This, then, is how the Koran—which Muslims hold to be the literal word of Allah—commands Muslims to make their defeated non-Muslim opponents feel. These are the images that come to the minds of Arabic readers of the Koran—much more graphic than the usual English translation “subdued.”
The theme of non-Muslim degradation appears regularly in the commentaries of Islam’s authorities. According to the Medieval Islamic Civilization Encyclopedia, Muslim “jurists came to view certain repressive and humiliating aspects of dhimma as de rigueur. Dhimmis were required to pay the jizya publicly, in broad daylight, with hands turned palm upward, and to receive a smart smack on the forehead or the nape of the neck from the collection officer.” Some of Islam’s jurists mandated a number of other humiliating rituals at the time of jizya payment, including that the presiding Muslim official slap, choke, and in some cases pull the beard of the paying dhimmi, who might even be required to approach the official on all fours, like an animal.34
While other verses make clear that infidels are to be despised (see Koran 3: 100, 110–112, 118–120), Koran 9:29 is the cornerstone in the edifice of the systematic humiliation of non-Muslims. Consider Ibn Kathir’s exegesis of this verse, a mainstream interpretation:Allah said, “until they pay the jizya,” if they do not choose to embrace Islam, “with willing submission,” that is, in defeat and subservience, “and feel themselves subdued,” that is, disgraced, humiliated, and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the dhimmis or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced, and humiliated. Sahih Muslim [a canonical hadith collection] recorded from Abu Hurraira that the Prophet said, “Do not initiate the Salam [peace greeting] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.” This is why the Leader of the Faithful, [the second caliph] Omar bin al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. 35
The Conditions of Omar
Ibn Kathir did well to name Caliph Omar in the context of the subjugation of dhimmis (based on a word meaning “to find fault in” or “to affix blame to”), the status of those who still refuse to convert willingly to Islam. Whereas Koran 9:29 gives divine sanction to fighting Christians and Jews until they agree to pay tribute and live in submission, the so-called The Conditions of Omar (also known as the Pact of Omar) lays out in detail exactly how they are to feel themselves subdued.
Named after the second caliph, Omar bin al-Khattab who reigned from 634–644, The Conditions of Omar was purportedly agreed upon between the caliph and a community of Christians conquered by invading Muslims (possibly in Jerusalem under the Patriarch Sophronius). The Conditions was likely redacted under other caliphs, most notably Omar ibn Abdulaziz, who ruled from 717–720. Western scholars have doubts about the authorship of the Conditions—later Muslims jurists actually may have compiled the document.
But in regard to the historicity of The Conditions of Omar—or any other question concerning the history of Islam—Western scholarship is purely academic. In the real world, specifically the Islamic world, what mainstream Islam teaches and what Muslims believe are what matter. And Islamic teaching makes The Conditions of Omar the canonical text for the treatment of Christians under Islam.
Regardless of the actual origins of the Conditions, Muslim tradition holds that it originates with Omar I, the second of the four righteous caliphs, whose position in Sunni Islam is second only to that of Muhammad. Accordingly it is the foundational text on the treatment of dhimmis. The Conditions of Omar has unquestioned authority among Sunni Islam’s mainstream scholars such as Ibn Hazm, al-Tartushi, Ibn Qudama, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Asakir, Ibn Kathir, al-Hindi, and Ali Ajin.36
The fourteenth-century Ibn Qayyim, who wrote the most comprehensive and referenced work concerning the treatment of dhimmis, aptly titled, in translation, Rulings Concerning Dhimmis, spends much time examining the Conditions, saying that “the fame of these Conditions are such that they need no documentation: for the imams have accepted them, mentioned them in their books, and used them in their arguments; the Conditions of Omar are still constantly on their tongues and in their books. And the caliphs after him also enforced them.”37 Likewise, the eighth-century jurist Abu Yusuf said the Conditions must “stand till the day of resurrection” because they are in agreement with the Koran and the hadith literature.
There are different versions of the text of The Conditions of Omar, but they vary only slightly. The complete text of one of the most authoritative versions of the Conditions—the first one Ibn Qayyim reproduced in his book—follows below. As in most versions, the conquered Christians appear to be speaking:When you came to our countries, we asked you for safety for ourselves and the people of our community, upon which we imposed the following conditions on ourselves for you:
Not to build a church in our city—nor a monastery, convent, or monk’s cell in the surrounding areas—and not to repair those that fall in ruins or are in Muslim quarters;
Not to prevent Muslims from lodging in our churches, by day or night, and to keep their doors wide open for [Muslim] passersby and travelers;
Not to harbor in them [churches, monasteries] or our homes a spy, nor conceal any deceits from Muslims;
Not to clang our cymbals except lightly and from the innermost recesses of our churches;
Not to display a cross on them [churches], nor raise our voices during prayer or readings in our churches anywhere near Muslims;
Not to produce a cross or [Christian] book in the markets of the Muslims;
Not to congregate in the open for Easter or Palm Sunday, nor lift our voices [in lamentation] for our dead nor show our firelights with them near the market places of the Muslims;
Not to bring near to them [Muslims] pigs or alcohol;
Not to display any signs of polytheism, nor make our religion appealing, nor call or proselytize anyone to it;
Not to take anything of [or “be involved with”] the slave conquered by the Muslims;
Not to prevent any of our relatives who wish to enter into Islam;
To distinguish ourselves wherever we are and not to resemble Muslims in dress—whether in headgear, turbans, sandals, hair-parting, or modes of transportation;
Not to speak like them [Muslims], nor adopt their surnames;
To clip our foreheads and not part our forelocks;
To tighten our zunanir [a type of belt] around our waists and not to engrave our signet rings in Arabic nor ride on saddles;
Not to possess or bear any arms whatsoever, nor gird ourselves with swords;
To honor the Muslims, show them the way, and rise up from our seats if they wish to sit down;
Not to come upon them in their homes, nor teach our children the Koran;
None of us shall do business with a Muslim unless the Muslim commands it;
To host every traveling Muslim for three days and feed him adequately;
We guarantee all this to you upon ourselves, our descendants, our spouses, and our neighbors, and if we change or contradict these conditions imposed upon ourselves in order to receive safety, we forfeit our dhimma [covenant], and we become liable to the same treatment you inflict upon the people who resist and cause sedition.38
To “become liable to the same treatment you inflict upon the people who resist and cause sedition” simply meant that, if any of the stipulations in the Conditions was broken, the Christians would resume their natural status as non-submitting infidels who “resist and cause sedition” against Islam—becoming, once again, free game for killing or enslavement. Other versions of The Conditions of Omar add yet more stipulations that Christians conquered by the sword of Islam had to embrace in order to exist as Christians, the infraction of any of which led to the loss of their protected status. Omar himself insisted upon one of these: that Christians never raise their hands against a Muslim, including in self-defense.
&nb
sp; The above text makes the position of conquered Christians under Islam painfully clear. It was ratified at a time when Christians still made up the overwhelming majority of the populations of the conquered territories. As the ratio shifted in favor of Muslims over the centuries, Islamic jurists of the first few centuries of Islam built upon the Conditions , stipulating that conquered non-Muslim dhimmis had to abide by the following rules in order to be “protected” from—not by—Islam. Many are simple regurgitations of the Conditions, while others were reached through analogy to Omar’s original stipulations and Koran 9:29:Restrictions on expressions of worship:• Building new churches or repairing old ones was banned.
• Displaying “idolatry” or “paganism” was banned. Thus crucifixes, Bibles and other Christian books, Christian prayers, church singing, bells, cymbals, and Christian funeral processions all were banned from public display.
Restrictions on freedom:• Proselytizing Muslims was banned.
• Blasphemy—often loosely interpreted as criticism of or offense towards Islam, its prophet, or even Muslims in general—was banned.
• Apostasy was banned—any Muslim who converted to Christianity was subject to the death penalty.
Inferior social status:• Dhimmis had to adopt a humble demeanor and always respect Muslims.
• Dhimmi testimony was not valid against a Muslim in court.
• Raising one’s hands to a Muslim—even in self-defense—was banned on pain of death.
• Dhimmi blood was not equal to Muslim blood. While killing a Muslim was punished by death, Muslims were not liable to the death penalty for killing dhimmis.
• Preventing a fellow Christian’s conversion to Islam was banned. (Such conversions to Islam were encouraged by the preferential treatment converts would receive, especially vis-à-vis those who remained Christians. The convert to Islam would be granted custody of children, inherit the family’s property, not have to pay jizya, and so forth.)
• Dhimmis could not hold public office, or in any way be in positions of authority over Muslims.
• Intermarriage between Muslims and Christians was banned, except when the man, who has ultimate authority, was Muslim and the woman was Christian—a reminder of the Christians’ “submissive” role—never vice-versa.
• Christians were forbidden to bury their dead anywhere near Muslims, alive or dead.
• Dhimmi homes had to be smaller and lower than Muslim homes.39
The restrictions above are described in the past tense, as they were established during Islam’s early years. But they apply in the present tense as well—or perhaps we should say again—as the Islamic world rediscovers its identity. These debilitations and humiliations, which were inflicted upon the Christians of the Islamic world in the past, are at this moment being inflicted upon the Christians of the Islamic world in the present, as a natural consequence of Muslims returning to the authentic teachings of Islam. Those teachings, as we have seen—and will see more fully—are fundamentally hostile to non-Muslims and their religious worship.
Indeed, The Conditions of Omar, far from being merely a historical or theoretical text, is still very much on the minds of Muslims. Compare the above text of the Conditions with the following words of Saudi Sheikh Marzouk Salem al-Ghamdi, spoken during a Friday mosque sermon:If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet—there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions are . . . that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes . . . that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, that they do not imitate Muslims in dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon; that they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, that they shave their hair in front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims, and do not strike a Muslim. . . . If they violate these conditions, they have no protection .40
Such is the continuity of Islam’s hostility to Christianity. The Conditions and related Sharia law justify countless attacks on Christians today. As we shall see, churches in Muslim countries are regularly bombed, burned, or simply denied permits to renovate or even to exist. Crosses are burned and Bibles are confiscated. Muslim converts to Christianity are often violently attacked and sometimes executed. Christians accused of committing “blasphemy”—which can mean simply discussing Islam, or even Christianity—are assaulted and killed. Jizya is exacted from Christians once again. Christians are forced to convert to Islam. Christian women and children are abducted and raped. The following pages are witness to hundreds of modern-day examples of Christian persecution that conform perfectly to Koran 9:29, The Conditions of Omar, and, in a word, to Sharia—the “way” of Islam.
PART TWO
ISLAM’ S WAR ON CHRISTIAN WORSHIP
Unlike attacks on Christian individuals, which may be motivated by a myriad of factors, the ongoing attacks on Christian worship in the Muslim world are indisputable evidence of the persecution of Christians under Islam. In church, Christians are simply being Christians—peacefully congregating and worshipping their Lord. And yet modern-day Muslim governments try to prevent them from doing so, Muslim mobs attack them, and Muslim jihadis massacre them.
This should be unsurprising. Sharia law is hostile to Christian worship. It puts draconian restrictions on every expression of it, from churches to crosses. In fact, Christian worship was the very first thing The Conditions of Omar addressed and suppressed. Conquered Christians had to agreeNot to build a church in our city—nor a monastery, convent, or monk’s cell in the surrounding areas—and not to repair those that fall in ruins or are in Muslim quarters;
Not to prevent Muslims from lodging in our churches, by day or night, and to keep their doors wide open for [Muslim] passersby and travelers;
Not to harbor in them [churches and monasteries] or our homes a spy, nor conceal any deceits from Muslims;
Not to clang our cymbals except lightly and from the innermost recesses of our churches;
Not to display a cross on them [churches], nor raise our voices during prayer or readings in our churches anywhere near Muslims;
Not to produce a cross or [Christian] book in the markets of the Muslims;
Not to congregate in the open for Easter or Palm Sunday, nor lift our voices [in lamentation] for our dead nor show our firelights with them in the market places of the Muslims.1
For a comprehensive understanding of Islam’s hostility to Christian worship, we will first examine Islamic doctrines concerning Christian worship. Next we will consider how these teachings have manifested themselves in practice over the course of centuries. And finally, we will demonstrate the continuity of the Islamic assault on Christian worship by showing how modern-day attacks on churches and religious objects such as crosses mirror the attacks of history—how the patterns of the persecution of Christians under Islam through the centuries are often identical to the patterns of persecution we see in Muslim countries today.
ISLAMIC HOSTILITY FOR THE THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS OBLIGATORY
According to mainstream Islamic law, all churches on lands that Muslims took by force were to be destroyed or converted to mosques. If Sharia law had been followed to the letter, this would have included every church from Spain in the west to India in the east, and from the Balkans in the north to the fringes of the Sahara desert in the south, as these were the demarcation lines of the Islamic conquests. Famous churches annexed by Islam include the Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom), Christendom’s grandest cathedral for nearly one thousand years until it was despoiled after the Ottoman jihadi conquest of Constantinople in 1453—its crosses and icons destroyed and defaced, and the cathedral transformed into a mosque.2
Churches on lands that were surrendered to Islam without resistance, on the other hand, were permitted to
continue to exist as churches, though their survival was subject to several stipulations, mostly stemming from The Conditions of Omar excerpted above. And even obedience to those stringent conditions did not always guarantee their survival, as later jurists decreed that even the churches of Christians who surrendered peacefully could be destroyed or transformed into mosques at the discretion of the local governor, especially if it was deemed to be in the interest of Muslims.
Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians Page 4