States and ideologies prefer "communities" rather than individuals. That's precisely why we need Human Rights equality to protect the individual.
The continuous islamist extremist contamination of anti-Human Rights sharia in our universities.
This sharia extremist* is a crystal clear Human Rightsphobe. So how come that the Economist (Erasmus) descibes him as: "It is sobering to find that in a newly published set of essays on Islam and the Western understanding of human rights, Mr Fadel puts more emphasis on difference than compatibility." And how come that he is allowed to commit hate speech** at the University of Toronto?!
* Sharia is the very opposite to the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 where the main objective was to shield and protct the individual against totalitarian state or "community" interventions.
** Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia (the so called Cairo declaration on "human rights" in islam) clearly deems any Human Right that doesn't fit islam void. Mohammad Fadel expresses exactly the same segregation and fascist brainwashing of children to stay muslim and to allow muslim men marrying non-muslim women but not vice versa. This is totalitarian sociology for the purpose of subjugating children, women and non-muslim men under islam. Dear reader, you really don't need Klevius super IQ to understand this, do you!
Mohammad Fadel is an Associate Professor and Toronto Research Chair for the Law and Economics of Sharia at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law (sic): Islamic thought about the family is oriented not only to the short-term happiness of individuals, and also to other perceived desirables such as a reasonably stable household that produces a new generation of Muslims. So Muslim thinkers could not be expected to see religiously mixed marriages in the same light as a secular libertarian would.It is impossible to expect a complete convergence between human rights norms and Islamic norms: human rights norms are almost entirely concerned with securing the autonomy of individuals to make choices for themselves, while Islam is about influencing individuals’ choices about how to live their lives.
Peter Klevius: Transferring "dignity" from the individual to the "community" for the purpose of avoiding "excessive individualism" doesn't address the "problem" but rather robs the individual from rights while creating a multitude of "dignity communities" leading to even more racism and sexism.
Every sensible person understands that islam is pure evil from a Human Rights perspective. However, not every sensible person admits that, but rather tries to cover it up - hence becoming accomplices to islamofascism.
Klevius wrote:
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Islam, OIC - and Eurabia
Europe's fascist past reborn via religion
As long as fascism is called good - how could we ever stop it? But Klevius, as a critical European ("islamophobe" if you like) feels extremely embarrassed in front of those true refugees escaping islam and hoping for protection under Western Human Rights. Sorry!Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Klevius (the world's foremost authority on sex apartheid - sad isn't it) to all the world's women on women's day: Here's your main enemy exemplified as a timid "mosque mouse"!
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?
Update: Learn more about heterosexual attraction and sex segregation/apartheid here.
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.
Klevius will tell you much more later. Keep tuned and excited!
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 expression 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.
Klevius wrote:
Friday, July 01, 2016
Is the "nasty party" becoming nastier with Theresa May?
Theresa May: Britain should withdraw from the European convention on Human Rights regardless of the EU referendum result. Sharia is good for the Brits.
Klevius suggestion to UK main parliamentarians: Let May and Corbyn exchange parties!
The most basic of Human Rights are the so clalled "negative rights", i.e. right to freedom from state or religious impositions. However, these rights are not shared by socialist ideologies, as pointed out in Klevius 1994 article below. So May has apparently ended up in the wrong party - as has Corbyn, if he really likes Human Rights as much as he tries to imply.
An English translation is on the way.
The shadow justice secretary, Charles Falconer, said he was appalled by the home secretary’s comments, which he described as “so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided”, while the Tory MP and former attorney general Dominic Grieve said he was disappointed by the intervention.
Labour’s Falconer accused May of “sacrificing Britain’s 68-year-old commitment to human rights for her own miserable Tory leadership ambitions”.
“That is so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided,” he said. “Ignorant because you have to be a member of the ECHR to be a member of the EU. The European Union itself agrees to abide by the ECHR. Illiberal because … there has to be a source external to a government determining what human rights are.
“And misguided because it will so damage the standing of the UK, a country that above all plays by the rules and that is going around the world saying we should comply as a world with human rights. This is so, so appalling.”
But it was not only Labour that reacted negatively to May’s speech. Grieve said he was “disappointed because it shows a lack of understanding of the positive impact the ECHR is for the EU”.
He accused May of underestimating the positive impact that the Abu Qatada case had on the Jordanian justice system and pointed out that both he and Abu Hamza were removed.
He said he was pleased that May was backing the EU, but warned: “Pulling out of the ECHR would be damaging to Britain’s international standing. It is a central pillar of foreign policy.”
However, there's a solution for the Tory Party - his name is Michael Gove.
BBC (of course) is already attacking Michael Gove and supporting sharia-May. However, so do many of his fellow Tory MPs with questionable motives and connections.
And although he as a person is as far you can get from Donald Trump, both of them will benefit women's rights simply by not allowing sharia islam.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment