Friday 8 May 2009

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.

6 comments:

  1. Free Palestine!

    Shame on all those who apologise for Israeli slaughter and theft.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Israeli slaughter and theft".

    Seriously, get a clue what you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know very well what I'm talking about. Your own knowledge may well be tested should you choose to get into this.

    When you occupy other peoples' land and property illegally that is called theft. When you fire white phosphorous shells at schools and hospitals full of innocent people, that's called slaughter.

    People who have no moral objection to these crimes need to have a long look in the mirror.

    Btw, Islam has nothing to do with this conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I know very well what I'm talking about. Your own knowledge may well be tested should you choose to get into this."

    We'll see.

    "When you occupy other peoples' land and property illegally that is called theft."

    The Israelis are not "occupying" anything "illegally". They were GIVEN Israel by the UN, after the Arab nations had demanded again and again - due to Islamic legal definitions - that the Jews weren't even allowed to possess less than 1% of the Middle East, because that was their land (supposedly). This creation of Israel was also entirely in line with international law: http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf

    "When you fire white phosphorous shells at schools and hospitals full of innocent people, that's called slaughter."

    The white phosphorus claim was a lie: http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Media_War_Crimes.asp

    And even the UN admitted that the IDF didn't actually hit the school they were accused of hitting: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129696

    "Btw, Islam has nothing to do with this conflict."

    The Hamas Charter says different: "The Islamic Resistance Movement maintains that the land of Palestine is Waqf land given as endowment for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection...This is the legal status of the land of Palestine according to Islamic law. In this respect, it is like any other land that the Muslims have conquered by force, because the Muslims consecrated it at the time of the conquest as religious endowment for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection...There is nothing that speaks more eloquently and more profoundly of nationalism than the following: when the enemy tramples Muslim territory, waging jihad and confronting the enemy become a personal duty of every Muslim man and Muslim woman.” (Articles 11 and 12)

    ReplyDelete
  5. This creation of Israel was also entirely in line with international lawHmmm.. A little googling is in order here. Did the UN Partition Plan give Israel the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights? Go and check.

    Maybe try "1967 occupation west bank gaza" or something along those lines.

    The white phosphorous claim was true. Israel hit three schools according to John Ging of the UNRWA in Gaza. The precise details of what happened are under investigation.

    Islam has nothing to do with this conflict. Opinion polls show that their Islamic philosophy had nothing to do with why people voted for them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "A little googling is in order here. Did the UN Partition Plan give Israel the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights? Go and check."

    No, but Israel's present control there is still lawful. In the first place, these lands never legally belonged to Jordan. Second, Israel is entitled by international law to negotiate the extent and the terms of her withdrawal.

    "The white phosphorous claim was true. Israel hit three schools according to John Ging of the UNRWA in Gaza. The precise details of what happened are under investigation."

    As can be seen from the last link I posted above, Ging later admitted he was wrong about at least one of these schools. But even if the claims are true, this makes Israel no worse than Hamas, which has also used white phosphorus to attack civilians.

    "Islam has nothing to do with this conflict. Opinion polls show that their Islamic philosophy had nothing to do with why people voted for them."

    A link to one of these polls would be nice. But in any case, the motives of Hamas nevertheless remain religious, as stated not only in their Charter, which is admittedly twenty years old, but by current clerics and Palestinian authorities. I can provide some examples of such authorities if you ask for them.

    ReplyDelete