Talk:Pact of Umar

Untitled

What??How is this a fictitious article? this treaty is quoted in Muir, Mualana Ali, and several other direct primary sources. --RafiMando (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is really strange I am an Arab and this is the original text in Arabic that all scholars agree on:

«بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم، هذا ما أعطى عبد الله، عمر، أمير المؤمنين، أهل إيلياء من الأمان، أعطاهم أماناً لأنفسهم وأموالهم ولكنائسهم وصلبانهم وسقمها وبريئها وسائر ملتها. أنه لا تسكن كنائسهم ولا تهدم، ولا ينقص منها ولا من حيِّزها ولا من صليبهم ولا من شيء من أموالهم، ولا يُكرهون على دينهم، ولا يضارّ أحد منهم، ولا يسكن بإيلياء معهم أحد من اليهود. وعلى أهل إيلياء أن يُعطوا الجزية كما يُعطي أهل المدائن. وعليهم أن يُخرِجوا منها الروم واللصوص. فمن خرج منهم فإنه آمن على نفسه وماله حتى يبلغوا أمنهم. ومن أقام منهم فهو آمن، وعليه مثل ما على أهل إيلياء من الجزية. ومن أحب من أهل إيلياء أن يسير بنفسه وماله مع الروم ويخلي بِيَعهم وصلبهم، فإنهم آمنون على أنفسهم وعلى بِيَعهم وصلبهم حتى يبلغوا أمنهم. فمن شاء منهم قعد وعليه مثل ما على أهل إيلياء من الجزية. ومن شاء سار مع الروم. ومن شاء رجع إلى أهله، فإنه لا يؤخذ منهم شيء حتى يحصد حصادهم. وعلى ما في هذا الكتاب عهد الله وذمة رسوله وذمة الخلفاء وذمة المؤمنين، إذا أعطوا الذي عليهم من الجزية. كتب وحضر سنة خمس عشرة هجرية. شهد على ذلك: خالد بن الوليد، وعبد الرحمن بن عوف، وعمرو بن العاص، ومعاوية بن أبي سفيان.» — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.177.45.255 (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DanielleMarcus0793.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Spencer

With no credentials or academic backing, William Spencer's opinion has no backing. To generalize a statement over a 1200 year period is ridiculus. Besides the fact that from when the Covenant of Omar was written, Palestine belonged to several countries including Rome, Syria, the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, and various others. Eframgoldberg (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Pact of Umar II

I propose to merge this article with Pact of Umar II. After factcheck it looks that there never were two pacts, just different versions of the alleged pact of Umar (or call it: covenant) ascribed to either Umar. I stumbled over a quotation for the "Pact of Umar II" which gives the text referred to in the article but clearly ascribing it to Umar bin Khattab. Checking on readily available material like Comments on the Pact of Umar I take it from here that obviously different versions were attributed to either Umar. Is there any scholarly comment trying to connect any of these different versions (be it the more irenic "Jerusalem"-version, be it the hostile "Syria" - version) to one of the 2 historic pesons? I only saw criticism as later fictions which tried to describe later situations..

Once done, also the socalled "Covenant of Ali" could be included for the time being, which is a Shiite version of the "Umar Covenant / Pact" (cf a version referring to Armenians or another version referring to a "Hizqil Di'l-Kafal monastery (German Text)) --Kipala (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Merge

I grew up in the Arab World and the Umar Covenant is well-known and regarded as fact, taught in the history books. There is only one version, attributed to Umar I. This Wikipedia page is the first time I heard of the Umar II Covenant (which is likely bogus), and the first time I heard that the authenticity of the Umar I Covenant is in question. In fact, I dislike the tone of the whole page altogether, using words like "purported" and so forth, with all the references coming from Western works of history. When dealing with history of non-Western parts of the world, the primary historical sources from those regions need to be given priority. The emphasis of the article is also misguided. What is important, in my opinion, is not the nitty-gritty of who wrote the treaty, but what this treaty contains. Regardless of whether Umar wrote it or not, it did carry the force of law for many centuries, through many different Islamic regimes. It was not violated on a wide scale until the Ottoman reforms of AbdelHamid in the middle of the 19th century. Note there is a statement in the text that an "English translation of the text of the treaty is below", but that is not given (I added it). I would be interested in that being on the page. Wikipedia should stick to facts and not opinions.Readlotsof books (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Historicity

I have added NPOV Language and Undue tags in Historicity section. My first concern stems from this excerpt

Traditional Islamic accounts of the Muslims' seventh century conquests, including Jerusalem, such as those by historians al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari were written down 200-300 years after the events

When reading the sentence just before this one, it becomes clear the sentence above was written to support the claim that there is some authenticity problem even though there is no sourced content that suggests any linkage, furthermore, there is no sourced evidence that the first Islamic accounts of the Covenant were actually written down 200-300 years after the event.

My second concern is that the whole section has been written to question the authenticity of the document yet there is no source that directly addresses the authenticity of the document. The section title could have been more appropriately titled "Criticism" rather than "Historicity" which misleads the reader into thinking that the lack of authenticity of the document is actually established.

My personal opinion is that the entire section should be removed or alternatively improved to cite some relevant facts of the document's "Historicity", but I've temporarily left it to give other editors a chance to defend their claims. In the meantime, I'm adding NPOV tags. MJC.2012 (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

4 Points

(1) The Arabic Wikipedia page of the same subject is much more accurate. Find it at this link. (2) The translation in this page is very poor. Needs to be redone. (3) The page lacks sources which are present in the Arabic Wikipedia page above. (4) Claiming that this covenant did not exist in reality is not only ignorant but disrespects at least 100s of thousands of people who consider this covenant a law and a doctrine respected for a thousand years. Claiming that there is no scholarly siting of that covenant in the early books of history is, also, a proof of ignorance in the subject matter. The covenant was cited by a number of scholars of different religions and backgrounds. It is even a respectable text quoted in the records of the Eastern Roman Orthodox Church in Jerusalem. Just my two cents. Bo3oaf (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference you linked is written by a Urologist and an Islamic Televangelist, in what world is this more accurate than a research university?--Rafy talk 21:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

This edit is a copy/paste of the entire A Brief Analysis of the Pact of Umar from Wikiislam. That article is mainly OR that employs mostly unreliable sources.--Rafy talk 19:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

The Wikipedia (English Version) article is very much misleading. In its first paragraph, it says "The document effectively establishes a social hierarchy with Muslims on top and the Dhimmis as subordinates". The actual text of the Pact is not quoted but the so called "Content" includes, "Christians were also required to wear a Zunnar". It also includes "Several clauses emphasised the superiority of Muslims", but the Pact is not literally quoted (I wonder why?). Not only the Pact needs to be quoted, but also it needs to be read in the proper context of the time, place and circumstances in which it was written.

Also, I find the questioning of the authenticity of the Pact disgusting. The Pact is very much real. None of your sources are reliable at all on this subject and they may even be Islamophobic.

Also why is the English version so different from the Arabic version? Is this an attempt to please (what Wikipedia might think are) two conflicting audiences? The Arabic version quotes the Pact itself and does not raise any suspicions towards its authenticity. I therefore think that Wikipedia should make the English and Arabic versions virtual the same (i.e virtual translations of each other). Then you might try your luck in raising Wikipedia's suspicions and false interpretations of Pact and then we might see what the Arabic readers will think of this. Also may be you should make other versions of this page in Farsi, Urdu, etc with the "suspicions", etc (in them) to see what the users of these languages might think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amersaabi (talk • contribs)

So first you copy an entire article from an anti-Islamic website and then you complain this entry is Islamophobic. On which side are you exactly?

The text cannot be included because there is no English translation in public domain. The article includes a link to a translation however.

