Theresa May: There are some good aspects of sharia. Klevius: But sharia finance* is inevitably tied to islam's evil medieval aspects - as far you can get from "British values"! Ask the voters instead of indoctrinating them!

* Sharia finance is an evil system of using interest under cover (interest that isn't called interest) while simultaneously creating financial "slave trade routes" in the 21th century. Of course, the only reason that Theresa May so eagerly defends evil sharia is that London should be the main center of sharia finance outside Mideast. But will the Brits really accept the horrifying luggage that comes with sharia finance?

When will the dirty tracks of sharia islam be enough to convince politicians that islam isn't "a peaceful religion"?!

Theresa May has chosen the worst possible sharia "expert". A muslim! Moderate in appearance but medieval in thinking.

Mona Siddiqui (Theresa May's choice for "investigating" sharia courts): Sharia doesn't apply to non-muslims in muslim countries when it comes to e.g. marriage and divorce.

Klevius: Nothing could be more wrong! The whole idea of sharia is racist sex apartheid, i.e. that non-muslims have to obey sharia so that a non-muslim isn't allowed to marry a muslim woman but a muslim man is allowed to marry a non-muslim woman who then will be the subject of sharia whether she converts or not.

Mona Siddiqui: A proper human being should live like Mohammad did according to the Hadiths.

Klevius: Which encompasses almost every evil deed you can imagine from slaughtering the Jews in Medina to declaring women inferior.

Mona Siddiqui: The problem with sharia is that it's not made by Allah.

Klevius: So why on Earth can't it then be in line with the most basic of Human Rights? Why do you have to have a separate sharia system via UN (Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration) that contradicts these the most basic of Human Rights?

Mona Siddiqui: Sharia marriage was solely to make the bride sexually accessible for the muslim man.

Klevius: Wrong again! In a world where some "islamophobes" still continue pointing at islam's Human Rights violations, it's understandable that islam feels being "attacked" and therefore in a state of continuous war against non-muslim infidels whose daughters thereby are made "sexually accessible" if your right hand can possess them. Throughout 1400 years muslims have "justified sex slavery on this ground and because islamic racism states that non-muslims are less worth as human beings.


Mona Siddiqui: You can't understand sharia unless you turn to experts and there are very few experts.

Klevius: And you don't certainly belong to those "few"? In fact, no one does because there are always differing opinions. From this perspective it's easy to see that the core of islam is racism/sexism and an excuse to not see other humans as equals, i.e. an excuse to avoid Human Rights..

Mona Siddiqui's narrative may well be be described as a deceptive balancing act wrapped up in the familiar language of "how to read the Koran and how to understand islam", but it amounts to little more than destruction of anything and anyone who doesn't agree with her but stands up for basic Human Rights equality.

Mishal Husain (BBC's muslim presenter): I drink alcohol and don't fast during Ramadan and I see no threat to my way of life.

Klevius: Thanks to Human Rights - not sharia!

A non-muslim gets four-and-a-half years and a muslim 16 days for reckless driving

Muslim "sensitivities" (i.e. against so called "islamophobia") have peaked long ago - and have in fact become a main cause of even more muslim atrocities

Klevius: Compare this to how a UK judge thought that sex offenders whose victim was a muslim should be harder sentenced.

A Jaguar Land Rover driving instructor has been sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail after he admitted causing a crash on that left two young girls paralysed.

Klevius technical comment: 1) Land Rover use to be last on car quality lists. So it wouldn't be too surprising if poor quality had led to some technical issues. 2) Moreover, it's both heavy and has a high weight point which makes it much less agile than the Mazda it tried to chase.

However, what if he had been a muslim? A muslim lord got away with 16 days.

Nazir Ahmed, Labour appointed muslim member of the House of Lords, was jailed for 16 days for reckless driving that killed a man. Ahmed was sending and receiving five text messages while driving before the crash.

This is the very same Ahmed you can see down to the right on Klevius now classic Mr X "president" muslim born (apostate?!) Obama pic.

In an interview with a Pakistani television station, Ahmed blamed his indictment and conviction on the Jews.

Wikipedia on Ahmed:

In December 2001, Ahmed claimed that his phone had been tapped by the government because of his opposition to its intervention in Afghanistan. He claimed he had a heated conversation with Foreign Office minister Denis MacShane, during which MacShane claimed to have transcripts of Ahmed's private conversations. The government denied that Ahmed was under surveillance, and MacShane said that his remarks had been misinterpreted.[28]

In 2002, Ahmed was accused by campaign group Baby Milk Action of changing his position on Nestlé's sale of baby milk in Pakistan at a time when he was negotiating a paid advisory role with the company.[29] He subsequently did become a consultant.[30]

On 25 July 2005, Ahmed, while interviewing with Robert Siegel on National Public Radio, said that the suicide bombers of 7/7 had an "identity crisis" and that "unfortunately, our imams and mosques have not been able to communicate the true message of Islam in the language that these young people can understand."[31] Christopher Orlet of The American Spectator did not agree with Ahmed's "identity crisis". He said, "That's not an identity crisis, Lord Ahmed, that's religious psychopathy. That's a bloodthirstiness that makes Dracula look like a teetotaler."[32] Ahmed did acknowledge, "the community leaders and religious leaders, who have kept very close contacts with South Asia and the Middle East rather than keeping a good contact with the British society where we live."[31]

On 30 November 2006, the New Statesman reported a claim by fellow Muslim and Labour parliamentarian Shahid Malik that Ahmed had campaigned against him during the Dewsbury election in 2005. He alleged that Ahmed instead backed Sayeeda Warsi, vice-chair of the Conservative Party, the daughter of a personal friend. According to the New Statesman's report, Warsi "welcomed Lord Ahmed's support". The New Statesman also printed Ahmed's refutation, saying "I never told any constituent of Dewsbury to vote for the Tories"[33]

On 3 February 2009, Melanie Phillips, a newspaper columnist, claimed that Ahmed had threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent anti-Islamist Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering the House of Lords to speak at a screening of the film Fitna. Wilders had been invited by a peer to debate issues of social inclusion.[34] This claim was later denied by Ahmed, but the House of Lords authorities had determined to provide adequate security, if necessary. In the event, the film Fitna was broadcast as planned, but Wilders was denied entry to the UK, thus leading many commentators to deplore the action by the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith as appeasement.[35][36]
Fatal road crash and subsequent jail sentence

On 25 December 2007, Ahmed was involved in a crash on the M1 motorway near Rotherham in which Martin Gombar, 28, was killed. Gombar's car had been involved in a crash and he had left it in the outer lane. Apparently trying to return to his vehicle from the hard shoulder he was hit by Ahmed, who was driving his Jaguar X-Type. Ahmed's wife and mother, who were passengers in the car, also received minor injuries.[37]

On 1 December 2008, Ahmed appeared at Sheffield Magistrates' Court in connection with a charge of dangerous driving. Ahmed admitted sending and receiving five text messages on his phone while driving two minutes before the crash, and pleaded guilty to the charge before him. He was banned from driving until his sentencing. On 22 December, Sheffield Magistrates' Court referred the case for sentencing at the Crown Court on 19 January due to its "aggravating features".[38] This was later put back until 25 February.[39] Ahmed was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison by the presiding judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, which meant he would serve six actual weeks in jail, and he was disqualified from driving for 12 months.[40][41]

On 12 March 2009 Ahmed was freed by the Court of Appeal. Lady Justice Hallett said it was important to state that Ahmed's offence was one of dangerous driving, not of causing death by dangerous driving. Hallett said that there was "little or nothing" Ahmed could have done to avoid the collision and that after being knocked unconscious, he had come to and "risked his life trying to flag down other vehicles to stop them colliding with the Audi or his car". She said that while his prison sentence had been justified, the court had been persuaded it could now take an "exceptional" course and suspend the sentence for 12 months.[42] He was freed just 16 days into his sentence.[43]

In subsequent interviews, Ahmed has incorrectly stated that he has no criminal record and that his sentence was overturned.[44][45]
Bounty allegation

A Pakistani newspaper, The Express Tribune, alleged that Ahmed said "If the US can announce a reward of $10 million for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of ₤10 million on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush", at a business meeting in Haripur, Pakistan, on 15 April 2012.[46] On learning of these allegations, the Labour Party immediately suspended Ahmed pending a formal investigation.[47] He later responded by stating "I'm shocked and horrified that this whole story could be just made up of lies...." Ahmed went on to say that he was not issuing a bounty but rather calls for the prosecution of George W. Bush and Tony Blair due to the "war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan" in what he considers to be "illegal wars".[48]

Video footage of the meeting, released on 18 April, showed that Ahmed had been misquoted and instead had said, "Even if I have to beg I am willing to raise and offer £10 million so that George W Bush and Tony Blair can be brought to the International Court of Justice on war crimes charges."[49] The same day, The Express Tribune offered a "clarification" that it had "erroneously reported" Ahmed's statement and that their reporter had incorrectly cited the name of Obama. The article stated that the newspaper "deeply regretted" its mistake.[50] His suspension was later revoked on 25 June 2012.[51]
Malala accusation

In November 2012 Ahmed claimed that the attempted assassination of Malala Yousafzai might have been carried out by unnamed official elements in Pakistan as part of an effort to discredit the Taliban. He subsequently accepted that he gave the speech whilst having "no idea what happened" and that this was not the case.[52]
Jewish conspiracy comments

On 14 March 2013, The Times newspaper in London revealed that Ahmed had blamed a Jewish conspiracy for his driving conviction. In an interview given in Urdu, broadcast on a Pakistani television channel in April 2012, the peer claimed that he was jailed because of pressure on the courts by Jewish owned media: "My case became more critical because I went to Gaza to support Palestinians. My Jewish friends who own newspapers and TV channels opposed this." He also alluded to further Jewish involvement regarding the judge, claiming that Mr Justice Wilkie was specifically selected to judge his case having previously been appointed to the high court after helping a "Jewish colleague" of former Labour prime minister Tony Blair during an important case. The Times pointed out that neither of these claims about the judge were factually correct.[53][54]

Reactions were negative. Katie Wheatley, a criminal law expert, said that if Ahmed had made such claims in Britain he could have faced prosecution for a hate crime.[53] The Labour party immediately suspended him, saying it "deplores and does not tolerate any sort of racism or anti-Semitism." Jewish organisations condemned the comments, with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, saying, "We are appalled by Lord Ahmed's alleged comments which recall the worst Jewish conspiracy theories."[54] In contrast, the chairman of the UK-based Kashmir Watch International was reported by The Nation, an English-language Pakistani paper, as saying, "Lord Ahmed has, in fact, been made the target of a deep-rooted vendetta by the rivals – mostly the Jews lobby for his "crime" of exposing the increased anti-Muslim approach and policies of the Jews including their backed British media."[55]

Ahmed's initial response was that he had no recollection of making the comments and that he would have to examine the transcripts with his solicitors.[53] On 18 March he resigned from the Joseph Interfaith Foundation as a result of the allegations.[27] At about the same time, he ceased to be a member of the International Expert Team of the Institute Research of Genocide, Canada.[56]

Among the pieces written in the immediate aftermath of the revelation was one by Mehdi Hasan in The Huffington Post which claimed that antisemitism within some otherwise well-integrated sections of the British Muslim community was commonplace.[57] In the 28 March interview with Ahmed resulting from this article, Ahmed apologised, describing his comments as "completely unacceptable" and the product of a "twisted mind". He could not explain why he had made the comments.[58]

His appearance before Labour's National Executive Committee to determine whether his suspension should be lifted or whether he should be expelled was due to take place on 15 May.[59] On 9 May it was reported that he was considering preempting the hearing by leaving the Labour party[60] and on 13 May he resigned from the Labour party.[25] In his letter of resignation he again stated that he has no recollection of the interview, that The Times had failed to provide the footage in order for it to be forensically examined and, consequently, that he was unable to get a fair hearing. He alleged that the video was deliberately doctored, perhaps by "elements in Pakistan who bears [sic] grudge against me"

Jerusalem Post: The first reason for the uproar over Jew-hatred is that the party is led by Jeremy Corbyn, a man who, at minimum, has a marked, longstanding affection for anti-Semites and respect for their bigotry.
.

Why is Theresa May wearing a sharia scarf in her own country where muslims don't?!

UK Home Secretary Theresa May launches review into UK’s brutal sharia courts - while simultaneously approving of islamofascist racist/sexist apartheid.

BBC's muslim presenter Mishal Husain: I don't fast during Ramadan and I drink alcohol and I see no threat whatsoever to my way of life.

Klevius: Thanks to Human Rights - not sharia!

Will Mr X* "president" Barry Barakeh Hussein Dunham Obama Soetoro (or whatever) also excuse a possible muslim atom bomb?!

* Everything about this muslim born (apostate?!) is kept behind secrecy since he was "elected" by the help of Saudi steered racist media campaign. In this respect it's just a minor issue that while he was probably born in Hawaii, he was unconstitutional as a president because his father wasn't a US citizen and his mother hadn't been an adult for five years at the time of his birth as required.
However, the most important issue is by far his support for unconstitutional sharia islam.

This pic was originally created in 2008. Do note his islamofascist and Saudi connected mentor Mansour at his right ear, as well as his pick of a sharia "professor" (left ear) who states that the US Constitution can be changed to a sharia constitution

.

Obama and Saudi OIC support Bengali muslim terrorism

BBC and Obama's pick, rabbi David Saperstein, as "ambassador of international religious freedom" managed to paint a picture where Bhuddists constitute the main evil and muslims constitute the main victims in the world of today. Really?

Isn't it islam and muslims behind the absolute majority of religiously motivated terror of today?! How come then that BBC in its interview about "religious freedom" with this islam supporting rabbi managed to blink Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc muslim terrorism and just focused on these Bengali muslims whom Bangladesh had abandoned or forced to flee or sent to Myanmar just to spread the anti Human Rights sharia disease.

Rabbi Aryeh Spero: “I’ve been following David’s activities for 30 years. I’m not confident he will address the greatest threat to religious freedom today – radical Islam’s oppression … of Christians across many parts of the world as well as its threats against Jewish people.”

Klevius wrote:

According to BBC Nigeria suffers from "ethnic violence" and Myanmar from "Buddhist violence"!? But who started it?

Whereas believers in Universal Human Rights believe in the freedom of the individual, no matter of sex etc, believers in islam have to (because of Sharia) act as a collective, the Umma (today steered by OIC).

Myanmar/Burma

The first trigger: Rohingya muslims raped and murdered Buddhist Ma Thida Htwe

On the evening of 28 May 2012, a group of men robbed, raped and murdered an ethnic Rakhine Buddhist woman, Ma Thida Htwe, near the Kyaut Ne Maw village. The locals claim the culprits to have been Rohingya Muslims. The police arrested three suspects and sent them to Yanbye township jail. This event is first cause of riots of Rakhine.

Second trigger: Tun Tun Oo, a wealthy muslim gold shop owner slapped a Buddhist woman customer in her face and had her husband badly beaten up

Witnesses told Reuters that on March 21, Tun Tun Oo slapped a Buddhist woman who had accused employees of damaging a gold hair clip she wanted to sell. The woman’s husband was pulled outside, held down and beaten by three of the shop’s employees, according to the couple and two witnesses. The assaulted Buddhist couple was U Khin Maung Win and Daw Aye Aye Naings.
A mostly Buddhist crowd gathered, hurling stones and eventually destroying the shop and neighboring businesses. Later that day, four muslim men killed a Buddhist monk and Buddhist mobs then went on the rampage.
The muslim gold shop owner was sentenced to jail time after court hearing.

At that day, a Buddhist monk from Hanzar village of One-dwin township had come into the Meiktila town as a passenger on a motorbike and they were unknowingly riding through the Da-hart-tan muslim ward the biggest muslim quarters in Meiktila. Already-agitated muslims saw the Buddhist monk and chased the motorbike and managed to strike the Buddhist monk from behind with a sword and he fell to the ground from his pillion-riding position on the motorbike. He had a long deep gash on the back of his head just above his left ear. Muslim mobs forcefully took off his robe and brutally dragged the direly-wounded Buddhist monk into the nearby Myo-ma Mosque. Once inside the mosque they poured acid and petrol all over the wounded Buddhist monk and burned him alive.

Islamic feminism is connected with "islamic academia"

Klevius comment: And "islamic academia" is entirely connected to islamic fairy tales - like a microphone in front of a loudspeaker it just painfully repeats itself in an eternal loop! Asma Lamrabet in "Islamic Feminisms": “Muslim women have come to accept discriminatory acts supposed to be established by God, whereas they simply result from human interpretations that became sacred with time.” The project is extensive. It consists — in theory — of revising the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudential law), practicing ijtihad (intellectual effort), differentiating universal verses from those whose scope is only temporary, and distinguishing the text of the Quran from its application on the ground. These practices led Ali and her female colleagues to draw radical conclusions. Hanan al-Laham, a Syrian activist who interprets Islamic texts and works as a teacher in Saudi Arabia (sic), called for ijtihad to solve the difficult question of inheritance. These women have concluded that the framework in which the distribution of inheritance was designed in islam is no longer compliant with our times. Hence, it must be amended to create more equitable inheritance.


Klevius comment: “Muslim women have come to accept discriminatory acts supposed to be established by Allah". Yes, muslim women like Shamira Ahmed and Sayeeda Warsi both seem to fully accept Saudi based OIC and its Sharia (the so called Cairo declaration on "human rights in islam (sic)" which is aimed to cover the whole world's muslims. OIC's islamofascist coup d'état in the UN has resulted in a state of affairs that excludes muslim women from full Human Rights - no matter what "muslim feminists" try to do. The only possible way out for muslim women is apostasy, the worst crime known to islam! In this light pretend-to-be muslim women such as Shamira Ahmed and Sayeeda Warsi are hypocrites and bigots who earn their money on the behalf of all muslim women who continue suffering under islam. In fact, Samira Ahmed and Sayeeda Warsi have both already committed apostasy just like Obama (whose father was a muslim and whose father was also a muslim) unless, of course, they aren't committing taqiya, i.e. deliberately lying for the sake of islam!

Nothing of this nonsense addresses the main problem visavi full Human Rights! And the childish "differentiating universal verses" proposal can never free itself from equal but differing proposals from other muslim groups!

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Stop searching for the motive - it's in the Koran for anyone to read!

If women wouldn't submit to sex apartheid, islam would be dead by now - not its victims!

Klevius comment: And aided by sex segregation. Just consider the denying mum who got a veil at approximately the same time as her son matured. And the US wife "who didn't know anything" although she had to convert to islam.

The pathetic US "president" eagerly tries to erase islam's fingerprint from this case while he equally eagerly supports Saudi and Qatar islamofascists and Al-Qaeda in Syria.

Asking "what gender" you are is the same as asking what relation you have to the "other"* "gender" - which in turn is dependent on your gender...

* there are no "other" "genders" out there other than the expanding list of made up concepts used for the sole purpose of desperately keeping a "basic" (but all the time changing temporally and locally) sex segregation/apartheid alive. This desperation has followed and increased at the pace of factual de-sex segregation since the 19th century.

The evil combination of neo-racism against "white Westerners"/blondes and Saudi/OIC aided islamic hate mongering, constitutes an obvious source of racist sexism today. And these girls are told the very opposite.

Klevius: Yes, it's perfectly normal. What a pity no one has told you before. Islam is the very essence of ultimate racism! This is why muslims are so sensitive about criticism against islam while showing extreme contempt and insensitivity against others. And this is also why OIC (all muslims world organization) not only have abandoned and even criminalized Human Rights (via UN) but also made it a crime to criticize islam (the worst ideological crime history knows about).

Women’s Equality Party (WEP) - who didn't have a stand point on sharia - now launches a new campaign with the hashtag #CtrlAltDelete to make revenge porn laws more effective, and stop women being abused and silenced online.

Cathy Newman: An entire generation is growing up without any understanding of the respect that should underpin any sexual relationship. Girls need to know that the crucial word here is consent. Whether or not sharing naked pictures is your thing, you’ve got to know it’s OK to say no. And boys have got to understand that the pornified version of sex they might have viewed online isn’t necessarily the real thing.

Klevius: The solution isn't the sexist islamic sharia burqa (physical or cultural), i.e. to hide some women while abusing others (what "the right hand possesses"). The only possible solution is what we already have, i.e. Human Rights equality that includes women as fully human. However, what is lacking is a full acknowledgement of the fact that we don't differ that much physically from dogs - except for the fact that most of us have a better brain and, most crucially, have reached a development stage of a civilization based on Human Rights equality. Moreover, Klevius doesn't know about dogs, but he himself has never felt any problems seeing "sexy" women in public places. Actually, the "Western world" learned it en mass in the 1960s when girls/women started more generally exposing their bodies in the public sphere.

Klevius advice to everyone: Don't confuse physical assets with personhood! Nor sharia islam with Human Rights!

The next (2021) national census in England/Wales may be the first to ask people about their "sexuality" and "gender identity".

This is an absurdly dumb idea that has emerged out of the deliberate confusion shaped by those who have managed to cover up senseless sex segregation/apartheid by replacing biological 'sex' with relational 'gender'.

Your physical body is protected by the 1948 Human Rights Declaration in such a way that no matter what, you will always be counted as fully human and therefore having full Human Rights.

You should have the full right to live your life as you wish without having to alter your physiology just for to satisfy confused and changing cultural "gender norms". However, that doesn't mean that you can utilize such freedom for the purpose of harassing others.

There's only one "sexuality" that conceptually matters: Heterosexual attraction evolutionary implanted in the male brain. All other forms of physical "sexuality" (or asexuality) can easily be lumped together in a bag labeled "non of your business". And when it comes to the heterosexual attraction app in males brain very knowledge is enough to "civilize" men from dog behavior.



Klevius wrote:

Friday, April 18, 2014

Gender schizophrenia

Covering up the world's biggest problem (sex segregation/apartheid) in gender babble - but when will the bubble burst?

 Oxford Dictionaries definition of 'gender': The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

However this kind of non sense use of 'gender' is more and more common:

Of course there are no 'gender-bending' insects. If a female insect possesses an organ that can pick up semen from a cavity in a male insect, that has nothing to do with gender at all.



Klevius clarification for his dear but sometimes mildly confused readers:

John Money introduced the distinction between biological sex and gender in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However. In the 1970s feminists embraced the concept as a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences and documents written by the WHO. In many other contexts, however, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has undergone a usage shift to include sex or even to replace it. This gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s. The APA's psychoanalytically contaminated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual first described the condition in the third publication ("DSM-III") in 1980 and this was then followec by the so called 'glamour feminism' which has ever since trapped girls/women in a continuing web of cultural 'femininity' that functions as a barrier against those ("tomboys") who dare to try to escape it - leaving no other options than either to conform or to become a so called "transsexual". Why do people have to alter their biology when we have Human Rights that should give everyone the right to live as s/he wishes without restrictions imposed because of one's sex?

It's also noteworthy that the pathological pathologizing of a girl's wish to be free from sex related constrains (a freedom guaranteed adult women in the Human Rights declaration) is a violation of Human Rights but is made possible because minors (and their parents/custodians other than the state) have no legal say (compare what is said in Klevius' thesis Pathological Symbiosis).

It's still an open question how much this disastrous and monstrous sex apartheid has helped islam (the worst crime ever against humanity) to exist among civilized people (compare what Klevius wrote in Rapetivism from Freud to bin Laden more than a decade ago). Evil and Human Rights violating islamic tenets that would have been completely unthinkable two decades ago are now defended!

 Thanks to a scholarship in 1885, Freud visited his main idol, Jean Charcot, "the Napoleon of Neuroses" and known as "the greatest neurologist of his time" (H. Ellenberger 1970:89), here giving a fake lecture on "hysteria in women" at his institute.(a former poor house for women) in Paris where he attempted to establish a medical monopoly over hypnosis based on contemporary ideas on sex segregation. When Freud returned to Vienna he made his living by "treating" wealthy "hysteric" women. (see Klevius' Psycho Timeline). It is an irony that most of the women performing "hysteria" at Charcot's institute were from the lower classes, in sharp contrast to those women who then became treated by his former students. Who are the great fakes of our time?Psychotimeline revealing Freud's misogyny

The Veil Trap

 

This is the Saudi islamofascist Iyad Madani who is now the Fuhrer over all the world's muslims' world organization, Saudi based OIC and its Human Rights violating Sharia. 

and his disciples

 
 Klevius feels really privileged to be the only one (so far) truly addressing the world's biggest question. However, Klevius is also disturbingly aware of the fact that his time as the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (due to no competition) may be over in no time at all when the global female prison finally opens its gates.

Defending Human Rights violating sharia islam is political perversion

BBC seems to often forget to tell about the world's most imprtant and biggest muslim organization, Saudi based and steered OIC. But Klevius kindly offers some help to spread this information. However, sadly in the homeland of BBC Yahoo users can't even find Klevius...

Klevius question: Can you spot the only muslim woman on the pic below? Hint: She isn't veiled.

Klevius wrote:

Sunday, March 01, 2015

Klevius vs muslims (Human Rights vs islam) - who will win your heart and who is the hater? Take the test!

Acknowledgement for newcomers in simple English: To understand why islam itself is the source of evil do understand (check for youself if you don't trust Klevius) the following:

1 Islam originated in a bloodbath where muslims slaughtered all the Jews in Medina. And from then on it continued in pretty much the same way as the Islamic State today - only that, thanks to islam's backwardness, the West has superior technology to keep them down. In fact, islam has never produced any tech by itself (when did you last time buy a camera or car made in Saudi Arabia?). Why should it when the whole islamic ideology is based on slave parasitism (and today also Western oil money and aid/benefits). And the only "golden" in the so called "golden age" was the gold muslims got through their slaves. And later on the Ottoman muslim slave empire immediately started deteriorating after the West had abolished all kinds of slavery (except muslim sex slavery hidden as it is within sharia marriage and as "concubines" i.e. sex slaves).

2 The Koran is an Arabic nationalist supremacist slavery manual. Because early muslims were caravan robbers etc. criminals (i.e. parasites)  they could only survive on what they could rob from others (which they called "infidels"). This is why islam became the worst and biggest slavery ideology ever.

3 Islam is today sharia via Saudi based and steered OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which via 57 more or less criminal member states in United Nations (UN) has managed to democratically (although islam is anti-democratic and anti-Human Rights) establish itself as the muslim world Ummah with due Human Rights violating sharia (the so called Cairo declaration on "islamic human rights").

4 Islam is not islam without sharia so a muslim who rejects sharia (in any Human Rights violating form) isn't a real muslim - just a cultural "muslim" and therefore of no interest for Klevius islam criticism.

However, it's therefore extremely important that every muslim clearly and honestly declare whether s/he is an islamofascist (Human Rights violating sharia) or not.

Start by asking your muslim friend. S/he lies to you if s/he says s/he can be a believing muslim without such sharia. To believe in islam is to believe in Human Rights violating sharia. That's the very reason OIC rejected Human Rights in UN! And if s/he doesn't then s/he has committed the worst crime against islam and should be protected by Western Human Rights and due legislation based on them.

Saudi Arabia - the guardian and spreader of islamic hate

Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!

OIC is a muslim extremist organization! 

ICLA: The Cairo Declaration is recognized as a so-called “regional instrument” by the United Nations, but rarely, if ever, used or referred to. It is thus functionally redundant, yet its approval creates an unneeded and potentially dangerous ambiguity in the formal definition of the human rights. For Sharia is incompatible with democracy and fundamental human rights, as stated in 2003 by the European Court of Human Rights, and thus the Cairo Declaration is equally incompatible with any meaningful definition of human rights, as well as with several OSCE commitments.

Thus, to avoid willful misinterpretations of what “human rights” refer to, it would be good for the protection of human rights defenders to have the Cairo Declaration explicitly repudiated by those OSCE pS that also hold membership of the OIC. If they do not do so, they should provide a detailed justification for keeping this declaration on the books, and the intended use of it.

ICLA thus recommends that:

    OSCE makes a statement that the Cairo Declaration has no relevance to its understanding of human rights.
    OSCE pS that are also members of OIC explicitly repudiate the Cairo Declaration as being of no relevance, now or in the future, for the interpretation of “human rights”.


Klevius: Nothing has happened since this was written in 2013! An eerie silence follows wherever islam puts its evil hand. Wake up dude! And you Brits, consider that your PM David Cameron has appointed a non-elected sharia muslim called Sayeeda Warsi as the "minister of faith islam and sent her as the official representative to the islamofascist OIC organization! Is this really what the majority of Brits want? Or are they just so thoroughly fooled and unaware! And no wonder when this "islamophobia" islamofascism has settled so deeply that you can't even apply for a job if you're known as critical of islam. All about islam is intimidation: physical, reputational, financial etc. Goebbels is certainly laughing in his grave.

 

Klevius Human Rights campaign against sharia fueled racist/sexist islamic hate

Klevius is anti sharia islam and anti sharia muslims - and very proud of it! Moreover, Klevius thinks he has a majority of "muslims" on his side - although most of them don't even know it as yet. And even those "muslims" who know it but stay muslim because of monetary advantages, have to admit Klevius' logic and their own evilness which could range from mild Human-rightsphobia to extrem muslim terrorism. 

Muslim hate speech and acts against "infidels" are protected by Human Rights. However, there must be room for Human Rights people (without dhimmitude etc) in the world as well - or?! Face islam's hate Human Rights problem!

Warning for hateful muslims in policing, nursing, caring, public service etc. Unlike other weirdos muslim weirdos can refer to a "religious" book and "tradition" that so many say is "holy"* and of course excited by all the "diversity brainwashed/scared trained" people they encounter and read, according to whom islam is such a "nice and peaceful religion" that ought to be respected. All "monotheist" religions are based on sexism but islam is also the worst ideological crime ever against humanity throughout 1400 years.

* (negative) Human Rights, i.e. freedom from unnecessary impositions, is the only truly holy concept we need as a functioning worldwide morality. Civilized people of all sorts already know this and behave accordingly.

As it stands now, by referring to her/his "religion" a muslim can deny you things you can't deny her/him without facing accusations of "racism" or "hate", based on those very Human Rights the actual muslim in fact otherwise hates.

In a BBC debate one of those politically correct non-muslim politicians defended the stupid proposal to give muslims (of course he didn't mention muslims but used the usual proxy word "religious") the right to discriminate against non-muslims in a way non-muslims aren't allowed to discriminate muslims no matter how offended they are by the muslim's hateful racist/sexist sharia ideology.

Klevius investment hint: Muslim Sharia free zones will be very valuable in the future.Not the least for many "muslims".

Forget about saving rain forests etc! This is your new deal. Did you hear that you oily sheiks fearing a decrease in the popularity of your oil! Or are you running out of money after having invested so heavily in sharia zones?

Risks: That islam collapses even quicker than expected. However, even if you then may loose some money you may also comfort yourself with a fairer world.

Klevius vs ? billion muslims. He knows it's not fair - of course Klevius' Human Rights logic is irresistible in the long run compared to dividing hateful muslim sharia racism/sexism!

Human Rights

  Klevius: On his blogs and sites 'Klevius' is interchangeable with 'Human Rights' because all they do is defending Human Rights. Unfortunately for muslims, islam makes itself the biggest target precisely because of its violation of Human Rights. Nowhere on Klevius' sites/blogs can you find ANYTHING not in line with this Human Rights defense!

 Muslims: There doesn't exist a true muslim without her/him (via her/his support of sharia islam) violating the most basic equality principles of Human Rights.

Sexism

Klevius: There is no defense for sex segregation/apartheid. Not even heterosexual attraction (of which Klevius has written the most essential analysis in the world of today - admittedly, the competition hasn't been very hard).

 Muslims: Women are inferior to men and women's heterosexual attraction makes it necessary in islam to sharia hide/jail/restrict them physically and/or culturally (the means vary depending on muslim community/sub-settings).

Racism

 Klevius:  Human Rights make racism impossible.

 Muslims: Islam is built on "infidel" racism.

Politics

Klevius: For secularism based on Human Rights.


Muslims: For an islamic state based on sharia.

Beliefs

Klevius: Atheist, i.e. lacking a "god" he otherwise could blame and instead protecting his moral attitude by hanging it on the most powerful of all moral codes namely the negative Human Rights.

 Muslims: Whatever a muslim does it's "Allah's" will. And because "Allah's" will is not known  then we have no tool whatsoever to know the inscrutable will of the muslim - other than the self evident Atheist conclusion that it's no more or less than the will of the muslim, and not of "Allah".

According to one of BBC's extremely few and misleading reports about OIC aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe ... (read more on Klevius beats BBC)




In Britain, the number of Muslim converts recently passed the 100,000 mark, according to a survey conducted by an inter-faith group called Faith Matters. The survey revealed that nearly two thirds of the converts were women, more than 70% were white and the average age at conversion was just 27.

Klevius explanation: Non-muslim women who marry muslims have to choose between a lower status as a non-muslim in the muslim family setting or convert.

The muslim system is extremely racist and sexist in this regard because everything is one-way directed towards the muslim man and islam and away from Human Rights. A non-muslim man isn't even allowed to marry a muslim woman without converting.

So instead of boasting about the high numbers they should be seen as utterly shamful in a civilized country.

So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?

Nothing could be easier. Just refute Human Rights violating sharia and you don't hear anything from Klevius. Do as Ayaan Hiris Ali did!

From anti-islamic Magna Carta in 1215 to anti-fascist Human Rights in 1948 - and the islamofascism of today

Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights violating sharia.

Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the  British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).

King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).

King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.

Some more hateful muslims

Or are they no muslims precisely because of their hate?!

How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that is more protected than most other people?!

Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary, their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself, i.e. OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).

Muslims have chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok, Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights. And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia (as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Time to burn OIC's Human Rights violation and to indict the Saudi hate criminals and their supporters

Islam (the opposite to Negative Human Rights) is based on infidel racism and sexist rapetivism. It's islam's true origin, and the only tenet that cannot be reformed without erasing islam itself. However, instead of dealing with this most important issue, now criticism of this disgusting islamic supremacism is called islamophobia and suggested (by the most racist and evil organization out there) to be called "racism"!

Btw, did England incite hatred against the German Nationalsocialists thus causing unrest and chaos? And was Germany's attack reasonable because of an unfair Versaille treaty? Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided? To this one may add that whereas Nationalsocialism was national and hence not totalitarian in a universal sense, islam is truly totalitarian, on a micro level as well as on a macro level.

57 islamic nations (OIC) have here agreed to adopt Sharia!

This man, Saudi "king" Abdullah (aka Mr X "president's" first call) is an oil parasite whose main task in life has been the spreading of evil islamism!


OIC, a Saudi initiated and supporting organization consisting of 56+1 islamist nations who have:

1 decided to violate Human Rights by replacing them with islamist Sharia which denies girls and women their rights given in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration
2 hijacked UN by constituting its biggest voting bloc
3 criminalized criticism against islam by calling it "islamophobia"


The mosque mouse, silenced by islam



Sept 28-30, 2010, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), is sponsoring Sharia propaganda at the AIC’s Chicago campus.

Founded in 1969 OIC is now a 56 (+ Palestine) state collective which includes every lslamic nation on Earth. Currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, OIC thus represents the entire muslim Umma and is the largest single voting bloc in the UN.

John Laffin warned in 1988 that the Jedda-based OIC, initiated and patronized by Saudi Arabia, is persuading Muslim nations to jettison even their inchoate adoption of “Western models and codes,” and to revert to the pre-Western retrograde systems of Sharia.
According to Laffin, the Saudis offered sizable loans and grants in return for a more extensive application of Sharia.

Saudi Arabia also distributed an abundance of media and print materials which extended to non-muslim countries, including tens of millions of Korans, translated into many languages for the hundreds of millions of muslims (and non-muslims) who did not read Arabic.

And now two special US envoys to the OIC later (both the former, Sada Cumber, and current envoy, Rashad Hussain) will attend the Chicago OIC propaganda for the purpose of islamization.

Andrew Bostom : Elizabeth Kendal, in a recent commentary [4] about the plight of brutalized Egytpian Muslim “apostates” Maher el-Gowhary and Nagla Al-Imam, made a series of apt observations which illustrate the most salient aspect of Islam’s persistent religious totalitarianism: the absence of freedom of conscience in Islamic societies. Egypt, Kendal notes, amended its secular-leaning constitution in 1980, reverting to its pre-colonial past and designating Sharia (Islamic law) as “the principal source of legislation” — an omnipresent feature of contemporary Muslim constitutions, including the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq — rendering “constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and equality before the law illusory.” This is the inevitable outcome of a Sharia-based legal system, because:

Sharia’s principal aim concerning religious liberty, is to eradicate apostasy (rejection of Islam) through the elimination of fitna (anything that could tempt a Muslim to reject Islam) and the establishment of dhimmitude — the humiliation and subjugation of Jews and Christians as second class citizens [or non-citizen pariahs]; crippling systematic discrimination; violent religious apartheid …

In Egypt, as in virtually all Muslim states, a person’s official religion is displayed on their identity card. According to Sharia, every child born to a Muslim father is deemed Muslim from birth. According to Sharia, a Muslim woman is only permitted to marry a Muslim man. (This is the main reason why Christian men convert to Islam, and why female converts to Christianity will risk life and liberty to secure a falsified/illegal ID, for without a Christian ID they cannot marry a Christian.)

There is no religious liberty in Islam, for Islam survives as religious totalitarianism that refuses rejection.

Islam’s refusal to abide rejection by its votaries — the global Muslim umma’s strident rejection of freedom of conscience — is now openly codified, and has been for two decades. The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”, was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration [5] repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110; “You are the best nation ever brought forth to men … you believe in Allah”), and states:

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …

The preamble continues:

Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible — and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.

In its last articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains

[Article 24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia. … [Article 25] The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.


Michael Hamilton: As noted in Shariah: The Threat to America, Ihsanoglu used the occasion of an earlier speech to an OIC Council of Foreign Ministers’ conclave to declare war on freedom of speech:

In [the OIC’s] confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna,” we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

Of late, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has taken to the United Nations its war against expression that gives offense to Islam. Last September, the Obama administration actually co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt (representing the OIC) in the UN Human Rights Council, calling on the United Nation’s member states to limit such expression, as part of the OIC’s ongoing campaign to have the UN recognize Islamophobia as a form of racism subject to prosecution under international law.

This effort to establish what it calls “deterrent punishments” for shariah slander is only one example of OIC activity at odds with American interests and the U.S. Constitution. Other examples include:

• Disrupting U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan: In the July 2010 edition of the OIC’s “Islamophobia Observatory” Bulletin, the OIC sharply criticized Gen. Petraeus’ counter-insurgency manual as “a manifestation of Islamophobia”;
• Damaging Middle East Peace Negotiations: Since its founding, the OIC has pursued an aggressive anti-Israel campaign, including creating a fund for the intifada in 2001;
• Denies Civil Liberties and Freedom to Muslims and Non-Muslims: The OIC for decades has tried to deny American Muslims and others the protections of the UN Convention on Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution, insisting instead that they comply with the shariah apartheid doctrine formally adopted by the OIC’s members as the so-called “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.”

According to the conference agenda published by the OIC New York UN Permanent Mission (http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html), the executive director of the Chicago franchise of the Hamas-linked CAIR, Ahmed Rehab, will moderate a panel entitled: “The Role of the OIC and the Scope for its Relation with American Muslims.”

In yet another ominous move, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has announced that it will meet on September 30 with American Muslim leaders – many of whose groups the federal government has identified in court as Muslim Brotherhood fronts – for the purpose of creating the “American Muslim Liaison Council to the OIC.”


Question to: Nobel Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi by David G. Littman (Representative: AWE & WUPJ)

My question is addressed to Madam Shirin Ebadi.
Thank you for your remarkable frank speaking here and your courage - a true lesson for us all.
A year ago, on Human Rights Day 2007, OIC Secretary-General Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the OIC General Secretariat is considering the establishment of an independent permanent body to promote Human Rights in Member States in accordance with the provision of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an OIC Charter on Human Rights.

Four days later, on 14 December 2007, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan - speaking for the OIC at the Human Rights Council -claimed that the 1990 Cairo Declaration was "not an alternative competing worldview on human rights," but failed to mention that the shari'a law was "the only source of reference" in that Declaration's articles 24 and 25 - the same shari'a law in which there is no equality between Muslim men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims. The Final Communiqué of the 3rd Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Mecca Summit on 8 December 2005 had provided a clear message on this - and on the UN system of human rights.
Madam, do you feel that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam - and a future Islamic Charter based on shari'a law - would clash with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and the International bill of Human Rights? To give one example: the marriage of girls at nine years old, as in Iran, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.


Klevius comment: Islamic “monotheism” is the most evil form of the old Jewish “the chosen people” racism. The only meaningful difference is that whereas old Judaism was spread via the Vagina, islam is spread via the Penis (rapetivism). This fact together with islam’s harsh apostasy ban (meaning leaving islam is considered a crime) and that muslim women are not allowed to marry non’muslims, explains why there are now less than 10 Million Jews but more than one Billion muslims.

OIC’s Cairo declaration clearly violates girls/women’s Human Rights. Under OIC’s islamic Sharia a female doesn’t really count as a fully human (only "truly" muslim men counts) because of islam’s rigid sex segregation. Because of their sex females are, according to islam, forever and in all aspects of life, doomed to legal difference as prescribed by whatever Sharia happens to rule. To make this more simple to understand, just compare to the original Human Rights which expressly state that sex should not be an excuse for limiting girls’ and women’s freedom. And even more simple: Whereas under Sharia women are doomed to sex segregation, under Human Rights a woman can choose to sex segregate herself as well as to refuse to sex segregate herself (However, due to the detrimental effects of psychoanalysis this latter option isn’t always open for girls because they may be labeled as “suffering” from gender identity disorder – see Klevius explanation of this repulsive psychiatyric intervention in girls’ lives).



Negative Human Rights constitute the backbone of the Human Rights Declaration and the US Constitution. Islam/Sharia is the very opposite. This is why OIC violates the most important part of the Human Rights by replacing their freedom with medieval islamofascism.

9/11 commissioner: Saudi dictator family behind 9/11 - and the "islamophobia" campaign

Will this rape accused and terrorist suspect Saudi Wall Street islamofascist Al Waleed bin Talal end up in Guantanamo or in an ordinary prison? And will he get capital punishment? After all, it's mass murder on a big scale.

A congressional investigatory report into the attacks contains evidence that as many as six Saudi officials supported al Qaeda in the run-up to the attacks.

Those individuals, worked for the Saudi Embassy in the U.S., Saudi charities and the Saudi government-funded King Fahd Mosque in California.

However there are many indications towards Al Waleed bin Talal as being a (the?) main channel for exporting Saudi hate mongering.

Yes, this is the very same man who funds "islamophobia studies in Western universities etc."

Labour and BBC equal Human Rights defense (so called "islamophobia") with muslim "extremism" and terrorism. Is this really fair?!

Will the "British neo-Empire" (based on Commonwealth islamofascism*) finally collapse and integrate due to self inflected religious cancer - just as the Roman Empire did?

* You need to be blindfolded not to realize that stupid people in Britain since the WW2 have desperately tried to reinstate a neo-empire - mainly via its connections to 

If the world's most powerful nation, "god willing", gets an "islamophobic" anti-sharia president (pbuh) and the UK either becomes ruled by EU and islamist Turkey or standing outside EU and joining its loosing and backward muslim Commonwealth nations - either way it's a way into the dark when the simple solution would be more, not less, "islamophobia".

If you abandon, or is abandoned by the US, then you only have China/Japan/East Asia left as serious partners. However, Sinophobia, Shintophobia etc. is widespread in the UK - on historical grounds, pure old fashioned racism agaoinst mongoloid people - and not the least because of BBC's relentless propaganda for islamofascist muslims and against everything standing in their way.
 
 The "islamophobia" campaign only helps islamofascism. However, Jeremy Corbyn couldn't for his life first remember that he had welcomed this extremist muslim. Only under hard pressure did he later managed to recollect it. How many other Human Rightsophobes has Corbyn met?!

Why isn't Jeremy Corbyn arrested for his racist and hateful agitation against Human Rights defenders, and therefore also promoting islamofascism - no matter how "soft" and non-violent*?!

* "Soft" sharia islamofascism is always connected with so called "hardliners". If politicias really mean what they say about "British values" etc. then they would inevitably be classified as "islamophobes" under the same criterion as those whom they spit on. However, at this very point these racist cowards hide behind "tolerance" and "religious freedom" platitudes.

Jeremy Corbyn's agitation against "islamophobia" constitutes the worst form of racism because it denies Human Rights. Criticizing islam's violations of Human Rights (compare e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia declaration via UN) can never be stretched to epithets such as "racism" simply because universal Human Rights defense is the purest of anti-racism logic. It's the difference between impositions and freedom.

Sharia submission of "islamophobia?

London's new muslim mayor (voted in via Labour and with the help of muslim extremist votes) didn't answer the question whether he will eliminate Human Rights violating sharia "courts" in London. A "moderate" (but consider his history of defending muslim supremacists etc. muslim extremist connections) muslim who bows the true radical sharia muslims.

Saudi based and steered OIC and its islamofascist Fuhrer, Iyad Madani, associated with the Saudi dictator family.

Klevius suggestion: Ask your muslim friend if s/he supports OIC and its Sharia against Human Rights!

If you have a problem understanding this see more further down.

Klevius brief summary of world economy - and the failure of islam - and a hint where to look if you're more concerned about economy and development rather than islamofascist backwardness:

Secular/Atheist nations are the most successful - muslim nations are the least successful and most likely to have conflicts, persecution, poverty etc. Muslim nations are also the by far most hostile to giving women equal rights with men.


Indonesia (256 million) BDP (official exchange rate): $872.6 billion (2015 est.)

Bangladesh (169 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $202.3 billion (2015 est.)

Pakistan (199 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $247.8 billion (2015 est.)

Iran (82 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $396.9 billion (2015 est.)

Turkey (80 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $722.2 billion (2015 est.)

Saudi Arabia (28 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $681.2 billion (2015 est.) - all of what is the result of Western oil money - not islam.


Klevius comment: Muslim world with a Billion people end up well behind Japan (127 million) in comparison. And the only muslim nation Japan occupied, Indonesia, seems to have fared the best. And Turkey can be explained by its secular (non-Ottoman) period before Erdogan started his neo-islamization program that now constitutes the main artery into Europe of the political cancer called islam.

Some other numbers to contemplate:

Nigeria (182 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $493 billion (2015 est.)

Brazil (184 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $1.8 trillion (2015 est.)

Mexico (122 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $1.161 trillion (2015 est.)

India (1,252 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $2.183 trillion (2015 est.)

UK (64 million) GDP (official exchange rate):
$2.865 trillion (2015 est.)

Germany (81 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $3.371 trillion (2015 est.)

France (67 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $2.423 trillion (2015 est.)

Korea (49 million) GDP (official exchange rate):
$1.393 trillion (2015 est.)

Japan (127 million) GDP (official exchange rate):
$4.127 trillion (31 October 2015 est.)

China (1,367 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $11.38 trillion
    note: because China's exchange rate is determined by fiat, rather than by market forces, the official exchange rate measure of GDP is not an accurate measure of China's output; GDP at the official exchange rate substantially understates the actual level of China's output vis-a-vis the rest of the world; in China's situation, GDP at purchasing power parity provides the best measure for comparing output across countries (2015 est.)

US (321 million) GDP (official exchange rate): $17.97 trillion (2015 est.)


Klevius wrote: 

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Time to burn OIC's Human Rights violation and to indict the Saudi hate criminals and their supporters

Islam (the opposite to Negative Human Rights) is based on infidel racism and sexist rapetivism. It's islam's true origin, and the only tenet that cannot be reformed without erasing islam itself. However, instead of dealing with this most important issue, now criticism of this disgusting islamic supremacism is called islamophobia and suggested (by the most racist and evil organization out there) to be called "racism"!

Btw, did England incite hatred against the German Nationalsocialists thus causing unrest and chaos? And was Germany's attack reasonable because of an unfair Versaille treaty? Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided? To this one may add that whereas Nationalsocialism was national and hence not totalitarian in a universal sense, islam is truly totalitarian, on a micro level as well as on a macro level.

57 islamic nations (OIC) have here agreed to adopt Sharia!

This man, Saudi "king" Abdullah (aka Mr X "president's" first call) is an oil parasite whose main task in life has been the spreading of evil islamism!


OIC, a Saudi initiated and supporting organization consisting of 56+1 islamist nations who have:

1 decided to violate Human Rights by replacing them with islamist Sharia which denies girls and women their rights given in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration
2 hijacked UN by constituting its biggest voting bloc
3 criminalized criticism against islam by calling it "islamophobia"


The mosque mouse, silenced by islam



Sept 28-30, 2010, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), is sponsoring Sharia propaganda at the AIC’s Chicago campus.

Founded in 1969 OIC is now a 56 (+ Palestine) state collective which includes every lslamic nation on Earth. Currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, OIC thus represents the entire muslim Umma and is the largest single voting bloc in the UN.

John Laffin warned in 1988 that the Jedda-based OIC, initiated and patronized by Saudi Arabia, is persuading Muslim nations to jettison even their inchoate adoption of “Western models and codes,” and to revert to the pre-Western retrograde systems of Sharia.
According to Laffin, the Saudis offered sizable loans and grants in return for a more extensive application of Sharia.

Saudi Arabia also distributed an abundance of media and print materials which extended to non-muslim countries, including tens of millions of Korans, translated into many languages for the hundreds of millions of muslims (and non-muslims) who did not read Arabic.

And now two special US envoys to the OIC later (both the former, Sada Cumber, and current envoy, Rashad Hussain) will attend the Chicago OIC propaganda for the purpose of islamization.

Andrew Bostom : Elizabeth Kendal, in a recent commentary [4] about the plight of brutalized Egytpian Muslim “apostates” Maher el-Gowhary and Nagla Al-Imam, made a series of apt observations which illustrate the most salient aspect of Islam’s persistent religious totalitarianism: the absence of freedom of conscience in Islamic societies. Egypt, Kendal notes, amended its secular-leaning constitution in 1980, reverting to its pre-colonial past and designating Sharia (Islamic law) as “the principal source of legislation” — an omnipresent feature of contemporary Muslim constitutions, including the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq — rendering “constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and equality before the law illusory.” This is the inevitable outcome of a Sharia-based legal system, because:

Sharia’s principal aim concerning religious liberty, is to eradicate apostasy (rejection of Islam) through the elimination of fitna (anything that could tempt a Muslim to reject Islam) and the establishment of dhimmitude — the humiliation and subjugation of Jews and Christians as second class citizens [or non-citizen pariahs]; crippling systematic discrimination; violent religious apartheid …

In Egypt, as in virtually all Muslim states, a person’s official religion is displayed on their identity card. According to Sharia, every child born to a Muslim father is deemed Muslim from birth. According to Sharia, a Muslim woman is only permitted to marry a Muslim man. (This is the main reason why Christian men convert to Islam, and why female converts to Christianity will risk life and liberty to secure a falsified/illegal ID, for without a Christian ID they cannot marry a Christian.)

There is no religious liberty in Islam, for Islam survives as religious totalitarianism that refuses rejection.

Islam’s refusal to abide rejection by its votaries — the global Muslim umma’s strident rejection of freedom of conscience — is now openly codified, and has been for two decades. The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”, was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration [5] repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110; “You are the best nation ever brought forth to men … you believe in Allah”), and states:

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …

The preamble continues:

Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible — and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.

In its last articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains

[Article 24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia. … [Article 25] The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.


Michael Hamilton: As noted in Shariah: The Threat to America, Ihsanoglu used the occasion of an earlier speech to an OIC Council of Foreign Ministers’ conclave to declare war on freedom of speech:

In [the OIC’s] confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna,” we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

Of late, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has taken to the United Nations its war against expression that gives offense to Islam. Last September, the Obama administration actually co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt (representing the OIC) in the UN Human Rights Council, calling on the United Nation’s member states to limit such expression, as part of the OIC’s ongoing campaign to have the UN recognize Islamophobia as a form of racism subject to prosecution under international law.

This effort to establish what it calls “deterrent punishments” for shariah slander is only one example of OIC activity at odds with American interests and the U.S. Constitution. Other examples include:

• Disrupting U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan: In the July 2010 edition of the OIC’s “Islamophobia Observatory” Bulletin, the OIC sharply criticized Gen. Petraeus’ counter-insurgency manual as “a manifestation of Islamophobia”;
• Damaging Middle East Peace Negotiations: Since its founding, the OIC has pursued an aggressive anti-Israel campaign, including creating a fund for the intifada in 2001;
• Denies Civil Liberties and Freedom to Muslims and Non-Muslims: The OIC for decades has tried to deny American Muslims and others the protections of the UN Convention on Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution, insisting instead that they comply with the shariah apartheid doctrine formally adopted by the OIC’s members as the so-called “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.”

According to the conference agenda published by the OIC New York UN Permanent Mission (http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html), the executive director of the Chicago franchise of the Hamas-linked CAIR, Ahmed Rehab, will moderate a panel entitled: “The Role of the OIC and the Scope for its Relation with American Muslims.”

In yet another ominous move, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has announced that it will meet on September 30 with American Muslim leaders – many of whose groups the federal government has identified in court as Muslim Brotherhood fronts – for the purpose of creating the “American Muslim Liaison Council to the OIC.”


Question to: Nobel Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi by David G. Littman (Representative: AWE & WUPJ)

My question is addressed to Madam Shirin Ebadi.
Thank you for your remarkable frank speaking here and your courage - a true lesson for us all.
A year ago, on Human Rights Day 2007, OIC Secretary-General Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the OIC General Secretariat is considering the establishment of an independent permanent body to promote Human Rights in Member States in accordance with the provision of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an OIC Charter on Human Rights.

Four days later, on 14 December 2007, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan - speaking for the OIC at the Human Rights Council -claimed that the 1990 Cairo Declaration was "not an alternative competing worldview on human rights," but failed to mention that the shari'a law was "the only source of reference" in that Declaration's articles 24 and 25 - the same shari'a law in which there is no equality between Muslim men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims. The Final Communiqué of the 3rd Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Mecca Summit on 8 December 2005 had provided a clear message on this - and on the UN system of human rights.
Madam, do you feel that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam - and a future Islamic Charter based on shari'a law - would clash with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and the International bill of Human Rights? To give one example: the marriage of girls at nine years old, as in Iran, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.


Klevius comment: Islamic “monotheism” is the most evil form of the old Jewish “the chosen people” racism. The only meaningful difference is that whereas old Judaism was spread via the Vagina, islam is spread via the Penis (rapetivism). This fact together with islam’s harsh apostasy ban (meaning leaving islam is considered a crime) and that muslim women are not allowed to marry non’muslims, explains why there are now less than 10 Million Jews but more than one Billion muslims.

OIC’s Cairo declaration clearly violates girls/women’s Human Rights. Under OIC’s islamic Sharia a female doesn’t really count as a fully human (only "truly" muslim men counts) because of islam’s rigid sex segregation. Because of their sex females are, according to islam, forever and in all aspects of life, doomed to legal difference as prescribed by whatever Sharia happens to rule. To make this more simple to understand, just compare to the original Human Rights which expressly state that sex should not be an excuse for limiting girls’ and women’s freedom. And even more simple: Whereas under Sharia women are doomed to sex segregation, under Human Rights a woman can choose to sex segregate herself as well as to refuse to sex segregate herself (However, due to the detrimental effects of psychoanalysis this latter option isn’t always open for girls because they may be labeled as “suffering” from gender identity disorder – see Klevius explanation of this repulsive psychiatyric intervention in girls’ lives).



Negative Human Rights constitute the backbone of the Human Rights Declaration and the US Constitution. Islam/Sharia is the very opposite. This is why OIC violates the most important part of the Human Rights by replacing their freedom with medieval islamofascism.