Islam compared to National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazism"). Turns out islam is worse. Much worse. Judge for yourself!

Here's again something BBC unfortunately missed to report you about. Luckily they have Klevius for free supplementing their missing information.

What's the difference between Nazism and islam? Islam is worse - both in ideology (see below) and in the amount of its victims!

Is it the islamization of Germany that has caused the (relative) quality drop of Nazi cars such as VW and Audi since the 1930s?

 Compared to islam's parasitism ideology, it seems the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazi") was way more industrially effective. 

 This shouldn't surprise anyone with the most superficial understanding of the origin of islam as a parasitic separatist movement which after colonizing land isolated themselves in lazy "garrisons" with their slaves from where they enjoyed the fruits (incl. girls/young women, artists, scientists etc) of the working and producing people they had subdued. If you don't understand the parasitic nature of the islamic ideology then you will never understand the Koran or islam. Nor will you understand why Malik much later created Muhammad as a mythological figure whose behavior span such a wide range (pedophile, caravan robber, warlord, rapist, preacher, etc) that everyone (except the "infidel") could find something suitable for himself.
 
Only now has a small scale car production started in Saudi Arabia. By Arab muslims? No, by Japanese Isuzu which will be followed by Korean Daewoo and some other non-Arab car makers. The muslims have NEVER had a technology of their own simply because islam is based on parasitism and due backwardness. This fact isn't changed by oil-money (from non-muslim countries) buying texhnology into islamic countries.

Ihsanoglu's ultimate stated aim (in an interview) was to make OIC the muslim Caliphate led by a Caliph.

Every true muslim is a racist/sexist supremacist Human Rights violator because of islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - as beyond any doubt proven by OIC's sharia declaration in UN.

Iyad Madani, the Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based OIC, the worst Human Rights violator. Via UN OIC sanctionsislamofascist sharia around the world.
 

Islamic State is Ansar al Islam tuned to Saudi Wahhabism which, in turn, is tuned to the origin of islam - NOT TO ANY "WESTERN INTERVENTION"!

The only "Western intervention" is islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - the very same incompatibility that made OIC officially to abandon Human Rights and to replace them with Sharia via its 57 more or less scumbag representatives in UN (OIC was created via mostly muslim foreign ministers). I.e. in the very world institution that was  created to defend Human Rights. In practice it means that the most basic of Human Rights are criminalized - just as in the world's most intolerant country, Saudi Arabia. It also means that every true muslim, due to whatever form of Sharia, is a Human Rights violator. S/he may not be aware of it as yet though because of politicians' and BBC's etc. misrepresentation of the facts (in the case of BBC the Brits have not been misinformed about OIC - they haven't been informed at all).

The Iraq-"invasion"-caused-it myth

 In Iraq Mullah  Krekar founded in 1999 Ansar al Islam organization with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, with whom he had contact since 1994 through the cell of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Amman Jordan. Their so called Jordanian millennium attack was scheduled to the 2000 new years eve. Ansar al Islam then developed to a copy of the original Caliphate including the Levant, i.e. what we now know as the Islamic State, mostly funded by Saudi Arabia (through both official and unofficial channels) and almost entirely based on Saudi Arabia's official version of islam - except that the Saudi Caliph calls himself "king".

Dear reader, Klevius has trouble finding any "right-wing" politics in this program. What about you?

Of course it doesn't come even close to Human Rights standard - but islam is way worse as you cab see for youself!

 The 25 Points of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazi") programme here compared to islam:

        1. We demand the union of all Germans (muslims) in a Great Germany (Ummah) on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples (muslims).

        2. We demand that the German people (muslims) have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated (Palestine/Zionism).

        3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

        4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen (muslims) can become citizens. Only those who have German blood (are muslims), regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew (or "infidel") can be a countryman.

        5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany (Ummah) as foreigners (dhimmis) and must be subject to the law of aliens (sharia).

        6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens (to the caliph). We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen (muslim).

        We wage war (jihad) against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

        7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen (muslim) shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens ("infidels") must be expelled.

        8. Any further immigration of non-Germans ("infidels", Jews, "wrong-muslims" Christians, Atheists etc)) must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans (infidels) who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave (compare Saudi Arabia's laws against "infidels", Human Rights etc).

        9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

        10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically (this may not apply to an ideology based on parasitism). No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

        Therefore we demand:

        11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished (this may not apply to an ideology based on parasitism).

        12. Since every war (jihad) imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

        13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

        14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

        15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

        16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

        17. We demand an agrarian (well, the origin of islam was as far from agrarian you can get) reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land (this seems to be as far from "right-wing" you can get).

        18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

        19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law (sharia).

        20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German (muslim) to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural (religious) system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life (sharia). The conception of the State Idea (Ummah) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

        21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

        22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (jihad) folk army.

        23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those ("islamophobes") who propagate deliberate political (religious) lies and disseminate them through the press (blasphemy). In order to make possible the creation of a German (muslim) press, we demand:

        (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German (Arabic) language shall be German citizens (Sunni muslims).

        (b) Non-German (infidel) newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State (Caliph or his representatives). They must not be published in the German (Arabic) language.

        (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German (Sunni muslim) newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans (infidels) by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans (infidel).

        Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare (of the Ummah) shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature (Muhammad caricatures, caricatures of the Saudi dictator family etc) that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk (muslims), and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

        24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state (doubtful if this applies to islam in Saudi Arabia - the "custodian of islam"), insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race (Sunni muslims).

        The party (OIC) as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity (islam) without binding itself to any one particular confession (doesn't apply in islamic monotheism). It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

        COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

        25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State (Caliphate), the unconditional authority (submission) by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

        The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws (sharia) promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

        The leaders of the party (OIC) undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives (may not apply to OIC).

Klevius hint: It's all about sharia!

But BBC won't tell you though!

However,

Klevius vs ? billion muslims. He knows it's not fair - of course Klevius' Human Rights logic is irresistible compared to dividing hateful muslim sharia racism/sexism! If you just listen to it. But that could of course turn out to be difficult when Klevius message is drowning in islam propaganda. However, some of Klevius relatively few readers seem to be quite sharp when diagnosed with web tools. So let's hope they can do their part better than unsupported Klevius.

Human Rights

  Klevius: On his blogs and sites 'Klevius' is interchangeable with 'Human Rights' because all they do is defending (the most basic) 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. If all of these muslims were really aware of this Klevius qualified guess would be that a considerable part of them would commit open apostasy - i.e. being braver than Obama!

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). The only reason for islam to keep up sex apartheid is keep girls/women in a dependency situation based on the supremacist ideology that women are inferior to men and therefore need their "protection".

 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 etc).

Racism

 Klevius:  Human Rights make racism ideologically impossible.

 Muslims: Islam is built on supremacist "infidel" racism. It was the key for the early muslim "conquest": Get slaughtered, enslaved, taxed and humiliated, or become a (lesser) muslim. "Infidels" also constituted the slave reservoir for muslims. Allah's will, you know.

Politics

Klevius: For secularism based on Human Rights.


Muslims: For an islamic nation state (Ummah) based on sharia.

Beliefs

Klevius: Atheist, i.e. lacking a "god" he otherwise could blame. Instead Klevius protects his moral attitude by hanging it on the most powerful of all moral codes namely the negative Human Rights - the last refuge for Universally shared individual freedom. This could be a tricky one for simple minded brainwashed people to understand, so please, follow the link and read slowly. Any question still bothering you, please comment and Klevius will enlighten you!

 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 egoistic will of the individual muslim, and not of "Allah". And because of this "Allah" it doesn't bother itself with how this will may turn against Human Rights.

According to one of BBC's extremely few and misleading reports about OIC, its aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds ... read more on Klevius beats BBC) but nothing about OIC steering 57 countries away from Human Rights.

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 (to a lesser muslim).

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 (and shameful) in a civilized country.

So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?

Nothing could be easier. Just openly and honestly 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 Saudi based and steered 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 oxymoron "diversity" means sharia islam steered from Saudi Arabia. So "diversity training" most often feeds intolerance.

Britain's "diversity" stuck in the uniformity of Saudi Arabian sand dunes?

Whenever you hear the politically correct oxymoron "diversity" you can be sure that it can be traced directly to the least diverse place in the world, Saudi Arabia, the "custodian" of sharia islam and its idolatry of the most intolerant city in the world.

 Why does Cameron seem to have such a problem using the word sharia when precisely this word could help him finding the code to "radicalization"?

Calling oneself a true muslim automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Fuhrer Iyad Madani, who belongs to the Saudi dictator family.

A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

In 2008 the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) tried to make a brief statement about honour killings, female genital mutilation and stoning. IHEU and the Association of World Education had three minutes to put their case. But as they tried to make the statement, they were constantly interrupted by the representative of Egypt who accused the NGOs of trying to “crucify Islam”. They insisted that sharia law must not be mentioned at the UNHRC, let alone criticised. A Pakistan delegate — whose country speaks for the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in the rights body — said the grouping had “strong objections” to any direct or indirect discussion of sharia. Joining Egypt in asking the president, Romania's Daru Romulus Costea, to bar any debate that took this path, he said that if allowed it would “amount to spreading of hatred against certain members of this Council”.

Costea suspended the council and is reported to have asked the NGOs not to mention sharia.

Later Mr Costea told a press conference that he had ruled that only Muslim scholars can be permitted to talk about Islam in the Council. He said that religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense”.

While Cameron contemplates "radicalization" (sharia islam) BBC asks* for more sharia muslim judges in Britain. Klevius: "British values"?

* A news organization such as BBC can easily cherry pick guests and topics to suit their islam propaganda.

BBC today first asks for more "diversity" among judges. You might think that means more Polish or EU citizen judges. Or perhaps Chinese or Russian judges. Or maybe Hindu judges. No, predictably BBC then transfers "diversity" to muslim "scholars and imams". What else. But what about "radical" muslim judges? Will their intentions be alighed with Saudi sharia islam rather than "British values"?

What's the point anyway of muslim "diversity" when Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is destroying islam as we know it?

Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is inevitably winning over islam and its one Billion plus muslims. There's no return whatsoever simply because of the bedrock logic of the so called basic "negative"* rights underlying the thought of universal Human Rights equality. Due to islam's parasitic origin (booty and slaves) it's inherently racist (the "infidel") and sexist (sex segregation/apartheid). This is the essence of sharia and should not be confused with contracts. A contract means having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. Islamic sharia doesn't qualify under Human Rights guided legislation because of its unlawful racism and sexism. A muslim can't legally make an agreement with other muslims to treat non-muslims, wrong-muslims, LGBTs, Atheists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, women etc. as not equal to themselves. And this is just the tip of the iceberg Cameron calls "radicalization" and "silent muslim [sharia] supporters".

* Whereas 'positive rights' can be abused as impositions, 'negative rights' means the very opposite, i.e. lack of content, in other words freedom from impositions.

Without Human Rights violating sharia (OIC) there is no islam worth of Klevius' or Cameron's "islamophobia" or islamofascists' love

Sweden's only party critical of islam, Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats), is the most publicly smeared party ever. Yet they now in July scored 23.3%  making them only 0.8% behind Sweden's biggest party the Socialdemocrats. As their politics differ only marginally in most questions except for islam, this is the only clue to their tremendous success. Klevius is against state socialism (i.e. the self interest of the social state - see Angels of Antichrist) and would therefore check carefully before giving a vote for any social state friendly party. However, if a party is the only one against sharia islam, then Klevius would give it his vote anyway. The choice is extremely easy. 

If you just dare to utter the evil word 'sharia' (e.g. OIC's), then the muslim problem is solved, PM Cameron?

Because then you have finally found your real enemy and its position (Saudi Arabia/OIC).


Private belief and thinking is ok as is its public expression - not its connection to a sharia ideology that goes against the most basic of Human Rights equality.

However, question is, is it sharia islam or BBC that's the biggest stumbling  bloc for Cameron?

 
As David Cameron set out his 5 year plan to combat Human Rights violating sharia islam and sharia muslims, BBC's eager supporter of sharia islam and sharia muslims, Edward Stourton, wastes almost an hour on BBC to spray compulsory license fee paying British listeners with a heavy and cherry picked muslim propaganda from the notorious East London Mosque.

Nothing in the show addressed the key issue of widespread islamofascism. Instead compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were showered with bee hives and "an historic collection which documents the history of one of the UK's oldest mosques".

Then compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were informed about "inter-faith dialogue", i.e. the Saudi initiated one way sharia islamic monologue.

Then compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were fed with the Human Rights violating sharia preacher Muhammad Abdul Bari from the East London Mosque who of course opposed every effort made to break down barriers and build greater understanding between faiths, if it criticized islam at any point, i.e. so called "islamophobia".

Not a word about the Koran's richness of incitement to rapetivism etc:

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"  This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners.  Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:

Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."   This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves.  See also Qur'an (70:29-30).  The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very important to him.

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."  Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Qur'an (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good"  A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part.  The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."

Qur'an (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..."  Breeding slaves based on fitness.

Qur'an (2:178) - "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female."  The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal.  The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman's worth is also distinguished from that of a man's).

Qur'an (16:75) - "Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah."  Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master.  In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah's will.  (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah's gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Some "islamophobia" before Ed Milliband introduces sharia compliant "blasphemy" laws against the Brits' Human Rights as in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

Are the Brits shooting themselves in the foot - again?

Politicians in bed with islamofascism is a disaster for Human Rights

Does it really help Jews to cooperate with the ideology that started with the genocidal slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina?

A vote for Ed Milliband is a vote against children's rights

Ed Miliband is the son of Polish immigrant parents. His mother, Marion Kozak, is a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust thanks to being protected by Poles. His father, Ralph Miliband, was a Belgian-born Polish Jewish Marxist academic who fled with his father to England during World War II.

Rochdale is notorious for its muslim sex predators abusing white British girls taken into "care" by the social state.

Rochdale Labour councillor Shakil Ahmed is the dad of now freed(?!) terrorist suspect Waheed Ahmed who was arrested and accused of trying to go to Syria with eight of his relatives.

Some voices about Ed Milliband's sharia association

Leo McKinstry: Ed Milliband is far more dangerous than his awkward image suggests. An unprincipled, ruthless, opportunistic left-wing ideologue, he represents a serious menace to Britain’s future. Backed by the ScotsNats and Labour’s trade union paymasters, his regime would be one of debts, bureaucracy, mass immigration and constitutional chaos.

But now an even more sinister aspect to his leadership has emerged, one that threatens our essential freedoms. Miliband says he will make Islamophobia a serious crime to be prosecuted by the full might of the state. Flushed with self-righteous zeal, Miliband wants to ensure that the offence “is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.”

Anyone who believes in liberty will be truly alarmed. Miliband’s proposal goes against the entire tradition of western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions.

In the name of tolerance, Labour wants to impose a form of totalitarianism, making a mockery of the concept of free speech. Like so many socialist policies, Miliband’s plan conjures up the dark, Orwellian world of the Thought Police, where all citizens are required to obey the ruling orthodoxy. I n January Miliband echoed the global outrage at the Charlie Hebdo massacre by Muslim terrorists in Paris, even joining other political leaders in the French capital’s official protest march. But his call for a British law against Islamophobia exposes the hollowness of his indignation.

Under his proposal, most of the Charlie Hebdo staff would have been in prison over their satirical cartoons.
Related articles

    Why aren’t the English allowed to be nationalists? asks LEO MCKINSTRY
    Ed Miliband and Nicola Sturgeon are the George and Mildred of politics says LEO MCKINSTRY
    End to hated inheritance tax that hurts middle income families, says LEO MCKINSTRY

Indeed Winston Churchill, Britain’s greatest statesman, would have ended up behind bars if Miliband’s law had been enacted during his life. In his 1899 book The River War, Churchill wrote that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than the “militant and proselytising faith” of Islam. At a time when the police and courts seem incapable of tackling real lawbreakers effectively, Miliband’s proposal will waste huge resources by creating a whole new class of criminals whose only offence will have been to challenge an ideology that is being used to spread violence and misery across the world. In the new climate of censorship created by Labour, too many Muslims, including extremists, corrupt politicians and predatory paedophiles, will be able to silence their critics or halt investigations just by screeching the word “Islamophobia.”

In fact, that is already happening on an epic scale. Until his trial which concluded on Friday, no action was taken against Lutfur Rahman, the spectacularly corrupt Muslim Mayor of Tower Hamlets in east London, as he maintained his grip on power by constantly playing the race and religious card. In the same way, fears about accusations of Islamophobia meant that the authorities in Labour-run Rotherham did nothing about Pakistani sex gangs who systematically abused around 1,400 vulnerable white girls.

A similar spirit of collusion and cowardice has stopped the state dealing robustly with other Muslim abuses, like forced marriages, female genital mutilation, ballot box fraud or extremism in schools. Miliband’s whole scheme is based on a monstrous fraud.

So-called Islamophobia is not an irrational fear or prejudice but an understandable response to the horrors we see all around us perpetrated in the name of Allah, from the savage persecution of Christians in the Middle East to the beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby and the London bombings at home. As the great radical writer Christopher Hitchens once put it, Islamophobia “is a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.”

    Labour plan will fuel Muslim victimhood

    Leo McKinstry

It is outrageous that the Labour Party, while blathering about the fight against discrimination, effectively wants to shut down any debate about a theocratic doctrine that has provoked such a worldwide, blood-soaked catalogue of tyranny, oppression, terrorism, misogyny, anti-Semitism and homophobia.

In practice, what Miliband really proposes is the introduction of Muslim blasphemy laws, such as exist in the barbaric, failed Islamic-led states of the Middle East and Asia. In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.

He wants to act as the Witchfinder-General in the new Islamic order, hunting down heretics as he is cheered on by his Muslim allies. Driven by his desire for power, he is pandering to identity politics of the worst kind, seeking to gain support in the three million-strong Muslim population to prop up Labour’s urban vote. But such an approach is disastrous, for it fuels social division and Muslim victimhood.

If Miliband were a true leader, he would push for real integration by demanding that all Muslims face up to their responsibilities, accept western democratic values, stop trying to build replicas of Bangladesh and Pakistan here and drop their collusion with violence.

But that would require courage, maturity and patriotism, qualities that he so conspicuously lacks. Instead, at a terrible potential cost to Britain, he aims to give protection to alien bigotry.





Soeren Kern: “In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. … If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.” — Leo McKinstry, British commentator.

    The report shows that Britain’s Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population’s median age of 40 years.

The leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Ed Miliband, has vowed, if he becomes the next prime minister in general elections on May 7, to outlaw “Islamophobia.”

The move — which one observer has called “utterly frightening” because of its implications for free speech in Britain — is part of an effort by Miliband to pander to Muslim voters in a race that he has described as “the tightest general election for a generation.”

With the ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour running neck and neck in the polls just days before voters cast their ballots, British Muslims — who voted overwhelmingly for Labour in the 2010 general election — could indeed determine who will be the next prime minister.

In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:

    “We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.

    “We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country.”

Miliband appears to be trying to reopen a long-running debate in Britain over so-called religious hatred. Between 2001 and 2005, the then-Labour government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, made two attempts (here and here) to amend Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, to extend existing provisions on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred.

Those efforts ran into opposition from critics who said the measures were too far-reaching and threatened the freedom of speech. At the time, critics argued that the scope of the Labour government’s definition of “religious hatred” was so draconian that it would have made any criticism of Islam a crime.

In January 2006, the House of Lords approved the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, after amending the text so that the law would be limited to banning only “threatening” words and not those that are merely abusive or insulting. Lawmakers also said that the offense would require the intention — not just the possibility — of stirring up religious hatred. They added that proselytizing, discussion, criticism, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offense.

Miliband’s renewed promise to make “Islamophobia” (a term he has not defined) an “aggravated crime” may signal an attempt to turn the 2006 Act — which already stipulates a maximum penalty of seven years in prison for stirring up religious hatred — into a full-blown Muslim blasphemy law.

According to British commentator Leo McKinstry, “Miliband’s proposal goes against the entire tradition of Western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions.” In an opinion article, he added:

    “In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.”

McKinstry says Miliband is currying favor with Britain’s three million-strong Muslim community to “prop up Labour’s urban vote.”

Muslims are emerging as a key voting bloc in British politics and are already poised to determine the outcome of local elections in many parts of the country, according to a report by the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group.

image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/useful_banner_manager_banners/142-JewishShepard-600WIDE.jpg

The report shows that Britain’s Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population’s median age of 40 years.

An extrapolation of the available data indicates that one million British Muslims aged 18 and above will be eligible to vote in this year’s election. According to one study, Muslims could determine the outcome of up to 25% of the 573 Parliamentary seats in England and Wales.

Others say that although Britain’s Muslim community is growing, it is also ethnically diverse and unlikely to vote as a single group. One analyst has argued that the potential for Muslim influence in this year’s election “will remain unrealized because the Muslim vote is not organized in any meaningful way on a national level.”

A study produced by Theos, a London-based religious think tank, found that although Muslims consistently vote Labour, they do so based on class and economic considerations, not out of religious motives.

Indeed, a poll conducted by the BBC on April 17 found that nearly one-quarter of “Asian” voters still do not know which party they will support at the general election. Some of those interviewed by the BBC said that economic issues would determine whom they vote for.

In any event, Muslim influence in the 2015 vote will be largely determined by Muslim voter turnout, which has been notoriously low in past elections: Only 47% of British Muslims were estimated to have voted in 2010.

Since then, several grassroots campaigns have been established to encourage British Muslims to go to the polls in 2015, including Get Out & Vote, Muslim Vote and Operation Black Vote. Another group, YouElect, states:

    “A staggering 53% of British Muslims did not vote in the 2010 General Election, such a high figure of Muslim non-voters indicates that many Muslims feel ignored by politicians and disillusioned by the political process.

    “With the rise of Islamophobic rhetoric in politics and an ever increasing amount of anti-terror legislation which specifically targets Muslims, it is now more important than ever that Muslims use the vote to send a message to politicians that their attitudes and policies must change.

    “YouElect wants to get the message across that there is something you can do about the issues you care about. We have launched a new campaign using the hashtag #SortItOut, which calls on Muslims to use the political process to address the issues that concern them most.

    “With 100,000 new young Muslims eligible to vote this year and 26 parliamentary constituencies with a Muslim population of over 20%, the Muslim community has a very real opportunity to make an impact on British politics.”

Not all Muslims agree. The British-born Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary is actively discouraging Muslims from voting. In a stream of Twitter messages using the#StayMuslimDontVote hashtag, Choudary has argued that voting is a “sin” against Islam because Allah is “the only legislator.” He has also said that Muslims who vote or run for public office are “apostates.”

Despite several grassroots campaigns to encourage British Muslims to vote in greater numbers, some prominent Islamists in the UK claim that voting is a “sin.”

Other British Islamists are following Choudary’s lead. Bright yellow posters claiming that democracy “violates the right of Allah” have been spotted in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, and Leicester, as part of a grassroots campaign called #DontVote4ManMadeLaw.

One such poster stated:

    “Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires.

    “Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.”

A vote for Ed Milliband won't help victims of muslim sexual predators in accordance with the Koran

The social state is much more devastating to children than any private company - and waste much more money!

A UK mother who found 125 names of potential (most/all muslims?) sex abusers on her daughter’s mobile phone claims she was told by police in Rotherham it would be a "breach of the girl’s human rights" if they investigated.

Klevius translation: Note that we are talking about underage girls who would have no Human Rights protection against social state interventions (aided by the police) whatsoever (to understand this and the tiltle see Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis). What they really meant was that it would be a breach of the muslims' human rights (read "diversity policy") if they investigated. And this is the dilemma - Human Rights cover all, including muslims, whereas sharia opposes Human Rights - which fact doesn't hinder muslims (and their supporters) from abusing Human Rights when it serves themselves.!

The parasitic social state that feeds itself on behalf of the taxpayers and children while giving a s--t to non-muslim girls abused by muslims. Don't approve a penny before getting rid of the parasites residing in the social state! And one thing is definitive: Ed Milliband will continue supporting these parasites.

Rotherham has been totally dominated by Labour since World War 2. Compare the total dominance of the Swedish social democrats who created the disastrous Swedish social state all the way from Gunnar and Alva Myral's "social hygiene"  in the 1930s and due eugenics to the explosive tax injection in the 1970s and due birth of the modern social state. Some results: The Swedish "girl problem" (which Klevius has written about since 1993), high child/youth criminality, and a school system that 2015 is classified among the worst within OECD and heavily criticized in a recent OECD report. Yet Sweden has compulsory school attendance and doesn't admit homeschooling at all for normal children (alone in Europe together with Germany whose Hitler imposed law is still in power).

Learn more on Angels of Antichrist and Pathological Symbiosis

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 children.

Islam is the only remaining legal excuse for hateful racism and sexism. If you are a racist or sexist then your only non-criminal option is islam.

Where others have to adapt to goodness (Human Rights) muslims can continue being evil (sharia) because of islam's status as a "religion".

But the troublesome fact remains that islam isn't only incapable of approving of the most basic of Human Rights, islam is also guilty of 1400 years of constant murdering, genocides, slavery and rapetivism. Islam is a Pandora's box and the only hope is the extinction of its main evil message.

BBC's diversion tactics for the purpose of belittling islamic slavery genocides - the worst ideological crime ever against humanity

BBC's aim seems to be to make people believe that "sex slavery was/is all over the place" - i.e. not only islam.

Today islam is the only allowed ideology that approves of sexual violence/rapetivism.

Sexual violence is a weapon and a strategy that is approved by islam and therefore used by muslims to "justify" it. In other words, when non-muslim traffickers know they are criminals, muslim criminals just point to the Koran, hadiths and Muhammad.

As an exemplifying consequence, out of 585 peace treaties since 1990 only 17 mention sexual violence/rape. And out of 300 ceasefire deals only 6 consider such kind of sexual violence a violation of the deal.

Islam started with Muhammad's genocide of all the Jews in Medina 1400 years ago and continued its violent attacks until today. Islam's victims throughout all these years are more than any other evil ideology. What we call Judaism also started with genocide (the slaughtering of the Canaanites) but due to mainly matrilineality  never managed to produce numbers comparable with islam. This is what Klevius calls the Vagina/Penis divide, i.e. that a man can have more "offspring" than a woman. A muslim man makes a muslim - not a "muslim" woman.A "muslim" woman is an "inferior" being according to Muhammad and islam.

The main body of those who today call themselves muslims consists of people whose female ancestors had been enslaved by muslim males thanks to Human Rights violating sharia which makes the muslim man the determinant for muslimhood while apostasy ban makes it impossible to leave islam. A woman married to a muslim man is, according to islamic sharia forced to reproduce only muslims.

BBC has slowly started understanding that islam isn't just a "religion" but a pure sex slave "religion" and in their programs is now busy pushing out whatever they can find of non-muslim examples of slavery and sex abuse for the simple purpose of thereby trying to dilute islam's horrifying ideological essence and history - and islam's contemporary and continuing sex slavery ideology.

Yes, there has been slavery in different forms even before islam. However, only islam made slavery (parasitism) its main ideology, inscribed it in its main book and violently expanded through slavery, and finally always declined  into the deepest misery when the supply was limited - as was the case when the West in the 19th century toppled the Ottoman slave "empire" which was itself created through islamic slavery. Or more than thousand years ago when some half a million black slaves in what is now Iraq revolted against their Sunni muslim slave "owners". Islam's "golden ages" have all rested on unlimited supply of slaves through human trafficking, slave raids etc.


Klevius: OIC, the Islamic State, muslim sharia racism/sexism etc are all around us, indeed. So why do you contribute to this evil?! 

There was no Muhammad nor any Koran in the robbing/booty taking/raping/murdering/enslaving movement people now call islam.

BBC reported eagerly about the "Birmingham Koran" hoax. However, BBC also missed some parts that may be of interest for the Brits. But as usual Klevius rescues BBC - for free!

There is no part* of a Muhammad time Koran in Birmingham - only some random Judeo-Christian texts copied god knows when! But there is an eager effort to cheat ignorant Brits!

* You don't call Old Testament texts cited in the New Testament New Testament, do you. And whereas the New Testament is an independent text, the Koran is just a patchwork of previous texts found useful for the Saracens. This is why much in the Koran is hard to distinguish from same type of original Christian texts.

The most dangerous, widespread and supremacist racism the world has ever seen is called islam. It's main ideology was parasitism, its main tool was sword intimidation, and its main currency was slaves.

Brits, you used to be down to earth people culturally and genetically strongly connected to Fennoscandia (Goths, Kvens, Vikings, Normans etc). You talk a Scandinavian language although you spell and pronounce it in a funny way. As a person with Swedish as one of his native languages Klevius use to point out common old Nordic words still in use in Fennoscandia, such as (just a tiny tip of the iceberg): hand, finger, arm, fot, knä, bröst, navel, huvud, skalle, hår, öra, näsa, nacke, socka, sko, hatt, hus, land, yxa, såg, hammare, kniv, etc etc etc. Then there are myriads of words which are rooted in old Nordic but have slightly changed usage, such as, for example: Swe. 'ben' (bone or leg), Swe. bord (table). The rest is mostly latin or Greek based loanwords similar to those used in Swedish. Moreover, culturally Fennoscandia shares "British values" in the form of Human Rights equality. Islam does not! So how come that you Brits got so entangled in a non-British culture most of your immigrants have escaped?!  

Klevius islam/Koran/Muhammad tutorial

What so many (Human Rights violating sharia) muslims and normal people (i.e. believing in Universal Human Rights equality) have not fully digested, is the inevitable fact that there was no such a person as Muhammad hanging around at his alleged time because he never shows up in any official records before Malik.

Moreover, it's proven beyond any doubt that the alleged Muhammad's death date is a historical impossibility by several years (no, for you stupid no references are given, unless, of course, you nicely ask for it via comments - Klevius second most important duty after hunting bias, is to fight dangerous ignorance).

Carbon-dating usually gives too early dates.  Moreover, there is no certain
connection between the time of the leather on which the text is written and the text itself. One may also consider the effects of later changes or additions to the original text.

However, nothing of this really matters in the case of the Birmingham "Koran" pages because they are just Jewish/Christian inspired texts what we already have lots of and which only connection to a later Koran is that the latter is based on these pre-islamic texts.

There was no Muhammad nor any Koran back then

Islam, seen as a Muhammad/Koran complex was a much later  invention (Malik).

Of course there were robbers or warlords/rebels if you like, and some of them may even had become the main "Godfather", but, as Wittgenstein said, whereof one can't talk one must keep silent. Official records certainly do.

The origin of islam was the historical precedents for local rebels defying the ruling elite which was later transformed by a new ruling elite to justify the submission of local rebels - plus, of course, justifying islamic sharia finance through enslavement and booty.

The earliest known fragments of the Koran are called Hijazi script, and under Abd al-Malik’s reign 685-785, Abu’l Aswad al-Du’ali, who died 688, founded the Arabic grammar and invented the system of placing large colored dots to indicate the tashkil. Meaning texts before this period can't be reliably translated. The dots on the Birmingham fragments are either later additions or proof that the text isn't even close to "Muhammad's time". Moreover, separated chapters was not a habit of the time but came much later.

The so called "close match" to the Koran of today is hence a deeply unfounded statement and should be called what it is, i.e. historical falsification. The laughable British Piltdown man springs to mind.

We can be reasonably sure that the Koran is a patched collection of Jewish/Christian texts authorized by Malik some half a century after the alleged Muhammad's death.

The key to the origin of islam is rooted in three words: parasitism, racism and sexism (rapetivism).

Islamic parasitism started with Arab bedouins robbing caravans, some of them becoming influential and parting with already powerful Jewish/Christian outliers.

This developed into a religiously "justified" Arab jihad where the "infidels" either didn't speak Arab or didn't share the basic tenets of this particular Jewish/Christian sect. These tenets were extremely simple, effective - and evil, seen from our Human Rights perspective today. Arab muslims segregated themselves from the "infidels" for the purpose of sponging on them in different ways including booty, women, taxes etc. that interested poor bedouin boys and wealthy Jewish/Christian outgroups whose sectarianism became what we know as islam.

Enslavement was the very core of islam. Islam means submission in two ways: Submission to the Arabic Allah and thereby building a racist wall against the "infidel" who then accordingly had to be submitted under slavery in three main forms, i.e. as humiliated taxpayers, as sex slaves or as ordinary slaves for work or to be sold.

An inscription attributed to the first Umayyad caliph -- Muawiya -- in 677 or 678 CE makes reference to belief in God but gives no indication of belief in Muhammad as his messenger or the Koran as "revealed scripture".

On coins from this period, we do find the word "Muhammad" inscribed, but the inscription comes under kingly figures bearing a cross.

The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock -- completed in 691 CE and often thought to be the first inscribed sign of islam refers to Tayyaye d-Mhmt who was a honorific Jewish/Christian title, rather than a proper name. Tayyaye’ is a Syriac name for the Arab nomads.

Mhmt can not be translated as ‘the Arabs of Muhhamad’ because the right transcription into Syriac would have been Mhmd. Moreover, the text does not say anything about this alleged person.

Contemporary non-Muslim sources of the 7th century do not corroborate the canonical story. For example, the Doctrina Jacobi (a document dating to 634-40 CE and probably written by a Christian living in Palestine), an account of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem by Sophronius -- the patriarch who is said to have surrendered the city in 637 -- and a letter written in 647 by the patriarch of Seleucia make no reference to the Arab conquerors as muslims, or show any awareness of a religion called Islam.

The earliest account that can reliably be taken to refer to Muhammad is a chronicle by the Armenian bishop Sebeos, dating either to the 660s or 670s but containing material that sharply diverges from the traditional Islamic accounts: thus he has Muhammad "insisting on the Jews' right to the Holy Land -- even if in the context of claiming that land for the Ishmaelites, acting in conjunction with the Jews" (p. 32).

Only by around 730 CE, nearly one hundred years after Muhammad's death in 632 CE according to the canonical story, do we see an account by John of Damascus make detailed reference to parts of the Qur'an, but even then he does not name the Qur'an or allude to the existence of a complete holy book for those he calls "Hagarians," "Ishmaelites" or "Saracens" (but not Muslims).

Instead, we have reference to Qur'anic chapter titles like "The Women" (this is the fourth Sura of the Qur'an today), implying that he was drawing on fragments of text that were later incorporated into the Qur'an.

Arabic epigraphic evidence from the 7th century similarly fails to validate the canonical account. An inscription attributed to the first Umayyad caliph -- Muawiya -- in 677 or 678 CE makes reference to belief in God but gives no indication of belief in Muhammad as his messenger or the Qur'an as revealed scripture.

It's alleged that the significance of Birmingham’s leaves was missed because they were bound together with another text, in a very similar hand but written almost 200 years later. Really, same hand two centuries later.


Robert Spencer: The only thing it actually establishes is that this portion of suras 18-20 existed near or during the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived. That it was part of the Qur’an at that time is taken for granted by Holland and the Times, but there is actually no evidence for it: there isn’t even any mention of the Qur’an’s existence in the contemporary literature until some fifty years after the outer-limit date of 645 for this fragment — a fact that is extremely uncomfortable for those who accept the canonical Islamic account that has the Qur’an complete by 632 and collected and circulating by 653. If it was known in this period, why does no one ever quote or even refer to it? - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/07/you-wont-believe-todays-the-new-york-times-front-page.html/#sthash.VgsGJOBC.dpuf

The name Muhammad actually appears in the Qur’an only four times, and in three of those instances it could be used as a title—the “praised one” or “chosen one”—rather than as a proper name. By contrast, Moses is mentioned by name 136 times, and Abraham, 79 times. Even Pharaoh is mentioned 74 times. Meanwhile, “messenger of Allah” (rasul Allah) appears in various forms 300 times, and “prophet” (nabi), 43 times. Are those all references to Muhammad, the seventh-century prophet of Arabia? Perhaps. Certainly they have been taken as such by readers of the Qur’an through the ages. But even if they are, they tell us little to nothing about the events and circumstances of his life.

Indeed, throughout the Qur’an there is essentially nothing about this messenger beyond insistent assertions of his status as an emissary of Allah and calls for the believers to obey him. Three of the four times that the name Muhammad is mentioned, nothing at all is disclosed about his life.

1
The first of the four mentions of Muhammad by name appears in the third chapter, or sura, of the Qur’an: “Muhammad is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (3:144). The Qur’an later says that “the Messiah, the son of Mary, is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (5:75). The identical language may indicate that in 3:144, Jesus is the figure being referred to as the “praised one”—that is, the muhammad.

2
In sura 33 we read that “Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men, but the Messenger of God, and the Seal of the Prophets; God has knowledge of everything” (33:40). This is almost certainly a specific reference to the prophet of Islam and not simply to a prophetic figure being accorded the epithet the “praised one.” It is also an extremely important verse for Islamic theology: Muslim scholars have interpreted Muhammad’s status as “Seal of the Prophets” to mean that Muhammad is the last of the prophets of Allah and that anyone who pretends to the status of prophet after Muhammad is of necessity a false prophet. This doctrine accounts for the deep antipathy, often expressed in violence, that traditional Islam harbors toward later prophetic movements that arose within an Islamic milieu, such as the Baha’is and Qadiani Ahmadis.

3
Less specific is Qur’an 47:2: “But those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in what is sent down to Muhammad—and it is the truth from their Lord—He will acquit them of their evil deeds, and dispose their minds aright.” In this verse, “Muhammad” is someone to whom Allah has given revelations, but this could apply to any of the Qur’an’s designated prophets as well as to Muhammad in particular.

4
Qur’an 48:29, meanwhile, probably refers only to the prophet of Islam: “Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to another.” Although the “praised one” here could conceivably refer to some other prophet, the language “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” (Muhammadun rasulu Allahi) within the Islamic confession of faith makes it more likely that 48:29 refers specifically to the prophet of Islam.

That is all as far as Qur’anic mentions of Muhammad by name go. In the many other references to the messenger of Allah, this messenger is not named, and little is said about his specific actions. As a result, we can glean nothing from these passages about Muhammad’s biography. Nor is it even certain, on the basis of the Qur’anic text alone, that these passages refer to Muhammad, or did so originally.

Abundant detail about Muhammad’s words and deeds is contained in the Hadith, the dizzyingly voluminous collections of Islamic traditions that form the foundation for Islamic law. The Hadith detail the occasions for the revelation of every passage in the Qur’an. But (as we will see in the next chapter) there is considerable reason to believe that the bulk of the hadiths about Muhammad‘s words and deeds date from a period considerably after Muhammad’s reported death in 632.

Then there is the Sira, the biography of the prophet of Islam. The earliest biography of Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq (d. 773), who wrote in the latter part of the eighth century, at least 125 years after the death of his protagonist, in a setting in which legendary material about Muhammad was proliferating. And Ibn Ishaq’s biography doesn’t even exist as such; it comes down to us only in the quite lengthy fragments reproduced by an even later chronicler, Ibn Hisham, who wrote in the first quarter of the ninth century, and by other historians who reproduced and thereby preserved additional sections. Other biographical material about Muhammad dates from even later.

This is chiefly the material that makes up the glare of the “full light of history” in which Ernest Renan said that Muhammad lived and worked. In fact, arguably none of the biographical details about Muhammad date to the century in which his prophetic career was said to unfold.

 The earliest records offer more questions than answers. One of the earliest apparent mentions of Muhammad comes from a document known as theDoctrina Jacobi, which was probably written by a Christian in Palestine between 634 and 640—that is, at the time of the earliest Arabian conquests and just after Muhammad’s reported death in 632. It is written in Greek from the perspective of a Jew who is coming to believe that the Messiah of the Christians is the true one and who hears about another prophet arisen in Arabia:

When the candidatus [that is, a member of the Byzantine imperial guard] was killed by the Saracens[Sarakenoi], I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying “the candidatus has been killed,” and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: “What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?” He replied, groaning deeply: “He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared.” So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men’s blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.

In this case, “incredible” means “not credible.” One thing that can be established from this is that the Arabian invaders who conquered Palestine in 635 (the “Saracens”) came bearing news of a new prophet, one who was “armed with a sword.” But in the Doctrina Jacobi this unnamed prophet is still alive, traveling with his armies, whereas Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632. What’s more, this Saracen prophet, rather than proclaiming that he was Allah’s last prophet (cf. Qur’an 33:40), was “proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come.” This was a reference to an expected Jewish Messiah, not to the Jesus Christ of Christianity (Christ means “anointed one” or “Messiah” in Greek).

It is noteworthy that the Qur’an depicts Jesus as proclaiming the advent of a figure whom Islamic tradition identifies as Muhammad: “Children of Israel, I am the indeed the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that is before me, and giving good tidings of a Messenger who shall come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad” (61:6). Ahmad is the “praised one,” whom Islamic scholars identify with Muhammad: The nameAhmad is a variant of Muhammad (as they share the trilateral root h-m-d). It may be that the Doctrina Jacobiand Qur’an 61:6 both preserve in different ways the memory of a prophetic figure who proclaimed the coming of the “praised one” or the “chosen one”—ahmad or muhammad.

The prophet described in the Doctrina Jacobi “says also that he has the keys of paradise,” which, we’re told, “is incredible.” But it is not only incredible; it is also completely absent from the Islamic tradition, which never depicts Muhammad as claiming to hold the keys of paradise. Jesus, however, awards them to Peter in the Gospel according to Matthew (16:19), which may indicate (along with Jesus’ being the one who proclaims the coming of ahmad in Qur’an 61:6) that the figure proclaiming this eschatological event had some connection to the Christian tradition, as well as to Judaism’s messianic expectation. Inasmuch as the “keys of paradise” are more akin to Peter’s “keys to the kingdom of heaven” than to anything in Muhammad’s message, the prophet in the Doctrina Jacobi seems closer to a Christian or Christian-influenced Messianic millennialist than to the prophet of Islam as he is depicted in Islam’s canonical literature.

Was That Muhammad?

In light of all this, can it be said that the Doctrina Jacobirefers to Muhammad at all? It is difficult to imagine that it could refer to anyone else, as prophets who wielded the sword of conquest in the Holy Land—and armies acting on the inspiration of such prophets—were not thick on the ground in the 630s. The document’s departures from Islamic tradition regarding the date of Muhammad’s death and the content of his teaching could be understood simply as the misunderstandings of a Byzantine writer observing these proceedings from a comfortable distance, and not as evidence that Muhammad and Islam were different then from what they are now.

At the same time, there is not a single account of any kind dating from around the time the Doctrina Jacobiwas written that affirms the canonical Islamic story of Muhammad and Islam’s origins. One other possibility is that the unnamed prophet of the Doctrina Jacobi was one of several such figures, some of whose historical attributes were later subsumed into the figure of the prophet of Islam under the name of one of them, Muhammad. For indeed, there is nothing dating from the time of Muhammad’s activities or for a considerable period thereafter that actually tells us anything about what he was like or what he did.

One apparent mention of his name can be found in a diverse collection of writings in Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic common in the region at the time) that are generally attributed to a Christian priest named Thomas and dated to the early 640s. But some evidence indicates that these writings were revised in the middle of the eighth century, and so this may not be an early reference to Muhammad at all.5 Nonetheless, Thomas refers to “a battle between the Romans and the tayyaye d-Mhmt” east of Gaza in 634.6 The tayyaye, or Taiyaye, were nomads; other early chroniclers use this word to refer to the conquerors. Thus one historian, Robert G. Hoyland, has translated tayyaye d-Mhmt as “the Arabs of Muhammad”; this translation and similar ones are relatively common. Syriac, however, distinguishes between t and d, so it is not certain (although it is possible) that by Mhmt, Thomas meant Mhmd—Muhammad. Even if “Arabs of Muhammad” is a perfectly reasonable translation of tayyaye d-Mhmt, we are still a long way from the prophet of Islam, the polygamous warrior prophet, recipient of the Qur’an, wielder of the sword against the infidels. Nothing in the writings or other records of either the Arabians or the people they conquered dating from the mid-seventh century mentions any element of his biography: At the height of the Arabian conquests, the non-Muslim sources are as silent as the Muslim ones are about the prophet and holy book that were supposed to have inspired those conquests.

Thomas may also have meant to use the word Mhmt not as a proper name but as a title, the “praised one” or the “chosen one,” with no certain referent. In any case, the Muhammad to which Thomas refers does not with any certainty share anything with the prophet of Islam except the name itself.

Sunni Shia

It is notable that the invocation of Muhammad's example begins with the same caliph who had the Dome of the Rock built and issued the first coins invoking Muhammad as the "prophet of Allah": Malik, whose successors would do likewise.

Since the invention of Muhammad became such an important part of islam, there arose a need for people to know what the "prophet" said and did in various matters of life. The Ahadith in particular then became political weapons, liable to be completely fabricated. Even in the first half of the 8th century, one islamic scholar wrote that the "emirs forced people to write hadiths".

For example, in the midst of the dispute between the followers of the caliph Muawiya, who Shi'a believe usurped the place of Ali's son and designated successor Husayn, and Ali's followers who would later become the Shi'a, a hadith arose in which Muhammad declared that Ali's father was burning in hellfire, while Ali's partisans invented a hadith in which Muhammad declared, "I go to war for the recognition of the Koran and Ali will fight for the interpretation of the Koran."

You compulsory taxes and license fee paying Brits: Here's (again) something BBC missed to inform you about. But luckily BBC has Klevius patching it. For free!

Klevius sharia tutorial: Don't mix"consent sharia" with evil muslim supremacist sharia (OIC) which violates the most basic of Human Rights!

UK future PM joined the Islamic State

 
UK contemporary PM doesn't see any islamic in the Islamic State

The only possible solution to combat so called "islamic extremisms" and "islamic radicalization" is to openly declare islamic sharia a criminal offense. The laws are already there but have not been applied to islam. Why? Because of Saudi Arabia. You know, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family which considers basic Human Rights (i.e. "British values") a grave criminal offense comparable with terrorism.

The code word is Saudi

Klevius suggestion to UK PM: Burn islam's disgusting sharia declaration (OIC) against Human Rights!

 
What? Don't you know the difference between sharia and "British values"! I'm sure you do. But here it is anyway:

 This is the Saudi based and Saudi steered muslim supremacist world organization's (OIC) totalitarian, racist and sexist hate declaration against Human Rights.  Saudi islamofascists used oil billions to create the biggest voting bloc in UN consisting of mainly muslimized rogue states, who then approved of an islamofascist sharia declaration that approves of Saudi wahhabism/salafism - and, due to their similarities, actually also of the Islamic State.

The treacherous presentation of sharia in the West is a smokescreen covering the very evil* origin of islam

* 'Evil' understood as against so called "British values" understood as basic Human Rights. Freedom of religion doesn't include supremacist intolerance, racism and sexism as seen in OIC's sharia declaration.

Those (deliberately?) naive non-muslims who excuse sharia as just a mediating "consensual" contracts don't address:

1 That sharia is a religious supremacist ideology whereby muslims try to bypass secular democratic law guided by the 1948 Human Rights declaration.

2 That women and other "infidels" according to sharia ("Allah's" will), are inferior.

3  That so called muslim "community cohesion" is in fact sharia segregation, and that criticism (so called "islamophobia") of this racist/sexist supremacist ideology wrapped as "faith" can't therefore be "divisive" because the division was there before "islamophobia".

Is the most basic Human Rights violating muslim sharia supremacism really "conducive to the public good" in Britain?

The muslim finger (shahada) problem

The Islamic State which uses the Koran and their "prophet" Muhammad for guidance of their actions.

 .

 Erdogan uses both islam and the Islamic State against those he doesn't like.


Klevius wrote:

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Klevius definition of islam: The faith refuge for racism and sexism (sharia) that can't pass the Human Rights test

Why do we allow* muslims (or anyone) to support Human Rights violating sharia?! Who else could get away with that without being criticized?!

* Under Human Rights people can anyway make consensual agreements but under sharia that is not an option because sharia is supposed to be "allah's" "will".

If you remove the racist and sexist parts of islam you are left with a castrated and crippled ideology and, Klevius would guess, with few, if any, (sharia) followers. It was precisely these evil parts that fueled the origin of islam and now keep Saudi and IS islamofascism ticking.

Islam is a Jewish religion that is 100% penis steered, i.e. muslim men are considered superior to women and therefore muslimhood is defined by the muslim father.

BBC's "expert" Emma Sky today proposes civil war in Iraq.

According to Emma Sky, Iraq could have developed much better and avoided the Islamic State, had it not been for Obama's 2010 withdrawal of the successful military surge Georg W Bush activated in 2007. Emma Sky says she doesn't think the Sunni/Shia divide was important because "there were anyway already 30% intermarriages between Sunni and Shia muslims in Iraq".

Klevius: Apparently Emma Sky doesn't know the most basic fact of islam, i.e. that it's the most elaborate ideology of racism and sexism. There could never exist "intermarriages" in islam simply because it's always the male muslim who determines, both personally and ideologically, whether the family is Sunni or Shia.

Could there be any doubt that Mishal Husain isn't aware of OIC and its world sharia declaration? After all, it's even on Wikipedia.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Lee Rigby). Mishal Husain is BBC's top muslim presenter and BBC is the world's leading media. The only thing she needs to say is that she opposes Human Rights violating sharia - and thereby also opposes islam because islam without some form of Human Rights violating sharia is not islam anymore - it's just a private belief and won't bother Klevius a bit.

Countries where Saudi Arabia has caused enormous blood bath and suffering

Iraq

Islam 99% (Shia 70%-75%, Sunni 22%-27%), Christianity 0.8%, Mandaeism and other less than 1%.

While there has been voluntary relocation of many Christian families to northern Iraq, recent reporting indicates that the overall Christian population may have dropped by as much as 50 percent since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, with many fleeing to Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon (2010 estimate). The percentage of Christians has fallen from 6% in 1991 or 1.5 million to about one third of this, due to massive exodus - two-thirds of Assyrian Christians have fled to other countries in the Middle East, Europe, United States and Canada.

Yemen

Religion in Yemen consists primarily of two principal Islamic religious groups: 53% of the Muslim population is Sunni and over 45% is Shia, according to the UNHCR. Other put the numbers of Shias at 30%.

Bahrain

It is estimated that 60-70% of the Bahrainis follow Shia school, with the remaining third following Sunni Islam. The Al Khalifa ruling family and its supporting tribes are Sunni and are assisted by Saudi military in suppressing the Shia majority.

Saudi Arabia itself suppresses Shia muslims and non-muslims without anyone seeming to react.

An estimated 16 million natives of Saudi Arabia are Shia muslims. The Saud dictator family demand (but not necessarily for themselves) strict Sunni islamic Wahhabism which states that muslims should return to the interpretation of islam found in the Koran and the Sunnah. They also believe that muslims who seek intercession from holy men—such as the Imams Shia revere—are not true muslims. While attempts to force conversion of Shia have been infrequent, Shia have alleged severe discrimination in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is also the home for all muslims' world organization OIC which is led by Iyad Madani, an islamofascist belonging to the Saud dictator family.

Calling oneself a true muslim automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani.

A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

Muslim statistics

Terrorism

ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/06/32-of-palestinians-support-infanticide/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053251,00.html

World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
(Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

Pew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah
30% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hezbollah
45% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hezbollah (26% negative)
43% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hezbollah (30% negative)
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative).
49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative)
49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative)
39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative)
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

16% of young Muslims in Belgium state terrorism is "acceptable".
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1275/Islam/article/detail/1619036/2013/04/22/Zestien-procent-moslimjongens-vindt-terrorisme-aanvaardbaar.dhtml

Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified.  1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops.
http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never).
28% of Egyptian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (38% never).
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

ICM: 5% of Muslims in Britain tell pollsters they would not report a planned Islamic terror attack to authorities.
27% do not support the deportation of Islamic extremists preaching violence and hate.
http://www.scotsman.com/?id=1956912005
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist.html

Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
http://www.fosis.org.uk/sac/FullReport.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Populus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified.
37% believe Jews in Britain are a "legitimate target".
http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is partially justified and never justified).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Pew Research (2013): 15% of Muslims in Turkey support suicide bombings (also 11% in Kosovo, 26% in Malaysia and 26% in Bangladesh).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

PCPO (2014): 89% of Palestinians support Hamas and other terrorists firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/poll-89-of-palestinians-support-jihad-terror-attacks-on-israely

Pew Research (2013): Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda. Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban.  13% support both groups and 1 in 4 refuse to say.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

See also: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism) for further statistics on Islamic terror.

al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and Islamic State (ISIS)

Pew Research (2007): 5% of American Muslims have a favorable view of al-Qaeda (27% can’t make up their minds).  Only 58% reject al-Qaeda outright.
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

Pew Research (2011): 5% of American Muslims have a favorable view of al-Qaeda (14% can’t make up their minds).
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

Pew Research (2011): 1 in 10 native-born Muslim-Americans have a favorable view of al-Qaeda.
http://people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

al-Jazeera (2006): 49.9% of Muslims polled support Osama bin Laden
http://terrorism.about.com/b/2006/09/11/al-jazeeras-readers-on-911-499-support-bin-laden.htm

Pew Research: 59% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2003
41% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2007
56% of Jordanians support Osama bin Laden in 2003
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/15/iran-terrorism-al-qaida-islam-opinions-columnists-ilan-berman.html

Pew Global: 51% of Palestinians support Osama bin Laden
54% of Muslim Nigerians Support Osama bin Laden
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/10/blinded-by-hate/
http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/268.pdf

MacDonald Laurier Institute: 35% of Canadian Muslims would not repudiate al-Qaeda
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-good-news-and-some-worrying-results-in-new-study-of-muslim-public-opinion-in-canada/

World Public Opinion: Muslim majorities agree with the al-Qaeda goal of Islamic law.
Muslim majorities agree with al-Qaeda goal of keeping Western values out of Islamic countries;
(Egypt: 88%; Indonesia 76%; Pakistan 60%; Morocco 64%)
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

ICM Poll: 13% of Muslim in Britain support al-Qaeda attacks on America.
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/guardian-muslims-march-2004.asp
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

World Public Opinion: Attitude toward Osama bin Laden:
Egypt: 44% positive, 17% negative, and 25% mixed feelings
Indonesia: 14% positive, 26% negative, 21% mixed feelings (39% did not answer)
Pakistan: 25% positive, 15% negative, 26% mixed feelings (34% did not answer)
Morocco: 27% positive, 21% negative, 26% mixed feelings
Jordanians, Palestinians, Turks and Azerbaijanis. Jordanians combined for: 27% positive, 20 percent negative, and 27 percent mixed feelings.  (Palestinians 56% positive, 20% negative, 22 percent mixed feelings).
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

Pew Research (2010): 49% of Nigerian Muslims have favorable view of al-Qaeda (34% unfavorable)
23% of Indonesians have favorable view of al-Qaeda (56% unfavorable)
34% of Jordanians have favorable view of al-Qaeda
25% of Indonesians have "confidence" in Osama bin Laden (59% had confidence in 2003)
1 in 5 Egyptians have "confidence" in Osama bin Laden
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2011): 22% of Indonesians have a favorable view of al-Qaeda (21% unfavorable)
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

Gallup: 51% of Pakistanis grieve Osama bin Laden (only 11% happy over death)
44% of Pakistanis viewed Osama bin Laden as a martyr (only 28% as an oulaw)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/majority_of_our_pakistani_alli.html

Zogby International 2011: “Majorities in all six countries said they viewed the United States less favorably following the killing of the Al-Qaeda head [Osama bin Laden] in Pakistan”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hbpg5ou3Qk96-aTbpJyD4K0x2b9w?docId=CNG.561caa8da42ba25c5ee1f3158a926c28.c11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/arab-worlds-views-of-us-president-obama-increasingly-negative-new-poll-finds/2011/07/12/gIQASzHVBI_blog.html

Populus Survey: 18% of British Muslims would be proud or indifferent if a family member joined al-Qaeda.
http://www.populuslimited.com/poll_summaries/2006_07_04_Times_ITV.htm
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Policy Exchange (2006): 7% Muslims in Britain admire al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/246.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Informal poll of Saudis in August 2014 shows 92% agree that Islamic State (ISIS) "conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law."
http://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/92-of-saudis-believes-that-isis-conforms-to-the-values-of-islam-and-islamic-law-survey/



9/11 Attacks

al-Arabiya: 36% of Arabs polled said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified; 38% disagreed; 26% Unsure
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/10/166274.html

Gallup: 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% "fully", 6.5% "mostly", 23.1% "partially")
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/05/that-tiny-percentage-of-radical-muslims.html
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1154

Pew Research (2011): Large majorities of Muslims believe in 9/11 conspiracy
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2066/muslims-westerners-christians-jews-islamic-extremism-september-11



Violence in Defense of Islam

40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defense of Islam.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailweekly.asp?fileid=20060728.@03

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
http://cnsnews.com/node/53865 (Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009)

Center for Social Cohesion: One Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/IslamonCampus.pdf

Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

NOP Research: Hardcore Islamists comprise 9% of Britain's Muslim population;
Another 29% would "aggressively defend" Islam;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

ICM Poll: 11% of British Muslims find violence for religious or political ends acceptable.
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Terrorism Research Institute Study: 51% of mosques in the U.S. have texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% have texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% have no violent texts at all.
http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/sharia-adherence-mosque-survey/html

Pew Research (2013): 76% of South Asian Muslims and 56% of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Pew Research (2013): 19% of Muslim Americans believe suicide bombings in defense of Islam are at least partially justified (global average is 28% in countries surveyed).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Pew Research (2013): 39% of Muslims in Malaysia say suicide bombings "justified" in defense of Islam (only 58% say 'never').
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/extremism-in-the-name-of-islam-and-malaysian-muslims-joshua-woo

Die Presse (2013): 1 in 5 Muslims in Austria believe that anyone wanting to leave Islam should be killed.
http://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/survey-on-islam-in-austria-18-of-muslims-support-death-sentence-for-apostasy-21-9-oppose-democracy/

Motivaction Survey (2014): 80% of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with Holy War against non-believers.  Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/11/young-dutch-turks-radical-views-worry-mps-call-for-more-research.php/



Sharia (Islamic Law)

83% of Pakistanis support stoning adulterers
78% of Pakistanis support killing apostates
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/08/pakistan-78-percent-call-for-apostate-deaths/

Center for Social Cohesion: 40% of British Muslim students want Sharia
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/IslamonCampus.pdf

ICM Poll: 40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

GfK NOP: 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory)
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-good-news-and-some-worrying-results-in-new-study-of-muslim-public-opinion-in-canada/

World Public Opinion: 81% of Egyptians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
76% of Pakistanis want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
49% (plurality) of Indonesians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
76% of Moroccans want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

World Public Opinion: 64% of Egyptians said it was “very important for the government” to “apply traditional punishments for crimes such as stoning adulterers.”
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

Pew Research (2010): 77% of Egyptian Muslims favor floggings and amputation
58% of Jordanian Muslims favor floggings and amputation
36% of Indonesian Muslims favor floggings and amputation
82% of Pakistanis favor floggings and amputation
65% of Nigerian Muslims favor floggings and amputation
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers
56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2013): 72% of Indonesians want Sharia to be law of the land
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/seventy-two-percent-of-indonesians-favor-shariah-law-pew-forum/

Pew Research (2013): 81% of South Asian Muslims and 57% of Egyptians suport amputating limbs for theft.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Pew Research (2013): According to an interpretation of this study, approximately 45% of Sharia supporters surveyed disagreed with the idea that Islamic law should apply only to Muslims.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Economist (Pew 2013): 74% who favor Islamic law in Egypt say it should apply to non-Muslims as well.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/04/daily-chart-20?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/Shariadolikeit

WZB Berlin Social Science Center: 65% of Muslims in Europe say Sharia is more important than the law of the country they live in.
http://www.wzb.eu/en/research/migration-and-diversity/migration-and-integration/projects/six-country-immigrant-integration-comparat
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4092/europe-islamic-fundamentalism

FPO (2014): 43% of Islamic teachers in Austria openly advocate Sharia law over democracy.
http://rt.com/news/208387-austria-islam-kindergarten-muslim/



Honor Killings

Turkish Ministry of Education: 1 in 4 Turks Support Honor Killings
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/03/turkey-war-on-women/
http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=170502&bolum=100

Civitas: 1 in 3 Muslims in the UK strongly agree that a wife should be forced to obey her husband's bidding
http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site%20Download.pdf
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

BBC Poll: 1 in 10 British Muslims support killing a family member over "dishonor".
http://www.expressandstar.com/blogs/peter-rhodes/2011/12/28/honour-killing-%E2%80%93-a-stain-on-our-nation/

Middle East Quarterly: 91 percent of honor killings are committed by Muslims worldwide.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43207

95% of honor killings in the West are perpetrated by Muslim fathers and brothers or their proxies.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/21/barbara-kay-continue-calling-honour-killings-by-its-rightful-name/

A survey of Muslim women in Paris suburbs found that three-quarters of them wear their masks out of fear - including fear of violence.
http://www.nugget.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3402230

1 in 5 young British Muslims agree that 'honor' violence is acceptable.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117003/More-thirds-young-British-Muslims-believe-honour-violence-acceptable-survey-reveals.html

Pew Research (2013): Large majorities of Muslims favor Sharia.  Among those who do, stoning women for adultery is favored by 89% in Pakistanis, 85% in Afghanistan, 81% in Egypt, 67% in Jordan, ~50% in 'moderate' Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, 58% in Iraq, 44% in Tunisia, 29% in Turkey, and 26% in Russia.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Pew Research (2013): Honor killing the woman for sex outside of marriage is favored over honor killing the man in almost every Islamic country.  Over half of Muslims surveyed believed that honor killings over sex were at least partially justified.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

(2013) Jordanian teens support honor killing.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130620-jordan-teens-still-think-honour-killings-justified-study



Assimilation

Muslims have highest claimed disability rates in the UK (24% of men, 21% of women)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html

2011: 16% of UK prisoners in 2010 are Muslim (Muslims comprise about 3% of the total population)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j9EvY-ZaN9jm1TF2wT-EK28RTRDQ?docId=N0256451319500798601A

Pakistani Muslims in the UK are three times more likely to be unemployed than Hindus. Indian Muslims are twice as likely to be unemployed as Indian Hindus.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-greenfield/islams-universal-economic-failure/2/

Policy Exchange: 1 in 4 Muslims in the UK have never heard of the Holocaust;
Only 34% of British Muslims believe the Holocaust ever happened.
http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site%20Download.pdf
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

Policy Exchange: 51% of British Muslims believe a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim
Only 51% believe a Muslim woman may marry without a guardian's consent
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

Policy Exchange: Up to 52% of British Muslims believe a Muslim man is entitled to up to four wives
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

Policy Exchange: 61% of British Muslims want homosexuality punished
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

NOP Research: 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech;
Only 3% adopt a "consistently pro-freedom of speech line"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

ICM Poll: 58% of British Muslims believe insulting Islam should result in criminal prosecution
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Pew Global (2006): Only 7% of British Muslims think of themselves as British first (81% say 'Muslim' rather than 'Briton')
http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/254.pdf

Policy Exchange (2006): 31% Muslims in Britain identify more with Muslims in other countries than with non-Muslim Brits.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/246.pdf

Die Welt (2012): 46% of Muslims in Germany hope there will eventually be more Muslims than Christians in Germany.
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article108659406/Tuerkische-Migranten-hoffen-auf-muslimische-Mehrheit.html

Ipsos MORI: Muslims are 3 times as likely as Christians to believe that their religion is the only way.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/religion.still.matters.global.survey.finds/28257.htm

Pew Research (2011): Muslim-Americans four times more likely to say that women should not work outside the home.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/section-5-political-opinions-and-social-values/

Pew Research (2007): 26% of Muslim-Americans want to be distinct (43% support assimilation)
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

Pew Research (2011): 20% of Muslim-Americans want to be distinct (56% support assimilation)
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

Pew Research (2011): 49% of Muslim-Americans say they are "Muslim first" (26% American first)
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

Pew Research (2011): 21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/section-6-terrorism-concerns-about-extremism-foreign-policy/

ICM Poll: 11% of British Muslims find violence for political ends acceptable
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Wenzel Strategies (2012): 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam or Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment.
45% believe mockers of Islam should face criminal charges (38% said they should not).
12% of Muslim-Americans believe blaspheming Islam should be punishable by death.
43% of Muslim-Americans believe people of other faiths have no right to evangelize Muslims.
32% of Muslims in America believe that Sharia should be the supreme law of the land.
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2012/10/31/sixty-percent-of-us-muslims-reject-freedom-of-expression/
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/10/poll-nearly-half-of-us-muslims-believe.html

Pew Research (2013): "At least half' of Muslims surveyed believed polygamy is morally acceptable.
"Muslims in most countries surveyed say that a wife should always obey her husband." (including 93% in Indonesia and 65% in Turkey).
Only 32% of Muslims in Indonesia say a woman should have the right to divorce her husband (22% in Egypt, 26% in Pakistan and 60% in Russia).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Die Presse (2013): 1 in 3 Muslims in Austria say it is not possible to be a European and a Muslim.  22% oppose democracy
http://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/survey-on-islam-in-austria-18-of-muslims-support-death-sentence-for-apostasy-21-9-oppose-democracy/

WZB Berlin Social Science Center: 45% of Muslims in Europe say Jews cannot be trusted.
http://www.wzb.eu/en/research/migration-and-diversity/migration-and-integration/projects/six-country-immigrant-integration-comparat
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4092/europe-islamic-fundamentalism