Legitimacy of Claiming Compensation in Excess of the Blood Money with Emphasis on Principle of No Harm's Inclusion of Non-Existent Affairs1

One of the issues contended by jurists is the legitimacy of claiming compensation for damages over and above blood money (diyah). The question is whether or not the victim can claim compensation for any injuries or losses suffered by him for treatment, medication, disablement etc. The importance of this subject is due, mainly, to the fact that modern economic structures have grown more complex, and medical expenses have increased and treatment of injuries and subsequent expenditures can be more than the blood money itself. Therefore, the victim may be compelled to pay for unaffordable medical costs in addition to suffering the injuries and afflictions. Among the reasons that may be taken recourse to in order to substantiate the possibility of claiming compensation in excess of the blood money is 'the principle of no harm'. There are two reasons why this principle can be used: First, the blood money is a kind of compensation, second, the principle of no harm includes non-existent affairs. In this study, efforts have been made to study this subject from a jurisprudential perspective using an analytical descriptive method. The article critically assesses various arguments as well as aims at proving the aforementioned two fundamental elements.Thus, the present research deals with the jurisprudential basis of the compensation in excess of the blood money with emphasis on the 'the principle of no harm' including non-existent affairs.