Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future

Definition of Negative Human Rights - i.e. the very foundation of the freedom part of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

This is what BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain "forgot" to report. Mishal grew up in the very same theocratic medieval dictatorship which now harbors and rules all muslims world organization OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia. While also spreading islamic hatred over the world through a variety of channels.

Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:

True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).

Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017

So let's face islam with this definition.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").

And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.

* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".

Klevius to Mueller (who opposed investigation of Saudi 9/11): Check Saudi connections/influence!

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?

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a miserable "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

Mrs May plays sharia with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - skipping Human Rights. Right?

Saudi islamofascism attacks Buddhists - again and again - backed by Mrs May.

When will the world finally turn on the hateful Saudi dictator family - rather than on its victims?

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

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

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.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Exactly following the Koran/Hadits, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State behead and persecute exactly as prophet Mohammed did - yet muslim "scholars" see nothing islamic in it!


Why is evil Saudi Arabia supported in its extreme intolerance and racist hate of Shia muslims?



The prophetic terror slaughter of Jews and other "infidels" in Medina and elsewhere is  at the core of islam


Violent jihadism against the "infidels" was the trade mark of prophet Muhammad and sharia (in whatever form) is always against themost basic Human Rights but compulsory to everyone wanting to call himself a muslim (a woman can never be fully muslim). Ask every muslim you encounter if he approves of sharia or Human Rights. If he says both he lies you straight up your infidel face!

No one in his full mind can argue that the original islamic expansionism was a jihad "in defense of islam". It was islamic jihad for conquest, enslavement and rapetivism period.

Wanna know the origin of islam? Look at the Islamic State!

Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Islamic State doesn't have a sword on their flag!







Do the muslim test by asking them if they are against Human Rights. If they are not they are no real muslims, according to OIC (all muslims world Ummah) and every possible form of Sharia! And don't get yourself fooled by muslims (or their supporters) using the taqiya oxymoron islamic "human rights" because that is in fact sharia (see OIC's Cairo declaration 1990)!

In other words, a true muslim is then per definition always a supremacist racist and sexist individual through the tie to islam and Sharia. And there is no real  islam without Sharia! Got it dude? And stop cheating yourself and others with that "moderate islam" crap, will you!



 Diana West: Megyn Kelly interviewed Maajid Nawaz about the Islamic State (ISIL), the latest Muslim horde on a jihad to establish a “caliphate” (pan-Islamic regime) based in sharia (Islamic law). Nawaz could be considered a defector from Hizb ut-Tahrir, one of the revolutionary Islamic groups, some violent, some removed from violence, dedicated to the establishment of a caliphate based in Islamic law, from al-Qaida to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Nawaz said goodbye to all that in 2007, he says. In 2008, he and fellow defector Ed Husain founded Quilliam, a British “counter-extremism” foundation named for William Quilliam, a 19th-century British convert to Islam. Abdullah Quilliam, as he became known, opened the first British mosque on Christmas Day, 1889. “Co-exist,” right? It’s no stretch, however, to imagine Sheikh Quilliam at home in Hizb ut-Tahrir as a fatwa-issuing advocate of the caliphate and sharia both. He also issued a fatwa prohibiting Muslims from fighting for or assisting Britain (“contrary to the sharia”), then fighting Muslim tribes in the Sudan.

Scholar of Islam Andrew Bostom first brought these fatwas to my attention, but they are now accessible on Abdullah Quilliam’s Wikipedia page. Should we take a “counter-extremism” think tank in Quilliam’s name seriously? Could the name have been a mistake? Or is it a joke on gullible infidels? A wink to stealth jihadists?

This piqued my interest in Kelly’s Nawaz interview. Zeroing in on the ISIL beheading of Steven Satloff, she asked: “Where does their thinking come from? ... The first reaction many here in the United States and around the world had was these people who are doing this are psychopaths.”

Really? Such mystification wasn’t my first reaction. I know where their thinking comes from. It comes from Islam. Who doesn’t know that but the highly educated and politically empowered? Not for nothing does the immutable Koran say (Surah 47, Verse 4): “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite them at their necks,” among other directives of open-ended jihad. Then again, take the life of Muhammad, Islam’s “perfect man.” He followed his jihad campaign against the Qurayzah, a vanquished Jewish tribe, by beheading all of the 600 to 900 men in the tribe, setting the example for Muslims through the ages. Mohammed also condemned the tribe’s women and children to slavery, keeping some women for himself and his companions, which, bonus, set an example of jihad sex slavery.

Surely this suggests it’s the extremism of Islam that requires “countering.” Will Nawaz agree?

Of course not. In response to Kelly’s question, he repeatedly blames a generic “ideology” that must be “undermined.”

Kelly asks: “You can’t help but look at the killer and think, ‘How could he possibly have come from anything resembling humanity?’”

Nawaz replies: “Yes. Of course we’ve seen this before, we saw it with Nazism in Nazi Germany and that phrase, ‘the banality of evil.’”

Wait a sec. Have we been hearing “Allahu Akbar,” or “Heil Hitler” on all those Islamic snuff videos? Never mind. With a few cliches about “group think” and “the new normal,” Nawaz is back to calling on society to work “to undermine the ideology that underpins (these acts).”

Kelly asks: “Do you feel the Muslim community has been vocal enough in doing that?”

Nawaz pivots in reply. “I think no one’s been vocal enough. I mean, look, Muslims need to do more, but so, frankly, does President Obama.” He then raps Obama for announcing he had no Islamic State strategy — but, hey, our best pundits have no state of Islam conversation. “So, Obama needs to do more,” Nawaz continues. “Mainstream society needs to do more. One way in which mainstream society can do more is to accept that this isn’t a clash of civilizations between Islam and the Western world. But in fact, it’s an intra-religious struggle within Islam.”

My ears pricked up. “Accept” what? Answer: that this crisis of our age, the Islamization of the West, is only so much intra-Islamic jockeying. That we should shut up about the demonstrably Islamic nature of the attacks on the West, on our liberties, our security, on our allies, our children, our law and culture, and not fight back against them. “Accept” that Muslims will work it all out among themselves —not that Islam, of course, has anything to do with it.

This is dangerous, deceptive nonsense. Then again, how might Nawaz’s way work? One quick way to “counter” “extremism” is to prevent ISIL fighters from returning to their Western countries by canceling their passports. But Nawaz opposes this no-brainer. On Twitter, he called it unimaginative, adding: “Passports can be faked.” Huh?

Quilliam co-founder Ed Husain (now at the Council on Foreign Relations) elaborated in an op-ed. Canceling passports of “hardline Islamists,” he wrote, could cause them to target the U.K. because they would see Britain as having “nullified” their “apd al amaan” — or “covenant of security” — which they believe Britain offers.

Thus, what amounts to an “extremist” protection racket should remain in place, at least according to the “counter-extremism” specialists.





Here's what Klevius wrote about Saudi Arabia's violent islamofascist flag

Friday, December 10, 2010

Islamist OIC (led by Saudi Arabia) is the worst threat against Human Rights!

According to Tony Blair, the evil of religion is in fact distortion of religion. However, according to Klevius, the opposite is true. The origin of "monotheisms" was racist/sexist evil, and the later possibly good parts were, in fact, distortion of monotheisms (as, for example, early Christianity). And the purest form of evil monotheism is to be found in the origin of islam!

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?

Treacherous islam

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’ na├»ve 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”?!












.

No comments: