Quranic justice is restorative, not retributive

The Hindu

3 hours ago

The case of the Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya in Yemen has spotlighted the legal and moral complexities of retributive justice in Muslim countries. Nimisha has been in prison since 2017 for the murder of her business associate, Talal Abdo Mahdi. While the Houthi Supreme Political Council dismissed her appeal in November 2023, the appeal court left open a path to clemency through the payment of blood money (diyah) to the victim's family, as provided for under Shariah law.
The concept of diyah finds mention in verse 4:92 of the Quran, which states that in cases when a believer kills another believer by mistake (khata'an), then, as compensation, the killer must free a believing slave, and also pay blood-money (diyah) to the family of the slain. The Quran also talks about legal retribution (qisaas) for murder and violent assault as a life-preserving deterrent (lakum fil qisaasi hayaatun) to curb criminal behaviour. (2:178-179 & 194, 5:45)
Restorative approach
It is essential to recognise that many of the Quranic injunctions concerning homicide and bodily harm were not retributive — they were fundamentally restorative.
Legal retribution (lex talionis) and compensation for murder and bodily harm had existed centuries before the advent of Islam. The Book of Exodus in the Hebrew Bible upheld capital punishment for intentional murder, exile for unintentional homicide, and either financial compensation or retaliatory injury for physical harm (Exodus 21:12-36).
Similar provisions are found in even earlier laws, such as the Sumerian and Babylonian codes. In Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Martha Roth cites an edict from the Hittite Kingdom (1650–1180 BCE), which stipulates that in cases of murder, the decision regarding the offender's fate rested solely with the victim's heir.
The Quran made a reformative switch from this sort of retributive punishment to restorative justice, inviting all those impacted by an offence to jointly determine how best to address its consequences and shape future relations. In 2:178, it asked the legal heirs of the victim to pardon (faman ufiya lahu) the killer, even while instructing the killer to offer fair compensation to the family out of sincere gratitude.
The same message is repeated in 5:45 with a compassionate appeal to the victim's family: 'If anyone remits the retaliation by way of generosity, it would be an act of atonement (kaffaara) for him.'
What is remarkable about this exhortation is its paradigm shift from retribution to the spiritual healing of the aggrieved party. It introduces a mechanism that not only fosters genuine remorse in the offender but also promotes social harmony and quiet dignity among all parties involved.
This is in keeping with the Quran's moral dictum (in 64:14) that God is forgiving and merciful to those who 'pardon, overlook and forgive' (in ta'fu wa tasfahu was taghfiru). The prophet echoed this in a hadith found in Abu Dawud, encouraging Muslims to practice mercy on 'earth' so that mercy may be shown to them from 'the heavens'.
Implications for Nimisha
It may be noted that the Quran's appeal to give up retaliation pertains to intentional murder.
For non-premeditated killing without malice aforethought (qatl khata'), the Quran prescribes only blood money, not a retaliatory death penalty, as stated in 4:92 above.
This carries serious implications for Nimisha. If, as reported, she did not sedate Mahdi with the intent to kill him — and this can be proven — then, under the Quranic injunctions in 4:92, his family would not have the right to demand the death penalty.
Media reports suggest that Nimisha administered the sedative only to retrieve her passport, which Mahdi had allegedly confiscated unlawfully, and that his death was the result of an accidental overdose. Besides, if Mahdi had previously served time for criminal offences, as alleged, the claim of his complete innocence is open to challenge.
Therefore, for justice to be served in Nimisha's case, the Quranic law must prevail. However, what reigns in most Muslim societies in its name is sectarian jurisprudence, which views Islam not as a moral order in which justice and rational logic are intrinsic, but a dogmatic 'religion' defined and dominated by male authority.
This internal subversion coincided with the rise of post-Prophetic schools of religious thought during the height of Muslim imperial expansion, when a convenient alliance developed between theologians and the ruling elite: rulers sought religious legitimacy for their authoritarian regimes, while theologians wanted the latitude to impose patriarchal structures.
It was the consolidation of this power dynamic that brought about Islam's shift from Quranic deen — a rational, justice-oriented ethical framework — to mazhab - a rigid, clerically dominated theology. Consequently, Islam ceased to be what is plainly stated in the Arabic text of the Quran and the Prophetic understanding of it.
This structural transformation remains one of the most significant and unresolved crises in Muslim history, reshaping the course of Islamic thought. Nowhere is this more evident than in criminal law, which often paints Islam as a harsh faith.
If Muslim theologians truly believe in the Quran's opening statement that the Islamic god is 'most Gracious' (Al-Rahman) and 'most Merciful' (Al-Raheem), then they must allow the merciful deen of Islam to prevail over their rigid juristic schools.
A. Faizur Rahman is Secretary-General of the Chennai-based Islamic Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought. E-mail: [e-mail]; X: @FaizEngineer