AKAN diterjemahkan! Insya auloh!
12/17/2011
http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op ... t-of-umar/
Taken from a pro-Islam website – Loonwatch
The More Discriminatory Laws Were Optional and Therefore Ignored. Comment: I suppose that depends on what you regard as “more discriminatory”! (And Why The Capitals in That Sentence?) See the compulsory/ mandatory rules below – still from “loonwatch”, emphases mine.
The conditions of the Pact of Umar were divided into two: those which were considered mandatory and those which were understood to be optional (and therefore generally ignored).
The Christian scholar and professor Nabeel Jabbour of Columbia International University writes:
[There were] the Required Rules, which were compulsory, including:
1. Not to criticize or slander Islam.
2. Not to criticize or slander the Quran.
3. Not to mention the name of the prophet in contempt or falsification. Comment: don’t criticize Mo either.
4. Not to commit adultery [or marry] with a Muslim woman.
5. Neither to proselytize a Muslim to another religion, nor entice the Muslim to consider changing his religion.
6. Not to attempt to kill a Muslim or take his money.
7. Not to take the side of the house of war (Dar-ul-Harb) against the house of Islam.
The Favourable or Desired Rules:
1. A specific dress code for Christians to identify them as non-Muslims.
2. Not to beat the bells of churches loudly, nor raise their voices in chanting Christian songs or scriptures.
3. Not to build the houses of Christians higher than those of the Muslims.
4. Not to display idolatry, crosses, nor display freedom in drinking wine or eating pork.
5. Not to display Christian funerals or mourning for the dead.
6. Not to ride horses.
Muslim rulers who were moderate put into practice the required rules and ignored the favourable rules. Comment: and Muslim rulers who were “devout” put them all into practice.
Imam al-Mawardi (died 1058 A.D.) placed only six of the conditions in the obligatory category (wajibat), as follows:
1. Not to abuse the Quran.
2. Not to abuse the Prophet.
3. Not to abuse the religion of Islam.
4. Not to fornicate with (or marry) a Muslim woman.
5. Not to harm a Muslim. Comment: this is not necessarily restricted to physical harm.
6. Not to help the enemy or spies.
Imam al-Farra (d. 1061 A.D.) had a similar list of obligatory conditions:
1. Not to fight the Muslims.
2. Not to fornicate with a Muslim woman.
3. Not to marry a Muslim woman.
4. Not to undermine a Muslim’s faith in Islam. Comment: this would be regarded as mental “harm”.
5. Not to commit highway robbery.
6. Not to support a spy.
7. Not to write to the enemy about the situation of the Muslims to aid them in battle.
8. Not to kill a Muslim.
Before going into details there is one general remark to be made. In theory the dhimmi had to fulfil all the conditions of the covenant if he would claim protection. In practice only a few actions put him outside the protection of Muslim law…Malik, Shafe’i, and Ahmad b. Hanbal hold that failure to pay the poll-tax deprives them of protection. This was not the view of Abu Hanifa. Ahmad and Malik hold that four things put the dhimmi outside the law: blasphemy of God, of His book, of His religion, and of His Prophet.
Abul Kasim said that eight deeds made a dhimmi an outlaw. They are
[1] an agreement to fight the Muslims,
[2] fornication with a Muslim woman,
[3] an attempt to marry one,
[4] an attempt to pervert a Muslim from his religion,
[5] robbery of a Muslim on the highway,
[6] acting as a spy for unbelievers or
[7] sending them information or acting as a guide to them,
[8] and the killing of a Muslim man or woman.
Abu Hanifa taught that they must not be too severe with dhimmis who insulted the Prophet. Shafe’i said that one who repented of having insulted the Prophet might be pardoned and restored to his privileges. Ibn Taimiya taught that the death penalty could not be evaded.
Comment: spotted the contradiction? “Shafe’i held that failure to pay the jizya deprives the dhimmi of protection … Shafe’i said that one who repented of insulting the prophet might be …restored to his privileges.” Thus, since the “privileges” of a dhimmi is to be “protected” as per the dhimmah, Shafe’i (by implication here) states that insulting the prophet (etc) also breaks the dhimmah. In practice failure to pay the Jizya was yet another way of breaking the dhimmah not listed in the pact. See how Loonwatch conflates two entirely separate issues in the attempt to gloss over the conditions of the pact that had to be fulfilled. I should also add that the “privileges” mentioned by Shafe’i are those of being a Dhimmi – principly being allowed to keep your head on your shoulders – not a “life of privilege” as we might naturally conceive it.
[Continuing from Loonwatch]… As can be seen, the required rules revolved around preventing the non-Muslims from “harming” the Muslims physically, or even verbally. Naturally, some of these required rules would be objectionable in today’s context, but one must understand that it was the norm back then. Certainly in medieval Europe it was not permissible to attack Jesus, the Bible, or Christianity. Comment: What isn’t mentioned here is that the confessedly “medieval norm” is practised by Muslims today. In a way this paragraph seems both “Islamophobic” and patronising. A secondary implication is that it is okay for Muslims to behave in a medieval way in the modern world – and we should expect nothing better.
The division of the conditions into obligations and recommendations “mitigates” the effects of the Pact of Umar quite considerably. The anti-Islam ideologues attempt to characterize the entire Islamic experience by the stipulations in the document which were in fact rarely enforced. Comment: But nevertheless were there if the Islamic Authorities chose to enforce them and at any time and for any reason and (as the article later admits) a failure to enforce them could and did breed resentment amongst the Islamic population.
- – - – - – - – -
My Commentary on the Pact of Umar:
Although unlikely to have been written by Umar I (the second of the “rightly guided Caliphs”) – and hence many apologists call it “unauthentic”, it is authentic in the sense that many Muslim sources (e.g. see above) use the same or similar terms in outlining dhimmah contracts for non-Muslims.
Even when we consider evidence from such a pro-Islamist website as “Loonwatch” (they’d regard themselves as anti-Islamophobic to be fair) we find that the key conditions of the Pact are supported. This, I think, tends to confirm the veracity (if not the literary authenticity) of the Pact beyond all reasonable doubt.
A fairly quick reading of the various mandatory conditions shows that any “insult” to Islam is a breach of the Dhimmah, as is any proselytisation or “harm” (of any kind) to a Muslim (though Abul Kasim’s list does not explicitly include Insult to Islam/Mohammed/Allah).
In addition to the conditions of the Pact, the dhimmi also had to pay the Jizya.
This is often called a “poll-tax”, though this is a partial misnomer in that a “poll-tax” in western thought is usually something that has to be paid (where used) in order to become enfranchised – i.e. have political representation through voting rights. The dhimmi never has a say in who governs him (according to Islam), thus a better understanding of “Jizya” is as a “head tax”, a sum payable “per head” of the dhimmi population.
Although not in the conditions of these Dhimmah, the Jizya is established in the Koran and failure to pay this is also a breach of the Dhimmah (as confirmed by Malik, Shafe’i, and Ahmad b.Hanbal), which renders the person not paying (or the community as a whole, less often) liable to be treated as “people of defiance and rebellion”; which in turn means that the life and property of the “outlaw” (i.e. the person/people in breach of their dhimmah) is “fair game” for the Muslims.
Being a little cynical, describing the jizya as a “head-tax” is entirely apt, since it allows the Dhimmi to keep his head on his shoulders.
Thus the Pact of Umar becomes the “pro-forma” for the attitude towards and interaction with non-Muslims by Islam. We may regard the Pact of Umar as the “Doctrinal Ideal” of how Muslims should treat non-Muslims. This is not to say that even the “mandatory” elements of the Pact were fully enforced throughout Islamic history – they were not (especially in those times and places were non-Muslims provided essential governmental services that the Muslims could not fulfil) – but it shows how things should be in an “ideal” Islamified world. It is also worth pointing out that (according to the Loonwatch article!) when the mandatory conditions were not enforced this often gave rise to resentment within the Umma and a period of persecution and repression of non-Muslims followed. As a further point the exceptions given often refer to a very specific minority of the Dhimmi population – the civil service in effect – rather than to the subjugated people as a whole.
Neither is it true that all Muslims believe in such discriminatory practices; but it is a fact that to this day non-Muslim minorities in Islamic Countries face the sort of continuous discrimination (or worse) throughout their lives that would, were it Muslims suffering such in non-Muslim Countries, cause Muslim advocacy groups to instantly melt-down in terminal apoplectic outrage.
The savage irony of this is not lost upon the writer.
The Pact in use today.
There are plenty of examples to demonstrate that the “Pact of Umar” is actioned today, even if the pact is only an implicit one i.e. there is no written pact, merely one assumed to be operating by the Muslims of a given Country.
For example:
Sudan, 17.11.2011. Church destroyed. Muslim mobs destroy a part-built Church in “Islamic” Northern Sudan – Church building is banned by the Pact.
Egypt, 17.11.2011. Xtians murdered. Xtians murdered for protesting Church destruction. All this started with Muslims “protesting” (read mob violence) about legal (by Egypt’s laws) attempts to renovate a Church in Edfu – renovating a Church is banned by the Pact.
Pakistan, 19.11.2011. Persecution by association. This is a generalised report highlighting how Pakistan’s Xtians are being persecuted because of the “close association of the West and Xtianity in the minds of Pakistanis”. In terms of the Pact this is Pakistan’s Xtians being attacked because the “Xtians” of the West broke their (implicit) Dhimmah. In other words every Xtian is “responsible” for the actions of all Xtians in their minds, as the Pact implies.
India, 21.11.2011: Murder. Xtain Priest murdered for openly professing Xtainity and being prepared to argue for his religion, this is proselytisation which is banned by the Pact.
Pakistan, 21.11.2011: beatings. Xtians beaten into testifying against a Xtian Pastor accused of converting Muslims, i.e. proselytisation, which is banned by the Pact.
India, 23.11.2011: Rioting In response to the morphing of a picture of a Muslim shrine, Muslims (here the minority) riot against this “insult to Islam”. Such insults are banned by the Pact.
Indonesia, 28.11.2011. Closing a Church. In this incident Muslims object to a new Church – which is banned by the Pact. In this case no lives have been lost, but the local Muslim Authorities have acted “illegally” with respect to their own civil law and Courts, but legally according to the pact.
Egypt, 30.11.2011 Murders In this incident a violent altercation led to the death of a Muslim at the hands of a Christian. In “revenge” a huge Muslim mob killed two unrelated Xtians and injured several others as well as looting and destroying Xtian homes and businesses, whilst Police and security watched without intervening. Clearly the Xtian had killed the Muslim (even if unintentionally) and this is banned by the Pact. Therefore the (implicit) Dhimmah was broken and the Muslims were “justified”, according to the Pact, in treating them as “people of defiance and rebellion” – i.e. the lives and property of all the Xtians in the area became “fair game” for the Muslims.
Pakistan, 01.12.2011. Death threats. Ahmadhi family threatened under Pakistan’s notorious (and evil) “Blasphemy” laws. Such ‘insults’ against Islam are banned by the Pact. If an accusation is actually made they will be under a death-sentence since accusation is taken as proof in Pakistan and even questioning this can get you murdered (c.f. Salman Taseer).
This is in just a fortnight.
An apologist for Islam on reading this very brief list would, no doubt, say that all these were “political”, or due to “tensions between communities”, or “anger” or some other excuse and they would certainly deny any link between Islam and these events, indeed they would say that they are all just “isolated incidents” – a favourite “defence”.
However I suggest that there is a link and that link is the Pact of Umar.
Each of these events is the result of a clear breach of the Pact which permits the Umma to treat those non-Muslims who breach it (and/or any of their co-religionists within reach, see K.9:123) as “people of defiance and rebellion” who then become liable to despoilment, enslavement and murder at the hands of the Umma, if they so wish and as demonstrated above.
Conclusion.
Throughout history and into the present day the interactions between Muslims and their non-Muslim minorities has been predicated on the Pact of Umar.
In history the implementation of the pact, including it’s “mandatory” rules, has been patchy (often out of the necessity to keep the government functioning), but a failure to implement at least the mandatory elements gave rise to an backlash against dhimmis privileged beyond the terms of the Pact and greater persecution thereof.
In the modern world this predication has been extended to encompass non-Muslims everywhere – even when Muslims are a minority in a Country and thus many Muslims regard all non-Muslims as existing under an implicit Dhimmah based on the Pact.
I am not suggesting that all, or even most, Muslims today (or even in history) are/were consciously familiar with the terms of the Pact; rather that throughout history Muslims have generally dealt with non-Muslims according to it’s precepts (or the precepts of similar such “agreements”), so that the attitude and behaviour mandated by the Pact is ingrained in the Muslim psyche and thus manifests itself in the way in which non-Muslims are treated by Muslims. Once we realise that Muslims implicitly, perhaps almost sub-consciously, believe that all non-Muslims are permitted to exist only as Dhimmis under a Dhimma – even if only in terms of an attitude of “this is how we should treat the kaffirs”- then a frighteningly large number of these “inexplicable” and “isolated” events suddenly become completely explicable and not isolated at all.
Rather they form a pattern of behaviour, a pattern mandated by the Pact of Umar.
pakta perjanjian ini yang mereka anggap mencerminkan betapa toleran-nya Islam dalam memperlakukan non-Muslim di wilayah-wilayah yang baru mereka jajah.
namun tambahkan dua butir klausa dan paksakan pada mereka itu sebagai tambahan atas apa-apa yang telah mereka kerjakan. Yaitu: “Mereka tidak boleh membeli (menebus) siapapun yang dipenjarakan oleh Muslim”, dan “Barangsiapa yang memukul seorang Muslim dengan sengaja akan kehilangan perlindungan dari pakta ini.”
