The issues of minority rights have captured the interest of many researchers, human rights activists, and political elite. Not only because of its challenging nature but also it is a very valuable and expensive project for any parties who claim to be the champion of minority rights. Primarily because of the problem of minority and majority relation has been existing since the first time man comes down to earth. The prosecution, violation, and oppression of the minority by the majority have long been practiced since the ancient time of Pharaoh in Egypt , early Roman Empire  and in the Medieval Christendom.  The Muslim experienced the same fate under the domination of pagan Arab in Mecca; they were persecuted, isolated, and driven out from their homes.  However, the Muslim of Madinah, as they became the dominant group, they had ensured and protected the right of the minority who lived in Madinah in peace. They have become the best exemplar of civilized community, and hero of the oppressed and weak people.  Despite of such great achievement, the persecution of traditional conservative Scholars of the Hambalits by the dominant Mu’tazilit during the Abbasids Caliphate, under the Caliph of Al-Ma’mun, had become the evident that such violation of minority rights was also occurrence in the Muslim State. 

       The rise of secularism that was associated with the rise of nationalism led to the creation of nation- state: one language, one nation, and one territory of state. Assimilation of the minority with the majority language and culture is a distinct feature of the modern nation-states. It can take the form of Indonization, Americanization, Indianization and etc. Will this approach, at least have some hope, solve the problem of minority rights? Or it is rather aggravate the problem, since it advocates that political boundaries should conform to the national characteristics of the people. In the light of the growing drive of many Muslim to implement Islamic SharÏ’ah, or at least, to mould the state legal system to be in conformity with SharÏ’ah, it is paramount important to address the issues of non-Muslim minority rights. Since they have been the citizen of the State before the implementation of the Islamic SharÏ’ah. Is there a change regarding their status of citizenship? What about their rights, are they in the position to enjoy similar rights and privilege as it was before the implementation of Islamic SharÏ’ah? 

        Many Muslim Scholars have addressed these questions with special reference to the Qur’an and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH); and the practice of the early companions concerning the status of non-Muslim minority in the Islamic State. The Muslim scholars agreed that the first and of the most paramount important characteristics of SharÏ’ah is its primary objectives that is to protect and promote the well being of five basic categories of human life. Namely: Religion, the human mind, human honor and dignity or Offspring, the human body or life, and wealth or properties. 

Abdul Rauf, further discuss that:
Religion inspires awareness of the creator’s presence, power, and omniscience; and it ensures discipline on the part of its adherents. Corruption of religion is the most cardinal sin. SharÏ‘ah urges the effort that would fertilization of mind, and forbid all that might be harmful to it such as drinking liquor and the consumption of harmful drug. It urges that human body be taken good care of… forbid all that can be harmful to it. Human dignity and honor should be protected, and forbids any action or obscene behavior. Property, wealth and resources have to be sought, developed, invested and treated and made ready for human good use and consumption; and it forbids unjust exploitation, accumulation and waste or abuse. 

Muhamad Naqib Numan, therefore, observes that: 
SharÏ‘ah guaranteed fundamental right as Allah has ordained in the Qurãn…[and] it is inalienable, immutable and none is in the position to take them away just because of war or during the emergence period…. [T]his right is extended to the entire human race without any distinction of race, color, or creed… [Furthermore] since justice is attributed to Allah and the administration of justice is considered as performance of religious duty…[T]herefore, the state has no right to charge any fee for the administration of justice. 

       Based on such a comprehensive understanding of Islamic SharÏ‘ah, Muslim scholars of the early and contemporary period have attempted to develop a framework of non-Muslim minority status under the Islamic SharÏ‘ah. Upon which they drew an obvious line of the rights of the non-Muslim minority under the Islamic system of governance. 

Said Ramadhan observed that:
Islam consider non-Muslim under two categories: firstly, those who settle within the territorial limits of Islamic State, and whose status is to be determined by a kind of socio-political contract which is called aqh al-dhimmah. Secondly, those who enter the Islamic State for a limited period, and whose status is subjected to the regulations and conditions upon which the permission of sojourn is granted. 

S. Showkat Hussain, by specifically referred to Mawdudi, suggested the third category that the natural-born subject of the Islamic State.  Besides these three categories, I. Doi suggested other two categories: the conquered non-Muslim whom automatically becomes the dhimmah and Non-Muslim of resident aliens who have opted voluntarily to live in the Islamic State. 

As above mention, Muslim scholars generally have agreed with three categories of the status of non-Muslim minorities under Islamic SharÏ’ah; (1) Ahl al-Dhimmah, (2) the conquered people, (3) natural- born subject of Islamic State; with the additional of (4) non-Muslim tourists or temporary sojourners, and (5) resident aliens who voluntarily live in the Islamic State.  

Said Ramdhan clarified further that:
Ahl al-Dhimmah means “those whose obligations are a trust upon the conscience and pledge of the state or the nation” and they are also called al-Mu’ahiddum, which means “the contractees” or “ the holders of a covenant” because their membership of the nation is based on contracts concluded between them, or their ancestors, and the Islamic State. 

The conquered people are those non-Muslim who fight against Muslim and are defeated; they automatically become the ahl-Dhimmah. However, the different between these two categories is best explained by I. Doi, that the former, as regards to all matters, is regulated and decided with the terms of appropriate treaty. Meanwhile the latter, as regards to all matters, is decided by the payment of a fix amount of Jizyah- tax and their lives, property honor and places of worship will be protected in lieu thereof. 

The natural born subject of Islamic State, according to Mawdudi they should be treated as a distinct category. As it is illustrated in his answer to the question whether Jizyah can be imposed upon the non-Muslim of Pakistan. Mawdudi asserted that “since they have neither been conquered nor made subject as a result of a treaty, therefore they form different class”. 

This categorization has created serious misconception among Muslim Scholars, as it gives an impression that the non-Muslims are the second class citizens, as it is claimed by Majid Khadduri and shared by most Western writers.  

I. Doi therefore asserted that:
Muslim are not supposed to consider themselves as the “Lords of the population of the globe” as they are arbis Romanus but merely “Servant of Allah” (Ibãd-Allah) and even as rulers, they are merely the custodians of Allah’s property and not the absolute owner…Muslims and non-Muslims, therefore, are equal before the law in every aspect. The distinction is the terms “Muslims” and “non-Muslim” merely remains one of political administration and not of human rights. 

Another misconception is concerning the payment of Jizyah, which is imposed upon non-Muslim alone. Jizyah is translated as “poll tax” which is generally and wrongly understood as a tax which the non-Muslims alone have to pay in exchange for the permission to maintain their faith- like it or not- left the impression that they are different level of citizen, in comparison with Muslim. This implication is contradicted with the nature of the concept it self which innately implies a fair partnership between equal citizens in the Islamic State. The word Jizyah is derived from the Arab root-word, Jaza that connotes “to give what is due in return for something given”. It should not, therefore, be considered as the price for their disbelieving in Islam.  

Said Ramadhan further cited Abu Yusuf that: 
In answer to a letter from a Muslim governor to “Umar Ibn Abd al-Aziz, the well-known Caliph, complaining that conversion to Islam among non-Muslim was badly affecting the income derived from Jizyah, the Caliph said: “Our Prophet (PBUH) was sent as a messenger and caller for truth, and not as a money-collector. 

He further explained that:
Jizyah should not be taken as punishment for disbelief in Islam… “No compulsion in Religion” … Women, children, the poor, monks, and all those who cannot afford it are exempted from paying Jizyah…[in addition] non-Muslim subjects who become bankrupt are not only exempt from paying Jizyah, but are entitle to be given pensions from the Islamic Treasury…. It should not be taken as a compensation money in order “ to let them live”. For the Qur’an clearly states: “And kill not the human soul which God has made sacred, except in the course of justice” …this is only fair inasmuch as the Islamic State is based on an Ideology in which non-Muslim do not believe. They are subjects with rights and duties equal (e.g. military service) to those of any Muslim subjects…. For this they pay the Jizyah… That is why it was called by some Muslim jurists “protection tax”. 

By the same token, Thomas Arnold stipulated that:
This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would has us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion preclude them from serving in the army…. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this jizyah on condition that “ the Muslims and their leader protects us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others. 

Muslim scholars agreed that non-Muslim subjects of Islamic State are entitled to all political rights that are enjoyed by Muslim subjects. The problem that might be crucial to be addressed is with regards to right of leadership. Can a non-Muslim become the head of Islamic State? All Muslim scholars unanimously claim that non-Muslim cannot become the head or leader of Islamic State. 

Showkat Hussain observed that:
The purpose of an Islamic State is establishment of the system of salãt and zakãt and all other virtuous practices of Islam, along with the indication of evil practices…. It is not merely protection of its frontiers or raising of the material status of its subjects, but, realization of the spiritual ideal which it upholds in human organization…. Those who hold the reins of power must have firm belief in the spiritual ideal that they are working to realize. 

Such a firm stand is based on the command ordained in the Qur’ãn, “ O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those from among yourselves who has authority (Ulî al-amr)…”.  With regards to the word “Ulî al-amr” (those who hold authority) Said Ramadhan implied that, although it can be applied to the head of the State and to all those at the helm of State-affairs, the word has been purposely left vague. This is due to the fact that Islam had not prescribed any specific form of government. It only set forth certain principles, leaving the detail to be evolved in accordance with the needs of the time and with the progress of human knowledge and administration. 

As he cited in the practice of the early Islamic State that:
 … [T]he first ambassador of the Prophet (PBUH) to the Nagus of Abyssinia was Amr ibn Umayyah al-Damri, who had not yet embraced Islam. ‘Umar the second Caliph appointed a Greek Christian as the accountant of Madinah. Reputable jurist like Mawardi and Abu Ya’la al-farra, belonging to the Shafi’ite and Hambalite school respectively, have no hesitated to support the view that “the Caliph may lawfully nominate non-Muslim subjects as ministers and member of Executive Council. 

However, he agreed with the consensus of the Muslim scholars that the actual Head of the Islamic State should be a Muslim, and all the final word on policy-making should rest with him, or in a Muslim appointed by him.  As Mawdudi further elaborated that:  …[T]here is absolutely no scope for making any provision in the constitution of an Islamic State for a non-Muslim to become a ruler. And as matter of fact, to do so would be irrational and impracticable, as would be a non-communist becoming the ruler of a Communist State. 

The right to vote is a crucial part of political rights of every subjects of the State, with no exception of subjects of the Islamic State. The parliamentary system is a modern institution of governance, and it is based on consultation that is also ordained in Islam as the basic principle of political participation in Islamic State. As it is cited in the first written constitution of the city-state of Madinah, such clauses as, “there shall always be a mutual council and advice (between Muslim and Jewish subjects)”; and “there shall also be a joint responsibility for defense….”; and “Jews shall share with Muslim the expenditure of war….” 

Said Ramadhan, by referring to the statement of the Prophet (PBUH) further stipulated that the rights and duties between Muslim and non-Muslim subjects are equal and reciprocal that implies the right of non-Muslim subjects to both voting and membership of parliament.  According to Mawdudi that the Muslim can adopt the same method of parliamentary system; that is to ensure the participation of non-Muslim, the legislative should be made up of two houses. The Upper House which consists of Islamic scholars to enact the SharÏ’ah laws, and the Lower House which consist of the representatives of both Muslims and non-Muslims to enact general laws to administer the State. Showkat Hussain suggested that in order to overcome the conflict that may arise between the two Houses, the Upper House should be given the power of review, that is the power to declare any of the Lower House’s legislation ultra vires.  Will the system practicable?