From Letters to the Editor, July 24 Original Posting Kevin James and Ahmad Hamad [letters, July 14] take umbrage at the discussion of the Prophet Muhammad in Charles Krauthammer's July 11 op-ed column, but they get the episode all wrong. Yasser Arafat brought the prophet's actions into discussion on May 10, 1994, when he characterized the Oslo agreement with Israel as "no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca." He has since many times referred to this agreement, known as the Treaty of Hudaybiah. Every detail about the treaty derives from Arabic literary sources written down by Muslims centuries after the treaty was allegedly signed in 628. These sources report that tensions with the pagan Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca forced Muhammad to flee Mecca in 622. By 628 he had enough strength to challenge Quraysh; in the Treaty of Hudaybiah, the two sides "agreed to remove war from the people for 10 years." Both the Muslims and Quraysh formed alliances with tribes with a history of feuding. Among others, Bani Khuza'a joined the Muslims, and Bani Bakr joined Quraysh. In the 22 months after signing the treaty, Muhammad grew stronger vis a vis Quraysh. In December 629, some of the Bani Bakr, possibly with Quraysh help, attacked a party of the Bani Khuza'a, killing several. On hearing this, Muhammad opted for an attack on Mecca. Quraysh entreaties to keep the treaty in effect failed. Once negotiations ended, a huge Muslim force advanced on Mecca. Quraysh surrendered without a fight in January 630. Two points stand out from this tale. First, Muhammad was technically within his rights to abrogate the treaty. Second, his response was disproportionate--a raid by an allied tribe hardly warranted conquest of the enemy's territory. The issue here is not a legal one but a moral and political one. In short, Charles Krauthammer got the incident just right. Return to Article DANIEL PIPES Director Middle East Forum Philadelphia