Common misconceptions thread is quite clear...

-----

Judiciary

One of the accusations against Islam’s treatment of dhimmi is that a dhimmi is not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim and his oath is not acceptable in an Islamic court.

Bat Ye’or states:

Every legal case involving a Muslim and a dhimmi was judged according to Koranic law. Although the very idea of justice implies equality between parties, a dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim. Since his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court his Muslim opponent could not easily be condemned. In order to defend himself, the dhimmi was obliged to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense.14

The rule of law applies to everyone within the Khilafah and there are no exceptions. It is obligatory for the Islamic State to judge in cases concerning the dhimmi with justice and no discrimination against them is allowed.

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an:

And if you judge, judge with justice between them.

Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.15

The most famous example of this justice is in the legal trial of a Jew who stole the coat of armour of Imam Ali (ra) as he was travelling to a battle. The judge Shurayh made no exception for Ali (ra) even though he was the Khaleefah, a Muslim and also off to fight in a battle so was in desperate need of his armour. Shurayh ruled in favour of the Jew and accepted his testimony in court. Full details of the trial can be read here.

****************************************************************************
The dhimmi is allowed to be a witness in an Islamic court against a Muslim and their evidence is acceptable. The conditions of being a witness apply equally to Muslims and dhimmi. The conditions of a witness are: sane, mature and ‘adl (trustworthy).
****************************************************************************

It may be claimed that the condition of ‘Adl applies only to Muslims who refrain from committing the kabeera (major) sins. This is incorrect. ‘Adl in this context means someone who abstains from that which the people consider a violation of uprightness, whether he was a Muslim or non-Muslim. This is because ‘adaala (trustworthiness) was stipulated in the testimony of the Muslim as well as in the testimony of the non-Muslim, by using the same word without distinguishing one from the other.

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an:

O you who believe! Let there be witnesses between you when death draws to one of you, at the time of bequest, two witnesses, ‘adl (trustworthy) from among you, or two others from other than you.16

He (swt) meant non-Muslims by saying other than you. He said ‘two ‘adl witnesses from Muslims or two ‘adl from other than Muslims.’ So how can the ‘adaala be defined as not committing a kabeera (major) sin and insistence on committing a sagheera (small) sin regarding a non-Muslim? Also how can we reject as a witness the one who disobeyed his parents once, but accept as witness the spy, just because spying is not from kabeera sins? Therefore, the valid meaning of ‘adl is the one that abstained from that which the people consider violation to the uprightness.17

Systems of justice are flawed enough… I don’t believe that throwing a religious element into the mix, particularly of one so severe and one that proselytizes with zeal, would necessarily judge equally those of the faith and those who are not. Why would they necessarily be more just than a secular system?

Let’s see what stories of religious inequality emerge from Iran when (hopefully) the crash of oil prices causes the collapse of the Islamic Theocracy.  

There's no contradiction at all.

Even if Tallow's accusation were correct (which it is not), and Imam Ali (ra) was lying then that still  does not affect the relevance of this example in the slightest. Please stop deflecting to irrelevant side issues.

Your issues with the common misconceptions thread are really petty, I gotta say.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 2:40pm:



Can you imagine the outcry [from muslims in the West], if those circumstances were reversed, and we applied those values to muslims within our court system?

I mean, muslims would be rioting on our streets, and calling us bigots, and 'racists'.
....err, yeah,
....well you know what i mean!















Funny isn't it, muslims never believe that such demands [which they make], applies to themselves.....






How would muslims feel.....

Yadda wrote on Feb 19^th, 2009 at 1:42pm:



They would riot, of course, you racists, white supremacist, bigoted insensitive islamophobe. How very dare you imagine for a minute that you could be permitted to say anything like what a Muslim can say? You would be dragged before some sensitivity-court and ruined, white pigdog English oppressor. Off with your head!
Alana's at da bar!