Muslim women's "shariaphobia" in India vs. Theresa May's 'sharia is good for the Brits'

"Shariaphobia", a synonym for "islamophobia" - when will it be criminalized as "hate speech"? And more importantly, when will these muslim women realize that islam is sharia and resisting or criticizing it is "islamophobia"?

The Muslim Women Quest for Equality group petitioned the Supreme Court of India for a long overdue review of the Islamic legal system, which they claim is biased against women. They also want to end the control of religious institutions over education.

The women are requesting that bodies with jurisdiction over the Islamic community, such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) to be abolished, sparing India from the “… clamp of fundamentalists/activists having the ideology similar to Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and his organisation Jamat-ud-dawa (JuD).” That is a reference to a terrorist organization with a stronghold in Afghanistan and Pakistan that has been fomenting bonds with ISIS and is active in Kashmir and India.

However, the islamofascist All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) is warning that a uniform civil code would be unenforceable. This is the same board that is defending the practice of the “triple talaq,” granting men the right to divorce by repeating the word “talaq” three times. Last week the AIMPLB issued statements to the effect the practice was preferable to murder and in line with islamic law. According to the board, men are more emotionally stable and are not likely to abuse the law (sic).

Commenting on the reluctance of the successive Indian governments to enforce the Constitution, the women’s advocacy group suggests there is political give-and-take at play.

The ponzi scheme called "sharia finance" (or islamic finance) is - sharia. Why isn't it forbidden, just like money laundering, tax fraud etc. financial crimes? Especially considering that unlikes those crimes, sharia also spreads hate and sexism.

 

Islam's Human Rightsphobia is by far the main source of hateful racism and sexism today.

Who of these women would have survived an attack by a muslim asking "are you a muslim"?

However, Hillary Clinton considers vetting of muslims "islamophobic" whereas Donald Trump thinks not.

But we are also vetting for DUI - no matter how "insulting" it might feel for drivers not using any kind of drugs, alcohol etc.

And we have for long been vetting parents for child abuse, and more commonly starting to vet for 'controlling and coersive behavior' by spouses. And how will this latter one affect muslims? Should they be excused from such vetting because "freedom of religion" gives them the right to practice a sharia coersive control sanctioned by "allahu akhbar"?

Hillary Clinton stupidly warned against 'the instinct to villainize entire groups of people based on religion'.

"There are millions of law-abiding, peaceful Muslim Americans."

"That is why I have been very clear. We are going after the bad guys and we are going to get them, but we are not going to go after an entire religion and give ISIS exactly what it is wanting," Clinton said.

Pamela Geller: As bombs go off in the streets of New York City, jihad shoot-outs in the streets (with four cops shot), and shoppers are at first questioned weather they are Muslim or not – before being stabbed repeatedly — The President of the United States describes the war as a “battle of narratives.”

Klevius wonders whether BBC's bigoted and hypocritical muslim sharia presenter Mishail Husain could possibly suffer from a slight doses of "shariaphobia" herself.

Isn't it funny that BBC's main muslim presenter Mishail Husain only gets Klevius hits on Google when combined with the most important muslim word, i.e. 'sharia'?

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, March 09, 2016

How come that BBC's most notorious, sorry famous, muslim presenter Mishal Husain scores highest on Klevius Atheist* blogs when it comes to the very core of her own religion?

* No dude, Klevius doesn't believe in Communism or state socialism. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. were all relatives to totalitarian sharia islam. And it's only religious fanatics who try to smear the lack of a belief in an unknown and impossible "god" that opens up for racism and sexism. And no matter how "nice" a religion pretends to be, it can never even in theory achieve full Human Rights equality -  especially not for women. And a "women religion" would face the same problem as feminism. Unless of course, you equalize feminism with Human Rights, in which case you would be attacked by feminist theories because true feminism puts all responsibility on men.


BBC's muslim presenter Mishal Husain stands as the perfect sharia deceiver.

She doesn't respect the Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol etc. etc. and she states that she feels no threat to her way of leading her life as someone who doesn't differ from non-muslims.

Well, says Klevius, that's just fine - as long as you don't give the impression that such a "muslimhood" has anything to do with real sharia muslims. Moreover, isn's it a cruel spat in the face of all those women who are raped, murdered , abused etc. because of sharia supremacist hate mongering?

What is Mishal Husain's role/responsibility as a media person when it comes to the misleading information about islam and sharia jihad that caused the death of these girls? How could they possibly have believed that Koran reading mosque attending men who fast during Ramadan  etc. are lesser muslims than Mishal Husain?!

Klevius suggestion to Mishal Husain: Either you tell the license fee paying public that you as a muslim propose and support sharia (e.g. OIC's Human Rights violating sharia declaration) or, alternatively, you openly abandon sharia as you abandoned Ramadan - and admit that the consequence of this would ber that you no longer classify as a real muslim. Please, clarify this in honor of islam's victims and potential future victims.

Google searches on 'sharia Mishal Husain' and 'Mishal Husain sharia' give the following results:

Klevius again beats the world's biggest news organization when it comes to really important info. Sad isn't it.

The appalling Saudi steered Obomba bombs Syria on the side of the Islamic State and under the cover of "seasefire".

Muslim born and muslim raised (muslim adoptive father) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Hussein Obama Soetoro Dunham (or whatever) seems to be 100% scrupulous when it comes to a simple choice between: 1) supporting the Saudi dictator family and muslim terrorist, or 2) supporting suffering people in Syria by stopping muslim terrorist attacks. He chose to bomb Syrian soldiers who fought against attacking Islamic State terrorists.

Obama helps IS and the Saudi dictator family to worsen the human catastrophe in Syria while the Saudi dictator family continues (with Obama's helping hand) its bombing of schools and hospitals etc. in Yemen.

The four bomb strikes today can in no way be excused as "mistakes" as they happened to precisely hit Syrian soldiers surrounded by IS jihadists who as a result of the bombings got free access to an extremely important locality.

US-led coalition jets have bombed Syrian government forces’ positions near the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor, killing some 80 troops hence paving the way for Islamic State jihadists.

According to Syria’s official SANA news agency, the bombing took place on al-Tharda Mountain in the region of Deir ez-Zor and caused casualties and destruction on the ground.

Obama's boots on the ground: Al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

US-controlled forces haven't fulfilled any Syria ceasefire deal obligations. Instead Obama uses the ceasefire to help muslim terrorists against the Syrian army. 

Pentagon: “We are aware of the reports and checking with Centcom and CJTF (Combined Joint Task Force).”

US Central command: “We are aware of the reports and will provide further information when available.”

The Russian Defense Ministry said on Saturday that the aircraft which carried out the bombings had entered Syrian airspace from the territory of Iraq.

Four strikes against Syrian positions was performed by two F-16 jet fighters and two A-10 support aircraft, it added.

“If the airstrike was caused by the wrong coordinates of targets then it’s a direct consequence of the stubborn unwillingness of the American side to coordinate with Russia in its actions against terrorist groups in Syria,” Konashenkov stressed.

Klevius comment: "Wrong coordinates of targets extremely unlikely in this particular area and situation.

The Defense Ministry also confirmed a report by SANA that an Islamic State offensive began right after Syrian Army positions were hit from the air.

"Immediately after the airstrike by coalition planes, Islamic State militants launched their offensive. Fierce fighting with the terrorists is currently underway in the area of the airport where for a long a time humanitarian aid for civilians was parachuted,” Konashenkov said.

The Syrian General Command has called the bombing a “serious and blatant aggression” against Syrian forces, and said it was "conclusive evidence" that the US and its allies support IS militants.

Earlier on Saturday, Russia accused the US of being reluctant to take measures to force rebels under its control to fall in line with the terms of the Syrian ceasefire.

Numerous Russian appeals to the American side remain unanswered, which “raises doubts over the US’s ability to influence opposition groups under their control and their willingness to further ensure the implementation of the Geneva agreements,” senior Russian General Staff official, Viktor Poznikhir, said.

Poznikhir also said that the truce is being used by the militants to regroup, resupply and prepare an offensive against government troops.

Last week, Moscow and Washington agreed to influence the Syrian government and the so-called moderate rebel forces respectively in order to establish a ceasefire in the country.

Since then, Russia has repeatedly complained that the US is failing to keep its part of the bargain. The US, on its part, has blamed Russia for not pressuring Damascus enough to facilitate humanitarian access to Syria.

Klevius comment: This last point is interesting because it regards precisely terrorist held areas.

Klevius wrote:

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Why do friends of Syria hate Syria to an extent that they want to bomb it?

The Group of Friends of the Syrian People (sometimes: Friends of Syria Group or Friends of the Syrian People Group or Friends of Democratic Syria or simply Friends of Syria) is an international diplomatic collective of mostly OIC countries and bodies convening periodically on the topic of Syria outside the U.N. Security Council. The collective was created by the Saudi dictator family in cooperation with Turkey.

More than 50 U.S. mid-level diplomats have sent a memo through the State Department’s “dissent channel” to a likely sympathetic Secretary of State John Kerry, advocating an American bombing campaign to bring down Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The memo concluded, “It is time that the United States, guided by our strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end to this conflict once and for all.”

Many supporters of bombing Syria are precisely those who opposed taking down Saddam Hussein who had used chemical weapons to mass murder some 100,000 Kurds. Moreover, although there are no evidence of Assad having ordered the use of chemical weapons, there are strong evidence linking the Syria crisis and the bloodshed and suffering to the Saudi dictator family.

 Assad’s government is the only legitimate government in Syria and, as the sovereign, has the legal right to seek international support as it has from Russia and Iran. There is no such legal right for the United States and other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to arm Syrian rebels to attack Assad’s government.

The dissent cable advocates what it calls “the judicious use of stand-off and air weapons,” which, the signatories write, “would undergird and drive a more focused and hardnosed US-led diplomatic process.”

Inside Syria, both the United States and Russia are battling the Islamic State and other jihadist groups seek to overthrow the Assad government. But while the U.S. is supporting muslim terrorist groups, Russia is backing Assad and waging a broader fight against these terrorists, including Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front.

Posted by Peter Klevius at 2:18 AM

9/11 and the deplorables

A deplorable Human Rightsophobic* (but certainly not "islamophobic") woman surrounded by some of the world's most deplorable muslims

* Saudi based and steered OIC invented the oxymoron "islamophobia" for the purpose of hiding islamic evil. Simultaneously OIC launched an attack on Human Rights via UN calling for the criminalization of criticism of islam (and themselves). And by stating that "there's only one islam", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family managed to take all muslims as hostages.

The evil "custodians of islam" - and their deplorable "Western whores".

Hillary Clinton says half of Americans voting for Trump are "deplorable" - so how many muslims are "deplorable"? A billion?! Or none? The latter being true if "deplorable" is measured by islamofascist Saudi based and steered OIC's "islamophobia" standard - which Hillary apparently used. However, measured against the most basic Human Rights equality standard, every sharia muslim is utterly "deplorable" - although not everyone to the extent of Hillary herself.

The Saudi steered "islamophobia" campaign - and due "blasphemy" criminalization efforts - is ultimately a reflexion of the understandable desperation of having to admit sharia islam's incompatibility with Human Rights equality. 

Architects of good and evil

Minoru Yamasaki, who built WTC, grew up in slums and was bullied for being Japanese-American. Mohamed Atta, who took it down, grew up in a wealthy family and bullied non-muslims.


Rape accused Alwaleed bin Talal, suspected as a financial mastermind behind 9/11 also offered $10 million to New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (who didn't accept it) stating, "At times like this, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East." After the rejection by the mayor he stated: "The whole issue is that I spoke about their position and they didn’t like it because there are Jewish pressures and they are afraid of them."

Unfortunately (for the victims of Saudi islamic hate mongering domestic and abroad, terrorism, bombings of neighbors etc) the West has used the islamofascist Saudi dictator family as overpaid "clerks" in an oil bank stuffed with Western money.