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, November 27, 2010
Who acted inappropriately in the royal family? And what about islamic Sharia compliancy - and its victims
The man from Bangladesh and the woman from Philippines were acting together.
UAE is built on top of the dead bodies of infidels slaughtered by islam almost 1400 years ago.
It used to be one of the absolutely biggest islamic slave markets in the world.
It also used to be a muslim piracy state just as Somalia is today.
Klevius comment: The Queen wasn't acting alone!
A Westernized (i.e. believing in Negative Human Rights rather than sharia "rights") "muslim" from Iraq seems to share much of what Klevius (but not BBC) has written for years:
Ali Ghalib: "In all,(Wiki)leaks have not generated as much excitement inside Iraq as they have internationally, this is because, to a large extent, they only describe what many Iraqis already knew, and to many Iraqis who have lived through the horrors of the US-led invasion and its aftermath, maintaining security, at whatever cost, will take precedence over the issue of civil liberties and human rights. The leaks are, however, useful because they allow us to grasp the personal nature of the “incidents”."
Klevius comment: The US invasion was an ultra fast military master piece with relatively few casaulties. Just remember the Iraqi propaganda minister telling us how the US marines were slaughtered by Saddam's islamic army, while in fact, the marines were already entering Baghdad behind his back! But what happened then was almost all islam's fault! The big casualties and endless islamic terror was caused by islamic jihadists, mainly steered and supported from Mr X "president's" beloved Saudi Arabia!
Ali Ghalib:"The leaks then, give Iraqis the chance to ask themselves some questions regarding how they see their future. Will they sideline the issues of civil liberties and human rights under because they want to fight terror? Will they dismiss violations because they are not as grave as those that went on during Saddam’s reign? Or will Iraqis determine, for themselves, what standards they will set themselves, independent of the horrors being wrought against them?"
Ali Ghalib:"Reporters, analysts and commentators made brazen claims that the leaks proved that things in Iraq under Saddam were much better than they are now. That said, it is difficult to accept attempts to white-wash Saddam’s notorious past by pointing at Iraq’s present situation."
Ali Ghalib:"To Iraqis like me, who have lost immediate family-members both pre and post 2003, the sudden burst of conscience from a public that was silent during three decades of the harshest, most despotic regime the Middle East has seen in centuries is abhorrent in itself, and leads me to question the motivation behind the sudden faux-concern for the plight of the millions of suffering Iraqis."
Ali Ghalib:"Here in London, Iraqis campaigned for years against Saddam, and tried desperately to convince the general public to support their worthy cause. Very few heeded the calls; apparently stories of Iraqis dying are not all too interesting. Unless of course, the West is somehow culpable in the killing."
Klevius question to the Queen and BBC: What do you think about sheltering, nurturing and supporting islamic pirates in the UK? Do you see the direct criminal link between islamic/Koranic jihad against infidels, and the fact that Somali pirates when in trouble search refugee status among their victims? Etc etc etc!? HOW DEEP WILL WE SINK BEFORE ITS TIME TO ADMIT THAT ISLAM IS THE WORST CRIME EVER AGAINST HUMANITY?