Recently I offered 38 questions to ask those carrying signs proclaiming, “I’m A Muslim — Ask Me Anything.” Here are answers to questions thirty through thirty-eight.
30. The point of this question is really nothing more than to publicize the huge number of Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. If you did not know this figure, what might you have guessed? One thousand? Two? Islam is an inherently violent faith, the Qur’an and Hadith fairly bristle with violence, the life of Muhammad seems to be one military campaign after another. Islam was spread, almost everywhere, by violent Jihad. In recent centuries, Muslim armies were successfully suppressed by the superior military might of Infidels. But now again that violence, against both non-Muslims and other Muslims deemed insufficiently orthodox (and therefore not really Muslims at all), has reappeared, not mainly in regular combat (qitaal), but in acts of terror. These are deemed legitimate means of Jihad. “Terror” is not prohibited, but mandated in Islam. As Muhammad famously declared, “I have been made victorious through terror” (Bukhari 4.52.220). The Muslim Interlocutor (M.I.) may deny that these are “terror attacks” or insist that “Muslims are its first victims” or make other attempts at deflection, but you need only supply the link to the list of the 30,000 plus attacks and invite onlookers to take a look and characterize these attacks for themselves. They will be deeply impressed.
31. This question offers one memorable example of the extraordinary cruelty of Muhammad in his lust for loot. Kinana bin al-Rabi was a leader in Khaybar to whom had been entrusted treasure by the Banu Nadir (the tribe had been driven from Mecca by Muhammad). When Muhammad entered Khaybar, he had Kinana seized and demanded he tell him where the treasure was kept. Kinana denied knowing where it was, and Muhammad threatened that “if i find it, I shall have to kill you.” Some of the treasure was found, and Muhammad again asked Kinana about the rest. Again Kinana denied knowing about it, and Muhammad ordered that he be tortured until he revealed where it was. In the end, Kinana did not give up any information, even with a fire started on his chest, and he was beheaded. His wife Safiyya was taken by Muhammad to be his sex slave, but he then married her. All in all, an unedifying spectacle of this “Perfect Man” and “Model of Conduct.” And that is the sole point of this query, to have the listeners learn of the unappetizing aspects of Muhammad’s biography that apologists keep, as best they can, hidden from view.
32. This question goes to a main difference between Islam and Christianity. Muslims are nowhere encouraged to treat others as they would be treated, but to make war on all non-Muslims until they are killed, converted, or have accepted permanent status as subjugated dhimmis. The Golden Rule does not exist in Islam, and is antipathetic to the letter and spirit of that faith. In Islam, the world is divided between Believers and Infidels, Muslims and non-Muslims. Muslims are commanded to love only those who are loyal to Allah, and to hate those who do not, that is, the Unbelievers. Muslims should not treat the kuffar as they would be treated, for they are the best of peoples (3:110) and the kuffar the vilest of creatures (98:6). It makes no sense, in Islam, to treat the vilest and the best of peoples alike. There are passages in the Qur’an, and Hadith, too, that sound like the Golden Rule but which are meant to apply only to fellow Muslims, not to all men. For example, here are three: “None of you have faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself” (Sahih Muslim); “Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and to enter Paradise”¦should treat the people as he wishes to be treated.” (Sahih Muslim); and “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself” (Forty Hadith-Nawawi).
But in these hadith, the “neighbor,” “the people,” and the “brother” are all fellow Muslims. For a more detailed discussion, see Ali Sina on Islam and the Golden Rule here.
33. Al-wala’ wa-l-bara’ (“Loyalty and Disavowal”) is the doctrine of Love and Hate for Allah’s sake, one of the key beliefs in Islam, second only to Tawhid. It commands hatred of all that goes against Allah. This naturally includes hatred of those who do not believe in Him, the mushrikun or unbelievers, while commanding Love for everyone who is pleasing to Allah, meaning the Muslims.
34. “Sayid” is an honorific meaning one is a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad through his grandsons. The adoption of this as part of one’s name, even in Pakistan, among those who live thousands of miles from Arabia, are clearly not Arabs, and for whom there exists not the slightest evidence that they are descendants of the Prophet’s tribe, is one more example of the desire of non-Arab Muslims to identify with the Arabs, going so far as to suggest an entirely factitious lineage connecting them to the Prophet. One more example – see #19 and #26 – that provides evidence of the supremacist position of Arabs within the supposedly egalitarian faith of Islam.
35. In Islam, singing (al-ghina) that is suitable for entertainment, dancing, or “frivolous” amusement, is prohibited. Muslim authorities differ on whether, and what kinds of, instrumental music is banned as well. That there is some ban on singing and instrumental music, the extent of which is still debated by Islamic authorities, is clear. This question should call to mind Ayatollah Khomeini’s reported remark that “an Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.” The point of the question is to ensure that others are aware of how much that we regard as innocent and pleasurable fun is grimly prohibited in Islam. You want simply to raise the issue of Muhammad’s negative attitude toward some, perhaps most, music, precisely because it is pleasurable.
36. Dar al-Harb means in Arabic the Domain or House of War, and includes all those lands where the Infidels still dominate. It is the duty of Muslims to conduct Jihad against Infidels in Dar al-Harb so as to spread Islam, though not necessarily through violence. There are many forms of jihad, including demographic conquest, which, as of now, seems the most threatening and effective form of Jihad, to be conducted until Islam everywhere dominates and Muslims rule everywhere, and Dar al-Harb has ceased to exist, having simply been incorporated into Dar al-Islam.
37. Dar al-Islam is the Domain or House of Islam, and includes all those lands where Islam already dominates and Muslims rule. It is the duty of Muslims to constantly expand Dar al-Islam through Jihad, until the whole world has submitted to Islam. This does not mean that everyone in the world must become Muslim, but everyone must accept the dominance of Islam. The point of #36 and #37 is to underscore the uncompromising division of the world, in the Islamic view, between Muslims and Unbelievers, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.
38. This question raises the matter of when a permanent peace can finally be declared between Muslims and Infidels. The answer, from the point of view of Muslims, is never, or rather, not until the final victory of Islam. While history is punctuated with numerous local “jihads” in which war is waged against the Infidels – as, for example, the jihad conducted in West Africa by Usman dan Fodio in 1809, known as the Fulani War, which established the Sokoto Caliphate – the Jihad as a worldwide phenomenon has no foreseeable or logical conclusion. Muslims have a duty to continue to wage Jihad until all the world’s Infidels have either been converted to Islam, or been killed, or are living as dhimmis, subjugated to Muslim rule, and having accepted numerous disabilities including, most importantly, payment of the Jizyah or capitation tax. The doctrine of Jihad is one of war-without-end, though it need not be conducted through violence alone. It is important to remind those listening in to your Q-and-A with the Ask-A-Muslim-Anything Muslim, that the demographic jihad and what Robert Spencer was the first to call, here at Jihad Watch, the “stealth jihad,” are the most insidious and dangerous forms of Jihad, though almost all of our attention in the West has, for understandable reasons, been on terrorism. Better to squarely face this bleak prospect than to soothingly delude ourselves that if only we avoid what some belittle as “hysteria” and pretend that there is nothing wrong with Muslim immigration, all manner of things shall be well. They aren’t and they won’t.