Multi-Religious Affairs Under the Muslim Legal System: A Historical Study of Umar’s Transformative Approaches in Islamicjerusalem after the First Muslim Conquest (637CE)

For a long time Islamic Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis) has seem to be a vulnerable region attracting attention from various parties. With the coming of the Muslims to liberate Islamicjerusalem in 637CE, the situation inside and outside the territory seems to have experienced various kinds of approaches. The first Muslim conquest of Islamicjerusalem led by cUmar (13-23 AH/ 634-644 CE) brought certain legislative indications, mentioned through cUmar's Assurance of Amān (Safety) for the people of Aelia. Accordingly, this research attempts to examine transformative approaches adopted by Umar in implementing Muslim legal system within multi-religious communities in Aelia (Islamicjerusalem) due to the first Muslim conquest. This research employed inter-disciplinary research methodologies. While, historical research methodology is widely used to investigate significant historical facts and records during Umar‟s period, Islamic research methodology is also be employed to provide a basis of Muslim understandings towards the implementation of concept of sovereignty. The study found that Umar attempted to implement the Muslim law in Islamic jerusalem with transformative mind and subtle approach. He always initiated changes with full respect for others' beliefs. Umar had also showed a strong commitment to implementing it over the people of Islamic jerusalem away from any kind of oppression and maltreatment. This study concludes that Islamic jerusalem after the first Muslim conquest could also be the best model in representing the implementation of the Muslim legal aspects of sovereignty within the multi-religious and multi-cultural communities, where Muslims only formed the minority.


The First Muslim Conquest and Legal Impacts on Islamicjerusalem Multi-Religious Communities
c Umar's Assurance of Amān (Safety) for the people of Aelia is started with, 'In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate. This is the assurance of Amān (Safety) which the servant of God (the second Caliph) c Umar (Ibn al-Khattāb), the Commander of the Faithful, has granted to the people of Aelia …' El-cAwaisi (2005). It can be seen that c Umar granted the Assurance of safety in his capacity as the Muslim sovereign. Indeed, the Assurance itself conveyed certain legal implications that involved the people of Aelia and the Muslims; these were known as the rulings of ahl al-dhimma (Qalcah, 1997).
The first legal implication is that the people of Aelia, who accepted living under Muslim sovereignty, would become dhimmīs and would have to pay jizya. The researcher will focus on legal implications relating to jizya. Jizya payment, imposed on the non-Muslims of Islamicjerusalem, has attracted scholars to become involved in discussing related issues concerning it. Therefore, the researcher will explore the origin of its execution over non-Muslims of Islamicjerusalem and will examine some of the discussion relating to the topic of jizya.
Explicitly, the requirement for the people of Aelia to pay jizya was mentioned in the document of c Umar Assurance. 'The people of Aelia must pay the jizya (tax) like the people of the (other) cities…' This clause was agreed upon by the people of Islamicjerusalem from the first Muslim conquest as no resistance from them has been reported against it. Nevertheless, Moshe Gil argues that the jizya imposed financial problem on the non-Muslims. According to him, the anxiety of the Jewish people of Islamicjerusalem over taxes can be seen in a fragment of a letter in the handwriting of Abraham Ibn Solomon Ibn Judah in which the main subject is the tax burden. In addition, Gil claims that the letter hints at collaboration between the Arabs and the Christian tax officials. He adds, 'The subject of taxes is frequently mentioned in letters of the yeshiva, generally urging the addressee to try to aid or organise aid for the people of Jerusalem; the impression is clear that they were unable to bear the heavy financial burden' (Gil, 1997).
The researcher argues that Gil"s argument seems unjustifiable since jizya is a small sum of money indeed when compared to the services the Muslim authorities were offering to protect the dhimmīs and support the army in charge to keep them safe from assaults. Moreover, the jizya was levied so that all the capable non-Muslim citizens of the state could contribute, each from their own money, to the security of the territory. In return for this, they could enjoy their rights as citizens of the territory (Jitmoud, 1986). Evidently, Muslims returned the money to the dhimmīs, which they have paid to them, when they heard of any attack from outside. AbūHafs al-Dimashqī reported from Sa c id Ibn c Abd al-c Azīz: 'When Heraclius massed his troops against the Muslims and the Muslims heard that they were coming to meet them at al-Yarmūk, the Muslims refunded to the inhabitants of Hims the jizya they had taken from them saying, 'We are too busy to support and protect you. Take care of yourselves.' But the people of Hims replied, 'We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyranny in which we were. The army of Heraclius we shall indeed, with your c āmil's' help, repulse from the city.' (Al-Balādhurī and Futūh, 1983) On the other hand, Armstrong (1997) claims that the obligation on the non-Muslims of Islamicjerusalem to pay jizya affirmed the inferiority status of the dhimmis to the Muslims. Gil seems in agreement with her as he adds that, with regard to the status of the Jews and Christians of Islamicjerusalem, no significant change took place for the first, while the latter were changed to become equal with the Jews; they would both be inferior to the Muslims (Gil, 1997). Ye"or (2003), Kollek (1968) went even further, claiming that the status of "dhimmī" made the non-Muslim inhabitants the second-class citizens in the state.
Nevertheless, the researcher argues that Gil"s argument is unjustifiable, as the supremacy of the Muslim system would never deny the principle of equality for each citizen in Islamicjerusalem. With regard to the requirement to pay jizya, Yūsuf Al-Qaradāwī, a leading contemporary Muslim scholar, explains that Islam is so considerate that it would not require non-Muslims to pay the zakāt or perform jihād, as these are major Muslim acts of ibādah; zakāt being a financial tax and jihāda military service. Instead, Muslim law required non-Muslims to pay jizya, of which the women, the children and the poor and disabled were exempted. If some people could not bring themselves to accept the term jizya, then he suggests they call it whatever they like. For example, the Arab Christians of BanūTaghlib asked c Umar to allow them to pay double the zakāt that the Muslim paid and not pay the Jizya. c Umar agreed and signed an agreement with them to that effect (Al-Qaradāwī, 2002).
In addition, the researcher argues that the dhimmī status was purposely designed to denote that such non-Muslims of Islamicjerusalem would be fully under the responsibility of the Muslim government. In a contemporary context this could be similar to the verification of citizenship. Ramadan (1970) argues that, through this sociopolitical contract, called c aqd al-dhimma, 'the contractees become basically entitled to equal and reciprocal rights and duties. This, grants non-Muslim citizens a status that corresponds with the modern conception of nationality.'In other words, upon acceptance of Muslim sovereignty, would will automatically become a citizen of the Muslim state, eligible to share all the basic rights of a Muslim citizen with no concern to the size of its population in the state. Therefore, the dhimmī status gave the Jews of Islamicjerusalem equal status with the Christians, even though they represented only the smallest minority of the population.
Gil also raises a question with regard to the conditions of the taxes imposed on the non-Muslims settled in Islamicjerusalem, as there are no details in the Assurance of safety or even in other treaties concluded for other places. He relies on the information in the Cairo Geniza document, although it is dated relatively late (the eleventh century); he assumes that it evidently reflects customs that had continued from the time of the conquest, for some four hundred years. In 448 AH/ 1057 CE, a circular letter from the Yeshiva of Jerusalem appeals to the Egyptian communities for assistance, pointing to 'the tax and the regular payments imposed on us, whether we are many or few; every year we have to borrow with interest in order to fulfil it.' From this, he claims that the Jews of Islamicjerusalem had to pay a regular lump sum annually; and it is very likely that this continued from the days of the caliph c Umar (Gil, 1997).
The researcher found Gil's argument again questionable as Dennet (1951) mentions it was natural to the non-Muslim inhabitants of Islamicjerusalem to continue paying jizya to the Muslim sovereign. They had previously been paying a poll tax to the Byzantines for an even larger amount and this also involved the female population (Abū, 2002). He adds that c Umar had made a good effort to change the Byzantine system by proposing that the jizya should be extended to all classes of society, as he had done in the Sawād where the dahaqinand other officials, exempt under the Persians, were compelled to pay it. Dennet (1951) also reveals some information from Christian sources that never mention the financial burden in connection with the jizya payment. For instance, Theophanes (d. 284 AH/ 897 CE) states that in the thirtieth year of Heraclius, c Umar made a census of all the lands, men, animals, and palms. Michael the Syrian also reports that c Umar ordered a census with regard to jizyathroughout all the lands of his empire. Hence, jizya was imposed on the Christians of Islamicjerusalem in the year 951 CE/ 639-40 AH. The researcher argues that Gil's argument based on the Geniza document becomes more indefensible because there is no evidence from Christian sources, to support it, and the Christians represented the majority of the inhabitants in Islamicjerusalem.
With regard to the rate of jizya, based on a thorough analysis regarding Muslim jurists' views, concludes that, 'there was no fixed rate and there was room for flexibility depending on time, place and economic situation.' Accordingly, it seemed acceptable that the rate of jizya in Islamicjerusalem fluctuated due to local needs and economic status of the non-Muslim inhabitants. It was reported that at the beginning of c Umar's era, the jizyain Islamicjerusalem was one dīnār per person. Then, c Umarreviewed the situation after the conquering Caesarea and proposed new rates, which varied due to the condition of the people: four dīnārs in the top category, two dīnārs in the middle category, and one dīnār for the low category (Jacfar, 1981). The classification of the categories is as follows: the top category was composed of the owners of immovable properties, estates, buildings and slaves all known and unable to be concealed. The middle category comprised the owners of the homesteads, prosperous and could be trusted with money or merchants, and the third category consisted of all those, who are outside the two preceding categories (Jacfar, 1981).
The researcher argues that the Muslim sovereign would have intensively studied the situation of the people before determining the rate of the jizya needing to be paid. This practice shows that Muslims never had any intention punishing or harming the local people by requiring them to pay jizya. The various rates introduced also indicated that Muslims were attempting to inculcate the spirit of cooperation among the people of Islamicjerusalem. Additionally, there were some cases, where a certain group of the people of Islamicjerusalem were exempted from paying the jizya. For instance, it was reported that people with leprosy in historical Syria were exempted from paying jizya during the time of c Umar (Al-Balādhurī and Futūh, 1983).

Multi-Religious Affairs Under the Muslim Legal System
Here, the researcher attempts to analyse the manifestation of the supremacy of the Muslim law towards multireligious affairs within the communities of Islamicjerusalem. The implementation of the Muslim concept of sovereignty over the multicultural society of Islamicjerusalem guaranteed the development of multi-religious rituals and intellectual activities since Muslims introduced changes in religious policy. Indeed, the c Umar Assurance of safety notes highly the significant principle of freedom of religion.
'Their churches will not be inhabited (taken over) nor destroyed (by Muslims). Neither they, nor the land, on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their possession will be encroached upon or partly seized. The people will not to be compelled (yukrahūna) in religion, nor any one of them to be maltreated (yudarrūna)…' (El-cAwaisi, 2005).
Although Muslim legislation became supreme in implementing the Muslim concept of sovereignty in Islamicjerusalem, the researcher argues that its supremacy also put other religious rules and practices into a respectable place. Muslims showed their respect to others by securing freedom of religion for the inhabitants of Islamicjerusalem irrespective of their number, race or colour. Not only did Muslims recognise the existence of others, they also prioritised the protection of religious places and practices. This kind of policy affirmed the continuation of pilgrimage to that holy place. Adomnan (d. 704 CE/ 85 AH) reports an account from Arculf that the pilgrims continued to come to Islamicjerusalem, especially from the western world (Wilkinson, 2002). Le Strange elaborates, 'The Christians and the Jews come up to Jerusalem in great numbers, in order to make their visitation of the Church of the Resurrection and the synagogue that is there' (Le, 1890).
