Aggressive islam

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of the Vikings.

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

Myth vs Truth

Mazda Luce 1800 (1968, same body as 1500, 1966 - already presented in 1964 at the Tokyo Motor Show it was in serial production 1965) was one of the fastest in its class in the 1960's (104 hp/1050 kg and an extremely long stroke but smoothly reving OHC engine with roller lifters etc) and one of the few cars faster than its speedometer. It also had the best manual gearbox. However, due to stupid Japanese consumer surveys some export models were slowed down with automatic and the interior destroyed with a front bench! Same car was also available with Mazda's own super fast, and functioning Rotary (not the non-functioning German Wankel) engine.
How come that Subaru in 1972 introduced 4WD almost a decade before the first European (the poor quality Audi Quatro in 1980)? And how come that Honda does the most advanced eco car (Clarity FCX) and the most advanced robot (Asimo - the one islamists drool over below) whereas BMW does nothing by itself?
How come that Japanese Nissan GTR ($84,000) easily outperforms Bugatti Veyron ($1,700,000) on Germany's foremost race track Nurburgring?! And that the world's best luxury sports car, Lexus LFA, is the fastest ever real car on the ring, beating the best Porsche by some 4 seconds!

Whereas Shinto, the world's oldest religion, has been the master of technology, islam has been the master of crimes and parasitism!
To deny the evil parasitic origin of islam is equally criminal as to deny the Holocaust!
Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad, isn't it), and islam (the worst hate crime ever - now protected by sleazy OIC) is the foremost expression of sex segregation. Also compare Sharia as described by Bill Warner.

Klevius: If truth offenses muslims, should the truth then be forbidden?

Mohammed: I have never come across anyone more lacking in intelligence, or ignorant of their religion than women.

Warner: The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse. The word is usually translated as “unbeliever” but this translation is wrong. The word “unbeliever” is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas, Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language.

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

OIC (57 muslim populated nations) have agreed to replace UN Human Rights with islamic "human rights" (Sharia) so that girls and women shouldn't be allowed to be equally free as men! OIC now wants to get veto right in UN so to block any UN action critical against islamic Sharia racism/sexism!

How Islamofascism is boosted by BBC

This is Alwaleed bin Talal al Saud (nephew to the world's worst dictator), a "man" who has never worked but who at 56 was accused of raping a 20 year old, and who has spent much more Western oil money on islamic hate mongering propaganda etc than he has officially been given from the dictator house of Saud (which was founded on an Arab slave plantation and later stole the whole land with some handfuls of men and now prosper on oil that "Westerners" found and produced because of "Wests" superior technology)! It's ONLY because of "Western" oil money that this islamofascist Human Rights violating dictator/mafia family is allowed to enter civilized rooms! But should we really let this extreme hypocrisy and bigotry continue?!

Contrast this scumbag against those (incl. Klevius) who relentlessly volunteer for spreading knowledge about Human Rights and are called "islamophobes" simply because islam doesn't submit to Human Rights (this is why the islamofascist organization OIC has openly abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).

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

Monday, September 29, 2014

Karen Armstrong writes about religion despite being one of the least competent to do so! Why?


Klevius could thoroughly dismiss Karen Armstrong in thousands of pages. But why would he waste his time on her dilusions?

And why humiliate her more than necessary, she has probably suffered a lot in her loneliness. However, by defending the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever she directly contributes to more suffering caused by islam.

So here just a few lines for her ignorant readers whom Klevius suggests trying an other author, e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali.



The nun who married Muhammad


According to Karen Armstrong 'we are violent creatures'. Well, that makes Muhammad a human and Klevius a pervert, doesn't it, because Klevius has never felt an urge to assault anyone. And this despite the fact that he in his teens several times was attacked (usually by ex-boyfriends to some girls he got company with) and realized the value of fast reactions and well coordinated movements. Successful defense could easily have been transformed into planned violent attacks. But it didn't. Not even close.

According to Karen Armstrong 'men love fighting'. Well Klevius is a man in every aspect of the word (and possibly more so than Armstrong is a woman) - except that he has never loved fighting, shooting etc. Already in Demand for Resources (1992) Klevius dismissed Konrad Lorentz' stupidities as cultural artifacts - not biological necessities.

Karen Armstrong: Islamic State is the product of muslims being humiliated because of the West's superior culture ("the modern era"). Islam was probably the greatest world power and over night it was reduced by the colonialists to a dependent bloc.

Klevius: Not the greatest world power but certainly the worst parasite on slaves and civilizations. This disturbing historical fact is why your books are favorably treated as a cover up desperately needed.

Has it ever occurred to Karen Armstrong (or her ignorant readers) that islam's "over night success" can only be explained by a literal reading of the Koran plus historical source material. Slaves and pillaging constituted islam's financial back bone.Understand this and you will understand the decay and fall of every muslim caliphate including the so called Ottoman empire.

Islam has never created anything by itself except disaster and decay.

Islam is impotent which fact might suit a nun but probably not cure her dissatisfaction.

Karen Armstrong's life started with great failures


Karen Armstrong: Islam is a religion of extraordinary success coming out of nowhere whereas Christianity started as a great failure, the crucifixion. How do Americans will feel when they are superseded by China?

Klevius: That's a thought. However, when Lexus and other Japanese brands a quarter of a century ago humiliated the Americans with superior technical quality we didn't see any US bombing of Japan or beheading of Japanese, did we.

Klevius final suggestion to Karen Armstrong. Read about Negative Human Rights and feel ashamed!


BBC (summarized by Klevius): Never ever was the fault in the muslim world. Waves of mongolic destructions destroyed Baghdad and the islamic Abbasid caliphate and later on everything can be attributed to Western "colonialism".

 Klevius comment: Do I really need to comment!













.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Exactly following the Koran/Hadits, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State behead and persecute exactly as prophet Mohammed did - yet muslim "scholars" see nothing islamic in it!


Why is evil Saudi Arabia supported in its extreme intolerance and racist hate of Shia muslims?



The prophetic terror slaughter of Jews and other "infidels" in Medina and elsewhere is  at the core of islam


Violent jihadism against the "infidels" was the trade mark of prophet Muhammad and sharia (in whatever form) is always against themost basic Human Rights but compulsory to everyone wanting to call himself a muslim (a woman can never be fully muslim). Ask every muslim you encounter if he approves of sharia or Human Rights. If he says both he lies you straight up your infidel face!

No one in his full mind can argue that the original islamic expansionism was a jihad "in defense of islam". It was islamic jihad for conquest, enslavement and rapetivism period.

Wanna know the origin of islam? Look at the Islamic State!

Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Islamic State doesn't have a sword on their flag!







Do the muslim test by asking them if they are against Human Rights. If they are not they are no real muslims, according to OIC (all muslims world Ummah) and every possible form of Sharia! And don't get yourself fooled by muslims (or their supporters) using the taqiya oxymoron islamic "human rights" because that is in fact sharia (see OIC's Cairo declaration 1990)!

In other words, a true muslim is then per definition always a supremacist racist and sexist individual through the tie to islam and Sharia. And there is no real  islam without Sharia! Got it dude? And stop cheating yourself and others with that "moderate islam" crap, will you!



 Diana West: Megyn Kelly interviewed Maajid Nawaz about the Islamic State (ISIL), the latest Muslim horde on a jihad to establish a “caliphate” (pan-Islamic regime) based in sharia (Islamic law). Nawaz could be considered a defector from Hizb ut-Tahrir, one of the revolutionary Islamic groups, some violent, some removed from violence, dedicated to the establishment of a caliphate based in Islamic law, from al-Qaida to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Nawaz said goodbye to all that in 2007, he says. In 2008, he and fellow defector Ed Husain founded Quilliam, a British “counter-extremism” foundation named for William Quilliam, a 19th-century British convert to Islam. Abdullah Quilliam, as he became known, opened the first British mosque on Christmas Day, 1889. “Co-exist,” right? It’s no stretch, however, to imagine Sheikh Quilliam at home in Hizb ut-Tahrir as a fatwa-issuing advocate of the caliphate and sharia both. He also issued a fatwa prohibiting Muslims from fighting for or assisting Britain (“contrary to the sharia”), then fighting Muslim tribes in the Sudan.

Scholar of Islam Andrew Bostom first brought these fatwas to my attention, but they are now accessible on Abdullah Quilliam’s Wikipedia page. Should we take a “counter-extremism” think tank in Quilliam’s name seriously? Could the name have been a mistake? Or is it a joke on gullible infidels? A wink to stealth jihadists?

This piqued my interest in Kelly’s Nawaz interview. Zeroing in on the ISIL beheading of Steven Satloff, she asked: “Where does their thinking come from? ... The first reaction many here in the United States and around the world had was these people who are doing this are psychopaths.”

Really? Such mystification wasn’t my first reaction. I know where their thinking comes from. It comes from Islam. Who doesn’t know that but the highly educated and politically empowered? Not for nothing does the immutable Koran say (Surah 47, Verse 4): “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite them at their necks,” among other directives of open-ended jihad. Then again, take the life of Muhammad, Islam’s “perfect man.” He followed his jihad campaign against the Qurayzah, a vanquished Jewish tribe, by beheading all of the 600 to 900 men in the tribe, setting the example for Muslims through the ages. Mohammed also condemned the tribe’s women and children to slavery, keeping some women for himself and his companions, which, bonus, set an example of jihad sex slavery.

Surely this suggests it’s the extremism of Islam that requires “countering.” Will Nawaz agree?

Of course not. In response to Kelly’s question, he repeatedly blames a generic “ideology” that must be “undermined.”

Kelly asks: “You can’t help but look at the killer and think, ‘How could he possibly have come from anything resembling humanity?’”

Nawaz replies: “Yes. Of course we’ve seen this before, we saw it with Nazism in Nazi Germany and that phrase, ‘the banality of evil.’”

Wait a sec. Have we been hearing “Allahu Akbar,” or “Heil Hitler” on all those Islamic snuff videos? Never mind. With a few cliches about “group think” and “the new normal,” Nawaz is back to calling on society to work “to undermine the ideology that underpins (these acts).”

Kelly asks: “Do you feel the Muslim community has been vocal enough in doing that?”

Nawaz pivots in reply. “I think no one’s been vocal enough. I mean, look, Muslims need to do more, but so, frankly, does President Obama.” He then raps Obama for announcing he had no Islamic State strategy — but, hey, our best pundits have no state of Islam conversation. “So, Obama needs to do more,” Nawaz continues. “Mainstream society needs to do more. One way in which mainstream society can do more is to accept that this isn’t a clash of civilizations between Islam and the Western world. But in fact, it’s an intra-religious struggle within Islam.”

My ears pricked up. “Accept” what? Answer: that this crisis of our age, the Islamization of the West, is only so much intra-Islamic jockeying. That we should shut up about the demonstrably Islamic nature of the attacks on the West, on our liberties, our security, on our allies, our children, our law and culture, and not fight back against them. “Accept” that Muslims will work it all out among themselves —not that Islam, of course, has anything to do with it.

This is dangerous, deceptive nonsense. Then again, how might Nawaz’s way work? One quick way to “counter” “extremism” is to prevent ISIL fighters from returning to their Western countries by canceling their passports. But Nawaz opposes this no-brainer. On Twitter, he called it unimaginative, adding: “Passports can be faked.” Huh?

Quilliam co-founder Ed Husain (now at the Council on Foreign Relations) elaborated in an op-ed. Canceling passports of “hardline Islamists,” he wrote, could cause them to target the U.K. because they would see Britain as having “nullified” their “apd al amaan” — or “covenant of security” — which they believe Britain offers.

Thus, what amounts to an “extremist” protection racket should remain in place, at least according to the “counter-extremism” specialists.





Here's what Klevius wrote about Saudi Arabia's violent islamofascist flag

Friday, December 10, 2010

Islamist OIC (led by Saudi Arabia) is the worst threat against Human Rights!

According to Tony Blair, the evil of religion is in fact distortion of religion. However, according to Klevius, the opposite is true. The origin of "monotheisms" was racist/sexist evil, and the later possibly good parts were, in fact, distortion of monotheisms (as, for example, early Christianity). And the purest form of evil monotheism is to be found in the origin of islam!

For your information! December 06, 2009 Klevius wrote: "It was probably islam, not Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito who murdered Meredith Kerchner". The murder was most probably influenced by Saudi/Koranic hate mongering!
Saudi Anthropologist Sa'd Al-Sowayan suggests removing the jihad sword from Saudi flag. However, Klevius suggests removing islam!

Klevius question to the Chinese (and the World)
: Why did the Chinese workers in Mecca have to convert to islam to finish what the Arab muslims were incapable of doing?! And what about the islamic apostasy ban? Can these workers drop islam when finished without breaking the Sharia of the "guardians of islam"?!





Klevius question: How many of these know what they are really bowing for?

Treacherous islam

The koranic (2:256) "there is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi d-dini) is generally misunderstood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith.

However, the circumstances governing the origin of islam differed from those of today so that presuppositions for religious tolerance made no sense other than as beneficial for parasitism. Today islam has to fight against the unbeatable* logic of the universal Negative Human Rights.

The real original meaning was that no one can be compelled to islam (the “right” belief). Koran, then, doesn’t proclaim tolerance, but rather an emphasize on the importane of a rigid and heavily ritualised belief in Mohammed’s gangsta gang (im)moral.

Contemporary islam apologetics’ naïve or deliberate “interpretation” of “no compulsion in religion” as religious tolerance, only contributes to the widespread misunderstanding of islam’s true original nature, and due danger it poses.

* “Unbeatable” precisely because they lack content, i.e. are filled with freedom. Moreover,they stay in direct opposition to the positive impositions in islam/Sharia. We cannot rigidly settle for any particular moral axiom in an inevitably changing world. Laws, no matter if “man made” or “god’s will”, will hence also change. So why put “allah” in between and then call the change “interpretation” or “adaptation”?!












.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

How low can BBC really sink?!




Is BBC, the world's biggest news media, completely in the hands of the islamofascist House of Saud?


These four* results (none of them BBC) is what a Google News search produces 22 Sept 2014 on 'BBC Ayaan Hirsi Ali' after her recent appearance at Yale University amid huge protests from the islamofascists and their supporters:
 
* So Ayaan Hirsi Ali's groundbreaking (and among islamofascists controversial) appearance at Yale University apparently doesn't qualify among BBC's usually one million hits on Google News!?






However, BBC seems to like both of them. Here's what Klevius wrote

Monday, May 21, 2012

Klevius beats BBC when it comes to true reporting about OIC!


Totalitarian fanaticism replacing Human Rights while BBC misinforms muslims and others on how they're robbed of their Human Rights!

Sadly, Klevius is still the foremost (and lone?!) expert on sex segregation/apartheid and, consequently, also the web's foremost expert on islam. Why? Because islam rests so heavily on sex segregation/apartheid, even in its most "secular" form (as long as it's meaningful at all to call it islam) that an effort to understand islam without understanding sex segregation/apartheid is doomed to complete failure! In essence what Klevius is doing is in Bourdieu's words 'to restore to historical action, the relationship between the sexes that the naturalistic and essentialist vision removes from them'.  And where Bourdieu went to the Kabyles Klevius went to the origin of islam, Christianity and Judaism!

Klevius beats BBC in reporting on the most essential and critical issue of our time: OIC and its Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's islamofascist violation of the most basic of Human Rights!

BBC, the largest broadcaster in the world, has as its main responsibility to provide impartial public service broadcasting.

Klevius question: How come then that Klevius beats BBC when it comes to informing about OIC? As you can see on the 'OIC BBC' search below Klevius' 'BBC News', i.e. not BBC, is the first to offer real info about OIC. on the web (see the eighth result on the pic below: BBC News by Klevius)! And to really prove it you will find a picture of the first BBC post (BBC News - Profile: Organization of the Islamic Conference) further down to show that it completely avoids to inform the most essential feature of OIC, namely that it has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia.











































































According to BBC OIC's aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe eradicate racial discrimination (meaning Human Rights "discrimination" of islamic Sharia) and colonialism (sic - islam has been the worst colonizer ever throughout 1400 years!). But nowhere in BBC's text can you find the most important namely OIC's violation of Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia!

While BBC has some 23,000 staff Klevius is not only alone* and without resources, he is also deliberately hindered in his extremely informative work by active and continuous "islamophobia filtering". Yes, Klevius knows that he could do much better by avoiding words like 'islamofascism' etc. but he loves it.

* no offence to other "islamophobes" out there but Klevius happens to be the one with the best potency for evaluating the origin of islam from a perspective of sex segregation/rapetivism.




.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Klevius to Obomba: Why do you prefer to bomb Assad insted of Saudi Abdullah & Co? Why not let the Islamic State be the guardian of islam!


How many millions of victims has the Saudi's islamic hate mongering caused?

Muslims are committing a continuing open and stealthy global Holocaust - but BBC warns for "right-wingers"and "islamophobia"



The new Holocaust is already here and the perpetrators are muslims*, yet few seem to realize because islam inspired street jihad is covered up by the help of muslim "sensitivities" and "islamophobia" accusations.

* Just as the old Holocaust perpetrators were Germans. Or "radical" Germans, if you insist. Or would you prefer "radical" Nationalsocialists (like "radical" islamists?

Saudi Abdullah & Co constitute the main source for the ongoing global hate crime  wave called street jihadism.

Even with a microscope you won't find any main differences between Saudi Wahhabi islam and that of the Islamic State.

If the Islamic State is happy with just being the new Guardians of islam and not bothering Human Rights loving civilized people - let'em have it!

So what about muslims outside the caliphate?

Simple, just give them the choice between sharia and Human Rights. If they prefer the latter everything is fine because then they are no longer any islam supporters.  And if they prefer sharia then they can't feel at home in a society based on Human Rights and therefore should have the right to enter the caliphate instead.

I'm confident the Islamic State would eagerly accept our terms if they can be sure we leave them alone in what is now Saudi Arabia. We could then continue the usual commerce, however now without hate preaching jihadist mosques on our own streets.

Sooner or later the caliphate will fall apart anyway because of its inherent impossibility - just as all other evil islamic caliphates throughout history. But why bother as long as the muslims keep it within the borders of their Ummah and don't mess with civilized people.



The chocking ignorance about the inevitable difference between islam/sharia and Human Rights


Here Klevius uses Kamilia Lahrichi as an example of this bottomless ignorance (or taqiya?/islamophilia). The word 'stupid' is chosen because it signals a less  deliberate confusion.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Human rights may not be applicable or relevant to Islamic countries because international law originated in the practices of Western states.

Klevius: No! Because islam is built on racist/sexist principles that Human Rights steers EVERYONE away from!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Islam does not deal with individual rights like in the West. The Quran refers to Muslims as part of the Ummah (i.e. community of believers).

Klevius: At least you got that right.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Human rights need to be embedded in social practices to ensure compliance.

Klevius: Terribly wrong again! Racism and sexism ARE social practices! Basic Human Rights (so called negative rights) are above social practices. Driving against red light may be a social practice somewhere.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In March 2000, hundreds of thousands of Moroccan women marched in Casablanca against the government’s National Plan to Integrate Women in Development. This project aimed at “removing the conditions of inequality between men and women” by limiting polygamy, abolishing repudiation and ensuring economic security for women after a divorce.

Klevius: There you see, women abused by islam is the key to islam's survival. Muslim women do their utmost to strangle other women in their own sharia jail.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): One possible way to enforce international human rights law in Muslim countries is to integrate it into the domestic law.

Klevius: Precisely what Saudi based OIC with its Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani have done by abandoning Human Rights in UN and calling sharia "islamic human rights"!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Liberal interpretations of the Sharia prove that international human rights law is applicable to Islamic states.

Klevius: Just exactly the contrary! Both OIC and the support for the Islamic State prove you dead wrong. You are trying the old muslim trick that says: We should only look at the parts we agree on, not the parts we disagree on. As for example women's rights, right. No?

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Islamic countries need therefore to find the right balance between religion and respect of individual rights like gender equality.

Klevius: 'Gender equality' is a stupid oxymoron, but how could poor you possibly have known from your confused feminist/islamophilia standpoint. You probably mean equality between the sexes. No, that's not possible in a muslim society simply because then it wouldn't be a muslim community anymore!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In Islam, human rights do not take place in the same secular setting. It deals with duties toward God.

Klevius: Not exactly, in islam Allah is completely removed from any practical issues. God doesn't simply exist in living islam, period.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): The concept of “freedom” in Islam is different from the modern concept of individual freedom, a legacy of European Enlightenment promoted in the Charter of the United Nations.

Klevius: Read Negative Human Rights definition by Klevius and get a little bit less ignorant! The sooner the better...

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Muslim jurists can interpret Islamic law in a way that is consistent with international human rights law.

Klevius: Never ever! There is no place on the map where that would be possible. Not only has Saudi based and steered OIC proved you wrong via UN but more importantly, what would be left of islam if it had to comply with basic Human Rights? Absolutely nothing. As Linus Thorvald (a Finland-Swede like Klevius) used to put it: Talk is cheap - show me the code!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): International human rights law puts pressure on Muslim countries to split their judicial system to weaken the influence of the Sharia.

Klevius: No, but Klevius, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and a few others do by pointing out the impossibility of islam's racist/sexist hate agenda in a civilized society based on all humans equality.. 

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): International law needs to become more pluralistic to reflect the interests and perceptions of all nations, like in Africa or Asia. International law is not a fixed institution but a multilateral development that must be applicable to all.

Klevius: There you go! Now she talks like a Saudi wahhabi imam. And as you know, defending Human Rights is considered a terrorist crime in Saudi Arabia and can easily lead to loosing one's head. She, however, would be safe there with that kind of sharia support.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Muslim scholars did not know for some time the legal meaning as well as the political and philosophical concept of freedom.

Klevius: What 'muslim scholars'?! They are Koranic myth readers, not scholars. Historical facts (or lack of facts) that do not fit islam have no room in their "scholarship".

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Muslims are denied political authority unlike their Western counterparts.

Klevius: Denied by what? By islamic submission of course.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Power structure as well as social and economic relationships in Western states are based upon individual autonomy, equality, free choice and secularism.

Klevius: And the most successful in technology was Japan - a country that used to be as far from islam you can get.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): This notion of political authority directly conflicts with the Islamic principle of political justice. In Muslim countries, authority resides with the people but did not originate with them. God defines political power.

Klevius: And "god" is always absent or secondary to "god's" human interpretors.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In Islam, the individual is not the main actor in the development of domestic and international laws. The Muslim man or woman exists only as a part of the broader Islamic community. For instance, the Islamic veil or the burqa – which cloaks the entire body – hides a woman’s identity behind her function: she is a daughter, a wife and a mother.

Klevius: Never an individual. Moreover, there are no such creatures as 'muslim women' - only muslim men and their sex slaves who have to entertain them and foster their (the muslim men's) sons to new muslim men!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Hence, there is no room left for international law to rule behaviors in Islamic societies. In other words, the Islamic world repudiates the very foundation of international law.

Klevius: Just as the basic Human Rights repudiate islam. Only difference being that Human Rights cover equally all individuals while islam/sharia only covers (the "right") muslims.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): The historical context in which the Sharia was developed in 622 A.D. explains – although it does not legitimize – Muslim states’ conservative position on human rights.

Klevius: But isn't this precisely what you (unknowingly?!) mean by the 'cultural context' we have to "understand"!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Pre-Islamic societies in Arabia, in the early seventh century A.D., lived in the age of ignorance (“Jahiliyyah” in Arabic). Immorality and sexual debauchery abounded.

Klevius: Indeed! This is the root origin of islam's evilness. Immorality and sexual debauchery utilized for the purpose of robbery and pillaging etc that we now sort under the title 'muslim conquest'.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Notwithstanding indications (sic) in Islamic texts that women held high positions in society, gender discrimination was widespread. Arabs practiced female infanticide and polygamy, for example. Women could seldom choose their husband, divorce freely or inherit from their family.

Klevius: Female infanticide was stopped because islam values sex slavery and the reproductive power of females. And to make this reproductive power into male muslims sharia apartheid was needed. In the non-historical islamic mythology Mohammad's wife Khadija was a very successful merchant before the birth of islam. It is said that when the Quraysh's trade caravans gathered to embark upon their summer journey to Syria or winter journey to Yemen, Khadija's caravan equalled the caravans of all other traders of the Quraysh put together. She was known by the by-names Ameerat-Quraysh ("Princess of Quraysh"), al-Tahira ("The Pure One") and Khadija Al-Kubra (Khadija "the Great"). It is said that she fed and clothed the poor, assisted her relatives financially and provided marriage portions for poor relations. And all of this happened BEFORE islam!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In light of this, Muslim countries have contended that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fails to take into account the cultural and historical context of Islamic states. They say that Muslims cannot implement the declaration without transgressing Islamic law.

Klevius: Just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fails to take into account the cultural and historical context of the Islamic State, which btw exactly follows the same islam as Saudi Arabia!

Reading what Kamilia Lahrichi really says reveals that she at any moment could be a servant for the Saudi mufti.







Under Human Rights a woman may choose to lead a sharia style life if she so wishes. However, under sharia women may not choose to lead a life free from sharia limitations. So why do women want to impose sharia restrictions on other women?! Klevius' only explanation is muslim racism against the global ethnic community of believers in freedom under Human Rights.




.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Do 87% of Swedes really support sharia and that women shouldn't have the same Human Rights as men?


This is how fascism really works


After the Swedish election islam critical Sverigedemokraterna (SD) became Sweden's third largest party with 13% of the votes. This led to all the other parties shouting in unison that they won't cooperate with SD, hence showing a remarkable lack of democratic moral.  This also led sharia supporting Aftonbladet to write: 'We are 87% who still like different people'. The word 'different' can only mean muslims because Åkesson who leads SD is a critic of islam and the islamization of Sweden.



When Klevius as a teenager read Martin Gray's For those I loved, he started wondering how the average Germans let it happen. And now, with the rise of Western support/blinking of islam (the absolutely worst ever ideological crime the world history knows about), everything seems utterly clear.

It's no coincidence that Scandinavia's biggest newspaper has a Pol Pot sympathizer at its top, is it!


 The intelligent intellectual urban elite communist Asa Linderborg certainly contrasts with Expressen's (the other main Swedish newspaper) picturing of the SD voter: 'An uneducated man with small resources. A poorly paid  low level worker if not unemployed'. However, SD got its highest numbers (37% of the voters) in an affluent Swedish community where an asylum camp has been placed by the state. Except for refugees running around in their gardens etc the SD voters were mostly concerned with the bad treatment the refugees got from the state, i.e. obviously there were more of them than the state could handle properly.


The feminist party FI led by former communist leader Gudrun Schyman didn't pass the 4% threshold. Expressen compares FI and SD stating that: SD is from Mars and FI from Venus. SD dreams about a time when men were men and women were women while FI dreams about a chaotic future without such categories.

Klevius comment: Dear reader. You who are familiar with Klevius sex tutorials can easily see how laughable these descriptions are, precisely because the SD description actually fits islam and the FI description is completely wrong because true feminists also campaign for segregation.

Btw, Gudrun Schyman was contacted by Klevius re. his thesis Pathological Symbiosis and asked whether she knew about this dangerous hoax concept being introduced in the Swedish law while she was a law maker. She didn't - as didn't most other legislators as well.


The heart of the islam problem is Saudi Arabia - so why is the main enemy treated as an ally?!





Stepping off the flying mat

















.