Response to Ashrof’s Article: “When Greenfield and Other Polemicists Weaponise the Sacred”
By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam
5 November 2025
Ashrof’s article, “Greenfield's Distortions: How Polemicists Weaponise Sacred Texts”, claims to defend Islam from polemicists who weaponise scripture. Yet his own reading sustains the very distortions he claims to resist. Nowhere is this clearer than in his treatment—or rather, evasion—of verse 8:59 from Surah Al-Anfal.
He writes:
“Greenfield’s central accusation against Al Muftah is that he quotes the Quran “selectively.” Yet, the very foundation of Greenfield’s own argument rests upon an even more profound selective engagement with the sacred text. He meticulously isolates a single, provocative fragment— “Do not let those deniers think they are not within reach. They will have no escape” (Q.8:59)—without any acknowledgment of the essential historical, moral, or linguistic context that would provide its true meaning. Such a partial extraction transforms what is fundamentally a moral warning into an apocalyptic threat, fundamentally altering its intent and impact.”
Having said this, Ashrof then writes thousands of words without once explaining what 8:59 actually means. His piece is a cloud of tangential commentary—heavy on rhetoric, barren of exegesis. He preaches about “ethical interpretation” yet avoids the text itself. The result is hollow: if everything depends on “hermeneutics” and “interpretive ethics,” who can ever be wrong? In practice, Ashrof merely asserts that he is the ethical interpreter, while neither the Islamophobes nor the extremists are. That, ironically, is Greenfield’s very point—that he mirrors the Muslims. Ashrof concedes the premise while pretending to refute it.
The fact is that the Quran cannot be clearer on the meaning of 8:59. Let us examine the passage in its own context, as the Quran presents it:
(8:56) They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah).
(8:57) If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.
(8:58) If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.
(8:59) Let not the Kafaru think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them).
(8:60) Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power...
(8:61) But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah...
(8:62) Should they intend to deceive thee,—verily Allah sufficeth thee...
The context leaves no room for ambiguity. The subject in 8:56 is those who broke treaties, violated covenants, and launched unprovoked aggression. The Kafaru in 8:59 are deniers of their pledged obligations—the treacherous.
The Quranic Context: Justice, Not Wanton War
The Muslims in this passage are clearly not the aggressors. They are the victims of betrayal and treaty violation. The Quran commands that if deception is suspected, the treaty must be openly annulled (8:58), ensuring both sides stand “on equal terms.” Even in the face of treachery, the demand is for fairness and transparency, not vengeance.
Then follows the moral summit of the passage:
“But if they incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah.” (8:61)
This is not the language of fanaticism but of moral discipline. Even after repeated acts of betrayal, believers are instructed to accept peace if offered—not merely when it appears genuine, but even if deceit is suspected. The next verse provides divine assurance:
“Should they intend to deceive thee, verily Allah sufficeth thee.” (8:62)
In other words, peace is not a tactical concession but a moral duty rooted in faith—an act of trust that Allah Himself will protect the believers from the consequences of deceit.
If disbelief were the issue, there would be no question of peace until the enemy renounced it. Yet disbelief is irrelevant to the entire passage. The conflict arises not from theology but from treachery and aggression. The Quranic command to accept peace even after betrayal reflects the highest standard of justice and restraint—something few civilizations have matched.
A Rational and Ethical Framework
The Quranic ethic is unambiguous:
- War is justified only against treachery and oppression, never against disbelief.
- Peace must be accepted whenever the enemy proposes it—even if insincerely.
- Preparation for war (8:60) serves deterrence, not conquest—“to strike terror into the hearts of enemies” only to prevent renewed aggression.
This framework dismantles the myth of an Islam committed to perpetual enmity. It exposes the intellectual indolence of those who ignore Quranic sequencing and moral logic in favour of inherited polemics or borrowed anxieties.
Ashrof’s Avoidance and Its Consequences
Ashrof neither explains the context nor acknowledges the built-in restraint of verses 8:61–62. His rhetorical caution—the refusal to identify who the aggressors were—has the practical effect of reinforcing suspicion against Islam. What he presents as “interpretive nuance” is, in truth, avoidance of moral clarity.
A Word About The Mistranslation Of Kafaru As “Disbeliever” In Most Translations.
We have seen in the discussion above that belief or disbelief is not the issue at all. The passage addresses aggression by the enemy in breach of the treaty, and the response required is to fight back, if necessary, but to favour peace if offered, even when sincerity is suspected. I have shown elsewhere that every translation of Kafir as disbeliever is a gross error because the Quran makes it clear, not once, but in at least eight different verses (2:6, Surah Al-Kafirun, 98:1, 98:6, 9:2, 9:3, 8:33 and 11:36) that not every disbeliever is Kafir and in the war verses, it always means an unjust aggressor. The Quran consistently uses Kufr to denote denial, rejection, or covering up, with the object of denial or rejection determined by context. In 8:59, what is denied is the right to protection from aggression from a covenant of peace.
Conclusion: Recovering Moral Clarity
The Quranic position could not be more rational or humane. It recognises war as a tragic necessity, strictly confined to cases of treachery and aggression, and peace as the ultimate goal. It commands Muslims to fight when attacked, to prepare when threatened, and to forgive when peace is offered—even if the offer conceals deception.
By failing to draw these distinctions, Ashrof’s article mirrors the very polemicists he seeks to oppose. His argument is for ethical interpretation, while all that was required was to present the plain, unambiguous, clear meaning.
He has, in effect, conceded that the Islamophobes are rational and justified because they mirror the extremists among Muslims. So, what has he achieved? He has only painted himself as “Good Muslim” and nothing more.
In service of this posture, he sacrifices the Quran’s moral coherence on the altar of the Empire’s narrative of a “clash of civilisations” and an unending “war on terror.” This was one of the easiest passages to clarify through the plain meaning of the text alone, requiring no great scholarship—only honesty. Yet Ashrof falters, because his objective is not to elucidate the Quran, but to accommodate those who distort it.
------
Naseer Ahmed writes on Qur’anic theology, moral philosophy, and the historical record of Islamic civilisation.
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism