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.