Saudi war crimes investgated by the Saudis
If China today became a full democracy (and even accepting full Human Rights) - nothing would change, because it's not the rulers but the high tech industry in China that outperforms the West. And unlike islam, China doesn't have tenets against Human Rights. However, islam is tied to its supremacist and sexist sharia tenets (OIC) which deny women full Human Rights - just the opposite to what is said in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948. If islam would accept full Human Rights it would not be islam anymore. China's economic expansion has been a non-aggressive big contributor to wealth around the world, but when China reached out its Belt and Road hand, then the West bit it and supported extremist muslim terrorists. Islam induced hate crimes and terror are based on a shared evil ideology (a global muslim collective rather than as nationals, which inspire and hail each other) - but because most are committed by lonely or gang muslims, and because police and media are told muslim "ethnicity" ought not to be revealed, then the public are kept unaware of most muslim hate crimes. How come that evilness is protected? The answer is in the question. To hide its original evilness. And how come that BBC and UK politicians dare to support islamofascism in Kashmir? Freedom from sharia for women in Kashmir!
* UK PM Theresa May opposed Human Rights.
Islam (represented in UN by Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia called “islamic human rights”) is against Human Rights!
Sweden’s Supreme Court has found a man guilty of rape for having sex without explicit consent from a teenage woman who had been passive and gave no clear expression that she wanted to participate in the sexual acts. Lack of a partner’s spoken agreement or any other clear approval can hence be considered rape. However, islamic sharia gives a muslim man the "right" to have sex with wives and and concubines his "right hand possesses" (e.g. "infidel" girls/women). The neo-islamist rational (original openly supremacist islam didn't need one) is that "it satisfies the sexual desire of the female". Peter Klevius wonders if Swedish Courts will accept this reasoning - perhaps only for muslims?!
Peter Klevius also wonders whether BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting, Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim, Mishal Husain, approves of sharia?
In UK both Tories and Labour are against "islampohobia" - so apparently also against Human Rights? And if not, then they are "islamophobic" after all. So how do you vote for someone critical of islam's Human Rights violations if parties don't allow "islamophobia"? Is it democracy?
What do BBC and Jeremy Hunt have in common? Both support the islamofascist murderer and war criminal Mohammad bin Salman.
Peter Klevius: Girls' emancipation needs more football and less cricket, netball etc.
BBC's cricket propaganda is a slap in the face of young girls who need equally much moving around and spatial skills as young boys. However, there's a huge sex segregation in females motivation and access to football - not only the world's by far most popular physical sport, but also the only one that doesn't use tools or hands to handle the ball, and which makes all participants moving most of the time even without the ball. Moreover, the very nature of the sport forces participants to a never ending series of spatial and strategic challenges - with or without the ball and even while playing alone. So why is BBC so hostile to the Queen of sports (the "beautiful game") that is perfect for the physical and spatial development of girls - and in the face of the football loving majority who has to pay compulsory fees (and paying extra for football channels) to this faking regime propaganda media that uses stiff and lifeless colonial cricket for neo-colonial purpose?! England banned football for girls/women already 1921 and suggested cricket, land hockey and netball instead - almost like today except it's not called a ban. And what about the laughable notion of a "world cup" in cricket?! When is the "world cup" in caber tossing between Gotland and Scotland?
The murderous war criminal, Saudi muslim "custodian of islam" (and OIC) "prince" MBS is OK but Human Rights defender Peter Klevius isn't. Why?! Because the former isn't an "islamophobe", dude!
BBC thinks the militaristic Saudiphil Jeremy Hunt "is a safer option" as UK PM. What about you?
Racist Sinophobia disguised as "security" while muslim terror spreading Saudi murderous dictator and war criminal is "an important security ally"!?
Nothing in Primate/Haplorhini evolution came out of Africa - not even Africa (it was disconnected due to tectonics).
A “definition” of “islamophobia” ought to be balanced with a definition of muslim Human Rightsphobia.
"Diversity" without basic (negative) Human Rights is like having a car without steering - dangerous.
In its senseless and continuous "islamophobia" ranting BBC says to be 'muslim' is the same as to be 'English'. Klevius thinks not. A 'muslim' is one who wittingly or unwittingly adheres to what historical records show being the most evil enslaving ideology ever around (from a Human Rights perspective). And Klevius doesn't count as real muslims those who call themselves "cultural muslims" for the purpose of benefiting from a certain "ethnicity", or those who against their will are trapped in muslimhood because of the evil apostasy tenet in islam. And islamic "modesty" attires is a protected way of calling other women "whores".
The most serious threat to our Human Rights is the hate campaign against "islamophobia" which really is directed against Human Rights.
As long as most muslims in the world are ruled by a sharia (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC) that gravely violates the most basic of Human Rights, and as long as the most devout muslims do the same by simply following original evil (according to Human Rights) islam, you can't legislate against criticism of islam without simultaneously legislating against Human Rights. Why do you want to hinder muslims from apostating? It's a Human Right! Islam should not be allowed to traumatize apostates. Authentic original (e.g. Wahhabi/Salafi) islam doesn't fit in the boots of "Euro-islam" and Human Rights.
Klevius suggests the UK baby should be named Muhammad. After all, according to BBC, the Queen is related to him and all politicians love islam. And several hadiths describe him as white (one even proposing the killing of anyone who says he was black). Only problem being that he then may be described as a white supremacist. Luckily the baby, according to BBC, is “mix-race”.
Klevius to EU voters: If you respect Human Rights - don’t vote for anyone who supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who spreads Human Rightsphobia via the Saudi based and steered OIC’s world sharia!
No true muslim can be fully human.
Why? Because islam's dividing the world in muslims and (not fully human) "infidels" makes it impossible. Only by fully accepting the basic (s.c. 'negative') Universal Human Rights equality - which islam can't accept (see e.g. Saudi based and steered all muslims world Ummah sharia organization OIC) without committing ideological suicide - can we meet every human as basically equal, in the same way as we can give every road-user a basic equality in traffic, i.e. we have traffic sense. So Klevius asks muslims whether they have "traffic sense"? And for all the rest of you - to be 'human' in a global sense can only be achieved by giving every human you meet basic equality - no matter how alien that human might feel to you. Because every human has the right to be "alien" and there can't even be any alternative to this as long as we don't accept brainwashed totalitarianism (see e.g. Klevius 1996 paper Angels of Antichrist). This is the only way to meaningfully talk about 'humankind'. And to alien hunters Klevius says you probably meet them every day already.
So when BBC and other fake media talk about xenophobia against muslims, they actually contribute to spread xenophobia themselves.
A "good muslim" is one who suppresses and distorts original islam so to fit Human Rights. However, some just pretend to do so - and some just continue hating the "infidel".
Peter Klevius to Greta Thunberg: Saudi salafist oil funded supremacist islam or Chinese Taoist (kindness) high tech - which one do you think is the real threat to the people and environmment in EU and the world?
Ultimate bigotry and hypocrisy – militant spying and war mongering 5 Eyes instead of true 5G?
Saudi hate spreading antennas (Salafi/Wahhabi mosques etc.) or Chinese world leading 5G tech? No one knows the amount of street etc. victims of Saudi hate because when the haters are muslims their attacks are not recorded as hate crimes. If a Chinese would attack shouting 'Tao' it would most certainly be classified as a hate crime. However, chances are slim that it ever occurs compared to hate attacks made by muslims.
Arabic (not "white" etc.) islam has been the by far biggest enslaver throughout 1,400 years. Islamic language imperialism via the Koran. And all races have been complicit in the muslim Koranic slave trade. So how do you distinguish between descendants of slaves or slave traders? Will Cambridge check today's "Caribbeans", "Africans" etc. about it? Klevius warns there might be unwelcomed surprises, e.g. that many of those who come to Europe are actually descendants of slave trading black Africans on whose wealth lineage top they are better privileged than those from slave lineages. And what about "whites" like Klevius who were cut off from any lineages? Should the skin color Klevius was born with be used against him because of the privileges of others with the same skin color? Same question may be asked about sexism. Klevius doesn’t see it fair to blame him for male sexism just because he happens tp be male, do you!
The real threat is the US led Saudi supporting spy organization 5 Eyes, which 1) tries to block superior tech, and 2) uses China as a scapegoat for US/UK privacy breaches. It's not China but US that wants to control you! So "securing 5G from Chinese influence" actually means giving US/UK a technical space for spying/influencing etc. In short, trying to hinder US/UK customers from accessing the best technology while spying on them.
Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!
BBC collected a UKIP hating mob to shout "islamophobia" against islam criticism.
However, the very same BBC also willfully misleads people about islam so that most people in UK are completely unaware of that Saudi based and steered OIC and its extreme Human Rightsphobia is a world guide for (sharia) muslims. Moreover, BBC's top presenter (Mishal Husain) who seems to be muslim in name only (drinking alcohol, not fasting on Ramadan, no muslim attire, no Haji, no sharia, etc) so to dupe the public about islam.
The 1948 Human Rights declaration was created to protect against fascism. Accepting islam without a clear border against sharia that violates the most basic Human Rights, allows space for islamofascism (i.e. original supremacist islam).
However, the new fascist mob is shouting "islamophobia" because islam can't comply with it (compare Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration against Human Rights). This smear is then "enhanced" by connecting it to murderers, Nazis, right wing extremists etc. Islam's sharia sexism and racist supremacism is the problem - so why is addressing it "bad"?!
BBC is also keen on silencing the only truly free media, i.e. bloggers etc. social media.
The crystal clear connection between the surge in knife, rape etc. attacks and islam - and its custodian, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - is desperately silenced by BBC and politicians (BBC now tries to cover this up by airing long programs about "conventional" knife crimes instead). This means they are directly complicit, doesn't it. Klevius suggests boycotting BBC and Saudi bribed politicians. They constitute the worst security threat.
Peter Klevius evolution formula
Stop security cooperation with UK whose close connection to the the suspected murderer, war criminal and islamic terror spreading islamofascist Saudi custodian of islam, Mohammad bin Salman, constitutes the by far worst threat against the security of people in EU! Moreover, sharia islam (the only real islam for real muslims) which is a racist and sexist supremacist ideology that violates Human Rights, is supported by UK.
Don't let haters and Human Rightsphobes get away with it by calling themselves 'believers'!
Either religion is (grades of) supremacist hate and sexism and you better become an Atheist (and therefore universal human) - or you keep your "beliefs" for yourself. In traffic you can think what you want about other people, but you can't drive over them!
- and take responsibility for your own supremacist sharia, represented by Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization OIC, which violates the most basic Human Rights! And do note the difference between universal impositions and universal freedom! Full respect of the other rests on accepting her/his freedom. This is the only way of being universally human.
Islam is an evil* supremacist and divisive ideology - why isn’t this told by BBC, schools etc.?
* weighed against the anti-fascist, anti-supremacist, anti-racist and anti-sexist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 that all civilized people are supposed to build on. Islam doesn't fit these goals, so OIC (the legal world Umma steered from and by the Saudi dictator family) decided to replace them with medieval racist, sexist and supremacist sharia.
Article 24 of the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration (CDHRI) states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." CDHRI also fails to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to abandon their religion, as a "fundamental and non-derogable right".
Article 10 of the Declaration states: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to Atheism." Since in Islamic society all reasons for conversion away from Islam are considered to be essentially either compulsion or ignorance, this effectively forbids conversion away from Islam.
CDHRI denies women equality with men by imposing "own rights" and "duties to perform".
A global world is only possible under the guidance of (negative – i.e. individual freedom from racist/sexist impositions) Human Rights - as outlined in the original anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. It excludes any religious or other supremacist tenets or impositions on the individual.
Due to the above and due to the West (politicians and media) having locked itself in with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (the custodians of islam) we now have a deficit of (negative) Human Rights education – but massively more religious propaganda (e.g. Saudi spread “islamophobia” smear) against these rights. Against this background it's utmost hypocrisy to point against wealth spreading China while supporting islamic hate, terror and war crimes spreading hegemonic Saudi dictator family.
Saudi and BBC hate propaganda against Iran and Shia muslims behind attacks on Corbyn's "anti-Semitism"? BBC's inflammatory and offensive hate mongering use of the oxymoron "anti-Semitic" (reinforced by "islamophobia") protects Semitic (Arab/Sunni/Saudi) muslims from criticism while excluding non-Semitic Shia muslims (e.g. Iran). BBC also use "Asians" when they mean non-Semitic former British Asian muslims, i.e. again not incl. Iranian Shia muslims. Why? Because BBC's poster boy Mohammad Salman hates Shia. England also got a massive problem with "Asian" (sic - read 'mostly Sunni muslim') sex offenders. But no one dares to ask if islam's hate teaching of taking "infidel" sex slaves - and "muslim sensitivity" policies - may encourage it?
Don't let BBC's or islam's glossy surface (i.e. normal news/info and non-sharia muslims respectively) lure you to not see the evil core. Klevius is the opposite. WYSIWYG. No hidden evil core, just defense of your (whoever you are) basic Human Rights that islam wants to deny you.
Theresa May & Co defend sharia by saying "it's just a a contract". This is utter lie because any meaningful islam demands sharia and stepping out of the "contract" is the worst sin you can commit as a muslim (s.c. apostasy). Theresa May's and others deception is built on the mass of secular muslims, i.e. not true muslims. And these "secular muslims" get away with it as long as there's not enough true muslims to demand sharia all over the pitch - as yet. Moreover, Saudi led sharia finance demands sharia compliance - as does Saudi based and steered OIC, all muslims world organization.
Klevius supports "secular muslims" - Theresa May supports sharia muslims.
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.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saudi "king" Abdullah (about Iran): "Cut off the head of the snake"!
To which Bush didn't respond but the muslim born Mr X "president" said he encourages attack on Iran, N. Korea etc!
Klevius comment: Of course he is worried about the health and safety of his family's most powerful and reliable life guard!
The schizophrenia of islam
This is Iranian PressTV's view on the criminal Saudis
Tahereh Ghanaati: "The reason for the Kingdom's new active role in the Near East, particularly regarding Iran, is twofold. Firstly, Iran is the only country in the region powerful enough to effectively check Saudi Arabia's burgeoning ambition. Secondly, the KSA sees Iran as the force behind its own Shia minority, which is the only group within the Kingdom which has different ideas from the rulers and could possibly (in the future) challenge the status quo -- Wahhabi dominance, which comprises the base upon which the entire Saudi governmental structure and the House of Saud rest."
Klevius comment: This is precisely how the evil islamic Leviathan acts! Wahhabism is the Saudi's usage of islam for the purpose of boosting themselves. This is why islam is so dangerous. There is no meaningful
personal "islamic faith", only an endless variety of totalitarian power spheres resting on suitable "interpretations" of the illusive "real islam". However, under these islamic power struggles lies the original rift in the bedrock of islam, sex segregation. And this rift is heading for a major quake, as has been described by Klevius for years.
Tahereh Ghanaati: "During the reign of King Abdullah's predecessor, King Fahd, the Saudi government claimed to have built 1,359 mosques abroad, as well as 202 colleges, 210 Islamic centers and over 2,000 schools. The House of Saud was also said to have supported militant extremist groups, such as al-Qaeda."
Klevius comment: Islam has turned many universities into mosques/madrassas, wholly or partially. What is preached in islamic faculties all ultimately rest on an axiomatic mythological body of unscientific (i.e. not historical) texts etc. And unlike the hermeneutical approach in Christian theology, islamic
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Who acted inappropriately in the royal family? And what about islamic Sharia compliancy - and its victims
The man from Bangladesh and the woman from Philippines were acting together.
UAE is built on top of the dead bodies of infidels slaughtered by islam almost 1400 years ago.
It used to be one of the absolutely biggest islamic slave markets in the world.
It also used to be a muslim piracy state just as Somalia is today.
Klevius comment: The Queen wasn't acting alone!
A Westernized (i.e. believing in Negative Human Rights rather than sharia "rights") "muslim" from Iraq seems to share much of what Klevius (but not BBC) has written for years:
Ali Ghalib: "In all,(Wiki)leaks have not generated as much excitement inside Iraq as they have internationally, this is because, to a large extent, they only describe what many Iraqis already knew, and to many Iraqis who have lived through the horrors of the US-led invasion and its aftermath, maintaining security, at whatever cost, will take precedence over the issue of civil liberties and human rights. The leaks are, however, useful because they allow us to grasp the personal nature of the “incidents”."
Klevius comment: The US invasion was an ultra fast military master piece with relatively few casaulties. Just remember the Iraqi propaganda minister telling us how the US marines were slaughtered by Saddam's islamic army, while in fact, the marines were already entering Baghdad behind his back! But what happened then was almost all islam's fault! The big casualties and endless islamic terror was caused by islamic jihadists, mainly steered and supported from Mr X "president's" beloved Saudi Arabia!
Ali Ghalib:"The leaks then, give Iraqis the chance to ask themselves some questions regarding how they see their future. Will they sideline the issues of civil liberties and human rights under because they want to fight terror? Will they dismiss violations because they are not as grave as those that went on during Saddam’s reign? Or will Iraqis determine, for themselves, what standards they will set themselves, independent of the horrors being wrought against them?"
Ali Ghalib:"Reporters, analysts and commentators made brazen claims that the leaks proved that things in Iraq under Saddam were much better than they are now. That said, it is difficult to accept attempts to white-wash Saddam’s notorious past by pointing at Iraq’s present situation."
Ali Ghalib:"To Iraqis like me, who have lost immediate family-members both pre and post 2003, the sudden burst of conscience from a public that was silent during three decades of the harshest, most despotic regime the Middle East has seen in centuries is abhorrent in itself, and leads me to question the motivation behind the sudden faux-concern for the plight of the millions of suffering Iraqis."
Ali Ghalib:"Here in London, Iraqis campaigned for years against Saddam, and tried desperately to convince the general public to support their worthy cause. Very few heeded the calls; apparently stories of Iraqis dying are not all too interesting. Unless of course, the West is somehow culpable in the killing."
Klevius question to the Queen and BBC: What do you think about sheltering, nurturing and supporting islamic pirates in the UK? Do you see the direct criminal link between islamic/Koranic jihad against infidels, and the fact that Somali pirates when in trouble search refugee status among their victims? Etc etc etc!? HOW DEEP WILL WE SINK BEFORE ITS TIME TO ADMIT THAT ISLAM IS THE WORST CRIME EVER AGAINST HUMANITY?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Klevius: Ask yourself, how much unnecessary islamic racism have the Arab oil billionaires induced in the third world against the "Westerners" (incl. the "colored" ones)! And you elderly, have you considered the islamic hatred against you possibly boiling in the fanatic muslim who happens to meet you in a caring context? Etc etc. For me this hatred became utterly clear when I, many years ago, saw it through the eyes of an 8-9 year old muslim Arab boy whom I didn't know and whom I kindly offered space to cross the road in a Swedish immigrant suburb. This opened my eyes, and I became aware of a pattern of extremely racist muslim hatred (well hidden under all the PC noise abt alleged Swedish racism), a pattern that now contaminates all parts of society, incl even football. Just look at the "sensitive" (in fact, mostly racist) muslim soccer players who make fools of themselves out there!
OIC, the ultimate racist/sexist islamic evil in the world of today
Naiwu Osahon: In mid March, the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) revised their 1972 charter. This organization is likely positioning itself to be the next Islamic caliphate. (Now) the Arab world desperately wants Nigeria dead or under their firm control.
Mona Eltahawy: "It took years to make UN Women, dedicated to gender equality, a reality, and then just one day to kill it by allowing onto its board Saudi Arabia, where women are not just infamously prohibited from driving but are also virtual minors who need a male guardian's permission to travel and to have surgery — and must be covered from head to toe in public. Just three days after, Saudi Arabia showed up at the Asian Games in China without a single woman among the 180-strong delegation, while Iran, another country with a dismal women's rights record, who lost its bid for election to the board of UN Women after furious back-channel diplomacy by the Obama administration and its allies, fields 92 female athletes in its 395-strong delegation. Iranian Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi had warned just before the vote that it was a “joke” that her country was in line to get a place on the board, but she said Saudi Arabia’s women's rights record was even worse than Iran's. It's not as if the UN was unaware of that abysmal record. After all, who could forget the farce that ensued when a Saudi delegation appeared for the first time before the UN women's rights panel in Geneva in 2008 and absurdly insisted that women in their country faced no discrimination? But the most ludicrous claim came when the UN committee asked why Saudi men could marry up to four wives. With a straight face, a Saudi delegate — a man, of course — explained that it was to ensure a man's sexual appetite was satisfied legally if one wife could not fulfil it. It was disgusting to hear American ambassador to the UN Susan E. Rice celebrate Iran's defeat and yet, when pushed on Saudi Arabia, say only that she would “not deny that there were several countries that are going to join the board of UN women that have less than stellar records on women's rights, indeed human rights.” Once again, women are the cheapest bargaining chips, thrown on the table to silence and appease allies and “major donors.” In 2000, Saudi Arabia ratified an international bill of rights for women but stipulated that the country's interpretation of Islamic law (Sharia) would prevail if there were conflicts with the bill's provisions. So why sign in the first place? Especially as that interpretation is where so much discrimination against women originates — polygamy, half inheritance allotted to a man, little access to divorce and child marriage among them."
Klevius comment: Talking about "sexual appetite", the case of the muslim pedophiles in Derby/England who abused vulnerable lost young girls who were in state care, exemplifies the destructive role of a social state that runs like whatever profit searching business yet does it with a monopoly of power and a complete lack of quality control when it comes to its ultimate alleged goal given to the tax payers in exchange of the tax payers money. This process is analyzed in possibly the most important sociological paper from the last Century, Angels of Antichrist.
Some facts to consider for you non-muslim (and for ALL muslims against Sharia) who don’t consider yourself an ignorant bigot/hypocrite:
How come that the truth about the most evil of evil ideologies is so hard to get through to the people? Well, because it would hamper financial interest! But an important role is also played by "useful idiots".
Paul Goodman (UK Catholic islamist supporting politician): The monotheist journey that begun by Abraham, ended up in islam, ” the most plausible of the three religions that look back to him”.
Klevius (an intelligent, non-racist/sexist, non-religious, happy, fit, social, well informed and unbiased, i.e. financially/politically free standing, analyst) comment: I have always said that islam (the Penis) is the most plausible outcome of an institutionalized racism/sexism starting from the Vagina. 1400 years of Arabic imperialism through slavery, genocides and rapetivism has undeniably resulted in many more true muslims than true Jews and true Christians.
Paul Goodman (UK Catholic islamist supporting politician): Near the root of Judaism is the conviction that a single people are chosen by God — a people, moreover, who are hard to join. At the core of Christianity is the belief that a man was God and rose from the dead. Both claims seem to spit in the face of reason. Isn’t it an offence against justice to assert that God specially favours one people in particular? Isn’t it an affront to common sense to hold that a baby was divine, and that a dead man walked from a cold tomb?
Klevius (an intelligent, non-racist/sexist, non-religious, happy, fit, social, well informed and unbiased, i.e. financially/politically free standing, analyst) comment: Isn’t it an affront to common sense to hold that a guy met an angel in the wilderness where no one saw them, and then handed over “Allah’s” complete manual for how to submit women (sexist rapetivism) and infidels (purest of racisms)? Not the least because, accoding to Hugh Kennedy (professor of Arabic language and Arabic history): "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (dead 632) is never mentioned in any official document whatsoever..." And isn’t it an affront to common sense to hold that the most important prophet in Hebrew Judaism (Moses) should be followed by “the last prophet” who allegedly spoke Arabic and slaughtered Jews until they admitted (i.e. converted to islam) him as the most important one?!
Paul Goodman (UK Catholic islamist supporting politician): Islam should conjure images of tranquillity: serene mosques, the circles of dhikr, a certain detachment from the claims of politics, distaste for the extremism within its own rank, and better treatment of religious minorities than Europe’s.
Klevius (an intelligent, non-racist/sexist, non-religious, happy, fit, social, well informed and unbiased, i.e. financially/politically free standing, analyst) comment: This reminds me of my 2005 criticism of the pathetic Swedish convert imam, islamist Leif "Abd al Haqq Kielan" Karlsson, naive (or hypocrite & traitor?) top imam denies women a social life outside home, who now has become islamophobic by not accepting Sharia in Sweden!
The Jewish civil war between the Vagina and the Penis
Apart from the fact that there are no historical records on any Mohammed figure before long after his alleged existence had ended, what the islamic/Koranic mythology reveals about him indicates an important shift from Vagina rapetivism to Penis rapetivism. Where the Jewish Vagina became a bottle neck, the islamic Penis made most rape victims and consequtive kids muslims. And the origin for this was the same as the original origin for Judaism, i.e. political power through parasitic enslavement. Which fact explains why the diaspora ones usually performed better than the "real" orthodox ones. And why Saudi Arabia and much of Mideast always has been a cultural desert without Western oil aid or the Western nation of Israel which is the only Mideastern nation on a technology level equal or better than most European states, and superior to its mosly parasitic Mideastern neighbors.
There is no other real islam out there than political islam. And because islam lacks real Human Rights (i.e. individual freedom) and due protection against racism/sexism, it aims for Utopian totalitarianism while inevitably ending up in never ending civil wars (a long tradition inherited from its Jewish roots. As you know, if you have read your Klevius, the “book” monotheisms are all (except for early Christianity) variants of a racist/sexist Jewish theme, eventually splitting up in a Vagina branch (usually called Judaism) and a Penis branch (islam), the latter hence easily outnumbering the former, especially because of Sharia and apostasy ban..
Political islam is produced by and steered from Saudi Arabia mainly via United Nations, treacherous politicians and financially biased universities. The Saudi “family”, who gained their original wealth by enslaving Africans and others on “their” date plantations outside Riadh, stole the entire country and later, when the West had abolished Arabic/Islamic slavery, filled their pockets with the oil money Western technology offered these backward striving racist/sexist islamofascists. And do note that islam in itself, as an inherently parasitic ideology, is completely technologically impotent, i.e. not capable of surviving by itself.
How the worst crime ever is organized today
Historically, islam has never been able to protect itself from itself, simply because of its own parasitic nature. However, because Western globalization through Enlightenment (the idea of the individual’s rights, i.e. what is lacking in islam)
OIC, consisting of 57 islamist states, who in effect have agreed on implementing Sharia and supporting Saudi Arabia, is the biggest voting bloc (unified through Sharia) within the United societiesNations. However, OIC’s Sharia tactics doesn’t stop with its member states but also includes muslim minorities outside OIC. OIC hence deliberately counteracts the integration of muslims in non-muslim societies. In this process Saudi and other islamofascists are eagerly supported by “useful idiots”.
So when OIC or other islamists refer to Human Rights it means Sharia, and when they refer to international law it means the Islamic International Court of (Sharia) Justice. When they refer to women’s “dignity” etc. it refers to the sex segregated confinement of muslim women.
Charter of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference
This paper in every bit refers to Koranic Sharia and the international islamic Sharia court (see below)
OIC’s Cairo (Sharia) declaration
The Cairo Declaration on "Human Rights" in Islam, adopted by the 56 nation Organization of Islamic Conference in 1990, subjected all of its protections to the requirements of Sharia. In Article 22 (a), the Cairo Declaration says “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.”
The International Islamic Court of (Sharia) Justice
The establishment of the Court has been decided by the Third Islamic Summit. It is envisioned to have 7 members elected by the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (OIC) and to have headquarters in Kuwait City, the State of Kuwait.
The Islamic Shar’ia is the fundamental law of the Court (article 27§A§a), and the I.I.C.J. the first international judiciary body to adopt the Shar’ia as its fundamental law. Court decisions are rendered in Arabic, the primary language of the I.I.C.
UN Women Is the “UN Entity on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women” boarded by Saudi Arabia, the most women hostile nation in the world.
It gives Mr X "president's" closest ally membership in a powerful new agency, with very few obligations.
In 2000, Saudi Arabia ratified an international bill of rights for women while simultaneously completely nutering it through a reservation that states that that the Saudi interpretation of Sharia would prevail if there were conflicts with the bill's provisions.
Klevius ultra short tutorial on islamic sexism
To understand islamic sexism one needs to address what I name heterosexual attraction, i.e. a biological bias which makes females (in general) sexually more attractive for males than vice versa. So although most sexuality is culturally flawed, there's a biological base that explains the root of sexism. However, since Enlightenment and the introduction of Negative Human Rights (every individual's right to freedom no matter of sex, religion etc) we in the West (i.e. all those who adhere to Negative Human Rights) have liberated us from dog sexuality, at least legally. So whereas islam's tool against HSA is a sex segregating burqa in the form of Sharia law, West has (at least since the 1960s when women for the first time en masse started showing their asses in tight pants etc - a skirt is never as sexy as the real thing*) shown that sexually peaceful co-existence between the sexes (no matter how revealingly dressed/undressed, free etc the female is) is possible. However, in islam it's not only compulsory sex confined to the muslim marriage bed (or infidel sex allowed for muslim men) but also the reproduction of new muslims in the one way road ending in apostasy ban, that has to be addressed. Problem being these tenets (together with jihadic infidel racism) constitute the very back bone of islam & were, in fact the very secret of islam's initial “success”! This is why a truly muslim woman isn't allowed to love an “infidel” under any circumstances – neither in islamic countries nor in the West, while the opposite is encouraged…
* Of course, one also has to consider the "sexual liberation" in the 1960's compared to previous pant fashion. was essentially a culural mass rape on yong vulnerable (because of sex segregation) women. But as a positive side effect it also opened up for the acceptance of female beauty without necessitating sex through seduction/persuation etc.
To really understand Great Zimbabwe, read the Origin of Vikings!
To really understand Human Rights and why they are distinctly incompatible with islam, read Negative Human Rights!
In Angels of Antichrist (the most important sociological writing from the last Century) Klevius wrote: "Although the simple Sicilian women in Lagerlöf’s novel, following the Good Samaritan, showed no signs of evil, they were certainly part of a movement that would become the most widespread political force ever. The question, however, remains; is it an evil one?
Today we might be inclined to conclude it's a major part of the most evil (fascist)poitical force ever, simply because so few women dare to (or manage to) challenge islam (OIC/Sharia).
Geller: "Many Muslims in the West resist the OIC’s tutelage and oppose its efforts to supplant Western law with sharia. But the OIC’s resources are formidable. The organization has numerous subsidiary institutions collaborating at the highest levels with international organizations in order to implement its political objectives worldwide. Its main working bodies are the Islamic Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (ISESCO), which seeks to impose on the West the Islamic perception of history and civilization; the Observatory of Islamophobia, which puts pressure on Western governments and international bodies to adopt laws punishing “Islamophobia” and blasphemy; and the newly created Islamic International Court of Justice. As stated in its 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, the OIC is strictly tied to the principles of the Koran, the Sunnah, and the sharia. In a word, the OIC seeks to become the reincarnation of the Caliphate. All Islamic states have abandoned (i.e. violated) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah". However, this document does not guarantee freedom of religion or gender equality, the root of many criticisms against its usage."
Klevius comment: Yet Saudi bowing media continue to deny the fundamental fact that islamic sharia in any form has no room within Human Rights and vice versa! And the best proof of this incompatibility is islam's (i.e. OIC's) own rejection!
An outstanding example of how low African "science" is allowed to sink as long as it boosts Arabic islamic racism/sexism
Akurang-Parry in tendentious and charlatan Wikipedia: "This lazy categorizing homogenizes Africans and has become a part of the methodology of African (sic - Klevius comment) history; not surprisingly, the Western media’s cottage industry on Africa (sic again) has tapped into it to frame Africans in inchoate generalities allowing the media to describe local crisis in one African state as “African” problem."
Monday, November 08, 2010
Muslim born Mr X gangsta “president” bows OIC’s violations of women’s Human Rights while offering Saudi islamofascists the biggest arms deal ever
See below how the Saudis pretend to conform to some Human Rights while in fact grossly violating them via "reservations"! This is "king" Abdullah, the Saudi mastermind of Mideastern islamic evil, who uses his White House puppet and the UN for promoting the agenda of the Saudi slave masters who robbed the oil rich land from the Arabs and others.
Why isn't Obama the worst US president ever? Because he isn't a president at all (in accordance with the US constitution)! Technically the US is now in a lawless state and without a president. The young age of his mother and the double citizenship of his parents weigh less than his muslimhood. A true muslim needs to obey Sharia, and Sharia is the direct opposite to the US Constitution.
OIC was created by Saudi islamofascists for the purpose of:
1 criminalizing Human Rights (every HR freedom not accepted by islamic Sharia is by islamic definition a crime)
2 criminalizing criticism of islam (and of Saudi Arabia as the "guardian of islam")
OIC abuses UN for its Sharia agenda by using its 57 member state representatives in the UN as its largest voting bloc.
Racist/sexist Jihad at the core of islam's crimes
According to Islamic fard al-kifaya, jihad is a duty which is imposed on the whole community of muslims, but the individual muslim is not required to perform it as long as a sufficient number of other muslims do it. This is why the Saudis are able to use islam for their own greed and extension of power! And while doing this they pretend to follow some international conventions by signing them, yet simultaneously rejecting them:
Saudi Arabia blatantly rejects UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
while simultaneously abusing UN via OIC (OIC is an organization initiated by the Saudis, and committed to violate Human rights and to replace them with islamic Sharia) with the aim to criminalize all criticism against islam/Saudi Arabia ('Saudi' Arabia is that part of Arabia that was stolen and colonialized by the Saudis!)!
The Saudi reservations:
“1. In case of contradiction between any term of the Convention and the norms of islamic law, the Kingdom is not under obligation to observe the contradictory terms of the Convention.
2. The Kingdom does not consider itself bound by paragraphe 2 of article 9 of the Convention and paragraph 1 of article 29 of the Convention.”
The first reservation is a wholesale rejection of the whole notion of Human Rights, especially its foundation the so called Negative Human Rights, in the Convention, i.e. the very basis for the freedoms it suggests. UN's Human Rights Declaration was established precisely as a bullwork against totalitarian ideologies such as islam!
The factual text in the Convention referred to in the second part of the Saudis’ reservations:
Art 9 par 2. States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children.
1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the present Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
The Saudis, who will get offensive arms worth some $70 billion, allegedly fund/ed Sunni insurgents in Iraq and other places (most deaths in the Iraqi muslim civil war might be traced to the Saudis), while their intelligence service steers the Pakis and others.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
* Although he is muslim born that doesn't hinder him from killing muslims. Islamtotalitarian nature invites for the murdering of "wrong" muslims. Some 99% of all victims in the Iraq war was caused by other muslims!
The Jawa Report: A peaceful Muslim practicing his peaceful religion of Islam was forced to beat and torture a racist Christian. The intolerant Christian, it seems, refused to become the Muslim's slave. The Muslim has every right, according to the Quran, to have slaves, so it is obvious this Christian, in refusing to recognise that right, is an anti-Muslim bigot.
Islam uses rioting to promote its evil agenda. First muslims demand more and more advantages/benefits, then they bully/intimidate non-muslims. And then all of this is connected as political power/threats under the label islam! And BBC of course, reported that "there is no indication of coordination"!
For example, at one of the many prisons now rioting in England simultanously as somehow orchestrated, Warren Hill juvenile prison in England already in 2008 asked for a muslim "proactive leader" as well as making the "appointment of the visiting imam as a permanent member of the chaplaincy team with increased hours".
Klevius comment: Remember "Lord" Ahmed (the evil looking guy to the right on the Mr X "president" pic just below Sudan's "president" Bashir searched for by the Haag Criminal Court, and the Wahhabi Sharia fantast Ingrid Mattson, former leader of American muslims) used to threaten British democracy with "ten thousand muslim jihadists" if they didn't obey islam. Yes, this is also the same "lord" Ahmed who killed a person by driving recklessly. And although he had continuously SMS:ed for at least some 20 minutes while driving, he got away with some weeks!
The world's stupidiest question debated: Is islam a religion of peace?
A debate on the question"Is Islam a religion of peace?" included Maajid Nawaz, the founder of the counter-extremism Quilliam Foundation, who argued in favor of the resolution, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who argued against it.
Hirsi Ali’s argumentation won in a landslide. After polling the audience before and after the debate, she prevailed over almost all of the undecided, as well as many of those who had previously disagreed with her:
Before the debate:
After the debate:
Islam is the root cause of the Mideast problem, and every appeasement for islam prolongs the suffering
According to Palestinian reformist Zainab Rashid the Arab dictatorial regimes exploit the Palestinian cause in order to divert attention from their own domestic problems, and suppress initiatives of democratization and reform. She also opposed the Islamization of the Palestinian cause, saying the Palestinian issue will never be resolved as long as it is construed as a religious struggle destined to continue until Judgment Day.
According to Zainab Rashid, violence and extremism in the Arab and islamic world stem from islam's religious and legal texts, and called upon Arab intellectuals to renouncethe Koran and other Islamic texts, and to struggle for "the secularization of the state and of society – which is to say, complete separation of religion and state."
Q:"...Who is Zainab Rashid? As a woman living in Ramallah, how has your 'controversial' personality been shaped by the oppressive atmosphere in which women live in Arab states? What motivates you in choosing the topics you write about?"
Zainab Rashid: I am a Palestinian who experiences and endures the same things suffered by any Palestinian woman... The suffering [of the Palestinian woman] is two-fold: she lives in a chauvinistic society, which continues to treat women as immature and incompetent beings... and she suffers [both] from the occupation and from the rule [of the Palestinian Authority], whose methods, until some three years ago... resembled the methods of gangs rather than institutions..."
Q: "The Syrian philosopher Jawdat Sa'id has proposed non-violence as the [principle] that will return [Muslims] to the path of reason, finding evidence to support this [claim] in the Koran and in the Prophet's way of life, and arguing that 'violence begets only violence.' This is also what Syrian philosopher Khales Jalabi has proposed. What do you think about non-violence as a strategy for opposition and regime-change in the Arab world, and of Sheikh Jawdat's attempt to trace roots [of non-violence] in the Koran?"
Zainab Rashid: "Non-violence has proven to be remarkably valuable and effective as a means of rallying the entire world around a particular issue, whether it be opposition to occupation or the establishment of a popular movement against a despotic dictatorship. However, attempts to find Islamic roots of [non-violence] contradict the structure of Islamic texts, and even [Islamic] axioms and their reflection in history, in numerous ways. Islam began employing violence against the cousins [i.e. the Jews] in the Badr invasion [in 624 CE] and in subsequent invasions. It spread east and west by the force of the sword. As much as I respect philosopher Jawdat Sa'id, I wonder how many people agree with what he says... in contrast to the thousands upon thousands who stand behind any given sheikh from among those sheikhs who accuse [other Muslims] of heresy and divide the world into Muslims and infidels.
Zainab Rashid:"Violence is at the foundation of Islam. Any attempt to claim that violence has no roots in Islam, and that [Islam] was spread by pleasant and tolerant means, is an attempt to turn religious texts upside down..."