God's War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible

by Walid Shoebat

  But the word Hudna needs to be understood as well. In the Muslim mind, Hudna is an Arabic term for a truce meant to produce a period of calm with an enemy in order to gain concessions, regroup, rearm, and re-attack at the appropriate time. This has been its purpose throughout Muslim history. Based on Islam’s understanding of Mohammed’s use of it, a Hudna could last as long as ten years.

  Case in point. A particularly famous early Hudna was the Treaty of Hudaybiyya between Mohammed and the Quraysh tribe. According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi’i jurisprudence, Hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: “If Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud”87

  Take for example the Oslo Peace Accords. Arafat relied on the term when he spoke about his commitment in 1994 to the Oslo Peace Accords. At a mosque in Johannesburg just a month after the signing, Arafat declared (not realizing that he was being taped) that the Accords were merely a way to facilitate his Jihad against Israel. Later, when challenged about this, he wiggled out of it by declaring that he was using the term Jihad in its most positive sense: A struggle against inner negative forces. So, Arafat presented himself as a “Jihad fighter for peace.”88

  Even Faisal Husseini, one of the PLO’s highest level spokespersons clarified the meaning of the Oslo Accords to the world in an interview with an Egyptian newspaper:89 “had the U.S. and Israel realized, before Oslo, that all that was left of the Palestinian National movement and the Pan-Arab movement was a wooden [Trojan] horse called Arafat…they would never have opened their fortified gates and let it inside their walls…The Oslo agreement, or any other agreement, is just a temporary procedure, just a step towards something bigger…distinguish the strategic, long-term goals from the political phased goals, which we are compelled to temporarily accept due to international pressure…Our ultimate goal is the liberation of all of historic Palestine, from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea.” In other words, Palestine will be created across the entire existing State of Israel.90 The story of the Trojan Horse is synonymous to Islam’s Hudna. Hamas agreed to several ceasefires between 1993 and 2003, none of which were honored. The West must understand these offers as mere tactical maneuvers to allow militant groups time to live to fight another day. At root, the current ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah will eventually fail because, like all Hudnas to date, they are always broken. It would be sacrilege to keep them for too long. The Hamas Charter states: “For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: ‘Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware.’”91 So any land deals as part of a Hudna should be an absolute anathema. Yet the idiocy continues and the West keeps biting the bait—every time. Hamas’ Mahmoud Zahar reiterated after the recent electoral victory: “We have no peace process. We are not going to mislead our people to tell them we are waiting, meeting, for a peace process that is nothing.” Zahar was echoing the Hamas Charter’s declaration “[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.”92

  Even though it seems that Hamas might reject any peace plan, rest assured that in the near future, they would, yet again, sign a Hudna. But now, you my Western friend know the difference—it will be yet another Trojan horse. I have stated this on record, so when it happens, you will remember.

  What the West does not understand about Islamism is that Jihad is very systematic. It has stages. If Muslims have the upper hand, then Jihad is waged by force. If Muslims do not have the upper hand, then Jihad is waged through financial and political means. Since Muslims do not have the upper hand in America or Europe, they talk about peace in front of you while supporting Hamas and Hezbollah in the back room. The whole idea of Islam being a peaceful religion emanates from that silent stage of Jihad. Sheikh Qaradawi has taught Muslims this form of trickery at conferences in the U.S., I have it on video. At one conference, Qaradawi used the example of Salahu-Deen Al-Ayubi (Saladin). Saladin was asked to concede to peace with the verse from the Qur’an 8:61, “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah.” However, from Qur’an 47:35, he replied, “And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand.”93

  In Islam, conceding to peace means that the Islamic Umma (nation) is weak. But as soon as Islam becomes the stronger force, it switches into war mode and high-gear.

  HUDAIBIYAH

  To understand why God warns of false peace treaties, I need to explain an essential bit of Islamic history known as the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. During the early years of Mohammed’s small but growing movement, the Muslims were in conflict with the tribe of Quraysh who were the guardians of the so-called “holy” city of Mecca. Mohammed and the Muslims had been kicked out of Mecca and were now living roughly two hundred miles to the north in Medina. During those days, the various surrounding Arab tribes would make a yearly religious pilgrimage to the pagan shrine in Mecca known as the Ka’ba (the Cube). But because the Quraysh and the Muslims were enemies, and because the Quraysh were much more powerful than the Muslims, they would not allow them to make any pilgrimages.

  Then one night, Mohammed claimed to have received a revelation whereby he said that Allah told him that he and the Muslims would make the pilgrimage to Mecca. But as the Muslims were attempting to sneak into the city at a place called the Spring of Hudaibiyah, they were intercepted by Qurayashi troops. It was there that the men of Quraysh disrespected and shamed Mohammed in front of his men. They also refused the Muslims entry into Mecca. However, they did offer the Muslims a very generous deal. This deal became known as the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. Both parties agreed not to attack each other for ten years. Because the Muslims were by far the weaker and smaller group, the peace-agreement was clearly a generous deal on Quraysh’s part. But Mohammed was humiliated and his Muslims were covered with shame. They were terribly embarrassed that their so-called prophet had been treated so poorly and did nothing to respond other than to roll over and agree to the treaty. They were also completely disillusioned because Mohammed had obviously prophesied falsely regarding the pilgrimage.

  But Mohammed’s response to his followers was typical of a false prophet—he simply painted a new bulls-eye around his arrow. Mohammed argued that Allah had never said that the Muslims would make pilgrimage “this year” but that they would simply make it someday. Al-Bukhari records this hilarious event when Umar said, “I went to the Prophet and said, ‘Aren’t you truly the Apostle of Allah?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes, indeed.’ I said, ‘isn’t our cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Then why should we be humble in our religion?’ He said, ‘I am Allah’s Apostle and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious.’ I said, ‘Didn’t you tell us that we would go to the Ka’ba?’ He said, ‘Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka’ba this year?’”94 Umar should have walked away at that point.

  Knowing that his men were grumbling and that immediate action needed to be taken, Mohammed arose the following morning claiming that Allah had “sent down” another revelation explaining that what had happened was in fact a “great victory” for the Muslims. Remember that any time a pirate is allowed to live freely another day, this is considered a great victory.

  This pattern of behavior is typical among Muslims even today. After every terrible military failure, Muslims will still triumphantly declare their victory. The recent clash between Hezbollah and Israel is a perfect example. But beyond declaring his failure a victory, Mohammed also turned the event around by declaring to his men the gladdest tidings of his latest revelation: All of the treasures, the women, and the children f
rom the Jewish community of Khaibar would soon belong to them all! Mohammed announced that the majority of the booty and captives from any future conquests would belong to the Muslim soldiers who took part in the invasion. The incentive for Jihad had now been established, and this is where the bloodshed really began.

  The Muslims instantly became the pirates of the desert. Within only weeks of being humiliated, Mohammed began attacking and pillaging several very wealthy Jewish villages. The Muslims who participated in these attacks reveled in their new found wealth as well as the many women and children that they took as slaves. Mohammed was also allegedly told by Allah that it was okay to use the captured women as sex-slaves—and this law still stands to this day. When other non-Muslim Arabs saw all the Muslims enjoying their wealth and slaves, the new converts suddenly began to pour into this Nimrod’s religion like a mighty river. In the immediate period after this, the growth and expansion of the young Muslim movement was staggering.

  Early biographies of Mohammed attribute this expansion directly to the period of peace that the Muslims enjoyed as a result of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. Alfred Guillame in The Life of Mohammed writes “He (Allah) has wrought a near victory, the peace of al-Hudaybiyya. No previous victory in Islam was greater than this…In those two years double as many or more than double as many entered Islam as ever before.”95

  When the Treaty was made, the Muslims were less than 1,500, but within a mere two years the Muslim men alone were 10,000 strong. Between the Quraysh and the Muslims, the Muslims suddenly were the larger and more powerful group. So despite the ten-year peace treaty that Mohammed had agreed to, it was time for the Quraysh to pay. Mohammed and the Muslims wasted no time in breaking their end of the treaty. They attacked Mecca and the power of the Quraysh tribe was shattered. The Muslims were now the undisputed rulers of both Mecca and Medina.

  The point of course in recalling all of this history is to demonstrate the certain fact that Mohammed was a brazen opportunist and a Nimrodian revolutionist. But he is also the supreme example for all Muslims today. As such, to this very day, Muslims do not view peace treaties in the same way that most people understand a “peace-treaty.” To the Muslim mind, treaties are not binding agreements, but rather opportunities to grow stronger or buy time or to appear peaceful while preparing for war. But make no mistake, making peace treaties with the infidels simply for the sake of peace is never the ultimate goal. The only goal of Islam is victory over the whole world. Concepts such as honor, ethics, or obligations are afforded only a secondary importance against the supreme importance that is given to establishing the supremacy and domination of Islam throughout the whole world.

  Muslims today all clearly understand “Hudaibiya” to be a code-word, which in brief means, “kiss the hand of your enemy until you have the opportunity to cut it off,” or as the common Arabic saying goes “kiss the dog’s mouth until you get what you need from him.” Do not be deceived.

  HUDAIBIYAH AS A MODERN MUSLIM POLITICAL TOOL

  If you don’t believe that anyone could be this blatantly subversive, then consider this: In May of 1994, Yasser Arafat addressed a group of Muslims in Johannesburg, South Africa. What Arafat didn’t know was that he was being secretly recorded. At that time, things were looking really good for the Middle East Peace Process. Many felt as though tensions were winding down. But Arafat revealed the truth when he spoke of the ongoing “Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.” Those Israelis who had trusted Arafat’s previous promises of peace and good-will were shocked. But even more damning were Arafat’s references to the Treaty of Hudaibyah. Referring to the Peace Agreement that he had only recently made with Israel, Arafat said “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Mohammed and the Quraysh in Mecca…The prophet had been right to insist on the agreement, for it helped him defeat the Quraysh and take over their city of Mecca. In a similar spirit, we now accept the peace agreement, but [only in order] to continue on the road to Jerusalem.”96

  In actuality, Arafat frequently made reference to the Treaty of Hudaibiyah and clearly expressed that it was a model for his own so-called “diplomacy.” Though this allusion to the Treaty of Hudaibiyah was obscure to non-Muslims, Muslims were very familiar with it. Mentioning the Treaty in Johannesburg and often afterwards was Arafat’s method of sending a clandestine message about his intentions toward Israel to his co-religionists. This is a common practice by Muslim leaders, but never when they know that “the enemy is listening.” Only recently, the Malaysian Prime minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad was also caught discussing the Treaty of Hudaibiyah as his model for diplomacy. “At Hudaibiyah Mohammed was prepared to accept an unfair treaty, against the wishes of his companions and followers. During the peace that followed he consolidated his strength and eventually he was able to enter Mecca and claim it for Islam…For well over half a century we have fought over Palestine. What have we achieved? Nothing. We are worse off than before. If we had paused to think then we could have devised a plan, a strategy that can win us final victory…The Qur’an tells us that when the enemy sues for peace we must react positively. True the treaty offered is not favorable to us. But we can negotiate. The Prophet did, at Hudaibiyah. And in the end he triumphed…The enemy will probably welcome these proposals.”97

  The Lure—Islam is Peace

  AMAZING CONTRADICTIONS

  Westerners always inquire and struggle to find moderate Muslims. Do they exist? If so, where are their Arabic websites? How many are there? If they exist, why are they only in English? Why do they only partially quote Muslim jurisprudence?

  If one studies Islam carefully one would find two sets of codes, some abrogated Qur’anic verses and commands for peace used whenever objections against violence in Islam arise. Then you have other commands, exclusively for Muslims.

  Muslims are quick to dish out fantastic quotes from Islamic sources claiming that Jihad means self-defense: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.” (Qur’an 2:190) Or the favorite, “Ten Commandments of Jihad” used by moderate imposters who quote Caliph Abu Bakr upon commissioning Muslims for Jihad expansions: “Listen and obey the following ten commands and instructions: Do not betray any one (if you give a pledge). Do not ever steal from the war booties. Do not breach your pledge of allegiance. Do not mutilate the body of the killed enemy fighters or deceased. Do not kill a child or a minor. Do not kill an elderly man or woman. Do not kill a woman. Do not pull out a date palm tree (or any other trees) and do not burn it either. Do not cut or destroy a fruit tree. Do not slaughter a female sheep, a cow, or a camel except for your (required) food. You surely will pass by some people who isolate themselves and are secluded for worship of Allah as monks and else, thus leave them alone and do not disturb them ever. You will, surely, stop at some people on the road, who will bring forth for you all types of food dishes. Whenever you eat their food utter the name of Allah each time you eat. You will, surely, pass by a group of people who shaved the hair in the center of their heads, and left the surrounding hair long braids. Go ahead; kill these people as they are the fighters and worriers who carry their swords against you, of the enemies. Go ahead, with the name of Allah.”98

  Isn’t there a contradiction between “Jihad expansion” and all this talk of loving captive peoples? Why invade them in the first place? What transgression did Jerusalem do to Arabia to deserve Omar’s invasion? Were the Muslims truly defending themselves when they invaded Spain? Then you have the most amazing contradiction from Al-Ghazali: One must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year…one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book—Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees…One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever th
ey decide…they may steal as much food as they need.”99

  Professor Khalil Muhammad in a dialogue with me gave such loving quotes using Al-Ghazali the famous theologian, philosopher, and paragon of mystical Sufism, who is regularly quoted by the so called moderates as a prime example of moderate Islam. Even Western scholars like the eminent W. M. Watt describes Al-Ghazali as “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Mohammed, and he is by no means unworthy of that dignity.”

  Had Westerners studied Al-Ghazali regarding Jihad and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples, perhaps they would have not been deceived by peace.

  Contemporary scholar Bassam Tibi sums it up this way: “At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world.100 ‘We have sent you forth to all mankind’ (Qur’an 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da’wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them.”101

  Sure, Islam means peace—but only after submission.

  GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT

  Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but love since only through Islam can we attain peace. In other words, “We are invading you for your own ultimate good.”

  “Yeah Right.”

  The resort to force to disseminate Islam, at least in the view of Muslims, is not harb (war), but rather they are seen as an act of bringing non-Muslims into “the house of peace” through what Islam calls futuhat; acts of “opening” the world to the peace of Islam. Ironically, Islam calls itself “The house of Peace” (Dar al-Islam), even though, the word Islam literally means submission, and it calls the non-Muslim world (who truly wants peace with Islam) “The house of War” (Dar al-harb). In other words, Islam says to the non-Muslim world, “Because you are such terrible war-mongers, we must attack and utterly conquer you.” According to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists, unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the Da’wa (Islamic evangelism), are blamed for this constant state of war, for the Da’wa can be pursued peacefully if the subjects for Da’wa will only willingly submit. In other words, those who do not roll over and allow Islamic domination are the ones that cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak, is Hudna (temporary truce) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of “temporary”).102