Islam Question about murder in Islam

TG123 said:

Salaam alaikum.

Can you please tell me what is the penalty in Islam if:

1) A Muslim kills another Muslim?
2) A non-Muslim kills a Muslim?
3) A Muslim kills a non-Muslim?

Many thanks and God bless.

Click to expand...

Wa alaykumu s-salāmu wa rahmatu l-lāhi wa barakātuh, my friend.

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).

In Islam, all murders should be prosecuted, and the guilty punished equally, regardless of the victim’s religion; but there is no punishment for a Muslim who kills an enemy combatant in a declared war. Despite this, 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.

Have a good day, and very best regards.

Paul.

TG123 said:

Salaam alaikum Niblo and thank you brother for the response. I know that some Muslim scholars say that the hadith I was going to make reference to (you read my mind lol) was only about hostile non-Muslim enemies. Did you know though that this is a minority view? Muhammad did not specify this applies to hostile non-Muslims only, and most scholars did not assume so either.

"
According to the view of the majority of the scholars

a Muslim should not be killed against a free non-Muslim under the Muslim rule. The evidence about this is the saying of the Prophet

: "A Muslim should not be killed for killing a non-Muslim." [At-Tirmithi]


Moreover, according to the view of the majority of the scholars

the title (and rulings) “disbeliever” is applicable to a free non-Muslim under the Muslim rule. However, Abu Haneefah, and the scholars of his School of jurisprudence

are of the view that a Muslim should be killed for killing a free non-Muslim under Muslim rule; their evidence is the two verses which the questioner mentioned. Nonetheless, the correct opinion is that of the majority of the scholars

that is based on the above Prophetic narration, which is a direct proof related to the case of dispute. "
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=92261

Furthermore, if the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims are equal under the legal punishment for murder and the hadith above applies to enemy combatants only, why did Muhammad say that the blood money for a killed non-Muslim is half that for a killed Muslim? Surely one wouldn't pay blood money to the family of an enemy soldier...

Narrated 'Amr bin Shu'aib:
from his father, from his grandfather that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "The Muslim is not killed for disbeliever." And with this chain, it has been narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "The blood-money paid for disbeliever is half of the blood-money paid for a believer."
حَدَّثَنَا عِيسَى بْنُ أَحْمَدَ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، عَنْ أُسَامَةَ بْنِ زَيْدٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ لاَ يُقْتَلُ مُسْلِمٌ بِكَافِرٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏
وَبِهَذَا الإِسْنَادِ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ دِيَةُ عَقْلِ الْكَافِرِ نِصْفُ دِيَةِ عَقْلِ الْمُؤْمِنِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى حَدِيثُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ ‏.‏ وَاخْتَلَفَ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ فِي دِيَةِ الْيَهُودِيِّ وَالنَّصْرَانِيِّ فَذَهَبَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ فِي دِيَةِ الْيَهُودِيِّ وَالنَّصْرَانِيِّ إِلَى مَا رُوِيَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏.‏ وَقَالَ عُمَرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ دِيَةُ الْيَهُودِيِّ وَالنَّصْرَانِيِّ نِصْفُ دِيَةِ الْمُسْلِمِ ‏.‏ وَبِهَذَا يَقُولُ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ حَنْبَلٍ وَرُوِيَ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ أَنَّهُ قَالَ دِيَةُ الْيَهُودِيِّ وَالنَّصْرَانِيِّ أَرْبَعَةُ آلاَفِ دِرْهَمٍ وَدِيَةُ الْمَجُوسِيِّ ثَمَانُمِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ ‏.‏ وَبِهَذَا يَقُولُ مَالِكُ بْنُ أَنَسٍ وَالشَّافِعِيُّ وَإِسْحَاقُ ‏.‏ وَقَالَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ دِيَةُ الْيَهُودِيِّ وَالنَّصْرَانِيِّ مِثْلُ دِيَةِ الْمُسْلِمِ ‏.‏ وَهُوَ قَوْلُ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ وَأَهْلِ الْكُوفَةِ ‏.‏
Grade : Hasan (Darussalam)
Reference : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1413
In-book reference : Book 16, Hadith 29
English translation : Vol. 3, Book 14, Hadith 1413

http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/16/29

Take care my friend and God bless you also.

Click to expand...

As-Salāmu ‘Alaykum, my friend.

If we two were living in a Muslim country and one of us were to murder the other, the family of the victim would have three choices: to pardon the killer; to receive financial restitution; or to demand – and get – the killer’s execution. It really is as simple as that.

Why did the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) say that the diyah (blood money) for a murdered non-Muslim is half that for a murdered Muslim? I have no idea.

Here’s a comment on the hadith you refer to:

‘The people of knowledge disagree about the blood-money of the Jew and the Christian. Some of them

followed what was reported from the Prophet (about the Jews and the Christians). 'Umar bin 'Abdul- '

'Aziz said: "The blood-money of a Jew and a Christian is half of the blood-money of a Muslim." This is the view of Ahmad bin Hanbal. Some of the people of knowledge said that the blood-money of a Jew and a Christian is the same as the blood-money of a Muslim. This is the view of Sufyan Ath-Thawri and the people of Al-Küfah.’ (Jami' At-Tirmidhi: Volume 3; page 198).

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. (Anver M. Emon: ‘Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law’).

As for scholars disagreeing among themselves. That is what they do. Christian scholars for example, have been arguing for two thousand years as to whether or not Yeshua (RadhiAllahu'anhu) is divine!

Have a great week, and very best regards.

Salam TG. I think Niblo has already explained but I just like to jump in In a Shariah State a non-muslim has completely same rights of a muslim as long as he pays the jizyah. So the punishment is same. All so called Hadiths telling other than this are most probably fabricated ones.

TG123 said:

Salaam alaikum Anatolian and Niblo, sorry for not earlier responding.
Anatolian, the hadiths, both about the death penalty not being imposed against a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim, and the blood money for a non-Muslim being half that of a Muslim, are graded Sahih and Hasan, respectively. They aren't Daif.

Click to expand...

Salam TG. The Prophet says in His Last Sermon-I definitely recommend you to read it-that if a non-muslim pays jizya He guarantees his life and prosperity. And this comes from Quran. The Last Sermon is the most famous hadith of the Prophet which is regarded as sahih by almost all of the muslims. I repeat again what I said, if you read anything contrary to this it cannot be sahih. I think that there are fabricated hadiths even in the well respected hadith books.

TG123 said:

I think it is clear that Muhammad valued the lives of Muslims more than the lives of non-Muslims. Their lives are worth half (if not less) monetarily than the lives of Muslims. And Muhammad did not specify that the ban on killing Muslim killers of non-Muslims applies to enemy combatants only. A minority of scholars held that viewpoint, the majority did not add a condition to his decree.

Click to expand...

Now you make a claim based on some misinformation which support your prejudicies You can't find the truth by this way..

Aslam Alikom,
TG, you need to know that the Fatwa or final decision about something is not determined by one or two or more Hadeeths or Verses.
The scholars looks at many in the same time.
Some Hadeeths may be said for a specific situation. Also, there were a few changes in the Laws made by Allah like for example wine to take Muslims easy into final Laws.

Also, early scholars might have missed some Hadeeths that have been narrated by others that they've not met.
Also, linguistic interpretation/understanding of the scripts can differ from one to another.

All the above and other other reasons are the source of different Fatwas in Islam for the same topic.

Come back to the current subject, Allah forbids and make it Haram to kill single sole. Allah said in Quran 5:32 "Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!."

Allah said "killed a person" a person , any person without a good reason, "It would be as he killed all mankind"
Prophet Muhammad SAWS said ""Whoever kills a man from among Ahl Adh-Dhimmah (peacfull non-Muslims) he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, and its fragrance may be detected from a distance of seventy years." narrated in Sunan an-Nasa'i
The above are enough to make sure that the killing of peaceful non-Muslim in Islamic land is Haram and a big crime.
There is a full agreement between all scholars that killing of peaceful non-Muslim in Islamic land is Haram and big crime.

Now the value of blood money,

Allah said in Quran 4:92 "It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e Diya) be given to the deceased's family, unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a believing slave (is prescribed), and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation (blood money - Diya) must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance of freeing a slave) beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from Allah. And Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise."
Allah said Blood Money should be paid without any fractions.
So scholars who say that non-Muslim Diya should equal to Muslim's one using this verse to support.
Caliphaah Uthman ordered Muslim to pay full Diya to non-Muslim family.

The above mentioned Hadeeth by you is Saheeh

There is no contradiction. How?

Ibn-Taymya who I believe one of the best scholars who came after all Hadeethes have been narrated and listened to previous debates. He explained many cases and solved many issues.
Ibn-Taymya said If the non-Muslim is killed intentionally then his family should be paid full Diya, but if he was killed by mistake then half-Diya.


Regards