A critique on the Covenant of

Umar bin Al-Khattab

...)..,. ...)..,. ...)..,. ...)..,.

..) ..) ..) ..)

... . ... . ... . ... .









Paper one (Final Draft)
Abde Syedna
TUS

Abdul Qadir Fakhruddin
Tr. No. 1590
STD - 8
Critics, from Western scholars to Arab academics, have long misunderstood Aimat
Fatemeeins (AS) liberal policies towards ahl al-dhimma in the Fatimid Egypt. They
have consistently interpreted them as mere political tactics to have firm grip over
the majority Sunni Muslim population of Egypt. They especially criticize the fact that
they contradict with the Covenant of Umar bin Al-Khattab, the laws imposed by him,
under which a dhimmi, or a non-Muslim, was allowed to exist in Muslim-ruled
territories.
1
This paper will shed light on the rejection of his authority on imposing
laws by Ismaili Shia Muslims and will provide an insight into the fact that the
covenant itself contravened with Quran and Sunnat.
Modern historians, who research on Aimat Fatemeein (AS), have put forward the
idea that there was a disproportionate number of dhimmis in the Fatimid
administration. They explain this on a mixture of strategic and ideological
considerations, holding that the Fatemeein, who were Ismailis, were eager to offset
the Sunni majority, over whom it ruled, by giving its administrative ranks to Jews
and Christians, who as a group were vulnerable, dependant on the high rulers, and
therefore more likely to serve them loyally.
2

However, in reality, this notion is nothing more than a residue of medieval thought,
particularly of medieval Sunni historians who were eager to discredit the Fatimid
dynasty as Ismaili heretics and usurpers of the caliphate. Many of them complained
loudly about what they saw as the Fatemeeins unjustified dependence on dhimmis.
Because the pact of Umar offered dhimmis protection only if they remained
evidently subservient to their Muslim patrons, for dhimmi government officials to
rule over Muslims, was at least in theory according to the covenant, a violation of

1
See for example, Salam Shafei Mahmood, Ahl al-Dhimma Fi Misr Fi al-Asr al Fatemi al-Awwal (Cairo: Al
Haiyat Al Misriyah Al Ammah Lil Kitaab, 1995) p. 9

2
See for example, Leila S. al-Imad, The Fatimied vizierate, 969-1172 (Berlin: K. Schwar, 1990), 75-76 and S.
D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the
Documents of the Cairo Geniza, Vol.2 (London: University of California Press, 1999) p. 345
the very grounds on which the protected people were allowed to practice their own
religion.
3

What these medieval Sunni historians, and the modern ones who quote them, have
failed to understand is the very fact that Ismaili Shia Muslims do not regard Abu
Bakr, Umar and Uthman as the rightful caliphs, in fact, they have been addressed as
usurpers of the right of Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS), the cousin and son-in-law of
Rasulullah (SAW), in Ismaili religious texts.
4
Now, if such a usurper is to impose a
set of rules, here in the case of dhimmis, it is illogical and absurd to expect that the
people who oppose him would follow it. Aimat Fatemeein (AS) being the legitimate
heir of Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS) accept him as the rightful successor to Rasulullah
(SAW) and reject others claims including that of Umar bin Al-Khattabs. Thus,
logically the one rejected as the true caliph, his rules and laws are neither supposed
to be followed nor acted in accordance with. Hence, disapproving Aimat Fatemeeins
(AS) policy of not following the Covenant of Umar is mere incongruousness.
The Covenant codifies the conditions of life for dhimmis under Islam, a life which
would come to an end if the dhimmi broke this law. Among the restrictions of the
Covenant: Jews and Christians were forbidden to touch Quran; forced to wear a
distinctive garment habit with sash; compelled to wear a yellow or a blue piece of
cloth as a badge; not allowed to perform religious practices in public; not allowed to
own a horse, because horses were deemed noble; not permitted to drink wine in
public; not granted freedom to to build new churches or monasteries, not even to fix
old ones, they were required to bury their dead without letting their grief be heard
by the Muslims.
5



3
Marina Rustow, Heresy And The Politics Of Community: The Jews of the Fatimid Caliphate (New York:
Cornell University Press, 2008) p. 121

4
For a detailed discussion on Ismaili view on the succession of Rasulullah (SAW) see Al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna
Qadi al-Noman
RA,
, Sherh al-Akhbar, Vol. 1-16

(Mumbai: Al Jamea Tus Saifiyah Press) and Al-Dai al-Ajal
Syedna Idrees Imaduddin
RA
, Uyun al-Akhbar, Vol. 1,2 (

Karachi: Makhzan Kutub al-Dawah, Al Jamea Tus
Saifiyah)

Ibn Taymiyah asserts that the terms of the covenant were constantly imposed on
Christians by certain Muslim rulers, such as Umar bin Abdul Aziz, who would have
rigorously followed the example of Umar bin Al-Khattab. He said that in abidance of
the covenant, Harun al-Rashid, Al-Mutawakkil and others ordered the destruction of
churches, such of those in Egypt.
6
In addition, he states that chief scholars from
notable schools of jurisprudence discussed these terms and alluded to the need for
the Imam to constrain ahl al-dhimma and subjugate them to these terms.
7
He even
claimed that this pact was an eminent subject in the books of fiqh and Islamic
literature, and the one that was broadly accepted and agreed on by the great Muslim
scholars and their companions, and indeed by the whole Muslim nation.
8

Critics may argue that Umar ibn Al-Khattab set a paradigm, which, could be imitated
by Aimat Fatemeein (AS) like their predecessors. After all, Umar was one of the early
caliphs of the Muslim Ummah. However, not complying with it and considering it as
flawy, doesnt make them sinful, because as a matter of fact, caliphs (according to
Sunnis) are never considered as infallible. Furthermore, this Covenant is not the
only historical exemplar which Muslims can follow. Historically, there were many
other covenants of security which were made between the Islamic government and
non-Muslim masses. The very first constitution in Islamic history, the Constitution
of Madina, is one such model. In this document, signed personally by Rasulullah
(SAW), non-Muslims were granted help and parity, it reads:
In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.

5
Andre Chouraqui, Between East and West, A History Of The Jews Of North Africa, trans. from French by
Michael M. Bernet (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1968) pp. 45-46 and D.G
Littman, Jews Under Muslim Rule In The Late Nineteenth Century, reprinted from the Weiner Library
Bulletin, 1975, Vol. XXVIII, New Series Nos. 35/36 (London, 1975) p. 65

6
Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu Fatawa Shaikh al-Islam Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah, Vol. 28 (Mecca: Al Riasah al-
Ammah Lishuun al-Haramyn al-Sharifayn, 1996) pp. 654-655

7
Ibid., p. 654

8
Ibid.
This is a document from Muhammad the Rasulullah (governing the relations)
between the Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those (non-Muslims) who
followed them and joined them in labor.
They are one ummah to the exclusion of all men
To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall neither be
maltreated nor shall his enemies be aided.
9

There are several points mentioned in the whole document, but not a single one is
found to place any unfair or humiliating restrictions upon the dhimmis. They are
not forced to wear certain clothing or have a precise haircut, nor forced to give up
their positions for Muslims. In all respects, they are treated as respected human
beings and as protected citizens of the Islamic nation.
After the Constitution of Madina, there is the example of the Pact of Khaybar,
between the Muslims and Jews of Khaybar. Had Rasulullah (SAW) wanted to debase
the non-Muslims with such humiliating restrictions as found in the Covenant of
Umar, then surely this would have been the time to do it. Similarly, Rasulullah
(SAW) signed the Pact of Tabuk and the Pact of Najran, two separate documents
which afforded protection to dhimmis without any mention of discriminatory terms
or humiliating laws, as long as the taxes (Jizya) were properly paid to the
government.
One might attempt to corroborate his argument, by putting forward the notion that
Quran itself endorses the Covenant of Umar. The 29
th
ayah of Surah al-Taubah could
be quoted with its literal translation as: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the
Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His
Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of
the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves
subdued.


9
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulallah, trans. by Alfred Guillaume (London: Oxford University Press, 1955) p. 231

The debatable Arabic word here is sagirun, which some medieval jurists and
commentators translated as debasement or humiliation. Like, Ibn Kathir, who
interprets the word sagirun as humiliation and belittlement. He puts forward the
opinion that Muslims are not allowed to honor ahl al-dhimma or to elevate them
above Muslims, as they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.
10
Yet, a large
number of Muslims do not understand the verse this way. In fact, there were many
Islamic jurists in the medieval time, who rejected such interpretations. The jurist,
Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, disaffirms the interpretation that sagar means
degradation:
It is unsupported and the verse doesnt mean that. It is not related that the
Prophet or the companions acted like that. The correct opinion on this verse
is that the word sagar means acceptance by non-Muslims of the structure
of the Muslim right and their payment of the poll tax.
11

Imam Mawaffaq ad-Din Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, another jurist,
writes that Rasulullah (SAW) and the four caliphs said that the poll-tax must be
taken with kindness and respect.
12
In fact, the classical jurist Abu Zakaria Mohiuddin
Yahya Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi wrote that the majority of scholars reject such an
interpretation:
As for this abovementioned practice [of debasing non-Muslims], I dont
know of any proper support for it in this respect, and it is only pointed out by
the olama of Khurasan. The majority of scholars say that the Jizya is to be
taken with gentleness, as one would collect a debt. The reliably correct
opinion is that this practice [of humiliation] is not valid and those who

10
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim. Vol. 2 (Riyadh: Maktabat Dar al-Salam) p. 458

11
Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma, Vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar ibn Hazm, 1997) pp. 23-24

12
Imam Mawaffaq ad-Din Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, Al-Mughni, Vol. 4 (Beirut: Dar Ihya
al-Turaath al-Arabi, 1985) p. 250
support it should be refuted. It is not related that the Prophet did nor
ordered to do any such thing when collecting the Jizya.
13

The 3
rd
Fatimid Dai, Syedna Hatim Bin Ibrahim, in his book, Tanbeeh al-Gafeleen,
writes about the standpoint of Ismailis towards other sects who do not share their
beliefs, which include Jews and Christians, from which it could be conceived that
they hold a similar view of tolerance and liberalism on the interpretation of the
word sagerun:
There are people who believe that it is legal for them to shed blood of those
who disagree with them in religion, like Jews and Kharijites, or anyone who
disbelieves in Allah and believes in Idols. On the other hand, there are people
who see and believe that there should be mercy and compassion for the
whole mankind, they act with mercy upon the sinners and seek forgiveness
for them, they are benevolent towards every living soul, and want goodness
for everyone. This is the doctrine of our honorable, virtuous and good
brothers.
14

Hence, in the end, it could be concluded that, Aimat Fatemeein (AS) strictly adhered
to Quran and Sunnat in dealing with ahl al-dhimma. They did not find it obligatory to
follow the covenant of Umar, since it was by someone whom they reject as the
rightful caliph, thus rebuffing his authority on imposing religious laws. Moreover,
the laws mentioned in the covenant heavily contradicted with Quran and Sunnat.
Aimat Fatemeein (AS) gave rights to ahl al-dhimma according to genuine Islamic
laws and established a state which was entirely in accordance with them. Hence, it
was indeed the perfect Muslim nation.



13
Abu Zakaria Mohiuddin Yahya Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, Rawdat al-Talibin, Vol. 10 (Riyadh: Dar Aalam al-
Maktabaat) pp. 315-316

14
Al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Hatim bin Ibrahim
RA,
, Tanbeeh al-Gafeleen (Mumbai: Al Jamea Tus Saifiyah Press)
BIBLOGRAPHY
Fatemi Sources
Al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Qadi al-Noman
RA,
, Sherh al-Akhbar, Vol. 1-16. Mumbai: Al
Jamea Tus Saifiyah Press.

Al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Hatim bin Ibrahim
RA,
, Tanbeeh al-Gafeleen. Mumbai: Al
Jamea Tus Saifiyah Press.

Al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Idrees Imaduddin
RA
, Uyun al-Akhbar, Vol. 1,2.

Karachi:
Makhzan Kutub al-Dawah, Al Jamea Tus Saifiyah.


Non-Fatemi Sources

Abu Zakaria Mohiuddin Yahya Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, Rawdat al-Talibin, Volume
10. Riyadh: Dar alam al-maktabaat.

Andre Chouraqui, Between East and West, A History Of The Jews Of North Africa,
trans. from French by Michael M. Bernet. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1968.
AS. Tritton, The Caliphs And Their Non-Muslim Subjects: A Critical Study Of The
Covenant Of Umar. Muslim University Aligarth, 1930.
D.G Littman, Jews Under Muslim Rule In The Late Nineteenth Century, reprinted
from the Weiner Library Bulletin, 1975, vol. XXVIII, New Series Nos. 35/36,
London, 1975.
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulallah, trans. by Alfred Guillaume. London: Oxford University
Press, 1955.
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim. Vol. 2. Riyadh: Maktabat Dar al-Salam.
Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Vol. 1. Beirut: Dar ibn Hazm,
1997.

Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu Fatawa Shaikh al-Islam Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah, Vol. 28.
Mecca: Al Riasah al-Ammah Lishuun al-Haramyn al-Sharifayn, 1996.
Imam Mawaffaq ad-Din Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, Al-Mughni,
Vol. 4. Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turaath al-Arabi, 1985.

Leila S. al-Imad, The Fatimied vizierate, 969-1172. Berlin: K. Schwar, 1990.

Marina Rustow, Heresy And The Politics Of Community: The Jews of the Fatimid
Caliphate. New York: Cornell University Press, 2008.
Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).
Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing Inc. 2005
S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World
as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, Vol.2. London: University of
California Press, 1999.
Salam Shafei Mahmood, Ahl al-Dhimma Fi Misr Fi al-Asr al Fatemi al-Awwal.
Cairo: Al Haiyat Al Misriyah Al Ammah Lil Kitaab, 1995.