Sharia islam is never good for your Human Rights if you are a woman. But willing whores and deceptive but off the point talks may well lure many women still.
But the more important question is: Can you as a woman face your own sex apartheid history fully?
The origin of islam was plundering and raping booty jihad along Jewish slave trade routes.
Here's an approximate map of Judaism just before the origin of islam.
And below an approximate map of the violent muslim colonization in the foot steps of the Jewish slave trade routes.
Except for Khazaria, Jews were more business orientated than eager to waive swords compared to their copycats the Arab Bedouins. However, without wealthy and influential Jews leading the bloodthirsty and illiterate Bedouins (compare Ibn-Khaldun's description) and paving the way for the Arab looters (compare how the Jews used Turkic people in Khazaria in pretty much the same manner) the "Arab conquest" would have quickly dried out in the Arabian sand.
Dear reader. When reading Klevius analysis of the origin of islam, do always keep in mind the following important facts:
1 There was no Koran - only some Jewish/Christian text manipulations.
2 There was no Muhammad - only the old Jewish Messias (the rescuer/saver/leader) myth. Muhammad as described by muslims is a later invention snd doesn't appear in any official documents whatsoever before Malik.
3 Conventional "descriptions" of the "Arab conquest" are impossible and leave historians "amazed". Instead looting, booty, and sex slaves were the main incentives for the Bedouins. What was new was a more tight racist system of "we-and-the-other" which hindered (for a time) hindered internal divisions. On top of this was the Dhimmitude taxation system under the sword.
4 Understanding these point is also understanding that islam originated as a parasite and therefore never functioned as inspiration in itself for innovations etc. This is why every islamic colony has ended in bachwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able to drain a whole continent.
A little, timidly nonsense speaking Swedish "reformist" Shia muslim "professor"* who rides on the non-muslim world's longing for "nice muslims".
* Klevius uses 'professor' only re. scientific researchers. Mixing in a "god" isn't science.
Whereas few women believe in the Islamic State, some morons still believe in the oxymoron "reformed islam". To understand the impossibility of a civilized islam one only has to go to its evil origin (as Klevius has done since 9/11). And if you for some strange reason don't want to listen to the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid - and therefore also islam -just take a closer lookj to what BBC and others don't want to talk about.
And you may laugh this Saudi billionaire hoodlum away as a Saudi joke but then you miss the very point, namely that:
1 OIC's sharia includes both the Saudi sharia as well as any other sharia that fulfills the lofty definition of the Cairo declaration.
2 The main reason (except for protecting the Saudi and other muslim nations medieval systems) for OIC's sharia declaration was that the 1948 Universal* Human Rights Declaration gives women full equality with men, which fact made it impossible for islam in whatever sharia form.
* There's a dumb view presented for even dumber people that the UN declaration was "Western made" and therefore biased. Nothing could be more wrong. The paper and the pen may have been "Western made" but the content is from scratch made deliberately "non-Western" i.e. universal. Educate yourself!
Unlike many other forms of sexism, muslim sexism is pure racism: Muslim women in every single variant of possible sharia islam are always treated as "the other".
A Shia muslim that is on the extreme fringe of Shia muslims and not even considered a muslim by the majority of the world's Sunni muslims, incl, most muslim so called "scholars".
A pathetic and disgusting Human Rights denier who "accuses" basic and universal Human Rights for being bad "because they came out of the West". Ok, cars etc. also came out of the West and yes, he could blame them for some pollution etc. and call it "post-colonialism". But how on earth could you possibly deny the logic of the negative (basic) Human Rights, or deny them because they "came out of the West". Well the reason "they came out of the West" is that the islam contaminated parts of the world didn't give them a chance to come out there.
So is he an outright lier trying to camouflage islam's incompatibility with the most basic of Human Rights- or is he, like so many muslims, incredibly dumb/ignorant/brainwashed?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and filosophy (sic)* at Uppsala University in Sweden: There are some essential norms in the Koran that can be used to protect human dignity in different ways depending on time and cisrumstances.
* As Wittgenstein already pointed out, philosophy is a difficult discipline even without trying to squeeze in a God scheme in it. And even more so when the "God" is totally out of reach and only exists as differing human "interpretations".
Klevius: "Protecting" women from having access to full Human Rights? And "human dignity" should be read "muslim male dignity" added by the important "who is interpreted as being a true muslim" which could, as we all know, vary quite a lot among muslims. Moreover, what about the dignity of non-muslims? Either you let muslims "interpret" it or you skip islam alltogether, because here lies the real difference between Human Rights that gives every Atheist or whatever person (even muslims) equal rights, and sharia islam which openly violates these rights, as can be seen, for example, in Saudi based and steered OIC's (all muslim's main world organization) official abandoning of Human Rights in UN. Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and racist/sexist "muslimn filosophy" can't possibly be unaware of OIC, the muslim world's biggest and most important institution, can he!
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: That islam is good can be proved by comparing it to the illiterate Arab speaking bedouins.
Klevius: Is that really a good enough standard as reference?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: There's no logical connection between a muslim's belief and a muslim's rights.
Klevius: Apart from the fact that most muslims completely disagree with you, why do you then keep asking for muslim's rights? Why should muslim's have special rights because of their "beliefs"?
And here's this small minded muslim reformist's Shia source:
Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari: I do not call for a separation of politics and religion. Of course there should be cooperation between them.
Klevius: Cooperation between Human Rights violating sharia and politicians representing Human Rights doesn't sound very reformist, does it.
From an interview with Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari (spiced with Klevius comments): The way of life in Medina and Mecca was quite simple. But what took place then cannot be a model for today's world. Nowadays, Muslims live in intelligent social systems, in which there is a wide diversity of institutions. This requires us to develop a proper plan with the aid of reason. This is not something that can be derived from the Koran.
Klevius: At least he seems to admit that the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina wasn't a good "model". Or did he mean something else? The muslim booty and sex jihad?
"During its Golden Age, Islam was known for highly controversial and pluralistic debates. Today, the reality in many Muslim countries is quite different. There is little freedom of thought.. What can be done to promote more freedom of thought in Muslim countries?"
Klevius: The "golden age" was just the same as today, i.e. muslims sponging on resources they haven't themselves created. Slaves back then - oil and Western welfare today. More than 90% of the economy in Andalus was based on slavery - fully in line with islam's original enslavement formula: "Infidels" (i.e. non-muslims and women) could be enslaved because Muhammad had heard Allah (via an angel though) saying so.
Shabestari: Freedom of experession all depends on whether a people has politically developed to such an extent that it understands what freedom is. Then it will demand freedom of expression. Even now there is a great tendency towards freedom in Islamic countries. Yet, why it hasn't truly developed is another question. This has to do with political hurdles and the system of government in these countries. It is more of a cultural difficulty than a difficulty related to Islam or religion in general. Unfortunately, this is a retrograde cultural reality.
Klevius: Admittedly Hillary Clinton's sharia campaign against freedom of expression represents "a retrograde cultural reality". However, how could it possibly not be directly connected to islam itself when she works for the world's biggest and most fundamental islam representing organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC?!
"The Arab protest movements are associated by many people, both within these countries and also abroad, with the hope for democracy. Others (muslims) say that Islam fundamentally forbids democracy."
Klevius: Yet it's all islam and muslims - no matter what it stands for. As a consequence it encompasses both the most evil of muslims as well as those "muslims" who can't be distinguished from non-muslims other than by name. And this state of affairs is of course most handy for the most evil of muslims.
Islam's willing whores - a threat to women's Human Rights equality
As it stands now a woman, Hillary Clinton, is by far the worst option for the freedom and emancipation of US women. Hillary not only approves of sharia blasphemy laws but also of sharia as over ruling women's full Human Rights (just check OIC's sharia declaration).
Klevius wrote:
Friday, March 08, 2013
Klevius on women's day: The worst ever "president" paves the way for OIC/Sharia in a US where women still have less rights than former male slaves had long ago!
US' women locked in inequality* - and a "president" whose Shariagate may keep them there forever
* No,the US Constitution still doesn't guarantee women equal rights with men, although most women are quite unaware of it.
Jane Fonda: Stop violence against women!
Klevius: Islam is (and has been for some 1400 years) the worst institution for violence/rapetivism against girls/women!
Will US adopt Sharia before/instead of
an Equal Rights Amendment?
US is one of very few civilized countries were women are still not equal to men. Just as they were among the very last to get the right to vote. Compare this to Finland (the land where both men and women are 'hän'*) which was first in the world to give its ladies full franchise.
* Sweden has also proposed to use a unisex pronoun instead of 'han'/'hon' (he/she) but why on Earth have they settled for stupid 'hen' when it would have been much more natural to use the Finnish 'hän', especially considering that the Finnish language is also part of Sweden's history (see Kvenland/Queenland, the home of the Goths). And the vowel ä is used in both languages!
The reason for the US' backwardness is of course religious sex segregation. And with muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Barack Hussain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) applauding islamofascism and with a majority of the Supreme Court being Catholics, and with the administration full of Sharia enthusiasts, the future for US girls/women seems equally dark as for truly free women in Hollywood productions.
The weird formula behind the denial of islam's crystal clear evilness explained by Klevius
First of all, never trust a religious "scholar". Then consider the following nonsense, which is actually quite racist:
'Muslims and islamic countries may be evil or backward but islam is always good'.
'Let's not look at evilness in islam but rather focus on what we may share'.
Klevius comment: Reminds me of my former friend Max Scharnberg (when he hinted he'd be a suicide bomber if he only had the courage to do it, I immediately finished our friendship) to whom I presented Hitler's Nationalsocialist party program after having erased the mentioning of Jews and some few too revealing words. After having read the text Max Scharnberg thought it was a Social-democratic party program.
In other words, if assessed with the same tools as islam, the Nazi program would have easily found lots of points for "mutual understanding" and "tolerance".
Klevius suggestion: Only focus on the evil parts of islam, i.e. those parts which collide with Human Rights and which constituted the only reason why the most powerfyl muslim world organization, Saudi based OIC, replaced them with Sharia (the so called Cairo declaration).
There is no future for islam because the very essence of islam is precisely those parts were it differs from basic Human Rights (the so called negative Human Rights). And an imaginary "reformed" islam castrated from politics and legislation etc would be of no interest neither for Klevius or for true (Sharia) muslims.
Read Klevius - your intellectual bedrock in a confused world!
Klevius wrote:
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Klevius on Women's Day: If you respect islam then you don't respect women's Human Rights!
Klevius comment: Obama hence also supports Kony's LRA via Bashir.
Some old news (1870) from the same area and same islam
S W Baker: It is impossible to know the actual number of slaves taken from Central Africa annually; but I should imagine that at least fifty thousand are
positively either captured and held in the various zareebas (or camps)
or are sent via the White Nile and the various routes overland by Darfur
and Kordofan. The loss of life attendant upon the capture and subsequent
treatment of the slaves is frightful. The result of this forced
emigration, combined with the insecurity of life and property, is the
withdrawal of the population from the infested districts. The natives
have the option of submission to every insult, to the violation of their
women and the pillage of their crops, or they must either desert their
homes and seek independence in distant districts, or ally themselves
with their oppressors to assist in the oppression of other tribes. Thus
the seeds of anarchy are sown throughout Africa, which fall among tribes
naturally prone to discord. The result is horrible confusion,--distrust
on all sides,--treachery, devastation, and ruin.
It appeared that slavery and the slave trade of theWhite Nile were institutions almost necessary to the existence of
Egyptian society.
It was obvious to all observers that an attack upon the slave-dealing
and slave-hunting establishments of Egypt by a foreigner--an
Englishman--would be equal to a raid upon a hornets' nest, that all
efforts to suppress the old-established traffic in negro slaves would be
encountered with a determined opposition, and that the prime agent and
leader of such an expedition must be regarded "with hatred, malice, and
all uncharitableness." At that period (1869) the highest authorities
were adverse to the attempt. An official notice was despatched from the
British Foreign Office to the Consul-General of Egypt that British
subjects belonging to Sir Samuel Baker's expedition must not expect the
support of their government in the event of complications. The
enterprise was generally regarded as chimerical in Europe, with
hostility in Egypt, but with sympathy in America.
It was freely stated that an Englishman was placed in
command because an Egyptian could not be relied upon to succeed, but
that the greed of new territory was the actual and sole object of the
expedition, and that the slave-trade would reappear in stupendous
activity when the English personal influence should be withdrawn. Such
unsympathetic expressions must have been a poor reward to the Khedive
for his efforts to win the esteem of the civilized world by the
destruction of the slave-trade in his own dominions.
Few persons have considered the position of the Egyptian ruler when
attacking the institution most cherished by his people. The employment
of an European to overthrow the slave-trade in deference to the opinion
of the civilized world was a direct challenge and attack upon the
assumed rights and necessities of his own subjects. The magnitude of the
operation cannot be understood by the general public in Europe. Every
household in Upper Egypt and in the Delta was dependent upon slave
service; the fields in the Soudan were cultivated by slaves; the women
in the harems of both rich and middle class were attended by slaves; the
poorer Arab woman's ambition was to possess a slave; in fact, Egyptian
society without slaves would be like a carriage devoid of wheels--it
could not proceed.
In the year 1870 the slave-hunting of Central Africa was condemned.
Since that time Englishmen have been honoured with the special attention
of the Khedive, and have been appointed to posts of the highest
confidence. European tribunals were established in the place of consular
jurisdiction, British government officials have been invited to reform
the financial administration, and Mr. Rivers Wilson has been induced to
accept the responsible office of Minister of Finance. Nubar Pacha has
been recalled to office, and he must regard with pride the general
confidence occasioned throughout Europe by his reappointment. The
absolute despotism hitherto inseparable from Oriental ideas of
government has been spontaneously abrogated by the Khedive, who has
publicly announced his determination that the future administration
shall be conducted by a council of responsible ministers.
I found lands varying in natural capabilities according to their
position and altitudes--where sugar, cotton, coffee, rice, spices, and
all tropical produce might be successfully cultivated; but those lands
were without any civilized form of government, and "every man did what
seemed right in his own eyes."
In this dislocated state of society, the slave trade prospered to the
detriment of all improvement. Rich and well-populated countries were
rendered desolate; the women and children were carried into captivity;
villages were burnt, and crops were destroyed or pillaged; the
population was driven out; a terrestrial paradise was converted into an
infernal region; the natives who were originally friendly were rendered
hostile to all strangers, and the general result of the slave trade
could only be expressed in one word--"ruin."
The slave hunters and traders who had caused this desolation were for
the most part Arabs, subjects of the Egyptian government.
These people had deserted their agricultural occupations in the Soudan
and had formed companies of brigands in the pay of various merchants of
Khartoum. The largest trader had about 2,500 Arabs in his pay, employed
as pirates or brigands, in Central Africa. These men were organized
after a rude military fashion, and armed with muskets; they were divided
into companies, and were officered in many cases by soldiers who had
deserted from their regiments in Egypt or the Soudan.
No comments:
Post a Comment