THE DUTY TO PROTECT SACRED SITES — PART III

The Prophet’s Covenants establish the Sunnah of historical preservation

By John Andrew Morrow

In light of the war crimes and cultural genocide committed by takfiri terrorists in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere, in which masjids, graves, shrines, mausoleums, and churches have been destroyed, what do the letters, treaties, and covenants of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), have to say about the preservation of heritage sites — religious, cultural, and historical? This is something truly significant.

In the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mt. Sinai, the famous Ashtiname of Muhammad, ‘ahd nabawi or ‘ahd al-nabi, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), promises the Christians from the Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai Peninsula, that “no building from among their churches shall be destroyed” and warns that “whoever does such a thing violates God’s covenant and dissents from the Messenger of God” (Morrow, vol. 3:2). Not only are Muslims prohibited from demolishing churches, they are exhorted to maintain them, “These people shall be assisted in the maintenance of their religious buildings and their dwellings; thus, they will be aided in their faith and kept true to their allegiance” (Morrow, vol. 3:3).

In the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Persia, which was provided to the Armenian Christians of Persia, and was preserved in the Cathedral of New Julfa, in Isfahan, Iran, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), states that “All pious believers shall deem it their bounden duty to defend believers and to aid them wherever they may be, whether far or near, and throughout Christendom” (Morrow, vol. 3:5).

But what exactly does it mean to protect Christian believers? The Prophet (pbuh), provides the definition. It consists in protecting “the places where they conduct worship, and those where their monks and priests dwell” (Morrow, vol. 3:5–6). He decreed that “their building enterprises shall not be interfered with… neither shall their churches be dismantled or destroyed, or their homes and mansions confiscated by Muslims, for mosques or residences, without their consent” (Morrow, vol. 3:6). What is more, he encouraged Muslims to help Christians repair their churches, chapels, and monasteries.

But for what reason, you may ask. As the Prophet (pbuh) most logically explains, for “the interest of the benevolent Muslim public and of their faith… as an expression of friendship and goodwill” (Morrow, vol. 3:7–8). The relationship is reciprocal. It can help seal a fraternal understanding. That is how you build bonds of brotherhood and sisterhood. That is how you promote social cohesion, tolerance, and coexistence. That is how you unite a diverse community. That is how you honor the signs of God.

Is there any territorial limitation to such obligations of protection of both persons and property? Absolutely not. As the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) explains, it applies

…everywhere, in mountains, on the plains, in towns and in waste places, in deserts, and wherever they may be, that people shall be protected, both in their faith and in their property, both in the West and in the East, both on sea and land (3:5–6).

The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was not establishing municipal law, state law, or federal rights: he was establishing universal human rights. In fact, he was the very first to do so in the history of humanity. The rights he gave, he gave to all the world. He also warned that “Whosoever shall not do as is here prescribed, but shall do contrary to my behests; the same shall be held a despiser of this Compact, and a gainsayer of the word of God and of his Prophet” (Morrow, vol. 3:6).

In the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran, which was found by Habib the Monk in the Bayt al-Hikmah of Baghdad in the 9th century CE, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) states,

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 in the desert” (Morrow, vol. 3:15).

He also stresses, “it is not permitted to destroy any part of their churches, to take parts of their buildings to construct mosques or the homes of Muslims” and warns, “whoever does such a thing will have violated the pact of God, disobeyed his Messenger, and become estranged from the Divine Alliance” (Morrow, vol. 3:16).

In the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, which was rediscovered in a monastery in the Levant in the 17th century by Father Pacifique de Provins, and published in Paris by Gabriel Sionita, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) declares,

I grant security to their churches, their places of pilgrimage wherever they are and wherever they may be found, be they in the mountains or the valleys, in the caves or inhabited regions, in the plains or the desert, or in buildings; and that I protect their religion and their property wherever they are and wherever they may be found in land or at sea, in the East or West, in the same way that I protect myself, my successors, and the People of My Community among the Believers and the Muslims (Morrow, vol. 3:21).

The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) asserts that “it is not permitted to destroy any part of their churches, to take parts of their buildings to construct mosques or the homes of Muslims” (Morrow, vol. 3:21). He states that “if the Christians seek the help and assistance of the Muslims in order to repair their churches and their convents… they must help and support them” (Morrow, vol. 3:23). However, he stresses, “they must not do so with the aim of receiving any reward” but rather “they should aim to restore that religion, out of faithfulness to the pact of the Messenger of God, by pure donation, and as a meritorious act before God and His Messenger” (Morrow, vol. 3:23). Once again, he warns, “whoever does such a thing will have violated the Pact of God, disobeyed his Messenger, and betrayed the Divine Alliance” (Morrow vol. 3:21).

In the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, which was copied in Egypt in 1538 from an ancient manuscript, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) states,

I grant security to them, their churches, their businesses, their houses of worship, the places of their monks, the places of their pilgrims, wherever they may be found, be they in the mountains or the valleys, caves or inhabited regions, the plains or the desert (Morrow, vol. 3: 26).

He also states that Muslims must help and support Christians if they seek their assistance to repair their churches and convents (Morrow, vol. 3:28). He stresses that they should only do so to restore that religion, out of faithfulness to the Covenant of the Prophet, as a pure good deed, and as a blessed act before God and His Messenger (Morrow, vol. 3:28).

In the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Assyrian Christians, which was housed in the Cathedral of Jilu until the 19th century, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) proclaims, “Leave their places of worship in peace” (Morrow, vol. 3:31); “Leave all their possessions alone, be it house or other property, do not destroy anything of their belongings” (Morrow, vol. 3:31). In the words of the Prophet, “their church buildings shall be left as they are, they shall not be altered” (Morrow, vol. 3:31); “None of their churches shall be torn down, or altered into a mosque, except by the consent and free will of the Christians” (Morrow, vol. 3:31). And, once again, he warns, “If anyone disobeys this command, the anger of God and His Prophet shall be upon him” (Morrow, vol. 3:31).

In the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Coptic Christians, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) professes,

I will defend their dwellings and their houses of prayer and their churches, their monasteries and their gathering places, the gathering places of their monks and priests and hermits, the places of their hermits, and their monks’ cells and grottos (Morrow, vol. 2:236).

He iterates, “nothing shall be removed from their places of prayer or from their churches which they have” (Morrow, vol. 2:237). He also assures, “every building of their places of prayer and churches that was destroyed shall be rebuilt as it was at first” (Morrow, vol. 2:237). In other words, not only are Muslims required to respect, protect, and preserve religious institutions of other faiths, they are obliged to rebuild any of them that were destroyed.

In the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Syriac Orthodox Christians, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) offers the same promise of protection,

I grant security and safety to their churches, their homes, their places of worship, their monasteries, their sites of pilgrimage, wherever they are and wherever they may be, be they in mountains or valleys, in caves or inhabited regions, in plains or in the desert and buildings (Morrow, vol. 2:342).

We see the very same thing in the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Armenian Christians, in which he says,

I safeguard them and remove all harm from them and from their churches, cloisters, convents, and places of worship, wherever they may be found, by they in mountains, valleys, caves, inhabited regions or in the plains (Morrow, vol. 2:477),

and in which he asserts, “It is not permitted to destroy or take parts of their ancient churches to construct mosques or homes for the Muslims” (Morrow, vol. 2:477).

This version is particularly interesting since it speaks not only of existing structures, but to ancient churches. Protection, therefore, is not limited to modern, contemporary, buildings, but also applies to those of historical importance.

The Prophet’s Covenants

A basis for the fraternity of all people of scripture

Charles Upton [Sidi Akram]

Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet by John Andrew Morrow (editor); Pub: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017, 3 volumes. Price: $245.22 Hbk.

To traditional Muslims the noble Qur’an — the very word of Allah (swt) transmitted directly to Muhammad (pbuh) — as well as well-attested accounts of the actions and words of the Prophet whose original witnesses could, with some degree of confidence, actually be identified, so outclassed all other writings as to cast a shadow over even the letters and covenants of the Prophet himself, which were undoubtedly seen as relatively “occasional” or bureaucratic documents of tertiary importance when compared with the Qur’an and the Hadith. And indeed, they are necessarily of lesser importance and authority to the Qur’an.

When compared with the Hadith, however, their secondary nature is debatable according to several criteria. The Hadith clearly hold preeminence in the total context of Islam, since the example of the Prophet, his words and deeds in various situations, is of secondary importance only to the majestic Qur’an itself; when his wife ‘A’ishah was asked about the Prophet’s character, she replied, “he was exactly like the Qur’an.” And since the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was more perfectly conformed to the noble Qur’an than any other human being ever has been, his spiritual, interpersonal, and political example must remain paradigmatic for all true Muslims. And so, from one point of view, the Hadith necessarily have preeminence over the letters and covenants, since they pertain to the essence of the din and provide much of the example of how Muslims are to live their lives in submission to Allah (swt), while the letters and covenants of the Prophet are the product of negotiations with non-Muslim groups, are limited to the political sphere, and properly apply (some would say) only to specific sets of conditions that are no longer in force.

But the fact is that most of the hadith collections that have come down to us were compiled around 300 years after the Prophet’s death, while his covenants and letters can in many cases be traced, based on both textual and historical evidence, back to the Prophet (pbuh) himself. Sometimes we can even determine the identity of the scribe to whom he dictated a particular document. Consequently, from the standpoint of western textual scholarship, the covenants of the Prophet are of much greater verifiable authenticity than the Hadith, seeing that the West considers tradition to be “mere hearsay,” while actual texts are the “horse’s mouth” of contemporary scholarship. But the question remains: how relevant are the covenants of the Prophet to present conditions?

Certainly, a number of these documents formed the basis of official state policy toward dhimmi communities — religious minorities — under the Ottoman Sultanate. But now that the Ottomans are no more, and in the absence of any universally-recognized Muslim political entity of comparable scope presently exercising rule in the modern world, what is to prevent us from considering the covenants mere historical curiosities, the fossil documents of a defunct bureaucracy?

We are not justified in considering the covenants of the Prophet to be historically moribund, superseded by more timely concerns, for two reasons: first, Muhammad (pbuh) tells us that these documents were composed via inspiration from Allah (swt), which places them in a category of importance comparable to the hadith qudsi. Secondly, in his Covenant with the monks of Mt. Sinai and elsewhere, he makes it explicit that these documents are applicable to all Muslims, and are to remain in force not simply until the fall of the Ottoman Sultanate, but until “the coming of the Hour” — the end of the world. Thus, the covenants of the Prophet with the Christians of the world, and with other religious communities, represent the clear wish and command of the Prophet of Islam; it is therefore incumbent upon all Muslims to obey them.

But in order for Muslims to obey the provisions of these covenants under conditions radically different from those under which they were originally composed, they must be placed in a more universal context than they occupied when they functioned specifically as treaties between the growing Muslim Ummah and various non-Muslim communities. In other words, it is the position of the contributors to Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet that the way Muslims are to treat non-Muslim people of scripture — with respect, friendship, material help and military defense — apply as undeniably to Muslims as individuals, or to Muslims living in non-Muslim societies, as they did to the Islamic Ummah as a whole in its first years. The bottom line of this legal principle is that no Muslim is to attack, rob, kill or defame another person simply because he or she is not a Muslim. By the same token, mere membership in a community of faith recognized as a People of the Book in no way exonerates an individual, or his or her religious community, in cases where that individual or that community attacks Islam or conspires with the declared enemies of Islam. Consequently, the covenants of the Prophet (pbuh) are every bit as applicable to the conditions of the pluralistic societies in which Muslim communities increasingly find themselves in the contemporary world as they were to the norms of dhimmitude vis-à-vis religious minorities in the growing Muslim domain.

Some, of course, would argue that this could never be the case. Dhimmi majorities and minorities were required to pay the jizyah to the Muslim authorities, so how could any provisions of the covenants be taken to apply to conditions where Muslims and other religious communities live side-by-side in pluralistic societies ruled by secular governments? Perhaps (taking a cynical view of the matter) a case could be made that Muslims would only be required, under the provisions of the covenants as applied to the contemporary world, to treat non-Muslims as respected equals if these non-Muslims were required to pay the equivalent of the jizyah as “protection” to the Muslims for this consideration.

We would answer that the jizyah was levied in lieu of military service, and since non-Muslims are not required to engage in combat solely to protect Muslims in today’s secular states, the jizyah or any possible equivalent are no longer applicable. Non-Muslims who paid the jizyah rather than serve in the military were thereby square with the Muslim Ummah on that score (illegal abuses and isolated instances of unwarranted oppression by Muslims notwithstanding). This means that the duties of aid and friendship toward non-Muslims that Muhammad (pbuh) directed Muslims to engage in were not seen as services rendered for pay, but rather acts of Islamic devotion for the purpose of establishing trust and solidarity between Muslims and non-Muslim members of the Prophet’s growing Ummah — a word that was used by him to designate all the members of his social order, not just the Muslims.

In view of these facts, it is clear that it was the Prophet’s intention to establish not an exclusively Muslim nation but a Confederation of the devoted subjects of God, including all the Peoples of the Book, sworn to aid and defend one another, a brotherhood of all who believe in the prophets, the angels, the Day of Judgement, and the Unity of God. Such a confederacy, in essential spirit if not in terms of social form, is not only still possible today, but is increasingly called-for in the face of growing inter-religious violence, a great deal of which is being fomented by outside, non-religious forces so as to destroy all true religion, and sweep the remnants of God’s revelations from the face of the earth. The covenants of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) call all believers of good will and social consciousness to stand shoulder to shoulder against the forces of globalization, militant secularism, and religious fanaticism that menace them all. Shema, Ysrael: Adonoi Elohenu, Adonoi Echad. Credo in Unum Deum. La ilaha illa Allah.

 

Charles Upton [Sidi Akram]