The Pact of ʿUmar: Unmasking a Medieval Fiction Against the Prophetic Way

 The Pact of ʿUmar: Unmasking a Medieval Fiction Against the Prophetic Way

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ 

"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."

By the middle of the eighth century, a curious text began to spread across the Islamic world. It claimed to be no less than the covenant of Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb with the conquered Christians. Its clauses were severe and humiliating: a prohibition on raising churches, restrictions on riding animals, bans on adopting Muslim dress, and even commands that Christians wear distinctive marks of shame. It read not as a pact of justice, but as a manifesto of degradation. This document came to be called the Shurūṭ ʿUmar—the infamous “Pact of ʿUmar.”

Its language was stark, its claims extraordinary, its impact enduring. But the farther back one peers into the record, the more elusive it becomes. In the surrender treaties of the 630s and 640s, painstakingly preserved by both Muslim and non-Muslim historians, nothing of the sort appears. Instead, what we encounter are pragmatic arrangements: churches safeguarded, lives guaranteed, property secured, taxes fixed as the price of protection. In the Syriac apocalypses and chronicles, Christians describe terror at the sudden Arab storm, astonishment at their swiftness, bewilderment at the fall of Roman strongholds—but never once do they mention a humiliating charter imposed by ʿUmar himself.

This silence is decisive. Al-Balādhurī, al-Ṭabarī, and the early Muslim historians—authors who delighted in preserving conquest treaties and legal stipulations—make no mention of it. No church inscription in Syria, Egypt, or Iraq laments its burden. No seventh-century Christian polemicist, who never missed an opportunity to paint Islam in harsh colors, cites such a pact as evidence of Muslim cruelty. Even the jurists of Islam, careful to trace their rulings back to the Companions, remain ignorant of its existence for nearly a century after ʿUmar’s death. The trail is empty.

Only in the Abbasid age, when Muslims and Christians had dwelt together for generations, does the so-called Pact emerge—not as a record of conquest, but as a construction of memory. It reflected the social anxieties of a maturing empire, where Muslims were now a vast ruling majority seeking sharper lines of distinction. It drew on Roman traditions of minority regulation, inherited by the conquerors along with the lands they now ruled. It was polished in the legal schools, debated in the courts, canonized in collections of fiqh—not as the voice of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, but as the voice of a later society projecting its own needs backward onto the sanctity of the founding age.

And yet, this fabrication has cast a shadow so long that it has often been mistaken for truth. It has been wielded by polemical writers to prove Islam’s alleged “inherent intolerance,” by Orientalist historians as a window into the “real policies” of the early caliphs, and even by some Muslims themselves as if it bore the stamp of revelation. But to accept the Pact of ʿUmar as truly ʿUmar’s is to slander the most righteous generation of this ummah. It is to confuse the forgery of a later century with the justice of the rightly guided caliph.

This blog post will unmask the fiction. It will trace the origins of the Pact in its Abbasid milieu, uncover the Roman legal habits that shaped its clauses, and expose the scholastic imagination that clothed itself in ʿUmar’s authority. It will then place that forgery beside the authentic Prophetic way: a way of treaties, not humiliations; of covenants, not degradations; of justice, not cruelty. Above all, it will defend the honor of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and the first Muslims—men and women who conquered by clarity of faith and justice of arms, not by treachery of paper.

This is the story of a forgery, a caliph’s name misused, and a truth too important to surrender.

---

1. ⚖️ Rome, Persia, and Their Laws on Minorities

Before we can unmask the so-called Pact of ʿUmar, we must first understand the legal worlds that preceded Islam. For centuries, the Roman and Persian empires stood as the towering custodians of law and governance across the Near East. Each ruled vast, diverse populations through systems of control that determined the fate of religious minorities. 

For the Romans, the crucial period for our study is the age of Justinian (527–565 CE) and its aftermath, for it was under his reign that Roman law was codified into a systematic body of statutes—the Corpus Juris Civilis—which would dominate not only the empire from 527–641 CE, but echo long after its fall in the East. In this legal framework, minorities—whether Jews, pagans, or heretics—were tolerated, restricted, or suppressed according to the shifting needs of imperial ideology. 

By contrast, the Sasanian Persians (224–651 CE) exhibited a more consistent but rigid policy toward their minorities, rooted in Zoroastrian orthodoxy and a sharply hierarchical social order that placed non-Zoroastrians at a permanent disadvantage. Together, Rome’s obsession with legal uniformity and Persia’s insistence on religious hierarchy created the cultural DNA that Muslims inherited when they conquered these lands. And if the Pact of ʿUmar is to be understood at all, it must be measured against this deep backdrop of imperial lawmaking.

1A. 🏛️ The Roman Empire & Minority Laws (527–641 CE)

When Justinian ascended the throne in 527 CE, he was not a cautious caretaker but a man in a hurry—determined to reshape the Roman world in his own image. His reign was defined by an obsession with law, order, and religious uniformity. While his uncle Justin (518–527 CE) had preferred continuity and restraint, Justinian exploded onto the imperial stage with a torrent of legislation. As the historian Peter Sarris notes, the transition was like being “woken from a light doze by somebody grabbing you by the shoulders and shouting at you. And once Justinian started shouting, he did not easily stop.”

In his first year as sole emperor, Justinian issued more laws in a single month than Justin had in his entire reign. Between 528 and 534, over four hundred laws poured forth, many inscribed with the emperor’s hectoring tone, demanding obedience not just in secular affairs but above all in matters of faith and doctrine.

The centerpiece of this project was the Corpus Juris Civilis (529–534 CE), a monumental codification of centuries of Roman law. This was more than a legal cleanup; it was a declaration that the emperor’s word carried divine authority.

Justinian’s laws touched every facet of Roman life: marriage, inheritance, property, and commerce. Yet from the outset, his most urgent priority was the religious order of the empire. In one of his earliest decrees, he forbade bishops from having children or grandchildren and imposed strict regulations on church-run hospitals and orphanages. He outlawed bribery in ecclesiastical appointments, cracked down on negligent priests, and condemned clergy who indulged in gambling and theater. In his eyes, the imperial Church was indispensable, but its leaders were corrupt and required constant imperial correction.

The tone of his legislation revealed a ruler who saw himself not merely as a Roman emperor, but as God’s vicegerent on earth. Bishops and priests, Justinian thundered, must devote themselves to fasts and prayer “on behalf of us all,” not worldly pleasures. This was law as theology, and theology as law. By fusing civil administration with compulsory religious conformity, Justinian created a template where legal identity and orthodox belief were inseparable—a template that would dominate the eastern provinces until the Muslim conquests of 636–641 CE.

---

⚖️ The Legal Assault: Jews & Samaritans in Justinian’s Empire

If Justinian was a lawgiver, he was also a systematic persecutor. Few groups experienced the sharp edge of his religious legislation more directly than the Jews and Samaritans. By the sixth century, large Jewish communities flourished across the empire, playing vital roles in commerce and finance. Earlier Roman law had formally acknowledged Judaism as a licita religio—a permitted faith. But when Justinian’s jurists compiled the Codex Iustinianus, they deliberately dropped this protection. This was not an oversight; it was a declaration that Judaism was no longer a safeguarded religion but merely a tolerated, suspect faith, permanently on the defensive.

From the very start of his joint rule with Justin, Justinian launched a campaign against all non-Orthodox. A law issued between April and July 527 CE barred Jews, Samaritans, and all heretics from public office in the imperial and municipal administration, effectively casting them as unfit to serve the empire they lived in.

The repression turned violent after the great Samaritan revolt of 529 CE. Imperial forces razed villages and synagogues, killing or enslaving tens of thousands. Survivors were legally branded with infamia—a formal state of public disgrace. This status stripped them of elite legal protections, such as exemption from corporal punishment, and marked them as social outcasts. The same legal degradation was applied to Jews, placing them firmly in the category of second-class citizens within the “Orthodox Republic” (orthodoxos politeia) Justinian was building.

The Erosion of Community & Family

Justinian’s laws penetrated the most private aspects of Jewish life, aiming to dismantle the community from within:

• Control of Worship: He forcibly intervened in a dispute over the dating of Passover, attempting to align it with the Christian Easter. He mandated that the Torah be read in Greek or other common tongues during synagogue services, not only in Hebrew, accusing rabbis of hiding divine truths. This was a strategic move to undermine Jewish identity and encourage assimilation.

• Destruction of Synagogues: In a decree for Africa in 535 CE, he ordered that all Jewish synagogues be demolished and converted into churches. The rhetoric was absolute: Judaism and other faiths were a "madness" to be stamped out, their physical spaces erased and replaced with monuments to imperial orthodoxy.

• Breaking Family Lines: A law from 527-528 CE targeted inheritance, giving Orthodox Christian children preferential legal standing over their Jewish or Samaritan parents. It guaranteed these children at least their intestate share of the inheritance, invalidating wills that disinherited them in favor of faithful Jewish heirs. The goal was to incentivize conversion within families and disrupt the transmission of wealth and tradition.

Economic Strangulation and Social Humiliation

The laws were also designed to cripple Jewish economic life and enforce social inferiority:

• Ban on Christian Slaves: A law repeated and reinforced between 527 and 534 CE forbade Jews, Samaritans, and pagans from possessing Christian slaves. Any Christian slave held by a Jew was to be immediately freed, and the master fined thirty pounds of gold. This struck at the heart of agricultural and domestic labor, restricting Jewish participation in the economy and asserting the religious superiority of even the lowest-born Christian.

• Legal Disqualification: A landmark law from 28 July 531 CE disqualified Jews and heretics from acting as witnesses in any court case against an Orthodox Christian. This rendered a Jew legally mute in disputes with Christians, making it impossible to defend their property, enforce contracts, or seek justice, fundamentally undermining their security and commercial reliability.

The Grand Strategy: A Confessional State

Yet Justinian was pragmatic. He occasionally granted exemptions, such as allowing Jews in Tyre to continue cousin marriages, when crushing local tradition risked economic damage or unrest. These concessions reveal the underlying aim: to degrade and destabilize minority communities without destroying their economic usefulness.

The purpose of this legal assault was not merely theological zeal. Justinian’s project was to transform the empire into a confessional state, a polity where to be Roman was to be Chalcedonian Christian. The opening of his Codex Iustinianus placed pronouncements on the Trinity before all civil or military laws.

The planned effect was threefold:

1. To Humiliate: By stripping away long-held legal protections and branding them with infamia.

2. To Divide: By favoring converts and Orthodox family members, thereby weakening traditional leadership from within.

3. To Assimilate: By dismantling the pillars of identity—language, ritual, worship, and family structure.

It was a policy of legal and cultural attrition, designed to make life as a Jew or Samaritan so legally precarious and socially diminished that conversion appeared to be the only path back to personhood and honor.

---

⚔️ Christians & the Enforcement of Orthodoxy: The Enemy Within

If Jews and Samaritans felt the lash of Justinian’s laws, the deepest and most complex wounds were reserved for those who called themselves Christians yet rejected the imperially sanctioned creed of Chalcedon (451 CE). These were the Miaphysite Christians (centered in Antioch, Egypt, and Armenia), who upheld the doctrine of “one united nature” in Christ, and the Church of the East (flourishing in Mesopotamia and Persia), who maintained a stricter “two-nature” Christology. To Justinian, these groups were not fellow believers but dangerous heretics, threatening the theological unity he saw as the bedrock of imperial power.

From the outset, Justinian moved with unprecedented force. A law of 527 CE banned heretics from holding assemblies, baptisms, or ordinations. By 530 CE, he ordered all heterodox clergy expelled from Constantinople itself, lest “some of the simple folk hear their absurd stories, and, following their impious teachings, lose their own souls.” This was a declaration that dissenting Christianity would be actively suppressed, not quietly tolerated.

This policy marked a radical rupture. As historian Peter Sarris explains, earlier emperors had typically demanded only outward conformity. Justinian shattered this equilibrium, seeking to probe the inner conscience of his people, demanding not just public allegiance but doctrinal purity. To many, this was cruelty disguised as piety.

The Carrot and the Stick: Justinian's Failed Gamble

Initially, Justinian and Empress Theodora pursued a dual strategy. Theodora provided patronage and sanctuary to Miaphysite leaders in Constantinople, while Justinian himself engaged in theological dialogue, even floating the Theopaschite doctrine ("…one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh") as a potential compromise in 533 CE.

For a brief moment, a deal seemed possible. In 535, a joint "declaration of the faith" was negotiated, supplementing Chalcedon with Miaphysite-friendly language. However, this provoked a furious backlash from hardline Chalcedonian supporters, led by Pope Agapetus. Faced with this opposition and needing papal support for his wars in Italy, Justinian made a fateful choice: he abandoned compromise for coercion.

The Crackdown: Why Justinian Chose Coercion

In 537 CE, Justinian dispatched troops to Alexandria to depose the Miaphysite patriarch and forcibly install a pro-Chalcedonian one. This was the start of a systematic purge. He now declared leading Miaphysites like Severus of Antioch to be formal heretics, subject to the same legal penalties as pagans and Jews. Scribes copying Severus’s writings were to have their hands chopped off.

Why did Justinian crack down so hard, knowingly alienating the populous eastern provinces?

1. The Imperative of Unity: Justinian’s entire project was the restoration of a unified Roman Empire. A unified "Orthodox Republic" (orthodoxos politeia) was its spiritual core. Doctrinal schism was not a theological disagreement; it was sedition against divine order, a cancer that threatened the state's very soul.

2. The Failure of Compromise: The attempted compromise of 535 backfired spectacularly, proving that the theological gap was unbridgeable and that any concession would only enrage his own Chalcedonian base. He concluded that only imperial force could impose the unity that dialogue could not.

3. The Security Threat: The eastern provinces, especially Egypt and Syria, were the empire's economic heartland and bulwark against Persia. A strong, independent Miaphysite hierarchy outside state control represented a parallel power structure and a potential fifth column. Justinian preferred a weakened but obedient East to a powerful but dissident one.

The Apparatus of a Confessional State

The machinery of persecution was brutal and systematic:

• Legal Demotion: The Codex Iustinianus enshrined the empire as an Orthodox Republic, where citizenship rights were tied to religious conformity. Heretics were legally degraded to second-class status.

• The Inquisition Prototype: Defensores ecclesiae—"defenders of the Church"—were empowered to arrest, interrogate, and torture suspected heretics, creating a prototype of the medieval Inquisition.

• Shattering the Family: New inheritance laws privileged Orthodox heirs, deliberately setting family members against each other and making conversion a financial necessity to retain property.

The Unintended Consequence: A Separate Church

For all his ferocity, Justinian failed. His crackdown did not eradicate dissent but driven it underground and radicalized it. Purged from the imperial hierarchy, Miaphysites began ordaining their own bishops and priests, free of state control. The result was the birth of a separate, institutional Miaphysite Church in Syria and Egypt, cementing the very division Justinian had sought to heal.

In the end, Justinian’s war on heterodox Christians completed the model of the confessional state. He demonstrated that a ruler could use the full force of law to define orthodoxy, brand internal opponents as subhuman heretics, and weaponize theology for political control. The pattern was now set: first for the Jews and Samaritans, then for Christian dissenters. To be a full citizen was to be Orthodox; all others were to be marginalized, pressured, and humiliated into submission. This was the toxic political and religious legacy that would profoundly influence the Islamic world that followed.

☠️ The Final Frontier: The Obliteration of Paganism

If Justinian pressed hard against Jews, Samaritans, and heterodox Christians, it was the pagans—the heirs of Greece and Rome’s ancestral traditions—who faced the most uncompromising and final assault. By the sixth century, "pagan" was a blanket term for a diverse group: devotees of the old cults, Neoplatonic philosophers, astrologers, and rural traditionalists. Despite centuries of imperial legislation, they persisted. The temples of Baalbek still drew worshippers; rural Asia Minor clung to the old ways; and in Athens and Alexandria, networks of intellectuals sustained the philosophical legacy of Plato and Aristotle, quietly offering an alternative worldview to Christian orthodoxy.

Justinian’s legislation sought not merely to prohibit pagan rituals, but to obliterate pagan identity altogether. In a law issued around 529 CE, he made it illegal even to be a pagan. This was a historic escalation. Converts who had feigned baptism were threatened with "ultimate punishments"—a chilling euphemism for death. The unbaptized were ordered to present themselves for compulsory Christian instruction; refusal meant exile, and performing pagan rites could mean execution. This was the most extreme anti-pagan law in Roman history, transforming adherence to the old gods from a tolerated eccentricity into a capital crime.

The Purge of Mind and Culture

The assault was intellectual as much as it was religious. Pagans were expelled from teaching, a move designed to sever the transmission of classical learning at its source. The crackdown in Athens forced the last great circle of philosophers to flee to the Persian court of Shah Xusro I, a symbolic death knell for pagan intellectual life in its ancient heartland.

Enforcement was entrusted to a grim alliance of provincial governors, civic officials, and ecclesiastical agents. As an inscription from Sardis proves, this was not empty rhetoric but enacted terror, recording the public trials of citizens convicted of paganism. In the capital itself, severe persecutions broke out in repeated waves (528–529, 545–546, and 562 CE).

The campaign was also a potent political and financial weapon. The historian John of Ephesus boasts that his investigations exposed nobles and patricians who, under torture, denounced one another. Their estates were confiscated, filling the imperial coffers. An accusation of paganism became an easy way to destroy rivals, as any man of classical education—with a taste for Homeric poetry or a garden statue of a mythological figure—could be branded a crypto-pagan by hardline clerics. This created a pervasive "culture war," deepening the rift between the empire's classical inheritance and its zealously Christian present.

The "Confessional State" Fully Realized

Simultaneously, Justinian pursued an aggressive missionary and diplomatic offensive. He funded John of Ephesus's campaign in Asia Minor, who claimed to have baptized 70,000 pagans, built 96 churches, and founded 12 monasteries. Missions were also dispatched to Nubia and the Caucasus, "weaponizing Christianity" as a tool of imperial soft power.

The effects were devastating. As historian Peter Sarris concludes, Justinian progressively transformed the Roman Empire into a "confessional state." The very structure of the Codex Iustinianus proclaimed this new reality: its first laws concerned the "most exalted Trinity and the Catholic Faith." The rights of a citizen were now intrinsically linked to their "officially reckoned degree of religious conformity."

To be a full member of Justinian’s "Orthodox Republic" (orthodoxos politeia) was to be a Chalcedonian Christian. All others—pagan, Jew, Samaritan, heretic—were legally defined as outsiders, subjected to systematic pressure, humiliation, and the constant threat of violence.

For pagans, the verdict was final. Their world, which had survived for centuries, was now systematically dismantled by law. What had once been the heart of Roman civilization was rebranded as criminal and polluting. The old gods, who had endured centuries of imperial hostility, were in Justinian's empire driven into final silence. His reign marked the completion of a project: the creation of a unified imperial identity where orthodoxy and citizenship were one, a legacy of coerced conformity that would cast a long shadow over the medieval world.

---

🧠 The Roman Logic of Minority Control: A Blueprint for Persecution

Justinian’s reign didn't just pass laws; it crystallized a new logic of imperial control, fusing law, theology, and raw power into a single, coercive system. His goal was the creation of what historian Peter Sarris terms an “Orthodox Republic” (orthodoxos politeia)—a society where a subject's legal status was precisely calibrated to their conformity to the state-sanctioned faith.

To understand this is to understand the blueprint that would later influence the Islamic world's own policies, including the infamous Pact of Umar.

⚙️ The Mental Engine: How Justinian's Court Thought

Their logic operated on several core, interlocking principles:

1. The Unity Delusion: 🧩➡️⚔️

   • Their Logic: "Unity of belief = Strength of empire." Religious dissent was not just error; it was treason against God's earthly monarchy. Pluralism was a precursor to disorder; heterodoxy invited divine wrath (plagues, earthquakes, military defeats).

   • The Mechanism: They equated Roman law with divine orthodoxy, transforming jurisprudence into a theology of state power. The rights of minorities were a sacrificial offering on the altar of a unified, Christian empire.

2. The Eschatological Emperor: 👑➡️☁️

   • Their Logic: Justinian saw himself as God's vicegerent, whose role was to remake the earthly empire in the image of the heavenly kingdom. Human history was providential, marching toward the Kingdom of God, and the emperor's job was to accelerate this by imposing heavenly purity and unity on earth.

   • The Mechanism: Legislation became a theological act. To suppress a pagan rite, humiliate a Jew, or exile a heretic wasn't just governance; it was preparing the empire for its eschatological destiny.

3. The Architecture of Humiliation: 🏛️➡️😞

   • Their Logic: Control wasn't just about banning practices; it was about enforcing visible, public subordination. The state-of-being "humbled" (ṣāghirūn) wasn't an internal feeling—it was a legal status to be imposed and witnessed.

   • The Mechanism: They used infamia ("public disgrace") to brand entire communities. They weaponized inheritance laws, as Sarris notes, turning family members against each other by granting orthodox heirs the right to dispossess heterodox kin. This reached into the most intimate sphere of life, making conformity a matter of financial survival.

💥 The Glaring Contradictions & Self-Sabotage

This logic was powerful but riddled with fatal flaws, perfectly identified by scholars like Charles Pazdernik:

• The Innovation Trap: 🔄
  Justinian presented himself as a conservator of Rome's ancient grandeur while being a radical innovator who destroyed its pluralistic traditions. His enemies saw a tyrant who despised established order; his supporters saw a reformer reviving past glory. This contradiction threatened the very legitimacy he sought.

• The Coercion Fallacy: 💔
  The regime believed coercion could produce true unity. In reality, by driving Jews, Miaphysites, and pagans into opposition, they widened the empire's fractures. The brutal suppression of the Samaritan revolt and the alienation of entire provinces like Egypt and Syria created enduring hostility that weakened the empire from within.

➡️ The Direct Line to the Pact of Umar

This "logic of humiliation" did not die with Rome. It created a political and administrative template that was absorbed by the subsequent empires in the region.

Justinian's "Orthodox Republic"	The Pact of Umar's "Dhimmi System"
Law as Theology: Legal status defined by religious conformity.	Sharīʿa as Law: Status of dhimmi defined by Islamic law.
Public Humiliation: Infamia and visible marks of subordination (e.g., seized synagogues, barred from office).	Public Distinction: Distinctive clothing (ghiyār), rules against building tall houses or churches.
Economic Pressure: Confiscation of property, preferential inheritance laws for converts.	Economic Subordination: The jizya poll tax, often collected in a humiliating manner.
Social Fragmentation: Laws designed to divide communities and families.	Social Inferiority: Rules enforcing deference to Muslims in public spaces.

The through-line is the state's use of law to enforce a visible, public hierarchy where the ruling faith is supreme, and minority status is synonymous with political and social inferiority.

✅ Conclusion: The Fatal Legacy

Justinian’s program embodied a profound contradiction. The genius of Rome had long been its capacity to accommodate diversity under a common political roof. Justinian inverted this, seeking to crush diversity in the name of divine truth.

The result was a brittle, persecutory system that confused legal order with theological purity. It was a template born of flawed reasoning: that coercion could produce unity, that humiliation could preserve order, and that law could compel salvation.

This template, forged in the crucible of the 6th-century Roman Empire, would echo for centuries, finding its most famous Islamic expression in the Pact of Umar—a testament to the enduring power of a bad idea, brilliantly and brutally executed.

---

1B. 🔥 The Sasanian Empire & Minority Hierarchies

The Sasanian Empire (224–651 CE), like its Roman counterpart, was a polity with an official religion. But whereas Rome evolved from polytheism to Christianity with fits and ruptures, the Sasanians built their society from the outset on the foundation of Zoroastrian orthodoxy. The fire temples (ātaxš-kādag) stood not only as centers of worship but as symbols of state power, guardians of cosmic order (asha) against the forces of chaos (druj).

Sasanian literature and later Middle Persian sources depict the empire as a rigidly stratified order, codified into four hereditary estates (pēšag):

1. Priests (āsrōnān) – the guardians of religion, theology, and law.

2. Warriors (artēštārān) – the protectors of empire and land.

3. Husbandmen (wāstaryōšān) – the farmers, cultivators, and tax base of the state.

4. Artisans & Merchants (hutuxšān) – craftsmen and traders, tolerated but ranked lowest.

Membership in these classes was inherited, and with it, rights and duties. Non-citizens—foreign settlers, slaves, illegitimate children, and exiles—were deprived of civic rights entirely. As Milka Levy-Rubin stresses, this system was not only social but ideological: Zoroastrianism was the framework by which society itself was imagined and regulated.

The Sasanian system was thus both religious and hierarchical. It sacralized inequality: priests mediated salvation, warriors embodied nobility, husbandmen sustained life, artisans were distrusted, and non-Zoroastrians were second-class at best.

As Levy-Rubin observes, society was divided fundamentally into Zoroastrians vs. non-Zoroastrians. The latter—Christians, Jews, Manichaeans, Buddhists, and others—were marginalized, sometimes tolerated for utility, but denied full civic participation. This model of confessional exclusivity—an official religion tied to state power, a rigid hierarchy of classes, and legal subordination of minorities—would endure as a powerful cultural precedent in the Near East, casting its shadow well into the Islamic centuries.

Unlike the Romans, who codified their religious hierarchy into law, the Sasanians left no comprehensive legal code for minorities. Their system was not one of bureaucratic consistency but of pragmatic volatility. As historian Milka Levy-Rubin observes, policy towards Jews, Christians, and others swung like a pendulum between persecution and toleration, dictated by the whims of the king, wars with Rome, and the fluctuating influence of the Zoroastrian priesthood.

⚖️ The Legal Framework: A Structure of Soft Discrimination

The rare surviving law-book, The Book of a Thousand Judgments, reveals a system designed not to eradicate minorities, but to maintain Zoroastrian social supremacy through structural disadvantages:

• The Cost of Conversion: A Zoroastrian who converted was expelled from the family lineage and lost inheritance rights, but retained basic civic rights. This made conversion a socially costly, but not impossible, choice. 🧍♂️➡️🚫🧬

• The Sanctity of the Faithful: A non-Zoroastrian could not own a Zoroastrian slave. If a slave converted, he had to be freed, mirroring Roman law for Christian slaves. However, the convert had to compensate his master, balancing religious principle with economic reality. ⛓️➡️📜

• Protecting Bloodlines: Intermarriage was tolerated, but children from such unions were excluded from the family lineage and inheritance, rendering them socially invisible.

The Sasanian logic was one of pragmatic control, not ideological extermination. The goal was to protect the Zoroastrian social fabric by imposing penalties on those who left it or diluted it.

✝️ Christians: The Suspect Allies of Rome

Christianity was the most problematic minority. Its status was a direct function of international relations.

• The Loyalty Test: During wars with Rome, Christians were immediately suspect. Shapur II forced them to pay a double tax, accusing Bishop Simeon of conspiring: “Simeon wants to turn his people into servants of Caesar, their co-religionist.” ⚔️➡️💰

• Official Recognition & Persistent Suspicion: In a dramatic shift, Yazdgird I convened the Council of Ctesiphon (410 CE), granting Christians official freedom of worship. Yet, during later tensions, Yazdgird II would again persecute them, forbidding the Sabbath.

• The Paradox of Integration: Despite this volatility, Christians reached high ranks in the army and bureaucracy (aspar, marzban), proving that suspicion and integration could paradoxically coexist.

✡️ Jews: The Privileged & Integrated Minority

In stark contrast to the Christians, Jews enjoyed remarkable privilege and integration, rooted in their long history in Babylonia.

• Royal Intimacy: Sources record royal marriages with the family of the Jewish Exilarch. Yazdgird I married Shushanduxt, daughter of the Exilarch, making their son, King Wahram V, part-Jewish. The Talmud remembers Yazdgird as a protector. 👑💍✡️

• High Status: Exilarchs received the kamar (royal belt), a mark of high lordship. The Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr credits the Jewish queen Shushanduxt with founding cities like Susa.

• Cultural Fusion: The Babylonian Talmud is saturated with Persian legal and cultural concepts. This deep acculturation gave Jews a secure foothold. The story of Esther was preserved in both Jewish and Persian memory, with Sasanian officials even leaving graffiti in the Dura-Europos synagogue (255 CE) next to a fresco of the story.

☀️⚫ Manichaeans: From Favor to Annihilation

The trajectory of the Manichaeans was the most dramatic, illustrating the limits of Sasanian tolerance.

• Initial Favor: Founded by the prophet Mani, this universalist faith initially enjoyed the favor of Shapur I. Mani presented his book, the Šābuhragān, to the king and was allowed to preach freely.

• The Fatal Clash: Manichaeism’s core was anti-material dualism (Spirit=Good, Matter=Evil), a direct contradiction to the Zoroastrian celebration of Ohrmazd's good creation. Under King Wahram I, and spurred by the zealous priest Kerdir, the tide turned. Kerdir's inscriptions boast of "harming" Manichaeans.

• The King's Mockery: Wahram I famously mocked Mani upon his arrest: “Eh, what are you good for since you go neither fighting nor hunting? But perhaps you are needed for this doctoring and this physicking? And you don’t do even that!” 😠➡️🤡 Mani was imprisoned and died, and his followers were dispersed, focusing their efforts on Central Asia and China.

♂️ Kerdir: The Architect of Zoroastrian Orthodoxy

The rise of the priest Kerdir is key to understanding the Sasanian shift towards religious enforcement. He is the only non-royal personage with his own rock inscriptions.

• Consolidation of Power: Under successive kings, Kerdir rose from a simple priest to the all-powerful Chief Priest (Mowbed). He was granted the custodianship of the Anahid fire-temple and made judge of the whole empire.

• The Inquisitor: Kerdir boasts of "harming" a long list of religious groups—Jews, Buddhists, Christians, and Manichaeans. He established religious seminaries (hērbedestān) to enforce doctrinal uniformity and "punished" heretics until he "made them better." This was the Sasanian version of an inquisition.

✅ Conclusion: The Sasanian Logic of Power

The Sasanian model was one of pragmatic hierarchy, not systematic humiliation.

• Zoroastrianism was the unquestioned supreme faith of the state and social elite.

• Jews were a privileged, integrated minority due to their deep roots and political utility.

• Christians were a strategic variable, tolerated when Persia was at peace with Rome, persecuted when it was at war.

• Manichaeans and other universalist faiths were existential threats to the Zoroastrian worldview and were violently suppressed.

The Sasanian "logic" was flexible, volatile, and deeply political. It sought to manage diversity through a combination of integration, structural disadvantage, and targeted violence, a stark contrast to Justinian's rigid, legalistic "Orthodox Republic." This pragmatic, yet often brutal, system of managing a multi-faith empire was the reality the Muslim conquerors encountered and from which they would draw their own lessons.

🧠 The Two Imperial Logics: Rome's Law vs. Persia's Performance

The Roman and Sasanian empires developed two distinct, powerful models for managing religious minorities. Understanding this dichotomy is key to seeing the ingredients that would later form Islamic policy.

🏛️ The Roman Logic: Coercive Uniformity through Law

• The Core Principle: "One Law, One Faith, One Empire."

• The Mechanism: The state uses imperial legislation (Codex Justinianus) to define orthodoxy and legally demote all others. Status is a matter of legal statute.

• The Goal: To create a unified "Orthodox Republic" (orthodoxos politeia) where citizenship and correct belief are synonymous. Dissent is treason.

• The Tools:

  • 📜 Comprehensive legal codes that systematize discrimination.

  • ⚖️ Courtroom disqualifications (e.g., Jews cannot testify against Christians).

  • 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦 Inheritance laws that break up non-conformist families.

  • 🏷️ The legal brand of infamia (public disgrace).

In short: Rome sought to LEGISLATE minorities into submission.

👑 The Persian Logic: Ritualized Hierarchy through Performance

• The Core Principle: "One Status Order, Many Visible Ranks."

• The Mechanism: The state enforces a social and visual hierarchy. Status is performed through custom, dress, and ritualized subordination.

• The Goal: To maintain the supremacy of Zoroastrianism and the monarchy by making social rank instantly visible and non-negotiable. Difference is managed, not erased.

• The Tools:

  • 👚 Distinctive Dress Codes: Assigning specific clothing, belts, or insignia to different communities. This created a "theater of inequality" where one's religion and status were visible at a glance.

  • 🎭 Political Theater: Volatile shifts between tolerance and violent persecution, reminding minorities they existed at the pleasure of the Shahanshah.

  • ⚔️ Structural Disadvantages: Laws from texts like The Book of a Thousand Judgments that enforced soft apartheid:

    • A Zoroastrian who converts loses family inheritance. 👨‍👦❌

    • A non-Zoroastrian cannot own a Zoroastrian slave. ⛓️❌

    • Children of interfaith marriages are excluded from the lineage. 🧬❌

In short: Persia sought to PERFORM hierarchy into existence.

📌 The Lasting Legacy

This was the imperial DNA the Muslim conquerors inherited:

• From Rome, they saw a model of using state law to define and enforce religious boundaries.

• From Persia, they saw a model of using visible, social markers (like clothing) to maintain a hierarchy of believers and non-believers.

The fusion of these two logics—Roman legalism and Persian performative hierarchy—would profoundly shape the development of the dhimmi system in Islamic law, creating a structure that was both legally codified and publicly visible.

---

2. 🏹 The Conquests & The First Treaties: The Gap Between Reality and Myth

2A. ⚔️ The Storm from the Desert: A Military Revolution

When the armies of Islam emerged from Arabia in the 630s CE, the speed of their advance was apocalyptic. Contemporaries struggled to comprehend the collapse of ancient empires. Yohannan bar Penkaye, a Syriac monk writing in 687 CE, captured this sense of divine shock and awe:

“It was not long before the whole world was handed over to the Arabs [Tayyāyē]. They captured all the fortified cities and ruled from sea to sea... from Crete to Cappadocia; from Yemen to the Gate of the Alans... Indeed, who can relate the carnage that they wrought... against those who in peace and prosperity did not cease from fighting against their Creator was sent a barbarian people who had no mercy on them.”

For Yohannan, this was God’s judgment. But behind the theological interpretation lay a brutal and revolutionary military reality.

➡️ The Strategy of Systematic Raiding 🎯

As historian Leif Inge Ree Petersen demonstrates, the Arabs perfected a form of warfare that transformed raiding into a weapon of siege. They did not rely solely on massive armies to storm walls. Instead, they employed a devastatingly effective two-stage process:

1. Seasonal Raiding (Chevauchée): They launched persistent, lightning-fast raids through the countryside. This was not random plunder but a systematic campaign to destroy the enemy’s logistical backbone—burning crops, seizing livestock, and disrupting agriculture.

2. Close Blockade: These raids evolved into a tight blockade. The Arabs established fortified camps around cities like Damascus, Emesa, and Jerusalem. By ravaging the surrounding lands, they made movement outside the walls impossible. As Petersen notes, this severed trade, communications, and food supplies, rendering life inside the city untenable.

The result was a military machine of terrifying efficiency. The great urban centers of the Near East fell in rapid succession:

• Damascus (635 CE)

• Jerusalem (637 CE)

• Ctesiphon (637 CE)

• Alexandria (642 CE)

Within a single generation, the political map of the world had been redrawn. The empires of Rome and Persia, which had dominated for centuries, were humbled not by luck, but by a new, disciplined art of war that exploited their deepest vulnerabilities.

2B. 📜 The First Treaties: Pragmatism, Not Persecution

In the shadow of this military storm, a remarkable process unfolded: the negotiation of surrender. The treaties that followed the conquests, preserved by historians like al-Balādhurī and in Syriac chronicles, reveal a pattern of pragmatic coexistence, not systematic humiliation.

As scholar Milka Levy-Rubin masterfully shows, these agreements were not an Islamic invention. They were a direct continuation of the legal and diplomatic traditions of the Late Antique Near East.

The conquerors and the conquered spoke a common legal language, inherited from Rome and Persia:

• Amān (Safety/Protection): This was the core term. To "grant amān" was to offer safe-conduct. Its meaning was identical to the Greek pistis and Latin fides—all meaning "faith," "trust," and "covenant of protection." This was a loan-translation, a concept borrowed from the conquered world to create a functioning administrative system.

• Baqṭ (Tribute): This word came directly from the Greek pakton, itself from Latin pactum. It meant a formal agreement with attached payments, and was used for centuries in treaties with Christian Nubia.

• "To Cut a Covenant": The Arabic phrase qaṭaʿa ʿalā mirrored the Hebrew karat berit and the Greek horkia temnein—all meaning to formally "cut" or establish a binding treaty.

This shared terminology proves that both sides were operating within a familiar framework. The Syriac chronicles describe the pacts using terms like melta d-qyāmā ("word of covenant") and ktābā ("written document"), echoing the Greco-Roman horkia kai pistis (oaths and trust).

The content of these early agreements was starkly practical. They focused on three essential pillars:

1. Taxes: Payment of the jizya (poll tax) and kharāj (land tax).

2. Security: Guaranteed protection for lives, property, and families.

3. Loyalty: A pledge of neutrality, promising not to aid the Muslims' enemies.

✨ Crucially, these treaties contain none of the humiliating restrictions found in the later "Pact of ʿUmar."

There is no mention of:

• Distinctive clothing or shaved forelocks.

• Bans on building churches or riding horses.

• Muffled bells or lowered voices in prayer.

• Giving way to Muslims in the street.

✅ The Verdict: A Foundation of Coexistence

The historical record is clear. The initial relationship between the Muslim conquerors and their vast non-Muslim populations was governed by pragmatic, transactional treaties rooted in a shared Late Antique legal culture.

The conquerors demanded submission and tribute.

The conquered received safety and continuity.

The elaborate system of humiliation encoded in the "Pact of ʿUmar" was a later invention. It was a world away from the straightforward bargains struck in the dust of fallen cities, where the priority was stability and revenue, not the theatrical enforcement of a religious hierarchy. This foundational reality of pragmatic coexistence makes the later appearance of the "Pact" all the more historically suspicious.

Having seen the general sweep of conquest and the pragmatic tone of early agreements, we now turn to four representative treaties that survive in both Arabic sources (al-Balādhurī, al-Ṭabarī, Abū Yūsuf) and Christian chronicles, These cases allow us to test the evidence more closely, city by city, and to compare how Muslims and non-Muslims remembered the terms of surrender. The four sites selected are: Jerusalem, Damascus, Edessa and Alexandria. Together they cover the heartlands of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt—the very provinces where later jurists claimed the Pact of ʿUmar had originated. By examining them in detail, we will see that the earliest agreements consistently revolved around taxation, security, and coexistence, while remaining silent on the humiliating stipulations later attributed to ʿUmar.

2B.1. Alexandria (642 CE) 🏺→ A Convergence of Chronicles

The surrender of Alexandria provides one of the most compelling case studies, as both Christian and Muslim sources preserve a detailed memory of the event. ➡️ Remarkably, while their narrative emphases differ, they converge on the essential point: the city's fall was followed not by massacre or forced conversion, but by a negotiated settlement that secured the rights and properties of Christians, Copts, and Jews.

According to the Christian chronicler John of Nikiu, the capitulation occurred on 8 November 641 CE. He details the terms of the agreement: a fixed tribute (jizya), an eleven-month grace period of non-interference, and safe passage for Roman troops to depart by sea with their possessions. ➡️ To guarantee compliance, the Muslims took 150 soldiers and 50 civilians as hostages. Crucially, the agreement explicitly forbade the seizure of Christian churches and permitted Jews to remain in the city. These stipulations paint a clear picture of a structured agreement focused on coexistence and regulated tribute.

The Arabic tradition, preserved by al-Balādhurī, offers a complementary perspective. While he initially states the city was taken "by the sword" (qasran), he immediately clarifies that this was a technical term; in practice, the inhabitants were granted protection (dhimma) under a formal treaty. ➡️ The terms included an annual payment of 13,000 dinars and a jizya of two dinars per adult Copt. Furthermore, the treaty accommodated specific requests from Bishop Cyrus, including that the Copts not be punished for Roman violations. ➡️ This nuance is critical: even a narrative framed by military victory concludes with a detailed treaty of protection.

Strikingly, the two accounts echo one another on key details. For instance, while John mentions hostages, al-Balādhurī records `Umar's intervention to return enslaved Copts, formally declaring them ahl al-dhimma (protected peoples). ➡️ This demonstrates a shared underlying reality of negotiated guarantees and the formalization of a protected status.

📊 Comparative Analysis: The Treaty of Alexandria (641–642 CE)

Term / Condition	John of Nikiu (Christian) ☦️	Al-Balādhurī (Muslim) 📖
Nature of Surrender	Formal capitulation & treaty	Claimed "by force," but immediately regularized by a treaty of dhimma
Tribute (Jizya)	Fixed annual tribute	13,000 dinars annually; 2 dinars per adult Copt
Roman Troops	Allowed to depart with possessions	Allowed to leave or remain; possessions respected
Security Guarantees	150 soldiers, 50 civilians taken as hostages	Not explicitly mentioned, but dhimma status acts as a legal guarantee
Churches & Religion	Muslims forbidden from seizing churches	Inhabitants spared, churches preserved
Non-Interference	Muslims not to intermeddle in Christian matters	Implied through the grant of dhimma
Jews	Explicitly allowed to remain in the city	Protected under the general dhimma
Status of Copts	Protected under the treaty	Formally declared ahl al-dhimma (protected people)

The accounts of John of Nikiu and al-Balādhurī, despite differing perspectives, overwhelmingly confirm the same historical reality. ➡️ The conquest of Alexandria was not characterized by destruction or religious persecution, but was formalized through a detailed treaty that ensured payment of tribute in exchange for protection, continuity of religious life, and social order. ➡️ This powerful convergence of independent sources strongly validates the early Islamic treaties as genuine instruments of pragmatic governance and coexistence.

2. Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis, 637 CE) 🕍 → A Treaty of Protection, Not Persecution

The conquest of Jerusalem stands as a pivotal moment in early Islamic history, not only due to the city's profound sanctity but also because of the detailed treaty of surrender attributed to Caliph ʿUmar. ➡️ Contrary to being a later fabrication of humiliation, this document is a pragmatic instrument of security, deeply rooted in the Near Eastern tradition of negotiated capitulation.

The near-contemporary account of Armenian bishop Sebeos (c. 661 CE) provides a crucial external witness. He records that after the Battle of Yarmuk, "dread of them fell on all the inhabitants... and they all submitted to them." ➡️ Notably, his description includes no mention of violence or forced conversion, only the removal of sacred relics and a submission secured by oath—a clear testimony to a negotiated transfer of power.

📜 The Treaty of Jerusalem: A Document of Coexistence

The Islamic tradition, preserved by al-Ṭabarī, provides the full text of this seminal agreement. Scholars like Milka Levy-Rubin argue compellingly for its authenticity, noting that Muslim historians had little incentive to invent complex, restrictive treaties, and that copies held by the conquered communities would have limited fabrication.

The treaty itself is a powerful testament to a policy of protection in exchange for tribute and recognition:

“In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the assurance of safety (amān) which the servant of God, ʿUmar, the Commander of the Faithful, has granted to the people of Īliyā. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves, for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and the healthy of the city, and for all the rituals that belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabited [by Muslims] and will not be destroyed. Neither they (the churches), nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will be diminished. They will not be forcibly converted. No one among them will be harmed. No Jew will live with them in Īliyā.

The people of Īliyā must pay the poll-tax like the people of [other] cities, and they must expel the Romans and the robbers. As for those who will leave (the city), their lives and property will be safe until they reach their place of safety; and as for those who remain, they will be safe and they must pay the (same) tax imposed on the people of Īliyā. Those of the people of Īliyā who want to leave with the Romans, take their property, and abandon their churches and their crosses, will be safe until they reach their place of safety. Those villagers (ahl al-arḍ) who were in Īliyā before the killing of so-and-so (fulān) may remain in the city if they wish, but they must pay the poll tax like the people of Īliyā. Those who wish may go with the Romans, and those who wish may return to their families.

Nothing will be taken from them before the harvest is reaped. If they pay the poll tax according to their obligations, then the contents of this letter are under the covenant of God, are the responsibility of His Prophet, of the caliphs and of the faithful.”

This document was formally witnessed by four senior companions, including Khālid b. al-Walīd and ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ, lending it immense authority.

🔍 Authenticity and Nuance: Reading Between the Lines

Several features strongly support the treaty's historicity:

• ➡️ Local Specificity: The clauses addressing the expulsion of "Romans and robbers" and the cryptic reference to a local murder (fulān) are highly specific to the immediate post-conquest context. They reflect real, on-the-ground concerns that would be irrelevant to later generations fabricating a document.

• ➡️ Pragmatic Sanctity: The treaty’s intense focus on protecting churches and crosses aligns perfectly with Jerusalem's unique status and the stature of Patriarch Sophronius. It represents exactly the terms a powerful Christian leader would demand and a pragmatic conqueror would grant.

The most debated clause—the prohibition of Jews in Jerusalem—demands a nuanced reading. While it appears to uphold the old Roman ban, evidence points to a pragmatic compromise. A Genizah chronicle records a negotiation where the Patriarch sought to limit Jewish families to fifty, the Jews asked for two hundred, and a compromise of seventy was reached. Other traditions mention Jews being employed as caretakers of the Temple Mount, even exempt from the jizya. ➡️ This was not an absolute exclusion, but a regulated and negotiated re-admission.

⚖️ The Test of Reality: Sebeos and the Temple Mount Incident

Sebeos provides a dramatic, albeit biased, account that tests the treaty's real-world application. He describes a Jewish plot to desecrate the nascent Muslim prayer site with pig's blood to frame the Christians. When the Muslims investigated, they did not massacre the accused Christians. Instead, an eyewitness came forward, exposed the Jewish conspirators, and the ringleaders were executed.

This episode, filtered through Sebeos' lens, reveals two critical truths:

1. The Muslim commitment to the covenant of security was operational; Christians were protected and received a fair investigation.

2. The Jewish presence, while permitted, was conditional and fragile, with severe consequences for violating the peace.

➡️ Conclusion: A Consensus of Coexistence, Not Humiliation ✅

The Treaty of Jerusalem is no myth. It is a document firmly rooted in the Greco-Roman and Near Eastern tradition of surrender agreements (ṣulḥan). Its specific local details, its correlation with independent Christian and Jewish sources, and its pragmatic structure all point to its authenticity as a historical instrument. 

3. Damascus (Dimashq, 635 CE) 🏙️ → Siege, Surrender, and a Pact of Protection

The fall of Damascus in 635 CE is a defining episode of the early Muslim conquests, masterfully illustrating the transition from the ferocity of siege warfare to the pragmatism of negotiated surrender. ➡️ While Christian and Muslim sources recount a complex and dramatic narrative, they converge on a fundamental truth: the city was preserved through a formal treaty that guaranteed the lives, property, and religious freedom of its inhabitants in exchange for tribute.

📜 The Treaty of Damascus: A Covenant of Security

The agreement attributed to Khalid ibn al-Walid encapsulates the core principles of these early surrenders:

“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate: This is what Khālid b. al-Walīd wrote for the people of Damascus when he entered it. He gave them a guarantee for themselves, their property and their churches, that the walls of their city should not be demolished and that no one should be settled in their houses. To them is given the covenant (ʿahd) of God and the protection (dhimma) of the Messenger of God (s.), the caliphs and the Faithful. They will be treated well as long as they pay the jizya.”

This document establishes a clear quid pro quo: security for persons, property, and places of worship in return for political submission and the payment of the poll tax.

⚔️ A Tale of Two Entries: The Complexity of Conquest

The historical accounts add rich, complicating details to this straightforward treaty.

• The Christian Chronicle: Dionysius of Tel-Mahre records that the besieged and demoralized Damascenes surrendered to Khālid ibn al-Walid. The negotiation was crucially mediated by a local deacon, John, son of Sargūn, a figure trusted by both the Arab commanders and the city's Christians. This highlights the critical role of local intermediaries in building the trust necessary for surrender.

• The Dramatic Twist: Dionysius adds a layer of complexity, noting that while one city gate was being negotiated, another was stormed by a different Muslim commander. This created an immediate legal and ethical dilemma: was the city taken by force (ʿanwatan) or by treaty (ṣulḥan)? ➡️ Significantly, Khālid is described as upholding the treaty, honoring the assurances of safety and designating the inhabitants as protected tributaries.

This "tale of two entries" is not a contradiction but a reflection of the messy reality of urban conquest. The Muslim leadership ultimately chose to prioritize the binding power of the agreement over the technicalities of a simultaneous assault.

🏛️ Aftermath and Authenticity

The treaty's implementation was as pragmatic as its terms. Later jurists debated property divisions, but more reliable sources like al-Balādhurī suggest a simple explanation: many wealthy Damascenes fled, and their abandoned properties were naturally occupied by Muslim settlers. ➡️ This organic process, rather than a systematic seizure of occupied homes, aligns with Damascus's subsequent transformation into the Umayyad capital, which attracted a large Muslim population.

➡️ Conclusion: Pragmatic Coexistence Forged in Crisis ✅

The conquest of Damascus exemplifies the early Islamic model of pragmatic statecraft. While secured through military pressure and the chaos of siege, its outcome was stabilized by the legal framework of ṣulḥ (treaty).

• The involvement of intermediaries like John, son of Sargūn, was decisive.

• The Muslim command's decision to honor the treaty despite a simultaneous breach was foundational.

• The resulting coexistence—respect for religious continuity in exchange for political sovereignty and tribute—was systemic.

In Damascus, as in Jerusalem and Alexandria, the logic of conquest was not annihilation or humiliation, but stabilization through a written covenant of protection.

4. Edessa (al-Ruhā, 639) 🏰 → From Resistance to Reciprocal Agreement

The capture of Edessa, a bastion of Syriac Christianity, perfectly encapsulates a recurring theme: initial local resistance followed by a pragmatic, negotiated submission. According to al-Balādhurī, the Edessenes initially defended their city with vigor, launching missiles and even a sortie. ➡️ However, after being decisively defeated in the field, they retreated behind their walls and, recognizing the futility of further combat, chose to seek a peace agreement.

📜 The Treaties of Edessa: Two Versions, One Principle of Protection

Al-Balādhurī preserves two versions of the treaty, which, despite variations in detail, uphold the same core principle: security in exchange for tribute and service.

Version 1: A Pact with the Bishop

This version is a direct contract with the city's religious leader, outlining specific fiscal and civic duties:

“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is a document from ʿIyāḍ b. Ghanam to the bishop of Edessa. If you open the gate of the city to me and you pay to me a dinar for every man and two mudds of wheat, you will have security for your lives and your property and those who follow you. You are obliged to guide those who are lost, to maintain the bridges and the roads and give advice to the Muslims. God is witness for this and He is a sufficient witness.”

Version 2: A Covenant with the People

The second version is more expansive, addressing the entire populace and offering broader guarantees:

“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This document is from ʿIyāḍ b. Ghanam and the Muslims who are with him to the people of Edessa. We have given them security for their blood, their wealth, their children, their women, their city and their mills if they pay what is due from them. We have made it a condition on them that they maintain the bridges and guide those of us who are lost. God, his angels and the Muslims are the witnesses of this.”

The existence of two versions itself is telling. It reflects the fluidity of early documentary traditions, suggesting these were practical instruments, not later, standardized forgeries. Both texts share authentic, context-specific details:

• ➡️ Reciprocal Obligations: The treaties establish a clear quid pro quo. Protection is granted not just for lives, but for property, families, and economic assets like mills. In return, the citizens pay a defined tribute and provide essential public services like maintaining infrastructure and guiding travelers.

• ➡️ Pragmatic Integration: The conditions are not designed for humiliation but for practical integration into the new administrative order. The Edessenes become responsible partners in maintaining regional stability and connectivity.

This Muslim account is corroborated by the Christian chronicler Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, who matter-of-factly notes that the Edessenes "went out and secured assurances and a covenant." ➡️ This independent testimony confirms the essential fact: the city’s fate was decided not by massacre, but by treaty.

➡️ Conclusion: The Consistent Pattern of Coexistence ✅

The case of Edessa powerfully reinforces the model established by Damascus, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.

1. Military pressure creates the conditions for negotiation.

2. A written treaty is established, guaranteeing safety for persons, property, and religious continuity.

3. In return, the community agrees to pay tribute and provide practical services to the new polity.

The treaties of Edessa, with their granular focus on grain, bridges, and mills, are emphatically real. They are not theoretical manifestos but working documents from the conquest era, designed to secure a peaceful and productive transition of power. They reveal a conquest governed by pragmatism and a legal framework for coexistence, not indiscriminate destruction.

2D — ❓ Answering the Alleged Cross Removal Tales in the Conquest Era: Polemic or History?

A recurring story in later Christian chronicles claims that early Muslim rulers, manipulated by Jews, launched a campaign to destroy the cross. These narratives are not history, but theological polemic designed to explain Christian political defeat. A clear-eyed analysis reveals a very different reality: one of pragmatic coexistence.

1. 🏗️ The Case of Masjid Al-Aqsa & the "Magic" Cross (637 CE)

Chroniclers like Theophanes and Michael the Syrian tell a dramatic tale: When Caliph Umar tried to build Al-Aqsa, it mysteriously collapsed repeatedly. Jews advised him that a great bronze cross on the Mount of Olives was preventing the construction. Once Umar ordered the cross removed, the building stood firm. The moral: Muslims were pawns of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christian symbols.

This story is literary fiction, not factual reporting.

• 🧩 The "Too Perfect" Plot: The sequence—collapse, Jewish advice, cross removal, success—is a classic polemical trope. It recycles themes of "Jewish cunning" to explain a Christian setback, framing Islam's rise as the result of treachery, not divine will.

• 🏛️ The Archaeological Silence: The cross in question was erected by Empress Eudokia in the 5th century. Critically, 7th-century pilgrims like Arculf make no mention of it. It was likely destroyed during the Persian sack of Jerusalem in 614 CE and never rebuilt. ➡️ The central prop of the story wasn't even there. 🎭

• 🤝 The Muslim Account: Early Muslim sources describe Umar's construction as a humble project, emphasizing his respect for churches and lack of conflict. There is no mention of collapses or cross-removal.

➡️ VERDICT: The story is a theological fable. It projects later Christian anxieties onto the past to frame the conquest as a spiritual drama of betrayal, not a political event.

2. ⚔️ The Case of Umayr b. Sa'd & the Crosses of Damascus (c. 644 CE)

Syriac Patriarch Dionysius claims the general Umayr b. Sa'd, under "malicious advice," ordered all public crosses in Damascus destroyed. He paints a lurid scene: Jews climbing onto church roofs to tear down crosses, followed by divine justice—one Jew is killed with the very cross he desecrated. Umayr then demands a censored Arabic Gospel but is shamed by a brave bishop into allowing a full, beautifully illuminated translation.

This account is a dramatic fabrication filled with inconsistencies.

• 📅 The Problem of Power: Al-Baladhuri's records show Umayr b. Sa'd had a brief, geographically limited governorship in al-Jazira, not the sweeping authority over Damascus that the story requires. His tenure was too short and weak for such a drastic policy.

• 🤨 The Implausible Spectacle: The image of Jews freely desecrating churches in a majority-Christian city under Muslim rule is not credible. Early Muslim governance relied on Christian cooperation for tax and administration; such a provocative and destabilizing act would have been political suicide.

• 📜 The Contradictory Evidence: This story directly contradicts the actual treaties of the era (e.g., Damascus, Jerusalem), which explicitly guarantee the safety of crosses and churches. Muslim sources record no such anti-cross campaign under Caliph Uthman.

➡️ VERDICT: This is Christian martyr literature. The story of the censored Gospel defends scriptural integrity against Islamic claims, while the crushed Jew provides a satisfying narrative of divine vengeance for a humiliated community.

🎯 Conclusion: Why These Stories Were Told

These "cross removal" tales are not windows into 7th-century events but into 8th and 9th-century Christian psychology.

• They transformed a bewildering military-political defeat into a familiar theological narrative of suffering, betrayal, and eventual divine vindication.

• They cast Muslims as enemies of the cross, allowing Christians to process their loss of political supremacy without doubting their faith's ultimate truth.

• They completely ignore the documented reality of early pragmatic treaties and coexistence.

The true history of the early conquests is found not in these dramatic fables, but in the dry, legalistic language of the surrender agreements—which show a regime focused on taxation and control, not a symbolic war on the cross.

2E. 🕊 The True Legacy of the Early Treaties: Prophetic Pragmatism, Not Systematic Humiliation

The surrender treaties of Alexandria, Damascus, Jerusalem, and Edessa are the authentic legal foundation of early Islamic rule. They belong to the reign of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (r. 634–644 CE), a man famed for his ascetic piety. These documents are not later forgeries; they are the product of the Ṣaḥāba (the Prophet's Companions), who carried Muhammad's ﷺ direct legacy into practice.

Their implications demolish the narrative of an inherently humiliating dhimmi system from the start.

1. 📜 Rooted in Prophetic Precedent, Not Imperial Innovation

The treaties are a direct continuation of the Prophet's own statecraft.

• The Constitution of Medina established a single polity (ummah) of Muslims, Jews, and others, based on mutual protection and loyalty.

• The Prophet's letters to foreign rulers promised security in return for submission to Muslim sovereignty.

The treaties of ʿUmar’s era follow this exact same template. This was not a borrowing from Roman or Persian law; it was the living Sunnah in action.

2. 🤝 Focused on Pragmatic Governance, Not Ritual Humiliation

A line-by-line reading of the treaties reveals their pragmatic, functional nature. They were designed for stability and integration, not degradation.

Treaty	Key Guarantees (The "Carrot") 🥕	Key Obligations (The "Stick") 📜
Alexandria	Safety for lives, property, and churches. Freedom to leave with all wealth and crosses.	Payment of the poll tax (jizya).
Damascus	Mercy and security for the entire city, even parts taken by force.	Acknowledgment of Muslim authority.
Jerusalem	Safety for lives, property, churches, and rituals. No forced conversion.	Payment of tribute. Expulsion of Roman troops.
Edessa	Protection for citizens, women, children, and infrastructure (mills).	Payment of taxes. Cooperation on public works (roads, bridges).

These were business-like contracts, not instruments of shame. The goal was to create a functioning, revenue-generating state without unnecessary social disruption.

3. ❌ The "Pact of ʿUmar" is Conspicuously Absent

The most powerful argument is what is NOT there.

The men who negotiated these treaties—Khālid b. al-Walīd, Abū ʿUbayda, and ʿUmar himself—were the closest Companions of the Prophet. If a set of humiliating restrictions (like the later "Pact of ʿUmar") was part of the divine law or Prophetic practice, they would have known it and enforced it.

Their silence is deafening.

The absence of dress codes, bans on church building, or rules of public deference in these early treaties proves conclusively that the so-called "Pact of ʿUmar" is a later Abbasid-era legal fabrication, not a foundational document from the Rashidun era.

4. 👑 The Character of ʿUmar: Ascetic, Not Arrogant

The historical ʿUmar, as described by Christian and Muslim sources alike, was a man of radical humility.

The Syriac Patriarch Dionysius records his entry into Jerusalem: he arrived on a camel with a coarse woolen saddle, his bags containing only barley flour, dates, and a water jar. When offered fine robes, he refused them as a gift, accepting them only as a loan while his own dusty clothes were washed.

This was a ruler whose authority came from faith and justice, not pomp and regalia. It is inconceivable that this ascetic caliph, who earned his living weaving palm-leaf fans, would suddenly adopt the ostentatious humiliation protocols of the Roman and Persian emperors he disdained.

✅ CONCLUSION: The Verdict of History

The evidence is overwhelming:

• The early treaties show a system that was contractual, pragmatic, and rooted in Prophetic example.

• The Companions who implemented it were focused on security and stability, not public degradation.

• The Caliph who oversaw it was a model of personal asceticism and fairness.

The later "Pact of ʿUmar" is a historical ghost. It appears nowhere in the authentic records of the conquests. It is a polemical and legal tool from a later century, retrojected onto the past to justify a more rigid and hierarchical social order.

The real ʿUmar ruled with a covenant, not a collar.

---

3. 🕌 The Sufyānid Era (Umayyad Dynasty I, 661–684 CE)

The accession of Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān in 661 CE opened a new chapter in the history of the caliphate. With the murder of ʿAlī and the relocation of the political center from Kūfa to Damascus, the Umayyad dynasty’s first branch—the Sufyānids—established itself as the ruling house of Islam. Muʿāwiya’s long reign and his successors’ brief ones anchored the caliphate firmly in Syria, a land overwhelmingly Christian at the time. In this context, questions of governance were less about religious uniformity than about integration and stability. The administrative system relied heavily on Christian elites, bishops, and bureaucrats, while Jewish communities continued to enjoy their legal status under earlier treaties. What emerges from both Arabic and Christian sources is a period of pragmatic coexistence: Christians remained visible in court, finance, and provincial rule, while Muslim identity was still in the process of formation. This era reveals no evidence of an imposed charter of humiliation; instead, it demonstrates continuity with the treaties of the conquests and the Companions’ practice.

3A — Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān: The Architect of the Umayyad State

The rise of Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān from Governor of Syria to Caliph (661-680 CE) marked a fundamental transformation of the caliphate. His career represents the shift from a charismatic, community-based leadership to a pragmatic, dynastic empire.

⚔️ The Path to Power: Navigating the First Fitna

Muʿāwiya’s ascent was forged in the fires of the first Muslim civil war (fitna), triggered by the assassination of Caliph ʿUthmān in 656. As ʿUthmān's kinsman and the powerful governor of Syria, Muʿāwiya demanded justice, placing him in direct opposition to the new Caliph, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.

The conflict culminated at the Battle of Ṣiffīn (657), a bloody stalemate that led to a fractured arbitration and the rise of the Khawārij sect. Following ʿAlī’s own assassination in 661, Muʿāwiya skillfully negotiated the Treaty of al-Ḥasan with ʿAlī’s son, peacefully transferring authority and averting further bloodshed. This act allowed him to consolidate power and establish the Umayyad dynasty.

🏛️ A New Model of Governance: Pragmatism over Piety

Muʿāwiya’s rule was defined by pragmatic statecraft, a stark contrast to the asceticism of his predecessors.

• The Syrian Power Base: He leveraged Syria's stable, Roman-trained administration and its integrated Arab tribes (especially the Christian Kalb tribe) to create an unshakeable foundation for his rule. 👑➡️🤝

• Continuity with the Conquered: He retained Christian administrators and honored the existing surrender treaties, ensuring a smooth transition of power and continuous revenue flow.

• Imperial Ambition: From his capital in Damascus, he launched the first systematic naval campaigns against Rome, projecting Muslim power into the Mediterranean.

The takeaway is clear: Muʿāwiya was a builder and a stabilizer. His reign provided the administrative and political continuity essential for the empire's survival after the civil war. Critically, his model of governance was based on practical treaties and integration, not the imposition of humiliating restrictions on his non-Muslim subjects.

3B — Christians in the Umayyad Administration: The Indispensable Bureaucrats

The early Umayyad state was not an Arab-only enterprise; it was a partnership with the conquered elite, especially the Christians of Syria.

📝 The "Romans" in the "Islamic" Chancery

Muʿāwiya’s administration relied heavily on experienced Christian bureaucrats who had served the Roman Empire. The most famous example is Sarjūn b. Manṣūr al-Rūmī, a Chalcedonian Christian who served as Muʿāwiya’s chief financial officer. His son, John of Damascus, would later lead the Umayyad chancery before becoming a foundational Christian theologian.

This was not an exception but the rule. Documentary papyri from Egypt and Syria show Christians working as scribes, tax collectors, and fiscal officers, often using Greek and Coptic. The full Arabization of the bureaucracy would not begin for another half-century.

✝️ A Christian-Friendly Sovereign

Muʿāwiya actively cultivated the support of his majority-Christian subjects. He performed symbolic acts in Jerusalem, praying at Golgotha and the tomb of Mary, gestures that resonated deeply with the local population. He even married Maysūn, a Christian noblewoman from the Kalb tribe, and their son, Yazīd I, became his heir.

This policy of integration was a resounding success. The Christian chronicler Yohannan bar Penkaye praised Muʿāwiya’s reign:

“Justice flourished in his days... He allowed everyone to conduct himself as he wanted... there was peace throughout the world whose like we had never heard or seen.”

The conclusion is inescapable: The early Umayyad state was a coalition government with its Christian subjects. The idea that Muʿāwiya, who depended on Christian administrators and soldiers, would simultaneously enforce a humiliating "Pact of Umar" against them is historically absurd.

3C — Urban Coexistence: A Shared Landscape

The Sufyānid policy of coexistence was physically etched into the urban landscape of Syria.

• In Damascus, the capital, the cathedral of St. John and the early mosque shared the same Roman temenos complex. Christians and Muslims used different entrances to the same sacred space, a powerful symbol of shared topography.

• In Caesarea, the monumental octagonal church remained the city's skyline dominator, standing alongside new Arab administrative buildings.

• In Jerusalem, Muʿāwiya’s accession ceremonies honored Christian sites, while early Muslim structures on the Ḥaram al-Sharif developed alongside the vibrant Christian quarter centered on the Holy Sepulchre.

This coexistence was not just architectural; it was functional. When a series of earthquakes destroyed churches in Edessa in 678, Muʿāwiya ordered them rebuilt at state expense. The caliph of the Muslims was the patron and protector of Christian holy sites for his subjects.

3D — The Legal Reality: No "Pact of Umar" in Sight

When we examine the legal and social realities of the seventh century, the most compelling evidence is an absence.

There is no trace of the "Pact of Umar."

• The surviving treaties from the conquests guarantee safety and property in exchange for tribute. They contain no dress codes, building restrictions, or rituals of humiliation.

• Christian chroniclers of the era praise the peace and justice under Muʿāwiya, noting that people were free to live as they wished.

• Muʿāwiya himself was a Companion of the Prophet. If a universal charter of humiliation like the "Pact of Umar" existed, he of all people would have known and enforced it. He did not.

The "Pact of Umar" is a legal fiction from a later era, retroactively projected onto the past to justify the more rigid social hierarchies of the Abbasid period. The true early Islamic model, as practiced by Muʿāwiya and the Sufyānids, was one of negotiated coexistence, pragmatic integration, and a state built with the active collaboration of its non-Muslim subjects.

---

4. 🏛️ The Marwānid Revolution: Forging an Islamic Empire (680–717 CE)

The death of Muʿāwiya in 680 shattered the fragile consensus of the early caliphate. The era that followed—the Marwānid period—was not merely a continuation of Umayyad rule but a profound revolution. It marked the violent, decisive end of the Companions' era and the birth of a centralized, ideological Islamic State.

This transformation was forged in the crucible of civil war, near-collapse, and national humiliation. The responses to these crises—under the ruthless leadership of ʿAbd al-Malik—would forever alter the relationship between the Muslim state and its non-Muslim subjects, laying the administrative and ideological groundwork for the later dhimmi system.

4A — Yazīd I (680–683): The Unraveling

Yazīd I’s brief reign was the trigger for collapse. His succession, engineered by Muʿāwiya, was the first hereditary transfer of power in Islam, and it immediately fractured the polity.

• The Crisis of Legitimacy: Two major revolts challenged his authority simultaneously:

  1. The Tragedy of Karbalāʾ (680): The massacre of al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, the Prophet's grandson, along with his followers created an eternal schism in the Muslim community and permanently branded the Umayyads as illegitimate tyrants in the eyes of what would become the Shi'a.

  2. The Revolt of Ibn al-Zubayr: In Mecca, ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr declared himself the true caliph, drawing support from the Hijaz, Iraq, and Egypt.

• A Policy of Continuity Amid Chaos: Despite the political firestorm, Yazīd’s regime introduced no new policies of religious discrimination. The Syrian administration, still staffed by Christians, functioned as before. The son of a Christian mother and the heir to Muʿāwiya’s pluralistic system, Yazīd had no motive to enact humiliating charters. His problem was Muslim dissent, not Christian rebellion.

➡️ The Lesson: Yazīd’s reign proved that the old, flexible model of rule could not survive a contested succession. The empire needed a new source of legitimacy beyond tribal loyalty and personal prestige.

4B — The Second Fitna (683–692): Near Annihilation and the Psychology of Humiliation

Following Yazīd's sudden death in 683, the empire imploded. For nearly a decade, there was no central authority.

• The Empire Shatters: Ibn al-Zubayr held Mecca. Pro-ʿAlid rebels held parts of Iraq. Berber revolts ejected Arabs from North Africa. The Khazars and Romans attacked the vulnerable frontiers. The Umayyads controlled little more than parts of Syria.

• The Depth of Umayyad Humiliation: The surviving Umayyad leader, Marwān I, and his son, ʿAbd al-Malik, were forced to make a devastating concession. To buy time to fight Ibn al-Zubayr, they signed a treaty with the Roman Emperor Justinian II, agreeing to pay massive tribute—a portion of their tax revenue—to a Christian emperor.

This was a psychological turning point. The "Commander of the Believers" was reduced to a tribute-paying vassal of a foreign, Christian power. This national shame would sear itself into ʿAbd al-Malik’s consciousness and dictate his every subsequent policy.

Despite the utter chaos, a crucial fact holds true: neither Ibn al-Zubayr nor the early Marwānids invented or enforced a "Pact of ʿUmar." Their survival depended on the same pragmatic coalitions as before: Syrian tribal allies and Christian administrators. The fight was over who would be caliph, not how to subordinate non-Muslims.

4C — ʿAbd al-Malik’s Revolution: The Forging of the Islamic State (685–705 CE)

The reign of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān was not merely a caliphate; it was a revolution. Inheriting a fractured empire on the brink of collapse in 685, he emerged by 705 as the architect of a new, centralized Islamic Imperial State. His reforms were a direct, ideological response to the trauma of civil war and national humiliation, systematically dismantling the old, pluralistic order and replacing it with a structure where political power, religious identity, and state sovereignty were fused into an inseparable whole.

⚔️ The Crucible: Humiliation and Near-Collapse

To understand ʿAbd al-Malik’s ruthlessness, one must first appreciate the depth of his humiliation in the early 680s.

• The Empire Shattered: The Umayyads controlled little more than parts of Syria. A rival caliph, Ibn al-Zubayr, held Mecca, Iraq, and Egypt. Pro-ʿAlid and Kharijite rebels ran rampant.

• The Tribute Treaty of 689: To buy time to fight his Muslim rivals, ʿAbd al-Malik was forced to sign a devastating treaty with the Roman Emperor Justinian II. The terms were a national disgrace:

  • The Caliph had to pay a massive annual tribute to a Christian emperor.

  • They established a condominium over Cyprus, Armenia, and Iberia, sharing the revenue.

  • This meant the "Commander of the Believers" was effectively a tribute-paying vassal of Rome.

This existential crisis forged ʿAbd al-Malik's core conviction: survival required more than military victory; it demanded a total ideological overhaul of the state itself.

---

🏛️ The Revolutionary Reforms: Building the Apparatus of an Islamic Empire

ʿAbd al-Malik did not simply rebuild the state; he built a new kind of state. His reforms targeted every pillar of sovereignty.

1. 💰 Monetary Revolution: The First Islamic Coinage (693 CE)

The Problem: The economy ran on Roman and Sasanian coins, covered with crosses and fire altars. This was a constant visual reminder of subordination to foreign, non-Islamic powers.

The Solution: ʿAbd al-Malik launched the first Islamic gold dinar (693 CE).

• Phase 1 (693): Coins featured his own image as commander, replacing the Roman Emperor.

• Phase 2 (696/697): In a radical move, he removed all human imagery. The new, aniconic coins were inscribed solely with the Shahada and Qur'anic verses: "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God."

The Impact: This was a declaration of economic and theological independence. For the first time, the very medium of exchange proclaimed Islam's supremacy, severing visual ties to the past and making the state visibly and ideologically Islamic.

2. 📜 Administrative Revolution: The Arabization of the Dīwān (c. 700 CE)

The Problem: The bureaucracy was run by Greek-speaking Christians and Persians. The state's administrative "voice" was foreign, and this class held significant power.

The Solution: ʿAbd al-Malik decreed that Arabic would be the sole language of administration.

• This broke the power of the old, non-Muslim bureaucratic elite.

• It created a new, Arabic-literate Muslim administrative class loyal to the state.

• It was a crucial step in unifying the empire's diverse tax systems under a single, Islamic authority.

3. ✝️ Symbolic Revolution: The War on Christian Symbols (693 CE onwards)

This was the most brutal and public facet of the revolution, designed to shatter the confidence of the Christian majority and establish a new public order.

• The Fiscal Marker: The Poll Tax (Jizya) Census (691-692 CE)
  The Chronicle of Zuqnin records a watershed moment: a comprehensive census where every man had to return to his village to register his family, property, and children.

  "From this time, the poll-tax began to be levied on the male heads... Previously, kings used to levy tribute on land, not on men. From this time onward the Sons of Hagar began to reduce the Sons of Aram to Egyptian slavery."

  This was a fundamental shift. The tax was no longer on land, but on the person of the non-Muslim. It legally institutionalized their subordinate status as a human tax unit.

• The Cultural Cleansing: The Slaughter of Pigs & Removal of Crosses (693 CE)
  Following a dramatic solar eclipse, Christian chroniclers (Theophanes, Agapius, Michael the Syrian) uniformly report ʿAbd al-Malik's decree:

  1. All pigs in Syria and Mesopotamia were to be slaughtered.

  2. Public crosses were to be taken down from streets and churches.

  This was not random violence. As historian Jamie Kreiner explains, the pig was not just a dietary marker but a potent symbol of Roman imperialism.

  • By destroying pigs, ʿAbd al-Malik was symbolically slaughtering the Roman animal, attacking a core element of the Greco-Roman cultural and economic system.

  • Combined with the removal of crosses, it was a definitive statement: the Roman Christian order is dead; the Islamic order now reigns.

4. 🕌 Architectural Revolution: The Dome of the Rock (691-692 CE)

The crown jewel of his ideological program. The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem was not a mosque but an imperial monument of theological supremacy.

• Its massive golden dome was built to overshadow the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

• Its interior inscriptions featured long Qur'anic passages directly denying the divinity of Christ (e.g., "God is one, God is eternal... He begets not, nor was He begotten").

• It was a permanent, unmissable declaration of Islamic theological truth and Umayyad legitimacy in the heart of the Christian and Jewish world.

✅ The Verdict: The End of an Era

ʿAbd al-Malik’s reign is the great pivot point in early Islamic history.

• Before ʿAbd al-Malik: The state was a pragmatic Arab kingdom. It relied on pluralistic treaties, integrated non-Muslim elites, and used foreign symbols and languages. Its identity was flexible.

• After ʿAbd al-Malik: The state was a centralized Islamic empire. It asserted a distinct, superior Islamic identity through currency, language, law, and monumental art. Non-Muslims were systematically relegated to a legally and symbolically subordinate status.

He did not create the "Pact of Umar," but he created the world that required it. His reforms established the logic of a hierarchy of belief enforced by the state. The era of flexible coexistence was brutally terminated. The path to a codified system of discrimination was now open, paving the way for the legal fiction of the "Pact of Umar" to be written, retroactively justifying the new imperial reality he had forged.

4D — Al-Walīd I & Sulaymān: The Imperial Project Unleashed (705–717 CE)

If ʿAbd al-Malik was the architect of the Islamic state, his sons al-Walīd I and Sulaymān were its master builders and militant evangelists. They inherited a centralized, ideological machine and used it to pursue unprecedented expansion abroad and monumental domination at home. The pragmatic pluralism of the early caliphate was now a distant memory, replaced by an assertive, often aggressive, Islamic imperial identity.

👑 Al-Walīd I (705–715): The Apex of Umayyad Power

Al-Walīd’s reign represents the high point of Marwānid power, characterized by massive construction projects and relentless military expansion.

Al-Walīd’s most symbolic act was the construction of the Great Umayyad Mosque of Damascus. To do this, he demolished the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, the city's most important church, and incorporated its walls into the new mosque.

• Christian View: This was a devastating act of cultural and religious erasure.

• Umayyad View: This was a triumphant declaration of Islamic supremacy. Court poets like Jarīr and al-Farazdaq celebrated al-Walīd as a new Solomon, purifying the land of idolatry. 🕌➡️⛪️

This was part of a vast building program that monumentalized Islam’s holiest sites, including the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina and the expansion of al-Aqsa in Jerusalem. The state was physically stamping its new identity onto the landscape.Al-Walīd’s generals led the final great wave of Islamic conquests, fueled by the state's new centralized power and wealth:

• 🏺 In the West: Mūsā b. Nuṣayr and Ṭāriq b. Ziyād conquered most of Spain (al-Andalus), toppling the Visigothic Kingdom in 711.

• 🏹 In the East: Qutayba b. Muslim subjugated Transoxiana (Bukhara, Samarqand), brutally incorporating Central Asia into the caliphate.

• ⚔️ In the Southeast: Muhammad b. al-Qāsim conquered Sind (the Indus Valley) in 712.

The empire had reached its greatest geographical extent, and the revenue from these new provinces funded al-Walīd’s monumental ambitions.

🛡️ Sulaymān (715–717): The Messianic Gamble

Sulaymān’s short reign shifted the focus from consolidation to a cosmic, eschatological confrontation. He embodied the belief that the Umayyad state was destined to complete God's plan on earth.

Sulaymān staked his entire caliphate on one goal: the capture of the Roman capital, Constantinople. This was not just another military campaign; it was a messianic enterprise.

• He was hailed in court poetry as the Mahdī, the guided one who would defeat Islam's ultimate rival.

• The siege (717-718) was timed to coincide with the centenary of the Hijra, lending it apocalyptic significance.

• A massive army and navy, led by his brother Maslama, blockaded the city.

💥 The Humiliating Failure: The siege was a catastrophic defeat. A brutal winter, disease, Greek fire, and Bulgar attacks decimated the Muslim forces. The grand gamble to supplant Rome had failed, dealing a severe blow to Umayyad prestige and morale.

⛓️ THE LOGIC OF CONTROL: The Advent of Neck-Sealing

It is precisely in this period of intense state-building, fiscal extraction, and ideological assertion that we find the first evidence of the most humiliating administrative practice: NECK-SEALING.

As historian Chase F. Robinson demonstrates through Christian chronicles and papyri, neck-sealing was not an early Islamic practice. It was a Marwānid innovation, first appearing in the first decades of the 8th century as part of their drive for total fiscal control.

🤔 What Was Neck-Sealing?

It was the practice of hanging a lead seal (ṭābiʿ raṣāṣ) around the neck of a tax-paying dhimmi (Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian) after they had paid their poll tax (jizya). This seal served as a physical receipt.

🧠 Why Did They Start Doing This? The Brutal Logic

The Marwānid state faced a major problem: tax evasion. People would flee their land to avoid the census and taxation. The old system was too loose.

The new, centralized state needed a system that was:

1. Inescapable: A seal around your neck couldn't be easily lost or forged like a papyrus receipt. 🏷️➡️😞

2. Mobile: It identified the taxpayer personally, not the land, preventing them from fleeing to another district.

3. Stigmatizing: Robinson argues this was intentional. The lead seal was the bureaucratic equivalent of a slave collar. It publicly marked the wearer as a subjugated, tax-paying non-Muslim. It fused fiscal control with social humiliation.

The Evidence from Egypt and the Jazira:

• In Egypt, Governor ʿUbayd Allāh b. al-Ḥabḥāb (appointed 724 CE) conducted a census and "put a leaden seal on the neck of everyone" from age 20 to 100.

• In Northern Mesopotamia (al-Jazira), the general Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik is recorded doing the same around 710 CE.

• These measures appear alongside other brutal practices like branding the hands of monks to prevent them from pretending to be laymen and avoiding the tax.

✅ Conclusion: The Complete Transformation

By the end of Sulaymān's reign in 717, the transformation was complete. The state ʿAbd al-Malik built had become a leviathan:

• Ideologically Assertive: It demolished churches to build mosques and launched wars framed in messianic terms.

• Administratively Ruthless: It used censuses, Arabization, and brutal tools like neck-sealing to extract taxes and control populations with unprecedented efficiency.

• Socially Hierarchical: It had legally and visibly institutionalized the inferior status of non-Muslims, not through a fictional "Pact of Umar," but through the very real, cold lead of the tax seal.

The failure at Constantinople showed the limits of Umayyad military power. But the system of control they built—a system where your faith determined your tax status, and your tax status was stamped around your neck—would endure long after their dynasty had fallen. The Islamic Empire was now a fact, enforced by bureaucracy and lead.

---

5. 🌙 Caliph ʿUmar II (717–720 CE): The Righteous Caliph

The reign of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz stands as a profound anomaly in the Marwānid era. Lasting a mere twenty-nine months, his rule was a lightning strike of piety and reform that created a permanent rift in the historical memory of the Umayyads. He is venerated as the "Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph," a ruler whose personal integrity and commitment to justice contrasted so violently with his predecessors that he became a legend. This very reputation, however, made his name a magnet for later polemicists, who would falsely attribute the humiliating "Pact of ʿUmar" to him. To understand why this is a historical fiction, we must first understand the shocking reality of the man himself.

5A — Rise to the Caliphate: The Unlikely Ascetic

ʿUmar II was an outsider in his own dynasty. His lineage set him apart:

• Umayyad Blood: His father was ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, brother of Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik and long-time governor of Egypt.

• Rightly-Guided Soul: His mother was the granddaughter of Caliph ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. This connection to the revered, ascetic early caliph would define his entire worldview.

His upbringing was the antithesis of the Damascene court. He was raised not in the palaces of Syria, but in the scholarly heartland of Medina. There, he studied with the leading jurists and pietists, absorbing an ethos of humility, justice, and accountability that was utterly foreign to the imperial pomp of his uncle ʿAbd al-Malik.

His accession was itself a break from tradition. The hard-living Caliph Sulaymān, on his deathbed, surprisingly bypassed his own sons to name ʿUmar as his heir. This was likely a political calculation by the Marwānid clan: after the catastrophic failure at Constantinople, the dynasty needed a leader whose piety could restore its shattered legitimacy.

5B — The Great Reversal: A Reign of Piety and Justice

From his first day, ʿUmar II enacted a wholesale repudiation of the Marwānid state-building project. His reign was a revolution in governance.

🔄 The Stunning Contrast with His Predecessors

To see how radical ʿUmar II was, one must contrast him directly with his relatives:

	The Marwānid Imperialists (ʿAbd al-Malik, al-Walīd, Sulaymān)	The Righteous Reformer (ʿUmar II)
**Wealth & Lifestyle	Opulent. Built palaces, wore silk, hosted court poets.	Ascetic. Dismissed entertainers, wore patched wool, lived like a pauper.
**Fiscal Policy	Extractive. Heavy taxes, censuses, neck-sealing to maximize revenue for conquest and monuments.	Restorative. Lifted oppressive taxes, returned confiscated property, ended the jizya for converts.
**Legitimacy	Power & Symbolism. Built the Dome of the Rock and Great Mosque to assert Islamic supremacy.	Justice & Piety. Ruled through consultation with scholars, aiming for Qur'anic justice.
**Goal	To build a powerful, centralized Islamic Empire.	To create a morally righteous Islamic Community.

✍️ The Universal Praise: A Unanimous Verdict

The most powerful evidence for ʿUmar's character is the universal praise he received from every community, a stark contrast to the hatred directed at al-Ḥajjāj or the fear inspired by ʿAbd al-Malik.

• Muslim Scholars: He is remembered as "al-imām, al-ḥāfiẓ, al-ʿallāma, al-mujtahid, al-zāhid, al-ʿābid" — the Imam, the Memorizer, the Scholar, the Independent Jurist, the Ascetic, the Worshipper.

• Latin Christian Chronicles: The Chronicle of 741 states: "He was of such great kindness and compassion that to this day as much honour and praise is bestowed on him by all, even foreigners, as ever has been offered to anyone."

• Syriac Christian Chronicles: The Chronicle of 819 calls him "a good man and a more compassionate king than all the kings before him."

• The Ultimate Image: He died not in a palace, but in a Christian monastery (Dayr Simʿān) near Apamea, where he had gone seeking cleaner air. The pious caliph spent his final days convalescing among monks.

The historical ʿUmar II is crystal clear: he was a ruler defined by compassion, fiscal justice, and inter-communal respect.

The man who ended the jizya for converts, returned stolen property, and was praised by Christians as their most compassionate ruler is the least likely person in Islamic history to have authored a charter of systematic humiliation like the "Pact of ʿUmar."

The attribution of the Pact to him is a cynical, later fabrication. It represents an attempt by later Abbasid-era jurists to cloak their own rigid, hierarchical social vision in the impeccable moral authority of the one Umayyad everyone respected. ʿUmar II’s reign proves that the early Islamic state could have evolved down a path of integrative justice, rather than the path of stigmatizing control that his predecessors had pioneered and his successors would resume. His brief caliphate was a glimpse of an alternative future.

---

5C.1 — The Unanimous Testimony of His Contemporaries: A "Compassionate King"

The most compelling evidence comes from those who lived under his rule. Christian chroniclers across the empire, writing just years after his death, praised him in terms never used for his predecessors.

• The Spanish Chronicle of 754: “Umar was so benign and patient in his rule that even today great honour and praise are bestowed upon him... He was regarded as more conscientious in his government of the kingdom than anyone else from the people of the Arabs.” 👑➡️✝️

• The Syriac Chronicle of 819: “He was a good man and a more compassionate king than all the kings before him.”

• The Chronicle of 741: “He was of such great kindness and compassion that to this day as much honour and praise is bestowed on him by all, even foreigners...”

This is not the language used to describe a ruler who systematically humiliated and restricted his non-Muslim subjects. They describe a ruler of mercy and moderation.

📜 The Paper Trail: Documentary Evidence of Continuity

The papyri from his reign destroy the myth of a puritanical purge.

• In Egypt, the bureaucratic machinery continued to be staffed by Christians with Coptic and Greek names (e.g., Abū Milla, Komes, Athanasios).

• Official documents were still written in Greek and Coptic, often beginning with a cross, alongside Arabic seals with Islamic formulas.

• There is zero evidence of a mass dismissal of dhimmi officials. The Islamization of the bureaucracy was a gradual process, not a sudden decree.

The Logic: If ʿUmar II had issued the "Pact of Umar"–style edicts banning non-Muslims from office, the paper trail would show a clear rupture. It shows seamless continuity. Egypt, where his own father had been governor, would have been the first place to feel this change. It did not.

⚔️ The Frontier Test: Pragmatism in Central Asia

On the volatile eastern frontier, ʿUmar’s governors relied on local Zoroastrian rulers like Dēwāštīč to maintain control against the Tang Chinese and Turkic threats. These rulers were addressed as loyal allies ("true assistants and faithful servants").

The Logic: If ʿUmar was a religious extremist, he would have purged these "unbeliever" allies at the worst possible moment, destabilizing the entire frontier. Instead, he pursued pragmatic stability. A ruler who relies on Zoroastrian kings to hold his empire would not simultaneously be enforcing humiliating dress codes on Christians in Damascus. The two policies are mutually exclusive. ❌

5C.2 — The Muslim Memory: The Rightly-Guided Reformer

In Islamic tradition, ʿUmar II is venerated as the "Fifth Rightly-Guided Caliph," an ascetic scholar who sought to correct the worldly excesses of the Umayyads.

🧑‍⚖️ The Logic of His Reforms: Solving the Mawālī Crisis

ʿUmar II’s most famous policies were tax reforms, and they reveal the true social crisis of the empire, which was not about subjugating non-Muslims, but about integrating new Muslims.

• The Problem: Massive numbers of non-Arabs (Persians, Copts, Berbers) were converting to Islam. These new Muslims (mawālī) were still being forced to pay the jizya (poll tax)—a tax for non-Muslims! This was a theological and social absurdity that caused widespread resentment and rebellion.

• ʿUmar's Solution: He lifted the jizya from converts. His logic was simple and perfectly aligned with Islamic principle: if you are a Muslim, you are a full member of the community, not a taxed subject.

He also remitted taxes for the elderly and disabled among non-Muslims. This wasn't about persecution; it was about establishing a fair and just fiscal system based on ability to pay, not mere subjugation.

This is the core of the argument that exposes the later "Pact" as a fraud:

How could the same caliph who was so scrupulously just that he removed taxes from converts and the poor dhimmi elderly, simultaneously be the one to enact a charter demanding they wear distinctive clothing, not build churches, and be publicly humiliated?

The two characters are irreconcilable.

• The historical ʿUmar II was a pragmatic, compassionate reformer focused on financial justice and social integration.

• The later, fictional ʿUmar of the "Pact" is a rigid ideologue focused on public humiliation and segregation.

Muslim sources remember him making pledges like, "Hold me accountable if I stray from justice." This is not the mantra of a man who would institutionalize degradation.

The conclusion is inescapable: The "Pact of Umar" is a backward projection. It was crafted in a later century by jurists who needed a "pious" name to legitimize their own more rigid and hierarchical social vision. They chose ʿUmar II precisely because of his sterling reputation, hoping it would lend credibility to their invention. But in doing so, they created a historical figure that is the direct opposite of the man who actually ruled. The real ʿUmar II is the ultimate proof that the "Pact" is a lie.

5C.3 — The "Dismissal of Non-Muslim Officials": History vs. Polemic

One of the most contentious claims about ʿUmar II is that he issued a sweeping edict purging all non-Muslims from government service. This narrative, found in later Islamic sources, paints him as an Islamizing reformer who broke from his predecessors' pragmatic reliance on Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian administrators.

However, this narrative collapses under the weight of contemporary evidence. Surviving papyri and documents from during and immediately after his reign prove that non-Muslim officials remained in their posts. This creates a fundamental schism between later texts and on-the-ground reality.

5C.4 — Milka Levy-Rubin’s Argument: The Codifier of Discrimination

Milka Levy-Rubin positions ʿUmar II as the pivotal figure who transformed informal practice into systematic law. She argues that his piety provided the "moral backdrop" for the first coherent formulation of dhimmi regulations.

Her evidence rests on textual consistency:

• A group of later Muslim sources (Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Abū Yūsuf, etc.) transmit a highly similar edict attributed to ʿUmar II.

• This edict contained humiliating regulations (ghiyār):

  • Dress Codes: Non-Muslims must wear a leather girdle (zunnār), cut their forelocks, and were banned from luxurious robes and turbans.

  • Riding Restrictions: They were forbidden from using proper saddles, forced to ride sidesaddle "as women did."

• Supporting Christian Testimony: Syriac chronicles like Michael the Syrian state ʿUmar II was "very opposed to Christians" and initiated such measures.

Levy-Rubin concludes that ʿUmar II was the first caliph to systematize subordination, creating a legal framework for the "humiliation and contempt" mentioned in the Qur'an. For her, the consistency of the texts points to an authentic core.

5C.5 — Luke Yarbrough’s Counter-Argument: The Abbasid Fiction

Luke Yarbrough dismantles this thesis, arguing the "dismissal decree" is a later Abbasid confection, retroactively projected onto ʿUmar II to legitimize their own policies by using his saintly reputation.

Yarbrough's case is built on a fortress of silence and hard evidence:

1. The Deafening Silence 🗣️❌

If ʿUmar II had issued a radical, empire-wide purge, every major source would shout about it. Instead, we find overwhelming silence:

• Muslim Historians: Al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Saʿd, and other major historians who detail his reign never mention this edict.

• Early Jurists: Leading jurists like Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and Ibn Ḥanbal—who all opposed employing dhimmis—never cite ʿUmar II as a precedent. This is a fatal flaw in Levy-Rubin's argument; if they knew of this decree, they would have weaponized it.

2. The Documentary Record: Papyri Don't Lie 📜➡️✅

This is the most powerful refutation. Hard evidence from Egypt during his reign proves continuity:

• P. Séoudi 1 (June 719 CE): An administrator named Abū Milla, with a Coptic/Greek name, is active during ʿUmar's rule.

• Greek Ostracon (March 720 CE): Dated one month after ʿUmar's death, this tax receipt is signed by the Christian officials Komes and Athanasios.

• Other Papyri (P. Grenf. 105, 106): Show Christian scribes working for the Muslim administration.

This is a knockout blow. The idea of a mass dismissal is impossible when the very officials supposedly purged are still signing documents.

3. The Contradictory Christian Praise ☦️🙏

The earliest Christian sources universally praise ʿUmar II's compassion.

• The Chronicle of 741 calls him "compassionate" and says he was honored "even by foreigners."

• The Chronicle of 819 calls him "a good man and a more compassionate king than all the kings before him."

Later, hostile comments (e.g., in Michael the Syrian) are clear later interpolations. The earliest witnesses knew nothing of a persecutor.

5C.6 — The Verdict: Yarbrough's Case Overwhelms

When we weigh the evidence, the scales tip decisively.

Evidence Type	Levy-Rubin's Argument (Codification)	Yarbrough's Argument (Continuity)	Which is Stronger?
Textual Sources	Later, consistent narratives of an edict.	Deafening silence from major historians and jurists.	✅ Yarbrough. Silence where we expect noise is powerful evidence.
Documentary Evidence	Relies on the absence of counter-evidence.	Presents papyri with Christian officials working during/after ʿUmar's reign.	✅ Yarbrough. Irrefutable, contemporary proof.
Christian Sources	Cites later Syriac chronicles with hostile edits.	Cites earliest chronicles that universally praise his compassion.	✅ Yarbrough. The earliest sources are the most reliable.

Conclusion: Only one position aligns with the hard, contemporary facts.

Levy-Rubin's argument, while coherent, depends on trusting later texts over the silence and contrary evidence of earlier, more reliable sources. Yarbrough's case is grounded in documentary proof and the principle of historical parsimony: the simplest explanation is that the papyri and early praises reflect reality, while the discriminatory edict is a polemical ghost, a back-projection from the Abbasid era seeking to cloak its policies in the legitimacy of the "Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph."

The historical ʿUmar II was a reformer focused on fiscal justice and moral piety for all his subjects, not the architect of systematic humiliation. The purge of non-Muslim officials is a historical fiction.

---

6. 📜 Forged Chains: The Isnād Problem

Having traced the first Islamic century from the Prophet through ʿUmar II, and having seen how non-Muslims were actually treated in practice—through papyri, chronicles, and administrative evidence—we now turn to the origins of the so-called Pact of ʿUmar. Here, the central problem is not what the Umayyads did, but what later jurists claimed they had done. The text of the Shurūṭ al-Naṣārā survives in multiple versions: the ones we used here are , two heavily glossed forms in Ibn al-Qayyim’s Ahkām ahl al-dhimma (14th c.), where he declared it “so famous” that it required no isnād at all, the isnād problem is glaring: not a whisper of this “pact” exists in the 7th century, nor was it used by early jurists or caliphs. Its petition format—where Christians supposedly begged to humiliate themselves—only underscores its artificiality. 

---

6A — Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 1350)

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, born on 29 January 1292 CE / 7 Ṣafar 691 AH in Damascus, lived during one of the most turbulent centuries of Islamic history. His world was defined by the aftershocks of the Mongol invasions, which had devastated vast stretches of the Muslim world, and the final phases of the Crusades, which had only recently been driven out of the Levant by the Mamluks. Damascus, where he was both born and died (15 September 1350 CE / 13 Rajab 751 AH), was a city at the very crossroads of these struggles—fortified by victory over external enemies, yet still facing the intellectual and spiritual challenges of recovery.

Within this charged atmosphere, Ibn al-Qayyim became one of the most influential students of Ibn Taymiyya, inheriting his teacher’s bold spirit of reform and his insistence on returning to what he saw as the pure Islam of the Qurʾān and Sunna. The Mongols, who claimed Islam yet wavered in applying its law, and the memory of Crusaders who had desecrated Muslim lands, gave Ibn al-Qayyim’s thought a sharpened edge: foreign domination, heresy, and innovation were to be resisted at all costs. His writings in works like Ahkām Ahl al-Dhimma reflect this spirit, not merely as dry jurisprudence, but as part of a broader project of defending and purifying the Muslim community in an age of upheaval.

---

Ibn al-Qayyim’s Isnād Evidence for the Shurūṭ ʿUmar

📌 First Isnād

ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad said: “Abū Shurḥabīl al-Ḥimṣī ʿĪsā b. Khālid told me, saying: My uncle Abū al-Yamān and Abū al-Mughīra told us, saying: Ismāʿīl b. ʿAyyāsh told us, saying: More than one of the people of knowledge told us that the people of al-Jazīra wrote to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ghanm…”

• Analysis:

  • The chain collapses at the phrase “more than one of the people of knowledge told us” (غَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ).

  • This is anonymous transmission (majhūl), which by definition breaks the isnād.

  • Since the transmission stops not at a Companion, but at vague, unnamed authorities, this is Munqaṭiʿ (broken) at the critical stage.

  • Worse, it is structurally closer to Muʿḍal (perplexing) because multiple consecutive unknown transmitters appear before reaching ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ghanm.

➡️ Verdict: This isnād cannot qualify as Musnad or even Muttasil. It is weak (ḍaʿīf) because of multiple anonymous narrators.

---

📌 Second Isnād

Al-Khallāl in Aḥkām Ahl al-Milal: “ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad narrated… mentioning Sufyān al-Thawrī, from Masrūq, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ghanm.”

• Analysis:

  • Sufyān al-Thawrī is a reliable Kūfan authority (d. 161 AH).

  • Masrūq b. al-Ajdaʿ (d. 62 AH) was a tābiʿī of great stature, student of Ibn Masʿūd.

  • The problem: Masrūq never met ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ghanm (a Companion of Syria, d. ca. 78 AH).

  • Thus the chain is Mursal at best — a Successor quoting directly from another Successor/Companion without hearing.

  • In hadith science, this renders the isnād incomplete.

➡️ Verdict: Though it looks neater, it is actually Mursal, not Musnad. Weak as evidence for historical reliability.

---

📌 Third Isnād

Al-Rabīʿ b. Thaʿlab said: “Yaḥyā b. ʿUqba b. Abī al-ʿAyẓār narrated to us, from Sufyān al-Thawrī and al-Walīd b. Nūḥ and al-Sirrī b. Muṣarrif, who narrated from Ṭalḥa b. Muṣarrif, from Masrūq, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ghanm.”

• Analysis:

  • This isnād tries to reinforce the earlier Masrūq → ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ghanm link by multiplying transmitters.

  • Yet the core problem remains: Masrūq’s meeting with Ibn Ghanm is not established.

  • Furthermore, Yaḥyā b. ʿUqba is weak (ḍaʿīf) and accused of fabrications.

  • Al-Sirrī b. Muṣarrif is also not reliable according to hadith critics.

  • The presence of multiple weak narrators makes the isnād Muʿdal (perplexing), i.e. stacked weaknesses.

➡️ Verdict: Even more fragile than the second isnād — unreliable transmitters plus the same structural gap.

---

🕌 Hadith Criteria Applied

• Not Musnad: None of the chains reach the Prophet ﷺ with continuity; all halt at ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ghanm, a Successor, and do not claim Prophetic origin.

• Mostly Mursal/Munqaṭiʿ: Gaps between transmitters (especially Masrūq → Ibn Ghanm) break continuity.

• Muʿdal in parts: Consecutive missing or weak links (e.g. anonymous groups, or known fabricators).

• Historical Value: At best, they show the idea of such a pact circulating in later Kufan and Syrian scholarly circles, not that it originated in the 7th century.

---

✅ Conclusion

By the rules of hadith criticism, all three isnāds collapse:

• The first relies on anonymous authorities.

• The second is mursal, with Masrūq unable to link to Ibn Ghanm.

• The third is worse — weak narrators plus broken transmission.

Thus, none of Ibn al-Qayyim’s three versions can be considered ṣaḥīḥ or even ḥasan. They are structurally weak reports, unfit to ground legal obligations. Their very isnād forms betray a later Abbasid construction rather than a genuine policy from the era of ʿUmar.

---

📌 Ibn al-Qayyim’s Remark on the Shurūṭ ʿUmar

“The fame (shuhra) of these conditions makes isnād unnecessary, for the imams accepted them, cited them in their books, and used them as proof. The mention of the ʿUmarī conditions has never ceased from their tongues and in their books, and the caliphs enforced them after him and acted upon them.” 

🔍 Commentary

1. An Admission of Isnād Failure

   • Ibn al-Qayyim explicitly concedes: “shuhra substitutes for isnād.”

   • In hadith methodology, this is a red flag. If a report had a sound isnād, there would be no need to appeal to mere fame or widespread repetition.

   • Classical hadith science is clear: shuhra ≠ ṣaḥīḥ. Widespread citation only shows later acceptance, not original authenticity.

   ➡️ In other words: they couldn’t prove it through isnād, so they leaned on its later “notoriety.”

---

2. Legal “Reception History,” not Prophetic or ʿUmari Origin

   • Ibn al-Qayyim is really describing a post-facto consensus among jurists, not a continuous transmission from the 1st century AH.

   • What he calls “acceptance by the imams” reflects how Abbasid and later fuqahāʾ retrojected these conditions back to the Rashidun period to give them early legitimacy.

   • This is what Luke Yarbrough calls “back-projection”: jurists of the 9th–14th centuries systematized dhimmī laws and ascribed them to ʿUmar for authority.

   ➡️ Ibn al-Qayyim is not proving authenticity; he is proving juristic usage.

---

3. Circular Reasoning

   • His logic boils down to:

     • “We know the Pact of ʿUmar is authentic because it is famous and everyone accepts it.”

     • But why is it famous? Because jurists kept copying each other after the Abbasids began codifying humiliating clauses.

   • This is self-reinforcing tradition, not historical verification.

---

4. Contrast with Early Evidence

   • In the actual 1st/2nd century AH evidence (papyri, Syriac chronicles, Coptic documents), there is no trace of these humiliating conditions.

   • Instead, we find:

     • Christians still in high office under the Umayyads.

     • Churches being repaired.

     • Dhimmīs riding horses, wearing fine clothes, and acting freely.

   • The “conditions” only become textually fixed around the 9th–10th century, long after ʿUmar II.

---

✅ Conclusion

Ibn al-Qayyim’s statement is an indirect admission of weakness:

• He knows the isnāds don’t hold up (as we showed: all are mursal, munqaṭiʿ, or muʿḍal).

• So he shifts to notoriety (shuhra) as the replacement for isnād.

• This places the Pact in the category of juristic consensus-building, not authentic transmission.

In hadith terms: the Shurūṭ ʿUmar is not ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth, but rather mashhūr fiqhī — a legal fiction that gained traction because of its usefulness in an Abbasid world anxious about religious identity and minority control.

---

📊 Ibn al-Qayyim vs. Early Evidence

Ibn al-Qayyim’s Claims	What the Early Evidence Shows
“The Pact of ʿUmar is so famous that isnād is unnecessary; the imams accepted it and the caliphs enforced it.”	Fame ≠ authenticity. Hadith methodology requires isnād; mere “notoriety” is the refuge of weak reports. The earliest papyri and chronicles (7th–8th c.) do not mention these humiliating clauses.
Jurists across centuries cited the conditions in their books and applied them in law.	Juristic retrojection. Abbasid jurists codified humiliating dhimmī laws to serve a 3rd/9th-century agenda. These were then attributed back to ʿUmar to give them “sacred antiquity.”
The caliphs after ʿUmar acted on them continually.	Contradicted by practice. Under the Umayyads, Christians served as governors, scribes, and fiscal officers (e.g., papyri from Egypt; Yohannan bar Penkaye noting bishops on horseback under Muʿāwiya). Dhimmīs openly retained high social and economic roles.
Jurists used the Pact in courts and considered it binding.	But not until much later. Neither the Prophet’s time, nor the Rashidun, nor early Umayyads knew such a binding text. Its first crystallized forms appear only in the 3rd/9th century (Ibn Zabr, Khallāl).
Shuhra substitutes for isnād because everyone knows these conditions.	Circular reasoning. The text is “famous” only because later jurists endlessly copied one another. Early transmission chains are broken (munqaṭiʿ, muʿḍal), proving that “fame” is no replacement for sound isnād.

---

🏛️ Conclusion on Ibn al-Qayyim

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya (691–751 AH / 1292–1350 CE), writing in Damascus under the Mamluks, lived in a world scarred by the Mongol invasions and the final echoes of the Crusades. In that atmosphere of religious polarization, his Aḥkām Ahl al-Dhimma became a monumental attempt to gather, systematize, and defend the juristic restrictions on non-Muslims. But his method reveals more about Mamluk anxieties than about the Rashidun.

By admitting that isnād was unnecessary because of “fame”, Ibn al-Qayyim exposed the weakness of his evidence. His reliance on juristic consensus, rather than authentic transmission, shifts the Pact of ʿUmar from historical document to ideological construct. The earliest papyri, chronicles, and lived realities of the 7th–8th centuries flatly contradict the humiliating clauses. Christians served as scribes, tax officials, and even rode horses freely — practices Ibn al-Qayyim insists were forbidden from the time of ʿUmar.

Thus, Ibn al-Qayyim does not give us history of the 1st century AH, but rather the memory of the 9th–14th centuries, when Islamic jurists sought to sharpen confessional boundaries in response to external threats. His work is invaluable as a window into how medieval Muslim jurists remembered and reshaped the past — but as evidence for ʿUmar’s time, it collapses under isnād analysis and comparative historical sources.

👉 Thus, the “Pact of ʿUmar” is not an Umayyad or early caliphal document at all — but a powerful Abbasid-era invention, a tradition of humiliation retrojected into the foundational period to lend it sacred weight.

---

9. 🏛️ Rome & Persia in Disguise

The so-called Pact of ʿUmar does not spring from the raw soil of 7th-century Arabia, but from a much older and wider legal imagination. Its clauses reveal a dual parentage: the lawgiving father of Roman imperial codes and the stylizing mother of Persian courtly customs. The bans on building or repairing churches echo Justinianic decrees against Jews and heretics. The dress codes and restrictions on saddled riding recall the Sasanian class system, in which clothing and mounts visibly marked social rank. Even the humiliating gestures—forced to yield seats, step aside in streets, or wear distinctive patches—find their pedigree in late Roman anti-Jewish legislation, where public degradation was a legal instrument of religious supremacy. Far from being a 7th-century Arab innovation, the Shurūṭ reads as a patchwork of transplanted rules, repurposed by Abbasid jurists to project an image of piety, hierarchy, and absolute dominance over the dhimmīs.

The Shurūṭ ʿUmar is not a relic of the Prophet’s ﷺ age, nor of the first conquests, but a product of the imperial turn. Early Muslims, shaped by the simplicity of Arabia, shunned pomp: ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb entered Jerusalem in torn clothes and a single camel, rejecting Roman ceremony. Yet as the conquests expanded, Muslim rulers found themselves heirs to the empires of Rome and Persia, and inevitably absorbed their laws, hierarchies, and symbols of power.

Across antiquity, minorities lived as resident aliens — protected but inferior. The Akkadian ubārum, the Hebrew gēr, the Athenian metoikos, the Roman peregrinus, and the Arabian jār/mawlā/ḥalīf all denoted outsiders tolerated under strict limits. They could not own land, hold office, or marry into the citizen body. In Rome and Athens, their dress, speech, and social roles marked them as subordinate. Islam did not invent this system — it inherited and reframed it in religious terms.

From Rome, Muslims took bans on new churches, crosses, and public processions. From Persia, they absorbed the Sasanian class ethos: rigid status distinctions, clothing codes, and the “dress of baseness” (libās al-madhalla) for the lower orders. By the Abbasid era, jurists cast dhimmīs as a permanent inferior stratum, just as Persians had subdued peasants, and as Romans had restricted Jews. The Shurūṭ ʿUmar, then, was not born in Medina’s mosque, but in the shadow of Constantinople and Ctesiphon — a Perso-Roman legal garment, stitched with Qurʾānic thread.

---

9B.1 – Introduction & Context: The Voice of a Legal Fiction 🎭📜

This opening passage is, in many ways, the most revealing. From its very first lines, we encounter a document that makes no logical sense if placed in the 7th century. The problems are not merely stylistic; they are fundamental to its historical authenticity.

Text (Arabic):

رَوَى عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ غَنْمٍ قَالَ: كَتَبْنَا إِلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ حِينَ صَالَحَ نَصَارَى أَهْلِ الشَّامِ: بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ هَذَا كِتَابٌ لِعَبْدِ اللَّهِ عُمَرَ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ نَصَارَى مَدِينَةِ كَذَا، إِنَّكُمْ لَمَّا قَدِمْتُمْ عَلَيْنَا سَأَلْنَاكُمُ الْأَمَانَ لِأَنْفُسِنَا وَذَرَارِيَّنَا وَأَمْوَالِنَا وَأَهْلِ مِلَّتِنَا، وَشَرَطْنَا لَكُمْ عَلَى أَنْفُسِنَا...

Translation:

“ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ghanm narrated: We wrote to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (may God be pleased with him) when he made peace with the Christians of Syria:

‘In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. This is a letter to the servant of God, ʿUmar, Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of [a certain city]. When you came to us, we asked you for safety for ourselves, our offspring, our wealth, and the people of our religion. We have stipulated upon ourselves…’”

The most immediate absurdity is the voice and agency of the text. It is written as if the Christians themselves are the authors of their own humiliation charter, voluntarily drafting and presenting it to the caliph.

• ➡️ Historically Implausible: No conquered population in the chaotic aftermath of the 630s-640s would spontaneously compose such a detailed, self-debasing list of restrictions. Their goal was survival on the best terms possible, not the codification of their own inferiority.

• ➡️ A Juristic Fantasy: This framing is the mark of later Abbasid jurists projecting their ideal of a neatly ordered society backward in time. It transforms a hypothetical legal model into a "historical" event, making subordination appear voluntary and consensual.

🏛️ The Anachronistic Formulae

The language used is a dead giveaway for a later origin.

• “To the servant of God, ʿUmar, Commander of the Faithful” (kitāb li-ʿAbd Allāh ʿUmar amīr al-muʾminīn): This is the polished, formal rhetoric of the Abbasid chancery. The actual surrender agreements from the conquest period, as seen in papyri and early histories, are pragmatic and direct, focusing on specific amounts of tribute and guarantees of safety.

• “We have stipulated upon ourselves” (wa-sharaṭnā lakum ʿalā anfusinā): This phrase inverts the normal power dynamics of surrender. In reality, the victor dictates the terms; the defeated accept them. This fabricated voice makes the imposed restrictions seem like an act of self-regulation, a narrative tool to naturalize and legitimize dhimmi status as a choice.

🔍 The Suspicious Narrator

The invocation of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ghanm as the narrator is a clever but flawed attempt to lend authority.

• He was a known transmitter of religious and legal reports, not a documented official scribe or diplomat from ʿUmar's era.

• Using him creates a pseudo-isnād (chain of transmission), giving the document a veneer of reliability. However, as even later scholars like Ibn al-Qayyim admitted, the Pact's fame overshadowed its weak chain of transmission—a tacit acknowledgment that its historical foundations were shaky.

This introductory section is not a 7th-century eyewitness account. It is a juristic fiction, crafted in a later period (likely Abbasid) to provide a foundational "document" for the legal theory of dhimmitude.

➡️ It retrofits a top-down system of control with a bottom-up narrative of voluntary consent, thereby scripting the subordination of non-Muslims as an original, agreed-upon contract rather than a later imposition.

---

9B.2 – Religious Buildings & Worship: An Archaeological and Legal Rebuttal 🧱⚖️

This clause is one of the most historically damning to the claim of a 7th-century origin for the Shurūṭ ʿUmar. Its provisions are stark:

Text (Arabic):

أَنْ لَا نُحْدِثَ فِي مَدَائِنِنَا وَلَا فِيمَا حَوْلَهَا دَيْرًا وَلَا كَنِيسَةً وَلَا قَلِّيَةً وَلَا صَوْمَعَةَ رَاهِبٍ، وَلَا نُجَدِّدَ مَا خَرِبَ مِنْهَا وَلَا مَا كَانَ مُخْتَطًّا مِنْهَا فِي خِطَطِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فِي لَيْلٍ وَلَا نَهَارٍ، وَأَنْ نُوَسِّعَ أَبْوَابَهَا لِلْمَارَّةِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ.

Translation:

“We will not build in our towns or in their surroundings any monastery, church, hermitage, or monk’s cell. We will not restore any that has fallen into ruin, nor rebuild what once stood in Muslim urban areas. We will make the doors of our churches wide for passersby and wayfarers.”

🚫 The Archaeological Contradiction: A Thriving Christian Landscape

If this clause truly originated with Caliph ʿUmar in the 630s-640s, the archaeological record of the Levant would show a sudden halt in Christian construction. ➡️ The exact opposite is true.

• Ilkka Lindstedt notes the early Islamic conquests caused no mass destruction; continuity was the norm.

• Gideon Avni’s work in Palestine reveals thriving urban centers and flourishing construction well into the first Islamic century.

Concrete evidence that dismantles the clause's historicity:

• 🏗️ New Construction: Churches were founded after the conquest at Rihab (635 CE) and Humayma (mid-7th c.), and a central church was erected in Nessana (late 7th c.).

• ♻️ Active Renovation: Mosaic floors were laid in churches at Khirbet es-Samra (635 & 640 CE), and a church in Tamra was restored in 725 CE, with its inscription dated to the Islamic calendar (106 AH).

• 🏙️ Urban Integration: The newly founded Muslim city of Ramla had two churches and three synagogues by the early 8th century.

• 📈 Continuous Presence: Communities in Tiberias and Jericho maintained functioning religious buildings into the 9th–10th centuries.

➡️ Conclusion: The clause is in flat contradiction with the evidence. Christians were not merely tolerated; they were actively building and renovating their places of worship under Muslim rule.

🏛️ The True Origin: A Roman Import from Constantinople

The genesis of this clause lies not in Medina, but in the Theodosian Code. As shown by Amnon Linder, a law from 31 January 438 CE decrees:

• A ban on constructing new synagogues.

• Permission only to repair old ones threatening "immediate ruin."

• This was part of a package of anti-Jewish measures.

This Roman law, applicable to Palestina, is the direct template. The fact that Theodosius had to repeatedly re-issue the same decree is proof it was ineffective—a pattern that would repeat in Islamic history.

🤔 Deeper Logic: The Politics of Religious Supremacy

To a modern reader, a ban on repairing a collapsing roof seems absurd. But in the symbolic world of late antiquity, the logic was profound:

• ➡️ Architecture as Propaganda: Religious buildings were not neutral. They were public declarations of a faith's vitality and power. A new dome or a freshly painted wall was a claim to permanence and divine favor. Allowing rival communities to build anew was seen as granting them legitimacy and a competitive stake in the spiritual landscape.

• ➡️ The "Fossilization" Strategy: The rule "repair, but do not build new" was designed to freeze minority communities in time. They could exist, but only as fading relics of a past era, never as growing rivals. Their decaying buildings would serve as a constant, visible reminder of their subordinate status.

• ➡️ Preventing Symbolic Rivalry: The anxiety was about competition. For example, when the Patriarch of Jerusalem rebuilt the dome of the Holy Sepulchre in the 9th century, Muslim officials feared it would outshine the Dome of the Rock. The law's goal was to preemptively ensure the state's chosen faith dominated the skyline and the public imagination.

This was a policy of managed humiliation, designed to make theological supremacy a tangible, everyday reality.

🏕️ The Plausible Kernel: The Hospitality Clause

Amidst these anachronistic bans, one element fits the 7th-century conquest context:

“We will make the doors of our churches wide for passersby and wayfarers.”

In the early frontier society, Muslim soldiers, officials, and travelers were a mobile minority. Requiring Christian communities to offer hospitality and temporary shelter was a practical logistical measure, not a symbolic act of humiliation. It ensured safe passage and lodging in a land where the new ruling class lacked extensive infrastructure.

✅ Final Verdict

The building restrictions are a Roman echo, imported into later Abbasid juristic discourse. They are flatly contradicted by 7th and 8th-century archaeology. The only plausible part—the hospitality clause—reflects conquest-era practicalities.

Thus, this clause is not the voice of ʿUmar I, but the recycled rhetoric of Theodosius II’s Constantinople, repurposed centuries later to script a theory of dhimmi subordination that was more aspirational than actual in the early Islamic period.

9B.3 – Hospitality & Espionage: A Kernel of Conquest-Era Pragmatism 🛡️🍞

This clause stands in stark contrast to the anachronistic building restrictions. Its pragmatism, cultural specificity, and strategic necessity all point to a genuine origin in the early conquest period.

Text (Arabic):

وَأَنْ نُنْزِلَ مَنْ مَرَّ بِنَا مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ ثَلَاثَ لَيَالٍ نُطْعِمَهُمْ، وَلَا نَآوِيَ فِي كَنَائِسِنَا وَلَا فِي مَنَازِلِنَا جَاسُوسًا وَلَا نَكْتُمَهُ عَنِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ

Translation:

“That we shall host any Muslim who passes by us for three nights, providing them with food. We shall not harbor any spy in our churches or in our homes, nor shall we conceal him from the Muslims.”

🏜️ 1. The Sacred Duty of Hospitality (Ḍiyāfa)

The stipulation of three nights' lodging and food is not arbitrary; it is deeply rooted in the pre-Islamic Arabian ethic of ḍiyāfa (hospitality), a sacred duty essential for survival and honor in a harsh environment.

• ➡️ A Prophetic Parallel: This rule finds a direct echo in a foundational Islamic teaching. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: “Hospitality is for three days; what is beyond that is charity.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim). The exact numerical match is telling—it shows the clause is drawing on established, early Islamic ethical and legal norms.

• ➡️ Practical Logistics: For a mobile conquering army establishing control over vast new territories, this was a brilliant logistical solution. It ensured that soldiers, messengers, and officials traveling between garrisons had guaranteed access to food and shelter without the nascent state having to build a comprehensive support infrastructure. It effectively mobilized the local economy to support the new military apparatus.

🕵️ 2. The Strategic Imperative: Banning Espionage

The prohibition against harboring spies addresses the most acute vulnerability of the new Muslim rule: the constant threat of a Roman counter-offensive.

• ➡️ The Roman Fifth Column: Christian communities, with their enduring linguistic, familial, and ecclesiastical ties to Constantinople, were a potential intelligence network for the Roman Empire. This was not paranoia but realpolitik.

• ➡️ Churches as Strategic Hubs: The specific mention of churches is significant. Monasteries and churches often served as de facto communication centers, waystations, and repositories of local knowledge. Preventing them from becoming safe houses for enemy agents was a critical security measure.

🗣️ 3. The Demand for Active Cooperation

The clause goes beyond passive compliance ("shall not harbor") to demand active loyalty ("nor shall we conceal"). This obligated the local population to become participants in the security of the new order.

• ➡️ A Standard Conquest-Era Clause: This demand for intelligence cooperation is well-attested in other early surrender agreements recorded by historians like al-Ṭabarī and al-Balādhurī. In this context, it functioned as a litmus test for loyalty and a practical method to neutralize the Roman intelligence advantage.

✅ Historical Plausibility: Why This Clause Rings True

This clause possesses the "texture of authenticity" missing from others because it aligns perfectly with the needs of the 7th century:

• ➡️ Strategic Necessity: It directly addresses the logistical and security challenges of a conquering power.

• ➡️ Cultural Resonance: It is grounded in specific Arabian and early Islamic customs, not later abstract jurisprudence.

• ➡️ Comparative Evidence: Similar stipulations appear in other early treaties, confirming it was a standard component of amān (safe-conduct) agreements.

➡️ Conclusion: A Realistic Condition for Coexistence

Unlike the implausible and historically contradicted bans on church construction, the hospitality and espionage clause belongs firmly to the world of the 630s–650s.

It reflects not a later agenda of humiliation, but the pragmatic realities of conquest: securing supply lines and ensuring the loyalty of a new subject population. Christians were cast in the roles of guarantors of Muslim security and facilitators of their mobility—a far cry from the self-abasing authors of their own subordination found in the Pact's introduction. This is the voice of a genuine conquest-era agreement.

---

9B.4 – Education & Conversion: Policing Boundaries in a Changing World 🚫📖➡️☪️

This clause is a fascinating hybrid, containing elements that are both deeply anachronistic and strikingly authentic. It reveals how later jurists projected their own societal anxieties onto the conquest era, while also preserving a core concern from that earlier time.

Text (Arabic):

وَلَا نُعَلِّمَ أَوْلَادَنَا الْقُرْآنَ وَلَا نُظْهِرَ شَرْعَنَا وَلَا نَدْعُوَ إِلَيْهِ أَحَدًا، وَلَا نَمْنَعَ أَحَدًا مِنْ ذَوِي قَرَابَاتِنَا الدُّخُولَ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ إِنْ أَرَادَهُ

Translation:

“That we shall not teach our children the Qurʾān, nor shall we publicly display our law or call others to it. We shall not prevent any of our relatives from embracing Islam if he desires it.”

1. The Anachronistic Ban: "We shall not teach our children the Qurʾān"

This is the clause that most clearly betrays a later, Abbasid-era origin. The very notion is absurd for the 7th century.

• ➡️ The 7th-Century Reality: In the immediate aftermath of the conquests, the Qurʾān was the sacred text of the small Arab-Muslim ruling elite. It was compiled orally and in writing primarily for Muslims. The idea that Christian communities, struggling to adapt to new rulers, would be clamoring to teach their children the Qurʾān is historically illogical. Their educational focus would have been on Syriac, Greek, and their own religious texts.

• ➡️ The 9th-Century Context: By the Abbasid period, Arabic had become the lingua franca of administration, high culture, and intellectual life. For Christians to advance in society, fluency in Arabic was essential. Since the Qurʾān was the pinnacle of Arabic eloquence and a key text in elementary education, some Christian families likely sought to teach it to their children for linguistic and social advancement, not religious conversion.

• ➡️ The Juristic Fear: This practical assimilation terrified later jurists. Their entire legal system was built on maintaining clear boundaries between the Muslim ruling class and the protected dhimmi communities. If Christians could master the Qurʾān, a primary symbol of Muslim identity, those boundaries would blur. This clause is a reactionary measure, projected into the past, to prevent the cultural assimilation that was already underway. As Milka Levy-Rubin notes, it directly mirrors Roman laws that forbade Jews from teaching their scriptures to Christians, simply inverting the power dynamic.

2. The Borrowed Restriction: "Nor shall we publicly display our law or call others to it"

This prohibition against public religious display and proselytism is a direct import from earlier imperial legal codes.

• ➡️ The Roman & Sasanian Blueprint: Roman law consistently forbade Jews from proselytizing or publicly parading their rituals in a way that might challenge Christian supremacy. The Sasanians similarly confined minority worship to private spaces. This clause is not a product of early Islamic insecurity but a classic tool of imperial control: tolerate private belief, but forbid any public challenge to the state religion's hegemony.

• ➡️ The 7th-Century Irrelevance: For the early Muslim conquerors, this was a low priority. The Muslim community was physically and socially segregated in new garrison cities (amṣār). They were not threatened by Christian public processions in old cities like Damascus or Edessa. This rule reflects the anxieties of a later period when Muslims and non-Muslims were fully integrated in urban centers like Abbasid Baghdad, and the public space became a contested arena for religious visibility.

3. The Authentic Core: "We shall not prevent any of our relatives from embracing Islam"

This final stipulation carries the unmistakable ring of conquest-era authenticity.

• ➡️ The Central 7th-Century Preoccupation: The single greatest threat to the nascent Muslim polity was demographic absorption. A tiny ruling elite governing vast non-Muslim populations faced existential risks. The primary engine of growth was conversion. However, conversion was a social rupture; family and communal pressure were the most powerful brakes on this process.

• ➡️ Inverting the Roman Precedent: Under Roman rule, converting from Christianity to Judaism or paganism was a capital offense, often enforced by the community itself. Early Islamic rule strategically inverted this logic. It made the prevention of conversion—the use of social or familial coercion to stop a relative from embracing Islam—a violation of the community's protected status. This struck directly at the mechanisms communities used to maintain their integrity.

• ➡️ Pragmatic and Foundational: This was not about humiliating Christians, but about ensuring the survival and expansion of the Muslim state. It was a pragmatic, enforceable, and critically necessary measure for the 7th-century context, addressing the most sensitive point of contact between the conquering minority and the conquered majority.

✅ Synthesis & Conclusion: A Clause of Two Eras

This single article of the Pact is a palimpsest, written over with the concerns of different centuries.

• The prohibitions on teaching the Qurʾān and public religious display are Abbasid-era inventions. They are the voice of later jurists, anxious about maintaining communal boundaries in a integrated, Arabic-speaking empire, and borrowing legal concepts from the Roman and Sasanian past.

• The prohibition on preventing conversion is the authentic voice of the 7th-century conquest. It reflects the pragmatic, strategic necessity of facilitating the growth of the Muslim community against the powerful inertia of entrenched social and religious structures.

➡️ Final Verdict: Clause 9B.4 is not a unitary document from the age of ʿUmar. It is a composite text that reveals how later Islamic jurisprudence preserved a kernel of genuine conquest-era policy while layering it with new restrictions designed to address the evolving challenges of a mature, multi-confessional empire.

---

9B.5 – Social Deference: The Master Key to the Pact's True Origin 👑➡️🧎

This single clause is the master key that unlocks the entire mystery of the Pact of ʿUmar. It reveals the document's true origin not in the pragmatic world of the 7th-century conquests, but in the ceremonial court culture of the Abbasid Empire.

Text (Arabic):

وَأَنْ نُوَقِّرَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَنَقُومَ لَهُمْ مِنْ مَجَالِسِنَا إِذَا أَرَادُوا الْجُلُوسَ

Translation:

“That we shall honor the Muslims and rise from our seats when they wish to sit.”

🏛️ 1. The Sasanian Blueprint: A Culture of Coded Hierarchy

This stipulation is unmistakably Persian in spirit and origin, not Arabian. Its logic is born from the Sasanian imperial tradition, where society was a visible hierarchy and status was performed through ritualized deference.

• ➡️ The "Culture of Ranks": In Sasanian courts, seating was not a matter of comfort but of ceremonial rank. The gaḥnamag ("Book of Ranks") and sources like Xenophon's Cyropaedia describe a world where nobles sat on cushions (martaba) arranged by status, and inferiors were expected to rise or yield their place to superiors.

• ➡️ Space as Symbol: Public space was a stage for this hierarchy. Lower classes were required to step aside on roadways to let their betters pass. This was a society where physical deference was the primary language of social inequality.

🕌 2. The Abbasid Adoption: From Persian Court to Islamic Law

When the Abbasids established their caliphate in Baghdad, they did not just conquer a territory; they inherited and absorbed an entire imperial administrative and cultural machinery.

• ➡️ The Ceremonial Caliphate: Under caliphs like al-Muʿtaṣim and al-Mutawakkil, the Sasanian culture of ceremonial seating was fully integrated into the Abbasid court. al-Ṭabarī describes elaborate protocols where proximity to the caliph and the number of cushions one sat on were precise indicators of rank.

• ➡️ The Downward Diffusion of Humiliation: This courtly etiquette was then weaponized and applied to the dhimmi populations. Caliph al-Mutawakkil's infamous 9th-century "Edict of Humiliation" explicitly decreed that Christians and Jews must use distinctive saddles, wear yellow badges, and—crucially—not occupy central seats in assemblies. Jurists like al-Shāfiʿī began to argue that dhimmis should not walk in the middle of the road. The clause "rise from our seats" is the direct, textual echo of this Abbasid policy.

❓ 3. The 7th-Century Anachronism: Why This Clause Could Not Be Original

Placing this clause in the era of Caliph ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb is a profound historical absurdity.

• ➡️ A Question of Priorities: In the 630s-640s, the Muslim rulers were a tiny military elite governing vast, ancient Christian populations. Their immediate concerns were tax collection, military security, and political stability. Forcing Christians to stand up in public was not a strategic priority; it was a recipe for unnecessary resentment and unrest.

• ➡️ Absence of Evidence: No early papyri, treaties, or historical accounts from the conquest period contain any such stipulation. The genuine agreements focused on tribute, protection of property, and non-interference in worship—the practical mechanics of rule.

🎭 4. The Underlying Logic: The Theater of Power

So, what was the purpose of this clause in its true 9th-century context? It was not about governance, but about psychology and symbolism.

• ➡️ Enacting Inferiority: The goal was to make the theoretical inferiority of the dhimmi a tangible, daily, and humiliating reality. Every time a Christian had to stand for a Muslim, the political and social hierarchy was physically enacted and reinforced.

• ➡️ The "Grand Theater of Inequality": This was the theater of power. It transformed abstract legal status into an embodied experience, ensuring that non-Muslims were constantly reminded of their place in the Abbasid social order.

✅ CONCLUSION: THE PACT EXPLAINED

This single clause on social deference does not just stand alone; it provides the definitive lens through which to view the entire Pact of ʿUmar.

• The anachronistic bans on building churches and teaching the Qur'an are not random acts of bigotry. They are part of the same Abbasid project: to create rigid, visible boundaries between a now-hegemonic Muslim majority and its subject populations, using recycled Roman and Sasanian legal models.

• The genuine conquest-era clauses (like hospitality and non-interference with conversion) were preserved but recontextualized. They were embedded within this new framework of systemic humiliation, their original pragmatism overshadowed by a later ideology of subordination.

➡️ The Final Verdict:

The Pact of ʿUmar is not the foundational treaty of Islamic rule. It is a later, synthetic document, compiled by Abbasid jurists who:

1. Preserved a kernel of authentic 7th-century stipulations.

2. Injected borrowed restrictions from Roman and Sasanian law.

3. Crowned the entire edifice with the ceremonial logic of Sasanian hierarchy to serve the needs of a mature, multi-ethnic empire obsessed with symbolic order.

The command to "rise from our seats" is the smoking gun. It is the voice not of ʿUmar the Conqueror, but of al-Mutawakkil the Ceremonialist, revealing the Pact for what it truly is: an Abbasid-era blueprint for social control, retroactively attributed to Islam's founding generation to grant it an unassailable authority.

9B.6 – Dress, Names & Imitation: The Architecture of Apartheid 👘➡️🚫

This clause is a masterclass in using culture as a weapon. It reveals a systematic project to enforce social segregation, rooted not in the practical needs of the 7th century, but in the imperial anxieties of the Abbasid era.

Text:

وَلَا نَتَشَبَّهُ بِهِمْ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْ لِبَاسِهِمْ فِي قَلَنْسُوَةٍ وَلَا عِمَامَةٍ وَلَا نَعْلَيْنِ وَلَا فَرْقِ شَعْرٍ، وَلَا نَتَكَلَّمُ بِكَلَامِهِمْ وَلَا نَتَكَنَّى بِكُنَاهُمْ

Translation:

“We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims in any of their clothing — not caps, turbans, shoes, or hairstyles. We shall not speak as they do, nor adopt their forms of address (kunyas).”

1. The Sasanian Caste System: The Original Blueprint

As Milka Levy-Rubin definitively shows, the very concept of ghiyār (differentiating marks) is a direct import from the Sasanian Persian class system.

• ➡️ A Society in Uniform: In pre-Islamic Iran, your clothing, headgear, and even shoe color were legally mandated indicators of your social class. The qalansuwa (cap), for instance, was a precise status symbol, with noble families wearing jeweled versions worth a fortune. This was a society where, as al-Jahshiyārī records, "one’s trade and rank could be recognized at a glance."

• ➡️ From Class to Creed: The Abbasid caliphate, having inherited the Persian bureaucratic machinery, simply mapped this Sasanian model of caste distinction onto religious identity. Muslims became the new nobility; dhimmis were assigned the role of the base class, complete with a "uniform of humiliation." Caliph al-Mutawakkil's infamous decree forcing Christians and Jews to wear yellow hoods is the literal enactment of this borrowed logic.

2. The Semiotics of Humiliation: Why Yellow?

The choice of yellow was not arbitrary; it was a calculated semiotic attack drawing on deep-seated cultural associations.

• ➡️ The Color of Stigma: In pre-Islamic Arabian culture, yellow was associated with sickness, effeminacy, and servitude. The Kitāb al-Muwaššā links it to singing girls and servants. A ḥadīth in al-Tirmidhī even records the Prophet ﷺ discouraging men from wearing saffron-yellow garments.

• ➡️ A Double Insult: Forcing dhimmis into yellow was thus a masterstroke of ideological messaging. It combined:

  • The Persian concept of visually marking the lower class.

  • The Arab cultural stigma of yellow as a color of weakness and dishonor.
    This was social engineering designed to brand inferiority onto the body.

3. The Politics of the Mundane: Turbans, Shoes, and Language

Every item in this clause was a politicized symbol in the Abbasid world.

• ➡️ The Turban (ʿImāma): By the 9th century, the turban had evolved from practical headwear into the quintessential public marker of a Muslim male. Banning it for non-Muslims carved a visible, daily boundary in the urban landscape.

• ➡️ The Kunya (Honorific): The kunya (e.g., Abū Ahmad, "Father of Ahmad") was a fundamental Arab honorific denoting respect and social maturity. Denying it to dhimmis was a way of denying them social adulthood and dignity. This is pure Abbasid court ideology, where the right to a kunya was itself a privilege controlled by the caliph.

4. The Grand Synthesis: Roman, Persian, and Arab Traditions

This was not an isolated Islamic invention but the culmination of late antique imperial practice.

• ➡️ The Roman Precedent: The Roman Empire had fully absorbed Persian ceremonial pomp. Emperors like Justinian issued sumptuary laws, reserving purple silk and specific jewels for the imperial court. The ṭirāz (inscribed embroidered band) on robes, later adopted by caliphs, has its origins in this Roman-imperial context.

• ➡️ The Abbasid Fusion: The Abbasid caliphate became the heir to both traditions. It fused:

  • Sasanian bureaucracy and caste logic.

  • Roman imperial ceremony and sumptuary laws.

  • Arab tribal concepts of honor and language.
    The dress code clause is the product of this triple heritage, creating a uniquely comprehensive system of social apartheid.

5. The 7th-Century Impossibility: A Revealing Anachronism

Placing these rules in the time of Caliph ʿUmar is historically nonsensical.

• ➡️ Pragmatism vs. Pomp: The early Muslim rulers were noted for their simplicity and pragmatism. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb entered Jerusalem on a camel, wearing simple clothes. His focus was on taxation and security, not sartorial segregation.

• ➡️ Who Was Imitating Whom? In the 7th century, the recently arrived Arab Muslims were a minority. The cultural pressure was largely in one direction: Arabs were assimilating into the sophisticated Greco-Roman and Persian cultures of the conquered lands. The idea that a vast, established Christian population was desperate to imitate the dress of the new Arab ruling class is frankly absurd. The anxiety flowed the other way.

✅ CONCLUSION: The Mirror of Abbasid Insecurity

Clause 9B.6 is not a relic from the conquests. It is a mirror reflecting the anxieties of the 9th-century Abbasid Empire.

• By this time, Islam was the dominant faith, and Muslims were the majority.

• The old cultural boundaries had blurred through centuries of interaction and conversion.

• The ruling elite, now fully immersed in Persian-style imperial pomp, felt the need to reassert a visible hierarchy.

This clause is the product of that insecurity. It is a reactionary measure, projecting a fantasy of rigid, visible order onto a past that was, in reality, far more fluid and pragmatic.

➡️ Final Verdict: The dress and language codes are the clearest evidence that the Pact of ʿUmar is an Abbasid-era document. It seeks to solve a 9th-century problem—maintaining a Muslim elite identity in a blended society—by inventing a 7th-century solution that never existed. It is the voice of a mature empire constructing its own mythologized past

---

9B.7 – Weapons & Horses: The Symbolic Disarmament of a Subject Class ⚔️➡️🚫🐎

This clause is not about practical disarmament; it is a ceremonial act of social reclassification. It strips non-Muslims of the universal late-antique symbols of nobility and political standing, revealing its true origin in the status-obsessed court culture of the Abbasid Empire.

Text:

وَلَا نَرْكَبُ بِالسُّرُوجِ، وَلَا نَتَقَلَّدُ بِالسُّيُوفِ وَلَا نَتَّخِذُ شَيْئًا مِنَ السِّلَاحِ وَلَا نَحْمِلُهُ مَعَنَا

Translation:

“We shall not ride with saddles, nor gird ourselves with swords, nor take up any weapon, nor carry it with us.”

1. The Sasanian Ethos: The Horse and Sword as Insignia of Nobility

In the Persian imperial tradition, the symbols of martial power were inseparable from the legal and social definition of the noble class.

• ➡️ The Equestrian Elite: The very word for horseman (aswār) was synonymous with "knight" or "nobleman." To be on foot was to be a commoner. The saddle (sarj), especially an ornate, jeweled one, was a prestige object that visually declared one's rank. As al-Jahshiyārī records, the right to ride certain types of horses was a legally restricted privilege in Sasanian times.

• ➡️ The Girded Sword: Similarly, girding a sword or dagger was not merely carrying a tool; it was a public performance of elite male status. From the Achaemenids to the Sasanians, the nobleman's attire was incomplete without his weapon. This was a culture where the highest honor from the king was the gift of a horse with a golden bridle.

2. The Abbasid Adoption: Weaponry as Courtly Theater

The Abbasid caliphs did not just conquer an empire; they staged it. They fully absorbed this Persian ceremonial logic and made it their own.

• ➡️ The Spectacle of Sovereignty: Under caliphs like al-Muqtadir, the court was a theater of power. Soldiers were arrayed in magnificent ranks on horses with gold- and silver-studded saddles. The right to ride a saddled horse into the palace precincts was a highly guarded privilege, a visible enactment of one's proximity to the caliph.

• ➡️ The Logic of Exclusion: In this context, banning dhimmis from saddles and swords was not about preventing rebellion. It was a symbolic castration, a permanent public declaration that they were excluded from the ruling class. Forcing them to use pack-saddles (riḥāl) or ride mules was a deliberate act of staging their humiliation in the daily life of the city.

3. The Roman Contrast: A Different Logic of Control

It is crucial to distinguish this from Roman weapon laws.

• ➡️ Security vs. Status: Roman emperors like Justinian banned the private production and bearing of arms to maintain the state's monopoly on violence. This was a pragmatic security measure aimed at preventing insurrection and controlling powerful families.

• ➡️ Humiliation vs. Order: The Abbasid clause has a different goal. Its aim is not just to disarm, but to humiliate and visibly relegate. It uses the same tools—control of weapons—but for the purpose of enacting a social hierarchy.

4. The 7th-Century Impossibility: Allies, Not Subjects

Placing this clause in the era of the Rashidun caliphs is historically indefensible. The reality of the early conquests was the exact opposite.

• ➡️ A Partnership of Necessity: The Muslim armies were a tiny ruling elite governing vast non-Muslim populations. They relied heavily on local Christian and Jewish communities for administration, tax collection, and local defense. Treaties preserved by al-Balādhurī show Christian villages pledged to guard mountain passes and assist Muslim armies—a clear indication they were expected to bear arms.

• ➡️ The Smoking Gun: A Christian Bishop's Lament: The Syriac chronicler Yohannan bar Penkāyē, writing in 687 CE, provides devastating evidence against this clause. He laments the worldliness of Christian bishops who, under Muslim rule, "process on horses and mules... assume power and gain strength... from secular rulers."

  • ➡️ This single testimony shatters the Abbasid fiction. It proves that decades after the conquest, Christian clergy were not only riding horses but were doing so as a public display of their entrenched political power within the new Islamic order. They were partners in rule, not a disarmed underclass.

✅ CONCLUSION: The Theater of Power

Clause 9B.7 is perhaps the clearest example of the Pact of ʿUmar as an Abbasid-era fabrication.

• In the 7th century, the Rashidun and Umayyads were pragmatic consolidators who needed the cooperation and military support of their non-Muslim subjects. The image of a Christian bishop processing on horseback, backed by Muslim authority, is the true picture of that era.

• In the 9th century, the Abbasids were imperial dramatists ruling a mature, Muslim-majority empire. The need was no longer for partners, but for a clear, visible hierarchy that constantly reaffirmed Muslim supremacy.

➡️ Final Verdict: The ban on saddles and swords is not a security measure from the battlefield. It is a status performance from the court. It reveals the Pact as a document designed to solve a 9th-century problem—how to visually enforce the inferiority of non-Muslims in a blended society—by inventing a 7th-century law that would have been not only unnecessary but counterproductive to the very survival of the early Islamic state.

---

9B.8 – Seals & Wine: The Monopoly on Symbols and Morality 🏛️➡️🚫📜🍷

This combined clause targets two fundamental pillars of social power: the bureaucratic authority represented by the seal and the economic and social life centered around wine. Its true purpose is to enact a comprehensive social re-ordering, reserving the symbols of sovereignty and moral high ground for the Muslim ruling class.

Text (Arabic):

وَلَا نَنْقِشُ عَلَى خَوَاتِمِنَا بِالْعَرَبِيَّةِ وَلَا نَبِيعُ الْخُمُورَ

Translation:

“We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our signet-rings, nor shall we sell wine.”

🏛️ Part 1: The Seal - Monopolizing the Symbols of Authority

From the ancient Near East to the caliphal courts, the signet-ring (khatam) was far more than jewelry; it was an instrument of sovereignty.

• ➡️ The Emblem of Delegated Power: In the Biblical tradition, Pharaoh gives Joseph his signet ring to confer vice-regal authority (Genesis 41:42). In Esther, a decree sealed with the king's ring "cannot be revoked." This tradition continued in Roman and Sasanian diplomacy, where seals authenticated treaties and commands.

• ➡️ Islam's Adoption of the Seal: The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ himself adopted a seal bearing the inscription "Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh" for correspondence with foreign rulers, recognizing its universal language of authority. The early caliphs continued this, and under the Abbasids, the official seal became a tightly controlled symbol of the state's bureaucratic power, housed in the dīwān al-rasāʾil.

• ➡️ The Logic of the Ban: Forbidding dhimmis from using Arabic on their seals was a strategic denial of bureaucratic legitimacy. Arabic was the language of the Qur'an, the state, and the ruling elite. Allowing non-Muslims to inscribe it on their seals would grant them a semblance of participation in that sovereign power. This clause ensures that the visual and administrative language of authority remains an exclusive Muslim monopoly.

🍷 Part 2: Wine - Legislating a Moral Hierarchy

While the Qur'ān clearly forbids wine (khamr) for Muslims, the historical reality of the early Islamic economy was one of pragmatic tolerance.

• ➡️ The 7th-Century Reality: As evidenced by Egyptian papyri studied by Petra Sijpesteijn, the early Islamic state actively requisitioned wine, grapes, and raisins for the army and even for the caliph's own household. Monasteries, the primary wine producers, paid taxes in wine. An early Arabic commercial letter even records a Muslim trading in wine. Banning its sale would have shattered the economic foundation of the newly conquered provinces.

• ➡️ The Abbasid Transformation: By the 9th century, the context had shifted. The Abbasid state, now firmly established, embarked on a project of codifying dhimmi subordination. The ban on selling wine was weaponized from a personal religious prohibition into a public marker of inferiority. It was no longer (only) about piety; it was about stripping dhimmis of a major source of economic and social influence and stigmatizing their commerce as inherently impure. This created a moral hierarchy: Muslims held the pure, sober high ground, while dhimmis were associated with the corrupting trade of intoxicants.

🔍 The Common Thread: Abbasid Social Engineering

Individually, these clauses are telling; together, they are conclusive.

• ➡️ The 7th-Century Impossibility: In the Rashidun and Umayyad eras, the state relied on Christian scribes who used Greek and Coptic seals and tolerated a wine trade that funded its operations. The Syriac chronicler Yohannan bar Penkāyē describes Christian bishops in the late 7th century riding with entourages and wielding power—a picture incompatible with a community stripped of bureaucratic identity and economic standing.

• ➡️ The 9th-Century Logic: These clauses only make sense in the mature, bureaucratic, and ideologically-driven Abbasid Caliphate. Here, Arabic was the unchallenged language of God and government, and the state sought to publicly enforce a social order based on religious hierarchy.

✅ CONCLUSION: The Architecture of Supremacy

The combination of the seal and wine clauses reveals the Pact of ʿUmar as a blueprint for systemic social apartheid.

1. It severs dhimmis from the symbols of political and bureaucratic power (the Arabic seal).

2. It severs them from a major source of economic and social influence (the wine trade), while simultaneously assigning them a stigmatized moral status.

This is not the pragmatic policy of 7th-century conquerors who needed their subjects' cooperation. It is the ideological project of 9th-century rulers building a society where the superiority of the ruling faith was constantly reaffirmed through law, commerce, and the very script one was permitted to use. These clauses are the voice of the Abbasid chancery, not the camp of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.

9B.10 – Markers of Humiliation: The Body as a Canvas for Political Theology 🧑‍🎨➡️🧎

This clause is the culmination of the entire Pact. It moves beyond regulating buildings or commerce to inscribing the status of the dhimmi directly onto the human body itself. It is a systematic program of ritualized inferiority, designed to make subordination inescapable, visible, and permanent.

Text (Arabic):

وَأَنْ نَجُزَّ مُقَدَّمَ رُءُوسِنَا وَنَلْزَمَ زِينَتَنَا حَيْثُمَا كُنَّا، وَأَنْ نَشُدَّ الزَّنَانِيرَ عَلَى أَوْسَاطِنَا وَلَا نُظْهِرَ صُلْبَانَنَا

Translation:

“That we shall shave the fronts of our heads, adhere to our distinctive dress wherever we may be, wear zunnār-belts around our waists, and not display crosses.”

1. The Shaved Forelock: Branding the "Perpetual Captive" 💇‍♂️➡️⛓️

The command to shave the forelock (jazz muqaddam al-ruʾūs) is the most psychologically profound element. It is not a mere haircut; it is a ritual brand of captivity drawn from deep Arabian and Near Eastern traditions.

• ➡️ The Pre-Islamic "Receipt of Mercy": In the "Days of the Arabs" (Ayyām al-ʿArab), a victor who spared a captive's life would often cut his forelock. This act created a life-long debt. The shorn forelock was a tangible receipt of mercy, a constant reminder that the captive's existence was a loan from his conqueror. Poet al-Ḥuṭayʾa, spared by Zayd al-Hayl, repaid this debt with panegyric poetry—his life was literally exchanged for words of praise.

• ➡️ Qurʾānic Resonance: The Qurʾān itself seizes upon this symbolism, stating God will seize the sinner "by the forelock — a lying, sinful forelock" (Q. 96:15–16). The forelock is thus the bodily seat of shame and subjugation.

• ➡️ The Abbasid Innovation: The genius—and brutality—of the Abbasid jurists was to institutionalize this wartime ritual into a peacetime policy. By forcing all dhimmis to shave their forelocks, they transformed an entire population into "perpetual captives" (muqaṣṣaṣ). Their very bodies declared: "Your life is not a right, but a conditional grant from the Muslim polity, and your debt of gratitude is eternal." This was the ultimate psychological weapon, creating a master-subject relationship etched into flesh and bone.

🚫 Dark Logic: This was not about security; it was about owning the narrative of mercy. It forced non-Muslims to physically advertise that they lived by Muslim sufferance, transforming a political reality into an inescapable personal identity.

2. The Zunnār Belt: The Inversion of the Sacred 🔄📿➡️🧶

The zunnār (from Greek zōnarion) underwent a deliberate and cynical transformation from a sacred girdle to a badge of shame.

• ➡️ Sacred Origins: Across traditions, the girdle was a symbol of spiritual readiness and purity.

  • Zoroastrian: The kustīg was a sacred belt donned in prayer.

  • Jewish: The ḥamyānā was a prayer belt accompanied by blessings.

  • Christian: Monastics wore a belt as a sign of chastity and humility.

• ➡️ Abbasid Perversion: The Abbasid state, under caliphs like al-Mutawakkil, systematically inverted this symbol. They mandated that dhimmis wear a distinctive, often coarse, zunnār. Meanwhile, Muslim officials wore the minṭāq or kamar-band—a jeweled belt of honor and authority.

  • Muslims = girded with the belt of sovereignty.

  • Dhimmis = bound with the rope of servitude.

🚫 Dark Logic: This was a symbolic castration of rival faiths. It took a potent symbol of their spiritual devotion and re-engineered it into a public mark of their social disgrace, ensuring that even an act of personal piety became a moment of public humiliation.

3. Distinctive Dress & Hidden Crosses: The Erasure of Public Faith 👘➡️🚫✝️

The command to "adhere to our distinctive dress wherever we may be" and to hide crosses aimed to erase non-Muslims from the public sphere as equals.

• ➡️ The Panopticon of Stigma: "Wherever we may be" meant there was no refuge. In the market, on the road, in the fields—one's subordinate status was always visible. This created a social panopticon where the dhimmi was constantly aware of being watched and categorized.

• ➡️ The Vanishing Cross: The cross was the ultimate symbol of Christian imperial power, harking back to the labarum of Constantine. Forcing it from public view was not just about avoiding offense; it was a calculated erasure of a rival sovereignty. Christian processions, which mimicked royal and military parades, were stripped of their banners and public symbols. The public square was to be a uniquely Islamic theater, and the crosses that once dominated the skyline of the Eastern Roman Empire had to vanish.

🚫 Dark Logic: This was cultural conquest through visibility management. It sought to create a public space that was visually and symbolically Muslim, forcing other religions into the private and the peripheral. It declared that while they could exist, they could never compete.

✅ CONCLUSION: The Anthropology of Conquest

Clause 9B.10 is the cornerstone of the Abbasid project in the Pact of ʿUmar. It reveals a shift from the pragmatic coexistence of the 7th century to the ideological subjugation of the 9th.

• In the 7th Century, the Muslim rulers were a minority focused on stability and revenue. Enforcing such humiliating codes would have been counterproductive and dangerous.

• In the 9th Century, the Abbasid caliphate, infused with Persian court culture and ruling a Muslim-majority empire, used these laws as tools of social engineering.

➡️ The Ultimate Dark Logic: The goal was to create a living hierarchy. Dhimmis were to be integrated into the empire not as partners, but as permanent, walking reminders of Muslim supremacy. Their shaved forelocks, coarse belts, and distinctive clothing made the abstract concept of dhimmi status terrifyingly concrete. It was a system designed to break the spirit of entire communities, not through occasional violence, but through the slow, constant, and inescapable drip of daily humiliation. This was the true "Madness" Milka Levy-Rubin identified—the transformation of free peoples into a legally defined class of ritual subordinates.

9B.11 – The Sound of Silence & The Boundaries of Space: Enforcing a Muslim-Centric Universe 🔔➡️🤫🏠➡️🚫

This clause represents the ultimate refinement of the dhimmi code. It moves beyond regulating physical appearance to controlling the very sensory and spatial experience of society. Its goal is to create a public realm where Islamic supremacy is not just seen, but heard and felt, transforming every Muslim, regardless of status, into a symbolic sovereign.

Text (Arabic):

وَكَتَبْنَا فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْ طُرُقِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَلَا أَسْوَاقِهِمْ، وَلَا نَضْرِبُ نَوَاقِيسَنَا فِي كَنَائِسِنَا إِلَّا ضَرْبًا خَفِيفًا وَلَا نَرْفَعُ أَصْوَاتَنَا بِالْقِرَاءَةِ فِي كَنَائِسِنَا فِي حَضْرَةِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَلَا نَرْفَعُ أَصْوَاتَنَا مَعَ مَوْتَانَا وَلَا نُظْهِرُ النِّيرَانَ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْ طُرُقِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَلَا أَسْوَاقِهِمْ، وَلَا نَجَاوِزُهُمْ بِمَوْتَانَا وَلَا نَتَّخِذُ مِنَ الرَّقِيقِ مَا جَرَى عَلَيْهِ سِهَامُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَلَا نَطَّلِعُ عَلَى مَنَازِلِهِمْ.

Translation:

“We shall not inscribe writings in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall not strike our church bells except quietly inside. We shall not raise our voices in prayer or chanting in the presence of Muslims. We shall not raise our voices at funerals. We shall not display fire in Muslim roads or markets. We shall not carry our dead through the streets of the Muslims. We shall not acquire slaves taken in Muslim raids (those upon whom the arrows of the Muslims have fallen), nor enter their houses without permission.”

🎭 Part 1: The Sensory Hierarchy - Light, Sound, and Silence

This section establishes a pecking order of the senses in public space, where Muslim expressions are dominant and dhimmi expressions must be suppressed.

• ➡️ The Monopoly of Public Sound:

  • Bells vs. Adhan: The command to muffle church bells (nawāqīs) ensures the Muslim call to prayer (adhan) remains the unchallenged sovereign sound of the city. Loud Christian prayer or chanting in the presence of a Muslim is framed as an act of lèse-majesté—a direct challenge to the auditory dominance of Islam.

  • Silent Grief: Even at funerals, the most profound moment of communal grief, dhimmis must mourn in silence. This denies them the catharsis of loud lamentation, a practice deep-rooted in Near Eastern tradition, and forces their deepest sorrows into the private, hidden realm.

• ➡️ The Monopoly of Public Light:
  The ban on displaying "fire" (lamps, torches, processional candles) in public streets is profoundly symbolic. In late antiquity, light was a mark of sovereignty. Imperial and religious processions used light to signify authority and divine favor. By extinguishing dhimmi lights in public, the Abbasid state monopolized the visual spectacle of power, ensuring the night sky and public squares were illuminated only by the symbols of Islam.

• ➡️ The Erasure of Public Writing:
  The prohibition on inscribing writings in Muslim spaces is the logical extension of the ban on Arabic seals. It prevents dhimmis from leaving any permanent mark of their identity or authority in the shared environment. The public sphere is to be a canvas for Islamic text alone.

🧎 Part 2: The Spatial Hierarchy - The Dead, The Slave, and The Threshold

This section controls movement and access, defining where dhimmis belong and where they are forbidden.

• ➡️ The Invisible Dead: The command not to carry the dead through Muslim streets is a brutal form of spatial segregation. It exiles death itself, forcing the most universal human experience into the back alleys. A dhimmi funeral procession, a powerful display of community solidarity, is rendered furtive and invisible.

• ➡️ The Forbidden Slave: The ban on owning slaves "upon whom the arrows of the Muslims have fallen" is an economic and social demarcation. It reserves the primary spoils of war—the human booty that fueled the economy and established household prestige—as an exclusive privilege of the Muslim ruling class. A dhimmi could not own a symbol of Muslim military victory.

• ➡️ The Sacred Threshold: The rule forbidding entry into Muslim homes without permission is perhaps the most revealing. It democratizes sovereignty. In the Sasanian court, no one entered the king's presence uninvited. This clause extends that royal protocol to every Muslim household. The home of the poorest Muslim is, in principle, as inviolable as the caliph's court. The dhimmi is permanently cast as a potential intruder, who must always seek permission to cross a boundary, constantly performing his subordinate status.

🤔 The Core Logic: Why This is Unthinkable in the 7th Century

This entire regulatory framework is a product of the mature, bureaucratic Abbasid state, not the nascent, pragmatic Caliphate of the Rāshidūn.

• ➡️ 7th-Century Reality: In the immediate aftermath of the conquests, Muslims were a tiny minority. The state relied on the existing Christian and Jewish infrastructure. Christian processions, ringing bells, and public funerals were a normal part of the urban landscape. Muslim rulers lacked the administrative capacity—and the ideological need—to micromanage the soundscape or dictate funeral routes. They were focused on macro-control: taxation and military security.

• ➡️ 9th-Century Ideology: The Abbasids, ruling a vast, Muslim-majority empire from the purpose-built capital of Baghdad, were engaged in a project of social and symbolic ordering. Infused with Persian court culture, they sought to create a perfectly hierarchical society. In this world, every detail—a bell's chime, a candle's flame, a slave's origin—became a potential site for asserting Islamic supremacy.

✅ CONCLUSION: The Worldview of "Every Muslim a King" 👑➡️🙋‍♂️

The underlying philosophy of this clause is its most radical and Abbasid feature: the sacralization of the Muslim individual.

The Pact no longer just addresses the dhimmi's relationship with the state or the caliph. It legislates their relationship with every single Muslim person. A Christian must lower his voice not just in the caliph's court, but in the presence of any Muslim. He must seek permission not just to enter a palace, but to enter any Muslim home.

This "democratization of sovereignty" is the ultimate triumph of the Abbasid social project. It creates a world where:

• The poorest Muslim beggar walks the street with the implicit dignity of the ruling faith, entitled to a public space free from the loud prayers of others.

• The most humble Muslim household is a castle, its threshold a symbolic boundary protected by law.

The dhimmi is thus conditioned to see every Muslim as a living representative of the sovereign power, to be approached with the same deference one would show a ruler. This was not the reality of the 7th-century conquests, where power relations were more fluid and pragmatic. It was the chilling, systematic achievement of 9th-century imperial ideology, designed to make inferiority an inescapable, sensory, and spatial reality.

9B.13 — The Sword of Damocles: Conditional Safety and the Theology of Total Domination ⚔️➡️☢️

This final clause is the keystone of the entire Abbasid-era Pact. It transforms the preceding list of regulations from a social code into a justification for annihilation, revealing a worldview where the dhimmi's safety is perpetually conditional and infinitely revocable.

Text (Arabic):

فَلَمَّا أَتَيْتُ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ بِالْكِتَابِ زَادَ فِيهِ: وَلَا نَضْرِبَ أَحَدًا مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، شَرَطْنَا ذَلِكَ عَلَى أَنْفُسِنَا وَأَهْلِ مِلَّتِنَا وَقَبِلْنَا عَلَيْهِ الْأَمَانَ، فَإِنْ نَحْنُ خَالَفْنَا فِي شَيْءٍ مِمَّا شَرَطْنَا لَكُمْ وَضَمِنَّاهُ عَلَى أَنْفُسِنَا فَلَا ذِمَّةَ لَنَا، وَقَدْ حَلَّ مِنَّا مَا يَحِلُّ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمُعَانَدَةِ وَالشِّقَاقِ.

Translation:

“When I brought the document to ʿUmar (may God be pleased with him) he added: ‘We will not strike any Muslim.’ We made that a condition for ourselves and for our community, and you accepted our pledge of security. If we violate anything of what we have stipulated to you and bound ourselves with, then we shall have no dhimma; and what then befalls us shall be what befalls rebels and dissidents.”

1. The "Umaric Addition": Protecting the Aura of the Ruling Caste

The stipulation, "We will not strike any Muslim," appears at first glance to be a simple law against assault. In the 7th-century context, it had a far more specific and strategic meaning.

• ➡️ 7th-Century Pragmatism: The early Muslim ruling class was a tiny military and administrative elite. In daily life, they interacted with—and were often outnumbered by—the conquered populations who handled local governance, tax collection, and commerce. A physical altercation where a dhimmi struck a Muslim was not just a crime; it was a symbolic inversion of the entire political order. It represented the conquered striking the conqueror, shattering the aura of inviolability that was essential for a minority to rule a majority. This clause was a pragmatic safeguard for the ruling caste's physical and symbolic security.

2. The Nuclear Option: The Capstone Threat

The final sentence is the most consequential part of the entire Pact. It states that violating any stipulation—no matter how minor—results in the immediate and total nullification of the dhimma covenant.

"If we violate anything... then we shall have no dhimma; and what then befalls us shall be what befalls rebels and dissidents."

This transforms the Pact from a civil code into a hostage agreement.

• ➡️ The Logic of Total Vulnerability: A community could be meticulously compliant for generations, but a single infraction—a bell rung too loudly, a cross momentarily displayed, a failure to rise quickly enough—could theoretically be construed as a violation that voids their entire protected status. They would instantly be reclassified as "rebels and dissidents" (ahl al-muʿānada wa-l-shiqāq)—a legal category denoting enemies at war, who could be fought, enslaved, or killed.

• ➡️ A Tool of Arbitrary Power: This clause is not meant for consistent judicial enforcement. Its power lies in its vagueness and omnipresent threat. It gives the ruling authority a permanent, legalistic pretext to bring the full force of state violence down upon any community that steps out of line, resists taxation, or grows too prosperous and confident. It ensures that dhimmi communities are governed by fear, always aware that their safety is a revocable grant, not an inviolable right.

3. The Glaring 7th-Century Contradiction: Treaty Revisions vs. Total Annihilation

This "nuclear option" is completely at odds with the historical reality of the 7th-century conquests, where the relationship between conqueror and conquered was pragmatic and renegotiable.

• ➡️ The Case of Jerusalem: After its surrender, the terms were famously renegotiated. Caliph ʿUmar initially allowed Jews to live in the city, contravening the original treaty made with Sophronius. This shows that the early Islamic state adapted treaties based on changing circumstances and political needs.

• ➡️ Rebellions and Re-negotiation: Historical records show that when entire cities or regions rebelled—a far greater crime than violating a dress code—they were often reconquered and then granted new terms of surrender. The response was not the systematic annihilation of the population but a re-establishment of control, sometimes with harsher terms, but always within the framework of a renewable political agreement. The idea that a single minor infraction would trigger a genocidal response is a later juristic fantasy, not the practice of the early caliphate.

✅ CONCLUSION: The Abbasid Theology of Domination

This final clause is the ultimate piece of evidence that the Pact of ʿUmar, as we have it, is an Abbasid-era construct.

• In the 7th Century, rule was based on pragmatic treaties that could be adapted. The relationship with subject populations was political and military.

• In the 9th Century, the Abbasids crafted an ideological framework for permanent subjugation. The relationship was theological and absolute.

The capstone threat reveals the dark genius of the entire document. It ties the most humiliating social restrictions (the cut forelock, the quiet bell) directly to the threat of existential violence. This creates a system of psychological warfare, where the subject population internalizes its own subordination, policing itself for fear that any misstep could bring about its total destruction.

➡️ The Pact is not a historical treaty from the age of conquest. It is a later, systematic blueprint for using law and the threat of holy war to maintain a permanently stratified society, where one class of people lives forever under a suspended sentence of death.

Epilogue – The Grand Abbasid Project: Engineering a "Perfect" Hierarchy 🏛️➡️🧩

The Pact of ʿUmar, as we have received it, is not a random collection of bigoted rules. It is a coherent and systematic blueprint for social engineering, designed to solve a problem that the early conquerors never faced: how to maintain the identity and supremacy of a Muslim elite in a vast, blended, and increasingly integrated empire.

The Abbasids, particularly under caliphs like al-Mutawakkil, were not just ruling an empire; they were trying to build a perfect, God-ordered society. Their long-term goal was the creation of a stable, hierarchical civilization where Islam was not just the dominant faith, but the uncontested and visually undeniable organizing principle of all public and private life.

🎯 The Core Objective: Freezing a Social Order

The Abbasids looked around their 9th-century world and saw a troubling reality. The clear lines between the Arab-Muslim conquerors of the 7th century and the subject populations had blurred. Through conversion, intermarriage, and cultural assimilation, the boundaries were becoming porous. The Pact of ʿUmar was their solution: a legal and symbolic firewall.

Its goals were:

1. To Make Status Visible: Every clause—from the shaved forelock to the zunnār belt—was designed to make religious identity instantly legible on the body. You could tell a dhimmi from a Muslim at a glance, in the dark, or from their silence. This prevented "passing" and enforced segregation.

2. To Enact Ideology in Daily Life: The Pact transformed abstract theological supremacy into tangible, daily experiences. A Christian felt his inferiority when he had to stand for a Muslim. He heard it in the muffled sound of his own church bells. He saw it in the route of his funeral procession. This was domination not just by law, but by sensory and psychological conditioning.

3. To Create a Permanent Underclass: By attaching the "nuclear option" of revocable protection to every single rule, the Abbasids framed the dhimmi not as a citizen or even a permanent resident, but as a "perpetual captive on parole." This ensured political quietism. What mayor or merchant would risk challenging the state when his entire community's safety could be voided by a single infraction?

📜 Al-Mutawakkil's Manifesto: The Ideological Blueprint (June 853 CE)

The Pact of ʿUmar is the legal codification of the ideology proclaimed in Caliph al-Mutawakkil's edict. The edict is the theory; the Pact is the practical manual. Let's break down its revealing logic:

1. The Foundation: Islam's Exclusive Truth 🕌

"God has chosen Islam among the religions... and designated it the only religion that shall be accepted."

He opens by quoting Qur'an 3:85 to establish a theology of exclusivity. This sets the stage for a binary worldview: Islam is truth, everything else is error. This provides the moral justification for the systemic discrimination that follows.

2. The Justification: Divine Mandate for Humiliation 📉

"Fight those who believe not... until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled (ṣāghirūn)."

This is the most critical verse (Qur'an 9:29). Al-Mutawakkil fixates on the word "humbled" (ṣāghirūn). He interprets this not as the natural political outcome of defeat, but as a permanent, state-enforced condition of social debasement. The Pact of ʿUmar is his program to operationalize this "humbling" in perpetuity.

3. The Problem: Integration and Its "Dangers" ⚠️

"The Commander of the Believers has discovered that certain officials... have sought the assistance of dhimmis in their tasks. They take them for their intimates outside the Muslims, empowering them over the state’s subjects."

Here lies the real anxiety. Al-Mutawakkil is furious that his officials are employing dhimmis in government. Why? Because this practical integration breaks down the very hierarchy he is trying to build. A Christian finance minister or Jewish engineer holds power over Muslims, inverting the "natural" order. The Pact's bans on Arabic seals, saddles, and weapons are designed to prevent this—to ensure dhimmis can never hold the symbols or reality of authority.

4. The Solution: Legislative Apartheid 🚫

"Let not the aid of any unbeliever be sought in his state... May the dhimmis be lowered to their stations that God designated for them."

This is the ultimate goal: to legislate a caste system. "The station God designated for them" is, in al-Mutawakkil's view, one of permanent, visible subordination. The Pact is the detailed job description for that station.

⚖️ The Glaring Contradiction: The Quran vs. Al-Mutawakkil's Interpretation

Al-Mutawakkil's entire project rests on a selective and forced reading of the Quran, which he uses to justify a social system the text itself does not mandate.

• ➡️ Qur'an 9:29: The command to fight until they "pay the jizya and are humbled" was directed at hostile Roman armies who were actively at war with the Muslim community. Al-Mutawakkil extracts the word "humbled" and applies it as a permanent social status for peaceful, tax-paying subjects generations after the conquest. This transforms a wartime directive into a tool for peacetime apartheid.

• ➡️ Qur'an 60:8-9: The very verse he partially quotes contains a massive omission. The full verse states:

  "God does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have not fought you because of your religion nor driven you out of your homes. Surely God loves those who are fair. God only forbids you from befriending those who have fought you for your faith, driven you out of your homes, and supported your expulsion..."

  This is devastating to his case. The Quran explicitly permits kind and fair treatment of non-aggressive non-Muslims. Al-Mutawakkil's entire edict, which frames all dhimmis as inherent deceivers and haters, directly contradicts this clear Quranic principle. He ignores the call for fairness and focuses only on verses about conflict to justify a policy of perpetual hostility.

✅ The Final Verdict: A Project of Imperial Insecurity

The Pact of ʿUmar and al-Mutawakkil's edict are not the organic outgrowth of the Quran or the practice of the Prophet and the Rashidun caliphs. They are the products of a mature, complex, and anxious empire.

• The 7th-century conquerors were confident and pragmatic, secure in their faith and their military success. They could afford to be flexible.

• The 9th-century Abbasids were politically fragile, navigating court intrigues and sectarian divisions. Their power was more bureaucratic than charismatic. They sought stability through control, codification, and the rigid enforcement of identity.

The Pact of ʿUmar is their lasting monument. It is the voice of an imperial bureaucracy attempting to use law to create a "perfect" world, a society frozen in a hierarchy of its own design, where every person knew their place by sight, sound, and law. It was a vision of order born not from the simplicity of the desert, but from the profound insecurities of the palace.

THE END

📚 Works Cited

-

Primary Sources

al-Balādhurī, Ahmad b. Yaḥyā. History of the Arab Invasions: The Conquest of the Lands (A New Translation of al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-Buldān). Translated and with historical commentary by Hugh Kennedy, I.B. Tauris, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2022.

al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Tarikh al-Tabari = Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk. Edited by Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, Dar al-Ma‘arif, Egypt, 1967. 

al-Ṭurṭūshī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Walīd al-Fihrī. Sirāj al-Mulūk. Min Awāʾil al-Maṭbūʿāt al-ʿArabiyya, Miṣr, 1289 AH / 1872 CE.

Connolly, Serena, Simon Corcoran, Michael Crawford, John Noel Dillon, Dennis P. Kehoe, Noel Lenski, Thomas A. J. McGinn, Charles F. Pazdernik, and Benet Salway, editors. The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text. Based on a translation by Justice Fred H. Blume, edited under the general editorship of Bruce W. Frier, with contributions by Timothy Kearley, Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Harrak, Amir, translator. The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999.

Hoyland, Robert G., translator. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2011. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 57.

Mangō, Cyril, and Roger Scott, with the assistance of Geoffrey Greatrex. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284–813. Clarendon Press, 1997.

Moosa, Matti, translator. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation. Beth Antioch Press, 2014.

Palmer, Andrew. The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool University Press, 1993.

Penn, Michael Philip, translator and editor. When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam. University of California Press, 2015.

Thomson, R. W., translator. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Translated with notes by R. W. Thomson, historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston, assistance from Tim Greenwood, Liverpool University Press, 1999.

Secondary Sources

Avni, Gideon. The Byzantine–Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Bcheiry, Iskandar. An Early Christian Reaction to Islam: Išū‘yahb III and the Muslim Arabs. Gorgias Press LLC, 2019.

Bessard, Fanny. Caliphs and Merchants: Cities and Economies of Power in the Near East (700–950). Oxford University Press, 2020.

Borrut, Antoine, and Fred M. Donner, editors. Christians and Others in the Umayyad State. The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute, 2016.

Cohen, Mark R. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press, 1994.

Daryaee, Touraj. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris, 2023.

Furman, Yulia, and Dmitry Cherkashin. “‘Superiority Is Due to Us, and the King Should Come from Among Us’: The Arab Conquests and Conflicts of the Early Umayyad Era in a 7th-Century Syriac Universal History of Yoḥannān bar Penkāyē.” Der Islam, vol. 101, no. 2, 2024, pp. 346–382. De Gruyter.

Greatrex, Geoffrey, and Samuel N.C. Lieu, editors. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, Part II AD 363–630: A Narrative Sourcebook. Routledge, 2002.

Harper, Kyle. The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire. Princeton University Press, 2017.

Howard-Johnston, James. The Last Great War of Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2021. 

Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, Gorgias Press LLC, 2019.

Kreiner, Jamie. Legions of Pigs in the Early Medieval West. Yale University Press, 2020

Levy-Rubin, Milka. Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: From Surrender to Coexistence. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Levy-Rubin, Milka. “Were the Jews Prohibited from Settling in Jerusalem? On the Authenticity of al-Ṭabarī’s Jerusalem Surrender Agreement.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (JSAI), vol. 36, 2009.

Linder, Amnon, editor. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Wayne State University Press and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987.

Lindstedt, Ilkka. Muḥammad and His Followers in Context: The Religious Map of Late Antique Arabia. Brill, 2023.

Maas, Michael, editor. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Marsham, Andrew. The Umayyad Empire. Edinburgh University Press, 2024.

Matthee, Rudi. Angels Tapping at the Wine-Shop’s Door: A History of Alcohol in the Islamic World. C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., 2023.

Miller, David J. D., and Peter Sarris. The Novels of Justinian: A Complete Annotated English Translation. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Morony, Michael G. Iraq After the Muslim Conquest. Gorgias Press, 2005. (Facsimile reprint of the 1984 Princeton University Press edition.)

O’Donnell, J. J. The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History. Harper Perennial, 2009.

Payne, Richard E. A State of Mixture: Christians, Zoroastrians, and Iranian Political Culture in Late Antiquity. University of California Press, 2015.

Petersen, Leif Inge Ree. Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States (400–800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam. Brill, 2013.

Robinson, Chase F. "Neck-Sealing in Early Islam." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 48, no. 3, 2005, pp. 401-41. 

Sarris, Peter. Justinian: Emperor, Soldier, Saint. Basic Books, 2023.

Sijpesteijn, Petra M. Shaping a Muslim State: The World of a Mid-Eighth-Century Egyptian Official. Oxford University Press, 2013.

Sijpesteijn, Petra M. “Shaving Hair and Beards in Early Islamic Egypt: An Arab Innovation?” Al-Masāq, vol. 30, no. 1, 2018

Simonsohn, Uriel I. A Common Justice: The Legal Allegiances of Christians and Jews under Early Islam. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

Weitz, Lev E. Between Christ and Caliph: Law, Marriage, and Christian Community in Early Islam. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018.