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, October 08, 2012

The desecration of Human Rights at McGill University

John Peters Humphrey is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he's defamated by Humanrightsphobics - yet all the Billions of followers take it calmly


John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights). Here's part of his profound and sacred original revelation:




"Subject to the laws governing slander and libel there shall be full freedom of speech and of expression by any means whatsoever, and there shall be reasonable access to all channels of communication. Censorship shall not be permitted"

Klevius comment: By 'libel' and 'slander' John Peters Humphrey of course meant something directed to an existing individual, not a totalitarian ideology!

Human Rights and islam are irreconcilable: Klevius knows it, OIC knows it - how come that McGill University doesn't know it?!


When a Sharia believing muslim, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im, says Sharia is reformable he lies straight up your "infidel" face. The very fact that OIC had to step aside of the Human Rights Declaration speaks for itself. And when this crypto-islamofascist is allowed to "lecture" (read lie) at McGill University it's the worst possible insult against the work of John Peters Humphrey and Human Rights.

Islam is dependent on sex-apartheid and can never survive without it! A Sharia without sex apartheid is impossible. Muslim men are the only true muslims and "muslim" women are there to sexually and reproductively satisfy muslim men and islam, period. That this arrangement then can take many different forms doesn't change these basic facts at all.

Human Rights, on the other hand allows girls/women freedom from sex apartheid.


An ignorant (?!) or naive McGill reporter: How would you assess the potential of applying a human rights framework to endorse/support women’s equality in Muslim laws (i.e. Sharia)?"

Klevius comment: Why doesn't this moron dare to ask the simple straight question: Can women be equal to men in any muslim law (i.e. Sharia) as they are in Human Rights?!

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im's equally confusing (deliberately?!) non-answer : "First, this is already happening for decades throughout the Muslim world. If one considers the vast majority of Muslims (more than 80 per cent) who live outside the Middle East, North Africa, there is much more than potential. This is clear, for instance, among the second-largest Muslim population in the world, which is in India. Yes, secular democratic India, not Pakistan or Egypt. Second, the idea of so-called “Muslim laws” is a colonial construct which does not reflect the realities of Muslims lives and how they see their relationship to Islam and Sharia."

Klevius comment: First, the fact that women married to muslims are, in general, in a better position in secular societies doesn't at all excuse the horrifying fact that Sharia NEVER will give women equality! It's the Human Rights, dude, that makes life easier for women married to muslim men in secular states where legislation takes its inspiration from the Universal Human Rights Declaration, not from an evil and totalitarian sex slave ideology! Second, the idea of so-called “muslim laws” as a colonial construct, is quite hilarious when considering that islam through its Sharia slavery finance throughout some 1400 years has been the by far worst colonizer ever in human history. Moreover, "the realities of muslim(men)'s lives and how they see their relationship to islam and Sharia" is nothing more than the repetition of the senseless islam excuse that "because we're used to do so"!

Hitler and his National-socialists (politically backed by the Germans) censored everything that was against their ideology. For islam censorship is even more important precisely because unlike the German National-socialism (popularly called Nazism for the purpose of hiding its socialist roots) islam has a 1400 year history of the worst atrocities you can imagine!

It's against this background you shall consider John Peters Humphrey's (peace be upon him and Human Rights) revelation above!





 

No comments: