The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slave to Abbasid (ca 750)

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

A brief history and pre-history of Kvenland - and the origin of the Vikings



Doggerlandians - the proto-Finnish/Uralic speaking true natives of Doggerland and Britain

Update: Due to the sad fact that, reportedly, some of Klevius' readers are complaining over sores on their feet while trampling on diamonds, the following guidelines may or may not deliver relief:

By 'Uralic' it's here, of course, meant the branch of the linguistic tree that at its stem in time goes deeper than any language family based on agriculture (and quite possibly the deepest of modern humans), and geographically comprises an area (north and mid-Eurasia) that is bigger than any other. The technical term 'proto-Uralic' doesn't mean that the lineage abruptly started there but deepens into what might be called Altaic/Eurasiatic.

Although the modern Finnish vocabulary may be one which contains among the highest amount of loan-words, it also contains a remarkable old kernel (some 200-300 words) that is not only immensely old but also often reflects more exactly reconstructed "original" words in a way its sister languages do not. This may be due to, among other factors, its westernmost location (see Kvenland - the origin of the Goths).





From Ural to the Baltic Sea and Britain
(to really grasp the significance of this ancient water route please take a look at the islamic Origin of Vikings and Russia)

Klevius intellectual bias warning: There has been a severe "mongoloid complex" (social, not genetic) going on for long in the debate about the original Europeans, not the least among the Samis and the Finns (see what Klevius wrote about the mongoloid complex almost a decade ago). The Finns were introduced to "civilization" via Klevius ethnic people, the Finland-Swedish "colonizers", who, after Sweden's loss of Finland in the 1808-09 war, said "We aren't Swedes anymore, and we don't wanna be Russians, so let's be Finns". So they learned Finnish, many of them translated their Swedish names into Finnish ones, and one of them gathered the ancient Finnish epic Kalevala, all in an effort to strengthen the Finnish ethnicity.

Klevius brief intellectual aid to the background of the topic: Finnish and Sami researchers are possibly the least reliable (together with Afro-centrists) when it comes to the "Urheima" of the Europeans. So you will have a hard time finding info if you don't read Klevius. But keep two basic facts in mind: Proto-Uralic was here before the farmers - proto-Indo-European (PIE) was not, simply because it was tied to farming/pastoralism. And ultimately, no matter if we call it proto-Altaic or something else, what seems certain is that modern humans and their language developed in the very midst of the mongoloid hunting-gathering area (where the >41,000 BP Denisova bracelet below was found), not among farmers.


Don't you think the producers of this bracelet were able to talk?! 























This lion man appeared slightly later (40,000 bp) in Central Europe.




After the last ice age Doggerland still connected Uralic speaking Sweden (and the Baltic Sea) with Britain a couple of thousands of years before the arrival of farming. The oldest complete skeleton of a Brit (the Cheddar man in Gough's Cave, outside Baath near Bristol) is from this time.


Background

Ago Künnap: From the Ukrainian refuge the people spread over the area that eventually extended from the so-called North Sea Land on the site of the present-day British Isles as far as the Urals. It should be regarded as probable that the Uralic lingua franca was functioning in the area also before the Last Glacial Maximum, consequently before the people gathered in the refuges. It continued functioning in the Ukrainian refuge and, in addition to this, also in the ice-free area, creating a foundation by making languages into the present-day Uralic languages. As a result of people’s spreading out from the larger refuges the whole northward Europe was shared by the Basque and Uralic type of languages.

Klevius: Today's Basques/Iberians have almost nothing to do with Europe's original hunter-gatherers. Samis do. Geneticists have long since proved that ice-age humans entered Europe from Siberia (haplogroup M173 aka R), not Mideast. Linguists have proved that they spoke a language related to Uralic. Many linguists have for long connected East and West-Eurasia in the proto-Altaic language complex at the very spot where geneticists see the splitting point that gave the birth to the truly modern humans and real Aurignacian culture. Common sense does the rest by considering the map, geography, food sources and the mix of cold-adapted northern-most Neanderthals and Denisovans.

The mongoloid features of Sami people may be explained as follows (also consider evolution map below): The first Europeans were a mix of Mongoloid and Cro-Magnon traits due to the blend of Denisova and northern Neanderthal traits with southern Homos. However, while spreading southward, what we now call the Caucasoid traits (Klevius "bastard belt") increased while the Mongoloid traits got stronger in the north due to pressure from the east.

Cheddar man certainly didn't speak Indoeuropean


Cheddar man was found near Bristol in England. His Finnish/Sami type of DNA closely matches contemporary Brits near the location where the skeleton was found. And the amber found beside him came from the Baltic Sea.

Cheddar man stature is estimated to 166 cm and he has a relatively high (compared to modern Sami but not to modern Finns) crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices but a total morphological pattern considered cold-adapted. This mix is in line with Klevius Out of Africa as pygmies and back as global mongoloids theory, which states that human like Homos what we used to think of as our predecessors were, in fact, big brained but dumb non-humans, and that the smart ones were small ape-like creatures (Floresiensis, Red Deer Cave people, Denisovans etc) who in Euraisa mixed with Neanderthals and later on with the southern Homos from whom we didn't get our intelligence but only part of our physical appearance (in fact, we started loosing intelligence and are now on a much lower level than some 30,000 years ago - just compare the stunning performance of Aurignacian art below). So for example, what has "puzzled" fossilized academics the most about the tiny ape-like Floresiensis with a brain size barely exceeding that of a Chimp, is how to explain its tools, use of fire etc.

Compared to many presumptuous and subjective PC academics Klevius' theory has a much better fit to existing evidence out there.


Doggerland and a harpoon found in it. Altough  the historical Goths emerge some 7,000 years later it's worth mentioning that Gotland in the Baltic Sea was already populated more than 9,500 years ago. Moreover, although no one knows the true origin of the name Gotland and Goth confusing efforts have been made to connect the origin of the name to different and less likely later forms such as e.g. 'gut' and 'jut'. Due to an enormous general ignorance there thrives a bias that could be described as a majority complex which blurs topics of evolution and linguistics etc. by covering them under the "Out of Africa" or the  "Indo-European" or the "monotheist" blanket. This type of prejudice is easily seen when you, for example, tell an English speaker that the word 'boy' comes from the Finnish/Uralic 'poika'. In fact, if we really start digging we will soon realize that most of the really old Indo-European words can be traced to the original Uralic speaking inhabitants of Europe. Btw, on Gotland 'peika' mens a girl and became maid ('piga') in Swedish. Just like the English word for child that transformed into 'girl'.







Genetic relation

Cheddar man has been genetically tested as belonging to haplogroup U5a which happens to be most common today in northern Finland and Scandinavia among Sami people and, to a lesser extent, among Finns. Haplogroup U5 is spread all over Europe but is by far best presented among Finnish speaking populations in the north. That U5 is also found in North-Africa is in line with the mixing theory below. U5a is a latecomer and hence fits a pattern of increasing blend of genes along the Atlantic coastline. U5b is also toprated among Samis as is V.


Linguistic relation

At this time all hunter-gatherers in mid/northern (and possibly sourhern)  Europe talked an Uralic language. Uralic languages preceeded Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages and, according to linguistics, is today best survived in the Finnish* language. It is important here to realize that proto-Sami people populated all of the fringes of glacial and post-glacial Europe and that Basque language most probably was Sami related although heavily distorted by incoming linguistically non-related farmers, whereas the northern Sami became influenced by related Finnish speakers, hence explaining why today's Sami sounds so Finnish and Basque doesn't sound Finnish at all although it has many features in common with Uralic/Finnish languages.


* As Klevius has pointed out for decades, in Finnish (as in most other languages) there is no sex segregation. A person is 'hän' regardless of sex, not the stupid he/she apartheid Europe has inherited from sexist Mideastern "monotheisms".


