Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

First UK people voted to join and share borders with EU. Then England voted to leave while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. And now UK politicians want to leave while keeping the Irish EU border open. UK lacks a modern constitution according to which a constitutional issue has to pass at least two majority votes.

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

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).

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles worldwide.

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles worldwide.

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

Friday, July 29, 2016

Theresa May appoints a sharia muslim as aviation security minister - and he starts by jumping on alcohol sale - which doesn't affect muslims - other than perhaps BBC's Mishal Husain


Ahmed and Ahmad both have the violent "prophet" Muhammad and sharia in common




Although Sunni muslims may not consider Lord Ahmad a muslim at all because he belongs to the Ahmadiyya sect, from Klevius Human Rights perspective he ticks all the boxes.

Here's a view on Ahmadiyya muslims by Swedish Dispatch International


Maryam Namazie and I took part in a debate with two members of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam; the motion being “Sharia Law Negates Human Rights”. You can watch it in full here  On the other side of the debate were Ayyaz Mahmood Khan and Jonathan Butterworth, both Ahmadiyya Muslims.

Following the speeches, the first question raised from the audience was on the matter of “wife-beating”, and the fact that this is sanctioned, indeed commanded, in Sura 4:34 of the Koran. Rather than reject the sentiments of this verse, Ayyaz Mahmood Khan attempted to deny it with the usual “out of context” apologism. He attempted to brush aside the consequences of the verse by stating that men who beat women “are rotten people who were going to beat their wives anyway”.

While this is undoubtedly true, it doesn’t quite address the fact that the Koran allows them to do it, or what this says about the position of women in Islam. Khan then goes on to say that beating his wife is essentially a man’s last resort. He claims that the “beat her” command only applies when a wife becomes violent. The example he provided was “if she beats her husband, she raises her hand, then she begins to hate her husband, and begins to have illicit relationships outside the home”. Finally, he added that when beating a woman “no marks should be left on the body”.

There is much about this explanation that simply doesn’t wash, the most obvious being that unfortunately for Khan, the Koran doesn’t actually say any of that; it simply says “beat her”, he has added the rest. Secondly, to his mind, if a woman “begins to hate her husband” or “have illicit relationships”, it is then perfectly legitimate to launch into physical abuse. I, and most truly moderate or civilised people, reject male violence of any kind against women, and do not present a list of occasions in which it is acceptable.

Furthermore, there is no difference between Khan’s misogynist acceptance of violence and that of Sa’d Arafat who, on Egyptian television in 2010, also described violence against women as a last resort. Arafat outlined all of the steps (admonish her, don’t share her bed) a man must take to “discipline” his wife, before it becomes acceptable to beat her. When he does decide she has been disobedient enough, “the beatings should not be hard”. The fact is that there is no difference been Khan and Arafat, and yet Khan – being Ahmadiyya – is praised as a moderate, whereas Arafat would no doubt be condemned for those views by many of the same people.

I’ve heard it said, more than once, that the Ahmadiyya community are widely maligned, oppressed and persecuted across the Islamic world because of their message of moderation and peace. This is not strictly true though. The Ahmadiyya are persecuted because they are deemed to be blasphemous. On their UK website, they state that they are “the only community of Muslims to have accepted” the “Promised Messiah” Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

In Pakistan, a law introduced in 1984 has been used to persecute Ahmadi members there for “posing as a Muslim”. In 2013 a British doctor was arrested in Pakistan for just that offence,  and as Reuters reported “some mullahs promise that killing Ahmadis earns a place in heaven”. Might this persecution go some way to explaining their call for freedom of religion, while also calling for restrictions on those of who criticise it?

There is some credit due to the Ahmadiyya community in Britain for their efforts to integrate to mainstream British life, and indeed for their charitable work. Moreover, the persecution of this group is appalling and deserves unequivocal condemnation. However, it is difficult to see any distinction between many of their core beliefs and those of other Muslims who we might label extreme. Some prominent representatives have opposed non-believers’ right to criticise or mock religion, have lied about stoning, and attempted to apologise away misogynist violence. Perhaps we need to be rather more careful before applying the label of “moderate” to men who stand in such positions.

No comments:

Post a Comment