103 - O Estado Islâmico é islâmico sim

O ESTADO ISLÂMICO É ISLÂMICO SIM

A primeira coisa que os chamados líderes moderados do maometismo (islamismo) e os intelectuais, os políticos e a mídia politicamente correta do Ocidente dizem quando ocorre um atentado terrorista praticado por maometanos (muçulmanos) radicais é que esses terroristas não são de fato islâmicos, que não seguem o verdadeiro islamismo, que os seus atos não têm respaldo no Alcorão e que seriam condenados por Maomé. O Islã, afirmam os muçulmanos "moderados", é uma religião da paz e tolerância. O terrorismo islâmico é resultado de uma leitura distorcida do Alcorão, insistem.

Acontece que existem sim diversos versículos nos capítulos (suras) do Alcorão que respaldam as ações do Estado Islâmico e de outras organizações revolucionárias praticantes do jihadismo (luta armada maometana), como a Al-Qaeda e os grupos do movimento talibã. O Novo Testamento, que contém a essência da doutrina cristã, também é objeto de controvérsias teológicas e de várias interpretações (basta lembrar a cisão entre católicos e protestantes e entre os próprios protestantes), mas não há nessa coleção de livros a defesa da violência como aparece tão frequentemente no Alcorão. Além disso, o Novo Testamento é considerado pelos cristãos um livro escrito por homens inspirados por Deus, com trechos que reproduzem as palavras de Jesus, a encarnação de Deus. Mesmo divinamente inspirados, esses homens estavam sujeitos a erros ou incompreensão da mensagem original. O Alcorão, por sua vez, é considerado pelos maometanos (muçulmanos) a reprodução literal das palavras de Deus transmitidas a Maomé, seu mensageiro, por intermédio do anjo Gabriel. Ali estão contidas as ordens diretas de Deus, segundo o islamismo. E entre essas ordens ou orientações está a defesa da violência contra não muçulmanos de uma forma disseminada que não existe no Novo Testamento. É difícil sustentar que o conteúdo desses textos alcorânicos precisa ser analisado de forma relativa ou que precisam ser contextualizados. Eles podem sim justificar a violência do terrorismo islâmico contra não muçulmanos e contra os próprios muçulmanos. 

Veja abaixo os versículos que justificam essa violência. Eles foram retirados da aclamada tradução do Alcorão feita diretamente do árabe por Mansour Challita (Editora Associação Internacional Gibran, sem data). Entre parênteses aparece o número do capítulo ou sura, seguido do versículo:

1. O ALCORÃO, A PALAVRA DE DEUS

Revelamos-te o Livro com a verdade para que julgues entre os homens conforme o que Deus te mostrou. Mas não sejas para os pérfidos um defensor. (4: 105)

Enviamos-lhes um Livro sabiamente elucidado: uma orientação e uma misericórdia para os crentes. (7: 52)

É uma blasfêmia atribuir este Alcorão a outro que não a Deus. Ele é a confirmação do que o precedeu e a elucidação do Livro incontestável do Senhor dos mundos. (10: 37)

Procuraria eu um árbitro fora de Deus quando é Ele que vos revelou o Livro com todos os detalhes? Aqueles a quem revelamos o Livro sabem que ele emana de teu Senhor, com a verdade. Não sejas, pois, um dos que duvidam. (5: 114)

Perfeitas são as palavras de teu Senhor, na justiça e na verdade. Ninguém as pode modificar. Ele ouve tudo e sabe tudo. (5: 115)

Será que não meditam sobre o Alcorão? Se não fosse enviado por Deus, encontrariam nele muitas contradições. (4: 82)

E obedecei a Deus e obedecei ao Mensageiro e acautela-vos. Se virardes as costas e vos afastardes, sabei que a Nosso Mensageiro só incumbe transmitir claramente a mensagem. (5: 92)

2. O CONVÍVIO COM OS NÃO MUÇULMANOS

Ó vós que credes, não tomeis por aliados os judeus e os cristãos. Que sejam aliados uns dos outros. Quem de vós os tomar por aliados é deles. Deus não guia os iníquos. (5: 51)

Ó vós que credes, não adoteis por amigos os que, tendo recebido o Livro antes de vós, tratam vossa religião de divertimento e objeto de escárnio, e não adoteis por amigos os descrentes. E temei a Deus se sois crentes. (5: 57)

Desejariam que fôsseis descrentes como eles: então todos seríeis iguais. Não tomeis amigos dentre eles até que emigrem para Deus. Se virarem as costas e se afastarem, capturai-os e matai-os onde quer que os acheis. E não tomeis nenhum deles por confidente ou aliado. (4: 89)

Aqueles que preferem a amizade dos descrentes à dos crentes, que esperam? A grandeza? Toda grandeza pertence a Deus. (4: 139)

Ó vós que credes, não prefirais a amizade dos descrentes à dos crentes. Quereis dar a Deus uma prova pública contra vós? (4: 144)

Deus vos recomendou no Livro de não vos sentardes com os que conversam de Suas revelações, rejeitando-as e desrespeitando-as até que mudem de assunto. Se o fizerdes, sereis como eles. Deus juntará na Geena [Inferno] os hipócritas e os descrentes. (4: 140)

3. A GUERRA SANTA E O TRATAMENTO AOS NÃO MUÇULMANOS

Combate, pois, pela causa de Deus. És responsável apenas por ti mesmo. E exorta os crente. Queira Deus  conter a força dos descrentes! Deus é mais forte e o mais rigoroso no castigo. (4:84)

Esses versículos, em especial, condenam os muçulmanos moderados ou acomodados e justificam a militância violenta dos jihadistas: Não há igualdade entre os crentes que permanecem em casa, sem serem inválidos, e os que combatem e arriscam bens e vida a serviço de Deus. Deus eleva os que lutam por Ele com seus bens e sua vida um grau acima dos outros. A todos, Deus promete excelente recompensa, mas conferirá aos combatentes paga superior à dos que permanecem em casa. (4: 95). Ó vós que credes, que vos sucede quando vos dizem: "Parti ao combate pela causa de Deus" e vós permaneceis imóveis como pegados à terra? Preferis a vida terrena ao Além? Os gozos da vida terrena são insignificantes comparados com os gozos do Além (9: 38). Se não combaterdes, Deus vos imporá um castigo doloroso e vos substituirá por outros, e em nada vós O prejudicareis. Deus tem o poder sobre tudo. (9: 39).

Ó vós que credes, temei a Deus e procurai aproximar-vos d'Ele e lutai pela Sua causa. E possais vencer. (5: 35)

Ó vós que credes, quando encontrardes os descrentes prontos para a guerra, não lhes volteis as costas. (8: 15). Quem lhes voltar as costas - a menos que seja por estratagema ou para juntar-se a outro grupo - incorrerá na ira de Deus, e sua morada será a Geena [Inferno] (8: 16). Na realidade, não foste vós que o matastes: foi Deus quem os matou; e não foste tu que atiraste as flechas quando atirastes: foi Deus quem aturou. Fê-lo para conferir aos crentes um justo benefício. Ele ouve tudo e sabe tudo. (8: 17) Este versículo justifica atentados terroristas como tendo sido guiados pela mão de Deus.

O castigo dos que fazem a guerra a Deus e a seu Mensageiro e semeiam a corrupção na terra é serem mortos ou crucificados ou terem as mãos e os pés decepados, alternadamente, ou serem exilados do país: uma desonra neste mundo e um suplício no Além (5: 33) Este versículo justifica as atrocidades cometidas pelo Estado Islâmico sobre os prisioneiros não muçulmanos.

Dize aos descrentes que, se se emendarem, o passado ser-lhes-á perdoado. E se reicindirem, que contemplem o exemplo dos antigos! Deus os observa. (8: 38). E combatei-os até que não haja mais idolatria e que a religião pertença exclusivamente a Deus. Se desistirem, Deus observa o que fazem. (8: 39)

4. MATAR MUÇULMANOS

Não pode um crente matar outro crente, a não ser por engano (4: 92). Quem matar um crente com premeditação, seu castigo será a Geena [Inferno] onde permanecerá para todo o sempre, e a cólera de Deus, e a Sua maldição, e um terrível suplício (4: 93). A morte de muçulmanos por outros muçulmanos pode ser justificada como acidental ("baixas colaterais", "fogo amigo"). Mas os jihadistas podem também dizer que os muçulmanos mortos não eram verdadeiros muçulmanos, que eram apóstatas ou traidores do islamismo.

102 - Waging The War on ‘Terror,’ Vichy-style

Waging The War on ‘Terror,’ Vichy-style

November 15, 2015 1:37 pm 

by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

A few hours before the catastrophic attack in Paris, President Obama had announced that ISIS was now “contained,” a recalibration of his earlier assessments of “on the run” and “Jayvees” from a few years back. In the hours following the attack of jihadist suicide bombers and mass murderers in Paris, the Western press talked of the “scourge of terrorism” and “extremist violence”. Who were these terrorists and generic extremists who slaughtered the innocent in Paris — anti-abortionists, Klansmen, Tea-party zealots?

Middle Eastern websites may be crowing over the jihadist rampage and promising more to come, but this past week in the United States we were obsessed over a yuppie son of a multi-millionaire showboating his pseudo-grievances by means of a psychodramatic hunger strike at the University of Missouri and a crowd of cry-baby would-be fascists at Yale bullying a wimpy teacher over supposedly hurtful Halloween costumes. I guess that is the contemporary American version of Verdun and the Battle of the Bulge.

This sickness in the West manifests itself in a variety of creepy ways — to hide bothersome reality by inventing euphemisms and idiocies likely “workplace violence” and “largely secular,” jailing a “right-wing” video maker rather than focusing on jihadist killers in Benghazi, deifying a grade-school poseur inventor who repackaged a Radio Shack clock and wound up winning an invitation to the White House, straining credibility in Cairo to fabricate unappreciated Islamic genius. Are these the symptoms of a post-Christian therapeutic society whose affluence and leisure fool it into thinking that it has such a huge margin of security that it can boast of its ‘tolerance’ and empathy — at the small cost of a few anonymous and unfortunate civilians sacrificed from time to time? Is deterrence a waning asset that has now been exhausted after seven years of Obama administration apologetics and contextualizations?

Our premodern enemies have certainly got our postmodern number. Newsmen compete to warn us not of more jihadists to come or the nature of the Islamist hatred that fuels these murderers, but instead fret about Western “backlash” on the horizon, about how nativists and right-wingers may now “scapegoat” immigrants. Being blown apart may be one thing, but appearing illiberal over the flying body parts is quite another. Let’s hurry up and close Guantanamo Bay so that it will stop “breeding” terrorists; and let’s hurry up even more to restart the “peace talks” to remind ISIS that we are nice to the Palestinians.

Hundreds of thousands flock to Europe not in gratitude at its hospitality but largely contemptuous of those who would be so naive to extend their hospitality to those who hate them. Barack Obama recently called global warming our greatest threat; Al Gore — recently enriched by selling a TV station to carbon-exporting Persian Gulf kleptocrats — is in Paris in Old Testament mode finger-pointing at our existential enemy — carbon. John Kerry, hours before the Paris attacks, announced that the days of ISIS “are numbered.” Angela Merkel welcomes hundreds of thousands of young male Muslims into Europe, and the more they arrive with anything but appreciation for their hosts, the more Westerners can assuage their guilt by turning the other cheek and announcing their progressive fides.

To preserve our sense of progressive utopianism, we seem willing to offer up a few hundred innocents each year to radical Islam. The slaughter might cease in a few years if we were to name our enemies as radical Muslims and make them aware that it could well be suicidal for their cause to kill a Westerner — or at least remind the Islamic world in general that it is a rare privilege to migrate to the West, given that immigration demands civic responsibilities as well as rights and subsidies, and is predicated on legality rather than the power of the stampede. But then to do that we would no longer be Westerners as we now define ourselves.​

101 - WHY THE PARIS MASSACRE WILL HAVE LIMITED IMPACT

WHY THE PARIS MASSACRE WILL HAVE LIMITED IMPACT

by Daniel Pipes

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
November 14, 2015

The murder of some 127 innocents in Paris by a jihadi gang on Friday has again shocked the French and led to another round of solidarity, soul searching, and anger. In the end, however, Islamist violence against Westerners boils down to two questions: How much will this latest atrocity turn public opinion? And how much will it further spur the Establishment to deny reality?

As these questions suggest, the people and the professionals are moving in opposite directions, the former to the right, the latter to the left. In the end, this clash much reduces the impact of such events on policy.

Public opinion moves against Islamists specifically and Islam more generally when the number of deaths is large enough. America's three thousand dead on 9/11 stands out as by far the largest mortality but many other countries have had their equivalent – the Bali bombings for Australia, the railroad bombing for Spain, the Beslan school massacre for Russia, the transportation bombings for Britain.

Sheer numbers are not the only consideration. Other factors can multiply the impact of an assault, making it almost the political equivalent of mass carnage: (1) The renown of those attacked, such as Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands and the Charlie Hebdo office in France. (2) The professional status of the victim, such as soldiers or police. (3) High-profile circumstances, such as the Boston Marathon bombing.

In addition to the over 27,000 attacks globally connected to Islam since 9/11, or more than 5 per day (as counted by TheReligionOfPeace.com), a huge increase in illegal immigration from the Middle East recently exacerbated feelings of vulnerability and fear. It's a one-way street, with not a single soul ever heard to announce, "I used to worry about Islamism but I don't any more."

These cases make more Westerners worried about Islam and related topics from the building of minarets to female infibulation. Overall, a relentless march rightwards is underway. Surveys of European attitudes show 60 to 70 percent of voters expressing these concerns. Populist individuals like Geert Wilders of the Netherlands and parties like the Sweden Democrats are surging in the polls.

But when it comes to the Establishment – politicians, the police, the press, and the professors – the unrelenting violence has a contrary effect. Those charged with interpreting the attacks live in a bubble of public denial (what they say privately is another matter) in which they feel compelled to pretend that Islam has no role in the violence, out of concern that to recognize it would cause even more problems.

These 4-P professionals bald-facedly feign belief in a mysterious "violent extremist" virus that seems to afflict only Muslims, prompting them to engage in random acts of barbaric violence. Of the many preposterous statements by politicians, my all-time favorite is what Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, said about the Charlie Hebdo jihadis: "They're about as Muslim as I am."

This defiance of common sense has survived each atrocity and I predict that it will also outlast the Paris massacre. Only a truly massive loss of life, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands, will force the professionals to back off their deeply ingrained pattern of denying an Islamic component in the spate of attacks.

That pattern has the very consequential effect of shutting out the fears of ordinary voters, whose views thereby have negligible impact on policy. Worries about Shari'a, rape gangs, exotic diseases, and bloodbaths are dismissed with charges of "racism" and "Islamophobia," as though name-calling addresses these real issues.

More surprising yet, the professionals respond to the public's move to the right by themselves moving to the left, encouraging more immigration from the Middle East, instituting more "hate speech" codes to suppress criticism of Islam, and providing more patronage to Islamists. This pattern affects not just Establishment figures of the Left but more strikingly also of the Right (such as Angela Merkel of Germany); only Eastern European leaders such as Hungary's Viktor Orbán permit themselves to speak honestly about the real problems.

Eventually, to be sure, voters' views will make themselves heard, but decades later and more weakly than democratically should have been the case.

Placing the murderous rampage in Paris into this context: it will likely move public sentiments substantially in one direction and Establishment policies in quite the opposite way, therefore ultimately having only a limited impact.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2015 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

100 - Europe and Islam

EUROPE AND ISLAM

No European democracy has the perfect way to handle Islam

Nov 15th 2015, 16:02 BY ERASMUS in the economist

EUROPE'S democracies are standing united in the face of the nihilist terror which struck the heart of the continent on November 13th. With no fear, this time, of alienating patriotic voters, David Cameron managed a few words of French as he expressed his solidarity with the French people.

Even before the latest attacks, it was clear that the leading governments of Europe faced broadly the same dilemma. Within the large and growing Muslim communities which every European state now hosts, a minority is attracted by the cause of violent extremism, at home or abroad. The challenge is to keep that minority small and make sure that the rest of society, including the rising generation of Muslims, plays its part in this.

But in their approaches to this problem, European states have always had differences, often robust ones. At least in pre-9/11 days, French security chiefs used to refer scathingly to "Londonistan" because of the British capital's willingness to harbour Islamist opponents of secular regimes, like the one which usurped power in Algeria. 

There are differences of ideology as well as practice. Like America, only a bit more so, the French republic has a specific set of founding principles and it expects all citizens to accept them, however diverse they may be in other respects. It is agreed that one of the purposes of universal education is to inculcate those ideals. That is in sharp contrast with the British ideal of multiculturalism. To French eyes, it seems that Britain has been too lax in allowing immigrant sub-cultures, like the Asian Muslim enclaves of northern England. The existence of British schools (whether private or within the state system) where the ethos is that of ultra-conservative Islam can seem astonishing to observers from France, or from other European states where education is more centralised.

Britain now acknowledges that multiculturalism has gone too far, especially in education, but in a country that lacks a written constitution, there is uncertainty over what common denominator citizens and schoolchildren should be asked to accept. Whatever answer is found, it will not as demanding as the French approach. In Britain, the decade-old French law that bars headscarves from schools seems like an infringement of liberty. When Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, said he preferred Muslim visitors to his office not to wear full face-veils, he was denounced as grossly insensitive by fellow Labour politicians. That sentiment is still widespread.

Not only is each European country different, each one is changing at a different pace and in a different direction. In contrast with secular France, post-war Germany has always had a lot of religious education, Protestant and Catholic, in its school system. Now there is increasing provision for Islam; what will happen after the arrival of more than a million refugees, mostly Muslim, is anybody's guess. The Netherlands used to be generously multicultural but a sharp reaction set in after the murder of Theo van Gogh, a film-maker, by a Muslim fanatic in 2004, and the effects are still palpable.

The hard truth is that no European country has found the ideal balance between accepting diversity (which is the natural impulse of a liberal democratic state) and demanding adherence to a common set of values. That is because no perfect balance exists.

France has done its collective best to offer Muslim citizens a hard secularist bargain: accept the ideals of the republic, which include the religious neutrality of the state, and you will be as free to practice your religion as any Catholic, Protestant or Jew. It has more-or-less successfully imposed that bargain on the organisations which speak for Islam in France. But inevitably, there are those who reject it. For the great majority of French citizens of Muslim heritage, the republic's offer is probably acceptable. But if only 1% of young French Muslims radically reject it that is easily enough to provide terrorist movements with ample recruits.

Exactly the same applies to the somewhat different bargains that every other European state is offering. There is no ideal solution, but we still have to keep looking for one.

99 - What to call Islamic Sate

 WHAT TO CALL ISLAMIC STATE

Nov 15th 2015, 23:53 BY THE ECONOMIST

HOURS AFTER France and America pledged to ramp up the war against Islamic State (IS) in response to attacks in Paris that killed 129 and wounded more than 350, French warplanes began pounding the group’s stronghold in Raqqa, in north-eastern Syria. The operation was conducted in co-ordination with American forces. The French and Americans seemed to be unified over the name they are using for this terrorist scourge, too. Announcing strikes, the French defence ministry referred to a target “used by Daish as a command post”. Barack Obama used the same term when he spoke, at a G20 leaders’ summit in Turkey, of redoubling efforts “to bring about a peaceful transition in Syria and to eliminate Daish as a force that can create so much pain and suffering for people in Paris, in Ankara, and in other parts of the globe.” John Kerry, the American secretary of state, also called IS Daish during a meeting in Vienna. The group has variously been dubbed ISIS, ISIL, IS and SIC too. Why the alphabet soup?

Part of the reason is that the group has evolved over time, changing its own name. It started as a small but viciously effective part of the Sunni resistance to America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI. In 2007, following the death of its founder (and criticism from al-Qaeda for being too bloodthirsty), AQI rebranded itself the Islamic State in Iraq, or ISI. It suffered setbacks on its home turf, but as Syria descended into civil war in 2011 ISI spotted an opportunity. By 2013 it had inserted itself into eastern Syria and adopted a new name to match: the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Increasing the confusion, ISIS changed its name yet again in June 2014, declaring itself the State of the Islamic Caliphate (SIC), a title that reflects its ambitions to rule over Muslims everywhere.

Translation presents another opportunity for acronyms to flourish. In its earlier incarnation as ISIS, the group had sought to challenge "colonialist" borders by using an old Arab geographical term—al-Sham—that applies either to the Syrian capital, Damascus, or to the wider region of the Levant; hence the official American preference for calling it Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, rather than ISIS. The Arabic for this, al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil ’Iraq wal-Sham, can be abbreviated to Daish, just as the Palestinian group Hamas (which means "zeal") is an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya, or Islamic Resistance Movement. Daish is the name that has widely stuck among Arabs, although the group’s own members call it simply the State, al-Dawla, for short, and threaten with lashes those who use Daish. (Daish and Daesh are one and the same acronym in Arabic, merely transliterated differently for the Roman script.)

There is a long history of pinning unpleasant-sounding names on unpleasant people. Rather as the term Nazi caught on in English partly because of its resonance with words such as "nasty", Daish rolls pleasurably off Arab tongues as a close cousin of words meaning to stomp, crush, smash into, or scrub. Picking up on this, France has officially adopted the term for government use; its foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, has explained that Daish has the added advantage of not granting the group the dignity of being called a state. Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, has cast similar aspersions, denouncing the group as a “Non-Islamic Non-State”. Rather than obediently adopting the acronym NINS, this newspaper has chosen for the time being to continue calling the group simply Islamic State (IS).

98 - CONTEÚDO DA PROVA DA 5 ETAPA

CONTEÚDO DA PROVA DA 5 ETAPA

BRASIL: REGIME MILITAR

GERAL: SEGUNDA GUERRA MUNDIAL

- alianças
- guerra europeia e guerra asiática
- política de apaziguamento anglo-francesa
- Conferência de Munique
- Pacto Germano-soviético
- Início da guerra europeia e da guerra asiática
- 1940. Derrota e divisão da França
- 1941. Entrada da URSS e dos EUA na guerra
- 1945. O final da guerra na Europa e na Ásia

OBS: Ver a prova do ENEM 2009 (cancelada)

http://guiadoestudante.abril.com.br/prova_enem_1dia.pdf

97 - Roteiro de estudo

ROTEIRO DE ESTUDO HISTÓRIA 3 ANO 4 ETAPA

HISTÓRIA DO BRASIL - PROF. MÁRCIO NUNES

O ESTADO NOVO

O GOVERNO VARGAS DE 1951-1954

A CRISE DE 1954

GOVERNO JK

FONTES DE ESTUDO

CADERNO/APOSTILA 2  CAP. 14 e 15

LIVRO 3 CAP. 7 e 12

HISTÓRIA GERAL - PROF. CÁSSIO TUNES

ITÁLIA:

- A ASCENSÃO DO FASCISMO

PORTUGAL:

- FORMAÇÃO E QUEDA DO ESTADO NOVO

ESPANHA:

- A GUERRA CIVIL E  SUA INTERNACIONALIZAÇÃO

ALEMANHA:

- FORMAÇÃO E ASCENSÃO DO NAZISMO

- A INSTALAÇÃO DA DITADURA HITLERISTA E SUA CONSOLIDAÇÃO

- O RACISMO NAZISTA

FONTES DE ESTUDO

CADERNO/APOSTILA 2  CAP. 13

LIVRO 3 CAP. 5