Unfortunately his was not an isolated case. Most people who are anti-Islamic, in my experience, copy and paste the same objections from the same websites. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.
But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc. They omitted several relevant parts from the passage they are trying to quote.
I have included and underlined the omitted portions so that their attempt to mislead is more easily visible,. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there.
But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. Reading the above quote is sufficient alone to demonstrate the academic dishonesty with which the passage was quoted.
The teaching of the Quran on warfare is clear, it only applies in self-defense. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city which they later did.
Muslim conquest. This is a common mistake in the academic approach of almost all who attack Islam: a reliance on the weakest sources in Islamic literature. In Islamic scripture, the Quran is the only book that has made a claim of absolute perfection. After the Quran, all narrations in the books of Ahadith and then in Sirah that are not self-contradictory carry weight.
The reason these writers tried to find context outside of the Quran is because there is no context inside the Quran to support their interpretation. The fact that they had to resort to this approach is itself sufficient to establish that they have no evidence from the Quran to support their interpretations. The context of the Quran is only defensive warfare and no consistent interpretation of the Quran can justify anything otherwise.
Even the translation they rely on places these words in brackets because it is only an interpretation of the translator, it is not part of the actual text. Also, their interpretation is in contradiction with the clear words of the Quran,. The right course has become clear from the wrong. The verse teaches a clear principle,. The Quran does not stop at simple self-defense, it additionally places the restriction that if the aggressors cease in waging warfare, then Muslims must immediately cease as well.
Reading only the second chapter of the Quran would have been sufficient to know this. Abraham and Jacob are quoted as follows in the Quran,. It does not refer to just the God of the Muslims. Allah is a universal Arabic word for the Supreme Being. The fact that this verse preserves the inalienable human right to freedom of all religions is explained clearly elsewhere in the Quran,. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. All commands to fight in the Quran come under this singular permission.
The permissibility of fighting is not to defend the freedom of religion for Muslims alone, but it is to defend the inalienable human right to freedom of religion for the followers of all religions. If a person interprets a United States law in contradiction with the US Constitution, then within the legal framework of the United States, such an interpretation is unconstitutional.
If a person interprets a law of Islam in contradiction with the Quran, then within the Quranic legal framework, such an interpretation is unconstitutional. Those who are anti-Islamic repeatedly emphasize that the Quran is a book of Shariah, or law, which it is. They should then at least approach it with the legal common sense that they would use with any book of law. The Quran is a book of law that repeatedly claims absolute perfection,.
When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don't interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers. This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretative traditions that have moved them away from literalism regarding these passages. But in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition. Spencer received bachelor of arts and master of arts degrees religious studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
He has published 17 books as of February focusing on radical Islam, three of which are New York Times best-sellers. Spencer has given seminars on Islam and jihad to the U. He also appears regularly on Fox News Network. Self-taught in the study of Islam and its religious texts, Spencer has been widely criticized for a lack of scholarly credentials and espousing selective ultra-literal readings of scriptures.
He considers these texts to be innately extremist and violent, and refuses to acknowledge nonviolent passages and centuries of adapted interpretations.
Spencer spends most of his days aggregating and populating the blog with negative news stories involving Islam and Muslims. He averages anywhere from five to 10 posts daily. Spencer is also active on the anti-Muslim speaking circuit. He spends a good amount of his time traveling the country to speak at the invitation of other anti-Muslim organizations as well as conservative and Tea Party groups. Conservative-leaning student groups often invite Spencer to speak on campus, which is usually accompanied by controversy.
Spencer and his works were later dropped from federal training programs, something he remains bitter about to this day. He brushes this fact off by bombastically claiming the majority of Muslims, either do not understand their own holy book or are masking their extremism. He depicts particular incidences of extremism as normative and representative of the entire group. Spencer also attacks individuals and organizations that claim to represent mainstream Muslims.
This is most commonly done through accusations of those entities acting as secret operatives to destroy the West. Spencer is known to have associations with European racists and neo-fascists.
However, he claims that his contact with them is merely incidental. On June 25, , Spencer and Geller were banned from Britain after planning to attend a rally organized by the English Defence League, an anti-Muslim extremist group. Breivik believed that Islam was destroying Western civilization. This would not be the only racist piece of writing associated with Spencer. The book has been translated into English and published in the United States five times, with its most recent publisher being The Social Contract Press , a white nationalist publication founded by Tanton.
That is the sole and only reason. There are, in short, very good reasons to be an Islamophobe, that is, to be concerned about Islam for the devastation that it brings into the lives of human beings both Muslim and non-Muslim.
0コメント