Theresa May has "safety" prejudice against dealing with China - but can share security with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

Some points Klevius fears BBC might miss:

Theresa May calls Pakistan our dependable ally and has deep prejudice against China - but not against Saudi Arabia.

Whereas China is divided in Communism within the state and Capitalism outside it, Saudi Arabia is a theocratic dictatorship busy spreading Koranic hate in the service of itself, i.e. how original islam did.

Klevius advise to Theresa May (and her advisors, Nick Timothy & Co): Britain is constantly attacked by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan via sharia islamism infiltration (both countries, unlike Britain, are islamist sharia states - the latter with nuclear war heads under uncertain control) . However, no one in her/his right mind would think about China as an attacker against Britain - neither now or in the past. And the appalling accusation against China about "to build weaknesses into computer systems which will allow them to shut down Britain’s energy production at will" seems childish at best. Especially when it's "proven" with a Chinese web site text about “building of national defence". Isn't that kind of approach almost universal, not the least in UK?!

China is a main part of our global future, not Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, both very minor players in comparison and both still struggling with unfortunate entanglements to medieval aggression and backwardness. Against this background, is it really in the best interest of UK to uphold racist attitudes against Chinese while showing extreme appeasement towards two of the most intolerant and dangerous countries in the world?

Pakistan defends itself by arguing that its intelligence categorizes "its islamist officers" (sic) in 3 categories: Whites are those publicly sympathetic with Taliban. Blacks are potential recruits for the Taliban. Reds are - Taliban. ISI, MI deal with them through surveillance and possible (sic) abduction and interrogation, and depending on the degree of their islamism they end up as "missing person" for some time or they just "disappear".

However, Pakistan seems quite unreliable. Compare for example, how Osama bin Laden was allowed to reside there. Double-play seems to be the core of "allies" in the muslim world.

David French: Pakistan also helped fund a suicide bombing in Afghanistan in 2009 that became the worst attack on CIA in a quarter-century. “Foreign intelligence service and Haqqani network involvement in the 30 December 2009 suicide attack at [Camp] Chapman,” begins the subject line for the State Department cable, written in early 2010 by a U.S. official who was not named. The memo, made public this week by a nonprofit group, proceeds to challenge the narrative of one of the worst days in the CIA’s history. It describes an elaborate plot in which Pakistan’s intelligence service allegedly put up $200,000 for the now-infamous bombing, which occurred when a presumed al-Qaeda informant was allowed into a secure U.S. base in Khost, Afghanistan, to meet with a team of American officers and handlers. While the claims are controversial (a U.S. investigation pinned the blame on al Qaeda, not Pakistan or its Haqqani network allies), they shouldn’t be remotely “startling.” Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has long been suspected of “playing both sides” in the war on terror, and there is strong suspicion that the ISI actually views the Taliban as a “strategic asset.” Moving beyond ISI activities, insurgent access to Pakistan as a safe haven — a place where its fighters can rest, re-arm, and recruit — has proven to be of incalculable benefit to the Taliban since 9/11, and there is even evidence that the regular Pakistani army has on occasion fired on American troops. There have been so many reports of conflict that “Pakistan-United States Skirmishes” has its own Wikipedia entry. I recognize that the needs of war sometimes require our nation to ally itself with dangerous regimes (see World War II for the most salient example), but there is still a difference between a shaky or temporary ally and an actual enemy — a nation that is trying to undermine American interests and kill Americans. In other words, there is a line, and it is worth asking (and re-asking) if Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are on the right side.

Theresa May appoints a sharia muslim as aviation security minister - and he starts by jumping on alcohol sale - which doesn't affect muslims - other than perhaps BBC's Mishal Husain

Ahmed and Ahmad both have the violent "prophet" Muhammad and sharia in common

Although Sunni muslims may not consider Lord Ahmad a muslim at all because he belongs to the Ahmadiyya sect, from Klevius Human Rights perspective he ticks all the boxes.

Here's a view on Ahmadiyya muslims by Swedish Dispatch International

Maryam Namazie and I took part in a debate with two members of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam; the motion being “Sharia Law Negates Human Rights”. You can watch it in full here  On the other side of the debate were Ayyaz Mahmood Khan and Jonathan Butterworth, both Ahmadiyya Muslims.

Following the speeches, the first question raised from the audience was on the matter of “wife-beating”, and the fact that this is sanctioned, indeed commanded, in Sura 4:34 of the Koran. Rather than reject the sentiments of this verse, Ayyaz Mahmood Khan attempted to deny it with the usual “out of context” apologism. He attempted to brush aside the consequences of the verse by stating that men who beat women “are rotten people who were going to beat their wives anyway”.

While this is undoubtedly true, it doesn’t quite address the fact that the Koran allows them to do it, or what this says about the position of women in Islam. Khan then goes on to say that beating his wife is essentially a man’s last resort. He claims that the “beat her” command only applies when a wife becomes violent. The example he provided was “if she beats her husband, she raises her hand, then she begins to hate her husband, and begins to have illicit relationships outside the home”. Finally, he added that when beating a woman “no marks should be left on the body”.

There is much about this explanation that simply doesn’t wash, the most obvious being that unfortunately for Khan, the Koran doesn’t actually say any of that; it simply says “beat her”, he has added the rest. Secondly, to his mind, if a woman “begins to hate her husband” or “have illicit relationships”, it is then perfectly legitimate to launch into physical abuse. I, and most truly moderate or civilised people, reject male violence of any kind against women, and do not present a list of occasions in which it is acceptable.

Furthermore, there is no difference between Khan’s misogynist acceptance of violence and that of Sa’d Arafat who, on Egyptian television in 2010, also described violence against women as a last resort. Arafat outlined all of the steps (admonish her, don’t share her bed) a man must take to “discipline” his wife, before it becomes acceptable to beat her. When he does decide she has been disobedient enough, “the beatings should not be hard”. The fact is that there is no difference been Khan and Arafat, and yet Khan – being Ahmadiyya – is praised as a moderate, whereas Arafat would no doubt be condemned for those views by many of the same people.

I’ve heard it said, more than once, that the Ahmadiyya community are widely maligned, oppressed and persecuted across the Islamic world because of their message of moderation and peace. This is not strictly true though. The Ahmadiyya are persecuted because they are deemed to be blasphemous. On their UK website, they state that they are “the only community of Muslims to have accepted” the “Promised Messiah” Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

In Pakistan, a law introduced in 1984 has been used to persecute Ahmadi members there for “posing as a Muslim”. In 2013 a British doctor was arrested in Pakistan for just that offence,  and as Reuters reported “some mullahs promise that killing Ahmadis earns a place in heaven”. Might this persecution go some way to explaining their call for freedom of religion, while also calling for restrictions on those of who criticise it?

There is some credit due to the Ahmadiyya community in Britain for their efforts to integrate to mainstream British life, and indeed for their charitable work. Moreover, the persecution of this group is appalling and deserves unequivocal condemnation. However, it is difficult to see any distinction between many of their core beliefs and those of other Muslims who we might label extreme. Some prominent representatives have opposed non-believers’ right to criticise or mock religion, have lied about stoning, and attempted to apologise away misogynist violence. Perhaps we need to be rather more careful before applying the label of “moderate” to men who stand in such positions.

Why are Theresa May and Hillary Clinton supporting sharia islam rather than helping muslims to secularize and to get out of this medieval Human Rights violation?

Can you spot the only muslim woman on this image? Hint: She works at BBC - as so many other muslims do - and she doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drink some alcohol. She says her way of life is under no threat. Klevius says that's because of Human Rights and "British values" - not sharia.

Theresa May's whitewashing of sharia courts paves the way for even more and deeper sharia, i.e. what is also called "radicalization".

Klevius question: How many "muslims" out there would agree with and follow the ex-muslim below - if they got a decent chance to do so? But instead of supporting "British" and "Western" Human Rights values, Theresa May sanctions sharia islam, which fact of course contributes to radicalization because every perverted or half perverted muslim sees it as

1) a confirmation of sharia islam and Muhammad's deeds, and

2) dismisses whatever criticism of the original islam as Western or Christian infidel nonsense.

A note from a former muslim to Pamela Geller (the Jewish woman who wanted to talk in favor of Human Rights but whom Theresa May denied entry to the UK because it could upset/offend Human Rights violating sharia muslims):

    “Respected Ms. Geller, I am from a Muslim background, and I am a big fan of your work. I have watched your videos and you inspire me a lot. I have left Islam after having a terrible experience. Islam really ruined my life. Even though I have left Islam, I want some spirituality in my life. What do you suggest me? I will like to encourage you to keep exposing Islam for what it is.”

Klevius comment: Get rid of all religious god bias that restricts your mind's access to the real wonder that we are here all together as humans in an endless Universe that we understand we can't understand. This "sense of wonder" in a world of (positive) uncertainties makes the human made god even more laughable than you when you show him your plans. Moreover, it makes you better understand and appreciate the rocksolid logic behind the so called Negative Human Rights, i.e. what constitutes the basis for freedom from impositions (no matter of sex, religion etc) in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration against totalitarian ideologies.

    I grew up in Pakistani Muslim family in Germany. My family placed a lot of restrictions on me. I had to wear hijab, not allowed to date. etc. But I wanted to live my own life. I was forced to marry my cousin in Pakistan, but he always abused me physically and emotionally. He always considered me his property like women are considered in Islam. I always felt suffocated, women have no hope in Islam. They are supposed to be hell dwellers in the hereafter. So there was no hope of salvation for me and I was caught up in a oppressive system designed to control women. Finally I managed to escape and come to the US, where I married a Jewish man. Jews unlike their Muslim counterparts are civilized people and my experience with my new husband is totally opposite to what I had with my first husband. I saw your speech at Brooklyn college and was saddened to see that how you were treated there by the Muslims. You stand up for civilized American values and savages can not bear it, it’s the bitter truth for them. Devout Muslims don’t belong in America, their values are not compatible with the American society. If they want to live like savages, they should live in the Muslim countries. The only ones we should support are secular Muslims and apostates, rest should all be deported. I stand with you completely in your fight for freedom and civilized world against Islam.

Klevius comment: We can't continue pretending that secularized muslims - who have adopted a Western lifestyle through education and work, hence becoming part of Western, not islamic, culture - reflect original islam and the evil deeds of its "prophet".

The slaughtering of a priest in a church in France shows no other motives than the belief that "islam is a great - and the only true religion". Would it even have happened if the world would be allowed to question "islam's greatness"?

Sharia finance is often called "islamic finance" - so to cover up its inevitable links to the original Medievel islam.

Jeremy Corbyn hypocrisy: Vote fishing among muslims via "islamophobia" hate mongering against Human Rights defenders - while showing "Saudiphobia" against islam's homeland.

Theresa May and Erdogan both want to abandon Human Rights Court and instead support sharia.

Erdogan of course dreams about being the Caliph in a neo-Ottoman "empire". But what about May? Is she dreaming about a British sharia finance "empire"?

Klevius super brief history lesson:

The Ottoman slave empire started deteriorating when the Brits began enforcing its abolishment campaign. And without slaves no functioning Ottoman "empire".

Enslavement and taxation of the "infidels" has been the core formula of islamic finance since the origin of islam. However, such parasitism doesn't survive without hosts.

Theresa May also tries to utilize evil islam by channeling its blood money to London where Labour's sharia sultan Sadiq Khan will keep the gates open.

Is this the reason why Theresa May never started any real investigation of UK's sharia courts? She instead appointed a sharia islamist, Mona Sadiqi, to "check" if the sharia courts were ok.

Britain and Turkey seem to have similar problems: Low manufacturing and high population.

And as we all know, sharia finance is inevitably connected to Human Rights violations.

The morning after the muslim terrorist attack in Munich, BBC and Aftonbladet keep speculating/warning about "right wing extremism".

Update 9 hours later:

Extremist BBC journalism

Doe's BBC have the worst journalists good money can buy? 

He, Ali, was a Shia muslim revenging Sunni muslim atrocities by hacking a Facebook account (a Sunni mother's?) and inviting youngsters to a burger place. The victims were from Kosovo and Turkey - in other words, it was islam again, precisely as Klevius wrote initially. That the openly violent part of the muslim Umma consists of many of the weakest ones (mentally disturbed, depressed, criminals, drug addicts etc.) is quite self-evident. Islam inspires these individuals to deeds they would never have done had it not been for the belief they have a moral case in defending islam or muslims - or Muhammad etc. And that "moral" is upheld by everyone who says "there's only one islam and it's a great religion".

 However, BBC continues its horrifying and appalling gravely misleading reporting by telling compulsory license fee paying Brits that "the terrorist had no links to islamist organizations but a link to the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik." However, that link seems only to be because he had studied mass shootings on the web.

Who should take the trouble to sue BBC for this extreme misleading of the public?

BBC (the day after we already knew it was a muslim from a muslim country who shouted "Allahu Akbar" while mass murdering people): The motive's not clear.

BBC: What could possibly have motivated the 18-year old German-Iranian? We have no clues so far.

 Frank Gardner (BBC's islam and Saudi defending "security expert"): He was perhaps mentally disturbed.

Aftonbladet after muslim terrorist attack: We have all reason to fear "right Wing extremism".

Klevius: There seems to be two competing theories about the root cause of islamic terror: 1) "Islamophobia" or 2) islam. Klevius thinks it's "islamophobia"*  - i.e. islam's clash against Human Rights.

 * From the perspective of a totalitarian muslim the concept of "islamophobia" makes absolute sense. However, from a Human Rights equality and freedom perspective in accordance with the 1948 Human Rights Declaration, it makes no sense at all.

"Islamophobia" is an oxymoron invented by islamofascists who can't (or just don't like to) cope with Human Rights equality. "Islamophobia" hence stands for the idea that muslims should abandon racist/sexist sharia that vioöates the most basic of Human Rights.

Islam locked to the Koran and the evil deeds of the "prophet" Muhammad (starting with the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina) will always be incompatible with basic Human Rights equality. This islam is the most widespread and the one that is supported by most of its texts and interpretations (Hadiths etc). Talking about some "other islam" then has to be clearly separated from the original of islam. Klevius has for long proposed neo-islam and neo-muslims - or why not, Human Rights islam without Human Rights violating sharia.



Klevius wrote:

Thursday, May 17, 2012

While British soldiers are murdered by islamofascists BBC glorify Taliban

Not everyone seems to have got it as yet. I.e. that islam is the most evil you can think of as long as you subscribe to Human Rights! 

While British soldiers are murdered by islamofascists BBC glorifies Taliban by reading fanatic Jihad poems in their regular news (paid by compulsory license fees, taxes and Saudi oil money).

This is Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Turkish islamofascist leader of the Saudi initiated and based OIC which is denying the world's muslims their Human Rights by replacing these rights with islamofascist Sharia (the so called Cairo declaration on "islamic human rights").

His crime: Leader of an islamofascist (totalitarian and against those very Human Rights that were introduced to protect us against fascism) organization (OIC).

Despite his lack of a beard (only a small grey Hitler mustache signs the evil he represents) he is equally Taliban as is BBC reporter Yvonne Ridley, a friend to Human Rights violator Abu Hamza.


 MIM: Yvonne Ridley has made numerous appearences in the US on behalf of CAIR. Yvonne Ridley jokes about her relationship with Abu Hamza Al Masri, saying that 'one would have thought she was going to be opening a madrassa for Al Qaeda recruits from her flat in Soho'. Given the support she expressed for sucide bombing on a 2004 panel, this would come as no surprise to anyone.

Klevius comment: Ironically she also works for Iran's (Shia) Press TV which BBC has managed to shut down. However, far more importantly Yvonne Ridley represents those naive women who, after their heterosexual attraction has vanished, wake up as feminists/islamists (read Klevius, e.g. From Klevius without love or What is sex segregation, to understand this). Yvonne Ridley is not only a convert to islam, she's also an apostate from islam via her British "Sharia marriage contract" which makes her a hiding anti-muslim lone woman who still boosts true islam and the horrific crimes it commits not the least against vulnerable and ignorant UK girls.


Swedish/Norwegian Aftonbladet seems to suffer from some kind of confusion visavi islam as well

Klevius comment: Hitler was supported by a majority of Germans while Breivik, to my understanding, isn't supported by any sane Norwegian! Sadly, the Germans again seem to support fascism, now mainly in the form of islam.The same islam that caused and applauded the 9/11 murders. While muslims celebrated bin Laden & Co I've heard of no such celebrating of Breivik.


Klevius wrote:

Saturday, February 28, 2015

UK's MI6 former chief Sir John Sawers: Muslims can't integrate and islam isn't 'well geared for modernization'. Klevius: Easily qualifies as an "islamophobe", doesn't he!

Islam is forever* locked in its original "infidel" hatred

* This is just the other side of the same muslim coin that says that we were all meant to be muslims and those who didn't became "infidel" prey for the "true" muslims. How can any civilized person take islam seriously?! It's a shame and tragic that we even have to defend ourselves against such an evil and hateful totalitarian ideology.

Mohammed Emwazi (aka Jihadi John) was from a well off muslim Arab immigrant family from Kuwait and studied at a London university filled with similar muslim scum bags and "diversity trained" supporting staff

There are more than a million muslim Islamic State supporters in UK (based on how many muslims supported the motives of the Charlie Hebdo murderers. And do note that it's all about motive when it comes to murder.

However, British security says there are only "thousands" like Jihadi John but will not chase them but rather protect their Human Rights.

Klevius: Who am I to question the experts. However, there are thousands of lesser criminals who are chased hard by the justice system - and with lesser Human Rights than muslim terrorists.

Sir John Sawers, former Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6): A terrorist atrocity was now certain to 'get through'.

Why are they radicalized?

Sir John Sawers (MI6): Two reasons. 1. Muslims are not integrated. Other religions are well integrated. 2. Islam in itself is not well geared to modernize itself to the 21th century. It must be done by leaders in the islamic world. It's got to come out of the islamic world. It isn't for us to solve this problem within the islamic tradition.

Klevius: It is done by muslim leaders and clerics in the "islamic world" and it is coming out of the "islamic world"! That's the problem!

Is this the future of the British?

"Diversity trained" and/or muslim UK police take care of British "islamophobe"

Narion Rodgers from Cornwall representing Pegida: Islam is the big problem.

BBC: She says they are not racist or fascist but that islam is the big problem. That's a contradiction!

In other words, BBC says being against islamic extremism equals fascism!

Charlie Hebdo staffer Laurent Leger told BFM-TV in 2012, "The aim is to laugh.... We want to laugh at the extremists — every extremist. They can be muslim, Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we cannot accept.

Jewish cartonist Bob Mankoff from NY who likes jokes about religion and hails Charlie Hebdo doesn't himself dare to make jokes about islam.

The perpetrators are muslims - not the slightest doubt about it! But had they been even remotely connected to an anti-islam movement X, no matter how benign and well referred and formulated, they would immediately have been called "right-wing X fascists".



BBC poll: 20% of British muslims say islam can never be British.

Klevius: And how many muslims think "British" can be sharia muslim?

Hateful racist/sexist muslims all over UK universities

Muslim Tarik Mahri, who reportedly had links to pro-Islamic state group Hizb ut-Tahrir, was elected student union president 2011 at the university just two years after Jihadi John graduated. Another muslim student with reported ties to the muslim extremist group, Jamal Achchi (which also advocates the establishment of an islamic state, had been accused of violence against non-muslims), was elected vice-president.

Klevius comment: Diversity!

Avinash Tharoor: 'I studied at the University of Westminster, where Mohammed Emwazi studied. Extremist students and visitors were consistently given a platform. I'd primarily blame the extremists in the student union and the University of Westminster staff allowing them to hold office. Discrimination against gays, non-muslims and moderate muslims (sic) was definitely a recurring issue from the extremists at the University of Westminster.

The University has invited a controversial and anti-gay preacher, Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad.

Naj, a second-year law student at Westminster: 'Al Haddad is quite homophobic and came out and said he supports female genital mutilation. That is the big concern - the speakers who are being invited. The LGBT society feel displaced - they don't meet within the campus and go to cafes outside the university because they don't feel welcome.'

Klevius: And Theresa May has no problem with all of these muslim hate preachers while denying a Jew, Pamela Geller, entry to Britain because she criticizes precisely this!

Haitham al-Haddad is an islamist and television presenter of Palestinian origin and sits on the boards of advisors for islamic organisations in the UK, including the Islamic Sharia Council. He is the chair and operations advisor, and a trustee, for the Muslim "Research and Development" Foundation.

In 2001, Haitham al-Haddad allegedly said "I will tell you the truth about the fight between us and Jews who are the enemies of God and the descendants of apes and pigs". He later said that "this is the translation of what has been attributed to me" and that it had been incorrectly translated from Arabic to English.

Haddad controversially praised Usama bin Laden in 2011 following his death.

In a homophobic article called ‘Standing up against Homosexuality and LGBTs’, Haddad wrote of “the scourge of homosexuality”, which he calls a “criminal act”. On women, he declared that “a man should not be questioned why he hit his wife, because this is something between them”. In addition to this he has also claimed that “the most honourable and worthy role for a woman is striving to be a fine wife...this role does not only secure the best for a woman in the hereafter, but also fits perfectly with her natural disposition”.

He has claimed that there is a "proper" way of performing FGM, further saying "it is consensus of all the scholars that female circumcision is sunnah [proper]".

In February 2012, the Dutch parliament majority tried to prevent Haddad speaking at VU University in Amsterdam. The university subsequently cancelled the event. Haddad blamed the opposition to him on a Jewish lobby.

Haddad called for a 15,000-people march to put pressure on Newham council to permit building of a large mosque in West Ham, London Borough of Newham, which would have been three times the size of St Paul's Cathedral.

In February 2014, al-Haddad's leadership of the MRDF caused controversy after the organisation booked Legoland Windsor for a private event, which it called a "Halal Fun Day". A local UKIP councillor claimed that residents were "up in arms", and called for a demonstration, while nationalist groups Casuals United and the English Defence League also stated that they would protest. Later that month, due to backlash and threats from those nationalist groups, Legoland cancelled the planned event.

Saudi Arabia - the guardian and spreader of islamic hate

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

Theresa May said she would authorize a nuclear strike killing 100,000s of innocent people. However, Klevius thinks that's insane - and for once shares Corbyn's view

Would it really be in the best interest of the Brits (and the Scots) to send little Britain's nukes somewhere in Russia, the world's biggest country, that has never shown any signs of using nukes for attacks?

Perhaps the UK Parliament should rethink its vote on Trident - just as some suggest the Brits should rethink their vote on Brexit.

1 Only one country, USA, has ever used nuclear weapons - and twice and mainly against innocent civilians in Japan.

2 "Terror balance" originated in the aftermath of WW2 and the US fear of a new totalitarian threat from the Communist Soviet Union (USSR), and a corresponding Communist will to world hegemony from the Kremlin, which saw the US (besides already Communist China) as its main remaining rival - and the one with the most powerful military potential. However, due to the geographical location of the US, USSR started developing missile technologies (for transporting nukes) to an extent that also resulted in the first man made satellite and the first man in space. As a result we ended up in a "terror balance" situation that in practice made it impossible for either centrally steered nation to ever "push the button" - not even at the so called Cuba crisis.

3 In the world of today the nuke scenario is completely different. Not only are conventional weapons both more effective and less wasteful with civilian casualties, they are also widespread and easily movable. The same could be said of modern nukes  - hence puncturing the deterrent argument.

4 The right to "push the button" is usually in one (or a few) human hands. The whereabout of that human is always uncertain - and would the killing of that human justify the lives of 100,000s of innicent?

5 The biggest nuke threat comes from islam, e.g. muslim Pakistan or muslim terrorists. Why? Simply because of the origin of islam, i.e. the Koran, Mohammad and the Hadiths that inspire islamic terror.

Muhammad: I have been made victorious by terror

The dictionary definition of terrorism is “the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear." Sadly, we are living in an age that we do not need to consult a dictionary to learn the meaning of terrorism. Even our children know about it and are affected by it. 

Islamic terrorism, however, did not start in 9/11 of 2001, nor did it start with the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979. Islamic terrorism has its origin in the sayings and examples set by Muhammad. 

In the last ten years of his life, after Muhammad migrated to Medina , he launched no less than 78 raids called qazwa (raid, ambush, sudden attack). Some of these qazwas involved the assassination of one opponent by one or a group of volunteers, and others were carried out by hundreds or thousands of warriors. Nonetheless a common characteristic of all Muhammad’s incursions was that they were done without notice. The enemy was caught off guard without being given the chance to prepare himself or be armed.  As such all Muhammad’s victims were civilians. 

The historian Abul Husain Muslim Nisapuri writes:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.”  Muslim 19: 4292 

 Muhammad used the same element of surprise in virtually all his raids. Bukhari writes:

Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) offered the Fajr prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, 'Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned." The people came out into the streets saying, "Muhammad and his army." Allah's Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah's Apostle go who married her and her Mahr was her manumission. Bukhari 2.14.068

Here we read that Muhammad said: “the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned.” This should not be interpreted as announcing his plans for war. Actually not even his men knew which town they are going to attack until they reached at the gates of that town.  He sent spies to the cities that he wanted to attack and ambushed them when they were least prepared. This “warning” should be interpreted with the understanding of the Muslim mind. As far as Muslims are concerned we are all warned. They have called us to convert or prepare to die. This is the warning. There will be no other warning. Now that they have issued the warning, we are all fair game. All the non-Muslims are legitimate targets of Islamic terrorism. Muslim warriors today, do what their prophet did and follow his examples. The pattern and the modus operandi, is already set.  All Muslims’ wars and conquests have been through raid.  This has been always the case and the secret of their success.  In one hadith Muhammad boasted, “I have been made victorious through terror”. Bukhari 4:52.220

About four years after Hijra, an ambulant vendor came to Medina reporting that the tribes of Anmar and Tha’laba, (sun clans of Ghatfan) have gathered in Dhatal Riqa’. Upon hearing this news Muhammad left his loyal companion Utham in charge of the city and with a group of four hundred men (or seven hundred) warriors immediately headed to the place of the gathering of these Arab tribes. He found no one there but a few women, between them there was a beautiful girl. They captured the women. The men of the tribe took refuge in the mountains. (Ibn Sa’d Tabaqat  V. 2 P. 59)

When the prayer time came, the Muslims were afraid that the Ghatafan men might descend from their mountain hideout and make a sudden attack on them while they were praying. Apprehending this fear, Muhammad introduced the ‘prayer of fear,’ where a party of faithful stands guard while the other party prays. Then they take turns. A revelation came from Allah on this provision regarding shortening of a prayer. (4:100-102) 

And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy. (4:101)

Two months after the raid of Dhatal Riqa’ Muhammad received the news that a large group of Ghatfan has gathered in the oasis of Dumatal Jandal, between Hijaz and al-Sham to barter goods. This place was five nights journey from Medina . Muhammad immediately gathered one thousand of his followers. They rode during the night and hid during the day.  Muhammad also took the informer who was from the tribe of Bani udhrah as the guide. He reached this group at night time and the footprints of their herds of goats and camels could were still on the ground. The Muslims raided the herds of the animals, some of the shepherds were killed and some escaped. Muslims collected a large spoil.  When the news reached the people of Domat, they scattered and the Prophet found no one in their place. He stayed a few days and sent various groups to the neighborhood to investigate but they returned having found no one, except one man whom they took as captive.  Muhammad asked him about the tribe, the man said when the people heard about the raid they escaped. The Prophet then called upon him to accept Islam, which he did and then the Muslims returned to Medina . (Ibn Sa’d Tabaqat  V. 2 P. 60)

Muslim historian claim that Muhammad the Qatfan were planning to attack Muslims. This is typical Islamic mindset, that always blames their victims. As the their own tale makes it clear, these people were a bunch of nomads and herdsmen and not warriors. Today Muslims use the same excuses and blame their victims to justify thier crimes against humanity. As an Arab proverb says: Darabani, wa baka; Sabaqani, wa'shtaka “ He struck me, and started crying; then he went ahead of me and charged me with beating him!”  This has been Muhammad’s and his followers modus operandi. 

Saddam Hussein was toppled after he'd murdered some 100,000 Kurds. What's the limit for Erdogan?

Who is next in line to invade Turkey after his own army failed? Himself?

Klevius comment: The Erdogan family has close ties to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and Saudi based and steered OIC, all muslims world organization.

Saudi & Co + Turkey, together with Western supported muslim terrorists, have changed the street views in Aleppo.

