Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite
The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.
It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!
Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
When timidity blurs science it may become an accomplice of evilness. And while the world´s attention is focused on clowns such as Obama, Ahmadinejad etc, the most dangerous islamofascists, such as e.g. "king" Abdullah & members of the "house" of Saud/Wahhab are blinked! Why? Most probably because so many have difficulties accepting the real nature of historical islam. And if they do, at least partly as e.g. Bernard Lewis, they rather tend to close the door again than fully opening it. And it's understandable to a certain point. The smell is almost unbearable.
see Islam vs Enlightenment
In Klevius analysis islam is the evil part of Judaism while Christianity is its illegitimate child. This child, however, has had many faces, beginning with that of outcasts & "whores" (see e.g. Klevius 1997 article Was Jesus religious?) The original Christianity may well be described as a refuge for girls/women escaping rapetivism by entering the nun-institution previously outlined in the Roman empire. My analysis of the origin of Vikings may serve as an example of how Christian missionary later came to constitute not only a bull work against the islamic slave/rapetivism institution (aided by Jewish slave traders) but also an important link to the strengthening of rigid "papacy" Christianity. The in vain efforts made today to "find a good islam" seems to blink islam's succesful but evil original formula: Infidel racism/enslavement, Sharia confinement & apostasy ban.
Some certified idiots vs some social scientists
According to Francis Robinson, Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, is simply "the old Western polemic against Islam, Western fears of Islam, and a strong dose of Orientalism". Klevius comment: I haven't even bothered to read it because the conclusion is self evident when you take a look at the historical landscape behind the imams etc islamofascists.
According to Ismail Hossein-Zadeh of Drake University (another simplistic but eager islamofascist Huntington hunter with empty rhetoric), "without communism West needed a new enemy". Klevius comment: So why doesn't islam need an enemy?!
According to yet another islamofascist, also hiding hehind populist simplicity, Edward Said, "the Clash of Civilizations' thesis is a gimmick like 'The War of the Worlds', better for reinforcing defensive self-pride than for critical understanding of the bewildering interdependence of our time". Klevius comment: Said represents a true low mark in social science & is followed by thousands of similar islamofascist fanatists wrapped in Western academics. The "bewildering interdependence of our time" is precisely backward islamic rapetivism vs negative human rights for all, even girls & women!
Bernard Lewis is often mentioned as a critic of islanm. However, although he manages to see some connections he also blink a lot. According to Lewis, the idea that God has enemies, and needs human help in order to identify and dispose of them, is the essence behind islamofascism.
Klevius comment: There are two camps, those who think humans are born evil, & those who think humans are basically neutral. If you prescribe to the latter combined with the idea of negative human rights your moral is safe while still flexible & without any need for a "god".
Lewis also concludes that although the Koran is called monotheistic it divides divinity in two opposite camps, the good and the evil. This is, according to Lewis, “a struggle ordained by God, with its outcome preordained by God, serving as a test of mankind”.
Klevius comment: Monotheism is always exclusive & racist. That's why it needs evilness & infidels.
Lewis: “The barbarians to the east and the south were polytheists and idolaters, offering no serious threat and no competition at all to Islam.”
Klevius comment: Lewis has a surprisingly naive view on islam as somehow, albeit poorly, civilized. But history clearly reveals that islam was the opposite to civilization & that it was precisely this feature (see Origin of islam, the worst crime ever)that was its forenmost asset in its slaughtering, rapetivism, genocides etc. in civilized land!
Lewis: “The last straw—was the challenge to islam's mastery in his ('his' indeed) own house, from emancipated women and rebellious children. It was too much to endure, and the outbreak of rage against these alien, infidel, and incomprehensible forces that had subverted his dominance, disrupted his society, and finally violated the sanctuary of his home was inevitable.”
Klevius comment: The puzzling (to its origin) & stupid (to its insane consequences) he/she divide, which by many is seen as something "natural", is closely related to the roots of Judaism (& as such, of course, also to Judeo-islam). This strange peculiarity is almost absent in the rest of the linguistic world!
Bernard Lewis: “Westerners were the first to break the consensus of acceptance and to outlaw slavery, first at home, then in the other territories they controlled, and finally wherever in the world they were able to exercise power or influence—in a word, by means of imperialism.”
Klevius comment: So why isn’t islam called imperialist when it, in the same way, spread the opposite teaching, i.e. that racism, slavery and sex segregated rapetivism is just & OK?!
Lewis: “Where the West is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success (sic), to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.
Klevius comment: "Western" is synonymous with Enlightenement & Enlightenment is synonymous with industrialization (i.e. autimotive technology).
Lewis: For true believers to rule misbelievers is proper and natural, since this provides for the maintenance of the holy law, and gives the misbelievers both the opportunity and the incentive to embrace the true faith. But for misbelievers to rule over true believers is blasphemous and unnatural, since it leads to the corruption of religion and morality in society, and to the flouting or even the abrogation of God's law.
Klevius comment: The most important issue here is that it's precisely "god" that IS the corruption already. The "godists" don't just see it because either they concede "the others" to be potentially converted into their own corruption or just to leave them outside the scope of their own (im)morality.
Lewis: Only by depriving religious institutions of coercive power, it seemed, could Christendom restrain the murderous intolerance and persecution that Christians had visited on followers of other religions and, most of all, on those who professed other forms of their own.
Klevius comment: The fight between competing forms of islam seems to have been the rule for some 1400 years! And today it's Saudi "king" Abdullah & Co (representingt the most evil & intolerant form of islam) that constitutes the most powerful threat to Western civilization precisely because it manages to get so much Western support (which fact is indeed both astonishing & worrisome).
Lewis: There was no need for secularism in Islam, and even its pluralism was very different. Islam was never prepared, either in theory or in practice, to accord full equality to those who held other beliefs and practiced other forms of worship.
Klevius comment: Indeed! Isn't it amazing that Lewis doesn't seem to understand the simple fact that islam's basic tenet is NO EQUALITY AT ALL for non-muslims! Only because of weakness or its own benefit islam will allow others anything!
Lewis: At first the Muslim response to Western civilization was one of admiration and emulation—an immense respect for the achievements of the West, and a desire to imitate and adopt them. This desire arose from a keen and growing awareness of the weakness, poverty, and backwardness of the Islamic world as compared with the advancing West. In our own time this mood of admiration has given way to one of hostility and rejection. This mood is surely due to a feeling of humiliation—a growing awareness of having been overtaken, overborne, and overwhelmed by those whom they regarded as their inferiors.
Klevius comment: That's the drawback of infidel racism paired with a sponging on others due to islam's root in a system of slave finance & rapetivism!
Lewis: There is something in the religious culture of Islam which inspired, in even the humblest peasant or peddler, a dignity and a courtesy toward others.
Klevius comment: Yes Bernard, it’s called racism!
Lewis: The instinct of the masses is not false in locating the ultimate source of these cataclysmic changes (i.e. islamic jihadist terrorism) in the West and in attributing the disruption of their old way of life to the impact of Western domination, Western influence, or Western precept and example.
Lewis: It should by now be clear that we are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations—the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage.
Klevius comment: West has nothing but islam has everything to do with Judaism! The proper term would be Judeo-islam! Israel, seen as an enemy to islam, is Western, nor Jewish!
Lewis: It is crucially important that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally irrational reaction against that rival.
Klevius comment: Irrational reaction?! What would that be? Islamophobia?! I.e. fear for a fascist ideology that preaches hatred, racism, sexism & totalitarianism!
To counter-balance this cautious charlatanism (i.e. to pretend knowledge without fully utilizing it) let me quote a real social scientist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "Foretelling the future can be fun for astrologists, prophets and crystal-ball gazers. For academics, it is not. If you get it right, you will be damned like Samuel Huntington. If you get it wrong, you will be called a certified idiot."
If you truly want to improve your understanding of the world visit KLEVUX pages, the most advanced sociology/anthropology on the net, e.g.:
Definition & origin of religion
What's sex segregation & rapetivism?
Origin of man
What is mind?
Angels of Antichrist - kinship vs social state