OIC is a muslim extremist organization

Origin of islam and an ignorant white Western nun

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

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

God is an escape route from Human Rights

First sophisticated art by the first truly modern humans

Oldest real portrait ever found (>29,000BP Central Europe, dated by the latest space technology)

Finland's lion tramping the islamic scimitar 1583

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

Origin of the Vikings

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

A victim of rapetivism - and an interfaith messenger of rapetivism

A victim of rapetivism - and an interfaith messenger of rapetivism

Japan 10 yrs ahead of Europe in hybrid/fuelcell cars, space tech etc

Native Brits from Doggerland spoke a proto-Finnish/Uralic language

We non-muslims need to honor racist islam's victims - cause muslims won't

We non-muslims need to honor racist islam's victims - cause muslims won't
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f4ihemJ34G4/T2yuFzSUqiI/AAAAAAAAA_U/FcGmXfvhkCw/s640/Ms+Lucy+Black+racist+4.jpg

The islamic extermination of Jews

Modern humans originated in Siberia

Alwaleed bin Talal, a rape accused muslim who's never worked & spends oil Billions on sexist Sharia

Alwaleed bin Talal, a rape accused muslim who's never worked & spends oil Billions on sexist Sharia
Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation, and islam (the worst cime ever) is the foremost expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means Sharia as described by Bill Warner and the Saudi based and steered muslim world organization OIC and its Cairo declaration (sharia) imposed on all muslims via UN (meaning basic Human Rights are criminalized).

Burn OIC's islamic anti-Human Rights declaration!

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Washington post shouts "racism" and "islamophobia" when Snoop Dog is arrested in Sweden for a minor drug crime and Somalis caused fire in their own mosque!


The most misleading and racism boosting journalism ever from Washington Post? When will Adam Taylor be cleaned out? Or is he already!





The ignorant Adam Taylor (Washington Post) accuses "far-right Swedish Democrats" for Snoop Dog's lawful* arrest. First of all, it's Sverigedemokraterna meaning Sweden Democrats - not "Swedish Democrats" as Adam Taylor ignorantly puts it. Secondly, as Klevius wrote in his previous posting, Sweden Democrats who are now level with Sweden's biggest party the Social Democrats in polls (due to being Sweden's only islam critical political voice), has a political program which is better described as a conservative center-left sometimes hard to distinguish from much Social Democratic politics and would therefore not be a choice for Klevius was it not for its islam criticism.

* According to the Swedish police Snoop Dog was "extremely polite and cooperative". In other words no signs of protests etc for the arrest. That's how a person typically behaves when caught for something they know is a crime and the evidence is clear.

The ignorant Adam Taylor (Washington Post) lies straight in the face of WP's readers when he tries to make the world's most politically correct country racist against blacks and muslims. The truth is just the opposite namely that Sweden precisely because of its senseless PC "diversity" brainwashing has become a safe haven for muslim supremacism racism and sexism.

And when it comes to "anti-semitism" Sweden is now most probably the worst country in the world (outside Arab muslim countries) for Jews to live in (read abt how Malmö's mayor accused Jews for being victims of muslim attacks).

The ignorant Adam Taylor (Washington Post) moreover writes in a way that gives WP's readers the impression that mosques are under heavy hate attacks by Swedes and even "destroyed" when in reality just a few extremely minor incidents have been reported (e.g. someone leaving a slice of bac etc) and the worst one "with five injured by arson attack" turned out to be Somali muslims playing with fireworks. The police and politicians first made a huge number of the "attack" until the police much later had to admit the facts.


Was it muslims playing with fireworks or an attack from rival muslims? What seems clear though is that the most unlikely scenario is prioritized by the Minister of Immigration, Swedish TV, Aftonbladet etc. 

BBC 25 December 2014 updated at 18:48: Swedish mosque hit by arson in Eskilstuna, injuring five. Police are treating the incident as arson after reports that someone threw an object into the building.

Nothing whatsoever indicated any "anti-muslim"* forces behind the fire.

* Just like islamic violence serves the spread of islam (jihad) "anti-muslim" violence (so rare so it almost doesn't exist in any meaningful sense compared to islamic violence) also fulfills the same purpose.

Klevius: However, this is how Scandinavia's biggest news paper described it:




Sweden's Minister for Justice: An appalling evil deed 


Sweden's Minister for Justice and Migration (!), Morgan Johansson: 'Hard to believe anything else than that this aggregated assault was directed against muslims as a group and islam as a religion.'

Klevius: A Swedish Minister for Justice acting like a teen troll who would have been immediately arrested had it been the other way round!


Swedish TV: The arson attack against the mosque in Eskilstuna shows, according to Islamiska förbundets leader Omar Mustafa, how hate against muslims has intensified.
 Klevius wrote:

Malmo, the third largest city in Sweden, is already over 20% Muslim - and it shows, not the least for the Jews.


    Four grenade attacks in a Ramadan week have rocked Malmo, prompting police to sound an alarm over the increasing violence. Multiple explosions, shootings and arson struck the city, which has a large muslim population. There are no hints whatsoever that the trouble is caused by Swedes. But overwhelming reasons to connect it to muslims.

This is what civil war looks like in the age of jihad. Jihad in the West, made possible by massive muslim immigration.

Swedish muslim Jihadi: “Go There with a Bomb”!

    “Why are these attacks happening during Ramadan? It’s because the jihadis don’t view the violence as something unholy. If the violence is happening for God’s sake and according to the rules Islam is perceived to decree, it is in fact a holy action. To the jihadis, this type of holy violence is more meritorious in God’s eyes than fasting, prayer and charity. … In the hadith, jihad in the month of Ramadan is portrayed as giving extra glory.” — Mohamed Omar.


Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Snoop Dog was (and still apparently is) stupidly ignorant - so what about BBC's islam presenter Mishal Husain?

Rapetivism and craptivism*

* Rap inducing criminality, i.e. a waste product of human life.

How much guilt has this rapper for black criminality? Is he a rapper or a
crapper - and does he even understand his part in it?



Snoop dog (aka Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. - named after his stepfather cause his own father abandoned him just as did Obama's father) says his sexism was due to his ignorance. Klevius then wonders whether it's the same ignorance that made him join US' most hateful and racist supremacist community?


Farrakhan (leader of the worst American racist/sexist supremacist sect, Nation of Islam):  “This is a new generation and they don’t want to hear your compromising talk! What they do want to hear, though, is rap music. Rappers are listened to. Kanye West and Jay Zare listened to. Killer Mike is listened to — he even attended Obama's 2015 White House Correspondents Dinner.


'I will kill you' shouts the brain dead* hateful black muslim supremacist racist clown Louis Farrakhan

* Can we agree that hateful people are not only stupid but also dangerous - to all of us, including themselves.  Ok, he's smarter than Sharpton but what does that really prove! It's still far short of what could be expected from an ordinary civilized man. Just listen to this childish but hateful rant to childish but, as a consequence, hateful listeners. 

This hateful racist is whom Obama's minister for some 20 years awarded!



Yes, Klevius knows very well that people are very vulnerable to theatrical performance - especially when this helps to excuse one's often misdirected anger about oneself. This is why Klevius would never even dream of acting like Farrakhan. And this is why Klevius believes in Human Rights instead of segregation.



This joke is the leader of black US muslims!

   


'I will kill you if you put your hands on me' Farrakhan said in a context where some presumably white official during the "million man marsh" had explained an escape route for him in the case of violence. And for his black audience (above) he made it sound the opposite to what the official had meant. Farrakhan unscrupulously played the race card hard, hinting the possible violence was white, not black, and then in a childish but obviously for this audience effective way (see how happy they look at the very moment he utters 'kill') played the hero card by stating that he 'should die with his people'. Moreover, Farrakhan knows very well that many young and some older black haters love to hear him hinting at hate violence by using words like 'kill' and 'fight back' etc. He also loves using the word 'devil' when talking about white people. Why? Simply because Nation of Islam's very racist hateful core idea is that "whites" are evil devils while "blacks" are "god's" chosen people. No other race is as good as "blacks" according to just one of the unbelievable fantasies from which Farrakhan's muslim hate organization emerged (see more about NOI furthest down on this posting)


Klevius wrote 8 August 2011:
  
The bizarre but extremely racist "ideology" of Nation of Islam may be summarized as this: Blacks are the superior race on Earth and white people belong to Satan and should be destroyed. The other races are somewhere in between with Asians (Mongoloids) near the bottom just above the whites.


Louis Farrakhan: "According to what we understand, only two percent of the Libyan people are in rebellion against their government. Now, you [Obama] mean to tell me that half the people don't want you, and you dare to say that this man [Al-Qadhafi - i.e. the guy who possibly arranged the Lockerbie terrorist attack and who arranged for the freeing of the one who actually did it] is illegitimate? What makes him illegitimate, and what makes you legitimate?

"I came here to preach the doom of this institution. You say that he is illegitimate, he kills his own people? What's your record? What's your record, America?

"Your governments will soon be laying in… some of you, who have plotted against the peoples of the world, will be seen on the back of pickup trucks, driving through the streets of America, with the American people throwing stones and raw garbage at you.

"In the name of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate. Dear brother leader, Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, may this letter find you, your family, and the faithful people of the Libyan Arab Republic, in the best health and spirit in spite of the prevailing circumstances.

"Dear brother leader, in the general orders that we were given by the honorable Elijah Muhammad, whose desire was to make us brave fighters, willing at any time to give our lives for Allah's sake and righteousness, it states in general order No. 5 'Do not quit your post until properly relieved.' Allah put you on your post, and neither NATO, the president of the U.S., the Arab League, or anybody else, has the power or authority to tell you to quit your post. Elijah Muhammad told me: 'Die on your post.'

"Dear brother [Barack Obama], be careful about the assassination of Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi and others in the Muslim world. Could it be that while you and your staff are planning the death of Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, could it also be that members of your own Democratic Party are plotting to betray you? Could it be that right now, while you are planning for your second term, that there are those in your party [who don't] want you for a second term, and definitely the Republicans don't want you to be a one-term president.

"So, like Abraham Lincoln, who was prosecuting the civil war, and doubted that he would be reelected, won a second term, but this so angered the opposition that it was then that his own reelection inspired his assassination. Could that be going on right now, under your own nose?

"Think, dear brother, before you act, because as the Bible puts it: 'God is not mocked. As a man soweth, the same shall he also reap.'As Obadiah the Prophet said: 'As thou hast done, so shall it be done unto you.' If they are successful in killing brother Al-Qadhafi, this is not going to be the end. This is the beginning of horrors, as you will see."

"The Future for Europe and America is Bleak, Very Very Bleak; China and Russia – Oh, You All will be at War"

"Al-Qadhafi wasn't in some tent twiddling his thumbs. He was working for the good of the African people. The African people will rise. NATO and… I'm sorry, America – I have got to say it, because I heard it from the mouth of the honorable Elijah Muhammad – Europe is finished.

"All of you who love war will be drowned in your own blood, as it is written: 'Those of you who love to shed the blood of others – Allah will make you drunk with your own blood, as with sweet wine.' Europe is headed for war, as we speak. Yes England, France, Italy, Germany, the honorable Elijah Muhammad told me that at the right time to tell you that Europe is the graveyard of the future. All of you who ran to Europe, to your former colonial masters, it is written that everyone will have to go to their own, and find refuge under their own vine and fig tree.

"And as Europe is trying to push out the Africans, to push out the Pakistanis, you would be wise to prepare yourself to get out of there or die there, because the future for Europe and America is bleak, very very bleak. China and Russia – oh, you all will be at war. You like it, so Allah is going to give it to you. You will have war soon. Mark my words – not my words, but the words of a man who was taught by God. You will face every word that he spoke. You will remember what you heard today – that a man, a real man of God was in your midst, and every word that I speak – you will face it."

Klevius answer to this pathetic "wanna be god's messenger" who uses to agitate extreme religious racial hatred while simultaneously changing views like a chameleon when it suits him: You idiot hide behind the otherwise non-related facts that Arabic islam managed to destroy most of Africa for more than a Millennium, and that a majority of African people have darker skin than most of the rest of the world. And of course, when the most advanced cultures (meaning they are based on the non-religious idea of Universal Human Rights) are predominantly "white" (actually really white people, so called albinos you find mostly oppressed in Africa!) this has been utilized by NOI and you as a ground for agitating dangerous racism especially in children and youth. You moron are lowering, not bettering the moral of what you try to lump together under skin color as "blacks".

You, Louis, and your butt-wipes are so funny to watch in your pompous appearance, was it not for all the misery and suffering you cause! All the way from Wallace Fard Mohammad (a white guy with extremely confused ideas) via a string of serial killers incl. Black Panthers etc to British street riots and looting. And on the way your organization didn't only murder people like Malcolm X but also, of course, targeted Martin Luther King and others (a god's gift was it that a "white" man was sentenced).



The founder of Nation of Islam, who actually existed - unlike the made up founder of islam

Drug dealer Wallie Wallace Dodd Fard Ford Farrad David Ali Mohammad (or whatever - i.e. the NOI foudner that Farrakhan forgot to refer to) was born somewhere and died somehow. He founded the fascist organization Nation of Islam in the period between World War 1 and 2 that saw all kinds of fascist movements appear. He became the head of the Chicago mosque in 1929, i.e. when Hitler led the growing National Socialist Party in Germany (by the help of his ability to evoke a sense of violated national pride - compare NOI). Already at the start NOI was connected with murders and suspicious disappearances. He himself also disappeared in 1934, most probably murdered by the next NOI leader, Eliah Muhammad, just as Hitler murdered his competitor Ernst Röhm.


So how does BBC's "muslim" presenter Mishal Husain fit the picture?

   

Well, she can't possibly be equally ignorant as Snoop dog. So why does she lump herself together with the Saudis and the Islamic State under the same umbrella named islam? 'Apostislam', 'Euroislam', 'cultural islam' or whatever but not islam! She is the furthest away from anything resembling islam, its texts and its teachings. And arguing she represents some naive fantasy about a "reformed islam" makes no sense as long as she keeps silent/apolegetic about real islam (as exemplified by Saudi based and controlled OIC and its sharia declaration).

Klevius wrote:
   

A Nuremberg trial against BBC's bigoted and hypocritical muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain - defended by Klevius




In a May 1 sermon, Tunisian cleric Sheik Bechir Begga said that Satan and the Jews are the enemies of Muslims. He added that Allah was gathering the Jews “in Palestine, or in Tel Aviv,” where they would meet their end.


Koran 5:82.

    The Muslim has two enemies. The first is Satan. The Prophet Muhammad said: “Satan flows through human beings like blood flows through the veins.” Satan is the first enemy. “Surely Satan is your enemy, so treat him like an enemy.” This is what Allah said.

    The second enemy is the Zionist Jew.

    […]

    They violated pacts and covenants. They slayed the prophets. They disobeyed Allah’s commandments and violated his prohibitions. What we are witnessing today is their second and final corruption.

    […]

    “When there comes the promise of the Hereafter, We will gather you in droves.” [Allah] will gather them from all over the world. After He had dispersed the Jews all over the world – some in Britain, some in Germany, some in the Soviet Union, and some in other countries – they will gather again in the lane of Palestine, or Tel Aviv.

    “We will gather you in droves.” This is one of the signs heralding the Day of Judgment. These are glad tidings for us, because that is their end. They will meet their end by gathering in Israel. This is the beginning of the end for Israel.

Mishal Husain grew up in Saudi Arabia, the country that gave birth to and shares the same version of islam that propels the Islamic State


Islamic ideology has committed genocides, enslaved, murdered, raped and victimized more people than any other ideology throughout 1400 years. Although history is full of proof of this, the most obvious evidence of islamic evilness* is to be found in the Koran, Muhammad's biographies and the hadiths. And cherry picking away the mass of evil in islamic texts would never have been accepted re. for example Nationalsocialism (aka Nazism).

* Measured by Human Rights standard




BBC's muslim sharia presenter (or?)*: "You could argue couldn't you, that Hamas was also stopping worse happening all of this period, because although there was rockets being fired - they weren't the.. the big rockets that have caused damage in recent days, they were mostly home-made contraptions."

 This support for violent jihad terror alone would be enough to render Mishal Husain morally guilty. However, a much more serious side of Mishal Husain is her support for islam in general, well knowing (unlike many less well informed muslims) that islam means sharia and that sharia inevitably means  grave violations of the most basic of Human Rights.

Mishal Husain, while islam kills and victimizes millions, says that she doesn't think her way of life is under any kind of threat and that she is a proud muslim who doesn't care to fast during Ramadan and rather drinks some alcohol

However. either she is a muslim and thereby has to support Human Rights violating sharia - or she is a lying apostate committing the worst crime known to islam. There is no such a thing as an individual muslim! Although, according to Human Rights, Mishal Husain as an individual is free to believe whatever she likes, if she calls herself a muslim she automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani.


A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

Could there be any doubt that Mishal Husain isn't aware of OIC and its world sharia declaration? After all, it's even on Wikipedia.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Lee Rigby). Mishal Husain is BBC's top muslim presenter and BBC is the world's leading media. The only thing she needs to say is that she opposes Human Rights violating sharia - and thereby also opposes islam because islam without some form of Human Rights violating sharia is not islam anymore - it's just a private belief and won't bother Klevius a bit.


Adolf Eichman's defense: I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did.

Mishal Husain's defense as outlined by Klevius: Mishal Husain doesn't persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That's what the militant part of islam does. Jihadis who are fighting in an unjust war (i.e. against "islamophobia") must still be treated as legal combatants, and not held responsible for the war itself. Only those behind the policy (islam) should be sentenced.

So Klevius proposes that all charges against Mishal Husain should be dismissed, because circumstantial evidence ought not to be allowed.  However, this also implies that Mishal Husain has to avoid supporting violent jihad islam wherever it appears, incl. Israel, so to keep circumstantial evidence from becoming factual evidence and thereby turning her case on its head.

Comment by Anonymous:  But hasn't Mishal Husain asked for muslim "scholars" to address jihadism?

Comment by Clevius: You're so right, Anonymous, that's exactly what she did - asked the government those behind the policy!

Comment by Haram: Does Mishal Husain eat halal meat?




Acknowledgement: A Google search today couldn't find any pictures of Mishal Husain signed Klevius. Not even on 'more images'. Must be a bug or something.
I'm sure BBC or Mishal Husain would never lower themselves to anything like that.

Here are some more in case you've missed them:





Monday, July 27, 2015

The oxymoron "diversity" means sharia islam steered from Saudi Arabia. So "diversity training" most often feeds intolerance.


Britain's "diversity" stuck in the uniformity of Saudi Arabian sand dunes?


Whenever you hear the politically correct oxymoron "diversity" you can be sure that it can be traced directly to the least diverse place in the world, Saudi Arabia, the "custodian" of sharia islam and its idolatry of the most intolerant city in the world.

 Why does Cameron seem to have such a problem using the word sharia when precisely this word could help him finding the code to "radicalization"?

Calling oneself a true muslim automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Fuhrer Iyad Madani, who belongs to the Saudi dictator family.




A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

In 2008 the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) tried to make a brief statement about honour killings, female genital mutilation and stoning. IHEU and the Association of World Education had three minutes to put their case. But as they tried to make the statement, they were constantly interrupted by the representative of Egypt who accused the NGOs of trying to “crucify Islam”. They insisted that sharia law must not be mentioned at the UNHRC, let alone criticised. A Pakistan delegate — whose country speaks for the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in the rights body — said the grouping had “strong objections” to any direct or indirect discussion of sharia. Joining Egypt in asking the president, Romania's Daru Romulus Costea, to bar any debate that took this path, he said that if allowed it would “amount to spreading of hatred against certain members of this Council”.

Costea suspended the council and is reported to have asked the NGOs not to mention sharia.

Later Mr Costea told a press conference that he had ruled that only Muslim scholars can be permitted to talk about Islam in the Council. He said that religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense”.

While Cameron contemplates "radicalization" (sharia islam) BBC asks* for more sharia muslim judges in Britain. Klevius: "British values"?

* A news organization such as BBC can easily cherry pick guests and topics to suit their islam propaganda.

BBC today first asks for more "diversity" among judges. You might think that means more Polish or EU citizen judges. Or perhaps Chinese or Russian judges. Or maybe Hindu judges. No, predictably BBC then transfers "diversity" to muslim "scholars and imams". What else. But what about "radical" muslim judges? Will their intentions be alighed with Saudi sharia islam rather than "British values"?

What's the point anyway of muslim "diversity" when Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is destroying islam as we know it?




Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is inevitably winning over islam and its one Billion plus muslims. There's no return whatsoever simply because of the bedrock logic of the so called basic "negative"* rights underlying the thought of universal Human Rights equality. Due to islam's parasitic origin (booty and slaves) it's inherently racist (the "infidel") and sexist (sex segregation/apartheid). This is the essence of sharia and should not be confused with contracts. A contract means having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. Islamic sharia doesn't qualify under Human Rights guided legislation because of its unlawful racism and sexism. A muslim can't legally make an agreement with other muslims to treat non-muslims, wrong-muslims, LGBTs, Atheists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, women etc. as not equal to themselves. And this is just the tip of the iceberg Cameron calls "radicalization" and "silent muslim [sharia] supporters".

* Whereas 'positive rights' can be abused as impositions, 'negative rights' means the very opposite, i.e. lack of content, in other words freedom from impositions.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Without Human Rights violating sharia (OIC) there is no islam worth of Klevius' or Cameron's "islamophobia" or islamofascists' love

Sweden's only party critical of islam, Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats), is the most publicly smeared party ever. Yet they now in July scored 23.3%  making them only 0.8% behind Sweden's biggest party the Socialdemocrats. As their politics differ only marginally in most questions except for islam, this is the only clue to their tremendous success. Klevius is against state socialism (i.e. the self interest of the social state - see Angels of Antichrist) and would therefore check carefully before giving a vote for any social state friendly party. However, if a party is the only one against sharia islam, then Klevius would give it his vote anyway. The choice is extremely easy. 

If you just dare to utter the evil word 'sharia' (e.g. OIC's), then the muslim problem is solved, PM Cameron?


Because then you have finally found your real enemy and its position (Saudi Arabia/OIC).


Private belief and thinking is ok as is its public expression - not its connection to a sharia ideology that goes against the most basic of Human Rights equality.

However, question is, is it sharia islam or BBC that's the biggest stumbling  bloc for Cameron?


 
As David Cameron set out his 5 year plan to combat Human Rights violating sharia islam and sharia muslims, BBC's eager supporter of sharia islam and sharia muslims, Edward Stourton, wastes almost an hour on BBC to spray compulsory license fee paying British listeners with a heavy and cherry picked muslim propaganda from the notorious East London Mosque.

Nothing in the show addressed the key issue of widespread islamofascism. Instead compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were showered with bee hives and "an historic collection which documents the history of one of the UK's oldest mosques".

Then compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were informed about "inter-faith dialogue", i.e. the Saudi initiated one way sharia islamic monologue.

Then compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were fed with the Human Rights violating sharia preacher Muhammad Abdul Bari from the East London Mosque who of course opposed every effort made to break down barriers and build greater understanding between faiths, if it criticized islam at any point, i.e. so called "islamophobia".



Not a word about the Koran's richness of incitement to rapetivism etc:

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"  This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners.  Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:

Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."   This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves.  See also Qur'an (70:29-30).  The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very important to him.

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."  Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Qur'an (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good"  A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part.  The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."

Qur'an (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..."  Breeding slaves based on fitness.

Qur'an (2:178) - "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female."  The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal.  The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman's worth is also distinguished from that of a man's).

Qur'an (16:75) - "Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah."  Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master.  In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah's will.  (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah's gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).





Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Some "islamophobia" before Ed Milliband introduces sharia compliant "blasphemy" laws against the Brits' Human Rights as in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan


Are the Brits shooting themselves in the foot - again?


Politicians in bed with islamofascism is a disaster for Human Rights

Does it really help Jews to cooperate with the ideology that started with the genocidal slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina?


A vote for Ed Milliband is a vote against children's rights

Ed Miliband is the son of Polish immigrant parents. His mother, Marion Kozak, is a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust thanks to being protected by Poles. His father, Ralph Miliband, was a Belgian-born Polish Jewish Marxist academic who fled with his father to England during World War II.

Rochdale is notorious for its muslim sex predators abusing white British girls taken into "care" by the social state.

Rochdale Labour councillor Shakil Ahmed is the dad of now freed(?!) terrorist suspect Waheed Ahmed who was arrested and accused of trying to go to Syria with eight of his relatives.




Some voices about Ed Milliband's sharia association



Leo McKinstry: Ed Milliband is far more dangerous than his awkward image suggests. An unprincipled, ruthless, opportunistic left-wing ideologue, he represents a serious menace to Britain’s future. Backed by the ScotsNats and Labour’s trade union paymasters, his regime would be one of debts, bureaucracy, mass immigration and constitutional chaos.

But now an even more sinister aspect to his leadership has emerged, one that threatens our essential freedoms. Miliband says he will make Islamophobia a serious crime to be prosecuted by the full might of the state. Flushed with self-righteous zeal, Miliband wants to ensure that the offence “is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.”

Anyone who believes in liberty will be truly alarmed. Miliband’s proposal goes against the entire tradition of western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions.

In the name of tolerance, Labour wants to impose a form of totalitarianism, making a mockery of the concept of free speech. Like so many socialist policies, Miliband’s plan conjures up the dark, Orwellian world of the Thought Police, where all citizens are required to obey the ruling orthodoxy. I n January Miliband echoed the global outrage at the Charlie Hebdo massacre by Muslim terrorists in Paris, even joining other political leaders in the French capital’s official protest march. But his call for a British law against Islamophobia exposes the hollowness of his indignation.

Under his proposal, most of the Charlie Hebdo staff would have been in prison over their satirical cartoons.
Related articles

    Why aren’t the English allowed to be nationalists? asks LEO MCKINSTRY
    Ed Miliband and Nicola Sturgeon are the George and Mildred of politics says LEO MCKINSTRY
    End to hated inheritance tax that hurts middle income families, says LEO MCKINSTRY

Indeed Winston Churchill, Britain’s greatest statesman, would have ended up behind bars if Miliband’s law had been enacted during his life. In his 1899 book The River War, Churchill wrote that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than the “militant and proselytising faith” of Islam. At a time when the police and courts seem incapable of tackling real lawbreakers effectively, Miliband’s proposal will waste huge resources by creating a whole new class of criminals whose only offence will have been to challenge an ideology that is being used to spread violence and misery across the world. In the new climate of censorship created by Labour, too many Muslims, including extremists, corrupt politicians and predatory paedophiles, will be able to silence their critics or halt investigations just by screeching the word “Islamophobia.”

In fact, that is already happening on an epic scale. Until his trial which concluded on Friday, no action was taken against Lutfur Rahman, the spectacularly corrupt Muslim Mayor of Tower Hamlets in east London, as he maintained his grip on power by constantly playing the race and religious card. In the same way, fears about accusations of Islamophobia meant that the authorities in Labour-run Rotherham did nothing about Pakistani sex gangs who systematically abused around 1,400 vulnerable white girls.

A similar spirit of collusion and cowardice has stopped the state dealing robustly with other Muslim abuses, like forced marriages, female genital mutilation, ballot box fraud or extremism in schools. Miliband’s whole scheme is based on a monstrous fraud.

So-called Islamophobia is not an irrational fear or prejudice but an understandable response to the horrors we see all around us perpetrated in the name of Allah, from the savage persecution of Christians in the Middle East to the beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby and the London bombings at home. As the great radical writer Christopher Hitchens once put it, Islamophobia “is a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.”

    Labour plan will fuel Muslim victimhood

    Leo McKinstry

It is outrageous that the Labour Party, while blathering about the fight against discrimination, effectively wants to shut down any debate about a theocratic doctrine that has provoked such a worldwide, blood-soaked catalogue of tyranny, oppression, terrorism, misogyny, anti-Semitism and homophobia.

In practice, what Miliband really proposes is the introduction of Muslim blasphemy laws, such as exist in the barbaric, failed Islamic-led states of the Middle East and Asia. In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.

He wants to act as the Witchfinder-General in the new Islamic order, hunting down heretics as he is cheered on by his Muslim allies. Driven by his desire for power, he is pandering to identity politics of the worst kind, seeking to gain support in the three million-strong Muslim population to prop up Labour’s urban vote. But such an approach is disastrous, for it fuels social division and Muslim victimhood.

If Miliband were a true leader, he would push for real integration by demanding that all Muslims face up to their responsibilities, accept western democratic values, stop trying to build replicas of Bangladesh and Pakistan here and drop their collusion with violence.

But that would require courage, maturity and patriotism, qualities that he so conspicuously lacks. Instead, at a terrible potential cost to Britain, he aims to give protection to alien bigotry.





Soeren Kern: “In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. … If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.” — Leo McKinstry, British commentator.

    The report shows that Britain’s Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population’s median age of 40 years.

The leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Ed Miliband, has vowed, if he becomes the next prime minister in general elections on May 7, to outlaw “Islamophobia.”

The move — which one observer has called “utterly frightening” because of its implications for free speech in Britain — is part of an effort by Miliband to pander to Muslim voters in a race that he has described as “the tightest general election for a generation.”

With the ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour running neck and neck in the polls just days before voters cast their ballots, British Muslims — who voted overwhelmingly for Labour in the 2010 general election — could indeed determine who will be the next prime minister.

In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:

    “We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.

    “We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country.”

Miliband appears to be trying to reopen a long-running debate in Britain over so-called religious hatred. Between 2001 and 2005, the then-Labour government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, made two attempts (here and here) to amend Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, to extend existing provisions on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred.

Those efforts ran into opposition from critics who said the measures were too far-reaching and threatened the freedom of speech. At the time, critics argued that the scope of the Labour government’s definition of “religious hatred” was so draconian that it would have made any criticism of Islam a crime.

In January 2006, the House of Lords approved the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, after amending the text so that the law would be limited to banning only “threatening” words and not those that are merely abusive or insulting. Lawmakers also said that the offense would require the intention — not just the possibility — of stirring up religious hatred. They added that proselytizing, discussion, criticism, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offense.

Miliband’s renewed promise to make “Islamophobia” (a term he has not defined) an “aggravated crime” may signal an attempt to turn the 2006 Act — which already stipulates a maximum penalty of seven years in prison for stirring up religious hatred — into a full-blown Muslim blasphemy law.

According to British commentator Leo McKinstry, “Miliband’s proposal goes against the entire tradition of Western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions.” In an opinion article, he added:

    “In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.”

McKinstry says Miliband is currying favor with Britain’s three million-strong Muslim community to “prop up Labour’s urban vote.”

Muslims are emerging as a key voting bloc in British politics and are already poised to determine the outcome of local elections in many parts of the country, according to a report by the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group.

image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/useful_banner_manager_banners/142-JewishShepard-600WIDE.jpg

The report shows that Britain’s Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population’s median age of 40 years.

An extrapolation of the available data indicates that one million British Muslims aged 18 and above will be eligible to vote in this year’s election. According to one study, Muslims could determine the outcome of up to 25% of the 573 Parliamentary seats in England and Wales.

Others say that although Britain’s Muslim community is growing, it is also ethnically diverse and unlikely to vote as a single group. One analyst has argued that the potential for Muslim influence in this year’s election “will remain unrealized because the Muslim vote is not organized in any meaningful way on a national level.”

A study produced by Theos, a London-based religious think tank, found that although Muslims consistently vote Labour, they do so based on class and economic considerations, not out of religious motives.

Indeed, a poll conducted by the BBC on April 17 found that nearly one-quarter of “Asian” voters still do not know which party they will support at the general election. Some of those interviewed by the BBC said that economic issues would determine whom they vote for.

In any event, Muslim influence in the 2015 vote will be largely determined by Muslim voter turnout, which has been notoriously low in past elections: Only 47% of British Muslims were estimated to have voted in 2010.

Since then, several grassroots campaigns have been established to encourage British Muslims to go to the polls in 2015, including Get Out & Vote, Muslim Vote and Operation Black Vote. Another group, YouElect, states:

    “A staggering 53% of British Muslims did not vote in the 2010 General Election, such a high figure of Muslim non-voters indicates that many Muslims feel ignored by politicians and disillusioned by the political process.

    “With the rise of Islamophobic rhetoric in politics and an ever increasing amount of anti-terror legislation which specifically targets Muslims, it is now more important than ever that Muslims use the vote to send a message to politicians that their attitudes and policies must change.

    “YouElect wants to get the message across that there is something you can do about the issues you care about. We have launched a new campaign using the hashtag #SortItOut, which calls on Muslims to use the political process to address the issues that concern them most.

    “With 100,000 new young Muslims eligible to vote this year and 26 parliamentary constituencies with a Muslim population of over 20%, the Muslim community has a very real opportunity to make an impact on British politics.”

Not all Muslims agree. The British-born Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary is actively discouraging Muslims from voting. In a stream of Twitter messages using the#StayMuslimDontVote hashtag, Choudary has argued that voting is a “sin” against Islam because Allah is “the only legislator.” He has also said that Muslims who vote or run for public office are “apostates.”

Despite several grassroots campaigns to encourage British Muslims to vote in greater numbers, some prominent Islamists in the UK claim that voting is a “sin.”

Other British Islamists are following Choudary’s lead. Bright yellow posters claiming that democracy “violates the right of Allah” have been spotted in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, and Leicester, as part of a grassroots campaign called #DontVote4ManMadeLaw.

One such poster stated:

    “Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires.

    “Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.”


A vote for Ed Milliband won't help victims of muslim sexual predators in accordance with the Koran


The social state is much more devastating to children than any private company - and waste much more money!


A UK mother who found 125 names of potential (most/all muslims?) sex abusers on her daughter’s mobile phone claims she was told by police in Rotherham it would be a "breach of the girl’s human rights" if they investigated.

Klevius translation: Note that we are talking about underage girls who would have no Human Rights protection against social state interventions (aided by the police) whatsoever (to understand this and the tiltle see Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis). What they really meant was that it would be a breach of the muslims' human rights (read "diversity policy") if they investigated. And this is the dilemma - Human Rights cover all, including muslims, whereas sharia opposes Human Rights - which fact doesn't hinder muslims (and their supporters) from abusing Human Rights when it serves themselves.!

The parasitic social state that feeds itself on behalf of the taxpayers and children while giving a s--t to non-muslim girls abused by muslims. Don't approve a penny before getting rid of the parasites residing in the social state! And one thing is definitive: Ed Milliband will continue supporting these parasites.

Rotherham has been totally dominated by Labour since World War 2. Compare the total dominance of the Swedish social democrats who created the disastrous Swedish social state all the way from Gunnar and Alva Myral's "social hygiene"  in the 1930s and due eugenics to the explosive tax injection in the 1970s and due birth of the modern social state. Some results: The Swedish "girl problem" (which Klevius has written about since 1993), high child/youth criminality, and a school system that 2015 is classified among the worst within OECD and heavily criticized in a recent OECD report. Yet Sweden has compulsory school attendance and doesn't admit homeschooling at all for normal children (alone in Europe together with Germany whose Hitler imposed law is still in power).

Learn more on Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis


Joyce Thacker has been a central figure in the responsibility for letting children be abused and even murdered. How much does she get from your tax money, and will she be rewarded in the usual way for defending islam while not defending children.


Islam is the only remaining legal excuse for hateful racism and sexism. If you are a racist or sexist then your only non-criminal option is islam.


Where others have to adapt to goodness (Human Rights) muslims can continue being evil (sharia) because of islam's status as a "religion".

But the troublesome fact remains that islam isn't only incapable of approving of the most basic of Human Rights, islam is also guilty of 1400 years of constant murdering, genocides, slavery and rapetivism. Islam is a Pandora's box and the only hope is the extinction of its main evil message.


BBC's diversion tactics for the purpose of belittling islamic slavery genocides - the worst ideological crime ever against humanity

BBC's aim seems to be to make people believe that "sex slavery was/is all over the place" - i.e. not only islam.

Today islam is the only allowed ideology that approves of sexual violence/rapetivism.

Sexual violence is a weapon and a strategy that is approved by islam and therefore used by muslims to "justify" it. In other words, when non-muslim traffickers know they are criminals, muslim criminals just point to the Koran, hadiths and Muhammad.

As an exemplifying consequence, out of 585 peace treaties since 1990 only 17 mention sexual violence/rape. And out of 300 ceasefire deals only 6 consider such kind of sexual violence a violation of the deal.


