Less than 5% "muslims" in England and less than half of them religiously active (aka islamists, "scholars", imams, etc sharia supporters) - yet the uncritical noise from/about them is extremely disproportional. Why?
While BBC's "muslim" sharia presenter Mishal Husain herself doesn't even bother to fast at all during Ramadan and gladly drinks some alcohol while telling women victimized by islam, that she doesn't feel that "her way of life is under any kind of threat", Edward Stourton seems to think that the social media habits of those muslims who do but who constitute a tiny little fraction of the Brits, is a highly important issue for the Brits in general to listen to.
British muslim jihadists: Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Lee Rigby on a busy London street "as a defense of islam".
Hard to believe that a program like BBC's Sunday is allowed to be aired in a democratic and secular country. Not because of any restriction in free speech but because of its extremely low quality journalism and bigoted, hypocritical, misleading and non-representative fanatic religious profile.
Edward Stourton has a continuously strange taste about whom to invite to his program. And an even stranger non-professional attitude to the journalistic duty of how to critically interviewing them. Had he been a physician with a similar approach then the patient(s) would probably had died long ago.
In a program (as usually) filled with muslim propaganda, BBC's islam propagandist Edward Stourton again tries to top himself in his religious bigotry and hypocrisy:
The 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta, which is considered a first landmark towards full Human Rights, Stourton tries to present as a product from the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth (see further down for more). Magna Carta was forced by the barons upon the notorious traitor king John who had planned to give England up to the muslim slave imperialists. Moreover, religion is the very antithesis to Human Rights and therefore is under constant pressure to correct its own stupidity so to somehow pretend to fit in a modern society based on Human Rights equality.
Edward Stourton also offered his listeners a lengthy piece of absolutely empty talk about sharia muslims use of the web during Ramadan: "As millions of Muslims in Britain prepare for the arrival of the holy month of Ramadan we look at the relationship between Ramadan and social media". Moreover, Stourton was also deeply concerned with sharia muslims fasting "problem" with the long daylight in England. Why didn't he ask an in-house muslim as e.g. Mishal Husain. She seems to have no problem whatsoever.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Klevius vs muslims (Human Rights vs islam) - who will win your heart and who is the hater? Take the test!
Acknowledgement for newcomers in simple English: To understand why islam itself is the source of evil do understand (check for youself if you don't trust Klevius) the following:
1 Islam originated in a bloodbath where muslims slaughtered all the Jews in Medina. And from then on it continued in pretty much the same way as the Islamic State today - only that, thanks to islam's backwardness, the West has superior technology to keep them down. In fact, islam has never produced any tech by itself (when did you last time buy a camera or car made in Saudi Arabia?). Why should it when the whole islamic ideology is based on slave parasitism (and today also Western oil money and aid/benefits). And the only "golden" in the so called "golden age" was the gold muslims got through their slaves. And later on the Ottoman muslim slave empire immediately started deteriorating after the West had abolished all kinds of slavery (except muslim sex slavery hidden as it is within sharia marriage and as "concubines" i.e. sex slaves).
2 The Koran is an Arabic nationalist supremacist slavery manual. Because early muslims were caravan robbers etc. criminals (i.e. parasites) they could only survive on what they could rob from others (which they called "infidels"). This is why islam became the worst and biggest slavery ideology ever.
3 Islam is today sharia via Saudi based and steered OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which via 57 more or less criminal member states in United Nations (UN) has managed to democratically (although islam is anti-democratic and anti-Human Rights) establish itself as the muslim world Ummah with due Human Rights violating sharia (the so called Cairo declaration on "islamic human rights").
4 Islam is not islam without sharia so a muslim who rejects sharia (in any Human Rights violating form) isn't a real muslim - just a cultural "muslim" and therefore of no interest for Klevius islam criticism.
However, it's therefore extremely important that every muslim clearly and honestly declare whether s/he is an islamofascist (Human Rights violating sharia) or not.
Start by asking your muslim friend. S/he lies to you if s/he says s/he can be a believing muslim without such sharia. To believe in islam is to believe in Human Rights violating sharia. That's the very reason OIC rejected Human Rights in UN! And if s/he doesn't then s/he has committed the worst crime against islam and should be protected by Western Human Rights and due legislation based on them.
Saudi Arabia - the guardian and spreader of islamic hate
OIC is a muslim extremist organization!
ICLA: 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
Klevius Human Rights campaign against sharia fueled racist/sexist islamic hate
Klevius is anti sharia islam and anti sharia muslims - and very proud of it! Moreover, Klevius thinks he has a majority of "muslims" on his side - although most of them don't even know it as yet. And even those "muslims" who know it but stay muslim because of monetary advantages, have to admit Klevius' logic and their own evilness which could range from mild Human-rightsphobia to extrem muslim terrorism.
Muslim hate speech and acts against "infidels" are protected by Human
Rights. However, there must be room for Human Rights people (without
dhimmitude etc) in the world as well - or?! Face islam's
Warning for hateful muslims in policing, nursing, caring, public
service etc. Unlike other weirdos muslim weirdos can refer to a
"religious" book and "tradition" that so many say is "holy"* and of
course excited by all the "diversity
hate Human Rights problem!
* (negative) Human Rights, i.e. freedom from unnecessary impositions, is the only truly holy concept we need as a functioning worldwide morality. Civilized people of all sorts already know this and behave accordingly.
As it stands now, by referring to her/his "religion" a muslim can deny you things you can't deny her/him without facing accusations of "racism" or "hate", based on those very Human Rights the actual muslim in fact otherwise hates.
In a BBC debate one of those politically correct non-muslim politicians defended the stupid proposal to give muslims (of course he didn't mention muslims but used the usual proxy word "religious") the right to discriminate against non-muslims in a way non-muslims aren't allowed to discriminate muslims no matter how offended they are by the muslim's hateful racist/sexist sharia ideology.
Klevius investment hint:
Muslim Sharia free zones will be very valuable in the future.Not the least for many "muslims".
Forget about saving rain forests etc! This is your new deal. Did you hear that you oily sheiks fearing a decrease in the popularity of your oil! Or are you running out of money after having invested so heavily in sharia zones?
Risks: That islam collapses even quicker than expected. However, even if you then may loose some money you may also comfort yourself with a fairer world.
Klevius vs ? billion muslims. He knows it's not fair - of course Klevius' Human Rights logic is irresistible in the long run compared to dividing hateful muslim sharia racism/sexism!
Human RightsKlevius: On his blogs and sites 'Klevius' is interchangeable with 'Human Rights' because all they do is defending Human Rights. Unfortunately for muslims, islam makes itself the biggest target precisely because of its violation of Human Rights. Nowhere on Klevius' sites/blogs can you find ANYTHING not in line with this Human Rights defense!
Muslims: There doesn't exist a true muslim without her/him (via her/his support of sharia islam) violating the most basic equality principles of Human Rights.
SexismKlevius: There is no defense for sex segregation/apartheid. Not even heterosexual attraction (of which Klevius has written the most essential analysis in the world of today - admittedly, the competition hasn't been very hard).
Muslims: Women are inferior to men and women's heterosexual attraction makes it necessary in islam to sharia hide/jail/restrict them physically and/or culturally (the means vary depending on muslim community/sub-settings).
RacismKlevius: Human Rights make racism impossible.
Muslims: Islam is built on "infidel" racism.
PoliticsKlevius: For secularism based on Human Rights.
Muslims: For an islamic state based on sharia.
BeliefsKlevius: Atheist, i.e. lacking a "god" he otherwise could blame and instead protecting his moral attitude by hanging it on the most powerful of all moral codes namely the negative Human Rights.
Muslims: Whatever a muslim does it's "Allah's" will. And because "Allah's" will is not known then we have no tool whatsoever to know the inscrutable will of the muslim - other than the self evident Atheist conclusion that it's no more or less than the will of the muslim, and not of "Allah".
According to one of BBC's extremely few and misleading reports about OIC aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe ... (read more on Klevius beats BBC)
In Britain, the number of Muslim converts recently passed the 100,000 mark, according to a survey conducted by an inter-faith group called Faith Matters. The survey revealed that nearly two thirds of the converts were women, more than 70% were white and the average age at conversion was just 27.
Klevius explanation: Non-muslim women who marry muslims have to choose between a lower status as a non-muslim in the muslim family setting or convert.
The muslim system is extremely racist and sexist in this regard because everything is one-way directed towards the muslim man and islam and away from Human Rights. A non-muslim man isn't even allowed to marry a muslim woman without converting.
So instead of boasting about the high numbers they should be seen as utterly shamful in a civilized country.
So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?
Nothing could be easier. Just refute Human Rights violating sharia and
you don't hear anything from Klevius. Do as Ayaan Hiris Ali did!Face the truth.
From anti-islamic Magna Carta in 1215 to anti-fascist Human Rights in 1948 - and the islamofascism of today
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.
Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).
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.
Some more hateful muslimsOr are they no muslims precisely because of their hate?!
How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that is more protected than most other people?!
Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary, their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself, i.e. OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).
Muslims have chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok, Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights. And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia (as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.