Sayeeda Warsi, UK's top official islamofascist* again spews islamic hatred on **BBC without anyone there questioning it!

* 'Islamofascist' is here defined as a muslim who supports the violation of the most basic Human Rights. Simple as that! If Sayeeda Warsi doesn't support sharia in this sense (e.g. OIC's sharia declaration) then she better come out as an apostate, i.e. committing the worst crime known to islam (which is already in itself the worst crime ever against humanity). 

** Using the hateful "islamphobia" against defender of Human Rights can only be classified as racist hate speech. Remember that "islamophobia" in sharia islam is synonymous with "blasphemy"!

Muslim Sayeeda Warsi, unelected "Minister for Faith islam", has stated that the UK is 'committed to working with the United Nations Human Rights Council to implement blasphemy resolution 16/18.' However, the majority of Brits don't have a clue about this because no one has informed them about it - especially not BBC whom even Klevius has beaten when it comes to informing about OIC.

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


Sayeeda Warsi today on BBC: Islam forbids the killing of innocent people.

Klevius: Absolutely! And by "innocent" islam means the killers and those who support them! Either directly or by "being offended" (a term that should be read "islam's inferiority complex" against Human Rights). Those who didn't support Muhammad when he slaughtered all the Jews in Medina were not innocent according to the strongest part of islam, i.e. back then Muhammad's sword waiving muslim thugs, and today Warsi's beloved OIC which has criminalized the most basic of Human Rights and replaced them with muslim sharia.

Sayeeda Warsi today on BBC (about a gallup): British muslims felt more loyal to Britain and had a much bigger trust in institutions than white Britons.

Klevius: Absolutely! And it's appalling! And why shouldn't they when the institutions are made sharia compliant by the help of "diversity trained officials" who are scared to death to be called racist "islamophobes" or have already been exchanged to sharia muslim officials. And no one cares about muslim racism and hate crimes against the Brits.






Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Muslim ethnicity - not geographical location - behind "Asian" or "Pakistan" sex abuse/murder of white girls!

The disgusting face of the social state

Joyce Thacker has been a central figure in the responsibility for letting children be abused and even murdered. How much does she get from your tax money, and will she be rewarded in the usual way for defending islam while not defending of children. 

However, she seems not very visible on Google News despite the biggest sex slave shock ever in Britain happened under her watch!?

To get a theoretical background to this please read what Klevius wrote some 20 years ago (Angels of Antichrist in the social state - the most important sociological paper written in the last century) and a decade ago (Pathological symbiosis in the social service).

Also consider The Swedish girl problem.

However, what you really should give a serious thought is why Joyce Thacker is defended?


The now reported over 1400 child (young girls "rescued" from their families by the social state) sex slaves taken and abused lately by British muslims is just a tiny glare from the tip of the iceberg. And although it's common and accepted all over the muslim world, in Western countries it's protected under the "islamophobia" slogan.

It's not islam! Really? So muslim jihadists, and muslim sex offenders just happen to follow the text in the Koran and the historical origin of islam in this respect?!


And some other disgusting females supporting muslim sex slavery

Is the Darfur genocide a "random muslim scare story", Nesrine Malik? As a Sudanese you should know, shouldn't you. Or the global muslim sex abuse and trafficking of underage girls?

Nesrine Malik: In 2012, nine men were convicted of child exploitation and grooming of vulnerable young girls in Rochdale. Similar grooming gangs were identified in Derby, Rotherham and Oxford..The fact that these grooming gangs were Asian and Muslim ('muslims' were almost never mentioned - it's entirely Malik's own spice to ther story), and their victims white, became central to their offences in public discourse and media coverage. How was this done? Newspaper articles, radio shows and TV panel discussions adopted, discussed and repeated the claim of Muslim grooming and abuse. By popularising a notion that their crimes were somehow mandated by a sharia law that condoned sexual exploitation of non-Muslims. That is, not only is their religion relevant, it is blessing their crimes, or at least informing their culture. This was simply not true but it was repeated and sublimated into fact. "Muslim grooming gangs", a description about as unhelpful as  the "Christian paedophile Jimmy Savile". It was a scenario in which a factually erroneous religious justification was used to explain an anomalous episode.

Max Dunbar: “I used to get outraged about people like Nesrine Malik. Here we have an independent woman working in finance in secular London, telling women in the developing world that theocracy really isn’t so bad as they make out. Isn’t this an imperialist attitude? But in the end, the appropriate response isn’t outrage: it’s a dark and riotous laughter at the arrant stupidity of it all.”

It was because they were muslims they were so leniently handled with by social workers, police, courts, etc. - not because they were from Asia! Non-muslim Russians from Asia would hardly have been equally leniently handled!

Who else than Klevius can tell all these abused or about to become abused girls about sex apartheid and the true origin of islam?

When a girl trapped in a limiting sex segregated upbringing suddenly realizes the heterosexual attraction of her ass she might easily get lost - especially if her attachment to her parents is cut off by the state power of senseless social authorities. Combine this to the Koran that tells you that infidel girls your right arm possesses are legitimate. And add to this that, according to islamic logic, the West (more or less by its very existence) is attacking islam and therefore war booty is legal.

And who else than Klevius can tell all of you others that your tax money to the social state is of no use - but contributes to abuse! Yes, Klevius has seen all the evidence through academic studies as well as on the actual field as a solicitor in cases were the state wants to abduct children for no real reason other than placing them in commercial foster or care homes they themselves often have commercial interest in. Moreover, the social state has itself developed into a self serving commercial interest spiced by political interest.

Again, read Angels of Antichrist and Pathological symbiosis before you even open your big mouth in these matters.



Here's what Klevius wrote

Friday, September 28, 2012

Was it muslim (or muslim "sensitive") social workers/police who failed Victoria Agoglia and other white vulnerable ("trash") girls in Rochdale etc?

 Angels of Antichrist (no idiot, Klevius isn't Christian)

 is by far the most important sociological paper written in the last Century. In summary it shows that there is no connection at all between tax money invested in the welfare social state and the quality of its outcome. And how could there ever be when it's a defacto overgrown commercial company except fot that it:

   doesn't have to show results (or the results can be arbitrarily manipulated by itself)
   its parts work as authorities
   it has monopoly
   it writes, more or less, its own laws via its extensive bureaucracy and lobbying (for a horror example from Sweden of how democracy is sidestepped by bureaucracy see Pathological Synbiosis)
   its main interest is to feed itself
   it started as a dump for the spill over (women) of sex segregation (in the post-industrial automation), i.e. women (who couldn't go to the private sector) were paid to get away from their children (often to take care of children of others). As Klevius has shown in his thesis groundbreaking (but largely neglected) Pathological Symbiosis (with all the references you may ask for to really see how bad the social state is in taking care of children) this process also includes an element of feel of guilt boosted by "motherhood" psychology, i.e. that women who couldn't take care of their children because they were working started pathologizing women who did take care of their children.

Although the welfare state was born in the 1940s the social state emerged on a powerful new tax platform in Sweden in the 1970s with some roots in much earlier practices.

In Angels of Antichrist (which, so far, is the world's only serious/informed attempt to an overall interdisciplinary approach on the social state) and Pathological Symbiosis it's shown beyond reasonable doubt that there's absolutely no evidence (see e.g. Vinnerjung's comprehensive study on foster children) that the social state has contributed any good social work on the whole despite the enormous amount of money invested in it. And this is no rocket science to understand. How could a young sex segregated woman without children of her own and brainwashed for many years in courses based on all the time changing and heavily biased flimsy but fashionable non sense psychology ans sociology, possibly know anything else than khow to get the most out of it for herself? 

So when Jim Taylor, chief executive of Rochdale Borough Council, refuses to answer whether he'll get rid of those social workers who called sexually abused/raped (by muslims from Pakistan) white girls (whom the social state already had taken "care" of) and who were in their early teens, "prostitutes" "life choice" and didn't in any way react to the cries for help, then this is a pattern that has been around for long also in Swedish schools etc as Klevius has written for a decade on his sites and blogs.

.

Do you really need extremist muslims to fight extremist muslims?

Muslims constitute a couple of percent of US population yet their influence in the White House seems to be a couple of hundred percent!

Is it because their Human Rights violating hateful sharia ideology is so much preferred than the boring equality principle of Human Rights?

Ruby Giuliani: 'The reality is, from all that I can see of this president, all that I’ve heard of him, he apologizes for America, he criticizes America … This is an American president I’ve never seen before.'

And here's US islamofascist representative Rashad Hussain in OIC, the worst scum bag organization the world has seen since the Nazis. Yes, he has memorized the hateful Koran text by heart and is now ready to take over as director of the Center for US Strategic Counterterrorism Communications.

OIC is a muslim extremist organization which openly violates the most basic of Human Rights!

Albert Einstein: 'For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.'

Klevius quiz: Which of the Judaic branches do you think would have been first in line trying to murder Albert Einstein as of today?

Islam is originally built on a foundation of hate and rape - that's why it's so popular among haters and rapers!

The problem today is that original islam was so evil so we aren't really allowed to even mention it anymore because that would disturb the frenetic efforts made to use the "success" of original evil islam to fit a construed non-evil islam while blinking the fact that by doing so you really pave the way for extremist (read evil) original islam. However, this fits open or subtle muslim taqyya (lying for the "infidels" when it promotes islam) or similar strategies.

You need to understand that almost everything you read about islam is written by islamists or their supporters and therefore as far from the truth you can get. Those offering a more truthful analysis are all called "islamophobes" and therefore dismissed by pk society.
 
So for example, there was never any official Muhammad figure in original islam. He was introduced much later together with the Koran to make muslim atrocities "officially" "moral". The original islam was looting and murdering campaigns made successful by teasing teenage boys with sex slaves and booty.

An example from the tip of the iceberg:

Islam's Wikipedia "history" built on ridiculously polemic and vaguely founded single "sources" several hundred years later

Wikipedia's references to its long and colorfully detailed article about the early muslim murder campaigns (Ridda wars) against apostates contains only one source, Tabari who wrote his fantasies some 300 years later and from an Abbasid (750-) perspective.



Parvaneh Pourshariati has convincingly established that the muslim murder/looting/raping campaign of Mesopotamia (today Iraq) "took place, not, as has been conventionally believed, in the years 632–634, after the accession of the last Sasanian king Yazdgerd III (632–651) to power, but in the period from 628 to 632." An important consequence of this change in timeline means that the muslim jihad crusades started precisely when the Sasanians and Parthians were engaged in internecine warfare over who was to succeed the Sasanid throne.

The muslim finger (shahada) problem

 .

The shahada hate finger is protected by

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

Klevius (unnecessary*) correction

* It doesn't alter anything of what Klevius has written about islam since 9/11 but reveals an extreme helplessness among Klevius readers who haven't dared to point it out in all these years! Or are you really so scared to comment on Klevius' "islamophobic" Human Rights defending  blogs?! And when it comes to Kennedy and Hoyland and their view on early islam they are almost intellectual twins in this respect.


"Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Muhammad (allegedly dead 632 but see Pourshariati) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."

This oral statement Klevius has previously attributed to Hugh Kennedy. However, it was overheard in a discussion where also Robert G. Hoyland participated. Now when I've heard Hugh Kennedy again I realize it was probably not him but Robert G. Hoyland who said it. There's no doubt about the authenticity of the statement itself though, and it alters nothing of what Klevius has written. Just something for you who can't use your own brain and therefore is incapable of reading and trusting Klevius.

Klevius analysis of the origin of islam is as rock solid as it was when he first presented it after Georg W Bush humiliated* himself by stating that 'islam is a peaceful religion'

* However, Bush had nothing to do with the fact that muslims supported by hate mongering Saudi Arabia were incapable of living in peace after their dictator had been elegantly toppled.


There are two simple reasons why Klevius understands islam equally well as whoever muslim:

1  Only the Koranic texts about pillaging, enslavement, rapetivism and booty from the "infidels" fit the historical facts about early islam and muslims.

2  Only muslim one way reproduction via rigid religious sex apartheid explains islam's growth. And as you already know, Klevius is the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it). Btw, you will get a sex tutorial here soon that will probably alter your view on sex equally much as Einstein altered our view on physics.

However, to these points you have to add what differs Klevius from muslims, i.e. the fact that Klevius has chosen as his axiomatic point of departure the equality principle of the 1948 Human Rights declaration instead of muslims' hateful racist/sexist sharia.

UK (diversity trained or muslim?) officers raid shops asking for names and addresses of those who have bought Charlie Hebdo. And not a word about it from BBC

Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.

Klevius quiz: Which of the Judaic branches do you think would have been first in line trying to murder Albert Einstein as of today?

Origin of islam - some hasty random notes for you to chew on

An eighth-century manuscript of a seventh-century text in Syriac, attributed to Thomas Presbyter contains the earliest known mention in a non-muslim text of Muhammad.

    'In the year 945 [=634], indiction 7, Friday 4 February at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician bryrdn(?), whom the Arabs killed. Some four thousand poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs (i.e. muslims) ravaged the whole region.'

The Arabic script as we know it today was unknown in Muhammad’s time

The construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem in 691–92 represents the earliest known dated passages later found in the Koran. In these inscriptions, some letters are provided with diacritical points.

There can be little doubt that the first contacts between nascent islam and the Christian world were one-sidedly violent and bloody and that they brought much suffering on the populations of the Christian Countries that the muslims attacked.

These accounts show that offensive sword-jihad was the modus vivendi of the early muslims and that sack, pillage, the taking of (sex-)slaves and the ravaging of the land were commonplace.

The sources also show that the muslim sense of a “god-given” entitlement to Judea-Samaria, and thus modern Israel, goes back to the foundations of islam itself.

There is evidence of the establishment of Dhimmitude and payment of Jizya and other taxes that destroyed the wealth of the non-muslims.

The explanations for much of this can be found within the Koran, Biographic and Hadith literature.

Some muslims of today are inclined to say that the Hadith and Biographies are “inaccurate” or that they “reflect the views of the muslims of the times [a century or more after Muhammad] rather than the truth about islam”. What the above demonstrates is that the “views” expressed in the Ahadith and Biographies reach back to, if not the time of Muhammad himself, then to within a year or two of his death.

