sexta-feira, 27 de novembro de 2015

O Islã pode Ser Reformado para Ser Pacífico?

Ontem, um amigo me perguntou se o Islã pode se tornar pacifista. Eu já tinha pensado sobre o assunto e respondi que, para mim, os muçulmanos teriam que renegar a vida de Maomé, ou pelo menos a parte final da vida dele quando ele tomou o poder em Medina, assim teriam que abandonar grande parte do Alcorão que se refere a esse período da vida de Maomé. Espiritualmente, eu entendia que essa mudança podia vir pela elevação de Cristo dentro do Alcorão e também de Maria, pois os muçulmanos respeitam muito Maria.

Hoje, eu li uma análise interessante sobre o assunto do padre Dwight Longenecker. Ele toca em um aspecto muito importante, que trata da diferença entre católicos e muçulmanos no que se refere aos livros sagrados.

Padre Longencker ressalta que nós católicos acreditamos na Bíblia, dizemos que ela foi inspirada pelo Espírito Santo, mas também sabemos que ela foi escrita por homens com seus problemas e limitações.

Isso realmente é extremamente importante. Muitos heróis bíblicos são mostrados também com seus pecados, ver o adúltero e assassino Davi, o mulherengo Salomão, o assassino de egípcio Moisés, o bêbado Noé, etc.

Além da Bíblia, nós católicos temos a Tradição e o Magistério da Igreja para nos guiar.

No Islã, o Alcorão foi escrito por Alá, é intocável, não sujeito a qualquer reforma. Isso é bastante problemático. O Islã parece exigir completo abandono para ser pacífico.

Vejamos parte do texto do Padre Longenecker.

 Can Islam be Reformed?

Can the religion of peace turn away from shooting schoolgirls in the head, slaughtering people on vacation, selling people into slavery and torching churches?

Part of this problem is the nature of  Islam itself. It is a religion of the book, and the book was supposedly dictated by the Angel Gabriel.

When your book is straight from heaven it is difficult not to take a completely literal, fundamentalist approach.

We believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it wasn’t dictated by the Holy Spirit. The authors of Sacred Scripture wrote in their own words and concepts and from their own historical situation and context. The specifics are fluid while the concepts and teachings are firm.  This is why we are happy to have variant readings of certain passages, don’t mind having  the Bible translated  (to really study the Koran you’re supposed to learn Arabic) and allow for varied interpretations among scholars and believers.

To be sure, some fundamentalist Protestants take a literal and uncompromising Islamic-like view of Scripture, and they are often as relentless as most Muslims in their approach to religion.
The problem for a religion of the book is therefore that it is very difficult to entertain the idea of reform or change in any way. As the fundamentalist preacher I grew up with used to say, “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Instead of a religion of the book, Catholics have a religion of a person, and that person is Jesus Christ. The Bible is the church’s witness to Jesus Christ. It is the record and reflection of his life and the Old Testament is the history of the world leading up to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The Koran, on the other hand, is a rule book.

quinta-feira, 26 de novembro de 2015

Você Quer Saber por que um Papa NÃO pode Ordenar Mulheres ou Aprovar Casamento Gay?

O filósofo católico Edward Feser escreveu um excelente texto sobre as condições para que um papa declare algo infalível e estas condições deixam claro a razão de que um papa não pode, nem que queira, aprovar coisas como ordenação de mulheres ou casamento gay.

Ele explica por que um papa não é idêntico a um monarca absolutista, que pode definir tudo apenas de sua cabeça.

Feser traz também uma excelente descrição dos casos históricos.

É um texto para ser guardado, o ilustre canonista Ed Peters disse que vai usá-lo em suas aulas.

Vou colocar aqui apenas o início do texto de Feser, leiam todo no site dele, clicando no link.

Papal fallibility
by Edward Feser

Catholic doctrine on the teaching authority of the pope is pretty clear, but lots of people badly misunderstand it.  A non-Catholic friend of mine recently asked me whether the pope could in theory reverse the Church’s teaching about homosexuality.  Said my friend: “He could just make an ex cathedra declaration to that effect, couldn’t he?”  Well, no, he couldn’t.  That is simply not at all how it works.  Some people think that Catholic teaching is that a pope is infallible not only when making ex cathedra declarations, but in everything he does and says.  That is also simply not the case.  Catholic doctrine allows that popes can make grave mistakes, even mistakes that touch on doctrinal matters in certain ways. 

Many Catholics know all this, but they often misunderstand papal authority in yet other ways.  Some think that a Catholic is obliged to accept the teaching of a pope only when that teaching is put forward by him as infallible.  That too is not the case.  Contrary to this “minimalist” view, there is much that Catholics have to assent to even though it is not put forward as infallible.  Others think that a Catholic is obliged to agree more or less with every view or decision of a pope regarding matters of theology, philosophy, politics, etc. even when it is not put forward as infallible.  And that too is not the case.  Contrary to this “maximalist” view, there is much to which a Catholic need give only respectful consideration, but not necessarily assent.  As always, Catholic doctrine is balanced, a mean between extremes -- in this case, between these minimalist and maximalist extremes.  But it is also nuanced, and to understand it we need to make some distinctions that are too often ignored.
Papal infallibility

First let’s get clear about infallibility.  The First Vatican Council taught that:

[W]hen the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.  Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

What the Council is describing here is the pope’s exercise of what is called his “extraordinary Magisterium,” as opposed to his “ordinary Magisterium” or everyday teaching activity in the form of homilies, encyclicals, etc.  The passage identifies several conditions for the exercise of this extraordinary Magisterium.  First, the pope must appeal to his supreme teaching authority as the successor of Peter, as opposed to speaking merely as a private theologian, or making off-the-cuff remarks, or the like.  An exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium would, accordingly, typically involve some formal and solemn declaration.  Second, he must be addressing some matter of doctrine concerning faith or morals.  The extraordinary Magisterium doesn’t pertain to purely scientific questions such as how many elements are in the periodic table, political questions such as whether a certain proposed piece of legislation is a good idea, etc.  Third, he must be “defining” some doctrine in the sense of putting it forward as official teaching that is binding on the entire Church.  The extraordinary Magisterium doesn’t pertain to teaching that concerns merely local or contingent circumstances.

But there is a further, crucial condition on such ex cathedra statements.  The First Vatican Council emphasized it in a passage that comes several paragraphs before the one quoted above:

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Papal teaching, then, including exercises of the extraordinary Magisterium, cannot contradict Scripture, Tradition, or previous binding papal teaching.  Nor can it introduce utter novelties.  Popes have authority only to preserve and interpret what they have received.  They can draw out the implications of previous teaching or clarify it where it is ambiguous. They can make formally binding what was already informally taught.  But they cannot reverse past teaching and they cannot make up new doctrines out of whole cloth. 

Along the same lines, the Second Vatican Council taught, in Dei Verbum, that the Church cannot teach contrary to Scripture:

[T]he living teaching office of the Church… is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully…

Pope Benedict XVI put the point as follows, in a homily of May 7, 2005:

The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law.  On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word.  He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism…

The Pope knows that in his important decisions, he is bound to the great community of faith of all times, to the binding interpretations that have developed throughout the Church's pilgrimage.  Thus, his power is not being above, but at the service of, the Word of God.  It is incumbent upon him to ensure that this Word continues to be present in its greatness and to resound in its purity, so that it is not torn to pieces by continuous changes in usage.
Though the pope’s exercise of his ordinary Magisterium is not always infallible, it can be under certain circumstances.  In particular, it is infallible when the pope officially reaffirms something that was already part of the Church’s infallible teaching on the basis of Scripture and Tradition.  For example, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope St. John Paul II reaffirmed traditional teaching to the effect that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith thereafter confirmed that this teaching is to be regarded as infallible.  The reason it is to be regarded as infallible is not that the papal document in question constituted an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium, but rather because of the teaching’s status as part of the constant and universal doctrine of the Church. 

Now, what makes some constant and universal teaching of the Church infallible is itself an important topic, but one that is beyond the scope of this post, which is concerned with the teaching authority of the pope, specifically.  Suffice it to emphasize for present purposes that, precisely because exercises of the pope’s ordinary Magisterium are infallible when they merely reaffirm the Church’s own constant and universal teaching, they too do not involve either the reversal of past teaching or the addition of some novelty. 

Papal infallibility, then, is not some magical power by which a pope can transform any old thing he wishes into a truth that all are bound to accept.  It is an extension of the infallibility of the preexisting body of doctrine that it is his job to safeguard, and thus must always be exercised in continuity with that body of doctrine.  Naturally, then, the pope would not be speaking infallibly if he taught something that either had no basis in Scripture, Tradition, or previous magisterial teaching, or contradicted those sources of doctrine.  If it had no such basis, it could be mistaken, and if it contradicted those sources of doctrine, it would be mistaken. 

quarta-feira, 25 de novembro de 2015

Vídeo: Robert Spencer sobre o Aspectos Téológicos da Jihad Islâmica

O grande Robert Spencer deu uma palestra para a Franciscan University of Steubenville (eu adoro essa universidade, estive lá esse ano em uma conferência, onde apresentei um texto sobre guerra justa). A palestra ocorreu no dia 14 de outubro, antes dos ataques de Paris.

Infelizmente, eu não tenho tempo para traduzir um vídeo de 50 minutos de palestra, precisaria ser pago para isso, hehe.

Mas não posso deixar de colocar esse vídeo no blog, pois é um católico, que é muitas vezes atacado por católicos esquerdistas/politicamente corretos, falando em uma ilustre e renomada universidade católica, que tem valor no meu coração.

Como sempre, Spencer é claro, óbvio, direto e sábio.

Ele começa esclarecendo que o mundo ocidental tem de entender o inimigo, caso contrário não conseguirão derrotá-lo. Ele fala também sobre o desacordo entre Obama e Putin sobre o líder da Síria, Bashar Assad. Obama quer derrubá-lo para depois derrotar o Estado Islâmico, Putin quer mantê-lo e derrotar o Estado Islâmico com ajuda de Assad. Spencer diz que Obama está eliminando todos os aspectos islâmicos do Estado Islâmico, como a doutrina de dominar o mundo para o Islã, e considerando que é apenas um grupo que quer Assad fora do poder.

Daí, Spencer começa sua aula sobre  Islã e a jihad. Aprendam.

terça-feira, 24 de novembro de 2015

Vídeo: A Oração Pai Nosso é Ofensiva no Reino Unido. Foi Banida em Público.

A Igreja Anglicana produziu um pequeno comercial em favor da oração Pai Nosso, o comercial se chama Just Pray, e era para ser passado antes do filme Star Wars. A empresa que controla 80% dos cinemas no Reino Unido aceitou passar o comercial, mas depois disse que não passaria pois o comercial pode ser considerado ofensivo.

Ateus e muçulmanos ficaram satisfeitos, e assim o Reino Unido vai se islamizando e se auto-dstruindo. Como eu costumo dizer, a Europa já vive sob domínio islâmico. Afinal, o comercial não seria permitido também em países islâmicos. Os ateus são bobagem, vivem seu fundamentalismo destrutivo, vazio, virarão pó, como eles mesmos desejam.

No Brasil, nós temos aqueles que querem derrubar o Cristo Redentor. Eles chegam lá, se não defendermos Cristo, nossa religião e nossa cultura.

Vejam o comercial abaixo.

Rezemos o Pai Nosso em inglês pelo Reino Unido:

Our Father, Who art in heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name;
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen.


segunda-feira, 23 de novembro de 2015

O Que é um Muçulmano Moderado?

Eu sempre me pergunto sobre o que seria um muçulmano moderado, especialmente quando leio sobre a vida de Maomé. Para mim, a melhor definição seria de que um muçulmano moderado não segue Maomé. Um cristão seguindo Cristo sempre seria moderado. Um muçulmano seguindo Maomé seria um terror para o mundo.

A Arábia Saudita é um grande aliado dos países ocidentais, eles estão longe de ser moderados, executam infiéis até com crucificação. A foto acima é de uma execução por lá. Sem falar do dinheiro deles que incentivam terrorismo pelo mundo, por meio de mesquitas e escolas.

Hoje, eu li uma análise muito boa sobre por que o chamados "moderados" muçulmanos, aqueles que procuram "viver pacificamente",  não se levantam contra os muçulmanos radicais e extremistas. É um texto de William Killpatrick, escrito para The Catholic World Report.

Eu diria que se os países ocidentais e o muçulmanos fizessem o que Patrick pede seria o fim do Islã.

Mas, em resumo, Patrick diz que os moderados não se levantam porque:

1) Muçulmanos moderados teriam que renegar a vida de Maomé e muitos versos do Alcorão. Teriam que renegar a própria religião;

2) São os radicais muçulmanos que conseguem a consciência dos muçulmanos, pois eles usam palavras de Alá e a vida de Maomé. (Falei um pouco disso no post abaixo sobre versos do Alcorão).

3) Eles olham o que acontece com aqueles que simplesmente dizem algumas palavras contra o Islã, são atacados tantos por muçulmanos como por ocidentais. Ele coloca os exemplos de Malala Yousafzai, Shahbaz Bhatti e Salman Taeser.

4) Os moderados não são uma maioria silenciosa. A maioria dos muçulmanos no mundo apoia a lei Sharia islâmica, que condena infiéis, mulheres e gays. Os moderados são uma minoria que precisa ser heroica e não moderada.

5) Familiares e vizinhos perseguem e até matam "muçulmanos ocidentalizados". Patrick mencionou os vários casos no próprio EUA e no Reino Unido e lembrou do livro 1984 de George Orwell (bem lembrado).

6)  Os países do Ocidente não apoiam financeiramente associações de muçulmanos moderados, nem países moderados.

7) Os países ocidentais não usam a força contra países islâmicos radicais, pelo contrário, até dão dinheiro para eles.

Aqui vai parte do texto de Patrick:

Who Will Reform Islam?

William Kilpatrick

Those who are relying on the moderate Muslims of the world to correct their errant brethren might profit from a news story out of Pakistan. The All Pakistan Private Schools Federation (APPSF) has launched a book titled I am Not Malala, I am Muslim, I am Pakistani. It’s meant to “counter [the] anti-Islamic propaganda” in Nobel Prize winner Malala Yousufzai’s book, I am Malala. In addition, the teacher’s association is going to court to have Malala’s book banned.

So, the girl whom the Nobel Prize Committee looks upon as the face of moderate Islam is looked upon as something of a heretic by a sizable segment of Pakistani teachers (the association represents 173,000 private schools.)

Or shift your focus to Indonesia—once hailed as a model of moderation, and the place fondly remembered by our president for the sweet sound of the muzzein’s call to prayer. These days, you’re just as likely to hear the shrill sound of the imam’s call to prepare—torches, that is. According to a report in Gatestone Institute, more than 1,000 Christian churches have been shut down, torn down or burned down since 2006. Sometimes the churches are demolished by imam-incited mobs, but just as often they are shut down by local authorities. In many cases when Christians are attacked by mobs, police stand by and watch.


Thinking that moderate Muslims are somehow going to reclaim Islam from extremists is wishful thinking. Moderate Muslims in the sense we understand the word “moderate” are not a huge silent majority who only need to make their voices heard. Rather, they are a silent minority who are silent for good reason. They see what happens to people like Malala and they don’t want to suffer the same fate. There’s a big difference between being personally opposed to shooting schoolgirls in the head and being willing to speak out openly against the ideology that justifies the shooting. The proper term for those willing to speak out under dangerous circumstances is not “moderate”, but “heroic.”


The Civil Rights Movement broke the back of Jim Crow, but it wasn’t led by moderates of the go-along-to get-along school. And it was primarily successful because it was a Christian movement that appealed to the Christian conscience of all Americans. It’s difficult to imagine a similar movement in the Muslim world that would bring about equivalent reforms (say, in the treatment of women) by appealing to the Muslim conscience. The imitation of Muhammad leads in a different direction from the imitation of Christ. The well-formed Muslim conscience is a powerful thing, but it is not the same as a well-formed Christian conscience. Indeed, it is the extremists who have been most successful in appealing to the Muslim conscience. They remind people what Allah expects of them and they can back up their teachings with chapter and verse from the Koran and with examples from the life of the Prophet.

Given their circumstances, it’s unrealistic to expect the majority of Muslims to adopt enlightened attitudes and practices. In essence, it’s asking them to stand up to their own religion. That’s asking a great deal, especially in light of the fact that we show so little willingness to do the same—stand up to their religion, that is.

If you’re a moderately-inclined Muslim living in some Mid-Eastern country and you notice that non-Muslims living in the relative safety of the West are afraid to speak against Muslims behaving badly, what’s the likelihood that you’ll take up the gauntlet? With much less to risk, citizens of the U.S. and Europe are—what’s the word?—deathly afraid to offend Islam. Why should you stick your neck out—especially when the penalty for sticking one’s neck out in your part of the world is to get it cut off?

It’s not simply that Muslims are afraid of what al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and similar groups might do to them. In Islam, the code of beliefs and behavior is also strictly enforced by your neighbors, your imam, your aunts and uncles, your cousins, your brothers and sisters, your mother and father, and your husband or wife. The first line of enforcers in Islamic societies are not the mujahideen, but the people seated around your dinner table. In the Orwellian societies that Muslims have created for themselves, each extended family is its own Ministry of Truth and Love.

We’re beginning to get a taste of this family “fear pressure” here in the U.S. A report commissioned by the Department of Justice reveals that between 23 and 27 honor killings are committed every year in the U.S., with many more probably going unreported. Young women are the usual victims. They can be killed for becoming “too westernized,” for dating a non-Muslim, for refusing an arranged marriage, or for requesting a divorce. Fathers are the usual culprits, but very often the killings are a family project with mothers, brothers, and cousins joining in. In other Western countries, the problem is much worse. Over the past five years, the UK has recorded 11,000 cases of honor violence
That’s not to say that Muslims who want to break out of the mold don’t face other pressures. If you can get executed by your family for being too Western, you can certainly be killed off by the local version of the Taliban for being un-Islamic.

One reason it’s difficult to find a genuine reform-minded person in the Muslim world is that such people tend to be targeted by the radicals. In 2011, Shahbaz Bhatti, the Pakistani Minister for the Defense of Minorities and a Catholic, was gunned down for opposing the country’s blasphemy laws. Two months earlier, Salman Taseer, the governor of the province of Punjab who also opposed the blasphemy laws, was assassinated by one of his bodyguards. The bodyguard was showered with rose petals when he appeared in court, and some Pakistani religious leaders called for a boycott of Taseer’s funeral. One religious party warned that “No Muslim should attend the funeral or even try to pray for Salman Taseer.”

People who live in the West shouldn’t underestimate how difficult it will be for moderate Muslims to reform Islam. That’s because many Muslims, perhaps a majority, don’t think that Islam needs to be reformed. Numerous polls have shown that the majority of the world’s Muslims would prefer to live under sharia law. Moreover, in majority Muslim lands there is powerful support even for the harshest sharia penalties such as amputation for theft and death for apostasy. Even in the U.S., 51 percent of Muslims agree that they should have the choice of being governed according to sharia. We like to think that there are only a “handful” of radicals in the Muslim world, but it’s likely that the number of truly reform-minded Muslims is also in the “handful” range. They are engaged in an uphill battle.

Ultimately, it’s up to Muslims to reform Islam, but it’s a mistake to think they can do it without help. The forces for moderation in the Muslim world are on the defensive. They need considerable moral and physical support. How can it be provided? In the first place, one has to be able to identify the moderates. That’s something we haven’t been successful at doing. Our administration keeps giving weapons to the people we think are the “moderate” rebels in Syria, and they keep handing the weaponry over to ISIS. We mistake the fanatic “death-to-America” crowd in Iran for moderates, send them hundreds of billions of dollars, and assume that their apocalyptic rantings are mere hyperbole. In Egypt, we helped bring the radical Muslim Brotherhood to power, and over here, Muslim Brotherhood affiliates such as CAIR and ISNA are given veto power over domestic security policy.

There are genuine moderate Muslim organizations in the U.S. (the Clarion Project maintains a list of them), but they are mostly ignored by our government and by the media. If our establishment paid more attention to them and less to the stealth jihadists, moderation might have a better chance of success. The same is true on the international level. There are moderate Muslim leaders who need our support, but aren’t getting it. While we were very supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, we have provided only grudging support to the man who brought Egypt back from the brink of fanaticism—Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. While Western leaders continue to lavish praise on the “religion of peace,” President el-Sisi has had the courage to publicly call for a reform of Islam. In his continuing fight against the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the growing power of ISIS in the Sinai, he deserves all the military, intelligence, and moral support we can provide.

What else can we do to make the Islamic world more moderate? Well, contrary to the peace-studies crowd who have the President’s ear, force sometimes helps. It was force, after all that turned Libya’s Gaddafi from a terrorist into a moderate. And currently, it is a show of force that is winning recruits to ISIS. When the young and restless of the world see the ability of ISIS to gobble up huge chunks of Syria and Iraq, to down a Russian jetliner, and to create panic in Paris, they are impressed and they want to get in on the action.

The only antidote to that is a superior show of force. As Senator Marco Rubio said the other day on TV, we should “subject [ISIS] to high-profile, humiliating defeats.” He added that such defeats should be captured on film and broadcast to the world. Indeed. In fighting an enemy such as ISIS, the propaganda war is almost as important as the shooting war. Battlefield defeats should be leveraged into psychological defeats.

The Islamic world can be made more moderate, but Muslims can’t do it on their own. Their problems, unfortunately, are our problems, and we can’t afford to take a laissez-faire attitude in the face of a fast-spreading cancer. The vast majority of silent Muslims are not waiting for a chance to declare their moderation, they’re waiting to see which way the battle goes. Do they want peace? Sure. But many of them are willing to settle for the peace of Islam—the total submission of all to the will of Allah once final victory is obtained.

sábado, 21 de novembro de 2015

Vídeo: Top 10 Versos do Alcorão para entender Estado Islâmico

O filósofo David Wood, que participa de inúmeros debates com muçulmanos, resolveu fazer um vídeo que descreve os 10 versos (suras ou suratas) do Alcorão que melhor descrevem as ações do Estado Islâmico.

De certa forma, eu fiz isso no meu artigo Trying to Catch Deluge, publicado no Reino Unido. Wood seleciona muito bem os 10 versos, apenas acho que teria encontrado espaço para adicionar o verso 8:39, que diz que os muçulmanos devem fazer jihad até que todos sejam muçulmanos.

Mas vejamos os Top 10 de David Wood, com pequenos comentários meus, em azul.

10) Sura 3:32 - que diz que Alá não ama os infiéis. No Alcorão também está escrito que Alá não ama os pecadores (sura 2:276). Como Wood diz,  Cristo ama a todos os humanos, poderia adicionar que Cristo também procura o amor dos pecadores e daqueles que estão longe dele (infiéis). O Deus cristão ama os inimigos. No Islã, apenas o muçulmanos fiéis são amados por Alá.

9) Sura 48:29 - que diz que aqueles que seguem Maomé são severos (rigorosos, violentos) contra os infiéis e são misericordiosos com os outros muçulmanos. Mais uma vez se ressalta que o islâmico deve odiar os infiéis e ser misericordioso apenas com os outros muçulmanos.

8) Sura 4:24 - não é adultério fazer sexo com mulheres casadas se estas mulheres forem escravas. Aqui basta a própria explicação de Wood. Ele explica que essa sura é relativa às guerras feitas por Maomé, quando eles atacavam os infiéis e recolhiam as mulheres deles. Se as mulheres fossem solteiras o sexo estava liberado, mas os muçulmanos perguntaram a Maomé se podiam fazer sexo com as mulheres que eram casadas. Ele respondeu que sim, pois elas eram escravas.

7) Sura 5:33 - que diz que aqueles que lutam contra Alá, devem ser mortos, ou crucificados ou serem desmembrados. Bom, aqui fica claro a inspiração para as atrocidades do Estado Islâmico.

6) Sura 9:5 - que relata que Alá manda que os muçulmanos matem todos os "idólatras" (infiéis, pagãos), mas se esses idólatras se arrependerem e se tornarem muçulmanos, Alá os perdoará. O Estado Islâmico costuma fazer esse rito para forçar conversão para o Islã de pagãos.

5) Sura 9:29 - que diz que o "Povo do Livro" (judeus e cristãos) só tem duas opções ou convertem ao Islã ou pagam imposto de submissão aos muçulmanos. Esse verso é bem famoso e já foi empregado diversas vezes historicamente no mundo muçulmano, inclusive na Espanha muçulmana. O imposto é conhecido como jiziah. O Estado Islâmico costuma cobrar isso quando não deseja tirar tudo dos cristãos e judeus. Assim, o Povo do Livro é um pouco melhor do que os pagãos (atenção ateus e povo de religiões "da natureza"), o Povo do Livro pode ficar vivo e manter a sua religião se pagarem imposto (não podem construí Igrejas nem fazer proselitismo, no entanto) , os pagãos, ou convertem ou morrem.

4) Sura 9:73 - que diz que mesmo os muçulmanos podem ser mortos se não forem fiéis a Alá, se forem "hipócritas", dizerem que seguem Alá e não seguirem de fato. Atenção, muçulmanos "moderados".

3) Sura 9:111 - que diz que os muçulmanos lutam por Alá, eles matam e são mortos por Alá. Assim, novamente muçulmanos "moderados" não são verdadeiros muçulmanos.

2) Sura 47:35 - que diz que se os muçulmanos são maioria ou são mais fortes (militarmente) não devem procurar paz, devem conquistar os infiéis.

1) Sura 2:106. - que fala da teoria da revogação islâmica. Alá pode se contradizer, ele não é racional no sentido lógico, como é o Deus cristão. E o Alcorão é dividido apenas por tamanho de capítulo, o capítulo mais longo vem primeiro. Em geral, os capítulos mais longos são do período que Maomé viveu em Medina e conseguiu ser chefe político e militar. Os versos menores são do tempo dele anterior em Meca, quando ele era mais pacífico por não ser forte militarmente. Assim, os (poucos) versos pacíficos foram revogados pelos versos de capítulos mais longos. Assim, se muçulmanos usam versos pacíficos, eles provavelmente foram revogados pelo próprio Alá, segundo eles mesmos.

Vejam vídeo de David Wood.

Vocês podem ler as suras em várias versões, clicando aqui. Se não conseguem ler em inglês, procurem por Alcorão no Google, devem encontrar o Alcorão disponível em português e conferir as suras mencionadas.

(Agradeço o vídeo ao site Jihad Watch).

sexta-feira, 20 de novembro de 2015

O Que a Bíblia Determina para Refugiados Sírios? Bom Samaritano ou Macabeus?

Como os países ocidentais devem agir se seguirem a Bíblia frente aos refugiados sírios, que podem trazer terroristas e uma doutrina (islâmica) de destruição do cristianismo? Devemos agir como a parábola do Bom Samaritano ou como os Macabeus agiram contra Antíoco Epifanes?

A história do Bom Samaritano é conhecida (Lucas 10:30-35), Cristo nos contou essa parábola em que um homem ferido na estrada é desprezado por sacerdotes e levitas (conhecedores da Lei de Deus), mas é acolhido por um samaritano, que ajuda a curar as feridas e coloca o homem coloca em um hotel, pagando as despesas.

Há dois livros de Macabeus na Bíblia Católica,  e os Macabeus foram tema das leituras da Igreja essa semana. Eles foram líderes judeus que lutaram contra o multiculturalismo pagão trazido pelo rei Antíoco Epífanes com apoio dos próprios judeus. Os Macabeus fizeram guerra contra esse rei que tinha destruído e profanado o templo e matado muitos judeus. Eles venceram  a guerra e reestabeleceram a Lei de Deus em Israel.

O teólogo Taylor Marshall usou essas duas passagens da Bíblia, Bom Samaritano e Macabeus, para à luz de São Tomás de Aquino, dizer como os países ocidentais devem se comportar.

É uma análise realmente sensacional. Merece uma tradução, mas eu não tenho tempo agora.

Em resumo, para quem não sabe inglês, Dr. Marshall ressalta que para São Tomás de Aquino as leis, dentre outras coisas, devem obedecer à razão e ser direcionadas ao bem comum. Se elas não fazem isso não são leis. A religião islâmica não aceita Cristo como Deus e não aceita conviver com cristãos, a não ser que eles paguem tributo de submissão aos muçulmanos e deixem de exercer sua religião em público. Os muçulmanos devem se submeter a lei islâmica (Sharia), e isso implica seguir esses preceitos. Se os muçulmanos conseguirem poder político dentro dos países ocidentais irão implementar a Sharia. É obrigação de cristãos lutarem contra falsas leis, como fizeram os Macabeus.

Os cristãos devem ser caridosos com todos, com os doentes, refugiados, etc., mas a maior obrigação deles  é a fazer justiça preservando a lei corretamente estabelecida e defendendo a liberdade de exercer sua religião.

Outra coisa, os cristãos devem ser caridosos, mas Cristo não disse que eles devem dar suas casas e todos seus pertences aos outros, isso seria suicídio por inanição. E na parábola do Bom Samaritano vejam que o Bom Samaritano não leva o homem ferido para sua casa, deixa-o em um hotel. Assim, os países devem ser  caridosos com muçulmanos, fazer doações a eles, mas não trazê-los para casa.

Leiam abaixo a argumentação do Dr. Taylor Marshall, realmente sensacional.

Islamic Refugee Crisis: Good Samaritan or Maccabean Response? Or both

What would Thomas Aquinas Say?

What would Saint Thomas Aquinas say about the Refugee Crisis?
We as Christians are debating among ourselves about whether or not we have a moral duty to receive refugees fleeing Muslim nations.

This article is politically incorrect and says things that might shock you. Please read the entire article until the very last two paragraphs before making a judgment or writing incendiary comments. This might be one of the clearest things you’ve read on the topic, because it draws on virtue ethics of Thomas Aquinas – something generally ignored in our day and age. – Godspeed, Taylor Marshall

Are We Good Samaritans?

As Christians we remember Our Lord’s parable about the Good Samaritan recounting how the outwardly religious clerics (the priest and the levite) passed the injured man in the road, but how the Samaritan proved to “be his neighbor” and care for him. Christ rebukes the outwardly religious hypocrites and commends the good Samaritan.
When it comes to the refugee crises, none of us wants to be the hypocrite who turns his steps to the opposite side of road to avoid caring for an injured victim.

Or Are We Good Maccabeans?

Meanwhile, if you are Catholic, you’ve been listening to the book of Maccabees this week in the daily Mass readings. These biblical lessons approvingly recount how Mattathias along with his Maccabean sons and companions rightfully used physical violence against their political oppressors the Seleucid Greeks who were actively using force to undermine the conscience and convictions of the People of God.

So which are we?

Are we the caring Samaritans or the crusading Maccabeans?

The Catholic political theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas can help us with this question:

Let’s first suspend all emotional appeals, and set down a few logical and calm points of agreement to get us all on the same page:
  • In the Summa theologiae, Thomas Aquinas places politics under the civic virtue of patriotism which is itself a sub-virtue of justice. Our discussion is ultimately not about “politics” but the virtuous duties of justice toward God, our families, our nations, and all of humanity (in that order).
  • For Thomas Aquinas, all political human laws must be: 1) in accord with reason; 2) published or promulgated; 3) by rightful political authority; and for the common good (See STh q. 90, aa. 1-4). If a political law is lacking in any of these four attributes, it is for Thomas, not a law at all.
  • The duty of the political magistrates (the Republic or Kingdom) are by the virtue of justice different than the duty of the civilian person. Citizens are not de facto judges, soldiers, police officers, or legislators (STh q. 90, a. 3).
  • Muslims explicitly affirm that Muhammad is the Last Prophet of God.
  • Muslims explicitly affirm that Our Lord Jesus Christ is certainly not the Son of God.
  • These two Muslim affirmations place all Muslims in implicit or explicit theological contradiction with Christians who profess Jesus Christ as the Son of God and consequently conclude that Muhammad was a false prophet.
  • For Sunni Muslims (the majority of global Muslims), the mandate to erect Sharia law in every human government is a doctrine of faith. Muslims must in accord with their conscience pursue this theological belief that Sharia law must be promulgated in every human society (England, France, Poland, USA, Mexico, etc.)

So how does this apply to Refugees from Islamic nations?

When we move through the logical points above, we begin to discover a few logical conclusions:
  1. Muslims are bound by conscience to erect Sharia law in your nation. This is a bad thing for baptized Christians. At best it means being taxed at a higher rate (the Muslim jizya tax for Christians). At worse it means death.
  2. If you live in a democracy, a 51% political Islamic majority will allow “we the people” to promulgate Sharia law. They are following their conscience and religious beliefs in this matter. They will do this just as they have done in any other community where they captured the majority (Mecca, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, etc.)
  3. It is a duty of of justice for Christian people to strive to prevent the promulgation of false laws (i.e. those contrary to reason or the common good). Christians are called to be politically active and advocates for the common good and natural law.
  4. While we have the Christian duty to care for the refugee, the sick, the victim, and the injured, we have a greater common duty by justice to preserve the state of law and our religious liberty first and foremost.
We see this principle in our Scriptural readings. When it comes to the Samaritan, he rightfully cares for the victim. However, when it comes to the nation and the threat of terrorism (Seleucid Greeks), false laws, and the danger of our children, military, and civic peace, we (like the Maccabees) are politically obliged to resist, protect, and expel…for the common good.

The Analogy of the Familial Home

I am the head of a household. I earn an income to feed my wife and my children. With my surplus, I care for orphans, widows, the church, pro-life causes, single-mothers, and other apostolates that I feel God has called me to support.
Justice and charity demand that I care for the less fortunate and it is a Catholic belief that our salvation depends on how we treat the hungry, the naked, the homeless, and the sick.
I am not obliged to take the homeless into my house and have them sleep in my daughter’s bedroom at night. I am not obliged by justice or charity to give the homeless a vote over my financial decisions. He does not have the right to choose what’s for dinner. The homeless man does not (by my charity) receive a right to my continued support. The homeless man cannot share a bed with my wife when I am traveling. Nor may he presume a right over my children’s belongings.

Since we live in a democracy (“we the people”), political refugees de facto gain a measure of political authority over our laws, taxes, finances, military, religious holidays, and legislative bodies.
This principle applies to refugees universally. It applies even more so when the refugee in his conscience believes that he is morally obligated to introduce and vote for the enshrinement of Sharia law.
There is also the further problem that 5%-20% of global Muslims are considered to be “radicalized,” which means that they are consciously willing to use terrorist tactics to advance their Muslim worldview against the West. If you knew that 10% of your child’s Halloween candy was poisoned, would you allow your child to consume any of it?

So what would Thomas Aquinas say?

I’m afraid that Thomas would be much harsher than most of us would feel comfortable with.
Thomas prizes the “common good” so highly under the virtue of political justice that he openly promotes arms and capital punishment against those who are publicly “dangerous and infectious.”
The common good is the peace of society so that life and faith can thrive. Babies can be born and have a happy life. Grandparents can grow old together. Anyone who seeks to destroy the common good should be, according to Thomas, destroyed.
Thomas Aquinas also taught that anyone that fomented “danger to the community” or heretical movements is worthy of the death penalty:
“Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.” STh II-II q. 64, a. 2.
It is permissible to kill a criminal if this is necessary for the welfare of the whole community. However, this right belongs only to the one entrusted with the care of the whole community — just as a doctor may cut off an infected limb, since he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. STh II-II q. 64, a. 3.
Have no doubt that Thomas Aquinas would have stated that Christian nations should receive Christian refugees but refuse Muslim refugees for the sake of national justice and the common good. The Muslim’s official declaration of faith denies natural law (eg, polygamy), religious liberty (eg, Sharia), and the implicitly Muhammad’s teach and example of political violence.

What’s our Catholic Response? The Samaritan Uses the Hotel

We Christians should be generous with humanitarian aid toward Muslims and all people. We should send money and resources to those who have been dispossessed. We should be loving and generous with Muslims. Kindness brings about conversion and understanding. We should also try to topple the Islamic State and eradicate terrorism in our lands and in the Islamic lands.
Remember the Good Samaritan! He did not take the roadside victim home with him. Rather, the Good Samaritan put the victim up in a hotel and paid for him to get better. The Good Samaritan was good and commended by Christ. The Good Samaritan did the right thing: humanitarian aid.
We are not required by Christ to take victims that oppose our faith and our way of life and make them into our political heirs. We are not required to take them into our homes.
But we are obliged to help them. And if terrorists use our charity as a pretense to hurt us, then, as Thomas Aquinas says, they should be swiftly destroyed.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.


quinta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2015

Papa Bento XVI e o Islã. Ele Sabe do que Está Falando.

Em pelo menos três livros o Papa Bento XVI escreveu sobre as diferenças entre as religiões do mundo, sempre lembrando que nem todas são benéficas para a humanidade, nem todas ensinam amor e paz. Como ele disse: "Qualquer que ache que todas as religiões são apenas superstições está errado, mas também qualquer um que ache que todas as religiões são iguais também está errado".

Em uma entrevista em 2012, ele chegou a criticar duramente a declaração Nostra Aetate do Vaticano II porque este documento "fala de religião apenas em termos positivos e desconsidera as formas distorcidas e doentias de religião".

Recentemente, infelizmente, o Papa Francisco não mostrou essa mesma sabedoria  e conhecimento teológico do Papa Bento XVI. O Papa Francisco, após os ataques terroristas de Paris, disse que "violência que usa o nome de Deus é blasfêmia". Mas de que Deus ele estava falando? Qualquer Deus?

Voltando ao Papa Bento XVI, o site Breibart News fez um excelente resumo do que ele disse sobre todas as religiões e especificamente sobre o Islã.

Bento XVI conhecia o Islã, como religião, como cultura, como sistema legal (Sharia) e como sistema político totalitário.

O texto do Breibart News ficou ótimo. Vejamos parte dele, leiam todo no site.

Pope Benedict Was Right in Warning About Radical Islam
by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.16 Nov 2015

Pope Benedict was universally pilloried by the media for his famous 2006 Regensburg address, in which he commented on the historical relationship between Islam and violence. But now even the mainstream media are finding themselves forced to ask whether Benedict was right, and perhaps even prophetic in his statements.

In that talk, Benedict cited the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus regarding the relationship between religion and violence. “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” the quote read.

Pope Benedict XVI, a scholar who wrote extensively about religious freedom as well as the proper relationship between church and state, always insisted on speaking about religions (plural) rather than religion (singular). He based his reflections not only on a solid philosophical footing, but also on impartial observation of what religions actually propose and the sort of societies they create.

In his 2009 encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate, Benedict made the case that not all religions contribute equally to the development of individuals and societies. Some, in fact, may obstruct it. “Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism,” he wrote, “nor does it imply that all religions are equal.”


The Pope noted that certain religions “teach brotherhood and peace and are therefore of enormous importance to integral human development,” yet other traditions “do not fully embrace the principle of love and truth and therefore end up retarding or even obstructing authentic human development.”
Even before becoming pope, Joseph Ratzinger wrote on the differences between religions, noting that “anyone who sees in the religions of the world only reprehensible superstition is wrong” but also “anyone who wants only to give a positive evaluation of all religions… is equally wrong.”

In his own critical considerations of religions, Ratzinger wrote with brutal honesty, observing that there are “deviant, esoteric forms of religion on offer” as well as “pathological” forms of religion. He wrote of religions that are “obviously sick” and religions that are “destructive for man.” He asserted, moreover, that with the detachment of religion from reason, “pathological forms of religion are constantly increasing.”


Ratzinger wrote that “The interplay of society, politics, and religion has a completely different structure in Islam” than it does in the West. He went on to say that much of today’s discussion in the West regarding Islam “presupposes that all religions have basically the same structure, that they all fit into a democratic system with its regulations and the possibilities provided by these regulations.”
Yet this is not consistent with the facts, he continued, but rather, it “contradicts the essence of Islam, which simply does not have the separation of the political and the religious sphere that Christianity has had from the beginning.”

This underlying difference in understanding goes well beyond political or social theory regarding the nature of the state. It touches virtually every aspect of human existence.

Ratzinger continued: “Islam has a total organization of life that is completely different from ours; it embraces simply everything. There is a very marked subordination of woman to man; there is a very tightly knit criminal law, indeed, a law regulating all areas of life, that is opposed to our modern ideas about society.”

The conclusion he reached was remarkably severe. He warned that we must have a clear understanding that Islam “is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of a pluralistic society.”

This is a sober message, but one that needs to be heard whether we like it or not.


Sandro Magister, no site Chiesa, certa vez também trouxe passagens de livros do Papa Bento XVI sobre Islã.

Acima a capa de um dos livros em que pode se ler as opiniões do Papa Bento XVI sobre as religiões e abaixo imagens de outros dois.