![]() ![]() Purpose: This article attempts to deal with the events that took place during the advent (reappearance) of Imam Mahdi, the Savior of all the worlds. This study attempts to dispel any misperceptions that Islam’s holy book advocates the subjugation or killing of non-Muslims and reveals that, on the contrary, its key and unequivocal concepts governing warfare are based on justice and a profound belief in the sanctity of human life. It concludes that the Qur’an is clear: Muslims must not undertake offensive violence and are instructed, if defensive warfare should become unavoidable, always to act within a code of ethical behaviour that is closely similar to the western Just War tradition. Instead, this study analyses only the Qur’anic text itself and, by putting its verses into historical context, attempts to explain its codes of conduct in order to determine what it actually requires or permits Muslims to do in terms of the use of military force. sometimes contradictory opinions of medieval Islamic jurists ― mainly from the ninth to thirteenth centuries CE. This study is not a general overview or critique of the Islamic laws of war, which are the varied and. Islam’s critics say that it contains exhortations of violence against non-Muslims and a concept of war that is far more unbridled and indiscriminate than the western Just War theory. at Sura IX.5, 'Slay the idolators wherever you find them,' is said to have canceled 124 verses that enjoin toleration and patience." So much for Greenwald's "passages promoting humanity and understanding.The Qur’an is among the most widely read books on earth, yet it is also commonly misunderstood and misquoted. Warraq continues: "This was supposedly taught by Muhammad at Sura II.105: 'Whatever verses we (i.e., God) cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like.' " While resolving the abundant contradictions to be found in the Quran, abrogation, he writes, "does pose problems for apologists of Islam, since all the passages preaching tolerance are found in Meccan (i.e., early) suras, and all the passages recommending killing, decapitating and maiming, the so-called Sword Verses, are Medinan (i.e., later)." His conclusion: " 'Tolerance' has been abrogated by 'intolerance.' For example, the famous Sword verse. ![]() As for the second point, I hereby introduce the Commentary blog to the Quranic doctrine of "abrogation," according to which Quranic passages are abrogated (canceled) by subsequently "revealed" verses that, as Ibn Warraq writes in his book "What the Koran Really Says," convey a "different or contrary meaning." How can it be, nearly seven years after 9/11, such thin gruel is still being served as an argument? Without citing sura and verse, the first point fizzles in the absence of Jewish and Christian terrorists justifying acts of violence with references to their scriptures. If you're going to wage wholesale war on an entire religion, you'll need more than a tabulation showing that the religion's core text is, on balance, nastier than the next." Second, there are Qur'anic passages promoting humanity and understanding. there are nasty parts in the foundational works of other major religions. Yes, there are calls to anti-Semitism and supremacy. "Yes," he wrote, "there are many nasty injunctions in the Qur'an. While I hardly claim originality in comparing central tenets of the Quran and "Mein Kampf" (see Winnie's comment above), Greenwald didn't care for that, either. Apparently, "enemies" and "allies" alike being inspired by the same Quranic message doesn't call into question the nature or potential of the "allies." It only seems to inspire reticence about the nature or potential of the message. It is also never, ever contemplated in our debates about "democratizing" the Islamic world. While the Qu'ran is sacred to our enemies in Iraq, it is also sacred to our allies."Īmazing that this fact is seen as a rationale for silence, not as a cause for concern. In a post about my recent column, Contentions blogger Abe Greenwald wrote: "This won't do, Diana. I was particularly struck by this on reading Contentions, the blog of Commentary magazine.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |