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.
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".
No comments:
Post a Comment