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, July 31, 2015

Islam compared to National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazism"). Turns out islam is worse. Much worse. Judge for yourself!

 .
What's the difference between Nazism and islam? Islam is worse - both in ideology (see below) and in the amount of its victims!

Is it the islamization of Germany that has caused the (relative) quality drop of Nazi cars such as VW and Audi since the 1930s?


 Compared to islam's parasitism ideology, it seems the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazi") was way more industrially effective. 

 This shouldn't surprise anyone with the most superficial understanding of the origin of islam as a parasitic separatist movement which after colonizing land isolated themselves in lazy "garrisons" with their slaves from where they enjoyed the fruits (incl. girls/young women, artists, scientists etc) of the working and producing people they had subdued. If you don't understand the parasitic nature of the islamic ideology then you will never understand the Koran or islam. Nor will you understand why Malik much later created Muhammad as a mythological figure whose behavior span such a wide range (pedophile, caravan robber, warlord, rapist, preacher, etc) that everyone (except the "infidel") could find something suitable for himself.
 
Only now has a small scale car production started in Saudi Arabia. By Arab muslims? No, by Japanese Isuzu which will be followed by Korean Daewoo and some other non-Arab car makers. The muslims have NEVER had a technology of their own simply because islam is based on parasitism and due backwardness. This fact isn't changed by oil-money (from non-muslim countries) buying texhnology into islamic countries.



Ihsanoglu's ultimate stated aim (in an interview) was to make OIC the muslim Caliphate led by a Caliph.

Every true muslim is a racist/sexist supremacist Human Rights violator because of islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - as beyond any doubt proven by OIC's sharia declaration in UN.



Iyad Madani, the Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based OIC, the worst Human Rights violator. Via UN OIC sanctionsislamofascist sharia around the world.
 

Islamic State is Ansar al Islam tuned to Saudi Wahhabism which, in turn, is tuned to the origin of islam - NOT TO ANY "WESTERN INTERVENTION"!


The only "Western intervention" is islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - the very same incompatibility that made OIC officially to abandon Human Rights and to replace them with Sharia via its 57 more or less scumbag representatives in UN (OIC was created via mostly muslim foreign ministers). I.e. in the very world institution that was  created to defend Human Rights. In practice it means that the most basic of Human Rights are criminalized - just as in the world's most intolerant country, Saudi Arabia. It also means that every true muslim, due to whatever form of Sharia, is a Human Rights violator. S/he may not be aware of it as yet though because of politicians' and BBC's etc. misrepresentation of the facts (in the case of BBC the Brits have not been misinformed about OIC - they haven't been informed at all).




The Iraq-"invasion"-caused-it myth


 In Iraq Mullah  Krekar founded in 1999 Ansar al Islam organization with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, with whom he had contact since 1994 through the cell of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Amman Jordan. Their so called Jordanian millennium attack was scheduled to the 2000 new years eve. Ansar al Islam then developed to a copy of the original Caliphate including the Levant, i.e. what we now know as the Islamic State, mostly funded by Saudi Arabia (through both official and unofficial channels) and almost entirely based on Saudi Arabia's official version of islam - except that the Saudi Caliph calls himself "king".

Dear reader, Klevius has trouble finding any "right-wing" politics in this program. What about you?


Of course it doesn't come even close to Human Rights standard - but islam is way worse as you cab see for youself!

 The 25 Points of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka "Nazi") programme here compared to islam:


        1. We demand the union of all Germans (muslims) in a Great Germany (Ummah) on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples (muslims).

        2. We demand that the German people (muslims) have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated (Palestine/Zionism).

        3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

        4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen (muslims) can become citizens. Only those who have German blood (are muslims), regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew (or "infidel") can be a countryman.

        5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany (Ummah) as foreigners (dhimmis) and must be subject to the law of aliens (sharia).

        6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens (to the caliph). We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen (muslim).

