It was Mohammed himself who laid the foundation for Islam to build a history of making peace with an enemy in order to attack at a later, more opportune time. In 628, Mohammed made a "peace treaty" with the Quraish tribe in Mecca in order for Moslems to worship at the Ka'abah. Two years later, when he had gained more followers and was considerably stronger, he abrogated the treaty and attacked the Quraish people, slaughtering every male among them.
This agreement between Mohammed and the infidels of Mecca is known as the "Truce of Hudaybiyyah."
This truce became a model and a precedent in Islamic law for all agreements with infidels: never permanent, never lasting more than 10 years (with the possibility of another 10 years extension, no more). Islam is not permitted to stop its war against non-Moslerm for more than this period.
In the Arab-Islamic teaching concerning peace with nonMoslems, the peace is an entirely Islamic affair: it is initiated by the Moslems when they feel it is a necessity, and anticipate its practical benefits; and they end it at their will whenever they feel they should or can. Even when peace treaties are entered into by the Islamic people with non-Moslems, the enemy remains an enemy. In the Islamic thought and teaching, it is permissible to conclude peace treaties for practical reasons, on the road to ultimate Islamic victory.
The Islamic concept of peace is therefore the cessation of hostilities until such time the conditions favour resumption of hostilities that will ultimately lead to Islamic victory. The truce is part of Islam's long-term policy of war - it is an integral facet of Islam's drive to bring the world into complete subjection. According to Islamic law books, "war could be interrupted, when expedient, by an armistice or truce of limited duration. It could not be terminated by a peace, but only by victory."
Ayatollah Muqtada el-Sadr’s “Mehdi Army” has mostly disarmed and dispersed - but NOT disbanded - and the young Imam himself’s decamped from Najaf’s Imam Ali Shrine, all at the serene behest of the senior Shi’ite cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali el-Sistani.
The Grand Mosque has been spared from the destruction that’s been hovering over it for weeks, el-Sistani, the Iraqi Interim Government and el-Sadr have all ostensibly emerged “with their vital dignity intact” - but has Democracy in Iraq been well served in this “bargain”?
The Mehdi militias can EASILY re-arm in Iraq, whenever they choose; el-Sadr’s managed to BULLY his way into having the murder charges against him (for the killing another Ayatollah) dropped and has risen personally into national prominence, which he can now harness to advance himself amid Iraq’s upcoming political arrangements (whatever they turn out to be). El-Sistani’s come out of this with authority EXCEEDING the Interim Govt’s writ, while el-Sadr’s ability to re-ignite his rebellion, at will, continues to menace stability into the future….
Despite the old enmity - which remains to be played out - between Ayatollahs el-Sistani and el-Sadr (whose father, executed by Saddam Hussein, in addition, had been a bitter adversary of el-Sistani for more than half a century), what has been STRENGTHENED by this deal in Najaf looks NOT to be Democracy, but, instead, the prospects for an Islamic State in Iraq.
Further, a big boost has been delivered for the influence in the country of neighbouring IRAN. Notwithstanding its patronage of many Iraqi exile-organizations for decades, from the time of the downfall of Saddam, on top, Iran’s been quietly supporting, by its various means, virtually every Shi’a grouping - political, paramilitary, social, academic, professional, welfare, cultural, etc - inside Iraq (of which roughly 60% of the population are Shi’ites).
Tehran - with the FAILURE of American objectives in Iraq being one of its main interests - has backed (is backing) BOTH el-Sadr and el-Sistani, among a large number of others in Iraq. This morning, Iran’s PM stated that “the US cannot hope to succeed in Iraq or in Afghanistan, unless it receives the assistance of the Islamic Republic of Iran”: A VEILED THREAT.
How long before the American generals are able to inform their political leaders of the truth of what the jihadis in Iraq are really doing?
Hudaybiyyah, the institutionalized arab "diplomacy" precedent which is itself just another expression of taqiyyah:
From the Daily Pundit
They live amongst us and plan our DEMISE yet we welcome them with open arms.
If the shrine was so HOLY what was Fatboy doing occupying and booby trapping it??
Ayatollah Muqtada el-Sadr’s “Mehdi Army” has mostly disarmed and dispersed - but NOT disbanded - and the young Imam himself’s decamped from Najaf’s Imam Ali Shrine, all at the serene behest of the senior Shi’ite cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali el-Sistani.
The Grand Mosque has been spared from the destruction that’s been hovering over it for weeks, el-Sistani, the Iraqi Interim Government and el-Sadr have all ostensibly emerged “with their vital dignity intact” - but has Democracy in Iraq been well served in this “bargain”?
The Mehdi militias can EASILY re-arm in Iraq, whenever they choose; el-Sadr’s managed to BULLY his way into having the murder charges against him (for the killing another Ayatollah) dropped and has risen personally into national prominence, which he can now harness to advance himself amid Iraq’s upcoming political arrangements (whatever they turn out to be). El-Sistani’s come out of this with authority EXCEEDING the Interim Govt’s writ, while el-Sadr’s ability to re-ignite his rebellion, at will, continues to menace stability into the future….
Despite the old enmity - which remains to be played out - between Ayatollahs el-Sistani and el-Sadr (whose father, executed by Saddam Hussein, in addition, had been a bitter adversary of el-Sistani for more than half a century), what has been STRENGTHENED by this deal in Najaf looks NOT to be Democracy, but, instead, the prospects for an Islamic State in Iraq.
Further, a big boost has been delivered for the influence in the country of neighbouring IRAN. Notwithstanding its patronage of many Iraqi exile-organizations for decades, from the time of the downfall of Saddam, on top, Iran’s been quietly supporting, by its various means, virtually every Shi’a grouping - political, paramilitary, social, academic, professional, welfare, cultural, etc - inside Iraq (of which roughly 60% of the population are Shi’ites).
Tehran - with the FAILURE of American objectives in Iraq being one of its main interests - has backed (is backing) BOTH el-Sadr and el-Sistani, among a large number of others in Iraq. This morning, Iran’s PM stated that “the US cannot hope to succeed in Iraq or in Afghanistan, unless it receives the assistance of the Islamic Republic of Iran”: A VEILED THREAT.