Popish ranting misses religion's role in backwardness and violence

                                          

Klevius: The Pope ought not to have a "dialogue" with muslims before he has vetted them for Human Rights violating sharia islam!

Pope: God must never be used to justify hatred and violence.”

Then he immediately contradicted himself by warning the religious leaders that “young people are being radicalized in the name of religion to sow discord and fear, and to tear at the very fabric of our societies.”

Klevius: This is the very difference between secularism (Atheism) and religion. Human Rights vs kind of human rights. Religious purity is defined by its distance to Universal Human Rights equality.

Pope: “How important it is that we be seen as prophets of peace, peacemakers who invite others to live in peace, harmony and mutual respect”.

Klevius: In religious segregation it's always the most evil that benefits the most from such "mutual respect”. Here's an example:

According to the Vatican, the Paris attacks have heightened the pope’s sense of urgency about the need for interreligious dialogue.

Klevius: "Interreligious dialogue" may strengthen each religion - and thereby by necessity also true islam, the so called "radical islam". 

Pope: "Those living in such (poor) communities are victims of new forms of colonialism by rich co untries. These are the wounds inflicted by minorities who cling to power and wealth, who selfishly squander while a growing majority is forced to flee to abandoned, filthy and rundown peripheries.”

Klevius (still the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid - sad isn't it - and therefore also on islam and other "monotheisms"*):

* You don't have to go philosophically deep to realize the weirdness of such a concept as "monotheism". Only racist "god logic" makes any sense - leaving those who defend Human Rights equality (i.e. Atheists) outside this creepy outdated illogic. The definition of a "moderate" religion is how close it has managed to reform itself towards Human Rights equality.

The new black upper-class are those coming from Western universities and Western culture! Just think about how they would have been looked upon with whiter skin color! Or just read stupid sociology etc works about "white/Western colonialism".

Europe is the most secularized Human Rights bastion after socialist* fascism caused WW2. Industrialization was born in Europe after having got rid of Catholicism. In the rest of the world it's Atheist countries such as Japan and China who have been the most technologically progressive.Then comes the backward continents Catholic Latin/South America and last the continent destroyed by islam, i.e. Africa.

* Fascism and Nazism grew out of "moderate" socialist parties - much like state Communism grew out of social-democracy before the 1917 revolution.

When should the Pope visit Mecca and the Saudi dictator family who is behind most of islam's atrocities today?

Klevius: Isn't it puzzling that both the Pope and the die hard (and presumably non-religious) socialist Jeremy Corbyn both avoid Saudi Arabia, the "guardian of islam", while still talking about "dialogue" with islam and "islamophobia"!?

Klevius wrote 10 years ago:

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Pope Ratzinger: Cooperate against extremism! Klevius translation: Castrate Islam!

Ratzinger: Islam features "a very marked subordination of woman to man" He also says: "the quest for certainty and simplicity becomes dangerous when it leads to fanaticism and narrow-mindedness". Compare this with Klevius Definition of religion and uncertainty!
Also see July 26 posting: True roots of "true" Islam!

Klevius wrote a year ago:

Monday, December 01, 2014

Pope asks muslim leaders to speak up against islamic state. Why?

What could muslims possibly have in common with the Islamic State if it has nothing to do with islam
 

The religion of piece(s)

                                          John Cleese on muslim stupidity

 So called "moderate muslims" (i.e. non-practicing "muslims") are disgusting racist cowards who hide themselves from muslim terrorism by saying they are muslims while non-muslims are targeted. On top of this they (together with true muslims) also benefit from Western "diversity" policy under which they can socially bully and terrorize non-muslims by using the handy "islamophobia" and "hate" sword. 

"British muslims" have greater 'faith in the police' than the rest of the population. So what about muslim jihad victims?

Six out of ten "British"* muslims rate the police as either good or excellent according to the British Journal of Criminology.

* You can't be a muslim without sharia, and you can't have a sharia ruled Britain - or?!


Klevius (who, btw, also happens to have a Master's Degree in criminology): Perfectly sharia compliant police after years of "education" by the same imams who support those who kill and despise British soldiers in the name of islamic ideology. However, a more telling report would be who have the least faith in the police. Klevius qualified guess is that it would be the victims of muslim jihadists.

                          Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo

It would help a lot of girls/women if BBC's sharia presenter Mishail Husain would commit apostasy by dismissing sharia. But she never will because she isn't as brave as Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or does she propose Human Rights violating sharia for Britain? Why isn't she even asked about it? There seems reportedly to be lot of time while she is laughing at (ignorant?) British license fee payers together with other BBC presenters during news islamic propaganda hours.

Klevius wrote:

Monday, July 29, 2013

Pope Francis: Gays are ok - women are not!

Klevius intellectual translation: Whereas (male) gays are seen as fully humans although sexually dysfunctional, women are seen as a different species. Therefore the Pope & Co can accept gay priests but not female priests.

Pope Francis: The Catholic door is closed for women priests and the decision is definitive!

As a background you may read Klevius' Sex and Gender Tutorial

The female patriarchy that keeps the Pope & Co and islam ticking

Klevius (sadly still the web's by far foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid): While reading the Catholic horror from Brazil below please keep islam in mind! And, in an extension, think about general sex segregation, and you will start understanding what Klevius is ranting about...



Catholic nuns (O’Connor & Drury 1998) reporting from Brazil and the US:

"It's our culture and we can't change it,"

Clearly, the inhibiting environment of patriarchy and machismo is primar­ily to blame for the depressed condition of Brazilian women. But, from what the interviewees have shared, it is also clear that other factors play a significant part in women's oppression. The fatalistic attitude of many was startling. While complaining about their subjugation, women shrugged off their responsibility to do something about it. Many said, "it's our culture and we can't change it," or "the price is too high." Could the underlying reason for this reluctance to change be a fear of losing touch with the "self' that women know and with whom they have become comfortable? Their attitudes make it difficult for those who have the courage to confront their oppressors, be they clergy, macho men, or other women, to effect even a minimal change.

Fear of ridicule, change, and loss of security

A major reason women choose to maintain the status quo in the church, and want other women to do so, is their fear of ridicule, change, and loss of security. The clamor in the United States for a married clergy and women priests threatens "good women's" comfortable place in the church. These women appear to be more interested in retaining their image than in challeng­ing the injustices that face them daily.

Most Brazilian women are paralyzed by their machistic society and face total ostracism if they so much as address the topic of sexism in society or in the church. Frightened women from both countries, who have found their identity within the patriarchal church, become angry at women who promote equality because they fear losing their status, inferior as it is. In different yet similar ways, they indicate they benefit from the oppressive structure and often persecute other women who try to change the system.

An inherent need to put other women down

Among some women in both countries there seems to be an inherent need to put other women down. Women frequently do not help one another. They criticize each other, thereby working against solidarity. They tend to replicate the patriarchal model by using what little power they have to force other women into submission. By criticizing women who speak for equality and by reporting such "heretics" to the clergy or hierarchy, they marginalize those who have the courage to stand against the tide of clerical oppression.

Women act as tormentors both from the top down and from the bottom up. This was evidenced by an Episcopal woman priest in the United States who admitted she oppressed women because that was the only model she had ever seen in the church. Another example is, the sister in the diocesan office who, behind the scenes, forced the bishop's secretary to resign by overtly oppressing her. Similarly, the women in a Brazilian parish boycotted their Methodist min­ister simply because of her gender. In another Catholic parish the women

jeered and taunted a woman catechist because she gave a good homily and dis­tributed Communion, roles they felt belonged to men only.

Western liberation

Those communities who have European or North American members are likely to be in the forefront in liberating themselves from the burdens their patriarchal formation has placed upon them.

Certain women in each country can be found who, in their efforts to achieve change, burn with anger against the injustices they are experiencing both in society and in the church and who search for ways to confront these sins. 

Fear and jealousy

A group of women from a base community discussed the various aspects of fear in their dealings with one another.

We're afraid of leaving our own comfortable space. We give our rights to some­body else because we don't want to assume responsibility. We could be partic­ipating together and deciding together, but we don't. We bring something to be discussed but we don't say anything. Sometimes we're afraid of being criticized. Fear is the reason why women who want their space and when there is an opportunity to get it, don't use it. [Older Women in Favela, Sao Paulo]

Fear has a lot to do with it. Women don't have as much experience being active and speaking out, assuming responsibility in a wider reality. They assume responsibility in their own house, but when you ask them to do some­thing in the community they refuse. Fear is the problem with women. [Middle‑aged Woman in CEB, Petropolis]

Women are afraid that other women will talk about them if they are different, if they do things against the social customs. [Young Married Woman, Brasilia]

Acting behind another's back is a lot more common than open conflict. Sometimes if we say something, we're afraid we'll be given more work. We withdraw to protect ourselves, not to solve problems. [Middle‑aged Woman in CEB, ParanA]

For the most part, the women who were not afraid to challenge the status quo were sisters or economically independent women. A wealthy woman in the north noted:

Although fear is clearly a major contributor to the oppression of women by other women, another problem for women in the church is jealousy. "Everyone is looking for her place in the sun.,'3

Among the things that are destroying the work among women is jealousy It seems one wants to see the other fall. Women seem to thrive on seeing others make mistakes. They don't even give credit where credit is due. They can't even give a compliment, but criticize each other. They don't motivate or help each other to get better. They never praise work well done. This kills the work and the motivation. It drives competent women out of church ministry.

Patriarchy functions only with the cooperation of women

Women in both countries must take heed of Gerda Lerners warning that patriarchy functions only with the cooperation of women, through their con­tinued acceptance and embrace of a system we now know to be oppressive to all, women and men alike. Women must stop thinking of themselves only as "victims" and start examining their role as "perpetrators" of patriarchy (O’Connor Drury

Women in both countries must take heed of Gerda Lerners warning that patriarchy functions only with the cooperation of women, through their con­tinued acceptance and embrace of a system we now know to be oppressive to all, women and men alike. Women must stop thinking of themselves only as "victims" and start examining their role as "perpetrators" of patriarchy.

With naive consciousness they continue to promote what their mothers and grandmothers told them

In many groups the pros and cons of the type of education given to women were debated. The focus was on how education has been used as a weapon against women: teaching them that they have no worth, depriving some of ever discovering what it means to be a woman, exposing them to fragmented ideas so that with naive consciousness they continue to promote what their mothers and grandmothers told them; instructing them to he submissive and therefore incapable of independent thought or actions.

"It's not just culture we inherit in life. Women must face up to their histori­cal programming," noted Irma Passom, former religious and political activist. "Our grandmothers and mothers had a certain guilt, which they passed on.

Women are formed to hang their heads. I saw this in my own home. The

mother passes these ideas on in the family. There is no point in trying to

change this. Since our mothers inculcated this idea in us, so in religious life

when we encounter domination we allow ourselves to be dominated. It is a

vicious circle. The big responsibility is the mothers. If she isn't aware of what

she is doing then the children will carry it on. [Sister, Bahia]

A second sister offered a slightly different view "I also think that religious

life can wake women up to their own value." She explained that religious life

was neither the cause of women's oppression nor their awareness.

It comes from what they have been educated or raised to believe, The essen­

tial point is the family, the way you were raised. Formation either helps you

get more repressed or frees you more. It either reinforces what you had at

home or opens places for new ideas.

She seemed to answer her own question of why it is that the same formation

provides growth for some while crippling others.

Klevius: Add to this what Klevius has written about sex segregation, e.g. Sex or Gender and What is Sex Segregation. I rest my case.

Klevius recipe against Human Rights violating sharia (OIC/Salafi/Wahhabi etc) islam: First Focus on the Saudi dictator family! It's not our "ally" but our worst enemy!

 Acknowledgement: You who call yourself a muslim but don't support sharia but instead Human Rights equality, you are not the target of Klevius writings - although Klevius likes to remind you of the possible support to anti-.Human Rights muslims your naming of yourself may imply.

Klevius hint: BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain has no problem eating or drinking whatsoever during Ramadan! What do those muslim women who are not allowed - "due to their religion" - to do it think?
 
Klevius question: Which imam would openly support Mishal Husain's view on islam? Her "muslimhood" - be it false or taqiya - is a disgrace but fits perfectly the so called BBC's smokescreen policy on islam. So called BBC's real name is IBC (Islamic Broadcasting of Islamic propaganda paid by ignorant Brits via compulsory fees and taxes.

All sharia* muslims ought to be classified as criminals because of their membership of a terrorist organization, the so called** islam. Adhering to Saudi based and steered OIC's Human Rights violating sharia declaration means accepting Wahhabism/Salafism (i.e. the origin of islam) 

* Sharia is here defined in accordance with Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration in UN and how this clashes with the most basic rights of equality in UN's 1948 Human Rights Declaration.

** Islam was in its very beginning a Jewish/Christian sect using Jewish-Christian texts for what later became the so called Koran. This is why earlier parts of the so called Koran are less violent than later parts which were added to fit the "conquest" of the "infidels" because a parasitic robber ideology can only survive by sponging on others.

Ben Weingarten: Invariably you will hear the argument that while parts of the Koran are violent, others are peaceful. Such a view evinces further ignorance however, as it fails to address two essential Islamic concepts: (a) Abrogation and (b) taqiyya.

Abrogation refers to the fact that as the Koran reflects Allah’s divine revealed word, where there are textual contradictions, those passages revealed later must supplant those that preceded it. These later passages are frequently more violent than the earlier peaceful ones.

Taqiyya refers to strategic lying and deception – covering up one’s true intentions so as to defeat one’s enemies. This manifests itself in acts of sabotage, subversion and the propagation of strategic disinformation, not unlike what the Communists did during and after the Cold War.

Others will argue that just as the Koran has violent verses, so too do the Old and New Testaments. But Jews and Christians do not go out and slaughter in the name of their G-d in a modern-day global Crusade like the jihadists are waging. Moreover, the values and principles that flow from these two religious systems have led to the miracle that is Western civilization. The Muslim world on the other hand, especially where Islamic doctrine is followed in its purest form, resembles the seventh century one that preceded it.

Lest you think those who have studied Islam in schools are better off, in America’s universities taqiyya has become an art form. Many of the Middle Eastern departments at our country’s most prestigious academic institutions have been found to put on a “moderate” public face while serving as Trojan horses for anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Westernism — all consistent with Islamic doctrine.

This should come as no surprise, as these departments – and even K-12 schools — are often funded by Islamic nations who are the primary backers of Islamic supremacism themselves.

For those able to see past multiculturalism, moral relativism, materialism and actually study Islam in theory and practice, recognizing that the religion at the very least as understood by millions of Muslims is not only incompatible with, but hostile to our very existence, this is a staggering realization. It offends our pluralistic, tolerant sensitivities to think that such a massive, religiously-justified threat could exist. For while similarly savage enemies marched throughout the 20th century, none were tinged with theology, and Communism for its part was explicitly anti-religious.

Moreover, there are uncomfortable practical questions that such a threat raises. Who exactly are we fighting if there are millions of jihadists, aiders, abettors and enablers all over the world? How are we to fight them? What measures can we take to secure the homeland that are both sufficient and consonant with a free society?

Today, the West is clearly not even at the point of asking these questions, which reflects a lack of education on behalf of some, and denial on the part of others. That it is considered a bold act to utter phrases like “Radical Islam,” or “Islamic extremism” or “Islamism,” in the face of now over 25,000 jihadist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001 indicates as much. Imagine what kind of stones it would take to repeat after Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdoğan, that in effect there is no such thing as “moderate Islam” or “Islamism,” and such “descriptions are very ugly…offensive and an insult to our religion…Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Rather than deal with reality, we figuratively bury our heads in the sand. Meanwhile, savage jihadists lop off and literally bury infidel heads in the sand.

If we are going to turn the tide in a war that we are currently not fighting, it is imperative that a sizable number of Americans wake up. It behooves all men and women of good conscience to educate their fellow citizens, and spark this awakening.

Klevius question: Who made these tragic girls so ignorant about islam?

Klevus answer: Everyone who uses the oxymoron "islamophobia" to cover up the evil of islam. However, sex segregation/apartheid* is the real issue behind all of islam. If you can't accept Human Rights equality for girls/women then you're an accomplice to evil islam - or a victim.

* Islam reproduces itself through its evil one way pillar, rapetivism, i.e. the biological and ideologicalreproduction of muslim men.

Did black (or why not Khoisan) South-Africans think their biological constitution made it ok to not have the same rights as others? Klevius thinks they didn't. However, Klevius knows for sure that many (possibly even most) women still think their biological constitution is a fair excuse for sex-apartheid. This self-imposed entrapment is not only limiting but also a crucial key to the "understanding" of general muslim/islamic/Koranic/sharia (call it what you like) sex apartheid (sex segregation).

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.

The muslim caliphate chameleon consists of multiple outgrowths from the so called "guardian of islam" the evil house of Saud (Saudi dictator family backed by its fellow travellers).

As Klevius wrote a year ago: Islamic State is a laughable bunch of hateful criminals with no chance to exist without Arab oil money, Turkish support and Western babbling about "islam is a great religion". The allure of jihadism lies exactly in the combination of this sanctioning of islam together with muslim terrorists' powerful message directly from the so called Koran and the so called prophet.

Islam's original formula: Slavery+"infidel" racism+sex segregated rapetivism+anti human rights Sharia*/apostasy ban

 * As everything else in islam sharia came after the original muslim looting, murdering, raping and sponging campaign.

So-called BBC's extreme misrepresentation of islamic sharia

* Is so called BBC really British? Hasn't it "decontextualized" itself (see below)!

The horror of today's fascism

Saudi dictator family is behind most of islamic atrocities around the world and Erdogan & Co long for a neo-Ottoman conquest of Europe. He was even paid €2 billion for "guarding" muslims from entering EU (who mentioned the wolf guarding the sheep?). However, what fanatic Erdogan seems to have forgotten is that the Ottoman "empire" was completely dependent on its slaves. And when slavery was abolished by the West then the Ottoman "empire" sank into utmost misary and collapse. Just like the Andalus did long before when the muslims and Jews were forbidden from having Christian slaves (a main reason to the forceful Christianization of Europe).

So-Called BBC asks How Islamic is the So-Called Islamic State? Klevius answer: IS follows both original islam as well as contemporary islam in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration*.

* OIC's sharia declaration makes it possible for muslim countries like Saudi Arabia to freely refer to it when picking from the Koran, Hadiths, Sunnah etc.

So called BBC: In claiming responsibility for the Paris atrocities, the so-called Islamic State described the attacks as "a blessed battle whose causes of success were enabled by Allah". Last year, when the group's self-imposed Caliphate was declared, hundreds of Muslim leaders and scholars from across the world wrote an open letter to the self-professed Caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, accusing him of heinous war crimes and a violation of the fundamental principles of Islam.

Klevius:  "The fundamental principles of islam" can historically best be described by Klevius islam formula (first presented on the Swedish radio after 9/11 and on the web since 2003): Slavery+"infidel" racism+sex segregated rapetivism+anti human rights Sharia/apostasy ban.

Islam originated as as a militant separatist movement. When the islamofascists cololized civilized territories they suck out taxes from wealthy "infidels" (non-muslims) and enslaved the poor, while themselves settling in garrisons meticulously separated from those whom they colonized and sponged on. This, btw, was the original idea of mosques (except for being the center of the slave market, of course).

So called BBC: So how Islamic is 'Islamic State'? Why have mainstream interpretations of Islam so far failed to provide an effective counter-narrative? What needs to happen for the group to be defeated?

Klevius answer: Stop allying with its root cause!

 Klevius wrote:

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Who is Allah's best friend - and the worst enemy of Human Rights?

There are now more British muslims fighting for the Islamic State than for Britain's military. And most true British muslims support Islamic State.

Islamic State rests on Saudi Wahhabism and Saudi funds. And Saudi Arabia is a close ally of Cameron (and enemy of Putin). Moreover, the Saudi initiated, based and steered sharia organization OIC is another close ally via Cameron's non-elected minister of faith islamofascism, Sayeeda Warsi whom he personally elected as baroness. In other words, Cameron's closest woman is a grave violator of the most basic of Human Rights because of her sharia support and UK representative in OIC. That's why Cameron hates Human Rights and paves the way for making Britain a Saudi Arabia outside the cradle of islam.

Islamic State to Putin: 'This is a message to you, oh Vladimir Putin, these are the jets that you have sent to Bashar, we will send them to you, God willing, remember that.

    And we will liberate Chechnya and the entire Caucasus, God willing," said the militant. "The Islamic State is and will be and it is expanding God willing.
    Your throne has already teetered, it is under threat and will fall when we come to you because Allah is truly on our side.


Paul J. Saunders: Putin often acknowledges the country’s significant Muslim minority, including during a major 2013 speech focusing on Russia’s national identity, during which he said that “Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions are an integral part of Russia’s identity, its historical heritage and the present-day lives of its citizens.” Importantly, Putin went on to argue, “It is clearly impossible to identify oneself only through one’s ethnicity or religion in such a large nation with a multi-ethnic population. … People must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity, respect for the law and a sense of responsibility for their homeland’s fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.”

Apparently responding in no small part to controversy in the West, in the months prior to the Olympic Games in Sochi, over Russia’s law imposing fines on individuals or organizations that present “propaganda” about homosexuality to minors, Putin has increasingly emphasized Russians’ shared moral values and to connect Russia’s “traditional” values to those in the Middle Eastern, Asian and other non-Western societies. “We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization … and people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. … We consider it natural and right to defend these values​​.” While clearly identifying Russia as a largely Christian country, Putin is attempting to establish a dividing line between the shared values of believers in many religious traditions and those of the decadent secular West.

Putin was explicit about his foreign policy objectives, saying, “Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional, but unique, original and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path.” Thus, Putin is attempting to exploit huge differences in social values between the West and predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa to make Western values into a liability rather than an asset for Western governments. If consistently implemented over time, this may become Russia’s most significant effort to date to develop a soft power strategy to combat Western influence in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world.

Klevius:The above, dear reader, is what you really need to focus on. Logically a true muslim should not be allowed to vote as long as s/he doesn't reject sharia. However, as it stands now it's precisely the anti-democratic sharia muslims who multiply fastest due to islamic rapetivism ideology. And as long as their votes count politicians try to get them (no matter that most voting fraud happens in muslim communities). Spice this with oil/gas and you start seeing why Klevius writings are essential, not the least because of Klevius lack of financial or political motives.

And to top it all, non-religious Klevius seems to be your best analyst due to his superior (sad isn't it) understanding of sex segregation and its connection to the origin of islam.
* * *

So called BBC: "The so called islamic state declared its self-imposed caliphate by its self-professed caliph."

Klevius: A lot of selfies here from the so called BBC (British Broadcasting Company), which should rather be called IBC (Islamic Broadcasting Company) - not the least because British tax and compulsory fees payers just got to pay even more for Arabic islam propaganda in Mideast and elsewhere outside Britain itself.

So called BBC: To what extent do you believe IS is part of the muslim family?

Imam Salah Al Ansari, an Imam, theologian and "academic"*, gives a long answer about what IS caliphate is about without even touching so called BBC's question. In doing so he protects himself from internal muslim criticism.

* You can't possibly be a true academic (like e.g. Klevius) when you base your thinking on loose fantasies (Koran, Sunna, Hadits etc) without historical relevance. And to be a really true academic you also need a good brain which obviously this imam lacks.

Haras Rafiq, Managing Director of the anti-extremism think tank, the Quilliam Foundation: IS has something to do with islam but not my islam.

Klevius: And you have something to do with Human Rights violating sharia, don't you!

Katherine Brown, an "expert" in Islamic Studies at King's College London: IS has decontextualized documents from the past.

Katherine Brown, an "expert" in Islamic Studies at King's College London: Sharia isn't codified but it has precedences just like the British legal system.

Klevius: What a load of crap! Don't you understand why it's not codified?! Ever heard about declarations and resolutions?! And yes, islamic sharia has precedences - in that very original islam you have "decontextualized"!



A commentator: "The problem is that Obama, Merkel, Cameron, Hollande, the EU, the elites, the media have the power, control the government and are favouring Islam and muslims. They are flooding and islamizing the whole west with muslim immigrants till a point of no return."

Klevius intellectual harem

Nonie Darwish (one of Klevius wives in his intellectual harem - see below): One of the reasons that the so-called “moderate Muslims” have become irrelevant and incapable of helping themselves or the West against Islamic terrorism is that over the centuries they have become tolerant of Islamic terrorism and considered it as part of normal life. Average Muslims have been led to believe that they are victims of the outside world and not Islam, and that is why many are either silent or sympathize with jihadists and even terrorists as having a legitimate cause; but they tell the West they don’t approve of using terror as a solution, even though Islamic books do support terror as a solution.

Just by reading mainstream Arab newspapers, the West should have known by now that Islamic culture has justified terrorism as legitimate to advance its cause. Muslim leaders who refuse to engage in the game of jihad are accused of treason, not considered to be good Muslims, and are often the victims of a coup or assassination attempts.

After 9/11, many moderate Muslim friends of mine from inside the Middle East told me with bizarre logic in Arabic: “Let the West get a taste of the terror we live in daily. Why only us?” What struck me was the way they viewed terrorism; to them it felt like a natural disaster or part of life that must be tolerated and dealt slowly with. To them, they must never openly reject or upset the terrorist.

Like the moderate Muslims, President Obama appears to have an approach of denial and tolerance of Islamic terrorism and is encouraging Americans and the media to do the same. He is advocating ignoring the threat of Islamic terror and denying it exists by not even calling the threat by its true name, “Islamic terrorism.” Obama puts on an air of being wise and honorable for doing that, and anyone one who does not agree is called racist and bigot. But this approach of forcing the victims of Islamic terrorism to tolerate terrorism as part of life is exactly what Islam wants from the West. It is Islam’s preferred technique to conquer and enslave.

That strategy by Islam rarely failed in its 1400-year history. The only nation that stood up to Islamic terror and enslavement was Israel. Historically, most nations in the Middle East caved in to Islam and abandoned the Jews. Eventually former Christian nations like Egypt and Turkey were given the kiss of death by the Dracula of Islam, but the Jews of the Middle East either escaped or lived under Islamic terror, but never compromised their beliefs. Muslims since the 7th century hated the Jews for that. Islam to this day uses its favorite tool, terrorism, to conquer and enslave, and that tool is working today on the last bastion of freedom, Western civilization. Terrorism works on both individuals and nations who become paralyzed like a lobster slowly cooking in heating water.

President Obama seems not to fear bringing inside America thousands of Syrian refugees who could be sympathetic toward and tolerant of ISIS, if not active members themselves. He recently told the American people: “the vast majority of these refugees are victims of the same violence and terror we have seen in Paris.” As though the Middle East is divided between the good victims of terror and the bad perpetrators of terror.

I have news for Obama. Everyone in the Middle East was or is the victim of terror; terrorists have themselves tasted Islamic terror, like Dracula tasting the blood of its victims. ISIS members who are Sunnis have lived in and tolerate terror, and use it on others as the solution of choice. Sunnis terrorized Shiites, and vice versa. Life under Sharia itself is a life under terror. Being a woman in the Muslim world is living in terror. Being a child strapped with explosives by your own parents is life of terror. If you read the Quran and Hadith, you are commanded to do and live by terror and dream of the great afterlife if you kill yourself and others for the sake of Allah.

Obama, like moderate Muslims, want us to tolerate Islamic terrorism instead of fighting and rejecting it, as Israel has done. That is perhaps why Obama hates Benjamin Netanyahu, not because of a personality clash, but because Netenyahu symbolizes the rejection of living as a slave under Islamic terror. Obama is obviously not on the side of Israel, because Israel will not tolerate Islamic terror and look the other way, as Obama is doing. Obama is most passionate when he defends Islam and ignores terrorism. He wears it as a badge of honor. To Obama, ISIS is contained, is no big deal, we can live with it and we must be cautious not fall into stereotyping Muslims. With no shame, he constantly lectures American citizens, especially Christians, not to judge Islam and Muslims.

But worse than just denial, Obama is forcing Homeland Security and Americans to regard obvious Islamic terrorism on American soil as just normal acts of workplace violence, or crime on the streets that can be handled by the courts. That is the same attitude that moderate Muslims want to force on us, to convince us that Islam has nothing to do with terrorists, that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, while in their hearts they say that it is America’s turn to suffer terror as well; why only us?

The pathological tolerance of terror is just the beginning of the road to life in Islamic tyranny and humiliation. The next step will be forcing Americans to feeling guilty for rejecting Muslim refugees. Then the leftist American do-gooders will consider taking a look at and considering Muslim grievances against American society and its unjust Constitution as a legitimate religious right that should be given equal time by the media. Then a movement will develop defending the causes of the terrorists that might not seem legitimate to Americans but are considered legitimate by the Left. After that, some terrorists will become heroes and even adored for their bravery and courage.

That is not too far-fetched: Rolling Stone magazine portrayed the Boston bomber, Dzhokhar Tsamaev like a rock star on its cover a few months ago.

Before we know it, our children will be living in a full-blown Arab spring right here in America and Europe.


Klevius wrote:

Monday, November 16, 2009

BBC & other overpaid "executives'" IQ deficiency, islam's racist/sexist Caliph (& his puppet), the Angels of Antichrist & Klevius' islamophobic harem

Klevius intellectual wives: Oriana Fellaci (a true journalist - her photo ought to be in front of every BBC & other media "executive"), Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Hirsi Ali. Klevius intellectual concubines are so many so their pics won't possibly fit here. Klevius main rival: Mr X "president's" first call, islamofascist Don Abdullah Juan (see Klevius love letter to Edit Södergran to get it), the "guardian of islam". He & his pals have blood on their fingers, not only from Darfur, Iraq, Afganistan etc, but also from millions of victims for islamic street jihadism all over the world, fueled by Koranic infidel racism.























and here's a journalist that would never qualify in Klevius intellectual harem:

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo all have sharia islam in common. And none of them has anything in common with Klevius!



.

By supporting Saudi based and steered OIC-islam journalists and politicians sanction* muslim terrorists and all other evil muslims who violate Human Rights!

* Saudi based and steered OIC's deceitful "peace" rhetorics constitutes an oxymoron because its own sharia declaration "justifies" muslim terrorism. And do note that OIC is the world's biggest organization after UN in whose belly OIC grew - much like how Christian churches were changed to mosques from inside out.

It's about time for journalists (and judges) to forget about "islamophobia" and start practicing the much more important term 'muslim hate crimes'. As it's now the group that commits most of the hate crimes is never even mentioned!

Of course BBC's Mishal Husain is the best example of how islamic evil is sanctioned by diffusing the line between sharia muslims and cultural non-muslim and thereby giving evil muslims a tremendous support when it comes to the very basis of their ideology.

The insidious link

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common - unless of course, Mishal Husain is an apostate and too cowardice to openly abandoning sharia islam. Or even worse, that she lies straight in the face of BBC's listeners.

However, here's an other example from Sweden - a country Klevius knows almost everything about - from the Vikings to the muslims.

Islam originated as as a militant separatist movement. When the islamofascists cololized civilized territories they suck out taxes from wealthy "infidels" (non-muslims) and enslaved the poor, while themselves settling in garrisons meticulously separated from those whom they colonized and sponged on. This, btw, was the original idea of mosques (except for being the center of the slave market, of course).

The only way to defeat so called "islamism" (i.e. islam) is to
not blur it with so called "cultural islam" or "cultural muslims" because those do not belong to islam at all but may be seen as historical hostages . And the only way muslims can defend their own evilness is to blame it on "Allah's will".

Sponging and hating muslim Koran readers

And those who really understand islam without rejecting it, accept its parasitic nature and due backwardness, and even make a point of it. And this is possible due to wealthy (through technology) civilizations surrounding medieval islamic rat holes. And Koran/islam even offers the means for it. As a muslim you have the right to sponge on the "infidels"!

Racism and sexism are the hallmarks of fascist islam. This is why islam hides itself behind "islamophobia" rhetorics. Without its original racist and sexist allure islam would be dead.

This is also why apostasy is considered the worst of crimes in islam and why muslim terrorists can use islamic tenets to murder and rape "infidels". And this is why Saudi based and steered OIC via UN has declared that sharia should hinder women from accessing full Human Rights. And by doing this the Saudi dictator family, who had stolen the land from the Bedouins, became extremely wealthy without doing anything when Westerners gave them money for oil/gas that Westerners found there and Westerners pumped up.

State of emergency in Sweden called for today

Sweden's only party critical of islam and sharia muslims, Sweden Democrats (SD) is now Sweden's most supported political party. However, yesterday Sweden's socialist PM said he won't talk with a party that represents almost a third of the Swedes. And today he announced that he is prepared to announce a state of emergency because of (muslim) terrorists.

Is this the world's stupidest or most ignorant muslim? Or just a cunning muslim? You decide!

Swedish text in Klevius translation: Terrorism isn't about religions (why in plural). Somar Al Naher: IS' project isn't radical but conservative (she's a socialist muslim).

Or both - considering she has all necessary info available - she isn't an uneducated countryside Afgan muslim girl! Or is she something else?! Just pretending...?

Klevius: Almost all of today's terrorism emanates directly from the Koran. However, what makes an evil medieval text authoritative in the eyes of evil muslims is that leaders and journalists in the West together with UN (Saudi based and steered OIC) bow for this utter evilness called islam. Islam in any meaningful understanding today equals political islam - not any private "spiritual" thinking that doesn't affect others. Islam is a global threat to everyone and can only be dismantled by making it fully obeying the most masic of Human Rights. And by doing this we immediately remove the "rightful justification" for islamic evil and can return to a more normal level of general evil in the world.

Somar al Naher is one of the best examples of how this insidious evilness gets behind the scrutiny of ordinary people who are already brainwashed with "islam is nice" and "those evil islamophobes" rhetorics.

Muslim evilness (sharia*) hidden in a social democratic manifesto signed by Somar Al Naher

* Sharia evilness defined as violating the most basic of Human Rights.

% of muslims who want sharia

Swedish text: The manifesto för muslimska socialdemokrater är skrivet och undertecknat av ordföranden för nätverket, Abdulkader Habib samt Abdikani Mohamed, Alaa Idris, Ali Ibrahim, Adrian Kaba, Amir Dabboussi, Bora Jukovic, Emina Jukovic, Hasan Dölek, Hassan Said Mahamed, Kalsoom Kaleem, Kemo Ceesay, Qaisar Mahmood, Mohamud Salad, Mariam Osman Sherifay, Mohammad Fazlhashemi, Shamm Ghafour och Somar Al Naher.


According to the manifesto for social democratic muslims (signed by Somar Al Naher)

to be a muslim is

1 to have a sharia identity ('islam och dess påbud' means 'islam and its decrees' - i.e. Human Rights violating sharia)

or

2 to be a non-religious muslim but with a muslim identity (sic)

Klevius translation: This deliberate diffusion of the line between sharia muslims and other muslims  is about ignorant muslims who don't practice islam (much like Obama's genitor)  but are seen by islam as muslims who can be brought back to sharia islam - or at least support its cause by their share numbers.

Are the members of the Saudi dictator family muslims? And do French, Brits and Americans in general really see it as their "ally"?!

The so called Saudi Arabia constitutes the worst threat to the civilized world. Yet Western leaders do everything the Saudi dictator family asks for in its bloodthirsty and hateful spreading of Sunni islamofascism! DO YOU APPROVE OF THIS dear reader?!

Yet Western leaders do everything to protect this bigoted, hypocritical, racist/sexist immoral islamic ("custodian" of islam and OIC) stench hole that is condemned by every Human Rights organization in the world, and which frequently keeps the top spot among the most evil countries on the planet.

So called Saudi Arabia is, and has been for decades, the world's largest source of funds for muslim militant jihadis - and due suffering of islam's victims. However, the equally insidious Saudi based and Saudi steered so called OIC (the so called Islamic Cooperation), the muslim world's main organization, demands in their Cairo declaration that islamic sharia should replace Human Rights worldwide. OIC now constitutes the biggest and most evil voting bloc in UN.

How is it possible that an anti-Human Rights organization, led by the worst Human Rights violater on the planet, rules the organization that was based on Human Rights for the sake of hindering scumbags like the Saudi islamofascists to ever spread its evil over the world again?

France, UK and US support so called Saudi Arabia in its strive to get rid of Shia muslims and Assad.

So the plan is now to (finally) hit hard on Islamic State in Syria, but for the sole purpose of occupying those Syrian areas with Saudi friendly Sunni islamofascists.

Are the Saudis muslims?

BBC and politicians repeat it every day: "The so called Islamic State" are no muslims - they are psychopaths". Klevius then wonders why the Koran is so popular among "psychopaths"? And what about the Saudis! Does their Wahhabism/salafism/takfirism variant of islamofascism fit with Mishal Husain's view on islam and muslimhood? After all, she was brought up in so called Saudi Arabia.

Since the start of the Arab Spring, the so called Saudi Arabia, i.e. the ruthless muslim Saudi dictator family, has taken a leading role in coordinating unrest and supplying jihadis in Syria. In addition the muslim Saudi dictator family supported Egyptian military against the Muslim Brotherhood and the Lebanese army. Then the muslim Saudi dictator family attacked Shia muslims not only at home but also in Bahrain and Yemen.

Yet, everything is accepted when it's the so called Saudi Arabai. Or is it? Do most people really share these leader's choice of "allies" and "enemies"?!

Is BBC's presenter Mishal Husain a muslim or an apostate?

Klevius uses Mishal Husain as an example due to her role as a presenter at a world leading state funded (plus Sunni muslim funds through BBC World) broadcasting company. There are many lesser "Mishal Husseins" out there.

 There are three types of muslims:

1  The original violent jihad muslims - today represented by, for example, the Islamic State (IS, ISIS Daesh or whatever).

2  Sharia muslims who don't do violence themselves but may approve of others doing it. OIC, many (most?) imams, media (e.g. Mishal Husain*) politicians (e.g. Sayeeda Warsi).

3  Non-sharia "muslims", i.e. apostates, although many of them haven't realized it as yet due to their ignorance about their religion.

 * She seems to ask for more "success" for muslim jihadis. However, she also commits blasphemy against islam by not fasting during Ramadan but rather drinking some alcohol etc., so in this respect she might also be considered an apostate, i.e. someone committing the worst of crimes against islam. But most people seem to blink this the most important borderline between muslims and "muslims". Yes, it must feel nice to eat the cake while still keeping it. But this delusion doesn't help the real victims of islam. So when Mishal Husain proudly states that "I don't feel any threat against my way of life" this might be seen as a spit in the face of islam's victims.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common - unless of course, Mishal Husain is an apostate and too cowardice to openly abandoning sharia islam. Or even worse, that she lies straight in the face of BBC's listeners.

By calling islam "peaceful" you encourage muslim supremacism. The aim of islamic hate jihad is to achieve submission, i.e. "peace". A much better option would be to defend basic Human Rights by rejecting sharia islam wherever it is to be seen. That would force your so called "moderate" muslims to Human Rights equality or, alternatively, isolate them as evil jihadis without the sanction of a general but extremely blurred islam that encompasses both them and Mishal Husain etc. "moderate" muslims. Human Rights violating sharia is the only defintion needed to det rid of evil islam. Sign Klevius petition to force Mishal Husain to take a clear stance against hateful muslim supremacist racism based on sharia islam - or alternatively, advice her to move back to Saudi Arabia.

 Klevius hint: BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain has no problem eating or drinking whatsoever during Ramadan! What do those muslim women who are not allowed - "due to their religion" - to do it think?

Let's talk evil* islam, i.e. the original medieval islam that allures racist and sexist people still today with its hateful message - not the glossy fantasy called Euro-islam.

* Evil is here measured against the Holy Negative Human Rights inscribed in UN's Universal Human Rights Declaration that was worked out after WW2 when the last wave of state fascism had been defeated. However, because of the careless "freedom of religion" phrase, islamofascism (sharia islam) is still thriving under the cover of "faith". The Saudi based and steered OIC is the main organization in support of sharia islam, i.e. islamofascism (fascism includes both direct and indirect violence - Saudi OIC pretends to be "against terrorism" but supports islamic terrorism).

Islam was born out of pure evil. A parasitic ideology that took advantage of others in the vacuum after the (pre-islamic) Roman retreat from the area. The non-Arabic speaking "infidels" became the source of income (slaves and dhimmi tax payers) and sex/reproduction (rapetivism). Islam was/is linguistic racism. That's why the Koran has to be in Arabic.  

BBC seems to suffer of something like a combination of dementia, Parkinson, blindness and deafness in its reporting from France. Could it be the age? However, Klevius will again help the poor old guy, of course. After all, Scandinavia's main newspaper seems to have been contaminated with the same bug. And as a true Goth Klevius has to stand up for the Goths, Vendels and Vikings and their relatives in UK and France.

Does Sweden have the world's worst journalists? 

 Klevius says no, he wouldn't have that. There's one (possibly more) in Saudi Arabia that's about the same level. However, Klevius isn't allowed to reveal the name because it could hurt the world's relation with the world's center of evil - the Saudi dictator family (excluding of course those family members who stay in opposition - if they still carry their heads). And we can't hurt our relations with the "guardians of islam" can we.

This is from Scandinavia's biggest news paper today:

Lena Mellin: IS är emot västerlandet. De har grundat ett kalifat, en stat grundad på en tolkning av islam som lyckligtvis inte många ställer sig bakom.

Klevius translation: IS is against the West and have establisherd a caliphate based on an interpretation of islam that luckily few share.

Klevius correction:

At least 234,000 UK muslims have a "very favorable" or "somewhat favorable" view on the Islamic State! Why would it be different in Sweden?

Today (2015) approximately 78,000* UK muslims have a "very favorable" view on the Islamic State while some 156,000 have a "somewhat favorable" view. 

* Cautiously estimated on 2.6 million adult UK muslims (2011 census). 

Carina Bergfeldt: Det finns muslimer. Det finns flyktingar. Och så finns det terrorister.

Klevius translation: There are muslims. There are refugees. And then there are terrorists.

Klevius correction: Almost every terrorist is a muslim! And among the non-terrorist muslims 100% support Human Rights violating sharia (e.g. OIC). Why 100%? Simply because those who don't support Human Rights violating sharia are no real muslims! They are what used to be called "cultural muslims".

How could these islamist fanatics solve anything in Mideast?! A G20 meeting involving these thugs doesn't feel right, does it.

Saudi dictator family is behind most of islamic atrocities around the world and Erdogan & Co long for a neo-Ottoman conquest of Europe. He was even paid €2 billion for "guarding" muslims from entering EU (who mentioned the wolf guarding the sheep?). However, what fanatic Erdogan seems to have forgotten is that the Ottoman "empire" was completely dependent on its slaves. And when slavery was abolished by the West then the Ottoman "empire" sank into utmost misary and collapse. Just like the Andalus did long before when the muslims and Jews were forbidden from having Christian slaves (a main reason to the forceful Christianization of Europe).

Hillary Clinton doesn't support sharia because she is ignorant like her stupid supporters, but because it supports her selfish ambitions

That Hillary Clinton supports sharia is disgusting but understandable considering her desperate strategy now is to sell out the last of whatever human dignity and moral she might have possessed for the sole purpose of becoming president. Her sharia supporting muslim advisor Huma Abedin is her link to islamic support in different forms.

Huma Abedin was CAIR's channel for inciting hatred

CAIR is the same muslim organization that rewarded Bridges TV boss who beheaded his wife because she wanted to divorce him (see pic below that has been on the web since Obama became "president").

The key to success hidden behind the strange expression "the so called" Islamic State, which tries to cover up the fact that violent IS really is islam itself - just like "peaceful" OIC. 

IS IS ISLAM - just like Saudi based and steered OIC (all muslims world organization) with its Human Rights violating sharia declaration is islam!

No matter if islam's sharia machine is called Taliban, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, OIC etc., it is always part of the islamic state (aka muslim Umma) that covers all true muslims. Defeating the Islamic State doesn't defeat the islamic state! For that purpose you need to target Saudi Arabia and OIC's sharia declaration.

Iraq war was NOT the trigger of islamic atrocities

The U.S. disliked Iraqi support for many Arab and Palestinian muslim terrorist groups such as Abu Nidal, which led to Iraq's inclusion on the developing U.S. list of State Sponsors of Terrorism on 29 December 1979. The U.S. remained officially neutral after Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980, which became the Iran–Iraq War, although it provided resources, political support, and some "non-military" aircraft to Iraq.[32] In March 1982, Iran began a successful counteroffensive (Operation Undeniable Victory), and the U.S. increased its support for Iraq to prevent Iran from forcing a surrender. In a U.S. bid to open full diplomatic relations with Iraq, the country was removed from the U.S. list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Ostensibly this was because of improvement in the regime's record, although former U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary Noel Koch later stated, "No one had any doubts about [the Iraqis'] continued involvement in terrorism ... The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran."

The Gulf War (1990 – 1991) started as operations leading to the buildup of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia. It became a war - in the Persian Gulf region - waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait.

Muslims failed twice in their stupid planning of how to take down the WTC towers.

1993, a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,336 pounds (606 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device was intended to send the North Tower (Tower 1) crashing into the South Tower (Tower 2), bringing both towers down and killing tens of thousands of people. It failed to do so but killed six people and injured more than a thousand.


Klevius comment: The muslim perpetrators were equally stupid as the conspiracy theorists who thought Geoge W Bush took down the towers. The 2001 plane attacks were supposed to push the towers down but the Japanese architect had made an incredible good job in stabilizing the skyscrapers. However, what happened was that the plane fuel increased the temperature of the steel frame to a point where it expanded slightly outwards making the floors above the impact zone to fall down hence putting an immense stress on the construction below. So when the steel framework started pushing outwards it gave the impression of small explosions all the ay down. And this was what made the crazy conspiracists really tick in thei incomprehensible wishful political stupidity.

The 1993 attack was planned by a group of terrorists including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmed Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle who in 1992 received a master's degree in "Islamic Culture and History" through correspondence classes from Punjab University in Pakistan.. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property, and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.



 Klevius wrote:

Friday, October 16, 2015

The so called BBC calls all islamic terrorist groups with their proper names - except the one with the proper name*, i.e. the Islamic State.

* They, like the Saudi based and steered OIC (all muslims official organization), criminalize Human Rights and distinctly replace them with Koran based sharia.

Grow up, Mishal Husain - and take responsibility for your evil ideology!

Only racism as a conscious ideological foundation for attacks and parasitism  can explain the origin of islam - meaning "Westernized islam" only acts as a camouflage of neo-islam!

When faced with questions about obvious muslim racism and sexism the represenatatives of muslim councils accuse other muslims over “false” or “mistaken” interpretations of islam. In this way they try to get the focus off themselves despite their own interpretations don't differ in essence.

BBC's lying (or does she really support sharia?!) muslim sharia presenter (or is she a lying apostate?!) seemed to complain over Palestine muslims' rockets not causing enough suffering among Jews. So Klevius wonders what she thinks about the stabbing spree that the Islamic State has initiated and that many muslims now find so popular.

However, there are honest muslims who openly admit the basic racism and sexism of islam.

Islam is rooted in a Christian-Jewish messianic tradition (Muhammad comes from Aramaic and meant the same as Christos) and retains the worst parts of it. A disgusting side effect of this is that some Jews and Christians support it in a deeply bigoted and hypocritical way. 

Anglican Church leader Chris Sugden preached homophobia - in a radical mosque!

Klevius comment: How long will you continue to accept this religious contamination of basic Universal Human Rights? And always remember that even the meekest form of religion is defined by it being - no matter how slightly - in opposition to Human Rights. So "reforming" religions is like driving just a little bit on the wrong lane - or in the case of islam, on the sidewalk. 

The more (sharia) muslim you are, the more racist and sexist your are from a Universal Human Rights perspective.

From this simple formula one might also conclude that Mishal Husain belongs to the least racist/sexist muslims. After all, she doesn't fast during Ramadan but drinks alcohol and

Is BBC's presenter Mishal Husain a muslim or an apostate?

Klevius uses Mishal Husain as an example due to her role as a presenter at a world leading state funded (plus Sunni muslim funds through BBC World) broadcasting company. There are many lesser "Mishal Husseins" out there.

 There are three types of muslims:

1  The original violent jihad muslim - today represented by, for example, the Islamic State (IS, ISIS Daesh or whatever).

2  Sharia muslims who don't do violence themselves but may approve of others doing it. OIC, many (most?) imams, media (e.g. Mishal Husain*) politicians (e.g. Sayeeda Warsi).

3  Non-sharia "muslims", i.e. apostates, although many of them haven't realized it as yet due to their ignorance about their religion.

 * She seems to ask for more "success" for muslim jihadis. However, she also commits blasphemy against islam by not fasting during Ramadan but rather drinking some alcohol etc., so in this respect she might also be considered an apostate, i.e. someone committing the worst of crimes against islam. But most people seem to blink this the most important borderline between muslims and "muslims". Yes, it must feel nice to eat the cake while still keeping it. But this delusion doesn't help the real victims of islam. So when Mishal Husain proudly states that "I don't feel any threat against my way of life" this might be seen as a spit in the face of islam's victims.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common - unless of course, Mishal Husain is an apostate and too cowardice to openly abandoning sharia islam. Or even worse, that she lies straight in the face of BBC's listeners.

By calling islam "peaceful" you encourage muslim supremacism. The aim of islamic hate jihad is to achieve submission, i.e. "peace". A much better option would be to defend basic Human Rights by rejecting sharia islam wherever it is to be seen. That would force your so called "moderate" muslims to Human Rights equality or, alternatively, isolate them as evil jihadis without the sanction of a general but extremely blurred islam that encompasses both them and Mishal Husain etc. "moderate" muslims. Human Rights violating sharia is the only defintion needed to det rid of evil islam. Sign Klevius petition to force Mishal Husain to take a clear stance against hateful muslim supremacist racism based on sharia islam - or alternatively, advice her to move back to Saudi Arabia.

 Klevius hint: BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain has no problem eating or drinking whatsoever during Ramadan! What do those muslim women who are not allowed - "due to their religion" - to do it think?

Klevius wrote:

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Why are muslims so eagerly throwing rocks against a symbol for non-muslims in Mina outside Mecca (the most intolerant place on Earth)?

Pope today: Most of us were immigrants! Klevius: But not hateful muslims!


 Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Don't fly Qatar to the pagan Kaba idol in hateful Mecca/Saudi Arabia!

Hajj pilgrimage to the pagan idol of islam in the world's most racist, sexist and intolerant city and state may involve some additional evil

Throwing rocks against non-believers. It was here that nearly two thousand muslims stampeded each other in the 2015 Haji.

The word Hajj may be traced to the Swedish 'haj' which now means shark but used to refer to a pole and which originally is an old Finno-Ugric word that later on entered Mideast and semitic languages such as Hebrew and its later derivative Arabic (much like the Finnish 'koti' and Sami 'khode'home are reflected in the Persian Khoda).