glect to execute it? Why did he renew the guarantee
to the people of Najrăn given by his master?"12"
Why did 'Umar himself not act earlier?'
It seems that early inaction was dictated
by caution, not neglect. Neither Abü Bakr nor 'Umar were really
free to act before the second did. They had their hands too
full to cause an internal commotion. First came the civil
war which shook the nascent Islamic state to its foundation;
then came the perilous external wars in Syria and Al~Iraq
. Umar did not take action before these two territories were
firmly under his control, and the might and wealth of the
Islamic state greatly increased. Under these circumstances
Najrăn was not a 'political' menace."13"
There is no evidence that Najran ceased to pay the tribute
under their covenant. Umar's action, therefore, seems to spring,
not from political or economic, but from purely religious
Other explanations were advanced. Some mention
that Najrăn was doomed because of its stubborn refusal to
embrace the state religion. Others that internal division
led the people of Najran themselves to ask to be removed.
Others still, that they practiced usury contrary to their
compact and thus invited trouble. But the only explanation
that seems to command the support of tradition is the religious
Be that as it may, when it ~vas decided to remove the people
of Najrăn in A.H. 15/A.D. 636, they were offered land in exchange
for their own in Syria or Al-Iraq, and were exempted from
the payment of jizyah yak for twenty-four months. Some of
them went to Syria, but the majority settled in the neighbourhood
of Al-KUfah, one of the new military camps which grew into
a large city. The original home of Najrăn in Arabia became
a state domain.
The earliest mention of the so-called Ordinance of Umar is
by an author who died in the middle of the fifth century of
the Hijrah. Nor are its provisions respecting alleged restrictions
to be imposed on Christians (and certain other adherents of
recognized religions) reproduced by various authors in the same
terms. The following is a summary of one version, framed in
the form of a letter from a given Christian city or community
to the caliph or his representative and opens as follows:"15"
'When you came to us we asked of you safety of our lives, our
families, our property, and the people of our religion, on these
conditions: to pay tribute out of our own hand and be humbled'.
So far the terms sound familiar and genuine. But the document
proceeds to recount, in details, and in language unusual for
any compact made by Muhammad (pbuh) and his early successors,
restrictions on the Christians in respect of worship in their
churches and the display of crosses and the ringing of church
bells; in respect of their dress, haircut, and manner of address
in conversation; in respect of height of their houses and the
kind of saddles for their mounts; in respect of their conduct
towards Muslims and even the former slaves of Muslims.
Modern research has established that these and other similar
provisions represent the intolerance of a later age. 'There
is abundant evidence', writes a well-known authority, "16"
'to show that the Christians in the early days of the Muhammadan
conquest had little to complain of in the way of religious disabilities.'
De Goeje"17" and Caetani
"18" have proved that these
restrictions attributed to ~Umar belong to a later age."19"
It is safe, therefore, to say that Umar was not responsible
for, nor did he initiate, any of the measures ascribed to him.
His principal concern was the preservation of the Muslim community
and state by keeping a Muslim standing army in camps, well supplied,
equally with the state treasury, by the enormous revenue collected
from ahlu'dhimmah and others. Vexatious measures going so far
as to prescribe the kind of attire his Christian subjects were
permitted to wear ill accords with his character, or indeed
with his conduct with the Patriarch Sophronius in Jerusalem.
The assumption, however, that not only the Islamic state but
the whole Muslim community lived on the labour of their non-Mus