Book #1: Religion and State by L. Carl Brown

[jmm99]

We now can turn to the "Assurance of Umar". See, Wiki - Siege of Jerusalem (637); and Wiki - Pact of Umar:

Covenant of Umar also known as Pact of Umar (Arabic: شروط عمر‎ or عهد عمر or عقد عمر), is an apocryphal treaty between Muslims and Christians that later gained a canonical Islamic status in Islamic jurisprudence. The pact is traditionally attributed to the second Caliph Umar ibn Khattab.[1] Several versions of the pact exist. It contains a list of restrictive measures and prohibitions on non-Muslims in general, by abiding to them, non-Muslims may enjoy some measure of religious tolerance under Muslim rule as Dhimmis.[2][3][4] The document effectively established a social hierarchy with Muslims on top and the Dhimmis as subordinates.[5][6]

Footnote texts are in the original Wiki. Exactly how apocryphal this assurance is or is not is addressed in the two recent 2012 articles cited below.

This is Tabiri's version (from al-Bushra, below)

In the name of Allah, the merciful Benefactor! This is the assurance granted to the inhabitants of Aelia by the servant of God, 'Umar, the commander of the Believers. He grants them safety for their persons, their goods, churches, crosses - be they in good or bad condition - and their worship in general. Their churches shall neither be turned over to dwellings nor pulled down; they and their dependents shall not be put to any prejudice and thus shall it fare with their crosses and goods. No constraint shall be imposed upon them in matters of religion and no one among them shall be harmed. No Jew shall be authorised to live in Aelia with them. The inhabitants of Aelia must pay the gizya in the same way as the inhabitants of other towns. It is for them to expel from their cities Roums (Byzantians) and outlaws. Those of the latter who leave shall be granted safe conduct... Those who would stay shall be authorised to, on condition that they pay the same gizya as the inhabitants of Aelia. Those of the inhabitants of Aelia who wish to leave with the Roums, to carry away their goods, abandon their churches and Crosses, shall likewise have their own safe conduct, for themselves and for their Crosses. Rural dwellers (ahl 'I-ard) who were already in the town before the murder of such a one, may stay and pay the gizya by the same title as the people of Aelia, or if they prefer they may leave with the Roums or return to their families. Nothing shall be exacted of them.

Witnesses: Khaledb.A1-Walid, 'Amrb.A1-Alp, 'Abdar-Rahmanb. 'Awf Muawiya b. Abi Sufyan, who wrote these words, here, In the year 15 (33).

Here is a current Islamic analysis and a current Christian analysis:

al-Fattah & al-Waisi, Umar's Assurance of Aman to the People of Aelia (Islamicjerusalem): A Critical Analytical Study of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate’s Version (2012).

al-Bushra, The Christian Majority Becomes a Minority Once Again (continuation) (2012)

I view this as a pragmatic deal cut by "Umar" with the "Greek Orthodox Patriarch" (a Byzantine Trinitarian), without consideration of the fine points of the Christian systematic theologies (Unitarian, Binitarian or Trinitarian).

As al-Fattah points out, this document probably tells us more about the later Kaliphates' and Ottomen's dealings with Christians and Jews than with "year 15" Aelia.

Something of the same kind of deal was struck between Saladin and Balian ibn Barzan in 1187 to allow the "Franks" and other Christians to leave the city - and for some to stay. See, Saladin Takes Jerusalem (p.46 pdf)

This account is from Ibn al-Athir after the battles for Jerusalem.
...
Then Balian ibn Barzan asked for safe conduct for himself so that he might appear before Saladin to discuss developments. Consent was given, and he presented himself and once again began asking for a general amnesty in return for surrender. The Sultan still refused his requests and entreaties to show mercy. Finally, despairing of this approach, Balian said:

'Know, O Sultan, that there are very many of us in this city, God alone knows how many. At the moment we are fighting half-heartedly in the hope of saving our lives, hoping to be spared by you as you have spared others; this is because of the nature of horror of death and our love for life. But if we see that death is inevitable, then by God we shall kill our children and our wives, burn our possessions, so as not to leave you with a dinar or a drachma or a single man or woman to enslave. When this is done, we shall pull down the Sanctuary of the Rock and the Masjid al-Aqsa and the other sacred places, slaughtering the Muslim prisoners we hold - 5,000 of them - and killling every horse and animal we possess. Then we shall come out to fight you like men fighting for their lives, when each man, before he falls dead, kills his equals; we shall die with honour, or win a noble victory!'

How to negotiate a surrender when defending a hopeless position - bravado, bluff, bravery, which led to:

Then Saladin took council with his advisors,all of whom were in favor of granting the assurances requested by the Franks, without forcing them to take extreme measures whose outcome could not be foreseen. 'Let us consider them as being already our prisoners,' they said, 'and allow them to ransom themselves on terms agreed between us.' The Sultan agreed to give the Franks assurances of safety on the understanding that each man, rich and poor alike, should pay ten dinar, children of both sexes two dinar and women five dinar. All who paid this sum within forty days should go free, and those who had not paid at the end of the time should be enslaved. Balian ibn Barzan offered 30,000 dinar as ransom for the poor, which was accepted, and the city surrendered on Friday 27 rajab/2 October 1187, a memorable day on which the Muslim flags were hoisted over the walls of Jerusalem. . . .

According to al-Qadi al-Fadil, Balian ibn Barzan also "offered a tribute in an amount that even the most covetous could not have hoped for." Balian had a large military force (mostly Turcopols to whom he was personally commited), with their dependents, whose ransoms were based on "each man, rich and poor alike, should pay ten dinar, children of both sexes two dinar and women five dinar."

Again, a reasonable result was reached via a pragmatic approach avoiding the complexities of religious theologies.

A similar approach was taken with respect to the native Christians of Jerusalem; see, Hadia Dajani-Shakeel. "Some Medieval Accounts of Salah al-Din's Recovery of Jerusalem (Al-Quds)" (Fordham link):

The Fate of the Native Christians

'Imad al-Din indicates that, after paying their ransom, the native Christians requested Salah al-Din's permission to remain in their quarters in safety. Salah al-Din granted their request, provided that they paid the poll tax (jizya). Some members of the Armenian community also asked to stay in the city and were allowed to do so, provided that they also paid the tax. Many of the poor from both groups were exempted. Rich Christians bought much of the property of the departing Latins, as has been mentioned above. Salah al-Din allowed them to pray freely in their churches, and he handed over control of Christian affairs to the Byzantine patriarch.

'Imad al-Din notes that at first Salah al-Din ordered the closure of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Its future was discussed, and some even advised that it should be demolished in order to sever completely the attachment of the Christians to Jerusalem. However, a majority of the Muslims rejected the idea. They argued that demolishing the church would not help, for it would not prevent Christians from visiting it. According to 'Imad al-Din:

"Those who come to visit it come to worship at the location of the cross and the sepulchre rather than at the building itself. Christians will never stop making pilgrimages to this location, even if it has been totally uprooted."

Those who spoke in favour of preserving the Church of the Holy Sepulchre even suggested that when the Caliph 'Umar conquered Jerusalem, he confirmed the right of Christians to the church and gave no orders to demolish the building.

At least in the "here and now", the "People of the Book" protected status for Christians was recognized in two hard cases. But, that recognition came via pragmatism exercised on both sides. For those Christians who remained under Muslim governance, they had to accept second-class citizanship in Palestine; or convert to Islam - which many did.

Regards

Mike