Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future

Definition of Negative Human Rights - i.e. the very foundation of the freedom part of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

This is what BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain "forgot" to report. Mishal grew up in the very same theocratic medieval dictatorship which now harbors and rules all muslims world organization OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia. While also spreading islamic hatred over the world through a variety of channels.

Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:

True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).

Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017

So let's face islam with this definition.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").

And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.

* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".

Klevius to Mueller (who opposed investigation of Saudi 9/11): Check Saudi connections/influence!

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?

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a miserable "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

Mrs May plays sharia with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - skipping Human Rights. Right?

Saudi islamofascism attacks Buddhists - again and again - backed by Mrs May.

When will the world finally turn on the hateful Saudi dictator family - rather than on its victims?

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

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

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.

Wednesday, June 01, 2016

Cameron hugs an islamofascist*, Sadiq Khan (voted mayor by estremist muslims) for the sake of sharia finance

* i.e. someone who supports basic Human Rights violating sharia - plus see below.

Sharia islam isn't only bad for women but for all non-muslims and wrong muslims.

Sadiq Khan, former lawyer notorious for defending racist supremacist extremists, has described so called "moderate" muslim groups as “Uncle Toms” which in this context means "Westernized" muslims who embrace “moderate islam” as a way of being subservient to the West.

Klevius: What about BBC's so called "muslim" presenter, Mishal Husain? Is she a so called "radical" (i.e. true muslim) or "Aunt Tamsin", eating and sipping alcohol during Ramadan fasting times etc.?

Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad shares the view of Sadiq Khan: “Revolutionary islam is the same as pure Muhammadan islam. Some say our islam is not revolutionary islam, but we must say to them that non-revolutionary islam is the same as American islam. Islam commands us to be firm against the enemies and be kind and compassionate toward each other and not be afraid of anything….

Klevius: Finally! "Islamophobes" and those non-muslims who call islam "a peaceful and great religion" and who want to criminalize "islamophobia", are now all "enemies of islam".

Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad: Revolutionary islam is this same islam. It is the islam that is within us that can create changes. The warriors realized that islam is not just prayers and fasting, but rather they stood against the enemies in support of islam.”

Klevius: Absolutely! Enemies who didn't support attacking caravans, taking boooty and sex slaves, slaughtering people (incl. all the Jews in Medina), declaring women and non-muslims inferior etc.

An Arabic article titled “The Truth about the Moderate muslim as Seen by the West and its muslim Followers,” authored by Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr: Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call “moderate islam” and “moderate muslims” is simply a slur against islam and muslims, a distortion of islam, a rift among muslims, a spark to ignite war among them.

Klevius: Cameron hence inciting hostility, violence and discrimination, not conducive to the public good?!

Khadr: They also see that the division of islam into “moderate islam” and “radical islam” has no basis in islam — neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality.

Radicals (“true Muslims”) aid and support fellow Muslims, especially those committed to jihad, whereas moderates (“false Muslims”) ally with and help Western nations.

    Radicals want the caliphate to return; moderates reject the caliphate.
    Radicals want to apply Sharia (Islamic law); moderates reject the application of Sharia.
    Radicals reject the idea of renewal and reform, seeing it as a way to conform Islam to Western culture; moderates accept it.
    Radicals accept the duty of waging jihad in the path of Allah; moderates reject it.
    Radicals reject any criticism whatsoever of Islam; moderates welcome it on the basis of freedom of speech.
    Radicals accept those laws that punish whoever insults or leaves the religion [apostates]; moderates recoil from these laws.
    Radicals respond to any insult against Islam or the prophet Muhammad—peace and blessing upon him—with great violence and anger; moderates respond calmly and peacefully on the basis of freedom of expression.
    Radicals respect and reverence every deed and every word of the prophet—peace be upon him—in the hadith; moderates don’t.
    Radicals oppose democracy; moderates accept it.
    Radicals see the people of the book [Jews and Christians] as dhimmis [third class “citizens”]; moderates oppose this.
    Radicals reject the idea that non-Muslim minorities should have equality or authority over Muslims; moderates accept it.
    Radicals reject the idea that men and women are equal; moderates accept it, according to Western views.
    Radicals oppose the idea of religious freedom and apostasy from Islam; moderates agree to it.
    Radicals desire to see Islam reign supreme; moderates oppose this.
    Radicals place the Koran over the constitution; moderates reject this.
    Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.
    Radicals embrace the wearing of hijabs and niqabs; moderates reject it.
    Radicals accept killing young girls that commit adultery or otherwise besmirch their family’s honor; moderates reject this.
    Radicals reject the status of women today and think it should be like the status of women in the time of the prophet; moderates reject that women should be as in the time of the prophet.
    Radicals vehemently reject that women should have the freedom to choose partners; moderates accept that she can choose a boyfriend without marriage.
    Radicals agree to clitorectimis; moderates reject it.
    Radicals reject the so-called war on terror and see it as a war on Islam; moderates accept it.
    Radicals support jihadi groups; moderates reject them.
    Radicals reject the terms Islamic terrorism or Islamic fascism; moderates accept them.
    Radicals reject universal human rights, including the right to be homosexual; moderates accept it.
    Radicals reject the idea of allying with the West’ moderates support it.
    Radicals oppose secularism; moderates support it.

Moderates believe religion has no role in public life, that it must be practiced in private, while radicals want it to govern society; that moderates rely on rationalism, while radicals take the text of the Koran and hadith literally; that the first place of loyalty for moderates is the state, irrespective of religion—marveling that the moderate “finds hatred for non-Muslims as unacceptable”—whereas the radical’s loyalty  is to Islam, a reference to the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.

Khadr concludes that, to most Muslims, “moderate Muslims” are those Muslims who do not oppose but rather aid the West and its way of life, whereas everything “radicals” accept is based on traditional Islamic views.

The blind socialist prophet against "islamophobia" who can't see any racism in himself.

Klevius: Makes me so proud of being a so called "islamophobe" - and thankfully not accepted by those who are name calling me. I prefer not to be equalized with them.

PS. Civilized people call "islamophobes" like Klevius for what they are, namely defenders of basic and universal Human Rights against totalitarian islamofascist sharia.

Not anywhere in the thousands of pages Klevius has written can you find anything else than Human Rights logic.

No comments: