Arab Culture 101 for the Clueless Westerner: Ever Heard of Al-Hudaybiyah?

Every civilization has its own culture — rooted in the faith, beliefs, customs, and traditions of its people. When a businessman wants to operate in the Far East, he’s often briefed on cultural dos and don’ts — what not to say or do with Japanese or Chinese partners. Western professionals have learned the hard way that, for example, a Chinese person rarely says “no” outright. But that doesn’t mean the answer is yes either.

Business culture in the West differs fundamentally from that in the East. In the West, business comes first, and friendships may develop afterward. In the East, it’s the opposite: trust and personal relationships are a prerequisite before doing business. This means Westerners must be able to interpret their counterparts’ responses not through the lens of their own culture, but through the perspective of the culture they’re dealing with. Cultural misinterpretations must be avoided at all costs. What matters isn’t what John says in his language, but what Mary understands in hers.

In the Middle East, two major cultures coexist and collide: that of the Jewish people, which leans toward Western norms, and that of the Muslim Arab world. Each has its own value systems, traditions, and modes of verbal and non-verbal communication. Unlike increasingly secular Europe, religion in the Middle East is vibrant and plays a central role in both domestic and international affairs.

The secular Western man who seeks to impose his “universal” human rights—originally rooted in Catholic (from the Greek katholikos, meaning “universal”) thought—on the rich mosaic of global civilizations. It echoes the missionary efforts of his Christian ancestors who sought to spread Christianity across non-European continents, presenting it as the ultimate and unsurpassable worldview.

Today, the Western man feels compelled to intervene in global conflicts and impose peace according to his own values—this is what’s known as the “right to intervene.” Consider the conflict between Jews and Arabs over the land of Israel. Western countries and American administrations claim to know the parameters of the solution. But are the Western values they try to impose truly compatible with those of the local populations involved?

Unlike many in the Arab world who are familiar with Western culture through English, most Westerners remain unaware of Arab culture and language. They must therefore rely on Arabists to help decode the mindset of Arab Muslims.

This series of articles aims to bridge that cultural gap, helping Western readers understand the significant differences between these two civilizations. This context is crucial for interpreting events that might otherwise seem irrational—like the Hamas attack of October 2023.

Have You ever Heard of Al-Hudaybiyah?

Ever heard of Al-Hudaybiyah? No? Don’t worry—you’re in good company. Most Westerners, even diplomats, haven’t either.

Al-Hudaybiyah is a small location between Mecca and Medina in modern-day Saudi Arabia. In 628 CE (year 6 of the Islamic calendar), a key historical event took place there. The central figure was the Prophet Muhammad. At that time, Muhammad was not yet accepted in Mecca, his birthplace, but he had gathered followers in Medina. Wanting to bring Mecca under his religious influence—by force if necessary—he marched toward the city with his followers. The two sides met near Al-Hudaybiyah.

Recognizing that the battle might not go in his favor, Muhammad agreed to a peace treaty—a Hudna, or truce—set to last nine years, nine months, and nine days. For the first two years, the treaty held.

For two years, the Meccans remained wary of Mohammed and kept a close eye on him. But as time passed and it appeared he was honoring the truce, their vigilance waned—they let their guard down and returned to their trading activities. Seizing the opportunity, Mohammed launched a surprise attack, unilaterally breaking the truce and taking control of Mecca.

In Islam, the Prophet is considered ma’soum, i.e. infallible, like how the Pope is viewed in Catholicism. Therefore, all of Muhammad’s actions are deemed honorable and worthy of emulation. His strategies and decisions are morally legitimate and can be repeated by his followers.

So what are the modern implications of Al-Hudaybiyah?

Simply put: within Islamic tradition, it is considered morally acceptable to make peace treaties (Hudna) when in a position of weakness, and to break them once the balance of power shifts in one’s favor—just as the Prophet did.

Western observers often fail to grasp why Muslim negotiators push for temporary ceasefires (often ten years long, mirroring the Prophet’s example). They’re then surprised when such agreements collapse suddenly. This isn’t seen as dishonorable, rather, it follows a deeply rooted cultural and religious precedent.

The Legacy of Al-Hudaybiyah: A Major Cultural Misunderstanding

Let’s look at 2 real-world examples involving Muslim entities to illustrate how the Hudna concept still influences modern politics. In this installment, we’ll cover two: Egypt and Jordan.

The Peace Treaty with Egypt (1979)

This historic treaty, signed by President Anwar Sadat, wouldn’t have been possible without the blessing of Egypt’s top religious authority, Grand Mufti Ali Jad al-Haq. While Westerners might find it odd that a secular leader needed religious approval, in Muslim-majority countries religion and politics are intertwined. Sadat couldn’t proceed without a religious fatwa (ruling) to override a previous one from the 1950s, which called for the destruction of Israel.

The new fatwa was grounded in the Prophet’s example at Al-Hudaybiyah. If Muhammad made peace when it was in his interest, then so could Egypt. But here’s the cultural disconnect: while Israel and the West see this treaty as a permanent peace, many in Egypt are viewing it as a time-limited Hudna—an armistice to be revisited when circumstances changed.

This is why the so-called “peace” is only a cold peace. There are minimal cultural exchanges, diplomatic tensions remain high, and the Egyptian public remains hostile to normalization with Israel of Israelis. Western-style peace—like that between France and Germany—is full of collaboration and mutual respect. Forty years after WWII, French and Germans travel, cooperate, and share without resentment. But in Egypt, Jewish symbols like the Hebrew language or religious garments remain taboo. Cultural dialogue is boycotted, and political hostility persists.

So when the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in 2012, President Morsi openly discussed the possibility of annulling the peace treaty. In Western eyes, this is shocking. But for many Egyptians, it fit the model of a time-limited Hudna, not an eternal peace accord.

The Peace Treaty with Jordan (1994)

Similar dynamics apply. Though officially at peace with Israel, Jordan routinely engages in diplomatic confrontations, especially at the UN and other international bodies. Jews entering the country are denied entry if carrying religious items like tefillin or Hebrew prayer books. Members of Jordan’s parliament frequently call for scrapping the treaty altogether. Again a cold peace or rather a time-limited Hudna.

Contrast this with how treaties are treated in the West. Once signed, a treaty is binding unless a war breaks out. In Muslim contexts, a Hudna—a time-bound non-aggression pact—is what’s more commonly understood, modeled after Al-Hudaybiyah.

If you’re a Westerner, you’ve learned something new—something crucial for understanding the mindset of the Muslim world. This cultural knowledge isn’t just academic; ignorance of it leads to diplomatic failures and missed opportunities for genuine peace.