The Pact of Umar

[Mikh'ael]

As-Salaamu 'Alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

I need some more information about this. I've searched around on the web, but i only seem to find this on Non-muslim/Anti-Islamic websites.

What is it? What have the scholars said about it?

Jazak'Allah Khair in advance.

[Ayman bin khaled]

Bismillah Alrahman Alraheem

Wa Alykom Assalam Wa Rahmet Allah Wa Barakatoh,

Which pact you refer to?

The Pact with people of Shaam or the one with people of Jurusalem?

[Mikh'ael]

Originally Posted by Ayman bin khaled

Bismillah Alrahman Alraheem

Wa Alykom Assalam Wa Rahmet Allah Wa Barakatoh,

Which pact you refer to?

The Pact with people of Shaam or the one with people of Jurusalem?

Waleiykum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh akhi

The Jerusalem pact and the one in this link which i'd take to be the first one you mentioned:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

I've read many conflicting reports on the 2, which is why i'd prefer the true Islamic postion and what the scholars have said about them.

Jazak'Allah khair

[Qatadah]

asalam alaikum


someone asked this on another forum;

Is it true that Christians had to wear a blue belt and Jews had to wear a yellow star, and that they couldn't ride on horses? Recently in a discussion I was presented with these facts but I've never heard this before. Any sources that can refure this information?

The reply was given by a brother who's a student of knowledge in comparative religion:

Thomas Arnold writes in his book the spread of Islam in the world:

A later generation attributed to 'Umar a number of restrictive regulations which hampered the Christians in the free exercise of their religion, but De Goeje [3] and Caetani [4] have proved without doubt that they are the invention of a later age; as, however, Muslim theologians of less tolerant periods accepted these ordinaces as genuine, they are of the importance for forming a judgement as to the condition of the Christian Churches under Muslim rule. This so-called ordinace of 'Umar runs as follows: "In the name of God………. you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels". [5]

[1] Baladhuri, p. 129 [Liber Expugnationis Regionum]
[2] Ibn S'ad, Vol. III, p. 246 [Al-Tabaqat]
[3]Memoire sur la conquete de la Syrie, p. 143
[4] Annali dell' Islam, Vol. III, p. 957.
[5] Gottheil pp. 382-4 [Dhimmis and Moslems in Egypt]

Abdulaziz Sachedina writes in his book The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism:The discriminatory regulations in exchange for protection are usually traced back to a document known as the Pact (pahd) of 'Umar. The contents of this document suggest that its attribution to Umar b. al-Khattab, who ruled from 634 to 644, is doubtful. The discriminatory stipulations—a non-Muslim's word was not to be accepted against a Muslim in the qadi's court; the murder of a non-Muslim was not to be treated as quite so heinous a crime as the murder of a Muslim—not only run completely counter to the spirit of justice in the Koran, but they also contravene the practice of the early community. The tendency among later jurists, in the eighth and ninth centuries, was to seek justification for the eighth-century rulings by ascribing the documentary evidence in support of these rulings to the early community, whose prestige in such matters was a source of authentication for the later jurists' extrapolations. Thus, for instance, the prohibition against building new churches or repairing old ones, which was instituted under some Umayyad and 'Abbasid caliphs, did not prevail in the early decades, because it is well documented that non Muslims erected such places of worship following the conquest. When Muslims took Jerusalem in 638, the caliph 'Umar b. al-Khattab, on his visit to that city from Damascus, sent the inhabitants of the city the following written message:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is a written document from 'Umar b. al-Khattab to the inhabitants of the Sacred House (bayt al-maqdis). You are guaranteed (aminun) your life, your goods, and your churches, which will be neither occupied nor destroyed, as long as you do not initiate anything [to endanger] the general security

It is difficult to see how the same caliph could have instituted the discriminatory laws against the protected people, as later sources report.


http://www.islamicboard.com/miscella...a-dhimmis.html

[Qatadah]

i dont know if it has any relation to what u asked.. sorry

[Ayman bin khaled]

bismillah Alrahmaan alraheem,

Some points regarding the pacts:

1. The pact of Jerusalem was originally suggested by Christians. So, the one who actually set such conditions are the Christians themselves although Umar - May Allah be pleased with him - added another two conditions.

2. The pact itself is just and it is a contract like any other contract if both sides agree to it then it is valid. No one was forced to accept such pact esp. knowing it was suggested by people of the book themselves.

3. The author in that website argue that the notion of the "Dhimmi" was due necessity which is flase. Dhimmi contracts are established contracts in History and it occures in every country. It is a simple contract between the state authority and its residents who are not citizens!! Think of it as : Country X has citzens ( Muslims) and residents ( people of the book). In any country both are treated differently and rights and obligations differ so it should not be even criticized!!!!

4. Poeple of the book has never been forced to pay extra Tax, which is something i often hear by orintalist. Once, My prof. at university suggested this and i argued him and he could not find an answer and as he disliked it but i placed him in his right position where he should belong, down to earth!!

5. Jizyaa is a normal tax which is looked at as a fee or even a normal tax that people of the book need to pay. it is mesaured based on their ability to pay. IN some cases they are exempted if they are poor and are included in the welfare system of the Muslims!! which never exist in any democratic country, as they claim!!! [ where do they include students or non-citizens as benefiaries from their welfare system].

6. The comparasion between Umar Pact and Christain Europe is out of the place!!! non-christians were killed at Europe and even christians were killed as well if they do not follow specific sect!!! Besides, the whole system there differ completly .

The pact is accepted by scholars and upon it darw conditions that differ from one time to another and it is not obligatory to follow. It just sets a guideline depends on the situation.


Wallahu A'lam

[Mikh'ael]

Jazak'Allah Khair brothers, for your responses and help.
May Allah Subhaanahu wa ta'aala reward you all for your efforts.

[trustingod]

2. The pact itself is just and it is a contract like any other contract if both sides agree to it then it is valid. No one was forced to accept such pact esp. knowing it was suggested by people of the book themselves.

Sir, your second Caliph of Islam invaded Jerusalem. It is not like the Christians had a choice. It was either the harsh pact or death. of course they will choose the pact. The sources that I read do not say that the Christians are the ones that put forth this pact, but Umar.

[Bassam Zawadi]

Trustingod, i can tell by your tone that you are a non-Muslim. If I am wrong then I hope Allah forgives me for suggesting such a thing.

your second Caliph of Islam invaded Jerusalem.

ya but why? Go read history my friend and see that these invasions were either pre-emptive strikes, in response to being attacked first or fighting oppression.

It was either the harsh pact or death.

well, obviously, if you lose a war, either you die or agree to the treaty.

but i am reading the pact of Umar now and I don't see anything harsh about it.

look at what it says:

This is the protection which the servant of Allah, Umar ibn Al Khattab, the commander of the faithful extends to them (non-Muslims): ‘The safeguarding of their lives, property, churches, crosses, and of their entire community. Their churches are not to be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched. They will not be forced to abandon their religion, nor will they be harmed. None of the Jews will live with them in Illiya’ (Jersusalem). (Tarikh At-Tabari, Vol. III, p. 609, ed. Dar al-Ma’arif, Egypt)



On the contrary, it is uplifting. Anyone else would have executed them.

[Mahmoud Al-Misri]

Originally Posted by trustingod

Sir, your second Caliph of Islam invaded Jerusalem. [1] It is not like the Christians had a choice. [2] It was either the harsh pact or death. of course they will choose the pact. The [3] sources that I read do not say that the Christians are the ones that put forth this pact, but Umar.

Dear trustingod

I really applaud your manners in presenting your point and I am sure you will find this forum one of the best places you can discuss issues you have about Islam (smile).

My dear brothers Bassam, Ayman, and Qatadah have already tackled what you mentioned, and I think what was mentioned should be a sufficient answer to what was raised, but to expand a little more, I hope to mention a few more things;

Most what is below was taken from referenced sources in wikipedia, and the reference used mentioned:

[1] In the Siege of Jerusalem (614), after 21 days of relentless siege warfare, Jerusalem was captured and the Persian victory resulted in the territorial annexation of Jerusalem. After the Sassanid army entered Jerusalem, the holy "True Cross" was stolen and sent back to the Sassanian capital as a battle-captured holy relic, and the Jewish rebels joined the Persians. General Shahrbaraz ordered a swift razing and looting of Jerusalem. Having recognized the assistance of the Jews in the significant capture, he even gave them the opportunity to personally massacre their Christian enemies. The conquered city and the Holy Cross would remain in Sassanid hands for some fifteen years until the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius recovered them in 629. [43]

Source: [43] Conybeare, Frederick C. (1910). The Capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 AD, English Historical Review 25, 502-517

[2] In 638, the Islamic empire extended its dominion to Jerusalem.


The Rashidun army were engaged by a Byzantine army composed of Imperial troops as well as local levies.[1] The Roman Emperor Heraclius had fallen ill and was unable to lead his armies to resist the Arab conquests of Syria and Palestine in 634. Rashidun Caliphate forces conquered Damascus in 634 A.D under the command of Khalid ibn Walid.[5] Monophysites and Jews throughout Syria welcomed the Arab conquerors, as they were discontented with Byzantine persecution and taxation, and receptive to the lower taxes offered under the new regime.[2] The Arabian tribes also had significant economic, cultural and familial ties with predominantly Arab citizens of the fertile crescent.

When Heraclius massed his troops against the Moslems and the Moslems heard that they were coming to meet them at al-Yarmuk, the Moslems refunded to the inhabitants of Hims the karaj [tribute] they had taken from them saying, "We are too busy to support and protect you. Take care of yourselves." But the people of Hims replied, "We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyranny in which we were. The army of Heraclius we shall indeed, with your 'amil's' help, repulse from the city." The Jews rose and said, "We swear by the Torah, no governor of Heraclius shall enter the city of Hims unless we are first vanquished and exhausted!" Saying this, they closed the gates of the city and guarded them. The inhabitants of the other cities - Christian and Jew - that had capitulated to the Moslems, did the same, saying, "If Heraclius and his followers win over the Moslems we would return to our previous condition, otherwise we shall retain our present state so long as numbers are with the Moslems." When by Allah's help the "unbelievers" were defeated and the Moslems won, they opened the gates of their cities, went out with the singers and music players who began to play, and paid the kharaj."[6]

Sources of above:
[1] The Empire's levies included Christian Armenians, Slavs, and Arab Ghassanids "Ghassan." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 18 Oct. 2006 [1]
[2] Piers Paul Read, The Templars
[3] Europe: A History, p 245. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996. ISBN 0-19-820171-0
[4] Islam From The Beginning To 1300. history-world.org. Retrieved on 2007-09-02.
[5] "Syria." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 Oct. 2006 [2]
[6] P. K. Hitti and F. C. Murgotten, Studies in History, Economics and Public Law LXVIII (New York, Columbia University Press,1916 and 1924), I, 207-211 [3]


Following the Byzantine defeat in 636 at the Battle of Yarmouk, Heraclius, while departing Antioch for Constantinople, is recorded by Baladhuri as saying as he passed ad-D'arb: "Peace unto thee, O Syria, and what an excellent country this is for the enemy!"[7] In Constantinople, the Emperor began to array his remaining forces for a defence of Egypt. In 638, the Arabs conquered Jerusalem. The local population of Jerusalem welcomed the conquerors into the city, which was surrendered by Patriarch Sophronius in the same year.


[3] The reasons I underlined what I underline from your quote:

1. "It is not like the Christians had a choice": You will find in the quotes above that when the Muslims were pre-occupied and were not able to defend the people (non-Muslims) of a certain city they refunded the money the recieved from them. No tax reciepts or anything ... This shows the justice of the Muslims, and that is not surprising since one of the reason they left their homes is to free people from the injustice of the regimes they were under, into the justice of Islam. You would see this proven, by the aid the Muslims recieved in many cases from the local population, and that they open their gates by themselves to the Muslims (as you can see in the quotes above and in several other references.
2. "It was either the harsh pact or death": I do not know were you got this from. Brothers Bassam and Ayman had dealt with it. Maybe you can mention the source, although I hope what was quoted would be enough.
3. "sources that I read": This is something important to discuss. How do you know that the source you read is reliable i.e. how do you know ... rather how did they know that what they said happened actually happened ... what is your methodolagy in believing what you believe. Magic ball? Time travel machine? Found the diaries of a resident of the city at the time? The Muslims Ahl Al Sunnah have their methadology, and has been stated in their books. What is it that you base what you believe on?

I think that is all I had for now.

P.S. This is just what I came up after a fast search. The brothers would probably be more familiar than I am about any details of the pact.

[trustingod]

Look at how the Christians and Jews were humiliated by the pact of the Muslims...


http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20986


We can't practice our religion openly, we have to wear different clothes, we have to get off our seats for you people, this is utter humiliation. Yeah sure, it probably wasn't as bad as the others, BUT IT IS STILL HUMILIATION, DISGRACE AND OPPRESSION.

What is the only Muslim response to this? "OH WELL, WE ARE NOT HUMILIATING AND DISGRACING YOU AS MUCH AS THE OTHERS HAVE DONE"


Give me a break.

[Ayman bin khaled]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Dear trustingod,

before I reply to your post, let me share with you this observation I have noticed:

In terms of discussions, people tend to be either:

a) Someone who looks for the truth and hence ask humbling himself hoping to learn

b) Someone who wishes to speak only nad not to listen because he/she does not care what others have to say.

c) Someone who wants to argue for the sake of arguing and hence it won't matter for him what he says nor what he listens to.

If you are one of the last two types then there is no use for discussion and i highly recommedn you to find something else to do that can benefit you or at least benefit others. smile

It is important to know that your anger or hate toward Islam or Muslims must not stop you from discussing and communicating with good manners. You wish to discard the Religion of Islam, it is your choice, but on what bases you discard the level of humanity that the whole world share in common!

Your way of writing is not only offensive but judgmental although none of us misbehaved while dicsussing with you, all praise due Allah, and replied to your inquiries with open mind and open heart.

You aught to know judegmentmust be concluded upon a fair objective research that include hearing both sides of the story. This kind of research has to be based on solid ground and correct methodology that is guidelined by ethical principles.

I hope you take my above words with open hearst as it is sincere ones. smile

I will reply to your post now:

You said:

Originally Posted by trustingod

Look at how the Christians and Jews were humiliated by the pact of the Muslims...

Originally Posted by trustingod

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20986

We can't practice our religion openly, we have to wear different clothes, we have to get off our seats for you people, this is utter humiliation. Yeah sure, it probably wasn't as bad as the others, BUT IT IS STILL HUMILIATION, DISGRACE AND OPPRESSION.

(1) If you read, at least, the link you have offered or even any book that mention this pact you will notice a three words said in its begining [We made a condition on ourselves ] It was the Christian's choice so I think if you are not Ok with it then you need to criticze Christians not Muslims. smile

(2) I would like you, kindly to answer the follwoing and to be objective:

If Islam advocates monotheism and call for it while denying the actions of polytheism then would it make sense to allow what contradict and oppose the core pillar of the religion to be in public!? Yet, Islam is fair enough to guarantee the safety and the protection of christians and the alreday established churches

(3) If such pact was a humilation, as you claim, why have not we found writings of christians who lived that era under that pact saying what you have said!!

(4) How would you match humilation as you have prescribed with what is said in post Number 10 by my beloved brother: Mahmoud Al-Misri ( May Allah preserve him).


(5) I highly suggest before discussing such details to focus on the head and the pillar of the details. You need to prioritize your questions. What is the use of knowing that justice of Umar's pact or even to prove its injustice ( which you won't be able to) if the concept of God is opposite to us!!!

The reason I suggest this because whatever we discuss is derived from commands of God, so is not it better and more important to know who the one who derived these commands before we examine the commands. Let's be sure at least who is the One who command us. smile [ Allah (the one and only God, Trinity ( Father, Jesusu and the holy spirity) or YHWH ( Jews God)]

I suggest you comapre the concepts of god between the three religions and you will realize what concept is the correct one. smile

You said:

What is the only Muslim response to this? "OH WELL, WE ARE NOT HUMILIATING AND DISGRACING YOU AS MUCH AS THE OTHERS HAVE DONE" Give me a break.

The answer that Muslims give, and you offer, is not a response but rather a wake up call for you.

the response is: The pact is Just and fair for those who lived under it. Your thoughts that took a place after 1400 years do not represent the Christians Views at that time, which is something I hope you can understand. smile

They were happy and feel being treated fairly so it does not make sense and it is not proper to talk on their behalf in such way, especially knowing they say opposite to what you say and they have not assigned you to do so anyhow.

As I said, do not waste your time on such matters, focus now on concept of God then discuss other matters. We are more happy to dicuss the concept of God in the three religions not to refute but to find the truth that we all love more than ourselves. smile

I hope this can give you a break inshallah to think. ( just to soften the air as I feel words are plain and cold sometimes).

Thank you

And Allah knows Best.

[Bassam Zawadi]

trustingod, check out my new article http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/th..._islamic_state. I think you would like it and it would explain alot.

[Hanbali]

Originally Posted by Ayman bin khaled

bismillah Alrahmaan alraheem,

Some points regarding the pacts:

1. The pact of Jerusalem was originally suggested by Christians. So, the one who actually set such conditions are the Christians themselves although Umar - May Allah be pleased with him - added another two conditions.

2. The pact itself is just and it is a contract like any other contract if both sides agree to it then it is valid. No one was forced to accept such pact esp. knowing it was suggested by people of the book themselves.

3. The author in that website argue that the notion of the "Dhimmi" was due necessity which is flase. Dhimmi contracts are established contracts in History and it occures in every country. It is a simple contract between the state authority and its residents who are not citizens!! Think of it as : Country X has citzens ( Muslims) and residents ( people of the book). In any country both are treated differently and rights and obligations differ so it should not be even criticized!!!!

4. Poeple of the book has never been forced to pay extra Tax, which is something i often hear by orintalist. Once, My prof. at university suggested this and i argued him and he could not find an answer and as he disliked it but i placed him in his right position where he should belong, down to earth!!

5. Jizyaa is a normal tax which is looked at as a fee or even a normal tax that people of the book need to pay. it is mesaured based on their ability to pay. IN some cases they are exempted if they are poor and are included in the welfare system of the Muslims!! which never exist in any democratic country, as they claim!!! [ where do they include students or non-citizens as benefiaries from their welfare system].

6. The comparasion between Umar Pact and Christain Europe is out of the place!!! non-christians were killed at Europe and even christians were killed as well if they do not follow specific sect!!! Besides, the whole system there differ completly .

The pact is accepted by scholars and upon it darw conditions that differ from one time to another and it is not obligatory to follow. It just sets a guideline depends on the situation.


Wallahu A'lam

Wallahi, I feel like kissing you, Ustaad Ayman.

You are amazing, Al-Hamdu Lillah.

I was disturbed by the conditions until I read what you wrote. Thank you!