Thanks again, Waterrock. I hope Steve is paying you well for all this work!
A comment on the treaty breaking: If the Meccans had truly violated the treaty first, why would Mohammad need Allah to step in and abrogate the treaty? The whole point of having treaty is to have the agreement in writing, and the terms of the treaty constitute the authority to be consulted.
Also, how can Mohammad and his followers truly honor a treaty when they believe that Islam must conquer all religions (9:33, 48:28, 61:9) as a final goal; and where the mission is to all mankind (34:2
; and where force can be used to wipe out disbelief (9:5, 8:39, 2:193) with the added option of imposing dhimmitude (9:29).
Sher Khan provides a discussion of Mohammads treaty breaking (descr. 9:1-17), includes copy of the treaty www.faithfreedom.org/oped...n60114.htm
This suggests Mohammad broke the terms of the treaty first.
For a discussion of this broken treaty, see Ali Sinas commentary at www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Waqasp3.htm . In that article, Sina also cites 8:58, which allows Muslims to break treaties even if they only suspect or fear treachery from the other side. The treaty violation revealed in Sura 9 illustrates the Islamic jihad policy, as pertaining to the condition where Muslims are in a strong position militarily, e.g., Muslims should not call for peace when they have the upper hand (47:35). Another reason to seriously doubt the validity of such treaties, regardless of the relative military strength of the Muslims, is that the Koran orders Muslims not to believe the non-Muslims (3:73), who are referred to as liars (e.g., 2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11). Thus, because the Koran says disbelievers are liars, Muslims at any time can claim they fear treachery from the other side (8:5 , and can therefore use this divinely-approved excuse for breaking a treaty!
Nevertheless, Mohammad himself is quoted in hadith as saying "War is deceit." (Elsewhere, he also gives his assassins permission to use deceit).
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267 (war is deceit--also 268, 269; when Caesar is ruined v4, b53, n349 and n350):
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'.
Historically, treaties have been interpreted by Islamic scholars to be merely temporary tactical manoeuvres (truces, hudnas) that could be overruled within the overriding long-term strategic, global jihad (see *Note 1).
*1. Tibi, Bassam. (1996). War and Peace in Islam, in Terry Nardin (ed.) The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives. (pp. 129-131). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
A comment on the treaty breaking: If the Meccans had truly violated the treaty first, why would Mohammad need Allah to step in and abrogate the treaty? The whole point of having treaty is to have the agreement in writing, and the terms of the treaty constitute the authority to be consulted.
Also, how can Mohammad and his followers truly honor a treaty when they believe that Islam must conquer all religions (9:33, 48:28, 61:9) as a final goal; and where the mission is to all mankind (34:2
; and where force can be used to wipe out disbelief (9:5, 8:39, 2:193) with the added option of imposing dhimmitude (9:29). Sher Khan provides a discussion of Mohammads treaty breaking (descr. 9:1-17), includes copy of the treaty www.faithfreedom.org/oped...n60114.htm
This suggests Mohammad broke the terms of the treaty first.
For a discussion of this broken treaty, see Ali Sinas commentary at www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Waqasp3.htm . In that article, Sina also cites 8:58, which allows Muslims to break treaties even if they only suspect or fear treachery from the other side. The treaty violation revealed in Sura 9 illustrates the Islamic jihad policy, as pertaining to the condition where Muslims are in a strong position militarily, e.g., Muslims should not call for peace when they have the upper hand (47:35). Another reason to seriously doubt the validity of such treaties, regardless of the relative military strength of the Muslims, is that the Koran orders Muslims not to believe the non-Muslims (3:73), who are referred to as liars (e.g., 2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11). Thus, because the Koran says disbelievers are liars, Muslims at any time can claim they fear treachery from the other side (8:5
, and can therefore use this divinely-approved excuse for breaking a treaty! Nevertheless, Mohammad himself is quoted in hadith as saying "War is deceit." (Elsewhere, he also gives his assassins permission to use deceit).
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267 (war is deceit--also 268, 269; when Caesar is ruined v4, b53, n349 and n350):
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'.
Historically, treaties have been interpreted by Islamic scholars to be merely temporary tactical manoeuvres (truces, hudnas) that could be overruled within the overriding long-term strategic, global jihad (see *Note 1).
*1. Tibi, Bassam. (1996). War and Peace in Islam, in Terry Nardin (ed.) The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives. (pp. 129-131). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
