Safeguarding Places of Worship during the Prophetic Era: Assessment of Early Islamic Covenants and Their Impacts on Early Muslim Polities

Abstract

Treaties and covenants have been the most important instruments of international relations in both ancient and modem times, playing a significant role in the promotion of religious freedom, peaceful coexistence, and interfaith harmony. The rapid spread and broad appeal of early Islam brought matters of international relations and cosmopolitan state governance to a cadre of Muslim leaders whose main political experience had been with parochial Arabian tribalism. The foremost issue was the position, rights, and responsibilities of non-Muslim religious communities within the Arab-Islamic empire. Consequently, numerous covenants and treaties were devised with subjects and with foreign states during the expansion of the Muslim world. This study examines the protection of non-Muslim places of worship under the rule of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and his successors, including future caliphs and generals. It explores the practical application of the covenants by the successors of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ during early Islamic history, exploring the extent to which these covenants and treaties were effective in maintaining peaceful co-existence in a multi-faith society. In sum, for the sake of concision, only specific segments of the covenants and treaties are examined, which were devised with the non-Muslims for the protection of their worship places during the early Muslim Conquests.

1. Introduction

The nature and purpose of the Islamic state contributed to the specification of the limits on the exercise of “freedom of religion” within an Arab-Muslim polity premised on the precepts of sacred scripture. The guiding maxim is the declaration of the Holy Quran that “There is no compulsion in religion” (Al-Qur’an, 2: 256). It is clear from this verse that it is prohibited to convert a person by force, which remained a distinguishing principle of most Islamicate states throughout history; forced conversion is a sin in Islam, and Muslims have a commensurate obligation to defend religious freedom in terms of liberty in personal conscience. Under Islamic rule, non-Muslims should have complete liberty to enjoy all fundamental statutory rights (An-Naʿīm 1987). The same Quranic principle (that there is no compulsion in religion) is widely attested in the covenants and treaties of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and his successors, in which non-Muslims are granted full authority over their religious affairs (Mehfooz 2021). Ibn al-ʿAthir (d. 630/1233) defines the conventional term used in regard to these covenants, ʿahd, as “a comprehensive term, meaning a pledge on oath (al-yamīn), protection (al-amān), a guarantee (al-dīhimah), security (al-hifāz), safeguarding the sanctity of a person or a thing, and a testament (al-wasiyāh)” (Nūr 2006). Muʿāhadah means agreement, arrangement, accord, alliance, covenant, treaty, and pact (Niyāzī 1990). Ibn al-ʿAthir defined mīthāq as “an agreement which is strengthened by oath and pledge” (Nūr 2006). As Wansbrough observes, ʿahd and mīthāq are used interchangeably in the Quranic text; both ʿahd and mīthāq can designate a covenantal or contractual relationship between human beings (Wansbrough 2004, p. 9).

The tradition of formulating treaties with non-Muslim communities was based on the precedent set by the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ which subsequently guided the official policy of future Muslim Caliphs and generals. During Prophet Muḥammad’s Arabian conquests (c.1–10/622–632), the conquerors established social compacts with various tribes and peoples. The Constitution of Madīna, which represents the first major official decree of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, contained 47 Clauses and was divided into two parts. The first part constituted Clause 1 to Clause 23, related to the Muhajirun and Ansar relations, while the second part, which constituted Clause 24 to Clause 47, concerned the rights and obligations of the Jews and categorically accorded freedom of religion to non-Muslims: “The Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs. [This applies to] their allies and their persons. But whoever acts unjustly and sins will only destroy himself and his agnates” (Abū ʿUbayd 1988).

The acknowledgement that the Jews “have their religion” (Clause 25) indicates that they could freely participate in their religious services and beliefs as they desired, with no requirement to convert to the beliefs of the Muslims or to observe public Muslim festivals. The inclusion of “their allies” in this freedom may imply the extension of this to non-Abrahamic religious adherents among the tribes of Madīna and the surrounding deserts (El-Wakil 2016). Every newly formed nation needs to define itself by answering several questions: What system of rules is it based on? What system of rules is it going to apply? Who are its citizens? Who are its allies? What are the rights of each citizen? These and similar questions are dealt with in the constitution of modern-day countries and were included in the historical Constitution of Madīna (Sallabī 2005). The fundamental objective of this agreement was to provide peace, prosperity, and security in Madīna and its surroundings for all local inhabitants (i.e., citizens), including the Muslims themselves. The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ categorically opposed the oppression of religious minorities in a Muslim polity, stating that: “Whoever oppresses a dhimmi, I will testify against him on the Day of Judgment” (Bukhāri n.d. Hadith No: 3179). In a tradition cited by Ibn Mājah (d. 273/887), the Messenger of Allah warned that:

“Whoever kills a Muʿāhid [a person with a covenant of protection with the Muslims, which according to another tradition can be granted by any individual Muslim] who has the protection of Allah and the protection of his Messenger, will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance may be detected from a distance of seventy years”.

(Ibn Mājah 2009, Hadith No: 2686)

While the Sunnah includes many texts relating to minority rights in the Islamic state, the Quran, in general, affirms the universal rights and obligations of humans as stewards of the earth and repeatedly denounces tribalism. The Quranic ethos is more concerned with the confessional identity of a person (as a believer or non-believer) rather than their ethnic affiliation, and this applies particularly to the Israelites, the most prolifically mentioned ethnic group in the Quran. Nevertheless, Quranic injunctions do entail that minorities should enjoy all fundamental rights and freedoms under Islamic rule, such as freedom of religion, property rights, and even law and order, which are delegated to religious communities’ own authorities (e.g., rabbinical courts) for intra-community matters (not involving Muslims or other groups from outside a particular community) (Morrow n.d.). Therefore, in terms of human and civil rights, the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ placed Muslims and non-Muslims on equal footing: “He who causes damage to a Muslim or non-Muslim is to be cursed” (Abū Yūsuf 2004, p. 129). There is no possibility that the rights of non-Muslims were abrogated, as the Prophet insisted upon them on his deathbed in the following terms: “Observe scrupulously the protection accorded by me to non-Muslim subjects. Whoever oppresses the non-Muslim subjects, shall find me to be their advocate on the Day of Resurrection (against the oppressing Muslim)” (Ignatius 2019, p. 294). These teachings were also conveyed by the successors of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. Abū Bakr (d.13/634), the first Caliph, warned his men: “Beware not to kill those who benefit from the dhimma [protection] of Allah for Allah will ask you about His protection and will cast you into the Fire face-first” (Abū Yūsuf 2004, p. 73). ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 23/644), the second Caliph, was even more explicit: “I warn you concerning those who have been placed under the dhimma [protection] of Allah for dhimma [protection] of your Prophet covers them and they provide the sustenance to your families” (Shaʿybah 2008, p. 436).

