Author Topic: Multiple murders  (Read 1132 times)

AK85

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 527
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Multiple murders
« on: June 26, 2013, 09:49:07 AM »
If a person has killed many people, and some of the victim's families forgive him while others want him put to death, what is the solution?
Listen, and understand! That Terminator is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.


We here have different views from salaat, to haj, to qibla to shirk to many fiqh issues. But there is something that binds us all, is we take our deen from the Quran and we recognize its authority over anything else. - BigMo

Jacob

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Multiple murders
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2013, 05:40:56 AM »
Peace,

He would be put to death until or unless negotiation is done with each and every effected family.

2:178 O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.


5:45 And therein We prescribed for them: 'A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds retaliation';.......

Earthdom

  • Guest
Re: Multiple murders
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2013, 09:10:59 PM »
Peace all.

It's about qishas indeed.

If a person kills A,B,C,D, but the family of A, B and C already forgive him but family of D didn't.

I'm not a lawyer nor law practicer, but I know if the law is system, and the system cannot be erased by anything even by forgiving.
Example is you been cauught for stole your neighboor's foods and the the neighboor is forgive you, but unfortunately your case already been brought in the court, so even the neighboor already forgive you then you still became suspect and go to jail.

No back to the topic.I will give you example like this.

If a person kills A,B,C,D, but the family of A, B and C already forgive him but family of D didn't..

So the murder's have four different case:

1) The murder vs victim A and family (forgived then passed)

2) The murder vs victim B and family (forgived then passed)

3) The murder vs victim C and family (forgived then passed)

4) The murder vs victim D and family (not forgived then qishah implementated)

This each four cases is not related each other.You may been forgived by A, B and C so you're  passing the punishment.

But you still get qishas law because it's your case between you and D and A, B and C of course not related on this cause that three is on different case.

Salam

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6501
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Multiple murders
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2013, 12:18:41 AM »
2.194 makes no sense if it is understood as a punishment for "murder". To start with it does not say "for murder", it says "in the killed" where it is not sid that killed is murdered, it may be accidental and from the whole text of the aya we can see that inf act it cannot be speaking about murder, because the fact that a slave is murdered, how can you pursue another slave even if he or she is not the murderer? Does not make sense. The dead person may have been killed accidentally in which case the person who may have caused the death should indemnify the survivors for the loss of the dead, so then it makes sense that the amount for the indemnisation should be fixed in accordance with the loss for the survivors, like if it is were a man that maintained a big household, for instance, then the andemnisation should be accordingly,  and so on.

Since there is no murder, there is no question that what is being spoen about is not to retaliate killing somebody else, but making up for the loss of the survivors. A life for a life, should not depend of somebody being slave, free, or man or woman... and nobody should pay except the author of a crime, so qisas for followers of the Qur'an should be understood as in this aya, where there is no murder but somebody that results killed even though iut may not have been by any willful intent of anybody. If the dead is result of murder, that should be another matter in the sense that there should be a punishment for murder, IN ADDITION to the compensation for loss to the survivors which logically should still apply.

Salaam


Jacob

  • Beginner/Inquirer
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Multiple murders
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2013, 12:55:45 AM »
2.194 makes no sense if it is understood as a punishment for "murder". To start with it does not say "for murder", it says "in the killed" where it is not sid that killed is murdered, it may be accidental and from the whole text of the aya we can see that inf act it cannot be speaking about murder, because the fact that a slave is murdered, how can you pursue another slave even if he or she is not the murderer? Does not make sense. The dead person may have been killed accidentally in which case the person who may have caused the death should indemnify the survivors for the loss of the dead, so then it makes sense that the amount for the indemnisation should be fixed in accordance with the loss for the survivors, like if it is were a man that maintained a big household, for instance, then the andemnisation should be accordingly,  and so on.

Since there is no murder, there is no question that what is being spoen about is not to retaliate killing somebody else, but making up for the loss of the survivors. A life for a life, should not depend of somebody being slave, free, or man or woman... and nobody should pay except the author of a crime, so qisas for followers of the Qur'an should be understood as in this aya, where there is no murder but somebody that results killed even though iut may not have been by any willful intent of anybody. If the dead is result of murder, that should be another matter in the sense that there should be a punishment for murder, IN ADDITION to the compensation for loss to the survivors which logically should still apply.

Salaam



Salaam, I think you meant 2:178 and not 2:194. You have made a valid point, makes sense. 'Qatl' indeed mean killing.

But the point is, how to differentiate between intentional and unintentional killing, do you think 5:45 answers that?

Earthdom

  • Guest
Re: Multiple murders
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2013, 07:57:20 AM »
Peace all.

Mrs Huruf, I think you still can't differ what is Quran and what is law legislation and what is Islamic terminology and what is not.

I know if the word "qatl" means killed, but in 2:178 it's written "Al qatl" or "the killed".Do you know the function for alif and lam in the word such like "Al Kitab", "Al Ahzab", or the alif-lam in asma ul husna?

Is the word such like "the killed" exist in english grammar?

"Al qatl" is adjective and the word and cannot simply translated into "kill" and must be translated into murdered.

Why? Because the word "qishas" appeared in 2:178, so to fit for the ayat, we may translate "Al-Qatl" as murdered.

Qishas according to Islamic terminologies by some mufassir is "exchange hukm".But if yu didn't believe any kind of tafseer and Islamic terminologies instead create the new one then it's different story.




huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6501
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Multiple murders
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2013, 08:04:43 AM »
Yes, indeed, it is 2.178, I am sorry.

As to 5.45 I think the context is different. It seems that he, the addressee of the words of Allah, most likely the prophet himself, has been asked to judge between followers of the previous revelations in bad faith and the speaker, recalls how they were given clear instructions for that an speaks about an eye for an eye, etc.

Ultimately, coming from the same source, there should be some equivalence between what is said in a revelation and what is said in another revelation, but, not necessarily they have to be the same. The Qur'an itself confirms certain differences due to the attitudes of the people that were given the law, like in food.

At any rate, what I understand, is that at some time, the people who received revelations might have been tempted to exact the whole set of teeth for a tooth and so they were held to exat equivalence. But that is a different question from 2.178, where there is in fact no equivalence as to the damaged thing or person itself, but as to the import of that person. That is, it is not a nafs for a nafs, but rather, the same kind of nafs for what is lost. Obviously it cannot be a criminal matter because it is unconceivable that a person different from the killer (whether willful or not) be made to pay for a crime, just because he or she happens to be free, like the dead, or a slave like the dead or a free like the dead or a male like the dead, etc. So forcibly and since there is no statement that there has been a murder, it must be a question of indemnifying the loosers with the dead of the killed. Obviously the murder or non murder of that person would be a different matter.

At the back of it all comes again que need to consider equity by voluntary submission of the members of the society to a fair retribution for losses, instead ot letting the people take retribution at their own free estimation of how angre, depressed, offended, or whatever they are. In sum to put equitative barries to peoples taking the justice into their own hands.

Salaam