Negative Human Rights for a positive future free from sharia islam - the worst ideological crime ever.
An ideology similar to sharia islam but without a "religious" name would without the slightest doubt be considered a hateful racist and sexist supremacist organization.
Sharia muslims of the muslim world Umma want to force countries to change their laws to submit to sharia. And because every form of sharia is against the most basic Human Rights then sharia islam constitutes a crime from a Human Rights point of view - similarily as Saudi Arabia consider Human Rights a crime against sharia islam.
Islam always means sharia islam, i.e. something that violates Human Rights. Islam without sharia is no longer islam in any meaningful sense.
US' Declaration of Independence constituted an indictment of the Crown and Parliament of good old England.
Similarily sharia islam is a criminal conspiracy and those who support it may well be seen as traitors.
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.