THE AMOUNT OF DEEYAT  
        As far as the first question is concerned, consider the verse of the Quran which we have quoted above. In verse 92 of Surah Nisaa, the words deeyatun mussalamatun ilaa ahlihee have been used. Their most appropriate grammatical analysis in our consideration is to regard them as the inchoative (mubtadaa) of a supressed enunciative (khabar) ie, fa 'alaihi tahreeru raqabatim mu'minatinw wa deeyatum musallamah. The word Deeyat in these verses occurs as a common noun, about which we all know that its meaning is determined by the context in which it is used and by its linguistic and customary usage. For example, consider the Quranic verse: In nallaaha ya'murukum an tazbahoo baqarah (Verily, God ordains you to sacrifice a cow). The word baqarah is a common noun. Therefore, it is absolutely certain that the Jews were ordained to sacrifice an animal whose name in the linguistic and customary usage of the Arabs was baqarah. If they had sacrificed any cow they would have, no doubt, fulfilled this Divine Directive. On the other hand, let us have a look at the phrase: Aqeemus salaat. The word as-salat occurs in this verse as a proper noun. In technical terms it is mujmalun muftaqirun ilal bayaan ie, a compact statement which needs an explanation, and even after ascertaining its meaning from linguistic and customary usage, it is necessary to turn to the Law Giver for an explanation of the meaning it implies. However, had it been mentioned in the Quran as a common noun, the implied meaning would have been evident. We would have clearly understood that we are being directed to establish something which was traditionally denoted in pre-Islamic Arabic language by the word salaat. In other words, if someone obligates us about something and mentions the obligated thing as a common noun, it simply means, that he has directed us to obey the ma`roof ie, whatever the general custom and tradition is in this regard. Also, since a common noun denotes generality, every meaning associated with it shall be considered as implied, without any specification, lest something within the context poses a hindrance. Therefore, in the above verse `Deeyat' means something which in the general custom and usage is called `Deeyat'. And the words deeyatum musallamatun ilaa ahlihee simply mean that the family of the murdered person should be given what the general custom and tradition terms as `Deeyat'.  
        In verse 178 of Surah Baqarah, where the directive of Deeyat in case of intentional murder has been given, it has been qualified by the word ma`roof:  
        "Then for whom there has been some remission from his brother, [the remission] should be followed according to the ma`aroof and Deeyat should be paid with goodness."[2:178]  
        It is evident from the above mentioned verses of Surah Nisaa and Surah Baqarah that in case of intentional as well as un-intentional murder, Deeyat should be paid according to the custom and tradition of the society. In his own period the Prophet (sws) obeyed this Quranic injunction by following the prevailing ma`roof of the Arab Society. Whatever has been stated in the Ahaadith is just an explanation of this ma`aroof during that period. It should be clear that no directive of the Prophet (sws) has been mentioned in the Ahaadith which obligates us to follow it.  

THE ARAB CUSTOM ABOUT DEEYAT  
        An important question that needs considerable explanation concerns the actual Arab custom about Deeyat. If we study the pre-Islamic Arabic poetry and the recorded account of battles between various Arab tribes, we come to know that the Deeyat of every person whose blood relation with his tribe was sareeh (definite), was fixed at ten camels. The Deeyat of an ally or a maid was half of the sareeh and the Deeyat of a woman was also half that of a man. The author of "Aaghaani" while describing the events of a battle between the tribes of Aus and Khazraj writes:  
        "And in their custom, the Deeyat of a maulaa ie, an ally was five camels and that of a sareeh or a person whose blood relation with some tribe is definite was fixed at ten camels." (Vol 3, Pg 40)  
        According to Jawaad Ali the author of "Al Mufassal Fee Taareekh il Arab Qablal Islam":  
        "If the slain person was a maid's son, his Deeyat was half that of a sareeh and the Deeyat of a woman was half that of a man." (Vol5, Pg 592)  
        Some tribes because of their high social status accepted twice the actual amount of Deeyat, while some paid twice the actual amount as a favour and blessing upon the other tribe. We quote again from "Al-Mufassal":  
        "It is said that Ghataarif or the people of the tribe Haris Bin Abdullah Bin Bakar Bin Yashkur used to accept two Deeyats for their slain, and if it became obligatory for them to pay Deeyat, they used to pay a single Deeyat. Likewise, for Bani Amir Bin Bakar Bin Yashkur, whose ancestor Amir was, in fact, called Ghatrif, two Deeyats were fixed, while for the rest of the nation it was single. Similarly, according to most traditions, the tribe of Bani Aswad Bin Razan in pre-Islamic times used to pay two Deeyats to others." (Vol 5, Pg 593)  
        Jawaad Ali goes on to write:  
        "This regularity in paying two Deeyats was not because of some weakness but as a favour to the family of the slain." ("Al-Mufassal", Vol 5, Pg 593)  
        The Deeyat of kings called the Deeyat-ul-Mulook was fixed at a thousand camels. Karaad Bin Hansh Assaaridi while eulogizing Bani Fazaarah says:  

