Pact van Omar.

Bestaat God? Wat is de waarde van religie? Mag je een dogma in twijfel trekken?
Gebruikersavatar
Ariel
Berichten: 63594
Lid geworden op: Wo Apr 07, 2004 10:30 pm

Pact van Omar.

Berichtdoor Ariel » Za Mar 15, 2014 2:07 pm

Ik heb hier het pact van Omar maar weer eens neer gezet. In het Engels, omdat deze analyze van het pact de beste is die ik tot nu toe gelezen heb.


Much has been said of the Pact of Umar, and much of it distinctly positive. Its non-Muslim admirers gleefully compare its contents to the treatment of religious minorities in Medieval Europe, while ignoring its influence and conformity with Islamic scriptural sources which still govern the treatment of minorities in the East today.

This article analyzes the rights and limitations placed on the Christians, to see just how free non-Muslims really were under the Rightly-guided Caliph.

Analysis of the Pact

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that:


At first reading, it may seem like this pact was drafted by the Christians themselves. However, the terms were dictated to them by Umar. This is standard procedure for any agreement we may sign today, whether it be a receipt for a grocery delivery or the deeds to our homes. This, along with the true purpose of some of its demands, are confirmed by Ibn Kathir in his widely accepted tafsir.

"Allah said, (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam, (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience, (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, (Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace."

So we find that, not only many of the demands in the pact, but also the jizyah (poll tax levied against non-Muslims) which the Christians had to pay, were primarily meant to humiliate them.

we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk,


We come to our first set of prohibitions, no new monasteries, no new churches, and no new sanctuaries. This prohibition still exists in various forms in many Islamic countries. One can only imagine the uproar and condemnation if anything similar were to take place in the west.[7] Some may think the Syrians would have been pleased with Umar allowing them to keep their existing places of worship, and that takes us along to the next prohibition.

nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration


So, no new churches for the Syrians, and the ones that did exist, they had to watch as they slowly decayed and fell into ruin. As a community, there is very little that can be more humiliating for a Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist than having to watch a holy site wither away. No doubt, Umar envisioned the communities themselves (like the Jews of the Middle-East today) would also eventually wither away and die.

nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims
.

This prohibition seems fair enough, although the Muslim invaders do seem to have been projecting their own self-image on others. Mosques are notorious for being breeding grounds for anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-women, and anti-gay sentiment. Often when Muslims riot and attack non-Muslims, it is following their Friday prayers, which should not come as a surprise, considering during Muhammad's time, the call to prayer could also be the call to war.

We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby.


Forcing yourself into others properties, especially into religious sanctuaries is extremely rude. But as long as they do not do as the Palestinian Muslims do (i.e. urinate on Torah Scrolls or use Bibles as toilet paper), it would be tolerable.

Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days.


The abuse of non-Muslim property goes from tolerable to humiliating. Not only were the Muslims allowed to come and go as they pleased, the Christians were also forced to wait on them hand and foot.

We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims.


Again, this condition would be expected from an invading army.

We will not teach our children the Qur'an,


Non-Muslims, like dogs, pigs, and faeces, are considered najis (نجس‎ impure), so this stipulation is hardly surprising. Also recorded in the sahih hadiths, is the command to not let the Qur'an fall into enemy hands, as they may "quarrel with you over it." Apparently Muslims were afraid of non-Muslims scrutinizing their holy book.

[We will not] publicize practices of Shirk,


Shirk (شرك‎) refers to taking other gods besides Allah (i.e. Polytheism), and is considered the most heinous crime against the Islamic god. Due to Muhammad's abysmal understanding of the Trinity doctrine, Muslims consider all Trinitarian Christians to be polytheists. This condition in the pact prevents Christians from proclaiming their religion publicly.

[We will not] invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.


As per most Islamic nations of today, it is fine for Muslims to proselytise and gain converts, but for a non-Muslim to do the same it is strictly forbidden. According to the above, even discussing this important matter with the prospective convert would mean violating the agreement. These restrictions limited the number of Muslim apostates and (coupled with the jizyah) would ensure a steady decline and Islamization of the native non-Muslim population.

We will respect Muslims,


This perfectly exemplifies the common Islamic attitude towards others. They demand that others give them, their culture, and their prophet respect, yet fail to provide us with a valid reason as to why we should. In most other modern-day cultures it is accepted that respect must be earned, and you do not achieve this by invading foreign lands and officially labeling its native populations as second-class citizens.

[We will] move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them.


This brings to mind; a bus, the Jim Crow laws and a certain American civil rights activist named Rosa Parks (February 4, 1913 – October 24, 2005). The difference lay in the fact you do not hear Americans defending such shameful histories by pointing to dhimmitude today in Muslim lands, or you don't hear them defending the slave-trade by pointing out that the number of innocent Africans who were taken (or died in the process of being taken) as slaves over the last fourteen centuries of Islamic slavery is estimated to be higher than 140 million (dwarfing the 11 million Africans who were transported across the Atlantic). Such moral relativism seem to only be accepted when applied to Islam by those defending Islam.

We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names,


The overt hatred and disdain for everything non-Muslim is truly outstanding. These prohibitions reflect Muhammad's wishes when he said "Jews and Christians do not dye their hair so you should do the opposite of what they do," and "act differently from them".

or ride on saddles,


Muslims look very fondly on horses and such. This may be due to Muhammad claiming he rode the Buraq, a mythical horse-like flying creature, on his "Night Journey." This prohibition is meant to show Islamic superiority.

[We will not] hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons.


Apologists often claim jizyah was merely a tax for exemption from military service. However, this is untrue. The Qur'an itself readily admits that the jizyah is a form of humiliation, meant to display the superior status of Muslims and the subdued state of non-Muslims. And as jihad is a religious duty among Muslims, it would make little sense for a non-Muslim dhimmi to participate. There is also another reason for the exemption, and this prohibition against owning or carrying weapons demonstrates it perfectly- they did not want the conquered natives to be armed.

We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic,


As with Muhammad and the Ka'aba, their veneration of the Arabic language borders on idolatry. This becomes all the more humorous when you consider Islam's and the Arabic language's shared pagan heritage.

or sell liquor.


This restriction on the sale of alcohol, for many, would have seriously hampered the Christian practice of eating bread and drinking wine (the Eucharist) on Sundays.

We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are,


These degrading requirements were so the Christians could be easily identified on sight.

[We will] wear belts around our waist,


The belt being referred to is the zunār, a wide belt made of cloth. The similarities between this and the 1939 Nazi requirement for all Jews to wear armbands or yellow stars are uncanny. In fact, the yellow star used by the Nazis as a badge of shame against the Jews was first introduced by a caliph in Baghdad in the 9th century, and spread to the West in medieval times. Unsurprisingly, this is one of Islam's so-called "Golden Age" inventions which you will not find proudly displayed on da‘wah websites.

refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches


One can only imagine how many crosses have been torn down due to this prohibition. Muhammad himself used to destroy anything in his home which bore the Christian symbol of the Cross.

and [refrain from] demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets.


Like in Saudi-Arabia today, carrying a Bible, or wearing a cross/crucifix was strictly forbidden.

We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely,


How ironic this is, in a world were a Buddhist cannot visit the most holiest of Buddhist sites without having the spiritual experience raped by the Islamic call to prayer (أَذَان adhān), which continues for a half-hour.

or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims,


One must wonder why a Muslim would be present inside a church during services. No doubt, they had come for their free meals and board.

nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals,


Christians even had to mourn in silence, lest they offend the Muslim invaders.

or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets.


This, and many of the other restrictions, seem to serve only two purposes. The first, to humiliate, and the second, to make the Christian community an invisible one. Like the non-Muslims today in the east, who live as ghosts, rarely discussed by the 'progressive' west, unless on Islam-critical sites like ours.

We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead,


According to most Islamic scholars, it is a compulsory (fard) requirement for Muslims to be buried in separate cemeteries from non-Muslims. In Switzerland, Muslims (approximately 4.5 percent of the population) say they want to be buried “with dignity” and are therefore calling for Islamic cemeteries in every canton, and who can blame them when they equate non-Muslims with faeces?

or buy servants who were captured by Muslims.


This was most likely to avoid Christians buying other Christians.

We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.


So Muslims can impose on Christians all they please, but for a Christian to enter a Muslim home could mean violating the pact. Even today, their demands only apply to others and not themselves. They want others to accept their religion as they would accept any other religion, yet fail to do likewise in any country where they have become a majority.

We will not beat any Muslim.


Assaulting someone would already be an offense, so this prohibition only makes sense when applied to beating someone in self-defense. Yes, non-Muslims were not allowed to defend themselves or their families against unwarranted attacks. This and the previous prohibition against owning or carrying weapons made sure the Christians were left completely defenseless.

These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. 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.


We come to the closing of the pact which leaves, not only the solitary law breaker, but the entire Christian community, with a stern warning. The Qur'an tells us for people who rebel, there is a painful doom. Today, this has provided on many occasions the pretext for Muslims to viciously attack non-Muslim communities for the smallest of perceived slights.
Wim Camp, CDA... 'De islam is onze bondgenoot"
I Stand with Israel

Gebruikersavatar
Ariel
Berichten: 63594
Lid geworden op: Wo Apr 07, 2004 10:30 pm

Re: Pact van Omar.

Berichtdoor Ariel » Za Mar 15, 2014 2:27 pm

Raar maar waar, dat wij toelaten dat moslims zelfs in Nederland een gedeelte van het pact kunnen uit voeren.

Op elke Nederlandse begraafplaats waar sommige moslims begraven worden, geeft men ze een apart gedeelte van de begraafplaats zodat ze niet tussen de kaffir begraven hoeven te worden.

Dit feit ( pact van omar) was eigenlijk nog niet eerder tot me doorgedrongen .
Wim Camp, CDA... 'De islam is onze bondgenoot"
I Stand with Israel

Gebruikersavatar
Manon
Berichten: 17597
Lid geworden op: Ma Feb 17, 2003 9:58 am

Re: Pact van Omar.

Berichtdoor Manon » Za Mar 15, 2014 3:12 pm

Ik ben er alvast voorstander van om de hier wonende moslims onder hun eigen voorwaarden van het Pact van Omar te behandelen. Ze kunnen moeilijk kwaad worden en zeggen dat we ze discrimineren als we gewoon hun eigen voorwaarden hanteren.
More diversity always means "less white people"
Diversity is a codeword for white genocide.

Mahalingam
Berichten: 33958
Lid geworden op: Za Feb 24, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Pact van Omar.

Berichtdoor Mahalingam » Za Mar 15, 2014 3:24 pm

De wikipedia geeft een korte samenvatting:

    Wij zullen niet bouwen, in onze steden noch in de buurt daarvan, nieuwe mannenkloosters,
    kerken,
    vrouwenkloosters,
    of kluizenaarshutten;
    noch zullen wij ze repareren, bij dag of bij nacht, mocht een van hen instorten
    of gelegen zijn in een moslimwijk.
    Wij zullen onze poorten open houden voor voorbijgangers en reizigers. We zullen voor drie dagen onderdak en leeftocht geven aan alle moslims die voorbij komen.
    Wij zullen noch in onze kerken noch in onze woonhuizen enige spion onderdak geven,
    noch hem voor de moslims verbergen. Wij zullen de Koran niet aan onze kinderen onderwijzen.
    Wij zullen onze godsdienst niet in het openbaar beoefenen
    noch iemand ertoe bekeren.
    Wij zullen niemand van onze familie verhinderen tot de islam over te gaan als zij dat wensen.
    Wij zullen de moslims respect tonen, en
    wij zullen van onze zitplaats opstaan als zij wensen te zitten.
    Wij zullen niet proberen op de moslims te lijken door het imiteren van een van hun kledingstukken, hoofdsieraden, tulband, schoeisel, of de scheiding van hun haar.
    Wij zullen niet spreken wanneer zij spreken,
    noch zullen wij hun eervolle namen dragen.
    Wij zullen niet rijden op een zadel,
    noch zullen wij zwaarden aangorden, noch enig wapen in de hand houden of op ons lichaam dragen.
    Wij zullen geen Arabische tekens in onze zegels graveren.
    Wij zullen geen gefermenteerde dranken verkopen.
    Wij zullen onze kruizen en boeken niet tonen op de straten of markten van de moslims.
    Wij zullen in onze kerken alleen heel zachtjes klappen.
    Wij zullen niet hard praten in onze kerkdiensten of in de nabijheid van moslims,
    noch zullen wij onze stem verheffen wanneer wij in een rouwstoet lopen.
    Wij zullen geen verlichting voeren op enige straat van de moslims of op hun markten.
    Wij zullen onze doden niet dichtbij de moslims begraven.
    Wij zullen geen slaven nemen die aan de moslims zijn toegewezen.
    Wij zullen onze huizen niet hoger maken dan die van de moslims."

    Omar zou hieraan nog twee verplichtingen toegevoegd hebben: dat ze geen mannen zouden kopen die door moslims krijgsgevangen waren gemaakt en dat iedereen die geweld pleegde tegen een moslim de bescherming van het verdrag verloor.
Wie in de Islam zijn hersens gebruikt, zal zijn hoofd moeten missen.

Gebruikersavatar
Ariel
Berichten: 63594
Lid geworden op: Wo Apr 07, 2004 10:30 pm

Re: Pact van Omar.

Berichtdoor Ariel » Za Mar 15, 2014 5:06 pm

Wij zullen niet proberen op de moslims te lijken door het imiteren van een van hun kledingstukken, hoofdsieraden, tulband, schoeisel, of de scheiding van hun haar.


[icon_lol.gif] Dit vind ik trouwens wel een goeie. Als ik iets lelijk vind is het dit wel.

Spoiler! :
Afbeelding


Of deze.

Spoiler! :
Afbeelding
Wim Camp, CDA... 'De islam is onze bondgenoot"
I Stand with Israel

Mahalingam
Berichten: 33958
Lid geworden op: Za Feb 24, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Pact van Omar.

Berichtdoor Mahalingam » Za Mar 15, 2014 5:26 pm

Dit houdt wel in dat al die moslim knuffelaars die demonstratief een hoofddoek aantrekken, in overtreding zijn.
"...het imiteren van een van hun kledingstukken, ..."
Het is dat de meeste Moslims hier dit niet weten want anders zouden ze boos zijn geworden op die nep-gehoofddoekten in plaats van vereerd.
Wie in de Islam zijn hersens gebruikt, zal zijn hoofd moeten missen.

Gebruikersavatar
Manon
Berichten: 17597
Lid geworden op: Ma Feb 17, 2003 9:58 am

Re: Pact van Omar.

Berichtdoor Manon » Za Mar 15, 2014 5:59 pm

Mahalingam schreef:Dit houdt wel in dat al die moslim knuffelaars die demonstratief een hoofddoek aantrekken, in overtreding zijn.
"...het imiteren van een van hun kledingstukken, ..."
Het is dat de meeste Moslims hier dit niet weten want anders zouden ze boos zijn geworden op die nep-gehoofddoekten in plaats van vereerd.

Dat is al één! maar stel nu even dat we zoals beginjaren zestig een sjaaltjesmode krijgen, met foulards geknoopt zoals Brigitte Bardot of Grace Kelly? Dan zitten ze helemaal in de sh*t want hoe kunnen ze zich dan nog "onderscheiden van de niet moslims, zodat ze niet worden lastiggevallen door hun eigen geloofsbroeders"?
More diversity always means "less white people"
Diversity is a codeword for white genocide.

Gebruikersavatar
sjun
Berichten: 3682
Lid geworden op: Zo Mei 11, 2014 8:29 pm
Locatie: Visoko

Re: Pact van Omar.

Berichtdoor sjun » Zo Feb 22, 2015 10:28 pm

Het pact van Omar verduidelijkt. Het Pact van Omar (Shurut 'Umar) is een verdrag opgesteld door Omar II (717-720). Dit pact met beperkende maatregelen voor de ‘mensen van het Boek’ is waarschijnlijk opgesteld voor de christenen in Syrië, dat kort daarvoor was veroverd door de troepen van de islam. Het Pact van Omar uit 637 garandeerde geen gelijkheid tussen de religies maar beschreef de vernedering en onderdrukking van Christenen tot in detail. Tot op de dag van vandaag hebben christenen onder de knoet van islam ermee te maken.

Ter bewustmaking van behandeling van minderheden in een moslimstaat:

Het recht op vrije meningsuiting wordt algemeen geaccepteerd, totdat iemand er daadwerkelijk gebruik van wil maken.

Gebruikersavatar
sjun
Berichten: 3682
Lid geworden op: Zo Mei 11, 2014 8:29 pm
Locatie: Visoko

Re: Pact van Omar.

Berichtdoor sjun » Di Mar 03, 2015 12:33 pm

Laatst gewijzigd door sjun op Zo Okt 02, 2016 12:42 pm, 1 keer totaal gewijzigd.
Het recht op vrije meningsuiting wordt algemeen geaccepteerd, totdat iemand er daadwerkelijk gebruik van wil maken.

Mahalingam
Berichten: 33958
Lid geworden op: Za Feb 24, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Pact van Omar.

Berichtdoor Mahalingam » Do Apr 16, 2015 8:45 pm

Afbeelding
Wie in de Islam zijn hersens gebruikt, zal zijn hoofd moeten missen.


Terug naar “Ethiek, Moraliteit en Logica”

Wie is er online

Gebruikers op dit forum: Geen geregistreerde gebruikers en 1 gast