Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan: Any Muslim Who Refuses to Pray Is an Infidel, and Must Be Killed

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, a member of the Saudi Council of Senior Scholars, explains in this short fatwa that any Muslim who refuses to pray has become an infidel, and therefore must be killed. This fatwa was originally published in audio format on al-Fawzan's website some time ago, but was recently published in a video on YouTube, and was later picked up by Arabic-language news sites, such as al-Arabiya.The subtitled video is above, transcript is below:
This questioner says, “Your Eminence,” he says, “I have a colleague at work who doesn’t pray. I admonished him, but he didn’t respond. I informed the one in authority over us, and told him, ‘He is afraid of being transferred. Admonish him to pray, and threaten to transfer him.’ My colleague then became angry with me. Here’s my question: Is what I did wrong? What is my duty in this situation?” 
He who does not pray is not a Muslim, owing to the saying of Muhammad (PBUH): “(The difference) between worship (of Allah), and infidelity and polytheism, is failing to pray.” He also said (PBUH): “The covenant that is between us and them is prayer, and whoever neglects this has become an infidel.” There are numerous evidences in the Qur’an and Sunnah for the fact that he who fails to pray is an infidel. It is not enough for this man to be transferred, but he must be fired from the job. And if he doesn’t repent to Allah and keep his prayers, then he must be killed. He must be called on to repent, but if he doesn’t repent, then he is killed. 
What you have done with him was your duty, from the counsel and admonition of Allah. If he does not accept (the admonition), and insists on abstaining from praying, then he must be killed. It is not enough for him to be transferred from his job, for merely employing him is wrong. It is not permissible for an infidel to be in charge of the doings of Muslims, because he will be an example to others.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Shaykh Muhammad Hassan: Islam Prefers a Strong, Immoral Warrior

Popular Egyptian Salafi Shaykh Muhammad Hassan explains in this video clip posted on YouTube on 12 June why Islam prefers strong, immoral men over weak, righteous ones. He quotes from Imam Ahmad, Ibn Taymiyya, and the Prophet Muhammad to support his view. Subtitled video is above, transcript below (see the original Arabic clip here):
If there are two men, and one of them is stronger spiritually, while the other is stronger physically, (the latter) is more beneficial to that nation. In war, for example, the strong man offers his courage, even if he is immoral or licentious. The weak man (only) offers his impotence, even if he is faithful. 
Listen to the response of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), for the Shaykh of Islam (i.e. Ibn Taymiyya) based his ruling on this fatwa from his Shaykh, the Shaykh for the Sunnis, Imam Ahmad. Imam Ahmad was asked about two men, who were leaders in a raid. One of them was a strong, immoral man. The other was a weak, righteous man. With which one would he go into battle? Imam Ahmad said: “As for the strong, immoral man, his strength benefits the Muslims, while his immorality only hurts himself. But as for the weak, righteous man, his righteousness only benefits himself, while his weakness hurts the Muslims.” Thus the Imam said he would go to battle with the strong, immoral man. I hope this answer is clear. The Prophet (peace be upon him), said the same thing in the two Sahihs (Muslim and al-Bukhari), “Allah will support this religion through an immoral man.”

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Egyptian Shaykh: "Democracy Is a Bad, Backwards, and Retarded Idea"

In a video clip posted to YouTube on 17 June, Egyptian Shaykh Sa'id 'Abd-al-'Azim explains that "democracy is a bad, backwards, and retarded idea," which he condemns for the freedoms it contains, which includes "the freedom to disbelieve in the Creator of Heaven and Earth." He also compared those who advocate democracy to the wicked people of Sodom. This clip was taken from an interview conducted on the Islamic satellite station al-Hafez on 4 June. Subtitled video is above, transcript is below:
Shaykh 'Abd-al-'Azim: I want to say that democracy is a bad idea. We should not feel ashamed to say it. It is a bad, backward, and retarded idea, which is taken from Greece. Democracy is spoken of like it's a modern discovery, but it's not--(interrupted) 
Host: You described this beautifully in this book, saying that the people who believe in democracy are like the people of Lot, who believed in the majority. Lot's people numbered about 100,000, while the majority was only Lot and his two daughters. Wherefore the minority was better than the majority, thus everyone who believes in this democracy--(interrupted) 
Shaykh 'Abd-al-'Azim: That's right. Even the freedoms--what are they? Among the freedoms inherent in the democratic system are freedom for women, freedom of ownership, freedom of homosexuality, personal freedom, freedom of conscience and expression, freedom to disbelieve in the Creator of Heaven and Earth. There's mixing (of men and women), usury--all of this is in democracy, which is why I condemn it.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Video: Kuwaiti Activist: "I Hope that Kuwait Will Enact a Law for...Sex Slaves"

The above video (transcript below) was translated from a video posted on YouTube on 25 May by a female Kuwaiti activist and former candidate for Kuwaiti parliament, Salwa al-Mutairi, in which she called for a revival of the Islamic law for sex-slaves. Later she was interviewed about this by the Kuwaiti paper al-Siyasa; the translation of a story on that interview from al-Arabiya is also included below the transcript from the video. For more on this story, you can also see the excellent articles posted by Raymond Ibrahim and Nonie Darwish a couple of weeks ago (special thanks to Nonie as well for sending this in and helping out with the translation).

Transcript of video:
Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you. My name is Salwa al-Mutairi. I received a message that was a little strange. A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. The topic that he brought up is an old topic. I have been working on it for two years now. 
I was working with this man, a young man, who (liked) women a lot. I was sympathetic to his situation, and also dedicated to my work. I was given the opportunity to visit Mecca, and when I did so, I brought up (this man's) situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, "What is the law of sex slaves?" 
The mufti said, "With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war." 
"Is this forbidden by Islam?," I asked. 
"Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not--she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that's it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman." 
Of course, I also asked religious experts in Kuwait (about this issue), and they told me about the problem with the passionate man, or even the man who is committed to his religion. For every good man in our religion, the only solution for him--when forbidden women come around, if he's tempted to sin, then the solution to this issue is for him to purchase sex slaves. I hope that Kuwait will enact the law for this category, this category of people--the sex slaves. 
I have also seen a situation in Kuwait, where a woman was abandoned by her family and so forth. She was given a home in Kuwait, where she cooked, and took care of the house, and helped out, and so forth. She was very much in a situation where she was like a slave. It is better to follow the shari'a like this than to go about doing that which is forbidden. Thankfully this house took her in, because her family abandoned her, and failed to shelter her. 
I hope that a law will be enacted for this category, and they will open the door for this, just as they have opened the door for servants (to come into the country). They should open the door for sex slaves, by enacting a sound law, so that our children don't waste away in the abyss of adultery and moral depravity. Allah-willing, this will work out. I believe, look, the (sex slaves could come from) a country like Chechnya, where there is a war between an (Islamic) state and another state. Certainly there are prisoners. These prisoners could be purchased. They could be purchased and sold to the merchants in Kuwait. This is better than (the merchants) committing that which is forbidden. There is nothing wrong with this. 
Harun al-Rashid had many more sex slaves than this. When he died he had 2,000 sex slaves. But he only had one wife. This was not forbidden. Our shari'a permits such a thing as this. Praise be to Allah, here in Kuwait there are many merchants who are committed (to Islam). I hope the best for Kuwait, Allah-willing.
Article translated from al-Arabiya, 4 June 2011:
A female activist and former candidate for the Kuwaiti People's Assembly, Salwa al-Mutairi, called for "the enactment of a law for sex-slaves, to protect men from corruption, and to prevent children from falling into the abyss of adultery." 
Al-Mutairi said to the Kuwaiti journal "al-Siyasa, on Saturday, 4 June 2011, that "Many Kuwaitis resort to becoming (too) close with women, and forgetting their religion, and taking mistresses for themselves without marrying them. This leads to sin, the spread of disease, and children being born out of wedlock. This issue needs to be dealt with in a way that does not contradict the religion (of Islam), and in which men's desires are provided for. This is something which cannot be accomplished except by resurrecting the system of sex slaves, and putting legal controls on its use." 
She added that, "The female sex-slaves existed for the policy, because the religion (of Islam) permitted their possession, on condition that they were prisoners from raids carried out by Islamic countries against non-Muslim countries." She suggested that the sex slaves be taken from Russian prisoners held in Chechnya, or from Russia or other countries. 
According to the former candidate, the law should be put in place quickly to establish an organization to bring the sex slaves and take ownership of them, in order to preserve the rights of both parties. Wherefore, she suggests that, "The one who desires to own the sex slave, should pay a price of 2,500 dinars. He should pay to the offices which bring the sex slaves, which will quickly establish offices which employ workers, 500 dinars. Two thousand dinars would be placed in an account for the sex slave, which she would not be able to access until 5 years after entering the care of her owner." 
Al-Mutairi also proposes that, "A monthly salary be set at 50 dinars, to be withdrawn monthly from the account of the sex slave's owner. Knowing that any citizen can own whatever sex slave he wants, this is done aiming to get rid of any motive for jealousy between (the sex slaves). It also would not be permitted to bring any sex slave under the age of 15, or over the age of 25. In the proposed law, these sex slaves would be termed "girlfriends of the house." They should be treated with justice, and their rights to salary, care, and to pursue education, if they desire, should be maintained." 
Al-Mutairi recorded her position on sex slaves in a video which was broadcast on the internet. To support the truth of her position, she cited the fact that Harun al-Rashid was married to one woman but had 2,000 sex slaves.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Kuwaiti Lawmaker Proposes $15,000 Reward for Men Who Marry a Second Wife

Interesting that this is coming out at the same time that a former Kuwaiti candidate for parliament is calling for a revival of the old Qur'anic system of taking sex slaves from infidel raids, and selling them in Kuwaiti markets to help satisfy the Kuwaiti man's sexual appetite (stay tuned here for more on that story.) This is translated from Khaberni, 11 June 2011:
Faysal al-Duwaysan intends to offer a proposal in the Representative Legislative Institution in the Umma's Council (Parliament), which would grant a reward of up to $15,000 to the Kuwaiti man who marries a second wife. This would carry with it the stipulation that the women be over 40, widowed, or divorced.

The Public Council for Citizens' Information in Kuwait revealed the existence of more than 30,000 Kuwaiti women who have not married, and have entered into the segment of society in which they're known as "old maids." According to these statistics, this includes women from age 25 through 65 and older, considering that women finish their college education around age 23.

Al-Duwaysan confirmed to the Emirati (UAE) paper "al-Bayan" on Saturday his intention to push for adoption of the proposal, saying: "This is the best solution to curb the "old maid" problem, and eliminate many of the societal problems which began to appear in society as a result of the aggravation of this phenomenon."

The deputy said: "The high rates (of "old maids") make it imperative on everybody--including governmental and even non-governmental institutions--to move to confront the phenomenon which has become a threat. Especially since the numbers indicate there are tens of thousands of unmarried women, alongside a comparable number of men who resort to taking a non-Kuwaiti woman as a second wife. This indicates that marriage to foreign women is the most serious factor in the spread of the "old maid" phenomenon."

Al-Duwaysan stated that the aim of the proposal is to contribute, from the side of the Legislative Institution, to solving the society's problems. He stressed that this continues his serious efforts to put forth appropriate solutions which are compatible with the religion, customs, and traditions of Kuwaiti society.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Video: Shaykh al-Huwayni: "When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her"

After Egyptian Shaykh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni's controversial comments about jihad and slavery (see here) were published on YouTube, Facebook, and also in Egyptian press, he was given the opportunity to respond in a telephone interview aired on the Islamic satellite television station al-Hikma on 22 May 2011. In his approximately 20-minute response, he contended that his words in that clip were taken out of context--he was talking within the larget topic of offensive jihad. In this interview he explained the meaning of offensive jihad, and established through sources in the Qur'an and sayings of Muhammad that both offensive jihad and the taking of spoils of war, namely slaves and "sex-slaves," are legitimate under Islam.

I condensed the 20-minute interview down to about 8 and a half minutes; the subtitled video is above, and the transcript is below:
[...] It is clear that offensive jihad, which I was talking about in that interview, that its purpose is to call people to Islam, and it is not permissible for anyone to hide the divine guidance from the people, under any name. They rejected Islam and the jizya, that's it. The Prophet (PBUH) said:  "If they refuse, then seek Allah's aid and fight them." If fighting occurs, there is going to be a winner and a loser. If the army of the Muslims is victorious, it will take spoils. Taking spoils is a fixed ruling in the Qur'an. Allah permitted it at the day of the Battle of Badr, as it is (recorded) in Surat al-Anfal. Allah Almighty said:  "And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things" [Qur'an 8:41]. 
This (position) on spoils is clear. There is also the saying in the two Sahihs [Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim] from Abi-Hurayra, the first of which is, "One among the prophets (PBUH) raided..." In the other hadith from Yush'a bin Nun, the Prophet (PBUH) said, "When Allah saw our weakness, he made it permissible for us," meaning spoils. The Prophet (PBUH) said, "Spoils were not permitted for any masters besides you." Allah Almighty forbade (the taking of) spoils for all nations before us. He permitted it on the day of the Battle of Badr, as agreed to by all scholars. Not a single Muslim scholar has a problem with this. 
'Spoils' refers to what? It refers to people and wealth. The people are those who are taken prisoner. I want to say that it is not at all permissible to take prisoners from among Muslims, even if they are heretics, because the rule for Muslims is that they are free, and not prisoners. Jihad, as I stated in the beginning, is between Muslims and non-Muslims, from among the infidels. But if two Muslims fought each other, like from Iraq and Iran for example; if Iraq invaded Iran to occupy it, it would not be permissible for an Iraqi man to take a Shi'ite woman captive, because she is Muslim, even though she's a heretic. Likewise if Iran invaded Iraq, it would not be permissible for one of their men to take a Muslim woman captive, because she is free. 
Therefore jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. That between Muslims and Muslims is called oppression, or fighting:  "If two parties among the believers fall into a quarrel..." [Qur'an 49:9]. They are called 'believers,' and this name is not taken from them, even though they are fighting. "If one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses..." Here they are called transgressors, but the name of believers is still not taken away from them. In the verse directly following this one, Allah Almighty says:  "The believers are but a single brotherhood..." They were brothers, even though a party of them transgressed against the other, and some of them fought each other. But the name of believers was not taken from them. 
Do you understand what I'm saying? Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is  no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on. 
When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur'an by the name milk al-yamin, "that which your right hands possess" [Qur'an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur'an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn't need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them. 
These are called slaves. The Prophet (PBUH) talked about them in the hadith narrated by al-Bukhari in his Book of Jihad:  "Allah is delighted at a people who enter the Garden in chains." Also as narrated by Abu-Dawud:  "They are led to the Garden in chains." Naturally, many people might not understand someone being jerked along in chains in order to enter the Garden. This is because all people, even the worst of the unbelievers, say the garden is for them and no others. They run to the Garden without anybody pulling them in chains. 
The meaning of the hadith is this:  these slaves were in a religion other than Islam. However, when they were conquered, and defeated, and taken prisoner, they came to live in the land of Islam. Then when they witnessed the justice, compassion, and mercy of Islam, they became Muslims. These did not convert to Islam except in the chains of war. If they had not been chained, bound, and had their freedom taken from them, they would not have converted to Islam. Therefore this hadith is referring to these slaves. 
I am very shocked and surprised at those who say that we permit slavery. We don't call people to become slaves. In fact, there are vows to free the necks (i.e. slaves). The same Islam which permits us to take slaves, also urges us to free their necks. 
I am very shocked, for example, by a country like the United States or others like it which occupy the inhabitants of the earth. It doesn't enslave individuals, but rather it enslaves entire countries. What is being done in Afghanistan? What is being done in Iraq? What is being done with regards to dividing up Sudan? Those who are in Chechnya, or Eritrea, or any Muslim country are being burned, and taken and thrown in prisons and in Guantanamo and so forth. They say that this is a war against terrorism. This action is the same as slavery, but it is injustice and agression. But Islam in the case of Chosroes was not like that. 
I have entered into the well-known conditions and restrictions (on offensive jihad), of which I mentioned only a few, because it is a long topic. I know that I am in an interview, and perhaps I have carried on too long for your guests. But I will close Allah-willing, and I won't go on more than a couple of minutes. I say that this is requisite with the justice, mercy, and care of Islam for the slaves. Yet they still come and blame us for this supposed blemish, while they are guilty of the same thing many times over. They are tyrants and oppressors who attack the lands of the Muslims especially, more than they do any others. Now when I say spoils, it does not refer only to money, but it also means slaves.
When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her. I choose the man I like, one with strong muscles, or if I want a boy to work in the house, and so forth. I choose one, and pay him a wage. I employ him in a variety of different tasks, then I sell him afterwards. Now, the country that I entered and took captive its men and women--does it not also have money, gold, and silver? Is that not money? When I say that jihad--offensive jihad--with the well-known conditions that I already mentioned from the hadith of the Prophet (PBUH), from the hadith of Burayda in Sahih Muslim, the coffers of the Muslims were full. Would someone who is pious and intelligent--would he say that this is a type of poverty? Or that it is a type of wealth? No--this will fill the coffers of the Muslims with riches and wealth, but as we said, with the recognized conditions. [...]

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Video: Egyptian Shaykh Incites Muslims to Burn Down Churches

This video shows Shaykh Ashraf Yusuf Hassan in the middle of a mob of Muslims, calling on them to burn down churches in the Cairo district of Imbaba. The original Arabic-language video was posted on YouTube on 9 May, just two days after the church was burned down. Twelve were killed and 52 wounded in just the latest round of violence against Egypt's Coptic Christian minority. Apparently 48 Muslims and Christians have been arrested in connection with this incident, yet reportedly the man in this video continues to go free. The subtitled video is above, and the transcript follows (thanks to Nonie Darwish for sending this in and helping out with the translation):
We heard there was a sister being held hostage in a church, as usually happens. The churches have now become gangs, a mafia, unfortunately, (taking hostage) any woman who converts to Islam. The terrorist church is headed by the filthy dog Shenouda. These words need to be broadcast. Take note of this terrorism. We went to solve the problem. We went and took with us a group of shaykhs, to enter inside the church in order to solve the problem, but not a single priest or anyone else moved (to let us in). I told one of them:  We came to solve the problem. He told me:  No--if you want to solve the problem, we will start a fire. That's how it was. This one threw on that, and the other threw back. They had fire and guns. We are always saying that the churches are full of guns. The Muslim throws bottles and stones, while the Christians have fire. Listen, all of you Muslims. All of the Christians have guns, and we are ignorant (of this). We, as Muslims, are stupid. Listen to me--all the firing is coming from the Christian dogs, from the side of the church. The poor Muslim is going with a rock. We would not be men, if we did not burn down the churches in Embaba.
 The Global Mufti: The Phenomenon of Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Columbia/Hurst)

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Al-Qaradawi: "[Moderate Muslims] Accept Offensive Jihad, and Attacking the Infidels in Their Lands"

The following is a translation from an excerpt of Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi's Fiqh al-Jihad, which was posted on Here al-Qaradawi defends the position of those he terms 'moderates' from attacks by 'extremists' who argue that moderates don't accept offensive jihad. Al-Qaradawi argues that to the contrary moderates do accept offensive jihad, including raids into enemy territory, and gives some reasons for which they would accept it.

This is interesting in light of statements of Muslim apologists and spokesmen in the West, who routinely argue that Islam really means an inner spiritual struggle against sin, but inasmuch as it does refer to warfare, it is purely defensive. But when you look at the justifications al-Qaradawi gives for offensive jihad, you find that by his definition even the 'moderate' Muslims accept offensive jihad against the infidels under almost any pretense.

Translated from, 8 January 2011 (I previously translated the first half of this article here):
...I want to clarify here the difference between the moderates and extremists, or the "defensive (jihadists)" and "offensive (jihadists)", as they are called by some.
Some of the offensive (jihadists) have not been fair to those who hold the opposing view. They have put words in their mouths which they did not say, and accused them of that which they are innocent. They say: "They (the defensive jihadists) do not accept offensive jihad under any circumstance, in any form, or for any reason. They do not believe jihad is legitimate except in one condition, which is if Muslims are attacked in their homes and lands." This is how they depict the opinion of the moderates or the defensive (jihadists). 
I think they are not being fair with the opposing side, and are not being precise or honest in presenting their views. Whoever reads their [i.e. the moderates'] opinions, will find that they accept offensive jihad, and attacking the infidels in their lands, for several reasons, including the following: 
1- To ensure the freedom to propagate the call to Islam, to prevent fitna in the religion (of Islam), and to remove the physical obstacles which prevent the call to Islam from reaching the multitudes of people. This was the reason for the conquests of the rightly-guided (caliphs) and the companions (of the Prophet), as well as those who followed them in righteousness. (They fought) to remove the power of the tyrants who controlled the necks and minds of men, and who said what Pharaoh said to those of his people who believed (in Islam): "Have you believed before I gave you permission to believe?" This is the embodiment of the goal expressed in the saying of the Almighty: "Fight them on until there is no more fitna." 
2- To ensure the security of the Islamic state and its borders, when they are threatened by the enemies (of the Islamic state) who lie in wait and conspire against it. This is what is termed in our present day "preemptive war." This is one of the prerogatives of the ruler, and is in accordance with the right to self-defense. Most of the Islamic conquests were of this type of preemptive war, after the Islamic state was attacked early during the reign of the Prophet by the two great kingdoms of Persia and Byzantium. The conflict with Byzantium began with the battles of Mu'ta and Tabuk, and the conflict with Persia began with Chosroes tearing up the Book of the Prophet (PBUH) [i.e. the Qur'an], and threatening what he threatened thereby. 
3- To save the oppressed among Muslim prisoners, or those living in a minority status, who suffer afflictions, persecutions, and torture at the hands of the arrogant oppressors who rule over them without right. As the Most High said:  "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is:  "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!" [Qur'an 4:75]. 
If oppressed and persecuted peoples, even if they are not Muslims, seek aid from the Islamic state, and if the Islamic state possesses the ability to save them, then it should answer their cries and come to their aid. For conquering the unjust ruler, helping the weak, and deterring the oppressor from the oppressed is a religious duty under the shari'a. It is also a moral duty within every religion. Every society protects virtue, and safeguards high moral values, whether the oppressed is Muslim or non-Muslim. 
4- To remove all polytheism from the Arabian Peninsula, which is considered a free and pure nation for Islam and its citizens. Therefore it is a special stronghold for Islam, whose protection is not shared with anyone. 
By Allah, there is wisdom in this:  the Hijaz and the Arabian Peninsula around it is the haven and incubator of this religion. Islam seeks refuge in it whenever trials afflictions are brought by different factions. History has confirmed for us its usefulness and importance throughout the ages through which the ummah has passed.

On this wise the verses from surat al-tauba were sent down on declaring immunity from (the contract with) the polytheists, and their delay of four months, during which time they wandered around the land [see Qur'an 9:1-3]. After which they had to choose for themselves:  accept Islam, depart from this land [i.e. the Arabian Peninsula], or fight. These four months are those which are called forbidden because it was forbidden to fight during them. The Almighty said:  "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" [Qur'an 9:5]. Allah wanted the Arabs to choose to enter Islam before the four months had ended, and thus make the peninsula purely for Islam, and make the Arabs the band of Islam and its preliminary soldiers, to carry its message to the world.

This is Allah's favor for the Arabs, with what he favored them:  the Qur'an was sent in their language, the Messenger was sent from them, and the Ka'ba and the Masjid al-Haram and Masjid al-Nabui are in their land. They have become the guardians of Islam, and the preachers to carry its call to the inhabitants of the world.

Allah knows best.
A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam