May God avenge his blood

Don't miss an episode! Subscribe to the Madlik podcast: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts

and Join Madlik on Clubhouse every Thursday so you can participate in our weekly live discussion of the Parsha. Link to Transcript here: https://madlik.com/2024/09/04/may-god-avenge-his-blood/

Pre-Islamic Beduin

It is the honor of the kin, as well as sacred which forbids that a kinsman's blood remain unavenged, and equally forbids that the kindred of the slain should take a settlement of the feud by payment of the bloodwit. It is a saying current among the Beduin: " I will have my revenge, if I should cast into hell for it." In many cases other obligations are disregarded that this of avenging blood and vindicating the related honor of family or tribe may be discharged. Long wars result really from the desire to avenge the tribal honor, though nominally, and it may be in the beginning, to avenge the blood of a man.

Mohammed Ali tried to do away with blood-revenge in the beginning of the last-the nineteenth-century, by making criminal offense, but the Fellaheen kept up the practice in spite of his penalties. About the same time, Saud, the Wahaby leader in sought to induce the tribes to accept the principle of bloodwit cases where blood-revenge might be deemed a duty. He did not suceed; but, on the contrary, secured to himself on all sides for his pains.

When Islâm came, the main modification introduced was that all Muslims were obliged to avenge a Muslim who was slain, and to defend a Muslim slayer against all outsiders. This, as striking at the very root of the tribal principle in social organization, would have wrought a great change in blood-revenge, but, despite Islâm, the tribal principle has been preserved almost unmodified in the desert, and with it the ancient usage in blood-feuds.

The subject of asylum, or, more properly, protection (Dakheil), as distinct from asylum, comes in here. In nearly every tribe there are individual outlaws from other tribes, who have at some time placed themselves under the new tribe's protection; and in many strong tribes are found, also, bodies of other tribesmen who have sought refuge from blood-revenge with them.

The man who pitches his tent so that its ropes touch the ropes of your tent is protected by you; the man who travels with you by day and sleeps you at night is protected by you; the guest who has eaten with you is protected by you until he has eaten with another. Occasionally protection is assumed by formal announcement at a shrine or sanctuary, and is withdrawn by announcing the withdrawal at the same place.

Except stipulated conditions to the contrary, a jâr, as the one seeking protection was termed, was seemingly looked upon as enjoying his protector's protection as long as he needed it. The position of a jâr (Hebrew גר) was that of a sojourner. The term was used to denote those occupied a relation of permanent clientage...

There was, according to the true Beduin obligation no more sacred than to protect the jâr with you. The jâr himself has all the rights and and obligations of his adopted tribe, and his own, and none of the obligations of his own, not even blood revenge.

Asylum was also obtained in sacred areas (hima or haram), in which all life was protected. To violate these would be to violate the holiness of the god to whom they were sacred. Within such sacred areas there were certain portions and certain things which were more surely protective still, as being more intimately connected with the deity. Such were altars, images, the immediate precincts of the sanctuary itself, etc. It should be borne in mind that the belief was that all protection is related to the god of the tribe. This is self-evident in connection with holy places and holy things. But, moreover, when a man seeking protection of a tribe became a member of it, it was thought that in this instance, likewise, the tribal god had extended or enlarged his protection so as to take in the stranger. This fact insured his safety.

We have spoken of the tent as an asylum. The avenger at the door biding his time, but he could not enter to take Within the home or tent he who placed himself under the of a woman was most sure. Her protection was indicated throwing her mantle over the stranger.

Blood-Revenge in Arabia and Israel, Walter M. Patton, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Oct., 1901), pp. 703-731 (29 pages) https://www.jstor.org/stable/315269

Blood feud protocols

Protocols regarding blood feuds often override court decisions and may vary from tribe to tribe. Punishment for murder is usually harsher than that meted out for acts of disturbing the assahiya or solidarity of the tribe. The punishment for murder is usually capital punishment, but in some tribes a blood vengeance fee may be exacted instead.^[6] The general governing principle is that of Dum butlab dum ("blood begets blood"), which may be compared to "an eye for an eye". In many tribes, the first five levels of male cousins (Khamsa) are obligated to seek out and kill the murderer. If not found, another male member of the murderer's tribe would have to die in the retaliatory killing.^[1]

Bedouin systems of justice, Wikipedia

In Gen. 4 : 1-15 (J) we have as the most prominent features : The crying of the blood upon the ground for vengeance, corresponding to a common view among the Bedouin. A concrete expression of it in Arabia is the myth of the death-bird at the grave, which cries out, "Give me to drink (of the blood of vengeance).”

Then, in vs. 7, there is a trace of the ancient sacredness of the tent as an asylum, in the words: "and if thou doest not well, sin croucheth at the door and unto thee shall be his desire and thou shouldest rule over him." In this case the tradition apparently has confused some much clearer allusion to the custom of tent-asylum in ancient Israel. The original story must have dealt with some such conflict between the nomad Bedouin and the settled agriculturalist as is preserved in the late prologue of Job. To make the parties brothers does not harmonize with the fact of their occupations and the traditional hostility between these occupations. But nothing else could have been done when both were to be made sons of Adam and the older story given in this way a place in J’s history of the beginnings. The interposition of Yahweh is of the later stratum, but his action is strictly in harmony with the fraternal relation of the brothers. He banishes Cain from his kin, as he should be banished by the usage of tribal society in such cases. Another thing to be noticed is that the outlawed Cain realizes that he is with- out a human avenger, if anyone should slay him. Feeling this, he appeals to Yahweh, who assumes his protection, i. e., Cain finds asylum at a sanctuary or altar, and becomes thus a jâr Allah or jâr Yahweh

In ancient Israel the duty of protection was a sacred one. Slayers usually sought asylum with other tribes or individuals. Moses, for example, put himself under Jethro’s protection by his act in the watering of the flocks of Jethro’s daughters. Jacob went to his mother’s people, and Absalom likewise.

Asylum was also very commonly sought at altars and sanctuaries. The altar or image was the most sacred part of a sanctuary for this purpose (Moore, as above). With the centralizing of worship, the right of asylum formerly possessed by the leading shrines whose location still survived was continued to them. It is probable that originally some sanctuaries were more sacred as asyla than others. The cities which became cities of refuge were, indeed, shrines sacred in a superior degree in early days. Flight out of the land was always possible to those in fear of punishment. Many of the גרים in Israel doubtless were refugees from justice in other nations. Maimonides says that altars still protected after the institution of the cities of refuge. A gõel who slays an unintentional slayer at an altar is himself to be put to death.

In Judaism asylum was under the law. This is a vital difference, for there was no law over asylum to restrict or direct it in nomad times. In Judaism asylum protected from the injustice and the immoral violence of tribal custom, but did not protect from law, as it might have done in the desert.

Blood-revenge acted as a protection to life. This is implied in Yahweh’s assurance to Cain ; in Lamech’s boast ; in Job’s comforting confidence that his gõ‘el liveth ; in the promise that God will require the shed blood ; in the promise contained in the name of Yahweh as Redeemer.

Settled life, destroying tribal bonds and establishing bonds of neighborhood as it did, brought about what is seen everywhere under similar conditions, namely, the decline of blood-revenge and the intro- duction of principles of social justice. The settled life is the explanation of the specification that there shall be one law of revenge and asylum for home-born and gêr (גר) and töshäb (תושב), a special class of גר). Such a formal emphasis on the equality of home-born and client in law would not have been made in a tribal society. It would be assumed. The motive " for ye were strangers," too, is superfluous in tribal society. Revenge among the tribes would apply to all outside the kin ; asylum would avail for anyone who sought it. The absence of protection for a nokrî (נכרי), " foreigner," who does not join himself to the community is indicative of degeneration of the old custom of nomad hospitality and protection.

I think the Yahwism of Israel had most to do with modifying the custom of blood-revenge. Yahweh was in the minds of the nation the avenger of blood. Abel’s blood cries to him, so Gen. 9:5; see also Job 16:18 f.,etc. Slaying must be referred, therefore, to those who stood for him among the people — whether these be kings, priests, judges, or elders.

That God was a protector of the manslayer must have been a belief common in Hebrew antiquity, judging from the use of the thought of God’s protection in spiritual relations and in other figurative relations; for example, in the prophets, Isa. 8: 14; Ezek. II :.16; in the Psalms, 61:4, 5 (Hebrew); 27 : 5 ; 31 : 21 (Hebrew), etc.; and in Prov. 14 : 26; 18:10. In Israel the altar or sanctuary of Yahweh protected only those who acknowledged Yahweh. The "fear of God" bound tribesmen.

Blood-Revenge in Arabia and Israel, Walter M. Patton, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Oct., 1901), pp. 703-731 (29 pages) https://www.jstor.org/stable/315269

CAIRO — Egypt will step up efforts to battle blood feuds and vendettas — a remnant of tribal traditions — through a series of awareness campaigns around the country, especially in the villages and rural areas of Upper Egypt.

Last month, Al-Azhar’s Higher Committee for Blood Feud Reconciliation called on the Islamic Research Complex, a powerful institution whose mission extends from conducting studies on Islamic culture to reviewing publications for their adherence to Islamic principles, to come up with a large-scale awareness program.

One of the existing methods to end blood feuds is through committees made up of local politicians and elders — also known as customary reconciliation courts — in Egyptian villages and towns. These committees work with the families to bring an end to vendettas that often drag on for years and cause many deaths on all sides, mostly by paying “blood money” to the family of the victim. Scholars of Al-Azhar also attend the meetings, but they now want to step up their presence and influence.

Mohammad explained that the customary courts meet with the feuding parties to try to persuade them that vendettas go against the values of Islam, which focuses on forgiveness. They also want to nip feuds in the bud by teaching young people that shedding blood is not the way to settle a dispute.

“Al-Azhar preachers have daily meetings with the public in youth and cultural centers, coffee shops, government departments, schools, universities and communities,” he said. “We have successfully ended 38 vendetta cases and stopped bloodshed between families over the past three months.”

The discussions of how much money will be given can be very complicated. “The blood money is estimated at the price of 4.25 kilograms of 21k gold according to the price of gold at the time of the feud. The payment is paid in one batch without any installment if the killing was deliberate, but in case of manslaughter, the family of the killer can take up to three years to pay,” Karima said.

Karima explained that once the two families decide to end the feud, a ritual called the "quda" must be carried out. A member of the killer’s family carries a white shroud and presents it to the other before the court in a festive scene. Then the two sides offer their condolences. Once this is done, the blood feud is officially over.

The quda is one of the most important rituals in Upper Egypt and often carried out with the presence and blessing of the customary court. “Although this rite is not within the Islamic Sharia, [we do not oppose it] because it helps prevent bloodshed," Karima said, adding, “Sometimes the customary courts banish the killer’s family from the area of the victim’s family to prevent any retaliatory actions or reprisals — especially in vengeance cases between one Muslim family and another Christian, to prevent the feud from taking on a sectarian aspect."

Al-Azhar works to end blood feuds in Egypt Al-Monitor, , Rami Galal, Aug 12, 2019