Politicians shout "islamophobia" when they think they can gain votes or money. But what they do is in fact treason against those very Human Rights Western civilization was rebuilt on after WW2.
The "custodian of islam"
and some of islam's* victims.
* Without islam this muslim would have been toothless
Criticizing islam is considered
blasphemy and punishable
by torture and death in Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan,
and punishable with the
Saudi sponsored smear campaign
against "islamophobia" in the West.
Islam is culture, i.e. human
interpretation, and its intolerance
should not be tolerated.
Evil can never be protected by
Human Rights. "Freedom of religion"
was never meant to undermine
Wikipedia: The issues when debating and questioning islam are incredibly (sic) complex with each side having a different view on the morality, meaning, interpretation, and authenticity of each topic.
Klevius: The only reason questioning islam is "incredibly complex" is how islam defenders could possibly manage to "fit" islam's innate evil (measured by Human Rights standard) into a world based on anti-racist and anti-fascist Human Rights equality. However, from an "islamophobic" Universal Human Rights equality stand point nothing could be clearer - just ask Saudi based and steered OIC. They have seen what media and politicians in the West seems to have missed, i.e. that islam is incompatible with the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration..
Since after 9/11 Klevius has been a proud "islamophobe" against an evil ideology he'd thought was already buried and forgotten - even by most muslims.
But the West managed to resurrect this evil monster born out of looting, pillaging, enslaving and humiliating taxing (dhimmitude) so well described by historians (e.g. Hugh Kennedy) which was never able to feed itself without sucking life blood from others (the "infidels").
When Klevius had a debate about evil islam in the Swedish state radio, he was immediately called an "islamophobe" by the leader of Young Muslims in Sweden. More than one and a half decade later the Swedish authorities finally stopped feeding said organization due to "extremism". It took some time and politicians continue calling people like Klevius "islamophobes". Why?
No matter how many Saudi sponsored mosques are built, they will all crumble to dust under the logical inevitability of Universal Human Rights equality. But the building per se may be useful though. No need to physically destroy them as muslims have done with Buddhist, Roman and Christian statues, buildings etc.. In the future they may even function as historical warnings over human stupidity.
It's absolutely no coincidence that islamic/muslim evil is centered around "the custodian of islam". And it's absolutely no coincidence that the most staunch defenders of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, Donald Trump and Theresa May, are not even allowed to visit the muslim center of islamic hate against "infidels" because they are, after all, "infidels".
Saudi Arabia is consistently ranking among the "worst of the worst" in Freedom House's annual survey of political and civil rights.
Qorvis MSLGroup, a US subsidiary of Publicis Groupe, amid the execution of political protesters and opponents, has been working with Saudi Arabia for more than a decade to whitewash its record of Human Rights abuses.
Pakistan: Arbitrary detention, torture, deaths in custody, forced disappearances, and extrajudicial execution are rampant. ... Armed groups, including Pakistani Taleban have committed serious Human Rights abuses, including direct attacks on civilians, abduction, and hostage-taking, torture, and killings.
Extremely faked up BBC spreads this dung: "In Pakistan, most victims of the blasphemy laws have actually been muslim or from the Ahmadi sect (declared non-muslim by Pakistan), not Christian or other minorities".
Klevius comment: Is BBC brain dead or evil - or both!
About 97.0% of Pakistanis are muslims. Pakistan has the second largest number of muslims in the world after Indonesia. The majority are Sunni (75–95%) while Shias make up between 5–20% and Ahmadis (considered by the constitution of Pakistan to be non-muslims) are 1–2%.
Wikislamopedia vs Klevius
Islam biased Wikipedia on Criticism of islam: John Esposito emphatically argues against what he calls the "pan-islamic myth". He thinks that "too often coverage of islam and the muslim world assumes the existence of a monolithic islam in which all muslims are the same."
Klevius: Esposito's view is dangerously naive and unjustifiably obscures the important and crucial dividing line between Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia and Human Rights. And what would a non "monolithic" islam be if not the monolith that produces "islamophobia"?!
Wikipedia: William Montgomery Watt argues on a basis of moral relativism that Muhammad should be judged by the standards of his own time and country rather than "by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today."
Klevius: This is exactly what happens when muslim's from the least enlightened "communities" use terror, rape and hate of "infidels" etc. in accordance with Mohammad and the Koran, i.e. original islam.
Wikipedia: Karen Armstrong finds in Muhammad's teachings a theology of peace and tolerance. Armstrong holds that the "holy war" urged by the Quran alludes to each muslim's duty to fight for a just, decent society.
Klevius: Compare her "findings" with those of serious historians who only found booty hunters, robbers, pillaging etc.. The only thing they didn't find in early islam was Mohammad.
Wikipedia: Edward Said (a sharia muslim), in his essay Islam Through Western Eyes, stated that the general basis of Orientalist thought forms a study structure in which islam is placed in an inferior position as an object of study. He claims the existence of a very considerable bias in Orientalist writings as a consequence of the scholars' cultural make-up. He claims islam has been looked at with a particular hostility and fear due to many obvious religious, psychological and political reasons, all deriving from a sense "that so far as the West is concerned, Islam represents not only a formidable competitor but also a late-coming challenge to Christianity."
Klevius: Because islam is desperately and heavily defended by "islamophobia" accusations and protection of "muslim sensitivities", islam and muslims are in a superior position compared to their critics. However, morally islam is clearly in an "inferior position" to anyone who accepts Universal Human Rights equality as stated in UN's 1948 declaration against fascism. Again, just take a look at Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia declaration. And for those who try to find a loophole for islam - there's none! OIC realized it and therefore couldn't accept Human Rights.
Wikipedia: Cathy Young of Reason Magazine claims that "criticism of the religion is enmeshed with cultural and ethnic hostility" often painting the muslim world as monolithic. While stating that the terms "islamophobia" and "anti-muslim bigotry" are often used in response to legitimate criticism of fundamentalist (sic - islam is fundamentalist) islam and problems (sic) within muslim culture, she claimed "the real thing does exist, and it frequently takes the cover of anti-jihadism."
Klevius: What a pathetic twisted "defense" of evil islam. Yes, the "real thing" is Human Rights - not Human Rights violating sharia! Klevius doesn't even lower himself to correct this utter non sense - Klevius readers are clever enough to see it anyway.