You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: ISIS fighters don't get Islam - and that's really good
My friend and brother in humanity I missed you. U know I am not good with words watch this hope it will help ur questions.
My friend and brother in humanity I missed you. U know I am not good with words watch this hope it will help ur questions.
This is a beautifully done video! I learned a lot.
But the reason I was asking about the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is that it was cited by Yasser Arafat after the Oslo Accords as the reason that Muslims should not be angry with him for signing a peace treaty with Israel.
Arafat cited the fact that, in 628, after signing a 10 year peace treaty with the people of Mecca when Muhammad found himself too weak to conquer them, Muhammad went off and raised a bigger army and returned to conquer Mecca just two years later.
The way he recovered from loss of face with his troops from needing to sue for peace was to quickly come up with a reason why it wasn't a loss, leading to the following two new Qur'an verses:
Qur'an 48:1 "Verily we have granted thee a manifest victory”.
Qur'an 48:18-19 He promised much spoils in the near future: "...and He sent down peace of reassurance on them, and hath rewarded them with a near victory, and much booty that they will capture".
So they followed him, raided caravans, and built up a bigger army to use to break the Treaty two years later.
This established the principle that Muslims should sign peace treaties with non-Muslims if they find themselves in a position of weakness but then are obligated to break it as soon as possible.
Given that this is a principle of Islam established by Muhammad and still used 1400 years later by Arafat to justify his actions to his Muslim critics (who obviously were expected to understand the reference), why should any non-Muslim nation agree to any peace treaty with a Muslim nation?