Diya (Islam)
Diya (; plural diyāt, ) in Islamic law, is the financial compensation paid to the victim or heirs of a victim in the cases of murder, bodily harm or property damage. It is an alternative punishment to "qisas" (equal retaliation). In Arabic, the word means both blood money and ransom, and it is spelled sometimes as "diyah" or "diyeh". It only applies when victim's family want to compromise with the guilty party; otherwise "qisas" applies. "Diya" compensation rates have historically varied based on the gender and religion of the victim. In the modern era, diya plays a role in  the legal system of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In Iran and Pakistan, the diya is the same for Muslims and non-Muslims, while in Saudi Arabia it differs depending on the religion of the victim. Basis in Scripture. The "Qur'an" specifies the principle of "Qisas" (i.e. retaliation) and compensation ("diyah") in cases where one Muslim kills another Muslim. "Hadith" also mention it. Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, an early caliph admired for his piety and scholarship, ruled on Diya: In traditional Islamic law. Islamic law treats homicide and unintentional homicide (not just bodily injury and  property damage), as a civil dispute between believers, rather than corrective punishment by the state to maintain order. The offender must either face equal retaliation known as "Qisas" ("Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." ), pay "diyat" to the victim or heirs of the victim, or be forgiven by the victim or victim's heir(s). In all cases of death, injury, and damage, under traditional sharia doctrine, the prosecutor is not the state, but only the victim or the victim's heir (or owner, in the case  when the victim is a slave). "Diyah" is similar in practice to "out-of-court settlement" in a tort case, but with important differences. Under sharia practice, tort-like civil liability settlement is limited to property damage, while in the cases of bodily injury and death, the "blood money" diyah compensation is fixed by a formula (such as the value of certain number of camels). The victim, victim's heir or guardian may alternatively forgive the bodily injury or murder as an act of religious charity (expiation of their own past sins). The value of "diyat", under all schools of  sharia, varied with the victim's religion and legal status (free or slave). For a free Muslim, the diyah value of their life was traditionally set as the value of 100 camels. This was valued at 1000 dinars or 12000 dirhams, corresponding to 4.25 kilograms of gold, or 29.7 to 35.64 kilograms of silver. The "diyah" value in case the victim was a non-Muslim (Dhimmi) or slave varied in the "sharia" of different schools of Islamic law. The "diyah" must be paid by the murderer or the estate of the murderer. In some cases, such as when the murderer  is a juvenile, the "diyah" is owed by the family of the murderer ("Aqila"). In other cases, the group ('Aqila) that must pay "diyah" to the victim or victim's heirs is the tribe or urban neighbors of the culprit. Diyah for Non-Muslims. "Diyah" is not the same for non-Muslims and Muslims in "sharia" courts. Muslims and non-Muslims are treated as unequal in the sentencing process, in cases of unintentional deaths. In early history of Islam, there were considerable disagreements in Muslim jurist opinions on applicability of "qisas" and "diyah" when a Muslim murdered a non-Muslim  (dhimmi, musta'min or a slave). Most scholars of Hanafi school of sharia ruled that, if a Muslim killed a "dhimmi", "qisas" was applicable against the Muslim, but this could be averted by paying a "diyah". In one case, the "Hanafi" jurist Abu Yusuf initially ordered "qisas" when a Muslim killed a "dhimmi", but under Caliph Harun al-Rashid's pressure replaced the order with "diyah" if the victim's family members were unable to prove the victim was paying "jizya" willingly as a "dhimmi". The Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali code of sharia have historically ruled that Qisas does not apply  against a Muslim, if he murders any non-Muslim (including "dhimmi") or a slave for any reason. A "diyah" was payable instead. The early Hanafi jurists considered the payable "diyah" for Muslim and non-Muslim victims to be same, while the Maliki and Hanbali schools considered a non-Muslim value of life as worth half of a Muslim, and the Shafi'i school considered it worth a third. The "Ja'fari" school considered a non-Muslim victim's value to be only 800 dirhams in contrast to 10000 dirhams for a Muslim victim. The compensation value payable to the owner of a  slave by a Muslim murderer, was the market price paid for the slave. In the Hanafi and Maliki sharia doctrines, a "diyah" was not payable to a non-Muslim from a murderer's estate, if the murderer dies for natural or other causes during the trial. If the victim was "musta'min" (non-Muslim foreigner visiting), or an apostate (converting from Islam to another religion), neither diya nor "qisas" applied against the Muslim who killed the victim. Jurists of different schools of Islamic jurisprudence assign different values to non-Muslims. According to the Hanbali sharia, the life of a Christian or  Jew is worth half that of a Muslim, and thus the "diyah" awarded by modern-era Hanbali courts is half that awarded in case of Muslim's death. Hanafi and Maliki fiqh also consider the life of a Christian or Jew to be worth half a Muslim's life, but Shafi'i schools of jurisprudence consider it to be worth a third that of a Muslim. The legal schools of Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafi'i Sunni Islam as well as those of Shia Islam have considered the life of polytheists and atheists as one-fifteenth the value of a Muslim during  sentencing. Application in contemporary Muslim countries. In the modern era, diya plays a role in the legal system of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. For example, in Saudi Arabia, the heirs of a Muslim victim have a right to settle for Diya instead of the execution of the murderer. The amount of diya is calculated differently by different states where it makes part of the legal code. In Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the amount is determined by the judge. In the United Arab Emirates, the government negotiates the amount with the family or heirs of the  victim on behalf of the offender. In Iran, the family or heirs of the victim negotiate it directly with the offender. In Pakistan, the diya for Muslim citizens, non-Muslim citizens and foreigners is the same. Iran made the diya for Muslims and non-Muslims equal in 2003. Nonetheless, the diyah compensation rights of Muslims and non-Muslims have varied among Muslim nations and were unequal in some countries in the late 20th century, remaining unequal in the 2010s in Saudi Arabia. The customary law of the Somali people also recognizes the obligation of "diyah", but defines it as being  between subgroups, or "mag", who may be part of different clans or even the same clan. Some of these countries also define, by lawful legislation, a hierarchy of compensation rates for the lives of people; religious affiliation and gender are usually the main modulating factors for these Blood Money rates. Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, when a person kills another, intentionally or unintentionally, the prescribed blood money must be decided by sharia court. The amount of compensation is based on the percentage of responsibility. Blood money is to be paid not only for murder, but also in the case of  unnatural death, interpreted to mean death in a fire, industrial or road accident, for instance, as long as the responsibility for it falls on the accused. The "diyah" compensation amount depends on the religion of the victim. Human Rights Watch and United States' Religious Freedom Report note that in sharia courts of Saudi Arabia, "The calculation of accidental death or injury compensation is discriminatory. In the event a court renders a judgment in favor of a plaintiff who is a Jewish or Christian male, the plaintiff is only entitled to receive 50 percent of the compensation a Muslim male would  receive; all other non-Muslims (Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Animists, Atheists) are only entitled to receive one-sixteenth of the amount a male Muslim would receive". While Saudi judges have the last say in any settlement, as of 2011, diya price for a Muslim man, in Saudi Arabia, was SR300,000 ($80,000) for an accidental death and SR400,000 ($106,666) in premeditated murder. (The price was raised that year due to a rise in the price of camels.) Diyah in Saudi has been controversial, as in a 2013 case, where a father molested and murdered his five-year-old daughter , but avoided jail by paying money to her mother. Iran. During the four "haraam" months; namely Dhu al-Qi'dah, Dhu al-Hijjah, Muharram, and Rajab; when wars and killings were traditionally discouraged in the Arabian Peninsula and later in the larger Islamic world, the blood money rates is increased by a third. Iran's 1991 Islamic Penal Code originally only specified the diya for a Muslim man. In the absence of a specification of diya for non-Muslims, Iranian judges referred to traditional Shi'ite fiqh. In 2003, Article 297 of the 1991 Code was amended according to a fatwa by  Ayatollah Khamenei. This resulted in recognition of equal diya for Muslims and non-Muslims. However, according to the 2006 US State Department Religious Freedom Report on Iran, women and Bahais were excluded from the equalization provisions of 2003 and that Baha'i blood was considered "Mobah, meaning it can be spilled with impunity". The 2013 Islamic Penal Code (which replaced the 1991 code), recognizes the equality between Muslims and non-Muslims in article 554. The 2013 penal code also makes diya for men and women equal in cases of homicide. However, according to Mohammad H. Tavana, it is unclear if the  diya between men and women is equal in cases of bodily harm; that has been left to the Iranian courts to decide. Iraq. In Iraq, the Bedouin tribes carry on the practice of demanding blood money, though this does not necessarily obviate the proceedings of the secular judicial system. Pakistan. Pakistan, which is predominantly Sunni Muslim nation, introduced Qisas and Diyat Ordinance in 1990, amending sections 229 to 338 of Pakistan Penal code. The new Ordinance replaced British era criminal laws on bodily hurt and murder with sharia-compliant provisions, as demanded by the Shariat Appellate Bench of Pakistan's  Supreme Court. The Criminal Procedure Code was also amended to give legal heirs of a murdered person to enter into compromise and accept "diyah" compensation, instead of demanding "qisas"-based retaliatory penalties for murder or bodily hurt. The democratically elected government of Nawaz Sharif, in 1997, replaced the Ordinance by enacting the "qisas" and "diyah" "sharia" provisions as the law, through an Act of its Parliament. The sharia-compliant "Qisas" and "Diyat" law made murder a private offense, not a crime against society or state, and thus the pursuit, prosecution, and punishment for murder has become the responsibility of the victim 's heirs and guardians. The Pakistan Penal Code modernized the Hanafi doctrine of "qisas" and "diya" by eliminating distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims. Controversies arising from the Diyat law of Pakistan involve cases of honor killings of girls, where the killers were employed by the same family members of the victim who under the Diyyah law have the power to forgive the killer the loophole was corrected in 2016. Another issue is the intentional murder or bodily harm of poor people by wealthy individuals, where the only punishment the perpetrators suffer is paying monetary compensation that constitutes a small  fraction of their income or wealth. Somalia, Djibouti & Somaliland. Somalis whether in Djibouti, Somalia or Somaliland are all predominantly Sunni Muslim. Different groups within Somali society undertake oral agreements with each other to define "xeer" law. Despite this informal nature, there is a series of generally accepted principles, agreements, and ideas that constitute "xeer", referred to collectively as ""xissi adkaaday"". Diya is one of these principles and is referred to in Somali as "mag". It is generally paid by the collective group (clan, sub-clan, lineage, or "mag" group) from which an offender originates as compensation for the crimes of  murder, bodily assault, theft, rape, and defamation of character, given to the victim or victim's family."Mag" payment most often takes the form of livestock usually camels which are found in the highest concentration in Somali inhabited territories and prized as a measure of wealth. As such victims will readily accept the animal as a form of compensation. Related concepts. Daaif notes that a concept similar to "diyah" was present in pre-Islamic Arabia, where it was paid in terms of goods or animals rather than cash. At least one western scholar of Islam (Joseph Schacht) translates "diya" as  weregeld (Weregeld is also known as "man price", and was a value placed on every being and piece of property to be paid—in the case of loss—as restitution to the victim's family or to the owner of the property. It was used, for example in the Frankish Salic Code).