Are These Restrictions Based on Any Clear Islamic Injunctions?

Let us at this stage try to find out what after all, if any, is the ultimate sanction under Islamic law which could justify these restrictions. Does the Holy Quran deal with these restrictions? Or can they be traced back to Sunna and the practice of the Holy Prophet (sas)? The answer to these questions had better be given in the words of these jurists themselves.

"If the right to impose these restrictions against the Dhimmis is challenged on the ground that in the days of the Holy Prophet (sas) such restrictions were conspicuous by their absence, and they are not, therefore, permitted under the Shari‘ah, the answer is that in the days of the Prophet (sas) the number of Dhimmis was very small indeed and they were known to all. The question of mistaking their identity, therefore, could not arise. But in the days of Hazrat ‘Umar (ra), the need arose to impose such restrictions. He even ordered imposition of such restrictions in the presence of a large number of the companions of the Holy Prophet (sas), none of whom objected to this step of Hazrat ‘Umar (ra).1

In the foregoing passage the jurists themselves confess that in the august days of the Holy Prophet (sas) such restrictions against the Dhimmis did not exist. They also admit that under Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) too, these restrictions were non-existent. As for as Hazrat ‘Umar’sra Khilafat is concerned, historical evidence conclusively proves that his days, too, are free from the blot of such restrictions and give a lie to the claims of the jurists, which is supported neither by internal nor external evidence. The so-called treaty on which the jurists rely and which has been reported by Ibn-e-Mandah runs as follows:

"The Christians of Syria and this town sign this instrument of surrender to be submitted to the servant of Allah the commander of the faithful, ‘Umar. Your armies overpowered us in the battlefield. We, therefore, seek protection under you for ourselves and for our families, for our properties and for our nation. In return, we undertake to abide by the following conditions which we have voluntarily offered out of our own free choice. In our cities or their suburbs, we will build no new church or monastery, nor shall we rebuild the old churches. Similarly, we will not stop Muslims who come from outside from staying in the churches, day or night, their doors shall remain open for them. We shall also consider it our duty to extend to them our hospitality for three days. We shall not permit spies against the Muslims to take refuge in the churches. We shall not permit our children to study the Holy Quran. We shall neither preach nor practice shirk or Bid‘at. Nor shall we stop the people from accepting Islam. We shall esteem the Muslims for whom we shall stand up and make room when we receive them in our midst. We shall not imitate the dress the Muslims wear and shall not follow their hairstyle. We shall not speak the Arabic language. Nor shall we permit the use of family names like the Muslims. We shall ride bareback. We shall not engrave Arabic letters on our sings. We shall not trade in liquors in the Muslim habitations. We shall shave the hairs on the frontal of our heads as a mark of distinction. We shall wear Zunnar round our waists. We shall not take out processions of the cross or the holy books in Muslim areas, or shall we display the cross or the images, nor ring church-bells before the Muslims."2

In point of sanad3 this treaty is most suspect. غرائب الشعبہ (Ghara’ibush-Shu‘bah) is not at all an authoritative book on Hadith, nor does it have any historical importance whatsoever. What is more, this treaty reported by Ibn-e-Mandah is in flagrant conflict with the Instrument of Protection which the Holy Prophet (sas) granted to the monks of St. Catherine’s monastery and which has already been quoted above. To say that Hazrat ‘Umarra did something which was diametrically opposed to what the Holy Prophet (sas) did or that he was even ignorant of the existence of this instrument of protection is, to say the least, historically false. Further, the confused style and the ill-assorted internal structure of the so-called treaty are enough to establish that it is a mere myth and fabrication. Throughout the Muslim history, never has any restriction been placed on the study of the Holy Quran by the non-Muslims. Instead the Holy Quran repeatedly invites the non-Muslims to consider and ponder its message. Says the Holy Quran:

اَفَلَا یَتَدَبَّرُوۡنَ الۡقُرۡاٰنَ

"Will they not, then, ponder over the Quran." (47:25)

Elsewhere it says:

وَلَقَدۡ یَسَّرۡنَا الۡقُرۡاٰنَ لِلذِّکۡرِ فَہَلۡ مِنۡ مُّدَّکِرٍ ۝

"And indeed we have made the Quran easy to understand and to remember. But is there anyone who would receive admonition?" (54:18)

How could a book with this message support any restriction on its study. Similarly no embargo has ever been placed on the study of Arabic language. There have been a host of non-Muslim scholars of Arabic language. It is an historical fact that when Hazrat ‘Umar (ra) visited Jabiyah in Syria, the man who interpreted his addresses to the people there was a Christian priest who was a deputy to the Bishop and occupied a high office in the church.4 Similarly who can deny the poetic excellence of اختل (Akhtal) who was a famous Christian poet in the court of Umayyad Caliphs. The personal physician and his official interpreter Ibn-e-Assal was also a Christian.

What is more important is that the Muslims have always respected and preserved the sanctity of non-Muslim temples. They have never allowed any Muslim to violate their sanctity by staying in them. On the other hand the Muslims themselves have inserted this condition in many of the agreements they signed that they would not let any Muslim reside in non-Muslim temples. For instance, this condition is very much clear in their agreement with the Christians of Jerusalem. It is interesting to note that this agreement was signed by Hazrat ‘Umar (ra) himself. We reproduce parts of the treaty in support of our thesis:

"This is the pledge of protection granted by the Servant of Allah, Commander of the faithful, ‘Umar, to the people of Elia. This protection covers their lives and properties, their sick and healthy, it extends to all belonging to all religions. Their churches shall not be lived in, they shall not be destroyed and their buildings and compounds shall not be harmed in any way. Their properties shall not be appropriated. They shall not be interfered with in their religious matters. They shall not be harmed in any other way. All that is mentioned in this deed is guaranteed by Allah, His Prophet (sas), the Khulafa and by the Muslims, the only condition being that they continue to pay the fixed amount of Jizyah regularly."5

Similarly Hazrat ‘Umar (ra) had issued this standing order to the officials for vigilance and not to let any Muslim be unjust to the Dhimmi citizens and to be vigilant against any attempt to harm their interests and to safeguard their properties against any trespass on the part of the Muslims and to see that each clause of the treaty is scrupulously honoured in every detail.6

Similarly the treaty with the people of ماہ دینار (Mah Dinar) also provided:

"No attempt shall be made to force them to change their religion. Nor shall any interference be tolerated in the performance of their religious rites."7

In short, every single treaty that has been handed down to us through authoritative historical records provides for the full protection of the life, property and religion of the non-Muslim citizens. Their culture and civilization has invariably been left untouched and no restriction has ever been placed on their social and national life. Similarly they were excused from compulsory military service unlike the Muslims. That is why, at times, they were not allowed to wear military uniforms or to carry arms. In this connection Imam Abu Yusuf says:

"The non-Muslim citizens can wear any dress except military uniform nor can they carry arms. Because military uniform will confuse them with the Muslim soldiers."8

Another reason against this sartorial uniformity was that Hazrat ‘Umar (ra) insisted that the Muslims lead plain lives, wear rough home-spun stuff, and live hard and austere lives and not be self-indulgent and easy-going like the conquered Iranian. Abu ‘Uthman Nahdi says:

"We were stationed in Azerbaijan under ‘Utbah bin Farqad in connection with a border expedition, "We received a directive from Hazrat ‘Umar (ra) in which he had ordered, "Wear Tehband and sheets and use sandals. Stop using trousers and socks. In short, stick to the dress of your father Ishmael. Avoid Iranian ways of living, because they would make you easy-going and self-indulgent. Live under the open skies and the sun, because they are a bath for Arabs and eliminate toxic poisons from the blood that cause disease. Lead a rigorous and exaction life."9

It is clear that this was a general directive which sought to inculcate in the Muslims the spirit of plain and hard living. The Muslims were, therefore, expected to wear dress which was much simpler and different from the dress the Dhimmi citizens were allowed to wear who were under no such obligation. Unfortunately this gave rise to confusion and misled some to believe as if a special dress had been prescribed for the Dhimmi citizens. All this proves that the Dhimmi citizens were at full liberty to wear any dress they liked and that no religious or social taboo was placed on its use. True, long after the pious Khilafat certain restrictions were placed in the days of the Umayyads and that too under the stress of political expediency. It is a pity that the later jurists gave them a religious bias. ‘Allamah Kashani says:

"The restrictions on the Dhimmis were first imposed when the Umayyad Caliph ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul-‘Aziz passed by certain riders who looked like Muslims. The caliph greeted them as such. Some of his retinue told him that they were Christians and not Muslims. He did not like this error and on return home ordered that the Christians wear Zunnar as a mark of distinction and use only a special type of saddle and not ride horses. No Muslim at the time took objection to this declaration which in time came to assume the status of Ijma‘."10

This extract constitutes an external evidence of the fact that right up to the days of ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul‘Aziz there did not exist any distinction between the Muslims and the Dhimmis, and that the orders for the imposition of these restrictions were passed not by Hazrat ‘Umar (ra) but by ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul-‘Aziz, the Umayyad caliph.

Let us now take up the practice of Hazrat ‘Uthman (ra)—the third Khalifah and other companions of the Holy Prophet (sas). Here, too, we do not find any social levels and distinctions between the Muslims and non-Muslims. Hazrat ‘Uthman (ra) himself had a Christian wife named Na’ilah, daughter of Farafisah Kalbiyah. Similarly Hazrat Talha (ra), a famous companion of the Holy Prophet (sas) had married a Syrian Jewess.11 The same is true about the days of the fourth Khalifah, Hazrat ‘Ali (ra), and even long after him.

Hazrat Safiyyah, the mother of the faithful and wife of the Holy Prophet (sas), retained her relationships and contacts with her Jew relatives even after becoming a Muslim and marrying the Holy Prophet (sas). Even during the days of the Holy Prophet (sas) her non-Muslim relatives were received as honoured visitors in the house of the Holy Prophet (sas). Actually she left one third of her legacy to her nephew under her will. The nephew was a Jew.12

Some critics point out that doubtlessly the Muslims did have treaties with the conquered non-Muslims which were liberal and gave the Dhimmis an equal status with the Muslims, but they did not honour them and live up to their spirit. They back up this objection by referring to the abrogation of treaty rights of the Jews and the Christians of Medina, Khaiber and Najran. They were exiled and their security withdrawn. The answer to this objection is that every treaty implies certain duties which either side must carry out. Unless these duties are solemnly honoured the treaty becomes null and void. The real question is which party was guilty of violating the treaty obligations? The Jews of Medina had made this covenant with the Muslim that they would live as loyal and peaceful citizens of Muslim state, will have no truck with its enemies and will not conspire against it. The way the Jews dishonoured the solemn pledge is a matter of history. One of the clauses of the treaty was that in the event of clash with the enemy the Medinite Jews will help the Muslims. But in the Battle of Badr the Jews actively conspired against the Muslims, spied against them and altogether played a role which was against the spirit and letter of the treaty. They even went to the length of conspiring to assassinate the Holy Prophet (sas). While the Prophet (sas) was visiting the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir of Medina one of them threw a millstone on the Prophet (sas), luckily he escaped injury because of timely warning. In the Battle of Ditch, Banu Quraizah, another Jewish tribe of Medina, tried to stab the Muslims in the back by helping the invading Meccan army. When the Holy Prophet (sas) invoked the treaty and appealed to them to honour their obligations under the treaty, at such a crucial moment, they disowned any connection with it and declared that they did not believe in any agreements nor for that matter in any friendship with the Muslims. Actually the battle of Ahzab was the direct result of Jewish designs and machinations. The Jews sent out their agents to all corners of the country to fan the flames of hatred against the Muslims and to organise the Arab tribes into a united anti-Muslim front.

When the Prophet (sas) conquered Khaiber the Jews requested that they might be allowed to stay on. The Prophet (sas) accepted their request and declared:

اَقِرُّکُمْ مَا اَقَرَّکُمُ اللّٰہُ

That they could stay on as long as they maintain peace and were loyal to the state. The Jews, however, could not stay but continued to indulge in their habitual pastime of conspiring against the Muslims. They once even had the daring to throw down Hazrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar (ra) from the roof of a house. He did not die but sustained serious injuries.

The Christians of Najran made secret piles of weapons of war in clear contravention of the covenant, tried to rise in revolt and establish a buffer state between Hejaz and Ethiopia. The Muslims were fighting a two-front battle against powerful foes, the forty thousand hostile Christians behind the Muslim lines were no weak threat to their security.

Under the circumstances no action which was taken against the Jews and Christians, could by any stretch of imagination, be called unjust. Particularly when it was taken to maintain law and order which is the primary duty of every government and had no bearing on the religious beliefs of the culprit. No government worth the name can permit open challenge and conspiracies under its jurisdiction. The surprising fact is that the action taken against these conspiring Jews and Christians was too mild. On their expulsion from Medina, Banu Nadir were permitted to remove their possessions including weapons of war. The lands of the Jews of Khaiber were purchased at the existing market rates and they were supplied with means of transport and conveyance. When the Christians of Najran were exiled, all expenditure incurred on their movement was borne by the state. The government had issued orders that the local authorities provide them with all amenities at every halt all along the route. They were even permitted to settle in any part of Iraq or Syria and were given free lands. Further, they were given a full two years’ tax holiday.13

In short all agreements and treaties which the Muslims made, the Islamic law pertaining to government and the way these treaties and principles were respected, as also the personal example, of the Holy Prophet (sas) himself and of his companions and Khulafa conclusively prove that the non-Muslims received the kind of sympathetic and considerate treatment at the hands of the Muslims which has no parallel in the annals of Jewish or Christian religion or of any other religion and still stands unsurpassed. It is an abject lesson to every modern secular state which faces the problem of minorities under its jurisdiction. Needless to say, that the way the Hindu India is trying to solve the problem of its Muslim minority by its liquidation and the American Whites are trying to carry the burden of the Black Negro and the Communists are handling the non-Communists has no comparison even with the treatment meted out to the minorities under some of the latter day Muslim kings whom the non-Muslim critics take pleasure in denouncing and criticizing and whose actions, it is admitted, were determined more by expediency than by their respect to Islamic law.