Diyat means a fine a murderer has to pay the family of the murdered person in case he or she is granted pardon. It is believed that if a lady is murdered the fine that would be given to her relatives would be half the amount of what would have been given in case a man had been murdered.

Consider now the verse of the Qur’an which mention this issue:  

فَمَنْ عُفِيَ لَهُ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَيْءٌ فَاتِّبَاعٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَأَدَاءٌ إِلَيْهِ بِإِحْسَانٍ (178:2)

Then for whom there has been some pardon from his brother, [the remission] should be followed according to the Ma‘ruf and Diyat should be paid with goodness. (2:178)

 It is evident from this verse that the Diyat should be paid according to the Ma‘ruf of a society. Ma‘ruf means the customs and conventions of a society.

In the times of the Prophet (sws), the Ma‘ruf of the Arab society was that the Diyat of a woman was half that of a man. So while following the directive of the Qur’an regarding Diyat the Prophet (sws) enforced the Ma‘ruf of his society.

The Ma‘ruf of different societies may be different and therefore the Ma‘ruf of each society should be followed. In other words, Islam has not 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. It wants us to follow the Ma‘ruf of our society. Scholars have erroneously enforced the Ma‘ruf of the Arab society of the times of the Prophet (sws). 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.

As per this Qur’anic directive, every society is to obey its custom, and since in our own society no law about Diyat exists, those at the helm of affairs of our state can re-legislate in this regard. Ibn ‘Abidin, a celebrated Hanifite scholar, writes:  

اعلم أن لمسائل الفقهية أما إن تكون ثابتة بصريح النص وهى الفصل الأول واما إن تكون ثابتة بضرب اجتهاد ورأي وكثير منها ما يبنيه المجتهد على  ماكان  في  عرف  زمانه  بحيث  لوكان في زمان العرف الحادث لقال بخلاف ما قاله أولا ولهذا قالوا في شروط الاجتهاد انه لابد  فيه  من  معرفة  عادات  الناس  فكثير  من  الأحكام تختلف باختلاف الزمان لتغير عرف  أهله  أو  لحدوث  ضرورة  أو فساد أهل الزمان بحيث لوبقى الحكم على ماكان عليه أولا للزم منه المشقة والضرر بالناس ولخالف قواعد الشريعة المبنية على التخفيف والتيسير ودفع الضرر والفساد

It should be noted that juristic issues either stand proven by a categorical injunction which is the first type, or stand proven by Ijtihad 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 in this age which has a certain custom and tradition, they would have given a different opinion. Hence, about the conditions of Ijtihad, 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 Shari‘ah which are based upon facility, comfort, and prevention of damage and disorder.[7]

Back                                    Next

[7]. Ibn ‘Abidin, Rasa’il Ibn ‘Abidin, 1^st ed., (Damascus: al-Maktbah al-Hashimiyyah, 1325 AH), p. 125