Homo Naledi - and a late "West" hating lawyer relative. A judge for May?

The "Birmingham Koran" hoax - and a sonless "prophet" invented after it!

Prince Charles accuses islam's atrocities in Mideast etc. on "Euro populism like the Nazis"

Prince Charles accuses islam's atrocities in Mideast etc. on "Euro populism like the Nazis"

The muslim Saudi dictator family is the root of most islam induced suffering

While laughter moves out from BBC, islamization moves in

BBC lies and fake news

Lego won't sponsor the defense for Human Rights equality - but islamofascism and sharia is ok

Hillary supports sharia for women, war with Russia and aid to Sunni islamofascists

While Klevius is forcing islam into a Human Rights corner, Obama continues supporting islamofascism

Apostate (?) Obama's bio- and adoptive dads were both muslims

Islam was born out of what Human Rights consider evil

Theresa May is for sharia and EU - but against EU's Human Rights Court which condemns sharia

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Subaru was a decade before Audi with mass produced 4WD cars! And unlike Audi they were reliable and safer to drive.

Saudi based and steered OIC is a muslim extremist organization

The birth of modern humans

The islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer of the Saudi based OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia.

Out of Africa as Koranic slaves

The Arab/islamic slave trade throughout 1400 years is by far the most extensive and disgusting in the history of the world (see e.g. Lal's example from India to better understand how the system worked). However, ask your kids if their teacher has even mentioned it! Guess not, cause that would be "islamophobia", the worst crime in Sharia next after apostasy, i.e. leaving islam (OIC is busy abusing UN for the purpose of criminalizing criticism of islam/Sharia. OIC is even introducing a global Sharia ruled criminal court for the purpose of defending the worst crime ever against humanity). Moreover, islam itself was a product of slave raiding and trading. The Koran was just a later assembled manual for excusing looting, slavery and rapetivism. Don't ask yourself why muslim "extremists" have behaved so badly but rather why islam encourages them to do so. Don't wonder about why muslim majority countries have been so backward and poor (except when they've lived on slavery and oil). Read history and realize that islam is pure parasitism. When did you last time buy a car or a camera etc. produced by an Arab muslim country?

If you have to pray, please do it for yourself - not as collective mob supporting islamofascism!

True islam and an ignorant white Western nun

Origin of the Goths and the Vikings

The world's oldest real portrait ever found (Central Europe). Carvings dated to 26-29,000 bp.

Japan's successful return to Earth mission 10 yrs before Europe's failed Rosetta

Origin of islam: One way Sharia slave finance and sex apartheid

The faith problem - rapetivism and Christian/muslim rap cooperation

Two slavs and one ex-muslim hit islam in its groin

Mishal Husain, Samantha Lewthwaite, Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common

Muslims and Hillary against Human Rights

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Sharia restricts Human Rights and promotes supremacism (drawing 1979 and photo 2012 by P. Klevius)

The native Brits from Doggerland spoke a proto-Finnish/Uralic language

Klevius main legacy will be the bias his IQ-powered interdisciplinary research reveals

It's quite common to laugh at presumably biased anthropologists from the past - especially if they were "white". However, a much more interesting and useful task is to search for today's bias. Klevius scientific methodology rests entirely on a relentless pursuit of self-criticism (the only truly scientific approach) which makes Klevius an utterly humble not to say laughable person but his revelations at least honest and hence well suited for targeting bias from moderately intelligent but highly subjective (or bribed) academics. Klevius intellectual heritage (father was Sweden's best chess player, both uncle's were Finland's top CEOs and sister scored highest in IBM's IQ test - also consider EMAH) doesn't hurt either. Moreover, although Bourdieu wasn't especially intelligent (his Masculine Domination is extremely shy, lame and shallow compared to Klevius take on sex segregation) his notes on the scholastic fallacy, Homo academicus and the theory of the theoretical point of view may have some bearing here for those who think it's more fancy to read Bourdieu than Klevius.

We non-muslims need to honor victims of islam and its racism - cause muslims won't

Nation of Islam leader Farra Khan aka Louis Wolcott (friend of Sadiq Khan), spreads murderous hate

Alwaleed bin Talal, a rape accused “man" who spends Western oil money on racist/sexist Sharia

How much suffering has this disgusting "man" Alwaleed bin Talal al Saud caused by spreading islamofascism around the world by the help of Western oil-money the Saudi dictator family has distributed via him?!

Contrast this scumbag against those (incl. Klevius) who relentlessly volunteer for spreading knowledge about Human Rights and are called "islamophobes" simply because islam doesn't submit to Human Rights (this is why the islamofascist organization OIC has openly abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).

Japanese 1959/1964 (Tokyo MS) high quality v European low quality

Klevius is YOUR unbiased and informed resource!

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation, (sad, isn't it) and islam (the worst crime ever) is the most evil expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means Sharia as described by Bill Warner as well a OIC and their Human Rights violating Sharia declaration on islamic "human rights".

Don't bother about stupid books, focus instead on OIC's islamofascist sharia manifesto!

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Sharia muslims' (or their accomplices) efforts to declare Human Rights "blasphemic" constitute the worst threat* to the Free World.

* When BBC today fakes the truth about threats facing the world, they pile up a number of countries (of course starting with Russia), but carefully avoid mentioning the one country (if you can call an oil rich dictator family a "country", that is) that has by far caused the most suffering around the world, i.e. Saudi Arabia (and this seems to be the only thing BBC has in common with Trump - avoiding to mention the islamofascist Saudi dictator family).

Human Rights vs "alternative rights"

The Saudis use islamofascism exactly as it was used from its origin. And Western politicians rather turn against their own citizens accusing them for "not being conducive to the interest of their country and its "important ally". Most attacks against US and UK (incl. against their citizens) can be tracked back to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - as can a variety of islamic terrorist organizations (Boko Haram , Islamic State, al-Qaeda etc. etc.). However, the most insidious threat comes from Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia (for the moment toned down in UN rhetoric, but nonetheless equally potent under the surface). OIC's main purpose seems to be silencing (and even criminalizing) criticism of Human Rights violations.


Klevius, the proud "islamophobe" defending the most basic of Human Rights, is closely related to a bird called Phoenix.


Three years ago someone (a muslim?) at Google deleted one of Klevius basic Human Rights defending blogs. However, Klevius immediately created a new and filled it with, if possible, even more critical writing against the dark fascistic powers threatening the free world just some 70 years after we defeated fascism the last time - and produced the revolutionary Universal Human Rights Declaration (1948) against totalitarian fascistic ideologies. However, it also, for the first time ever, offered all the world's women equality with men.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

However, this article is impossible in islam - that's why Saudi based and steered OIC came up with "alternative" islamic "human rights" (i.e. sharia).

Whereas a sane and civilized person would think that Human Rights freedom for everyone to lead their lives as they wish would suffice, islam thinks differently and instead for freedom wants impositions (especially against women and other non-muslims). And as Klevius has repeatedly said since 9/11: Human Rights allows sharia but sharia doesn't allow Human Rights.

What would John Peters Humphrey have thought about Canada today?

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Hello Eric Schmidt! Is Google's censor policy steered by anti Human Rights muslims? Will Dante, Churchill, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Klevius and others now be banned so Google can continue protecting the worst ideological crime history knows about?!


Someone at Google is deleting Klevius' Human Rights defending blogs! Is Eric Schmidt aware of it?!


John Peters Humphrey is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he's defamed by Humanrightsphobics - yet all the Billions of Atheist followers take it calmly

John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights). Here's part of his profound and sacred original revelations:




"Subject to the laws governing slander and libel there shall be full freedom of speech and of expression by any means whatsoever, and there shall be reasonable access to all channels of communication. Censorship shall not be permitted"

Klevius comment: By 'libel' and 'slander' John Peters Humphrey of course meant something directed to an existing individual, not a totalitarian ideology!

Human Rights and islam are irreconcilable: Klevius knows it, OIC knows it - how come that Google doesn't know it?


Mohammed suffering in the worst part of Dante's Hell. Dante was the starting point for the Renaissance and the Italian language and, until now considered a milestone in European and world thinking. However, today islam supporters call him 'a product of medieval thinking', although the only (and worst) of medieval thinking today is islam.

The Saudis already banned Human Rights as terrorism - is Google now nicely following its islamofascist Saudi masters?


Nowhere on the web (or anywhere else for that matter) can you find Klevius uttering anything even close to racism or sexism or so called "hate speech" - precisely the contrary - namely a defense for everyone's (incl. muslims) Human Rights against Sharia and other forms of fascisms! Unless, of course, Google complies with Saudi islamofascists according to whom Human Rights is equalized with terrorism and therefore banned by the 'guardians of islam'.



Where are these creepy bastards at Google hiding - and how do we make them visible and responsible?


This is what a "team" at Google wrote to Klevius when deleting Klevius' blog Origin of the Vikings (which contains the same material as do all the other blogs and web sites by Klevius):


'Hate'!? As Klevius doesn't 'hate'*, then it must be the muslims' own hatred via islam and exposed in Klevius' defense for Human Rights that is the problem!

And we have already seen this strange logic in the defense of muslim islamofascism. If muslims get "offended" and aggressive because of Human Rights, then this aggression is blamed on Human Rights, not islam! Much like if in traffic you meet someone driving in the wrong direction on your lane you should be blamed for criticizing her/him for doing it (or just reporting about her/him doing it). Moreover, it would also be claimed that the reckless driver was not a driver at all but an 'extremist', and that therefore to blame her/him as a driver would insult and offend other drivers, and that her/his behavior has nothing with traffic to do whatsoever.

Klevius questions: Who are these "reviewers" at Google anyway; who controls them; how do you face them with their own ignorance(?) or deliberate evilness. Does Google use muslim imams for assessing what should be allowed to say about islam?! Or is this really what Google and Eric Schmidt stand for?!

Eric Schmidt (Google chairman speaking in Hong Kong): 'Google believes very strongly in a free internet. The mainland (China) just passed the law about the 500-reposts thing. Then you will definitely think about it before you write. It's a problem, (it) means your voice is not fully heard.'

Klevius: Really?


Winston Churchill (who defended UK against German fascism in WW2): "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia
in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many
countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods
of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the
Prophet rule or live.  A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and
refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity.  The fact that in Mohammedan
law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as
a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the
faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. 

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion
paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde
force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.  It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”





Ayaan Hirsi Ali: is very critical of the position of women in Islamic societies and the punishments demanded by Islamic scholars for homosexuality and adultery. She considered herself a Muslim until 28 May 2002, when she became an atheist. In an interview with the Swiss magazine Das Magazin in September 2006, she said she lost her faith while sitting in an Italian restaurant in May 2002, drinking a glass of wine: "...I asked myself: Why should I burn in hell just because I'm drinking this? But what prompted me even more was the fact that the killers of 9/11 all believed in the same God I believed in." She has described Islam as a "backward religion", incompatible with democracy. In one segment on the Dutch current affairs program Nova, she challenged pupils of an Islamic primary school to choose between the Qur'an and the Dutch constitution.

In an interview in the London Evening Standard, Hirsi Ali characterizes Islam as "the new fascism": "Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate — a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism." In this interview, she also made it clear that in her opinion it is not "a fringe group of radical Muslims who've hijacked Islam and that the majority of Muslims are moderate. [...] Violence is inherent in Islam – it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder."

Hirsi Ali stated that she was also "not a Muslim" as she had lost the fear of the Qur'an and of Hell and lost respect for "its author" and messenger; and that she felt a "common humanity" with those she once "shunned", such as Jews, Christians, atheists, gays, and sinners "of all stripes and colours."

In the magazine Reason, Ayaan Hirsi Ali stated that not just 'radical Islam' but 'Islam' must be defeated. She stated: "Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace."

Hirsi Ali criticises Islam's "prophet" Muhammad on the grounds of both his morality and personality. In January 2003 she told the Dutch paper Trouw, "Muhammad is, seen by our Western standards, a pervert", as he married, at the age of 53, Aisha, who was six years old and nine at the time the marriage was consummated. This led to a lawsuit by a number of Muslims in 2005. The civil court in The Hague acquitted Hirsi Ali of any charges.

She also has stated her opinions about Muhammad's personality: "Measured by our western standards, Muhammad is a pervert. He is against freedom of expression. If you don't do as he says, you will be punished. It makes me think of all those megalomaniacs in the Middle East: Bin Laden, Khomeini, Saddam (didn't she mention the Saudis?!). Do you think it strange that there is a Saddam Hussein? Muhammad is his example. Muhammad is an example for all Muslim men. Do you think it strange that so many Muslim men are violent?" In a 2003 interview with the Danish magazine Sappho, she explains parallels she sees between the personality of Yasser Arafat and that of Muhammad.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali opposes not just the genital mutilation of girls, but also the practice of circumcision of boys as practiced by Jews and Muslims, as well as the routine infant circumcision practiced in the United States. In her autobiography, Infidel, she writes: "Excision doesn't remove your desire or ability to enjoy sexual pleasure. The excision of women is cruel on many levels. It is physically cruel and painful; it sets girls up for a lifetime of suffering. And it is not even effective in its intent to remove their desire."

A quotation from her on the subject: "girls dying in child birth because they are too young [...] The rise of radical Islam is an important part of this. I feel I have the moral obligation to discuss the source."

When in Dutch parliament, she proposed obligatory annual medical checks for all uncircumcised girls originating from a country where female mutilation is practiced. If a girl turned out to have been circumcised, the physician would report this to the police, with protection of the child prevailing over privacy.
Freedom of speech

In a 2006 lecture in Berlin, she condemnded the right to claim someone else's dislike or criticism as an offence against muslims or islam, following the muskim riots after Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons. She condemned the journalists of those papers and TV channels that did not show their readers the cartoons as being "mediocre of mind" and of trying to hide behind those "noble-sounding terms such as 'responsibility' and 'sensitivity'". She also praised publishers all over Europe for showing the cartoons and not being afraid of the "hard-line Islamist movement", and stated "I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand for submission."



*

Wednesday, January 01, 2014


Support Peter Klevius campaign for Universal Human Rights!


Human Rights are above politics, ideologies etc. Human Rights are for you! If you want them you better apply now before they are sold out!



By supporting Peter Klevius' campaign for Human Rights - and therefore against OIC and islam - you save millions of children and adults from continuous suffering, and make their future possibilities a little brighter. Negative rights for a positive future. 'Negative rights' are those rights of the individual which defend us against impositions (similar as traffic rules).

Peter Klevius intellectual defense for everyone's Human Rights works on two levels:

1 Keeping up a constant intellectual pressure on "reforming" islam. Of course islam can never be truly reformed so what this simply means is that islam is made, little by little, less islamic.

2 Counteracting the widespread misinformation about islam and muslims, hence avoiding naive and ignorant people from falling pray to islam and muslims - while simultaneously exposing those who deliberately approve of islam's Human Rights violating Sharia already voted through in UN by the help of OIC's more than notorious islamofascist voting bloc and some additional traitors.



In John Peters Humprey's (pbuh) world view "infidels" didn't exist


John Peters Humphrey (peace be upon him and Human Rights) is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he is utterly defamated by muslim Humanrightsophobes - yet all the Billions of Human Rights followers take it (too?) calmly.

John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights).


So what is modern islamofascism?


The main purpose of OIC is to gather all the world's muslims under a worldwide Umma that is protected from Human Rights criticism. And for that purpose OIC (ab)uses UN, and in an extension, via UN tries to implement national laws all over the world that not only keep islam out of scrutiny but even makes criticism of islam a crime! This lobbying is going on all the time with weak and vulnerable and/or just traitor politicians while most of the people are kept in deep ignorance about islam through extremely Saudi biased education and the threats of being accused of racism or "islamophobia".

And no, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's all to be found in UN's official documents and on the web.

And no, it's not the question of some "minor adjustments". No, this is big and OIC's own actions (e.g. officially abandoning some of the most basic Human Rights) in the UN easily proves Klevius right on this point.

And basically it's all about sanctioning islamic racism and sexism, i.e. the very original pillars that in the first place made islam attractive for the lowest of human behavior!



Sunday, August 25, 2013

Klevius Human Rights tutorial for ignorant muslims and their supporters


The evilness of islam explained in simple English


There are no Human Rights in islam - only islamic "human rights" (Sharia)

Because islamofascists and their supporters lack any credible argument in favor of islam, but 1,400 years of historical evidence* for the very opposite, they have to use the lowest of means to blur the picture of the evil medieval slave Leviathan. So, for example, are those who dare to criticize this pure evilness

* Not to mention the extremely obscure origin of islam. According to Britain's (and the world's - after Klevius) foremost islam researcher when it comes to its extremely violent early stages, Hugh Kennedy, "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever".

The main reason that Klevius considers himself the world's foremost expert on the origin of islam is that he (sadly) still happens to be the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid, i.e. what constitutes the basis for rapetivism and islam's survival (and which is the main reason OIC abandoned Human Rights in UN and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).


Only truly pious (so called "extremist") muslims are truly evil. However, all non-extremist (secularized) "muslims" aren't necessarily good either if they knowingly use the evilness of islam for their own satisfaction. Only ignorant "muslims" can be excused.

While contemplating the pic below, do consider the inevitable fact that islam (in any meaningful form) doesn't approve of our most basic universal Human Rights! That's the main pillar of the problem, dude!

So those muslims who don't fit in either category need to face Erdogan, OIC and Human Rights violating Sharia - or admit they are no real muslims.

Klevius comment: I for one cannot see the slightest space for political islam in a democratic society based on the belief in Human Rights. Can you?


Introduction


What is religion?


First of all, being religious is an exception. The average world citizen doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian/islamic "god"*. And the reason we hear so much about "religion" is the same as after 9/11, namely its bad consequences.

* The belief in a "creator" presumes a "creation". Or, in other words, the creation of a "creator" necessitates "creation". However, outside "monotheistic" mythology, the most common view is and has always been, as pointed out by Klevius (1992) that there has always been something from which later shapes emerge (just like Eve emerged out of Adam). However, the main point of "monotheisms" has from scratch been racism and sexism, i.e. in opposition to the enlightened view of every human's equal right no matter of sex etc., (just as we have it in traffic).  

Based on historical and contemporary evidence, religion - if with this word we mean Judaism (the chosen people) and its branch Christianity and its tail branch islam - is  certainly not " community cohesion" but rather "community confusion" when mirrored against the main idea of Human Rights.

There are three main reasons for people to become religious:

1  They are born into a religion, and if they are muslims it's considered the gravest of crimes (apostasy) to leave islam.

2   A religious person feels a need to defend actions s/he cannot logically approve of without the aid of a "god".

3   A religious person feels a need for forgiveness, and due to the above (2) an other human won't do because s/he might use logic. "God", however, can always be excused by arguing that no human can understand "god's" decisions/actions.

From a sociological point of view the reason why the above (2) problem even arises in the first place is because of a lack of continuous updating of crucial and basic relations. This in turn happens when families etc. are scattered in time and space due to work, school, separate activities etc. and when the lack of updating causes misunderstandings/opportunities that are misused for personal gains.

Adding to religious confusion is its deliberate sex apartheid which also stays in direct opposition to the Human Rights view that one's sex ought not to be used as an excuse for altering or denying rights.

However, by sticking to honest logic and a Human Rights philosophy (equality) all of this can easily be avoided.

Life´s a passionate faith in a project of uncertainty whereas e.g. Islam is godless (Koran is "god's" words and the final reporter is dead) misuse of power and life denial. Arbitrarily giving away parts of your life to a "god" outside the world is partial suicide (and in Islam's case also feeds earthly totalitarianism/fascism/racism/sexism)! (for more read Klevius definition of religion)


Is she Sharia compliant?





If she is Sharia compliant then she lacks Human Rights precisely based on the same logic that made OIC introduce the so called 'Cairo declaration on human rights in islam' (Sharia) which now, via UN, constitutes the framework for everyone wanting to call him/herself a muslim and, as a consequence, a Human Rightsophobe.


Turkish Human Rightsophobic conference wants to discuss how to censor media and make criticism of islam a crime all over the world


This fanatic* muslim (now replaced by an extremely intolerant Saudi islamofascist, Iyad Madani) and his muslim world organization (OIC) is the most dangerous threat to Human Rights

 * who dreams about a Turk led muslim world empire under Sharia, just as Hitler dreamed about a Grossdeutschland. And who blinks the miserable failures of the Turk led Ottoman slave empire which fell in the deepest decay after West had abolished slavery for good.




Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Egyptian born Turkish Fuhrer of OIC (based in Saudi Arabia) will make the opening speeches of the “International Conference on Islamophobia: Law and Media” to take place in Istanbul on Sept. 12 and 13, along with Directory General of Directorate General of Press and Information Murat Karakaya and Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç. Other islamofascism supporting Human Rightsophobic speakers include John L. Esposito, Norman Gary Finkelstein, Marwan Mohammed, Nathan Lean, Saied Reza Ameli, Halim Rane, Stephen Sheehi and Ibrahim Salama.

Klevius clarifying comment: Recent internal Turkish criticism against Ihsanoglu is due to the split between Ottomans and Arabs. Ihsanoglu is half Arab and loyal to the Saudis who wanted Muslim Brotherhood erased. That's why he kept silent when the Egyptian army killed the brothers.




Common Misconception about Basic Human Rights and islam/Sharia

It seems that no matter what the ideology of islam causes, it's never islam if the consequences are unwanted (Klevius 2001).
Islam sneaked in on an oiled post-colonialist commerce sold to the public as a combination of “guilt”, ”compassion” and negative “white middle age man”* rhetoric. Of course
* The concept of the “white middle age man” has always been popular, not only among feminists, young “revolutionaries” and “colored middle age men”, but also among the “white middle age men” themselves because by criticizing the “white middle age man” one lifts oneself above one's own category, much like “true muslims” do compared to “secularized muslims” (or vise versa).

OIC's Cairo declaration and Egypt's constitution

Zaid Al-Ali is a senior advisor on constitution building at International IDEA: The proposed changes (of Egypt's constitution) will not have any impact in the immediate term on the way in which Egyptians live their lives, but they remove a tool that hard-line Islamists might have tried to use in the future to impose a harsher vision of society. It is worth noting however that the technical committee maintained article 2, which imposes the principles of Islamic sharia as the main source of legislation in the country. It also kept the distinction that was first introduced in 2012 between "heavenly religions" (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest, whose right to practice rituals is curbed. The technical committee also proposed to reestablish the ban on religious parties, but also indicated that political parties cannot "undermine public order," an incredibly vague term that is subject to abuse (article 54).

In terms of women's rights, the 1971 and the 2012 constitutions were both not particularly generous. They both included vague references to morality, to traditional family values, and to women's "obligations towards family and society." The technical committee, which was dominated by men, has essentially maintained the same wording and the same principles in relation to this issue. Women are therefore equal to men within the limits of Islamic sharia, the state is still responsible for protecting the "original values of Egyptian families" (article 10), and the state will also still provide assistance to women to satisfy their "obligations towards family and society" (article 11). This is precisely the wording that caused so many liberals to denounce the Muslim Brotherhood-led process in 2012.

Peter Klevius: "The state will provide assistance to women to satisfy their obligations towards family and society" (article 11 Egypt const.). Ugly sexism wrapped in nice wording.

Women are equal to men ONLY “within the limits of Islamic sharia because they have "obligations towards family and society" (article 11 Egypt const.).
"Heavenly religions"* (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest (article 2 Egypt const.). A triple stage racism similar to when black supremacist racists in Nation of islam divide the world in the good blacks, the inferior non-blacks, and the evil whites.


* However, apart from the racist fact that people who don't want to belong to the "heavenly religions" are deemed less worthy, among the "heavenly religions" islam is always the “only true religion” because the other "heavenly religions" have got it all wrong. This fact must certainly be connected to the problems Jews and Christians continuously face in muslim countries and even elsewhere - compare e.g. the horrifying case of Malmö in Sweden. The Swedish newspaper Skånska Dagbladet reported that attacks on Jews in Malmo totaled 79 in 2009, about twice as many as the previous year, according to police statistics. In March 2010, Fredrik Sieradzk of the Jewish community of Malmö told Die Presse, an Austrian Internet publication, that Jews are being "harassed and physically attacked" by "people from the Middle East. In December 2010, the Jewish human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a travel advisory concerning Sweden, advising Jews to express "extreme caution" when visiting the southern parts of the country due to an increase in verbal and physical harassment of Jewish citizens in the city of Malmö. And so on. See more on Wikipedia and do note the usual "only a small number of muslims are jihadists" but never "an even much smaller proportion of Swedes are Nazis". Moreover, all Swedes are Swedes whereas all muslims aren't necessarily pious muslims at all, which fact alters the proportionality even more.

Whereas Human Rights allow you to lead your life as you wish without necessitating others to do so, Sharia does the opposite

So why do you suffer from such a grave form of Human Rightsophobia? Why do you want all other women to be restricted just because you yourself want to be restricted?! What disturbs you so much that you want to impose your way of life on others - or, alternatively, in a racist manner despise them?


ARTICLE 6 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
 
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.

(b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.


ARTICLE 7:
(a) As of the moment of birth, every child has rights due from the parents, society and the state to be accorded proper nursing, education and material, hygienic and moral care. Both the fetus and the mother must be protected and accorded special care.

(b) Parents and those in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical values and the principles of the Shari'ah



ARTICLE 22 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
 
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.

(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah

(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.


Two too common islamofascist statements supported by Saudi based OIC (all muslims world organization) and its Sharia declaration (also called Cairo declaration on human rights in islam):

1 The modern democracies of today have not yet attained what the Faith of Islam ordained fourteen and half centuries ago.
Peter Klevius: Very pleased to hear that. And I truly hope they never will.
2 Islam allows complete freedom of though and expression, provided that it does not involve spreading that which is harmful to individuals and the society at large. For example, the use of abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism is not allowed.
Peter Klevius: Criticism of islam is, according to OIC's Sharia, ALWAYS abusive and offensive no matter how it's worded!
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig's (a supporter of islamofascist Sharia) presentation of islamic "human rights" (i.e. Sharia) offers a wonderful opportunity for Peter Klevius to really point out how islam (Sharia) is diametrically opposite the real Human Rights (also called Negative Human Rights because of its lack of positive impositions in basic rights):
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Though the influence of political motives, rivalries, and deliberations has made complicated the correct formulation of this problem, but this should not prevent thinkers and genuine humanists from snooping into this problem and ultimately obtaining a solution (Klevius: Yes, I do!). In the West, it is only since the last two hundred years or so that human right became a subject of eminence among the political and social issues of Western society and an issue of fundamental significance.
Peter Klevius: Please Mirza, you can't be that stupid! You're as far you can get from the truth (perhaps not too surprising considering you're trying to defend the biggest lie in the history of the world). The process started long before islam even existed and eventually developed into the 1948 Human Rights Declaration which rests on an unbeatable logic that islam has never been even close to. On the contrary, islam and its Sharia (in whatever form) always restricts basic (negative*) Human Rights via (positive*) islamic impositions.
* Whereas positive rights oblige or open up for action/imposition, negative rights oblige inaction. If you don't threaten the rights of others (as muslims do if they follow Sharia) you shouldn't be bothered. Just as you shouldn't be bothered by the police unless an offense against the law is suspected.
Negative rights include freedom of speech and expression, freedom from violent crime, freedom of belief (as long it doesn't affect Human Rights of others), habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery etc.
The right to private property has no direct (only indirect – the right not to be robbed of one's property) connection with negative Human Rights.
A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person, religious group, a government etc.
Moreover, this also includes legislators, i.e. that a law that contradicts Human Rights cannot be considered lawful.
And for those who try to circumvent the logic of negative Human Rights by referring to enforcement or laws, you don't understand that Human Rights are not laws but the very basis for legislation.
How far the law can restrict Human Rights is a matter between us humans but balanced by the underpinning idea of negative Human Rights in much the same way as traffic rules are tailored for the actual reality – not any specific ideology. Traffic rules should be as smooth and democratic as possible for the purpose of flow, safety etc. just as laws should be as little intrusive on freedom as possible.
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: During the last few decades this prominence reached its peak in the West with the formation of UN after the Second World War and the subsequent drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but we Muslims know it very well that if the Western World and the Western civilization have paid attention to this matter in the recent centuries, Islam has dealt with it from all the various aspects of Human Rights many centuries back.
Peter Klevius: Is a slave an equal? And is a muslim woman equal to muslim man as according to Human Rights? Apart from paillaging, islam has sponged on slaves and women for 1400 years!
Moreover, islam is an Arabic religion and Arabic islam is considered superior to islam experienced via other languages. On top of that you have the Sunnia Shia divide - not to mention all other branches considered inferior or blasphemous by other muslims.
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The first thing that we find in Islam in the correlation of basic human rights is that it lays down some rights for man as a human being. In other words, it means that every man whether he belongs to Muslim state or not, whether he is a believer or unbeliever, whether he lives in some forest or is found in some desert, whatever be the case, he has some basic human rights just because he is a human being, which should be recognized by every Muslim.
Peter Klevius: Well, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it. Either you mean he (what about she) has to comply (as a Dhimmi) with Sharia or he is a blasphemous infidel.
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Security of Life and Property:
The first and the foremost basic right is the right to live and respect for human life. The Holy Quran says: “Whosoever kills a human being (without any reason) manslaughter, or corruption on earth, it is though he had killed all mankind”.
Peter Klevius: Why did you put the most important part "without any reason" within brackets? Not complying with Sharia, or perhaps not being a true muslim, or being an infidel standing in the way for islam, or just an infidel who happens to have the wrong passport, belief etc. may be such a reason. Not to mention the reason the 9/11 muslim terrorists had to murder innocent people in the US just because they felt islam was under attack from the West.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Protection of Honor:
The Quran does not allow one’s personal honor to be abused: “O you, who believe, do not let one set of people make fun of other set. Do not defame one another. Do not insult by using nicknames. Do not backbite”
Peter Klevius: No wonder muslims are over sensitive - not the least towards each others. Just check the news!

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Right to Protest against Tyranny:
This is mentioned clearly in the Quran: “God does not love evil talk in public unless it is by someone who has been injured thereby”. This was acknowledged by Abu Bakr, who said in his very first address: “Cooperate with me when I am right, and correct me when I commit error. Obey me as long as I follow the commandments of Allah and His Prophet, but turn away from me when I deviate”.
Peter Klevius: Indeed, reminds me of the "Arab spring" and all those muslims who fight all those muslims who have "deviated".
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Freedom of Expression:
Allah gave Adam liberty of free choice between right and wrong. It is the same reference that Allah almighty says in Quran: “Then He showed him what is wrong for him and what is right for him”. Islam allows complete freedom of though and expression, provided that it does not involve spreading that which is harmful to individuals and the society at large. For example, the use of abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism is not allowed.
Peter Klevius: So how could criticism against islam under Sharia not be "abusive"?!
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Equality before the Law:
Islam gives it citizens the right to absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law. According to Islamic concept of justice, absolutely no one is above the law. This point was made in a very dramatic fashion by the Prophet himself. One day, a women belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet with the recommendation that she be spare the mandated punishment for theft (amputation of the hand). The Prophet replied: “The nations that lived before you were destroyed by God because they punished the common man for their offenses and let their dignitaries go unpunished for their crimes. I swear by Him Who hold my life in His had that even if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, had committed this crime, I would have amputated her hand.”
Peter Klevius: These fairy tales are laughable, not only because they are without any historical connection (not even mentioned in the Koran), but, more importantly, because women are not even close to equality with men in before the Law (Sharia). Moreover and again, "before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."
Peter Klevius: The modern democracies may rightly argue that the world is indebted to them for establishing the equality and freedom. These countries could take the credit for introducing Human Rights and abolishing slavery (which is still sanctioned in islam) and abolishing judicial discrimination of women (except for in the US*). However, instead it seems that these countries try to do their utmost to downplay these important achievements, and instead they are supporting the very opposite.
* The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982, and so it was not adopted. However, most people are unaware of this important deficiency in the US legislation compared to Human Rihghts.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Try criticizing Peter Klevius' writings by calling him an "islamophobe" - and face your own ignorance (or something even worse?!) in the mirror of crispy clear Human Rights logic and historical facts!


Ban sharia islam  - now!


Try criticizing Peter Klevius' writings about islam (or call him an "islamophobe") and you inevitably also criticize and even violate the most basic rights in the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which was produced for the very purpose of defending us against totalitarian and fascist ideologies - no matter if they call themselves ". Whenever Klevius criticizes islam and muslims, it's always outside what is meant with the term 'religion'. Also European Court of Human Rights (2002) agrees with Klevius, as does the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Whatever Klevius has written and spoken about islam since 9/11 has been in accordance with what renommed (i.e. accepted by the UK government and its state propaganda tool BBC) British* islam historians say about the origin of islam, and what renommed Human Rights bodies say about sharia islam today.

* Due to the fact that the "British empire" to a large extent was infected by islam long before the British coonilization. 



While British voters wanted sharia muslims to leave or adapt to basic Human Rights equality and to stop more sharia muslims coming in via EU, Theresa May (and BBC) wants EU citizens and Human Rights to leave and muslims and their sharia to stay and multiply. The so called "review" of sharia courts in UK is made by a sharia muslim.

Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Why hasn't BBC's islamofascist Sharia muslim presenter Mishal Husain told the Brits about muslim benefits and state fundings


Klevius hint: www.muslimracism.info/com/org can't be found as web addresses! Try to google 'muslimracism' and see what you get!

Who will start state funded 'muslimracism' about Koran induced hate crimes? And how much would it cost taxpayers to track all street etc hate crimes fueled by islam, Koran texts and the example of the alleged* Mohammed?

* According to UK's foremost islam historian Hugh Kennedy, Mohammed didn't exist on any official document whatsoever before Malik introduced him in the islamic mythology long after his alleged death. However, according to Klevius (also compare The Hidden Origin of Islam) what might have existed is the naming as MHMD (meaning Christ) of one or several Judeo-Christian leader/s of Arab thieves/looters. The evilness was excused by reference to "God's will" and the "infidel" and later on  the (evil) "effectiveness" of the original formula (the lure of looting/murdering/enslaving/rapetivism kept together with apostasy ban) had to distance itself from Byzantine and its parent ideology (a Syrian Christianity variant) and their both root ideology Judaism. And for that reason Malik invented the muslim Mohammed and the Koran.

What if BBC and Sun would have scrutinized muslims instead of a few poor EU citizens that possibly could have got a tiny fraction of the taxpayers' money muslims have received?!



Klevius question to BBC and Mishal Husain: Why don't you make a report on how much benefit/funds muslims get in UK compared to non-muslim EU-citizens?!


 The islamofascist Saudi dictator family doesn't want Jerusalem to become the center for islam - why would they?




The evil of islam today is mainly rooted in the islamofascist* Saudi dictator family.

* According to Amnesty, Human Rights bodies etc. the Saudi dictator family (aka "Saudi Arabia") is one of the worst violators of Human Rights. Protecting this evil by referring to it being an "important ally" and therefore instead smearing and accusing critics (i.e. using same evil tactics as the Saudi family) seem untenable in a modern civilized democracy.

Trump won thanks to his promise to ban muslims. Brexit won thanks to stopping muslims entering UK via EU. 


 So why do UK politicians and media try to divide and incite hatred against mostly non-muslim EU citizens - well knowing that racism against Polish etc. people has a far lower threshold (thanks to "muslim sensitivities", "diversity" etc. and to hate propaganda by BBC and politicians - later followed by Sun etc.) in UK than against muslims?!

Defense of Human Rights is called "populism" and "islamophobia" by BBC.

However, sharia islam is in fact the very reason for nationalism, while politicians try to blame other nationals.


It's said that islam is struggling with its own identity.

However, that's not true. Islam's true identity is evil (see above) and remains so unless this evil is removed from it. However, when one tries to remove islam's evil - e.g. by using the Human Rights tool - islam simultaneously becomes a religious eunuch, hence loosing its main allure for many (most?) muslims.

Neither the US Constitution, nor any other legal body outside the islamic sharia realm, protects sharia islam as a "religion".


The word “religion,” which comes from the Latin word religare, means “to tie, to bind fast.”  This etymology is favored by many based on its ability to explain the power religion has over people and the communities in which they live.  Religion is commonly, but not always, associated with a particular system of faith and worship of a transcendent deity or deities.  In human rights discourse, however, the use of the term “religion” also includes support for the right to non-religious beliefs, such as atheism or agnosticism.  In 1993 the Human Rights Committee, an independent body of 18 experts selected through a UN process, described religion or belief as “theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.”

Joseph Williamson: Taken strictly and without exemptions sharia law and the American Constitution stand at great and irreconcilable odds with each other. However, some Muslims have already accepted the position of sharia in the United States of America and support it. Others adamantly deny that sharia will ever be subordinate to
another law.


1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

Article 1:

3.    Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 2:

2.    For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator family black mailing Trump? However, continuing dealing with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is playing with fire - both home and abroad.

Andrew C. McCarthy: Trump’s goal is not to exclude Muslims from our country; it is to exclude sharia supremacists, a significant subset of Muslims.

Klevius: Right. Every true muslim is a "sharia supremacist" and those who say they're not either lie or are no real muslims while still being called "muslims", hence contributing to "sharia supremacism" - possibly because of sharia islam's strict view on apostasy.

The evilness (i.e. anti Human Rights) of islam itself combined with Saudi oil wealth used for politics, war and terror, and the fact that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (still) possesses the "capital" of islam, together constitute the real knot to be cut in Mideast.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family of course doesn't want Jerusalem to become the center of islam. That's why they stick with Israel  - for the moment.

Neither does Israel. Israel in fact functions as a defense for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family against the islamofascist regime in Iran.

Moreover, both parties hence count on support from the US.

However, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's loyalty isn't worth a fistful of desert sand blowing in your face. They wouldn't care less if Israel was blown away - as long as Jerusalem doesn't affect their status as the "guardians of islam".








Tuesday, February 07, 2017

Instead of distinguishing between evil* muslims and civilized Human Rights "muslims"**, friendly fire seems to be the most populist solution.

* 'Evil' is here based on what historians tell us about early islam.

** If you prefer you can have the quotation marks on the former. However, Klevius departs from the origin of islam, which, according to history as well as muslims' own texts, was all about looting, enslaving, raping etc..

UK's speaker of the House pf Commons can't stand President Trump because "he's racist and sexist" - but has no problem with ultra-racist and ultra-sexist muslim supremacy.


The bigoted and hypocritical UK speaker of the House, John Bercow, who has had multple problems with tax payers money, and who has no problem whatsoever to invite some of the worst Human Rights violators the world of today knows about. 


 Article 2 of Kuwait's constitution identifies islamic sharia as a main source of legislation. So for example, before a family court the testimony of a woman is worth half of that of a man. Kuwait also blocks web content "prohibited by Sharia" - i.e. Kuwait blocks criticism against sharia when it violates Human Rights.

Why fight President Trump when the real enemy is basic Human Rights violating sharia islam?


Or is it precisely therefore? It's so much easier to spit on Trump, isn't it. A blond, "white", "right-wing" (although he isn't nearly as "right-wing" as his party) President who wants to tackle the biggest problem of our time - sharia islam.

Trump is the perfect target for those defending islamofascism while having run out of decent arguments for it.



 Is Trump against women's equal rights?

We don't know exactly where he stands (except for the stupid dress code of course, which he shares with possibly most men and women - but not with Klevius). However, he clearly isn't far away from ordinary male UK PMs - and miles better than the Saudi islamofascists.

 Is Trump a racist? No, there's nothing indicating this. His ban isn't against muslims but against fundamentalist muslims who hate America.


Klevius repeats his suggestion since 9/11: Only accept muslims who share a civilized and logical Human Rights equality as already stated in the 1948 Human Rights declaration against all kinds of fascisms and totalitarian ideologies - incl. islamofascism.
.

Sunday, February 05, 2017

BBC (ab)uses muslim children for faking islam's history for the Brits.


US Constitution does not protect a religion that is against the US Constitution


The disgusting face of Human Rights violating sharia islam - and the embarrassing faces of the sheep submitting to its lies.

Acknowledgement: Klevius opposes many of President Trump's views (e.g. about women "dressing like women" or his religiosity). However, when it comes to women's rights he easily outperforms sharia supporting Hillary Clinton and the leader of "women's march" Linda Sarsour. The very fact that President Trump doesn't approve of sharia is what made him President in the first place.

These US women are still waiting for any result from their march half a century ago for The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

US women still have a long way to walk towards full equality - and Klevius suggests islamic sharia may not be the best road to choose.

 Two 13 year old muslim girls told British compulsory fee paying listeners that "they get so angry when people don't understand how peaceful and just islam is". 


This happened just minutes before the main news hour, so to reach as many Brits as possibly.

Klevius thinks this is an appalling example of a fake angling of the free world's (based on Human Rights equality) problem with medieval sharia islam in the world of today.

And how come that these girls didn't reveal a trace of islam education? Klevius suggests that they should read the BBC story below from 2009.



Mona Sadiqi (BBC's house sharia muslim whom Theresa May appointed to check sharia courts in UK): Islam's "prophet" was keen on keeping peace".

Klevius: What an ignorant (?!) statement - and completely at odds at everything we know (compare e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, etc. British scholars about early islam which was all about attacking, looting, enslaving and humiliating non-Arabs/non-muslims (reminds of recent exhibitions of the muslim faith, doesn't it).

Criminalizing criticism against islam under the oxymoron "islamophobia" is the best encouragement for muslim islamofascists.

Trump's measures appear "aggressive" simply because of the enormous divisive gap caused by the Obama administration and many Democrats.

And when it comes to women, how can anyone in her/his sound mind not understand that Human Rights equality is better for them than Human Rights violaing islamic sharia which imposes restrictions on the baisis of sex - the female sex that is.

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences.

However, where is the tick box for Finland-Swedish non-socialist Atheist Klevius (leaving male sex - i.e. not the stupid "gender" -, skin color, age, physical fitness, beauty level, fashion etc. aside)?

To even consider criticism of islam being "racist" or a "crime" is in itself a pseudo fascist (or pure ignorance/political opportunism) crime against the most basic of the Human Rights!

And if you want to talk about an islam completely separated from its origin and its violent leader(s) then do it clearly instead of letting evil muslims occupy the same space as "muslims" who support civilized modern Human Rights equality.

Everyone also needs to correct the fake history about islam - especially (apart from its bloodthirsty origin with its slavery, genocides, mass murderes, institutionalized rape campaigns etc.) the disgustingly wrong picture of the myth of the Andalucian "golden age".



Peter Klevius "islamophobic" comments embedded in BBC's 2009 "islamophobic" text:


Do remember that Hugh Kennedy is the guy who agreed with Robert G. Hoyland: "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Muhammad (allegedly dead 632 but see Pourshariati) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever...".

Klevius explanation: This statement approved by two of UK's foremost experts on early islam, means that the "prophet" Mohammad as understood by muslims, didn't officially exist when islam is supposed to have originated.


Also consider that the hiding place for islam's evil today is in Human Rights violating sharia. And therefore all talk about "islamophobia" in fact only contributes to more islamic evil.

And finally, OIC's sharia declaration is called "islamic human rights" for the sole purpose of further blurring the line and making Human Rights violations "human rights".



British Broadcasting Corporation BBC
Early rise of Islam (632-700)
Last updated 2009-09-03

The Muslim community spread through the Middle East through conquest, and the resulting growth of the Muslim state provided the ground in which the recently revealed faith could take root and flourish.

The military conquest was inspired by religion, but it was also motivated by greed and politics.

    Men fought for their religion, the prospect of booty and because their friends and fellow tribesmen were also doing it.
    Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State, 2001

Peter Klevius: There's absolutely nothing supporting "religious belief" as a main factor - but overwhelming support for enslavement, murder, rape, genocide, colonialism etc. "justified" with religion.

But this mixture of motives combined to form a process that forged Islamic and Arab ideals and communities into a fast-growing religious and political identity.

Peter Klevius: No, it was just the pillaging and greed together with rapid institutionalized growth due to sharia confinement of girls/women, and a "missionary" tactics under the jihad sword - meaning enslavement or slaughter of those who didn't submit (or who weren't even allowed to be anything else than slaves) or couldn't pay the dhimmitude tax. Moreover, early muslims kept themselves isolated in garrisons from the "infidels" they sponged on.


The history problem

There are many accounts from the period about the early Muslim conquests, but much of the material is unreliable and written to present things in a way that glorified the victors and their God...

    As explanations for the great events of the seventh century these are at best partial. This is not to say that the Muslims were not brave and that the conviction that they were doing Allah's will was not significant: it clearly was. But their opponents also had firm ideological commitments and there is no reason to assume that individuals were likely to be any less brave. Despite the great mass of words, the full explanation for Muslim victory still eludes us.
    Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State, 2001

Peter Klevius: Ok Hugh, let Klevius give you "the full explanation" that "eludes" you. Think about it like this: If you rob caravans, oasises etc. and tell the young boys/men there to join in more of the same booty and sex hunting or get murdered, the answer is simple. However, to reach this point of reasoning you need to let go of the "eluding" idea of a "peaceful religion" that only seeks "Allah's justice".


Conversion by conquest?

The early advance of Islam went hand in hand with military expansion - whether it was the motivation for it is difficult to tell, although one recent book suggests that Islam certainly facilitated the growth of Muslim power.

    ...only one possible explanation remains for the Arab success-and that was the spirit of Islam... The generous terms that the invading armies usually offered made their faith accessible to the conquered populations. And if it was a new and upstart faith, its administration by simple and honest men was preferable to the corruption and persecution that were the norm in more civilized empires...
    George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton, Islam at War: A History, 2003

Peter Klevius: Not even Hillary Clinton would have called these guys "the deplorables". They were nothing more than ordinary robbers carelessly wrapped in a populist version of deliberately twisted Judaic/Christian texts.


And Islam benefited greatly from the astonishing military success of the armies of Arabia...

    the real victor in the conquests was not the Arab warlords, but Islam itself... Simply put, Islam may have sped the conquests, but it also showed much greater staying power. It is useful to realize that the power of Islam was separate from much and more permanent than that of the armies with which it rode.
    George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton, Islam at War: A History, 2003

But the Arab military adventures do not seem to have been intended as a religious war of conversion.

    In the wake of the Ridda wars, and of the Arabs' sudden conquest of most of the Near East, the new religion became identified more sharply as a monotheism for the Arab people.
    As is well known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs.
    Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, 2003


The justification of conquest

Whether or not Islam provided the motivation for early Muslim imperialism, it could be used to provide justification for it - in the same way that it had previously been used to support Muhammad's own actions against his opponents.

The Qur'an has a number of passages that support military action against non-Muslims, for example:

    But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)...
    from Qur'an 9:5

    Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book...
    from Qur'an 9:29

Other passages confirmed the rightness of the ancient military tradition of looting from the defeated, and specified how the booty should be divided.

This is not surprising, as the armies of those days were not like modern armies - but more like a federation of tribal mercenary groups who were not paid and whose only material reward came from the spoils of war.

Peter Klevius: Why this strange remark about "those days"? "Those days" are here again, dude! Thanks to those of today preaching muslims to "follow Mohammad's example". This is the very curse of islam, i.e. that it's tied to its medieval past via its own "prophet" and the Koran.


After Muhammad's death
Islam as a political force

The political status of Islam, and the role Muhammad had given it as a political as well as a religious force, was reinforced in the military conquests.

    A caliph such as Umar seems to have regarded himself, first and foremost, as the leader of the Arabs, and their monotheistic creed as the religious component of their new political identity.
    Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, 2003


The conquest of Arabia

After the death of Muhammad in 632 CE, the young Muslim federation came under strain. Some of the tribes decided that as their loyalty to Islam had been primarily to Muhammad himself, his death allowed them to end their allegiance to Mecca and to Islam.

To make things more difficult, the Prophet had not left clear instructions as to who should lead the community after his death.

Fortunately the community immediately chose the Prophet's close companion and father-in-Law Abu Bakr, as his successor. Abu Bakr was known as the first caliph (from khalifa, the Arabic for successor).

Peter Klevius: Why "fortunately"?! Has BBC asked the opinion of Shia muslims? How does BBC know that pan-Arabist islam has been a less bloody path?


Abu Bakr took swift military action against the communities that wanted to break away. These campaigns, known as the apostasy or ridda wars, effectively consolidated Arabia into a single country under Muslim control within two years.


Expansion in the Middle East

Abu Bakr died in 634 and was succeeded by Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph, who ruled until 644. Umar found himself the ruler of a large unified state, with an organised army, and he used this as a tool to spread Islam further in the Middle East.

Umar's early campaigns were against the Byzantine Empire. Following the decisive Battle of Yarmouk in 636, the former Byzantine states of Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon were conquered by the Muslim armies.

Shortly afterwards the Muslim army attacked the Sassanid Empire in Iraq, gaining a massive victory in 637 at the Battle of Qadasiya, and gradually conquering more and more of Iraq over the next dozen years.

Peter Klevius: Do note BBC's manipulative wordings on how "muslim armies" suddenly turned into a "muslim army" when it faced civilization.


This conquest was made much easier by the weakness of the Sassanid Empire, which was wounded by internal conflicts and a lengthy war with the Byzantine Empire.

Within a few years the Muslims had also conquered parts of Egypt to the South and Anatolia and Armenia to the North.

Peter Klevius: And now has even the "muslim army" disappeared. Only the muslims continue the militant "conquest". 

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Women! If you're not too busy chasing the US President for his "locker room talks" - do take a look at Saudi based and steered OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia - BBC and CNN won't.


Klevius: The islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its basic Human Rights violating worldwide sharia organization OIC have to go! That would stop more hate crimes than any other measure. 


* UN has given the spread of Saudi islamofascism legitimacy by harboring this evil organization, hence motivating a "jihadi reading" in accordance with taht very original islam that Saudi Wahhabism is all about.
 



When Peter Klevius back in 1984 wrote 'The Green Dilemma', he had Orwell in mind. Today the Green Party has become the green islamist party - when will they share the Saudi jihad flag?


Today 1984 is again a top seller - but quite often for the wrong reason.

The 1984 tyranny is overseen by Big Brother, who may not even exist. The Party "seeks power entirely for its own sake. Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party, who works for the Ministry of Newspeak, which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism, so that the historical record always supports the party line.

Klevius: The tyranny is now islam/sharia, and the weapon is making "islamophobia" first socially unacceptable (try get a job if you're known as a defender of basic Human Rights against islamofascist sharia) and ultimately a worldwide "blasphemy crime" - as it already is in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. "Newspeak" may be exemplifdied by Mr. Obama's and Mrs, Clinton's previous efforts to not mention the words 'muslim', 'islam', 'jihad' etc. when muslim jihadists terrorize non-muslims and "wrong muslims" while shouting "Allahu akbar". An other Newspeak strategy being the use of words like 'diversity', 'multiculturalism', 'refugees', 'immigrants' etc. when in fact it's clearly about mainly muslims.


Muslim Mehmet Kaplan (Swedish Green Party, and Housing and IT Minister, who is said to belong to the muslim terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood) allegedly said it was right that Fadime was honor murdered.Fadime Sahindal came as a 7 year old to Sweden and became "too Westernized".


Fadime Şahindal was opposed an arranged marriage, and selected her own boyfriend. Her father found out about it so she then left her family and moved to Sundsvall, where her brother found her and threatened her. She went to the police who advised her "to talk to her family". She then turned to the media after which she turned again to the police and was now offered a secret identity. She filed a lawsuit against her father and brother, accusing them of unlawful threats, and won. Fadime was scheduled to move in with her boyfriend, Patrik, the following month, in June 1998, when he died in a car accident. On 21 January 2002, Fadime secretly visited her mother and sisters in Uppsala. During the visit, her father arrived and shot her in the head in front of her mother and two sisters. Confronted by police, he confessed and said to his defense that he was ill. Despite the confession, one of her cousins later tried to convince the police that he had killed her.

The naive Western "islamophobia" rhetoric (i.e. sharia "blasphemy" law) and indulgence with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family/OIC may be contemplated while reading the following view from Africa (but don't forget that it's the original islam and the later Muhammad that's the real problem):

James M. Dorsey: Creating Frankenstein: Saudi Arabia`s ultra-conservative footprint in Africa


[ Masterweb Reports: Annotated remarks at Terrorism in Africa seminar By James M. Dorsey, Singapore 18 January, 2017. ] - There is much debate about what spurs political violence. The explanations are multi-fold. There is one aspect that I’d like to discuss tonight as it relates to Africa and that is the role of Saudi Arabia. Let me be clear: With the exception of a handful of countries, none of which are in Africa, Saudi Arabia, that is to say the government, the religious establishment and members of the ruling family and business community, does not fund violence.

It has however over the last half century launched the single largest public diplomacy campaign in history, pumping up to $100 billion dollars into ultra-conservative interpretations of Islam.[1] That campaign has succeeded in making ultra-conservatism a force in Muslim religious communities across the globe. It involves the promotion of an intolerant, supremacist, anti-pluralistic interpretation of Islam that even where it rejects involvement in politics creates an environment that in given circumstances serves as a breeding ground, but more often fosters a mindset in which militancy and violence against the other is not beyond the pale.

What that campaign has done, certainly in Muslim majority countries in Africa, is to ensure that representatives of Saudi-backed ultra-conservatism have influence in society as well as the highest circles of government. This is important because contrary to widespread beliefs, the Saudi campaign is not primarily about religion, it’s about geopolitics, it’s about a struggle with Iran for hegemony in the Muslim world. As a result, it’s about anti-Shiism and a ultra-conservative narrative that counters that of Shiism and what remains of Iran’s post-1979 revolutionary zeal.

The campaign also meant that at times resolving the question whether the kingdom maintains links to violent groups takes one into murky territory. Again, I want to be clear, certainly with the rise of the Islamic State (IS) and its affiliates in Africa and elsewhere, and even before with the emergence of Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia has made countering jihadism a cornerstone of its policy. That is however easier said than done.

What is evident in Africa is that the kingdom or at least prominent members of its clergy appear to have maintained wittingly or unwittingly some degree of contact with jihadist groups, including IS affiliates. What I want to do in the time I have is anecdotally illustrate the impact of Saudi-backed ultra-conservatism on three African states – Nigeria, Niger and Mali – and how this at times relates to political violence in the region.

Let’s start with Nigeria. One of the earliest instances in which Saudi Arabia flexed its expanding soft power in West Africa was in 1999 when Zamfara, a region where Islamic State affiliate Boko Haram has been active, became the first Nigerian state to adopt Sharia. A Saudi official stood next to Governor Ahmed Sani when he made the announcement. Freedom of religion scholar Paul Marshall recalls seeing some years later hundreds of Saudi-funded motorbikes in the courtyard of the governor’s residence. They had been purchased to enforce gender segregation in public transport. Sheikh Abdul-Aziz, the religious and cultural attaché at the Saudi embassy in Abuja declared in 2004 that the kingdom had been monitoring the application of Islamic law in Nigeria “with delight.”[2]

Like elsewhere in the Muslim world, local politicians in Zamfara were forging an opportunistic alliance with Saudi Arabia. If geopolitics was the Saudi driver, domestic politics was what motivated at least some of their local partners. Nonetheless, the lines between militant but peaceful politics and violence were often blurry. Political violence analyst Jacob Zenn asserts that Boko Haram even has some kind of representation in the kingdom.[3] A Boko Haram founder who was killed in 2009, Muhammad Yusuf, was granted refuge by the kingdom in 2004 to evade a Nigerian military crackdown. In Mecca, he forged links with like-minded Salafi clerics[4] that proved to be more decisive than his debates with Nigerian clerics who were critical of his interpretation of Islam.[5]

Once back in Maiduguri, the capital of Nigeria’s Borno state, Yusuf built with their assistance a state within a state centred around the Ibn Taymiyyah mosque and a compound in the city centre on land bought with the help of his father-in-law. Yusuf’s group had its own institutions, including a Shura or advisory council, a religious police force that enforced Islamic law, and a rudimentary welfare, microfinance and job creation system.[6]

It operated under a deal struck in talks in Mecca brokered by a prominent Salafi cleric between a dissident Boko Haram factional leader identified as Aby Muhammed and a close aide to former Nigerian President Jonathan Goodwill.[7] Under the agreement Yusuf pledged not to preach violence and to distance himself from separatist groups, an understanding he later violated. Boko Haram has further suggested that before joining IS, it had met with Al Qaeda operatives in Saudi Arabia.[8] Moreover, a Boko Haram operative responsible for attacking a church in Nigeria reportedly spent months in Saudi Arabia prior to the attack.[9]

Yusuf’s religious teacher, Sheikh Ja’afar Adam, a graduate of the Islamic University of Medina, presided over a popular mosque in the Nigerian city of Kano that helped him build a mass audience. Adam’s popularity allowed him to promote colleagues, many of whom were also graduates of the same university in Medina, who became influential preachers and government officials. Adam was liberally funded by Al-Muntada al-Islami Trust, a London-based charity with ties to Saudi Arabia[10] that has repeatedly been accused by Nigerian intelligence a British peer, Lord Alton of Liverpool, of having links to Boko Haram and serving as a platform for militant Islamic scholars.[11] Al Muntada, which operates a mosque and a primary school in London, has denied the allegations while a UK Charity Commission investigation failed to substantiate the allegations. Kenyan and Somali intelligence nonetheless suspected Al-Muntada of also funding Al Qaeda’s Somali affiliate, Al Shabab.[12]

Among scholars hosted by Al Muntada are Mohammad Al Arifi, a Saudi preacher who argues that “the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honour for the believer.” He also reasons that the Muslim world would not have suffered humiliation had it followed “the Quranic verses that deal with fighting the infidels and conquering their countries say that they should convert to Islam, pay the jizya poll tax, or be killed.”[13]

Abd al-Aziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, a Saudi academic, is another Al Muntada favourite. Al-Fawzan advises the faithful that “if (a) person is an infidel, even if this person is my mother or father, God forbid, or my son or daughter; I must hate him, his heresy, and his defiance of Allah and His prophet. I must hate his abominable deeds.”[14] Organizationally, the charity also maintained close ties to major Saudi funding organizations, including the Muslim World League (MWL), the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), and Al Haramain Islamic Foundation,[15] a Saudi governmental non-nongovernmental organization that was shut down in the wake of 9/11 because of its jihadist ties.

Adam publicly condemned Yusuf after he took over Boko Haram. In response Yusuf in 2007 order the assassination of Adam, a protégé of the Saudi-funded Izala Society (formally known as the Society for the Removal of Innovation and Re-establishment of the Sunnah), which sprang up in northern Nigeria in the late 1970s to campaign against Sufi practices and has since gained ground in several West African states. Much like Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism’s relationship to jihadism, Izala after spawning Boko Haram became one of its main targets. The group has since the killing of Adam gunned down several other prominent Saudi-backed clerics.

Nigerian journalists and activists see a direct link between the influx of Saudi funds into Yusuf’s stomping ground in northern Nigeria and greater intolerance that rolled back the influence of Sufis that had dominated the region for centuries and sought to marginalize Shiites. “They built their own mosques with Saudi funds so that they will not follow ‘Kafirs’ in prayers& they erected their own madrasa schools where they indoctrinate people on the deviant teachings of Wahhabism. With Saudi petro-dollars, these Wahhabis quickly spread across towns & villages of Northern Nigeria… This resulted in countless senseless inter-religious conflicts that resulted in the death of thousands of innocent Nigerians on both sides.” said Shiite activist Hairun Elbinawi.[16]

Adam started his career as a young preacher in Izala, a Salafist movement founded in the late 1970s by prominent judge and charismatic orator Abubakr Gumi who was the prime facilitator of Saudi influence and the rise of Salafism in northern Nigeria. A close associate, Gumi represented northern Nigeria at gatherings of the Muslim World League starting in the 1960s, was a member of the consultative council of the Islamic University of Medina in the 1970s and was awarded for his efforts with the King Faisal Prize in 1987. All along, Gumi and Izala benefitted from generous Saudi financial support for its anti-Sufi and anti-Shiite campaigns.[17]

Adam and Gumi’s close ties to the kingdom did not mean that they uncritically adopted Saudi views. Their ultra-conservative views did not prevent them from at times adopting positions that took local circumstances in northern Nigeria into account at the expense of ultra-conservative rigidity. Adam’s questioning of the legitimacy of democracy, for example, did not stop him becoming for a period of time a government official in the state of Kano. In another example, Gumi at one point urged Muslim women to vote because “politics is more important than prayer,” a position that at the time would have been anathema to Saudi-backed ultra-conservative scholars. Similarly, Adam suggested that Salafists and Kano’s two major Sufi orders, viewed by Saudi puritans as heretics, should have equal shares of an annual, public Ramadan service.[18]

Peregrino Brimah, a trained medical doctor who teaches biology, anatomy and physiology at colleges in New York never gave much thought while growing up in Nigeria to the fact that clerics increasingly were developing links to Saudi Arabia. “You could see the money, the big ones were leading the good life, they ran scholarship programs. In fact, I was offered a scholarship to study at King Fahd University in Riyadh. I never thought about it until December 2015 when up to a 1,000 Shiites were killed by the military in northern Nigeria,” Brimah said.[19] “Since I started looking at it, I’ve realized how successful, how extraordinarily successful the Wahhabis have been.”

Brimah decided to stand up for Shiite rights after the incident in which the military arrested prominent Shiite cleric Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky following a clash with members of Shiites in Kaduna state.[20] The Nigerian military confirmed that it had attacked sites in the ancient university town Zaria after hundreds of Shia demonstrators had blocked a convoy of Nigeria's army chief General Tukur Buratai in an alleged effort to kill him. Military police said Shiites had crawled through tall grass towards Buratai's vehicle "with the intent to attack the vehicle with [a] petrol bomb" while others "suddenly resorted to firing gunshots from the direction of the mosque.” Scores were killed in the incident.[21] A phone call to Nigerian President Mohammed Buhari in which King Salman expressed his support for the government’s fight against terrorist groups was widely seen as Saudi endorsement of the military’s crackdown on the country’s Shiite minority. The state-owned Saudi Press Agency quoted Salman as saying that Islam condemned such “criminal acts” and that the kingdom in a reference to Iran opposed foreign interference in Nigeria.[22]

Brimah’s defense of the Shiites has cost him dearly and further illustrated the degree to which Saudi-funded Wahhabism and Salafism had altered the nature of Nigerian society. “I lost everything I had built on social media the minute I stood up for the Shiites. I had thousands of fans. Suddenly, I was losing 2-300 followers a day. My brother hasn’t spoken to me since. The last thing he said to me is: ‘how can you adopt Shiite ideology?’ I raised the issue in a Sunni chat forum. It became quickly clear that these attitudes were not accidental. They are the product of Saudi-sponsored teachings of serious hatred. People don’t understand what they are being taught. They rejoice when thousand Shiites are killed. Even worse is the fact that they hate people like me who stand up for the Shiites even more than they hate the Shiite themselves.”

In response to Brimah’s writing about the clash, Buratai, the Nigerian army chief, invited him to for a chat. Brimah politely declined. After again, accusing the military of having massacred Shiites, Buratai’s spokesman, Col. SK Usman, adopting the Saudi line of Shiites being Iranian stooges, accused Brimah of being on the Islamic republic’s payroll. “Several of us hold you in high esteem based on perceived honesty, intellectual prowess and ability to speak your mind. That was before, but the recent incident of attempted assassination of the Chief of Army Staff by the Islamic Movement of Nigeria and subsequent events and actions by some groups and individuals such as you made one to have a rethink. I was quite aware of your concerted effort to smear the good name and reputation of the Chief of Army Staff to the extent of calling for his resignation. He went out of his way to write to you and even invited you for constructive engagement. But because you have dubious intents, you cleverly refused…. God indeed is very merciful for exposing you. Let me make it abundantly clear to you that your acts are not directed to the person of the Chief of Army Staff, they have far reaching implication on our national security. Please think about it and mend your ways and refund whatever funds you coveted for the campaign of calumny,” Usman wrote in the mail.[23] Brimah’s inbox has since then been inundated with anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian writings in what he believes is a military-inspired campaign.

Brimah was not the only one to voice opposition to Saudi-backed ultra-conservatism. Murtada Muhammad Gusau, Chief Imam of Nagazi-Uvete Jumu’at Mosque and Alhaji Abdurrahman Okene’ s Mosque in Nigeria’s Okene Kogi State took exception to the kingdom’s global effort to criminalize blasphemy, legitimize in the process curbs on free speech, and reinforce growing Muslim intolerance towards any unfettered discussion of the faith.  In a lengthy article in a Nigerian newspaper, Gusau debunked the Saudi-inspired crackdown on alleged blasphemists citing multiple verses from the Qur’an that advocate patience and tolerance and reject the killing of those that curse or berate the Prophet Mohammed.[24]

Brimah and Gusau were among the relatively few willing to invoke the wrath of spreading ultra-conservative, sectarian forms of Islam across a swath of Africa at an often dizzying pace. In the process, African politicians and ultraconservatives in cooperation with Saudi Arabia have let a genie of intolerance, discrimination, supremacy and bigotry out of the bottle.  In the Sahel state of Niger, Issoufou Yahaya recalls his student days in the 1980s when there wasn’t a single mosque on his campus. “Today, we have more mosques here than we have lecture rooms. So much has changed in such a short time,” he said.[25]

One cannot avoid noticing Saudi Arabia’s role in this development. The flags of Niger and Saudi Arabia feature on a monument close to the office tower from which Yahaya administers the history of department of Université Abdou Moumouni in the Niger capital of Niamey. Sheikh Boureima Abdou Daouda, an Internet-savvy graduate of the Islamic University of Medina and the Niamey university’s medical faculty as well as an author and translator of numerous books, attracts tens of thousands of worshippers to the Grand Mosque where he insists that “We must adopt Islam, we cannot adapt it.”[26] Daouda serves as an advisor to Niger president Mahamadou Issoufou and chairs the League of Islamic Scholars and Preachers of the Countries of the Sahel. “Before, people here turned to religion when they reached middle age, and particularly after they retired. But now, it is above all the young ones. What we see is a flourishing of Islam.” Daouda said.[27]

What Daouda did not mention was that with Africa, the battleground where Iran put up its toughest cultural and religious resistance to Saudi-backed ultra-conservatism, was witnessing the world’s highest rates of conversion to Shi’a Islam since many Sunni tribes in southern Iraq adopted Shiism in the 19th century. Shiites were until recently virtually non-existent in Africa with the exception of migrants from Lebanon and the Indian subcontinent. A Pew Research survey suggests that that has changed dramatically. The number of Shiites has jumped from 0 in 1980 to 12 percent of Nigeria’s 90-million strong Shia community in 2012. Shiites account today for 21 percent of Chad’s Muslims, 20 percent in Tanzania and eight percent in Gaza, according to the survey.[28]

Ironically, Mali a nation where Shiism has not made inroads and where only two percent of the populations identifies itself as Ahmadis, an Islamic sect widely viewed by conservative Muslims as heretics, is the only country outside of Pakistan that Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e-Nubuwwat (AMTKN), a militant anti-Ahmadi, Pakistan-based group with a history of Saudi backing, identifies by name as a place where it operates overseas.[29] The fact that AMTKN, which says that it operates in 12 countries, identified Mali is indicative of the sway of often Saud-educated imams and religious  leaders that reaches from the presidential palace in the capital Bamako into the country’s poorest villages. The government at times relies on Salafis rather than its own officials to mediate with jihadists in the north or enlist badly needed European support in the struggle against them. Moreover, cash-rich Salafi leaders and organizations provide social services in parts of Mali where the government is absent. In 2009, the Saudi-backed High Islamic Council of Mali (HICM) proved powerful enough to prevent the president from signing into law a parliamentary bill that would have enhanced women’s rights. Malian president Ibrahim Boubacar Keita reportedly phones HICM chief Mahmoud Dicko twice a week. Malians no longer simply identify each other as Muslims and instead employ terms such as Wahhabi, Sufi and Shia that carry with them either derogatory meanings or assertions of foreign associations.[30]

Dicko condemned the November 2015 jihadist attack on the Radisson Blu Hotel in Bamako in which 20 people were killed but argued that world powers cannot enjoy peace by fighting God through promotion of homosexuality. Dicko said the perpetrators were not Muslims but mostly rappers with drug-related charge sheets. “They rebel and take arms against their society. This is a message from God that the masters of the world, the major powers, which are trying to promote homosexuality, must understand. These powers are trying to force the world to move towards homosexuality. These world powers have attacked the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) into his grave... These masters of this world, who think that the world belongs to them, must understand that we will not attack God and escape safely. They cannot provoke God and get his clemency, his mercy. They cannot have peace and peace with such provocations towards the Creator of the world down here. They will not have peace. God will not leave them alone.”[31]

Like elsewhere, ultra-conservatism as a cornerstone of Saudi soft power has proven in Mali to be a double-edged sword for the kingdom and its beneficiaries. Iyad Ag Ghaly nicknamed The Strategist, a Malian Tuareg militant who led tribal protests in the 1990s and emerged in 2012 at the head of Ansar Eddine, one of the jihadist groups that overran the north of Mali, found ultra-conservative religion while serving as a Malian diplomat in Jeddah. A Sufi and a singer who occasionally worked with Tinariwen, the Grammy Award winning band formed by veterans of Tuareg armed resistance in the 1980s and 1990s, co-organized an internationally acclaimed annual music festival outside of Timbuktu that attracted the likes of Robert Plant, Bono and Jimmy Buffett, and hedonistically enjoyed parties, booze and tobacco, Ag Ghaly grew a beard while in Saudi Arabia. His meetings with Saudi-based jihadists persuaded the Malian government to cut short his stint in the kingdom and call him home.[32] Pakistani missionaries of Tablighi Ja’amat, an ultra-conservative global movement that has at times enjoyed Saudi backing despite theological differences with Wahhabism and Salafism, helped convince Ag Ghaly to abandon his music and hedonistic lifestyle. He opted for an austere interpretation of Islam and ultimately jihadism.[33]

This pattern is not uniquely African even if Africa is the continent where Iranian responses to Saudi promotion of Sunni ultra-conservatism have primarily been cultural and religious in nature rather than through the use of militant and armed proxies as in the Middle East. It is nonetheless a battle that fundamentally alters the fabric of those African societies in which it is fought; a battle that potentially threatens the carefully constructed post-colonial cohesion of those societies. The potential threat is significantly enhanced by poor governance and the rise of jihadist groups like Boko Haram, Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and Al Shabab in Somalia, whose ideological roots can be traced back to ultra-conservatism but whose political philosophy views Saudi Arabia as an equally legitimate target because its rulers have deviated from the true path. At the bottom line, both Africans and Saudis are struggling to come to grips with a phenomenon they opportunistically harnessed to further their political interests; one that they no longer control and that has become as much a liability as it was an asset.