In answer to the video "The Infidel and The Jizyah"
The early Medinite Muslim community lived in an atmosphere of constant threat from inside and outside the city. They would never lay down to sleep except with their weapons with them and had to be in constant preparation for attacks from all sides, by the pagans of all Arabia, and their allies among the people of the book
8:60"And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them".
The noble prophet, seeing himself as the guardian of the commumity was very often at the forefront in the case of a potential attack
"Once the people got frightened, so Allah's Messenger rode a slow horse belonging to Abu Talha, and he set out all alone, making the horse gallop. Then the people rode, making their horses gallop after him. On his return he said, "Don't be afraid (there is nothing to be afraid of) (and I have found) this horse a very fast one." That horse was never excelled in running hence forward".
This is one of the features of defensive Jihad, as is done by most governments around the world today; dissuasion through constant military readiness of any potential enemy, known or hidden. In the case an attack is launched, then the Muslims counter attack will not delay so as to imperil the community. This deterring method creates an atmosphere where diplomacy might be preferred than risking confrontation. However even in such an atmosphere, Muslims themselves should never beg for peace when they are in an state of inferiority. This is simple common sense from a military perspective, as it would expose a weak mindset to the enemy who would in turn be further emboldened in his belligerent attitude. Only in a state of superiority should they go and seek peace from the enemy in order to avoid further bloodshed.
This is exactly what the prophet would instruct the soldiers to do when about to confront an open enemy. But should on the other hand the opposite party come with a peace offer then the believers are told to rely on Allah and "incline", ie be receptive to it
8:61"And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing".
God will strengthen and protect those who actively rely on Him, as He did in the past, in case their aggressors seek to deceive them 8:62. It is in such tense context that the prophet is reported to have said
"Do not precede the Jews and the Christians with the Salam. And if one of you meets them in the path, then force them to its narrow portion/narrowest path".
The background of this report is, as seen from other versions is the prophet setting himself for a military expedition against a Jewish tribe, leaving these instructions to those remaining behind
"Verily, I am riding against the Jews tomorrow, so do not greet them with peace and if they greet you with peace, then say: And upon you".
It clearly is a warning to remain distant and cautious of the enemy in times of conflict, openly signifying to him that no further avenue for deescalation between the parties exists. This is how the Classical scholars understood it, placing the report in their chapters related to war campaigns. The scholars further say the tribe in question was the treacherous and covenant breachers of Banu Qurayza. Outside this exceptional context, the Quran encourages Muslims to reciprocate in peaceful salutations.
Reciprocity in goodwill is so hardwired into the Quranic message that even when people meet and greet oneanother, the one answering should exceed the other in his greeting
4:86"When a greeting is offered you, answer it with an even better greeting, or [at least] with its like. God keeps count of all things".
The Islamic greeting is a supplication to Allah, that He might bestow peace on another. This known etiquette, which is a Muslim peculiarity, is a means by which people’s hearts are cleansed. It brings people closer together and reinforces their ties. Further, it is indiscriminate; regardless of who the one originating the salutation, one should answer in kind, with even a recommendation to sometimes precede the ignorant in wishing him peace 25:63,28:55,43:89.
In answer to the video "The Infidel and The Jizyah"
After their defeat, the tribes of Bani Nadir and Qaynuqa were expelled and over those that remained, Muhammad proposed putting their own chief Usir ibn Rizam as Governor of Khaybar over his fellow Jews, but he had to recognize the Prophet's authority and never engage in hostilities or stir up anyone against the Muslims again. He accepted but on his way back to Khaybar where he was escorted with his 30 men and some armed Muslim men, he regretted his decision and attacked the Prophet's messenger, killing him.
Followed a heavy fight from which no Muslim died and all Jewish soldiers were killed except 1 who escaped. The history books report that one of the chiefs of the Bani Nadir named Kinana ibn Rabi, who had been given amnesty and relocated to Khaybar, was put to death under the prophet's orders, by Muhammad ibn Maslama in retaliation for the murder of his borther Mahmud. The rest of the story according to which, prior to his death, he was supposedly tortured for his refusal to indicate the location of his hidden treasure, was copied by both Tabari and Ibn Hisham from Ibn Ishaq who doesnt give any isnad with it. This report was most probably a Jewish invention as it is known that ibn Ishaq, in his effort at collecting every possible historical account regardless of authenticity (leaving the authentication process to be conducted by the subsequent generations), would borrow Jewish stories from the prophet's battles.
