Sharia confusion

Here an example of how youth, ignorance and brainwashing paves the way for the worst ideological crime ever

Islam without Human Rights violations (Sharia) is of no interest for Klevius because it's not islam anymore!

 Useful idiocy

LSE (you know, the place that harbored Gadaffi's son Saif al-Islam on the side bar) Masters student Jonathan Russell who works as the islamic studies intern at Quilliam Foundation (a self proclaimed interpreter of islam founded by former (?) Hitzbut Tahrir terrorists): Most Muslim-majority countries including Egypt, Iran and Pakistan signed the UDHR in 1948, but crucially Saudi Arabia, where the King must comply with Shari’a and the Qur’an, did not sign the declaration, arguing that it violated Islamic law and criticising it for failing to take into consideration the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries. Saudi Arabian law is completely at odds with the UDHR as all citizens are required to be Muslim. Therefore, non-Muslims risk everything from arrest to torture and the death penalty for their beliefs.

Klevius comment: Islam and “the muslim world” cover the same. You can't have islam without muslims and where there are muslims there's islam. So talking about islam without incl. OIC (the muslim world Umma based on its Sharia declaration) is just laughable, or worse, Taqiyya. Islam needs to be re-contextualised, in order for it to be in accordance with Human Rights. OIC surely won't support this. The deep intellectual schizophrenia in the Quilliam Foundation just underlines Klevius simple but undeniable truth: Islam is dead without its Human Rights violations!

Jonathan Russell: Islam is a pluralist religion and contains a spectrum of belief system and therefore has a great tradition of freedom of thought and tolerance of the beliefs of others...

Klevius comment:  Give me a break! There were many different ways and nuances muslims slaughtered , enslaved and raped during their "conquest" but all were in accordance with the Koran, i.e. islam! That was the very original idea of islam that worked so well. And the only one with explanatory power to spread light in the darker in which these atrocities happened. Islam was born as a parasitic ideology and its original currency was slaves. That's why islam started rottening when West forbade slavery. Sadly, oil demanded by Western technology, then paved the way for a renewal of these atrocities mainly steered by Saudi Arabia and its allies.

Jonathan Russell: ...so for the OIC to produce the CDHRI, a document published under the auspices of Islam that limits this intellectual tradition, introducing absolutist judgements and presupposing certain aspects of the faith for citizens in countries that do not even implement the Shari’a to its full extent, is a tremendous oversight. To pass such a document off as declaration of human rights is incongruous.

Klevius: I agree but what's your point? Sounds incredibly hypocritical (or naive) to slash OIC while defending an islam you can't even conceptualize. You know very well that it's safe now to bark at OIC when it's already established in the UN as an evil islamic alternative to Human Rights. And by raving about some fictional non-Sharia islam you try to avoid being an "islamophobe". Is this why you are now writing about it? Where were you when people like Littman and Klevius almost a decade ago warned for it but were called "islamophobes"?! Learning about islam from an imam?!

 

.

 .

 .