The default ruling regarding the crimes committed by a person of legal capacity
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question: From 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Baz, to the honorable brother, the virtuous Shaykh / A. N. G., may Allah guide him to all that is good, amen.
Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. After that:
O Beloved: Your noble letter, number: 920/2/1, dated 7/11/1389 AH, reached us, may Allah guide you. It contained information about the prevalence of murder cases among you, and that some of them are claimed by the awliya (guardians) of the victim to be intentional, and they demand retaliation (qisas). The accused denies that the killing was intentional and admits to the victim's death being caused by him through mistake, but there is no evidence to negate or prove that.
And that some of the heirs pardon the retaliation and demand the blood money (diyah), and by that, the retaliation is dropped from him if intentional killing is proven against him, and the remaining heirs demand the blood money for intentional killing, or they swear an oath regarding the non-occurrence of intentionality. You expressed your desire for information on whether they have the right to do so, which is known.
And the answer: It is not hidden from one like you that the default ruling regarding the crimes committed by a person of legal capacity is that he did it intentionally, and if he claims otherwise, it is upon him to provide evidence that indicates the truth of his claim. If this door were opened for every criminal who claims mistake, much evil and great corruption would result from it.
And by this, it becomes clear to your virtue that the statement in such a matter is the statement of the heirs, unless the criminal establishes evidence indicating the truth of his claim, or there are circumstances that testify to that for him.
As for if some of the heirs pardon, then the retaliation is dropped by that, as your virtue mentioned, and as the scholars have explicitly stated, and the heirs are entitled to the blood money for intentional killing, unless it is proven that the killing was a mistake, or there are circumstances indicating that, or the legally competent heirs are satisfied with the killer's oath: that it was a mistake, not intentional.
The correct view is: that the killer in such a case swears an oath; because it is a right of a human being; so it is obligatory for the accused to swear an oath upon it if the claimant requests it; due to the generality of the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father):Sunan Ibn Majah 2321Sahih (Darussalam). This is what has become apparent to me in this issue.
Due to the multitude of engagements, and the difficulty in the issue, the answer was delayed. I have consulted some important references, but I did not find anything that removes the difficulty. If you find something, I hope you will inform me of it.
And I ask Allah, the Exalted, to guide us all to understanding in His religion and steadfastness upon it; indeed, He is Generous and Noble.
And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. After that:
O Beloved: Your noble letter, number: 920/2/1, dated 7/11/1389 AH, reached us, may Allah guide you. It contained information about the prevalence of murder cases among you, and that some of them are claimed by the awliya (guardians) of the victim to be intentional, and they demand retaliation (qisas). The accused denies that the killing was intentional and admits to the victim's death being caused by him through mistake, but there is no evidence to negate or prove that.
And that some of the heirs pardon the retaliation and demand the blood money (diyah), and by that, the retaliation is dropped from him if intentional killing is proven against him, and the remaining heirs demand the blood money for intentional killing, or they swear an oath regarding the non-occurrence of intentionality. You expressed your desire for information on whether they have the right to do so, which is known.
And the answer: It is not hidden from one like you that the default ruling regarding the crimes committed by a person of legal capacity is that he did it intentionally, and if he claims otherwise, it is upon him to provide evidence that indicates the truth of his claim. If this door were opened for every criminal who claims mistake, much evil and great corruption would result from it.
And by this, it becomes clear to your virtue that the statement in such a matter is the statement of the heirs, unless the criminal establishes evidence indicating the truth of his claim, or there are circumstances that testify to that for him.
As for if some of the heirs pardon, then the retaliation is dropped by that, as your virtue mentioned, and as the scholars have explicitly stated, and the heirs are entitled to the blood money for intentional killing, unless it is proven that the killing was a mistake, or there are circumstances indicating that, or the legally competent heirs are satisfied with the killer's oath: that it was a mistake, not intentional.
The correct view is: that the killer in such a case swears an oath; because it is a right of a human being; so it is obligatory for the accused to swear an oath upon it if the claimant requests it; due to the generality of the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father):
If the people were given what they claimed
لو يعطى الناس بدعواهم....Due to the multitude of engagements, and the difficulty in the issue, the answer was delayed. I have consulted some important references, but I did not find anything that removes the difficulty. If you find something, I hope you will inform me of it.
And I ask Allah, the Exalted, to guide us all to understanding in His religion and steadfastness upon it; indeed, He is Generous and Noble.
And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
Source
binbaz.org.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.