Short answer
They rank people by birth and punish the Shudra, the servant class, more harshly for the same act. Manu says a Shudra who insults a man of the higher castes shall have his tongue cut out, "for he is of low origin". A Brahmin who insults a Shudra pays a small fine. Killing a Brahmin is a mortal sin, but killing a Shudra is only a minor one. The Chandalas, the lowest outcastes, must live outside the village and wear the clothes of the dead. The Gautama law book says a Shudra who listens to the Veda on purpose shall have his ears filled with molten tin or lac. Shankara and Ramanuja, the two most influential Vedanta teachers, repeated that rule. The Qur'an does the opposite. It tells Muslims to shelter even a hostile pagan "so that he may hear the word of Allah".
Full explanation
Which books these are, and their standing
The Manusmriti (the Laws of Manu) and the Gautama Dharmasutra are law books, called dharmashastra. They belong to the smriti, the remembered tradition. That ranks below the shruti, the revealed Veda. Within the law books, Manu stands first. The Brihaspati Smriti, another law book, says the first rank belongs to Manu, because he embodied the essence of the Veda. A law book opposed to Manu, it says, is not approved. Shankara was a Hindu teacher of about the 8th century, and the best-known teacher of Advaita Vedanta. He also upheld Manu. Where smritis contradict each other, he said, we follow those that follow the Veda. He set Manu against Kapila, the teacher of the Sankhya school of thought. He cited the Veda's own words, "Whatever Manu said is medicine". He called Manu the one "who follows the Veda". Shankara uses that Vedic line to rank Manu above a rival smriti, and it is quoted here only as he used it.
“(However) the first rank (among legislators) belongs to Manu, because he has embodied the essence of the Veda in his work; that Smriti (or text of law) which is opposed to the tenor of the laws of Manu is not approved.”
“On the other hand, we have a Sruti-passage which proclaims the excellence of Manu, viz. 'Whatever Manu said is medicine' (Taitt. Samh. II, 2, 10, 2). Manu himself, where he glorifies the seeing of the one Self in everything ('he who equally sees the Self in all beings and all beings in the Self, he as a sacrificer to the Self attains self-luminousness,' i. e. becomes Brahman, Manu Smriti XII, 91), implicitly blames the doctrine of Kapila.”
“All which proves that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhâna. The authoritativeness of the Veda with regard to the matters stated by it is independent and direct, just as the light of the sun is the direct means of our knowledge of form and colour; the authoritativeness of human dicta, on the other hand, is of an altogether different kind, as it depends on an extraneous basis (viz. the Veda), and is (not immediate but) mediated by a chain of teachers and tradition.”
Punished for words, by birth
Manu's chapter on defamation, or insulting speech, sets the fine by the caste of both men. A Kshatriya, the ruler and warrior, who defames a Brahmin pays one hundred panas, a kind of coin. A Vaishya, the farmer and trader, pays up to two hundred. A Shudra suffers corporal punishment, a punishment of the body. A Brahmin who defames a Shudra pays twelve. A Shudra who insults a twice-born man with gross abuse has his tongue cut out. The twice-born are the top three castes. The verse gives the reason: "for he is of low origin". Medhatithi wrote the oldest commentary on Manu that survives. He explains the phrase: the Shudra is born out of the feet of Brahma. If the Shudra names the higher castes with contempt, a red-hot iron nail is thrust into his mouth. If he arrogantly teaches Brahmins their duty, the king pours hot oil into his mouth and ears. Bühler's notes point to parallel laws of defamation in five other law books. Georg Bühler was the 19th-century scholar who translated Manu.
“A Kshatriya, having defamed a Brâhmana, shall be fined one hundred (panas); a Vaisya one hundred and fifty or two hundred; a Sûdra shall suffer corporal punishment. A Brâhmana shall be fined fifty (panas) for defaming a Kshatriya; in (the case of) a Vaisya the fine shall be twenty-five (panas); in (the case of) a Sûdra twelve.”
“A once-born man (a Sûdra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.”
“'Once-born person'—the Shūdra; if he 'insults'—abuses—the higher castes—'with gross abuse'—harsh words attributing heinous offences,—suffers 'the cutting off of the tongue.' 'He is of low origin'—being born out of the feet of Brahmā. This is the reason given for the special penalty; and it serves also to indicate the same punishment for persons of the reverse cross-breed also; since these latter also are 'of low origin'; specially in view of the declaration that 'there is no fifth caste.'”
“If he mentions the names and castes (gâti) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.”
“If he arrogantly teaches Brâhmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears.”
| Who insults whom | The penalty |
|---|---|
| A Kshatriya insults a Brahmin | 100 panas |
| A Vaishya insults a Brahmin | Up to 200 panas |
| A Shudra insults a Brahmin | Corporal punishment |
| A Shudra grossly abuses a twice-born man | His tongue cut out |
| A Brahmin insults a Shudra | 12 panas |
A life priced by birth
Manu's chapter on penances lists killing a Brahmin first among the mortal sins. A penance is an act to make up for a sin. Killing women, Shudras, Vaishyas or Kshatriyas stands among the minor offences. The commentators limit that rule to victims who do not live by the sacred law. Yet even for a virtuous Shudra, the penance for killing him on purpose is one-sixteenth of the penance for killing a Brahmin. The next verses begin with a Brahmin who kills a Kshatriya unintentionally. Two commentators read the Shudra's case the same way: six months of penance, or ten white cows and a bull given to a Brahmin. Then Manu gives the penance for killing a Shudra as the penance for killing a cat, a frog, a dog or a crow. Most commentators apply it to killing any one of these on purpose. Medhatithi applies it only to killing all of them. Several name that penance as the lunar penance or the Govrata. The lunar penance is a fast in which the daily amount of food rises and falls with the moon. The Govrata is a penance of living with cows and serving them. Bühler's note gives these as the penances for killing a Shudra as a minor offence. The king's own law is ranked by birth too. He must never put a Brahmin to death, whatever crimes he has committed. He may only banish him, with his property and body unharmed.
“Killing a Brâhmana, drinking (the spirituous liquor called) Surâ, stealing (the gold of a Brâhmana), adultery with a Guru's wife, and associating with such (offenders), they declare (to be) mortal sins (mahâpâtaka).”
“Stealing grain, base metals, or cattle, intercourse with women who drink spirituous liquor, slaying women, Sûdras, Vaisyas, or Kshatriyas, and atheism, (are all) minor offences, causing loss of caste (Upapâtaka).”
“One-fourth (of the penance) for the murder of a Brâhmana is prescribed (as expiation) for (intentionally) killing a Kshatriya, one-eighth for killing a Vaisya; know that it is one-sixteenth for killing a virtuous Sûdra.”
“He who has slain a Sûdra, shall perform that whole penance during six months, or he may also give ten white cows and one bull to a Brâhmana. Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an iguana, an owl, or a crow, he shall perform the penance for the murder of a Sûdra;”
“Let him never slay a Brâhmana, though he have committed all (possible) crimes; let him banish such an (offender), leaving all his property (to him) and (his body) unhurt.”
The Veda closed to the Shudra
The Gautama Dharmasutra rules that a Shudra who listens to the Veda on purpose shall have his ears filled with molten tin or lac. Lac is a kind of resin. If he recites the Veda, his tongue is cut out. If he remembers it, his body is split in two. This is not a forgotten rule. The Brahma Sutra is one of the three foundations of Vedanta, the school of thought built on the Upanishads. It bars the Shudra from the knowledge of Brahman, the highest reality. Its reason is that smriti forbids him to hear or study the Veda. Shankara quotes the penalties to explain the sutra, and calls the exclusion "a settled point". Ramanuja, the other great teacher, quotes them too. He lived in the 11th and 12th centuries. He also quotes a text calling the Shudra "like a beast, unfit for sacrifices". Shankara allows that a Shudra may learn the epics and Puranas. A few, like Vidura, gained knowledge through deeds in former lives, and its fruit cannot be withheld from them. The Veda itself stays closed.
“Now if he listens intentionally to (a recitation of) the Veda, his ears shall be filled with (molten) tin or lac. If he recites (Vedic texts), his tongue shall be cut out. If he remembers them, his body shall be split in twain.”
“And on account of the prohibition, in Smriti, of (the Sûdras') hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.”
“The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a Sûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the Sûdras studying the Veda). 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.'”
“From those Sûdras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter,' acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smriti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purânas; compare the passage, 'He is to teach the four castes' (Mahâbh.).—It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.”
“The Sûdra is specially forbidden to hear and study the Veda and to perform the things enjoined in it. 'For a Sûdra is like a cemetery, therefore the Veda must not be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra;' 'Therefore the Sûdra is like a beast, unfit for sacrifices.' And he who does not hear the Veda recited cannot learn it so as to understand and perform what the Veda enjoins. The prohibition of hearing thus implies the prohibition of understanding and whatever depends on it.”
“Smriti also declares this prohibition of hearing, and so on. 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with molten lead and lac; if he pronounces it his tongue is to be slit; if he preserves it his body is to be cut through.' And 'He is not to teach him sacred duties or vows.'—It is thus a settled matter that the Sûdras are not qualified for meditations on Brahman.”
Outside the four castes: the untouchables
Below the Shudra, Manu places peoples born of mixed castes. The lowest are the Chandalas and Shvapakas. They must live outside the village. Their wealth is dogs and donkeys, their clothes are the garments of the dead, and they eat from broken dishes. No one who does his religious duty may deal with them. They may not walk in villages or towns at night. This is the pattern later called untouchability.
“But the dwellings of Kandâlas and Svapakas shall be outside the village, they must be made Apapâtras, and their wealth (shall be) dogs and donkeys. Their dress (shall be) the garments of the dead, (they shall eat) their food from broken dishes, black iron (shall be) their ornaments, and they must always wander from place to place. A man who fulfils a religious duty, shall not seek intercourse with them; their transactions (shall be) among themselves, and their marriages with their equals. Their food shall be given to them by others (than an Âryan giver) in a broken dish; at night they shall not walk about in villages and in towns.”
Untouchability in India today
India's Constitution abolished untouchability in 1950. It forbade its practice and made enforcing it a crime. The change came from a secular constitution, not from a revision of the law books. India's police still record crimes against the Scheduled Castes, the former untouchable castes, as a class of their own. They registered 55,698 such cases in 2024, the National Crime Records Bureau reports.
Abolishes "untouchability" and forbids its practice in any form; enforcing any disability that arises from it is an offence punishable by law.
Police in India registered 55,698 cases of crime against Scheduled Castes in 2024, 3.6 per cent fewer than the 57,789 of 2023; the rate was 27.7 cases for every 100,000 Scheduled Caste people. Scheduled Castes is the legal name for the Dalit castes once treated as untouchable.
The Qur'an: open to every hearer
The Qur'an says that if a pagan at war asks for protection, Muslims must give it, "so that he may hear the word of Allah". Then they must escort him to safety. It says God (﷾) has made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember, and asks who will take heed. The Prophet (ﷺ) wrote its words to Heraclius, the Christian emperor of Byzantium, inviting him to worship God (﷾) alone. No one is barred from hearing it or learning it because of his birth. In God's (﷾) sight, the Qur'an ranks people by faith and deeds, never by birth. It says: "the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you".
“If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.”
“And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?”
Ibn Abbas reports Abu Sufyan's own account, from the time he was still an enemy of the Prophet (ﷺ). In Syria he was questioned by Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor, who then had the Prophet's (ﷺ) letter read. It invited Heraclius to Islam and closed with the words of Qur'an 3:64, calling the People of the Book to worship none but Allah. Al-Bukhari places it in his chapter on 3:64.
“Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).”
“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).”
| Text | What it says |
|---|---|
| Gautama Dharmasutra | A Shudra who listens to the Veda on purpose: molten tin or lac in his ears |
| Brahma Sutra, with Shankara and Ramanuja | The Shudra barred from the Veda: "a settled point" |
| The Qur'an | Even an enemy who asks for protection is sheltered, so that he may hear the word of Allah (﷾) |
| The Prophet (ﷺ) | Wrote the Qur'an's call to the emperor Heraclius |
One law for the noble and the weak
A woman of the noble clan of Makhzum once stole. Quraysh asked Usama ibn Zayd to plead for her. The Prophet (ﷺ) refused. Earlier nations were destroyed, he said, because they let a noble thief go and punished a weak one. If his own daughter Fatima stole, he would cut off her hand. The Qur'an commands justice "even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor". It also records a law given to the Children of Israel. Whoever kills a person, except for murder or mischief in the land, is as one who killed the whole people. The schools of Islamic law differ on retaliation. The Hanafi school, followed in Muslim India, puts a Muslim to death for killing a dhimmi, a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule.
Aisha reports that Quraysh were troubled over a woman of the noble Makhzum clan who had stolen, and asked Usama ibn Zayd to plead for her. The Prophet (ﷺ) asked whether he was interceding about one of the punishments God had set. Then he preached that the nations before them were destroyed because they let a noble thief go and punished a weak one, and swore that if Fatima, his own daughter, stole, he would cut off her hand.
“O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.”
“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”
“The argument of our doctors is, that retaliation rests merely upon equality in point of protection to the blood; (in other words, it depends upon the blood of both parties being in perpetual protection, and never in a neutral state;) and accordingly a person in health is put to death for a valetudinarian, an adult for an infant, and a maniac for one in his perfect senses;—because both parties are upon a footing in point of protection. Now this protection is a consequence either of religion or country; and as a slave and a freeman are both equally in these respects entitled to it, a freeman may therefore be put to death for a slave. A Mussulman is put to death for a Zimmee.”
The replies, answered
Manusmriti 8.270 — chapter 8, verse 270
“A once-born man (a Sûdra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.”
Cited for
Manu is only smriti, a human law book. Hindus are bound by the Veda, not by Manu, and no Hindu today has to follow these verses.
The response
The tradition itself gave Manu the first place among the law books. Brihaspati says a law book opposed to Manu is not approved. Shankara had to decide which smritis to follow. He chose Manu as the one who follows the Veda, and cited the Veda's praise of Manu. The exclusion of the Shudra from the Veda also stands apart from Manu. The Brahma Sutra, a foundation of Vedanta, states it in its own words. Shankara also grounds it in the Veda. The Vedic statement that the Shudra is unfit for sacrifices shows, he says, that he is unfit for knowledge also. Set Manu aside, and the exclusion remains in Vedanta's own core texts.
Where it lands — Manu was the leading law book of the tradition, and the exclusion of the Shudra does not depend on Manu alone.
Manusmriti 8.270 — chapter 8, verse 270
“A once-born man (a Sûdra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.”
Cited for
The Manusmriti became famous only when the British translated it and used it as Hindu law. These harsh verses are later additions, and reformers have shown that much of the book is interpolated.
The response
Hindu jurists commented on Manu for centuries before the British came. Medhatithi wrote about the ninth or tenth century. He explains 8.270 word by word and gives its reason: the Shudra is born of the feet of Brahma. Bühler's notes show the later commentators reading the same verses. They also show parallel laws of defamation in five other law books. The rule on the Veda stands in Gautama, and Shankara and Ramanuja quote it. None of this depends on William Jones's English translation of 1794. Modern editions that drop these verses drop what the medieval commentators had in front of them. Some say the law books were never a state code, and kings followed local custom. The page does not claim otherwise. It claims what the texts teach and what their great teachers called settled.
Where it lands — These verses were read, explained and applied by Hindu scholars long before British rule.
Manusmriti 11.127 — chapter 11, verse 127
“One-fourth (of the penance) for the murder of a Brâhmana is prescribed (as expiation) for (intentionally) killing a Kshatriya, one-eighth for killing a Vaisya; know that it is one-sixteenth for killing a virtuous Sûdra.”
Cited for
Varna is set by qualities and conduct, not by birth. A Shudra in these verses means a man of low character, so the law punishes behaviour, not a caste.
The response
The verses name the Shudra by birth. He is "once-born", and his penalty is harsher "for he is of low origin". Medhatithi explains that as birth from Brahma's feet. Manu even speaks of "a virtuous Sudra", and his virtue does not change his class. Reformers cite Manu 2.168: a twice-born man who neglects the Veda falls to the condition of a Shudra. That lets a man fall. For a Shudra to rise, Manu looks to his descendants or to his next life. Manu 10.65 says a Shudra "attains the rank of a Brahmana", but the verse before shows how. A line born of a Brahmin and a Shudra woman must marry into the highest caste. It reaches the top "within the seventh generation". And 9.335 promises a faithful Shudra a higher caste "in his next life". The Brahma Sutra reads the story of Satyakama by birth too. His teacher initiated him only after deciding, from his truthfulness, that he was not a Shudra. The Gita's verse on qualities and duties (4.13) is answered on the page on caste by birth.
Where it lands — In Manu, conduct can lower a twice-born man, but a Shudra rises only through his descendants or in a later life.
Manusmriti 8.337-338 — chapter 8, verses 337-338
“In (a case of) theft the guilt of a Sûdra shall be eightfold, that of a Vaisya sixteenfold, that of a Kshatriya two-and-thirtyfold, That of a Brâhmana sixty-fourfold, or quite a hundredfold, or (even) twice four-and-sixtyfold; (each of them) knowing the nature of the offence.”
Cited for
Manu makes the Brahmin pay more, not less. For theft a Shudra's guilt is eightfold and a Brahmin's sixty-fourfold or more, because he knows better. Rank brings duty, not privilege.
The response
The verse is real. For theft done knowingly, Manu fines the Brahmin far more than the Shudra. Bühler's note explains the guilt as a fine. But where the Shudra pays, he often pays with his body. For insulting the other, a Brahmin pays twelve panas, while a Shudra who uses gross abuse loses his tongue. The king may never put a Brahmin to death, whatever his crimes. And for listening to the Veda, only the Shudra is punished. A larger fine on the higher man does not balance a law that cuts the lower man's body.
Where it lands — Manu fines the Brahmin more for theft, but it spares his body and his life, and it cuts the Shudra's.
Manusmriti 11.67 — chapter 11, verse 67
“Stealing grain, base metals, or cattle, intercourse with women who drink spirituous liquor, slaying women, Sûdras, Vaisyas, or Kshatriyas, and atheism, (are all) minor offences, causing loss of caste (Upapâtaka).”
Cited for
Manu's eleventh chapter lists penances, not punishments. A minor offence only means a smaller penance, and the commentators apply it to a Shudra who does not live by the sacred law. The king punished every murderer, whatever the victim's caste.
The response
Chapter 11 does list penances, and the page says so. Penance is where the law weighs a sin. Manu names the killing of a Brahmin a mortal sin. Some commentators lighten the penance if the Brahmin slain was worthless, but it stays a penance for killing a Brahmin. Even for a virtuous Shudra, the penance is one-sixteenth of that. Manu gives the reason: "By his origin alone a Brâhmana is a deity even for the gods". Manu also sets the penance for killing a Shudra at the penance for killing a cat or a crow. The king's law is ranked by birth as well. He may never put a Brahmin to death, whatever the Brahmin has done.
Where it lands — In the penances and in the king's law alike, the law weighs a life by birth.
Gautama Dharmasutra 12.4-6 — chapter 12, sutras 4-6
“Now if he listens intentionally to (a recitation of) the Veda, his ears shall be filled with (molten) tin or lac. If he recites (Vedic texts), his tongue shall be cut out. If he remembers them, his body shall be split in twain.”
Cited for
These penalties were never carried out. They are ideals of a lawgiver, not the history of India.
The response
Manu does not present itself as a merely human code. It says the Creator himself composed these laws and taught them to Manu. So what the texts teach decides whether that claim could be true. A just God (﷾) would not command molten metal in a man's ears for listening to scripture. That holds whether or not a king obeyed. The exclusion itself was no dead letter. Shankara calls it "a settled point" and Ramanuja "a settled matter". Untouchability was real enough that India's Constitution had to abolish it in 1950. India's police still registered 55,698 cases of crime against Scheduled Castes in 2024.
Where it lands — Whether or not kings enforced every penalty, the texts teach them, and their teaching shaped India.
Qur'an 5:38 — Surat al-Ma'ida (The Table), verse 38
“As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.”
Cited for
Islam cuts off a thief's hand. It has no right to call Manu's penalties cruel.
The response
The Qur'an does order a thief's hand cut off. The page does not object that the law books punish. It objects that they punish by birth. For insulting the other, a Brahmin pays twelve panas, while a Shudra who uses gross abuse loses his tongue. The Qur'an's penalty for theft falls on the thief of any birth. The Prophet (ﷺ) said it would fall on his own daughter. And the Shudra's penalty for hearing the Veda punishes no theft and no harm to anyone. It punishes listening.
Where it lands — The objection is not to punishment but to punishment by birth, and to punishing a man for hearing scripture.
Gautama Dharmasutra 12.4-6 — chapter 12, sutras 4-6
“Now if he listens intentionally to (a recitation of) the Veda, his ears shall be filled with (molten) tin or lac. If he recites (Vedic texts), his tongue shall be cut out. If he remembers them, his body shall be split in twain.”
Cited for
The Gautama Dharmasutra is an obscure text that no Hindu reads or follows.
The response
Its rule is the one the most influential Vedanta teachers quoted. Shankara and Ramanuja both quote its penalty to explain the Brahma Sutra. The ears are filled with metal and lac, the tongue slit and the body cut through. It is the same rule in the same order, though Bühler renders the metal as tin and Thibaut as lead. Bühler's notes also list Gautama's laws on insults as a parallel to Manu's. A text that two of the most authoritative commentaries in Vedanta rely on is not obscure.
Where it lands — Gautama's rule entered the heart of Vedanta through Shankara and Ramanuja.
Shankara, commentary on Brahma Sutra 1.3.38 — Sacred Books of the East 34, pp. 228-229
“From those Sûdras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter,' acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smriti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purânas; compare the passage, 'He is to teach the four castes' (Mahâbh.).—It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.”
Cited for
The tradition never shut the Shudra out of salvation. The epics and Puranas were open to all four classes, the Gita offers devotion to Shudras, and a Shudra like Vidura became wise.
The response
Shankara allows exactly this much. The epics and Puranas may be taught to all four classes. Shudras like Vidura gain knowledge through deeds in former lives, and "the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld". In the same breath he calls it settled that the Shudra has no right to the Veda. He holds the Veda to be the source of the knowledge of Brahman. So a Shudra who had not earned that knowledge in a former life could not seek it in the Veda in this one. The Gita does open devotion to Shudras, but the verse sets them beside "those who are of sinful birth". The Qur'an makes no such division by birth. It calls itself easy to understand and remember, and orders that even an enemy be allowed to hear it.
Where it lands — The epics were open to the Shudra, but the Veda was closed to him. The Qur'an is offered to everyone.
Bhagavad Gita 9:32 — chapter 9, verse 32
“For, O son of Prithâ! even those who are of sinful birth, women, Vaisyas, and Sûdras likewise, resorting to me, attain the supreme goal.”
Cited for
Hinduism is more than its law books. Saints of every caste, like Ravidas the leather-worker, are honoured, and the devotional movement swept caste aside.
The response
Honour for such saints is to their followers' credit, and many of them spoke against caste. But in doing so they spoke against what the law books taught. The classical rulings did not change. Even Ramanuja, a teacher of devotion to Vishnu, called it "a settled matter" that Shudras are not qualified for meditations on Brahman. A saint's protest shows what the texts taught; it does not remove it. The Qur'an needs no reformer to overturn it. Its own words make the most righteous the most honoured.
Where it lands — The saints protested against the law books; the Qur'an's own text already teaches what they sought.
Sahih al-Bukhari 6903 — Kitab al-Diyat (Book of Blood Money), hadith 6903
Abu Juhayfa asked Ali whether he and his household had anything that is not in the Qur'an. Ali swore that they had only what is in the Qur'an, the understanding of His Book that God gives a man, and a written sheet of rulings: on blood-money, on freeing captives, and that a Muslim is not killed in retaliation for a disbeliever.
Cited for
Islam is unequal too. Al-Bukhari reports that a Muslim is not killed in retaliation for a disbeliever. And the Qur'an says "the free for the free, the slave for the slave".
The response
The schools of Islamic law differ here. The Hanafi school, which the Muslim rulers of India followed, answered both points. It puts a free man to death for killing another man's slave. It puts a Muslim to death for killing a dhimmi, a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule, because both lives are equally protected. To al-Shafi'i's argument from unbelief it answers that only the unbelief of an enemy at war removes that protection. It also sets the blood-money for a dhimmi at the same as for a Muslim. Al-Shafi'i and Malik set it lower. And the Prophet (ﷺ) warned that whoever kills a person under treaty will not smell the fragrance of Paradise. There is a deeper difference too. Where the schools distinguish a Muslim from a non-Muslim, they do so by belief, and anyone of any birth may enter Islam. No lineage stands above the law: the Prophet (ﷺ) said he would punish even his own daughter. Manu grades the same offence by caste. Caste comes by birth, and no Shudra can rise out of it in this life. And Manu forbids the king ever to execute a Brahmin.
Where it lands — Where Islamic law distinguishes Muslim from non-Muslim, it is by a belief anyone may take up. The Hanafi law of Muslim India puts a Muslim to death for killing a dhimmi.
Qur'an 49:13 — Surat al-Hujurat (The Inner Apartments), verse 13
“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).”
Cited for
Muslims in India keep caste too. Families rank themselves as ashraf and ajlaf, marry within their biradari, and look down on converts from low castes.
The response
Some South Asian Muslims do keep caste-like ranks, taken from the society around them. When they do, they break their own scripture. The Qur'an makes the most righteous the most honoured. The Prophet (ﷺ) said God (﷾) looks at hearts and deeds, not at faces or wealth. He rebuked a Companion for shaming a man through his mother. No Islamic text bars anyone from the Qur'an, the mosque or the prayer row because of his birth. A Muslim who keeps caste disobeys his scripture. A Hindu who rejects caste departs from his law books. The page on caste among Muslims answers this in full.
Where it lands — Caste among Muslims is a sin against Islam's texts; caste in the law books is their teaching.
Qur'an 2:178 — Surat al-Baqara (The Cow), verse 178
“O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.”
Cited for
Islam had slaves too, and a slave woman's child could be born a slave. Non-Muslims paid the jizya as a lower class. That is birth-rank by another name.
The response
Classical Islamic law did have slaves. As a rule, a child born to a slave mother was born a slave, unless her master was the father. But the law did not make slavery a rank before God (﷾), or a bar to the Qur'an. The Prophet (ﷺ) called slaves the brothers of their owners, to be fed and clothed as they are. The Qur'an calls freeing a slave the steep path. It tells owners to grant a slave who asks a contract to buy his freedom, if they know any good in him. The Prophet (ﷺ) named four men from whom to learn the Qur'an, and Salim, a freed slave, was one. The jizya was a tax on non-Muslims under Muslim rule, so a man who became Muslim no longer paid it. The page on slavery sets out the rest. Manu says the opposite of the Shudra. He was created "to be the slave of a Brahmana", and even when freed he "is not released from servitude". Medhatithi softened that verse, but Kulluka held that a freed Shudra must still serve.
Where it lands — Islamic law had slaves but pressed for their freedom, and a freed slave taught the Qur'an. Manu calls the Shudra's servitude innate, even after he is freed.
Qur'an 9:5 — Surat al-Tawba (The Repentance), verse 5
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
Cited for
Critics say Qur'an 9:6 comes straight after 9:5, which says to slay the pagans wherever they are found. The shelter of 9:6 is a small exception in a verse of war.
The response
Qur'an 9:5 comes before 9:6. It concerns pagans at war with the Muslims once the four months of free passage were over. It ends by opening the way for those who repent. Verse 6 is its limit. Even an enemy in that war who asks for protection must be given it. He must be allowed to hear the Qur'an, and then escorted to safety, whether or not he believes. The page on the sword verse explains the setting in full. The Shudra was no enemy. He was a neighbour in the same land. Yet the law said to fill his ears with molten metal if he listened to the Veda on purpose.
Where it lands — The Qur'an shelters even an enemy so that he may hear it; the law books punished a peaceful neighbour for listening to the Veda.
Qur'an 9:28 — Surat al-Tawba (The Repentance), verse 28
“O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.”
Cited for
Islam keeps non-Muslims out of Mecca and calls them unclean. That is untouchability too.
The response
The verse closes a place, the Sacred Mosque, not the scripture. It closes it by belief, not by birth. Ibn Kathir explains the uncleanness as uncleanness in religion. He records that most scholars held their bodies are not unclean, since the Qur'an permits the food of Jews and Christians. Anyone who accepts Islam may enter Mecca the same day, whatever his family or caste. The Prophet's (ﷺ) last instruction about the Arabian Peninsula is of the same kind: a rule for the Muslim state about that one land, not about people anywhere else, and it turns on belief. A Chandala could not stop being a Chandala. His birth kept him outside the village for life.
Where it lands — The Haram is closed by a belief anyone may take up; untouchability was fixed by birth and could never be left.
Qur'an 56:77-79 — Surat al-Waqi'a (The Inevitable), verses 77-79
“That this is indeed a qur'an Most Honourable, In Book well-guarded, Which none shall touch but those who are clean:”
Cited for
The Qur'an says only the clean may touch it, so Islam keeps its scripture from outsiders just as the Veda was kept from the Shudra.
The response
Ibn Kathir reports Ibn Abbas and many early scholars reading the verse as the angels and the Book in heaven. Others took it as a rule that a written copy is handled in ritual purity, which binds Muslims too. The Prophet (ﷺ) also forbade taking the Qur'an into enemy land, and al-Bukhari files that under written copies. Both rules protect a copy. Neither stops anyone from hearing the Qur'an or learning it. The Prophet (ﷺ) himself wrote its words (3:64) in a letter to Heraclius, a Christian ruler. The Veda's rule was not about how a book is handled. It barred the Shudra from even hearing the words.
Where it lands — At most the verse is about touching a copy in purity. The Qur'an's message is open to all.
Perspectives
Classical law and Vedanta
The four classes came from the Creator's body, the Shudra from the feet, and each has its duty by birth. Doing that duty faithfully is the way to the highest good, and a faithful Shudra rises to a higher caste in his next life. The law books guard this order with penalties by class. The Veda is kept for the twice-born. The epics and Puranas are open to all four classes.
Manu, Gautama and Brihaspati, with Medhatithi, Shankara and Ramanuja
Manu's law ranks first among the law books because it embodies the essence of the Veda.
Rebuttal
Grant that the tradition ranked Manu first. That is why its penalties cannot be set aside as folk custom. In God's (﷾) sight, the Qur'an ranks no one by birth: the most honoured is the most righteous.
Serving learned Brahmins is the Shudra's highest duty. It leads him to beatitude, and to a higher caste in his next life.
Rebuttal
Here a person's duty and limit are fixed by his birth. In Islam, no one's honour with God (﷾), and no one's access to the Qur'an, depends on his family. Honour with God (﷾) comes from righteousness, and the Qur'an is offered to everyone.
Manu gives the Shudra's lower birth as the reason for his harsher penalty. Medhatithi explains it as birth from the feet of Brahma.
Rebuttal
The objection is to punishing by birth. The Qur'an commands justice whether a person is rich or poor. The Prophet (ﷺ) refused to spare a noble thief.
The Shudra is barred from hearing, studying and reciting the Veda. The two chief teachers of Vedanta call this settled.
Rebuttal
The Qur'an does the opposite. It says even a hostile pagan must be sheltered so that he may hear it. It also calls itself easy to understand and remember.
Modern Hindu reform
The law books are smriti, human works that bind only where they agree with the Veda. Caste by birth and untouchability are later corruptions of the tradition. India has abolished untouchability in law.
A law book's authority is not its own: it rests on the Veda, which alone is authoritative directly.
Rebuttal
Then the exclusion of the Shudra still stands. The Brahma Sutra states it in its own words. Shankara also grounds it in the Veda, not in Manu alone.
The Gita says the four classes were made according to qualities and duties.
Rebuttal
That is what the verse says. But the Gita's own examples are duties a person is born into, and it fears caste mixing through birth.
The Gita promises the supreme goal to women, Vaishyas and Shudras who take refuge in the Lord.
Rebuttal
The verse does open the goal to them, and that is to its credit. But it places them beside "those who are of sinful birth". Shankara still kept the Veda closed to the Shudra.
India's Constitution abolished untouchability, forbade its practice and made enforcing it an offence.
Rebuttal
The reform is welcome. But it came from a secular constitution, not from a revision of Manu or the Vedanta teachers. Islam's equality is in its scripture.
The Islamic perspective
No one is ranked by birth before God (﷾), and no one is barred by birth from the Qur'an, from worship or from learning. The Qur'an is offered to every person, and the most honoured is the most righteous.
In honour with God (﷾), the Qur'an ranks people by righteousness, not by nation, tribe or birth.
The Qur'an commands Muslims to protect even a hostile pagan so that he may hear it.
The Prophet (ﷺ) refused to spare a noble thief and said he would punish even his own daughter.
The Prophet (ﷺ) gave a warning about anyone under treaty with the Muslims. Whoever kills such a person will not smell the fragrance of Paradise.
The Hanafi law puts a Muslim to death for killing a dhimmi, a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule.