Was Sharia (Islamic Law) imposed on non-Muslims?

Question

Following the expansion of Muslim rule beyond the confines of Arabia, was Sharia (Islamic Law) imposed on non-Muslims?

Answer

This question is related to how Islamic Shariah was implemented on non-Muslims in history. To begin with, we have the following reports from the period of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh):

Imam Bukhari, in his Sahih, reports a case, which the Jews brought to the notice of Prophet Muhammad (sws) to give his judgment.

Narrated Ibn `Umar:

A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah’s Messenger (sws) on a charge of committing illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet (sws) asked them. “What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?” They replied, “Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya.” `Abdullah bin Salam said, “O Allah’s Messenger (sws), tell them to bring the Torah.” The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, “Lift up your hand.” Behold! The Verse of Stoning was under his hand. So Allah’s Apostle ordered that the two be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn `Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess. (Bukhari, Hadith 6819)

According to this report, the Prophet asked the Jews about the punishment for adultery in the Torah, which gives support to the idea that he did not implement the Muslim religious law on them. Also clear from this report is that the Prophet (pbuh) only gave his judgment when the Jews themselves brought this case to his court.

This approach of the Prophet (pbuh) is according to the following directive of the Qur’an:

فَاِنۡ جَآءُوۡکَ فَاحۡکُمۡ بَیۡنَہُمۡ اَوۡ اَعۡرِضۡ عَنۡہُمۡ ۚ وَ اِنۡ تُعۡرِضۡ عَنۡہُمۡ فَلَنۡ یَّضُرُّوۡکَ شَیۡئًا ؕ وَ اِنۡ حَکَمۡتَ فَاحۡکُمۡ بَیۡنَہُمۡ بِالۡقِسۡطِ ؕ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ یُحِبُّ الۡمُقۡسِطِیۡنَ . وَ کَیۡفَ یُحَکِّمُوۡنَکَ وَ عِنۡدَہُمُ التَّوۡرٰىۃُ فِیۡہَا حُکۡمُ اللّٰہِ ثُمَّ یَتَوَلَّوۡنَ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ ذٰلِکَ ؕ وَ مَاۤ اُولٰٓئِکَ بِالۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ

“Thus, if they come to you [for verdicts], it is up to you to give a verdict or ignore them. If you ignore them, they will not be able to inflict any harm on you and if you give your decision, it is essential that you decide between them with justice because God likes those who give a just verdict. How do they make you give a verdict even though they have the Torah with them which contains God’s own verdict? Then after turning [to you] for a verdict, they defy it as well. In reality, they are not even people who believe.” (Surah Maidah 5, Aayah 42-43)

Commenting on Aayah 42, Ustaz Javed Ahmad Ghamidi writes:

“It is evident from the words of this verse that if the People of the Book living under an Islamic government want to decide their affairs according to their sharī‘ah and from the courts of their own scholars and jurists, there is no hindrance in this. It is also apparent from verses further ahead that this is pleasing to God. The reason is that until the time they profess faith in the Qur’ān, it is only befitting for them that they turn to the Torah and the Gospel. These are the books of God and no Muslim can be audacious enough to stop them from following the Books of God.”

Another example can be cited from the period after that of Prophet Muhamad (sws). Arafah ibn al-Harith Kindi speaking to Amr ibn al-‘Aas about the Dhimmis is reported to have said:

انما اعطیناہم علی ان نخلی بینہم وبین کنائسہم یقولون فیہا ما بدا لہم وان لا نحملہم ما لا یطیقون وان ارادہم عدو قاتلناہم من وراۂم ونخلی بینہم وبین احکامہم الا ان یاتوا راضین باحکامنا فنحکم بینہم بحکم اللّٰہ وحکم رسولہ وان غیبوا عنا لم نعرض لہم فیہا قال عمرو صدقت

“We have only given our word to them that we will not stop them from their places of worship, they can do whatever they want in their places of worship and that we will not burden them beyond their capacity and that in the case of any external attack, we will fight in their defense and that we will not stop them from following their (religious) laws, except if they choose to come to us to be judged by our (religious) laws in which case we shall give our verdict according to the ruling of God and His Messenger. But if they will not bring their matter to us, then we shall not interfere in their matter. Hearing this, Amr ibn al-‘Aas affirmed its correctness.” (Sunan Bayhaqi, 18490)

We also do not find any evidence in the judicial rulings from the period of the companions of Prophet Muhammad (sws) that Islamic laws were not applied to non-Muslims. Zuhri states the practice of the two generations following the death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as follows:

مضت السنۃ ان یردوا فی حقوقہم ومواریثہم الی اہل دینہم الا ان یاتوا راغبین فی حد نحکم بینہم فیہ فنحکم بینہم بکتاب اللّٰہ

“The continuous practice regarding the Dhimmi population has been that the matters of their mutual disputes and inheritance are referred to their co-religionists, except if they themselves turn to us in some criminal case, then we will judge between them according to the Book of God.” (Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq, 10007)

According to this, even in criminal cases, it is essential for non-Muslims to approach the Muslim courts to be judged by them. It is reported that when a Muslim man committed adultery with a non-Muslim woman, Saydina Ali (ra) gave the verdict that the Muslim be punished according to the Islamic Hadd Law and the woman be handed over to her people for their own verdict. (Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq 10005)

Muslim scholar Sarakhsi writes:

لاجل عقد الذمۃ نترکہم فی ما ہو اعظم من ذلک من شرب الخمور وتناول الخنزیر

“In view of the pact of Dhimmah we do not even stop them (the Dhimmis) from the major sins such as drinking and having pork.” (Commentary on al-Siyar al-Kabir)

John Bagot Glubb writes in his book The Life and Times of Muhammad:

“We are thus obliged to admit that in the early Arab conquests, Jews and Christians were not compelled by them to become Muslims, nor indeed did they do so. For many generations after the conquest, the majority of Syrians retained the Christian faith. Indeed, the Lebanese have continued to do until the present day. Not only so, but Jews and Christians were permitted to observe their own laws, which were applied by their own judges. According to Muslim ideas, law arose from religion. Their own laws were derived from the Quran and the traditions. If, therefore, Jews and Christians were not to be obliged to become Muslims, it followed that they should not be compelled to observe Muslim laws. Each religion should follow the laws prescribed by its own faith.” (p. 388, London, 1970)

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Mushfiq Sultan

————————————

Sources Consulted