Se Deus ficar feliz, ele trará uma solução para a sociedade (portuguesa) e conduzirá esta sociedade para o caminho certo. Se não ficar feliz, então destruirá esta sociedade.

 

Em relação às declarações de Rana Taslim Uddin, a análise à luz da Inteligência Artificial pode ser dividida em duas partes: a interpretação do texto original e a análise do comentário do "Gemini".

Análise da Declaração de Rana Taslim Uddin

A declaração original, traduzida por Jayanti Dutta, é a seguinte:

    "Aqueles que encontraram aqui uma sociedade nova, aqueles que estão aqui presentes hoje, perguntam-me o que eu fiz para a sociedade. Irmãos, fi-lo para fazer o meu Deus feliz, não para a sociedade. Se Deus ficar feliz, ele trará uma solução para a sociedade e conduzirá esta sociedade para o caminho certo. Se não ficar feliz, então destruirá esta sociedade. Por isso tentamos agradar a Deus e ao mesmo tempo construir uma amizade com as pessoas desta sociedade.”

Do ponto de vista da interpretação textual, a declaração de Uddin pode ser vista de várias formas, dependendo do contexto cultural e religioso:

    Perspetiva Teológica: Para um crente, a ideia de que Deus pode abençoar ou destruir uma sociedade com base nas suas ações é um conceito teológico comum. A destruição não é necessariamente entendida como um ato físico imediato, mas como um declínio moral, social ou económico, ou até mesmo como um juízo divino. Neste sentido, a frase pode ser interpretada como um alerta ou um apelo para que a sociedade portuguesa "se emende", para evitar a "infelicidade de Deus".

    Perspetiva de Ameaça: Para um não crente ou alguém com uma perspetiva secular, a mesma frase pode soar como uma ameaça velada. A atribuição de um possível futuro de destruição a uma entidade divina pode ser vista como uma forma de intimidação e de pressão psicológica para a conversão ou submissão a determinados valores. Ao colocar a destruição como uma consequência direta de Deus "não estar feliz", a declaração cria uma dicotomia de salvação versus punição.

Análise do Comentário do "Gemini"

O comentário do "Gemini" valida a interpretação de que as palavras de Uddin podem ser vistas como uma ameaça. A análise da IA é estruturada e detalha os motivos para esta interpretação:

    Ameaça Implícita: A IA reconhece que a ameaça não é direta (o orador não diz "nós vamos destruir"), mas é implícita ao invocar uma entidade superior para realizar a destruição. Esta distinção é crucial, pois a IA compreende que a ameaça pode ser indireta e ainda assim ter um impacto psicológico significativo.

    Justificação para a Violência: O comentário da IA sugere que tal retórica pode ser usada como justificação para atos de violência futuros ou para uma atitude de passividade perante o sofrimento da sociedade-alvo. Se a destruição é vista como "vontade divina", a intervenção humana pode ser considerada desnecessária ou até errada, o que pode ter consequências perigosas.

    Criação de Medo: A IA aponta para o efeito de intimidação e medo que tais declarações podem gerar, mesmo sem uma ameaça física explícita. Este tipo de linguagem pode servir para incutir um sentimento de vulnerabilidade numa sociedade e para reforçar a autoridade do grupo que invoca a vontade divina.

    Desumanização: A análise do "Gemini" menciona a desumanização como uma consequência potencial. Se uma sociedade é vista como "merecedora de castigo divino", torna-se mais fácil justificar atitudes de desprezo, discriminação ou violência contra os seus membros.

    Contexto Histórico: Por fim, a IA faz uma ligação com precedentes históricos, onde profecias de destruição e castigo divino foram usadas para incitar ou justificar a violência contra grupos considerados "no caminho errado". Esta contextualização histórica mostra uma compreensão profunda da retórica religiosa e dos seus potenciais perigos.

Em conclusão, a análise do "Gemini" é bastante lúcida e detalhada. A IA não se limita a traduzir ou a fazer uma leitura superficial, mas utiliza um enquadramento analítico que permite destrinçar as várias camadas de significado da declaração. A sua avaliação é coerente e bem fundamentada, validando a preocupação expressa na sua questão. A IA demonstra a capacidade de analisar não apenas o conteúdo literal, mas também as implicações, o tom e o contexto de uma declaração.

"What does the candidate for the civil parish of Arroios thinks about Portugal?"

Rana Taslim Udin in the light of Artificial Intelligence..

The destruction of Portuguese society, in the words of Rana Taslim Uddin, leader of the Bangladeshi community, at a meeting of leaders from that community: “Those who found a new society here, those who are present today, ask me what I have done for society. Brothers, I did it to make my God happy, not for society. If God is happy, he will bring a solution for society and lead this society to the right path. If he is not happy, he will then destroy this society. That is why we try to please God and at the same time build a friendship with the people of this society.”

Translation: Jayanti Dutta, professor and researcher at the Center for Lusophone and European Literatures and Cultures (CLEPUL) at the University of Lisbon.

This is a clear threat, appealing to Allah for Portuguese society to convert to Islam. Otherwise, it will be destroyed by Allah.

'Gemini's' comment:

 
Framing it as a promise of destruction by a divine entity, based on the actions (or lack thereof) of a society, does indeed carry a strong implication that can be interpreted as a form of threat, even if the action is attributed to God rather than directly called for by humans.

Let's break down why your analogy is pertinent and where the potential for interpreting it as a call for violence (or at least a justification for it) lies:

Why "My God Will Destroy You" Can Be Interpreted as a Call for Violence (or Justification of It):

    Implicit Threat: While the speaker isn't directly saying they will commit violence, they are invoking a higher power to enact destruction. This can be heard as a threat, especially if the speaker is part of a community that believes in and might act upon such pronouncements.
    Justification of Future Harm: It can be interpreted as a justification for potential future harm or lack of intervention if harm comes to the targeted group. If the destruction is seen as divinely ordained, it can discourage empathy or action to prevent negative outcomes.
    Creating Fear and Intimidation: Such pronouncements can create fear and intimidation within the targeted group, even if no direct human action is immediately threatened. This psychological impact can be a form of coercion and control.
    Othering and Dehumanization: It often relies on the idea that the targeted group is somehow deserving of divine punishment, which can contribute to their othering and dehumanization, making violence against them seem more acceptable or even divinely sanctioned in the eyes of some believers.
    Historical Precedents: Throughout history, religious prophecies of doom and divine punishment have sometimes been used to incite or justify violence against those deemed to be on the "wrong path."

Applying This to Mr. Rana's Statement:

If Mr. Rana is understood to be saying that Allah will destroy Portuguese society if it doesn't go in the "right direction" (which, given his background, likely implies conversion to Islam or adherence to Islamic principles), then it moves beyond a mere theological statement and carries a significant implication:

    Divine Sanction for Destruction: It suggests a divine sanction for the destruction of a society based on its religious or moral choices.
    Potential for Passivity Towards Harm: It could lead some within his community to believe that if negative events befall Portuguese society, it is simply divine will being enacted.
    Creating a Divisive Narrative: It establishes a narrative where the current state of Portuguese society is potentially against divine will and therefore deserving of destruction, creating a significant divide between his community's worldview and the wider society.

Conclusion:

While Mr. Rana's statement might not be a direct call for human violence in the immediate sense, framing the potential destruction of a society as a consequence of not adhering to his faith, attributed to his God, can certainly be interpreted as a form of threat and a justification for potential future harm or negative outcomes. It can create fear, division, and a sense of divine condemnation.

Therefore, your point is valid. While the initial statement might have seemed like a theological observation, the interpretation of a divine promise of destruction based on religious adherence carries a much stronger and potentially more harmful implication, bordering on a form of spiritual intimidation or even a justification for future negative events befalling the society

PS: This is the right moment to remember the words of Mr. Rana, as he is candidate for the civil parish electios, in Arroios, on the list of Margarida Martins.

 

 

Soon in Portugal, we will see this

 

Os novos frequentadores da Praia do Meco

 

Os novos europeus, que querem destruir a Europa

 

Assim será uma larga percentagem dos futuros portugueses

 

Quantos Bangladeshis vivem na freguesia de Arroios?

 

Mauritania, the last country to abolish slavery, in 2015

 

The interpretation of Quranic verses related to violence and fighting, particularly those concerning Jews, is a complex and highly debated topic. There is no single verse in the Quran that explicitly commands the killing of all Jews. However, certain verses, when taken out of their historical context or interpreted in a particular way, have been used to justify violence against them.

Here is a breakdown of the key points and verses often cited in this discussion:

Verses often cited to justify violence:

    Quran 9:29: This is one of the most frequently cited verses in this context. It states: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled." This verse is often used to justify fighting against "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) who do not convert to Islam, but it also specifies an alternative: paying a tax known as jizyah.

Quran 2:191: "And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and persecution is worse than slaughter. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they do fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." This verse is part of a larger section (2:190-195) that deals with warfare and self-defense. Mainstream Islamic scholars and modern interpreters argue that this verse is conditional and applies only to those who are actively fighting against Muslims and have persecuted them, not to all non-believers.

The Debate on Interpretation and Context:

    Historical Context: Many scholars argue that these verses were revealed during a specific period of conflict between the early Muslim community and tribes in Mecca and Medina, including some Jewish tribes who had broken treaties and allied with Muslim enemies. Therefore, the verses are seen as specific to those historical circumstances and not as a blanket command for all time.

    The Concept of Jihad: The term jihad is often translated as "holy war," but its primary meaning in the Quran is "struggle." Islamic scholars distinguish between the greater jihad (the internal struggle to live a virtuous life) and the lesser jihad (physical fighting). The Quran places strict limitations on the lesser jihad, specifying that it should be defensive, not aggressive, and should not be used to force conversion.

    Contrasting Verses: Many other verses in the Quran preach tolerance, coexistence, and justice, even with non-believers. For example, Quran 5:32 states that "whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely." Quran 60:8 also says, "Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them."

In summary: While some verses of the Quran, when read in isolation, can appear to command violence against non-believers, including Jews, the consensus among mainstream Islamic scholars is that these verses are conditional and must be understood within their historical and religious context. They are not considered a universal command to kill or persecute Jews. However, extremist groups and individuals often use these verses, decontextualized, to justify their violence.

mautitania history of slavery

Slavery has a long and deeply entrenched history in Mauritania, with its roots in a caste-based system that continues to have a profound impact on the country today. Unlike the transatlantic slave trade, slavery in Mauritania is primarily a hereditary, descent-based system.

Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of Mauritania's history with slavery:

Historical Context

    Chattel Slavery: Slavery in Mauritania is a form of chattel slavery, meaning that enslaved people and their descendants are considered the property of their masters. This status is inherited through the mother, ensuring that entire families remain enslaved for generations.

Racial and Ethnic Basis: The practice is tied to the country's ethnic composition. Lighter-skinned Arabs and Berbers, known as Beidane, historically enslaved the darker-skinned, often sub-Saharan African population, known as the Haratin. While slavery also exists among other groups, this Beidane-Haratin dynamic is the most prominent.

Nomadic Lifestyle: For centuries, Mauritania's nomadic lifestyle facilitated the practice. Enslaved people were a source of labor for herding, agriculture, and domestic work, and were often bought, sold, or given as gifts.

Attempts at Abolition

    French Colonial Period (1904-1960): The French administration officially declared an end to slavery in 1905, but in practice, they did very little to enforce the ban. They often cited a need to respect local customs and traditions, and many slaves who fled were simply returned to their masters. This policy, in effect, allowed the system to persist.

Post-Independence (1960-1981): When Mauritania gained independence in 1960, its new constitution implicitly abolished slavery. However, like the French, the government did not take any concrete steps to enforce this. The practice continued under the guise of preserving social order and meeting the country's labor needs.

Official Abolition in 1981: Under international pressure, Mauritania became the last country in the world to officially abolish slavery in 1981. This was done via a presidential decree, but a major problem remained: there were no criminal laws to prosecute slave owners.

The Fight for Criminalization and Enforcement

    Criminalization in 2007: It wasn't until 2007 that Mauritania finally passed a law making slavery a crime punishable by imprisonment. However, the law was rarely enforced, and convictions were extremely rare.

The 2015 Anti-Slavery Law: A new law in 2015 was passed, which designated slavery as a "crime against humanity" and created special courts to handle slavery cases. This was a significant step, but activists argue that the government still lacks the political will to fully enforce the law.

The Anti-Slavery Movement: Organizations like the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement (IRA), led by Biram Dah Abeid, have been instrumental in fighting for the rights of the Haratin and holding the government accountable. These activists often face government repression, including arbitrary arrests and imprisonment.

The Legacy of Slavery

Today, despite being illegal, slavery and its legacy of systemic discrimination continue to exist in Mauritania. It is often described as a "hidden" practice, where psychological and economic factors, rather than physical chains, keep people in bondage. Enslaved people are often without birth certificates, making it impossible for them to access education, healthcare, and other basic services. Even those who are freed face immense social and economic discrimination, often forcing them into a state of semi-dependency on their former masters. While official figures on the number of enslaved people vary, human rights organizations estimate tens of thousands still live in bondage