Como Estado Islâmico surgiu do caos para aterrorizar o mundo | 21 notícias que marcaram o século 21 | BBC News Brasil
A morte de Osama bin Laden, numa impressionante operação militar americana em solo paquistanês, em maio de 2011, espalhou uma sensação de alívio nos países que vinham sofrendo ataques organizados pela al-Qaeda.
–
Poucos imaginavam, no entanto, que não muito longe dali, no ainda instável e violento Iraque, pudesse estar nascendo uma ameaça potencialmente ainda mais grave.
–
Neste vídeo, parte da nossa série especial “21 Notícias que marcaram o Século 21”, Camilla Veras Mota explica o surgimento, auge e declínio do brutal grupo autodenominado Estado Islâmico, responsável por algumas das piores atrocidades vistas no mundo na história recente.
On the 13th of February, 2017, then Senator Jacqui Lambie, and Islamic youth leader Yassmin Abdel-Magied, had a screaming match on Australia’s Q&A, and within it, Yassmin asserted the following: “Excuse me, Islam to me is one of the most, if the most feminist religion. Right… we got equal rights well before the Europeans. We don’t take our husband’s last names because we ain’t their property”, and I simply can’t let that slide… this is Islam is the Most Feminist Religion – Debunked.
“Anybody that supports Sharia law in this country should be deported.”
“So, do you know what Sharia law is?”
“Yes, but it does not have–”
“Do you know what it is? Me praying five–”
“Are you too for Sharia law?”
“Of course – me praying five times a day is Sharia, right.”
“Like basic… do you even–”
“What about equal rights for women? What about, what about–”
“That’s completely separate from Islam!”
“Oh, so now you can be a Sharia law supporter and half pregnant at the same time? Come on…”
“What are you talking about? You are talking about stuff you don’t know anything… like, okay, I’m not going attack you personally, but my… but the frustration is that people talk about Islam without knowing anything about it, and they’re willing to completely negate any of my rights as a human being, as a woman, as a person with agency simply because they have an idea about what my faith is about. Excuse me, Islam to me is one of the most, if the most feminist religion. Right we got equal rights well before the Europeans.” “We don’t take our husband’s last names because we ain’t their property, right. We were given the right to own land. We are con… like the fact is, what is culture is separate from what is faith, and the fact that people go around dissing my faith without knowing anything about it, and want to chuck me out of a country–I have done, and Muslims… The fact is Jacqui I agree… with you…wait, wait–”
“The fact is there is we have one law in this country and it is the Australian law, not Sharia law.”
*Cheering* “Not in this country. Not in my, not in my day.”
“In Sharia it says you follow the law of the land on which you are on. It says in Islam you follow the law of the land on which you are on.”
*Applause* “You tell me why are women… treated like second class citizens. Why gays are killed? You tell me that.”
“That is not my religion.”
“Jacqui, Jacqui, both of you. Can I just say that shouting at each other is not going to help…”
“That is true.”
“So please stop.”
Meow… crap, I’m going to get accused of misogyny now! (“That’s a whole other level of harassment, really!”).
Jokes aside, within this short exchange Jacqui and Yassmin both make several assertions, and while I find fault with Jacqui’s (and specifically her rhetoric), I find greater fault with Yassmin’s, as not only are they factually incorrect, they’re dangerous! Over the last few years there’s been an influx of female Muslim activists insisting that Islam is a girl’s best friend, and it’s about time that real feminists called out this insulting tripe for what is it.
“So what I’m offering you today is the story of how Islam has made me a feminist.”
“Who in society deserves my respect and kindness? And so the Prophet replied “Your mother” […] What it means is that your mother actually deserves three times more respect than your dad does just because she had to bear with you for nine months.”
“So many times you’ve brought up women and Islam… I’d just like to correct that I’ve read the Quran, and all Muslim scholars would agree with me that Islam gives women a lot of rights.” […] “I mean, I am a young Muslim woman myself, I sit before you, I have a voice, and I can speak to you and I can look you in the eye, and I do have my rights. And when I go to Iran– I’m actually Iranian as well, and so when I go to Iran I also have my rights.”
“We’re going to take that a comment, and as a very passive one at that.”
*Clapping* “Oh now we’re not – we’re not! We’re not going to take that as a comment. I can see your face, I can see your hair, and I can see you sitting in an audience with young gentlemen – don’t you tell me you can do any of that in Iran.”
“I can though…”
“No you can’t.”
“Yes I can.”
“No you can not!”
*Laughter* […] “You insult your sisters in Iran who’re being beaten… who’re being beaten and raped every day when you say that they have their rights in the Islamic Republic–It’s an insult to the women of Iran.”
Yeah, Hitch! You go, girl… so here’s the plan – I’m going to identify and then address each of Yassmin’s claims, starting with her concept of Sharia Law.
“Anybody that supports Sharia law in this country should be deported.”
“So, do you know what Sharia law is?”
“Yes, but it does not have–”
“Do you know what it is? Me praying five–”
“Are you too for Sharia law?”
“Of course – me praying five times a day is Sharia, right.”
Yes, praying five times a day is Sharia, but so too is stoning homosexual to death, executing apostates, and requiring two female witnesses in court to oppose one male witness. To put it simply, the term ‘Shari ah” refers to Allah’s immutable divine law, and it evidently originally meant “way” or “path”. Hence, Sharia Law means divine law, and it’s derived from various Islamic sources, such as the Quran and the Hadith. Now the reason this needs to be made clear is because Yassmin’s Sharia Law is… well, Yassmin’s:
“You tell me why are women… treated like second class citizens. Why gays are killed? You tell me that.”
“That is not my religion.”
Really, Yassmin? Executing homosexuals isn’t an edict of your religion? Because the Hadith plainly states that “If a man who is not married seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death”, and within the Quran your prophet Mohammad says “Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lot, kill them, both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done”.
According to the ILGA, there are currently eight countries in which homosexuality is punishable by death – that being Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen; parts of Somalia and northern Nigeria, and coincidentally, they all justify this punishment with explicit reference to the aforementioned Islamic sources: that is, they all justify this punishment with explicit reference to Sharia Law.
And so yes, Yassmin can say “That is not my religion”, but in doing so she’s committing a No True Scotsman fallacy – she’s hand-waving away legitimate criticisms of Sharia Law by insisting that only her very unique interpretation is the “real” one. To dust-off and reemploy the almighty glove of Hitch, she’s doing her sisters abroad (who’re truly suffering under Sharia Law) a grave disservice.
Moving on, I think Yassmin is very much mistaken when she says “What is culture is separate from what is faith”, and “That’s completely separate from Islam!” The truth is that culture and religion heavily influence one-another, and under the rubric of a theocracy they are pretty much indistinguishable (as is the case, for example, in Saudi Arabia). As a culture, Saudi Arabia overwhelmingly despises homosexuals because it’s overwhelmingly Muslim.
We see this type of scapegoating by Islamic apologists all the damn time – they attribute all that is bad about Islam to “culture”, and all that is good about Islam to “Islam”, and this is precisely what Yassmin is doing here.
Anyhow, next, I want to respond to the statement that Yassmin received an applause for:
“In Sharia it says you follow the law of the land on which you are on. It says in Islam you follow the law of the land on which you are on.” *Applause*
Yes, due to a verse in chapter 4 of the Quran, which states “O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority over you”, Sharia Law holds that Muslims must follow the laws of the land upon which they are on, BUT only if those laws are is not in contradiction with their religion. Or to quote the Hadith, “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” And so what this equates to is Muslims saying “Yes, I’ll live according to your rules, but only if they don’t contradict my rules…”
And finally, I want to address the crux of Yassmin’s central claims: “Excuse me, Islam to me is one of the most, if the most feminist religion. Right we got equal rights well before the Europeans. We don’t take our husband’s last names because we ain’t their property.”
To begin, when Yassmin says “We got equal rights well before the Europeans” I’m fairly certain she’s misspoke, because female Muslims don’t have equal rights even TODAY, let alone historically. What I think she meant to say is that that “Muslim women had MORE rights than European women during the early days of Islam” – which, so far as my research yields, is correct – the Romans, Athenians, and of course, Christians, horrifically subordinated women.
However, LONG before the inception of Islam, many NON-European women enjoyed significantly more rights than Islam has ever granted them. For example, in Mesopotamia, women could buy, own, sell and inherit land, could engage in commerce, and could testify in court as EQUAL to men (unlike, say, women TODAY under Sharia).
Secondly, when Yassmin says “We don’t take our husband’s last names because we ain’t their property” she’s clutching at straws. Sure, Muslim women don’t take their husband’s last name, but historically they have been, and to the largest extent still are, treated as if they’re second-class citizens. For example, a Muslim woman can initiate divorce, but imams will often inhibit her less she has her husband’s consent or proof of legitimate grounds (because, again, according to Sharia Law, a woman’s word is worth only half that of a man’s) – but if a Muslim man wants to divorce one of his wives, he can do so at any time and without reason, so long as she’s not menstruating. So yeah… tell me again how Islam is THE most feminist religion…
“My frustration is that people talk about Islam without knowing anything about it.” This is most certainly true, I’ll grant Yassmin that, but she (and other Muslim apologists) talk about Islam as if people know nothing about it, and that’s also not acceptable… The truth is that Islam is not only not the most feminist religion, it is actually one of the biggest threats to feminism. Since the Quran asserts that it is the last revelation, it’s unchanging misogynistic edicts are forever tethered to antiquity, and while “moderate” interpretations will continue to grow vaguer and vaguer (such has been the case with Christianity), the fact remains (and will always remain), that Islam is NOT the most feminist religion – and it certainly isn’t more feminist than non-religious secularism and humanism.
Anyhow, I’m Stephen Woodford / Rationality Rules, and as always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve supported the channel via PayPal and merchandise. As a quick update on the Debunked card game, I’ve managed to finalised a lot of the rules, have designed a few of the cards, and am aiming to release a Kickstarter for it late January / early February, and so if you’re interested, please stay tuned by following me on Facebook, Twitter, or Patreon. Until next time my fellow apes, until next
time.
Islam is a Religion of Peace – Debunked (Islam is Peaceful – Refuted) | Rationality Rules
Peace is defined as a lack of conflict and a freedom from fear of violence. It’s tranquility and harmony, and a critical component to happiness… and Islam my friends, is precisely not that… this is, Islam is a Religion of Peace – Debunked.
Okay, I might have been a bit facetious in my intro, but I nevertheless stand by the sentiment of what I said – Islam is not a religion of peace, and in this video, I want to predominately explain why. However, for the purpose of clarity, I want to first put this assertion in a syllogistic form:
Peace is defined as a lack of conflict and a freedom from fear of violence.
Islam acts according to and in seek of, peace.
Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace.
In my opinion, when someone employs this argument the first thing to do is to identify exactly how they’re defining the word “peace”. The reason being is that there are two versions of this argument; the first is one in which the proponent is sincerely asserting that Islam is a religion of peace as defined colloquially, and the second is one in which the proponent is periodically using an Islamic definition of the word “peace”. Hence, this is why it’s important to get them to define “peace” from the outset.
To debunk the second version first, because, you know, screw logic, it’s important that we first understand what exactly Islam means within the Islamic world. The word “Islam” is derived from the Arabic word “salaam”, a word literally meaning “peace”, and Islam as a religious practice refers to a person submitting herself or himself to the will of Allah in order to seek eternal peace and tranquility. Or to put it more bluntly, in the Islamic world, Islam is the definition of peace, and therefore Islam is, by definition, a religion of peace.
Now if this isn’t an obvious example of Circular Reasoning, I don’t know what is… Defining Islam as peace and then asserting that Islam is peaceful is as circular as defining Nazism as love and then asserting that Nazism is loving… not only is this confusing, it’s deceitful! What’s more is that when the proponents of this argument use the colloquial definition of the word “peace” within their first and third premises, but use the Islamic definition of the word “peace” for their second premise, they’re actually committing a classic Equivocation Fallacy. By interchanging between two different definitions of “peace” throughout their premises, their argument is incoherent and therefore invalid.
But what about those who assert that Islam is a religion of peace as defined colloquially? You know, the likes of Maajid Nawaz and Zeba Khan? How exactly have these people come to the conclusion that Islam is indeed a religion of peace? Well, to begin, while they recognize that countless atrocities have been committed in the name of Islam, they nevertheless maintain that these acts are the result of fanatics, extremists and militants taking Islamic teaching out of context. But to raise an immediate objection, this claim is simply false. Flat out, demonstrably, false.
As I demonstrated in my video about Islamophobia, the Quran and Hadith possess countless violent verses that instruct Muslims, and moderate Muslims do indeed endorse and commit many reprehensible atrocities with explicit reference to Islamic teaching. What’s more is that they do incessantly claim jurisdiction over the experience of others, and so they are therefore not peaceful.
To name but a few examples, a poll of over 38,000 Muslims from over 39 different countries found that: 60% of moderate Muslims believe that a wife should obey her husband; 75% believe that it is necessary to believe in Allah to be a moral person; 40% want the death penalty for those who leave Islam; and, 60% want Sharia law to be the official law of their country. What’s more is that even 61% of “moderate” British Muslims believe that homosexuals should be punished…
So, as Sam Harris says, “the problem is not religious extremism, because extremism is not a problem if your core beliefs are truly non-violent. The problem isn’t fundamentalism. […] The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism, are the fundamentals of Islam.”
To hammer home this point, Harris often uses the example of Jainism as an actual religion of peace, as its central tenet is non-violence and respect towards all living beings… the more extreme a Jainist becomes, the less we need to worry about them. But so far as I am aware, the same cannot be said for any other religion, and especially not for Islam. To quote Harris again – and yes, Harris is going to feature in a lot of my videos because he is in my opinion way ahead of his time, “the problem is that Islam isn’t a religion of peace, and the so-called extremists are seeking to implement what is arguably the most honest reading of the faith’s actual doctrine.”
A second prominent objection that the proponents of this argument present, is that of contextualization. For example, to paraphrase Nawaz, “Muhammad and the history of Islam must not be judged by the standards of civilization that we, after an accumulation of thousands of years have arrived at. Islamic history must be judged by the standards of its time”.
But this is simply nonsense – and here’s why… Islam has always uniquely claimed that its teachings are the final and unalterable revelation from the almighty, and that by extension its edicts are absolutely final! Therefore, because Muhammad practiced and Islam endorses and encourages elderly men to take young girls as wives, this rule is final. For a Muslim to now contextualize this edict and practice is to reject that Muhammad’s example and revelation is final. In fact, it’s worth pointing out that in Saudi Arabia there isn’t an age restriction for marriage whatsoever… and of course, the reason for this is explicitly Islamic…
What’s more is that even if Islam didn’t claim to be the final and unalterable word of the creator of the universe, we still can and should judge its historical acts despite its context. Hell, future generations will most certainly look back at our actions today and judge us… and they should! A third prominent objection that the proponents of this argument present is the assertion that Christianity is not a religion of peace either – often by referring to the Crusades etc. Now of course, this is true – Christianity is definitely not a religion of peace, but to bring this up is simply a Red Herring – it’s a distraction and a redundant use of energy. It’s the equivalent of someone saying in a debate about Hitler’s atrocities that Stalin was worse… it’s irrelevant, and a because of this it can be dismissed without serious consideration.
And finally, a small point I’d like to make before I recap is the fact that yes, pretty much any religion, or any ideology for that matter, can indeed be practiced peacefully – but this doesn’t mean that the religion or ideology is peaceful itself. To be a peaceful Muslim you need a very peculiar interpretation of the Islam indeed; you must reject the vast majority of its teachings and pick a mix the peaceful verses… you know, just like most modern Christians.
So, to recap, the second variation of the argument that Islam is a Religion of Peace is flawed because;
It commits a Circular Reasoning Fallacy, and;
It commits an Equivocation Fallacy.
And the first variation of the argument that Islam is a Religion of Peace is flawed because;
Moderate Muslims do promote and commit atrocities in the name is Islam (not just fanatics);
Contextualization is irrelevant, and;
Some, but not all proponents of this argument, commit a Red Herring Fallacy.
Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, and instead of leaving you with an overwhelming powerful argument to consider, I’m instead going to leave you with a quote from Douglas Murry: “The fact is that Islam is many things… many many things – but to say it’s a religion of peace is nonsense; it’s to ignore reality; it’s to ignore very difficult, but necessary facts; not paradigms, but facts! To say that Islam is a religion of peace is to say something based entirely on hope; it’s to elevate a hope into truth, and I hope as you all know, history teaches us that’s a very bad thing to do.”
Editado em 06/07/2022: adicionado vídeo redundante caso o Youtube remova o vídeo original.
Quase concluindo este ciclo de postagens, a parte sete traz um vídeo de um ex-muçulmano falando dos perigos que sua antiga ideologia traz para o mundo ocidental.
Ex-muçulmano fala sobre os perigos do islamismo para o ocidente | José Atento BLOG LEI ISLÂMICA EM AÇÃO
Nasim Ben Islam é um apóstata do islão, residente na Alemanha. Ele recentemente escreveu um livro chamado “O verdadeiro inimigo … porque eu não me tornei um terrorista” e foi entrevistado. O vídeo mostra partes importantes da sua entrevista.
Nesta triste sexta parte, vamos ver as experiências daqueles que optaram por sair do Islamismo. As dificuldades, pressões e grandes riscos para aqueles que se recusam a abrir mão da Liberdade e não aceitam o Islã.
The Dangers of Leaving Islam | VICE Asia
Ex-Muslims share their experiences | The Economist
Atheism in Egypt: The challenges facing non-believers? | BBC News
Egypt’s push against atheism and ‘non-believers’ | FRANCE 24 English
Atheist YouTuber Arrested in Egypt | Sherif Gaber and the Plight of Ex-Muslims | Genetically Modified Skeptic
Lebanon’s atheists on losing their religion | BBC News
Stephanie: The Price a Mother Paid for Leaving Islam | Ex-Muslims of North America
Editado em 06/07/2022: adicionado vídeo redundante caso o Youtube remova o vídeo original.
Nesta quinta parte, quero trazer um vídeo que fala sobre a irreversibilidade da situação em que nos encontramos mundialmente. É um problema do qual não poderemos escapar e, cedo ou tarde, teremos de enfrentar.
Não consegui reencontrar o vídeo completo da Missão Reviver. O vídeo é de 2009. Se puder ajudar, indique onde posso encontrá-lo.
Crescimento do Islamismo (Mundo Muçulmano) | Realidade Invertida
Crescimento da população árabe descendente na Europa e América do Norte. Mudança populacional e formação de nações muçulmanas em países tradicionalmente de maioria católica ou protestante.
Editado em 17/05/2021: recolocado vídeo censurado pelo Youtube.
Nesta terceira parte da série, veja este vídeo que traz um apanhado histórico de como o Islamismo age politicamente e militarmente.
Religião assassina — O perigo histórico do Islã | Pensador Nato Discurso de Brigitte Gabriel para FRCAction.org legendado em PTBR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zQ0bS2F3Jc
Breve História do Islã – Brigitte Gabriel (9 set. leia 11 set.) – (leg PTBr)| Luigi Benesilvi
Brigitte Gabriel faz um resumo dos principais eventos históricos do Islã, desde os primeiros tempos de Maomé em Mecca e Medina (15 min. leg. PTBr) (onde está 9 de setembro, leia-se 11 de setembro)
EDITADO: Querem dificultar o acesso a essas informações? Tudo bem, só me dão mais trabalho. Abaixo do vídeo estão os principais dados apresentados em fotogramas selecionados por mim.
Nesta segunda parte da série, veja os dados estatísticos que apresentam ser significativo o número de muçulmanos favoráveis a ações contrárias aos ocidentais e aos seus valores.
