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 islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you
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 the 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!

Myth vs Truth

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

Friday, July 29, 2016

Theresa May appoints a sharia muslim as aviation security minister - and he starts by jumping on alcohol sale - which doesn't affect muslims - other than perhaps BBC's Mishal Husain


Ahmed and Ahmad both have the violent "prophet" Muhammad and sharia in common




Although Sunni muslims may not consider Lord Ahmad a muslim at all because he belongs to the Ahmadiyya sect, from Klevius Human Rights perspective he ticks all the boxes.

Here's a view on Ahmadiyya muslims by Swedish Dispatch International


Maryam Namazie and I took part in a debate with two members of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam; the motion being “Sharia Law Negates Human Rights”. You can watch it in full here  On the other side of the debate were Ayyaz Mahmood Khan and Jonathan Butterworth, both Ahmadiyya Muslims.

Following the speeches, the first question raised from the audience was on the matter of “wife-beating”, and the fact that this is sanctioned, indeed commanded, in Sura 4:34 of the Koran. Rather than reject the sentiments of this verse, Ayyaz Mahmood Khan attempted to deny it with the usual “out of context” apologism. He attempted to brush aside the consequences of the verse by stating that men who beat women “are rotten people who were going to beat their wives anyway”.

While this is undoubtedly true, it doesn’t quite address the fact that the Koran allows them to do it, or what this says about the position of women in Islam. Khan then goes on to say that beating his wife is essentially a man’s last resort. He claims that the “beat her” command only applies when a wife becomes violent. The example he provided was “if she beats her husband, she raises her hand, then she begins to hate her husband, and begins to have illicit relationships outside the home”. Finally, he added that when beating a woman “no marks should be left on the body”.

There is much about this explanation that simply doesn’t wash, the most obvious being that unfortunately for Khan, the Koran doesn’t actually say any of that; it simply says “beat her”, he has added the rest. Secondly, to his mind, if a woman “begins to hate her husband” or “have illicit relationships”, it is then perfectly legitimate to launch into physical abuse. I, and most truly moderate or civilised people, reject male violence of any kind against women, and do not present a list of occasions in which it is acceptable.

Furthermore, there is no difference between Khan’s misogynist acceptance of violence and that of Sa’d Arafat who, on Egyptian television in 2010, also described violence against women as a last resort. Arafat outlined all of the steps (admonish her, don’t share her bed) a man must take to “discipline” his wife, before it becomes acceptable to beat her. When he does decide she has been disobedient enough, “the beatings should not be hard”. The fact is that there is no difference been Khan and Arafat, and yet Khan – being Ahmadiyya – is praised as a moderate, whereas Arafat would no doubt be condemned for those views by many of the same people.

I’ve heard it said, more than once, that the Ahmadiyya community are widely maligned, oppressed and persecuted across the Islamic world because of their message of moderation and peace. This is not strictly true though. The Ahmadiyya are persecuted because they are deemed to be blasphemous. On their UK website, they state that they are “the only community of Muslims to have accepted” the “Promised Messiah” Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

In Pakistan, a law introduced in 1984 has been used to persecute Ahmadi members there for “posing as a Muslim”. In 2013 a British doctor was arrested in Pakistan for just that offence,  and as Reuters reported “some mullahs promise that killing Ahmadis earns a place in heaven”. Might this persecution go some way to explaining their call for freedom of religion, while also calling for restrictions on those of who criticise it?

There is some credit due to the Ahmadiyya community in Britain for their efforts to integrate to mainstream British life, and indeed for their charitable work. Moreover, the persecution of this group is appalling and deserves unequivocal condemnation. However, it is difficult to see any distinction between many of their core beliefs and those of other Muslims who we might label extreme. Some prominent representatives have opposed non-believers’ right to criticise or mock religion, have lied about stoning, and attempted to apologise away misogynist violence. Perhaps we need to be rather more careful before applying the label of “moderate” to men who stand in such positions.










No comments: