They claim that the Prophet of Islam calls for racism — that his followers hold a privileged status over all other people, even in matters of life. They allege that if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, there is nothing wrong with that according to Islamic law.

I asked Ali (may Allah be pleased with him): Do you have anything that is not in the Qur’an? Ibn ‘Uyaynah once said: What the people do not have. He said: By He who split the seed and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Qur’an, except an understanding that is given to a man in his book and what is in the document.

I said: What is in the document?

He said: “The mind, freeing the captive, and that a Muslim should not be killed for a disbeliever.”

The objection centres on the phrase:“A Muslim should not be killed for a disbeliever.” This statement is correctly understood through two aspects. The first aspect is that the disbeliever intended in the hadith is specifically the warring disbeliever — such as a spy or a war criminal in the land of Islam. The word “disbeliever” does not mean that his blood is freely permissible, as the malicious imagine. The disbeliever is one who places a veil between himself and the religion of Islam, and there are five distinct categories of disbelievers in relation to the Muslim.

This is a disbeliever who actively fights against the religion, humiliates it, and oppresses the weak. He is killed on the battlefield or executed by the ruler or judge as punishment for highway robbery and corruption in the land.

“The only reward of those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive after corruption in the land is that they will be killed or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides or be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter they will have a great punishment. Except for those who repent before you are able to defeat them, then know that God is Forgiving and Merciful.”

If a Muslim kills this warring disbeliever before he escapes from his crimes and punishment, then the Muslim is not killed in retaliation for him. This is the specific subject of the hadith.

This is a disbeliever who holds a covenant of safety from the ruler or the sultan — analogous to a tourist who enters the land of Islam carrying a passport. He is not to be harmed, based on his covenant with the official authority.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:“Whoever kills a person under a covenant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance can be detected from a distance of forty years.”

This is a disbeliever who seeks security and safety from any Muslim, and the Muslim grants him protection. He is not to be harmed.

“And if any of the polytheists seeks your protection, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of God, then escort him to a place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.”

She said: I went to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in the year of the conquest and found him bathing and his daughter Fatimah was covering him. I greeted him and he said: “Who is this?” I said: “I am Umm Hani’, daughter of Abu Talib.” He said, “Welcome to Umm Hani’.” When he finished his ablution, he stood up and prayed eight rak’ahs wrapped in one garment. When he finished, I said: “O Messenger of Allah, my mother’s son claims that he killed a man whom I have granted asylum to, so-and-so ibn Hubayrah.” The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:“We have granted asylum to whom you have granted asylum, O Umm Hani’.” Umm Hani’ said: And that was in the morning.

This is a non-Muslim from the People of the Covenant who have been placed under the protection of Allah and His Messenger. He possesses the same rights as Muslims bear among themselves and is bound by the same obligations.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:“Beware, whoever wrongs a covenanter…”

It is authentically reported on the authority of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz that he wrote to one of his commanders concerning a Muslim who had killed a dhimmi. He ordered the Muslim to be handed over to the victim’s heir — if the heir wished, he could execute him; if he wished, he could pardon him. The heir was handed him over and struck his neck. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz is counted among the greatest jurists of Madinah.(Al-Musannaf by Abd al-Razzaq, Vol. 10, p. 101)

This is a non-Muslim who is peaceful and a partner in the homeland, contributing through taxes and the defence of the land. He has what a Muslim has and is not to be harmed. This is derived from the correct understanding of reality and the broader objectives of Islamic law.

The intended meaning of the hadith is:a Muslim is not killed in retaliation for a warring, combatant disbeliever, under specific circumstances. This is further reinforced by the second aspect — the hadith was delivered as part of a sermon on the Day of the Conquest of Mecca, specifically to halt bloodshed and close a painful chapter.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said in his sermon while leaning his back against the Ka’bah:“A Muslim is not to be killed for a disbeliever, nor one who has a covenant during his covenant.”

Even if the statement —“A Muslim shall not be killed for an unbeliever, nor a person with a covenant in his covenant” — is understood in general terms, it actually elevates the dhimmi to the rank of the Muslim: his blood is as inviolable as the blood of a Muslim. The complete reading therefore becomes: “A Muslim or a dhimmi shall not be killed for a warring unbeliever.”

“And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right. This He has enjoined upon you that you may understand.”

“And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly — We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in taking life. Indeed, he has been supported.”

The phrase“whoever is killed unjustly” encompasses both the Muslim and the disbeliever — the Muslim ruler acts as the guardian of his blood in either case.

Some infer from the hadith that killing a non-combatant disbeliever outside the battlefield carries no legal consequence for a Muslim. This is incorrect.

The statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him) —“A Muslim shall not be killed for an unbeliever” — does not mean that killing a non-combatant disbeliever without the knowledge of the ruler carries no punishment whatsoever. The ruler retains full authority to impose discretionary punishment (ta’zir) such as imprisonment, flogging, fining, or exile. As for the case of a Muslim citizen killing a peaceful non-Muslim citizen, the matter is referred to the ruler as the guardian of the murdered person — represented today by the law recognised by custom in that country.

Malik and Al-Layth said:“If a Muslim kills a dhimmi by treachery, he is to be killed for it; otherwise he is not to be killed for it.”

This is what Abaan ibn Uthman put into practice when he was the governor of Madinah. A Muslim man killed a Copt treacherously, so Abaan executed him in retaliation. Abaan is counted among the jurists of Madinah.(Al-Jawhar Al-Naqi with Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, Vol. 8, p. 34)

Al-Sha’bi, Al-Nakha’i, Ibn Abi Layla, Uthman Al-Batti, Abu Hanifa and his companions held that a Muslim is to be killed in retaliation for a dhimmi — citing the generality of Qur’anic and Sunnah texts requiring retaliation, their equality in the perpetual inviolability of blood, and the narration that the Prophet killed a Muslim for a covenanter, saying:“I am the most generous of those who fulfill their obligations.” (Narrated by Abd al-Razzaq and al-Bayhaqi)

It was narrated that a Muslim man was brought to Ali who had killed a man from the People of the Covenant, and evidence was established against him. Ali ordered that he be killed. His brother came and said: “I have forgiven him.” Ali said: “Perhaps they threatened you and pressured you.” He said: “No, but killing him does not return my brother to me, and they have compensated me and I am satisfied.” Ali said:“You know best. Whoever has our covenant — his blood is our blood, and his blood money is our blood money.” (Narrated by al-Tabarani and al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan al-Kubra, Vol. 8, p. 34)

Do the American authorities treat an American citizen the same as a legal resident or immigrant in terms of rights and duties? The answer is no — the rights of a citizen differ from the rights of an immigrant, and this is universally recognised in all nations and customs. Is this discrimination by Western authorities a form of injustice or racism, or is it a right available to the state? The answer: it is a right available to the state, because the country in which a person was raised and built is different from the state of the newcomer. This is precisely what America and civilised Europe practise in the eyes of those same objectors. Is this injustice or racism?

The Holy Book attributed racism in blood and killing to the Prophet Moses — he deliberately killed an Egyptian because the Egyptian was fighting with an Israelite of his own nation.

“And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brothers to see their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew, one of his brothers. And he looked this way and that, and saw that there was no one there, so he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.”

When Moses killed the Egyptian as the text stated — does the meaning not become:“An Israelite shall not be killed for an infidel Egyptian”?

The New Testament attributes to Jesus Christ statements and actions that indicate racism at its peak:

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls before swine.”

“But Jesus said to them, ‘Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.’”

Let those who raise objections reflect on the Inquisition — when the Crusaders entered Andalusia after the fall of Granada and killed everyone in it, and established the Inquisition, wherein no Christian was killed for a Muslim. Was this racism or not? And when Jerusalem fell at the hands of the Crusaders and seventy thousand Muslims were killed in a single day for no reason — were those who fought not practicing racism? Was the meaning of their conduct not:“A Crusader shall not be killed for a Muslim”?