* No religious or other superstitious and spiritual basis for legislation etc. The only guidance for legislation is the most basic of Human Rights, i.e. the universal equality principle that makes sexism and racism (and due hate) redundant (Klevius 1992).
Who is a muslim - and who isn't?
Where does "extremist/radical" islam end and "moderate" islam start?
Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo
Mishal Husain pretends to be a "Brit" yet shares values that are as far you can get from Britishness and basic Human Rights. Or is she just pretending to be a muslim - i.e. an apostate? In the latter case she has committed the worst crime islam knows about.
It was considered "racist abuse" when BBC's Mishal Husain was told by a shopper in supermarket (about her children fooling around) that 'Your tribe need to behave like proper English children'.
So what about Communities Secretary Eric Pickles who has been challenged by British muslims (see nelow) for writing to mosques in England urging them to do more to fit a "British identity" and that there was “more work to do”? Racist?
Muslim born (apostate?!)* Mr X** "president"*** Hussain**** Obama Soetoro (or whatever)***** who wants to criminalize criticism of islamic hate speech (sharia), and who has made himself sharia compliant and therefore against Human Rights: 'Our biggest advantage is that our muslim populations, they feel themselves to be Americans. However, there are parts of Europe in which that is not the case and that's probably the greatest danger that Europe faces.'
* Born to a muslim father who hadn't committed apostasy (the worst crime in islam) made him a muslim. Moreover, he was also raised as a muslim because his adoptive father Soetoro was a muslim.
** All his records are labeled secret.
*** His mother was too young as the only US parent for to fulfill the constitutional criterion. He listened for some 20 years to one of the worst black supremacist racists' preachings. He used the race card in the election and he has violated the spirit of the US Constitution ever since.
**** more in line with his muslim heritage
Klevius: Shouldn't muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" and the news channels which broadcasted his nonsense, now for it as did Steve Emerson and Fox News who actually didn't say anything wrong in principle?! After all, Saudi based and Saudi led OIC is openly pushing for a worldwide sharia Ummah.
Why talk about islamic violence when the real subject should be islamic sharia causing not only violence but also all sorts of other Human Rights violations?
A new guide written by students at Michigan State University aims to educate the public about muslim Americans. Kate Kerbrat said that all the muslims she interviewed for the guide "denounced terrorism and wanted to ... convey that islam is not a violent religion, that the extremists misinterpret a few verses in the Quran."
Klevius: Like the Saudi based and Saudi steered 57 member state OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which has abandoned the most basic of Human Rights all together and replaced them with sharia via UN?!
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,Aug. 5, 1990
Recognizing the importance of issuing a Document on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a guide for Member states in all aspects of life;
Having examined the stages through which the preparation of this draft Document has so far, passed and the relevant report of the Secretary General;
Having examined the Report of the Meeting of the Committee of Legal Experts held in Tehran from 26 to 28 December, 1989;
Agrees to issue the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a general guidance for Member States in the Field of human rights.
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made as the best community and which gave humanity a universal and well-balanced civilization, in which harmony is established between hereunder and the hereafter, knowledge is combined with faith, and to fulfill the expectations from this community to guide all humanity which is confused because of different and conflicting beliefs and ideologies and to provide solutions for all chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.
In contribution to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah.
Convinced that mankind which has reached an advanced stage in materialistic science is still, and shall remain, in dire need of faith to support its civilization as well as a self motivating force to guard its rights;
Believing that fundamental rights and freedoms according to Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one shall have the right as a matter of principle to abolish them either in whole or in part or to violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commands, which are contained in the Revealed Books of Allah and which were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages and that safeguarding those fundamental rights and freedoms is an act of worship whereas the neglect or violation thereof is an abominable sin, and that the safeguarding of those fundamental rights and freedom is an individual responsibility of every person and a collective responsibility of the entire Ummah;
Do hereby and on the basis of the above-mentioned principles declare as follows:
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.
Klevius: This declaration is the real muslim problem because it constitutes islam of today. This is also the reason why BBC and its muslim sharia presenter try hard to keep ordinart Brits and others unaware of this disgusting hate declaration.
Iyad Madani, Saudi Fuhrer of the Saudi initiated and Saudi based OIC, all the world's muslims Umma and Sharia organization, which via UN demands the world to criminalize criticism of islam (the worst crime ever) and to make it a crime following Human Rights (as it is already in e.g. Saudi Arabia - compare the case of Raif Badawi and others).
British muslims oppose British values
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has been challenged by Muslims for writing to mosques in England urging them to do more to root out extremists and prevent young people being radicalised.
In a letter sent to more than 1,000 Islamic leaders, Mr Pickles stressed that he was “proud” of the way Muslims in Britain had responded to the Paris terror attacks but added that there was “more work to do”.
The Muslim Council of Britain said it wanted Mr Pickles to clarify his request - and asked if, like “members of the far right”, he was suggesting that Islam is inherently apart from British society.
Deputy secretary-general Harun Khan said: “We will be writing to Mr Eric Pickles to ask that he clarifies his request to Muslims to ‘explain and demonstrate how faith in Islam can be part of British identity’.
“Is Mr Pickles seriously suggesting, as do members of the far right, that Muslims and Islam are inherently apart from British society?”
In the letter, also signed by Communities Minister Lord Ahmad (the muslim who threatened to let loose ten thousand jihadists if the Brits didn't obey to muslim demands - same muslim was later sentenced for killing a person with his car), Mr Pickles wrote: “You, as faith leaders, are in a unique position in our society. You have a precious opportunity, and an important responsibility, in explaining and demonstrating how faith in Islam can be part of British identity.
“We believe together we have an opportunity to demonstrate the true nature of British islam today. There is a need to lay out more clearly than ever before what being a British muslim means today: proud of your faith and proud of your country. We know that acts of extremism are not representative (sic) of islam, but we need to show what is.”
A "colored" voice on islamic schizophrenia
Aki Muthali (born and raised in Sri Lanka): We know Reza Aslan is a stickler for misrepresenting the truth. I have discussed him once before here. His obsession with omitting key details of Islamist violence has made him a proper unicorn since his takeover of Western media. He also found comfort in the hearts of [pseudo] liberals obsessed with their own western colonial and imperial guilt who also have no problem limiting human rights for people [in the east and west] just so it doesn’t “offend” religious fanatics.
On January 8, 2015, he was on CNN (yet again) with Don Lemon, discussing the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
ASLAN:"They make fun of Muslims for a very specific reason to sort of show, or maybe demonstrate, that look if you maybe want to be in this country, if you want to be in France, then you have to deal with the French values, you have to rid yourself of your own values, ideals, norms and you have to take on French values."
In the case of Charlie Hebdo—the massacre took place because the “French value” was to uphold free speech [over religious appeasement]. But that isn’t a “Muslim value”—am I hearing this right? I’ll let my head fall on the table for a minute here…
With all the different races and cultures that create France’s multicultural landscape, only those practicing Islam are being specially targeted by the French society? So the Kouachi brothers simply reacted by killing cartoonists and police officers?
being religious means people can never truly integrate into secular societies—that religion will be at a constant war with the provision of human rights above the law of religion itself
he is admitting that being religious means people can never truly integrate into secular societies—that religion will be at a constant war with the provision of human rights above the law of religion itself.
Jihadists had heavily indoctrinated the Kouachi brothers with Islamic tribalism [on recruitment at a young age] which resulted in mental lacerations that kept them further apart from civil society and convinced them to contribute to the tyranny of those wanting an Islamic totalitarianism. And that’s what Islamists do—they take advantage of young children and preach anti-western and anti-secular sentiments to the point where they feel victimized whenever their Islamic values aren’t placed above human rights—then Aslan proceeds to reiterate these clearly erroneous placement of blame on the west as well. Somehow, the west is “accountable” when they refuse to sacrifice fundamental human rights for the bigotry of religious fanaticism.
ASLAN:“And there have been a number of laws passed not only in France, with regard to prohibitions on Islamic dress, but throughout Europe about whether you can build mosques, about whether you can build minarets, etcetera. And this tension, this polarization I'm afraid has led to a lot of acts of violence. Not just the tragedy yesterday...”
Surely, Aslan’s eyeballs will bulge momentarily after hearing one of the gunmen literally admitting to being influenced by the scriptures to die as a martyr for Islam [back in a 2005 documentary on Muslim extremism] but he would probably brush that off as well and make another mental note to deflect and deter criticism of Islam and shorten it to an “identity crisis” and “clash of civilizations” to place a collective blame [on those being abused by Islam]. Where did he get his Ph.D. from—Fox News?
Infidels must have been asking for it with their enticing secular nonsense—so of course it makes sense to shout “Allahu Akbar” while slaughtering them. But it still has nothing to do with Islam!
One of the brothers told a female worker at Charlie Hebdo that she is being left alive because she is a woman, but she must convert to Islam and wear a hijab. See—women are not compelled to wear the hijab at all!
ASLAN:“And particularly in France, an aggressively secularizing country that has never really tolerated multiculturalism or the kind of cultural religious diversity that is the hallmark of the United States, you can see how that would create the kinds of tensions that would bubble up occasionally into acts of violence on both sides. We have seen a lot of anti-Muslim violence in Europe as well as Muslim violence against Europeans.”
He claims a multi-racial “Muslim” group is having hostility with a multi-racial “European” group and yet he only blames one group for the atrocities.This is what I call ‘mind-numbing idiocy’—and as if that weren’t enough, his hyperbole narrative implies severe racism against the “Muslims”.
Why is the controversial caricature being referred to as “racist”? It sounds rather unsophisticated to me. Who exactly is Charlie Hebdo being racist towards—blacks—whites—browns—olives? I think my hair just turned white.
Islam is represented by Asians, Africans, Americans, Australians and Europeans—so who exactly is being racially discriminated by the satire…? I’m genuinely curious.
I’m sure Aslan has heard of Anjem Choudary. If we are to scan through his social media pages—he incites hatred and violence against non-Muslims and calls for an Islamic colonialism in the west [in accordance with the Quran and Sharia Law].
The way free speech works is Choudary can spout as much hate speech against non-Muslims as he wants and still he hasn’t been violently victimized by ‘anti-Muslim bigots’ in the west,whereas anybody else who satirizes or criticizes Islam under the same banner of free speech—they get shot and killed or threatened by Islamists who are protecting the “honour” of Islam exactly as any citizens living in countries governed by the law of Sharia are terrorized for blasphemy.
Aslan’s narrative is so dangerous that it suggests Islamists violence and threats are part of multiculturalism and should be respected. He is defaming multiculturalism itself with his nonsensical rationale—which creates more room for the rednecks that chant “Go back home!” not just to immigrants but also to people of colour who were born and raised in the west.
Masking every wrong on European colonization and [western] foreign and national policy continues to keep even our fellow women, children and men in the east shackled in mass terror day and night under the grip of their countrymen’s law concentrated with religious insanity.
Do the people of the east not deserve a better standard of human rights from their own government and citizens? How is the “west” preventing the east from granting human rights to its own people? Is Dick Cheney responsible for their jurisprudence—is he the one enforcing the draconian blasphemy laws? Just don’t blame“religion” if you want to be Aslan’s friend though—because this lion only roars in the west.
Conforming to secularism did not happen overnight in the west—it took centuries of bloodshed to even accept the idea—and it’s still not perfect, but it has a lot more human rights to offer than the east. While slavery is abolished in the west—it’s still alive and well in much of the Middle East where it’s openly practiced. Aside from ISIS’s brutality, ask why the people from India, Philippines, China, Sri Lanka,much of Africa, etc. who arrive to the Middle East on a worker visa, hoping for employment,are unable to return home to their loved ones.
While Islamists indoctrinate and force children to gear up in suicide vests and blow themselves up—we have Aslan [and others like him] claiming these unprecedented scale of terror around the world committed by Muslim extremists is a mere response to racial and cultural oppression by the west and doesn’t involve Islam in any way.
Recently, Amnesty International reported Boko Haram had killed approximately 2,000 people—mainly children, women and the elderly. What was the “west’s” involvement in this Islamist frenzy to create an “Islamic State” in West Africa;who erased the accountability of these eastern tyrants? Just ignore the meaning of “Boko Haram” if you’re feeling too cute for critical thinking.You can click here to view details and satellite image of Boko Haram’s attack on Baga, Nigeria.
I will discuss Raif Badawi repeatedly until reality sinks in. Why is he rotting in a Saudi prison? He was charged with “insulting Islam” after promoting free speech. He will receive 50 lashes every week—his spine will bleed and fester for 19 more weeks if he does survive the remaining 950 lashes. He also faces 10 years and approximately a quarter of a million dollars in fine. His initial sentencing was death for apostasy before it was “reduced”. Alas, hypocrisy enables people to condemn Saudi Arabia while making apologies for the Kouachi brothers.
Liberal/non-Muslims are already on a trial in a kangaroo court created in the delusional minds of Islamists who also processed the voir dire on the values of Sharia but apologists claim Islamists are the victims. So let me ask these apologists a few questions…
1) Why do you not march for minorities [Kurds, Yazidis, Balochs, non-Muslims, etc.] facing apartheid in Islamic nations?
2) Why do you silence discussion on the double standards, hypocrisy and contradiction Muslims often display in both east and west?
3) Why are you so eager to discredit and neglect the plight of those victimized by Islamists—victims who are as diverse in race and nationality as the Islamists themselves?
4) What can a verdict be[in a trial built on fallacies] when the doctrine of Islam is incompatible with liberalism?
Just take a proper look at Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Qatar,Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Algeria, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Libya, Somalia, Morocco, Sudan, Brunei, Malaysia, Oman, etc. and if these countries aren’t evident of human rights strife directly resulting from the consequences of embracing Islamic values—just please stop pretending to be indignant about injustice because you’re satirizing yourselves without the help of Charlie Hebdo.
Islamists stormed the magazine’s office due to their material which was enabled by freedom of speech but Aslan frills it up as a result of France “forcing” Muslim people to renounce their “norms”. His accusatory tone aimed at western people is the only thing generalizing all Muslims into one insidious category—so I denounce him for implicating the Muslim “norm” as being disconnected with liberal values.
The Kouachi brothers are not martyrs of multicultural and racial struggle—they are anti-liberal and anti-human-rights Islamists who assassinated 12 innocent people to honour their Islamic pride as commanded by the Sharia Law.
I’d like to welcome Aslan and his cheerleaders to the 21st century where multi-generational bigotry meets common sense and their redundant, preposterous apologia gets dismissed as quickly as religion dismisses human rights—and that is precisely why Islamists fear liberalism—because it is slowly ending the epoch of rule based on delusions and its momentum is creeping into the Islamic nations perilously governed by such madness.
Growing up must be so hard for some people—especially when they are told they can’t hijack the world for their own foolish sentiments.
Radical Islamists are using Sharia Law to silence fellow Muslims who critique the religion. (Photo: Emad Nassar/Flash90)
Last Wednesday’s terrorist attack against the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris shocked the world. A satirical magazine known for printing images of Muhammad, which is against Sharia law, the magazine has been threatened over the years by various terror and Islamist groups to stop or suffer the consequences.
The attack on the magazine, which left 12 people dead, is an attack by radical Islamists on the West’s ideals of freedom of speech. The terrorists who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack were in line with a method of thinking that is becoming all the more popular among Muslims around the world.
Proscribed by numerous Islamic states and various Islamist groups, the terrorists believed that Sharia law should be implemented under any circumstances where the honor of the prophet Mohammed is seen to be ‘insulted’.
Over the last few years, numerous regimes and religious entities in Muslim countries have given out the death penalty for any person believed to have publicly critiqued Islam, Mohammed or even the government. Claiming that all such behavior is anti-Islam, these Islamist regimes have started a war on the basic human privilege known as freedom of expression.
Soheil Arabi (Photo: MEMRI/ Hra-news.org)Soheil Arabi (Photo: MEMRI/ Hra-news.org)
In Arab and Muslim countries, defaming Islam and the Prophet Muhammad is still defined as an offense against Sharia Law and entails heavy punishment. Recent examples of the enforcement of such laws have included the arrest of Saudi intellectual Dr. Turki Al-Hamad and Saudi blogger Hamza Kashgari; the arrest of another Saudi liberal, Raef Badawi, who was sentenced to public flogging; and both Mauritanian blogger Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir and Iranian blogger Soheil Arabi, who were sentenced to death.
Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir was sentenced to death for writing an article on January 14, 2014, in which he criticized some decisions that the Prophet and his Companions took during their military conquests. He applied and used these examples to implicitly criticize Mauritania for allowing a discriminatory caste system. The result was that on December 24, 2014, a court in Mauritania convicted him of apostasy and sentenced him to being shot to death, even though he publicly disavowed insulting Muhammad.
As for Iranian Soheil Arabi, he was arrested in January 2014 by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps for insulting the Prophet on his Facebook page. He has been incarcerated in Evin prison for about a year. An Iranian court sentenced him to death, but in December 2014 the sentence was suspended, possibly due to pressure by Iranian human rights activists abroad. However, according to various activists, his sentence may be carried out after all. According to those same sources, Arabi has been threatened not to disclose any information about his legal status.
More recently, Saudi authorities began to carry out the punishment for Raef Badawi. As of January 9, the government began dishing out lashes incurred by Badawi, who is a co-founder of the Saudi Liberal Network online forum. His sentence, 1,000 lashes, is to be meted out in weekly installments of 50 lashes every Friday after prayers in front of a Jeddah mosque. In addition, Badawi is to serve 10 years in jail and a fine of 1,000,000 riyals (about $267,000). His crime? “Harming Islam” and committing Internet crimes. Human rights organizations have criticized the sentence. US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki called Badawi’s sentence “brutal” and urged Saudi authorities to overturn it.
According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), the various punishments inflicted on these men for speaking their minds is straight out of the Koran. In a recently published report, MEMRI explains:
Rafi Badawi with his children. Raef Badawi with his children.
“According to the Sharia, defaming the Prophet is an act of blasphemy, the punishment for which is death even if the blasphemer repents. This law is Koranic, for Koran 9:61 says: “Those who hurt Allah’s Messenger will have a painful punishment.” The same Surah also states: “…Say: ‘(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allah will bring to light all that you fear. If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allah and His verses and His Messenger that you were mocking? Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed. [Koran 9:64-66].’”
The question that remains is how long will it take for Western countries to realize that they are not dealing with simply a bunch of radicals, but with a culture that not only condones such actions as were seen in France last week, but promotes and encourages them – even commands it.
While it is rare to see such acts of terror in Western countries that are not mandated by Sharia Law, it is sadly commonplace among Muslim countries. What are clearly acts of terror in the West are in reality run of the mill legal battles in Islamic countries. The sickening part of it all is what happens when Islam succeeds at silencing all of its critics, both internal and external.
Even ‘moderate’ countries such as Egypt, whose President came out and decried the status of radical Islam on the international level, have their less liberal and more mainstream religious elements calling for a cessation of all depictions of the prophet, even by western media.
Should the attacks in France then come as a shock? Perhaps. Or maybe it is a wake up call to the West to get them to realize that these Muslim radicals are simply trying to enforce their version of the Sharia Law in Western countries.