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.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Poll: One third of British muslim students support murdering for islam and Sharia. The rest are islamophobic "muslims"!
Yes, in order to preserve and promote that religion - 4%
Yes, but only if that religion is under attack - 28%
32% said that it was acceptable to kill in the name of a religion - not islam, adds Martin Robbins, but any religion. Klevius question: Isn't islam the religion of muslims?!
Martin Robbins: Of those, 87.5% said "only in self-defense", while the tiny remainder said yes. Klevius comment: "only in self-defense"! Criticism of or obstacles for islam is aalways to be seen as "attacks on islam" according to OIC/Sharia (Cairo Declaration).
Martin Robbin (referring to a 2007 poll saying "...only 46 percent of Americans think that 'bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians' are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are 'often or sometimes justified.'": I'm curious to know what percentage of Christians would give similar answers, and what proportion of human beings in general if we substitute "religion" for "philosophy" or "way of life". You could report that as "54% of Americans think it's fine to kill civilians in the name of capitalism!"
Klevius comment: Would you believe this nut head is really saying this?! And moreover, "philosophy" or "a way of life" or "capitalism" as concepts have hardly anything to do with the Human Rights violation called Sharia islam, the aim of 56+1 muslim nations (OIC) who now rule the world Umma through its position as UN's most influential voting bloc etc! But like other "useful idiots" Martin Robbins seems to have blindfolded himself in front of this disgusting fact! One cannot compare OIC and their muslims with Westernized "muslims"!
Mr X "president" is an islamophobe because he doesn't dare to admit he is a muslim (like everyone born to a muslim father according to islamic Sharia)!
New poll: 32% of British muslim university students support murdering he Gulfstream afor islam, and 40% want Sharia. More than half of British muslim students want to be represented by an islamic party.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (one of the world's bravest and most intelligent women possessing an enourmous integity): Backward islam is the new fascism, and Muhammad is a pervert, who is also against freedom of expression.
Klevius comment: These islamofascist muslims are supported by not only the biggest voting bloc (OIC) in UN, but also by islamofascist friendly media, ignorant (or deliberate) members of the public andtheir politicians.
Btw 1, if you wonder about climate changes, take a look at Klevius 2006 analysis about the Gulfstream, and compare to new evidence presented last week!
Btw 2, if you belong to those believing the Viking age started by the 790s attack on the Lindisfarne monastery, you've been thoroughly misled!