THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TREATY OF HUDAYBIYYAH
by Sheikh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi
ROME, Yom Rishon (Day One -- "Sunday"), 17 Elul, 5759 (August 29,
1999), Root & Branch:
A Reader Asks for Sheikh Professor
Palazzi's Response to What Moshe Kohn Wrote
Excerpt from
"View from Nov", THE JERUSALEM POST, 22 January, 1999
[http://www.jpost.co.il/Columns/Article-2.html]
US Representative Jim Saxton (Republican-New Jersey) recently wrote an
article criticizing Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority for various
wrongdoings, and President Bill Clinton and Secretary Madeleine Albright
for pandering to them. He [Saxton] wrote interalia: "...how can anyone
trust an agreement compared to the Treaty of Hudaibiya enacted by the
Prophet Mohammed, in which a treaty lasts as long as political expediency
dictates?"
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) demanded
a retraction and an apology. CAIR said that Mohammed "never broke any
agreement," citing several classical Muslim commentators in support.
Responding to the pressure, Saxton sent CAIR a letter saying he agreed with
a 1996 U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT editorial stating that "The 10-year truce
[of Hudaibiya] was broken... by the Meccans."
But he [Saxton] didn't owe them [CAIR] an apology.
In March, 628, Mohammed and his Meccan rivals signed a 10-year truce at
Hudaibiya. In January, 630, "the murder of a Muslim by a Meccan for what
appears to have been a purely private difference of opinion served as a
casus belli for final attack and conquest of Mecca" (Bernard Lewis, "The
Arabs in History", Harper Torchbooks, 1966).
And "By sabotage, by deceit, by the terror of Mohammed's name, the city had
been weakened; and it fell into his hands... like a ripe plum" (Robert
Payne, "The History of Islam", Dorset Press, 1959).
Sheikh Professor Palazzi Responds:
By comparing the Oslo Agreement with the Hudaybiyyah Treaty,
Abdul Rauf
al-Husseini ("Yasser Arafat") did a disservice to Islam. Those who are not
informed about the early history of Islam might suppose that the Prophet
Muhammad's political behavior was, from this point of view, similar to that
of al-Husseini ("Arafat"). Nothing can be farther from the truth.
It is well known that al-Husseini ("Arafat") is not a practicing Muslim,
and that his speeches are full of misquotations from the Qur'an,
misinformation about Islam, etc.
The Prophet Muhammad, on the other hand, was known for his sincerity and
loyalty. These qualities were admitted even by his worst enemies, by those
who spent their entire lives fighting him. Since Muhammad was a young boy,
people in Mecca used to call him Muhammad al-Amin (the Trustworthy).
Abu Jahl was the leader of the pagan party and the man who convinced the
pagan Arabs to fight against Muslims. People asked Abu Jahl, "Muhammad
says he speaks to Allah. Do you think he is a liar?" Abu Jahl answered,
"No, I know him since he was a child, and I know for sure he never lied. I
think he became crazy and is possessed by demons."
Al-Husseini ("Arafat") is the exact opposite. Al-Husseini is not praised
by his enemies and his closer acquaintances know that he is a liar. He
lies even about his real name and nationality. He is a 100 % Egyptian and
his connection to the "Palestinian land" and to the "Palestinian people" is
an invention of Nasserian propaganda.
Some journalists have commented that "Islam permits one to ratify a treaty,
and then to violate it when it abiding by it is not useful". Perhaps this
attitude is common among the P.L.O. entourage. However, Islam strictly
forbids it.
The Qur'an says, "O Believers, fulfill the covenant of Allah when you have
entered into it, and do not violate agreements after having accepted them".
[Qur'an 16:91]
Moshe Kohn cites Prof. Bernard Lewis as having written that "the murder of
a Muslim by a Meccan for what appears to have been a purely private
difference of opinion served as a casus belli for final attack and conquest
of Mecca."
This clearly shows that the treaty was broken by Meccans. The traditional
Arab understanding of truces between clans, tribes or federations was that
a homicide was regarded as a breach of the truce, unless the tribe of the
murderer apologized and gave the murderer as a prisoner to the victim's
side. Since the Meccans refused to abide by this condition, the Muslims
had every right to declare the truce void.
To deal with this case as something "purely private" means to apply
contemporary categories to a religious culture in which modern concepts of
"privacy" did not apply. At that time there was neither State nor penal
code nor a supreme authority that could impose respect for the law.
Murdering a person was not a "private act" but an immediate declaration of
war against the tribe to which the victim belonged.
Meccans persecuted the Prophet Muhammad in many ways, but never tried to
kill him, since he was the nephew of Abu Talib, the leader of a powerful
tribe. Abu Talib never converted to Islam, but loved his nephew very much,
and adopted him as a member of his family. After Abu Talib died,
persecution against the Prophet and against Muslims had no limits, and
"hijrah" (emigration to Medina) became necessary.
Shalom from Rome,
Sheikh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi