Klevius considers sharia* muslim women like e.g. Sayeeda Warsi and Mishal Husain as having serious issues with their morality. So here's Klevius' moral tutorial for them.

* If Mishal Husain doesn't support Human Rights violating sharia, but only a "Westernized islam", she'd be better telling the rest of muslims about it. But she keeps silent while hiding behind the world's biggest microphone called BBC from behind which she can spit at Human Rights defending "islamophobes" and accuse the suffering in islamic countries not on islam but on the very same West her family preferred instead of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why is it that it's only Klevius who wants to vomit when encountering this bigoted hypocrisy - or is it? 

Bigoted and deeply hypocritical (or just racist and Human Righsphobic) muslim sharia women enjoy the West's Human Rights freedom while islam ravages their muslim homelands as it has always done for some 1,400 years. How does it feel for suffering women in islamic countries hearing Mishal Husain bragging about not fasting during Ramadan but instead drinking some alcohol while giving the finger to any suggestion of islamic "dress code" etc., and boasting about how she can lead her life in the West (thanks to Human Rights - not sharia) without thinking about consequences familiar to her muslim sisters in muslim/islamic countries.

Moral and justice - and the mirror reflection called a "monotheist" "God".

As the world is and always has been in an unstoppable motion, every effort to try to stop it isn't only in vain but usually also dangerous. A car has a steering wheel so to follow the world - not vise versa. However, this function also facilitates an individual goal of the trip.

Moral is temporarily and locally fluid, yet always possessing a (moving) center point of gravity. It's against this background one has to understand "the old Greeks" and their analysis of the individual (the social atom), the state, and justice.

Justice is, according to Thrasymachus, established by the strong in order that the weak will serve her/his interests. The strong are therefore better off disregarding justice and serving their own interests.

However,

Would Klevius rape women he considers sexy if given the power to do so without consequences?

or

Would Klevius rob or otherwise hurt people if given the power to do so without consequences?

Klevius doesn't think so. Why? Because Klevius is afraid of being alone in whatever activity. This "cowardice" constitutes the very essence of Klevius being a human among other humans. If you don't understand this as yet please check out the reasoning behind the 'negative Human Rights', i.e. the difference between racist/sexist impositions and the freedom of the individual among other individuals. After that you won't no longer be able to defend islamic sharia or to hide its real essence by talking about "consensual contract" etc. when in reality sharia is part of the whole islam. This latter point is what Theresa May should have addressed in her sharia "investigation" if she really cared about those girls and women who suffer under this deception.

So what about the objection that one could  do unjustice together with others? Impossible, because Klevius would still feel alone, because he would be forced to assume that the others either are ignorant or suffering the same loneliness as Klevius would suffer in a similar context. In this respect there's no difference between islam and a gang.

So what about believing that something non human justifies unjustice? No problem, Klevius is a non-socialist Atheist, not because he has chosen to be so but because there's no alternative to negative Human Rights. Religion is always a lesser good in comparison - in fact, that's the very definition of a "monotheist" religion. And now someone less bright or just evil person might try to dismiss this by talking about "what we don't know about", i.e. what they think is "God" (and which is called the 'unreachable' in Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources) but which in fact is they themselves (see chapter Existencecentrism in Klevius 1992 book).

The meaning of life is its own definition i.e. uncertainty (Klevius 1981) just like the meaning of football (no dude, I'm not talking about American handball) is its maximization of uncertainty by being the only sport where no tools or hands are allowed when the ball is in play inside the pitch.

Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat - so why not follow it:

1 There's no absolute and fixed moral.

2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral.

3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restricrions other than neccessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.

BBC's fake "news" and direct lies and misinormation is no less than scandalous. Why/how is BBC alloved to do this?

BBC's and Theresa May's bigoted and hypocritical propaganda about muslims and islam being so much more wonderful, helpful and peaceful than non-muslim UK citizens and residents (especially those from "Eastern Europe"), covers a dangerous jihad iceberg under "islamophobia" dog whistling.

23,000 muslim jihadists in UK is just 'the tip of the iceberg according to an English security expert, Colonel Richard Kemp, the former British Army commander in Afghanistan, who also proposed internment of muslim jihadis. However, former Scotland Yard Commissioner Lord Blair said it would be 'counter-productive as it would anger the Muslim community'.

Klevius wonders how this could possibly anger "the muslim community" which, according to what Theresa May and BBC have told us share "British values"?

As it stays now BBC is clearly more biased and less trustworthy than most bloggers. Can you even imagine an individual blogger - no matter what topic -  who could sink as low as BBC in deliberately making things up, distorting the truth and always angling it for a propaganda purpose - no matter how much danger and suffering such a policy may cause?

BBC News: One man died and nine were injured when a van was driven into a crowd of muslim worshipers out sight Finsbury mosque.

Klevius correction of this utterly distorted faked "news": One sick man already lying on the road and two who helped him were driven into by a van. When the van stopped a crowd of muslims coming out from the mosque attacked the psychotic driver and got minor injuries due to this. The driver had no weapon but was according to the muslims, reportedly 'very strong' when they pulled him out from the van. So it looks like one man died and two were seriously injured as a result of a deliberate (but psychotic) action by thge driver while all the rest injuries came when the muslims attacked the driver. But BBC wanted to inflate the numbers to make it appear more "terrorist like" and less psychotic. In other words quite the opposite to how BBC acts when non-psychotic muslims commit acts of terror - which is extremely much more common.

Stop muslim Human Rightsphobia!

Clearly BBC's aim here was to paint a picture more similar to the frequent muslim jihad vehicle attacks. And what about muslim burqa women stabbing a nursery worker on an English street while shouting Allahu? Not a word from BBC. Dear reader, how many "low level" muslim stabbing attacks etc. are hidden from you? Isn't it about time for decent muslims to stop being offended and instead start defending everyone's Human Rights under which they anyway cover themselves - instead of supporting Human Rights violating sharia islam? Don't believe Theresa May when she says 'sharia is good for the Brits.

This week BBC also managed to present Russia's classification of Fortress of the Muslims as extremism, as something completely unneccessary and directed against an innocent "prayer book".

Here's an excerpt from this "innocent" book:


Fortress of the Muslim

THE PUNISHMENT OF ABANDONING JIHAD

Abandoning Jihad is the cause of the humiliation and division in which the Muslims live today. So the saying of Allah (subhanAllah wa ta'ala) indeed came true concerning them:

'O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e. Jihad) you cling heavily to the earth. Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter. If you march not forth He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things.'
[Surah At-Taubah 38-39]

Explaining these verses, Ibn Katheer says; "This is an admonition against those who did not march forth along with the Messenger of Allah (sallAllahu alayhi wassallam) in the military expedition of Tabuk, when the fruit and the shades ripened in the exceedingly hot weather, so Allah (subhanAllah wa ta'ala) said:

'O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth In the Cause of Allah' (i.e. when you are asked for Jihad in the Cause of Allah) 'you cling heavily to the earth' (i.e. you become indolent and incline towards the life of rest and (enjoyment) ripe fruit) 'Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter?' (i.e. why do you behave like this by being pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? Then He (subhanAllah wa ta'ala) diverts us from this life and urges us to look forward for the Hereafter) 'But little is the enjoyment of this life as compared with the Hereafter' Then Allah (subhanAllah wa ta'ala) promises punishment for those who abandon Jihad 'If you march not forth . He will punish you with a painful torment.'

Ibn Abbaas (radiAllahu anhu) said;

"The Messenger of Allah (sallAllahu alayhi wassallam), commanded some people from the Arabs to march forth but they stayed behind, so Allah caused the rain to stop falling on them and that was a punishment for them: 'and will replace you by another people' i.e. to help His Prophet and establish His deen as Allah (subhanAllah wa ta'ala) say; 'And If you turn away, He will exchange you for some other people, and they will not be your likes and you cannot harm Him at all' i.e. you cannot harm Allah at all by your turning away fron Jihad.'
(Tafseer Ibn Katheer 2/342)

The Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wassallam) said;

"When people become niggardly about the Dirham and Dinar (currencies), deal with al-'Eenah (a kind of riba), abandon Jihad and follow the queues of the cows (i.e. being diverted from Jihad in the cause of Allah by tending cattle), Allah will cause a punishment to descend on them and He (subhanAllah wa ta'ala) will not lift it until they go back to their deen."
(Collected by Ahmad and Abu Dawud on the authority of Abdullah ibn 'Umar (radiAllahu anhu))

And it is incumbent upon the Muslim that he not be contented by being the ranks of women, as was reported by the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wassallam);

"Hajj is the Jihad for the old, the weak and the women."

BBC: Should EU citizens have the right to stay? Klevius: Should muslims have the right to stay?

Goebbels could have learned a lot from BBC about how to spread divisive hate propaganda. 

Sharia islamofascism supporting BBC has eagerly searched for racist English citizens who don't want EU citizens to stay in England. Klevius now wonders why they have never asked the same question about muslims? EU citizens moved within EU with a common value basis. And according to the "islamophobic" European Court of Human Rights, sharia islam doesn't comply with EU values.

 Unlike residents from Commonwealth who were allowed to vote about Brexit, EU citizens, whom it reallyconcerned, had no vote. With EU votes there would have been no Brexit at all. This means Brexit is illegal from a basic democratic point of view.

Moreover, Theresa May and her racist supporters try to rob EU residents from even more of their basic rights while calling it "a fair deal". However, the only fair deal is that the government takes full responsibility for Brexit consequences - not rolling it over innocent EU residents who moved to England in accordance with a law that gave them full rights. And if England continuous to give Commonwealth resident the vote, then the same should be given EU residents in England who no longer can democratically vote about England via EU.

Sharia loving Theresa May with her "best ally", Mohammad bin Salman, "the world's most dangerous man", the new leader of the iskamofascist Saudi dictator family who has managed to murder and starve thousands of innocent children and adults in his Mohammedanian campaign for power.

At which point of her life did Theresa May become a racist/sexist supporter of Saudi islamofascism and Human Rightsphobia? Was it her vicker dad who made her prefer religious fundamentalism (sharia etc) instead of Universal Human Rights equality and democratic values? Her "me" campaign and sharia support makes her democracy soul (if she ever had one) heavily tainted.

So how many of the non refugee muslims? BBC won't tell you.

 Is this woman an "islamophobe"? Klevius thinks not. But she's certainly a hateful muslim if she tried to burn an other muslim sect's mosque or if she tried to make it look "islamophobic". Theresa May, Hillary Clinton etc. politicians have certainly given her every reason to do the latter.
.

Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz is a simple (but dangerous war criminal and hate spreader) Sunni dictator terrorist - and certainly not a "prince"*.

* 1932 when England gave part of the Arabian peninsula to a muslim gangster called Saud, all Western "kingdoms" had already ceased to exist and turned into powerless idols.

The islamofascist Saudi imposter regime

Islam's perversion of Human Rights is best seen in the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and the Saudi based and steered OIC.

BBC today said universities should teach "critical thinking". But that would make them "islamophobic", wouldn't it. And we can't have that because that would be "racist", wouldn't it. And the islamofascist Saudi war criminal terrorist "prince" Salman wouldn't like it, would he.

Salman jr. isn't and will never become a "prince" or a "king" - other than if abdicating from any power - simply because there's no room for dictator kings in a modern world. The Saudi "king" together with a few other retard "kingdoms" is just a sad and unfortunate remnant of the past. The young "prince" is actually one of the oldest on the planet.

However, dealing with him is dealing with the Devil. And most people know it but are silenced with accusations of "islamophobia". Klevius advise you to hide in a voting boot.

Why were tall men from the south dumber than tall men from the north?

Here's something BBC and their house anthropologist Stringer won't tell you about  - before they really have to. Compare Stringer's slow adaptation to questioning a simplistic out of Africa model. Something Klevius went through in 1989-1991 (published 1992).

Why has the tallest region  in Europe (parts of Balkan) also been the poorest when the next tallest region (Northern Europe) has been the most affluent?

Answer: It's got absolutely nothing to do with tallness - and everything to do with brainpower. Oops, did Klevius say something "blasphemic"? Ok, here's Klevius' defense.

 Väinö Myllyrinne, Finland, 251 cm (8 ft 3 in), had the world's biggest hands - and a quite ordinary life, except for some circus trips to earn some bucks on his stature.

So what if Väinö Myllyrinne had been born into a warrior family some 5,000 ybp and equipped with a brain like, say Klevius (but way more aggressive)? Oops, Klevius did it again.

Height is genetically determined. Stunting because of malnutrition is only between 1-2 cm in a study of the Chinese famine 1959-1961. What has previously been assigned to malnutrition is in fact selection. Growth hormone irregularities are relatively rare.

There's a distinct genetic growth stop at around age 14 for a huge (?) part of the world's population, while others continue growing until the age of 16-18. Mixing of these genes give results that no one so far has studied in more detail. This is the basic reason for height variation among today's humans. Klevius strongly suggests that someone starts a research project based on this Klevius' problem formulation.

However, some continue growing also after their growth spurt. One such an example was the world's tallest healthy man (most exceptionally tall people are sick and die young) the Finnish Väinö Myllyrinta.

Väinö Myllyrinne (born 27 February 1909 in Helsinki – 13 April 1963 in Helsinki, Finland) was an acromegalic (continued growth after the growth plates have closed) giant who was at one time (1961–1963) the world's tallest living person and is the tallest non-American person of all time whose height is not disputed (do note that all Americans were physically handicapped). He stood 224 cm (7 ft 4 in) and weighed 141 kg (311 pounds) at the age of 21, but experienced a second phase of growth in his late thirties, attaining a height of 251 cm (8 ft 3 in) and weighing 376 pounds. Myllyrinne is considered the tallest soldier ever, having served in the Finnish Defence Forces. He underwent his conscript training in 1929 in the Viipuri Heavy Artillery Regiment, and was 220 cm (7 ft 3 in) tall and really strong. In the 1930s he travelled around Europe. He returned to Finland in 1939 to serve in the Finnish Army during the Winter War. In 1946, he moved to Järvenpää and ran a chicken farm. He died in 1963 after a hip surgery caused inflammation. In 1962, just a year before his death, he was measured by doctors at 2.47 m (8 ft 1.2 in). This confirms with normal shrinking over more than a decade. He had a 340 mm (13.2 in) size hand, the largest known.

Väinö Myllyrinne

Väinö Myllyrinne with two upper average size women.

Peter Klevius' (who isn't tall) analysis: Because the northerners had access to short and intelligent women to the north of themselves among the hunter-gatherer population, they also  got closer to the genetic background of modern humans. So some kids became short, others average, and some tall - and some even blond. Likewise, some got average IQ while a few got the genius gene. And a few became highly intelligent giant warriors at a time when size mattered - especially in sparsely populated areas where hit and run attacks were easy and where they could gather more of the same while going southward. One may assume that these phenomena happened more frequently during bad farming times - which occurred quite often in the vulnerable climatic borderland of farming, and dwelling in dark woodlands in the extreme north added blondness and fair skin.

The tallest people seem to have followed part of haplogroup I-M170. And when it comes to aDNA there are hints that point to the same direction, e.g. some tall ancient human remains in the southern Gravettian ice-age refuges (e.g. Italy).

However, it's mainly tall people from Fennoscandia/Russia (Indoeuropeans and Uralics) who - together with shorter people - constituted the stock from which the technological expansion of the West emanated. This has also led to many misconceptions, i.e. that being tall would somehow be connected to intelligence - no matter how many short geniuses (Einstein etc.) there are. Looking back in prehistory it seems more likely that the opposite is true. However, luckily today we've already messed everything up globally to an extent that it's impossible to tell anything for certain based on physical appearance. So why not just follow James Mallory's Bhuddist advise in the context of Tocharians: Don't believe what you see!

The Indoeuropean language border just south of the Uralic one is approximately the same as the border of farming which is pushed to the dark north when affected by the Gulf-stream.

The Vikings, Goths, the Seima-Turbino, phenomenon, Kurgan people etc. are all example of movements of mainly tall male warriors in the first stages. And all of them were closely connected to Uralic speaking cultures.

This map from Chernyc's Nomadic Cultures in the Mega-Structure of the Eurasian World (2017) emphasizes the hot spot area of metal working in the 5th millennium. However, do note the upper reaches of the darker area which points towards the most often cited Urheimat of proto-Uralic. This strange tail seems to be quite unexplainable if you don't take this into account.

The unfortunate belittling of first the steppe people and then the Uralic speakers has blindfolded many theories - and maps. Here the Corded Ware culture well overlaps later Uralic areas. Klevius assumes the people there must have spoken relaed languages at the time of Corded Ware.

According to Klevius, Corded ware horizon is a mix of Indoeuropean and Uralic with bilingual border zones. Although Iceland was populated from Fennoscandia some two millennium later, Icelandic has many characteristics in common with Finnish. This makes sense when considering the Vikings started as "Finland-Swedish" (see Origin of Vikings) explorers/raiders capable of making themselves understood from Finnish Karelia to Old Nordic Scandinavia and beyond, e.g. Shetland, Scotland, England, Ireland etc. And do note that 'land' is an old pre-Viking age Gothic word.

Haplogroup U descends from a woman in the haplogroup R mtDNA branch of the phylogenetic tree, who is estimated to have lived around 55,000 years ago. An Upper Palaeolithic human who lived in Western Siberia c. 45,000 years ago has been shown to belong to the U* mitochondrial haplogroup. Haplogroup U has also been found among ancient Egyptian mummies excavated at the Abusir el-Meleq archaeological site in Middle Egypt, which date from the Pre-Ptolemaic/late New Kingdom, Ptolemaic, and Roman periods.

Red hair distribution from a northern heartland. The Uralic speaking Udmurts have been described as the "most red-headed" people in the world and having "deep blue eyes".



Blond hair distribution was connected to southern Fennoscandia being the northernmost place were small scale farming was possible due to the Gulf stream. However, this part of the farming world was also the darkest, hence putting immense pressure on vitamin D uptake - resulting in survival advantage for fair skinned people in the farming/hunting communities. The northern hunter-gatherers, like Inuits, Sami etc., got their vitamin D from other sources.

Read about Kvenland and Finnland - the oldest 'land' in the world.


If, as Klevius working theory suggests, the boost in intelligence, that created the unique paleolithic Eurasian art etc. track from Mal'ta Buret to the Pyrenees, was the result of a Homo floresiensis like tropical island dwarfed brain genetically flowing up in the form of Denisovan to big skulled northern homos, then we would expect a concentration of intelligence genes in the sparsely populated north (because those going back south were diluted by the mass of people already there). Most of these moderṇ (<50,000 ybp) northerners (Siberians, north Europeans) were (and still are) of relatively short stature (compared to e.g. most central and "half-northern" Europeans) and not very fair skinned nor fair haired. 

The tallest people used to live in Australia - already some 40-60,000 ybp. 

There are two main unsolved mysteries about height:

1  Where did the tall genes originate?

2   Which genes determine earlier and later growth stop?

Lake Mungo man (Australia) who lived more than 40,000 ybp is estimated to 196 cm (just a couple of centimeter shorter than Klevius childhood friend).

Mungo Man's "wife" was found 400 m away from him.

These guys from the Burrup peninsula (Western Australia), photographed in the 1920s, were 200.6 cm and 195.5 cm.

These guys photographed in the 1920s in North West Australia, were reportedly both over two meter.

However, most Aborigines are of relatively short stature, and the tall guys above were reportedly even less intelligent than other tribes the Western "conquesters" - to use a word commonly used about muslim colonizers - had met with.

Southern farmers were short and not particularly intelligent

It's a myth that - as Klevius still thought 1992 - that farming caused civilizations. It was only when the gains of farming was utilized by non-farmers that the so called "civilizations" emerged in Mideast. Long before this time there had already been advanced civilizations from Ural to Ukraine.

Klevius theory on IQ and human evolution and its relation to stature - the first truly intelligent humans weren't tall.

As you dear reader already know, until proven wrong Klevius analysis of the evolution of modern humans is in its shortest form as follows:

1 The early IQ track visible through the Aurignacian art/technology track from Baikal/Siberia to the Pyrenees means something extraordinary happened in the Altai region more than 50,000 ybp when the first sewing needles were already in use.

An extremely sophisticated stone bracelet was produced in Siberia/Altai more than 40,000 ybp. Both the needle above and the stone bracelet were found in the Denisova cave.

2 DNA analysis from the Denisova cave has revealed both hybridization between so called Neanderthals, Homo sapiens sapiens, and a third party, the so called Denisovan who in turn is also linked to Australia, Papua New Guinea and Melanesia.

3  Homo floresiensis proves that a bigger skull can shrink in a tropical jungle/island environment without loosing IQ. So if a similar but opposite (i.e. expanding skull while keeping up the per cm3 IQ) process was at stake among the so called Denisovans when they managed to re-enter mainland Asia during lower sea level, they would sooner or later meet with their big skulled northern relatives in the Altai area. As a resukt some of their kids would get both a big skull as well as high IQ. How many of them is up to guesswork so far but there must have been quite a few (proportionally - considering small population) of them to cause such a rapid spread of what we might call the truly modern human over the world.

However, this spread was far from even. Climatic as well as geographical factors played an important role - compare e.g. Mammoth fluctuation, migration and extinction.

When farming emerged population rapidly increased while stature and intelligence decreased (e.g. compared to the early geniuses in Altai). So when the tall Kurgan people from the Russian steppe met the southern farmers the difference in height could be up to half a meter - and some of the Kurgans also possessed superior intelligence due to their mating connections to the north. So whereas mating with average farmer girls didn't produce many geniuses, the opposite was true when it comes to girls/women from the north.

Klevius will teach you more about this scenario later on but in the meantime he suggests you read the Finnish/Karelian epic Kalevala where

Louhi is a "wicked queen" with magical power of the land known as Pohjola (the North). Louhi promises her eldest and most magnificent maiden daughter to the smith Ilmarinen if he forges a Sampo (or Sammas) which was a magical artifact constructed by Ilmarinen that brought riches and good fortune to its holder.

Klevius wrote:

Friday, March 25, 2016

Klevius' Finland-Swedish Hobbit story

The Dragon of Evil, Tolkien, and Moomin Mum

 The Dragon of Evil in the Tolkien calendar by Tove Jansson

Everyone (except islamist muslims) seem to agree that islamism is evil. However, many, especially politicians and muslims, claim that islam is "a great and peaceful religion". From this we may conclude that islamism contains both islam and evil in an inseparable connection which poses the question how islam could possibly be without evil. Even more so when considering that the original spread of islam during more than hundred years (before it settled as sultanates simply sponging on slave business - the so called "golden age") was completely based on evil religiously "justified" robbery, slaughtering, raping and enslavement of the "infidels". Islam's problem is it foundation in evil medieval parasitism that it has now brought to the modern society.

The twisted logic that evil islam should be blinked as "islamism" has led to a variety of incomprehensible stand points. For example and ironically, because of muslim terrorists muslims now ask for extra protection against "anti-muslim sentiments" - on top of the general protection already in place. Why? Does this mean that non-muslim right-wing politicians also should get extra protection because of right-wing extremists? However, the worst twist of all is by far the Saudi based and steered (by the Saudi dictator family) all muslim's world organization OIC and its sharia declaration via UN.

 Klevius has no knowledge about J R Tolkien's view on islam. However, Klevius is convinced that J R Tolkien would have shared Klevius definition of evil based on Human Rights equality.

J R Tolkien's main hero since he was a boy and throughout his entire life was Kullervo in the Finnish epic Kalevala. Many characteristics of Kullervo can also easily be traced in Beowulf and Hamlet both of whom were Scandinavians from a time when Fennoscandia was known as Kvenland (see further down). This period is called Vendel time after a small village near Uppsala in eastern Sweden which at that time was populated by Finns and some old Nordic speaking bi-lingual "Finland-Swedes" (see more about this further down).

Klevius is convinced that Tove Jansson would have full heartedly approved of Tolkien's choice of such an ambiguous hero as Kullervo.

The official Tolkien calendar of 2016 (left) is illustrated by Finland-Swedish Tove Jansson (aka Moomin Mum).

Tove Jansson has also illustrated Swedish and Finnish books by Tolkien (right). However, she is most famous for her Moomin books and illustrations.

Klevius wrote:

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Finland-Swedish Moomin Mum Tove Jansson 100 years

Back then Hitler (the Germans) cried for more cake - today islam (the muslims) do the same!

A brave caricature, 'more cake' was made by Tove Jansson in Finland during a time when Hitler (the Germans) were considered friend of Finland in its war against Stalin's communist Soviet-union.

Here Tove Jansson with her longtime partner Tuulikki Pietilä


Tove Marika Jansson (9 August 1914 – 27 June 2001) was a Swedish-speaking novelist, painter, illustrator and comic strip author from Finland. For her contribution as a children's writer she received the Hans Christian Andersen Medal in 1966.

Tove Jansson is best known as the author of the Moomin books for children and the astonishing The True Deceiver for adults. The first Moomin book, The Moomins and the Great Flood, appeared in 1945, i.e. the same year Astrid Lindgren, an other world famous Swedish speaking author, published her first book about the Tomboyish Pippi Longstocking.

Like Klevius, Tove Jansson belongs to the tiny bilingual Finland-Swedish minority. In fact, access to her summer house on the pic passes a nearby place where Klevius used to live, neighboring a carpenter who used to build Moomin furnitures for Moominland.

However, unlike Klevius, Tove Jansson never had kids. It's even alleged that she felt slightly uncomfortable with kids. So where Klevius has been a family man in practice, Tove Jansson created her family environment as a fiction.

For more on this topic do visit Klevius' Love Letter to Edith Södergran (an other world famous Finland-Swede).

The little bright Hobbit girl and the giant blonde warrior

 There seems to be no way of avoiding the fact that the first truly intelligent modern humans arose in northern Eurasia. The art and genetic tracks (see below) are more than convincing albeit not yet visibly presented as such other than on Klevius book, blogs and sites so far (though the field is slowly but inevitably moving towards Klevius). 


 The people who got the new brain set up were short in stature as most Siberian people were until recently. However, when Seima-Turbino like phenomenons started (possibly even long before Seima-Turbino) big guys who had become blond in the north hunted for cute mongolic looking girls (compare Kalevala). Some of those girls possessed still a great chunk of the original super brain (compare the Denisova cave etc) so some of the kids produced with the blond giants turned up really smart. Their smartness together with a strong physical constitution in a sparsely populated river way landscape with small villages/camps constituted an ideal environment for nomadic robbery. And after some time some of these guys had collected enough financial and man power to go further south. Klevius will in detail explain this development later. Suffice to say that this is also the explanationary basis for why the Goths from the north managed to conquer the whole of Europe.



Klevius wrote:

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Klevius Midsummer quiz: How come that Klevius can read Beowulf but modern Brits can not?!

Klevius question to BBC: Why so much focus on Muhammad and so little on Beowulf?

The epic poem Beowulf, the masterpiece of Anglo-Saxon literature, was composed in pre-Viking time by an anonymous poet. It tells the story of a Scandinavian hero whose feats include battles with the fearsome monster Grendel and a fire-breathing dragon. It survives in a single manuscript dating from around 1000 AD. In form (e.g. alliteration) and content it follows much of  the Finnish Kalevala (pictured below). Not the least as how it's influenced by later Christian material.

The simple answer is that as a Finland-Swede Klevius happens to master not only Swedish and Finnish but also old Finland-Swedish dialects - and in an extension most old wordings based on Old Nordic (aka Old Norse) over an area covering all the Nordic countries (incl. Gotland) plus Netherlands, England, Scotland plus most of the north Atlantic islands east of Iceland.

In the 1990s when Klevius studied English at Stockholm University they offered a video recording of a play based on thousand year old English texts. To Klevius astonishment he immediately recognized  many familiarities with the  East-Nyland dialects Klevius had grown up with. So when two Norwegian linguists a couple of years ago stated that English is a Scandinavian language Klevius applauded them.

So what does this have to do with Midsummer? Well, it's not just linguistics but a load of other familiarities as well, not to mention the fire feasts which may even be traced back to the Celts. And remember that much/most pre-Christian cultural influences are shared within all the Nordic countries.

For a background take a look at Kvenland:

"Islamophobia" defends tolerance - and is therefore accused of being against islamic sharia intolerance.

Klevius "islamophobia" against BBC's Human Rightsphobia.

BBC's bigoted and hypocritical musli presenter, Mishal Husain, doesn't respect Ramadan by fasting but rather drinks some alcohol. However, she would never dare to criticize islam for Human Rightsphobia.

London's muslim sharia mayor Sadiq Khan's sharia police chief Cressida Dick considers "islamophobia" 'intolerable' but tolerates sharia Human Rightsphobia "diversity".

Does this woman constitute a safety risk for Londoners? 

The words above come from a Jewish woman.

Franco-German broadcasters have been accused of censorship after shelving a documentary film about European Jews facing persecution by muslim migrants, saying it was not “balanced” and the topic was “very sensitive”. The film Chosen and Excluded — The Hate for Jews in Europe highlights anti-Semitism on the continent and depicts the violence Jews experience from muslim communities in cities such as Paris. Nothing points to London being any different in this respect - possibly worse because of "diversity" sharia leniency.


Moreover, Cressida Dick's focus on "islamophobia", rather than on the hate that causes "islamophobia", is in fact divisive and not conducive to "British values". Or is it the other way round, i.e. that the UK government wants islamofascist sharia (usually imported by/from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family) to be the new core "British value" and Human Rights to be criminalized as "blasphemy"?

The 1948 anti-fascist Human Rights Declaration doesn't protect islamofascism. Nor does it protect any form of religion that threatens Human Rights in the declaration. Moreover, and in perfect line with this, the European Court of Human Rights has declared islamic sharia as incompatible with Human Rights values.

European Court of Human Rights: Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.


however

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”


Gita Sahgal (Sharia, security and the church: dangers of the British Home Office Inquiry): Does the UK’s Sharia Review resemble the sharia ‘courts’: secretive procedures and discriminatory advisors? Are the Home Office and the Church ignoring conflicts of interest and evidence of discrimination? Feminist campaigners from minority women’s organisations in Britain, backed by prominent women human rights advocates from all over the world, wrote an Open Letter to Theresa May, then Home Secretary, criticising the way she was intending to carry out a long-awaited review of sharia in Britain. May was forced to defend ‘one law for all’ when she became Prime Minister. An investigation shows that the concerns of campaigners such as myself were well-founded.


European Centre for Law & Justice: Is Sharia compatible with Human Rights? This concrete question is more and more important in Europe, particularly for women, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has tried to answer it.

Indeed, among the large Europe, there are territories where the sharia (or “Islamic law”) is applied. This raises a problem in view of Human Rights, in so far as these States are members of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and at the same time they apply or respect an Islamic justice opposed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the ECHR.

Three member countries of the Council of Europe have ratified both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration, which is a declaration of Human Rights compatible with the sharia. These countries are Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey. One must add that the Russian Federation and Bosnia and Herzegovina have not signed the Cairo Declaration but are members observers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and they have signed the ECHR.

This Cairo Declaration of 5th August 1990 stipulates inter alia that “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature”. It does not contain a right to freedom of religion, does not confirm the equality before the law of all men regardless of their religion, and finally Article 25 stipulates that “The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration”.

Some of the principles stated in the Islamic law contravene the principles which are recognized as Human Rights, and first of all, freedom of religion. According to the sharia, a Muslim does not have the right to change his religion to another religion or to atheism. If he does so, he is an apostate, which generates his civil death (opening of his succession) and deserves a death penalty.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights had the opportunity to give an answer to that question of compatibility in 2003: it “concurs in the Chamber’s view that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy, as set forth in the Convention”[1].

Seized by several of its members, the PACE will establish in the next few months a report on these incompatibilities, determine on which territories of members of the Council of Europe the sharia is applied and what consequences are to be drawn from it.

Mrs Meritxell Mateu (ALDE, Andorra) was the rapporteur of the Commission before she left the PACE. She wrote a preliminary note under this procedure. This note defines sharia as follows:

    “Sharia law is understood as being ‘the path to be followed’, that is, the ‘law’ to be obeyed by every Muslim. It  divides  all  human action into  five categories–what  is obligatory, recommended, neutral, Disapproved of and prohibited –and takes two forms: a legal ruling(hukm), designed to organise society and deal with everyday situations, and the fatwa, a legal opinion intended to cover a special situation. Sharia law is therefore meant in essence to be positive law enforceable on Muslims. Accordingly, it can be defined as ‘the sacred Law of Islam’, that is, ‘an all-embracing body of religious duties, the totality of Allah’s commands that regulate the life of every Muslim in all its aspects’.”[2]

Besides the different international instruments written and ratified by Muslim countries, the Rapporteur highlighted the members States of the Council of Europe in which sharia law is being applied, more or less legally: Greece, the United-Kingdom, Russia and Turkey.



Western Thrace in Greece

    Under the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923, the Greek State recognised the existence of only one minority on Greek territory, namely the ‘Muslim’ minority of Western Thrace in north-eastern Greece. Greek law allows Greek citizens who are Muslims and resident in Western Thrace to use Sharia law as a parallel legal system for private law. The law gives muftis judicial power to rule on disputes between Muslims concerning inheritance (Law n° 2345/1920). Since 1990 there have been five muftis in Thrace: three officially appointed by the Greek State and two elected by the minority but not recognised by the Greek authorities. In theory, every Muslim citizen in Greece is able to choose freely between a mufti and a Greek court. The Greek Supreme Court acknowledged that for Greek Muslims inheritance of unencumbered property was strictly governed by ‘Islamic holy law’ and not the Greek Civil Code. It should be pointed out that muftis have officiated at a number of Muslim weddings by proxy, without the express consent of the brides, who are sometimes even underage girls. Law n° 1920/1991 extends muftis’ jurisdiction to cover maintenance, guardianship and trusteeship, and emancipation of minors.



United-Kingdom

    The “Islamic Sharia Council”, based in London, it is an independent arbitration tribunal issuing private - law decisions and able to grant Islamic divorces. These pronounced divorces may be included within a civil procedure since the vote of a law on divorce in 2002. There are believed to be some thirty Sharia councils affiliated to local mosques.



The Russian Federation

    In Russia, which has been an observer at the OIC since 2005, there are some 20 million Muslims, Most of whom live in the Northern Caucasus , particularly in Chechnya , Ingushetia , Dagestan and Tatarstan. In the former two, family and property matters are usually judged under Sharia law. Here, under the guise of ‘tradition’, women and girls are victims of violence and discriminatory practices such as early marriage, abduction for forced marriage, ‘honour’ killings, female genital mutilation and polygamy, despite the provisions of Russian federal law.

    In the Chechen Republic the authorities continue to interfere in citizens’ private and social lives with their imposition of Islamic values. For example, the leaders of the Chechen Republic are in favour of incorporating religious education in the school curriculum, require women to dress according to Islamic rules and tolerate violent attacks on women whose dress is considered indecent. Such actions are clearly in breach of the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Article 11 of the Constitution of the Chechen Republic.



Turkey

    Secularism, inherited from Atatürk, is a supreme constitutional principal in Turkey, but it has been quite attacked over the last years. A founder member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Muslim religious education is now compulsory in schools, even for non-Muslim minorities. The ban on the Islamic headscarf was lifted first in state universities, then in the civil service and subsequently in secondary schools and its wearing is spreading. The AKP government publicly develops a speech favourable to a conquering Islam, associating notably Turkish nationality with being part of Sunnite Islam.



At the end of this preliminary note, Albania and Azerbaijan, which signed the Cairo Declaration, do not appear to apply Sharia objectively on all or part of their territories. The latter has nevertheless adopted very restrictive laws on religious freedom, for example by preventing foreign priests from coming to direct orthodox parishes.

These cases of openings to a justice parallel to that of the State raise several problems. The first is that the acceptance of parallel court decisions is an acceptance of communitarianism. This calls into question the unity of justice in a territory as well as the equality of men before the law, since depending on the religion of the former, the applicable law would not be the same. The applicability of the ECHR in the signatory countries is questioned or at least restricted in certain areas. Areas of “different right” (sometimes called “no rights” zones) where the signatory State would have accepted more or less officially that its right be derogatory.

Finally, this raises the question of the acceptability of certain principles or values. The former PACE Rapporteur explained in her note that “The Court has ruled that Sharia law is in compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but obviously this does not mean that there is absolute incompatibility between the Convention and Islam”    

This distinction between Sharia and Islam to consider the former as incompatible with the ECHR contrary to the second is not obvious. At the beginning of her note, she states precisely that “Sharia law is understood as being ‘the path to be followed’, that is, the ‘law’ to be obeyed by every Muslim.” If Islam “ordained a law” (Surah 5, verse 48) to every Muslim and “assigned a path” (id.) is sharia, then sharia becomes something consubstantial to Islam. A Muslim may not be a good Muslim if he does not apply the Sharia. There would thus be an incompatibility between the ECHR and Islam, which is not surprising as the need to create human rights in Islam testifies.



 Translation by BMG



[1] CEDH, Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and others v. Turkey [GC], n° 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, 13 February 2003, § 123.                                                                                                                           

[2] Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Compatibility of Sharia law with the European Convention on Human Rights: can States Parties to the Convention be signatories of the ‘Cairo Declaration’? Introductory Memorandum, AS/JUR (2016) 28, 7 October 2016, § 6.

Klevius analysis of Theresa May's (and her advisors' anti Human Rights disaster.

Klevius quiz: What do Fiona Hill and BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain have in common: They both support sharia extremism (i.e. islamofascism). Mishal Husain may not follow any sharia dictate herself, yet doesn't use any of her powerful position to go against sharia islam.

Nick Timothy, fighting against trading with China and journalist Fiona Hill, fighting for the rights of extremist muslims = pro Saudi sharia islamofascism and anti "islamophobia".

To be against "islamophobia" (i.e. against Human Rights criticism of islam in general and the Saudi islamofascists in particular) is a consequence of bowing towards the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. It's also the reason Theresa May said 'sharia is good for the Brits' (which "Brits"? - sharia muslims in Pakistan etc. Commonwealth nations?!). However, as Fiona Hill is described as both ignorant and aggressive is should surprise no one that she's also touchy. I mean, after all, she's a journalist.

Nick Timothy, fighting against trading with China and Fiona Hill, fighting for the rights of extremist muslims. Klevius question: Is this any good for England?.


Klevius wrote:

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Theresa May has "safety" prejudice against dealing with China - but can share security with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

Some points Klevius fears BBC might miss:

Theresa May calls Pakistan our dependable ally and has deep prejudice against China - but not against Saudi Arabia.

Whereas China is divided in Communism within the state and Capitalism outside it, Saudi Arabia is a theocratic dictatorship busy spreading Koranic hate in the service of itself, i.e. how original islam did.

Klevius advise to Theresa May (and her advisors, Nick Timothy & Co): Britain is constantly attacked by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan via sharia islamism infiltration (both countries, unlike Britain, are islamist sharia states - the latter with nuclear war heads under uncertain control) . However, no one in her/his right mind would think about China as an attacker against Britain - neither now or in the past. And the appalling accusation against China about "to build weaknesses into computer systems which will allow them to shut down Britain’s energy production at will" seems childish at best. Especially when it's "proven" with a Chinese web site text about “building of national defence". Isn't that kind of approach almost universal, not the least in UK?!

China is a main part of our global future, not Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, both very minor players in comparison and both still struggling with unfortunate entanglements to medieval aggression and backwardness. Against this background, is it really in the best interest of UK to uphold racist attitudes against Chinese while showing extreme appeasement towards two of the most intolerant and dangerous countries in the world?

Pakistan defends itself by arguing that its intelligence categorizes "its islamist officers" (sic) in 3 categories: Whites are those publicly sympathetic with Taliban. Blacks are potential recruits for the Taliban. Reds are - Taliban. ISI, MI deal with them through surveillance and possible (sic) abduction and interrogation, and depending on the degree of their islamism they end up as "missing person" for some time or they just "disappear".

However, Pakistan seems quite unreliable. Compare for example, how Osama bin Laden was allowed to reside there. Double-play seems to be the core of "allies" in the muslim world.

David French: Pakistan also helped fund a suicide bombing in Afghanistan in 2009 that became the worst attack on CIA in a quarter-century. “Foreign intelligence service and Haqqani network involvement in the 30 December 2009 suicide attack at [Camp] Chapman,” begins the subject line for the State Department cable, written in early 2010 by a U.S. official who was not named. The memo, made public this week by a nonprofit group, proceeds to challenge the narrative of one of the worst days in the CIA’s history. It describes an elaborate plot in which Pakistan’s intelligence service allegedly put up $200,000 for the now-infamous bombing, which occurred when a presumed al-Qaeda informant was allowed into a secure U.S. base in Khost, Afghanistan, to meet with a team of American officers and handlers. While the claims are controversial (a U.S. investigation pinned the blame on al Qaeda, not Pakistan or its Haqqani network allies), they shouldn’t be remotely “startling.” Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has long been suspected of “playing both sides” in the war on terror, and there is strong suspicion that the ISI actually views the Taliban as a “strategic asset.” Moving beyond ISI activities, insurgent access to Pakistan as a safe haven — a place where its fighters can rest, re-arm, and recruit — has proven to be of incalculable benefit to the Taliban since 9/11, and there is even evidence that the regular Pakistani army has on occasion fired on American troops. There have been so many reports of conflict that “Pakistan-United States Skirmishes” has its own Wikipedia entry. I recognize that the needs of war sometimes require our nation to ally itself with dangerous regimes (see World War II for the most salient example), but there is still a difference between a shaky or temporary ally and an actual enemy — a nation that is trying to undermine American interests and kill Americans. In other words, there is a line, and it is worth asking (and re-asking) if Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are on the right side.

English voters were denied any chance to vote against islamofascism - because that would be "islamophobic" and clash with sharia islam.

UKIP leader Paul Nutball Nuttall "distanced" himself from his party's islam critics. As a consequence England was (unlike the rest of EU) left without any islam critical party to vote for - and Paul Nutball Nuttall is now ousted by the voters.

May is openly a sharia supporter and against Human Rights defenders (so called "islamophobes") and Corbyn openly befriends  islamofascists while calling for criminalization of Human Rights defenders (so called "islamophobes").

Where May and Corbyn differ is in their choice of islamofascist "allies". Whereas May supports the way more dangerous islamofascist Saudi dictator* family, Corbyn is more centered around Hamas and similar muslim terrorist organizations.

* Curiously BBC keeps calling the islamofascist Saudi dictator family 'an
absolute monarchy'. Klevius education for BBC: "Absolute monarchies" don't exist anymore in a modern world. The term is a remnant from the past and can today only be described as dictatorship. 



Klevius wrote:

Monday, May 01, 2017

Why is UKIP shooting itself in the foot with a Saudi/OIC made "islamophobia" bullet?

UKIP could get some half of the (non-sharia) muslim votes if they dared to criticize evil sharia islam instead of trying to kick out their bravest member, Anne Marie Waters.

Not only would a clear distinction between sharia muslims* and non-sharia "muslims" distinguish UKIP from Theresa May's pro-sharia policy, but it would also offer apostasy scared "muslims" a safe secret space in the voting boot - something that no other party seems to offer. In today's "islamophobia racism" accusations fascism, voters of all and no faith would finally have a channel for what they really think if a political party would just give them the chance.

* Defined as violating the most basic Human Rights equality as stated in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration which was intended to stop all kinds of fascism - including religious ones.

Anne Marie Waters:   I would actually describe myself as a nationalist. I want the preservation of the nation-state. I’ve been very clear about that. The nation-state is the only way to guarantee accountable government. We cannot be governed by unelected globalist committees, as we are now. I mean, the United Nations may not have legal power to govern us, but our leaders are consistently seeking permission to run their own countries from internationalist bodies. I want the nation-state to run itself.

    The reason I object to “white nationalist” – and I have no problem with being white, and I have no problem with being nationalist – but the implication behind that is that I think you have to be white, for example, to be a British patriot. You do not. You do not. There are people of all colors in this country who want to preserve and respect British heritage and history.

Klevius comment: While Theresa May says that the Brits benefit from sharia, that doesn't mean that sharia is a "British value", does it. Nor is Theresa May's "investigation" of UK sharia courts serious because she uses a sharia muslim to complete the task. A serious investigator should have been someone whose expertise is UK law and Human Rights.

England is steered by an anti Human Rights sharia supporter and London by a sharia muslim. What could possibly go wrong.

Is Theresa May's pro sharia policy and deceptive anti Human Rights rhetoric any good for the security and wellbeing of people in England? 

Klevius question: Is it only me, or can you see the connection between BBC's bigoted hypocricy and the blood on the streets of London?

By stopping calling Human Rights defenders "islamophobes" we could let the "islamophobic" muslims out from the closet.

More muslim officers isn't the solution because they have the same problem as other muslims to not challenge evil core islam, i.e. being accused of apostasy and not following the example of Mohammad. However, more muslim officers certainly increases the risk of more jihadi officers among them.
Theresa May accuses and perverts Human Rights while supporting anti-Human Rights sharia islam. However, being against Human Rights is exactly what Saudi inspired Wahhabi/Salafist muslims want.

Theresa May also perverts islam: “Islamist extremism is an ideology that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy, and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It's a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.”

Klevius: Human Rights has never approved of Human Rights violating sharia. Even European Court of Human Rights has decided that islamic sharia isn't compatible with Human Rights. Why hasn't Theresa May been informed? Or is she deliberately exchanging Human Rights equality for Saudi sharia? 'Freedom of religion' doesn't mean freedom to destroy Human Rights, does it Theresa!

Mohammad is the corner stone of islam - and a bloody one. Just ask any historian, Theresa, e.g. Hugh Kennedy.
Ron Jager: The current wave of Islamic terror seen in Manchester and London, only reinforces the general feeling that the excessive  political correctness of recent years by the Obama Presidency, by the British Labor party, and the European media has fostered and festered productive breeding grounds for Islamic terrorists in the heart of England. London’s current Mayor Sadiq Khan, a practicing Muslim, could have a significant impact on the minds and hearts of many of England’s young Muslims should he decide to express what should have been said years ago to Muslims living in England and throughout the Western World.

Khan could have reinforced the idea that practicing Muslims such as himself are modern citizens who happen to worship Allah, yet do not bring any kind of belief in the preeminence of Sharia Law. Islamic terror is the logical extension of the belief that Sharia must be imposed.  Mayor Khan could state that the former would not pose a threat to England or the Western lifestyle while the latter belief would be a “mortal threat.”  The danger facing Britain and other Western nations from the Islamic wave sweeping the Middle East and beyond arises not from the fact that people practicing the Islamic religion are Muslim, but rather from the degree to which they adhere to the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine of Sharia.

However, you don’t have to go back very far in Mayor Sadiq Khan’s past to find links with some pretty questionable characters. Some of these associations date back to his time as a human rights lawyer trying to get England to lift its ban on the American Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, who has described Jews as ‘blood-suckers’ and called Hitler ‘a very great man.’ Khan didn’t mind speaking at the same conference as Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the now proscribed Islamist organization that trained the 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan.  In 2004, Sadiq Khan appeared on a platform with five Islamic extremists at a conference in London organized by Al-Aqsa, a group that has published works by the notorious Holocaust denier Paul Eisen.

In the same year, Khan was the chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee, and was involved in defending the Muslim scholar Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Among other things, he’s the author of a book called The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, in which he justifies wife beating and discusses whether homosexuals should be killed. Most notoriously, he condones ‘martyrdom operations’, i.e. suicide bombings, against Israeli civilians, which he describes as ‘God’s justice’: ‘Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do.’

In spite of holding these views, Qaradawi was not an ‘extremist’ in Sadiq Khan’s eyes.  In 2006, by which time Khan had been elected to Parliament, Khan was one of the signatories of a letter to the Guardian that blamed terrorist incidents, such as 7/7, on British foreign policy, particularly Britain’s support for Israel. ‘It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad,’

Should Mayor Khan decide to, he can render a real public service by not shying away from the issue of what it means to be a practicing Muslim in a Western nation.  He can align himself with the call for tougher counterterrorism measures suggested by the British PM and be the first to demand that the UK must not pretend that things can remain the same. Khan can abandon the politically correct rhetoric about Islam and the legitimacy of terror to advance political goals, whether it be ISIS or the Palestinians who have been using terror for the latter part of the past 100 years, at first against Jews and later against the State of Israel. Khan could share his new understanding that what was perceived in the past as threat on Israel is now beginning to be understood as a problem for Britain and the Western world as a whole. This is the meaning of the Islamic Domino Effect.


Andrew C. McCarthy June 5, 2017: “Islamist extremism” is an ideology that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy, and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. And what right-thinking Western politico’s post-mass-murder speech would be complete without May’s insistence that this ideology is — all together now! — “a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.” Sigh. What does Theresa May know about Islam such that she can decide what is a perversion of it? Precious little, I’d wager. Otherwise, she’d not babble on about “Islamist extremism,” a term right out of the Department of Redundancy Department. If you are an Islamist in the West, you are, by definition, an extremist. An Islamist is a Muslim who believes Islam requires the imposition of sharia, Islam’s ancient, totalitarian societal system and legal code. “Islamist” is a term we in the West use in the hope that, because there are Muslims who are tolerant, pro-Western people, it must not be inevitable that Islam itself — or at least some interpretations of Islam — will breed the fundamentalist, literalist, supremacist construction of Islam. It may be a grave error to adopt this hope, especially since it has been elevated into seemingly incorrigible policy. Does the incontestable existence of moderate Muslim individuals necessarily translate into a coherent, viable doctrine of moderate Islam? Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to take just one very influential Muslim leader, says no: The West’s invocation of “moderate Islam” is “ugly,” he counters, because “Islam is Islam, and that’s it.” Erdogan is a close ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamist organization. If he’s right that there’s just one true Islam, rest assured that it’s not friendly to the West. Erdogan describes the Western call for Muslim migrants to assimilate in their new European societies as “a crime against humanity.” Meanwhile, many students of Islam observe that its aggressiveness, intolerance of non-Muslims, and subjugation of women are indisputably rooted in Islamic scripture. Wherever there is Islam, they maintain, there will inevitably be Islamists; and when those Islamists reach a critical mass of population (which can be considerably less than 50 percent), there will inevitably be sharia activism. They may be right. I don’t want them to be . . . but hope is not a national-security strategy — even if it has been the West’s national-security strategy for a quarter-century. Obviously, there are gradations of extremism. Some Islamists are violent jihadists. Some support violent jihadists but eschew violence themselves. Some may reject violence (or at least say they do) and claim to seek sharia imposition only by peaceful persuasion. Some may lie about their intentions, pretending to oppose both violence and the imposition of sharia, or pretending that sharia is really moderate, peaceful, and perfectly compatible with Western notions of freedom, democracy, and human rights. But they all want sharia. If you are a Muslim who wants British law supplanted by Islamic law, that is not a moderate position, even if you’re not prepared to drive a van into a crowd of infidels over it. If that’s where you’re coming from, you are a Muslim extremist — an Islamist. Jihadist terrorists do not kill wantonly. They kill for a purpose: namely, to impose sharia. To speak of “Islamist extremists” is either gibberish or a form of political correctness designed to conceal a position one knows makes no sense but feels compelled to take anyway. Since I believe Prime Minister May is no dolt, I am betting on the latter: She is using “Islamist extremist” as code for “terrorist,” even though she knows, deep down, that this makes no sense — i.e., it is inconsistent with her correct insistence that the violence that aggrieves Britain is ideologically motivated. Jihadist terrorists do not kill wantonly. They kill for a purpose: namely, to impose sharia. The ideology that motivates them does not endorse violence for its own sake. It reflects what Islam takes as the divine imperative that life be lived under the strictures of sharia. That is the ideology. The problem that Mrs. May has is that it is an ideology shared by many Muslims who are not terrorists. Britain, like many in America, wants to embrace these Muslims as “moderates,” notwithstanding their hostility to Western society and law. May would prefer not to connect the dots that tell us these Muslims, even if not jihadists themselves, are pillars of the ideological support system in which jihadism thrives — they are, as some have aptly put it, the sea in which the jihadist sharks swim, and without which the sharks could not survive. It is not merely al-Qaeda or the Islamic State that says Islam is incompatible with the Western understanding of human rights. In 1990, the 57 member-governments of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) issued the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. These representatives of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims took this action precisely because Islam could not be content with the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights promulgated in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly. The latter is incompatible with the two key provisions of the Cairo Declaration: Articles 24, which states: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah”; and Article 25, which adds: “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.” The Western understanding of freedom and democracy holds that people have a right to govern themselves. We draw a line between the secular and the sacred, rejecting the establishment of a state religion. To the contrary, as explained by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, perhaps the world’s most influential Sunni sharia scholar, “secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society,” because “the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions.” Qaradawi elaborated (in his book, How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah), “Islam is a comprehensive system of workship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah).” Thus: “The call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright apostasy.” Lest we forget, apostasy from Islam is a capital offense in Islamic law. It is punished as such not just by terrorist organizations but by governments in Muslim-majority countries. In the Middle East, at least, sharia is not extremist Islam. It is Islam. Pace Prime Minister May, it is not “Islamist extremism” that “claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam.” This is a conceit of leading Islamic scholars and governments. One need not agree with them or concede that theirs is the only interpretation of Islam. But one should grant that their interpretation is no perversion — and that they just might know a lot more about the subject than non-Muslim politicians in the West. Mrs. May is half right. We are confronted by an ideology. But it is sharia supremacism, the belief that Islamic law must be imposed on society. To limit our attention to violent jihadists is to remain willfully blind to what inspires the jihadists. That is what has to be confronted, if we have the stomach for it.