        A few years before the birth of the Prophet (sws), this custom underwent a drastic change. It is said that Abdul-Muttalib, the grandfather of the Prophet (sws) vowed that if God would bless him with ten sons, he would slaughter one of them as a sacrifice. And when God fulfilled his wish, he set out to fulfil his own pledge. A lot was cast to select which among the ten sons should be sacrificed. It fell upon Abdullah: so, when Abdul Muttalib was on his way to sacrifice him, some people stopped him and suggested to sacrifice a camel instead. We have indicated before that during that time the quantity of Deeyat was fixed at ten camels. Hence, once again, a lot was cast, this time in the name of Abdullah and ten camels. It fell upon Abdullah and the process was repeated until the number of camels reached one hundred. According to the traditions, after this event the quantity of Deeyat among the Arabs, particularly the Quraish was re-fixed at a hundred camels. In the words of Ibni Abbas:  

        "During that period, Deeyat was ten camels. It was Abdul Muttalib who first of all fixed it at one hundred camels. As a result, this quantity was adopted by the Quraish and the Arabs." ("At-Tabaqaat ul Kubraa", Ibni Saad, Vol 1, Pg: 89)  

        Zuhair has mentioned the same amount of Deeyat in his "Mu'allaqah". While eulogizing two Arab Chiefs, Haram Bin Sanan and Haris Bin Auf, because the two had paid three thousand camels as Deeyat to stop a war between 'Abas and Fazaarah, he says:  

        It is evident from this couplet that after this war the Deeyat of the slain was paid in instalments. According to "Aghaani":  
        "Hence it was three thousand camels which were given in three years." (Vol 10, Pg 297)  
        In this "Mu'allaqah" Zuhair has pointed out that `Efaal' or young camels were given as Deeyat.  

THE PAYMENT OF DEEYAT IN PRESENT TIMES  
        After this explanation about the law of Deeyat, it becomes evident that Islam has not prescribed any specific amount for Deeyat nor has it obligated us to discriminate in this matter between a man or a woman, a slave or a free man and a Muslim or a non-Muslim. The law of Deeyat was in force in Arabia before the advent of Islam. The Quran has directed us to pay Deeyat just according to this law both in case of intentional as well as un-intentional murder. By this Quranic directive, Deeyat, now, has become an eternal law of the Shariah for all times and for every society; however its quantity, nature and other related affairs have been left by the Quran upon the customs and traditions of a society. The Prophet (sws) and his Rightly Guided Caliphs decided all the cases of Deeyat according to the customs and traditions of the Arab society during their own times. The quantities of Deeyat which have been mentioned in our books of Hadith and Fiqh are in accordance with this custom and tradition, which itself has its roots in the social conditions and cultural traditions of the Arabs. However, since then, the wheel of fortune has revolved through fourteen more centuries and the tide of time has sped past innumerable crests and falls. Social conditions and cultural traditions have undergone a drastic change. In present times, it is not possible to pay Deeyat in the form of camels nor is it a very wise step to fix the amount of Deeyat on this basis. The nature of Aaqila has completely changed and various forms of un-intentional murder have come into existence which could never have been imagined before. We know that the guidance provided by the Quran is for all times and for every society. Hence, in this regard it has directed us to follow the ma`roof which may change with time. By this Quranic directive every society is to obey its customs, and since in our own society no law about Deeyat previously exists, those at the helm of our state can either continue with the above mentioned Arab custom or re-legislate in this regard; whatever they do, if the society accepts the legislation, it will assume the status of our ma`roof. It is obvious that those in authority in any society can revise and re-structure the laws which are based on the ma`roof, keeping in view the collective good of the masses. We quote from "Nashr-ul-Urf", the work of a celebrated Hanifite scholar, Ibni Aabideen:  
        "It should be noted that juristic issues either stand proven by a categorical injunction which is the first type, or stand proven by Ijtihaad and Opinion [which is the second type]. Most issues of the second category are based by the Mujtahids upon the customs and traditions of a particular period in such a way that if they would have been present age which has a certain custom and tradition, they would have given a different opinion. Hence, about the conditions of Ijtihaad, they also state the condition that it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the habits and common practices of the people because with the change in times a lot of the directives change. This may be due to a number of reasons. For example, a change in the general custom, requirement of a situation or a fear of disorder in the general condition of the people that if a directive is continued in its original state it might create difficulties for them or inflict a loss upon them; this would be against the principles of the Shariah which are based upon facility, comfort, and prevention of damage and disorder." ("Rasaail-i-Ibni Aabideen", Pg 125)  
        Consider now the second question ie, what is the nature of Deeyat? In this matter, there are generally two views. One group of our scholars regards it as the monetary value of human life, while another group considers it to be the monetary compensation of the financial loss inflicted by the murderer upon the family of the murdered person.  
        In our consideration, both these views are incorrect. The first one is merely based upon a misconception. In the pre-Islamic Arab society, cases of murder were usually settled by Thaar (Revenge), Qisaas and Deeyat respectively. As is evident from the order, Thaar was the foremost objective of the Arabs. They used to believe that the soul of the deceased is transformed into a bird which flies away, and unless revenge is taken, wanders about in the wilderness crying out Isqooni! Isqooni! (quench my thirst! quench my thirst!). Some of them believed that only that slain person remains alive in his grave whose death had been avenged, and if his murder is not avenged, his soul dies and darkness descends upon his grave. Due to these beliefs, they always preferred Thaar and accepted Qisaas only when they could not help it, not to speak of Deeyat. Ummi Shamla says: