The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

latest, 23rd January 2017: Solomon speaking to Ants? – Not too Antsy though!

See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3‎ — completed, 28th June 2013

Archive for October, 2011

Response to a challenge

Monday, October 31st, 2011

Note by Admin: Jamal submitted the following as a comment on an existing thread. I have made it a new post.


Here is the reference you requested:

سو یہ بات کہ اسؔ کو اُمّتی بھی کہا اورنبی بھی۔ اس بات کی طرف اشارہ ہے کہ دونوں شانیں اُمتیت اور نبوت کی اُس میں پائی جائیں گی
“Thus, the fact that he is called “Ummati” and also “Nabi” indicates that both the qualities of “Ummatiyyat” and “Nubuwwat” will be found in him.” (Ruhani Khaza’in, Volume: 3, Page: 386, Book: Izala Auham)

Now, can I get my $1000, or are you going to insist in a childish way on the fact that the two words must be attached together? Just like the Jews and Christians laugh at the Qur’an when it mentions in surah 48 the signs of Muslims as they are supposedly written in the Torah and Injil, but which do not exist in exactly those words in either the Torah or the Gospels? I hope that you will not be so stubborn, and that you will accept that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has said here that he is both “Ummati” and “Nabi” in the same sentence.

Let’s see how ready you are to give away those $1000. Personally, I think you are just bluffing. After such a clear reference, how can anyone with a sincere heart and who fears Allah claim that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not write that he is both Ummati and Nabi? If anyone asked him: “Are you an Ummati Nabi?” He would reply: “Yes, as I had written in Izala Auham.”

You will probably not even let this post go through. I am not expecting you will have the sincerity to allow people to see the truth and to see the flaws in your views exposed.

Issue 27

Saturday, October 29th, 2011

Issue 27 [@ 20:32] Robert Spencer – Traditional Islamic theology has it that the 9th Chapter of the Quran, Surah 9 is the last revealed in the career of the Prophet. And it is the only one that does not begin with Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Raheem – in the name of Allah the Compassionate the Merciful. Some have said that is because there is no compassion or mercy in this particular chapter and that it is the Quran’s last word on Jihad and in particular on how Muslims should behave toward unbelievers. In it is the celebrated verse of sword.

Rebuttal 27: Lo and behold, now Spencer is sanctifying himself by referring to “Traditional Islamic theology” without identifying it. He uses the “Traditional Islamic Theology” to segue into a fabrication that Chapter 9, Surah Al-Bar’at – Immunity which is also called Al-Taubah or Repentance, is the “Quran’s last word on Jihad and how Muslims should behave toward unbelievers.” As to why this Chapter does not start with the usual “Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Raheem,” Muhammad Ali in his commentary of Quran writes – This is the only chapter of the Quran not opening with Bismillah, “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful”, as it is, in a sense, a continuation of the last chapter [8 – Al-Anfal or Voluntary Gifts]. Rebuttal 23 fully deals with the initial part of Chapter 9.

Interestingly, nowhere in the documentary the meaning of Jihad is mentioned so far. Why? The mere fact is that if and when the true meaning of Jihad is mentioned the documentary will self-negate itself and implode under the weight of its falsehood. Muhammad Ali in his book Religion of Islam under the chapter “Jihad in Islam” expounds the meaning of Jihad:

Significance of Jihad

The word jihad is derived from jahd or juhd meaning ability, exertion or power, and jihad and mujahida mean the exerting of one’s power in repelling the enemy [Al-Mufridat fi Ghairibi-l-Qur’an, of lmam Abu-l-Qasim al-Husain ibn Abu-l-Fadzl al-Raghib.]. The same authority then goes on to say: “Jihad is of three kinds; viz., the carrying on of a struggle: 1. against a visible enemy, 2. against the devil, and 3. against self (nafs).

According to another authority, jihad means fighting with unbelievers and that is an intensive form (mubalaghah), and exerting one’s self to the extent of one’s ability and power whether it is by word (qaul) or deed (fi‘l) [al-Nihayah fi Gharibi-l-Iadithi wa-lAthar, by al-Mubarak ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad Jazrs, commonly called Ibn Athsi.].

A third authority gives the following significance: “Jihad, inf. n. of jahada, properly signifies the using or exerting of one’s utmost power, efforts, endeavours or ability, in contending with an object of disapprobation; and this is of three kinds, namely a visible enemy, the devil, and one’s self; all of which are included in the term as used in the Kur. xxii. 77” (Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon.) Jihad is therefore far from being synonymous with war, while the meaning of “war undertaken for the propagation of Islam”, which is supposed by European writers to be the significance of jihad, is unknown equally to the Arabic language and the teachings of the Holy Qur’an.

The arguments of Spencer are no more than a tunnel vision for Jihad in Islam. He never understood the concept of Jihad. The following is an excerpt of the analysis by Muhammad Ali in his book Religion of Islam under the chapter “Jihad in Islam” which deals with Jihad in light of Quran:

Use of the Word Jihad in Makkah Revelations:

Equally, or even more important is the consideration of the sense in which the word is used in the Holy Qur’an. It is an admitted fact that permission to fight was given to the Muslims when they had moved to Madinah, or, at the earliest, when they were on the eve of leaving Makkah. But the injunction relating to jihad is contained in the earlier as well as in the later Makkah revelations. The 29th chapter of the Holy Qur’an is one of a group which was undoubtedly revealed in the fifth and sixth years of the Call of the Holy Prophet; yet there the word jihad is freely used in the sense of exerting one’s power and ability, without implying any war. In one place it is said: “And those who strive hard (jahadu) for Us, We shall certainly guide them in Our ways, and Allah is surely with the doers of good” (29:69). The Arabic word jahadu is derived from jihad or mujahadah, and the addition of fina (for Us) shows, if anything further is needed to show it, that the jihad, in this case, is the spiritual striving to attain nearness to God, and the result of this jihad is stated to be God’s guidance to those striving in His ways. The word is used precisely in the same sense twice in a previous verse in the same chapter: “And whoever strives hard (jahada) strives (yujahidu) for his self,” that is, for his own benefit, “for Allah is Self-Sufficient, above need of the worlds” (29:6). In the same chapter, the word is used in the sense of a contention carried on in words: “And we have enjoined on man goodness to his parents, and if they contend (jahada) with thee to associate (others) with Me, of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not” (29:8).

Among the later revelations may be mentioned al-Nahl, the 16th chapter, where it is said, towards the close: “Then surely thy Lord, with respect to those who flee after they are persecuted then struggle hard (jahadu) and are patient (sabaru), surely thy Lord after that is Protecting, Merciful (16:110). There is another prevalent misconception, namely, that at Makkah the Holy Qur’an enjoined patience (sabr) and at Madinah it enjoined jihad, as if patience and jihad were two contradictory things. The error of this view is shown by the verse quoted, since it enjoins jihad and patience in one breath.

Two more examples may be quoted of the use of the word jihad in the Makkah revelations. In one place it is said: “And strive hard (jahidu) for Allah with due striving (jihad)” (22:78). And in the other: “So obey not the unbelievers and strive (jahid) against them a mighty striving (jihad-an) with it” (25:52), where the personal pronoun it refers clearly to the Holy Qur’an, as the context shows. In both these cases, the carrying on of a jihad is clearly enjoined, but in the first case it is a jihad to attain nearness to God, and in the second it is a jihad which is to be carried on against the unbelievers, but a jihad not of the sword but of the Holy Qur’an. The struggle made to attain nearness to God and to subdue one’s passions, and the struggle made to win over the unbelievers, not with the sword but with Holy Qur’an is, therefore, a jihad in the terminology of the Holy Qur’an, and the injunctions to carry on these two kinds of jihad were given long before the command to take up the sword in self-defence.

Jihad in Madinah Revelations:

A struggle for national existence was forced on the Muslims when they reached Madinah, and they had to take up the sword in self-defence. This struggle went, and rightly, under the name of jihad; but even in the Madinah chapters the word is used in the wider sense of a struggle carried on by words or deeds of any kind. As a very clear example of this use, the following verse may be quoted which occurs twice: “O prophet! strive hard (jahid from jihad) against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them; and their abode is Hell; and evil is the destination” (9:73; 66:9). Here the Holy Prophet is bidden to carry on a jihad against both unbelievers and hypocrites. The hypocrites were those who were outwardly Muslims and lived among, and were treated like, Muslims in all respects. They came to the mosque and prayed with the Muslims. They even paid the zakat. A war against them was unthinkable, and none was ever undertaken. On the other hand, they sometimes fought along with the Muslims against the unbelievers. Therefore the injunction to carry on a jihad against both unbelievers and hypocrites could not mean the waging of war against them. It was a jihad carried on by means of the Holy Qur’an as expressly stated in 25:52, a striving hard to win them over to Islam. In fact, on other occasions as well, it is a mistake to think that jihad means only fighting; the word is almost always used in the general sense of striving hard, including fighting where the context so requires. “ Those who believe and those who fled (their homes) and strive hard in the way of Allah”(2:218; 8:74), is a description which applies as much to the fighters as to those who carry on the struggle against unbelief and evil in other ways. And the sabirin (those who are steadfast or patient), and the mujahidin (those who struggle hard ), are again spoken of together in a Madinah revelation as they are in a Makkah revelation: “ Do you think you will enter the Garden while Allah has not yet known those from among you who strive hard (nor) known the steadfast?” (3 :141).

Pickthall brings to light the fallacy of the West with regards to Jihad and realigns the historical Jihad of Moses and Jesus in the person of Muhammad as follows:

Marmaduke Pickthall on the true concept of Jihad

“The error with regard to the common view regarding Islam arises from misapprehension of the meaning of the word ‘Jihad’, a word which in the hands of the C.I.D. [- U.K. equivalent of FBI in U.S.A.] reporters has caused much groundless fear to the British in India.

In English ‘Jihad’ is commonly translated ‘holy war’, with a meaning like crusade. It properly denotes the whole effort, individual and collective, of the true believer against evil, beginning with the conquest of a man’s own passions and ending possibly, but not necessarily, in persecution and exile or upon the battlefield. Every prophet made Jihad in his own way. That of Moses took the form of emigration to escape from evil. That of Jesus was of a non-violent and passive kind. That of Muhammad shows three stages: first a non-violent endurance of hostility and persecution while fulfilling his own mission, like that of Jesus; second, when the persecution threatened to exterminate his people, emigration, the Jihad of Moses; and third, when he and his followers formed an independent State, however small and weak, and when the persecutors still persisted in attacking them, then and not till then he was enjoined to fight.

The term ‘Jihad’ applies to all those stages, but in the minds of Europeans it is restricted to the third. That is the reason for the whole mistake. The sort of Jihad prescribed for peoples in a subject state differs from that prescribed for the same people in a state of independence. And the Jihad for subject peoples who are persecuted is the Jihad of Jesus, which was followed by Muhammad during thirteen years at Mecca.”

— Loyal Enemy by Anne Fremantle, published by Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., London 1938, pages 323, 324.

For the lame duck falsification and labeling of “the celebrated verse of the sword” by the documentary see earlier Rebuttal 26 and the Rebuttal 28 coming later.

Religion of Islam – Muhammad Ali
Marmaduke Pickthall on the true concept of Jihad

Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s biography

Monday, October 24th, 2011

Submitted by Ikram.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali – Search for Solace, a Biography

I came across Yusuf Ali’s biography on Google Books. Following are some interesting facts:

Comment about LAM members

Page 79: In April 1927, [Maulana Syed] Sulaiman Nadvi counts Lahori Ahmadis – Maulvi Muhammad Ali, Khwaja Kamaluddin, [Majeed] Salik and [Ghulam Rasoon] Mehr among the learned in Lahore along with Allamah Iqbal, Yusuf Ali and others. [footnote 27 on page 87]

Some observations about Yusuf Ali’s translation of Quran and grasp of Arabic

Page 105: “…Yusuf Ali’s lack of competence in Arabic was also raised: ‘He is publishing an English translation of Qur’an, though I am informed by those who know him personally, he does not know a word of Arabic, his translation being based wholly on other English and Urdu translations.’ [footnote-56]

Page 117, footnote 56: The Light of Ahmadiyya Anjuman Lahore came to defense of Yusuf Ali – read details for yourself.
Page 109: “…His [YA] regular activities included a regular tafsir class at Islamia College, at which a member of staff would read from Qur’an, then Yusuf Ali would follow up with a commentary in English, an arrangement that often led to a mixup…” [footnote – 66]

Page 118, footnote 66: Supporting facts that Yusuf Ali was apparently quite weak in Arabic i.e. Yaran-Maktab: Tehrik-i-Pakistan aur Islamia College, ibic, p. 191-192. On one occasion there was some confusion over which verses were to be discussed and after commencing Yusuf Ali realised that his commentary was not related to what had been read out in Arabic. He quickly rose and left the meeting but later apologised to the staff member.

To this section, I will add my previous post, which stands corroborated in light of above facts and time line of 1930’s:

The following was personally told to me by a senior Jamaat member (now deceased), who was then a young law student in Lahore and a part time assistant to Maulana Muhammad Ali:

“Abdullah Yusuf Ali of Anjuman Himayat Islam would literally almost daily walk across the street (Brandreth Road Lahore) to Ahmadiyya Anjuman to get corrections/reviews by Muhammad Ali for his translation.” [paraphrasing is mine]

Yusuf Ali as loyal British subject

Page 87, footnote 26: From Yusuf Ali’s presidential address to the History and Civics Section of the Punjab Educational Conference, December 1926 – Yusuf Ali’s Empire-Loyalism was in full swing: “Above the Government of India we have an Imperial tie, which is symbolized by the British flag, the flag of the British empire. The flag is a symbol. It is even possible for us to have a distinctive national flag and yet to recognise and cherish the Imperial tie…If you strain at the the leash, the fault may possibly be yours. The leash is elastic. I know of no character more adaptable than the British character, and no institutions more responsive to local needs than British institutions. It is for you to understand them and then to adapt them to your needs in the common bonds of empire.”

Page 82: Suggests that Yusuf Ali was possibly spying for British on his trip to Baghdad in 1928.

The above is a British loyalist who is quite rightly cherished for his English translation of Quran in the Muslim World, and was recipient CBE (Commander of the Order of British Empire) for his service Her Majesty. In the same breath we have other “Sirs” of India including Sir Syed Ahmed Khan of Aligarh fame who wrote the book “Reasons for the Mutiny in India.” Unlike rest of Muslims of India, he never called the 1857 events as war of independence. Sir Muhammad Iqbal of Shikwah/Jawab-e-Shikwah wanted independent country for Muslims as British protectorate. Any how, these greats deserve respect for their services to Muslims of India. On the other hand, I do not recall Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being awarded any British title. I wonder why he is called “British agent” unlike the other title holders? He is the only Muslim in the world who invited the British Queen to Islam, thus following the sunnah of Muhammad PBUH who invited the kings of his time to the faith. Think hard!

Yusuf Ali and Muhammad Asad in Islamia College

Page 99: Yusuf Ali was re-appointed principal of Islamia College Lahore on April 15, 1935 at a monthly salary of Rupees 1350 per month by a committee under Allamah Muhammad Iqbal. Earlier Muhammad Asad [Leopold Weiss] was hired to teach fiqh at Rupees 250 per month for the initial probation of six months and Rupees 300 per month thereafter.

Page 114-5, footnote 34: Letter 1 – July 12, 1934 & Letter 2 – July 31, 1934 ; Muhammad Asad to Muhammad Iqbal – Read details for yourself.
Page 103: While he was principal of Islamia College, Yusuf Ali was setup by Sikandar Hayat Khan (a Unionist) to seek election in 1937 from a rural seat in Shaikpura, that he accepted. He was to contest against Jinnah’s Muslim League.

Page 106: Yusuf Ali is then duped by the same Sikandar Hayat and Maulvi Ghulam Mohiuddin Qasuri instead won unopposed. I wonder, if this gentleman belonged to the same Qasuri family that usually secures a Ministerial seat in successive Pakistani governments?

Issue 26

Monday, October 24th, 2011

Issue 26 [@ 20:22] Walid Shoebat – “The peaceful verses became Mansukah, means made – null and void, with verses like verses of the sword.”

Rebuttal 26: The makers of the movie tacitly repeat allegations and insinuations against Quran for their audience on the premise that if you keep throwing a thing at the wall, soon it starts to stick. The emphasis on Mansukah is one such trick. So, we repeat too that Mansukah is an alien concept to Quran promulgated by ignorant. No verse of Quran is null and void (see Rebuttals 5 and 9c). Instead, it is the Old and New Testaments that are made null and void by Quran (see Rebuttal 21).

The inevitable lie of “verse of the sword” finally had to be relied on by the documentary to prop up its facade of falsehood. This fabrication by the documentary has been dealt and removed by Rebuttal 23 above drawing from Commentary and Translation of the Quran by Muhammad Ali and now in his book “Religion of Islam” under the chapter “Jihad” he wrote:

So-called “Verse of the Sword”:

Notwithstanding that ch.9 [of Quran], as shown above [in the original book and rebuttal 23], does not go beyond what is contained in the earliest revelations on the subject of war, the fifth verse of that chapter is called by some people “the verse of the sword”, as if it inculcated the indiscriminate massacre of all idolators or unbelievers. The misconception is due to the fact that the words are taken out of their context, and a significance is forced on them which the context cannot bear. The following words occur in the 5th verse: “So when the sacred months have passed away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5). But similar words occur also in the earliest revelation on the subject: “And kill them wherever you find them” (2:191). In both places it is the context which makes it clear as to the identity of the persons regarding whom the order is given. In both cases those against whom the order is given are the people who have taken up the sword and attacked the Muslims first. It has already been shown that the injunction to fight against the idolaters, as contained in the opening verses of the 9th chapter, relates only to such idolatrous tribes as had made agreements with the Muslims and then broken them and had attacked the Muslims, and not to all idolatrous people, wherever they may be found in the world. If only we read the verse that precedes the fifth verse, not the shadow of a doubt will remain that all idolaters are not spoken of here. For the fourth verse, as quoted already, states that those idolaters were not within the purview of the order who had remained faithful to their agreements. The order was therefore directed against specified idolatrous tribes, the tribes that had made agreements with the Muslims and broken them repeatedly, as expressly stated in (8:56). It is a mistake to regard the order as including all idolatrous people living anywhere in the world or even in Arabia. And if the verse preceding the so-called “verse of the sword” makes a clear exception in case of all friendly idolatrous tribes, that following it immediately makes a clear exception in favour of such members of idolatrous hostile tribes as ask the protection of the Muslims (see v. 6, quoted in the preceding paragraph). And then continuing the subject, it is further laid down that the order relates only to people “who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the prophet and they attacked you first” (9:13). With such a clear explanation of the fifth verse contained in the preceding and following verses, no sane person would interpret it as meaning the killing of all idolaters or the carrying on of unprovoked war against all idolatrous tribes.


Religion of Islam – Muhammad Ali

Issue 25

Monday, October 17th, 2011

Issue 25 [@ 19:51] Serge Trifkovic – “So you will find in the book itself some of these more tolerant verses at a later point in the book…”

[Quran projected with studio voice– 4.And I shall not worship That which you are Worshiping. 5.Nor will you worship That which I worship. 6.To you be your religion, And to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism).]

“…than the very intolerant ones advocating violence and subjugation of the infidels. But that does not mean that it came into being later on. Quite to the contrary, if there is ever a contradiction between two injunctions, the ones that came…”

[Quran projected with studio voice – 39. And fight them Until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshiping others besides Allah) And the religion (worship) Will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (worshiping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah Is All-Seer of what they do]

“…later on in Medina are the ones that retain their validity and the early ones from Makkah have been abrogated.”

Rebuttal 25: Serge Trifkovic tries to polarize Quran by concocting the notion of earlier tolerant verses and the later intolerant ones. Since the documentary quotes Quran in an effort to smear Quran itself, hence the rebuttal will be from Quran. Current issue is also related to the Rebuttal 23 that reader is encouraged to read. The issue at hand is broken down into sub-issues to give the reader a complete perspective of its components.

Issue 25a: Serge Trifkovic – “So you will find in the book itself some of these more tolerant verses at the later point in the book…”

[Quran projected with studio voice– 4.And I shall not worship That which you are Worshiping. 5.Nor will you worship That which I worship. 6.To you be your religion, And to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism).]

Rebuttal 25a: At least Trifkovic agrees with “tolerant verses” when the movie projects Surah Al-Kafirun – Disbelievers (chapter 109). Lets expand further on this doctrine of tolerance in Islam towards non-Muslims with the following excerpt from the introductory notes by Muhammad Ali in his translation of Quran, edited by Zahid Aziz, under the title – Liberal View of Other Religions [p I-44]:

– Faith in all prophets – There is a general misconception that the Quran preaches intolerance, and that Muhammad preached his faith with the sword in one hand and the Quran in the other. The basic principle of Islam, a faith in all the prophets of the world, is enough to give the lie to this allegation. The great and liberal mind that preached not only love and respect for the founders of the great religions of the world but much more than that, faith in them, could not shrink to the narrowness of intolerance for those very religions. Tolerance is not, in fact, the word that can sufficiently indicate the breadth of the attitude of Islam towards other religions. It preaches equal love for all, equal respect for all, and equal faith in all.

[Writer’s addition] There are many verses which could be quoted with clear injunctions mandating respect in Islam for previous Books and Prophets. Following are just a sampler:

2:136. Say: We believe in Allah and (in) what has been revealed to us, and (in) what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and (in) what was given to Moses and Jesus, and (in) what was given to the prophets from their Lord, we make no distinction between any of them and to Him we submit.

[Comment] This shows the cosmopolitan nature of a Muslim’s belief. Not only is belief in the great prophets of Israel an article of faith with a Muslim, but the words what was given to the prophets from their Lord make the Muslim conception of belief in prophets as wide as the world [-that possibly includes Rama, Krishna, Zoroaster, Confucius etc.]. And it should be noted that this broad conception was promulgated at a time when the Jews and the Christians were exerting themselves to the utmost against the new faith.

43:13. He has made plain to you the religion which He enjoined upon Noah and which We have revealed to you, and which We enjoined on Abraham and Moses and Jesus — to establish religion and not to be divided in (regard to) it.

[Comment] Even so early did the Quran announce that the religion preached by the Prophet was not a new religion, but, so far as its basic principles were concerned, it was the same religion as was preached by Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus. The basic principle of Islam — entire submission to One God only — is, in fact, the basic principle of the common religion of humanity.

– No compulsion in religion – Again, intolerance could not be ascribed to a book which altogether excludes compulsion from the sphere of religion:

There is no compulsion in religion.” — 2:256

In fact, the Holy Quran is full of statements showing that belief in this or that religion is a person’s own concern, and that he is given the choice of adopting one way or another; that, if he accepts truth, it is for his own good, and that, if he sticks to error, it is to his own detriment. Given below are just two of these quotations:

The Truth is from your Lord; so whoever wishes, let him believe, and whoever wishes, let him disbelieve.” — 18:29

Clear proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for the good of his own soul; and whoever is blind, it is to its harm. And I am not a keeper over you.” — 6:104

Issue 25b: “…than the very intolerant ones advocating violence and subjugation of the infidels. But that does not mean that it came into being later on. Quite to the contrary, if there is ever a contradiction between two injunctions, the ones that came…”

[Quran projected with studio voice – 39. And fight them Until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshiping others besides Allah) And the religion (worship) Will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (worshiping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah Is All-Seer of what they do]

Rebuttal 25b: For starters, there are no “intolerant” verses in Quran. Period! The documentary under reference only proves the bigotry of its experts who pick and choose a verse totally out of context and then find the translation of Quran that fits their fancies in their effort to smear Quran. Sorry, once again they are wrong and fail miserably when they quote verse 8:39 from an unknown translation [though it closely resembles by Hilali and Muhsin Khan]. Below is the same verse quoted with the difference that its preceding and succeeding verses are also quoted from the translation and commentary of Quran by Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz:

8:38. Say to those who disbelieve, if they cease (fighting), what is past will be forgiven them; and if they return (to it), then the example of those of old has already gone.

[Comment] They [-the Makkans] had gone away from Badr quite discomfited, and they were told that, if they ceased fighting, they would be forgiven. Otherwise, they could read their own doom in the doom of those with whom Allah had dealt previously in similar circumstances. [But, the Makkans did not stop their aggression with the battle at Badr, which is located in between Makkah and Medina (-where Muhammad and Muslims were exiled to). Badr is at a distance of 120 miles from the former and 60 miles from the latter. Subsequently they followed up next year with another attack with resulting battle at a distance of 3 miles from Medina. By the fifth year of exile, they attacked for the third time with a battle actually in Medina – Please read Rebuttal 1 for more details and “Muhammad the Prophet” for actual historical details.]

8:39. And fight with them until there is no more persecution, and all religions are for Allah. But if they cease, then surely Allah is Seer of what they do.

[Comment] That is, if they cease fighting and put an end to their mischief, God’s decree of punishment will not be executed. The state of religious liberty which Islam aimed at is put tersely in the two opening statements — there is no more persecution and all religions are for Allah, everyone being at liberty to hold any belief he likes.

8:40. And if they turn back, then know that Allah is your Patron. Most excellent the Patron and most excellent the Helper!

The doctrine of defensive war in Quran is based upon the actual wars that were imposed on nascent Islam. This doctrine is discussed in detail in Quran. The following verses and their commentary is excerpted from translation by Muhammad Ali. Of note is that in Quran there is no offensive war:

3:195. So their Lord accepted their [-the persecuted and exiled Muslims] prayer, (saying): I will not let the work of any worker among you to be lost, whether male or female; each of you is as the other. So those who fled and were driven forth from their homes and persecuted in My way and who fought and were slain,…

[Comment] Editor’s Note: This shows that Muslims were first made to flee, were driven from their homes, and were persecuted for worshipping the One God, by their enemies, and it was then that they fought in battles in which they were slain. And they fought only after war was made upon them; see 22:39–40, 2:190. [below]
22:39. Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is Able to assist them —

[Comment] This is the earliest permission given to the Muslims to fight. The words in which the permission is granted show clearly that war was first made on the Muslims by their opponents; and secondly, that the Muslims had already suffered great oppression at the hands of their persecutors. The words of the next verse, those who are driven from their homes, may refer to the emigration to Abyssinia, or to the exodus to Madinah, which commenced soon afterwards.

22:40. Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, surely cloisters and churches and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps Him. Surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.

[Comment] The religious freedom established by Islam has not yet been surpassed by the most civilized and tolerant of nations. It deserves to be noted that the lives of Muslims are to be sacrificed not only to stop their own persecution by their opponents and to save their own mosques, but to save churches, synagogues and cloisters as well — in fact, to establish perfect religious freedom. Mosques, though they are the places where the name of Allah is remembered most of all, are mentioned after churches and synagogues. Early Muslims closely followed these directions, and every commander of an army had express orders to respect all houses of worship, and even the cloisters of monks, along with their inmates.

22:41.Those who, if We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and give the due charity and enjoin good and forbid evil. And Allah’s is the end of (all) affairs.

[Writer’s comment] Reader pay attention to the purpose of establishing a government under Islam, whether in peace or after a defensive war – Those who, if We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and give the due charity and enjoin good and forbid evil – These injunctions were issued almost 1500 years ago were followed in letter and spirit under the Muslim rule. This is directly opposite to what history bears witness of Christian subjugation, oppression, slavery and exploitation of the conquered, both of human and natural resources of the occupied. We are all witness to this under the civilized Europe and its colonization of the known world till recently.

[Writer’s comment] If people are not attracted to Islam and its principles, then such peoples are addressed in the following verses. The issue of their fate and destiny is between such a peoples and their God. Unlike the witch burnings and forced conversion of colonies under Christian Church in order “to save them from themselves,” there is no such role of a Muslim government towards its citizens or towards its neighbors:

22:42. And if they reject you, already before them did the people of Noah and Ad and Thamud reject (prophets),

22:43. and the people of Abraham and the people of Lot,

22:44. and the dwellers of Midian. And Moses (too) was rejected. But I gave respite to the disbelievers, then I seized them; so how (severe) was My disapproval!

22:45. How many a town We destroyed while it was unjust, so it is fallen down upon its roofs; and (how many) a deserted well and palace raised high!

22:46. Have they not travelled in the land so that they should have hearts with which to understand, or ears with which to hear? For surely it is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are
the hearts which are in the breasts.
2:190. And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but do not be aggressive. Surely Allah does not love the aggressors.

[Comment] This is one of the earliest revelations permitting Muslims to fight. It is remarkable that fighting in the way of Allah is here expressly limited to fighting in defence. Muslims were required to fight in the way of Allah, but they could fight only against those who waged war on them. Exactly the same limitation is placed on what was in all probability the first revelation permitting fighting: “Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made because they are oppressed” (22:39). Muslims were allowed to take up the sword only as a measure of self-defence. The enemies of Islam, being unable to suppress Islam by persecution, and seeing that Islam was now safe at Madinah and gaining strength, took up the sword to annihilate it. No course was left for the Muslims but either to be swept off the face of the earth or take up the sword in defence against an enemy which was immensely stronger.

2:191. And kill them wherever you find them,

[Comment] The words kill them refer to those with whom fighting is enjoined in the previous verse, who waged war upon the Muslims.

and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter.

[Comment] The word translated as “persecution” is fitna. Ibn Umar explained the word fitna when he said: “And there were very few Muslims (in the beginning), so a man used to be persecuted on account of his religion: they either murdered him or subjected him to tortures until Islam became predominant, then there was no fitna ” (Bukhari, 65.2:30).

And do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it; so if they fight you (in it), kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

2:192. But if they cease, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[Comment] Note the clemency of the Islamic fighting injunctions. Muslims were to sheathe their swords if the enemy desisted from fighting.

2:193. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah.

[Comment] When persecution ceases, and people are not forced to accept or renounce a religion, then there should be no more fighting. If they cease persecution, Muslims are at once to stop fighting against them, and hostilities are not to be continued against any except the aggressors.

But if they cease, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

2:194. The sacred month for the sacred month, and retaliation (is allowed) in sacred things.

[Comment] This is similar to what is said in v. 191 regarding the Sacred Mosque. The pre-Islamic Arabs observed four months in the year as sacred, in which hostilities ceased and peace was established throughout the land. If the opponents violated the sacred months by attacking the Muslims first in those months, the Muslims were permitted to fight against them in the sacred months. And generally retaliation within the limits of the original act of aggression is permitted in the case of all sacred objects.

Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and keep your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty.

2:195. And spend in the way of Allah and do not cast yourselves to destruction with your own hands and do good (to others). Surely Allah loves the doers of good.

3:200. O you who believe, be steadfast and try to excel in steadfastness and guard (the frontiers). And keep your duty to Allah that you may be successful.

[Comment] While victory is predicted for the Muslims, they are required to be humble in the hour of triumph, as at the close of the last chapter. The three qualities spoken of here, namely, steadfastness or endurance, trying to excel in steadfastness, and guarding, carry a temporal as well as a spiritual significance. They require, on the one hand, showing endurance in wars, excelling the enemy in endurance and to remain in readiness on the frontiers of the Muslim territory to meet the enemy, and, on the other, remaining steadfast in keeping away from evil and in keeping to obedience to God, trying to excel each other in the quality of endurance and to remain on guard against the temptations of the devil.

In the light of above discussion which is based upon Quran, the falsehood propagated by the documentary stands exposed. In summary, there is no offensive war in Quran. Defensive war is only permitted as long as the enemy is hostile. If the above doctrine to defend oneself is “intolerant” then the burden is on the false prophets of the movie to tell the world their understanding of the meaning of “tolerant” and “peaceful” with practical examples of their own choosing from the history of world.

While doling out any examples of “tolerance” they may please spare the audience of the “tolerance of the bible” where it mandates killing of –– non-believers, infidels, collective punishment of town-dwellers, non-obedient parish, witches, fornicators, adulterers, a betrothed woman who cannot prove her virginity, fortunetellers, non-obedient children, blasphemers, sabbath breakers, sons’ for the guilt of their fathers and so on. Many web links with ridicule of the Bible could be provided from the internet about “Killing in the Bible” but out of respect for the People of the Book a moderate link is presented.
Issue 25c: “…later on in Medina are the ones that retain their validity and the early ones from Makkah have been abrogated.”

Rebuttal 25c: Maybe, Trifkovic has a point of some intolerant non-Quranic injunction cancelling and abrogating some other tolerant guideline. However, under Rebuttals 23, 25a and 25b we do not find an iota of intolerance in Quran in context of allegation by Trifkovic. No verse of Quran is null and void (see Rebuttals 9c and 21). Instead it is the Old and New Testaments that are made null and void by Quran (see Rebuttal 21).

Note: Use of [Brackets] are editorial comments by the writer of this Rebuttal and are not part of the original cited sources.
Crime and Punishment in Bible
Muhammad The Prophet – Muhammad Ali
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz

Who is the Judge?

Monday, October 17th, 2011

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

Opponents of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (HMGA) keep challenging Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (LAM) members to provide reference from the Holy Quran to the point which he referred. And if we can provide proofs we will get so much monetary reward.

Other times these opponents allege that HMGA wrote such and such statement, and this is what he meant by his statement. They accuse LAM members to distort meaning of HMGA statement.

For many years i use to debate with these opponents after reading few pages before and after the quote to better understand the context of HMGA quotes. Many times those quotes were not from HMGA books. They were either from writings of HMGA opponent, or were from Malfoozat (NOT writings of HMGA), Tazkara (NOT a book written by HMGA), newspapers articles (reported by listeners in Badar, Al Hakam). After I spent many hours these opponents without acknowledging their mistake would just vanish and then reappear under different usernames on internet forums and again start making allegations. It was obvious these opponents are not sincere in opposition and not honest enough to admit their misunderstanding. Finally I came up with following strategy:

1- If opponents of HMGA want me to answer their allegation then they must provide HMGA quotes from his published books that he himself authored.

2- Before making allegation opponent should read ten pages before and after the HMGA quote under discussion.

3- Opponent should state under oath with invitation of Allah’s wrath on his children, family and himself, that whatever objection/ allegation he is making, he is convinced in his heart after reading the ten pages before and after the HMGA quote to fully understand the context, and he is writing with all honesty what he believes in his heart.

4- All I wanted was to hold opponents words against themselves. If they were honest in their assertion then they should have no problem stating their statement under oath that they were making otherwise.

5- As it became clear that either these opponents were making false statement or after reading the context of quote they were convinced that it does not mean what they previously thought. Instead of accepting their mistakes they like JEWS OF JESUS TIME, keep on repeating their false statements, without taking oath and inviting Allah’s writ to punish liars.

6- Many times these opponents of HMGA are also “moderators” of the anti-HMGA forum, and blogs. But instead of showing the honesty and bravery by clearly stating that poster and moderator is the same person, they use different user names. These moderators keep deleting my posts and banning me on their forums and blogs.

7- When I remind them that Allah SWT says in Holy Quran when there is no witness or judge to decide between the two parties then take oath and invite Allah to decide between them and punish the liars. These opponents delete my posts and ban me.

8- I keep reminding these opponents, as there is no court and judge on internet with temporal powers to punish the liars, as was the case in South African courts in 1980s between LAM and anti-HMGA people. There Judgments were issued in favor of LAM and anti-HMGA people were punished. Unfortunately, anti-HMGA posters on internet are not willing to invite Allah SWT to judge between them and LAM member. The most notorious in this regard are Akbar Ahmad Chaudhry (spokesman for Khatam-e-Nabuwat Academy, UK) he acts as poster and moderator under different names on, and Shahid Ahmad Kamal (speaker of Khatam-e-Nabuwat Academy, UK) poster and moderator of

Now these opponents of HMGA have adopted another strategy, of announcing a monetary reward to those who can provide proof and/or answer their questions. These anti-HMGA people understand very well that unless there is judge with temporal powers in this world there is no way to extract monetary reward from them nor they can be punished for making false accusations. So they can make as much false statements as they wish, and nobody in this world is there to stop them. Again they are not willing to invite Allah SWT to act as a judge. But there is limit to Allah’s patience and signs of Allah’s patience running out are evident. It is evident from the statement at the bottom of home page of anti-HMGA website based in UK. These opponents of HMGA who are willing to murder follower of HMGA on the drop of the hat in Pakistan are forced to write on ‘Second Hand Islam’:

“We, at Secondhand Islam, reject all forms of violence that may be directed towards innocent members of the Qadiani Cult. As Muslims we believe that no individual/organisation has the right to take the law into their own hands and harm another creation of Allah.”

These ‘Second Hand Islam’ people have given ‘Five Challenges’. Being member of LAM, I am willing to take their challenge, ONLY IF they can point out the judge with temporal powers who can extract money from them and reward it to me.

I am emailing this post to ‘Second Hand Islam’ people through their ‘Contact Us’.

Solution to wealth gap problem between 1% and 99% Americans

Saturday, October 15th, 2011

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.

World is watching protests at Wall Street in New York City. According to protestors they represent bottom 99% Americans and are protesting against top 1% Americans. They are protesting over huge wealth gap between the two groups of Americans.

In 2006 a documentary ‘The One Percent’ was directed and produced by Jamie Johnson, an heir to the multinational pharmaceutical/ chemical company Johnson & Johnson. This documentary is about the growing wealth gap between America’s wealthy elite and the citizenry on the whole.

Documentary has interviews with number of prominent, intellectuals, and wealthy Americans. On one end of spectrum of interviewees is Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in Economics, the creator of ‘Trickledown economics theory’ and on other end is Ralph Nader, famous US politician and consumers advocate.

Throughout the film Jamie Johnson searches for the solution to economic disparity, particularly in USA. None of the people interviewed provide the solution. They say they don’t want communism or even socialism but they don’t give any workable solution. At the end of the film, Jamie interviews his own father, himself a member of 1% group, he admits the problems, but also admits he has no solution.

I wish these intellectuals had read 15 pages of Chapter 2 in Maulana Muhammad Ali book ‘The New World Order’, originally written in 1942. (Link to book.) Documentary could have provided solution Americans are searching for. Blogger Ikram very aptly wrote elsewhere: Capitalism has not won; it is only lasting little longer.

Muslim website against Dr Zakir Naik alleges he holds “Qadiani” beliefs

Friday, October 14th, 2011

I have come across the following website where some Muslims groups criticise and reject certain beliefs of Dr Zakir Naik:

I refer to the following section in this link:


In his speeches and writings Dr. Naik claims that advent of Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) has been mentioned in Hindu scriptures. He has made this claim thousands of time in his lectures.

People will be surprised to know that Dr. Naik’s rhetoric on this subject is a direct copy of the work titled “Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) in world scriptures” written by Abdul Haq Vidyarthi Qadiyani (1888 – 1977), a missionary of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.”


To prove this, they say: “we have provided a summary of comparison between Dr. Naik’s works and that of the writing in Vidyarthi Qadiyani’s book; which is identical – word-by-word.”

Here they provide a link to a document (this document will open in Microsoft Word, so here is a local pdf copy I created).

This document consists of extracts from my article on this subject, to which they have given their own title as follows:

Comparison of work of Zakir Naik Salafi and Abdul Haq Vidyarthi Qadiyani By Zahid Aziz Qadiyani

Apart from misrepresenting us as “Qadiyani”, they have omitted those parts of my article which show that the Maulana rendered a very great service to Islam by his research into Hindu scriptures.

Wisdom of the Holy Quran and Steve Jobs

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

Submitted by Dil Sooz.

This past week two important things happened in my life. Steve Jobs died and I listened to his famous Stanford speech on you tube. Here is the link .

Secondly, I came across these Quranic verses- explained below. Mr. Jobs in his speech emphasized his earnest desire to do extraordinary good in technology, he believed in his “inner truth”. He endured extreme opposition – even getting fired from company he created. Then almost getting bankrupt and finally did not compromise on quality of his product -even if it meant overtaking the norm with extra effort. He also said `death is best invention” for success of man. This means every day we live is on borrowed time. (Islam tells that every prayer we offer should be considered as last—to encourage more good/success in short time span)

(Disclaimer: Holy Quran is NOT a textbook of Business Administration or Sciences. However it inspires man to seek out excellence in all areas of human development)

In Holy Quran Chapter 79 (Al Naziat) “Those Who Yearn”, first five verses give a description of the spiritual characteristics of the faithful who are destined to bring about a transformation in the world: (Interpretation by Maulana Muhammad Ali)

1. By those yearning vehemently! (There was a vehement yearning in the hearts of believers for their Maker. Be it developing technology or commerce, Mullah generally does not emphasize these aspects of Quranic inspiration as they are under-educated and cannot go against dictates of their neo colonial puppet masters template of angry foaming mouth Muslims, which in turn are needed for war industry )

2. And those going forth cheerfully! (It was this ardent desire that made them go forth in the way of Allah cheerfully in spite of the severest opposition)

3. And those running swiftly! (Early Muslims ran swiftly so that they traversed eastern and western lands in an incredibly short time; they were thus ahead of all those who ever carried the message of Truth to their fellow-man-just imagine short span of time in which Islam spread)

4. And those that are foremost going ahead!

5. And those regulating the Affair! (They regulated the affair of the spread of Truth in the world, so that the farthest east (China) and farthest west (Morocco and Spain) were lit with the light of Islam within a hundred years.)

In summary: Taking the words in a general sense, they indicate the various stages through which an affair is brought to a successful issue. The first stage is that of an ardent desire or yearning for it; the second is that of going forth cheerfully to accomplish it; the third is that of running swiftly for its accomplishment; the fourth is that of going ahead of others; and the fifth that of regulating it in the best possible way.

If I can make essence of these verses understandable to my own self in a simple way then I would say: During my high schools days I liked to participate in 1500 meters race. It required an earnest desire to get up from the chair and run for long haul. In contrast to many others who would sit on side and cheer. Then there has to be `cheerfulness” about running otherwise it becomes torture.Then keep running fast. Soon one finds majority of runners form a pack along inner most circle-as it is easiest. But the winners breakaway from them and go ahead. And finally they regulate their affair of running (energy,time, style: sprint versus long steps) and finish the race appropriately.

Issue 24

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

Issue 24 [@ 19:40]: Robert Spencer – “It is very important to understand the Quran is not arranged chronologically but arranged on simply on the basis of longest chapter to the shortest.”

Rebuttal 24: Robert Spencer is wrong that Quran is “arranged on simply the basis of longest chapter to the shortest.” The following is a listing of number of verses in each of the Surah (chapter) in Quran. Read the table below horizontally from top-left to bottom-right e.g. Surah #1 has 7 verses, Surah #2 has 286 verses….the last Surah #114 has 6 verses:

7 286 200 176 120 165 206 75 129 109 123 111 43 52 99 128 111 110 98 135 112 78 118 64 77 227 93 88 69 60 34 30 73 54 45 83 182 88 75 85 54 53 89 59 37 35 38 29 18 45 60 49 62 55 78 96 29 22 24 13 14 11 11 18 12 12 30 52 52 44 28 28 20 56 40 31 50 40 46 42 29 19 36 25 22 17 19 26 30 20 15 21 11 8 8 19 5 8 8 11 11 8 3 9 5 4 7 3 6 3 5 4 5 6

The main body of Quran in terms of number of verses per Surah is skewed towards right in distribution, but so what? If that is the Divine Design, then so be it. Message of Quran is across the board pristine, relevant and for uplift of humanity. It is just one more bogus attempt to distract away from the content of Quran. Such kind of arguments are frivolous attempt by the movie makers to use fill-in arguments to lengthen the movie.

Mr Robert Spencer – What is your point? What is so “important” in your observation? What’s wrong with current arrangement? Should Quran be alphabetical? Should it be arranged in reverse order? These Islam haters will try to find any nonsensical reason to criticize. A very classical bean counter’s logic.

Earlier it was Walid Shoebat who in his infinite wisdom tried to breakdown Quran into geographical location of revelation i.e. Makiyyah and Madinyyah Surahs, which was fully answered in Rebuttal 17. Now Spencer is trying another tack by citing length of Surahs. In the next Issue 25, Robert Trifkovic will re-emphasize the abrogation theory by dividing Quran on tolerant and intolerant lines. None of them have been able to build a case upon the content of Quran. Their scholarship is pathetic. Their arguments are like sand which slips out from within their fingers with nothing but dust remaining in their palms. These are centuries old objections. Nothing original, nothing smart. These objections have been asked, answered and dispensed with by Quran fifteen hundreds years ago:

25:32. And those who disbelieve say, `Why has not (the whole of) the Qur’ân been revealed to him all at once? (But We have revealed it) in this manner (- piece by piece out of necessity). And (in spite of the fact that it has not been revealed all at once,) We have arranged it in an excellent (form and order of) arrangement (and free of all contradictions) so that We may thereby lend strength to your heart.

25:33. They bring you no parable (by way of an objection) but We have provided you with the true fact and perfect interpretation (of it, in answer to the objection beforehand).


Quran Surah Statistics
Holy Quran – Nooruddin