Misguided Impressions of Islamic Faith

To the editors:

The op-ed by David J. Gorin ’03 (“Why Protect Arafat?” April 16) makes the ignorant and insulting claim that the Prophet Mohammad made a treaty against a strong tribe and then “[in] the story, Mohammad abrogated the treaty.” Muslims must take issue with Gorin’s accusation that the Prophet unilaterally abrogated the treaty in question. Gorin refers to the Treaty of Hudaybiyah between the Muslims of Medina and the Quraysh of Mecca. Yasser Arafat compared the Oslo Peace Accords to this treaty in a statement at a South African mosque. The accusation of an abrogation of the treaty by the Prophet (and with it, of an intention of breaking the treaty at one’s convenience) falls flat. The historical evidence tells us that Mohammad did not unilaterally abrogate the Treaty of Hudaybiyah as Gorin implies. The terms of the treaty allowed both the Muslims and the Quraysh tribe to enter into alliances with whomever they pleased. All entities entering into alliances with the two sides were to be protected by the ceasefire declared in the treaty. About 18 months after the treaty was signed and followed in letter and spirit by the Muslims, an allied tribe of the Quraysh, Banu Bakr, made an unannounced attack upon an allied tribe of the Muslims, Banu Khuza’ah.

The Quraysh not only aided in the logistics of this attack, but also allowed Banu Bakr to massacre escaping members of Banu Khuza’ah at the Holy Sanctuary in Mecca. It was recognized throughout Arabia that by ancient custom, the Holy Sanctuary in Mecca was to be free of bloodshed, and tribes approaching it for protection were to be allowed safety. The actions of the Quraysh were in clear violation of recognized rights and responsibilities, both under customary tribal law, and under the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. Clearly, it was not the Prophet who unilaterally abrogated the treaty, but the Quraysh who broke it.

It is puzzling why Gorin sees a reference to the Treaty of Hudaybiyah as a sign of a half-hearted attempt at peace. Rather, Muslims hearing a reference to Hudaybiyah immediately make associations with the need to make peace whenever an enemy makes a credible move toward peace. The fact that stands out in the story for Muslims is that the Prophet actually signed the treaty with the grudging acceptance of his followers in Medina. In doing so, he made compromises, such as not even mentioning God, of not signing his name as “the Prophet of Allah” (as was his custom in other treaties) nd of ignoring the property claims of Muslims driven out of Mecca by the Quraysh. Many Muslims in the Prophet’s time saw these concessions toward the Quraysh as humiliating, and yet the Prophet signed the treaty because his declared preference was for peace. It is thus not surprising that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, in his speech immediately after September 11, appealed to the example of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah in asking the Taliban to go through the humiliating (though morally just) exercise of giving up Osama Bin Laden, and asking the Pakistani public to support America’s claims upon the Afghan government.

A half-hearted attempt at peace cannot be justified in Islam. We are taught by the example of the Prophet that the value of an action is determined by the intention behind it, and that honesty and unambiguity in intention is of utmost importance. Treaties are taken very seriously in Islam. The Koran notes that treaties should not be broken, in more than one place. Referring to treaties made with non-Muslims, the Koran explicitly orders in c. 9: v. 04 that unless non-Muslims have failed to abide by the terms of the treaty, all terms and conditions of the treaty must be respected. There are a number of cases where the Prophet warns against the breaking of oaths and treaties in the strongest of terms, and tells Muslims to disregard the costs and potential benefits from breaking treaties and oaths. He was known widely in Arabia for his integrity and honesty. Even his most bitter enemies could not deny these qualities of the Prophet, even when trying to forge an alliance with the Byzantine emperor against the early Muslim community.

Much has been said about misguided misconceptions and stereotypes of Muslims, their traditions and their faith, and the prejudice against Muslims that these misconceptions and stereotypes lead to. Gorin’s unjustified accusation against the Prophet serve only to further such misconceptions. He owes an apology to the Muslims in the community for his slur upon their faith. He also owes an apology to the Harvard community for propagating misleading information that only serves to credit distrust between Muslims and non-Muslims here and in the rest of the world.

Saif I. Shah Mohammed ’02

April 27, 2002

The writer is outgoing president of the Harvard Islamic Society.