By: Abel Mawla Ismaiel


Many civil society organizations call for the abolish of death penalty. They have succeeded in many countries to persuade their governments to abolish death penalty from their national laws.

In the Arab world, the discourse around the abolition death penalty still goes on without reaching a point, this is due to our cultural climate which trials every new thought that comes from outside the regular context, and forces it to revoke.
The opinions about death penalty abolition differs from being for or against. Those who are for death penalty are try to interpret some religious texts from Qur'an to accord with their point of view as follows:
Ayah No 179 from Surah Al-Baqarah (the cow):
"And there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves",
Ayah No 45 from Surah Al-Ma'eda (the table):
"And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust"
Ayah No 92 from Surah Annisa (Women):
"And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a convenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise"
Those who are for the death penalty say that the blood money is a secondary solution after the principal solution which is executing the killer. But accepting the Deyaa instead of getting some one else dead is mentioned in Ayah No 33 on Surah Al-Esraa' (The Night Journey): "And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided."
It means that it is up to the killed person's family to decide whether to accept the Deyaa, the blood-money, or to have the killer executed, at the same time the Ayah implies the preference of forgiveness and the Deyaa acceptance. The Ayah also implies that the execution should not be implemented by anyone, in order not to create chaos among people.
Those who are for the death penalty depend on the previous Ayahs to declare that the law of reprisal (execution) takes the first rank before the blood money (Deyaa) as an assurance of the human life high value and the prohibition of the killing acts, as Ayah No 32 of Al-Ma'edah Surah: "whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men;" Thus, the aggravation in these texts is a deterrence.
In accordance with the previously mentioned Qur'anic Ayahs, the punishment of the act of murder should be of the same kind, while paying a blood money (Deyaa) is a secondary compensation conditioned with the acceptance of killed person's family.

It is said that some religious texts can not be applied now, for their being not suitable with the developments witnessed by humanity. For example the texts related to slavery in the Qur'an are not applied. Though religious texts mention slavery without prohibiting it, slavery is something deemed in reality due to the legislations put to limit it and the human developments occurred in societies.

Egyptian constitution stipulates in its preamble that the Islamic Sharee'a is the main source of legislating, thus the religious text is the essential source of any legislation, consequently laws must be put in accordance with this base, otherwise the law would be tarnished with unconstitutionality.

In relation to being for or against death penalty abolition, some would be for it on the basis of the interpretation of some religious texts, others would be against it also on the basis of the interpretation of other religious texts, this debate might last to reach the extent of claiming disbelieve.

Thus, the discourse has to take another tend, that is to discuss the religious texts in the context of its religious frame and to discuss legal rules on the basis of its own frame and order. Meaning that if a legal question is handled, it should be handled in the frame of the governing legal rules, namely the international humanitarian law which is a cardinal indispensable source when putting any legislation.

The death penalty abolition is a civil issue that relates to everybody's life anywhere. No legislation may disregard the right to life, because it is a principal right that exists before any law, legislation or constitution. The Supreme Constitutional Court upheld this right and high valued it when it asserted that the right to life is a principal right that should not be denied, no law should violate this kind of rights for they exist before laws and constitutions.

The right to life is far much higher than the concepts of citizenship, sex or color, etc. These rights relate to human being since creation of mankind, hence, they are more sublime than laws and constitutions which came after human beings.

The base of any legal rule is the civil society with all its characteristics that depend on the right to citizenship without discrimination on the bases of color, sex or religion. There is no need to intrude religion in all the fields of our daily life.

Legislation should be put to meet our needs, in accordance with the measures and criteria of our civil life and with the civil societies free well.

In order not to be charged with breaking religious rules, the discussion should be on a civil background, not a religious one. The sacredness of religions should be respected, but also as much as the human life should be.

Searching for civil alternatives to protect the right to life and prevent violations committed against it is the real battle, because the death penalty abolition and the respect of many other rights should be based on a civil state.