Islam started with Muhammad's genocide of all the Jews in Medina 1400 years ago and continued its violent attacks until today. Islam's victims throughout all these years are more than any other evil ideology. What we call Judaism also started with genocide (the slaughtering of the Canaanites) but due to mainly matrilineality  never managed to produce numbers comparable with islam. This is what Klevius calls the Vagina/Penis divide, i.e. that a man can have more "offspring" than a woman. A muslim man makes a muslim - not a "muslim" woman.A "muslim" woman is an "inferior" being according to Muhammad and islam.

The main body of those who today call themselves muslims consists of people whose female ancestors had been enslaved by muslim males thanks to Human Rights violating sharia which makes the muslim man the determinant for muslimhood while apostasy ban makes it impossible to leave islam. A woman married to a muslim man is, according to islamic sharia forced to reproduce only muslims.

BBC has slowly started understanding that islam isn't just a "religion" but a pure sex slave "religion" and in their programs is now busy pushing out whatever they can find of non-muslim examples of slavery and sex abuse for the simple purpose of thereby trying to dilute islam's horrifying ideological essence and history - and islam's contemporary and continuing sex slavery ideology.

Yes, there has been slavery in different forms even before islam. However, only islam made slavery (parasitism) its main ideology, inscribed it in its main book and violently expanded through slavery, and finally always declined  into the deepest misery when the supply was limited - as was the case when the West in the 19th century toppled the Ottoman slave "empire" which was itself created through islamic slavery. Or more than thousand years ago when some half a million black slaves in what is now Iraq revolted against their Sunni muslim slave "owners". Islam's "golden ages" have all rested on unlimited supply of slaves through human trafficking, slave raids etc.


Klevius: OIC, the Islamic State, muslim sharia racism/sexism etc are all around us, indeed. So why do you contribute to this evil?! 

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Peter Klevius (the extremely normal) safely positioned in Altai/Siberia between out-of-Africa and out-of-America anthropologists


While almost every mainstream anthropologist continue to babble out-of-Africa, German Dziebel alone takes the brave step to the very opposite, i.e. out-of-America(s). Therefore, dear reader, it's quite logical that "extremely normal" and cautious Klevius cowardly settles in the middle.


Do note that the time scale above is from 2002






However, here's German Dziebel's view on human evolution


Fully Integrated and Multidisciplinary Model of Modern Human Origins: Out-of-America, with ultimate origins from an East Eurasian hominid, and into Africa with admixture with extinct African archaic hominins.

This model that I consider to best reflect core interdisciplinary evidence for modern human origins (ethnology, linguistics, population genetics, paleobiology, archaeology) postulates that behaviorally and anatomically modern humans originated from a population of East Eurasian humans such as Neanderthals (whose geographic reach stretched all the way to the Altai Mountains in southern Siberia and, possibly, beyond the Arctic Circle in the northwestern Urals), Homo erectus or Denisovans (the newly-discovered hominid species attested through a tooth and a pinkie from the Denisova Cave, South Siberia).

Between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, a subset of this original hominid population migrated to the New World (via the Bering Strait Land Bridge), where speciation into modern humans occurred. While, under out-of-America II, the unique social behaviors shared between modern humans and New World primates (pair bonding, paternal investment, cooperative breeding and speech) are interpreted as homoplasies, the fact that such key aspects of human social and cognitive behavior are shared with Platyrrhines suggests that the immediate ancestors of modern humans were exposed to the same New World environment as the New World monkeys.

This migration into a new continent via a relatively narrow land bridge resulted in a population bottleneck still visible in the human genome (as compared to other primate genomes) and in the Amerindian genome.

With the next retreat of the ice shield, our ancestors migrated back to the Old World and replaced, possibly with some admixture, all Old World hominids in Eurasia and Africa. As a result of this re-expansion in the Old World, all human populations, with the exception of American Indians (and arguably such isolates as Papua New Guineans, the peoples of the Caucasus and the Hadza of Tanzania), somewhat rebounded from the original bottleneck due to population size growth, waves of intraspecific admixture and, possibly, admixture with archaic hominids in Eurasia and Africa.

This replacement of Old World hominids by the modern humans coming out of America corresponds to the emergence of signs of modern human behavior all over the globe around 40,000 years ago.

One clear advantage of Out-of-America II over Out-of-Africa is that prolonged geographic isolation is an absolute prerequisite for a speciation event to occur. Africa had been well settled by ancient hominids to allow for the easy and matter-of-fact speciation into modern humans in Africa that’s assumed by the mainstream science of human origins. The emergence of a new hominid species with a radically different, worldwide adaptation based on an advanced system of symbolic thinking and social cooperation followed by the dramatic replacement of pre-existing hominids all over the world is best explained as having its origin in a unique original environment – on a continent previously unexplored by hominids.

Another advantage of Out-of-America II over Out-of-Africa is that it’s consistent with ancient DNA results: while we don’t have a single ancient DNA sample to ascertain whether modern African populations are directly related to ancient “anatomically modern humans” (e.g., Omo, Herto, etc.) and hominids in Africa, we do have ancient DNA data (X chromosome, autosomes, blood groups) that document matches between Neanderthal and Denisovan genetic variation, on the one hand, and modern humans in the New World (and in Melanesia). While these matches are currently interpreted as a sign of admixture between Africa-derived modern humans and in-situ hominids, they are the only signs of continuity between archaic and modern humans known to science at this moment.

After speciation in the New World had occurred, early Homo sapiens sapiens colonized first Eurasia and then Africa replacing and admixing with local hominids. Admixture with archaic hominins in Africa was more substantial than in Eurasia, which is reflected in the firmly established excess in intragroup genetic diversity in Africa.

This model uses Y-DNA evidence, namely the phylogenetic position of the major African E clade as a subset of the non-African DECF clade, as evidence for the extra-African origin of modern humans.

Back in 1998, the Michael Hammer lab published a paper entitled “Out of Africa and Back Again: Nested Cladistic Analysis of Human Y Chromosome Variation,” in which a major back-migration into Africa accounting for the majority of African Y chromosomes was proposed. Haplogroups A and B found exclusively in Africa are explained as either the product of admixture between African hominids and the incoming modern humans or as retentions from the earliest, purely African phase in the modern human evolution. Archaeologically, the presence of sites such as Dabban, with clear Upper Paleolithic roots, in North Africa around 40,000 YBP supports the back-migration idea.

From the paleobiological perspective, the Hofmeyr skull in South Africa dated at 36,000 YBP clusters with Upper Paleolithic Eurasians, which, again, suggests that Africa was peopled from Eurasia, not the other way around.

Another argument in favor of an extra-African origin of modern humans is the fact that skulls with archaic features survived in various part of Africa (e.g., the Iwo Eleru skull dated at 11-16,000 YBP or the Lukenya Hill calvaria in Kenya at 23-22,000 YBP). If there was indeed continuity between “anatomically modern humans” in Africa that begin to show up in the paleontological record from 200,000 BP on and today’s anatomically and behaviorally modern humans, we would not expect archaic hominins to survive in Africa for almost 180,000 years.

Outside of Africa, modern humans needed only a short window to replace all of the Neanderthals. It’s also noteworthy that African megafauna was largely spared in Africa: only 14% (or 7 out of 49 genera) of African megafauna went extinct in the Late Pleistocene. Outside of Africa, megafauna extinctions were much more dramatic, with 86% of megafauna going extinct in Australia, 80% in South America, 73% in North America, 60% in Europe.

Under the anthropogenic theory of megafauna extinctions, modern human hunting and ecological disruption are the causes of the extinctions. If Africa was the least affected continent, it’s possible that it was peopled by modern humans later than other continents and/or by smaller numbers of modern humans. But genetics predicts otherwise – Africa must be the oldest and most populous continent, hence modern Africans are more diverse than populations outside of Africa.

If anatomically and behaviorally modern humans originated at a place in Sub-Saharan Africa and expanded first across all of Africa (as the distribution of “basal” mtDNA and Y-DNA lineages in current phylogenies seems to suggest), then it’s unclear why the megafauna was not affected by their new and improved hunting practices. But the anthropogenic theory of megafauna extinctions is just one theory out of many and climate change may have been a bigger factor.



and here's

German Dziebel's evaluation of some other bloggers on the topic:


There are several weblogs out there that consistently cover topics related to human origins, human dispersals and human prehistory. They fall into different genres, profess different policies and have different, albeit overlapping audiences. Over the past few years, I have engaged with all of them as an observer, guest blogger and/or commenter. My unorthodox views spurred bitter controversy on a number of occasions and exposed the lack of culture of scientific objectivity and civil open-mindedness on most weblogs. Below are my quick reviews of these weblogs borne out of two years of ethnographic participant observation on them. Despite my critique, all of the following weblogs are worth following.

John Hawks Weblog: Paleoanthropology, Genetics and Evolution. An academic weblog by an associate professor at University of Wisconsin – Madison. A good solid read on population genetics and paleobiology. Some fresh news related to complete genome sequencing from his own lab. Webcasts of Hawks’s lectures are also very informative. Little to nothing on language, culture or critical thinking. Lacks a big picture vision. Perhaps Hawks is more of a human or even primate biologist that has some experience with human diversity, mainly through working with blood samples, body parts (e.g., ears) and bones. He considers himself “paleoanthropologist,” but it’s a questionable label. The only evolutionary angle on anthropology that makes sense is the study of the origin of modern human biological, social, cultural, linguistic complexity. But Hawks apparently carves out the study of human remains (hence “paleo-“) as a branch of anthropology, which it is not. Hawks started as a maverick: a student of Milford Wolpoff’s, he maintained loyalty to Multiregionalism through the “Complete Replacement Out of Africa” era and since the discovery of “archaic admixture” in modern humans feels himself vindicated. Consistent with this identity transformation, Hawks’s weblog used to sport his image made in Neandertal liking (Hawks always believed that Neandertals did not go extinct, hence Hawks as a Neandertal was more than a metaphor) but now features John in an Indiana Jones hat. His self-imposed celebrity status is reinforced through a gallery of John Hawkses in various intellectually credible environments. The blog is also a travelogue of Hawks’ trips to some holy archaeological sites such as the Denisova Cave and a twitterlog of his engagement with social media. While antiquated and one-sided in his interpretation of anthropology, John Hawks is an early adopter of Internet technologies, open-source mentality and 140-word style of communication with the world. You can’t leave a comment on his weblog, but you can write him an e-mail. I sent him one, he never replied.

Dienekes Pontikos’s Anthropology Blog. This blog is the best place to gather news and links to mainstream academic human origins research. An anonymous Greek author based in Kavala, Greece, the home to the Pontian Club, has evolved from a curious reader of academic articles to an independent and opinionated genome blogger dabbling in software analysis of autosomal genetic sequences. His other blog, Dodecad, is dedicated to more in-depth ADMIXTURE, ChromoPainter and other runs, with a focus on narrower regional comparisons. Dienekes’s thinking is in a state of flux: modern humans originated in Arabia or India and migrated back to Africa and also that there was a population structure in Africa and strong admixture with archaic hominids in Africa. These ideas make the blog an interesting read, as it does not simply recycle academic consensus. He has some secret agendas related to gender and racial inequalities (this subsided somewhat in the past couple of years, as Dienekes became busy with applying computer software to human samples) and believes in the “purity” of quantitative science. He is an armchair science hobbyist (“anthropology” in the title of his weblog is a product of his imagination) and a naive statistician who maintains an idealized notion of what science is, and has no theoretical understanding of how make inferences about prehistory, thus creating confusion around the notions of common descent, admixture and convergent evolution. Berating linguistics as a poor predictor of ancient population history is commonplace on Dienekes’s Anthropology Blog; for some reason, Dienekes assumes that good science leaves no room for ambiguities and enigmas. He censors critical comments that he does not know how to respond to and likes to unleash scathing critique of opinions of his least savvy readers.

Gene Expression. An anti-liberal, anti-creationist and anti-socialscience blogger, Razib Khan, blogs about everything from European history to Google Trends. Religion, politics, medical and population genetics, race are Razib’s favorite topics. His “pinboard feed” is a good news source. He is a quick and well-read thinker who provides an interesting mix of journalism and data analysis but lacks focus on what the blog is all about and why is it that he blogs. It’s unclear why Discover chose to host Gene Expression. Verbose, superficial and self-infatuated on the main pages, Razib tends to be condescending and rude in the comments section. He retaliates aggressively against those who poke at his ego as an expert on skin color or as a noble defender of science against infidels such as Native American tribes who wouldn’t surrender their blood samples. But apparently Razib’s boss at Discover loves him. Razib’s audience is mostly composed of curious bystanders to science whom he educates about Darwinism, race and population genetics and for whom he summarizes books and pay-per-view articles. Razib thinks the world of science buffs owes his because he briefs them on science for free, and therefore he’s entitled to bludgeon them verbally at will. Openly political in his judgments, he sports “degrees in biochemistry and biology” (he used to bill himself as having a “background” in these fields but apparently at some point he started feeling threatened by something and decided to beef up his credentials), admits ignorance of linguistics and is allergic to the majority of anthropologists. He enjoys mentorship and support from such marginal academic anthropologists as Henry Harpending and John Hawks as well as from a cantankerous maverick Greg Cochran. The latter usually uses Razib’s comments section to make a caustic remark about something or someone he hates. There are a few serious biologists and geneticists who every now and then leave intelligent and spirited comments on Razib’s blog, but it’s impossible to say who those people are.

For What They Were…We Are: Prehistory, Anthropology and Genetics. This weblog stands out as an epitome of Internet’s democratic and grassroots mission. It’s authored by a Basque anarchist, Luis Aldamiz, who goes by coy alias Maju. He vents his frustrations against the modern world at his other weblog and uses human origins research as a way to find a peaceful home for his troubled personality. He dabbles in everything from linguistics to the origin of life. Apart from the unfortunate color scheme, a meandering title and an odd claim to “anthropology” in the subtitle, this weblog is 95% repetitive of Dienekes’s Anthropology Blog and Gene Expression when it comes to population genetics. At the same time, he spends more time than other weblogs on archaeological news and news related to the prehistory of the Basques. His approach to science writing falls into two categories: it’s either a loud protest against “bad” theories (an example would be a well-supported theory of replacement of foragers by agriculturalists in Europe) or a loud advocacy for “good” theories (such as the Complete Replacement Out-of-Africa, which, to his surprise, got recently falsified), with no real theories of his own to be intrigued by or shades of color in the presentations of the theories of others to enjoy. On the other hand, his comments section is a must-read, as it’s a perfect dungeon of cage fighting where Maju wields his eye-gouging and hair-pulling verbal tactics in grueling, no-holds-barred 12-rounders on the topic of mtDNA sublineages against an angelic reader from New Zealand, Terry Toohill. After having tested Terry’s stamina for verbal abuse for a couple of years, Maju’s anarchist self revolted against Terry’s steadfast mind-controlling purposefulness. As a result, Terry got banned from the blog, to the chagrin of many spectators like myself. Maju also travels all around the Web engaging on various forums: often with the teeth-clenching power of a cartoonish Neanderthal he rips other people’s arguments into pieces to gnaw on each bit in search of flawed logic or bad data support; however, to some academic bloggers such as archaeologist Julien Riel-Salvatore at Very Remote Period Indeed, he suddenly shows the other side of his personality, the one that is courteous, partial and self-effacing. A work-in-progress is Maju’s Human Prehistory and Genetics Wiki, a “private” wiki composed by Maju and a couple of his regular commenters (such as Terry Toohill). It currently looks like pullouts from Wikipedia on the distribution of mtDNA and Y-DNA lineages. For a while, Luis Aldamiz was trolling various science forums and his own website assuming the posture of a “science defender,” obsessively informing readers about the pernicious aspects of my out-of-America hypothesis and defaming my name (e.g., here, here, here, here and here). I took it to his own comments section and he stopped his anti-Dziebel campaign. A couple of years later he suddenly posted on his website a list of trolls, with my name among them. But I don’t comment on his site and have never had any interest in doing it, so it was a sheer lie. Most recently, Aldamiz stopped blogging altogether because he got overwhelmed by unknown trolls. One can only cheer when a troll gets consumed by other trolls.

Sounding Depths, Music 000001. These 1+1=2 weblogs by ethnomusicologist Victor Grauer are the two most underrated web-based contributions to modern human origins research. One of the reasons why they are underrated is because they are online books, rather than weblogs. They are updated irregularly and represent Grauer’s thoughts and knowledge accumulated over decades, rather than his on-the-fly reactions to incoming research studies or news items. The other reason is that Grauer’s expertise in an arcane field of music, which nobody engaged in the search for the origins of modern humans understands. The comments traffic on Grauer’s weblogs has been low, and there’s no engagement with his ethnomusicology on any other weblogs or in academic publications dealing with human origins. The third reason is Grauer’s antiquated and naive vision of anthropology and historical reconstructions (his M.A. in Ethnomusicology is from 1961): he freely engages in tropical fantasies (for him, just like for early diffusionists, Pygmies are pristine remnants of earliest humans); his command of population genetics is superficial and confused (which Grauer willingly admits) but he uses it as as a “north star” guiding his analysis of global musical traditions; he’s strangely condescending to linguistics and other non-biological disciplines and implies that music somehow maps onto neutral genes directly, bypassing other biological, social and symbolic systems; as a naive evolutionist he uses everything from modern dwellings to modern human height to modern body paint as representing either passive retentions from primordial Mid-Pleistocene African adaptations or forced innovations caused by the founding migration out of Africa and the Toba eruption. He readily sees continuities between Pygmy and Bushmen vocalizing, on the one hand, and the sounds of bonobos and baboons, on the other, but when it comes to comparing Bushmen and Pygmy singing with the vocal traditions of non-African peoples, all he sees are discontinuities caused by population bottlenecks and, again, Toba eruptions. His ideas rise to an almost Biblical pitch when he portrays ancient Africans as non-violent multi-part singers living in the tropical forest and carrying undiversified human mtDNA lineages – an Edenic idyll superseded by violence and the breakdown of traditions among the out-of-Africa migrants. These weaknesses and oddities aside, there’s nobody out there beside Grauer who has the command of global musical traditions, has a systematic method of comparing them (he inherited cantometrics from his mentor Alan Lomax) and can show how they can be plausibly interpreted as reflections of ancient population movements. In this sense, Grauer’s contribution is invaluable and, unlike many other weblogs, Sounding Depths and Music 000001 actually add value to human origins research. But sometimes I wish they sounded more like a contemporary scientific study than a Wagnerian opera.

Whales are important - but what about humans?


Scandinavia's biggest newspaper main headline today (about traditional whale slaughter on Faroe Islands):

A shame over all humanity



.
However, Klevius, who btw is too weak-minded for even fishing, thinks there are also other shamful human activities - for example islam, which makes it possible to teach this:

Koran verse (8:12): I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Koran verse (47:4): So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them.


Friday, July 24, 2015

There was no Muhammad nor any Koran in the robbing/booty taking/raping/murdering/enslaving movement people now call islam.


There is no part* of a Muhammad time Koran in Birmingham - only some random Judeo-Christian texts copied god knows when! But there is an eager effort to cheat ignorant Brits!

* You don't call Old Testament texts cited in the New Testament New Testament, do you. And whereas the New Testament is an independent text, the Koran is just a patchwork of previous texts found useful for the Saracens. This is why much in the Koran is hard to distinguish from same type of original Christian texts.

The most dangerous, widespread and supremacist racism the world has ever seen is called islam. It's main ideology was parasitism, its main tool was sword intimidation, and its main currency was slaves.

Brits, you used to be down to earth people culturally and genetically strongly connected to Fennoscandia (Goths, Kvens, Vikings, Normans etc). You talk a Scandinavian language although you spell and pronounce it in a funny way. As a person with Swedish as one of his native languages Klevius use to point out common old Nordic words still in use in Fennoscandia, such as (just a tiny tip of the iceberg): hand, finger, arm, fot, knä, bröst, navel, huvud, skalle, hår, öra, näsa, nacke, socka, sko, hatt, hus, land, yxa, såg, hammare, kniv, etc etc etc. Then there are myriads of words which are rooted in old Nordic but have slightly changed usage, such as, for example: Swe. 'ben' (bone or leg), Swe. bord (table). The rest is mostly latin or Greek based loanwords similar to those used in Swedish. Moreover, culturally Fennoscandia shares "British values" in the form of Human Rights equality. Islam does not! So how come that you Brits got so entangled in a non-British culture most of your immigrants have escaped?!  

Klevius islam/Koran/Muhammad tutorial


What so many (Human Rights violating sharia) muslims and normal people (i.e. believing in Universal Human Rights equality) have not fully digested, is the inevitable fact that there was no such a person as Muhammad hanging around at his alleged time because he never shows up in any official records before Malik.

Moreover, it's proven beyond any doubt that the alleged Muhammad's death date is a historical impossibility by several years (no, for you stupid no references are given, unless, of course, you nicely ask for it via comments - Klevius second most important duty after hunting bias, is to fight dangerous ignorance).

Carbon-dating usually gives too early dates.  Moreover, there is no certain
connection between the time of the leather on which the text is written and the text itself. One may also consider the effects of later changes or additions to the original text.

However, nothing of this really matters in the case of the Birmingham "Koran" pages because they are just Jewish/Christian inspired texts what we already have lots of and which only connection to a later Koran is that the latter is based on these pre-islamic texts.


There was no Muhammad nor any Koran back then


Islam, seen as a Muhammad/Koran complex was a much later  invention (Malik).

Of course there were robbers or warlords/rebels if you like, and some of them may even had become the main "Godfather", but, as Wittgenstein said, whereof one can't talk one must keep silent. Official records certainly do.

The origin of islam was the historical precedents for local rebels defying the ruling elite which was later transformed by a new ruling elite to justify the submission of local rebels - plus, of course, justifying islamic sharia finance through enslavement and booty.

The earliest known fragments of the Koran are called Hijazi script, and under Abd al-Malik’s reign 685-785, Abu’l Aswad al-Du’ali, who died 688, founded the Arabic grammar and invented the system of placing large colored dots to indicate the tashkil. Meaning texts before this period can't be reliably translated. The dots on the Birmingham fragments are either later additions or proof that the text isn't even close to "Muhammad's time". Moreover, separated chapters was not a habit of the time but came much later.

The so called "close match" to the Koran of today is hence a deeply unfounded statement and should be called what it is, i.e. historical falsification. The laughable British Piltdown man springs to mind.

We can be reasonably sure that the Koran is a patched collection of Jewish/Christian texts authorized by Malik some half a century after the alleged Muhammad's death.

The key to the origin of islam is rooted in three words: parasitism, racism and sexism (rapetivism).

Islamic parasitism started with Arab bedouins robbing caravans, some of them becoming influential and parting with already powerful Jewish/Christian outliers.

This developed into a religiously "justified" Arab jihad where the "infidels" either didn't speak Arab or didn't share the basic tenets of this particular Jewish/Christian sect. These tenets were extremely simple, effective - and evil, seen from our Human Rights perspective today. Arab muslims segregated themselves from the "infidels" for the purpose of sponging on them in different ways including booty, women, taxes etc. that interested poor bedouin boys and wealthy Jewish/Christian outgroups whose sectarianism became what we know as islam.

Enslavement was the very core of islam. Islam means submission in two ways: Submission to the Arabic Allah and thereby building a racist wall against the "infidel" who then accordingly had to be submitted under slavery in three main forms, i.e. as humiliated taxpayers, as sex slaves or as ordinary slaves for work or to be sold.

An inscription attributed to the first Umayyad caliph -- Muawiya -- in 677 or 678 CE makes reference to belief in God but gives no indication of belief in Muhammad as his messenger or the Koran as "revealed scripture".

On coins from this period, we do find the word "Muhammad" inscribed, but the inscription comes under kingly figures bearing a cross.

The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock -- completed in 691 CE and often thought to be the first inscribed sign of islam refers to Tayyaye d-Mhmt who was a honorific Jewish/Christian title, rather than a proper name. Tayyaye’ is a Syriac name for the Arab nomads.

Mhmt can not be translated as ‘the Arabs of Muhhamad’ because the right transcription into Syriac would have been Mhmd. Moreover, the text does not say anything about this alleged person.

Contemporary non-Muslim sources of the 7th century do not corroborate the canonical story. For example, the Doctrina Jacobi (a document dating to 634-40 CE and probably written by a Christian living in Palestine), an account of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem by Sophronius -- the patriarch who is said to have surrendered the city in 637 -- and a letter written in 647 by the patriarch of Seleucia make no reference to the Arab conquerors as muslims, or show any awareness of a religion called Islam.

The earliest account that can reliably be taken to refer to Muhammad is a chronicle by the Armenian bishop Sebeos, dating either to the 660s or 670s but containing material that sharply diverges from the traditional Islamic accounts: thus he has Muhammad "insisting on the Jews' right to the Holy Land -- even if in the context of claiming that land for the Ishmaelites, acting in conjunction with the Jews" (p. 32).

Only by around 730 CE, nearly one hundred years after Muhammad's death in 632 CE according to the canonical story, do we see an account by John of Damascus make detailed reference to parts of the Qur'an, but even then he does not name the Qur'an or allude to the existence of a complete holy book for those he calls "Hagarians," "Ishmaelites" or "Saracens" (but not Muslims).

Instead, we have reference to Qur'anic chapter titles like "The Women" (this is the fourth Sura of the Qur'an today), implying that he was drawing on fragments of text that were later incorporated into the Qur'an.

Arabic epigraphic evidence from the 7th century similarly fails to validate the canonical account. An inscription attributed to the first Umayyad caliph -- Muawiya -- in 677 or 678 CE makes reference to belief in God but gives no indication of belief in Muhammad as his messenger or the Qur'an as revealed scripture.

It's alleged that the significance of Birmingham’s leaves was missed because they were bound together with another text, in a very similar hand but written almost 200 years later. Really, same hand two centuries later.


Robert Spencer: The only thing it actually establishes is that this portion of suras 18-20 existed near or during the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived. That it was part of the Qur’an at that time is taken for granted by Holland and the Times, but there is actually no evidence for it: there isn’t even any mention of the Qur’an’s existence in the contemporary literature until some fifty years after the outer-limit date of 645 for this fragment — a fact that is extremely uncomfortable for those who accept the canonical Islamic account that has the Qur’an complete by 632 and collected and circulating by 653. If it was known in this period, why does no one ever quote or even refer to it? - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/07/you-wont-believe-todays-the-new-york-times-front-page.html/#sthash.VgsGJOBC.dpuf

The name Muhammad actually appears in the Qur’an only four times, and in three of those instances it could be used as a title—the “praised one” or “chosen one”—rather than as a proper name. By contrast, Moses is mentioned by name 136 times, and Abraham, 79 times. Even Pharaoh is mentioned 74 times. Meanwhile, “messenger of Allah” (rasul Allah) appears in various forms 300 times, and “prophet” (nabi), 43 times. Are those all references to Muhammad, the seventh-century prophet of Arabia? Perhaps. Certainly they have been taken as such by readers of the Qur’an through the ages. But even if they are, they tell us little to nothing about the events and circumstances of his life.

Indeed, throughout the Qur’an there is essentially nothing about this messenger beyond insistent assertions of his status as an emissary of Allah and calls for the believers to obey him. Three of the four times that the name Muhammad is mentioned, nothing at all is disclosed about his life.

1
The first of the four mentions of Muhammad by name appears in the third chapter, or sura, of the Qur’an: “Muhammad is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (3:144). The Qur’an later says that “the Messiah, the son of Mary, is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (5:75). The identical language may indicate that in 3:144, Jesus is the figure being referred to as the “praised one”—that is, the muhammad.

2
In sura 33 we read that “Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men, but the Messenger of God, and the Seal of the Prophets; God has knowledge of everything” (33:40). This is almost certainly a specific reference to the prophet of Islam and not simply to a prophetic figure being accorded the epithet the “praised one.” It is also an extremely important verse for Islamic theology: Muslim scholars have interpreted Muhammad’s status as “Seal of the Prophets” to mean that Muhammad is the last of the prophets of Allah and that anyone who pretends to the status of prophet after Muhammad is of necessity a false prophet. This doctrine accounts for the deep antipathy, often expressed in violence, that traditional Islam harbors toward later prophetic movements that arose within an Islamic milieu, such as the Baha’is and Qadiani Ahmadis.

3
Less specific is Qur’an 47:2: “But those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in what is sent down to Muhammad—and it is the truth from their Lord—He will acquit them of their evil deeds, and dispose their minds aright.” In this verse, “Muhammad” is someone to whom Allah has given revelations, but this could apply to any of the Qur’an’s designated prophets as well as to Muhammad in particular.

4
Qur’an 48:29, meanwhile, probably refers only to the prophet of Islam: “Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to another.” Although the “praised one” here could conceivably refer to some other prophet, the language “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” (Muhammadun rasulu Allahi) within the Islamic confession of faith makes it more likely that 48:29 refers specifically to the prophet of Islam.

That is all as far as Qur’anic mentions of Muhammad by name go. In the many other references to the messenger of Allah, this messenger is not named, and little is said about his specific actions. As a result, we can glean nothing from these passages about Muhammad’s biography. Nor is it even certain, on the basis of the Qur’anic text alone, that these passages refer to Muhammad, or did so originally.

Abundant detail about Muhammad’s words and deeds is contained in the Hadith, the dizzyingly voluminous collections of Islamic traditions that form the foundation for Islamic law. The Hadith detail the occasions for the revelation of every passage in the Qur’an. But (as we will see in the next chapter) there is considerable reason to believe that the bulk of the hadiths about Muhammad‘s words and deeds date from a period considerably after Muhammad’s reported death in 632.

Then there is the Sira, the biography of the prophet of Islam. The earliest biography of Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq (d. 773), who wrote in the latter part of the eighth century, at least 125 years after the death of his protagonist, in a setting in which legendary material about Muhammad was proliferating. And Ibn Ishaq’s biography doesn’t even exist as such; it comes down to us only in the quite lengthy fragments reproduced by an even later chronicler, Ibn Hisham, who wrote in the first quarter of the ninth century, and by other historians who reproduced and thereby preserved additional sections. Other biographical material about Muhammad dates from even later.

This is chiefly the material that makes up the glare of the “full light of history” in which Ernest Renan said that Muhammad lived and worked. In fact, arguably none of the biographical details about Muhammad date to the century in which his prophetic career was said to unfold.

 The earliest records offer more questions than answers. One of the earliest apparent mentions of Muhammad comes from a document known as theDoctrina Jacobi, which was probably written by a Christian in Palestine between 634 and 640—that is, at the time of the earliest Arabian conquests and just after Muhammad’s reported death in 632. It is written in Greek from the perspective of a Jew who is coming to believe that the Messiah of the Christians is the true one and who hears about another prophet arisen in Arabia:

When the candidatus [that is, a member of the Byzantine imperial guard] was killed by the Saracens[Sarakenoi], I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying “the candidatus has been killed,” and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: “What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?” He replied, groaning deeply: “He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared.” So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men’s blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.

In this case, “incredible” means “not credible.” One thing that can be established from this is that the Arabian invaders who conquered Palestine in 635 (the “Saracens”) came bearing news of a new prophet, one who was “armed with a sword.” But in the Doctrina Jacobi this unnamed prophet is still alive, traveling with his armies, whereas Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632. What’s more, this Saracen prophet, rather than proclaiming that he was Allah’s last prophet (cf. Qur’an 33:40), was “proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come.” This was a reference to an expected Jewish Messiah, not to the Jesus Christ of Christianity (Christ means “anointed one” or “Messiah” in Greek).

It is noteworthy that the Qur’an depicts Jesus as proclaiming the advent of a figure whom Islamic tradition identifies as Muhammad: “Children of Israel, I am the indeed the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that is before me, and giving good tidings of a Messenger who shall come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad” (61:6). Ahmad is the “praised one,” whom Islamic scholars identify with Muhammad: The nameAhmad is a variant of Muhammad (as they share the trilateral root h-m-d). It may be that the Doctrina Jacobiand Qur’an 61:6 both preserve in different ways the memory of a prophetic figure who proclaimed the coming of the “praised one” or the “chosen one”—ahmad or muhammad.

The prophet described in the Doctrina Jacobi “says also that he has the keys of paradise,” which, we’re told, “is incredible.” But it is not only incredible; it is also completely absent from the Islamic tradition, which never depicts Muhammad as claiming to hold the keys of paradise. Jesus, however, awards them to Peter in the Gospel according to Matthew (16:19), which may indicate (along with Jesus’ being the one who proclaims the coming of ahmad in Qur’an 61:6) that the figure proclaiming this eschatological event had some connection to the Christian tradition, as well as to Judaism’s messianic expectation. Inasmuch as the “keys of paradise” are more akin to Peter’s “keys to the kingdom of heaven” than to anything in Muhammad’s message, the prophet in the Doctrina Jacobi seems closer to a Christian or Christian-influenced Messianic millennialist than to the prophet of Islam as he is depicted in Islam’s canonical literature.

Was That Muhammad?

In light of all this, can it be said that the Doctrina Jacobirefers to Muhammad at all? It is difficult to imagine that it could refer to anyone else, as prophets who wielded the sword of conquest in the Holy Land—and armies acting on the inspiration of such prophets—were not thick on the ground in the 630s. The document’s departures from Islamic tradition regarding the date of Muhammad’s death and the content of his teaching could be understood simply as the misunderstandings of a Byzantine writer observing these proceedings from a comfortable distance, and not as evidence that Muhammad and Islam were different then from what they are now.

At the same time, there is not a single account of any kind dating from around the time the Doctrina Jacobiwas written that affirms the canonical Islamic story of Muhammad and Islam’s origins. One other possibility is that the unnamed prophet of the Doctrina Jacobi was one of several such figures, some of whose historical attributes were later subsumed into the figure of the prophet of Islam under the name of one of them, Muhammad. For indeed, there is nothing dating from the time of Muhammad’s activities or for a considerable period thereafter that actually tells us anything about what he was like or what he did.

One apparent mention of his name can be found in a diverse collection of writings in Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic common in the region at the time) that are generally attributed to a Christian priest named Thomas and dated to the early 640s. But some evidence indicates that these writings were revised in the middle of the eighth century, and so this may not be an early reference to Muhammad at all.5 Nonetheless, Thomas refers to “a battle between the Romans and the tayyaye d-Mhmt” east of Gaza in 634.6 The tayyaye, or Taiyaye, were nomads; other early chroniclers use this word to refer to the conquerors. Thus one historian, Robert G. Hoyland, has translated tayyaye d-Mhmt as “the Arabs of Muhammad”; this translation and similar ones are relatively common. Syriac, however, distinguishes between t and d, so it is not certain (although it is possible) that by Mhmt, Thomas meant Mhmd—Muhammad. Even if “Arabs of Muhammad” is a perfectly reasonable translation of tayyaye d-Mhmt, we are still a long way from the prophet of Islam, the polygamous warrior prophet, recipient of the Qur’an, wielder of the sword against the infidels. Nothing in the writings or other records of either the Arabians or the people they conquered dating from the mid-seventh century mentions any element of his biography: At the height of the Arabian conquests, the non-Muslim sources are as silent as the Muslim ones are about the prophet and holy book that were supposed to have inspired those conquests.

Thomas may also have meant to use the word Mhmt not as a proper name but as a title, the “praised one” or the “chosen one,” with no certain referent. In any case, the Muhammad to which Thomas refers does not with any certainty share anything with the prophet of Islam except the name itself.




Sunni Shia


It is notable that the invocation of Muhammad's example begins with the same caliph who had the Dome of the Rock built and issued the first coins invoking Muhammad as the "prophet of Allah": Malik, whose successors would do likewise.

Since the invention of Muhammad became such an important part of islam, there arose a need for people to know what the "prophet" said and did in various matters of life. The Ahadith in particular then became political weapons, liable to be completely fabricated. Even in the first half of the 8th century, one islamic scholar wrote that the "emirs forced people to write hadiths".

For example, in the midst of the dispute between the followers of the caliph Muawiya, who Shi'a believe usurped the place of Ali's son and designated successor Husayn, and Ali's followers who would later become the Shi'a, a hadith arose in which Muhammad declared that Ali's father was burning in hellfire, while Ali's partisans invented a hadith in which Muhammad declared, "I go to war for the recognition of the Koran and Ali will fight for the interpretation of the Koran."