Treaty of Hudaybiyyah

[Micah]

I own the book this is written in, and found it on the internet so decided to paste it...

Arafat looks to the past, to the two most famous figures in Islam's long history of warfare, Mohammed and Saladin, in order to remedy the present. Arafat's concept of peace is the same as that of Mohammed and Saladin - a coin that one must pay to achieve something else: "Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations. Since January 1965, when Fatah was born, we have become the most dangerous enemy that Israel has. We shall not rest until the day when we return to our home, and until we destroy Israel."

Arafat was even more pragmatic when he defined the peace he offers Israel: "The PLO offers not the peace of the weak, but the peace of Saladin. Saladin was the great Moslem warrior of the 12th century. His capture of Jerusalem in 1187 sparked the Third Crusade. But Saladin is also "famous" for the "peace" which he made with the Crusaders, before he attacked with ferocity and drove the Crusaders from the Holy Land. It was Mohammed himself who laid the foundation for Islam to build a history of making peace with an enemy in order to attack at a later, more opportune time. In 628, Mohammed made a "peace treaty" with the Quraish tribe in Mecca in order for Moslems to worship at the Ka'abah. Two years later, when he had gained more followers and was considerably stronger, he abrogated the treaty and attacked the Quraish people, slaughtering every male among them. This agreement between Mohammed and the infidels of Mecca is known as the "Truce of Hudaybiyyah." "This truce became a model and a precedent in Islamic law for all agreements with infidels: never permanent, never lasting more than 10 years (with the possibility of another 10 years extension, no more). Islam is not permitted to stop its war against non-Moslerm for more than this period."




What are your comments?

[L@mplighterM]

I think Custer once said, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”.
I don’t agree with that quote.

If he was alive today and he revised his statement I would consider agreeing with him. Of course that would depend on who was substituted for Indians.

By and large Muslims seem to do all right as individuals the problem of Fundamentalism only seems to arise when they increase to significant numbers.

[Mediocrates]

Who REALLY honored treaties ad infinitum? I'm speaking from the perspective of the West. I have no idea what 7th C India or China or Japan was like. If you your 'partner' can't be trusted then that is probably enough to know. After all we just dismantled both the ABM and START II. Did we not worry about nuclear weapons during that time?

[elke]

The idea that shaking hands with gloves on and wearing a hat inside the house is considered "impolite", dates back to the Middle Ages. Notice that both traditions are fine for women. The reason for them was to show that the traveller was unarmed and intended no harm to his host.

So much for trust in 7th century Europe! :D

[cerulean]

This article is on the strong side, but it mentions the importance of the Hudaibiyah Treaty and how Arafat uses it.

Arafat Opts for the 'Hudaibiyah' Treaty
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2002/june/win1.htm

...
HUDAIBIYAH TREATY

For those who understand Arab culture, Koranic law considered non-Muslim infidels worth converting to Islam or killing. If you have studied Islamic history, you will recognize the term: "al-Hudaibiya Treaty" and its meaning to Muslims. Arafat often uses the expression "Hudaibiya" when he speaks to his people in Arabic or when he meets with the Arab National Council.

To all of them "Hudaibiya" is a well-understood code-word which, in brief, means "Kiss the hand of your enemy until you can cut it off." That is what Muhammed did to the Jews of the Quraish Tribe (alternate spelling: Koreish or Quraiza) who lived in Mecca. Arafat is now ready to play the "Hudaibiya" card by accepting the Camp David 2 offer of 1999, thereby staving off disaster for him and his cronies until he is militarily strong enough to mount another assault.

In the seventh century, Muhammed, supposedly received the word of G-d that he was G-d's last and only prophet. He initiated the third monotheistic religion, Islam (which means "submission"). He zealously propagated Islam to the desert tribes in the Arabian peninsula. To win over the Jews, he adopted many Jewish customs. But, the Jews in Mecca refused to accept any changes in Judaism. The Muslims and Muhammed negotiated with them to pray at the Ka'aba Stone, a black monolith in Mecca. Because they were only 1400 men, they offered a peace treaty, the "Hudaibiya Treaty", suspending war for 10 years. Three years later, when Mohammed was stronger with a 10,000 man army, he set out to liberate Mecca and exterminated the Jewish tribe (1), selling the women they didn't kidnap into slavery. Because the Jews rejected Muhammed's Islam, there are many hostile denunciations of Jews in the Koran and bitter attacks upon the Jewish tradition, which have affected the beliefs of religious Muslims today. (2)

Muhammed established forever the right and even obligation of every Muslim to make agreements with non-Muslims when necessary (but only for 10 years as in the "Hudaibiya Treaty") and then break these agreements when stronger so Islam could advance. Neither honor, nor ethics, nor obligations are allowed to stand in the way of establishing domination of Islam across the entire planet.

Therefore, in keeping with Muhammed's teachings, Arafat will now play the card of "Hudaibiya". This makes every Arab Muslim a potential radical Fundamentalist, motivated by the strict laws of Islam. They believe their victims are infidels and, therefore, have no honor so to cheat them is acceptable as part of a war without end for Islam. As non-Muslims, they get no pity because the victim is something less than human. Islam divides the world into "Dar al Islam" (the world of Islam) and "Dar al Harb" (the world of infidels and, therefore, War). ...