Uma voz do interior do islão: Wafa Sultan

Mais uma apóstata, síria de nascimento, também radicada nos EUA, onde vive sob protecção policial devido às inúmeras ameaças de morte que recebe, Wafa Sultan de nome, também fundadora do Former Muslims United. Primeiro, o video que a projectou para o primeiro plano da luta contra o islão. De seguida, uma entrevista legendada em castelhano, via La Yijad en Eurabia. Após a visualização de qualquer um dos videos, o YouTube apresenta inúmeros videos relacionados através dos quais se podem encontrar mais entrevistas e depoimentos de Sultan.

Um crucifixo no blogue

Associo-me à campanha, de que tive conhecimento via La Yijad en Eurabia, e coloco um crucifixo no meu blogue. Faça o mesmo no seu.

Jennings investigado

Jim Hoft investiga no Big Government o caso de Kevin Jennings, o Safe Schools Czar nomeado por Obama - sobre quem já aqui falámos -, e desenvolve o já chamado Fistgate, por razões evidentes. A investigação pode ser lida através das hiperligações para os artigos sobre o caso que se encontram neste postal, aos que se acrescenta um outro, publicado posteriormente. Deixo, como introdução à investigação, o artigo de Doug Giles, publicado no Town Hall, através do qual voltei a este caso.

«Man, am I about to sound like an uncool, homophobic, bigoted zealot who should be on a terror watch list (according to the paranormal progressives). Why is that, you ask? Well, I think Obama’s G-boy, Kevin Jennings, should not be the Safe Schools Czar for many egregious reasons. Here are just a few.

I believe anyone who thinks it’s okay to teach 14-year-old boys how they can jam their fist up another 14-year-old boy’s tailpipe, or provides “fisting” kits for the kiddos, or thinks it’s neat-o to urinate on one another during teen sex, or passes out literature to your young ones on how they can find old pedophiles to hook up with at “gay leather bars,” or talks to your teen about the tricky pros and cons of spitting versus swallowing should not be the Safe Schools Czar.

Maybe Kevin Jennings could be the “Adam Lambert Eye Liner Czar” or Cher’s “Do You Believe in Life After Love Czar,” but not the Safe Schools Czar. But then again, there I go being extreme. Shame on me for not being a hip parent who’s totally cool with adult flamers filling our fifth grade kids’ heads with filth. I am truly an ignorant, puritanical, buckle-shoed killjoy, ain’t I? By the way, what the heck is up with liberals? They have their hands in our pockets, their noses in our business, and now they want their arms up our backsides.

How crazy of me that I would have the audacity to go public with the notion that someone who headed up an organization (GLSEN) that proselytizes confused kids on how they can insert their knuckles up someone else’s anus should not be the determiner of what is “safe” at school, eh? Hello!

Hey, Kev… last time I checked, trying to make your mate a hand puppet didn’t fall within the city limits of SafetyTown. Sounds kinda dangerous to me. Oh and here’s an aside for the butt pirates: Our rectums are an exit, not an entrance.

In addition, Mr. Jennings, apart from the “arm in arse” thing, from what I remember during 9th grade health class many moons ago, it’s also not wise to place one’s reproductive organ in the end of another’s digestive system.

A fist up a rectum? Are you kidding me? You guys sound like you have way too much time on your hands. If you’re in need of an idea regarding what to do with your fist, here’s one: Why don’t take your fist and smack yourself in the face with it for poisoning America’s kids with your perverted crap?

For those not in the know, Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings, who was cherry picked by Obama, is not having a good week as whistleblowers are righteously shouting this guy down and trying to get him removed from calling the shots regarding what is nontoxic in your kids’ scholastic lives.

Why are watchdogs barking this dude down? Well, it’s not because he’s mildly gay but because he’s wildly militant in his homosexuality, and both he and his hombres at GLSEN have had no problemo whatsoever filling your kids’ heads and bodies with weirdness galore. For the unbelievable full list of what this man and his organization have advocated and continue to advocate, check out the fantastic work Jim Holt has done on “FistGate” at BigGovernment.com. Also, don’t miss Jennings/GLSEN’s “Little Black Book” for your sons! Hellish.

I’ve gotta warn you, mom and dad: What you’re about to read regarding “FistGate” is very sick and twisted. You’d better brace yourselves. I hope it thoroughly ticks you off that such baseness is being peddled to your babies. In addition, I hope you raise major hell with your elected reps about permanently removing Jennings from anything that has to do with your children and our schools.»

Uma voz do interior do islão: Nonie Darwish

Nonie Darwish é uma mulher corajosa, como qualquer apóstata do islão. Conhecedora profunda do que é o islão, arrisca a sua vida e a dos seus familiares diariamente falando em público - quando lho permitem -, dando entrevistas, escrevendo livros, participando em debates. No âmbito da sua actividade pública, é de assinalar também o seu papel como fundadora do sítio Former Muslims United. Aqui fica a ligação para uma entrevista. Aqui deixo o registo audio de uma entrevista a um showtalk de uma rádio americana. Atente-se, nos clips 3 e 4, na intervenção de um ouvinte que, a dada altura, parece um mujahid em missão. Refiro-me, para além do facto de misturar pontos válidos para o debate com outros talhados para lançar a confusão, ao momento no qual alguém parece trocar impressões com o ouvinte (ouve-se a palavra zakat), embora, no final do 5º clip, se identifique como judeu. Via Occidental Soapbox.

Conformidade com a sharia X b)

Mais pormenores sobre os problemas laborais que Mikel Aziz, guarda-freios em Amsterdão, enfrenta por insistir em usar uma corrente com uma cruz pendente sobre a sua farda, via Bivouac-ID.

«Amsterdam, 8 décembre - Mickel Aziz, chauffeur de tram hollandais d’origine copte est désespéré. Il vient d’être mis à pied deux fois par la Régie des trams d’Amsterdam (GVB) parce qu’il porte une croix en pendentif. La régie a dernièrement fait fabriquer spécialement pour ses employées musulmanes un foulard aux couleurs de la régie Il ne comprend pas, d’autant que ses collègues musulmanes de sexe féminin ont, elles, le droit de porter un foulard. La GVB a même dernièrement fait fabriquer spécialement pour elles un foulard aux couleurs de la régie. Quand il a demandé des explications, on lui a répondu que :

1. il ne s’agit pas de la croix, mais les chauffeurs ne sont pas autorisés à porter un bijou car cela nuit à l’image professionnelle de la régie, 2. les chrétiens ne sont pas obligés de porter une croix alors que les employées musulmanes doivent selon le Coran porter un foulard.

M. Aziz est perplexe. Il explique qu’il porte sa croix depuis plus de 20 ans. Jusqu’à il y a quelques années, les foulards n’étaient pas autorises au travail, mais sa croix l’était. Et c’est maintenant le contraire. De plus, la GVB lui a dit que sa mise à pied était aussi motivée par les propos “islamophobes” qu’il aurait tenus dans une lettre qu’il avait envoyée à la régie. Dans celle-ci, il reprochait à la régie de céder devant la pression musulmane à cause d’une certaine peur. Il expliquait à la régie qu’étant arabophone, il entendait les propos de ses collègues musulmans et que ces propos n’étaient pas tendres pour les Occidentaux. En désespoir de cause, M. Aziz, qui a 56 ans et qui est venu en Hollande en 1982 pour fuir les persécutions religieuses en Égypte, s’est adressé aux reporters de Netwerk, une émission d’actualités quotidiennes de la deuxième chaîne publique, émission très regardée en Hollande et qui a souvent contribué à résoudre les cas présentés aux téléspectateurs. Depuis, son cas est devenu public. Un conseiller municipal VVD (parti libéral) et un conseiller municipal ChristenUnie (parti chrétien protestant plus à droite que les Chretiens-Démocrates) d’Amsterdam ont demandé des explications à la régie et vont porter le cas devant le conseil municipal du 16 décembre. Revers de la médaille de la médiatisation de son cas, M Aziz s’est vu informer par la Régie que s’il parlait encore de son cas dans un média, il serait définitivement licencié. Monsieur Aziz a porté son cas devant le tribunal administratif d’Amsterdam et le jugement est attendu lundi prochain. S’il ne gagnait pas, M. Aziz a dit qu’il perdrait toute confiance dans la démocratie hollandaise, pays chrétien où il était venu pour fuir les persécutions religieuses de son pays.»

Traduction & synthèse d’Elena pour Bivouac-ID.

«Mikel Aziz mostra o objecto do delito» (Legenda Bivouac-ID)

Notável: ao fim de 27 anos a viver na Holanda, país onde se refugiou devido à perseguição que os muçulmanos egípcios movem aos cristãos coptas, volta a ser perseguido, já não pelos muçulmanos, mas por uma empresa holandesa dhimmizada, ou seja, que, não sendo muçulmana, aceita a soberania islâmica, actua de acordo com a sharia e a impõe na sua esfera de influência.

Eurábia: antevisão (4)

Paris, 27 de Novembro de 2009: três de várias ruas de Paris ocupadas ilegalmente para oração muçulmana de sexta-feira. Um grupo de habitantes do 18º bairro parisiense escreveu a seguinte carta ao presidente Sarkozy, pedindo a sua intervenção:

«L’appel au secours des habitants du 18ème arrondissement de Paris à M. Nicolas Sarkozy

Monsieur le Président,

Ceci est l’appel au secours des citoyens du 18ème arrondissement. Depuis des années tous les Vendredis certaines de nos rues sont occupées par des intégristes venus de toute la Région Parisienne pour pratiquer leurs activités cultuelles.

Les trottoirs sur des centaines de mètres sont réquisitionnés, mettant gravement en danger les piétons qui sont alors obligés de marcher sur la chaussée, dans la circulation pour contourner les « prieurs ».

Des rues entières sont barrées avec des voitures et des barrières de sécurité et interdites à la circulation, empêchant les habitants du quartier de sortir ou de rentrer chez eux, les commerçants de travailler, les citoyens ordinaires de circuler librement.

Toute protestation ou même simple tentative de pénétrer dans les zones occupées par ces intégristes entraîne pour toute personne qui s’y risquerait, insultes, menaces et agression et depuis longtemps plus personne n’ose protester tellement la peur est installée dans notre quartier.

Ne sommes-nous plus dans une République laïque? L’occupation de la voie publique sans autorisation pour des activités cultuelles n’est il pas un trouble à l’ordre public? Empêcher la libre circulation des citoyens sur la voie publique par la menace ou tout autre moyen est-il normal dans notre ville? Pourquoi n’avons-nous plus le droit de rentrer ou sortir de chez nous? Pourquoi devons-nous vivre dans un climat de peur?

M. Delanöe Maire de Paris connaît parfaitement notre situation, ainsi que M. Vaillant Maire du 18ème et M. Gaudin Préfet de Police, tous ont abandonné nos rues aux intégristes islamistes, ils ont abandonné les citoyens qui ne peuvent même plus marcher dans leur ville parce que certaines zones sont interdites aux non musulmans à l’heure de la prière.

Monsieur le Président, vous avez affirmé qu’en France il n’y avait pas de « zone de non-droit » alors comment appelez-vous des quartiers où les milices intégristes ferment les rues pour leur usage privé depuis des années sans que la Police n’intervienne pour rétablir l’Ordre Public?

Monsieur le Président, ne nous abandonnez pas vous aussi, faites cesser l’occupation de nos rues par les intégristes.

Les habitants du 18ème arrondissement de Paris.

Nous ne pouvons signer ce document par peur pour nos vies et celle de nos familles.»

Mais sobre esta matéria em Riposte Laique e Vérité, Valeurs et Démocratie.

Conformidade com a sharia X

Segundo noticia um jornal holandês de língua inglesa, a empresa que explora os eléctricos de Amesterdão não permite, alegadamente para não interferir com a imagem de elevado profissionalismo que pretende emitir, que os seus funcionários usem jóias visíveis sobre a farda. Esta política é notícia porque um guarda-freios cristão de origem egípcia foi suspenso de funções por insistir em usar uma corrente com um crucifixo. O guarda-freios interpôs um recurso. Afirma estar a ser vítima de discriminação religiosa, uma vez que as suas colegas muçulmanas podem usar o hijab. Ao que parece, o uso de hijab - lenço com o qual as mulheres muçulmanas cobrem a cabeça, invocando para isso o direito à liberdade religiosa - não é considerado pela empresa de transportes holandesa um comportamento censurável do ponto de vista do profissionalismo. Termino dizendo o nome do guarda-freios que tem a coragem de afrontar a empresa onde trabalha, num país secularizado, mas que vai sucumbindo à imposição da sharia, lei islâmica que proíbe a ostentação de símbolos religiosos não muçulmanos. O seu nome é Mikel Aziz. Via Vlad Tepes.

Sharia no al-Andalus

Não se fala aqui de um ou outro caso: é uma tendência, é um estado islâmico que se institui. Os saudosos do al-Andalus devem estar radiantes:

«Islamic law in Socialist Spain

By Martin Barillas on Speroforum.

Sources in Spain’s Ministry of Interior express growing concern over the rise of Islamic law, known as sharia to Muslims, and the increase of Muslim separatism. In Spanish mosques, groups are emerging which promote Islamic judges and policing that have a growing influence over Muslims living in Spain. While this has long been known in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and France, it has now been detected in rural areas of Catalonia and in towns such as Tarragona, Gironés and Segarra.

The mosques in question are almost uniformly in the control of Salafist jihadis. Such jihadis have espoused separatism and violent struggle with the West at least since the 1980s.

Muslim clerics in Catalonia, for example, call upon the faithful to not befriend native Catalonians nor belong to Catalonian civic organizations. The imams demand that Muslims buy only “halal” food (e.g. meat slaughtered according to Muslim ritual), and that they avoid banks since these ostensibly violate Muslim abhorrence of usury. Muslim parents are warned to not allow their daughters to use the gymnasiums in the schools nor on any account should they use swimming pools. Muslims are told to remove their daughters from school upon the first appearance of menstruation.

Security officials in Spain fear that sermons from the mosques may not suffice to bring Spain’s Muslims to order. Appearing in Spain are groups of men who enforce Islamic law “sharia and Islamic order “hisba” – as to dress and behavior, especially on the part of women. According to sources in Spain, Muslim dissidents and victims of the enforcement of sharia fear reprisals should they report to the police. Muslim women who refuse to veil themselves are insulted, harassed, and sometimes physically assaulted by strong-arm enforcers of sharia. At times, the parents of fractious girls and women have been assaulted by the Muslim enforcers who have kept them in detention and even subjected them to battery. In Saudi Arabia, the Islamic enforcers are known as “muttawa”. In 2001, muttawa on the scene of a fire at a school in the Oil Kingdom refused to allow girls to leave the blaze because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress. Fifteen girls died as a result.

According to one report, a Muslim teenage boy was given a severe beating by Muslim enforcers for having merely played soccer with non-Muslims. From the mosques there continue to emerge demands that Muslims not socialize with infidels. Muslim men who choose to socialize with non-Muslims in Catalonia have been forcibly removed from bars where they played cards or drank coffee. Some have been forced to wear beards and to forgo the wearing of blue jeans: a symbol of Western decadence.

In Tarragona, northeastern Spain, a Muslim woman accused of adultery was condemned to death in early 2009 by a panel of nine Salafist Muslim men. The nine men were arrested by police in the town of Reus and charged with assault and attempted murder. They had taken the woman to a mosque where she was beaten.

In another such case, a pregnant woman was beaten by two men in October 2009 in Ciudad Real for having neglected to wear a veil. She managed to escape but was to suffer a miscarriage as a result.»

Via Vlad Tepes, onde se comenta assim o artigo:

«This is central to the whole issue. So many people still think Islam is some form of Christianity or Judaism. You can bet this machinery exists here today in any nation over 3 or 4 percent Muslims. There are no Jewish or Christian ‘police’ who’s job it is, to beat or kill any members of their own communities who do not conform to the letter of religious law. This is one of the most important articles I have posted in many weeks I think. It speaks to the actual policy and machinery of Islam in the West.»

É talvez importante acrescentar que as incitações ao separatismo estão profundamente enraizadas no Corão em invectivas como estas: "não farás amigos entre os infiéis" e "não tomarás os judeus nem os cristãos como amigos", (Alcorão 3:28 , 3:118 e 5:51) eles "que são os piores dentre os homens" (Alcorão 98:6). e outras, como Alcorão 9:123, dirigida, mais genericamente, aos infiéis.

Pirataria e escravas sexuais

No La Yijad en Eurabia fala-se da história de arrepiar de uma menina captiva de piratas. Corão 4, 3:

«And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.»

Poligamia à parte, a passagem que reza "what your right hands possess" tem sido tradicionalmente interpretada como permissão para usar sexualmente das escravas, para além das quatro esposas:

«(...) V[erse] 3 goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiples wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “the captives that your right hands possess” – that is, slave girls.

Slave girls? Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph – an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!»

Uma religião de paz, sem dúvida, e de amor também. (Com ajuda preciosa do Jihad Watch.)

Povo suíço proíbe minaretes (5)

Tawfik Hamid tem também uma palavra a dizer sobre o referendo suíço que decretou a proibição de construir novos minaretes:

«(...) 3. It seems strange that Muslims would insist on building minarets for mosques in Switzerland while thousands of mosques exist inside the Muslim world without minarets. The minarets are seen by many as representing the superiority of Islam, especially when they are taller than the churches; this sheds some light on the hidden intentions of Muslims who insist on building minarets in the heart of Europe. It is important that Muslims in Switzerland explain why they insist on using such historical symbols of Muslim superiority when it is neither mentioned in the Koran nor considered vital to building a mosque. (...)»

Lede tudo. Via Bivouac-ID.

"Não desisti, não fazei concessões"

Tawfik Hamid é um homem corajoso, um extremista refractário, que fala publicamente do seu percurso dentro do islão. Discorda de Sina, ao defender a possibilidade de reformar o islão. E dá bons conselhos a Israel e, por conseguinte, ao resto do mundo livre: não desistir, não ceder. Fala também de direitos humanos, mais concretamente de direitos das mulheres. Uma voz do interior do islão. Via Tundra Tabloids, via Ilya Meyer.

Infiltração jihadista (18)

Ou Como o Politicamente Correcto e a ideologia do Multiculturalismo matam. Note-se também que a discriminação dos cristãos é apontada como a única discriminação religiosa negativa permitida, o que encaixa na narrativa esquerdopata de que as maiorias são de responsabilizar pelos males do mundo e as minorias nunca podem ser culpadas de mal algum. Com o general só discordo de uma coisa: o nome do problema não é "terrorismo"; é "terrorismo islâmico". Serve este email para referir os excelentes Cox and Forkum:

A ilusão da possibilidade de reformar o islão (2)

Sultan Knish é o pseudónimo de Daniel Greenfield, blogger e colunista israelita radicado nos EUA. Também ele tem algo a dizer sobre a possibilidade de reformar o islão:

«How to Reform Islam There is no discussing Islam without discussing the Moderate Muslim. Like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, the Moderate Muslim is often a topic of conversation, but rarely has much to say about himself. And even those who note that the Moderate Muslim is somewhat less in evidence than the Dodo or the Mammoth, turn instead to the project of reforming Islam. It is of course possible to reform Islam. It is also possible to reform a serial killer. It is however not likely, and certainly not safe to stake your serial-killer prevention strategy on letting the serial killer run free, while you try and talk to him about the virtues of not cutting off people's heads and wearing their skin. For over a thousand years Islam has been the serial killer of world civilization, decimating entire cultures and religions, practicing ethnic cleansing, genocide, terrorism and endless war. Islam is currently involved directly or indirectly in conflicts or terrorism on virtually every continent. Modern Islamist movements have fused the modern tools of war from IED's to Lawfare to Social Media, with ancient fanatical beliefs blended with the leavings of National Socialism and Communism to create a global killing machine. Now how do you go about reforming something like that? (...) What exactly does reforming Islam mean? At her talk Wafa Sultan said that reforming Islam would essentially require creating a new religion and calling it Islam. And that is the problem with any attempt at Islamic reforms, unlike most religions, militancy is the heart of Islam. You cannot remove expansionism and Jihad, without removing the roots of Islam in Mohammed's murderous hordes spreading death and fear around the world. And yet that is exactly what reform requires, to create a version of Islam in which its social and ritualistic aspects are stripped of violence, intolerance and war. This would require significantly rewriting or abrogating the Koran. Simply deemphasizing sections of it or treating them as metaphors, would open the door for the old blood and guts version of Islam to come roaring back at the first sign of outside weakness. As has already happened in the past. It would require changes to Muslim prayers and the undoing of the Muslim sense of superiority to the "infidels" and "people of the book". (...) But regardless of whether or not Muslims choose to reform their religion, we must resist Islamization as if there were no reform possible. And as a paradox only by doing so, can Islam ever be reformed. »

A ilusão da possibilidade de reformar o islão

Ali Sina, iraniano, ex-muçulmano, radicado no Canadá, fundador do site Faith Freedom International, publicou um artigo no qual defende a tese segundo a qual o islão é irreformável, pelo menos no sentido de se tornar mais moderado, segundo critérios ocidentais. Sina afirma que um processo de reforma semelhante à reforma protestante do cristianismo já ocorreu no islão e que o seu resultado foi exactamente o oposto do que no ocidente alguns optimistas esperam: a versão reformada, cada vez mais influente, é mais radical, justamente porque, no processo de reforma, regressou à raiz.

«(...) The Islamic Reformation

An analogous [análoga à reforma protestante] reformation also took place in Islam. This reformation was Salafism.

Many westerners, erroneously believe that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, (1703–1792) is the founder of an extremist sect of Islam. This is not true. Abdul Wahhab did not found a new sect. He was merely a reformer of Islam in the same way that Luther was of Christianity.

The core of Abdul Wahhab’s thinking is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his companions and its decline is the result of religious innovations (bid‘ah) and that an Islamic revival will result through the emulation of the three early generations and the purging of foreign influences from the religion.

The concept that Islam was perfect in its early stages is asserted in the Quran.5:3

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا

Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.

Abdul Wahhab, proposed that Muslims should refrain from any innovation and follow the examples of the salaf, (“predecessors" or "early generations) hence the name Salafis.

Salafi: سلفي, takes the pious ancestors of the patristic period of early Islam as exemplary models.

This belief is not an invention of Abdul Wahhab but is based on a hadith that reports Muhammad’s saying:

The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims).[Bukhari 3:48:819 and 820 and Muslim 31:6150 and 6151.] (Tabi‘in and the Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in,)

(...)

In order to demolish the western myth that Abdul Wahhab was the founder of Salafism, it is import to note that ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328) was also a Salafi. Ibn Taymiyyah opposed the celebration of Muhammad's birthday and the construction of shrines around the tombs of Sufi 'saints' saying: "Many of them [the Muslims] do not even know of the Christian [Catholic] origins of these practices. Accursed be Christianity and its adherents."

Early usage of the term Salaf appears in the book Al-Ansab by Abu Sa'd Abd al-Kareem al-Sama'ni, who died in the year 1166 (562 of the Islamic calendar). Defining the term al-Salafi he stated, "This is an ascription to the salaf, or the predecessors, and the adaptation of their school of thought based upon what I have heard." He then mentions examples of more scholars who were utilizing this ascription.

There is a hadith where Muhammad says, "I am the best Salaf for you." [Sahih Muslim: no. 2450]

The desire to reform Islam and go back to its original pristine state is actually an old thought. Abdul Wahhab, however, succeeded to give shape to this concept, which took ground thanks to the Saudi kings who are his descendants through one of his daughters.

(...)

The Outcome of Reform in Islam

What is the essence of the reformation in Islam? The essence of the Wahhabi belief is that man is not free but a slave of Allah. People are Ibad. (slaves)

This is diametrically a different discourse from the discourse of Protestantism and here is the essential difference between Christianity and Islam.

On the surface, there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. Both believe in a God, both rely on an intermediary between man and God, both faiths are eschatological - have a hell, a heaven and an afterlife, etc. However, in their core, they are very different, in fact opposite to one another. The reformatio of both these faiths took the same road, but seaking the origin of their faith, they went opposite directions. Islam is not a continuation of Christianity, as Muhammad and Muhammadns claim, but it is an anti Christian belief in its core. Christianity advocates freedom of man, Islam, his slavery. One brings the message of liberation, the other, of submission.

The discourse of freedom, so essential to Christianity is contrary to what Islam stands for. When Muslims carry placards that read “democracy is hypocrisy,” and “freedom go to hell,” during their laud demonstrations, they are expressing the true essence of Islam, which is anti freedom, anti democracy, pro slavery and pro subjugation. (...)»

Seguidamente, Sina aborda o papel da liberdade no islão, a qual, segundo o autor, é uma impossibilidade:

«(...) Muslims are not free to choose, but they should obey Allah and His Messenger. The Quran.33:36 says:

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَن يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُّبِينًا

“And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.”

It is not up to Muslims to decide what is good for them. This decision is already made for them and all they have to do is to obey, even when they don’t like it.

كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ

Fighting is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know. (Q. 2:216)

Islam can be distilled in its name: 'Submission.' Allah knows best. Therefore man must accept his command, blindly and unwaiveringly.

Democracy means the government of people by the people. In Democracy men make the law. In Islam the law comes from God. Man must obey even if those laws appear contrary to reason and are oppressive.

This is the reason why "moderate" Muslims cannot oppose stoning adulterers, killing the apostates or other abuses of their fellow practicing Muslims, and their protests do not go beyond a lip service, and that too is only for the consumption of the western media.

Both Christianity and Islam underwent through reformation. They took similar paths, but they ended up in two opposite poles. While Christian reformation brought freedom, Enlightenment and democracy, Islamic reformation bore terrorism.

Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab were reformers of Islam. Among the contemporary Islamic reformers we can name Maududi (1903 – 1979) who wrote an interpretation of the Quran and Sayyid Qutb, (1906-1966) the leading intellectual of Muslim Brotherhood in the 50s and 60s, who was the inspiration to all Muslim terrorists including Ayatollah Khomeini and Bin Laden.

What today’s so called Islamic reformers are proposing is not reformation but transformation of Islam. Unlike the above mentioned reformers, these new reformer wannabes do not want to go to the origin of Islam, but rather they want to eschew part of the Quran and the entire Sharia and invent an entirely different religion, still calling it Islam.

This is delusional thinking and impractical, both logically and logistically. It is also strictly prohibited in the Quran.

These neoreformers want to change Islam to something different. They want to bring bid’a to Islam. Is that possible? Can believers have an opinion contrary to what the Quran says? We already saw that the Quran 33:36, prohibits the believers to have any choice in their OWN matter when Allah and his Messenger have made their choice. How can they decide what is good for the RELIGION?

When the Quran says, "Fighting is ordained for you, even if you don’t like it," the message is clear. This is God speaking. That is what you have accepted a priori. So how can you dispute with God? Once you accept the Quran as the word of God you cannot pick and choose and discard what you don’t like. This is strictly prohibited, not once but repeatedly.

أَفَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِبَعْضِ الْكِتَابِ وَتَكْفُرُونَ بِبَعْضٍ فَمَا جَزَاء مَن يَفْعَلُ ذَلِكَ مِنكُمْ إِلاَّ خِزْيٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَى أَشَدِّ الْعَذَابِ وَمَا اللّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ

Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection, they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do. (Q.2:85)

أَفَغَيْرَ اللّهِ أَبْتَغِي حَكَمًا وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنَزَلَ إِلَيْكُمُ الْكِتَابَ مُفَصَّلاً

6:114 "Am I, then, to look unto anyone but God for judgment [as to what is right and wrong], when it is He who has bestowed upon you from on high this divine writ, clearly spelling out the truth?"

وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَخْرُصُونَ

6:116 Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but guess.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَشْتَرُونَ بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً أُولَـئِكَ مَا يَأْكُلُونَ فِي بُطُونِهِمْ إِلاَّ النَّارَ وَلاَ يُكَلِّمُهُمُ اللّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَلاَ يُزَكِّيهِمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

2:174 Verily, as for those who suppress aught of the revelation which God has bestowed from on high, and barter it away for a trifling gain - they but fill their bellies with fire. And God will not speak unto them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He cleanse them [of their sins]; and grievous suffering awaits them.

(...) How can one claim to believe in the Quran and disregard all these warnings?

The so called reformers of Islam are misguided at best and deceptive at worst. Their efforts should not be welcomed. Whatever their intention, whether genuine or malicious, they are pulling wool over the eyes of non-Muslims and as the result giving legitimacy to a very dangerous creed.

Only truth can set us free. By sugarcoating Islam you cannot change its nature. You can purify filthy water and drink it. You can even purify urine into drinking water. But can you purify gasoline enough to make it drinkable? The essence of Islam is evil. It is not a contaminated good faith. You cannot reform it enough to make it a humane faith. Can you reform Nazism? This whole notion is misguided and absurd.

What is the point of reforming a religion founded by a mentally deranged man who committed so much evil on Earth, who lied, deceived, rapied, tortured, raided, looted, massacred and committed the most despicable crimes? Why keep his cult alive and his memory honored? That man deserves scorn, not recognition?

Reforming Islam is impossible. It is either a delusion or a ruse. Jiahd is based on two pillars, war and deception. I don’t want anyone to be fooled by the soothing promises of Muslim reformers. Moderate Islam does not exist. It’s a myth. (...)»

E conclui:

«(...) You cannot reform Islam and you cannot transform it. All you can and should do, is dump it. Please, let us stop this charade. Either be a Muslim and do as Muhammad said or leave Islam and don't become a shield for the terrorists. Don't muddy the waters. Don't mix among the enemy and pose as a friend. (...) You are causing confusion. You provide a protective shield for the enemy. I am not writing this for you. I know you are not going to change. You are a deceiver. I am writing this for the non-Muslims so they do not fall into your trap and don't provide for you free podium to deceive them.

Islam cannot be reformed. They tried it in every imaginable way. The Mu’tazelis tried it, the Sufis tried it, hundreds of old and new schools tried it and they all failed. If you cannot stomach the Sharia, why do you want to keep Islam at all? Islam belongs to the toilet of history. Dump it and flush. Get rid of it and don’t fool yourself with this nonsense. Accept the truth. Yes truth matters. Islam is a lie. Muhammad was a mentally sick conman. Get over with it and stop this ridiculous farce of reformation.»

O islão visto de dentro

Um dos obstáculos para a compreensão pelos ocidentais do islão é a radical diferença de mundividências, de quadros mentais e de pensamento entre a civilização ocidental e a islâmica. Alguns conceitos perfeitamente canónicos no islão não são devidamente valorizados por nós porque não somos capazes de abarcar todo seu o alcance, justamente porque, estando fora do nosso quadro de compreensão, os distorcemos transformando-os em algo de mais aceitável aos nossos olhos de ocidentais. Para compreender o islão torna-se necessário tentar pensar como um muçulmano, ver o mundo como um muçulmano, e a forma mais fácil de o fazermos, talvez a única forma, é ler e ouvir o que aqueles que, nascidos e criados no islão, arriscam a sua vida apostatando e se dedicam a dar a conhecer aos ocidentais o que é o islão. Por isso, no próximos tempos vamos dedicar alguma atenção à actividade de alguns notáveis apóstatas do islão. Comecemos já de seguida com um artigo de Ali Sina, da Faith Freedom International.