The covenant of Omar has no value in creating the event of occupation or conquests, so it has no value to be real or fake,The creation of the event of occupation or occupation-possession, that is, the conquests, has causes that preceded the supposed formulation of the covenant by a long time, captivity, looting, and robbery of trade caravans, then the dominance of the concept of Bedouin rights before the covenant, and even in the modern era the mentality of conquests is still dominant, Many of the muslim  Brotherhood are still prisoners of the concept of invasion and its accessories, mixtures, and perceptions, Even the concept of homeland, citizenship, and patriotism did not deter them from welcoming Erdogan’s invasion of northern Syria years ago, and even participating in the process of invading homelands, The reason for that was that they were believers more than they were citizens, Their homeland was a virtual and formal one, which was Syria, and their true affiliation, that is, their homeland, was the nation or the religious entity, or more accurately, the Muhammadan Caliphate. The Caliphate is a religious entity and not a state in the known sense of the state. The Caliphate is their dream, even if it was Ottoman, i.e. not Quraysh, and thus in violation of the seventh clause of the Caliph’s conditions.

There is no causal relationship between the Covenant and what happened in the Levant, North Africa, or even India. It can be said that the Covenant recorded exactly what happened in all the conquered countries before and after Umar and up until today,  The reality of dealing with the conquered peoples in the Arab Muhammadan Empire intersects in an amazing way with the text of the Covenant, Therefore, the Covenant is a historical “witness” to what happened and is not the cause of what happened.

What happened was a manifestation of the hostility that the Mohammedans have towards those who belong to another faith, especially Christians and Jews, The history of the Mohammedans, since the beginning of its era, is full of the practice of aggression and invasion, then the practice of exterminating others under the slogan of conquests and spreading the religion, as if occupation becomes kinder and better when it is hybridized with the concept and practice of conquest, which means, in addition to occupation, possession, Conquest is one of the ugliest forms of colonialism, Therefore, the League of Nations sought to prohibit the use of this concept in the twenties of the last century.

What happened was primarily a continuation of events that preceded the call to Islam,Before the call, there were the minor raids, and after the call, there was the major, unified raid, subject to a fixed law regarding the distribution of shares of spoils between the direct invader, i.e. the fighters, and the indirect invader, i.e. the Caliph.

The concept of conquest is linked to possession, and thus military occupation turned into settler colonialism, and the ugliest form of colonialism is settler colonialism, Then, linking conquests to divine will, meaning that God ordered his new slaves to invade the countries of his old slaves, and to take military control over them, and to strip them of their will, and to practice all kinds of humiliation on them, is not expected or acceptable from that God, The God who orders his new slaves to invade the countries of others and occupy their regions and then subjugate them by the sword, is a God who deserves nothing but contempt and disdain, but in reality he did not order them to do so, They fabricated it in his name. The mujahidin in his path are the ones who slandered him and defamed his reputation.

There are many indications that indicate the difficulty of coexistence of Mohammedans with other peoples and religions, who do not profess Mohammedanism, History confirms this phenomenon, which some insist on denying, and the denial is done through strange and bizarre means and logic, For example, it is said that the conquest is good because Mr. Le Bon said, history has not known a conqueror more merciful than the Muslims. Here, the abstract process of conquest is skipped over and ignored, but the abstract conquest is the essence of the matter, The conquest itself is an aggression against others, regardless of whether it is a less severe aggression than the aggression of others or more severe, The lesson is in the conquest, not in the conqueror’s treatment of the inhabitants of the conquered land. The phrase attributed to Le Bon includes opposites that cannot be combined with each other, except by a fraudulent fabricator. The conqueror cannot be just because the process of conquest itself is the opposite of justice, and justice cannot be translated as conquest because conquest cannot be just. History has not known a thief more just than the thief so-and-so… How is that?

The crimes of Omar and others do not lie in the wording of the covenant, but rather in the act of conquest itself, Whoever conquers, occupies, kills, plunders, loots, and practices everything mentioned in the covenant of Omar is an aggressor and a criminal. The covenant has prolonged the conquests, has prolonged the shame and disgrace of the conquests, Is there anything more base and contemptible than the concept of “submit and you will be safe”?