1/n So this myth needs to be broken that "The Meccans were the first to break their Treaty with Muhammad."

628 AD, the treaty of Hudaibiya was sined between Muhammad & Meccans. As per treaty Muslims were allowed to enter the city & peacefully perform the pilgrimage. https://twitter.com/Burairss/status/1330558879797702656

2/n Not even twenty four months had passed when Muhammad returned with an army & shocked the Meccans.

People like @Burairss bring excuses for Muhammad's action, as this act of him demolishes claim that: Islam is a religion of Peace.

3/n Apologists make following cases:

a)Rasul was forced into war (primary source, Ibn Ishaq says otherwise)
b)he was justified as the Meccans had violated the treaty.

Post the treaty, two squabbling tribes aligned themselves on opposite sides.

4/n A member of Tribe Banu Bakr (later allied with Mecca) is murdered by members of Tribe Khuza’a (later allied with Muhammad). In revenge, the Bakrs murder a Khuza’a. In retaliation, Khuza’a kills three members of Tribe Banu Bakr.

5/n After this bloodshed, while Khuza’a joins the Muslim alliance, Banu Bakrs join the Meccans. Banu Bakr then seeks revenge for the last murders by killing members of Khuza’a.

//These details are sourced from Ibn Ishaq//

6/n Meccans avenge after the treaty & hence they call it breach of treaty – which Muhammad then capitalized on by marching his superior forces into Mecca and establishing the authority of Islam by force.

7/n Hence, it would always appear that the Meccans were the first to violate the treaty.

The treaty’s main purpose was to allow Muslims to enter Mecca and perform the haj at the Kaaba. Muhammad always had it as main grievance (Source: Sura 2 of the Quran).

8/n Not even the staunchest apologist of Muhammad ever claimed that the people of Mecca hindered Muslim pilgrims following the treaty’s signing.

Hence, in plain words, they were faithful to the terms, making armed conflict was always unnecessary.

9/n However, even if we consider technicalities of treaty, Muhammad was actually the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya. In fact, the holy Quran too acknowledges this. Then why shouldn't a knowledgeable Muslim too?

Let me elaborate.

10/n The terms of the treaty specified that any Muslim who flees Mecca for Medina "must be returned."

But when a group of Muslims did so a few weeks after the treaty, Muhammad did not return women. He kept them.

11/n Interestingly Quran; 60.10 justifies the act of keeping back the women.

So was Muhammad given personal permission to break the treaty by Allah?

12/n I know that Muhammad's apologists would have ans for this too as: Allah gave Muhammad His personal permission to break the treaty.

Is it not a hypocrisy?

"It remains unclear as to why Allah had Muhammad sign on to treaty that were intended to be violated." Interesting!

13/n Not to be surprised when apologists next, talk of the degree of seriousness of violations. They would claim, that the killing of those tribe members allied with the Muhammad was a graver offense.

14/n Hence, it becomes clear that Muslims were murdering Meccans well after the treaty was signed and also before for revenge killings between the opposing tribes.

15/n As per Bukhari 50:891, a man named Abu Basir killed a Meccan after embracing Islam. Muhammad sent Basir to live on the coast, where he forms a group of seventy Muslims who make living by attacking Meccan caravans.

16/n Hadith says, "he and the other Muslims 'killed them and took their property.'"

Islamic Scholar Muir mentions it as, “They waylaid every caravan from Mecca (for since the truce, traffic with Syria had again sprung up) and spared the life of no one.”

17/n Attacking + killing Meccans was obviously violation of the treaty, yet the victims did not want war with Muhammad & hence did not march against him.

Yet, Muhammad jumped to attack Meccans who were not threatening him.

18/n Muhammad's adversaries wanted peace, but he wanted power.

This particular incidence establishes, the dual ethics of Islam. It clarifies that while Muhammad held others to standards which he was personally unwilling to abide.

19/n Muhammad was the first to violate the treaty of Hudaibiya.

So does that act establish the precedent that a promise to non-Muslims is not obligatory for the believer?

20/n And no one justifies it better than Abu Bakr,he is quoted in Bukhari 78.618:

"If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and make expiation for my oath."

21/n And that is where Bukhari 52.269 comes in play:

"The Prophet said: 'War is deceit'."

As per Primary sources, indeed Muhammad cheated Meccans.