Skip to main content

The Dhimmi, two Omars and a Sura


Here's an article on the refusal of the media (and other politically correct institutions) to report accurately on the attitude of Islam toward Jews and Christians.

Of course, the historiography is sloppy, and it only goes to reinforce the point that a great deal of unreasoned prejudice against Islam (as a religion) and Muslims generally (as opposed to a minority) is a very real phenomenon

The "Conditions of Omar" (or "Umar") supposedly date from the time of Caliph Omar I (634–644), but most scholarship suggests that they are apocryphal, and actually originated in the 9th Century. Some recent scholarship, however,  suggests that they may be much earlier, and in fact contemporaneous with the reign of Omar. Either way, there are so many versions of the "Conditions" or "Assurance" or "Covenant" of Omar that it is probably impossible to state their content with much accuracy. Some even claim that it was the Christians and Jews of Omar's domain who suggested them!

Omar, in any case, has an historical reputation for lenient treatment of the non-Muslim populations under his rule.  He seems an unlikely persecutor of the dhimmi (Jews and Christians under Muslim rule). Some plausibly suggest that the caliph responsible for their promulgation was in fact Omar II (717–720), whose reputation is... well, otherwise.

One thing is certain: The Koran (Sura 9:29), says quite clearly says,

Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth , (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
The Jizya is a tax leveled on unbelievers. A Muslim defense of the requirement I've read essentially it boils down to saying that all that is actually required of non-Muslim subjects in Muslim-ruled lands is that they pay their lawful taxes. But there is some truth to the view that this "tax" could be more accurately be described as "protection money." And then, there's that problematic explanation in the sura of the purpose of the Jizya being to make the dhimmi "feel themselves subdued." It's hard to avoid the point that Sura 9:29 is a prescription for the humiliation of non-Muslims, and their relegation to the status of second-class citizens.

Now, there  is some plausibility to the claim  that the "Conditions of Omar" as related by the article linked to in the first paragraph do not accurately reflect the position of Mohammed, at least insofar as they take the principle of the sura a great deal further than it requires."Umar's Assurance," however, is an undisputedly  genuine document- although there are so many versions of its content that there is much debate about what it actually says! The relationship between the two seems to be similar to that between the mythical "annexation treaty" between the United States and the Republic of Texas- which most Texans (including Rick Perry) insist grants Texas the right to secede from the Union if it chooses to- and the actual Ordinance of Annexation, which Congress alone passed and is the only actual legal document adopted by either government. The Ordinance contains no such concession clause, and the "treaty" is an urban legend- though the two documents are often confused.

 Others (see this excellent and detailed discussion of the whole subject) are inclined to treat the "Conditions" or "Covenant" or "Assurances" of Omar as a generic topic for the entire Islamic legislation concerning the dhimmi during the Caliphate.In any case, four indisputable facts emerge.

First,  Islam indeed has a long history of discrimination and even persecution of the dhimmi, based soundly on the native and natural sense of the words of the Koran.

Secondly, persecution of the dhimmi continues today in many Islamic countries, and it can be plausibly defended on the basis of the Koran.

Third,  attempts to argue otherwise are disingenuous.

And finally, prejudice against Islam and Muslims are nevertheless very real phenomena, manifested by simplistic accounts of complex issues such as the article linked to in the first paragraph, and a perverse tendency of some to blame all versions of Islam (and, by extension, all Muslims) for ideas and practices which, however deeply rooted in Islam and even the Koran, of which for they themselves do not approve.

To sum up, the Eighth Commandment even applies to Muslims. That Commandment, together with Martin Luther's explanation of the same, reads thusly:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?--Answer.

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

McMullin, Kasich, Hickenlooper, Huntsman, or somebody else sane in 2020!

I don't expect to be disenfranchised in 2020. I'm looking forward to Evan McMullin running against President Trump and whatever left-wing extremist the Democrats nominate. McMullin may or may not run for the Senate next year, and he may or may not run for president as an independent again next time around, but the nation can't afford to lose its most eloquent and intelligent critic of the populist takeover of the Republican party and the Executive Branch. We need the man in public life.

But interesting alternatives have developed. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been mentioned as a potential primary challenger for Mr. Trump. I hope somebody continues the fight for the soul of my former party, even though I believe it to be a lost cause. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban is reportedly also considering a challenge to Mr. Trump. While I tend to see him at this point as somewhere to the left of where a candidate I would feel comfortable supporting might be, I would wish him well. Still, I see…

A modest proposal for a shocking innovation which is completely within the rules but which would, if adopted, revolutionize college football

I call it defense.

The idea- crazy as it may sound- is to supplement the scoring of points by your offense with an attempt to stop the other team from scoring them. Yeah, I know.  Really "out there," isn't it? But it has a history of winning not only games but championships. Modern college teams should try it more.

I'm a bit bummed about the Rose Bowl outcome but amused by the score. It seems that certain conferences aren't sure whether they're playing college football or high school basketball! I've noticed that in the scores of Sooner games. Last season the nation's college teams set a record by scoring an average of slightly more than 30 points each per game. That's a lot. Historically, that's a REAL lot.

The final score of the Rose Bowl was 54-48, though to be fair that was in double overtime. But to get there, the teams had to be tied 45-45 at the end of regulation! Last year was even worse. Southern Cal beat Penn State 52-49- in regulat…

A third party President in 2020?

I had the pleasure of meeting Joel Searsby, the campaign manager for Evan McMullin last year, at an event for Evan here in Des Moines during the campaign. Here's an interview with Joel by Jon Ward of Yahoo News on the ways in which centrist French President Emmanuel Marcon's out-of-nowhere landslide election last year may serve as an example for the inevitable bid to elect a rational, moderate third party candidate in 2020.

I have a feeling that it will be Evan McMullin again. But names like John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio, and Sen. Lindsey Graham also keep popping up. Word is that Kasich may challenge President Trump for the 2020 Republican nomination, an endeavor in which I'd wish him well but hold out very, very little hope for his success. I sadly expect that my conviction that the Republicans are dead as a vehicle for rationality and the reuniting of our fractured and divided country to be confirmed by the easy renomination of the most unfit and unqualified preside…