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!

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

















.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Swedish election: While the Islamic Ummah is busy destroying Sweden, Aftonbladet smears the only party that questions islam



Klevius doesn't share almost anything with the political views of Sverigedemokraterna (SD), which in essence is a socialdemocratic party - except for their islam criticism. And that fact alone tops all other political issues!




Rinkeby used to have a police station which failed to operate there and then was transformed to "cultural center". However, it is now also burned down.

Swedish muslims copy the behavior of Mohammed when he robbed caravans




Rinkeby is one of the parts of Stockholm with a huge support for sharia laws and the Islamic State. Swedish police have no say in the area and now also the
big multi-national Schenker transport company has stopped their deliveries to this Swedish muslim ghetto.

Recently two Schenker drivers have been threatened and badly assaulted in Rinkeby by muslim youth who surrounded the truck, stole items and threw stones after the escaping drivers. Older muslims seem to have supported the youth.

After three attempted deliveries had failed - the last despite extra security guards and police assistance DB Schenker decided to stop all deliveries to the area.






Rinkeby muslims from the Islamic Cultural Center (sic) attacking women in a Women's Network manifestation. Kvinnors nätverk.

Like in most other muslim communities Rinkeby is part of a mafia like islamic system where tax payers money is eagerly given away and used for completely other reasons than expected. Someone uses funds for a pre-school to build a personal palace in Dubai. Others transfer them to muslim terrorist activities etc.

 
 And this disgusting supporter of islamofascism now leads the most disgusting ever Swedish smear campaign against a democratic political party - only because it criticizes islam.


 Here-s what Klevius wrote March 25 2014:




Klevius question: How come that BBC (world leading media) and Aftonbladet (Scandinavia leading media) both completely miss the world's biggest fascist organization and its new Fuhrer against Human Rights?

When do we start checking for the oil leaks in these fascism supporting media engines?!




 Klevius suggestion: Dear reader, do contemplate the real meaning of this  world wide media deception!


Aftonbladet has with all its media power relentlessly doped its reader about Sweden's only islam critical party Sverigedemokraterna (SD) - to an extent that the party is now about to fall in pieces because a split on its view on islam. Or put in other words, Aftonbladet's extreme demonizing of islam critics, which Aftonbladet call 'islam haters', has opened up for not only general disgust but also physical violence against SD-members - in short the same tactics as used by Hitler, Pol Pot etc. 



But I've got a muslim friend - don't generalize all muslims and all islam!

 Klevius answer:



 Ask your muslim friend if s/he supports OIC and its Sharia against Human Rights!


At this point you really also need to re-check your knowledge ignorance about islam: If you're not 100% convinced as yet that islam has been by far the worst slave raider/trader ideology in world history - then you need some really serious reading you won't find in yours or your children's school books.


Then ask her/him why s/he is against Human Rights for all! That will force your friend to either abandon islam or reveal that s/he is an islamofascist!



And finally a warning to all girls/women falling in love with a muslim boy/man: Your basic Human Rights are doomed if he is a real muslim and Sharia marries you!


BBC's muslim Sharia presenter Mishal Husain now gets her disgustingly racist/sexist islamofascist Sharia law implemented in Britain - bit by bit. But why doesn't she want to talk about this first important step and its real consequences?! As a taxpayer and payer of BBC's compulsory fees every Brit should pose that question!


Under ground-breaking guidance which would be recognised by UK courts, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will, in a first real Sharia step, be able to write islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. The documents will also prevent children born out of wedlock or adopted, from being counted as legitimate heirs. Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia, which recognise only islamic marriage.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect girls/women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including UK Sharia courts in Britain: It's deeply disturbing. This violates everything that we stand for. It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.

Klevius question: Who are 'we' in 'everything that we stand for'. Does it include BBC's islamofascist Sharia presenter Mishal Husain?!


To be honest Klevius feels a little nostalgic of the demise of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots from the crew of funny Sharia clowns but as the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid (and therefore also islam) Klevius has to take responsibilty for what these idiots have already caused and may cause in the future.


Is this the last of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots?


Michael Smerconish (a Philly "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiot): How ironic that when Susan Jarema questioned Sohail Mohammed's nomination (as a US judge), she was particularly concerned about whether he would defend the rights of women when under sharia law. I doubt she'd have anticipated how he'd rule in a domestic dispute between an unmarried couple over who could be present in a delivery room.

Klevius: How idiotic that Michael Smerconish didn't notice that neither of them were muslims! Had the man been a muslim in a simple Sharia liason (do you know how simple Sharia "marriage" can be?), then the woman's right had ABSOLUTELY NOT been recognized by "judge"* Mohammed - or, alternatively, judge Muhammed would have become an apostate in no time at all!

And how idiotic that Michael Smerconish (and his dhimmidiotic-alikes)

An other tragic dhimmidiot: What point does it make to say a person is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist if they do something wrong?

Klevius: The point is whether s/he does it because of religion! Simple as that. Yes, I know I made your day. Btw, Atheists are the only ones without an excusing ideology!


United Kamikaze Islam Protectors

Nigel Farage's (UKIP leader) pledge that he was proud UKIP politicians could "say what they like" lasted all of around 30 minutes at the party's spring conference, with panicked organisers apparently attempting to remove six journalists from a party debate on Sharia law. Journalists from the Financial Times, Bloomberg and the Telegraph were among those told they could not stay in the half-full conference room in Torquay for the party debate on the use of Islamic law in Britain. Jim Pickard, the Financial Times' political correspondent, said he and his fellow journalists had refused to leave when asked to by party staff.


Tags: Iyad Madani, Kent Ekeroth, Linus Bylund, Mishal Husain, OIC, sharia,


.

Saturday, September 06, 2014

Saudi UK ambassador and Klevius in total agreement on Saudi Wahhabism



Muslim born and raised (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Husain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) uses Islamic State terrorists to topple the regime in Syria while bombing them in Iraq for the Saudi/Sunni campaign against Shia muslims.


Think about it, this disgustingly immoral man (who sat for some 20 years listening to a black supremacist hate preacher) knowingly lets Syrian civilians suffer and get murdered in the hundreds of thousands while he blames the wrong person (Assad) while supporting the real culprits (Saudi and Qatari leaders as well as Turkey).



While the Islamic State commits genocides and beheadings etc with no end in sight BBC News gives them one sentence worth of interest while spending some twenty minutes on Putin and Ukraine although nothing has happened there since the peace treaty. Why?


And although Saudi Arabia is the main evil Caliphate behind muslim jihad hate terrorism globally - not a word about sanctions etc!

And what about NATO member Turkey from which the murderous attacks on the Syrian people started?It was actually NATO and its Saudi, Qatar etc islamofascist allies who are the main cause of the enormous suffering in Syria.


see video here

And why are Arab Sunni extremists called upon to assist in fighting Arab Sunni extremists? And Lebanon participated in the NATO meeting although they were the ones who opened the gate to the weapon store called al-Omari mosque on their border.

Syria: how the muslim terrorist violence against the Syrian state and the Syrian people began in Daraa mosque al-Omari on the very border to Lebanon


Tim Anderson: ‘The claim that armed opposition to the government has begun only recently is a complete lie.  The killings of soldiers, police and civilians, often in the most brutal circumstances, have been going on virtually since the beginning.’ – Professor Jeremy Salt, October 2011 (Ankara)

There is no doubt that there was popular agitation in Syria in early 2011, after the events in Egypt and Tunisia. There were anti-government and pro-government demonstrations, and a genuine political reform debate. However the serious violence that erupted in March 2011 has been systematically misreported, in line with yet another US-NATO ‘regime change’ agenda.

For many months the big powers and the corporate media pretended that armed opposition in Syria did not exist at all. All violence was government forces against ‘peaceful protestors’. In the words of the US-based Human Rights Watch (strongly linked to the US Council on Foreign Relations), ‘protestors only used violence against the security forces … in response to killings by the security forces or … as a last resort’. This was a dreadful deceit. Washington and its allies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and some elements in Lebanon) were sponsoring armed attacks within Syria from the very beginning.


see video here

Saudi admits that "Syrian Revolution" was armed from the start - Aired on BBC Arabic in April 2012

The blind sheikh mentioned here is "Ahmad Al-Sayasinah", he used to incite the people against the government. He was arrested by the Syrian security and released later. He left to Jordan then Saudi Arabia.

On 23.March.2011, the Syrian National TV broadcast a video-report about seized weapons in "Al-Omari" mosque in the city of Daraa, just a few days after the beginning of the unrest.
See the report on SANA Website:
http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2011/03/24/...
At that time, the entire world accused the Syrian government of fabricating the report. However after more than one year, here they are admitting that the terrorists of Daraa stored weapons in "Al-Omari" mosque.
BBC held an interview with "Anwar Al-Eshki", a Saudi Ex-Military and now president of "Center for Strategic studies" in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He reveals information about the first days in the Syrian crisis, and he even confirms his connections with the leader of the so-called "Free Syrian Army". They have become so rude and confident, so they admit everything publicly.

On 23.March.2011, the Syrian National TV broadcast a video-report about seized weapons in "Al-Omari" mosque in the city of Daraa, just a few days after the beginning of the unrest.
At that time, the entire world accused the Syrian government of fabricating the report. However after more than one year, here they are admitting that the terrorists of Daraa stored weapons in "Al-Omari" mosque. BBC held an interview with "Anwar Al-Eshki", a Saudi Ex-Military (Major General) and now president of "Center for Strategic studies" in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He reveals information about the first days in the Syrian crisis, and he even confirms his connections with the leader of the so-called "Free Syrian Army". They have become so rude and confident, so they admit everything publicly.

The “armed elements” in Syria consist almost exclusively of jihadist groups, most notably ISIS and al-Nusra. ISIS was trained by the United States and al-Nusra was armed by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Global Research: DEBKAfile, an Israeli intelligence asset, reports the ISIS and al-Nusra effort to wrest control of the border area away from the Syrian army was assisted by by Israel, Jordan and the United States:

    Israel acted as a member, along with the US and Jordan, of a support system for rebel groups [ISIS, al-Nusra] fighting in southern Syria. Their efforts are coordinated through a war-room which the Pentagon established last year near Amman. The US, Jordanian and Israeli officers manning the facility determine in consultation which rebel factions are provided with reinforcements from the special training camps run for Syrian rebels in Jordan, and which will receive arms.

In December, it was reported by The National that a secret command center in Jordan, staffed by western and Arab military officials, provides support to jihadist groups fighting on Syria’s southern front. The intelligence center “channels vehicles, sniper rifles, mortars, heavy machine guns, small arms and ammunition to Free Syrian Army units.”

Large numbers of fighters from the Free Syrian Army have defected to al-Nusra over the last year. “Fighters are heading to al-Nusra because of its Islamic doctrine, sincerity, good funding and advanced weapons,” Abu Islam of the FSA’s al-Tawhid brigade in Aleppo told The Guardian in May, 2013.

In June, al-Nusra and ISIS joined forces.

The same month Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily reported U.S. instructors had trained members of ISIS in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region.


Origin of islam


The origin of islam was exactly the same bloody mess as we see now. And different chaliphates fought each other just like today. This is no coincidence but the logical outcome of true evil islam.


Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Wahhabism is not a sect of Islam. What is being referred to is the interpretation of Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab, who saw his fellow Muslims being diverted from the path of Islam as it had been delivered by the prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Klevius: He is talking about the origin of islam, i.e. the caravan pirates who developed to a parasitic robber community and much later was codified by the help of Jewish-Christian Syriac texts in the Koran for the purpose of sanctioning piracy and rapetivism.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Saudis do not accept to be labelled “Wahhabis”. We are Muslims. In 2011, HRH Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz (now the crown prince) said: “Some people use the word Wahhabism to describe the message of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab in order to isolate Saudi Muslims from the rest of the Muslim world.”

Klevius: Exactly what Klevius has tried to say since 9/11! True islam is Saudi islamofascism in line with the original islam that al-Wahab referred to! And Saudi islamofascism is now sanctioned in UN via the Saudi based OIC and its Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: This word is a convenient label that has been dreamed up by some governments, political analysts and the media to describe the major “Islamic threat” facing western civilisation. It is described as extremist and radical, accused of inspiring movements ranging from the Taliban in Afghanistan to the al-Qaida network and now the Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq.

Klevius: Indeed. I agree on every bit.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: But this view does not even faintly correspond with the teachings of Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahhab, who was a well-travelled, learned, scholarly jurist of the 18th century. He insisted on adherence to Qur’anic values and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) which includes the maximum preservation of human life, even in the midst of jihad. He taught tolerance and supported the rights of both men and women.

Klevius: Oh dear! 'He taught tolerance and supported the rights of both men and women' only fits sharia - not Human Rights and not non-muslims and muslim women. This was the very reason why Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Human Rights violating sharia in UN. Moreover, in Saudi Arabia Human Rights are equalled with terrorism.



Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Let me make it perfectly clear. The government of Saudi Arabia does not support or fund the murderers who have collected under the banner of the Islamic State. Their ideology is not one that we recognise, or that would be recognised by the vast majority of Muslims around the world – whether they were Sunni or Shia.

Klevius: He is probaly right even here. The Saudi government may not officially have supported it but rather via more or less clandestine operations. He is most probably also right about the majority of the world's "muslims" (of which most are secularized and don't have a clue of islam) not sharing these views. The supporters of the Islamic State could even be less than half a Billion. Nothing to worry about. No? Of course, the Saud family.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah, we launched an initiative for dialogue between all religions and cultures in 2008 with the establishment of the King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue in Vienna.

Klevius: Otherwise correct except for the word 'dialogue'. It's a Saudi monologue and nothing else. Saudi Arabia is by far the most intolerant nation in the entire world. And this extreme intolerance, hatred and contempt against others is made possible by Wahhabism original islam. What about an Interreligious and Intercultural center in Mecca?

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Following an international counterterrorism conference held in Riyadh in 2005, the UN counterterrorism centre was established with financial support of $200m from our government.

Klevius: Yes, and by counterterrorism you of course mean Saudi Wahhabism islam - as long as it doesn't challenge the Saud dictator family of which you are a part.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: We have been and are fighting extremism within our own borders daily, indeed hourly.

Klevius: You certainly do. How many Human Rights activists, apostates, atheists etc terrorists have you beheaded this week?

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Firm action is taken against any imam who is found to hold extremist views and who tries to incite their followers to violence.

James Lewis: The Saudi fanatics of the Wahhabi priesthood triggered the rise of fanaticism by sending out their own most primitive imams to run mosques in Western countries, using our oil money, price-controlled by OPEC. The Iranians do the same with the lethal preachings of Khomeini, the war theocrat. Scores of primitive gangs are trying to grab power in the Muslim world, each with their own fanatical preachers, all claiming to speak for Allah. The key to radical Islam is that its preachers claim to speak for God, elevating very flawed human beings to the status of divinity. Radical Muslims speak with absolute certainty, as if they are the voice of God.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: We have passed laws and warned our citizens that they will be arrested and prosecuted if they attempt to join Isis or any other international terrorist group.

Klevius: Indeed. Laws against Human Rights, Atheism, other religions etc evilness!

James Kirk Wall: The Saudi regime of kings and clerics is a hate organization.
They hate women
They hate Jews
The hate Christians
They hate other Muslims who claim divine authority
They hate other Muslims who don’t share their interpretation of Islam
They hate America, but not to our face
They claim to hate homosexuality, but behind closed doors who knows
They hate free speech
They hate equal rights and equal opportunity
They hate atheists and have declared them to be terrorists

Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director of Human Rights Watch, said: "Saudi authorities have never tolerated criticism of their policies, but these recent laws and regulations turn almost any critical expression or independent association into crimes of terrorism.”

But it gets even worse. It’s also illegal for anyone to imply that these recent laws are unjust.

Klevius: And this happens while Saudi Arabia's Riyadh principality also has begun a cover up "campaign" 'to encourage patriotism and spread of moderation and tolerance'. A convoy of young volunteers will make 13 tours to areas across Riyadh to spread a culture of dialogue and acceptance of others. The tours will include symposiums, training courses and exhibitions of publications from the King Abdulaziz Centre for National Dialogue, which is jointly sponsoring the campaign. "Symposiums and training courses" (in islam) similar to the ones Western accomplices to islamofascism are supporting/spreading.

Evan Helmuth: So which pressing, terrorism-related concern does the new law address first? Does it ban incitement to violent jihad from the pulpit or the dissemination of Jihadi propaganda online?

Nope, the leading concern of Saudi Arabia’s new terrorism law is atheism.

You read that right. The world’s number one exporter of poisonous Wahabi doctrines and of the jihadi rabble which is the inevitable result of such doctrines considers atheists its foremost terrorism concern.

Article One of the new law defines “calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based” as terrorism.

We can all rest easy now. Finally someone has taken a courageous stand and is dealing with the widespread scourge of Saudi atheist suicide bombers which has so afflicted the region.


Al-Wahab and the Tulip scent that shell shocked him


Klevius: The root man of Saudi islamofascism was Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab who, during his studies in Basra in the 18th C, got seriously dazzled by glimpses of the European Enlightenment twinkling through the temporary crack to the West called the "Tulip period". He then retreated back into his medieval islamic darkness and as a result, came to position himself as the very opposite to the British "Glorious revolution" (1688) which fought against Catholic papacy orthodoxy, which ended up in Lancashire's coal fueled textile industries as the beginning of the modern industrialized* world based on technology and rationality rather than on religious superstition and fundamentalism (also compare Shinto vs islam). A major outcome of industrialization was universal suffrage and the idea about negative human rights, i.e. freedom from impositions.

 * isn't it an irony then that Britain, which started the series of modern revolutions as well as industrialization, came to deeply embed itself with the most intolerant, racist and sexist constitution, i.e. the Saudi islamofascist dictator state which was incapable of producing anything by itself except hatred and more fanatic muslims!

Together with the criminal "house of Saud", Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab then confined the Arabs in islamic backwardness and, in addition, the Arab women in an islamic burka of extreme Sharia sex segregation/apartheid.

After having robbed Mecca and Medina (in true Mohammed style), the Sauds/Wahhabis run the stolen country by the help of what they fleeced from visiting pilgrims. This was the main source of income until Westerners found/drilled oil and made the lazy islamist looters even wealthier.

(analysis taken from Homo Filius Nullius by Peter Klevius).

Klevius comment: And today this evilness threatens the free world through spineless politicians and OIC in UN! The banner of Enlightenment is now upheld by "islamophobes" such as heroic women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has suffered as a victim of islam(ofascism) and escaped to the West, only to suffer as a victim of political correctness and to find that she was abandoned by those she thought would protect her! In fact, Western politicians and media are busy implementing that very Arab-islamic oppression so many muslims have escaped!







.

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Human Rights violating IS is a terrible joke compared to Human Rights violating OIC!




Biden: "The American people are so much stronger, so much more resolved than the muslims of the islamic state can fully understand,"


Klevius: Ok fine, but what about Wahhabi Saudi based Human Rights violating sharia organization OIC and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani?




Here a radical muslim who wants to eliminate the concept of moderate muslims so that he himself might not be called radical but just a muslim.






Nathan Lean (a radical muslim?): Even if a mere 1 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims is committed to violence, why is it that we haven’t seen 16 million violent attacks?

Klevius: Haven't we?! I thought we have. In fact I'd say there are many more than that because of the silent street jihad going on all over the world and which is blinked because of fear of being blamed "islamophobic". Look at the revelations of an overwhelming muslim presence of sexual predators in the UK and how their victims are were/are abandoned and the criminals not sentenced because of "muslim sensitivities". And sexual jihad is not the only jihad. We have no figures about other types of muslim hate crimes against non-muslims because they are all hidden under the "islamophobia" threat. However, as a criminologist I may assure you that everything points to sky rocketing numbers - just in line with the case of UK's hidden muslim sex predators.


Nathan Lean (a radical muslim?): Proving one’s “moderation” is a trap, anyway. The only way to do it is to meet the criteria set forth by the person making the demand. For Gabriel and others, it’s by supporting Western foreign policies in the Middle East, cheering continued military aid to Israel, and even rejecting certain Islamic tenets.

Klevius: May I understand it as you don't support Biden and the American people? And of course you don't because you support the global sharia Ummah, don't you.




Daniel Greenfield: I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.

There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won't find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.

You can't find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.

You won't find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won't even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won't find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.

Moderate Islam isn't what most Muslims believe. It's what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn't a religion at all.

Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn't been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can't name Mohammed's companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim.

Moderate Islam is a difficult faith. To believe in it you have to disregard over a thousand years of recorded history, theology, demographics and just about everything that predates 1965. You have to ignore the bearded men chopping off heads because they don't represent the majority of Muslims.

Neither does Mohammed, who did his own fair share of headchopping.

The real Islam is a topic that non-Muslims of no faith who hold sacred only the platitudes of a post-everything society are eager to lecture on without knowing anything about it.

Their Islam is not the religion of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadiths, the Caliphs or its practitioners in such places as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Indonesia. Their Islam is a religion that does not exist, but that they fervently believe must exist because without it their way of life is as doomed as the dodo.

They aren't Muslims. They have no faith in Allah or the Koran. Instead they have faith in the goodness of an Islam that exists without resort to scriptures, theology or deity.

When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.

Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.

Dissuading a believer in moderate Muslims from his invented faith by citing the long trail of corpses or the hateful Hadiths that call for mass murder is futile because these are not the roots of his religion. He doesn't know what a Hadith is nor does he care. As a social justice man in good standing, he attributes the violent track record of Islam to European colonialism and oppression.

He has never read the Koran. He has read a thousand articles about how Muslims are oppressed at the airport, in Gaza, in Burma and in Bugs Bunny cartoons. They are his new noble savages and he will not hear a word against them. Having colonized their identities in his imagination (despite the marked up copy of Edward Said's Orientalism that he keeps by his bedside) he treats them as reflections of his ego.

When you say that moderate Muslims don't exist, you are calling him a bad person. When you challenge Islam, you are attacking multiculturalism and he will call you a racist, regardless of the fact that Islam is as much of a race as Communism, Nazism or the Mickey Mouse Fan Club were races.





.