Klevius (the world's foremost bias hunter): Always run like Always run their business - not like a girl!

Always run like Always

To understand the theoretical background to this - please, do keep reading and informing about Klevius sex tutorials!


Always question: Why can't 'run like a girl' also mean winning the race?

Klevius answer: Because of sex segregation, stupid!

Klevius question: How do you put Always in place 'like a girl'?

Why would you try to run like a girl or a woman or a man or a horse anyway - why not like a human? Compete in a women's race but do not run 'like a woman'! Running 'like a woman' is always history (sorry about that) and might limit your potential!

The world's fastest woman ever, Flo-Jo (1988) had only one flaw: Because of sex segregation she let her long hair out - and lost a couple of 1/10s.

The best running woman ever didn't run like a girl

Here's the world's fastest 400m woman ever (47.6), Marita Koch in 1985. She also run 200m in 21.71, i.e. almost half a second faster than Carmelita Jeter 2009, and 100m in 10.71. That makes her the world's best running woman ever.

Taken from Klevius 2004 web page Heroic Women and some Tiny Men

BBC calls the muslim "infidel" hating tradition the 'holy Ramadan' - but never the 'holy Christmas', ''holy Midwinter, 'holy Eastern', 'holy Midsummer' etc!

Ramadan is a pagan tradition that was taken over by islam and made an "infidel" hating feast.

Ramadan is an especially popular time for jihad killing of "infidels" and parasiting on slaves. Btw, the word 'slave' comes from 'Slav' because of the great number of Slavic slaves.

Fly Qatar to Sharia

 When will Cameron & Co address Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

 

Most passenger planes have been bombed or shot down by muslims supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar!

Air Algerie flight AH5017 came down in an area in Mali occupied by muslim jihadists (supported by Qatar) almost an hour after it had taken off which means it had reached an altitude well above any sandstorm. Moreover, it's said that the plane debris and bodies were badly burnt, indicating the burning happened in the air.

Which one is weirder, Klevius (the main world critic of sex segregation/apartheid*) or sex apartheid?

* Admittedly Klevius seems also still to be the only one addressing the core issue of this monumental world problem. However, this fact is no more surprising than the fact that we live in a world where every girl has to assign herself to long hair, make up, "feminine" clothing etc cultural "femininity". And if she doesn't then she has to excuse herself by labeling herself a lesbian, a transexual etc or be labeled by others as "suffering" from the invented mental pathology of "gender dysphoria".

What is sex segregation - and what is it not?

According to soft brained Wikipedia: Sex segregation is the physical, legal, and cultural separation of people according to their biological sex. This is distinct from gender segregation, which is the separation of people according to social constructions of what it means to be male versus female.

According to hard brained Klevius: Sex segregation is the physical, legal (e.g. Sharia), and cultural separation of girls/women from boys/men according to social constructions of what it means to be male versus female.

Gender segregation is an impossible term in this context because the separation of people according to social constructions of what it means to be male versus female resides inside the brain not outside the body and can therefore not be called segregation. Segregation is the action or state of setting someone apart from other people or being set apart. In other words, segregation can only be imposed on you from outside with or without your consent. You cannot segregate yourself. Moreover, segregation implies a collective, not individual, action.



According to Carmen Hamilton (apparently a soft brained lawyer):  We’re born as either male or female and, generally, are raised to look and act as our society expects men and women to look and act (sic).

If a radical (sic) approach to eliminate gender segregation were adopted, we would see the complete eradication of gender segregation in all aspects of life. There would no longer be men’s and women’s washrooms, sports, or communal change rooms.

Still, a move to eradicate systemic gender segregation, would inevitably have fallout that would need to be addressed. There are legitimate safety concerns behind some gender segregation. Physical and sexual violence suffered by women at the hands of men continues to be a sad reality. It is difficult to see how women prisoners will be adequately protected if sex segregation is eliminated in prisons.

It also begs the question about whether we can eliminate sex segregation when we have not yet achieved gender equality (sic). Would such a movement nullify the gains fought for by feminists over the last century? There was a time when it was seen as a huge win for women in trades when employers were required to provide separate washrooms for women. Further, we cannot ignore the physiological differences between men and women that put women at a disadvantage in many sports. We would likely see far fewer female Olympians.

Klevius comment: 'We are generally raised to look and act as our society expects men and women to look and act' is a meaningless tautology because 'generally' and 'our society' both have the same meaning. Moreover, Carmen Hamilton seems to be deeply confused when she uses sex segregation and gender segregation as synonyms. What do your invisible gender thoughts in your brain have to do with physical threats from men? Isn't it your biological sex (or your signaling of a female body) that is visible, not your gender.

And why a 'radical elimination of segregation'? What's that anyway?! What would radical Human Rights mean? Would it mean that there exist some moderate Human Rights according to which just a little torture is ok?!

And why can't we have female prisons, washing rooms etc?  It has nothing to do with sex segregation/apartheid. We have parking spots for disabled people but not for women. And why can't women continue running 100 m separate from men? We don't call other effects of physical sex differences sex segregation either. Carmen Hamilton seems to seriously mix apples and pears on this topic. She represents a dangerous view that blurs women's right to full Human Rights equality.

Carmen Hamilton also asks 'whether we can eliminate sex segregation when we have not yet achieved gender equality'. What a non sense! 'Gender equality' is an oxymoron in many sense but here mainly because sex segregation is the opposite to "gender equality"! In other words a catch 22.

LGBT people have "gender rights" but 11-year old football girls have none (see below).

Klevius' sex tutorial: The problem with main stream* feminism is its "equal but different" separatism

* Folks, there are two main types of 'feminism' out there: One that is academic and based on segregation/separatism/apartheid (e.g. muslim feminism), and one that could be described as folk "feminism", i.e. the erroneous belief that feminism stands for equal rights when it in fact stands for separatism.

'Heterosexual attraction' is the only analytical concept you need - yet no one seems to use it as such except Klevius

The feminist fallacy of the double failure not to recognize heterosexual attraction while simultaneously keeping up sex segregation

Heterosexual attraction is the evolutionary logarithm that underpins heterosexual reproduction.

The only heterosexual human is a heterosexual man. If you don't understand/recognize this simple fact then you, just like feminists, have no say at all in discussions about Human Rights and the adverse effect of sex segregation.

Heterosexual attraction in humans resides in the male brain as the female body. Not the other way round. As a consequence only men can have heterosexual sex.

All men and women are different but equal according to Human Rights. However, according to feminists, only men and women are different from a rights perspective. So when Moi uses some 500 pages to tell us that only women, not men, can have women's experience, we can waive her next deep thought namely that women are different from other women.

Ever thought about why Mideast happened to be the birthplace of the most disgusting of cumber stones on humanity's road to Universal Human Rights (including women)? In Demand for Resources Klevius established the root origin of "general" sex segregation as connected to the transition from hunting/gathering to investment a la the neolithic revolution.

However, pure institutionalized sexism, i.e. sex segregation as apartheid, was born out of particular secondary circumstances and effects of sex segregation in the commerce between the new forms of production. The main birthplace for true sexism was Mideast due to its geographical location.You don't have sex religions in China, Japan etc.

When men traded and therefore travelled around, women became even more segregated than they were in the farming society where they at least had a daily contact over the sex barrier. Combine this development with slavery and defense against slavery and you end up with "the chosen people" whose survival was the institutionalized Vagina gate and whose (im)morality was sanctioned by "God".

Slowing down the process of de-sex segregation at an 'all deliberate speed' while treating sex segregation symptoms with hormones and surgery

'All deliberate speed' was a phrase used in the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared the system of legal segregation unconstitutional. However,  the Court ordered only that the states end segregation with ‘all deliberate speed', i.e. to weigh something in the balance.

Grace Kelly Bermudez is the plaintiff in a suit, which alleges Colombia’s military service requirement is discriminatory insofar as it only considers assigned sex — typically determined at birth by the presence of absence of external sex organs — and not gender identity – a 'lived internal and individual experience'.

While the military service requirement only applies to men, there is currently no statute governing cases of transsexuals who were assigned a restricting sex at birth and due to sex segregation weren't allowed to lead their lives as they wished.

Gender, as opposed to sex, is a “lived internal and individual experience,” according to an amicus brief filed on Bermudez’s behalf.

Trans persons’ ability to 'construct their gender in a determining fashion' is an implicit part of their “individual autonomy as human beings', an interpretation the Constitutional Court agreed with, argues the brief, when it ruled that all Colombians have the right to 'freely' define their 'association with any particular gender, as well as romantic orientation toward others.'

As a consequence it is argued that the current military exemption practice violates Bermudez’s 'right to gender identity and all related rights by denying her construction of identity, leading to the violation of her privacy, personhood, and right to live free of humiliations', reads the brief.

Klevius comment: So wrong! It is sex segregation that denies the construction of an identity that partly or fully falls outside this segregation, leading to the violation of privacy, personhood, and right to live free of humiliations etc. And sex segregation is already dismissed in the 1948 Human Rights declaration. Why not simply stick to Human Rights rather than upholding a ridiculous sex apartheid.

Jeff and Hillary Whittington presented a video showing little Ryland's female-to-male transition

Klevius comment: You can't possibly be born with a 'gender'. The popularity of LGBT rhetorics is largely due to the defense of sex segregation/apartheid. So ironically, LGBT people's fight for the freedom to lead their lives as they wish simultaneously restricts the playroom for non-LGBT girls and women. Again, Klevius simple answer is to empower girls'/women's Human Right to lead their lives without restrictions because of their sex. And if people don't stop bullying them then why not criminalize such bullying as a hate crime. That would in no time make people equally cautious as they are now about saying anything about muslims, wouldn't it.


John D. Inazu, associate professor of law at Washington University School of Law, an expert on the First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion: In less than three decades, the Supreme Court has moved from upholding the criminalizing of gay conduct to affirming gay marriage. The tone of the debates has also shifted. Views on gender and sexual conduct have flip-flopped. Thirty years ago, many people were concerned about gender equality, but few had LGBTQ equality on their radar. Today, if you ask your average 20-year-old whether it is worse for a fraternity to exclude women or for a Christian group to ask gay and lesbian members to refrain from sexual conduct, the responses would be overwhelmingly in one direction.

Luke Brinker (in Bill O'Reilly's Dangerous Parenting Advice For Transgender Kids): O'Reilly has also encouraged parents to actively force their transgender children to conform to gender stereotypes.

Klevius: So it's not a 'gender stereotype' when 'activities and clothing more commonly associated with boys' is enough to deem a girl on a path toward physiological manipulation of her body rather than give her the right to perform these activities without sex apartheid.

Jack Drescher, a member of the APA subcommittee working on the revision of DSM: 'All psychiatric diagnoses occur within a cultural context.

Klevius comment: So when DSM 15 is out, can the male to female trans get their penis back, please?

Homosexuality was diagnosed in the DSM as an illness until 1973, and conditions pertaining to homosexuality were not entirely removed until 1987.
The new term 'gender dysphoria'  implies a temporary mental state rather than an all-encompassing disorder, a change that blurs the picture even more.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights: 'Having a diagnosis is extremely useful in legal advocacy. We rely on it even in employment discrimination cases to explain to courts that a person is not just making some superficial choice ... that this is a very deep-seated condition recognized by the medical community.'

Klevius comment: The only deep-seated condition in this appalling symptom of sex segregation  is the medical community and money.

Mental health professionals who work with trans clients are also pushing for a revised list of symptoms, so that a diagnosis will not apply to people whose distress comes from external prejudice, adults who have transitioned, or children who simply do not meet gender stereotypes.

Why is the sex segregated bullying of girls like Moa Thambert supported when it should, in fact, be classified as a hate crime?!

Parents used to shout 'boy' at me, says now 16-year old Moa Thambert.

Moa Thambert, 16, has always had short hair cut and been tough on the football pitch.

Moa Thambert, 16: It took me hard to be called a boy. Is still in the back of my head. As a child I didn't understand why they wanted to segregate me. But now I understand that it was because I dare to take my place and that I have a certain appearance. It makes me really sad.

When Moa was six she begun playing football and immediately got comments about her "inappropriate" sex appearance. 'It's so sick because there is no difference in how kids look like. One should really be careful not to do so. It strikes very hard.It shouldn't need to be like that.

Pia Sundhage (Sweden's football lady number one and former US coach): It's appalling. In the 1960s I had to pretend to be a boy to be allowed playing in a football team.

Pia Sundhage refers to a recent Swedish football tournament (Fotbollsfesten) for kids where 11-year old girls in Glumslövs FF/Lunds BK were accused of being boys by leaders and parents from Åhus IF.

Åhus IF coaches  were so aggressive and got the whole team with them, says
Jens Lindblom, father of 11-year old Agnes.

The girls cried while the sex abuse continued.


Klevius concluding comment: I've even written a PhD thesis about exactly  this (including in depth interviews with Pia Sundhage and other important female football personalities from the 1940s and on). However. now I want to publish my findings for the general public but hesitate to do so due to the slim interest (or is it just deep ignorance) in this the biggest of global questions. Football/soccer is the sport that seems to best reveal the medieval thinking about sex segregation.

Any hints on how to make the book more popular than this blogging?

And why isn't the whole world reading Klevius?

Anyone?




Some previous reflexions on the topic:

The shameful contamination of British universities with religious fanatism

Guardian:  The University of Leicester has launched an investigation into gender segregation (sic) at a public lecture held by its student Islamic society.

    The talk, entitled Does God Exist?, featured a guest speaker Hamza Tzortzis as part of an Islamic Awareness week. Seating at the event was segregated, with different entrances into the lecture theatre for men and women. . .

    In Leicester, more than 100 students attended the segregated event, which took place last month. A photograph passed to the Guardian shows signs put up in a university building, directing the segregation.

    A message on the group’s website says: “In all our events, [the society] operate a strict policy of segregated seating between males and females.” The statement was removed after the Guardian contacted the society.


Klevius comment: Again this confused and irrational oxymoron 'gender segregation'. The sign on the wall of Leicester University clearly states 'males' and 'females'. It means biological sex, not cultural gender!



Rupert Sutton, from the campus watchdog Student Rights: There is a consistent use of segregation by student of islamic societies across the country. While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on female students to conform and obey these rules that encourage subjugation should not be underestimated.

Klevius: Although islam is by far the worst culprit when it comes to sex apartheid, there is also a consistent low level general use of sex segregation "light" across the world. While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on females (not the least by other females) to conform and obey to sex segregation that encourages subjugation should not be underestimated.

 Leicester University is one of the world's most sexist (i.e. islamized) universities. You may not believe me but the truth is (an other professor witnessed it) that a female professor, Barbara Misztal (an East European immigrant? as BBC uses to put it), when presented with criticism against islam's rejection of women's full Human Rights via Sharia, said "Why don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish". Yes, you got it right. She saw Sharia restrictions of women's rights as a right! Why hasn't anyone taught her that impositions are not rights, and that Human Rights don't hinder muslim women from choosing to live under these impositions whereas Sharia denies them the choice to freedom. Moreover, she also blamed the messenger for not allowing women to NOT HAVE THEIR FULL RIGHTS!

Barbara Misztal's  female students need to know this, and as usual, it seems that Klevius is the only one daring to really address this ultimate and extremely disastrous and even dangerous sexism.

Sharia sex segregation or Human Rights for girls/women?

In every possible form of Sharia girls/women are forced to lead their lives in sex apartheid of varying degrees. And that includes OIC's all muslims covering Sharia law via UN. But according to Human Rights every girl/woman has the right to decide herself what kind of life she wants to lead - incl. a sex segregated life if she so wishes. So to live in a society where Sharia rules doesn't really give any fair options.

In islam women and non-muslims are all "infidels", and the only thing that really distinguishes a woman as muslim is her "duty" towards islam to reproduce (physically and/or culturally) as many new muslims as possible - and of course to have the Sharia duty to serve as a sex slave for her muslim husband.

Isn't that funny, muslims need a law to get sex while for me such compulsory sex equals rape!

Klevius islam tutorial for Malala Yousafzai

Islamic hate is not only abundant in the Koran but more importantly a handy way of covering up racism and sexism as "the will of Allah"

Today we would call it history falsification when Malik, long after the alleged Mohammed's death, made murdering, terrorism, looting, slavery, rapetivism etc a "religion". Hugh Kennedy (professor of Arabic language and Arabic history, especially the early muslim "conquests"): "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."

Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl who moved to Britain after being shot by the Taliban, vowed she was going to 'speak up for them until they are released'. However, she did not but instead defended the root cause of the abductions and other ideologically defended muslim atrocities.


Malala Yousafzai says the politically right thing: Islam is never evil - what is evil is not islam

Peter Klevius says the politically wrong thing: Islam is always evil - what is not evil isn't islam

Klevius defends his statement by showing that islam is incompatible with basic Human Rights. Can Malala Yousafzai really deny that Human Rights violating OIC (led by the Saudi Wahhabist Iyad Madani on the slave pic above) via its UN representation is the main representative today of the world's muslims?! OIC defends the introduction of Sharia and due criminalization of the most basic of Human Rights - such as for example women's Human Riights.

Malala Yousafzai presents no defense for islam but is herself a tool used by islam to cover up islam's misogyny. Her cherry picking of the Koran stays in sharp contrast to the direct reading the Taliban and other islamofascists use.


Islam is not being 'manipulated by islamic leaders' - islam IS evilness against Human Rights! Those "muslims" who don't participate in jihad against "infidels", "wrong muslims", and Human Rights have nothing to do with islam. Islam is meaningless without jihad and sharia.


An example of a critic who pinpoints some essentials about islam (yet misses rapetivism/sex apartheid) but still seems to think islam is 'manipulated'. However' the only manipulation of islam is when its original formula is denied.

Shenali D Waduge: Muslims the world over must introspect. There were no Americans, US State Department or CIA when the spread of Islam took place violently with the core mission to ‘kill infidels” or non-believers. Islam via sword cut across entire continents and destroyed entire civilizations. These natives did not even have time to defend against the attacks. Undeniably, the acts were not in self-defense and the use of sword were inspired by the Quran. It is these factors that raise the existential fears of non-Muslims once more. The fear of history repeating itself prevails when 95% of violent conflicts around the world involve Muslims even if these conflicts are mischievously ignited by Western Christian countries. These conflicts are drawn using Koranic verses by numerous Islamic groups.

...

Whatever context the verses are being argued on the claim that Islam is ‘misunderstood’ the fact is that there are verses that call for action against non-Muslims while ideological differences have enabled external factors to pit Muslims against Muslims.

There are over 100 verses that call Muslims to war with non-believers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some of these commands are graphic calling to chop off heads and fingers and kill non-believers wherever they are hiding. Quran (8:12) – I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”  There is nothing defensive about these calls – Muslims were not attacked by the Buddhist priests of Nalanda when they burnt to cinders the world’s first Buddhist learning center and library. Muslims were not attacked when they travelled to Maldives and beheaded all Buddhist monks and destroyed all Buddhist artifacts in their belief of iconoclasm and declared Maldives as Islamic. Muslims were not attacked when they raised all Hindu architecture built by Hindu emperors in India.

Over a period of 800 years, millions of Hindus were slaughtered by Muslims as infidels or converted by the sword.There are scores of other examples as well to depict that there was no excuse for the manner Muslims drawing Islam killed unarmed civilians and completely destroyed ancient civilizations. Islam destroyed inventions of others but have shown little of creativity themselves.

What has to be said is that Muslims are drawn to violence not because they are bad people but the bad ideology that engulfs them and it is on the basis of these that non-Muslims are appealing for the scrutiny of madrassas where Islamic leaders are able to play mischief with the minds of Muslim children indoctrinating them by using verses of hatred. This is where non-Muslim governments have failed to realize and take action upon.

Klevius comment: I've always been fascinated with human self deception. How come that when the only explanation of the rise of islam that fits historical as well as contemporary facts is the very one that ISIS and Saudi Arabia embrace people still try to believe in a less evil fantasy islam?!

Shenali D Waduge: Let us take Quran (2:191-193) – And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing…but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” . There is nothing defensive in this passage too even in the historical context as Muslims had relocated to Medina. The verse is actually drawing Muslims to drive Meccans out of their own city – which they eventually did.

Madrassas and Muslim leaders can easily manipulate Muslims through Quran (2:216) – Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”  The verse establishes that violence can be virtuous (again negating the oft quoted excuse of self-defense).

Muslims who do not wish to be part of violence are also ridiculed. Quran (4:95) – Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” They are told that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes.

