Every sensible muslim would abandon islamic Sharia if they only really knew
the basics of Human Rights.
How, for example, could muslim women possibly resist an ideology that
gives them the right to dress, act and be suppressed by their husbands
if they so like, but which also gives them the right not to do so?! Or
could they? Can't they stand the right to let other women live a
different life?
Sadly many Westerners aren't that educated about
Negative Human Rights either, and if they are they hide it behind political correctness and "muslim sensitivities".
Daniel Pipes is a Jewish islamophobe who isn't afraid of islam - but how does he differ from a mosque mouse?!
Or is he just too shy to criticize islam?
Klevius: Islam is against Human Rights! Oops, sorry for that
"crime against humanity". However, Erdogan and his pal, Egyptian born
Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and his Saudi based OIC deliberately violate
Human Rights via OIC's Cairo declaration (Sharia) which covers the
whole muslim world Umma.
An overwhelming majority of muslims are
against Human Rights
According to the latest Pew Research
Forum report, "The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and
Society," released April 30, 2013, including a total of 39
countries and territories on three continents: Africa, Asia and
Europe, and covering "more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews
in 80-plus languages and dialects, from every country that has more
than 10 million Muslims", 72% of Indonesian Muslims, 84% of
Pakistani Muslims, 82% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 74% of Egyptian
Muslims, and 71% of Nigerian Muslims supported making Sharia the
official state law of their respective societies. The
population-weighted average from these 5 countries was 77%
supportive. (Composite regional data confirmed these individual
country trends -- 84% of South Asian Muslims, 77% of Southeast Asian
Muslims, 74% of Middle Eastern/North African Muslims, and 64% of
Sub-Saharan African Muslims favored application of the Sharia as
official state law.)
Could this be why mosque mice are so silent?
Daniel Pipes' "defense" of islam
Daniel Pipes: Those arguing for Islam itself as the
problem (such as Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) point to the
consistency from Muhammad’s life and the contents of the Koran and
Hadith to current Muslim practice. Agreeing with Geert Wilders’
film Fitna, they point to striking continuities between Koranic
verses and jihad actions. They quote Islamic scriptures to establish
the centrality of Muslim supremacism, jihad, and misogyny, concluding
that a moderate form of Islam is impossible. They point to Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s deriding the very idea of a
moderate Islam. Their killer question is, “Was Muhammad a Muslim or
an Islamist?” They contend that we who blame Islamism do so out of
political correctness or cowardliness. To which, we reply: Yes, certain
continuities do exist; and Islamists definitely follow the Koran and
Hadith literally. Moderate Muslims exist but lack Islamists’
near-hegemonic power. Erdogan’s denial of moderate Islam points to
a curious overlap between Islamism and the anti-Islam viewpoint.
Klevius: Indeed, the next best way of fast learning about the
origin of islam is to read islamist websites and listening to islamist
imams etc. However, the best way is still by reading Klevius, of course.
Why? Because Klevius is neither a Jew, nor a Christian nor a muslim,
and hence he isn't entangled with philosophical difficulties regarding
Human Rights. Moreover, both islamists and Klevius' view on islam is in
full agreement with what otherwise puzzle most historians, i.e how islam
could spread so quickly.
Daniel Pipes: My analysis goes like this:
Islam is the 14-century-old faith of a
billion-plus believers that includes everyone from quietist Sufis to
violent jihadis.
Major dissonance began around 1800,
when Muslims unexpectedly lost wars, markets, and cultural leadership
to Western Europeans.
Klevius: Unexpectedly!? Dear Mr Pipes, don't you know that the
main currency of islam's Sharia finance was slaves, and when Europeans
in the early 19th century eventually finished a long series of efforts
to stop Jewish and muslim slave raiding/trading, then the islamic
economy based on parasitism collapsed and the islamic "civilization"
decayed into hopeless misery until renewed by the power of oil.
In fact, Mr Pipes, some of the most long lasting and ugliest forms of
slave raiding/trading existed in the area where your forefathers are
from. I refer to Russia and the Jewish Khazars and the Ottoman Turks.
To understand the origin of islam, Mr Pipes, take a look at
the origin of the Vikings!
Daniel Pipes: It (major dissonance) continues today, as Muslims bunch toward the
bottom of nearly every index of achievement. This shift has caused
massive confusion and anger. What went wrong, why did God seemingly
abandon His faithful?
Muslims have responded to this crisis
in three main ways. Secularists want Muslims to ditch the Shariah
(Islamic law) and emulate the West. Apologists also emulate the West
but pretend that in doing so they are following the Shariah.
Islamists reject the West in favour of a retrograde and full
application of the Shariah.
Klevius:In the enlightenment of Human Rights it's impossible to
"pretend" Sharia. No matter if we talk moderate or islamist Sharia they
both share an undeniable element of sexism and racism that stands in
sharp contrast to Human Rights. This is why OIC has abandoned Human
Rights and replaced them with Sharia in the UN. This is also why torture
doesn't exist under Sharia, simply because it's part of the sentence.
Daniel Pipes: Islamism represents the
transformation of Islamic faith into a political ideology. Islamism
accurately indicates an Islamic-flavoured version of radical
utopianism, an -ism like other -isms, comparable to fascism and
communism. Aping those two movements, for example, Islamism relies
heavily on conspiracy theories to interpret the world, on the state
to advance its ambitions, and on brutal means to attain its goals.
Klevius:Let me remind you that just like
the most important Human Rights are the negative ones, the most important -ism is the negative atheism.
Daniel Pipes: Supported by 10 to 15 per cent of
Muslims, Islamism draws on devoted and skilled cadres who have an
impact far beyond their limited numbers. It poses the threat to
civilized life in Iran, Egypt, and not just on the streets of Boston
but also in Western schools, parliaments, and courtrooms.
Klevius:150 million extremist muslims - and counting! And they
thrive equally well in Western Universities as in Mideast etc. Isn't
that more than enough to keep us busy from even bothering about possible
"moderate muslims"?
Daniel Pipes: Our killer question is “How do you
propose to defeat Islamism?” Those who make all Islam their enemy
not only succumb to a simplistic and essentialist illusion but they
lack any mechanism to defeat it. We who focus on Islamism see the
Second World War and the Cold War as models for subduing the third
totalitarianism. We understand that radical Islam is the problem and
moderate Islam is the solution. We work with anti-Islamist Muslims to
vanquish a common scourge. We will triumph over this new variant of
barbarism so that a modern form of Islam can emerge.
Klevius: The mechanism to defeat islam is called
(negative) Human Rights!
Simple as that and rock solid if you just put it on the agenda. And
most of us non-muslims have already agreed on it via the 1948 Human
Rights Declaration, which was aimed to hinder people like Goebbels and
Erdogan etc. to rise their evil agendas.
And Erdogan is right, there's no such creature as moderate islam and, as a consequence, no moderate muslims.
Working with "anti-islamist muslims" (what's that?) can only harm Human
Rights. If they are true muslims they simply cannot stretch that far,
and if they do they aren't muslims in any meaningful sense anymore.
Islam is a life covering totalitarian ideology.
OIC, the world's largest organozation after UN covers all the world's
muslims. OIC also tries to say it is "anti-violence" yet it has strongly
adopted as its basis islamist Sharia. And by "islamist" I here refer to
the undeniable fact that OIC's Cairo declaration is the very opposite
to Human Rights on the most basic points!
Here's what Klevius wrote eight years ago:
Islamic terrorism is just the tiny tip of a giant Arabic/Islamic
iceberg fueled by oil-money and extending deeply into Western
institutions. Asking Muslims for help against Muslims makes little
sense. A strong re-evaluation of their "religion" is the only possible
future
The problem isn't about immigrants, Arabs or Jews etc but solely about Islam as a facist/sexist totalitarian idea - and those
detached lost souls (often
in need of immediate care) who pick it up in Koran schools, Mosques,
youth organizations etc. Another problem constitutes of all those
millions who call themselves Muslims without, in most cases, having even
a remote sense of what it really stands for as an idea. For these
"Muslims" Islam is instead a synonyme (most often historically forced
upon them) for their real ethnicity, not the Koran.
Just as
Christianity
was stimulated by the New Testament's replacement theology (or
supersessionism), which taught that with the coming of Jesus a new
covenant has rendered obsolete and has superseded the religion of
Judaism, Islam is stimulated by Koran and the "last prophet" whose
words should not be critisized or questioned (although Muslims do it all
the time through a variety of interpretations).
Furthermore
A
number of Christian preachers, particularly in the Middle Ages and
Renaissance, additionally taught that religious Jews choose to follow a
faith that they actually know is false out of a desire to offend God
Although this pattern is now repeated by "radical" (interesting word)
Islamists, "moderate" Islamists have long since figured out a much more
effective strategy. By equalizing Arabic Islam from the 7th century A.D.
(neither Arabic nor Islam was around before that time) with the fate of
Abraham some 1.900 B.C., "moderate" Islamists now try to convince other
religious groups belonging to the same Mideastern "monolitheism" (new
word by
Peter Klevius) that they have a common interest. But this "interest" is, in fact, a catalyst for
replacing rapidly vanishing Christianity with a
racist ("infidel"), sexist (
sex segregation) totalitarian (
anti-human rights) jihadist world-Islam that always supports "radical" interpretations no matter how many timid "Muslims" might be around.
Today's Hitler, bin Laden, and his meek and lost followers, and blind supporters.
In this light the difference between so called "radical" and "moderate" Islamists is less than thin Also compare posting on
Saudi Islamist and Muslim feminist Mai Yamani and her opposite, Condoleezza Rice.
The London bombs can be traced back to that very same Sudan which now
rapes and kills women in Darfur, in front of Mai Yamani's shut eyes.
Klevius' definition of religion.
What do the terrorists want?
They want precisely the same as Islamists in general, i.e. to boost Islam!
So what should Muslims and "Muslims" do?
Start with the
Fundamentalist test
and then openly state that non-Muslims, "infidels", unbelievers,
Atheists etc are exactly equally good and worthy humans as are Muslims,
and that they don't need an Allah or other specified God to remain so!
Very simple, isn't it?
Islam, not Bush, was responsible
for 9/11! Islam, not Bush, is responsible for Islamic
suicide-killers/terrorists around the globe! Islam (and an Islamist
government), not Bush (or the "West"), is responsible for the rapes and
killings in Sudan! And Islam, not Bush, is responsible for the
continuing mess in Iraq!
The solution for Iraq: 1) The
whole world should now send troops there to protect non-violent Iraqis
against Islamic terrorists. 2) Avoid Islam in the constitution!
Klevius comment May 2013: Same applies to Syria etc!
