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.

Friday, January 04, 2013

Saudi demolition of Mohammed's "tomb" etc: No wonder a racist/sexist rapetivist "religion" without a founder and with empty "graves" has to be covered by lies and concrete


Is islam also the biggest lie ever?


There was no original Muhammed in any meaningful sense comparable to the one presented in later islamic fairy tales. But there was rapetivist sex segregation/apartheid which was later institutionalized in the Koran/Sharia.


The muslim gender trap - and the way out


The original jihadists were known for cowardice. Compare this to these heroines!


A freed muslim and two freed Slavs (the Slavic and Finnic tribes were the main target for Jewish/Khazar and Bolgar, Tatar, Ottoman etc muslim sex slave raids/trade). Klevius doesn't know the girls but feels now for the first time threatened in his self-assumed role as the world's foremost expert on sex segregation. Could these women represent the first true 'humanists' (instead of 'feminists' scared of "becoming men" - see Klevius' Definition of feminism, so to understand how muslim feminism is possible)? Humanism is in accordance with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, feminism (or islamism) based on culturally construed "femininity" (sex segregation) is not?


Gender, the key to sex segregation


'Gender' is often (deliberately?) confused with 'sex'. Nothing could be more confusing. 'Gender' is a linguistic trap that makes it impossible for the sexes to culturally overlap.

Theoretically 'gender' could mean anything to your sex. However, no matter what it is 'gender' always hinders you from its definition, i.e. the opposite gender. So whereas your bio-sex per se doesn't predestine you for sex segregation, 'gender' acts like a stiff pole tied to two individuals. They can move all around without ever being close to each other.

A female football team or a female 100 m competition is not sex segregation, but could be described as an agreement. However, discouraging a girl from playing football may well be. The term 'gender segregation' is an oxymoron or a tautology, if you like, because whereas one's 'sex' doesn't have to necessitate segregation, 'gender' does.

Under Human Rights you as a woman have the right to decide how you look and how you lead your life. Under islam and whatever form of Sharia this path is closed. Human rights allows anyone who so wishes to restrict herself while keeping the door open for other possibilities. Sharia, on the other hand, always restricts you in some way. So asking for Sharia is not only unnecessarybut a fascist imposition on those who want to be free.

Heterosexual attraction doesn't necessitate rape or rapetivism. Rape is always cultural. So the islamic excuse for sex apartheid isn't only theoretically void but functions as islam's main evil tool for rapetivism. 

Islam's "gender" trouble (Klevius 2006: Origin of Mosque)

Deborah Hope: "The silence of most Western feminists on the issue of Islam-sanctioned violence is one of the most shaming aspects of the present debate." The immutable word of God, expressed through the Koran, is that "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one superior to the other." and "Good women," it continues, "are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then, if they obey you, take no further action against them." (Koran 4: 34).


Klevius comment (2006): There's no hope for islam in any form - Koran is islam's burka! As the Pope noted islam's stuck with Koran (i.e. because it's "god's" final and unchallengable word and because the "last messenger" is dead, "god" as well as humans are effectively cut off from Koran, hence leaving it open for every interpretation including the most literal). And as Klevius continues repeating, islam's stuck with sex segregation/rapetivism (incl. infantilized fear for heterosexual attraction) and parasitism (from pure slavery to a variety of sponging strategies - see e.g. Origin of Islam and Origin of Vikings). Also consider Klevius definition of religion and Klevius definition of negative human rights!


Klevius comment (2013): True (negative) Human Rights don't discriminate because of sex. However, if you divide humans into two categories both cannot have the same rights. And all of this has nothing to do with physical differences, i.e. 'sex' (just like 'race' etc).


The Saudis' physical demolition of islam

History of islam


Some people say belief, not history, matters in religion. However, a belief can be extremely dangerous when it's connected (islam) to a variety of other beliefs. And by digging in history, fairy tales may turn out to be better explained as less flattering social phenomenon we'd rather avoid.

Earliest non-muslim sources about Mohammed's historical existence are both disputed and contradictory.

1 Ca 640 AD (but extremely uncertain because agreable primary sources are lacking), the Greek Doctrina Jacobi mentions a nameless Saracen preaching by the sword and proclaiming the coming of Kristos.

2 A 660 AD History of Heraclius attributed to the Armenian Bishop Sebeos. According to the Koran, Muhammad slaughtered the Jews in 624 AD. However, according to Sebeos, Jews and muslims were still tight in the 640s.

In conclusion one might well consider research pointing out an early idealized Jesus Mohammed confused with a later construed islamic Mohammed.


Islam, i.e the historical phenomenon, was rooted in an eastern Jewish-Christian schism. Jews and Jews believing in (a monophysitism inspired) MHMD (anointed) didn't only offer the wealthy background against which barbaric (according to islam's foremost historian Ibn Khaldun) Bedouin Arabs were enslaved and/or enrolled, but also constituted the missing fifth columnist historical link to the "unexplained" success of early islamic terror conquest.

It was islam's brainwashing of infidel racism into the minds of its illiterate jihadists that made it easy to loot, rape and terrorize, i.e. what is usually called "islamic conquest". Islam is an ideology originating in human slave parasitism. Islamic finance started with slaves as the main currency and capital. The Wall Street of islam was the slave market.

For the purpose of defending this immorality, a Jewish ideology (all the wealthy people in Mohammed's Arabia were Jews incl. those Jews believing in Jesus) was first radically contrasted against Vagina Judaism (matrilinealism changed to patrilineal Penis Judaism, i.e. islam), and then, much later, "finetuned" by Malik's invention of Mohammed and a "Koran" in the interface between the new ideology and the old Book". A "religious" system based on the reproduction of as many muslims as possible via the Penis* instead of the Jewish Vagina, spiced with apostasy ban and the ban on muslim women to marry non-muslim men, and financed by the world's most elaborate and widespread slave finance Sharia, now mainly fueled by Western oil and aid money).

* Which explains why we now have less than 10 Million Jews and more than 1.5 Billion muslims.

Hugh Kennedy (professor of Arabic language and Arabic history): "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) alleged Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever nor any form of religious pronouncement”!  

Petra Sijpesteijn (supported by Saudi etc islam boasting money) distances herself from "the small group of polemical colleagues", who conclude that Muhammad probably did not exist.

According to Petra Sijpesteijn, they say the Arab conquerors were actually a disorganised horde of Bedouins who gained control of half the known world more or less by chance (Klevius: Who says that?! Not Klevius, nor anyone seriously contemplating the origin of islam!). Islam is said to have been dreamt up 200 years later in Iraq.

Sijpesteijn also says she has come across a papyrus text written around 725 which names both the prophet and islam (Klevius: So what? That's after Malik!).

Even so, her discoveries form a potential threat to the image "sensitive" muslims have of their history. The papyri contradict the belief  that Muhammad delivered islam as a sort of ready-made package. “It looks as though islam in its first centuries developed a form gradually (Klevius: Indeed!).

The first jihadists, i.e. Muhajirun (militant) didn't call themselves muslims nor Arabs. However, in his writings Hugh Kennedy uses the term, probably for the convenience of the reader: "Only by directing the energies of the tribesmen against an outside enemy could the unity of the muslim state be preserved. All the muslims were to co-operate in launching raids against their opponents."                                                                                  This is what Klevius has said long before Kennedy.




Saudi islamophobia and greed


The Green Mosque in Medina hides the non-existing "grave" of the non-existing Mohammed. Now the Saudis are busy using Western oil money to hide it even more by erecting "the world's largest building" on top of it. Makes sense, doesn't it, to cover the world's biggest lie with the world's biggest heap of concrete.

In 1998, before becoming Prime Minister of Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – quoted from the following poem during a speech: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…”. As a PM he has also stated that there is no moderate islam.

Klevius agrees with Erdogan. It doesn't matter how many "peaceful muslims" there are when islam is so evil that its message has to be "reformed", its history lied about, and its non-existing "founder's" empty "grave" has to be hidden under the world's biggest pile of concrete.


The destruction of sites associated with early Islam is an on-going phenomenon that has occurred mainly in the Hejaz region of western Saudi Arabia, particularly around the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The demolition has focused on mosques, burial sites, homes and historical locations associated with the Islamic prophet, Muhammad and many of the founding personalities of early Islamic history. In Saudi Arabia, many of the demolitions have officially been part of the continued expansion of the Masjid Al-Haram at Mecca and the Prophet's Mosque in Medina and their auxiliary service facilities in order to accommodate the ever-increasing number of Hajj pilgrims. Detractors of the demolitions and expansion programs have argued that this phenomenon is part of the implementation of state-endorsed Wahhabi religious policy that emphasizes the Oneness of God (Tawhid) and entirely rejects the worship of divine proxies to God or even the practices and habits which might lead to idolatry and polytheistic association (Shirk).

The word šhirk comes from the Arabic root Š-R-K (ش ر ك), with the general meaning of "to share". In the context of the Koran, the particular sense of "sharing as an equal partner" is usually understood, so that polytheism is "attributing a partner to Allah". In the Qur'an, širk and the related word (plural Stem IV active participle) mušrikūn (مشركون) "those who commit shirk and plot against Islam" often clearly refers to the enemies of Islam (as in verse 9.1–15) but sometimes it also refers to erring Muslims.

The All India Ulema and Mashaikh Board (AIUMB) has recently written to India PM Manmohan Singh, external affairs minister Salman Khurshid as well as to the Saudi ambassador in India and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) about the Saudi demolition of "holy places" and about "thousands of angry Indian muslims".

General secretary Maulana Syed Mohammad Ashraf Kicchouchhwi (AIUMB): "... the tomb of the Prophet is now prime target of the Saudi regime. This is sought to be done away with in the name of expansion of the mosque (Al-Masjid-al-Nabawi) and developing a five-star culture in Medina Shareef." He allegedly also said this was the most heinous crime ever committed against any religion by the 'protector of its holy places'.



 .


.

No comments: