Treaty (Mu’ahada) Making in Islam

Abstract

This study explores the concept and practice of treaty-making within the Islamic tradition, delving into its theological, legal, and historical underpinnings. The study highlights the principles and processes that have governed treaty-making in Islam by examining key sources such as the Qur’an, Hadith, and classical Islamic jurisprudence. The research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the drafting, negotiation, and implementation of treaties within an Islamic context, focusing on the ethical and legal norms that guided Muslim rulers and states in their engagements with Muslim and non-Muslim entities. Through analysis of notable historical treaties and the jurisprudential debates surrounding them, the study underscores the significance of treaties in Islamic governance and diplomacy, offering insights into how these practices have evolved.

1. Introduction

Over the centuries, Islamic nations have engaged in the practice of entering into agreements and treaties with non-Muslim nations (Bsoul 2008, p. 107). In Islam, treaties or “covenants” possess significant authority. For instance, a covenant with God implies committing to specific actions. The concept of covenant also includes loyalty, as highlighted in the Qur’an:

We did not find most of them true to their covenant. Rather, We found most of them truly rebellious.

Q. 7: 102

Ibn Qudamah (d. 630/1234), supports the legal validity of treaties, underscoring the importance of adhering to agreements,1 as based on the Qur’anic verse:

Honor Allah’s covenant when you make a pledge and do not break your oaths after confirming them, having made Allah your guarantor. Surely Allah knows all you do.

Q. 16: 91

The Qur’an and hadiths stress the importance of fulfilling covenants. A Qur’anic verse reads,

O believers! Honor your obligations…

Q. 5: 1

Furthermore, keeping one’s word and promises are listed among the attributes of the believers, while breaking promises is one of the hypocrites’ attributes.2 The historical and legal precedent for Islamic treaty-making is based on the Prophet Muhammad’s conduct. When the Prophet arrived at Medina, he concluded a truce with the city’s Arab and Jewish tribes, known as the Constitution of Medina (See, Anjum 2024). He then later conducted a sulh at Hudaibiyya with the people of Mecca on 6/628, which will be discussed in further detail. The Prophet, peace be upon him, before revelation, also attended Hilf al-Fuzul (the confederation pact) of Makka before revelation and sanctioned pre-Islamic alliances, demonstrating the importance of maintaining agreements.3

The Prophet Muhammad urged people to honor agreements with non-believers, even in challenging circumstances, as demonstrated by Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman’s account during the Battle of Badr (Bishai 2023, pp. 51–53). Islam was the first to establish laws for international treaties, setting a precedent for fairness towards opponents (Bebbounce 1904). This tradition of honoring agreements in Islam continued through the eras, starting with the Prophet Muhammad and the Rightly Guided Caliphs (Bsoul 2013, pp. 133–34).

2. Research Gap and Objectives

Modern scholarship contains rich discussions of Islamic international law (siyar), dhimma relations, and specific historical treaties. Yet a number of gaps remain:

Fragmentation between legal and historical studies: Many works either focus on the doctrinal structure of siyar or on particular treaties, without systematically integrating doctrinal analysis with historical practice.

Limited comparative treatment of treaty forms: Existing literature often emphasizes one school or region; comprehensive and comparative analysis of different madhāhib and diverse historical experiences remains underdeveloped.

Insufficient connection to modern treaty law: While scholars have noted parallels between Islamic treaty doctrines and modern international law, the detailed comparison of Islamic principles with the contemporary law of treaties—particularly with the Vienna Convention—has not been fully elaborated.

This article seeks to address these gaps by offering an integrated study that links classical juristic doctrine, historical treaty practice, and contemporary treaty law, with particular attention to the concept and practice of muʿāhada.

3. Methodology and Theoretical Framework

Methodologically, this study combines:

Textual-juristic analysis of Qurʾan, Hadith, and classical fiqh (jurisprudence) works (especially al-Shaybānī, al-Sarakhsī, al-Māwardī, Ibn Qudāma, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Taymiyya, and others); Historical analysis of selected treaties in the Prophetic and early caliphal periods (Constitution of Medina, Ḥudaybiyya, ʿUmar’s Aelia treaty, etc.), as well as Umayyad and Abbasid practices; Comparative legal analysis that considers points of contact between Islamic treaty doctrine and aspects of modern international law, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).

The theoretical framework is tripartite:

Normative Foundations: Qurʾanic injunctions to fulfill covenants (e.g., Q. 5:1; 16:91; 8:61) and Hadith condemning ghadr (treachery) provide the ethical and legal basis of treaty-making.

Juristic Method (uṣūl al-fiqh and siyar): Classical jurists developed detailed principles on treaty formation, conditions, violation, and termination.

Ethical Principles: Concepts such as ʿadl (justice), amāna (trustworthiness), and wafāʾ bi’l-ʿahd (fulfillment of the covenant) underlie and inform all treaty engagements.

Within this frame, the article proceeds to define muʿāhada, situate it among related terms, and then examine its bases, elements, conditions, historical manifestations, and contemporary relevance.

This study investigates the concept and practice of treaty-making within the Islamic tradition by examining its theological, legal, and historical foundations. The study elucidates the principles and methodologies governing treaty-making in Islam by analyzing primary sources such as the Quran, Hadith, and classical Islamic jurisprudence.

4. Definition of Mu‘ahadat

4.1. Differentiation of Related Terms

The root of muʿāhada (مُعَاهَدَة) is ʿahd (عَهْد) from the triliteral root ʿ(‘ayn, ha, and dal), which conveys the meanings of covenant, pledge, and binding commitment.4 As a verbal noun, muʿāhada denotes the act of covenanting between two parties; as a technical legal term, it often refers to a formal treaty or covenantal agreement.5 For the purposes of this study, ʿahd is understood as a covenant, pact, or treaty that requires commitment and fulfillment upon its conclusion. Several Qurʾanic verses address ʿahd explicitly, laying the foundation for later juristic interpretation:

And fulfill the Covenant of Allah (bai‘a, the pledge for Islam) when you have covenanted.

Q. 16: 91

But if they seek your help in religion, you must help them, except against those with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance.

Q. 8: 72

The notion of ʿahd overlaps with amān (أَمَان, guarantee of safety) and dhimma (ذِمَّة, protection covenant),6 both of which are closely related to the subject at hand. ʿAhd may denote the constitutional structure or contract that binds parties together (e.g., ahl al-ʿahd), while muʿāhada indicates the act and result of entering into such a covenant between individuals, groups, or polities.7 At the international level, muʿāhada refers to a contract between two or more states or political entities intended to normalize and regulate relations among them.

Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī (d. 189/804) uses muʿāhada occasionally but more often employs related terms, such as ṣulḥ and muwādaʿa, somewhat interchangeably.8 For Shaybānī, muʿāhada is a truce between Muslims and non-Muslims for a fixed period.9 Many Ḥanafī jurists followed this definition. Al-Samarkandī, for instance, defines muʿāhada as a “reconciliation designed to end physical conflict for a fixed period, involving the payment of tribute or other conditions.” Other jurists link muʿāhada to amān or istiʾmān (seeking safety),10 and sometimes use the term muhāwada or muhādanah to describe similar arrangements.11

4.2. Differentiation of Related Terms

Because the terms used in Islamic legal and historical sources are multiple and nuanced, it is important to differentiate them:

ʿAhd (عَهْد): A general covenant or pledge, which may be between God and humans, between individuals, or between communities. It carries strong ethical and religious weight. Mīthāq (مِيثَاق): A solemn, reinforced covenant, often used to describe especially binding or sacred commitments.

Ṣulḥ (صُلْح): A peace agreement or reconciliation that ends conflict or litigation; in international relations, ṣulḥ is a primary term for peace treaties. Hudna (هُدْنَة): A temporary truce or ceasefire for a specified period, suspending but not necessarily resolving conflict. Muwādaʿa (مُوَادَعَة): A non-aggression pact or peace arrangement that suspends hostilities; often treated as closely related to, or a sub-species of, ṣulḥ. Dhimma (ذِمَّة): A covenant of protection granted to non-Muslim subjects residing under Muslim rule, guaranteeing life, property, and religious freedom in return for tribute (jizya) and acknowledgment of Muslim political authority. Amān (أَمَان): A grant of safe-conduct or protection for individuals or groups, often temporary, permitting entry into Muslim territory or protection from hostilities. Muʿāhada (مُعَاهَدَة): A formal treaty or covenant between states or political entities; in many contexts, this is the closest analogue to modern “international treaty.” While the boundaries between these categories may shift in particular texts and periods, the juristic effort to distinguish them indicates the sophistication of Islamic treaty theory.12

In modern international law, the Arabic term muʿāhada is often reserved for full-fledged international treaties—especially major political agreements such as peace treaties, alliances, and multilateral conventions. By contrast, economic agreements may be referred to with terms such as ʿahd or mīthāq, and certain forms of political engagement are associated with mithāq, iʿlān (declaration), or muʾtamar (charter) (Zacher 1992; Karns and Mingst 2010; Keohane 1984; Chinkin 1993; Panke and Petersohn 2011).

5. The Basis of Mu‘ahadat

According to Shaybānī, two principal conditions govern the permissibility of concluding muʿāhadāt with non-Muslims, both oriented toward preserving the welfare, honor, and dignity of Muslims.13

The first condition relates to the relative power of Muslims. If Muslims hold a clear advantage, Shaybānī cautions against seeking muwādaʿa merely for convenience, citing:

So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemy of Islam), while you have the upper hand. Allah is with you and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.

Q. 47: 35

The second condition applies when Muslims do not enjoy such superiority. In that case, seeking muwādaʿa is permissible if it serves the interests of the Muslim community.14 The Qurʾan validates this:

But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.

Q. 8: 61

Jurists infer that if non-Muslims incline toward peace, Muslims may respond favorably; moreover, if muwādaʿa clearly serves Muslim interests, Muslims may even take the initiative in proposing a treaty.15

Another basis for muʿāhada lies in the Prophetic practice. On entering Medina, the Prophet Muḥammad concluded a covenant (often characterized as a muwādaʿa) with the Jewish tribes and local Arab clans, the Constitution of Medina.16 The paradigmatic precedent, however, is the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyya (6/628), concluded between the Prophet and the Meccan leadership. This ṣulḥ specified a ten-year cessation of hostilities, prohibited theft and betrayal, and contained controversial clauses regarding the return of Meccan refugees.17

Classical jurists highlight that the Prophet concluded multiple such covenants with non-Muslim tribes (e.g., Banū al-Naḍīr, Banū Qaynuqāʿ, Banū Qurayẓa) at a time when Muslims were comparatively weak.18 As Muslim strength increased and the Prophet’s authority in Medina solidified, treaties with Ahl al-Kitāb more often included the imposition of jizya. Sūrahs 8 and 9, the “Sūrahs of fighting and treaties”, contain rulings that jurists interpret in light of changing Muslim circumstances.

Thus, muʿāhadāt vary in type, status, and detailed rulings. Muslim scholars permit muʿāhada with peoples of all faiths and nationalities. Treaties may be bilateral or multilateral, as in the case of Ḥudaybiyya, where multiple tribes were affiliated with the primary signatories. Each muʿāhada is governed by conditions and rules linked to the circumstances of the Muslim community and the specific terms included in the treaty.19 The validity of any muʿāhada depends on how it is concluded and on its compliance with Islamic law. A valid treaty must meet certain elements and conditions, which the next section analyzes systematically.20

However, the validity of such treaties depends primarily on how they are concluded. A valid treaty should fulfill basic elements and conditions in the process leading to it. Each party might impose conditions that conform to its interests, which would have to be agreed upon by both parties for the treaty to be ratified. These elements and conditions fall into four main categories: the basic elements, conditions, the process of their establishment, and reservations.

6. Basic Elements of the Mu‘ahada

Classical jurists identify four broad categories relevant to the validity and soundness of muʿāhada: Basic elements (arkān), Conditions (shurūṭ), Process of establishment, Reservations, and unsound stipulations.

6.1. Basic Elements (Arkān) of the Muʿāhada

The first essential element is the ṣīgha (صيغة), the mode or form of expression which reflects the acceptance and consent of the parties, as in other contracts of Islamic jurisprudence. The ṣīgha may be explicit or implicit. An explicit expression may employ terms such as muwādaʿa, muʿāhada, muṣālaḥa, or musālama.21 Shaybānī gives the hypothetical case of a non-Muslim army besieging Muslim territory. If Muslims fear devastating loss, they may offer a tribute of, say, ten thousand dinars in exchange for withdrawal. If the enemy accepts, the explicit offer and acceptance constitute a ṣulḥ and hence a muʿāhada.

A non-explicit expression is one where the precise amount or form of tribute is not specified, yet both parties implicitly agree to cease hostilities. One condition of such an implicit ṣulḥ is the actual termination of fighting on both sides, creating an obligation of muwādaʿa.22 If the language used does not indicate any explicit amān, neither party is bound to cease hostilities, since no clear grant of amān has been given. Jurists thus insist on clarity in the ṣīgha to avoid disputes about whether a binding treaty has been concluded.23

6.2. Conditions (Shurūṭ) of a Valid Muʿāhada

For a muʿāhada to be genuine and sound, a number of conditions must be met:

6.2.1. Qualified Signatories

The Imām (or head of state) or his duly authorized deputy must conclude the muʿāhada on behalf of the Muslim community,24 provided that it serves the interests of Muslims.25 Ordinary Muslims should not unilaterally bind the community in matters of war and peace without authorization.26 Shaybānī allows that in some limited circumstances an ordinary Muslim may conclude a muwādaʿa with non-Muslims, assuming that no Muslim would do so except in the community’s best interests. Most jurists, however, reserve the authority to conclude muʿāhada to the Imām or his representatives.27 Ordinary individuals may grant ʿaqd al-amān (safe-conduct) to specific non-Muslim individuals, but not conclude full treaties.28

6.2.2. Mutual Consent

A second condition is the clear and mutual consent of both parties, as indicated in:

O you who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves unjustly except it be a trade amongst you, by mutual consent.

Q. 4: 29

If mutual consent is required in commercial transactions,29 it is a fortiori required in international treaties that concern the fate of communities and states.30 Coercion, fraud, or major error undermines consent and may invalidate the treaty’s contractual aspect. For Ḥanafī jurists, lack of genuine consent can render a treaty void even if it is formally accepted.31

6.2.3. Compliance with Qurʾan and Sunna

For a muʿāhada to be valid, its terms must not contradict the basic legal rulings of Islam. It should promote legitimate interests, prevent wrongdoing, and avoid endorsing what the law prohibits.

7. The Status of Mu‘ahada Within the Qur’an and Sunna

A Prophetic tradition states:

For the mu‘ahada to be valid, it must not contradict the legal rulings of Islam’s basic texts, i.e., the Qur’an and the Sunna. It should fall within the realm of Islamic law, prevent wrongdoing, and encourage good deeds.32 However, it is possible to follow any obligation not mentioned in the Qur’an so long as it does not contradict the Qur’an and Sunna.33 One of the Prophet’s traditions that refers to this obligation to conform to the Qur’an at the time of concluding a mu‘ahada, reads,

Every condition that has no root in the Qur’an is void.34

Shaybānī interprets this to mean that if Ahl al-ḥarb demand, as a condition of ʿaqd al-amān,

Suppose any member of the Ahl al-harb requests to make ‘aqd aman with the Muslims under the condition that if the Muslims conquer a part of their territory, they should not prevent the non-Muslims from selling alcohol or pork. Since both alcohol and pork and ribā (unlawful interest according to Islamic law) are prohibited in the Islamic ahkām, the Imām must reject such a condition. Since these activities are clearly forbidden, incorporating them into a treaty would contravene the Sharīʿa.35

The Prophet’s conduct at Ḥudaybiyya illustrates how some treaty conditions may later be overridden by revelation. One clause required the Prophet to return any Meccan who fled to Medina after the treaty. Subsequently, the verse was revealed:

If you ascertain that they are true believers, send them not back to the disbeliever.

Q. 60: 10

This verse effectively invalidated part of the treaty while leaving other clauses in force. The Imām must thus distinguish between conditions that are permissible, those that are merely disliked, and those that are outright void.36 Classical jurists agree that any muʿāhada containing provisions clearly contrary to Qurʾan and Sunna is defective. Muslims should scrutinize treaty terms before conclusion to ensure compliance.37

8. Duration and Process of Establishment

One of the central conditions of muʿāhada is the specification of duration. A treaty may be:

Temporary, limited to a defined period (months or years), or Long-term/permanent, with no explicit temporal limit.38 In either case, jurists insist that the duration, if any, be clearly expressed; ambiguity invites conflict. The Treaty of Ḥudaybiyya, which stipulated ten years of peace, became an important precedent, though Ḥanafī jurists such as Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, and Shaybānī held that the exact period is not immutable.39 The Imām determines the appropriate duration based on the interests of Muslims, and may renew or terminate the treaty accordingly.

Shaybānī also allows muwādaʿa without fixed duration in specific circumstances, for instance, when non-Muslims surrender territory but remain a potential threat.40 Other jurists, including some Mālikīs and Shāfiʿīs, are more restrictive, arguing that muwādaʿa without a definite period is not permissible and may be void.41 Despite these differences, most classical jurists outline a broadly shared process of treaty-making that includes several essential stages.

Drafting: Treaties must be formulated with clear obligations, territorial limits, and temporal scope, ensuring the avoidance of gharar (excessive uncertainty), which the Prophet explicitly forbade in all contracts (al-Ḥajjāj 2000). Al-Shaybānī notes that clarity in specifying terms (taḥdīd al-shurūṭ) is necessary for the validity of peace agreements (ṣulḥ).42 Al-Māwardī likewise stresses that ambiguity undermines enforceability and contradicts the requirements of sound governance (ṣalāḥ al-‘aqd).43

Negotiation: Negotiations must be conducted between authorized representatives who adhere to honesty and avoid deception, in line with the Prophetic prohibition of ghadr and makr (al-Ḥajjāj 2000, vol. 1, p. 99). Envoys (rusul) are granted guaranteed safety (amān), following the Prophet’s practice with emissaries of rival powers (Dāwūd n.d.). Al-Sarakhsī confirms that diplomatic envoys retain immunity from harm, even during conflict, based on the consensus of jurists.44

Delegation and Authority: Envoys may act only within the authority granted by the Imām. Agreements concluded beyond this mandate are considered mawqūf (suspended) until explicitly ratified. Al-Shaybānī states that an envoy’s acts outside authorization do not bind the polity without confirmation by the sovereign.45 Ibn Qudāmah likewise explains under the doctrine of wakālah that unauthorized commitments require approval before becoming operative.46

Ratification: The treaty becomes binding only when formally accepted by the Imām, fulfilling the Qur’anic command to honor covenants.47 Al-Sarakhsī describes ratification as transforming a tentative offer into a binding covenant (‘aqd).48 Al-Māwardī highlights ratification as part of the Imām’s responsibility for ensuring maṣlaḥah (public interest).49

Implementation and Oversight: After ratification, judges (quḍāt) and governors (wulāt) oversee implementation and dispute resolution. Al-Māwardī assigns the judiciary the responsibility of ensuring compliance with treaty terms and maintaining legal protections.50 Al-Juwaynī underscores that oversight is integral to governance and necessary for preserving order and fulfilling treaty obligations (al-Juwaynī 1979).

Among the conditions of mu‘ahada is the stipulation that the mu‘ahada should be conditioned by a fixed duration of time. Regardless of length, the period must be precisely indicated. The mu‘ahada cannot be concluded otherwise.51 The mu‘ahada can either be temporary, limited to a specific period, or a permanent treaty that is not restricted to any period, if it is indicated in the clearest of terms. This condition is explored at greater length in the following section.

9. The Permanent Mu‘ahada

Islamic rulings stipulate that a treaty cannot last forever, since it must immediately be void should the Muslims become capable of fighting the non-Muslims.52 Shaybani, however, indicates that a mu‘ahada can be permanent and not subject to annulment by Muslims on the occasion of a renewed capacity to fight, even if they can redeem all the pledges or obtain the other party’s consent.

The temporary mu‘ahada that is restricted to a fixed period:

Like any mu‘ahada, it explicitly references the period of suspension of hostilities.53 A typical, temporary mu‘ahada is thus effective for a time period such as one to three years or less—even for a few months.54 The classical jurists derived their opinion from the conduct of the Prophet in the treaty of Hudaibiyya, where the Prophet and the Meccan representative agreed to terminate fighting between them for ten years.55

However, the period specified in the case of Hudaibiyya is not, according to Abu Hanifa (d. 150/767), Abu Yusuf (d. 182/798), and Shaybani, a precedent that must be followed in all mu’ahadat. Rather, it is left to the imam to determine the period based on the interests and needs of Muslims, as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, the specified time limit can be subject to extension if it benefits Muslims. On the other hand, if it does not serve the interests of Muslims, it is not permissible for the imam to renew or extend the mu‘ahada’s duration.56

Since the Qur’an does not explicitly specify the period and even encourages Muslims to seek muwada‘a and mu‘ahada with others,

But if they are inclined to peace, you also can come to it. Q. 8: 61

Without imposing a specific duration, the Prophet’s decision to agree to a ten-year treaty in the case of Hudaibiyya indicates that the ʿilla (cause or reason)57 determining the necessary duration must be sought whenever other muʿāhadāt or muwādaʿāt are negotiated.

The mu‘ahada that is not limited by time:

According to Shaybani, a mu‘ahada in which the condition of time is not a factor is permissible in certain circumstances, though in this sense, it is better termed as muwada‘a. For instance, in a situation where non-Muslims are willing to surrender to Muslim territory, and Muslims fear their continued threat, Muslims can make an offer of sulh and offer them, for example, ten thousand dinars to withdraw from their territory.58 Sarakhsi (d. 483/1090) describes this muwada‘a as conditional on the enemy’s withdrawal.59 Hanafi, as well as some Maliki and Hanbali, jurists hold this opinion.60

However, other jurists advance the opinion that a muwada‘a is not permissible without being conditioned by a definite period. When a muwada‘a is concluded without a definite time limit, it may be considered null and void.61

Some scholars acknowledged the validity of the ‘aqd al-muwada‘a and hudna without a definite period, among them Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751/1350). These two scholars indicate that whatever is consistent with the Qur’anic text, such as the obligation to fulfill and honor the ‘aqd, or conform to the practice of the Prophet, is allowable. Muslims should under no circumstances fight against signatories to a muwada‘a or hudna unless non-Muslims are the first to violate the ‘aqd. If the ‘aqd concluded between the two parties is respected, it remains valid regardless of whether a time limit is indicated.62

Some modern scholars favor concluding a mu‘ahada without indicating a period. They view such a treaty as an extension of the concept of ‘aqd al-dhimma, to establish goodwill and friendly relationships and a peaceful environment to spread the teachings of Islam. According to them, a permanent or everlasting relationship originates in the basic principle of Islam that the external affairs of Muslims consist of peace, not war. They argue that the rulings or opinions of classical scholars were based on their own personal ijtihad (or discretion) and that rulers are permitted to override them.63 This opinion, voiced mainly by modern scholars, is not accepted by Ja‘far Abd al-Salam, who replies that a fixed time period is necessary, given the reality that history has never witnessed a mu‘ahada that lasted for a long period of time.64

10. Reservations and Unsound Conditions

Classical jurists acknowledge that parties may attach reservations or special conditions (taqyīdāt) to treaties. Some reservations are valid, such as provisions specifying territorial boundaries, time limits, or particular forms of cooperation. Others are considered invalid or void, especially those that require Muslims to violate clear legal prohibitions. For example, a condition obliging Muslims to return new Muslim converts to non-Muslim territory where they will likely be persecuted is deemed void, even if agreed upon, because it conflicts with the duty to protect fellow Muslims. Jurists such as Shaybānī argue that such conditions are non-binding, and the Imām should refuse them rather than promise what cannot be lawfully fulfilled.

According to most scholars from both the Maliki (d. 179/795) and Shafi‘i (d. 204/820) schools, one of the conditions of the mu‘ahada or muhadana should be free of unsound conditions. For instance, it is not permissible to conclude a mu‘ahada or muhadana for the return of Muslims who escaped from dar al-harb to dar al-Islam, whether they be male or female.65 This is a legally established ruling and cannot be made subject to a condition, just as it is not permitted to conclude a mu‘ahada with the condition of ransoming Muslim prisoners or on the condition of leaving some empty territory to non-Muslims.66

According to Shaybani, should the other party stipulate the return to it of a Muslim who had escaped to dar al-Islam, the condition is automatically void, and there is no need or obligation to fulfill it.67 Shaybani says that this is because the ahl al-harb torture their Muslim prisoners, and there is no point in returning them to that dar once their release has been secured. Since they cannot accept or honor this condition, giving a promise of fulfillment is prohibited. If the negotiations fail, this is not a violation of any ‘ahd. It is more important to keep Muslim prisoners safe in dar al-Islam, even if this might cause or lead to further dispute.68

Most scholars agree with the termination of a mu‘ahada if one of the conditions is defective or is no longer applicable.69 If the mu‘ahada was concluded on the condition of paying money to enemies, this is not permissible except in cases of dire necessity, for example, fear of threat or attack.70 This opinion constituted an ijma‘ among most scholars. They countenanced the conclusion of a muwada‘a that calls for paying money to ensure their safety and survival only under the most severe circumstances.71

Selected Historical Case Studies of Islamic Treaty-Making.

10.1. The Constitution of Medina (Ṣaḥīfat Al-Madīna)

The Constitution of Medina constitutes one of the earliest and most comprehensive political covenants in Islamic history. It established a multi-religious political community (umma wāḥida) composed of Muslims, Jewish tribes, and allied Arab clans. The document regulates mutual defense, arbitration, and the resolution of conflict, functioning as a proto-constitutional treaty. Classical historians such as Ibn Hishām and al-Wāqidī preserved its clauses, which jurists regard as an early model of muʿāhada operating within a hybrid domestic–international framework.72

10.2. The Treaty of Ḥudaybiyya

The Treaty of Ḥudaybiyya remains the paradigmatic example of Islamic treaty-making. Concluded between the Prophet and the Meccan chiefs, it stipulated:

• a ten-year non-aggression pact,
• freedom for tribes to align with either side,
• certain controversial terms concerning the return of Meccan refugees.

Despite appearing unfavorable to the Muslims at the time, the treaty inaugurated a period of stability that facilitated the expansion of Islam. The Qurʾān celebrated it as a “manifest victory” (Q. 48:1–3). Classical jurists—including al-Shaybānī, al-Sarakhsī, and Ibn al-Qayyim—analyze Ḥudaybiyya as a model for strategic diplomacy, long-term vision, and principled pragmatism in treaty-making.73

10.3. Treaties Under the Rightly Guided Caliphs

10.3.1. ʿUmar’s Aelia (Jerusalem) Treaty

The Aelia Treaty guaranteed the lives, property, and churches of Jerusalem’s Christian inhabitants after the city’s peaceful surrender. Versions of the treaty appear in al-Ṭabarī, Ibn al-Athīr, and al-Balādhurī, each emphasizing protection (dhimma), religious freedom, and just governance.74

10.3.2. Treaties with the People of Al-Ḥīrah

Treaties concluded by Khālid ibn al-Walīd and later ratified by ʿUmar guaranteed protection for non-Muslim Arab and Persian communities in exchange for jizya, blending dhimma-based rights with muʿāhada frameworks.75

