And how come that she hasn't understood that feminism and islam both rest on sex segregation?! Hasn't she read Peter Klevius yet?!
Muslim
feminist Hafsa Lodi: 'Upon studying islam I learned that sharia refers
to human interpretation of Allah. It is not in itself Allah or
immutable, but rather is continuously open to revision, according to
numerous religious scholars. It is also not mutually exclusive with
women’s rights.
Human Rights Atheist Peter Klevius: The first
part of this nonsense is selfevident and the latter is totally false
because Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration (CDHRI, which
covers all main stream true muslims) clearly states in Art. 6 that woman
has duties to perform and has her own civil entity. However, the
husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.
So
how could this muslim pinhead possibly "know what sharia really
means"?! Has she even read Saudi based and steered OIC's global sharia
declaration. Btw, OIC is the largest muslim organization in UN. In other
words, nothing could be a more authoritative contemporary sharia
interpretation than OIC.
So, dear Hafsa, instead study Peter
Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it),
who teaches you that all of feminism(s) and all of islamism(s) is about
sex segregation and therefore bluntly against basic Human Rights in the
anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948, which clearly
states that a person's sex ought not to be used as an excuse for
altering Human Rights. And this was the ultimate reason why islam
couldn't accept real Human Rights because islam collapses immediately if
sharia sex segregation is removed from it. So this was the simple
reason OIC 1990 made their own pathetic "islamic human rights"
declaration.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Monday, April 8, 2019
Why is Saudi based and steered OIC's Human Rightsphobia not dealt with at all while Human Rights defenders are smeared as "islamophobes" on a daily basisi by BBC etc.?!
BBC's shameful negligence to honestly report about Saudi based and steered OIC's scandalous sharia declaration against Human Rights is journalistic rock bottom.
Moreover, how many people have suffered out of ignorance about true sharia islam? Klevius looks forward to a "Nuremberg" trial where BBC is one of the accused.Klevius wrote:
Monday, May 21, 2012
Klevius beats BBC when it comes to true reporting about OIC!
Totalitarian fanaticism replacing Human Rights while BBC misinforms muslims and others on how they're robbed of their Human Rights!
Sadly, Klevius is still the foremost (and lone?!) expert on sex segregation/apartheid and, consequently, also the web's foremost expert on islam. Why? Because islam rests so heavily on sex segregation/apartheid, even in its most "secular" form (as long as it's meaningful at all to call it islam) that an effort to understand islam without understanding sex segregation/apartheid is doomed to complete failure! In essence what Klevius is doing is in Bourdieu's words 'to restore to historical action, the relationship between the sexes that the naturalistic and essentialist vision removes from them'. And where Bourdieu went to the Kabyles Klevius went to the origin of islam, Christianity and Judaism!
BBC, the largest broadcaster in the world, has as its main responsibility to provide impartial public service broadcasting.
Klevius question: How come then that Klevius beats BBC when it comes to informing about OIC? As you can see on the 'OIC BBC' search below Klevius' 'BBC News', i.e. not BBC, is the first to offer real info about OIC. on the web (see the eighth result on the pic below: BBC News by Klevius)! And to really prove it you will find a picture of the first BBC post (BBC News - Profile: Organization of the Islamic Conference) further down to show that it completely avoids to inform the most essential feature of OIC, namely that it has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia.
According to BBC OIC's aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and to eradicate racial discrimination (meaning Human Rights "discrimination" of islamic Sharia) and colonialism (sic - islam has been the worst slave colonizer ever throughout 1400 years!). But nowhere in BBC's text can you find the most important namely OIC's violation of Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia via UN!
While BBC has some 23,000 staff Klevius is not only alone* and without resources, he is also deliberately hindered in his extremely informative work by active and continuous "islamophobia filtering". Yes, Klevius knows that he could do much better by avoiding words like 'islamofascism' etc. but he loves it because that's what it really is.
* no offence to other "islamophobes" out there but Klevius happens to be the one with the best potency for evaluating the origin of islam from a perspective of sex segregation/rapetivism.
Klevius wrote today:
Klevius has no problem with non sharia "Euro muslims/Euro islam". However, Saudi sponsored Salafist Human Rightsphobia and Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia against Human Rights makes Klevius "islamophobic". What about you?
Klevius: Criticism against this all the world's muslims sharia declaration against Human Rights ought not to be called "islamophobia"!
The following is quoted from Wikipedia (Klevius wonders whether it makes Wikipedia equally "islamophobic" as Klevius): The Cairo (sharia) Declaration on Human Rights in Islam by the member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (Saudi based and steered OIC) was created 1990 for the purpose of protecting islamic racism, sexism and supremacisms from the effects of the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist Universal Human Rights Declaration of 1948.
This islamist sharia declaration is Klevius "islamophobia" weapon that will self-destroy islam as soon as the world's muslims are properly informed by BBC and other media, politicians etc. And the sooner, the better, so to avoid more unneccessary suffering.
The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation adopted in Cairo, Egypt, on 5 August 1990, (Conference of Foreign Ministers, 9–14 Muharram 1411H in the Islamic calendar which provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic sharia as its sole source. CDHRI declares its purpose to be "general guidance for Member States [of the OIC] in the field of human rights".
This declaration is widely acknowledged as an Islamic response to the United Nations's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948. It guarantees many of the same rights as the UDHR and serves as a living document of human rights guidelines prescribed for all members of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) to follow, but restricts them explicitly to the limits set by the sharia. Because of this limit, the CDHRI has been criticized as an attempt to shield OIC member states from international criticism for human rights violations, as well as for failing to guarantee freedom of religion, justifying corporal punishment and allowing discrimination against non-Muslims and women.
Wikipedia also states: There has been a growing interest in the possible emergence of a specifically 'European Islam'. The collective hypothesis that seems to be forming is - according to sociologist that currently is adapting and in coming years Islam will adapt to 'new' European structures in a way that will enable Muslims to consider themselves full European citizens.
However, Klevius warns for a growing tendency within islam in the very opposite direction. And this unfortunate development is strengthened by calling criticism of it "islamophobia"
Friday, April 5, 2019
Uncivilized right wing Brextremism in England seems to have no clue about modern constitutions.
This sadly ignorant and deeply religious right wing Brextremist, Jacob Rees-Mogg, thinks it's "bad practice to have a second referendum before delivering on the first".
Klevius: Is his ignorance due to UK lacking a proper, civilized constitution?
However, nowhere in the civilized world could a referendum with simple majority (and in the case of UK only in two of its four parts) be enough for a major decision. Beggars belief!
Klevius moral tutorial for Jacob Rees-Mogg and others equally ignorant (hopefully, because the other alternative ain't pretty) about Human Rights:
And do remember Klevius definition of 'aliens' as both humans without humanity (e.g. terrorists) as well as non-"living" ai-aliens. The Japanese Haybusa 2 robot system working on the asteroid Ryugu is the most advanced tool humans have created. However, compared to "alien" ai robots visiting us from an other solar system, Hayabusa 2 is more like a flint tool made by a Neanderthal.
1994 Klevius warned for left wing extremists contempt for the rights of the individual human. Klevius did it after being approached by professor in jurisprudence Jacob Sundberg, who, among many other important Human Rights subjects, has worked hard on studying the famine in Ukraine 1932-33. Little did Klevius foresee that he 24 years later would have to do the same about right wing extremists in England. However, when scratching off the protective layer of tidy "explanations" about the Irish famines under UK "constitution", an alternative picture emerges with many similarities with the one in Ukraine. This may well be part of the "ultimate back stop" in the Brexit saga. Spiced with a mix of Catholicism and islamism.
A global world is only possible under the guidance of (negative) Human Rights - as outlined in the original anti-fascist, anti-racist, and anti-sexist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. It means equal individual freedom for everyone no matter of sex or anything else. Therefore it also excludes any religious supremacist tenet, or religious impositions on the individual.
Peter Klevius film proposal for people like Jacob Rees-Mogg would be Rendezvous with Rama based on Arthur C. Clarke's novel. Sadly, it's not produced as yet.
