Unfortunately, the media has created a very misleading and one-sided image of the Islamic world today. Not surprisingly, most students adopt the simplistic view of the prevalence of Islamic fundamentalism. The reality is that there is generally a great deal of toleration usually associated with Islam. This tolerance can be demonstrated in Muhammad’s philosophy and in the Quran. The notion of Jews and Christians as “peoples of the book” is a key concept. Even Muhammad’s role as the “final prophet” pays homage to the role played by earlier prophets such as Moses and Jesus. The decision by the early caliphs of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasty to allow conquered peoples to practice their own religions is representative of a general tolerance that runs throughout Islamic history. Even the institution of the jizya pales in comparison to the treatment usually allotted to members of differing religious groups.Contrary to one popular image, the Muslim conquerors of the seventh and eighth centuries did not, as a matter of general policy, force their new, non-Arab subjects to convert to Islam (although there is evidence of some forced conversions and even massacres of non-Muslim populations during this first age of expansion, but nothing as dramatic as what the Christian world is later responsible for during the Crusades, Inquisition, contact with the Americas, etc.). Indeed, the Quran expressly forbids forced conversion, and the Prophet's own actions underscored that prohibition. In 628, Muhammad entered into a contract, or dhimma, with an Arabic Jewish tribe at the oasis of Khaybar, whereby he guaranteed to defend them and to respect their religious practices in return for their submission, assistance, and payment of tribute. This contract of protection became the model for Islam's generals and statesmen as Arab armies exploded out of the peninsula, but the manner in which Muslims understood and applied the dhimma differed from age to age, place to place, and ruler to ruler. The following two documents that I would like you to read show us two varieties of the dhimma and also reflect some of the ways that the pact tended to change over time.
The first document (that you can read by clicking here [just the very short passage from the bottom of page 162 to the middle of 163, under the heading "Peace Treaty Between Habib b. Muslama and the Christians of Tiflis"]) records a pact of peace offered to the Christian inhabitants of the city of Tiflis (modern Tbilisi, Georgia) around 653 by Habib ibn Muslama, the military commander responsible for the conquest of Christian Armenia and Georgia in the region between the Black and Caspian seas south of the Caucasus Mountains. Ibn Muslama's pact with the Christians of Tiflis is a good example of the earliest form of the dhimma.
The second document (that you can read by clicking here) purports to be the pact of peace offered by Caliph Umar I to the Christians of Syria around 637, but scholars generally agree it is a later creation--crafted probably in the early ninth century when the new Abbasid Dynasty of caliphs was occupied with crushing local revolts and need historical support for policies that were more repressive than those of the earlier Umayyad caliphs.
After reading the documents I would like you all to read and discuss the following: Exactly what does Ibn Muslama's pact guarantee the Christians, and what obligations does it place on them? What hints are there in Ibn Muslam's pact that strongly suggest it was crafted during the first generation of Islamic expansion? How does the Pact of Umar differ from Ibn Muslama's pact? [PLEASE BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR DISCUSSION OF THIS] What do the differences that you discovered in the two documents suggest about the realities of the era of the Early Abbasids? Large numbers of people living in regions conquered by Islam ultimately converted to that faith. Do these pacts suggest to you any possible reasons for some of those conversions? Again, PLEASE BE SPECIFIC.
24 comments:
This does not have anything to do with this subject, but during our discussion of modern Iraq, you said that there was fights between the Sunni and the Shia beecause of an uneven amount of government posts for each of them. Would it make sense to put someone that is aware of the situations but not a Muslim in the head of the government and have the people under them be a mixture? It was just a theory and I was wondering what your thoughts were.
hmm... if democracy is what is desired, do you think it would be wise to prop up rulers, or should it be made sure of that the people are deciding? did the cold war teach us any lessons regarding this?
This also isn't related to the subject but I was late to class today and I missed out on the beginning of class and am a little confuse of the split of the islam faith. When Islam started was everyone sunni but then a group of sunni muslims rebelled and then there was a division?
miss stucke, no problem. the sunni-shi'a split has everything to do with a dispute over who was to lead the muslim world after the death of muhammad. one faction said it should be the best person for the job, the other said no, it should be someone from the bloodline of muhammad, and they especially back muhammad's cousin and son-in-law ali. those that in the end supported the umayyad's leadership came to be known as sunni (or, literally, traditionalists). on the other hand, those that supported ali were known as the shiatali (or literally, partisans of ali). the shortened version would be the more common term used, the shia. hopefully the clarifies things for you miss stucke.
Macy,
Muhammad didn't choose a successor to take over after he died, so this caused many disagreements to the true Islamic leader. Abu Baker took over but this caused controversy because he was not blood related to Muhammad. Many wanted Ali to take over who was related to Muhammad, and after a few more Caliphs were assassinated he was eventually appointed Caliph. The last Caliph before Ali was part of the Umayyad clan, so when he was assassinated The Umayyads wanted to put the assassin to death. When Ali refused to launch an investigation to find the assassin, The Umayyads went to war with Ali. Sunnis believe that the first four caliphs were rightfully chosen, where Shiite believe that Ali was rightfully caliph. The word "Sunni" derives from the Arab word meaning "followers" or "followers of the prophet". The word "Shiite" means "partisans of Ali" as in the political party of Ali. The rift between the two was mainly political at the beginning but beliefs have changed and diverged in both factions.
true mr. dixon, sunni also refers to and be translated to mean "followers."
any thoughts on these documents?
The pact of Ibn Muslama was written by a Muslim where as the pact of Umar was written by Christians or at least from a Christian perspective. It seemed to me like the Christians being talked about in Ibn Muslama's pact had more power than the Christians in the pact of Umar because many more obligations were placed on the Christians in the pact of Umar where as the Christians in the other pact were pretty much just requried to pay taxes.
Both of these documents show extreme leniency for each others beliefs and religions. Muslims allow the beliefs of others to continue and actually discourage people form converting. Non-Muslim people did not have to pay the Jizya tax, but it was more along the lines of non-Arabs who didn't pay the Jizya. So it wouldn't be economically wise to force converts. But as Mr. Prill stated, is this really as cruel as the Spanish inquisition or the crusades? hummmmmm....interesting
On The Cristian and Jewish side, they were vary accommodating to their Islamic leadership, as long as they received protection from them.
One major difference in these two documents is that they are written by two different people, one muslim, and one christian. Is the second document like an oath or something by the christians. i wondered why they are saying things that benefit the muslims, aren't they supposed to be rebelling?
about the sunni and shia split, presently the conflict going on between the two, is it for the same reason it was back then(who the ruler should be) or is there a problem because the shia have a grudge on the sunnis because of the bloody war that happened way back when. im just wondering, cause if the conflic right now was about who the ruler would be, then it couldn't be possible right? cause they don't rule like that anymore, there is voting, right?
I found some of the things in each document to be really similar to each other but they show different sides to the story.
The second document by Caliph Umar I shows a completely different story than the first document by Habib ibn. The document by Caliph Umar I tells us about how repressed the Christian faith was just so that they [Christians]could be protected by the Muslim government. For example they could not even speak their faith out loud in the presence of a person of the Muslim faith and they also had to have a certain dress style as well. But unlike the Caliph Umar I who shows an unfair policy, Habib ibn shows a policy in which they are protected if they pay taxes and show humiliation. I suppose it seems like a relatively easy task, but this document does not go into detail about what you have to do to show your humiliation though. The document implies that if you convert to Islam then you will not have to pay the tax but if you are not of Islam faith then it is mandatory.
Reasons for converting to the Islam faith may be that you have less taxes to pay and you can be open with people around, more accepted in society it seems.
miss patel, the hatreds between the two sides continue, but not over leadership. sunnis and shias now have different beliefs, different rituals, law codes, etc.
the second document sounded a little repressing to me...i no they were really liniant to other faiths but it still seemed like they couldn't do a lot like even not being to similar to the muslims. then again, i guess that's about the extent of it. if they weren't so flexible i guess they could be getting killed but still...
Okay, so these documents were very different, mostly because they were from different points of veiw! I think that it is really interesting that the Christians, in the second document, seemed a little frightned by the Muslium population, or they wouldn't promise all those rights in that treaty to them. Apparently, all they want is protection, but maybe they also want saftey from the Musliums themselves?? Im just wondering what or who exactly they want protection from! Also, it mentioned in the first document that all other areas had a leader, but thay were based on a political leader and not finding an appropriate a religious leader. But this is a little contraversial because didn't musliums have their leader based on politics too, and not really on religion too?? I don't know all the facts, but thats just what i thought!!
In The Dhimmi, it clearly sets the guidelines for the how religious differentiations among the Islamic Empire would be settled. For one thing, Non-Muslims are permitted to pay a tax. This did not cause unrest because it wasn't as harsh as what other rulers would have them pay. When it states humiliation, that doesn't necessarily mean disgracing your honor, but simply accepting the the rules for being non-Muslim, and adhering to the guideline that have been set. They also go on to state that you cannot add together households to reduce tax, but they won't do the opposite to increase tax. This appeals to citizens because it represents fairness and balance in taxation, without risk of being overtaxed. In addition to protection on tax rates, they also offer protection of religious beliefs. They will protect your way of life, your churches, your holy figures, and your freedom to believe in your beliefs. They have no intention to impose on your religion, this keeps the taxation on non-Muslims and also prevents civil unrest. Also, not everyone will convert because most people believe in something for beliefs not benefits, unless they're pushed over the edge, and of course Muslims will be more socially respected because the rulers of the empire are Muslims.
In the next document, the view shifts to a Christians side. His people are willing to accept all these codes and restrictions, in exchange for protection. The only requests is that they don't promote their religion in front of Muslims, they don't restrict conversion, they treat Muslims well, they don't help Muslim enemies, and they don't disgrace any part of the Muslim religion or common language by practice or use without conversion to Islamic belief. They are still allowed to keep their churches, beliefs, daily lives, and are still relatively free to do as they wish as long as a Muslim is not among them. So, although there are a lot of restrictions, it seems a small price to pay for protection and still being allowed religion as opposed to forced conversion. So, as the Christian believer portrays it, he thinks that these rules and regulations are worth having protection under their new rulers.
Also, as it has been discussed about the conflicts arisen from Sunni and Shi'a, the conflict started long ago, and with the division, tensions grew. Shi'a were kept out of Mecca and had to seek a new holy place of pilgrimage. The Sunni have majorly populated most Islamic countries except for the two we discussed in class(Iran and Iraq). The converted beliefs, law codes, and rituals have added to the tensions, and I'm sure the fact that both sides call themself Muslims and practice Islamic religion, angers the opposing side, as they view Islamic religion differently. So, although the division ended and normally the conflict would just blow over, these new conversions among the Sunni and Shi'a have kept them divided, and tensions growing.
mr. prill do you think that we should blame muhhamed for the spilt of the muslims? correct me if i am wrong but it sounds like if he had picked a successor this problem would have most likely never accured because everyone was willing to listen to what muhhamed had to say and therefore wouldnt go against what he wanted.
it is generally felt that if a successor (and more importantly, a method for choosing one) had been selected, the history of the islamic world would have surely been different. in reality though, even if this had been done, conflict over leadership is something that is oftentimes sparked in religious systems. in couple of weeks we'll talk about a split in the christian church that will forever divide the church between catholic and eastern orthodox. there will be times that within the catholic church itself there will be disputes over leadership (i.e. the great schism in which two popes will exist in two difference cities, dividing that faction for a time). in season 3, the catholic church will split permanantly as the protestant church is formed and breaks away, which will later split a ton of times and still continues to split. although the protestant reformation had a lot to do with doctrine, leadership, specifically the leadership of the pope, is called into question. my point is that splits in religion are not only common, but quite frankly, inevitable.
one main difference that i noticed was that these two doctuments were written by two opposite people. One was by a christian and one was by a muslim.
i think that Ibn Muslama's pact guarantee the Christians that a christian leader like a priests or minister does not care about politics and money.
But then in the second doctument, it sounds like the christian WANT to be enemies with the muslims. but why? why would you want to be considered a rebel or enemy to another religion. doesnt that just cause more drama and war?
Both of these documents they are both related, but are coming from different perspectives. The one by Umar was written in the christian perspective, where as the one by Ibn Muslama was written in the Islamic perspective. In the christian document it seems like the Islamic people are treating the christians harsh, but in the Islamic perspective it seems like they are giving the christians their rights and freedoms as long as they pay their taxes. If the muslims document is true than I think the christians had it made, but if the christian document is true than the christians had it pretty rough. I think the christian document is true unless the christians just made all those stories up for attention and to try to gain power. Which could easily have happened.
one major difference i saw in these two documents are their points of view. one was a muslim perspective while the other was christian. people that were not arab had to pay jizya. that was a tax they had to pay. if you were muslim and not arab there was still a tax but not as high. it seems as if you are muslim you fit better into society.
The second document by Caliph Umar shows a completely different story than the first document by Habib ibn. The document by Caliph tells us about how repressed the Christian faith was just so that they could be protected by the Muslim government. Habib ibn shows a policy in which they are protected if they pay taxes and show humiliation. I suppose it seems like a relatively easy task.
okay. first things first. (not directed to anyone...just throwing it out there.) of course there are going to be two different accounts for how things were done, one, because one was from a Muslim, and the other from a Christian. Two, they were different time/ different rulers. Although the major similarity is that Christians got the short end of the stick, I can understand why. I mean, the Muslims could have forced them to convert if they truly wanted to (even thought it was frowned upon), and so a set of rules has to be in place to maintain order, and prevent totaly anarchy. The 2nd document was more repressing for the Christians than the document, especially in the text when it says that Christians could not strike a Muslim, could not speak of their faith, could not even use palms on palm sunday, and they even had their own dress code to distinguish Christian from Muslim. All in all, the Muslims were the ruling classes, and the Christians were always one step below them.
As Prill said, the second document was from when the Arabs/muslims? had become less lenient towards other religions. But as other people have pointed out, the one written from the Muslim perspective says that they are treating the Christians perfectly, and the one from the Christian perspective shows that Christians are repressed. So, I think in actuallyity it was somewhere inbetween how the two people describe it, with varrying degrees of leniency.
The pact of umar differs from the Ibn Muslalma's pact in that it was written in different point of views. Ibn Muslama's pact stated Muslim's perspective, and they tried to justify themselves by making it sound like all non-Muslims had to do was to pay taxes and help needy Muslims in return for protection and freedom.
THe second document was written in non-Mulsim perspective. It sounded like Muslims were afraid of people converting to Christianity,so they prohibited Christians from expressing their religious beliefs in front of Muslims.
Although in the Ibn Muslama's pact it sounds like the Muslims welcomed converts from other religions, I think they didn't really wanted it because in second document, it says that non-Muslims were prohibited from teaching Quran to their children and they couldn't imitate Muslims.
The first document secures the Christians safety to their beliefs as long as they pay the required tax and are obedient to Allah and Islamic law.
The sec. doc. restates the peace treaty. The Christians and Muslims living kindly together, and being individual religions. The Christians promise to do all these things for their security and keeping their religion.
The religions are similar and are promising to co-exist. The Christians are technically below the Muslims, because of being conquered and paying a tax. Wouln't it be eaiser and better for you to convert?
Post a Comment