Treaties

From WikiIslam

The problem is the Koran gives permission to Muslims to break treaties with non-believers only because they are non-believers. In my opnion, that aspect of koran alone, negates arguments that islam is for self-defence only. It also negates any semblence of honor in islam.

Here is a post made by Baal: [1]

Muslims always make a big deal about breaking treaties. Mehamad himself attacked his allies banu-qurayza "What Happened to Banu Quraytha", after they faced 24K enemy Qurayshi during a 30 days siege during the (Khandaq - Moat) Ghazwa.

Mehamad further sieged his allies for another 25 days, when they surrendered, Mehamad beheaded 800 males and took their women captive as sex-slave. He even married the beautiful wife Rayhana withouth even giving her the chance to wait the obligatory 30 days. All because of the excuse that Qurayza broke a treaty. (Absolutely not true!)

Yet Muslims have no problem excusing Mehamad for breaking treaties. In the Ghazwa of Nakhla, muslims attacked 4 merchants from Mehamad's own tribe, Quraysh that were carrying skin, raisins and honey and killed 2 of them. That happened during the Haram Month of Regab. A time when all arabs agreed on not allow blood-shed. After Meahamd received his 'Khums - Fifth' of the booty he came up with the next 2 verses to prove he is allowed to break treaties:

• Q2:116"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not."

And

• Q2:117"They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever-- these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide."

To comment on the Sentence: "Persecution is graver then slaughter" the English version can be used to justify that Freedom of Expression is sacred. However the Arabic word used is "Fitna" which is not Persecusion, it means "Shirq - Heresy - Questioning - Ascribing a partner to Alla". Meaning that Freedom of Expression, is the gravest sin in Islam. The same anti-Freedom sentence is also witnessed in the bloody verse Q2:191[2]

• Now as you can see, does it seem right that non-muslims are bound to follow treaties else they get the ultimate punishment but muslims do not have to follow treaties.

• Can anyone believe the muslims if they teach their children it is acceptable to break a treaty?

• Can Muslims believe Muslims? All a muslim leader has to do is claim the other muslims commit shirq and then attack them.

• If you make a treaty with someone, don't you want them to stick to it? don't you want them to teach their kids to stick to it?

• If muslims have a history of breaking treaties as well as teach their soldiers that treaties are meaningless, aren't you safer never to have (peace/truce) with muslims and live in a constant state of war?

• Why did 2 of the 4 merchants had to die when the attackers outnumbered them to plunder their honey, raisin and skin? Were the merchants preventing Mehamad's men from entering the mosque? Why did Mehamad not cancel the treaty before cowardly attacking those 4 merchants in Ghazwa (El-Nakhla - the Palm Tree)? How dare Mehamad accept his share from the booty and not return the entire loot to Mecca once he realized the attack was made in contradiction to the truce?

• Instead of returning the Loot and offering compensation for the two dead men. A minimal honorable action. He declares this dishonorable verse to clean his hand from the blood of the two merchants.