Acknowledgement for newcomers in simple English: To understand why islam
itself is the source of evil do understand (check for youself if you
don't trust Klevius) the following:
1 Islam originated in a bloodbath where muslims slaughtered all
the Jews in Medina. And from then on it continued in pretty much the
same way as the Islamic State today - only that, thanks to islam's
backwardness, the West has superior technology to keep them down. In
fact, islam has never produced any tech by itself (when did you last
time buy a camera or car made in Saudi Arabia?). Why should it when the
whole islamic ideology is based on slave parasitism (and today also
Western oil money and aid/benefits). And the only "golden" in the so
called "golden age" was the gold muslims got through their slaves. And
later on the Ottoman muslim slave empire immediately started
deteriorating after the West had abolished all kinds of slavery (except
muslim sex slavery hidden as it is within sharia marriage and as
"concubines" i.e. sex slaves).
2 The Koran is an Arabic nationalist supremacist slavery manual.
Because early muslims were caravan robbers etc. criminals (i.e.
parasites) they could only survive on what they could rob from others
(which they called "infidels"). This is why islam became the worst and
biggest slavery ideology ever.
3 Islam is today sharia via Saudi based and steered OIC
(Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which via 57 more or less criminal
member states in United Nations (UN) has managed to democratically
(although islam is anti-democratic and anti-Human Rights) establish
itself as the muslim world Ummah with due Human Rights violating sharia
(the so called Cairo declaration on "islamic human rights").
4 Islam is not islam without sharia so a muslim who rejects
sharia (in any Human Rights violating form) isn't a real muslim - just a
cultural "muslim" and therefore of no interest for Klevius islam
criticism.
However, it's therefore extremely important that every muslim clearly
and honestly declare whether s/he is an islamofascist (Human Rights
violating sharia) or not.
Start by asking your muslim friend. S/he lies to you if s/he says s/he
can be a believing muslim without such sharia. To believe in islam is to
believe in Human Rights violating sharia. That's the very reason OIC
rejected Human Rights in UN! And if s/he doesn't then s/he has committed
the worst crime against islam and should be protected by Western Human
Rights and due legislation based on them.
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!
OIC is a muslim extremist organization!
ICLA: The Cairo Declaration is recognized as a
so-called “regional instrument” by the United Nations, but rarely, if
ever, used or referred to. It is thus functionally redundant, yet its
approval creates an unneeded and potentially dangerous ambiguity in the
formal definition of the human rights. For Sharia is incompatible with
democracy and fundamental human rights, as stated in 2003 by the
European Court of Human Rights, and thus the Cairo Declaration is
equally incompatible with any meaningful definition of human rights, as
well as with several OSCE commitments.
Thus, to avoid willful
misinterpretations of what “human rights” refer to, it would be good for
the protection of human rights defenders to have the Cairo Declaration
explicitly repudiated by those OSCE pS that also hold membership of the
OIC. If they do not do so, they should provide a detailed justification
for keeping this declaration on the books, and the intended use of it.
ICLA thus recommends that:
OSCE makes a statement that the Cairo Declaration has no relevance to its understanding of human rights.
OSCE pS that are also members of OIC explicitly repudiate the Cairo
Declaration as being of no relevance, now or in the future, for the
interpretation of “human rights”.
Klevius: Nothing has happened since this was written in 2013! An
eerie silence follows wherever islam puts its evil hand. Wake up dude!
And you Brits, consider that your PM David Cameron has appointed a
non-elected sharia muslim called Sayeeda Warsi as the "minister of faith
islam and sent her as the official representative to the islamofascist
OIC organization! Is this really what the majority of Brits want? Or are
they just so thoroughly fooled and unaware! And no wonder when this
"islamophobia" islamofascism has settled so deeply that you can't even
apply for a job if you're known as critical of islam. All about islam is
intimidation: physical, reputational, financial etc. Goebbels is
certainly laughing in his grave.
Klevius Human Rights campaign against sharia fueled racist/sexist islamic hate
Klevius is anti sharia islam and anti sharia muslims - and very proud of
it! Moreover, Klevius thinks he has a majority of "muslims" on his side
- although most of them don't even know it as yet. And even those
"muslims" who know it but stay muslim because of monetary advantages,
have to admit Klevius' logic and their own evilness which could range
from mild Human-rightsphobia to extrem muslim terrorism.
Muslim hate speech and acts against "infidels" are protected by Human
Rights. However, there must be room for Human Rights people (without
dhimmitude etc) in the world as well - or?! Face islam's hate Human Rights problem!
Warning for hateful muslims in policing, nursing, caring, public
service etc. Unlike other weirdos muslim weirdos can refer to a
"religious" book and "tradition" that so many say is "holy"* and of
course excited by all the "diversity
brainwashed/scared
trained" people they encounter and read, according to whom islam is
such a "nice and peaceful religion" that ought to be respected. All
"monotheist" religions are based on sexism but islam is also the worst
ideological crime ever against humanity throughout 1400 years.
* (negative) Human Rights,
i.e. freedom from unnecessary impositions, is the only truly holy
concept we need as a functioning worldwide morality. Civilized people of
all sorts already know this and behave accordingly.
As it
stands now, by referring to her/his "religion" a muslim can deny you
things you can't deny her/him without facing accusations of "racism" or
"hate", based on those very Human Rights the actual muslim in fact otherwise hates.
In a BBC debate one of those politically correct non-muslim politicians
defended the stupid proposal to give muslims (of course he didn't
mention muslims but used the usual proxy word "religious") the right to
discriminate against non-muslims in a way non-muslims aren't allowed to
discriminate muslims no matter how offended they are by the muslim's
hateful racist/sexist sharia ideology.
Klevius investment hint: Muslim Sharia free zones will be very valuable in the future.Not the least for many "muslims".
Forget
about saving rain forests etc! This is your new deal. Did you hear that
you oily sheiks fearing a decrease in the popularity of your oil! Or
are you running out of money after having invested so heavily in sharia
zones?
Risks: That islam collapses even quicker than expected. However, even if
you then may loose some money you may also comfort yourself with a
fairer world.
Klevius vs ? billion muslims. He knows it's not fair - of course
Klevius' Human Rights logic is irresistible in the long run compared to
dividing hateful muslim sharia racism/sexism!
Human Rights
Klevius: On his blogs and sites 'Klevius' is interchangeable with
'Human Rights' because all they do is defending Human Rights.
Unfortunately for muslims, islam makes itself the biggest target
precisely because of its violation of Human Rights. Nowhere on Klevius'
sites/blogs can you find ANYTHING not in line with this Human Rights
defense!
Muslims: There doesn't exist a true muslim without her/him (via her/his
support of sharia islam) violating the most basic equality principles
of Human Rights.
Sexism
Klevius: There is no defense for sex segregation/apartheid. Not even
heterosexual attraction (of which Klevius has written the most essential
analysis in the world of today - admittedly, the competition hasn't
been very hard).
Muslims: Women are inferior to men and women's heterosexual attraction
makes it necessary in islam to sharia hide/jail/restrict them physically
and/or culturally (the means vary depending on muslim
community/sub-settings).
Racism
Klevius: Human Rights make racism impossible.
Muslims: Islam is built on "infidel" racism.
Politics
Klevius: For secularism based on Human Rights.
Muslims: For an islamic state based on sharia.
Beliefs
Klevius: Atheist, i.e. lacking a "god" he otherwise could blame and
instead protecting his moral attitude by hanging it on the most powerful
of all moral codes namely the
negative Human Rights.
Muslims: Whatever a muslim does it's "Allah's" will. And because
"Allah's" will is not known then we have no tool whatsoever to know the
inscrutable will of the muslim - other than the self evident Atheist
conclusion that it's no more or less than the will of the muslim, and
not of "Allah".
According to
one of BBC's extremely few and misleading reports about OIC aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment:
Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe ... (read more on Klevius beats BBC)
In Britain, the number of Muslim converts recently passed the 100,000
mark, according to a survey conducted by an inter-faith group called
Faith Matters. The survey revealed that nearly two thirds of the
converts were women, more than 70% were white and the average age at
conversion was just 27.
Klevius explanation: Non-muslim women who marry muslims have to choose
between a lower status as a non-muslim in the muslim family setting or
convert.
The muslim system is extremely racist and sexist in this regard because
everything is one-way directed towards the muslim man and islam and away
from Human Rights. A non-muslim man isn't even allowed to marry a
muslim woman without converting.
So instead of boasting about the high numbers they should be seen as utterly shamful in a civilized country.
So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?
Nothing could be easier. Just refute Human Rights violating sharia and
you don't hear anything from Klevius. Do as Ayaan Hiris Ali did!
From anti-islamic Magna Carta in 1215 to anti-fascist Human Rights in 1948 - and the islamofascism of today
Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long
struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David
Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights
violating sharia.
Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was
produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian.
Compare this to the British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while
seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside
Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).
King John the Traitor, PM David
Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be
"reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant
direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing
Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare
Raif Badawi and others).
King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir
asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and
turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read
or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and
obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is
free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as
it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that
they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of
blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched
lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from
a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human
beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English
allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very
servile and soft.
Some more hateful muslims
Or are they no muslims precisely because of their hate?!
How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which
preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that
is more protected than most other people?!
Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary,
their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's
represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself,
i.e. OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).
Muslims have
chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by
believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok,
Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims
would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped
there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat
against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights.
And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia
(as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human
Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by
those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.