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

Monday, June 29, 2015

Somehow David Cameron forgot the words 'sharia' and 'Human Rights' when he today on BBC contemplated racist muslim supremacism "extremism" against Brits


Why isn't PM David Cameron using the word 'Human Rights' when defending (or pretending?!) against islamic sharia supremacist racist hate crimes against his people?!

Is this a slap in the face of the victims of islamic racist hate crime supremacism?


Calling for the most basic of Human Rights, written down 1948 after the fall of National-socialism (aka Nazism) to protect human equality from supremacist racism and sexism, is the only constructive way of defeating the hateful racist/sexist supremacist ideology of sharia islam - yet the PM of the Brits doesn't even mention the word in his today BBC interview where he himself pondered about the root causes for the popularity of the Islamic State among muslims and how to counter islamic hate supremacism and Human Rightsphobia (of course he never used these important words either). He couldn't even utter the proper name of his enemy because it contained the word 'islamic'! Klevius would say the Brits are in trouble if their PM can't open his eyes for the reality out there.

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.

Ramadan, the months of jihad war in islam. "The great Battle of Badr" in 624 was the first "battle" between muslims and non-muslims and it was fought during Ramadan.


Racist muslim supremacist Seifeddine Rezgui walked onto the beach near Sousse in Tunisia holding an umbrella and a Kalashnikov before he began his hate crime by firing at tourists, killing mostly Brits. He was shot and killed by police while committing muslim prayer and bowing towards Saudi Arabia, the guardian of the evil root to his muslim hate crimes.
This "guardianship" includes the whole of islam's "holiness" as well as islam's world organization OIC which is based and steered by the very same Saud dicator family Mr Cameron so eagerly defends. However, at least he now seems to rethink his self appointed muslim peer and "minister of faith" (read 'islam') Sayeeda Warsi who has been his sharia messenger at OIC.
This happens after years of Klevius criticizing her for being against Human Rights! More tellingly though is the fact that Sayeeda Warsi is considered too "moderate" by a huge (a majority?) part of British muslims.

The hate crime committing Tunisian supremacist muslim's father Hakim Rezgui“: These people ruined my son’s brain with horrid thoughts and ideas, they broke him,”

Hakim returned home on Sunday after spending two days in police custody. He said the news that the gunman was his son difficult to “comprehend”.

 “My God, I am so shocked. I don’t know who has contacted him, influenced him or who has put these ideas in his head. He has new friends who got him into this.

“My son had no problem with anyone,” he added. “But I don’t know who has changed his mind, influenced him and who has warped his mind.”

He continued: “I wish there had been no victims, no one hurt. I wish it had never happened. Because when I see the victims I think it could have been my own family.

Wife of muslim supremacist jihadist murderer in France: “We are normal muslims"
Klevius: Indeed you are! That's the problem, when islam and being muslim is stretched all over the place - yet we all have to listen to "muslim sensitivities" within that very same wide spectrum!

Seifeddine Rezgui was given the name of “Abu Yahya al-Qayrawani” by the Islamic State, who have subsequently claimed responsibility for the attack Seifeddine Rezgui was given the name of “Abu Yahya al-Qayrawani” by Isis, who have subsequently claimed responsibility for the attack (AP) “I had no idea and I am really sorry. I am upset to see those victims. I feel the loss of the families so strongly. I feel like I have died along with the victms.

“I am so ashamed for me, for his mother, for all our family.”

The gunman's aunt, Zara Rezgui, described him as a “blank page”, but a kind, calm, “normal boy” who spent most of the time alone, while neighbours suggested Rezgui had been brainwashed.

But the gunman's uncle said he was “just like the other young men” who liked to play football or go to a cafe after praying in the local mosque.

Klevius: Yes indeed, the local mosque! What do you reckon, Mr Cameron, was it perhaps an "unislamic" mosque?


The Islamic State and the Saudi dictator family support the same and main Sunni branch of islam - and they both consider Shias as apostates!


An estimated 2% to 5% of the natives of Saudi Arabia are Shia muslims. The dictatorship of Saudi Arabia is based on an alliance between the Saud dictator family and followers of strict Sunni islamofascist Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab whose teachings dominate muslim institutions, courts and education. Wahhabists (or Salafists) believe muslims should return to the interpretation of islam found in the evil deeds of Mohammad, the Koran and the Hadiths (a pile of confused and contradicting interpretations). They also believe that those (Shia muslims) who seek intercession from Shia clerics are not true muslims at all but apostates. There have been attempts to force conversion of Shia muslims. Shia muslims experience severe discrimination in Saudi Arabia.




Hateful and racist muslim supremacism can only be isolated by beating the be-sharia out of islam!


Klevius advice* to PM Cameron: When it comes to the problem with islam - the last person you should ask is a devout muslim.

* Klevius is unsure about whether he can even find this most important web info or if it's already "filtered" out - perhaps by himself, who knows.

By calling islam "peaceful" you encourage muslim supremacism. The aim of islamic hate jihad is to achieve submission, i.e. "peace". A much better option would be to defend basic Human Rights by rejecting sharia islam wherever it is to be seen. That would force your so called "moderate" muslims to Human Rights equality or, alternatively, isolate them as evil jihadis without the sanction of a general but extremely blurred islam that encompasses both them and Mishal Husain etc. "moderate" muslims. Human Rights violating sharia is the only defintion needed to det rid of evil islam. Sign Klevius petition to force Mishal Husain to take a clear stance against hateful muslim supremacist racism based on sharia islam - or alternatively, advice her to move back to Saudi Arabia.

 Klevius hint: BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain has no problem eating whatsoever during Ramadan!



 

Klevius second advice to PM Cameron: The worst and most costly benefit abusers reside within the social state!  Not only are the Brits paying for their high salaries - they also use their "work" to waste taxmoney and the life of the youngsters they play with and blink when abused by racist/sexist muslim supremacists!

 


 Klevius wrote:


Wednesday, August 27, 2014

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


The disgusting face of the social state


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



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

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

Also consider The Swedish girl problem.

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


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

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



Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Muslim jihad from Zanzibar to London


Two young British girls got acid thrown in their face because of islam. But no one, except the muslims who did it, say so!




And two sorts of jihadists - and I don't like them either. No matter how nice BBC's muslim islamofascist presenter Mishal Husain sounds, fact is, she supports Sharia. And although her Sharia, whatever it is, may differ from some other jihadists, the inevitable fact remains, namely that what every possible Sharia have in common is that they are against Human Rights!





Zanzibar continues its long islamofascist tradition - and BBC's Sharia muslim Mishal Husain won't inform Brits correctly about it.


Police in Zanzibar, one of islam's main East African slave trading centers for more than thousand years, have interviewed several people, including eyewitnesses, and are believed to have identified a possible culprit.

Mr Trup, one of the girls father, told BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme: “I’m particularly upset with the Tanzanian authorities. I think they just hope this will go away. The Foreign Office do send us emails, but the emails say the same every single time and they seem to imply that the British Foreign Office has clout, it has a voice, but clearly none of that is working because we are not getting any progress whatsoever. I suspect the Tanzanian authorities don’t take the Foreign Office remotely seriously. We want the judicial system to work properly. I would like to see whoever threw that acid brought to justice. I don’t blame the country, I don’t blame the religion. I blame the person. He (sic) needs to be brought to justice. Above all, the girls want to know why he did it and we would like to know why he did it."

Klevius answer:  They were earlier assaulted in the street by muslim women for "singing during Ramadan".  And for this "crime" an appropriate muslim reaction seems to have been to order someone ruin these "criminals" lives.

Mr Trup continued: "Was it racial, was it a religious thing? We have no idea why this person did it.”

Klevius question: So why did you say previously that you don't blame the religion (i.e. islam)?! And yes, it wasn't only racist and religious - it was a hate crime by islam!


Zanzibar jihadism on steep rise


Previously the murder by muslims of Father Mushi has unsettled Zanzibar’s Christians. Tanzania is 60 percent Christian and 36 percent muslim but in Zanzibar more than 95 percent follow islam

In December, attackers shot and seriously wounded another Catholic priest in the Tomondo area to the south of Stone Town.

A muslim party connected to muslim street riots called the Civil United Front, or CUF, is favored by most people in Zanzibar.

Muslim violence in Zanzibar has grown in recent years with the rise of a group called the Association for Islamic Mobilization and Propagation, also known as Uamsho, which means “awakening” in Swahili (the former slave trade language between Arabs and theur African collaborators). Founded in 2001 as a charitable organization, Uamsho has evolved to become a strong critic of tourists and an advocate for Zanzibar's secession from Tanzania.



Here's what Klevius wrote

Friday, August 09, 2013


Sayeeda Warsi's confused Human Rightsphobia


The evil of islam in the face of ignorance



Klevius: Yes, it's perfectly normal. What a pity no one has told you before. Islam is the very essence of ultimate racism! This is why muslims are so sensitive about criticism against islam while showing extreme contempt and insensitivity against others. And this is also why OIC (all muslims world organization) not only have abandoned and even criminalized Human Rights (via UN) but also made it a crime to criticize islam (the worst ideological crime history knows about).



Why have these London girls never been honestly taught and warned about the evils of islam - back then and now?! And how many more victims of islam do we really need?





Katie Gee and friend Kirstie Trup, both 18, had the corrosive substance thrown in their faces by two men on a moped as they strolled through Stone Town, in the capital of the island, around 8pm last night. One of the British teenagers attacked with acid in Zanzibar was assaulted in the street just weeks earlier for "singing during Ramadan".


Who is responsible for these girls ignorance about evil islam?

They visited Stone Town in Zanzibar - one of the most horrifying memories of islamic/muslim atrocities - and still full of muslim jihadists who want to defend this evilness to whatever price. Because not doing so would immediately lead to acceptance of what islam really stands for.

The monument in the middle is where the girls were attacked.


Is it David Cameron and his OIC messenger Sayeeda Warsi, who, apart from Human Rights violating OIC, also has close (albeit complicated) ties to islamofascist terror organization Hizb ut-Tahrir?

Here she meets with the world's most dangerous man, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Fuhrer of OIC, the muslim world organization which has declared that Sharia shall overthrow Human Rights and that failure to do so should be criminalized (i.e. what is also called "islamophobia" - an islamofascist synonym to Human Rights defense).




Sayeeda Warsi's close Hizb ut-Tahrir friend

Theamericanmuslim.orghttp://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/robert-spencer-discovers-that-hizb-ut-tahrir-are-extremists/0019926 makes fun over Mr. Spencer's warnings about Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and on their website refer to their own warnings: 'Hizb-ut-Tahrir, part of the Muslim lunatic fringe', in a series of articles. In other words they share Mr. Spencer's view on Hizb-ut-Tahrir. However, this same Mr. Spencer's warnings were so offending to Cameron/May/Warsi so he was banned from even visiting UK.

According to Tories, Hizb-ut-Tahrir aims for the "the violent overthrow of our society". Klevius comment: And what about a "non-violent" overthrow of the very Human Rights Britain has rested on? At least, this is what OIC and her beloved islamofascist OIC clearly aims for.

Jason Lewis: Mr Dugher (Labour party) said, “Yet again, there seems to be a blurring of the lines between what constitutes proper official business and what is, in fact, party political activity with private associates. What the baroness was doing with someone who has admitted his involvement with the extremist Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir also calls into question her judgment.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been accused of promoting racism and anti-Semitism, praising suicide bombers and urging Muslims to kill Jews.

Before coming to power, Mr Cameron pledged to ban it but the plan was shelved after a Coalition review.

The nature of Mr Hussain’s involvement in the radical party has already prompted questions over the extent of security vetting.

He has twice accompanied Lady Warsi on trips to Pakistan, and has also been pictured in the House of Lords at a reception for her.

In the early 1990s, sources say, Mr Hussain joined Hizb ut-Tahrir and was nicknamed “Strapper” by other students because of his bulky frame.

He lived for a time in one of its London houses, studying the radical form of Islam taught by its then leader Omar Bakri Mohammed, who is now banned from Britain.

When police shoot a threatening black criminal the officer(s) becomes the criminal - but when police shoot an unarmed not threatening white criminal the officer becomes a hero!?


 The Negro Problem




In the 1930's (near the time of the birth of the ultra racist black supremacist movement Nation of Islam) the Swedish socialist Gunnar Myrdal researched extensively (a couple of thousand pages) what he called US' "negro problem".  Today we know he was utterly wrong and that the problem has worsen despite every equality right possible and topped with extensive "affirmative actions". Maybe the core of the problem isn't the "whites" after all but to be searched among "black" segregationalists instead.

Klevius wrote:

Aftonbladet's serious hater

This is how hateful and sleazy modern white collar fascism looks like:

Was it hypocritical trolls like this who contributed to the Charlie Hebdo and Charleston murders?

Klevius translation: The hate is always fully serious. Daniel Swedin: Perhaps it's easier to live with the thought that the bloodbath is a deed of a lonely mad brain.

Klevius: Perhaps Daniel Swedin is right in this because we do know that the murderer had already completely ruined his life with extremely heavy drug abuse etc. Had he been a muslim jihadist with a similar background doing what islam and the Koran tells him Swedin would have chosen a completely different path of reasoning. But why?

In an openly fascistic editorial Aftonbladet's Daniel Swedin blames Charleston shooting on supporters of George Zimmerman, Jed Bush,  Council of conservative citizens, South Carolina's governor, etc. "representatives" of "whites". Reminds Klevius on how his colleague Åsa Linderborg (white) blamed the West for muslim terrorism and compared Western leaders with Breivik (what do you like that Angela Merkel).

Klevius:  So what about hateful blacks? Do they exist? Answer is no if we are to believe Google News.



However, reality seems to beg to differ. Or do you think this guy and his supremacist hate organization is any helpful for the cause of a less hateful society.

This hateful racist is whom Obama's minister for some 20 years awarded!




Yes, Klevius knows very well that people are very vulnerable to theatrical performance - especially when this helps to excuse one's often misdirected anger about oneself. This is why Klevius would never even dream of acting like Farrakhan. And this is why Klevius believes in Human Rights instead of segregation.

'I will kill you if you put your hands on me' Farrakhan said in a context where some presumably white official during the "million man marsh" had explained an escape route for him in the case of violence. And for his black audience (above) he made it sound the opposite to what the official had meant. Farrakhan unscrupulously played the race card hard, hinting the possible violence was white, not black, and then in a childish but obviously for this audience effective way (see how happy they look at the very moment he utters 'kill') played the hero card by stating that he 'should die with his people'. Moreover, Farrakhan knows very well that many young and some older black haters love to hear him hinting at hate violence by using words like 'kill' and 'fight back' etc. He also loves using the word 'devil' when talking about white people. Why? Simply because Nation of Islam's very racist hateful core idea is that "whites" are evil devils while "blacks" are "god's" chosen people. No other race is as good as "blacks" according to just one of the unbelievable fantasies from which Farrakhan's muslim hate organization emerged (see more about NOI furthest down on this posting).

How many police officers and civilians have been assaulted and murdered by young black haters because of muslim clown Farrakhan's and others continuous hateful agitation?

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Where does BBC pick up these twisted minds like Mishal Husain, Edward Stourton etc.?!

Ramadan, the months of jihad war in islam. "The great Battle of Badr" in 624 was the first "battle" between muslims and non-muslims and it was fought during Ramadan.

Wife of muslim supremacist jihadist murderer in France: “We are normal muslims"

Klevius: Indeed you are! That's the problem, when islam and being muslim is stretched all over the place - yet we all have to listen to "muslim sensitivities" within that very same wide spectrum!


Do the muslim test by asking them if they are against Human Rights. If they are not then they are no real muslims, according to OIC (all muslims world Ummah).

Why hasn't BBC fired their bigots? Are the Brits really ok with paying compulsory fees and taxes to support these senseless lies about islam?!

They happily report about extremely rare occasions of "white supremacist hate crime"  while not even mentioning these word and 'muslim' when triggered by islam (yes, you're right they are all triggered by islam).

Mishal Husain, Samantha Lewthwaite, Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common.

Although Edward Stourton most likely tells you that the muslims in the Islamic State are no real muslims, he is acting in a way (sharia islam support) that directly or indirectly contributes to the bloodbath and suffering. Klevius therefore suggests that he should use the word neo-muslims to distinguish between what we could call 'Stourton muslims' and 'Islamic State/Saudi etc muslims' he considers non-muslims. This because Klevius doubts he would stop calling the Saudi "guardians of islam" muslims.

Islamic State caliph: “Islam is the religion of war”.



Klevius: What else could it possibly be? Nothing else explains the history of islam! Islam is at the very opposite pole of Human Rights equality and democracy. And it's stuck there precisely because of its suprenacist racism and sexism. Only (true) muslim males are counted shen islam talk about "fairness", "justice", "tolerance" etc.


Muslims do not want a democracy (other than to destroy democracy), because democracy means that a Kafir is equal to a believer and therefore would complicate for racist muslim supremacism if they want to get civilized.

Muslims need to say that they reject the evil of the assassination Sunna of Mohammed.

What all Muslims have in common is the same Koran, the same prayers, the same Sunna of Mohammed and being a member of one umma  - which today is the Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC and its worldwide sharia declaration which is loosely written to also include Saudi islamofascism (Wahhabism or salafism if you like) which in turn is almost a copy of the Islamic State's sharia.





 Iyad Madani, the Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based OIC, the worst Human Rights violator

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Hateful and racist muslim supremacism can only be isolated by beating the be-sharia out of islam!


Klevius advice* to PM Cameron: When it comes to the problem with islam - the last person you should ask is a devout muslim.

* Klevius is unsure about whether he can even find this most important web info or if it's already "filtered" out - perhaps by himself, who knows.

By calling islam "peaceful" you encourage muslim supremacism. The aim of islamic hate jihad is to achieve submission, i.e. "peace". A much better option would be to defend basic Human Rights by rejecting sharia islam wherever it is to be seen. That would force your so called "moderate" muslims to Human Rights equality or, alternatively, isolate them as evil jihadis without the sanction of a general but extremely blurred islam that encompasses both them and Mishal Husain etc. "moderate" muslims. Human Rights violating sharia is the only defintion needed to det rid of evil islam. Sign Klevius petition to force Mishal Husain to take a clear stance against hateful muslim supremacist racism based on sharia islam - or alternatively, advice her to move back to Saudi Arabia.

 Klevius hint: BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain has no problem eating whatsoever during Ramadan!




 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.


Klevius second advice to PM Cameron: The worst and most costly benefit abusers reside within the social state!  Not only are the Brits paying for their high salaries - they also use their "work" to waste taxmoney and the life of the youngsters they play with and blink when abused by racist/sexist muslim supremacists!

 


 Klevius wrote:


Wednesday, August 27, 2014

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


The disgusting face of the social state


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



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

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

Also consider The Swedish girl problem.

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


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

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



Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Muslim jihad from Zanzibar to London


Two young British girls got acid thrown in their face because of islam. But no one, except the muslims who did it, say so!




And two sorts of jihadists - and I don't like them either. No matter how nice BBC's muslim islamofascist presenter Mishal Husain sounds, fact is, she supports Sharia. And although her Sharia, whatever it is, may differ from some other jihadists, the inevitable fact remains, namely that what every possible Sharia have in common is that they are against Human Rights!





Zanzibar continues its long islamofascist tradition - and BBC's Sharia muslim Mishal Husain won't inform Brits correctly about it.


Police in Zanzibar, one of islam's main East African slave trading centers for more than thousand years, have interviewed several people, including eyewitnesses, and are believed to have identified a possible culprit.

Mr Trup, one of the girls father, told BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme: “I’m particularly upset with the Tanzanian authorities. I think they just hope this will go away. The Foreign Office do send us emails, but the emails say the same every single time and they seem to imply that the British Foreign Office has clout, it has a voice, but clearly none of that is working because we are not getting any progress whatsoever. I suspect the Tanzanian authorities don’t take the Foreign Office remotely seriously. We want the judicial system to work properly. I would like to see whoever threw that acid brought to justice. I don’t blame the country, I don’t blame the religion. I blame the person. He (sic) needs to be brought to justice. Above all, the girls want to know why he did it and we would like to know why he did it."

Klevius answer:  They were earlier assaulted in the street by muslim women for "singing during Ramadan".  And for this "crime" an appropriate muslim reaction seems to have been to order someone ruin these "criminals" lives.

Mr Trup continued: "Was it racial, was it a religious thing? We have no idea why this person did it.”

Klevius question: So why did you say previously that you don't blame the religion (i.e. islam)?! And yes, it wasn't only racist and religious - it was a hate crime by islam!


Zanzibar jihadism on steep rise


Previously the murder by muslims of Father Mushi has unsettled Zanzibar’s Christians. Tanzania is 60 percent Christian and 36 percent muslim but in Zanzibar more than 95 percent follow islam

In December, attackers shot and seriously wounded another Catholic priest in the Tomondo area to the south of Stone Town.

A muslim party connected to muslim street riots called the Civil United Front, or CUF, is favored by most people in Zanzibar.

Muslim violence in Zanzibar has grown in recent years with the rise of a group called the Association for Islamic Mobilization and Propagation, also known as Uamsho, which means “awakening” in Swahili (the former slave trade language between Arabs and theur African collaborators). Founded in 2001 as a charitable organization, Uamsho has evolved to become a strong critic of tourists and an advocate for Zanzibar's secession from Tanzania.



Here's what Klevius wrote

Friday, August 09, 2013


Sayeeda Warsi's confused Human Rightsphobia


The evil of islam in the face of ignorance



Klevius: Yes, it's perfectly normal. What a pity no one has told you before. Islam is the very essence of ultimate racism! This is why muslims are so sensitive about criticism against islam while showing extreme contempt and insensitivity against others. And this is also why OIC (all muslims world organization) not only have abandoned and even criminalized Human Rights (via UN) but also made it a crime to criticize islam (the worst ideological crime history knows about).



Why have these London girls never been honestly taught and warned about the evils of islam - back then and now?! And how many more victims of islam do we really need?





Katie Gee and friend Kirstie Trup, both 18, had the corrosive substance thrown in their faces by two men on a moped as they strolled through Stone Town, in the capital of the island, around 8pm last night. One of the British teenagers attacked with acid in Zanzibar was assaulted in the street just weeks earlier for "singing during Ramadan".


Who is responsible for these girls ignorance about evil islam?

They visited Stone Town in Zanzibar - one of the most horrifying memories of islamic/muslim atrocities - and still full of muslim jihadists who want to defend this evilness to whatever price. Because not doing so would immediately lead to acceptance of what islam really stands for.

The monument in the middle is where the girls were attacked.


Is it David Cameron and his OIC messenger Sayeeda Warsi, who, apart from Human Rights violating OIC, also has close (albeit complicated) ties to islamofascist terror organization Hizb ut-Tahrir?

Here she meets with the world's most dangerous man, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Fuhrer of OIC, the muslim world organization which has declared that Sharia shall overthrow Human Rights and that failure to do so should be criminalized (i.e. what is also called "islamophobia" - an islamofascist synonym to Human Rights defense).




Sayeeda Warsi's close Hizb ut-Tahrir friend

Theamericanmuslim.orghttp://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/robert-spencer-discovers-that-hizb-ut-tahrir-are-extremists/0019926 makes fun over Mr. Spencer's warnings about Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and on their website refer to their own warnings: 'Hizb-ut-Tahrir, part of the Muslim lunatic fringe', in a series of articles. In other words they share Mr. Spencer's view on Hizb-ut-Tahrir. However, this same Mr. Spencer's warnings were so offending to Cameron/May/Warsi so he was banned from even visiting UK.

According to Tories, Hizb-ut-Tahrir aims for the "the violent overthrow of our society". Klevius comment: And what about a "non-violent" overthrow of the very Human Rights Britain has rested on? At least, this is what OIC and her beloved islamofascist OIC clearly aims for.

Jason Lewis: Mr Dugher (Labour party) said, “Yet again, there seems to be a blurring of the lines between what constitutes proper official business and what is, in fact, party political activity with private associates. What the baroness was doing with someone who has admitted his involvement with the extremist Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir also calls into question her judgment.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been accused of promoting racism and anti-Semitism, praising suicide bombers and urging Muslims to kill Jews.

Before coming to power, Mr Cameron pledged to ban it but the plan was shelved after a Coalition review.

The nature of Mr Hussain’s involvement in the radical party has already prompted questions over the extent of security vetting.

He has twice accompanied Lady Warsi on trips to Pakistan, and has also been pictured in the House of Lords at a reception for her.

In the early 1990s, sources say, Mr Hussain joined Hizb ut-Tahrir and was nicknamed “Strapper” by other students because of his bulky frame.

He lived for a time in one of its London houses, studying the radical form of Islam taught by its then leader Omar Bakri Mohammed, who is now banned from Britain.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

You see, Mishal*, your problem is sharia! Learn and reform yourself by reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mishal*!

* Forgive Klevius for in the following ridiculing this annoying self-important von oben habit of BBC not to present news to the compulsory tax and license fee paying Brits but to use their position to extol themselves and to treat the listeners as they were completely excluded (e.g. by constantly addressing each other with forenames instead of talking to the paying listeners). This ivory tower snobbish navel gazing and self boasting is also visible in BBC's sports and documentaries where the presenter(s) places her/himself as a preposterous filter between the camera and what could have been shown to the viewers.

Mishal, why don't you condemn sharia islam, especially the one by OIC, Mishal?! Mishal, it's based on Saudi islam, Mishal, and therefore essentially similar to the Islamic State's view on islam, Mishal?


Michal, you grew up in the worst of islamofascist countries, namely oil rich Saudi Aarabia, whereas Ayaan grew up in the poorest (together with Saudi bombed and terrorized Yemen) islamofascist country, namely Somalia. But you, Mishal, were privilieged while Ayaan was terrorized. However, Ayaan has been gifted with intelligence and after listening to you Mishal on BBC I understand I can't put similar intellectual expectations on you, Michal. But, Mishal, don't give up. The sharia problem isn't that complicated after all Mishal, is it. The only issue at stake Mishal is why the Saudi initiated, Saudi based, and Saudi steered muslim world organization OIC had to abandon the most basic of Human Rights in their Sharia declaration via UN (aka as the oxymoron The Cairo Declaration on "human rights in islam"), Mishal? The reason was that islam can't stand Human Rights scrutiny, not even on the most basic level. Without at least OIC level sharia there is no islam as we know it anymore. And you Mishal, Klevius has no problem whatsoever with you not fasting during Ramadan and instead drinking alcohol, and to wear whatever clothes etc. And Klevius really loves to hear that you feel that your way of life isn't under any threat under Human Rights guided laws, Mishal.

So the only thing you really have to do, Mishal, is to use your privileged position at the BBC coterie as a microphone and tell the world whether you are a sharia muslim or not, Mishal. And think what encouragement that could be Mishal for all girls and women around the world suffering because of sharia islam.

Is Mishal Husein evil, a sleazy coward - or just an "islamophobe" who wants to keep her "islamophobia" less visible by calling herself a "muslim" and make her "muslimhood" more profitable?

 

Klevius to Mishal: Compare yourself carefully to Ayaan Hirsi Ali by reading what she says below!


Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo all have sharia islam in common.And all of them say they defend islam.
When BBC's awarded (by BBC) muslim presenter Mishal Husain says she doesn't think that her way of life is under any threat, while boasting about not respecting muslim "modesty" or Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, then this might not sound very helpful or comforting for the millons of muslim girls and women who are still trapped in sharia dominated communities and therefore out of reach for that protection Mishal Husain enjoys thanks to Human Rights.

 And here's the very opposite to those above. She wants to reform islam.
Klevius agrees with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and is also as far as one can get from being racist. You can't defend racism or sexism if you ascribe to basic Universal Human Rights. Just like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Klevius doesn't blame Arabs or Africans but islam for atrocities and backwardness.


Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Koran and sharia not made by God. Ought to be altered.


Klevius foreword: To this some islamofascists will argue that "God" inspired them. And to this stupid answer Klevius counters with the Allah crushing formula; Erase those evil parts of your "God" that obstruct universal Human Rights equality! And if the "god" that is left no longer attracts you - then throw the carcass away! And if you like to keep it as some sort of toothless mascot, then that's fine with Klevius and, I believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

 Ayaan Hirsi Ali: We have a problem—not a problem from hell, but one that claims to come from heaven. That problem is sometimes called radical, or fundamentalist, Islam, and the self-styled Islamic State is just its latest iteration. But no one really understands it.

Last summer Major General Michael Nagata, the commander of U.S. special operations forces in the Middle East admitted that “we do not understand the movement (Islamic State),” he said. “And until we do, we are not going to defeat it.”

For years, U.S. policymakers have failed to grasp the nature of the threat posed by militant Islam and have almost entirely failed to mount an effective counteroffensive against it on the battlefield that matters most: the battlefield of ideas.

Last September Barack Obama insisted that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” and later that month, he told the UN General Assembly that “Islam teaches peace.” In November, Obama condemned the beheading of the American aid worker Peter Kassig as “evil” but refused to use the term “radical Islam” to describe the ideology of his killers. The phrase is no longer heard in White House press briefings. The approved term is “violent extremism.”

The decision not to call violence committed in the name of Islam by its true name—jihad—is a strange one. It would be as if Western leaders during the Cold War had gone around calling communism an ideology of peace or condemning the Baader Meinhof Gang, a West German militant group, for not being true Marxists. It is time to drop the euphemisms and verbal contortions. A battle for the future of Islam is taking place between reformers and reactionaries, and its outcome matters. The United States needs to start helping the right side win.

How did the United States end up with a strategy based on Orwellian Newspeak? In the wake of 9/11, senior Bush administration officials sounded emphatic. “This is a battle for minds,” declared the Pentagon’s no. 2, Paul Wolfowitz, in 2002. But behind the scenes, there was a full-blown struggle going on about how to approach the subject of Islam. According to Joseph Bosco, who worked on strategic communications and Muslim outreach in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2002 to 2004, although some American officials defined Islam as inherently peaceful, others argued that, like Christianity, it had to go through a reformation. Eventually, an uneasy compromise was reached. “We bridged the divide by saying that most contemporary Muslims practice their faith peacefully and tolerantly, but a small, radical minority aspires to return to Islam’s harsh seventh century origins,” Bosco wrote in The National Interest.

Administration officials could not even agree on the target of their efforts. Was it global terrorism or Islamic extremism? Or was it the alleged root causes—poverty, Saudi funding, past errors of U.S. foreign policy, or something else altogether? There were “agonizing” meetings on the subject, one participant told U.S. News & World Report. “We couldn’t clarify what path to take, so it was dropped.”

It did not help that the issue cut across traditional bureaucratic demarcations. Officers from the U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command argued for the integration of public diplomacy, press relations, and covert operations. State Department officials saw this as yet another attempt by the Pentagon to annex their turf. Veterans of the campaign trail warned against going negative on a religion—any religion—ahead of the 2004 election. For all these reasons, by the middle of that year, the Bush administration had next to no strategy. Government Accountability Office investigators told Congress that those responsible for public diplomacy at the State Department had no guidance. “Everybody who knows how to do this has been screaming,” one insider told U.S. News. But outside Foggy Bottom, no one could hear them scream.

Administration officials eventually settled on the “Muslim World Outreach” strategy, which relied partly on humanitarian projects carried out by the U.S. Agency for International Development and partly on Arabic-language media outlets funded by the U.S. government, such as Alhurra (a plain vanilla TV news channel) and Radio Sawa (a 24-hour pop music station that targets younger listeners). In effect, “Muslim World Outreach” meant not touching Islam at all. Karen Hughes, who was undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2005 to 2007, has said that she “became convinced that our nation should avoid the language of religion in our discussion of terrorist acts.”

Here, if in few other respects, there has been striking continuity from Bush to Obama. From 2009 to 2011, Judith McHale served in the same position that Hughes had. “This effort is not about a ‘war of ideas,’ or winning the hearts and minds of huge numbers of people,” McHale said in 2012. “It’s about using digital platforms to reach that small but dangerous group of people around the world who are considering turning to terrorism and persuading them to instead turn in a different direction.” The whole concept of “violent extremism” implies that the United States is fine with people being extremists, so long as they do not resort to violence. Yet this line of reasoning fails to understand the crucial link between those who preach jihad and those who then carry it out. It also fails to understand that at a pivotal moment, the United States has opted out of a debate about Islam’s future.

American policymakers have made two main arguments for avoiding the subject of Islam, one strategic, the other domestic. The first holds that the United States must not jeopardize its interests in the Middle East and other majority-Muslim parts of the world by casting aspersions on Islam. The second contends that the country must not upset the delicate balance in Western democracies between Muslim minorities and non-Muslim majorities by offending Muslims or encouraging so-called Islamophobes. Yet it is becoming harder and harder to sustain these arguments, since U.S. interests in the Middle East are in increasing jeopardy and since the domestic threat of militant Islam is far greater than the threat of a much-exaggerated Islamophobia.

The United States cannot wish away the escalating violence by jihadist groups or the evidence that substantial proportions of many Muslim populations support at least some of their goals (such as the imposition of sharia and punishing apostates and those who insult Islam with death). The Middle East and North Africa grow more violent by the day. A substantial part of Syria and Iraq has fallen to the Islamic State. Yemen has collapsed into anarchy. Islamists have set up bases in Libya. The militant Islamist group Boko Haram is causing grave instability in northern Nigeria, as well as in neighboring Niger and Cameroon.

The nonstrategy, in short, has failed. Indeed, the official U.S. position collapses when the United States’ own Middle Eastern allies begin openly referring to Islamic extremism as a “cancer” (in the words of the United Arab Emirates’ ambassador to the United States) and calling for a “revolution” in mainstream Islamic religious thinking (as Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has). As for the home front, an estimated 3,400 Westerners, many of them young men and women with promising futures, have voluntarily chosen to leave behind the West’s freedoms and prosperity in order to join the Islamic State. More British Muslims have volunteered for the Islamic State than for the British military. The United States is not in this dire state, but the direction of travel is troubling. Already, more than 50 young American Muslims have tried to join the Islamic State, and around half of them have succeeded. It is time to change course.

The first step is to recognize that the Muslim world is in the early stages of a religious reformation. To understand its nature, it is important to distinguish between the three different groups of Muslims in the world today. The first consists of Muslims who see the forcible imposition of sharia as their religious duty. The second group—the clear majority throughout the Muslim world—consists of Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly but are not inclined to practice or preach violence.

The third group consists of Muslim dissidents. A few, including myself, have been forced by experience to conclude that we cannot continue to be believers, yet we remain deeply engaged in the debate about Islam’s future. But the majority of dissidents are reformist believers, among them clerics who have come to realize that their religion must change if its followers are not to be condemned to an interminable cycle of political violence.

Yet there are two fundamental obstacles to a reform of Islam. The first is that those who advocate it, even in the mildest terms, are threatened with death as heretics or apostates. The second is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrants for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts.

Like Christians and Jews centuries ago, Muslims today must critically evaluate their sacred texts in order to reform their religion.

Take the case of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most prestigious mainstream institution of Sunni religious education in the world. One former Al-Azhar student, Sufyan al-Omari, told the Belgian newspaper De Standaard in March that the Islamic State “does not fall from the sky.” He continued: “The texts to which IS appeals for support are exactly what we learned at Al-Azhar. The difference is that IS truly puts the texts into practice.” Following this logic, he said that he intended to join the Islamic State. Mohamed Abdullah Nasr, another recent graduate of Al-Azhar, did not express a desire to do the same. But, he pointed out, “even if Al-Azhar students don’t join IS, they still retain these ideas in their head. They spread the ideology in their communities.”

Critical thinking like Nasr’s is at the core of the Muslim Reformation. Admittedly, the historical analogy is very rough. There are fundamental differences between the teachings of Jesus and those of Muhammad, to say nothing of the radically different organizational structures of the two religions—one hierarchical and distinct from the state, the other decentralized yet aspiring to political power. Nevertheless, three factors at work in the Middle East today resemble the drivers of religious reform in sixteenth-century Europe. First, new information technology has created an unprecedented communications network across the Muslim world. Second, a constituency for a reformation has emerged in major cities, consisting of people disenchanted with Islamist rule (as in Cairo and Tehran) or attracted by Western norms (as in London and New York). Third, there is also a political constituency for religious reform emerging in key regional states, such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

Already, a growing number of ordinary citizens in the Muslim world, as well as in the West, are calling for reform. The Muslim Reformation will likely be driven by such lay reformers, rather than by the clergy, but a number of clerics are still playing an important role. Among them is Hassen Chalghoumi, the imam of the Drancy mosque, near Paris, who predicted earlier this year that “Islam will also follow the same historical pattern as Christianity and Judaism,” in terms of reforming its doctrine. “However,” he warned, “this battle for reform will not be concluded if the rest of the world treats it as a solely internal battle and sits as an idle observer, watching the catastrophe as it unfolds.”

Such Islamic thinkers envision a version of their religion that no longer exalts holy war, martyrdom, and life in the hereafter. Abd al-Hamid al-Ansari, a former dean of Islamic law at Qatar University, has said that he “would like the religious scholars, through their religious discourse, to make our youth love life, and not death.” He has recommended that liberal reformers be permitted to sue inflammatory Islamic preachers for any harm that befalls them from the preachers’ sermons. The Iraqi Shiite cleric Ahmad al-Qabbanji, meanwhile, has argued that “the Koran was created by the Prophet Muhammad, but was driven by Allah,” a clear break with orthodoxy, which holds that the Koran is the direct word of God. As a report from the Middle East Media Research Institute explains, he proposes “a modifiable religious ruling based on fiqh al-maqasid, or the jurisprudence of the meaning”—code for a more flexible interpretation of sharia. Another reformer, Ayad Jamal al-Din, a Shiite cleric in Iraq who has argued for the separation of mosque and state, has framed the choice this way: “We must make a decision whether to follow man-made civil law, legislated by the Iraqi parliament, or whether to follow the fatwas issued by Islamic jurisprudents. We must not embellish things and say that Islam is a religion of compassion, peace and rose water, and that everything is fine.”

Like Christians and Jews centuries ago, Muslims today must critically evaluate their sacred texts in order to reform their religion. That is not an unreasonable request, as history shows. Of course, history also shows that the path to religious reform can be bloody. By the mid-seventeenth century, Europe had been ravaged by a century of warfare between Roman Catholics and Protestants. But the result was to create the room for the genuine freedom of thought that ultimately made the Enlightenment possible.

One of the most important of these freethinkers was Baruch Spinoza, a brilliant Jewish Dutch philosopher. For Spinoza, the Bible was a collection of loosely assembled moral teachings, not God’s literal word. Spinoza was excommunicated from the Jewish community, and a council of the Dutch Reformed Church called his Theological-Political Treatise “the vilest and most sacrilegious book the world has ever seen.” One of Spinoza’s contemporaries, Adriaan Beverland, was even jailed and then banished from the provinces of Holland and Zeeland for questioning the notion of original sin. Yet both men died in their beds. And it is their ideas that prevail in the Netherlands today.

American presidents and secretaries of state need not give lectures on the finer points of Islamic orthodoxy. But it is not too much to ask them to support Islamic religious reform and make the fate of Muslim dissidents and reformers part of their negotiations with allies (such as Saudi Arabia) and foes (such as Iran) alike. At the same time, U.S. officials need to stop publicly whitewashing unreformed Islam.

There is a precedent for this proposal. During the Cold War, the United States systematically encouraged and funded anticommunist intellectuals to counter the influence of Marxists and other fellow travelers of the left by speaking out against the evils of the Soviet system. In 1950, the CIA-funded Congress for Cultural Freedom, dedicated to defending the noncommunist left, opened in Berlin. Leading intellectuals such as Bertrand Russell, Karl Jaspers, and Jacques Maritain agreed to serve as honorary chairs. Many of the congress’ members were former communists—notably, Arthur Koestler—who warned against the dangers of totalitarianism on the basis of personal experience. Thanks to U.S. funding, the group was able to publish such magazines as Encounter (in the United Kingdom), Preuves (in France), Der Monat (in Germany), and Quadrant (in Australia).

As détente took hold in the late 1960s and 1970s, the war of ideas died down. When U.S. President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty—anticommunist stations funded by the U.S. government—were operating with 1940s vacuum tube technology and rusting transmitter towers. Under Reagan, however, funding for the war of ideas was stepped up, largely through the U.S. Information Agency.

The conventional wisdom today is that the Cold War was won on economics. But this is a misunderstanding of history. In fact, in the 1950s and again in the 1980s, the United States appealed to people living behind the Iron Curtain not only on the basis of Americans’ higher standards of living but also—and perhaps more importantly—on the basis of individual freedom and the rule of law. Soviet dissidents such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, and Vaclav Havel did not condemn the Soviet system because its consumer goods were shoddy and in short supply. They condemned it because it was lawless, lying, and corrupt.

Today, there are many dissidents who challenge Islam with as much courage as the dissidents who spoke out against the Soviet Union. Just as critics of communism during the Cold War came from a variety of backgrounds and disagreed on many issues, so do modern critics of unreformed Islam. Qabbanji, for example, has expressed strong criticism of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, whereas other reformers, such as Ansari, are more pro-American. But such differences are less important than what the reformers have in common. They are all challenging an orthodoxy that contains within it the seeds of an escalating jihad. Yet the West either ignores them or dismisses them as unrepresentative.

The United States’ mistake in this regard has been twofold. First, after the collapse of communism in Russia, political leaders assumed that the United States would never face another ideological challenge. In 1998, Congress disbanded the U.S. Information Agency. Its functions were absorbed by other agencies. Then, officials assumed that Islam should not be engaged as an ideology at all. They did so mostly because they were—and remain—terrified of taking on Islam.

As William McCants of the Brookings Institution told The Atlantic, the Obama administration “is determined not to frame this [conflict] or have it be interpreted as a religious war.” Indeed, McCants explicitly argued against taking the side of Muslim reformers because any U.S. intervention in the debate on the reform of Islam “can discredit the people who reach the same conclusions we do.” But supporting dissidents who are pressing for a reform of Islam is hardly the same thing as waging a religious war. Nor does fighting the war of ideas mean trumpeting the U.S. policy of the day. It means focusing squarely on encouraging those who, for example, oppose the literal application of sharia to apostates and women or who argue that calls to wage holy war have no place in the twenty-first century.

Imagine a platform for Muslim dissidents that communicated their message through YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Imagine ten reformist magazines for every one issue of the Islamic State’s Dabiq or al Qaeda’s Inspire. Imagine the argument for Islamic reform being available on radio and television in Arabic, Dari, Farsi, Pashto, and Urdu. Imagine grants and prizes for leading religious reformers. Imagine support for schools that act as anti-madrasahs.

Such a strategy would also give the United States an opportunity to shift its alliances to those Muslim individuals and groups that actually share its values and practices: those who fight for a true Muslim reformation and who currently find themselves maligned, if not persecuted, by the very governments Washington props up.

The task of backing Islamic reform cannot be carried out by the government alone; civil society has a crucial role to play. Indeed, all the major U.S. charitable foundations committed to humanitarian work can help Islam reform. The Ford Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation—all of which boast endowments in the billions of dollars—have done almost nothing in this area. There have been many grants for the study of Islam, but almost none to promote its reform. The same goes for the United States’ leading universities, which are currently paralyzed by their fear of being accused of “cultural imperialism” or, worst of all, “Orientalism.”

I am not an Orientalist. Nor am I a racist, although like most critics of Islam, I have been accused of that, too. I do not believe in the innate backwardness of Arabs or Africans. I do not believe that the Middle East and North Africa are somehow doomed to a perpetual cycle of violence. I am a universalist. I believe that each human being possesses the power of reason, as well as a conscience. That includes all Muslims. At present, some Muslims ignore both reason and conscience by joining groups such as Boko Haram or the Islamic State, citing textual prescriptions and religious dogma to justify murder and enslavement. But their crimes are already forcing a reexamination of Islamic Scripture, doctrine, and law. This process cannot be stopped, no matter how much violence is used against would-be reformers.

Yes, the main responsibility for the Muslim Reformation falls on Muslims themselves. But it must be the duty of the Western world, as well as being in its self-interest, to provide assistance and, where necessary, security to those reformers who are carrying out this formidable task, just as it once encouraged those dissidents who stood up to Soviet communism. In her final testimony before Congress in January 2013, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got it right. “We’re abdicating the ideological arena,” she said, “and we need to get back into it.” Either that, or the problem from heaven will send the entire Muslim world—if not the entire world—to hell.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Klevius hopes* the blondest team wins Women's World Cup in football ("soccer" for you American suckers who call handball "football") in the face of the black or colored haters!


* Of course Klevius really wants the Japanese to win because they have the best football team (although usually punished by biased referees). Likewise, of course Klevius should have abandoned Japanese cars and bought an Audi or something produced by "whites" (or Westerners if you prefer) were it not for the extreme difference in quality and technology. The only "non-Western"/"colored" cars competing with the "whites" are Japanese and Korean. There doesn't even exist African or Middle east car manufacturers to consider. Yes, happens to be areas were the worst religion ever has committed its 1400 years of Koranic enslavement and genocides. And still does.

Klevius suggests a real black African woman as US next president and a real blond team as World Cup winner

It's a fact that this woman is less racist than most blacks because she believes in Human Rights whereas most blacks are still entangled in religious (mostly muslim) Human Rightsphobia.

It's a qualified guess that these women are less racist than most blacks. In fact, most of them are probably brainwashed to be racist against members of their own race and ethnicity.

Klevius has never had any problems with what happens to be an individual's skin color. Nor has he ever had any problems with black or colored football players - except with politically correctly biased and usually, but not always, white referees who encourage black or colored violence against whites (and mongoloids) by not penalizing black/colored fouls* on the pitch.

* However (what a beautful word in the beginning of a sentence, isn't it), almost equally bad is the way Canada has been favoured by the referees in this world cup. Canada has a mediocre team but highly skilled lobbyists etc. But it isn't pretty to see...

Hate crimes against blonds on steady rise while media is silent or trying to excuse it or belittle it.

In many places only the sex slaves of gang members are allowed to be blonds. This fact should be historically connectedto the fact that blondes used to be the by far highest valued sex slaves in islamic slave "empires". Together with male eunucks whose survival rate after cutting the young boys penis was about one in ten.
Why isn't this black troll behind bars?!

Hate crimes against blonds/"whites" are much more common than hate crimes against blacks. Yet the hateful racism supporting Swedish Aftonbladet keeps silent while pretending it's the other way round. How many blondes/whites have been raped)assaulted/terrorized/murdered aided by this type of hate rhetoric?

Aftonbladet's serious hater

This is how hateful and sleazy modern white collar fascism looks like:

Was it hypocritical trolls like this who contributed to the Charlie Hebdo and Charleston murders?

Klevius translation: The hate is always fully serious. Daniel Swedin: Perhaps it's easier to live with the thought that the bloodbath is a deed of a lonely mad brain.

Klevius: Perhaps Daniel Swedin is right in this because we do know that the murderer had already completely ruined his life with extremely heavy drug abuse etc. Had he been a muslim jihadist with a similar background doing what islam and the Koran tells him Swedin would have chosen a completely different path of reasoning. But why?

In an openly fascistic editorial Aftonbladet's Daniel Swedin blames Charleston shooting on supporters of George Zimmerman, Jed Bush,  Council of conservative citizens, South Carolina's governor, etc. "representatives" of "whites". Reminds Klevius on how his colleague Åsa Linderborg (white) blamed the West for muslim terrorism and compared Western leaders with Breivik (what do you like that Angela Merkel).

Klevius:  So what about hateful blacks? Do they exist? Answer is no if we are to believe Google News.



However, reality seems to beg to differ. Or do you think this guy and his supremacist hate organization is any helpful for the cause of a less hateful society.

This hateful racist is whom Obama's minister for some 20 years awarded!




Yes, Klevius knows very well that people are very vulnerable to theatrical performance - especially when this helps to excuse one's often misdirected anger about oneself. This is why Klevius would never even dream of acting like Farrakhan. And this is why Klevius believes in Human Rights instead of segregation.

'I will kill you if you put your hands on me' Farrakhan said in a context where some presumably white official during the "million man marsh" had explained an escape route for him in the case of violence. And for his black audience (above) he made it sound the opposite to what the official had meant. Farrakhan unscrupulously played the race card hard, hinting the possible violence was white, not black, and then in a childish but obviously for this audience effective way (see how happy they look at the very moment he utters 'kill') played the hero card by stating that he 'should die with his people'. Moreover, Farrakhan knows very well that many young and some older black haters love to hear him hinting at hate violence by using words like 'kill' and 'fight back' etc. He also loves using the word 'devil' when talking about white people. Why? Simply because Nation of Islam's very racist hateful core idea is that "whites" are evil devils while "blacks" are "god's" chosen people. No other race is as good as "blacks" according to just one of the unbelievable fantasies from which Farrakhan's muslim hate organization emerged (see more about NOI furthest down on this posting).

How many police officers and civilians have been assaulted and murdered by young black haters because of muslim clown Farrakhan's and others continuous hateful agitation?



Klevius:  So what about hateful muslims? Do they exist?


The politically correct answer is that since islam is good then there can't be evil muslims. However, if islam is evil then there can...

Friday, June 19, 2015

Klevius offers Sir Hunt a possibility to beat his Nobel prize



Klevius question to BBC's muslim presenter Mishal Husain: Would you have defended Tim Hunt if he'd been "islamophobic"?


Except for Mishal Husain (whose faith is based on sharia sex segregation) female professors also call for an end to Sir Tim Hunt sexism "row". Klevius suggests them to see the attached video and rethink the whole issue.


Klevius: "Islamophobes" aren't even allowed as guests in most universities. So what about an "islamophobic" professor?! Unthinkable.

Yet "islamophobia" is the only working cure against the Islamic State! Did you hear that PM Cameron!

Likewise, de-sex segregation (anti sex apartheid, if you prefer) is the only cure against sexism.

And now, take a look with new eyes at the video. It makes much more sense than you might think in your ingrained sexism you think is just fine.

Tim Hunt's employment status isn't what should be discussed but the fact that sex apartheid is overshadowed by worries for Sir Hunt's possible unemployment.

If Tim Hunt is even near as intelligent as media seems to imply then he should have no problem understanding the logic and importance of the video. Moreover, if he then steppes out in defense for girls/women and against sexist sex segregation/apartheid (after having educated himself on the importance of Klevius 'heterosexual attraction' analytical tool) then he would achieve something much bigger than his Nobel prize.

Are men "puddles of desire"* and hence excused of not being able to treat women as fully human beings?

 Pic and "puddles of desire" from the video mentioned in the text.

Personally Klevius has never had any trouble turning himself into a "puddle of desire" whenever he and women so like mutually. However, this "puddle-of-desire" state isn't Klevius default state. By default Klevius sees every human being as an equal and not as an object for necrophilia. No matter how sexy, naked or whatever. Anyone else out there feeling the same or is Klevius just a freak?


Do you see any difference between these two humans? Klevius doesn't - because he knows nothing about them.




Heterosexual attraction (HSA) combined with sex segregation is often disastrous for human relations


Klevius wrote:

Saturday, September 27, 2008


Heterosexual attraction & sex segregation in islam

Quote of the day (Edmondo de Amicis visiting islamic Morocco some 100 yrs ago): "She appeared sad. Perhaps the reason was that her husband's fourth wife, a recently arrived young 14 yr old girl in his harem, had triumphed over her in a way that was clearly reflected in her husband's indifference." Klevius comment: Heterosexual attraction (HSA) combined with sex segregation is often disastrous for human relations! Only with full access to respective social spheres, as well as full awareness of the HSA discrepancy between the sexes (i.e. what most feminists deny) an open de-sex segregated interaction is possible' HSA per se doesn't presupposes/determines sex of any kind - neither does women "need a normal penis several times" (S. Freud) nor does a male need to rape. What could the older wife possibly offer her husband behind an impenetrable wall of sex segregation when her physical attraction didn't work anymore? Only islam was satisfied because she had to continue her inescapable (Sharia & apostasy ban) fate of fostering new islamists!


Klevius wrote:

Sunday, March 08, 2015


Klevius' sex tutorial on Women's Day


British siekh leader Lord* Indarjit Singh: Cigarettes are to cancer as muslims are to sexual grooming/abuse. However, he also cowardly added that 'it's not islam'!

 * i.e. elected by a politician for the purpose of supporting a certain political ideology or cause. Such "life peers" are entitled to sit in the House of Lords for the duration of their lives, but their titles are not hereditable by their heirs.

Sikh and Hindu organisations have signed an open letter claiming that sex-grooming gangs "predominantly originate from a Pakistani muslim community, while their victims are almost always of a White, Hindu or Sikh background".

Klevius comment: How could it possibly 'not be islam'? Islam seems to be defined as 'without negative consequences' although islam itself eagerly points out such negative consequences of the "disbelievers" infidels" or "wrong believers" and proudly tells us that we all should be muslims and if we don't we are just crap - i.e. we are no longer "innocent" and therefore the legitimate target for whoever lunatic muslims. This is what your imam means when he says (usually via BBC to make it sound more serious) that 'islam forbids attacks on innocent people'.

Islam is all about sex apartheid (sexism) and "hatred against "infidels" (racism). In fact, Klevius blog Origin if islam - the worst crime ever against humanity, started as a blog against sex segregation and racism.

Klevius has been loaded with at least the average (probably more) tesosterone since his early teens (i.e. 10-30 times more than most women). Klevius has also had the opportunity to befriend a lot of representatives of the opposite sex. Not a single one can report abuse or failure. However, Klevius has never seduced anyone - precisely because he has always considered himself prepared for sex whenever while simultaneously never been in need for sex and therefore left the initiative to the one with a lower libido! Moreover, Klevius has never had sex without heterosexual attraction as the motivation - which fact in no way should be seen as criticism of other forms of sexuality. Likewise Klevius has often sneezed in the kitchen because of white pepper but never deliberately thrown white pepper around just because of the pleasure of sneezing.

The power and curse of biological female heterosexual attraction - leading to stupid cultural "femininity" and due sex segregation/apartheid


Teenage girls (and many women as well) realize the power of their asses but mis-connects it as part of their personhood. And often with disastrous consequences when males act without respecting basic Human Rights, i.e. seeing the individual that's connected to the ass.


Is RFSU suffering from sexual correctness or what's going on here? The pic below is from RFSU's campaign "Don't put it in".


Is this man a victim of MGM (male genital mutilation) or is he just religiously mutilated - or both?!

RFSU: 'Don't put it in!'

The video from which the first pic is taken has been a success in Thailand and - Saudi Arabia!


RFSU's picture (top) modified by Klevius (bottom)


The Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU, Riksförbundet för sexuell upplysning) is a Swedish nonprofit organization that works with public opinion formation on sexual and reproductive health and rights as well as information and education about sexuality and relationships. One of RFSU's main issues is the right to free abortion. The current Secretary-General is Åsa Regnér.

RFSU was founded February 24, 1933 by, among others, Elise Ottesen-Jensen, Gunnar Inghe and Hanna Lundin. Ottesen-Jensen was chairman from its inception until 1959, and has come to be strongly associated with the organization, whose journal, Ottar, was named after her.

RFSU works with information, education and advocacy by organizing courses, conferences and debates. Moreover the RFSU carries an extensive international work with similar organizations in other countries. RFSU is the Swedish national affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

RFSU's booklet “Sex: your own way” for teens is about sexual feelings and what you can do when caressing, making out, masturbating or having intercourse with someone.

It is aimed at everyone, whether you have sex on your own, with someone else, or don’t want to have sex at all. We’re also writing for those who would like to have sex with someone, but haven’t done it yet.

RFSU believes that sex isn’t just something you do or feel. It’s also about knowledge. It’s good to have facts and tips, so you can make your own decisions – now and later in life. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions about their body and their sexuality.

Openness is a key factor for prevention and sexual health. Everyone should have the freedom to choose, to be oneself and to enjoy.


Klevius additional clarification


For analytical purpose one needs to distinguish between heterosexual attraction (residing only in the "male gaze") and physical sexual acts (incl. intercourse, masturbation etc).  Most people are able to feel sexual pleasure just as Klevius feels pleasure by inhaling a little white pepper enough to make him sneeze.

However, although men have a stronger overall sex drive (plus the heterosexual attraction* feature programmed in their brain) than women, the latter may feel a strong urge sexual around the time of ovulation.

* Do keep in mind that 'heterosexual attraction' is here biological, not cultural! Rapetivism, nymphomania etc are cultural.

The relaxation of the smooth muscle in the vagina and clitoris and the increase of blood flow into these organs is thought to be essential in the female sexual response. However, unlike Klevius (and most other men) who is always ready for hetero sex (but never in need for it) women are most receptive for sex only a couple of days per month. And how else could heterosexual reproduction function if not based on heterosexual attraction implanted in males as a code for seeing females as sexually attractive? The pistil is receptive for pollen but to get them she has to attract them, e.g. via honey bees etc. And many male fishes get aroused not by the female fish but by the eggs on which they spray their sperm without a penis. 

However, due to the fact that religion has made sex so culturally weird, we now have a situation where heterosexual attraction is used by both men and women as an excuse for sex segregation/apartheid.

To really see the confusion surrounding heterosexual attraction do consider the following:


Wikipedia: The term heterosexual or heterosexuality is usually applied to humans, but heterosexual behavior is observed in all mammals and in other non-human animals.

Klevius: Would you believe it! 'Observed in all mammals and in other non-human animals'! Since we left the germ state of being, heterosexual attraction has been the rule of sexuality. It's the very definition of sexual reproduction, dude! And even in creatures with both sexes within the same individual there has to be heterosexual attraction to get the sperm to the egg.

Wikipedia: Heterosexuality is romantic attraction (Klevius: impossible), sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender (sic).

Klevius:  Thus single sentence is packed with stupidities. Heterosexuality can never be romantic attraction because it's purely physical. 'Hetero' means different biological sex. And what would cultural 'gender' have to do with biology!

Wikipedia's senseless babble continues: As a sexual orientation (sic), heterosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional (sic), romantic (sic), and/or sexual attractions" to persons of the opposite sex; it "also refers to a person's sense of identity (Klevius: How could physiology suddenly become cultural?!) based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community (sic) of others who share those attractions."

Klevius: Unbelievable conflation of poorly understood (or poorly conceptualized) concepts. Heterosexual' can not be anything else than based on biology, i.e. sex - no matter what you or someone else thinks about it. And yes, you can well be attracted to someone of the opposite sex without it being heterosexual! And the other way round, a man can get heterosexually attracted to someone of the same sex who mimics the opposite sex. What determines heterosexuality is what the man thinks it is. To understand this you may compare a cyber sex robot whom you can't distinguish from a living person.


Islam is a grave violation of women's sexual freedom (incl. freedom from sex all together). However, Human Rights freedom lets you lead your life as you wish.

The main outlet of islamofascism - i.e. the "respectable" wrapping that really makes it tick. By allowing sharia islam into UN history repeats itself. Either UN as a whole or sharia islam (islamofascism) has to go.

It's precisely UN's and PC babblers' "diversity" (islam) rhetoric that paves the way for and legitimizes muslim "extremisms" and gives their cause something to resonate from.

Saudi based OIC (and its sharia declaration against the most basic of Human Rights) and its Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani constitutes the backbone of islamofascism today. So what do you have to say - you half to one billion anti-sharia "muslims"? Talk louder cause Klevius can't hear you!

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.