* No religious or other superstitious
and spiritual basis for legislation etc. The only guidance for
legislation is the most basic of Human Rights, i.e. the universal
equality principle that makes sexism and racism (and due hate) redundant
(Klevius 1992).
Who is a muslim - and who isn't?
Where does "extremist/radical" islam end and "moderate" islam start?
Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo
Mishal
Husain
pretends to be a "Brit" yet shares values that are as far you can get
from Britishness and basic Human Rights. Or is she just pretending to be
a muslim - i.e. an apostate? In the latter case she has committed the
worst crime islam knows about.
It was considered "racist abuse" when BBC's Mishal Husain was told by a
shopper in supermarket (about her children fooling around) that 'Your
tribe need to behave like proper English children'.
So what about Communities Secretary Eric Pickles who has been challenged
by British muslims (see nelow) for writing to mosques in England urging
them to do more to fit a "British identity" and that there was “more
work to do”? Racist?
Muslim born (apostate?!)* Mr X** "president"*** Hussain****
Obama Soetoro (or whatever)***** who wants to criminalize criticism of
islamic hate speech (sharia), and who has made himself sharia compliant and therefore
against Human Rights: 'Our biggest advantage is that our muslim populations, they feel
themselves to be Americans. However, there are parts of Europe in which
that is not the case and that's probably the greatest danger that Europe
faces.'
* Born to a muslim father who hadn't
committed apostasy (the worst crime in islam) made him a muslim.
Moreover, he was also raised as a muslim because his adoptive father
Soetoro was a muslim.
** All his records are labeled secret.
*** His mother was too young as the
only US parent for to fulfill the constitutional criterion. He listened
for some 20 years to one of the worst black supremacist racists'
preachings. He used the race card in the election and he has violated
the spirit of the US Constitution ever since.
**** more in line with his muslim heritage
***** sarcasm:
Klevius: Shouldn't muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" and the
news channels which broadcasted his nonsense, now for it as did Steve
Emerson and Fox News who actually didn't say anything wrong in
principle?! After all, Saudi based and Saudi led OIC is openly pushing
for a worldwide sharia Ummah.
Why talk about islamic violence when the real subject should be islamic
sharia causing not only violence but also all sorts of other Human
Rights violations?
A new guide written by students at Michigan State University aims to
educate the public about muslim Americans. Kate Kerbrat said that all
the muslims she interviewed for the guide "denounced terrorism and
wanted to ... convey that islam is not a violent religion, that the
extremists misinterpret a few verses in the Quran."
Klevius: Like the Saudi based and Saudi steered 57 member state OIC
(Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which has abandoned the most basic
of Human Rights all together and replaced them with sharia via UN?!
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,Aug. 5, 1990
Recognizing the importance of issuing a Document on Human Rights in
Islam that will serve as a guide for Member states in all aspects of
life;
Having examined the stages through which the preparation of this draft
Document has so far, passed and the relevant report of the Secretary
General;
Having examined the Report of the Meeting of the Committee of Legal Experts held in Tehran from 26 to 28 December, 1989;
Agrees to issue the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that will
serve as a general guidance for Member States in the Field of human
rights.
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah
which Allah made as the best community and which gave humanity a
universal and well-balanced civilization, in which harmony is
established between hereunder and the hereafter, knowledge is combined
with faith, and to fulfill the expectations from this community to guide
all humanity which is confused because of different and conflicting
beliefs and ideologies and to provide solutions for all chronic problems
of this materialistic civilization.
In contribution to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to
protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom
and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah.
Convinced that mankind which has reached an advanced stage in
materialistic science is still, and shall remain, in dire need of faith
to support its civilization as well as a self motivating force to guard
its rights;
Believing that fundamental rights and freedoms according to Islam are an
integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one shall have the
right as a matter of principle to abolish them either in whole or in
part or to violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine
commands, which are contained in the Revealed Books of Allah and which
were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding
divine messages and that safeguarding those fundamental rights and
freedoms is an act of worship whereas the neglect or violation thereof
is an abominable sin, and that the safeguarding of those fundamental
rights and freedom is an individual responsibility of every person and a
collective responsibility of the entire Ummah;
Do hereby and on the basis of the above-mentioned principles declare as follows:
ARTICLE 24:
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.
ARTICLE 25:
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation
or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.
Klevius: This declaration is the real muslim problem because it
constitutes islam of today. This is also the reason why BBC and its
muslim sharia presenter try hard to keep ordinart Brits and others
unaware of this disgusting hate declaration.
Iyad Madani, Saudi Fuhrer of the Saudi
initiated and Saudi based OIC,
all the world's muslims Umma and Sharia organization, which via UN
demands the world to criminalize criticism of islam (the worst crime
ever) and to make it a crime following Human Rights (as it is already in
e.g. Saudi Arabia - compare the case of Raif Badawi and others).
British muslims oppose British values
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has been challenged by Muslims for
writing to mosques in England urging them to do more to root out
extremists and prevent young people being radicalised.
In a letter sent to more than 1,000 Islamic leaders, Mr Pickles stressed
that he was “proud” of the way Muslims in Britain had responded to the
Paris terror attacks but added that there was “more work to do”.
The Muslim Council of Britain said it wanted Mr Pickles to clarify his
request - and asked if, like “members of the far right”, he was
suggesting that Islam is inherently apart from British society.
Deputy secretary-general Harun Khan said: “We will be writing to Mr Eric
Pickles to ask that he clarifies his request to Muslims to ‘explain and
demonstrate how faith in Islam can be part of British identity’.
“Is Mr Pickles seriously suggesting, as do members of the far right,
that Muslims and Islam are inherently apart from British society?”
In the letter, also signed by Communities Minister Lord Ahmad (the
muslim who threatened to let loose ten thousand jihadists if the Brits
didn't obey to muslim demands - same muslim was later sentenced for
killing a person with his car), Mr Pickles wrote: “You, as faith
leaders, are in a unique position in our society. You have a precious
opportunity, and an important responsibility, in explaining and
demonstrating how faith in Islam can be part of British identity.
“We believe together we have an opportunity to demonstrate the true
nature of British islam today. There is a need to lay out more clearly
than ever before what being a British muslim means today: proud of your
faith and proud of your country. We know that acts of extremism are not
representative (sic) of islam, but we need to show what is.”
A "colored" voice on islamic schizophrenia
Aki Muthali (born and raised in Sri Lanka): We know Reza Aslan is a
stickler for misrepresenting the truth. I have discussed him once before
here. His obsession with omitting key details of Islamist violence has
made him a proper unicorn since his takeover of Western media. He also
found comfort in the hearts of [pseudo] liberals obsessed with their own
western colonial and imperial guilt who also have no problem limiting
human rights for people [in the east and west] just so it doesn’t
“offend” religious fanatics.
On January 8, 2015, he was on CNN (yet again) with Don Lemon, discussing the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
ASLAN:"They make fun of Muslims for a very specific reason to sort of
show, or maybe demonstrate, that look if you maybe want to be in this
country, if you want to be in France, then you have to deal with the
French values, you have to rid yourself of your own values, ideals,
norms and you have to take on French values."
In the case of Charlie Hebdo—the massacre took place because the “French
value” was to uphold free speech [over religious appeasement]. But that
isn’t a “Muslim value”—am I hearing this right? I’ll let my head fall
on the table for a minute here…
With all the different races and cultures that create France’s
multicultural landscape, only those practicing Islam are being specially
targeted by the French society? So the Kouachi brothers simply reacted
by killing cartoonists and police officers?
being religious means people can never truly integrate into secular
societies—that religion will be at a constant war with the provision of
human rights above the law of religion itself
he is admitting that being religious means people can never truly
integrate into secular societies—that religion will be at a constant war
with the provision of human rights above the law of religion itself.
Jihadists had heavily indoctrinated the Kouachi brothers with Islamic
tribalism [on recruitment at a young age] which resulted in mental
lacerations that kept them further apart from civil society and
convinced them to contribute to the tyranny of those wanting an Islamic
totalitarianism. And that’s what Islamists do—they take advantage of
young children and preach anti-western and anti-secular sentiments to
the point where they feel victimized whenever their Islamic values
aren’t placed above human rights—then Aslan proceeds to reiterate these
clearly erroneous placement of blame on the west as well. Somehow, the
west is “accountable” when they refuse to sacrifice fundamental human
rights for the bigotry of religious fanaticism.
ASLAN:“And there have been a number of laws passed not only in France,
with regard to prohibitions on Islamic dress, but throughout Europe
about whether you can build mosques, about whether you can build
minarets, etcetera. And this tension, this polarization I'm afraid has
led to a lot of acts of violence. Not just the tragedy yesterday...”
Surely, Aslan’s eyeballs will bulge momentarily after hearing one of the
gunmen literally admitting to being influenced by the scriptures to die
as a martyr for Islam [back in a 2005 documentary on Muslim extremism]
but he would probably brush that off as well and make another mental
note to deflect and deter criticism of Islam and shorten it to an
“identity crisis” and “clash of civilizations” to place a collective
blame [on those being abused by Islam]. Where did he get his Ph.D.
from—Fox News?
Infidels must have been asking for it with their enticing secular
nonsense—so of course it makes sense to shout “Allahu Akbar” while
slaughtering them. But it still has nothing to do with Islam!
One of the brothers told a female worker at Charlie Hebdo that she is
being left alive because she is a woman, but she must convert to Islam
and wear a hijab. See—women are not compelled to wear the hijab at all!
ASLAN:“And particularly in France, an aggressively secularizing country
that has never really tolerated multiculturalism or the kind of cultural
religious diversity that is the hallmark of the United States, you can
see how that would create the kinds of tensions that would bubble up
occasionally into acts of violence on both sides. We have seen a lot of
anti-Muslim violence in Europe as well as Muslim violence against
Europeans.”
He claims a multi-racial “Muslim” group is having hostility with a
multi-racial “European” group and yet he only blames one group for the
atrocities.This is what I call ‘mind-numbing idiocy’—and as if that
weren’t enough, his hyperbole narrative implies severe racism against
the “Muslims”.
Why is the controversial caricature being referred to as “racist”? It
sounds rather unsophisticated to me. Who exactly is Charlie Hebdo being
racist towards—blacks—whites—browns—olives? I think my hair just turned
white.
Islam is represented by Asians, Africans, Americans, Australians and
Europeans—so who exactly is being racially discriminated by the satire…?
I’m genuinely curious.
I’m sure Aslan has heard of Anjem Choudary. If we are to scan through
his social media pages—he incites hatred and violence against
non-Muslims and calls for an Islamic colonialism in the west [in
accordance with the Quran and Sharia Law].
The way free speech works is Choudary can spout as much hate speech
against non-Muslims as he wants and still he hasn’t been violently
victimized by ‘anti-Muslim bigots’ in the west,whereas anybody else who
satirizes or criticizes Islam under the same banner of free speech—they
get shot and killed or threatened by Islamists who are protecting the
“honour” of Islam exactly as any citizens living in countries governed
by the law of Sharia are terrorized for blasphemy.
Aslan’s narrative is so dangerous that it suggests Islamists violence
and threats are part of multiculturalism and should be respected. He is
defaming multiculturalism itself with his nonsensical rationale—which
creates more room for the rednecks that chant “Go back home!” not just
to immigrants but also to people of colour who were born and raised in
the west.
Masking every wrong on European colonization and [western] foreign and
national policy continues to keep even our fellow women, children and
men in the east shackled in mass terror day and night under the grip of
their countrymen’s law concentrated with religious insanity.
Do the people of the east not deserve a better standard of human rights
from their own government and citizens? How is the “west” preventing the
east from granting human rights to its own people? Is Dick Cheney
responsible for their jurisprudence—is he the one enforcing the
draconian blasphemy laws? Just don’t blame“religion” if you want to be
Aslan’s friend though—because this lion only roars in the west.
Conforming to secularism did not happen overnight in the west—it took
centuries of bloodshed to even accept the idea—and it’s still not
perfect, but it has a lot more human rights to offer than the east.
While slavery is abolished in the west—it’s still alive and well in much
of the Middle East where it’s openly practiced. Aside from ISIS’s
brutality, ask why the people from India, Philippines, China, Sri
Lanka,much of Africa, etc. who arrive to the Middle East on a worker
visa, hoping for employment,are unable to return home to their loved
ones.
While Islamists indoctrinate and force children to gear up in suicide
vests and blow themselves up—we have Aslan [and others like him]
claiming these unprecedented scale of terror around the world committed
by Muslim extremists is a mere response to racial and cultural
oppression by the west and doesn’t involve Islam in any way.
Recently, Amnesty International reported Boko Haram had killed
approximately 2,000 people—mainly children, women and the elderly. What
was the “west’s” involvement in this Islamist frenzy to create an
“Islamic State” in West Africa;who erased the accountability of these
eastern tyrants? Just ignore the meaning of “Boko Haram” if you’re
feeling too cute for critical thinking.You can click here to view
details and satellite image of Boko Haram’s attack on Baga, Nigeria.
I will discuss Raif Badawi repeatedly until reality sinks in. Why is he
rotting in a Saudi prison? He was charged with “insulting Islam” after
promoting free speech. He will receive 50 lashes every week—his spine
will bleed and fester for 19 more weeks if he does survive the remaining
950 lashes. He also faces 10 years and approximately a quarter of a
million dollars in fine. His initial sentencing was death for apostasy
before it was “reduced”. Alas, hypocrisy enables people to condemn Saudi
Arabia while making apologies for the Kouachi brothers.
Liberal/non-Muslims are already on a trial in a kangaroo court created
in the delusional minds of Islamists who also processed the voir dire on
the values of Sharia but apologists claim Islamists are the victims. So
let me ask these apologists a few questions…
1) Why do you not march for minorities [Kurds, Yazidis, Balochs, non-Muslims, etc.] facing apartheid in Islamic nations?
2) Why do you silence discussion on the double standards, hypocrisy and
contradiction Muslims often display in both east and west?
3) Why are you so eager to discredit and neglect the plight of those
victimized by Islamists—victims who are as diverse in race and
nationality as the Islamists themselves?
4) What can a verdict be[in a trial built on fallacies] when the doctrine of Islam is incompatible with liberalism?
Just take a proper look at Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Qatar,Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Algeria, Indonesia, Bangladesh,
Egypt, Libya, Somalia, Morocco, Sudan, Brunei, Malaysia, Oman, etc. and
if these countries aren’t evident of human rights strife directly
resulting from the consequences of embracing Islamic values—just please
stop pretending to be indignant about injustice because you’re
satirizing yourselves without the help of Charlie Hebdo.
Islamists stormed the magazine’s office due to their material which was
enabled by freedom of speech but Aslan frills it up as a result of
France “forcing” Muslim people to renounce their “norms”. His accusatory
tone aimed at western people is the only thing generalizing all Muslims
into one insidious category—so I denounce him for implicating the
Muslim “norm” as being disconnected with liberal values.
The Kouachi brothers are not martyrs of multicultural and racial
struggle—they are anti-liberal and anti-human-rights Islamists who
assassinated 12 innocent people to honour their Islamic pride as
commanded by the Sharia Law.
I’d like to welcome Aslan and his cheerleaders to the 21st century where
multi-generational bigotry meets common sense and their redundant,
preposterous apologia gets dismissed as quickly as religion dismisses
human rights—and that is precisely why Islamists fear liberalism—because
it is slowly ending the epoch of rule based on delusions and its
momentum is creeping into the Islamic nations perilously governed by
such madness.
Growing up must be so hard for some people—especially when they are told
they can’t hijack the world for their own foolish sentiments.
Radical Islamists are using Sharia Law to silence fellow Muslims who critique the religion. (Photo: Emad Nassar/Flash90)
Last Wednesday’s terrorist attack against the Charlie Hebdo magazine in
Paris shocked the world. A satirical magazine known for printing images
of Muhammad, which is against Sharia law, the magazine has been
threatened over the years by various terror and Islamist groups to stop
or suffer the consequences.
The attack on the magazine, which left 12 people dead, is an attack by
radical Islamists on the West’s ideals of freedom of speech. The
terrorists who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack were in line with a
method of thinking that is becoming all the more popular among Muslims
around the world.
Proscribed by numerous Islamic states and various Islamist groups, the
terrorists believed that Sharia law should be implemented under any
circumstances where the honor of the prophet Mohammed is seen to be
‘insulted’.
Over the last few years, numerous regimes and religious entities in
Muslim countries have given out the death penalty for any person
believed to have publicly critiqued Islam, Mohammed or even the
government. Claiming that all such behavior is anti-Islam, these
Islamist regimes have started a war on the basic human privilege known
as freedom of expression.
image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Soheil-Arabi.jpg
Soheil Arabi (Photo: MEMRI/ Hra-news.org)Soheil Arabi (Photo: MEMRI/ Hra-news.org)
In Arab and Muslim countries, defaming Islam and the Prophet Muhammad is
still defined as an offense against Sharia Law and entails heavy
punishment. Recent examples of the enforcement of such laws have
included the arrest of Saudi intellectual Dr. Turki Al-Hamad and Saudi
blogger Hamza Kashgari; the arrest of another Saudi liberal, Raef
Badawi, who was sentenced to public flogging; and both Mauritanian
blogger Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir and Iranian blogger Soheil Arabi,
who were sentenced to death.
Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir was sentenced to death for writing an
article on January 14, 2014, in which he criticized some decisions that
the Prophet and his Companions took during their military conquests. He
applied and used these examples to implicitly criticize Mauritania for
allowing a discriminatory caste system. The result was that on December
24, 2014, a court in Mauritania convicted him of apostasy and sentenced
him to being shot to death, even though he publicly disavowed insulting
Muhammad.
As for Iranian Soheil Arabi, he was arrested in January 2014 by the
Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps for insulting the Prophet on his
Facebook page. He has been incarcerated in Evin prison for about a year.
An Iranian court sentenced him to death, but in December 2014 the
sentence was suspended, possibly due to pressure by Iranian human rights
activists abroad. However, according to various activists, his sentence
may be carried out after all. According to those same sources, Arabi
has been threatened not to disclose any information about his legal
status.
image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/useful_banner_manager_banners/81-TheThirdJihad-600WIDE.jpg
More recently, Saudi authorities began to carry out the punishment for
Raef Badawi. As of January 9, the government began dishing out lashes
incurred by Badawi, who is a co-founder of the Saudi Liberal Network
online forum. His sentence, 1,000 lashes, is to be meted out in weekly
installments of 50 lashes every Friday after prayers in front of a
Jeddah mosque. In addition, Badawi is to serve 10 years in jail and a
fine of 1,000,000 riyals (about $267,000). His crime? “Harming Islam”
and committing Internet crimes. Human rights organizations have
criticized the sentence. US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki
called Badawi’s sentence “brutal” and urged Saudi authorities to
overturn it.
According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), the
various punishments inflicted on these men for speaking their minds is
straight out of the Koran. In a recently published report, MEMRI
explains:
image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/rafi-badawi.jpg
Rafi Badawi with his children. Raef Badawi with his children.
“According to the Sharia, defaming the Prophet is an act of blasphemy,
the punishment for which is death even if the blasphemer repents. This
law is Koranic, for Koran 9:61 says: “Those who hurt Allah’s Messenger
will have a painful punishment.” The same Surah also states: “…Say: ‘(Go
ahead and) mock! But certainly Allah will bring to light all that you
fear. If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking
idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allah and His verses and His Messenger
that you were mocking? Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you
had believed. [Koran 9:64-66].’”
The question that remains is how long will it take for Western countries
to realize that they are not dealing with simply a bunch of radicals,
but with a culture that not only condones such actions as were seen in
France last week, but promotes and encourages them – even commands it.
While it is rare to see such acts of terror in Western countries that
are not mandated by Sharia Law, it is sadly commonplace among Muslim
countries. What are clearly acts of terror in the West are in reality
run of the mill legal battles in Islamic countries. The sickening part
of it all is what happens when Islam succeeds at silencing all of its
critics, both internal and external.
Even ‘moderate’ countries such as Egypt, whose President came out and
decried the status of radical Islam on the international level, have
their less liberal and more mainstream religious elements calling for a
cessation of all depictions of the prophet, even by western media.
Should the attacks in France then come as a shock? Perhaps. Or maybe it
is a wake up call to the West to get them to realize that these Muslim
radicals are simply trying to enforce their version of the Sharia Law in
Western countries.