Further, the prophet forbade any kind of torture involving burning, and in his pattern of conduct in the authentic reports, no precedent exists for such a behavior although he could have done so on many occasions. War prisonners are to be well treated, clothed, sheltered and fed. When imam Malik was asked the Islamic ruling on torturing war prisonners to obtain military information he replied that he had never heard of such thing being done in Islam. The prophet was disinterested in pursuing wealth, whether in his battles or his reportedly austere lifestyle which his wives complained about even when the community had grown more prosperous. Neither was Kinana's family put to death, as is read in the report. It is related that Kinana's brother was alive under Umar's caliphate.
With the collapse of their last fortress, the Jews did not pose any more threat to the Muslims. Those that were expelled had their immovable properties confiscated and redistributed to the homeless among Muslims, who still had no dwelling places since their migration from Mecca. Those that were allowed to stay, remained on the condition that they could be expelled anytime should they return to treachery, desire for war or instigating others against the Muslims.
They could keep their property but in exchange had to provide the Muslims with part of their crops, they had to relinquish their insularity and participate in the life of the whole community with the rights and obligations that naturally ensue. Ibn Rawahah was placed as governor, and under the Prophet's instructions the Jews were allowed free practice of their religion. Now the believers had inherited under divine sanction their lands and wealth just as other unrighteous people's possessions were entirely given to them as spoils
Neh9:25"And they captured fortified cities and fat soil, and they inherited houses full of all good, hewn cisterns, vineyards, and olive trees, and fruit trees in abundance, and they ate and were sated, and they became fat, and they enjoyed pleasures with Your great goodness".
The Ishmaelites and their prophet however did not behave anywhere remotely like the Israelites and their prophets did whenever the lands of their enemies were granted to them by God, disregarding all ethics of war and humanitarian principles.
If there is one person that did not benefit from the conquest of Khaybar, it is the noble prophet. For example in 33:28-29 the prophet's wives are told that if their desire for this world and its adornment is preferable in their eyes than a life of sacrifices dedicated to their spiritual duties
"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".
After divorce the woman would have stood excluded from the category of "mothers of believers", and she would not be forbidden to any other Muslim; for she would have chosen divorce from the prophet only for the sake of the world and its adornments of which she had been given the choice. The prophet's wives had thus the option of requesting and getting a just and kind divorce for even such petty reasons like their desire to pursue this wordly life which God's prophet could not afford giving them in his household.
By the time this verse was revealed, and as shown in the direct context, the Muslims had conquered the rich agricultural region of Khaybar, and the community had grown more prosperous. But while life was becoming easier for most of its members, this ease was not reflected in the household of the Prophet. As was always his habit, he only allowed himself and his family only the absolute minimum necessary for the most simple living
28:83"that future abode, We assign it to those who have no desire to exalt themselves in the earth nor to make mischief and the good end is for those who guard (against evil)".
His prestigious status as a prophet and ruler never came in the way of that humble principle of living. Not only was he not ever one to ask for any kind of reward from his addressees 6:90,25:56-7,12:104etc but every occasion where he could make use of his status and deep knowledge for material benefit, he would do it for the sake of the needy
58:12"when you consult the Messenger, then offer something in charity before your consultation; that is better for you and purer".
The prophet's wives on the other hand naturally were longing for a share in the comparative luxuries which other Muslim women could now enjoy. His wives often stated that they had little on their shelves besides bread flour and dates. But it is reported that all of them rejected a possible seperation with the prophet and resumed their spiritual duties as "mothers of the believers", and were promised a great reward in the Hereafter for having denied themselves the ordinary comforts of life by remaining in the Prophet's house 33:31.
The prophet was at war for over 13 years with various tribes, including other Jews than Bani Qurayza. If he was a war lord that loved blood as the critics claim by raising this and other incidents, then it would be easy to provide evidence for this lust for be-heading and decapitating to establish a precedent. History on the other hand says that Jews continued to live in that region. They should have all fled following the supposed massacres, but didnt. They were only to be expelled many years after the Prophet died, by Umar. They were shifted to other regions within the Peninsula, Tayma and Ariha, and given paid settlements. Umar was being lenient here, considering that their expulsion was due to them breaching a non-aggression treaty with the Muslims. The prophet therefore could not have ordered their expulsion from the entire peninsula when he said
"I will certainly expel the Jews and Christians from the peninsula until I leave none but Muslims".
That is why the medieval scholars argued that by Arabia, what was meant was the area of the Hijaz. It is well established that when the ancients referred to Arabia, it did not necessarily mean what is understood today as the Arabian Peninsula. The order was specific to the Hijaz, more specifically the southern portion, to secure the establishment of Islam from their proven, unabated hostilities even after the prophet's death. The prophet's foresight proved to be true when he said
"Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula".
Clearly the prophet's conflict with his Israelites brethren was neither arbitrary or prejudiced. It is also to be noted it is Umar who, upon Jerusalem's conquest, cleaned the garbage dump which Christians purposefully left over the Jewish temple mount. It is Umar who invited 70 Jewish families of a nearby refugee village back into Jerusalem giving them the right to return after centuries of banishment by successive Christian leadership. Many attempts were made to reason and coexist with them. This is nothing like the 2000 years of humiliating abasement, mass expulsions, rounding up, forced conversions, false accusations and calumnies, extortions and indiscriminate mass killings of Jewish "Christ-killers" by Christians. What is even more disturbing is that this type of behavior was viewed as theologically and eschatologically justified and positive, in the sense that Christians were being "loving" and "charitable" by inciting Jews to be healed from their cursed and harmful faith.
Here is a timeline of Jewish persecution https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/historyjewishpersecution/.
Jewish "persecution" began since before any Temple was standing, such as in ancient Egypt. As already pointed 99% of such persecution as well as the killings from that time till now come from non-Muslims. But what is most important to note is the Jewish persecution and genocides of other people, through divinely ordained commands still applicable and compulsory to this day, as well as the persecution and killing of Jews by Jews throughout their biblical history.
As to recent times, the Arab nations had no "Jewish problem". They've been living side by side with them for centuries, even helped them escape the Nazis, especially in North Africa. Its not German antisemitic propaganda that turned the tide, causing Nazis and Arabs to ally, rather the shared hatred of the colonizers (British, French or Italian) and opposition to fascism and communism. It is known that the Arab elites did not endorse Nazism either, just as Hitler despised the Arabs. The Mufti of Jerusalem on the other hand had a "Jewish problem" (the massive influx of Jews into Palestine in the late 30s), combined with hatred of the British who opposed their nationalism. When Jews were targeted by Arabs in Arab lands, it was to prevent their emigration to Palestine, by sympathizers of the Mufti. There were no genocidal attacks/pogroms except for the event of Baghdad in '41, again in the backdrop of the politics of the time, blaming the Jews for the British invasion (they were seen as allies in relation to Palestine). But the scale of victims and damage to property is widely disputed, and some Iraqis risked their lives to hide Jewish neighbours. Although the authorities did not immidiately intervene, they eventually conducted an investigation, even executed army officers. Sure, life for a Jew in Arab lands was sometimes far from perfect, just like Muslim life is far from perfect in Israel (killings, destruction of land and property etc). But how many antisemitic incidents throughout ancient history until the 20th century came from Muslims, and were actually ordered by the authorities (as is done today in Israel)? Compare it to the scale of antimuslim attacks in Israel's short history.
In answer to the video "The Infidel and The Jizyah"
This hadith actually demonstrates how Muslim morality in war was such, that the prophet instructed the soldiers about to depart for an expedition against a declared enemy, to only fight their opponents as a last resort and after all avenues of peace have been exhausted
"Fight in the name of Allah and in the cause of Allah. Fight the disbelievers; attack and do not transgress the limits; do not betray; do not mutilate [your enemies' corpses]; and do not kill children. When you meet your enemies FROM AMONG the polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any of them, accept it and cease fighting; 1-Then, invite them to Islam; if they agree, accept it from them and cease your fighting. Then invite them to leave their homeland and move to Madina where they will be entitled to the same rights and obligations of the Muhajirun (the Muslim immigrants from accross the Peninsula fleeing their tribes at war with the Muslims). 2-If they refuse to do so (ie move to Medina), inform them that they will be treated like Muslim Bedouins (desert nomads) and they will be subject to the same rulings applied to believers. However, they will not be entitled to any war booty unless they engage in jihad with Muslims. 3-If they refuse, ask them to pay jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. But if they refuse to pay, seek Allah's help and fight them".
As is clear this is speaking of a sub-group from among the polytheists, those with whom the Muslims are at war and must be fought back in self defense. This means, there is another group of polytheists who arent meant to be fought and the Quran speaks of them, even at an advanced stage of the prophetic mission when Mecca was conquered, in sura tawba 9:4,6,7. They are those who are truthful to their agreements with the Muslims and refrain from attacking them, hence the instruction
"do not betray".
The hostile group on the other hand must be fought but even then, there are war ethics to observe when engaging them, first of all related to the non combatants. That is a significant point, the report says that CHILDREN are exempted from the law of retalitation, not the usual elderly and women. This means the prophet is here permitting the Muslims to seek their right, but not against non-combatants, hence the instruction to
"attack and do not transgress the limits".
The hostile group had no will to refrain from their attitude, had they had any will to do so, they would have shown it as the other pagans did. That is why the prophet doesnt recommend the Muslim fighters to ask them for peace prior to retaliating. But even then, this doesnt mean all doors to a peaceful resolution were shut. It would have been counter productive to simply offer them peace, it would have been tantamount to capitualtion while the Muslims were in full right to exercize their right to self-defence.
That is why the prophet instructs to offer 3 other avenues to avert battle. The first was to convert and join the Medina community as full fledged members with their rights and obligation. The second was convert while remaining in their own comunity, like the desert nomads did. This basically meant the prophet was tacitly telling them to remain in their ways as they wished, just verbally declare Islam so as to avert war. It is to be noted that this type of verbal Islam never deceived the prophet, the Quran speaks of this type of people among the Bedouins 49:14 who hardly practiced the religion, much less participated in their obligations towards the remaining Muslims. This was a pragmatic device the prophet adopted so as to create a peaceful alliance with a hostile people without hurting the dignity of the remaining Muslims who were entitiled to retaliation.
By becoming Muslims, even in the most superficial of ways, then the remaining Muslims must as a duty give them the benefit of the doubt and stop all hostilities. This also gave the enemies additional time to reflect and possibly reform, seeing the high values of Islam first hand. In case of refusal of those 2 options, convert and join Medina, convert and remain among their own, they still are given the option of remaining autonomous in exchange of the jizya. In case of refusal of all the above, then the Muslims have no more choice left but to engage in battle. They would have exhausted all possible avenues for peace with a people bent on attacking them.
All this shows, contrary to what the misleading critics try hard to portray, is that the prophet was interested in one thing only; to prevent hostilities against his community. Had he desired jizya, he wouldnt have proposed the previous 2 options, had he desired Islam, he wouldnt have proposed jizya in exchange for peace, much less the shallow declaration of Islam. Had he desired manpower for his army, he wouldnt have proposed jizya and much less the Muslim Bedouin status.
In answer to the video "The Infidel and The Jizyah"
Until 9:29, the sura Tawba prescribed divine punishment upon 3 groups; the hypocrites among the Muslims, the treacherous warmongers among the idolaters, and those idolaters insisting on their pagan practices within the sacred precincts of Mecca.
No punishement is prescribed on the peaceful idolaters beyond Mecca, as well as those in Mecca that refrain from their rituals at the sacred sites re-dedicated strictly to the Islamic religion. They are to be left unharmed as mentionned earlier.
Nor is there until now any legal directive towards the remaining non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, whether in Mecca or beyond. This included the people of the book (Jews and Christians) or the followers of other belief systems, or even atheists
9:29"Fight those who believe not in God and nor in the Last Day and nor do they forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden and nor do they follow the religion/DEEN of truth from among the people of the book, till they give the compensation with a willing hand, while they are humble".
