Fitzgerald: breve resumo da expulsão dos judeus e dos mouros de Espanha

Breve e magnífico. Hugh Fitzgerald propõe-se contrariar uma ideia que alguns apologistas do islão pretendem difundir: que os mouros e os judeus foram expulsos de Espanha em 1492. Nesse processo, redigiu um brilhante resumo da história da expulsão de uns e de outros - bem distintas nas suas cronologias, nos processos, nas causas -, referindo ainda uma série de aspectos da actuação dos muçulmanos não apenas na Península, mas em toda a Europa, mormente no Mediterrâneo. Excelente como introdução à funesta história do islão na Europa Ocidental.

«(...) [What] happened in 1492 in Spain was the expulsion of the Jews, who were given only a short time to end their presence (a presence that went back to long before the time of the Visigoths), and to leave Spain forever. They were expelled not because they had once ruled over Spain and remained a potential threat, but in the main because they could be expelled, and because the fanaticism of the Inquisition had transformed anti-Judaism into racial antisemitism, perhaps because the Christians of Spain had become more ferocious during the Reconquista. The influence of fighting the Reconquista might also explain the particular ferocity of Spanish treatment of the indigenous inhabitants of the New World by some - not all - of the conquistadores and their men. The Leyenda Negra, consisting of an uninterrupted narrative of Spanish atrocities, has been subject to withering criticism by historians. But the Moors were not expelled in 1492 along with the Jews.

With the conquest of Granada, the Spanish rulers Ferdinand and Isabella now had within their dominion large numbers of Muslims, unwilling to be forcibly converted, and still a potential source of trouble, unsettlement, and revolt. The wisest policy would be to take that into account, rid Catholic Spain of the other alien element - as the Reyes Catolicos saw it -- that was understood to be too weak to resist, that is, the Jews, simply because they could be expelled without trouble, and because that might serve as a warning to the Muslims as to what might happen if they didn't behave.

As to the Moors, the Catholic kings would bide their time. In the terms of the Capitulation and treaties, the Muslims of Granada were permitted to continue to practice their religion. But in 1499, Cardinal Ximenes (he of the celebrated Complutensian Polyglot), insisted that the Muslims should not be allowed to remain, as practicing Muslims, in Spain. They began to leave, not all at once, and not overnight. And many stayed, stayed and practiced Islam openly (where the Spanish government's writ did not completely run) or covertly, as secret Muslims. They were not reconciled to their defeat, and they harbored -- how could they not, given what Islam taught? - revanchist dreams. It was only in 1568, however, under Philip II, that the Muslims of Spain, the so-called "Moros," were given the command to leave. And even then many stayed, and it was not until the reign of Philip III, in 1609, after a century of intermittent troubles and uprisings, that the definitive expulsion of the Moors took place.

Why does any of this matter? Why make a big deal of this, given that in the end both the Jews and the Moors were expelled? Why worry about that phrase "the Jews and the Moors were expelled in 1492"? Well, because it is indeed used by Muslim propagandists, and also by those in the West who want so eagerly to believe that Muslims have been the victims of Europe, of European "colonialism" and European "racism." And in that false narrative, the phrase "the Spanish expelled the Jews and the Moors in 1492" is valuable. Those who use such a phrase, and efface the difference between the two groups, allow themselves, and those who listen to them, to ignore the fact that the Jews had been inoffensive, had contributed greatly to Spanish culture and development, had never ruled over the Christians, not in Spain and not anywhere else, and had no designs to do so, whereas the Muslim armies had arrived in the eighth century, and had conquered almost all of the Iberian Peninsula save a strip in the far north. Some - Maria Rosa Menocal being only the latest - have sung the praises of a "convivencia" of whose existence they are convinced and make much of, but apparently the people who lived through that "conviviencia" were not quite so convinced. For Maimonides wrote, in his famous Epistle to the Yemen, to other Jews telling them that the treatment of Jews by Muslims in Spain was horrifying, and as for the Christians of Spain, apparently they did not agree that "convivencia" really existed either, because they spent half-a-millennium trying to push out the Muslim (Arab and Berber) invaders.

The Jews were expelled in 1492 not because they were constituted a real threat, but because they were largely helpless. The Muslims were expelled only over time, because time after time they were given chances to prove that they would not harbor revanchist plans of re-conquest of what they had lost, and over the next century, they proved that they could not be trusted.

And now, more than 500 years later, we have Muslim propagandists telling us that "Muslims are the new Jews." They want us not to find out that for many centuries, right up until the 18th century, Muslims raided up and down the coasts of Western Europe, seizing property, killing many, kidnapping others - men, women and children - and bringing them back to Muslim lands where they were enslaved. They went as far as Ireland, and even once to Iceland. The people of the coasts of Europe were well aware, for centuries, of the Muslim threat from the south. And when Europeans became military more powerful, so they could defend those coasts, the Muslims continued to attack Christian shipping in the Mediterranean, seizing cargoes and ships, and kidnapping Christian seamen and enslaving them. Only the reaction of the Americans against the Barbary Pirates, and then the final exasperated seizure of Algeria by the French in 1830, put an end to those attacks. And in Eastern Europe, too, and in the Caucasus, other Muslims enslaved south Slavs - took them as slaves - and raided, too, especially for Christian women who were brought back for harems from Georgia and Circassia.

Yet we are not to understand that the Jihad never let up, that is, never let up until the Western world managed to become militarily stronger and fight back successfully. There was not, then, any foolish because vain attempt to win Muslim hearts and minds. It was understood by everyone who had anything to do with the matter - John Quincy Adams, as a diplomat, or General Gorchakov, as a military man - that Muslim mendacity and duplicity and enmity toward the Infidels was permanent and only other measures would succeed in protecting the non-Muslims from Muslim depredations. Of course no one in his right mind, for the past 1400 years, in the Western world, would ever have contemplated allowing Muslims to settle deep within their own, non-Muslim, midst - that is, no one until the last few decades, when in a collective act of criminal negligence, the political and media elites of the Western world, forgetting all of their own history, allowed exactly that settlement deep within by Muslims, that is, by those who regarded their Infidel lands as a still-to-be-conquered Dar al-Harb. Part of the criminal negligence was based on extraordinary forgetfulness about their own history. And part of that forgetfulness is expressed in that phrase that is so misleading, the one with which I started this little essay, about how in 1492, "the Jews and the Moors" were expelled from Spain. (...)»

Commander in Chief

Uma cronologia da actuação da administração Obama, e do próprio, ao atentado falhado do dia de Natal:

Keep America Safe: "100 Hours" from Keep America Safe on Vimeo.

Via Hot Air.

Aliança natural - IV

Este postal poderia ter vários títulos, já que se podem estabelecer inúmeras ligações a partir da notícia que lhe dá origem. Um município espanhol fez editar o seu calendário oficial. O calendário tem a particularidade de omitir algumas importantes festas cristãs e de mencionar as festas islâmicas. Como refere a Angry Infidel, em cujo blogue descobri a novidade, o presidente do município é socialista, o que remete imediatamente para a aliança vermelho-verde, naturalmente existente entre os que querem destruir a civilização judaico-cristã. Eurábia e Al-Andalus também vêm à mente: não esquecer que os muçulmanos conquistaram a Península Ibéria em 711 em aliança com cristãos visigodos que pretendiam destronar os líderes políticos e tirar a mitra aos religiosos. Ver Aliança Natural, Aliança Natural - II, Aliança Natural - III e Misoginia Islâmica. A propósito: livro de Jamie Glazov sobre a Aliança Vermelho-Verde.

Eurábia: antevisão (6)

Através da leitura da notícia infra, publicada pelo Daily Mail Online, podemos tomar o pulso à eurabização do Reino Unido - concretamente de um dos pilares do Estado, os Tribunais -, através do reconhecimento de direitos especiais aos muçulmanos suficientemente convictos para afrontar as normas do país que habitam. Se não, vejamos:

• Os acusados recusaram levantar-se à entrada da juíza; perante isto, foi-lhes autorizado que entrassem depois dela. A sua justificação para a recusa em proceder de acordo com a prática corrente nos tribunais ingleses foi de natureza religiosa.

• Aos réus foi aumentada a duração do intervalo para almoço, de modo a permitir-lhes ir à mesquita para a oração da tarde.

• Para além disso, foi-lhes facultada uma sala tranquila para poderem fazer pausas de oração durante as sessões do julgamento.

Atente-se à alegação apresentada pelo advogado dos réus, nos dois últimos parágrafos da notícia, segundo a qual num país muçulmano é um pecado grave mostrar respeito pondo-se de pé a alguém, senão ao próprio Alá. Ou seja, os réus reclamam o direito de agir como se estivessem num país muçulmano e esse direito é-lhes concedido. O Reino Unido, de acordo com a actuação da senhora juíza Carolyn Mellanby, é um país muçulmano de facto, mesmo que ainda só parcialmente de jure. Este caso põe-nos novamente perante um problema grave para a nossa sociedade, nomeadamente a questão de definir quais os limites que uma sociedade ocidental deve impor a procedimentos realizados alegadamente na observância dos ditames de uma religião. Estaremos dispostos, por exemplo, a permitir a poligamia ou os casamentos de menores? E a permitir que uma viúva se imole sobre a pira funerária do seu defunto marido? A democracia é um regime frágil. A liberdade religiosa, se for aplicada de forma perversa, pode tornar-se um instrumento anti-democrático.

«Seven Muslim protesters accused of screaming insults at soldiers during an Iraq homecoming parade refused to stand for a judge yesterday. (...) After refusing to stand they were threatened with being found in contempt of court by a clearly angry District Judge Carolyn Mellanby. They insisted it was a 'grave and cardinal sin' to show anyone other than Allah respect by standing. Eventually, a compromise was reached where they would enter the court after her during the trial (...). The defendants were given an extra 20 minutes on top of their lunch break to go to pray at a mosque a few minutes' walk away. A separate 'quiet' room has been set aside for their regular prayer intervals for the rest of the week. The seven accused men are Munin Abdul, 28, Jalal Ahmed, 21, Jabair Ahmed, 19, Yousaf Bashir, 29, Shajjadar Choudhury, 31, Ziaur Rahman, 32, and white Muslim Ibrahim Anderson, 32, all from Luton. (...) Despite the nature of the allegations against them the seven men did not appear in the dock because they are not charged with an imprisonable offence and are not in custody. When they refused to stand, Judge Mellanby said: 'It is procedure that all people stand when I come into court. I am asking them to defer to conventional practices in respect to the court. I'm not asking them to stand for me.' Neil Mercer, defending Abdul and Rahman, said: 'In Muslim countries it is a grave and cardinal sin to show respect in this way to anyone other than God himself. Their reasons would be the same if it was the Queen, with respect.' He added: 'It is an important religious observance which, if they break, they find themselves in mortal sin. They cannot make a show of respect to a human being, whoever that human being is, whether it is the Queen or the Lord Chief Justice or an imam.'»

Justiça poética V

Segundo a CNN, a explosão prematura e acidental de um autocarro armadilhado com explosivos matou os seus quatorze ocupantes, alegadamente responsáveis pela instalação de tão perigosa carga no veículo que se preparavam para detonar contra a polícia afegã ou contra tropas estrangeiras. Via Jihad Watch.

Menos blogues e mais livros (3): O Homem Eterno

O Homem Eterno (The Everlasting Man), de G. K. Chesterton, Alêtheia Editores, Lisboa, 2009. Excelente a tradução de Maria José Figueiredo. A leitura, nem sempre fácil de Chesterton, torna-se um deleite. Colo da Segunda Parte, Sobre o Homem Chamado Cristo, um excerto do Capítulo 5, A Fuga do Paganismo, para aguçar o apetite dos leitores:

«(...) There will be no end to the weary debates about liberalising theology, until people face the fact that the only liberal part of it is really the dogmatic part. If dogma is incredible, it is because it is incredibly liberal. If it is irrational, it can only be in giving us more assurance of freedom than is justified by reason. The obvious example is that essential form of freedom which we call free-will. It is absurd to say that a man shows his liberality in denying his liberty. But it is tenable that he has to affirm a transcendental doctrine in order to affirm his liberty. There is a sense in which we might reasonably say that if man has a primary power of choice, he has in that fact a super-natural power of creation, as if he could raise the dead or give birth to the unbegotten. Possibly in that case a man must be a miracle; and certainly in that case he must be a miracle in order to be a man; and most certainly in order to be a free man. But it is absurd to forbid him to be a free man and do it in the name of a more free religion. But it is true in twenty other matters. Anybody who believes at all in God must believe in the absolute supremacy of God. But in so far as that supremacy does allow of any degrees that can be called liberal or illiberal, it is self-evident that the illiberal power is the deity of the rationalists and the liberal power is the deity of the dogmatists. Exactly in proportion as you turn monotheism into monism you turn it into despotism. It is precisely the unknown God of the scientist, with his impenetrable purpose and his inevitable and unalterable law, that reminds us of a Prussian autocrat making rigid plans in a remote tent and moving mankind like machinery. It is precisely the God of miracles and of answered prayers who reminds us of a liberal and popular prince, receiving petitions, listening to parliaments and considering the cases of a whole people. I am not now arguing the rationality of this conception in other respects; as a matter of fact it is not, as some suppose, irrational; for there is nothing irrational in the wisest and most well-informed king acting differently according to the action of those he wishes to save. But I am here only noting the general nature of liberality, or of free or enlarged atmosphere of action. And in this respect it is certain that the king can only be what we call magnanimous if he is what some call capricious. It is the Catholic, who has the feeling that his prayers do make a difference, when offered for the living and the dead, who also has the feeling of living like a free citizen in something almost like a constitutional commonwealth. It is the monist who lives under a single iron law who must have the feeling of living like a slave under a sultan. Indeed I believe that the original use of the word suffragium, which we now use in politics for a vote, was that employed in theology about a prayer. The dead in Purgatory were said to have the suffrages of the living. And in this sense, of a sort of right of petition to the supreme ruler, we may truly say that the whole of the Communion of Saints, as well as the whole of the Church Militant, is founded on universal suffrage. But above all, it is true of the most tremendous issue; of that tragedy which has created the divine comedy of our creed. Nothing short of the extreme and strong and startling doctrine of the divinity of Christ will give that particular effect that can truly stir the popular sense like a trumpet; the idea of the king himself serving in the ranks like a common soldier. By making that figure merely human we make that story much less human. We take away the point of the story which actually pierces humanity; the point of the story which was quite literally the point of a spear. It does not especially humanise the universe to say that good and wise men can die for their opinions; any more than it would be any sort of uproariously popular news in an army that good soldiers may easily get killed. It is no news that King Leonidas is dead any more than that Queen Anne is dead; and men did not wait for Christianity to be men, in the full sense of being heroes. But if we are describing, for the moment, the atmosphere of what is generous and popular and even picturesque, any knowledge of human nature will tell us that no sufferings of the sons of men, or even of the servants of God, strike the same note as the notion of the master suffering instead of his servants. And this is given by the theological and emphatically not by the scientific deity. No mysterious monarch, hidden in his starry pavilion at the base of the cosmic campaign, is in the least like that celestial chivalry of the Captain who carries his five wounds in the front of battle. What the denouncer of dogma really means is not that dogma is bad; but rather that dogma is too good to be true. That is, he means that dogma is too liberal to be likely. Dogma gives man too much freedom when it permits him to fall. Dogma gives even God too much freedom when it permits him to die. That is what the intelligent sceptics ought to say; and it is not in the least my intention to deny that there is something to be said for it. They mean that the universe is itself a universal prison; that existence itself is a limitation and a control; and it is not for nothing that they call causation a chain. In a word, they mean quite simply that they cannot believe these things; not in the least that they are unworthy of belief. We say not lightly but very literally, that the truth has made us free. They say that it makes us so free that it cannot be the truth. To them it is like believing in fairyland to believe in such freedom as we enjoy. It is like believing in men with wings to entertain the fancy of men with wills. It is like accepting a fable about a squirrel in conversation with a mountain to believe in a man who is free to ask or a God who is free to answer.This is a manly and a rational negation for which I for one shall always show respect. But I decline to show any respectfor those who first of all clip the wings and cage the squirrel,rivet the chains and refuse the freedom, close all the doors of the cosmic prison on us with a clang of eternal iron, tell us that our emancipation is a dream and our dungeon a necessity; and then calmly turn round and tell us they have a freer thought and a more liberal theology. (...)»

Blogando o Corão: surata 2, "A Vaca", versículos 1-39 (excerto)

«Blogando o Corão: surata 2, "A Vaca", versículos 1-39 A surata 2, Al-Bácara (A Vaca), à semelhança da maioria dos capítulos do Corão, recebe o seu título de algo nele relatado - neste caso, o episódio no qual Moisés transmite aos israelitas o mandamento de Alá, ordenando o sacrifício de uma vaca (2:67-73). É a surata mais longa do Corão - 286 versículos - e dá início à disposição geral (mas não absoluta) de apresentar as suratas da mais longa para a mais breve, com excepção de Al-Fátiha, a qual merece a sua posição de destaque como primeira surata devido à sua centralidade no islão. A surata Al-Bácara, "A Vaca", foi revelada a Mafoma em Medina - isto é, no decurso da segunda parte da sua carreira profética, a qual teve início em Meca no ano 610. Em 622, Mafoma e a incipiente comunidade muçulmana deslocaram-se para Medina, onde, pela primeira vez, Mafoma se tornou líder político e militar. Os teólogos muçulmanos consideram, de um modo geral, as suratas de Medina como tendo precedência sobre as de Meca sempre que surja alguma discordância, de acordo com o versículo 106 deste capítulo do Corão, no qual Alá fala da revogação de alguns versículos e da sua substituição por outros melhores. (Esta interpretação do versículo 106 não é, contudo, unânime, sustentando alguns intérpretes que o versículo não se refere à revogação de parte alguma do Corão, mas sim às escrituras judaicas e cristãs. Voltaremos a esta questão oportunamente.)»

Leia todo o capítulo em O Corão Comentado. Leia o texto original em inglês em Jihad Watch.

Tentativa falhada de homicídio de Westergard (2)

Por Thomas Landen, no Hudson New York, um bom resumo dos detalhes da tentativa de homicídio na pessoa de Kurt Westergard e uma pertinente reflexão sobre várias questões a respeito do caso. Um artigo a ler na íntegra do qual destaco algumas passagens:

«(...) A 28-year old Somali man, armed with an axe, smashed his way through the glass door into the bungalow of the 74-year old cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, in a middle-class suburb of the Danish town of Aarhus. The door, made of reinforced bullet-proof glass, eventually gave way, but Mr. Westergaard, who uses a walking-stick, had time to get to the bedroom of his 5-year old granddaughter, wake her up and lock themselves up in his bathroom. (...) Five years ago, Muslim clerics placed a price of 1 million dollars on Kurt Westergaard’s head because he had drawn a cartoon depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammed with a bomb tucked inside his turban. This cartoon, Mr. Westergaard said, “was an attempt to expose those fanatics who have justified a great number of bombings, murders and other atrocities with references to the sayings of their prophet. If many Muslims thought that their religion did not condone such acts, they might have stood up and declared that the men of violence had misrepresented the true meaning of Islam. Very few of them did so.” Very few of them do so today.

The Westergaard bathroom had been converted into a panic room. It has a steel door and is equipped with an emergency button directly linking it to the police. It took the officers three minutes to arrive. Meanwhile, the Somali was smashing at the steel door with his axe, shouting “Blood” and “Revenge” as he tried to work his way in: “Heeere’s Muhammed!”

When the police arrived, the Somali attacked an officer with his axe before he was shot in the knee and shoulder by other officers. Mr. Westergaard and his granddaughter escaped unharmed, though the horror they have been through is beyond description. The incident is reminiscent of another real-life horror scene, which unfolded six years ago in broad daylight in an Amsterdam street, when a young Moroccan, named Mohammed Bouyeri, ritually slaughtered the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh. He slit van Gogh’s throat because the latter had made a documentary movie about the place of women in traditional Muslim societies.

Kurt Westergaard was lucky that Friday’s attack occurred relatively early in the night, around 10 pm, when he was still sitting in his living room and immediately saw what was happening. He was lucky to have reinforced bullet-proof glass, which gave him time to drag his grandchild from her bed and flee with her into the bathroom. He was lucky to have a panic room. If the attack had happened in the middle of the night, when Westergaard was asleep, he might not have had the same alertness and might not have reacted as quickly. He, his granddaughter, or both, might have been hacked to pieces. Five years ago, when the death threats against the cartoonist started, the Danish authorities converted the Westergaard bungalow into a fortress. They replaced all the windows with bullet-proof glass, transformed the family bathroom into a panic room, and installed surveillance cameras around the house. These measures saved Mr. Westergaard, but only barely so. The Westergaard family will need even better protection in future. (...) Two years ago, Westergaard’s wife was fired from the kindergarten where she used to work. She was sacked because several parents expressed concern for the safety of their children. It is not hard to understand the worries of the parents of the children Mrs. Westergaard cared for. These parents were afraid that one morning some axe-wielding barbarians would show up at the door, screaming “Heeere’s Muhammed!” Their concern is reasonable, because everyone knows what they are capable of. Nevertheless, instead of kicking out Mrs. Westergaard, as the kindergarten did at the request of the worried parents, the parents should ask themselves whether the time has come to kick out the barbarians within the gates. (...) It is time for the West to open its eyes to “the true faith of Islam.” As long as the West fails to do so, it will not be able to withstand those who are hacking their way to the heart of our civilization. It is not unreasonable, intolerant of “Islamophobic” of ordinary citizens not to want to harbor axe-wielding, throat-slicing fanatics in their own neighborhoods. Heeere’s the law, Muhammed! You cannot live here and impose your barbarian way of life on us.»

Parecem confirmar-se os rumores que ligavam o homicida a um atentado falhado contra Hilary Clinton e que o indivíduo, embora já referenciado como potencialmente perigoso pelas autoridades dinamarquesas, circulava livremente e dispunha de uma autorização de residência:

«(...) The would-be assassin of Kurt Westergaard had been living in Denmark since he was 16. The man had a Danish residence permit, despite being a member of a terrorist organization. The Danish authorities knew him to be a member of al-Shabaab, the Somali branch of al-Qaeda. Five months ago, this same fanatic had been arrested and imprisoned for seven weeks in Kenya on suspicion of involvement in a plot to murder U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton by blowing up the hotel where she was staying.

On Saturday, the Danish Minister of Integration, Birth Rønn Hornbech, announced that Denmark had learned its lesson and that it would make it harder for foreigners to get a residence permit if they refuse to integrate. Why do Western authorities not refuse entry to every Muslim who does not sign a binding obligation to live under our laws rather than those of Islam? If Muslims, including “moderate” ones, do not want to do so, there are 56 states worldwide belonging to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, where they can either stay or return to.

The Danish authorities allowed him to return. They say that they did not have the means to follow him around all the time, given that, although he was known to be dangerous, he had not committed any actual crimes yet. But they should not have allowed him in. Dangerous Somalis have a place of their own. It is called dangerous Somalia. Denmark is the home of people like Kurt Westergaard, his wife, his granddaughter, and other Danes. (...)»

Os últimos dias foram marcados pelo falhanço de dois actos jihadistas de relevo - o atentado com explosivos escondidos nas cuecas (do já conhecido como Bombista Eunuco, visto que os seus genitais terão ficado algo danificaos) e esta tentativa de homicídio sobre Westergard - e um bem sucedido - o atentado que matou diversos agentes da CIA no Afeganistão, perpetrado por um informador afegão com ligações a Al-Qaeda. Quantos mais terão de morrer para que os países ocidentais caiam na conta de que não podem continuar de olhos fechados e de braços cruzados? Uma última questão: como foi possível não ter sido notícia a tentativa falhada para matar H. Clinton? Por que razão só agora se fala nisto e de passagem, como se não fosse uma matéria de alto relevo?

Eufemismo de um eufemismo

De Roger L. Simon no Pajamas Media, sobre a absoluta necessidade de "chamar os bois pelos nomes":

«(...) “Man-caused disasters” is actually a euphemism of a euphemism, because the “War on Terror” itself has no real meaning. Terror is a method, not an end or a place. Fighting a “War on Terror” is like fighting a War on Cannons or Airplanes. Meaningless.

But we all know that the “War on Terror” is actually a euphemism for the “War on Radical Islam.” But nobody says it. Nobody official anyway. (Bush did say something like that once in a speech, as I recall, but was quickly shouted down by the nabobs of political correctness.) (...)»

Minaretes no Al-Andalus

Resolvi fazer este postal para dar destaque a uma passagem de um texto para cuja divulgação fiz um postal há pouco tempo - dado que o texto é extenso e a passagem podia passar despercebida - e para estabelecer uma ligação entre três temas por aqui abordados recentemente: os minaretes - como símbolo de domínio religioso e/ou civil do islão -, a idealização do Al-Andalus e a intenção expressa de vários grupos muçulmanos de reconquistar a Península Ibérica - território reclamado pelo islão, de acordo com a doutrina islâmica segundo a qual um território que tenha estado sob o domínio muçulmano pertence ao islão eternamente e é dever dos muçulmanos piedosos reconquistá-lo -; e a predilecção do islão pela prática da decapitação. Eis então a citação:

«(...) Yusuf b. Tashfin (d. 1106) led the Al-Murabit (Almoravid) Empire to conquer from western Sahara to central Spain. After the battle of Zallaqa in 1086, he had 24,000 corpses of the defeated Castilians beheaded "and piled them up to make a sort of minaret for the muezzins who, standing on the piles of headless cadavers, sang the praises of Allah." [22] He then had the detached heads sent to all the major cities of North Africa and Spain as an example of Christian impotence. The Al-Murabits were conquered the following century by the Al-Muwahhids (Almohads), under whose rule Castilian Christian enemies were beheaded after any lost battles. (...)»

Fica magnificamente demonstrado, num parágrafo, que três mitos à volta do islão - religião de paz, minaretes como simples objectos arquitectónicos e o Al-Andalus como espaço de sã convivência entre cristãos e muçulmanos e de elevação civilizacional da responsabilidade destes - não passam de isso mesmo.

Mais uma do Sr. Choudary

Via Vlad Tepes, vejo um video extraído de uma reportagem da CNN sobre a Quinta Coluna muçulmana no Reino Unido, onde pontifica o já nosso conhecido Sr. Choudary (de quem divulguei um video que, infelizmente, foi retirado). Merece a maior atenção a advertência de que a sharia será, de modo pacífico ou não, implementada no Reino Unido, no segmento que começa ao minuto 2:21.

Tentativa falhada de homicídio de Westergard

Kurt Westergard, autor da famosa gravura supra, foi alvo de uma tentativa de homicídio a noite passada. Ao que parece, um grupo de três homens armados tentou entrar na casa de Westergard; o caricaturista conseguiu refugiar-se numa das assoalhadas e activar um sistema de alarme posto à sua disposição desde que foi ameaçado de morte. Um dos atacantes, armado com um machado e uma faca, terá sido atingido pela polícia e detido (para que seria o machado?). A acção já foi saudada pelos jihadistas somalis com esta declaração:

«It is a general obligation for all Muslims to defend their religion and the prophet. He really did what was to be done by any other Muslim.»

As demonstrações da incompatibilidade do islão com os valores das sociedades ocidentais, nomeadamente a liberdade de expressão, multiplicam-se. Ver entrevista com Westergard. Via Jihad Watch e Tundra Tabloids. Entretanto, alguns órgãos informativos dinamarqueses reagem a mais este acto intimidatório republicando a gravura supra e outras originalmente publicadas na crise dinamarquesa. Faça o mesmo no seu blogue, tendo presente que o primeiro objectivo da jihad é instilar o medo no coração dos infiéis.

Menos blogues e mais livros (2)

De Samuel Huntington, O Choque de Civilizações e a Mudança na Ordem Mundial, Gradiva (1999), boa tradução de The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster (1996). Essencial para perceber o avanço do islão no Ocidente e estar capacitado para fazer face às ameaças que se avizinham.

"Desinfectar" o Magrebe, rumo a Al-Andalus

O número dois da Al-Qaeda, Al-Zawahiri, apela à "desinfestação do Magrebe de espanhóis e franceses" de modo a preparar a reconquista do Al-Andalus. Esta intenção é expressa com toda a clareza, inclusive com recurso a um mapa da Península Ibérica. O video surge no site da Al-Qaeda no Magrebe, grupo responsável pela recente tomada de três reféns espanhóis na Mauritânia - onde se encontravam a desenvolver trabalho humanitário - e de um casal italiano, entre outros. Mais um aviso para os distraídos: estamos na segunda linha da expansão islâmica, depois de Israel. A Europa central e do norte está praticamente perdida. A seguir, seremos nós.

Video via ABC.es. Notícia via Jihad Watch, via Tea and Politics, via Alerta Digital.

Foto do casal italiano.

Bom Ano 2010

Livro de Números 6,22-27. O Senhor disse a Moisés: «Fala a Aarão e a seus filhos: Assim abençoareis os filhos de Israel. Dizei-lhes: ‘O Senhor te abençoe e te guarde! O Senhor faça brilhar sobre ti a sua face e te favoreça! O Senhor volte para ti a sua face e te dê a paz!’ Invocarão o meu nome sobre os filhos de Israel e Eu os abençoarei!»