Islam clearly spells out its terms of engagement with the non-believers by following the template laid out by the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. We ignore it to our peril.
Raghunandhan (Raghu) Bhaskaran is a Bharathi and like many today, he for long, ignored his heritage and was focused towards Artha, to the exclusion of the other Purusharthas and is yet another IT consultant. But now he is increasingly a seeker of what it means to be a Hindu, a follower of Dharma in every sphere of life - personal, social, cultural and political. Towards this, he uses writing as a sadhana, to attain clarity and shares his learning with others, learns from others. He considers himself as the 'Mongoose of Mahabharatha', from the Ashwamedha Parva. Serendipity has led him to some yagna-salas, the works/company of some wonderful people - from heritage, family, friends, teachers and even on social media. He rolls around in the crumbs of their wisdom and some stick to him. And he shines in parts, from those borrowed crumbs of knowledge.
They were a rich and prosperous people, proud of their ways. They worshiped many gods, many people came to their places, bringing ideas and trading wealth. One of them took some of these ideas and set himself up as a Godman, but his ideas required denial and violence upon other ideas and gods. So the people of his city threw him and his followers out, for they were strong at that point. Then they made a mistake. They made a treaty with him for a peace lasting 10 years. And went back to their lives. Meanwhile, the Godman gathered strength as a warlord. Under the protection of the treaty, he and his followers even went back and made a dashing pilgrimage to the city of his enemies, impressing the people. Then a private fracas between his allied tribe and tribe associated with his enemies gave him a pretext – a technicality, to break the treaty and invade. The enemies fell.
His God, so he claimed, granted him a revelation called “Al Fatah - The Victory”, after this treaty. And it is aptly named, for when the people of diversity and plurality make a treaty with the intolerant, the intransigent, the fanatic - it is indeed a victory for the fanatic.
It is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.
This event has been the basis of Islamic treaty-making throughout history. All treaties, ceasefires, truces signed by an Islamic party on one side and non-Islamic party on another, is a victory for Islam. For all it means is the non-Islamic side does not have the grit to fight, they are not willing to die, to kill for their cause and in the name of peace, are willing to yield some to Islam. But there is no end to this yielding and each such yielding is but a step to eventual Islamic takeover and Allah authorizes this, making a treaty which Islam intends to break at the first convenient moment, irrespective of the treaty terms. Because Allah has given them victory over all polytheists and disbelievers, honest intentions are not required while making such treaties. There are breaches of trusts, treaties, in the histories of other cultures as well. The British were particularly adept in using technicalities and earned the reputation of 'Perfidious Albion'. But such is never set as an ideal. However, in Islam, the life of Muhammed is the ideal to follow. That makes all the difference.
- Did Rani Meenakshi of Madurai know about this treaty, when she believed Chanda Sahib, as he swore on the Quran to keep the peace?
- Did Prithviraj Chauhan know about this treaty, when he let go of Muhammad Ghori, after defeating him the first time?
- Did Aliya Rama Raya know about this treaty, when he adopted Ali Adil Shah as his foster son?
- Did Indira Gandhi know about Hudaybiyyah, when she let 90000 prisoners of war go, without settling the borders once and for all?
- Does Duterte know about such treaties, when he agrees to a Muslim Autonomous Region in Southern Philippines?
- Does the Indian state know about this treaty, when it repeatedly makes initiatives of peace with Pakistan?
Supposedly after Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo accords, many of his followers were angry with him and in a press conference, he just said ‘Hudaybiyyah’ and the protests died down. For the Islamic world immediately realized that he was not planning to honour the accords, but simply was waiting to breach them to his advantage. Yet the western world had no idea of what it meant.
Yet Islam is not to blame, because it intentions are well known and so is its history. From Quran to the local Mullah, they repeatedly affirm that other faiths, worldviews have no legitimacy and anyone who does not submit, must be a dhimmi or dead. They have been forthright. It is the others who refuse to listen and learn, who keep thinking that making such accommodations will bring peace, that such treaties will be honoured.
As I wrote as an introduction to this post,
For with Communism, Islam and Christianity, there is no compromise with the 'other', the end game is total and universal monopoly of thought. Across centuries, the occasional truce, peacetime or even push-backs are just temporary, in their march towards the Armageddon, the Apocalypse, the Al-Qayamat. The adherents may be witting, unwitting, active, passive, dormant, dogmatic, it does not matter, the dogma inexorably corrodes civilization, cultures, and humanity.
Yet we refuse to listen, we think Islam is also about a decent life, a comfortable life of productivity and prosperity. We think it can be bought, negotiated or reasoned with. We rest on temporary victories, ignore to secure our borders, forget to build our strength. We think gratitude to an inclusive, liberal society will tame it, we think a shared ancestry makes them empathetic. All that is partly true, yet the ideology is overpowering, for it is not meant for this world, but the one after death and to achieve that and to paraphrase, ‘some ideologies just want the world to burn’.
Under the name of ‘tolerance’, welcome the intolerant
Calling ourselves ‘inclusive’, include the ‘exclusive’
No, it was not Muhammed or Islam to blame, but the Quraysh of Mecca. And like the Quraysh, we will fall if we don’t listen to the Islamists. It is quite funny that the professional secularists keep crying that Muslims don’t have a voice in our societies, but it is them who are incapable of hearing what Islam preaches.
Banner Image by Hasan Almasi