“Treaty of Umar” as a relevant document of our time

The entrance to the Mosque of Umar in Jerusalem, on the wall of which there is a plate with the text of the “Treaty of Umar”. The inscription above the entrance in Arabic: “The Mosque of Umar bin al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him. Entry to non-Muslims is prohibited."

After the death of Muhammad, the last prophet of the Muslims, in 632, his successors, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, continued to spread Islam by organizing a series of military campaigns in countries adjacent to the Arabian Peninsula.

The second of them was Caliph Umar ben al-Khattab (reigned 634-644). In 637, he had the honor of approaching the walls of Jerusalem, the holy city of three religions, with his army. Jerusalem was already the holy city of Muslims, since the Prophet Muhammad made a journey through the heavens from the Rock in this city (later the Dome was erected over the Rock, which became the most recognizable building in Jerusalem). Of course, the Arabs could not help but have a special relationship with this city. According to legend, Caliph Umar concluded a “Treaty” (in the original – “Obligation”) with the inhabitants of Jerusalem, which, in light of recent events in Palestine, again attracts the attention of researchers.

The “Treaty” that determined the relations between Muslims and Christians also affected Jews

It is known that the authenticity of the “Treaty of Umar” is being questioned. It does not matter what the authenticity of the translated text is. The illustration shown is a plaque attached to the wall of the Umar Mosque in Jerusalem, where only Muslims are allowed entry. This means that the original text is accessible to all Muslims who speak Arabic. Therefore, it cannot but be considered as a document influencing the mindset of both Muslim residents of Jerusalem in particular and Palestinian Arab Muslims in general.

Plate with the text of the "Treaty of Umar" on the wall of the Umar Mosque in Jerusalem

TRANSFER

In the name of Allah the Merciful, the Merciful!

Umar's Commitment

This is a promise of security from Allah's servant, Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, to the people of Eliya.

A promise of safety for their lives, property, churches and crosses, for the sick, cured and other people.

Their temples will not be occupied or destroyed, and no property, crosses or property will be taken from them.

Christians will not be despised for their faith, and no harm will come to any of them.

None of the Jews will be allowed to live with them in Eliya

Residents of Elia should pay a tax on faith in the same way as residents of other cities pay it.

They should expel Byzantine officials and thieves from the city. The lives and property of all those expelled will be protected until they are safe. If any of them decides to stay in Elia, then he will have to pay a tax on faith, like the rest of the inhabitants of Elia.

If any of the inhabitants of Aelia decide to leave with their property for the Byzantine officials, leaving their churches and crosses, then his life, churches and crosses will be guarded until he is safe.

Those of them who remain in Elia will pay a tax on faith, like other residents of Elia.

Each would be allowed to leave with the Byzantine officials or return to their families. Nothing will be asked of him until he has reaped his harvest.

What is contained in this agreement with those who pay the tax on faith is the promise of Allah, the protection of his Prophet, the caliphs and the faithful.

This is evidenced by Khalid ben al-Walid, Abd ar-Rahman ben Auf, Amr ben al-As and Muawiyah ben Abu Sufyan.

Recorded and announced in the 15th year of Hijra.

Umar bin al-Khattab.

NOTES

1) Elia is the Roman-Byzantine name for Jerusalem. The original contains the Arabic transcription of this name. The Arabic name for Jerusalem is Al-Quds.
2) The 15th year of the Hegira corresponds to 637 A.D.
3) Hijra – here: the migration of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Yathrib (later Medina). From the date of the beginning of the resettlement - July 16, 622 - the Muslim calendar is based on the lunar calendar.

Comments

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Good day to all!
Dear Author, is it worth pulling the cat’s tail in this troubled hour? You can love or not love, but everyone has the right to life...
The only problem is that by our actions we give the right to judge ourselves...
Good day to everyone, success and prosperity - worse than a civil war, only a religious one.

[lisikat2]

Vlad1, GV and RV are worth each other: brutal fanaticism is everywhere. violence and blood.
What could be more terrible?

[tlauicol]

What kind of agreement is this? This is an ultimatum!
A tax on religion, hmm, even the Jews didn’t think of that. Give me money, and you don’t have to believe in Allah! Hmm, these are not knights without fear and reproach.. This text did not make any impression on me, a non-believer. Most likely, the same applies to representatives of non-Muslim religions. But, apparently, for Muslims this is an important artifact, if it is real, of course.

[3x3zsave]

Hmm, these are not knights without fear and reproach..
The knights, without fear or reproach, simply massacred the entire population of Jerusalem in 1099.

[tlauicol]

It’s unlikely that there was at least one Bayard among those scumbags. But here... Here one of the first Righteous Caliphs, a companion of the Prophet, is trading in the right not to believe in Allah. Even in my atheistic head there is cognitive dissonance. How can this be!? And this is hundreds of years before indulgences! In the East.

If this is a reliable document of course

[Carmela]

Quote: Tlauicol

trades in the right not to believe in Allah. Even in my atheistic head there is cognitive dissonance

And what is wrong? Freedom of conscience. But pay the money. And free in your faith.

[Stanislav_Shishkin]

Quote: Tlauicol

trades in the right not to believe in Allah

Don't write nonsense. Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in one God = Allah (in Arabic), but there are differences in interpretation, especially among Jews: Jewish ultra-Orthodox living in the United States consider Israel an illegal entity and protest against Zionist violence against Palestinians.

[Puzoter]

Only not in “one”, but in “one”

[Most polite]

Yes, the overall level of VO has somehow dropped, since you have to explain the simplest things.
Jiizya is a poll tax from non-religious people (dhimmis) in Muslim states. Islamic jurists view jizya as a ransom for the preservation of life and further protection from internal and external enemies during conquest. All women, old people, disabled people, beggars, slaves were exempt from paying taxes, regardless of religion or nationality...
The caliph was not a pioneer in collecting such taxes from non-believers; he most likely followed the practices known to him.

The Jewish population of Europe was politically exposed and could easily be used to levy heavy taxes in exchange for official protection.
Fiscus Judaicus (Latin: "Jewish Tax") or "Temple Tax" was a tax collection agency established to collect the tax levied on Jews in the Roman Empire following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. in favor of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.
Etc. etc.

[futurohunter]

Most polite
Plus, however, there is one “but”. You write that Jews were politically unprotected. But in the Middle East, Christians were also virtually unprotected. The Crusaders are definitely not a defense, and for the Crusaders all non-Catholics are generally an object for robbery. The Byzantines were expelled. Therefore, the protection you mentioned applied primarily to Christians.
As far as I understand, in medieval Arab countries there was much greater religious tolerance than in Europe.
Please note that Muslims in those days did not particularly favor Jews. Apparently there were reasons

[parusnik]

Brevity is the sister of P. Gusterin’s talent. I’ll just give you information, without analysis, and here you write in the comments, whatever you want.

[Cartalon]

Information without analysis is better than fantasy under the guise of history, in most articles here.

[Frettaskyrandi]

Brevity is the sister of P. Gusterin’s talent.

The sister of Gusterin's talent is ignorance. I will not mention the other sisters so as not to violate the rules of the site.
Religious issues are generally a very delicate topic, and such issues are even more so. And an individual who is either not burdened with intelligence or not burdened with a sense of moral responsibility for the consequences of his actions can meddle in them with such a level of ignorance.
Firstly, the “Treaty of Umar” and the “Obligation of Umar” are two different documents. Judging by the text, the author does not even suspect this.
The "Treaty of Umar" is an agreement between the non-Muslim population (Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and others) on the territory of states created or conquered by Muslims, where the legal system was based on Sharia law. Contains a list of rights and restrictions for non-Muslims.
The authorship of the document and its authenticity are still the subject of debate.
The "Obligation of Umar" is a guarantee of security given by Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab to the people of Eliya (Jerusalem).
Further, the author completely uttered nonsense.

This means that the original text is accessible to all Muslims who speak Arabic.

This document is accessible to everyone who speaks Arabic, as it is contained in the works of various Islamic historians, starting with Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, and in three versions. Today there is no definitive answer as to which of the three versions is genuine.
That is, both documents so far provide more questions than answers. Accordingly, the author’s “conclusion” about the “relevance of the document” looks either stupid or provocative.

[lisikat2]

Good health to all. Thanks to the author for his work_
Just a question for the author: how does he evaluate this agreement?
I have an ambivalent attitude towards the agreement: selfishness irritates me, but humanism attracts me. “You won’t be safe.” For the era of religious wars, it's simple: super kindness

[3x3zsave]

The era of religious wars is more than eight hundred years old.

[parusnik]

Just a question for the author: how does he evaluate this agreement?

But no matter... But the work, of course, has been done colossally

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Good afternoon. An ultimatum (agreement) is essentially a progressive document. Moreover, it is a product of pagan (tribal) remnants of Islamic society. As Anton correctly wrote, the era of religious wars and intolerance is still ahead. Despite all his radicalism, he offered options that would not be the norm in the future.
The question is different, this is not the time and place to post such materials. Russia, no matter how pretentious it sounds, is a multinational and multi-religious country. With these we rock the boat in which we sail ourselves.

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

The sister of Gusterin's talent is ignorance. I will not mention the other sisters so as not to violate the rules of the site.
Religious issues are generally a very delicate topic, and such issues are even more so. And an individual who is either not burdened with intelligence or not burdened with a sense of moral responsibility for the consequences of his actions can meddle in them with such a level of ignorance.
Firstly, the “Treaty of Umar” and the “Obligation of Umar” are two different documents.

Here Frettaskyrandi and pierced himself. The fact is that “Umar’s Obligation” is my name for the translated document as the author of the translation, and the presented document under this name is not found anywhere in the literature. Frettaskyrandi didn't know about this. Even in Baranov’s dictionary the word عهدة is translated as “guarantee, guarantee”, and not “obligation”. “Treaty of Umar” is the accepted name in the literature for the document I presented called “Obligation of Umar.” The document he talks about Frettaskyrandi, is known in literature as the "Pact of Umar" rather than the "Treaty of Umar". About it Frettaskyrandi I didn't know either.

Frettaskyrandi he doesn’t know Arabic at all, but pretends to be some kind of “expert”.

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

This document is accessible to everyone who speaks Arabic, as it is contained in the works of various Islamic historians, starting with Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, and in three versions.

Frettaskyrandi , where is at least one link?

[Frettaskyrandi]

That's where Frettaskyrandi screwed up

Mr. Gusterin, instead of being clever, you would better study the issue so as not to write nonsense.

where is at least one link?

Have you heard about Mednikov?

[Pavel Gusterin]

Frettaskyrandi, it’s you who write nonsense. Confirmation is the fact that you do not provide any arguments or references.

Where are the links to the Muslim authors you claim?

[Lewww]

After the death of Muhammad, the last prophet of the Muslims, in 632

not a prophet of Muslims, but a prophet of Allah according to the tenets of Islam

It is known that the authenticity of the “Treaty of Umar” is being questioned. It does not matter what the authenticity of the translated text is.

some kind of philistine judgment.
For historians, the authenticity of any extant historical text is of paramount importance.
And this document is not a contract, but a mandatory act

[Pavel Gusterin]

Dear Leo!

1) The point is that it is Muslims who consider Muhammad the last prophet, while representatives of other faiths do not consider him a prophet at all.

2) In this case, I am not talking about historians, but about the broad masses of the population who are influenced by this document, regardless of whether it is genuine or not.

3) You can treat this document in any way you like! I gave its name, accepted in the scientific literature.

[Lewww]

1) The point is that it is Muslims who consider Muhammad the last prophet

Muslims consider him the last prophet of Allah, not Muslims.
You formed the phrase incorrectly.

2) In this case, I’m not talking about historians, but about the broad masses of the population who are influenced by this document

I don’t know what and to whom you are talking and about what masses you are broadcasting.
I just noticed that your statement:

It is known that the authenticity of the “Treaty of Umar” is being questioned. It does not matter what the authenticity of the translated text is.

the essence of the philistine conclusion.
The authenticity of the text of any historical document is of paramount importance for historians.
I don't see the point in proving this

I gave its name, accepted in the scientific literature.

and good luck, I just noticed that, according to legal qualifications, the text you presented does not relate to contracts, and you yourself cited its name as

Commitment Umara

And if some historian called this document an agreement, then this fact shows his illiteracy in matters of jurisprudence

[Frettaskyrandi]

representatives of other faiths do not consider him a prophet at all

What denominations?

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

Have you heard about Mednikov?

Here is my article about Mednikov, published in 2011 in the book: Orthodox Palestine Collection. Vol. 107. M., 2011, p. 307–316.

http://ricolor.org/journal/33/istoria/3/

Frettaskyrandi, what about your translation of the “Treaty of Umar”?

[Frettaskyrandi]

what about your translation of the "Treaty of Umar"

I don’t do translations from Arabic; you’re fussing over your client in vain. In the question, you are nobody and your name is nothing.
Abu-Munshar, Maher Y. Islamic Jerusalem and its Christians: a history of tolerance and tensions. Tauris Academic Studies.
El-Awaisi, Abd al-Fattah. Umar's Assurance of Safety to the People of Aelia (Jerusalem): A critical Analytical Study of the Historical Sources. Journal of Islamic Jerusalem Studies. Vol. 3, No. 2
Kazmouz, Mahmoud Mataz. "Multiculturalism in Islam: the document of Madīnah & Umar's assurance of safety as two case studies."
Good luck in studying the issue.

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote: Lewww

I don't know what or to whom you are saying.

And if you don’t know and don’t understand at all what I’m writing about, because... off topic, i.e. If you are not a specialist, then why are you making your judgments?

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

I don't translate from Arabic,

Frettaskyrandi, this is where we had to start. I said that you don’t know Arabic, judging by the nonsense that you write. This is the kind of “specialist” you are.

[Frettaskyrandi]

This is where we had to start. I said that you don’t know Arabic

Pavel Gusterin, all your attempts to answer your opponents under your opus are a mouse squeak. Do you want to say that you know Arabic and are an Islamist historian?
I repeat in plain text - you are nobody and your name is nothing. Your opuses are information garbage. Creatively, you are a nonentity. In the rest, I think, too. Don't bother answering. Your answers do not provide useful information.

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

What denominations?

Frettaskyrandi, if you ask such questions, it means you have nothing to do with religious studies in general and Islamic studies in particular...

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

Don't bother answering. Your answers do not provide useful information.

Frettaskyrandi, this means only one thing - you are afraid of my answers! From my answers it became clear what kind of “specialist” you are.

[Frettaskyrandi]

From my answers it became clear

From your answers it became clear that you are just another ignoramus who has squeezed into the position of the site’s authors, that’s all. There are many of them here.

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

This document is accessible to everyone who speaks Arabic, as it is contained in the works of various Islamic historians, starting with Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, and in three versions.

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

Abu-Munshar, Maher Y. Islamic Jerusalem and its Christians: a history of tolerance and tensions. Tauris Academic Studies.
El-Awaisi, Abd al-Fattah. Umar's Assurance of Safety to the People of Aelia (Jerusalem): A critical Analytical Study of the Historical Sources. Journal of Islamic Jerusalem Studies. Vol. 3, No. 2
Kazmouz, Mahmoud Mataz. "Multiculturalism in Islam: the document of Madīnah & Umar's assurance of safety as two case studies."

Where are the references in Arabic, "specialist"?

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

your name is nothing

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

Pavel Gusterin

Frettaskyrandi, do you have a diagnosis? We need to warn you!

[Pavel Gusterin]

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

You are just another ignoramus who has wormed his way into the position of the site’s authors, that’s all. There are many of them here.

Frettaskyrandi, and I was already beginning to think that I was the only one who had fallen out of favor. If, in your opinion, there are complete ignoramuses here, what are you doing here, “specialist”?

[deddem]

Quote: 3x3zsave

Hmm, these are not knights without fear and reproach..
The knights, without fear or reproach, simply massacred the entire population of Jerusalem in 1099.

Not all, but only those who remained in the city with the Fatimid garrison (i.e. were not killed in the pogroms of Christians or expelled on suspicion of supporting the crusaders).