It can be noted that the latter rationale for protecting covenanted non-Muslim citizens was premised on the protection of Allah and the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ in the first instance and the productive economic role of such communities in the second. The Prophet himself entered into many treaties with the local tribes and chiefs of states surrounding the Arabian Peninsula and strictly adhered to the terms of treaties, the most famous of which was the Treaty of Hudaybīyah with the pagans of Makkah, which was considered a precedent concerning the sanctity of all treaties made by Muslim states. One of its terms was that any Makkan apostate was free to return from Madīna to Makkah, while the converse was denied (Muslims were forbidden to migrate from Makkah to Madīna). The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ had not yet signed the Treaty of Hudaybīyah, and Abū Jandal b. Suhayl, a Muslim being imprisoned by his father, Suhayl (who was the chief negotiator of the Makkan pagans), escaped and arrived at the Muslim camp, begging for the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ protection and asylum (Shaybānī 1971, p. 185). Suhayl demanded his immediate surrender under the terms of the Treaty, and the Prophet counselled patience to Abū Jandal and ordered him to return to his captor (ibid., vol. 1, p. 185; Iqbāl 1988, p. 56). However, the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, by concluding the Dhimmah treaties, gave them a religious characteristic by assuming a divine moral obligation to fulfil God’s covenant with non-Muslim subjects. As the Quran states: “And be true to every promise-for, verily you will be called to account for every promise which you have made” (Al-Qur’an, 17: 34). Further stated, “Those who faithfully observe their trusts and covenants...who will inherit paradise: they will dwell therein (forever)” (Al-Qur’an, 23: 8–11).

The treaties of protection concluded by the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ were viewed as legally binding and defined the legal status and rights of non-Muslims in Islamic states throughout history (with some exceptions contrary to the dictates of normative sharia—i.e., contrary to Islam) (Khafīf 1945, p. 193). Webherg, a famous orientalist, stated that “For the Muslim people, the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda also has a religious basis; Muslims must abide by their stipulations” (Hamīd 2001, pp. 120–21). Islam’s universal teachings neither remained dormant nor a mere adornment of the pages of a book but materialized into a very strong, firm, and lasting practical system (Afzāl-ur-Rehmān 1993, p. 580). Nor does it present the picture of a treaty like that of spider’s web, in which the weaker are entangled but the powerful can break it (Qureshī 1997, p. 111). It presented a comprehensive system that succeeded very effectively in solving the practical difficulties of people living under Islamic rule for centuries, including the Ottoman millet system of the early modern period.

As noted above, the primary sources of Islamic law attach great sanctity to keeping promises and trust in Islam. Traditionally, the Muslims’ duty to implement treaties, external or internal, was derived from Quranic verses as well as Prophetic words and deeds. These agreements became models for other treaties in later Islamic practice. Classical Muslim jurists collected these treaties, which can be found interspersed in their works both on fiqh and sīyar. Certain jurists, however, showed a particular interest in the study of diplomacy and international law and wrote under a variety of subject headings. Among the chief classical works in this discipline are the al-Mūwattāʾ (Mālik b. Anas, d. 179/796) (Mālik 1905); Kitāb al-Kharāj (Abu Yūsuf, d. 182/798) (Abū Yūsuf 2004); al-Sīyar (al-Shaybānī, d. 189/804) (Shaybānī 1975); al-ʿUmm (Imam al-Shāfī, d. 204/820) (Shāfaʿī 1903); Kitāb al-Amwāl (Abū ʿUbayd, d. 224/837) (Abū ʿUbayd 1988); al-Tabaqāt al-kubrā (Ibn Saʿad, d. 230/845) (Saʿad 1958); Kitāb Al-amwāl (Ibn Zanjawīyah, d. 251/865) (Ibn Zanjawīyah 1934); Futūḥ al-Buldān (Balādhūrī, d. 279/893) (Balādhūrī 1987); al Bidāya wa al Nihāya (Kathīr 1988, d. 774/1373) (Kathīr 1932–1939); and Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma (Ibn Qayyīm al-Jawzīyya, d. 751/1350–1) (Ibn Qayyīm 2018).

Significant modern academic works on this subject include Muḥammad Hamīdullāh’s Majmūʿāt al-wathāʿiq al-siyāsīyyah li ‘l-ʿahd al-nabawī wa’l-khilāfah al-rāshidah (Hamīdullāh 1987a), and John Andrew Morrow’s The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad (Morrow 2013), in which he collected all the covenants that he could find, including, importantly, the hitherto unpublished 1538 recension of “The Covenant of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ with the Christians of the World”. While it is essential to bear in mind the contemporary socio-cultural implications of the prophetic Covenants, the purpose of this study is to highlight the protection provided to non-Muslim places of worship with regard to Muslim political covenants and to analyze the extent to which these covenants and treaties were effective in maintaining peaceful co-existence in a multi-faith society. Therefore, this paper is restricted to specific segments of the Covenants related to the theme and purpose of the research analyzed below.

2. The Prophet’s Covenants and the Protection of Worship Places of the Non-Muslims

The most populous religious groups governed by the early Islamic state were various sects of Christians in the former Byzantine realms of the Levant and Egypt. The specific details of the Covenants with Christians were an extension of the Quranic injunction for Muslims to protect monasteries, churches, and synagogues, which are categorically enjoined on Muslims in the Quran itself:

“[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right—only because they say, ‘Our Lord is Allah’. And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might”.

(Al-Qur’an, 22: 40)

The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ devised various treaties and covenants, called al-ʿahad wa al-shurūt, to honor the autonomy and beliefs of Christian communities of his time. The Najrān Covenant, in common with the other covenants, stresses the theme of protection, after which the main terms and conditions that the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ stipulated to the Christians of his time (generally according to their own concerns) are listed. Its crux can be shared in a few lines:

“The Muslims would protect the churches and monasteries of the Christians. They would not demolish any church property either to build mosques or to build houses for the Muslims. All ecclesiastical property of the Christians would be exempt from every tax. No ecclesiastical authority would ever be forced by the Muslims to abandon his post. No Christian would ever be forced by the Muslims to become a convert to Islam. If a Christian woman married a Muslim, she would have full freedom to follow her religion”.

(Bayhaqī 1927, vol. 14, p. 43; Ibn Qayyīm 1972, vol. 3, p. 635)

Almost all classical historians, including Balādhūrī, and Al-Ṭabrī, talked about the Treaty of Najrān in detail (Balādhūrī 1983, p. 97; al-Tạbarī 1969, vol. 1, p. 231). In it, the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ clearly stated that there would be no interference with the practice of Christianity, and all agreements with the people of Najrān would be legally protected (Ibrāhīm and El-Wakil 2020). The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ constructed an Islamic ʿummah (nation) whose basic pillars were to create a tolerant and pluralistic government that preserved religious freedom (Razwy 2014, pp. 182–83). In this regard, the treaties of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ explicitly accord fundamental rights, particularly freedom of religion, to non-Muslim minorities in the first Muslim state (Bsoul 2010).

The early Muslim historian ibn Saʿd (d. 230/822) provided a summary of another prolific Covenant of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ with the Monks of Mount Sinai (04/625). According to the historical record, just before the army left Tabūk (09/630),1 the monks of the monastery of St. Catherine in the valley of Sinai came to see the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ (Ibn Saʿd 1954, p. 43). He gave them an audience and granted them a charter that secured Christians with privileges and amenities comparable to the Charter of Medina, which he had granted primarily to the Jews (Balādhūrī 1987, p. 364; Ameer ʿAlī 1902, p. 79).

The address of the text “to all Christians” is striking, as it applied not only to Christian monks living at Mount Sinai but to all Christians throughout the lands controlled by Muslims. The covenant affirms that:

“If a monk or pilgrim seeks protection, in mountain or valley, in a cave or tilled fields, in the plain, in the desert, or a church, I am behind them, defending them from every enemy, and I, my helpers, all the members of my religion, and all my followers, for they are my protégés and my subjects”.

(ibid., p. 364)

The Najran Covenant (10/631) accords almost identical protections for Christians throughout lands under Muslim authority:

“I commit myself to support them, to place their persons under my protection, as well as their churches, chapels, oratories, the monasteries of their monks, the residences of their anchorites, wherever they are found, be they in the mountains or the valleys, caves or inhabited regions, in the plains or the desert” (ibid., p. 365).

According to the historical record, the freedoms granted by the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ to the monks of Mount Sinai, along with other communities, were honored by Abū-Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, as well as the ʿUmayyāds, and the ʿAbāssids (Saʿdullāh 2018, p. 167). Sayyīd Amīr ʿAlī (1849–1928) shared his observations about the Sinai Covenant in the following words:

“It was a Charter which has been justly designated as one of the noblest monuments of enlightened tolerance that the history of the world can produce. This remarkable document, which has been faithfully preserved by the annalists of Islam, displays a marvellous breadth of view and liberality of conception. By it the Prophet secured to the Christians privileges and immunities which they did not possess even under sovereigns of their creed; and declared that any Moslem violating and abusing what was therein ordered, should be regarded as a violator of God’s testament, a transgressor of His commandments, and a slighter of His faith”.

(Ameer ʿAlī 1902, p. 79)

Morrow argued that “the purpose of the Covenants of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ with the People of the Book is clear: to provide complete religious freedom, to place Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Zoroastrians under the protection of Islam, to establish alliances, and to create a Confederation of Believers” (Morrow 2019). The “people of the book” alluded to by Morrow comprise the adherents of monotheistic faiths, which, for early Muslims, explicitly included Jews and Christians, whose protections and special status were generally extended to gnostic groups (“Sabians”) and Zoroastrians (“Magians”), as they were differentiated from the polytheists: “those who worship others besides Allah” (Al-Qur’an, 22: 17).

This liberal approach was later extended to Hindus and Buddhists by the Umayyad general Muhammad bin Qassim in Sindh (they were classified as Ashab Ahl al-Kitab—“equivalents of the People of the Book”) (Abū Yūsuf 2004, p. 128; Al-Kufi 1983, pp. 208–9; Islam 2017, p. 104). Evidently, the Samaritans were considered equivalent to the People of the Book in the Covenant with them, although they were considered idolaters and outcasts by the Jews, and their religion was outlawed under the Byzantines. It is interesting that this Treaty uses the personal name of the Prophet (ﷺ) (i.e., “Muhammad b. ʿAbdullah b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib”), which was perhaps an acknowledgement that, by definition, they did not acknowledge his status as a Prophet. Similarly, the Prophet (ﷺ) personally offered to blot out his religious epithets in the Treaty of Hudaybīyah, at the Makkan pagans’ request. The Treaty of Covenant of Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ with the Samaritans accords the following binding protections on the community:

“I, Muhammad b. ʿAbdullah b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, have commanded that a covenant of protection and security (amān wa dhimām) be written to the Samaritan community for their persons, their children, their property, their wealth, their places of worship, their financial endeavours… to be binding in all the provinces and places in which they reside”.

(al-Sāmīrī 2002, p. 174)

The Compact with Yuḥanna b. Rūʿba, which was first documented by Ibn Isḥāq in his Sīrah and was also recorded by Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim in his Kitāb al-amwāl, was a guarantee of freedom of religion, trade, and movement for Christians:

“This is a guarantee from Allāh and Muḥammad the Prophet to Yuḥanna b. Rūʿba and the people of Ayla, for their ships and their caravans (sufunuhum wa sayyāratuhum) by land and at sea (fī al-bar wa al-baḥr). They have the protection of Allah and the protection of Muḥammad the Prophet along with those who are with them (wa man kān maʿahum) of the people of Syria, Yemen and those who are at sea (wa ahl al-baḥr)” (Ibn Isḥāq 2004, p. 604; Abū ʿUbayd 1988, p. 294).

It is evident from the text of the Covenants devised by the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ with the people of multiple faiths that the prime factor was the protection and assurance of the safety of their places of worship and clergy.

The reality is that the Covenants of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ formed the normative basis of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims for over 1400 years, among states that faithfully attempted to honor these pledges (while those who violated them incurred the associated sin, according to Islamic belief). They regulated relations between Muslims, Jews, and polytheists in Madīna, through the form of a Constitution. The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and his Rāshidūn (“rightly-guided”) successors (Abū-Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, whose actions carry sharia authority) entered Covenants with Christian communities in Arabia, the Sinai, Upper Egypt, Abyssinia, Jerusalem, the Levant, Persia, and even in Armenia (Shiblī 1985, p. 382).

3. The Implementation and Practical Application of the Covenants during Early Islamic History for Peacebuilding

3.1. The Rāshidūn Era (632–661)

From c. 1–68/622–690, Muslim conquerors moved from city to city, absorbing new lands formerly belonging to the Byzantine and Persian Empires. Arab Muslims established Covenants and surrender treaties with the local non-Muslim populations of these new areas, permitting them to continue their means of living and religious practices as long as they paid tribute (Frederic et al. 2009). The short tenure of the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ immediate successor, Abū Bakr (d. 13/634, r. 632–634 CE), was quite decisive for the Muslim community (Shaybānī 1975, p. 267). It should be noted that Abū Bakr inherited a fragmented Arab world, with a mass reversion to tribalism and the emergence of messianic religious movements claiming prophecy, threatening to unravel the Arabian unity of the Prophetic era. Nevertheless, Abū Bakr did his best to preserve the Covenants enacted by Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and pursue his model in inculcating new ones (al-Tạbarī 1969, vol. 1, p. 397). Abū Bakr enjoined a commander:

“O Yazīd! be sure you do not oppress your people, nor make them uneasy, but advise with them in all your affairs, and take care to do that which is right and just; for those that do otherwise shall not prosper. When you meet your enemies quit yourselves like men, and do not turn your backs, and if you gain the victory, kill not little children, nor old people, nor women. Destroy no palm trees, nor burn any fields of corn. Cut down no fruit trees, nor do any mischief to cattle, only such as you kill for the necessity of subsistence. When you make any covenant or article, stand to it, and be as good as your word. As you go on, you will find some religious persons that live retired in monasteries, who propose to themselves to serve God that way. Let them alone, and neither kill them nor destroy their monasteries”.

