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.

Wednesday, October 05, 2016

Swedish school campaign against "islamophobia" (i.e. against Human Rights) is paying off


Saudi supported Hillary Clinton and her muslim sharia advisor Human Abedin - not to mention Huma's islamofascist mother who teaches sharia in Saudi Arabia - must love this Swedish child convert.



And Swedish social service doesn't lift a finger despite of her parents desperate plea. And why should they? After all, as sharia islam is declared "a great religion", how could it then possibly not be "in the best interest of the child"?

Emma has also said that she doesn't support terrorism.

Klevius comment: Neither does the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. They chop the heads off "terrorists", incl. Human Rights defenders, Atheists, Shia muslims (whom they don't consider real muslims anyway etc.


The evil of true islam and true sharia muslims can easily be made visible through the categories: Original muslims, neo-muslims, and "cultural muslims"*.


* The category 'ignorant muslims' could be found all over the place.

Mishal Husain type of "muslims" helps covering up the true evil of true original parasitic robbing, slaughtering, enslaving and raping jihad islam.

If decent (i.e. civilized, i.e. meaning Human Rights equality supporting) people knew what sharia is, they would condemn it without hesitation.


The legal status of "muslim"* women in India came into focus recently after a women’s group called for a ban on sharia courts. The Muslim Women’s Quest for Equality petitioned the Supreme Court to abolish the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), which oversees the application of muslim sharia in India.



* according to original islamic sex segregation/apartheid, only muslim men can be true muslims. "Muslim" women are seen as an other categoy of humans, defined by sharia "duties" and "obligations", which makes islam in complete opposition to the most basic of Human Rights.





Siobhan Lambert-Hurley is Reader in International History, University of Sheffield: Prevailing interpretations of the sharia in India today — institutionalized in the AIMPLB — allow gender inequality to be justified and upheld in the name of Islam. But Islamic law should not be presumed to be static or unchanging. History points to how more favorable interpretations have been employed to advocate Muslim women’s legal rights in India. In the light of the political controversy that surrounds proposals for the abolition of Muslim personal law in favour a uniform civil code, building on these historical precedents may offer a pragmatic way forward.

Klevius: So why not eliminate islam from the equation and replace it with the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration which gives women same rights as men? The inflammation resides in islam - not in Human Rights!




No comments: