Treaty of Umar r.a

[Villainess]

Here is the link that is working:
http://isravakfi.org/elibrary/wp-content/uploads/UmarAmantoAelia.pdf.

It is a scholarly paper that discusses the authenticity of another late version but it mentions that the one that I posted is the most popular early version of the treaty.

The link you sent is talking about jews whereas nowhere in my post did I even talk mention it. They are all treated the same but this pact was mainly for the Syrian Christians. It protected them while also granting them religious freedom. The only ones who debate its authenticity are western sheikhs and Shias. Most of them aren't even Muslim. Bernard Lewis, widely regarded as one of the leading scholars in Jewish history, described the "official" origin of the Pact of 'Umar: "The Muslim historiographic tradition ascribes these regulations to the caliph 'Umar I (634-644)." He doubts the validity of this attribution, writing that the document "can hardly be authentic. This man also claims that the pact was written over centuries. I will take his opinions with a grain of salt.

 

[somebody]

The link you sent is talking about jews whereas nowhere in my post did I even talk mention it. They are all treated the same but this pact was mainly for the Syrian Christians. It protected them while also granting them religious freedom. The only ones who debate its authenticity are western sheikhs and Shias. Most of them aren't even Muslim. Bernard Lewis, widely regarded as one of the leading scholars in Jewish history, described the "official" origin of the Pact of 'Umar: "The Muslim historiographic tradition ascribes these regulations to the caliph 'Umar I (634-644)." He doubts the validity of this attribution, writing that the document "can hardly be authentic. This man also claims that the pact was written over centuries. I will take his opinions with a grain of salt.

Did you even open the link that I just posted? I am talking about the link that didnt work in my first post. The topic of the paper is the analysis of another version of the treaty written by a greek orthodox patriarchate, not about jews and in there it mentions that al tabari version is the most popular. If you dont know who al tabari is, he is a very well known islamic scholar who lived in the 9th century and is the author of many great works, just google him. The author of the version that you posted is a scholar who was born nearly hundred years after al tabari and is more known for his philosophy, so "most of them aren't even Muslim" doesnt apply here.

 

[Villainess]

Did you even open the link that I just posted? I am talking about the link that didnt work in my first post. The topic of the paper is the analysis of another version of the treaty written by a greek orthodox patriarchate, not about jews and in there it mentions that al tabari version is the most popular. If you dont know who al tabari is, he is a very well known islamic scholar who lived in the 9th century and is the author of many great works, just google him. The author of the version that you posted is a scholar who was born nearly hundred years after al tabari and is more known for his philosophy, so "most of them aren't even Muslim" doesnt apply here.

Yes and here is what I was referring to.

And I do know who Tabari is but the one I posted isn't from him. It is by Turtushi. But if you use the logic of "they were born hundreds of years later!" then I do not want to waste time talking to you. You can apply the same logic with the hadith, Bukhari was born 300 years after the nabi's death. Does that make the hadith unreliable?

 

[somebody]

Your link doesn't work and there is nothing wrong with this post nor was anyone mistreated.

And I am talking about the version that you posted in your original post that is just bullshit, not the other version that you version that you gave me.

 

[Villainess]

And I am talking about the version that you posted in your original post that is just bullshit, not the other version that you version that you gave me.

Yes, and i cannot go back and edit it. that was from wikipedia and it was my original blank research. Use the second quote.

 

[somebody]

Yes and here is what I was referring to.
View attachment 154301

And I do know who Tabari is but the one I posted isn't from him. It is by Turtushi. But if you use the logic of "they were born hundreds of years later!" then I do not want to waste time talking to you. You can apply the same logic with the hadith, Bukhari was born 300 years after the nabi's death. Does that make the hadith unreliable?

You are playing dumb. The author of the paper is just saying that there are historians that are doubting about the details of the treaty as there are many versions of them and this supported by the fact there are already two different versions, by Turthushi and al tabari, in this thread. I am not saying just because a scholar is born later that he is not reliable. It is just that we have two different versions here, one that is written by a very well known scholar in the islamic academy who lived earlier and another that is written a century later by a scholar who is more known of his philosophy and whom I am pretty sure that you have never heard of him before you made your original post.

 

[Villainess]

You are playing dumb. The author of the paper is just saying that there are historians that are doubting about the details of the treaty as there are many versions of them and this supported by the fact there are already two different versions, by Turthushi and al tabari, in this thread. I am not saying just because a scholar is born later that he is not reliable. It is just that we have two different versions here, one that is written by a very well known scholar in the islamic academy who lived earlier and another that is written a century later by a scholar who is more known of his philosophy and whom I am pretty sure that you have never heard of him before you made your original post.

I am not playing "dumb". You asked something and I stated my answer. And surprise! I knew of both of them BECAUSE of my research. I wouldn't post something without backup. I spend hours of my life researching whatever I feel like doing. Last week I talked about science and now the Treaty. Get out of here.

 

[somebody]

I am not playing "dumb". You asked something and I stated my answer. And surprise! I knew of both of them BECAUSE of my research. I wouldn't post something without backup. I spend hours of my life researching whatever I feel like doing. Last week I talked about science and now the Treaty. Get out of here.

Yeah the fact that you first you copied the treaty form wikipedia sure does say something.

 

[Villainess]

Yeah the fact that you first you copied the treaty form wikipedia sure does say something.

Yes, it says that I was hurrying because I found this topic funny and decided to share it on sspot. Later on I posted a more reliable source.

 

[somebody]

Yes, it says that I was hurrying because I found this topic funny and decided to share it on sspot. Later on I posted a more reliable source.

I am done

 

[Win]

@Asli is disliking me because I’m preaching about Islam

Islam is a religion of submission towards Allah. Doing that is what brings peace. Muslims are not pacifists niyow.

 

[Win]

I agree with you but the prophet wouldn't want Muslims fighting fire with fire

Tit for tat is justified niyow. Islam is not a pacifist religion. We consider our religion to be the truth. So why wouldn't we want it to dominate?