The Truth:
In 628, Muhammad signed a treaty with the people of Mecca that allowed his people to enter the city and peacefully perform the pilgrimage.
Less than two years later, he returned with an army and took the city by
surprise.
Although this has been a traditional source of pride for Muslims
down through the centuries, contemporary scholars are more apt to construct excuses for Muhammad's action, since it contrasts with the claim that
Islam is a religion of peace.
Rather than making the case that Muhammad was
forced into war, which the historical account clearly does not support, today's
apologists argue that he was justified in taking Mecca on the basis that the
other party had violated the treaty between them. Of particular interest are the
technicalities concerning alliances.
After the treaty of Hudaibiya was made, two
feuding tribes aligned themselves on opposite sides of the Meccan-Muslim divide.
The tribe allied with the Meccans had suffered a series of murders at the hands
of the other prior to the alliance, which they sought to avenge.
Rather than get bogged down with names for the
moment, let’s summarize it as follows:
- A member of Tribe A (later allied with
Mecca) is murdered by members of Tribe B (later allied with Muhammad).
- Tribe A murders a member of Tribe B in
revenge.
- Tribe B then murders three members of
Tribe A in revenge.
- After committing these murders, Tribe B
joins the Muslim alliance.
- In response, Tribe A joins the Meccans.
- Tribe A then seeks revenge for the last
murders by killing
members of Tribe B.
This is detailed in Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 803, in which Tribe
A is called the Banu Bakr and Tribe B is the Khuza’a. Although the Khuza’a
had started the original chain of murder, the fact that they were attacked by
the tribe allied with the Meccans after allying with the Muslims constituted a
technical breach of the treaty - which Muhammad then capitalized on by marching his
superior forces into Mecca and establishing the authority of Islam by
force.
On the surface then, it would appear that the
Meccans were the first to violate the treaty. Even though it is apparent that the city did not want war, Muslim apologists still insist that Muhammad was
justified in taking Mecca because of the treaty violation.
It is significant that the treaty's main purpose was to allow Muslims to enter Mecca and perform the haj (pilgrimage) at the Kaaba. This had been the main grievance of Muhammad (as evidenced in the early Medinan portion of the Quran - ie. Sura 2). Not even the staunchest apologist claims that the people of Mecca hindered Muslim pilgrims following the treaty's signing. In other words, they were faithful to the terms, making armed conflict unnecessary.
However, even within the realm of technicalities, Muhammad was still the first to violate
the Treaty of Hudaibiya. In fact, the Quran acknowledges this, which means
any knowledgeable Muslim must as well.
The terms of the treaty specified that any Muslim
who flees Mecca for Medina (where Muhammad resided) must be returned. But
when a group of Muslims did exactly that a few weeks after the treaty was signed,
Muhammad did not return all of them according to the terms, but kept the women. A verse from
Allah arrived conveniently to justify his decision (60:10).
Today’s Muslims have only one answer for this:
Allah gave Muhammad His personal permission to break the treaty. It is an obvious
double standard, but one that they are comfortable with, since Muslims believe
their religion makes them superior. (It remains unclear as to why Allah had
Muhammad sign on to terms that were intended to be violated).
Eschewing technicalities at this point, apologists then talk of the seriousness of violations, claiming that
the killing of those tribe members allied with the Muslims constituted a graver
offense. They are correct, of course, but there is yet another piece to
the story that drives home the double standard all the more:
As it turns out, Muslims were murdering Meccans
after the treaty signing and
prior to the revenge killings between the allied tribes!
Bukhari
50:891 tells of a man named Abu Basir who embraced Islam and then killed a
Meccan. Muhammad sends the man to live on the coast, where he forms a
group of seventy Muslims who support themselves by attacking Meccan caravans.
According to the Hadith, he and the other Muslims “killed them and took their property.”
Muir words it as follows, “They waylaid every caravan from Mecca (for since
the truce, traffic with Syria had again sprung up) and spared the life of no
one.”
Attacking and killing Meccans was an obvious violation of the treaty of Hudaibiya, but the
victims
did not want war with Muhammad and thus did not march against him. Yet,
Muhammad jumped on the first excuse to attack Meccans who were
not threatening him. His adversaries wanted peace, but he wanted power.
Needless to say, they had little choice but to surrender to him without a fight.
The dual ethics of Islam are ingrained in the
faith, including the disparate treatment of unbelievers. It should be no
surprise that Muhammad held others to standards by which he was personally unwilling to abide. In this case, he was the first to violate the treaty of Hudaibiya.
Thus did he establish the example that a promise to non-Muslims is not
obligatory for the believer. As Abu Bakr, himself a military leader, put it:
"If I take an oath to do something and later
on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and
make expiation for my oath." (Bukhari
78:618) Muhammad no doubt would have agreed:
"The Prophet said: 'War is deceit'." (Bukhari
52:269)
|