The authenticity of the pact is questioned by almost all scholars who wrote about it, this includes some modern Muslim scholars like Subhi al-Salih in his introduction to Ibn Qayyim's Ahkam. Subhi's position as a leading Muslim figure doesn't allow to directly accuse Ibn Qiyam of forgery but there are ample implications to that. You can find the book online elsewhere.

Arabic Wikipedia is an unreliable source specially when it comes to Islamic topics.--Rafy talk 15:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Amersaabi, this article is different than the Arabic Wiki because the two articles are dealing with two different treaties. The "Pact of Umar" is called al-Shurut al-'Umariyya in Arabic, and it's not the same as al-'Uhda al-'Umariyya. See my comment in the "Text of the Treaty" section below. That said, Rafy's assertion that Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 1350) forged the Pact of Umar is ridiculous, considering that the earliest known versions of the pact is found in the works of earlier jurists and historians, like al-Khallal (d. 923), Ibn ‘Asakir (d. 1176), Ibn Hazm, etc. For reference, see p. 63 of Maher Y. Abu-Munshar, 2007, Islamic Jerusalem and its Christians: a history of tolerance and tensions, Tauris Academic Studies. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is implied by Subhi al-Salih, not me.--Rafy talk 17:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is this implied? Which book, which page/paragraph? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 06:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Book is linked above. Pages are from ط-م (in Muqaddima).--Rafy talk 14:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already read the Muqaddima before joining this discussion. It does not support your claim. In fact, Subhi al-Salih praises Ibn Qayyim for being a "faithful transmitter" (amānatu al-rāwī -- p."wāw", last line). I think you need to be more specific, otherwise you're just misrepresenting reliable sources, which is a sign of disruptive and biased editing. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all I haven't used this source in any article so you can't accuse me of disruptive editing. Secondly if you read the sentence just after the one you cited you'll find in p. Zayn that he does question the historicity of the pact ("غاضين النظر عن كل ما يمس صحة الأسانيد أو يثير حولها الريب والشكوك") and criticises the absent of Isnad in Ibn Qayyim's Ahkam ("ننكر على على أبن القيم قوله "وشهرة هذه الشروط تغني عن الإسناد"").

Pp. Ta'-Kaf are dedicated to refute the historicity of the pact. P. Lam contains the sentence ("وإنما نأخذ هذه المآخذ على رواية ابن القيم وحدها، وهي التي صرح هو بصحة أسانيدها"), which implies that Ibn Qayyim used those obviously apocryphal narrations, knowingly, and incorporated it in his interpretation of Islamic law.--Rafy talk 14:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As explained above, none of these extracts support your claim that Subhi al-Salih accused Ibn al-Qayyim of forging the pact of Umar. I suggest that you just drop it, considering that you aren't even interested in adding this claim to the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 11:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My whole point was that even some Muslim scholars doubt the historicity of the pact. Sure Subhi didn't say Ibn Qayyim forged it but he is still critical of the latter's acceptance of the pact. He does however imply that it was Muslims who made the whole story up.--Rafy talk 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

William Spencer

His book is very much politically motivated. In the book that is being quoted he is simply trying to show Islam in the state of reawakening and "taking over" countries. This book is simply trying to show Islam to be a "dangerous phenomenon". Also why is "Islamic Fundamentalism in the Modern World" being used as a source of information about events that happened fourteen centuries ago?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amersaabi (talk • contribs)

This one is not quoted and therefore removed.--Rafy talk 15:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oded Peri

His book is about Ottoman times and is therefore (even from a technical point of view a very contentious source).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amersaabi (talk • contribs)

The book deals with the implication of the pact on Dhimmis in some details, note that the referenced section also speaks of the later implication of the pact.--Rafy talk 15:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Naomi Pasachoff & Robert Littman: A Concise History of the Jewish People

This is a biased Zionist book and should never have been used as a source of information on this subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amersaabi (talk • contribs)

This one is not quoted and therefore removed.--Rafy talk 15:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Text of the Treaty

I added the text of the Pact (as quoted in "The Great Arab Conquests" by Hugh Kennedy) on December 21st, and it has since been deleted. I am going to add it back again, but am putting this here in case anyone would like to discuss any reasons for its removal before deleting an important part of the article from a neutral and academic source. Khateeb88 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not the text of the Pact of Umar, but of another document known as the "Assurance of Safety to the People of Aelia" (commonly known in Arabic as Al-ʿUhda al-ʿUmariyya). While the "Pact of Umar" was written for Syria, "Umar's Assurance" was written for Jerusalem. Unfortunately, this article seems to be confusing the two. I think we need to create a second article for Al-ʿUhda al-ʿUmariyya. These two treaties are considered as two separate documents in both the primary sources and the specialist secondary sources. For a thorough treatment of this subject, see Maher Y. Abu-Munshar, 2007, Islamic Jerusalem and its Christians: a history of tolerance and tensions. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This and other documents surfaced in the 9th century are widely considered Christian forgeries by modern historians. Refer to [1], [2] and [3].--Rafy talk 20:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's beside the point. It is common on wiki to have articles for documents with questionable authenticity. That doesn't explain why we should confuse two different documents in one article. Also, references to the "Assurance" is found in some of the earliest history works, including that of al-Waqidi (d. 822). Also, the text of the Assurance as mentioned by al-Tabari is quoted from an 8th-century historian, Sayf ibn Umar. Some modern scholars consider aspects of this text to be authentic. See Maher Y. Abu-Munshar, 2007, p. 94, and [4] who points out that "the language of the covenant and its details appear authentic and reliable and in keeping with what is known of Jerusalem at the time." Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Canonical" and Halsall's version

1. Most sources describe it as being a canonical document.[5][6]
2. Halsall's version is recognised by other references as one of the most popular translations of the pact.[7]--Rafy talk 21:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are also many sources describing it as "apocryphal", but I guess it doesn't matter either way. Next, using "treaty" instead of "document" is more accurate. However, your second link doesn't support your claim. In fact, it proves that there are several versions of the pact, with several different translations. So why should we prefer one translation over the others? and why did you remove the fact that there are several different versions of the pact from the lede? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Most historians agree that there was no such treaty. I will add that it started as an apocryphal account and later gained canonical status. The Fordham translation is linked because it is one of the most popular versions as one link stated above (also google "Pact of Umar"), furthermore it is made available on an educational website. If you think this translation differs from the Arabic original then you can bring this issue here.--Rafy talk 17:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disputed and Confusing

Those issues need to be discussed thoroughly before adding tags. Which facts are disputed in this article? The article is based on several scholarly books. What's so confusing about them and how can we resolve this conflict?--Rafy talk 14:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd Source: Anonymous Handout??

Umm... can someone explain how "In one version of the pact, based on an anonymous class handout at University of Edinburgh in 1979," made it into the article? Is this intended as a (somewhat unhelpful) source, or is someone trolling? Rory (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Content" section

The long bullet list of unsourced, barely literate items does nothing to improve this article. I mean, what is a reader supposed to do with a passage like this? Prohibition to build houses of the non-Muslims must be low in a way that each time that they would enter or exit their houses they would have to bend, in a way that it would remained them their low status in the world.

I am tempted to remove the entire list. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Some type of list is desirable, but the existing list is barely English, as you noted. Also, I think it brings together things from different sources so that the list is larger than any of the versions. It would be better to choose one prominent edition of the list and summarise it. The above example seems like a commentary on the list, not the list itself. The version published by Stillman in The Jews of Arab lands just has "We shall not build of homes higher than theirs". Zero^talk 23:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Applications of Pact of Umar

Even though there are many different versions of the pact of Umar, I plan to add a few more rules that were left out from the list. Also intend to add a section on how the pact of Umar was applied to different people depending on time and place. If anyone has any suggestions or comments please let me know on this talk page or on my talk page. DanielleMarcus0793 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@DanielleMarcus0793: Which sources are you using? Beware of combining multiple sources, since it may constitute WP:SYNTHESIS. 18:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)