This verse, as attested by the prophetic practice, is not restricted to the people of the book. It covers any religion that was and could potentially fall under Muslim rule as a result of provoked warfare. The verse mentions 4 categories;
1- Those who do not believe in God
2- Those who reject the resurrection
3- Those who regard as lawful what Allah and the prophet have forbidden. Those that pass the 2 preceding criteria by believing in God and the concept of resurrection, should adhere to Islam as the only reasonable spiritual reality. If they make the choice not to, then they are believers in one of the many man made religions that does not forbid what Allah has forbidden through His prophet in the Quran and sunna. Or they might be from the people of the book, believers in God and the resurrection. Being sincere in their faith, they should, like the aforementioned group naturally enter the fold of Islam. The Quran speaks of them, those that remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced, praiseworthy reading and understanding of their books led many of them to eventually believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. But those that make the choice not to, they remain as people of the book who despite their sincerity in faith, do not regard as forbidden what Allah and His messenger forbade.
4- Those who do not follow the DEEN of truth from among the people of the book. The root D-Y-N means rule or debt or any obligation. It may be summarized as "system". It is used this way in the Quran 9:36,12:76 classical literature and even in common Arabic speak. Whenever the preposition "mina" is used before a composite entity, or a group, and that this entity is given a qualification, then "mina" carries the meaning of "among", pointing to a portion from among that composite entity 4:46,160,5:5,23,41,57,107,8:65,57:10. "The Deen of truth" in that phrase cannot refer to Islam as a religion. One cannot speak of a portion from among the people of the book as being followers of Islam while others reject it. This speaks of the Jews and Christians whom the Quran in many places condemns as sinful, insincere to the truth of their own books. The praiseworthy among them, followers of "the deen of truth" were those included in the 3rd category.
None of the groups above are to be fought until they become Muslims. Rather until they pay the jizya in submission to the Islamic rule. That subjection is in relation to the Islamic system which they are now bound to, being permanent non Muslim residents under protection of the Muslim state. The majority of Muslim scholars have understood the passage in that way. See for example al-Shafi'i, Al-Umm, Vol. 4, Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi's Tafsir Vol. 10 or Fatani, Ikhtilaf al-Darin p48. This is also seen by the fact that the musta'min (a non Muslim temporary resident) is not subjected to the Islamic legal system nor the jizya, according to the Hanafi school. That subjection has thus nothing to do with humiliation, as some have interpreted, and without any evidence in the prophetic practice nor that of the first caliphs. Humiliation does occur however, when those non-Muslim residents of the Islamic state refuse to pay government taxes to the point they have to be forcefully made to. Just as Muslims, shortly after the prophet's death had to be fought, humbled, and forced to pay the government taxes under Abu Bakr's caliphate.
The order to fight therefore isnt motivated by a choice of creed otherwise the mere paying of a tax would not have been enough to end the fighting, rather a forceful conversion would. Yet that option is never proposed in the verse. The only issue for them is explicitly spelled out; Payment of taxes and submission to the laws of the religious state they live in as members of a different religion on whom different rights and obligations apply. The governement has actually more to gain in wealth and manpower if they convert, especially in early times when Muslims were a minority in these newly conquered lands. Yet they are told to keep their religion and autonomy instead.
Converting to Islam, something that isnt incumbent upon them, would end the command to fight them should they insist on not paying the jizya. But they will not escape being fought should they refuse honoring the duties that fall upon them as Muslims, including contributing financially to the functioning of the Islamic state, as well as obligations that did not apply to their former religious communities, like military service. There really is no true incentive for them to leave their religion which is why the option is never proposed in the verse.
The verses that follow illustrate some of the transgressions of the people of the book, and their causes, such as deification of prominent personalities, blind following of their religious leaders etc, while no blame is placed on them for not following Islam. These dark deviations in religion will never extinguish the light of guidance, no matter how much the disbelievers among the people of the book dislike it 9:32. The verse employs the image of a person attempting to extinguish a strong light with a blow from the mouth, to illustrate the relative feebleness of his position.
The passage ends with the reiteration of a prophecy made long before 48:28,61:9 regarding the prevailing of the deen/way of truth sent by the One true God over all other ways no matter how much the polytheists dislike it 9:33. The wording of this verse is very appropriate since it specifically mentions the polytheists, followers of non-divine religions, as disliking the establishment of the deen of truth. The people of the book, sincere to their scriptures as pointed earlier, will not dislike the establishment of a Godly system, since it does not only mean establishing Islam, but also exposing and establishing the truth of their own religion
5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize".
The Jizya is a collective tax, not a head tax. It is imposed on the people of dhimma, the diminutive for dimmat Allah wa rasulih, the protection of God and His messenger. This connection demonstrates the significance of the dhimmis, making them eligible for protection under divine obligation. The prophet applied the command upon Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and according to some scholars like abu Hanifa, the pagans, based on a prophetic saying
"If they (Arab polytheists) accept the dhimmah contract (aqd al-dhimmah), then inform them that they have the same rights and duties as Muslims".
The jizya imposed on them is a collective tax because it is agreed upon by mutual consultation, not arbitrarily decided by the Muslim state. Each individual was imposed depending on his financial capacity. The benefits which the government offers in exchange of the due jizya, are matters of communal and national interest - defending the territory from outside aggression, establishing security, maintaining the environment, building infrastructure, etc., not the sort of benefits you can opt out of. The earliest Muslim rulers even appointed a portion of the Muslim zakat to feed the needy among the people of the book, even though they were exempted from paying the jizya. When a Jew came asking the caliph Umar for money, he said
"go find him and those like him, and give them out of the public treasury".
It is known that together with the needy, the clergy was also exempted from the tax by the Muslim authorities. And yet they fully benefited from government services, including military protection and infrastructure. These exception to the rule of 9:29 are based upon strong and firm unconditional principles as regards the Muslim duty towards the weak in any society, and the preservation of the worship sites of the people of the book where the name of Allah is mentioned. There is thus a strong Quranic basis for the policy of most Muslim rulers, including as early as the caliph Umar, of being selective in the application of the jizya upon the people of dhimma.
Even though Jizya it is not a personal head tax, for the sake of argument, one can either pay taxes willingly, or be punished through several forceful means including jail in case of refusal, or leave the country. In a secular state the issue is pretty much the same. Special taxes will apply to alien residents, who in addition to having to compensate the state for providing them with benefits of all kind, must also exempt themselves from the obligations and rights that apply to the citizen of that state (military service, various taxes on salaries, financial regulations etc). Paying that tax will protect them from being pursued and punished by that government.
Some insidious critics like calling it "protection money". Every taxation system in the world is in fact aimed at providing protection; either by financing a system that preserves the well-being of the society as a whole, or by protecting against punishment, since failing to pay results in sanctions. Jizya is the rightful compensation demanded from the dhimmi, in exchange of the exemption from the laws, rights, obligations, penalties etc of that state religion in matters that do not concern the society as a whole. That is because the sharia for Muslim governance of non-Muslim citizens is that non-Muslims should not be forced to follow the moral laws dictated in the Quran.
The idea that this model oppressed non Muslim dhimmis to the point they preferred conversion is unfounded, without any historical and documented basis. It wasnt therefore a system aimed at enriching anyone, but a legitimate compensation for concrete services and exemptions. That is why non-Muslims that volontarily participated in the military were exempted from the tax. Those that paid the tax and werent properly served were refunded. For instance when Muslim ruled Syria was threatened with invasion by the Romans and the Muslim ruler doubted whether he would be able to protect the non-Muslims of that region, he hastily returned their jizya money which was supposed to be partly aimed at guarantying their protection. Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah told the Christians they would be bound by the agreement again only if he is able to fend off the Roman invasion. The Christians consequently prayed for Muslim victory, knowing that the Romans would never behave with them in such a manner.
Under that system, non Muslims enjoy complete religious autonomy as long as it does not conflict with the state religion. For example selling alcohol publicly. Dhimmis may deliberate, individualy deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, again, so long as no conflict occurs between the 2. For example it is well known that Christian and Jewish elites enacted laws preventing their people from resorting to a Muslim judge in cases where their own laws were unfavorable.
