Sweden's biggest newspaper despises 'Swedish values' but hales muslim Umma nationalism
Aftonbladet: Nationalism paves the way for contempt! Klevius: Is that why members of the muslim nation (Umma) show such contemt against non-muslims?
The main obstacle to world solidarity is islamic nationalism and its contempt
for the other, the "infidel" (compare OIC's sharia declaration in UN)!
Klevius was the first non-racist and non-sexist person to publicly analyze and intellectually pinpoint the real problem (without excuses or political correctness) with islam. Why were no one listening?
The reasons are many: If you belong to the Judeo-Christian "religious community" you are probably already hampered in your efforts to defend your own religion while criticizing islam. You might have financial connections to islam, or you may be plain stupid/ignorant.
Slowly, way too slowly, media is waking up to the giant problem of muslimhood, that Klevius immediately after 9/11 analyzed and pinpointed despite all the "blasphemy" ("islamophobia") threats and inconveniencies he has faced (do note that Klevius hasn't needed to change anything - others have). However, there is an even longer way to walk before the rock solid truth behind Klevius blog title 'Origin of islam, the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever' is fully absorbed, as exemplified in the following.
Allison Pearson (The Telegraph): Ten years on, the threat, as the Prime Minister admitted yesterday, continues to be real and deadly. Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism squad says it has foiled up to 50 plots since 7/7. In the intervening decade, there have been more than 2,000 terrorism-related arrests. As we observed the silence for the dead of 7/7, arrests were at a record high, with almost one detention every single day.
Against that horrifying background, consider the complaint this week in the Guardian by the writer and editor, Mehdi Hasan. He says that since 7/7, British Muslims have met with discrimination – “subject to unprecedented scrutiny; tagged as a suspect community, the enemy within, a 'fifth column’ (to quote Nigel Farage)”.
Well, yes. If substantial numbers of men from a certain group in society are presenting an unprecedented threat to a country, then scrutiny and suspicion do tend to be the result. As for discrimination, try lying on a beach in Tunisia and being shot dead for no reason other than not being Muslim.
The "muslim community" consists of muslims (for sharia and against Human Rights) and neo-"muslims" (against sharia and for Human Rights) but only the former will have an effect (so called "radicalization") on that community.Whenever discussing islam, always remember that the origin of islam makes no historical sense whatsoever if not read through the same evil original formula as do Islamic State and the Saudis! And for the "tolerant-golden-age-islam" people you better remind them that the gold was slavery, the very financial and social basis of islam.
If your muslim friend possesses those "British values"*, i.e. basic Human Rights, that Theresa May and David Cameron
think they do, then no harm is done to make sure by asking. Your muslim friend may be honest or not, but at least you have either made her/him proud or, alternatively, made her/him (isn't this grammatical gender aprtheid inherited from Mideast senseless) aware of this crucial distinction and, if lying to you, feeling some deserved guilt for building your relationship on a disgusting lie.
* There can't be any other "British values" (than basic Human Rights) which are meaningful in a context of debating muslimhood and islam. Islamic sharia jihadists are born in UK, speak in a "British" way, they are educated in Britain, they work, study and/or live on benefits in Britain. They do British sports, entertainment etc. And on top of this some of them are imams, mosque leaders, leaders/members of muslim organizations, muslim politicians etc.
The allure of sharia islam is (apart from pure sexism) supremacist racist hate (compare the ritual stoning of the infidel during Mecca haji).
Being "black" or "white" has no connection to black or white supremacism.
Being sharia muslim has every connection to islamist supremacism because sharia, in whatever meaningful form (e.g. OIC), will always violate the most basic Human Rights. Whereas the basic ('negative') Human Rights guarantee universal equality, supremacism rests on the belief that some people are better than others and therefore the "inferior" ones can be mistreated. No dude, this shouldn't be misunderstood as not being allowed to love your loved ones more than others. If you are too dumb to get it, think of traffic rules. You can love your car more than any other cars out there, but that doesn't give you more rights in the traffic, does it.
The name of the free world's enemy is sharia islam. Is this why PM Cameron doesn't dare to utter the world 'sharia' in the context of British victims of sharia islam?
Acknowledgement 2 (for dumb people or for those willfully trying to misread): By 'sharia muslims' Klevius means those muslims who subscribe to basic Human Rights violating sharia islam on a level of OIC's Cairo declaration in UN - or worse.
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 sharia 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.
Our politicians call our worst enemy, i.e. islam and its "guardian" Saudi Arabia, our "ally"! No wonder the war on "radicalization", i.e. sharia islam (islamofascism) is not progressing.
So called Saudi Arabia, based on an islamofascist ideology almost identical with that of what so called BBC on order of PM Cameron, calls the "so called Islamic State", has now beheaded 100 people so far this year. So called Saudi Arabia considers basic Human Rights as "terrorism" and criticism of islamofascism as "blasphemic" "terrorism". Moreover, so called Saudi Arabia considers Shia muslims as no muslims at all but as apostates. The leader of the congregation at the Grand Hate Mosque (Masjid-al-Kurh) in Mecca, Adel Al Kalbani, declared that all Shia muslims were apostates, unbelievers, and as such should be hunted down and killed (i.e. murdered).
Shias, on the other hand, lump Israel together with so called Saudi Arabia. “Sheba and Dedan” are viewed as Jews for their support of Netanyahu’s anti-Iran campaign. Ayatollah Husayn Ali Montazeri, Khomeini’s successor-designate, denounced the Saudis as “a bunch of English agents from Najd who have no respect either for the House of Allah or for the pilgrims who are the guests of Allah.” Just as Jerusalem would be liberated from the “claws of usurping Israel,” Mecca and Medina would be liberated from the “claws of Al Saud.”
However, the problem is that when after 9/11 Georg W Bush was criticized for his attempted "crusade" against sharia islam, a discursive gray zone was created that came to protect that very evil that was the root cause of the problem.
The gray zone that hides and conflates sharia islam uses the meaningless term 'muslim' to cover both real sharia muslims and so called "British muslims" or "secularized muslims" or "cultural muslims".
Only by cleaning up this messy discourse, the evil of sharia islam and sharia muslims will be clearly visible. Only then we can open heartedly welcome neo-"muslims", i.e. those so called "moderate muslims" so admired and put on a pedestal by our politicians, and whom we assume are for basic Human Rights, i.e. so called "British values".