Sharia Law on Non Muslims.

How does Sharia law treat Non Muslims? The answer to this also answers the question what Islam says about Non Muslims. This is also the reason why all non Muslims should know about Islam and its nuances if they care about  future. 

One of the four schools of Sunni Islam is Shafi'i school. 'Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik is the manual of their law book which was translated in to English by an American Muslim  Nuh Ha Mim Keller under the title ‘Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper’. In short it is called ‘Reliance of the Traveller’. This translation was approved by Al-Azhar University, the most authoritative institute in the Sunni branch of Islam.

There is not much difference between various schools on how they treat Non Muslims; and they all agree on the concept of Jihad, Jizya, laws dealing with apostasy and also blasphemy. Reading from this law book of Shafi'i  pretty well sums up the position of more or less all Islamic schools on Non Muslims.

What is presented below, here, is material, put here by straight forward copying and pasting from manual of Islamic law, giving some details of how so called sacred and tolerant Islamic law (Muslims) deals with Non Muslims living under Islamic law. 

This whole manual is divided in to divisions marked by alphabets starting with ‘a’. Then this division is divided in to two parts (most of the time). Most of the time part * 1 * lists all the contents in that division. Then part * 2 * is divided in to chapters and then each chapter in to sections and then subsections.

Good amount of laws related to Non Muslims are in the division marked by the alphabet ‘o’ titled ‘Justice’. In this division laws dealing with apostates i.e. who leave Islam to another religion are also written. Punishment for blasphemy is also mentioned in this division as Islamic law treats Muslims who question or criticize or insult Islam and Prophet as apostates.

Note: My added comments are in brown color and parenthesis and italics.

*1* BOOK o: JUSTICE.

……

……

*2* (Chapter o1.0): Who is Subject to Subject to Retaliation for Injurious Crimes. 

@(O: Injurious crimes includes not only those committed with injurious weapons, but those inflicted otherwise as well, such as with sorcery (def: x136).  Killing without right is, after unbelief, one of the very worst enormities, as Shafi`i explicitly states in (n: Muzani's) The Epitome. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
``The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or some-one who abandons his religion and the Muslim community,''
and in another hadith,
``The killing of a believer is more heinous in Allah's sight that doing away with all of this world.''
Allah Most High says:
``... and not to slay the soul that Allah has forbidden, except with right'' (Koran 6:151),
and,
``O you who believe, retaliation is prescribed for you regarding the slain...'' (Koran 2:178). )

(Islam proposes a eye for eye law. Under this, if a man inflicts an injury on another man, then the same of kind of injury must be inflicted on the guilty. But this can take place if other person (victim) wants this kind of justice.)

@O1.1

Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8)) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. (O: Intentionally is a first restriction and excludes killing someone through an honest mistake, while purely excludes a mistake made in a deliberate injury (def: o2.3), and without right excludes cases of justifiable homicide such as lawful retaliation.)

@o1.2

The following are not subject to retaliation:

-1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continuously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) );

-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;

-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);

-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

(clause 2; this is very important and in fact this is what I wanted to show. Talk of equality and justice in Islam is just empty. This is what law says: If a Muslim kills another Muslim, then the relatives of deceased can ask for retaliation under which the accused is given death penalty. But this option of retaliation is not available to Non Muslims i.e. if a Muslim kills a Non Muslim then Muslim can not be given death penalty which shows that the life of a Muslim is precious while the life of a Non Muslim is nothing. In fact there is more to this. 
Clause 3. Another point here is Islamic law clearly says that no Non Muslim should harm any Muslim, but in the case of apostates, those who leave Islam, an exemption is made by saying if a non Muslim kills an apostate then he should not be punished. A Non Muslim's life is of less value than value of a Muslim's lefe; apostate's life has no value at all.
In the beginning of this chapter itself, law states that unbelief in Islam is worse than indiscriminate killing by Muslims.
Clause 4. This is about honor killing in Islam. If parents kill their children because they were bringing dishonor to families by doing un-Islamic things, then parents can not be prosecuted or killed by Islamic law)

..............

..............

*2* (Chapter o4.0): Indemnity (Diya) (Like I said above, retaliation is an option. But instead victim can seek justice by asking for compensation in monetary form from the guilty by foregoing his right to retaliation. Here the law stipulates maximum amounts aggrieved can demand from the guilty.)

@ (A: The rulings below concern the maximum that the victim or victim's family may demand. If both sides agree on an indemnity of lesser amount, or nothing at all, this is legally valid and binding.)

@o4.1

An indemnity is obligatory (N: though it may by waived by deserving recipients, like retaliation) in cases of death caused:

-1- by an honest mistake (def: o2.2) '

-2- by a mistake made in a deliberate injury (o2.3);

-3- or intentionally, if those entitled to retaliate agree to forgo retaliation (dis: o3.8).

@o4.2

The indemnity for killing a male Muslim is 100 camels. (If a Muslim kills  another Muslim man, the victim's family can at the best demand 100 camels or its equivalent in other forms. Note this word 'man'.)

@o4.8

It is permissible for deserving recipients to accept payment other than camels if both parties agree.

@o4.9

(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury's type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim's indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )

1. The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

2. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim.

( This is where Islam reveals itself completely. If the victim is a Muslim man, then max. compensation is 100 camels or their equivalence. And every other life form is measured against this precious life of a Muslim man. If  the victim is a Muslim woman, then the max. compensation is half of that is for a Muslim man which turns out to be 50 camels. If the victim is a Non Muslim like a Christian or Jew then the max. compensation is 1/3 rd of 100 camels. One needs to know that if the victim is a Christian woman, then available max. compensation is 1/6 th of 100 camels. For victims from other faiths, the max. compensation available is 1/15 th of 100 camels. If one understands completely, it is not just that Islamic law stipulates that a Muslim can not face death penalty for killing a infidel but it clearly emphasizes that life of a Muslim and a Kafir are never equal. One can even notice the discrimination based on sex. I doubt if any one calls this justice and equality. By any means this is devaluation and dehumanization of infidels and it can not get worse than this.)

When a miscarriage results from someone having struck the stomach of a pregnant woman (O: or other part of her, or when someone frightens her, resulting in a miscarriage), the indemnity for the fetus is a male or female slave worth one-twentieth of the indemnity payable for killing the fetus's father, or one-tenth that of its mother. (A: The indemnity is whatever they agree upon.)

...................

...................

*2* (Chapter o8.0): Apostasy from Islam (Ridda) (Here law stipulates that those who leave Islam should be killed. It also mentions who becomes a apostate.)

@(O: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, ``Trim your nails, it is sunna,'' and he replies, ``I would not do it even if it were,'' as opposed to when some circumstance exists which exonerates him of having committed apostasy, such as when his tongue runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone, or says it out of fear.)

@o8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

@o8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

@o8.4
There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die). (Any one, including Non Muslims, can kill an apostate.)

@o8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam (This section summarizes what actions by a Muslim amounts to blasphemy against Islam thus he becoming an apostate. The law mentions 20 acts or conditions but I am just presenting some important ones.)
(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;
-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
-16- to revile the religion of Islam;
-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

*2* (Chapter o9.0): Jihad (This chapter explains what is Jihad and why it should be carried out. But I omitted these as I have presented them in a previous article and also for the reason that here I just want to show how Islam is discriminatory and it has no place for others.)

…….............

……............

@o9.12

Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.

@o9.13

When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

(Above two are worth examining. Muslims say there is no compulsion in religion while defending their faith. And regularly they quote the verse 2:216 in their defense and to show case Islam as tolerant. Here they always quote only the first part from that verse and do not even dare to mention what second part says. While it says no compulsion, what about creating conditions that will make infidels convert to Islam. After all another verse like 9:29 says they should be made to pay Jizya if they do not convert. This so called philosophy of 'no compulsion in religion' in Islam is skin deep.) 

@o9.14

When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

....................

....................

*2* (Chapter o11.0): Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl Al-Dhimma) (This is where many laws discriminating infidels appear.)

@o11.1

A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

-1- Jews;

-2- Christians;

-3- Zoroastrians;

-4- Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;

-5- and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

@o11.2

Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:) ), or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha' is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4). )

@o11.3

Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (o11.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);

(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya). ( May be those who say Jizya is a protection tax should read this.)

@o11.4: The Non-Muslim Poll Tax

The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year).  The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.

It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane. ( What is certain is, it is not levied on women and children. But leniency and politeness.This is not what scholars of Islam have said. It more looks like a translation covering up, after all it has removed the entire division regulating slavery.)

@o11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they: (Apart from paying taxes, infidels have to obey following or else....)

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

-4- must keep to the side of the street; (This is what an Islamic organization said " Non Muslims should not drive on main roads")

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches. (Actually they are even forbidden to repair if any damage occurs.) 

@o11.9

If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

@o11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her; (Any Non Muslim man marrying a Muslim woman can face death penalty. Do not worry. Islam is generous! It allows Muslim men to marry Non Muslim women.)

-2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam; (In essence this is saying that Non Muslims can not indulge in proselytizing in Islamic lands. Now one can understand why present day Islamic countries do not allow construction of Churches and temples or propagation of their faith; doing so has roots in Islamic law and traditions. Like some people saying otherwise, these laws are not made by some extremists or radicals.)

-4- kills a Muslim;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam. (This comes under blasphemy.)( When these laws are enforced, one need not be a genius to realize that all others except Muslims and other cultures except Islamic culture will only disappear. In better words, exterminated slowly. Yet Islamic apologists in India and other infidel countries want infidels to believe that Islam is about justice and peace and tolerance. Can any one say that, after reading above Islamic laws made by Allah, Islam and multiculturalism can co-exist? Definitely not if their moral compass is working. Islam has only one function towards infidels i.e. exterminating them. During Islamic rule, these were the laws applied by rulers on infidels, at times they varied in degree of harshness from one period to another, some times more harsh or sometimes less hardship, but it was never like what Islamic apologists say i.e. peaceful co-existence.)

@o11.11

When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

@o24.2  (This is regarding law that says a Non Muslim can not even testify in a court of law.)

Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:

(a) is free;

(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def: c8.1) (O: as testimony is not accepted from a child or insane person, even when the child's testimony regards injuries among children that occurred at play);

(c) is able to speak;

(d) it mentally awake;

(e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,

"Let those of rectitude among you testify" (Koran 65:2),

and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying); (Non Muslims can not even testify in a court. With already above stated discriminative laws, this one simply removes little protection what ever Islamic system offers; it means Non Muslims have to exist by his own will and at the mercy of Muslims. Notice the emphasis in (e) that says disbelief in Islam is the vilest form of corruption.)

Above mentioned are some of the laws concerning infidels.Just by looking at this list, does any one feel any similarity between Sharia and US Constitution (for that matter any secular and democratic constitution)? But who looks in to this? That is precisely Muslims like Feisal Abdul Rauf of Cordoba Initiative just says both Sharia and Constitution are primarily same in spirit and main stream media shamelessly buys it with out investigating the basis and authenticity.

Note:
Recently islam-watch.org has published a very good article on sharia under the title: Islamic Sharia Law in Brief . I strongly recommend reading this article, written by an ex-Muslim - SK Mirza.