The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Project Rebuttal – Islam: What the West Needs to Know

Issue 82 [@1:26:12]: Video clip with inserted sub-title “Excerpts from Jihadist recruitment videos”. With mostly Arabic voice(s) in the background and/or audio overlay, a person loading the back of a blue colored SUV. Three artillery shells are shown under the back seat. Thereafter a masked driver apparently sitting in the same SUV rants with a jingoistic tone. Then the scene changes to open fields with a road. From a distance couple of army vehicles approaching towards the camera and a civilian brown colored car facing away from the camera parked on the same road. Background chanting of Allah-o-Akbar, the civilian and military vehicles cross and then there is a detonation against the second army vehicle.

Comment: The only thing that comes to the fore in this video (without understanding the audio in Arabic) is that different video clips are put together. The SUV that is loaded is totally different from the car that exploded. Besides, the SUV is loaded with plain looking artillery shells. In this day and age of war movies and video games, it is surprising that how can artillery shells explode by themselves without any mechanism attached to them. None of the parties in the video are identified, it could be anyone from anywhere. There is no clue about location of this video clips.

Issue 82a [@1:27:10]: Robert Spencer – “It’s unfortunate that there is no negotiating with Jihadists. There is no striking a deal with them…”

Rebuttal 82a: The specific Jihadists that Spencer is referring to are product of ‘West’ itself. Maybe Spencer can answer the ubiquitous question that is on everyone’s mind as to who encouraged, abetted and funded the global ‘Jihad’ that was initially directed against Soviets? To refresh Spencer’s memory he better take a look at the faces in this YouTube video where one finds the all too familiar face of Ronald Reagan, who represented not only the West in general but the American right in particular.

It all started in Afghanistan and Reagan is on the record – “These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Regan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985).

Reagan even dedicated Space Shuttle Columbia launch to Afghan freedom fighters – YouTube video.

President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski during a visit to the Afghanistan border from Pakistan addressed the Afghans: “We know of their deep belief in God that they are confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours and you’ll go back to it someday, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right and God is on your side.” YouTube video.

It is essentially admitted by current American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton that America is responsible for this Jihadi mess – YouTube video.

Now some of those Jihadi elements have gone awry like a rudderless torpedo and the Spencers are crying foul. You reap, what you sow. Like heat seeking missiles, this Jihadi ideology was nurtured by Spencer’s West to be ‘infidel seeking’ for homing-in to their target. Before it was the Soviets, which once eliminated only refined the “Jihadi spirit” of the same Western trained, who have now the next ‘infidel’, the West itself as its next ‘holy mission’. Neither Jihadists, nor their Jihad have anything to do with Quran or Sunnah, nor equating of Jihadists with Islam by Spencer. These Jihadists were a purely Western necessity for its cold war and like a science fiction, the ‘computers’ of the Jihadists have broken away from their central command and are out there to get their Masters and everyone else. Spencer might call it error, but history calls it comedy of errors.

Issue 82b: “…Islamic law is very clear on that and here once again is an example; we need to take Islam seriously. Islamic law does not allow for treaties. It does not allow for negotiated settlements between Muslim states and non-Muslim states. All it allows for is a temporary period of up to 10 years of hudna or what is commonly translated as truce. To allow the Islamic forces to gather their strength. But that’s not the same as peace as we know it. That’s not the same as the absence of the state of war, that’s only a temporary lull. In a war that the Jihadists consider has gone on for 14 centuries and are willing to fight for 14 more.”

Rebuttal 82b: The above statement by Spencer, for lack of a better word, is an utter nonsense. Assuredly, Islam is the only religion and the constitution in the world that mandates as part of its doctrine for Muslims to make peace treaty with its opponents on every available chance. This is directly opposite of the totally fabricated and bogus statement by Spencer. The concept of Hudna was addressed in Issue 81c before.

Maulana Muhammad Ali in his landmark book “Religion of Islam” in Part 3, Chapter 5 – Jihad, under section Peace Recommended, writes:

Notwithstanding what has been said above, the Muslims were told to accept peace in the middle of war if the enemy wanted peace: “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if they intend to deceive thee — then surely Allah is sufficient for thee”(8:61, 62). It should be noted that peace is here recommended even though the enemy’s sincerity may be doubtful. And there were reasons to doubt the good intentions of the enemy, for the Arab tribes did not attach much value to their treaty agreements: “Those with whom thou makest an agreement, then they break their agreement every time and they keep not their duty” (8:56). None could carry those precepts into practice better than the Holy Prophet, and he was so prone to make peace whenever the enemy showed the least desire towards it, that on the occasion of the Hudaibiyah truce he did not hesitate to accept the position of the defeated party, though he had never been defeated on the field of battle, and his Companions had sworn to lay down their lives one and all if the worst had come to the worst. Yet he made peace and accepted terms which his own followers looked upon as humiliating for Islam. He accepted the condition that he would go back without performing a pilgrimage and also that if a resident of Makkah embraced Islam and came to him for protection, he would not give him protection. Thus the injunction contained in the Holy Quran to make peace with the idolators if they desired peace, combined with the practice of the Holy Prophet in concluding peace on any terms, is a clear proof that the theory of preaching Islam by the sword is a pure myth so far as the Holy Qur’an is concerned.

To sum up, neither in the earlier revelations nor in the later is there the slightest indication of any injunction to propagate Islam by the sword. On the other hand, war was clearly allowed as a defensive measure up to the last. It was to be continued only so long as religious persecution lasted, and when that ceased, war was to cease ipso facto. And there was the additional condition that if a tribe, against whom the Muslims were fighting because of its aggressive and repeated violation of treaties, embraced Islam, it then and there became a part of the Muslim body politic, and its subjugation by arms was therefore foregone, and war with it came to an end. Such remained the practice of the Holy Prophet during his lifetime. And there is not a single instance in history in which he offered the alternative of the sword or Islam to any tribe or individual, nor did he ever lead an aggressive attack. The last of his expeditions was that of Tabuk, in which he led an army of thirty thousand against the Roman Empire, but when he found, on reaching the frontier, after a very long and tedious journey, that the Romans did not contemplate an offensive he returned without attacking them. His action on this occasion also throws light on the fact that the permission to fight against the Christians contained in (9:29) was also subject to the condition laid down in (2:190) that the Muslims not be aggressive in war. The opinion now held among the more enlightened European critics of Islam is, that though the Holy Prophet did not make use of force in the propagation of Islam, and that though he did not lead an aggressive attack against an enemy, in the whole of his life, yet this position was adopted by his immediate successors, and was therefore a natural development of his teaching.

The opinion is also due to a misconception of the historical facts which led to the wars of the early Caliphate with the Persian and Roman empires. After the death of the Holy Prophet, when Arabia rose in insurrection and Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, as engaged in suppressing the revolt, both Persia and Rome openly helped the insurgents with men and money. It is difficult to go into details of history in a book which does not deal with the historical aspect of the question {fn: dealt with this subject fully in my book The Early Caliphate}, but it would not be inappropriate to quote a modern writer who is in no way friendly to Islam:

Chaldaea and southern Syria belong properly to Arabia. The tribes inhabiting this region, partly heathen but chiefly (at least in name) Christian, formed an integral part of the Arab race and as such fell within the immediate scope of the new Dispensation. When, however, these came into collision with the Muslim columns on the frontier, they were supported by their respective sovereigns {fn: italics inserted}. — the western by the Kaiser, and the eastern by the Chosroes. Thus the struggle widened {fn: Sir W. Muir, The Caliphate, p. 46}.”

There is actual historical evidence that Persia landed her forces in Bahrain to help the insurgents of that Arabian province, and a Christian woman, Sajah, marched at the head of Christian tribes, from her home on the frontier of Persia, against Madinah, the capital of Islam, and traversed the country right up to the central part. Persia and Rome were thus the aggressors, and the Muslims in sheer self-defense, came into conflict with those mighty empires. The idea of spreading Islam by the sword was as far away from their minds as it was from that of the great Master whom they followed. Thus even Muir admits that, as late as the conquest of Mesopotamia by ‘Umar, the Muslims were strangers to the idea of making converts to Islam by means of the sword: “The thought of a world-wide mission was yet in embryo; obligation to enforce Islam by a universal Crusade had not yet dawned upon the Muslim mind {fn: Sir W. Muir, The Caliphate, p. 120}.” This remark relates to the year 16 of Hijrah, when more than half the battles of the early Caliphate had already been fought. According to Muir, even the conquest of the whole of Persia was a measure of self-defense, and not of aggression, on the part of the Muslims: “The truth began to dawn on ‘Omar that necessity was laid upon him to withdraw the ban against advance. In self-defense, nothing was left but to crush the Chosroes and take entire possession of his realm.”{fn: Op. cit., p. 172}

And if the wars with the Persian and Roman empires were begun and carried on for five years without any idea of the propagation of Islam by arms, surely there was no occasion for the idea to creep in at a subsequent stage.

The above argument is continued on p I-46, Introduction section of English Translation of the Quran by Maulana Muhammad Ali, Ed. Zahid Aziz.

If the enemy offered peace, peace was to be accepted, though the enemy’s intention might be only to deceive the Muslims:

“And if they incline to peace, you (must) incline to it also, and trust in Allah. Surely He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if they intend to deceive you, then surely Allah is sufficient for you.” — 8:61–62

The Holy Prophet made treaties of peace with his enemies; one such treaty brought about the famous truce of Hudaibiyah, the terms of which were not only disadvantageous, but also humiliating to the Muslims. According to the terms of this treaty “if an unbeliever, being converted to Islam, went over to the Muslims, he was to be returned, but if a Muslim went over to the unbelievers, he was not to be given back to the Muslims”. This clause of the treaty cuts at the root of all allegations of the use of force by the Holy Prophet.

It is a mistake to suppose that the condition to fight “against those who fight against you” (2:190) was abrogated at any time. It remained in force to the end. There is not a single direction in the latest revelation on this subject, in ch. 9, The Immunity, that goes against this condition. The opening verse of that chapter speaks expressly of “idolaters with whom you made an agreement”, and then, v. 4, excepts from its purview “those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you”, thus showing clearly that the “immunity” related only to such idolatrous tribes as had first made agreements with the Muslims and then, violating them, killed and persecuted the Muslims wherever they found them, as v. 10 says expressly: “They respect neither ties of relationship nor covenant in the case of a believer”. Further on in ch. 9, the condition of the enemy attacking the Muslims first is plainly repeated: “Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first?” (9:13).

The waging of war on unbelievers to compel them to accept Islam is a myth pure and simple, a thing unknown to the Holy Quran. It was the enemy that waged war on the Muslims to turn them away from their religion, as the Holy Book so clearly asserts: “And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can” (2:217).

Quran has utter abomination towards breakers of treaties, irrespective of their faith:

8:55. Surely, the worst of beasts in the sight of Allâh are those who denied to believe (in the truth in the first instance) so they would not believe;

8:56. (Particularly) those with whom you entered into a pact, but every time they break their pact and they do not guard (against breach of trusts).

8:57. Therefore if you find these (breakers of trust) in battle array, then (by inflicting an exemplary punishment upon them) disperse those behind them so that they may be admonished.

The only basis of annulling a peace treaty is treachery by the enemy. Such an annulment has to be made publicly:

8:58. And if you fear (and have reasons to fear) treachery from a people, then annul (their pact) on terms of equality. Indeed, Allâh loves not the treacherous.

A Muslim cannot even help a fellow Muslim if there is an intervening treaty with non-Muslims:

8:72. Surely, those who have believed and have emigrated and strove hard with their possessions and their persons in the cause of Allâh (- the Muhâjirs), and who have given (them) refuge and helped (- the Ansâr), are friends one to another. But you are not responsible for the protection of those who have believed but have not emigrated until they do emigrate. However if they seek your help in (the matter of) faith, then it is binding upon you to help them except against a people between whom and yourselves is a treaty. Indeed, Allâh knows well all that you do.

Quran allows war only with peace treaty breakers:

9:1. (This is) a declaration of complete absolution on the part of Allâh and His Messenger (from all obligations) to those of the polytheists with whom you had entered into a treaty (but they broke it repeatedly).

9:2. So you may go about (freely O you breakers of the treaties!) in the land for four months (since the date of this declaration), and know that you cannot frustrate (the will of) Allâh, and (know) that Allâh will humiliate the disbelievers.

9:3. And this is a proclamation from Allâh and His Messenger to the people on the occasion of the Greater Pilgrimage (on the day of Sacrifice) that Allâh and His Messenger owe no obligation to these polytheists. If you (O polytheists!) turn to Him in repentance it is better for you. But if you turn away then know that you cannot frustrate (the will of) Allâh. And proclaim (O Prophet!) the news of a grievous punishment to these disbelievers;

Quran forbids war with peace treaty keepers:

9:4. Excepting those of the polytheists with whom you have entered into a treaty (and) who subsequently did not fail you in any manner, nor did they back up anyone against you. So abide by the treaty you had entered with them to the end of the term you have fixed with them. Allâh, surely loves those who keep their duty.

9:5. But when the prohibited (four) months (when no attack on the breakers of the treaties was permissible) have expired, slay such polytheists (who broke their treaties) wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every place from which it is possible to perceive the enemy and watch their movements. But if they turn in repentance and keep up Prayer and go on presenting the Zakât, leave their path free. Indeed, Allâh is Great Protector, Ever Merciful.

Even in a state of war, safety has to be assured to enemy who seeks protection:

9:6. And if any of the polytheists seeks your protection, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allâh, then conduct him to a place where he feels himself safe and secure. That (treatment) is (to be meted out to them) because they are a people who have no knowledge (of Islam).

Quran cautions Muslims to keep the terms of treaty and monitor the intentions of the enemy:

9:7. There can be no treaty (on the part) of these Polytheists (after their repeated violations of the same) in the sight of Allâh and His Messenger. This, however, does not apply to those with whom you entered into a treaty near the Holy Mosque (at Makkah). So long as they keep true to (the treaty for) you, you should also keep true (in maintaining the treaty) for them. Allâh, surely, loves those who become secure (against the breach of trusts).

9:8. How (can there be a treaty with deliberate violators of agreements) while, if they get the better of you they would respect no bond, nor words of honour in dealing with you. They would try to please you with (mere words of) their mouths whereas their hearts dissent (from what they say), and most of them are perfidious.

4:88. How is it then with you, that you are divided into two parties regarding the hypocrites, while Allâh has overthrown them for (the sins) which they committed knowingly? Do you desire to guide him whom Allâh has forsaken? And he whom Allâh forsakes you shall not find for him a way (of his deliverance).

4:89. They would like you to reject the faith as they have done themselves, that you may be all alike; therefore, make no friends with them until they emigrate in the cause of Allâh. But if they turn back (to hostility), then capture them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take anyone of them as a friend or as a helper.

4:90. Different, however, is the case of those who join a people with whom you have a pact, or of those who come over to you whilst their hearts are constricted from fighting against you or fighting against their (own) people. If Allâh had so willed He would have given them power over you, then they certainly would have fought against you. Hence if they leave you alone and do not fight against you but make you an offer of peace then Allâh allows you no way (of fighting) against them.

4:91. You will find others (among these hypocrites) who desire to be secure from you as well as safe from their own people. But whenever they are made to have a recourse to hostility (towards the Muslims) they fall headlong into it (as if under compulsion). Therefore if they do not leave you alone, nor make an offer of peace to you nor withhold their hands (from being hostile), then capture them and kill them wherever you find them. And it is these against whom We have given you absolute authority.

There is another practical reason for Islam to be peaceful. If nothing else, it is the peace under which it thrives and spreads:

48:1. (Prophet! the treaty of Hudaibiyah is a great victory in that) We opened for you the way to (another) clear victory (which led to the preaching and expansion of Islam).

Issue 82c [@ 1:28:05]: Slide projected with a voice:

The Noble Quran, 47:4. So, when you meet (in fight, Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly on them (i.e. take them as captives)… Thus (you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam [i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire] or at least come under your protection), but if it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (he lets you fight), In order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.

Rebuttal 82c: Once again an out of context quote of a verse by Spencer, something that he is known for. The bold font above identifies an overstatement by the translators. In order to bring into full context the meaning of the said verse we only have to read the first verse of the same chapter, as identified below by bold font and then read it in conjunction with the bold font in v. 4:

47:1. Those [who had persecuted and displaced Muslims out of Makkah and then were on the verge of annihilating them in Medina,] who disbelieve and bar people from the path of Allâh, He renders their works go in vain,

47:2. But as for those who bear faith and do deeds of righteousness and believe in that which is revealed to Muhammad, for it is the very Truth revealed by their Lord, He has purged them of their sins and has improved their (spiritual and temporal) condition.

47:3. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood while those who believe follow the Truth (revealed) from their Lord. That is how Allâh explains their condition to mankind (to make them understand).

47:4. So (believers! now that you know the will of your Lord), when you meet in (regular) battle those who disbelieve [and bar people from the path of Allâh (v 47:1.)] strike off their heads. After you have bound them fast in fetters (as prisoners of war), then, afterwards, (release them, a must), either by way of grace or by (accepting) ransom. (That is the law,) until war lays down its weapons (and it is over). Such is (the ordinance of Allâh). Indeed if Allâh pleased He could have punished them (in other ways). But (the ways of warfare have been resorted to) so that He may reveal your worth at the hands of one another. As of those who are slain in the cause of Allâh He will never let their works go in vain.

The above verses are in congruity with other verses elsewhere in Quran outlined below which only highlight the defensive nature of wars that Muslims might have to undertake as a last resort:

2:190. And fight in the cause of Allâh those who fight and persecute you, but commit no aggression. Surely, Allâh does not love the aggressors.

2:191. And slay them (the aggressors against whom fighting is made incumbent) when and where you get the better of them, in disciplinary way, and turn them out whence they have turned you out. (Killing is bad but) lawlessness is even worse than carnage. But do not fight them in the precincts of Masjid al-Harâm (the Holy Mosque at Makkah) unless they fight you therein. Should they attack you (there) then slay them. This indeed is the recompense of such disbelievers.

2:192. But if they desist (from aggression) then, behold, Allâh is indeed Great Protector, Ever Merciful.

2:193. And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is (freely professed) for Allâh. But if they desist (from hostilities) then (remember) there is no punishment except against the unjust (who still persist in persecution).

2:194. (The violation of) a sacred month may be retaliated in the sacred month and for (the violation of) all sacred things the law of retaliation is prescribed. Then he who transgresses against you, punish him for his transgression to the extent he has transgressed against you, and take Allâh as a shield, and know that Allâh is with those who guard against evil.

Sorry Spencer, there is no passive turning of the other cheek to an aggression, neither Jesus turned it himself nor Muhammad and none of their followers either – John 18 (NIV):

22 When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded.

23 “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”

References:
Note: [text enclosed in square brackets above is not part of the original quoted sources. Some of the comments are excerpted quotes from the footnotes of “English Translation of the Holy Quran with Explanatory Notes” – Muhammad Ali, ed. Zahid Aziz]

President Ronald Reagan meeting Afghan Mujahideen in White House – YouTube
President Ronald Reagan dedicating Space Shuttle launch to Freedom Fighter in Afghanistan – YouTube
President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski addressing Afghan and invoking God – YouTube
United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton admitting U.S. helped create Al-Qaida – YouTube
John 18 (NIV) – Bible Gateway
Religion of Islam – Maulana Muhammad Ali
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz
Holy Quran – Nooruddin [all italicized verses above]

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 loonwatch.com 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.

Chastity

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”.

Honesty

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.

Meekness

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.

Politeness

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

Forgiveness

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.

Kindness

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.

Courage

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.

Veracity

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.

Patience

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.

Sympathy

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.

References:

Fundamentalism – Wikipedia
Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t – LoonWatch.com
All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t – LoonWatch.com
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

Issue 80 [@1:23:00]: Robert Spencer – Director JihadWatch.org: “The most important thing that the West needs to know about Islam today is that it has a political character and that it is not simply a religion. But, it is a religion or a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society. Americans need to know this, Western Europeans need to know this because Muslims are coming in to Western countries while holding these beliefs and intending to act upon them. They are the motivations behind modern terrorist activity and they are the goals of the millions of Muslims in the United States and around the world. We need to know this so that we can protect ourselves. But unfortunately because of political correctness and because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.”

Rebuttal 80: The above is an opening salvo of the documentary in its final part – “The House of War.” The effort of the documentary is to paint all Muslims as terrorists, that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam, Islam and violence are synonymous, demonize Islam as a religion in the Western mind to the extent that all doors of dialogues from Islam are closed, Muslims are prejudged to be dealt with unfairly, and any government that tries to be fair towards its Muslim minorities is ostracized as trying to be politically correct. Once the ground work is laid down for Islamophobia, then the “experts” of this documentary or similar Islamophobes and their media outlets can have a hay day to spew lies, hate and venom as truths. This they have done since making of this documentary in the garb of “think-tanks” that sprouted as cottage industry to rake in dollars from tax payers as well the funders who clearly have anti-Islam agenda (read: Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, by Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and Faiz Shakir, August 2011, Center for American Progress, pdf download). The current issue is broken down as follows:

Issue 80a: Spencer – “The most important thing that the west needs to know about Islam today is that it has a political character and that it is not simply a religion…”

Rebuttal 80a: Spencer is displacing his experience with Christianity onto Islam. While it may be true that any idea with a mass appeal be it a religious or secular, scientific or artistic, materialistic or non-material, ultimately influences public policy, it is not so with Islam because Islam lacks a central organizational power structure for furtherance of any agenda. Historically, Christianity needed the political office of Constantine, Zoroastrianism needed Cyrus and Buddhism needed Asoka to further their acceptance, whereas Islam needed no political office for its spread. Islam comes out of a common man.

Catholic Church is quite well known for its role in every election, regional or national in the West for it poster child – Pro-Life Activities:

In November 1975, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) and the United States Catholic Conference (USCC) published a document titled “A Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities” that outlined a strategic plan for anti-abortion activities by members of the Catholic clergy and laity. Laurence Tribe describes the document as “an extraordinary organizational blueprint for political action.” The plan called for a “comprehensive pro-life legislative program” that would push for “passage of a constitutional amendment providing protection of the unborn child to the maximum degree possible.”

To accomplish its goals, the plan called for the formation of committees at the state level that would coordinate the political efforts in the dioceses and congressional districts of that state. Each diocese was to have a pro-life committee that would push for the passage of a “constitutional amendment to protect the unborn child.” The plan also called for the creation of an “identifiable, tightly-knit and well-organized pro-life unit” in each congressional district to track voting records of elected officials vis-a-vis abortion and to mobilize resources for political action.

Despite the concern of some bishops that the Pastoral Plan was narrowly focused on just the issue of abortion, the plan was adopted in 1975 and subsequently re-approved in 1985 and 2001. [Wikipedia]

Is not Spencer blind to the above efforts by Catholic Church where is has a full political agenda. But, Spencer is too fast with his slither to paint Islam into a political corner. He mistook Islam for Catholic Church, if corrected, one can state:

“The most important thing that the West needs to know about Catholicism today is that it has a political character and that it is not simply a religion…”

If Islam has certain ideas that it can offer for the betterment of any society, then naturally it will affect public policy. Rather, one can even say that significant laws concerning human rights, equality, justice, inter-faith and inter-race harmony, freedom of faith, equal opportunity under the law etc. in the West are de facto efforts to reflect the Laws in the Quran (See Issue 71).

Issue 80b: “…But, it [– Islam] is a religion or a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society. Americans need to know this, Western Europeans need to know this because Muslims are coming in to Western countries while holding these beliefs and intending to act upon them. They are the motivations behind modern terrorist activity and they are the goals of the millions of Muslims in the United States and around the world…”

Rebuttal 80b: The above is a plain lie. Spencer’s allegation of Islam mandating warfare against non-Muslims is absolutely false. His lies are diametrically opposite of what Islam stands for, which is peace and harmony between peoples, irrespective of their national origin, race, religion, gender or economic status (See Issue 71).

Whether Spencer & Co. like it or not, west is a market place of ideas. In this market Islam is bound to make inroads, if for no other reason, but by the force of a book, the Quran:

13:31. And if there could be a Quran with which the mountains were made to pass away, or the earth were split apart, or the dead were made to speak — indeed, the commandment is wholly Allah’s…

[Footnote] That the Quran should work such great wonders is not an impossibility but a fact, for we are immediately told that it will be brought about soon by Allah’s commandment. At the time when these verses were revealed, difficulties in the spread of Islam appeared like mountains. It is a matter of history that they were made to pass away. The earth splitting apart means that the Quran would go deep down into the hearts of people, which are compared here to the earth. These words may also mean that the earth will be travelled over. There were no facilities at that time for going to distant corners of Arabia, to say nothing of the whole world. Yet not only was the whole of Arabia travelled over by the message bearers of Islam within ten years after this, but within a hundred years of the Prophet’s death Islam had traversed the whole of the known world, from the farthest East in China to the farthest West in Spain. It is again a matter of history that the dead were made to speak. People who were dead spiritually now spoke with such power that the whole earth from end to end responded to their call.

58:21. If We had sent down this Quran on a mountain, you would certainly have seen it falling down, splitting apart because of the fear of Allah. And We set forth these parables to people that they may reflect.

48:28. He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth that He may make it prevail over all religions. And Allah is enough for a witness.

[Footnote] This prophecy of the prevalence of Islam over all other religions is a prophecy which extends into the distant future, while Arabia saw its fulfilment in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. The prevalence of Islam does not, however, mean the political supremacy of its adherents at all times, nor does the prophecy signify that other religions would at any time entirely disappear. It only indicates that the superiority of the religion of Islam over all other religions will at last be established, and Islam will be the religion of the majority of the nations of the earth. See also 9:33; 61:9.

It is the likes of Spencer et al. that forge lies, and it is to them that Quran rebuts:

61:7. And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah and he is invited to Islam. And Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[Footnote] The words, “he who forges a lie against Allah and he is invited to Islam”, refer to the rejectors who called the truth an enchantment. It was these people that were invited to Islam, while the Prophet was an inviter, as he is elsewhere called, for instance, 3:193, 20:108. Their polytheistic beliefs are repeatedly called a forgery in the Quran. Or, the Christians are meant who were invited to the Truth, but they forged a lie that Jesus was the son of God and that he took away their sins.

61:8-9. They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, though the disbelievers may be averse. He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth that He may make it prevail over all religions, though those who set up partners (with Allah) are averse.

[Footnote] Verses 8 and 9 contain two different prophecies. The first is that all attempts to annihilate Islam will fail, and they did fail. In the second it is affirmed that Islam will be made the predominant religion, the truth of which was witnessed by Arabia in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. But both prophecies have a wider significance. Attempts are still being made to annihilate Islam, and the Divine promise is that all these attempts shall be brought to naught; while the predominance of Islam over all the religions of the world would in time be established, as clearly as it was in Arabia.

Quran prophesied and history proved the triumph of Islam, a triumph that will continue in near future. Eerily it is Spencer and his likes that are addressed in Quran in context of current documentary and for their funded activities in general:

9:32. They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will allow nothing except the perfection of His light, though the disbelievers are averse.

[Footnote] This is a prophecy of the ultimate triumph of Islam in face of severe opposition. All opposition to truth, whether based on force or propaganda, is here compared with putting out the Divine light by blowing with the mouth to show that all such attempts would prove futile. The Divine light will be made perfect, by which is meant the triumph of Islam, as the next verse states clearly.

9:33. He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth that He may make it prevail over all religions, though those who set up partners (with Allah) are averse.

[Footnote] The prophecy of the ultimate triumph of Islam in the whole world is repeated three times in the Quran, in exactly the same words — here and in 48:28 and 61:9. In Arabia itself, Islam became triumphant in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. After his death, the first century of the Muslim era saw vast Christian communities swelling the ranks of Islam, in Egypt, North Africa, Asia Minor, Persia and Central Asia. More amazing was the fact that Islam, coming in contact with other great religions, with Zoroastrianism in Persia, with Buddhism and Hinduism in India and Afghanistan, and with Confucianism in China, conquered the hearts of the followers of every religion and they accepted the message of Truth in vast numbers. And the final manifestation of this great prophecy is foreshadowed in the gradual acceptance of the principles of Islam in the whole world today, despite the fact that the political power of Islam is at its lowest ebb.

The current issue is one more instance of Spencer pulling a rabbit out of his nonsensical hat that has its parallel in the American classic – To Kill a Mockingbird:

In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch demonstrates the accuser Mayella’s injuries were caused by a left-handed individual while the defendant, Tom Robinson paralyzed his left arm in an accident. The jury of that time in the Deep South still convicted him, refusing to consider the idea that a black person could ever be Wrongly Accused of a crime. [Common Nonsense Jury]

It is with this notion that – The jury of that time in the Deep South still convicted him, refusing to consider the idea that a black person could ever be Wrongly Accused of a crime – Spencer and Co. want to imprint in the psyche of the West that it may be presumed that if a Muslim is accused of an allegation, it must be true, notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary.

No! Mr. Spencer you are wrong in all of your allegations above.

Issue 80c: Robert Spencer – “…We need to know this so that we can protect ourselves. But unfortunately because of political correctness and because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.”

Rebuttal 80c: Spencer’s words reflect a sorry state of a deluded mind that reeks of xenophobia. It is these words of his that seeded hate in Anders Behring Breivik mind who killed scores only to “protect” the West, by robbing and killing the West of its rationality, openness and tolerance.

This documentary has throughout by quoting out-of-context the Quran, Hadith, history and even video clips of street demonstrations has tried to create scarecrow out of Islam for the West.

In the 1719 novel Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe, the main character attempts to keep birds from eating his newly sowed corn stalks. As a discouragement, he shoots several of the birds and then hangs them in rows, such as English prisoners. The remaining birds are so frightened that they refuse to even remain in the area. While not the modern idea of a scarecrow, Crusoe does remark, “…I could never see a bird near the place as long as my scarecrows hung there.” [Wikipedia]

References:
Note: [text enclosed in square brackets above is not part of the original quoted sources]

The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, by Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and Faiz Shakir, August 2011, Center for American Progress, pdf download).
Catholic Church and the politics of abortion – Wikipedia
To Kill a Mockingbird – Wikipedia
Anders Behring Breivik – Wikipedia
Scare Crow in literature and film – Wikipedia
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz

Issue 79 [@1:21:07]: Video – with a title displayed – “London, England May 2005”
[Crowd/demonstration of about 150-200 people of various ages and ethnicity chanting and displaying placards]
[Speaker leading and crowd repeating with camera panning –] La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur rasul-ullah…Allah-o-Akbar (various images from the crowd, a policeman, 3 men with masked faces with Keffiyeh)
[Placard carried by a child –] Allah cannot be defeated oh America!
[Two women in black veils with forehead bands of Kalima Shahada, one of which holding a placard –] Islam will dominate the world
[Speaker holding the microphone recites Darood/Darud wearing a Chitrali brown cap–]
[a voice from crowd yells and some small numbers repeat –] Jihad! Jihad!…
[Apparently, the keynote speaker of the video clip takes over the microphone, wearing white thawb with Middle Eastern accent –] Its time for whole West to realize Islam is a truth. As a matter of time, Islam could be implemented. And the giant of Islam and giant of the Islamic state is going to rise up again…and it is going to be a fact…and is going to be a true fact in reality…look, the Muslims in Egypt, they go for Islamic state. Look at the alim-e-Jihad (inaudible). Look in Iraq. Look in Afghanistan. In Pakistan, even in Europe people calling La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur rasul-ullah. (Inaudible) It is matter of time, Shariah will be implemented. And the Muslim Ummah will be united.

Rebuttal 79: It is difficult to contextualize the purpose and goal of the demonstration as shown in the video clip. If we tease out the chants and the placards of the demonstrators, we come across the following main messages in Quranic context:

* Allah-o-Akbar
* La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur rasul-ullah
* Jihad
* Darood
* Shariah (see Issue 78)
* Islam will dominate the world

These foundation stones of Islam will be elaborated upon below.

* Allah-o-Akbar simply means ‘God is Great‘ or ‘God is Greater (than everything else)’.

29:45. Recite what has been revealed to you of the Book and keep up prayer. Surely prayer keeps (one) away from indecency and evil; and certainly the remembrance of Allah is the greatest (force). And Allah knows what you do.

[Footnote] This verse invites the followers of all religions to accept the Quran on account of its purifying effect upon life, as the previous scriptures had ceased to effect deliverance from the bondage of sin. The verse also lays down the right principle for getting rid of the bondage of sin in the words the remembrance of Allah is the greatest, i.e., the most powerful and effective restraint upon sin. It is a living belief in the Divine power, knowledge, and goodness that restrains people from walking in the ways of His displeasure.

The recitation of the Book, the keeping up of prayer, and the remembrance of Allah are really identical; for the Quran is recited in prayers, and the Quran is the best means of the remembrance of Allah. The Quran is pre-eminently a Book that manifests the glory, greatness, grandeur, goodness, love, purity, power, and knowledge of the Supreme Being. While, as generally understood, by the remembrance of Allah is meant His glorification and praise in prayer, it is also here meant Allah’s remembrance of man or His raising him to a place of eminence. Thus the significance would be that through prayer to God, not only is man freed from the bondage of sin, but (which is greater than this) he is raised to a place of higher eminence.

The phrase Allah-o-Akbar are the first words whispered in the ear of an infant even before s/he opens the eyes to the world and the last sounds when the same eyes close and the person returns to his Maker. These are the first words by which Muslims are awoken in the morning from their cozy comforts by the call to prayers for them to humble themselves before the Almighty and to continue this unpretentiousness through the day in pursing their social, economic, academic and all the chores of livelihood. These words are uttered by a Muslim on the average more than a 360 times a day, aloud or in silence, during the five times a day call to prayers, while lining up in ranks for prayers and during the prayers with every change of posture. These are the spontaneous words from the tip of the tongue which imprint on a Muslim mind of one’s humbleness in success and failure, in prosperity and poverty, in ease and adversity. Alas! Spencer will never hear these silent utterances of God is Great nor understand their significance, whereas these words create meekness in each Muslim when s/he treads in footsteps and example of Jesus Christ, a notion that is the corner stone of Islam.

“…no careful observer, no student of religion can withhold his tribute of admiration and of reverence toward that faith which holds as its first creed “God is Great,” and which depends every day upon submission as the hall-mark and custodian. Submission in Arab character does not mean submission passive to inherent forces. Submission of Islam is submission in co-operation with great forces of nature, which operates on the spirit of man to produce the result toward which the universe is working. This submission toward the will of God, the brotherhood of man, and the fatherhood of God is the contribution of that great Prophet to the sum total of the human thought…” [ref: “League of Faith: A Message From Islam” excerpted from opening address by the Chair – Mr. C.P. Ramaswami Aiyer, B.A., B.L., given at Victoria Public Hall, Madras, India, on February 25, 1920, as quoted in Islamic Review and Muslim India, Vol. VIII, No. 5, May 1920, p. 180, The Woking Muslim Mission and Literary Trust, The Shah Jehan Mosque, Woking, England – pdf link]

As how to bring out the full spiritual nectar of Allah-o-Akbar, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes in his essay – A Living Religion and a Living Prayer p. 26-27:

… [while praying] to establish such a connection [with God], for unless all worldly connections are severed and the heart is dead to the love of the world, the nature of the man must remain devoid of zeal for the love of God. It has been said that the Companions of the Holy Prophet used to be so engrossed in their prayers that when they were ended, they could hardly recognise one another. In fact, every true believer should be engrossed in his prayers. According to the Muslim law when a man meets his companions after separation, he must say Assalamau-Alaikum: “Peace be on you.” In this lies the secret of ending prayer with Assalamau-Alaikum wa Rahmatullah: “Peace be on you and the mercy of God.” When a man stands up for prayers and begins his devotions by saying Allah-o-Akbar (God is Great), he stands in the Divine presence and is, as it were removed into another world being absorbed in the contemplation of Divine Glory and Majesty. When the prayers are ended, he comes back into this world and hence at the end he says Assalamau-Alaikum wa Rahmatullah: “Peace be on you and the mercy of God”, having met his friends after separation. But if only dull ceremonies are gone through without realising their deep significance, no good can result. Ceremonies are shells in which there is no kernel, and if the deep truths that underlie them are not realised, they may turn out to be ways of destruction. It is when such a truth is realised that a true love for God is generated in the heart and the soul flies to God and is completely engrossed in the contemplation of Divine glory. Every particle of the body in that state serves and obeys God…

————————–
* Jihad

The term Jihad has been addressed from its many angles in previous issues: 26, Muhammad Ali –27, Pickthall –27, 28, Zahid Aziz –33, 34, 35, Nooruddin –36, G.W. Leitner –37.

Spencers in the West (and the West in general) has been programmed to war cries whenever name of God is mentioned. “Deus vult! (God wills it) became the battle cry of the Crusader and the red cross became its symbol that is still on the flags of many modern European and South Pacific nations.

When Pope Urban had said these and very many similar things in his urbane discourse, he so influenced to one purpose the desires of all who were present, that they cried out, “It is the will of God! It is the will of God!” When the venerable Roman pontiff heard that, with eyes uplifted to heaven he gave thanks to God and, with his hand commanding silence, said:

Most beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.” Unless the Lord God had been present in your spirits, all of you would not have uttered the same cry. For, although the cry issued from numerous mouths, yet the origin of the cry was one. Therefore I say to you that God, who implanted this in your breasts, has drawn it forth from you. Let this then be your war-cry in combats, because this word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God! [Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, Five versions of the Speech, as quoted from – Dana C. Munro, “Urban and the Crusaders”, Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Vol 1:2, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1895), 5-8]

Ever since the war cry of Council of Claremont, the Middle East has been attacked by the West under one pretext or another in a major way at least 16 times – Nine medieval Crusades between 1095 and 1272, the Alexandrian Crusade of 1365 and the Crusade of Nicopolis of 1396. Three intermediate “Christian invasions” of the Middle East namely, Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798, the British occupation of Egypt in 1882, and the British and French mandates after World War I. Thereafter, Iraq I & II. This does not include its abetted occupation and wars by Israel. Thus, the use of the word “crusade” rings lots of bells in the Middle East of foreign aggression, ironically of the same West which found the likes of Spencers amongst its midst in each period of history.

As if the coinage of the term ‘Holy War’ was not enough by Pope Urban II to justify Crusades, President Bush set it in stone to wage “crusade” (read holy war) against the menace of our times:

September 16, 2001, at South Lawn of the White House: “We need to go back to work tomorrow and we will. But we need to be alert to the fact that these evil-doers still exist. We haven’t seen this kind of barbarism in a long period of time. No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft — fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people — and show no remorse. This is a new kind of — a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I’m going to be patient. But I can assure the American people I am determined, I’m not going to be distracted, I will keep my focus to make sure that not only are these brought to justice, but anybody who’s been associated will be brought to justice. Those who harbor terrorists will be brought to justice. It is time for us to win the first war of the 21st century decisively, so that our children and our grandchildren can live peacefully into the 21st century.” [White House – archives]

February 16, 2002 – US President George W. Bush, from a rally for the troops in Alaska, “I want to tell you something, we’ve got no better friends than Canada. (Applause.) They stand with us in this incredibly important crusade to defend freedom, this campaign to do what is right for our children and our grandchildren.” [White House – archives]

Bush and his neocon advisers missed a historic opportunity to turn a tragedy into a permanent victory for peace in the world, while they could, but they did not. It was a time when there was a global ground swell for unity and sympathy for the United States. Muslim world was equally mourning the victimization of thousands of innocent and their families and were equally aggrieved for the loss of a nation whose food, fashion, movies, music, technology was accepted as a symbol of bliss in the world. If Bush would had used the word “Jihad” instead of “crusade” and acted in spirit of what Jihad stands for in Quran, the results would had been different in much shorter span of time, rather than the ongoing apologetic retractions, withdrawal and licking of the wounds inflicted on the body, psyche and pocket book of the world in general and West in particular. Bush sought revenge, and the world got ongoing inconclusive Bush’s wars of more than a decade, trillions of dollars spent and hundreds of thousands humans dead and maimed. Jihad means striving, to be conducted foremost with the intellect outlined in the Quran itself. Such a course would had taken the wind out of the sails of the extremists and deprived them of their argument. The extremist elements would had been weeded out of their sanctuaries as religious duty by their shielders. But, the arrival of marching steps of ‘crusaders’ on the door steps, churned out an even further twisted and distorted Jihad among the fringe elements. No matter how much those elements may be in minority, but would get the most press coverage in the West. Ironically, the current meaning of Jihad was given and funded by the West itself. West created Jihadis of today when the enemy was the Soviets and the Jihadis were toasted in the White House [see picture] by none other than a Republican President, Ronald Reagan. It is from these fringe elements and their internet videos; the West hears the war cry of Allah-o-Akbar. Neither Jihad of Quran stands for such deeds nor does Allah-o-Akbar.

In sum total, Allah-o-Akbar is anything but the war cry Deus vult!

The gargantuan human and monetary toll of the ‘crusades’ of our times may be judged in a report by Reuters, Wed Jun 29, 2011– Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting:

In human terms, 224,000 to 258,000 people have died directly from warfare, including 125,000 civilians in Iraq. Many more have died indirectly, from the loss of clean drinking water, healthcare, and nutrition. An additional 365,000 have been wounded and 7.8 million people — equal to the combined population of Connecticut and Kentucky — have been displaced.

In one sense, the report measures the cost of 9/11, the American shorthand for the events of September 11, 2001. Nineteen hijackers plus other al Qaeda plotters spent an estimated $400,000 to $500,000 on the plane attacks that killed 2,995 people and caused $50 billion to $100 billion in economic damages.

What followed…For every person killed on September 11, another 73 have been killed since.

In the 10 years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the September 11, 2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.

Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020. The estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments coming due and many billions more in expenses that cannot be counted, according to the study.

The US currently spends over 1.2 million dollars a minute on militarism and war. That’s 20,000 dollars every second [link]. Of course, that very biblical treasure trove is for none but defense industry:

“The Last Supper has become part of the lore of the military industry — though partly that’s because Mr. Aspin’s prediction about tighter Pentagon budgets turned out to be so wrong. “On the day George W. Bush took office,” said Loren B. Thompson, a well-known military consultant, “defense spending was around $300 billion.” Today it is more than double that amount, around $700 billion. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — not to mention the Pentagon’s voracious appetite for expensive weapons systems, and the lack of competition among the remaining contractors — have been a gold mine for the Big Five…the so-called primes: Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman and Boeing.” [From Pentagon, a Buy Rating on Contractors – Joe Nocera, The New York Times, Feb 11, 2011]

A characteristic that is common to crusaders, medieval or current, they all started by dividing the world into good and evil. “This is about good vs. evil” is famously attributed to George Bush, a born-again Christian. All crusades of past, present and even possible future start with initial idealistic determinism, which soon transforms into loot and plunder of their own people first and then everyone else that came their way, be it the land or the people.

One is pained to ask a fundamental question to the West that is under the influence of Spencers – What is so holy in your Holy War? Look no farther than your own scriptures which answer the insanity of Bush’s crusades, rather the sanity underlying the Defense industry – Matthew 6:21 (NIV):

“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

————————–
* La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur rasul-ullah

47:19. So know that there is no god but Allah…

48:29. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah…

From a very early Islamic tradition, the elements over two verses are compounded into a declaration:

La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur rasul-ullah
“There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”

This declaration is the fundamental oath of a Muslim. It identifies the source of belief (Allah) and the messenger (Muhammad). According to Quran, this is a declaration of Believers since eternity – the believers in Allah and the followers of the prophet of the time, the Muslims, the submitting ones:

5:111. And when I inspired the disciples [of Jesus], (saying): Believe in Me and in My messenger [– Jesus], they said: We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered (unto Thee) “we are Muslims [– the submitting ones]“.

By declaring Allah as one’s only God one is barred from taking others as gods, including any person, entity, or resource. Along the same lines, it prevents one from thinking or acting like a god toward others, yet, the very objective of Islam is to revive godly attributes in oneself. This declaration fundamentally makes one humble, unburdening one from the shackles of arrogance, myths, dependency and fears and thus unleashing human potentials.

By declaring Muhammad the Messenger, the oath assigns human status to Muhammad and prevents the Muslims from attributing super human qualities to him. In other religions, their followers, out of love for their respective messengers, coupled with their ancestral and inherent idolatrous traditions, over a period of time started attributing godliness to their messengers. The Muslim oath preserves the fundamental immaculate monotheistic nature of Islam.

Given the unity of the Message from Adam to Muhammad, and the universality of the Message of Muhammad, the above declaration is further extended for Muslims to believe not only in all the previous Messengers but also in all the previous Books:

4:171. …Believe, therefore, in Allâh and in all His Messengers…

2:136. Say, `We believe in Allâh and in that (the Qur’ân) which has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham, Ismâîl, Isaac, Jacob and his children, and what was given to Moses and Jesus, and (we believe) in what was given to (all other) Prophets from their Lord. We (while believing in them) make no discrimination between anyone of them, and to Him do we submit ourselves entirely.’

————————–
* Darood

Besides, Allah-o-Akbar, Darood is a ubiquitous part of daily Muslim prayers, which besides creed of Prophet Muhammad, is also directed for the creed of Abraham:

Allahu-mma salli ‘ala Muhammadin wa ‘ala ali Muhammadin kama sallaita ‘ala Ibrahima wa ‘ala ali lbrahima inna-ka Hamidum Majid. AIIahumma barik ‘ala Muhammadin wa ‘ala’ ali Muhammadin kama barakta ‘ala Ibrahima wa ‘ala’ ali Ibrahima inna-ka Hamidum Majid.

[Translation] O Allah! exalt Muhammad and the true followers of Muhammad as Thou didst exalt Abraham and the true followers of Abraham; surely Thou art Praised, Magnified. O Allah! bless Muhammad and the true followers of Muhammad as Thou didst bless Abraham and the true followers of Abraham; surely Thou art Praised, Magnified. [The Muslim Prayer Book, p. 24, Muhammad Ali]

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SALAT-UN-NABI OR DAROOD
Id-ul-Adha Khutba [– Sermon] at Darus Salaam, London, 16 March 2000
By Dr. Zahid Aziz
Published in The Light & Islamic Review, March-April 2000, p. 6-8 [pdf – link, webpage – link]

“And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commands he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you a leader of mankind. Abraham said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the wrongdoers, said He.” — The Holy Quran, 2:124

“And when Abraham said: My Lord, make this city secure, and save me and my sons from worshipping idols. My Lord, surely they have led many people astray. So whoever follows me, he is surely of me; and whoever disobeys me, Thou surely art Forgiving, Merciful.” — The Holy Quran, 14:36.

I will return shortly to an explanation of the verses quoted just now. Before that, let me read the well-known prayer taught to Muslims known in Urdu and Persian as the Darood and in Arabic as Salatun-Nabi

“O Allah, exalt Muhammad and the true followers of Muhammad as Thou didst exalt Abraham and the true followers of Abraham, Thou art the Praised, the Magnified. O Allah, bless Muhammad and the true followers of Muhammad as Thou didst bless Abraham and the true followers of Abraham, Thou art the Praised, the Magnified.”

The words of this prayer in Arabic are recited by Muslims, both within the set daily prayers and at other times, and are believed to be a source of blessing. But unfortunately, Muslims generally are either unaware of what the Arabic words of the prayer mean, or if they do know the meaning they are unaware of what is the “exaltation” and “blessing” that they are asking to be bestowed upon the Holy Prophet Muhammad and his followers, which were also granted to Abraham and his followers.

The Bible mentions the promises of exaltation and blessing given from God to Abraham and his progeny as follows. God said to Abraham:

“I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you… and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.” — Genesis, 12:2–3.

“You shall be the father of a multitude of nations…I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you.” — Genesis, 17:4, 6.

“I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore…and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves.” – Genesis, 22:17– 18.

Unfortunately the followers of the Bible, that is to say the Jews and the Christians — the first group being the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, and the second group having arisen out of the Jews – considered this promise to be unconditional. Their belief was that no matter how they behaved, well or badly, they would still be great and blessed nations because of being Abraham’s descendants. But the Holy Quran puts this promise in a different way, as in the verse quoted at the beginning of this khutba [–sermon]. When Abraham asked God about his progeny, God said: My promise does not include and extend to the wrongdoers.

Also according to another verse in the Holy Quran as quoted above, Abraham prayed to God as follows:

­­­­“So whoever follows me, he is surely of me; and whoever disobeys me, Thou surely art Forgiving, Merciful.” – The Holy Quran, 14:36

Two points are made here:

1. It is whoever follows the path of Abraham who is “of him” or his progeny, offspring or issue. The same applies to any other spiritual leader. It is not by mere physical descent but by following in their path that you become their real descendants. This is a great and deep principle revealed by Islam, and if we bear it in mind it can save us from going wrong many a time.

2. As to those who disobey or do not follow Abraham, he prays for their forgiveness. This teaches us to constantly pray to Allah to show forgiveness and mercy to the rejecters of truth by bringing them into the fold of truth.

After Abraham, in the long course of time, two main religions developed among the followers of the Bible: the Jewish and the Christian religions. But both deviated from, and in fact, went contrary to Abraham’s path, while considering themselves to be the blessed nations springing from him.

The Jewish religion became a religion of rites and rituals only, so that the priests and the masses stuck to the letter of the religious teachings but lost the true spirit. They lost the spirit of sacrifice of one’s desires that Abraham demonstrated, and indeed what he is famous for. So they became a morally corrupt people while sticking most rigidly to the letter of the religion.

The Christian religion invented wrong beliefs about God, making a mortal Jesus into a part of God, going against the Oneness of God which was so dear to Abraham and which he preached so fervently, and coining the doctrine that your sins are forgiven if you believe that Jesus died for your sins. Abraham’s belief was that to have your sins forgiven the only way is to lead a righteous life with belief in One God.

So how could these nations be the blessed heirs of Abraham when they go against his teachings?

That is why God then raised the Holy Prophet Muhammad, from the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael, in order to revive the beliefs taught by Abraham. That is, belief in One God, sacrificing your lower desires in order to reach God, and leading a righteous life.

Apart from reviving Abraham’s beliefs, in the physical and material sense too, Islam arose in a place, Makka, whose foundations were laid by Abraham, and Islam made as its religious center the Ka‘ba which had been rebuilt by Abraham from a state of ruin. Further, Islam instituted a remembrance of the incident of Abraham’s act of sacrifice to be done at the Hajj, and by all Muslims throughout the world.

This shows that it is the Muslim nation which is the heir to Abraham, and it is through this nation that the promise of God given to Abraham is fulfilled that “I will make a great nation out of you and will bless those who bless you, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves”.

The significance of the Darood prayer, or Salatunnabi, is that we pray that the promise of the blessings of God coming to Abraham and his followers be fulfilled through the Holy Prophet Muhammad and his followers.

But we must beware that merely by copying Abraham’s example of sacrifice in a symbolic way, or by just going to the Hajj to the place that Abraham is associated with and performing the outward rites, we do not become his heirs and heirs to the promised blessings. This is just like the fact that the Jewish and Christian religions, while arising among Abraham’s descendants, are not his spiritual heirs because they have gone against his teachings.

To be Abraham’s real heirs, so as to be worthy of inheriting the promised blessings, we have to make sacrifices of our own desires, just as Abraham did, which needs to be done in order to attain a higher goal.

This is why our Darood is couched in the form of a prayer: “O Allah, exalt…O Allah, bless…”, so that we realize that it is a goal for which we have to work and pray. Muslims are not taught to refer to these blessings as something which is guaranteed to them by God, regardless of their behaviour, even though it is true that the followers of the Prophet Muhammad have been destined to inherit those blessings.

Abraham was promised, in the words of the Holy Quran, that he would be made “a leader of mankind”. What does that mean? The word for “leader” is imam, which means one who sets an example. He was selected by God as an example because of his willingness to sacrifice what he loved most in the path of God. Similarly, if his heirs are to become leaders of all mankind, they have to set the same example of self-sacrifice. A leader, according to Islam, is not someone who just has power and gives orders. A leader is one who sets the greatest example himself of what he wants and requires others to do, and then people follow his example. That is the kind of leader that the Holy Prophet Muhammad was, one who has left behind his own actions and life as an example. That is the kind of leadership of the nations that Islam wants Muslims to have.

Also, the promise contains mention of making a “great” nation from Abraham. What is a great nation? According to the Quran, it is not one which rules over the most lands, has the biggest empire, possesses the most wealth and resources, or is the most powerful in weapons and armaments, but the greatest nation is the one which upholds truth, goodness and justice more than anyone else.

Note: The khutba [–sermon] ends above, but in this written version I deal with a question related to the Darood which was once asked by a friend. He asked: Since the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the greatest of all prophets in rank and status, why do we Muslims pray that Allah may bestow those blessings on him, and on his followers, which had already been bestowed upon Abraham and his followers? Are we saying that Abraham held a higher rank than the Holy Prophet Muhammad and we are praying for the Holy Prophet to reach that same rank and status?

The answer is that the words of the Darood, “as Thou didst exalt Abraham and the true followers of Abraham” and “as Thou didst bless Abraham and the true followers of Abraham”, do not refer to any exaltation or blessings that had actually been attained in full measure by Abraham and his followers prior to the time of the Holy Prophet, so that we could be said to be praying for the same now to be given to the Holy Prophet and his followers. Rather, this was a promise made by God to Abraham relating to the future. That promise had been fulfilled only very partially through the Israelite prophets and kings of the Bible who came after Abraham, and by the time the Holy Prophet Muhammad arose the followers of the Bible had lost all those blessings as a result of deviating completely from Abraham’s teachings. Therefore the promise to Abraham and to his followers was destined to come true through the Holy Prophet Muhammad and his followers: that there would be great nations in the whole of the world following Abraham’s message, blessing him, and through whom his name would be made great. So the Darood is the prayer to say that may the promises of God made with Abraham come to fulfillment in the fullest and most complete manner through the Holy Prophet Muhammad and his followers.

Darood and the propagation work of our Movement

On a second point, since we pray in the Darood for the Holy Prophet Muhammad to be exalted and blessed, it means that we must also work towards this goal. For the Holy Prophet to be exalted in the world it is absolutely essential to strive hard to present a true picture of his noble life and character, particularly to counteract the false image found in hostile Western writings as well as in certain Muslim books written by foolish friends. Only then will the image of the Holy Prophet, and along with him that of his followers, be raised high or exalted in the world. Only then will people realize what a great blessing for the world he was, and they will send their blessings on him. Just repeating the Darood in words, without any action to bring about the exaltation and blessing which is being prayed for, cannot achieve anything.
————————–
* Islam will dominate the world

The opponents of Islam and the current documentary in particular try to make Islam synonymous with certain races. They just cannot help it because their only experience of “domination” is their own history of one race colonizing, enslaving and exploiting other races and faiths.

What this placard is drawing attention to is not the domination of one race over another, but domination of better ideas over the inferior ones. This challenge has its source in Quran:

61:8. They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, though the disbelievers may be averse.

61:9. He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth that He may make it prevail over all religions, though those who set up partners (with Allah) are averse.

[Footnote] Verses 8 and 9 contain two different prophecies. The first is that all attempts to annihilate Islam will fail, and they did fail. In the second it is affirmed that Islam will be made the predominant religion, the truth of which was witnessed by Arabia in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. But both prophecies have a wider significance. Attempts are still being made to annihilate Islam, and the Divine promise is that all these attempts shall be brought to naught; while the predominance of Islam over all the religions of the world would in time be established, as clearly as it was in Arabia.

41:53. We will soon show them Our signs in farthest regions and among their own people,

[Footnote] The word afaq means borders or extremities of the earth, or its remote sides, and the great message conveyed here is that Islam will spread to the most distant regions of the earth, the words their own people denoting the Arabs. What is stated here is that Islam will quickly spread, not only in Arabia but in the remote regions of the earth, and this prophecy is contained in a chapter revealed early at Makkah, when Muslims were being severely persecuted and the message of Islam had apparently little hope of finding acceptance anywhere. If the prophecy is so clear, its fulfilment is clearer still. Within twenty years of its birth, Islam spread through the whole of Arabia, and within a hundred years, it reached the farthest regions of the earth, both in the East and the West. Both the prophecy and its fulfilment are thus two of the most amazing facts of history.

until it is quite clear to them that it is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a Witness over all things?

As to who is bearer of the said superior ideas, Quran speaks of it:

53:6. …So he attained to perfection,

[Footnote] The Holy Prophet is spoken of here as having attained to perfection because the Almighty Himself was his Teacher.

53:7. and he is in the highest part of the horizon.

[Footnote] The Prophet’s being in the highest part of the horizon is in reference to the resplendence of his light, which was to illuminate all corners of the world — a prophecy that he will shine out in the full brilliance of his light as the midday sun.

Even though the early Islamic history, till a few centuries ago bears testimony to the truth of all the above verses for their prophecies, still the documentary can make the claim that Islam is at present confined predominantly to certain races and regions only. For such proponents, Quran has the prophecies of our times, which are quite vivid and not ‘Nostradamusically’ vague. Chapter 81 deals with events of our times as outlined in its introductory commentary by Maulana Muhammad Ali“…The chapter begins by speaking prophetically of certain events of the distant future fulfilled in the modern age. It concludes by making clear that the Holy Prophet’s light will reach the remotest horizon and the Quran will reach all nations…”

81:1. When the sun is folded up,

[Footnote]For the folding up of the sun, see the introductory note above. Verses 1–13 speak of twelve signs, some of which undoubtedly relate to this life and the rest may therefore also be taken as referring metaphorically to this life. The Resurrection of the dead in another life may often contain a deeper reference to the spiritual resurrection which was to be brought about by the Prophet in this very life, and hence the combination of the real with the metaphorical, as here.

81:2. and when the stars are dust coloured,

[Footnote] The darkening of the stars indicates complete darkness. Not only would the light of the day disappear, but even the smaller lights would become dark, and so the opponents of Truth would be left in utter darkness.

81:3. and when the mountains are made to pass away,

[Footnote] The passing away of the mountains signifies the passing away of the greatest obstacles to the spread of Truth; see 20:105 footnote [reader: refer to the original publication link in references section]. [the verse also alludes to modern highways]

81:4. and when the camels are abandoned,

[Footnote] Ishar is plural of ushara, meaning a she-camel that has been ten months pregnant. It is applied to the she-camel until she has delivered and also after she has delivered, and to a camel that is milked. Such camels are undoubtedly the most precious, and their being abandoned may stand for the abandonment of camels generally. Bearing on this subject is a hadith of the Prophet: “Camels will be abandoned so that they will not be used for going swiftly (from one place to another)” (Mishkat, 26:5). This clearly refers to a time when swifter modes of going from one place to another will come into existence, so that camels will no more be needed.

81:5. and when the wild animals are gathered together,

[Footnote] The gathering together (hashr) of wild animals seems also to be a prophecy relating to the distant future, when the wild animals were to be gathered together from all corners of the world into big towns [in the zoos]. It may refer metaphorically to the gathering together of barbarous people into towns and cities.

81:6. and when the cities are made to swell,

[Footnote] The word bihar is the plural of bahr, which means sea or river, as well as of bahrah which is synonymous with baldah or a town. The swelling of cities is a clear indication that advancing civilization will result in people gathering more and more in cities. The next verse corroborates this significance, as it speaks in clear words of the uniting of people.

81:7. and when people are united,

[Footnote] The uniting of people is one of the greatest achievements of modern civilization. The time is not far distant indeed when the whole world will be united and may become as a single nation [as it has started to happen with globalization of economies, human rights, communications, travel, United Nations etc.].

81:8-9. and when the one buried alive is asked for what sin she was killed,

[Footnote] The reference here is to the burying alive of daughters, a practice common among the pre-Islamic Arabs who, either for fear of hunger or disgrace, buried alive their female children. The questioning refers to the future when, with the predominance of Islam in Arabia, this barbarous practice was to be abolished. But the one buried alive may stand generally for the female sex, and the reference here may, therefore, be to the general tyranny of the male over the female. (Editor’s Note: Killing of girls at birth still takes place in some parts of the world. Abortion of foetuses for the reason of being female is a modern extension of the same barbarous practice.)

81:10. and when the books are spread,

[Footnote] This is also a prophetic reference to the distant future, with the circulation of books and papers to an incredible extent. The Muslim world did immense service to the cause of the circulation of literature, and the revival of learning in the West, which has brought about the great spread of books and papers, was a direct result of the impetus which Islam gave to the study of letters. [the verse also refers to modern print and electronic media, internet etc.]

81:11. and when the heaven has its covering removed,

[Footnote] The removal of the covering of the heaven signifies the unveiling of the mysteries relating to the heavens, which is one of the great achievements of modern science. Compare 99:2 where the earth is spoken of as yielding her treasures [reader: refer to the original publication link in references section].

81:12. and when hell is kindled,

[Footnote] Just as the righteous are promised heaven in this very life, the wicked are told that hell would be kindled for them even here, if they had only the eyes to see it. Compare 79:36 [reader: refer to the original publication link in references section]. The forces of materialism have already engulfed the world in a burning hell in the form of modern wars.

81:13. and when the Garden is brought near

[Footnote] God has not doomed this world to utter destruction, but when it has tasted somewhat of the evil consequences of its own doings, Divine mercy will take it by the hand and bring the Garden of bliss near to it by bringing about a spiritual awakening. Thus the solace of mind which man can attain to through realization of the Divine in him is here described as the bringing near of the Garden.

81:14. every soul will know what it has prepared.

[Footnote] Man will then become conscious that there is a higher life, which is his real goal, and he will know what to do to attain that goal. [the verse also draws attention to accountability in the modern world]

81:15-18. Indeed, I call to witness the stars, running their course, (and) setting, and the night when it departs, and the morning when it brightens,

[Footnote] The calling to witness of the stars that run their course and set also draws attention to the disasters that awaited the opponents of the Truth; see 53:1 footnote [reader: refer to the original publication link in references section]. The departing of the night and the rise of the bright morning is clearly the disappearance of the darkness of ignorance, giving place to the bright light of the sun of Islam.

81:19-21. surely it is the word of a bountiful Messenger, the possessor of strength, established in the presence of the Lord of the Throne, one (to be) obeyed, and faithful.

[Footnote] Verses 19–21 refer to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. He is the
bountiful Messenger (Rasul Karim), the one to be obeyed (see 4:64) [reader: refer to the original publication link in references section], and the faithful (al-Amin). His being possessor of strength prophetically refers to his future career and to his ultimate triumph over his enemies.

81:22-23. And your companion is not mad. And truly he saw himself on the clear horizon.

[Footnote] This means that his light would shine in the remotest corners of the world. See also 53:7 and footnote [reader: refer to the original publication link in references section].

81:24. Nor is he miserly (with knowledge) of the unseen.

[Footnote] This shows that there are some great prophecies relating to the future in what has gone before.

81:25-26. Nor is it the word of an accursed devil — where then are you going?

[Footnote] Wonder is expressed that despite the clearest evidence of Truth, humanity has been so slow to accept it.

81:27. It is nothing but a Reminder for the nations,

[Footnote] This, one of the earliest revelations, clearly shows that the foundations of the universality of the message of Islam were laid on the very first day.

81:28-29. for whomever among you who wishes to go straight. And you do not (so) wish, unless Allah please, the Lord of the worlds.

[Footnote] See 76:30 footnote for explanation [reader: refer to the original publication link in references section].

Fruition of the claims and prophecies in Quran of success of Islam as an ideology are not based upon just a fanciful wish and “me too” of any faith out there, but it is based upon its intellectual strengths. Quran does not shy away from having a discussion, dialogue and debate for its fortes versus any other idea. Factually, Quran encourages such a discourse:

27:64. Or, Who originates the creation, then reproduces it, and Who gives you sustenance from the heaven and the earth? Is there a god with Allah? Say: Bring your proof, if you are truthful.

6:148-149. …Say: Have you any knowledge so you would bring it forth to us? You only follow a conjecture and you only tell lies. Say: Then Allah’s is the conclusive argument;…

References:

Note: [text enclosed in square brackets above is not part of the original quoted sources]
League of Faith: A Message From Islam – Islamic Review and Muslim India
A Living Religion and a Living Prayer – Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Deus vult! – Merriam-Webster
Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, Five versions of the Speech, as quoted from – Dana C. Munro, “Urban and the Crusaders”
Pope Urban II – Wikipedia
Remarks by the President Upon Arrival – South Lawn – White House – archives – President George Bush
President Rallies the Troops in Alaska – White House – archives – President George Bush
Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen – Wikipedia
Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting – Reuters
I Apologize for Inaccurate Statistics on US Gov’t War Spending – Red Letter Christians
Matthew 6:21 (NIV) – Bible Gateway
From Pentagon, a Buy Rating on Contractors – Joe Nocera, The New York Times
The Muslim Prayer Book – Muhammad Ali
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SALAT-UN-NABI OR DAROOD, pdf – link – Dr. Zahid Aziz, The Light & Islamic Review, March-April 2000
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz

Posted in Project Rebuttal – Islam: What the West Needs to Know | Comments Off on Issue 79 | Read more..

Issue 78 [@1:19:45]: Robert Spencer – “Muslims who come to the United States and come to Western Europe, with an idea that Shariah is the law of Allah, they look upon our freedom of religion and they look upon the fact that non-Muslims are empowered in the United States and in Western Europe, making laws, making laws not on the basis of the law of Allah, but on the basis of consensus and free elections. They look upon all that as a manifestation of Jahaliyya, or unbelief, the pre-Islamic period of ignorance as the times in any nation’s history before it became Muslim is referred to. So that you have Pakistan and Iran and so on, they refer to the period of their history before they became Muslim as the period of Jahaliyya. They also consider the United States and Western Europe to be in periods of Jahaliyya today. Then many Muslims coming into the United States and Western Europe will work to establish Islamic states here on the basis of the idea that the secular state and the state based on elections has no legitimacy. You do not have elections about the law of Allah, you simply obey what God says.

Rebuttal 78: There is a simple answer to this rant of Spencer and that is plain NO, and what part of NO does he not understand? When was it even possible in history for a minority of no more than 0.8% of the population [of Muslims in USA] to be able to assert its interests and point of view on the rest of the 99.2%, unless and maybe the said minority controls the banks, stock market, media, the universities, the senate and the congress? Muslims in West do not control any of these assets. If he is still not convinced then he has to look no farther than August 30th, 2011 report of Pew Research entitled – “Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism.”

Spencer et al. have a special knack to not only distort and misquote verses of Quran and the Hadith, but he even goes further. He even distorts the meaning of a single word Jahaliyya. He equates it with “unbelief”, which is absurd, wrong and malicious as he tries to mould it to mean non-Islamic and with that he implies the West. This is a curse from his mouth to the West, not from Muslims. By any standards, West of today is not Jahaliyya. Jahaliyya means ignorance and refers to the state of lawlessness and barbarism rampant in the time period before Islam in Arabia, when male gender was exploitative of the females who essentially had no rights; lighter skin were enslavers of dark skin; non-Arabs were looked down upon as inferior; a few rich ruled and exploited the majority of poor; there was no check on the mighty; internacine warfare was pervasive; occupation and enslavement of enemies was common; there were no rules of war, every atrocity was fair game; usury, gambling, alcoholism, prostitution and debauchery were endemic etc.

Spencer is fabricating his assertion. He is preaching Xenophobia even against four-in-ten American born Muslim citizens, while the total population of all the Muslims in United States is less than 1%. Such an insinuation against its citizens would be a crime in any “modern” democracy as it is not “free speech” but “defamation.” He is equating Islam with non-Caucasian races. That is the fundamental malice of a lie that he is trying to imprint in the minds of the “Western” audience. Irony is that if he asks a Muslim immigrant in the West about his/her experience of Shariah in their country of origin, he might draw a blank as Shariah is hardly in place in any of the Muslim countries, which is a foremost failing. He might find fragmented distortions in the name of Shariah, but not Shariah of Quran. A failing, which for the lack of a better word is in itself Jahaliyya – ignorance. Shariah in its letter and spirit is far advanced and equitable in legal terms than the best of the Laws and Constitutions in the West. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations is the closest that any man made effort can approach Shariah, whereas Shariah is much more than that. Shariah provides a framework that encourages good and prevents evil in the society both for the individual and collectively for the masses, in all their spheres of living – personal, gender, age, marriage, family, education, workplace, trade, business, finance, transactions, inheritance, crime, justice, punishment, health, war, peace, freedoms, human rights, animal rights, faith, environment, international relations etc. etc.

Fact of the matter is that the roots of “good” in the Western society and its laws originate directly from the influence of Shariah, and this is not an empty assertion. To enjoin good and forbid evil in all its shades and contexts is the core purpose of Shariah. In secular terms if nothing else, Shariah not only confronts crime but also prevents it as well, while it encourages good citizenship:

3:104. And from among you there should be a community who invite to good and enjoin the right and forbid the wrong. And these are they who are successful.

3:110. You are the best nation raised up for mankind: you enjoin good and forbid evil and you believe in Allah.

9:71-72. And the believers, men and women, are friends of one another. They enjoin good and forbid evil and keep up prayer and give the due charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. As for these, Allah will have mercy on them. Surely Allah is Mighty, Wise. Allah has promised to the believers, men and women, Gardens, in which rivers flow, to abide in them, and goodly dwellings in Gardens of perpetual abode. And greatest of all is Allah’s goodly pleasure. That is the mighty achievement.

31:17-18. [Prophet Luqman addressing his son –] My son, keep up prayer and enjoin good and forbid evil, and bear patiently whatever befalls you. Surely this is a matter of great resolution. And do not turn your face away from people in contempt, nor go about in the land exultingly. Surely Allah does not love any self-conceited boaster. And pursue the right course in your going about and lower your voice. Surely the most hateful of voices is braying of donkeys.

24:55. Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will surely make them rulers in the earth as He made those before them rulers…

Until recently there was no concept of human rights in the West. Discrimination based upon skin color was the law of the land. Exploitation of the weak, be it of the individuals amongst their midst or the countries in farthest corners of the world was the right of the mighty in the West. Reverend Martin Luther King had to invoke marches just so that people of color could drink from the same fountains as the whites in the West, while they are still struggling even now for equal opportunities. Women too had to march and ask for their voting and property rights. Countries had to fight for their independence to rid the white rule. Middle East struggled for decades against their tyrant rulers that were and are still abetted by the West. Palestinians are a prime example of occupied and displaced people by no other than the West. What would Spencer term such a recent history, but Jahaliyya? It is this fundamental lack of equity, individually and collectively that dissipates under Shariah. If one looks at the state of affairs in the recent world history through the lens of Shariah with its high moral standards in Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet, one can quite confidently attribute – Jahaliyya to the East and Jahaliyya to West, though some more than the others.

In June 1776, Thomas Jefferson composed a draft of the Declaration of Independence that was adopted on July 4th the same year. When he wrote – We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, it was for sure agreed upon only for the White males to the exclusion of white women, African slaves, Native Americans and Chinese laborers. A great declaratory statement when separated from corresponding actions through the prism of history sounds so hollow. Such exclusive declarations only suit the fancies of their writers who belong to the group that it benefits. Same values were held by the white prime ministers of South Africa of yesteryears and now by the prime ministers of Israel. Just to remind Spencer in his own words, these assertions by former slave masters in the West and current apartheid upholders in the Middle East are “making laws not on the basis of the law of Allah, but on the basis of consensus and free elections.”

What Spencer is ignorant of is that what Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Declaration of Independence above is factually nothing but reflection of Shariah, with the difference that it applies to all genders, races, ages, social and economic classes, then, now and in the future. Surprised! (see Issues 65, 71)

Shariah is not a term or a practice to please a deity, but is the fabric into which is woven the equity and harmony in the society, where the ruler, the powerful and the wealthy are held to equal if not much higher accountability, yet individual responsibility is fully expected from each citizen, because a Muslim by the very definition of the word is ‘submitter’ to not only the Laws of the land, but to all the moral, spiritual and scientific laws, the source of all of which is God Himself.

West has tried every conceivable ism – Paganism, Hellenism, Catholicism, Monarchism, Colonialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Capitalism and now Atheism. One after another, each one of them has failed the mankind. One common trait of most of these isms is their servitude of the masses that they tried to serve. Before it was bondage of person, now it is bondage of debt under Capitalism. One has to ask as to why it is okay to speak of Caucasian as a race in the West, but it is a derogatory term to mention Negro as people. Is it the fault of the latter for their skin color or the moral repentance of the West for its institutions of slavery and apartheid? It is against the backdrop of such exploitation and inequality of the masses that we see “Occupy Wall Street” movements globally. One aspect that sets apart Shariah from all these isms is the freedom from servitude that it guarantees, because if God made man free, so must His laws as well.

This documentary which was made in 2006 was one of the orchestrated preludes in the anti-Sharia fear mongering. This concerted wave of phobia ultimately resulted in passage of anti-foreign law (read anti-Sharia) constitutional amendment in Oklahoma in 2010. It was struck down this past January [2012], with a federal court ruling that lawmakers failed to “identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve.” This legalized anti-Sharia attempt is dealt with for its detail and context in the following article which can be read from the link. Only the excerpt of its summation is reproduced below:

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts by Abed Awad, June 13, 2012, The Nation

The US constitutional system is built on managing the tensions in our pluralistic society between strong religious and secular principles. Whether through reasonable religious accommodation in the workplace or treating religion as a form of freedom of expression, our legal system is well equipped to balance conflicts between church and state.

Of course, the anti-Sharia crusade is not about the careful consideration of constitutional principles; it is about discrimination and bigotry. Take the Oklahoma anti-Sharia statute, which was written in a way that makes it clearly unconstitutional. In a New York Times profile of attorney David Yerushalmi—“The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement”—Yerushalmi openly admitted that his anti-Sharia campaign had an ulterior motive that went beyond the statutes themselves. “If this thing passed in every state without any friction, it would have not served its purpose,” he said. “The purpose was heuristic—to get people asking this question, ‘What is Shariah?’” This question was meant to render Muslims suspect and their faith threatening to the rest of us.

In addition to trying to pass anti-Sharia laws across the country, Yerushalmi and his allies are busy clogging the federal courts with frivolous lawsuits. In one, filed on behalf of former US Marine Kevin Murray, Yerushalmi alleged that the Treasury’s bailout of AIG violated the establishment clause of the Constitution because of the corporation’s sale of Sharia-compliant financial products. The lawsuit argued that Sharia “forms the basis for the global jihadist war against the West and the United States” and “sends a message to [Mr. Murray], who is a non-adherent to Islam, that he is an outsider.” On June 1, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the lawsuit.

As November approaches, the anti-Sharia movement is likely to play a role in attempting to defeat President Obama. While a 2010 Pew national survey found that nearly one out of five Americans believed that Obama is a Muslim, among Republicans the number was around 31 percent.

The far-right rhetoric of the GOP, with its Islamophobic fictions highlighted during the primary debates, lives on in Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team. Walid Phares, one of Romney’s key terrorism policy advisers and a Fox News regular, has been touting the “mortal threat” posed by Islam. Commenting on the danger of Sharia last year, he said, “The most concerning to me is not the actual Sharia document. What is concerning to me are the networks that are using it.” Through front groups, NGOs and lobbying, he explained, these networks are not only spreading Sharia but seeking to exert political influence at home and abroad. “This influence that the Islamists have in the United States is an issue,” he said, “and it should be an issue raised in the debate, including in this very hot presidential contest this year.” In other words, fabricate a “mortal threat,” then stoke the flames of ignorance and hate in order to win elections—that’s the real truth behind the anti-Sharia movement.

One wonders as to how the documentary can speak for a homogenous West, while the laws that govern their societies are so varied and opposite. For example, it is crime to possess Marijuana in the United States, while it is legal to smoke it in Holland. Same goes for the prostitution. It is acceptable to hoard anonymous wealth in Switzerland, but not so in other European and North American countries. These simple examples prove that there is no uniformity of moral thinking, ethics and justice in the manmade laws of Spencer’s West. This paradox of laws in the West and the influence of Islam on its legal systems, while explaining Sharia, are discussed by Dr. Doi in a two part paper, of which the first part is reproduced below:

Shariah and the Common Law – I by Dr. Abdul Rahman I. Doi [The Light, p. 16-20, 22-25, September 24, 1983 – pdf download]

I have carefully tried to avoid the use of word “comparison” while discussing the definitions and role of the Shariah and the Common Law since there is absolutely no comparison between the two. One is man-made while the other is revealed by Allah, our Creator. In a world still reeling from a bloody war, the thought that Shariah, a system of law, which came into existence through living Revelation, could reorder the universe seems just short of miraculous simply because it has never been fully tried except in the glorious period of the Righteous Caliphs and then in the times of Umar bin Abdul Aziz of the Umayyad dynasty who is rightly given the status of a Righteous Caliph. However, the recent interest in the Muslim world to try Shariah once again may turn out to be a blessing, and that Shariah may prove to be a peace-maker in individual, collective, national and international lives of men.

Shariah literally is the path leading to the right path, path towards Allah, the Creator, path to justice to fellowmen and to Allah. Real justice in Islam lies in going ‘right’ (maruf) and avoiding ‘wrong’ (munkar) as laid down by Allah through Divine Revelations and through the conduct of the Prophet, the most ideal man (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The Shariah thus becomes the ultimate criterion of justice and mercy given to the Prophet of mercy: “We have not sent you but as a Mercy for all the worlds”{1}. The Shariah thus aims at creating a most humane and just society once its basic concepts, objectives and framework are understood.

The Common Law, English and American, the continental law like French, Greek, German or even Russian law are all products of human imaginations according to the need of their societies, reforming them through trials and errors as time passed. It goes without saying, though I will say it anyway, that even the most lofty and respectable theories of human motivation from psychiatrists, biologists, legal theorists and philosophers of all kinds must always be treated by serious scholars as suspect. The basis of all their thoughts, discussions, arguments, contributions and innovations is nothing but imagination, pure and simple. They work out in their imagination “what would happen and why,” which may coincidentally come true but not always. The theories they may put forward to reform a man may debase him, disgrace him or make him feel free that he may overdo what he did before. Hence, those who base all their writings on human imaginations and experience accept unquestionably someone else’s formulation of how and why people behave, thus dramatising someone else’s theory, that of Aristotle, Plato, John Austin, Hans Kelsen, Roscoe Pound, Salmond, Savigny Ehirich, Karl Marx, Lauterpacht, Dicey, Ghering, Oppenheim and hordes of others.

At times, it is argued that Muslim jurists also use their reasoning and hence make their imaginations very very active at Ijtihad through the employment of Qiyas, analogical deductions, and taking into consideration Masalih al-Mursalah or public good. It should be understood at the outset that the judges (Quddat) differ merely in the interpretation of law and not in the revealed body of law. The differences of opinion are discussed by the ‘Ulama, the learned, and an Ijma, consensus is then struck. “Christianity” on the other hand; says Huston Smith, “is such a complex phenomenon that it is difficult to say anything significant about it that will carry the assent of all Christians” {2?}. The same is true of other religious and religious scholars.

Ijtihad must not be misconstrued as merely a matter of imagination, personal belief and conscience, it is a process based on the ultimate authority derived from some rule either from a Quranic injunction or some Sunnah of the Prophet, which may have some bearing on the case in question. Since Revelation is not opposed to reason, reason is employed to explain the rule derived from the injunction. Allah has Himself praised those who possess intelligence and reason. This is the reason why Imam Muhammad Idris al-Shafii has used the word Ijtihad synonymously with the word Aql, meaning intellect or reason {3?}.

Real Difference

Shariah, in reality, is the body of rules of conduct revealed by Allah to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) the Last of the Apostles of Allah. It is through the practice of this body of Law that people are directed to, lead their life successfully in this world as well as achieve Allah’s pleasure and be successful in the Hereafter. The Shariah is not given by any ruler or king. It always remains valid whether or not it is recognised by any state. It is comprehensive and encompasses all aspects of law, personal, constitutional, criminal, mercantile and international law. The sources of the Shariah are the Quran and the Sunnah and not the traditions and customs of the land.

As against this background, we shall quote some definitions of common law experts who are respected in the realm of law and are quoted constantly by lawyers throughout the world:

Salmond says: “Law may be defined as the body of principles recognised and applied by state in the administration of justice.”

John Austin says: “Law is the rule of action which is made by a ruler for his subjects.”

Savigny says “Law is the collective conscience of the society. Their main emphasis is on customs and traditions.”

The above definitions of law are grossly inconsistent and misleading. With these definitions at the back of one’s mind, law becomes merely “a part of the political system of nation” {4?}. These definitions suit more a legal system of a tribal society or a definite nation. Shariah on the contrary has a global application, applicable to all Muslim societies and non-Muslims living with them, irrespective of time and place.

I won’t address the paradox of searching the religious law in all religious systems that raises doubt about ‘law’ itself. Suffice it to say that I think the question interesting to those obviously, who research on various legal systems in different religions, I should add that I am thinking primarily of ‘great religions’ of the world although much of what say is relevant to all religions and religious movements. After the decline of Hamurabi’s law and Roman law, the Mosaic Law and then Biblical law based on Jewish and Christian scriptures occupied very prominent position in the world. But soon, these laws appeared too harsh. They kept on changing as they were fused with Roman law which ultimately overshadowed the religious law. Roman law was manmade law in which imaginations and experience played an important role. The other national and International legal systems which developed later and whose definition we have examined before are based on Roman law and are devoid of religious teachings, either of Judaism or Christianity except for a low semblances here and there.

Dawn of Islam

At the dawn of Islam, the world scene changed with the teachings of the Prophet. It is essential here to draw a picture of the condition of the surrounding nations in relation to the city of Makkah and the city state of Madinah established by the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, after the Hijrah, in 622 C.E. This Muslim State had its own legal system, the Shariah, with complete provisions for law and order. The Muslims and non-Muslims were, treated so justly that on many occasions Muslims were punished if they were found guilty in the litigations brought against them by the non-Muslims.

Marmaduke Pickthall, an English Muslim, depicts the condition of the surrounding states who professed Christianity, Judaism or Zoroastrianism in the following words:

“The surrounding nations, the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Mesopotamians and the Persians were ninety per cent slaves. And they had always been in that condition. The coming of Christianity to some countries had not improved their status. It was the religion of the rulers and imposed upon the rank and file. Their bodies were still enslaved by the nobles, and their minds still enslaved by the priests. Only the ideal of Christianity, so much of it as leaked through to them, had made the common people dream of freedom in another life. There was luxury among the nobles, and plenty of that kind of culture which is symptomatic not of progress but of corruption and decay. The condition of the multitude was pitiable. The tidings of our Prophet’s embassies to all the neighbouring rulers, inviting them to give up superstitions, abolish priesthood and agree to serve Allah only, and the evil treatment given to his envoys, must have made some noise in all those countries; still more the warlike preparations which were being made for the destruction of the new religion. The multitudes were no doubt warned that Islam was something devilish and that Muslims would destroy them. And then the Muslims swept into the land as conquerors, and by their conduct won the hearts of all those peoples”{5}.

“In the whole history of the world till then, the conquered had been absolutely at the mercy of the conqueror, no matter how complete his submission might be, no matter though he might be of the same religion as the conqueror. That is still the theory of war outside Islam. But it is not the Islamic theory. According to the Muslim Laws of War, those of the conquered people who embraced Islam became the equals of the conquerors in all respects. And those who chose to keep their old religion had to pay a tribute for the cost of their defence, but after that enjoyed full liberty of conscience and were secured and protected in their occupations”{6}.

As time passed, the Jews, Christians and the Zoroastrians abandoned their religious laws, and framed secular legal systems in which the teachings of Islam played an important role. While looking at the manmade law it comes to one’s mind that an essential factor for any legal system to be accepted and effective globally is its unanimous and uniform standard of right and wrong without which verification will become impossible. Once such standard exists then it becomes easier to draw knowledge from that standard. The Shariah has this standard which is unanimously accepted in the entire Muslim world and which provides the criteria of truth and falsehood. This standard is the Quran and the Sunnah which are to be accepted by every Muslim jurist if at all he is a Muslim. When one looks at the definitions of Common Law given by Western scholars like the one propounded by John Austin, it categorically says: “Law is that rule or action which is made by ruler for his subjects.” This pronouncement may hold true in respect of statutory law only but certainly would not cover the personal law and other aspects of law.

The Shariah, on the contrary, is a comprehensive legal system which takes care of all aspects of law, in spite of various schools of Islamic jurisprudence practised in it. The four Sunni Schools of law, the Hanafi, the Maliki, the Shafii and the Hanbali schools as well as the Shia schools are all alike and none of them will transform what is unlawful (Haram) into lawful (Halal) or what is not obligatory into obligatory. The marginal differences would only be found in supererogatory matters. The Shariah not only aims at goodwill and beneficence towards all men but also encourages to develop a worldwide outlook. There is not one standard and one law for the Muslims and another for the outsiders. In the kingdom of Allah there are no favourites. “The sacred law is one for all, and non-Muslims, who conform to it, are more fortunate than professed Muslims who neglect or disobey its precepts. In Islam all men are judged by conduct both in this world and the next”{7}. The other problem which is obvious in the manmade law is the hairsplitting division in the theories of law like Positivism and Idealism. The former concentrates on “what law is” while the latter insists on “what law ought to be.” While studying the words of the champions of the positivism like Austin, Kelsen, Jhering, Jellinek and others one gets the impression that the law is divorced from justice and has been rendered merely an apparatus of compulsion to which no political or ethical value is attached. Another limitation of positivism theorists is its acute characterization of criminal law only while ignoring private litigation and prosecution. This has built an artificial tension within the circle of positivists. The Shariah, on the contrary, is free from this intellectual jargon because it sticks to its standard, the revelation from Allah.

Islam’s Contribution

While reading the preface of Salmond’s Law of Torts, one comes to realise how inhuman and unjust a law was prevalent in Europe in the 18th century of Christian Era. If an accident occurred by a horse drawn cart, the horse, the driver, the cart and the passenger sitting in it were all to be punished. The later introduction of the famous Magna Carta about which English jurists take so much pride was gift of King John to the Barons since he had witnessed a lot of dissatisfaction among them. It was prepared in 1215. While it spoke of the benefits of the Barons, it even failed to mention the common man in the street. The real achievement was to come in the 17th century of the Christian Era when the Declaration of the Rights of Man was introduced during the French Revolution speaking of man’s right to Equality before the law, Right to hold property and Right of Freedom. These rights were not new to the Shariah, Islamic legal system {8}. The Quran, the Sunnah and the Holy Prophet’s famous Farewell Pilgrimage Address (Khutbah Hajjat al-Wida) have spoken of these rights in a very great detail, and which were fully put into practice in the Islamic state of Madinah before 632 C.E., the date of death of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is not merely a conjecture nor a bright idea to please the Muslim world of today, but it is a fact of history that Muslims had come up to France, Gibralter (Jabal al-Tariq), and had established their long drawn rule in Spain (Andlus) and later in Malta ruled by the Aghlabides. Long before the French Revolution, Granada (Gharnata) and Cordova (Qaratbah) had become famous as great seats of Islamic learning. The writings of the Maimonide schools established by the Jewish scholar Musa bin Maimun, who was tutored by Muslim scholars, bears a stamp of Islamic thought and culture. Likewise, Islamic Philosophy, Law and Science made a great impact on Europe through great Spanish Muslim scholars’ writings {9}. Guillaume, a Jewish scholar, often attacking Islam, has still to say the following about the contribution of Islamic scholarship on European thought:

“Scholars from the, West visited Spain to learn Philosophy, Mathematics, Astronomy and Medicine. The oldest European Universities owe an enormous debt to those scholars who returned from Spain bringing with them the knowledge they had gained at the Arab Universities of that country” {10}.

A lot has been written about Islamic contribution to the development of the social philosophy of 18th century Europe. Here we are specifically concerned about the contribution of Shariah to the development of the modern European legal system. Going through the Muwatta of Imam Malik bin Anas, the founder of the Maliki school of Islamic Jurisprudence and then comparing it with the modern French Law, one comes across striking similarities in most of its provisions. It should be remembered that Imam Malik’s Muwatta is not only a book of Jurisprudence but it is one of the most authentic collections of the Ahadith of the Noble Prophet. Whatever the legal issues are discussed by Imam Malik in Muwatta are based on the Ahadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Thus, the influence on the French Law is not only that of Muwatta of Imam Malik but that of the Hadith, the second most important source of Shariah. How did this influence of Muwatta come on the French Law? There are two sources, one, the predecessors of the modern French jurists learnt jurisprudence in Spain where, during the Muslim rule, the Maliki system of Islamic jurisprudence and law was practised and the Muwatta of Imam Malik was read with the highest esteem by the jurists, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Two, Napoleon Bonaparte, during his conquest of Egypt especially read Muwatta of Imam Malik among other Islamic literature {11}. The code Napoleon which came to be compiled later bears a great deal of resemblance with the Shariah Law.

When one engages in tracing and clearly delineating the role that religion has played during successive epochs of the cultural life of the European people, it becomes quite evident that Reformation was initiated as a revolt against the universal authority of the anachronistic Catholic Church. It was launched purposely to purify the church of all evil practices. Later on, it assumed the form of rebellion against everything which claimed to put any restrictions on man’s activities. Man was encouraged to apply the critical power of reason without theological predications and restraint to all his thoughts, beliefs and institutions, and to reject everything which came into conflict with his materialistic view of life and universe. The real contribution in bringing about positive attitude towards life rather than living under the burden of corrupt monasticism was brought about through the teachings and preachings of Martin Luther {12}. Martin Luther rebelled against the evils of the Catholic Church as a result of his deep study of Islam and Muslims living in neighbouring countries. It is a well-known fact, that Martin Luther read constantly Islamic History and was a good scholar of Arabic language” {13}.

As John William Draper has rightly observed, “the Muslims overran the dominions of Science (all branches of scientific studies) as quickly as they overran the realms of their neighbours” {14}.

The focus of Muslim scholars’ scientific studies was only one: “The ardent desire to gain a deeper understanding of the world as created by Allah; an acceptance of the physical universe as not inferior to the spiritual but covalid with it”{15}. Thus, in Islam, Religion, Philosophy, Law and Science did not go their separate way; in fact, Islam provided one of the main incentives for these studies. Justice was hence not to be meted out to individuals and societies alone, but it was to be done to reform one’s very thought pattern also. Apart from the application of all branches of law with equity and justice in the Muslim state it was essential that justice was to be done in respect of Muslims’ dealings with non-Muslims, non-Muslim states, non-Muslim neighbours and so on and so forth. Following this line of thought, a number of books were written by Muslim scholars. The masterpiece on this subject was Imam Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaibani’s famous work Siyar al-Kabir which was further embellished by its first commentary named Sharh al Siyar al-Kabir written by Al-Sarakhshi {16}.

When compared, the work of these great Muslim jurists with the works of Grotius on International Law, written in the 17th century, and claimed to be the first book on this subject, and the famous Oppenheim’s International Law, one discovers that the works of Imam Shaibani and its commentary by Sarakhshi are far more comprehensive although the latter were written as early as in the 11th century of the Christian Era. On the subject of the conflict of Laws {I7}, Ibn Qayyum’s work Ahkam ahl al-Dhimmah has no parallel till today. One can quote many other works on Islamic law written by great Muslim scholars which have influenced the Western legal systems but it is beyond the scope or this paper.

1. The Qur’an, 21:107.
2. Smith, Huston, The Religions of Man, p. 301.
3. Al-Shafii, Muhammad Idris, Risalah Translated by Majid Khadduri, Baltimore 1961.
4. Wright (Lord), Interpretation of Modern Legal Philosophies, p. 794.
5. Pickthall, Marmaduke, Cultural Sides of Islam, Lahore 1976 p. 25.
6. Pickthall, Marmaduke, Cultural Sides of Islam, Lahore 1976 p. 26.
7. Ibid., p. 23.
8. For a detailed study on these rights under Shariah, see Doi, A. R. I., Non-Muslims under Shariah, Maryland 1979.
9. For further details, see Averroes et Averroism.
10. Guillaume, A., Islam, p. 85.
11. Ch. Abdullah, Al-Muqaranat al-Tashri’yyah 4 vols. Cairo (undated).
12. Ch. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethics and the spirit of Capitalism, Translated from German by Talcott Parsons.
13. Gilani, Riazul Hassan, The Reconstruction of Legal Thought in Islam, Lahore 1977, p. 5.
14. Draper, J. W., The latellectual Development of Europe, London 1875, vol. 1, p. 335.
15. London, Room, Islam and the Arabs, London 1958, pp. 165-166.
16. Al-Sarakhshi, Abubakr Muhammad, Shark Siyar al-Kabir, 4 vols.
17. For further details cf. Doi, A.R Non-Muslims under Shariah, Maryland 1979.

Shariah and the Common Law – II by Dr. Abdul Rahman I. Doi [The Light, p. 11-14, October 8, 1983 – pdf download]

In Religion of Islam, p.263-587, Muhammad Ali elaborates on the Laws and Regulation of Islam, under major headings of Prayer, Zakat or Charity, Saum or Fasting, Hajj or Pilgrimage, Jihad, Marriage, Acquisition and Disposal of Property, Inheritance, Debts, Food, Drinks, Hygiene, Penal Laws, The State, Ethics.

References:

{curly braces, enclose the footnote reference. Use of “?” is a best guess location of footnote that is missing in the original referenced material}

The Future of the Global Muslim Population – Pew Research
Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism – Pew Research
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – The United Nations
Declaration of Independence – United States
Occupy Wall Street – Wikipedia
The True Story of Sharia in American Courts by Abed Awad, The Nation
Shariah and the Common Law – I by Dr. Abdul Rahman I. Doi, The Light, September 24, 1983 – pdf download]
Shariah and the Common Law – II by Dr. Abdul Rahman I. Doi, The Light, October 8, 1983 – pdf download]
Religion of Islam by Muhammad Ali
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz

Issue 77 [@1:18:45]: Video – with a title displayed – “New York City 2002”
[peaceful neighborhood demonstration by about 100-150 participants of various ages and ethnicities, men, women and children, chanting and displaying placards, during winter as is obvious by the snow on the sidewalks and participants wearing warm clothes]
[placard –] Media be Responsible
[placard –] Masjid Al-Salam means Mosque of Peace
[rhyming repeating chants –] There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is his Messenger
[placard –] We shall not tolerate prejudice
[placard –] Islam is not terrorism
[rhyming chants –] La ilaha ill-Allah – Jihad il fi sabeel ill-Allah…(some non-decipherable references to Quran)
[rhyming chants –] There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is his Messenger….(some undecipherable references) Neigh Muslim everywhere…(women and children faces in the crowd) La ilaha…Allah-o-Akbar…(adult faces with repeated chants) Takbeer…Allah-o-Akbar…

Rebuttal 77: This is a tacit placement of a video clip in the build up by the documentary to subliminally put a human face on its targeted rancor and for the mostly Western audience to identify the ‘ethnicity’ of the Muslims amongst them. This is tantamount to putting Star of David on Jews under Hitler. Its intended implications are far beyond a casual reference to Islam. It is a venomous effort to seed hate amongst the Western audience against common citizen passerby on the street who is ‘foreign’ looking. It is another classical case of Nazism that not only identifies the Jews amongst them, but also has the intention to target them – “Propaganda tries to force a doctrine on the whole people… Propaganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea.” Adolf Hitler wrote these words in his book Mein Kampf (1926), in which he first advocated the use of propaganda to spread the ideals of National Socialism — among them racism, antisemitism, and anti-Bolshevism [United States Holocaust Memorial Museum]. Like Hitler, this documentary too is an effort to vilify Muslims in an attempt for public acceptance of the malice of this production. This documentary in its hate seems to have taken a leaf out of Nazi book which is summarized in Wikipedia under “Themes of Nazi Propaganda.” In order to cover up its clever agenda, the documentary itself uses ‘foreign’ experts of its own, who obviously are more loyal than the king. Their efforts are clearly an effort to please their funding sources, most of which have been identified to ultimately originate from Zionism.

If we play this short video clip on mute, we will only see the following placards written with:

* Media be Responsible
* Masjid Al-Salam means Mosque of Peace
* We shall not tolerate prejudice
* Islam is not terrorism

What is quite obvious by the demonstration is that Muslims are protesting against ‘Islamophobia‘, an old term in the West, pervasive before the Crusades, now with a new name given to it after 9/11, which is just another garb for racism, succinctly outlined in the published report of Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia:

Racism is not in the minds of black people, nor is Islamophobia in the minds of Muslims, nor antisemitism in the minds of Jews. Racism, Islamophobia and antisemitism are in the minds of white people, non-Muslims and non-Jews, and in the institutions, organisations and cultures that they mould and lead. [Islamophobia – issues, challenges and action, p. viii, pdf link]

This ‘neo-racism’ that reeks hate under its pseudo-intellectual camouflage in the current documentary is aptly summarized as:

‘It’s mindblowing, because nobody seems to mind. Islamophobia is a societal thing and it’s as though people aren’t aware how bad things are. Muslims are an easy target because we are visibly different. And people always need some focus for their hatred.’ [Islamophobia – issues, challenges and action, p. 4, pdf link]

Since the current issue is the climactic moment of Islamophobia, the main purpose of the documentary, it begets to understand the role of media in perpetrating this prejudice. This is pertinently explored in the research thesis “Islamophobia and the media : the portrayal of Islam since 9/11 and an analysis of the Danish cartoon controversy in South Africa” – Asmal, F., Thesis (MPhil (Journalism)) – University of Stellenbosch, 2008 [download the pdf at bottom of this link].

The seething falsehood of Spencer et al. would carry no punch unless they are provided a platform by the media. Besides, various broadcast outlets, cable channels, websites (JihadWatch.org etc.) this documentary itself is a prime example of role of media in creating and spreading prejudice, bias, hate, bigotry, intolerance, half-truths and plain simple Xenophobia. The above thesis is based upon this very hypothesis that is confirmed by its conclusion. Following is an excerpt from its pages 4-8 that dissect the underpinnings of such manipulation by the media:

1.3. HYPOTHESIS

It is this researcher’s hypothesis that the media is mainly responsible for propagating Islamophobia. If one were to view this according to the theories of the press, no one, single theory would apply. Instead one could describe it as an application of a matrix of theories. A brief discussion of some of these theories follows:

1.3.1. Marxist Theory:

Before proceeding further, one needs to define the meaning of political economy. According to Fourie (2001: 121) the political economy is an umbrella term for all those theories and analytical approaches which have the purpose of understanding how economic and political relationships, interests and affiliations determine the functioning of social institutions (including the media as a social institution), and the impact or lack of impact of these relationships on social transformation and development. In terms of Marxist theory, it is believed that all means of production, including media production, determines the nature of a society and that the economy is the base of all social structures, including institutions and ideas (Fourie. 2001: 122).

According to this theory, the working class is oppressed by those individuals and groups in society who own the means of production and whose sole purpose is to make a profit. In addition, Fourie writes that the economic and political control of the media determines the content and thus the ideological power of the media.

“By ideological power we mean the power (and means) to form, direct and influence the thinking of people. This power is mainly vested in those who own the media and who have the financial means to own and manage the media” (Fourie. 2001: 122).”

The global media trend seems to be one that is dominated by political agendas as well as profit- making. This follows in the footsteps of trends set by First World Western countries where profit motives direct the business, where the media is controlled by a small group of entrepreneurs whose primary, focus lies in generating capital. It seems that internationally, the media is mainly controlled by a small, elite capitalist group, who can exercise the right to control issues relating to content, propaganda, agenda-setting, etc. This was precisely what happened when the events of 9/11 occurred (Lewis. 2005).

The small, elite capitalist groups worldwide exercised their power in carefully selecting the footage and information they wanted the masses to consume (Lewis. 2005). According to Fourie (2001: 123), the concept of power is central to the critical political economy. Thompson (as cited in Fourie. 2001: 123) distinguishes between four types of power: economic, political, coercive and symbolic. The latter, i.e. symbolic power, is the real and potential power vested in all cultural institutions such as the church, educational institutions and the media. These institutions possess the power to influence people’s thinking and behaviour. They produce symbolic forms of expressions that guide people to understand and think about the world in certain ways. According to Fourie (2001: 136) the underlying assumption that is made in terms of Marxist capitalist theory, is that economic ownership leads to the control of content that promotes the interest of the ruling class at the expense of the masses. However, Functionalist theorists tend to disagree.

1.3.2. Functionalist Theory:

Functionalism views society as an integrated, harmonious, cohesive whole in which all parts (for example, institutions such as the school, the church, economic, political and cultural institutions) function to maintain equilibrium, consensus and social order (Fourie. 2001: 240). Furthermore, society can be viewed and analysed similar to a human body consisting of different organs all functioning together. Should one of these organs become sick/dysfunctional, it affects the whole body. Functionalism sees the media as one of the instruments in society, that should contribute to the harmonious and cohesive functioning of society (Fourie. 2001: 240).

The media can generally be held responsible for social attitudes. According to Fourie (2001: 265), the media can be viewed as a powerful instrument of socialisation whether it is through education, information or entertainment. The media holds society together in all spheres, whether social, economic, political or technological. In Fourie’s view, the media’s responsibility to society, is in providing information that the public has a right to know (2001: 265). As part of functionalist theories, the media has a role in contributing towards the development of society, as an agent of social change. Functionalists also believe that the public have a role to participate in the media in the form of opinion. In terms of functionalism, the media plays a somewhat authoritarian role in propagating the State’s interests to the public. Also, functionalists believe that the public is capable of formulating its own opinion about issues. Overall, the media is the glue that allows society to function in a systematic manner, creating a social order of sorts.

In terms of the Western media’s coverage of Islam or issues events relating to Islam, especially in terms of 9/11 and the cartoon controversy, it scents that the American media perpetuated its government’s stance. Even though the public was allowed to participate in responding to the events, the media still shaped societies’ opinions on Islam. This will be explored in Chapter Three.

1.3.3. Critical Media Theory

In terms of critical theory, the media are seen to be the most pervasive ideological agent in late twentieth and early twenty-first century society. This is according to Fourie (2001: 241) who adds that there is hardly a person who does not come into contact with media of one kind or another and the ideas and values they convey, be it newspapers, radio, television, advertisements, popular music or the internet. Fourie writes that the possible ideological implications of that media is what gave rise to critical media theory.

“Mass society theories were formulated at the turn of the twentieth century as a critical reaction to the rise of technology that in turn gave rise to industrialisation. urbanisation and what is referred to as the ‘mass man’ and ‘mass society’. Radio, film and the press of the day, and after the Second World War, television, were seen by critics on both sides of the political spectrum as products of technology used by a minority to manipulate the majority” (Fourie. 2001: 242)

This theory is brought forth in Chapters Two and Three, where it is described how society relies on some form of media, whether it is print, broadcast or the Internet, as a source of information and formulation of opinion on a particular subject.

Underlying assumptions of this theory include:

– Seeing the media as forms of symbolic expression, i.e. the communicator expresses his, her values, beliefs and attitudes on a particular topic/subject, thereby assigning a meaning to reality.
– The recipient understands and interprets the message fit her own manner, the meaning that he/she attaches to it being a result of the confrontation between the viewer and what he/she views on screen, hears on the radio or sees in the newspaper.
– Critical theory stresses the circumstances of the communicator. It is also concerned with how the ideologies of media owners influence content that is produced in the media. The theory also argues that the media mainly support the interests (political. economic and social) of one group at the cost of another group. (Fourie. 2001: 246)

1.3.4. Pluralist Theory:

Pluralism refers to the variety of media in a democracy.

“The underlying premise in pluralist media theory is that in view of the variety of media (various newspapers, television station, radio stations, films, videos, publishers, advertising agencies. all looking at reality from different perspectives) it is impossible to make one-sided and limited claims about the way the media function” (Fourie. 2001: 248).

According to Fourie (2001) pluralists argue that if one newspaper or television station adopts a particular ideological perspective, another newspaper or television station is free to propagate an opposing ideology. He adds that media users are free to be selective about their exposure to the media and the ideologies propagated.

In terms of coverage of 9/11 and the cartoon controversy, although media users were free to choose the type of media they were exposed to, they were limited in the sense that the news that was disseminated originated from one country. i.e. the USA, a hegemonic force in the international news arena. This will be discussed in Chapters Two and Three.

In order to understand how the various theories apply to the topic of this paper, one needs some historical background on key concepts which will be discussed after the methodology.

Those readers living in the West, who have reached this far in the current Project Rebuttal will be able to see the definitions and implications of Islamophobia unfold before them from this documentary that come to the fore in the said thesis (p. 12-15):

1.6. DEFINING ISLAMOPHOBIA

Simplistically, Islamophobia can be defined as the fear of the religion of Islam, or a fear of Islam’s followers who are referred to as Muslims (Islamophobia: a definition: 2004). However, one needs to delve beyond this definition in order to understand the term better.

According to a publication by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia entitled Islamophobia: Issues, challenges and action (Richardson, 2004: 7) manifestations of anti-Muslim hostility include:

– Verbal and physical attacks on Muslims in public places
– Attacks on mosques and desecration of Muslim cemeteries
– Widespread and routine negative stereotypes in the media, including the broadsheets, and in the conversations and “common sense” of non-Muslims – people talk and write about Muslims in ways that would not be acceptable if the reference were to Jewish people, for example, or to black people
– Negative stereotypes and remarks in speeches by political leaders, implying that Muslims in Britain are less committed than others to democracy and the rule of law – for example the claim that Muslims more than others mast choose between “the British way” and the “terrorist way”
– Discrimination in recruitment and employment practices, and in workplace cultures and customs
– Bureaucratic delay and inertia in responding to Muslim requests for cultural sensitivity in education and healthcare and in planning applications for mosques
– Lack of attention to the fact that Muslims in Britain are disproportionately affected by poverty and social exclusion
– Non-recognition of Muslims in particular, and of religion in general, by the law of the land, since discrimination in employment on grounds of religion has until recently been lawful and discrimination in the provision of services is still lawful
– Anomalies in public order legislation, such that Muslims are less protected against incitement to hatred than members of certain other religions
– Laws curtailing civil liberties that disproportionately affect Muslims (Richardson. 2004: 7)

Islamophobia also means that (Islamophobia: a definition: 2004):

– Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change
– Islam is seen as separate and “other”. It does not have values in common with other cultures, it is not affected by them, and it does not influence them
– Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist
– Islam is seen as violent, aggressive and threatening supportive of terrorism and engaged in a “clash of ‘civilisations’
– Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage
– Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand
– Hostility towards Muslims is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society
– Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal (Islamophobia: a definition: 2004).

The report, Islamophobia: issues, challenges and action (Richardson. 2004: 7) states that Islamophobia is a new word for an old fear, which has been recorded and can historically be traced back to eighth century European societies.

This antagonistic historical relationship between Islam and Western societies will be briefly analysed in the next section of this paper.

Since the last century, more specifically after 1960, Islam posed a threat to the world in other ways, including the economic leverage it held on the world stage of oil-rich countries, many of which were Muslim in their culture and traditions (Richardson. 2004). The West also became afraid of the emergence of political movements claiming to be motivated by Islam and that used terrorist tactics to achieve their aims (Richardson. 2004). The abuse of human rights by repressive regimes that claimed to be motivated and justified by Muslim beliefs was an additional reason to the animosity that existed between Islam and the West (Richardson. 2004: 7).

Henzell-Thomas (2004) identified the following problems which were created by Islamophobia:

– Prejudice, fuelled by unbalanced media representation in the following areas: the association of Islam and Muslims in general, explicitly or implicitly, with fundamentalism, terrorism and intolerance
– The use of biased language to stigmatise Islam and Muslims
– The reduction of the richness of Islamic tradition to a few simplistic clichés around controversial issues which tend to stigmatise Islam as “backward’ or oppressive – e.g. hijab, jihad, ritual slaughter, etc
– The misleading association of Islam with specific cultural identities and practices. especially Asian and African, e.g. female circumcision, forced marriage, honour killings
– Blatant and unchecked dehumanisation of Muslims, including abuse and incitement.

Sajid (2005: 9) further defines Islamophobia as follows:

“Islamophobia is the fear and or hatred of Islam. Muslims or Islamic culture. Islamophobia can be characterised by the belief that all or most Muslims are religious fanatics, have violent tendencies towards non-Muslims. and reject as directly opposed to Islam such concepts as equality, tolerance and democracy. Islamophobia is a new form of racism whereby Muslims, an ethno-religious group, not a race, are nevertheless, constructed as a race. A set of negative assumptions are made of the entire group to the detriment of members of that group. During the 1990s many sociologists and cultural analysts observed a shift in racist ideas from one based on skin colour to one based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness.”

According to Sajid (2005: 9), Islamophobia derives from Xenophobia and is concerned with culturalism and identity politics. It initially referred to inhumane conditions suffered by Muslim immigrants to the West, but has recently broadened in reference to ostracism suffered by Muslims globally.

There is a natural and inadvertent blow-back from the acts of Islamophobes whether in this movie or any other forum, they unknowingly foster unity amongst the mega-majority of peaceful Muslims, which in a comedy of errors is farthest from the initial intention of the documentary:

‘In a strange way, Islamophobia is bringing us together. Muslims have no common language and come from many cultures with their own traditions that have nothing to do with Islam. They will stand side by side in the mosque, but there are divisions. But now we are the common enemy and that is fostering relationships. The Pakistani, the Nigerian, the black convert from Jamaica – we are starting to see each other as brothers.’ [Islamophobia – issues, challenges and action, p. 4, pdf link]

Let’s revisit the placards in light of the Quran. The capitalized comments in verses below are from Issue 71 in context of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations :

* “Media be Responsible” – and by implication refrain from any rumor mongering and falsehood.

6:152. …And when you speak, be just…

6:6. O you who believe, if an unrighteous person brings you news,look carefully into it, in case you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you did.

24:15-16. When you received it on your tongues and spoke with your mouths what you had no knowledge of, and you considered it trivial, while with Allah it was serious. And why did you not, when you heard it, say: It is not worthy of us to talk of it. Glory be to You! This is a great slander.

* “Masjid Al-Salam means Mosque of Peace” – and so is the very purpose of every place of worship of all religions in Quran.

22:39-40. Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is Able to assist them — 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 [so that people can profess and practice their faith in freedom], surely cloisters and churches and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down.

5:2: …And do not let hatred of a people — because they hindered you from the Sacred Mosque [i.e. place of worship] — incite you to transgress [and become a source of DISCRIMINATION]. And help one another in righteousness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression, and keep your duty to Allah. Surely Allah is Severe in retribution [– thus conclusively in Islam ALL ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW AND ARE ENTITLED WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. ALL ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL PROTECTION AGAINST ANY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THIS DECLARATION AND AGAINST ANY INCITEMENT TO SUCH DISCRIMINATION ].

* “We shall not tolerate prejudice” – because Quran forbids it:

30:22. And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colours. Surely there are signs in this for the learned.

49:13. O mankind, surely We have created you from a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the most dutiful of you [and not by mere association with certain RACE, COLOUR, SEX, LANGUAGE, RELIGION, POLITICAL OR OTHER OPINION, NATIONAL OR SOCIAL ORIGIN, PROPERTY, BIRTH OR OTHER STATUS]. Surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.

3:103. And hold fast by the covenant of Allah [i.e. Quran] all together and do not be disunited. And remember Allah’s favour to you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts so by His favour you became brethren [WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF ANY KIND, SUCH AS RACE, COLOUR, SEX, LANGUAGE, RELIGION, POLITICAL OR OTHER OPINION, NATIONAL OR SOCIAL ORIGIN, PROPERTY, BIRTH OR OTHER STATUS.]. And you were on the brink of a pit of fire [of mutual hate, enmity and wars], then He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes clear to you His messages that you may be guided.

49:11-12. O you who believe, do not let a people laugh at (another) people [i.e. mock, ridicule or DISCRIMINATE on basis of RACE, COLOUR, SEX, LANGUAGE, RELIGION, POLITICAL OR OTHER OPINION, NATIONAL OR SOCIAL ORIGIN, PROPERTY, BIRTH OR OTHER STATUS], perhaps they may be better than they; nor let women (laugh) at women, perhaps they may be better than they. Neither find fault with one another, nor call one another by (offensive) nick-names. Evil is a bad name after faith; and whoever does not repent, these it is that are the wrongdoers. O you who believe, avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is sin; and do not spy 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 returning (to mercy) again and again, Merciful.

* “Islam is not terrorism” – because preservation of life is one of the core articles of faith in Islam:

5:8. O you who believe, be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice; and do not let hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably. Be just; that is nearer to observance of duty. And keep your duty to Allah. Surely Allah is Aware of what you do.

5:29. O you who believe, do not swallow up your property among yourselves by false means except that it be trading by your mutual consent. And do not kill your people [or yourselves by suicide].

17:31. And do not kill your children [by infanticide or keeping them ignorant by not providing them education, because EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON] for fear of poverty — We provide for them and for you. Surely the killing of them is a great wrong.

17:33. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except for a just cause [because EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON]. And whoever is killed unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority — but let him not exceed the limit [of the Law] in [committing extra-Judicial revenge] killing. Surely he will be helped [by the due process of the Law].

81:8-9. and when the one buried alive [as a child] is asked for what sin she was killed [while her RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON was trampled at the altar of false societal prejudices],

5:32. …whoever kills a person, unless it is for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all mankind [because EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON]. And certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them commit excesses in the land.

6:151-153. Say: Come! I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you: Set up no partner with Him, and do good to parents, nor kill your children for (fear of) poverty — We provide for you and for them, nor go near to indecencies, open or secret, nor kill the soul which Allah has made sacred except in the course of justice. This He enjoins upon you that you may understand. And do not approach the property of the orphan except in the best manner [with the object of improving it or making it profitable], until he attains his maturity. And give full measure and weight with equity — We do not impose on any soul a duty beyond its ability. And when you speak, be just, even (against) a relative. And fulfil Allah’s covenant. This He enjoins on you that you may be mindful; and (know) that this is My path, the right one, so follow it, and do not follow (other) ways, for they will lead you away from His way. This He enjoins on you that you may keep your duty.

16:90-91. Surely Allah commands (the doing of) justice and the doing of good (to others) and the giving to the near of kin, and He forbids indecency and evil and rebellion. He instructs you that you may be mindful. And fulfil the covenant of Allah, when you have made a covenant, and do not break (your) oaths after making them firm, and you have indeed made Allah your surety. Surely Allah knows what you do.

2:83. …And do good to (your) parents,and to the near of kin and to orphans and the needy, and speak good (words) [i.e. do kind dealings] to (all) people…

28:77. And seek the abode of the Hereafter by means of what Allah has given you, and do not neglect your portion of the world, and do good (to others) as Allah has done good to you, and do not seek to make mischief in the land. Surely Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

References:
Note: [text enclosed in square brackets above is not part of the original quoted sources]

Nazi Propaganda – United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Themes of Nazi Propaganda – Wikipedia
“Islamophobia – issues, challenges and action” [pdf] – Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia
Islamophobia and the media : the portrayal of Islam since 9/11 and an analysis of the Danish cartoon controversy in South Africa – Asmal, F. (recommended)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – United Nations
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz

Issue 76 [@1:17:39]: Walid Shoebat – “The Hadith very clearly says, the Hadith which is Muhammad said ‘I have been ordered to fight until everyone says that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’. So, this is how Islam spread to North Africa. This is how Islam spread all the way to Indonesia. This is how Islam spread in the Middle East. Syria was not a Muslim country. Lebanon was not Muslim. Saudi Arabia even a mixed multitude. All throughout the Middle East that’s how Islam spread by the sword. This is why you do not see any synagogues is Saudi Arabia. You do not see any churches in Saudi Arabia. Christianity virtually is non-existent, even in my village in Bethlehem. Muslims are taken over. There is only 20% left of the Christian population. In Lebanon, the Christian Lebanese are moving by the droves. Hezbollah there is very active. Lebanon used to be a Christian nation. Now, all of a sudden it is being Islamized. So, Islam is moving.

Rebuttal 76: Islam did not spread in the world the way Shoebat alleges. He could not distinguish between the global experience of hand-in-glove of Christianity-Colonization-Church versus the spread of Muslim empire under the first four Caliphs and Umayyads. In the former, the Christian rule extended by concurrent enslavement, crusades, genocides, inquisitions and forced conversions whereas in the latter case the Muslim rule extended without any of the Christian atrocities. Muslim expansion out of Arabia was the inevitability of defensive wars that were imposed upon them by the super powers of time, namely the Persian and Byzantine empires initially and later by the Crusaders out of Europe. This issue is broken down and rebutted below.

Issue 76a: Shoebat states – “The Hadith very clearly says, the Hadith which is Muhammad said ‘I have been ordered to fight until everyone says that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’…”

Rebuttal 76a: Suddenly Shoebat has found the pan-ultimate reason as to why Islam spread in the world, but for all the wrong reasons. He paraphrases a hadith without giving its source. The hadiths closest to what he alleges are as follow:

Sahih al-Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.

Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24: Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

What Shoebat missed in his argument is the fundamental premise for any hadith. Hadiths are sayings of the Prophet in course of his daily living. When, why, how of what he said is hardly ever captured by the recollections that went into hadith books centuries later. Hence, to contextualize the moral principle in any given hadith, it has to be validated by the Quran. Therefore, to draw any Islamic doctrine from hadiths, all hadiths are to be read in light of Quran. The above referenced hadiths are no different.

One has to put this hadith in its full perspective. One of the requirements of the said hadith is that there has to be an enemy who is actively fighting the Muslim state as outlined in verse 2:193. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah.But if they cease, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

With this contextualization principle of hadiths in view, Prophet is on the record to have accepted the Peace Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, despite the fact that verse 2:193 was already part of the Quran revealed before then. Can we then say that the Prophet merely by the said hadith went against Quran by accepting a peace treaty with those who did not believe in – ‘there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’? No, his hadith and by implication his thinking was exactly in congruence with Quran to fight the enemy as long as the latter is fighting. Subsequently, Quran was completed before the death of the Prophet. Ever since another verse 2:190 is also in existence and no hadith can independently over ride it. With these Quranic verses in view, the said hadith is fully contextualized to fight in self-defense only. Let’s not forget that state of persecution was imposed upon Muslims right from Prophet’s year of the Call. A state of war that the said hadith is referring to was imposed on the Prophet starting from his migration in 13th year of the Call and ended by the ninth year thereafter, almost a year before his death. It begets to read the relevant verses of Quran in toto for limitations that they place on any fighting, be it the Prophet himself or by the Muslims thereafter. Pay particular attention to the use of the words “those,” “them,” and “they” which are the explicit limiting boundary conditions for taking up arms in self-defense:

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.

[Footnote] 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. [Emphasis added]

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

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

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

[Footnote] 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). [Emphasis added]

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.

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

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

[Footnote] 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. [Emphasis added]

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.

[Footnote] 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.

If Christianity even remotely respected the boundaries set by the above verses, then we could appreciate its touted doctrine of the façade of love and peace, which the secular history bears witness that it never was and remains illusory as ever.

Issue 76b: Shoebat continues – “…So, this is how Islam spread to North Africa. This is how Islam spread all the way to Indonesia. This is how Islam spread in the Middle East. Syria was not a Muslim country. Lebanon was not Muslim. Saudi Arabia even a mixed multitude. All throughout the Middle East that’s how Islam spread by the sword. This is why you do not see any synagogues is Saudi Arabia. You do not see any churches in Saudi Arabia. Christianity virtually is non-existent, even in my village in Bethlehem. Muslims are taken over. There is only 20% left of the Christian population. In Lebanon, the Christian Lebanese are moving by the droves. Hezbollah there is very active. Lebanon used to be a Christian nation. Now, all of a sudden it is being Islamized. So, Islam is moving.”

Rebuttal 76b: The above is a totally bogus and misleading statement by Shoebat. In many issues before it has been explained with historical references that Muslim rule expanded into Middle East and Africa due to consequent victories from defensive wars inflicted by Persian and Byzantine empires on them.

Before Shoebat points finger at Islam, has Shoebat ever given it a thought as to where did Christianity itself come from into the Middle East and North Africa, while the whole Middle East was non-Christian before? As a case in point click this link and select 3rd and 4th radio buttons above the map on that page to see how Christianity spread in Middle East. Christianity spread was by a grand scale destruction of previous religions and their temples with a ‘love’ that dripped from the tip of its sword. While the Christianity displaced the previous pagans, it wrapped itself in the same pagan garb that it intended to displace (see Issue 64). In words of Shoebat – Syria was not a Christian country. Lebanon was not Christian. Rome even a mixed multitude. All throughout the Middle East that’s how Christianity spread by the sword. This is why you do not see any Mosques in Vatican.

Shoebat clearly side stepped the sub-Saharan Africa up to Cape of Good Hope in south. Why? Because, it is this very Africa which gives window into how Christianity spread not only in Africa but rest of the modern world where its pulpit provided the hogwash of salvation both for the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and the victims alike.

As far as Indonesia is concerned, the largest Muslim country, no Muslim soldier from outside ever set foot on its soil till this day. Seems Shoebat flunked history and geography in his high school. Can he even point Indonesia on the map which is thousands of miles by sea from Arabia? If there were forced conversions in Syria and Lebanon then how in the world can Shoebat justify the remaining present day 20% Christian population in the Lebanon, which is a sizeable number and they constitutionally hold the presidency of that country.

For reader’s awareness, following is reproduction of the first chapter of a book that self reflects on Christianity as a historical curse for all, within and without Europe. The whole book is a recommended read. Of note is that this book was written before the American Civil War, First and Second World Wars, Apartheid in Rhodesia-South Africa-Palestine, Hiroshima-Nagasaki, Holocaust, Vietnam, Iraq I&II, Afghanistan I&II etc., all thanks to Christianity or Christian nations for such presents to the recent world history. God knows how many more similar presents it still has in store for the world and are on the wish list of Spencers of this documentary.

COLONIZATION AND CHRISIANITY
A Popular History of the Treatment of the Natives by the Europeans in all Their Colonies
by William Howitt
published: 1838

Chapter 1

These are they, O Lord!
Who in thy plain and simple gospel see
All mysteries, but who find no peace enjoined,
No brotherhood, no wrath denounced on themselves
Who shed their brethern’s blood! Blind at noon-day
As owls; lynx-eyed in darkness.
– Southey

CHRISTIANITY has now been in the world upwards of ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS. For more than a thousand years the European nations have arrogated to themselves the title of CHRISTIAN! some of their monarchs, those of MOST SACRED and MOST CHRISTIAN KINGS! We have long laid to our souls the flattering unction that we are a civilized and a Christian people. We talk of all other nations in all other quarters of the world, as savages, barbarians, uncivilized. We talk of the ravages of the Huns, the irruptions of the Goths; of the terrible desolations of Timour, or Zenghis Khan. We talk of Alaric and Attila, the sweeping carnage of Mahomet, or the cool cruelties of more modern Tippoos and Alies. We shudder at the war-cries of naked Indians and the ghastly feasts of Cannibals; and bless our souls that We are redeemed from all these things, and made models of beneficence, and lights of God in the earth!

It is high time that we looked a little more rigidly into our pretences. It is high time that we examined, on the evidence of facts, whether we are quite so refined, quite so civilized, quite so Christian as we have assumed to be. It is high time that we look boldly into the real state of the question, and learn actually, whether the mighty distance between our goodness and the moral depravity of other people really exists. WHETHER, IN FACT, WE ARE CHRIS-TIAN AT ALL!

Have bloodshed and cruelty then ceased in Europe? After a thousand years of acquaintance with the most merciful and the most heavenly of religions, do the national characters of the Europeans reflect the beauty and holiness of that religion? Are we distinguished by our peace, as the followers of the Prince of Peace? Are we renowned for our eagerness to seek and save, as the followers of the universal Saviour? Are our annals redolent of the delightful love and fellowship which one would naturally think must, after a thousand years, distinguish those who pride themselves on being the peculiar and adopted children of Him who said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another?” These are very natural, but nevertheless, very awkward questions. If ever there was a quarter of the globe distinguished by its quarrels, its jealousies, its everlasting wars and bloodshed, it is Europe. Since these soi-disant Christian nations have risen into any degree of strength, what single evidence of Christianity have they, as nations, exhibited? Eternal warfare! — is that Christianity? Yet that is the history of Christian Europe. The most subtle or absurd pretences to seize upon each other’s possessions,—the contempt of all faith in treaties,—the basest policy, — the most scandalous profligacy of public morals,—the most abominable international laws!—are they Christianity? And yet they are the history of Europe. Nations of men selling themselves to do murder, that ruthless kings might ravish each other’s crowns—nations of men, standing with jealous eyes on the perpetual watch against each other, with arms in their hands, oaths in their mouths, and curses in their hearts ;—are those Christian ? Yet there is not a man acquainted with the history of Europe that will even attempt to deny that that is the history of Europe. For what are all our international boundaries; our lines of demarcation; our frontier fortresses and sentinels; our martello towers, and guard-ships; our walled and gated cities; our bastions and batteries; and our jealous. passports? These are all barefaced and glaring testimonies that our pretence of Christianity is a mere assumption; that after upwards of a thousand years of the boasted possession of Christianity, Europe has not yet learned to govern itself by its plainest precepts; and that her children have no claim to, or reliance in that spirit of “love which casteth out all fear.” It is very well to vaunt the title of Christian one to another —every nation knows in its own soul, it is a hollow pretence. While it boasts of the Christian name, it dare not for a moment throw itself upon a Christian faith in its neighbour. No! centuries of the most unremitted hatred,—blood poured over every plain of Europe, and sprinkled on its very mountain tops, cry out too dreadfully, that it is a dismal cheat. Wars, the most savage and unprovoked; oppressions, the most desperate; tyrannies, the most ruthless; massacres, the most horrible; death-fires, and tortures the most exquisite, perpetuated one on another for the faith, and in the very name of God; dungeons and inquisitions; the blood of the Vaudois, and the flaming homes of the Covenanters are all in their memories, and give the lie to their professions No! Poland rent in sunder; the iron heel of Austria on the prostrate neck of Italy; and invasions and aggressions without end, make Christian nations laugh with a hollow mockery in their hearts, in the very midst of their solemn professions of the Christian virtue and faith.

But I may be told that this character applies rather to past Europe than to the present. What! are all these things at an end? For what then are all these standing armies? What all these marching armies? What these men-of-war on the ocean? What these atrocities going on from year to year in Spain? Has any age or nation seen such battles waged as we have witnessed in our time? How many WATERLOOS can the annals of the earth reckon? What Timour, or Zenghis Khan, can be compared to the Napoleon of modern Europe? the greatest scourge of nations that ever arose on this planet; the most tremendous meteor that ever burnt along its surface ! Have the multitude of those who deem themselves the philosophical and refitted, as well as the Christian of Europe, ceased to admire this modern Moloch, and to forget in his individual and retributory sufferings at St. Helena, the countless agonies and the measureless ruin that he inflicted on innocent and even distant nations While we retain a blind admiration of martial genius, wilfully shutting our senses and our minds to the crimes and the pangs that constitute its shadow, it is laughable to say that we have progressed beyond our fathers in Christian knowledge. At this moment all Europe stands armed to the teeth. The peace of every individual nation is preserved, not by the moral probity and the mutual faith which are the natural growth of Christian knowledge, but by the jealous watch of armed bands, and the coarse and undisguised force of brute strength. To this moment not the slightest advance is made towards a regular system of settling national disputes by the head in-stead of the hand. To this moment the stupid practice of settling individual disputes between those who pride themselves on their superior education and knowledge, by putting bullets instead of sound reasons into each other’s heads, is as common as ever. If we really are a civilized people, why do we not abandon barbarian practices? If we really are philosophical, why do we not shew it? It is a poor compliment to our learning, our moral and political philosophy, and above all, to our religion, that at this time of day if a dispute arise between us as nations or as men, we fall to blows, instead of to rational inquiry and adjustment. Is Christianity then so abstruse? No! “He that runneth may read, and the way-faring man, though a fool, cannot err therein.” Then why, in the name of common sense, have we not learned it, seeing that it so closely concerns our peace, our security, and our happiness? Surely a thousand years is time enough to teach that which is so plain, and of such immense importance! We call ourselves civilized, yet we are daily perpetrating the grossest outrages we boast of our knowledge, yet we do not know how to live one with another half so peaceably as wolves; we term ourselves Christians, yet the plainest injunction of Christ, “to love our neighbour as ourselves,” we have yet, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight years after his death, to adopt! But most monstrous of all has been the moral blindness or the savage recklessness of ourselves as Englishmen.

Secure from actual warfare, we have loved
To swell the war-whoop, passionate for war!
Alas! for ages ignorant of all
Its ghastlier workings (famine or blue plague,
Battle, or siege, or flight through wintry snows,)
We, this whole people, have been clamorous
For war and bloodshed; animating sports.
The which we pay for as a thing to talk of,
Spectators and not combatants!
Abroad Stuffed out with big preamble, holy names.
And adjurations of the God in heaven,
We send our mandates for the certain death
Of thousands and ten thousands ! Boys and girls,
And women, that would groan to see a child
Pull of an insect’s leg, all read of war,
The best amusement for our morning’s meal!
The poor wretch who has learnt his only prayers
From curses, who knows scarce words enough
To ask a blessing from his heavenly Father,
Becomes a fluent phraseman, absolute,
Technical in victories, and deceit,
And all our dainty terms for fratricide;
Terms which we trundle smoothly o’er our tongues
Like mere abstractions, empty sounds, to which
We join no feeling, and attach no form!
As if the soldier died without a wound
As if the fibres of this god-like frame
Were gored without a pang; as if the wretch
Who fell in battle, doing bloody deeds,
Passed off to heaven, translated and not killed;
As though he had no wife to pine for him,
No God to judge him! Therefore evil days
Are coming on us, O my countrymen!
And what, if all-avenging Providence,
Strong and retributive, should make us know
The meaning of our words, force us to feel
The desolation and the agony of our fierce doings?
– Coleridge.

This is the aspect of the Christian world in its most polished and enlightened quarter: —there surely is some need of serious inquiry; there must surely be some monstrous practical delusion here, that wants honestly encountering, and boldly dispersing.

But if such is the internal condition of Christian Europe, what is the phasis that it presents to the rest of the world? With the exception of our own tribes, now numerously scattered over almost every region of the earth, all are in our estimation barbarians. We pride ourselves on our superior knowledge, our superior refinement, our higher virtues, our nobler character. We talk of the heathen, the savage, and the cruel, and the wily tribes, that fill the rest of the earth; but how is it that these tribes know us? Chiefly by the very features that we attribute exclusively to them. They know us chiefly by our crimes and our cruelty. It is we who are, and must appear to them the savages. What, indeed, are civilization and Christianity? The refinement and ennoblement of our nature, the habitual feeling and the habitual practice of an enlightened justice, of delicacy and decorum, of generosity and affection to our fellow men. There is not one of these qualities that we have not violated forever, and on almost all occasions, towards every single tribe with which we have come in contact. We have professed, indeed, to teach Christianity to them; but we had it not to teach, and we have carried them instead, all the curses and the horrors of a demon race. If the reign of Satan, in fact, were come,—if he were let loose with all his legions, to plague the earth for a thousand years, what would be the characteristics of his prevalence? Terrors and crimes; one wide pestilence of vice and obscenity; one fearful torrent of cruelty and wrath, deceit and oppression, vengeance and malignity; the passions of the strong would be inflamed—the weak would cry and implore in vain!

And is not that the very reign of spurious Christianity which has lasted now for these thousand years, and that during the last three hundred, has spread with discovery round the whole earth, and made the name of Christian synonymous with fiend? It is shocking that the divine and beneficent religion of Christ should thus have been libelled by base pretenders, and made to stink in the nostrils of all people to whom it ought, and would, have come as the opening of heaven; but it is a fact no less awful than true, that the European nations, while professing Christianity, have made it odious to the heathen. They have branded it by their actions as something breathed up, full of curses and cruelties, from the infernal regions. On them lies the guilt, the stupendous guilt of having checked the gospel in its career, and brought it to a full stop in its triumphant progress through the nations. They have done this, and then wondered at their deed! They have visited every coast in the shape of rapacious and unprincipled monsters, and then cursed the inhabitants as besotted with superstition, because they did not look on them as angels! People have wondered at the slow progress, and in many countries, the almost hopeless labours of the missionaries;—why should they wonder? The missionaries had Christianity to teach—and their countrymen had been there before them, and called themselves Christians! That was enough: what recommendations could a religion have, to men who had seen its professors for generations in the sole characters of thieves, murderers, and oppressors? The missionaries told them that in Christianity lay their salvation;—they shook their heads, they had already found it their destruction! They told them they were come to comfort and enlighten them;—they had already been comforted by the seizure of their lands, the violation of their ancient rights, the kidnapping of their persons; and they had been enlightened by the midnight flames of their own dwellings! Is there any mystery in the difficulties of the missionaries? Is there any in the apathy of simple nations towards Christianity?

The barbarities and desperate outrages of the so-called Christian race, throughout every region of the world, and upon every people that they have been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however reckless of mercy and of shame, in any age of the earth. Is it fit that this horrible blending of the names of Christianity and outrage should continue? Yet it does continue, and must continue, till the genuine spirit of Christianity in this kingdom shall arouse itself, and determine that these villanies shall cease, or they who perpetrate them shall be stripped of the honoured name of—Christian! If foul deeds are to be done, let them be done in their own foul name; and let robbery of lands, seizure of cattle, violence committed on the liberties or the lives of men, be branded as the deeds of devils and not of Christians. The spirit of Christianity, in the shape of missions, and in the teaching and beneficent acts of the missionaries, is now sensibly, in many countries, undoing the evil which wolves in the sheep’s clothing of the Christian name had before done And of late another glorious symptom of the growth of this divine spirit has shown itself, in the strong feeling exhibited in this country towards the natives of our colonies. To fan that genuine flame of love, is the object of this work. To comprehend the full extent of atrocities done in the Christian name, we must look the whole wide evil sternly in the face. We must not suffer our-selves to aim merely at the redress of this or that grievance; but, gathering all the scattered rays of aboriginal oppression into one burning focus, and thus enabling ourselves to feel its entire force, we shall be less than Englishmen and Christians if we do not stamp the whole system of colonial usage towards the natives, with that general and indignant odium which must demolish it at once and for ever.
 

 
What William Howitt is contending in his book above can be visualized in the documentary “Andrew Marr’s History of the World – Age of Plunder” which summarizes the history in Europe, Central and South America. Columbus set the theme for Christianity in the “New World” which was ‘religion, conquest and slavery’ after he landed in Bahamas on October 12, 1492. Over the next four decades the Spain’s Conquistadors completed that vision in Central America of a ‘new world out there to take and take it they did by asset stripping the Aztecs and everybody else they found’. While ripping the Americas, the Catholic Church under Pope Leo X was ripping Europe itself which was gripped by constant fear of violence, famine and disease and the only hope of better life was in the afterlife and the keys to heaven were only in the hands of the Church. That was when the Church was selling Salvation as certified ‘passports to heaven’ to poor masses in exchange for hard cash that went into erection of Saint Petersburg Basilica, the Jewel in the Crown of Christianity that we find in the postcards of Vatican. The largest Church in the world made with the dupe, loot and plunder of ordinary masses which is imbibed into its bricks, mortar, tiles and murals, under the roof of which atonement is dispensed daily to seekers from all over the world till this day. This led to rise of Protestants by Martin Luther on October 31st, 1517 and subsequently in 1524 was started a 125 years of civil war in Europe between Protestants and the Catholics resulting in 11 million deaths and mass displacements not seen since the collapse of Roman Empire to the horrors of 20th century. Catholic Spain funded her religious wars in Europe with gold from Americas. By 1532 Spain entered the land of Incas, the modern day equivalent of Peru and Chile on West Coast of South America. They inflicted mayhem on the unarmed courtiers by killing over 4000 and held their emperor hostage, ransomed him for 13 thousand pounds of gold and 26 thousand pounds of silver. Subsequently they killed the emperor by strangulating him. All this was done under the watchful eyes of the Bible wielding Catholic priest Friar Valverde. Subsequently the Incas were not only decimated but almost wiped off the face of the earth.

This small snap shot of time and geography proves the contention that Christianity as a religion was a curse not only for Europe but where ever this paganism spread its tentacles in the world with its mantra and motto ‘religion, conquest and slavery’. No amount of lip service and sermons on the mount of ‘love’ and ‘salvation’ can clean it of the stains of such ‘holiness’. Thank you Spencers to draw the attention of the world to such Christianity that you belong to.

References:

English Translation of Sahih al-Bukhari – by Muhsin Khan
Fazlul Bari – Urdu Translation of Sahih al-Bukhari – Muhammad Ali, Book 2, hadith # 25, footnote 1 on p. 158.
Peace Treaty of Hudaybiyyah – Wikipedia
The Rise of Christianity – Historical Atlas of Mediterranean
Politics of Lebanon – Wikipedia
COLONIZATION AND CHRISIANITYby William Howitt – Google Books
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz
Andrew Marr’s History of the World – Age of Plunder – YouTube
Saint Petersburg Basilica – Wikipedia

Issue 75 [@1:17:15]: Slide projected with voice – The Life of Muhammad, p 368 – We saluted him [-the Prophet] as he stood praying, and he came out to us, and we told him that we had killed God’s enemy. He spat upon our comrade’s wounds, and both he and we returned to our families. Our attack on God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.

Rebuttal 75: The above is a phony chronicle. Before we entertain the said tale attributed to Prophet Muhammad for any intelligent discussion, we have to compare it with the Quranic standards of personal hygiene that are to be maintained in a daily living:

74:5. And uncleanness do shun.

2:222. …He [– Allah] loves those who purify themselves.

Prophet’s life is reflection of edicts in Quran. Following hadiths are just a sampler about oral hygiene alone:

“Were it not that I would place too heavy a burden on my community, I would have commanded them to use the tooth-brush at every ablution.” (Bukhari 30:27.)

He used to brush his teeth daily, at every service, in the morning and at retiring, with a rotating motion from the gum to the grinding surface and vice versa, so as to endure the removal of any sticky coating. (Ahmad bin Hambal, vol v.)

“The tooth-brush purifies the mouth and is a means of seeking the pleasure of the Lord.” (Bukhari 30:27)

Never did the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, wake up after sleeping at night or in the day, but he used the tooth-brush before he performed ablution.” 14(AD-Msh. 3:3)

I asked `A’ishah, What was the first thing the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, did when he entered his house? She said, Tooth-brushing. (M-Msh. 3:3)

With the above emphasis on personal cleanliness and oral hygiene in particular, the excerpted quote from Sirat (by Ibn Ishaq) in the documentary is totally absurd where it states about the Prophet – “He spat upon our comrade’s wounds.” The very unhygienic bend in the quote is sufficient to brand the whole narrative from where it is fetched as a fable, because the Prophet’s life style was anything but unclean or unhygienic. This can be further judged by hadiths about his purification practices and habits (Manual of Hadith – by Muhammad Ali).

Ibn Ishaq was born about 75 years after the death of Prophet and belonged to the family of Iraqi storytellers. Though born in Medina, was educated in Egypt, finally expelled from Medina for relating a false hadith from a woman he did not meet. His works were oral dictations to his pupils, most of which have been lost. The current version is the remnant that survived only through some of the pupillary chain and finally edited by Ibn Hisham, about 200 years after the death of the Prophet.

Storytelling was a profession that passed from father to son, in the same fashion as other trades e.g. iron smiths, shoe makers etc. Such storytellers are known to build upon the drama to suit the fancy of every newer generation of their times, by constantly inventing the facts and details for the mere fact that more the drama more the money they got paid. Listening to storytelling was a common evening past time in the tea houses. The whole market places were named after storytellers e.g. Qissa Khawani Bazaar in Peshawar, Pakistan. In order to understand Ibn Ishaq, one has to see this video clip at 40:20-40:55 and 47:35-48:54 to get a feeling of what storytelling means in his case and why he wrote what he wrote. A storyteller judges the mood of the audience and modifies his script in light of the response that he gets.

In the tradition of storytellers, Ibn Ishaq usually has no sources or weak sources to his narratives. The only difference between Ibn Ishaq and his ancestors is that he broke away from their verbal style to a written style. The lack of authenticity and poor quality of his work can be accessed by peer review by others in his own times that are recognized as literary figures in Islamic history [ref: link]:

Unfortunately, Ibn Ishaq excited the enmity of Malik b. Anas, for whose work he showed his contempt, and it was not long before his own writings and his orthodoxy were called in question.” (Alfred, Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad – A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah – Oxford University Press, 2004 – Introduction, Page XIII).

“Adh-Dhahabi also listed some of the major scholars of Islam who refuted Ibn Is’haq’s reliability in Hadith narrations. Imam Muslim, for instance, called Ibn Is’haq a liar and Yahya Ibn Saeed al-Ansari, as well as al-Amash refuted one of Ibn Is’haq’s narrations by saying that he lied.” Imam Ahmad also said that Ibn Ishaq did not care from whom he collected Hadiths. Imam Ibn Numair said that Ibn Ishaq reported false Hadiths from unknown narrators.” (Shaykh Jalal Abu Al Rub – The Prophet of Mercy – Chapter 2 – Page 10).

“Allah has provided evidence (i.e. Isnad) establishing the authenticity or lack thereof of the narrations that are necessary in matters of the religion. It is well known that most of what was reported in aspects of Tafsir (commentaries on the Qur’an) is similar to narrations reporting Maghazi (or Seerah) and battles, promoting Imam Ahmad to state that three matters do not have Isnad: Tafsir, Mala’him (i.e. great battles), and Maghazi. This is because most of their narrations are of the Maraseel (plural for Mursal) type, such as narrations reported by Urwah Ibn az-Zubair, ash-Sha’bi, az-Zuhri, Musa Ibn Uqbah and Ibn Ishaq. (Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah – Majmu’ Al Fataawa – Volume 13 – Page 345).

“Imam Malik was not the only contemporary of Ibn Ishaq’s to have problems with him. Despite writing the earliest biography of Prophet Muhammad, Scholars such as al-Nisa’I and Yahya b. Kattan did not view Ibn Ishaq as a reliable or authoritative source of Hadith.” (Jones, J.M.B. Ibn Ishak. Vol. IV, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, edited by Ch. Pellat, and J. SchachtV.L.M.B. Lewis. London: Luzac & Co., 1971: pages 810-811).

“Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal discounted the reliability of Ibn Ishaq if he alone narrates a Hadeeth. Also, Imams Yahya Ibn Ma`een (in another narration from him), an-Nasaii and ad-Daraqutni stated that Ibn Ishaq was weak in Hadeeth. The great Imam of Sunnah, Imam A`hmad Ibn Hanbal, also added that Ibn Is`haq’s narrations are not accepted if they are about the Sunan.”

Suffice is to say about false narrations attributed to the Prophet in Prophet’s own words:

“…Whoso ascribeth doctrines or precepts to me, and they are not mine, the same shall go to hell.” (Bukhari 8:73:217)

The excerpt quoted in the current issue has been taken from Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq – (Translation: The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume) from its section THE KILLING OF KA’B B. AL-ASHRAF [pages 364-369]. Before we go further, the reader is encouraged to review Issue 58 that addresses the same topic from its socio-political angles.

We quote the full section below which only highlights the short comings of Ibn Ishaq. His narratives are long on tales and short on history. The passage not only shows the dearth and weakness of his sources, but also the long winded drama that he creates by the dialogues. Not surprisingly while describing the events he even gets into the heads of the different characters and lays bare to the reader as to what was that person actually thinking. Anyone who takes such narratives as history is not far from essentially believing in Santa Claus. His sources for various sections are highlighted in bold font below:

After the Quraysh defeat at Badr the apostle had sent Zayd b. Haritha to the lower quarter and ‘Abdullah b. Rawaha to the upper quarter to tell the Muslims of Medina of God’s victory and of the polytheists who had been killed. `Abdullah b. al-Mughith b. Abu Burda al-Zafari and ‘Abdullah b. Abu Bakr b. Muhammad b. ‘Amr b. kfazm and ‘Asim b. Umar b. Qatada and Salib b. Abfi Umama b. Sahl each gave me a part of the following story: Ka’b b. al-Ashraf who was one of the Tayy’ of the subsection B. Nabhan whose mother was from the B. al-Nadir, when he heard the news said, ‘Is this true? Did Muhammad actually kill these whom these two men mention? (i.e. Zayd and ‘Abdullah b. Rawaha). These are the nobles of the Arabs and kingly men; by God, if Muhammad has slain these people ’twere better to be dead than alive.’ {fn: Lit. the inside of the earth is better than the outside.}

When the enemy of God became certain that the news was true he left the town and went to Mecca to stay with al-Muttalib b. Abu Wada’a b. Dubayra al-Sahmi who was married to ‘Atika d. Abu’l-‘Is b. Umayya b. ‘Abdu Shams b. ‘Abdu Manaf. She took him in and entertained him hospitably. He began to inveigh against the apostle and to recite verses in which he bewailed the Quraysh who were thrown into the pit after having been slain at Badr. He said:

Badr’s mill ground out the blood of its people.
At events like Badr you should weep and cry.
The best of the people were slain round their cisterns,
Don’t think it strange that the princes were left lying.
How many noble handsome men,
The refuge of the homeless were slain,
Liberal when the stars gave no rain,
Who bore others’ burdens, ruling and taking their due fourth.
Some people whose anger pleases me say ‘Ka’b b. al-Ashraf is utterly dejected’.
They arc right. O that the earth when they were killed
Had split asunder and engulfed its people,
That he who spread the report had been thrust through
Or lived cowering blind and deaf.
I was told that all the Banu’l-Mughira were humiliated
And brought low by the death of
And the two sons of Rabra with him,
And Munabbih and the others did not attain (such honour) as those who were slain! {fn: Or ‘Tubba’ did not’ (so A. Dh.). Waq. has hal for ma and al-tubba’u for watubba’u.}
I was told that al-Harith ibn Hisham
Is doing well and gathering troops
To visit Yathrib with armies,
For only the noble, handsome man protects the loftiest {fn: The reading must be ula, because yahmi governs an accusative.} reputation (573).

Hassan b. Thabit answered him thus:

Does Ka’b weep for him again and again
And live in humiliation hearing nothing?’ {fn: The question is ironical: let him weep if he wants to. The text of this poem is dubious.}
In the vale of Badr I saw some of them, the slain,
Eyes pouring with tears for them.
Weep [Atika], for you have made a mean slave weep
Like a pup following a little bitch.
God has given satisfaction to our leader
And put to shame and prostrated those who fought him.
Those whose hearts were torn with fear
Escaped and fled away (574).

A Muslim woman of B. Murayd, a clan of Bali who were allied attachments of B. Umayya b. Zayd, called al-Ja’adira answered Kalb (575):

This slave shows great concern Weeping over the slain untiringly.
May the eye that weeps over the slain at Badr weep on
And may Lu’ayy b. Ghalib weep double as much!
Would that those weltering in their blood
Could be seen by those who live between Mecca’s mountains!
They would know for certain and would see
How they were dragged along by hair and beard. {fn: Or, reading mahazzahum, ‘the sword cuts above their beards and eyebrows’.}

Ka`b b. al-Ashraf answered her:

Drive off that fool of yours that you may be safe
From talk that has no sense!
Do you taunt me because I shed tears
For people who loved me sincerely?
As long as I live I shall weep and remember
The merits of people whose glory is in Mecca’s houses.
By my life Murayd used to be far from hostile
But now they are become as jackals.
They ought to have their noses cut off
For insulting the two clans of Lu’ayy b. Ghalib.
I give my share in Murayd to Ja’dar
In truth, by God’s house, between Mecca’s mountains.

Then Ka’b returned to Medina and composed amatory verses about Ummul-Fadl d. al-Harith, saying:

Are you off without stopping in the valley
And leaving Ummu’l-Fadl in Mecca?
Out would come what she bought from the pedlar of bottles,
Henna and hair dye.
What lies ‘twixt ankle and elbow is in motion {fn: Presumably her buttocks are meant: they would be between her ankle and her elbow as she reclined. Large and heavy buttocks were marks of female beauty among the old Arabs.}
When she tries to stand and does not.
Like Umm Hakim when she was with us
The link between us firm and not to be cut.
She is one of B. ‘Amir who bewitches the heart,
And if she wished she could cure my sickness.
The glory of women and of a people is their father,
A people held in honour true to their oath.
Never did I see the sun rise at night till I saw her
Display herself to us in the darkness of the night!

So far, Ibn Ishaq can be given leeway in what he states because as a tradition, Arabs had good memories for poetry entailing themes of honor, rage, insinuated love and sensuality. Most readers in general will agree that they themselves remember the poems and lullabies from their childhood more than the stories they might have read. The above poetry only proves that Ka’b bin Ashraf was instigating Makkans against Muslims by using the most effective propaganda tool of the times, the poetry.

Now, let’s pay attention to the following section which forms the basis of Issue 58 before. Ibn Ishaq quotes only one source for a string of events that involved multiple participants. If the events are true as reported, then there must have been many more corroborative sources, but does not. Notice the dramatic details in the dialogues and their corresponding expressions, all emanating from a single source, written 200 hundred years after the event. How could such a single source know all such details? How is it even possible to write history in such a manner? Should we call it a recall or fanciful concoction?

Then he composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women. The apostle said—according to what ‘Abdullah b. al-Mughith b. Abu Burda told me—’Who will rid me of Ibnu’l-Ashraf ?’ Muhammad b. Maslama, brother of the B. ‘Abdu’l-Ashhal, said, ‘I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him.’ He said, `Do so if you can.’So Muhammad b. Maslama returned and waited for three days without food or drink, apart from what was absolutely necessary. When the apostle was told of this he summoned him and asked him why he had given up eating and drinking. He replied that he had given him an under-taking and he did not know whether he could fulfil it. The apostle said, ‘All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try.’ He said, ‘O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.’ He answered, ‘Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.’ Thereupon he and Silkan b. Salama b. Waqsh who was Abil Na’ila one of the B. ‘Abdu’l-Ashhal, foster-brother of Ka’b, and ‘Abbad b. Bishr b. Waqsh, and al-Harith b. Aus b. Muadh of the B. ‘Abdu’l-Ashhal and Abu ‘Abs b. Jabr of the B. Haritha conspired together and sent Silkan to the enemy of God, Ka’b b. Ashraf, before they came to him. He talked to him some time and they recited poetry one to the other, for Silkan was fond of poetry. Then he said, ‘O Ibn Ashraf, I have come to you about a matter which I want to tell you of and wish you to keep secret.’ ‘Very well,’ he replied. He went on, ‘The coming of this man is a great trial to us. It has provoked the hostility of the Arabs, and they are all in league against us. The roads have become impassable so that our families are in want and privation, and we and our families are in great distress.’ Ka’b answered, `By God, I kept telling you, O Ibn Salama, that the things I warned you of would happen.’ Silkan said to him, ‘I want you to sell us food and we will give you a pledge of security and you deal generously in the matter.’ He replied, Will you give me your sons as a pledge?’ He said, ‘You want to insult us. I have friends who share my opinion and I want to bring them to you so that you may sell to them and act generously, and we will give you enough weapons for a good pledge.’ Silkan’s object was that he should not take alarm at the sight of weapons when they brought them. Ka’b answered, ‘Weapons are a good pledge.’ Thereupon Silkan returned to his companions, told them what had happened, and ordered them to take their arms. Then they went away and assembled with him and met the apostle (576).

While paying attention to the ‘history’ captured by Ibn Ishaq that is a ‘definite’ and ‘authentic’ source for this documentary, also please note the ridiculousness of details as if being captured by an iPhone of the onlooker and that Ibn Ishaq is even privy to bedroom talk and interaction of the Jewish couple:

Thaur b. Zayd from ‘Ikrima from Ibn ‘Abbas told me the apostle walked with them as far as Baqi u’l-Glharqad. Then he sent them off, saying, `Go in God’s name ; O God help them.’ So saying, he returned to his house. Now it was a moonlight night and they journeyed on until they came to his castle, and Abu Na’ila called out to him. He had only recently married, and he jumped up in the bed sheet, and his wife took hold of the end of it and said, ‘You are at war, and those who are at war do not go out at this hour.’ He replied, ‘It is Abu Naila. Had he found me sleeping he would not have woken me.’ She answered, ‘By God, I can feel evil in his voice.’ Ka’b answered, ‘Even if the call were for a stab a brave man must answer it.’ So he went down and talked to them for some time, while they conversed with him. Then Abu Na’ila said, ‘Would you like to walk with us to Shi’b al-Ajuz, so that we can talk for the rest of the night? ‘If you like,’ he answered, so they went off walking together; and after a time Abu Na’ila ran his hand through his hair. Then he smelt his hand, and said, ‘I have never smelt a scent finer than this.’ They walked on farther and he did the same so that Ka’b suspected no evil. Then after a space he did it for the third time, and cried, ‘Smite the enemy of God!’ So they smote him, and, their swords clashed over him with no effect. Muhammad b. Maslama said, ‘I remembered my dagger when I saw that our swords were useless, and I seized it. Meanwhile the enemy of God had made such a noise that every fort around us was showing a light. I thrust it into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground. Al-Harith had been hurt, being wounded either in his head or in his foot, one of our swords having struck him. We went away, passing by the B. Umayya b. Zayd and then the B. Qurayza and then Bu’ath until we went up the Harra of al-Urayd. {fn: Harra is a district of black volcanic stone and Urayd is one of the valleys of Medina.} Our friend al-Harith had lagged behind, weakened by loss of blood, so we waited for him for some time until he came up, following our tracks. We carried him and brought him to the apostle at the end of the night. We saluted him as he stood praying, and he came out to us, and we told him that we had killed God’s enemy. He spat upon our comrade’s wounds, and both he and we returned to our families. Our attack upon God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.‘ {fn: A photograph of the ruins of Ka’b’s castle is given in The Islamic Review, Sept. 1953, p. 12. There Dr. M. Hamidullah writes: ‘Towards the south [of Medina] in the eastern lava plain near Wadi Mudhanib, there is a small hillock. On this the walls of the palace of Ka’b Ibn al-Ashraf still stand, about a yard or a yard and a quarter in height, built of stone. Inside the palace there is a well…. In front of the palace, on the base of the hillock, there are rims of a big cistern of water, built of lime and divided into several sections, each connected with the other by means of clay pipes.’} [see this pdf link]

Though Ibn Ishaq mentions names of his sources below, but one has to ask as to who are they to begin with?

Ka`b b. Malik said:

Of them Ka’b was left prostrate there
(After his fall al-Nadir were brought low).
Sword in hand we cut him down
By Muhammad’s order when he sent secretly by night
Ka’b’s brother to go to Ka’b.
He beguiled him and brought him down with guile
Mahmud was trustworthy, bold (577).

Hassan b. Thabit, mentioning the killing of Ka’b and of Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq, said:

What a fine band you met, O Ibnu’l-Huqayq,
And you too, Ibnu’l-Ashraf,
Travelling by night with their light swords
Bold as lions in their jungle lair
Until they came to you in your quarter
And made you taste death with their deadly swords,
Seeking victory for the religion of their prophet
Counting their lives and wealth as nothing (578).

Even a superficial read of the narrative above about Ka’b bin Ashraf proves that it is nothing but a dramatic tale that tries to mesmerize and captivate the coin flinging audience to the storyteller where the storyteller is creating imagery by poetry, dialogue, expressions, emotions and details of which is just impossible to have been captured in history hundreds of years after the event. The narrative by Ibn Ishaq is clearly synthetic and product of a storytelling tradition. It is shameful that the documentary calls such an ink on paper as history.

Sorry Spencers of the documentary, your claims against Islam and the Prophet are as bogus as your sources of history.

References:

{fn: footnotes in the original book are incorporated into the body of the text above, bound by curly braces}

Manual of Hadith – by Muhammad Ali
Ibn Ishaq – Wikipedia
Ibn Hisham – Wikipedia
Qissa Khawani Bazaar – Wikipedia
In The Footsteps Of Alexander The Great [BBC] – Son of God (2/4) – YouTube
Sirat Rasul Allah – The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume – Internet Archive
The Islamic Review, Sept. 1953 – WokingMuslim.org
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz

Issue 74 [@1:16:39]: Serge Trifkovic – “It is not possible for a non-Muslim living in a Muslim society to invoke his civil rights, human rights, that would be independent or separate from the Shariah concept. He is expected to submit to Shariah willingly. And, if he accepts his dhimmitude, the position of a dhimmi, he will be a protected person. A protected person is someone who is in fact a willing sub-ordinate to the Muslim overlords.”

Rebuttal 74: This a purely bogus allegation by Trifkovic which he essentially draws from the book “Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide” by Bat Ye’or. The book is rebutted in a book review – American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 21 #3 (Summer), p. 149 by Imad A. Ahmad, Ph.D [pdf]. While refuting dhimmitude altogether, the reviewer in last paragraph writes:

At least the author documents her sources. Thus, anyone seeking to use her allegations as a starting point for a serious study of this subject may go to original sources to determine what actually happened and explore with sound research and a more scholarly attitude whether the persecution was inspired by or in violation of Islamic principles and the spirit of minority protection. Beyond that, this book has little to offer serious scholars of Islam or of world civilizations. It has much to offer propagandists who seek rhetorical ammunition to increase rather than decrease the hatred and strife in the world.

The current statement by Trifkovic and similar allegations by Spencer and others before beget a fundamental question as to whether Quran allows of what they allege? Not too surprisingly the best human document ever drafted and globally accepted is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” by United Nations that is factually a subset of Shariah in Quran as explained in Issue 71 before. If there is an implementation of dhimmi the way this documentary alleges, then assuredly there is no such dhimmi in Quran. Even if Spencer and his likes scrap the bottom of Muslim history to support their wild theories of Islamophobia, those fragments of history need to be judged by the standard outlined by Dr. Ahmad above – whether the persecution was inspired by or in violation of Islamic principles and the spirit of minority protection? If by any fair read, those scraps of evidences are proven true, then they would be in contravention of Quranic edicts of human rights and what Prophet Muhammad stood for and will need foremost criticism by Muslims themselves first.

Before we go on to rebut Trifkovic, we pose a simple statement to him in his own words – “Is it possible for any citizen living in a Western society to invoke his civil rights, human rights, that would be independent or separate from the Constitutional concept? Is he not expected to submit to Constitution willingly? And, if he accepts his citizenship, the position of a citizen, will he not be a protected person? Isn’t such a protected person someone who is in fact a willing sub-ordinate to the Government?” His own answer will rebut his own statement in the Issue above.

The statement above by Trifkovic is broken down into following sub-issues:

Issue 74a: Trifkovic alleges – “It is not possible for a non-Muslim living in a Muslim society to invoke his civil rights, human rights, that would be independent or separate from the Shariah concept…”

Rebuttal 74a: Historically, the term dhimmi aka ‘responsibility’ was used for the religious minority subjects of Muslim states who were under extra protection for their rights. Like any other citizen, they were obligated to pay taxes, which in turn relieved them of the mandatory military service. The rights of dhimmis were no less than the majority Muslims. Rather, it should be emphasized that Muslims had no extra or superior rights as a citizen than a dhimmi. This equality is stated in black and white in the following governmental reforms and decrees of the Ottomans. It is obvious that the implicit dhimmi in history was equal and at par with Muslims and that such a dhimmi could invoke extra accommodation from the government just by being a dhimmi for his language, religion, traditions etc.

Hatt-i Sharif of 1839:

The Hatt-i Sharif of the Gülhane (Imperial Edict of the Rose House) or Tanzimât Fermânı (Imperial Edict of Reorganization) was an 1839 proclamation by Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I that launched the Tanzimât period of reforms and reorganization.

The proclamation was issued at the behest of reformist Grand Vizier Mustafa Reshid Pasha. It promised reforms such as the abolition of tax farming, reform of conscription, and guarantee of rights to all Ottoman citizens regardless of religion or ethnic group.

Some of the most important clauses are as follows:

* In the future, the case of every accused party will be tried publicly, in conformity with our divine law. Until a regular sentence has been pronounced, no one can put another to death, secretly or publicly, by poison or any other form of punishment.
* No one will be permitted to assail the honour of any one, whosoever he may be.
* Every person will enjoy the possession of his property of every nature, and dispose of it with the most perfect liberty, without any one being able to impede him. Thus, for example, the innocent heirs of a criminal will not be deprived of their legal rights, and the property of the criminal will not be confiscated.
* These imperial concessions extend to all our subjects, whatever religion or sect they may belong to; and they will enjoy them without any exception.
* Perfect security is, therefore, granted by us to the inhabitants of the empire, with regard to their life, their honor, and their fortune, as the sacred text of our law [– Shariah] demands.
* With reference to the other points, as they must be regulated the concurrence of enlightened opinions, our Council of Justice (augmented by as many new members as may deemed necessary), to whom will be adjoined, on certain days which we shall appoint our Ministers and the notables of the empire, will meet for the purpose of establishing the fundamental laws on those points relating to the security of life and property, and the imposition of the taxes. Every one in these assemblies will state his ideas freely, and “give his advice freely.”
* The laws relating to the regulations of the military service will be discussed by the Military Council, holding its meetings at the Place of the Seraskier. As soon as a law is decided upon, it will be presented to us, and in order that it may be eternally valid and applicable will confirm it by our sanction, written above it with our imperial hand.
* As these present institutions are solely intended for the regeneration of religion, government, the nation, and the Empire, we to do nothing which may be opposed to them. [Wikipedia]

Hatt-ı Hümayun of 1856:

Islâhat Fermânı (Islâhat Hatt-ı Hümâyûnu) (The Imperial Islâhat Firmân, The Imperial Reform Edict, or The Rescript of Reform) was a February 18, 1856 edict of the Ottoman government and part of the Tanzimat reforms. The decree from Sultan Abdülmecid I promised equality in education, government appointments, and administration of justice to all regardless of creed.

Some rules were cheered by the Non-Muslims:

* Non-Muslims could become civil servants,
* The possibility to transfer their inheritance cases to Patriarchates,
* The publishing of murder and commerce laws in the languages of the minorities,
* The establishment of higher court (judiciary) and the representation of all congregations with two representatives from each.
* The extending of powers of Patriarchates in administering justice,
* The extending of the right to property to foreigners.

Some rules were not cheered by the Non-Muslims:

* The obligation to do one’s military service
* The reexamination of religious privileges to make them equal (some millets lost privileges relative to others)
* The abolition of arbitrary fees exacted by priests all along from their congregations
* The establishment of salaries (fixed income) to spiritual leaders (priest, patriarch etc.)
* The obligation of spiritual leaders to take the oath of devotion

Issue 74b: Trifkovic – “…He is expected to submit to Shariah willingly. And, if he accepts his dhimmitude, the position of a dhimmi, he will be a protected person. A protected person is someone who is in fact a willing sub-ordinate to the Muslim overlords.”

Rebuttal 74b: A non-Muslim like any other citizen is expected to submit to the laws of the land. There is no dhimmitude or any shade thereof in any interpretation of Quran, which is the source of Shariah.

Trifkovic has repeatedly used the words ‘warlord’ (Issue 20) and ‘overlords’ in his smears, which only expose his racist and xenophobic mind. He will never use these words for his peers, the Serbian genocidal criminals and convicts of Hague that he served. Trifkovic is no student of history, but a racist in the garb of a pseudo-intellectual who just by throwing ink on paper considers himself to be an author. So did Hitler, when he published Mein Kampf in1925, writing: “Today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Neither was Hitler an intellectual then, nor is Trifkovic now, when they act, write and speak against Jews and Muslims receptively.

Before we accept the term dhimmitude for discussion, we have to ask if it is even a valid term, which it is not but a mere propaganda. The following is an excerpt from FactCheck.org about the said term:

As for “dhimmitude,” it’s a politically charged academic concept, not a tenet of Muslim faith. The term was coined by scholar Bat Ye’or to describe the condition of the “dhimmis,” protected non-Muslims living in Muslim empires starting in the 7th century. Dhimmi populations, Ye’or says, were allowed by their lands’ Muslim conquerors to keep property and practice their faith, as long as they paid a poll tax. It is Ye’or’s assertion that the condition of dhimmitude still persists in countries under shari’a law, and that, furthermore, it is spreading worldwide. In particular, she says, Europeans are accepting a state of dhimmitude and moving toward becoming “Eurabia.” This position is controversial, and Ye’or is not secretive about her political commitments. For instance, she is a vocal supporter of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who was once banned from the United Kingdom because of his inflammatory anti-Islam views. For the e-mail to present “dhimmitude” as an established Muslim value rather than a scholarly concept from an author with open political commitments is misleading. [“Dhimmitude” and the Muslim Exemption – FactCheck.org]

While trying to invent history and then invent terms to fit their fabricated history, Bet Ye’or, Spencer and Trifkovic seem to have very short and selective memories. Like a color blind, they are deliberately blind to European history and its canonical persecution of Jews for almost two thousand years, from the throne, the church, the administrative structure, officers of the state and ordinary citizen alike, all in the name of the God, the Christ. Before they dwell on their invention of dhimmitude, they need to turn a few pages of history to find the exclusively European term that was matter of public policy and an affirmed state and religious institution, the doctrine of perpetua servitus iudaeorum – perpetual servitude of the Jews that lasted till 1800s:

In the 1234 Decretals, he [-Pope Greogory IX] invested the doctrine of perpetua servitus iudaeorum – perpetual servitude of the Jews – with the force of canonical law. According to this, Jews would have to remain in a condition of political servitude and abject humiliation until Judgment Day. The doctrine then found its way into the doctrine of servitus camerae imperialis, or servitude immediately subject to the Emperor’s authority, promulgated by Frederick II. The second-class status of Jews thereby established would last until well into the 19th century. [Wikipedia]

Here, for the first time [in 1236], Frederick II declared the Jews “serfs of our chamber” (servi camerae nostri), thus adopting the concept of perpetual Jewish serfdom (perpetua servitus iudaeorum) from the Church, a doctrine enunciated by Pope Innocent III in 1205 and formally incorporated into canonical law in 1234 by Gregory IX. In the second half of the thirteenth century the leading scholastic philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, formulated this notion of vassalage in the following words: “Since the Jews have fallen into eternal serfdom for their sins, sovereigns have the right to strip them of their possessions, leaving them only with the barest necessities for life.” In the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Innocent passed a number of resolutions whose aim was to isolate and humiliate the Jews. Among these was the obligation of distinctive dress. In practice, this meant wearing a yellow ring or a similar badge on the chest, or the pointed “Jew’s hat.” [German-Jewish History in Modern Times, p. 28]

The dynamics of this anti-Jewish hate in the Christianity was not only based upon their calling them ‘God-killers’ (see Issue 73), but also due to the pagan bend of Christianity. In Christianity, it was against piety to deal with money, hence the ‘dirty’ but rich work of money lending was relegated to Jewish masses. These money lenders would then become a source of capital for both the crown and the church for their vested interests. Leveraging their privileged relationship with the power centers the moneylenders would in turn loan shark with impunity at exuberant usury to the common citizens.

The term judaize became synonymous with “dealing with money,” first mentioned in this sense in writings by Bernard of Clairvaux [German-Jewish History in Modern Times, p. 32]

Thus, the Church and the State, besides sucking the money out of the masses directly by exuberant taxes, also milked it indirectly via the conduit of exuberant usury of the Jewish money-lenders. At any given period in European history, by natural flow of events, a tipping point of duress for masses will reach, apparently by the loan sharking where the common public would rise against the moneylenders. Opportunistically, then the crown and the church will side with the masses leading to extortion, killing and expulsion of the lenders en-mass. All this frame-up will be played under the garb of a religious duty against ‘God-killers.’ Once the Jews were gotten rid of, so did the monetary obligations of the Church and the State, which would end up as win-win situation for the Christians and total loss for the Jews.

There is an excellent rebuttal to Robert Spencer at loonwatch.com under the title “The Church’s Doctrine of ‘Perpetual Servitude’ was Worse than “Dhimmitude” that focuses on Spencer’s allegation that “The idea that Jews fared better in Islamic lands than in Christian Europe is false.” The rebuttal refutes the alleged “Pact of Umar” and draws from the book “ Under Crescent and Cross” by Mark R. Cohen.

While trying to invent dhimmitude from thin air, the systematic Jewish persecution of nearly two thousand years at the hands of Europe and its Christianity, into perpetua servitus iudaeorum – perpetual servitude of the Jews is obviously invisible in the scotomatous ‘scholarship’ of Bet Ye’or et al.

22:46. Why do they not travel in the land so that they should have hearts that help them to understand and ears which can help them hear? As a matter of fact (when going astray) it is not the (physical) eyes that are blind but blind are the hearts which lie in the bosoms.[Nooruddin]

This Perpetual Servitude of Jews can be glanced at in highlights on a time-line as outlined by the website ReligiousTolerance.org and reproduced below. Note: the information is significantly drawn from – A Short Review of Troubled History – by Fritz Voll and can be read separately:

Anti-Judaism: 70 TO 1200 CE

Persecution of Jews by Roman Pagans:

* 70: The Roman Army destroyed Jerusalem, killed over 1 million Jews, took about 100,000 into slavery and captivity, and scattered many from Palestine to other locations in the Roman Empire.
* Circa 115 -117: Jews in Cyprus, Cyrene, Egypt and parts of Mesopotamia revolted Roman Empire in what is known as the Kitos War. This caused the death of several hundreds of thousands of Romans and Jews. The Roman The Roman Legions eventually crushed the rebellions. [1]
* 132: Bar Kochba led a hopeless three-year revolt against the Roman Empire. Many Jews had accepted him as the Messiah. About a half-million Jews were killed; thousands were sold into slavery or taken into captivity. The rest were exiled from Palestine and scattered throughout the known world, adding to what is now called the “Diaspora.” Judaism was no longer recognized as a legal religion. [2]
* 135: Serious Roman persecution of the Jews began. They were forbidden, upon pain of death, from practicing circumcision, reading the Torah, eating unleavened bread at Passover, etc. A temple dedicated to the Roman pagan god Jupiter was erected on temple mountain in Jerusalem. A temple of Venus was built on Golgotha, just outside the city.
* 200: Roman Emperor Severus forbade religious conversions to Judaism.

Persecution of Jews by Christians:

Initial persecution of Jews was along religious lines. Persecution would cease if the person converted to Christianity.

* 306: The church Synod of Elvira banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews. [3,4]
* 315: Constantine published the Edict of Milan which extended religious tolerance to Christians. Jews lost many rights with this edict. They were no longer permitted to live in Jerusalem, or to proselytize.
* 325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: “For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people…We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews…our worship follows a…more convenient course…we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews…How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded.”
* 337: Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death.
* 339: Converting to Judaism became a criminal offense.
* 343-381: The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon XXXVIII: “It is not lawful [for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.” [5]
* 367 – 376: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.
* 379-395: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire at this time.
* 380: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue; he referred to it as “an act pleasing to God.”
* 415: The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.
* 415: St. Augustine wrote “The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus.”
* 418: St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible wrote of a synagogue: “If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves.”
* 489 – 519: Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna.
* 528: Emperor Justinian (527-564) passed the Justinian Code. It prohibited Jews from building synagogues, reading the Bible in Hebrew, assemble in public, celebrate Passover before Easter, and testify against Christians in court. [3]
* 535: The “Synod of Claremont decreed that Jews could not hold public office or have authority over Christians.” [3]
* 538: The 3rd and 4th Councils of Orleans prohibited Jews from appearing in public during the Easter season. Canon XXX decreed that “From the Thursday before Easter for four days, Jews may not appear in the company of Christians.” [5] Marriages between Christians and Jews were prohibited. Christians were prohibited from converting to Judaism. [4]
* 561: The bishop of Uzes expelled Jews from his diocese in France.

* 612: Jews were not allowed to own land, to be farmers or enter certain trades.
* 613: Very serious persecution began in Spain. Jews were given the options of either leaving Spain or converting to Christianity. Jewish children over 6 years of age were taken from their parents and given a Christian education
* 692: Cannnon II of the Quinisext Council stated: “Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman, let him be cut off.” [5]
* 694: The 17th Church Council of Toledo, Spain defined Jews as the serfs of the prince. This was based, in part, on the beliefs by Chrysostom, Origen, Jerome, and other Church Fathers that God punished the Jews with perpetual slavery because of their alleged responsibility for the execution of Jesus. [5]
* 722: Leo III outlawed Judaism. Jews were baptized against their will.
* 855: Jews were exiled from Italy.
* 1050: The Synod of Narbonne prohibited Christians from living in the homes of Jews.
* 1078: “Pope Gregory VII decreed that Jews could not hold office or be superiors to Christians.” [6]
* 1078: The Synod of Gerona forced Jews to pay church taxes.
* 1096: The First Crusade was launched in this year. Although the prime goal of the crusades was to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims, Jews were a second target. As the soldiers passed through Europe on the way to the Holy Land, large numbers of Jews were challenged: “Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or die!” 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed in the first Crusade. This behavior continued for 8 additional crusades until the 9th in 1272.
* 1099: The Crusaders forced all of the Jews of Jerusalem into a central synagogue and set it on fire. Those who tried to escape were forced back into the burning building.
* 1121: Jews were exiled from Flanders (now part of present-day Belgium)
* 1130: Some Jews in London allegedly killed a sick man. The Jewish people in the city were required to pay 1 million marks as compensation.
* 1146: The Second Crusade began. A French Monk, Rudolf, called for the destruction of the Jews.
* 1179: Canon 24 of the Third Lateran Council stated: “Jews should be slaves to Christians and at the same time treated kindly due of humanitarian considerations.” Canon 26 stated that “the testimony of Christians against Jews is to be preferred in all causes where they use their own witnesses against Christians.” [7]
* 1180: The French King of France, Philip Augustus, arbitrarily seized all Jewish property and expelled the Jews from the country. There was no legal justification for this action. They were allowed to sell all movable possessions, but their land and houses were stolen by the king.
* 1189: Jews were persecuted in England. The Crown claimed all Jewish possessions. Most of their houses were burned.

References:
For References 1 – 7 see link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm

Anti-Judaism: 1201 to 1800 CE

* 1205: Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that “the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord…As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ’s death set free…”
* 1215: The Fourth Lateran Council approved canon laws requiring that “Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress.” They also had to wear a badge in the form of a ring. This was to enable them to be easily distinguished from Christians. This practice later spread to other countries.
* 1227: The Synod of Narbonne required Jews to wear an oval badge. This requirement was reinstalled during the 1930’s by Hitler, who changed the oval badge to a Star of David.
* 1229: The Spanish inquisition starts. Later, in 1252, Pope Innocent IV authorizes the use of torture by the Inquisitors.
* 1236: Pope Gregory ordered that church leaders in England, France, Portugal and Spain confiscate Jewish books on the first Saturday of Lent. [1]
* 1259: A “synod of the archdiocese in Mainz ordered Jews to wear yellow badges.” [1]
* 1261: Duke Henry III of Brabant, Belgium, stated in his will that “Jews…must be expelled from Brabant and totally annihilated so that not a single one remains, except those who are willing to trade, like all other tradesmen, without money-lending and usury.” [2]
* 1267: The Synod of Vienna ordered Jews to wear horned hats. Thomas Aquinas said that Jews should live in perpetual servitude.
* 1290: Jews are exiled from England. About 16,000 left the country.
* 1298: Jews were persecuted in Austria, Bavaria and Franconia. 140 Jewish communities were destroyed; more than 100,000 Jews were killed over a 6 month period.
* 1306: 100,000 Jews are exiled from France. They left with only the clothes on their backs, and food for only one day.
* 1320: 40,000 French shepherds went to Palestine on the Shepherd Crusade. On the way, 140 Jewish communities were destroyed.
* 1321: In Guienne, France, Jews were accused of having incited criminals to poison wells. 5,000 Jews were burned alive, at the stake.
* 1338: The councilors of Freiburg banned the performance of anti-Jewish scenes from the town’s passion play because of the lethal bloody reactions against Jews which followed the performances.[9]
* 1347 +: The Black Death originated in the Far East. China, Mongolia, India, central Asia, and southern Russia have all been suggested as the source. [10] Mongol invaders brought it to Caffa in the Crimea (modern-day Fedodosiya). Defenders from the city later spread the disease throughout many Mediterranean ports. [11] Rats initially carried the Black Death; their fleas spread the disease from the rats to humans. As the plague worsened, the germs spread from human to human. In five years, the death toll had reached 25 million. In England, two centuries passed before its population levels recovered from the plague. People searched for someone to blame. They noted that a smaller percentage of Jews than Christians caught the disease. This was undoubtedly due to the Jewish sanitary and dietary laws, which had been preserved from Old Testament times. Rumors circulated that Satan was protecting the Jews and that they were paying back the Devil by poisoning wells used by Christians. The solution was to torture, murder and burn the Jews. “In Bavaria…12,000 Jews…perished; in the small town of Erfurt…3,000; Rue Brul�e…2,000 Jews; near Tours, an immense trench was dug, filled with blazing wood and in a single day 160 Jews were burned.” [5] In Strausberg 2,000 Jews were burned. In Maintz 6,000 were killed…; in Worms 400…” [3]
* 1354: 12,000 Jews were executed in Toledo.
* 1374: An epidemic of possession broke out in the lower Rhine region of what is now Germany. People were seen “dancing, jumping and [engaging in] wild raving.” This was triggered by enthusiastic revels on St. John’s Day – an Christianized version of an ancient Pagan seasonal day of celebration which was still observed by the populace. The epidemic spread throughout the Rhine and in much of the Netherlands and Germany. Crowds of 500 or more dancers would be overcome together. Exorcisms were tried, but failed. Pilgrimages to the shrine of St. Vitus were tried, but this only seemed to exacerbate the problem. Finally, the rumor spread that God was angry because Christians had been excessively tolerant towards the Jews. God had cursed Europe as He did Saul when he showed mercy towards God’s enemies in the Old Testament. Jews “were plundered, tortured and murdered by tens of thousands.” The epidemic finally burned itself out two centuries later, in the late 16th century. [4]
* 1391 : Jewish persecutions begin in Seville and in 70 other Jewish communities throughout Spain.
* 1394 : Jews were exiled, for the second time, from France.
* 1431 +: The Council of Basel “forbade Jews to go to universities, prohibited them from acting as agents in the conclusion of contracts between Christians, and required that they attend church sermons.” [5]
* 1434: “Jewish men in Augsburg had to sew yellow buttons to their clothes. Across Europe, Jews were forced to wear a long undergarment, an overcoat with a yellow patch, bells and tall pointed yellow hats with a large button on them.” [1]
* 1453 : The Franciscan monk, Capistrano, persuaded the King of Poland to terminate all Jewish civil rights.
* 1478: Spanish Jews had been heavily persecuted from the 14th century. Many had converted to Christianity. The Spanish Inquisition was set up by the Church in order to detect insincere conversions. Laws were passed that prohibited the descendants of Jews or Muslims from attending university, joining religious orders, holding public office, or entering any of a long list of professions.
* 1492 : Jews were given the choice of being baptized as Christians or be banished from Spain. 300,000 left Spain penniless. Many migrated to Turkey, where they found tolerance among the Muslims. Others converted to Christianity but often continued to practice Judaism in secret.
* 1497: Jews were banished from Portugal. 20 thousand left the country rather than be baptized as Christians.
* 1516: The Governor of the Republic of Venice decided that Jews would be permitted to live only in one area of the city. It was located in the South Girolamo parish and was called the “Ghetto Novo.” This was the first ghetto in Europe. Hitler made use of the concept in the 1930’s.
* 1523: Martin Luther distributed his essay “That Jesus Was Born a Jew. ” He hoped that large numbers of Jews would convert to Christianity. They didn’t, and he began to write and preach hatred against them. Luther has been condemned in recent years for being extremely antisemitic. The charge has some merit; however he was probably typical of most Christians during his era.
* 1539: A passion play was forbidden in Rome because it prompted violent attacks against the city’s Jewish residents. [9]
* 1540: Jews were exiled from Naples.
* 1543: In his 20’s, Martin Luther, had expected Jews to convert to Christianity in large numbers. Distressed by their reluctance, he developed a hatred for Jews, as expressed in his letters to Rev. Spalatin in 1514, when he was 31 years of age. He wrote:

“I have come to the conclusion that the Jews will always curse and blaspheme God and his King Christ, as all the prophets have predicted….For they are thus given over by the wrath of God to reprobation, that they may become incorrigible, as Ecclesiastes says, for everyone who is incorrigible is rendered worse rather than better by correction.” [6]

In 1543, he wrote “On the Jews and their lies, On Shem Hamphoras” :

“…eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!…What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?

* First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire,…
* Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed… They ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like Gypsies.
* Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught.
* Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more…
* Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews…
* Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury. All their cash and valuables of silver and gold ought to be taken from them and put aside for safe keeping…
* Seventhly, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the axe, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and spindle and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses as in enjoined upon Adam’s children…

To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden – the Jews.” [7]

* 1550: Jews were exiled from Genoa and Venice.
* 1555-JUL-12: A Roman Catholic Papal bull, “Cum nimis absurdum,” required Jews to wear badges, and live in ghettos. They were not allowed to own property outside the ghetto. Living conditions were dreadful: over 3,000 people were forced to live in about 8 acres of land. Women had to wear a yellow veil or scarf; men had to wear a piece of yellow cloth on their hat. [8]
* 1582: Jews were expelled from Holland.
* 1648-9: Chmielnicki Bogdan led an uprising against Polish rule in the Ukraine. The secondary goal of Bogdan and his followers was to exterminate all Jews in the country. The massacre began with the slaughter of about 6,000 Jews in Nemirov. Other major mass murders occurred in Tulchin, Polonnoye, Volhynia, Bar, Lvov, etc. Jewish records estimate that a total of 100,000 Jews were murdered and 300 communities destroyed.

Persecution of Jewish Physicians by the Church:

Medicine in Europe during the Middle Ages found itself restricted by the Christian Church. The church taught that it was irreligious to seek a natural cure from a physician when one could obtain supernatural help from a priest. Some church leaders criticized medical schools because they taught that diseases and disorders came from natural means and not from the evil efforts of Satan.

With medicine in such ill repute among Christians, much of the leadership by the 10th century was provided by Jews and Muslim scholars. Jews were largely responsible for founding the medical Schools at Salerno and Montpellier in the 10th century.

Pope Eugene IV, Nicholas V and Calixtus III forbade Christians from using the services of a Jewish physician. The Trullanean Council in the 8th century; B�ziers Council & Alby Council in the 13th century; Avignon council & Salamanca Council in the 14th century, the Synod of Bamberg in the 15th century; the Council of Avignon in the 16th century, etc. also ordered Christians to not seek healing from Jewish physicians and surgeons. This continued even into the 17th century when the city of Hall in W�rtemberg (in what is now Germany) granted some privileges to a Jewish physician “on account of his admirable experience and skill.” The clergy of Hall complained that “it were better to die with Christ than to be cured by a Jew doctor aided by the devil.”

References:
For References 1 – 11 see link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers3.htm

Anti-Semitism: Racially-based persecution of Jews: 1800 to 1946

The conversion from religiously-based to racially-based persecution:

Prior to 1800 CE: Persecution was directed at followers of Judaism because of their religious beliefs; it has been referred to as anti-Judaism. CE, Jews could escape oppression by converting to Christianity, and being baptized. The Christian church taught in past centuries that all Jews (past, present and future) were responsible for Jesus’ death. The Church also believed that some Jews must be allowed to live, because the biblical book of Revelation indicated that they had a role to play in the “end times.” They concluded that it was acceptable to make Jews’ lives quite miserable.

Since about 1800: “…Nationalism became a dominant value in the Western and Arab worlds…antisemitism increasingly focused on the Jews’ peoplehood and nationhood.” [15] Persecution became a form of racism, and has generally been called “anti-Semitism” — a word “created by an antisemite, Wilhelm Marr [in 1879]. Marr’s intention was to replace the German word Judenhass (Jew-hatred) with a term that would make Jew-haters sound less vulgar and even somewhat scientific.” [15] The word, (variously spelled antisemite, anti-Semite and anti-semite). It is not a particularly good choice, because the root word “Semitic” refers to a group of languages, not to a single language or to a race, people or nation. However, it is in near-universal usage.

Antisemitism: Persecution of Jews along racial lines:

Subsequent attacks against Jews tended to be racially motivated. They were perpetrated primarily by the state. The Jewish people were viewed as a separate people or race.
* 1806: A French Jesuit Priest, Abbe Barruel, had written a treatise blaming the Masonic Order for the French Revolution. He later issued a letter alleging that Jews, not the Masons were the guilty party. This triggered a belief in an international Jewish conspiracy in Germany, Poland and some other European countries later in the 19th century.
* 1819: During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, many European Jews lobbied their governments for emancipation. They sought citizenship as well as the same rights and treatment as were enjoyed by non-Jews. This appears to have provoked sporadic anti-semites to engage in anti-Jewish violence. The rioters cried “Hep! Hep!.” The origin(s) of this cry are not clear. Jews and their property were attacked first in Wuerzburg, Germany during 1819-AUG. The rioting spread across Germany and eventually reached as far as Denmark and Poland. [17]
* 1840: A rumor spread in Syria that some Jews were responsible for the ritual killing of a Roman Catholic monk and his servant. As a result of horrendous treatment, some local Jews confessed to a crime that they did not commit. This “Damascus Affair” spurred early Zionist writers like Hess to promote the Zionist cause. [17]
* 1846 – 1878: Pope Pius IX restored all of the previous restrictions against the Jews within the Vatican state. All Jews under Papal control were confined to Rome’s ghetto – the last one in Europe until the Nazi era restored the church’s practice. On 2000-SEP-3, Pope John Paul II beatified Pius IX; this is the last step before sainthood. He explained: “Beatifying a son of the church does not celebrate particular historic choices that he has made, but rather points him out for imitation and for veneration for his virtue.”
* 1858: Edgardo Mortara was kidnapped, at the age of six, from his Jewish family by Roman Catholic officials after they found out that a maid had secretly baptized him. He was not returned to his family but was raised a Catholic. He eventually became a priest.
* 1873: The term “antisemitism” is first used in a pamphlet by Wilhelm Marr called “Jewry’s Victory over Teutonism.”
* 1881: Alexander II of Russia was assassinated by radicals. The Jews were blamed. About 200 individual pogroms against the Jews followed. (“Pogrom” is a Russian word meaning “devastation” or “riot.” In Russia, a pogrom was typically a mob riot against Jewish individuals, shops, homes or businesses. They were often supported and even organized by the government.) Thousands of Jews became homeless and impoverished. The few who were charged with offenses generally received very light sentences. [1]
* 1893: “…anti-Semitic parties won sixteen seats in the German Reichstag.” [2]
* 1894: Captain Alfred Dreyfus, an officer on the French general staff, was convicted of treason. The evidence against him consisted of a piece of paper from his wastebasket with another person’s handwriting, and papers forged by antisemitic officers. He received a life sentence on Devil’s Island, off the coast of South America. The French government was aware that a Major Esterhazy was actually guilty. [3] The church, government and army united to suppress the truth. Writer Emile Zola and politician Jean Jaur, fought for justice and human rights. After 10 years, the French government fell and Drefus was declared totally innocent. The Dreyfus Affair was world-wide news for years. It motivated Journalist Theodor Herzl to write a book in 1896: “The Jewish State: A Modern Solution to the Jewish Question.” The book led to the founding of the Zionist movement which fought for a Jewish Homeland. A half century later, the state of Israel was born.
* 1903: At Easter, government agents organized an anti-Jewish pogrom in Kishinev, Moldova, Russia. The local newspaper published a series of inflammatory articles. A Christian child was discovered murdered and a young Christian woman at the Jewish Hospital committed suicide. Jews were blamed for the deaths. Violence ensured. The 5,000 soldiers in the town did nothing. When the smoke cleared, 49 Jews had been killed, 500 were injured; 700 homes looted and destroyed, 600 businesses and shops looted, 2,000 families left homeless. Later, it was discovered that the child had been murdered by its relatives and the suicide was unrelated to the Jews. [4]
* 1905: The Okhrana, the Russian secret police in the reign of Czar Nicholas II, converted an earlier antisemitic novel into a document called the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” [16] It was published privately in 1897. A Russian Orthodox priest, Sergius Nilus, published them publicly in 1905. It was promoted as the record of “secret rabbinical conferences whose aim was to subjugate and exterminate the Christians.” [5] The Protocols were used by the Okhrana in a propaganda campaign that was associated with massacres of the Jews. These were the Czarist Pogroms of 1905.
* 1915: 600,000 Jews were forcibly moved from the western borders of Russia towards the interior. About 100,000 died of exposure or starvation.
* 1917: “In the civil war following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the reactionary White Armies made extensive use of the Protocols to incite widespread slaughters of Jews.” [5] Two hundred thousand Jews were murdered in the Ukraine alone.
* 1920: The Protocols reach England and the United States. They are exposed as a forgery, but are widely circulated. Henry Ford sponsored a study of international activities of Jews. This led to a series of antisemitic articles in the Dearborn Independent, which were published in a book, “The International Jew.” The Protocols were sold on Wal-Mart’s online bookstore until they were removed on 2004-SEP-21.
* 1920: The defeat of Germany in World War I and the continuing economic difficulties were blamed in that country on the “Jewish influence.” One antisemitic poster has been preserved from that era. [6] It shows a German, presumably Christian woman, a male Jew with distorted facial features, a coffin and the word “Deutschland” (Germany).

* 1920’s, 1930’s: Hitler had published in Mein Kampf in 1925, writing: “Today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.“ The Protocols are used by the Nazis to whip up public hatred of the Jews in the 1930’s. Widespread pogroms occur in Greece, Hungary, Mexico, Poland, Rumania, and the USSR. Radio programs by many conservative American clergy, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, frequently attacked Jews. Reverend Fr. Charles E Coughlin was one of the best known. “In the 1930’s, radio audiences heard him rail against the threat of Jews to America’s economy and defend Hitler’s treatment of Jews as justified in the fight against communism.” (12) Other conservative Christian leaders, such as Frank Norris and John Straton supported the Jews. [7]

Discrimination against Jews in North America is widespread. Many universities set limits on the maximum number of Jewish students that they would accept. Harvard accepted all students on the basis of merit until after World War I when the percentage of Jewish students approached 15%. At that time they installed an informal quota system. In 1941, Princeton had fewer than 2% Jews in their student body. Jews were routinely barred from country clubs, prestigious neighborhoods, etc. [8]
* 1933: Hitler took power in Germany. On APR-1, Julius Streicher organized a one-day boycott of all Jewish owned businesses in the country. This was the start of continuous oppression by the Nazis culminating in the Holocaust (a.k.a. Shoah). Jews “were barred from civil service, legal professions and universities, were not allowed to teach in schools and could not be editors of newspapers.” [2] Two years later, Jews were no longer considered citizens.
* 1934: Various laws were enacted in Germany to force Jews out of schools and professions.
* 1935: The Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws restricting citizenship to those of “German or related blood.” Jews became stateless.
* 1936: Cardinal Hloud of Poland urged Catholics to boycott Jewish businesses.
* 1938: On NOV-9, the Nazi government in Germany sent storm troopers, the SS and the Hitler Youth on a pogrom that killed 91 Jews, injured hundreds, burned 177 synagogues and looted 7,500 Jewish stores. Broken glass could be seen everywhere; the glass gave this event its name of Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass. [9]
* 1938: Hitler brought back century-old church law, ordering all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David as identification. A few hundred thousand Jews are allowed to leave Germany after they give all of their assets to the government.
* 1939: The Holocaust, the Shoah — the systematic extermination of Jews in Germany — began. The process only ended in 1945 with the conclusion of World War II and the liberation of the death camps. Approximately 6 million Jews (1.5 million of them children), 400 thousand Roma (Gypsies) and others were slaughtered. Some were killed by death squads; others were slowly killed in trucks with carbon monoxide; others were gassed in large groups in Auschwitz, Dacau, Sobibor, Treblinka and other extermination camps. Officially, the holocaust was described by the Nazis as subjecting Jews “to special treatment” or as a “solution of the Jewish question.” Gold taken from the teeth of the victims was recycled; hair was used in the manufacture of mattresses. In the Buchenwald extermination camp, lampshades were made out of human skin; however, this appears to be an isolated incident. A rumor spread that Jewish corpses were routinely converted into soap. However, the story appears to be false. [10]
* 1940: The Vichy government of France collaborated with Nazi Germany by freezing about 80,000 Jewish bank accounts. During the next four years, they deported about 76,000 Jews to Nazi death camps; only about 2,500 survived. It was only in 1995 that a French president, Jacques Chirac, “was able to admit that the state bore a heavy share of responsibility in the mass round-ups and deportations of Jews, as well as in the property and asset seizures that were carried out with the active help of the Vichy regime.” [11]
* 1941: The Holocaust Museum in Washington DC estimates that 13,000 Jews died on 1941-JUN-19 during a pogrom in Bucharest, Romania. It was ordered by the pro-Nazi Romanian regime of Marshal Ion Antonescu. The current government has admitted that this atrocity happened, but most Romanians continue to deny that the Jews were killed on orders from their own government. [12]
* 1941: Polish citizens in Jedwabne in northeastern Poland killed hundreds of Jews, by either beating them to death or burning them alive in a barn. According to the Associated Press: “The role played by Polish citizens was suppressed for nearly six decades until publication of a book by a Polish emigre historian, Jan Tomasz Gross. After release of the book in 2000, the Polish government launched an investigation. ‘The role of the Poles was decisive in conducting the criminal act,’ [prosecutor Radoslaw] Ignatiew, said. The book, ‘Neighbours,’ sparked national soul-searching among Poles, many of whom could not believe that anybody but the Nazis would have committed the atrocity.” [13]
* 1942: The Nazi leaders of Germany, at the Wannsee conference, decided on”the final solution of the Jewish question” which was the attempt to exterminate every Jew in Europe. From JUL-28 to 31, almost 18,000 Russian inhabitants of the Minsk ghetto in what is now Belarus were exterminated. This was in addition to 5,000 to 15,000 who had been massacred in earlier pogroms in that city. This was just one of many such pogroms during World War II. [14]
* 1945: The Shoah (Holocaust) ended as the Allied Forces over-ran the Nazi death camps.
* 1946: Even though World War II ended the year before, antisemitic pogroms continued, particularly in Poland, with the deaths of many Jews.

References:
For references 1 – 17 cited above see link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers2.htm

It becomes obvious by the discussion so far that Bet Ye’or, Spencer, Trifkovic and others of the documentary in their vain search for an equivalent of perpetua servitus iudaeorum – perpetual servitude of the Jews, they found none in Quranic doctrine. Be it known to Spencers of our time that Islam will not atone and offers itself to be pinned to the cross for the sins of Christianity for their relentless persecution of not only the Jews and Muslims (in Inquisition), but of women (witch burnings), of non-Christians (Crusades), of slaves (– black skin), of subjects (– global colonies), of apartheid (on majority in South Africa and Palestine). Essentially, the West that Spencers want to redefine has mountainous piles of skeletons beyond words in its psyche and historical closet that it inflicted on everything that came its way that was non-White, non-Male, non-Christian, and lately non-Western. Such are the Lambs of the Lord! Welcome to the Kingdom! Hallelujah!

Of course, the Spencers are left with no choice but to invent ‘dhimmitude‘. Now they lick and cherish this bone in a canine greed and hope that others will too. These pseudo-intellectual inventions will never be able to see the daylight of scholarship, but such hollow bones are sufficiently juicy enough to make their own ilk drool on such delusional morsels.

5:63. Why do not the teachers of divine knowledge and those learned in the Law prohibit them from their blasphemic talk and deeds and their being too much given to eating things forbidden? Evil indeed is their machination.

5:64. And the Jews said, `Allâh’s hand is fettered (from assisting the helpless Muslims).’ Fettered are their own hands (from assisting the enemies of Islam), and they are deprived of blessings of Allâh for what they said. Nay, (the truth of the matter is that) both His hands are wide open (and free). He spends as He pleases. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will most surely increase many of them in inordinate rebellion and in disbelief. And We have kindled enmity and hatred among them [– the Jews and Christians] till the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindle a fire for war, Allâh puts it out, but they strive to create disorder in the land, whereas Allâh does not like the creators of disorder.

References:

Note: [text enclosed in square brackets above is not part of the original quoted sources]

American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 21 #3 (Summer), p. 149 by Imad A. Ahmad, Ph.D [pdf] – Book Review
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – United Nations Organization
Hatt-i Sharif of 1839 – Wikipedia
Hatt-ı Hümayun of 1856 – Wikipedia
Dhimmitude” and the Muslim Exemption – FactCheck.org
Decretals – Wikipedia
Pope Greogory IX – Wikipedia
Canonical Law – Wikipedia
1234 Decretals – Pope Gregory IX and Judaism – Wikipedia
Thomas Aquinas – Wikipedia
Jew’s Hat – Wikipedia
German-Jewish History in Modern Times (Vol. 1)– Edited by Michael A. Meyers, Google Books
The Church’s Doctrine of ‘Perpetual Servitude’ was Worse than “Dhimmitude” – LoonWatch.com
An overview of the persecution of Jews for the past 2,000 years – ReligiousTolerance.com
A Short Review of Troubled History – Fritz Voll
The Holy Quran – Noourddin

Issue 73 [@1:16:21]: Slide projected with a voice – The Noble Quran, 5:51 – O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya, then surely he is one of them.”

Rebuttal 73: The above slide is a case in point of what is “Fallacy of quoting out of context” as is obvious throughout the documentary. Such “out-of-context” is similarly used by creationists against evolutionists by putting forth half-quotes of Darwin’s own writings to trumpet to the world that Darwin himself believed in creationism. Following is direct excerpt from Wikipedia about the quote-mining:

“Absurd in the highest degree“

Since the mid-1990s, scientists and their supporters have used the term quote mining to describe versions of this practice as used by certain creationists in the creation-evolution controversy. An example found in debates over evolution is an out-of-context quotation of Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

This sentence, sometimes truncated to the phrase “absurd in the highest degree”, is often presented as part of an assertion that Darwin himself believed that natural selection could not fully account for the complexity of life. However, Darwin went on to explain that the apparent absurdity of the evolution of an eye is no bar to its occurrence.

The quote in context is:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. — Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

The makers of documentary are using the above verse in a similar out-of-context manner to seed doubts in the audience about “obsequious” Muslims. This is absolutely shameful and deceitful by this documentary, yet they attribute taqiyya to Islam (see Issue 53 through 63). Following is a direct re-quote from “Consumer Guide to God – A Muslim Perspective – In Light of Quran” p. 240-242, which brings out the full context of the said verse:

Some deliberate, some non-contextual Quotes by some

Issue 1: Muslims should not take Jews and Christians as friends – for which verse 5:51 is quoted.

5:51. O you who believe! do not take these Jews and the Christians for allies. They are allies of one to another (when against you), and whoso from amongst you takes them for allies, is indeed one of them. Verily, Allâh does not guide the unjust people to attain their goal.

The emphasis is on “those” opposing communities including Jews and Christians of Medina and its vicinity at the time when Muslims of Makkah had migrated to Medina to escape thirteen years of relentless persecution. “these” initially signed alliance treaties but were factually united against the city government of Muslims that was established in Medina. “These” are on record for aiding and abetting attacks on Medina by Makkans. Qur’ân contextualizes “these” in the verses adjoining the above verse:

5:50. Do they seek to enforce the law of (the days of) ignorance? [i.e., when might was right, there were no human rights, women were mere property, slavery was rampant before Islam]

5:52. Now you shall see those [weak at heart Muslims] in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy) vying one with another towards them (– the Jews and Christians [who were powerful and influential in Medina] to take them for allies). They [i.e. early Muslims of Medina] say, `We are afraid lest a misfortune should befall us [because of not siding with the powerful].

5:58. And when you call (the people) to Prayer, they [Jew and Christian communities of Medina] take it lightly [i.e., make mockery] and consider it [Islam] worthless [like a sport, i.e.. not to be taken seriously and a religion not worth adopting]. They do so because they are a people who do not understand.

5:59. Say, `O People of the Scripture! do you find fault with us [Muslims] only because we believe in Allâh and in that which has been revealed to us, and in that which was revealed before (us [on you, i.e., Torah, Bible, etc.])? Whereas most of you are disobedient (to God)’. [and flaunt His standards of fairness even in their own religions]

5:60. Say, `Shall I inform you of those who shall receive from Allâh a recompense worse than that of those (who try to find fault with Us)? They are those whom Allâh has deprived of His blessings and upon whom He brought His displeasure and indignation and of whom He has made (as) apes and swine [in their behavior who copy and imitate each other without thinking and have no moral boundaries] and who serve the transgressor (– the devil) . It is these who are indeed worse-placed and farther astray from the right path.’

5:61. And when they [Jews and Christians of Medina] come to you they say, `We believe,’ while, in fact, they enter without faith and go out without it. And Allâh knows best all they conceal [i.e., they would strategically convert and revert in the then time of state of war with Makkans and were a source of dissent and treason]

Qur’ân further analyzes such behavior of the people of the Book toward Muslims:

5:66. If they had only observed the Torah and the Evangel and that which has been revealed to them (now) from their Lord, [because no Divine Book will endorse such behaviors as above] they would surely have eaten (of good things) from above them [i.e., spiritual gains] and from under their feet [i.e., material gains], (thus would have enjoyed the boons of the heaven and the earth). [Qur’ân does not measure all members of the opposing tribes with the same yardstick and acknowledges that] Though there is amongst them a community who is moderate (and of balanced mind), yet a large number of them are such that evil are their deeds [which are on record in the secular neo-Islamic history].

Qur’ân further encourages the people of the Book to follow their own Scriptures for a virtuous behavior and its outcome:

5:68. Say, `O People of the Scripture! you stand nowhere unless you observe the Torah and the Evangel and that (– Qur’ân) which has (now) been revealed to you from your Lord’. And certainly that which has been revealed [i.e., Qur’ân] to you [all] from your Lord will increase many of them in ordinate rebellion and disbelief; so do not grieve for the disbelieving people.

5:69. Verily, those who have believed and those who judaised and the Sabians and the Christians, whosoever believes in Allâh and the Last Day and does righteous deeds, they shall have no cause of fear nor shall they ever grieve.

Qur’ân then gives historical references to the above mentioned behaviors which are replete in history by the same people:

5:70. Surely, We took a covenant from the Children of Israel and We sent Messengers to them. Every time there came to them a Messenger with that (Message) which did not suit their fanciful desires, (they defied him so that) some they treated as liars and others they sought to kill.

5:71. And they thought there would be no punishment (for them) so they willfully became blind and deaf; (then they sought Allâh’s pardon) then Allâh turned to them (with mercy with the advent of Jesus), yet again many of them became blind and deaf. And Allâh is Watchful of what they do.

Qur’ân is quite clear about friends and foe of Muslims:

60:8. Allâh does not forbid you to be kind and good and to deal justly with those who have not fought you because of your faith and have not turned you out of your homes. In fact Allâh loves those who are equitable.

60:9. Allâh only forbids you to make friends with those who have fought you because of your faith and who have turned you out of your homes, and have abetted your expulsion. Indeed, those who make friends with them are really the unjust.

Despite such treacherous behaviors by opponents, Qur’ân does not claim righteousness for Muslims alone:

3:113. They (– the people of the Scripture) are not all alike. Among these people of the Scripture there are some upright people. They rehearse the Message of Allâh in the hours of the night and they prostrate themselves (in His worship).

3:114. They believe in Allâh and the Last Day and enjoin good and forbid evil, and they vie one with another in (doing) good deeds. And it is these who are of the truly righteous.

Psychology of out-of-context use of Scriptures

In the documentary one wonders as to what makes the likes of Spencer to come up with such blatant out-of-context usage of Quranic verses, only to mislead and create hate. It is a natural question as to what the origins of such a rancorous psychology are and how it evolved. What precedence are the documentary makers following for such a bigoted ideology of theirs? The answer is in the New Testament and Christian history:

Matthew 27:24-25 (NIV): When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

Essentially, Jews lacking the authority to kill Jesus for blasphemy took him to the Pontius Pilatus, the fifth Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea (from AD 26–36). Instead, they accused him of sedition against Rome by opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar and calling himself a king. Fomenting tax resistance was a capital offense. There are various accounts of events thereafter, but finally Pilate agrees to condemn Jesus to crucifixion, after the Jewish leaders explained to him that Jesus presented a threat to Roman occupation through his claim to the throne of King David as King of Israel in the royal line of David. The crowd in Pilate’s courtyard, according to the Synoptics, had been coached by the Pharisees and Sadducees to shout against Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew adds that before condemning Jesus to death, Pilate washes his hands with water in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; you will see.” [see the extended narrative from bible Matthew 27: 1-65]

Matthew 27:24-25 then became a touching stone for Christians to persecute Jews ever since as “God Killers” (Jewish Deicide) by using the self-curse of the Jewish crowd – “His blood is on us and on our children!” Killeth they indeed, the “children” i.e. coming generations of the Jews and history is replete of Christians holding the Jews to their words. In doing so, they were not too far from their Scriptures. Interestingly, the God in Bible allows killing of children for sins of their parents, but only for a few generations:

Exodus 34:5-7 (NIV): Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

However, the likes of Spencer kept persecuting Jews for thousands of years on a purely out-of-context usage of their own Scripture, only to satisfy their hate. A hate that outwardly ended with Holocaust, though anti-Semitism still simmers under the surface in the Christian minds. They are blinded by their rancor and will keep doing so despite their Lord’s appeal:

Luke 23:34 (NIV): Jesus said, “Father, forgive them [-the soldiers], for they do not know what they are doing.” And they [-the Roman soldiers] divided up his clothes [-as booty] by casting lots.

The foundation stone of this hate was first noted by Origen Adamantius (circa 185-254 CE) when he wrote Commentary on Matthew for Matt. 27:25, “Therefore the blood of Jesus came not only upon those who lived formerly but also upon all subsequent generations of Jews to the consummation,” and then observes, “These words contain the average Christian views on the Jews.” [footnote “Anti-Judaism and the Gospels,” p. 33 as attributed to Ludemann (The Unholy, 98-99)]

Not for a moment in thousands of years the Church ever realized that it was the Roman prefect who gave the judgment, the Roman officers who carried out the orders to put Jesus on the cross, the Roman soldiers who stole clothes of Jesus and not the Jewish rent-a-crowd who cheered and jeered for a crowd pleasing show of “free speech.” How could Church blame the Romans, because when the time came it was in Rome that the Church found its new Holy abode. The home that belonged to none but Roman Emperor Constantine, who in the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) wrote Christianity in image of his pagan ancestry, substituted Sunday (of his Sun God) for worship instead of Sabbath (Saturday), and passed the famous decree blaming the Jews for ever to be labeled as “God Killers.” It is a separate discussion as to whether a God can be killed and that too by mortals:

“…we have nothing in common with that nation of father-killers who slew their Lord…” [Emperor Constantine to all churches concerning the date of Easter]

Now, following in their ancestral footsteps and traditions of their Church, Spencers of the documentary want to insinuate the West against Quran and by proxy the Muslims, in the same manner as they did quite successfully and forcefully for the Jews without any fear of accountability. For that they have quoted various verses of the Quran totally out-of-context throughout the documentary. Shame be on such “Jew killers.” Spencers of the documentary have made their first kill, the inspiration behind Norwegian slaughter in footsteps of Crusaders who killed their own more than the others because venom does not discriminate. They just cannot help to recognize and overcome the evils of hate, ignorance and arrogance that is now interwoven into their religious and spiritual tradition for two thousand years and is indelibly stained into the fabric of their psyche. It will be asking too much of these bigots to do otherwise.

In spite of the above unsalvageable state of mind of these prophets of doom identified for their inspiration in Breivik’s manifesto – Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, Serge Trifkovic, Geert Wilders, Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller etc., at least there is hope and solution for their parish. That elixir of hate prevention we find in Quran:

49:6. O you who believe [i.e. a citizen or the government, prosecutor or the judge], if an unrighteous person brings you news, look carefully into it, in case you harm a people in ignorance [by your decisions and actions], then be sorry for what you did.

5:2: …And do not let hatred of a people — because they hindered you from the Sacred Mosque [i.e. any place of worship] — incite you to transgress [and become a source of hate]. And help one another in righteousness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression, and keep your duty to Allah. Surely Allah is Severe in retribution.

49:11-12. O you who believe, do not let a people laugh at (another) people [i.e. mock, ridicule or DISCRIMINATE on basis of RACE, COLOUR, SEX, LANGUAGE, RELIGION, POLITICAL OR OTHER OPINION, NATIONAL OR SOCIAL ORIGIN, PROPERTY, BIRTH OR OTHER STATUS], perhaps they may be better than they; nor let women (laugh) at women, perhaps they may be better than they. Neither find fault with one another, nor call one another by (offensive) nick-names. Evil is a bad name after faith; and whoever does not repent, these it is that are the wrongdoers. O you who believe, avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is sin; and do not spy 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 returning (to mercy) again and again, Merciful.

References:

Note: [text enclosed in square brackets above is not part of the original quoted sources. Some of the comments are excerpted quotes from the footnotes of “English Translation of the Holy Quran with Explanatory Notes” – Muhammad Ali, ed. Zahid Aziz]

Fallacy of quoting out of context – Wikipedia
New International Version – Bible Gateway
Pontius Pilatus–Wikipedia
Jewish Deicide – Wikipedia
Origen Adamantius– Wikipedia
Anti-Judaism and the Gospels– edited by William R. Farmer (Google Books)
First Council of Nicaea– Wikipedia
Emperor Constantine to all churches concerning the date of Easter– Fourth Century Christianity
2011 Norway attacks – Wikipedia
Consumer Guide to God – M. Ikram Jahangiri [Note: all verses quoted in the article are from Holy Quran – Nooruddin]
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz