The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

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

December 25th, 2012

Issue 81

Issue 81 [@ 1:24:12]: Walid Shoebat – “Islamic fundamentalism is a sleeper cell in America. A good point, a good case in point is the story of Saladin. Saladin is a great hero in Islam. Saladin was the one who defeated the Crusades. There was a treaty that was supposed to be happening between the Crusaders and Saladin and the story goes as follows – the Arab mediator came to Saladin and said – the Quran says: ‘that if they concede to peace than concede to it,’ which means that if the enemy wants peace let’s have peace, which is a verse you can find directly in the Quran. And Saladin responded with a great answer when he stated to the guy – ‘you are an Arab and I’m a Kurd. You should know the Quran better than I. Don’t forget that the Quran also says: Why should we concede for peace when we have the upper hand.’ So you find both verses in the Quran. Peace, you concede to peace when you are the weaker party. This is why you hear the term ‘hudna.’ Hudna is a peace treaty, cease fire. In Iraq, Sadr asked for hudna because he knew he can’t defeat Americans. You have hudnas all over when the enemy is stronger than you are. But as soon as you gain strength then you don’t concede for peace. This is why the face of Islamic fundamentalism in the West has a façade that Islam is a peaceful religion. Because they are waiting to have more Islamic immigrants, they are waiting to increase in number, waiting to increase their political power. And once they do then look out. You will see the real face of Islamic fundamentalism here in America.”

Rebuttal 81: The above ‘scholarly’ rant by Shoebat is broken down as follows:

Issue 81a: Walid Shoebat – “Islamic fundamentalism is a sleeper cell in America…”

Rebuttal 81a: Before we go any further, it becomes prudent to understand the term ‘fundamentalism’, its origin and what it means across different religions e.g. is it the same or different for example in Christianity and Islam? Its origin according to Wikipedia is essentially a Christian experience:

Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910-1920. The movement’s purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism.

The term “fundamentalism” has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897), which defined those tenets it considered fundamental to Christian belief. The term was popularized by the The Fundamentals, a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by the brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart. This series of essays came to be representative of the “Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy”, which appeared late in the 19th century within some Protestant denominations in the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the “five fundamentals”:

* The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this.
* The virgin birth of Christ.
* The belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin.
* The bodily resurrection of Christ.
* The historical reality of Christ’s miracles.

By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as “fundamentalists”. In practice, the first point regarding the Bible was the focus of most of the controversy.

By any stretch of logic and commonsense, any believer in above myths in the name of a religion and that too in modern times in none but a fundamentalist with all its connotations. What can such a fundamentalist ideology or its practice add to human understanding of God and as to what God stands for, but a fossilized concept? These fundamentals are the very basis of decay of a religion into trinity, monkery, the great unwashed, celibacy, witch burning, crusades, inquisition, anti-science, colonization, exploitation, slavery, capitalism and so on.

Above is a Christian experience of fundamentalism, which is just another name for centuries old dogmatism. It is exactly opposite in Islam. The fundamentals of Islam are not man-made distillations that are voted upon to be accepted, but are divinely ordained:

4:136. O you who believe, believe in

* Allah and
* His Messenger and
* the Book which He has revealed to His Messenger and
* the Book which He revealed before.

And whoever disbelieves in

* Allah and
* His angels and
* His Books and
* His messengers and the
* Last Day,

he indeed strays far away.
[Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz – emphasis added and formatted for ease of enumeration]

The fundamentals of Islam above if nothing else, create love and harmony between peoples and their faiths by a unifying God for all Mankind, Who ordained prophets for all peoples in history and repeatedly revealed guidance for them. A Muslim is duty bound to not only revere the last Prophet Muhammad, but all prophets before namely Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, Zoroaster, Rama, Krishna, Confucius, Socrates, Buddha etc. For a Muslim, Quran is the final Scripture, after the other divine revelations of which overtime got corrupted including Torah, Psalms/Zabur, New Testament/Evangel, Zend-Avesta, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Tipitaka, Tao Te Ching etc. A Muslim believes in a ‘living’, ‘communicating’ and ‘all mighty’ God and His angelic mechanisms. Each Muslim is cognizant of the Omni-requital of his thoughts, intentions and actions, which in turn is a natural and constant check to prevent one from overstepping the boundaries that are essential for peace of mankind. Unlike deity worship, a Muslim cannot ‘appease’ or trick God by rituals or nonsensical hymns and read of His Message.

The above fundamentals of Islam are supplemented with certain individual and collective practices of body, mind, soul and possessions:

* Kalima (the pronouncement of the Unity of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad [pbuh])
* Salat or Prayer
* Saum or Fasting
* Hajj or Pilgrimage to Makkah
* Zakat or Charity

A Muslim ‘fundamentalist’ by above definition is a blessing for self and others. Such a ‘fundamentalist’ is at peace with him/herself and with everyone around. By any secular standards, a ‘good’ Muslim must follow the fundamentals of Islam as outlined above. Can we make such a claim for a Christian fundamentalist? Ironically, such a Christian is more likely to be called the ‘bible thumper’ who ‘loves’ his enemies and then kills or exploits them all – before it was by colonization and slavery, now by the hedge funds and the pie in the sky stock markets where gain of one is possible only by loss of another, which in itself is a dignified name for gambling, where wages of labor are raked in globally and in return are given guarantee-less promises printed on paper.

If Shoebat means to imply criminal activity of certain cults in Islam then he might be surprised to know that it is fundamental duty of a Muslim to unearth such elements where ever they maybe:

7:56. And do not make mischief in the earth after its reformation…[This verse is squarely aimed at both the government and governed]

Walid Shoetbat needs to read the following links at with regards to the ‘sleeper cell in America’ of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ that dwells more in his head than in the land:

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t

All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t (in America)

Issue 81b: “…A good point, a good case in point is the story of Saladin. Saladin is a great hero in Islam. Saladin was the one who defeated the Crusades. There was a treaty that was supposed to be happening between the Crusaders and Saladin and the story goes as follows – the Arab mediator came to Saladin and said – the Quran says: ‘that if they concede to peace than concede to it,’ which means that if the enemy wants peace let’s have peace, which is a verse you can find directly in the Quran. And Saladin responded with a great answer when he stated to the guy – ‘you are an Arab and I’m a Kurd. You should know the Quran better than I. Don’t forget that the Quran also says: Why should we concede for peace when we have the upper hand.’ So you find both verses in the Quran…”

Rebuttal 81b: Shoebat like always tries to add color to his fantastic stories by quoting invented history. Earlier, he claimed to be a terrorist himself (which he never was and that is a good thing), and now he tries to make Saladin as non-peaceful, while using a total distortion of Quran. Shoebat clearly has problems to be honest. History is quite opposite, where Saladin accepted peace terms despite knowing that his enemy was weak and still scheming against him:

As his illness became very grave, the King despaired of recovering his health. Because of this he was much afraid, both for the others as well as for himself. Among the many things which did not pass unnoted by his wise attention, he chose, as the least inconvenient course, to seek to make a truce rather than to desert the depopulated land altogether and to leave the business unfinished as all the others bad done who left the groups in the ships.

The King was puzzled and unaware of anything better that he could do. He demanded of Saif adDin, Saladin’s brother, that he act as go between and seek the best conditions be could get for a truce between them. Saif adDin was an uncommonly liberal man who bad been brought, in the course of many disputes, to revere the King for his singular probity. Saif adDin carefully secured peace terms on these conditions: that Ascalon, which was an object of fear for Saladin’s empire so long as it was standing, be destroyed and that it be rebuilt by no one during three years beginning at the following Easter.[March 28, 1193] After three years, however, whoever had the greater, more flourishing power, might have Ascalon by occupying it. Saladin allowed Joppa to be restored to the Christians. They were to occupy the city and its vicinity, including the seacoast and the mountains, freely and quietly. Saladin agreed to confirm an inviolate peace between Christians and Saracens, guaranteeing for both free passage and access to the Holy Sepulcher of the Lord without the exaction of any tribute and with the freedom of bringing objects for sale through any land whatever and of exercising a free commerce.

When these conditions of peace had been reduced to writing and read to him, King Richard agreed to observe them, for he could not hope for anything much better, especially since he was sick, relying upon scanty support, and was not more than two miles from the enemy’s station. Whoever contends that Richard should have felt otherwise about this peace agreement should know that he thereby marks himself as a perverse liar.

Things were thus arranged in a moment of necessity. The King, whose goodness always imitated higher things and who, as the difficulties were greater, now emulated God himself, sent legates to Saladin. The legates informed Saladin in the hearing of many of his satraps, that Richard had in fact sought this truce for a three year period so that he could go back to visit his country and so that, when he had augmented his money and his men, he could return and wrest the whole territory of Jerusalem from Saladin’s grasp if, indeed, Saladin were even to consider putting up resistance. To this Saladin replied through the appointed messengers that, with his holy law and God almighty as his witnesses, he thought King Richard so pleasant, upright, magnanimous, and excellent that, if the land were to be lost in his time, he would rather have it taken into Richard’s mighty power than to have it go into the hands of any other prince whom be had ever seen. [excerpt from – Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi:
Richard the Lionheart Makes Peace with Saladin, 1192, Forham University, The Jesuit University of New York – link]

The above historical facts from Crusader sources prima facie rebut Shoebat for his allegations against Saladin. Let’s address his scholarship of Quran and try to find verses that he makes references to without identifying them.

The first verse that he points to in his statement – ‘Quran says: that if they concede to peace than concede to it,’ – is most likely the following:

8:61. And if they incline towards peace, you should also incline towards it and put your trust in Allâh. Surely, it is He Who is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. [Nooruddin]

Quran does not even stop at that, but takes it even further and obligates Muslims to accept peace treaty even at the risk of deceit by the enemy:

8:62. But if they intend to desert you, (remember that) Allâh surely suffices you. It is He Who has strengthened you with His help and with the believers;

8:63. And He has united their (- believers’) hearts in mutual affection. Had you spent all that is in the earth you could not have united their hearts so, but Allâh united their hearts in mutual affection. He is indeed All-Mighty, All-Wise

8:64. O Prophet! Allâh is sufficient for you and for the believers who follow you. [Nooruddin]

The second verse that Shoebat gives hint about when he states – ‘Quran also says: Why should we concede for peace when we have the upper hand. So you find both verses in the Quran’ – CANNOT be found in Quran. The closest verse that can be gleaned from his hint is the following which has totally different connotation from what Shoebat is fabricating:

47:35. (Believers! when fighting once starts) do not be mean so as to sue for peace. You will certainly have the upper hand. Allâh is with you. He will never let you suffer a loss in (the reward) of your (good) deeds. [Nooruddin]

Clearly, the above verse refers to ‘upper hand’ of Muslims in a future tense and not in present as concocted by Shoebat. The verse speaks of prophesized superiority of Muslims after the start of hostilities and culminations of their effort, not before when they consider themselves weak.

Shoebat is proven false by Crusaders own accounts and Quran. With the above, Saladin walks tall in history for the mere fact that he complied with Quranic injunctions to the extent that even his enemies salute his chivalry, magnanimity and peacefulness.

Issue 81c: Shoebat – “…Peace, you concede to peace when you are the weaker party. This is why you hear the term ‘hudna.’ Hudna is a peace treaty, cease fire. In Iraq, Sadr asked for hudna because he knew he can’t defeat Americans. You have hudnas all over when the enemy is stronger than you are. But as soon as you gain strength then you don’t concede for peace…”

Rebuttal 81c: Once again, the documentary continues its relentless fabrications. It invents terms and gives them meaning of its own liking to suit its agenda. Before it were Jihad and Taqiyya. Now, Hudna is added to its growing list of concoctions. Shoebat has no clue as to what Hudna means and what it signifies and his explanation of Hudna is farthest from what it stands for.

Shoebat alleges that peace by Muslims is factually a deceit because, he states – Peace, you concede to peace when you are the weaker party.

Let Shoebat know that if Muslims follow any person after God, then it is no other than Prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad signed peace treaties with his enemies when he had the capacity to over-power them. He signed three treaties with the treacherous Jewish tribes in Medina who were given safe passage along with their properties. The peace treaty of Hudaibiyah with its apparently humiliating terms against Muslims was signed when he could have easily taken over Makkah with his 1400 companions on the outskirts of Makkah. He signed peace treaty with Jews of Khaibar despite that he had overcome them. Does Shoebat think that peace treaty in any conceivable manner was offered by his enemies when the enemies themselves were more powerful? Nay! The prophet and Muslims were subjected to wars and invasions of Medina to annihilate the nascent Islam right in its infancy.

Unlike Shoebat’s disinformation that equates Hudna with deceit, Hudna is one of the elements of the moral spectrum in Islam:

* Chastity
* Honesty
* Meekness (Hudna)
* Politeness
* Forgiveness
* Kindness
* Courage
* Veracity
* Patience
* Sympathy

To fully understand the significance of Hudna and how it blends into adjoining attributes on the moral spectrum was wonderfully elucidated by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in his landmark book “Teachings of Islam”, the relevant sections of which are excerpted below:

After giving the savage the necessary rules of guidance, the Quran undertakes to teach him high morals. We shall mention, by way of illustration, only a few of the moral qualities upon which stress has been laid.

All moral qualities fall under two heads: firstly, those which enable a man to abstain from inflicting injury upon his fellow men, and, secondly, those which enable him to do good to others. To the first class belong the rules which direct the intentions and actions of man so that he may not injure the life, property or honor of his fellow-beings through his tongue or hand or eye or any other member of his body. The second class comprises all rules calculated to guide the motives and actions of man for doing good to others by means of the faculties which God has granted him, or in declaring the glory or honor of others, or in forbearing from a punishment which an offender deserves, thus giving him the positive benefit of having escaped a physical punishment or loss of property which he would otherwise have suffered, or in punishing him in such a manner that the punishment turns out to be a blessing for him.


The moral qualities which fall under the heading of abstaining from injuries are four in number. Each one of these is designated by a single word in the Arabic language whose rich vocabulary supplies an appropriate word for different human conceptions, manners and morals.

First of all, let us consider ihsan or “chastity”. This word signifies the virtue which relates to the act of procreation in a person. A man or a woman is said to muhsin or muhsina when he or she abstains from illegal intercourse and its preliminaries which bring disgrace and ruin upon the head of the sinners in this world and severe torture in the next, besides the disgrace and loss caused to those connected with them. None is more wicked than the infamous villain who causes the loss of a wife to a husband and of a mother to her children, and thus violently disturbs the peace of a household, bringing ruin upon the head of both, the guilty wife and the innocent husband, not to talk of the children.

The first thing to remember about this priceless moral quality, called “chastity”, is that no one deserves credit for refraining from satisfying his carnal desires illegally, if nature has not granted him those desires. The words “moral quality” therefore cannot be applied to the mere act of refraining from such a course unless nature has also made a man capable of committing the evil deed. It is refraining under such circumstances – against the power of the passions which nature has placed in man that deserves to be credited as a high moral quality. Nonage, impotency, emasculation or old age nullify the existence of the moral quality we term “chastity”, although a refraining from the illegal act exists in these cases. But the fact is that in such cases it is a natural condition, and there is no resistance of passion and consequently no propriety or impropriety is involved.

This, as has already been said, is an important distinction between natural conditions and moral qualities. In the former there is no tendency to go to the opposite direction, while in the latter there exists a struggle between the good and evil passions which necessitates the application of the reasoning faculty.

There is no doubt then that, as indicated in the foregoing pages, children under the age of puberty and men who have lost the power upon which restrictions are to be imposed, cannot claim to possess a moral quality of so great a value, though their actions might resemble chastity. It is only a natural condition over which they have absolutely no control. The directions contained in the Holy Book for the attainment of this noble quality are described in the following words:

“( Allah is knowing) and let those who cannot find a match keep chaste…” – (24 : 33.)

“And go not nigh to fornication: surely it is an obscenity. And evil is the way” – (17: 32.)

“Say to the believing men that they lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passions. That is purer for them. Surely Allah is aware of what they do. And say to the believing women that they lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passions and do not display their adornment except what appears thereof. And let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms. And they should not display their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or guileless male servant, or the children who know not women’s nakedness. And let them not strike their feet so that the adornment that they hide may be known. And turn to Allah all, O believers, so that you may be successful” – (24: 30-31.)

Other means to preserve one’s Continence can be employed: fasting or taking light food or doing hard work. However, some people have devised methods of their own for refraining themselves from sexual relations as by adopting celibacy or monasticism and thus deprecating marriage, or by submitting themselves to castration.

“And (as for) monkery they innovated it – We did not prescribe it to them – only to seek Allah’s pleasure, but they did not observe it with its due observance ” – (57 : 27.)

Here God negates the assertion of His having prescribed the methods of Castration etc for, had these been the commandments of the Lord, all the people would have had to observe these rules and then the human race would long since have disappeared from the face of the earth. In addition to the disadvantages and immorality attaching to this practice, it is an objection against the Creator for having created such a power in man. Moreover it can be readily seen that there is no merit in being unable to do an act. Credit is due to him only who resists the evil tendency and overcomes the evil passions out of fear of God. The person who has the capacity deserves a twofold credit: for its exercise in the proper place and for refraining from applying it where it is not the proper occasion. But the man who has lost the capacity is not entitled to either one of these. He is like a child and deserves no credit for refraining from what he has lost the power to do There is no resistance, no overcoming and, consequently, no merit whatsoever.

These verses not only contain excellent teachings for the preservation of chastity but also point out five remedies for observing continence: restraining the eyes from looking upon strangers, and the ears from hearing voices exciting lust, or hearing the love-stories of others, avoiding every occasion where there may be risk of being involved in the wicked deed and, last of all, fasting, etc., in case of celibacy. We can confidently assert that the excellent teachings on chastity, together with the remedies for continence, as contained in the Holy Book, are a peculiarity of Islam.

One particular point deserves special attention here: the natural propensity of man, in which sexual appetite takes its roots and over which man cannot have full control except by undergoing a thorough transformation is that, whenever there is an occasion for it, it flares up and throws him into serious danger. The Divine injunction in this respect is, therefore, not that we may look upon strange women and their beauty and ornaments or their gait and dancing so long as we do it with pure intent nor that it is lawful for us to listen to their sweet songs or to the stories of their love and beauty, provided it is done with a pure heart, but that it is not lawful for us to cast glances at them whether with a pure or an impure heart. We are forbidden to do an act in the doing of which we are not treading upon sure ground. We must avoid every circumstance which might make us stumble. Unrestrained looks are sure to lead one into danger and, therefore, it is prohibited for us not only to look at a woman lustfully but not to look at her at all so that the eye and the heart should remain pure and secure against temptation.

For the attainment and preservation of chastity, therefore, there could be no higher teaching and no nobler doctrine than that inculcated by the Holy Quran. The Word of God restrains the carnal desires of man even from smoldering in secret and enjoins upon him to avoid the very occasions where there is danger of excitement of evil passions.
This is the secret underlying the principle of the seclusion of women in Islam. It is sheer ignorance of the noble principles of this religion to suggest that seclusion means shutting up women like prisoners in gaol. The object of seclusion is to restrain both men and women from intermingling freely, and that neither sex should be at liberty to display its decoration and beauty to the other sex. This excellent rule is conducive to the good of both sexes.

Note that ghaz basar (“…lower their gaze…” 24:30) in Arabic means the casting down of one’s eyes when the object in view is not one which it is proper for a person to look at freely, and the restraining of one’s looks on the proper occasion. A person who is yearning after righteousness of heart should not be looking on all sides. The casting down of eyes on proper occasions is the first requirement of social life. The habit, without causing any disadvantage to man in his social relation, has the invaluable advantage of making him perfect in one of the highest morals called “chastity”.


We come next to the second moral quality of refraining from injury, which is called in Arabic amanat or “honesty”. This consists in not injuring others by deceiving them or taking unlawful possession of their properties. This quality is naturally met with in man. An infant, free as it is from every bad habit, is averse to sucking the milk of a woman other than his mother, if he has not been entrusted to her when quite unconscious. This habit in the infant is the root from which flows the natural inclination to be honest, which is later developed into the moral quality known as “honesty”.

The true principle of honesty is that there should be the same aversion of the dishonest taking of another’s property, as the child has to sucking the milk of a woman who is not his mother. In the child, however, this is not a moral quality but only a natural impulse, inasmuch as it is not regulated by any principle or displayed on the proper occasion. The child has no choice in the matter and, unless there is a choice, the action, not being the action of a moral being, cannot be included in the category of ‘moral condition’.
A man who, like the child, shows this inclination in obedience to the requirements of his nature without looking to the propriety of the occasion cannot, in the strict sense of the word, be called an honest and faithful person. He who does not strictly observe the conditions which raise this natural inclination to the status of a moral quality cannot lay any claim to it, although his action might, to outward appearance, resemble that of a moral being which is done with all the requisites and after a due consideration of its advisability. In illustration, a few verses from the Holy Quran may be quoted here:

“And make not over your property, which AlIah has made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding*, and maintain them out of it, and clothe them and give them a good education. And test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find in them maturity of intellect**, make over to them their property, and consume it not extravagantly and hastily against their growing up. And whoever is rich, let him abstain, and whoever is poor let him consume reasonably.*** And when you make over to them their property, call witnesses in their presence. And Allah is enough as a Reckoner . . . And let those fear who, should they leave behind them weakly offspring would fear on their account; so let them observe their duty to Allah, and let them speak right words. Those who swallow the property of the orphans unjustly, they do but swallow fire into their bellies. And they will burn in blazing fire” – (4: 5-6; 9-10.)

*Minors or orphans, who have not sufficient prudence for the management of their affairs (see next note).

**For which the proper limit is eighteen, and where you perceive that they are able to manage their affairs well. However, if maturity of intellect is not attained at this age, the limit may be extended. These words, moreover, show that marriage should he performed when a person has attained majority, for the age of marriage is spoken as being the age of attaining majority.

***Note that it was a well-known rule among the Arabs that the guardians of an orphan’s property, if they had a mind to take any remuneration for their services, took it, so long as possible, out of the profit which the trade brought in and did not touch the capital. The Quran permits the taking of recompense in this reasonable manner.
This, which God has taught, is true honesty and faithfulness, and its various requisites are clearly set forth in the verses quoted above.

Honesty, which lacks any of these requisites, cannot be classed as one of the high morals but a natural condition in its crude stage and not proof against every breach of faith. Elsewhere, we are told

“Surely Allah loves not the treacherous” – (8:58)

“Surely Allah commands you to make over trusts to those worthy of them . . .” – (4: 58.)

“And swallow not up your property among yourselves by false means, nor seek to gain access thereby to the judges, so that you may swallow up a part of the property of men wrongfully while you know” – (2:188.)

“Give full measure and be not of those who diminish. And weigh with a true balance. And wrong not men of their dues, and act not corruptly in the earth, making mischief ” – (26: 181-183.)

That is, committing theft or dacoity, or picking pockets, or otherwise unlawfully seizing other man’s property.

“(O people) and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones)… ” – (4: 2.)

For, as it is unlawful for one person to lay hold of another’s substance wrongfully, so is it also unjust to sell thing of an inferior quality.

These are comprehensive injunctions against all sorts of dishonest dealings, and every breach of faith comes within them. Separate offences are not enumerated here, as a comprehensive list of them would have required much space. The Holy Book has, therefore, made a general statement, which comprehends, in its plain meaning all sorts of dishonesty. In short, a person who shows honesty in some of his dealings, but is not scrupulous about it to the minutest degree and does not observe all good rules, is not gifted with the moral quality but acts out of habit in obedience to the natural inclination and without applying the faculty of reason.


Coming to the third stage of morals falling within the first division, we have to deal with the quality known in Arabic as hudna (or hun) or meekness. It consists in refraining from causing bodily injury to another person and thus leading a peaceful life upon earth. Peace is no doubt, a blessing for humanity and must be valued for the great good, which proceeds from it. [Emphasis added]

The natural inclination, Out of which this moral quality develops, is witnessed in a child in the form of attachment. It is plain that divested of reason, man can neither realize peace nor hostility. A natural inclination towards submission and attachment so early witnessed in the child is, therefore, only the germ out of which grows the high moral quality of peace. It cannot itself be classed as moral as long as it is not consciously resorted to on the recommendation of reason. It is otherwise when reason and judgement come to its assistance. The directions contained in the Quran may be briefly quoted:

“And the servants of the Beneficent are they who walk on the earth in humility. . .” – (25: 63.)

“Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! he between whom and thee is enmity would be as if he were a warm friend” -( 41:34.)

“And reconciliation is better . . .” – (4′. 128.)

“And set aright your differences . . .” – (8 : I.)

“And if they (the enemy) incline to peace, incline thou also to it…” – (8 : 61.)

“They who witness no falsehood, and when they pass by what is vain they pass by nobly”1- (25:72.)

The word laghw (“vain”), used in this verse, needs to be explained. A word or deed is said to be laghw (frivolous) when it causes no substantial loss or material injury to its object, although done or said with a mischievous or bad intention. Meekness requires that no notice should be taken of such words or deeds and that a man should behave like a gentleman on such occasions. But if the injury is not trivial and causes material loss to life, property or honor, the quality required to meet such an emergency is not meekness but forgiveness, which will be discussed shortly.

This verse means that the believers should not take up a hostile attitude so long as no material injury is caused to them. The guiding principle of peace is that one should not be offended at the slightest opposition to one’s feelings.


The fourth and last of the morals of the first division is rifq or “politeness”. The preliminary stage of this quality, as witnessed in the child, is talaqat or “cheerfulness”. Before the child learns to speak, the cheerfulness of its face serves the same purpose as kind words in a grown-up man. But the propriety of the occasion is an essential condition in classing politeness as a high moral quality:

“(O you who believe) let not people laugh at people, perchance they may be better than they; nor let women (laugh) at women, perchance they may be better than they. Neither find fault with your own people, nor call one another by nick-names. Evil is a bad name after faith; and whoso turns not, these it is that are the iniquitous. O you who believe, avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is sin and spy not nor let some of you backbite others. Does one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You abhor it! And keep your duty to Allah, surely Allah is Oft-returning to mercy, Merciful” – (49: 11-12)

“And speak good (words) to (all) men” – (2: 33.)

“(O man) and follow not that of which thou hast no knowledge; Surely the hearing and the sight and the heart – of each of these it will (surely) be asked” – (17: 36.)

Such are the wonderful teachings of the Holy Book on the subject of politeness


Having dealt with the first division of morals – those relating to the avoidance of mischief – we now come to the second heading under which we shall give examples of the moral qualities taught by the Quran for doing good to others. The first of these is ‘afw or “forgiveness”. The person to whom a real injury has been caused has the right to redress by bringing the offender to law or himself dealing out suitable punishment to him; and when he foregoes his right and forgives the offender, he does him a real good. Thus we read:

“And those who restrain (their) anger and are forgiving toward mankind…”- (3: 133.)

“And the recompense of evil is punishment like it; but whoever forgives and amends, his reward is with Allah…” – (42 : 40.)

It will be noted that these verses furnish the guiding rule as to the occasions of forgiveness. The Quran does not teach unconditional forgiveness and non-resistance of evil on every occasion, nor does it inculcate that punishment is not to be given to the offender under any circumstances. The principle which it lays down commends itself to every reasonable person. It requires the injured person to exercise his judgment, and see whether the occasion calls for punishment or forgiveness. The course, which is calculated to improve matters, should then be adopted. The offender would, under certain circumstances, benefit by forgiveness and mend his ways for the future. But on other occasions forgiveness may produce the contrary effect and embolden the culprit to do worse deeds. The Word of God does not, therefore, enjoin nor even permit that we should go on forgiving faults blindly. It requires us to consider what course is likely to lead to real good. As there are people of vindictive nature, who carry the spirit of revenge to an excess and do not forget an injury for generations, there are others who are ready to yield and prone to forgive on every occasion.

Excess in mildness, like excess in vengeance, leads to dangerous consequences. The person who winks at gross immoralities or forbears an attack upon his honor or chastity may be said to forgive, but his forgiveness is a weakness that strikes at the root of nobility, chastity and self-respect. No sensible person could praise it as a high moral quality. It is for this reason that the Quran places the limits of propriety even upon forgiveness and does not recognize every display of this quality as a moral quality unless it is shown upon the right occasion. The mere giving up of a claim to requital from an offender, whatever the circumstances and however serious the nature of the offence, is far from being a great moral quality to which men should aspire.

The mere presence of this quality in a person, therefore, does not entitle him to any credit unless he shows us, by its use on the right occasion, that he possesses it as a moral quality. The distinction between natural and moral qualities should be clearly remembered. The innate or natural qualities are transformed into moral qualities when a person refrains from doing an act upon the right occasion and after due consideration of the good or evil that is likely to result from it. Many of the lower animals are quite harmless and do not resist when evil is done to them. A cow may be said to be innocent, and a lamb meek, but to neither do we attribute the high moral qualities which man aspires after, for they are not gifted with reason. It is the occasion only upon which anything is done that justifies or condemns a deed, and the Word of God has, therefore, imposed this condition upon every moral quality.


The second moral quality by means of which man can do good (to others) is ‘adal or “good for good”; the third is ihsan or “kindness”, and the fourth ‘itai dhi l-qurba or “kindness to kindred”

”Surely Allah enjoins justice and the doing of good (to others), and the giving to the kindred, and He forbids indecency and abomination and wickedness . . .” – (16:90.)

This verse calls attention to three stages in the doing of good. The lowest stage is that in which man does good to his benefactors only. Even an ordinary man who has the sense to appreciate the goodness of others can acquire this quality and do good in return for good. From this, there is an advancement to the second stage in which a man takes the initiative to do good to others. It consists in bestowing favors upon persons who cannot claim them as a right. This quality, excellent as it is, occupies a middle position. To it often attaches the infirmity that the doer expects thanks or prayers in return for the good he does, and the slightest opposition from the object of compassion is likely to be felt as ungratefulness. He would fain have an acknowledgement of the benefit conferred and is led sometimes to take advantage of his position by laying upon the other some burden which he would not have otherwise willingly borne. In order to remedy this, the Holy Book has warned the doer of good thus:

“(O you who believe) moke not your charity worthless by reproach and injury” – (2:264.)

In this verse, the sadaqa (charity) is derived from sidq (sincerity). If therefore there is no sincerity in the deed, alms are of no effect, being a mere show. In other words, this is an infirmity attached to the doing of good to another, that the doer is led sometimes to remind the person relieved of his obligation, or to boast of it.

The Word of God has therefore, pointed out a third stage. To attain this perfection, man should not think of the good he has done nor expect even an expression of thankfulness from the person upon whom the benefit has been conferred. The good should proceed from sincere sympathy like that, which is shown by the nearest relatives – by a mother, for instance, for her children. This is the last and the highest stage of kindness to the creatures of God and, beyond this, man cannot aspire to anything higher. This stage has been termed “kindness to kindred”. But from the lowest to the highest form of doing good, an essential condition has been imposed upon all: that it should be done on the proper occasion; for the verse affirms that these noble qualities are liable, unless exercised with great care, to degenerate into vices. Adl (good for good) becomes fahsha – an undue excess productive of harm rather than good; ihsan (kindness) becomes munkar– a thing which, when ill-bestowed, conscience rejects and from which reason recoils; itai dhi ‘l-qurba (kindness to kindred), when directed to a wrong end, becomes baghi – the rain which, by its excess, destroys the crops. Therefore, any excess or deficiency in the doing of that which would otherwise have been most beneficial is termed “oppression”. Nor is the mere doing of good in ally of the three forms mentioned above a high moral quality unless attested to as such by the propriety of the occasion and the exercise of judgment. These are natural conditions and inborn qualities, which are transformed into moral qualities by good judgment and by their display on the right occasion.

Upon the subject of ihsan (kindness), the Holy Book has also the following injunctions:

“(Spend in Allah’s way) and do good (to others). Surely Allah loves the doers of good” – (2:195.)

“O you who believe, spend of the good things that you earn and of that which We bring forth for you Out of the earth, and aim not at the bad to spend thereof . . . ” – (2: 267.)

That is, in which there is no mixture of property acquired by theft or bribe, or misappropriation, or by oppression, or by any other dishonest or unjust means.

“The righteous shall truly drink of a cup tempered with camphor – a fountain from which the (faithful) servants of Allah drink, making it flow in abundance” – (76:5-6.)

In this verse. the word kafur (camphor) is derived from kafr (‘to suppress; to cover) and, therefore, by the quaffing of camphor drink is here meant that the unlawful passions of the righteous shall be suppressed, that their hearts shalI be cleaned of every impurity, and that they shall he refrigerated with the coolness of the knowledge of God. The verse goes on to say: “The servants of God (i.e. those who do good) shall drink on the Day of Judgment of a spring which they are making to gush forth with their own hands”. This verse throws light upon the secret, which underlies the true philosophy of Paradise.

“And they who, when they spend, are neither extravagant nor parsimonious, and the just mean is ever between the two” – (25: 67)

“And they give food, out of love for Him, to the poor and the orphan and the captive. We feed you, for Allah’s pleasure only – We desire from you neither reward nor thanks” – (76: 8-9.)

This verse recommends the third stage of doing good. which proceeds Out of sincere sympathy and seeks no reward, not even an acknowledgement of the obligation conferred.

”And (the righteous is he who) gives away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free… ” – (2:177.)

“And (those who) spend of that which we have given them, secretly and openly. . . “-(13: 22.)

”Those who spend (of that which Allah has given them) in ease and in adversity… ” – (3:133)

“In their (those who keep from evil) wealth there was a due share for the beggar and one who is denied (good)” – (51 : 19.)

“Charity (zakat) is only for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer it, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth), and (to free) the captives, and those in debt, and in the way of Allah and for the wayfarer – an ordinance from Allah… ” – (19: 60.)

“You cannot attain to righteousness unless you spend out of what you love … ” – (3: 91.)

“And give to the near of kin his due and (to) the needy, and the wayfarer, and squander not (thy) wealth wastefully” – (17: 26.)

“And be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbor of (your) kin and the alien neighbor, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hands possess. Surely Allah loves not such as are proud, boastful, who are niggardly and bid people to he niggardly and hide that which Allah has given them out of His Grace . .” – (4 36-37.)

It may be noted that “those whom your right hands possess” may be your servants or even your domestic animals.


The fifth virtue, which resembles the instinct of bravery, is shaja’at or “courage”. A child, when it has no reason, displays bravery and is ready to thrust its hands into the fire because, having no knowledge of the consequences, the instinctive quality is predominant in it. Man, in a similar condition, fearlessly rushes forth even to fight lions and other wild beasts, and stands out alone in the hour of contest against all armies. People would think that this is the highest courage but the fact is that it is more a mechanical movement than a moral quality. Wild beasts are on equality with him at this level. The virtue which we call “‘courage” can be displayed only after due reasoning and reflection and after full consideration of the propriety or the impropriety of the act. It is a quality, which can be classed as an exalted virtue only when displayed on the right occasion. The Holy Book contains the following directions on this point:

“And those who are steadfast in seeking the countenance of their Lord . . ” – (13 : 22.)

Patience in trials is only one of the ideas which sabr conveys.

“Those to whom men said: Surely the people have gathered against you, so fear them; but this (threat) increased their faith, and they said: Allah is sufficient for us and He is the most excellent Guardian ” – (3 : 172.)

The courage of these people is not like the bravery of wild beasts, a mechanical movement depending upon passions and therefore flowing in one direction only; they utilize their courage in two ways: through it they resist and overcome the passions of the flesh and again resist the attacks of an evildoer when it is advisable to do so, not in obedience to brute force but in the cause of truth. They do not, moreover, trust their own selves, but have their confidence in the support of God at the time of trials.

“And the patient in distress and affliction and in the time of conflict. These are they who are truthful. (Such are God-fearing) ” – (2 : 177.)

“And be not like those who came forth from their homes exultingly and to be seen of men”- (8: 47)

The truly courageous do not display their bravery in an insolent manner. Their only consideration is the pleasure of God. All this leads to the conclusion that true courage takes its root in patience and steadfastness. The courageous person resists his passion and does not fly from danger like a coward but, before he takes any step, he looks to the remote consequences of his action. Between the daring dash of a savage and the indomitable courage of a civilized man there is this vast difference that the latter is prepared to meet real dangers but he reasons and reflects, even in the fury of battle, before he proceeds and takes the course best-suited to avert the evil, while the former in obedience to an irresistible passion -makes a violent onset in one direction only.


The sixth virtue, which is developed out of the natural conditions, is sidq or “veracity”. So long as there is no incentive to tell a lie, man is naturally inclined to speak the truth. He is averse to lying from his very nature and hates the person who is proved to have told a lie. But this natural condition cannot claim our respect as one of the noble moral qualities. Unless a man is purged of the low motives which bar him from truth, his veracity is questionable. For, if he speaks the truth only in matters in which truth does no harm to himself and tells a lie or holds his tongue from the utterance of truth when his life or property or honor is at stake, he can claim no superiority over children and madmen. In fact, no one tells a lie without a motive, and there is no virtue in resorting to truth so long as there is no apprehension of harm. The test of truth is the occasion when one’s life or honor or property is in danger. The Quran contains the following:

“And when you speak, be just, even though it be (against) a relative . . . ” – (6:153.)

“And conceal not testimony. And whoever conceals it, his heart is surely sinful” – (2:283.)

“(O you who believe) be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allah, even though it be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives . . .” – (4:135.)

“(And the truthful men and the truthful women …) Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward” – (33: 35.)

“And (those who) exhort one another to Truth, and exhort one another to patience” – (103:3.)

“(O you who believe) let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably . . . ” – (5:8.)

“And they who will witness no falsehood, and when they pass by what is vain, they (indeed) pass by with dignity” – (25 : 72.)

“(O you who believe) shun the filth of the idols, and shun false words” – (22: 30.)

It may be recalled that shunning of idols and falsehood is enjoined in the same breath to indicate that falsehood is an idol, and the person who trusts in it does not trust in the Almighty.


Another virtue, which develops Out of the natural conditions of man, is sabr or “patience”. Everyone has more or less to suffer misfortunes, diseases and afflictions, which are the common lot of humanity. Everyone has also, after much sorrowing and suffering, to make his peace with the misfortunes that befall him. But such contentment is by no means a noble moral quality.

It is a natural consequence of the continuance of affliction that weariness at last brings about conciliation. The first shock causes depression of spirits and inquietude and elicits wails of woe, but when the excitement of the moment is over, there is necessarily a reaction for the extreme has been reached. But such disappointment and contentment are both the result of natural inclinations. It is only when the loss is received with total resignation to the will of God that the sufferer deserves to be called virtuous:

“And We shall certainly try you with something of fear and hunger and loss of property and lives and fruits. And give good news to the patient, who, when a misfortune be falls them, say Surely we are Allah’s, and to Him we shall return. Those are they on whom are blessings and mercy from their Lord; and those are the followers of the right course” – (2: 155- 157.)

It is, therefore, owing to the quality of patience that a man declares himself satisfied with God’s pleasure. In another sense it is also justice; for when the Lord has made numerous provisions in accordance with the pleasure of man and does, on so many occasions in his life, bring about things as he desires, and has provided him with numerous blessings, it would be highly unjust if a man should grumble because the Creator wills a thing in another way and should not take the good that He provides with cheerfulness but turn aside from His path.


Another quality falling under the same category is muwasat or “sympathy”. People of every nationality and religion are naturally endowed with the feeling of sympathy and, in their zeal for the interests of their countrymen or co-religionists, throw scruples to the wind, and do not hesitate to wrong others. Such sympathetic zeal, however, does not proceed out of moral feelings but is an instinctive passion, and is witnessed even in the lower animals, especially ravens in whose case the call of one brings together thousands of them. To be classed as a moral quality, it must be displayed in accordance with the principles of justice and equity, and on the proper occasion:

“(O you who believe) help one another in righteousness and piety and help not one another in sin and aggression…” – (5: 2.)

“And be not weak-hearted in pursuit of the enemy . . . And be not one pleading the case of the dishonest . . . And contend not on behalf of those who act unfaithfully to their souls. Surely Allah loves not him who is treacherous, sinful” – (4: 104-107.)

Issue 81d: Shoebat, after fabricating a false basis for his assertions tries to finish it off with a fear mongering punch line – “…This is why the face of Islamic fundamentalism in the West has a façade that Islam is a peaceful religion. Because they are waiting to have more Islamic immigrants, they are waiting to increase in number, waiting to increase their political power. And once they do then look out. You will see the real face of Islamic fundamentalism here in America.”

Rebuttal 81d: Time and again the self-styled scarecrows of the ‘West’, Shoebat, this documentary and bigots like them on other forums have been proven wrong. The following survey results from University of Essex additionally disproves the allegations of Spencer et al. [Muslims are well-integrated in Britain – but no one seems to believe it, The Guardian, Tuesday 3 July 2012]

* 83% of Muslims are proud to be a British citizen, compared to 79% of the general public.

* 77% of Muslims strongly identify with Britain while only 50% of the wider population do.

* 86.4% of Muslims feel they belong in Britain, slightly more than the 85.9% of Christians.

* 82% of Muslims want to live in diverse and mixed neighbourhoods compared to 63% of non-Muslim Britons.

* 90% of Pakistanis feel a strong sense of belonging in Britain compared to 84% of white people.


Fundamentalism – Wikipedia
Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t –
All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t –
Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi: Richard the Lionheart Makes Peace with Saladin, 1192 – Forham University
Muslims are well-integrated in Britain – but no one seems to believe it – The Guardian
Teachings of Islam – Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz
Holy Quran – Nooruddin

One Response to “Issue 81”

  1. January 1st, 2013 at 8:07 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    Aljazeera Comment on Robert Spencer:

    Leading figures in this movement such as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have led a crusade to vilify Muslims throughout the country and to exclude them from public life through campaigns of smears and hate-mongering which have cast Muslim-Americans as an insidious fifth column within the country.
    Their views have gotten considerable popular attention, and thanks to a documented network of funders and media associates they have managed to bring their message to people across the United States.
    End Quote.