A truck driver collided with a car and killed four people; what is his obligation regarding blood money and expiation?

The questioner : You have a question about accidental killing. One of our brothers was a truck driver. He was driving his truck, and there was another large truck in front of him. When the driver of the truck in front braked, he had no choice but to steer to the left. When he steered to the left, a car was coming at high speed, meaning at a terrifying speed, so the accident occurred. There were five people in the car; four died and the fifth survived. What should this truck driver do? The expiation and the blood money.

The Shaykh : Both.

The questioner : Is the expiation one expiation, or did our mufti issue a ruling that he should fast two consecutive months for each person, making the total eight months? Is this correct?

The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.

The questioner : And regarding the blood money, O our Shaykh, how is it assessed?

The Shaykh : Likewise, how is it assessed?

The questioner : How is it assessed now, this problem?

The Shaykh : No, it is not a case now. The important thing is how the Shari'ah assesses the blood money. It is known that the blood money in the Shari'ah is one thousand heads of sheep and one hundred heads of camels, so it is assessed by the Shari'ah. But now, the laws do not follow this.

The questioner : I mean, if he wants to apply this ruling, does he go to the market and ask about the price of sheep?

The Shaykh : No, no. Now we are entering another topic: whether it is the value or the heads of sheep. This is another issue, similar to the issue of zakat al-fitr. If a man lives among the Bedouin, for example, the owners of camels and sheep, then he must pay what the text specifies: one thousand heads of sheep and one hundred heads of camels. But if it is as is the case in the capitals, the countries today, where they do not engage in raising livestock, then in that case we return to the value.

The questioner : And the value is assessed as you mentioned.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : There is also a point: the blood money is supposed to be on the 'aqilah. Who are the 'aqilah?

The Shaykh : By Allah, this is a discussion I read long ago and it has completely evaporated from my mind. Perhaps some of our brothers can recall something of it. Do you have anything written down in your notes?

Another questioner : I seek forgiveness from Allah the Great. There are three opinions of the scholars on this. The weakest of them says that they are those who inherit from him. The second opinion says that they are his relatives and kin. The third opinion, which Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) preferred, is that they are his tribe.

The Shaykh : I mean, this opinion is broader.

Another questioner : Yes, exactly. He says his tribe, such that... and I think Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) is also like that, and it is practiced in the lands of Saudi Arabia. For one who has a tribe, a person is sometimes attached to only one or two dinars.

The Shaykh : Okay, did they mention a legal proof for that, or are they merely ijtihadi opinions?

The questioner : No. They are ijtihadi opinions and linguistic aspects.

The Shaykh : Okay, is there a disagreement in the language such that there were three opinions?

The questioner : No. Some inclined to the language, which is the tribe, and some said it is the one who supports the man, meaning who directs him, who is behind him, who supports him, and they are the tribe.

The Shaykh : Okay, your question is finished.

The questioner : May I tell you an observation, O our Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : The reality, especially in our country, is that the 'aqilah in the known old sense no longer exists. For example, this brother of ours, of course, they went to the court, and his brother paid a certain financial amount only in front of the people. Then, after they returned home, he asked him for it, meaning as a loan. So the family bonds are no longer as they were before.

The Shaykh : All countries are like this now. The Muslims are fragmented.

The questioner : So if the 'aqilah pays from their own funds, they cannot afford to pay the blood money.

The Shaykh : They cannot, especially in this situation you asked about.

The questioner : So what does he do in this case?

The Shaykh : The answer is easy here. Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity. Is it said to him, "Create what you can"?

Another questioner : If he has it, is he obligated to do so?

The Shaykh : Is he obligated to pay? Yes, if he is able.

Another questioner : It is not upon him.

The Shaykh : He is obligated, because it is obligatory for him or his tribe to do so, because it is not permissible for us to wrong the heirs, because the 'aqilah does not fulfill its duty. And the one who caused the accident is able to fulfill it. Come on, in the name of Allah. If he is able, can you...

The questioner : He... the least thing is forty thousand dinars.

The Shaykh : Yes, my dear, we are butting heads with the clouds. And why do we not say that he must compensate these heirs for what the 'aqilah was unable to pay, and he is able? I mean, the Wise Lawgiver, when He imposed the blood money on the 'aqilah, for what purpose? To lighten the burden on the one who caused the accident. Now the case is completely reversed. The one who caused the accident does not need to be lightened, but the others do not fulfill this duty. So the ruling returns to the one who caused the accident, as long as he is able. I mean, we do not make the heirs wronged because one party of the 'aqilah did not fulfill the duty, and the one who caused the accident is able to fulfill the duty. This is it.

The questioner : Shaykh, someone asked.The Shaykh : Adnan al-'Ara'our asked that this person prostrates one prostration. I said if it is at the end of the prayer, he comes with one prostration, and if it is in the middle, he comes with a rak'ah. What is the evidence for distinguishing between these two things?

The Shaykh : My brother, not every issue has evidence for it. It is fiqh.

Another questioner : Okay, Shaykh, what does it mean? What happened? Why did it happen? How can we say that here in this issue, do this, and here do this, when there is no evidence? Is there a principle?

The Shaykh : My brother, this is not said. Is it said to an imam of the imams of the Muslims, "Why did you understand it this way?"

Another questioner : A little bit, so I know the evidence, because this is worship.

The Shaykh : You are deviating from the topic.

Another questioner : Listen to the answer as I asked, and then I will inquire.

The Shaykh : There are subtle issues that the people of knowledge understand. Are you personally convinced that every fiqh issue that a scholar understands can be understood by every Muslim in the same way, even if it is explained to him?

Another questioner : Of course, no.

The Shaykh : So if you are hovering around what you are saying... no, you are hovering now around what you are saying that it is not possible. You want to understand the issue that occurs to the researcher or the scholar or the jurist: how did he understand this? You cannot understand how he understood it unless you are a participant with him in the research and understanding, and so on. But we do not have anything hidden. We will explain. We will say it must be one of two things. The one who forgot this prostration, let us say it is a pillar, and it is not in the last rak'ah but before that. Do you want to say there is no difference between the two things? Would it be a following attribute of the prayer if, for example, in the third rak'ah, he forgot the prostration? Would it be a following attribute of the prayer if he forgot the prostration in the third rak'ah and he prostrated in the fourth rak'ah?

The questioner : Of course, there is a difference.

The Shaykh : Okay, and therefore we distinguish between it being in the last rak'ah, in which case he comes with it and continues his prayer, and it being before that, in which case he returns to the rak'ah he forgot and comes with it completely with the prostration that was missed. The important thing is, I have previously heard from you a question like this, so I want... it is not the same, so I want you to be aware that not every issue can be understood by the general public. Our Lord says What does it mean? David was his father, and he was a prophet, and he did not understand it. So do not hope that all people... it is not you, but that all people become partners with the jurists and know the issues that are explicitly stated and the issues that are derived. This is not possible.

Another questioner : And even, by way of clarification, this matter... we cannot, for example, know the things until one's heart is at ease if he has heard.

The Shaykh : Not always, not always. If first, not always is he able.The questioner : And also, for your sake, I will tell you: not always is the person in charge able to explain it to you. We have in the book of hadith terminology, they asked Ibn Madini, "How do you distinguish the authentic hadith from the weak hadith?" What was his answer? "Have you seen the jeweler or the goldsmith? How does he distinguish between pure gold and defective gold?" This is it. How did the jeweler ask? This is how he distinguished by experience. This is it.

Another questioner : Subhan Allah, O our Shaykh, the jeweler sometimes cannot answer you. He would say, "This is a diamond" before he examines it. He would say, "This one, I know without using tools and equipment. I know this one." But how? I do not know. Intuition, like that.