.5 million for mental anguish. This is calculated based on his expected no. of years as an NHL player, and his expected annual income.
The calculus would be different for someone earning $30,000/yr for another 10 yrs.
Not “fair” maybe, but the reality of how restitution or compensation is calculated.
Whether or not a civil case is brought in a wrongful death is usually determined by whether or not the one responsible has ‘deep pockets’ rather than being a normal act of the courts in a wrongful death case. A jury determines the compensation based on several different factors rather than there being a chart that for you to go to to tell us what an African American teenager’s life is worth.
The problem that I have with the payment of diyyah is that the murderer who has money available to him is able to escape the death penalty for his crime while a poor person with no funds available would be sentenced to death for the very same crime. I think that the reason that the word can be translated to mean ‘ransom’ is because it is/was considered a ransom paid to secure the life of the murderer rather than just as a compensation to ease the burdens of the victims’ families.
“Lynn, I would advise you to take everything Coolred says with a large grain of salt…”
yeah Lynn…be sure to do that…cause munaqabah…like…knows me so well and uses the knowledge to pass some sort of judgement…so yeah..get the salt out.
“The problem that I have with the payment of diyyah is that the murderer who has money available to him is able to escape the death penalty for his crime while a poor person with no funds available would be sentenced to death for the very same crime.”
They both receive the same sentence, and it’s up to the victim’s family to insist that they be killed or not. According to Islamic law, the diyyah is paid by the person and his extended family (i.e., men who have enough money), and if, after a certain amount of time, they can’t cover it all, then the remainder is paid out of Bait ul-Mal (the public treasury). I don’t know about Saudi law, but I know that in many cases, a foreign worker is able to raise the funds through the embassy, donations, etc., to pay the diyyah and go back home, instead of being killed in retaliation for a murder.
“Muslim, non-Muslim does apply in terms of perceived value to the community, and separate legal, political and taxation (jizya) status. This is understandable in the history of Islam’s rise and expansion during the feudal era. ”
Chiara knows her Islamic history.
Of course that taxation was an economic venture but in return, those non-Muslims who paid it had protection under the Umayyad/Abbassid Empires.
I do believe that nowadays the diyyah can also be set low by the family, and expulsion from the country be part of the “compensation” or restitution.
Yes, the feudal system worked (in part) by payment for protection and allegiance for peace. Non-Muslims paid for peace from their Muslim rulers, and protection against others, without having to serve in Muslim armies as the feudal system would normally require.
Coolred: ‘yeah Lynn…be sure to do that’
Thank God she/he told me that because otherwise I would just believe EVERYthing every anonymous person on the web said. Yep, that WAS me. Now I’m wiser all thanks to munaqabah. But wait. I’d have to take that advice with a grain of salt as well. LOL
munaqabah: ‘They both receive the same sentence, and it’s up to the victim’s family to insist that they be killed or not…’
Which is exactly what I said so I’m not sure what you intended by your comment.
….after a certain amount of time, they can’t cover it all, then the remainder is paid out of Bait ul-Mal (the public treasury).
If that were the case no one would be sentenced to death for not paying would they?
I also do not agree with the victim’s family being able to insist on them being killed or not killed. Impartial judges and juries are best (with some input from the family) and there is less chance of decisions being made through improper influences from the convicts family or associates.
Anthrogeek: ‘Of course that taxation was an economic venture but in return, those non-Muslims who paid it had protection under the Umayyad/Abbassid Empires.’
Brings to mind Mafia Bosses doesn’t it? But the worst part of that was the number of people who became Muslim to get out of paying this extortion money. You mention they were given protection under the Umayyad/Abbassid Empires but it did not start with them, it started during the time of the prophet as soon as he/the Muslims had power in the community.
There is a difference between ‘without having to serve in Muslim armies’ and not being ALLOWED to serve in a Muslim army.
Lynn– agreed. That’s why I wrote “without having to serve in Muslim armies as the feudal system would normally require.” The feudal system usually requires payment on an ongoing basis and military service as required.
The Mafia culture has strong similarities with the traditional rural quasi-feudal Southern Italian agrarian culture from which it originates.
I can’t help but ask, what IS the price of 10 she camels in today’s market?
“it started during the time of the prophet as soon as he/the Muslims had power in the community.”
It started long before the Prophet (pbuh). These people were subjects of the Roman or Persian empires before the Muslims conquered their lands; do you think they weren’t paying taxes to them?
@Olive the Oil – it all depends but they could easily be in the thousands if they are used for breeding and/or racing.
We have something similar in Houston, too. A guy randomly steps out in front of your car hoping to get hit and collect some insurance money for his injuries.
Its mostly in Downtown where there are a lot of homeless people roaming about. Usually most of them have psychological problems.
And, I agree.. how can one creation of God be worth more than another? Yet, we see the same thing all over the world. Even in the USA, where a black man shot in the projects is not as important, and does not get as much airtime as a white man shot in his $2 million mansion.
I guess the Saudis are just more open about it. :/
@TXGal – considering I am in Houston at the moment, I will certainly be very diligent while driving!!!
Thank you for this interesting post–American Bedu, you always probe the difficult subjects. I am curious to know more about the consequences of “revenge” killings–murders committed in direct response (and in the heat of the moment, so to speak) to the killing of a family member, for instance. Is diyyah owed to the family of the deceased murderer? Or is it considered to be a “wash,” in which both families have taken enough from each other? How does Islamic law in the Kingdom apply to this type of situation? Sorry for the strangeness of this post, but this is in direct relation to a conversation about Saudi legal proceedings that I had with a friend recently. Thank you in advance for any information on this subject.
@Aramco Brat – thank you! And I will have to research your query. I have heard of ongoing “feuds” between some Beudion families.
No doubt, Saudi Sharia Law is discrimated against women and non-muslism.
“In Arabic the word means both blood money and ransom.”
Actually, ransom would be fidyah, not diyyah.