MUDABBIR AHMAD TAK, SRINAGAR
The ‘Scramble for Africa’ began in the late 19th century. Major European powers squabbled with each other over the control of African resources. In order to avoid war, the leaders of these countries convened the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885 and signed treaties for carving out Africa.
No African nations were invited or represented.
In New Zealand—once called Aotearoa by its indigenous Māori people—the British signed the Treaty of Waitangi with around 500 Māori chiefs in 1840. The treaty became the country’s founding document and officially made New Zealand a British colony. While the draft of the treaty in the Māori language guaranteed ‘tino rangatiratanga’ (meaning ‘self-determination’) to the Māori chiefs, the English version stated that the Māori chiefs ceded all the rights and powers of sovereignty to the Queen of England.
There was no mention of self-rule for the Māori.
The Treaty of Versailles was signed in June 1919 to bring an end to the First World War. However, the treaty was extremely humiliating for Germany, which was forced to accept full responsibility for the war and pay astronomically high reparations.
This humiliation was one of the major reasons that contributed to the outbreak of the Second World War.
There are numerous examples of treaties which, upon closer inspection, are revealed to be deceitful. In most cases, both parties attempt to extract maximum benefits for themselves, which is not inherently wrong. However, in doing so, they also try to inflict maximum damage on the other party—as vividly reflected in the above examples.
Negotiations that precede the signing of a treaty between two or more parties mostly involve revanchist attempts, with participants disregarding human values and undermining each other’s interests.
Even the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties—an international agreement adopted in 1969 to regulate treaties among sovereign states—is vague regarding the ethical and moral principles that should define the formulation of treaties. Though the convention requires states to engage in transparent negotiations, avoid coercion, and value each other’s interests, it does not clearly define or exemplify how the negotiations should be conducted. Consequently, disputes arise, requiring adjudication by international courts and tribunals, where conflicts often re-emerge due to the absence of an objective, binding, and all-encompassing code of law.
Having gained an overview of the modern frameworks of treaty-making and the glaring inability of international bodies to resolve conflicts, let us turn to a remarkable example from over fourteen centuries ago, when the Prophet Muhammadsa—an illiterate 7th-century desert dweller—exemplified diplomatic wisdom and moral integrity. This monumental chapter in Islamic history—known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyya—demonstrated Islam’s unwavering commitment to peace and justice, even when confronted with adversaries who did not share the same principles.
Facing injustice, yet committing to peace
The Holy Prophetsa and his companions were forced to leave Mecca and migrate to Medina due to the constant hardships inflicted by the Quraysh. While Medina became a refuge for the Muslims, their love for their homeland and the spiritual significance of Mecca kept its memory ever-present in their thoughts.
Thus, in 628 AD, the sixth year after migration, the Holy Prophetsa saw in a dream that he was circumambulating the Kaaba. On the basis of this vision, he decided to perform Umrah—the lesser pilgrimage to Mecca. As the month of Dhul-Qadah approached, the Prophetsa instructed his companions to prepare for the journey.
According to Arab customs, anyone could visit the Kaaba at any time of the year. Moreover, Dhul-Qadah was one of the four months considered holy by all Arabs alike, during which wars were prohibited. Even so, the Prophetsa made it specifically clear to his companions that the purpose of this journey was peaceful, forbidding them from carrying any weapons, except for sheathed swords, as was customary among Arabs at the time.[1]
The Holy Prophetsa thus began his journey along with 1,400 companions. As the group reached Usfan, a place situated at approximately two days’ journey on the road to Mecca, the scouts of the Holy Prophetsa informed him that the Quraysh of Mecca had armed themselves for war in order to prevent the Muslims from entering the city.[2]
By this point, it was evident that the Muslims had no intention of war, as they had already marked their sacrificial animals and had assumed the special attire of the pilgrims known as ‘Ihram’.[3] Yet, the Meccans clearly violated the sanctity of the sacred months and provoked conflict. However, the Holy Prophetsa instructed his group to take a diversion and follow a difficult route that ran along the coast, hence reaching Hudaybiya[4]—a place only nine miles away from Mecca.
Discussions begin
Prophet Muhammadsa was informed by a chieftain of a nearby region, Budail, that the Quraysh are hell-bent on stopping Muslims from entering Mecca. The Holy Prophetsa clarified that he had no intention of war, and had only come to perform religious worship. He even proposed to settle a truce with the Quraysh so that they would cease their hostilities against the Muslims. However, the Prophetsa added that if they rejected this proposal and insisted on fighting, he would not retreat until he either died or God granted him victory.[5]
When Budail conveyed this proposal to the Meccans, they sent emissaries one after another to the Holy Prophetsa, all of whom were convinced of the peaceful intentions of the Prophetsa. Each of them returned to the Quraysh, saying that it would be extremely unjust and contrary to Arab customs to prevent the Muslims—who had come solely as peaceful pilgrims—from entering Mecca.[6]
Despite this, the Meccans were not unanimous in agreeing to a truce. Meanwhile, the Holy Prophetsa remained wholly committed to ensuring peace. Hence, he sent a man named Khirash, from the tribe of Khuza’ah, to negotiate with the Meccans, who was attacked and injured by them.[7] To make matters worse, some members of the Quraysh took this opportunity to attack the Muslims[8] or—according to some narrations—even assassinate the Holy Prophetsa,[9] though all such attempts were effectively thwarted. When these people were captured and brought to the Prophetsa, he released them and took no retaliatory measures.[10]
Even in the face of these relentless violations of justice, the Holy Prophetsa remained steadfast in his pursuit of peace. He thus sent his own son-in-law, Hazrat Usman bin Affanra, a venerable and trusted companion, to convey to the Quraysh chieftains that his intentions were only to perform worship. However, the Meccans not only refused to agree but also detained Hazrat Usmanra, which lead to rumour that he had been martyred.[11]
When this news reached the Muslim camp, the Holy Prophetsa gathered all companions beneath an acacia tree and took a pledge (bai’at) that—if the news were true—they would not retreat until they avenged the death of Hazrat Usmanra.[12] This pledge is known in Islamic history as Bai’at-e-Ridwan, or the Pledge of Satisfaction.
Upon learning of this pledge, the Quraysh became fearful. They immediately released Hazrat Usmanra and agreed to settle a truce with the Muslims.[13]
The treaty and its terms
Even at this point, the Meccans considered it as a form of defeat to allow Muslims to enter the city. Hence, they insisted that the Muslims return to Medina and come back the next year to perform Umrah. Despite having all moral justification, the Holy Prophetsa accepted their demand. A treaty of peace was then formulated between the Muslims of Medina and the Quraysh of Mecca, bringing an end to all hostilities between the two.[14]
The terms of the Treaty, however, were heavily weighted against Muslims. Yet, the Holy Prophetsa agreed to all conditions, clearly demonstrating the peace-loving outlook of Islam. For paucity of time and space, we will discuss only a few of these details here.
While the document was being written, the Holy Prophetsa asked his scribe, Hazrat Alira, to begin with, “In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful”. Suhail bin Amr, who was representing the Meccans, immediately objected and demanded to omit the words ‘Rahman’ and only write, “With Thine name, O Allah”, attempting to protect the interests of the Quraysh. This was a question of national pride and religious indignation for the Muslims, who insisted on including the full phrase. However, the Holy Prophetsa calmed the Muslims and agreed to Suhail’s suggestion.[15]
Likewise, when the Holy Prophetsa asked Hazrat Alira to write, “This is the treaty that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has concluded”, Suhail interjected once again. He refused to have the words “Messenger of Allah” included, and insisted on only writing, “Muhammad bin Abdullah has settled this treaty”.[16] The Holy Prophetsa agreed once again. However, by then, Hazrat Alira had already written “Messenger of Allah”. When the Holy Prophetsa asked Hazrat Alira to erase the words, Hazrat Alira disagreed, saying he would never do so. Upon this, the Prophetsa took the parchment and erased the words himself.[17]
It should be remembered that the Holy Prophetsa had every right to retain those words. Modern-day political leaders often take their titles and forms of address as matters of great pride and hence, never relinquish their titles. Yet, the Holy Prophetsa presented a stellar example, agreeing to every demand of the opposing side to ensure peace.
Then there is the account of Abu Jandal, the son of Suhail bin Amr, who had accepted Islam and was being persecuted by the Meccans. When the terms of the Treaty were being discussed, Abu Jandal somehow reached the camp in chains and requested the Holy Prophetsa to take him to Medina, so that he would be delivered from the hardships he faced in Mecca. However, Suhail insisted that he be returned, as one of the terms proposed by Suhail was that anyone fleeing from the Quraysh to Medina would be sent back. The term was inherently unjust as it did not obligate the Quraysh to return anyone coming from Medina to them.[18]
Seeing Abu Jandal’s desperate state, the Holy Prophetsa told Suhail to release him, since the terms had not yet been finalised. Suhail however refused to continue negotiations if Abu Jandal were to be released.[19] Once again, the Holy Prophetsa prioritised collective peace over the immediate rights of his party. He asked Abu Jandal to exercise patience, assuring him that God would soon arrange for his deliverance.[20]
It must be noted that after the Pledge of the Tree, the Quraysh had themselves sent Suhail bin Amr to negotiate with the Holy Prophetsa. Given this, the Holy Prophetsa could have extracted much stronger terms from them. With the strength of 1,400 devoted companions ready to sacrifice their lives, he could have refused any of Suhail’s demands—particularly when the rights and reputation of his people, and his own honour, were at stake. Yet, in order to prevent war, the Holy Prophetsa agreed to all the unjust terms of the Quraysh.
A manifest victory
The Treaty of Hudaybiya was a landmark event that vividly showcased Islam’s uncompromising determination for peace. Among all the victories Muslims achieved in various defensive battles, it was this moment—one that outwardly appeared to be a setback—that the Holy Quran described as a “clear victory”,[21] showing that in Islam, true victory lies in the attainment of peace.
With wars engulfing the world, the modern political leaders have been claiming credit for half-measures towards peace, often by forcing ill-conceived proposals on warring parties. In the Middle-east, ceasefires are in place, yet the killings have not stopped. A wider war looms on the horizon in Europe, while a major conflict is brewing in Latin America. Political leaders remain unable to resolve these conflicts—any one of which can lead to a nuclear holocaust if not stopped in time. Not a single peace treaty seems to hold. Even trade treaties between nations are falling apart. It clearly seems that greed, hubris and self-interest have overshadowed humanity’s basic instinct for survival.
In such dangerous times, it is essential that the world turns to the just teachings of Islam and take guidance from the conduct of the Holy Prophetsa. The Treaty of Hudaybiya imparts a valuable lesson in this regard, demonstrating how treaties should be negotiated through justice and fairness. It stands as a timeless blueprint for the world to follow—showing that in order to achieve lasting peace, negotiating parties must come to the table with integrity and constructive intent.
Mudabbir Ahmad holds a PhD in Mass Communication and Journalism. He currently serves as the head of Majlis Khuddamul Ahmadiyya (Ahmadi Young Men’s Auxiliary) in Srinagar, Kashmir
END NOTES
[1] Al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Ibn Sa’d, v. 2, p. 91,
[2] Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Ibn Katheer, v. 6, pp. 207–208
[3] Al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Ibn Sa’d, v. 2, p. 91,
[4] Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Ibn Katheer, v. 6, pp. 208–209
[5] Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab ash-Shuroot (The Book on Conditions)
[6] Ibid
[7] Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Ibn Katheer, v. 6, p. 214
[8] Ibid
[9] Tafsir al-Tabari, v. 21, p. 290, under the verse 48:24
[10] Ibid
[11] Tarikh al-Tabari, p. 411
[12] Ibid
[13] Al Mawahib al-Ladunniyya, Imam Qastalani, p. 363
[14] Al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Ibn Sa’d, v. 2, p. 93–94
[15] Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Ibn Katheer, v. 6, p. 217
[16] Ibid
[17] Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Sayr (The Book on Jihad and Expeditions)
[18] Al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Ibn Sa’d, v. 2, p. 93
[19] Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab ash-Shuroot (The Book on Conditions)
[20] Tarikh al-Tabari, p. 411
[21] Holy Quran 48:2
0 Comments