Lal on muslim terror in India 1,000 years ago: In every campaign of Mahmud large-scale massacres preceded enslavement. The sight of horrendous killing completely unnerved the captives. Not only were the captives physically tortured, they were also morally shattered.
The tyranny of monotheism(s)
From a recent survey: People in bottom income groups are 17% more religious than those in top income groups. It is interesting that Religiosity declines as worldly prosperity of individuals rises. While the results for nations as a whole are mixed, individual respondents within a country show a revealing pattern. If citizens of each of the 57 countries are grouped into five groups, from the relatively poor to relatively rich in their own countries, the richer you get, the less religious you define yourself.
While the people of the world are turning their back to monotheist religions (see stats) the evil racist/sexist fascist organizations representing them (OIC, the Papacy etc) are growing in power and influence.
And although Mohammedanism (also called, Mahometanism, Saraceism, islam etc) is historically the by far worst evil ideological perpetrator, the root from which it emerged, Jesuism (Jews believing in Jesus) is the second worst. And yes, one may argue (as has Klevius argued since long ago) that the main bulk of Christian evil emerged as a response to islam's evilness.
Monotheism sprung out of slavery as "the chosen people" whose God told them to subjugate and enslave others. And it's only a question of definition how you draw the lines between the "Abrahamic faiths". Enslavement and rapetivism have been their constant followers.
Women in monotheist religion are kept unequal under the sex apartheid motto 'equality but not sameness'
Not even female priests, bishops, imams etc. in monotheist religions alter the sex apartheid that constititutes the very origin and backbone of monotheism. This is because of women seen as sexual objects and physical and cultural reproducers of more monotheisms.
Female patriarchy in monotheism
Some examples from Catholic women in Brazil: Clearly, the inhibiting environment of patriarchy and machismo is primarily to blame for the depressed condition of Brazilian women. But, from what the interviewees have shared, it is also clear that other factors play a significant part in women's oppression. The fatalistic attitude of many was startling. While complaining about their subjugation, women shrugged off their responsibility to do something about it. Many said, "it's our culture and we can't change it," or "the price is too high." Could the underlying reason for this reluctance to change be a fear of losing touch with the "self' that women know and with whom they have become comfortable? Their attitudes make it difficult for those who have the courage to confront their oppressors, be they clergy, macho men, or other women, to effect even a minimal change. (O’Connor & Drury 1998:111).
A major reason women choose to maintain the status quo in the church, and want other women to do so, is their fear of ridicule, change, and loss of security. The clamor in the United States for a married clergy and women priests threatens "good women's" comfortable place in the church. These women appear to be more interested in retaining their image than in challenging the injustices that face them daily
Most Brazilian women are paralyzed by their machistic society and face total ostracism if they so much as address the topic of sexism in society or in the church. Frightened women from both countries, who have found their identity within the patriarchal church, become angry at women who promote equality because they fear losing their status, inferior as it is. In different yet similar ways, they indicate they benefit from the oppressive structure and often persecute other women who try to change the system.
Among some women in both countries there seems to be an inherent need to put other women down. Women frequently do not help one another. They criticize each other, thereby working against solidarity. They tend to replicate the patriarchal model by using what little power they have to force other women into submission. By criticizing women who speak for equality and by reporting such "heretics" to the clergy or hierarchy, they marginalize those who have the courage to stand against the tide of clerical oppression.
Women act as tormentors both from the top down and from the bottom up. This was evidenced by an Episcopal woman priest in the United States who admitted she oppressed women because that was the only model she had ever seen in the church. Another example is, the sister in the diocesan office who, behind the scenes, forced the bishop's secretary to resign by overtly oppressing her. Similarly, the women in a Brazilian parish boycotted their Methodist minister simply because of her gender. In another Catholic parish the women jeered and taunted a woman catechist because she gave a good homily and distributed Communion, roles they felt belonged to men only
The effects of patriarchal conditioning on the formation of women are evident in both countries and affect the relationship between sisters and laywomen even today Their status as sisters, emanating from a male, militaristic formation, elevated those in the religious orders a step above the laity, and many do not want to "descend" to the level of other women. These sisters continue to contribute to inequality in the church by hanging on to privileges and perks denied to other women. Historically, some teaching sisters have influenced women to believe they are secondary and subordinate, not only to the clergy and other men, but to sisters as well (O’Connor & Drury 1998:127-128).
Klevius verdict: There seems to be only two options for women. Either isolation in the nun-tradition (this includes becoming female priests, bishops etc) or abandoning monotheism altogether.
Monotheist fanatics just blink (or despise) the historical and contemporary fact that most people on earth never were or became monotheists
Pompous, high and mighty, self important racist/sexist "monotheisms" against the majority of the world's population who don't approve of political etc systems based on evil "God told us" religions.
Dear reader, isn't it quite telling that monotheist Mideast (and islamized India - the Hindu system transformed in accordance to much Arab/islamic influence after the bloody muslim attacks on India*) has constantly been the worst place for women and the world center for never ending civil wars?!
* During the Arab invasion of Sindh (712 C.E.), Muhammad bin Qasim first attacked Debal, a word derived from Deval meaning temple. It was situated on the sea-coast not far from modern Karachi. It was garrisoned by 4000 Kshatriya soldiers and served by 3000 Brahmans. All males of the age of seventeen and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved.1 700 beautiful females, who were under the protection of Budh (that is, had taken shelter in the temple), were all captured with their valuable ornaments, and clothes adorned with jewels.Muhammad despatched one-fifth of the legal spoil to Hajjaj which included seventy-five damsels, the rest four-fifths were distributed among the soldiers.3 Thereafter whichever places he attacked like Rawar, Sehwan, Dhalila, Brahmanabad and Multan, Hindu soldiers and men with arms were slain, the common people fled, or, if flight was not possible, accepted Islam, or paid the poll tax, or died with their religion. Many women of the higher class immolated themselves in Jauhar, most others became prize of the victors. These women and children were enslaved and converted, and batches of them were des-patched to the Caliph in regular installments. For example, after Rawar was taken Muhammad Qasim halted there for three days during which he massacred 6000 (men). Their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoner. Later on the slaves were counted, and their number came to 60,000 (of both sexes?). Out of these, 30 were young ladies of the royal blood Muhammad Qasim sent all these to Hajjaj who forwarded them to Walid the Khalifa. He sold some of these female slaves of royal birth, and some he presented to others. Selling of slaves was a common practice. From the seventh century onwards and with a peak during Muhammad al-Qasim's campaigns in 712-13, writes Andre Wink, a considerable number of Jats was captured as prisoners of war and deported to Iraq and elsewhere as slaves. Jats here is obviously used as a general word for all Hindus. In Brahmanabad, it is said that about six thousand fighting men were slain, but according to others sixteen thousand were killed, and their families enslaved.6 The garrison in the fort-city of Multan was put to the sword, and families of the chiefs and warriors of Multan, numbering about six thousand, were enslaved.
In Sindh female slaves captured after every campaign of the marching army, were converted and married to Arab soldiers who settled down in colonies established in places like Mansura, Kuzdar, Mahfuza and Multan. The standing instructions of Hajjaj to Muhammad bin Qasim were to give no quarter to infidels, but to cut their throats, and take the women and children as captives. In the final stages of the conquest of Sindh, when the plunder and the prisoners of war were brought before Qasim one-fifth of all the prisoners were chosen and set aside; they were counted as amounting to twenty thousand in number (they belonged to high families) and veils were put on their faces, and the rest were given to the soldiers. Obviously a few (K. Lal).
Raiding and trading for slaves
The main lineage in Jewish/islamic ideology has been parasitism finance with the main currency consisting of slaves. Wealthy Jews (some of them believers in Jesus) ruled most of the pre-islamic slave trade routes through which evil islam later came to spread by the help of Jewish collaborators. The Arabs would never have been able to conquer anything bigger than a caravan or power empty spaces where they could slaughter/rape defenseless civilians. Every serious historian knows that the Arabs were really lousy (but sly) and technically backward soldiers. This is also why islam never has achieved anything in science and technology. Islam's primary interest has always been parasitism. Whereas Jews occupied the financial/commercial interface between power blocks, hence also slipping into science and technology, islam due to its totalitarian parasitic mass movement/conversions/genocides never reached that far. Every scientist etc you may find in the history books named muslim is in fact a converted scientist etc! This is why islam without slaves or oil is a total looser and has left clear traits of this in history.
Islam has by far been the worst slave raider/trader in history. The role of slavery in monotheist "religions" (although in Christianity to a much lesser extent*) goes hand in hand with sex segregated rapetivism (i.e. ideological rape). In fact, it may be argued that the slaves was the main currency and basis for finance until Capitalism** freed most of them. Also consider that Columbus was a Jew who was imprisoned when he tried to bring slaves from America to Europe! And that most so called "European" slave traders were in fact deported Jews! Deported because of their involvement in slavery, i.e. the same reason why Shakespeare via his Renaissance informants created the disgusting (Jewish) merchant in Venice!
* Christianity emerged as an anti-sex protest movement before the "Church fathers" disciplined it. And although Christianity managed to corrupt the Roman empire from within, it was only after islam's attacks on Europe that Christianity became a defense ideology and established itself as the major power center in Europe.
** Capitalism is based on and feeds from technology, not slaves (no dude, cheating with assets isn't Capitalism!). Consequently, it's no surprise that Capitalism followed by Abolitionism (anti-slavery) both emerged in England.
The Indian caste system was a product of islam
Helen E. Hagan, anthropologist: "It is known that the caste system existing in that area is not so much directly related to the caravan trade as it is to the importation on an ideology – Islam.
Klevius brief philosophy lesson re. religion
Klevius criticism against islam is restricted precisely to what islam itself disfavors or shows hostility towards., for example those basic Human Rights that islam has always abandoned in line with its own evil origin and now through islam's main earthly representation, i.e. Saudi based OIC and its fanatic Fuhrer, Ihsanoglu, the main fascist movement of today
The concept of (Negative) Human Rights is a moral conscience above egoism and hence the only true God. But this God is not offered by "monotheist" religion. On the contrary, she is actively excluded and the exclusion excused.
Moreover, human weakness is not only used as an excuse for monotheist atrocities but also as a reason to stay within monotheism for the purpose of shoveling over these sins to God.
Negative Human Rights clearly out-rules such such speculations in evilness.
In schools islam leaves out studies of Paganism, Buddhism, Shinto, or purely atheistic philosophies such as Atheism and secular Humanism. If there are classes concerning religious studies in the public school system, they should be comparative religious studies, inclusive of the world's major faiths and compared to Atheism and Human Rights based on equality without strange, sleazy and treacherous references to 'equality but not sameness' where this 'not sameness' is then made an excuse for limiting Human Rights. You'd never hear someone arguing that a disabled person should have less Human Rights than non-disabled.
On the contrary, the whole idea about Human Rights equality is that a condition of whatever sort shouldn't restrict Human Rights.
Don't allow the door of science to be open to nonscientific, theocratic teachings under the oxymoron “islamic scholars”.
The Catholic patriarchy - and the female patriarchy supporting it
Monotheist genital mutilation
Islamofascism applauding and supporting muslim born (apostate?!) Mr "president" Barry Barakeh Hussain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever)