Klevius wrote:
Klevius vs muslims (Human Rights vs islam) - who will win your heart and who is the hater? Take the test!
Acknowledgement for newcomers in simple English: To understand why islam
itself is the source of evil do understand (check for youself if you
don't trust Klevius) the following:
1 Islam originated in a bloodbath where muslims slaughtered all
the Jews in Medina. And from then on it continued in pretty much the
same way as the Islamic State today - only that, thanks to islam's
backwardness, the West has superior technology to keep them down. In
fact, islam has never produced any tech by itself (when did you last
time buy a camera or car made in Saudi Arabia?). Why should it when the
whole islamic ideology is based on slave parasitism (and today also
Western oil money and aid/benefits). And the only "golden" in the so
called "golden age" was the gold muslims got through their slaves. And
later on the Ottoman muslim slave empire immediately started
deteriorating after the West had abolished all kinds of slavery (except
muslim sex slavery hidden as it is within sharia marriage and as
"concubines" i.e. sex slaves).
2 The Koran is an Arabic nationalist supremacist slavery manual.
Because early muslims were caravan robbers etc. criminals (i.e.
parasites) they could only survive on what they could rob from others
(which they called "infidels"). This is why islam became the worst and
biggest slavery ideology ever.
3 Islam is today sharia via Saudi based and steered OIC
(Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which via 57 more or less criminal
member states in United Nations (UN) has managed to democratically
(although islam is anti-democratic and anti-Human Rights) establish
itself as the muslim world Ummah with due Human Rights violating sharia
(the so called Cairo declaration on "islamic human rights").
4 Islam is not islam without sharia so a muslim who rejects
sharia (in any Human Rights violating form) isn't a real muslim - just a
cultural "muslim" and therefore of no interest for Klevius islam
criticism.
However, it's therefore extremely important that every muslim clearly
and honestly declare whether s/he is an islamofascist (Human Rights
violating sharia) or not.
Start by asking your muslim friend. S/he lies to you if s/he says s/he
can be a believing muslim without such sharia. To believe in islam is to
believe in Human Rights violating sharia. That's the very reason OIC
rejected Human Rights in UN! And if s/he doesn't then s/he has committed
the worst crime against islam and should be protected by Western Human
Rights and due legislation based on them.
Saudi Arabia - the guardian and spreader of islamic hate
Saudi based OIC
- and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes
islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!
OIC is a muslim extremist organization!
ICLA: The Cairo Declaration is recognized as a
so-called “regional instrument” by the United Nations, but rarely, if
ever, used or referred to. It is thus functionally redundant, yet its
approval creates an unneeded and potentially dangerous ambiguity in the
formal definition of the human rights. For Sharia is incompatible with
democracy and fundamental human rights, as stated in 2003 by the
European Court of Human Rights, and thus the Cairo Declaration is
equally incompatible with any meaningful definition of human rights, as
well as with several OSCE commitments.
Thus, to avoid willful
misinterpretations of what “human rights” refer to, it would be good for
the protection of human rights defenders to have the Cairo Declaration
explicitly repudiated by those OSCE pS that also hold membership of the
OIC. If they do not do so, they should provide a detailed justification
for keeping this declaration on the books, and the intended use of it.
ICLA thus recommends that:
OSCE makes a statement that the Cairo Declaration has no relevance to its understanding of human rights.
OSCE pS that are also members of OIC explicitly repudiate the Cairo
Declaration as being of no relevance, now or in the future, for the
interpretation of “human rights”.
Klevius: Nothing has happened since this was written in 2013! An
eerie silence follows wherever islam puts its evil hand. Wake up dude!
And you Brits, consider that your PM David Cameron has appointed a
non-elected sharia muslim called Sayeeda Warsi as the "minister of faith
islam and sent her as the official representative to the islamofascist
OIC organization! Is this really what the majority of Brits want? Or are
they just so thoroughly fooled and unaware! And no wonder when this
"islamophobia" islamofascism has settled so deeply that you can't even
apply for a job if you're known as critical of islam. All about islam is
intimidation: physical, reputational, financial etc. Goebbels is
certainly laughing in his grave.
Klevius Human Rights campaign against sharia fueled racist/sexist islamic hate
Klevius is anti sharia islam and anti sharia muslims - and very proud of
it! Moreover, Klevius thinks he has a majority of "muslims" on his side
- although most of them don't even know it as yet. And even those
"muslims" who know it but stay muslim because of monetary advantages,
have to admit Klevius' logic and their own evilness which could range
from mild Human-rightsphobia to extrem muslim terrorism.
Muslim hate speech and acts against "infidels" are protected by Human
Rights. However, there must be room for Human Rights people (without
dhimmitude etc) in the world as well - or?! Face islam's hate Human Rights problem!
Warning for hateful muslims in policing, nursing, caring, public
service etc. Unlike other weirdos muslim weirdos can refer to a
"religious" book and "tradition" that so many say is "holy"* and of
course excited by all the "diversity
brainwashed/scared
trained" people they encounter and read, according to whom islam is
such a "nice and peaceful religion" that ought to be respected. All
"monotheist" religions are based on sexism but islam is also the worst
ideological crime ever against humanity throughout 1400 years.
* (negative) Human Rights,
i.e. freedom from unnecessary impositions, is the only truly holy
concept we need as a functioning worldwide morality. Civilized people of
all sorts already know this and behave accordingly.
As it
stands now, by referring to her/his "religion" a muslim can deny you
things you can't deny her/him without facing accusations of "racism" or
"hate", based on those very Human Rights the actual muslim in fact otherwise hates.
In a BBC debate one of those politically correct non-muslim politicians
defended the stupid proposal to give muslims (of course he didn't
mention muslims but used the usual proxy word "religious") the right to
discriminate against non-muslims in a way non-muslims aren't allowed to
discriminate muslims no matter how offended they are by the muslim's
hateful racist/sexist sharia ideology.
Klevius investment hint: Muslim Sharia free zones will be very valuable in the future.Not the least for many "muslims".
Forget
about saving rain forests etc! This is your new deal. Did you hear that
you oily sheiks fearing a decrease in the popularity of your oil! Or
are you running out of money after having invested so heavily in sharia
zones?
Risks: That islam collapses even quicker than expected. However, even if
you then may loose some money you may also comfort yourself with a
fairer world.
Klevius vs ? billion muslims. He knows it's not fair - of course
Klevius' Human Rights logic is irresistible in the long run compared to
dividing hateful muslim sharia racism/sexism!
Human Rights
Klevius: On his blogs and sites 'Klevius' is interchangeable with
'Human Rights' because all they do is defending Human Rights.
Unfortunately for muslims, islam makes itself the biggest target
precisely because of its violation of Human Rights. Nowhere on Klevius'
sites/blogs can you find ANYTHING not in line with this Human Rights
defense!
Muslims: There doesn't exist a true muslim without her/him (via her/his
support of sharia islam) violating the most basic equality principles
of Human Rights.
Sexism
Klevius: There is no defense for sex segregation/apartheid. Not even
heterosexual attraction (of which Klevius has written the most essential
analysis in the world of today - admittedly, the competition hasn't
been very hard).
Muslims: Women are inferior to men and women's heterosexual attraction
makes it necessary in islam to sharia hide/jail/restrict them physically
and/or culturally (the means vary depending on muslim
community/sub-settings).
Racism
Klevius: Human Rights make racism impossible.
Muslims: Islam is built on "infidel" racism.
Politics
Klevius: For secularism based on Human Rights.
Muslims: For an islamic state based on sharia.
Beliefs
Klevius: Atheist, i.e. lacking a "god" he otherwise could blame and
instead protecting his moral attitude by hanging it on the most powerful
of all moral codes namely the
negative Human Rights.
Muslims: Whatever a muslim does it's "Allah's" will. And because
"Allah's" will is not known then we have no tool whatsoever to know the
inscrutable will of the muslim - other than the self evident Atheist
conclusion that it's no more or less than the will of the muslim, and
not of "Allah".
According to
one of BBC's extremely few and misleading reports about OIC aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment:
Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe ... (read more on Klevius beats BBC)
In Britain, the number of Muslim converts recently passed the 100,000
mark, according to a survey conducted by an inter-faith group called
Faith Matters. The survey revealed that nearly two thirds of the
converts were women, more than 70% were white and the average age at
conversion was just 27.
Klevius explanation: Non-muslim women who marry muslims have to choose
between a lower status as a non-muslim in the muslim family setting or
convert.
The muslim system is extremely racist and sexist in this regard because
everything is one-way directed towards the muslim man and islam and away
from Human Rights. A non-muslim man isn't even allowed to marry a
muslim woman without converting.
So instead of boasting about the high numbers they should be seen as utterly shamful in a civilized country.
So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?
Nothing could be easier. Just refute Human Rights violating sharia and
you don't hear anything from Klevius. Do as Ayaan Hiris Ali did!
From anti-islamic Magna Carta in 1215 to anti-fascist Human Rights in 1948 - and the islamofascism of today
Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long
struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David
Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights
violating sharia.
Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was
produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian.
Compare this to the British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while
seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside
Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).
King John the Traitor, PM David
Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be
"reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant
direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing
Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare
Raif Badawi and others).
King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir
asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and
turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read
or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and
obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is
free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as
it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that
they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of
blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched
lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from
a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human
beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English
allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very
servile and soft.
Some more hateful muslims
Or are they no muslims precisely because of their hate?!
How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which
preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that
is more protected than most other people?!
Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary,
their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's
represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself,
i.e. OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).
Muslims have
chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by
believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok,
Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims
would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped
there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat
against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights.
And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia
(as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human
Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by
those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.
Islam (the opposite to
Negative Human Rights)
is based on infidel racism and sexist rapetivism. It's islam's true
origin, and the only tenet that cannot be reformed without erasing islam
itself. However, instead of dealing with this most important issue, now
criticism of this disgusting islamic supremacism is called islamophobia
and suggested (by the most racist and evil organization out there) to
be called "racism"!
Btw, did England incite hatred against the
German Nationalsocialists thus causing unrest and chaos? And was
Germany's attack reasonable because of an unfair Versaille treaty?
Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British
statesmen the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have
been avoided? To this one may add that whereas Nationalsocialism was
national and hence not totalitarian in a universal sense, islam is truly
totalitarian, on a micro level as well as on a macro level.
57 islamic nations (OIC) have here agreed to adopt Sharia!
This
man, Saudi "king" Abdullah (aka Mr X "president's" first call) is an
oil parasite whose main task in life has been the spreading of evil
islamism!
OIC, a Saudi initiated and supporting organization consisting of 56+1 islamist nations who have:
1
decided to violate Human Rights by replacing them with islamist Sharia
which denies girls and women their rights given in the 1948 Human Rights
Declaration
2 hijacked UN by constituting its biggest voting bloc
3 criminalized criticism against islam by calling it "islamophobia"
The mosque mouse, silenced by islam
Sept 28-30, 2010, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), is sponsoring Sharia propaganda at the AIC’s Chicago campus.
Founded
in 1969 OIC is now a 56 (+ Palestine) state collective which includes
every lslamic nation on Earth. Currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu, OIC thus represents the entire muslim Umma and is the largest
single voting bloc in the UN.
John Laffin
warned in 1988 that the Jedda-based OIC, initiated and patronized by
Saudi Arabia, is persuading Muslim nations to jettison even their
inchoate adoption of “Western models and codes,” and to revert to the
pre-Western retrograde systems of Sharia.
According to Laffin, the Saudis offered sizable loans and grants in return for a more extensive application of Sharia.
Saudi
Arabia also distributed an abundance of media and print materials which
extended to non-muslim countries, including tens of millions of Korans,
translated into many languages for the hundreds of millions of muslims
(and non-muslims) who did not read Arabic.
And now two special US
envoys to the OIC later (both the former, Sada Cumber, and current
envoy, Rashad Hussain) will attend the Chicago OIC propaganda for the
purpose of islamization.
Andrew Bostom :
Elizabeth Kendal, in a recent commentary [4] about the plight of
brutalized Egytpian Muslim “apostates” Maher el-Gowhary and Nagla
Al-Imam, made a series of apt observations which illustrate the most
salient aspect of Islam’s persistent religious totalitarianism: the
absence of freedom of conscience in Islamic societies. Egypt, Kendal
notes, amended its secular-leaning constitution in 1980, reverting to
its pre-colonial past and designating Sharia (Islamic law) as “the
principal source of legislation” — an omnipresent feature of
contemporary Muslim constitutions, including the new constitutions of
Afghanistan and Iraq — rendering “constitutional guarantees of religious
liberty and equality before the law illusory.” This is the inevitable
outcome of a Sharia-based legal system, because:
Sharia’s
principal aim concerning religious liberty, is to eradicate apostasy
(rejection of Islam) through the elimination of fitna (anything that
could tempt a Muslim to reject Islam) and the establishment of
dhimmitude — the humiliation and subjugation of Jews and Christians as
second class citizens [or non-citizen pariahs]; crippling systematic
discrimination; violent religious apartheid …
In Egypt, as in
virtually all Muslim states, a person’s official religion is displayed
on their identity card. According to Sharia, every child born to a
Muslim father is deemed Muslim from birth. According to Sharia, a Muslim
woman is only permitted to marry a Muslim man. (This is the main reason
why Christian men convert to Islam, and why female converts to
Christianity will risk life and liberty to secure a falsified/illegal
ID, for without a Christian ID they cannot marry a Christian.)
There is no religious liberty in Islam, for Islam survives as religious totalitarianism that refuses rejection.
Islam’s
refusal to abide rejection by its votaries — the global Muslim umma’s
strident rejection of freedom of conscience — is now openly codified,
and has been for two decades. The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called
“Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”, was drafted and
subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Both the preamble and
concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo
Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights
as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the UN’s
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The opening of the
preamble to the Cairo Declaration [5] repeats a Koranic injunction
affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110; “You are the best nation
ever brought forth to men … you believe in Allah”), and states:
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …
The preamble continues:
Believing
that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral
part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle
has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore
them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are
contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of
His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making
their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an
abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible
— and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.
In its last articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains
[Article
24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are
subject to the Islamic Sharia. … [Article 25] The Islamic Sharia is the
only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of
the articles of this Declaration.
Michael Hamilton:
As noted in Shariah: The Threat to America, Ihsanoglu used the occasion
of an earlier speech to an OIC Council of Foreign Ministers’ conclave
to declare war on freedom of speech:
In [the OIC’s] confronting
the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna,” we sent a clear message
to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we
speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware
of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look
seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the
perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be
overlooked.
Of late, the Organization of the Islamic Conference
has taken to the United Nations its war against expression that gives
offense to Islam. Last September, the Obama administration actually
co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt (representing the OIC) in the UN
Human Rights Council, calling on the United Nation’s member states to
limit such expression, as part of the OIC’s ongoing campaign to have the
UN recognize Islamophobia as a form of racism subject to prosecution
under international law.
This effort to establish what it calls
“deterrent punishments” for shariah slander is only one example of OIC
activity at odds with American interests and the U.S. Constitution.
Other examples include:
• Disrupting U.S. Efforts in
Afghanistan: In the July 2010 edition of the OIC’s “Islamophobia
Observatory” Bulletin, the OIC sharply criticized Gen. Petraeus’
counter-insurgency manual as “a manifestation of Islamophobia”;
•
Damaging Middle East Peace Negotiations: Since its founding, the
OIC has pursued an aggressive anti-Israel campaign, including creating a
fund for the intifada in 2001;
• Denies Civil Liberties and
Freedom to Muslims and Non-Muslims: The OIC for decades has tried to
deny American Muslims and others the protections of the UN Convention on
Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution, insisting instead that they
comply with the shariah apartheid doctrine formally adopted by the OIC’s
members as the so-called “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.”
According
to the conference agenda published by the OIC New York UN Permanent
Mission (http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html), the executive
director of the Chicago franchise of the Hamas-linked CAIR, Ahmed Rehab,
will moderate a panel entitled: “The Role of the OIC and the Scope for
its Relation with American Muslims.”
In yet another ominous move,
the Organization of the Islamic Conference has announced that it will
meet on September 30 with American Muslim leaders – many of whose groups
the federal government has identified in court as Muslim Brotherhood
fronts – for the purpose of creating the “American Muslim Liaison
Council to the OIC.”
Question to: Nobel Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi by David G. Littman (Representative: AWE & WUPJ)
My question is addressed to Madam Shirin Ebadi.
Thank you for your remarkable frank speaking here and your courage - a true lesson for us all.
A
year ago, on Human Rights Day 2007, OIC Secretary-General Prof.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the OIC General Secretariat is
considering the establishment of an independent permanent body to
promote Human Rights in Member States in accordance with the provision
of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an
OIC Charter on Human Rights.
Four days later, on 14 December
2007, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan - speaking for the OIC at the
Human Rights Council -claimed that the 1990 Cairo Declaration was "not
an alternative competing worldview on human rights," but failed to
mention that the shari'a law was "the only source of reference" in that
Declaration's articles 24 and 25 - the same shari'a law in which there
is no equality between Muslim men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims.
The Final Communiqué of the 3rd Extraordinary Session of the Islamic
Mecca Summit on 8 December 2005 had provided a clear message on this -
and on the UN system of human rights.
Madam, do you feel that the
Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam - and a future Islamic
Charter based on shari'a law - would clash with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and the International bill of Human
Rights? To give one example: the marriage of girls at nine years old,
as in Iran, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Klevius comment:
Islamic “monotheism” is the most evil form of the old Jewish “the
chosen people” racism. The only meaningful difference is that whereas
old Judaism was spread via the Vagina, islam is spread via the Penis
(rapetivism). This fact together with islam’s harsh apostasy ban
(meaning leaving islam is considered a crime) and that muslim women are
not allowed to marry non’muslims, explains why there are now less than
10 Million Jews but more than one Billion muslims.
OIC’s Cairo
declaration clearly violates girls/women’s Human Rights. Under OIC’s
islamic Sharia a female doesn’t really count as a fully human (only
"truly" muslim men counts) because of islam’s rigid sex segregation.
Because of their sex females are, according to islam, forever and in all
aspects of life, doomed to legal difference as prescribed by whatever
Sharia happens to rule. To make this more simple to understand, just
compare to the original Human Rights which expressly state that sex
should not be an excuse for limiting girls’ and women’s freedom. And
even more simple:
Whereas under Sharia women are doomed to sex segregation, under Human Rights a woman can choose to sex segregate herself as well as to refuse to sex segregate herself (However, due to the
detrimental effects of psychoanalysis this latter option isn’t always open for girls because they may be labeled as “suffering” from gender identity disorder – see
Klevius explanation of this repulsive psychiatyric intervention in girls’ lives).
Negative Human Rights
constitute the backbone of the Human Rights Declaration and the US
Constitution. Islam/Sharia is the very opposite. This is why OIC
violates the most important part of the Human Rights by replacing their
freedom with medieval islamofascism.
