The "islamophobia" campaigners continue protecting the worst ever ideological crime on the planet! Why?!

The Islamic State constitutes a perfect time machine for those who want to understand the origin of islam

Islam, an ideology based on parasitism and terror, is a monstrous hate crime throughout 1,400 years. Its victims can be counted in hundreds of millions. Its Sharia is ALWAYS against Human Rights. Yet criticism of islam is called "islamophobia"!

A central tenet of islam is rapetivism.

 Well, what do some women think about that?

Aliaa Magda Elmahdy from Femen protesting against islam  The text says: 'There is only one god, Allah, and the prophet Muhammad is his messenger.'

A Slav punishing islam in France with her breasts in true French tradition

 Vive la France

 Inna Shevchenko, the leader of Femen, used as a model for a French national (Marianne) stamp. Below in real.

Joan of Arc, a medieval French Tomboy burned at the religious stake

God's voice told her that it was her divine mission to free her country from the Brits and therefore she cut her hair short and round 'in the fashion of young men', dressed in man's uniform and picked up the arms. In May 1430 she was taken prisoner in battle, and later burned at the stake on a religious accusation of heresy, i.e. for insisting on wearing men's clothes. A custom she was used to and had realized was more convenient for her. She also found that trousers better protected her from rape.

Today's Tomboys have equally (or less?!) little chance surviving rigid sex apartheid as during medieval times

And it's all covered up in a frantic, almost desperate pro-"girly" anti'Tomboy sex apartheid. Here's what you get today on Google News on a 'tomboy' search:

Here's a British female "islamophobe". However, how come that she has missed OIC and their global Sharia declaration against Human Rights via UN?!

Julie Bindel maintains, as Klevius has always done, that "people should question the basis of the diagnosis of male psychiatrists, 'at a time when gender polarization and homophobia work hand-in-hand.'" She points out that muslim "Iran carries out the highest number of sex change surgeries in the world", that "surgery is an attempt to keep gender stereotypes intact", and that "the idea that certain distinct behaviors are appropriate for males and females underlies feminist criticism of the phenomenon of 'transgenderism'."

In her November 2008 piece written after the Stonewall protest, Bindel talked about her frustration with being in a movement that insisted she accept trans people, yet resulted in her being criticized whenever she spoke on trans issues. She said that as a longtime active member of the lesbian community she felt uncomfortable with the increasing inclusion of sexuality and gender-variant communities into the expanding LGBT 'rainbow alliance': "the mantra now at 'gay' meetings is a tongue-twisting LGBTQQI." "It is all a bit of an unholy alliance. We have been put in a room together and told to play nicely." "I for one do not wish to be lumped in with an ever-increasing list of folk defined by 'odd' sexual habits or characteristics." "I just want to be left alone. I am not in your gang, I did not ask to be, so please don't tell me I am one of yours, and then tell me off for offending your orthodoxy." In January 2009 she wrote about the radical lesbian feminism of the 1970s and 1980s, and her desire to return to those values. She concluded with an invitation to heterosexual women to adopt lesbianism, saying "Come on sisters, you know it makes sense. Stop pretending you think lesbianism is an exclusive members' club, and join the ranks. I promise that you will not regret it."

During her time as a Guardian contributor Bindel has begun to write more on issues about rape, such as drug rape and date rape. She is critical of how difficult life is made for women who report rape, how the investigative and legal process ends up with women being dealt with more like the offender than the victim. Bindel responded to the difficulties of reporting and prosecuting rape by saying she would not report it herself, "we may as well forget about the criminal justice system and train groups of vigilantes to exact revenge and, hopefully, deter attacks. Because if I were raped, I would rather take my chances as a defendant in court, than as a complainant in a system that seems bent on proving that rape is a figment of malicious women's imagination."


Klevius comment: Against this background, isn't it remarkable that she has missed that the world's main and strongest muslim organization, Saudi based OIC (led by its Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani) via UN has officially abandoned women's most basic Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia!? In other words, OIC has deemed muslim women to domestic rape by their muslim husbands while also sanctioning rape of non-muslim women by muslim men.

Muslim ethnicity - not geographical location - behind "Asian" or "Pakistan" sex abuse/murder of white girls!

The disgusting face of the social state

Joyce Thacker has been a central figure in the responsibility for letting children be abused and even murdered. How much does she get from your tax money, and will she be rewarded in the usual way for defending islam while not defending of children. 

However, she seems not very visible on Google News despite the biggest sex slave shock ever in Britain happened under her watch!?

To get a theoretical background to this please read what Klevius wrote some 20 years ago (Angels of Antichrist in the social state - the most important sociological paper written in the last century) and a decade ago (Pathological symbiosis in the social service).

Also consider The Swedish girl problem.

However, what you really should give a serious thought is why Joyce Thacker is defended?


The now reported over 1400 child (young girls "rescued" from their families by the social state) sex slaves taken and abused lately by British muslims is just a tiny glare from the tip of the iceberg. And although it's common and accepted all over the muslim world, in Western countries it's protected under the "islamophobia" slogan.

It's not islam! Really? So muslim jihadists, and muslim sex offenders just happen to follow the text in the Koran and the historical origin of islam in this respect?!


And some other disgusting females supporting muslim sex slavery

Is the Darfur genocide a "random muslim scare story", Nesrine Malik? As a Sudanese you should know, shouldn't you. Or the global muslim sex abuse and trafficking of underage girls?

Nesrine Malik: In 2012, nine men were convicted of child exploitation and grooming of vulnerable young girls in Rochdale. Similar grooming gangs were identified in Derby, Rotherham and Oxford..The fact that these grooming gangs were Asian and Muslim ('muslims' were almost never mentioned - it's entirely Malik's own spice to ther story), and their victims white, became central to their offences in public discourse and media coverage. How was this done? Newspaper articles, radio shows and TV panel discussions adopted, discussed and repeated the claim of Muslim grooming and abuse. By popularising a notion that their crimes were somehow mandated by a sharia law that condoned sexual exploitation of non-Muslims. That is, not only is their religion relevant, it is blessing their crimes, or at least informing their culture. This was simply not true but it was repeated and sublimated into fact. "Muslim grooming gangs", a description about as unhelpful as  the "Christian paedophile Jimmy Savile". It was a scenario in which a factually erroneous religious justification was used to explain an anomalous episode.

Max Dunbar: “I used to get outraged about people like Nesrine Malik. Here we have an independent woman working in finance in secular London, telling women in the developing world that theocracy really isn’t so bad as they make out. Isn’t this an imperialist attitude? But in the end, the appropriate response isn’t outrage: it’s a dark and riotous laughter at the arrant stupidity of it all.”

It was because they were muslims they were so leniently handled with by social workers, police, courts, etc. - not because they were from Asia! Non-muslim Russians from Asia would hardly have been equally leniently handled!

Who else than Klevius can tell all these abused or about to become abused girls about sex apartheid and the true origin of islam?

When a girl trapped in a limiting sex segregated upbringing suddenly realizes the heterosexual attraction of her ass she might easily get lost - especially if her attachment to her parents is cut off by the state power of senseless social authorities. Combine this to the Koran that tells you that infidel girls your right arm possesses are legitimate. And add to this that, according to islamic logic, the West (more or less by its very existence) is attacking islam and therefore war booty is legal.

And who else than Klevius can tell all of you others that your tax money to the social state is of no use - but contributes to abuse! Yes, Klevius has seen all the evidence through academic studies as well as on the actual field as a solicitor in cases were the state wants to abduct children for no real reason other than placing them in commercial foster or care homes they themselves often have commercial interest in. Moreover, the social state has itself developed into a self serving commercial interest spiced by political interest.

Again, read Angels of Antichrist and Pathological symbiosis before you even open your big mouth in these matters.



Here's what Klevius wrote

Friday, September 28, 2012

Was it muslim (or muslim "sensitive") social workers/police who failed Victoria Agoglia and other white vulnerable ("trash") girls in Rochdale etc?

 Angels of Antichrist (no idiot, Klevius isn't Christian)

 is by far the most important sociological paper written in the last Century. In summary it shows that there is no connection at all between tax money invested in the welfare social state and the quality of its outcome. And how could there ever be when it's a defacto overgrown commercial company except fot that it:

   doesn't have to show results (or the results can be arbitrarily manipulated by itself)
   its parts work as authorities
   it has monopoly
   it writes, more or less, its own laws via its extensive bureaucracy and lobbying (for a horror example from Sweden of how democracy is sidestepped by bureaucracy see Pathological Synbiosis)
   its main interest is to feed itself
   it started as a dump for the spill over (women) of sex segregation (in the post-industrial automation), i.e. women (who couldn't go to the private sector) were paid to get away from their children (often to take care of children of others). As Klevius has shown in his thesis groundbreaking (but largely neglected) Pathological Symbiosis (with all the references you may ask for to really see how bad the social state is in taking care of children) this process also includes an element of feel of guilt boosted by "motherhood" psychology, i.e. that women who couldn't take care of their children because they were working started pathologizing women who did take care of their children.

Although the welfare state was born in the 1940s the social state emerged on a powerful new tax platform in Sweden in the 1970s with some roots in much earlier practices.

In Angels of Antichrist (which, so far, is the world's only serious/informed attempt to an overall interdisciplinary approach on the social state) and Pathological Symbiosis it's shown beyond reasonable doubt that there's absolutely no evidence (see e.g. Vinnerjung's comprehensive study on foster children) that the social state has contributed any good social work on the whole despite the enormous amount of money invested in it. And this is no rocket science to understand. How could a young sex segregated woman without children of her own and brainwashed for many years in courses based on all the time changing and heavily biased flimsy but fashionable non sense psychology ans sociology, possibly know anything else than khow to get the most out of it for herself? 

So when Jim Taylor, chief executive of Rochdale Borough Council, refuses to answer whether he'll get rid of those social workers who called sexually abused/raped (by muslims from Pakistan) white girls (whom the social state already had taken "care" of) and who were in their early teens, "prostitutes" "life choice" and didn't in any way react to the cries for help, then this is a pattern that has been around for long also in Swedish schools etc as Klevius has written for a decade on his sites and blogs.

Sharia "Britishness" and British citizenship hypocrisy

Do you want a Sharia passport or a Human Rights passport?

 The measures the British home secretary has been pushing for some time, massively expand the number of Brits vulnerable to being stripped of their British citizenship to an estimated three or four million people. This is the approximate number of people who hold a British passport but were not born in the UK. The government will be able to deprive them of their citizenship, regardless of whether or not they hold any other nationality or have committed any crime.


                            ISLAMIC STATE OF AL KHALIFA

Here some British citizens/passport holders (Rory Green, Samantha Lewthwaite, Michael Adebolajo, and Mishal Husain*)  with non-British values who don't have anything to fear in this respect. Because they are born in Britain the  remove their citizenship as he can with someone who got her/his British citizenship after birth.So although your birth is something you don't remember anything about it seems to constitute some sort of guarantee for "Britishness".

* Mishal Husain says she is a muslim and therefore she has to obey Sharia. However, Sharia is in no way compatible with British values. Islamic Sharia, in whatever form ("extremist" or "moderate") ALWAYS clashes with some of the most basic of Human Rights.

This Britsh born nut job interviewed by BBC here . He used to be a Christian - but for how long? Although slowly, the beard seems to be growing. And he can return to Britain from, say, Guantanamo* whenever he likes with his British born passport.

* where his beloved muslim terrorist friend resides

While the security services hunt the man who beheaded US journalist James Foley, the foreign secretary Hammond made clear his revulsion that the culprit could be British. "It is horrifying to think that the perpetrator of this heinous act could have been brought up in Britain. It is an utter betrayal of our country, our values and everything the British people stand for."

Klevius comment: But if he had been born in Britain as the Lee Rigby murderer - then what?!

What's all the fuzz about islamic Sharia beheadings? In Saudi Arabia it's a daily official judicial* routine - e.g. if someone wants to leave islam

What's all the fuzz about islamic Sharia beheadings? In Saudi Arabia it's a daily official judicial* routine - e.g. if someone wants to leave islam

*  And no one seems to bother because the Saudis just follow "human rights" - islamic "human rights" it is. I.e. what Saudi based OIC did in the UN when they abandoned the Human Rights declaration and now calls Sharia "islamic human rights".

Who is a Brit? Is it a British born UK citizen Sunni wahhabi muslim who fights against Syria's Shia/Alawite muslims, just like the official British representatives wanted to do before the Parliament stopped them?

What's the difference between the islamic Lee Rigby beheading and the islamic James Foley behading? Anyone?

It seems that even the skin color of the perpetrators is the same. So, why would that matter?! Simply because a main function of islamic evil is to boost racist hate. And this function is most deliberately used today by the Saudis. And who are the most vulnerable to this hate propaganda? Those with inferiority complex who hate "Westerners" seen mainly as "whites"/Europeans/Americans or the "servants" of "whites"/Europeans/Americans.

But Koran based one way Sharia rapetivism gives also muslim women an important role.

And as Rokia Traore used to put it (as translated/interpreted by Klevius): Women constitute the source of power for islamofascism.

What's the difference between Saudi wahhabism and that of the Islamic State anyway? Anyone!

This disgusting islamofascist, the official Saudi Arabia's top cleric, Grand Mufti Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheik, who approves of the beheading of everyone who wants to leave islam, and whose medieval wievs are hard to distinguish from those of the Islamic State, hyocritically said that "extremism" and the ideologies of groups like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda are islam's No. 1 enemy.

He also also said in his public statement that "terrorism" (read threats to the Saudi dictator family) has no place in islam, and that the danger of extremists lies in their use of islamic slogans to justify their actions that divide people.




Klevius comment: Exactly! You Saudi islamofascists constitute the main source of sectarian violence against Shia etc non-wahhabi-Sunni muslims.


And here's an other important Saudi islamofascist, OIC Fuhrer Iyad Madani, who now rules most of UN with Saudi wahhabi Sharia similar to that of the Islamic State!

Black racism thrives in Ferguson - and elsewhere

Did black Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown try to take a gun from its white owner and shoot him precisely because of "civil rights" boosted black racism?

The popular black racist "civil rights" story: Unarmed black shot six times of which two in the head by a white police.

The unpopular but most probably true story: Black criminal bully thug walks in the middle of the street and gets therefore approached by the police. When the police officer then is told he fits the description of a theft and assault earlier in a local shop, the black thug attacks the police. Brown punched him in the face and tried to steal his gun during a struggle inside Wilson’s cruiser The police gets severely injured and shoots against the black thugs right arm. The black thug retires but decides to attack again and gets shot through his face and collar bone because he puts his head down while attacking. If a white thug had been shot under similar circumstance by a black police people couldn't have cared less..

Picks from the very few less biased media outlets

A man who claimed to have witnessed the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown said that he saw the 18-year-old doubling back towards the officer who shot him – a claim that counters most other witnesses’ rendition of the incident.

“How’d he get from there to here?” a bystander asked a man who claimed to have seen Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson shoot Brown.

“Because he ran,” said the witness.

“Police was still in the truck,” he described.

“Why his body come this way though?” the other man asked.

“He was like, over the truck, [garbled] so then he ran. Police got out, and ran after him,” said the witness.

After running, the witness said that Brown stopped and turned back around.

“Next thing I know he’s coming back towards the police. The police had his gun drawn on him,” the witness said.

“Police kept dumping on him, I’m thinking that the police missed him,” he continued, saying that he heard “at least five shots” and saying that “police are…this far from him.”

“Next thing I know,” the witness said, “I think…dude start running, kept coming toward the police.”

That rendition is at odds with other accounts provided by Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, and other witnesses who have appeared on television.

Johnson said that after a struggle between Wilson and Brown in which Wilson drew his gun and fired, Brown was struck and ran away. After that, according to Johnson, Wilson emerged from his cruiser and continued shooting even as Brown was surrendering.

Klevius comment: The struggle seems to have been in the police car when Brown tried to take the police's gun. And when Brown attacked again the policeman of course tried to get out of the car. The "surrender" thing seems completely made up to fit something else than the truth.

“He shot again, and once my friend felt that shot, he put his hands in the air, and he started to get down,” Johnson told a television reporter shortly after the shooting.

Johnson said that after Brown began to move to the ground, Wilson “fired several more shots.”

Klevius comment: 'Began to move to the ground'?! What's that? Was it Brown ducking while still attacking?

Another witness, Tiffany Mitchell, provided an account that was similar to Johnson’s.

Klevius comment: Similar in what way? A copy of Johnson or a biased account in the general "racism" hysteria - or both?

Though the witness in the Youtube video account likely did not cover every detail of what he saw, he did not mention Brown being shot in the back. Nor did he mention Brown holding his hands up the air and crouching down on the ground in order to surrender.

“Hands up, don’t shoot,” has become one of the rallying cries of protesters angry over the shooting.

Johnson, 22, did not tell reporters that he was present with Brown moments before the altercation with Wilson at a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store. There, Brown stole a box of cigars and shoved a store clerk. During his retelling to television reporters, Johnson also indicated that Wilson harassed the pair for no reason.

Ferguson police chief Tom Jackson said on Friday that Wilson was not aware that Brown had been involved in the strong-arm robbery when he first encountered them. But as Wilson was pulling away, he heard a police dispatch call describing the suspects in the robbery. He then doubled-back to confront the two, according to Jackson.

Wilson told investigators that Brown punched him in the face and tried to steal his gun during a struggle inside Wilson’s cruiser.




Michael Brown, 18, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, according to a preliminary private autopsy performed on behalf of his family on Sunday, the New York Times reported.

One of the bullets entered the top of the skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck and caused a fatal injury, according to Michael Baden, a former chief medical examiner for the City of New York. He flew to Missouri at the family’s request to conduct the autopsy, which follows an earlier examination carried out for St Louis County, which is investigating the killing.
ferguson Tear gas and smoke fills the air as unrest continued in Ferguson, Missouri on Sunday night. Photograph: Joshua Lott/Getty Images

Baden said it was probably the last bullet to hit the teenager. Brown was also shot four times in the right arm. All bullets were fired into his front, the examiner concluded.

The absence of gunpowder on the body suggested the bullets were not fired from close range. That determination could change if there was gunshot residue on Brown’s clothing, to which Baden did not have access, he told the New York Times.

The autopsy’s revelaton that Brown was shot in the head mirrored Wilson’s account of the disputed incident, when he encountered Brown walking in the middle of a street in Ferguson with a friend, Dorian Johnson.
ferguson A protester runs through a clowd of tear gas in Ferguson, Missouri. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images

Wilson has not spoken publicly but a friend of the family, who declined to be named, told the Guardian that the officer admits he shot Brown in the head. However, his version of events contradicts aspects of the accounts given by some other eyewitnesses, including Dorian Johnson.

There appears to be little dispute that an altercation took place when Wilson encountered Brown and Johnson, shortly after a robbery at a convenience store. Brown then made off, but quickly turned back.

In Wilson’s version, Brown was moving towards the officer in a threatening manner when he was shot. The autopsy concludes that all the shots were fired from the front.

Wilson’s account is that Brown continued to move towards him even after the first shots were fired, and did not stop until suffering a mortal wound to the head. “He just kept coming,” the friend said, characterising Wilson’s account.

Friends of Wilson and his girlfriend, Barbara Spradling, also a Ferguson police officer, have expressed concern about the racial and institutional politics involved, worrying that the charged environment may unduly influence the case.

In addition to concerns for their safety, friends of Spradling and Wilson believe his reputation has been unfairly tarnished by a rush to judgment from the media and some members of the public.

One friend of Spradling believes the legitimacy of any evidence supporting Wilson’s version of events will be questioned by protesters.

In St Louis, a crowd of about 150 people gathered in support of Wilson. Some wielded placards with messages defending the 28-year-old officer and his family, during the early-evening demonstration.

“He was doing his job,” said Kaycee Reinisch, 57, of Lincoln County, Missouri. “And now because of public uproar in Ferguson, he is being victimised. He is being victimised by the whole city, the state and the federal government.” Reinisch said she had relations in law enforcement who would be “frightened to do their jobs” if Wilson were punished for the incident.




Are these really the best idols "black" American "civil righters" can find? And what about "black" racism? And what about a comparison with Frank Lee Morris!
Rodney King, O. J. Simpson, Trayvon Martin etc are all used as political tools for black racism and political etc greed.

See below what George Zimmerman recalls with his encounter with the 17 year old Trayvon Martin who in media is described as "an unarmed innocent black teenager racially profiled by Zimmerman".

 .


To really get to the very soul of black racism consider 'Ms Lucy Black' below. No one seems interested to catch and penalize her. Why?


"Ms Lucy Black", one of the worst internet trolls ever, seems to have slipped(?!) from the attention of BBC, other media and the "civil rights movement" (read "the movement for political use of black racism and white stupidity").

 

The Trayvon Martin case  in a nutshell

Witnesses and facts support Zimmerman's version in every detail, yet few seems to bother. Why?

A 13-year-old boy walking his dog saw a man on the ground shortly before the shooting and identified him as wearing red (as did Zimmerman).

A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. He stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911". He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Wounds found on the 17-year-old's knuckles support George Zimmerman's claim that the unarmed teenager assaulted him before he was fatally shot

Zimmerman's medical report the day after the shooting,listed a broken nose, two black eyes and a cut in the back of the head.

Zimmerman's sweatshirt had "grass stains, and was wet on the back."


Zimmermann's own recollection

Zimmerman said he was driving to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking through the neighborhood. Zimmerman's father said that, while his son was not on duty that night as Neighborhood Watch captain, there had been many break-ins and he thought it suspicious that someone he didn't recognize was walking behind the town homes instead of on the street or the sidewalk. Zimmerman therefore called a non-emergency police line to report Martin's behavior and summon police. During the call, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was "coming to check me out." A source to the Orlando Sentinel said in May that Zimmerman told investigators that at one point Martin circled his vehicle, and he rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation.

After a discussion about where Zimmerman would meet police, Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him. Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman called out for help while being beaten, and at one point Martin covered his mouth to muffle the screams. According to Zimmerman's father, during the struggle while Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Martin saw the gun his son was carrying and said something to the effect of "You're gonna die now" or "You're gonna die tonight". Zimmerman and Martin struggled over the gun, and Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest at close range, in self-defense.

George Zimmerman about his encounter with Trayvon Martin in an area which he was supposed to keep an eye on as a neighborhood watch volunteer, and where a lot of burglaries etc crimes recently had occurred.

George Zimmerman, who by neighbors is described as nice and helpful, said it was a life-and-death struggle that began when the youth "jumped out from the bushes" after he had contacted the police".

As he spoke to the dispatcher, he said Martin circled his vehicle but he "lost visual of him." At the same time, he said the dispatcher asked him his location. He said he wasn't sure of the name of the street he was on and got out of the vehicle to look for a street sign or an address on a home.

The dispatcher asked him if he was following Martin and he replied that he was "trying to find out where he went." The dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that," noting an officer was en route.

Zimmerman was heading back to the vehicle when Martin jumped out, asking him, "What the f---'s your problem?"

He told Martin, "I don't have a problem," but the youth replied, "Now you have a problem," and attacked him. He said he fell backward after being punched in the nose, and "he was whaling on my head."

 In a written statement Zimmerman said Martin told him to "shut the f--- up" during the struggle.

"Each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode."

Martin punched him repeatedly in the face. "I started screaming for help. I couldn't see. I couldn't breathe.

He grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk," he said. "When he started doing that, I slid into the grass to try to get out from under him. ... I'm still yelling for help."

Martin "reached for my now exposed firearm" as the teen threatened his life and cursed at him.

Martin put his hand over Zimmerman's mouth and nose and told him, "You're going to die tonight."

"When I slid, my jacket and my shirt came up, and when he said, 'You're going to die tonight,' I felt his hand go down my side, and I thought he was going for my firearm, so I grabbed it immediately, and as he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him."

When he did, he said, Martin, who had been on top of him, fell away and said, "All right. You got it. You got it."

George Zimmerman, 28, is charged with second-degree murder in Martin's February 26 shooting death. Zimmerman has said he shot Martin in self-defense, but Martin's family and civil rights activists from across the country said that Zimmerman, who is white and Hispanic, racially profiled Martin. This race hunt has not only led to this but also to his wife being jailed as a consequence of the desperate situation the family was forced into, including the threats from black supremacist groups etc.

It may also be noted that Trayvon Martin used drugs and had been relegated from his school and that he also had had possession of jewellery that he couldn't explain from where it came.

Clayton Lockett who shot Stephanie Neiman twice and buried her alive after repeatedly having raped her friend, has been pitied for days on Google News! Why?

For some two days Google News pitied this black* murderous rapist thug (hate criminal?), with his pic always on top of the news, for possibly suffering some minutes before he died

*  Assuming a white similar thug hadn't got nearly as much - if any publicity other then condemnation for being a "white supremacist" had the victim been black.


Black African-American Clayton Lockett laughed as he murdered white Steve and Susie Neiman's only child, Stephanie Neiman, the teenage girl whom they had taught to stand up for “what was her right and for what she believed in.”  Compare what is said about George Zimmerman below.


Clayton Lockett was convicted of the extraordinary brutal murder of 19-year-old, Stephanie Neiman, in 1999. Neiman was shot during a home invasion, forced to watch her grave being dug, and was buried alive. Lockett was also convicted of raping her 18 year old friend during the violent home
invasion.

Steven and Susie Neiman said that the last 15 years have been "HELL":" Every day we are left with horrific images of what the last hours of Stephanie's life was like. Did she cry out for us to help her? We are left with the knowledge that she needed us and we were not aware of it therefore unable [to] help her."

Clayton Derrell Lockett murdered Stephanie Neiman on June 3, 1999. Stephanie, 19, had just graduated from Perry High School, where she played the saxophone in the band, two weeks earlier.

Neiman and a female friend had stopped to visit another friend named Bobby Boynt, 23, who was at his Perry home with his 9-month-old son.

Clayton Lockett, 23, his cousin, Alfonzo Lockett, 17 and Shawn Mathis, 26, were already there. While Boynt's baby son slept in another room, they had tied up and were beating Boynt.

When Neiman's friend went inside the home they hit her with a shotgun then forced her to call Neiman into the home.

They repeatedly raped Neiman's 18-year-old friend, tied up the two women then used Neiman's truck to take the adults and the baby to a rural part of Kay County. When Neiman refused to give Clayton Lockett the keys to her truck or provide him the alarm code, he ordered Stephanie to kneel while Mathis dug a grave.        

Lockett then shot her. While Neiman lay there screaming, Lockett shot her a second time. Even though she was still breathing, he ordered the other two other black attackers to drag her into the grave and bury her.

Alfonzo Lockett and Shawn Mathis are each serving life terms for their parts in the crime.

On February 28, 2014, the Oklahoma Attorney General's office presented a packet of information at a clemency hearing for Clayton Lockett. It details his long criminal history and the punishment he's received for making threats and misbehaving since being convicted of the murder, including throwing urine and feces at the corrections officers bringing him food.

No wonder a muslim born (apostate?!) "president" who came to power with islamofascist help from Saudi Arabia sides with a muslim thug, Najee Ali (former(?) gang member and recently released from jail after a four years bribery sentence) who (via his Project Islamic Hope) organized "a vigil in Leimert Park to celebrate Rodney King's life". Did we see CAIR and Saudi money also in the shadows of Trayvon Martin's death? We certainly saw the appalling racist black supremacist "panthers" around!

Manifesto murderers

Are you excused for murder if you have a "manifesto"?

Two mad manifesto murderers - but only one (the black one) causes "critical investigation" about factors that led to his deeds


Christopher Dorner and Anders Breivik

Oops! Take it easy now! Before you say anything, make sure you don't excuse the black guy for him targeting only whites and latinos and the white guy targeting mainly white islam supporters. Only then comes the manifestos, which, in fact, have no connection whatsoever with these murderous deeds. Everyone can write a "manifesto" and many do when they can't handle their personal life any longer and they see the end coming. So they spread their individual hatred via others "to redeem their name and pride". There's always a bad excuse for committing violent acts other than in 100% cases of self defense - as was most likely the case when Zimmerman was about to be killed by Trayvon Martin!

Whereas Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown had family, Frank Lee Morris had nabsolutely nothing!

A white "thug" from the past can be seen as the very opposite to the black thugs above because he didn't get any defense or excuse or sympathy at all from anywhere. And this despite his "thug" history is way more sympathetic.

The escape from Alcatraz and an extremely unfair life: Frank Lee Morris, very intelligent, non-violent, nice and committed to learning and working, would have been the perfect symbol for "civil righters" -  if only he'd been "black".

Ludwig Wittgenstein was imprisoned in the world's best university (Cambridge) and Frank Lee Morris in the world's best prison (Alcatraz). Both managed to escape.

It's now 50 years since Frank Lee Morris made the most spectacular escape from the safest prison in USA (see the movie or do some reading). Who was he really? Klevius gives you the best answer based on available facts. And one thing seems certain, he wasn't a violent parasitic thug who excused his behavior with islam or similar racist ideologies.

Frank Lee Morris, who was tested/evaluated as having "superior intelligence" (his IQ scores would have been much higher if calibrated for his lack of education), in good physical shape and "excellent drafting and working skills", became an orphan at an early age and was thrown by the social state* between state paid foster homes and state paid institutions where he was abused as a slave and guinea pig.

He was convicted of his first crime (escape) at the age of 13 and the only robbery was when he was around 30 (not in his teen as stupid Wikipedia puts it) and, according to himself, wanted to quit the Americn curse and move via Mexico to the south. Except for escapes and this failed non-violent night burglary to a bank called "robbery", his most serious crime seems to have been travelling over a state border with a  minor teenage girlfriend.

As a teen he eventually escaped a psychiatric "treatment" institution based on flimsy psychoanalytic** ideas (they assessed him as having too low intelligence for to be successfully "treated" when, in fact, he begged for being able to develop his drafting skills and to work as a draftsman) and therefor got labelled a "delinquent" hence making it impossible for him to educate himself, dismissed from military service, and denied real work opportunities due to his state fabricated records. Instead he was chased around USA and imprisoned for some petty crimes but mainly for his repeated escapes.

* understand the extremely important concept of a "social state" by reading Angels of Antichrist (no dude, Klevius isn't even close to a Christian).

** Klevius' groundbreaking psychosocial Freud timeline will offer you the best possible kick start for beginning to understand the extreme stupidity of psychoanalysis (yes, Klevius has gone through not only Freud and his daughters works as well as those surrounding them, he has also gone through all the main Freud critics as well as how this early psychoanalysis is connected to that of today - just like the origin of islam Freud is excused and distanced from yet his most horrifying tenets are still around - and its very core the prevailing sex segregation  - and before you smile please consider your own ignorance and the fact that e.g. Ludvig Wittgenstein did include Otto Weininger among those thinkers who had impressed on him, but not Freud).

Klevius islam tutorial: Blinking the true origin of islam is islamismophobia*. Face the facts!

* If islam is good and islamism is islam, then fear of islamism is islamismophobia. However, if islamism (incl. Afghanistan, Bangladesh , Pakistan, Qatar, Oman, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Maldives, Malaysia, Indonesia, Yemen, Somalia, Northern Nigeria, etc infidel hating Sharia states) isn't "true" islam, then the only true islam is the one found among politically correct non-muslims in non-muslim countries.

Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam, considered Egypt's highest religious authority: 'An extremist and bloody group such as Islamic State poses a danger to islam and muslims, tarnishing its image as well as shedding blood and spreading corruption.

Klevius question: How could IS possibly pose a danger to islam if it has nothing to do with islam? Or has it after all...?!

Background

On the walls of the Dome of the Rock is an inscription in a mosaic frieze that includes the following words from Quran (19:33–35), which are considered blasphemy to Christianity:

33. "So peace is upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!" 34. Such is Jesus, son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they doubt. 35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

Gerd Puin, who has analyzed the Sana Koranic texts(some 100 years after Muhammad and his muslim bandit gang moved to Medina were they slaughtered all the Jews): My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.

The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,' but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible—if it can't even be understood in Arabic—then it's not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not—as even speakers of Arabic will tell you—there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.
Acknowledgement

Klevius sometimes gets a feeling that he is dismissed as some random thinker with strange ideas. However, nothing could be further from the truth. And the reason for this is that Klevius scientific approach is precisely to hunt down scientific/logical bias/error. This is why Klevius pops up on the most controversial of global issues, such as, for example, origin of humans, consciousness, Human Rights, sex segregation/apartheid and the origin of islam (the worst crime ever against humanity). To this you may add Klevius qualifications which easily dwarfs his wanna-be critics:

1 An extremely high IQ that puts him among very few humans alive*. Don't blame Klevius but his parents, please. Klevius calls himself 'mentally impaired' because he often feels like an elephant in a porcelain shop when talking to half intelligent people (approx between 100-170 IQ) whom he doesn't want to hurt or confuse by being too fast and witty (it often seems that those with moderately high IQ are more sensitive than those around average). A tricky task that sometimes leaves Klevius quite serious or even silent (but he might unlock his fat brain gun if the other guy turns too cocky, though). And as Klevius uses to tell his pals, no matter how hard it is for you right now to assess Klevius thoughts - you have all the time in the world to later check it up and shame him - if you can. Not a single "professor" of islamic "studies" comes even close to Klevius intelligence - simply because with that amount of IQ you simply cannot digest such utter "intellectual" crap.
2 Not religious, yet more moral** than religious people, i.e. in accordance with Universal Human Rights (no religion fully qualifies for Human Rights - however, islam, who the least fits the bill, is also the only one to openly reject Human Rights via OIC and UN)
3 "Extremely normal" in his life experience. Klevius fits in most surroundings. Physically and intellectually. Klevius loves people.
4 Not academically, politically or financially biased/dependent, yet very academic in knowledge and studies
5 Extremely well informed. A famous Finnish professor in neuroscience described Klevius thinking as 'ilmavan suurpiirteinen ja samalla iskevän ytimekäs'. If some of you, dear readers, don't master Finnish (btw, containing some of the world's oldest words) then here's a poor translation that doesn't reflect the full power of the original words (or what do you think dear Finnish reader): Flexible/spacious generalizations yet simultaneously cogently vigorous.
6 No mental or other personal issues whatsoever but a relentless belief in a global view that we are all equal humans. A view that shouldn't be harder to get than that we are all equal in traffic as well. A belief in an "Allah" shouldn't give you the right to drive against red light nor should you be protected from being criticized about it. There would be a huge difference between Sharia and Human Rights traffic rules. Whereas the formed would discriminate women and "infidels", the latter would see all as equals.

How many of your sources tick all these boxes?! Can you really afford not to listen to Klevius?! It's for free mate!

* Human intelligence probably peaked som 45,000 years ago in the Altai region of Siberia. However, since then, when truly modern humans begun spreading out of Siberia they met with and diluted their intelligence with archaic moderns who got their intelligence improved. But the successful new brain led to population inflation and due stop to further evolutionary triggered intelligence. So today we are all dumber than before (culturally assisted in this dumbness by biased academias, religion etc) yet we have entangled us in a never ending technological evolution instead.Which is fine but has nothing to do with intelligence anymore.

** 'Moral' as a concept needs more space to explain. But if you ask via comments then Klevius will kindly explain it to you.

There was no Muhammad nor Koran during "Muhammad's time"! 

This is self evident even without specific historical evidence because the Koran itself, as well as its followers behavior throughout islam's history and today, give us the true formula anyway.

However, for those interested, Klevius has compiled a short early islam history for the ignorant based on historical evidence. For Klevius is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

It won't hurt anyone, right? Especially not the "believers" because for them facts don't matter.

Iraq was attacked already in "Muhammad's time". The "wars against apostates" (ridda) were just pillaging and/or forceful heavy taxation combined with humiliation (i.e. dhimmi racism)

Futūḥ (ridda) were the early Arab-muslim "conquests" (i.e. more or less synonymous with what Islamic State does today) which facilitated the violent spread of islam. The so called ridda wars have in muslim mythology been described as wars against apostates when they in fact were wars against infidels following these simple (but evil) instructions of Abu Bakr:

Seek the tribes which are your objectives. Call the Azaan (call for submission). If the tribe answers with the Azaan, do not attack. After the Azaan, ask the tribe to confirm its submission, including the payment of zakat. If confirmed, do not attack. Those who submit will not be attacked. Those who do not answer to the Azaan, or after the Azaan do not confirm full submission, will be dealt with by the sword. All apostates who have killed muslims will be killed.

The ridda wars in Iraq occured during the alleged Muhammad's lifetime, which fact is evident because the main source connect them to historically well known persons and their activities outside the islamic realm. A fact that is quite hidden for ordinary people under all the muslim mythology noise on the web and elsewhere.

 Medieval depiction of Muhammad in Hell (the guy with open chest)

Origin of islam

'Muslims' in the following is synonymous with those Arab bandits to which later islamic constructions are referred. During "Muhammad's time" and many decades after it these muslims didn't have a Koran nor a Muhammad.

PERF 558 is the oldest surviving Arabic papyrus, found in Heracleopolis in Egypt, and is also the oldest dated Arabic text during the islamic era. It is a bilingual Arabic-Greek fragment, consisting of a tax receipt, or as it puts it 'Document concerning the delivery of sheep to the Magarites and other people who arrived, as a down-payment of the taxes of the first indiction. It's dated to the month of Jumādā which is the first in the year 22 after "Muhammad's" arrival to Medina, i.e. 643.

It includes:

    The first well-attested use of the disambiguating dots in the still developing Arabic alphabet;
    It begins with the Greek formula "ev onomati tou teou" (In the Name of God) after a Sign of the Cross
    It records the date both in the islamic calendar (Jumada I, year 22) and in the Alexandrian calendar (30 Pharmouthi, 1st indiction), corresponding with 25 April 643 in the Julian calendar.

    In Greek, it calls the Arabs "Magaritae", a term, believed to be related to the Arabic "muhajir" often used in the earliest non-islamic sources. It also calls them "Saracens".

Muslim mafia occupy Medina and eventually slaughter all Jews there

The numbers of the muslims in Medina grew thanks to the tolerance of the Jews and their error in giving the immigrants a safe haven. Jews did not foresee that the muslims to whom they gave asylum would turn against them and eventually slaughter them all.

After the incident of Badr when muslims ambushed a merchant caravan, and brought the booty, they got the upper hand in Medina. They were enriched by the stolen booty, and the popularity of becoming muslim grew. They were promised wealth and slave girls to those who took part in armed robberies, and paradise with houries and rivers of wine to those who got killed. For an ignorant fanatic and at the same time greedy Arab this was a proposition hard to resist.

Islam is a hate crime when profiled against Human Rights and islam's history

Islam is by far the worst and most extensive slave raider/trader history knows about.


Islamic hate is not only abundant in the Koran but more importantly, a handy way of covering up immoral racism and sexism as "the will of Allah".

Islam's evil origin is what makes it so evil even today - i.e. its rigid and fascistic discipline of its orthodoxy that was the basis for submission.

Islamic history falsification

Today we would call it history falsification when Malik, long after the alleged Mohammed's death, made murdering, terrorism, looting, slavery, rapetivism etc a "religion".

Islam, i.e the historical phenomenon, was rooted in an eastern Jewish-Christian schism. Jews and Jews believing in (a monophysitism inspired Christianity) MHMD (anointed) didn't only offer the wealthy background against which barbaric (according to islam's foremost historian Ibn Khaldun) Bedouin Arabs were enslaved and/or submitted/enrolled, but also constituted the missing fifth columnist historical link to the "unexplained" success of early islamic terror conquest.

It was islam's brainwashing of infidel racism into the minds of its illiterate jihadists that made it easy to loot, rape and terrorize, i.e. what is usually called "islamic conquest" in history but "islamism" in our own time.

Islam is an ideology originating in human slave parasitism. Islamic finance started with slaves as the main currency and capital. The Wall Street of islam was the slave market by the mosque. For the purpose of defending this immorality, a Jewish* ideology (all the wealthy people in Mohammed's Arabia were Jews incl. those Jews believing in Jesus and called Christian Arabs) was first radically contrasted against Vagina Judaism (matrilinealism changed to patrilineal Penis Judaism, i.e. islam), and then, much later, roughly "fine tuned" by Malik's invention of Mohammed and the final "Koran" in the interface between the new mafia ideology and the old Book".

A "religious" system (rapetivism under sex apartheid) based on the reproduction of as many muslims as possible via the Penis instead of the Jewish Vagina, spiced with apostasy ban and the ban on muslim women not to marry non-muslim men, and financed by the world's most elaborate and widespread slave finance Sharia, now mainly fueled by Western oil and aid money. Whatever you see in muslim Mideast, it has all come about via oil/gas money from the West - not from islam.

Facts vs muslim mythology

According to muslim mythology the direction of prayer (the Qibla), was canonized (or finalized) towards Mecca for all muslims in or around 624 A.D. The intention was to fulfill his and the Hagarene’s birthright by taking back the land of Abraham, or Palestine. Caliph Abd al-Malik built this structure as the center-piece of islam. When Abd al-Malik  (caliph 685-705) built the dome on the rock in Jerusalem, he proclaimed the prophetic mission of Muhammad, and placed it over the temple rock itself.

According to muslim mythology, the caliph Suleyman, who reigned as late as 715-717 A.D., went to Mecca to ask about the Hajj. He was not satisfied with the response he received there, and so chose to follow abd al-Malik. This fact alone,  reveals that there was still confusion as to where the sanctuary was to be located as late as the early eighth century. It seems that Mecca was only now (sixty years after the alleged Muhammad’s death) taking on the role as the religious center of islam. It is in this light one may see why Walid I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715 A.D., wrote to all the regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of the mosques. It's probably also from this time that the Qiblas were aligned towards Mecca. However, this completely contradicts the Koran which established Mecca as the sanctuary and thus direction for prayer during the lifetime of Muhammad.

Yehuda Nevo has found in the Arab religious texts, dating from the first century and a half of Arab rule a monotheistic creed. However, this creed is demonstrably not islam, but a creed from which islam may have developed.

The first occurrence of what Nevo calls the “Triple Confession of Faith,” including the Tawhid (that Allah is one), the phrase, Muhammad rasul Allah (that Muhammad is his prophet), and the human nature of Jesus (rasul Allah wa- abduhu), is found in Abd al-Malik’s inscription in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, dated 691 A.D.. Before this inscription the muslim confession of faith cannot be attested at all.

The religious content within the rock inscriptions do not become pronounced until after 661 A.D. However, though they bear religious texts, they never mention the prophet or the Muhammadan formula. The official Arab religious confession simply did not include Muhammad or Muhammadan formula in its repertoire of set phrases at this time, many decades after the death of Muhammad. What they did contain was a monotheistic form of belief, belonging to a sectarian literature with developed Judaeo-Christian conceptions in a particular literary style, but one which contained no features specific to any known monotheistic religion. This points to a pragmatic and random, use of Jewish-Christian texts, copied and changed to fit the purpose. A mishmash still reflected in the Koran.

These inscriptions also show that when the Muhammadan formula is introduced, during the Marwanid period (after 684 A.D.), it is carried out almost overnight. Suddenly it became the state’s only form of official religious declaration, and was used exclusively in formal documents and inscriptions, such as the papyrus “protocols”.

Although the Dome of the Rock does attest to the existence, at the end of the seventh century, of materials recognizable as Koranic, the quotations from the Koran on both the coins and the Dome of the Rock differ in details from that which is in the Koran of today. The Dome of the Rock inscriptions, inscriptions contain variant verbal forms, extensive deviances, as well as omissions from the text of today. If these inscriptions had been derived from the Koran, with the variants which they contain, then how could the Koran have been canonized prior to the late seventh century?

The sources we have reveal that the Koran was put together rather hurriedly. It is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials, and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis it can be argued that the Koran is the product of the belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions.  Because of the imperfection of the editing, the emergence of the Koran must have been a sudden and late event.

There was no Koranic documentation in existence in the mid-late seventh century. The earliest reference from outside muslim literary traditions to the Koran occurs in the early to mid-eighth century between an Arab and a monk of Bet Hale , but no-one knows whether it may have differed considerably in content from the Koran of today.

It was under the governor Hajjaj of Iraq in 705 A.D. that we have a logical historical context in which the “Koran” (or a nascent body of literature which would later become the Koran) could have been compiled as Muhammad’s scripture. In an account attributed to Leo by Levond, the governor Hajjaj is shown to have collected all the old Hagarene writings and replaced them with others “according to his own taste, and disseminated them everywhere among [his] nation". It was during this period that the Koran began its evolution, possibly beginning to be written down, until it was finally canonized in the mid to late eighth century as the Koran which we now know.

The non-existing Muhammad

Hugh Kennedy (professor of Arabic language and Arabic history): "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) alleged Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever nor any form of religious pronouncement”! This is a sensational statement when weighed against muslim mythology. And there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss Hugh Kennedy on this point. He is probably the best authority on early muslim "conquest". Moreover, he is extremely apologetic in his presentation of his research. Not at all like Klevius.

Yehuda Nevo (compare Hugh Kennedy above) also found that “in all the Arab religious institutions during the Sufyani period [661-684 A.D.] there is a complete absence of any reference to Muhammad.” In fact neither the name Muhammad itself nor any Muhammadan formula (that he is the prophet of Allah) appears in any inscription dated before the year 691 A.D..

The first dated occurrence of the phrase Muhammad rasul Allah (Muhammad is the prophet of God) is found on an Arab-Sassanian coin of Xalid b. Abdallah from the year 690 A.D., which was struck in Damascus.


Muhammad (who definitely didn't exist as presented in muslim mythology) couldn't have died 632 because that would mean he was alive during the so called ridda (apostasy) wars against Iraq. Everything hence points to  postfacto islamization.
The Arab conquest started precisely when the Sasanians and Parthians were engaged in internecine warfare over who was to succeed the Sasanid throne.


Early muslims were simply organized bandits who managed to create a strong mafia like system. Interestingly the muslims slaughtering of the Jews in Medina started one or two years before the conquest of Iraq. And we do know that some sort of struggle for power started at this time in Medina, later on leading to the genocide of all the Jews there. This power struggle marks the only historically attested (a date on a commercial transaction) resemblance with muslim storytelling, albeit the muslims got the wrong year 622 instead of 621.

There is a well known problem between the sira (Muhammad myths) and the Koran. Narrative was developed to "explain" the context of the "revelations", i.e. not as a historical account. This would fit a picture where Mohammad mythology/"examples" is added to an existing tradition that lacked any description of Mohammad.

The name Muhammad is mentioned only four times in the Koran:

    Aal Imraan 3: 144; Did you suppose that you would enter Paradise before Allah has proved the men who fought for Him and endured with fortitude?  You used to wish for death before you met it, and now you have seen what is it like.  Muhammad is no more than an apostle: other apostles have passed away before him.  If he die or be slain, will you recant?  He that recants will do no harm to Allah.  But Allah will recompense the thankful.

    Al-Ahzaab 33: 40;  – Muhammad is the father of no man among you.  He is the Apostle of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.

    Muhammad 47: 2; – Allah will bring to nothing the deeds of those who disbelieve and debar others from His path.  As for the faithful who do good works and believe in what has beeen revealed to Muhammad – which is the Truth form their Lord – He will forgive them their sins and ennoble their state.

    Al-Fatah 48: 29 – Muhammad is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. You see them worshipping on their knees, seeking grace of Allah and His good will. Their makes are on their faces, the traces of their prostrations  Thus are they described in the Torah and in the Gospel:  they are like the seed which puts forth its shoot and strengthens it, so that it rises stout and firm upon its stalk, delighting the sowers. Through them He seeks to enrage the unbelievers. Yet to those of them who will embrace the Faith and do good works Allah has promised forgiveness and a rich recompense.

Jesus is mentioned 26 times in the Koran

According to the evidence of Arab coinage, and the inscription in the Dome of the Rock in the late 7th century, with the letters MHMT and the term Muhammad meaning "the revered" or "the praiseworthy" and the Dome's bearing Christian symbols such as crosses, it may be suggested that the term Muhammad was a Christian honorific title referring to Jesus.

Arab (and other) muslims support Islamic State's atrocities against the Yazidis

The only possible path forward is Human Rights. However, every true muslim on the planet is against the most basic of Human Rights (quite often even without being aware of it themselves due to a total lack of education on this most important point).

And saying this undeniable truth is called "islamophobia" while the real problem is islamismophobia, i.e. denying that islamism is true islam.

Islam demands that foreign forces be kicked out of Islamic lands
the true motivation of the jihadis is an ideology of relentless conquest.
Clare Lopez (CIA) believes regimes such as Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey play all sides of the jihadi game and have “enabled a monster in ISIS” they can no longer control, and “they should be allowed to reap what they’ve sown.” Furthermore, she maintained, U.S. leadership has proven incapable of sorting out who’s who or who’s backing whom.
“The CIA has proved it is completely incapable of operating in this environment,” she said. “But I’m not on the inside, and can’t be sure what they are telling him. What we do know is what we see.”

As an example, she described how U.S. special forces were sent to Jordan to train people who turned out to be jihadis, even though it was reported they “vetted everybody.”

“They vetted them and asked, ‘Did you ever belong to al-Qaida?’ and they said ‘Oh, no – not me!’ But did they ever ask them what their ideology was? They’re not allowed to. We’re not allowed to define our enemy so how can we even identify our enemy? So, we fall into things like this where we actually train future ISIS jihadis, according to the Jordanian security officials.”

The non-existing Mohammed and an other lying muslim - now from Midwest - deeply embedded in ignorance - or Taqiya

Building islam on sand or facts

 Klevius background explanation to muslim lies:

Islamic hate is not only embarrassingly abundant in the Koran but more importantly also a handy way of covering up greedy racism and sexism as "the will of Allah". To motivate hate you need to lower the status of those subject to your hate. This is precisely the opposite to true Human Rights.

Today we would call it history falsification when Caliph Malik, long after the alleged Mohammed's death, made murdering, terrorism, looting, slavery, rapetivism etc a "religion". Hugh Kennedy (professor of Arabic language and Arabic history, especially the early muslim "conquests"): "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever."

In other words, there was no Mohammed before Malik. However, there was an evil new way of defending and committing crimes by using a confused DIY morality made out of Jewish and Christian teachings.And there might have been leaders that partly resembled the Mohammed myth.

There were no documents either during "Mohammed's time". Only hearsays written down several hundred years later.

However, today we all can see what happened back then. The Islamic State shows it in precise details for everyone interested.

But medieval forms of islam are doomed to fail, albeit after having again caused massive human suffering. So the real dangerous islam is to be found in the Saudi based OIC and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani. 

www.chicago.com flashes this ignorant (?!) oxymoron about islam

A US muslim hiding under the name Essam (btw, some 80% of US imams are Wahhabists): Your stated goal is to create a Caliphate and your method is to use military force, mass murder, kidnappings, and destruction of property. Creating an Islamic state sounds like a beautiful idea but you have no idea what an Islamic State means. Your use of the word Islam in your plan is smart, in that you will sell the fear of Islam by your actions and then tie any action against  you as being against Islam to gain supporters. Not very original, but it's a concept that has worked for others misusing religion to justify their actions, so I suppose you were bound to test your luck with it too.

I am certain that you and your leaders are neither scholars in Islam nor have you studied even the basics in Islamic history, so here I decided to show a little Midwestern hospitality and give you a free lesson.

The very first Islamic state was created by a man I'm sure you've heard of,  his name was Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).  I know you folks aren't much for enlightenment or reading but because you choose to use the name of Islam and God to justify yourselves, it's only fair that you should learn a little something about Islam.

    And make not God's (sic) name an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for God is One Who heareth and knoweth all things.

    Surah Al-Baqarah - Chapter 2, Verse 224 - The Quran

Klevius comment: Couldn't this equally well be directed against you by the Islamic State?! What's the point?

A US muslim hiding under the name Essam: The first written Constitution of the very first Islamic nation was declared by the Prophet himself way back in 622AD. In it and the charters he drafted, he not only included Muslims, but also the Jews, Christians, and all other non-Muslim tribes within the nation.  He even included the allies of the non-Muslim tribes to give them all equal rights and protections.

Klevius comment: What utter lie! Do show me a 'written constitution' from Mohammed's time!

A US muslim hiding under the name Essam: The Quran and Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet) justify war only when an oppressor attacks you.

Klevius comment: Precisely! And according to islam infidels are always oppressors if they don't submit to Sharia rule! And therefore the legitimate (according to Sharia) target for Human Rights violations!

A US muslim hiding under the name Essam: You are invading their land and destroying their homes and breaking the covenant set forth by the Quran and re-affirmed by the Prophet in his teachings.   The Quran makes a war against you justified because you and only you fit the bill of the oppressors in the region.

Klevius: Only oppressor in the region?! Saddam Hussein managed to gas some 100,000 of his own people before George W Bush put an end to it. Add to this Saudi "king" Abdullah & Co, Sudan's Bashir etc etc! No lack of oppressive muslim dictators.

However, what really keeps Mideastern violence ticking is islam, period! And everyone trying to excuse islam has blood on her/his hands!

Islam is against Human Rights and therefore without a future.

OIC has proved Klevius right beyond any doubt by abandoning the most basic of Human Rights and deliberately replacing them with Sharia!

The leader of the Islamic State is a pious muslim

Ed Husain (Senior Advisor at the Tony Blair Faith Foundation): Here are seven points of religious symbolism from his sermon that resonated deeply among observant Muslims, but were missed by most outsiders who looked on aghast at Ibrahim al-Baghdadi’s triumphalism:

1. He ascended the minbar (pulpit) slowly, deliberately climbing one step at a time. This was how the Prophet and his companions were reported to have acted —not rushed, but serene while the call to prayer was given. An important role of the Caliph historically was to deliver the Friday sermon, and Baghdadi’s actions illustrated to those in the mosque and elsewhere that he was not a novice.

2. While sat on the minbar, and as the call to prayer continued, Baghdadi reached for his pocket and took out a small wooden stick – known as a miswak and used widely across the Muslim world – with which to clean his teeth. It is understood that the Prophet Mohammed carried such a cleaner, his objective being hygiene and fresh breath. Today, that translates as Colgate and an electric toothbrush. But to a mind that wishes to return to the seventh century, the Prophet’s purpose is lost and clinging onto external practices alone becomes precious. Baghdadi’s actions with his miswak – captured and highlighted by his cameraman – were designed to further bolster Baghdadi’s credentials as a successor to the early Caliphs.

3. He wore a black turban because the Prophet, it is believed, wore one on his conquest of Mecca and when he delivered his last sermon. Moreover, Shia Muslim leaders of the Prophet’s bloodline wear black headgear to indicate their lineage. Baghdadi was tapping into Sunni and Shia Muslim symbolism and, indirectly, confirming his own claim to be a descendant of the Prophet in the eyes of the Shia majority in Iraq.

4. He spoke in flawless classical Arabic of the Quran. Arabic speakers would be impressed, and non-Arabic speaking clerics around the world would have recognised the above choreography and admired his Arabic skill. Not even every Arab can speak classical Arabic without grammatical errors. His command of the language was combined with constant citations from the Quran.

5. Salafi Muslims, adherents of a hardline Saudi version of Islam, would have recognized Baghdadi as one of their own. He started his sermon angrily warning Muslims against bid’ah, or “newly invented matters” in religion. Imams in most other Muslim traditions emphasise love for God and the Prophet, but the Salafi trend is to warn against bid’ah.

6. Throughout his 22-minute sermon he showed a fluent knowledge of the Quran by frequent citations of verses popular with Salafis. He emphasised tawhid (the oneness of God) in the evangelical mode of Salafism. Most Muslims agree, as do Christians and Jews, that God is one, but for Salafis that oneness must be manifest in government through hakimiyyah (God’s law). Baghdadi has taken the Saudi Salafi creed to its logical conclusion.

7. He claimed for himself the religious duty (wajib) of implementing God’s law (sharia) as he understood it. The second caliph of Islam, Umar, had stood on a pulpit in Medina and said “if you see me obey God, then obey me. If I disobey God, then rebel against me.” This early edict on Muslim governance is known to most educated Muslims – Baghdadi was laying claim to this mantle. In a Middle East full of dictatorships, his words had special religious and political resonance.

All the above was ignored by the global media, who focused on his wristwatch. Was it an Omega? A Rolex? It turned out to be yet another visual display of piety: a timepiece with alarms for prayer times, a compass facing Mecca, and an Islamic calendar.

If he is as pious as portrayed, surely he is a superior Muslim and deserves obedience from those of us who are less pious? Not quite: the same source he claims to emulate, the Prophet Mohamed, warned us against the likes of Baghdadi, and such figures cropped up in early Islamic history too. Those who killed the Prophet’s grandson, Imam Husain in Iraq in the eighth century, also dressed like the Prophet and talked of piety but failed to demonstrate the love of God or the Prophet’s teachings. The Prophet’s warning was of those who show all the outward signs of piety – even saying the voluntary night prayers – but for whom the Quran ‘does not permeate deeper than their throats’. The implication is that if the Quran does not touch their hearts, they do not love God and therefore have no faith. Their religion is anger and ritualistic actions. And a ‘Caliph’ who does not love God is not deserving of obedience from Muslims anywhere.

Klevius comment: Quite a thin objection, isn't it! How does Ed Husain, or we for that matter, know that  the Koran ‘does not permeate deeper than his (or other muslim's) throat’?



Abu Bakr's Caliphate (see map below)

Do note that the muslim "empire" mainly consisted of caravan routes surrounded by dead deserts.

Also do note that the whole story of early islam is made up without real historical documentation. However, what we do know from non-muslim sources is that something similar to the Mongol conquests was going on in Mideast (albeit on a much smaller scale) at the time in question.

Everything early islamic is just hearsay over hundreds of years before being written down by usually heavily biased authors.

What Klevius has done is simply to put the Koran in a historical context based on non-muslim sources. And although the picture of the origin of islam that emerges ain't pretty, it fits perfectly the bill of the Islamic State.

Islamic State as it is planned in a first stage (below).

And at a later stage. Indonesia etc are lacking on this map but should be included. Aceh is just the beginning.

OIC is a Human Rights violating Sharia organization that in effect of its many member states (see map below) now rules UN.