A true Muslim can never become a true democrat!
A Muslim can never participate in a democratic society and cast a free vote in a democratic election because, according to Klevius negative human rights analysis, democracy presumes free individuals as voters and the very impossibility of a Muslim casting her/his vote against Islam is hence a tautologi. A Muslim can only cast her/his vote for Islam – something else would be considered blasphemy or apostasy. So the only way for a true Muslim to vote is if her/his vote may be considered as a lie against democracy and a hidden or open boost for Islam, which accepts indecent behavior from Muslims as long as it supports Islam!
P. Klevius (limited copyright*): Human rights are axiomatic rights ascribed to defined human rights possessors. This conceptualization does not recognize sub-human rights such as e.g. children’s rights (implying state interventionism) or women’s rights (implying sex segregation) because that would alter the very foundation of the concept human rights possessor (also see Klevius definition of feminism). Human rights stay in opposition (or as a complement if you like) to democracy. In fact, negative human rights are to be seen as the last resort for the very individual that was created by democracy. The basic negative (and positive) right of democracy is the right to vote. Without that right no democracy. So what makes democracy possible is something (the individual created by his/her rights to vote) out of reach for democracy itself. You, not the democratic system, decide how to vote. But although democracy is just happy with this single concession that created the individual voting unit, you are not. You, the individual created by democracy, need more space of freedom. You are an invention that has to be protected, not only against your inventor, but also against every potential intruder with totalitarian aims. Negative human rights hence constitute what should not be accessible for democracy, but also what might be accessible for anti-democratic/totalitarian and fascist ideologies. The invention of “positive” human rights (so called "Stalin rights", sometimes even deliberately confused with obligations) is, in fact, pure abuse of negative human rights, i.e. a political (or perhaps political/"religious") intrusion into the realm of “negative” basic human rights. The state, seen as a democratic representation, or whatever system of ruling, hence should be excluded from dealing with negative human rights issues other than administratively (P. KLevius 1996).
* free for use as long as P. Klevius (or KLEVUX) is mentioned as the source!
Cure your ignorance on Islam:
Is 1400 years of Islamic genocides/slavery/rapetivism the worst crime ever against humanity?And what is the cowardice and hypocritical contemporary blinking/forgery of Islam's history?!Origin of Islam/Koran - and the consequtive crushing of Africa's development for some 1400 yearsHow Islamic slavery destroyed Aceh - and IndonesiaHow Islamic slavery created the Vikings
How all of Europe's Romas ("gypsies") originally were abducted by Islamic slave raiders/traders (see posting below)
Shinto (the world's oldest religion) meets Islam
Definition of true religion
The only true formula for life: Enhanced negative human rights and protection against their violators (it's called freedom by the way!)
Klevius blogs/sites the only ones so far addressing the true root of the problem, namely sex segregation!
P. Klevius (limited copyright*): Human rights are axiomatic rights ascribed to defined human rights possessors. This conceptualization does not recognize sub-human rights such as e.g. children’s rights (implying state interventionism) or women’s rights (implying sex segregation) because that would alter the very foundation of the concept human rights possessor (also see Klevius definition of feminism). Human rights stay in opposition (or as a complement if you like) to democracy. In fact, negative human rights are to be seen as the last resort for the very individual that was created by democracy. The basic negative (and positive) right of democracy is the right to vote. Without that right no democracy. So what makes democracy possible is something (the individual created by his/her rights to vote) out of reach for democracy itself. You, not the democratic system, decide how to vote. But although democracy is just happy with this single concession that created the individual voting unit, you are not. You, the individual created by democracy, need more space of freedom. You are an invention that has to be protected, not only against your inventor, but also against every potential intruder with totalitarian aims. Negative human rights hence constitute what should not be accessible for democracy, but also what might be accessible for anti-democratic/totalitarian and fascist ideologies. The invention of “positive” human rights (so called "Stalin rights", sometimes even deliberately confused with obligations) is, in fact, pure abuse of negative human rights, i.e. a political (or perhaps political/"religious") intrusion into the realm of “negative” basic human rights. The state, seen as a democratic representation, or whatever system of ruling, hence should be excluded from dealing with negative human rights issues other than administratively (P. KLevius 1996).
* free for use as long as P. Klevius (or KLEVUX) is mentioned as the source!
Cure your ignorance on Islam:
Is 1400 years of Islamic genocides/slavery/rapetivism the worst crime ever against humanity?And what is the cowardice and hypocritical contemporary blinking/forgery of Islam's history?!Origin of Islam/Koran - and the consequtive crushing of Africa's development for some 1400 yearsHow Islamic slavery destroyed Aceh - and IndonesiaHow Islamic slavery created the Vikings
How all of Europe's Romas ("gypsies") originally were abducted by Islamic slave raiders/traders (see posting below)
Shinto (the world's oldest religion) meets Islam
Definition of true religion
The only true formula for life: Enhanced negative human rights and protection against their violators (it's called freedom by the way!)
Klevius blogs/sites the only ones so far addressing the true root of the problem, namely sex segregation!
Comments