Non-violence and Violence in Islam: A Critical Analysis of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah and its Implications

Non-violence is not a principle of our religion. It is a tactic that might work in some times and places and not in others. The principle of our religion is to stand up for justice and truth, and sometimes that requires violence and sometimes it requires non-violence.

The Treaty of Hudaibiah was a “non-violent resistance” strategy that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) used to achieve peace and justice. The Prophet’s strategy was clear: to avoid armed confrontation and to create a situation in which his opponents would be obliged to negotiate. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was the outcome of this approach: it was a ten-year truce that gave the Muslims time to consolidate their position, to develop their institutions and their social model, and to spread their message peacefully throughout Arabia. The treaty was seen by some Muslims as a humiliation and a betrayal, as they had to abandon their pilgrimage, return any Meccan fugitives who joined them, and refrain from helping their allies who were attacked by the Quraysh. The treaty also faced opposition and resistance from some Meccans who did not want to recognize or deal with the Muslims. Moreover, the treaty was violated by the Quraysh two years later, which led to the conquest of Mecca by the Muslims. 

The Prophet (pbuh) did not fight against the unbelievers when he was weak and unable to fight. He did not fight them until God gave him permission and made him strong. He fought them only when they fought him, and he stopped when they stopped. He did not transgress the limits or oppress anyone. He was the best example of justice and mercy. He did not seek revenge or bear malice. He forgave his enemies and pardoned his oppressors. He was patient in hardship and grateful in ease. He was the most perfect of God’s creation in his morals and manners.

Non-violent resistance is no less important than violent jihad and it has proven to be more beneficial and more successful in many cases. Non-violence is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of strength and wisdom. It is a sign of knowing when to use violence and when not to use violence. It is a sign of knowing that sometimes violence will backfire and harm your cause more than help it. 

Islam uses persuasion, advice, education, good example, sympathy and kind treatment. The Islamic movement does not use force except against those who use force against it, and it does not initiate the use of force. It fights only in defence and for the sake of freedom. The duty of Muslims is to remove the oppressive political systems and establish in their place a system that enables people to live according to the Shari’ah of God.

The relationship between democracy and sharia

Democracy is often regarded as a peaceful and legitimate form of governance that respects the will of the people and protects their rights and freedoms. However, as the examples of democratic election violence in the world show, democracy can also be violent and prone to conflict. Democracy can be violent for three main reasons: the high stakes of electoral competition, the polarization of political actors and society, and the weakness of democratic institutions and norms. 

Different Muslim scholars and activists have different views on the relationship between democracy and sharia. Some argue that democracy is compatible with sharia, as long as it respects the principles and values of Islam and does not contradict the Quran and Sunnah. Others argue that democracy is incompatible with sharia, as it gives legislative authority to human beings instead of God and allows for secularism and pluralism that undermine the unity and purity of Islam. According to web search results, some examples of Muslim countries that claim to combine democracy and sharia are:

- Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world and holds regular elections and has a constitution that recognizes Islam as the official religion but also guarantees freedom of religion for other faiths. 

- Turkey, which has a secular constitution and a parliamentary system but also has a strong Islamist party that has been in power since 2002 and has implemented some policies based on Islamic values, such as banning alcohol in some public places and supporting religious education. 

- Malaysia, which has a federal system and a multi-party democracy but also has a dual legal system that applies sharia to Muslims in matters of personal law, such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and apostasy. 

However, these examples are also contested by some critics who argue that they do not fully implement sharia or that they violate human rights and democratic norms.

Syed Qutb is considered the intellectual godfather of modern Islamist movements, such as Al- Qaeda and Islamic State, that have carried out numerous violent attacks around the world. His book 'Milestones' lays out a plan to revive a true 'Muslim society' that follows a strict Quranic approach and rejects any form of secularism, democracy. He also advocates for violent jihad against the rulers who do not apply the rules of Islam, whom he labels as non-believers (kafir), and against the Western civilization that he sees as corrupt and decadent. His ideas have influenced many prominent jihadist leaders and ideologues, such as Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.