The polemic presents the conditions placed on the Christians of the Levant, then argues that if this happened during the reign of Umar, the “just caliph,” then what happened during the reign of later caliphs must have been worse.

The accusation further claims that Islamic rule was marked by racism, cruelty, conquest, and oppression, and that Arabs should apologize to Christians for what happened in the Levant, Egypt, and other conquered regions.

The important point in the cited report is that the conditions are presented as beingfrom the Christians themselves, not as something Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, initially forced upon them.

Imam al-Hafiz Jamal al-Din Abu Sadiq Muhammad ibn al-Hafiz Rashid al-Din Abu al-Husayn Yahya ibn Ali ibn Abdullah al-Qurashi said in his famous book Bil-Zubd al-Majmu’ah fi al-Hikayat wa al-Ash’ar wa al-Akhbar al-Masmu’ah:

The learned Sheikh Abu Muhammad Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd al-Wahhab ibn Ismail al-Zuhri al-Maliki and more than one of our sheikhs informed us with permission. They said: Abu al-Tahir Ismail ibn Makki ibn Ismail al-Zuhri informed us. He said: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Walid al-Fahri al-Tartushi informed us, reading to him. He said: The Chief Justice al-Damghani informed us. Muhammad informed us. Abu Muhammad Abd al-Rahman ibn Umar ibn Muhammad al-Tujibi informed us, in what I read to him. Abu Saeed Ahmad ibn Umar ibn Ziyad al-A’rabi informed us in Mecca in the year three hundred and forty. Muhammad ibn Ishaq Abu al-Abbas al-Saffar informed us. Al-Rabi’ ibn Taghlib Abu al-Fadl informed us. Yahya ibn Uqbah ibn Abi al-Ayzar informed us, on the authority of Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Walid ibn Ruh, and al-Sari ibn Masraf. They mention on the authority of Talha bin Masraf, on the authority of Masruq, on the authority of Abd al-Rahman bin Ghanem, who said:

I wrote to Umar bin al-Khattab when he made peace with the Christians of Ash-Sham:

“In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is a letter from Abdullah Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such city. When you came to us, we asked you for safety for ourselves, our children, our money, and the people of our religion, and we stipulated for you upon ourselves that we would not incite…”

When I brought the letter to Umar, he added to it:

“And we will not strike any of the Muslims.”

We stipulated that upon ourselves and the people of our religion, and we accepted safety upon him. If we disobey anything that we stipulated for you and guaranteed upon ourselves, then we have no covenant, and what is permissible for you from us is permissible for the people of opposition and discord.

Link mentioned in the raw source:

http://www.al-eman.com/IslamLib/view...ID=234&CID=105

They were not to display a cross or anything from their books in any of the roads of the Muslims, and not live next to the Muslims with their dead, and not strike a bell except lightly, and not raise their voices in reading in their churches in any of the presence of the Muslims, and not go out in the morning, and not raise their voices with their dead, and not display fires with them, and not buy from the slaves what the Muslims’ arrows ran on.

If they violated anything of what they stipulated, then they have no covenant, and what is permissible for the Muslims from them is what is permissible from the people of obstinacy and discord.

Summary of the degree: Ibn Hazm used it as evidence, and he said in the introduction: “We did not use evidence except with a sound report narrated by trustworthy people with a chain of transmission.”

Hadith scholar: Ibn Hazm.

Source: Al-Muhalla.

Page or number: 7/346.

Source mentioned in the raw text:

http://www.dorar.net/mhadith.asp

In this version, the conditions are for Umar ibn al-Khattab.

Some historians denied the attribution of this covenant to Umar. The first of them is mentioned as Muir, and the last of them is A. S. Tritton, who in a book published in 1930 refuted the attribution of the covenant to Umar.

He was surprised that the defeated side would impose conditions upon itself before the victors. He also argued that the covenant is not like other covenants signed by Muslims in the Levant, and that there is no evidence of its application during Umar’s lifetime.

He finally concluded that this covenant was inserted into the schools of jurisprudence many years after Umar’s death.

He argued this by criticizing the four chains of transmission of this covenant, saying:

“If we review the names of the men in the chain of transmission, we find that some of them are not trustworthy or that they are unknown.”

Dr. Kaheela also said:

“It is clear to us that the four Musnads are tainted with impurities, and we know that the chain of transmission has a special status among jurists, and its reliability is derived from the reliability of the text.”

http://www.metransparent.com/texts/aahd_omar.htm

“Mention of the conditions of Umar, their rulings and their requirements.”

Abu Sharhabil Al-Himsi Isa bin Khalid told me: My uncle Abu Al-Yaman and Abu Al-Mughira told me: Ismail bin Ayyash told us: More than one of the people of knowledge told us:

The people of the peninsula wrote to Abd al-Rahman bin Ghanem:

When you came to our country, we asked you for safety for ourselves and the people of our religion, on the condition that we stipulated for ourselves that we would not build a church in our city or in its surroundings a monastery, cell, or monk’s cell, nor would we renovate what was destroyed from our churches or what was in the plans of the Muslims, nor would we prevent the Muslims from entering our churches at night or during the day, and that we would widen their doors for passersby and Ibn al-Sabil.

We would not shelter in it or in our homes a spy, and we would not conceal a deception of the Muslims, and we would not strike our bells except secretly in the interior of our churches, and we would not display a cross on them, and we would not raise our voices in prayer or reading in our churches in what the Muslims attend, and we would not take out a cross or a book in the market of the Muslims.

We would not take out a messenger, and he said, and the messengers gather as the Muslims go out on the day of sacrifice and breaking the fast, nor palm fronds, and we would not raise our voices with our dead, and we would not show fires with them in the markets of the Muslims.

We would not live next to them with pigs or in selling alcohol, and we would not show polytheism, and we would not desire our religion or call anyone to it, and we would not take anything from the slaves that the arrows of the Muslims have drawn, and we would not prevent any of our relatives who wanted to enter Islam.

We would adhere to our dress wherever we are, and we would not imitate the Muslims in wearing a cap or a turban or sandals or parting the hair, nor in their mounts, and we would not speak their language nor use their nicknames.

We would cut the front of our heads and we would not part our forelocks and belts are tied around our waists, and we would not engrave our rings in Arabic, nor would we ride saddles, nor would we take any weapons or carry them, nor would we wear swords.

We would respect the Muslims in their gatherings, and guide them on the way, and stand up for them from the gatherings if they want to sit, and we would not look at them in their homes, nor would we teach our children the Qur’an, and none of us participates with a Muslim in trade unless the Muslim is in charge of the trade.

We would host every Muslim who passes by for three days and feed him from the average of what we find, guaranteeing that for you, for ourselves, our children, our wives, and our poor.

If we change or go against what we stipulated for ourselves and accepted security for it, then we have no covenant, and what is permissible for you from us is permissible for the people of obstinacy and discord.

That they not buy anything from our captives, and whoever strikes a Muslim intentionally has broken his covenant.

So Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanem implemented that and approved this condition for those of the Romans who resided in the cities of the Levant.

The mention of Umar’s conditions continued on their tongues and in their books, and the caliphs implemented them after him and acted upon them.

The fame of these conditions makes it unnecessary to attribute them, as the Imams accepted them and mentioned them in their books and used them as evidence, and the mention of Umar’s conditions continued on their tongues and in their books, and the Caliphs implemented them after him and acted upon them.

The raw text cites reports that Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, did not overturn what Umar had established in these matters.

Ubayd bin Junad told us, Ata bin Muslim al-Halabi told us, on the authority of Salih al-Muradi, on the authority of Abd al-Khair, who said:

I saw Ali praying the afternoon prayer, and the people of Najran lined up for him in two rows, and a man from them handed him a book. When he saw it, his eyes filled with tears, then he raised his head to them and said:

“O people of Najran, by God, this is written by my own hand and dictated by the Messenger of God.”

They said:

“O Commander of the Faithful, give us what is in it.”

He said:

“I approached him and said: If he was going to reject Umar one day, then today he will reject him.”

He said:

“I will not reject anything Umar did, for Umar was wise in his affairs, and Umar took from you better than what he gave you, and Umar did not take from you for himself, rather he took it for the sake of the Muslim community.”

“Umar was wise in his affairs, and I will not change anything that Umar did.”

“He did not come to untie a knot that Umar had tightened.”

Ibn al-Qayyim states that the book of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, included a number of legal topics revolving around six chapters.

On the rulings on selling, churches, and monasteries and what is related to that.

On the rulings on their hospitality to passersby and what is related to that.

On the harm to Muslims and Islam.

On changing their clothing and distinguishing them from Muslims in vehicles, clothing, and other things.

On the display of evil in their actions and words that they were forbidden from.

On the matter of their dealings with Muslims in partnership and the like.

The raw text states that the six chapters run from page 275 to the end of the book, page 354, approximately 80 pages, so they were not transferred in full. The reader is directed to consult the book directly.

Taxation is rejected by those on the cross, yet Jesus and Paul acknowledged it.

“Teacher, we know that You are true and care for no one, because You do not respect the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to give taxes to Caesar, or not? Shall we give or shall we not give?”

But He knew their hypocrisy and said to them:

“Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius, that I may see it.”

So they brought it. And He said to them:

“Whose image and inscription is this?”

And they said to Him:

“Caesar’s.”

Then Jesus answered and said to them:

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

And they marveled at Him.

Therefore give to all what is due them. Tax to whom tax is due. Customs to whom custom is due. Fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Why then is there obstinacy?

The Covenant of Umar with the people of Aelia shows protection for lives, wealth, churches, crosses, the sick, the healthy, and the people’s religion.

This is what Abdullah Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, has given to the people of Aelia of security.

He has given them security for their lives, their money, their churches, their crosses, their sick and their healthy, and all their religion.

Their churches shall not be inhabited, nor demolished, nor shall anything be diminished from them or their area, nor their crosses, nor any of their money, nor shall they be forced to change their religion, nor shall any of them be harmed, nor shall any of the Jews be in Aelia with them.

The people of Aelia must pay the jizya as the people of the cities are paid, and they must expel the Romans and thieves from it.

Whoever of them leaves, then he is safe for himself and his money until they reach their place of safety.

Whoever of them stays is safe and is liable for the same tax as the people of Aelia.

Whoever of the people of Aelia wants to travel with himself and his money with the Romans and clear their trade and crosses, then they are safe for themselves until they reach what they have.

Whoever of the people of the land is there, whoever of them wants to stay, and he is liable for the same tax as the people of Aelia.

Whoever wants to travel with the Romans, and whoever wants to return to his family, nothing will be taken from them until their harvest is harvested.

And upon what is in this book is the covenant of God and the pledge of His Messenger and the pledge of the Caliphs and the pledge of the believers if they give what is due from them of the jizya.

This was witnessed by Umar bin Al-Khattab, Khalid bin Al-Walid, Abd Al-Rahman bin Awf, and Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan.

Therefore, the best solution is for the Orthodox Church to issue the Covenant of Umar.

As for what came about this covenant through the people of the cross, it is invalid.

The Messenger warned us against the hypocrite, so what about the hostile non-Muslim transmitter?

Compare the Covenant of Umar and the commitment of Muslims to the text of its articles with the treaty between the King of Spain, Ferdinand, and the minister Abu al-Qasim, the representative of Muslims in Spain.

Did the King of Spain adhere to the articles of the agreement he signed, as the Muslims had promised the People of the Book in the Islamic conquests?

First, one version of the report presents the conditions as stipulations offered by the Christians themselves in exchange for security, not as conditions initially imposed by Umar.

Second, the covenant became famous among jurists, was discussed in works such as Al-Muhalla and Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah, and was treated as legally significant by later scholars.

Third, reports attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, show that he did not overturn Umar’s policy, but instead recognized Umar’s wisdom in these affairs.

Fourth, the Covenant of Umar with the people of Aelia explicitly grants safety to their lives, wealth, churches, crosses, sick, healthy, and religion, while requiring the payment of jizya.

Fifth, the Christian objection to taxation is inconsistent, since taxation is acknowledged in their own scripture through the words attributed to Jesus and Paul.

Therefore, the accusation that this is simple “racist colonialism” is not a serious historical argument. It ignores treaty context, legal status, juristic treatment, taxation norms, and the documented security granted to Christian communities under Muslim rule.