That non-believers had little choice but to convert to Islam and pay tax is revealed in Quran (9:5) – So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

This clearly reveals the context of present day fears of non-Muslims knowing that when Muslims have power, if Muslim leaders use the violent verses of Koran they would not hesitate to convert or kill those who do not convert to Islam – peaceful Muslims have no say and no power to overrule this reality. With the number of Islamic factions rising, the number of Islamic groups calling for various jihads the looming dangers are great made worse by the West manipulating these leaders for their own agendas.

Quran (9:73) – O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”  dehumanizes those who reject Islam and shows how Muslims can be easily led to show disregard for non-Muslims.

 Armed Muslims groups are all described as Islamists because they are using Islamic verses. Every killing of non-Muslims follows instructions taken from the Koran (whatever context it is read in). Since 9/11 there are said to have been over 20,000 acts of deadly Islamic terrorism.

Elements that define hate speech include drawing a moral distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it. Devaluating and dehumanizing other groups drawing superiority of one’s own. Advocating different standards of treatment clearly established in categorizing believers and non-believers and thus calling to violence against them. 61% of the Quran s about non-Muslims 98:6. Non-believers are even compared to vile animals. Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to panting dogs” with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness.  Verse 7:179 says they are like cattle” only worse. It is these verses that enable Islamic groups to call for jihads against non-believers. We can’t be faulted for claiming that Quran is about brotherhood of believers (49:10). We wonder what Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara has to say about the verses that incite hate?

 Nowhere in the Quran does it say that Allah loves non-believers of Muhammad. However there are over 400 verses giving the torment for people of other religions. Moreover, in today’s context of affairs the 9 places in the Quran where believers are warned not to befriend non-Muslims can be easily seen in the manner Muslim children are not encouraged to even play with non-Muslims. O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves? (4:144).

In the present context of conflicts is it not time to question why Islam is at war with every major religion in the world when none of these religions are at war with each other? Is the reason not found in the Quran itself that shows non-Muslims to be inferior to Islam’s adherents and do Islamic groups and their leaders not draw upon Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims to wage these wars? The moderate Muslims have been totally powerless to control this aspect and have themselves become part and parcel not desiring to be outcasts of their religion. 

Entering the present, we see how far Islam has become easy to manipulate by the West with Osama bin laden himself part of the West’s agenda and continuing through various factions/associated entities of the Al Qaeda. The Muslim world itself is faced with the ISIS who are demolishing mosques and shrines and wonder who are responsible for making Muslims victims of their own faith.

Islam today suffers from within as well as because of external factors. On the one hand there are bizarre fatwas issues upon Muslims. Rashan Hassan Khalil, former dean of Islamic law at al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt forbid married couples to be naked in 2006. Saudi Arabia’s highest committee for Scientific research and Islamic law banned Pokmon video games and cards in 2001. Pakistan’s largest Islamist umbrella group, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal banned immunizing children from polio in 2007 claiming it sterilized Muslims. Parents of 24,000 children refused to give polio vaccine to their children as a result. In the year 2005, an Islamic Organization Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind based in Kolkata issued a fatwa warning ominously that Indian tennis star Sania Mirza would be ‘stopped from playing’ if she did not start wearing ‘proper clothes’.  Sheikh Muhammad Munajid, a former Saudi diplomat pronounced that Mickey Mouse was Satan’s soldier.  The head of the Moroccan Association for Jurisprudence Research” issued a fatwa allowing Muslim men to have sex with their just-deceased wives. The pretext of the ruling is based on nothing in Islam prohibits sex with corpses.  Egypt, Sheikh Amr Sotouhi, head of the Islamic Preaching Committee at al-Azhar, issued a fatwa prohibiting fathers from marrying their daughters to members of the formerly ruling National Democratic Party owing to their corruption.”

 It is not hard to imagine how non-prevalent issues have suddenly emerged giving Muslims a sense of grievance against non-Muslims for not accepting these new culture changes into non-Muslim majority societies. These factors have also become a means to create disharmony by encouraging non-Muslims to react against incursions.

 We can also imagine the mischief Western envoys are upto. On the one hand they would be encouraging the very elements that they know raises reactions by non-Muslims because these elements are perfect for the Western superiority to prevail.

 As examples we can take how hijab/nikab have been encouraged on the one hand while also shown as non-integrators and non-co-existence elements. We have seen how halal has become a mere commercial element for Muslims who have a choice to even eat haram items given the condition they are in. We also see how far incursions are encouraged through Western-partnered Islamic leaders/groups and even politicians for they become perfect ingredients to push other agendas even inside countries of the West too.

 Thus, even Britain is home to Islamic scare stories. The French had been wiser. Before announcing the ban on the face veil its survey estimated that not even 0.1% of Muslims wore the face veil. The French also showed how more Muslims were without the nikab than those wearing it. The French also highlighted the security concerns over ID and testifying in court, drivers license, as well as driving. 

 Essentially, anyone reading the Koran deserves to be told why these verses exist. It is because they exist and are uncontrolled Muslim groups are using these verses to create mayhem and the mayhem is funded by the West for their own corporate geopolitical agendas:

And slay them wherever ye catch them..” (2:191)

 ..But if they turn away, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (4:89).

    Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)
    Make war on the infidels living in your neighboorhood (9:123)
    When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)
    Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)
    Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)
    The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)
    Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam. (5:33)
    The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)
    Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies
    (22:19)
    Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)
    The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)
    Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)
    Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)
    Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels (8:60)

 Sri Lanka’s President recently declared those who condemn other religions bring disgrace to their own. The examples of the Quran are not to condemn Islam but to showcase that because these verses exist, they are open to interpretations by Islamic groups that are not controlled and end up destroying their own as well as destroying the harmony around the world.

It is no better a time than now to relook at these verses and for Muslim scholars to make a statement on the verses directly attributed against non-Muslims (non-believers) and the calls to destroy or convert them.

Klevius comment: Killing islam for good!

Origin of islamic parasitism and rapetivism

Raymond Ibrahim: There is little new or original in the videos and communiques from the Islamic State. Just static Islamism.

If one turns to the speeches of other Islamic and jihadi groups around the world – from the African groups such as Boko Haram (Nigeria) and al-Shabaab (Somalia), to Asian groups such as Abu Sayyaf (Philippines) and the Islamic Movement (Uzbekistan) – it’s the same thing, same themes, same scriptures, same quotations, same exhortations, same condemnations. Only their temporal circumstances and vicissitudes of victory or defeat differ.

While the Western mentality, so used to seeing and hearing about the “latest” or “newest” fad, may deem the Islamist approach as static or insipid, it is, quite the contrary, immensely effective for its purposes, and thus dangerous.

Consider: It’s the same exact message – of supremacism, hate, and violence, capped off with divine sanctioning – repeated over and over again, from a myriad of sources and organizations, all of which claim authority.

One can think of few better ways to brainwash and indoctrinate young and impressionable minds – to the point that they eagerly embrace death, including through suicide (AKA “martyrdom operations”).

Nor is this message of jihad, conquest, and death-to-the-infidel, limited to the verbiage that transpires among terrorist organizations; instead, this sort of rhetoric has spread far and wide, thanks to modern technology – including the Internet and social media – and the rich Gulf States, chief among them Saudi Arabia, which have seen to it that the jihadi books and passages being quoted are available to all and sundry.

Indeed, and has been demonstrated repeatedly, such jihadi rhetoric is regularly used in mosques all throughout Europe and America – explaining why an inordinate amount of jihadis in Syria and Iraq, such as Abu Muthana, the aforementioned “Brit,” are in fact from the West.

If the West, in the name of “religious freedom,” is still too fretful to monitor and ban such sermons, in Egypt – a Muslim nation in the heart of the Islamic world – the post Muslim Brotherhood government has come to understand the necessity of outlawing “certain” kinds of rhetoric  from the mosques, specifically those about jihad against infidels and apostates.

The overwhelming majority of attacks on Egypt’s Christian Copts occur on Friday – the one day of the week Muslims congregate in mosques to hear sermons.

Ultimately, however, such a move from Egypt – an Islamic nation – is an indicator of just how problematic unregulated (i.e., jihadi) sermons can be: if “moderate” Muslims are fearful from the repercussions of “radicalized” sermons, shouldn’t we “infidels” be even more wary of them?


Klevius comment: The problem isn't rhetoric but islam! This author seems not to understand that "static islamism" is the very origin of islam whereas PC islam is "new and original". It’s the same exact message – of racist/sexist supremacism, hate, and violence, capped off with divine sanctioning - which made islamic parasitism successful in the first place!