Hareem sis.
Read the details on Hudaibia. No one signs a .............. option is to avoid war and bloodshed at any cost.
You crack me up here.
As someone said treaty was not an uncommon affair those days. It was a good political strategy which eventually proven beneficial. Regarding Ali (RAA) and his opinion, he was the youngest and was confident that treaty was not needed and no one knows if the result would have been any different. But the decision was made and had to be honored.
All other comments of yours are also hilarious. You seem to have portrayed an unusual picture here. At the beginning the people who became muslims were fearful of persecution but they never backed off when the time for confrontation came. Even during Badr when they were fasting and war was thrust upon them.
For example, more than the three times force in Ahud did not make them flinch. During Badr they were 313 as opposed to about 1000 Meccans and lost very few people. They captured about 100 Meccans as prisoners.
Unanimously the decision was to go and defend against aggression from Mecca but not in the city. Starting from 1000 they were left with 700 since one pretended muslim group of 300 people left before the fight started. The commander of Meccan army was Khalid Bin Waleed if I remember correctly. Had it not been a confusion of one group of people it would not have negative result. It does not show that they were fearful, Meccans were strong or muslims were getting to be annilated.
Despite you portrayed Meccans as vicious, muslims were fearless after few early days.
History showed that not a single person died and Mecca was conquered since Meccans were fearful and did not raise their arms.
Only thing you mentioned which was true that these fights were not started by muslims.