All affability aside, he has struck a nerve that I simply cannot ignore. In the comment thread of a recent post, he refers to the would-be Times Square bomber and the man who initially pointed out the danger to the police. Nazam said this:
Just a little quote from the Quran, the holy book of the Muslims.
“…if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…” - The Holy Quran (Chapter Five, Verse 32).
Just think who gets the reward, Fahad, the allege bomber or Aliou Niasse? =)
What bothers me is Nazam has ripped 5:32 out of context, and being a Muslim apologist, he probably knows it full well. In fact, 5:32 is the most ripped-out-of-context verse of the Qur'an in the West. Muslims (and even news organizations) often refer to this verse in order to show that Islam teaches murder is wrong and saving lives is the prescribed action for all people.
But this is absolutely not what this verse says. In fact, it says almost the exact opposite: that Muslims can kill those who are their enemies! The only way you can conclude as Nazam has concluded is to ignore the verses that immediately follow 5:32, as well as to ignore parts of the verse itself.
Here is 5:32 in its context, with all words included (emphasis mine):
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
1 - It explicitly states that this was a commandment to the Children of Israel, i.e. the Jews! This is not a commandment to all people, and it certainly should not be misused as if this is Allah's command to Muhammad's people.
2 - Even if this were a command to the Muslims, there's still an escape clause: "unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land." If someone is "spreading mischief", he can still be killed. Now let's think for a moment. The would-be Times Square bomber considers Americans to be spreading mischief in Palestine and around the world (practically all Muslims I know think this, even the ones who are American citizens). Accordingly, even if this verse were to apply to someone like Faisal Shahzad, he would still be justified in his slaughter.
As if this weren't obvious enough from the verse itself, the Qur'an further expounds this point in the very next verse. 5:33 says
The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.
This verse is referring to the Muslims, not the Jews anymore, as we can tell in the shift from past tense to present tense. And here, the punishment for mischief is clearly prescribed: execution, crucifixion, mutilation, or at the least, exile. This is the command given to the Muslims. Quite clearly, it does not teach what the Muslims proclaim it teaches; in fact, it teaches almost the exact opposite.
It is undeniably clear that, in order to make Islam seem peaceful, Nazam and many other Muslims rip this verse out of its context, take words out of the very verse itself, changing the entire message for something else. I wonder if they know they are guilty of Surah 5:13. In any case, we should not let ourselves (or anyone who might be interested) be deceived by the popular Muslim interpretation of these verses.