Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

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

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

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 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.

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

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Is islam, with a confused Mohammed & without "Allah's" Koran & infidel hatred/contempt & sexist Sharia rapetivism, still islam?!

Klevius background analysis: Whereas islam is based on sex segregated rapetivism, i.e. that women are sub-human sex- & reproductive slaves, Klevius + a few Billions more, consider women as fully human equals! This latter thought not only disturbs islamists but also a few others! Also remember to ask muslims if they respect you as an equal! That forces them to lie either to you or to their "faith"! Western governments, on their part, are (again) paving the way for fascism, now disguised as "multiculturalism". Instead of keeping up with the 1948 human rights aimed to protect from a repetition, they again allow for the building up of explosive tensions!

While Koran/islam's real disgusting nature is rapidly unfolding in the face of ignorant (or deliberately evil) islam supporters, others are busy "reinterpreting" islam in accordance with what was fashionable in the 19th C critical reading of religious texts, i.e. to simply get rid of/talk away "sacred texts" that weren't possible to logically adopt/adapt. However, in the case of islam it also incl. "Allah" himself, precisely because the status of Koran is higher than "Allah" in islam, simply because "Allah" is hermetically excluded so to give free access for the imamofascists, starting with Mohammed himself. This is the opposite to the Christian view (no, I'm not a Christian, stupid).


DISGUSTING ARABIC-FASCIST SHARIA ISLAM

The ignorant "moderate" muslim


Kamran Pasha is a male islamist Hollywood screenwriter (female screenwriters of any creed or non-creed, are extremely rare, so it's really no surprise that there are already more muslims than women!) who has apparently misunderstood (my interpretation - the alternative being really evil) abt everything in his own creed:

Kamran Pasha: "One of the first Arab practices Mohammed outlawed was female infanticide." Klevius help to poor Kamran: Well da, of course he did! The backbone of Mohammed's ideology for conquest was rapetivism, i.e. to squeeze out the most of the female reproductive potential, both biological & cultural!

Kamran Pasha: "The Prophet also established women's right to inherit and own property".

Klevius help to poor ignorant Kamran Pasha: The truth is that islam has the world's most sexist & unequal inheritance laws! Moreover, there's no escape because they stem directly from Koran! Islam's stuck in its Koran, as the Pope used to say!

A moderate beheading of an disobedient (to "Allah" and her husband) wife by a highly respected & supported moderate U.S. muslim TV-producer (the moderate "Bridges" channel aimed for "improving the picture of islam") in N.Y.
(extract from an interview with an ex-muslim)

Kasem: To my mind, this horrible slaughter is a case of honor killing. The killer, Muzammil Hassan, is certainly well-versed in Islamic theology and jurisprudence. He is the CEO of Bridges, the Islamic Television Station which he started to propagate the “true” image of Islam to the Western World. It is hard to believe that such an impeccably qualified person would not have been aware of what he was doing. Most likely, Muzammil Hasan had planned this all very well, and he did it according to Islamic fashion, i.e. slaughtering by beheading.

FP: Can you tell us about the legitimacy that Muslims find for honor killing in their religious theology?

Kasem: Well, you don’t need to go further than the Qur’an, which is the basis of honor killing in Islam. Let us read 4:15:

YUSUFALI: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

This verse clearly tells that a disgraced woman is condemned to a solitary confinement till death. The alternative is the judgement of Allah. The Qur’an is not clear what that judgement of Allah could be. There are various interpretations on this. Therefore, it is a fish market: anyone (man) may do to his woman whatever he wishes, including ending her life.

FP: So what is your reading of what happened in this case of beheading in Buffalo?

Kasem: According to Islam, if a woman disobeys her husband she is disgraced. Therefore, when Aasiya Zubair, the wife of Hassan, resorted to the Western justice system to seek protection from her menacing husband, she had certainly broken the Islamic tenet of complete surrender to the wishes of her husband. Thus, she had dishonoured her husband, his reputation and, most importantly, the Islamic code of conduct for an obedient wife. Therefore, it is not surprising that the killer had to end her life Islamically, to restore his pride, honor and religious conviction.

Let us read verse 4:34:

YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Please note that in verse 4:34 Allah permits a husband to punish his disobedient wife. It is worthy to observe that this verse says if the husband suspects or fears disobedience and rebellion; that the actual acts might not have taken place. This verse also says that the men are the protectors of women. Thus, Islamically, Aasiya was foolish enough to seek the protection of Canadian law. It was a clear violation of Qur’anic injunction of verse 4:34, a challenge to Islam. And, as per the Islamic law, if anyone violates the Qur’anic command the only punishment is death by beheading. Thus, we may conclude that Hassan has acted in the manner that Qur’an commands him.

FP: So in Islam, a woman is nothing more than her husband’s property.

Kasem: Absolutely. There are a number of ahadith that say that a Muslim woman’s status to her husband is no more than a slave.

Mohammed's confusion

Koran represents erroneously Abraham as the founder of the islamic Mecca. So e.g., is Ishmael only mentioned in the later suras although Isaac and Jacob are clearly presented as the sons of Abraham at an early stage. This & a pile of anachronisms & faulty names seem, according to research on the topic, to be the products of Mohammed's own confusion. When adding this to the established fact (& among e.g. muslim "scholars") that there is no "original" Koran but only a bunch of human interpretations, what do we have left? Klevius answer: We have a majority of ignorant muslims, informed muslims (i.e. the "islamists"), plus emotional &/or sexist Western supporters.

The treacherous "pluralist" muslim

According to Salim Mansur, a “moderate” muslim ass. professor who is, according to himself, a pluralist-muslim, what divides islamists from "moderate" muslims is Sharia. Salim Mansur also thinks muslims should not be “programmed by the sacred text, the Qur'an”.

Klevius comment: "Sacred" means here that although Korans are full of flaws they are still based on some "Allah's" mysterious thoughts, forever (& quite comfortably) excluded from these very same humans (this is what I use to call islam's "godlessness"). This "original" Koran is hence completely meaningless because not even Muhammed got a hold on it!

Both of the views above ultimately rest on the root of the evil, i.e. the Arabic text in Koran. So let's take a look at what we do know abt

Koran/islam

Muslim women can’t marry unbelievers under any circumstances.
Muslim women need a male guardian simply because they aren't fully human.
A Muslim man is allowed to have four wives at one time & an unlimited number of non-muslim women (i.e. non-muslim sex slaves).
A law against polygamy is against the Qur’an.
Adoption is not allowed in Sharia.
Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women (foreskin for men, part of clitoris for women).
When making love, no talking.
Unlawful for a man to look at a woman who is not his wife or one of his unmarriageable kin.
Husband and wife cannot look at each others genitals.
Unlawful for a woman to show any parts of her body to an adolescent boy or a non-Muslim woman.
Whatever is unlawful to look is also unlawful to touch.
A woman must not conduct her own marriage; she requires a male guardian.
A non-Muslim man cannot be the guardian of a Muslim woman.
A male guardian of a virgin woman may force her to marry a man of his choice.
Arab women cannot marry non-Arab men because "Allah" has chosen the Arabs above others.
When the husband settles the dower (bride money) or defers it, a wife must immediately submit her private parts to her husband’s demand for sex, unless she has legitimate ground of not doing so; if she requests to wait the maximum waiting time is three days.
A husband has the full right to enjoy his wife’s person, from the top of her head to the bottom of her feet.
A Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife or wives.
If wife refuses sex, the husband is not obliged to support her until she surrenders her person to the husband. Klevius comment: I repeat it again & agtain: Islam is all about rapetivism!
A divorced wife gets maintenance only for maximum three months.
Husband divorces wife instantly even under torture, compulsion, alcohol, narcotics and jokes; then he can marry a new set of four wives and continue the cycle.
The only way for a wife to get divorce is to convince the sharia court and also to pay money to her husband.
Making sarcasm is leaving Islam.
Islam orders the killing of the apostates.
No indemnity required for killing an apostate.
No expiation is required for killing an apostate of islam.
Jihad means to war against non-muslims (lesser jihad).
Jihad is warfare to establish islam (greater Jihad).

Basis for Jihad:
(1) fighting is prescribed (2:216).
(2) slay them wherever you find them (4:89).
(3) fight the idolatry utterly ( 9:36 ).

Jihad is a communal obligation.
Jihad is obligatory for every muslim who is able to perform it, male or female.
Caliph makes war upon the Jews, the Christians, the Zoroastrians…..by first inviting them to enter islam, if no success then pay jizya, if no jizya then kill them.
Women and children captured in a jihad operation become the slaves of muslims; the women’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.
In a jihad operation Muslims can kill old men (40+) and monks.
Male captives’ fate is decided by the Caliph; this includes gratuitous killing of male captives.
Truces are permitted but not obligatory. When uppermost—no truce until some interest is served---‘so do not be fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are the uppermost.
If weak then make truce for 10 years.
The Dhimmis’ public behaviour and dress must be Islamic.
Stone the adulterer/adulteress even in severe cold or illness.
Sodomy and lesbianism considered as adultery; same punishment; kill both for sodomy.
To get united with the previous husband a divorced wife must marry another person, have complete sex with him and get divorced by him voluntarily


West, Wilders & islam
(extract from interview)

Abul Kasem: The westerners trying to defend Islamic barbarism are simply ignorant about the true nature of Islam. For too long they have been fed with the idea that Islam is a religion, just like any other religion, such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Their logic is this: the Old Testament, the Vedas also has murderous verses and barbaric provisions, so why blame Islam only? These westerners simply forget that, except for Islam, all other religions’ potency has expired. There is no country ruled by the biblical laws. Ditto for Hinduism. But Islam is forever. There are 57 Islamic countries who form the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference), and who dearly believe and strive to subject the entire world to Islamic rule.
Thus the western politicians are caught in a quagmire. They dare not criticise Islam, lest they offend these 57 Islamic countries (OIC), and because the un-Islamic world, the western world, does not denounce Islam, the Islamic world feels encouraged to propagate Islam vigorously. The UN has fallen into this trap and it therefore not only has just a lackadaisical attitude towards Islam, but a loving relationship with Islam.
FP: What role does oil play?
Kasem: Oil money is definitely another important element in this game of hide-and-seek with Islam. Many western countries sell modern arms to the Arabic/Islamic world in exchange for oil money. Thus, it will be inappropriate to criticise Islam if these western countries want to secure the lucrative arms deals. To these political leaders trade/money is more important to the western world than the damaging effect Islam.
FP: I mentioned FGM earlier. Your thoughts?
Kasem: On the FGM issue, it is simply astonishing that the UN, the Women’s Rights organisation, the Human rights Organisation just do lip service to eradicate this savage procedure. These organisations often consider FGM as a cultural issue rather than religious. But they are wrong. We have irrefutable proof that Islamic law, Sharia supports male and female circumcision. Why is it so difficult to admit this truth and blame Islam? Further, even if it is culture, why must the civilised world tolerate such inhuman, barbaric cultural practice? In many cultures there was/is also the practice of human sacrifice. Should a civilised world accept such a custom, just because it is cultural? I only wished the UN and the Women’s rights organisation provide good answers for their silence on FGM.
Abul Kasem: I think Fitna is done very cleverly. It lays the full blame of Islamic atrocities to the fount of Islam, the Koran. Anyone viewing this short movie will have no doubt that the Islamist terrorism is the result of the Koran in action. Geert Wilders has demonstrated very precisely what has plagued the world for many years and why the Jihadists are doing what they are doing.
FP: Analyze for us the format that Wilders uses.Kasem: Wilders uses only five verses of the Koran to demonstrate the potential danger of Islam to a civilised world. These verses are (note the comments by eminent Koran scholars):
8:60 The Muslims should muster all their power and might, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles…) to strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers (by killing them—ibn Abbas).
47:4 When the believers meet the unbelievers they should smite at unbelievers’ necks (when you fight against them, cut them down totally with your swords—ibn Kathir).
8:39 Fight until there are no more unbelievers (non-Muslims) and tumult (this verse overrides all other verses on fighting the infidels, including the Jews and the Christians); if they accept Islam then leave them alone.
4:56 Unbelievers will be cast in fire, their skins roasted often, skins changed often for more roasting (the skin will be roasted seventy thousand time every day; the new skin will be as white as paper—ibn Kathir).
4:89 Seize and slay the renegades (i.e., apostates of Islam) wherever you find them. (Maududi 4/118: This is the verdict on those hypocritical confessors of faith who belong to a belligerent, non-Muslim nation and actually participate in acts of hostility against the Islamic state).
It is clear Greet Wilders did not present anything original. He merely re-stated the contents of the Koran, forcefully depicting, with true pictures, those verses in action.
FP: So if this is what the Qur’an says, then why would Muslims or anyone else be upset about the movie’s message?
Kasem: The Islamic Ummah is now furious why an infidel would portray the true color of Islam. In this chorus of peaceful Islam, Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations, has also joined in. Predictably, the peaceful Islam promptly issued the threat of murder of Geert Wilders and the employees of Live Leak, the website that hosted the premiere. It temporarily off-loaded Fitna to protect the lives of its employees. These are just mundane jobs of Islam—the standard practices, the world is now so used to these peaceful acts of Islam that they [these threats] do not at all surprise anyone.
Despite the threats, this short movie by Geert Wilders is spreading like wild-fire. I knew this truth when my wife was so eager to watch this film. She watched it at Google and was stunned at what she read and saw. When an ordinary house-wife becomes so enthusiastic about the ‘true’, ‘peaceful’ Islam then it must be an unusual event.
So, why the world’s political leaders (including Ban Ki-moon) could not find what a simple-minded, average, unsophisticated, uninformed (in Islam) housewife could so easily trace?
Amazingly, when every word, every picture in Fitna was corroborated with verses from the Koran, these world-leaders never mention the word Koran, instead, they blame the producer of the movie for inciting hate. How strange: the Koran preaches the hate, murder, genocide, but when the un-Islamic world quotes those verses, it is not the Koran that preaches the annihilation of the non-Islamic world; it is the fault of the un-Islamic world—why must they quote those verses?
This defies logic. These same world-leaders will keep their mouths shut when jihadists use many similar verses to justify the complete annihilation of the un-Islamic world.

No comments: