Analysis of the Pact of Umar: Difference between revisions

Shirk (شرك‎) refers to taking other gods besides Allah (i.e. Polytheism), and is considered the most heinous crime against the Islamic god. Perhaps due to Muhammad's flawed understanding of the Trinity doctrine,^[1] Muslims consider all Trinitarian Christians to be polytheists. This condition in the pact prevents Christians from proclaiming their religion publicly.

As per most Islamic nations of today, it is fine for Muslims to proselytize and gain converts, but for a non-Muslim to do the same it is strictly forbidden. According to the above, even discussing this important matter with the prospective convert would mean violating the agreement. These restrictions limited the number of Muslim apostates and (coupled with the jizyah)^[2] would ensure a steady decline and Islamization of the native non-Muslim population.

This perfectly exemplifies the common Islamic attitude towards others. It demands that others give Islam and its prophet respect, yet it fails to reciprocate this courtesy in its own lands.

This brings to mind; a bus, the Jim Crow laws and a certain American civil rights activist named Rosa Parks (February 4, 1913 – October 24, 2005). The difference lay in the fact you do not hear Americans defending such shameful histories by pointing to dhimmitude today in Muslim lands, or you don't hear them defending the slave-trade by pointing out that the number of innocent Africans who were taken (or died in the process of being taken) as slaves over the last fourteen centuries of Islamic slavery is estimated to be higher than 140 million^[3] (dwarfing the 11 million Africans who were transported across the Atlantic). Such moral relativism seem to only be accepted when applied to Islam by those defending Islam.

This stipulation reflects the general hatred and disdain in Islam for everything non-Muslim. These prohibitions reflect Muhammad's wishes when he said "Jews and Christians do not dye their hair so you should do the opposite of what they do,"^[4] and "act differently from them".^[5]

Muslims look very fondly on horses and such. This may be due to Muhammad claiming he rode the Buraq, a mythical horse-like flying creature, on his "Night Journey." This prohibition is meant to show Islamic superiority.

Apologists often claim jizyah was merely a tax for exemption from military service. However, this is untrue. The Qur'an itself readily admits that the jizyah is a form of humiliation,^[6] meant to display the superior status of Muslims and the subdued state of non-Muslims. And as jihad is a religious duty among Muslims, it would make little sense for a non-Muslim dhimmi to participate. There is also another reason for the exemption, and this prohibition against owning or carrying weapons demonstrates it perfectly- they did not want the conquered natives to be armed.

Despite the language's pagan origins, Islam teaches a special reverence for the Arabic language that borders on its veneration for the Kaaba (which was likewise a pagan shrine) and Muhammad. This stipulation also further forces a discriminatory distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims.

This restriction on the sale of alcohol, for many, would have seriously hampered the Christian practice of eating bread and drinking wine (the Eucharist) on Sundays.

These degrading requirements were so the Christians could be easily identified, humiliatingly on sight.

The belt being referred to is the zunār, a wide belt made of cloth. The similarities between this and the 1939 Nazi requirement for all Jews to wear armbands or yellow stars are uncanny. In fact, the yellow star used by the Nazis as a badge of shame against the Jews was first introduced by a caliph in Baghdad in the 9^th century, and spread to the West in medieval times.^[7] As an invention of Islam's so-called "Golden Age", this stipulation smacks of surprising backwardness.

One can only imagine how many crosses have been torn down due to this prohibition. Muhammad himself used to destroy anything in his home which bore the Christian symbol of the Cross.^[8]

Carrying a Bible, or wearing a cross/crucifix was strictly forbidden.

It is in striking contrast to this, today, that a Buddhist cannot visit the holiest of Buddhist sites without having the spiritual experience ruined by the Islamic call to prayer (أَذَان adhān), which continues for up to half an hour.^[9]

It is speculated that the presence of Muslims in churches during church services would be explained by their wanting to take advantage of the free personal and culinary services for Muslims required earlier in the pact.

Christians even had to mourn in silence, lest they offend the Muslim invaders.

This, and many of the other restrictions, seem to serve only two purposes. The first, to humiliate, and the second, to make the Christian community an invisible one. Like the non-Muslims today in the east, who live as ghosts, and whose oppression is rarely discussed in the West.

According to most Islamic scholars, it is a compulsory (fard) requirement for Muslims to be buried in separate cemeteries from non-Muslims.^[10] In Switzerland, Muslims (approximately 4.5 percent of the population) say they want to be buried “with dignity”^[11] and are therefore calling for Islamic cemeteries in every canton. This burial requirement is perhaps explained by the Islamic teachings that equate non-Muslims with pigs and feces.

This was most likely to prevent free Christians from buying enslaved Christians in order to set them free.

For a Christian to enter a Muslim home could mean violating the pact, but there is no like regulation against Muslims violating the privacy and property of non-Muslims. The unilateral nature of Islam's relationship with religious minorities reflected in this stipulation continues to this day.

Assaulting someone would already be an offense, and, indeed, this prohibition only applied to beating someone in self-defense. Non-Muslims were not allowed to defend themselves or their families against unwarranted attacks. This and the previous prohibition against owning or carrying weapons made sure the Christians were left completely defenseless.

We come to the closing of the pact which leaves, not only the solitary law breaker, but the entire Christian community, with a stern warning. The Qur'an tells us for people who rebel, there is a painful doom.^[12] Today, this has provided on many occasions the pretext for Muslims to viciously attack non-Muslim communities for the smallest of perceived slights.^[13]

Conclusion

Many point to this pact as proof of Islam's inherent tolerance towards other beliefs, by applying the logical fallacy of ad-hominem tu-quoque against past followers of other religions and their intolerances during the medieval period. One must consider that no two religions are the same, some are inherently more adaptable to change than others, so this fallacious comparison could not be further from the truth.

According to Islamic theology, Umar is one of four 'Rightly-guided Caliphs. Therefore, he is considered by them to be a model Muslim leader.^[14] His actions and this pact reflect the teachings of the Qur'an, Hadith, and scholarly concensus^[15] (together forming Islamic sacred law, or Sharia).

While today's Secular Europeans and Christians can and have denounced (and even apologized)^[16][17] for past atrocities committed by others in the name of their countries and religion, the same cannot be said of Islam. Many still deny that the Islamic slave trade ever existed, or indeed still exists^[18] in the east.

To this day, Muslims hold up this document with pride,^[19] and to this day, Muslim nations persecute and oppress non-Muslim communities.

See Also

• Pact of Umar - A hub page that leads to other articles related to the Pact of Umar
• Analysis of Muhammad’s Farewell Sermon

References and Footnotes