The Daily Caller on Wednesday revealed numerous ties between Hillary Clinton and members of the shadowy network surrounding Fethullah Gulen, the controversial Muslim cleric who has been called “the Turkish Khomeini,” and whom the Erdogan regime is accusing of instigating the coup that nearly toppled it on Friday.

According to the Caller, the Gulen camp has been one of Hillary’s numerous sources of cash, in exchange for which she gave access to the President: “a Gulen follower named Gokhan Ozkok asked Clinton deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin for help in connecting one of his allies to President Obama….Ozkok served as national finance co-chair of the pro-Clinton Ready PAC. He gave $10,000 to the committee in 2014 and $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign last year. He is also listed on the Turkish Cultural Center’s website as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, one of the non-profit arms of the Clinton Foundation. He’s given between $25,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton charity.”

Ozkok wrote to Huma Abedin in 2009: “Please tell Madam Secretary that it would be great if President Obama can include a 15 minutes [sic] meeting with Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the Organization of of [sic] the Islamic Conference (OIC), in his trip to Turkey.”

Obama did meet with Ihsanoglu, and later invited him to the White House. Ihsanoglu is a longtime foe of the freedom of speech; he once went so far as to liken the Danish cartoons of Muhammad to 9/11

Klevius wrote:

Monday, June 27, 2016

Is Doug Bandow just so extremely unintelligent* in his misinfo about Saudi based and steered sharia OIC?! Let's hope so...

* Intelligence is biological whereas intellect is knowledge. Poor intelligence can't cope with complex knowledge. This is why you can trust Klevius as your least biased source of information. Klevius extremely high IQ combined with his lack of emotional, economical, political, religious or ideological ties, is here for you for free! Swallow your indignation - you wouldn't have any problem accepting other characteristics such as e.g. wealth, titles, look, etc., would you. And the only thing that makes Klevius writings stand out among millions of others is his virgin biological intelligence.

Klevius is a rarity - so benefit from it!

Saudi based and steered islamofascist sharia OIC has NEVER abandoned its commitment to its Human Rights violating original sharia declaration - only transferred the word 'sharia' to an international sharia court

This is why Klevius keeps referring to OIC's original Cairo declaration with its naked islamofascist sharia expressions. Nothing has changed.

Doug Bandow Senior Fellow, the Cato Institute: Washington should encourage responsible Islamic voices. One is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. According the group diplomatic status would give Americans greater opportunity to influence an important forum for Islamic activism.

Klevius, Senior Fellow of the Free World: "Diplomatic status" for an organization that is clashing head on with the most basic of Human Rights - including the rights of half of the world's population, i.e. women!

On 5 August 1990, 45 foreign ministers of the OIC adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of human rights in as much as they are compatible with the Shari.

In June 2008 and in part (how big is hard to tell but Klevius was the only one really pointing it out on the world wide web) due to Klevius work, the OIC conducted a formal revision of its charter. The revised charter pretended to set out to promote human rights, fundamental freedoms, and good governance in all member states. The revisions also removed any mention of sharia and the original Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Simultaneously a bridge was made to safeguard its commitment to sharia via member states and an international sharia court that would decide which human rights could be accepted according to sharia.

Doug Bandow Senior Fellow, the Cato Institute: In 2008 the OIC amended its charter with an emphasis on human rights and liberty. It dropped the Cairo Declaration and endorsed the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Law. The organization also established the Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission, an advisory body tasked with monitoring human rights within member states.

Klevius: At the inaugural speech in IPHRC’s first session in Jakarta in 2012 and during the opening remarks at the third session on Oct. 26, 2013 in Jeddah (the seat of OIC), the secretary-general Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu outlined five principles. First, the commission will complement rather than replace other national and international mechanisms. Second, it will follow an introspective approach, helping OIC member states improve human rights practices (in accordance with sharia). Third, it will fulfill a guidance function, providing member states with services like human rights (i.e. sharia) training for the police. Fourth, it will take an incremental approach, building its credibility and mandate over time. And finally, the commission will prioritize the most pressing human rights problems.

Doug Bandow Senior Fellow, the Cato Institute: Obviously, the group’s reach is limited and the behavior of many member states remains awful. However, its work helps highlight the failings of the most repressive Islamic states.

Klevius:Like Saudi Arabia who both harbors and steers OIC - really?!

Doug Bandow Senior Fellow, the Cato Institute: Perhaps most dramatic, in 2011 the OIC abandoned its campaign on religious defamation and backed a resolution more friendly to religious liberty. The organization’s previous secretary-general, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, admitted that opposition from America and Europe was too strong. The OIC shifted to Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which encourages “universal respect for” freedom of “religion or belief.” ”

Klevius:This is utterly laughable. Resolution 16/18 was a compromise and a job half done from an islamic point of view. However, 16/18 is in reality already a "blasphemy" resolution that is mainly in place to protect evil islam and its evil followers.

Doug Bandow Senior Fellow, the Cato Institute: Admittedly, not everyone is satisfied. George Washington Law School Professor Jonathan Turley pointed to the resolution’s call for countries to approve “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.” While U.S. law does not protect an appeal to lawless violence, it does safeguard peaceful discourse even if others might be angered by it. Yet Ihsanoglu, among others, considered an anti-Islamic video to be “incitement to hatred, incitement to violence.”

Klevius: Indeed. In Saudi Arabia the very defense of the most basic of Human Rights is considered "acts of terrorism".

Doug Bandow Senior Fellow, the Cato Institute: Despite this difference, the OIC appears to have moved significantly toward Western standards. For instance, the group promoted the 2012 Rabat Plan of Action to combat incitement. The document acknowledged disagreements over free speech and called for countering hate speech, while applying a “high threshold” before enacting limited speech restrictions. Last year the Fez declaration, adopted at a UN forum backed by the OIC, emphasized the role of religious leaders in countering religious hatred, not government in imposing legislative solutions.

Klevius:The "high threshold" is there only to allow islamic hate speech - just check islamic education, while at the same time, evil islam itself is protected from "religious hatred".

Doug Bandow Senior Fellow, the Cato Institute: Finally, while continuing to try to separate Islam from terrorism, the group acknowledged that some terrorists claim their faith as a justification for murder and mayhem. At its April summit in Istanbul, reported Diplomatic Opinion, the OIC condemned “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations regardless of motives.” Moreover, the OIC-backed Marrakesh Declaration concluded that “It is unconscionable to employ religion for the purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries.”

Klevius: That OIC condemned “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations" means condemning "islamophobia".

Doug Bandow Senior Fellow, the Cato Institute: Last year the group’s executive committee developed a program to confront violent extremism and partner with organizations involved in counterterrorism. The group is in the process of setting up a Center on Violent Extremism in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Admittedly that’s an ironic location, given Saudi Arabia’s support for fundamentalist Wahhabism around the globe, but Joseph Grieboski, head of Grieboski Global Strategies, was hopeful about the OIC’s plans to review language and messaging, as well as develop programs to reach groups susceptible to radicalization.

Klevius:Always this "hopefulness" when it comes to the Saudi dictator family and islam.

British moral - and sense - meltdown: Supporting sharia and Saudi Arabia/UAE etc. islamofascist states while condemning Human Rights - and accusing China of Human Rights violations!?

Is BBC's hate campaign against China and constant support of Human Right violating sharia islamofascism in the best interest of the Brits?
 

Homegrown muslim terrorism or homegrown Chinese high tech?

BBC and many politicians desperately try to negatively focus on China for the purpose of covering up UK's appalling ties with the world's worst hate mongers and Human Rights violators in muslim Mideast who not only spread hate islam over the world but also attack their own neighbors with weapons and assistance bought from UK .

How often have you heard about non-muslim Chinese attacking the West and "Westerners"? And have you ever heard about "radical" Chinese using Trojan Horse tactics and religious fanatism for the purpose of "destroying the West" ("West" meaning secularism based on Human Rights)?

Klevius (who isn't a socialist) hint to whatever will be the biggest chunk leftover after the imploding Labour: Ask the Brits what they really think about sharia and hate mongering muslim Mideastern states - and then use your leftist ideology to tease the Communists in Beijing, so to get better access/deals with the productive Capitalist part of China.

Linux and China rule supercomputing

As BBC and others keenly, but mostly falsely, try to tell us about "islamic science" and "muslim inventors", Klevius sees no problem in honestly telling you that Linux was invented by a Finland-Swede, Linus Torvalds.

Klevius: Jeremy Corbyn has to go because he's an undemocratic racist/supporter of racism/sexism. However, will that change Labour's cooperation with islamofascists?

Some 150,000 Labour party "members" can't overrun the parliamentarians voted in by some 9 million voters. Moreover, Jeremey Corbyn is a dumb, or alternatively, shrewed, racist/racism supporter.

If Labour voters were informed that Corbyn's use of "islamophobia" doesn't mean their cultural non-sharia muslim friend but something way more sinister, then probably only islamic sharia extremists would give him their "vote", i.e. a "vote" from a "voter" who is against democracy and "British values":. 

Jeremy Corbyn couldn't for his life first remember that he had welcomed this extremist muslim. Only under hard pressure did he later managed to recollect his suppressed memory. Is he demented or something much worse?


Jeremy Corbyn's attacks on Human Rights defenders (calling those critical of Human Rights violating sharia, "islamophobes") while supporting racist and sexist islamofascists, fulfills not only the most common criterion on racism, but also mirrors the very same socialist "radicalization" that created the Nazi party, i.e. the socialist workers party that departed from its mother party, the German social democrats. Only now it's the islamic sharia Umma that constitutes the "national" part of the movement. So whereas conventional Labour voters may still associate it with NHS, welfare etc. (however, remember that Labour acted exactly in line with the conservatives about cutting benefits), the party has now become a dis-proportional power base for Human Rights violating sharia islam.

Whether Jeremy Corbyn is just so dumb (let's hope so), or just so canny (i.e. a typical shrewed politician selling out his alleged incentives for the purpose of cheap votes)  remains to be seen. However, as Klevius wrote in a previous post, he might just stick to the evil of state socialism which tramples the rights of the individual, hence constituting a perfect partner for e.g. islamofascism.


Labour hypocrisy

Labour want more young people to vote because they know that young people are more vulnerable for certain propaganda at schools in media etc.

Young people are usually also more racist than more mature people. The only thing they need to take to the streets is a "good cause". This is natural keeping in mind the amount of socialist propaganda they are showered by combined with lack of life understanding.

 However, before giving younger people the vote they (as well as all others) ought to be educated on:

1 Universal (negative) Human Rights equality

2 How islamic sharia (in whatever form) is incompatible with the most basic of Human Rights (compare ECHR's decision)


The most basic of Human Rights are the so clalled "negative rights", i.e. right to freedom from state or religious impositions. However, these rights are not shared by socialist ideologies, as pointed out in Klevius 1994 article below.



To understand the difference between state socialism and fair welfare politics you may read the most important (because it also deals with sex segregation) sociological paper from the last century, Angels of Antichrist (Klevius 1996).

An English translation is on the way.


Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, September 09, 2015

Klevius to Human Rights loving refugees: Welcome to help fight islamofascism and BBC's misinformation about sharia islam!

BBC now uses its most treacherous and fanatical pro-islamic forces to keep the Brits unaware about the danger of sharia* muslims among the refugees from sharia* islam

BBC's hypocrites and islam's muslim bigots

To be a sharia* muslim is to be the ultimate bigot. 

And although BBC's hypocrites want to do their utmost to convince you that there are "moderate" strains of islam, nothing could be more false. When islam becomes "moderate" it has lost its allure, i.e. its ra bodiescism and sexism hidden under a "religious" cover. Moreover, "moderate" islam in whatever form are just fringe phenomenons, showroom prototypes only meant for flashing but never for real production. And by 'real production' it's here meant the acceptance of a of main muslim bodies.

However, these muslim bodies have never been seriously questioned about sharia* islam. Why? Because BBC knows that the answer is too horrifying  (sharia*)

So called BBC now uses their most eager islam campaigners to misinform the compulsory BBC fees, taxes etc. paying Brits about the fact that by bundling all non-European immigrants/asylum applicants as "refugees", sharia* muslims (i.e. islamofascists) among them will not be noticed.

Wife of muslim supremacist jihadist murderer in France: “We are normal muslims"

Klevius: Indeed you are! That's the problem, when islam and being muslim is stretched all over the place - yet we all have to listen to "muslim sensitivities" within that very same wide spectrum!

Do the muslim test by asking them if they are against Human Rights. If they are not then they are no real muslims, according to OIC (all muslims world Ummah).

BBC's muslim (apostate?!) presenter Mishal Husain (rooted in Pakistan and grown up in Saudi Arabia): I don't care to fast during Ramadan but rather eat and drink some alcohol. And I will never wear a hijab! And I see no threat against my way of life.

Klevius: Well, that's due to Human Rights - not sharia! Isn't this a disgusting spitting in the face of all those true refugees who escape sharia islam?!



The simple but extremely dangerous formula seems to be: Call it/them all islam/muslims and define islam/muslims at its most favorable point - i.e. a point that is more of a fantasy product than real.



Why hasn't BBC fired their bigots? Are the Brits really ok with paying compulsory fees and taxes to support these senseless lies about islam?!
They happily report about extremely rare occasions of so called "white supremacist hate crimes"  while not even mentioning these word and 'muslim' when triggered by islam (yes, you're right they are all triggered by islam).

Mishal Husain, Samantha Lewthwaite, Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common.

Although Edward Stourton most likely tells you that the muslims in the Islamic State are no real muslims, he is acting in a way (sharia islam support) that directly or indirectly contributes to the bloodbath and suffering. Klevius therefore suggests that he should use the word neo-muslims (i.e. anti-sharia*) to distinguish between what we could call 'Stourton muslims' and 'Islamic State/Saudi etc sharia muslims' he considers non-muslims. This because Klevius doubts he would stop calling the Saudi "guardians of islam" muslims.
* Anti-sharia means being against the most basic of Human Rights. To understand this distinction (and to avoid those dangerous BBC idiots who like to confuse it by talking about meaningless consensual "religious" sharia practices, while hiding what makes it truly islamic, i,e, against Human Rights) consider that muslims' main global organization, Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC, couldn't accept UN's Universal Human Rights declaration - not even with some national exceptions - but had to replace it with a sharia declaration that in effect nullifies whatever Human Right if it clashes with islamofascist sharia.

 How many more victims of sharia* muslim sex abuse of non-muslims will we hear about after some years to come?

How do you differ a hateful sharia* muslim from refugees from sharia islam?

Warnings against "islamophobia" is the cover under which islamofascism thrives. And the main messenger in UK now seems to be the socialist wannabe leader Jeremy Corbyn

Klevius wrote:

Sunday, September 06, 2015

Remove the poisonous islamic sharia* sting from muslim refugees before accepting them!

* 'Sharia islam' is the part of islam that conflicts with the most basic of Human Rights. I.e. those very parts Saudi based and steered OIC "protected" from Human Rights scrutiny in UN by calling it "religious law".

1 Demand muslims to commit apostasy against islam!

The worst crime one can commit against sharia islam is to leave it (apostasy). So by openly in writing and wording abandoning islam while assuring this is not made as taqiya etc. (e.g. by repeating it in accordance with sharia until the criterion for apostasy are fulfilled) a muslim can then be treated as a Human Rights "muslims".

True original islam is a hateful parasitic slave ideology which carries the seeds of destruction within it.

2 End Saudi & Co's racist/sexist islamic hate mongering for good!

While this little boy died Obama visits and supports his murderers

Without being born in a muslim society this little boy may have survived.

Sleazy politicians like muslim born (apostate?!) "president" Barry Barakeh Hussain Mohammad Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) and Jeremy Corbyn have in common a strong aversion against criticism of islamofascism.

If islam is squeezed to fit the most basic of Human Rights - i.e. abandoning Human Rights violating sharia - then that would mean the definitive cure against Klevius "islamophobia". 

We need more "islamophobia" to protect our children - not criminalize it as Jeremy Corbyn (and the Saudi dictator family) wants!

 Raed Salah: Very soon, Muhammad will be the most popular name in Europe.

Klevius: Question is, will most of those Muhammads have dropped that name when realizing the difference between Human Rights and evil Muhammad islam?

 Yes, Christians suffer under islam - but what about non-Christians?

Saturday, September 05, 2015

Klevius proposes: Give a visa to civilization to every muslim who abandons Human Rights violating sharia islam!

How many in this muslim invasion are sharia muslims?

The Saudi dictator family is the by far worst single cause to islamic evil in Mideast and elsewhere today. And because they own both media and politicians, average people are still equally ignorant about islam as were the two UK girls visiting Zanzibar. Here's from Klevius blog 2013:

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

Later these girls were attacked by, most probably the muslim sons, who threw acid in their face.

We need more "islamophobia" and less sharia muslims. Politicians like Jeremy Corbyn, however, do the opposite and thereby cause even more suffering among islam's victims.

.
 Muslim countries without oil or aid

If islam is squeezed to fit the most basic of Human Rights - i.e. abandoning Human Rights violating sharia - then that would mean the definitive cure against Klevius "islamophobia". 

This is how it looks like in UK where Labour seems to be most pro-islamofascism.