Hello Eric Schmidt! Is Google's censor policy steered by anti Human Rights muslims? Will Dante, Churchill, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Klevius and others now be banned so Google can continue protecting the worst ideological crime history knows about?!

Hello Eric Schmidt! Is Google's censor policy steered by anti Human Rights muslims? Will Dante, Churchill, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Klevius and others now be banned so Google can continue protecting the worst ideological crime history knows about?!

Someone at Google is deleting Klevius' Human Rights defending blogs! Is Eric Schmidt aware of it?!

John Peters Humphrey is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he's defamed by Humanrightsphobics - yet all the Billions of Atheist followers take it calmly

John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights). Here's part of his profound and sacred original revelations:

"Subject to the laws governing slander and libel there shall be full freedom of speech and of expression by any means whatsoever, and there shall be reasonable access to all channels of communication. Censorship shall not be permitted"

Klevius comment: By 'libel' and 'slander' John Peters Humphrey of course meant something directed to an existing individual, not a totalitarian ideology!

Human Rights and islam are irreconcilable: Klevius knows it, OIC knows it - how come that Google doesn't know it?

Mohammed suffering in the worst part of Dante's Hell. Dante was the starting point for the Renaissance and the Italian language and, until now considered a milestone in European and world thinking. However, today islam supporters call him 'a product of medieval thinking', although the only (and worst) of medieval thinking today is islam.

The Saudis already banned Human Rights as terrorism - is Google now nicely following its islamofascist Saudi masters?

Nowhere on the web (or anywhere else for that matter) can you find Klevius uttering anything even close to racism or sexism or so called "hate speech" - precisely the contrary - namely a defense for everyone's (incl. muslims) Human Rights against Sharia and other forms of fascisms! Unless, of course, Google complies with Saudi islamofascists according to whom Human Rights is equalized with terrorism and therefore banned by the 'guardians of islam'.

Where are these creepy bastards at Google hiding - and how do we make them visible and responsible?

This is what a "team" at Google wrote to Klevius when deleting Klevius' blog Origin of the Vikings (which contains the same material as do all the other blogs and web sites by Klevius):

'Hate'!? As Klevius doesn't 'hate'*, then it must be the muslims' own hatred via islam and exposed in Klevius' defense for Human Rights that is the problem!

And we have already seen this strange logic in the defense of muslim islamofascism. If muslims get "offended" and aggressive because of Human Rights, then this aggression is blamed on Human Rights, not islam! Much like if in traffic you meet someone driving in the wrong direction on your lane you should be blamed for criticizing her/him for doing it (or just reporting about her/him doing it). Moreover, it would also be claimed that the reckless driver was not a driver at all but an 'extremist', and that therefore to blame her/him as a driver would insult and offend other drivers, and that her/his behavior has nothing with traffic to do whatsoever.

Klevius questions: Who are these "reviewers" at Google anyway; who controls them; how do you face them with their own ignorance(?) or deliberate evilness. Does Google use muslim imams for assessing what should be allowed to say about islam?! Or is this really what Google and Eric Schmidt stand for?!

Eric Schmidt (Google chairman speaking in Hong Kong): 'Google believes very strongly in a free internet. The mainland (China) just passed the law about the 500-reposts thing. Then you will definitely think about it before you write. It's a problem, (it) means your voice is not fully heard.'

Klevius: Really?


Winston Churchill (who defended UK against German fascism in WW2): "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia
in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many
countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods
of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the
Prophet rule or live.  A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and
refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity.  The fact that in Mohammedan
law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as
a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the
faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. 

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion
paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde
force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.  It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: is very critical of the position of women in Islamic societies and the punishments demanded by Islamic scholars for homosexuality and adultery. She considered herself a Muslim until 28 May 2002, when she became an atheist. In an interview with the Swiss magazine Das Magazin in September 2006, she said she lost her faith while sitting in an Italian restaurant in May 2002, drinking a glass of wine: "...I asked myself: Why should I burn in hell just because I'm drinking this? But what prompted me even more was the fact that the killers of 9/11 all believed in the same God I believed in." She has described Islam as a "backward religion", incompatible with democracy. In one segment on the Dutch current affairs program Nova, she challenged pupils of an Islamic primary school to choose between the Qur'an and the Dutch constitution.

In an interview in the London Evening Standard, Hirsi Ali characterizes Islam as "the new fascism": "Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate — a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism." In this interview, she also made it clear that in her opinion it is not "a fringe group of radical Muslims who've hijacked Islam and that the majority of Muslims are moderate. [...] Violence is inherent in Islam – it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder."

Hirsi Ali stated that she was also "not a Muslim" as she had lost the fear of the Qur'an and of Hell and lost respect for "its author" and messenger; and that she felt a "common humanity" with those she once "shunned", such as Jews, Christians, atheists, gays, and sinners "of all stripes and colours."

In the magazine Reason, Ayaan Hirsi Ali stated that not just 'radical Islam' but 'Islam' must be defeated. She stated: "Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace."

Hirsi Ali criticises Islam's "prophet" Muhammad on the grounds of both his morality and personality. In January 2003 she told the Dutch paper Trouw, "Muhammad is, seen by our Western standards, a pervert", as he married, at the age of 53, Aisha, who was six years old and nine at the time the marriage was consummated. This led to a lawsuit by a number of Muslims in 2005. The civil court in The Hague acquitted Hirsi Ali of any charges.

She also has stated her opinions about Muhammad's personality: "Measured by our western standards, Muhammad is a pervert. He is against freedom of expression. If you don't do as he says, you will be punished. It makes me think of all those megalomaniacs in the Middle East: Bin Laden, Khomeini, Saddam (didn't she mention the Saudis?!). Do you think it strange that there is a Saddam Hussein? Muhammad is his example. Muhammad is an example for all Muslim men. Do you think it strange that so many Muslim men are violent?" In a 2003 interview with the Danish magazine Sappho, she explains parallels she sees between the personality of Yasser Arafat and that of Muhammad.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali opposes not just the genital mutilation of girls, but also the practice of circumcision of boys as practiced by Jews and Muslims, as well as the routine infant circumcision practiced in the United States. In her autobiography, Infidel, she writes: "Excision doesn't remove your desire or ability to enjoy sexual pleasure. The excision of women is cruel on many levels. It is physically cruel and painful; it sets girls up for a lifetime of suffering. And it is not even effective in its intent to remove their desire."

A quotation from her on the subject: "girls dying in child birth because they are too young [...] The rise of radical Islam is an important part of this. I feel I have the moral obligation to discuss the source."

When in Dutch parliament, she proposed obligatory annual medical checks for all uncircumcised girls originating from a country where female mutilation is practiced. If a girl turned out to have been circumcised, the physician would report this to the police, with protection of the child prevailing over privacy.
Freedom of speech

In a 2006 lecture in Berlin, she condemnded the right to claim someone else's dislike or criticism as an offence against muslims or islam, following the muskim riots after Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons. She condemned the journalists of those papers and TV channels that did not show their readers the cartoons as being "mediocre of mind" and of trying to hide behind those "noble-sounding terms such as 'responsibility' and 'sensitivity'". She also praised publishers all over Europe for showing the cartoons and not being afraid of the "hard-line Islamist movement", and stated "I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand for submission."



*

Wednesday, January 01, 2014

Support Peter Klevius campaign for Universal Human Rights!

Human Rights are above politics, ideologies etc. Human Rights are for you! If you want them you better apply now before they are sold out!

By supporting Peter Klevius' campaign for Human Rights - and therefore against OIC and islam - you save millions of children and adults from continuous suffering, and make their future possibilities a little brighter. Negative rights for a positive future. 'Negative rights' are those rights of the individual which defend us against impositions (similar as traffic rules).

Peter Klevius intellectual defense for everyone's Human Rights works on two levels:

1 Keeping up a constant intellectual pressure on "reforming" islam. Of course islam can never be truly reformed so what this simply means is that islam is made, little by little, less islamic.

2 Counteracting the widespread misinformation about islam and muslims, hence avoiding naive and ignorant people from falling pray to islam and muslims - while simultaneously exposing those who deliberately approve of islam's Human Rights violating Sharia already voted through in UN by the help of OIC's more than notorious islamofascist voting bloc and some additional traitors.

In John Peters Humprey's (pbuh) world view "infidels" didn't exist

John Peters Humphrey (peace be upon him and Human Rights) is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he is utterly defamated by muslim Humanrightsophobes - yet all the Billions of Human Rights followers take it (too?) calmly.

John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights).

So what is modern islamofascism?

The main purpose of OIC is to gather all the world's muslims under a worldwide Umma that is protected from Human Rights criticism. And for that purpose OIC (ab)uses UN, and in an extension, via UN tries to implement national laws all over the world that not only keep islam out of scrutiny but even makes criticism of islam a crime! This lobbying is going on all the time with weak and vulnerable and/or just traitor politicians while most of the people are kept in deep ignorance about islam through extremely Saudi biased education and the threats of being accused of racism or "islamophobia".

And no, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's all to be found in UN's official documents and on the web.

And no, it's not the question of some "minor adjustments". No, this is big and OIC's own actions (e.g. officially abandoning some of the most basic Human Rights) in the UN easily proves Klevius right on this point.

And basically it's all about sanctioning islamic racism and sexism, i.e. the very original pillars that in the first place made islam attractive for the lowest of human behavior!

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Klevius Human Rights tutorial for ignorant muslims and their supporters

The evilness of islam explained in simple English

There are no Human Rights in islam - only islamic "human rights" (Sharia)

Because islamofascists and their supporters lack any credible argument in favor of islam, but 1,400 years of historical evidence* for the very opposite, they have to use the lowest of means to blur the picture of the evil medieval slave Leviathan. So, for example, are those who dare to criticize this pure evilness

* Not to mention the extremely obscure origin of islam. According to Britain's (and the world's - after Klevius) foremost islam researcher when it comes to its extremely violent early stages, Hugh Kennedy, "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever".

The main reason that Klevius considers himself the world's foremost expert on the origin of islam is that he (sadly) still happens to be the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid, i.e. what constitutes the basis for rapetivism and islam's survival (and which is the main reason OIC abandoned Human Rights in UN and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).


Only truly pious (so called "extremist") muslims are truly evil. However, all non-extremist (secularized) "muslims" aren't necessarily good either if they knowingly use the evilness of islam for their own satisfaction. Only ignorant "muslims" can be excused.

While contemplating the pic below, do consider the inevitable fact that islam (in any meaningful form) doesn't approve of our most basic universal Human Rights! That's the main pillar of the problem, dude!

So those muslims who don't fit in either category need to face Erdogan, OIC and Human Rights violating Sharia - or admit they are no real muslims.

Klevius comment: I for one cannot see the slightest space for political islam in a democratic society based on the belief in Human Rights. Can you?

Introduction

What is religion?

First of all, being religious is an exception. The average world citizen doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian/islamic "god"*. And the reason we hear so much about "religion" is the same as after 9/11, namely its bad consequences.

* The belief in a "creator" presumes a "creation". Or, in other words, the creation of a "creator" necessitates "creation". However, outside "monotheistic" mythology, the most common view is and has always been, as pointed out by Klevius (1992) that there has always been something from which later shapes emerge (just like Eve emerged out of Adam). However, the main point of "monotheisms" has from scratch been racism and sexism, i.e. in opposition to the enlightened view of every human's equal right no matter of sex etc., (just as we have it in traffic).  

Based on historical and contemporary evidence, religion - if with this word we mean Judaism (the chosen people) and its branch Christianity and its tail branch islam - is  certainly not " community cohesion" but rather "community confusion" when mirrored against the main idea of Human Rights.

There are three main reasons for people to become religious:

1  They are born into a religion, and if they are muslims it's considered the gravest of crimes (apostasy) to leave islam.

2   A religious person feels a need to defend actions s/he cannot logically approve of without the aid of a "god".

3   A religious person feels a need for forgiveness, and due to the above (2) an other human won't do because s/he might use logic. "God", however, can always be excused by arguing that no human can understand "god's" decisions/actions.

From a sociological point of view the reason why the above (2) problem even arises in the first place is because of a lack of continuous updating of crucial and basic relations. This in turn happens when families etc. are scattered in time and space due to work, school, separate activities etc. and when the lack of updating causes misunderstandings/opportunities that are misused for personal gains.

Adding to religious confusion is its deliberate sex apartheid which also stays in direct opposition to the Human Rights view that one's sex ought not to be used as an excuse for altering or denying rights.

However, by sticking to honest logic and a Human Rights philosophy (equality) all of this can easily be avoided.

Life´s a passionate faith in a project of uncertainty whereas e.g. Islam is godless (Koran is "god's" words and the final reporter is dead) misuse of power and life denial. Arbitrarily giving away parts of your life to a "god" outside the world is partial suicide (and in Islam's case also feeds earthly totalitarianism/fascism/racism/sexism)! (for more read Klevius definition of religion)

Is she Sharia compliant?

If she is Sharia compliant then she lacks Human Rights precisely based on the same logic that made OIC introduce the so called 'Cairo declaration on human rights in islam' (Sharia) which now, via UN, constitutes the framework for everyone wanting to call him/herself a muslim and, as a consequence, a Human Rightsophobe.

Turkish Human Rightsophobic conference wants to discuss how to censor media and make criticism of islam a crime all over the world

This fanatic* muslim (now replaced by an extremely intolerant Saudi islamofascist, Iyad Madani) and his muslim world organization (OIC) is the most dangerous threat to Human Rights

 * who dreams about a Turk led muslim world empire under Sharia, just as Hitler dreamed about a Grossdeutschland. And who blinks the miserable failures of the Turk led Ottoman slave empire which fell in the deepest decay after West had abolished slavery for good.

Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Egyptian born Turkish Fuhrer of OIC (based in Saudi Arabia) will make the opening speeches of the “International Conference on Islamophobia: Law and Media” to take place in Istanbul on Sept. 12 and 13, along with Directory General of Directorate General of Press and Information Murat Karakaya and Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç. Other islamofascism supporting Human Rightsophobic speakers include John L. Esposito, Norman Gary Finkelstein, Marwan Mohammed, Nathan Lean, Saied Reza Ameli, Halim Rane, Stephen Sheehi and Ibrahim Salama.

Klevius clarifying comment: Recent internal Turkish criticism against Ihsanoglu is due to the split between Ottomans and Arabs. Ihsanoglu is half Arab and loyal to the Saudis who wanted Muslim Brotherhood erased. That's why he kept silent when the Egyptian army killed the brothers.

Common Misconception about Basic Human Rights and islam/Sharia

It seems that no matter what the ideology of islam causes, it's never islam if the consequences are unwanted (Klevius 2001).

Islam sneaked in on an oiled post-colonialist commerce sold to the public as a combination of “guilt”, ”compassion” and negative “white middle age man”* rhetoric. Of course

* The concept of the “white middle age man” has always been popular, not only among feminists, young “revolutionaries” and “colored middle age men”, but also among the “white middle age men” themselves because by criticizing the “white middle age man” one lifts oneself above one's own category, much like “true muslims” do compared to “secularized muslims” (or vise versa).

OIC's Cairo declaration and Egypt's constitution

Zaid Al-Ali is a senior advisor on constitution building at International IDEA: The proposed changes (of Egypt's constitution) will not have any impact in the immediate term on the way in which Egyptians live their lives, but they remove a tool that hard-line Islamists might have tried to use in the future to impose a harsher vision of society. It is worth noting however that the technical committee maintained article 2, which imposes the principles of Islamic sharia as the main source of legislation in the country. It also kept the distinction that was first introduced in 2012 between "heavenly religions" (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest, whose right to practice rituals is curbed. The technical committee also proposed to reestablish the ban on religious parties, but also indicated that political parties cannot "undermine public order," an incredibly vague term that is subject to abuse (article 54).

In terms of women's rights, the 1971 and the 2012 constitutions were both not particularly generous. They both included vague references to morality, to traditional family values, and to women's "obligations towards family and society." The technical committee, which was dominated by men, has essentially maintained the same wording and the same principles in relation to this issue. Women are therefore equal to men within the limits of Islamic sharia, the state is still responsible for protecting the "original values of Egyptian families" (article 10), and the state will also still provide assistance to women to satisfy their "obligations towards family and society" (article 11). This is precisely the wording that caused so many liberals to denounce the Muslim Brotherhood-led process in 2012.

Peter Klevius: "The state will provide assistance to women to satisfy their obligations towards family and society" (article 11 Egypt const.). Ugly sexism wrapped in nice wording.

Women are equal to men ONLY “within the limits of Islamic sharia” because they have "obligations towards family and society" (article 11 Egypt const.).

"Heavenly religions"* (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest (article 2 Egypt const.). A triple stage racism similar to when black supremacist racists in Nation of islam divide the world in the good blacks, the inferior non-blacks, and the evil whites.

* However, apart from the racist fact that people who don't want to belong to the "heavenly religions" are deemed less worthy, among the "heavenly religions" islam is always the “only true religion” because the other "heavenly religions" have got it all wrong. This fact must certainly be connected to the problems Jews and Christians continuously face in muslim countries and even elsewhere - compare e.g. the horrifying case of Malmö in Sweden. The Swedish newspaper Skånska Dagbladet reported that attacks on Jews in Malmo totaled 79 in 2009, about twice as many as the previous year, according to police statistics. In March 2010, Fredrik Sieradzk of the Jewish community of Malmö told Die Presse, an Austrian Internet publication, that Jews are being "harassed and physically attacked" by "people from the Middle East. In December 2010, the Jewish human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a travel advisory concerning Sweden, advising Jews to express "extreme caution" when visiting the southern parts of the country due to an increase in verbal and physical harassment of Jewish citizens in the city of Malmö. And so on. See more on Wikipedia and do note the usual "only a small number of muslims are jihadists" but never "an even much smaller proportion of Swedes are Nazis". Moreover, all Swedes are Swedes whereas all muslims aren't necessarily pious muslims at all, which fact alters the proportionality even more.

Whereas Human Rights allow you to lead your life as you wish without necessitating others to do so, Sharia does the opposite

So why do you suffer from such a grave form of Human Rightsophobia? Why do you want all other women to be restricted just because you yourself want to be restricted?! What disturbs you so much that you want to impose your way of life on others - or, alternatively, in a racist manner despise them?

ARTICLE 6 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
 

(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.

(b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.

ARTICLE 7:
(a) As of the moment of birth, every child has rights due from the parents, society and the state to be accorded proper nursing, education and material, hygienic and moral care. Both the fetus and the mother must be protected and accorded special care.

(b) Parents and those in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical values and the principles of the Shari'ah

ARTICLE 22 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
 

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.

(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah

(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

Two too common islamofascist statements supported by Saudi based OIC (all muslims world organization) and its Sharia declaration (also called Cairo declaration on human rights in islam):

1 The modern democracies of today have not yet attained what the Faith of Islam ordained fourteen and half centuries ago.

Peter Klevius: Very pleased to hear that. And I truly hope they never will.

2 Islam allows complete freedom of though and expression, provided that it does not involve spreading that which is harmful to individuals and the society at large. For example, the use of abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism is not allowed.

Peter Klevius: Criticism of islam is, according to OIC's Sharia, ALWAYS abusive and offensive no matter how it's worded!

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig's (a supporter of islamofascist Sharia) presentation of islamic "human rights" (i.e. Sharia) offers a wonderful opportunity for Peter Klevius to really point out how islam (Sharia) is diametrically opposite the real Human Rights (also called Negative Human Rights because of its lack of positive impositions in basic rights):

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Though the influence of political motives, rivalries, and deliberations has made complicated the correct formulation of this problem, but this should not prevent thinkers and genuine humanists from snooping into this problem and ultimately obtaining a solution (Klevius: Yes, I do!). In the West, it is only since the last two hundred years or so that human right became a subject of eminence among the political and social issues of Western society and an issue of fundamental significance.

Peter Klevius: Please Mirza, you can't be that stupid! You're as far you can get from the truth (perhaps not too surprising considering you're trying to defend the biggest lie in the history of the world). The process started long before islam even existed and eventually developed into the 1948 Human Rights Declaration which rests on an unbeatable logic that islam has never been even close to. On the contrary, islam and its Sharia (in whatever form) always restricts basic (negative*) Human Rights via (positive*) islamic impositions.

* Whereas positive rights oblige or open up for action/imposition, negative rights oblige inaction. If you don't threaten the rights of others (as muslims do if they follow Sharia) you shouldn't be bothered. Just as you shouldn't be bothered by the police unless an offense against the law is suspected.

Negative rights include freedom of speech and expression, freedom from violent crime, freedom of belief (as long it doesn't affect Human Rights of others), habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery etc.

The right to private property has no direct (only indirect – the right not to be robbed of one's property) connection with negative Human Rights.

A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person, religious group, a government etc.

Moreover, this also includes legislators, i.e. that a law that contradicts Human Rights cannot be considered lawful.

And for those who try to circumvent the logic of negative Human Rights by referring to enforcement or laws, you don't understand that Human Rights are not laws but the very basis for legislation.

How far the law can restrict Human Rights is a matter between us humans but balanced by the underpinning idea of negative Human Rights in much the same way as traffic rules are tailored for the actual reality – not any specific ideology. Traffic rules should be as smooth and democratic as possible for the purpose of flow, safety etc. just as laws should be as little intrusive on freedom as possible.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: During the last few decades this prominence reached its peak in the West with the formation of UN after the Second World War and the subsequent drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but we Muslims know it very well that if the Western World and the Western civilization have paid attention to this matter in the recent centuries, Islam has dealt with it from all the various aspects of Human Rights many centuries back.

Peter Klevius: Is a slave an equal? And is a muslim woman equal to muslim man as according to Human Rights? Apart from paillaging, islam has sponged on slaves and women for 1400 years!

Moreover, islam is an Arabic religion and Arabic islam is considered superior to islam experienced via other languages. On top of that you have the Sunnia Shia divide - not to mention all other branches considered inferior or blasphemous by other muslims.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The first thing that we find in Islam in the correlation of basic human rights is that it lays down some rights for man as a human being. In other words, it means that every man whether he belongs to Muslim state or not, whether he is a believer or unbeliever, whether he lives in some forest or is found in some desert, whatever be the case, he has some basic human rights just because he is a human being, which should be recognized by every Muslim.

Peter Klevius: Well, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it. Either you mean he (what about she) has to comply (as a Dhimmi) with Sharia or he is a blasphemous infidel.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Security of Life and Property:

The first and the foremost basic right is the right to live and respect for human life. The Holy Quran says: “Whosoever kills a human being (without any reason) manslaughter, or corruption on earth, it is though he had killed all mankind”.

Peter Klevius: Why did you put the most important part "without any reason" within brackets? Not complying with Sharia, or perhaps not being a true muslim, or being an infidel standing in the way for islam, or just an infidel who happens to have the wrong passport, belief etc. may be such a reason. Not to mention the reason the 9/11 muslim terrorists had to murder innocent people in the US just because they felt islam was under attack from the West.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Protection of Honor:

The Quran does not allow one’s personal honor to be abused: “O you, who believe, do not let one set of people make fun of other set. Do not defame one another. Do not insult by using nicknames. Do not backbite”

Peter Klevius: No wonder muslims are over sensitive - not the least towards each others. Just check the news!

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Right to Protest against Tyranny:

This is mentioned clearly in the Quran: “God does not love evil talk in public unless it is by someone who has been injured thereby”. This was acknowledged by Abu Bakr, who said in his very first address: “Cooperate with me when I am right, and correct me when I commit error. Obey me as long as I follow the commandments of Allah and His Prophet, but turn away from me when I deviate”.

Peter Klevius: Indeed, reminds me of the "Arab spring" and all those muslims who fight all those muslims who have "deviated".

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Freedom of Expression:

Allah gave Adam liberty of free choice between right and wrong. It is the same reference that Allah almighty says in Quran: “Then He showed him what is wrong for him and what is right for him”. Islam allows complete freedom of though and expression, provided that it does not involve spreading that which is harmful to individuals and the society at large. For example, the use of abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism is not allowed.

Peter Klevius: So how could criticism against islam under Sharia not be "abusive"?!

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Equality before the Law:

Islam gives it citizens the right to absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law. According to Islamic concept of justice, absolutely no one is above the law. This point was made in a very dramatic fashion by the Prophet himself. One day, a women belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet with the recommendation that she be spare the mandated punishment for theft (amputation of the hand). The Prophet replied: “The nations that lived before you were destroyed by God because they punished the common man for their offenses and let their dignitaries go unpunished for their crimes. I swear by Him Who hold my life in His had that even if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, had committed this crime, I would have amputated her hand.”

Peter Klevius: These fairy tales are laughable, not only because they are without any historical connection (not even mentioned in the Koran), but, more importantly, because women are not even close to equality with men in before the Law (Sharia). Moreover and again, "before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."

Peter Klevius: The modern democracies may rightly argue that the world is indebted to them for establishing the equality and freedom. These countries could take the credit for introducing Human Rights and abolishing slavery (which is still sanctioned in islam) and abolishing judicial discrimination of women (except for in the US*). However, instead it seems that these countries try to do their utmost to downplay these important achievements, and instead they are supporting the very opposite.

* The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982, and so it was not adopted. However, most people are unaware of this important deficiency in the US legislation compared to Human Rihghts.

Origin of Vikings attacked?

Someone  (a muslim?) has caused the deletion of Klevius' Origin of Vikings blog.
Here's the new blog Origin of the Vikings - it will quickly be much better than the old one. In the meantime try to benefit from the info served to you there although it's still very messy.

Human Rights vs islam - Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs her demonizers

Human Rights vs islam - Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs her demonizers

Institutionalised equality of every individual  through Human Rights

Less than one third of civilized people are religious - meaning more than two thirds are Atheists. And being an Atheist means that the only logical basis for one's moral is Human Rights - especially the so called Negative Rights which are the most essential against impositions etc.. Or put in other words, religious people in general and muslims in particular, always have problems with Human Rights.

UK PM Cameron: "People who […] advocate some sort of secular neutrality fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality, or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code"

Klevius: People who advocate some sort of religious morality fail to grasp the consequences of that "religious morality", or the role that religion can play in hindering individuals from accessing Human Rights.

Mr Cameron explicitly implies that non-religious belief systems (Atheism, icl. Buddhism which lack the belief in a "God" but sometimes is confused with god-religions) do not supply the same level of motivational compassion. He is right, Atheism is the only way to open up for FULL COMPASSION, i.e. Human Rights!

The type of secular state sought by Klevius would never seek to dispute the role that people's faith can play in dictating their moral code; unlike Mr Cameron, it would make no comment at all on the validity or nature of that faith. So when Peter Klevius states that islam is the most evil ideology that has ever existed on this planet, this statement has nothing to do with faith, but has everything to do with historical facts about islamic atrocities and contemporary facts about islam's open violation of Human Rights. And by islam (this is for the reallty stupid readers only) Peter Klevius of course doesn't mean individuals but its organized effort to replace Human Rights with Human Rights violating Sharia worldwide via its Saudi initiated and Saudi based all muslim covering OIC, led by a Saudi islamofascist named Iyad Madani.


Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (written in the aftermath of the Second WW as a defence against totalitarianism and fascism): Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as sex or religion.

Compare this to islam (through OIC's worldwide Sharia declaration) which criminalizes Universal Human Rights and hinders muslim women from accessing Human Rights! Moreover, which criminalizes even the very saying of this fact!

The mediaeval demonizing of Ayaan Hirsi Ali - the foremost* woman of our time

 * No offense at all! Klevius knows there are many a woman heroine who could be called foremost, however, Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the sense that she:

1) Represents Africa, the continent that had to carry possibly the worst part of the islamic slavery/genocide/rapetivism burden applied on it by the help of Arabic Koranic slave/infidel teaching.

2) Escaped islam's horror and ended up in politically correct Netherlands where she again was threatened to die by islam's hand, and when she asked for protection she was denied it and had to flee islam again, now to the US.

3) As a US citizen, and with the Constitutional confusion corrected, could easily win the presidency simply by picking up most of the Atheist votes.

4) As she, contrary to her critics, has been blessed with intelligence, and as she has already clearly and openly stated her support for Human Rights, she would tick all the needed boxes for leading the world's most powerful nation out of its dangerously destructive, racist and sexist anti Human Rights path.

5) As her destiny seems to be to suffer, why not place her in the White House, hence utilizing her suffering for the common good!



This is how Google News see her today

First place taken by an eager defender of that very islamofascism Ayaan Hirsi Ali escaped! He also applauds Brandels University's decision to rescind its already decided honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali because of pressure from anti Human Rights islamofascists and their supporters. It accuses Ayaan Hirsi Ali of "intolerance" while backing the Saudi islam "guardians" (and OIC leading) laws that make Human Rights an "act of terrorism".

Gender schizophrenia

Covering up the world's biggest problem (sex segregation/apartheid) in gender babble - but when will the bubble burst?

 Oxford Dictionaries definition of 'gender': The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

However this kind of non sense use of 'gender' is more and more common:

Of course there are no 'gender-bending' insects. If a female insect possesses an organ that can pick up semen from a cavity in a male insect, that has nothing to do with gender at all.



Klevius clarification for his dear but sometimes mildly confused readers:

John Money introduced the distinction between biological sex and gender in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However. In the 1970s feminists embraced the concept as a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences and documents written by the WHO. In many other contexts, however, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has undergone a usage shift to include sex or even to replace it. This gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s. The APA's psychoanalytically contaminated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual first described the condition in the third publication ("DSM-III") in 1980 and this was then followec by the so called 'glamour feminism' which has ever since trapped girls/women in a continuing web of cultural 'femininity' that functions as a barrier against those ("tomboys") who dare to try to escape it - leaving no other options than either to conform or to become a so called "transsexual". Why do people have to alter their biology when we have Human Rights that should give everyone the right to live as s/he wishes without restrictions imposed because of one's sex?

It's also noteworthy that the pathological pathologizing of a girl's wish to be free from sex related constrains (a freedom guaranteed adult women in the Human Rights declaration) is a violation of Human Rights but is made possible because minors (and their parents/custodians other than the state) have no legal say (compare what is said in Klevius' thesis Pathological Symbiosis).

It's still an open question how much this disastrous and monstrous sex apartheid has helped islam (the worst crime ever against humanity) to exist among civilized people (compare what Klevius wrote in Rapetivism from Freud to bin Laden more than a decade ago). Evil and Human Rights violating islamic tenets that would have been completely unthinkable two decades ago are now defended!

 Thanks to a scholarship in 1885, Freud visited his main idol, Jean Charcot, "the Napoleon of Neuroses" and known as "the greatest neurologist of his time" (H. Ellenberger 1970:89), here giving a fake lecture on "hysteria in women" at his institute.(a former poor house for women) in Paris where he attempted to establish a medical monopoly over hypnosis based on contemporary ideas on sex segregation. When Freud returned to Vienna he made his living by "treating" wealthy "hysteric" women. (see Klevius' Psycho Timeline). It is an irony that most of the women performing "hysteria" at Charcot's institute were from the lower classes, in sharp contrast to those women who then became treated by his former students. Who are the great fakes of our time?Psychotimeline revealing Freud's misogyny

The Veil Trap

 

This is the Saudi islamofascist Iyad Madani who is now the Fuhrer over all the world's muslims' world organization, Saudi based OIC and its Human Rights violating Sharia. 

and his disciples

 
 Klevius feels really privileged to be the only one (so far) truly addressing the world's biggest question. However, Klevius is also disturbingly aware of the fact that his time as the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (due to no competition) may be over in no time at all when the global female prison finally opens its gates.

Klevius' word/concept guide for ignorant people or self deceivers

Klevius' word/concept guide for ignorant people or self deceivers

Acknowledgement: There's a laughable but interesting trend going on around Klevius writings, presumably because Klevius is so impossible to catch intellectually. This trend includes the desperate chasing of images that could possibly be used against Klevius somehow. This trend reveals itself quite comically through different stats and really shows religious desperation at its worst.

Klevius word/concept dictionary

Atheist - someone who doesn't believe in ghosts/gods. More importantly, someone who, precisely because of her/his lack of belief in a hindering god/religion, can accept full universal Human Rights  for everyone, including women. The word Atheist is only needed for the purpose of showing the illogic of theists. The deep illogic that is most visible in the area of women's rights and freedom. In religion woman was made a reproductive toy for adn from Adam. To really emphasize the inferiority of Eve she was made out of one bone of Adam. Moreover, to really underscore her inferiority she was made out of the least valuable of Adam's bones. Klevius knows because he has suffered several times broken ribs without even going to a doctor. A collar bone or even a finger bone would have caused more disruption in activities. With a broken rib you can still both walk and run, not to mention using your hands normally.

Moral - is what is lacking in religions simply because every religion has problems with Human Rights. And islam is completely impossible within the context of Human Rights .Islam can not be updated to Human Rights standard without killing itself!

Ignorance is if you feel surprised about anything in this pic

or this

Universe - there can not be a or the Universe neither can there be "multiverse". Universe is everything including what can not  be imagined. Slicing the concept of Universe is equally stupid as saying the ancient Greeks were wrong when they called th atom the smallest possible particle. We were wrong when we started calling a very complex configuration an atom because the real atom - i.e. what Leukippos defined as the smallest possible part of theworld - hasn't even been described as yet.

Atom - today has a different meaning from the one proposed by its Greek inventor some thousand years before evil Arabic islam was even thought about.

Big Bang - a misnomer created by a catholic priest who wanted to fit Universe into the Bible. Every Atheist scientist understands that you can't have a "bang" in nothing. But just like Freud, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and many others became famous (but notorious today) because they appealed to ignorant sexism and racism among the populace, in a similar way the "Big Bang" oxymoron boosted religious fanaticism and ignorance at a point in history when it was no longer possible to deny the biblical shortcomings. So for the purpose of  

God - is a concept that can not be distinguished from the concept of Ghost. Both have to be "believed" or hallucinated. If you don't believe or hallucinate then you are an Atheist and an Aghostist.

God etymology - The ancient Persian (which is extremely young compared to proto-Uralic) word for god 'khoda' connects to the even more ancient Finnish 'koti' and Finno-Ugric 'kota' (=home/house/seed vessel - see Klevius definition of religion and the Vagina gate), Saami 'goahti'. German Gott (god) and Swedish gott (good) as well as Gotland (pronounced Gottland), the island in the Baltic sea that constituted a (the?) main Viking hub in their slave trade with Jews and muslims. Btw, English is a Scandinavian language and e.g. 'cottage' is a direct derivative from Finnish 'koti' - funny spelling though, especially compared to Finnish which is spelled exactly as it is pronounced).

(true)Feminism - is a separatist movement based on sex segregation and rooted in the 19th century anti suffrage movement and closely related to the birth of psychoanalysis (see Klevius Psychosocial Freud timeline).

Gender - used instead of 'sex' is a separatist/feminist invention applauded by chauvinists. It's also handy for religious people because religion ultimately relies on sex segregation/apartheid. Today the cultural sex segregation has become more extreme than ever in world history. And if you hesitate to believe Klevius, then just consider the horrifying fact that today it's almost impossible for a girl/woman not to wear make up and 'feminine' attires etc. It's even inscribed in the psychoanalytically inspired DSM manual for assessing mental illness! And due to their status as minors, girls who don't conform can be bullied by both peers and adults and even pathologized for wanting to wear "boyish" clothes etc or behave in a "boyish" manner (so called Tomboyism - see Klevius definition of the Tomboy).


Feminist - a true feminist is someone who believes in the inferiority of women but who wants to cover it (this presumed inferiority) up via separatism, i.e. by "compensating" with cultural "feminine" values. And as you know dear reader, if you possess a brain, apples and pears can not be equal if you simultaneously keep confusing their biological taste and shape with culture. The female body isn't made to be a poor football (soccer, if you so insist you sucker) player but culture may well hinder it from developing.

Sharia - the racis/sexist Mohammedanian anti-Human Rights doctrine, now steered by Saudi initiated and based OIC (UN's largest voting bloc consisting of mainly the worst Human Rights violators in the world) and led by its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani.

Islam - is the biggest and worst slave raider/trader the world has ever encountered. And despite the Western ban on slave trade some 200 yeras ago it's still on. The absolute majority of today's slave trade is Koran inspired. Wouldn't it be so tragic one could just laugh at the pathetic efforts made to cover up the 1400 year long history of the most evil ideological crime ever seen in crispy clear historical records.

Religion - all religions "of the Book" are variants of Judaism. Judaism started with the racist notion of "the chosen people" whose God gave them the right to slaughter, rape and enslave Canaanites and others. Racist monotheism is never good for your moral. How could it possibly be when you tell individuals that their "god" is superior, hence ending up with millions of private "gods" which are then said to be one in collectives defined by this "communal god" which only exists through its political and militaristic expressions.

The true history about the Judaic Penis oppression of the Vagina people

From Sumerian genderless pronouns to Semitic sex apartheid

For most of today's speakers of Indo-European languages the he/she devision seems almost self-evident - until they learn Finnish, Japanese, Mandarin or some other non-Semitic and non later Indo-European languages.

Moreover, linguistic gender divide in third person singular is a relatively recent phenomenon in the history of human languages. It first emerged within Semitic languages. We can only speculate why, but a qualified guess by Klevius would connect it to the same social and environmental factors that caused Judaism.

The civilization process in the Middle east was introduced by the non-Semitic Sumerians. However, when Semitic groups attacked, dissolved and displaced them, a pattern emerged whereby non-Semitic Indo-European related groups begun assimilating a gender divide in third person singular.

Originally, there were only an animate (masculine/feminine) and an inanimate (neuter) gender. This view is supported by the existence of certain classes of Latin and Ancient Greek adjectives which inflect only for two sets of endings, one for masculine and feminine, the other for neuter. Further evidence comes from the Anatolian languages which exhibit only the animate and the inanimate gender.


Judaism, the world’s only “monotheism” and its many Vagina/Penis branches or sects

Judaism (a late ”branch” of Zoroastrianism) has in different manifestations cursed itself and the world for some Millenniums. It was chiseled out on the bedrock of a racist “chosen people” and sexist rapetivism (i.e. female sex duties) approach. However, a crucial moment was when a particular branch of Judaism introduced the Penis as the sole custodian of one way (apostasy ban) “muslimhood”. This caused an explosion of “muslims”, although this development was paralleled with an even bigger explosion of abused slaves and parasitism in a variety of forms. But the real corner stone of all Judaic tradition, sex apartheid, has reached its peak in islam. To an extent that it now has clashed against Human Rights resulting in a divided UN.  


Look wherever you like now or in the past, and you won't find any peace or equality where Judaic monotheisms have left their marks. 

If anything at all should be taught to our children about religion  it should be its racist and sexist origin and its disastrous consequences!

to be continued

Only difference between believing in a Ghost or a God is the sanctioning of the latter

Only difference between believing in a Ghost or a God is the sanctioning of the latter

The most evil of evil muslims, the Saudi "king", has declared Atheism and Human Rights as terrorism - he calls it "tolerance"! Immediately confront your politicians who support this unbelievable oil gangsta and his accomplices!

How does the world react? You? By calling Klevius an "islamophobe"?!

Here's the muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Hussein Mohammed Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) bowing (2009) for the most evil of men on the planet today. The very same evil guy he first called after becoming "president" and whom he groomed again last week.

 Atheism is the only straightforward path to Universal Human Rights (including women)!

No wonder God, Allah (or whatever) is tricky to convince about Universal Human Rights (including women) because HE was created as a tool for rapetivism (look it up) and the subjugation and enslavement of others.

When God was created he was made like Adam.

When the basic idea of Universal Human Rights was created it was made like Adam AND Eve.

And for you who think heterosexual attraction, i.e. that women are sexier than men, could be (exc)used as a reason for depriving women of legal sameness. Please, do think again! And read Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial - if you can!


Believing in Universal Human Rights (Atheism) is called "islamophobia" by supporters of religious fascists.

You stupid (and an accomplice to the worst of evils) Kleviusophobe! Is this evil Saudi guardian of islam an insult to Mohammed and islam - or is he actually a true copy of Mohammed of today? However, he's certainly the world's foremost propagator of Humanrightsphobia and intolerance (islam) by the help of "we-must-make-business-with-them" politicians. This latter is why the oxymoron "islamophobia" is so popular in the defense of dealings with Satan.

This is the islamofascist Saudi "king" Abdullah's Sharia ambassador to the world. Iyad Madani is the Fuhrer of Saudi initiated and based OIC, the world's biggest organization after UN and in UN. OIC's main goal is and has been to enforce Sharia on the whole world.

Oh, I see Sharia! The ultimate weapon against Human Rights and criticism of one's own evilness

Atheism (the belief in Universal Human Rights) is now equalized with terrorism in Saudi law - in line with OIC's world wide anti-Human Rights Sharia. Simultaneous with a Saudi islamofascist "tolerance" campaign!

Klevius question to Mishal Husain, BBC's islamofascist Sharia presenter: Why don't you give the compulsory license fee paying Brits a thorough information about this. You can use Klevius without even mentioning him! You know Mishal, Klevius thinks most Brits don't have a clue of the depth of the problem witgh islam. So why not give them a hand from your ivory tower at the world's biggest "news" propaganda spreader. You could became the most important truth sayer in BBC's history. Even if you will be sacked, which you of course will be, the impact would be tremendous. I wish you good luck. And then you could continue your journalistic duty without being paid and without



James Kirk Wall: The Saudi regime of kings and clerics is a hate organization.
They hate women
They hate Jews
They hate Christians
They hate other Muslims who claim divine authority
They hate other Muslims who don’t share their interpretation of Islam
They hate America, but not to our face
They claim to hate homosexuality, but behind closed doors who knows
They hate free speech
They hate equal rights and equal opportunity
They hate Atheists and have declared them to be terrorists

Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director of Human Rights Watch, said: "Saudi authorities have never tolerated criticism of their policies, but these recent laws and regulations turn almost any critical expression or independent association into crimes of terrorism.”

But it gets even worse. It’s also illegal for anyone to imply that these recent laws are unjust.

Klevius: And this happens while Saudi Arabia's Riyadh principality also has begun a campaign 'to encourage patriotism and spread of moderation and tolerance'. A convoy of young volunteers will make 13 tours to areas across Riyadh to spread a culture of dialogue and acceptance of others. The tours will include symposiums, training courses and exhibitions of publications from the "king" Abdulaziz Centre for National islamofascist Dialogue, which is jointly sponsoring the campaign. "Symposiums and training courses" (in islam) similar to the ones Western accomplices to islamofascism are supporting/spreading.



Evan Helmuth: So which pressing, terrorism-related concern does the new law address first? Does it ban incitement to violent jihad from the pulpit or the dissemination of Jihadi propaganda online?

Nope, the leading concern of Saudi Arabia’s new terrorism law is atheism.

You read that right. The world’s number one exporter of poisonous Wahabi doctrines and of the jihadi rabble which is the inevitable result of such doctrines considers atheists its foremost terrorism concern.

Article One of the new law defines “calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based” as terrorism.

We can all rest easy now. Finally someone has taken a courageous stand and is dealing with the widespread scourge of Saudi atheist suicide bombers which has so afflicted the region.

And Article One is by no means an empty threat. In February 2012, Saudi poet and journalist Hamza Kashghari was extradited from Malaysia at the request of his government and imprisoned without trial until October 29, 2013 for a series of tweets that Wahabis and other religious conservatives considered insulting to the Prophet Mohammed.

In a similar case as recently as January, another poet, Ashraf Fayadh was jailed without charge after someone complained that his poems “contain atheist ideas”. He remains behind bars.

This persecution of the irreligious is doubtless attributable to the royal family’s constant need to provide sops to the ultra-conservative, largely Wahabi clerical establishment upon which they rely for a great deal of their regime’s legitimacy as the ‘Custodian of the two Holy Mosques’. The parts of the new law dealing with atheism could therefore be seen as a bid to satiate the Wahabi religious establishment and buy the monarchy some loyalty from the country’s sheikhs.

Whatever the logic, the idea that the biggest threat to Saudi Arabia is a mass outbreak of ‘atheist thought’ and that what the country mostly needs is less freedom of expression is enough to make a cat laugh. And of course the perverse irony of the world’s leading exporter of jihadi suicide bombers cracking down on the imagined menace of atheist terrorists is off the charts.

Atheism though is by no means the only form of thought crime to which the Saudi government confines itself in its new terrorism law. Article two addresses “throwing away loyalty to the country’s rulers.” Article six outlaws “contact or correspondence with any groups, currents [of thought], or individuals hostile to the kingdom.” Article eight criminalizes protests, sit-ins and petitions.

As Human Rights Watch pointed out in their excellent report on the new law last month, it is already being used to silence political speech and imprison dissidents and human rights activists, in addition to atheists.

Perhaps the most worrying part of The Kingdom’s new focus on Richard Dawkins fans and pro-democracy dissidents is that whatever time and manpower the country’s security forces spend scouring Twitter for insults to the Prophet and pouring over poetry that might or might not insult religion is time and manpower they aren’t using to monitor and stamp out actual violent jihadis; or to prevent young Saudis from traveling to Syria to fight with Al Qaeda affiliates.

Perversely enough, we could end up with a situation in which this fatuous terrorism law diverts resources and efforts away from dealing with actual terrorism threats posed by religious extremists and toward locking up human rights activists and skeptics of religion, thereby increasing threats to both Saudi Arabia and the world.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Jewish and muslim feminists are the true but sad clowns of religion - and the main reason that the transition from religious sex apartheid to free women has stalled

Blu Greenberg naively (see further below) argues for retaining an allegiance to Jewish law while also shaping it to be more inclusive of women and responsive to women's ethical claims. And she does it simply because she hasn't fathomed the full extent of the evil* logic in the origin of religious rapetivism.

* From our point of view, i.e. that women are fully humans. However, the problem arises simply because although most(?!) religious people admit this (they continuously have had to alter their positions towards Atheistic Human Rights), they simultaneously try to desperately defend the (evil) origin of their religion which rests on sex segregation/apartheid.


Blu Greenberg: We who are committed to traditional Judaism are standing today at the crossroads on the question of women. Feminism disturbs our previous equilibrium, for it makes a fundamental claim about women contrary to the model generated by halakhah [Jewish law].

Principles of Feminism

The feminist ideology can be summed up as follows:

1. Women have the same innate potential, capability, and needs as men, whether in the realm of the spirit, the word, or the deed.

2. Women have a similar capacity for interpretation and con­comitant decision-making.

3. Women can function fully as "outside" persons, in broader areas of society beyond the home.

4. Women can and should have some control over their own destinies, to the extent that such mastery is possible for anyone.


Principles of Jewish Feminism

Let us reduce these broad statements from the level of generalization to a theology of woman as Jew:

1. A woman of faith has the same innate vision and existential longing for a redemptive‑covenantal reality as a man of faith. She has the same ability and need to be in the presence of God alone and within the context of the community. Such a woman is sufficiently mature to accept the responsibilities for this relationship and the rights that flow from these responsibilities. If these spiritual gifts do not flow naturally from her soul, she can be educated and uplifted in them in much the same fashion that Jewish men are.

Klevius comment: No, she can't be 'educated and uplifted' from her flesh, simply because as a feminist (i.e. separatist) she actually underscores religious essentialism.


2. Jewish women, as much as men, have the mental and emotional capacities to deal directly with the most sacred Jewish texts and primary sources. Jewish women are capable of interpreting tradition based on the sources. They can be involved in the decision‑making process that grows out of the blending of inherited tradition with contemporary needs.

Klevius comment: No doubt they can, and they do it without addressing the key point, namely sex segregation. That's why Klevius calls them sad clowns.


3. Some women, as some men, are capable of functioning in the positions of authority related to the religious and physical survival of the Jewish people.

Klevius comment: Indeed! The physical survival of the Jewish (or muslim) people men/Ummah/OIC etc.

4. Women as a class should not find themselves in discriminatory positions in personal situations. In such matters as marriage and divorce, a woman should have no less control or personal freedom than a man, nor should she be subject to abuse resulting from the constriction of freedom.

Klevius comment:  Avoiding 'abuse resulting from the constriction of freedom' is only fully achieved via Atheism and Universal Human Rights! As long as you're stack in a god, you or someone else is always limited when it comes to Human Rights.

How is it possible that a tradition with so highly developed a sensitivity to human beings could allow even one law or value judgment that demeans women, much less a host of such laws?

 Klevius comment: Human beings? Didn't we just talk about sex segregated women! Or are there different species of 'human beings'? And if there are, how on earth could we possibly be equal then?


The stratification of men and women in Judaism simply reflects the male‑female hierarchical status in all previous societies in human history. Moreover, in light of the primary model of Jewish woman as domestic creature‑-as wife, mother, dependent, auxiliary‑-all other roles and responsibilities that seemed to conflict with the primary model simply were eliminated.

Klevius comment: Indeed!

I do not wish to imply that Jewish women were oppressed. This is far from the truth. Given the historically universal stratification of the sexes, plus the model of the Jewish woman as enabler and the exclusive male (rabbinic) option of interpreting the law, there could have been widespread abuse of the powerless. But this did not happen. In fact, the reverse is true; throughout rabbinic history, one observes a remarkably benign and caring attitude toward women.


Klevius comment: This is a remarkable statement. She continues to defend religious sexism by referring to 'the historically universal stratification of the sexes' (Klevius translation: sex segregation). There were 'widespread abuse of the powerless'! That's the very core of religion, i.e. to defend the taking of slaves and robbing and slaughtering Canaanites etc "infidels".

Nevertheless, there is a need today to redefine the status of women in certain areas of Jewish law. First, a benign and caring stance is not discernible in every last instance of rabbinic legislation. Second, paternalism is not what women are seeking nowadays, not even the women of the traditional Jewish community. Increasingly, such women are beginning to ask questions about equality, about a more mature sharing of responsibility, about divesting the power of halakhic interpretation and legislation of its singular maleness.
Going Forward: The Options

I have referred to the crossroads at which we stand. A crossroad implies choices. There are three ways in which halakhic Jews may proceed with regard to the question of women:

1. We can revert to the fundamentalist pole, where hierarchy of male and female remains unchallenged in most areas of human life.

2. We can allow the new value system to penetrate our civil lives but not our religious lives. In other words, women may be encouraged to see themselves as equals in social, economic, and political spheres. This is the current stance of modern Orthodoxy.

3. We can find ways within halakhah to allow for growth and greater equality in the ritual and spiritual realms, despite the fact that there are no guarantees where this will lead us.
Integrating Non-Jewish Values

It is my firm belief that the third path is the one we now must begin to follow. Admittedly, I have been propelled in that direction by the contemporary Western humanist liberation philosophy of the secular women's movement; those who would hurl at me the charge of "foreign‑body contamination" therefore are absolutely right. But is there any religion in history, including Judaism, that has not borrowed from the surrounding culture?

The real question is, What do we do with what we borrow? What are the unique Jewish ways in which we appropriate positive ideas, customs, and values? How can we enhance our system by these new accretions? And most important, in what ways can they become continuous with the essence of Judaism? True, the original impulse for all this, as I have said, derives from feminism, but even if such a movement hadn't evolved, I still would like to think that a creative pondering of the ideals of Torah Judaism might lead to the same conclusions.



Klevius comment: Here I just refer to

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, a former Vice-Chairman of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), the main body of American Modern Orthodox Rabbis and the largest rabbinic organization in the world.

Rabbi Pruzansky has written numerous articles opposing Open Orthodoxy, and insists that - contrary to the claims of its founder - it does not qualify as "Orthodox" at all, due to what he says is a complete abandonment of Torah values and a gradual abandonment of Halakha altogether.

Arutz Sheva sat down with Rabbi Pruzansky to get to the opposition to the Open Orthodox movement in the US.

Where Modern Orthodoxy differs with hareidi streams of thought, he elaborates, is its belief that normative Halakhic standards can be strictly adhered to without shutting oneself off from the rest of the world. They are simply two different approaches, but share the same fundamental Torah values.

But despite all that, clearly there are many Jewish people who see Open Orthodoxy as filling a need... that something is missing in their Judaism. How do you respond to that?

For Rabbi Pruzansky, this question drills down to the fundamental error committed by movements such as Open Orthodoxy: an attempt to adapt and rewrite Torah values to suit every demand or ideal of the contemporary western world.

"You can't slake every thirst, that's the bottom line," he explains.

In particular, he says the domination of Open Orthodoxy and similar fringe movements by feminist activists is an indication that they are not drawing their fundamental values from the Torah, but looking outside of it.

"When it comes to feminism especially, it's a secular value, an un-Jewish value, and for the most part it's an anti-Torah value.

"When you mix something impure into a pure system, they don't go together... something will have to give... either the Torah or feminism."

He points out that he often meets Orthodox women who "see themselves as feminists in terms of the right to receive equal rights in the workplace and wages, etc... But not a single one is interested in wearing tefillin, being a hazan (cantor), because that's just a man's role in shul.

"The bottom line is that egalitarianism isn't a Torah value, so if you ask how it can fit with Torah - it's not going to be a natural fit!

"We need to be able to derive our values and our worldview from the Torah. Anything that's not there just isn't our values."

So is there perhaps a failure by the Orthodox leadership to communicate that message? Because clearly there are people seeking "Jewish values" from outside the Torah.

"Yes - there is actually double failure:

"The first failure is education - the notion (still entertained by many Orthodox educators) that everyone has to be educated the same way is fundamentally flawed.

"But there is a much broader point," he stresses, namely that "there are some Orthodox rabbis who have encouraged these expectations" because of pressure to cave into "secular values".

Like any legal system, he explains, "There is a limit to how much Halakha can tolerate."

"The failure to reach those expectations has engendered an industry of grievance; those grievances that are unassuagable are responsible for the  creation of Open Orthodoxy and other fringe movements in the Torah world."

The phenomenon is helped along by the media, he says, which allows relatively fringe groups to punch well above their weight.

"They have the ear of the media so their influence is exaggerated.

"The Jewish media in America is by and large... hard-left, with very few exceptions, and even those with some connection to Orthodoxy - those with Orthodox publishers and the like - don't have appropriate respect for rabbis. Granted they thrive on controversy - that's also part of it - but they simply do not know or accept any limits.

"And that is also part of the problem: Western man does not accept any moral limits at all," he says, echoing the famous American saying: "Don't tread on me!"

In contrast, however, "Transposing that sentiment onto Torah is absurd.

"In Torah we surrender to the system, we don't conform the system to our desires."

So how is Orthodox world responding... how should it be responding?

"Right now we're in the realm of simply protesting.

"But there is a movement of thought that is gaining ground - it hasn't swept through all Orthodoxy - to actually ostracize and declare openly that these movements are not Orthodox - with all that entails for conversions, taking part in prayer quorums, etc...

Do you think that's the right route?

"I would much rather have some kind of rapprochement, reconciliation. The Torah world is small enough. It can accommodate the left-wing but it can't accommodate a female hazan, a female rabbi, dilution of conversion standards, mixed church choirs...

"There is only so much that the Torah world can accept; but nevertheless, rather than ostracizing or alienating I'd rather draw [them] near - but it has to be because we all accept he same terms of reference.

Do you think there is any hope for reconciliation at all?

"There's always hope. I'm not confident in the short term but in the long-term more so... except a number of adherents to this group will inevitably eventually leave Orthodoxy altogether.


Here's OIC's Sharia messenger in UK, Sayeeda Warsi and her co-muslim Abu Qatada 

 Whereas Human Rights allow you to live under Sharia (if you are so stupid* so you really want to) Sharia doesn't allow you to live under Human Rights!

* meaning the wish to hinder others from accessing full Human Rights