Hey Brits, do you think Jeremy Corbyn will protect your Human Rights against muslims?In Klevius series digusting Human Rights desecrating hypocritical politicians.
Raed Salah (a friend of Jeremy Corbyn): Very soon, Muhammad will be the most popular name in Europe.
Klevius: And most of them are muslim violators of Human Rights! If we don't start educating muslims about Human Rights instead of lying to our children about islam, then these future Muhammads and Muslimas will never understand the very evil origin and nature of Human Rights violating sharia islam.
The Bangladesh government led by PM Sheikh Hasina has been criticized for failing to adequately protect Human Rights bloggers.
Klevius: Why should he be criticized? According to deeply racist and sexist (he supports sharia islam - and if he doesn't, then Klevius challenges him to be honest and dare to say he's an "islamophobe") Jeremy Corbyn, "islamophobia" is "disgusting and deeply offensive". In Europe and the US no one protects "islamophobic" Human Rights bloggers! On the contrary they are seen as "not conducive to the public good" because they offend muslims - who apparently are "conducive to the public good" despite opposing Human Rights - with their "islamophobia", and because many muslims are very sensitive and violent, islam criticism, sorry, "islamophobia" may "disturb cohesion" - or somthing like that.
In other words, muslim Human Rights-phobia is good while defending the most basic of Human Rights equals "islamophobia" - which is very bad.
So what do those "muslims" think who don't approve of sharia but rather stick with Human Rights? And Jews who don't want to submit under islam. Should we just allow spineless bigoted hypocrite politicians like Jeremy Corbyn to assist in their extermination.
Klevius answer to the question in the title of this posting: None! Most Nationalsocialists weren't evil at all - just misled like many "muslims".
Let's listen to a Jewish voice that differs a lot from Ed Miliband:
Shane Croucher: Jewish Twitter users are routinely attacked and questioned about Israel, despite having no connection to Israel other than being Jewish. Some are, ironically, critics of Israeli policy. A parallel would be demanding British Muslims to condemn Saudi Arabia purely because they share – in the broadest sense – a religion. It would not be tolerated in a way that demanding all Jews answer for the actions of Israel apparently is. These double standards and the emboldening of anti-Semites by Corbynmania are creating legitimate cause for concern among British Jews, many of whom are here because their ancestors sought refuge from the Holocaust.
Klevius: "In the broadest sense share a religion"?! Klevius takes it to mean the unfortunate mixing of Human Rights violating sharia muslims with non-sharia "muslims". The divide is bigger than the diameter of our Universe!
Two dumb voices who should really feel ashamed of, not their dumbness, but because of their support for islamofascism
Jordan Denari and Nathan Lean: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali's message has failed to attract many in the American Muslim community, who believe she misrepresents islam."
Klevius: The desperation among supporters of islamofascism seems to block any remaining capability of logical thinking. How could someone who criticizes something represent what s/he criticizes?!
Jordan Denari and Nathan Lean: Hirsi Ali doesn't speak from a place of formal expertise on Islam.
Klevius: Expertise on islam! Apart from her experience of islam (which she shares with millions of islam's victims) and what you (and "muslim scholars") know zero about - why "formal"?! How would a "formal" criticism of Nazism in a Nazi country have looked like? And when did you last time knew about an unbiased "muslim scholar" (i.e. someone who builds houses of cards on unhistorical muslim fairy tales in the Arabian sand). The contamination of Western universities with "muslim scholars" is a sad step many hundreds of years back in time.
Jordan Denari and Nathan Lean: It's really not islam she desires to change, as much as the public's perception of it.
Klevius: This must be the intellectual equivalent of the guy driving against the traffic on the wrong side of the motorway. When we all know that the islam that is criticized by "islamophobes" like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is the one in which name evil (i.e. what is criticized) is produced. The "islamophobic" criticism is directed against evil muslims and evil islam - nothing or no one else!
If "good muslims" have a problem (feeling "offended") with sharing the same name as sharia muslims then its their duty to clearly state it by openly rejecting this evil (i.e. against the most basic Western and Human Rights values) sharia islam - or stop being muslims all together, hence committing the worst crime islam (in every form) knows about, which fact really underlines the evilness in their former ideology.
If you like islam - why don't you also like the Islamic State and Saudi Arabia? They are by far the closest to the origin of islam you can get today!