Calling criticism of islam "islamophobia" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism
Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?
* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).
Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?
Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future
Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".
* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.
This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.
Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.
Most people today are A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.
Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.
Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:
1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.
2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.
3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restrictions other than necessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all individuals - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.
* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").
Klevius "islamophobia" CV
Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):
* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.
1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.
2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).
3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.
4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).
Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!
Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights
Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism
Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:
True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).
Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017
So let's face islam with this definition.
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").
And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.
* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".
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.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Survey on British muslims confirms governmental discrinmination of non-muslims & the evilness of islam
In UK, 82% of muslims said British muslims are loyal while only 36% of their neighboring infidels agreed. UK muslims showed more faith in their country's government than infidel Brits. 83% of British muslims believed that their infidel nation's elections were fair, while only 57% of the infidels themselves did. 76% of British muslims believed in the integrity of the justice system, while only 55% of the infidel Brits trusted the courts.
Islamofascist Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the islamic Gallup Centre for Muslim Studies: If the integration debate defines people as people looking the same or thinking the same in terms of morality, then it's natural for general public to assume Muslims are not loyal, but if the focus is widened and takes into account how people actually identify with their country and how much they identify with institutions, then it would draw a different picture.
KLevius comment: Indeed! A crisp clear reflection of islam's fascist soul. What this "survey" actually shows is the bias of political correctness poured over the Brits. The more favoured the muslims are compared to other groups (incl. "Brits") the more these same muslims will "trust" the government & vice versa! Moreover, coming from an islamic country most non-islamic nations will appear a better choice. So why do these "muslims" want to bring the evil islam with them?!
Muslim extremism against homosexuals (homophobia) sexual freedom etc.
0% think homosexual relations are acceptable, 3% think unmarried relations are acceptable
KLevius comment: And most muslims support apostasy ban & infidel hatred. However, the survey fits neatly within historical islam, the worst racist/sexist crime ever against humanity!
Friday, May 01, 2009
"Peaceful islam" again fighting itself? Muslim civil war in Pakistan: Original islam vs Obamaislam? Or what's the point?! Continued rapetivism?!
Islamic Sharia courts ("moderate Talibanism"?) established in conflicted area.
Stupid muslim born (but without a birth certificate proving he is a "natural born" U.S. citizen) & unconstitutional (i.e. "respecting anti human rights & anti democratic islam") Mr X "president" Barry Barack Hussein Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever his true name/nationality/"faith" is) seems to share the view on Sharia not only with the Saudi islamofascists he is bowing in front of on the pic to the left, but also with the islamic Pakistan army, government, the islamic Taliban terrorists & Al-Qaeda.
According to Paki authorities the Taliban have no reason to fight because the Paki government has agreed to install Taliban Shariah courts based on Koranic/islamic law, throughout seven districts in the Malakand region, incl. Swat and Buner.
General Abbas: “If peace can be brought in the region without further destruction, then it will be a victory for all."
Klevius comment: Brilliant! But unfortunately he forgot the last word, 'islamists' from the sentence! Or is it just the usual islamist rhetoric, i.e. that "all" means only those who submit to islam?! Friends of freedom won't applause it. Islam is Sharia "peace" under submission of the same islamic sword that initially used to be waived by the islamist preacher in the original mosques (also consider Origin of mosque)!
In Karachi (population 14 million) islamic street terrorists have recently caused at least 34 people being killed and at least 42 wounded. Also in in Baluchistan the government has "failed to calm public anger over the killing of three nationalist leaders". Klevius comment: And the real culprit is Saudi islamofascist "king" Abdullah (& Co), who represents the main sponsors of evil world jihad, & to whom Mr X "president" bowed so deeply!
Cowardice & stupid muslim born & unconstitutional Mr X "president" has already (within his first 100 days) managed to commit senseless war crimes
Stupid muslim born (but without a birth certificate proving he is a "natural born" U.S. citizen) & unconstitutional (i.e. "respecting anti human rights & anti demcratic islam") Mr X "president" Barry Barack Hussein Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever his true name/nationality/"faith", if any, is) has deliberately murdered scores of civilians by allowing an extremely extended (& expanded) irresponsible use of drone bombings.
The inevitable (but desperately rejected) conclusion
There's only one true islam, the original ugly one! The pathetic notion that "most muslims are moderate" is as empty as the islamists Cairo declaration on "human rights (the one created for the sole purpose of making it possible for islam to continue treating girls/women as sub-humans"!
A useful feminist idiot or just an intellectual whore?
Irshad Manji (has written The Trouble with Islam Today)(in the notorious series of misleading islam excuses): "As a reform-minded Muslim, I admit that these guys make the notion of diversity in my faith look laughable. Salafis displace pluralism with puritanism. True to the dictates of dogma, they use intimidation and violence to spread their gospel. This summer, a small but steroidal gang of Islamists assaulted human-rights activists in Jakarta. Police stood by as the extremists crashed a religious freedom rally, organized after Indonesia's government imposed restrictions on a minority Muslim sect. Salafis call the move a defense of Islam's integrity. Pluralists call it a violation of Indonesia's Constitution. Moderate Muslim leaders call it none of their business.
In only 10 years, Islamism has gone from being a joke to a force.Like Muslims elsewhere, Indonesians are watching the import of Saudi-style Islam. Sometimes known as Salafism, it preaches a borderless caliphate anchored in the moral absolutes of the Prophet Muhammad's initial successors. A global village for the virtuous and valorous, Salafism purports to offer a way—no, the way—to combine reverence with modernity. Binding black and white, rich and poor, woman and man, mighty and weak, the theory of Salafism is transcendently pluralistic.
Then there's reality. In practice, Salafis displace pluralism with puritanism."
Klevius comment: I rest my case! Ijithad is an unnecessarily prolonged way out of islam. And the reason why some people stubbornly continue excusing islam while its victims in Darfur & around the globe suffer, is that they haven't (or just don't want to) fully accept the grim historical origin of islam.
Islam isn't born out of evil, it's evil itself institutionalized, which fact easily explains islams fast initial progress through the empty deserts into civilization where it planted its poisonous Sharia sword & started sucking for its own survival! What naive or deliberate (or simply ignorant) historians read as "tolerance" against non-muslims is, in fact, the same kind of "tolerance" every parasite shows its host! And also remember that the original & eternal islamic currency is called slaves! This is the whole point of Koranic infidel racism
Btw, isn't it quite a strange "logic" that the same people who now defend a Utopian non-existing "islam" & explain evil islam's evil consequences as "unislamic" are the ones who see history as testifying that "islam tolerated other cultures" when, in fact, this "tolerance" was truly unislamic & a consequence of necessitating circumstances?!
Islam is every bit compulsion!
It seems that the defenders of the worst crime ever against humanity are running out of ammo when they stubbornly try to cling at one (heavily misinterpreted) sentence in islam's Kampf: "There's no compulsion in religion". However, there was no such word as 'religion' in Arabic! And, as noted by Daniel Pipes, "this deceptively simple phrase historically has had a myriad of meanings". As stupid or deliberate islam supporters seem to have no problem pointing at a single verse among an abundance of its opposite, one may also consider Sura 8: 12: "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them," or Sura 2: 191 which states: "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out". Compulsion is certainly implied in Sura 9: 29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya (a tax paid by Christians and Jews) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
In its context "there's no compulsion in religion" is followed by “The correct has been distinguished from the wrong”, i.e. referring to conversion, & implying that because islam is perfect (i.e. totalitarian) there's no need to abandon it. Moreover, this has to be put in the context of islamic infidel racism connected to jihad, slave-taking & rapetivism (see Origin of islam).