Given that the early records date to before the time of the textus receptus of the Koran and thus pre-date by centuries other muslim sources and further that they reflect the actions of the Sahaba, we can be quite certain that the attitudes in the later muslim sources which reflect these earlier sources are genuine in that they are accurately accounting the beliefs of the Sahaba.

Muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barakeh Hussain Obama Soetoro (or whatever) now proposes Human Rights in his fight against original islam

However, the question is whether he means Human Rights or islamic "human rights" i.e. sharia? If the former he betrays all muslim OIC countries and in the latter case he betraysUS and the free world.

The muslim finger (shahada) problem

 .

The shahada hate finger is protected by

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

The muslim problem is that their hate ideology can't survive under Human Rights equality

 The muslim finger (shahada) problem

 .

The shahada hate finger is protected by

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

A hateful ideology incompatible with Human Rights

SPCJ: 40% of racist violence in France is directed against Jews who constitute 1% of the population.

Dagens Nyheter ("today's news") is a main daily newspaper in Sweden. 14/1 2015 its editorial read: Jews are again targeted. In France Jews live under constant threat from muslim extremists. Apart from the many lesser crimes committed against Jews by muslim extremists, some are exceptionally appalling.

Klevius: Remove the word 'extremist' and the islamopologists will shout "hate speech". However, in fact, it's a mirage word already removed via its internal (il)logic. Compare 'extremist Nazis' or 'extremist Jews'.

Here is what you don’t know about what it’s like to be Jewish in the UK. “Maybe not as bad as in France, but Jews in England are attacked on a constant basis but it just goes unheard.”

    Dear Pamela,

    I can’t tell you how much i envy your courage and guts to say and do the right thing.

    I don’t know weather you are Jewish yourself or not but its more about freedom for the free world not just the Jews as history has proven.

    The reason your story is so personal to me is that i was born in England and grew up there till my late teens when for Jewish educational reasons i needed to find other schools, so i ended up in the US where i now live with my family but my parents and siblings are still living in the UK.

    As a child, my memories of school are being called a “Jewbag” and dodging glass bottles in recess coming from the Muslim school kids that across the street from our school. The hate mongering and education that they get has been brewing for many years but governments did nothing to stop it, Now they are dealing with the consequences. even on one of my recent visits, i was verbally attacked for my religion and when i called the police to give them the licence plate of the vehicle they did nothing with it.

    Maybe not as bad as in France, but Jews in England are attacked on a constant basis but it just goes unheard.

    I am begging my family out there to quit and run as thousands in France have already have done but its not easy.

    On another note-

    I keep thinking about Micheal Savages comments the other day regarding the lack of voices and expression of outrage heard from major Jewish organizations regarding the slaughter of innocent Christians around the world as a result of their faith.

    The only conclusion i can come up with is, that they are afraid of becoming the next targets which unfortunately due to the lack of protection provided even in this country for such organizations makes it a legitimate fear.

    That only increases my respect for you that you have not taken those fears into consideration and have nevertheless done the right thing.

    G-D will bless you no doubt and may he protect you and give you the strength to continue your noble efforts.

    Best Wishes,

    XXXXXXXXX

UK seeks more diversity muslims as police. How will that affect non-muslims and "wrong-muslims"?

UK (diverse?) officers raid shops asking for names and addresses of those who have bought Charlie Hebdo. And not a word about it from BBC.

Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.

Klevius quiz: Which of the Judaic branches do you think would have been first in line trying to murder Albert Einstein as of today?

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.

The Western sheaths to the muslims' daggers

Only on Klevius' blogs you can get (and it's free of charge, dude) the least biased and best IQ powered history analysis of islam (the most biased you'll get from so called islamologists, i.e. people whi blink history and stick to mythology).

UK's Trojan horses and muslim dagger sheaths

In 1215 Magna Carta Libertatum ("the Great Charter of the Liberties") was born as a defense against evil islam and its accomplices

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.

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.

The Saudi Wahhabi dagger (original islam)

Wikipedia: As the blade bends towards the opponent, the user need not angle the wrist, which makes it more comfortable as a stabbing weapon than straight-bladed knives. Its heavy blade enables the user to inflict deep wounds and to cut through muscle and bone. It also makes it possible to cut and twist the blade upwards, slitting internal organs such as intestines, or to reach heart, lungs or liver more easily, making it a formidable and much feared weapon.

Saudi national islamism against muslim chickens coming home to roost

 While many (most?) muslims in Saudi Arabia support the  Islamic State, itself a product of the Saudi dictator family, the latter is now, quite understandably, pushing for a more "national" (read Saud) Wahhabism.

This Charlie (second from left) shouldn't be confused with the Charlies below. The islamofascist scum bag to the right is Alwaleed bin Talal, a rape accused Saudi muslim who didn't give his DNA to the Spanish court, who's never worked and who spends oil Billions on the spread of racist/sexist sharia. How much has he contributed to the Islamic State before he realized that his chickens might come home to roost?

However, the root problem is the evilness of the original parasitic islamic ideology

How the anointed became the annoying

Jewish messianism (i.e. Christianism - compare Gr. Christos and Aramaic MHMD/Muhammad, the anointed) was rooted in the apocalyptic tradition of the 2nd to 1st century BC, promising a future "anointed" leader or Messiah (Aramaic meshiha and Hebrew mashiah) to resurrect the Israelite "Kingdom of God", in place of the colonizers. This corresponded with the Maccabean Revolt directed against the Seleucids. Following the fall of the Hasmonean kingdom, it was directed against the Romans, which, according to Josephus, began with the formation of the Zealots during the Census of Quirinius of 6 AD, though full scale open revolt did not occur until the First Jewish–Roman War in 66 AD. Caligula's rule (37-41) was a major breaking point between the Romans and the non-Hellenistic Jews.

It was the Romans who made Judaic Christianity (Jews believing in Jesus) the official state religion in order to stifle the problem with the Jews in Mideast. Much like Euro-islam today.

Judaism was divided into the Pharisees, Saducees, and Zealots, but also included other less influential sects. The 1st century BC and 1st century AD saw a number of charismatic religious leaders (watch e.g. Monty Python's The life of Brian - it gives a better understanding than most historians with insufficient brains), contributing to what would become the Mishnah of Rabbinic Judaism, including Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa. The Zealots were originally a political movement which sought to incite the people of Judaea to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy Land by force of arms, most notably during the First Jewish–Roman War (66-70).

It was the ferocious muslim attacks (jihad crusades) on Europe that paved the way for a powerful (and stiff) Catholic papacy.

It was the Viking raids (see Origin of the Vikings) that led to the Christianization of most of the rest of Europe. However, the Viking raids were also directly caused by islam.

Why is Prince Charles kowtowing to the monstrous Saudi regime?

Leo McKinstry: The epic hypocrisy, destructive cowardice and pathetic self-abasement of the political elite have been on full display in recent days, following the death of the Saudi monarch King Abdullah, succeeded by Salman bin Abdul Aziz.

Western leaders who love to blather about their devotion to human rights suddenly went into mourning for a tyrant who led a monstrous regime that combines fabulous oil wealth with brutal oppression.

As flags flew at half-mast on government buildings in Britain, politicians competed with each other to lavish praise on the late King.

Sarah Wollaston: "Half mast for all Saudi women subject to enforced subservience & infantilisation by oppressive male guardianship system. Half mast for all those Saudis and migrant workers publicly beheaded, stoned, subject to judicial mutilation or flogging."

The leader of the Scottish Conservatives Ruth Davidson condemned the flags move as "a steaming pile of nonsense" and Ukip MP Douglas Carswell said it showed Whitehall officials held "immoral" values far removed from those of the British public.

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

When BBC's muslim sharia presenter (or is she an apostate?) finally talks about Saudi Arabia she uses one of the most pro-Saudi persons she could find, i.e. Robert Lacey, author of the Kingdom and the House of Saud. 

Daniel Pipes: For the most part Lacey repeats well-worn anecdotes and events from such renowned writers on Saudi Arabia as T. E. Lawrence, Gertrude Bell and Harry St. John Philby. Indeed, Lacey sticks so close to the standard version of Saudi history that much of this book repeats what is already available elsewhere-for example, in David Horwarth's 1964 biography of 'Abd al-'Aziz, The Desert King.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo. Klevius question to BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain: So what about you? Do you believe in a personal "Allah" or a muslim OIC/Ummah sharia "Allah"? Klevius and BBC's listeners expect an honest answer!

Robert Lacey ("interviewed" by Mishal Husain): The previous king confronted (sic) wahhabist clerics. The new king tries an other tactics by reinstating the wahhabi leader of the sharia police. He is trying to move forward from within the system.

Klevius: Ever heard such utter non sense before?!

Robert Lacey: The problem with Raif Badawi is that he has criticized the whole religious system of Saudi Arabia and for having religious law. He has critizcized the idea that religion should rule life.

Klevius: My god! Really! Yes indeed! He really established the core of the problem, didn't he! But doesn't Robert Lacey sound quite religiously fanatic himself in  the way he uttered this statement? Does Robert Lacey approve of secularism?

Robert Lacey: The Saudi government has no more say over sharia than we do.

Klevius: Poor guys! So why did "king" Abdullah codify that Human Rights and Atheism should be considered among the worst criminal offenses? How would that sound in a non-muslim Christian country?

Robert Lacey: There is sharia which we can't change
Sharia exists by itself.

Klevius: Is this man completely unaware of the screaming discrepancy between a legal system based on the most basic of Human Rights principles, i.e. that all humans are considered equals, and a racist/sexist system whee women and non-muslims are considered inferior?! Btw, have you noticed how even law professors tend to avoid this most basic problem by distracting it with talk about punishments etc secondary issues?


Robert Lacey: Prince Charles is a good friend of "prince" Faisal bin Bandar Al Saud, now governor of Riyadh. They went on painting exhibitions together.

Klevius: So amusing. However, how come that prince Charles hasn't managed to make any influence before? And we certainly still lack evidence he has managed to do anything now.

There's a war going on inside Saudi Arabia between Westernized government and part of the people and most of the clerics.

Klevius: Duh!

BBC's muslim sharia (or is she an apostate?) presenter Mishal Husain: The system of checks and balances doesn't operate in the way we understand it.


Klevius:  It's sharia! As a muslim you should applaud it. Or bravely step forward and tell the world you don't approve of any Human Rights violating sharia! And that would make you an ex-muslim in no time.
 

More mosques means more jihadists and less Human Rights

Innes Bowen: As the Muslim population became more established, one might have assumed that a westernised form of Islam would have come to dominate Britain’s mosques. According to a database of British Islam, however, only two out of 1,700 mosques in Britain follow modernist interpretations of the Koran. It’s not the same elsewhere in the West. In a 2011 survey of Islam in the United States, 56 per cent of mosques described themselves as following an interpretation of Islam adapted to modern circumstances. This has not happened in Britain.

For the past seven years I have spent my spare time travelling around the UK, talking to Islamic leaders and grass-roots followers, trying to find out more about the structure of Islam in Britain. In the main, I have been treated with courtesy — and often with warmth.

As a liberal, however, it took some getting used to the environments into which I have been welcomed. At virtually every Islamic gathering I have attended, men and women have been seated separately. Even at social events in relatively middle-of-the-road mosques, a sheet will be hung across the hall, with women and children eating on one side and men on the other.

The management committees which run the mosques are usually men-only (or at least male-dominated). And these are the relatively liberal mosques, insofar as they allow women on the premises. Around a quarter of mosques in the UK do not. (What, I wonder, would our reaction be if a network of men-only churches were to spring up in Britain?)

Deobandi controls around 45% of Britain’s mosques and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars. What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if not banned. Women are advised not to emerge from their homes any more than is necessary.

The advice section of the website of Mufti Muhammed ibn Adam al-Kawthari, one of the Deobandis’ leading British-born, UK-trained Islamic scholars, gives a flavour of this group’s approach to living as a Muslim in the West. One follower posts a question asking whether it is permissible to wear a tie to work if asked to do so by one’s employer. The scholar says it is permissible but warns that it is better to ‘avoid the dress of the unbelievers’

 Tony Blair justified to the Muslim world the post-9/11 attacks on Afghanistan on the basis that driving out the Taleban would be an act of liberation: ‘I don’t believe,’ he said, ‘that anybody seriously wants to live under that kind of regime.’ Did he realise that the rules enforced by law in Afghanistan were being adopted, voluntarily, in parts of Leicester, Dewsbury and Blackburn?

Among Britain’s main Islamic groups, only the Ismaili followers of the Aga Khan believe there is no obligation to wear the veil.

To integrate is less evident among the Deobandis, founded in colonial India to protect Muslim identity from British influence. Its early leaders were involved in a plot to support Britain’s first world war enemies to overthrow imperial rule. The history is reinforced by religious ideology: Mufti al-Kawthari echoes the views of other Deobandi scholars when he advises followers on his website that, while one should be polite to non-Muslims, one should not take them as close friends.

Illiberal Islam is thoroughly British these days.

Is Mishal Husain, BBC's muslim sharia presenter backing Saudi Arabia? OIC? The Islamic State? Or is she just an apostate?

Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.

Peter Klevius quiz: Which of the Judaic branches do you think would have been first in line trying to murder Albert Einstein as of today?

Why is it so important to know Mishal Husain's muslim status?

It's all about the danger of appeasement.

1 Islam is a religion that has officially (OIC's sharia declaration via UN) abandoned the most basic of Human Rights, i.e. the equality principle that makes racism and sexism (and due hate) redundant.

2  You can't be a muslim belonging to islam if you don't accept Human Rights violating sharia. And there is no way of trying to say that a particular version of sharia could be in line with the most basic of Human Rights. Such a thing wouldn't represent islam anymore, and would in one blow cure Klevius' "islamophobia".

3   All forms of "moderate islam" (aka Euro-islam) are temporary and awaiting the first possibility to turn into real islam. And those who then want to continue as "moderate muslims" are automatically turning into apostates, i.e. committing the worst sin islam knows about.

4  By pretending to be both on islamic muslim and a Westerner that appears innocent the average "diversity trained" Brit is easily seduced to believe in the deeply treacherous lie about a "good islam".

BBC News (and presumably their muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain) has recently aired how 'appalling' Fox News decision was to air the video of a muslim who was burned alive by fellow muslims. So what? Isn't BBC appalled by almost everything Fox News air? And why isn't BBC News (and their muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain) not equally and eagerly publicly appalled by the public beheadings, floggings etc in Saudi Arabia?!

British sharia policy

Sharia is all about keeping women at bay in islam and to produce as many new muslims as possible

Female genital mutilation (FMG) is used by many muslims as an additional flesh burqa and has since long been criminalized in Britain. However, due to the crime being mainly perpetrated by muslims, British authorities have blinked it. And when they finally were pressed to do something they prosecuted an innocent non-muslim phycisian Dhanuson Dharmasena. Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions: ‘We don't shy away from difficult cases’. Klevius: I think that's precisely what you do when it comes to muslims.

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions: ‘The CPS does not choose which cases it is asked to consider for prosecution and we must apply the same test to every case. Klevius: But you are in close contact with diversity trained police, aren't you.

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions: This will, of course, not affect our resolve to bring those who do commit FGM to justice where we have the evidence to do so.’ Klevius: And diversity sharia trained police are really sensitive when it comes to collecting evidence from muslims, aren't they. Why would FGM be any different from muslims openly (while police and social workers were blinking it) sexually abusing vulnerable girls taken into "care" by the British social state (if you don't know what a social state is then cure your ignorance by reading the most important sociological paper from the last century, Angels of Antichrist - social state vs kinship - and while you are at it why not read Klevius' thesis Pathological symbiosis, which gives you hard core evidence to what Angels of Antichrist theoretically outlines).


Klevius helping hand to David Cameron: Radical islam starts from moderate islam. Moderate islam consists of moderate muslims like BBC's sharia* presenter Mishal Husain. Your own minister of faith islam, Sayeeda Warsi, however, may not qualify as a moderate muslim considering her ties to Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr (party of "liberation") which is an international pan-islamic political organisation. They are commonly associated with the goal of all muslim countries unifying as an islamic ummah or caliphate ruled by sharia and a caliph - much like the Islamic State.

* There's no way you can be a muslim in islam without sharia! Don't ask Allah - trust Klevius! A "cultural" muslim has nothing to do with islam

Although Turkey's islamist president Erdogan says there is no such thing as a moderate islam, British PM Cameron clearly seems to differ. However he makes the same mistake as Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, who thought that the country would evolve  into a modern democratic state where muslims, as a majority population, could feel at ease. How wrong he was because of his ignorance of islam's inherent evilness.

Just think about it, Mishal Husain and others. What could Pakistan have become without islam! Pakistan has reached rock bottom so the answer is simple, isn't it.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo all have evil islam in common - either by being open jihadists or just supporting it by calling themselves (out of cowardice?) muslims without really being muslims, hence becoming acomplices to islamic atrocities.


Mishal Husain (rooted in Pakistan) on BBC: Is it impossible to think of this law, the blasphemy law, on the statutes book in Pakistan since the days of the British, being get rid of, being repelled?

Her crude effort to appeal to anti-Western sentiments was brutally corrected by
Michael Nazir-Ali (former bishop of Rochester/England with Pakistani roots who made himself an "islamophobe" by opposing the introduction of sharia in Britain): The British law wasn't actually a blasphemy law. It was a law against religious hatred. It was turned into this (blasphemy) form by Zia ul-Haq (the third muslim military dictator of Pakistan.

Michael Nazir-Ali has also said it would never be possible to satisfy all of the demands made by them because "their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims... and always wrong when Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists". In reference to conflict in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, he said "Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made." In response, the Muslim Council of Britain said "We would normally expect a bishop to display more humility and work towards bringing communities closer together rather than contributing towards fostering greater divisions."

Compare this former bishop with Steve Emerson re. no-go sharia areas in UK?

Re. no-go areas in Britain Nazir-Ali wrote (2008) that Islamic extremism had turned "already separate communities into 'no-go' areas" and claimed that there had been attempts to "impose an 'Islamic' character on certain areas", citing the amplification of the call to prayer from mosques as an example. He criticised the government's integration policy as "an agenda which still lacks the underpinning of a moral and spiritual vision", and asked that the government make a public affirmation of the "Christian roots of British society".

These comments resulted in some debate and criticism, including a response from the Muslim Council of Britain, who said the mosque call was no different from church bells ringing, and Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who described the claims as "a gross caricature of reality". Conservative home affairs spokesman David Davis said the bishop had rightly drawn attention to a "deeply serious problem" and that Labour's support for multiculturalism risked creating a situation of "voluntary apartheid".

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears responded to Nazir-Ali's comments by stating that Britain was a "secular democracy", and challenged him to name specific 'no go' areas. but the Chair of the Equality Commission, Trevor Phillips, agreed with his analysis of the situation. Nazir-Ali has since received death threats against himself and his family, and he is now under escort by the Kent police; however, he says his "overflowing postbag" has been "overwhelmingly supportive", with people offering their own experience. More recent events support his position.

Two British leaders who wanted/want to convert England into sharia islam

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 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.

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

A proposal for the elimination of that very sharia David Cameron's minister of islam so eagerly represents

The following paper was filed at OSCE meeting in Vienna by International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA). It calls for the repudiation of OIC's Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam as having no relevance to what Western nations or the OSCE identify as human rights.

Note: The abbreviation “pS” in the text below is short for “participating State(s)”

OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting

Rule of Law in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

Vienna, July 12th 2013

Session II: Effective National and International Instruments to protect human rights and prevent human rights violations: Best practices, current challenges and solutions

In reference to the excellent discussion of the universality of human rights, ICLA wants to draw attention to a deficiency in this field that can easily and usefully be corrected.

Before we can discuss effective national and international human rights, we need to define the terms unambiguously.

As most here would know, we have two main definitions of human rights, the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the European Human Rights Convention, both sound human rights instruments.

However, a third and potentially dangerous alternative definition exists, sponsored by the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), namely the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. This declaration, originally drafted by the Iranian theocratic regime, makes each and every right subject to Islamic law, also known as Sharia. This, in turn, negates the very notion of inalienable individual rights and several other essential values.

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.

What does PM David Cameron think - why should sheep be stunned when humans are not, in his beloved Saudi Arabia?!

British halal sheep

Saudi Arabia is slaughtering people for leaving islam, defending Human Rights etc horrifying "terrorism" crimes. But shouldn't they be stunned before slaughtered, Mr Cameron? Like sheep! O I see, British muslims have already abandoned stunning before slaughter. 

If a muslim can laugh at a terrified sheep coming on the conveyor belt  towards his islam blessed knife - then shouldn't he also be able to laugh at Charia Hebdo?!

Klevius question to BBC and their main muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain: Is there any limit to the range of "islamic principles"?

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo. Mishal Husain is BBC's top muslim presenter and BBC is the world's leading media. Mishal Husain's islamic principles include that she doesn't fast during ramadan but drinks alcohol and 'would never wear a niqab.

Where these sacred muslim slaughterers mixing innocent sheep with disgusting "infidels"?!

The number of sheep killed without stunning is sharply rising due to campaigning by muslims

Some of the practices by muslim halal slaughterers:

Sheep being kicked in the face and head, lifted by their ears, fleeces or legs, and hurled into solid structures.

A worker standing on the neck of a conscious sheep and bouncing up and down.

Staff erupting into laughter over a sheep bleeding to death with spectacles drawn around her eyes in green paint.

Staff taunting and frightening animals by waving knives, smacking them on the head and shouting at them.

A worker holding a sheep by the throat and pulling back his fist as if to deliver a punch.


The law requires abattoirs to stun animals before slaughter to prevent unnecessary suffering, but there are exemptions for Jewish and Muslim producers.

The number of cattle killed according to the principles of islamic halal slaughter, in which animals are killed without first being stunned, rose by nearly a third between 2011 and 2013, while the number of sheep not being stunned increased by half.

The overwhelming majority of animals killed using halal methods are stunned before killing; around 80 per cent, according to the British Veterinary Association.

This proportion appears to be quickly falling, however. According to Awal Fuseini, certification manager of the Halal Food Authority, the increase is due to “stronger campaigning” by some muslim groups.
Klevius comment: This is the typical and inevitable feature of original islam. Where slamt is allowed  to root itself it will always become more and more evil (because its basic tenet is evil parasitism) until the point when its own evilness eventually dilutes itself. Historically this happened every time the prosperity of islamic slavery economy reached a certain point. As Ibn Khaldun put it: Luxury (and due decadence) follows the curve of the increase in profit (in Peter Klevius 1992:14, ISBN 9173288411).

However, in the meantime the suffering of islam's victims is, as it has always been, immense. Moreover, this dilution which some now call Euro-islam or even just "islam" also covers up the strains of the true original islam hence fertilizing the growth of true evil islam that clashes against the most basic of Human Rights, e.g. the equality principle that made it necessary for Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC (the muslim world Ummah) to openly abandon Human Rights in UN and officially replace them with sharia in a way that it now sanctions Saudi Arabia's Human Rights violations.

Still want to vote for David Cameron who lowered the British flag in "honor" of the world's most intolerant islamofascist dictator family? And who wants to make London  the sharia Mecca of the world outside the Arabian peninsula. 

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 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.
 Klevius: Like sheep?!

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