re: "Fitzgerald: Waiting for Hudaibiyya"
Hugh at Dhimmi Watch ("Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to the plight of the dhimmis, and by doing so, to bring them justice.") spells out some crucial differences between paradigms of statecraft.
Money quote(s):
"(T)hese reporters, these columnists, these writers of scolding editorials who presume to inform and instruct their audiences, appear to believe, with what might be called, wickedly, a Eurocentric view of things, that everyone in the world accepts the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda -- the principle that "Treaties Are to Be Obeyed." It isn't true. That concept, which originates in the West, and which seems to people in the West as self-evident (for how, or why, would treaties have any value if one side or both could break them?), is not honored, and is not even discussed as worthy of being honored, in the Islamic world.
In that world, a different principle obtains. Treaties may be made with Infidel enemies. But those treaties do not bind the Muslim side. They can, whenever they wish, whenever they feel the time is right or ripe, break those treaties. There is no such thing as a permanent "peace" treaty with Infidels. All treaties that are called that in the West are merely "truce" treaties or hudnas. They are based on the model of the agreement that Muhammad made with his Meccan enemies (because they would not yield to his demands) in 628 A.D., at Hudaibiyya, just outside Mecca."
&
"(W)hen Muslims -- when Hamas as one case -- talks about a "truce" that will last ten years, shouldn't those who report on this kind of thing ask themselves why "ten years" was chosen? Shouldn't they inquire further, and realize that "ten years" is always the date given for a hudna? And shouldn't they then ask themselves "why is that?" and then attempt to find out? If they did make the attempt, they would discover that the agreement that Muhammad made with the Meccans at Al-Hudaibiyya was to last for ten years, and so that has, ever since, become the appropriate length of time for a "hudna" with Infidels. It doesn't mean it can't be broken within those ten years; Muhammad broke the treaty within 18 months, even though, when they speak with Infidels, Muslims will attempt to deny this. They will say that it was all the fault of the Meccans. But the facts -- and also all of the crowing delight taken in Muslim literature over the very cunning that Muhammad showed in making this treaty when he was weak and breaking it when he was strong -- show that Muslims know what really caused that treaty to be broken, and by whom."
Money quote(s):
"(T)hese reporters, these columnists, these writers of scolding editorials who presume to inform and instruct their audiences, appear to believe, with what might be called, wickedly, a Eurocentric view of things, that everyone in the world accepts the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda -- the principle that "Treaties Are to Be Obeyed." It isn't true. That concept, which originates in the West, and which seems to people in the West as self-evident (for how, or why, would treaties have any value if one side or both could break them?), is not honored, and is not even discussed as worthy of being honored, in the Islamic world.
In that world, a different principle obtains. Treaties may be made with Infidel enemies. But those treaties do not bind the Muslim side. They can, whenever they wish, whenever they feel the time is right or ripe, break those treaties. There is no such thing as a permanent "peace" treaty with Infidels. All treaties that are called that in the West are merely "truce" treaties or hudnas. They are based on the model of the agreement that Muhammad made with his Meccan enemies (because they would not yield to his demands) in 628 A.D., at Hudaibiyya, just outside Mecca."
&
"(W)hen Muslims -- when Hamas as one case -- talks about a "truce" that will last ten years, shouldn't those who report on this kind of thing ask themselves why "ten years" was chosen? Shouldn't they inquire further, and realize that "ten years" is always the date given for a hudna? And shouldn't they then ask themselves "why is that?" and then attempt to find out? If they did make the attempt, they would discover that the agreement that Muhammad made with the Meccans at Al-Hudaibiyya was to last for ten years, and so that has, ever since, become the appropriate length of time for a "hudna" with Infidels. It doesn't mean it can't be broken within those ten years; Muhammad broke the treaty within 18 months, even though, when they speak with Infidels, Muslims will attempt to deny this. They will say that it was all the fault of the Meccans. But the facts -- and also all of the crowing delight taken in Muslim literature over the very cunning that Muhammad showed in making this treaty when he was weak and breaking it when he was strong -- show that Muslims know what really caused that treaty to be broken, and by whom."
posted by Consul-At-Arms at 6:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home