10.3.3. Border Agreements with Byzantium and Tribal Confederations

The early caliphs also negotiated frontier truces (hudna), prisoner exchanges, and mutual non-aggression pacts with Byzantine commanders and Arab frontier tribes. These demonstrate the flexible use of muwādaʿa and ṣulḥ to stabilize borders.76

10.4. Umayyad, Abbasid, and Regional Diplomatic Practice

Umayyad and Abbasid rulers continued and expanded Islamic diplomatic traditions. Famous examples include:

10.4.1. The Baqṭ Treaty with Christian Nubia

A seventh-century treaty regulating peaceful coexistence, trade, and mutual obligations for over six centuries recorded by al-Maqrīzī and Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam.77

10.4.2. Umayyad Treaties in Al-Andalus

Treaties between Umayyad Andalusian rulers and northern Christian kingdoms are preserved in works such as Ibn Ḥayyān’s al-Muqtabis, showing adaptive muʿāhada principles in Iberian geopolitics.78

10.4.3. Abbasid Diplomatic Manual Tradition

al-Qalqashandī’s Ṣubḥ al-Aʿshā, a major chancery manual, preserves letters, treaties, and diplomatic protocols demonstrating a highly developed Islamic treaty culture.79

Violation, Nullification, and Termination of Treaties in Islamic Law.

11. Qurʾanic Foundations

The Qurʾān establishes a nuanced framework governing both the continuation and the lawful termination of treaties. On the one hand, faithfulness is required:

Except those polytheists with whom you have made a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor supported anyone against you, so fulfill your treaty with them to the end of its term.

Q. 9:4

On the other hand, when the other party engages in betrayal or open hostility, termination becomes permissible:

How can there be a treaty with the polytheists… except those with whom you made a treaty near the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them… But if they break their oaths after making a treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief…”

Q. 9:7–12, passim

These verses establish a rule-based approach to treaty violation: so long as the other party remains faithful, Muslims are obligated to uphold the treaty; treachery or material breach, however, can justify termination—yet even then, treachery (ghadr) in response is forbidden.80

12. Classical Juristic Views

Jurists such as al-Shaybānī, al-Sarakhsī, al-Māwardī, and Ibn Qudāma develop criteria for determining when and how a treaty may be terminated:

al-Shaybānī (d. 189/805)

al-Shaybānī holds that explicit breach of a stipulated condition—such as resuming hostilities or aiding an enemy—permits Muslims to suspend or terminate the treaty, but only after clear notification to avoid treachery.81

al-Sarakhsī (d. 483/1090)

al-Sarakhsī emphasizes proportionality: the Muslim response to a breach must not exceed the severity of the violation, drawing from Q. 9:12 and classical ṣulḥ doctrine.82

Al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058)

al-Māwardī discusses termination under the Imām’s mandate to protect maṣlaḥah and preserve order, noting that breach by the opposing party activates the Imām’s discretion to suspend or dissolve the covenant.83

Ibn Qudāma (d. 620/1223)

Ibn Qudāma explains in al-Mughnī that treaties remain binding as long as the other side does not violate a core condition, citing the Prophet’s conduct in the Ṣulḥ al-Ḥudaybiyya.84

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) and Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751/1350)

Both argue that treaties remain valid as long as the other party has not initiated betrayal. Initiating ghadr is absolutely forbidden, even against a hostile group, because the Prophet said: “Every betrayer will have a flag on the Day of Resurrection.”85 Ibn al-Qayyim explains that lawful termination follows a process of declaration (iʿlān) and notice, not deception.86

13. Categories of Treaty Breach (Classical Juristic Typology)

Classical jurists differentiate several categories of treaty breach, each with distinct legal implications in Islamic international law (siyar). These categories are grounded in Qurʾānic guidance (Q. 9:4, 7–12), Prophetic precedent, and juristic elaboration by authorities such as al-Shaybānī, al-Sarakhsī, Ibn Qudāma, Ibn al-Qayyim, and al-Māwardī.

13.1. Material Violation (Mukhālafat Al-Shurūṭ Al-Muʾaththira)

This refers to a direct and substantive breach of essential treaty obligations—such as resuming military aggression, mobilizing troops against Muslims, violating armistice conditions, or aiding an active enemy force. Al-Shaybānī explicitly classifies renewed hostilities as a naqḍ al-ʿahd (treaty annulment) that legally permits Muslim suspension or termination after notification.87 Al-Sarakhsī affirms that such violations undermine the treaty’s binding force.88

13.2. Covert Hostility (ʿAdāwa Khafiyya)

This includes espionage, aiding adversaries, supplying intelligence, or secretly undermining treaty obligations. Covert hostility is treated as a breach because it contradicts the principle of ṣidq (good faith). Ibn al-Qayyim states that covert betrayal falls under the Qurʾānic category of “breaking oaths after contracting them” (Q. 9:12), even when no open war has begun.89 Ibn Taymiyya similarly treats secret collusion with enemies as ghadr.90

13.3. Unjust Aggression (Baghy Ghayr Mashrūʿ)

This refers to attacking Muslims or their allies without legitimate cause, harming protected populations, or violating the security of those under treaty obligations. Al-Māwardī identifies acts of unjust aggression as grounds for dissolving the treaty since they compromise public safety (amān) and constitute perfidy.91 Ibn Qudāma also categorizes unjust aggression during a truce (hudna) as a nullification of the pact’s operative clauses.92

13.4. Failure of Protection (Taqṣīr fī Al-Ḥimāya)

This category involves failing to uphold protection owed under the treaty, including:

• Harm to envoys or diplomats,
• Failure to defend protected minorities,
• Allowing or facilitating breaches of security.

Protection of envoys is explicitly grounded in Prophetic precedent: “Envoys are not to be killed.”93 Jurists like al-Sarakhsī interpret failure to guarantee envoy safety as a serious breach because diplomatic immunity is foundational to muʿāhada.94

14. Procedure and Ethics of Termination

Classical Islamic law outlines a detailed and ethical procedure for the termination of treaties (naqḍ al-ʿahd). This framework is based on Qurʾānic injunctions, the Prophetic model, and the juristic elaborations of authorities such as al-Shaybānī, al-Sarakhsī, al-Māwardī, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Ibn Qudāma.

14.1. Investigation (Taḥqīq Al-Ḥāl)

Authorities must ascertain the facts and verify whether a genuine breach has occurred before taking any action. Al-Māwardī states that the Imām must confirm the violation and its degree because public interest (maṣlaḥah) requires certainty and evidence before dissolution.95 Al-Sarakhsī likewise stresses that no retaliatory action may be taken without establishing that the other party has indeed violated a stipulated term.96

14.2. Notification (Tablīgh Wa-Iʿlān)

Following Qurʾān 9:1–3, sudden betrayal is forbidden. The Muslim side must declare publicly that the treaty is no longer in force. Al-Shaybānī explicitly states that the Muslim ruler must announce the termination to prevent any charge of ghadr (treachery).97 Ibn al-Qayyim emphasizes that the Prophet never annulled a treaty without formal declaration, even when the other party committed hostility.98

14.3. Opportunity to Rectify (Imkān Al-Radd Wa-l-Iṣlāḥ)

If possible, the offending party should be allowed to correct the violation, particularly in the case of partial or ambiguous breaches. Ibn Taymiyya writes that the Imām should pursue reconciliation whenever feasible and give notice before dissolving the pact.99 Al-Sarakhsī similarly identifies minor or accidental violations as grounds for warning rather than immediate termination.100

14.4. Termination or Suspension (Naqḍ Aw Taʿlīq)

If the breach is serious, deliberate, and unrectified, the treaty may be lawfully suspended or terminated. Al-Shaybānī classifies such conduct as “annulment by breach” (naqḍ bi-l-mukhālafa), which authorizes Muslims to end the agreement, provided procedural justice is observed.101 Ibn Qudāma explains that termination is allowed when the essential conditions of a treaty have been violated in a way that nullifies its core purpose.102

14.5. Avoidance of Ghadr (Treachery)

Even when terminating a treaty, Muslims must avoid treachery. Any action involving deception, ambush, or misleading conduct is categorically prohibited. The Prophet said: “Every betrayer will have a banner on the Day of Resurrection” (al-Ḥajjāj 2000, vol. 1, p. 101). Ibn al-Qayyim applies this principle specifically to treaty termination, stating that deception is forbidden even when the other party is hostile.103 Ibn Taymiyya further argues that Muslims must “repudiate openly, not secretly,” because covert withdrawal from a treaty constitutes prohibited ghadr.104

15. Comparison with Modern International Treaty Law

While the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) is not binding on all Muslim-majority states, many of its core principles resonate strongly with classical Islamic doctrines on muʿāhadāt (treaty-making). Articles addressing material breach (Art. 60), fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus, Art. 62), and termination by mutual consent (Art. 54) parallel long-standing discussions found in the works of al-Shaybānī, al-Sarakhsī, al-Māwardī, Ibn Qudāma, Ibn Taymiyya, and Ibn al-Qayyim.

Classical Islamic jurists explicitly treat material violation as grounds for suspension or termination, just as Article 60 formulates the doctrine of “material breach.”105 Likewise, discussions of changing circumstances appear in Islamic jurisprudence as taḥawwul al-aḥwāl, whereby conditions essential to the treaty’s purpose no longer hold, permitting reassessment.106 Early jurists also recognized termination by mutual consent (faskh bi-l-tarāḍī), which is analogous to Article 54 of the Vienna Convention.107

However, Islamic law embeds these procedural principles within a broader moral and theological framework. Treaty observance is not merely a contractual obligation but a religious duty, grounded in revelation:

Fulfill the covenants.

Q. 17:34

O you who believe, fulfill all contracts.

Q. 5:1

This covenantal ethic (ḥifẓ al-ʿahd) is reinforced by Prophetic teachings that condemn ghadr (treachery) in absolute terms (al-Ḥajjāj 2000, vol. 1, p. 101). Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim both emphasize that termination, while lawful under specific conditions, must be undertaken openly, justly, and without deception, because betrayal is categorically prohibited in Islamic law.108

Thus, while Islamic jurisprudence shares functional similarities with modern treaty law, particularly regarding violation and termination, it grounds these rules in moral accountability, divine command, and the Prophetic model of international conduct. Rather than purely procedural or positivist norms, Islamic treaty law is part of a normative ethical system that gives primacy to justice, trustworthiness, and the sanctity of covenants.

16. Contemporary Relevance of Muʿahadat in Modern International Relations

The principles of muʿahada articulated by classical jurists continue to resonate profoundly within the contemporary international order. Although early Muslim jurists, such as al-Shaybani, al-Mawardi (d. 450/1058), and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, formulated their theories within a dual framework distinguishing dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, the ethical and legal logic underpinning these frameworks remains relevant to present-day treaty-making between Muslim and non-Muslim nations. Modern international law, embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), upholds principles already intrinsic to Islamic jurisprudence: the sanctity of covenants (hifẓ al-ʿahd), mutual consent, peaceful settlement of disputes, and the pursuit of justice (ʿadala) (See, Khadduri 1955, pp. 14–17; Mahmassani 1982, pp. 31–35).

Contemporary Muslim-majority states, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Indonesia, engage in bilateral and multilateral treaties that closely parallel the ethical standards and procedural mechanisms described in the classical siyar. The continuity between classical Islamic treaty-making and modern international practice lies in the shared emphasis on equity, reciprocity, and the fulfillment of obligations. The Qurʾanic injunction continues to serve as a moral and legal foundation for such engagements.

But if they incline to peace, then you also incline to it, and trust in God”.

Q. 8:61

In the modern context, the Mecca Charter (2019) stands out as a landmark declaration affirming coexistence, interreligious understanding, and the rejection of extremism. Issued by Muslim scholars and leaders from around the world, it encapsulates the same spirit of covenantal ethics (ʿahd) that guided early Islamic treaties.109 Similarly, the Jeddah Declaration (2023) and other initiatives under the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) reaffirm the necessity of upholding justice and cooperation among nations, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.110 These modern charters represent a revival of Islamic ethical diplomacy, grounded in maqasid al-shariʿa (the higher objectives of Islamic law), which prioritize human dignity, peace, and mutual respect.

Modern Muslim jurists such as Jaʿfar ʿAbd al-Salam, Subhi Mahmassani, and Wahba al-Zuhayli argue that the Qurʾanic command to honor covenants is not restricted by time or geography but constitutes a universal directive (al-Zuḥayli 1984, pp. 48–52; Abdel Salam 1981, pp. 54–56; Mahmassani 1966, pp. 112–16). The adaptability of muʿahada allows Muslim states to participate in global legal frameworks while preserving Islamic ethical commitments. These contemporary interpretations highlight Islam’s capacity to harmonize its legal tradition with evolving international norms, promoting a just and cooperative world order consistent with divine injunctions.

17. Conclusions

Siyar (Islamic international law) dedicates significant attention to treaties (mu‘ahadat) between Muslims and non-Muslims and their formation, duration, validity, conditions, and potential nullification. Shaybani’s works highlight that a treaty’s validity hinges on considering dar al-Islam’s interest and its relationship with dar al-harb. The emphasis is on honoring and fulfilling treaty conditions, with a strong warning against disgrace, treachery, and oppression.

Muslim scholars like Shaybani, who lived during the ‘Abbasid period, played a crucial role in developing Islamic legal principles. This period, considered the golden age of Islamic science, saw scholars derive legal opinions from Islamic jurisprudence despite occasional errors. Shaybani and other scholars like al-Awza‘i (d. 157/774) (Ibn ʿAsakir 1995), al-Thawari (d. 161/778) (Ibn Saʿd 1960), and Fazari (d. 179/795) (al-Fazari 1997), focused on establishing sound relations with non-Muslims. Siyar covers agreements such as ahl al-dhimma, ‘aqd al-dhimma, aman, musta’min, sulh, muwada’a, dar al-Islam, dar al-harb, and mu‘ahada, each regulating validity, duration, and conditions. Loyalty to treaties (‘ahd) and avoiding betrayal, treachery, and oppression were fundamental to the success of formative Islamic-period treaties.

Islamic literature on treaties contains much material that can improve international relations and be useful in avoiding bloodshed, hatred, and mistrust among present-day nation-states. Modern international law, which evolved largely in the sixteenth century under the guiding hand of Grotius, known as the father of international law, was developed and suited to Christian nations (Khadduri 1955, p. 276). Many modern non-Muslim scholars, such as Khadduri, Krousa, and Boregitshal, admit the roots of modern international law, of which many elements were derived from the works of Muslim jurists, particularly the Siyar of Shaybani. They even agree that Shaybani deserves the title of the “father” of modern public international law.111

The examined treaties, particularly those after the Treaty of Hudaibiyya, involved consultation with jurists. Their legal opinions were crucial for caliphs, ensuring their actions aligned with the Shari‘a, thus legitimizing their rule. The consensus among scholars was to maintain peaceful relations with all human beings, including non-Muslims, when it served mutual interests. This historical lesson remains relevant today, as fostering positive nation-state relations can lead to a more harmonious world.

The Qur’an, as always, is the ultimate reference that Muslims look to for guidance. Therefore, let the final words in this study be the Qur’anic passages that embody the core purpose of this study:

But if they are inclined to peace, you are also inclined to it, and [put your] trust in Allah.

Q. 8: 61

The evolution of muʿahada from its classical roots to its modern applications underscores Islam’s enduring contribution to the theory and practice of international law. The historical precedents established by the Prophet Muhammad and elaborated by jurists such as al-Shaybani, al-Sarakhsi, and Ibn Qudama remain foundational, yet flexible enough to inform modern treaty-making between Muslim and non-Muslim nations.112 The classical jurists’ emphasis on consent, justice, and the prohibition of treachery continues to resonate in contemporary treaty frameworks.

Modern agreements such as the Mecca Charter and the Jeddah Declaration exemplify the continuity of Islamic covenantal ethics in addressing today’s challenges from religious pluralism and human rights to peacebuilding and global cooperation.113 These instruments draw directly upon the Qurʾanic principle that peace and fulfillment of covenants form the basis of legitimate international relations. Likewise, the institutional role of the OIC and other regional organizations reflects the transformation of siyar principles into collective mechanisms of accountability and collaboration (al-Zuḥayli 1984, pp. 48–52).

In conclusion, the Islamic concept of muʿahada is not an artifact of the past but a dynamic and living framework capable of guiding modern diplomacy and legal interaction. By upholding the values of justice, trustworthiness, and reciprocity, Islamic jurisprudence offers not only a historical foundation for treaty-making but also a moral compass for contemporary international relations. This enduring vision confirms that the Islamic law of nations, while rooted in revelation, continues to inspire global peace and ethical engagement in the twenty-first century (Boisard 1980).