Can the Word of the 'Prophet' be Trusted?
Muhammad and the Breaking of the Treaty of Hudabiya
Most people would agree that leaders should be people of integrity who can be relied upon to keep their word. The life of Muhammad provides clear evidence that he was willing to make and break promises (including solemn treaties) as it suited him.
The most famous instance of this happening was the Treaty of Hudabiya (628 CE). Muslim apologists spend much time defending Muhammad’s conduct in the aftermath of the signing of this treaty, often claiming that the people of Mecca got what they deserved. This may or may not be the case, and I’m not about to enter a rather unprofitable debate about the minutiae of why Muslims feel the Meccans ‘had it coming’. The point is that as the ‘Messenger of Allah’, Muhammad’s conduct should have been totally above reproach in honoring a promise that he made in the name of Allah. Therefore, the only question I want to address in this section is this: Did Muhammad break a solemn treaty or not?
While exiled from Mecca, Muhammad tried to lead a large group of Muslims to Mecca to perform the Umrah (lesser pilgrimage). On the way to Mecca, Muhammad’s party was approached by an emissary of the Meccans who indicated that the Muslims would be prevented from entering Mecca by the forces of the Quraysh. Muhammad did not feel confident in forcing the Meccans to relent, so he had to mount a sudden climb-down.
He agreed to sign a treaty with the Meccans and even took the extraordinary step of handing a Meccan convert to Islam back to the people of Mecca. In addition to this, he was forced to change his name and title at the end of the treaty document from “Muhammad: Apostle of Allah” to “Muhammad: Son of Abdullah.” (This incident is related in Sahih Bukhari 3:50:89) This is what was agreed to: “This is what Muhammad b. Abdullah has agreed with Suhayl v. Amr: they have agreed to lay aside war for ten years during which men can be safe and refrain from hostilities on condition that if anyone comes to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian he will return him to them; and if anyone of those with Muhammad comes to Quraysh they will not return him to him. We will not show enmity one to another and there shall be no secret reservation of bad faith...”
Two key provisions must be pointed out a) The treaty was to stand for 10 years and b) Those who migrated to Muhammad (in Medina) without permission will be returned to Mecca.
The treaty that Muhammad entered into amounted to a defeat for the Muslims and also indicated (as we have seen in Section 7.1) a failed prophecy. Its signing, therefore, caused a great deal of grumbling among the Muslim forces who objected to the return of some of their compatriots who converted to Islam to the Meccan pagans. Many were also incensed that Muhammad accepted the change of his title from “Apostle of Allah” to “Son of Abdullah” and by the fact that the treaty was weighted in favor of the pagans of Mecca (Sahih Bukhari 3:50:891.
As so often happened in these cases Allah immediately sprang into action with a ‘convenient revelation’ to shore up Muhammad’s position. Despite the expedition being a dismal failure and defeat, Allah declares it to be a stunning victory: “Verily We have granted thee a manifest Victory” (Qur'an 48:10) Muhammad’s followers must have wondered if they could afford many more ‘victories’ like that!
The grumbling, despite the declaration of ‘victory’, among his followers put Muhammad in an extremely difficult position. He immediately began to cast around for an opportunity to get out of the treaty.
Muslim apologists claim that the Meccans attacked the Muslims first thus violating the non-aggression side of the treaty. However, long before the alleged attacks happened, Muhammad had already broken the provision regarding the return of refugees. There can, therefore, be no doubt that he was the first to dishonor his word by reneging on a solemn promise for the sake of political expediency.
This is how Muhammad’s treaty breaking came about. As can be seen above, one of the key provisions of the treaty was that if any person went to Medina (to join Muhammad) from Mecca, he or she will be returned by Muhammad: “…if anyone comes to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian he will return him to them.” This provision was very quickly put to the test. According to Ibn Ishaq[3]: “Umm Kulthum Uqba Muayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers Umara and Walid sons of Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and the Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not.”
There can be no doubt whatsoever that Muhammad went back on his word with his refusal to return Umm Kulthum to her brothers. Ever faithful, Allah comes to the rescue with yet another ‘convenient revelation’: “O you who have believed, when the believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them. Allah is most knowing as to their faith. And if you know them to be believers, then do not return them to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [wives] for them, nor are they lawful [husbands] for them.” (Qur’an 60:10) How good it must have been for Muhammad to have Allah on-call to constantly justify his questionable actions!
Telling us that Allah sanctioned Muhammad’s treaty breaking does not change the fact that he clearly could not be trusted to keep his word. Allah’s supposed involvement in this sordid episode also raises more questions than it answers.
How could he, supposedly the ‘All Knowing One’, allow Muhammad to enter into a solemn agreement that he knew would be broken? Perhaps the best answer to this is the fact that Muhammad generally had no problem with deceiving people to gain his own political ends. According to Sahih Bukhari he said as much: “The Prophet said: War is deceit.” (Sahih Bukhari 4:52:269).
Muhammad’s behavior in this case did not go unnoticed by his followers. It left them with the conviction that treaties and solemn promises can be set aside in a flash if it would serve their needs. As Muhammad’s successor Abu Bakr said: “If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one I do what is better and make expiation for my oath.” (Sahih Bukhari 8:78:618). Muhammad would certainly have been proud because of a lesson well learned.
For much more about some of the questionable actions of Muhammad, and an in-depth analysis of the truth claims of Islam, please see my book: Questioning Islam - Tough Questions and Honest Answers About the Muslim Religion.
Kind regards,
Peter
Please be so kind as to share this message, by clicking on the button below. Thank you!