Assignment Topic :

This law doesn’t distinguish between the Diyat of a man and a woman but Islamic law does so ,
similarly it doesn’t distinguish between the Diyat of a Muslim and a non-Muslim thus violates another
principle of Islamic law ( I know the court will not digest this idea )

Subject : Pakistan Penal Code -ll

Submit to : Ma’am Sadia

Submitted by :

Aqsa Khan (5836-FSL/LLB/F19)

Ayesha Sadaqat (5890-FSL/LLB/F19)

Section : ( B )

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD

In ppc:
According to section;

323. Value of diyat:

(1) The Court shall, subject to the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah
and keeping in view the financial position of the convict and the heirs of the victim, fix the value of diyat
which shall not be less than the value of thirty thousand six hundred and thirty grams of silver.

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the Federal Government shall, by notification in the official
Gazette, declare the value of Silver, on the first day of July each year or on such date as it may deem fit,
which shall be the value payable during a financial year.

In Islamic law:
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 Quran which mentions this issue:

)178:2( ‫ان‬
ٍ ‫س‬َ ْ‫وف َوأَدَا ٌء إِلَ ْي ِه بِ ِإح‬ َ ‫ي لَهُ ِم ْن أَخِ ي ِه‬
ِ ‫ش ْي ٌء فَاتِِّبَاعٌ بِا ْل َم ْع ُر‬ َ ‫فَ َم ْن عُ ِف‬

Then for whom there has been some pardon from his brother, [the remission] should be followed
according to the maruf 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‘rūf of a society. Ma‘rūf
means the customs and conventions of a society.

In the times of the Prophet (sws), the ma‘rūf of the Arab society was that the diyat of a woman was half
that of a man. So while following the directive of the Quran regarding diyat, the Prophet (sws) enforced
the ma‘rūf of his society.

The ma‘rūf of different societies may be different and therefore the ma‘rūf of each society should be
followed. In other words, Islam has not obligated Muslims 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 them to follow the ma‘rūf of
our society. Scholars have erroneously enforced the ma‘rūf 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 Quranic 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 regards‬‬

‫‪In some Arabic text‬‬

‫هذا هوما اتفق عليه الفقهاء‪ ،‬ولكن ما هي تلك الجوانب النفسية واالجتماعية؟ هي ما لم يتفق عليه الفقهاء‪ ،‬فبقيت المسألة دائرة بين المانع‬
‫والمجيز والمتشدد والمعتدل‪ ،‬ومن هذه المسائل مسألة دية المرأة‪.‬‬
‫فالمذاهب الفقهية األربعة الحنفية والمالكية والشافعية والحنبلية ذهبت إلى أن دية المرأة نصف دية الرجل‪ ،‬وال فرق في ذلك بين أن‬
‫تكون الجناية على نفسها كاملة بإزهاق الروح‪ ،‬أو على أحد أطرافها‪.‬‬
‫ونالحظ أن تلك الفتوى لم تستند إلى آية قرآنية واحدة‪ ،‬وإنما استندت إلى بعض األحاديث التي لم يتجاوز عددها حديثين أو ثالثة أحاديث‬
‫وهي لم ترد في الصحيحين‪ ،‬وهذه األحاديث هي قول الرسول صلى هللا عليه وسلم «دية المرأة على النصف من دية الرجل» (رواه‬
‫البيهقي)‪.‬‬
‫وقول الرسول صلى هللا عليه وسلم «عقل المرأة مثل عقل الرجل حتى يبلغ الثلث من ديته» (رواه النسائي والدارقطني وابن خزيمة)‪.‬‬
‫وورد أيضا ً عن عمر بن الخطاب رضي هللا تعالى عنه أنه أصدر مرسوما ً قوم الدية وعادلها‪ ،‬فجعل المائة من اإلبل تساوي ألف دينار‬
‫أو اثني عشر ألف درهم‪ ،‬وجعل دية المرأة المسلمة الحرة إذا كانت من أهل القرى خمسمئة دينار أو ستة آالف درهم أي نصف دية‬
‫الرجل‪.‬‬
‫وقد فهم من عمل عمر هذا بأنه سمع ذلك عن الرسول صلى هللا عليه وسلم وإال كيف يعمل بعقله واجتهاده في مثل هذا األمر؟ ومثل ما‬
‫ورد عن عمر ورد أيضا ً عن علي وابن مسعود وزيد بن ثابت رضي هللا تعالى عنهم‪.‬‬
‫وقد ناقش اإلمام الشافعي ما إذا كان المقصود من السنة هي سنة زيد بن ثابت الذي قال بهذا الرأي‪ ،‬أم سنة الرسول صلى هللا عليه وسلم‪،‬‬
‫فقال الشافعي بأن السنة إذا أطلقت يراد بها سنة الرسول صلى هللا عليه وسلم‪.‬‬
‫أقول‪ :‬وقد رأينا كيف فهموا من هذا األثر وغيره بأن دية المرأة في األطراف نصف دية الرجل‪ ،‬أو أنها تستوي مع الرجل إلى الثلث‪،‬‬
‫وبعد ذلك تنزل إلى النصف‪.‬‬
‫وقد أفتى الحنفية والشافعية بأنها النصف من دية أطراف الرجل مطلقاً‪.‬‬
‫أما المالكية والحنابلة فإنهم قيدوها فقالوا إنها تتساوى مع الرجل حتى الثلث‪ ،‬وترجع إلى النصف من بعد الثلث‪.‬‬
‫إذن كان ذلك إجماعا ً من بعض الصحابة‪ ،‬وبناء عليه أخذ به أصحاب المذاهب الفقهية األربعة‪ ،‬إال أن اآلخرين رأوا بأن عدم المساواة‬
‫يعني عدم اإلنصاف‪ ،‬والقرآن الكريم لم يذكر نصا ً قطعيا ً يدل على أن دية المرأة نصف الرجل‪ ،‬أما الحديثان الواردان فيقول عالم مجتهد‬
‫مثل أبي زهرة إنهما من أحاديث اآلحاد على افتراض حجة ورودهما‪ ،‬وأحاديث اآلحاد ال تنسخ الحكم القطعي الوارد في القرآن الكريم‪.‬‬
‫إذن وجب أن تكون دية المرأة مثل دية الرجل صونا ً لكرامتها اإلنسانية‪ ،‬ولقوله عليه الصالة والسالم «وفي النفس المؤمنة مئة من‬
‫اإلبل» (رواه النسائي) أي دية كاملة‪ ،‬وقد ذكر الرازي في تفسيره بأن أكثر الفقهاء ذهبوا إلى أن دية المرأة نصف دية الرجل إال أن‬
‫األصم وابن علية ذهبا إلى أن ديتها مثل دية الرجل لقوله تعالى «ومن قتل مؤمنا ً خطئا ً فتحرير رقبة مؤمنة ودية مسلمة إلى أهله» فهذه‬
‫اآلية ساوت بين الرجل والمرأة‪ ،‬وهي نص قطعي‪.‬‬
‫دية جراح المرأة‪ :‬للفقهاء رأيان في تقدير ديات جراح المرأة‪:‬‬

‫‪ – 1‬قال الحنفية والشافعية (‪ :)3‬الجناية على ما دون النفس في المرأة تقدر بحسب ديتها‪ ،‬وبما أن دية المرأة نصف دية الرجل‪ ،‬فتكون‬
‫جراحها وشجاجها نصف جراح الرجل وشجاجه‪ ،‬إلحاقا ً ل ُجرحها بنفسها‪.‬‬
‫ فإن بلغت الثلث أو زادت عليها رجعت‬،‫ دية جراح المرأة كدية جراح الرجل فيما دون ثلث الدية الكاملة‬:) 4( ‫ – وقال المالكية والحنابلة‬2
‫ فإن قطع‬،‫ وإن قطعت ثالث أصابع ففيها ثالثون من اإلبل‬،‫ وعلى هذا إن قطعت أصبع المرأة ففيها عشر من اإلبل‬.‫إلى نصف دية الرجل‬
.‫أربعة أصابع ففيها عشرون من اإلبل‬
In western area , there is a criticism about that, equality of man and woman is not present in Islamic
law like woman gets half of the Diyat as compared to man ,why?

According to famous scholar named “Maulana Muhammad Hanif Jalandhari” the secretory general of
Wafaq ul Madaaris Pakistan, and Rector of Jamia Khair ul Madaaris , he says;

If we see deeply then there is a hikman ,a goodness for females actually like for example Male Husband
died His Diyat which is 100 Ibl (Camels) paid to the his legal heirs that it will be paid to his wife , so in this
way woman gets more benefit than man because on the death of his wife he will get 50 Ibl (camels) .

So here male can argue that they are less benefited than woman

So Islam has answer of this question also , because man is being given the responsibility of maintenance
of his family by Allah , he can go outside to work , which is not on the shoulders of woman , so 50
camels to man as he can earn and fulfil the maintenance by himself , but as Allah says for females ;

"‫وقرن في بيوتكن‬
Live in your houses

As woman is not responsible for maintenance or to work outside , so to get rid of sufferings of
maintenance , 100 camels are for females .

Islam don’t boud woman , but protect her in the house , she can go outside , work there within the
Islamic limits , but again she is not responsible for that .

Conclusion:
As PPC Totally against Islamic law in this case , it doesn’t regard the Islamic law in a matter of
Diyat , as in PPC it is 30630 g of silver’s amount , and in Islamic law it is 100 camels for male and
50 for female ( half of the Diyat of man’s Diyat) , however it (PPC) says that it is subject to the
injunctions of Islam , so it doesn’t distinguish between man and woman Diyat which Islamic law
did .

Diyat of a Muslim and a Non-Muslim:

Unlike many of the Hudud offenses, laws regarding bodily injury were made applicable to all citizens of
the State, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Victim or the victim’s family must decide whether the Qisas
penalty is to be carried out or they would seek Diyat, which is not just limited to homicide but for any
injury, caused by another person intentional or unintentional, resulting in bodily harm.
The formula of diyat set up traditionally by Islam is as follows: For a free Muslim male, the value is 100
camels. This was valued at 1000 to 12000 dirhams corresponding to 4.25 kilograms of Gold, and 29.7 to
35.64 kilograms of silver. All four school of thoughts are agreed upon this the difference of opinion lies in
religion, sex, and legal status (free or slave) of victim. Muslim woman’s life diyat is half of as mentioned in
case of free man. According to Hanafi's the non-Muslim citizen is killed by Muslim, qisas could be
applicable followed by diyat (only if his heir wants to).

According to Muslim schools of thought:

The Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali code of sharia ruled that qisas does not apply against a Muslim but only
diyat. Hanafi and Hanbali states the blood money for Muslim or non-Muslim victims shall be same. Maliki
school considered payable diyat for Muslim and non-Muslim male’s value of life half of a Muslim, while
Shafi school considered it worth a third. In case of slave by a Muslim murderer the blood money is market
price paid for the slave, to the owner of slave. To add on, in Hanafi and Maliki sharia doctrines a diyat shall
not be payable to non-Muslim's from a murderer’s estate, if the murderer dies for natural or other causes
during trial. Life of polytheists and atheists as one-fifteenth the value of a Muslim during sentencing.

The following verse from Quran and a Hadith deal with Diyat:

Never should a believer kill a believer; but by mistake. If one (so) kills a Believer, it is ordained that he
should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased’s family, unless they remit it freely.
(Quran 4:92)

In Islam:

Harming a person who is not harming anyone else is a serious offense to Allah. Harming a peaceful non-
Muslim indirectly harms the safety and stability enjoyed by Muslims when it provokes retaliation.

Application in Pakistan:

The federal government in July 2021 announced the blood money from Rs. 2.7 Million to Rs. 4,261,205/-
for the fiscal year 2021-2022, equivalent to 30630 grams of silver. According to the law, in awarding
diyat, courts need to take into account the financial position of the convict and the victim’s heirs but the
amount fixed must not be less than the value that is declared by the federal government at the start of
each fiscal year.

When Accused is non-resident and dhimmi: Raymond Allen Davis Case

Raymond Davis was an American national. On January 27, 2011, he murdered two people in cold blood in
Lahore, Pakistan. On the same day, he had been arrested by police officials for the gunfires. The trial court
criminally accused Davis with double murder and the unlicensed possession of a revolver. On March 16,
2011, Davis was freed after the families of the two killed men were paid $2.4 million in Diyat. Judges then
acquitted him on all charges and Davis promptly left Pakistan.

While applying Diyat law on this explicit case (Raymond Davis case), the following questions arose in our
mind:

i. What if the offender is a non-Muslim citizen

ii. What if the victim is a non-Muslim citizen

iii. What if the murderer is non-resident (foreigner)

1. So, by addressing question no. 1, the Sharia is silent on this issue. In this regard, both modes can
be selected depending upon the terms of citizenship presumed with the non-Muslim minority.
My point of view is that as PPC is the state law, it would be followed. Also, the important point,
in this case, is that the victim is Muslim so that Sharia law would be applied.
2. Addressing the second question, the issue arises mostly, when the victim is a non-Muslim citizen
so, the point of law is non-Muslims citizens are not inevitably compelled to bear the penalties
directed by the Islamic Shari'ah. A Muslim state can implement Islamic punishments on the non-
Muslims citizens, and it can give them the backing to comprehend their personal law in a
particular matter.
3. By answering 3rd point, here, in this case, Raymond Davis, the sentenced person, was a non-
resident also. The common edict of international legislation declares that state law will prevail,
thus, as an alien in a foreign land, you are bound to perform in accordance with foreign law. So,
the accused would be trialed in light of State law where the misdemeanor is committed.

Pakistan as an Islamic state theoretically practices the rulings of Islam that’s why the diyat of a Muslim
and a Non-Muslim is the same and the amount is determined by the judge. Pakistan which is
predominantly Hanafi Sunni Muslim notion introduces 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. However, the hurt to anyone’s property now fell in
torts category. The Pakistan Penal Code modernized the Hanafi doctrine of qisas and diya by eliminating
distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims. Also, 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 conventional criminal justice system neither does act effectively in prevention of crimes nor as a
deterrent. The system ironically is offender-centric, and criminals take advantage of loopholes, such as
inordinate delays, uncertainties in procedural formalities and award of ineffective punishments to those
who eventually get convicted. Moreover, unethical and immoral practices in maneuvering and influencing
legal process and facilitating bail and parole of hard-core criminals are pervasive. The system is so much
concerned with issues related to trial and punishment to the offenders that it forgets the real victims and
their sufferings. Formal trial procedures are inexplicably long, often manipulated and influenced, making
the victim suffer physically, mentally and monetarily. Huge backlog of cases accumulates because of these
long procedures, corrupt practices and administrative inefficiency resulting in sharply ascending cost of
justice for all the stakeholders including the State. The situation is particularly menacing for the developing
countries, and for India probably it has reached the threshold of being called precarious.

State should be assisted by institution of ‘Mujtahid’. It should be effectively equipped with qualified
mujtahid-jurists, for institutional support to all concerned organs and other institutions of state. Rule-
making and development of regulatory mechanism is not limited to the functions of Parliament and
Judiciary, but many other statutory and non-statutory organizations and organs of state need support for
their legal frame, regular functionality, and regularization, where needed.

The origin of distinction between practice and theory: Conclusion

Idea of ‘Islamic state’ has origin in concept of khilafah (caliphate). This institution is generally identified
with first four caliphs. The Caliphate was idealized as ‘Islamic State’ with high human welfare and moral
objectives, including, enforcing human rights as rights of Allah. But political forces of history, geography
and cultures transformed it into monarchy. The term ‘khilafah’, however, was continued for several
centuries, wishing to preserve at least its idea for the ultimate model or the ideal. Similarly, terms
Imamate and Emirate were also applied, with the similar ideas, as semblance, and desire for system of
Islamic governance. Concepts of representative binding effect of shoora, and nomination by council or
selection or election of ruler, continuously remained under geo-political shock.

Fuqaha mainly worked in area of law that could be derived directly from the texts. Whether state was
‘secular’ or ‘Islamic’; the law that could, except for mainly hudood and qisas, be so derived, was practiced
largely as personal (Muslim) law. Later, this practice was adopted by colonialists from Mughals and
Ottomans. Application of Usul al-fiqh was not internalized, interiorized; and integrated with legislative,
judicial and executive machinery. Governments did not persuade or promote ‘ulema in its hierarchy and
isolated itself from their juristic and scholastic expositions; widening the gap between theory and practice.
The state made laws, through proclamation or legislation, under ‘state policy’ (siyasah), which were not
based on strictly qualified ‘ijtihad’. In this situation, case law continued to create space for itself, at a
distance. In some cases, rulers patronized some Ulema from their personal perspective or in specific
interest of their rule.

In Ottoman practice, ‘Qanoon’ and Shariah were distinguished. In case of discord, between the two, it was
declared that in firmans and decrees all matters were to be based on the firm support of Shari'a only.

References:
For Arabic text see: ‫كتاب السادس‬، ‫وهبة الزحيلي ؛ باب الجنايات فقه االسالمي و أدلته‬

For English text see https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/comparative-study-diyat-islamic-pakistani-law-

kainat-saif/