The Fake Treaty of Hundhaybiyah by Aaron Musa
We have seen thus far that there is NOT one practice in the entire religion of Islam that can be traced directly to the Quran – NOTONE.The five times daily prayer stands out because not only is it not mentioned in the Quran, but neither is it fully detailed in the hadith.I have already shown that the word salat in the Quran does not mean prayer at all. Some commenters have referred to unrelated words like ‘du’a’ and praise “subhanahu’ and say that these words also mean salat. This is being very dishonest. There simply is no prayer anywhere in the Quran at all. The daily prayers are plagiarised from the Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians.
The following verses also must be constantly repeated.
2:120Never will the Jews or Christians be pleased with you, until you follow their religion. Say, “Allah’s guidance is the only ˹true˺ guidance.” And if you were to follow their desires after ˹all˺ the knowledge that has come to you, there would be none to protect or help you against Allah.
3:100 O believers! If you were to follow a group of those who were given the Scripture, they would turn you back from belief to KUFFAR.
Muslims have to bear in mind that this is what the prophet taught them in the Quran. The prophet has taught them that if they follow the Jewish and Christian traditions,they become kuffar or disbelievers. This means that any hadith (like the infamous Israiliyah hadith) which say that the prophet followed the Jewish and Christian traditions are therefore automatically fake.The prophet never followed any such thing called the Israiliyah hadith.
We have also pointed out that the hadith are all fake. Talking cows, talking wolves, stones running away with Moses’ clothes, magical flying horses with wings, dipping flies in your drink as a cure are just insane delusions. Plus, the mullahs cannot refute their own records that Bukhari (d. 870 AD) never wrote down a single hadith with his own hands. The entire Bukhari collection of hadith was a cumulative work of other writers stretching over centuries, culminating 580 years later in Ibnu Hajar Askalani’s(d. 1450 AD) work in 15th century Cairo.
Here is one more item that can be added to the list of ‘It is NOT stated in the Quran’. This is the so-called Treaty of Hudhaybiyah. Not only is it not stated in the Quran but the Treaty of Hudhaybiyah which the mullahs have conjured up contradicts the Quran totally.The Treaty of Hudhaybiyah that plays such a large part in Sunni theology is a fake. It is also another false hadeeth that slanders the good name of the prophet. This treaty never happened.
The Treaty of Hudhaybiyah is a concoction which talks about an agreement between the prophet and the disbelievers (the so-called Quraysh). Here is the Treaty of Hudhaybiyah:
In drawing up the treaty, the Messenger of Allah summoned ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and told him to write, "In the name of Allah, ar-Rahman ar-Raheem." Suhayl said, "Hold it! I do not recognise ar-Rahman ar-Raheem, but write ‘In your name, O my Lord’." The Messenger of Allah told ‘Ali to write the latter and he did so. Then he said, "Write ‘This is what Muhammad the Messenger of Allah has agreed with Suhayl ibn ‘Amr’." Suhayl said, "Hold it! If I witnessed that you were Allah’s Messenger, I would not have fought you. Write your own name and the name of you father." The Messenger of Allah said, "Write ‘This is what Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah has agreed with Suhayl ibn ‘Amr’." After these opening lines the treaty between the two sides was written comprising the following clauses:
1. To lay aside from war and refrain from hostilities during the period of the truce.
3. Whosoever wished from amongst the Arabs to enter an alliance with Muhammad could do so, and he who wished to enter into an alliance with Quraysh could do so.
4. The Muslims and Muhammad’s companions had to retire from Makkah that year to return the following year when they would be free to enter Makkah and stay there three nights. They would be allowed to carry swords in their sheaths and nothing more.
5. The treaty was for a limited period of time, ten years from the date of its conclusion.
Let us focus on point number 2 of this treaty:
2. If anyone from Quraysh embraced Islam and came to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian, he would return him to Quraysh, and if anyone from Muhammad came to Quraysh, they need not return him to Muhammad.
This point alone is sufficient to demonstrate that this treaty never happened in history. It is all fake. What this treaty says is that if anyone from the disbelievers embraced Islam without the permission of his guardian and crossed over to Islam then the prophet was obliged to send them back to the disbelievers (Quraysh).
In the Quran, Allah and the prophet have said the exact opposite. Here are the relevant verses:
60:10 “O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine them: Allah knows best as to their Faith: if ye ascertain that they are Believers, thendo not send them back to the disbelievers. They are not lawful for the disbelievers, nor are the (disbelievers) lawful for them..”
Pay close attention to these words “do not send them back to the disbelievers”.
Such is the command of Allah.Certainly, women who ran away from the disbelievers would have done so without their permission. That is why they are called refugees (muhajiraat). The prophet is commanded to provide them protection. The Quran says ‘do not send them back to the disbelievers. They are not lawful for the disbelievers, nor are the (disbelievers) lawful for them’
But the Treaty of Hudaybiyah says: If anyone from Quraysh embraced Islam and came to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian, he would return him to Quraysh, and if anyone from Muhammad came to Quraysh, they need not return him to Muhammad.
The Treaty of Hudhaybiyah makes a fool of the prophet and the Muslims. This fake hadeeth has the prophet entering a treaty that is exactly opposite of what Allah COMMANDED (HUKUM) in the Quran.
Here is another verse that exposes the Treaty of Hudhaybiyah as fake:
9:6. If one amongst the mushrikeen (pagans) ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah and then escort him to a place of safety. That is because they are men without knowledge.
If a mushrikeen (pagan)asked the prophet for asylum, the prophet must grant him asylum. After that the mushrikeen must be escorted to a place of safety. The Arabic is very clear: ‘tsummaablighu ma’ manahu’ which means ‘then convey him to a place of safety’. Note carefully that the mushrikeen or pagan does not even have to convert to Islam, yet he is given full safety and protection. Compare this to the fake Treaty of Hudhaybiyahwhere Muslims converts must be returnedto the disbelievers!
So, the false Treaty of Hudhaybiyah clearly contradicts what the prophet was COMMANDEDin the Quran. It also makes a nonsense of what the prophet taught the Muslims in the following verses too:
61.2 “O you who believe! why do you say that which you do not do?
61.3 How despicable it is in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do!
In brief the prophet cannot say one thing the Quran and then say the exact opposite thing in the hadeeth. It would have been despicable indeed if in the Quran the prophet preached to the Muslims ‘do not send them back to the disbelievers (60:10)and then did the exact opposite in the Treaty of Hudhaybiyah“If anyone from Quraysh embraced Islam and came to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian, he would return him to Quraysh”.
It also goes against the entire logic of the prophet reaching out to win converts to the new religion of Islam. No one would convert to this new religion of Islam if the prophet had signed a treaty with the disbelievers which said that those who converted to Islam without the permission of the disbelievers would be forcefully sent back. The prophet would never have entered such a ridiculous treaty. The Treaty of Hudhaybiyahwas just another fake hadeeth by the mullahs.
The mullah’s false hadeeth are also replete with great battles that were fought between the disbelievers and even amongst the Muslims. However, there is no historical evidence from the periods described to verify these stories. For example, the mullahs speak with great pride that the prophet ordered the massacre of between 400 to 900 Jews of the tribe of Bani Quraiza at a place called Yathrib.
The Massacre of the Banu Qurayza – the Banu Qurayzawere a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (presently known as Medina), until the 7th century. In February/March of 627 AD, their conflict with Muhammad led to a 25-day siege of Banu Qurayza ending in the tribe's surrender. There is much debate about the number executed with some estimating that between 400-900 males were beheaded, while the Sunni hadith simply state that all male members were killed, without specifying a figure, and one woman.
The Jewish people have a reputation for recording and lamenting every single act of cruelty and violence that was committed against them throughout history. Yet strangely the Jewish people have no record of this massacre of 900 Jewish males of the Banu Qurayza. They do not even have any history (oral or written) of a Jewish tribe called the Banu Qurayza. Most certainly the false story about the Banu Qurayza was fabricated long after the prophet.
The mullahs also speak of a Battle of Jamal 656 AD (Battle of the Camel) that is alleged to have taken place between the forces of Aishah (who they say was one of the wives of the prophet) and Ali the prophet’s alleged son in law. And there was another Battle of Siffin657 AD between Muawiyah and Ali.
According to the mullahs this was the time of the great conspiracy (fitnah al qubra). These were the great fights which created the murderous split between the Sunnis and the Shias until this day.
There is certainly no historical evidence that both these battles ever took place.Firstly, the prophet is supposed to have married this child called Aishah when she was six years old. This is another improbable story and a great fitnah against the prophet.
But the story goes that after the death of Uthman, the third Caliph, Aishah wanted her own friends / relatives to become the fourth Caliph. This would go against the appointment of Ali as the fourth Caliph. In the meantime, Muawiyah had also declared himself the Caliph in Syria.
To cut short the concoction, it became all-out war. Aishah on one side and Ali on the other side at the Battle of Jamal(656 AD). Then Muawiyah on one side and Ali on the other side at the Battle of Siffin (657 AD).
Battle of Siffin
Here is an account of the events preceding the Battle of Siffin between Muawiyah and Ali.Both Muawiyah and Ali had about 100,000 troops each. Siffinwas located in Syria by the banks of the Euphrates River (near modern day Raqqa).
“In Syria, disorder and incitement to commotion continued unabated. Uthman's shirt, besmeared with his blood and the chopped-off fingers of his wife, Naila, were exhibited from the pulpit. In this manner, Muawiya raised the entire country of Syria against Ali. Ultimately, both the parties, opposed to each other, converged on Siffin where their armies pitched their camps in 37/657. Even at this stage, Ali sent three men, viz. Bashir bin Amr bin Mahz Ansari, Saeed bin Qais Hamdani and Shis bin Rabiee Tamini to Muawiya to induce him to settle for union, accord and coming together. According to Tabari (5h vol., p. 243), Muawiya replied that, "Go away from here, only the sword will decide between us."
Here is an account of the Battle of Siffin itself:
Cutting Off Water Supply - Initially, Muawiyah's forces took control of the Euphrates River, cutting off water access to Ali’s army. This was a strategic move to weaken them.
This cannot be true at all. The Euphrates (picture below) is a mighty river that is over 2,800 km long. There is no way an army of 100,000 soldiers can be prevented from drinking water from such a huge river that is 2,800 km long.
Raising the Quran on Spears - As the battle dragged on and Ali’s forces seemed to be gaining the upper hand, Muawiyah’s army raised copies of the Quran on their spears, calling for arbitration instead of further bloodshed. This tactic created division within Ali’s camp, as some of his followers insisted on accepting arbitration, while others believed it was a deceptive move. Ultimately, the arbitration led to a stalemate and weakened Ali’s position politically.
This is the equally ridiculous story of raising the Quran on spears. This was 657 AD, only one year after Uthman had been killed. Uthman was the Caliph who had just completed the writing down of the Quran.Uthman produced FOUR copies of the written down Quran(mushaf) which were sent out around the Islamic empire from which copies would be made. The mushaf were written by hand, on parchment paper that was large (a few times the size of regular type writing paper) and the fully assembled mushafwould have easily been more than six inches thick.I have seen old handwritten mushaf (800 to 950 years old) which were the size of a suitcase.
The point is those early, handwrittenmushaf were very rare and very huge books which you would not find in a soldier’s pocket or saddle bag.And yet the story says the Army of Muawiyah had many copies of these huge handwrittenmushafwhich the soldiers tied to the tips of their spears. And this was the only time in the entire Islamic history where Muslim soldiers had tied the Quran to their spears to demand for a truce. Despite hundreds of battles that were fought between Muslim armies over a thousand years of caliphates and dynasties there has never been another occurrence of such an event.
Battle of Jamal (Battle of the Camel 656 AD).
Now here is the account of the events that led to the Battle of Jamal (656 AD) between Aisha and Ali.
“Ayesha, the widow of the Holy Messenger (S), was in Makka for the pilgrimage when Uthman was killed. She had always expected either Talha or Zubayr to succeed him and when she heard of Imam Ali's (A) appointment as Caliph, she was very upset.”
She managed to recruit the support of the powerful clan of Bani Umayyah, to whom Uthman had belonged. The ex-governors of Uthman, who had been replaced by Imam Ali (A), also joined her and the ex-governor of Yemen provided her with the means of financing her war by giving her the treasure he had stolen from Yemen when he was deposed. Talha and Zubayr also joined her, despite their oath of allegiance to Imam Ali (A). Many aimless drifters were also paid to enlist in the army.
The preparations of war having been completed, Ayesha's army proceeded to Basra. Before leaving, she had asked Umme Salma, a faithful widow of the Holy Messenger (S), to accompany her. Umme Salma had indignantly refused, reminding Ayesha that the Holy Messenger (S) had said that Imam Ali (A) was his successor and whoever disobeyed him, disobeyed the Holy Messenger (S) himself.
She also reminded her of the time when he had addressed all his wives saying that the DOGS OF HAWWAB would bark at one of his wives, who would be part of a rebellious mob. She then warned Ayesha not to be fooled by the words of Talha and Zubayr who would only entangle her in wrong deeds. This advice had a sobering effect on Ayesha, who almost gave up her plan. However, her adopted son, Abdallah bin Zubayr, convinced her to go ahead.”
The Dogs of Hawwab.
The story of the Dogs of Hawwab is a dead giveaway that these narratives are fake. It’s a lame attempt to lend some credence to this story.
“She (Umme Salama) also reminded her (Aisha) of the time when he (the messenger) had addressed all his wives saying that the dogs of Hawwab would bark at one of his wives, who would be part of a rebellious mob.
Another version of this story says:
“The story of the dogs of Hawab is narrated in the Musnad Ahmed. Ahmed narrated two versions of the story. Also, the story is found in Saheeh Ibn Habban, Al-Mustadrik by Al-Hakim, and in history books”.
The story goes as follows:
“Ismail narrated from Qays who said, ‘When Ayesha approached the waters of Bani A’amir, she heard some dogs barking. Ayesha asked, ‘What is the location of these waters?’ She was answered, ‘This is the waters of the Hawwab.’ Then she said, ‘I am going back!’ Some of the people with her said, ‘No, you should go on. Then the Muslims would see you and Allah would make peace between them.’ Then she said again, ‘I heard that the messenger peace be upon him said, ‘Then what would you do (the wives of the messenger) when you hear the barking of the dogs of Al-Hawwab?’’ The messenger peace be upon him said to his wives, “Which one of you would be barked at by the dogs of Al-Hawwab?”
According to these fake hadiths, the prophet had become a seer into the future. He could see the future where one of his wives would lead a rebellion. He could predict that the dogs of Hawwab would bark at that rebellious wife. The prophet’s soothsaying abilities had identified the dog species as opposed to say camels or horses that would also be common at that place and time. The prophet could even see the exact location where the dogs would bark i.e., at a place called Hawwab. Yet the prophet could not identify exactly which one of his wives would be leading the rebellion. That part of the vision was a little cloudy!
The story line is of low quality and low intelligence. This story would make some sense if there were no dogs anywhere else in Arabia – which would have been impossible. Or the Dogs of Hawwab had never barked at anyone before – which would be equally ridiculous. Not only can barking dogs be found everywherebut most certainly dogs will bark at anyone especially an army of thousands of soldiers marching on horses, on camels and dragging all their equipment with them. Barking dogs are a very poor indicator of a rebellious wife.
The prophet also made it clear that he could not see into the future.
Sura 7:188 Say: I do not control any benefit or harm for my own soul except as Allah please; and had I known the unseen (ghayb) I would have had much good and no evil would have touched me; I am nothing but a warner and the giver of good news to a people who believe
Other translators say, ‘had I known the unseen I would have profited myself’.
Sura 52:29 “Therefore continue to remind, for by the grace of your Lord, you are not a soothsayer (kahin), or a madman”.
The prophet was not a soothsayer (kahin)and he could never see into the future. If he could see the future then surely, he would have divulged these terrible future events very accurately to his beloved wife (Aisha?), to his believing sahaba (Muawiyah?) to his beloved son in law (Ali?) so that no war and fighting would befall them.
But it was not the messenger’s job to see the future:
69:42 It is not the word of a soothsayer (kahin); little is it that you mind.
Certainly, the messenger could not predict that the Dogs of Hawwab would bark at one of his wives. All this talk about the Dogs of Hawwab is just fake.
The Quran also says:
8:62 And if they intend to deceive you -- then surely Allah is sufficient for you; He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the believers
8:63 And united their hearts; had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely, He is Mighty, Wise.
8:64 O Messenger! Allah is sufficient for you and the believers that follow you.
These verses were especially relevant to the prophet and the early Muslims during the early years of Islam. The Quran assures the prophet and the believers with him that Allah had united the hearts of the companions who were with him. This would certainly include Aisha, Ali, Uthman, Muawiyah and others (if they really existed at all).
If any Muslim then or now doubted this then the Quran reiterates the position: “had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely He is Mighty, Wise”.
Their hearts had been united. But the mullahs are telling the Sunnis that as soon as the prophet died all these promises in the Quran went out the window. It became a brawl in the desert with Ali, Muawiyah, Aisha, Thalha, Zubayr and so many others all having a go at each other.
The Quran also lays down the LAW about the relationship between the prophet, his wives and the believers.
33:6 The Messenger has a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves, and his WIVES ARE AS THEIR MOTHERS.
The prophet’s wives were like mothers to the believers. Such is their high status. Yet the mullahs will have us believe that Aisha ‘the mother of the Believers’ together with some other companions went tooth and nail against Ali and his supporters.
These are all fabrications and lies by the mullahs. The truth was that the companions whose hearts Allah had united did not go to war with each other. Neither did the prophet make any predictions about barking dogs at a place called Hawwab.The Battle of Jamal and the Battle of Siffin never happened. All these stories are just fake.
Aaron Musa is a researcher of social affairs and religion.
Comments