Roman Christendom

Entrada telegráfica para fazer referência a um blogue que leva a sério a defesa da Igreja Católica de algumas acusações de colaboracionismo com o regime nacional-socialista do III Reich, o Roman Christendom, onde se podem ler vários artigos em defesa de Pio XII e um outro sobre a perseguição nacional-socialista à Igreja, aos jesuítas em particular. Defender o cristianismo e os seus pilares, é defender o Ocidente perante a corrosão progressista que o debilita para a resistência à ofensiva islâmica.

Para uma verdadeira compreensão do islão: fitna (2)

Segunda parte do artigo de Kenneth Roberts sobre o conceito islâmico designado fitna, cuja primeira parte publiquei aqui anteriormente.

«Fitna and the Kafir, Part Two Both Sunnis and Shi'ites believe in the use of sacred violence. The right to coerce the infidels and subdue them was given by Allah to Mohammed as owner of the earth.

Theologically, mocking Mohammed's method of controlling the infidels is blasphemy, for the violent method of Mohammed comes directly from Allah. Allah's method trumps human logic, even the Western ideal of free speech that is based on mere human philosophy and mere human reasoning, rather than Allah's Divine Command. In mere human philosophy, Mohammed's fitna-prevention method is built on a fallacy of logic called the Appeal to Force in place of logical argument. But this fallacious argument is the main argument of the Koran. Muslims know that the Koranic argument for violence against the infidels takes up 2/3 of the Koran and they further know that the Koranic argument cannot be wrong, for it comes directly from Allah and Allah is not a liar.

Mohammed's method for eliminating fitna is jihad and all Muslims should freely use Mohammed's method, since Mohammed is their role model. This is what Muslims did in the Danish cartoon riots. It is also what motivated Dr. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009.

Normally, Muslims will not kill infidels for merely thinking non-Islamic thoughts. After all, who knows what another person is thinking, even one's own spouse? Sacred violence is authorized when open disagreement with Mohammed is expressed in the public domain, as with a cartoon or an anti-Islamic book. It need not be the guilty person who is punished, so we can never be sure of the physical safety of any infidels, since throughout history, jihads have often included mass slaughters and genocides of men, women and children.

Mohammed approved of such indiscriminate killing of unbelievers on occasion, if it was convenient for him. During a night-time sneak attack on a town, Mohammed was asked about his customary method of sparing women and children (so that they could be sources of revenue as slaves). According to the Hadith by Abu Muslim 19:4322 , Mohammed responded, "They are of them." In other words, the women and children are accomplices in the fitna of the defending males. And besides, it was inconvenient to attack and carry lanterns to check everything that moves in the dark.

Here Mohammed authorized wholesale slaughter of an entire community. The justification for this was the political charge of fitna. So no infidel is ever innocent of fitna, a capital crime.

Such logic was used by Major Nidal Hasan when he committed a wholesale slaughter of 13 unarmed American soldiers: …the American army opposes Mohammed's method…it is guilty of fitna…and the 13 slaughtered soldiers 'are of them.' This made Dr. Hasan a hero to the former mullah of his mosque, because he executed the enemies of Mohammed using deceit and surprise, just like Mohammed did. Mohammed frequently executed unarmed prisoners of war. Dr. Hasan is a rational, pious Muslim. His ideas agree with the official scholarly concensus of normative Islam.

Mohammed's brilliant method of ruthless assassination silences fitna by paralyzing the brain with fear. Mohammed's method may not be judged by any external standard, because his method is itself the standard. Forget the obvious ethical flexibility or opportunism. Mohammed's method takes a position above human logic, ethical analysis and philosophical discourse. To analyze Mohammed's ethical inconsistencies is fitna.

Today, Islamic governments are seeking new ways to control fitna beyond their borders. Kafir fitna is temptation or luring that tempts Muslims to question or lose their faith. Kafirs commit fitna every time they disagree with Sharia law in the public domain, when they mock Mohammed's violent method in cartoons or use reason or logic on the Internet to show Mohammed is wrong.

Such politically incorrect utterance keeps the Islamic state from insuring all information supports the unity and power of that State and its jihadist army.

Information control is normative Islam and is fully acceptable to all pious Muslims, since it prevents fitna, the ultimate crime. Modern Muslims agree that fitna should be removed from human society through censorship of discourse that disagrees with Islam, even in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. By removing the right to disagree with Islam at the UN, Muslim governments hope to implement global information control.

Politically, this will allow Islamic governments to totally ignore all human rights complaints by claiming Muslims have a unique human right: the right of not hearing any criticism.

When governments of the Islamic Conference say they wish to remove utterances that criticizes Islam, they actually mean 'fitna'…public disagreement with Mohammed.

Islamic governments know fitna control is needed before discriminatory Sharia law can be fully implemented and jihad can go ahead. They seek to shut down the freedom of UN diplomats to discuss any human rights aspect of Islam. They cast a veil over Islamic discrimination against women and minorities in view of the radical claim that Muslims have a superior, unique human right which infidels do not possess.

The Islamic right to censor fitna trumps gender equality, freedom of expression, freedom to change one's religion and other freedoms. In law, this specious argument is called 'special pleading'. It is pure dualism and supremacism. In essence, this makes Shariah law superior to the UDHR and enshrines Islamic discrimination in the name of human rights.

Inter-Islamic fitna, i.e. dissension or discord between Muslims, is the second class of fitna. Theological disagreements between Shi'ite Muslims and Sunnite Muslims are also called fitna. Both sides believe the other worthy of death for disagreeing with Mohammed. Unfortunately, both sides do not see that their own opinion of Mohammed's method may also be in error. Only the other fellow is in error and he is obviously a heretic. 'And Allah knows best.'

Consequently, there is no Sunnite mosque permitted in Teheran and no Shi'ite mosque permitted in Saudi Arabia's holy cities. Fitna/discord between Muslims themselves and between Muslims and infidels is primarily a political question about who possesses the political upper hand. This right of supremacy cannot be discussed, since it comes from Allah and is defended by sacred violence. What you believe about Mohammed determines your human rights status in an Islamic state.

Moreover, the concept of fitna makes pluralism practically impossible, since only one political party can be in perfect agreement with Mohammed. Having an opposition party in an Islamic country would be the evil of fitna...another opinion would obviously disagree with Mohammed and be condemned. Fitna paints Islamic countries into a philosophical corner where dictatorship is the only government system possible.

The ultimate use of fitna is a military one. Fitna is any utterance that demoralizes or confuses Muslim troops so they become weak as a military force, unconvinced of their political mission of world dominance and hesitant to commit jihad. Fitna undercuts the Islamic chain of command. Fitna destroys the cohesiveness and certainty of jihadists…that unquestioning certainty that makes them ready to kill the critics of Mohammed.

Faint-hearted, non-fanatical Muslims will not defend Mohammed's method or expand their Allah-given supremacy over the infidels. If Muslims are in doubt about the rightness of Mohammed's method, they will peter out, while the infidels win the earth for Satan. This must not be. Fitna must be stopped and reversed, since it impedes the Islamic state without borders. Fitna thus becomes a political charge of treason against the Allah-established Ummah (nation) of Islam. Fitna deserves the death penalty because Allah said it is worse than murder (Koran 2:191). It is every Muslim's duty to use sacred violence to stamp out fitna and create the utopian Islamic world where disagreement can no longer exist.

"And fight them (all infidels) until there is no more fitnah (disagreeing with Allah/Mohammed) and the religion (all-pervasive lifestyle and system of Sharia law) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (to disagree with Allah/Mohammed) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." (Koran 8.39)

"(Allah) sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the kafirs may be averse." (Koran 9.33)»

O Hamas por si mesmo

Via Muslims Against Sharia, no canal de televisão do MEMRI, o MEMRI TV, no YouTube.

A coragem do artista dimi (2)

N.B.: embora as imagens e a ideia do objecto e da acção putativamente artísticos me entristeçam e repugnem, acho bem que não tenham fechado a exposição.

«Socking it to the Virgin Mary

by Baron Bodissey

When I was a little kid, my big brother would take it out on me whenever one of our parents punished him. It didn’t matter whether I shared any responsibility for the crime that got him in trouble — as soon as we were alone in the room: WHAP! That’s what the cultural Left reminds me of. Islam is the Big Daddy, and not to be trifled with. We kuffar have learned that Muslims have a tendency to slaughter infidels, especially infidels who do anything that seems to insult Islam. For those who somehow remained unaware of their subservient position, the murder of Theo Van Gogh was a belated wake-up call: Don’t mess with Big Daddy. So Little Brother Christianity makes a nice scapegoat. When Big Daddy humiliates you, turn around and sock it to the Christians. WHAP! There — don’t you feel better now? Here’s an épater-les-bourgeois example of this dynamic at work in the Flemish city Bruges (Brugge), as described in an excerpt from “Diary Thoughts” (16) by Benno Barnard, and translated by our Flemish correspondent VH:

Thursday: (If Islam allowed humor, the Swiss Muslims would have build a mosque in the form of a cuckoo clock: no better symbol of the demographic jihad but that bird) The Brugge Mariastad [“Bruges Maria-city”] committee wants to close down an exhibition that mocks Christianity with great enthusiasm — or at least mocks the relationship between religion and power. The committee takes particular offense at a fairground stall, created by a certain Peter Puype, where visitors may smash plaster statuettes of Mary by throwing stones at them. How the artist will enjoy all the attention! His manifestation of cultural self-hatred is dripping with the adolescent desire to insult the good old little bigots, attached to their comforting and totally harmless Mary-worship, as brutally as possible. It would have been more heroic to manufacture little plaster figures of Muhammad, my dear artist, and have those dashed into to pieces — also not very delicate, but at least you would then be insulting a real enemy, doubling the offense first by depicting the Prophet and then by destroying him. And then the exhibition would have been closed down by the authorities in a blink of an eye, so you would have become a martyr for free speech… and in an unexploded condition!

[The committee eventually decided not to close the exhibition down, which will close anyway as planned today, January 17. — VH]»

In Gates of Vienna.

Ver A coragem do artista dimi.

Para uma verdadeira compreensão do islão: fitna

Para compreender o islão há que conhecer um conjunto de conceitos que lhe são fundamentais. Já aqui falámos de taqiyya e de dhimmitude - e voltaremos a falar -; falemos agora de fitna, conceito ao qual Kenneth Roberts, dedicou dois artigos no sítio Political Islam. Aqui fica o primeiro dos dois, na totalidade:

«Fitna and the Kafir: Part One Why do cartoons constitute a capital crime in Islam? Why did writing 'The Satanic Verses' bring a death sentence and bounty upon Sir Salman Rushdie? Why does a military psychiatrist fire more than 100 rounds into an unarmed crowd he was trained to heal? Why do Muslims express violent anger concerning differences of religious opinion? The one-word answer to these questions is 'FITNA'.

Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse. The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.

Fitna is spotted by the mullahs who also pick the Islamic response to it. In response to the Danish cartoons, they instructed Muslims to riot. Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the paramount authority in Islam, demanded the closing of Jyllands Posten to prevent further fitna. Muslims studiously avoid the word fitna when talking to infidels.

What is fitna then?

The definition is surprisingly simple: Fitna is any disagreement with Mohammed. More precisely, Fitna is any islamicly-incorrect thought which is communicated to others in the public domain.

This definition fits all the confusing facts and makes sense of all the Islamic dualisms. Fitna is a thought crime. Fitna is a dualistic cocktail of blasphemy and treason.

As with almost everything in Islam, fitna is very hard to explain, because it is couched in Islamic dualism. Even Muslims have trouble explaining it, but they can identify it when they see it. And when they see it, they react violently.

There are two distinctly different classes of fitna: inter-Islamic fitna and infidel fitna. In relation to the evil infidels, fitna means 'tempting', 'enticing' or 'luring' another to disagree with Mohammed. Fitna comes from an old Arabic word that means removing the dross from pure metal. Pure Islam is held in check by fitna, so it must be purged.

In modern Islamic usage, fitna is used to describe ideas that cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community, …such things as openly disagreeing with the head of state of Egypt or Iran or with something found in Sharia law. When a professor at an Arab university quotes original research on the primary sources of Islam, he is immediately accused of fitna and his life is simultaneously threatened. Inter-Islamic fitna is what most Muslims understand when they think of the word 'fitna'.

Muslims cast a veil over 'kafir fitna'…the politically incorrect free speech of wicked infidels that justifies jihad and brings Allah's just punishment upon them.

Mohammed discovered a brilliant way to criminalize differences of opinion with himself. He called his invention 'fitna' and made it the worst crime in his new religion. Any utterance that tests Mohammed's method is a chargeable offence and a capital crime if it persists. The religious charge of blasphemy veils the serious political charge of treason against Mohammed.

Mohammed is Allah's vice-regent on earth. Not only does Mohammed define the truth, but he has a right to punish those who disagree. Moreover, Mohammed is both the constitution and the Islamic state. By disagreeing with Mohammed, you are calling him wrong, in error or worse yet a liar. That is slander and character assassination, but it is also the crime of treason against the Islamic Nation.

The Koran likes to say infidels are accusing Mohammed of being a liar, since that sounds more dramatic and culpable. The Koran commands the punishment of fitna after making it sound reprehensible. Anyone disagreeing with Mohammed in any way has become an enemy of the state who should be treated severely and with violence.

Private disagreements with Mohammed are acceptable, as long as they do not reach the eyes or ears of Muslims. However, public disagreement demands public Islamic punishment. 'Punishment' euphemistically means the death penalty, normatively by beheading.

In the Islamic religion, Mohammed is the only one who speaks for God. Disputing Mohammed's religious monopoly in public means disagreeing with God Himself…thus putting Allah to the test before Muslims. If Allah has lost face in public, his honor and control of the situation can only be restored by violence. To disagree publicly with Mohammed is to call Mohammed and Allah liars. Koran 29:63 - "Who does more harm than he who tells a lie against Allah?" No one! Anyone who suggests Allah or Mohammed are fakes is the worst criminal.

The Koran tells us that words disputing Mohammed/Allah are more criminal than the deed of murder. This does not make sense.

Obviously, something else is going on under the blanket of religion. That something is a political doctrine called 'supremacism'.

In art, an object is sometimes defined, not by positive use of color, but by negative space and the use of shadow. Fitna reveals Islam's key doctrine of Mohammed's supremacy veiled in shadow. Undermining Mohammed's authority does more harm than anything!

As far as Muslims are concerned, the fact that infidels have wrong thoughts in private is bad enough. The divine plan is for the whole world to agree openly that Mohammed is right. In the meantime, it is good for the infidels to be under Islamic control.

In normative Islam, the public utterance of disagreement with Mohammed is worthy of death. Practically, why is this so?

The death sentence is required for the sake of the political harm done to the Islamic chain of command and the readiness of Muslims as a solid fighting force (Koran 61:4).

Basically, all Muslims constitute one army of which Mohammed is the head. First and foremost, every Muslim male is a potential soldier…a holy warrior…a jihadist. If Islam is to go forward, the Muslim male needs to be emotionally, psychologically and mentally ready for jihad and the Islamic community needs to enthusiastically support jihad.

Jihad is Mohammed's method, the way Islam grows. Mohammed is the only expert on Islam. Anything that stands in the way of jihad is evil, satanic and treasonous! Satan and his followers need to be weakened and destroyed or at a minimum brought under the coercive control of the Islamic state. The Islamic army will be ready only if there is an absence of fitna, so fitna control means information control. Information control precedes jihad.

The tactic of information control was first demonstrated by Mohammed by assassinating his vocal critics, usually at night. Mohammed also gave his complete support to freelance assassins who murdered family members who criticized Mohammed at home…also usually at night. Disagreeing with Mohammed is not permissible if a Muslim is present or becomes aware of it. Mohammed used violence to stamp out the utterance of disagreement and he approved of others who did the same on their own initiative. Mohammed is the role model for all Muslims to emulate.

Assassination is the normative punishment for the crime of fitna. Killing a critic of Islam is a good deed, since it restores the honor of Allah/Mohammed and removes the threat of fitna from the community. Any Muslim is free to carry out the death sentence in the matter of fitna. In Sharia-dominated countries, no punishment will be given and the killer will be a hero. As well, the assassin is guaranteed entry to the highest rank in paradise.

Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the leading cleric of the four Sunni sects declared, 'Muslims are allowed to fight against them (critics), but only to the extent of making them aware that they should not become enemies of Islam.' Here we have the foremost Muslim in the world stating publicly that infidels should be 'fought' (treated violently) if they disagree with Mohammed. Since Tantawi speaks for 90% of Muslims, violence against critics of Islam remains an official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam. Sunnis number almost one billion.

Most Westerners believed Muslims were angered that Kurt Westergaard (the cartoonist who drew the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon) called Mohammed, or by extension, that he called all Muslims-violent! Westerners believed their message was: 'Don't say Islam is violent or we'll kill you!'

But Islamic violence is not the issue. Muslims know that Mohammed is violent and that he is their role model. They revel in it. It makes them feel strong and proud.

Jihad is holy violence. Violence is the way Allah removes fitna, removes the dross from pure Islam and removes the infidel scum from the earth which is owned by Mohammed. (Bukhari 4:52:220)

No! Muslims were angered that the Danish cartoonists disagreed with Mohammed, and said so in public. That was political fitna and a crime against honor.

The cartoonists disagreed that Mohammed's violent method is right and made fun of it. The cartoonists removed Mohammed's halo. As a consequence, Allah and Mohammed both lost face. If Allah/Mohammed said violence against the infidels is right… and the infidels laugh at Allah's Divine Command…the infidels obviously need to be taught a lesson. The infidels need to accept that Mohammed owns the earth and their position is one of political inferiority to Muslims. Islamic supremacism is Allah's divine plan and violence is Mohammed's method.

The infidels are to be brought under the control of the Islamic state in thought, word and deed and they are given no choice in submitting to it or not. Allah commanded violence so the infidels will be forced to receive the divine benefit of Islam…'even if the infidels are averse to it!' (Koran 9:33)"

Muslim logic is: The infidels do not understand. They are blinded by Satan. Muslims have to use violence to help the infidels. The infidels should be in terror of Allah and the coercive power of the Islamic Nation. It is for their own good. Allah is great! And has the ability to do all things. And Allah knows best!

That final phrase ends every Islamic verdict and the deeds of jihad follow. Further disagreement is impossible.

Throughout the West, the infidels did not understand! The purpose of the cartoon riots was not to reassert the lost human rights of Muslims under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but to proclaim the political supremacy of Muslims over the infidels and show the willingness of Muslims to support jihad and bring the infidels under their control. Put negatively, the purpose of the cartoon riots was to declare the inferiority of infidels, who should know their place and commit no more 'fitna'. That is…the infidels needed to learn not to disagree with Mohammed in public.»

«O Plano da Intolerância»

Via Zenit, um texto do arcebispo do Rio de Janeiro, Dom Orani João Tempesta, intitulado “O Plano da Intolerância”, no qual o prelado comenta o "Plano Nacional de Direitos Humanos" do governo brasileiro:

«O Plano da Intolerância

Iniciamos o novo século com muitas esperanças e sonhos. Pensávamos que o mundo tivesse chegado a um amadurecimento tal que pudéssemos conviver com o diferente e no respeito mútuo. Entre tantos acontecimentos intolerantes em todos os cantos do mundo, um deles foi simbólico: no início deste milênio, em março de 2001, foi destruída uma das maiores estátuas de Buda em pé já esculpidas pelo homem. Ficava no vale do Bamiyan, a 240 km de Cabul, no Afeganistão, e era do século V da era Cristã. Era também declarada como patrimônio da humanidade pela UNESCO. Havia duas e tinham 55 e 37 metros de altura. Os “donos do poder” da época acharam que não poderiam tolerar tal “idolatria” e não faziam parte da “cultura” do momento. Os governantes passaram e os responsáveis de hoje estão procurando reconstruir o que um dia foi destruído.

Em nosso país, infelizmente, há certa confusão com relação ao “Plano Nacional de Direitos Humanos”. Conheço e respeito as pessoas que o defendem e sei de suas boas intenções, mas não posso aceitar a idéia que passam com relação a o que significa a justa laicidade do Estado. Um dos objetivos do plano é o de “desenvolver mecanismos para impedir a ostentação de símbolos religiosos em estabelecimentos públicos da União”, além de outras ideias que mereceriam ser ainda mais discutidas. A humanidade vai amadurecendo em suas convicções e passa a enxergar com mais clareza certas situações melhor que no passado. Não podemos viver com situações e realidades que já passaram. Necessitamos agora, neste momento da história da humanidade, de olhar para o futuro. Em relação a tantos questionamentos desse plano, fiquemos com esta única questão: sobre os símbolos religiosos.

(...)

Um país laico é aquele que respeita todas as religiões e sabe também acolher a cultura de seu povo. Ditaduras intolerantes são aquelas que impõem ou uma única religião ou mesmo apenas o ateísmo. Na democracia todos podem se manifestar e são chamados a respeitar as ideias dos outros. Em nosso país existem situações de exclusões mesmo com os que se dedicam a múltiplos trabalhos sociais, que não podem exercer sua cidadania justamente porque professam uma fé: deve-se criar outra instituição. Existem países, como a Alemanha, onde o estado não se alinha com nenhuma religião, mas promove e ajuda as mesmas enquanto fatores de promoção humana e social. Mesmo no estado nascido da revolução francesa, as declarações feitas em dezembro de 2007 pelo presidente Sarkozy foram históricas: “considero que uma nação que ignora a herança ética, espiritual, religiosa de sua história comete um crime contra a sua cultura, contra o conjunto de sua história, de patrimônio, de arte e de tradições populares que impregnam a tão profunda maneira de viver e pensar”, e acrescentou também: “a laicidade não deveria ser a negação do passado. Não tem o poder de tirar a França de suas raízes cristãs. Tentou fazê-lo. Não deveria.”

Porém, infelizmente, o que ora ocorre entre nós não é um início de um processo, e sim um passo a mais dentro de um plano muito mais amplo de destruição de nossas raízes históricas. Hoje, os mesmos que foram beneficiados pela cultura cristã do respeito à vida e à liberdade se insurgem contra a mesma tentando retirar seus sinais. Não poderão com decretos retirar do coração do nosso povo suas raízes, suas devoções, sua cultura e seus sentimentos.

Ora, a laicidade do Estado não pode ser sinônimo de intolerância para com a cultura em que se formou e se desenvolveu o Brasil e para com os símbolos que fazem parte de nossa história. Negar a nossa história e querer elaborar outra, ou mesmo dar-lhe outro significado, significa impor à população uma ideia concebida em laboratório com fins filosóficos claros.

A cultura cristã e católica integra a história de nosso país. Não tem como se negar a história, embora em muitos ambientes queira reinterpretá-la esvaziando-a dos verdadeiros valores nos quais se baseia nossa identidade. Em nosso atestado de batismo está uma Missa celebrada no alvorecer do Brasil, Terra de Santa Cruz! Temos nomes de cidades, ruas, locais e até mesmo em nossa bandeira ideias e símbolos ligados a diversos grupos que fazem parte de nossa história nacional. Há pouco tempo eu estava no Pará e uma das situações que me chamou a atenção foi justamente a história de um povo que conseguiu, mesmo com a globalização, preservar sua cultura, suas músicas, danças, sotaques, tradições e festejos religiosos que estão inseridos em sua alma e sua gente.

Trata-se, antes de tudo, de uma questão de preservação da memória de nossa história e das raízes culturais da nossa identidade brasileira. Querer coibir a ostentação dos símbolos da cultura que berçou e construiu a nossa história é, isto sim, um verdadeiro sinal de intolerância, que provoca o desenraizamento e promove uma ideologia que não ousa dizer o próprio nome. Não se vê, desse modo, necessidade alguma de “impedir a manifestação de símbolos religiosos nos estabelecimentos da União”.

Em alguns lugares do mundo é proibido até mesmo manifestar sua fé dentro de suas próprias residências. Os caminhos escolhidos para arrancar as nossas raízes e deixar nosso povo sem história são muito sérios e podem levar ainda mais a um tipo de sociedade não só mais intolerante, mas muito mais desenraizado e violento. Será que isso levaria também à destruição de muitas de nossas praças e monumentos que ostentam símbolos religiosos? Será que um dia, para vivenciarmos a fé em nosso país, teremos de nos esconder da vida pública?

O papel do Estado laico não é, de modo algum, o de promover uma ideologia laicista, como se o laicismo não fosse também uma forma de religião. É um grande engano achar que o laicismo, projeto de uma minoria que se mostra intolerante, é uma ideologia neutra. E não nos devemos esquecer jamais de que se o Estado é laico a sociedade brasileira não o é. Além de sua história profundamente ligada à fé cristã e católica, o povo brasileiro, em sua grande maioria, professa a fé que recebeu dos seus antepassados e se identifica com os símbolos que a expressam. A função do Estado laico, longe de ser a de provocar o desenraizamento cultural e religioso ou coibir a manifestação pública de símbolos religiosos, é a de garantir a liberdade religiosa à sociedade e a seus membros, em suas múltiplas manifestações, preservada a justa ordem pública e o respeito devido à diversidade.

Os símbolos demonstram também a formação do caráter de nosso povo que, se procurarmos em suas decisões diárias, encontraremos muitos textos do Evangelho que marcam o tipo de vida e nacionalidade, mesmo daqueles que não creem. É como se fosse o DNA de nossa civilização: 99% dos genes são comuns a todos nós. As diferenças são mínimas e quase nem se notam. Se é verdade que a natureza não dá saltos como comentam os cientistas, necessitamos de tomar muito cuidado com os “saltos” laboratoriais que podem ocasionar a nossa perda de identidade e cultura.

Qualquer pessoa ao chegar a um país e ver os seus monumentos e seus símbolos logo se depara com a sua realidade cultural, humana e religiosa. A Igreja sempre procurou e procura estar em defesa dos direitos e valores humanos, porém, apesar desse plano ter muitas teses importantes e interessantes, a dúbia direção ora escolhida é complexa e não ajudará em nada a continuar caminhando na direção de uma nação mais justa e solidária, que é o sonho comum de todos nós. E neste sentido os conhecidos atuais elaboradores deste “plano” sabem muito bem como a Igreja esteve ao seu lado e enfrentou perseguições sérias durante os históricos e duros momentos vividos com a falta de respeito à vida e à liberdade de pensamento.

Nestes dias estamos vivenciando a preparação para a festa de São Sebastião, devoção trazida há 445 anos por Estácio de Sá para a cidade de São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro. Teríamos como contar a história da cidade maravilhosa sem esses dados? Aliás, é só pesquisar a história da maioria de nossas cidades para ver onde estão as fontes e as inspirações.

A estátua do Cristo Redentor, que, do cume do Corcovado, a 710 metros de altura, ergue-se como uma maravilha do mundo moderno e um símbolo de identificação do Rio de Janeiro e do Brasil, é o nosso Santuário Arquidiocesano Cristo Redentor do Corcovado, local de peregrinações, orações, celebrações e manifestação da fé do povo brasileiro. Iniciamos uma campanha para a restauração desse monumento, preparando-o para os grandes eventos que ocorrerão futuramente em nossa Cidade Maravilhosa. É um símbolo não só do Rio de Janeiro, mas do Brasil.

Que a fé cristã, simbolizada nesse sinal, que nada ofende as pessoas, seja para todos nós um anúncio de alegre acolhimento na construção da paz e da fraternidade e que acolhe e dá a todos as boas vindas de um povo feliz, livre e que quer viver e construir a paz!»

Estátua do Cristo Redentor, Rio de Janeiro

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.

Mudança de modus operandi e apelo

Caros leitores, Dirijo-me a vós, não sabendo muito bem quantos sois, com dois propósitos: dar conta de uma alteração do meu modus operandi aqui no blogue e fazer um apelo. O tempo é escasso e a vida corre diante nós. As horas que tenho dedicado ao estudo do islão, a difundir os textos que vou descobrindo e a arriscar algumas considerações não as dou por mal empregues, mas levaram-me a negligenciar gravemente alguns aspectos da minha vida pessoal e profissional. Esta constatação obriga-me a reformular a minha forma de participar nesta cruzada moderna contra a ameaça islâmica. O que decidi foi que passarei a dedicar menos tempo às notícias que dão conta do avanço do islão por todo o mundo, em particular no ocidente, e a publicar sobretudo entradas tratando de artigos de fundo, em ordem a dar a conhecer o que é o islão, os seus textos, as suas doutrinas, a sua história. Os leitores interessados em acompanhar as notícias do insidioso avanço do islão podem fazê-lo de vários modos:

• aqui mesmo, na coluna da direita, na rubrica A Minha Lista de Blogues, através da qual podem seguir vários sítios activos nesta área;
• subscrevendo actualizações em alguns sites que se dedicam exclusivamente a recolher notícias - dos quais destacaria o Muslims Against Sharia, onde esse trabalho é feito exaustivamente -, entre outros da lista referida supra;

Como excepção a esta determinação, pretendo continuar a ecoar notícias respeitantes ao avanço do islão na Península Ibérica, para cujo conhecimento dependo largamente dos blogues La Yijad en Eurabia e Tea and Politics. O apelo resulta da constatação de que uma batalha não se combate sozinho. Tenho vindo a desafiar alguns leitores a associar-se a mim nestas actividades; alguns aceitaram o meu repto e os resultados surgirão a seu tempo. Queria agora alargar o apelo aos leitores anónimos deste blogue: se o tema lhe interessa; se se sente chamado a participar; se dispõe de alguma área de particular predilecção e competência, contacte-me, a fim de encontrarmos a melhor forma de envolver cada um dos interessados. Algumas exemplos de colaboração que me ocorrem já à partida: seriam da maior utilidade editores para assuntos específicos, como por exemplo:

• Multiculturalismo e outras correntes políticas, que corroem a cultura ocidental e a tornam mais vulnerável à ofensiva islâmica;
• Defesa do cristianismo e do judaísmo, perante as ofensivas ateístas e revolucionárias, como meio de contrariar a expansão do islão;
• Direitos das Mulheres no islão e a degradação desses direitos no ocidente como resultado do avanço do islão - aumento exponencial dos crimes ditos de honra, casamentos forçados, casamentos de menores, mutilação genital feminina, aumento do número de crimes de estupro envolvendo muçulmanos, etc.;
• estudo e divulgação da História do Islão, matéria indispensável para perceber muitas das facetas da interacção hodierna entre o islão e o mundo não-islâmico.

Julgo que seria também de grande utilidade e um serviço patriótico se alguns leitores se dispusessem a traduzir para a nossa língua os textos mais importantes que formos descobrindo. Finalmente, se algum leitor com perícia no domínio da edição na internet quiser participar no alargamento deste projecto, a sua colaboração seria importante com vista a uma eventual migração para uma outra plataforma distinta do blogger. A modalidade de participação de cada um seria flexível e definida pelo próprio, com a minha coordenação. A participação estaria ainda condicionada pela subscrição de uma declaração de intenções que elaborei a fim de servir de carta magna para o projecto e, naturalmente, a continuidade da participação de cada um dependerá do cumprimento dos princípios enunciados no dito documento. Os leitores em quem este meu apelo tenha algum eco, queiram contactar-me através do seguinte endereço de correio-electrónico: tambemistoevaidade@gmail.com. Cumprimentos, Addendum: a fim de divulgar notícias, intensificarei a minha actividade no twitter, a qual pode ser seguida na coluna da direita, imediatamente acima do arquivo do blogue e, directamente no twitter, subscrevendo tbistoevaidade e seguindo a minha actividade em Amplify, também na coluna da direita.

O suicídio da democracia

Segundo noticia o ABC, um partido político muçulmano, recentemente fundado em Espanha, está em vias de concorrer às eleições locais em cidades consideradas de especial relevo:

«El Partido Renacimiento y Unión de España (PRUNE) - primera formación islámica con vocación de implantarse en toda España -, se organiza contrarreloj con el objetivo de lograr representación en municipios claves tras las elecciones de 2011. La formación, promovida por Mustafá Bakkach, hombre próximo a Rabat, aspira a recoger apoyos no sólo entre los casi 1.300.000 musulmanes residentes en España (...) El partido se gestó a principios de año en Granada, «con una vocación claramente de ámbito nacional y no para afianzarse solamente en una localidad o región autónoma», se afirma en su boletín interno «Ruta». (...)

El Islam como base

La formación reconoce que luchará por lograr sus objetivos «desde la consideración del Islam como fuente de dichos principios», esto es, «tendrá en cuenta el Islam en su actuación política, considerándolo como factor determinante para la regeneración moral y ética de la sociedad española». Ello no contradice, asegura, su acatamiento a la Constitución y su rechazo al terrorismo como medio de hacer política. (...) Recientemente ha abierto una sede en Asturias, donde se inició la Reconquista, lo que se interpreta como todo un enunciado de intenciones. Se une así a la que el PRUNE ya tiene en Granada. Ahora, en una segunda fase, intentará establecerse también por el resto de Andalucía, así como en Madrid, Cataluña, Extremadura, Valencia y Murcia. Comunidades todas ellas en las que ya existe una amplia población musulmana, integrada por españoles conversos pero, sobre todo, por inmigrantes. La mayoría de ellos son de origen marroquí. Estos últimos no podrían votar en la actualidad, pero se da la circunstancia de que el Ejecutivo de Zapatero intenta firmar con las autoridades de Rabat un convenio de reciprocidad, en virtud del cual los ciudadanos del país magrebí podrían votar en España y nuestros compatriotas residentes allí hacer lo propio. Estos convenios lo acaba de rubricar el Gobierno con países que tienen en España una amplia bolsa de emigrantes. En medios gubernamentales no se oculta cierta preocupación, y no porque se considere que a día de hoy esta formación esté en disposición de lograr una fuerte implantación. (...) Lo que más preocupa en estos momentos al Ejecutivo es que este partido pueda predicar la no integración en núcleos urbanos con amplia presencia musulmana. En municipios en los que ya son una mayoría, los musulmanes tratan ya de imponer sus propias costumbres. De controlar algunos ayuntamientos, las costumbres podrían adquirir entonces el rango de normativa municipal. (...)»

Alguns pontos da notícia são particularmente preocupantes. O próprio conceito de partido islâmico ou muçulmano, embora possa parecer similar ao dos partidos ditos da democracia-cristã, não o é, como o demonstra o facto de os cristãos não votarem maciçamente nestes partidos. No cristianismo, pelo menos no ocidental - tanto quanto julgo saber, no cristianismo ortodoxo oriental as coisas são algo distintas - o princípio da separação entre Igreja e Estado está assente nas palavras de Cristo, no famoso episódio dos Evangelhos no qual Jesus responde aos fariseus que se deve dar a César o que é de César e a Deus o que é de Deus (cf. Mc. 12, 14-17, i.a.). O caso do islão é completamente distinto. Mafoma era líder religioso, militar e político. Seguindo o seu exemplo, o islão tem tendência a constituir formas de organização política onde religião e poder político se concentram, das quais o califado é o exemplo mais notável. Acresce que o islão, através da divisão do mundo em dar-al-islam - Casa do Islão, onde o islão marca o modo de viver - e dar-al-harb - Casa da Guerra, onde impera a infidelidade (segundo a perspectiva islâmica) -, define o conceito de nação, a umá, não em função da partilha de um conjunto de características culturais - a língua, a cultura, etc. -, como acontece nos estados ocidentais modernos, mas unicamente em função da adesão à fé islâmica. Um cristão árabe de Jerusalém não pertence à umá; um muçulmano sueco radicado em Los Angeles, pertence. O sentido de identidade, que decorre da pertença a uma comunidade tão radicalmente distinta, em inúmeros traços definidores, da sociedade de acolhimento, faz temer que os muçulmanos se aglutinem eleitoralmente à volta de partidos islâmicos. Um outro problema, com este relacionado, é aflorado na notícia, quando se faz referência ao risco, assinalado pelas autoridades políticas espanholas, de institucionalização do isolacionismo islâmico - tendência das comunidades muçulmanas, que pode evoluir, em circunstâncias políticas e demográficas favoráveis, para a secessão. Um outro problema, talvez o mais grave, dos focados na notícia, nada tem a ver com o islão em si mesmo, mas com a decadência das sociedades ocidentais - efeito da ideologia do multiculturalismo, e é a informação de que o governo espanhol se prepara para assinar convénios com vários países árabes que permitirão aos emigrantes residentes em Espanha, oriundos desses países, votar nas eleições espanholas (não fica claro se em todas as eleições). O acréscimo de votantes muçulmanos que a aplicação desses convénios acarretaria, teria um impacto brutal no mapa eleitoral espanhol, conseguindo-se com duas assinaturas o que por outras vias - a guerra, a luta demográfica ⁽¹⁾ - custaria sangue e demoraria décadas. Os fundadores do partido demonstram saber como beneficiar das vantagens que o sistema democrático espanhol lhes proporciona. Sabem que, desde que os documentos escritos do partido não desrespeitem a constituição espanhola, têm total liberdade de acção, até para desprezar essa mesma constituição - praticando discriminações várias dentro da comunidade islâmica, violando a lei espanhola no domínio da lei da família (casamentos forçados, casamentos de menores), apelando ao isolacionismo em relação aos não muçulmanos e à secessão apenas oralmente e em língua árabe, como fazem nos EUA, sem qualquer reacção das autoridades, como fazem em relação à questão israelo-muçulmana, fazendo declarações de paz, durante o dia, em inglês, e de guerra eterna, durante a noite, em árabe - em aplicação, aliás, dessa desconcertante doutrina islâmica, a taqiyya, a qual não só permite, mas encoraja aos muçulmanos que mintam em defesa dos interesses da fé islâmica. A democracia é um regime frágil. As democracias avançadas têm mecanismos de autodefesa. Se estes mecanismos de defesa forem descurados, o totalitarismo triunfará. ⁽¹⁾ - "Un día millones de hombres abandonarán el Hemisferio Sur para irrumpir en el Hemisferio Norte. Y no lo harán precisamente como amigos. Porque comparecerán para conquistarlo. Y lo conquistarán poblándolo con sus hijos. Será el vientre de nuestras mujeres el que nos dé la victoria" (Houari Boumedienne, en la ONU, 1974). Via La Yijad en Eurabia.

O islão já teve a sua reforma

Este artigo, que reputo de máxima importância, pode ser lido em complemento de um outro sobre a mesma problemática aqui publicado há algumas semanas. Enquanto o primeiro é da autoria de um apóstata do islão - com a vantagem do conhecimento interno do que vem a ser esse movimento politico-religioso -, estoutro é da autoria de um pastor anglicano - com uma perspectiva muito bem estruturada da mentalidade moderna ocidental, a qual vive na expectativa de uma determinada evolução social e da ocorrência de certos acontecimentos e com um conhecimento mais aprofundado do que foi a Reforma Protestante e outros movimentos reformadores cristãos - Marc Durie de seu nome.

«(...) My concern (...) is to focus on an important comparison between medieval Christianity and present-day Islam (...). On countless occasions over the years I have heard this comparison: Christianity has undergone its reformation, so why not Islam? The European reformation took centuries: why wouldn’t an Islamic reformation also take time? Isn’t it all a matter of time.

This line of thinking arises from a world view which looks at ideologies through the lens of ‘progress’ or ‘evolution’, shaped by a kind of Darwinism. The underlying presupposition is that human societies evolve as time passes, progressing and becoming more humane and more advanced.

Clearly not everyone in the West works from this assumption, but many do. As recently as the 1960’s, it was even fashionable among Western secularists to believe that religion had had its day altogether. Many announced that God was, at last, ‘dead’. The death of God was widely regarded as one of the positive benefits of progress.

The idea of progress is not simply a concept – it has become part of the warp and woof of our everyday language. We speak of ideas, policies and practices as ‘backward’ or ‘regressive’, ‘progressive’ or ‘advanced’. Time has become a yardstick to measure the ever-improving character of human social order. It is the embedding of the idea of progress into our everyday language which gives credibility to the question “Can Islam not undergo its own reformation too?”

But do societies really tend to evolve, becoming more and more advanced? Do social institutions inevitably improve with time? Is progress more than just an idea – is it a law which governs the history of religions?

I find it very difficult, looking back over the ethical wreckage of the 20th century, to subscribe to the presupposition of progress. The worst atrocities of the past 100 years were perpetrated by regimes which help up an ideal of social evolution, and which were motivated by a vision of human progress. One recalls, for example of the careers of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. Such shameful monuments to ‘progress’ as National Socialism and Communism do not inspire confidence that human societies and ideologies can and must improve with time.

There is another problem with comparing today’s Islam with pre-Reformation Christianity, and this has to do with the meaning of ‘reformation’ itself. It has become accepted by many thinking people today that ‘reformation’ means some kind of softening, a ‘moderating’ process. Indeed a manifestation of ‘progress’. This far from the truth.

Throughout the whole medieval period the idea of reformation (reformatio) was prestigious, and many reform movements chased after this ideal Reformation meant going back to one’s roots, and just about everyone agreed that this was a Good Thing. For medieval Christians, a reformed Christianity meant being more Christ-like, more apostolic, and more Pauline. Wealthy St Francis read Jesus’ words about giving away one’s possessions to feed the poor, so he followed this teaching, and many flocked to join him. Thus the Franciscans were founded as a reform movement.

St Francis was a radical reformer. He was not inspired by a vision of making Christianity more moderate and progressive. What moved him was a desire to follow the Jesus of Gospels.

Likewise Luther recalled the words of St Paul about freedom in the letter to the Galatians – ‘for freedom Christ has set us free’ – to exort the German Nobles to claim their own freedom from ecclesiastical authority.

The European Reformation – so often invoked in comparisons with Islam today – was driven by a desire to re-form Christianity a second time, taking it back to its roots. It sought to move ahead by going backwards. Its inner logic had nothing to do with the modern idea of progress or the Darwinian concept of ‘evolution’. The Reformation was not a ‘progressive’ movement in the modern sense, but one which sought to ‘regress’, renewing the example of Christ and his apostles.

This is why Luther and other reformers encouraged believers to read their Bibles for themselves, in their own native tongue. Luther regarded it as the duty of every Christian to be constantly renewing their own faith from the original sources. LIke St Francis, Luther was a Christian radical.

It is true that some changes brought in by the European Reformation had a moderating effect on Western intellectual life. There developed a greater emphasis on freedom and individual responsibility, for example. The Protestant work ethic was one bi-product of this emphasis. Yet these developments did not take place out of a desire to develop a more moderate form of Christianity, but because they they were regarded as conforming more to the Bible.

Therefore, according to the core meaning of ‘reformation’ – a return to one’s roots – reforming Islam would mean making it more Muhammadan. An Islamic reformation would produce a religion which is closer to the Koran, and above all, closer to the example and teaching of its founder.

The hankering of some Westerners after an Islamic reformation begs the question of what would it mean to be follow Muhammad’s example more closely?

As it happens, such a movement has been underway for more than 100 years, and is in full swing today. It is what we know today as Islamic radicalism. The ideal of an Islamic reformation has produced, among many other results, the global jihad movement, the push for sharia revival and reimplementation of the Caliphate. This is what a desire to revive the example and teaching of Muhammad has led to.

There are two two main reasons why renewing the example of Muhammad leads to Islamic radicalism.

One is that Muhammad combined within himself the offices of king, judge, general and religious leader, thus unifying politics, law, the military and religion. To follow his example means creating a theocratic political order, where the laws of the land are controlled by Islamic theology. In contrast Christian tradition has always distinguished the secular from the ecclesiastical, based on the older Hebrew religious distinction between priests and kings. This feature of medieval Christianity – the distinction between religion and politics – was severely criticised by famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun. Muslim thinkers had always regarded it as one of the key weaknesses of Christianity.

The second reason why renewing Islam leads to radicalism is that many of the harsher elements of Islamic law – such death for apostates, stoning adulterers, cutting off the hands of thieves, enslaving one’s enemies, and killing non-believers – are firmly grounded in Muhammad’s example.

Australian Muslim Waleed Aly was entirely correct when he said Islam has already had its Reformation, and the outcome has been Islamic radicalism:

“Still, Western calls for an Islamic Reformation grow predictably and irrepressibly stronger, while those familiar with the Islamic tradition easily observe that radical and terrorist groups such as al-Qa’ida and the Taliban, cannot be cured by Reformation for the very simple fact that they are the Reformation.” [People like us: how arrogance is dividing Islam and the West, p.xv].

For those today whose world view is shaped by the ideal of progress, and look out upon Islam peering through the frame of Western assumptions about ‘backwardness’, ‘progress’ and ‘evolution’, Waleed Aly’s insight can be difficult to grasp. Yet it is essential that it be understood and appreciated.

In today’s world, if what is needed is more moderate manifestation of Islam, then the very last thing that could ever accomplish this would be an Islamic Reformation.»

Fundamentos islâmicos do atentado do dia de Natal

Ler o artigo de Jamie Glazov na Pajamas Media:

«The Islamic Roots of Abdulmutallab’s Suicidal Odyssey

And why liberals can’t acknowledge what drove the Christmas Day terrorist.

The liberal milieu and mainstream media are baffled: What could have possibly led the 23-year-old Nigerian boy Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to attempt jihadi suicide on a passenger plane? How could such a nice, educated Islamic boy, who grew up in a rich and prosperous family, have come under the “radical” and “extreme” influences that set him on his violent course? It’s just all so mysterious.

It’s so mysterious that the news anchors on CNN continue to incredulously ask each other and their guests these questions — back and forth, over and over again, in a cyclical circus that has no end and that never produces the most obvious answer staring any sensible person right in the face. (...) All one can be sure of is that an adversarial culture or ideology must not be blamed and that America, somewhere, somehow, must definitely be at fault.

And so, when it comes to the liberal left trying to digest Abdulmutallab and his suicidal quest, perplexed dismay becomes a much safer hiding place than honesty, because the basic truth threatens the very survival of the liberal faith. For the liberal to accept the evident reason why Abdulmutallab set off on his suicide odyssey would necessitate him having to completely shed himself of his entire worldview and personal identity. The much easier route, therefore, is to keep oneself confused and to stay focused on how American capitalism and imperialism must have surely had something to do with it (...).

What the lib-left milieu simply can’t digest is what Islamic terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab themselves insist motivated them. And these are things like, you know, reading certain religious texts and following a certain religion’s teachings. They are things, sort of like, well, following Islam and reading the Koran and stuff like that.

When all is said and done, the true reasons why Abdulmutallab embarked on his murderous mission of suicide are completely understandable — and only to be expected — in the context of his Islamic odyssey. And Abdulmutallab himself clearly points to the influence of his religion in his own personal writings on the internet.

In his 300 postings under the name “farouk1986” in an online forum, Abdulmutallab sheds light on how the Islamic theology that he follows marginalized him from human life and led him on his hateful and suicidal road. One of the main themes in his postings, for instance, is a recurring complaint about his loneliness and how he has “never found a true Muslim friend.” While liberals will expectedly blame capitalism for Abdulmutallab’s estrangement, a certain question has to be asked, a question that will never be asked, or answered, on CNN or in the Nation magazine:

From where, oh where, did Abdulmutallab get the self-ostracizing and hateful idea that only Muslims could be his friends?

Indeed, from where did this young man absorb an ideology that eliminated billions of people on the planet from the pool in which he could make friendships and nurture human connection? Hmmm, could it possibly be that the self-marginalization he inflicted on himself had something to do with his religion’s instruction that he not only never make friends with infidels (Koran 5:51), but also wage war on them? (Koran 9:5, 9:29, etc.).

Abdulmutallab also agonizes about his behavior when he does manage, on the rare occasion, to join the human race. He admits that when he socializes he does “laugh and joke” but he stresses, in self-defense, that he does not do this “excessively.” Pray, do tell, from where the need to make confessions and self-justifications about such beautiful elements of life? What could this possibly be about? Could it be that it has nothing to do with American capitalism and imperialism at all, but maybe with the life-hating teaching of a religion that demonizes earthly happiness, joy, and pleasure? Could it be somehow connected to a certain religion’s hatred of music, frivolity, and, above all, a woman’s laughter? Could this all have something to do with why Ayatollah Khomeini insisted that “there is no fun in Islam”?

(...)

Abdulmutallab reveals the crucial inspiration to his murderous and suicidal yearnings when he agonizes about his inner struggle between being a devout Muslim and a member of a society infected by Western values. He writes of his “dilemma between liberalism and extremism” and, as a Muslim, he strives to live his life “according to the Koran and Sunnah to the best of my ability. I do almost everything, sports, TV, books … (of course trying not to cross the limits in the deen).” The deen is the dutiful way of life demanded by Islam.

In these circumstances, the most obvious torment that arises in the life of a young devout Muslim like Abdulmutallab is what he himself honestly describes: the tension between sexual desires and the Islamic mandate of, as he writes, “lowering the gaze” in the presence of women. “The Prophet (S) advised young men to fast if they can’t get married,” he agonizes, “but it has not been helping me much and I seriously don’t want to wait for years before I get married.”

It is precisely in this context that we see the origins of the Muslim suicide bomber’s journey into the heart of jihadi darkness.

For a pious Muslim who is attempting to obey the pleasure-denying mandates of his religion, the totalitarian and often sole choice available to him becomes purifying himself by extinguishing his own earthly sinful existence.

Thus, despite liberal fantasies, it is not Muslims’ lack of access to Western prosperity that spawns their terror, but exactly the opposite: it is Muslims’ contact with and ability to reap the benefits of Western values that end up serving as key inspirations for jihad.

Indeed, there is a morbid dilemma for the devout Muslim who has experienced and come into contact with the temptations of Western freedom. These Muslims end up feeling infected and fault America and the West for the excruciating guilt they feel over the desires that freedom plants within their hearts. To disinfect themselves, they end up lashing out violently at the tempter — and then ultimately at themselves for the impurity and desires that the tempter instilled. In this light, Theodore Dalrymple brilliantly analyzes the impulses and motivations of the young suicide bombers who struck in London in July 2005. He demonstrates how they saw no way out of their confrontation with freedom and modernity except through death:

"Muslims who reject the West are therefore engaged in a losing and impossible inner jihad, or struggle, to expunge everything that is not Muslim from their breasts. It can’t be done: for their technological and scientific dependence is necessarily also a cultural one. You can’t believe in a return to seventh-century Arabia as being all-sufficient for human requirements, and at the same time drive around in a brand-new red Mercedes, as one of the London bombers did shortly before his murderous suicide. An awareness of the contradiction must gnaw in even the dullest fundamentalist brain.

Furthermore, fundamentalists must be sufficiently self-aware to know that they will never be willing to forgo the appurtenances of Western life: the taste for them is too deeply implanted in their souls, too deeply a part of what they are as human beings, ever to be eradicated. It is possible to reject isolated aspects of modernity but not modernity itself. Whether they like it or not, Muslim fundamentalists are modern men — modern men trying, impossibly, to be something else. … How to persuade themselves and others that their lack of faith, their vacillation, is really the strongest possible faith? What more convincing evidence of faith could there be than to die for its sake? How can a person be really attached or attracted to rap music and cricket and Mercedes cars if he is prepared to blow himself up as a means of destroying the society that produces them? Death will be the end of the illicit attachment that he cannot entirely eliminate from his heart. … By means of suicide bombing, the bombers overcome moral impurities and religious doubts within themselves and, supposedly, strike an external blow for the propagation of the faith."

It is no coincidence, therefore, that in the Islamic paradigm, the pleasures denied on earth are exactly the pleasures offered in heaven. For a typical Muslim male like Abdulmutallab who desperately yearns for sex but does not want to offend Allah, the only escape route becomes to die — and kill — for Islam.

Pierre Rehov, the French filmmaker of the documentary Suicide Killers, spent hours speaking with would-be martyrs in Israeli jails and with their families. He noted that they not only spoke about the obvious Islamic instruction to kill Jews and Christians, but also articulated a consistent theme of not being allowed to do anything pleasurable on earth; and so they sought death in order to do it in heaven. Rehov writes:

"Imagine a world where separation between men and women is virtually absolute. Where not only sex is a taboo, but where a woman’s body is considered to be so impure that it must be hidden at all times. … In this chauvinistic land, a 16-or 18-year-old boy has a 99% chance of having never touched the hand of a girl or having spoken to one, except for his sister. At this age where libido is at its peak, a young male is in need of these beautiful and forbidden sensations. He needs to prove to himself that he is a man, a future man. But, in this arena, there is no hope — only frustration. Dating and flirting are forbidden. Marriage is the only tolerated path to sex in the Muslim world. But without money there is no wife. Ironically, while women are the object of the highest contempt, while the temporal existence of flesh is considered despicable (“seek for death, and eternal life will be given to you” — Prophet Muhammad), the promise of eternal life surrounded by 72 virgins is popularized daily through every arm of the Muslim media. The misguided kids I interviewed while shooting Suicide Killers spoke of the 72 virgins with total conviction. “No one knows how much Allah would have given me in heaven if I had succeeded,” said one of them, who described his ideal target as a mall, a school, or a hospital in Netanya."

Within the confines of this Islamic concentration camp, the young tormented Abdulmutallab desperately sought to purify himself. With his religion informing him of his sinful, despicable, Allah-negating, unwanted physical self, the only way out became to rid himself of his earthly flesh, ideally by taking some infidels along with him. Abdulmutallab hoped to annihilate all that was impure in his earthly existence — and to gain in Islamic paradise everything that he had denied himself, ever so mercilessly, on earth.»