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 islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you
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 the 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!

Myth vs Truth

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Thursday, February 05, 2015

Is Mishal Husain, BBC's muslim sharia presenter backing Saudi Arabia? OIC? The Islamic State? Or is she just an apostate?


Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.

Peter Klevius quiz: Which of the Judaic branches do you think would have been first in line trying to murder Albert Einstein as of today?


Why is it so important to know Mishal Husain's muslim status?


It's all about the danger of appeasement.

1 Islam is a religion that has officially (OIC's sharia declaration via UN) abandoned the most basic of Human Rights, i.e. the equality principle that makes racism and sexism (and due hate) redundant.

You can't be a muslim belonging to islam if you don't accept Human Rights violating sharia. And there is no way of trying to say that a particular version of sharia could be in line with the most basic of Human Rights. Such a thing wouldn't represent islam anymore, and would in one blow cure Klevius' "islamophobia".

3   All forms of "moderate islam" (aka Euro-islam) are temporary and awaiting the first possibility to turn into real islam. And those who then want to continue as "moderate muslims" are automatically turning into apostates, i.e. committing the worst sin islam knows about.

4  By pretending to be both on islamic muslim and a Westerner that appears innocent the average "diversity trained" Brit is easily seduced to believe in the deeply treacherous lie about a "good islam".

BBC News (and presumably their muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain) has recently aired how 'appalling' Fox News decision was to air the video of a muslim who was burned alive by fellow muslims. So what? Isn't BBC appalled by almost everything Fox News air? And why isn't BBC News (and their muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain) not equally and eagerly publicly appalled by the public beheadings, floggings etc in Saudi Arabia?!


British sharia policy

Sharia is all about keeping women at bay in islam and to produce as many new muslims as possible


Female genital mutilation (FMG) is used by many muslims as an additional flesh burqa and has since long been criminalized in Britain. However, due to the crime being mainly perpetrated by muslims, British authorities have blinked it. And when they finally were pressed to do something they prosecuted an innocent non-muslim phycisian Dhanuson Dharmasena. Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions: ‘We don't shy away from difficult cases’. Klevius: I think that's precisely what you do when it comes to muslims.

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions: ‘The CPS does not choose which cases it is asked to consider for prosecution and we must apply the same test to every case. Klevius: But you are in close contact with diversity trained police, aren't you.

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions: This will, of course, not affect our resolve to bring those who do commit FGM to justice where we have the evidence to do so.’ Klevius: And diversity sharia trained police are really sensitive when it comes to collecting evidence from muslims, aren't they. Why would FGM be any different from muslims openly (while police and social workers were blinking it) sexually abusing vulnerable girls taken into "care" by the British social state (if you don't know what a social state is then cure your ignorance by reading the most important sociological paper from the last century, Angels of Antichrist - social state vs kinship - and while you are at it why not read Klevius' thesis Pathological symbiosis, which gives you hard core evidence to what Angels of Antichrist theoretically outlines).


Klevius helping hand to David Cameron: Radical islam starts from moderate islam. Moderate islam consists of moderate muslims like BBC's sharia* presenter Mishal Husain. Your own minister of faith islam, Sayeeda Warsi, however, may not qualify as a moderate muslim considering her ties to Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr (party of "liberation") which is an international pan-islamic political organisation. They are commonly associated with the goal of all muslim countries unifying as an islamic ummah or caliphate ruled by sharia and a caliph - much like the Islamic State.

* There's no way you can be a muslim in islam without sharia! Don't ask Allah - trust Klevius! A "cultural" muslim has nothing to do with islam

Although Turkey's islamist president Erdogan says there is no such thing as a moderate islam, British PM Cameron clearly seems to differ. However he makes the same mistake as Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, who thought that the country would evolve  into a modern democratic state where muslims, as a majority population, could feel at ease. How wrong he was because of his ignorance of islam's inherent evilness.

Just think about it, Mishal Husain and others. What could Pakistan have become without islam! Pakistan has reached rock bottom so the answer is simple, isn't it.


Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo all have evil islam in common - either by being open jihadists or just supporting it by calling themselves (out of cowardice?) muslims without really being muslims, hence becoming acomplices to islamic atrocities.


Mishal Husain (rooted in Pakistan) on BBC: Is it impossible to think of this law, the blasphemy law, on the statutes book in Pakistan since the days of the British, being get rid of, being repelled?

Her crude effort to appeal to anti-Western sentiments was brutally corrected by
Michael Nazir-Ali (former bishop of Rochester/England with Pakistani roots who made himself an "islamophobe" by opposing the introduction of sharia in Britain): The British law wasn't actually a blasphemy law. It was a law against religious hatred. It was turned into this (blasphemy) form by Zia ul-Haq (the third muslim military dictator of Pakistan.

Michael Nazir-Ali has also said it would never be possible to satisfy all of the demands made by them because "their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims... and always wrong when Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists". In reference to conflict in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, he said "Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made." In response, the Muslim Council of Britain said "We would normally expect a bishop to display more humility and work towards bringing communities closer together rather than contributing towards fostering greater divisions."

Compare this former bishop with Steve Emerson re. no-go sharia areas in UK?

Re. no-go areas in Britain Nazir-Ali wrote (2008) that Islamic extremism had turned "already separate communities into 'no-go' areas" and claimed that there had been attempts to "impose an 'Islamic' character on certain areas", citing the amplification of the call to prayer from mosques as an example. He criticised the government's integration policy as "an agenda which still lacks the underpinning of a moral and spiritual vision", and asked that the government make a public affirmation of the "Christian roots of British society".

These comments resulted in some debate and criticism, including a response from the Muslim Council of Britain, who said the mosque call was no different from church bells ringing, and Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who described the claims as "a gross caricature of reality". Conservative home affairs spokesman David Davis said the bishop had rightly drawn attention to a "deeply serious problem" and that Labour's support for multiculturalism risked creating a situation of "voluntary apartheid".

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears responded to Nazir-Ali's comments by stating that Britain was a "secular democracy", and challenged him to name specific 'no go' areas. but the Chair of the Equality Commission, Trevor Phillips, agreed with his analysis of the situation. Nazir-Ali has since received death threats against himself and his family, and he is now under escort by the Kent police; however, he says his "overflowing postbag" has been "overwhelmingly supportive", with people offering their own experience. More recent events support his position.


Two British leaders who wanted/want to convert England into sharia islam


King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).

King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to islam and turn England into a muslim state.

The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.


Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!


A proposal for the elimination of that very sharia David Cameron's minister of islam so eagerly represents


The following paper was filed at OSCE meeting in Vienna by International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA). It calls for the repudiation of OIC's Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam as having no relevance to what Western nations or the OSCE identify as human rights.

Note: The abbreviation “pS” in the text below is short for “participating State(s)”

OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting

Rule of Law in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

Vienna, July 12th 2013

Session II: Effective National and International Instruments to protect human rights and prevent human rights violations: Best practices, current challenges and solutions

In reference to the excellent discussion of the universality of human rights, ICLA wants to draw attention to a deficiency in this field that can easily and usefully be corrected.

Before we can discuss effective national and international human rights, we need to define the terms unambiguously.

As most here would know, we have two main definitions of human rights, the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the European Human Rights Convention, both sound human rights instruments.

However, a third and potentially dangerous alternative definition exists, sponsored by the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), namely the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. This declaration, originally drafted by the Iranian theocratic regime, makes each and every right subject to Islamic law, also known as Sharia. This, in turn, negates the very notion of inalienable individual rights and several other essential values.

The Cairo Declaration is recognized as a so-called “regional instrument” by the United Nations, but rarely, if ever, used or referred to. It is thus functionally redundant, yet its approval creates an unneeded and potentially dangerous ambiguity in the formal definition of the human rights. For Sharia is incompatible with democracy and fundamental human rights, as stated in 2003 by the European Court of Human Rights, and thus the Cairo Declaration is equally incompatible with any meaningful definition of human rights, as well as with several OSCE commitments.

Thus, to avoid willful misinterpretations of what “human rights” refer to, it would be good for the protection of human rights defenders to have the Cairo Declaration explicitly repudiated by those OSCE pS that also hold membership of the OIC. If they do not do so, they should provide a detailed justification for keeping this declaration on the books, and the intended use of it.

ICLA thus recommends that:

    OSCE makes a statement that the Cairo Declaration has no relevance to its understanding of human rights.
    OSCE pS that are also members of OIC explicitly repudiate the Cairo Declaration as being of no relevance, now or in the future, for the interpretation of “human rights”.


Klevius: Nothing has happened since this was written in 2013! An eerie silence follows wherever islam puts its evil hand. Wake up dude! And you Brits, consider that your PM David Cameron has appointed a non-elected sharia muslim called Sayeeda Warsi as the "minister of faith islam and sent her as the official representative to the islamofascist OIC organization! Is this really what the majority of Brits want? Or are they just so thoroughly fooled and unaware! And no wonder when this "islamophobia" islamofascism has settled so deeply that you can't even apply for a job if you're known as critical of islam. All about islam is intimidation: physical, reputational, financial etc. Goebbels is certainly laughing in his grave.






.

No comments: