Question: “Peaceful settlement is better” (Nisa 4:128) reads a Qur’anic verse. What are the messages to be drawn from this verse?

Answer: The basic factor that lies in the basis of clashes and fights today is entanglement with oneself. Everybody is seeking to establish their own model of the individual, family, city, state, and world. In a world where everybody runs after their own model and structure it is not possible to meet in the middle with a compromise. Accordingly, when every intellectual, movement, and state envisions some ideas and systems of theirs, they take these as the sole criteria and expect others to comply with them too, it will obviously result in such a mess. Unfortunately, such a reality underlies behind the tensions, disorder, and confusion we experience today.

Tolerance and clemency

The best elixir to solve these confusions is tolerance and clemency, being open to agreement and reconciliation with almost everybody, and our readiness to engage in dialogue with others. To realize that, we need to shake off our own caprices, greed, and the diseases of asserting their own feelings and thoughts as the only right way to go. Doubtlessly, this depends upon a person’s ability to break free of arrogance, destroy the egotism of “I,” and take some rest in the stopover of “us,” and then journey onto “Him” (to God) afterwards.

It is very difficult for those taken by their egotism, considerations of affiliation, or by love of their groups to stand open to peace and meet different ideas with respect. As far as they hold the benefits of their own group above everything else and cannot rid themselves of bigotry, they cannot form strategies of peace for the good of humanity. Actually, it is very difficult to say that those people ever have such a goal in mind since they are consistently so uncompromising to diversity.

In the globalizing world of our time, there is no other alternative than tolerance and dialogue in order for humanity to live in peace. As for letting a culture of tolerance prevail, it is necessary for both individuals and societies to give up seeing themselves as the absolute representatives of truth and to always deem the possibility that other’s thoughts and approaches can also be correct. Even if different ideas and thoughts are not completely true, it should not be forgotten that there may be a grain of truth in them at least. Remember the statements of Said Nursi who said that there is a grain of truth even in the Mu‘tazilite and Fatalist (Jabriya) schools of thought, but that these sects went wrong since they saw the truth as exclusive to themselves.

Today, everyone has a peculiar “correct” viewpoint of their own, and others’ opinions are wrongfor the sole reason that they belong to others. Such a bias does not allow suitable grounds to discuss whether they are correct or not. We sometimes try to defend ideas even we don’t believe.

Peace begins in the family

Actually, by decreeing that “peaceful settlement is better” (Nisa 4:128) the Qur’an invites people to reconciliation and agreement, to accept that there can also be a share of truth in others’ statements and actions. As is known, this verse was revealed about the family, the smallest molecule of society. God Almighty showed the way to be followed against occasional discord and situations between spouses; He taught that they are not supposed to consider divorce right away but instead it is necessary to seek mutual agreement while preserving the family.

Given that the Qur’an demands resolving dents and fissures by peaceful means, even in a familial level, approaching problems at the scope of a town, city, state, or world with peace will be much more desirable.

In this respect, no matter which aspect of society is concerned, the duty that falls upon people is being in pursuit of maintaining peace and all of the beneficial and good byproducts that come from peaceful means. The fact that people have different religions, cultures, ethnical identities, and worldviews should not be seen as an obstacle to this issue. It must be shown that peaceful coexistence is possible even between people who follow different religions or who do not believe in any religion.

Therefore, it is necessary to develop projects for maintaining such a general peace and to develop reasonable strategies because maintaining that is not as easy as it might seem. The maintenance of peace calls for very serious efforts and endeavors. On the way to obtain such an important outcome, sometimes it is necessary to be ready to forget certain fights that occurred in the past, to be ready to forgive, and to make concessions when needed. In short, it is needed to forbear everything possible for the sake of letting people live together in an atmosphere of peace. Of course, while doing so no one should compromise the honor of a people or nation.

Obstacles are overcome with mature people

It is only those alive with regards to their spirit, heart, senses, feelings, and thoughts who will succeed at building a spirit of unity and a culture of reconciliation in society. Those with high spirit can spark vibrancy in others, too. For people who have reached a serious level of satiation, satisfaction, and contentment in the spiritual sense, even very big problems become very little. Such people even pass over enormous trenches with the ease of jumping over little pits. However, as for a person who has not been able to break free from their ego, who has not been able to abandon being physical-oriented, and who has not been saved from being directed by fancies and desires, in short, a person who has not started journeying into the life degrees of the heart and spirit will not do much for the peace and happiness of humanity.

This is a significant reason for the breakings, cracks, conflicts, and fights that are happening in our time. People who are not sufficiently mature are so touchy and easily offended by even the slightest things. As they have not been able to rid themselves of their roughness, they get offended and hurt right away when they cannot find the looks they desired and the attitudes that they expected. If someone gives them a nudge in the ribs to invigorate, warn, or to stimulate them, they react as if they were hurt with a spear.

The duty that falls to believers is not being heartbroken even in the face of offensive behavior. Instead of accusing those who behave negatively and making negative assumptions about them, they should turn to God and say: “O God, we are probably facing these difficulties because of our failure to be properly righteous; please set them, and us, right!”

One must be very determined about not being heart broken and offended by anyone. If we devoted ourselves to serving humanity, then it is necessary to lay our heads under their feet with utter self-sacrifice. To put it in the words of Seyyid Nigari:

“Will one who seeks the Beloved be concerned for his own life?
And will one concerned for his own life be in quest of the Beloved?”

I think this is the very thought to let humanity, which has miserably doubled up, to straighten up again.

As is known, the noble Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) positioned a group of archers before the Battle of Uhud on a hill and gave strict instructions that they were not supposed to leave their position no matter what happened. However, most of the archers who had not grasped the critical importance of precision at following the orders left their positions upon seeing the enemy fleeing the ground; they thought that their duty was over. It is after this point that the Muslims were surrounded from behind with a new maneuver by the polytheist army and received a very serious blow. Even the noble Prophet received an injury to his blessed head and his tooth was broken. But he gathered his Companions again as if nothing had happened and held a consultation with them. He did not embarrass them by mentioning their fault and did not reproach them in the slightest degree. What a breeze of kindness that was!

Who knows how humiliated they felt because of the judgmental error they had made. By means of referring to their consultation again about the new steps to be taken, he relieved the hearts of his Companions who were aware of their fault and were suffering with due remorse. This is the way to spur heroism in spirits and to mend the breakages and cracks that occur.

The Peace of Hudaybiya

At this point, I think most people will not help but remember the treaty of Hudaybiya, because the noble Prophet had made concessions upon concessions for the sake of making that treaty. Although accepting some of the articles was so hard on him, he forbore with that solely for the sake of maintaining reconciliation and forming an atmosphere of peace.

While departing from Medina, the Messenger of God had promised to his Companions a pilgrimage visit to the holy Ka‘ba. For the sake of realizing this promise, they had covered a distance of more than 400 km riding their horses and camels and come to the vicinity of Mecca. They had even put on their ihram garbs for this visit and taken their sacrifices with them. However, the polytheists of Mecca accosted them in Hudaybiya and said, “we neither let you enter Mecca, nor do we let you visit the Ka‘ba.” Thanks to the endeavors and prophetic intelligence of God’s Messenger, the polytheists were convinced to sign the peace treaty of Hudaybiya. However, they also stipulated as an article of the treaty that the Muslims would go back without observing their pilgrimage visit. This was very heavy on the Companions who had been homesick for Mecca and the Ka‘ba for eight years. So much so that they reminded the noble Prophet about the promise he had made but received the answer that he had not specified it to be in that year, but they also received a promise from him that they would observe it the following year. It is not so difficult to imagine how much this situation must have hurt the Prophet, the paragon of kindness.

During this confrontation at Hudaybiya, the Meccan commander Khalid ibn Walid, who had not become a Muslim then, kept spurring his horse here and there in a manner of challenging the Muslims, and he even tried to provoke them. In addition, Mecca’s representative Suhayl ibn Amr objected to the title “Messenger of God” to be written in the treaty and they stipulated the noble Prophet’s name to be written as “Muhammad, son of Abdullah.” In the meantime, the same Suhayl ibn Amr’s son Abu Jandal, who had been imprisoned by his father broke free and came up until Hudaybiya in a pitiable condition by dragging the shackles on his leg. He sought refuge with the Messenger of God. However, the father demanded his son to be given back to him as required by the treaty and for the sake of not upsetting the established peace, God’s Messenger had to accept it unwillingly.

Note that all of these conditions were not to be accepted easily. The more so when the noble Prophet is concerned, a person with such a high degree of honor, dignity, and esteem; because great personages have sensitivity and caring beyond our estimation. Nevertheless, the Qur’anic statement meaning, “It may be that you (O Messenger) will torment yourself to death because they refuse to believe” (Shuara 26:3) also expresses his lofty degree of caring. However, the Messenger of God managed to suppress all of these by exercising an extraordinary degree of self-possession. He did not make these offenses a matter of honor.

In a way, this meant having a holistic perspective and seeing very well the beautiful future that peace and tolerance promised. With this attitude, the Pride of Humanity was at the same time giving Muslims a lesson that they should not be obstinate at certain matters, not act for the sake of their ego, to keep away from superficial and casual evaluations, from being farsighted, not being offensive to others, and from not generating problems in the future by resorting to brutality and violence. This is the way to keep away from intertwined troubles and spiral of problems.

The Treaty of Hudaybiya Is the Conquest

Such are the heavy conditions that the peace treaty of Hudaybiya was signed under. This had felt hurtful to the dignity and honor of Muslims. However, the Qur’an gave the glad tidings that this treaty was a plain victory and the results of the treaty also proved this. Only after this treaty was it that Muslims had an opportunity to travel freely and express themselves in the Arabian Peninsula, grudge, hatred, and animosities abated, many people got to know Muslims more closely.

Based upon this practice, we can say the following: If contemporary Muslims as well want to build such an atmosphere of peace in their country and abroad then they must know to make serious sacrifices. If they cannot tolerate certain unpleasant situations that they do not approve of but always bring their honor and pride to the fore, then they will be deprived of large-scale examples of goodness to be obtained by means of peace.

If the conditions of the contemporary world are considered, it will be seen that the humanity is in dire need of such agreement and reconciliation more than ever. Because solving so many gangrenous problems, saving countries from disintegration, and maintaining security of roads are dependent on this. In this respect, the logic and reasoning in the peace of Hudaybiya need be comprehended and practiced very well.

This article is mostly based on the book of the Spanish historian and paleontologist, Ignacio Olagüe, La Revolución Islámica en Occidente (The Islamic Revolution in the West), also translated into French as Les arabes n’ont jamais envahi l’Espagne (The Arabs Never Invaded Spain), which portrays some of the ideas of the historian and philologist Americo Castro, especially known for his writings about convivencia.

According to the way that history is taught in most Spanish schools, the Moors invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 711 AD. Here, the following question can be asked: Who did the Moors invade? In order to understand this, it is important to give a background of the inhabitants of Hispania at the time. The Iberian Peninsula was populated by Celts, Iberians, Sephardic Jews, Romans and Visigoths. The majority of Visigoths were Unitarian, meaning that they believed in only one God and were waiting the coming of the Messiah. They also saw Jesus as a Prophet. The rulers of Hispania in 711 AD were Visigoths as well. However, it was a civilization that constantly used force as a means of controlling the citizens of the peninsula, which resulted incessant instability. It was at this time that the Arabs, according to many historians, invaded Hispania.

De la Guardia² states that “in no way were the newcomers all Arabs.”³ The leaders came from Damascus, but they were only a few, and the majority that arrived in Hispania were Muslim Berbers. She later added, as well as Dr. Francisco Layna, author and professor of Harvard University: “Everybody that studies history at any university is aware that there was not an Arab invasion in 711 AD. The Gibraltar Canal that separates Morocco from Spain has always been known as a tool for merchants to trade on both the Spanish and Moroccan Coast. Hence, this was not the first time that the Berbers had visited Spain.”4

We can also ask if the Arabs were in a condition to invade Spain in 711 AD or not. In the middle of the eighth century the Berbers brought the Arabs’ progress to a halt twice and this suspended the conquest of Northern Africa for another fifty years. Hence, the Arabs that came to Northern Africa were weak and few and therefore could never have invaded Hispania.

Olagüe adds that people never take the time to think how the “invaders” of North Africa crossed the Gibraltar Canal in a blink of an eye. In other words, how were they able to conquer 544,192 km2, the most mountainous region in Europe, in three years? Even more astonishing is how the 7,000 men of General Tariq, were enough in number, to defeat Rodrigo and his people in the Battle of Guadalete. Olagüe continues: “If our math is right, each of the 25,000 Arabs was responsible for 23 km2. Since this was too easy for them, they ran to traverse the Pyrenees to dominate France.”⁵ How could a person cover 23 km2 especially in those harsh and mountainous conditions? Olagüe writes that “even if these soldiers conquered Hispania in these conditions, they would each have had 23 km2 of land and therefore would be like a needle in a haystack, compared to the other populations.”⁶ Due to these reasons, we can conclude that an Arab invasion never took place. Furthermore, if natives of the Iberian Peninsula would have resented these newcomers, Hispania would have never been Muslim, would have never planted the seeds for the Renaissance in Europe, and would have not had scientific and artistic advancements that later influenced Europe and the American continent. If it were an invasion, the natives would have forced them to leave Hispania as it occurred when Napoleon in 1807 tried to seize Spain and asked permission of the Catholic Spanish Monarchy for his French troops to pass through Spain in order to invade Portugal. However, once in Spanish territory, Napoleon declared himself Emperor of Spain. It was at this point that the Spanish population resisted and with the help of sticks and stones drove the French out of the country. This was never the case when the Muslims arrived in Spain. Actually, the natives from the Iberian Peninsula welcomed them and were happy to see someone that respected their faith and their traditions and had similar beliefs as the majority of the natives of Hispania were Unitarian Christians. They believed in only one God, saw Jesus as a Prophet and awaited the Messiah, exactly as Muslims. The following treaty was signed in 713 CE-within two years after the first organized entry of Muslims into Spain from the south under the command of Tariq ibn Ziyad-between the Arab commander Abdal-Aziz and Theodomir, the Visigothic prince of Murcia, is a proof of the freedoms the natives of Hispania enjoyed after the Arab conquests.

In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. This is the text that Abd al Aziz ibn Musa presented to Teodomiro ibn Gandaris, in virtue in which it is agreed that in the territory will be in peace by the promising it to God, His Prophets and His Messengers that this territory will be protected by God y the protection of His Messenger Muhammad- peace be upon him. Nobody will be forced, nothing will be taken away from you; Nobody will be slaves; you will not be separated from your wife or children; you lives will be respected; you will not be killed and your churches will not be burned down. You will be free to practice your own religion. (Text of the Treaty of the Visigoth Ruler of Murcia, Teodomiro and Abd Al Aziz).⁷

“In the name of God, the merciful and compassionate. This is a document [granted] by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Musá ibn Nusair to Tudmir, son of Ghabdush, establishing a treaty of peace and the promise and protection of God and his Prophet) may God bless him and grant him peace). We [‘Abd al-‘Aziz] will not set special conditions for him or for any among his men, nor harass him, nor remove him from power. His followers will not be killed or taken prisoner, nor will they be separated from their women and children. They will not be coerced in matters of religion, their churches will not be burned, nor will sacred objects be taken from the realm, [so long as] he [Tudmir] remains sincere and fulfills the [following] conditions that we have set for him. He has reached a settlement concerning seven towns: Orihuela, Valentilla, Alicante, Mula, Bigastro, Ello, and Lorca. He will not give shelter to fugitives, nor to our enemies, nor encourage any protected person to fear us, nor conceal news of our enemies. He and [each of] his men shall [also] pay one dinar every year, together with four measures of wheat, four measures of barley, four liquid measures of concentrated fruit juice, four liquid meastures of vinegar, four of honey, and four of olive oil. Slaves must each pay half of this amount. {Names of four witnesses follow, and the document is dated from the Muslim month of Rajab, in the year 94 of the Hijra (April 713).} “The Treaty of Tudmir” in Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World. ed. Barbara H. Rosenwein. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2006, p. 92.

Although there were other capitulation agreements with the same nature dating from 711, this one signed on the surrender of the city of Orihuela has survived to this date. The inhabitants of the conquered territories of Spain were suitably impressed by the tolerance which the Muslims offered them once active resistance had ceased. It is these earlier agreements and their successful implementation that prompted Theodomir and the population of Orihuela to agree to sign the treaty.⁸

If the people that arrived were not Arabs in majority, why are they referred to Arabs in Spain and why was Arabic spoken and even carved in some of their architectural beauties such as the Al-hambra in Granada? Guardia clearly states “they were not Arabs, even when the majority of Spain was Muslim. However, they adopted Arabic as their language.”? Arabic was the language of scholars and Latin was the language of soldiers. Little by little, the natives of the Iberian Peninsula adopted Arabic as their own language, even people from other faiths. In the ninth century, a Bishop of Cordoba wrote: “Many of my colleagues read poems and stories; they study their philosophies as well as the Muslim theologians in Arabic, not to refute them, but to learn how to express themselves in Arabic more correctly and elegantly.”¹⁰

Olagüe states that it took 300 years for the natives of the Iberian Peninsula to adopt and utilize the Arabic language. We can see a wonderful fusion of the jarchas, or poetry from Al-Andalus or Muslim Spain, where it can easily be seen how Arabic and Latin fused. These were love poems that were written in Arabic, and ended in Latin.

Poetry is only one of the many examples of the advances Spain experienced during this era. When in many cities of Europe people walked in streets of mud, people in Hispania walked on pavement, had a drainage and sewage system. Cordoba, once the capital of Al-Andalus, was famous for its scientific advances in medicine. Andalusians had stomach operations and very specialized cataract operations. Some specific instruments that were used at that time in medicine are still used today in the same field.

The first university in the West was founded in Cordoba, Spain. Scholars from all over the world came to gain knowledge in all the natural and social sciences such as medicine, technology for agriculture, astronomy, literature, and jurisprudence to name a few. The city of Toledo is another example of intercultural exchange, where the School of Translation efficiently contributed to the culture of mutual understanding.

Among many inventions Andalusians developed was the astrolabe which was used to determine the latitude of a ship at sea by measuring the noon altitude of the Sun or the meridian altitude of a star of known declination.¹¹ It was with the help of this astrolabe that Christopher Columbus was able to travel to the American continent in 1492.

This intercultural and multicultural convivencia between Jews, Christians and Muslims in Al-Andalus was key to the development of different sciences that later contributed to give birth to the Renaissance in Italy. When the inhabitants of Al-Andalus put emphasis on their spirituality, this was also the time when their scientific and technological advances were strongest, also influencing Catholics in later times.

Towards the last century of Muslim Spain, the Christians had adopted the majority of Muslim traditions as well as the scientific discoveries and advances that they had accomplished during more than 800 years in the Iberian Peninsula.

In conclusion, the Arab invasion is only a myth and Al Andalus was in its majority composed of natives of the Iberian Peninsula and not Arabs. This civilization that spanned across eight centuries was a unique model of respect for other cultures and religions, a model that we can learn a lot from in our times.
Islamic Caligraphy at the Alhambra Palace in Granada,Spain.

Karin de Villa is a Spanish Professor at St. Mary’s University, San Antonio, TX.

Notes

1. The Spanish Word for coexistence, also referred sometimes by Americo Castro as Las Tres Culturas or The Three Cultures: Jews, Christians and Muslims living together in peace during the Muslim rule.
2. One of the contemporary famous Historians and Chair of the University Autónoma de Madrid.
3. De La Guardia, Carmen. Lecture: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Spain and Latin America. Middlebury College: Spain, Madrid, 2006.
4. Lecture: Don Quijote, Spain: Madrid, 2006.
5. Olagüe, Ignacio. La Revolucion Islamica en Occidente. Espana: Cordoba, 2004. 36.
6. Ibid.
7. Historia de Espana, vol. 3. Historia 16 extra XV Madrid, 1980.
8. The Treaty of Orihuela. The Surrender of Orihuela, Spain, 713 C.E. http://cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty713.html.
9. De La Guardia, Carmen. Lecture: Jews, Jews, Christians and Muslims in Spain and Latin America. Middlebury College: Spain, Madrid, 2006.
10. Alvarez, Fe Bajo & Pecharroman, Julio Gil. Historia de Espana. Sociedad General Espanola de Libreria. S.A. de Alcobendas: Madrid, 1998. 48.
11. Morrison, J. The Mariner’s Astrolabe. http://www.astrolabes.org/mariner.htm. 2002.

Beyatli noticed this unusual person, and could not help asking him the reason. “I am obliged to do it. Not only I, but are all Irish men and women,” said the Irish representative. “When we suffered from famine and disease, your Ottoman ancestors shipped loads of food and monetary donations. We have never forgotten the friendly hand extended to us in our difficult times. Your nation deserves to be supported on every occasion.” Ireland was ridden with famine and disease between 1845 and 1849. Also known as the Great Hunger, this famine had lasting effects: at least one million people died due to famine-related diseases and more than one million Irish fled, mainly to the United States¹, England, Canada, and Australia. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent five ships full of food supplies and funds as charity.

However, the British administration did not give permission for these ships to enter the ports of Belfast or Dublin. Taner Baytok, former Turkish ambassador to Ireland, recounts in his memoirs that these ships secretly discharged their load in Drogheda, a town approximately 70 miles north of Dublin. In May 2, 1995, commemorating this charity, the mayor of Drogheda, Alderman Frank Goddfrey, paid honor to Baytok and erected a plaque in the Westcourt Hotel, which was then the City Hall where Turkish seamen stayed.² Baytok says he first learned of this act of charity from an article by Thomas P. O’Neill published in The Threshold magazine in 1957. The Ottoman sultan declared that he would donate 10,000, but on the orders of Queen Victoria the British Ambassador in Istanbul informed the Sultan that he shouldreduce this amount, for the Queen’s donation was only 2,000. As noted in the letter of gratitude from the “noblemen, gentlemen, and inhabitants of Ireland,” the amount donated by Sultan Abdulmecid was reduced by the Queen to one thousand pounds.

Ottoman efforts to provide food and lessen the pains of the Irish people, despite political obstacles and the long distance, certainly deserves to be appreciated.It is a case study that should be analyzed carefully, not only as historical evidence for the friendship between two nations, but also as a perfect example that differences of race, religion, or language should not prevent humanitarian aid. This generous charity from a Muslim sultan to a Christian nation is also important, particularly in our time when Muslims are often unfairly accused of human rights violations. Likewise, the appreciative plaque and overall reaction of the Irish society in return for this charity deserves to be applauded. We hope that the Turkish-Irish friendship sets a model for peace among different nations.

Notes

1. Many American presidents have been of Irish descent whose ancestors immigrated to the USA for various reasons, perhaps the famine being one of them. Among the recent American presidents from Irish descent are John F. Kennedy (1961-1963), Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969), Richard Nixon (1969-1974), Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), George W. Bush (1989-1993), and Bill Clinton (1993-2001).
2. Baytok, Taner, Dis Politikada Bir Nefes (A Breath in Foreign Politics), Remzi Kitabevi. See also Hurriyet, November 9, 2005, at http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/3497818. asp?m=1&gid=69; Tarih ve Dusunce (History and Thought), March 2003; Sabah, May 5, 1995.

Historical perspective

In European history the ‘dark ages’ encompass the period of the scholastic thinkers and go as far as the dawn of the ‘modern’ age, around the beginning of the seventeenth century after Christ. During this long period, it can fairly be said that there was no significant development in the philosophy or principles of law: The principles and rules of Roman Law were accepted without question, with very little amendment and interpretation. But the same period in the Islamic world saw significant developments in the principles and rules of law, as well as in the social and natural sciences. Europe’s ‘dark ages’ (insofar as the label is justified) were not ‘dark’ for the Islamic world.

One example of this is the development of the concept of al-Siyar or international law, the term was first used in the discourses of the great jurist, Imam Abu Hanifah. During the Abbasid Caliphate, these discourses were written down and edited by Imam Muhammad al-Shayhani in his famous Kitab al-Siyar al-Saghir and Kitab al-Siyar al-Kabir. Another example is that, in the time of ‘The Karahans’, the first Muslim Turkish state, Serahsi, the greatest jurist of his age, wrote a five-volume study of international law, Sherhu’s Siyar al Kabir (see Akgunduz,199l). During the Ottoman period, this book was recommended by Sultan Mahmut II for teaching to the Janissaries.

International law before Islam

The concept of an international law was certainly known before Islam – envoys were sent and received between states, for example. But the concept was very limited – for example, there were no recognized rules for the treatment of prisoners of war and in any case applied only to a limited number of states or city-states whose people had the same race or religion or language.

Among the ancient Greeks, international law was only recognized between the city-states of the Greek Peninsula: non-Greeks were considered ‘barbarians’. A sort of ‘League of Nations’ had been established and the principle of protection for civilian objects’ and non-combatants – which meant not destroying a town or cutting off its water supply – was acknowledged between the Greek city-states but only between them. Roman Law was likewise applied only for states which were allied by treaty to the Roman Empire: inhabitants of states not protected by such a treaty could be enslaved and their property confiscated , Roman Law did not recognize any rights for belligerents or non-belligerents in a situation of war. And Roman Law in principle and practice protected only Roman citizens (Shaw, 1991).

al-Siyar as international law

The law of Islam was the first to give formal recognition to a truly international law to manage affairs between groups of people. M. Hamidullah (1973) says that “when Islam came and founded a state of its own, the earliest name given by Muslim writers to the special branch of law dealing with war, peace and neutrality seems to have been siyar the plural form of sirah meaning conduct and behaviour.’ One of the features of al-siyar was that there was no discrimination against foreigners or non-Muslim states.

One can see that the principle of international law was enshrined from the inception of Islam. An example is the treaty of Hudaybiya which was made during the time of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him he peace. The negotiation of the articles of the agreement had ended, and the Prophet, upon him he peace, had consented for them, but the agreement had yet to be signed. Abu Jandal then came to the Muslim camp seeking refuge. When Suhail saw his son, he said to the Prophet:

‘The matter between you and me has already been settled.’ The Prophet, upon him be peace, said: ‘You speak the truth.’ On hearing that, Abu Jandal said: ‘0 Muslims, am I to be returned to the idolaters to be deprived of my religion?’ But Abu Jandal was returned to the non-Muslims according to the terms of the agreement despite the objections raised to it by many of the Companions. This event illustrates the degree of importance attached to a treaty as one of the sources of international law in Islam.

As regards the sources of international law in Islam, Abdurrahman Doi (1984) has pointed out that, as well as treaties, custom, reason and authority were also relevant. However, these terms have a different meaning from that specified in Article 38 of the statutes of the International Court of Justice. The concept of international law encompasses ‘all public functions conducted by the state or its citizens in any intercourse not necessarily subject to private regulations in the performance of the public functions.’

It is worth noting here that traditional international law does not include individuals as a subject of its rules, that is, its jurisdictional application is limited to ‘states’ only. As Shaw (1991) points out, individuals are recognized as subjects of modern international law primarily through the establishment of human rights law after World War II. In Islam by contrast, international law governed not only the conduct of the Muslim state with other states, but also the relation of non-Muslim states and non-Muslim individuals living in the Muslim state.

The impact of al-siyar as international law

There was an impact of al-siyar on the earliest European writers on international law – among them, Pierre Bellow, Ayala, Victoria, Gentiles. All came from Spain or Italy and were influenced by Islam and Muslims during the Renaissance that was, in part, a response to the impact of Islam on Christendom. Moreover, Islamic international law must have influenced Grotius, as this impact can be seen from his discovery that postiliminium was known to Muslim law (see, Doi, 1984, p.421).

Leading authorities on international law such as Oppenheim have speculated on the long gap (about a millennium) between the period of Roman Law and the period when Grotius wrote his Do Jure Belli (1623). Given that many concepts of modern international law and relations are prefigured in Islamic codes, the impact of Islamic legal concepts should and could be seen to bridge that long gap in European legal studies.

Earlier human rights declarations

In the Western tradition, fundamental human rights and freedoms have been ‘declared’ in very well known documents – among others, the Bill of Rights consequent on the English Revolution of 1689, the Bill of Rights promulgated by the state of Virginia in June 1776, the Declaration of Independence issued by American States in July 1776, the French Declaration of Rights of Men and Citizens issued by the Constituent Assembly of France in 1789. In Western thought on the subject, Sultan Abdul-Mejid’s ‘Gulhane Hatt-i Humayun’ of 1839 and Islahat Fermani of 1856, the Ottoman Imperial Restricts, are also counted as documents on international human rights, but, there is a substantial difference between them and the Western documents. The latter announced and initiated reforms in fundamental rights and freedoms; by contrast, the Ottoman documents (as Akgunduz, 1990, has pointed out) formalized in writing what had already been practised in the Ottoman Empire, i.e. in the Islamic countries. On the Gulhane Hatt-i Humayun, Kuzu (1991) points out that its prohibition of the separation of people as Muslims and non- Muslims was practically meaningless because there was no problem in the Ottoman Empire of the freedom of conscience and religious belief.

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

• AKGUNDUZ, A. (1991) Belgeler Gercekleri Konusuyor Vols 3-4, Nil Yayinlari, Izmit
• CIN, H and AKGUNDUZ, A. (1990) Turk Hukuk Tarihi Istanbul.
• DOI, A, (1984) The Islamic Law. Ta-Ha Publishers, London.
• GAUHAR, A. (1978) The Challenge of Islam. (ed), Islamic Information Services, London.
• HARRIS, n.i. (1991) Cases and Materials on International Law, Sweet & Maxwell, London.
• KUZU, a. (1992) Demokrasi – Resmi Ideoloji – Sivil Toplum’, The Magazine of
• Ankara Universtiy, Faculty of Political Sciences ,47, p.346.
• LAGUEUR, W. & RUBIN, B. (1979) (eds) The Human Rights Reader, New American Library. New York.
• MCCAUBRY, H. (1990) International Humanitarian Law: The Regulation of Armed Conflict, Dartmouth, Hants.
• SHAW, NI. N. (1991) International Law, Grotius Publications Limited, Cambridge.
• SIEGHART. p. (1986) The Lawful Rights of Mankind, Oxford University Press, Oxford.