Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (628): Terms, Timeline and Sources

```html

The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was a peace settlement between Muhammad’s community in Medina and Quraysh of Mecca, conventionally dated to 6 AH / 628 CE. The Muslims had approached Mecca intending to perform the lesser pilgrimage, or umrah, but Quraysh blocked their entry. The settlement sent the pilgrims home that year, provided for a return visit, established a truce and—according to the broader narrative tradition—allowed other Arabian groups to ally with either side.

No signed treaty sheet survives. What readers can examine are the Quran, several hadith reports, early biographical traditions preserved through later works, and modern studies of how those reports were transmitted. These sources agree on the broad sequence but do not preserve one identical clause list or one uncontested month. The most accurate answer therefore separates what a specific source says from what later summaries combine.

Hudaybiyyah at a glance

Question	Best-supported answer	Evidence limit
When?	6 AH / 628 CE is the conventional dating; Dhu al-Qadah is the dominant later chronology.	At least one early transmission places the departure in Ramadan and the event in Shawwal, so an exact day should not be presented as certain.
Where?	At al-Hudaybiyyah, on the western approach to Mecca and near the sacred precinct.	Historical location descriptions should not be turned into a precise modern boundary claim without separate topographic evidence.
Why did the Muslims travel?	The major Muslim reports present the journey as an attempt to perform umrah, accompanied by sacrificial animals.	This purpose is reported by the narrative tradition; it is not stated in a surviving seventh-century treaty document.
What happened immediately?	The pilgrims did not enter Mecca that year, a settlement was concluded and they returned to Medina.	The surviving reports differ in which terms and scenes they include.
Why was it called a victory?	Quran 48 opens with a “clear victory,” and Muslim tradition connects the chapter to Hudaybiyyah.	The Quran does not reproduce a numbered treaty or name Hudaybiyyah in the text.

What sources for the treaty actually survive?

The closest textual layer used in this article is Quran 48, Surah al-Fath. It refers to victory, tranquility, a pledge, fighting that was withheld and a promised entry into the Sacred Mosque. It does not give a complete narrative or list the treaty’s terms. Connecting all of those verses to Hudaybiyyah depends on Muslim interpretation and narrative context.

The fullest readily accessible narrative is Sahih al-Bukhari 2731–2732. It describes the approach to Mecca, envoys, the disagreement over the document’s opening words, the deferral of the pilgrimage, the return clause, Abu Jandal, Umar’s objections, Umm Salama’s advice and the later Abu Basir episode. Sahih Muslim 1783c and Sahih Muslim 1784 preserve shorter reports that make some terms especially clear.

Hadith and sira are transmitted sources compiled after the event, not a recording made at the negotiations. A recent source-critical study by Andreas Görke and Gregor Schoeler identifies multiple long and short traditions attributed to Urwa ibn al-Zubayr and notes that their elements are not identical. Its chapter on the earliest Hudaybiyyah writings is particularly important because it examines transmission rather than simply retelling a harmonized story.

When did Hudaybiyyah happen?

The safest concise date is 6 AH / 628 CE. The commonly repeated month is Dhu al-Qadah, and the TDV Encyclopedia of Islam entry gives Dhu al-Qadah and March 628. A Cambridge overview likewise places the agreement in 6/628.

The month is less uniform than many timelines imply. Görke and Schoeler’s overview of the Hisham ibn Urwa transmission records a departure in Ramadan and the event in Shawwal. That does not make the conventional Dhu al-Qadah dating unusable; it means the article should label it as the dominant chronology rather than as an uncontested timestamp. Converting the event into one exact Gregorian day would add still more false precision.

Why the Muslims travelled toward Mecca

In Bukhari’s report, Muhammad’s party approached in a pilgrimage context and brought sacrificial animals. The report has Muhammad tell an envoy that the group had not come to fight but to perform umrah. Quraysh nevertheless prepared to prevent entry, and the Muslims changed route before stopping at Hudaybiyyah.

The journey came after years of conflict following the Hijra from Mecca to Medina. Encounters such as the Battle of Badr had changed the balance between Quraysh and the Medinan community. The presence of pilgrims and sacrificial animals did not erase that political background; it created a dispute over access to the sanctuary in a setting where both sides also understood the costs of renewed fighting.

From envoys to the agreement

Bukhari 2731–2732 names several intermediaries, including Budayl ibn Warqa, Urwa ibn Masud and Mikraz ibn Hafs, before Suhayl ibn Amr arrives to conclude peace. Other reports add Uthman ibn Affan’s mission to Mecca. Bukhari 3698 says Uthman had been sent to Mecca and that the pledge at Hudaybiyyah occurred while he was absent. The familiar report that a rumor of Uthman’s death triggered the pledge appears in the broader biographical tradition and is summarized by the TDV encyclopedia; it should not be attributed to Bukhari 2731–2732 itself.

The Quran refers to God’s approval of believers who pledged under the tree in Quran 48:18. It does not name Uthman or explain the rumor. Keeping those layers separate preserves both the scriptural statement and the narrative explanation without pretending that they are the same text.

When Suhayl negotiated with Muhammad, the transmitted reports preserve a dispute over the preamble. Quraysh rejected the formula “Muhammad, the Messenger of God” and accepted “Muhammad son of Abdullah.” Bukhari, Muslim 1783c and Muslim 1784 preserve versions of this episode. A Cambridge study of the name al-Rahman in the Hudaybiyyah formula supplies historical analysis of the opening invocation. None of these sources is the original parchment.

What terms are reported—and by which source?

Reported term	Where it is directly visible	How to phrase it
The Muslims would not perform umrah that year but could return the next year.	Bukhari 2731–2732; Muslim 1783c.	A well-attested term across the cited hadith reports.
The return visit would last three days and weapons would remain sheathed or encased.	Muslim 1783c.	A specific term in this report, confirmed in its account of the visit the following year.
A person leaving Quraysh for Muhammad would be returned, while a Muslim going to Quraysh would not be returned.	Muslim 1784; the first direction and its consequences also appear in Bukhari 2731–2732.	An asymmetrical return provision in the transmitted accounts, not modern extradition law.
The truce was intended to last ten years.	Sira-based and later historical syntheses, including the TDV encyclopedia.	“Commonly reported as a ten-year truce,” not “it remained in force for ten years.”
Other Arabian groups could ally with either side.	Sira-based and later historical syntheses.	A major reported term used to explain the later Khuzaa–Banu Bakr conflict.

This source-by-source approach matters. Bukhari 2731–2732 is extensive, but it does not contain every item in the modern five-clause summary. Combining hadith, sira and later encyclopedic reconstructions may be useful, provided the result is labeled a synthesis rather than the verbatim treaty.

The return clause, Abu Jandal and Quran 60:10

The return provision was the agreement’s most painful reported term. Bukhari’s long narrative places Abu Jandal—Suhayl’s son—at the negotiations in fetters and has Suhayl demand that he be returned. The same report later describes Abu Basir being handed back to Quraysh’s representatives, escaping, and joining others outside Medina. These episodes show why the provision cannot be discussed only as an abstract diplomatic concession.

The treatment of women requires a chronological distinction. Quran 60:10 instructs believers to test women who arrive as emigrants and not return those found to be believers. Bukhari 2731–2732 itself places the verse after the settlement in its narrative. Whether interpreters describe this as a limitation, an exemption or a later legal development, the verse should be quoted as its own authority rather than silently folded into the treaty’s original wording.

Why some companions objected

The immediate outcome looked unfavorable to some Muslims. They had travelled for worship but would leave without entering Mecca. Quraysh had secured changes to the document’s religious wording, and Abu Jandal’s return gave the asymmetric provision a visible human cost. Bukhari’s report preserves Umar ibn al-Khattab questioning the decision and then asking Abu Bakr similar questions.

The report also describes hesitation when Muhammad instructed the party to sacrifice their animals and shave their heads, ending the pilgrimage state. Umm Salama advised him to perform the rites without further debate; the companions then followed. Later Muslim teaching reads the episode as patience and disciplined trust. Historically, it also demonstrates the gap between the agreement’s immediate appearance and the advantages later attributed to it.

What Quran 48 says about victory

Surah al-Fath begins with the announcement of a clear victory. The chapter also mentions tranquility, the pledge under the tree, withheld fighting and a vision of secure entry into the Sacred Mosque. Muslim exegetical and narrative tradition strongly connects these passages to Hudaybiyyah.

The chapter does not say, “Here are the treaty’s five clauses.” Nor does the word “victory” by itself prove a modern strategic theory. The scriptural frame and the historian’s explanation answer different questions. The former gives the event religious meaning; the latter asks what a pause in fighting, a recognized negotiating relationship and new alliance choices changed in practice.

The return pilgrimage and the end of the truce

Muslim 1783c reports that Muhammad returned the following year and stayed in Mecca for the agreed three days. This visit, usually called Umrat al-Qada, should be separated from the conquest of Mecca. It was the performance of the deferred pilgrimage while the settlement still regulated relations.

The agreement did not remain in force for the ten years commonly reported as its intended duration. In the sira-based chronology, Khuzaa aligned with Muhammad and Banu Bakr with Quraysh. Violence between those allied groups, with Meccan involvement reported in Muslim historical narratives, was treated as a breach. The sequence led to Muhammad’s entry into Mecca in 8 AH / 630 CE.

Gerald Hawting’s study, “al-Hudaybiyya and the Conquest of Mecca”, reconsiders how the later Muslim tradition links the treaty and conquest. Its existence is a useful warning against presenting the two-year sequence as a simple chain of uncontested facts. A public explainer can state the dominant Muslim narrative while making clear that modern historians also analyze how that narrative was formed.

Did Hudaybiyyah recognize an Islamic state?

The agreement shows Quraysh negotiating with Muhammad’s community and accepting reciprocal obligations. It is therefore reasonable to describe the Medinan community as an organized political party to the settlement. It is less accurate to call this “international recognition of the Islamic state” as though seventh-century Arabia operated with modern borders, embassies and a codified law of state recognition.

That distinction does not minimize the political change. It avoids anachronism. The guide to caliphal institutions and modern political misuse applies the same method: use categories that fit the period before borrowing a modern constitutional label.

What historians can and cannot say confidently

• High-confidence conventional frame: a settlement between Muhammad’s Medinan community and Quraysh in 6 AH / 628, reached after an attempted umrah was blocked.
• Strongly attested reported terms: deferral of the pilgrimage, a return visit, and an asymmetric provision concerning people moving between the two sides.
• Source-dependent details: the full clause list, exact month, sequence of every envoy, wording of each exchange and details of how the alliance breach unfolded.
• Religious interpretation: Muslim tradition reads Quran 48’s “clear victory,” pledge and promised sanctuary entry in connection with Hudaybiyyah.
• Modern historical interpretation: the settlement created political space and changed relationships, but no single clause mechanically caused every later conversion or conquest.

Readers can place this evidence on the Islamic history timeline and orient the Mecca–Medina setting with the Islamic world map. Both tools should be used without projecting modern state boundaries onto seventh-century western Arabia.

Frequently asked questions

Was Hudaybiyyah a treaty or a truce?

Both labels are defensible. The Arabic word sulh can mean a settlement or peace agreement, and the reported provisions include a cessation of hostilities. “Treaty of Hudaybiyyah” is the familiar English name; “Hudaybiyyah settlement” is sometimes more cautious.

Did the truce last ten years?

No. Ten years is the commonly reported intended term. The dominant Muslim historical narrative says the agreement broke down about two years later after violence involving allied groups.

Did Quran 48 contain the treaty?

No. Quran 48 supplies the religious framing associated with the event, including victory, the pledge and promised sanctuary entry. Hadith and sira reports supply the negotiation scenes and terms.

Who wrote the agreement?

Sahih Muslim 1783c presents Ali ibn Abi Talib writing the terms and Muhammad removing the disputed title after Ali declined to erase it. Other transmitted accounts preserve related versions of the scene.

Why are dates given as 6 AH / 628?

6 AH is the Islamic-era year and 628 is the conventional Common Era placement. Dhu al-Qadah is the dominant month in later chronology, but early transmission evidence includes a Ramadan–Shawwal variant; an exact Gregorian date would overstate precision.

Sources and how they are used

1. Quran 48, Surah al-Fath — primary religious text for victory, tranquility, the pledge, withheld fighting and promised sanctuary entry; it is not a clause list.
2. Quran 60:10 — primary religious text on believing women who emigrate and must not be returned.
3. Sahih al-Bukhari 2731–2732 — extended transmitted narrative for the journey, envoys, negotiations, return provision, Abu Jandal, reactions, Umm Salama and Abu Basir.
4. Sahih al-Bukhari 3698 — evidence that Uthman was sent to Mecca and that the Ridwan pledge occurred while he was absent; it does not itself report the death rumor.
5. Sahih Muslim 1783c — the three-day return visit, sheathed weapons and the disputed title in the document.
6. Sahih Muslim 1784 — the opening formula, Suhayl ibn Amr and the asymmetric return provision.
7. Görke and Schoeler, “The Treaty of al-Hudaybiya” — transmission analysis, variation among early reports and the Ramadan–Shawwal chronology.
8. Sigrid K. Kjær, “Rahman before Muhammad” — analysis of the contested invocation and divine epithet in the treaty tradition.
9. TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, “Hudeybiye Antlaşması” — the dominant Dhu al-Qadah chronology, broader clause synthesis, Uthman rumor and alliance aftermath, with a bibliography of primary and modern studies.
10. G. R. Hawting, “al-Hudaybiyya and the Conquest of Mecca” — source-critical reassessment of how the treaty and conquest are connected in Muslim historical tradition.
11. The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad, excerpt — general 6 AH / 628 placement within Muhammad’s Medinan career.
12. Jonathan A. C. Brown, “The Life of the Messenger of God” — framework for distinguishing sacred biography, variant Muslim accounts and modern historical questions.

```