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 Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
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 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!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

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

Monday, July 27, 2015

The oxymoron "diversity" means sharia islam steered from Saudi Arabia. So "diversity training" most often feeds intolerance.


Britain's "diversity" stuck in the uniformity of Saudi Arabian sand dunes?


Whenever you hear the politically correct oxymoron "diversity" you can be sure that it can be traced directly to the least diverse place in the world, Saudi Arabia, the "custodian" of sharia islam and its idolatry of the most intolerant city in the world.

 Why does Cameron seem to have such a problem using the word sharia when precisely this word could help him finding the code to "radicalization"?

Calling oneself a true muslim automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Fuhrer Iyad Madani, who belongs to the Saudi dictator family.




A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

In 2008 the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) tried to make a brief statement about honour killings, female genital mutilation and stoning. IHEU and the Association of World Education had three minutes to put their case. But as they tried to make the statement, they were constantly interrupted by the representative of Egypt who accused the NGOs of trying to “crucify Islam”. They insisted that sharia law must not be mentioned at the UNHRC, let alone criticised. A Pakistan delegate — whose country speaks for the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in the rights body — said the grouping had “strong objections” to any direct or indirect discussion of sharia. Joining Egypt in asking the president, Romania's Daru Romulus Costea, to bar any debate that took this path, he said that if allowed it would “amount to spreading of hatred against certain members of this Council”.

Costea suspended the council and is reported to have asked the NGOs not to mention sharia.

Later Mr Costea told a press conference that he had ruled that only Muslim scholars can be permitted to talk about Islam in the Council. He said that religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense”.

While Cameron contemplates "radicalization" (sharia islam) BBC asks* for more sharia muslim judges in Britain. Klevius: "British values"?

* A news organization such as BBC can easily cherry pick guests and topics to suit their islam propaganda.

BBC today first asks for more "diversity" among judges. You might think that means more Polish or EU citizen judges. Or perhaps Chinese or Russian judges. Or maybe Hindu judges. No, predictably BBC then transfers "diversity" to muslim "scholars and imams". What else. But what about "radical" muslim judges? Will their intentions be alighed with Saudi sharia islam rather than "British values"?

What's the point anyway of muslim "diversity" when Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is destroying islam as we know it?




Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is inevitably winning over islam and its one Billion plus muslims. There's no return whatsoever simply because of the bedrock logic of the so called basic "negative"* rights underlying the thought of universal Human Rights equality. Due to islam's parasitic origin (booty and slaves) it's inherently racist (the "infidel") and sexist (sex segregation/apartheid). This is the essence of sharia and should not be confused with contracts. A contract means having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. Islamic sharia doesn't qualify under Human Rights guided legislation because of its unlawful racism and sexism. A muslim can't legally make an agreement with other muslims to treat non-muslims, wrong-muslims, LGBTs, Atheists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, women etc. as not equal to themselves. And this is just the tip of the iceberg Cameron calls "radicalization" and "silent muslim [sharia] supporters".

* Whereas 'positive rights' can be abused as impositions, 'negative rights' means the very opposite, i.e. lack of content, in other words freedom from impositions.





























.

No comments: