Why the Islamist have it wrong- Sheikh Abdul-Hadi palazzi- pro Israel Sufi sheik
-
He is friendly to Israel and is a Sufi and fiercely anti-wahhabi. He is a Shafi Sunni but with creeping Sunnism in this forum I thought this article can be useful.
The Islamists Have it Wrong
by Abdul Hadi PalazziWestern observers, both among the general public and the media, commonly make the mistake of thinking that Islamism1 is the same as traditional Islam. Even Western researchers describe Islamism as a resurgence of traditional Islam. One researcher describes Islamists as people of the "anthropological tradition";2 in contrast, moderate Sunni Muslims are characterized as those whose faith is mitigated, influenced by syncretism, or diluted by a certain amount of secularization and Westernization.3
But this turns reality upside-down. In fact, Islamists depart in important ways from the Islamic tradition. This is especially apparent in what concerns divine attributes, Islamic law, and Sufism. Indeed, some outstanding traditional Muslim scholars, such as Sheikh Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri4 and Sheikh Ahmad al-?Alawi,5 see Islamism as a symptom of secularization and as a reshaping of their religion into a modern, ideological totalitarianism.6 It is this view that I myself share, and shall present here.
Subordinating Religion to Politics
The distinction between traditional Islam and Islamism can be seen in many specifics. Tradition says that Islamic jurisprudence can today be practiced according to four legal schools, all of which are legitimate and authoritative; Islamists, by contrast, see the existence of these schools as an obstacle to their concept of Islamic unity. Tradition attributes to the ruler the right to appoint competent scholars as authorized interpreters of the Islamic law; Islamists do not recognize any authority apart from the leaders of their own groups. Tradition makes the authority of a scholar dependent on the possession of written documents of appointment (ijaza) signed by his predecessor;7 Islamists regularly install people bereft of any theological or legal education into positions of Islamic authority. In most cases, then, Islamist leaders are lay persons with little background in Islamic studies.
Another point Sunnis do not conceive of Islam as an organization dependent on a centralized leadership, Islamists, on the contrary, see their leading militants as the Islamic leadership; thereby cutting out the need to refer to traditional scholars for guidance. Sunni schools arise spontaneously from voluntary contributions and answer local needs; when organizations are created it happens only for practical reasons, without any implication that the leaders of the organizations are ipso facto Islamic authorities. In contrast, Islamist schools result from funding from a centralized administration that pays activists in every part of the world.
Perhaps most important of all is the Islamists' subordination of religion to politics, our main topic here. Khalid Dur?n notes the distinction between traditional Islam and its political counterfeit by underlining their different understandings of the relationship between religion and politics
Whether Islamists like the term fundamentalist or not, their understanding of religion resembles that of fundamentalists in other religions. This is not to say that Islamists are more religious or more genuinely Islamic than other Muslims . . . Islamism is a late 20th century totalitarianism. It follows in the wake of fascism and communism, picking up from those and seeking to refine their methods of domination . . .Few Muslims would deny that political commitment is part of Islamic ethics, but most disagree with the Islamist insistence that there exists a clearly defined "Islamic system," different from all other political systems.8
Islamists draw on modern European models that posit a scientific revolutionary movement, an elitist scheme of ruling society by means of secret cults that act behind the scenes, and a manufacture of consensus by means of propaganda. They reject those aspects of the Islamic tradition that do not fit with this political outlook.Theirs is, in fact, an extremist ideology; they consider their organizations and militants as custodians of the projects for Islamizing the world, and whoever criticizes them (be he a Muslim or a non-Muslim) is immediately accused of being anti-Islamic, "Islamophobic," and so forth. Unwilling to be ruled by non-Islamist Muslims, Islamists adopt an approach characterized by political supremacism. Their pious rhetoric does not hide the fact that they exploit the religious feelings of their followers to acquire mundane power and enhance their finances. They claim to be vanguard Muslims, integrating faith and politics, but their cardinal concern is holding power themselves and excluding others. Thus, the goal of these radicals is not genuinely religious but political and even totalitarian.
Like other totalitarian ideologies, contemporary Islamism is blindly utopian. It implies a wholesale denial of history; the Islamists? model of an ideal society is inspired by the idealized image of seventh-century Arabia and an ahistorical view of religion and human development. It is based on anachronistic thinking that rejects modern concepts of pluralism and tolerance. And it ignores a history of Islam that is rich in models of heterogeneous social organization and adaptation to the times.
Two Views of Politics in Islam
The traditional view understands the role of politics in terms of what the Qur?an teaches. It indicates that prophets were sent to humans to teach them truths about God, ethics, ways to achieve prosperity in this world, and beatitude in the hereafter, and to warn about the consequences of injustice and sinfulness.9 A prophet who is called to preach in a stateless milieu has to assume a role of political leadership; this mantle fell on Moses, as it did to Muhammad (peace be upon both of them). Islamic tradition teaches that when this happens, the two roles are combined by accident; political leadership is not a necessary element of the prophetic mission. By way of confirmation, note that the Qur?an uses different titles to describe the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but none of them refers to his political function. Verses 3345-46 say that he was sent as a witness (shahid), a bearer of glad tidings (mubashshir), a warner (nadhir), as someone who calls to God (da?i ila Allah), and as a shining light (siraj munir). Nowhere does it say he was sent as a political leader or a head of state. That the Prophet Muhammad actually had a political role resulted from the social conditions that prevailed in his time, but this was not a necessary part of his prophetic mission.
Islamists, however, have a very different interpretation. For them, building an Islamic state is the central achievement of the prophetic mission.10 Conflating the role of the Muslim scholar with that of a political leader, they hold that the spread of Islam cannot be separated from the creation of what they call the Islamic state.
They argue that "Islam is both religion and government" (al-Islam din wa dawla);11 and this serves the basic description of their creed. They neglect to mention, however, that this expression is found in neither the Qur?an, the Hadith (sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammad), or in any other of the authoritative Islamic sources. The slogan was in fact coined by Ibn Taymiya (1263?132, an extremist scholar who became a staunch supporter of anthropomorphic theology and of extreme literalism in the understanding of the Qur?an, and was heartily criticized by most of the Sunni theologians and jurists of his time.12
Two Views of Jihad
In similar fashion, the Islamists deform the meaning of jihad. In traditional Islam, military jihad and all other forms of material jihad constitute only the external aspect of jihad, while the inner dimension of jihad is the struggle that a Muslim undertakes to purify his soul from mundane desires, defects, and egotism. Jihad is not limited to the military arena but denotes striving hard toward a worthy goal. According to some sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), "the best jihad for women is performing a valid pilgrimage,"13 while "the jihad for someone who has elderly parents is taking care of them."14 According to a well-known tradition, after coming back from a military expedition, the Prophet Muhammad said, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad" (raja?na min jihad al-asghar ila jihad al-akbar). The Prophet was asked, "O, Messenger of Allah, what is the greater jihad?" He answered, "It is the jihad against one's soul."15 Sunni scholars have always quoted this narration as a means of explaining the inner dimension of jihad. Sufis, in particular, have quoted it as a corrective against a limited, physical understanding of the nature of jihad.
The traditional understanding also includes a military meaning but military jihad is strictly regulated by rules concerning its purpose, means, and resolution.
Purpose Qur?anic verses permitting military jihad (2239-40) indicate that it is not a vehicle to expand Islam but to defend the rights of those who are persecuted because of their religion.
To those against whom war is made, permission is given , because they are wronged. And verily God is most powerful for their aid. those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right except that they say, "Our Lord is God." Did not God check one people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly help those who help His cause, for verily God is full of strength, exalted in might.
Note the inclusion here of not just mosques, but "monasteries, churches, synagogues" as places where God's name is frequently mentioned and places that must be protected, if necessary by recourse to war. Empty buildings or archeological relics are not the point here; these lines indicate a militant defense of the right to religious freedom.Self-defense The term "self-defense" means just that and must not be stretched. The Qur?an (2190) says, "And fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but do not exaggerate. Verily, God does not love those who exaggerate." The typical example of this is the story of Moses and the Egyptian, as narrated in the Qur?an (2815-16). To defend an Israelite being beaten by an Egyptian, Moses killed the Egyptian. No doubt, the Israelite was a member of the oppressed people, one of those who were persecuted because of their religion and enslaved, while the Egyptian was one of the oppressors. The event could even have been described as a legitimate form of jihad. The Qur?an, however, does not support this opinion, and condemns Moses? reaction as exaggerated. Moses himself asks forgiveness for his excess.
Means Military jihad must be waged by a regular Muslim army against another army. Terrorist acts against civilian populations are not included in the definition of jihad.
Peaceful solution When a former enemy is ready to stop hostilities and is looking for an opportunity for peace, Muslims must stop fighting and also look for a peaceful solution. The Qur?an (860-61) says "if they incline towards peace, incline thou also towards it, and put thy trust in God."
This traditional understanding of jihad as warfare to defend the weak, using armies, and ready to reach an accord has been replaced by an aggressive, guerrilla-style warfare that rejects anything less than total victory and a total defeat of the one who is perceived as the enemy (whether non-Muslim or non-Islamist Muslim). The Islamist version of jihad includes and legitimizes terrorism against civil targets such as churches, synagogues, and cemeteries and even against old people, women, and babies. Notwithstanding the clear Islamic prohibition on suicide, it also includes suicide operations. A recent fatwa by Mufti Farit Salman, deputy president of the Council of Muftis of the European States of Russia, eloquently condemned such behavior in the aftermath of the sacking of Joseph's Tomb, a Jewish shrine in Nablus
There are many fanatics in the Holy Land who with their intelligence swayed by Satan wrecked the tomb of the Man of Allah, Joseph, peace be upon him; wrecked the tomb of the man whom the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (blessings and peace upon him), met and conversed with in his ascension to the throne of Allah; wrecked the tomb of one of the dear prophets whom the Holy Qur?an disclosed as a model of physical and spiritual splendor and of humility . . . and this occurred during the holy month of Rajab! How could Muslims do such a thing? No! Those who gave hand to destroy a sanctuary of ours are not of us! . . . Woe unto those who desecrate the name of names, who demolish tombs of the prophets, synagogues, churches, mosques! Political actions cannot be painted over by religious motives.16
WahhabismThe origins of modern Islamism trace back to the beginnings of the Wahhabi movement in the early eighteenth century.
Wahhabism was a puritanical uprising based on reinterpreting written Qur?anic law without the enlightened support of expertise embodied in the Qur?an and the Hadiths, known as the Sunna. Wahhabis pay lip service to adherence to the Sunna, but in reality reshape it according to their ideology. Many prophetic sayings which constitute the immediate source of Sunna are rejected by means of captious arguments, as soon as they result in tenets incompatible with Wahhabism.17 When Muhammad ibn ?Abd al-Wahhab (the eponym of Wahhabism) started preaching, the mufti of Medina declared his belief a heresy and formally excommunicated him by issuing a fatwa, the text of which said
This man is leading the ignoramuses of the present age to a heretical path. He is trying to extinguish Allah's light, but Allah will not permit His light to be extinguished, in spite of the opposition of polytheists, and will enlighten every place with the light of the followers of Sunna.18
Sheikh Hisham Kabbani, chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, describes the rise and the development of Wahhabism as follows
The premise of this new, narrow ideology was to reject traditional scholars, scholarship, and practices under the guise of "reviving the true tenets of Islam" and protecting the concept of monotheism. Ibn ?Abd al-Wahhab's brand of "purification" of Islam consisted of prohibiting many traditionally accepted acts of worship, reverence of the person of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the pious saints, and burning books containing traditional prayers, interpretations of law and commentaries on the Qur?an and Hadith.19
Ibn ?Abd al-Wahhab encouraged a new interpretation of Islamic law and permitted his acolytes to apply it in light of their own understanding, regardless of their level of expertise in juridical matters. Whoever did not agree with this revolutionary approach he considered outside of the fold of Islam?an apostate, disbeliever or idolater?and thus someone whose blood could be shed, whose women could be raped, and whose wealth could be confiscated. Ibn ?Abd al-Wahhab?s ideas were debated and refuted by the Sunni scholars of Mecca and Medina but these literalist ideas over time nonetheless spread outside of Najd.The dismantling of the Ottoman Empire after World War I gave the Wahhabis an opportunity to impose their beliefs and their rule on Muslims of the Arabian Peninsula, which they did not lose. Wahhabism took off following the collapse of the Ottoman sultanate in 1924, and went on to disfigure the face of the Islamic world. The Wahhabis first conquered the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, transforming these two sanctuaries from centers for the transmission of the Sunni heritage into places for propagating a primitive and literalist cult to Muslims coming from every part of the world. Second, the Wahhabis set up the Saudi state.
Third, expansionist like other forms of totalitarian ideology, Wahhabism seeks not just to take possession of the whole Muslim world by replacing Sunni Islam with the so-called Salafi school but even to expand its influence beyond it. Dogmatic uniformity has since then begun to suffocate the humane and enlightened Islamic tradition. Since the 1950s the Muslim Brethren (al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun), an organization founded in Egypt in 1929, has been the main instrument for propagating Wahhabi influence internationally. Hasan al-Banna, an elementary school teacher who founder the Brethren, hoped to develop a new ruling class whose ideology would be a form of modernized and Westernized Islam. In line with Wahhabism, Banna described his fight with Muslim opponents as jihad and began plotting against Muslim governments.
After Gamal Abdel Nasser came to power in the mid-1950s, the Saudis needed allies against his secular revolutionary policies. So the Saudi leaders supplied financial support to the Brethren. From then on, the vast majority of Muslim Brethren adopted Wahhabi doctrines. That tradition is maintained these days by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian professor who is now the rector of the Islamic University in Medina, a Wahhabi stronghold, and who recently was banned from entering the United States because of his advocating violence and supporting terrorist organizations.20
Muslim Brethren organizations are connected via a very complicated system of funding. The rich countries of the Persian Gulf not only control the development of the different branches but in some cases even try to create rivalries between local leaders, using those rivalries to prevent branches from acquiring a relative autonomy. This complicated system of international funding, together with the traditional silence that Muslim Brethren have long observed, have made the investigation of its activities extremely hard. Starting in the 1980s, this devotion to absolute secrecy began to lessen somewhat. The Brethren are now disposed to acknowledge their existence in London the Muslim Brethren Information Centre issues press releases and the Californian branch announces on the "Muslim Brotherhood Movement Homepage" website that
Al-Ikhwan has branches in over seventy countries all over the world. The movement is flexible enough to allow working under the Ikhwan name, under other names, or working according to every country's circumstances.
Even so, the old tradition of secrecy is so deeply rooted that this website bearing the title ends with the following "important disclaimer"
The maintainer of this page is not a member of the Al-Ikhwan party and does not approve or agree with everything they say. This page is for the sole purpose of answering the questions you always had and never knew who to ask. This page has no political purpose of any kind and no connection whatsoever to any organization or institution.21
The governments of some Muslim countries, knowing that human and civil rights, democracy, and equality between men and women could represent the end of their power, support Islamism. They work against peace between Israel and its neighbors, fearing that a pacified Middle East could create serious problems for autocratic and feudal systems. Not surprisingly, the Palestinian Hamas is one of the important Muslim Brethren-controlled organizations in the Middle East. Other governments (such as those of Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan), aware of this project to enhance backwardness, are taking measures to limit the Islamist network and control its activities.Radicalism in the West
These problems are not limited to the Muslim world but are now also found in the West. Local branches of the radical organizations that promote terrorism in the Middle East are taking root in Western countries. They represent not more that 10 percent of the total Muslim population in those countries but they control the main Muslim organizations and most of the mosques in western Europe and North America. They are a worldwide, organized network, using acronyms, but always ensuring that the Muslim Brethren is the inner circle behind the scenes. They claim to represent all Muslims and get a respectful reception from non-Muslims, who know no better.
This situation has many causes, but the principal one is that while traditional Islam is multifaceted and spontaneous, Islamism is forwarded by a worldwide network of activists funded by the Saudi and some other Gulf governments. Those looking for ways to prevent Muslim minorities in Europe and North America from turning to Islamism find that the Gulf countries represent the main obstacles. Ironically, then, the structure of the Muslim Brethren is supported, in other words, mainly by those countries that are regarded as friends of the West. Muslim Brethren are often appointed as imams of important mosques, especially in democratic countries where there is no ministry of religious affairs to check their orientation, and where imams with the expected permission to teach (ijaza shar?i) are the exception.
The West is both loved and feared by Islamists. They cannot hope to defeat it militarily so instead they aim to influence it from within. In part, this means that Islamists divide their work between militants and more moderate-sounding types. Militants execrate the U.S. government and call for its destruction, while the more moderate Islamists are honored guests at the White House. With the Soviet bloc history, they dream of making Saudi Arabia prevail over Israel in U.S. foreign policy. This will be achieved by increasing the Saudi lobby activity to convince the American establishment that Saudi Arabia serves not just as a source of key hydrocarbons but also a gate to the Arab market; in contrast, Israel is presented as a strategic and economic liability.
The United States and Italy
The danger is that radical groups could become the official representatives of Muslim immigrants in the West. Let us review the situation in two countries, the United States and Italy.
United States. Sheikh Kabbani, of the Islamic Supreme Council of America and a disciple of Nazim ?Adil al-Qubrusi, declared at the U.S. State Department
We would like to advise our government, our congressmen, that there is something big going on and people do not understand it. You have many mosques around the United States. . . . So the most dangerous things are going on in these mosques that have self-appointed leaders throughout the United States. The extremist ideology makes them very active.
We can say that they took over 80 percent of the mosques in the United States. There are more than 3,000 mosques in the United States. This means that the ideology of extremism has been spread to 80 percent of the Muslim population, mostly the youth and the new generation.22Sheikh Kabbani is trying to show Westerners the reality behind the deceptive fa?ade. The great majority of all mosques in democratic countries? not only in North America, but in most of western Europe as well?are controlled by extremists.23
Looking at two organizations in specific the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Muslim Brethren front organization24 in the United States that lobbies against journalists and scholars who dare to write anything about Islam at variance with the Brethren?s Islamist agenda, such as advocating diversity in Islam.25 Notwithstanding CAIR?s evident connection to Hamas, it is accepted by the U.S. government as a legitimate representative of the Muslim American community. Likewise, the American Muslim Council (AMC) is another branch of the Muslim Brethren. According to Khalid Dur?n, "The AMC's most remarkable feat was to obtain the monopoly on the training of Muslim chaplains for the U.S. Army (which is like Tehran entrusting the training of its Revolutionary Guards to the U.S. Institute of Peace)." Thus, while non-Islamist Islamic organizations like the Association for Islamic Charitable Projects26 are more or less ignored by the U.S. government, Muslim American soldiers receive spiritual assistance from Islamist chaplains.Italy. Two Muslim Brethren-controlled organizations are active the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy (UCOII) and the Union of Muslim Students in Italy (USMI).27 Although their membership does not exceed one hundred persons each, they control some mosques owing to their steady flow of foreign funds.28 In the past few years, two of their leaders, ?Omar Tariq and Abu Ja?far, were expelled by a decree of the minister of the interior, Nicola Mancino, for their presence in Italy was considered "dangerous for national security and public order."29 Abu Ja?far?s lawyer presented in a regional administrative court, a request for the minister of the interior to inform the court about the nature of the supposed danger, and Mancino answered with a press release saying, "The nature of this evaluation by the executive is eminently political, not subject to the administrative jurisdiction for reexamination, and the related decree is for immediate enforcing."30
The Sunni organizations of Italy?such as the Italian Muslim Association, the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community, the Islamic School of Rome and the Alchimia-Islamitalia Forum?are trying to inform European governments about the risks they are facing in this regard, much as Kabbani and Dur?n are doing in the United States. But ours are?for the moment?voices crying in the wilderness.
Countermeasures
The best means to limit the influence of Islamist factions is by supporting the teachings of traditional, moderate Islam. In the Middle East, unfortunately, this role of countering Wahhabism has not been assumed by moderate, Sufi-oriented Sunnis, so it was appropriated by the non-Muslim ?Alawis of Syria, headed by the Asad family. This circumstance has further discouraged the emergence of organized moderate Sunnis. In the former Soviet republics, in contrast, the muftis are starting to understand that Wahhabi infiltrations threaten to change the face of their society; they seem to be willing to join forces in a common project of prevention. The president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, has recently founded a new Islamic University in Tashkent31 which has among its main goals the education of moderate imams specially trained to refute Wahhabism and to promote dialogue between Muslims and other monotheists. In September 2000, the mufti of Russia, Sheikh Ravil Gainutdin, in cooperation with the muftis of Chechnya, Daghestan, Ingushetia, Bashkiria, and Siberia, established in Kazan the first Islamic university in Russia; the goal of this university is also to fight extremist influences coming from abroad.32 This can be understood as a sign that the diffusion of Wahhabism is no longer understood by Sunnis as ineluctable, and that the followers of traditional Islam are starting to realize how such a global menace necessarily calls for a coordinated self-defense.
Non-Muslims also have a role to play. They must overcome their tendency to assume that real Islam is the one propagandized by the Wahhabis and their Islamist network.33 They need to understand that Islamism is a menace not just for Muslims but for all humans. Once they realize these two points, they should increase their dialogue and work with those traditional Muslims who join them in seeing radicalism as a disease, and who have ideas for an appropriate therapy to heal those afflicted by it.
Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi was appointed to teach Shafi?i jurisprudence and Qur'anic exegesis by Sheikh Isma?il al-Azhari and Sheikh Husayn al-Khalwati, and ordained as a community imam by Sheikh Abu Ibrahim al-Badawi. Presently he is secretary-general of the Italian Muslim Association (AMI) and director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community. He lectures in Muslim history at the Research Institute for Anthropological Sciences (IFOSCA) in Rome.http//www.meforum.org/14/the-islamists-have-it-wrong
-
What a moronic sectarian tool. How does this make him any different than an Islamist/Wahabbi? He is supporting his Israel, his own religious 'jewish' homeland which is no different than an Islamist that supports his own 'muslim' homeland. Hilariously he considers Alawis to be 'non-Muslims' and tries to use theories while denying them when it comes down to exposing his Europe. These European 'Muslims' are seriously dumb. Forget that I'm not going to waiste my time reading his entire worthless primitive text. I only read some of it which was truly a waiste of time. He is no different than a Wahabbi(And any other Islamist) that is the conclusion I can come to.
After Gamal Abdel Nasser came to power in the mid-1950s, the Saudis needed allies against his secular revolutionary policies. So the Saudi leaders supplied financial support to the Brethren. From then on, the vast majority of Muslim Brethren adopted Wahhabi doctrines. That tradition is maintained these days by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian professor who is now the rector of the Islamic University in Medina, a Wahhabi stronghold, and who recently was banned from entering the United States because of his advocating violence and supporting terrorist organizations.20
Gamal Abdel Nasser was both an enemy to Wahabbis and Israel hence his war with Israel and Saudi-Arabia. If Nasser was to see this silly sheikh infront of him he would throw his Egyptian made shoe at him. If anything this sheikh and the Islamists(especially Wahabbis)/Israelies have an enemy in common and that is people like Nasser.
-
Yes, great, from the frying pan into the fire.
There are great and sincere sufies, but there are some that parade as such and come out with really fancy stuff. You know, if you are peaceful and a good kid, israelis are nice, just you have to be a good kid and snakes will not bite you nor anything will happen to you and palestinians are unhappy because they choose to. If they were nice and good as the sufis all would be prime.
Licking the rears of the powerful keeps you out of problems. Nice spirituality.
Salaam
I
-
Say no to Sheikh Abdul Hadi Al-Hmar's intrepretation of Islam and say no to Wahabbis/Islamists intrepretation of Islam. Pro-Israeli Muslims and Islamists are the same garbage. They shouldn't be welcomed in Islam. One big disadvantage of the fact that Islam has a lot of followers is that it has a lot of morons as well. With a large amount of followers will come with a large amount of primitive idiots too. Islam would have been a much better religion if it didin't have a lot of followers especially from South-Asia and Europe. You have morons like Anjem Choudary and you have morons like this 'sheikh'.
That's the sad part about Islam. Anybody can call themselves a Muslim. Anybody can 'convert' to Islam and then give the religion cancer. This 'sheikh' should do Islam a favor and leave the religion already as should any other Islamist.
-
That is the toruble of any religion howeve rsublime and of every ideals however lofty and pure. You cannot keep people out of them if they see an advantage for their not at all lofty ideas and their not at all sublime pasions. It is like water. You cannot prevent that all creatures and even non sentient beings suck it. That is the part of revelation and that we could realise even without revelation, that the world is a place where we try ourselves, where we grow with difficulties, suffering and pain but where we also can become purer and more lofty and more enduring and grateful. It is an aprenticeship. Existence is like that. Never stays put.
And, by the way, comes to mind the saying of Proudh'onproperty is theft, because the way some muslims, particularly of muslim extraction and those who close renge with them in order to be forgiven for not being of muslim extraction, those have vicious idea that they are the legitimate owners of Islam the religion. You have no right to have an opinion on anything of it, because you are tresspassing on their property. I think they feel great in that part and do not want it to be shared by those they with whom the can be overbearing because of the asset, that is, Islam ownership.
I said some muslims or so called muslims, not by any length all of them, because there are also plenty of them that are fed up, fed up, fed up with that kind of thing. Pity that they don't get so much attention as the others.
Salaam
-
What Palazi is doing is seeing the wahabis as his main enemies and is willing to side with anyone against them. This is common in human nature. Quranist in Egypt are cheering while Sissi is sending Muslim Brotherhood members to jail and death row. The quran reminds us to be just and fair even with those who wronged us. But that is very hard to do.
-
That is the question. Israel and the supermuslims are the two prongs of the clamp. They are oppositesm, they natural allies in fact the supermuslims have been created to play such a part in the imperial comedy.
For Gods sakes Israel and that crowd are useful to each other and poison for any decent person of whatever persuasion.
And to play the sufy being kind to zionnism is spitting on true spiritual sufism.
Where do they think they are getting playing that comedy?
Salaam
-
Quranist in Egypt are cheering while Sissi is sending Muslim Brotherhood members to jail and death row. The quran reminds us to be just and fair even with those who wronged us. But that is very hard to do.
The Qur'anist in Egypt care more about Egypt than they will ever do about Islam (especially Qur'anism). These Qur'anists would even support their homeland against Israel anyday. I know for sure that Egyptians are very nationalistic. The only Muslim morons that support Israel are those who live outside the Arab countries. This moronic sheikh is an example. Most of these Muslims are South-Asian asshats and not Arabs because most Arabs would never support Israel.
What Palazi is doing is seeing the wahabis as his main enemies and is willing to side with anyone against them. This is common in human nature.
Only if you are desperate. It is like siding with Stalin to fight Hitler (two European DICKtators) or vice versa. Palazi is no different than a Wahabbi except that he is trying to pretend being 'moderate' just like a large amount of European 'Muslims' (Especially those who are European nationals).
It is time for Palazi and any other Islamist to screw off from the Arab world. While Palazi lives in Europe he probaly visits Egypt but that is about to change. Sheikhs need to be removed from every Arab country as they contribute nothing of value infact what they do is destroy. Palazi is probaly one of those 'Muslim' morons that consider the Arab countries to be Muslim countries. Well all I can tell this moron is that he is wrong. If he is from Egypt then I hope that Egypt removes his citizenship and leaves him in Europe to rot. Let him spread his 'moderate' Islam there.
I'm a secular Arab Muslim and I fully support in removing sheikhs especially morons like Palazzi from the Arab countries. I welcome the removal of Islam from politics as well as removing all the funds being spent on South-Asia, Europe and Islam. The faster we do that the better. Let these sheikhs cry as if anybody cares.
-
Palazzi explains why he supports Israel
"Palazzi accepts Israel's sovereignty over the Holy Land, and says the Qur'an supports it as the will of God as a necessary prerequisite for the Final Judgment. He accepts Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, if the rights of other religions are protected. He quotes the Qur'an to support Judaism's special connection to the Temple Mount. According to Palazzi, "The most authoritative Islamic sources affirm the Temples,". He adds that Jerusalem is sacred to Muslims because of its prior holiness to Jews and its standing as home to the biblical prophets and kings David and Solomon, all of whom he says are sacred figures also in Islam. He claims that the Qur'an "expressly recognizes that Jerusalem plays the same role for Jews that Mecca has for Muslims".
When asked whether he see himself as a "Muslim Zionist", he replied "If one means a Muslim who supports the right of the Jewish people to have their own independent and sovereign State, who is solidly behind the State of Israel when it is attacked by terror and when its existence in menaced, who thinks that developing friendly relations between the Muslim nations and the State of Israel is in the interest of the Muslims and of human civilization in general, then I think that the label of Muslim Zionist is appropriate.
When asked what the Qur'an says about the State of Israel, Palazzi replied
"The Qur'an cannot deal with the State of Israel as we know it today, since that State came into existing in 1948 only, i.e., many centuries after the Qur'an itself was revealed. However, the Qur'an specifies that the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, that God Himself gave that Land to them as heritage and ordered them to live therein. It also announces that?before the end of the time?the Jewish people will come from many different countries to retake possession of that heritage of theirs. Whoever denies this actually denies the Qur'an itself. If he is not a scholar, and in good faith believes what other people say about this issue, he is an ignorant Muslim. If, on the contrary, he is informed about what the Qur'an says and openly opposes it, he ceases to be a Muslim.
According to scholar Dina Lisnyansky, Palazzi ?created his own niche. Being born into an immigrant family, he combined the democratic rights of western Europe with a love for Islam,? but added his Zionist mission. As a result, ?he is a radical too, but not on the radicals? side. He is fighting everything that political Islam promotes.? She explains, ?One of the reasons why he is not on some blacklist in Iran is the fact that he, unlike Rushdie, has never said a negative word about Islam. To extremist interpreters of the Qur?an he doesn?t say ?you are wrong.? He would only say ?You got something wrong.? His mission, therefore, is clearly not about reinventing Islam; it is about correcting the perspective.?"
It clearly shows that he knows absolutely nothing about the Qur'an. Either he is too retarded to distinguish Israelites from Jews or he does not know the Qur'an at all. To debunk this moronic sheikh and every religious nutjob The Qur'an does not say that Israel belongs to the Jews. Nor does the Qur'an support a Jewish homeland. It supports an Israelite homeland (God mentions hundred times 'Children of Israel' i.e the Israelites). I have not read the entire Qur'an and yet I know the Qur'an better than this moronic sheikh. And of course what he does is to sugarcoat Israels history with democracy just like every Western tool. The only conclusion I can draw is that he is one of those Muslims that calls the West a good example of Islam despite the attrocities of the West. Oh well atleast the Qur'an contradicts his moronic arguments. Regardless of what the Qur'an says nobody cares anyway. Whether the Qur'an or the Bible says that God has given the Jews or the Israelites a homeland is irrelevant. That does not justify the existance of Israel. Religion will always be inferior to science. You can use the Qur'an or the Bible all day to argue that Jews own the land however science disagrees. Science shows that Palestinians descent from ancient civilizations in the levant while it points out many Jews being of European descent through DNA. That is just an example of how science knocksout religion. All the reasons to stop billions of dollars flowing to Islam in the Arab world. Those funds could have been invested on science, education and health instead.
And Mecca does NOT belong to Muslims. It belongs to Saudi-Arabia and once the garbage Saudi regime (that has turned Saudi-Arabia into a 'Muslim country' AKA Hell) is gone there will be less 'Muslim countries' to talk about as Islam will be completely removed from politics. It will serve as a middle-finger to all sheikhs especially to this one and to every other 'Muslim' that considers Saudi-Arabia to be a Muslim country. Cheers.
-
Really if the man is by one way or another in the payroll of zionnism, onemight understand it, but that he should do that despicable slander of Palestine and palestinians for free tht shows a merciless, cruel, false man lead by hate or any such low passion to go against the defenceless and the wronged.
A very sick mand indeed posing as a lamb or a dove, as they call it.
Despicable and disgusting.
And, of course, there goes again de real state god that seems to be the real god for some people. However amongst the names naed in the Qur'an there is no name for God that is called realtor. What evil can invent!
Salaam
Salaam