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.

Monday, February 09, 2015

The Western sheaths to the muslims' daggers

Only on Klevius' blogs you can get (and it's free of charge, dude) the least biased and best IQ powered history analysis of islam (the most biased you'll get from so called islamologists, i.e. people whi blink history and stick to mythology).


UK's Trojan horses and muslim dagger sheaths


In 1215 Magna Carta Libertatum ("the Great Charter of the Liberties") was born as a defense against evil islam and its accomplices


Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights violating sharia.


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, Secularism 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.








The Saudi Wahhabi dagger (original islam)


Wikipedia: As the blade bends towards the opponent, the user need not angle the wrist, which makes it more comfortable as a stabbing weapon than straight-bladed knives. Its heavy blade enables the user to inflict deep wounds and to cut through muscle and bone. It also makes it possible to cut and twist the blade upwards, slitting internal organs such as intestines, or to reach heart, lungs or liver more easily, making it a formidable and much feared weapon.



Saudi national islamism against muslim chickens coming home to roost

 While many (most?) muslims in Saudi Arabia support the  Islamic State, itself a product of the Saudi dictator family, the latter is now, quite understandably, pushing for a more "national" (read Saud) Wahhabism.

This Charlie (second from left) shouldn't be confused with the Charlies below. The islamofascist scum bag to the right is Alwaleed bin Talal, a rape accused Saudi muslim who didn't give his DNA to the Spanish court, who's never worked and who spends oil Billions on the spread of racist/sexist sharia. How much has he contributed to the Islamic State before he realized that his chickens might come home to roost?

However, the root problem is the evilness of the original parasitic islamic ideology


How the anointed became the annoying

Jewish messianism (i.e. Christianism - compare Gr. Christos and Aramaic MHMD/Muhammad, the anointed) was rooted in the apocalyptic tradition of the 2nd to 1st century BC, promising a future "anointed" leader or Messiah (Aramaic meshiha and Hebrew mashiah) to resurrect the Israelite "Kingdom of God", in place of the colonizers. This corresponded with the Maccabean Revolt directed against the Seleucids. Following the fall of the Hasmonean kingdom, it was directed against the Romans, which, according to Josephus, began with the formation of the Zealots during the Census of Quirinius of 6 AD, though full scale open revolt did not occur until the First Jewish–Roman War in 66 AD. Caligula's rule (37-41) was a major breaking point between the Romans and the non-Hellenistic Jews.

It was the Romans who made Judaic Christianity (Jews believing in Jesus) the official state religion in order to stifle the problem with the Jews in Mideast. Much like Euro-islam today.

Judaism was divided into the Pharisees, Saducees, and Zealots, but also included other less influential sects. The 1st century BC and 1st century AD saw a number of charismatic religious leaders (watch e.g. Monty Python's The life of Brian - it gives a better understanding than most historians with insufficient brains), contributing to what would become the Mishnah of Rabbinic Judaism, including Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa. The Zealots were originally a political movement which sought to incite the people of Judaea to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy Land by force of arms, most notably during the First Jewish–Roman War (66-70).

It was the ferocious muslim attacks (jihad crusades) on Europe that paved the way for a powerful (and stiff) Catholic papacy.

It was the Viking raids (see Origin of the Vikings) that led to the Christianization of most of Europe. However, the Viking raids were directly caused by islam.


Why is Prince Charles kowtowing to the monstrous Saudi regime?


Leo McKinstry: The epic hypocrisy, destructive cowardice and pathetic self-abasement of the political elite have been on full display in recent days, following the death of the Saudi monarch King Abdullah, succeeded by Salman bin Abdul Aziz.

Western leaders who love to blather about their devotion to human rights suddenly went into mourning for a tyrant who led a monstrous regime that combines fabulous oil wealth with brutal oppression.

As flags flew at half-mast on government buildings in Britain, politicians competed with each other to lavish praise on the late King.

Sarah Wollaston: "Half mast for all Saudi women subject to enforced subservience & infantilisation by oppressive male guardianship system. Half mast for all those Saudis and migrant workers publicly beheaded, stoned, subject to judicial mutilation or flogging."

The leader of the Scottish Conservatives Ruth Davidson condemned the flags move as "a steaming pile of nonsense" and Ukip MP Douglas Carswell said it showed Whitehall officials held "immoral" values far removed from those of the British public.



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



When BBC's muslim sharia presenter (or is she an apostate?) finally talks about Saudi Arabia she uses one of the most pro-Saudi persons she could find, i.e. Robert Lacey, author of the Kingdom and the House of Saud. 



Daniel Pipes: For the most part Lacey repeats well-worn anecdotes and events from such renowned writers on Saudi Arabia as T. E. Lawrence, Gertrude Bell and Harry St. John Philby. Indeed, Lacey sticks so close to the standard version of Saudi history that much of this book repeats what is already available elsewhere-for example, in David Horwarth's 1964 biography of 'Abd al-'Aziz, The Desert King.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo. Klevius question to BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain: So what about you? Do you believe in a personal "Allah" or a muslim OIC/Ummah sharia "Allah"? Klevius and BBC's listeners expect an honest answer!


Robert Lacey ("interviewed" by Mishal Husain): The previous king confronted (sic) wahhabist clerics. The new king tries an other tactics by reinstating the wahhabi leader of the sharia police. He is trying to move forward from within the system.

Klevius: Ever heard such utter non sense before?!

Robert Lacey: The problem with Raif Badawi is that he has criticized the whole religious system of Saudi Arabia and for having religious law. He has critizcized the idea that religion should rule life.

Klevius: My god! Really! Yes indeed! He really established the core of the problem, didn't he! But doesn't Robert Lacey sound quite religiously fanatic himself in  the way he uttered this statement? Does Robert Lacey approve of secularism?

Robert Lacey: The Saudi government has no more say over sharia than we do.

Klevius: Poor guys! So why did "king" Abdullah codify that Human Rights and Atheism should be considered among the worst criminal offenses? How would that sound in a non-muslim Christian country?

Robert Lacey: There is sharia which we can't change
Sharia exists by itself.

Klevius: Is this man completely unaware of the screaming discrepancy between a legal system based on the most basic of Human Rights principles, i.e. that all humans are considered equals, and a racist/sexist system whee women and non-muslims are considered inferior?! Btw, have you noticed how even law professors tend to avoid this most basic problem by distracting it with talk about punishments etc secondary issues?


Robert Lacey: Prince Charles is a good friend of "prince" Faisal bin Bandar Al Saud, now governor of Riyadh. They went on painting exhibitions together.

Klevius: So amusing. However, how come that prince Charles hasn't managed to make any influence before? And we certainly still lack evidence he has managed to do anything now.

There's a war going on inside Saudi Arabia between Westernized government and part of the people and most of the clerics.

Klevius: Duh!

BBC's muslim sharia (or is she an apostate?) presenter Mishal Husain: The system of checks and balances doesn't operate in the way we understand it.


Klevius:  It's sharia! As a muslim you should applaud it. Or bravely step forward and tell the world you don't approve of any Human Rights violating sharia! And that would make you an ex-muslim in no time.
 

More mosques means more jihadists and less Human Rights


Innes Bowen: As the Muslim population became more established, one might have assumed that a westernised form of Islam would have come to dominate Britain’s mosques. According to a database of British Islam, however, only two out of 1,700 mosques in Britain follow modernist interpretations of the Koran. It’s not the same elsewhere in the West. In a 2011 survey of Islam in the United States, 56 per cent of mosques described themselves as following an interpretation of Islam adapted to modern circumstances. This has not happened in Britain.

For the past seven years I have spent my spare time travelling around the UK, talking to Islamic leaders and grass-roots followers, trying to find out more about the structure of Islam in Britain. In the main, I have been treated with courtesy — and often with warmth.

As a liberal, however, it took some getting used to the environments into which I have been welcomed. At virtually every Islamic gathering I have attended, men and women have been seated separately. Even at social events in relatively middle-of-the-road mosques, a sheet will be hung across the hall, with women and children eating on one side and men on the other.

The management committees which run the mosques are usually men-only (or at least male-dominated). And these are the relatively liberal mosques, insofar as they allow women on the premises. Around a quarter of mosques in the UK do not. (What, I wonder, would our reaction be if a network of men-only churches were to spring up in Britain?)

Deobandi controls around 45% of Britain’s mosques and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars. What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if not banned. Women are advised not to emerge from their homes any more than is necessary.

The advice section of the website of Mufti Muhammed ibn Adam al-Kawthari, one of the Deobandis’ leading British-born, UK-trained Islamic scholars, gives a flavour of this group’s approach to living as a Muslim in the West. One follower posts a question asking whether it is permissible to wear a tie to work if asked to do so by one’s employer. The scholar says it is permissible but warns that it is better to ‘avoid the dress of the unbelievers’

 Tony Blair justified to the Muslim world the post-9/11 attacks on Afghanistan on the basis that driving out the Taleban would be an act of liberation: ‘I don’t believe,’ he said, ‘that anybody seriously wants to live under that kind of regime.’ Did he realise that the rules enforced by law in Afghanistan were being adopted, voluntarily, in parts of Leicester, Dewsbury and Blackburn?

Among Britain’s main Islamic groups, only the Ismaili followers of the Aga Khan believe there is no obligation to wear the veil.

To integrate is less evident among the Deobandis, founded in colonial India to protect Muslim identity from British influence. Its early leaders were involved in a plot to support Britain’s first world war enemies to overthrow imperial rule. The history is reinforced by religious ideology: Mufti al-Kawthari echoes the views of other Deobandi scholars when he advises followers on his website that, while one should be polite to non-Muslims, one should not take them as close friends.

Illiberal Islam is thoroughly British these days.





























.

No comments: