Analysis of the Pact of Umar

Much has been said of the Pact of Umar,^[2] and much of it distinctly positive. Its non-Muslim admirers gleefully compare its contents to the treatment of religious minorities in Medieval Europe, while ignoring its influence and conformity with Islamic scriptural sources which still govern the treatment of minorities in the East today.

This article analyzes the rights and limitations placed on the Christians, to see just how free non-Muslims really were under the Rightly-guided Caliph.

At first reading, it may seem like this pact was drafted by the Christians themselves. However, the terms were dictated to them by Umar. This is standard procedure for any agreement we may sign today, whether it be a receipt for a grocery delivery or the deeds to our homes. This, along with the true purpose of some of its demands, are confirmed by Ibn Kathir in his widely accepted tafsir.

"Allah said, (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam, (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience, (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, (Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace."^[3]

So we find that, not only many of the demands in the pact, but also the jizyah (poll tax levied against non-Muslims) which the Christians had to pay, were primarily meant to humiliate them.

We come to our first set of prohibitions, no new monasteries, no new churches, and no new sanctuaries. This prohibition still exists in various forms in many Islamic countries.^[4][5][6] One can only imagine the uproar and condemnation if anything similar were to take place in the west.^[7] Some may think the Syrians would have been pleased with Umar allowing them to keep their existing places of worship, and that takes us along to the next prohibition.

So, no new churches for the Syrians, and the ones that did exist, they had to watch as they slowly decayed and fell into ruin. As a community, there is very little that can be more humiliating for a Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist than having to watch a holy site wither away. No doubt, Umar envisioned the communities themselves (like the Jews of the Middle-East today)^[8] would also eventually wither away and die.

This prohibition seems fair enough, although the Muslim invaders do seem to have been projecting their own self-image on others. Mosques are notorious for being breeding grounds for anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-women, and anti-gay sentiment.^[9][10][11] Often when Muslims riot and attack non-Muslims, it is following their Friday prayers,^{[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]} which should not come as a surprise, considering during Muhammad's time, the call to prayer could also be the call to war.^[21]

Forcing yourself into others properties, especially into religious sanctuaries is extremely rude. But as long as they do not do as the Palestinian Muslims do (i.e. urinate on Torah Scrolls^[22] or use Bibles as toilet paper),^[23][24] it would be tolerable.

The abuse of non-Muslim property goes from tolerable to humiliating. Not only were the Muslims allowed to come and go as they pleased, the Christians were also forced to wait on them hand and foot.

Again, this condition would be expected from an invading army.

Non-Muslims, like dogs, pigs, and faeces, are considered najis (نجس‎ impure),^[25][26][27] so this stipulation is hardly surprising. Also recorded in the sahih hadiths, is the command to not let the Qur'an fall into enemy hands, as they may "quarrel with you over it."^[28] Apparently Muslims were afraid of non-Muslims scrutinizing their holy book.

Shirk (شرك‎) refers to taking other gods besides Allah (i.e. Polytheism), and is considered the most heinous crime against the Islamic god. Due to Muhammad's abysmal understanding of the Trinity doctrine,^[29] 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 proselytise 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)^[30] would ensure a steady decline and Islamization of the native non-Muslim population.

This perfectly exemplifies the common Islamic attitude towards others. They demand that others give them, their culture, and their prophet respect, yet fail to provide us with a valid reason as to why we should. In most other modern-day cultures it is accepted that respect must be earned, and you do not achieve this by invading foreign lands and officially labeling its native populations as second-class citizens.

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^[31] (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.

The overt hatred and disdain for everything non-Muslim is truly outstanding. 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,"^[32] and "act differently from them".^[33]

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,^[34] 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.

As with Muhammad and the Ka'aba, their veneration of the Arabic language borders on idolatry. This becomes all the more humorous when you consider Islam's and the Arabic language's shared pagan heritage.

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 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.^[35] Unsurprisingly, this is one of Islam's so-called "Golden Age" inventions which you will not find proudly displayed on da‘wah websites.

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.^[36]

Like in Saudi-Arabia today, carrying a Bible, or wearing a cross/crucifix was strictly forbidden.

How ironic this is, in a world were a Buddhist cannot visit the most holiest of Buddhist sites without having the spiritual experience raped by the Islamic call to prayer (أَذَان adhān), which continues for a half-hour.^[37]

One must wonder why a Muslim would be present inside a church during services. No doubt, they had come for their free meals and board.

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, rarely discussed by the 'progressive' west, unless on Islam-critical sites like ours.

According to most Islamic scholars, it is a compulsory (fard) requirement for Muslims to be buried in separate cemeteries from non-Muslims.^[38] In Switzerland, Muslims (approximately 4.5 percent of the population) say they want to be buried “with dignity”^[39] and are therefore calling for Islamic cemeteries in every canton, and who can blame them when they equate non-Muslims with faeces?

This was most likely to avoid Christians buying other Christians.

So Muslims can impose on Christians all they please, but for a Christian to enter a Muslim home could mean violating the pact. Even today, their demands only apply to others and not themselves. They want others to accept their religion as they would accept any other religion, yet fail to do likewise in any country where they have become a majority.

Assaulting someone would already be an offense, so this prohibition only makes sense when applied to beating someone in self-defense. Yes, 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.^[40] Today, this has provided on many occasions the pretext for Muslims to viciously attack non-Muslim communities for the smallest of perceived slights.^[41]

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.^[42] His actions and this pact perfectly reflect the teachings of the Qur'an and the Hadith^[43] (together forming Islamic sacred law, or Sharia). Yes, this may be considered to be progressive for something allegedly written in the 7^th century, but that was almost 1500 years ago, and it is anything but tolerant by modern western standards.

While today's Secular Europeans and Christians can and have denounced (and even apologized)^[44][45] for past atrocities committed by others in the name of their countries and religion, the same cannot be said for the followers of Islam. Most still deny that the Islamic slave trade ever existed, or indeed still exists^[46] in the east. Most refuse to accept the fact that the crusades were called as a belated response to hundreds of years of Islamic aggression, to the point where two-thirds of the Christian world was conquered and Islamized.

Religious persecution has been institutionalized in Islam through the intolerant actions of its founder and his subsequent successors. To this day, Muslims hold up this document with pride,^[47] and to this day, they persecute and oppress non-Muslim communities in almost every Islamic and Muslim majority nation. If this is the pinnacle of Islamic tolerance, some may wish that they keep it to themselves.

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

• Why Islam can let a church die - Article discussing anti-Coptic violence in Egypt and how it is theologically justified by the Pact (archived), http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100032370/group/Opinion/