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.
Friday, December 10, 2010
For your information! December 06, 2009 Klevius wrote: "It was probably islam, not Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito who murdered Meredith Kerchner". The murder was most probably influenced by Saudi/Koranic hate mongering!
Saudi Anthropologist Sa'd Al-Sowayan suggests removing the jihad sword from Saudi flag. However, Klevius suggests removing islam!
Klevius question to the Chinese (and the World): Why did the Chinese workers in Mecca have to convert to islam to finish what the Arab muslims were incapable of doing?! And what about the islamic apostasy ban? Can these workers drop islam when finished without breaking the Sharia of the "guardians of islam"?!
Klevius question: How many of these know what they are really bowing for?
The koranic (2:256) "there is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi d-dini) is generally misunderstood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith.
However, the circumstances governing the origin of islam differed from those of today so that presuppositions for religious tolerance made no sense other than as beneficial for parasitism. Today islam has to fight against the unbeatable* logic of the universal Negative Human Rights.
The real original meaning was that no one can be compelled to islam (the “right” belief). Koran, then, doesn’t proclaim tolerance, but rather an emphasize on the importane of a rigid and heavily ritualised belief in Mohammed’s gangsta gang (im)moral.
Contemporary islam apologetics’ naïve or deliberate “interpretation” of “no compulsion in religion” as religious tolerance, only contributes to the widespread misunderstanding of islam’s true original nature, and due danger it poses.
* “Unbeatable” precisely because they lack content, i.e. are filled with freedom. Moreover,they stay in direct opposition to the positive impositions in islam/Sharia. We cannot rigidly settle for any particular moral axiom in an inevitably changing world. Laws, no matter if “man made” or “god’s will”, will hence also change. So why put “allah” in between and then call the change “interpretation” or “adaptation”?!