The pro-Saudi and anti-China "party-within" UK's governing party is committing long term criminal harm to UK. China is the future and US is rottening with accelerating speed (the desperate sanctions against China tell it all). Only tech cooperation with China will benefit Brits and Americans. So why are UK politicians and BBC so eager to shoot their own PM and the Brits in the foot by being dictated by Pompeo, Trump and the Saudi dictator family, and boosted by a general Sinophobia racism? The "communist" scare mongering has no relevance because in practice China behaves in no way different than US - but is under constant smear and subversion attacks. And China's surveillance has actually developed less fast than that of US. US is a rogue state that murders and surveils in other countries (e.g. murdered top politician in Iran and surveilled Merkel - and you). And who likes ISIS and al-Qaeda etc. Uyghur jihadi terrorists anyway? Pompeo, Erdogan and Saudi steered islamofascists.

20200522: BBC and some right wing MPs call it a "draconian move" when China wants to stop foreign interference and people using Molotov cocktails. Really! So what about in UK?!

20200518: BBC again repeated the anti-China lie about "a silenced doctor" by inviting the former right wing and pro-Saudi (anti-)EU Research Group - now (anti-)China Research Group. How bad a journalist isn't Sarah Montague then when she didn't even try to question it - or is she muffled?! Eye dr. Li Wenliang wrongly spread out it could be SARS. It wasn't and just one hour later - and long before any police etc. had contacted him - he corrected his mistake (see fact check below).
$-freeloader US provoking China with war ships while simultaneously "leaking" "classified" rumours. Why?! Its Sinophobia is all about trying to stop China's success as the foremost spreader of wealth and high tech both in China and the world. It's not the leadership but China's success that US can't stand.

BBC sides with whoever Sinophobes - and would probably even have used Goebbels against China if he was still around. UK universities etc. are littered with dangerous Saudi (OIC) anti-Human Rights sharia jihad propaganda (incl. supprt of IS Utghur jihadi) - yet China has always been aggressively smeared all the way since UK's opium war attacks on China when it was declared "inferior" and "uncivilized". Today the problem seems to be that China is too superior and too civilized - but thankfully they have a "communist" party to blame, although the leadership has behaved better than most in the West. And when BBC talks about the "West" against China it actually means US spy organization Five Eyes (with the puppet states Australia, UK, Canada and NZ) and whoever other Sinophobes it can find elsewhere - like the Israel supporting and anti-muslim right wing Axel Springer, Europe's largest media (practically a monpoly) which is accused of e.g. censorship and interference in other countries (just like state media BBC).

Should China sue BBC and UK (not to mention US) and the far-right, anti-China and anti-muslim UK "think tank" the Jackson Society (with associated Sinophobic MPs and lords) - whose Sinophobia (disguised as "against communism" etc.) complements leftist and pro-sharia jihad muslims BBC which now so eagerly gives it a platform, as well as the closely connected US spy organization Five Eyes which has demonized China for years long before Huawei or Covid-19? The lies about China they have spread are indistinguishable from those of Pompeo and Trump. Is this baseless (compared to US/UK) hate mongering really conducive to the welfare of UK? And when China reacts to this massive Sinophobia campaign then BBC calls it "aggressive Chinese propaganda".

US "warns" about China "stealing" vaccine info because US knows that China now produces much better research than US.

BBC anti-China fake 20200506: "Hundreds if not thousands of people were likely to have been infected in Wuhan, at a time when Chinese officials said there were only a few dozen cases." Peter Klevius fact check: BBC deliberately conflates real time confirmed knowledge with calculations in retrospect.

US has made all the mistakes it accuses China for. Here's one from the top of the iceberg: Whistleblower Dr. Rick Bright, the director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, pressed for urgent access to funding, personnel and clinical specimens, including viruses, which he emphasized were all critically necessary to begin development of lifesaving medicines needed in the likely event that the virus spread outside of SE Asia. He was then cut out of critical meetings for raising early alarm about the virus and ousted from his position.

Chinese 5G much more reliable than US' Five Eyes, the world's most dangerous misinfo and conspiracy spreading US spy and smear organization (together with its puppet states UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) which "leaked" a 15-page dossier alleging "probing the possibility" the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As Peter Klevius has said before, it didn't come from bats to humans but from some other host animal. Fake news and anti-China propaganda videos are making false and unfounded claims about "delays" and "late" human to human transmission report. Again, it was only in retrospect anyone could have known the nature of early cases. Many weren't even connectded to the wet market and many weren't affected at all despite intimate contact. Moreover, the wrong early SARS diagnosis was corrected the very same day but spread by a "whistleblower" eye doctor (see fact check below). And despite being first affected China acted better than US etc. countries. 5eyes equals Nazi Goebbels in propaganda misinfo. Every single accusation so far has built on deliberate distortion of facts. And possble improvements in retrospect would have been exactly the same in even the best of Western countroes.

Peter Klevius to Chinese people: I'm not a racist - although I certainly look like one.

Origin of Sinophobia: The 19th century Opium Wars were triggered by UK's imposition of the opium trade upon China. Lord Palmerston regarded the Chinese as uncivilized and suggested that the British must attack China to show up their superiority as well as to demonstrate what a "civilized" nation could do. The resulting concession of Hong Kong compromised China's territorial sovereignty. There's also the background to South China Sea.

"God", "Allah", or whichever "monotheistic" idol is a pathetic fallacy and "monotheism" is a ridiculous and dangerous self-delusion because your "god" is used to defend the undefendable. There are equally many "gods" as there are individuals - and the collective "god" only functions as cherry picked confirmation of the individual's "god". However, the collective "god" may combine individual evil - never individual good, because that can only be achieved by (negative) Human Rights. After all, as Peter Klevius always has said, the only way of being fully human is to allow others full humanhood (what else could possibly unite all humans) - without religious impositions/exclusions.

Pentagon, islam - and China?!

Pentagon, islam - and China?!

Peter Klevius asks for an independent international inquiry on BBC's racist Sinophobia and its support of sharia islamism - incl. how many victims and suffering it has caused because of its worldwide propaganda influence.

In the early 1990's US accused Japan of selling superior cars in US without buying crappy cars from US. And a congress woman warned for tech theft if selling US planes to Japan - but was told that those planes wouldn't even fly without Japanese high tech. At the same time EU was created to build a trade wall against Japanese products. However, Japan is more than ten times smaller than China - and isn't at the hotbed of different coronaviruses in SE Asia.

Dear reader, if you think Peter Klevius has a problem with self-assertion you're very wrong. Apart from it being connected to Peter Klevius criticism of citation cartels (see Demand for Resources, 1992:40-44) Peter Klevius main problem is your self-assertion.

Demand for Resources

Is this MP a clown?

Sinophobic BBC working hard for a Coup d'état together with Saudi loving and China hating MPs against PM Boris Johnson.

Peter Klevius wonders why Sinophobic state media BBC (with Tom Tugendhat etc.) goes against the state (PM, MI6 etc.) in being so extremely worried about unfounded claims about China while having no problem with the threats posed by the worst of the worst, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's influence over UK - and BBC?!

20200416: State media BBC's Sinophobic Uganda rooted muslim Razia Iqbal lies about Chinese "racism" against Ugandans without telling that it was a local matter that was caused by some Africans linked to a cluster of cases in the Nigerian community in Guangzhou at a time when China had already curbed Covid-19. At least eight people diagnosed with the illness had spent time in the city's Yuexiu district, known as "Little Africa". Five were Nigerian nationals who faced widespread anger - not for being Africans but because of reports that they had broken a mandatory quarantine and been to eight restaurants and other public places instead of staying home. As a result, nearly 2,000 people they came into contact with had to be tested for Covid-19 or undergo quarantine. Guangzhou had confirmed 114 imported coronavirus cases – 16 of which were Africans. The rest were returning Chinese nationals.

20200407a.m.: UK's best PM, Boris Johnson, is much shorter (same as Einstein and Klevius dad) than Trump - but also much more intelligent. It's OK to say so when Trump is white - and loves to play on height, right?
20200412: The reason the Chinese government wanted extra control of DNA results was the previous failed report (see below) which wrongly indicated SARS. However, British media (BBC etc.) blatantly lie about it and first accused Shi Zhengli's lab for spreading infected bats, while some weeks later making her a hero and accusing the government. And no, it didn't spread from bats - but possibly from civet cats. Suspected animals are now forbidden from the market.

UK/Matt Hancock (20200402): "We will work (against Covid19) with our friends and allies." Peter Klevius: That excludes the best, i.e. China, which you, on order from US, have declared an "unfriendly enemy"!

SINOPHOBIA RACISM. "COVID-19 has a natural origin and there is no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered" (Nature). China swiftly sequenced and shared the genome worldwide. China's remarkable response on all stages was praised by WHO (but not BBC) and is in line with its superior tech advances (Mao's China would never have made it). US tries to pull you away from Chinese high tech superiority so US can keep feeding you with its outdated tech and influence - just as it used to do with cars and wars. Your pick: US militarism with Saudi led islamofascism - or highspeed Chinatech towards Chinese democracy and global wealth. China is the very opposite to Cuba - and already, in practise, almost identical to Western governments. Excluding China only prolongs the democratic process - and even speeds up China's high tech inside its 1.4 billion market.

Peter Klevius fact check: There isn't a trace of an alleged (by BBC etc. fakes) Chinese Covid19 reporting "delay" that wouldn't have been bigger in the West. And the reason is that
for China good reputation is all that matters - now when it has already won the tech competition. China's defense against West's smear campaign is called "propaganda" - in the West.
Dear US, it's time to behave! You lost the tech war to little Japan long ago. Now you've lost it against big China. Get over it. So Peter Klevius advises: Do as Wall Street, shake hands instead of producing unfounded Sinophobic smear propaganda!

Covid19 timeline
17 November 2019: A retrospectively confirmed case.
1 December 2019: The first known patient started experiencing symptoms but had not been to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. No epidemiological link could be found between this case and later cases.
8–18 December 2019: Seven cases later diagnosed as COVID19 were documented; only two of them were linked with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
18-29 December 2019: Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) that will eventually be used for viral genome sequencing is collected from patients.
25 December 2019: Wuhan Fifth Hospital gastroenterology director Lu Xiaohong reported suspected infection by hospital staff.
26 December 2019: Zhang Jixian identified a CT scan that showed a different pattern from other viral pneumonia.
27 December 2019: She reported to Jianghan district CCDC with four cases. During the following two days, the hospital received three similar cases, who all came from Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The hospital reported to the provincial and city CDC directly which initiated a field investigation with a retrospective search for pneumonia patients potentially linked to the market. They found additional such patients and on 30 December, health authorities from Hubei Province reported this cluster to CCDC who immediately sent experts to Wuhan to support the investigation. Samples from these patients were obtained for laboratory analyses.
30 December 2019: Wuhan Municipal Health Committee informed WHO, Weibo etc. about an "urgent notice on the treatment of pneumonia of unknown cause". There had been "a successive series of patients with unexplained pneumonia recently." However, a DNA report inaccurately indicated SARS on one patient. Late same day (17:43) ophthalmologist Li Wenliang WeChatted "There were 7 confirmed cases of SARS at Huanan Seafood Market." He included a patient's CT scan. At 18:42, he admitted that it wasn't proven SARS.
31 December 2019: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were alerted by China of an unexplained "cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia” in Wuhan.

US worst nightmare is a democratic China - which wouldn't change China but make it even more like one-party "democracies" in the West - because that would mean losing US only argument. US deliberately seeks Sinophobic confrontational aggression against China - which hampers the development and peace of the world.

US island puppets against China and EU. US, who used to treat Japan as it now treats China, is now parasitizing on former enemy Japan in an (in vane) effort to keep China high tech down, and on the much tinier UK ally to trouble EU.

Something sinister is behind when Sinophobic far right extremist politicians so desperately risk future development in UK with false accusations of "possible risks in the future", skewed presentations, and unfounded demonization of Chinese high tech. And while Klevius is posting this, all in his machine is spied on and sent to US. And why is BBC constantly only hosting Sinophobic guests who also happen to be supporters of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and happy to allow US spying on you via US companies? The only risk Huawei poses is that the Chinese state gets fed up and makes it illegal to sell Chinese top tech to UK. China is the future of high tech, so stepping off the bus means retardation. Btw, the two main accusations against China could easily be made against US/UK as well. China wants to trade and therefore doesn't want to risk reputation. US doesn't bother about its reputation. And when it comes to clean up muslim "communities" from islamofascist extremists there's really no other difference than in numbers. Moreover, NATO/Turkey uses extremist Uyghurs against civilians in e.g. Idlib - and hypocritically accuse China when these jihadi return.

Klevius to women: NATO makes a deal with the Taliban to continue sharia oppression of women, and NATO+IS=true because NATO is the main culprit behind the suffering in Idlib. Without the support from NATO the worst muslim terrorist group would never have survived. Like IS, NATO ally Hayat Tahrir al-Sham wants to create an islamic state. Turkey/NATO backs SNA well knowing that it's together with HTS. I.e. a NATO member state invades its neighbor, sides with terrorists and gets full support from NATO when its soldiers get killed while helping the terrorists. And what about Yemen?!
Peter Klevius to climatists: Sinophobia is a threat to the environment, because China has the slowest population growth and is the the least per capita polluter of main economies (see table below) and the main producer of alternative and conventional super high tech! Moreover, China lacks the same proportion of natural resources as e.g. Sweden, Norway etc. (e.g. hydropower) but instead has to deal with the dust smog blowing from the Gobi desert and the extreme cold from the north. And China bears the manufacturing pollution for products other countries then consume and profit on.

NATO (Turkey supported by US/UK) is siding with the worst muslim terrorist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (some 10,000 IS jihadi) against the people of Idlib while BBC News spreads misinfo propaganda against Syria, Russia and Iran - and nothing about the Saudi dictator family.
BBC (20200217) wants to stop Chinese tech because China opposes islamofascist Uyghurs. Klevius suggests the world should stop dealing with US/UK because of involvement in war crimes and genoscides against Shia muslims.

Why is Wikipedia allowed to spread polemical, tendentious and deliberately misleading info about islam? And not a word about islam's original supremacist enslavement, booty and humiliation ideology?!

From a true (negative) Human Rights, as well as from a historical perspective, original islam may rather be seen as original fascism. The oldest Koranic texts and the historically verufued beginning of islam both emphasize supremacism as the main tenet (blamed/excused on "Allah"). Islam conserves racism, sexism and suprenacism as pointed out by true muslims (aka "fundamentalists") reinforced through sharia (e.g. by Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia which is heavily criticized by both Klevius and the Council of Europe etc.). Islamic (and therefore muslim) supremacism is easily distinguished as it doesn't approve of Human Rights equality.

And why does Wikipedia deliberately conflate the history of islam with the fairy tales of believers in islam?!

Sinophobia is racism but "islamophobia" is criticism of an ideology. "Islamophobia" shouters are directly responsible for islamic hate crimes based on Koranic texts and hitting children of "infidels".

The Saudi-US-UK axis of evil

Chinese eyes less intrusive than Five Eyes (US and its puppets) - because China prioritizes trade and reputation while US prioritizes global spying, meddling and military control. The Saudi loving US puppets Duncan Smith, Davis, Paterson, Green, Ellwood and Seely etc. produce baseless "security" arguments for Sinophobic MPs.

U.S. flu this season Feb. 2020: 19 million illnesses, 180,000 hospitalizations, and over 10,000 deaths (China has a third less common flu than US). 2019-nCoV, 6 Feb. 2020 (estim. total death rate 0.1-0.2%, i.e. same as common flu): 28,018 cases (not illnesses) and 563 deaths. Did the eye doctors SARS rant on social media delay response in China? It wasn't SARS but much closer to common flu - but without vaccine. Instead of assisting, US/UK/BBC did the utmost to smear China with it!

Klevius warning to Finland (and the rest of the world): Don't be useful idiots in US' export of militarism! It will create tension and pull fire on you in a conflict. Four balancing power blocs is safer than one or two. Moreover, China will become the world's first true democracy thanks to AI. Don't let Sinophobia blind you. US is going down unless it starts cooperating instead of trying to rule the world. Non 5G iPhone sells well - in US - where there's no true 5G.

BBC's bigoted and hypocritical Pakistan rooted, Saudi raised and Cambridge schooled "muslim" (no veil, no Ramadan fasting, but yes to alcohol etc.) presenter Mishal Husain, like many Saudi/OIC supporters, represents the "security risk" between islam's "core" (OIC sharia) and "periphery" (e.g. "Euro-islam", "cultural islam" etc.).

Peter Klevius suggests cooperation instead of unfounded incl. religious) hate!

Klevius is ashamed over hateful, racist Western Sinophobia - and support of hateful sharia jihad. BBC's sharia supporting (?) muslim Mishal Husain now eagerly sides with Sinophobic extreme right wing politicians who support Saudi islamofascism but demonize China and Chinese (except if critcical of China). Sinophobes would treat China exactly the same if it copied US "democracy".

BBC today (20200129) forgot to tell about China already having isolated the virus for vaccine (and helped Australians to do so).
However, BBC repeatedly lied that the death rate is 20%. Common flu and the new corona virus deaths (~2%) are extremely rare outside very vulnerable groups - who don't travel much.

BBC, who otherwise don't hesitate to spit on Trump, has no problem using his advisor when it comes to racist Sinophobia against Huawei. US is blackmailing UK so to hinder China's tech success and the "security issue" is actually US itself.

Niklas Arnberg, Swedish professor in virology: "Considerably higher mortality than ordinary flu." BBC: "Death toll rises as disease spreads from China."

Peter Klevius: Both are faking! Arnberg used overall death numbers although most (all?!) of these deaths have been people who could have died from ordinary flu as well. And do you really think BBC would ever have written similarly about the deadly camel flu from Saudi Arabia?!

Why is BBC only talking about Jewish victims - and why is BBC silent about the fact that most "anti-semites" (i.e. anti-Jews) are muslims? Holocaust: 6 million Jews and 11 million "others" were murdered by the German government for various discriminatory practices due to their ethnicity, Atheism, or LGBT+. Hitler: "All character training must be derived from faith." Himmler: ""We believe in a God Almighty who stands above us; he has created the earth, the Fatherland, and he has sent us the Führer. Any human being who does not believe in God should be considered arrogant, megalomaniacal, and stupid." Klevius (the Atheist "other"): That's a description of me by most Americans and muslims. Btw, why are muslim sex predators from Pakistan called "Asians"?! And why (compare Koran and sex slaves) have they been protected while Klevius has been muffled?!

Islam trumps LGBT rights in English schools - and hateful sexist and racist muslim supremacism defending BBC is silent as usual (e.g. about Parkfield Community School 2020).

Klevius: Do you really support US/UK/BBC's disgusting racist Sinophobia madness - and their support and use of anti-Human Rights muslim islamism?! Wikipedia: In the Xinjiang riots Turkic speaking Uyghur muslims shouted/posted "kill the Han (Chinese) and Hui (Chinese speaking muslims)"!

Why is BBC so silent about Iran Air Flight 655 that was recklessly shot down by US over Iran territory killing 290 incl. 66 children?! Is it the new US puppet empire agenda? Did US aggression also cause the latest plane crash?

When BBC announces "the threats of 2020" the murders, terrorism and war crimes committing Saudi dictator family isn't included. As isn't US/UK militaristic meddling and proxy wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq etc. However, China's peaceful trade and high tech manufacturing is!?

Saudi based and steered Human Rights violator OIC is the main legal guidance for the world's sharia muslims. BBC eagerly supports it by neglecting to criticize it while spitting on those who do. OIC's Cairo Declaration on "Human Rights" in Islam (CDHRI) is against freedom of religion - but abuses real Human Rights for the promotion of anti-Human Rights sharia islam. The CDHRI concludes in Articles 24 and 25 that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic sharia, which is the declaration's sole source. OIC hence keeps the gate open for continued islamofascism in the "muslim world" - and as a convenient tool for meddling in "hostile states".

You believer in "islamophobia"! Doesn't it scare you that if Peter Klevius is right about islam but wouldn't say anything, then who would when you're doomed on the market if you do? If Marx had been called a "messenger" then Marxism would have been protected by freedom of religion, and critics called "Marxophobes". All "monotheist" religions make excuses not to fully accept Human Rights equality, but islam is by far the worst - not the least due to its origin and the fact that it's protected, unlike other threats to Human Rights. Whereas totalitarian Marxism used to be the enemy of the West, today US is on the totalitarian islamofascist side using it for Saudi gains against declared "enemies". It's truly a grim irony when BBC protects islamofascist terrorist groups by telling you that the suffering in Syria is due to the Syrian government and Russia. US could stop the muslim terrorist groups at any time - but doesn't because it wants the war and suffering to continue.
Peter Klevius fact/fake check: Why does Google (and BBC) lie and fake straight up your face about China?! When searching for 'world's biggest per capita polluters' China comes up with extra big letters despite being one of the least polluting of major economies (47th on a reliable polluters list). Moreover, China is not only the world leader for alternative technologies, but its pollution number also includes the biggest production of products exported and consumed all over the world outside China. Source: EDGAR and incl. all human activities leading to climate relevant emissions, except biomass/biofuel combustion (short-cycle carbon).

Peter Klevius Christmas greeting to BBC and Tesco: Ever thought about the possibility that muslim islamists don't like making Christmas cards but are encouraged by US/UK/BBC etc. to smear China. "We are foreign prisoners (muslims?) in Shanghai Qingpu prison China. Forced to work against our will (islamic Christophobia?). Please help us and notify human rights (ultimate bigotry if sharia muslims ask for HR) organisation (Saudi based and steered OIC?!)."

US/UK (NATO) don't accept muslims like Uighur islamists (other than as proxy soldiers) - but demand China to accept them. NATO's Sinophobia is a threat to world peace, environment and prosperity. NATO is all about US monopolizing space for its own militarism and to block China's success? In 1990s Russia was proposed as a member of NATO but is now demonized by US/UK (and BBC) as the "main enemy" together with "the challenge from China" (sic). But NATO members are guilty of offensive wars, occupations, annexations, use of chemical weapons, use of islamist terrorists, foreign interventions, extrajudicial murderings in other countries - and use of similar muslim "re-education" camps as China (why not just criminalize original evil islam?!). NATO (US) threatens the free flow of tech and wealth, and provokes hate and defensive attitudes among Chinese - hence forcing China (world leader in tech) using its financial muscles more for defense (China can't be starved like USSR in 1980s) than environment. Btw, Chinese per capita GDP is 1/3 of US, and total GDP much bigger than US - and faster growing. A fraction of the effort given to demonize "islamophobic" islam criticim, would do wonders to reduce Sinophobic racism against Chinese. And stop using the "Communist threat". China is now a capitalist country similar to Western powers - except technologically much better (and the West copies everything China does in surveillance). Do you really think much would change if China would be fully democratic - except chaos caused by NATO? NATO (US/UK) would be equally Sinophobic. In fact, what is called "democracy" in the West functions quite similarly as the leadership in China. Media propaganda, lying politicians and empty promises combined with silencing the real issues (compare BBC's fake "news") - and therefore a truly democratic vote. Moreover, the only reason capitalist China has a non-democratic leadership for the moment is precisely its justified fear for leaving it vulnerable for what happened in the past when UK and US meddled and attacked with great suffering for the Chinese people. NATO should turn against the real evil, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.

England voted (for the second time) against Merkel’s islam import from Turkey.

Can islam be rehabilitated from its evil origin and deeds - and can unrehabilitated islam be allowed in public and private spheres?

Why is Saudi based and steered OIC's Islamic State of Gambia accusing Aung San Suu Kyi for the consequences of islamofascism OIC's sharia protects - and why isn't the murderous islamofascist war criminal and genocide committing Saudi dictator "prince" accused of anything? And why is BBC's leading muslim extremist propaganda presenter Mishal Husain allowed to "present" an absolutely one-sided pro islamist picture for BBC's compulsory fee paying listeners?

"British" nationalist hypocrisy: Get back control - and meddle, influence, intervene, spy and control all over the world.

More than half of muslims in UK are "islamophobes" (against sharia) - just like Peter Klevius, Council of Europe etc. - but opposite to BBC and many UK politicians (source: A survey of UK’s muslim communities by Martyn Frampton, David Goodhart and Khalid Mahmood MP).

BBC awards a white man who plays an odd sport few are interested in the title of "sports personality of the year 2019". Why?! Because cricket is a "british" colonial sports and also fits BBC's special interest in "asians" - but couldn't find a "british asian" good enough.

Peter Klevius filming re-visitors in Buchenwald 1990

Is BBC killing UK democracy and paving the way for islamofascism?
BBC undermines your most basic Human Rights. BBC's "islamophobia" propaganda machine (incl. Sayeeda Warsi) boosts OIC islam while neglecting Council of Europe's sharp ("islamophobic") criticism of OIC's world sharia (Cairo declaration). SO HOW COME THAT BBC IS ALLOWED TO MEDDLE IN THE VOTING PROCESS BY ATTACKING AND SMEARING THOSE CANDIDATES WHO SHARE THE VIEW OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE - not to mention the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948?!

How Merkel paved the way for Brexit (Erdogan deal) and aided jihad in EU. NATO (US) with former fascist state Germany now sides with islamofascism - especially Erdogan's Ottoman aspirations - and supports Uyghur jihadism in hope of placing NATO (i.e. US) nukes between Russia and China. Peter Klevius wonders whether this ill-directed jihad propaganda will promote peace and safety? And how come that racism against e.g. Polish and other EU people in UK is of no interest for BBC while the "problem" of "islamophobia" fills all BBC "news"?
The world bully U.S. thinks it owns and rules the world after having colonized it via dollar manipulation, infiltration, spying, meddling, sanctions and the unscrupulous use of militants and militarism.
Thanks to the global dollar scam, Americans have been freeloaders on the rest of the world, the biggest per capita polluters and the U.S. by far the biggest threat to world peace via weapons built with money it stole from the world. Said by Peter Klevius who has been an anti-socialist all his life. Btw. the world's industrial revolution didn's start in England but in Sweden already in the late 17th century by inventor Christopher Polhem and capitalist Gabriel Stierncrona. Without Polhem's automation to get the rich Swedish iron ore from the mains, England had no chance to start real industrial production.
A nun's gear doesn't sign other women as "whores". However, what about a woman in an islamic "chastity" gear?

K.S. Lal (a giant among historians): Mahmud of Ghazni had marched into Hindustan again and again to wage jihad and spread the Muhammadan religion, to lay hold of its wealth, to destroy its temples, to enslave its people, sell them abroad and thereby earn profit, and to add to muslim numbers by converting the captives.

Is BBC 100% steered by muslims? Not only can you ever hear anything critical about islam and muslims - but all main channels are also occupied by sharia (OIC) supporting (i.e. against basic Human Rights equality) muslims. Nazir Afzal ('Moral maze', news, culture etc.), Mishal Husain (news, culture etc.), Samira Ahmed (news, culture etc.), Razia Iqbal (news, culture etc.). And they all keep cheating the public about it and instead pointing finger to "dumb and hateful xenophobes". Not a word about e.g. Council of Europe's harsh critcism (see below) of muslims biggest sharia organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC. Foreigners isn't the peoblem - sharia islam is!

BBC's muslims and their PC supporters also meddle in UK election by demonizing "islamophobia", i.e. trying to stop critcs of islamofascism.

Muslim child/youth fascism induced by an islam interpretation from family and strengthened by PC media, politicians etc.

Saudi Aramco's confidence scam

Peter Klevius: Everyone - incl. every muslim who respects Human Rights - ought to make sure to vote for an "islamophobe"! BBC and Sayeeda Warsi will make their utmost to stop critics of islamofascism in the election. Don't be robbed of your democratic right. And of course you know that the only real problem with migration is islamofascism.

BBC's "man in Hong Kong" asked street terror leader Joshua Wong if they could possibly escalate violence. And they could. One day later they put a Chinese on fire in a murder attempt.

BBC dosn't want to save 4,000 steel-workers' jobs because "it's a Chinese buyer and because of the leadership". However, BBC doesn't complain about the murderous and islamofascist Saudi leadership and more than 200 UK/Saudi joint ventures between UK and Saudi companies, and some 100,000 Saudi nationals in UK (equivalent to 14 Million Chinese).

BBC, in an interview about Corbyn, also desperately tries to agitate for more militarism and use of nukes - although fact being that a UK with nukes and war meddling globally may draw more attention and due risk for the Brits than without.

Peter Klevius: The Saudi Aramco sale is the biggest ripoff in the world. If there's any future in oil and you don't care about environment, then why buy what's at its peak when Venezuela's PDVSA is bigger and as low it can get?!

Are you an "islamophobe" if you don't like islamist Human Rights violations? Islam has (via OIC's sharia declaration) abandoned the most basic anti-fascist Human Rights from 1948. Islam is hence the only religion in doing so - not even the Catholics have needed to replace Human Rights with "Catholic human rights".

The seed for world fascism is dormant in Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia - opposed by ECHR and Peter Klevius, but supported by Sayeeda Warsi.

Sayeeda Warsi, UK's biggest "islamophobia" shouting mouth against Human Rights, is for OIC sharia

Sayeeda Warsi, UK's biggest "islamophobia" shouting mouth against Human Rights, is for OIC sharia

While US/UK aim for militarism and war China aims for health and wealth.

While US/UK aim for militarism and war China aims for health and wealth.
How could the Brexit party possibly avoid the Parliament?!

Breakit instead of Brexit because what's the point of leaving one EU while still staying in an other called UK? England voted leave.

However, unfortunately BBC demonizes China on behalf of UK's relying on militarist meddling, weapons sales and islamofascist sharia finance. So you see the solution: Cut off sharia etc. islamofascist ties and open up for prospering with China - not the over-selfish game of spying and dying of US.

BBC boosts stupid nationalist "Britishness" with peculiar "sports" like cricket and rugby because the world has already "colonized" football and the English language is a global property.

1 Nov 2019 BBC's Sinophobic muslim presenter Razia Iqbal spent most of World Tonight ("in depth news reporting and intelligent analysis from a global perspective") to defend muslim connected street terror in Hong Kong while smearing China. However, nothing about muslims in UK attacking journalists and non-muslims celebrating the Diwali which is globally seen as 'a day of light and hope'. The rest of the time Razia Iqbal boosted rugby. Intelligent? No. Propagandistic, tendentious, bigoted, hypocritical and misinforming while neglecting - yes.

Nigel Farage is like BBC against "islamophobia" and pro-Saudi - but Boris Johnson doesn't like letter boxes and was criticized by Theresa May for being critical against the Saudis while serving as her foreign minister.

China (laws against sharia islamofascism) and EU (Human Rights against sharia islamofascism) are now the only ones protecting basic (negative*) Human Rights.
* Religious people and socialists don't like negative Human Rights simply because they prefer collectives ("communities") rather than individuals. That's why the web is full of misinfo about these rights. Read Peter Klevius definition instead if you want a deep view - or listen to Lauren Chen starting from 7:11 if you want it light
The Saudi "custodian of islam" has some 1.5 billion "citizens" in the muslim world Ummah nation - and demands the world to bow them no matter what (as long they aren't Shia or so, of course). China, on the other hand, keeps its citizens and laws within its own borders. IS islam IS fascism and islam (even the archbishop agrees). So why is sharia fascism not separated from an "islam" that submits to basic Human Rights? As it stands now Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia (the 1990 Cairo declaration) still stands as the basic Human Rights violation via sharia muslims all over the world. And whereas China actively tries to erase sharia islamofascism, EU keeps promoting import of it while judicially telling us it's not right, yet doing nothing to stop it.
Unlike the West, China hasn't aggressively meddled militaristically in other countries around the world, but rather being the world's foremost spreader of new technology and wealth. And whereas the West has eagerly supported Mohammed's totalitarian aims, China has, in practise, implemented in law most of the Human Rights advices that The Council of Europe has directed against OIC. Against this background West's Saudi backing and China smearing is deeply bigoted and hypocritical.

John le Carré: I'm depressed and ashamed of British nationalism. Nationalism needs enemies but today we really have no identifiable enemies except among ourselves.

North Atlantic (sic) Treaty Organization invades a country in Mideast and attacks (with chemival weapons) a people without a country.

UK's Brexit business model: Sharia finance, weapons sale and militaristic meddling?UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (sic) and Global Neo-Imperialist and Militarist Meddling, Jeremy Hunt, 15 Oct. 2019: It's wrong to accuse Donald Trump - it's Americans isolationism because American taxpayers don't want to pay between 1/2 and 2/3 of the defense of Europe. And Turkey is very skilled at finding wedges and gaps between allies. UK should be EU's bridge to US.
Peter Klevius: No, EU should take care of its own defense - against whom? The Saudi dictator family who is the world's no 1 spender on weapons and islamic terror incitement and who hates EU's anti-sharia legislation? And UK taxpayers should not have to pay more for dangerous militarism. Militaristic meddling is a bad and dangerous business idea.

Read K.S. Lal (free online) on islam's evil spread!

A Google (i.e. U.S. web monopoly) search (20191006) reports 'islamists Hong Kong' "missing". Really! No islamists in Hong Kong? Peter Klevius also wonders if EU citizens in UK are UKongers and can peacefully demand the same rights as Joshua Wong violently demands (and eagerly broadcasted by BBC) for Hong Kongers?

Are EU citizens in UK included in Tom Tugenhadt's "British people"?

Sinophobe Tom Tugendhat, chair of UK's Foreign Affairs Committee (who has studied islam and Arabic in Mideast) suggests that English speaking universities should consider banning Chinese students because "they might be used as leverage like Huawei". Peter Klevius wonders if one could be any more racist than this, and if he doesn't see any islamofascist sharia supremacist "leverage" at all? Btw, there are more than 50,000 Chinese muslims in Hong Kong. Peter Klevius wonders how many of them are "radical" ones and participate in BBC's lengthy anti-China propaganda "news" - while the world doesn't suffer from Chinese but from muslim violence and Human Rights violations?

Peter Klevius congratulates Savid Javid for abandoning the islamofascist "islamophobia" smear. BBC’s bigoted hypocrite Mishal Husain and others ought to follow!

BBC's Mark Mardell couldn't get a visa to China because of his extreme and hateful Sinophobia - but that didn't stop him/BBC from producing a fake anti-China program series while pretending to be there. Is Sinophobia really better than cooperation?

US/UK destroyed the lives of millions of Chinese during some hundred years of evil militaristic meddling. BBC is now busy smearing China all the time while supporting Saudi islamofascism and violent Hong Kong demonstrators - but neglecting the mass of peaceful pro-China demonstrators. BBC also "worries" about Chinese "surveillance state" while the truth is China's technological superiority. US is much more insidious in its surveillance policies but lacks the techno - can't even produce a working 5G so far. US/UK follow exactly China but utilize the meantime to smear it. And who is really behind the Hong Kong riots? Someone who can't take China's success? But the Syria tactics won't work. US (and its UK puppet) wants to be able to meddle militarily near China - therefore its interest in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, Tibet, Myanmar, Uyghur extremist muslims etc.

As Greta Thunberg is allegedly reported to the Swedish social authorities, Peter Klevius suggests that her parents read his thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU, Relevance, and Sex Segregated Emergence. Keeping in mind that Peter Klevius daughter was only 15 when she entered university and at 16 made her graduate paper about women in ancient times, it shouldn't be considered too sensitive for Greta either. Also read the attached email correspondence which clearly shows how democracy is manipulated. And why not consider Angels of Antichrist, the Social State vs the People (P. Klevius 1996). And last but not least, Peter Klevius 1981/1992 Demand for Resources (original titel Resursbegär).
Peter Klevius and the Council of Europe share exactly the same "islamophobia".
Council of Europe. Resolution 2253 (2019), Sharia, Saudi based and steered OIC's Cairo Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights: Human Rights protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to manifest one’s religion, however, is a qualified right whose exercise, under Article 17 of the Convention, may not aim at the destruction of other Convention rights or freedoms.

People in UK-land (especially women) will loose their Human Rights after Brexit - while sharia prevails in UK, and UK citizens in EU are protected by the European Court of Human Rights.

Brexit was meant to protect UK from muslim invasion via Turkey's proposed visa free deal with Merkel. Even the possibility of temporary membership in ECHR (in case of a deal) isn't enough - especially considering UK will be out of reach of the European Court of Justice.

US loosing the tech war - and starting a real one?

US loosing the tech war - and starting a real one?

Do Americans and Pompeo share the Saudi hate against Shia muslims?

BBC supports muslim persecution of Christians etc.

BBC supports muslim persecution of Christians etc.

Saudi war crimes investgated by the Saudis

In the 8 October 2016 Sana'a (Yemen) funeral bombing by Saudi Arabia 155 people were killed and at least 525 more wounded when two airstrikes, about three to eight minutes apart, hit the packed Al Kubra hall. US and UK happy with the Saudis investigating it.

This Swedish muslim MP wants to criminalize Peter Klevius islamophobia. Really!

West's indulgence of islamofascism (sharia) has made its boasting against China about "democratic values" empty. The risk of you being stabbed, raped etc. by a hateful jihadi is created by your political leaders, BBC etc. - who also have arranged so it's not even called a hate crime.

BBC squeezes in Eng-land cricket in every news report - while UK-land plays borderless Brexit - and football is divided in four UK-lands, Welsh, English, Irish and Scottish players, and two top leagues with whatever players!? Confusing? Not even close to the "British" measuring decaphobia. English isn't "British", it belongs to the world. British stands for imperialism, colonialism, slavery and cooperation with islamofascists.

Peter Klevius stands for these "stops" and due huge implications - all shame on him if you can prove him wrong (click links if you need to educate yourself before saying something stupid): Stop using the misleading 'gender' instead of sex (sociology)! Stop islam's abuse of Human Rights (jurisprudence)! Stop saying humans came "out of Africa" (anthropology)! Stop talking about "consciousness" when you don't know what you're talking about (philosophy/ai).

Islam is the problem - China is the solution.

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.

Peter Klevius: BBC supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's strategic use of supremacist islam which has spred muslim hate all over the world's streets, institutions etc. (and usually not correctly, if at all, reported by BBC which instead doesn't hesitate to give long coverage of "alternative news" that better suits its propaganda) - while muslim terrorist organizations keep it within muslim territories. So if true Salafists became the "gurdians of islam's holy places" then that would mean less muslim terror elsewhere. And less to cover up for BBC. How big a contributor to the suffering of islamic supremacist hate crimes has BBC's fake (and lack of) info been? Will we in the future see BBC in an international court accused of crimes against humanity? As it stands now the spill over effect of BBC's cynical support of proxy evil is stained in blood and rape etc. over innocent people. And if true Salafists took over in muslim countries, they would quickly become non-muslim countries. A better option than today's prolonged suffering caused by the hopeless effort to "adapt" a medieval slavery ideology to a modern world based on everyone's Human Rights equality. And if it's so important to keep islam in name only - then islam would loose all of its racist and sexist "we and the other" appeal anyway.

Why is BBC aiding islamofascism?

Why is BBC aiding islamofascism?

Statues of football player Nilla Fischer and Caroline Seger vandalized in Sweden

Statues of football player Nilla Fischer and Caroline Seger vandalized in Sweden

Why didn't islam go to the Moon?!

Why didn't islam go to the Moon?!

Sex segregation/apartheid (aided by religion and poverty) means over-population.

Sex segregation/apartheid (aided by religion and poverty) means over-population.

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?

UK introduced face recognition after for many years accusing Chinese for having it. Peter Klevius wonders how this fits UK's face covered muslims and others who utilize it?

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?

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site  - with an evil agenda

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!

Stop US global bullying! What moral right does US have trying to dominate Earth and space? "God"?! Or the Saudi murderer and mass murderer "prince"?! Hasn't US sucked out enough already from the rest of the world? A global dollar manipulation favoring US and paid by the rest. A US marked global license and patent imperialism - and Android. Is Internet next?

26 June 2019: BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not ramadan fasting Pakistan rooted muslim, Mishal Husain (brought up in Saudi Arabia), worried about Boris Johnson not having cricket as his hobby.

25 June 2019: BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not ramadan fasting muslim, Mishal Husain (brought up in Saudi Arabia), sounds desperate when trying to smear Johnson. Is it because Boris 2016 was critical against the Saudis while foreign minister and 2018 critical of muslim women packed in burqas etc.?
BBC thinks the militaristic Saudiphil Jeremy Hunt "is a safer option" as UK PM. What about you?

BBC News 8:00 AM 23 June 2019: Johnson financially unfit because he spilled wine on a couch.

BBC  News 8:00 AM 23 June 2019: Johnson financially unfit because he spilled wine on a couch.
Is the Saudi "custodian of islam" a muslim - and is the very question "islamophobic", "muslimophobic" or "Saudiphobic"?
Why is BBC comparing Saudi with China?! China's leader isn't a murderer, war criminal, and spreader of terror on the streets! "If we drop the Saudis then we can't deal with China either." Really?! BTW, 'Diversity' means different/conflicting whereas its antonym stands for similar/friendly.

Blinked by BBC's fake "news" which instead boost militaristic confrontation and the smearing of China: The Saudi war criminal "custodian of islam" who murdered Khashoggi is now the world's new Hitler. However, unlike Hitler's Germanic language imperialism, bin Salman's Arabic language imperialism is added by a totalitarian imperialism due to the fact that he is a muslim and as such represents the totality of islam (inc. the Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization O.I.C.'s sharia declaration against Human Rights). Peter Klevius has for long pointed out that we need to distinguish between Human Rights obeying "muslims" and "extremist" muslims, but for some reason they are all bundled as 'muslims'.

Your choice: China high tech or US/UK bombs?

Your choice: China high tech or US/UK bombs?

US puppet empire UK's Jeremy Hunt wants to double spending on militaristic meddling for US

US puppet empire UK's Jeremy Hunt wants to double spending on militaristic meddling for US

Calling critics of islam "islamophobes" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Calling critics of islam "islamophobes" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Racist Sinophobia disguised as "security" while muslim terror spreading Saudi murderous dictator and war criminal is "an important security ally"!?

Read this: The "out of Africa" hoax is worse than the Piltdown hoax - and much bigger and more worrisome.

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!

And if you respect your Earthly home – don’t support a hate ideology that encourages over-population and sex apartheid. We don’t need more workers because the most profitable sectors have the least jobs – a trend that AI accelerates.

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.

Top emitters

Top emitters

Peter Klevius evolution formula

Peter Klevius serious questions to you "out of Africa" believer! Ask yourself: How come that the oldest primates came from outside Africa; that the oldest great ape divergence happened outside Africa; that the oldest bi-pedals are from outside Africa; that the only australopithecines with a Homo skull lived as far from Africa you can get; that the oldest truly modern looking skull is from eastern China; that the oldest Africans are mongoloid; that the latest genetic mix that shaped the modern human happened in Siberia and is traced to SE Asia; that the earliest sophisticated art is found from Iberia to Sulawesi - but not in Africa; that the oldest round skulled Homo sapiens in sub-Saharan Africa are much younger than similar skulls in Eurasia; that we lack ancient enough DNA from Africa, etc. etc.? Peter Klevius theory answers all these questions - and more.

Peter Klevius evolution formula.

Existence-centrism (Peter Klevius 1986)

Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!

The best explanation to the surge in knife crimes since 2015 is the Islamic State's exhortation to street jihad.
However, the police don't record hate crimes as muslim - other than if directed against muslims. And do consider that IS and the Saudi dictator family both rest on the same Salafi islam that most young true muslims in the West follow. Following Salafism (etc. true muslimhood) involves distinguishing muslims from others, to show that one only belongs to islam and that true muslims ought to be strangers to the "infidels". When Klevius sees a muslim woman in burqa, veil etc. he thinks that's a supremacist and rapist attitude towards other women. And certainly contempt of Human Rights.
UK/BBC's extreme double standard re. the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and China. Klevius: How come that islamofascist tech poor Saudi property-, media-, infra structure- etc. 'vulnerable' investments and supremacist hate spreading mosques, is considered no threat to UK but instead an 'important ally' while China, which doesn't tick any danger boxes, is deliberately painted by BBC propaganda as the worst threat? And how come that China's peaceful Belt and Road spreading of wealth and high tech is considered worse than UK's continuing militaristic and (un)security meddling within an EU that UK decided to leave for the purpose of EU not meddling within UK?!
UK continues even after Brexit to use EU citizens as bargaining chips by placing their rights in an unsafe statutory instrument instead of in the law.

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!

You muslim should be ashamed of calling Human Rights defenders "islamophobes"

- 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.

If you don't like Klevius (very few do) you may check if it's him or the anti-racist, anti-sexist and anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration you can't digest - but which Klevius stubbornly keeps feeding you.

Iran, Corbyn, bin Laden's son etc. - it's more about protecting BBC's poster boy, war criminal and state terrorist Mohammad Salman, than protecting people on the streets from Saudi exported racist islamic hate terror.

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?

The world's biggest fake news producer, UK state media BBC, 20190221 gave the Japanese asteroid landing just a few seconds but managed to squeeze in the fake "info" that "it is the first attempt to bring back samples to Earth" (Cathy/PM 17:00) when the previous Japanese sond already 2010 brought back samples from an other asteroid. No one else has managed to do this except the Japanese. This is in line with BBC's usual racist attitude against Japan and China.

Klevius wonders whether BBC/UK government count Islamic State muslims who can't be directly tied to atrocities, as "peaceful muslims"?

Klevius wonders why semitic attacks on Jews are called "antisemitism"?

WARNING about "Five Eyes" and BBC, and their "close ally", the hate, terror and war crimes producing islamofascist "custodian of islam", the Saudi dictator family!
If you prefer peace, democratic non-fake information and positive development - ask your politicians to avoid US/UK's war mongering militarism and the world's biggest state propaganda tool BBC, which constitutes the most serious threat to free information. UK government is pushing for neo-British imperialist militarist meddling and intervention around the world - and making its propaganda tool BBC "the custodian of fact checks", i.e. a wolf among sheep.

Theresa May wants to leave EU. That should include UK militarist meddling within EU as well. Leave means leave! Don't let UK and its "close ally" the islamofascist Saudi dictator family contaminate EU citizens lives. Don't let the insidious spy organization Five Eyes spy on EU citizens and their leaders and parliamentarians.

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.

Do you support Human Rights or sharia?
Klevius islam logic: If I is SI and SI is not HR then I is not HR. For those who don't understand formal logic: If islam is sharia islam and sharia islam violates Human Rights, then islam violates Human Rights.

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.

Klevius supports no border on Ireland. Follow the will of the people, i.e. let England leave and let Scotland and Northern Ireland stay.

UK government wants to force EU to put a border on Ireland - so it can blame EU for something UK-Brexit caused.

UK is an unconstitutional mess which now wants to leave EU without controlling its border to EU. A proper constitution would have demanded qualified majority in two consecutive elections/votes about such a crucial matter as Brexit - and being aware what the vote is about. The root of the problem is England's mad man Henry 8's colonialization of Ireland and lack of constitution. The preposterous "British" Brexit parody is then spiced with the government's and BBC's use of religious hate mongering etc. In summary UK is an anomaly of countries trying to be a state in a world of federal states united as countries.

Listen to this Viking about the danger of religion
Martina Big (aka Malaika Kubwa) wanted to be "black". We don't know exactly why. However, fair skinned politicians and media people who support black supremacism, Nation of Islam etc. might consider following her example.

Are "whites" the new Jews - and in need of a burqa or skin color change?

Are "whites" the new Jews - and in need of a burqa or skin color change?

Theresa May & Co and state media BBC play with race cards

Theresa May & Co and state media BBC play with race cards

Is UK/Saudi cooperation a security threat to EU - and people in UK

Is UK/Saudi cooperation a security threat to EU - and people in UK

US/UK is a security risk - not China. Tell your EU politician!

US/UK is a security risk - not China. Tell your EU politician!

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Rule Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

BBC isn't much interested in anti-semitism, homophobia etc. but uses them as an excuse for its Saudi/OIC supported "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

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?

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

First UK people voted to join and share borders with EU. Then England voted to leave while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. And now UK politicians want to leave while keeping the Irish EU border open. UK lacks a modern constitution according to which a constitutional issue has to pass at least two majority votes.

British militarist neo-colonialism and conflict mongering

British militarist neo-colonialism and conflict mongering

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with Saudi islamofascism?!

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with Saudi islamofascism?!

Euronews/BBC kept for long a low profile about Saudi state terror. Why?

Euronews/BBC kept for long a low profile about Saudi state terror. Why?

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future

Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.

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.

Definition of Negative Human Rights - i.e. the very foundation of the freedom part of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.

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").

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles/trolls worldwide.

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles/trolls worldwide.

UK PM escapes muslim terror induced by her "close ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.

Saudi terror, war crimes, sharia - and "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

Peter Klevius "islamophobia"/Human Rightsphobia test for you and your politicians

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

True Brits for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and against Human Rights

Klevius: Face it, Wikipedia, BBC etc. fake media - Finland was first in the world with full suffrag

The network that reignited evil Human Rightsphobic sharia islam via al-Saud

Human Rightsphobe Jacob Rees-Mogg and BBC News crack jokes about Germans lacking humour

UK PM candidate Rees-Mogg: Germans needed Human Rights - we don't. Klevius: I really think you do.

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 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

Klevius 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!

By squeezing in Atheist ideologies/philosophies as well as polytheisms under the super set BBC calls "religion", and by narrowing 'Atheism' to what it's not (Atheism is what it says on the tin - no god) they produced the extremely faked proposition that 84% of the world's population is "religious". Moreover, BBC also proudly claimed that the 84% figure is rising even more. Well, that's only by relying on those poor women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, English muslim ghettos (where most so called "British" women don't even speak English) etc., who still produce many more children than the average in the world. But Klevius doesn't think this abuse of girls/women is anything to cheer.

Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a miserable "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

Mrs May plays sharia with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - skipping Human Rights. Right

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

This is what BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain "forgot" to report. Mishal grew up in the very same theocratic medieval dictatorship which now harbors and rules all muslims world organization OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia. While also spreading islamic hatred over the world through a variety of channels.

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".

Saudi muslim war criminal and Human-rightsophobe is loved by BBC

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Saudi islamofascism attacks Buddhists - again and again - backed by Mrs May.

When will the world finally turn on the hateful Saudi dictator family - rather than on its victims?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

What is "islamophobia"?

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")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
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.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Muslims were the worst looters at Muhammed's time as well as today - so why don't we hear more about it?!

Muslim "scholars"*, not only have admitted that islam approves of looting, they are also defending it

* How could you possibly call anyone a scholar who uses a circular method anchored in a fairy tale that has no historical foundation? There was no Muhammed before he was invented by Malik long after his alleged death. What people seems to have difficulties understanding is that EVERYTHING in the islamic credo is made up and changed via so called hadiths etc while babbling the mantra of 'original islam'. But the only original islam that has ever existed was the evil one. Possible echoes of some real persons and activities underpinned by dangerous monotheist ideologies (Judaism and Judaism spiced with Christ) are all reshaped to fit the later islamic ideology. Educate yourself about islam by reading Klevius Vagina and Penis analysis.

OIC, the evil* muslim world Umma

* i.e. against the most basic of Human Rights

Chinese, Americans etc, always belong to a minority when going abroad. However, a muslim is always in majority wherever he goes because the islamic Umma nation. whose citizen he really is, knows no borders or national laws other than when forced to. 

Islamic looting occurs in different forms on different levels: Sharia rapetivism, media abuse, street violence etc.

Klevius reformulation of a Faithfreedom piece:

Can we say that Hitler was innocent because the Geneva Convention did not exist? However, the law is new, but the morality of it is as old as mankind.

The question that we have to ask ourselves is whether what Muhammad did was ethically right? Did Muhammad like to be treated the way he treated others? When a group of Bedouins stole some of his “stolen camels” and killed the shepherd, Muhammad found them, cut their extremities and left them in the sun to die a painful slow death. If stealing was so bad that it deserved such a harsh and inhumane punishment, why would he engage in such an activity? Why would he raid unarmed people, kill them and loot their belongings?

When Nadr ibn Harith, Muhammad’s own cousin who in Mecca had derided him was captured in the battle of Badr, he besought Musab, the person who was carrying him handcuffed to Muhammad to intercede for him. Musab reminded him that he had denied faith and insulted the Prophet. “Ah” said Nadr, “had the Quraish made you a prisoner, they would never have put you to death!” “Even where it so”, Musab scornfully replied, “I am not as you are; Islam has rent all bonds asunder”. “Idrab anqihu” (strike his neck) shouted Muhammad

When a group of Bedouins stole some of Muhammed's already “stolen camels” and killed the shepherd, Muhammad found them, cut their extremities and left them in the sun to die a painful slow death.

These are not the traits of a narcissist psychopath but of a parasitic looting ideology that blames its own evil on the only and unreachable "righteous" Allah.

The all time ongoing but usually never told of muslim "street terrorism" and looting

Pamela Geller has collected some interesting facts about train crashes and looting muslsims (published July 14th, 2013):

Derailed train after a crash on Friday in Bretigny-sur-Orge, France is the second unexplained train crash in as many weeks. More bodies are still being recovered in a mysterious Quebec train disaster in Canada In this latest disaster in France, French Atlas readers tell me that Muslim “youths” were looting corpses at the train crash site. Most media neglected this monstrous bit of news; The Daily Telegraph makes a brief mention of the ghouls, referring to the Muslims as, ahem, “local people.” A police spokesman described groups of local people “picking through the wreckage” on Friday night and looting from the bodies of victims, who were electrocuted or crushed to death. “It appeared at first that they were trying to help, but it soon became clear that they were taking personal property away. When police approached they threw stones before running away,” said the spokesman.

This train crash has been extensively reported by the mainstream media. Less widely reported is the fact that “jeunes”, French journalist code for Muslims, attacked the rescue workers and looted the corpses of the victims. It’s an incredible scene that met police officers when they arrived in Brétigny-sur-Orge. While they were trying to bring help to the victims of the derailment of the Paris-Limoges train, in which at least six people died, they had to deal with stones being thrown at them by a small group of ‘jeunes’. At the origin of the attack: looters who had come to steal from the bodies of the dead and wounded whatever they could carry away. “They seemed to be helping the victims”. Nathalie Michel, from the Alliance police trade union, describes the scene on air on Europe 1: “At 5.30 pm, while our colleagues were deploying, they see a group of ‘jeunes’ who approach and seem to be helping the victims. Very quickly, they realise that these individuals are there to rob the victims and especially the first corpses,” says the trade union member indignantly. ‘Human Error’ Did Not Cause French Rail Crash The Irish Times: Transport minister praises train driver and says about 30 still injured after incident Frederic Cuvillier said that about 30 people were still being treated for injuries. In all, nearly 200 people sustained injuries in the initial incident, when four train cars slid toward the station, some falling over. The crash was France’s deadliest in years, but Mr Cuvillier said it could have been worse and praised the driver who sent out an alert quickly, preventing a pile up. Mr Cuvillier said it was unclear what did cause the crash, but authorities are looking into an error in the switching system as well as other possibilities. This is one of the busiest travel weekends in France, which is celebrating the national holiday of Bastille Day on Sunday. The Paris-Limoges train derailed as it sped through Brétigny-sur-Orge, 27.5km south of Paris, at 5.14pm yesterday. The train was not supposed to stop in Brétigny, a station on the suburban RER line. Railroad sources said it was strange that the lead cars were not affected, while cars three and four fell flat on their sides, crushing waiting passengers on the platform. The last four cars of the train were cut off and thrown hundreds of metres. Television footage showed twisted tracks and rescue workers attempting to cut their way through wreckage. Witnesses recounted a deafening sound at the moment of the derailment. Survivors said the train vibrated and swung from side to side as suitcases flew through the air. “I was reading,” a passenger told France 2 television. “The train started shaking as if it were rolling over pebbles; like a plane in turbulence.”

Looting is together with parasitism (incl. rapetivism) the pillar of original islam

The Pagans were not as bad as muslims. They were much more civilized and humane

FaithFreedom: Another prisoner in the battle of Badr was Oqba. When he was brought for execution, he ventured to expostulate, and demand why he should be treated more vigorously than the other captives. "Because of your enmity to God and to his Prophet," replied Muhammad. "And my little girl!" cried Oqba, in the bitterness of his soul, "who will take care of her? " - "Hell-fire!" exclaimed the heartless conqueror; and on the instant his victim was hewn to the ground and blood gushed from his slit gullet. Then Muhammad praised his Allah “I give thanks unto Allah that hath slain thee, and comforted mine eyes thereby." [Waqidi, p108]

These are the traits of a narcissist psychopath. He could not forgive those who insulted him and had hurt his gigantic ego. He took immense pleasure, taking revenge of those who had humiliated him.

The reason the non-Muslims lost was because they were inhibited by their humanness and were unwilling to use brutal force against the Muslims to subdue them. They believed in freedom of belief and “multiculturalism”. They had no clue how evil and demonic Islam is and because of this underestimation, they lost. This is the very weakness of the non-Muslims today. If Muslims are not stopped with anything it takes, they will win and the non-Muslims will be slaughtered with the same brutality that Nadr and Oqba, or the more recent victims of Islam such as Daniel Pearls and Margaret Hasan  were slaughtered.

It is foolish to believe you can overcome evil will kindness. It is foolish to believe that the followers of a ruthless man such as Muhammad will deal with you justly when they come to power. This mistake was committed by many Iranians who stayed in Iran, such as the minorities and those who had prominent positions during the regime of the Shah, after the Islamic revolution because they thought they had done nothing wrong to fear. They paid this error of judgment with their lives. Evil must be crushed with force. How much force?... As much as it takes! There is no price high enough to preserve our freedom and our lives. Kindness must be shown to those who denounce evil. But those who support it must be dealt with our wrath.

For the sake of argument, let us say that people in those days were savages. At least this is the lie that Muslims want us to believe. Is this a good excuse for Muhammad to raid, rape, loot, and massacre people with savagery? Did Muhammad come to guide people to the right path or was he a victim of the bad traditions of his people? Didn’t he call the pagans ignorant? If so, why did he follow their ways? The man who taught his followers with how many stones they should wipe their rears after the call of nature did not know looting and stealing is evil and he should not set that kind of examples. Are we supposed to believe that he was a prophet?

Muslims have very circular reasoning. They claim that Muhammad came to guide the ignorant people to the right path. But when we point out the evils committed by this man, they say he was a man of his time and did what others were doing. We are not talking about the way he dressed. This is raiding, raping, looting and killing innocent people we are talking about?

Let us not words deceive us. The "right path" for Muslims has totally a different meaning. This term for them means following the mandates of Muhammad and acting like him. It is not the same right path and right deeds most of us are familiar with. In fact most Islamic "right paths" are very demonic - like killing the unbelievers and looting their properties. In Islam this is the right path because Muhammad did it and asked his followers to do it. 

Although the claim that pagans were worse than Muslims is a lie, it still does not justify Muhammad's crimes. This man claimed to be the prophet of God, "the best example to follow", an "honorable person" and "the best of creation". In a Hadith Qudsi he makes his Allah say to him: “Were it not for you, I would not have created the universe.” Imagine the level of insanity! How could such a person with such outlandish claims act like the worst criminal? If anyone else does what Muhammad did, wouldn’t you say that this person is a criminal? Then why a messenger of God, the person who thinks the universe is created for him, should act like a criminal?

Let us delve into the sick mind of this psychopath narcissist and see what else he said about himself:

    “The very first thing that Allah Almighty ever created was my soul.”

    “First of all things, the Lord created my mind.”
    “I am from Allah, and the believers are from me.” source

Yet this man, with such megalomaniac reveries of grandiosity, in real life acted like a despicable criminal. Hey people! Where is your brain? How much you have to fool yourself and why?

Mr. Zawadi now starts quoting from other Islamic sites:
Taken from

5. No looting and destruction in the enemy's country

Muslims have been instructed by the Prophet not to pillage or plunder or destroy residential areas, nor harm the property of anyone not fighting. It has been narrated in the Hadith: "The Prophet has prohibited the Believers from loot and plunder" (Bukhari, AbuDawood). His injunction is: "The loot is no more lawful than the carrion" (AbuDawood). AbuBakr Siddeeq used to tell soldiers on their way to war: "Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle."

Any Muslim knows, if a hadith is contrary to the Quran, the latter is to be taken as authority and that haidth is false.  Muhammad made his own wealth through loot.

And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger,  8:41

"Allah and his Messenger"? What Allah wanted to do with those loots?

What was the reason for raiding Khaibar? Were the people of Khaibar a threat to Muslims? In the sixth year of Hijra Muhammad had promised victory to his foolhardy followers over Mecca but when he saw that waging a war with just 1500 men may make him lose, he signed a treaty that his followers felt was humiliating to them. To boost their sagging morale he directed them to Khaibar and they fell upon that town all of a sudden at dawn when people had gone out of their homes to the fields and after their works. He wrote:

Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance unto thee beneath the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down peace of reassurance on them, and hath rewarded them with a near victory;
And much booty that they will capture. Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.  Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture, and hath given you this in advance. 48:18-20 

What the people of Khaibar had done to Muslims? Nothing! They were minding their own business. The reason Muhammad raided them, destroyed their town and looted them was because they were a prosperous people. Muhammad wanted to please his hungry marauding men with an easy victory and booty. They were hungry because Muhammad devastated their town by killing and expelling all the Jews who were artisans, farmers and tradesmen for whom the Arabs used to work. With Jews killed and expelled they entirely depended on raids for their sustenance.

There is a sura called Anfal (spoils of war, booty). It starts by saying "(such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Messenger” Of course God has no needs for the belongings of his wretched creatures. It is clear that the beneficiary of those loots was Muhammad alone. And this shameless criminal would make even God an accomplice of his crimes. Only a fool can still believe that this charlatan was a messenger of God. Forget about all the proofs I gave so far. Only this verse is enough to see this man was a liar.  The maker of this universe has no needs for the possessions of humans and if he wanted to destroy or humiliate them, assuming he is a sadist like Muhammad, he would not need a bunch of henchmen and gangsters to do his dirty work.

What does “spoils of war” mean? Doesn’t it mean looting? 

Booty of war from the battleground is altogether different. It consists of the wealth, provisions and equipment captured from the camps and military headquarters of the combatant armies and may legitimately be appropriated.

This Muslim apologist wants us to believe that what Muhammad captured in his raids was just military equipment. That is a shameful lie. Muhammad  captured herds of camels, livestock, household property, cultivated lands and the houses of his victims. He captured their every possession. He even captured many as hostages or used them as slaves.

In the year eight of Hijra, after the Meccans surrendered, Muhammad decided to raid the big tribe of Hawazin who lived in the territory of Hunain. He captured their women and children and all their belongings after their men fled to the wilderness for their safety. Ibn Ishaq wrote:

Then a deputation from Hawazin came to him in al-Ji’rana where he held 6,ooo women and children captive, and sheep and camels innumerable which had been captured from them.

To soften his heart, this deputation, which comprised Shima, his foster sister, reminded him that he grew amongst them during the first 5 years of his life and how they took care of him and now he should not pay them back in this way. One of them said:

Have pity on us, apostle of Allah, generously, For you are the man from whom we hope and expect pity. Have pity on a people whom fate has frustrated, Their well-being shattered by time’s misfortunes.

Muhammad told them to accept Islam and gave them two choices:

‘Which are dearest to you? Your sons and your wives or your cattle?’ They replied, ‘Do you give us the choice between our cattle and our honor? Nay, give us back our wives and our sons, for that it what we most desire.’

What a despicable beast!

Muhammad left the Hawazin completely dispossessed and distributed the large booty among the wealthiest of Mecca to “sweeten Islam in their mouths." 

This apologist writes like a person who knows Islam quite well. So when he claims the booty was just the military equipment he is engaging in taqiyyah or the Islamic art of holy deception. He is simply lying for the sake of Allah.  He will meet Allah and his messenger in Hell.

Taken from

Relations between Mecca and Medina rapidly worsened (see surat al-Baqara.) Meccans confiscated all the property that the Muslims had left in Mecca . In Medina , Muhammad signed treaties of alliance and mutual help with neighboring tribes.

Muhammad turned to raiding caravans bound for Mecca . Caravan raiding was an old Arabian tradition; later Muslim apologists justified the raids by the state of war deemed to exist between the Meccans and the Muslims

"Caravan raiding was an old Arabian tradition?” What a lame excuse! I already discussed this moral relativistic cop-out. Even if raiding was an Arab “tradition”, which is ludicrous, would this justify one who claims to be a prophet of God and the "best of the creation" to follow that evil tradition? The Muslims who wrote this in Wikipedia want to make looting sound like a folk festival. “Tradition!?”... What an innovative way to describe a crime! If stealing was a “tradition”, why Muhammad was so upset when others stole something from him? Why he prohibited his followers from stealing the booty? The booty (the stolen property of the non-Muslims) was okay, but stealing from that stolen loot warranted hellfire!? This was the  typical moral relativistic reasoning of Muhammad and consequently of his benighted followers.

Wikipedia is controlled by cyber jihadis who gang up together to kill the truth. It is virtually impossible to write anything truthful in that encyclopedia on Islam. Friends of FFI are now in the process of creating an exclusive Wiki on Islam, where everyone would be free to edit but we will not allow bullishness and cyber terrorism of a bunch of jihadis.
Secular scholars will add that this was a matter of survival for the Muslims as well. They owned no land in Medina and if they did not raid, they would have to live on charity and whatever wage labor they could find.

Who are those "secular scholars"? Is he by any chance talking about the useful idiots such as Noam Chomsky, Karen Armstrong and John Esposito?  Just see how ridiculous the Wikipedia has become when it comes to Islam.

What an excuse! Since Muslims did not own lands, they had to engage in ethnic cleansing of the Jews and confiscate theirs. Ah, what a logical and satisfactory response! How could I have missed this logic?

What about the other places? Muhammad and his thugs raided many cities and villages that were not even close to Medina and had nothing to do with Muslims. Their only sin was that they were wealthy and Muslims needed their money. 

Should all those who do not have land and money raid those who have, kill them and loot them to survive?  Or is this "divine" teaching only for Muslims? As shocking as it is, this is exactly how Muslims think and that is why they are in Europe and in the West. They think the West belongs to them. If they succeed in their dream, they will do with the non-Muslims what Muhammad and his gangsters did to the non-Muslims of their time. It would be foolish not to pay attention to what Muslims say. All you have to do is to listen to them. They want your countries and they are ready to kill you for that. If not you, your children will pay with their lives if you do not heed to what they say. Don’t worry about your grandchildren because if Muslims are not stopped now, you may not have any. 

Taken from

Topics and their Interconnection

This portion deals with the problems of the "Spoils of War". The Quran says that these are not the spoils of war but the "Bounties of Allah" and proves this by showing that the victory at Badr (and in all other battles, too,) was won by His succour and not by the efforts of the Muslims. It also declares (in v. 40) that the war aim of the Muslims should be to eliminate all unfavourable conditions for the establishment of Islam and not to gain spoils. Moreover, the spoils, being the bounties of God, belong to Allah and His Messenger and they alone are entitled to allocate them. Then after conditioning the Muslims to accept these things, the different shares have been allocated in v. 41. 1 - 41 

What did I tell you? All you have to do is to listen to Muslims. What Muslims steal from you is not spoils of war. It is the “Bounties of Allah”. It is rightfully theirs. Not only they do not feel remorse, they will actually thank their devil Allah for that bounty happily with no pangs of conscience.  

Why this Allah does not give his bounties to his servants through science, industry, technology and progress? Why this bounty should always come to them as stolen property from non-Muslims? This question does not even occur to Muslims. Why? It is because they have no conscience.  Those who have, do no longer call themselves by this shameful name.

Taken from

Department of Public Treasury

State revenue is the most important tool for providing social security to a nation. During the Caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the income of the treasury department had immensely increased due to his wise and strict administrative policies. Zakah (religious obligation on a Muslim to pay 2½% from his/her wealth), ‘ushr (religious tax on agricultural land), Sadaqah (spending for the pleasure of Allah), jizyah (tax on the non-Muslims for providing security) and khums (the one-fifth of the spoils of war) were credited to the treasury for the use of the Muslims at large. For example, after the battles of Yarmouk and Qãdisiyyah, the Muslims won heavy spoils. The coffers at Madinah al-Munawwarah became full to the brink.

The aim of the Islamic social security system is to fulfil every possible human need. These needs can broadly be classified into two categories: (1) Primary needs i.e., food, clothing, housing and necessary medical care, and (2) Secondary needs i.e., education, matrimony, old age benefits and social services etc.

Caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab used Social Security

· To provide Food during serious drought or famines to the people according to the family size.

·  For the poor and disabled

· To provide education to the children

· To finance marriages of the unmarried poor or needy persons.

·  To grant old age benefits and in old age investment

·  To give loans for economic activity

·  For granting Interest-free loans

·  To pay off the debts of persons under obligation

·  As Social Insurance to pay blood money of convicts in involuntary homicide

·  To pay stipends to widows, married and unmarried women, young men and the immigrants.

Yep! You are the social security for the Muslims! Got it? 

This site says “During the Caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the income of the treasury department had immensely increased."

How did it increase? Did Umar encourage agriculture, art, industry, commerce? Where did this wealth come from? It was through looting of course. The writer is honest enough to say: "the battles of Yarmouk and Qãdisiyyah, the Muslims won heavy spoils. The coffers at Madinah al-Munawwarah became full to the brink." and acknowledges that this wealth "came from jizyah (tax on the non-Muslims for providing security) and khums (the one-fifth of the spoils of war).

 As long as looting continued Muslims prospered but as soon as they were defeated and their conquest stopped, so ebbed their so called “Golden Age”. 

What security Muslims provide for non-Muslims? The same kind of security that the Mafia gangsters used to provide for the businesses in Chicago during the 1930s. Jizya is extortion fee. Non-Muslims must work and maintain the Muslims or face death. See this hadith:

According to the saying of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him): Allah has placed truth upon Umar's tongue and heart. He fixed stipends for Muslims, and provided protection for the people of other religions by levying Jizya (poll-tax) on them, deducting no fifth from it, nor taking it as booty.[ Sunan Abu Dawud 19.2955]

The Westerners should know that for Muslims, the welfare that they collect, is the Jizya that you are supposed to pay. They are not grateful at all and they have no intention to find a work and stop collecting this Jizya which is rightfully theirs. However the amount is not enough. They must receive most of the money that you make. Their houses must be bigger and better than yours. As long as this is not so, they feel oppressed and will fight you to end this oppression.     

Taken from

The sixth case is that of borrowing a substantial sum of money from a Muslim individual for financing a major battle. "Isma'il son of Ibrahim son of Abdullah, son of Abu Rabi'ah al-Makhzumi has reported to us from his father who reported about his grandfather that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was to attack Hunayn he borrowed thirty or forty thousand from him. He repaid it when he came back. Then the Prophet (peace be upon him) told him: 'May Allah bless you with prosperity in your family and your property. The proper recompense for lending is repayment and gratitude'. In another version of this tradition recorded by Nasa'i, the amount of the loan is a definite forty thousand. The same is true of Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad. As regards the source of payment, both versions mention money that accrued to the Prophet (peace be upon him) subsequently. The battle of Hunayn took place in the eighth year after hijrah immediately after the conquest of Mekkah. These were comparatively better days for state finances. The accrual of money referred to in the tradition could have been from the spoils of war consequent to the victory at Hunayn. The above is clear case of borrowing for defense purposes. It is also evident that the sum paid back equaled the sum borrowed and no extra payment were involved.

This site explains how Muhammad borrowed money to furnish his army and paid it back after looting his victims. It is basically a confirmation that Muhammad gained his wealth through looting. Why Mr. Zawadi uses this passage that confirms my claim that Muhammad was a looter, is not clear to me. Wasn't he supposed to refute me? 

Taken from

When the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) came to Medina , he encouraged the wealthier supporters to financially aid the poor Emigrants. Then, when war booty fell to the lot of the Muslims, he would divide the wealth according to economic condition – the poor segments of the Muslims would receive larger portions. Through such measures, he sought to reduce the gap between rich and poor.

This is again another argument that confirms my claim. Muhammad looted innocent people and then distributed that loot among his followers. Isn’t this what any gangster godfather would do?

Now these are Mr. Zawadi's own words:


The Muslims did not fight and take the spoils of war for their own personal gain. They used it to help the needy and the poor and to establish a system. They took it in the time of war. They did not invade people intentionally to pillage their towns and villages and to take the booty. It was only during time of war. So they obviously they are going to take it. They are not just going to leave it lying around. It is completely justifiable what they did. As a matter of fact, no army in the world will consume the spoils of war in such a generous and beautiful way as the Muslim armies have done.

You can also read  

Despite all these evidences that Mr. Zawadi himself has given that Muslims looted the wealth of non-Muslims and Muhammad distributed that loot among his followers, he still has the cheek to say “The Muslims did not fight and take the spoils of war for their own personal gain.” 

This kind of absurdity blows the mind of any rational person. But it does not blow mine. I know how the Muslim mind works. Muslims genuinely cannot see that their thinking is demonic. For years I heard these very absurdities and never once I thought they are evil. My conscience was numbed. Muslims’ conscience is numbed. They are genuinely incapable of rational thought or human feelings when it comes to Islam. There is nothing we can say that can bring them to their senses. Nothing can make them reason. It happened to me and it has happened to many others but it is extremely hard. It is as if Muslims suffer from mental paralysis. You know what they will write after reading this? "My faith in Islam increased". This is how brainless these wretched souls have become.

Mr. Zawadi says: “They did not invade people intentionally to pillage their towns and villages and to take the booty. It was only during time of war.” 

No of course it was not intentional. The Muslims were blown to the towns of their victims by wind and accidentally their swords killed their men. Therefore the innocent Muslims had no choice but to clean the town and bring the wives and children of their victims as slaves. It was after all the "Bounties of Allah". How could they reject it?

“It was during the time of war”. This is the typical logical fallacy that Muslims love to engage in. Who started those wars?  First of all they weren’t wars but raids. Muhammad raided caravans, villages and towns with no warning.  He ambushed them. Of course you can only loot when you attack and kill people. How else could you loot? Would people give you their property if you don’t raid them, and don't "cast terror into their hearts"? This means that by virtue of the fact that Muhammad raided people and killed unarmed civilians, he was entitled to rape their wives and daughters and steal their property. This logic escapes human rationality. But Muslims' brain does not work in quite the same way. They are followers of Satan. Woe to you if you don’t take my warnings seriously. Woe to your children if you do not stop Muslims in their track in time. Every argument and counter argument that these Satan worshippers present depict the depravity of their mind and lays bare their demonic souls. 

Mr. Zawadi ends his argument saying: “They are not just going to leave it lying around. It is completely justifiable what they did.” 

Of course! Once you raided innocent people and killed them, why let their property go to waist? It is yours, take it. It is all “Bounties from Allah” in gratitude for being a good servant. Their wives and children?... They too are your slaves and sex slaves. They are all yours. You have "legal" rights on them and "divine" authorization.

    Enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good.  8:69 

What we learned from this debate? We learned that Islam, far from being a religion is a gangster organization that sustains itself by looting. Muslims are incapable of producing anything. They must loot to survive. Muhammad built his empire by looting and by casting terror in the hearts of his victims. Muslims did the same throughout the history. You are a fool if you think they have changed or they will change. As long as they call themselves Muslims and follow Muhammad they will do what he did. They are gangsters, they are looters, and they are terrorists. Don’t believe me? Just listen to what they say. 

And don’t think just because Muslims don’t engage in these activities now they will not do it once they come to power. If they don’t do it now it’s because they fear the bigger powers. Once that fear is no more there, they revert to their original barbarity and follow the Quran and the sunna to the letter. Until Muslims do not leave Islam and do not denounce Muhammad, it would be foolish to trust them. Treat them as enemy, just as they treat you as enemy. Direct them to this site where proof is given exhaustively. If they leave Islam and curse the evil Muhammad, receive them as one of your owns and show them love. If they insist to call that demon a prophet, cast them aside and kick them out of your country because that is what they intend to do with you.

Debate on Looting  Part II

This is the continuation of the previous discussion on looting. My argument accusing Muhammad of looting was contested by Mr. Bassam al Zawadi. This is my response to him.

Don't miss the conclusion of this debate in page 5 

Mr. al Zawadi wrote:
Islam promotes nothing but kindness to prisoners of war. Read this article for the evidence

The link I just posted proves from the Quran and Hadith that prisoners of war should be treated well. If there is any incident of Muhammad which goes against the Quran, then it should be disregarded. Even Ali Sina agrees with me. He says later on in this article

I don’t know what constitutes kindness for Muslims. Raiding innocent civilians, killing unarmed people taken by surprise, or massacring their entire male population and enslaving their women and children and even raping them are not acts of kindness. The claim that Islam promotes kindness is an insult to human intelligence. This is like saying Nazism promotes kindness. Islam has advanced by terror and not by kindness. The order to cast terror in the heart of the enemy is mandated in the Quran 3.151, 8.12. The enemy is anyone who Muhammad chose to attack. These people did not have to be hostile to Muhammad or have done anything against him. He decided that those who do not submit to his cult are the enemy and must be subdued. Or those who are wealthy are the enemy.  Muhammad boasted "I have been made victorious with terror" Bukhari 4:52:220  

Yes, if a law in a hadith is contradicts the Quran, the latter is to be taken as authority. However here we are not talking about laws but about events and the actions of Muhammad. The Quran is the collection of Muhammad’s sayings attributed to Allah and the hadith is the collection of Muhammad’s sayings and his deeds as reported by his companions. Sometimes Muhammad’s words are good, but often his actions are not.  Any criminal will tell you doing evil is wrong. Such statement does not make him a good person. He is simply a man whose actions and words do not match. When I was a boy, back in my country of birth, there was a radio program called 'A City within Our City'. Every week the producer interviewed one prisoner, often on death roll. The prisoners explained what made them become attracted to crime. At the end of each interview he would ask the inmates if they had an advice for the youths. The advices of these criminals were all good. I thought sarcastically, if we only listened to the advices of these criminals, the world would become paradise.

Words are cheap. Actions are what matter. A man who does not walk his own talk is a despicable man. In matters of law, if there is discrepancy between the Quran and the Haidth, the former is the authority. But if  you find in the Quran Muhammad says it is meritorious to manumit the slaves and then you read in the Hadith that he raided people, looted them, massacred them and reduced thousand upon thousands of them into slaves, what shall we make of it? We can’t dismiss the Hadith and deny that they are not true just because in the Quran Muhammad says something else. We can conclude that he was a contemptible man whose words and deeds did not match. We can’t disregard all the gory stories of crimes committed by this degenerate fiend just because somewhere he said; “be kind to others”. The question is why he did not walk the talk? If he knew kindness is better than cruelty, why he acted so ruthlessly? Did he really mean it or he said it to feign holiness? 


In response to me saying the battles of Muhammad were raids (qazwah) Mr. al Zawadi wrote:  “ Battle of Uhud was not a raid. Battle of the Trench was not a raid. Battle of Badr was not a raid.”

Muhammad waged over sixty wars according to Tabari.  With the exception of Uhud and Khandaq (Trench), all of them were incursions. The Battle of Badr was intended to be an inroad against the caravan of the Quraish. Abu Sufyan, the head of the caravan dodged the attack by detouring the caravan. The Meccans learned about Muhammad’s intention and they came to defend their caravan. The battle of Uhud and Khandaq were legitimate wars. After the Meccans had enough of Muhammad’s forays, they came to punish him for his constant taunting of their caravans and his lootings. Unlike Muhammad's raids that were unannounced, the Meccans informed their enemy of their intention,  giving him plenty of leeway to prepare. The war of Khandaq was not fought and the Meccans went back. So what if two out of 67 wars of Muhammad were not raids? Does this acquit him of being a highway robber and a marauding gangster? This is like a criminal accused of more than three scores of armed robberies, murders and assassinations plead innocence on the ground that in two occasions he had to fight back in self defense when his victims turned against him.


Mr. al Zawadi wrote:

The only incident that I can recall unless Ali Sina refreshes my memory where Muhammad attacked his enemies by surprise was the Banu Mustaliq.”

In that case Mr. al Zawadi should read the Sira again. With the exception of Khandaq and Uhud, virtually all the wars of Muhammad were depredatory. The attack on Mecca was also technically a raid. In this case the population was taken by surprise. A deal was made between the traitor Abbas who was the fifth column in Mecca spying for Muhammad from the start, Abu Sufyan who felt that with 10,000 men at the gates of Mecca there is no chance to win the war, and Muhammad. This deal was agreed outside the town in Muhammad's tent. The people of Mecca did not know about it and when Abu Sufyan said the city must capitulate to avoid bloodshed, his wife cursed him and said he is not a man. The Meccans were taken by surprise. They had singed a treaty with Muhammad and did not expect a war. Muhammad suddenly appeared at their gates with his army demanding them to surrender or face death. 

The killing of the Jews of Medina technically were not raids. He did not raid them but he laid siege on their quarters and cut the supply of water to them until they surrendered and then he banished them or massacred them.

Muslim, in his collection of Sahih Hadith narrates the following:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.”  Muslim 19, 4292 

Here the phrase "he killed those who fought" is misleading. This may give the idea that these people were armed and prepared to fight. Not so! People were caught by surprise and unarmed. This was an act of terrorism and not a war. 

Actually it was not necessary even in the early days of Islam to warn the victims. The forays of the caravans were not announced. In Nakhlah Muhammad left the instruction to raid the caravan with no warning and in the sacred month when war was sacrilege. This was one of the early raids. The story of the raid at the fortress of Khaibar is one more example that is recorded in detail. If you read Tabari, you become sick of account after account of killing and ransacks in gory details. I do not wish to overwhelm the readers but allow me to quote just one hadith.  

It has been narrated on the authority of Salama (b. al-Akwa') who said: We fought against the Fazara and Abu Bakr was the commander over us. He had been appointed by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). When we were only at an hour's distance from the water of the enemy, Abu Bakr ordered us to attack. We made a halt during the last part of the night to rest and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children. I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain. When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along. Among them was a woman from Banu Fazara. She was wearing a leather coat. With her was her daughter who was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia . I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina . I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salama. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) again met me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said: She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah. I have not yet disrobed her. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent her to the people of Mecca , and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Mecca ." Muslim 19, 4345

This was a raid at civilians, women and children. It is a mistake to call these incursions wars. Muhammad himself called them qazwah and terror.


Blaming the Victim:

My opponent quotes Ibn Hisham who wrote:

News reached the Prophet [pbuh] on Sha‘ban 2nd. to the effect that the chief of Bani Al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Dirar had mobilised his men, along with some Arabs, to attack Madinah. Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami was immediately despatched to verify the reports. He had some words with Abi Dirar, who confirmed his intention of war. He later sent a reconnoiterer to explore the positions of the Muslims but he was captured and killed. The Prophet [pbuh] summoned his men and ordered them to prepare for war. Before leaving, Zaid bin Haritha was mandated to see to the affairs of Madinah and dispose them. On hearing the advent of the Muslims, the disbelievers got frightened and the Arabs going with them defected and ran away to their lives. Abu Bakr was entrusted with the banner of the Emigrants, and that of the Helpers went to Sa‘d bin ‘Ubada. The two armies were stationed at a well called Muraisi. Arrow shooting went on for an hour, and then the Muslims rushed and engaged with the enemy in a battle that ended in full victory for the Muslims. Some men were killed, women and children of the disbelievers taken as captives, and a lot of booty fell to the lot of the Muslims. Only one Muslim was killed by mistake by a Helper. Amongst the captives was Juwairiyah, daughter of Al-Harith, chief of the disbelievers. The Prophet [pbuh] married her and, in compensation, the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet’s in-laws. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/112,113; Ibn Hisham 2/289,290,294,295]

It is important to note that Muhammad fabricated excuses for his attacks. In all these excuses he shifted the blame on his victims. For example, when he attacked the Bani Qaynuqa the excuse was that a couple of them had disrespected a Muslim woman. When he attacked the Bani Nadir the excuse was that Angel Gabriel had whispered in his ears that the Bani Nadir were plotting to kill him. When he attacked the Bani Quraiza his excuse was that they had confabulated with the Meccans. This is typical mindset of the narcissist. Narcissists always have excuses for their evil deeds. The claim that Muhammad pre-empted an attack by the Bani Mustaliq is a fabrication of Muhammad himself. It is just an excuse based on a lie. The Bani Mustaliq had no reason to attack Medina. It was always Muhammad who initiated the wars and hostilities. The Bani Mustaliq were not interested in Islam and religious wars in Arabia did not exist prior to Islam. They were Jews. They were an educated and cultured people. They were artisans, herdsmen and farmers. They had made their wealth in commerce and in industry, not through marauding. What reason had they to attack Medina, a city impoverish by Muhammad whose citizens had all become thieves and highway robbers? These are lies concocted by Muhammad to convince his foolish followers that his forays were justified. Despite their savagery, the early believers were still humans and must have felt raiding, massacring and pillaging innocent people with no justification is not right. Muhammad had to give them an excuse. When you attack someone, you must have an excuse. Even Hitler had reasons for his attacks. His reason was "to bring civilization to the less evolved people of the world". The reasons Muhammad gave for his raids were just excuses. With these lies his foolhardy followers placated their conscience willingly and descended to new depths of barbarity.

Here is what my opponent wrote as the pretext for raiding the Khaibar: 
The Jews of Khaybar were responsible for the uprising of armies against the Muslims in the Battle of the Trench (or ditch). They would go to Makkah and encourage them to wage war against the Muslims. Theses Jews would hide in their fortresses in Khaybar. So obviously they needed to be dealt with. So Muhammad invaded Khaybar. If the Prophet was able to individually punish these people he would have. But they would lock them selves up so the Prophet had no choice. He even tried burning down their trees to scare them so that he would not resort to going inside the fortress to get them. But they left him no choice. Yes, the Prophet Muhammad was a man of mercy, but he was also a man of justice. Does Ali Sina expect Muhammad to forgive all those who fight him? If he did that, then everyone would try attacking Muhammad and would not worry about getting punished if they lost. So Muhammad needed to make an example out of anyone who dared to fight or harm him. This is self defense. This is a universal principle.

The above give you a glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic narcissist. Narcissists always blame their victims and have justification for their evil deeds. The followers of Muhammad have entered into his narcissistic bubble universe and all of them, to the degree that they emulate him, evince his psychopathology. They deny the evil deeds of their prophet and justify his crimes and their own. See the parts that I highlighted with red and blue! He is saying that Muhammad had no choice but to attack, kill, torture, rape, and enslave his victims. The way he has worded it one might as well think that Muhammad was the victim. .

Don't just assume that Mr. al Zawadi is talking nonsense. On the contrary, this is how narcissists think. The psychopath narcissist always blames his victims. "he made me do it", is his alibi. The psychopath feels justified to punish you if you resist his demands.

These are all lies, excuses to assail and mug an entire population of innocent civilians, loot their wealth and take them as slaves and sex slaves.

For the sake of argument, let us say the leaders of Khaibar were responsible for the "uprising of armies against the Muslims in the Battle of the Trench" (This is of course a lie. Muhammad already massacred all the men of Bani Quraiza and enslaved all their wives and children with the same excuse. Khaibar had nothing to do with the battle of the Trench. The Jews never raised against the Muslims in Medina or anywhere in Arabia and they tried to stay neutral at all times. That was of course a grave error that cost them their lives.) Does this justify to invade a city and massacre its citizens? Does it justify taking their women as sex slaves and forcing the elderly and the unwanted women to till their own confiscated land and and give half of the produce to their conqueror?

Let us read the story of this raid as described in a hadith. Whatever you find in parenthesis are the interpolations of the translator. These are introduced to soften the tone and to justify Muhammad's crimes. For example whenever the hadith talks about 'raid' the words (enemy) and (hostile) are interpolated next to it. This gives an impression that these people were the enemies and Muslims had to fight these wars were in self defense. That is not so. Any person who did not submit to Muhammad was considered to be an enemy. The terrorists are not killing innocent people; they are killing “the enemy”. In Khaibar, people had no idea that Muhammad was about to attack them until he was in their lanes with his men on their horses slaying anyone at sight. Just like the gullible westerners of today, the non Muslims of Arabia 1400 years ago, did not know they are “the enemy” and the target.

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there early in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.'  He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected.

Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her." 

Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet .  (Sahih Bukhari 1.367)

What happened to Kinana the young husband of Safiyah? Let us see:

Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says “was brought”), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going to a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, “Do you know that if we find you have it (the treasure) I shall kill you?” He said, “Yes”. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest (of the treasure?) he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.  [Sirat Rasulallah, page 515]

Any person who after reading these stories can still defend Muhammad and justify his heinous crimes should not be called human. Any person, who justifies what Muhammad did to his innocent victims has evil in his heart, is the offspring of Satan and is a stain on humanity. To say the defenders of Muhammad’s crimes are animals is an insult to animals. The defenders of Muhammad's crimes have Satan for father. There is no way a human can have a mind as demonic as this. Lies and deception is the way of the followers of this demon who seduced people disguised as a prophet. See how my opponent twists the truth and calls a raid, “self defense”. 


In response to my accusation that Muhammad broke the standards set by the Golden Rule and did to others, things that he himself would not have tolerated if done to him, my opponent wrote:
Muslims believe in equality, which is a universal principle.

Surah 16:126

And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.

The reason why the Prophet applied such a brutal punishment to those Bedouins was because the Prophet found out that those Bedouins did the same exact thing to the shepherd.

You can read the tafsir for that hadith here

This is yet another lie. The Arabs prior to Islam were not as ruthless as Muhammad and his followers. At no time in the history of Arabia Arabs had shown this much savagery that they demonstrated stirred by the teachings of Muhammad. This claim that “the pagans would have done the same” is a lie. As I said above, it is the typical alibi of the narcissist for his own crimes. The narcissist thinks everyone is like him. He thinks others would also break the Golden Rule, are thieves and dishonest, are ruthless and inhumane just as he is. So he feels that since others would do the same he is completely justified to do it to them preemptively. We have no evidence that the non-Muslims of Arabia had been unfair or cruel to Muslims. It has been always the other way round. The claim of persecution is false, as I have demonstrated elsewhere. And this is from the history written by Muslims, whose hatred of non-Muslims and particularly the Jews is unabashedly jarring and conspicuous.

1400 years later, the mindset of Muslims has not changed. Today Muslims are the ones who are on the offensive. They murder, behead and blow up bombs and kill innocent people everywhere, but they always blame their victims.  To understand the mind of the Muslims one must understand the mind of Muhammad and to understand Muhammad one must study pathological narcissistic personality disorder.

When I said Muhammad brought savagery into Arabia , obliterated compassion and established vengeance as the norm, Mr. al Zawadi responded:
In the Battle of Badr, the Muslims captured 70 prisoners of war, of whom only 3 were put to death: Uqba ibn Abi Ma’it, An-Nadr ibn Al-Harith and Tu`aymah ibn `Udday.

If the Prophet was a psychopath he would have ordered the execution of all the 70 prisoners. But he only ordered it for those 3.

The Prophet did not only punish them because they insulted him. When the Prophet was in Mecca , the people insulted and abused him and when he conquered Mecca later on, he forgave them all. He had the power to kill them all but he didn't.  The reason for Nadr ibn Al Harith and Oqba is the same reason for the order of the killing of Kab bin Ashraf. Their insults and public dismay of the Prophet made people rise up and fight against the Prophet. So their words caused a lot of damage.

See how Mr. al Zawadi contradicts himself? First he says that Muhammad forgave those who insulted him and in the next sentence he says the reason he killed these men was because of "their insults and public dismay of the Prophet". This all makes perfect sense to him.

Muhammad was a psychopath. Being a psychopath does not mean acting erratically. Psychopaths are often smart and calculating. Hitler was a psychopath. But he was not a fool. Saddam Hussein is a psychopath, but as one can see, he is very smart. Most psychopaths do not kill for no reason or just for the fun of it as one can see in movies. Some do. Son of Sam or the Unibomber are examples of that. Some psychopaths kill because this gives them the godlike power of taking lives. But even they are smart. Most psychopaths look normal and they are often more successful than the average people because they are calculating and ruthless. They successfully deceive and  embezzle others and because they have thought of everything from the start, when no one had a slightest idea that they will be stabbed in the back, they get away with their embezzlements. Because they can play their cards extremely well, they often rise to power. In countries where they can fool the masses they become dictators, where dictatorship is not possible they become CEOs. They are smart and charming, but ruthless and conniving.

When psychopath narcissists kill, they always have "legitimate" reasons that to them make perfect sense. They kill those whom they think intervene in their grandiose plans. They think of themselves so important and their ideas so grand that those who stand in their way become dispensable and must be eliminated. They feel perfectly justified to do that and are convinced of their actions. Their cause is so important that the lives of millions of people become insignificant in comparison.

What would Muhammad gain by killing wantonly all the captives of Badr? Many of those captives were the relatives of his followers. One of them was Abul Aas, husband of Zeinab, his own elder daughter. Muhammad asked the families of the prisoners to pay ransom for their release or he would kill them. He saved them out of greed, not out of kindness of heart!

An interesting and perhaps tender story here is that Zeinab sent a gold necklace that she had received from her mother Khadijah at her wedding to ransom her husband. Muhammad upon seeing that necklace and recognizing it as once worn by Khadijah, was moved and agreed to release Abul Aas without ransom provided Zeinab abandon him and join him in Medina . He was incapable of giving anything up without demanding something in exchange. Even his largesse was designed to impress people and win them over.

Why then he killed those three and did not ransom them? It is because they had humiliated him. Once you humiliate a narcissist he will never forgive you. He will not rest until he takes his sweet revenge.


I accused Muhammad for making Allah an accomplice to his crimes. For example he ordered his followers to raid and loot innocent people asking them to bring one fifth of everything to him saying "this is for Allah and his Messenger". I asked why would Allah need those loots?  My opponent’s response was:
When it says that the war booty is for Allah and his Messenger, it simply means that it is for the cause of Islam. It does not mean that Allah is going to consume the war booty.

Why the cause of Islam had to expand with the stolen property? This question is important. Islam has advanced with loot and with blood of innocent people. Why a religion of God should be built upon the death and misery of countless humans?

This loot was only for Muhammad. Allah was just an excuse. If Allah is God, he does not need to steal from people. This is blasphemy. Unless Allah is Satan, he would never order people to kill their kind. To justify his own evil deeds this shameless gangster made the maker of the universe his partner in crime.


I said that in the sixth year of Hijra Muhammad had promised victory to his foolhardy followers over Mecca and my opponent wrote:
Not true, the Prophet promised his followers that they would make Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage) not victory over Makkah.  Does that really show that their intention was to fight? I do not think so. Read any Islamic history book and it would tell you that their intention to go to Mecca was a peaceful one.

My opponent is right. This is my mistake. The declared intention was just to perform Umrah. As for Muhammad's real intention, it is anyone's guess. But why go to pilgrimage with 1500 armed men? 


Mr. al Zawadi wrote:
When Ali Sina talks about looting, he is making it seem like the Muslims went around and invaded villages and people solely in order to gain their war booty. He is making it seem like the Muslims were pirates wandering around and pillaging innocent people and stealing their valuables. This is far from the truth. If the Muslims ever waged war or invaded anyone, it was due to self defense or if there was evidence that the other side would attack and the Muslims would attack first for military advantage.

The lack of conscience in Muslims is mind boggling. Do the stories of the raids of Muhammad that I quoted only in this article look like self defense? 65 out of 67 wars of Muhammad were raids and Muslims still have the cheek to say they were all in self defense. The very history that they wrote is filled with tales of horror that Muslims committed. At times reading those tales become nauseating. Muhammad himself boasted that he became victorious with terror and Muslims are so unabashed in lying that they still say Muhammad’s wars were in self defense. Were the raids on Persia , Egypt , Yemen , Syria , or Spain also in self defense? Hadn't Muhammad sign a treaty with the Meccans? Why he broke that and attacked them? He was not in any danger from them, or from any of his victims for that matter. He attacked them because he was hungry for power. He wanted to conquer the world just like Hitler, Genghis Khan, Napoleon or Attila the Hun. Religion and Allah were pretexts. Excuses to rouse people and make them commit murder, wage war without expecting any wages, be ready to kill and even die at his behest. All he had to do was to give them an empty promises - humongous checks to be cashed after they die - and in this, he was most generous indeed.

Now, technically it is not precise to say Muslims lie. Because when they say these patent lies, they actually believe them to be true. They are so convinced that the non-Muslims are the enemy that they feel it is completely legit to raid them, butcher them and loot them and all that to them seems self-defense.

If you see a poisonous snake, you will kill it even though the snake is not attacking you. You perfectly justify this killing as self defense. Why? It is because you are convinced that the snake is your enemy and if you don't kill it, it may kill you. This is how Muslims are brought up to think of non-Muslims. In their mosques, madrassas, textbooks and in their media, they are constantly told that the kafirs are the enemy. They see and distrust you, the way you see and distrust a poisonous snake. In the same way that you justify killing the snake, Muslims justify killing you. Please read this sermon and see what Muslims think of you.

I just quote a few of the passages. But please read the entire sermon later.

    His [the unbeliever's]  heart is so full of envy that it shows itself in his eyes. He is envious of the Muslims because of their blessings and wishes that they could be taken away from them.

    He is so shamelessly envious that he would strive to mislead you so that you will be assembled with him in the Hell-Fire.

    The Kaafir plots against the Muslims by night and betrays them in the day. Enmity towards you is vividly shown in his face and his utterances. He bites his fingertips in severe anger against the Muslims and his inner-self is full of evil plans against them. He pretends to be trustworthy and good mannered while he is actually pursuing his own interests. Allaah exposes them when he says:

There are many statements like these, each backed by a verse from the Quran. These hate teachings of the Quran, make those who are exposed to them distrust the non-Muslims as if they were venomous snakes. They feel perfectly justified to hate you and even rejoice when their jihadi brothers kill you and kill your children.

Don't blame them. They are victims of this poison. Blame yourself. You are guilty too for letting them vitiate their minds with this venom. They can't help it. But you can help them. Why don't you?  

Take a look at what is going on in our own time. Muslims are massacring innocent people all over the world with their terrorist acts and yet they claim they are under attack and what they do is "self defense". This is how the psychopathic minds of the Muslims work. You can’t understand that unless you have been a Muslim at least for a few years.  This is not a normal way of thinking and that is why our strategists and political analysts are failing to address the problem. The problem of Islamic terrorism is not political. It must be studied as psychopathology, not as a political problem. The mind of a psychopath does not work in quite the same way that healthy minds work.

Here what I am saying is that the followers of Muhammad are psychologically and emotionally mangled. This statement is very much politically incorrect. This sounds extreme and anyone saying that could be accused of racism. To hell with political correctness. Political correctness means lying when telling the truth is offensive. But a lie is lie. It is the lies of political correctness that is killing us. Unless we see Islam as a sick cult and Muslims as sick people, we can't address this problem and the Islamic terrorism will continue to claim more lives.

The problem of Islamic terrorism, is not just political but also religious and consequently emotional and psychological. We need experts in psychology, precisely those who have experience in cults to understand the Muslim mind and to pull us out of this muddle.

When I said Muhammad raided the tribe of Hawazin taking 6,ooo women and children as captives and seized innumerable sheep and camels, my opponent wrote:
Again, we have to see why the Prophet invaded the tribe of Hawazin. You also have to read that it was the Hawazin's fault for they were the ones that brought their women and children with them to the battlefield.

Do you see the pattern? It is always the fault of the victims.

The reason women and children were caught in the battle tells us that unlike what Muslim historians have stated, these poor people were not coming to war. No sane person would take all his family and all his belonging to war. They were nomads, moving from one pasture to another. Muslim historians have claimed that the leader of the Hawazin insisted to carry the women and children to make his men "determined in their fight". This is ludicrous. We are talking of a tribe with over ten thousand people. Would all these people obey a decision so insane?

Why would they want to attack an army of Muslims? What would they gain in this? The accusation makes no sense. You don't have to be a genius to see that Muslim historians lie when they shift the blame on their victims. 

These are all excuses to justify the crimes committed by Muhammad. See how my opponent, with straight face, blames the victims for bringing along their women and children? Does this justify to take them as prisoners and enslave them? Where is the conscience of these people? There is not a shred of humanity left in them. These are not the people that we could share the planet with, let alone our countries. What kind of value will they bring to our world? The world has come out of barbarity and obscurantism for centuries and these people want to take us back. They belong to another world, a world very demonic and evil.


The choices are very limited. Either we become like them and embrace their cult, which of course means perpetual wars as Muslims have killed more of their own than they have killed others, do nothing until they kill us or reduce us into slavery and dhimmitude or kill them first.

Which one you like best? These are our options. Are these sane options? If you embrace Islam, as Salman Rushdie puts it, "this least huggable of faiths", you will lose everything you cherish. You will lose your freedom and should kiss goodbye your culture and your civilization for it will be demonized and vilified as taghooti (satanic) and jahilliah (ignorance). Religious police will walk in the streets telling you that your dress is not Islamicly right and will beat you for exposing a few strands of hair. You could even be shot on the spot and killed for eating during the month of Ramadan. Look at Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Afghanistan of the Taliban - this is Islam. A state run by sharia law is hell. You will be ruled by people like Mr. Bassam al Zawadi, Ahmadinejad and Mullah Omar and opposition to them means opposition to God and you will be jailed or killed. You will have to accept that Arabs are master race, just as today the Pakistanis, the Bangladeshis, the Malays and the Indonesians have accepted it wholeheartedly. Persians have not. They invented their own version of Islam to vilify Arabs and not to submit to them as slaves. At least a shred of dignity is left in Iranians. Frankly my friend, death is better than that life.

If you don't convert to Islam, you will be subdued, and forced to work and sustain the Islamic state with Jizyah (a penalty tax levied on non-Muslims). You will still be subject to Islamic laws but will have fewer rights than those who convert. If your faith is not recognized as valid you could face execution.

So what is left? Killing Muslims before they kill you? Is that all left to do? Today I received a copy of a chilling email that is being circulated among some Australians. The email is calling upon Australians to take back their country from the “Lebs” (Lebanese immigrants). How this should be done is blood curling.  Here are a few passages of that message:

    The coals were lit when lebs threatened to rape young children on Cronulla beach; lifeguards stepped in to defend them and were bashed. This has been going on for years.

    The comoncheros and Bra Boys have as of today given official support to gang rapists and thus must be destroyed if they interfere. They are a group of old has-been, race traitors, junkies and lebs. Aussie Patriots do not need their support.

    Failure to fight and win will mean living under the rule of criminals and gang rapists.

    This is a real war, make no mistake. cowards WILL BE TREATED LIKE LEBS!

    Bring yourself, your mates, anyone you know of fighting age and whatever devices you see fit to defend yourself and your country.

    After rallying in Cronulla and Maroubra we will push our way through to Lakemba and Bankstown, we will destroy the mosques in these areas and any leb that gets in our way. We will smash their houses, smash their shops, destroy their ghettos.

The message continues with more angry notes and calls to violence against the Lebanese and Muslims.

The person who forwarded this message to me, although said she does not support violence, unreservedly agreed with the spirit of this message.

The same is happening in Europe . Racism and blind nationalism is again on the rise. Some good people are dragged into it. We have a difficult time ahead of us. We must embrace ourselves for blood, may be our own, running in our streets. Woe to us children of apes, for our monkey thinking is bringing us to our doom.

Is this the way we want to go? What has happened to our species? Is this what is called intelligent life? What part of this is intelligent? Do we have to become beasts and murder our own kind just to survive? Which one of these options is better?

I am offering you another alternative – an alternative that requires neither blood nor slavery. Islam is a disease. It's the disease that we have to eradicate, not the patient. Why everybody is afraid to attack the disease itself?

Obviously we can't let the sick infect the world with his deadly disease or the mad man go loose shooting and killing everyone. But should we kill him? Is this the sane way to cure a sick person?

For the sake of sanity, why instead of killing the patient, don't we try to cure him from his sickness? Why don't we eradicate Islam? Islam is the disease of the soul and the mind. Islam is the disease that has crippled mankind. A billion people follow a psychopath. This is insanity. This is not comical; it's calamity. Muslims are infirm. But we do not kill infirm people.

The problem seems to be huge but the solution is ironically simple. All we have to do is to destroy Islam. That is not an impossible task. We can do that, if we just tell the truth. It's as simple as that. We are getting drowned in a glass of water. The solution to all this madness is to tell the truth. Our governments must start telling the truth. The politicians and the media must start telling the truth. In schools, we should teach the truth. Truth is not subjective. There is no 'your truth' and 'my truth'. When it comes to history, facts are the truth. History must be taught honestly and factually and not twisted just because it may offend someone. If someone is offended of the truth, let him be offended. 

The non-Muslims are not entirely sane either. They too have their own mental sickness. They are suffering from political correctness. This combination is lethal. Compare Islam to human immunodeficiency virus HIV and political correctness to immunodeficiency. Political correctness can kill us. It lowers our resistance against the enemy and will make us vulnerable to its advances. The foolish defenders of Muslims are just as dangerous as Muslims. Truth can cure both of them. Those who suffer from political correctness and those who suffer from Islam can both benefit from it and recover.

Those who find the truth too bitter to swallow must be force-fed. The truth is their medicine. This medicine must reach them willingly or unwillingly. Because their sickness is affecting all of us, they must not have a choice. They must hear it until they recover. The best place to start force feeding the truth is in prison compounds where the terrorists are detained. Don't torture them. Tell them the truth about Islam and once that truth sinks, they will cooperate. Tell them the truth about Islam and they will leave terrorism. It is Islam that converts good people into terrorists and makes them monsters. How to do that? Very simple! Produce radio programs in their own language and make them listen to it several hours per day, every day. We at FFI can produce the right programs. We know how to handle the Muslims and what to tell them. This is how they have been brainwashed. We can un-brainwash them in the same way.

We must get rid of Islam if we want to avoid a major bloodshed and our species survive. Muslims must be weaned from this satanic cult of madness and terror, for their own good and for our good.

Please read my debates with Muslims and pay close attention to what they write. We are indeed dealing with a demonic force. The way they think is not sane. It is psychopathological. I don’t want you to feel safe and comfortable. Be scared - very scared.

The problem is that our politicians do not understand the magnitude of this threat. Most people do not understand it. As long as we do not understand we are fighting our enemy blindfolded. You cannot win a war unless you know your enemy. Do you know your enemy? Does your government know the enemy? Neither of you do. That is why your fate is sealed.

Please read these debates and particularly pay attention to what Muslims say.  Promote this site. Everyone must see the unmasked face of Islam. People must realize that the world is in danger. The Second World War was picnic compared to what is awaiting mankind in a very near future. But the future is in our hands. We write the history. Don't be a bystander. Don't let others write the future. Why be a spectator of the history when you can be its protagonist?

Governments in democratic countries can’t do and won't do anything unless people tell them what to do. What are you waiting for? Let people know the truth.  Let them wake up. Invite them to come to this site, read these debates and have a close encounter with Devil itself. If this does not wake them up, nothing will. We need an outcry from bottom up that our governments can’t ignore. This won’t happen as long as people are kept in the dark and think Islam is just another garden variety of religions.      



Monday, February 17, 2014

Finland in the grip of Saudi islamic hate mongering and muslim racism and sexism

Why don't hate speech laws apply to islamic hate speech?

BBC: The root cause of islamic conflicts isn't islam but poverty.
Klevius: Well dah! Islam without slaves, looting or oil has always meant poverty for the masses! The original idea of islam is parasitism!
If all the atrocities that were/are inspired/sanctioned by islamic ideology (in the same way as we consider National socialism/Nazism and communism inspired/sanctioned German Holocaust, Pol Pot's killing fields, Stalin's and Mao's genocides, etc) islam is by far not only the worst crime ever against humanity throughout 1400 years but still today produces more suffering than any other ideology - including North Korea!

The term homophobic is often applied to anyone who is opposed to the gay life-style. When in fact, most who speak against it are not at all phobic (fearful) of homosexuals, but are speaking in respect to their faith and what God says about the homosexual lifestyle (Sharia, which ALWAYS violates basic Human Rights and which is supposed to cover 'all aspects of life').

The term islamophobic is often applied to anyone who is opposed to islam. When in fact, most who speak against islam are not at all phobic (fearful) of muslims, but are speaking in respect to their belief and what Human Rights say about the muslim lifestyle.

Critics have argued that the term ‘hate speech’ is a modern example of Newspeak [George Orwell’s], used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear political correct.”4 We often see that the ones most vocal about the ills of hate speech are themselves the most guilty of intolerant hate speech.

There is no clear line between religious dissent and blasphemy.

The relation between right and restriction and between norm and
exception must not be reversed.

And finally, the most important one. Restrictions should never favor one ideology over the other. Whereas Human Rights see muslims as equal to non-muslims, muslims (via islamic Sharia) have a supramacist view on non-muslims.

If these Finnish muslims didn't tell about OIC's world Sharia and due criminalization of Human Rights for these Finnish "infidels" (from the True Finns party) visiting their mosque - then they committed 

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission.  An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

There are two forms of muslims lying to non-believers (infidels) that are permitted in islam, taqiyya and kitman.  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of islam - for example by gaining the trust of non-believers (infidels) in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them (more about this furthest down on the post).

The True Finns party combines left-wing economic policies with conservative social values, socio-cultural authoritarianism, and ethnic nationalism. Finnish immigration policy should be based on the fact that the Finns should always be able to decide for themselves the conditions under which a foreigner can come to our country and reside in our country. This couöd be compared with UK which seems to have a similar policy - yet without any reaction towards the non-British represented by Sharia muslims who can do almost whatever. Several researchers have described the True Finns party as fiscally centre-left, socially conservative, a "centre-based populist party" or the "most left-wing of the non-socialist parties", whereas other scholars have described them as radically right-wing populist.

Here naive representatives for the True Finns are visiting a Helsinki mosque - but their second most popular parlamentarian Jussi Halla-aho (see below) was forbidden to enter because he understands what islam is really about.

This is Jussi Halla-aho, a Finnish linguist and parlamentarian for the True Finns. On 27 March 2009, the Helsinki District Court ordered Halla-aho to trial on charges of ethnic agitation as well as breach of the sanctity of religion. The charges arose after Halla-aho posted remarks related to the sentencing of Seppo Lehto on his blog Scripta. In the course of the remarks, Halla-aho said the prophet Muhammad was a paedophile, and islam is a religion of paedophilia, because Muhammad had intercourse with his 9-year-old wife and according to Sunnah Mohammed's life is exemplary in every way. He also asked if it could be stated that robbing passersby and living on taxpayers' expense are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis. This was stated in sarcastic response to a Finnish columnist that wrote that drinking excessively and fighting when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns.

Jussi Halla-aho was sentenced to fines and the Supreme court sanctioned it!

The Finnish lion is here (1583) tramping the evil islamic scimitar

and here (1917) the first flag of independent Finland

Finland's Supreme Court uses Human Rights for the purpose of bowing for islamic Sharia, which is AGAINST Human Rights!

Finland's Supreme Court decision KKO:2012:58 against Jussi Hall-aho

Jussi Halla-aho: ”Profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, ja islam on pedofilian pyhittävä uskonto, siis pedofiiliuskonto. Pedofilia on Allahin tahto.”

Klevius translation: Jussi Halla-aho was sentenced to fines because of his interpretation of islam in accordance with islamic texts: "Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, and islam is a faith that sanctifies pedophilia, i.e. a pedophilia faith. Pedophilia is the will of Allah".

(if there's anyone not mastering Finnish - would that even be possible considering root-Finnish is perhaps the oldest existing major language in the world - then jump down to Klevius analysis)

20. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A:n tarkoituksena väitteet esittäessään on saattanut sinänsä osaltaan olla arvostella viranomaisten toimintaa eri uskontoihin liittyvissä sananvapauskysymyksissä. Niin kuin A:kin on todennut, uskonnosta ja sen opista on voitava käydä kriittistä keskustelua. Uskontoja ja niiden oppeja koskeva kärkevä, pisteliäs ja jopa loukkaavaksikin koettavissa oleva arvostelu on siten sananvapauteen kuuluvana oikeutena lähtökohtaisesti sallittua. Näin on asia varsinkin silloin, kun tällaista keskustelua käydään tai arvostelua esitetään yhteiskunnallisesti merkityksellisessä asiayhteydessä, kuten sananvapaudesta tai viranomaistoiminnasta käytävän asiallisen keskustelun yhteydessä. Niin kuin edellä viitatusta ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytännöstäkin ilmenee, sananvapaus ei kuitenkaan ole edes tällöin rajoittamaton.

21. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että kysymyksessä olevat väitteet, joiden mukaan profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, islam pedofilian pyhittävä pedofiiliuskonto ja pedofilia Allahin tahto, ovat sekä sisällöltään että erityisesti ilmaisutavaltaan voimakkaan herjaavia ja häpäiseviä. Tämä ilmaisujen luonne on ilmeinen sellaisellekin, joille niiden kohteet eivät ole pyhiä. Kysymys ei siten ole ollut pelkästään uskonnon ja siihen liittyvien ilmiöiden asiallisesta arvostelusta kärjekkäitä, loukkaavia tai provosoivia ilmaisuja käyttäen, vaan sen laatuisesta herjaavasta hyökkäyksestä islamia ja sen pyhänä pitämiä kohtaan, jonka johdosta muslimit ovat voineet perustellusti tuntea joutuneensa oikeudettoman ja loukkaavan hyökkäyksen kohteeksi (I.A. v. Turkki 13.9.2005 kohta 29). Nykyislamiin ja sen pyhinä pitämiin uskonnollisen kunnioituksen kohteisiin kohdistuvien väitteiden herjaavuutta ei ole ollut omiaan vähentämään se A:n esiin nostama seikka, että kirjoituksessa on pyritty todistelemaan sanottujen väitteiden paikkansapitävyyttä viittaamalla profeetta Muhammadin elämästä koraanissa kerrottuun.

22. Korkein oikeus katsoo, että sanotun kaltaisten herjaavien väitteiden esittämiseen ei ole oikeuttanut A:n väittämä tarkoitus selvittää sananvapauden rajoja tai osoittaa viranomaistoiminnan epäjohdonmukaisuutta. Näihin kysymyksiin liittyvän, voimakkaankin arvostelun esittäminen olisi ollut mahdollista ilman islamin pyhänä pitämien arvojen häpäisemistä. Kyseessä olevan kaltaiset, koko uskontokunnan ja sen pyhät kunnioituksen kohteet voimakkaan kielteisesti leimaavat herjaavat iskulauseet eivät edistä uskonnoista tai yhteiskunnallisista kysymyksistä käytävää keskustelua, vaan ne ovat päinvastoin omiaan herättämään ja vahvistamaan uskonnollista suvaitsemattomuutta ja ennakkoluuloja. Näistä syistä sekä yleisen järjestyksen ja yhteiskuntarauhan säilyttämistavoitteen kannalta on perusteltua, että tällaisten väitteiden esittäjän sananvapauden suojaan puututaan rikosoikeudellisin seuraamuksin.

23. Kysymyksessä olevien lausumien sisältö ja esitystapa huomioon ottaen A on epäilyksittä käsittänyt niiden herjaavan ja häpäisevän luonteen. Myös A:n väittämä pyrkimys koetella sananvapauden rajoja ”heittämällä” syyttäjälle ”syötti” osaltaan osoittaa sen, että hän on mieltänyt esittämiensä väitteiden loukkaavan muslimien uskonnollisia tunteita tunnusmerkistön täyttävällä tavalla. Tietoiseen loukkaamistarkoitukseen viittaa sekin, että ilmaisut on esitetty kirjoituksessa kahdesti muusta tekstistä selvästi erottuvalla tekstityypillä. A on siten ne esittäessään toiminut rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:ssä tarkoitetussa loukkaamistarkoituksessa.

Klevius analysis: According to the Supreme court of Finland, islam is forbidden in comparisons aimed to test what is assaulting to non-muslim Finns and how political correctness may bias such a comparison. Well, Jussi Halla-aho certainly proved his case by this very statement by the Supreme court! What other subject than islam could possibly have fulfilled all the criterion?!

The Supreme court also refers to 'contemporary islam' which by any standard  cannot mean  anything else than OIC, all muslims world organization, initiated by the Saudis, based in Saudi Arabia, and led by a Saudi Wahhabist, Iyad Madani.Moreover, OIC has managed not only to officially abandon Human Rights in UN but also to use UN as a legal hub for the spreading of legal pressure on non-muslim (infidel) UN member states to "tolerate" islamic Sharia, i.e. to criminalize some of the most important basic Human Rights! Finland is well on its way...

Here's  the full text of jhe judgement (ask for clarification if you need. Klevius masters both Finnish and the legal context):

Uskonrauhan rikkominen
Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan
Diaarinumero:    R2010/1101
Esittelypäivä:    24.1.2012
Antopäivä:    8.6.2012
Taltio:    1101

A oli internetissä olevalla sivustollaan julkaissut kirjoituksen, jossa oli esitetty islaminuskoa ja somaleja loukkaavia lausumia. Kysymys siitä, oliko A menettelyllään syyllistynyt uskonrauhan rikkomiseen ja kiihottamiseen kansanryhmää vastaan.

RL 17 luku 10 §
RL 11 luku 10 §
Asian käsittely alemmissa oikeuksissa
Muutoksenhaku korkeimmassa oikeudessa
Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisu
Asian käsittely alemmissa oikeuksissa
Syyttäjän rangaistusvaatimus Helsingin käräjäoikeudessa

Syyttäjä vaati A:lle rangaistusta ensinnäkin rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n nojalla uskonrauhan rikkomisesta (kohta 1). Syytteen mukaan A oli julkaissut lausunnon, joissa hän oli loukkaamistarkoituksessa julkisesti herjannut ja häpäissyt sitä, mitä uskonnonvapauslaissa tarkoitetut islamilaiset uskonnolliset yhdyskunnat pitävät pyhänä. Lausunnon sisältö oli seuraava:

”Profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, ja islam on pedofilian pyhittävä uskonto, siis pedofiiliuskonto. Pedofilia on Allahin tahto.”

A oli toimittanut edellä tarkoitetun lausunnon yleisön saataville kirjoituksessa, jonka hän oli julkaissut 3.6.2008 internetissä olevalla sivustollaan. A:n julkaisema väite, joka oli sanamuodoltaan selkeä ja jota esitettiin korostetulla kirjoitustyylillä kahdesti kysymyksessä olevassa kirjoituksessa, loukkasi Suomessa asuvien muslimien uskonnollisia vakaumuksia ja tuntoja sekä vaaransi yhteiskunnassa vallitsevan uskonrauhan.

Lisäksi syyttäjä vaati A:lle rangaistusta rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:n nojalla kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan (kohta 2). Syytteen mukaan A oli yleisön keskuuteen levittänyt lausunnon ja tiedonannon, joissa paneteltiin ja solvattiin somaleista koostuvaa kansallista tai siihen rinnastettavaa ryhmää. Lausunnon sisältö oli seuraava:

”Ohikulkijoiden ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre.”

A oli toimittanut edellä tarkoitetun lausunnon yleisön saataville kirjoituksessa, jonka hän oli julkaissut 3.6.2008 internetissä olevalla sivustollaan. A oli kyseisessä kirjoituksessa myös todennut, että ”kaikki somalit eivät tietenkään ryöstä tai loisi verovaroilla” ja ettei hän käsittele väitteen sisältöä faktana. A:n lausuma, jonka mukaan ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen tai geneettinen erityispiirre, sisälsi asiallisesti väitteen, että kysymyksessä olevaan ryhmään kuuluvilla ihmisillä oli ominaispiirre, joka ennalta määrätysti johtaa heidän kohdallaan yleiseen rikollisuuteen ja verovaroil¬la loisimiseen. Sanottu syrjivä ja vahvasti yleistävä väite oli siten sanottua ihmisryhmää solvaava ja panetteleva, koska siinä kerrotuin tavoin kuvattiin kokonaiseen kansanryhmään kuuluvat ihmiset rikollisina ja yhteiskunnan loisina ja muihin nähden ala-arvoisina. Lausunto loukkasi näiden ihmisten ihmisarvoa.

Syyttäjä vaati lisäksi sananvapauden käyttämisestä joukkoviestinnässä annetun lain 22 §:n 3 momentin nojalla, että sisällöltään lainvastaiset verkkoviestit määrätään poistettavaksi yleisön saatavilta ja hävitettäväksi.

A kiisti syytteen sekä vaatimuksen verkkoviestien poistamisesta.

Syytteessä kerrotut lauseet oli irrotettu asiayhteydestään. A:lla ei ollut ollut tarkoitus herjata ja häpäistä sitä, mitä uskonnonvapauslaissa tarkoitetut islamilaiset uskonnolliset yhdyskunnat pitävät pyhänä eikä panetella ja solvata somaleista koostuvaa kansallista tai siihen rinnastettavaa ryhmää. A oli kirjoituksissaan arvostellut ajatusta, että lauseen subjektiivinen loukkaavuus voisi johtaa siihen, että sitä tulisi pitää rikosoikeudellisesti loukkaavana. Tosiasioiden sanominen ei voinut olla loukkaavaa, vaikka joku siitä loukkaantuikin. Vaikka Muhammad oli pyhä hahmo, hän ei ollut immuuni kritiikille vaan häntäkin historiallisena henkilönä oli voitava arvostella.

Somaleita koskeva kirjoituksen osa oli parodia sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoituksesta siten, että siinä suomalaiset oli korvattu somaleilla. A:n esittämä väite oli ilmeisen naurettava ja törkeä, mutta sillä oli tarkoitus irvailla Julkisen sanan neuvoston ratkaisulle Kalevan pääkirjoitusta koskevassa kanteluasiassa. Eri kansanryhmiä tuli perustuslain ja lain mukaan käsitellä samalla tavalla.

A:n kirjoituksissa oli kysymys sananvapaudesta ja tasa-arvosta.
Käräjäoikeuden tuomio 8.9.2009


Asiassa oli riidatonta, että A oli 3.6.2008 julkaissut internetissä kotisivuillaan kirjoituksen, niin sanotun blogin, otsikolla ”Muutama täky Illmanin Mikalle”. Kirjoituksessa A oli ensin käsitellyt erästä muun ohessa uskonrauhan rikkomista ja kiihottamista kansanryhmää vastaan koskevaa oikeudenkäyntiä, jossa valtionsyyttäjä Illman oli toiminut syyttäjänä. A, joka oli ollut eri mieltä käräjäoikeuden tuomion ja Illmanin kanssa siitä, oliko jutun vastaaja syyllistynyt uskonrauhan rikkomiseen, oli kirjoittanut tummennettuna syytteen 1 kohdassa kerrotun väitteen yläotsikolla ”Aion seuraavaksi heittää Mikalle syötin:”

Syytekohdassa 1 kerrotun väitteen esitettyään A oli perustellut sitä ja perustelujen jälkeen hän oli toistanut väitteen tummennettuna ja alleviivattuna. Seuraavaksi A oli esittänyt syytekohdassa 2 kerrotun väitteensä väliotsikon ”Seuraava täky kuuluu:” alla. A oli perustellut myös tätä väitettään ja todennut lopuksi väitteen tummennettuna toistaessaan ”niinpä esitän uudelleen arveluni; (jota en käsittele faktana):” Kirjoituksensa lopuksi A oli lausunut ”näissä merkeissä toivotan Mikalle hyvää päivän jatkoa”.

Sovellettavaksi tulevista oikeusohjeista

Perustuslaki ja kansainväliset ihmisoikeussopimukset

Käräjäoikeus viittasi Suomen perustuslain 11 §:ään, jonka mukaan jokaisella on uskonnon ja omantunnon vapaus, sekä 12 §:ään, jonka mukaan jokaisella on sananvapaus. Sananvapauteen sisältyy oikeus ilmaista, julkistaa ja vastaanottaa tietoja, mielipiteitä ja muita viestejä kenenkään ennakolta estämättä. Sananvapaus taataan myös Suomea sitovissa kansainvälisissä ihmisoikeussopimuksissa, Euroopan neuvoston piirissä hyväksytyssä yleissopimuksessa ihmisoikeuksien ja perusvapauksien suojaamiseksi, sen 10 artiklassa, sekä Yhdistyneiden kansakuntien piirissä hyväksytyssä kansalaisoikeuksia ja poliittisia oikeuksia koskevassa kansainvälisessä yleissopimuksessa, sen 19 artiklan 2 kappaleessa.

Perustuslain suojaama sananvapaus ei kuitenkaan ole rajoittamaton, vaan sitä rajoittavat muun ohessa rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n säännös, joka koskee uskonrauhan rikkomista sekä rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:ään sisältyvä säännös kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan.

Uskonrauhan rikkominen

Käräjäoikeus totesi, että uskonrauhan rikkomiseen syyllistyy muun ohessa henkilö, joka julkisesti pilkkaa tai loukkaamistarkoituksessa julkisesti herjaa tai häpäisee sitä, mitä uskonnonvapauslaissa tarkoitettu kirkko tai uskonnollinen yhdyskunta muutoin pitää pyhänä.

Rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n perusteluissa (HE 6/1997) todettiin, ettei uskonnollisen yhteisön asiallinen arvostelu toteuta uskonrauhan rikkomisen tunnusmerkistöä. Sitä ei lain esitöiden mukaan toteuttanut myöskään ivallisessa sävyssä tapahtuva arvostelu, johon sisältyi asiallisia perusteita. Kysymyksessä olevan säännöksen soveltaminen edellytti hallituksen esityksen mukaan, että oli ilmaistu pyhänä pidettävään seikkaan kohdistuva käsitys, joka oli omiaan halventamaan kohteen arvoa toisen ihmisen silmissä. Teko voitiin katsoa tapahtuneen loukkaamistarkoituksessa, kun herjaamisen tai häpäisemisen loukkaavuuden käsittivät myös sellaiset henkilöt, jotka kenties itse eivät pitäneet herjaamisen tai häpäisemisen kohdetta pyhänä, mutta antoivat arvoa toisella tavalla ajattelevien ihmisten vakaumukselle.

Käräjäoikeus viittasi perustuslakivaliokunnan lakivaliokunnalle antamaan lausuntoon (PeVL 23/1997), jossa todettiin, että uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevan rangaistussäännöksen suojelukohteina olivat kansalaisten uskonnolliset vakaumukset ja tunteet sekä uskonrauha yhteiskunnassa. Säännöksen taustalla oli siten sekä yleinen järjestys että toinen perusoikeus, hallitusmuodon 9 §:ssä turvattu yksilön uskonnonvapaus. Näitä rajoitusperusteita perustuslakivaliokunta oli pitänyt tuolloin voimassa olleen hallitusmuodon 10 §:n ja Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan 2 kappaleen mukaisina.

Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan

Käräjäoikeus totesi, että kiihottamiseen kansanryhmää vastaan syyllistyy henkilö, joka yleisön keskuuteen levittää lausuntoja tai muita tiedonantoja, joissa uhataan, panetellaan tai solvataan jotakin kansallista, etnistä, rodullista tai uskonnollista ryhmää taikka niihin rinnastettavaa muuta kansanryhmää.

Kiihottamista kansanryhmää vastaan koskeva säännös oli alunperin otettu lakiin vuonna 1970, koska Yhdistyneiden kansakuntien hyväksymän kaikkinaisen rotusyrjinnän poistamista koskevan kansainvälisen yleissopimuksen ratifiointi edellytti kansallisen lainsäädännön saattamista vastaamaan sopimuksen sisältöä. Yleissopimuksen 4 artiklan a) kohdan mukaan sopimukseen liittyvät valtiot sitoutuivat määräämään lain mukaan rangaistaviksi teoiksi rodulliseen ylemmyyteen tai rotuvihaan perustuvien aatteiden levittämisen, rotusyrjintään yllyttämisen, jokaisen väkivallanteon tai kiihottamisen sellaiseen tekoon jotain rotua tai muuta ihonväriä tai etnistä alkuperää olevaa henkilöryhmää vastaan sekä rotusortotoiminnan avustamisen tavalla tai toisella, mukaan luettuna sen rahoitus.

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisuista

Käräjäoikeus totesi, että sananvapauden ja sen rajoitusten laajuutta tulkittaessa oli otettava huomioon paitsi kansallisten säännösten tarkoitus myös sananvapauden rajoittamisen tulkinta Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytännössä. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin oli lukuisissa ratkaisuissaan arvioinut ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan sananvapauden suojaa tapauksissa, joissa valittajat oli tuomittu jäsenmaassa rangaistukseen lausumista, joiden oli katsottu ylittäneen sananvapauden rajat.

Poliittiset mielipiteet kuuluivat sananvapauden ytimeen ja niillä oli vahvin sananvapauden suoja. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin oli toistuvasti lausunut perusteluissaan lähtökohdan olevan, ettei ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan 2 kohta antanut juurikaan mahdollisuutta rajoittaa sananvapautta poliittisen puheen kohdalta tai yleisesti merkittävissä kysymyksissä. Poliittista puhetta ei ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen mukaan saanut rajoittaa ilman pakottavia syitä. Toisaalta ihmisoikeustuomioistuin oli poliittisia kannanottoja koskevissa ratkaisuissa ja siis sananvapauden ydinalueen kysymyksiä käsitellessään korostanut, että suvaitsevaisuus ja ihmisten välinen tasa-arvo kuuluvat demokratian kulmakiviin. Demokratiassa saattoi ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen perustelujen mukaan tämän vuoksi olla välttämätöntä määrätä seuraamuksia tai ryhtyä ennalta estäviin toimenpiteisiin silloin, kun lausumilla yllytettiin suvaitsemattomuuteen perustuvaan vihaan uskonnollinen suvaitsemattomuus mukaan lukien, taikka luotiin, edistettiin, puolustettiin tai yritettiin perustella sitä. Seuraamusten ja toimenpiteiden oli oltava oikeassa suhteessa hyväksyttäviin tavoitteisiin. Vihapuheet, jotka saattoivat loukata henkilöitä tai henkilöryhmiä, eivät ansainneet 10 artiklan suojaa. Sille, oliko kysymys vihapuheesta, oli ratkaisukäytännössä annettu olennainen merkitys.

Käräjäoikeus totesi, että A oli kunnallispoliitikko. Hän ei ollut esittänyt syytteessä kerrottuja lausumiaan varsinaisessa poliittisessa keskustelussa. Oli kuitenkin käräjäoikeuden mukaan mahdollista, että hän pyrki kirjoittamalla säännöllistä blogia luomaan itsestään kuvaa, joka saattoi edistää myös hänen poliittisia tarkoitusperiään. Vaikka A:n kirjoituksissa liikuttiin ainakin varsin lähellä sananvapauden ydinaluetta, ei sananvapaus tuoltakaan osin ollut sovellettavaksi tulevien normien ja oikeuskäytännön valossa rajoittamaton.

Kohta 1: Uskonrauhan rikkominen

Käräjäoikeus piti riidattomana, että islam oli rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n 1 kohdassa tarkoitettu uskonnollinen yhdyskunta ja että Muhammad oli islamissa säännöksen tarkoittamalla tavalla pyhä. Riidatonta oli niin ikään, että A:n syytekohdassa 1 tarkoitettu väite oli esitetty lain tarkoittamalla tavalla julkisesti.

A oli syytteessä kerrotut väitteet esitettyään pyrkinyt osoittamaan ne itse määrittelemällään tavalla loogisten päättelyketjujen avulla todeksi sekä samassa että myöhemmin blogipalstallaan julkaisemissaan kirjoituksissa. A:n perustelut lähtivät eräistä uskonnollisen teoksen yksityiskohdista ja teoksesta kysymyksessä olevassa uskonnossa esitetystä totuudellisuusarvioinnista.

A:n väitteet oli muotoiltu siten, että ne yleistivät väitteen sisällön koskemaan paitsi islamin pyhiä kohteita Muhammadia ja Allahia, myös koko uskontokuntaa. A:n tarkoituksellisesti toistama pedofilia-termi omasi poikkeuksellisen voimakkaan kielteisen arvolatauksen. Jo A:n valitsema sanamuoto oli näin ollen omiaan halventamaan hänen kirjoituksensa kohteen arvoa toisen ihmisen silmissä.

Käräjäoikeus katsoi yleisesti ottaen olevan selvää, että erilaisten uskonnollisten käsitteiden totuusarvosta ei voitu käydä keskustelua samalla tasolla kuin millä keskusteltiin esimerkiksi luonnontieteisiin liittyvistä kysymyksistä. Jälkimmäiset voitiin todistaa oikeiksi, kun sen sijaan objektiivisesti arvioiden jo minkä tahansa uskonnon olemukseen kuuluu, että sen käsitteisiin liittyvä totuus oli suhteellista. Logiikalla tai niin sanotuilla järkiperusteluilla ei tämän vuoksi ollut todellista merkitystä uskonnollisista kysymyksistä käytävässä keskustelussa. Uskontoon liittyvien pyhäksi määriteltyjen instituutioiden riitauttaminen ja halventaminen johtivat tämän vuoksi helposti enemmän tai vähemmän vakavaan kiistaan osapuolten välillä riippuen siitä, miten voimakas uskonnon asema henkilölle tai uskonnolliselle yhdyskunnalle oli. Nämä seikat filosofian tohtori A oli epäilemättä ymmärtänyt. A:n perustelut väitteilleen olivat siten tosiasiassa näennäiset siitä huolimatta, että ne näyttivät loogisilta. Toisin olisi asia ollut arvioitava esimerkiksi siinä tapauksessa, että A olisi asiallisia ja tavanomaisia sanamuotoja käyttäen kritisoinut esimerkiksi sellaisia konkreettisia tapauksia, joissa nuoret muslimitytöt olisivat joutuneet uskontonsa seurauksena huonosti kohdelluiksi.

A:n kirjoituksen erityispiirre oli, että se oli osoitettu tämän kaltaisiin asioihin erikoistuneelle syyttäjälle. Tuollainen väitetty sananvapauden- tai syytekynnyksen rajojen selvittämistarkoitus ei oikeuttanut menettelyyn, joka rikkoi lakia. Käräjäoikeuden mukaan oli selvää, että luettuaan A:n väitteet ja niiden perustelut myös sellaiset henkilöt, joille Muhammad tai islam eivät olleet pyhiä, ymmärsivät, että kysymys oli herjaamisesta ja häpäisemisestä ja pitivät väitteitä loukkaavina. Näin siitä huolimatta, että lukija oli voinut todeta A:n osoittaneen kirjoituksensa syyttäjälle.

Syytteessä kerrottujen väitteiden ja niiden perustelujen tarkoituksena ei ollut ollut käydä asiallista keskustelua islamin uskon epäkohdista vaan näennäisesti sananvapauden kustannuksella häpäistä kysymyksessä olevan uskonnon pyhiä arvoja. A:n lausuma oli ollut omiaan ruokkimaan uskonnollista suvaitsemattomuutta. Käräjäoikeuden johtopäätös oli, että A oli syytteen kohdassa 1 kerrotut väitteet esittäessään toiminut loukkaamistarkoituksessa ja syyllistynyt siten uskonrauhan rikkomiseen.

Kohta 2: Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan

Käräjäoikeus piti kohdan 2 osalta riidattomana, että syytteessä kerrottu väite oli levitetty yleisön keskuuteen.

A:n väitteen sisältö oli tekstin kokonaisuudesta irrotettuna tyypillinen niin sanottu vihapuhe. Pelkästään kysymyksessä olevan lauseen lukemalla voisi päätellä, että A:n tarkoituksena olisi ollut yleistämällä halventaa ja solvata lukijoille somalialaista alkuperää olevia maahanmuuttajia. Asiaa ainoastaan tällä tavalla tarkasteltaessa olisi tultava siihen tulokseen, että A:n menettely täyttäisi kansanryhmää vastaan kiihottamisen tunnusmerkistön.

Kysymyksessä olevan lausuman perusteluista oli kuitenkin todettavissa, että A:n tosiasiallisena tarkoituksena oli tämän väitteensä osalta ollut arvostella viranomaisten menettelyä siltä osin kuin nämä eivät olleet puuttuneet sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoitukseen, jossa oli arveltu päissään tappamisen olevan suomalaisten kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre.

Syytteessä tarkoitetulla väitteellä A oli selvästi pyrkinyt osoittamaan olevan mahdollista, että maahanmuuttajat saattoivat nauttia parempaa suojaa viranomaisten taholta kuin alkuperäisväestö. A oli väitteensä perusteluissa lisäksi nimenomaisesti ilmoittanut, ettei hänen tarkoituksenaan ollut yleistää väitettään koskemaan kaikkia somaleita, hän oli esittänyt väitteensä perusteeksi tilastotietoja ja korostanut, ettei käsitellyt väitettään faktana. Kirjoituksesta ilmeni, että A:n väite oli toteutettu satiirin keinoin viittaamalla sekä sanomalehden pääkirjoitukseen että siitä kantelun johdosta lausuneen Julkisen sanan neuvoston päätökseen. Väitettä ei ollut esitetty totuutena, eikä kirjoitusta voitu siten myöskään tulkita. Käräjäoikeuden johtopäätös oli, ettei A:n tarkoituksena ollut ollut panetella tai solvata somalialaisia vaan mainittu ihmisryhmä oli valikoitunut hänen viranomaistoimintaan kohdistamansa kritiikin välineeksi lähinnä sattumaan verrattavista syistä.

A:n kirjoituksesta ilmeni, että syytteen kohdissa 1 ja 2 tarkoitetut väitteet oli esitetty erilaisessa tarkoituksessa. Kohdassa 2 esitetyn väitteen osalta A:lta oli puuttunut panettelu- ja solvaustarkoitus. Käräjäoikeus hylkäsi syytteen kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan.


A oli julkaissut uskonrauhan rikkomisena hänen syykseen luetun kirjoituksen internetissä ja siten periaatteessa rajattoman lukijakunnan saataville. Kysymyksessä olevan kaltaisella blogikirjoittelulla oli kuitenkin todellisuudessa varsin rajallinen määrä lukijoita. Laajempaan tietoisuuteen syytteessä kerrotut väitteet olivat tulleet vasta, kun A:n joutuminen syytteeseen oli uutisoitu. Asian todellisuudessa saaman julkisuuden määrää A ei mitä ilmeisemminkään ollut kohdassa 1 käsitellyt väitteet kirjoittaessaan voinut arvata. A:n menettelystä ilmenevä hänen syyllisyytensä edellytti näissä olosuhteissa sakkorangaistuksen tuomitsemista.

Käräjäoikeus luki A:n syyksi kohdassa 1 tarkoitetun uskonrauhan rikkomisen ja tuomitsi hänet siitä 30 päiväsakkoon. Käräjäoikeus määräsi syytteessä tarkoitetusta kirjoituksesta poistettavaksi yleisön saatavilta yksilöimänsä yhdeksän kappaletta. Kohdan 2 syyte kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan hylättiin.

Asian on ratkaissut käräjätuomari Jussi Sippola.
Helsingin hovioikeuden tuomio 29.10.2010

Virallinen syyttäjä ja A valittivat hovioikeuteen.

A kertoi hovioikeudessa, että niin sanotun blogin pitäminen liittyi keskeisesti hänen poliittiseen toimintaansa ja että koko hänen poliittinen tunnettavuutensa edellisiä kuntavaaleja edeltävältä ajalta perustui blogiin. A käsitteli blogissaan muun muassa maahanmuuttoon ja monikulttuurisuuteen liittyviä kysymyksiä samoin kuin kielikysymyksiä ja sananvapausasioita. Syytteessä tarkoitetussa blogikirjoituksessaan A oli ottanut kantaa erääseen Tampereen käräjäoikeuden tuomioon muun muassa uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevassa asiassa ja kritisoinut käräjäoikeuden tulkintaa, jonka mukaan pelkkä henkilön kokema loukkaantuminen voisi tehdä väitteestä juridisessa mielessä lainvastaisen. Tulkinta johtaisi siihen, että esimerkiksi eri ihmisryhmiin ja heidän uskontoihinsa kohdistettavan kritiikin luvallisuus riippuisi siitä, miten herkkiä ihmisryhmät tai heidän edustajansa olivat loukkaantumaan arvostelusta. Lisäksi A oli ottanut kantaa sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoituksessa esitettyyn väitteeseen suomalaisten kansallisista tai geneettisistä erityispiirteistä. A oli pitänyt väitettä loukkaavana, ja hän olisi pitänyt vastaavaa väitettä loukkaavana riippumatta siitä, mihin kansanryhmään se kohdistui. A oli tuonut väitteen loukkaavuuden esiin omassa kirjoituksessaan korvaamalla sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoituksessa mainitut suomalaiset somaleilla, koska somalit nauttivat hänen mukaansa erityissuojelua Suomessa. Kirjoitus oli ollut kritiikkiä viranomaistoimintaa kohtaan. Kirjoituksen tyylilaji oli ollut hänen omaa sarkastista tyyliään.

Uskonrauhan rikkominen

Uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevan syyksilukemisen osalta hovioikeus hyväksyi käräjäoikeuden ratkaisun.

Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan

Tuomitseminen rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:ssä tarkoitetusta kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan edellytti tekijän tahallisuutta. Sanotun säännöksen esitöistä (LaVM 22/1994 vp s. 9 - 10) ilmeni, että säännöksessä mainitut teot oli arvioitu sellaisinaan niin haitallisiksi, että rikosoikeudellista rangaistusuhkaa oli pidetty perusteltuna riippumatta tekijän nimenomaisesta tarkoituksesta. Myöskään oikeuskäytännössä rangaistavuus ei ollut vakiintunut koskemaan vain panettelu- tai solvaustarkoituksessa tehtyjä tekoja. Asiassa oli siten kysymys siitä, oliko A:n täytynyt ymmärtää kohdassa 2 tarkoitetun väitteensä kansanryhmää panetteleva ja solvaava luonne, ja vaikka näin katsottaisiin olevan, mikä merkitys muun muassa perustuslain 12 §:ssä ja Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklassa turvatulle sananvapaudelle oli annettava arvioitaessa hänen rikosoikeudellista vastuutaan.

A ei ollut edes väittänyt, että kohdassa 2 tarkoitettu somaleja koskeva väite ei olisi ollut loukkaava. Päinvastoin hän oli lähtenyt siitä, että mainittu väite samoin kuin sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoituksessa esitetty etnisesti suomalaisia koskeva väite olivat loukkaavia. Jo tähän nähden oli selvää, että A:n oli täytynyt ymmärtää, että kohdassa 2 tarkoitettu väite sellaisenaan oli somaleja panetteleva ja solvaava. Näin ollen A:n teko täytti lähtökohtaisesti kiihottamista kansanryhmää vastaan koskevan rikoksen tunnusmerkistön.

Rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:n tulkinnassa ja soveltamisessa oli kuitenkin otettava huomioon myös sananvapauden suoja, jolloin mainitun rangaistussäännöksen turvaamia perusoikeuksia oli punnittava vastakkain sananvapauden kanssa. Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytännöstä (esim. Feret v. Belgia, tuomio 16.7.2009) ilmeni käräjäoikeuden tuomiossa selostettujen seikkojen ohella, että poliittisessa keskustelussa oli voitava esittää käsityksiä yhteiskunnallisista ongelmista siitä huolimatta, että ne loukkaavat, järkyttävät tai huolestuttavat jotain väestönosaa. Samalla oli kuitenkin vältettävä rasistisen syrjinnän puoltamista.

Hovioikeuden mukaan yleisesti kiinnostavaan keskusteluun osallistuja sai turvautua tiettyyn liioitteluun tai jopa provokaatioon eli jossakin määrin maltittomiin lausumiin (esim. Carlan v. Romania, tuomio 20.4.2010, ja Haguenauer v. Ranska, tuomio 22.4.2010).

Hovioikeus totesi, että A:n blogissaan julkaisemat kirjoitukset olivat esitetyn näytön perusteella olleet olennainen osa hänen poliittista toimintaansa ja niillä oli ollut huomattava vaikutus hänen poliittiseen tunnettavuuteensa. Hovioikeus katsoi kuten käräjäoikeus, että kohdassa 2 tarkoitettu A:n blogissaan 3.6.2008 julkaisema somaleja koskeva väite liittyi jo sanavalinnoista ilmenevin tavoin välittömästi sanomalehti Kalevan 20.5.2008 julkaistuun pääkirjoitukseen ja siinä suomalaisista esitettyyn väitteeseen. A:n väitettä ei ollut perusteltua tarkastella irrallaan asiayhteydestään eli ottamatta huomioon sitä, että hän oli julkaissut väitteensä osana sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoitukseen sekä sitä seuranneisiin Julkisen sanan neuvoston ja syyttäjäviranomaisen ratkaisuihin kohdistunutta arvostelua. Oli selvää, että A olisi voinut valita kirjoitustyylinsä ja ilmaisunsa toisin ja asiallisemmin. A:n ilmeisenä pyrkimyksenä oli kuitenkin ollut osoittaa julkisuudessa suomalaisista esitetyn väitteen loukkaavuus rinnastamalla se suoraan toiseen kansanryhmään kohdistuvaan vastaavaan kärjekkääseen väitteeseen ja tällä tavoin kritisoida viranomaistoimintaa kyseisessä konkreettisessa tapauksessa. Ottaen huomioon edellä sekä käräjäoikeuden tuomiossa sananvapauden suojasta selostetut seikat hovioikeus katsoi, että kirjoituksen tässä osassa oli kokonaisuus huomioon ottaen pysytty sallitun liioittelun ja provokaation rajoissa. Kohdassa 2 tarkoitetun väitteen julkaisemista ei siten ollut tässä tapauksessa pidettävä oikeudenvastaisena ja rangaistavana.

Näillä ja muutoin käräjäoikeuden tuomiosta ilmenevillä perusteilla hovioikeus katsoi, että aihetta käräjäoikeuden tuomion lopputuloksen muuttamiseen kohdan 2 syytteen hylkäämisen osalta ei ollut.


Hovioikeus katsoi, että käräjäoikeuden A:lle tuomitsema sakkorangaistus oli oikeudenmukaisessa suhteessa hänen syykseen luetun rikoksen vahingollisuuteen ja vaarallisuuteen, teon vaikuttimiin sekä hänen muuhun rikoksesta ilmenevään syyllisyyteensä. Perusteita rangaistuksen tuomitsematta jättämiselle ei ollut. Näin ollen aihetta käräjäoikeuden tuomion muuttamiseen rangaistuksen osalta ei ollut.

Verkkoviestiä koskeva poistamisvaatimus

Hovioikeus muutti käräjäoikeuden ratkaisua määräten yleisön saatavilta poistattavaksi ja hävitettäväksi syyttäjän kohdan 1 osalta vaatiman sisällöltään lainvastaisen verkkoviestin siten, että poistamismääräys rajoitettiin kahteen kappaleeseen.

Asian ovat ratkaisseet hovioikeuden jäsenet Juha Paimela (eri mieltä), Leena Järvilahti ja Tatu Leppänen.

Eri mieltä ollut hovioikeudenneuvos Paimela totesi, että käräjäoikeuden tuomiossa selostetut A:n blogissaan yleisön saataville 3.6.2008 saattamat kirjoitukset sekä kohdan 1 että kohdan 2 osalta liittyivät molemmat olennaisena osana hänen poliittiseen toimintaansa ja niillä molemmilla oli ollut huomattava vaikutus hänen tunnettavuuteensa. Kirjoituksia ei kuitenkaan ollut, kuten käräjäoikeus oli todennutkin, esitetty poliittisessa keskustelussa eikä niiden suhdetta sananvapauteen näin ollen ollut arvioitava sinänsä lievemmin.

A oli kirjoituksessaan käräjäoikeuden tuomion 1 kohdassa kerrotuin tavoin kritisoinut muun muassa Tampereen käräjäoikeuden erästä tuomiota uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevassa asiassa, jossa oli kysymys islamista ja profeetta Muhammadista. A oli kritisoinut käräjäoikeuden tulkintaa rikoksen täyttymisestä. Arvostelunsa oikeuttamiseksi A oli halunnut asettaa asianomaiselle valtionsyyttäjälle syytteen 1 kohdassa tarkoitetun ”syötin” kysyäkseen, oliko näin ollen myös seuraava väite muslimien uskonnollisia tuntoja loukkaava ja siten laiton: ”Profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, ja islam on pedofilian pyhittävä uskonto, siis pedofiiliuskonto. Pedofilia on Allahin tahto.”

Kirjoituksessaan A myös itse vastasi väitteeseensä ja piti väitettä varmasti muslimien uskonnollisia tuntoja loukkaavana. Väite pedofiliasta perustui A:n mukaan siihen, että Muhammad ”viisikymppisenä äijänä” kihlasi 6- tai 7- vuotiaan Aishan ja miten heidän liittonsa ”täyttyi” Aishan ollessa 9-vuotias. A esitti ilmoituksensa mukaan ”loogiset ketjut”, joiden perusteella hän päätyi johtopäätökseen, että väitteen oikeellisuus voitiin kiistää vain kiistämällä koraanin totuudellisuus tahi Muhammadin asema Jumalan lähettiläänä, jonka teot ovat Jumalan tahdon mukaisia. A:n mukaan väite koraanin perusteella oli näin ollen tosi.

A oli kiistänyt kirjoituksellaan pyrkineensä koettelemaan ja testaamaan sananvapauden rajoja. A oli kiistänyt väitetyn loukkaamistarkoituksen.

Paimela totesi, että perustuslain 12 §:n ja Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan takaama sananvapaus käsittää myös oikeuden esittää sellaista informaatiota, mielipiteitä ja ajatuksia, jotka loukkaavat, järkyttävät tai häiritsevät muita ihmisiä. Demokraattista yhteiskuntaa ei olisi ilman monikulttuurisuutta, suvaitsevaisuutta ja vapaamielisyyttä. Demokratialle oli olennaista sallia erilaisten mielipiteiden esittäminen ja herättäminen, kunhan ne eivät vahingoittaneet demokratiaa itseään. Näin ollen muun muassa uskonnot kuuluivat arvostelun piiriin, eikä sananvapautta pitänyt sinänsä rajoittaa uskonnon suojelemisen varjolla. Sellainen sananvapauden väärinkäyttö, jolla pyrittiin tekemään tyhjäksi muiden ihmisoikeussopimuksessa turvattujen oikeuksien toteutuminen, voitiin kuitenkin ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10(2) artiklan nojalla säätää rangaistavaksi.

A:n blogikirjoituksista, joita syyttäjä oli nimennyt todisteikseen, voitiin päätellä, että A, joka oli koulutukseltaan filosofian tohtori ja kielitieteilijä, oli taitava kirjoittaja. Kirjoitukset osoittivat niin sanottua kielenhallintaa; nyt kysymyksessä olevan edellä selostetun kirjoituksen kysymyksen asettelu ja alatyylisen tyylilajin valinta olivat selvästi harkittua. Riippumatta siitä, oliko A:n kirjoituksessaan kuvaama perusteluketju looginen vai ei, kirjoituksen sisältö oli käräjäoikeuden toteamin tavoin loukkaava. A oli julkaissut kirjoituksen loukkaamistarkoituksessa. Tässä tapauksessa A:n mainitunlaiseen kirjoitteluun ja siten sananvapauteen puuttuminen oli ollut välttämätöntä demokraattisessa yhteiskunnassa.

Sillä seikalla, että valtionsyyttäjän syyttämiskäytännössä jossain toisessa vastaavanlaisessa asiassa syytekynnyksen ylittymistä oli arvioitu mahdollisesti toisin, ei nyt kysymyksessä olevan asian arvioinnin kannalta ollut merkitystä.

Näillä ja muutoin käräjäoikeuden tuomiossa mainituilla perusteilla Paimela hylkäsi A:n valituksen kohdan 1 osalta ja jätti enemmistön tavoin käräjäoikeuden tuomion lopputuloksen pysyväksi. Muulta eli kohdan 2 osalta Paimela oli samaa mieltä kuin enemmistö.
Muutoksenhaku korkeimmassa oikeudessa

Syyttäjälle ja A:lle myönnettiin valituslupa. Syyttäjä vaati valituksessaan kohdan 2 osalta, että A:n syyksi luetaan kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan. Syyttäjä vaati lisäksi, että A:n kirjoitus poistetaan yleisön saatavilta siltä osin kuin siinä esitetään syytekohdassa 2 mainittu teksti.

A vaati valituksessaan, että uskonrauhan rikkomista koskeva syyte hylätään.

Syyttäjä vastasi A:n valitukseen ja vaati sen hylkäämistä. A ei käyttänyt hänelle varattua tilaisuutta vastata syyttäjän valitukseen.
Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisu

I Kysymyksenasettelu

1. A on internetissä olevalla sivustollaan julkaissut 3.6.2008 kirjoituksen otsikolla ”Muutama täky Illmanin Mikalle”. Kirjoituksessa on esitetty jäljempänä selostetut kaksi lausumaa, joiden johdosta virallinen syyttäjä on vaatinut A:lle rangaistusta rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n nojalla uskonrauhan rikkomisesta ja rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:n nojalla kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan. Syyttäjä on lisäksi vaatinut, että syytteessä tarkoitetut sisällöltään lainvastaiset verkkoviestit määrätään sananvapauden käyttämisestä joukkoviestinnässä annetun lain 22 §:n 3 momentin nojalla poistettaviksi yleisön saatavilta ja hävitettäviksi.

2. Käräjäoikeus on lukenut A:n syyksi uskonrauhan rikkomisen ja tuominnut hänet siitä 30 päiväsakon rangaistukseen. Syyte kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan on käräjäoikeudessa hylätty. Käräjäoikeus on määrännyt kirjoituksen tuomiolauselmassa yksilöidyin tavoin poistettavaksi yleisön saatavilta.

3. Hovioikeus on pysyttänyt käräjäoikeuden tuomion lopputuloksen muutoin, mutta on määrännyt yleisön saatavilta poistettavaksi ja hävitettäväksi vain ne kirjoituksen kappaleet, joihin syyksilukeminen on kohdistunut.

4. Syyttäjän valituksen perusteella Korkeimmassa oikeudessa on kysymys siitä, onko A:n syyksi luettava myös kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan ja määrättävä myös tämän lausuman sisältävät verkkoviestin osat poistettavaksi ja hävitettäväksi. A:n valituksen perusteella kysymys on siitä, onko syyte uskonrauhan rikkomisesta hylättävä. Lisäksi kysymys on rangaistuksen määräämisestä.

II Uskonrauhan rikkominen

II.1. Uskonrauhan rikkomista koskeva rangaistussäännös ja sen tulkinnan lähtökohdat

5. Rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n 1 kohdan mukaan uskonrauhan rikkomisesta tuomitaan se, joka julkisesti pilkkaa Jumalaa tai loukkaamistarkoituksessa julkisesti herjaa tai häpäisee sitä, mitä uskonnonvapauslaissa (267/1922) tarkoitettu kirkko tai uskonnollinen yhdyskunta muutoin pitää pyhänä.

6. Lainkohdan säätämiseen johtaneessa hallituksen esityksessä on todettu, että uskonnollisen yhteisön asiallinen arvostelu ei toteuta uskonrauhan rikkomisen tunnusmerkistöä. Sitä ei toteuta myöskään ivallisessa sävyssä tapahtuva arvostelu, johon sisältyy asiallisia perusteita. Säännöksen soveltaminen edellyttää, että on ilmaistu pyhänä pidettävään seikkaan kohdistuva käsitys, joka on omiaan halventamaan kohteen arvoa toisen ihmisen silmissä. Teon rangaistavuus edellyttää myös, että teko tapahtuu loukkaamistarkoituksessa. Loukkaus voidaan katsoa näin tehdyksi, kun herjaamisen tai häpäisemisen loukkaavuuden käsittävät myös sellaiset henkilöt, jotka kenties itse eivät pidä herjaamisen tai häpäisemisen kohdetta pyhänä, mutta antavat arvoa toisella tavalla ajattelevien ihmisten vakaumukselle (HE 6/1997 vp s. 128).

7. Niin kuin perustuslakivaliokunnan lausunnossa (PeVL 23/1997 vp s. 3) on todettu, rangaistussäännöksen suojelukohteina ovat kansalaisten uskonnolliset vakaumukset ja tunteet sekä uskonrauha yhteiskunnassa. Säännöksen taustalla on siten sekä yleinen järjestys että toinen perusoikeus, yksilön uskonnonvapaus.

8. Uskonnonvapautta turvataan nykyisin perustuslain 11 §:ssä ja Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 9 artiklassa. Rangaistussäännöksen tulkinnassa on lisäksi otettava huomioon perustuslain 12 §:ssä ja ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklassa turvattu sananvapauden suoja. Ihmisoikeussopimuksen 9 artiklan 2 kohdan ja 10 artiklan 2 kohdan mukaan sekä uskonnonvapautta että sananvapautta voidaan lailla rajoittaa, jos se on demokraattisessa yhteiskunnassa välttämätöntä muun muassa yleisen turvallisuuden, yleisen järjestyksen tai muiden henkilöiden oikeuksien turvaamiseksi. Perustuslakivaliokunta on edellä mainitussa lausunnossaan todennut, että uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevan rangaistussäännöksen taustalla olevia, kohdassa 6 mainittuja perusteita sananvapauden rajoittamiselle voitiin pitää tuolloisen hallitusmuodon 10 §:n ja ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan 2 kappaleen mukaisina (PeVL 23/1997 vp s. 3).

9. Uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevan rangaistussäännöksen sisällössä on siten pyritty ottamaan huomioon vastakkain olevat perusoikeudet. Ne on myös säännöstä sovellettaessa sovitettava yhteen ja pyrittävä toteuttamaan rinnakkain. Perusoikeuksien keskinäinen punninta on tapauskohtaista, ja siinä on otettava huomioon muun muassa se, millaisesta, missä asiayhteydessä ja tarkoituksessa tehdystä ja kuinka voimakkaasta uskonnollisia arvoja vastaan kohdistuneesta loukkauksesta sananvapauden käyttämisessä on kysymys sekä muut olosuhteet. Tältä pohjalta on arvioitava, kuinka välttämättömänä sananvapauteen puuttumista on pidettävä.

II.2. A:n kirjoituksen sisältö

10. Kirjoituksessa on tuotu aluksi esille Tampereen käräjäoikeuden muutama päivä aikaisemmin antama tuomio, jolla eräs henkilö oli tuomittu vankeusrangaistukseen muun ohella uskonrauhan rikkomisesta sillä perusteella, että hän oli pilkannut profeetta Muhammadia. Kirjoituksen mukaan valtionsyyttäjä Mika Illmanin ja käräjäoikeuden kanta oli, että profeetta Muhammadin loukkaaminen oli laitonta, koska Muhammad on muslimeille pyhä, minkä seikan kirjoituksessa mainittu professori oli vahvistanut. Kirjoituksessa on edelleen todettu, että ”toisaalta professori osaisi varmasti vahvistaa senkin, että kristinuskossa Jeesus ja Jumala ovat pyhiä hahmoja. Tämä ei tietenkään estä ketään pilkkaamasta Jeesusta ja Jumalaa vapaasti valitsemallaan tavalla”.

11. Tämän jälkeen kirjoituksessa on esitetty: ”Aion seuraavaksi heittää Mikalle syötin: Profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, ja islam on pedofilian pyhittävä uskonto, siis pedofiiliuskonto. Pedofilia on Allahin tahto.” Tässä kappaleessa mainittu virke on merkitty kirjoitukseen vahvennetulla tekstityypillä.

12. Kirjoituksessa on kysytty, ovatko nämä lauseet laittomia, ja todettu niiden varmasti loukkaavan muslimin uskonnollisia tuntoja. Tämän jälkeen kirjoituksessa on ilmoitettu asiaa lähestyttävän loogisten ketjujen avulla ja tuotu esille ”viisikymppisen” Muhammadin ja hänen kihlaamansa 6- tai 7-vuotiaan Aishan aviosuhde sekä sen ”täyttyminen” tytön ollessa 9-vuotias. Edelleen kirjoituksessa on todettu, että vahvennetulla esitetyt väitteet eivät pitäisi paikkaansa vain, jos väitetään, että ”a) Koraani ei ole kirjaimellisesti totta (ts. Muhammad ei yhtynyt 9-vuotiaaseen tyttöön). Tämä ei käy, koska islamilaisen doktriinin ja muslimien näkemyksen mukaan Koraani on kirjaimellisesti otettavaa Jumalan sanaa. Yhtymistä ja Aishan ikää ei siis voitu kiistää loukkaamatta muslimeja. b) Muhammadin toiminta ei ollut kaikilta osin hyväksyttävää. Tämäkään ei käy, koska muslimien (ja Tampereen käräjäoikeuden) näkemyksen mukaan Muhammadin kritisointi on Jumalan kritisointia ja siten pyhäinhäpäisyä. Rangaistus on kuolema. Muslimit uskovat, että Muhammadin teot olivat Jumalan tahdon mukaisia. Koska lapseen yhtyminen oli Muhammadin teko, myös se oli Jumalan tahdon mukainen.”

13. Tämän jälkeen kirjoituksessa on todettu, että kaikki argumentatiiviset väylät vahvennetulla tekstityypillä esitettyjen väitteiden kumoamiseksi oli teologisesti tukittu ja että Muhammadin pedofiiliys ja muslimien sekä Allahin pedofiliamyönteisyys voitiin kiistää vain kiistämällä Koraanin kirjaimellinen totuudellisuus tai Muhammadin asema Jumalan lähettiläänä, jonka teot ovat Jumalan tahdon mukaisia. Lopuksi kirjoituksessa on toistettu vahvennetulla tekstityypillä aiemmin esitetty väite, tällä kertaa myös alleviivattuna.

II.3. Hovioikeuden tuomio ja A:n keskeiset perusteet syytteen kiistämiselle

14. Hovioikeuden hyväksymä syyte uskonrauhan rikkomisesta on perustunut siihen, että A oli edellä kohdassa 11 mainitulla kirjoituksessa korostetulla tekstityypillä kahdesti esittämällään lausumalla loukkaamistarkoituksessa julkisesti herjannut ja häpäissyt sitä, mitä uskonnonvapauslaissa tarkoitetut islamilaiset uskonnolliset yhdyskunnat pitävät pyhänä. Syytteessä on katsottu, että lausuman esittäminen loukkaa Suomessa asuvien muslimien uskonnollisia vakaumuksia ja vaarantaa yhteiskunnassa vallitsevan uskonrauhan.

15. A on esittänyt, että syytteenalaiset lausumat olivat olleet osa hänen sananvapaudesta käymäänsä keskustelua ja syyttäjäviranomaisiin kohdistuvaa arvostelua, jonka tarkoituksena on ollut osoittaa viranomaistoiminnan linjattomuus ja sananvapauden rajojen vaihteleminen eri uskonnoista keskusteltaessa. A:n mukaan väitteet eivät asiayhteydessään ole olleet loukkaavia, eikä hänellä ole ollut väitteet esittäessään lain edellyttämää loukkaamistarkoitusta. Hän on lisäksi todennut, että hänen esittämänsä väitteet ovat islamin omiin lähteisiin nojautuvina tosia.

II.4. Korkeimman oikeuden arviointi

16. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A on kirjoituksensa julkaistessaan toiminut kunnallispoliitikkona. Vaikka A ei ole esittänyt kysymyksessä olevia kirjoituksia varsinaisessa poliittisessa keskustelussa vaan ylläpitämässään blogissa, blogi ja hänen siinä käsittelemänsä aiheet ovat liittyneet hänen poliittiseen toimintaansa ja siinä esiin nostettuihin kysymyksiin. Tämä seikka on otettava huomioon punnittaessa sananvapauden ulottuvuutta ja sen rajoittamisen välttämättömyyttä esillä olevassa tapauksessa.

17. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on useassa yhteydessä todennut, että ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan 2 kohta ei juurikaan antanut mahdollisuutta rajoittaa poliittista puhetta tai keskustelua yleisesti kiinnostavista kysymyksistä ja että poliittisen keskustelun vapautta voitiin rajoittaa vain pakottavin perustein. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on toisaalta korostanut sitä, että poliittisenkaan keskustelun vapaus ei ollut rajoittamaton ja että demokraattinen ja pluralistinen yhteiskunta perustui suvaitsevuuteen ja ihmisten tasa-arvoon. Sen vuoksi oikeasuhtaisia seuraamuksia saattoi olla tarpeen määrätä silloin, kun luotiin muun muassa uskonnolliseen suvaitsemattomuuteen perustuvaa vihaa tai siihen yllytettiin taikka sitä yritettiin perustella (esimerkiksi Müslüm Gündüz v. Turkki, 4.12.2003, kohdat 40 ja 41, Erbakan v. Turkki 6.7.2006 kohdat 55.iv ja 56, Karatepe v. Turkki 31.7.2007 kohta 25 ja Féret v. Belgia 16.7.2009 kohdat 63 ja 64). Kun kaiken suvaitsemattomuuden vastustaminen kuului olennaisena osana ihmisoikeuksien suojeluun, oli erittäin tärkeää, että poliitikot välttivät puheissaan lausumia, jotka saattoivat ruokkia suvaitsemattomuutta (Erbakan v. Turkki kohta 64).

18. Uskonnollisia kysymyksiä koskevan sananvapauden osalta ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytännössä on todettu muun muassa, että uskonnonharjoittajien tuli suvaita ja hyväksyä se, että toiset torjuivat heidän uskonnolliset käsityksensä tai jopa levittivät heidän uskolleen vihamielisiä oppeja. Uskonnollisten mielipiteiden yhteydessä sananvapauden käyttämiseen liittyviin vastuisiin kuitenkin sisältyi velvollisuus mahdollisimman pitkälle välttää aiheettoman hyökkääviä ja siten toisten oikeuksia loukkaavia ilmaisuja, jotka eivät mitenkään edistäneet ihmisoikeuksista käytävää julkista keskustelua. Näin ollen saattoi olla välttämätöntä kieltää tai säätää rangaistaviksi uskonnollisen kunnioituksen kohteisiin kohdistuvat sopimattomat hyökkäykset edellyttäen kuitenkin, että toimenpiteet olivat suhteessa hyväksyttäviin päämääriin. Sananvapauden rajoitusten välttämättömyys tuli perustella vakuuttavasti (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Itävalta 20.9.1994 kohdat 47, 49 ja 50 sekä I.A. v. Turkki 13.9.2005 kohdat 24 - 28).

19. Korkein oikeus kiinnittää lisäksi huomiota siihen, että Euroopan neuvoston yleiskokous on vuonna 2006 antanut päätöslauselman ilmaisunvapaudesta ja uskonnollisten vakaumusten kunnioittamisesta (Resolution 1510(2006) Freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs) sekä vuonna 2007 suosituksen koskien jumalanpilkkaa, uskonnollisia loukkauksia ja vihanlietsontaa henkilöitä vastaan heidän uskonnollisen vakaumuksensa perusteella (Recommendation 1805(2007) Blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion). Päätöslauselma ja suositus kuvastavat pyrkimystä korostaa ilmaisunvapautta uskonnollisten aiheiden kriittisenkin käsittelyn yhteydessä ja ohjata kansallista lainsäädäntöä niin, että rangaistavaksi säädettäisiin lähinnä sellaiset uskonnollisiin aiheisiin liittyvät loukkaavat ilmaisut, jotka ovat rinnastettavissa uskonnollista ryhmää vastaan suunnattuun kiihottamiseen, väkivallan tai vihan lietsontaan taikka jotka vakavasti häiritsevät yleistä järjestystä.

20. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A:n tarkoituksena väitteet esittäessään on saattanut sinänsä osaltaan olla arvostella viranomaisten toimintaa eri uskontoihin liittyvissä sananvapauskysymyksissä. Niin kuin A:kin on todennut, uskonnosta ja sen opista on voitava käydä kriittistä keskustelua. Uskontoja ja niiden oppeja koskeva kärkevä, pisteliäs ja jopa loukkaavaksikin koettavissa oleva arvostelu on siten sananvapauteen kuuluvana oikeutena lähtökohtaisesti sallittua. Näin on asia varsinkin silloin, kun tällaista keskustelua käydään tai arvostelua esitetään yhteiskunnallisesti merkityksellisessä asiayhteydessä, kuten sananvapaudesta tai viranomaistoiminnasta käytävän asiallisen keskustelun yhteydessä. Niin kuin edellä viitatusta ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytännöstäkin ilmenee, sananvapaus ei kuitenkaan ole edes tällöin rajoittamaton.

21. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että kysymyksessä olevat väitteet, joiden mukaan profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, islam pedofilian pyhittävä pedofiiliuskonto ja pedofilia Allahin tahto, ovat sekä sisällöltään että erityisesti ilmaisutavaltaan voimakkaan herjaavia ja häpäiseviä. Tämä ilmaisujen luonne on ilmeinen sellaisellekin, joille niiden kohteet eivät ole pyhiä. Kysymys ei siten ole ollut pelkästään uskonnon ja siihen liittyvien ilmiöiden asiallisesta arvostelusta kärjekkäitä, loukkaavia tai provosoivia ilmaisuja käyttäen, vaan sen laatuisesta herjaavasta hyökkäyksestä islamia ja sen pyhänä pitämiä kohtaan, jonka johdosta muslimit ovat voineet perustellusti tuntea joutuneensa oikeudettoman ja loukkaavan hyökkäyksen kohteeksi (I.A. v. Turkki 13.9.2005 kohta 29). Nykyislamiin ja sen pyhinä pitämiin uskonnollisen kunnioituksen kohteisiin kohdistuvien väitteiden herjaavuutta ei ole ollut omiaan vähentämään se A:n esiin nostama seikka, että kirjoituksessa on pyritty todistelemaan sanottujen väitteiden paikkansapitävyyttä viittaamalla profeetta Muhammadin elämästä koraanissa kerrottuun.

22. Korkein oikeus katsoo, että sanotun kaltaisten herjaavien väitteiden esittämiseen ei ole oikeuttanut A:n väittämä tarkoitus selvittää sananvapauden rajoja tai osoittaa viranomaistoiminnan epäjohdonmukaisuutta. Näihin kysymyksiin liittyvän, voimakkaankin arvostelun esittäminen olisi ollut mahdollista ilman islamin pyhänä pitämien arvojen häpäisemistä. Kyseessä olevan kaltaiset, koko uskontokunnan ja sen pyhät kunnioituksen kohteet voimakkaan kielteisesti leimaavat herjaavat iskulauseet eivät edistä uskonnoista tai yhteiskunnallisista kysymyksistä käytävää keskustelua, vaan ne ovat päinvastoin omiaan herättämään ja vahvistamaan uskonnollista suvaitsemattomuutta ja ennakkoluuloja. Näistä syistä sekä yleisen järjestyksen ja yhteiskuntarauhan säilyttämistavoitteen kannalta on perusteltua, että tällaisten väitteiden esittäjän sananvapauden suojaan puututaan rikosoikeudellisin seuraamuksin.

23. Kysymyksessä olevien lausumien sisältö ja esitystapa huomioon ottaen A on epäilyksittä käsittänyt niiden herjaavan ja häpäisevän luonteen. Myös A:n väittämä pyrkimys koetella sananvapauden rajoja ”heittämällä” syyttäjälle ”syötti” osaltaan osoittaa sen, että hän on mieltänyt esittämiensä väitteiden loukkaavan muslimien uskonnollisia tunteita tunnusmerkistön täyttävällä tavalla. Tietoiseen loukkaamistarkoitukseen viittaa sekin, että ilmaisut on esitetty kirjoituksessa kahdesti muusta tekstistä selvästi erottuvalla tekstityypillä. A on siten ne esittäessään toiminut rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:ssä tarkoitetussa loukkaamistarkoituksessa.

24. Korkein oikeus päätyy edellä mainituilla perusteilla siihen, ettei hovioikeuden tuomion lopputuloksen muuttamiseen ole uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevan syyksilukemisen osalta aihetta.

III Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan

III.1. Kansanryhmää vastaan kiihottamista koskeva rangaistussäännös ja sen tulkinnan lähtökohdat

25. Tekoaikana 3.6.2008 voimassa olleen rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:n (212/2008) mukaan kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan tuomitaan se, joka yleisön keskuuteen levittää lausuntoja tai muita tiedonantoja, joissa uhataan, panetellaan tai solvataan jotakin kansallista, etnistä, rodullista tai uskonnollista ryhmää taikka niihin rinnastettavaa muuta kansanryhmää. Säännös perustuu vuonna 1965 tehtyyn kaikkinaisen rotusyrjinnän poistamista koskevaan yleissopimukseen sekä vuonna 1966 hyväksyttyyn kansalaisoikeuksia ja poliittisia oikeuksia koskevaan kansainväliseen yleissopimukseen, jotka ovat tulleet Suomessa voimaan 1970-luvulla (HE 19/1970 vp s. 1 ja HE 94/1993 vp s. 32). Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on hyväksynyt, että syrjinnän poistamista koskeva yleissopimus otetaan huomioon tulkittaessa ihmisoikeussopimuksen sananvapautta koskevaa 10 artiklaa (ks. Jersild v. Tanska, 23.9.1994, kohta 30).

26. Mainittua rangaistussäännöstä on sovellettava tässä asiassa, koska 1.6.2011 voimaan tulleen rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:n (511/2011) soveltaminen ei johda lievempään lopputulokseen. Sanotulla lainmuutoksella, jolla Suomen lainsäädäntö on saatettu vastaamaan Euroopan Unionin neuvoston rasismin ja muukalaisvihan tiettyjen muotojen ja ilmaisujen torjumiseksi rikosoikeudellisin keinoin annettua puitepäätöstä (2008/913/YOS) sekä Euroopan neuvoston jäsenmaiden 28.1.2003 tekemää Euroopan neuvoston tietoverkkorikollisuutta koskevan yleissopimuksen lisäpöytäkirjaa (ETS 189), on pyritty täsmentämään tässä asiassa sovellettavaksi tulevaa säännöstä.

27. Niin kuin myös voimassa olevaa säännöstä koskevissa esitöissä (HE 317/2010 vp s. 42) on todettu, tämänkin rangaistussäännöksen soveltamisessa ja rangaistavuuden rajaamisessa on tärkeää ottaa huomioon säännöksen suhde perustuslain ja Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen suojaamaan sananvapauteen. Viestintään ei saa puuttua enempää kuin on välttämätöntä ottaen huomioon sananvapauden merkitys kansanvaltaisessa oikeusvaltiossa. Niinpä esimerkiksi maahanmuutto- ja ulkomaalaispolitiikan tai siitä vastuussa olevien ankarakaan arvostelu ei sellaisenaan täytä rikoksen tunnusmerkistöä. Rangaistavaa kuitenkin on kansanryhmien uhkaaminen, solvaaminen tai panettelu.

III.2. A:n kirjoituksen sisältö

28. Kohdassa 1 mainitussa A:n blogikirjoituksessa on tältä osin todettu seuraavaa. ”Seuraava täky kuuluu: Ohikulkijoiden ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre.” Virke on esitetty vahvennetulla tekstityypillä ja alleviivattuna.

29. Kirjoituksessa on kysytty, onko edellä mainittu väite sopimaton, ja sen jälkeen todettu, että Julkisen Sanan Neuvostolle oli tehty kantelu Kaleva-lehden pääkirjoituksesta, jossa ”päissään tappamisen arveltiin olevan suomalaisten kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre”. Kirjoituksessa on todettu, että neuvosto ei ollut ottanut kantelua käsiteltäväkseen, ja siteerattu neuvoston sihteerin seuraava lausuma: ”Kirjoittaja viitannee selvityksiin, joissa humalajuominen on havaittu suomalaisen alkoholikulttuurin erityispiirteeksi. Myös humalan ja väkivallan välillä on todettu yhteyksiä. Ongelman geneettistä taustaa kirjoittaja ei käsittele faktana vaan esittää siitä oman arvelunsa.”

30. Kirjoituksessa on tämän jälkeen esitetty, että koska kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan on virallisen syytteen alainen rikos ja koska valtionsyyttäjä Illman ei ollut viran puolesta puuttunut Kalevan juttuun, voitaneen tehdä johtopäätös, että negatiivisia, kansallis-geneettisiä stereotypioita saa julkaista, kunhan niitä ei käsitellä faktana.

31. Kirjoituksessa on edelleen lausuttu, että kaikki somalit eivät tietenkään ryöstä tai loisi verovaroilla, mutta eivät toisaalta kaikki suomalaisetkaan tapa päissään. Tämän jälkeen kirjoituksessa on esitetty tilastotietoja somalien ryöstörikoksista ja työssä käymisestä sekä todettu, että ryöstely ja loisiminen ovat somalien lukumäärään suhteutettuina paljon tavallisempia ilmiöitä kuin humalassa tappaminen suomalaisten keskuudessa. Kirjoitus päättyy seuraavaan toteamukseen. ”Niinpä esitän uudelleen arvioni (jota en käsittele faktana): Ohikulkijoiden ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre.” Viimeksi mainittu virke on esitetty vahvennetulla tekstityypillä.

III.3. Syyte, A:n keskeiset perusteet syytteen kiistämiselle ja hovioikeuden tuomio

32. Syyte on tältä osin perustunut siihen, että A oli levittänyt yleisön keskuuteen lausunnon ja tiedonannon, joissa panetellaan ja solvataan somaleista koostuvaa kansallista tai siihen rinnastettavaa ryhmää esittämällä, että ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre. Syytteen mukaan lausuma sisältää asiallisesti väitteen, että kysymyksessä olevaan ryhmään kuuluvilla ihmisillä on ominaispiirre, joka ennalta määrätysti johtaa heidän kohdallaan yleiseen rikollisuuteen ja verovaroilla loisimiseen. Sanottu syrjivä ja vahvasti yleistävä väite on siten sanottua ihmisryhmää solvaava ja panetteleva, koska siinä kerrotuin tavoin kuvattiin kokonaiseen ihmisryhmään kuuluvat ihmiset rikollisina ja yhteiskunnan loisina ja muihin nähden ala-arvoisina. Syytteen mukaan lausunto loukkaa näiden ihmisten ihmisarvoa. Syyttäjä on katsonut väitteen niin sanotuksi vihapuheeksi, joka ei nauti sananvapauden suojaa.

33. A on katsonut, ettei teko ole ollut oikeudenvastainen ja rangaistava sen vuoksi, että väitteen esittämisessä on sen asiayhteys huomioon ottaen ollut kysymys Julkisen Sanan Neuvoston ja valtionsyyttäjän toiminnan sarkastisesta arvostelusta. Väitettä ei ollut esitetty kirjoituksessa tosiasiana, vaan tarkoituksena oli osoittaa, että eri etniset ryhmät nauttivat eriasteista suojaa ja olivat eriarvoisia lain edessä sen suhteen, miten näihin ryhmiin kohdistettuihin solvaaviin ja panetteleviin ilmauksiin suhtaudutaan ja reagoidaan muun muassa viranomaistoiminnassa.

34. Hovioikeus on hylännyt syytteen. Hovioikeus on katsonut, että A:n väite, joka oli sellaisenaan ollut somaleja panetteleva ja loukkaava, oli liittynyt välittömästi sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoitukseen sekä Julkisen Sanan Neuvoston ja syyttäjäviranomaisen ratkaisuihin kohdistuneeseen arvosteluun. Hovioikeuden mukaan A:n ilmeisenä pyrkimyksenä oli ollut osoittaa julkisuudessa suomalaisista esitetyn väitteen loukkaavuus rinnastamalla se suoraan toiseen kansanryhmään kohdistuvaan vastaavaan kärjekkääseen väitteeseen ja tällä tavoin kritisoida viranomaistoimintaa. Hovioikeus on katsonut, että kirjoituksessa oli tältä osin pysytty sallitun liioittelun ja provokaation rajoissa.

III.4. Korkeimman oikeuden arviointi

35. Arvioinnin lähtökohtien osalta Korkein oikeus viittaa siihen, mitä edellä kohdissa 16 ja 17 on todettu A:n kirjoituksen liittymisestä hänen poliittiseen toimintaansa ja ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen tulkinnoista sananvapauden rajoittamisesta tämän kaltaisissa yhteyksissä. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen käytännön perusteella voidaan päätellä, että rikosoikeudelliseen seuraamukseen tuomitseminen on tullut kysymykseen sananvapauden suojasta huolimatta lähinnä silloin, kun voidaan katsoa ihmis- ja perusoikeuksia loukatun vihaan tai väkivaltaan yllyttämisen muodossa. Vihapuheiden, jotka saattoivat loukata henkilöitä tai henkilöryhmiä, ei ole katsottu ansaitsevan sananvapauden suojaa (esimerkiksi Karatepe v. Turkki, 31.7.2007, kohta 25, Erbakan v. Turkki, 6.7.2006, kohdat 56 ja 57 ja Müslüm Gündüz v. Turkki, 4.12.2003, kohdat 40 ja 41).

36. Sananvapauden rajoja maahanmuuttoon liittyvässä poliittisessa kirjoittelussa koskee ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisu asiassa Feret v. Belgia, 16.7.2009. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on katsonut, että kansallismielisen puolueen puheenjohtajan ja parlamentin jäsenen tuomitseminen kiihottamisrikoksesta vankeusrangaistukseen ja menettämään vaalikelpoisuutensa hänen maahanmuuttajiin kohdistamansa poliittisen arvostelun johdosta ei ollut rikkonut sananvapautta koskevaa ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklaa. Poliitikko oli kirjoituksillaan pitänyt maahan muuttaneita ulkomaalaisia rikollisina, jotka tulivat maahan käyttääkseen hyväkseen maahan asettumisestaan johtuneita etuuksia. Ratkaisun mukaan tällaiset puheet olivat omiaan herättämään yleisössä, varsinkin asioihin vähemmin perehtyneissä henkilöissä, halveksuntaa ja eräissä jopa vihaa ulkomaalaisia kohtaan. Rasistista syrjintää ja ulkomaalaisvihaa tuli vastustaa niiden kaikissa muodoissaan niin pitkälle kuin mahdollista ja silloinkin, kun puheella ei kehotettu ryhtymään mihinkään tiettyyn väkivaltaiseen tai muutoin rikolliseen tekoon. Ratkaisussa katsottiin, että valittajan asema parlamentaarikkona ei vähentänyt hänen vastuutaan ja että oli olennaisen tärkeää, että poliitikot välttivät julkisissa puheissaan ilmaisuja, jotka olivat omiaan herättämään ja ylläpitämään suvaitsemattomuutta. Käytetyt stereotyyppiset iskulauseet tai ilmaisut olivat omiaan saattamaan keskustelun järkevän väittelyn ulkopuolelle, mikä lisäsi rasististen puheiden haitallisia vaikutuksia.

37. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A:n kirjoituksessa esitetyssä väitteessä, jonka mukaan ohikulkijoiden ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre, somalit kuvataan kansanryhmänä rikollisiksi ja yhteiskuntamoraaliltaan muihin nähden ala-arvoisiksi. Väite on siten somaleja kansanryhmänä panetteleva ja solvaava. Voimassa olevan rangaistussäännöksen perusteluissa (HE 317/2010 vp s. 42) tämän sisältöisten lausumien levittämistä on pidetty esimerkkinä rangaistavasta menettelystä.

38. A:n esittämien kiistämisperusteiden johdosta Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A:n tarkoituksena on saattanut sinänsä osaltaan olla esittää väittämäänsä kritiikkiä tiedotusvälineitä ja viranomaistoimintaa kohtaan. Korkein oikeus katsoo, että tällainen tarkoitus ei kuitenkaan ole oikeuttanut panettelemaan ja solvaamaan somaleita kansanryhmänä. Arvostelun esittäminen - sarkastisessakaan tyylilajissa - ei ole edellyttänyt somaleiden leimaamista rikollisiksi ja loisiksi. Sarkastiseksi kirjoituksessa on lähinnä ymmärrettävissä väitteeseen liitetty maininta siitä, että sitä ”ei käsitelty faktana”. Ainakin osa blogin lukijoita on myös voinut ymmärtää väitteen tosiasiassa tarkoitetun vakavasti otettavaksi varsinkin, kun väite on kirjoituksessa toistettu sen jälkeen, kun sen paikkansa pitävyyttä on pyritty tukemaan tilastotiedoin. A joka tapauksessa on epäilyksittä ymmärtänyt väitteensä panettelevan ja solvaavan luonteen, mitä osoittaa sekin, että tämäkin väite on kirjoituksen mukaan ollut ”täky” syyttäjälle. Teon tahallisuuden kannalta merkitystä ei ole sillä, onko A itse pitänyt väitettään totena.

39. Korkein oikeus katsoo, että kysymyksessä olevan kaltaiset panettelevat ja herjaavat lausumat ovat omiaan herättämään suvaitsemattomuutta, halveksuntaa ja mahdollisesti jopa vihaa niiden kohteena olevaa kansanryhmää kohtaan. Ne ovat siten ymmärrettävissä niin sanotun vihapuheen kaltaisiksi lausumiksi, jotka eivät nauti sananvapauden suojaa. Tällaisten lausumien esittäjään on perusteltua kohdistaa rikosoikeudellisia seuraamuksia.

40. Edellä mainituilla perusteilla Korkein oikeus katsoo A:n syyllistyneen siihen kiihottamiseen kansanryhmää vastaan, mistä hänelle on vaadittu rangaistusta.

Rangaistuksen määrääminen

41. A on syyllistynyt jo hovioikeuden hänen syykseen lukeman rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:ssä tarkoitetun uskonrauhan rikkomisen lisäksi rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:ssä tarkoitettuun kiihottamiseen kansanryhmää vastaan. Koska uskonrauhan rikkomisesta tuomittava rangaistus on sakkoa tai vankeutta enintään kuusi kuukautta ja kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan tuomittava rangaistus on sakkoa tai enintään kaksi vuotta vankeutta, yhteisen rangaistuksen mittaamisen lähtökohdaksi on rikoslain 7 luvun 5 §:n 2 momentin mukaan otettava viimeksi mainitusta rikoksesta tuomittava rangaistus. Syyttäjä on vaatinut, että A tuomitaan hänen syykseen luetuista rikoksista yhteiseen ehdolliseen vankeusrangaistukseen.

42. Rikoslain 6 luvun 3 §:n mukaan rangaistusta määrättäessä on otettava huomioon kaikki lain mukaan rangaistuksen määrään ja lajiin vaikuttavat perusteet sekä rangaistuskäytännön yhtenäisyys. Sanotun luvun 4 §:n mukaan rangaistus on mitattava niin, että se on oikeudenmukaisessa suhteessa rikoksen vahingollisuuteen ja vaarallisuuteen, teon vaikuttimiin sekä rikoksesta ilmenevään muuhun tekijän syyllisyyteen.

43. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A:n syyksi luettava kiihottamisrikos on tiettyyn kansanryhmään kuuluvien ihmisten ihmisarvoa loukkaavana luonteeltaan verraten vakava. Syyksi lukemisen perusteena oleva kirjoitus ei kuitenkaan ole sisältänyt kiihottamista väkivaltaan tai siihen rinnastettavaa uhkauksenomaista vihan lietsomista. Myös Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on ratkaisukäytännössään tuomitun rangaistusseuraamuksen oikeasuhtaisuutta arvioidessaan kiinnittänyt huomiota käytettyjen ilmaisujen laatuun ja luonteeseen (ks. esimerkiksi Kutlular v. Turkki, 29.4.2008, kohdat 49 - 52).

44. Korkein oikeus katsoo, että oikeansuhtaisena seuraamuksena A:n teoista on pidettävä sakkorangaistusta. A tuomitaan yhteiseen 50 päiväsakkoa vastaavaan sakkorangaistukseen. Päiväsakon rahamäärä on vahvistettu viimeksi toimitetun verotuksen mukaisten tietojen perusteella.

Verkkoviestin hävittämismääräys

45. Myös ne lausumat, joiden on edellä todettu täyttävän kiihottamisrikoksen tunnusmerkistön, on määrättävä sananvapauden käyttämisestä joukkoviestinnässä annetun lain 22 §:n 3 momentin nojalla poistettavaksi yleisön saatavilta ja hävitettäväksi.

Hovioikeuden tuomiota muutetaan. A:n syyksi luetaan kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan (tekoaika 3.6.2008). Tästä ja hänen syykseen luetusta uskonrauhan rikkomisesta A tuomitaan yhteiseen 50 päiväsakon sakkorangaistukseen.

A:n 3.6.2008 internetissä osoitteessa julkaisemasta kirjoituksesta ”Muutama täky Illmanin Mikalle” määrätään poistettavaksi yleisön saatavilta ja hävitettäväksi sen 19. ja 25., sanalla ”Ohikulkijoiden” alkava kappale.

Muilta osin hovioikeuden tuomio jää pysyväksi.

Asian ovat ratkaisseet oikeusneuvokset Kari Raulos, Pasi Aarnio, Hannu Rajalahti, Soile Poutiainen ja Jukka Sippo. Esittelijä Jukka-Pekka Salonen.

Muslim taqiyya and kitman lying against non-muslims (infidels)

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman.  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..."  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"  The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit.  If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'"  The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."  Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."

Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence.  The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad.  This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) -  "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.  When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

Additional Notes:

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them.  The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission.  An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover.  The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace.  This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war).  Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace.  Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe.  The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this.  When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise.  However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance.  (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions.  Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims.  From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic.  Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad.  This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met."  Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization."  In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas.  At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty.  In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest.  When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well).  Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.