Islamo-Ignoramus Secretary of State John Kerry pronounced the following on the Syria negotiations: “a hudna is possible over the course of these next hrs”
Pace Kerry’s blathering stupidity, a compelling illustration of how well the U.S. Department of State once understood the true nature of jihad, and the related concept of a “hudna”—a tactical armistice for the advantage of the Muslims—as a normative Islamic institution—circa 1880 (see my, “Iran’s Final Solution For Israel”, pp. 73-75)—was provided by Edward A. Van Dyck, then US Consular Clerk at Cairo, Egypt.
From this duty of making war upon unbelievers, the Moslem jurists draw the inference that their rulers are never lastingly bound to peaces and truces made with the enemy, but can break them at pleasure. Il Hidayah, a work on Moslem law [also Hanafi], says: “Peace may be granted to unbelievers, but it is only a truce, and may be if advantageous, broken; notice, however, being previously given to the enemy of the rupture.” These jurists also hold that Moslem rulers cannot, if they wish, enter into a lasting peace, but can only make temporary truces, to be broken at pleasure by the prince and in the interest of the believers. Kuduri [Quduri], who was already quoted above, says: “If it is seen fit by the Imam (chief, ruler of the Muslims), to make peace with the enemies or with a potion of them, and it is, in the interests of the Moslems, advantageous to do, that is not wrong. But if he shall make peace with them, for a certain space of time, and should deem it for the good of the Moslems to break the covenant, he shall denounce it to them and renew the war.”…
Eighty years later, the great Lebanese scholar of Islamic Law Antoine Fattal (in 1958) elaborated on the origins of the “hudna” based upon the guiding behavior of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the armistice of Hudaibiyah—broken unilaterally when Muhammad’s Muslim votaries regained their tactical advantage.
Dhimma or dhimmitude…is one of the results of the jihad or holy war. Connected with the notion of jihad is the distinction between dar al-harb (territory or ―house of war) and dar al Islam (house of Islam). The latter includes all territories subject to Moslem authority. It is in a state of perpetual war with the dar al-harb. The inhabitants of the dar al-harb are harbis, who are not answerable to the Islamic authority and whose persons and goods are mubah, that is, at the mercy of Believers. However, when Moslems are in a subordinate state, they can negotiate a truce with the Harbis lasting no more than ten years, which they are obliged to revoke unilaterally as soon as they regain the upper hand, following the example of the Prophet after Hudaibiyya
