Accepting Islamic peace gestures at face value: A backgrounder

The basis for Western treaties is pacta sunt servanda -- treaties (agreements) are to be obeyed. To us this idea, which was not at all obvious, seems obvious. But it has long been part of Western jurisprudence. And the Western world has not distinguished on the basis of the nature of the parties making such a treaty.

The basis of Islamic jurisprudence dealing with treaties (agreements) is quite different. Any agreement between Muslims and non-Muslims is subject to the rules that were established in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. And it is the Sira, the biography of Muhammad, that Model for All Time, that guides Muslims in their treaty-making with Infidels. When in 628 A. D. Muhammad made a treaty of peace -- really, a "treaty of truce" --with the Meccans, it was to last 10 years. Within 18 months, as he felt his forces had become stronger, Muhammad broke the treaty. That he did so deliberately, that he found a pretext, that he regarded this as the proper way to behave, is clear from all the telling and re-telling of this story. It was regarded as a splendid example of Muhammad's conduct of war against his enemies -- in this case, the Meccans who had refused to become followers of Muhammad, and of his still-developing (the Qur'an itself was dictated by the Angel Gabriel over 23 years) creed.

This is not an imaginary charge. It is laid out by all the relevant Muslim scholars. If CAIR or some group of Arab diplomats insists that this is all a product of perfervid Infidel imaginations, then simiply direct them to, inter alia, "The Law of War and Peace in Islam" by the celebrated scholar Majid Khadduri (who gave his name to a chair now comfortably occupied by the noticeably-reticent-on-Islam Fouad Ajami).

Unless the basis of Islamic jurisprudence with Infidels is understood, the Infidel peoples and polities will be constantly disappointed -- and worse, they will be always at a disadvantage. They cannot rely on such treaties. There is not a single agreement signed between Israel and any of its Arab (or partly-Arab, for most of Lebanon's Christians are Arabic-speaking, not Arab) neighbors that has not been violated by the Muslim side, in ways little and big. Yet the Israelis will not learn, or have not learned, from their experience.

That is their problem. But the rest of the Infidel world can learn from Israel's unhappy experience with such treaties -- for the benefit of that larger Infidel world, if not for that of trusting, ever-hopeful, diplomatically awkward and tongue-tied Israel.

We need to learn from the old "Dutch jihad diplomacy" on how to deal with hudnas in a non-dhimmi fashion:

"In 1622 the Dutch entered into a treaty with the pasha of Algiers in which payments to the pasha would “buy the peace” and Dutch merchant vessels would be allowed to pass in the Mediterranean unmolested. By 1624 the depredations of the Algerian corsairs on Dutch ships returned to the pre-treaty levels. The Algerians would capture the Dutch ships, seize their cargo as war booty and return to Algiers with the Dutch crews who would then be sold into slavery throughout the Islamic empire. All of which of course is sanctioned by the Islamic canon that enjoins jihad upon the non-Muslims wherever they may be encountered.

"The Dutch leaders had their fill of the unprovoked jihad and so dispatched a squadron of warships under the command of Admiral Lambert Hendrickszoon (”Mooy Lambert”) to deal with the pasha. Admiral Lambert soon arrived at the mouth of the Algerian harbor with several Algerian corsairs in tow that he had captured along his way. He anchored his squadron in the harbor and sent word to the pasha that he demanded the immediate release of all Dutch citizens and return of their ships and cargo. If the pasha did not comply, the admiral would hang all of the Algerian officers and crewman in his possession. The pasha refused, believing that Lambert was bluffing. Lambert promptly turned his squadron out to sea with every one of the Algerian captives hanging from the spars as the Dutch squadron disappeared over the horizon.

"The spectre horrified the Algerian populace and the city convulsed with wailing crowds and tumultuous clamor at the gates of the pasha’s palace. There was no time for the pasha and his officers to fully ponder the implications of the event as soon they beheld the return of Lambert’s squadron with a fresh collection of captured corsairs and their crews. Lambert again anchored in the harbor and repeated his demands with the same threat if they were not met. The pasha relented immediately, all the Dutch captives in the city were freed and their property restored. Admiral Lambert turned to sea and returned to Holland."
[From: "Dutch Jihad Diplomacy", McDonough Heritage Group,
http://www.mcdonough-heritage.com/?p=23 ]

Joel Català,
from the land of James I the Conqueror (1208-1276), King of Aragon-Catalonia, who started the liberation of the Iberian peninsula from the Muslims.

Beautiful article. Let's hope the people in charge of our foreign relations are fully aware of this tactic when dealing with our Muslim "allies".

In case anyone is unaware, Musharraf's motives in making nice with Israel have to do with the warming relations between India and Israel, so the reference he makes to the first six years Mohammed spent in relative peace with the Jews of the Hejaz should be most illuminating to anyone who knows a bit of [unbiased, unspun] Islamic history as opposed to the account presented in the Qu'ran.

As I read and re-read this article, I'm a little lost as to the point Stalinsky was trying to make, or perhaps how he was trying to make it.

First he cites Egyptian labor party head Magdi Ahmad Hussein seemed to be acknowledging the violence and aggression against Jews and other non-combatants. Then he cites the more typical examples, Syrian legislator Mohammed Habash's ugly characterizations, the Jordanian TV production with "despicable pig Jews" "scheming against Mohammed" and lastly, dear old Sheik Qaradawi, who is well-known to all of us for his approval of terrorism against Israeli citizens.

Am I alone in being confused?