Communism at its peak
and some Communist zombies clinging on
Acknowledgement: Care for proofread and edited text? Then start donating!
Now it's not IS (Islamic State) but IU (Islamic Ummah/OIC*) that is the worst threat to the free world* The Turkish wannabe Ottoman Caliph (according to himself), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who previously used to lead the OIC Caliphate together with the Saudi caliph (yes, there have been more than one caliph before), who gets his position as “the Guardian of islam” because the Sauds’ right hand happens to possess the stolen land where Mecca and Medina are situated as well as the oil that generates the the wealth of the Saud family! OIC’s former Fuhrer, Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu himself said “that for 13 centuries, muslims had shared a feeling of belonging to the muslim ummah, or global community, bound together under the banner of the caliphate that ended when the modern Turkish republic succeeded the Ottoman Empire in the years after World War I. Following the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate, many muslims found themselves, for the first time throughout their history, facing the absence of the polity under which they lived for several centuries. The establishment of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now name changed to the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation) can be seen as the embodiment of the concept of islamic solidarity in the contemporary world”. However, OIC was initiated by, based in, and now also led by Saudi Arabia.
Under a worldwide muslim sharia Umma (OIC) Saudi islamofascism is protected from Human Rights criticism
Had the Saudi islamofascist not been that stupid and presumptuous* that they created OIC as an open excuse for abandoning Human Rights, then the downfall of islam might had become less "revolutionary".
* spurred by ignorant or cunning islam supporters in the West (many of them communists)
The muslim UK ambassador of Saudi islamofascism implies that 'the vast majority of muslims around the world' are Wahhabists - or
Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United Kingdom: Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahhab, was a well-travelled, learned, scholarly jurist of the 18th century. He insisted on adherence to Qur’anic values and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) which includes the maximum preservation of human life, even in the midst of jihad. He taught tolerance and supported the rights of both men and women.
Klevius: See below, Klevius' more truthful description of this immoral muslim islamofascist cleric.
Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United Kingdom: Let me make it perfectly clear. The government of Saudi Arabia does not support or fund the murderers who have collected under the banner of the Islamic State. Their ideology is not one that we recognise, or that would be recognised by the vast majority of Muslims around the world – whether they were Sunni or Shia.
Klevius: Nor would the Saudi ideology!
Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United Kingdom: Under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah, we launched an initiative for dialogue between all religions and cultures in 2008 with the establishment of the King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue in Vienna.
Klevius: Why not in Mecca?!
Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United Kingdom: Following an international counterterrorism conference held in Riyadh in 2005, the UN counterterrorism centre was established with financial support of $200m from our government. We have been and are fighting extremism within our own borders daily, indeed hourly.
Klevius: Really! Counterterrorism? Meaning chasing down Human Rights defenders, Atheists etc "terrorists" and "extremists" in accordance with your new sharia laws protected by your own islamofascist UN organization OIC!
Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United Kingdom: Firm action is taken against any imam who is found to hold extremist views (like the Shia imam you are about to behead) and who tries to incite their followers to violence (i.e. what you in other contexts name liberators). We have passed laws and warned our citizens that they will be arrested and prosecuted if they attempt to join Isis or any other international terrorist group, or to take part in any of the conflicts raging in any region. We have done and will do everything we can to stop the spread of this corrosive poison in our country and region and encourage all other governments to do the same.
Klevius: You are the 'corrosive poison' that has ruined so many peoples lives! Not only are you the world's worst per capita polluter, you are also the country with the worst Human Rights record. And no wonder because you have criminalized Human Rights equality. You are the most immoral and hypocritical state the world has ever seen!
David Commins, author of “The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia” and a professor at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania: Islamic State and Wahhabi doctrines overlap in puritanism and xenophobia toward non-muslims and Shiite”. A key difference is the caliphate agenda used by Islamic State’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and a revival of a term used by earlier islamic leaders that suggests a wider ambition to rule all Muslims. That was never part of Wahhabi doctrine.
Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid (sad isn't it) and therefore also origin of islam: Of course it was, it just lacked the means. Wahhabism means going back to the origin of islam and that inevitably means opening up for whatever totalitarian world conquering ambitions. Certainly bigger than Hitler and his German Nationalsocialists ever dreamt about.
James Dorsey, a senior fellow in international studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore: Abdulaziz halted his expansion once most of the Arabian Peninsula was conquered, and turned against the Ikhwan, whose main leaders later surrendered to the British. That history underscores another distinction with Islamic State, that between an established power and an expansionist upstart.
Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid (sad isn't it) and therefore also the origin of islam: Established power? Like the Soviet union!
James Dorsey: The House of Saud wants to ensure its grip on power and doesn’t seek to expand beyond its borders or “create one unified Muslim state that would be ruled by a caliph. Islamic State seeks to topple existing regimes that it views as apostate.
Klevius: Then he pukes out the usual PC vomit: Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, has tentatively promoted women’s role in the workplace since ascending to the throne in 2005 and encouraged thousands of young Saudis to study abroad through a state-sponsored scholarship program.
Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid (sad isn't it) and therefore also the origin of islam: Poor dictator "king" Abdullah, all women's liberator in his heroic fight against the unspecified dark forces in Saudi Arabia?! Really?
Fahad Nazer, a political analyst at JTG Inc., a consultancy based in Vienna, Virginia, who has worked for the Saudi Embassy in Washington: Comparing Saudi Arabia to the Islamic State “neglects the gradual but significant cultural change that has taken place since the 1990 Gulf War.
Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid (sad isn't it) and therefore also the origin of islam: 'The gradual but significant cultural change' is nothing else than petrol-dollars and as such doesn't alter the evilness of original islam in any positive direction. Saudi fueled global street jihadism is directly proportional to the oil barrel price.
Wahhabism is more or less the same in Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State
A dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)
The second strand relates to dictator Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export.
Based on the 14th century islamist Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca.
Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi'ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy.
One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine has become the key idea of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (i.e. the "king").
There is really nothing that separates Wahhabism from the Islamic State other than that the latter is closer to Wahhabism than the Saud dictator family.
Like "prophet" Mohammad, Abd al-Wahhab was expelled from his own town and in 1741 he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab's novel teaching was the means to seizing power, again a repetition of the origin of islam. Their strategy, like that of the Islamic State today, was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission by instilling fear, and by "justifying" it as jihad.
Ibn Saud's gangsta clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine, now could do what they (and "prophet" Mohammad) always did, i.e. raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions in true islamic manner.
In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.
A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden: 'They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ..."
Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi: Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. We took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: 'And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.'
In 1803, Abdul Aziz entered Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (as did Medina). Abd al-Wahhab's followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines.
1803 a Shiite assassin killed Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. In 1812, the Ottoman army pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died and his son Abdullah bin Saud, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was executed after having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body.
18th century Wahhabism reignited when the Ottoman Empire collapsed during World War I. Compare this to the origin of islam in the wake of Roman withdrawal and the fall of the Sasanian empire. The Al Saud were led by Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi "Ikhwan" in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab.
The Ikhwan was a movement of armed Wahhabist "moralists" who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early 1800s. Now the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. The Ikhwan and Abd-al Aziz, however, ended up in a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when Abd-al Aziz by the help of Western technology had them machine-gunned down for good.
With the help from oil dug up and processed by Western technology Saudi goals were to reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world, thereby utilizing islam's "single creed" message for Saudi Arabia.
Sunni (i.e. Saudi) islam embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the muslim Umma, hence also
creating a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt.
Westerners chose to presume that Saudi Arabia was bending to the imperatives of modern life.
What Klevius has said before about Wahhab the father of Saudi islamofascism (2010)
The root man of Saudi islamofascism was Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab who, during his studies in Basra in the 18th C, got seriously dazzled by glimpses of the European Enlightenment twinkling through the temporary crack to the West called the "Tulip period". He then retreated back into his medieval islamic darkness & as a result, came to position himself as the very opposite to the British "Glorious revolution" which fought against Catholic papacy, & which ended up in Lancashire's coal fueled textile industries as the beginning of the modern industrialized* world based on technology & rationality rather than on religious superstition & fundamentalism (also compare Shinto vs islam). A major outcome of industrialization was universal suffrage & the idea about negative human rights.
* isn't it an irony then that Britain, who started the series of modern revolutions as well as industrialization, came to deeply embed itself with the most intolerant, racist & sexist constitution, i.e. the Saudi islamofascist state which was incapable of producing anything by itself except hatred & more fanatic muslims!
Together with the criminal "house of Saud" Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab then confined the Arabs in islamic backwardness &, in addition, the Arab women in an islamic burka of extreme Sharia sex segregation/apartheid.
After having robbed Mecca & Medina, the Sauds/Wahhabis run the stolen country by the help of what they fleeced from visiting pilgrims. This was the main source of income until Westerners found/drilled oil & made the lazy islamist looters even wealthier.
(analysis taken from Homo Filius Nullius by Peter Klevius).
Klevius comment: And today this evilness threatens the free world through spineless politicians and UN! The banner of Enlightenment is now upheld by heroic women, e.g. African Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has suffered as a victim of islam(ofascism) and escaped to the West, only to find that she was abandoned by those she thought would protect her! In fact, Western politicians and media are busy implementing that very Arab-islamic oppression so many muslims have escaped!
Human rights vs islamofascist "rights"
According to Koran-islam only true muslims can be considered real humans. The rest of the world hence belongs to either category two infidels "of the book" and or category three infidels (without "a book" presumably). However, there's also a fourth category which can never reach a fully human level in accordance with Koran-islam. Those are girls and women!
Sex segregation is to be understood as lack of rights because of one’s sex as referred to in the UN Declaration on Human Rights from 1948: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Human Rights Declaration, without distinction of sex. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
This conceptualization may be compared to the sex segregated "rights", in the Cairo declaration from 1990: "All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the grounds of sex."
The main difference between these declarations is that the former is negative, i.e. without room for interpretations and negotiation and due interventions, whereas the latter is positive, i.e. connected to “obligations and responsibilities”. Negative rights are here seen as not synonymous with natural rights, because the latter presumes the existence of certain rights, i.e. is in fact positive, whereas the former does not.
Whereas "entitled all the freedoms" is a negative right, "basic human dignity and basic obligations and basic responsibilities" are all positive rights. Through "responsibilities" negative human rights can easily be restricted & even eliminated.
Furthermore, "in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and basic responsibilities" are all tied to some imagined or real basic tenets which may include whatever tradition or belief about segregation that is at hand, i.e. the very opposite to freedom in the original UN charter. The very fact that "obligations and responsibilities" are mentioned and tied to "equal" opens up for inequality on the grounds of sex. If dignity, obligations and responsibilities are coupled to sex it inevitably means that they differ between the sexes.
So when Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman the Saudi islamofascists were already busy with the opposite task, i.e. the original islam. In fact, the true nature of islam & its “Allah” is now slowly emerging in all its evil infidel racism & sexist confinement/rapetivism, easily traceable through 1400 years of heinous crimes (incl. physical genocides, hundreds of millions murdered & enslaved) against humanity, not to mention ethnic & cultural genocides - still ongoing in Sudan etc.
Don't let Arabian oil wealth obscure the true nature of their backward ideology - not because it's backward but because it's truly evil!
The stereotype of the “peaceful” muslim isn’t true. S/he isn’t necessarily peaceful but rather ignorant about her own "religion" which is in fact nothing but politics pretending as a faith.
Here's what Klevius wrote
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Before shouting "islamophobia", aswer this question: Do you support islam or Human Rights? You can't get both!
So let's rather talk about what real islam is really doing! I try to make it short and easy:
1 Real islam is today undeniably OIC (Organization of islamic cooperation). OIC consists of 57 member states and has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia in the UN (a fact most ignorant "revolutionaries" in the "Arabic spring" were quite misinformed about!
2 Because of the enormity of islam's slavery and genocide atrocities throughout its existence, and because of the share numbers of those poor (because of islam's innate parasitism and due impotency for producing other than new muslims) people not daring (apostasy ban) calling themselves other than "muslims", many feel it's impossibly to really point out how disgusting islam really is!
Hence the only option is to cover it up by calling it "defamation of religion" thus protecting islam from its own evilness. It was pure evilness (hateful racism and sexism) that paved the way for islam's original jihad slaughtering and enslaving and much later on, under Malik, became Koran and Mohammedanism, i.e. the atrocities were reformulated as "the will of Allah", i.e. blamed on "god". Not only that, islam's specific evilness also consists of its one way policy, i.e. that islam ideally wants to swallow individuals but never let them out again. Likewise, for islam it's impossible to accept full equality between the sexes. Especially this point makes it impossible for islam to exist in a world that follows the 1948 Human Rights declaration which clearly states that there should not be any limitation because of an individuals sex etc.
Of course one could imagine a scenario were islam reforms in accordance with the basic freedom principles in the original Human Rights declaration. However, that would be the end of islam itself and Klevius could immediately stop writing about it! This ideal scenario, however, has been made impossible by Saudi based OIC and those who naively or deliberately have supported it! Every muslim who doesn't accept this must rename to non-Sharia muslim or abandon muslimhood altogether.