The muslim Haji to the most intolerant place on Earth, celebrating racism and sexism, ought not to be uncritically accepted in a civilized society based on Human Rights. Shame on you, Neil MacGregor!
Klevius suggests boycotting "British" Museum until it stops its islamofascist propaganda and suppression of criticism against the worst islmofascist hate spreading dictator state on Earth.
BBC and the English government spare nothing in their effort to smooth the way for the evil islamofascist Saudi dictator family, the "custodians" of Human Rights violating sharia islam.
Nick Cohen: The British Museum's current Hajj exhibition charts the history of Mecca as a destination for pilgrims with the wariness of a conscript crossing a minefield. The exhibition sticks to the authorised version of "religious scholars". It allows no discussion of the findings of historians of Islam – "true scholars who have read more than one book", as Richard Dawkins puts it – that the traditional account is as much a fairy story as the traditional accounts of Christianity and Judaism. Fear of bombs in the building or of staff receiving the same treatment as Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have kept evidence about the Muhammad of history far from public view.
The exhibition goes further than the standard tongue-biting editor or panicked publisher, however. It not only fails to question Islam's foundation myths but augments the myth-making by excluding evidence that might embarrass the Saudi royal family. In a piece for the American arts magazine Guernica, Joy Lo Dico embarrasses other critics by pointing out what was in front of their noses. Saudi Arabia provided exhibits. The Saudi royal family's King Abdulaziz Public Library partnered the museum. HSBC Amanah, a bank that issues sharia-compliant loans, sponsored the show. By negligence or design, nothing in the exhibition offends the Saudi state, which derives legitimacy from its control of sacred sites and income from pilgrims.
You might have thought that of all people the museum's director, Neil MacGregor, would deplore cultural vandalism. The author of A History of the World in 100 Objects would surely deprecate the destruction of buildings of historical significance. He must know that Saudi's monarchical dictatorship has wrecked Mecca with an abandon worthy of the Taliban. It has destroyed the remnants of the 7th-century city, most notably the houses of the prophet, his first wife and Abu Bakr, father of Aisha, one of Muhammad's other wives.
According to the Wahhabi monarchy's puritanical and iconoclastic version of Islam, anything that generates idolatry – images of the prophet, homes associated with him – is dangerous. So medieval Mecca had to go.
The British Museum does not mention the hooliganism. Nor does it mention the occupation by 400 jihadists of the Grand Mosque during the 1979 Hajj and the deaths of hundreds in the gunfights that followed. Saudi Arabia has excised all reference to a battle that prefigured the rise of jihadist terrorism from public discourse and school textbooks. The British Museum can't find space for it, either. It also fails to show pictures of the stampedes, bridge collapses and fires that have claimed the lives of thousands of pilgrims. They might have provided a sombre comment on the Saudi authorities' incompetence.
Klevius comment: Not a word about thre real da nger of Saudi Arabia as the custodians of OIC and Human Rights violating sharia islam and its spread of religious division and hate all over the world.
Hajj pilgrimage to the pagan idol of islam in the world's most racist, sexist and intolerant city and state may involve some additional evil
Throwing stones against non-believers, i.e. against the"evil" it is not to be a "true" muslim.
The word Hajj may be traced to the Swedish 'haj' which now means shark but used to refer to a pole and which originally is an old Finno-Ugric word that later on entered Mideast and semitic languages such as Hebrew and its later derivative Arabic (much like the Finnish 'koti' and Sami 'khode'home are reflected in the Persian Khoda).
When Klevius (who masters all Finnish and most Estonian dialects as well as all Scandinavian languages incl. all dialects - ) decades ago first pointed out
The biggest idolatry religion on Earth is the very opposite to the most basic Human Rights equality and tolerance. And no one should be "offended" by reading the bloody history of islam. Quite the opposite, the worst possible offense is to try to hide it by demonizing Human Rights defenders. In Saudi Arabia is Human Rights are criminalized. Ask Theresa May and Amber Rudd if they know it, and if, then why are they such hypocrites?
Pure religious fascism protected by those very Human Rights it wants to criminalize when it can.
And no, it's not evil but also laughable Wahhabism/Salafism that is the worst threat to the free world - it's Saudi based and steered OIC and its world sharia via UN. And the Saudi status as "custodians" of islam and the world's muslims.
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family again praised for its war crimes, spread of islamic hate and terror, intolerance, and violent and repeated mass attacks against innocent people worldwide.
Today BBC started its long evening news hour by hailing the islamofascist Saudi dictatorship - immediately followed by a long sequence of the "mysterious" fate of a dissident in Hong Kong - clearly meant to smear China.
Klevius wonders why? China has never attacked or spread hate against the English people. Moreover, China lacks a religious world jihad. However, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the "custodians" of not only islam's "holy places"* but also all the world's muslims' sharia organization OIC which has rejected UN's Human Rights and replaced them with islamofascist** sharia.
* The islamofascist Saudi dictator family has buried everything under concrete that could reveal that it doesn't contain anything. Or in a few instances contain the "wrong" things. Islam is now the biggest example of fake history - all the way from the Muhammad myth to the myth if the Andalucian "paradise". Just face it through all the smokescreens - islam is the worst enslaver, genocider and raper of any known ideology throughout 1,400 years. And now it's occupying and threatening the very bullwork that was created after World War 2 to protect the free world from a repetition of totalitarian fascism - incl. religious fascism, i.e. violations against the most basic of Human Rights.
** OIC says sharia should always dismiss Human Rights when they clash with islamic sharia.
Contrary to what Neil MacGregor says, it's only when religion has been put aside that real progress has emerged. Atheists are in majority in most well developed European countries, whereas religion accompanies misery and suffering around the world.
In his new BBC Radio 4 series, Living With The Gods, Neil MacGregor traces “40,000 years of believing and belonging”.
He exemplifies this period with the same Lion Man that Klevius has used for over a decade on his web maps about human evolution.
Religion provides a “narrative” that explains our place in the world, MacGregor said, and it is the rituals that bind people together.
No dude, it's exactly the opposite. It's religious segregation that paves the way for racism and sexism. The only "religion" that can truly "bind people together" is Human Rights - not sharia. Universal Human Rights equality as stated in the 1948 UN declaration, constitutes an inevitably agreable narrative of our communal place in the cosmos and in time. And what unifies all of humanity is our shared knowledge about our individual existencecentrism (Klevius 1992).
Klevius is a non-socialist Atheist, not because he has chosen to be so but because there's no alternative to negative Human Rights. Religion is always a lesser good in comparison - in fact, that's the very definition of a "monotheist" religion. And now someone less bright or just evil person might try to dismiss this by talking about "what we don't know about", i.e. what they think is "God" (and which is called the 'unreachable' in Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources) but which in fact is they themselves (see chapter Existencecentrism in Klevius 1992 book).
The meaning of life is its own definition i.e. uncertainty (Klevius 1981) just like the meaning of football (no dude, I'm not talking about American handball) is its maximization of uncertainty by being the only sport where no tools or hands are allowed when the ball is in play inside the pitch.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat - so why not follow it:
1 There's no absolute and fixed moral.
2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral.
3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restricrions other than neccessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.
Moreover, Human Rights leave no room for varying and dangerous religious "interpretations". The latter actually being the real evil allure of religion (private beliefs have no bearing in this discussion as long as they are private and don't interfer with Human Rights of others).
Neil MacGregor: As a country, we no longer have an agreed narrative.
Peter Klevius: Rights, Cameron and May dismissed the shared narrative of Human Rights. Why? Because London was planned to be the world's sharia center.
No comments:
Post a Comment