Murder Meaning

MURDER. Arabic qatl (قتل‎). Homicide of which Muḥammadan law takes cognisance is of five kinds: (1) Qatlu ʾl-ʿAmd; [421](2) Qatl shibhu ʾl-ʿAmd; (3) Qatlu ʾl-K͟hat̤āʾ; (4) Qatl qāʾim maqāma ʾl-K͟hat̤āʾ; (5) Qatl bi-Sabab.

(1) Qatlu ʾl-ʿAmd (قتل العمد‎), or “wilful murder,” is where the perpetrator wilfully kills a person with a weapon, or something that serves for a weapon, such as a club, a sharp stone, or fire. If a person commit wilful murder, two points are established: first, that the murderer is a sinner deserving of hell, for it is written in the Qurʾān (Sūrah iv. 95), “Whosoever slayeth a believer purposely, his reward is hell”; and, secondly, that he is liable to retaliation, because it is written in the Qurʾān (Sūrah ii. 173), “It is incumbent on you to execute retaliation (Qiṣāṣ) for murder.” But although retaliation is the punishment for wilful murder, still the heir or next of kin can either forgive or compound the offence; as the verse already quoted continues—“Yet he who is pardoned at all by his brother must be prosecuted in reason, and made to pay with kindness.” In this respect Muḥammad departed from the Old Testament law, which made the retaliation compulsory on the next of kin.

One effect of wilful murder is that the murderer is excluded from being heir to the murdered person.

According to Abū Ḥanīfah, there is no expiation for wilful murder, but ash-Shāfiʿī maintains that expiation is incumbent as an act of piety.

(2) Qatl shibhu ʾl-ʿAmd (قتل شبه العمد‎), or “manslaughter,” or, as Hamilton more correctly renders it, “A semblance of wilful murder, is when the perpetrator strike a man with something which is neither a weapon nor serves as such.”

The argument adduced by Abū Ḥanīfah is a saying of the Prophet: “Killing with a rod or stick is not murder, but only manslaughter, and the fine for it is a hundred camels, payable within three years.”

Manslaughter is held to be sinful and to require expiation, and it excludes the manslayer from inheriting the property of the slain.

(3) Qatlu ʾl-K͟hat̤āʾ (قتل الخطاء‎), or “homicide by misadventure,” is of two kinds: error in intention, and error in the act. Error in the act is where a person intends a particular act, and another act is thereby occasioned; as where, for instance, a person shoots an arrow at a mark and it hits a man. Error in intention, on the other hand, is where the mistake occurs not in the act, but with respect to the subject; as where a person shoots an arrow at a man supposing him to be game; or at a Muslim, supposing him to be a hostile infidel. The slayer by misadventure is required to free a Muslim slave, or fast two months successively, and to pay a fine within three years. He is also excluded from inheriting the property of the slain.

(4) Qatl qāʾim maqāma ʾl-K͟hat̤āʾ (قتل قائم مقام الخطاء‎), or “homicide of a similar nature to homicide by misadventure,” is where, for example, a person walking in his sleep falls upon another, so as to kill him by the fall. It is subject to the same rules with homicide by misadventure.

(5) Qatl bi-Sabab (قتل بسبب‎), or, “homicide by intermediate cause,” is where, for instance, a man digs a well, or sets up a stone, and another falls into the well, or over the stone, and dies. In this case a fine must be paid, but it does not exclude from inheritance, nor does it require expiation.

No special mention is made in either the Qurʾān or in Muḥammadan law books, of taking the life by poison. (The same remark applies to the Mosaic law. See Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Article “Murder.”)

With regard to retaliation, a freeman is slain for a freeman, and a slave for a slave; a freeman is also slain for the wilful murder of a slave the property of another.

According to Abū Ḥanīfah, a Muslim is put to death for killing an unbeliever, but ash-Shāfiʿī maintains otherwise, because the Prophet said, “A Muslim shall not suffer death for an unbeliever.”

A man is slain for a woman; a father is not slain for his child, but a child is slain for the murder of his father; a master is not slain for the murder of his own slave, or for the slave of his child.

If a person immerse another into water whence it is impossible for him to escape by swimming, according to Abū Ḥanīfah, retaliation is not incurred, but ash-Shāfiʿī maintains that the murderer should be drowned.

Al-Baiẓāwī the commentator, in writing on Sūrah ii. 174, “This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy,” says that in the Jewish law retaliation for murder was compulsory, but in the law of Christ the Christians were enjoined to forgive the murderer, whilst in the Qurʾān the choice is given of either retaliation or forgiveness.