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
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.