Tweet
I know it's nothing interesting, but my life is so boring I have to share it with someone. Kind of like Pekka 
I am on the third year of my history studies, and fifth (last one) of arabic & islamic ones. I am supposed to write my master's thesis on Al-Hakim bi-amr Allah and the persecution of christians. While there's perhaps one book in Poland that mentioned this matter at all, so it may be of some use to someone interested in this subject here, I know it's not going to be something really good. Bah, my yearly work on my historic studies, the one about Liutprand of Cremona, is something that was more valuable than this thing.
My idea on this work is to start up with general discourse on christians / jews etc (ahl adh-dhimmah) in muslim state, and especially about the Pact of Umar. Strangely, while some pacts of this kind were signed by Muhammad already and one would expect muslims would turn to them for guidance in such matters, it's Pact of Umar that was used for setting the general rules of christian population in muslim world. It seems simple - pacts of Muhammad were not elaborate, or at least we don't have anything of them but a brief summary (but it may have been different 1000 years ago).
Umar's Pact is a fascinating matter. Damascus was besieged by muslims and it capitulated (in very strange circumstances). Its (christian) population was granted some conditions by one of the leaders of the siege, either Khalid ibn al-Walid or Abu 'Ubaydah. It may seem strange to find that we don't know who signed this treaty, but the differences in these sources are slight, except for the name of the one signing the Pact. It is very probable, imo that Abu 'Ubaydah was made the one signing the pact by the chronicler because he was more pious muslim, f.e.
There is another version of the Pact, different dramatically from the conditions made to christians by Khalid or Abu 'Ubaydah. Unlike other ones, the one signing the pact is caliph Umar, who did not participate in the siege (but was not far away). An apartheid society is being formed, with christians being explicitely ment to be "humiliated". The pact in this version is so precise it even says what hair-style are christians supposed to wear, or what clothes. A stress is put on that they should differ in every way from muslims, they should not imitate them.
There are several reasons why I believe this version of the pact is fake. And I am not the only one, it's a common opinion that this pact comes at least from the times of umayyad caliph Umar II. The reasons are anachronism, generally speaking: why would highly cultured byzantine Syrians want to imitate barbarious at this point in their majority Arabs? Why would they want to and how could they be able to use arabic in their sermons? How could they learn Al-Qur'an while it was not yet written (they could learn circulating parts, though)? How could they enter muslim quaters or marketplaces in Damascus, while at this point there weren't any? etc.
There is an idea that this pact may be overturning of byzantine rules concerning Jewry or sassanian ones concerning christians, but I know too little on this subject.
What seems obvious to me is that this document was made later on as an excuse for worse treatment of religious minorities and christians (lets not forget they remained a majority for a couple of centuries after muslim conquest), and it was claimed it was created by Umar, to give is prestige. It is especially visible when it is claimed this pact is for entire Greater Syria region - which is silly - on what authority would bishop of Damascus sign a pact in the name of entire Syria? And it is known that many cities in Syria signed separate pacts like this. For muslims from umayyad and later times, Damascus was the obvious capital of Syria, thus this mistake. But in the times of the conquest, it was one of many cities in Syria.
What is important to me is that this Pact is EXTREMLY similar to the politics of Al-Hakim, to the point there must be a direct link between them. But Yahya al-Antaki, a christian chronicler and an eye-witness of the persecutions under "Egyptian Nero" didn't mention Umar
s Pact. It is questionable if Al-Hakim would use a pact made by a guy he loathed and ordered publically cursed, a guy whom he didn't consider legitimate caliph, to be a law to him. He might as well do it, having some sort of, illogical but still, excuse for his actions.
The essential part is to get to know when 'Umar's Pact, in the doubtful version, was first mentioned and quoted. It seems it was in a chronicle coming from before Al-Hakim's reign.
However, are there copies of it older than Al-Hakim's?
The problem is that there's no literature on this subject, not in Poland anyway, so I can't really check.
Anyway, the matter is so complicated I'd have to spend years to solve it. In my work, I can only mention some basic points, without being sure that they aren't completely wrong.
Anyway, I can't get to writing this work. Haven't written a single page. On the other hand, I translated almost half of Yahya's chronicle. I am going to finish it no matter what, but I hope for it to be my, PhD. But it's dumb to think about PhD not having master's degree.
And I know my mast. d. will suck, so why would they let me make PhD? I would do it at history, but you can not make translations of historical sources a PhD at history.
Another problem is that I barely know anything about the author except for what he's written about himself.
And it's something very very very important.
I hope to buy english or italian translation, there should be better introduction there than in the arabic publication, and perhaps they'll direct me to some literature. I've tried to find something about Yahya in Al-Asad's Library in Damascus, but without success. In Poland obviously there's nothing.
My position in arabic studies was never strong. While I always had good results, except for arabic itself in the first 1,5 years, I don't think I ever have been the shining star of my year, except for history... I got some praises for my translations as well.
I would like to work at the University. I think I'd be good at it. I like to translate stuff, write stuff and like to talk about history. I do it better in the matters I know good, which are not often discussed here, at Poly
If I compare myself to some people working at University, I know I'm not that league. But if You have all your time dedicated to your hobby and your work, You can make progress. Also, I know some university stuff that, hm, doesn't make me think little of myself like others.
But I am very much afraid of being seen as someone having too high opinion of himself. And I am afraid that when I say that I want to make a PhD, there will be a burst of laughter or an embarassing silence. Not at history all that much. It was there before going to Syria when I was asked twice if I consider working at university. And while it was not from the mightiest people working there, and I do not have such great grades anymore this year, it's inspired me, as You see and I think people there would be more receptive to me.
Simply because they know me less, perhaps
While arabic studies are cosier, less demanding etc, I think my place would be at history. They do not have specialists from arabic (or byzantine) history at all... My friend is making a PhD, but he's interested in Al-Andalus and Maghrib at best. At arabic studies, the Old Guard is just retiring - dr Kozlowska (grammar) quitted 3 years ago or so, prof Skarzynska - Bochenska (literature) works only because they still haven't found someone on her place, prof Madeyska (ottoman and modern history) has retired a while ago, etc. There are young people, very good mostly, I can make a PhD there, but I will not work there simply because they do not need me. There are too many people interested in history already.
So if I fail to get PhD at arabic studies, I will try at history
... and perhaps at other polish universtities (that would suck, though, because apart from Warsaw, and to a lesser extent Poznan and Krakow, there are no collections of arabic materials so even if I got a work, I would have to make it not as good as I'd want to.
If I won't get to make a doctorate at university, I'll try to find some job. I am afraid, though. I am educated to some point, know some languages etc, but that does not guarantee a job (not to mention a well-paid job) at all, especially here, and especially since I'm kind of a weirdo.
If I won't find a job soon after finishing my studies, I will emmigrate I guess.
I feel as if I was building castles in the air, on the sand, whatever. I am giving much of my time and effort for something that does not always bring me pleasure, that may be beneficial, but not necessarily. There is nothing constant in my life. I have no job, (in Warsaw) I have no home, I have no-one to love, I haven't got that many friends and many of the ones I really liked kind of moved away - some moved to Britain, some remained in my hometown, some (the ones I've met in Syria, and whom I love very much) are in distant cities, some don't seem to want to be my friends anymore since we don't study together anymore or since I've went to Syria for a year and lost contact with them. Some people actually want to have contact with me, not many, but I don't really feel like going out and meeting people. I feel lonely, yet I sometimes back off from contacts. I need love I think. I feel very lonely. I want someone to hold me, but I can't imagine actually having someone, because I never did and I see nothing coming my way. I will not have family, so there is no-one to work for, care for. Even my turtles and fish, they are not here with me. Perhaps that's why I want to work at university - I want to translate arabic historical sources etc so that there'd be some use of me, because nobody else in Poland seems to feel like it. If I worked for a company or whatever, I'd not see a goal in my work. If I emmigrated, I'd at least have (a chance to get) enough money to fill the voids of my life with cookies, nice home and plastic surgeries.
I am on the third year of my history studies, and fifth (last one) of arabic & islamic ones. I am supposed to write my master's thesis on Al-Hakim bi-amr Allah and the persecution of christians. While there's perhaps one book in Poland that mentioned this matter at all, so it may be of some use to someone interested in this subject here, I know it's not going to be something really good. Bah, my yearly work on my historic studies, the one about Liutprand of Cremona, is something that was more valuable than this thing.
My idea on this work is to start up with general discourse on christians / jews etc (ahl adh-dhimmah) in muslim state, and especially about the Pact of Umar. Strangely, while some pacts of this kind were signed by Muhammad already and one would expect muslims would turn to them for guidance in such matters, it's Pact of Umar that was used for setting the general rules of christian population in muslim world. It seems simple - pacts of Muhammad were not elaborate, or at least we don't have anything of them but a brief summary (but it may have been different 1000 years ago).
Umar's Pact is a fascinating matter. Damascus was besieged by muslims and it capitulated (in very strange circumstances). Its (christian) population was granted some conditions by one of the leaders of the siege, either Khalid ibn al-Walid or Abu 'Ubaydah. It may seem strange to find that we don't know who signed this treaty, but the differences in these sources are slight, except for the name of the one signing the Pact. It is very probable, imo that Abu 'Ubaydah was made the one signing the pact by the chronicler because he was more pious muslim, f.e.
There is another version of the Pact, different dramatically from the conditions made to christians by Khalid or Abu 'Ubaydah. Unlike other ones, the one signing the pact is caliph Umar, who did not participate in the siege (but was not far away). An apartheid society is being formed, with christians being explicitely ment to be "humiliated". The pact in this version is so precise it even says what hair-style are christians supposed to wear, or what clothes. A stress is put on that they should differ in every way from muslims, they should not imitate them.
There are several reasons why I believe this version of the pact is fake. And I am not the only one, it's a common opinion that this pact comes at least from the times of umayyad caliph Umar II. The reasons are anachronism, generally speaking: why would highly cultured byzantine Syrians want to imitate barbarious at this point in their majority Arabs? Why would they want to and how could they be able to use arabic in their sermons? How could they learn Al-Qur'an while it was not yet written (they could learn circulating parts, though)? How could they enter muslim quaters or marketplaces in Damascus, while at this point there weren't any? etc.
There is an idea that this pact may be overturning of byzantine rules concerning Jewry or sassanian ones concerning christians, but I know too little on this subject.
What seems obvious to me is that this document was made later on as an excuse for worse treatment of religious minorities and christians (lets not forget they remained a majority for a couple of centuries after muslim conquest), and it was claimed it was created by Umar, to give is prestige. It is especially visible when it is claimed this pact is for entire Greater Syria region - which is silly - on what authority would bishop of Damascus sign a pact in the name of entire Syria? And it is known that many cities in Syria signed separate pacts like this. For muslims from umayyad and later times, Damascus was the obvious capital of Syria, thus this mistake. But in the times of the conquest, it was one of many cities in Syria.
What is important to me is that this Pact is EXTREMLY similar to the politics of Al-Hakim, to the point there must be a direct link between them. But Yahya al-Antaki, a christian chronicler and an eye-witness of the persecutions under "Egyptian Nero" didn't mention Umar
s Pact. It is questionable if Al-Hakim would use a pact made by a guy he loathed and ordered publically cursed, a guy whom he didn't consider legitimate caliph, to be a law to him. He might as well do it, having some sort of, illogical but still, excuse for his actions.
The essential part is to get to know when 'Umar's Pact, in the doubtful version, was first mentioned and quoted. It seems it was in a chronicle coming from before Al-Hakim's reign.
However, are there copies of it older than Al-Hakim's?
The problem is that there's no literature on this subject, not in Poland anyway, so I can't really check.
Anyway, the matter is so complicated I'd have to spend years to solve it. In my work, I can only mention some basic points, without being sure that they aren't completely wrong.
Anyway, I can't get to writing this work. Haven't written a single page. On the other hand, I translated almost half of Yahya's chronicle. I am going to finish it no matter what, but I hope for it to be my, PhD. But it's dumb to think about PhD not having master's degree.
And I know my mast. d. will suck, so why would they let me make PhD? I would do it at history, but you can not make translations of historical sources a PhD at history.
Another problem is that I barely know anything about the author except for what he's written about himself.
And it's something very very very important.
I hope to buy english or italian translation, there should be better introduction there than in the arabic publication, and perhaps they'll direct me to some literature. I've tried to find something about Yahya in Al-Asad's Library in Damascus, but without success. In Poland obviously there's nothing.
My position in arabic studies was never strong. While I always had good results, except for arabic itself in the first 1,5 years, I don't think I ever have been the shining star of my year, except for history... I got some praises for my translations as well.
I would like to work at the University. I think I'd be good at it. I like to translate stuff, write stuff and like to talk about history. I do it better in the matters I know good, which are not often discussed here, at Poly
If I compare myself to some people working at University, I know I'm not that league. But if You have all your time dedicated to your hobby and your work, You can make progress. Also, I know some university stuff that, hm, doesn't make me think little of myself like others.
But I am very much afraid of being seen as someone having too high opinion of himself. And I am afraid that when I say that I want to make a PhD, there will be a burst of laughter or an embarassing silence. Not at history all that much. It was there before going to Syria when I was asked twice if I consider working at university. And while it was not from the mightiest people working there, and I do not have such great grades anymore this year, it's inspired me, as You see and I think people there would be more receptive to me.
Simply because they know me less, perhaps
While arabic studies are cosier, less demanding etc, I think my place would be at history. They do not have specialists from arabic (or byzantine) history at all... My friend is making a PhD, but he's interested in Al-Andalus and Maghrib at best. At arabic studies, the Old Guard is just retiring - dr Kozlowska (grammar) quitted 3 years ago or so, prof Skarzynska - Bochenska (literature) works only because they still haven't found someone on her place, prof Madeyska (ottoman and modern history) has retired a while ago, etc. There are young people, very good mostly, I can make a PhD there, but I will not work there simply because they do not need me. There are too many people interested in history already.
So if I fail to get PhD at arabic studies, I will try at history
... and perhaps at other polish universtities (that would suck, though, because apart from Warsaw, and to a lesser extent Poznan and Krakow, there are no collections of arabic materials so even if I got a work, I would have to make it not as good as I'd want to.
If I won't get to make a doctorate at university, I'll try to find some job. I am afraid, though. I am educated to some point, know some languages etc, but that does not guarantee a job (not to mention a well-paid job) at all, especially here, and especially since I'm kind of a weirdo.
If I won't find a job soon after finishing my studies, I will emmigrate I guess.
I feel as if I was building castles in the air, on the sand, whatever. I am giving much of my time and effort for something that does not always bring me pleasure, that may be beneficial, but not necessarily. There is nothing constant in my life. I have no job, (in Warsaw) I have no home, I have no-one to love, I haven't got that many friends and many of the ones I really liked kind of moved away - some moved to Britain, some remained in my hometown, some (the ones I've met in Syria, and whom I love very much) are in distant cities, some don't seem to want to be my friends anymore since we don't study together anymore or since I've went to Syria for a year and lost contact with them. Some people actually want to have contact with me, not many, but I don't really feel like going out and meeting people. I feel lonely, yet I sometimes back off from contacts. I need love I think. I feel very lonely. I want someone to hold me, but I can't imagine actually having someone, because I never did and I see nothing coming my way. I will not have family, so there is no-one to work for, care for. Even my turtles and fish, they are not here with me. Perhaps that's why I want to work at university - I want to translate arabic historical sources etc so that there'd be some use of me, because nobody else in Poland seems to feel like it. If I worked for a company or whatever, I'd not see a goal in my work. If I emmigrated, I'd at least have (a chance to get) enough money to fill the voids of my life with cookies, nice home and plastic surgeries.
Comment