Thursday, March 17, 2011

Blood Money

By the way, just in case you would like to see copies of the court documents from the 'Raymond Davis' case, attesting to the relatives of the deceased accepting diyat (blood money) and allowing the court to acquit the accused, here are some of them. I can't put all of them up (there are too many) but here's a representative sample of relatives' documents of one of the two men killed by 'Davis', Faizan Haider.

Here's the main prayer to the court setting out that the persons named have no objection to 'Raymond Davis' being acquitted by the court since they had accepted compensation and reached agreement to settle the matter.




Here's the individual affidavit of the mother of Faizan Haider, attesting that she has reached an agreement with her son's killer of her "free will, without any fear or pressure, without any enticement, and in her full senses." She further testifies that she has not been subjected to any injustice and has received a sum of Rs. 33,333,333/- from the accused and has no objection at present (nor will she in the future) to the accused being set free.




Here's a similar one from Faizan Haider's wife, acknowledging receipt of Rs. 25,000,000/-.




The rest are pretty much the same. The operative part in each is the share of the blood money received, divided according to shariah rules. The following is the detail of the diyat received by Faizan Haider's family:

Faizan Haider's Mother: Rs. 33,333,333/-
Faizan Haider's Wife: Rs.25,000,000/-
Faizan Haider's Brother No.1: Rs. 7,575,758/-
Faizan Haider's Brother No.2: Rs. 7,575,758/-
Faizan Haider's Brother No.3: Rs. 7,575,758/-
Faizan Haider's Sister No.1: Rs. 3,787,879/-
Faizan Haider's Sister No.2: Rs. 3,787,879/-
Faizan Haider's Sister No.3: Rs. 3,787,879/-
Faizan Haider's Sister No. 4: Rs. 3,787,879/-
Faizan Haider's Sister No. 5: Rs. 3,787,879/-
Total Diyat paid to Faizan Haider's relatives: Rs.100,000,002/- which translates into US$1,166,744/- at the current rate of exchange.

The relatives of the second man killed, Mohammad Faheem, received similar compensation.

Of course, there has long been an argument that the provision of paying diyat or blood money, while sanctified under Islamic law, leads to abuse of justice in an unequal society, since it more often than not allows the rich and influential to literally get away with murder. Nevertheless, this is very much a part of Pakistani law and in fact apparently used in a majority of murder cases according to lawyers. Those protesting against 'Davis' buying his way to freedom might want to question the Qissas and Diyat Laws in a more structural manner.

Please do note that I am not making any judgement about whether these affidavits were actually obtained without any pressure on the relatives. That is something for the court to decide and seemingly it seems to have decided to accept their authenticity. The case of the third man killed (by being run over) during that incident, Ibadur Rehman, has yet to be resolved.


Tailpiece: The editor of The News Islamabad, Mohammad Mallick claimed in a programme on Geo, that what this case has proved is that accused was tried by our courts and that local law takes precedence over the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Immunity. That is pure hogwash of course. It does nothing of the sort. For one, the trial never proceeded beyond indictment because of the 'out of court' settlement and so the accused was neither tried nor convicted. Secondly, the issue of diplomatic immunity never entered into the equation in this case since the Pakistan Foreign Office had stated (somewhat ambiguously) that in its opinion 'Raymond Davis' did not have documentation to support his plea for diplomatic immunity. So the issue of local laws taking precedence over the Vienna Conventions does not arise at all. For an editor of a major paper, Mr Mallick sure plays fast and loose with facts.



30 comments:

TLW said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TLW said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ayesha said...

What about the family of the third victim, who was run over by the embassy car?

Anonymous said...

Didnt we want the implementation of the golden principles of Sharia in Pakistan?

The ghairat brigade should be tried for blasphemy for opposing settlement of Raymond Davis Case under Diyat Act.

Umair J said...

Mr. Mallick is known to play many fast and loose games.

Sajai said...

I accept your point of view that 'blood money' is written in Islamic Law and by design is part of the law of Pakistan.

I won't question how this law privileges the rich over the poor.

And having known about this law, I also won't imagine how if one of the victims in the shoot-out was a minority Christian or Ahmadi, that he would have been entitled to only a fraction of the money received by a true Muslim.

What I will question though is the jurisprudence where a criminal (or suspect) and the victim (or his family) enter into a private arrangement and the courts immediately drop the matter as if they have no jurisdiction on it.

In most of the world, at best the parties can approach the court and the court would decide based on facts and the social good. That also means that criminals who engage in repetitive behavior will not go scot free.

XYZ said...

@TLW: Your comment has been removed for its pointlessly crude language and also for its lack of a moral compass. Please refrain from using the comments section to vent such offensive material.

Anonymous said...

The problem with the Davis case, if analysed logically, is the fact that the "establishment" and the politicians were simply unable to control the street protests. As simple as that.

AHK said...

Even though the immunity issue did not arise in court it should be clear to all that Davis did not enjoy diplomatic immunity - otherwise there is no way in hell the US govt. would have reached this sort of settlement - if their case had been strong they would have threatened Pakistan quiet easily & successfully.

I subscribe to Najam Sethi's opinion that the establishment used this incident to renegotiate the terms of engagement with the Americans.

Anonymous said...

shame on PPP & PML(N)

karachi feminist said...

Do you know for sure that the trial never happened? Sources, please? If the trial never happened then legally it is incorrect to say that he was acquitted. Because only after a trial is a person found guilty or acquitted.

So in essence if this was an out of court settlement, prior to trial, then do the Qisas and Diyar laws apply? The statute on Q and D is not clear at all; but one reading of it suggests that Diyat settlements kick in after a finding of guilt which would imply there was a trial.

Can Diyat also be arranged prior to a trial?

Is this a procedurally flawed case even under our horrible laws.

TLW said...

@ XYZ This country in general and Central Punjab in particular need a moral compass and a kick in the ass. As evidence I would like to cite the continuing career of Hamid Mir, Ansar Abbasi, tolerance for the military's interventionism, and the region's support for genocidal sectarian organisations. As a native of Central Punjab made ornerier by Karachi, I am willing to provide both the moral compass and requisite ass whopping.

L♥VE

TLW

Anonymous said...

@karachi feminist: i think i read/heard that there was in effect no trial. the hearing that was supposed to proceed on wednesday would have been where a charge would have been entered. instead, the plaintiffs apparently said they had reached an out of court settlement on the basis of diyat, and charges were withdrawn without trial. a trial *did* proceed on the issue of possession of illegal firearm, on which the court decided that the two months raymond had served were punishment enough, along with 30,000 fine, which was paid immediately, and with that the matter was closed.

i really don't know whether guilt needs to be established before diyat comes into play. but it seems in the pakistani legal system it can be applied at any stage, including mid-trial.

Shahid Saeed said...

@karachi feminist : Yes, settlement can be reached before trial. In fact, as soon as the chalaan is presented, the heirs can settle the case. It has been a big recommendation that the settlement thing be moved to after trial as many times the prosecution is in the middle of the case and they have to disband it altogether because of a razinama (although post-trial would mean they fought the entire case and had their efforts quashed at the end). Samia Sarwar's case comes to mind at once. Mother and father 'forgave' the hired murderer 'in the name of Allah' when the chalaan was presented. All it took was 2-4 days for the thing to be settled. Not that I'm defending a law that equates human life to a fixed amount of metal.

Hassan said...

Although I have no objection to blood money as an option for settlement, this case is not just about the murders - which can be resolved via blood money...but is also about the more serious case of spying, with potential implications for our national security....blood money doesn't resolve him of those crimes....why he wasn't tried for those remaining charges is amazing to me.

XYZ said...

@Ayesha: As pointed out, that is a separate case against other people (those driving the car that ran him over) which has not been tried yet.

@Sajai: I concur with your point of view. Part of the problem with the Qissas and Diyat Laws is that it removes the state's responsibility to prosecute murders.

@Anon132: Not at all since the 'street protests' were manufactured and controlled by the establishment in the first place.

@AHK: Your argument, while it may be valid, is based entirely on hypotheticals. The issue of immunity was never settled.

@Anon420: What, can't bring yourself to say shame to the faujis? Are you part of the PTI?

@karachifeminist: I meant that actually in the sense of the trial proceedings not having occurred. It's not entirely clear to me, even after speaking with lawyers, whether one can consider this a trial if the agreement was reached immediately after an indictment was handed out. Theoretically, yes, since indictments were handed out, it can be called a legal trial but certainly there were no proceedings. The rest with regards to Q&D laws, I think Anon1211 and Shahid Saeed have addressed quite well.

@Hassan: Perhaps he wasn't tried for "the remaining charges" because there weren't any? No charges of spying were filed against him in any court of law.

Hassan said...

@XYZ fair enough...I stand corrected...from a legal perspective if no charges were filed then he obviously cannot be tried for it...in that case I change my statement: '"why he was not even charged with espionage amazes me"

Anonymous said...

To all those who still think there was a case about spying - the whole thing was made up. Do you all really think that if Davis was co-ordinating terrorists or spying on the Pakistani army - he would have been let go? No way. He was guilty of killing 2 people. Everything else that happened after that was a drama to extract concessions from the Americans. Sethi is right.

Hassan said...

@anonymous - i think that is a very convenient way to explain everything away. He was CIA - I don't think you can deny that...even mainstream western media have confirmed that. He was operating under an assumed identity. He was in possession of illegal firearms, vehicle and surveillance equipment. Hardly a tourist taking in the sites. To say that he could not have been involved in spy related activities because he was released by corrupt officials is a big jump. Regardless of to what extent he was guilty, he should at the very least been charged and tried for those offences, resulting in a public explanation, if in fact he was innocent of such charges. I cannot imagine any sovereign and dignified nation releasing a person caught in these circumstances on their soil. If a Pakistani was caught with such equipment and under such circumstances on the streets of New York, would your conclusions be the same? Homeland security would have him locked up (without trial) before you could say "Guantanamo". Sethi also concluded that he is in fact a CIA operative (possibly head) and is one of many covert and unauthorized operators here in Pakistan. It is about time we stopped viewing things through such rose tinted glasses, and at least call a spade a spade.

Anonymous said...

He was CIA no doubt. The real question that needs to be asked is if he was the superspy he was made out to be (by the ghairat brigage).... why did he let himself get captured. The answer was simple. His job was to ensure passage for the car behind him (that killed the motorcyclist). But does being CIA make him guilty of being a terrorist? He was most likely trying to get an "in" on some of the groups that our "establishment" have been raising over the years. If a spade needs to be called a spade - it's high time that the ISI was taken to task and the realities of the whole war on terror be made public.

Hassan said...

@anonymous you may very well be right...and he could have been a naive cuddly spy who should be given the benefit of the doubt, but again your assumptions are just that...assumptions...the actual reality should have been explored in my opinion, especially when national security is potentially at stake. Being a CIA may or may not make him a terrorist - depending on your perspective and world view - but it definitely raises questions about him being involved in espionage...once again you may wish to assume that he was involved in only beneficial espionage(?!) and his interests were aligned with ours...but again this is only wishful speculation. I am all for the full realities of the whole war on terror be made public, not just ISI.

Anonymous said...

@Hassan - While I understand and agree with your sentiments, the fact remains that the espionage game is unusually murky and people like us can rarely get the whole picture to even begin comprehending the situation. I for one do not believe that the TTP is funded by the CIA. Why would they do that and then use drones to attack the TTP and cause chaos. But either way, the challan was filed only for the murders and not for the espionage case. How strange is that... does that mean that either he was not spying at all and only the ghairat drama brigade raised that bogey OR he was guilty of spying, but on people that the ISI has been training to do "odd jobs". However, whatever happens - the ISI has to be brought to book. They need to give answers - and proper ones this time !!!

Sakib Ahmad said...

The drones do not kill Pakistani Taliban - that is ISI's problem. The Americans are targeting the Pakistani supporters of Afghan Resistance against the American occupation of Afghanistan. The large numbers of non-combatant Pakistanis being murdered by the Americans are callously referred to as "collateral damage".

Pakistan's government and its army are complicit in this murderous spree. Ashfaq Kayani has condemned the latest atrocity in North Waziristan where over 40 people were killed but he does not have the guts to tell the USA to back off or be prepared for the destruction of its drones at the hands of Pakistan's Air Force.

As the WikiLeaks revelations showed, our leadership is two-faced: it says one thing to the Pakistani public and quite the opposite to the Americans.

Anonymous said...

@Sakib - hate to break it to you mate... but there is no "Afghan Resistance" against US occupation. There are the Taliban, who are being aided by our "establishment". If GHQ stops this aid, Taliban will be wiped out and Afghanistan will become a viable entity within a few years. But the indo-centric army is simply concerned about India's influence in Afghanistan without looking at the bigger picture. Sigh !!

Hassan said...

(my previous post seems to have been not published for some reason, or perhaps it was an error from my side),regardless:

@anonymous: I didn't say the TTP was funded by the CIA...this again is your assumption. I agree that the ISI, and all other actors who are insincere should be brought to task...the problem lies with us...our sell out and apologetic leaders and their sell out and self hating followers.

As far as the Taliban goes - they are a legitimate resistance to the illegal, immoral invasion and subsequent genocide of a nation..why are they not? because the Americans say so? unless of course you believe 7 guys in a cave took down the pentagon and WTC - I doubt they even had full signals on their phone, let alone the ability to by passing NORAD and other multibillion dollar security measures.

The people who are supporting the legitimate struggle are being targeted and yesterday's genocide of 40 civilians should have had all of us and blogs like this up in arms...but only a deafening silence.

Just as you say there is a "ghairat brigade" there too is a growing "beghariat brigade", who will bend over backwards to justify the genocide of their own people at the hands of foreign forces...

Anonymous said...

@Hassan - very kind of the moderators to allow a discussion here :-)
I don't think the leaders are at fault. GHQ has never allowed a proper political set up to prosper.

As far as the Taliban go - ask the Afghans. They do NOT like the Taliban. Insisting that the Taliban are genuine afghan resistance is like India claiming that LTTE is genuine Lankan resistance.

And if by "beghairat brigade", you mean people who dare question the Army and the ISI instead of the politicians - trust me... they are needed. The other bunch of nutters are the ones who have delusions of grandeur and have "I hate Facebook" pages on Facebook.

Regarding the twin towers - why is it that the conspiracy theory only works in 2 areas - Muslim Countries and a subsection of redneck Americans who think man landing on the moon was staged in Las Vegas and that Elvis is still alive.

Hassan said...

@anonymous - agreed, nice of the moderators...so would rather not outstay my welcome. In that regard i will make this my last entry - i am open to further discussions on other forums / platforms, as i do not want to hijack this forum, or if in the unlikely event that the moderator indicates that they have no objection to our amicable tirades continuing!

Regarding GHQ allowing a proper set up, i cannot comment as i do no know enough about the specific history to say one way or another, but to absolve the leaders is ridiculous.

Taliban might not be genuine afghan resistance, depending on who you ask...if you ask Karzai et al - yeah most like they will not agree that they are...but if you ask the Americans as to whom is resisting their invasion...i think Taliban comes top of the list...otherwise i don't think they would be scrambling at various back doors to now negotiate with an illegitimate or ineffective resistance...this fact alone should give them the legitimacy you require - American endorsement.

When i say beghariat brigade it is mot any specific group - isi, politicians etc..but rather a mind set...those who cannot see past popular public opinion and must tow the official lines on everything. They are apologetic for being Muslim and Pakistani...they blame themselves and their own nations without any regard for moral equivalence...they see no issue with hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Pakistanis being slaughtered but will hold vigils and protest at the loss of few foreign lives. They are those who are in fact more worried about what others will think of them than what is just. They are those who have not raised a single voice or word of protest against the imprisonment of hundreds of muslims without trial, but will get red faced if they feel a hint of injustice towards the a foreigner. They are the self hating sell outs we see so many of today....or as they were known during british rule...the brown sahibs...

Regarding the twin towers - it is only a conspiracy if it is not supported by any evidence..and by that definition the official line (on the basis of which a nation and its people were and are being pillaged) is more of a conspiracy, as there is not a shred of evidence to support it. There are in fact more scientific questions and evidence to discredit the official story (no - not raised by muslims)...again...i think you might be jumping on the bandwagon of "if CNN isn't saying it it must be a conspiracy"

Hassan said...

@anonymous - agreed, nice of the moderators...so would rather not outstay my welcome. In that regard i will make this my last entry - i am open to further discussions on other forums / platforms, as i do not want to hijack this forum, or if in the unlikely event that the moderator indicates that they have no objection to our amicable tirades continuing!

Regarding GHQ allowing a proper set up, i cannot comment as i do no know enough about the specific history to say one way or another, but to absolve the leaders is ridiculous.

Taliban might not be genuine afghan resistance, depending on who you ask...if you ask Karzai et al - yeah most like they will not agree that they are...but if you ask the Americans as to whom is resisting their invasion...i think Taliban comes top of the list...otherwise i don't think they would be scrambling at various back doors to now negotiate with an illegitimate or ineffective resistance...this fact alone should give them the legitimacy you require - American endorsement.

When i say beghariat brigade it is mot any specific group - isi, politicians etc..but rather a mind set...those who cannot see past popular public opinion and must tow the official lines on everything. They are apologetic for being Muslim and Pakistani...they blame themselves and their own nations without any regard for moral equivalence...they see no issue with hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Pakistanis being slaughtered but will hold vigils and protest at the loss of few foreign lives. They are those who are in fact more worried about what others will think of them than what is just. They are those who have not raised a single voice or word of protest against the imprisonment of hundreds of muslims without trial, but will get red faced if they feel a hint of injustice towards the a foreigner. They are the self hating sell outs we see so many of today....or as they were known during british rule...the brown sahibs...

Regarding the twin towers - it is only a conspiracy if it is not supported by any evidence..and by that definition the official line (on the basis of which a nation and its people were and are being pillaged) is more of a conspiracy, as there is not a shred of evidence to support it. There are in fact more scientific questions and evidence to discredit the official story (no - not raised by muslims)...again...i think you might be jumping on the bandwagon of "if CNN isn't saying it it must be a conspiracy

Anonymous said...

@some of the blusterers above: the question of charging RD with 'spying' would have been a non-starter, because he was here with the understanding of our security agencies -- and there are many more like him, in what is an effort to 'coordinate' and share intelligence and operational resources. what went wrong was RD going, ironically, not so much Rambo as much as Leonardo Di Caprio, on the streets of Lahore. do you really think the security establishment or the government can afford a *trial* which would expose the circumstances and multi-layered arrangements under which american spies and security contractors are operating in pakistan? the ruckus created in the media and public is partly -- PARTLY -- explained by intra-agency rivalries within pakistan, otherwise the effort was really about how to bury this somehow before it got too much exposure.

as such, the whole hypothetical scenario of what would happen if a pakistani did this on the streets of NY blah blah, is really a bit ridiculous to even posit.

cheers.

Anonymous said...

paktribune forum?