To: lorne who wrote (461 ) 7/16/2002 1:07:36 AM From: Nadine Carroll Respond to of 3959 Thanks, lorne. I went looking for some more information on the treaty and found some explanations on some Islamic site. Naturally, they spend time explaining how the Qureish really broke the treaty first by attacking some allies of the Muslims, even though the treaty itself did not seem to forbid this. Naturally, the Prophet would never break a treaty first, etc, etc. What I found most interesting was the Islamic sites' universal assertion that the treaty was "humiliating", "favorable to the Qureish", "shameful", etc. and was only accepted by the Muslims because the Prophet must know best. Here is the treaty:TREATY WITH QURAISH (Truce of Hudaybia) Then, in the sixth year of the Hijrah, the peace of Hudaibiyah was signed between the Prophet and the Quraish on the following terms. 1. They agreed to suspend war for ten years during which time people will keep the peace and will not obstruct others. The Quraish will not wage war against the Muslims nor help others against them, but wal remain neutral in case of Muslims fighting a third party. 2. There will be no secret stealing and misappropriation. 3. Whoever wants to enter into a pact with Muhammad and conclude a treaty with him can do so. And whoever wants to enter into a pact with the Quraish and conclude a treaty with them can do so. 4. Whoever comes to Muhammad without permission of his guardian will be returned and whoever comes to the Quraish from the companions of the Prophet will not be returned. 5. Muhammad will go back this year with his companions and will enter the Ka'bah next year with his companions. He will stay there for three days and he will not enter with arms except the arms carried by travelers—swords in sheaths. Now, to my eyes, this is a straightforward non-exclusive truce, even-steven, we won't fight you and you won't fight us; we return your fugitives and you return ours; you may pray in the Ka'bah but with sidearms only. So what was humiliating about it? Then I realized -- it was humiliating precisely because it was executed on terms of equality between believers and unbelievers. That should never be; Allah says believers must rule. It's sort of surprising that it even lasted two years, really.prophetmuhammed.org Here's Arafat's speech from Johannesburg in 1994. I was wrong about the language, btw, it was in (rather fractured) English. He spends most of the speech saying that Jerusalem is not the Israeli capital, it is the Palestinian capital, and Arafat will get it back for the Palestinians:This is a message for the people, of Palestine from our populations in Jerusalem. Calling to you, everybody here, not only here, everywhere, and I'm sure sooner or later, we'll pray in Jerusalem. Together. This agreement I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhhamud and Quraysh. And you remember, Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considering the agreement of the very low class. But Muhammud had accepted it and we are accepting now this peace accord. twistedinternet.com