(Ibn-Hishām 2002, p. 992; Ameer ʿAlī 1902, p. 81)

Abū Bakr’s Compact with the People of Najrān also states: “No bishop or monk shall be removed from his position (wa lā yughayyar usquf min usqafiyyatihi, walārāh ibmin rah bāniyyātihi).” (Abū Yūsuf 2004, p. 73; Tạbarī 1969, p. 535). This was indeed the policy adopted earlier by Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, and we find the same policy reiterated in ʿUmar’s Covenant with the Christians of Mesopotamia and ʿAlī’s Covenant with the Armenian Christians (Johannes 1870, pp. 60–64). It would be instructive to mention here that, according the Islamic law, when Muslims besieged a non-Muslim city or fort that sought the assurance of safety (Amān), Muslims were obliged to grant this through a peace treaty (subject to the freedom of Muslim worship in that city) (Hamīd 2001).

Such assurances granted non-Muslims inviolability of person and property and provided the legal grounds for relationships between them and the Muslims (Ḍiyāf and Abdussalām 1971, p. 511). In the peace treaty at Homs, the Muslim conquerors specifically codified protections for the conquered Christians. In the conquest of Damascus, Khālid b. Walīd, having met with the city’s bishop, discussed terms of surrender, and the conquerors wrote a surrender treaty to which both parties agreed, which stated:

“In the name of Allāh, the compassionate, the merciful. This is what Khālīd would grant to the inhabitants of Damascus if he enters therein: he promises to give them security for their lives, property and churches. Their city wall shall not be demolished; neither shall any Moslem be quartered in their houses. Thereunto we give to them the pact of Allah and the protection of His Prophet, the caliphs and the Believers. So long as they pay the protection tax (jizya), nothing but good shall befall them”.

(Balādhūrī 1987, pp. 186–87)

After conquering ʿUllaīs2 in May (13/633), the Muslim army under Khālid b. Walīd attacked the city of al-Ḥīrah3 in the last week of that month, during the caliphate of Abū Bakr. When al-Ḥīrah (13/633) was conquered, the peace treaty given by Khālid b. Walīd to the people stipulated the following conditions:

“Their worship places and churches would not be demolished. We will not even demolish those specific buildings and castles in which they take refuge during the attack of their enemies. Their rituals like ringing bells and blowing a conch (at divine worship to summon the congregation) are not forbidden in any city of Muslim empire; also on their religious festivals, they were allowed the Procession of Holy Trinity”.

(Abū Yūsuf 2004, pp. 72–73)

The assurance of safety given to the people of ʿĀnāt (Syria)4 was quite similar to that granted to the people of al-Ḥīra: “Their churches and monasteries would not be demolished. Except in the prayer times, they can toot trumpets at any time of the day and night, and are allowed to display their Christian cross on their festivals”. (ibid., p. 146)

These are just a few examples. Almost all treaties with non-Muslims guarantee the protection of their holy places. For example, Abū Yūsuf writes: “People of Bār-o-Samā5 and the neighbouring settlements reconciled on the same terms as agreed between people of al-Ḥīra and Khālid b. Walīd”. (ibid., p. 145)

He stated further that: “People of ʿAyn al-Tamr6 and the nearby settlements also entered into a peace treaty on the same terms as agreed upon by People of al-Ḥīra, and People of ʿUllaīs agreed for paying tribute in return for the assurance of the safety of their churches and monasteries would not be demolished” (ibid., p. 145). Similarly, when Khālid b. Walīd attacked the city of Qarqīsīyā,7 the residents asked for assurance of safety. This treaty resembles the text of the peace treaty written for the people of ʿĀnāt (Syria). Abū Yūsuf wrote: “Khālid b. Walīd accepted their request and granted them protection like the people of ʿĀnāt (Syria)” (ibid., p. 145). He further stated: “Abū Bakr did not revoke the peace treaty granted by Khālid b. Walīd, and after him neither ʿUmar abolished it, nor did ʿUthmān, or ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib” (ibid., p. 145).

During the whole period of the Caliph Abū Bakr, non-Muslims were granted religious freedom in all the devised covenants and treaties, and their worship places were protected. Abū Yūsuf writes that the Caliph ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 24/644) also recommended to his successors that they look after the interests of the non-Muslims living in the Muslim empire, fulfil and honor their covenants and treaties to protect them, and not impose heavy burdens on them or demand things that they were unable to provide (ibid., p. 136). Moreover, during the rule of ʿUmar, Abū ʿUbaydah sought his advice regarding the covenant setting out conditions for the people of Syria (Shām). ʿUmar advised him to ask them for jizya (protection tax) and the release of Muslim prisoners and, in turn, to prevent Muslim forces from committing any excesses against them, maintain fair conduct, and fulfil all of their obligations. Jizya (protection tax) is a form of tax payable by an adult non-Muslim male subject who was a permanent resident and able to work under the dhimmah contract in lieu of military service; it is equivalent to the obligatory Zakaat paid by Muslims (and for the payment of which Abū Bakr waged war on renegade Arabian tribal confederations, considering them apostate) (Māwardī 1972, p. 143). The amount payable was to be specified by the ruler of the Islamic state. This obligation was considered the most important provision in the contract,8 being understood by classic Islamic jurists as an obligation provided for by the Quran (Al-Qurʿān, 9: 29).

The Muslim conquerors applied the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ teachings, as they gave the local population freedom to practice their religion, to conduct their economic matters, and to administer their internal social affairs in return for the payment which was democratized into a protection tax and a land tax. Therefore, ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ (d. 24/644) devised the Treaty when the Muslims conquered Egypt, which reads as follows:

“ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ granted the people of Miṣr [Egypt], as to themselves, their religion, their goods, their churches and crosses, their lands and waters: nothing of these shall be meddled with or diminished; the Nubians shall not be permitted to dwell among them. And the people of Miṣr. if they enter into this treaty of peace, shall pay the jizya (protection tax)”.

(Hamīdullāh 1987a, p. 437)

As James Breasted attests, there is very little evidence that the Copts were deprived of their rights under this Treaty. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ, the Muslim vicegerent and general, received an embassy of monks who requested a charter of rights and freedoms and the return of their Patriarch, Benjamin. He allotted them the pact and asked the exiled patriarch to return (Breasted 1905, p. 26). Muslim governors even allowed the Copts to construct a church behind the bridge at Fusṭāṭ, the nucleus of the new Muslim capital in Egypt (Maqrīzī 2008, vol. 1, p. 212). Furthermore, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb reported that Abū ʿUbaydah (d. 18/639) reaffirmed the Christians’ right to hoist crosses during public festivals (i.e., processions) (Abū Yūsuf 2004, p. 152). This approach can be better comprehended by looking at the historical covenant of the second Caliph of Islam, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (r. 634–644 CE), with the people of Aelia (Jerusalem), which assured the safety of their worship sites as a basic component. The treaty, witnessed by Khālid b. Walīd (d. 21/642), ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ (d. 24/644), ʿAbd al-Rahmān b. al-ʿAwf (d. 32/652), and Muʿāwīya b. Abī Sufyān (d. 60 /680), declares (Maqrīzī 2008, vol. 2, p. 492).

“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the assurance of safety which the servant of God, ʿUmar, the Commander of the Faithful, has given to the people of Aelia. He has assured them safety for themselves, for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and healthy of the city and for all the rituals which belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabited by Muslims and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will be damaged. They will not be forcibly converted. And Jews will not live in Aelia with them”.

(Balādhūrī 1987, p. 208)

It should be noted that the latter addenda excluding the Jews was at the Christians’ request and was later rescinded to allow a certain number of Jewish families to reside in the city (they had been absolutely banned from entering under the Byzantines, being scapegoated as collaborators with the recent Persian invasion) (ibid.) When it was time to pray, the great Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronios (c. 560–638 CE), offered ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb a space in the church for the Muslims to pray, but ʿUmar refused out of fear that doing so would possibly endanger the status of the Church, as future generations of Muslims may have taken that site as a permanent place of worship. Instead, according to some narrations, the Muslims cleared a space outside the church and performed their prayer there. Other narrations suggest the Muslims prayed at the site of al-Aqsā instead, a short distance away (Haīkal 2000, p. 294). ʿUmar’s action provided safety to places of worship of religious minorities living in an Islamic state at this critical historical and spiritual moment, and it proved his devotion to the Islamic principle of religious freedom, citing the Quranic verse “there is no compulsion in religion” (Al-Qur’an, 2: 256). This enigmatic example remains a guiding principle for Muslim believers with regard to how minorities are entitled to religious freedom, and real protection was granted for their worship places in the Rāshidūn Caliphate.

There are historical accounts of the Companions of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ honoring the pledges to respect religious buildings in conquered territories. The famous historian and archivist al-Wāqidī (d. 207/823) detailed the conquest of Damascus in Futūḥ al-Shām, writing that when a delegation of a hundred figureheads and senior scholars from Damascus met with the Muslim Commander Abū ʿUbaydah to discuss the terms of peace, he magnanimously greeted them with respect and veneration, citing the saying of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ: “Whenever an esteemed man from a community comes to you, honour him”. The delegation offered peace and said, “We want you to let all of our churches be, and not raze any of the cathedrals in Damascus”. Abū ʿUbaydah replied, “All of the churches will remain as they are, and their demolition will not be ordered” (Wāqidī 2005, p. 72).

Suwayd b. Muqrin b. Aaʿidh al-Muzayna, brother Nuʿmān b. Muqrin (leader of the tribe of Banū Muzanah who had proceeded to Qūmis during the Caliphate of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb),9 accepted the surrender of the people of Qūmas on the assurance of safety, and Suwayd b. Muqrin granted protection to the Zoroastrian temples, stating that “Their fire temples will not be demolished” (Balāhduri 1987, p. 326). The Governor of Azerbāʿījān, ʿUtbah b. Gharqad, made a peace treaty with the people of the region, granting them the safety of their holy places in these words: “None of them will be killed; neither would they be humiliated nor would their fire temples be demolished” (ibid., p. 334).

Nuʿmān b. Muqrin Aaʿidh al-Muzayna (d. 20/641)10 made a peace deal with the people of Māh Bahr-e-zāzān11 during ʿUmar’s Caliphate, in which he guaranteed the protection of their religious freedom in these words: “Their claims over their properties, lives, and lands are recognized. They will neither be made to convert from their religion nor will there be any objection on their sharīʿah [i.e., their own customary laws and practices]” (Hamīdullāh 1987a, p. 314).

Ḥabīb b. Musylma al-Fihrī (d. 42/662)12 wrote a peace agreement with the people of Tiflis13 with the following terms: “Ḥabīb b. Musylma grants protection to the inhabitants of the land of Tiflis for their lives, properties, families, children, and for praying in their churches and synagogues. They will pay tribute in return for this protection” (Abū ʿUbayd 1988, p. 294).

Numerous peace treaties of this nature were written for the people of Isfahān (ibid., p. 442), Rayy (ibid., p. 442), Qūmis (ibid. p. 442), Jurjān (ibid., p. 444), and Azerbāʿījān (ibid., pp. 441–46; Balādhūrī 1987, p. 383; Abu ʿUbayd 1988, pp. 97–98). The treaties with the people of Mūqān by Yaksar b. ʿAbdullāh (al-Tạbarī 1969, vol. 4, p. 157; Hamīdullāh 1987a, p. 456) and with the people of Ahl-e-Māh-o-Dīnār by Huzayfa b. al-Yīmān were quite similar with those devised for the people of Azarbayjān and Jurjān (Hamīdullāh 1987a, p. 441). It would be pertinent to share that Mūqān, Azerbāʿījān and Jurjān were conquered by the Muslim army during the same year (22/643) under the different commanderships, suggesting a centralized policy in the outline of these treaties’ provisions (al-Tạbarī 1969, 2, p. 538). Shaybāni (d. 189/804) clearly stated that non-Muslims living in the Muslim empire were allowed to practice their own faith without any interference from Muslims (Shaybānī n.d., p. 389). Islamic law does not allow Muslims to prevent non-Muslim subjects from freely practicing their religion in their places of worship, which are also considered sacred and inviolable for Muslims themselves (Sarkhasī [1406] 1985, vol. 4, pp. 1531–36). During the era of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, the General of the Christian army of Merv wrote to Shāmūn of Persia and confessed that:

“The Arabs [i.e., Muslims] are blessed a great dynasty who by God do not attack Christianity, they are even our supporters, respect our God, and do regard our saints, give donations to our churches and monasteries. No Muslim either its ruler, officer or ordinary Muslim citizen is allowed to capture the property of any non-Muslim illegally”.

(Ameer ʿAlī 2021, p. 462)

A similar approach was followed by Caliph ʿUthmān b.ʿAffān (r. 23–35/644–656), who issued commands to his deputies, saying:

“Allah has ordained the leaders of the community to be responsible and to look after the interest of the people under them. Allah did not ordain them to collect money from the people under their control. The heart of Islam is to be responsible and protect the interests of the people and this is the ultimate duty and obligation of the leaders. If the leaders stray from this path they will mark the end of trust, loyalty and modesty. Therefore, the best conduct is the fulfilment of duty beholds upon you and to look after the interest of the community as well as to be kind to the enemy”.

(al-Tạbarī 1969, vol. 3, p. 585; Hamīdullāh 1987a, p. 528)

The Arab historian al-Balādhūrī (d. 279/892) reports the Capitulation Treaty of Ḥabīb b. Muslaymah, which he issued to the people of Devin (Dabīl), the capital of Armenia at that time, during the Caliphate of ʿUthmān b.ʿAffān:

“This is a writ from Ḥabīb b. Maslamah to the Christians of Devin, along with its Magian and Jewish populations, those who are present and those who are absent (shāhidahum wa ghāʿibahum). I have granted you security over your persons, wealth, churches, places of worship, and city wall (ʿalā anfusikum wa amwālikum wa kanā’isikum wa bay’ikum wa sūr madīnatikum). You are now secure and we are bound to honour the covenant (al-ʿahd) as long as you also fulfil it and pay the jizyah and the kharāj. Allah is a witness and sufficient is He as a witness (wa kafā bihī shahīdan)”.

(Balādhūrī 1987, p. 282)

The covenants of the fourth Caliph of Islam and the cousin of the Prophet Muḥammed ﷺ, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (r. 35–40/656–661), which were granted to the Christian communities of his time, reiterated the main terms and conditions stipulated by the Prophet to Christians.

“The bishops should not be removed from their bishoprics. The monks and hermits should not be disturbed in their solitudes nor removed from their monasteries. The Christians should not be converted from their Christianity and no pilgrim should be prevented from making his pilgrimage. Their churches and monasteries should not be destroyed by the Muslims and taken for their homes or mosques. Nobody should remove or pull down the bells from the steeples of their churches”.

(Levon 1984, pp. 14–20)

The Covenant of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib with the Armenian Christians deserves to be studied and analyzed as a major historical source that bears great similarity to the Covenants of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ with other Christian religious groups. The fact that the Christians from Najrān in Yemen, who were settled in a village near Kūfah (where the Caliph resided after moving from Madīna in 35/656), came to seek the help of the Caliph is an important historical event. In 657 CE, their bishop negotiated with ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib their return to Yemen after being forced from their land. The Caliph’s reply was quite positive, promising to respect their liberties and to maintain the same amount of tax land that was decreased by the third Caliph ‘Uthman. None of this would be compelling were it not suggestive of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib’s belief that protecting Christians was a requirement to ensure Islam’s continued observance (Morrow 2018, p. 97). The Covenant of ʿAlī with the Magians also provided them with religious freedom and protection for their fire temples (El-Wakil 2017, pp. 136–39), as shared in the text below:

“This is a writ from the Commander of the Believers, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, may Allah ennoble his countenance, to the religious leader of the Magians Bahrām-Shād b. Ḥūrzād, the Head of the Magians in charge of their religious affairs and his household… I have given you complete freedom to do as you wish with regards to your fire temples: Their wealth, the lands on which they stand and those surrounding them, their relics and everything that pertains to them along with any building renovations you may wish to make”.

(Ṭabarsī 2002, p. 64)

There is a long list of such treaties from the time of the Rāshidūn Caliphs in which non-Muslim minorities were guaranteed the protection of their worship places. Almost all such peace agreements have been listed in this paper. Abū Yūsuf writes about these agreements:

“In my opinion, the buildings of dhimmīs (subjects) which come under the rule of peace counsel should not be destroyed nor shall they be replaced. The same policy should be upheld, which Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib practised. They never demolished any such building which fell into the peace agreement”.

(Abū Yūsuf 2004, p. 147)

3.2. The ʿUmayyāds (r. 41–132/661–750)

It should be acknowledged at the outset that the ʿUmayyād era was generally marked by the erosion of non-Muslim (and new Muslim) rights relative to the Rāshidūn period, as mentioned below. The ʿUmayyād dynasty became increasingly rapacious and dissolute on the spoils (and ill-gotten gains) of the conquest and administration of conquered territories, particularly Greater Persia. This was to sow the seeds of ill-will that led to mass support for the ʿAbbāsid Revolution in 750 CE. As the focus of this section is to explore the implementation and practical application of the Islamic ethos described above, and not to detail its abandonment, this section focuses on two examples from the early ʿUmayyāds who demonstrated this ethos: Muʿāwīyah b. Abi Sufyān and ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. There is also a note on the Islamic conquest of Iberia (93/711), but the historical experience of ethnic and religious plurality in ʿUmayyād Spain is a well-documented area of history beyond the scope of the current paper.

Muʿāwīyah b. Abi Sufyān was a Companion of the Prophet and a son of the Makkan pagan leader who later embraced Islam at the Conquest of Makkah. He was a long-serving Governor of Damascus under the Rāshidūn, and when he wrested the Caliphate from Hasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, he marked the transition from the Rāshidūn to the ʿUmayyād Caliphate (r. 41–132/661–750). Muʿāwīyah, known from the time of ʿUmar to be deeply integrated into the cosmopolitan post-Byzantine milieu of Damascus, including its Christian elite, made it a priority to protect the rights of the non-Muslim minorities and upheld the peace treaties made between the state and the dhimmīs (Maqrīzī 2008, vol. 1, p. 208). Several sources inform us that, after the Church of Edessa was destroyed by an earthquake in 59/679 (Robert 2011, pp. 170–71), Muʿāwīyah rebuilt it (Guidetti 2009, pp. 1–36). It is instructive to note that Muʿāwīyah had a temporary treaty with the Byzantines, and when it was about to expire, he prepared to resume campaigning against them, but as his army was proceeding, a horseman approached and exclaimed “God is Great! God is Great! One should abide by one’s treaties and should not break them like this!” It was discovered that the horseman was a Companion of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, named Omar b. Musā. Muʿāwīyah enquired why he had come, to which he replied “The Prophet Muḥammad told us not to break a treaty before its time expires. If you want to break this treaty at least inform the other party” (Shaybānī 1971, p. 185). Muʿāwīyah then returned to Damascus and dispersed his army (Qureshī 2018, p. 131).

During his reign, Muʿāwīyah ensured that tolerance was at the foundation of the state’s relationship with non-Muslims. During the reign of the second caliph ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, a mosque was built near the Church of Youhannā, and Muʿāwīyah wanted to expand the mosque by razing the church. However, he rescinded the proposal after the Christian community did not agree to it (Maqrīzī 2008, vol. 1, pp. 208–10). Years later, the Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (r. 65–86/685–705) offered money to the Christians and requested their permission to go ahead with the plan, but he too was denied. His successor and the sixth ʿUmayyād Caliph, Walīd b.ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 86–96/705–715), also offered a large amount, but his offer was also rejected. An infuriated Walīd b.ʿAbd al-Malik threatened to forcefully take the church, but the Christians said that God’s curse would fall upon him, including madness and leprosy. This indictment made Walīd b.ʿAbd al-Malik even angrier, and he started to demolish the Church’s wall. He eventually went ahead with the plan to expand the mosque after razing the Church.

3.3. The Islamic Conquest of Iberia (93/711)

In 93/711, when the early Muslims crossed into the Iberian Peninsula, they established an alliance with the Sephardic Jews, who had suffered outrages under the Visigoths, and the Muslims also made treaties with Christians. In April of 95/713, for example, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the Governor on al-Andalus, under the command Mūsā b. Nuṣayr (d. 98/716), made the following Covenant with a Visigothic noble by the name of Theodemir (Tudmir):

In the name of God, the Merciful and the Compassionate. This is a text written by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Mūsā b. Nuṣair for Tudmir b. Ghabdūsh, establishing a treaty of peace and the promise and protection of God and His Prophet (May God bless him and grant him peace). We (ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz) will not set special conditions for him or any among his men, nor harass him, nor remove him from power. His followers will not be killed or taken prisoner, nor will they be separated from their women and children. They will not be coerced in matters of religion, their churches will not be burned, nor will sacred objects be taken from the realm, as long as he Theodemir remains sincere and fulfils the following conditions that we have set for him.

(Morrow 2018, p. 114)

When ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (r. 99–101/717–720) (the man praised as the “fifth rightly-guided caliph” and a “reviver of Islam”) came into power, Christians brought their concerns to him, and ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ordered the governor of Damascus to return the Church’s land (that was seized to expand the mosque) to the Christians. Many Muslims opposed this, as it entailed the partial razing of the mosque; thus, they appeased the Christians by offering to return the churches in Ghouta (an area of Damascus) in exchange for giving up the disputed land of the Church. The Christians agreed to this proposal (Balādhūrī 1987, p. 331).

Non-Muslims enjoyed religious freed om under the rule of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and he curtailed the Arab supremacist abuses that had crept in under his predecessors (e.g., forcing Muslim converts in Greater Persia to continue paying the jizya). He also ensured the safety of non-Muslim places of worship, and he allowed non-Muslims to consume alcohol and pork, conduct their matrimonial ceremonies, worship idols, etc., following their respective religious practices. ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz implored Hassan al-Basrī regarding the approach taken by the Rāshidūn Caliphs toward the matrimonial proceedings and the consummation of alcohol and pork by the non-Muslims living under the Muslim rule; al-Basrī’s answer further consolidates the notion that the non-Muslims were completely free to practice their religions under the rule of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and during the reign of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz once instructed one of his bureaucrats, “don’t destroy any church, synagogue, and fire temple protected under the peace treaty; although, do not let them build any new worship centers (in the Muslim populated areas)” (al-Tạbarī 1969, vol. 5, pp. 322–23). Once, a Muslim claimed a church was part of his property. ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz said, “if the church in question is part of the covenant with the Christians, you cannot stake a claim on it” (ibid., vol. 5, p. 324).

ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ousted Banī Nasr from another synagogue that a previous ruler had bestowed upon them in a large estate, ruling in favor of the Christians (Balādhūrī 1987, pp. 188–89). Another church in Damascus was part of the estate of a Muslim family for years, but the Christian community staked a historical claim to it, whereby ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz gave it back to the Christians (ibid.). The example of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz is highly instructive for how state sharia may deal with non-Muslims, particularly the security and sanctity of human rights and absolute property rights. His reign was characterized by correcting the anti-Islamic practices towards non-Muslims under his predecessors, overturning unjust decrees, actively listening to minorities, protecting their religious freedoms, and giving back what was truly theirs.

3.4. The ʿAbbāsids (132–656/750–1258)

The ʿAbbāsid Caliphate (r. 132–656/750–1258) was officially established when Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Saffāḥ, the first Abbasid Caliph, overthrew the ruling ʿUmayyād dynasty in the East (while it continued to linger in Iberia). The ushering in of the Abbasid Caliphate brought in a spell of prosperity and intellectual growth to the Muslim world, a time that is fondly remembered as the Golden Age of Islam—the era when many important philosophical, medical, and mathematical works were translated into Arabic (Hanne 2007, pp. 19–25). ʿAlī b. Sulaīmān (d. 177/794) was appointed as the Governor of Egypt during the reign of the fourth Abbasid Caliph, al-Hādī al-ʿAbbāsī (r. 145–146/785–786). ʿAlī b. Sulaymān demolished the Cathedral of Holy Mary and other churches, but al-Hādī died after ruling a solitary year and was succeeded by Hārūn al-Rashīd (r. 149–194/766–809). He dismissed ʿAlī b. Sulaymān and gave the governorship to Mūsā b. ʿIsā (d.190/805), who consulted the scholars about the matter of the churches. At the time, al-Layth b. Saʿd (d. 174/791) was the leader of all the scholars of Egypt. He was a great scholar of hadīth and a revered academic. He publicly affirmed the need to reconstruct the razed churches and argued that all the churches in Egypt were established during the time of the Companions of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and their descendants. Therefore, all of the churches were rebuilt at state expense (Yusuf 1950, p. 66).

It is instructive to mention here that a charter issued by the ʿAbbāsid Caliph al-Muktafī (r. 530–554/1136–1160) to the Nestorian Patriarch ʿAbdīshū III (r. 532–541/1138–1147) not only includes wording similar to that used in the previously devised covenants by the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and the Rāshidūn, particularly in measures for securing monastic sites, but the twelfth-century document also insists that its formulation has a lineage that can be traced to the examples from the early Islamic period (Mingana 1926, pp. 127–33). It identifies its basis with a standard fashioned by the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and the early caliphs, claiming:

“Praise be to God who invested the Commander of the Faithful with the glory of the Caliphate, the inheritance from his fathers, and clothed him with its robes… Following the precedent sanctioned by the imams, his predecessors, the Commander of the Faithful does also hereby bestow upon you and your followers the statutory prerogatives: your life and property and those of your people will be protected, great care will be taken in the promotion of your welfare, your ways of interring the dead will be respected, and your churches and monasteries will be secured. In all this, we are in conformity with the method adopted by the Orthodox Caliphs with your predecessors, a method followed by the high imams, my predecessors (may God be pleased with them) in their interpretation of the terms of our convention with you”.

(ibid.)

4. The Construction of Non-Muslim Places of Worship over the Longue Durée

Although some Muslims objected that the construction of new churches and other non-Muslim temples was not permitted under Muslim rule (for details, see: Levy-Rubin 2011, p. 63), this claim was viewed as a consequence of baseless and superficial understandings designed to facilitate ʿUmayyād misappropriations of land and buildings (such as those rectified by ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, as described previously). The Companions of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ had already discussed and settled this matter during their time (Shiblī n.d., vol. 2, p. 215). ʿAbdullāh b. ʿAbbās (d. 68/687) was asked about the matter of the new construction of non-Muslim worship places, and he stated that the construction of new churches and idol houses should not be permitted in the cities specifically established for the Muslim population; however, Muslim rulers should abide by the treaties with the non-Muslims when it comes to the cities that historically belong to the dhimmīs (Abū Yūsuf 2004, p. 149). The fatwa of ʿAbdullāh b. ʿAbbās’ in this regard was tentative, as, at the time, Muslims and the other religious minorities had not mingled in local societies as such, and they remained in garrison towns. With time, as the social landscape changed, this historical verdict was rendered obsolete.

Consequently, numerous churches, idol houses, and fire temples were erected in the cities that were specifically founded for the Muslim population at the time. For instance, the geographical lexicon of Yāqūt (d. 627/1229), the Muʿjam al-Buldān, provides separate entries for nearly 200 churches and monasteries within Islamic domains (Ḥamwī 1976, vol. 2, pp. 187–201). Shāhid was able to verify the existence of 137 churches and monasteries in Provincia Arabia (Shāhid [1995] 2008, vol. 2, pp. 182–83). Abū Ṣāliḥ shared the names and a brief history of 72 churches and 86 monasteries that existed in Egypt and neighboring provinces during the ʿAbbāsid era (Ṣāliḥ 2001, pp. 305–46). Similarly, the churches found in Cario were also established during Muslim rule (Shiblī 1930, p. 206). Additionally, the Muslim author al-Shābushtī (d. 399/1008) provided information concerning 53 churches and monasteries that were still in operation during classical Islamic times and were scattered throughout the Levant, Iraq, and Egypt in his Kitāb al-Diyārāt (“Book of Cloisters”) (Shābushtī 1951, pp. 67–112). The historian al-Maqrīzī (d. 846/1442) suggested that there were 100 churches and monasteries in the Wādi al-Natrūn of Lower Egypt (Maqrīzī 2008, vol. I, p. 186). Piccirillo also shared brief introductions of five prominent churches in Jordan during the ʿUmayyād era (Piccirillo 1984, pp. 333–41). An account preserved in the Ansāb al-Ashrāf of al-Balādhūrī (d. 279/892) records that even the ʿUmayyād caliph Hishām b.ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 104–125/723–743) sought refuge from a plague at a rural monastery in Syria, which was apparently remote enough to be safe from the spreading disease (Lawrence 1991, p. 271). Even the deeply religious ʿUmar b.ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (r. 99–101/717–720), typically considered the most pious of the Umayyad caliphs, is said not only to have led Muslim prayers in a Christian church (Bashear 1991) but to have visited and been buried at Dayr Simʿān (the Monastery of St. Simeon) in northern Syria (al-Tạbarī 1969, vol. 4, pp. 67–68).

Shiblī Nuʿmānī (1857–1914) stated that the Muslims generally let the old worship places remain intact and function and allowed the construction of new ones, and they also honored all their treaties regarding these worship places and the estates associated with them. They even continued to replenish the previously agreed-upon compensations for the worshipers, custodians, and trustees associated with these establishments from the state’s treasury (in addition to ecclesiastical tax exemptions). When ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ (d. 24/644) conquered Egypt in the reign of the Caliph ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, the estates devoted to the cathedrals continued to serve them, which remained the practice under subsequent dynasties (ibid., vol. 1, p. 207).

The fact that an Islamic court of law is legally bound to validate a Christian’s will to construct a church is enough to understand and appreciate the religious tolerance and respect Islam so clearly accentuates. Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150/767), the founder of the largest school of Islamic jurisprudence (and the official school of the Ottoman Empire), stated that, ”We have been ordered to let the dhimmīs be with their religion” (Marghīnānī 2000, p. 314).

Therefore, given this injunction, it would be illicit to prevent non-Muslims from establishing their places of worship while claiming to provide them with religious freedom. Indeed, doing so would fall under the archetypal anathema of ʿikrāh (compulsion) in religion. This makes the modern reformist movement of Daesh and their ilk all the more spurious in their attestation that it is somehow a religious obligation for Muslims to raze Christian and other places of worship, along with other unspeakable and disrespectful measures. In terms of the realpolitik of living in a civilized way in the modern globalized world, it is also counterproductive (as well as heretical) for Muslims to insist on places of worship for themselves in Europe while vehemently opposing the construction of churches and other places of worship in Muslim-majority countries (Saʿdullāh 2018, p. 63).

The era of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and the Rāshidūn Caliphs was generally exemplary in honoring the rights of non-Muslims, including with regard to places of worship. These regimes honored their treaties in their entirety (with the caveat of allowing Jewish settlements in Jerusalem, contrary to the Christians’ original stipulation of their absolute exclusion) and observed the Islamic teachings of interfaith tolerance and justice when it came to relations with non-Muslims. The tradition of honoring military and bilateral treaties and relations with non-Muslims based on mutual respect largely continued after the Rāshidūn Caliphate gave way to dynastic monarchies. However, it must be acknowledged that an Arab supremacist tendency under the early ʿUmayyāds, particularly the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (r. 65–86/685–705), led to the oppression of minorities and Muslim converts. However, ongoing adherence to the Islamic faith and ethos, including the rights of non-Muslim subjects, continued to be articulated by scholars and topologists, and rulers including (but not limited to) ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, as well as provincial governors who lived cheek-by-jowl with non-Muslim communities (who were often majorities in such contexts). The Islamic strand of sometimes un-Islamic governance by Muslims is summarized by Hamīdullāh: “Islam has a very soft corner towards minorities living in an Islamic state. Islamic law guarantees and protects the rights to life, property, honour and liberty of conscience, and religion to all including Muslims and non-Muslims, without any type of discrimination” (Hamīdullāh 1987b, p. 237).

5. Conclusions

The Covenants devised by the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ have provided the framework for peaceful relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. For instance, in the Treaty of Hudaybīyah, it was stated that the Muslims would not be allowed to perform ʿUmrah (pilgrimage to Makkah) in that year, but permission would be given for the following year. The two parties also agreed to abandon war and live in peace. Even though the terms of the Treaty were heavily on the side of the opponents of Muslims (the pagans of Makkah), the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ agreed to all of their conditions to maintain peace and good relations with non-Muslims and obliged his Companions to abide by these conditions, leading the way by handing over a Muslim refugee as the Treaty was concluded (subject to the commitment of the Makkans to protect his rights).

The era of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and the Rāshidūn Caliphs provides a template that is still binding upon observant Muslims, and this historical experience includes honoring treaties in their entirety and observed the Islamic teachings of interfaith tolerance and justice in relations with non-Muslims. Indeed, these Covenants continued to play a significant role in history, because these pacts protected the religious liberties of non-Muslims living under the Muslim polity in general, and their clergies and worship places in particular, irrespective of the specific region or city but throughout the realms of Muslim control.

It would be pertinent to share that, at present, the same attitude that was practiced during the early period of Islam is needed in Muslim states for maintaining peaceful co-existence in a multi-faith society. By adopting such an approach, they can demonstrate that Islam not only tolerates but honors minorities living in an Islamic state. Islamic law guarantees and protects fundamental rights, including to religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property, to all, including Muslims and non-Muslims, without any type of discrimination. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ constructed an Islamic ʿummah (nation) whose basic pillars were to create a tolerant and pluralistic government that preserved religious freedom. If the growing global Muslim population adhered to the authentic teachings of the religion they profess, the world would be a much safer and more edifying place to live for all humans (Mehfooz and Ahmed 2018).