Ban sharia islam - now!
Try criticizing Peter Klevius' writings about islam (or call him an "islamophobe") and you inevitably also criticize and even violate the most basic rights in the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which was produced for the very purpose of defending us against totalitarian and fascist ideologies - no matter if they call themselves ". Whenever Klevius criticizes islam and muslims, it's always outside what is meant with the term 'religion'. Also European Court of Human Rights (2002) agrees with Klevius, as does the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Whatever Klevius has written and spoken about islam since 9/11 has been in accordance with what renommed (i.e. accepted by the UK government and its state propaganda tool BBC) British* islam historians say about the origin of islam, and what renommed Human Rights bodies say about sharia islam today.
* Due to the fact that the "British empire" to a large extent was infected by islam long before the British coonilization.
While British voters wanted sharia muslims to leave or adapt to basic Human Rights equality and to stop more sharia muslims coming in via EU, Theresa May (and BBC) wants EU citizens and Human Rights to leave and muslims and their sharia to stay and multiply. The so called "review" of sharia courts in UK is made by a sharia muslim.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Why hasn't BBC's islamofascist Sharia muslim presenter Mishal Husain told the Brits about muslim benefits and state fundings
Klevius hint: www.muslimracism.info/com/org can't be found as web addresses! Try to google 'muslimracism' and see what you get!
Who will start state funded 'muslimracism' about Koran induced hate crimes? And how much would it cost taxpayers to track all street etc hate crimes fueled by islam, Koran texts and the example of the alleged* Mohammed?
* According to UK's foremost islam historian Hugh Kennedy, Mohammed didn't exist on any official document whatsoever before Malik introduced him in the islamic mythology long after his alleged death. However, according to Klevius (also compare The Hidden Origin of Islam) what might have existed is the naming as MHMD (meaning Christ) of one or several Judeo-Christian leader/s of Arab thieves/looters. The evilness was excused by reference to "God's will" and the "infidel" and later on the (evil) "effectiveness" of the original formula (the lure of looting/murdering/enslaving/rapetivism kept together with apostasy ban) had to distance itself from Byzantine and its parent ideology (a Syrian Christianity variant) and their both root ideology Judaism. And for that reason Malik invented the muslim Mohammed and the Koran.
What if BBC and Sun would have scrutinized muslims instead of a few poor EU citizens that possibly could have got a tiny fraction of the taxpayers' money muslims have received?!
Klevius question to BBC and Mishal Husain: Why don't you make a report on how much benefit/funds muslims get in UK compared to non-muslim EU-citizens?!
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family doesn't want Jerusalem to become the center for islam - why would they?
The evil of islam today is mainly rooted in the islamofascist* Saudi dictator family.* According to Amnesty, Human Rights bodies etc. the Saudi dictator family (aka "Saudi Arabia") is one of the worst violators of Human Rights. Protecting this evil by referring to it being an "important ally" and therefore instead smearing and accusing critics (i.e. using same evil tactics as the Saudi family) seem untenable in a modern civilized democracy.
Trump won thanks to his promise to ban muslims. Brexit won thanks to stopping muslims entering UK via EU.
So why do UK politicians and media try to divide and incite hatred against mostly non-muslim EU citizens - well knowing that racism against Polish etc. people has a far lower threshold (thanks to "muslim sensitivities", "diversity" etc. and to hate propaganda by BBC and politicians - later followed by Sun etc.) in UK than against muslims?!
Defense of Human Rights is called "populism" and "islamophobia" by BBC.However, sharia islam is in fact the very reason for nationalism, while politicians try to blame other nationals.
It's said that islam is struggling with its own identity.However, that's not true. Islam's true identity is evil (see above) and remains so unless this evil is removed from it. However, when one tries to remove islam's evil - e.g. by using the Human Rights tool - islam simultaneously becomes a religious eunuch, hence loosing its main allure for many (most?) muslims.
Neither the US Constitution, nor any other legal body outside the islamic sharia realm, protects sharia islam as a "religion".
The word “religion,” which comes from the Latin word religare, means “to tie, to bind fast.” This etymology is favored by many based on its ability to explain the power religion has over people and the communities in which they live. Religion is commonly, but not always, associated with a particular system of faith and worship of a transcendent deity or deities. In human rights discourse, however, the use of the term “religion” also includes support for the right to non-religious beliefs, such as atheism or agnosticism. In 1993 the Human Rights Committee, an independent body of 18 experts selected through a UN process, described religion or belief as “theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.”
Joseph Williamson: Taken strictly and without exemptions sharia law and the American Constitution stand at great and irreconcilable odds with each other. However, some Muslims have already accepted the position of sharia in the United States of America and support it. Others adamantly deny that sharia will ever be subordinate to
1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
2. For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator family black mailing Trump? However, continuing dealing with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family is playing with fire - both home and abroad.Andrew C. McCarthy: Trump’s goal is not to exclude Muslims from our country; it is to exclude sharia supremacists, a significant subset of Muslims.
Klevius: Right. Every true muslim is a "sharia supremacist" and those who say they're not either lie or are no real muslims while still being called "muslims", hence contributing to "sharia supremacism" - possibly because of sharia islam's strict view on apostasy.
The evilness (i.e. anti Human Rights) of islam itself combined with Saudi oil wealth used for politics, war and terror, and the fact that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (still) possesses the "capital" of islam, together constitute the real knot to be cut in Mideast.
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family of course doesn't want Jerusalem to become the center of islam. That's why they stick with Israel - for the moment.
Neither does Israel. Israel in fact functions as a defense for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family against the islamofascist regime in Iran.
Moreover, both parties hence count on support from the US.
However, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's loyalty isn't worth a fistful of desert sand blowing in your face. They wouldn't care less if Israel was blown away - as long as Jerusalem doesn't affect their status as the "guardians of islam".