Western Ignorance of the ‘Conditions of Omar’
A jihadi group occupying the Syrian town of Raqqa recently gave Christian minorities living there three choices: 1) convert to Islam; 2) remain Christian but pay tribute and accept third-class subject status; or 3) die by the sword.
According to the BBC, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria issued a directive:
[The directive cites] the Islamic concept of “dhimma,” [which] requires Christians in the city to pay tax of around half an ounce (14g) of pure gold in exchange for their safety. It says Christians must not make renovations to churches, display crosses or other religious symbols outside churches, ring church bells or pray in public. Christians must not carry arms, and must follow other rules imposed by ISIS (also known as ISIL) on their daily lives. The statement said the group had met Christian representatives and offered them three choices — they could convert to Islam, accept ISIS’ conditions, or reject their control and risk being killed. “If they reject, they are subject to being legitimate targets, and nothing will remain between them and ISIS other than the sword,” the statement said.
Because several Western media outlets uncharacteristically reported on this latest atrocity against Syrian Christians, many Westerners are now shocked and amazed to hear of such draconian conditions.
In reality, however, these three choices are fully grounded in Islamic teachings, as shall be demonstrated below.
Why is the West, especially in the “information age,” utterly if not abhorrently ignorant of the teachings of Islam? Because those responsible for making such knowledge available — specifically academia, media, and government — are more interested in whitewashing Islam and bemoaning Islamophobia (see pgs. 219-249 of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians for specifics).
Western Dissembling
A symbolic example of this situation: around the same time that news of jihadis subjugating and extorting jizya-money from Syrian Christians appeared, the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding at Georgetown University held a seminar discussing how Islam is misunderstood and being demonized by so-called “Islamophobes.”
I have direct experience of this. Many years ago as a graduate student at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, my interest in medieval Islamic history, Sharia, and jihad received askance looks from professors — not least because most classes offered were about the evils of colonialism and Orientalism, or Islamic “feminism.”
The same situation existed when I worked at the African and Middle Eastern Division of the Library of Congress, a governmental institution; there, our conferences regularly focused on the purported achievements of Islamic civilization.
As for the endemic Muslim persecution of Christians — past or present — apparently only an “Islamophobe” would raise that topic.
Also around the same time that jihadis were giving Christians the three classic choices of Islam — conversion, subjugation, or death — a delegation of Syrian Christian clergy came to the Senate Arms Services Committee meeting room to offer testimony concerning the sufferings of Syria’s Christians:
Sen. John McCain marched into the committee room yelling, according to a high-level source that attended the meeting, and quickly stormed out. “He was incredibly rude,” the source told Judicial Watch “because he didn’t think the Syrian church leaders should even be allowed in the room.” Following the shameful tantrum McCain reentered the room and sat briefly but refused to make eye contact with the participants, instead ignoring them by looking down at what appeared to be random papers. The outburst was so embarrassing that Senator Graham, also an advocate of U.S. military intervention in Syria, apologized for McCain’s disturbing outburst. “Graham actually apologized to the group for McCain’s behavior,” according to the source, who sat through the entire meeting. “It was truly unbelievable.”
Less dramatic but equally revealing, CIA chief John Brennan recently declared that the ideology of those offering Christians three choices is “a perverse and very corrupt interpretation of the Koran,” one that has “hijacked” Islam and “really distorted the teachings of Muhammad.”
If the attempts to suppress the reality of Christian suffering under Islam by academia, media, and government were not enough, months and years back — when the plight of Syria’s Christians was becoming known — even random (but supposedly nonbiased and independent) think tanks and writers also tried to suppress it.
Is it any wonder, then, that Christians in Syria being offered three choices — Islam, subjugation, or death — is mindboggling to the average person in the West, appearing as a wild aberration?
The Conditions of Omar
Knowledge of the particulars of Islam’s three-fold choice has been available for centuries. Early Western peoples were much acquainted with it, including the now much maligned “Orientalists.”
Whereas Koran 9:29 provides divine sanction to fight the “People of the Book” (namely, Christians and Jews) “until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued,” the lesser known Conditions of Omar (also known as the Pact of Omar) describes in detail how they are to feel themselves subdued.
Named after the second caliph, Omar bin al-Khattab (r. 634 to 644), the Conditions was purportedly agreed upon between the caliph and a community of Christians conquered by invading Muslims, ironically in the region of Syria. It has since been referenced in most major works on the treatment of dhimmis — non-Muslims living under Islamic authority.
There are different versions of the text of the Conditions, varying only slightly. Excerpts from one of the most authoritative versions follow (my translation). As in most versions, the conquered Christians appear to be speaking and agree:
Not to build a church in our city — nor a monastery, convent, or monk’s cell in the surrounding areas — and not to repair those that fall in ruins or are in Muslim quarters;
Not to clang our cymbals except lightly and from the innermost recesses of our churches;
Not to display a cross on them [churches], nor raise our voices during prayer or readings in our churches anywhere near Muslims;
Not to produce a cross or [Christian] book in the markets of the Muslims;
Not to congregate in the open for Easter or Palm Sunday, nor lift our voices [in lamentation] for our dead nor show our firelights with them near the market places of the Muslims;
Not to display any signs of polytheism, nor make our religion appealing, nor call or proselytize anyone to it;
Not to prevent any of our relatives who wish to enter into Islam;
Not to possess or bear any arms whatsoever, nor gird ourselves with swords;
To honor the Muslims, show them the way, and rise up from our seats if they wish to sit down;
We guarantee all this to you upon ourselves, our descendants, our spouses, and our neighbors, and if we change or contradict these conditions imposed upon ourselves in order to receive safety, we forfeit our dhimma [covenant], and we become liable to the same treatment you inflict upon the people who resist and cause sedition.
To “become liable to the same treatment you inflict upon the people who resist and cause sedition” simply meant that, if any stipulation of the Conditions was broken, the Christians would resume their natural status as non-submitting infidels who “resist and cause sedition” against Islam — becoming, once again, free game for killing or enslavement.
Far from being merely a historical or theoretical text, the Conditions are very much on the minds of some Muslims. Aside from the new reports that jihadis are enforcing the Conditions — and to a tee — on the Christians of Raqqa, Syria, consider the following words of Saudi Sheikh Marzouk Salem al-Ghamdi, spoken once during a Friday mosque sermon:
If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet — there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions are … that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes … that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, that they do not imitate Muslims in dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon; that they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, that they shave their hair in front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims, and do not strike a Muslim. … If they violate these conditions, they have no protection.
From here, one can understand why all around the Islamic world Christians are under attack, their churches bombed, burned, or simply denied permits to exist or renovate, and their Bibles, crosses, and other symbols of “polytheism” confiscated and/or destroyed. One can understand why Christians who openly speak of Christianity are accused of proselytizing or blaspheming, both of which can lead to execution; and one can understand why Christians are being forced to pay tribute, or to convert to Islam, or to die.
Just the other day in Pakistan, Christians “began the construction of a church on land donated by the Christian Akber Masih, a resident in the area. They built the walls of the building and placed a cross in front of the main gate of the small construction yard.” But “when a large group of Islamic extremists saw the Christian symbol they arrived unexpectedly with bulldozers and started demolishing the building.” Although the Christians notified police and authorities, “the perpetrators were not arrested.” As for the aggrieved Christians, they “have received threats and have to abandon the idea of the project to build a church.”
Thanks to Western intervention in the colonial era, the Conditions largely disappeared — not least because Muslim leaders and elites were themselves Westernizing. But today, as Muslims turn back to their Islamic heritage and its teachings — not least because Western leaders and elites are urging them to in the name of multiculturalism, if not moral relativism — the Conditions are returning. And woe to the Christian minority who dares break them by exercising religious freedom — what I call the “How Dare You?” phenomenon, which is responsible for the overwhelming majority of Islamic attacks on non-Muslims.
Even so, thanks to the “progressive” dissembling of academia, media, and government — the supposed guardians and disseminators of truth and knowledge — such simple facts about Islam remain a great mystery in the West, to our own detriment.






Islam will be as unified as it needs to be to destroy the rest of us, THEN resume fighting among themselves after we've all been slaughtered.
That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard.
Simple question, if this interpretation of islam really is incorrect, has the clergy in saudi arabia ever issued a joint fatwa saying so, and stating that those who follow this interpretation of islam are heritics, and any muslim who gives money to them is also a heritic. If not, then Brennan is an islamic apoligist spouting BS.
Unless, of course, one is Muslim, in which case special dispensation is made in public facilities at the same time that crosses are torn down from public squares. The policers of tolerance are cowards.
The US doesn't have dhimmitude, but it is no longer a place of religious tolerance.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/heavy-clashes-syria-turkish-border-23023925
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/178825#.Uy_OECg_My4
Radical Islam wants to destroy them and radical leftists are in bed with radical Islam to camouflage their combined intent.
"Moderate Islam and moderate leftism come each in two forms.
1)Radicals hiding as moderates
2) Useful idiots spouting indoctrinated propaganda
People of The Book turn the other cheek and try to find the best in others. They behave in a mannered, genteel and formal decorous fashion. Radicals blow things up, plot overthrows, slander, lie, rape the information stream and propagandize the entire culture.
The theater of warfare for hearts and minds therefore consists of People of The Book doing a swell job of slamming their chins into radical fists and hurling their groins against radical knees.
Maybe it's time we get up off the kneelers and step away from the Wailing Wall and defend our right to exist free from radical brutality, sedition, treason and tyranny. I know the isolationists love to roll over and play dead. Pretty soon all that practice will come in handy for the real thing. Christians "over there", who the hell cares...right? And Jews....well, it goes without saying what the isolationists think of them.
The People of the Book won't find any defenders here.
We are too busy trying to find the easy way out.
You cannot use simple negotiating tactics against radical religious fundamentalists, true believers. They do not play by your rules. They are prepared to die for the cause. You must deal with the core faith and try to understand, then figure out what to do next to defeat them.
What Christian Arabs need is an Israel of their own. I do not see this happening. What will happen, and is going on, is an Exodus. We know this from demographics for decades now.
I assume that the People of the Book here does not refer to the other People of the Book who right now are defending and fighting along every front. Go to the Golan or Gaza border today. A Christian of any denomination has far more security and freedom in Israel than anywhere else in the hostile Middle East. That does not come cheap or easy.,,
Turkish PM Erdogan, "These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
"He [that would be Muhammad, the founder of Islam and Islam's "Perfect Man", not some "radical", not to Muslims anyway] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion [that would be Islam, not "Islamism", not "Radical Islam", not 'Islamists" not "Islamofascism", not "Hijacked Islam", but ISLAM, ISLAM, ISLAM!!!], against all the rest of mankind." (John Quincy Adams)
Col. Allen West: “This is not a perversion, They are doing EXACTLY what the Koran says. Until you get principled leadership in the United States of America that is willing to say that, we will continue to chase our tail, because we will never clearly define who the enemy is”.
They are shocked to learn traditional Islamic practices that have been going on for over a thousand years? Don't people ever learn history anymore? Many of those "peaceful" and "tolerant" Islamic societies that Islamophiles like to laud were so because half the non-Islamic population had died in the process of making it peaceful and tolerant.
Charles Martel was a brilliant strategic general and also a great tactical commander, who in the middle of battle was able to adapt his plans to his enemy's forces and movement and to defeat them repeatedly, even when, as at Tours, they were far superior in numbers of men and in weaponry. Charles Martel also had another quality, also totally missing in the sorry lot of today's American multi-star generals, including the neocon's beloved disgraced Petraeus, he could foresee the dangers of his foes, and prepared for them with great cunning using terrain, time and place to offset the enemy's superior weaponry and larger numbers and adapted, over and over again, to the enemy on the battlefield, gracefully adjusting to compensate for the unforeseen and seemingly unforeseeable.
Between these two religions [Christianity and Islam], thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus.
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman [Muslim] lays it down as the foundation of his discourse.
(John Quincy Adams on Islam.)
(show less)
While in Great Britain, Sharia is being adopted in deliberate, tangible steps:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/22/Law-Society-Sharia
Most admitted have special skills in medicine, engineering, business, science, IT, economy, or something. Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran ...I have worked with highly trained professionals from all of those places. They are never going back. Big loss for the Jihadis who are left with no talent or ability to launch a modern economy.
The true believer jihadis can blow things up and kill, but that is the limit of their skill set. They cannot build a country. That is a weakness to be exploited.
There is no need to generate any special exemptions for Muslims here other than the same ones we give to other religious groups. We should give exactly the same considerations and nothing more. Religious freedom is a core American value, it is a strength as much as the f-16, we should not give that up.
You just wait until there are enough of them in our midst & watch as they exert a burgeoning degree of pressure to have elements of shariah law implemented. It's already happening in places around our country. Exhibit A: Dearborn, Michigan. Research it.