O perigo do Islã: Detalhes e estatísticas apresentados por uma muçulmana | Brasileiro Patriota
Apresentação traduzida de Raheel Raza: By the numbers – The untold story of muslim opinions and demographics | Clarion Project
Início da a presentação. Raheel Raza começa discutindo a necessidade de se falar sobre o radicalismo islâmico. A contínua falácia de que 99,9% dos muçulmanos são contrários ao radicalismo é posta em discussão. É evidente que a maior parte dos atentados terroristas é praticada por muçulmanos, e que parte considerável da cultura islâmica é contrária aos valores contemporâneos, que prezam a liberdade.Hoje há mais de 1,6 bilhão de muçulmanos ao redor do mundo, principalmente radicados na Península Arábica e na África.O Islamismo é a ideologia que mais cresce ao redor do mundo. Muito importante que eu escreva aqui ”ideologia”. Conforme coloquei na primeira postagem desta série, não considero o Islamismo uma religião e sim uma ”ideologia travestida de religião”. As projeções indicam que a quantidade de seguidores do Cristianismo, atualmente a maior religião do mundo (se somadas todas as denominações) será ultrapassada pelos seguidores do Islamismo antes do final do século XXI.O que nos leva ao problema: como lidar com os seguidores do Islamismo? Qual é o seu número de radicais? Em que acreditam? O que defendem? Como lidam com aqueles que não seguem o Islã?Imaginando círculos concêntricos, temos os Jihadistas. A Jihad é a ”guerra santa” dos seguidores do Islamismo. Segundo o Islamismo, é lícito e estimulado aos seus seguidores impô-lo à força sobre todas as pessoas no mundo. Os Jihadistas são aqueles que estão dispostos ao ”martírio”, que é matar e morrer pelo Islamismo. Esse é o núcleo das ”esferas de radicalização” e, mesmo em menor número, são capazes de causar conseqüências funestas em grande escala, com a morte de muitas pessoas inocentes.A quantidade de Jihadistas hoje perfaz aproximadamente 200.000 pessoas, de ambos os sexos, divididas nos chamados ”grupos extremistas”. Os principais são o Estado Islâmico, o Hamas, o Hezbollah, a Al-Qaeda, dentre muitos outros.A segunda esfera de radicalização é formada pelos ”islamistas”. Eles também acreditam na imposição do Islamismo ao redor do mundo, mas não estão dispostos a um conflito armado direto. Em seu lugar, eles usam dissimuladas estratégias políticas e econômicas, fomentando financeiramente os Jihadistas e utilizando a liberdade do sistema ocidental contra si mesmo. Eles usurpam e subvertem o sistema político e jurídico local, a imprensa e os meios de comunicação, defendendo exclusivamente os interesses islâmicos, sem restrições morais. Uma estratégia muito similar à empregada pelo Marxismo (Gramscismo) ao redor do mundo. Infiltram-se em posições-chave, de controle e de influência, para por em prática seu plano de dominação da população e submissão dela ao Islamismo.A terceira e maior esfera é a dos ”fundamentalistas islâmicos”. É composta, conforme comprovado pelos dados estatísticos abaixo, pela maior parte dos seguidores do Islamismo. São aqueles que vivem segundo as leis islâmicas, leis essas contrárias aos valores morais da sociedade ocidental contemporânea.Os dados estatísticos abaixo foram extraídos a partir de pesquisa realizada em dezenas de países ao redor do mundo, todos com maioria ou considerável participação social de seguidores do Islamismo.Entre os grandes países islâmicos, de 79% a 86% dos seguidores da Sharia defendem que aqueles que deixarem o Islamismo devem ser mortos.Aproximadamente 237 milhões de muçulmanos acreditam que aqueles que deixam o Islamismo devem ser mortos por isso.Mais de 345 milhões de muçulmanos acreditam/consideram que matar em nome da honra pode ser justificado. Exemplo: matar mulheres acusadas de adultério.No ocidente, especificamente França, Reino Unido e Estados Unidos, entre 26% e 42% dos muçulmanos ali residentes acreditam que atentados suicidas com bombas provocando a morte de civis podem ser justificados.Segundo a pesquisa, a maioria dos muçulmanos, em 53%, defendem que a Sharia deva ser imposta como a lei local.Dentro dessa maioria de 53%, 281 milhões de muçulmanos são a favor de punições físicas, como espancamentos por chibatadas e amputações.Também dentro dessa maioria, mais de 289 milhões de muçulmanos são a favor da morte por apedrejamento de adúlteros.
Com essas informações divulgadas, espero ter podido contribuir para o esclarecimento do segundo perigo que ameaça a liberdade do mundo ocidental.
Hoje há apenas três formas de Estado no mundo. A direita liberal cristã 1 , a esquerda socialista ateísta 2 e a teocracia muçulmana. Todos os governos dos países orientais, por conta da colonização, também fazem parte dessa tríade.
Não é de hoje que escrevo criticamente sobre a ”esquerda”, alcunha simplista 3 utilizada como referência a todo o movimento que iniciou com o ideário hegeliano-marxista e evoluiu para o hodierno neo-marxismo pós-moderno. Os brasileiros já estão compreendendo, tardiamente, o mal que os ideários esquerdistas trazem para a sociedade. Discurso contra a propriedade privada, contra a legítima defesa, contra a família e contra os bons costumes, a favor de aborto, de drogas, de auto-segregação (sob epíteto de ”ação afirmativa”), feminismo associado à ideologia de gênero (um paradoxo), tudo o que não presta e é honestamente indefensável é falaciosamente defendido com o propósito premeditado de degradar a cultura (o senso de ”pertencimento”) e subjugar o povo (tomado por ”massa”) ao poder do Partido. ”Acuse-os do que é e do que faz”, eis o mote. E com a ditadura do politicamente correto, subvertem o conceito de tolerância para tolerarmos o intolerável.
E acusam-nos de sermos intolerantes. Bem, relativamente não somos nem um pouco intolerantes. Ao menos não tanto quanto o segundo inimigo que o mundo ocidental há de combater. Reestudando religiões, percebo que a população das Américas não está ciente do gravíssimo perigo que o Islamismo representa para o mundo livre.
Travestida de religião, a ideologia islâmica é um modo de vida social, econômico e, especialmente e indissociavelmente, político. Considero que religião é algo que lida com o transcedental, com o metafísico. O Islamismo, porém, trata de ordenar os assuntos mundanos. A Sharia, sua lei, trata desde aspectos de higiene íntima, passando por etiqueta, dieta, vestuário e economia, e indo até orientações militares. Consiste numa teocracia em que os indivíduos são hipnotizados naquilo que têm de mais íntimo e que afeta todos os detalhes de sua vida, que é a sua religiosidade.
Por se tratar de algo tão íntimo e tão caro, a religiosidade pode assumir altíssimo grau de importância, até mesmo ser essencial na vida da pessoa. O Islamismo é uma ideologia que se apresenta como religião, e por isso é tão atrativa e sedutora. Apresenta-se como um porto seguro neste tão conturbado mundo em que vivemos, onde tantas pessoas carecem de segurança emocional.
Enquanto que no Marxismo/Socialismo/Comunismo as pessoas têm seu apoio (família, religião, identidade própria) paulatinamente removido, o Islamismo converte (ou ”reverte”, como chamam) a pessoa, convencendo-a a deixar para trás o multifacetado e complexo sistema de vida livre ocidental para adotar o pré-moldado e pré-estabelecido sistema de vida muçulmano, com ”todas as respostas prontas”, com ”todas as dúvidas sanadas”, com a ”verdade revelada”. E viver tal como se vivia na Alta Idade Média, 1.400 anos atrás, apedrejando apóstatas e circuncidando meninos e meninas.
Esta é a primeira postagem da série em que trago vídeos para que você se informe do perigo. Eles estão crescendo e, tal como são um problema na Europa e nos EUA, também o serão no Brasil.
COMO O ISLÃ IRÁ DOMINAR O MUNDO? | Lobo Conservador
[ASSISTA LOGO] PORQUE O AVANÇO DO ISLAMISMO É UM PERIGO? | Lobo Conservador
A China comunista os envia para campos de concentração ou ”reeducação” como chamam. Ela sabe do perigo que representam e já estão agindo. Os muçulmanos por sua vez sabem que não têm poder suficiente para enfrentá-la. Eles querem primeiro tomar o poder no ocidente, fortalecerem-se, para depois voltarem-se para lá. E nós estamos no meio dessa guerra.
Campos de concentração de muçulmanos na China; Fonte: TheDiplomat.com
Está com pena? Há grupos que somente dão valor aos direitos das minorias quando eles são a minoria. Quando se tornam a maioria, as minorias não têm direito algum.
Os pequenos reinados remanescentes espalhados pelo mundo também se alinham a esses modelos, normalmente ao primeiro. Note que me refiro apenas ao modelo de governo, não à religião majoritária ou estatal. ↩
”Que busca tornar ateu.” Lembre que qualquer religião é, por definição, contrária aos interesses socialistas. ↩
Embora não seja uma ideologia uniforme, creio que caiba a cognominação, desde que com cautela. Creio ser cabível porque já faz parte do vocabulário do conservadorismo liberal, por sua vez chamado ”direita”. Veja mais em: Não gosto de conversar sobre política. ↩
Website de Pedro Figueira 