Minorities in an Islamic State — Page 45
45 were conspicuous by their absence, and they are not, therefore, permitted under the Shar i ‘ ah, the answer is that in the days of the Prophet sa the number of Dhimm i s was very small indeed and they were known to all. The question of mistaking their identity, therefore, could not arise. But in the days of Hadrat ‘ Umar ra , the need arose to impose such restrictions. He even ordered imposition of such restrictions in the presence of a large number of the companions of the Holy Prophet sa , none of whom objected to this step of Hadrat ‘ Umar ra. 54 In the foregoing passage the jurists themselves confess that in the august days of the Holy Prophet sa such restrictions against the Dhimm i s did not exist. They also admit that under Hadrat Ab u Bakr ra too, these restrictions were non-existent. As for as Hadrat ‘ Umar ’ s ra Khilafat is concerned, historical evidence conclusively proves that his days, too, are free from the blot of such restrictions and give a lie to the claims of the jurists, which is supported neither by internal nor external evidence. The so-called treaty on which the jurists rely and which has been reported by Ibn-e-Mandah runs as follows: "The Christians of Syria and this town sign this instrument of surrender to be submitted to the servant of Allah the commander of the faithful,