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")!
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.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Open letter to Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Peace be upon You! According to Mr X "president" there's no connection between islam & violence!
Btw, how come that PC charlatan opionist political editing tool Wikipedia calls you and Mohammed both feminists?! And that the same insane wild editing Wikipedia* defines antifeminism as the consideration that "feminism is a destructive force that endangers the family. Wikipedia happily cherry picks Paul Gottfried to say: Serious (sic - Klevius' sigh) conservative scholars like Allan Carlson and F. Carolyn Graglia have maintained that the change of women’s role, from being primarily mothers to self-defined professionals, has been a social disaster (Klevius comment: see Angels of Antichrist to get this tendentious and uninformed polemic confusion corrected) that continues to take its toll on the family. Rather than being the culminating point of Western Christian gentility, the movement of women into commerce and politics may be seen as exactly the opposite, the descent by increasingly disconnected individuals into social chaos. Wikipedia continues its senseless babbling and cherry picking: Antifeminist writer Jim Kalb describes the stance thus: To be antifeminist is simply to accept that men and women differ (Klevius comment: check out What's sex segregation to get this delusion corrected) and rely on each other to be different, and to view the differences as among the things constituting human life that should be reflected where appropriate in social attitudes and institutions. By feminist standards all societies have been thoroughly sexist. It follows that to be antifeminist is only to abandon the bigotry of a present-day ideology that sees traditional relations between the sexes as simply a matter of domination and submission, and to accept the validity of the ways in which human beings have actually dealt with sex, children, family life and so on (Klevius comment: Yes, why not take a look at the previous posting and give some consideration to words such as over population and rapetivism in islamic societies!). Antifeminism is thus nothing more than the rejection of one of the narrow and destructive fantasies of an age in which such things have been responsible for destruction and murder on an unprecedented scale.
* The only reason Wikipedia is mentioned is that it reflexes a weird but common type of PC edited folk "science" and hence well exemplifies and boosts common misconceptions.
Klevius comment: Just try to make sense of this! You can really see the oily Arabian islam wind blowing through this. But poor Mohammed has been squeezed in both of these categories! Schizophrenic? Probably. Ask his inventor, Malik (see previous posting)!
Klevius answer to this mess lies in Klevius Definition of feminism. And in the fact that the cutting of your clitoris was a similar effort to feminize you as the veil, the burqa, the Sharia etc. are for muslim women. As Otto Weininger put it: The worst obstacle for the emancipation of women is the Woman (i.e. the "feminine one", who strives like a transvestite (i.e. without the biological body) to fulfill a cultural mirage of "femininity" while her biological body, without any altering at all needed, already possesses it, i.e. what Klevius since long has termed heterosexual attraction!
For other readers of this open letter: Both Klevius and Ayaan Hirsi Ali know that the Enlightened individual long since theoretically eradicated the sex segregated "Woman". And since 1948 it's been inscibed in UN's Human Rights Declaration as (Article 2) Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as - sex... And unlike the sexist islamofascist OIC's Cairo Declaration (1990) on "islamic human rights" (i.e. Sharia) the original Human Rights Declaration doesn't allow for exceptions such as OIC's Sharia terms of "basic obligations and responsibilities"! This however, doesn't hinder necrophilic transvestites (feminists, muslims etc) from scavenging on her dead body. You ignorant islam supporter need to start working on the origin of islam! And when you have realized the true evilness of its birth then you'd be prepared for the 1400 year long body count. And hopefully, a reconsideration of your islam support when you realize how much additional damage it really causes, and how your perverse attitude constitutes a severe obstruction of justice, i.e. the indictment of islam, the worst crime ever against humanity.
A crypto-muslim in the White House, and 57 Sharia nations (OIC) undermining Human Rights in UN is a serious threat to everyone on the planet! Also consider Wikipedia's islamofascist human rights entry: Some (actually ALL 57 OIC members) islamic countries have criticised the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries and Sharia (sic).
Klevius comment: Isn't it hilarious that islam is defended on cultural grounds at the same time as islamic Sharia honor murders are called "cultural" and not islamic!?
The only moral way to go is called Negative Human Rights (the very basis for the UN 1948 Declaration on Human Rights). This way happens to go in the very opposite direction compared to Mohammed and other feminists!
Perhaps you should also take a look at the most important sociological writing from the last Century, Angels of Antichrist (no, Klevius isn't "religious" - Klevius is serious)! A quote from Angels of Antichrist: Although the simple Sicilian women in Lagerlöf’s novel, following the Good Samaritan, showed no signs of evil, they were certainly part of a movement that would become the most widespread political force ever. The question, however, remains; is it an evil one? (Klevius 1996).
Mr X "president" and Saudi/Pakistan (incl US and UK Paki etc muslims) funded islamic jihadists
OP Gupta: "On May 13, 2010 at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee when Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) asked Attorney General Eric Holder: "Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?" Holder replied: "There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. . ." Holder’s avoidance of the obvious (i.e. naming Radical Islam) is seen as the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who is trying to kill Americans and why. In fact, it is alleged to have banned from its official vocabulary the terms jihadist, Islamist and Islamic terrorism."
“And slay them (the infidels [Jews & Christians]) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter” 2:191
" وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ كَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الْكَافِرِينَ" البقرة 191:2
“Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not” 2:216
" كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ" البقرة 216:2
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" 9:29
"قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُون" التوبة 29:9
Husain Haqqani, now Pakistan's ambassador to Washington: "The most significant jihadi group of Wahhabi persuasion (PDF) [influenced by the doctrine of 18th-century Islamic scholar Muhammad ibn-Abdul Wahhab] is Lashkar-e-Taiba" which is backed by Saudi money and protected by Pakistani intelligence services. LeT "seeks to bring about a union of all Muslim majority regions in countries that surround Pakistan." According to Haqqani, LeT justifies its ideology by the Quranic verse that says, "You are obligated to fight even though it is something you do not like" (2:216).
The islamofascist terror manual called "Islamic Human Rights"
The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC),
reaffirming the civilizing and historical role (sic) of the islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation (sic) and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and wishing to affirm his right to a dignified life in accordance with the islamic Sharia; believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms (sic) in islam are an integral part of the islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part (sic) or violate or ignore them (sic) in as much as they are binding divine commandments thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation all abominable sin (sic), and accordingly every person is individually responsible (sic) - and tile Ummah collectively responsible - for their safeguard. Article 1(a): All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to Allah (sic). Article 2: It is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari'a prescribed reason (sic).