“Day by day, month by month, doubt by doubt, law and order became fascism; education, constraint; work, alienation; revolution, mere sport; leisure, a privilege of class; marijuana, a harmless weed; family, a stifling hothouse; affluence, oppression; success, a social disease; sex, an innocent pastime; youth, a permanent tribunal; maturity, the new senility; discipline, an attack on personality; Christianity... and the West... and white skin...”
Jean Raspail, "The Camp of the Saints"
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.