To PC-people and others with a racist agenda blurring the facts: Non-African art from 41,000 - 25,000 years ago - i.e. long before anything like this emerged in Mideast or Africa! And one thing is for certain, they weren't neolithic farmers!
So why is it so important to emphasize this? Because no one seems to be interested in this hereto the most exciting artifact ever found on the planet! And why is that? Because of political correctness and Afrocentrism that blurs simple logic that a child would have no problem to understand.


This extremely complicated to manufacture stone bracelet was made by the non-human Denisovan (or whatever we should call the hybrid that paved the way for modern humans - the process may have taken a long time at and around Altai) in Siberia 40,000 years ago by utilizing a drilling technology, comparable to modern machines, according to the researchers who found it.






In Dolní Věstonice, Central-Europe, an extremely well sculptured portrait is dated to 26-29,000 years ago, i.e. even earlier than the Brassempouy "Venus" portrait below, which was found in Mid-France.



















Brassempouy "Venus" approx 26,000 BP
















and with some make up by Klevius


























From the left: Red Deer Cave, Sami, Cro-Magnon



First and third from the left are Red Deer Cave people 14,300-11,500 years ago. Second and fourth the so called Venus from Brassempuoy in France 25-26,000 years ago. The last pic is a reconstruction of a 1.9 Million year old Homo rudolfiensis skull. They all had flat broad cheeks, no chin and rounded forehead.



Klevius notes: The Hofmeyr skull represents the "roaming Homo", and despite no advanced tool etc culture, is large in relation to that of modern African males, with prominent supraorbital structures and a robust face. Morphometric analysis places Hofmeyr within the range of recent humans and close to those associated with Upper Paleolithic industries in Eurasia.
The fact that Northern Neanderthals, with whom the Denisovans interbred, differ genetically from southern Neanderthals fits Klevius theory that there was a double mixing going on: One that created the modern humans in the north and an other on the way down.



From Altai to Gotland, Sami, God, Vikings, Shakespeare and Tolkien
Klevius etymology and history remarks relating to the Britain-Scandinavia connection: The ancient Persian (which is extremely young compared to Uralic) word for god 'khoda' connects to the even more ancient Finnish 'koti' and Finno-Ugric 'kota' (=home/house/seed vessel - see Klevius definition of religion and the Vagina gate), Saami 'goahti'. German Gott (god) and Swedish gott (good) as well as Gotland (pronounced Gottland), the island in the Baltic sea that constituted a (the?) main Viking hub in their slave trade with Jews and muslims.

Gotland in particular is famous as the probable ancestral home of the Goths: "a Gothic population had crossed the Baltic Sea before the 2nd century AD, reaching Scythia at the coast of the Black Sea in modern Ukraine where Goths left their archaeological traces in the Chernyakhov culture. In the 5th and 6th centuries, they became divided as the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths, and established powerful successor-states of the Roman Empire in the Iberian peninsula and Italy. Crimean Gothic communities appear to have survived intact in Crimea until the late 18th century.


Hamlet was aGoth

The father of Shakespeare's prototype for Hamlet was a Goth from the Gothenburg area in Sweden (were Klevius father also happened to be born). These Goths came originally from Gotland via those very same waterways that were shaped already some 9,000 years ago, hence connecting the Baltic Sea with Doggerland/North Sea.

Gotland was also the home port and treasure island for the Vikings because it naturally connected West and East via Staraja Ladoga southeast of Finland on the river way down to the south. Gotland has revealed the biggest hoards of Viking age old Arab/islamic silver coins in Northern Europe.

Immediately north of Staraja Ladoga is the homeland of the Finnish national epic Kalevala which Tolkien based his writing on.

The world's oldest fishing net is found in southeastern Finland and is some thousand years older than Cheddar man the "oldest Brit".

Bromme culture existed in what is today's Sweden already 11,700–11,000 bp.

As a curiosity it might be noted that film director Ingmar Bergman lived most of his life on Gotland where some of his most powerful movies were filmed.

In conclusion one might well argue that the Baltic Sea has been a main hub since the birth of modern humans. 













The first version at the top made 1583 and below how it looks today.
The sword held over the lion's head represents the West whereas the one below the lion represents islam (via Khazars, Bolgars, Ottomans etc. - see text below).





Finland/Kvenland - the home of Kalevala and the Vikings

Background 


Finland has two official languages, Swedish and Finnish. Finland is also one of the most secularized countries in the world. Finland (and huge parts of what is now Sweden and Norway) was Kvenland before the Christian crusades after which it became connected as part of Sweden for some 600 years until the 1808-9 war against Russia after which Finland became an autonomous Grand Duchy in the Russian Empire until Finland's independence 6, December 1917.

After the 1808-9 war the Swedish speaking intellectuals started a campaign, "we are no Swedes anymore, and we don't wanna be Russians - so let's be Finns". This strive made many a Finland-Swede translate their name into Finnish. It also resulted in the collection of the Kalevala epos (which Tolkien used as a basis for his stories). However, Elias Lönnroth's Kalevala was heavily influenced by a monotheist understanding. Luckily Juha Pentikäinen and others have now initiated a rewriting of the text clean from Christian monotheist influences.

Due to its location Finnish (and Saami) possesses extremely old words still in use (see below). And due to the interaction between old Nordic and Finnish a pattern emerged that can still be seen stretching from Finland all the way to Iceland (see below). 

No one knows the true origin of the name Kvenland. However, Klevius qualified guess is based on its history of Nordic (and Finnish) speaking (agrarian) coastal Finns robbing beautiful girls with mongoloid characteristics (which pattern you can also trace in reading Kalevala) from its Saami and Finnish speaking neighbors. Raids with light boats was a Finnish specialty inherited from the Finnish and Russian water ways they still frequented (see Origin of Vikings). And when they heard (from the Volga Bolgars and the Jewish Khazars etc) about the enormous demand and price the muslim caliphate paid for these kind of girls the commerce quickly changed from furs to walking girls.

Due to the mix of old Nordic speaking males and Finnish speaking women an early bilingual traditon was born, which helped dealing with both Swedes and Finnish speaking "Russians". At the beginning of the Viking age the "Russians" spoke Finnish which was the main language in what is now northern and mid Russia. This also explains how Fornjotur could be the King of both Finland and Gotland as well as how Rus could become so friendly with the pre-Russians that they asked him for protection against other Vikings, Jews (Khazars) etc. 

Finland has for long suffered from what Klevius calls a mongoloid complex (2003). In 1952, only seven years after the end of Finland's disastrous connection with Germany in the World War 2, apart from having its first Olympics the nation celebrated the 17-year old Armi Kuusela's victory in the Miss Universe "beauty" contest, thus finally releasing the Finns from what was considered a traumatic connection with the East and its Russian/mongoloid inhabitants.


Klevius' ethnicity


The tiny (some 300,000) Finland-Swedish ethnic minority has, apart from the tiresome, bragging and annoying islamophobe named Klevius, produced such names as Edith Södergran (modernist poet), Westermarck (anthropology), Jean Sibelius (music), Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor), Lasse Wiren (athletics - double-double Olympic winner on 5,000m and 10,000m), Lindberg (music - Kraft etc), Linus Thorvald (Linux), etc etc.

This list clearly implies a Finland-Swedish complex or something (see Inside Klevius mind).


Why surprised about the fact that English is a Nordic language? Klevius has informed about it for almost a decade on the web!


* When Klevius shakes hand with native English speakers he loves to point out that 'finger', 'hand', and 'arm' all are Swedish words with exactly the same spelling and not too different pronunciation. This usually produces a nice "really". However, when he also points out that most of the non-Latin words in English also are Swedish a brief uncertain and incredulous retreat from the topic is noticeable. And, now finally the self-evident fact that even grammar is equal has been pointed out even by others.

English is a Scandinavian/Nordic (Fennoscandian*) language


* No one knows for how long Old Swedish/Nordic language(s) has been spoken in Finland. This is why not only the Scandinavian part but the whole Fennoscandian peninsula ought to be included.


Jan Terje Faarlund, professor of linguistics at the University of Oslo. "Obviously there are many English words that resemble ours. But there is something more: its fundamental structure is strikingly similar to Norwegian.

Klevius (who understands all Nordic languages incl. Finnish and most dialects): Norwegian language emerged after the Viking period (see Origin of Vikings). Its predecessor, i.e. what is called "Old Norse" but perhaps rather should be called Old Swedish or Old Nordic, is rooted in Kvenland from the cross pollination of Finnish and Nordic Germanic. Kvenish today is still very close to Finnish (more so than e.g. Estonian) yet it also contains such pecularities as meiðän ('our') which is simply meidän in Standard Finnish with a normally sounding d instead of the English sounding ð.


Kvenland (Womanland) from Finno-Ugric/Uralic to Old Swedish/Scandinavian/Nordic*


*aka "Old Norse" which might lead associations to Norway although there were no Norwegian speakers around long after the Viking age (see Origin of Vikings).

Kvenland, aka Cwenland, Kænland, Queenland, Kvinnoland, Womanland etc, is an ancient name for an area in Fennoscandia. Compare Swedish 'Kvinna' (woman) and English 'Queen' as well as Norwegian 'kone' (woman) Swedish 'kön' (sex) and English 'kin' (yes, we have Indoeuropean 'gen' but so what, where did 'gen' emerge?).

There exists a persistent "wikimyth" that Finnish language in Sweden and Norway are just a few hundred years old when in fact it's thousands of years old but due to national romanticism was explained away as caused by late immigration only.

As I already said, no one knows for sure why it was called Kvenland. However, a strong hypothesis is that the name reflects sex-slave hunt for beautiful white girls/women who were most valued on the muslim slave markets by the islamic mosques. So the Finnish empire may have existed long before it was called Kvenland.The name was just applied from the outside as a marker of its notorious records.

Kvenland appears in written sourdes from  the 9th century, and from Icelandic sources written in the 12th and 13th centuries. Since the 17th century most historians have located Kvenland somewhere around or near the Bothnian Bay, in the present-day regions of Swedish Norrbotten and Finnish Ostrobothnia as well as part of Norway where there are still a Kvenish population. The traditional East Finnish name of this area was Kainuu, and it has been suggested that the Scandinavian name of Kvenland and Kainuu share etymological roots.


Around 890 CE a Northman named Ohthere visited King Alfred of Wessex who had his stories written down by Orosius.

According to Ohthere, the Norðmanna land was very long and very narrow ... and to the east are wild mountains, parallel to the cultivated land. Finnas inhabit these mountains ... Then along this land southwards, on the other side of the mountain, is Sweden ... and along that land northwards, Kvenland (Cwenaland). The Kvens (Cwenas) sometimes make depredations on the Northmen over the mountain, and sometimes the Northmen on them.
There are large [freshwater] meres amongst the mountains,[2] and the Kvens carry their ships over land into the meres, and thence make depredations on the Northmen; they have small and very light ships.


Fornjotur* (ca 160-250 CE), the Finnish King of Kvenland and Gotland, and ancestor of the Swedish Ynglinga tree and William I of England

* there is much reason to believe that the legend about Fornjotur has more truth underneath than for example the myth about Mohammed (who was allegedly born 400 years later). Hugh Kennedy (professor of Arabic language and Arabic history): "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."


Fornjotur, Fornjót, Fornjótr) was a king of Finland. His children are Ægir (the ruler of the sea), Logi (fire giant) and Kári (god of wind).
The name has often been interpreted as forn-jótr "ancient giant", and sometimes identified with the primeval giant Ymir. But it is also possible, as was suggested by Müller (1818), that it is one of a well-established group of names or titles of gods in -njótr "user, owner, possessor", which would make Fornjótr the "original owner".



How did primary stress on first syllable come from Kvenland to Iceland?



There was of course another language, Kvenish-Finnish, that was present in Fennoscandia and somehow influenced the ancient Norse language.

Finnish possesses some of the oldest words in the world, some of them still in their original Uralic form. In fact, the old Finnish stem seems to be closer to its distant roots than other Finno-Ugric languages despite the fact that Finland has been the most modernized of them all.


Klevius linguistic question: How was the strange affinity between Indoeuropean Icelandic and Uralic Finnish created between Kvenland and Iceland?


Whereas Indoeuropean languages are strongly rooted in a Neolithic agricultural past Uralic languages are rooted in hunting/gathering societies i.e. pre-Neolithic.

Indoeuropean Old Norse developed into "Western" and "Eastern" variants. Western Norse covered Norway and overseas settlements in Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and the Shetland Islands, while Eastern Norse developed in Denmark and south-central Sweden and coastal Finland.

The language of Iceland and the non Finnish or Saami Fennoscandia was practically the same up until the 14th century, when they started to deviate from each other.

During the late Old Norse period and this period there was also a considerable adoption of Middle Low German vocabulary. Similar development in grammar and phonology happened in Swedish and Danish, keeping the dialect continuum in continental Scandinavia intact, but with greater dialectal variation. This process did not, however, occur in the same way in Faroese and Icelandic. These languages remain conservative to this day, when it comes to grammar and vocabulary, so mutual intelligibility with continental Scandinavia was lost.




The Uralic languages belong to a single Eurasian belt of agglutinative languages together with the Altaic languages streching from Fennoscandia in the west to Japan in the east


Not only typological parallelism, but also stress on the first syllable as well as lack of third person pronoun sex segregation (e.g. Finnish 'hän' instead of 'he/she' apartheid) is accompanied by areal adjacency, allowing us to speak of a distinct Ural-Altaic language area and language type we may call Eurasiatic.

Some roots for Eurasiatic: mi (what?, mi/kä or mi/tä in modern Finnish), pälä (two), akʷā (water), tik (one or finger), konV (arm 1), bhāghu(s) (arm 2), bük(ä) (bend or knee), punče (hair), p'ut'V (vagina or vulva), snā (smell or nose), kamu (seize or squeeze), and parV (the verb to fly)

Modern Finnish preserves old words equal or almost equal more often than other languages

Examples of reconstructed Proto-Uralic words:

Body parts and bodily functions: *ïpti hair on the head, *ojwa head, *śilmä eye (same as in modern Finnish), *poski cheek (same as in modern Finnish), *kä(x)li tongue ('kieli' in modern Finnish), *elä- to live ('elää' in modern Finnish), *ka(x)li- to die ('kuolla', and 'kuoli' in imperf), *wajŋi breath (in Finnish 'vainaja' means a dead), *kosi cough, *kunśi urine ('kusi' in modern Finnish), *küńili tear ('kyynele' in modern Finnish), *se(x)ji pus.

Kinship terms: *emä mother (same in modern Finnish), *čečä uncle ('setä' in modern Finnish), *koska aunt, *mińä daughter-in-law ('miniä' in modern Finnish), *wäŋiw son-in-law ('vävy' in modern Finnish).

Verbs for universally known actions: *meni- to go ('mennä', 'meni' in imperf in modern Finnish), *toli- to come ('tulla', 'tuli' in imperf in modern Finnish), *aśkili- to step ('askel' is step in modern Finnish), *imi- to suck ('imi' is sucked in modern Finnish), *soski- to chew, *pala- to eat up ('pala' is a piece in modern Finnish), *uji- to swim ('ui' is swim in imperf in modern Finnish), *sala- to steal ('salata' means to hide in modern Finnish), *kupsa- to extinguish ('kupsata' used for to die in modern Finnish).

Basic objects and concepts of the natural world: *juka river ('joki' in modern Finnish), *toxi lake, *weti water ('vesi/vettä' in modern Finnish), *päjwä sun (same but also day in modern Finnish), warmth, *suŋi summer ('suvi' in modern Finnish), *śala- lightning ('salama' in modern Finnish), *wanča root ('vanka', 'vankka' means steady in modern Finnish), *ko(x)ji birch, *ka(x)si spruce ('kuusi' in modern Finnish), *sïksi Siberian pine, *δ'ï(x)mi bird cherry

Elementary technology: *tuli fire (same in modern Finnish), *śüδi coal, *äjmä needle, *pura drill ('pora' in modern Finnish), *jïŋsi bow ('jousi' in modern Finnish), *jänti bow string, *ńï(x)li arrow ('nuoli' in modern Finnish), *δ'ümä glue ('liima' in modern Finnish), *lïpśi cradle, *piksi rope, *suksi ski (same in modern Finnish), *woča fence.

Basic spatial concepts: *ïla below ('alla' in modern Finnish), *üli above ('yli' in modern Finnish), *wasa left ('vasen' in modern Finnish), *pälä side.

Pronouns: *mun I (meaning mine in modern Finnish), *tun you ('sun' meaning yours in modern Finnish), *ke- who (same in modern Finnish), *mi- what (same in modern Finnish).

The reconstructed vocabulary is compatible with a Mesolithic culture (bow, arrow, needle, sinew, but also rope, fence, cradle, ski), a north Eurasian landscape (spruce, birch, Siberian pine), and contains interesting hints on kinship structure.



The Vikings were bilingual (Finland-Swedes) Goths who could communicate both with the Finnish tribes as well as with the old Nordic/German people



In the Viking world the Jewish slave empire (Chazaria) played an important role in establishing the slave raid and trade system that served the enormous islamic hunger for white sex slaves.





Karelia's old coat of arms.



Karelia bordered the medieval Novgorod republic which was ransacked by muslim Bolgars who hunted for slaves. The southern part became an important hub in the islamic slave finance as Vikings and Kazar Jews etc served the islaic caliphate in the south and later on the Ottoman Turks.


Fair skinned female sex slaves from northern Europe were the by far most valuable according to islamic price lists

(see more about this here)



Most of what you read about Vikings on the web is wrong. The Viking age started already before 750 in the east (because of islamic demand for sex slaves). So forget about Britain 786. Also remember that if you see the words Norway or Norwegians mentioned re. Vikings then throw the link/book away. There was no Norway or Norwegians or a Norwegian language during the Viking age! Educate yourself on Origin of the Vikings.

In 882, Rurik's successor, Oleg of Novgorod, conquered Kiev and founded the state of Kievan Rus.




After the Kievan Russian state began to disintegrate in 1132, slaves became much more numerous as inhabitants of neighboring East Slavic principalities (much of the territory between Poland-Lithuania and the Volga River) became fair game for enslavement.

Jewish merchants took East Slavic slaves from Novgorod to western destinations. Other East Slavic slaves were continuously "harvested" by the Turkic peoples (Tatars) inhabiting the southern and eastern frontiers of Rus' and subsequently sold to buyers mainly in the Arab countries.

The Mongol invasions into Rus' from 1236-1240 accelerated the disintegration of Kievan Rus' that had commenced in 1132.

Continuous Tatar slave raids replaced those of the pre-1240 Turkic peoples who had roamed the Ukranian steppe. In these centuries the word "slave" was borrowed from the ethnonym "Slav."

During the ensuing period of the "Tatar yoke" (1237-1480), the export of slaves through Novgorod continued and the Novgorodian slave market at the intersection of Slave and High Streets was the most active business locale in the entire Republic of Novgorod, which encompassed much of Russia north of the Volga to the White Sea.


The Crimean Tatars had converted to islam in the 1300s and in 1475 the Crimean Khanate became a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire while itself still clinging to power over the Duchy of Muscovy.  In 1480, the Muscovites threw off the "Tatar Yoke" and began the unification of Russia under Slavic rulers.  By 1503, those rulers would declare Russia the Third Roman Empire, and take the title of Tsar.

The Crimean Tatars made use of their strategic position between the Ottomans and the Russians and supplied slaves for the Ottoman Janissary corps from the neighboring peoples to an enormous extent yet to be fully mapped.



Greedy rulers either married a muslim and naively agreed* to convert or just found islam the perfect sword for evil but profitable slave finance


* Islam is an evil dead end. A totalitarian harpoon that has only one direction unless it's stopped. This is one of the many reasons why islam is completely out of sync with Human Rights - a fact that not only Klevius but also OIC has realized!

Little is known about the timeline of the islamization of Inner Asia and the Turkic peoples who lay beyond the bounds of the caliphate. Around 7th century and 8th century, there were some states of Turkic peoples like Turkic Khazar Khaganate and Turkic Turgesh Khaganete who fought against the caliphate in order to stop Arabization and islamization in Asia. From the 9th century onwards, the Turks (at least individually, if not yet through adoption by their states) began to convert to islam. The Bulgars of the Volga, to whom the modern Volga Tatars trace their islamic roots, are noted to have adopted islamic evil early on. When the Friar William of Rubruck visited the encampment of Batu Khan of the Golden Horde, who had recently completed the Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria, he noted "I wonder what devil carried the law of Machomet there".



Different political functions of the islamic myth to legitimate power



Quite contrary to the populist academic discourse that within an islamic worldview, the production of "eventually" correct ritual behavior can be a gateway for "the grace of Allah" to produce "correct belief", the crude reality of islam's own tenets points clearly - and without the slightest anomaly from non-islamic history in sight - to a profitable parasitic formula crudely chiseled on pre-existing Judaic dogmas. This formula, which in one sweep eliminates otherwise "puzzling" historical events, goes like this (taken from www.klevius.info):

The root formula of Islam (Klevius 2001)

Slavery+"infidel" racism+sex segregated rapetivism+anti human rights Sharia/apostasy ban.

Why isn't the worst crime ever against humanity criminalized, but instead protected by the very Human Rights islam opposes?!






Converts to islam don't have to understand anything to be a "good muslim" simply because accepting totalitarian islam is the only proof needed. However, other muslims might not approve of it...


Update: Of some reason I couldn't comment normally on the ignorant commentor below. So here's the reply for her/him - you others don't even need it because it clearly comes out of the posting itself if you possess even rudimentary knowledge about the topic:

Show me a perfectly sculptured portrait earlier than 29,000 bp.  Or anything even close to the Denisova bracelet earlier than 40,000 bp. Etc., etc., the art track in Eurasia reflects the real birth of what we use to mean intelligent humans, i.e. modern humans - not to be confused with the oxymoron "anatomically modern human", which stands for something that no one knows really what it stands for - other than a desperate effort to keep the roots in Africa, no matter that facts point to the opposite direction.
 

Yes, all over the old world we have found crude hominin artifacts and lousy works of art - so what? Every serious geneticist (compare e.g. Pääbo) or anthropologist today agree on a crucial "jump" in human sophistication after around 40-50,000 bp. And nothing comparable at this early stage has been found elsewhere.
 

Pls, use the web to cure your, as it seems, truly bottomless ignorance. Or perhaps you enjoy giving the rest of us a good laugh at your expense...






















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


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


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

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




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

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

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


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

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


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



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


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


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

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

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

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

Klevius: Really?


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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



*

Wednesday, January 01, 2014


Support Peter Klevius campaign for Universal Human Rights!


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



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

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

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

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



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


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

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


So what is modern islamofascism?


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

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

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

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



Sunday, August 25, 2013

Klevius Human Rights tutorial for ignorant muslims and their supporters


The evilness of islam explained in simple English


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Introduction


What is religion?


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

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

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

There are three main reasons for people to become religious:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Is she Sharia compliant?





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


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


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

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




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

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




Common Misconception about Basic Human Rights and islam/Sharia

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

OIC's Cairo declaration and Egypt's constitution

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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