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.

Saturday, May 04, 2013

Daniel Pipes, the mosque mice, and the embarrassing truth


Every sensible muslim would abandon islamic Sharia if they only really knew the basics of Human Rights. How, for example, could muslim women possibly resist an ideology that gives them the right to dress, act and be suppressed by their husbands if they so like, but which also gives them the right not to do so?! Or could they? Can't they stand the right to let other women live a different life?

Sadly many Westerners aren't that educated about Negative Human Rights either, and if they are they hide it behind political correctness and "muslim sensitivities".

Daniel Pipes is a Jewish islamophobe who isn't afraid of islam - but how does he differ from a mosque mouse?!

Or is he just too shy to criticize islam?


Klevius: Islam is against Human Rights! Oops, sorry for that "crime against humanity". However, Erdogan and his pal, Egyptian born Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and his Saudi based OIC deliberately violate Human Rights via OIC's Cairo declaration (Sharia) which covers the whole muslim world Umma.


An overwhelming majority of muslims are against Human Rights


According to the latest Pew Research Forum report, "The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society," released April 30, 2013, including a total of 39 countries and territories on three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe, and covering "more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages and dialects, from every country that has more than 10 million Muslims", 72% of Indonesian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 82% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 74% of Egyptian Muslims, and 71% of Nigerian Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies. The population-weighted average from these 5 countries was 77% supportive. (Composite regional data confirmed these individual country trends -- 84% of South Asian Muslims, 77% of Southeast Asian Muslims, 74% of Middle Eastern/North African Muslims, and 64% of Sub-Saharan African Muslims favored application of the Sharia as official state law.)

Could this be why mosque mice are so silent?



Daniel Pipes' "defense" of islam



Daniel Pipes: Those arguing for Islam itself as the problem (such as Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) point to the consistency from Muhammad’s life and the contents of the Koran and Hadith to current Muslim practice. Agreeing with Geert Wilders’ film Fitna, they point to striking continuities between Koranic verses and jihad actions. They quote Islamic scriptures to establish the centrality of Muslim supremacism, jihad, and misogyny, concluding that a moderate form of Islam is impossible. They point to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s deriding the very idea of a moderate Islam. Their killer question is, “Was Muhammad a Muslim or an Islamist?” They contend that we who blame Islamism do so out of political correctness or cowardliness. To which, we reply: Yes, certain continuities do exist; and Islamists definitely follow the Koran and Hadith literally. Moderate Muslims exist but lack Islamists’ near-hegemonic  power. Erdogan’s denial of moderate Islam points to a curious overlap between Islamism and the anti-Islam viewpoint.

Klevius: Indeed, the next best way of fast learning about the origin of islam is to read islamist websites and listening to islamist imams etc. However, the best way is still by reading Klevius, of course. Why? Because Klevius is neither a Jew, nor a Christian nor a muslim, and hence he isn't entangled with philosophical difficulties regarding Human Rights. Moreover, both islamists and Klevius' view on islam is in full agreement with what otherwise puzzle most historians, i.e how islam could spread so quickly.


Daniel Pipes: My analysis goes like this:

Islam is the 14-century-old faith of a billion-plus believers that includes everyone from quietist Sufis to violent jihadis.

Major dissonance began around 1800, when Muslims unexpectedly lost wars, markets, and cultural leadership to Western Europeans.

Klevius: Unexpectedly!? Dear Mr Pipes, don't you know that the main currency of islam's Sharia finance was slaves, and when Europeans in the early 19th century eventually finished a long series of efforts to stop Jewish and muslim slave raiding/trading, then the islamic economy based on parasitism collapsed and the islamic "civilization" decayed into hopeless misery until renewed by the power of oil.

In fact, Mr Pipes, some of the most long lasting and ugliest forms of slave raiding/trading existed in the area where your forefathers are from. I refer to Russia and the Jewish Khazars and the Ottoman Turks.

To understand the origin of islam, Mr Pipes, take a look at the origin of the Vikings!

Daniel Pipes: It (major dissonance) continues today, as Muslims bunch toward the bottom of nearly every index of achievement. This shift has caused massive confusion and anger. What went wrong, why did God seemingly abandon His faithful?

Muslims have responded to this crisis in three main ways. Secularists want Muslims to ditch the Shariah (Islamic law) and emulate the West. Apologists also emulate the West but pretend that in doing so they are following the Shariah. Islamists reject the West in favour of a retrograde and full application of the Shariah.

Klevius:In the enlightenment of Human Rights it's impossible to "pretend" Sharia. No matter if we talk moderate or islamist Sharia they both share an undeniable element of sexism and racism that stands in sharp contrast to Human Rights. This is why OIC has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia in the UN. This is also why torture doesn't exist under Sharia, simply because it's part of the sentence.

Daniel Pipes:  Islamism represents the transformation of Islamic faith into a political ideology. Islamism accurately indicates an Islamic-flavoured version of radical utopianism, an -ism like other -isms, comparable to fascism and communism. Aping those two movements, for example, Islamism relies heavily on conspiracy theories to interpret the world, on the state to advance its ambitions, and on brutal means to attain its goals.

Klevius:Let me remind you that just like the most important Human Rights are the negative ones, the most important -ism is the negative atheism.

Daniel Pipes: Supported by 10 to 15 per cent of Muslims, Islamism draws on devoted and skilled cadres who have an impact far beyond their limited numbers. It poses the threat to civilized life in Iran, Egypt, and not just on the streets of Boston but also in Western schools, parliaments, and courtrooms.

Klevius:150 million extremist muslims - and counting! And they thrive equally well in Western Universities as in Mideast etc. Isn't that more than enough to keep us busy from even bothering about possible "moderate muslims"?

Daniel Pipes: Our killer question is “How do you propose to defeat Islamism?” Those who make all Islam their enemy not only succumb to a simplistic and essentialist illusion but they lack any mechanism to defeat it. We who focus on Islamism see the Second World War and the Cold War as models for subduing the third totalitarianism. We understand that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. We work with anti-Islamist Muslims to vanquish a common scourge. We will triumph over this new variant of barbarism so that a modern form of Islam can emerge.

Klevius: The mechanism to defeat islam is called (negative) Human Rights! Simple as that and rock solid if you just put it on the agenda. And most of us non-muslims have already agreed on it via the 1948 Human Rights Declaration, which was aimed to hinder people like Goebbels and Erdogan etc. to rise their evil agendas.

And Erdogan is right, there's no such creature as moderate islam and, as  a consequence, no moderate muslims.

Working with "anti-islamist muslims" (what's that?) can only harm Human Rights. If they are true muslims they simply cannot stretch that far, and if they do they aren't muslims in any meaningful sense anymore. Islam is a life covering totalitarian ideology.

OIC, the world's largest organozation after UN covers all the world's muslims. OIC also tries to say it is "anti-violence" yet it has strongly adopted as its basis islamist Sharia. And by "islamist" I here refer to the undeniable fact that OIC's Cairo declaration is the very opposite to Human Rights on the most basic points!


Here's what Klevius wrote eight years ago:

Thursday, July 21, 2005


Creeping Islam uses Mideast "monolitheism" and vanishing Christianity for global fascism

Islamic terrorism is just the tiny tip of a giant Arabic/Islamic iceberg fueled by oil-money and extending deeply into Western institutions. Asking Muslims for help against Muslims makes little sense. A strong re-evaluation of their "religion" is the only possible future

The problem isn't about immigrants, Arabs or Jews etc but solely about Islam as a facist/sexist totalitarian idea - and those detached lost souls (often in need of immediate care) who pick it up in Koran schools, Mosques, youth organizations etc. Another problem constitutes of all those millions who call themselves Muslims without, in most cases, having even a remote sense of what it really stands for as an idea. For these "Muslims" Islam is instead a synonyme (most often historically forced upon them) for their real ethnicity, not the Koran.

Just as Christianity was stimulated by the New Testament's replacement theology (or supersessionism), which taught that with the coming of Jesus a new covenant has rendered obsolete and has superseded the religion of Judaism, Islam is stimulated by Koran and the "last prophet" whose words should not be critisized or questioned (although Muslims do it all the time through a variety of interpretations).

Furthermore A number of Christian preachers, particularly in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, additionally taught that religious Jews choose to follow a faith that they actually know is false out of a desire to offend God Although this pattern is now repeated by "radical" (interesting word) Islamists, "moderate" Islamists have long since figured out a much more effective strategy. By equalizing Arabic Islam from the 7th century A.D. (neither Arabic nor Islam was around before that time) with the fate of Abraham some 1.900 B.C., "moderate" Islamists now try to convince other religious groups belonging to the same Mideastern "monolitheism" (new word by Peter Klevius) that they have a common interest. But this "interest" is, in fact, a catalyst for
replacing rapidly vanishing Christianity with a racist ("infidel"), sexist (sex segregation) totalitarian (anti-human rights) jihadist world-Islam that always supports "radical" interpretations no matter how many timid "Muslims" might be around.


Today's Hitler, bin Laden, and his meek and lost followers, and blind supporters.

In this light the difference between so called "radical" and "moderate" Islamists is less than thin Also compare posting on Saudi Islamist and Muslim feminist Mai Yamani and her opposite, Condoleezza Rice. The London bombs can be traced back to that very same Sudan which now rapes and kills women in Darfur, in front of Mai Yamani's shut eyes.

Klevius' definition of religion.


What do the terrorists want?

They want precisely the same as Islamists in general, i.e. to boost Islam!


So what should Muslims and "Muslims" do?

Start with the Fundamentalist test and then openly state that non-Muslims, "infidels", unbelievers, Atheists etc are exactly equally good and worthy humans as are Muslims, and that they don't need an Allah or other specified God to remain so! Very simple, isn't it?

Islam, not Bush, was responsible for 9/11! Islam, not Bush, is responsible for Islamic suicide-killers/terrorists around the globe! Islam (and an Islamist government), not Bush (or the "West"), is responsible for the rapes and killings in Sudan! And Islam, not Bush, is responsible for the continuing mess in Iraq!

The solution for Iraq: 1) The whole world should now send troops there to protect non-violent Iraqis against Islamic terrorists. 2) Avoid Islam in the constitution!


Klevius comment May 2013: Same applies to Syria etc!







.

 .

No comments: