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.

Monday, December 01, 2014

Pope asks muslim leaders to speak up against islamic state. Why?

What could muslims possibly have in common with the Islamic State if it has nothing to do with islam?

The religion of piece(s)




"British muslims" have greater 'faith in the police' than the rest of the population. So what about muslim jihad victims?


Six out of ten "British"* muslims rate the police as either good or excellent according to the British Journal of Criminology.

* You can't be a muslim without sharia, and you can't have a sharia ruled Britain - or?!




Klevius (who, btw, also happens to have a Master's Degree in criminology): Perfectly sharia compliant police after years of "education" by the same imams who support those who kill and despise British soldiers in the name of islamic ideology. However, a more telling report would be who have the least faith in the police. Klevius qualified guess is that it would be the victims of muslim jihadists.


                          Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo

It would help a lot of girls/women if BBC's sharia presenter Mishail Husain would commit apostasy by dismissing sharia. But she never will because she isn't as brave as Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or does she propose Human Rights violating sharia for Britain? Why isn't she even asked about it? There seems reportedly to be lot of time while she is laughing at (ignorant?) British license fee payers together with other BBC presenters during news islamic propaganda hours.





In all her fanatic writings to boost the worst crime ever against humanity Karen Armstrong completely fails to see the very soul of islam - sex slavery


Raymond Ibrahim: As for “theological reasons” for sex slavery “according to the Sharia,” these are legion—from male Muslim clerics, to female Muslim activists. Generally they need do no more than cite the clear words of Koran 4:3, which permit Muslims to copulate with female captives of war, or ma malakat aymanukum, “what”—not whom—“your right hands possess.”

The article continues:

    But most of it [Islamic State “article” or fatwa] is devoted to theological justifications for Islamic State behaviour, citing early clerics and the practices of the Prophet Mohammed and his Companions during the early years of Islamic expansion.

Indeed, while many are now aware of the Koran’s and by extension Sharia’s justification for slaves, sexual or otherwise, fewer are willing to embrace the fact that the prophet of Islam himself kept and copulated with concubines conquered during the jihad.

One little-known story is especially eye-opening:

During Muhammad’s jihad on the Jews of Khaybar, he took for himself from among the spoils of war one young woman, a teenager, Safiya bint Huyay, after hearing of her beauty. (Earlier the prophet had bestowed her on another Muslim jihadi, but when rumor of her beauty reached him, the prophet reneged and took her for himself.)

Muhammad “married” Safiya hours after he had her husband, Kinana, tortured to death in order to reveal hidden treasure. And before this, the prophet’s jihadis slaughtered Safiya’s father and brothers.

While Islamic apologists have long tried to justify this account—often by saying that Muhammad gave her the honor of “marriage” as opposed to being a concubine and that she opted to convert to Islam—they habitually fail to cite what Islamic sources record, namely Baladhuri’s ninth century Kitab Futuh al-Buldan (“Book of Conquests”).

According to this narrative, after the death of Muhammad, Safiya confessed that “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father,” before “marrying” (or, less euphemistically, raping) her.

So there it is. Muhammad seized for himself as rightfully earned booty (or ghanima) a young woman; he took her after killing everyone dear to her—husband, father, brothers, etc.

And, according to authoritative Islamic sources, she hated him for it.

If that is not rape, what is?

In fact, this incident is regularly cited by former Muslims as one of the greatest anecdotes that convinced them that Islam and Muhammad are not of God.

Nor, as expected, was Muhammad alone in this sort of rape. For example, Khalid bin Walid—the “Sword of Allah” and hero for aspiring jihadis around the world—raped another woman renowned for her beauty, Layla, right on the battlefield—but only after he severed her “apostate” husband’s head, lit it on fire, and cooked his dinner on it.

If this is how Muhammad—whom Koran 33:21 exhorts Muslims to emulate in all ways—behaved towards conquered female “infidels,” should there be any more surprise concerning the Islamic State’s behavior?



Karen Armstrong: Sharia developed as a protest culture against the privilege, sophistication and inegalitarianism of the court.  Rich caliphs lived in luxury and poor people struggled.  Islamic theology moved forward by contemplating current affairs and politics.  The scandal of the caliphs made Islam think about their religion.

Klevius comment: Made islam think about their religion?!

Robert Spencer: Armstrong frequently display an unconscious ethnocentrism: they assume that Islamic jihadis are simply passive reactors to Western atrocities, with no capacity to act on their own, for reasons on their own. Of course she thinks “we helped to do this,” since she denies to Muslims the capacity for independent thought and action. She would deny this, of course, but try this: tell her that you think 9/11 was caused not by any Western atrocity, but by the Islamic jihad doctrine, and watch how long it takes her to call you “bigoted” and “Islamophobic.”

Saudis are not themselves extremists, but the narrowness of their religious views are antithetical to the traditional pluralism of Islam.

Klevius comment: Why aren't Saudis extremists?


    Where do you, as someone outside of a tradition, get the authority to say what is or isn’t Quranic?

    I talk to imams and Muslims who are in the traditions….

Funny how so many imams inside and outside of Saudi Arabia disagree with her. They don’t count, apparently, if they have uncomfortable opinions.


Fred Donner, Professor of Near Eastern History at Chicago: 'Qur’anic studies, as a field of academic research, appears today to be in a state of disarray. Those of us who study Islam’s origins have to admit collectively that we simply do not know some very basic things about the Qur’an – things so basic that the knowledge of them is usually taken for granted by scholars dealing with other texts. Its place of origin, its original form, its initial audience – all are mysteries. That being so, it is certainly no longer possible to presume that there is anything remotely self-evident about the birth of Islam. Indeed, it is hard to think of any other field of history so currently riven by disagreement.

Holland suggests, is for everyone to stop playing this "nothing to do with Islam" game. The grim truth is that sanctions can be found in the Qur’an, in the biographies of Muhammad and in the histories of early Islam for much that strikes the outside world as most horrific about the Islamic state. 'Kuffar are afraid we will slaughter yazidis,' a British jihadi tweeted from Syria, 'our deen [islam/sharia] is clear we will kill their men, take their women and children as slaves insha Allah.'

Klevius: This blog is called the origin of islam for a reason, i.e. that historical facts which otherwise seem "mysterious", are easily explained by the Koranic "extremist" understanding of islam.

However, this evil islam would not be a problem under the irrefutable logic of Human Rights equality was it not for people like Mishail Husain, Karen Armstrong etc. who deny islam's victims now and in the future these rights.





Klevius wrote:

Thursday, November 27, 2014

UK PM Cameron wants more Koran schools, more muslim immigrants and less Human Rights




The call for more religion in British schools inevitably means more islam/sharia. propaganda and more indirect support for true evil islam and evil muslims.

Less EU migrants means proportionally more muslim immigration (incl. "refugees"*, sharia marriages, kin immigration etc) to the already huge and rapidly (because of higher birth rate) growing muslim population in UK. Non-EU immigrants are more often muslims.

Less Human Rights means less problems for making UK sharia compliant. And sharia in whatever form, is ALWAYS against the most basic of Human Rights.

* Why would muslims flee muslim countries if it wasn't mainly for islam?! Benefits?


 One of these guys is lying - and it's not Cameron



Raymond Ibrahim: Russia appears to be taking serious moves to combat the “radicalization” of Muslims within its border.

Recent pro-Islamic reports are complaining that Russia is banning the Islamic hijab—the headdress Islamic law requires Muslim women to wear—and, perhaps even more decisively, key Islamic scriptures, on the charge that they incite terrorism.

In the words of Arabic news site Elaph, “Russia is witnessing a relentless war on the hijab.  It began in a limited manner but has grown in strength, prompting great concern among Russia’s Muslims.”

The report continues by saying that women wearing the hijab are being “harassed” especially in the “big cities”; that they are encountering difficulties getting jobs and being “subject to embarrassing situations in public areas and transportation.  The situation has gotten to the point that even educational institutions, including universities, have issued decrees banning the wearing of the hijab altogether.”

Moscow’s Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University appears mentioned as one of the schools to ban the donning of the hijab on its premises, specifically, last September (the New York Times bemoaned an earlier instance of anti-hijab sentiment in 2013).

While this move against the hijab may appear as discriminatory against religious freedom, the flipside to all this—which perhaps Russia, with its significant Muslim population is aware of—is that, wherever the Islamic hijab proliferates, so too does Islamic supremacism and terrorism.  Tawfik Hamid, a former aspiring Islamic jihadi, says that “the proliferation of the hijab is strongly correlated with increased terrorism…. Terrorism became much more frequent in such societies as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, and the U.K. after the hijab became prevalent among Muslim women living in those communities.”

The reason for this correlation is clear: strict Islamic Sharia commands jihad (“terrorism”) against unbelievers just as it commands Muslim women to don the hijab. Where one proliferates—evincing adherence to Sharia—so too will the other naturally follow.

But Russia’s growing list of Islamic books to be banned on the charge that they incite terrorism is perhaps more significant.  Elaph continues: “This move [ban on the hijab] coincides with a growing number of religious books to be prohibited, with dozens of them being placed on the terrorist list, including Sahih Bukhari and numerous booklets containing verses from the Koran and sayings of the prophet.”

According to Apastovsk district RT prosecutors, Sahih Bukhari is being targeted because it promotes “exclusivity of one of the world’s religions,” namely Islam, or, in the words of a senior assistant to the prosecutor of Tatarstan Ruslan Galliev, it promotes “a militant Islam” which “arouses ethnic, religious enmity.”

This is significant.  While one may expect modern day books and tracts written by the likes of al-Qaeda or the Islamic State to be banned, Sahih Bukhari, compiled in the 9th century, is fundamental to Sunni Islam (that is, 90 percent of the world’s Muslims).   Indeed, the nine-volume book is often seen as second in importance only to the Koran itself and contains the most authentic sayings attributed to the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

And yet, that this important scripture promotes “exclusivity”—that is, supremacism—and “arouses ethnic, religious enmity”—that is, “terrorism”—should not be missed on anyone.  The following few statements contained in Sahih Bukhari and attributed to the prophet of Islam speak for themselves.  Muhammad said:

•“I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings [tawriya, Islamic deception], and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy).”

•“Whoever changed his Islamic religion [“apostates”], then kill him.”

•In the end times, a “stone will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!’”

•“I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity” [i.e., until they become observant Muslims].”

Apparently the Russians are aware that such assertions—whether they come from this or that jihadi or from Prophet Muhammad—are enough to incite chaos on their soil.  Indeed, the “terrorist” writings of modern day Islamic jihad groups are all infused with and based on the intolerant texts found in Islamic scriptures such as Sahih Bukhari.

This begs the following question: what of the Koran?  Can it too be banned on the same grounds?  After all, Islam’s number one holy book is also replete with calls to violence and terrorism against unbelievers.  Koran 8:12 is one of numerous examples: Allah declares “I will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, so strike [them] upon the necks,” that is, behead them, as the Islamic State has been doing—while citing the Koran.

At any rate, back in La La Land, far from banning Islamic texts that incite violence and terrorism, Barack Hussein Obama has banned U.S. intelligence communities from connecting anything Islamic to Islamic terrorism.  In other words, Muslims are free to be incited by Islam’s scriptures—prompting things like beheadings and hatchet jihad attacks in America.  The only ban rests on those who dare connect such acts to the core texts of Islam that so clearly inspire them.



Klevius wrote:

Friday, October 24, 2014

EU and Human Rights the main obstacles in Cameron's Saudi steered sharia project?


Isn't it about time for both Brits and muslims to decide if they support sharia fascism or Human Rights?!





While BBC and its Human Rights violating* sharia presenter Mishal Husain continue trying to fool the Brits - this time by talking about how 'nasty the Nationalsocialist (Nazi) haters of Jews were (i.e. not any particular form of Judaism or Jews but just 'anti-semites'**)

* She poses as a muslim and as she is fully aware of OIC's equalizing of muslimhood and sharia, then she ought to openly tell if she is a "non-sharia muslim' i.e. not a muslim at all in accordance with Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC, all true muslims world organization via UN and OIC's Cairo declaration (sharia) which clearly states that the most basic of Human Rights constitute a crime against islamic sharia. Defending Human Rights is considered an 'act of terrorism' in some of Mishal Husain's former home countries (e.g. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

** Most of these Jews were not Semites at all but Jiddish speaking Caucasians/Russians who originated from the Jewish Khazarian slave trade empire more than a millennium ago and later, because of pogroms and/or financial benefits, moved to central Europe. Today islam is the main source of hatred against Jews around the world. Also consider the map further down om the posting.






Is UK Europe’s biggest criminal sharia money-launderer? And the worst islamofascist nation's closest ally!


Because Strasbourg has managed to partially resist the spread of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism in  EU Cameron now seems to try to dope the Brits to abandon Human Rights by smearing them via cherry picked and tuned examples while opening the door fully for islamofascist sharia. Is this also the reason why he wants the Brits to abandon EU and EU immigration/free movement so that more muslims can be fitted in. Similar rhetorics against all the Brits living in other EU countries would most certainly render it racist there.



London, the murky sharia finance Capitol of the World


When London hosted the 2013 World Islamic Economic Forum PM David Cameron said: 'I want London to stand alongside Dubai and Kuala Lumpur as one of the great capitals of islamic finance anywhere in the world.'

In February 2014, London hosted the Euromoney Islamic Finance Forum, where then-Financial Secretary to the Treasury Sajid Javid MP ​said​: '…almost every international Islamic contract will touch London – or a London-based firm – in some way.'

London is becoming the first Western nation to issue an islamic bond (sukuk). The shariah-complaint banking sector is an est £1 trillion and growing, according to the Global Islamic Financial Review.


UK's sharia education in British schools resembles that of Saudi Arabia  


According to London Deputy Mayor Stephen Greenhalgh, muslim themselves were to blame. Both he and Mayor Boris Johnson had been briefed by British intelligence on cases in which primary school pupils have been subjected to islamofascist propaganda and extremist ideology by their families.

According to Greenhalgh, who oversees policing in the capital, London children under the age of ten are being trained to be junior jihadis in the growing islamofascist threat in the capital. 'It's pretty horrendous when you hear how some of these children are being radicalized. The threat of radicalization of young people is real and this is a problem that is going to be with us not just for a couple of years, but for the next generation.'


However, the Brits seem to differ with their PM


56% of Brits say they will vote to stay in EU, with 36% wanting to leave - most of them probably still ignorant about the real agenda and certainly not helped by BBC's compulsory license fee paid propaganda. This is the highest level of support for EU since 1991, according to IpsosMORI poll.
Since 2012 support for Ukip is up 13%, and for EU backing up almost the same, 12%.









.

No comments: