Among Shia jurists, there is disagreement as to whether the dignity Islam posits for human beings belongs to humanity in absolute terms or specifically to believers and Muslims.
Many jurists believe that a disbeliever possesses no sanctity or dignity whatsoever, and regarding non-Muslims, the default principle (al-asl) is the absence of dignity unless a specific proof is adduced.
Conversely, some Shia jurists apparently believed that human beings in absolute terms possess dignity from the Islamic viewpoint, and it is the negation of dignity that requires specific proof. They likely regarded instances where Islam commands killing and capturing (any violation of disbelievers’ sanctity) as applying to specific circumstances (for instance, applying to wartime conditions regarding a belligerent disbeliever (kafir harbi) who has entered into war against Muslims); hence, under normal conditions, they considered honoring non-Muslims permissible and indeed recommended (provided this honoring is not conducted in a way that suggests their irreligion or disbelief is respected, for disbelief itself certainly possesses no respect). For example, Shahid Thani expressed the permissibility of endowment (waqf) for non-Muslims (excluding instances leading to their religious fortification or utilized for unlawful consumption like wine drinking, etc.) by citing that they too are among the Children of Adam who have been honored (Al-Rawdah al-Bahiyyah fi Sharh al-Lum’ah al-Dimashqiyyah, Vol. 3, p. 180).
Perhaps someone might count this verse (emphasizing the phrases “And give them what they have spent” and “And let them ask for what they have spent”) among proofs supporting the universality of human dignity; because it pays attention to the right of disbelieving husbands whose wives separated from them. That is, while invalidating their marital bond with Muslims, it moves to compensate the legal expenditures they incurred for this marriage (especially the dower); whereas if it recognized no dignity for the disbeliever, it could have stated that since he possesses no dignity, now that he suffered loss, his wealth likewise possesses no sanctity and we recognize no right for him.
However, this claim can be disputed on the grounds that this ruling in favor of disbelievers is not out of accepting their dignity, but purely for regulating reciprocal worldly relations; for if we do not grant this to them, we possess no trans-religious and international justification for collecting the rights of husbands whose wives became disbelievers and separated from them.
In fact, it appears that man possesses an a priori, bestowed dignity from God (by virtue of the verse “And We have certainly honored the children of Adam and carried them on the land and sea and provided for them of the good things and preferred them over much of what We have created, with [definite] preference”; Al-Isra: 70) which, prior to reaching the stage of intellectual maturity and decision-making, necessitates being honored and respected.
However, once he reaches this stage, he must choose his life path himself. If he chooses the noble path of perfection and divine proximity, he preserves his dignity, and honoring him becomes necessary upon others. But if he chooses the path of disbelief and negating his own dignity, he no longer possesses dignity requiring him to be honored. Of course, regarding one who is an excusably ignorant person (jahil qasir) who observes the requirements of his dignity to the extent of his primordial understanding, one might assert the permissibility and indeed necessity of honoring him.
It should be noted that the above discussion addresses the primary principle (al-asl al-awwali) on the topic, and is distinct from the realm of secondary requirements (iqtida’at thanawiyyah) brought about by the ease and expansion of our communications and interactions with non-Muslims (where if we do not show respect, we shall be subjected to disrespect).
Source: Ijtehad