During the Muslim period, Monophysite and Nestorian congregations existed at the fringes of the Greek-Orthodox community. Until the Muslim conquest, hostility and tension reigned among these communities, and the Imperial Church took oppressive steps against the secessionist sects (cAthāmina, 2000;Linder, 1996). However, the researcher argues that conditions created by the Muslim conquest forced these groups to reshape their mutual relations. Though each community maintained its unique theological and linguistic-social character, none could exercise any means of oppression or coercion against the others through the secular authorities. Moreover, common fate created ties among the Christian communities under Muslim rule, and the fact that Christians of different persuasions held positions in government and administration at times enabled Christians of various communities to assist members of other churches. As a result of these factors, mutual tolerance was generally the rule between the different Islamicjerusalem communities. The Greek-Orthodox was the largest, most important, and most influential, but it too needed constant economic aid from Christians everywhere; therefore, this community welcomed all pilgrims to Islamicjerusalem, and was assisted by Coptic, Jacobite, and Nestorian functionaries, members of the Muslim administration (Linder, 1996).
It was reported from a Coptic chronicle, that Coptic pilgrims continuously came to Islamicjerusalem until the eve of its capture by the Crusaders. The chronicler comments that, because of the conquest 'We, the community of Christians, Jacobites and Copts, did not join in the pilgrimage to Jerusalem' (Linder, 1996). The researcher tentatively argues that the Copts attempted to disassociate themselves with the Crusaders and implicitly preferred the Muslim sovereigns in Islamicjerusalem as in this situation they could perform their pilgrimage freely and safely. In addition, it was also reported that Coptic pilgrims visited Islamicjerusalem, but the scanty documentation of such travels seems to indicate pilgrimages of very modest proportions. Only a few such pilgrimages can be verified. For instance, a letter in Arabic written by an abbess in Egypt indicated that the addressee, a woman from Fustat, made a pilgrimage to Islamicjerusalem in the ninth century. Macarios of Nebrua, a Coptic magistrate, initiated the building of the Church of Mary Magdelene at the beginning of the ninth century, which served as a centre for the Jacobite community in Islamicjerusalem, of which the Copts formed a part, owing to the theological positions common to both communities (Linder, 1996).
Furthermore, there is also evidence that Armenian pilgrims came to Islamicjerusalem from the fifth century. Pilgrimages modest in number and achievements, and that their pilgrims continued to visit the region after the Muslim conquest (Sanjian, 2003). In 35 AH/ 656 CE, the monk M'chithar came to Islamicjerusalem, remaining there for about a year, and then returned to the Arsax region, bringing holy relics. A few years later the monk Joseph made a pilgrimage from that region to Islamicjerusalem (Linder, 1996). Although there is no explicit evidence concerning Armenian pilgrims in Islamicjerusalem over the next few centuries, documentary evidence as to the continued travel of Armenian pilgrims to Mount Sinai between the seventh and eleventh centuries could support the theory that the Islamicjerusalem pilgrimage did smoothly continue. Hence, this enabled the Armenian monasteries in Islamicjerusalem to survive (Sanjian, 2003).
After the total submission of the Aelia region to Muslim authority, it seems that the Muslim governors and caliphs did not interfere in the internal religious matters of the Christians. This was apparent in particular with regard to the appointment of Jerusalem"s Patriarch and the diocese of the churches (Armstrong, 1997). It is worth mentioning that even though Muslims' did not interfere in the Christians' internal religious matters, they were still concerned to ensure that no disagreements, which could lead to a worse conflict within the community to be occurred. It was reported that in some cases the Muslims were invited to help the different Christian sects to resolve their differences through playing the role of arbitrator and neutral mediator between them in Islamicjerusalem. For instance, Al-Tel (2003) mentions that the Jacobites and the Maronites went from Islamicjerusalem to meet Mu c āwiya Ibn AbūSufyān in Damascus asking his help to mediate between them in some religious disagreement. The researcher notes that Muslim caliphs would only offer their hands to resolve the problems regarding internal Christian religious matters when the Christians asked them to help. Otherwise, they would not intervene in others' internal religious matters.
The Jews also benefited from the freedom of religion policy that had been granted by Muslim sovereigns. Accordingly, they were permitted to move their religious council legislative body from Tiberia to Islamicjerusalem during that period (Le, 1890). With regard to Jewish religious practices in Islamicjerusalem, reports that it was a Jewish custom to pray beside the gates of al-Aqsā enclave. Apparently, the most revered of these gates was the Gate of Mercy (Bāb al-Rahma) in the eastern wall, either because of its eastern location or its name. It was customary for Jewish worshippers to pray for the illness beside the Gate of Mercy. For instance, David Ben Hayun, a Karaite resident of Islamicjerusalem, wrote to Joseph Ben Jacob in Tripoli, Libya that he prayed for him every time he ascended the Mount of Olives and also by the Gate of Mercy. Similarly, in a letter to Nehoray Ben Nissim, the Maghribi Israel Ben Nathan (Sahlun), who had settled in Islamicjerusalem, promised to pray for his health and for the health of Abraham Ben Moses al-Tahirti beside the Gate of Mercy and informed him that he visited that gate, as well as the other al-Aqsā enclave gates, every Monday and Thursday.
It is worth mentioning here that in Muslim tradition the name of this gate is associated with the Day of Judgement since Muslim scholars from the early times of Muslim sovereignty over Islamicjerusalem, such as c Ubāda Ibn al-Sāmit, linked the eastern wall of the enclave with the Last Day. While, for Christians its other name, the Golden Gate, is based on the Christian tradition that Jesus made his last entry to Islamicjerusalem through this gate; for Jews, the Messiah would enter Islamicjerusalem through this gate according to Jewish tradition. Although the history of the gate has always been in dispute, Al-Ratrout (2004) argues that later researches by some scholars such as 'Hamilton, Sharon, Ben-Dov, RossenAyalon, Tsafrir and Wilkinson reveal that the gate should be dated to the 7 th -8 th century CE', or to some times during the Umayyad period. Therefore, the researcher argues that the Jews started to pray at the Gate of Mercy after the Muslim conquest of Islamicjerusalem as it had not been built prior to the conquest.
Jewish people also visited the Mount of Olives, which was a central site for their assembly's prayer services. Here was held the great Hosha c naRabba assembly (on the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles), attended by both local residents and Jewish pilgrims, who would come to Islamicjerusalem in the month of Tishri (the 21st of the Hebrew month). According to Gil, Solomon Ben Judah, the Islamicjerusalemgaon, frequently refers in his letters to the assemblies held on the Mount of Olives with the consent of the authorities, and notes that this privilege is one of the recompensations received by the Jews of Islamicjerusalem in return for the taxes that they pay. At the time of the assembly on the Mount of Olives, it was customary to pronounce the ban against the Karaites, as informed by Abraham Ben Da'ud. From the Geniza letters, it mentions that this custom, producing many bitter disputes, split the Rabbanite community itself and also caused the authorities to intervene, which led to take some actions over the heads of the Jerusalem Yeshiva.
The Mount of Olives was also the site for the announcement of appointments made by the yeshiva GaonYa c aqov in Islamicjerusalem and of honorary titles bestowed by the yeshiva on its supporters among the Jewish communities of the Diaspora. In one of his letters, Solomon Ben Judah recalls how his predecessor, the Gaon Solomon ha-Kohen Ben Yehosef, was consumed with anger when it was announced on the Mount of Olives that on Sahlan Ben Abraham had been bestowed the honorary title of Rosh Kallah(usually given by the Babylonian yeshiva). There was a rock on the Mount of Olives, which was called the Chair of the Cantors. On this site the Head of the Yeshiva would deliver a sermon to those who had gathered for the assembly, as Solomon Ben Judah himself testifies, '... and I stood above the chair ...' Apparently Muslim sovereignty over Islamicjerusalem was followed by their initiative to introduce change with regard to religious matters, as they welcomed others to visit and perform pilgrimage in the region safely. Thus, the researcher is inclined to argue that the Muslim concept of sovereignty would never have excluded any religious community, but was dynamically inspired to encourage an inclusive vision towards fostering peace and harmony. However, Gil claims that it appears that at the time of the Muslim conquest, the invading tribes destroyed many churches and synagogues. 'Apparently the time of the destruction of the synagogues and Byzantine churches, whose remnants were and still being discovered in various parts of Palestine, was that of the Muslim conquest or shortly afterwards' (Gil, 1997).
The researcher argues that Gil"s accusation is unjustifiable because Islamicjerusalem had just been conquered by the Persians before Heraclius"s counter attack preserved the region under the Byzantines shortly before the first Muslim conquest. Evidently, the Persians, and not the Muslims had destroyed most of the religious buildings during their invasion. According to Armstrong, c Umar had expressed the monotheistic ideal of compassion more than any previous conqueror of Islamicjerusalem. She adds that: 'He presided over the most peaceful and bloodless conquest that the city had yet seen in its long and often tragic history. Once the Christians had surrendered, there was no killing, no destruction of property, no burning of rival religious symbols, no expulsions and expropriations, and no attempt to force the inhabitants to embrace Islam…' (Armstrong, 1997).

Conclusion
Upon investigating Umar"s approaches in dealing with multi-religious affairs in Islamicjerusalem after the First Muslim Conquest, the researcher arrived at various conclusions. The researcher found that Umar attempted to implement the Muslim law in Islamicjerusalem with transformative mind and subtle approach. He always initiated changes with full respect for others' beliefs. While the Muslim law was used in common affairs and shared-interests matters, Christian and Jewish laws were given autonomous rights for internal jurisdiction within both communities in the region. Indeed, all people had equal rights and everyone was equally responsible before the law as all the personal, civil, political, social, cultural and economic rights of an individual were guaranteed under Muslim law.
The researcher also found that Umar paid great attention to establishing a suitable mechanism for facilitating the implementation of the law. Due to his understanding of the significant position of just law, he also showed a strong commitment to implementing it over the people of Islamicjerusalem away from any kind of oppression and maltreatment. Therefore, the researcher concludes that Umar"s implementation of legislative aspects of the Muslim concept of sovereignty in Islamicjerusalem indicated, on the one hand, the roles of the Muslim law in administering relations between people and their rulers as well as all dimensions of people's daily affairs. It could also highlight the role of the people there, who seemed to be greatly encouraged to participate in determining governmental approaches, actions and directions.
The study has also found that Islamicjerusalem seems crucial significant and pretty worth to be analysed regarding the implementation of the Muslim legal aspects of sovereignty. The composition of the population within the region was really unique since it gathered together three main religious communities, namely, Muslims, Christians and Jews. More interestingly, although the non-Muslims were remaining majority in Islamicjerusalem region during that vital period, the minority Muslims had been accepted even most welcomed by others to rule Islamicjerusalem. El-cAwaisi (2005) presents an outstanding argument that reveals Islamicjerusalem as a model for peaceful co-existence and mutual respect. He argues that, 'One of the most important elements for this model's success was how the state and its established power and authority managed these (pluralism and diversity) issues.' Thus, this study thrived to highlight the 'recipe' for that success which blends appropriately the substances, approaches and mechanisms employed by the Muslim authority, namely Umar, with clear aims, peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. This study noted that there is no resistance from the native inhabitants of Islamicjerusalem against the Muslims rulers regarding the implementation of Muslim laws during that period. The researcher found the absence of any rebellion from the Christians and Jews of Islamicjerusalem indicates that they were satisfying with the implementation of the Muslim legal aspects of sovereignty, which aims to instilrahmah (mercy) for all nations. "We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all nations." (21:107). Indeed, this fact corroborates with the status of Islamicjerusalem region as al-Ardal-Mubārakah for all nations regardless of their faith, race and colour. "The land which We have Barakah for all nations." (21:71) Hence, the researcher concludes that Islamicjerusalem could be the best model in representing the implementation of the Muslim legal aspects of sovereignty within the multi-religious and multi-cultural communities, where Muslims only formed the minority. Apparently, besides concerning appropriate management approach on plurality and diversity, the Muslim concept of sovereignty also emphasizes on determining others" rights, responsibilities, treatment, tolerance and means of co-existence. Thus, the researcher concludes that Muslim stances in utilising sovereignty for the sake of the advancement of Islamicjerusalem and its people are welldeveloped to fit in the theoretical framework of Islamicjerusalem that strongly founded on its creative inclusive vision.