Can a Dhimmi testify against a Muslim in Sharia court?

[GrandMufti]

From C.E.Bosworth:

"The legal testimony of a dhimmi was not admissible in a judicial suit where a Muslim was one of the parties, because it was felt that infidelity, the obstinate failure to recognize the true light of Islam, was proof of defective morality and a consequent incapability of bearing legal witness. In the words of the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi (d. 483/1090), "the word of a dishonest Muslim is more valuable than that of a honest dhimmi." On the other hand, the deposition of a Muslim against a dhimmi was perfectly valid in law. It was further held by almost all schools of Islamic law (with the exception of the Hanafi one) that the diya or blood money payable on the killing of a dhimmi was only two-thirds or a half of that of a free Muslim."



It seems like this would be an accepted argument in a Sharia court.

[Sultan]

Instead of pasting from a non-muslim source, why don't you try looking in the Quran and Sunnah instead?

[Iqbal Jogi]

Originally posted by GrandMufti

In the words of the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi (d. 483/1090), "the word of a dishonest Muslim is more valuable than that of a honest dhimmi."...
... It was further held by almost all schools of Islamic law (with the exception of the Hanafi one) that the diya or blood money payable on the killing of a dhimmi was only two-thirds or a half of that of a free Muslim."


They seem like Islamic sources to me.

But the question is, do you agree with the reasoning?

Since a Dhimmi has heard the true light of Islam, but still refuses to accept it, is that not proof of his obvious defective morality and a consequent incapability of bearing legal witness?

Can you provide a counter argument that would defeat this argument?

This is not a hypothetical question, this argument has been used in the past.

[Bilal]

There are a Jews who was sitting in the court against Ali the Khalifa of muslims. The court , judged for the Jews!

I wonder from where these lies imported!

[Iqbal Jogi]

Bilal, please don't misunderstand me. I am looking for arguments that will prove this wrong! If this is not the certain fate of a dhimmi under Sharia law, than help me to prove this wrong.

I will provide quotes below from Islamic sources and law. Your opinion and my opinion mean nothing under Sharia law, we both must provide a counter argument from within the law itself in order to discredit this concept.



from: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/RisShahadat.html

The Risala of 'Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (310/922 - 386/996)
A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh
(Including commentary from ath-Thamr ad-Dani by al-Azhari)


Chapter 38. Judgements and Testimony


38.3c. Those who have been punished for a hadd are not acceptable as witnesses

One does not accept the testimony of someone who has been given a hadd punishment nor the testimony of a slave, child, or unbeliever.

The testimony of an unbeliever is not acceptable either against a Muslim or an unbeliever. If he was an unbeliever and becomes Muslim, his testimony is accepted in what does not refer to the time he was an unbeliever.




from: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-5.html

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.50
Narrated by Abu Juhaifa

I asked 'Ali "Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur'an?" Or, as Uyaina once said, "Apart from what the people have?" 'Ali said, "By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Qur'an and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man with, and what is written in this sheet of paper." I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)."

Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 2745
Narrated by Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As
The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: ...A believer shall not be killed for an unbeliever, nor a confederate within the term of confederation with him.


4833
AL-HEDAYA Vol. II (Hanafi Manual)
Christians and Jews may testify concerning each other

The testimony of Zimmees with respect to each other is admissible, notwithstanding they be of different religions. Malik and Shafe'i have said that their evidence is absolutely inadmissible, because, as infidels are unjust, it is requisite to be slow in believing any thing they may advance, God having said (in the Koran) "WHEN AN UNJUST PERSON TELLS YOU ANY THING, BE SLOW IN BELIEVING HIM; "whence it is that the evidence of an infidel is not admitted concerning a Muslim; and consequently, that an infidel stands (in this particular) in the same predicament with an apostate. The arguments of our doctors upon this point are twofold. First, it is related of the prophet, that he permitted and held lawful the testimony of some Christians concerning others of their sect. Secondly, an infidel having power over himself, and his minor children, is on that account qualified to be a witness with regard to his faith is not destructive of this qualification, because he is supposed to abstain from every thing prohibited in his own religion, and falsehood is prohibited in every religion. It is otherwise with respect to an apostate, as he possesses no power, either over his own person, or over that of another; and it is also otherwise with respect to a Zimmee in relation to a Muslim, because a Zimmee has no power over the person of a Muslim. Besides, a Zimmee may be suspected of inventing falsehoods against a Muslim, from the hatred he bears to him on account of the superiority of the Muslims over him.



3197
AL-HEDAYA Vol. I (Hanafi Manual)

[Qualification of a witness]
It is necessary that the witnesses be ... Muslims; the evidence of infidels not being legal with respect to Muslims.

[Bilal]

Iqbal Jogi

What you said is called Ijtihad. this valid for certain time and place. If that time Dimmi had some rights in Islamic state, Jews and muslims had no place in christian states!!

Here is great story:

In the very early Islam, A jews came to the judge asked to take his war shield from Ali who was the muslims Khalmifa at that time................. The court asked the Khalifa to come quickly, the judge told Imam Ali : Please (Aba Al Hassan) take your seat........... then he talked to the jews: please Jews take your seat...........

The court judged for the Jews and asked Imam Ali to return the shield for him!

After the court finish, Imam Al was so angry from the judge, he told him, it is not justice to call me by my name and to call this person by his religion!! you gave me more respect in the court which against the justice!!


Other story:

In Egypt, there were game by horses between the son of Egypt leader (Omro Ibn Alas and a christian. The christian won, so the son of the leader started to beat him and to shout: how you won and I am the son of the best!!


The christian went to Madina and told Omer Ibn Khattab (muslims khalifa)about his story with the son of Egypt leader. Omer asked the leader of Egypt and his son to come to the court, then he asked the christian to beat the son of the leader of Egypt while his father looking.

Omer said his well known comment:

(Beat the son of the best!! beat him!! Why you thinking the human being as slaves while their mothers born them as free people!!)

[Iqbal Jogi]

Surely you would agree Bilal, that if I wanted to understand the fate of the Palestinians under Isreali rule, I would look at the writings of the Palistinians. Would you trust the historical writings of the Isrealis?

If you want to really learn about how Dhimmis were treated under the rule of the Caliph, read this:

http://mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/

[Bilal]

Iqbal Jogi

In Israel they still celebrating every year in the Jews golden age in Spain during 12th and 13th centuries. Of course they were Dhimmin at that time in the Islamic State.

Of course their are no Muslims Dhimmin in Christian states in middle ages because no Muslim allow to live in that states, may be the fate of Muslims and Jews in Spain at the end of 15th century is the best example!!!!

I do not believe that Crusaders gave any rights to non Christian in middle east during 2 centuries of their wars!!! Remember the fate of 70000 Muslims and 6000 Jews inn Jerusalem 1099. Thanks to Islam who allowed Jews and Christian to live in peace under its state!

For me I do surprise from Muslims because they did not revenge from Christian for their evil crimes during Crusaders wars and in Spain! May be muslims were kind more than enough by allowing Dimmi to live between them after all these crimes by Christian in spain and middle east

[Bilal]

May Allah forgive Sallahedin , who protected Jews and did not kill all the (evil) Crusaders!
He could kill all crusaders in Jerusalem in 1187 as they did in 1099 by Muslims and Jews.
Really, I think those leaders like angels, they strong and had power but they did not revenge from Barbaric crusaders, they gave them rights as Dimmi! !

If I were Sallhedin I will give them rights less than animals because this what they deserve

P.S there are 30 millions christian Dhimmi living in Arab world 12% of total people and 3 million Jews 1% . Could you tell me what the fate muslims Dhimmin in spain or south Italy?

[F R E S H]

Why does Grand Mufti keep churning out re - runs lol we covered this back ages ago, and i asked him then before i can comment on this give me a history of the author and i will make a comment !