What A "Truce" Means to Muslims

Biding his time

A few days ago, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal made a statement whose significance has, not surprisingly, eluded the vacuous hive mind of the mainstream media.

Speaking of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mashal said that his ideal solution would be "a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.” Asked what “long-term” meant, he said 10 years.

Mashal admitted, however, that he "would not recognize Israel", saying to fellow Arab leaders, “There is only one enemy in the region, and that is Israel.”

It is understandable that gullible Western readers who know nothing of the ideology that drives Hamas would fall for this ploy, but fact-based analysis reveals this for the time-biding deception that it is. For starters, the stipulation of a "two-state" solution where Israel withdraws to 1967 armistice lines is only a temporary, and not a permanent, solution. Previously, Mashal has stated that “our long-term goal is the liberation of Palestine [i.e. even the parts within the 1967 borders!]. Israel and the U.S. are deluding themselves if they think that we are not capable of doing this.” Coupled with his insistence that Israel has no right to exist, as well as the annihilationist sentiments of the 1988 Hamas Charter (which, in the article above, Mashal conveniently asks us to ignore), this indicates therefore that a "two-state" solution and a ten-year truce are only temporary policies of political opportunism.

This is not the first time that Hamas have called for a truce. The last one was concluded in June of last year. Only a few months later, it was revealed that Hamas had been building a number of tunnels for the purpose of kidnapping Israeli soldiers, even while the truce was in effect. When Israel attacked one of those tunnels, Hamas responded with Kassam rockets and accused Israel of breaking the truce.

Khaled Mashal's very specific mention of a ten-year truce is important because it indicates the standard Islamic religious orthodoxy underlying the ideology of Hamas. It also demonstrates why such truce offers should not be taken seriously.

In Islamic law, truces are viewed not as documents of lasting peace, but as expedient ways to cease hostilities while weak Muslim forces regroup (“Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost...” – Qur'an 47:35), which can be ditched as soon as the Muslims feel like it. For example, the classic Islamic legal manual Umdat al-Salik, which has been endorsed by Islam's highest spiritual authority, Al Azhar University in Cairo, as conforming to Sunni orthodoxy, states regarding truces:

“There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo...Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of members or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim...If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. [emphasis added]”

Another legal manual, the Hedaya, reiterates this, and adds: “If the Imam make peace with the aliens [literally, harbis, i.e. unbelievers] for a single term (namely, ten years [emphasis added]) and afterwards perceive that it is most advantageous to the Muslim interest to break it, he may in that case lawfully renew the war, after giving them due notice...”

Muhammad himself elucidated this in no uncertain terms: “If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better.” (Bukhari v.9, b.89, no.260) The entire basis for the above legal rulings also rests on an incident in Muhammad's life, in which he broke a ten-year treaty he had concluded with his enemies, the Quraysh.

The consequences of this principle have played out throughout history, as Byzantine Emperors made short-sighted truces with the Ottomans and paid the price when the Muslims unilaterally revoked those truces. We have also seen it come into play in numerous contemporary conflicts, most notably in Gaza.

The lesson here is that jihadists cannot be negotiated with. Islamic law treats truces as temporary cessations of hostilities whose only purpose is to serve Muslims. Jihadists are unlikely to accept any kinds of peace deals at all unless they have a greater strategic role to play in the overall war effort. The only thing that can bring lasting “peace” is submission of the infidels under Islamic law. In this light, no one should give Khaled Mashal even an inch of wiggle room to peddle his propaganda.