I'm familiar with all of that, although I also know that some Islamic scholars have argued that the penal code of Shari'a should apply to non-Muslims living in Muslim countries rather than Muslims only.
- That doesn't mean much of anything. Penal Code relates not only to subjective jurisdiction, but also to territorial jurisdiction. Thus, to deal with transgressions under Islamic rule there are three relevant things to consider:
1. The manner by which the territory was gained, by decree (amr) or by surrender (unwa) or by treaty (sulh).
2. The community (millah) to whom belong cultivation & settlement in the territory (iqtaa).
3. The nature of transgression (jinaya) in question.
- There is a consensus on territories which have been adopted by decree, namely the Arabian peninsula, & there is a consensus on Qisas (retribution) in transgressions against life (murder) for all Muslims & non-Muslims alike without question, anything beyond that is a matter of difference of opinion. Right to Faith is a huge deal in Sharia, called Ismat al-Millah (for Hanafi) or Ismat al-Dhimmah (for Maliki).
I was a conservative Sunni and lived in Saudi Arabia for nearly two decades, so I'm aware of everything you've elucidated here
- Salafi?
About what? I'm not sure what exactly you're asking about, but I can't list any contentions here either way because this is not a debate thread. To debate here would be a Rule 10 violation.
- Your contentions with Islam.