The Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based islamofascist OIC

Theresa May is for sharia and EU - but against EU's Human Rights Court which condemns sharia

Sayeeda Warsi like all sharia muslims is against basic Human Rights

If you don't agree on the most basic Human Rights, then you're a racist/sexist hater

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), and islam (the worst cime ever) is the foremost expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means the same as true sharia supporting (and therefore against the most basic of Human Rights) muslims.

British muslim jihadists: Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Le

Friday, May 26, 2017

Will the islamofascist Saud dictator family attack England again during Ramadan?


Klevius question to Theresa May: Do Saudi Salafist values comply with "British values"? And if not, is it really good for England to threaten Russia, which has never attacked England, while having one's worst enemy source, Saudi, as a "close ally"?! Has Klevius missed something...





If you dislike Nazi ideology then you easily qualify for disliking Saudi ideology as well.

Could anything be more worthy of disliking than a bunch of multi billionaire Salafi sharia muslims who use their oil wealth for gaining even more power by bombing their neighbors and spreading islamic hatred over innocent people around the world in a stealthy manner so to be able to "excuse" themselves by saying "it wasn't me who did the bomb or handled the knife, gun, acid, car/truck etc".

Trump lost all respect when he turned from a harsh Saudi critic to an eager supporter of Saudi state (i.e. dictator) terrorism (via more or less stealthy channels). At least, Theresa May has been consequent in her love affair with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. And why wouldn't she. After all, she shares the Saudi view that "sharia is good for the Brits". Only Klevius wonders: Which Brits - the sharia muslim "Brits"? And what about the non sharia English people who respect universal Human Rights equality instead of Human Rights violating sharia? England is a modern sovereign state, "Britain" is a pompous and dangerous colonialist nostalgia term in which sharia "diversity" hides its ugly face.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the core tumor of the cancer spreading from Mideast. Giving additional nutrition to cancer cells is not an acceptable strategy.

No young jihadi mind will ever believe that he's completely off the target as long as the "custodians of islam" preach the same hatred and are respected by politicians like Theresa May and Donald Trump.

The monetary stakes are admittedly high but nothing compared to the Saudi Human Rights violations and its costs. May's and Trump's Saudi politics is just "creative book keeping" and a cynical disrespect for the security of innocent people.



The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the core problem. And Theresa May's Brexit startegy of escape into old colonial "British" paths is hardly helpful.


As the Saudi "custodians of islam" having the same Sunni Salafi (i.e. original islam) ideology as the muslim terrorists, that alone should be enough reason to vote out any politician who supports Saudi islamofascism.

However, there's also a much larger problem with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. That's the Saudi based and steered OIC which "peacefully" promotes Salafi sharia hate all over the world. And with the help of mainly muslim countries OIC has managed to make Saudi islamofascism "ok" via UN by accepting that sharia can be whatever - even islamofascist Saudi Salafist Wahhabism. 

Klevius has noted that his hits go down when he writes about the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. How come?


How England as a "British" colonizer created the worst evilon the planet. Of course they weren't aware back then about the monetary effects of oil that would then later multiply this evil.


Does the islamofascist Saudi dictator family already possess more nuke missiles than Israel?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family funded the Pakistani nuke program and has extremely tight connections with Pakistan re. nuke technology.

Klevius suggestion: Israel's fooling around with the Saudis doesn't promise any good for the region - or for Israel itself. So the best thing an Iranian president could do now is partnering with Israel...



* Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn SaudIn 1901, Twenty-one-year-old Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Rahman Al-Saud left Kuwait, determined to fight along-side the British forces against the Islamic state in order to get power over all of the territory once occupied by his pirate forefathers and to extend his occupation over the holy cities of Makkah and Medinah.

In 1902, The Exiled Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman Al-Saud and his gangsters (the Wahhabi movement) stormed Riyadh and shot and killed the Wali (the governor of the Khilafah:Aal-Rasheed) as another gift for Britain. This event marked the beginning of the formation of the pirate kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

1902-1913, After establishing Riyadh as his headquarters, Abdul Aziz proceeded, over the following decades side to side with the British soldiers to loot and kill the soldiers and supporters of The Ottomani Khilafah and he succeeded in many cities.

In 1914, Britain started to send a stream of agents (including William H.Shakespeare, Harry St. John Phil by and Percy Cox) to woo and encourage Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman in her task on the Arabian front. Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman’s campaign was one of sabotage and stabbing in the back, it was never face-to-face confrontation.

In 1915, Britain dispatched an agent by the name of William H. Shakespeare as a close advisor to Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman. The soldiers of the Khaleefah killed William alongside some Wahhabi conspirators.

In 1915, Britain dispatched another agent by the name of Harry St. John Philby, who soon appeared in full Arab dress on top of a camel with Abdul- Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as a saudi warrior. Philby was called by Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman the “new star of Arab firmament”. Philby in return described Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman as the Arabs “man of destiny” however Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman was the arch political sell-out, many times offering to sell himself to the British. He once said to Philby, “If anyone offered me a million pounds I would give him all the concessions he wants”.

In December 1915 the Anglo-Saud friendship treaty was concluded. This treaty made the house of Saud an outpost of the British Empire. Britain was given trading privileges and was superintendent of Saudi foreign policy. A guarantee of British military protection and arms supplies ended the Khaleefah’s authority in central Arabia.

In 1916, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman received from the British 1300 guns, 10,000 rupees and 20,000 pieces of gold in cash.

1917-1926, Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman and his organised Wahhabi gangsters in military style and with the help of the British soldiers succeeded in controlling the Whole of Arabia i.e. Najd and Hijaz.

In On 8 January 1926 Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman ( Known as Ibn-Saud) was self-proclaimed king of Arabia. King Abdul-Aziz was embroiled in discussions with the British representative, Percy Cox, for the determination of the borders of the new entity. The British Public Records described king Abdul-Aziz’s demeaning stature at these meetings “like a naughty schoolboy” in front of Cox. When Cox insisted it was his decision as to the frontiers between Kuwait, “Ibn-Saud almost broke down and pathetically remarked that Sir Percy was like his father and mother who made him and raised him from nothing… and he would surrender half his Kingdom, nay the whole, if Sir Percy ordered. Cox took out a map and pencil and drew a line of the frontier of Arabia”. Surely no Muslim can ever read such a statement except with abject shame at the way the sacred sites of Makkah and Medinah and the land of Hijaaz were put in the hands of a family with such debased and dishonorable pedigree.

1926-1932, King Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman (Ibn-Saud) courted the British unashamedly, showing sublime affection towards Britain’s envoys. He offered to put Arabia under their control. For his loyalty to the British crown, like so many other British agents, Ibn Saud was awarded a knighthood (presented to him by his self-proclaimed “father and mother” Percy Cox) and British

documents referred to him as “Sir” Abdul Aziz Bin Saud for many years afterwards.

In On September 23, 1932 the self appointed king, Sir Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman replaced the names of Najd and Hijaaz by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and he laid the foundations of the current Pirate state.

Eisenhower and Nixon at Dinner with King SaudIn 1953, The pirate king Abdul-Aziz Bin Abdul-Rahman died.

In 1953, Saud the eldest son of Abdul Aziz Succeeded the throne upon his father’s death and became king.

In 1957, King Saud made the first trip by a Saudi monarch to the United States.

In 1962, Saudi Arabia by special request of the British government sponsored an international Islamic conference, which fostered the Muslim World League, which has its headquarters in Makkah.

In 1964, King Saud Bin Abdul-Aziz died.

In 1964, Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz became king.

King faisal Bin Abdul AzizIn 1971, King Faisal by special request of the British government was a central force behind the establishment of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (the OIC) in Jeddah.

In 1975, King Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz was killed by his brother Fahd (The Who Became the king Afterwards).

King Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz. aIn 1975, Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz became king.

In 1982, King Khalid was poisoned by his brother Fahd .

In 1982, Fahd became king.

King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz.1982-2005,  King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz is the pirate ruler of the pirate state of so-called Saudi-Arabia.

2005 – 2014 Until Today King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz is the Pirate Ruler King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saudof the British Sponsored State of the So Called Saudi Arabia .

The “Royal Family” of Saudi Arabia is the leading champion of all efforts to silence Islam, and to wipe out and demolish its identity. Najd and Hijaaz were the former names of so-called Saudi Arabia today. As everybody knows, Makkah and Madinah are Islam’s place of birth. Makkah houses “Al-Haram Al- Sharif”, and Madinah houses “Al-Masjid Al-Nabawi”, these are known as the “Two Holy Mosques”. The darker history of Hijaaz started with the ruthless, coward, savage and murdering Abdul-Aziz Bin Saud, who established himself as King back in 1932.

With the help of the British, King Abdul-Aziz replaced the country’s name of Hijaaz with Saudi Arabia which is the only country in the world that is named after its Dictator. King Abdul Aziz sexually abused many women, he now has more than 44 known sons and lots of known and unknown daughters. This dark history continues with the so-called “royal family”, and their leader King Fahd, the so-called “Guardian” whose title should be, “The Robber of the two Holy Mosques”, from the Arabic Expression: ” Ha-miha..Ha-ramiha “, which means ” Its Protector is really Its Robber “.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Why is "islamophobia" again blamed when the islamofascist Saudi dictator family attacks England via Salafist Sunni jihadi?

Human Rights (i.e. "islamophobia") are considered "terrorism" in Saudi Arabia. But why does the same islamofascist sharia apply in the West?


If we are to believe media and politicians, only "a tiny minority" of muslims are against basic Human Rights. If so the majority of muslims should have no problem with "islamophobia".



The Saudis are no muslims - or are they?




There's not the slightest doubt that the Saudi Salafist islam is closer to the original islam and Mohammad than any Western view on islam. So do we have two completely different islam? Not really, because the Western view on islam can never prevail. Either it continues producing Salafism in the West or if contained, islam will die altogether because it can't survive without its sexism and racism allure.

What's the difference (except the superficial "luxury")  between the Islamic State and the islamofascist Saudi dictator family?



The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the world's biggest funder of islamic terrorism.




The Hill: In older Salafist school textbooks that the Saudis disseminated globally, Christians and Jews were compared to “swine” and “apes.” A later 12th-grade text explains the religious duty to wage jihad against the infidel to expand the faith. Even recent Saudi textbooks teach the anti-Semitic fable “The Protocol of the Elders of Zion” as history and insist that sorcerers must be killed.

Mohammed Saeed, the imam of the Didsbury Mosque and Islamic Centre in Manchester: “Salman Abedi had looked at him ‘with hate’ after he gave a sermon criticising Isis and Ansar al-Sharia in Libya.” What's Theresa May's take on that?

Klevius: But wait a minute, Ansar al-Sharia is an umbrella organization that includes several al-Qaeda groups — and has fought alongside England's "close ally" Saudi forces in Yemen - and most probably used English military equipment.

An often used islamic hadith quotes Muhammad saying, "The best of my community are my generation, the ones who follow them and the ones who follow them" as a call to Muslims to follow the example of those first three generations, known collectively as the salafi or "pious Predecessors" (السلف الصالح as-Salaf as-Ṣāliḥ). The salaf are believed to include Muhammad himself, the "Companions" (Sahabah), the "Followers" (Tabi‘un), and the "Followers of the Followers" (Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in).

Since the fifth Muslim generation or earlier, Sunni theologians have used the examples of the Salaf to understand the texts and tenets of Islam. At times they have referred to the hadith to differentiate the creed (Aqidah) of the first Muslims from subsequent variations in creed and methodology (see Madhab), to oppose religious innovation (bid‘ah) and, conversely, to defend particular views and practices.

According to Bernard Haykel, "temporal proximity to the Prophet Muhammad is associated with the truest form of Islam" among many Sunni Muslims.

Salafis believe that the label "Salafiyya" existed from the first few generations of Islam and that it is not a modern movement.

Klevius concluding remark: What is clear is that Salafism "goes original" and that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family has been the main user of this evil ideology. What is less clear is when people in the West will get a chance to vote their opinion about it. As it stands now Saudi sharia labels every such effort as "islamophobia" and because this is seen as "racism" then no one is allowed to serve as a channel for a Human Rights approach to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. After all, they are the "custodians of islam" - and they have loads of oil money to bribe media and politicians.

And this is really the tragically funny part. Not since the days of Hitler has it been so easy to criticize a country's evil leaders, precisely because it's so extremely obvious for everyone to see. However, this time the "allied forces" are with the enemy, which fact complicates a solution and prolongs the suffering caused by this evil.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Klevius proudly presents the president of France 2022 - or earlier, if Macron can be prosecuted for treason against the French people.


Why does BBC lump Marine Le Pen and Theresa  May together with the mentally ill murderer of MP Cox?!


BBC today (in the same news report) called Marine Le Pen and the mentally ill murderer of MP Cox 'right wing'. As Theresa May is at least equally "right wing" as Marine Le Pen when it comes to immigration and party politics etc. she also fits BBC's smear campaign - except that she is for basic Human Rights violating sharia, i.e. not an "islamophobe". And that's enough to erase any bad label because according to BBC, Theresa May, and the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, "islamophobia (i.e. to criticize islam for violating Human Rights) " is the most heinous kind of "extremisms".


So why is the defense of Human Rights against islamofascist sharia still called "islamophobia" by some extremists?

Tory Brexit ministers  ranting about the evil of immigration and the need to 'take back control' differ from EU policy in that they only want immigrants who save them money and education and bring them money and a finished education. This is Theresa May's policy and resembles her policy on grammer schools, i.e. to cherry pick talents from less well off communities.




The recent European Values survey found that 69% of UK muslims wanted full sharia law  to replace democracy. This poses a clear public order danger, and is hardly in line with "British values" as the Brits themselves see it..

Macron will enter the Elysée and prepare for National Assembly elections at the same time as Theresa May heads for her election victory in early June. Two opposites who both bow for Saudi islamoafscism.




Mohammed Amin, chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, hailed May as "the leader the UK needs at this time".

Foreign students would be discounted from Theresa May's immigration counts in the future. They bring money, and if they can bring even more money after their education they are of course allowed to stay, especially if they are muslims (because of the pressure from Saudi/OIC & Co).



EU is flooding with muslims fleeing their own faith. How "moral" is it then to talk like Theresa May and her aids - while simultaneously playing the race card against non-muslim EU citizens.

Karen Bradley (Tory): “What we need is to have the right people, to attract the brightest and best, it’s not about putting numbers on it, it’s about making sure we can deliver where industries need skills, where brightest and best want to come to Britain. We want to be an attractive place that people want to come and work and we want to be the strong economy that pays for those public services people value so much.”

Klevius comment: Can you be more politically cynic than that!

Theresa May: It's the perversion of islam which underlines the ideology that has led to violence.


Klevius: Indeed. And that violence is inscribed in original islam and used by its "prophet" to conquer, slaughter (starting with all the Jews in Medina) and enslave other people.


Theresa May suffers from a selective anti-semitism. She approves of whoever islam supporting Jew, but can't stand Human Rights defending Jews  like e.g. Pamela Geller. To an extent that she rather take in islamofascists than such a Jew to the country.

In 2012 May blocked the extradition to the US of British computer hacker Gary  McKinnon. She said: There was no doubt was "seriously ill" and the extradition warrant against him should be withdrawn.

Yet, just two weeks before this decision, fellow British citizen Talha Ahsan had been put on a private charter flight to the United States, having been extradited to face charges of running a pro-jihadi website. Like McKinnon, he had a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome.

South London-born Babar Ahmad, the longest-serving British prisoner to be detained without trial in the UK, was also extradited to the US in October 2012. At the time critics pointed out the stark differences in the ways the defendants, who had been charged at roughly the same time, were treated and the contrast in how the home secretary used her influence to block the extradition of a white British citizen while pushing for the extradition of Muslim British citizens.

Just days later May addressed the party faithful at the Conservative conference, opening her speech with: "Wasn’t it great to say goodbye – at long last – to Abu Hamza and those four other terror suspects on Friday?"

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Brexit racism and immorality instead of fair play: UK Commonwealth sharia muslim* (and other) residents have the right to vote about UK EU residents' future - a right denied them whom it concerns!

* Sharia violates the most basic rights in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration, and was declared incompatible with Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights.

Theresa May accuses EU of threatening her but she herself openly threatens and harasses EU citizens residing in UK by using them as a race card and negotiation hostage.



The Mule, like Mohammad, had no natural successor. A consequence was in the case of islam the longest and bloodiest "civil war" history knows about.

 
Btw, this the biggest (60m x 100m) Shia mosque in Sweden was arsoned three days ago. Police is silent and a suspect released. And the Swedish PC media and politicians are silent. So, was it a Saudi attack again?


Klevius has a hard time believing most Brits prefer sharia muslims instead of non-muslim Europeans. So why this fixation with sharia? 

Theresa May's sharia politics constitutes a hangover from the British empire now affecting EU citizens in UK but not Commonwealth residents in UK.The reason is that May wants a crash bag from EU as well as sharia money from outside the EU. And that's the real danger of Theresa May - her preferring the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and other sharia states instead of seriously dealing with China etc. Btw, how many Brits have the Saudi islamic hate mongering and support for jihad caused to be murdered or victimized? Then compare that to China, Japan etc.


Do politicians really bother about people?


Any initial agreement on future residency rights would be invalid if a final agreement hasn't been reached by mid-2019, leaving 4.5 million EU citizens at risk of losing residency rights that residents from other parts of the world will keep.

The European council should therefore propose/enforce an early agreement on residency rights, that is protected from the rest of the negotiations. This would be legally possible instead of Theresa May's racist use of human lives as tactical bricks in a negotiation game which is deeply immoral considering these people resided in UK precisely because they were promised full residency rights by that very same UK.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Why is Human Rights defending Klevius called an "islamophobia racist" while the openly racist/sexist war crime committing islamofascist Saudi dictator family is welcomed in UN "to protect women"?!


The world's muslims are kept in a Wahhabi/Saudi hate hostage against the most basic Human Rights. And pointing this out is called "islamophobia".

 
However, ŕecently most news media have joined Klevius in an "islamophobic" stance against that Saudi Arabia was approved as a member of the Commission for the 2018-2022 term by the 54 nations that make up the UN Economic and Social Council. It received 47 votes in a secret ballot, fewer than any other country under consideration but enough to pass the majority threshold.

Most media - except BBC - followed Klevius in condemning the Saudi membership approval.



Muslim identity all over the world is ruled by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family which possesses OIC and "islam's holy places" - and is aided by Western politicians. This fact is never weighed in in the frenetic campaign against "islamophobia" which the islamofascist Saudi dictator family itself has initiated and boosted - and which ignorant people around the world seem to believe in thanks to their politicians etc. "teaching" them to do so, and the simultaneous media suppressing and faking info about sharia islam and real Human Rights..

The Saudi weapons are:

1 OIC sharia against Human Rights via UN, politicians, universities, mosques etc.

2 Oil sharia via investments and weapons trade.

3 Although the Saudi military is among the most incompetent (especially compared to money spent) the real military power of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family resides in its sponsoring of worldwide islamic hatred - as well as much of the weaponry used for this hatred. But the real "smartness" of the Saudi military terrorist strategy is that it most often doesn't even need to arrenge for weapons because bombs (incl. fire-bombs), knives, acids etc. are cheap and easy to access/produce.

4 The Koran which is full of useful statements about how to hate, rape, murder etc. so called "infidels".

5 An illiterate Arabic speaking "prophet" whose main asset was the jhihad sword (compare the Saudi flag).

6 The status as "custodians" of Mecca with its muslim Haji idolatry points such as e.g. Kaaba and Mina, and Medina where islam started by slaughtering and raping all the Jews there..


The islamofascist war crimes committing and global islamic hate mongering Saudi dictator family not only attacks its Western "allies" by supporting islamic terror and sharia, it also keeps all the world's muslims hostage via it controlling OIC, UN, mosques, universities, politicians etc. around the world precisely by using its position as "the guardians of islam" (the so called "holy places" Mecca and Medina, where Mohammad started his slaughtering and raping conquest).


Drawing from 1979 by Peter Klevius

Peter Klevius has during all of his life fought for women's rights - as part of the overall fight for Universal Human Rights equality. However, he could never imaging that the world would be steered by oil wealthy Saudi islamofascist in 2017 - and that defending Human Rights would be called "islamophobia"..


Sunday, April 23, 2017

Muslims are fleeing islam - and carrying it with them


Is the Pope a 'useful idiot'?




William Kilpatrick: A reader asked for some specific practical ways that Catholics could resist Islam. I replied with a short list of steps Church leaders could take:

Break off dialogue with Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as ISNA and ICNA. Stop lending them legitimacy.

Stop backing the phony “Islamophobia”/hate crimes campaign manufactured by Islamist groups. The “Islamophobia” campaign is aimed at shutting down all legitimate examination and criticism of Islam.

Develop apologetics and educational materials that will provide Catholics with a fuller understanding of Islam.

Develop programs in Catholic schools, colleges, and seminaries that will better inform Catholics about Islam. Currently, most Catholic schools are acting as apologists for Islam—simply echoing the Islamic apologists.

Catholic refugee resettlement programs should concentrate on resettling Christian refugees from Muslim countries. Catholic encouragement of Muslim migration to Europe has already had disastrous results and may eventually lead to the extinction of Catholicism in Europe.

Catholic media need to present a more balanced picture of Islam. For the most part, the Catholic fourth estate simply seconds the Islam-positive view of the USCCB.

At that point I realized that these suggestions would not even be considered by the great majority of the Catholic leadership. They would be dismissed out of hand as both unnecessary and discriminatory. In short, Catholic leaders won’t take steps to resist Islam because they see no reason to resist it.


Klevius: Much like Harvard professors showered by Saudi sharia oil money.



No other country has a proportional influence over Harvard even close to that of the islamofascist war crime committing Saudi dictator family and its sharia hate mongering and intolerance.


Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international (pro-Saudi) relations at Harvard University. He offers 'Top Five Reasons There Is No Islamic Threat'.

1: The Balance of Power Is Overwhelmingly in Our Favor. Let’s start with some good old-fashioned power politics. Imagine for the moment that all of Islam was in fact united in an effort to overwhelm the United States and the rest of the West. If they really were united, do the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims have the capacity to do so? Hardly.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": They are united under islam and islam's "custodian" is the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who also possesses all muslims' world Umma organization, Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia "human rights" via UN.

There are 47 Muslim-majority countries in the world. If you add all of their economies together, they have a combined GDP of slightly more than $5 trillion. That sounds like a lot, but remember that the United States has a GDP of more than $17 trillion all by itself and so does the European Union. In terms of raw economic power, in short, the “West” has this fictitious coalition of Muslim states out-matched from the start.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": US economy is a house of cards glued together with printed papers called dollars and bonds. When Saudi & Co steered OPEC strands the dollar, its world currency status implodes while heavily staining the bonds. Effect being similar to when the World Trade towers came down by Saudi hands.

The imbalance is even more striking when it comes to military capability. This same imaginary coalition of Muslim-majority countries spent roughly $270 billion on defense last year, and if you take out U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia ($87 billion) and the United Arab Emirates ($22 billion), the number drops to less than $200 billion. By contrast, the United States alone spent roughly $600 billion — more than twice as much — and that’s not counting its various allies like the United Kingdom, Japan, Israel, or others.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Islam has proved to be militarily much more effective than the US. The war on islamic terror sponsored by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (plus some other muslim "states") has no end in sight.

But these raw figures on defense spending greatly understate the West’s advantage. The entire Muslim world produces no indigenous advanced combat aircraft (though Turkey produces some U.S.-designed F-16s under license) and no indigenously designed modern battle tanks (though Pakistan makes a modified Chinese tank and Turkey is working on one of its own). The navies of the Muslim world have no major surface combatants larger than a frigate (though Iran is reportedly building a single destroyer), no aircraft carriers, no long-range bombers, and no nuclear submarines. Indeed, the power projection capabilities of all of these states are extremely limited. And to the extent that these states have much modern military power, it is because the United States, France, the U.K., China and others have been willing to sell or license advanced weaponry, for various strategic reasons of their own. Yet Saudi Arabia’s unimpressive performance in its recent intervention in Yemen suggests that the Muslim world’s capacity to project power even short distances is quite modest.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Well, in Yemen the islamofascist Saudi dictator family kills innocent children without coming any further precisely because the enemy is their own creation. The Saudi military efficiency is called islamic terror and extremely effective. Moreover, Mr. Walt has no clue about how effective because the numbers of "successful" street jihad resulting from Saudi hate mongering/sponsoring is impossible to estimate, not the least because of this strange dumbness and "sensitivity" about islam that Walt himself encourages.

Thus, even if one started with the wholly unrealistic assumption that the Muslim world is a single unified movement, it’s much, much, much weaker than we are. Maybe that explains why foreign powers have intervened in Muslim-majority countries repeatedly over the past couple of centuries, while the reverse hasn’t occurred since the siege of Vienna in 1529. Not once. It wasn’t Egypt that invaded France in 1798; Saddam Hussein didn’t send a mighty expeditionary force around the world and up the Potomac to occupy Washington and depose George W. Bush in 2003; and Muammar al-Qaddafi didn’t order his air force to bomb Paris in order to oust Nicolas Sarkozy in 2011. Surely this one-sided history tells you something about the relative power of Western states and those from the Islamic world.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Incredibly stupid - what has happened with Harvard? On the contrary, we are much weaker, because of resting our moral on universal Human Rights and "freedom of religion"! So the only way out is to make the muslims respect us as much as we respect them. And yes, that would be the end of sharia islam in any meaningful form - sorry about that. Potomac? The enemy has long since already entered Harvard!

2. Islam Is, in Fact, Deeply Divided. From time immemorial, threat inflators like Bannon & Co. have portrayed adversaries as part of some grand unified coalition. Remember the “communist monolith” or the “axis of evil?” Today, fearmongers use phrases like “Islamofascism” or “radical Islam” to imply that our enemies form a tightly integrated and centrally directed movement working tirelessly to bring us to our knees.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": No need, islam is islamofascism! As Erdogan use to say, there's only one islam. And it's not so much that the Saudis want 'to bring us to our knees', but rather that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's own survival and expansion rests on the evil (compare islam's bloody origin for the sole purpose of getting booty and slaves) religious tool called ïslam.

But in reality, the Islamic world is more disunited today than at any time in recent memory. It is divided among many different states, of course, and many of those states (e.g., Iran and Saudi Arabia, or Turkey and Syria) don’t get along. There are vast geographic and cultural differences between Indonesia and countries like Yemen or Morocco or Saudi Arabia. There’s also the core division between the Sunnis and the Shiites, not to mention a number of other minor schisms between various Islamic offshoots. And let’s not forget the sometimes-bitter rivalries within the jihadi movement itself, both across the globe and within particular countries. Just look at all the radical groups who hate the Islamic State, and all the jihadis whom the Islamic State regards as heretics because they don’t embrace its full ideology.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Islam has since its origin been deeply divided in its hate based existence. But there has always been someone at the top benefiting the most - and today it's the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and its evil friends and collaborators.

These divisions do not mean extremists pose no danger at all, of course, but Bannon’s specter of a rising Islamic tide that threatens to overwhelm us is pure fantasy. Instead of treating all of Islam as a threat — which might eventually unite more of them against us — the smart move is to play “divide-and-conquer.” But that means recognizing that the danger we face is not a hostile “civilization” or an entire religion, but rather just a small number of extremists who are unrepresentative of the larger cultural category (and opposed by most of it). To beat them, we want the rest of the Muslim world on our side.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Quite the contrary again! It's yours and other idiots' defense of "the great and peaceful religion" that keeps its evil ticking. And 'the rest of the muslim world' is on their side precisely by sharing this same sharia islam. Moreover, every muslim is, as it stands now, "excused" and even hailed  as long as s/he says 'it's not my islam' or 'you're no muslim, Bro'. However, islam has equally many different understandings as there are muslims, but only one book and only one "prophet" which both perfect models.

3: You wouldn’t know it if you listened to Trump, to CNN, to Fox News, or to most of our politicians, but the danger of terrorism is miniscule. Not zero, but really, really small. We’ve been obsessed with terrorism ever since 9/11 but the reality is that the risk it poses is way, way, way down the list of possible harms that might befall us.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Especially if you only steer at the visible part of the iceberg.

For example, based on the evidence since 9/11 (and including that attack), the likelihood an American will be killed by a terrorist is less than 1 in 3 million per year, and the lifetime risk is about 1 in 45,000. That’s pretty damn good odds: You are much more likely to die from being struck by lightning, falling out of bed, a heat wave, or accidentally choking on food. But don’t expect Trump, Bannon, Flynn, Gorka, Gaffney, or any of the well-compensated “terrorism experts” to highlight this fact, because their livelihoods and their ability to seize more and more power depends on keeping you very, very scared. And don’t expect the media to downplay the danger either, because hyping terrorism whenever it does occur is a good way to get your eyeballs glued to the screen. (Among other things, this is why Trump’s recent statements suggesting terrorism was being “underreported” are so absurd.)

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": What do you know about "under reported"? As a criminologist and sociologist Klevius knows for sure that crimes that are popular among politicians etc. are always considered "under reported" (compare the incest hysteria of the 1980s and 90s) whereas the opposite is true when there's a will to blink crimes (compare muslim sex abuse - allowed against "infidels" according to the Koran and the "prophet").

In some ways, in fact, terrorism remains the perfect bogeyman. It’s easy to hype the threat, and to convince people to worry about random dangers over which they have little or no control. Unscrupulous politicians have long understood that you can get a lot of leeway when the people are scared and craving protection, and it’s pretty clear that Trump and Bannon see this tactic as the ideal way to retain public support (and to consolidate more presidential power), and the specter of terrorism serves well because it scares people but isn’t actually an existential threat that might require a serious, sensible, strategic, and well-thought response. For would-be authoritarians, “terrorism” is a gift that just keeps giving.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": That's precisely why we should talk much more about the Saudi based and steered OIC and its world sharia via UN etc.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying the danger is zero or that sensible precautionary measures should not be taken. But to believe that ragtag radicals like al Qaeda or the Islamic State constitute a threat on a par with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or some of the serious opponents the United States has faced in the past is silly. Frankly, it makes me question the guts, steadiness, and judgment of some of our present leaders, if they are so easily spooked by such weak adversaries. Let’s hope these fraidy-cats never have to deal with a truly formidable foe.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Poor blind man who can't even see the enemy. How could he ever understand the threat?

4: “Creeping Sharia” Is a Fairy Tale. Die-hard Islamophobes have a fallback argument: The danger isn’t an actual military attack or a Muslim invasion of America or Europe. Rather, the danger is the slow infiltration of our society by “foreigners” who refuse to assimilate and who will eventually try to impose their weird and alien values on us. One sees this argument in the right-wing myth of “creeping Sharia,” based on trumped-up (pun intended) stories about “Sharia courts” and other alleged incidents where diabolical Muslim infiltrators have tried to pollute our pristine Constitution with their religiously inspired dogma. If we’re not ceaselessly vigilant, we are told, someday our daughters will be wearing hijabs and we’ll all be praying to Mecca.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Or being killed, or mistreated in a variety of possible ways when the percentage of muslims in the public sphere - not to mention officials - increase and therefore also the chances for so called "extremist muslims" facing you.

Seriously, this anxiety almost sounds right out of Dr. Strangelove, and especially Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper’s rants about fluoridation and the need to protect our “precious bodily fluids.” To repeat: There is simply no evidence of “creeping Sharia” here in the United States, and no risk of it occurring in the future. Not only do we still have formal separation of church and state here (at least so far!), the number of Muslims in the United States remains tiny. According to a 2016 Pew Research Center survey, there are only 3.3 million Muslims living in the United States, a mere 1 percent of the population. That percentage might double by 2050 to a vast, enormous, dangerous, and overwhelming 2 percent. Being a tiny minority makes them ideal victims for ambitious power-seekers, but hardly a threat to our way of life.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": So why does UK have a problem with its many sharia courts? To an extent that even the PM is behind it - although missing the point by having a sharia muslim investigating sharia muslims. How exactly does US differ so much from UK's muslim sharia problem?

5: The “Clash of Civilizations” Is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. The final reason to reject Bannon and company’s depiction of a vast and looming Muslim threat to us is that this worldview encourages us to act in ways that make the problem worse instead of better. As George Kennan wisely observed in 1947, “It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove himself right in the thesis that the world is his enemy; for if he reiterates it frequently enough and makes it the background of his conduct he is bound eventually to be right.” If U.S. leaders keep demonizing an entire religion, impose ill-considered bans on Muslim refugees, and most important of all, continue to intervene throughout the Arab and Islamic world with military force, they will convince more and more people that Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were right when they claimed the West had “declared war” on their religion.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": 'Entire religion'?! What a classic in the hopeless strive to defend the undefendable. If the core and origin of the religion is its evil, then how would this evil be lesser by referring to a surrounding muslim gray zone? Hopeless because islamic sharia, in whatever Human Rights violating form, is unacceptable in a civilized society where we intend to respect each-others as equals. Klevius thinks so, the European Court of Human Rights thinks so, and no one can logically think differently without slipping into a racist/sexist hate swamp.

Despite the mountain of evidence that shows that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is overwhelmingly a response to U.S. policy (and not because they “hate our freedoms”), people like Bannon, Gaffney, and their ilk want us to double down on the same policies that have inspired extremists since the 1950s and especially since the formation of al Qaeda. Frankly, given how often we’ve used our superior power to interfere in these countries, it’s somewhat surprising the reaction has been as modest and manageable as it is. Ask yourself how Americans might react if a powerful foreign country had repeatedly bombed the continental United States with aircraft and drones, or invaded, toppled our government, and then left chaos in their wake. Do you think a few patriotic Americans might be tempted to try for some payback?

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Islam hates the most basic Human Rights. This is the very allure of islam's original inborn racism and sexism.

Perhaps the most important task for any strategist is to figure out what the main threats and opportunities are, and then to devise policies that can defuse the former and exploit the latter. Making all of Islam our enemy and viewing the world through the lens of a vast “civilizational clash” fails on both criteria. If followed, it will bog us down in more interminable conflicts in places that are not vital U.S. interests, distract us from other foreign-policy issues, and sap the wealth and strength that we may need to deal with more serious challenges, including long-neglected problems here at home. I’m sure plenty of anti-Americans are hoping that we take the bait and do just that; what scares me is that there are now people in the White House who agree with them.

Klevius correction of this fake (or just ignorant) "info": Read my pen, dear Walt! The main threat is sharia islam and the main vaccine is Universal Human Rights equality exactly as stated in the 1948 Human Rights declaration which was agreed on to avoid any sort of totalitarian fascism rising its ugly head again. However, Mr. Walt has apparently missed this most important part in his education.

France is divided - only islam is not

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family's islamic hate mongering and its Saudi based and steered OIC world Sunni sharia constitutes the worst threat to France


Islam is a pure racism and sexism based totalitarian ideology protected by a disguise as a religion. Supporting the Saudi muslim hate spreading is against the most basic of Human Rights!






Klevius: When assessing islam, don't do it by assessing your muslim friend. S/he is your friend only because s/he either isn't a true muslim or s/he just covers her/his true identity (compare all the reports about muslim terrorists whose friends"never suspected it"). Instead, help your "muslim" friend by getting her/him "out of the closet". And perhaps most importantly, islam in whatever meaningful form of sharia, is always against the most basic of Human Rights in the Universal 1948 Human Rights Declaration.

'There's only one islam' is the message we are told.

And if we are to believe France's "best ally" in Mideast, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, shia muslims are no muslims at all. And that the top imam was replaced as Haji preacher in Mecca with an other islamofascist imam with a lesser mouth, doesn't change anything.

Of the two islams, Sunni and Shia, the former is more dangerous because it's pan-Arabic and possesses the "holy places".

Moreover, Sunni islam tend to operate in a continuous, mid‐to‐high intensity manner, seeing war against infidels and apostates as a perennial condition featuring overlapping waves of soft and hard Sunni jihad (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC on one hand and IS and the Saudi war crime machime on the other).

Importantly, violence perpetrated by Sunni "extremists" is carried out for reasons that are inherent to islam from its very origin. The Koran is pan-Arabic, totalitarian and full of racism against the "infidel" etc. Islam is a hate crime taking cover behind "freedom of religion", and the most dangerous islam supporters are the "reformers" because they only paint a meaningless glossy cover under which the original racist/sexist hate islam can expand.


The current Saudi Grand Mufti (the chief islamic jurist also called mufti al-a’azam in Arabic terminology), Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Aal ash-Sheikh is also the head of the chief Islamic organization in Saudi Arabia established by the Saudi King called “The General Presidency of Scholarly Research and Iftaa”, which is popularly known among the Arabs as “al-Lajnah ad-Daa'imah lil-Buhooth al-'Ilmiyyah wal-Iftaa” (permanent committee for conducting Islamic researches and issuing religious decrees or fatwas).

In an intolerant and xenophobic reference to Zoroastrianism, the pre-Islamic religion in Iran, Grand Mufti Abdulaziz al-Sheikh stated, “We must understand that these (Iranians) are not Muslims, because they are children of Magi and their hostility towards Muslims is age-old, particularly with the people of Sunnah”, as reported in the Saudi daily “Makkah”, which covers local and regional news. It actually goes in Arabic as follows:
يجب أن نفهم أن هؤلاء ليسوا مسلمين، فهم أبناء المجوس، وعداؤهم مع المسلمين أمر قديم وتحديدا مع أهل السنة والجماعة

(We must understand that these are not Muslims, they are the sons of the Magi, and their hostility to Muslims is old and specifically with the Sunnis and the community)

In this religiously bigoted statement, the term 'Magi' implies Zoroastrianism — natively known as Mazdayasna, which is one of the world's ancient religions prevailing in Iran and other Persian lands in the pre-Islamic era. Combining a cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a distinctive way, Zoroastrianism had emerged as a monotheistic religion. According to an Iranian census, there are still 25,271 Zoroastrians in the country, as the UAE-based daily The National reported.



Cathy Hinners: Just because the word “interfaith” indicates faith, doesn’t necessarily mean yours, but you can be certain it does mean Islam. Interfaith is to our religious institutions like the words diversity and culture are to our Education system, a disguise called Dawa.  Dawa is the proselytizing of Islam, an obligation that must be performed by all good Muslims. What is a good Muslim?  To infidels or kafirs (all non-Muslims) it would be a pious person that ascribes to the doctrine of their religion, and is accepting, tolerant and respectful of fellow human beings. Not quite. A good Muslim will ascribe to their religious beliefs, which is summed up in the first pillar, the Shahada. “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the Prophet”. But looking deeper, they believe Islam is meant to dominate, not be dominated or equal to any other religion.

In a document called the “Methodology of Dawa” written by Shamim A. Siddiqui and published in 1989, the true objective is indisputably clear. There must be an Islamic Movement in the United States, and Dawa is the path to that goal. The below excerpts are from this book, and are some of the more revealing ones.

From the Introduction of the book (pg. 20) “That is why, it is very important that a full-fledged Islamic Movement is established in the United States of America and elsewhere in Europe and Latin America to serve the greater interest of Islam, the Muslim world and humanity at large. This is a game of strategy. We have to find out and create new friends for Islam and its cause on the side of the enemy, inside and at the rear of the forces fighting against Islam and its emergence as a force anywhere in this world is a future reality of great magnitude.”

Interfaith is a game of strategy.

(pg. 21)” A Muslim has to put all that he has either to change the society into an Islamic society or state or be perished for it. A Muslim has no other choice”.

Society must be changed into an Islamic society

(pg. 58) “Acting upon the foregoing process, the Islamic Movement will produce the team of workers which is essentially required to meet the following needs:

    To accelerate the pace of Dawa Ilallah to a greater and greater number of people in order to bring more and more individuals to the fold of Allah(SWT) and increase the number of workers till the movement becomes a force to be reckoned with”

The movement becomes a force to be reckoned with.

(pg.59) “The workers of the Islamic Movement will have to mobilize a relentless war against immoral practices, drugs, pornography, alcoholism, racial discrimination, homosexuality, and other like these. They will have to educate the public opinion, warn the society about their horrible consequences and mobilize people’s opinion through meet-the-people campaigns”

Relentless war against immoral practices, such as homosexuality

(pg.59) “In the initial stage there may not be any opposition to Dawa work. For some time, the Islamic Movement of America may have some smooth sailing. But with the increase in Dawa efforts, in the number of activities and growth of the strength of the organization, the anti-Islamic forces will take notice of the multifarious activities of the Movement.”

The multifarious activities of the Movement

(pg.60) “Through this process, the Movement will penetrate deep into the hearts of the common folk, gain sympathy against oppression and generate a befitting counter-offensive campaign against the false propaganda of Batil. Simultaneously, the movement may also seek legal protection from the court for fundamental human rights to propagate what its adherents believe to be correct and to profess the same through democratic, peaceful and constitutional means”

Penetrate deep into the hearts of common folk, and seek legal protection from the court

(pg. 109) The Christian community of America will need a special approach to make them understand their misguided concept about Jesus (PBUH). Prophet Jesus (PBUH) was also a messenger of God, as others were. He was born without a father as a miracle of God. There is nothing spectacular in it, if we believe in God, in His absolute power and in His total control over the natural phenomenon. He can create anything just by ordering “Be” and “it is done.” He created Jesus without a father. He created Adam without a father or a mother, and Eve without a mother. They do not ascribe the attributes of God to either one of them. How then, can they profess Jesus to be the Son of God. It is illogical and quite absurd. Jesus was a Prophet and a man. He had all the human needs and weaknesses. He ate food for his existence, slept for rest and did all the other things a human being needs for his survival. By their misconstrued conception innovated by St. Paul, Christians have made Jesus (PBUH) into a “Human-God.” This is clear idolatry. Making partners with God is a sin. He will never forgive this sin.

Each of these notions that have been captured in the first several chapters are evidence to the agenda, ideology and their position on the superiority of Islam.  Interfaith = Dawa, not exactly the impression they believe all religions are equal. So to sum it up:

Interfaith is a game of strategy.

Society must be changed into an Islamic society

The movement becomes a force to be reckoned with

Relentless war against immoral practices, such as homosexuality (remember they have embraced the gay community)

The multifarious activities of the Movement

Penetrate deep into the hearts of common folk, and seek legal protection from the court

Misguided concept of Jesus, Professing Jesus to be the son of God is Illogical and absurd

So far, the facade the Islamic community portrays as being open and respectful of your religion is quite untrue.


Klevius comment: Not to mention our Atheism...

Klevius wrote:


Thursday, August 28, 2014

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


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


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

A central tenet of islam is rapetivism.




 Well, what do some women think about that?


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


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




 Vive la France


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







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


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


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

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




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







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

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

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


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