O Conselho Europeu para a Fatwa e Pesquisa: "O Apóstata se Mata para Proteger a Religião e a Comunidade"

Traduzido do árabe do Conselho Europeu para a Fatwa e Pesquisa, o qual está ligado à Irmandade Muçulmana, 16 Ago 2008 (see the English here):

Título: Se entende a matança como limitando a liberdade da consciência?

Dato: 16 Ago 2008 

Pergunta: Alguém que se convertiu ao Islã de Polônia, foi perguntado por um ateu perverso sobre a pena por alguém que se apostata da religão de Alá Todopoderoso. Como deve responder? Ele entende a matança como limitando a liberdade da consciência. 

Resposta: A questão de matando o apostáta é uma função do estado. Seu julgamento pertence ao governo Islámico. Esta não é a preocupação das fundações Islámicas, nem das associações ou dos centros. Um grupo dos Salafis e Imãs são da opinião que nem todo apostáta merece a matança, mas só aqueles que abertamente cometem a apostasia, ou chamam pela fitna, ou pronunciam coisas prejudiciais em contra de Alá e seu Profeta (que a paz esteja com ele) e os crentes. [O apostáta] se mata para proteger a religião e a comunidade de sua corrupção, e não para limitar as liberdades, pois ele por sua ação está infringindo nos direitos dos outros. Os interesses do estado e da sociedade vêm em frente do interesse pessoal dos indivíduos. Em verdade, esta questão é parecida do que se chama na lei contemporária como a "alta traição" por causa do dano que causa.

Malásia: campo de concentração muçulmano para cristãos

Não vale a pena falar sobre este assunto sem expor a doutrina islâmica sobre a apostasia e o tratamento que se deve dar aos que se atrevem a sair do islão.
Recorremos a Robert Spencer [http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=apostasy&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20]:

«Islamic apologists in the U.S. routinely deny that Islamic law mandates that apostates from Islam be murdered. Unfortunately for the apostates, the facts are otherwise.

Muhammad, the prophet of Islam and supreme example of conduct for the Muslim (cf. Qur'an 33:21), said: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him." (Bukhari 9.84.57)

The Tafsir al-Qurtubi, a classic and thoroughly mainstream exegesis of the Qur'an, says this about Qur'an 2:217: "Scholars disagree about whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say that they are asked to repent and, if they do not, they are killed. Some say they are given an hour and others a month. Others say that they are asked to repent three times, and that is the view of Malik. Al-Hasan said they are asked a hundred times. It is also said that they are killed without being asked to repent."

All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence all teach that a sane adult male who leaves Islam must be killed. They have some disagreements about what must he done with other types of people who leave Islam, but they have no disagreement on that.

The internationally renowned Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has been praised as a "reformist" by pseudo-academic John Esposito, has said this about Islamic apostasy law: "That is why the Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed."»

Amplify’d from olhonajihad.blogspot.com

A reportagem acima, mostra uma prisão de "reconversão" na Malásia. Todos aqueles que são acusados de apostasia e se convertem ao Cristianismo, são levados para essa prisão, onde passam por processos até que se convertam novamente ao Islamismo. No entanto, existem informações que alguns que foram para a "reconversão" e nunca mais retornaram. Read more at olhonajihad.blogspot.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/hc7p

Pena de morte para a blasfémia no islão

Robert Spencer reage a uma reportagem da CNN, a qual pretendia convencer os seus espectadores de que a pena de morte para a blasfémia no islão é uma prática sem fundamentos teológicos.
Para tal, recorre aos nosso conhecido e estimado Islam Q&A.

Em suma: enquanto o islão avança no Ocidente, os progressistas e os seus instrumentos mediáticos tratam de lhe limpar a face.

Amplify’d from www.jihadwatch.org

In a story about the Asia Bibi blasphemy case in Pakistan, CNN goes out of its way to say that the Qur'an and Hadith do not contain a death penalty for blasphemy, thereby implying that Asia Bibi is in danger of death because of cultural or political factors, not because of anything that needs to be addressed within Islam. This is a familiar mainstream media practice when it comes to stories about honor killing or genital mutilation: the story will inevitably assure the reader that the practice in question has nothing to do with Islam, and give no hint of why it is so widely tolerated and practiced in Islamic countries. This only assures that the human rights establishment will never address these issues properly, and thus these practices will continue.

"Family waits to see if mother, accused of blasphemy, will be hanged" by Reza Sayah for CNN, November 18 (thanks to Slothy):

Neither the Koran nor the prophet Muhammad's teachings in the Hadith call for the execution of blasphemers, but Islamic scholars and jurists from generations past included the death sentence when drafting Islamic law.

Islam QA disagrees, and uses both Qur'an and Hadith to make its argument:

I heard on a tape that whoever insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be executed even if he shows that he has repented. Should he be killed as a hadd punishment or because of kufr? If his repentance is sincere, will Allaah forgive him or will he go to Hell and his repentance will be of no avail? Praise be to Allaah. The answer to this question may be given by addressing the two following issues: 1 - The ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi 'Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16 This ruling is indicated by the Qur'aan and Sunnah. In the Qur'aan it says (interpretation of the meaning): "The hypocrites fear lest a Soorah (chapter of the Qur'aan) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: '(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allaah will bring to light all that you fear.' If you ask them (about this), they declare: 'We were only talking idly and joking.' Say: 'Was it at Allaah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking?' Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed" [al-Tawbah 9:64-66] This verse clearly states that mocking Allaah, His verses and His Messenger constitutes kufr, so that applies even more so to insulting. The verse also indicates that whoever belittles the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also a kaafir [unbeliever], whether he was serious or joking. With regard to the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from 'Ali that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas which we will quote below. This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn 'Abbaas that a blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He called the people together and said, "I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he should stand up." The blind man stood up and said, "O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her." Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her." (Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655) It seems that this woman was a kaafir, not a Muslim, for a Muslim could never do such an evil action. If she was a Muslim she would have become an apostate by this action, in which case it would not have been permissible for her master to keep her; in that case it would not have been good enough if he were to keep her and simply rebuke her. Al-Nasaa'i narrated (4071) that Abu Barzah al-Aslami said: A man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and I said, 'Shall I kill him?' He rebuked me and said, 'That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) .'" (Saheeh al-Nasaa'i, 3795) It may be noted from this that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the right to kill whoever insulted him and spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs. The second issue is: if a person who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, should his repentance be accepted or not? The scholars are agreed that if such a person repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him. But they differed as to whether his repentance should be accepted in this world and whether that means he is no longer subject to the sentence of execution. Maalik and Ahmad were of the view that it should not be accepted, and that he should be killed even if he has repented. They quoted as evidence the Sunnah and proper understanding of the ahaadeeth: In the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (2683) narrated that Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqaas said: "On the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) granted safety to the people except for four men and two women, and he named them, and Ibn Abi Sarh... As for Ibn Abi Sarh, he hid with 'Uthmaan ibn 'Affaan, and when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called the people to give their allegiance to him, he brought him to stand before the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, "O Prophet of Allaah, accept the allegiance of 'Abd-Allaah." He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing him, then he accepted his allegiance after the third time. Then he turned to his companions and said: "Was there not among you any smart man who could have got up and killed this person when he saw me refusing to give him my hand and accept his allegiance?" They said, "We do not know what is in your heart, O Messenger of Allaah. Why did you not gesture to us with your eyes?" He said, "It is not befitting for a Prophet to betray a person with a gesture of his eyes." (Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2334) This clearly indicates that in a case such as this apostate who had insulted the Prophet (S), it is not obligatory to accept his repentance, rather it is permissible to kill him even if he comes repentant. 'Abd-Allaah ibn Sa'd was one of those who used to write down the Revelation, then he apostatized and claimed that he used to add whatever he wanted to the Revelation. This was a lie and a fabrication against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and it was a kind of insult. Then he became Muslim again and was a good Muslim, may Allaah be pleased with him. Al-Saarim 115. With regard to proper understanding of the ahaadeeth: They said that insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has to do with two rights, the right of Allaah and the right of a human being. With regard to the right of Allaah, this is obvious, because it is casting aspersions upon His Message, His Book and His Religion. As for the right of a human being, this is also obvious, because it is like trying to slander the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by this insult. In a case which involves both the rights of Allaah and the rights of a human being, the rights of the human beings are not dropped when the person repents, as in the case of the punishment for banditry, because if the bandit has killed someone, that means that he must be executed and crucified. But if he repents before he is caught, then the right of Allaah over him, that he should be executed and crucified, no longer applies, but the rights of other humans with regard to qisaas (retaliatory punishment) still stand. The same applies in this case. If the one who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, then the rights of Allaah no longer apply, but there remains the right of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which still stand despite his repentance. If it is said, "Can we not forgive him, because during his lifetime the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forgave many of those who had insulted him and he did not execute them?" The answer is: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438 Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. If he repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a valuable book on this matter, entitled al-Saarim al-Maslool 'ala Shaatim al-Rasool which every believer should read, especially in these times when a lot of hypocrites and heretics dare to insult the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) because they see that the Muslims are careless and feel little protective jealousy towards their religion and their Prophet, and they do not implement the shar'i punishment which would deter these people and their ilk from committing this act of blatant kufr [unbelief]. And Allaah knows best. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions. Read more at www.jihadwatch.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/fq4k

Islão, sharia e Direitos Humanos

Andrew Bostom publica no Pajamas Media um artigo sobre os direitos humanos no islão, mais concretamente sobre a liberdade de mudar de religião, ou de, simplesmente, não acreditar em Deus. Acaba por ter que falar em sharia e pena de morte para os apóstatas.

Fala também de um documento de extrema importância: a Declaração do Cairo sobre Direitos Humanos no Islão, de 1990, na qual os países islâmicos signatários, membros da Organização da Conferência Islâmica (OIC, sigla do inglês), declaram a sharia como única fonte de todos os direitos humanos. Esta declaração, para os seus signatários, substitui a Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos de 1948.

Mais para o fim do artigo, Bostom dá a conhecer alguns dados estatísticos acerca da aceitação da pena de morte para os apóstatas no seio de algumas comunidades islâmicas. Os dados apresentados, assim como os documentos defendidos pelos académicos e clérigos muçulmanos, parecem reiterar a opinião por nós expressa na entrada anterior, em comentário ao filme Islam vs. Islamists: os muçulmanos moderados não só estão em clara desvantagem numérica, como têm contra si as fontes islâmicas ― Alcorão, ahadith e Sirá ―, e a sua tradição exegética.

Lede tudo!

Via Vlad Tepes.

«(...) Elizabeth Kendal, in a recent commentary about the plight of brutalized Egytpian Muslim “apostates” Maher el-Gowhary and Nagla Al-Imam, made a series of apt observations which illustrate the most salient aspect of Islam’s persistent religious totalitarianism: the absence of freedom of conscience in Islamic societies. Egypt, Kendal notes, amended its secular-leaning constitution in 1980, reverting to its pre-colonial past and designating Sharia (Islamic law) as “the principal source of legislation” — an omnipresent feature of contemporary Muslim constitutions, including the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq — rendering “constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and equality before the law illusory.” This is the inevitable outcome of a Sharia-based legal system, because:

Sharia’s principal aim concerning religious liberty, is to eradicate apostasy (rejection of Islam) through the elimination of fitna (anything that could tempt a Muslim to reject Islam) and the establishment of dhimmitude — the humiliation and subjugation of Jews and Christians as second class citizens [or non-citizen pariahs]; crippling systematic discrimination; violent religious apartheid …
In Egypt, as in virtually all Muslim states, a person’s official religion is displayed on their identity card. According to Sharia, every child born to a Muslim father is deemed Muslim from birth. According to Sharia, a Muslim woman is only permitted to marry a Muslim man. (This is the main reason why Christian men convert to Islam, and why female converts to Christianity will risk life and liberty to secure a falsified/illegal ID, for without a Christian ID they cannot marry a Christian.)

Thus Kendal concludes:

There is no religious liberty in Islam, for Islam survives as religious totalitarianism that refuses rejection.

Islam’s refusal to abide rejection by its votaries — the global Muslim umma’s strident rejection of freedom of conscience — is now openly codified, and has been for two decades. The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam,” was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110; “You are the best nation ever brought forth to men … you believe in Allah”), and states:

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …

The preamble continues:

Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible — and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.

In its last articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains:

[Article 24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia. … [Article 25] The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

These statements capture the indelible influence of the Islamic religious law Sharia: the Cairo Declaration claiming supremacy based on “divine revelation,” which renders sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels. Thus we can see clearly the differences between the Cairo Declaration, which sanctions the gross inequalities inherent in the Sharia, and its Western human rights counterparts (the U.S. Bill of Rights; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), which do not refer to any specific religion or to the superiority of any group over another, and stress the absolute equality of all human beings.
(...) This principle of freedom of conscience is also upheld in Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which further makes explicit the fundamental right to change one’s religion:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

The gravely negative implications of the OIC’s Sharia-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims:

Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism.

Ominously, Articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the “punishment” of so-called “apostates” from Islam:

[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.
[22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.
[22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.
[22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

Punishment by death for apostasy from Islam is firmly rooted in Islam’s foundational texts, both the Koran (verses such as 2:217 , 4:89, and their classical exegesis by renowned Koranic commentators such as Qurtubi, Baydawi, Ibn Kathir, and Suyuti) and the hadith (i.e., collections of the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as compiled by pious Muslim transmitters), as well as the sacred Islamic law (the Sharia). For example, Muhammad is reported to have said “kill him who changes his religion,” in hadith collections of both Bukhari and Abu Dawud. There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i), as well as Shi’ite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy:

An apostate … is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, “Slay those who change their din [religion].” … Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition … prior to his execution.

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy-endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96), states:

Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. … When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory … to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

This doctrinal and historical legitimacy of Sharia-mandated killing of apostates from Islam is affirmed by Heffening in his scholarly review for the authoritative, mainstream academic reference work, the Encyclopedia of Islam:

In Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), there is unanimity that the male apostate must be put to death. … A woman, on the other hand, is imprisoned … until she again adopts Islam … [or] she also is put to death.

As noted by historian David Littman, Adama Dieng, then a prominent Muslim Senegalese jurist, alerted the international community to the Cairo Declaration’s profoundly dangerous impact, which under the rubric of Sharia deliberately restricted certain fundamental freedoms and rights — most notably, freedom of conscience. He also argued that the Cairo Declaration introduced “in the name of defense of human rights,” unacceptable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, while sanctioning the legitimacy of heinous practices — Sharia-compliant punishments (from corporal punishments, to mutilation, and stoning) — “which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.”
Pew Survey data published August 13, 2009, reflects starkly the depth and prevalence of popular support among the Muslim masses for these hideous views, sanctioned by their theo-political Islamic leadership within the OIC, and contrary to our foundational Western freedoms. Specifically, the Pew findings reveal that among Pakistani Muslims:

78% favor death for [apostates] those who leave Islam; 80% favor whippings and cutting off hands for crimes like theft and robbery; and 83% favor stoning adulterers.

The universality of these Islamic attitudes affects Muslim communities in the West, including North America. Syed Mumtaz Ali, the late architect of Canada’s Sharia (Islamic Law) tribunal, and law professor Ali Khan both have openly advocated extending Islamic apostasy laws to the West. Mumtaz Ali, in a disturbing essay, affirmed the traditional Islamic legal viewpoint that apostates must “choose between Islam and the sword,” arguing further that if Canada were to act in accord with its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian government must grant the country’s Islamic community authority to punish those Muslims who apostasize, or malign their faith.
Washburn University law professor Ali Khan, another practicing Muslim, provided a more original, but no less chilling rationale for Muslims in the West to violate, fatally, the basic freedom of conscience of their co-religionists. Khan argued in The Cumberland Law Review that apostasy from Islam is an “attack” upon “protected knowledge,” which if deemed (i.e., by some Islamic tribunal one must assume!) to be “open, hostile, and voiced contemptuously,” justified punishment by death. Ali Khan is convinced that traditional Islamic law precepts antipodean to freedom of conscience nevertheless trump this foundational Western freedom:

Islam is the truth beyond doubt. [These] rules preserve the dignity of protected knowledge, discouraging an “easy in, easy out” attitude toward Islam.

In April 2009 Harvard Muslim chaplain Taha Abdul-Basser explained approvingly to a Muslim student that the traditional Islamic practice of executing apostates from Islam remained both venerable and applicable:

There is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment), and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human-rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.

Sam Solomon conversa com Michael Coren

Se o leitor ainda não viu a dupla entrevista de Michael Coren a Bat Ye'or e a Sam Salomon, pode querer começar por ver esta selecção das intervenções de Salomon, um académico muçulmano que apostatou.

In Kitman TV, via Tundra Tabloids. Questão final: por que razão Solomon faz questão de não ser identificado? a) é feio e tem vergonha; b) disse à mulher que ia comprar cigarros e foi dar uma volta com uns amigos; c) esqueceu-se de fazer a barba; d) na sua condição de apóstata, teme que algum muçulmano observante o execute, como estipula o Alcorão e algumas ahadith¹. ¹ - «What do the Quran and Hadith really teach about Apostasy ? In the Quran Most Quranic references deal with how God looks on apostates and how he is going to punish them in the Day of Judgment. The first verse has an indirect inference about apostasy, but nonetheless is used by Muslims as a basis for punishing apostates The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, 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 ; Sura 5:33 But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted ; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray. Sura 3:90 Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty. Sura 16:106 Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way. Sura 4:137 In the Hadith Ibn Abbaas said : The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him.” Al-Bukhary (number 6922) Abd-Allah ibn Masood said : The Messenger of Allah said : “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except in one of three cases : a soul (in case of murder) ; a married person who commits adultery ; and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of Muslims.” Sahih Al Bukhary number 6484 and Sahih Muslim number 1676 How Does Islam Deal with Apostates ? An Apostate in Islam is a Muslim who rejects Islam after being either born into it or after embracing it as a convert from some other religion. An apostate is looked upon as worse than an infidel who has never professed faith in Allah and Mohammad as his prophet or in any way practiced Islam. Apostasy in Islam is equal to treason. In Islam, politics and religion are inseparably intertwined. A famous fundamental expression in Islam says it all, “Islam is a religion and a state.” It is obvious that treason within Islam has spiritual and cultural dimensions. It does not write-off the public rejection of its fundamentals as merely private matters of personal preference in regard to religion. Such actions are viewed as bad influences on Islamic societies as a whole that could escalate into widespread seditions. That is why they deal with it so harshly. Apostasy within Islam can encompass thoughts of the heart, words spoken and deeds. An example of apostasy of the heart would be most anything that might indicate disbelief in the supremacy of Allah. Associations with any deities such as Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and claims that such possess divinity that parallels that of Allah would be apostasy by the heart. Apostasy of the tongue would be any words that question the authenticity of the Quran and the tenets of Islam. Serious infractions such as praying to idols, treating the Quran in a casual/disrespectful manner and ceasing to recite one’s 5 daily prayer sessions can be quickly deemed as apostasy by deeds. There are a few types of situations in which Muslims would not be counted as liable for rejecting the faith. Ignorant mistakes, misunderstandings about Sharia Law and instances of coercion to renounce Islam would fall into this category. The principle of Al Taqeyya makes the provision that any Muslim, who renounces Allah and/or his prophet Mohammad to preserve his own life, is not guilty of apostasy. Such is solely permitted in situations wherein the Muslim was giving lip service as opposed to the true feelings of his heart. (See Sura 16:106) Islam has two forms of apostasy ; the ordinary and the extreme. The ordinary pertains to situations in which the perpetrators did not intend to bring harm and insults to Islam. Under such circumstances most schools of Muslim jurisprudence would give the guilty person three days to express repentance. Those who fail to do so can incur severe punishments including imprisonment, torture and execution. Those who are charged with extreme apostasy aren’t given opportunities to express repentance. There is no waiting period for anyone who is indicted for purposely attempting to bring harm or insults to Islam, the Quran, and Mohammad. We have heard of people executed by family members, Islamic city councils and through the auspices of National Religious-State Islamic governments. In recent years there have been reports of the aforementioned executions from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and Afghanistan. Unquestionably, some have been carried out secretly in Western democracies. The various sects within Islam normally have similar policies about the severity of verdicts for female apostates as they would for men. The only difference would be that Shafiites, Malikites and Hanbalites would punish the woman exactly as they punish the man ; she would be given 3 days to repent or be executed. However, the Hanafites would be more lenient. They would permit a woman to serve out her sentence through life in prison until she either comes to repentance or dies.»

Mosab Yousef: palestiniano, espião israelita

Mosab Hassan Yousef é filho do xeque Hassan Yousef, um dos fundadores do Hamas e um dos seus líderes na Cisjordânia. Durante 10 anos colaborou com o Shin Bet, os serviços secretos israelitas para os assuntos de segurança interna. Após cessar a sua colaboração com a polícia secreta israelita, refugiou-se nos EUA. Entretanto convertido ao cristianismo, conta agora a sua história num livro a publicar recentemente, parte de cujas revelações expôs ao Haaretz, em entrevista publicada em dois artigos. Aqui deixamos dois excertos, onde Yousef fala do conflito israelo-árabe, nas suas raízes religiosas islâmicas, assim como na belicosidade intrínseca do islão:

«"(...) I did everything out of a sense of mission, in order to save human lives," Mosab Yousef says. "Take, for example, Jamal Taweel, a senior figure in Hamas. If I had not worked for the Shin Bet, Taweel would now be dead. He was due to be assassinated, but because I was the one who provided the information about his location, he was arrested. He spent a few years in prison and maybe will hate me now, but he is now free, lives with his family and is the mayor of El-Bireh. I am not exaggerating or showing off," he says in the phone call from California. "I supplied priceless information. No one but me was capable of obtaining it." Aren't you afraid now after exposing all this? "I will not lie by saying I am not afraid. But I am motivated by the fact that I saved hundreds of people - Israelis, Palestinians, Americans. That gives me the strength to go on. I am not a Zionist and I did not work for the Zionists. I am not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. I worked for my God, who is the father of all human beings wherever they are. I do not want to go back to that work. I chose to leave, because after 10 years of fighting terrorism, I understood that it is not the problem. Of course, it is important to fight terrorism, but if I think about the long term, the only way is not to do battle against suicide bombers but against their motivation: namely, their God. "Many people think the terrorists' motivation is the Israeli occupation, the corruption, but all that is just the backdrop. It is not the root of the problem. The occupation is like the rain that falls on the soil in which the seed has been planted, but it is not the seed itself. The root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not lie in security or politics: It is a war between two gods, two religions. Between the God of the Torah and the God of the Koran. The Koran teaches that this is Waqf land - a sacred endowment which must not be given up. The Torah taught the Jews that this is their land and must not be given up. "It follows that there will be no peace in the Middle East. Israel's problem is not with Hamas or with any other organization, nor with the interpretation Hamas reads into the Koran. It is with the god of the Koran. After all, even a moderate Muslim who reads the Koran must read that the Jews are the sons of apes and that the infidels must be killed. The Palestinians must stop blaming Israel, or the West, for all their problems. If they want true freedom, they must free themselves from their God." You sound completely pessimistic. What about a Palestinian state? "That is not a solution. Today we do not have a leadership worthy of ruling, not Hamas and not Fatah. The Palestinians move between the corrupt leadership of Fatah, and the Hamas leadership, which sends them all to die. Besides, Hamas cannot make peace with the Israelis. That is against what their God tells them. It is impossible to make peace with infidels, only a cease-fire, and no one knows that better than I. "The Hamas leadership is responsible for the killing of Palestinians, not Israelis. Palestinians! They do not hesitate to massacre people in a mosque or to throw people from the 15th or 17th floor of a building, as they did during the coup in Gaza. The Israelis would never do such things. I tell you with certainty that the Israelis care about the Palestinians far more than the Hamas or Fatah leadership does. Israel withdrew from Gaza, and instead of the place being built up and cultivated, look what happened there. We need to take a break from these leaders. And I call on the government of Israel: Never accede to Hamas demands " (...)»

Magdi Cristiano Allam fala da sua conversão

Dando cumprimento ao nosso propósito de publicar o mais possível em língua portuguesa, aqui fica parte do texto através do qual o jornalista egípcio, naturalizado italiano, Magdi Allam dá conta ao seu director no jornal Corriere della Sera da sua conversão ao catolicismo, no dia seguinte ao seu baptismo na Basílica de S. Pedro, celebrada pelo Papa Bento XVI, adoptando o nome Magdi Cristiano Allam. Nesta missiva, Allam fala da íntima relação entre o islão ― religião e cultura dela decorrente ― e o ódio aos não-muçulmanos, a violência, o suicídio. Fala ainda das circunstâncias em que se aproximou de Cristo, nomeadamente as da sua reclusão face às ameaças de morte de que foi alvo por, quando ainda muçulmano, se ter atrevido a criticar o terrorismo islâmico e a assinalar a necessidade de reformar o islão. Procedemos a algumas correcções ao texto em língua portuguesa, que copiámos do blogue Povo, socorrendo-nos, para esse fim, do original da missiva, em língua italiana:

«Porque me converti do Islão ao Catolicismo

Caro Director,

aquilo que estou para te referir diz respeito a uma minha escolha de fé religiosa e de vida pessoal na qual não quero, de modo algum, envolver o Corriere della Sera, do qual me honro fazer parte desde 2003 na qualidade de vice-director ad personam. Escrevo-te portanto como protagonista de um acontecimento, como cidadão privado. Ontem à noite converti-me à religião cristã católica, renunciando à minha precedente fé islâmica. Assim, vi finalmente a luz, por graça divina, o fruto são e maduro de uma longa gestação vivida no sofrimento e na alegria, entre a profunda e íntima reflexão e a consciente e manifesta exteriorização. Estou particularmente grato a Sua Santidade o Papa Bento XVI que me dispensou os sacramentos da iniciação cristã, Baptismo, Crisma e Eucaristia, na Basílica de S. Pedro no decurso da solene celebração da Vigília Pascal. E tomei o nome cristão mais simples e explícito: “Cristiano”.

Por isso, desde ontem chamo-me “Magdi Cristiano Allam”. Para mim é o dia mais belo da vida. Adquirir o dom da fé cristã na festividade da Ressurreição de Cristo pelas mãos do Santo Padre é, para um crente, um privilégio inigualável e um bem inestimável. Com quase 56 anos, na minha pequenez, é um facto histórico, excepcional e inesquecível, que assinala uma mudança radical e definitiva relativamente ao passado. O milagre da Ressurreição de Cristo reverberou na minha alma libertando-a das trevas de uma pregação onde o ódio e a intolerância nos confrontos com o “diferente”, condenado acriticamente como “inimigo”, primam sobre o amor e o respeito ao “próximo” que é sempre e de qualquer modo “pessoa”; assim como a minha mente se libertou do obscurantismo de uma ideologia que legitima a mentira e a dissimulação, a morte violenta que induz ao homicídio e ao suicídio, a cega submissão e a tirania, permitindo aderir à autêntica religião da Verdade, da Vida e da Liberdade. Na minha primeira Páscoa como cristão eu não descobri apenas Jesus, descobri pela primeira vez o verdadeiro e único Deus, que é o Deus da Fé e da Razão.

O ponto de chegada

A minha conversão ao catolicismo é o ponto de chegada de uma gradual e profunda meditação interior à qual não teria podido subtrair-me, visto que desde há cinco anos sou obrigado a uma vida blindada, com vigilância fixa em casa e escolta de polícias a cada minha deslocação, por causa das ameaças e das condenações à morte infligidas pelos extremistas e pelos terroristas islâmicos, seja por aqueles residentes em Itália seja por aqueles activistas no estrangeiro. Tive de me interrogar sobre o comportamento daqueles que publicamente emitiram fatawa (condenações jurídicas islâmicas), denunciando-me a mim que era muçulmano, como “inimigo do Islão”, como “hipócrita cristão copta que finge ser muçulmano para prejudicar o Islão” e como “traidor e difamador do Islão”, legitimando desta forma a minha condenação à morte. Perguntei-me como era possível que quem, como eu, se tinha batido convictamente por um “Islão moderado”, assumindo a responsabilidade de expor-se em primeira pessoa na denuncia do extremismo e do terrorismo islâmico, acabasse por ser condenado à morte em nome do Islão com base numa legitimação alcorânica. Fui assim dando-me conta, que para além da contingência que regista a implantação do fenómeno dos extremistas e do terrorismo islâmico a nível mundial, a raiz do mal está inscrita num Islão que é fisiologicamente violento e historicamente conflituoso.

Paralelamente a providência fez-me encontrar pessoas católicas, praticantes de boa vontade que, em virtude do seu testemunho e da sua amizade, se tornaram pouco a pouco um ponto de referência no plano da certeza da verdade e da solidez dos valores. A começar por tantos amigos de Comunhão e Libertação, com o Padre Julián Carrón à cabeça; a religiosos simples como o Padre Gabriele Mangiarotti, a Irmã Maria Gloria Riva, o Padre Carlo Maurizi e o Padre Yohannis Lahzi Gaid; (...) até ao abraço de altos prelados de grande humanidade como o Cardeal Tarcisio Bertone, Monsenhor Luigi Negri, Giancarlo Vecerrica, Gino Romanazzi e, sobretudo, Monsenhor Rino Fisichella que me seguiu pessoalmente no percurso espiritual de aceitação da fé cristã. Mas, indubitavelmente, o encontro mais extraordinário e significativo na decisão de me converter foi o que tive com o Papa Bento XVI, que admirei e defendi ainda enquanto muçulmano pela sua capacidade em tratar a ligação indissolúvel entre fé e razão como fundamento da autêntica religião e da civilização humana, e à qual adiro plenamente como cristão por me inspirar uma nova luz no cumprimento da missão que Deus me reservou.

Para uma videoteca do islamismo : um apóstata ensina

Al-Rassooli, profundo conhecedor do islão e detentor de um perfeito domínio da língua árabe, dedica-se apaixonadamente a expor a verdade sobre o islão em diversos sítios na internet. Destaco aqui uma extensa e exaustiva série de ficheiros video com lições sobre o islão. Aqui fica o primeiro episódio da série:

Um outro islão, o verdadeiro islão

Um artigo publicado hoje mesmo no Islam Watch, da autoria de um muçulmano indiano que descobriu um outro islão, distinto daquele em que fora educado, quando emigrou para a Arábia Saudita, iniciando, então, um caminho de descoberta do que é verdadeiramente o islão:

«What Islam Means to an Ordinary Muslim in India

Sunday, 17 January 2010 01:04 Mirza Ghalib

How my experiences in Saudi Arabia, and, then, reading the Quran and biography of Muhammad opened by eyes about the barbaric cult, that Islam is.

---

ABOUT MYSELF

I am an Indian of 50 years old, nickname Mirza Ghalib, an ordinary Muslim. I was made to pray 5 times a day by my parents from the age of seven. There is a custom amongst all Muslims in India that every child should complete reading the “Arabic’ Quran, whether they understand it or not. I am one of them. The local Arabic teachers, a mullah, who taught us Arabic, knew nothing about its meaning. None of us has the time to read and investigate Islam in our own language. Whatever we know about Islam is from the bluffing of our imaams and mullahs, and we were afraid to raise any questions to these mullahs. Usually our mosques are run and mentored by the old-age illiterate, ignorant and lazy people, and those, who don’t want progress in their worldly life.

WRONG CONCEPT OF ISLAM IN INDIA

It is compulsory for the very young children of the pious Muslim families to pray 5 times a day and I’m amongst them. In Friday qutbaas (sermons), we were brain washed and made to believe that Muhammad was a kind, merciful, generous and divine person. With this thought, I have lived my 30 years as a true, innocent Muslim.

The only fortunate thing that happened during those 30 years of my life is: I have completed my engineering studies successfully. And, this has nothing to do with Islam. Instead, it was because of my neighbours, who were Hindus and Christians. They inspired me in my studies. Usually Indian Muslims prefers to live among their closed Muslim community, where most of them are illiterates. Knowingly or unknowingly, my parents made this “mistake” to live among the “unbelievers”, which enabled me to complete my studies and think about the religion in later days.

SAUDI ARABIA: A UNIQUE PART OF THE WORLD

In the year 1990 at the age of 30, I went to the sacred Islamic country, Saudi Arabia, with my family for a job as an engineer. This visit opened my eyes. My strong believes about Islam and my utmost respect toward Islamic Holy Land perished day after day in Saudi Arabia. Due to short space, it is not possible for me to explain here the terrible experiences that I and my fellow expatriates faced there; it needs at least 1000 pages to explain. Definitely I will write a book on my Saudi Arabian experiences in future.

MY ENLIGHTENMENT: THANKS TO MY SAUDI COLLEAGUES

Prior to my visit to Saudi Arabia, I was thinking myself as a perfect Muslim with praying 5 times a day and fasting 30 days in Ramadan. Actually, I was wrong. It was revealed to me by my Saudi Manager (a Muthawwa – religious person) and some of my Saudi colleagues that my activities were not Islamic, because I mingle with my Hindu and Christian colleagues, showed my sympathy toward them, shared my lunch with them, invited their families to my house and took my family to theirs, as usually I do in India as a normal human being. I was teased and torched by the Saudis’ for my every humanly act as “un-Islamic”, and they advised me to read the Quran and hadiths.

As I said, my parents taught me the Quran in “Arabic” at the age of 7, but without understanding the meaning of a single word. This is how we all Indian Muslims say, we “know” the Quran. I realised the fact for not being studied the Quran with meanings. So, in my very first vacation to India, I purchased the translations of the Quran in English, Urdu, Hindi and Tamil, which I can understand.

UNDERSTANDING ISLAM BY READING THE TRANSLATIONS

On my return to Saudi Arabia, I read these translations seriously. In the very beginning of 2nd sura (Al-Baqra), we are told, the perfect Muslim is he, who believes everything as it is in the Quran. This made me laugh; I felt that this Quran is not for a sane human being.

Then, I read the biography of Muhammad, which made me feel ashamed that I was the follower of him for the past 30 years without knowing the truth about him, because we were not taught the complete biography of him. In India, what we know about Muhammad is only the positive part of his “made-up” good stories. All negative part of his life—such his life as a pirate, about his number of wives (around 15), having sex with many captive girls, having sex with his wife’s maid Maria, claiming his rights to have sex with those married Muslim women, who were ready to offer them to him by their own will, banning the benevolent Arab custom of adoption to justify his marriage with the wife of his adopted son Zayd, his wars on innocent tribes and brutal killing of his opponents etc.—were censored. (...)»

Lede o resto deste instrutivo depoimento de mais um apóstata.

Leitura complementar: Jihad na Índia.

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.

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.

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.

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.»