Obama's rape of Afgan girls/women

There's no "moderate" Sharia!

The worst ever US "president", muslim born (apostate?!) Barry Barakeh Hussein Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) and his fashion and health occupied wife have both totally neglected girls/women's Human Rights in Afganistan. And quite understandable because giving girls/women full Human Rights would be a crime against islamic Sharia, i.e. a "crime" against islamofascism!

Rajiv Chandrasekaran: In Afghanistan, U.S. shifts strategy on women's rights as it eyes wider priorities. The Washington Post | March 6, 2011:

On March 6th, the Washington Post reported on a shift in the U.S. Agency for International Development's strategy towards gender issues in Afghanistan. The article features Ritu Sharma's argument that the new approach threatens to leave Afghan women behind.

When the U.S. Agency for International Development sought bids last March for a $140 million land reform program in Afghanistan, it insisted that the winning contractor meet specific goals to promote women's rights: The number of deeds granting women title had to increase by 50 percent; there would have to be regular media coverage on women's land rights; and teaching materials for secondary schools and universities would have to include material on women's rights.

Before the contract was awarded, USAID overhauled the initiative, stripping out those concrete targets. Now, the contractor only has to perform "a written evaluation of Afghan inheritance laws," assemble "summaries of input from women's groups" and draft amendments to the country's civil code.

The removal of specific women's rights requirements, which also took place in a $600 million municipal government program awarded last year, reflects a shift in USAID's approach in Afghanistan. Instead of setting ambitious goals to improve the status of Afghan women, the agency is tilting toward more attainable measures.

"If you're targeting an issue, you need to target it in a way you can achieve those objectives," said J. Alexander Their, director of USAID's Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs. "The women's issue is one where we need hardheaded realism. There are things we can do, and do well. But if we become unrealistic and overfocused . . . we get ourselves in trouble."

A senior U.S. official involved in Afghanistan policy said changes to the land program also stem from a desire at the top levels of the Obama administration to triage the war and focus on the overriding goal of ending the conflict.

"Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities," said the senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal policy deliberations. "There's no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down."

Klevius May 18, 2013

There is no "moderate" or "fundamentalist" Sharia - only Human Rights violating Sharia. And the sooner the world is informed about this inevitable fact, the sooner muslim girls/women can be freed from islam.


Taliban friendly lawmakers in Afghanistan have now (May 2013) blocked legislation aimed to protect (some of) women's freedoms.

The legislation maintains Human Rights violating Sharia and lists the following objectives:

    1. Maintaining Sharia and legal rights and protecting the human dignity of women. 

    2. Protecting families and fighting against customs, traditions and practices causing

    violence against women and which are against Sharia.

    3. Protecting and supporting women who are victims of, or at risk of violence not allowed by Sharia.

    4. Prevention of violence against women that is not sanctioned by Sharia.

    5. Maintain public awareness and training on violence against women that is not sanctioned by Sharia.

    6. Prosecuting perpetrators of violence against women that is not sanctioned by Sharia.

However, Muslim legislators have objected to at least eight articles in the legislation, including maintaining the legal age for girls to marry at 16, providing shelters for domestic abuse victims, and limiting men to two wives.

The reason for this is that the original wording was made as a vague and treacherous compromise to satisfy Western demands while still keeping with much Sharia approaches.

Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's Saudi steered islamofascist leader backs the Taliban

Pakistan is the Saudis' main road to islamize Afganistan in their favor.

However, according to a recent PEW study some 99% of the Afgans already want Sharia! 99%! That must include a lot of women. Makes me again think about girls'/women's positive approach/support to the muslim terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who murdered people in Boston because he was afraid that women would get their freedom in Afganistan and Iraq by the help of the West. But he was too worried. Obama had already decided to sacrifice muslim girls/women.

Do "princesses" of the hate mongering islamofascist Saudi dictator family already have got the right to fart?

Probably not because we haven't heard BBC reporting on it as they usually eagerly do on whatever tiny "progress" from this black hole of medieval moral darkness. 

Adam Coogle (Human Rights Watch): "There are no laws that protect women specifically. If, for example, a woman claims rape, and a man says it was consensual, she can face a counter charge of adultery,"

Klevius: The Saudi law is Sharia and essentially based on the same principles as all the world's muslims Saudi based organization OIC and its Cairo declaration on "islamic human rights" (Sharia)! And some of the most fundamental principles in islamic Sharia are totally at odds with Human Rights. That's why OIC created a completely separate legal system for muslims in the UN and the world! A system that is both racist and sexist compared to Human Rights.

European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee in association with the Delegation for relations with the Arab Peninsula held an exchange of views in Brussels Monday with Mohammad Al-Issa, Saudi Minister of Justice, on the reforms of the judicial system in Saudi Arabia: "In its general principles, our judicial philosophy is not in contradiction with that which is in force in other countries, whether we are talking about civil, commercial or criminal proceedings. In Saudi Arabia, what is of the greatest importance to us is not to contradict the constitutional text, which is inspired from Islamic canonical law, the Sharia". And the judge has full discretion to interpret. He may draw his judgement from jurisprudence or he may draw it from his own interpretation.

Saudi "king" Abdullah: “We refuse to marginalize women in society in all roles that comply with Sharia”.



Klevius: Well, dah!

Saudi women are barred from driving and were required by law to seek the approval of a male “guardian” to work, travel abroad and to undergo surgery.

Aiyah Saihati: All these baby steps are not enough. There is a need for removing any constraints that make [women] unequal to men in terms of self-determination, be it the need for guardian permits for education, travel, hospitalization, as well as being treated with full citizenship, as men, in rights to housing or citizenship for her children.

Klevius: Impossible within any form of Sharia!

Adam Coogle (Human Rights Watch): There is no penal code that protects women and girls from domestic violence, marital rape is not considered a crime in Saudi Arabia, and there is no legal protection that any women can cling to in the face of abuse.

Rawda Al Youssef: My guardian knows what’s best for me!


Klevius:  This is the most disgusting form of cultural "femininity", i.e. sex segregation!

Sex segregation - the biggest obstacle for female emancipation and full Human Rights

Why do girls/women know nothing about men and islam?

Klevius answer: Because of sex segregation!

Some more questions:

Is Akein Scott, who tried to massmurder people at a Mother's Day parade in New Orleans, cute enough to be freed by girls/women?

And talking about mothers, take a look at Klevius' Psychosocial Freud timeline! Did you know, for example, that the world's first child psychoanalyst was robbed and murdered by her child patient? Probably not because she signed a paper not to let it (her previous shortcomings) be mentioned. If you're curious, read Klevius' thesis Pathological Symbiosis or ask in the comments below.

Should women be allowed to sit in a jury if the murderer is cute?

Why did the authorities in New Orleans at least twice free Akein Scott from criminal charges?

The shameful contamination of British universities with religious fanatism

Guardian:  The University of Leicester has launched an investigation into gender segregation (sic) at a public lecture held by its student Islamic society.

    The talk, entitled Does God Exist?, featured a guest speaker Hamza Tzortzis as part of an Islamic Awareness week. Seating at the event was segregated, with different entrances into the lecture theatre for men and women. . .

    In Leicester, more than 100 students attended the segregated event, which took place last month. A photograph passed to the Guardian shows signs put up in a university building, directing the segregation.

    A message on the group’s website says: “In all our events, [the society] operate a strict policy of segregated seating between males and females.” The statement was removed after the Guardian contacted the society.


Klevius comment: Again this confused and irrational oxymoron 'gender segregation'. The sign on the wall of Leicester University clearly states 'males' and 'females'. It means biological sex, not cultural gender!



Rupert Sutton, from the campus watchdog Student Rights: There is a consistent use of segregation by student of islamic societies across the country. While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on female students to conform and obey these rules that encourage subjugation should not be underestimated.

Klevius: Although islam is by far the worst culprit when it comes to sex apartheid, there is also a consistent low level general use of sex segregation "light" across the world. While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on females (not the least by other females) to conform and obey to sex segregation that encourages subjugation should not be underestimated.

Muslim terrorist in Boston is accepted as a true muslim - and sex segregated girls applaud his murderous brother

The follies and the Leviathan

Boston jihad terrorist and murderer Tamerlan Tsarnaev is buried on a muslim only cemetery

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was buried in a muslim cemetery in Doswell, some 15 miles from Richmond. Which fact seems to prove he was a muslim. And just like Osama bin Laden he probably got a muslim funeral ceremony as well.

Btw, while muslims (who never cremate) fill up cemetery land in the West, Westerners burn themselves to ashes spread by the wind.

Boston jihad terrorist and murderer Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is, according to dumb sex segregated teenage girls, "too hot to be guilty"

Klevius question: What has actually changed since Mary Wollstonecraft more than two hundred years ago wrote about how girls sex segregated upbringing turns them into tragicomic "follies".


Btw, is it just because he looks so stupid that this rapetivist rapper needs Molly?!

Are some, most or all muslims racists and Humanrightsophobes?

When you pour money into evilness, don't be surprised if you get more evilness back!

When anthropologists such as, for example, Dienekes, try to adapt to the inevitable Out of Asia paradigm by placing the origin of modern humans in the Arabian peninsula instead of in Siberia where it belongs, it's just one more example of the magnetic attraction of islamofascists' oil money. Unless, of course, it's just pure incompetency or wishful thinking from Dienekes side. Greece is closer to Mideast than Siberia.

However, islam is the by far biggest evil* that has ever contaminated mankind. It started when ordinary Jews and Christian Jews in their internal conflicts let loose the most uncivilized racist/sexist forces imaginable in their strive for hegemony. When these blood and sex thirsty illiterate Arab looters under the leadership of monophysitist Christian Jews, had decapitated and raped all resistance (which was mostly almost non-existing) and had grown via enslavement, rapetivism and submission under the sword, this thug "empire" that emerged became later institutionalized and codified to what we now call islam. And from then on the successful root formula of islam was: Slavery finance+"infidel" racism+sex segregated rapetivism for the physical and cultural reproduction of new muslims+Sharia blasphemy("islamophobia")/apostasy ban.

Always keep in mind that islam, Mohammed and the Koran as they are presented today came LONG AFTER the initial "conquest". Hugh Kennedy (considered a foremost expert on the muslim atrocities in the vacuum left by previously retreating Byzantine forces): ”Before Abdul Malik, Mohammed is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever, nor any form of religious pronouncement”.

Our (the civilized world that rests on technology) own oil money has been used by creepy and evil Arab dictator family members for the spreading of not only hateful racism and sexism but also a deep misinformation via bribed media, bribed politicians, bribed universities etc. to an extent that many adults and almost all school children believe in the presented lies about Mohammed, the Koran and islam. And charlatan Wikipedia happily presents myths about islam as established facts.

* Measured by the values set out in the basic (negative) Human Rights of the 1948 Declaration which was supposed to protect us from such fascist and totalitarian ideologies. And please, don't come with that crap that it's a Medieval ideology that ought be "reinterpreted" in our time. OIC, the Saudi based world organization for all muslims has clearly stated via UN that it will violate the most basic Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia. In other words, islam (and its muslims) continues its tradition of being racist and sexist.

Disgusting muslim racism and acessory at Heathrow

play video


ICLA has written about how Muslims who want to frighten Christians in places like Pakistan merely have Sharia UK 250pxto accuse them of blasphemy in order to turn their lives upside down.  Increasingly it seems that this kind of mentality is beginning to thrive in places like the United Kingdom.

A recent report by CBN tells the story of a Christian worker at Heathrow airport who appears to have been sacked because she stood up for her Christian religious beliefs in response to harassment by Islamists.  As in OIC countries like Pakistan, it seems that the views and opinions of Islamists trump those of other religions in the UK.  It always seems to be the non-Muslims who have to give ground, bite their lips, and put themselves second.  The CBN report can be found below (and HERE):

For some time now, the UK has been experiencing an atmosphere of fear when it comes to discussing Islam.  The hysteria has been stoked up by oil rich Islamic nations keen to expand the influence and power of Islam in the West.  Servile Western politicians seem happy to aid and abet such nations in their goal to increase the power and influence of Islam.

Only a few years ago UK citizens could go through life without being adversely affected by religious dogma.  Now that dogma is everywhere and everyone is aware of it.  In the home of freedom of speech people are now aware that speaking their minds can ruin their lives.

The UK’s old rarely used blasphemy laws may have been repealed but new more extreme heresy laws have taken their place.  The Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 has had a chilling effect on freedom of expression and on freedom in general.  It must be remembered that the right to freedom of expression has been a far more potent protect of freedom of religion that any Act of Parliament could ever hope to achieve.   The point of getting rid of the old blasphemy laws was that they restricted freedom of expression and they could be used as tools of religious persecution.  A situation has been created in the UK where even whispering the word Islam is not attempted lest someone becomes offended!

There is a great deal of handwringing about how ‘Islamophobia’ is on the rise in Western countries.  Nothing is said about how people are oppressed by Islamic regimes for not being Muslim.  Little is said about non-Muslims who feel that they are being treated like second class citizens in the West, other than that such people are somehow racist.  It seems that the term ‘Islamophobia’ was invented as a way to prevent non-Muslims from being listened to when they experience abuse at the hands of Islamists.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is doing its best to institute a global blasphemy law and to make criticism of Islam illegal.  It is a key advocate for UNHRC resolution 16/18 which purports to protect religious freedom.  However, there is a tendency in OIC countries for religious freedom to mean that Islam is promoted and other religions are harassed. It seems quite clear that Christians for one are not those who are being protected by UNHRC 16/18.

If an airport worker can lose her job because she is not Muslim or she does not show Islam the respect that its proponents believe that it deserves then she is not being judged by the rule of law – she is being judged by sharia law.

The case of the airport worker suggests that sharia law is now thriving in the UK.  Non-Muslims are being persecuted, demonized, and discriminated against just like they are in many member states of the OIC.  Like in Muslim majority countries non-Muslims in the UK are being picked on and their lack of Islamic faith is being used against them.   This situation has been facilitated by successive British governments whose obsession with political correctness has meant that rights and freedoms built up over the centuries have now been lost.  As a result Islamism is now out of control in the UK and there is hardly anyone who is prepared to raise even a whisper in opposition!

The mosque mice and Sharia islam

Klevius comment: This case is just one that happens to be (slightly) noticed of possibly millions of similar examples of muslim racism. However, the most interesting point is whether all muslims can be accused of being racists or accomplices to racism? And that question is completely dependent on whom we conceptualize as a muslim. And who better to define a muslim than muslims themselves represented by their own and most powerful world organization, the Saudi based OIC according to which a muslim is someone who obeys Sharia.

And Sharia, in all forms, is not only compulsory for true muslims, but it's also  is racist and sexist, because it violates Human Rights on precisely these points. In fact, it was these points that forced islamic countries to abandon Human Rights in the first place. Without Sharia no real islam and no real muslims.

So the widespread but unfounded view that muslim individuals can define themselves as muslims without adhering to Sharia is definitely obsolete.

Against this background all muslims are racists.