ThePact of Umar (also known as theCovenant of Umar,Treaty of Umar orLaws of Umar;Arabic:شروط عمر orعهد عمر orعقد عمر) is atreaty between theMuslims and non-Muslims who were conquered byUmar during his conquest of theLevant (Syria andLebanon) in the year 637CE that later gained a canonical status inIslamic jurisprudence.[1] It specifies rights and restrictions fordhimmis, or "protected persons," a type of protected class of non-Muslim peoples recognised by Islam which includes Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and several other recognized faiths[2] living under Islamic rule.
There are several versions of the pact, differing both in structure and stipulations.[3] While the pact is traditionally attributed to the secondRashidunCaliphUmar ibn Khattab,[4] other jurists and orientalists have questioned this attribution[3] with the treaty being instead attributed to 9th centuryMujtahids (Islamic scholars) or theUmayyad CaliphUmar II. In general, the pact contains a list of restrictions on non-Muslims (dhimmis).[5]
_into_Jerusalem%2c_638-_colored_engraving%2c_19th_century..jpg)
Western scholars' opinions differ on the origins and authenticity of the Pact of Umar. Anver M. Emon observes that "there is intense discussion in the secondary literature" on whether the text dates from the reign of Umar b. al-Khattab (Umar I) or was "a later invention retroactively associated with Umar … to endow the contract of dhimma with greater normative weight."[6] Some historians consider the text a compilation that developed over several centuries.Bernard Lewis noted that while Muslim historiographical tradition attributes the regulations to Umar I, the document itself "can hardly be authentic".[7]
The structure of the text is distinctive. It appears in the form of a petition from non-Muslims to Muslim authorities, promising submission in exchange for protection. A. S. Tritton reproduced several versions inCaliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects, each beginning with a request for safety "on these conditions" and ending with a pledge of acceptance of the terms.[8] Mark R. Cohen compared the format to other medieval treaties, describing it as "a kind of petition from the losers promising submission in return for a decree of protection."[9]
Different versions of the text identify different addressees. Some are directed to Umar, while others address Muslim generals, such as Abu Ubayda.[10] Cohen notes that, although the Pact attributed to Umar I, "no text of the document can be dated earlier than the tenth or eleventh century."[11] Lewis similarly suggested that some measures associated with the Pact may originally have been introduced under theUmayyad caliphUmar II (r. 717–720).[7]
Several scholars have argued that elements of the text reflect later historical developments. Norman Stillman wrote that "many of the provisions and restrictions of the pact were only elaborated with the passage of time," with some provisions linked to the early conquests and others added later as Muslims settled more permanently.[12] Tritton regarded the Pact as a later construction, citing its absence from other early treaties, while Daniel C. Dennett argued that the version preserved byal-Tabari could represent an authentic early agreement.[6] Abraham P. Bloch maintained that Umar I was a tolerant ruler and that his name was "erroneously associated … with the restrictive Covenant of Omar."[13]Thomas Walker Arnold wrote that the Pact was "in harmony [with Umar’s] kindly consideration for his subjects of another faith," but added that later generations attributed to him additional restrictions.[14][15]
There are several different versions of the pact that differ both in their language and stipulations.[16]
The pact:[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][page needed]
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us you requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. You made conditions on ourselves that:
These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then ourDhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.
It is in harmony with the same spirit of kindly consideration for his subjects of another faith, that 'Umar is recorded to have allowed an allowance of money and food to be made to some Christian lepers, apparently out of the public funds.;(https://dl.wdl.org/17553/service/17553.pdf])
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 and Caetani have proved without doubt that they are the invention of a later age;(online)
