Is a Muslim’s life more valuable than that of a disbeliever (i.e., a non-Muslim) because the Prophet (PBUH) said, “A Muslim should not be killed in retaliation for the killing of a disbeliever”?

This ḥadīth does not imply that the life of a muʿāhad (a non-Muslim with whom a covenant of protection had been made) lacks value, just as the ḥadīth “a father should not be killed in retaliation for the killing of his child”¹ does not imply that the child’s life is without value. Killing one’s child is a major sin, and killing a muʿāhad is likewise a major sin. The Prophet (PBUH) said, “Whoever kills a muʿāhad shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance can be smelled from a distance of forty years [of traveling].² The ḥadīth “a Muslim should not be killed in retaliation for the killing of a disbeliever”³ is not an absolute rule. If a Muslim were to lure or deceive a disbeliever and then kill him, the Muslim would be subject to the death penalty. This is the view of Imām Mālik, who said: “The practice in our community is that a Muslim is not killed [in retaliation] for a kāfir (disbeliever) unless he kills him by deceit; then he is killed for it.”⁴ If a Muslim kills a non-Muslim without deceit, the ruler may impose any appropriate taʿzīr (discretionary) punishment to prevent the recurrence of such a crime and to deter others. But does Islam affirm that a Muslim is superior to a non-Muslim? Yes; the Muslim and the non-Muslim are not equal in the sight of Allāh, and this is a matter of ʿaqīdah (over which Muslims hold firm conviction). Allāh has established this clearly in the Qurʾān: {Is the one who is a believer equal ˹before Allāh˺ to the one who is rebellious? They are not equal!} (Qurʾān 32:18). Allāh described the disbelievers as having no higher values or aspirations beyond eating: {as for the disbelievers, they enjoy themselves and feed like cattle} (Qurʾān 47:12). That is, the disbelievers, like animals, eat without reflecting on where their food comes from, who created it, or what rights the Creator has over them for providing it. Allāh says: {Condemned are ˹disbelieving˺ humans! How ungrateful they are ˹to Allāh˺!} (Qurʾān 80:17). No matter how sinful a Muslim may be, he remains within the fold of Islam unless he apostatizes, and no matter how virtuous a non-Muslim may be, he remains within the fold of disbelief unless he embraces Islam. In other words, the good deed of pure monotheism cannot be equaled by any good deed performed by a non-Muslim, and the bad deed of disbelief cannot be equaled by any sin committed by a Muslim.

Unfortunately, many Muslims have become ashamed of taking pride in the supereminence of Islam because the West has succeeded in uprooting the value of religious supremacy from people’s hearts. Western countries continually proclaim that no one should be privileged or disadvantaged on the basis of religion, yet they do discriminate among people according to secular criteria. For example, they treat individuals differently based on their citizenship, immigration status, or national origin: immigrants (non-citizens) have fewer constitutional rights than citizens, undocumented foreign workers earn lower wages than legal immigrants and native workers with similar skills, and obtaining citizenship dramatically changes a person’s economic and social status. This is why immigrants so desperately seek the citizenship of the Western countries in which they reside. Moreover, in Western societies the secular legal system is binding on all citizens and cannot be ignored or violated. Consequently, Muslim citizens have no right to apply Islamic law even in matters of personal status, such as marriage, divorce, custody, and inheritance. A French Muslim must abide by the French secular legal system, a Dutch Muslim by the Dutch secular legal system, and a Chinese Muslim by the Chinese secular legal system. The point is that Western countries place supreme value on secular, worldly values, whereas Islam places supreme value on religion rather than on nationality, color, or any other mundane criterion. Every society’s core value becomes its criterion for discrimination. Thus, in Islam no one is superior to anyone else except by religion, whereas in the West mundane criteria form the basis of discrimination. Now the question is: which criteria of discrimination are more legitimate and worthy of being followed — mundane criteria or religion? The West seeks to make Muslims ashamed of their core values, thereby encouraging them to embrace its degenerate, worldly values. As noted, in Western economies, naturalized citizens generally do better economically than non-citizens and are less likely to live below the poverty line because they enjoy higher employment rates and wages, even though migrant labor plays a fundamental role in these economies. Migrant workers earn less than nationals with similar qualifications within the same occupational category and are more likely to work in lower-skilled, lower-paid jobs that do not correspond to their education and skills, reflecting discrimination in the hiring process. Moreover, highly educated migrant workers in high-income countries are also less likely to attain positions in higher occupational categories.⁵ In Islam, the criterion of superiority in the sight of Allah is taqwá (piety and mindfulness of Allāh) manifested through righteous deeds. That is, from a purely theological standpoint, the one who is more mindful of Allāh and obedient to Him is considered spiritually superior to the one who is not mindful of Allāh and is disobedient to Him. Therefore, the Muslim is certainly superior to the non-Muslim. However, this theological principle does not permit injustice toward non-Muslims. Islam commands Muslims to treat peaceful non-Muslims with justice and kindness. In the Islamic state, non-Muslim residents who are unable to support themselves are entitled to financial assistance from bayt al-māl (the public treasury). Moreover, as people of ḏimmah (also called muʿāhadūn, i.e., non-Muslims with whom a covenant of protection had been made), they enjoy freedom of worship and may follow their own religious laws in matters of personal status. Muslim jurists have even accepted the validity of a Magus marrying his daughter since Magian religious law permitted it, despite its being forbidden in Islam. Ibn Qudāmah [may Allāh have mercy on him] wrote in al-Muġnī: “A Magus married his daughter, and she bore him a daughter; then he died, leaving the two behind. In this case, the two (the wife/mother and the daughter) will receive two-thirds of the inheritance because they are [his] daughters…”⁶ Thus, Ibn Qudāmah explained the division of inheritance in this case. This illustrates the inherently pluralistic nature of Islam, which is affirmed by its texts and demonstrated throughout its history. Indeed, there is no comparable pluralism outside of Islam and Islamic law. Do secular systems allow the kind of pluralism that Islam established 1,400 years ago? The Prophet (PBUH) emphasized the duties of Muslims toward the muʿāhadūn (sing. muʿāhad: a non-Muslim who enters Muslim lands under a pact of protection), warning that anyone who violates these duties will face the wrath and punishment of Allāh. He (PBUH) is reported to have said: “Beware! Whoever wrongs a muʿāhad, or curtails any right of his, or burdens him with more than he can bear, or takes from him anything without his willing consent—I shall be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection.”⁷ The Prophet (PBUH) will be the adversary of anyone who abuses a muʿāhad on the Day of Resurrection. Imagine if the president of a Western country addressed his people, saying, “I will personally appear in court and stand against any citizen who oppresses a foreigner in this country.” No one would believe him, and he would become an icon worldwide! Yet this very statement was made by the Prophet (PBUH) more than 1,400 years ago. In contrast, laws that restrict immigration and impose limitations on immigrants continue to be enacted in Western countries. This highlights the stark difference between Islamic legislation and contemporary Western secularism. The West discriminates between individuals based on mundane secular criteria such as nationality, citizenship, or national origin, and secular laws are binding on all subjects of the state. Islam, on the other hand, recognizes no superiority except on the basis of piety and righteousness, while ensuring that non-Muslims who coexist peacefully with Muslims are entitled to justice, compassion, and respect, regardless of their religion.