How come that muslims are protected against non-muslim criticism (so called "islamophobia") by those very Human Rights the muslims oppose, while non-muslims are robbed of their Human Rights freedoms?

Boris Johnson (possible new PM in UK): 'Sharia law in the UK is absolutely unacceptable'.

Klevius: But 'unacceptable' sharia is precisely what defines islam. And every effort to circumvent this fact - e.g. by the empty "it's just a consensual agreement" or "sharia without stoning etc." - is a deliberate lie. Islamic sharia is impossible to reconcile with the civilized view that all humans (incl. women) are equals.

This is why Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC, the world's main muslim body, couldn't accept a universal Human Rights standard - especially not when it comes to the most basic of Human Rights - but instead, via UN, declared that sharia should trump Human Rights. In other worlds, what the main muslim world organization did was to admit that islam can't exist without its racism and sexism.

This leads to the next question, i.e. that when all true muslims are pro sharia then those civilized "muslims" who oppose sharia are technically apostates, i.e. committing the worst crime known to sharia islam.

Theocrats constitute the main obstacle against full Human Rights (incl. women).

The disgusting, bigoted and hypocritical Christian-muslim "cooperation" at work in a UK mosque 2013.

The racist ideology called monotheism (my god's better that other gods) was spread by Jewish slave traders. It then transformed according to circumstances at hand into different sects and sub sects - some of them still called Jewish, while others have tried to free themselves from Judaism.

The racist "we are the only ones chosen by the only god" leaves no room whatsoever for the equality of others. This is the very soul of monotheism, i.e. to exclude others from possessing any other god equal to the Jewish god. And the simple reason was to get access to slaves etc. while being able to excuse it as "the will of god".

However, as you, dear reader, probably noticed, 'sexism' was missing in the previous paragraph. Well, here it comes. "The chosen people" needs not only borders to identify against the "infidels", it also needs this god given right to racism to be securely reproduced. For this end elaborated sexism is the perfect way to go, i.e. the institutionalized and legalized fostering of women ("educated" sex segregation/apartheid).

It's important to distinguish between what Klevius calls classical sex segregation due to purely practical matters on one hand, and religious sex segregation on the other hand.  Do remember that most of the world has never been monotheist. And do consider the appalling pompous dismissal and disrespect monotheists show against non-monotheists. No wonder islamofascists around the world feel encouraged when committing their atrocities.

From Klevius Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor (1992:68-71):

Patricia Draper in "The Harvard !Kung Bushmen Study Project" compared sex role differences between classical humter/gatherers and sedentary ones. She concluded that the traditional "!Kung society may be the least sexist of any we have experienced" and that this becomes obvious through "women's subsistence contribution and the control women retain over the food they have gathered, the lack of rigidity in sex-typing of many adult activities including domestic chores and aspects of child socialization; the cultural sanction against physical expression of aggression; the smaller group size; and the nature of the settlement pattern." She also says that "authoritarian behavior is avoided by adults of both sexes." However, according to Draper, all of this changed among the more sedentary !Kungs.

In 1963 Richard Borshley Lee studied in detail the so called Dobe Base Camp 12. Marshal Sahlin concluded the results: '1f the affluent society is one where all the people's material wants are easily satisfied this is the first affluent society." He continued: "The human condition must keep man the prisoner at hard labor of a perpetual disparity between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means... " and "There is (instead) a road to affluence, departing from premises... that human wants are few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate."

In the mid 1970s Diane Gelburd observed that the Dobe camp had changed character since Richard Lee's field studies. Investment economy and personal belongings sided with more private dwellings. At the same time internal social relations changed. There was also less re-distribution of wealth and questions surrounding marriage got complicated due to new and previously unknown problems regarding property etc. "What explains the shattering of this society"? asked John Yellen from The National Science Foundation anthropology program. He continued: "It hasn't been a direct force, a war, the ravages of disease... " and concludes: '1t is the internal conflicts, the tensions, the inconsistencies, the impossibility of reconciling such different views of the world" (Klevius 1992).

Its an irony then that while 'civilization' means 'ordered society', it's in fact the most chaotic due to its technology driven dynamics. A dynamics that neither we nor the !Kungs can avoid.

If this sounds too complicated, please don't hesitate to comment so Klevius can elaborate further on it in accordance with what you didn't get of it.

Is BBC's presenter Mishal Husain a muslim or an apostate?

Klevius uses Mishal Husain as an example due to her role as a presenter at a world leading state funded (plus Sunni muslim funds through BBC World) broadcasting company. There are many lesser "Mishal Husseins" out there.

 There are three types of muslims:

1  The original violent jihad muslim - today represented by, for example, the Islamic State (IS, ISIS Daesh or whatever).

2  Sharia muslims who don't do violence themselves but may approve of others doing it. OIC, many (most?) imams, media (e.g. Mishal Husain*) politicians (e.g. Sayeeda Warsi).

3  Non-sharia "muslims", i.e. apostates, although many of them haven't realized it as yet due to their ignorance about their religion.

 * She seems to ask for more "success" for muslim jihadis. However, she also commits blasphemy against islam by not fasting during Ramadan but rather drinking some alcohol etc., so in this respect she might also be considered an apostate, i.e. someone committing the worst of crimes against islam. But most people seem to blink this the most important borderline between muslims and "muslims". Yes, it must feel nice to eat the cake while still keeping it. But this delusion doesn't help the real victims of islam. So when Mishal Husain proudly states that "I don't feel any threat against my way of life" this might be seen as a spit in the face of islam's victims.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common - unless of course, Mishal Husain is an apostate and too cowardice to openly abandoning sharia islam. Or even worse, that she lies straight in the face of BBC's listeners.