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?

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

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

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

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 the 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!

Myth vs Truth

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Monday, September 07, 2015

The muslim Koran hoax in Birmingham - again! Slowly and in simple science English.!

Deliberately mixing belief with science produces non-science and non-"scholars"!

Koran means 'recitation', i.e. repeating something. That something was Judeo/Christian (compare "Jews believing in Jesus") Syriac-Arabic texts spiced with Arianism, and used for keeping Arab bandit gangs together, and much later collected as a book and spiced with the hitherto unknown islamic Muhammad.

 When Klevius wrote that 'the biased and unscientific way the so called "Birmingham Koran" was handled and presented is deliberate forgery of facts', some people didn't seem to get it. So here's some more in simple science English:

1 The "islamic paradigm" (i.e. what muslims believe) is a non-historical system of myths completely segregated from scientific scrutiny. It's like "studying" ghosts, and when the ghost doesn't appear/make sense it's explained as tbhe "will of Allah".

In other words, the oxymoron "muslim scholar" is a pure charlatan in a scientific context. And if you insist in using "Allah" as your a priori axiomatic launch pad - it differs radically from e.g. Euclid's' axioms. Whereas "Allah" is a muddled and inscrutable abode for human wishes and fears built on sand, Euclid is clear and open and functioning as a bedrock for logical conscusions drawn from his axioms/postulates - incl. Popper's falsification test.

And unlike other myths and legends, the muslim navel string was never cut off, leaving the rotting placenta contaminating the future via a mummificated canal from the dark ages to date.

2  The historical reality was Jewish/Christian texts (Jesus was a Jew) used in a Syriac-Arabic linguistic environment where Arabic took its first stumbling steps in the written world that the non-Semitic Sumerians had entered some 4,000 years earlier.

3 There was no historical Muhammad. Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Muhammad (allegedly dead 632 but see Pourshariati who beyond doubt shows the historical impossibility of such a death date) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever. The simple truth is that a mythological Judeo-Christian Messiah figure was applied to or used by one or several leaders, and later, under  Malik, turned into a "muslim Messiah".

Islam is rooted in an eastern Jewish-Christian schism. Jews and Jews believing in (a monophysitism inspired Christianity) MHMD (anointed/Messiah) didn't only offer the wealthy background against which barbaric (according to islam's foremost historian Ibn Khaldun) Bedouin Arabs were enslaved and/or submitted/enrolled, but also constituted the missing fifth columnist historical link to the "unexplained" success of early islamic terror "conquest".

 4 The only logical/historical explanation to islam's expansion out of the Arabian desert is parasitism. Ironically, that's also the explanation the Koran gives - albeit strongly denied by PC people.

Conclusion: There was no Muhammad nor a Koran at the alleged time of the so called Birmingham Koran. So the only way to desperately try to make sense of what doesn't make sense, is to rely on unhistorical muslim mythology.

So, first you had a severe pillage inflammation in the narrow slave tracts through the desert. And the longer they got the bigger the gang which needed even more booty and women. Some three quarter of a century after the initial attacks (the slaughtering of the Jews in Medina etc.) the first Koran was edited together. More than hundred years after the alleged death of Muhammad the first sharia emerged.

So all of this has certainly nothing to do with that Koran "science" nonsense in Birmingham, which babbles about a non existing Koran written down at a time of a non-existing "prophet"!

Christoph Luxenberg's reading of the Koran

According to Christoph Luxenberg, the Koran was not written in Arabic but in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language, the traders' language of Mecca and it was based on Christian liturgical texts. When the final text of the Koran was codified, those working on it did not understand the original sense and meaning of this hybrid trading language any more, and they forcefully and randomly turned it into classical Arabic. This gave rise to a lot of misinterpretations. Something like this can only have happened if there was a gap in the oral transmission of the Koranic text.

Luxenberg remarks that the Koran contains much ambiguous and even inexplicable language. He asserts that even muslim scholars find some passages difficult to parse and have written reams of Quranic commentary attempting to explain these passages. However, the assumption behind their endeavours has always been, according to him, that any difficult passage is true, meaningful, and pure Arabic, and that it can be deciphered with the tools of traditional muslim scholarship. Luxenberg accuses Western academic scholars of the Koran of taking a timid and imitative approach, relying too heavily on the biased work of muslim scholars.

According to Luxenberg, the Koran was not originally written exclusively in Arabic but in a mixture with Syriac, the dominant spoken and written language in the Arabian peninsula through the 8th century.

“What is meant by Syro-Aramaic (actually Syriac) is the branch of Aramaic in the Near East originally spoken in Edessa and the surrounding area in Northwest Mesopotamia and predominant as a written language from Christianization to the origin of the Koran. For more than a millennium Aramaic was the lingua franca in the entire Middle Eastern region before being gradually displaced by Arabic beginning in the 7th century.”

Luxenberg argues that scholars must start afresh, ignore the old islamic commentaries, and use only the latest in linguistic and historical methods. Hence, if a particular Koranic word or phrase seems meaningless in Arabic, or can be given meaning only by tortured conjectures, it makes sense – he argues – to look to the Aramaic and Syriac languages as well as Arabic.

Luxenberg also argues that the Koran is based on earlier texts, namely Syriac lectionaries used in the Syriac Christian churches of Syria, and that it was the work of several generations who adapted these texts into the Koran we know today.

Klevius advise: You might be better off without your belief in ghosts. However, you will certainly be better off with a conscience resting on Universal Human Rights freedom (for you and others) than with limiting and imposing sharia that is also uncontrollable because different users can interpret it differently due to its   that violates Human Rights of others and opens up for parasitism, racism and sexism.

Measured by basic Human Rights standard islam is extremely uncivilized. And this is the only logical in islam. Born out of evil always evil. And when you disinfect islam from its evil it's no longer islam.

 Klevius wrote:

Friday, July 24, 2015

The laughable Birmingham Koran forgery* doesn't qualify on Klevius science blog. Maybe Klevius should start a joke blog...

* The biased and unscientific way it's handled and presented is deliberate forgery of facts.

Some readers have urged Klevius to write about the "Birmingham Koran" scandal. However, as it has absolutely nothing to do with science Klevius politely refers you to Origin of islam - the worst racist sexist hate crime ever against humanity.

Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The laughable oxymoron "islamic science", how could anyone possibly take it seriously?!

The  oxymoron "islamic science" is utter defamation of science, and is rooted in ignorance about the origin of islam! 

Klevius science tutorial for Seyyid Hossein Nasr and others

Seyyid Hossein Nasr (“professor” of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University) at MIT Islamic Students Association (sponsored by the Pakistan Study Group, the MIT Muslim Students Association and “other groups”): “Science has its own world-view. No science is created in a vacuum. Science arose under particular circumstances in the West with certain philosophical presumptions about the nature of reality. As soon as you say, m, f, v, and a, that is, the simple parameters of classical physics, you have chosen to look at reality from a certain point of view. There is no mass, there is no force out there like that chair or table. These are particularly abstract concepts which grew in the seventeenth century on the basis of a particular concept of space, matter and motion which Newton developed. The historians and philosophers of science in the last twenty [or] thirty years have shown beyond the scepter of doubt that modern science has its own world view. It is not at all value free; nor is it a purely objective science of reality irrespective of the subject you study. It is based upon the imposition of certain categories upon the study of nature, with a remarkable success in the study of certain things, and also a remarkable lack of success [in others], depending on what you are looking at.”

Klevius: Listen to this utter crap! “Science has its own world-view. No science is created in a vacuum”. Two cardinal flaws in just twelve words! Does this muslim fella also believe that "the Western interpretation" 2+2=4 has a corresponding Sharia compliant islamic version?! The choice to look at reality from a certain point of view isn't science, just like what you choose to do with your power tool isn't the power tool!

OK, science doesn’t have its own world-view, that’s for sure. If it had it wouldn't be science anymore. This is the very definition of science. Just as Negative Human Rights don’t have a world-view either, simply because they are supposed to protect you from “world-views”.

Science is pure logic* and shouldn’t be confused with the scientific process, i.e. including its non-scientific parts, such as choice of topic, background/pre-understanding etc., and the interpretation of results from the scientific part of the scientific process. Nor should flaws in the scientific process (such as e.g. errors, deliberate or accidental) be blamed on scientific logic. And yes, logic could be described as “a vacuum” just like Negative Human Rights is the eliminating of impositions. Logic that is dependent on a worldview is per definition not logic at all, and Human Rights that are dependent on an ideology/world-view (e.g. Sharia) aren’t (negative, i.e. the basic freedom rights) Human Rights at all.

As Klevius use to put it: Our most holy duty is to NOT fill the freedom Human Rights with anything! You shouldn’t have the positive Sharia “right” to, for example, be raped by your husband; instead you should have the negative right to choose not to have sex. Even a child understands that this latter right doesn't deny you from having sex, only protects you from imposed compulsion. The difference is, as you can see, is mind blowing if you have been raised within an islamic "world-view".

And this is the reason why the islamofascist muslim world organization/Umma, Saudi initiated and based islamofascist OIC with its fanatic Turkish Fuhrer/caliph Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu 1) has abandoned Human Rights and REPLACED THEM WITH SHARIA, and 2) criminalized scrutiny/criticism of islam (the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever against humanity) and calls any critical scrutiny "islamophobia" or "defamation of religion".

* as Klevius has explained in Demand for Resources (1992) pure logic is the pointing out of conceptualized deterministic chains (e.g. 2+2=4) in a universe that is deterministic yet chaotic in the sense that our existence-centrism excludes us from "a total, god-like overview" (see Origin of Universe").

Here's what Klevius wrote about "islamic science" a couple of years ago

Everyone who understands islam (e.g. by reading Klevius, or by digging history records with open eyes) knows there's no such thing as "islamic science". This is because of islam's inborn parasitic nature (the open historical "secret" of islam's original fuel: booty, sex and slavery) and due cultural and technological impotency. So when someone talks about "islamic civilization" you definitely know s/he lies! Sadly, most people don't check these lies and haven't all read Klevius as yet.

One example is the Medieval Indian/Persian Al Beruni whom the notorious islamic mass murderer and enslaver (one of the worst known to history - also called the plunderer of India), Mahmud of Ghazna, imprisoned and let stay alive as long as he submitted to islamic Mohammedanism.

But BBC, Wikipedia etc. happily present this islamic hostage as a "muslim scientist" (sic)!

The bloodthirsty Mohammed is the evil and only pope of islam - and needs to be pierced by Enlightenment so his ignorant followers may be released and his deliberate followers may be ashamed. However, a strategy based on naming evil good seems less appropriate for this task, doesn't it.

It's truly sad that the descendants of islam's victims through 1400 years continue defending their bully!?


No comments: