The recent and nth failure of a "truce" between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestinian Terror-tories may be confusing to most in the West as too many do not understand the difference between the Western concept of "truce" and the Islamic-Arabic execution of the concept of Hudna. Both refer to the temporary stopping of overt, physical conflict. However, there are critical differences.
Within the Western “truce” the has always been the implication that such will lead to a long term peace, often based on negotiations and an expectation that the spirit of “truce” will be more important than the letter of a truce agreement. In Western tradition, any truce violations will be considered in proportion to their seriousness, with a reluctance to totally cancel the “truce” for minor reasons.
Within (At least, Arab) “Islam”, the term “hudna” implies only a period for regeneration of powers so that the stalled conflict may be again pursued with renewed vigor--By whichever party first sees an advantage to doing so. Any, no matter how slight, violation of “hudna” is considered sufficient to allow resumption of hostilities at the convenience of the aggressor'. Mohamed himself, in his feud with the Quraysh clan set the a very, very, firm example and almost holy guideline of this use of “hudna” as a tactical ploy.
We in the West will be unwise if we put any faith, what-so-ever, in any agreements with Muslims. If the followers of Mohammed are so willing to break hudna and go about murdering each others, what can we non-Muslims expect of them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment