Did President Obama get hoodwinked by the Iranians because of his ignorance of an ancient, time-tested negotiating tactic ingrained in Islamic law?
The president’s secular Marxist mindset, which tends to downplay the importance of religion in all aspects of politics, may have left him easy pickings for an Iranian team skilled in the art of Islamic deception, says the author of two best-selling books and a documentary about Islam’s apocalyptic ambitions.
Joel Richardson, author of the New York Times-best seller “The Islamic Antichrist” followed by “Mideast Beast,” looks at the preliminary nuclear deal between Iran and the U.S. with five other world powers and sees the markings of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad.
“If one wishes to have even a basic understanding of the underlying principles involved in Middle East politics, then one must first understand the history and implications of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah,” Richardson told WND.
He believes Obama committed a “brazenly amateur” gaffe by failing to understand who he was dealing with – an Iranian regime steeped in Islamic law.
The rules the mullahs follow trace back to the life and example of Muhammad, he said. “And one of the most important tactical victories in Muhammad’s career is what is known as the Treaty of Hudaibiyah.”
Muhammad made this treaty with the pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca, which was the most powerful tribe in the region at the time.
The Qurayshis entered into a 10-year peace pact with Muhammad and lived to regret it.
It appeared to be a lopsided treaty in favor of the Qurayshis. For instance, if one of Muhammad’s followers wanted to leave and join the Qurayshis, they were free to do so. But if one of the Qurayshis wished to become a Muslim, they were to be rejected and returned to the Quraysh.
But Muhammad saw an opportunity.
Freed from any military threat from the most powerful tribe in the region, he suddenly “received a revelation” from Allah, Richardson said.
This revelation can be found in Surah 48 of the Quran. It begins with “Surely We (Allah) have given to you a clear victory.”
With the Quravshis sidelined, Muhammad began attacking several large Jewish tribes in Arabia.
Any men who joined the Muslims in war would receive a significant share of the plunder, booty, slaves and female prisoners.
The Jewish villages fell like Dominos, and the wealth of the Jews became that of the Muslims.
Within two years, the Muslims went from about 1,200 men to more than 10,000.
Muhammad then launched a surprise attack on the Qurayshis and defeated them. The Muslims stood alone as the most powerful group in the Arabian Peninsula.
“The takeaway is that Muslims today look to the example of Muhammad and the Treaty of Hudaibiyah as one of the primary go-to strategies to defeat their enemies,” Richardson said. “Enter into a treaty, a covenant, a ceasefire. But it is only for the purpose of gaining strength to eventually defeat your enemy.
“Muslims today 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.'”
Ingrained in Islamic legal teaching
Bostom addresses the principle of Hudaibiya as it relates to the current nuclear deal in his new book, “Iran’s Final Solution for Israel.”
“It is a principle of Islamic law, that as a Muslim leader, as a Muslim society, you’re not supposed to sign a treaty for longer than 10 years. It is based on Muhammad,” Bostom told WND. “It’s a well-enshrined doctrine, and you are to enter into a deal like this only when you’re in a position of weakness.”
The deal the Obama administration negotiated with Iran expires after 10 years. Iran has been under harsh economic sanctions for decades, and oil prices have fallen to the lowest level in a decade.
Bostom says all the classical Islamic jurists have accepted Hudaibiya as a binding principle.
In fact, in December 2013, Iranian leaders talking about the negotiations with the six world powers were openly referring to Hudaibiyah.
“In my book is a very pertinent example: Within three weeks of when the initial announcement was made in December 2013 about the plan to reach an agreement an adviser to former Iranian President Khatami actually invoked the treaty of Hudaibiyah,” he said. “So you can see how it’s used to illustrate exactly this deal.”
Bostom also documents in his book that the U.S. State Department has been aware of the Islamic view of treaties with non-Muslim countries since 1880:
“Edward A. Van Dyck, then U.S. Consular Clerk at Cairo, Egypt, prepared a detailed report in August, 1880 on the history of the treaty arrangements (so-called ‘capitulations’) between the Muslim Ottoman Empire, European nations, and the much briefer U.S.-Ottoman experience. Van Dyck’s report – written specifically as a tool for State Department diplomats – opens with an informed, clear, and remarkably concise explanation of jihad and Islamic law.” (“Iran’s Final Solution for Israel, Page 74)
“The Muslim jurists teach that Muslim rulers are never to make a lasting peace with unbelievers but can only make temporary truces, ‘to be broken at the pleasure by the prince and in the interest of the believers,'” Van Dyck wrote in 1880, quoting from the works of Abu al-Hussein el-Quduri of the Hanafite School of doctors, who died in 1037 A.D.
“This is a cardinal principle of Islamic law, not just something from Muhammad’s lore or Muhammad’s past,” Bostom told WND. “This is Islamic law. Muhammad is just cited as the precedent for it, but it’s embedded in their law that you don’t engage in any sort of negotiation or treaty unless you’re in some position of weakness; otherwise, you just keep waging jihad.”
The 1880 State Department document “lays it all out there, all the facts,” Bostom said. “But that was back when we still had knowledgeable people, actually educated people, handling things in our government.”
Peace with one’s enemies is never the end-game for those who follow Islamic law, Richardson said, but the Obama administration is either ignorant of this principle or willfully cooperating with it.
Yasser Arafat caught red-handed employing Hudaibiya
He points to another case in modern history where the Hudaibiya card was played against the Israelis.
In May 1994, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat addressed a group of Muslims in Johannesburg, South Africa. Arafat didn’t know he was being secretly recorded. At this time, things were looking good for the Middle East peace process. During this speech, Arafat spoke of the ongoing “jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”
Those Israelis who had trusted Arafat’s previous promises of peace and goodwill were stunned.
But even more damaging to the peace process were Arafat’s comments about the treaty of Hudaibyah, Richardson said.
Referring to the peace pact he’d only recently made with Israel, Arafat was recorded as saying:
“I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad 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.”
‘They danced circles around our president’
The Iranian regime, perhaps better than any in the Middle East, knows how to play the long game, Richardson said.
“They are brilliant strategists. Today, they are celebrating the gullibility of the Obama administration in making such significant concessions, and agreeing (purportedly) to lift sanctions. They danced circles around our president.”
It is no coincidence that Obama’s deal with Iran last 10 years, precisely like Muhammad’s so-called treaty with the Qurayshis.
After the 10 years, the Iranians would then be free to continue work on their nuclear weapons, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
“The problem is, they will never actually stop,” Richardson said, citing a Times of Israel report. “They will continue work on day one.”
“Our president has been taken, the American people have been made fools, and the security of Israel has been sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s legacy. That legacy however is already dissipating in thin air even before the ink is dry.”
Persia comes back to bite
Carl Gallups, author of “Final Warning,” sees prophetic significance in Obama’s preliminary deal with Iran.
“The Iran/Obama ‘deal’ that has been drafted thus far appears absolutely ludicrous to many,” he told WND. “It seems as though it is an agreement only attained when the crafty ones with whom you are ‘negotiating’ get a whiff of your fear, your trepidation, your weakness.”
The comparison to the treaty of Hudaibiyah is especially profound when considering the fact that Iran is the modern name for the heartland of the ancient Persian Empire.
It is from the modern region of today’s Iran that Persian emperor Cyrus the Great united the Medes and other Iranian empires, and then further expanded Persian influence by swallowing up the decaying Babylonian empire.
“Of course, it was also from the ancient Persian Empire where the decree to ‘kill all the Jews in the land’ was signed into effect by King Artaxerxes through the plot of his viceroy, Haman,” Gallups said. “It seems to many prophecy watchers of today that those attitudes of ancient Persia might have come full circle.”
The majority of Israelis certainly fear so, re-electing Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu as their prime minister last month. A week before that election, he made the landmark speech to the U.S. Congress on March 3, which is the Fast of Esther on the Hebrew calendar.
“Who can forget Netanyahu’s biblical overtones when he addressed the U.S. Congress? In that speech, he made the direct parallel between ancient Persia, modern Iran, and Iran’s current and expressed desire to destroy Israel,” Gallups noted.
“We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago.”
Netanyahu was already aware that back in 2014 the commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Reza Naqdi, announced that Iran was escalating its efforts to arm West Bank Palestinians for war against Israel, according to the Times of Israel. He went on to declare this action would ultimately lead to Israel’s “annihilation.”
Parallels to Esther, Haman
Then there’s the fact that the six world powers and Iran announced they had reached a framework for a deal on April 2, which was Nisan 13 on the Hebrew calendar.
Esther 3:12, 13, says that on Nisan 13 the Persian king Ahasuerus was tricked by a viceroy, Haman, into signing an agreement to destroy all the Jews in the land at a future date. This was also the day before the third of three blood moons, or lunar eclipses. Blood moons often mean war is coming to Israel, according to Jewish sages.
It was not long after Netanyahu’s speech to Congress that Naqdi then proclaimed “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable.”
“It is not a new revelation to Netanyahu, or much of the rest of the world for that matter, that the ultimate destruction of Israel is Iran’s passionate and apocalyptically driven end game,” Gallups said. “Apparently, Obama missed the memo somewhere along the way. Some speculate that Obama is actually, knowingly or unknowingly, fueling the fires of that ominous and highly potential scenario.”
The opening words of the treaty of Hudaibiyah are:
“In your name, O God!
This is the treaty of peace between Muhammad Ibn Abdullah and Suhayl ibn Amr. They have agreed to allow their arms to rest for ten years. During this time each party shall be secure, and neither shall injure the other; no secret damage shall be inflicted, but honesty and honour shall prevail between them.” (Learning Islam 8. Islamic Services Foundation. 2009. P. D14.)
Those words could have easily been copied into the current Iranian “agreement,” Gallups believes.
“Now we learn, after the current Obama/Iran deal has been negotiated, that Iran will begin using its latest generation IR-8 centrifuges as soon as its nuclear deal with the world powers goes into effect.”
Netanyahu denounced the deal as a “historic mistake.”
He warned the agreement bore the terrible chance of causing “a horrific war.” The fear is that the deal will leave much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact while not addressing Iran’s support for hostile militant groups in the region.
Netanyahu also insisted that any final agreement with Iran must contain “a clear and unambiguous recognition of Israel’s right to exist.” At this point, it does not appear this stipulation is anywhere in the agreement.
Iran’s President Hassan Rohani said in a national address last Friday that the Iranians will “remain loyal and stand by the promises” they made, and that they “do not seek to deceive” the international community.
Richardson, Bostom and Gallups will be watching.