Congressman Lantos attacks Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) treaty as “Treacherous”

Congressman Lantos attacks Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) treaty as “Treacherous”

CAIR today demanded that Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) retract and apologize for “deeply disturbing” remarks in a speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group describing a treaty signed by Prophet Muhammad as “treacherous.”

In a speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that just came to light, Lantos said:

“So let me sketch for a moment how we in Congress see the last few months. Arafat walked away from a dream deal. Apparently, his approach to the peace process was based on the Treaty of 628 at Hudaibiyah, which was a treacherous treaty. Islamic forces made truce with non-Islamic elements, and they had no intention of keeping that agreement. They went on to attack, and destroyed those with whom they had made the treaty.”

“It is deeply disturbing that an elected official defames the Islamic faith and its final Prophet. This demonstrably false smear on the Prophet Muhammad’s reputation is a common ‘talking point’ promoted by the pro-Israel lobby as justification for that state’s brutal and racist policies,” said CAIR Board Chairman Omar Ahmad.

In a letter to Lantos, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad wrote:

“The Prophet Muhammad never broke any agreement, regardless of strength or weakness. There is not one shred of evidence to back up this false allegation. With reference to authorities such as Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Saad, Al-Hakim and Bukhari, the following is an outline of the events surrounding the Treaty of Hudaybiah, the usual basis for this false allegation: 1) The Prophet and his companions were prevented by the pagan Arabs from performing their pilgrimage to Mecca (Umrah). Instead of fighting, and despite the willingness of his followers to enforce their religious rights, the Prophet chose a peaceful settlement. 2) Two years later, the pagan Arabs broke the treaty by attacking and killing 20 allies of the Muslims as they slept. It is internationally recognized that when one party breaks a treaty, the other party is released from its obligations. 3) Even after this attack, no bloody revenge was taken against those who broke the treaty. In fact, when the Muslims finally entered Mecca, amnesty was granted to nearly all former enemies. The Quran states: ‘Yes, whoever fulfills his pledge and fears Allah much; verily, then Allah loves those who are the pious.’ 3:76. Also: ‘And fulfill (every) covenant.’ 17:34”

In 1996, U.S. News & World Report editor-in-chief Mortimer Zuckerman also claimed the Prophet Muhammad had a “doctrine” of deceit in making treaties with enemies while he was weak and violating them when he was strong. In the magazine’s June 24, 1996, issue, this claim was retracted. The editors wrote: “”¦We deeply regret any ambiguity in the language; Mr. Zuckerman meant no insult. He was referring to Mr. Arafat’s reference to the Prophet and did not intend to state that this was the doctrine of the Prophet”¦it was the Meccans, not the prophet Muhammad, who broke the peace of Hudaybiah of 628.”

In 1999, Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) clarified similar offensive remarks claiming the Prophet Muhammad upheld terms of a treaty only when it was politically expedient to do so. The clarification came after Saxton’s office received hundreds of faxes, emails and phone calls from concerned Muslims.