Are you or your representative(s) for or against basic Human Rights equality?

Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.

Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".

* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.

This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.

Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.


Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):

* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.

1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.

2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).

3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).

Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

Saudi induced muslim attack on UK Parliament. How many elsewhere? And what about Saudi/OIC's sharia

Saudi induced muslim attack on UK Parliament. How many elsewhere? And what about Saudi/OIC's sharia

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

Peter Klevius "islamophobia"/Human Rightsphobia test for you and your politicians

Warning for a muslim robot!

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia

UK PM candidate Rees-Mogg: Germans needed Human Rights - we don't. Klevius: I really think you do.

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slave to Abbasid (ca 750)

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

Peter Klevius' 1986 experimental zero budget refugee video

Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!

By squeezing in Atheist ideologies/philosophies as well as polytheisms under the super set BBC calls "religion", and by narrowing 'Atheism' to what it's not (Atheism is what it says on the tin - no god) they produced the extremely faked proposition that 84% of the world's population is "religious". Moreover, BBC also proudly claimed that the 84% figure is rising even more. Well, that's only by relying on those poor women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, English muslim ghettos (where most so called "British" women don't even speak English) etc., who still produce many more children than the average in the world. But Klevius doesn't think this abuse of girls/women is anything to cheer.

The main threat to your Human Rights

The main threat to your Human Rights

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

The non-existing Mohammed and an other lying muslim - now from Midwest - deeply embedded in ignorance - or Taqiya




Building islam on sand or facts

 Klevius background explanation to muslim lies:

Islamic hate is not only embarrassingly abundant in the Koran but more importantly also a handy way of covering up greedy racism and sexism as "the will of Allah". To motivate hate you need to lower the status of those subject to your hate. This is precisely the opposite to true Human Rights.

Today we would call it history falsification when Caliph 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."

In other words, there was no Mohammed before Malik. However, there was an evil new way of defending and committing crimes by using a confused DIY morality made out of Jewish and Christian teachings.And there might have been leaders that partly resembled the Mohammed myth.

There were no documents either during "Mohammed's time". Only hearsays written down several hundred years later.

However, today we all can see what happened back then. The Islamic State shows it in precise details for everyone interested.

But medieval forms of islam are doomed to fail, albeit after having again caused massive human suffering. So the real dangerous islam is to be found in the Saudi based OIC and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani. 



www.chicago.com flashes this ignorant (?!) oxymoron about islam




A US muslim hiding under the name Essam (btw, some 80% of US imams are Wahhabists): Your stated goal is to create a Caliphate and your method is to use military force, mass murder, kidnappings, and destruction of property. Creating an Islamic state sounds like a beautiful idea but you have no idea what an Islamic State means. Your use of the word Islam in your plan is smart, in that you will sell the fear of Islam by your actions and then tie any action against  you as being against Islam to gain supporters. Not very original, but it's a concept that has worked for others misusing religion to justify their actions, so I suppose you were bound to test your luck with it too.

I am certain that you and your leaders are neither scholars in Islam nor have you studied even the basics in Islamic history, so here I decided to show a little Midwestern hospitality and give you a free lesson.

The very first Islamic state was created by a man I'm sure you've heard of,  his name was Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).  I know you folks aren't much for enlightenment or reading but because you choose to use the name of Islam and God to justify yourselves, it's only fair that you should learn a little something about Islam.

    And make not God's (sic) name an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for God is One Who heareth and knoweth all things.

    Surah Al-Baqarah - Chapter 2, Verse 224 - The Quran

Klevius comment: Couldn't this equally well be directed against you by the Islamic State?! What's the point?

A US muslim hiding under the name Essam: The first written Constitution of the very first Islamic nation was declared by the Prophet himself way back in 622AD. In it and the charters he drafted, he not only included Muslims, but also the Jews, Christians, and all other non-Muslim tribes within the nation.  He even included the allies of the non-Muslim tribes to give them all equal rights and protections.

Klevius comment: What utter lie! Do show me a 'written constitution' from Mohammed's time!

A US muslim hiding under the name Essam: The Quran and Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet) justify war only when an oppressor attacks you.

Klevius comment: Precisely! And according to islam infidels are always oppressors if they don't submit to Sharia rule! And therefore the legitimate (according to Sharia) target for Human Rights violations!

A US muslim hiding under the name Essam: You are invading their land and destroying their homes and breaking the covenant set forth by the Quran and re-affirmed by the Prophet in his teachings.   The Quran makes a war against you justified because you and only you fit the bill of the oppressors in the region.

Klevius: Only oppressor in the region?! Saddam Hussein managed to gas some 100,000 of his own people before George W Bush put an end to it. Add to this Saudi "king" Abdullah & Co, Sudan's Bashir etc etc! No lack of oppressive muslim dictators.

However, what really keeps Mideastern violence ticking is islam, period! And everyone trying to excuse islam has blood on her/his hands!

Islam is against Human Rights and therefore without a future.

OIC has proved Klevius right beyond any doubt by abandoning the most basic of Human Rights and deliberately replacing them with Sharia!



The leader of the Islamic State is a pious muslim


Ed Husain (Senior Advisor at the Tony Blair Faith Foundation): Here are seven points of religious symbolism from his sermon that resonated deeply among observant Muslims, but were missed by most outsiders who looked on aghast at Ibrahim al-Baghdadi’s triumphalism:

1. He ascended the minbar (pulpit) slowly, deliberately climbing one step at a time. This was how the Prophet and his companions were reported to have acted —not rushed, but serene while the call to prayer was given. An important role of the Caliph historically was to deliver the Friday sermon, and Baghdadi’s actions illustrated to those in the mosque and elsewhere that he was not a novice.

2. While sat on the minbar, and as the call to prayer continued, Baghdadi reached for his pocket and took out a small wooden stick – known as a miswak and used widely across the Muslim world – with which to clean his teeth. It is understood that the Prophet Mohammed carried such a cleaner, his objective being hygiene and fresh breath. Today, that translates as Colgate and an electric toothbrush. But to a mind that wishes to return to the seventh century, the Prophet’s purpose is lost and clinging onto external practices alone becomes precious. Baghdadi’s actions with his miswak – captured and highlighted by his cameraman – were designed to further bolster Baghdadi’s credentials as a successor to the early Caliphs.

3. He wore a black turban because the Prophet, it is believed, wore one on his conquest of Mecca and when he delivered his last sermon. Moreover, Shia Muslim leaders of the Prophet’s bloodline wear black headgear to indicate their lineage. Baghdadi was tapping into Sunni and Shia Muslim symbolism and, indirectly, confirming his own claim to be a descendant of the Prophet in the eyes of the Shia majority in Iraq.

4. He spoke in flawless classical Arabic of the Quran. Arabic speakers would be impressed, and non-Arabic speaking clerics around the world would have recognised the above choreography and admired his Arabic skill. Not even every Arab can speak classical Arabic without grammatical errors. His command of the language was combined with constant citations from the Quran.

5. Salafi Muslims, adherents of a hardline Saudi version of Islam, would have recognized Baghdadi as one of their own. He started his sermon angrily warning Muslims against bid’ah, or “newly invented matters” in religion. Imams in most other Muslim traditions emphasise love for God and the Prophet, but the Salafi trend is to warn against bid’ah.

6. Throughout his 22-minute sermon he showed a fluent knowledge of the Quran by frequent citations of verses popular with Salafis. He emphasised tawhid (the oneness of God) in the evangelical mode of Salafism. Most Muslims agree, as do Christians and Jews, that God is one, but for Salafis that oneness must be manifest in government through hakimiyyah (God’s law). Baghdadi has taken the Saudi Salafi creed to its logical conclusion.

7. He claimed for himself the religious duty (wajib) of implementing God’s law (sharia) as he understood it. The second caliph of Islam, Umar, had stood on a pulpit in Medina and said “if you see me obey God, then obey me. If I disobey God, then rebel against me.” This early edict on Muslim governance is known to most educated Muslims – Baghdadi was laying claim to this mantle. In a Middle East full of dictatorships, his words had special religious and political resonance.

All the above was ignored by the global media, who focused on his wristwatch. Was it an Omega? A Rolex? It turned out to be yet another visual display of piety: a timepiece with alarms for prayer times, a compass facing Mecca, and an Islamic calendar.

If he is as pious as portrayed, surely he is a superior Muslim and deserves obedience from those of us who are less pious? Not quite: the same source he claims to emulate, the Prophet Mohamed, warned us against the likes of Baghdadi, and such figures cropped up in early Islamic history too. Those who killed the Prophet’s grandson, Imam Husain in Iraq in the eighth century, also dressed like the Prophet and talked of piety but failed to demonstrate the love of God or the Prophet’s teachings. The Prophet’s warning was of those who show all the outward signs of piety – even saying the voluntary night prayers – but for whom the Quran ‘does not permeate deeper than their throats’. The implication is that if the Quran does not touch their hearts, they do not love God and therefore have no faith. Their religion is anger and ritualistic actions. And a ‘Caliph’ who does not love God is not deserving of obedience from Muslims anywhere.

Klevius comment: Quite a thin objection, isn't it! How does Ed Husain, or we for that matter, know that  the Koran ‘does not permeate deeper than his (or other muslim's) throat’?



Abu Bakr's Caliphate (see map below)

Do note that the muslim "empire" mainly consisted of caravan routes surrounded by dead deserts.

Also do note that the whole story of early islam is made up without real historical documentation. However, what we do know from non-muslim sources is that something similar to the Mongol conquests was going on in Mideast (albeit on a much smaller scale) at the time in question.

Everything early islamic is just hearsay over hundreds of years before being written down by usually heavily biased authors.

What Klevius has done is simply to put the Koran in a historical context based on non-muslim sources. And although the picture of the origin of islam that emerges ain't pretty, it fits perfectly the bill of the Islamic State.


Islamic State as it is planned in a first stage (below).


And at a later stage. Indonesia etc are lacking on this map but should be included. Aceh is just the beginning.



OIC is a Human Rights violating Sharia organization that in effect of its many member states (see map below) now rules UN.

No comments:

Post a Comment