Karen Armstrong writes about religion despite being one of the least competent to do so! Why?

Klevius could thoroughly dismiss Karen Armstrong in thousands of pages. But why would he waste his time on her dilusions?

And why humiliate her more than necessary, she has probably suffered a lot in her loneliness. However, by defending the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever she directly contributes to more suffering caused by islam.

So here just a few lines for her ignorant readers whom Klevius suggests trying an other author, e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The nun who married Muhammad

According to Karen Armstrong 'we are violent creatures'. Well, that makes Muhammad a human and Klevius a pervert, doesn't it, because Klevius has never felt an urge to assault anyone. And this despite the fact that he in his teens several times was attacked (usually by ex-boyfriends to some girls he got company with) and realized the value of fast reactions and well coordinated movements. Successful defense could easily have been transformed into planned violent attacks. But it didn't. Not even close.

According to Karen Armstrong 'men love fighting'. Well Klevius is a man in every aspect of the word (and possibly more so than Armstrong is a woman) - except that he has never loved fighting, shooting etc. Already in Demand for Resources (1992) Klevius dismissed Konrad Lorentz' stupidities as cultural artifacts - not biological necessities.

Karen Armstrong: Islamic State is the product of muslims being humiliated because of the West's superior culture ("the modern era"). Islam was probably the greatest world power and over night it was reduced by the colonialists to a dependent bloc.

Klevius: Not the greatest world power but certainly the worst parasite on slaves and civilizations. This disturbing historical fact is why your books are favorably treated as a cover up desperately needed.

Has it ever occurred to Karen Armstrong (or her ignorant readers) that islam's "over night success" can only be explained by a literal reading of the Koran plus historical source material. Slaves and pillaging constituted islam's financial back bone.Understand this and you will understand the decay and fall of every muslim caliphate including the so called Ottoman empire.

Islam has never created anything by itself except disaster and decay.

Islam is impotent which fact might suit a nun but probably not cure her dissatisfaction.

Karen Armstrong's life started with great failures

Karen Armstrong: Islam is a religion of extraordinary success coming out of nowhere whereas Christianity started as a great failure, the crucifixion. How do Americans will feel when they are superseded by China?

Klevius: That's a thought. However, when Lexus and other Japanese brands a quarter of a century ago humiliated the Americans with superior technical quality we didn't see any US bombing of Japan or beheading of Japanese, did we.

Klevius final suggestion to Karen Armstrong. Read about Negative Human Rights and feel ashamed!


BBC (summarized by Klevius): Never ever was the fault in the muslim world. Waves of mongolic destructions destroyed Baghdad and the islamic Abbasid caliphate and later on everything can be attributed to Western "colonialism".

 Klevius comment: Do I really need to comment!

Exactly following the Koran/Hadits, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State behead and persecute exactly as prophet Mohammed did - yet muslim "scholars" see nothing islamic in it!

Why is evil Saudi Arabia supported in its extreme intolerance and racist hate of Shia muslims?

The prophetic terror slaughter of Jews and other "infidels" in Medina and elsewhere is  at the core of islam

Violent jihadism against the "infidels" was the trade mark of prophet Muhammad and sharia (in whatever form) is always against themost basic Human Rights but compulsory to everyone wanting to call himself a muslim (a woman can never be fully muslim). Ask every muslim you encounter if he approves of sharia or Human Rights. If he says both he lies you straight up your infidel face!

No one in his full mind can argue that the original islamic expansionism was a jihad "in defense of islam". It was islamic jihad for conquest, enslavement and rapetivism period.

Wanna know the origin of islam? Look at the Islamic State!

Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Islamic State doesn't have a sword on their flag!

Do the muslim test by asking them if they are against Human Rights. If they are not they are no real muslims, according to OIC (all muslims world Ummah) and every possible form of Sharia! And don't get yourself fooled by muslims (or their supporters) using the taqiya oxymoron islamic "human rights" because that is in fact sharia (see OIC's Cairo declaration 1990)!

In other words, a true muslim is then per definition always a supremacist racist and sexist individual through the tie to islam and Sharia. And there is no real  islam without Sharia! Got it dude? And stop cheating yourself and others with that "moderate islam" crap, will you!

 Diana West: Megyn Kelly interviewed Maajid Nawaz about the Islamic State (ISIL), the latest Muslim horde on a jihad to establish a “caliphate” (pan-Islamic regime) based in sharia (Islamic law). Nawaz could be considered a defector from Hizb ut-Tahrir, one of the revolutionary Islamic groups, some violent, some removed from violence, dedicated to the establishment of a caliphate based in Islamic law, from al-Qaida to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Nawaz said goodbye to all that in 2007, he says. In 2008, he and fellow defector Ed Husain founded Quilliam, a British “counter-extremism” foundation named for William Quilliam, a 19th-century British convert to Islam. Abdullah Quilliam, as he became known, opened the first British mosque on Christmas Day, 1889. “Co-exist,” right? It’s no stretch, however, to imagine Sheikh Quilliam at home in Hizb ut-Tahrir as a fatwa-issuing advocate of the caliphate and sharia both. He also issued a fatwa prohibiting Muslims from fighting for or assisting Britain (“contrary to the sharia”), then fighting Muslim tribes in the Sudan.

Scholar of Islam Andrew Bostom first brought these fatwas to my attention, but they are now accessible on Abdullah Quilliam’s Wikipedia page. Should we take a “counter-extremism” think tank in Quilliam’s name seriously? Could the name have been a mistake? Or is it a joke on gullible infidels? A wink to stealth jihadists?

This piqued my interest in Kelly’s Nawaz interview. Zeroing in on the ISIL beheading of Steven Satloff, she asked: “Where does their thinking come from? ... The first reaction many here in the United States and around the world had was these people who are doing this are psychopaths.”

Really? Such mystification wasn’t my first reaction. I know where their thinking comes from. It comes from Islam. Who doesn’t know that but the highly educated and politically empowered? Not for nothing does the immutable Koran say (Surah 47, Verse 4): “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite them at their necks,” among other directives of open-ended jihad. Then again, take the life of Muhammad, Islam’s “perfect man.” He followed his jihad campaign against the Qurayzah, a vanquished Jewish tribe, by beheading all of the 600 to 900 men in the tribe, setting the example for Muslims through the ages. Mohammed also condemned the tribe’s women and children to slavery, keeping some women for himself and his companions, which, bonus, set an example of jihad sex slavery.

Surely this suggests it’s the extremism of Islam that requires “countering.” Will Nawaz agree?

Of course not. In response to Kelly’s question, he repeatedly blames a generic “ideology” that must be “undermined.”

Kelly asks: “You can’t help but look at the killer and think, ‘How could he possibly have come from anything resembling humanity?’”

Nawaz replies: “Yes. Of course we’ve seen this before, we saw it with Nazism in Nazi Germany and that phrase, ‘the banality of evil.’”

Wait a sec. Have we been hearing “Allahu Akbar,” or “Heil Hitler” on all those Islamic snuff videos? Never mind. With a few cliches about “group think” and “the new normal,” Nawaz is back to calling on society to work “to undermine the ideology that underpins (these acts).”

Kelly asks: “Do you feel the Muslim community has been vocal enough in doing that?”

Nawaz pivots in reply. “I think no one’s been vocal enough. I mean, look, Muslims need to do more, but so, frankly, does President Obama.” He then raps Obama for announcing he had no Islamic State strategy — but, hey, our best pundits have no state of Islam conversation. “So, Obama needs to do more,” Nawaz continues. “Mainstream society needs to do more. One way in which mainstream society can do more is to accept that this isn’t a clash of civilizations between Islam and the Western world. But in fact, it’s an intra-religious struggle within Islam.”

My ears pricked up. “Accept” what? Answer: that this crisis of our age, the Islamization of the West, is only so much intra-Islamic jockeying. That we should shut up about the demonstrably Islamic nature of the attacks on the West, on our liberties, our security, on our allies, our children, our law and culture, and not fight back against them. “Accept” that Muslims will work it all out among themselves —not that Islam, of course, has anything to do with it.

This is dangerous, deceptive nonsense. Then again, how might Nawaz’s way work? One quick way to “counter” “extremism” is to prevent ISIL fighters from returning to their Western countries by canceling their passports. But Nawaz opposes this no-brainer. On Twitter, he called it unimaginative, adding: “Passports can be faked.” Huh?

Quilliam co-founder Ed Husain (now at the Council on Foreign Relations) elaborated in an op-ed. Canceling passports of “hardline Islamists,” he wrote, could cause them to target the U.K. because they would see Britain as having “nullified” their “apd al amaan” — or “covenant of security” — which they believe Britain offers.

Thus, what amounts to an “extremist” protection racket should remain in place, at least according to the “counter-extremism” specialists.





Here's what Klevius wrote about Saudi Arabia's violent islamofascist flag

Friday, December 10, 2010

Islamist OIC (led by Saudi Arabia) is the worst threat against Human Rights!

According to Tony Blair, the evil of religion is in fact distortion of religion. However, according to Klevius, the opposite is true. The origin of "monotheisms" was racist/sexist evil, and the later possibly good parts were, in fact, distortion of monotheisms (as, for example, early Christianity). And the purest form of evil monotheism is to be found in the origin of islam!

For your information! December 06, 2009 Klevius wrote: "It was probably islam, not Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito who murdered Meredith Kerchner". The murder was most probably influenced by Saudi/Koranic hate mongering!
Saudi Anthropologist Sa'd Al-Sowayan suggests removing the jihad sword from Saudi flag. However, Klevius suggests removing islam!

Klevius question to the Chinese (and the World): Why did the Chinese workers in Mecca have to convert to islam to finish what the Arab muslims were incapable of doing?! And what about the islamic apostasy ban? Can these workers drop islam when finished without breaking the Sharia of the "guardians of islam"?!





Klevius question: How many of these know what they are really bowing for?

Treacherous islam

The koranic (2:256) "there is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi d-dini) is generally misunderstood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith.

However, the circumstances governing the origin of islam differed from those of today so that presuppositions for religious tolerance made no sense other than as beneficial for parasitism. Today islam has to fight against the unbeatable* logic of the universal Negative Human Rights.

The real original meaning was that no one can be compelled to islam (the “right” belief). Koran, then, doesn’t proclaim tolerance, but rather an emphasize on the importane of a rigid and heavily ritualised belief in Mohammed’s gangsta gang (im)moral.

Contemporary islam apologetics’ naïve or deliberate “interpretation” of “no compulsion in religion” as religious tolerance, only contributes to the widespread misunderstanding of islam’s true original nature, and due danger it poses.

* “Unbeatable” precisely because they lack content, i.e. are filled with freedom. Moreover,they stay in direct opposition to the positive impositions in islam/Sharia. We cannot rigidly settle for any particular moral axiom in an inevitably changing world. Laws, no matter if “man made” or “god’s will”, will hence also change. So why put “allah” in between and then call the change “interpretation” or “adaptation”?!

How low can BBC really sink?

Is BBC, the world's biggest news media, completely in the hands of the islamofascist House of Saud?

These four* results (none of them BBC) is what a Google News search produces 22 Sept 2014 on 'BBC Ayaan Hirsi Ali' after her recent appearance at Yale University amid huge protests from the islamofascists and their supporters:
 
* So Ayaan Hirsi Ali's groundbreaking (and among islamofascists controversial) appearance at Yale University apparently doesn't qualify among BBC's usually one million hits on Google News!?

However, BBC seems to like both of them. Here's what Klevius wrote

Monday, May 21, 2012

Klevius beats BBC when it comes to true reporting about OIC!

Totalitarian fanaticism replacing Human Rights while BBC misinforms muslims and others on how they're robbed of their Human Rights!

Sadly, Klevius is still the foremost (and lone?!) expert on sex segregation/apartheid and, consequently, also the web's foremost expert on islam. Why? Because islam rests so heavily on sex segregation/apartheid, even in its most "secular" form (as long as it's meaningful at all to call it islam) that an effort to understand islam without understanding sex segregation/apartheid is doomed to complete failure! In essence what Klevius is doing is in Bourdieu's words 'to restore to historical action, the relationship between the sexes that the naturalistic and essentialist vision removes from them'.  And where Bourdieu went to the Kabyles Klevius went to the origin of islam, Christianity and Judaism!

Klevius beats BBC in reporting on the most essential and critical issue of our time: OIC and its Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's islamofascist violation of the most basic of Human Rights!

BBC, the largest broadcaster in the world, has as its main responsibility to provide impartial public service broadcasting.

Klevius question: How come then that Klevius beats BBC when it comes to informing about OIC? As you can see on the 'OIC BBC' search below Klevius' 'BBC News', i.e. not BBC, is the first to offer real info about OIC. on the web (see the eighth result on the pic below: BBC News by Klevius)! And to really prove it you will find a picture of the first BBC post (BBC News - Profile: Organization of the Islamic Conference) further down to show that it completely avoids to inform the most essential feature of OIC, namely that it has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia.

According to BBC OIC's aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe eradicate racial discrimination (meaning Human Rights "discrimination" of islamic Sharia) and colonialism (sic - islam has been the worst colonizer ever throughout 1400 years!). But nowhere in BBC's text can you find the most important namely OIC's violation of Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia!

While BBC has some 23,000 staff Klevius is not only alone* and without resources, he is also deliberately hindered in his extremely informative work by active and continuous "islamophobia filtering". Yes, Klevius knows that he could do much better by avoiding words like 'islamofascism' etc. but he loves it.

* no offence to other "islamophobes" out there but Klevius happens to be the one with the best potency for evaluating the origin of islam from a perspective of sex segregation/rapetivism.

Klevius proposal to Obomba: Bomb Saudi Abdullah & Co instead of Assad - and let the Islamic State have its true homelandKlevius to Obomba: Why do you prefer to bomb Assad insted of Saudi Abdullah & Co? Why not let the Islamic State be the guardian of islam!

How many millions of victims has the Saudi's islamic hate mongering caused?

Muslims are committing a continuing open and stealthy global Holocaust - but BBC warns for "right-wingers"and "islamophobia"

The new Holocaust is already here and the perpetrators are muslims*, yet few seem to realize because islam inspired street jihad is covered up by the help of muslim "sensitivities" and "islamophobia" accusations.

* Just as the old Holocaust perpetrators were Germans. Or "radical" Germans, if you insist. Or would you prefer "radical" Nationalsocialists (like "radical" islamists?

Saudi Abdullah & Co constitute the main source for the ongoing global hate crime  wave called street jihadism.

Even with a microscope you won't find any main differences between Saudi Wahhabi islam and that of the Islamic State.

If the Islamic State is happy with just being the new Guardians of islam and not bothering Human Rights loving civilized people - let'em have it!

So what about muslims outside the caliphate?

Simple, just give them the choice between sharia and Human Rights. If they prefer the latter everything is fine because then they are no longer any islam supporters.  And if they prefer sharia then they can't feel at home in a society based on Human Rights and therefore should have the right to enter the caliphate instead.

I'm confident the Islamic State would eagerly accept our terms if they can be sure we leave them alone in what is now Saudi Arabia. We could then continue the usual commerce, however now without hate preaching jihadist mosques on our own streets.

Sooner or later the caliphate will fall apart anyway because of its inherent impossibility - just as all other evil islamic caliphates throughout history. But why bother as long as the muslims keep it within the borders of their Ummah and don't mess with civilized people.

The chocking ignorance about the inevitable difference between islam/sharia and Human Rights

Here Klevius uses Kamilia Lahrichi as an example of this bottomless ignorance (or taqiya?/islamophilia). The word 'stupid' is chosen because it signals a less  deliberate confusion.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Human rights may not be applicable or relevant to Islamic countries because international law originated in the practices of Western states.

Klevius: No! Because islam is built on racist/sexist principles that Human Rights steers EVERYONE away from!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Islam does not deal with individual rights like in the West. The Quran refers to Muslims as part of the Ummah (i.e. community of believers).

Klevius: At least you got that right.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Human rights need to be embedded in social practices to ensure compliance.

Klevius: Terribly wrong again! Racism and sexism ARE social practices! Basic Human Rights (so called negative rights) are above social practices. Driving against red light may be a social practice somewhere.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In March 2000, hundreds of thousands of Moroccan women marched in Casablanca against the government’s National Plan to Integrate Women in Development. This project aimed at “removing the conditions of inequality between men and women” by limiting polygamy, abolishing repudiation and ensuring economic security for women after a divorce.

Klevius: There you see, women abused by islam is the key to islam's survival. Muslim women do their utmost to strangle other women in their own sharia jail.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): One possible way to enforce international human rights law in Muslim countries is to integrate it into the domestic law.

Klevius: Precisely what Saudi based OIC with its Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani have done by abandoning Human Rights in UN and calling sharia "islamic human rights"!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Liberal interpretations of the Sharia prove that international human rights law is applicable to Islamic states.

Klevius: Just exactly the contrary! Both OIC and the support for the Islamic State prove you dead wrong. You are trying the old muslim trick that says: We should only look at the parts we agree on, not the parts we disagree on. As for example women's rights, right. No?

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Islamic countries need therefore to find the right balance between religion and respect of individual rights like gender equality.

Klevius: 'Gender equality' is a stupid oxymoron, but how could poor you possibly have known from your confused feminist/islamophilia standpoint. You probably mean equality between the sexes. No, that's not possible in a muslim society simply because then it wouldn't be a muslim community anymore!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In Islam, human rights do not take place in the same secular setting. It deals with duties toward God.

Klevius: Not exactly, in islam Allah is completely removed from any practical issues. God doesn't simply exist in living islam, period.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): The concept of “freedom” in Islam is different from the modern concept of individual freedom, a legacy of European Enlightenment promoted in the Charter of the United Nations.

Klevius: Read Negative Human Rights definition by Klevius and get a little bit less ignorant! The sooner the better...

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Muslim jurists can interpret Islamic law in a way that is consistent with international human rights law.

Klevius: Never ever! There is no place on the map where that would be possible. Not only has Saudi based and steered OIC proved you wrong via UN but more importantly, what would be left of islam if it had to comply with basic Human Rights? Absolutely nothing. As Linus Thorvald (a Finland-Swede like Klevius) used to put it: Talk is cheap - show me the code!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): International human rights law puts pressure on Muslim countries to split their judicial system to weaken the influence of the Sharia.

Klevius: No, but Klevius, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and a few others do by pointing out the impossibility of islam's racist/sexist hate agenda in a civilized society based on all humans equality.. 

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): International law needs to become more pluralistic to reflect the interests and perceptions of all nations, like in Africa or Asia. International law is not a fixed institution but a multilateral development that must be applicable to all.

Klevius: There you go! Now she talks like a Saudi wahhabi imam. And as you know, defending Human Rights is considered a terrorist crime in Saudi Arabia and can easily lead to loosing one's head. She, however, would be safe there with that kind of sharia support.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Muslim scholars did not know for some time the legal meaning as well as the political and philosophical concept of freedom.

Klevius: What 'muslim scholars'?! They are Koranic myth readers, not scholars. Historical facts (or lack of facts) that do not fit islam have no room in their "scholarship".

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Muslims are denied political authority unlike their Western counterparts.

Klevius: Denied by what? By islamic submission of course.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Power structure as well as social and economic relationships in Western states are based upon individual autonomy, equality, free choice and secularism.

Klevius: And the most successful in technology was Japan - a country that used to be as far from islam you can get.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): This notion of political authority directly conflicts with the Islamic principle of political justice. In Muslim countries, authority resides with the people but did not originate with them. God defines political power.

Klevius: And "god" is always absent or secondary to "god's" human interpretors.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In Islam, the individual is not the main actor in the development of domestic and international laws. The Muslim man or woman exists only as a part of the broader Islamic community. For instance, the Islamic veil or the burqa – which cloaks the entire body – hides a woman’s identity behind her function: she is a daughter, a wife and a mother.

Klevius: Never an individual. Moreover, there are no such creatures as 'muslim women' - only muslim men and their sex slaves who have to entertain them and foster their (the muslim men's) sons to new muslim men!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Hence, there is no room left for international law to rule behaviors in Islamic societies. In other words, the Islamic world repudiates the very foundation of international law.

Klevius: Just as the basic Human Rights repudiate islam. Only difference being that Human Rights cover equally all individuals while islam/sharia only covers (the "right") muslims.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): The historical context in which the Sharia was developed in 622 A.D. explains – although it does not legitimize – Muslim states’ conservative position on human rights.

Klevius: But isn't this precisely what you (unknowingly?!) mean by the 'cultural context' we have to "understand"!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Pre-Islamic societies in Arabia, in the early seventh century A.D., lived in the age of ignorance (“Jahiliyyah” in Arabic). Immorality and sexual debauchery abounded.

Klevius: Indeed! This is the root origin of islam's evilness. Immorality and sexual debauchery utilized for the purpose of robbery and pillaging etc that we now sort under the title 'muslim conquest'.

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Notwithstanding indications (sic) in Islamic texts that women held high positions in society, gender discrimination was widespread. Arabs practiced female infanticide and polygamy, for example. Women could seldom choose their husband, divorce freely or inherit from their family.


Klevius: Female infanticide was stopped because islam values sex slavery and the reproductive power of females. And to make this reproductive power into male muslims sharia apartheid was needed. In the non-historical islamic mythology Mohammad's wife Khadija was a very successful merchant before the birth of islam. It is said that when the Quraysh's trade caravans gathered to embark upon their summer journey to Syria or winter journey to Yemen, Khadija's caravan equalled the caravans of all other traders of the Quraysh put together. She was known by the by-names Ameerat-Quraysh ("Princess of Quraysh"), al-Tahira ("The Pure One") and Khadija Al-Kubra (Khadija "the Great"). It is said that she fed and clothed the poor, assisted her relatives financially and provided marriage portions for poor relations. And all of this happened BEFORE islam!

Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In light of this, Muslim countries have contended that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fails to take into account the cultural and historical context of Islamic states. They say that Muslims cannot implement the declaration without transgressing Islamic law.

Klevius: Just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fails to take into account the cultural and historical context of the Islamic State, which btw exactly follows the same islam as Saudi Arabia!

Reading what Kamilia Lahrichi really says reveals that she at any moment could be a servant for the Saudi mufti.

Under Human Rights a woman may choose to lead a sharia style life if she so wishes. However, under sharia women may not choose to lead a life free from sharia limitations. So why do women want to impose sharia restrictions on other women by asking for sharia law?! Klevius' only explanation is muslim racism against the global ethnic community of believers in freedom.

Do 87% of Swedes really support sharia and that women shouldn't have the same Human Rights as men?

This is how fascism really works

After the Swedish election islam critical Sverigedemokraterna (SD) became Sweden's third largest party with 13% of the votes. This led to all the other parties shouting in unison that they won't cooperate with SD, hence showing a remarkable lack of democratic moral.  This also led sharia supporting Aftonbladet to write: 'We are 87% who still like different people'. The word 'different' can only mean muslims because Åkesson who leads SD is a critic of islam and the islamization of Sweden.

When Klevius as a teenager read Martin Gray's For those I loved, he started wondering how the average Germans let it happen. And now, with the rise of Western support/blinking of islam (the absolutely worst ever ideological crime the world history knows about), everything seems utterly clear.

It's no coincidence that Scandinavia's biggest newspaper has a Pol Pot sympathizer at its top, is it!

 The intelligent intellectual urban elite communist Asa Linderborg certainly contrasts with Expressen's (the other main Swedish newspaper) picturing of the SD voter: 'An uneducated man with small resources. A poorly paid  low level worker if not unemployed'. However, SD got its highest numbers (37% of the voters) in an affluent Swedish community where an asylum camp has been placed by the state. Except for refugees running around in their gardens etc the SD voters were mostly concerned with the bad treatment the refugees got from the state, i.e. obviously there were more of them than the state could handle properly.


The feminist party FI led by former communist leader Gudrun Schyman didn't pass the 4% threshold. Expressen compares FI and SD stating that: SD is from Mars and FI from Venus. SD dreams about a time when men were men and women were women while FI dreams about a chaotic future without such categories.

Klevius comment: Dear reader. You who are familiar with Klevius sex tutorials can easily see how laughable these descriptions are, precisely because the SD description actually fits islam and the FI description is completely wrong because true feminists also campaign for segregation.

Btw, Gudrun Schyman was contacted by Klevius re. his thesis Pathological Symbiosis and asked whether she knew about this dangerous hoax concept being introduced in the Swedish law while she was a law maker. She didn't - as didn't most other legislators as well.

The heart of the islam problem is Saudi Arabia - so why is the main enemy treated as an ally?!

Stepping off the flying mat

Swedish election: While the Islamic Ummah is busy destroying Sweden, Aftonbladet smears the only party that questions islam

Klevius doesn't share almost anything with the political views of Sverigedemokraterna (SD), which in essence is a socialdemocratic party - except for their islam criticism. And that fact alone tops all other political issues!

Rinkeby used to have a police station which failed to operate there and then was transformed to "cultural center". However, it is now also burned down.

Swedish muslims copy the behavior of Mohammed when he robbed caravans

Rinkeby is one of the parts of Stockholm with a huge support for sharia laws and the Islamic State. Swedish police have no say in the area and now also the
big multi-national Schenker transport company has stopped their deliveries to this Swedish muslim ghetto.

Recently two Schenker drivers have been threatened and badly assaulted in Rinkeby by muslim youth who surrounded the truck, stole items and threw stones after the escaping drivers. Older muslims seem to have supported the youth.

After three attempted deliveries had failed - the last despite extra security guards and police assistance DB Schenker decided to stop all deliveries to the area.

Rinkeby muslims from the Islamic Cultural Center (sic) attacking women in a Women's Network manifestation. Kvinnors nätverk.

Like in most other muslim communities Rinkeby is part of a mafia like islamic system where tax payers money is eagerly given away and used for completely other reasons than expected. Someone uses funds for a pre-school to build a personal palace in Dubai. Others transfer them to muslim terrorist activities etc.

 
 And this disgusting supporter of islamofascism now leads the most disgusting ever Swedish smear campaign against a democratic political party - only because it criticizes islam.

 Here-s what Klevius wrote March 25 2014:

Klevius question: How come that BBC (world leading media) and Aftonbladet (Scandinavia leading media) both completely miss the world's biggest fascist organization and its new Fuhrer against Human Rights?

When do we start checking for the oil leaks in these fascism supporting media engines?!

 Klevius suggestion: Dear reader, do contemplate the real meaning of this  world wide media deception!


Aftonbladet has with all its media power relentlessly doped its reader about Sweden's only islam critical party Sverigedemokraterna (SD) - to an extent that the party is now about to fall in pieces because a split on its view on islam. Or put in other words, Aftonbladet's extreme demonizing of islam critics, which Aftonbladet call 'islam haters', has opened up for not only general disgust but also physical violence against SD-members - in short the same tactics as used by Hitler, Pol Pot etc. 

But I've got a muslim friend - don't generalize all muslims and all islam!

 Klevius answer:

 Ask your muslim friend if s/he supports OIC and its Sharia against Human Rights!

At this point you really also need to re-check your knowledge ignorance about islam: If you're not 100% convinced as yet that islam has been by far the worst slave raider/trader ideology in world history - then you need some really serious reading you won't find in yours or your children's school books.

Then ask her/him why s/he is against Human Rights for all! That will force your friend to either abandon islam or reveal that s/he is an islamofascist!

And finally a warning to all girls/women falling in love with a muslim boy/man: Your basic Human Rights are doomed if he is a real muslim and Sharia marries you!

BBC's muslim Sharia presenter Mishal Husain now gets her disgustingly racist/sexist islamofascist Sharia law implemented in Britain - bit by bit. But why doesn't she want to talk about this first important step and its real consequences?! As a taxpayer and payer of BBC's compulsory fees every Brit should pose that question!

Under ground-breaking guidance which would be recognised by UK courts, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will, in a first real Sharia step, be able to write islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. The documents will also prevent children born out of wedlock or adopted, from being counted as legitimate heirs. Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia, which recognise only islamic marriage.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect girls/women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including UK Sharia courts in Britain: It's deeply disturbing. This violates everything that we stand for. It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.

Klevius question: Who are 'we' in 'everything that we stand for'. Does it include BBC's islamofascist Sharia presenter Mishal Husain?!


To be honest Klevius feels a little nostalgic of the demise of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots from the crew of funny Sharia clowns but as the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid (and therefore also islam) Klevius has to take responsibilty for what these idiots have already caused and may cause in the future.

Is this the last of the "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiots?

Michael Smerconish (a Philly "Sharia-is-no-threat-but-only-the-fantasies-of-islamophobes" idiot): How ironic that when Susan Jarema questioned Sohail Mohammed's nomination (as a US judge), she was particularly concerned about whether he would defend the rights of women when under sharia law. I doubt she'd have anticipated how he'd rule in a domestic dispute between an unmarried couple over who could be present in a delivery room.

Klevius: How idiotic that Michael Smerconish didn't notice that neither of them were muslims! Had the man been a muslim in a simple Sharia liason (do you know how simple Sharia "marriage" can be?), then the woman's right had ABSOLUTELY NOT been recognized by "judge"* Mohammed - or, alternatively, judge Muhammed would have become an apostate in no time at all!

And how idiotic that Michael Smerconish (and his dhimmidiotic-alikes)

An other tragic dhimmidiot: What point does it make to say a person is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist if they do something wrong?

Klevius: The point is whether s/he does it because of religion! Simple as that. Yes, I know I made your day. Btw, Atheists are the only ones without an excusing ideology!


United Kamikaze Islam Protectors

Nigel Farage's (UKIP leader) pledge that he was proud UKIP politicians could "say what they like" lasted all of around 30 minutes at the party's spring conference, with panicked organisers apparently attempting to remove six journalists from a party debate on Sharia law. Journalists from the Financial Times, Bloomberg and the Telegraph were among those told they could not stay in the half-full conference room in Torquay for the party debate on the use of Islamic law in Britain. Jim Pickard, the Financial Times' political correspondent, said he and his fellow journalists had refused to leave when asked to by party staff.

Saudi UK ambassador and Klevius in total agreement on Saudi Wahhabism

Muslim born and raised (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Husain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) uses Islamic State terrorists to topple the regime in Syria while bombing them in Iraq for the Saudi/Sunni campaign against Shia muslims.

Think about it, this disgustingly immoral man (who sat for some 20 years listening to a black supremacist hate preacher) knowingly lets Syrian civilians suffer and get murdered in the hundreds of thousands while he blames the wrong person (Assad) while supporting the real culprits (Saudi and Qatari leaders as well as Turkey).

While the Islamic State commits genocides and beheadings etc with no end in sight BBC News gives them one sentence worth of interest while spending some twenty minutes on Putin and Ukraine although nothing has happened there since the peace treaty. Why?

And although Saudi Arabia is the main evil Caliphate behind muslim jihad hate terrorism globally - not a word about sanctions etc!

And what about NATO member Turkey from which the murderous attacks on the Syrian people started?It was actually NATO and its Saudi, Qatar etc islamofascist allies who are the main cause of the enormous suffering in Syria.

see video here

And why are Arab Sunni extremists called upon to assist in fighting Arab Sunni extremists? And Lebanon participated in the NATO meeting although they were the ones who opened the gate to the weapon store called al-Omari mosque on their border.

Syria: how the muslim terrorist violence against the Syrian state and the Syrian people began in Daraa mosque al-Omari on the very border to Lebanon

Tim Anderson: ‘The claim that armed opposition to the government has begun only recently is a complete lie.  The killings of soldiers, police and civilians, often in the most brutal circumstances, have been going on virtually since the beginning.’ – Professor Jeremy Salt, October 2011 (Ankara)

There is no doubt that there was popular agitation in Syria in early 2011, after the events in Egypt and Tunisia. There were anti-government and pro-government demonstrations, and a genuine political reform debate. However the serious violence that erupted in March 2011 has been systematically misreported, in line with yet another US-NATO ‘regime change’ agenda.

For many months the big powers and the corporate media pretended that armed opposition in Syria did not exist at all. All violence was government forces against ‘peaceful protestors’. In the words of the US-based Human Rights Watch (strongly linked to the US Council on Foreign Relations), ‘protestors only used violence against the security forces … in response to killings by the security forces or … as a last resort’. This was a dreadful deceit. Washington and its allies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and some elements in Lebanon) were sponsoring armed attacks within Syria from the very beginning.

see video here

Saudi admits that "Syrian Revolution" was armed from the start - Aired on BBC Arabic in April 2012

The blind sheikh mentioned here is "Ahmad Al-Sayasinah", he used to incite the people against the government. He was arrested by the Syrian security and released later. He left to Jordan then Saudi Arabia.

On 23.March.2011, the Syrian National TV broadcast a video-report about seized weapons in "Al-Omari" mosque in the city of Daraa, just a few days after the beginning of the unrest.
See the report on SANA Website:
http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2011/03/24/...
At that time, the entire world accused the Syrian government of fabricating the report. However after more than one year, here they are admitting that the terrorists of Daraa stored weapons in "Al-Omari" mosque.
BBC held an interview with "Anwar Al-Eshki", a Saudi Ex-Military and now president of "Center for Strategic studies" in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He reveals information about the first days in the Syrian crisis, and he even confirms his connections with the leader of the so-called "Free Syrian Army". They have become so rude and confident, so they admit everything publicly.

On 23.March.2011, the Syrian National TV broadcast a video-report about seized weapons in "Al-Omari" mosque in the city of Daraa, just a few days after the beginning of the unrest.
At that time, the entire world accused the Syrian government of fabricating the report. However after more than one year, here they are admitting that the terrorists of Daraa stored weapons in "Al-Omari" mosque. BBC held an interview with "Anwar Al-Eshki", a Saudi Ex-Military (Major General) and now president of "Center for Strategic studies" in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He reveals information about the first days in the Syrian crisis, and he even confirms his connections with the leader of the so-called "Free Syrian Army". They have become so rude and confident, so they admit everything publicly.

The “armed elements” in Syria consist almost exclusively of jihadist groups, most notably ISIS and al-Nusra. ISIS was trained by the United States and al-Nusra was armed by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Global Research: DEBKAfile, an Israeli intelligence asset, reports the ISIS and al-Nusra effort to wrest control of the border area away from the Syrian army was assisted by by Israel, Jordan and the United States:

    Israel acted as a member, along with the US and Jordan, of a support system for rebel groups [ISIS, al-Nusra] fighting in southern Syria. Their efforts are coordinated through a war-room which the Pentagon established last year near Amman. The US, Jordanian and Israeli officers manning the facility determine in consultation which rebel factions are provided with reinforcements from the special training camps run for Syrian rebels in Jordan, and which will receive arms.

In December, it was reported by The National that a secret command center in Jordan, staffed by western and Arab military officials, provides support to jihadist groups fighting on Syria’s southern front. The intelligence center “channels vehicles, sniper rifles, mortars, heavy machine guns, small arms and ammunition to Free Syrian Army units.”

Large numbers of fighters from the Free Syrian Army have defected to al-Nusra over the last year. “Fighters are heading to al-Nusra because of its Islamic doctrine, sincerity, good funding and advanced weapons,” Abu Islam of the FSA’s al-Tawhid brigade in Aleppo told The Guardian in May, 2013.

In June, al-Nusra and ISIS joined forces.

The same month Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily reported U.S. instructors had trained members of ISIS in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region.

Origin of islam

The origin of islam was exactly the same bloody mess as we see now. And different chaliphates fought each other just like today. This is no coincidence but the logical outcome of true evil islam.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Wahhabism is not a sect of Islam. What is being referred to is the interpretation of Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab, who saw his fellow Muslims being diverted from the path of Islam as it had been delivered by the prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Klevius: He is talking about the origin of islam, i.e. the caravan pirates who developed to a parasitic robber community and much later was codified by the help of Jewish-Christian Syriac texts in the Koran for the purpose of sanctioning piracy and rapetivism.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Saudis do not accept to be labelled “Wahhabis”. We are Muslims. In 2011, HRH Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz (now the crown prince) said: “Some people use the word Wahhabism to describe the message of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab in order to isolate Saudi Muslims from the rest of the Muslim world.”

Klevius: Exactly what Klevius has tried to say since 9/11! True islam is Saudi islamofascism in line with the original islam that al-Wahab referred to! And Saudi islamofascism is now sanctioned in UN via the Saudi based OIC and its Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: This word is a convenient label that has been dreamed up by some governments, political analysts and the media to describe the major “Islamic threat” facing western civilisation. It is described as extremist and radical, accused of inspiring movements ranging from the Taliban in Afghanistan to the al-Qaida network and now the Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq.

Klevius: Indeed. I agree on every bit.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: But this view does not even faintly correspond with the teachings of Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahhab, who was a well-travelled, learned, scholarly jurist of the 18th century. He insisted on adherence to Qur’anic values and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) which includes the maximum preservation of human life, even in the midst of jihad. He taught tolerance and supported the rights of both men and women.

Klevius: Oh dear! 'He taught tolerance and supported the rights of both men and women' only fits sharia - not Human Rights and not non-muslims and muslim women. This was the very reason why Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Human Rights violating sharia in UN. Moreover, in Saudi Arabia Human Rights are equalled with terrorism.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Let me make it perfectly clear. The government of Saudi Arabia does not support or fund the murderers who have collected under the banner of the Islamic State. Their ideology is not one that we recognise, or that would be recognised by the vast majority of Muslims around the world – whether they were Sunni or Shia.

Klevius: He is probaly right even here. The Saudi government may not officially have supported it but rather via more or less clandestine operations. He is most probably also right about the majority of the world's "muslims" (of which most are secularized and don't have a clue of islam) not sharing these views. The supporters of the Islamic State could even be less than half a Billion. Nothing to worry about. No? Of course, the Saud family.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah, we launched an initiative for dialogue between all religions and cultures in 2008 with the establishment of the King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue in Vienna.

Klevius: Otherwise correct except for the word 'dialogue'. It's a Saudi monologue and nothing else. Saudi Arabia is by far the most intolerant nation in the entire world. And this extreme intolerance, hatred and contempt against others is made possible by Wahhabism original islam. What about an Interreligious and Intercultural center in Mecca?

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Following an international counterterrorism conference held in Riyadh in 2005, the UN counterterrorism centre was established with financial support of $200m from our government.

Klevius: Yes, and by counterterrorism you of course mean Saudi Wahhabism islam - as long as it doesn't challenge the Saud dictator family of which you are a part.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: We have been and are fighting extremism within our own borders daily, indeed hourly.

Klevius: You certainly do. How many Human Rights activists, apostates, atheists etc terrorists have you beheaded this week?

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: Firm action is taken against any imam who is found to hold extremist views and who tries to incite their followers to violence.

James Lewis: The Saudi fanatics of the Wahhabi priesthood triggered the rise of fanaticism by sending out their own most primitive imams to run mosques in Western countries, using our oil money, price-controlled by OPEC. The Iranians do the same with the lethal preachings of Khomeini, the war theocrat. Scores of primitive gangs are trying to grab power in the Muslim world, each with their own fanatical preachers, all claiming to speak for Allah. The key to radical Islam is that its preachers claim to speak for God, elevating very flawed human beings to the status of divinity. Radical Muslims speak with absolute certainty, as if they are the voice of God.

Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, ambassador of the Human Rights violating islamofascist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the UK: We have passed laws and warned our citizens that they will be arrested and prosecuted if they attempt to join Isis or any other international terrorist group.

Klevius: Indeed. Laws against Human Rights, Atheism, other religions etc evilness!

James Kirk Wall: The Saudi regime of kings and clerics is a hate organization.
They hate women
They hate Jews
The hate Christians
They hate other Muslims who claim divine authority
They hate other Muslims who don’t share their interpretation of Islam
They hate America, but not to our face
They claim to hate homosexuality, but behind closed doors who knows
They hate free speech
They hate equal rights and equal opportunity
They hate atheists and have declared them to be terrorists

Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director of Human Rights Watch, said: "Saudi authorities have never tolerated criticism of their policies, but these recent laws and regulations turn almost any critical expression or independent association into crimes of terrorism.”

But it gets even worse. It’s also illegal for anyone to imply that these recent laws are unjust.

Klevius: And this happens while Saudi Arabia's Riyadh principality also has begun a cover up "campaign" 'to encourage patriotism and spread of moderation and tolerance'. A convoy of young volunteers will make 13 tours to areas across Riyadh to spread a culture of dialogue and acceptance of others. The tours will include symposiums, training courses and exhibitions of publications from the King Abdulaziz Centre for National Dialogue, which is jointly sponsoring the campaign. "Symposiums and training courses" (in islam) similar to the ones Western accomplices to islamofascism are supporting/spreading.

Evan Helmuth: So which pressing, terrorism-related concern does the new law address first? Does it ban incitement to violent jihad from the pulpit or the dissemination of Jihadi propaganda online?

Nope, the leading concern of Saudi Arabia’s new terrorism law is atheism.

You read that right. The world’s number one exporter of poisonous Wahabi doctrines and of the jihadi rabble which is the inevitable result of such doctrines considers atheists its foremost terrorism concern.

Article One of the new law defines “calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based” as terrorism.

We can all rest easy now. Finally someone has taken a courageous stand and is dealing with the widespread scourge of Saudi atheist suicide bombers which has so afflicted the region.

Al-Wahab and the Tulip scent that shell shocked him

Klevius: The root man of Saudi islamofascism was Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab who, during his studies in Basra in the 18th C, got seriously dazzled by glimpses of the European Enlightenment twinkling through the temporary crack to the West called the "Tulip period". He then retreated back into his medieval islamic darkness and as a result, came to position himself as the very opposite to the British "Glorious revolution" (1688) which fought against Catholic papacy orthodoxy, which ended up in Lancashire's coal fueled textile industries as the beginning of the modern industrialized* world based on technology and rationality rather than on religious superstition and fundamentalism (also compare Shinto vs islam). A major outcome of industrialization was universal suffrage and the idea about negative human rights, i.e. freedom from impositions.

 * isn't it an irony then that Britain, which started the series of modern revolutions as well as industrialization, came to deeply embed itself with the most intolerant, racist and sexist constitution, i.e. the Saudi islamofascist dictator state which was incapable of producing anything by itself except hatred and more fanatic muslims!

Together with the criminal "house of Saud", Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab then confined the Arabs in islamic backwardness and, in addition, the Arab women in an islamic burka of extreme Sharia sex segregation/apartheid.

After having robbed Mecca and Medina (in true Mohammed style), the Sauds/Wahhabis run the stolen country by the help of what they fleeced from visiting pilgrims. This was the main source of income until Westerners found/drilled oil and made the lazy islamist looters even wealthier.

(analysis taken from Homo Filius Nullius by Peter Klevius).

Klevius comment: And today this evilness threatens the free world through spineless politicians and OIC in UN! The banner of Enlightenment is now upheld by "islamophobes" such as heroic women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has suffered as a victim of islam(ofascism) and escaped to the West, only to suffer as a victim of political correctness and to find that she was abandoned by those she thought would protect her! In fact, Western politicians and media are busy implementing that very Arab-islamic oppression so many muslims have escaped!

Human Rights violating IS is a terrible joke compared to Human Rights violating OIC!

Biden: "The American people are so much stronger, so much more resolved than the muslims of the islamic state can fully understand,"

Klevius: Ok fine, but what about Wahhabi Saudi based Human Rights violating sharia organization OIC and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani?

Here a radical muslim who wants to eliminate the concept of moderate muslims so that he himself might not be called radical but just a muslim.

Nathan Lean (a radical muslim?): Even if a mere 1 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims is committed to violence, why is it that we haven’t seen 16 million violent attacks?

Klevius: Haven't we?! I thought we have. In fact I'd say there are many more than that because of the silent street jihad going on all over the world and which is blinked because of fear of being blamed "islamophobic". Look at the revelations of an overwhelming muslim presence of sexual predators in the UK and how their victims are were/are abandoned and the criminals not sentenced because of "muslim sensitivities". And sexual jihad is not the only jihad. We have no figures about other types of muslim hate crimes against non-muslims because they are all hidden under the "islamophobia" threat. However, as a criminologist I may assure you that everything points to sky rocketing numbers - just in line with the case of UK's hidden muslim sex predators.


Nathan Lean (a radical muslim?): Proving one’s “moderation” is a trap, anyway. The only way to do it is to meet the criteria set forth by the person making the demand. For Gabriel and others, it’s by supporting Western foreign policies in the Middle East, cheering continued military aid to Israel, and even rejecting certain Islamic tenets.

Klevius: May I understand it as you don't support Biden and the American people? And of course you don't because you support the global sharia Ummah, don't you.




Daniel Greenfield: I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.

There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won't find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.

You can't find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.

You won't find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won't even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won't find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.

Moderate Islam isn't what most Muslims believe. It's what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn't a religion at all.

Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn't been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can't name Mohammed's companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim.

Moderate Islam is a difficult faith. To believe in it you have to disregard over a thousand years of recorded history, theology, demographics and just about everything that predates 1965. You have to ignore the bearded men chopping off heads because they don't represent the majority of Muslims.

Neither does Mohammed, who did his own fair share of headchopping.

The real Islam is a topic that non-Muslims of no faith who hold sacred only the platitudes of a post-everything society are eager to lecture on without knowing anything about it.

Their Islam is not the religion of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadiths, the Caliphs or its practitioners in such places as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Indonesia. Their Islam is a religion that does not exist, but that they fervently believe must exist because without it their way of life is as doomed as the dodo.

They aren't Muslims. They have no faith in Allah or the Koran. Instead they have faith in the goodness of an Islam that exists without resort to scriptures, theology or deity.

When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.

Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.

Dissuading a believer in moderate Muslims from his invented faith by citing the long trail of corpses or the hateful Hadiths that call for mass murder is futile because these are not the roots of his religion. He doesn't know what a Hadith is nor does he care. As a social justice man in good standing, he attributes the violent track record of Islam to European colonialism and oppression.

He has never read the Koran. He has read a thousand articles about how Muslims are oppressed at the airport, in Gaza, in Burma and in Bugs Bunny cartoons. They are his new noble savages and he will not hear a word against them. Having colonized their identities in his imagination (despite the marked up copy of Edward Said's Orientalism that he keeps by his bedside) he treats them as reflections of his ego.

When you say that moderate Muslims don't exist, you are calling him a bad person. When you challenge Islam, you are attacking multiculturalism and he will call you a racist, regardless of the fact that Islam is as much of a race as Communism, Nazism or the Mickey Mouse Fan Club were races.

Is BBC's Pakistani Sharia presenter Mishail Husain an accomplice to Pakistani muslim pedophilia/sexual abuse of non-muslim British girls?

BBC keeps calling muslim sexual predators 'Pakistani' or 'Asian' although they were muslims* and just followed what the Koran says when islam is under attack. Why?

* To those who try to confuse the picture by saying that others than muslims also do it, do remind them of the difference between crimes in general and crimes sanctioned by Human Rights violating islam (e.g. OIC's Sharia declaration in UN). And to those who say that not all muslims do it, do remind them about the big gray-scale of more or less "secularized" "muslims" (i.e. apostates) who always count as muslims whenever it benefits islam.


When Klevius 1998 made his academic paper called The Echo of/about Incest (Ekot om incest) he was met with deep hostility and accused of 'choosing the wrong topic'. Why? Because he started from what was in the best interest of children - not the social state - and simply presented overwhelming scientific proof that biological parents were the least likely group to commit sexual abuse against their children. And the reason for the choice of topic was the ongoing misleading incest propaganda and that Sweden's main public news channel Ekot (the Echo) during a period of 18 days showered the Swedes with false and/or heavily biased views that painted biological parents as the worst threat to children, while completely neglecting the most prevalent perpetrators.

In 2002 a British researcher revealed the horrors of muslim sexual abuse in Britain. However, she was met with similar hostility as that what encountered Klevius. The authority that had ordered the report forced her to change it so extensively that it lost its meaning. And when she contacted the government she was met with total silence.

Klevius paper mentioned above is only available in Swedish. However, while you are learning Swedish (the Scandinavian mother tongue of English) you can read Angels of Antichrist (the by far most important sociological paper from the last century) and Pathological Symbiosis (the most important - and quite possibly the only serious one this far - scientific scrutiny of the social state and how it legally manages to abuse children, their parents and tax payers).

And over it all towers the biggest problem of all - sex segregation. And sad to say, Klevius still remains your foremost expert on it.

Koran inspired sexual etc assault/abuse of non-muslims (or wrong muslims) is per definition a hate crime. So when will we see BBC's helicopter hovering over the houses of muslim sex predators?!

The question is also when or IF the police will start picking the muslim sexual predators off the British streets! Or will the same denial continue while the muslim predators keep laughing and their victims continue suffering - now and especially in their future - if they have one.

Much seems to indicate that BBC and their muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain prefer to protect the social state and the muslims - not the girls which are right now abused while the taxpayers money go to:

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 the children?

The mouse and rat problem originated in the evil* origin of islam - btw, who do you think will win, the mice or the rats? If there are any real mice at all, will say!

 * if German National-socialism (aka "Nazism") or Russian communism should have won in Europe - wouldn't you've called it evil?

Mishal Husain pretends to be a "Brit" yet shares values that are as far you can get from Britishness and basic Human Rights. Or is she just pretending to be a Sharia loving muslim. Either way she turns out as the worst of liars in a deceptive BBC package.

5-6% muslims is the critical point where a country either gives up or starts defending itself against islam, i.e. what in Sharia is called 'attacks against islam' and therefore eligible for jihadist war. And when muslims are attacked the Koran says that muslims can abuse infidel sex slaves their 'right hand possess'.



This Koranic reasoning is the very same that made the worst and most extensive  slave raiding/trading possible in the name of islam.



Pathetic excuses that 'there were also some non-white girls abused' actually underlines the depth of the bigotry and hypocrisy in BBC's reporting".

Iyad Madani, Saudi Fuhrer of the Saudi initiated and Saudi based OIC, all the world's muslims Umma and Sharia organization, which via UN demands the world to criminalize criticism of islam (the worst crime ever) and to make it a crime following Human Rights.