As I said in my last post about al-Sistani, the fact that neither him nor Robert Spencer have answered my emails might be due to, “the fact that the email was coming from an address such as mine, i.e. ”Mr. President”  at konservo @ hotmail [dot] com.”

If you recall, my question for Robert Spencer concerned a statement he made about the battle at Tabuk, here is the email I sent to Jihad Watch:

Hello,I have a question for Robert Spencer regarding a blog post of his at HotAir. I’m referring to his latest blogging the Quran post entitled “Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 9, “Repentance,” verse 29″

In this post Mr. Spencer states that: “expedition to Tabuk… was [Muhammad's] first attempt to take on the
great Christian empire that the Muslims would chip away at for centuries and ultimately destroy.”Would not the Battle of Mu’tah have been the first attempt, considering that Romans and Ghassanids both fought against the Muslims? Or is Mr. Spencer referring to the first attempt to take on the Roman Empire specifically? I have linked to the HotAir post (my blog is the DjKonservo blog) and the issue has been raised there, so any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Keep up all the great work at Jihad Watch!

Thanks, Konservo

Alas, no response. Mr. Spencer has been so kind as to respond to the question below.

But such matters are trivial compared to information found in this morning’s Q-Blog.

Spencer has (rightly) devoted another entire post to Chapter 9 verse 29 of the Qur’an, as this is the verse that

mandates that the Muslims fight against the Jews and Christians “until they pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Today, an explanation of the Pact of Umar is given

No, not that Umar.

The Umar in question here was a caliph from 634 to 644.

This Pact is worth close examination, because it became the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis. With remarkably little variation, throughout Islamic history whenever Islamic law was strictly enforced, this is generally how non-Muslims were treated. Working from the full text as Ibn Kathir has it, these are the conditions the Christians accept in return for “safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion” – conditions that, according to Ibn Kathir, “ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.” The Christians will not:

1. Build “a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk”;
2. “Restore any place of worship that needs restoration”;
3. Use such places “for the purpose of enmity against Muslims”;
4. “Allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims”;
5. Imitate the Muslims’ “clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names”;
6. “Ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons”;
7. “Encrypt our stamps in Arabic”
8. “Sell liquor” – Christians in Iraq in the last few years ran afoul of Muslims reasserting this rule;
9. “Teach our children the Qur’an”;
10. “Publicize practices of Shirk” – that is, associating partners with Allah, such as regarding Jesus as Son of God. In other words, Christian and other non-Muslim religious practice will be private, if not downright furtive;
11. Build “crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets” – again, Christian worship must not be public, where Muslims can see it and become annoyed;
12. “Sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets”;
13. “Bury our dead next to Muslim dead”;
14. “Buy servants who were captured by Muslims”;
15. “Invite anyone to Shirk” – that is, proselytize, although the Christians also agree not to:
16. “Prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.” Thus the Christians can be the objects of proselytizing, but must not engage in it themselves;
17. “Beat any Muslim.”

Meanwhile, the Christians will:

1. Allow Muslims to rest “in our churches whether they come by day or night”;
2. “Open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby”;
3. Provide board and food for “those Muslims who come as guests” for three days;
4. “Respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them” – shades of Jim Crow;
5. “Have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist” – these are so that a Muslim recognizes a non-Muslim as such as doesn’t make the mistake of greeting him with As-salaamu aleikum, “Peace be upon you,” which is the Muslim greeting for a fellow Muslim;
6. “Be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.”

The Christians swore: “If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”

Of course, the Pact of Umar is a seventh-century document. But the imperative to subjugate non-Muslims as mandated by Qur’an 9:29 and elaborated by this Pact became and remained part of Islamic law.

Not until the 19th century, did the West pressure Islamic regimes to end the dhimmification. However, in the 20th century, fundamentalist jihadists sought to revive these Islamic-supremacist customs.

Perhaps the most important point, however, that Robert Spencer makes, is found in the comments over at HotAir:

An important note I didn’t have room for above:

Islamic apologists in the West today commonly assert that 9:29 commands warfare only against the Jews and Christians who fought against Muhammad, and no others. I wish that every Muslim believed that, but unfortunately that has never been the mainstream Islamic understanding of this verse. Indeed, if it had been, the Pact of Umar, which I detail above, would never have been made — for it was made after Muhammad’s death with Christians against whom he did not fight. That in itself, as well as the teachings of all the schools of Islamic law, illustrates that this verse was always understood as having a universal application.

Robert Spencer on December 9, 2007 at 9:02 AM

As I have said before, it is of the utmost importance for Muslims who want Islam to survive in the 21st century to be open to readings that break from the traditional interpretations. Other major religions have done this, and if Islam truly wants to be seen as a peaceful religion, Muslims need to start reforming and toning down the hateful rhetoric.