A Half-Dozen More Questions for Abdul El-Sayed

Islam is central to Abdul El-Sayed’s identity, Islam the faith that motivates and guides him. So surely he won’t mind a few more questions.

#1. Muhammad took part in 27 military campaigns. He also watched — some sources say he even took part in — the killing of between 600 and 900 bound prisoners who belonged to the Banu Qurayza. Your thoughts on this?

#2. Muhammad and his followers attacked the Jewish farmers at the Khaybar Oasis in 628 A.D.. That same day, after her father and husband had been killed by his men, Muhammad took Safiyya, a beautiful Jewish girl, as his wife. Under the circumstances, wasn’t that just a bit….unfeeling?

That attack in Khaybar has given rise to a Muslim war cry against the Jews: “Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud,” that translates to “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews.” It is the first half of a longer chant: “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, jaish Muhammad sawf-a ya’ud” (“Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return”). This chant has frequently been heard at Hamas rallies in Gaza, in Hezbollah rallies in Lebanon, and even on the streets of Europe when Muslim mobs appear. Rather blood-curdling, don’t you think, Mr. El-Sayed?

#3. Another aspect of Islam that concerns me, as I’m sure it does many voters in Michigan, is the Qur’anic verse — 4:34 — that tells Muslim husbands that if they even suspect their wives of disobedience, they are entitled to beat them, albeit “lightly.” Some people claim that Islam is misogynistic. How would you characterize that verse?

And in the same vein, in Islam daughters ordinarily inherit only half as much as sons. Furthermore, the testimony of a female witness is worth only half that of a male. Finally, while a Muslim man may take as many as four wives, a Muslim woman can have only one husband. Would you care to explain why you think these rules are not misogynistic, as many of us believe?

#4. There are many Qur’anic verses that call for violence against the Unbelievers. There is, for example, this: “So when you meet the disbelievers in battle, strike their necks until you have thoroughly subdued them, then bind them firmly.” (47:4) Or this: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.” (8:12). Or this: “So when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists [Christians are meant, for their belief in the Trinity makes them, in Muslim eyes, polytheists] wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them of every ambush.” (9:5)

You can imagine the effect these violent verses have on non-Muslims. Would you agree that Muslims today must find a way to reinterpret or possibly to abrogate these verses?

#5. As you undoubtedly know, Mr. El-Sayed, when in the past Muslims conquered new lands, they offered the non-Muslim populations they had subdued three choices. If they were people of the book — that is, Christians or Jews (and Zoroastrians were added to the list) — those non-Muslims could either convert to Islam, or be killed, or would be allowed to live and practice their religion as long as they submitted to the status of “dhimmi.” Dhimmis were subject to a host of social, political, and financial disabilities, the most onerous of which was the required payment of a capitation tax known as the jizyah. And some Muslims living in the West regard the welfare benefits they receive from governments in Infidel lands as a kind of proleptic jizyah. What do you think about the status of the dhimmi in Muslim societies of the past, and do you condemn their treatment, including the forced payment of the jizyah on which the Muslim state relied?

#6. After having fought with the Quraysh, a tribe in Mecca, Muhammad made a truce (hudna) with them that was to last ten years. This is known as the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, after the place where it was signed. However, after less than two years, sensing that his own forces had grown sufficiently strong to defeat the Meccans, and with the pretext that the Quraysh had broken the truce first, Muhammad attacked the tribe in Mecca and emerged victorious. The pretext he used to justify his attack was the support the Quraysh gave to their allies, the Banu Bakr tribe, in their attack on the Banu Khuza’ah tribe, who were allies of the Muslims in Medina. Not everyone thinks that constitutes a genuine breach of the truce, which had not included a commitment by the Quraysh to withhold their support from allied tribes.

What do you think of Muhammad’s ending the ten-year truce treaty after two years?

Thank you, Mr. El-Sayed, for listening to my dozen questions. I will wait right here, along with the voters of Michigan, for your answers.