        We wage war (jihad) against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

        7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen (muslim) shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens ("infidels") must be expelled.

        8. Any further immigration of non-Germans ("infidels", Jews, "wrong-muslims" Christians, Atheists etc)) must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans (infidels) who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave (compare Saudi Arabia's laws against "infidels", Human Rights etc).

        9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

        10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically (this may not apply to an ideology based on parasitism). No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

        Therefore we demand:

        11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished (this may not apply to an ideology based on parasitism).

        12. Since every war (jihad) imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

        13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

        14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

        15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

        16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

        17. We demand an agrarian (well, the origin of islam was as far from agrarian you can get) reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land (this seems to be as far from "right-wing" you can get).

        18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

        19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law (sharia).

        20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German (muslim) to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural (religious) system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life (sharia). The conception of the State Idea (Ummah) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

        21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

        22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (jihad) folk army.

        23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those ("islamophobes") who propagate deliberate political (religious) lies and disseminate them through the press (blasphemy). In order to make possible the creation of a German (muslim) press, we demand:

        (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German (Arabic) language shall be German citizens (Sunni muslims).

        (b) Non-German (infidel) newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State (Caliph or his representatives). They must not be published in the German (Arabic) language.

        (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German (Sunni muslim) newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans (infidels) by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans (infidel).

        Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare (of the Ummah) shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature (Muhammad caricatures, caricatures of the Saudi dictator family etc) that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk (muslims), and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

        24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state (doubtful if this applies to islam in Saudi Arabia - the "custodian of islam"), insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race (Sunni muslims).

        The party (OIC) as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity (islam) without binding itself to any one particular confession (doesn't apply in islamic monotheism). It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

        COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

        25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State (Caliphate), the unconditional authority (submission) by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

        The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws (sharia) promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

        The leaders of the party (OIC) undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives (may not apply to OIC).



Klevius hint: It's all about sharia!


But BBC won't tell you though!


However,

Klevius vs ? billion muslims. He knows it's not fair - of course Klevius' Human Rights logic is irresistible compared to dividing hateful muslim sharia racism/sexism! If you just listen to it. But that could of course turn out to be difficult when Klevius message is drowning in islam propaganda. However, some of Klevius relatively few readers seem to be quite sharp when diagnosed with web tools. So let's hope they can do their part better than unsupported Klevius.

Human Rights

  Klevius: On his blogs and sites 'Klevius' is interchangeable with 'Human Rights' because all they do is defending (the most basic) Human Rights. Unfortunately for muslims, islam makes itself the biggest target precisely because of its violation of Human Rights. Nowhere on Klevius' sites/blogs can you find ANYTHING not in line with this Human Rights defense!

 Muslims: There doesn't exist a true muslim without her/him (via her/his support of sharia islam) violating the most basic equality principles of Human Rights. If all of these muslims were really aware of this Klevius qualified guess would be that a considerable part of them would commit open apostasy - i.e. being braver than Obama!

Sexism

Klevius: There is no defense for sex segregation/apartheid. Not even heterosexual attraction (of which Klevius has written the most essential analysis in the world of today - admittedly, the competition hasn't been very hard). The only reason for islam to keep up sex apartheid is keep girls/women in a dependency situation based on the supremacist ideology that women are inferior to men and therefore need their "protection".

 Muslims: Women are inferior to men and women's heterosexual attraction makes it necessary in islam to sharia hide/jail/restrict them physically and/or culturally (the means vary depending on muslim community/sub-settings etc).

Racism

 Klevius:  Human Rights make racism ideologically impossible.

 Muslims: Islam is built on supremacist "infidel" racism. It was the key for the early muslim "conquest": Get slaughtered, enslaved, taxed and humiliated, or become a (lesser) muslim. "Infidels" also constituted the slave reservoir for muslims. Allah's will, you know.

Politics

Klevius: For secularism based on Human Rights.


Muslims: For an islamic nation state (Ummah) based on sharia.

Beliefs

Klevius: Atheist, i.e. lacking a "god" he otherwise could blame. Instead Klevius protects his moral attitude by hanging it on the most powerful of all moral codes namely the negative Human Rights - the last refuge for Universally shared individual freedom. This could be a tricky one for simple minded brainwashed people to understand, so please, follow the link and read slowly. Any question still bothering you, please comment and Klevius will enlighten you!

 Muslims: Whatever a muslim does it's "Allah's will". And because "Allah's" will is not known  then we have no tool whatsoever to know the inscrutable will of the muslim - other than the self evident Atheist conclusion that it's no more or less than the egoistic will of the individual muslim, and not of "Allah". And because of this "Allah" it doesn't bother itself with how this will may turn against Human Rights.









According to one of BBC's extremely few and misleading reports about OIC, its aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds ... read more on Klevius beats BBC) but nothing about OIC steering 57 countries away from Human Rights.

In Britain, the number of muslim converts recently passed the 100,000 mark, according to a survey conducted by an inter-faith group called Faith Matters. The survey revealed that nearly two thirds of the converts were women, more than 70% were white and the average age at conversion was just 27.

Klevius explanation: Non-muslim women who marry muslims have to choose between a lower status as a non-muslim in the muslim family setting or convert (to a lesser muslim).

The muslim system is extremely racist and sexist in this regard because everything is one-way directed towards the muslim man and islam and away from Human Rights. A non-muslim man isn't even allowed to marry a muslim woman without converting.

So instead of boasting about the high numbers they should be seen as utterly shamful (and shameful) in a civilized country.


So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?

Nothing could be easier. Just openly and honestly refute Human Rights violating sharia and you don't hear anything from Klevius. Do as Ayaan Hiris Ali did!


From anti-islamic Magna Carta in 1215 to anti-fascist Human Rights in 1948 - and the islamofascism of today


Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights violating sharia.



Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the  British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).



King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).

King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.



Some more hateful muslims

Or are they no muslims precisely because of their hate?!


How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that is more protected than most other people?!


Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary, their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself, i.e. OIC (the Saudi based and steered Organization of Islamic Cooperation).

Muslims have chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok, Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights. And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia (as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.
.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Let the Islamic State be the guardian of islamofascism - they are definitely more islamic than the Saudi oil billionaires! That would end "radicalization" in no time.

The problem with islam is that the problem is an "ally" called Saudi Arabia - the heartland of the spread of the worst religious fascism ever!


Klevius proposal for peace in islamofascist Mideast: Islam is an Arabic "religion" and originally covered only what was back then the only Arab land, i.e. today's Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Southern part of Syria and the desert part of what is now the southern Iraqi borderland. Let the Saudi dictator family submit to the Islamic State. That would 1) distribute oil billions more evenly 2) better isolate the evil original islam from the civilized world than the Wahhabi-West hybrid Saudi dictator family which spreads street jihadism throughout the globe 3) then talk to and defend the rest of the surrounding Westernized muslim countries which by now would be equally eager as Assad to comply.

Iran is just a pseudo islamic country due to it not being an Arab country. This is why its Ayatollahs have been so overly "islamic". Therefore Iran isn't a problem after Islamic State has taken over in Saudi Arabia as the custodians of evil original islam. Moreover, the dictator family there has much more blood on their hands than Assad and Iran together.

With the Islamic State in Saudi Arabia it would also only take a short while before the people want back to civilization.  Medieval systems don't work anymore.

As it is now the continuous bowing for the Saudi islamofascists bastard regime causes much more suffering and other problems in the long run.

 

Islam's evil history repeats itself exactly according to its evil original formula




Muhajirun (the emigrants - compare today's muslim jihadist emigrants) were the first muslims who (according to muslim mythology) followed Muhammad on his Hijra from Mecca to Medina where they prepared for more caravan robbing and slaughtered all the Jews. The "excuse" was that Meccan's didn't want to follow Muhammad who therefore felt "offended" and "oppressed" and retaliated with Jihad robbery which made it possible for him to keep his bandit followers happy with booty and sex slaves.


Today the Saudi dictator family plus its allies are the main contributors, both ideologically and financially, to the slaughtering, raping, torturing etc terror now going on. And of course they don't distribute the money with a tag marked the state of Saudi Arabia. They use sleazy financial gangsters such as for example Alwaleed bin Talal (you know, the rape accused guy who has never worked and who refused to give his DNA to the court).


 Right, they belong to that overly protected vulnerable and easily offended 1.5 Billion "minority" nation (islamofascist Umma nation) called muslims who are under attack from a few brave and peaceful (but apparently so dangerous and disgusting) Human Rights defenders (i.e. not sharia compliant) called "islamophobes".

Raif Badawi is such an "islamophobe" whose friends and family now have chosen to distance themselves from or even turning against him. In other words, they have, like so many others, helped the Saudi islamofascists instead of a Human Rights defender.

Badawi did nothing wrong according to Western Human Rights based standards other than start a forum that was aimed at "a new generation of Saudi young men and women, who want to express themselves in a way that they can counter the overwhelming majority of clerics and religious people."


Every true muslim is a Human Rights violator because of islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - as without any doubt proven by OIC's sharia declaration in UN.



Iyad Madani, the Saudi Fuhrer of Saudi based OIC, the worst Human Rights violator. Via UN OIC sanctionsislamofascist sharia around the world.
 

ISIS is Ansar al Islam tuned to Saudi Wahhabism which, in turn, is tuned to the origin of islam - NOT TO ANY "WESTERN INTERVENTION"!


The only "Western intervention" is islam's incompatibility with Human Rights - the very same incompatibility that made OIC officially abandon Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia in UN. I.e. in the very world institution that was  created to defend Human Rights. In practice it means that the most basic of Human Rights are criminalized - just as in the world's most intolerant country, Saudi Arabia. It also means that every true muslim, due to whatever form of Sharia, is a Human Rights violator.

In Iraq Mullah  Krekar founded in 1999 Ansar al Islam organization with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, with whom he had contact since 1994. Through the cell of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Amman Jordan. Their so called Jordanian millennium attack was scheduled to the 2000 new years eve. Ansar al Islam then developed to a copy of the original Caliphate including the Levant.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Washington post shouts "racism" and "islamophobia" when Snoop Dog is arrested in Sweden for a minor drug crime and Somalis caused fire in their own mosque!


The most misleading and racism boosting journalism ever from Washington Post? When will Adam Taylor be cleaned out? Or is he already!





The ignorant Adam Taylor (Washington Post) accuses "far-right Swedish Democrats" for Snoop Dog's lawful* arrest. First of all, it's Sverigedemokraterna meaning Sweden Democrats - not "Swedish Democrats" as Adam Taylor ignorantly puts it. Secondly, as Klevius wrote in his previous posting, Sweden Democrats who are now level with Sweden's biggest party the Social Democrats in polls (due to being Sweden's only islam critical political voice), has a political program which is better described as a conservative center-left sometimes hard to distinguish from much Social Democratic politics and would therefore not be a choice for Klevius was it not for its islam criticism.

* According to the Swedish police Snoop Dog was "extremely polite and cooperative". In other words no signs of protests etc for the arrest. That's how a person typically behaves when caught for something they know is a crime and the evidence is clear.

The ignorant Adam Taylor (Washington Post) lies straight in the face of WP's readers when he tries to make the world's most politically correct country racist against blacks and muslims. The truth is just the opposite namely that Sweden precisely because of its senseless PC "diversity" brainwashing has become a safe haven for muslim supremacism racism and sexism.

And when it comes to "anti-semitism" Sweden is now most probably the worst country in the world (outside Arab muslim countries) for Jews to live in (read abt how Malmö's mayor accused Jews for being victims of muslim attacks).

The ignorant Adam Taylor (Washington Post) moreover writes in a way that gives WP's readers the impression that mosques are under heavy hate attacks by Swedes and even "destroyed" when in reality just a few extremely minor incidents have been reported (e.g. someone leaving a slice of bac etc) and the worst one "with five injured by arson attack" turned out to be Somali muslims playing with fireworks. The police and politicians first made a huge number of the "attack" until the police much later had to admit the facts.


Was it muslims playing with fireworks or an attack from rival muslims? What seems clear though is that the most unlikely scenario is prioritized by the Minister of Immigration, Swedish TV, Aftonbladet etc. 

BBC 25 December 2014 updated at 18:48: Swedish mosque hit by arson in Eskilstuna, injuring five. Police are treating the incident as arson after reports that someone threw an object into the building.

Nothing whatsoever indicated any "anti-muslim"* forces behind the fire.

* Just like islamic violence serves the spread of islam (jihad) "anti-muslim" violence (so rare so it almost doesn't exist in any meaningful sense compared to islamic violence) also fulfills the same purpose.

Klevius: However, this is how Scandinavia's biggest news paper described it:




Sweden's Minister for Justice: An appalling evil deed 


Sweden's Minister for Justice and Migration (!), Morgan Johansson: 'Hard to believe anything else than that this aggregated assault was directed against muslims as a group and islam as a religion.'

Klevius: A Swedish Minister for Justice acting like a teen troll who would have been immediately arrested had it been the other way round!


Swedish TV: The arson attack against the mosque in Eskilstuna shows, according to Islamiska förbundets leader Omar Mustafa, how hate against muslims has intensified.
 Klevius wrote:

Malmo, the third largest city in Sweden, is already over 20% Muslim - and it shows, not the least for the Jews.


    Four grenade attacks in a Ramadan week have rocked Malmo, prompting police to sound an alarm over the increasing violence. Multiple explosions, shootings and arson struck the city, which has a large muslim population. There are no hints whatsoever that the trouble is caused by Swedes. But overwhelming reasons to connect it to muslims.

This is what civil war looks like in the age of jihad. Jihad in the West, made possible by massive muslim immigration.

Swedish muslim Jihadi: “Go There with a Bomb”!

    “Why are these attacks happening during Ramadan? It’s because the jihadis don’t view the violence as something unholy. If the violence is happening for God’s sake and according to the rules Islam is perceived to decree, it is in fact a holy action. To the jihadis, this type of holy violence is more meritorious in God’s eyes than fasting, prayer and charity. … In the hadith, jihad in the month of Ramadan is portrayed as giving extra glory.” — Mohamed Omar.


Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Snoop Dog was (and still apparently is) stupidly ignorant - so what about BBC's islam presenter Mishal Husain?

Rapetivism and craptivism*

* Rap inducing criminality, i.e. a waste product of human life.

How much guilt has this rapper for black criminality? Is he a rapper or a
crapper - and does he even understand his part in it?



Snoop dog (aka Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. - named after his stepfather cause his own father abandoned him just as did Obama's father) says his sexism was due to his ignorance. Klevius then wonders whether it's the same ignorance that made him join US' most hateful and racist supremacist community?


Farrakhan (leader of the worst American racist/sexist supremacist sect, Nation of Islam):  “This is a new generation and they don’t want to hear your compromising talk! What they do want to hear, though, is rap music. Rappers are listened to. Kanye West and Jay Zare listened to. Killer Mike is listened to — he even attended Obama's 2015 White House Correspondents Dinner.


'I will kill you' shouts the brain dead* hateful black muslim supremacist racist clown Louis Farrakhan

* Can we agree that hateful people are not only stupid but also dangerous - to all of us, including themselves.  Ok, he's smarter than Sharpton but what does that really prove! It's still far short of what could be expected from an ordinary civilized man. Just listen to this childish but hateful rant to childish but, as a consequence, hateful listeners. 

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.



This joke is the leader of black US muslims!

   


'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)


Klevius wrote 8 August 2011:
  
The bizarre but extremely racist "ideology" of Nation of Islam may be summarized as this: Blacks are the superior race on Earth and white people belong to Satan and should be destroyed. The other races are somewhere in between with Asians (Mongoloids) near the bottom just above the whites.


Louis Farrakhan: "According to what we understand, only two percent of the Libyan people are in rebellion against their government. Now, you [Obama] mean to tell me that half the people don't want you, and you dare to say that this man [Al-Qadhafi - i.e. the guy who possibly arranged the Lockerbie terrorist attack and who arranged for the freeing of the one who actually did it] is illegitimate? What makes him illegitimate, and what makes you legitimate?

"I came here to preach the doom of this institution. You say that he is illegitimate, he kills his own people? What's your record? What's your record, America?

"Your governments will soon be laying in… some of you, who have plotted against the peoples of the world, will be seen on the back of pickup trucks, driving through the streets of America, with the American people throwing stones and raw garbage at you.

"In the name of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate. Dear brother leader, Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, may this letter find you, your family, and the faithful people of the Libyan Arab Republic, in the best health and spirit in spite of the prevailing circumstances.

"Dear brother leader, in the general orders that we were given by the honorable Elijah Muhammad, whose desire was to make us brave fighters, willing at any time to give our lives for Allah's sake and righteousness, it states in general order No. 5 'Do not quit your post until properly relieved.' Allah put you on your post, and neither NATO, the president of the U.S., the Arab League, or anybody else, has the power or authority to tell you to quit your post. Elijah Muhammad told me: 'Die on your post.'

"Dear brother [Barack Obama], be careful about the assassination of Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi and others in the Muslim world. Could it be that while you and your staff are planning the death of Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, could it also be that members of your own Democratic Party are plotting to betray you? Could it be that right now, while you are planning for your second term, that there are those in your party [who don't] want you for a second term, and definitely the Republicans don't want you to be a one-term president.

"So, like Abraham Lincoln, who was prosecuting the civil war, and doubted that he would be reelected, won a second term, but this so angered the opposition that it was then that his own reelection inspired his assassination. Could that be going on right now, under your own nose?

"Think, dear brother, before you act, because as the Bible puts it: 'God is not mocked. As a man soweth, the same shall he also reap.'As Obadiah the Prophet said: 'As thou hast done, so shall it be done unto you.' If they are successful in killing brother Al-Qadhafi, this is not going to be the end. This is the beginning of horrors, as you will see."

"The Future for Europe and America is Bleak, Very Very Bleak; China and Russia – Oh, You All will be at War"

"Al-Qadhafi wasn't in some tent twiddling his thumbs. He was working for the good of the African people. The African people will rise. NATO and… I'm sorry, America – I have got to say it, because I heard it from the mouth of the honorable Elijah Muhammad – Europe is finished.

"All of you who love war will be drowned in your own blood, as it is written: 'Those of you who love to shed the blood of others – Allah will make you drunk with your own blood, as with sweet wine.' Europe is headed for war, as we speak. Yes England, France, Italy, Germany, the honorable Elijah Muhammad told me that at the right time to tell you that Europe is the graveyard of the future. All of you who ran to Europe, to your former colonial masters, it is written that everyone will have to go to their own, and find refuge under their own vine and fig tree.

"And as Europe is trying to push out the Africans, to push out the Pakistanis, you would be wise to prepare yourself to get out of there or die there, because the future for Europe and America is bleak, very very bleak. China and Russia – oh, you all will be at war. You like it, so Allah is going to give it to you. You will have war soon. Mark my words – not my words, but the words of a man who was taught by God. You will face every word that he spoke. You will remember what you heard today – that a man, a real man of God was in your midst, and every word that I speak – you will face it."

Klevius answer to this pathetic "wanna be god's messenger" who uses to agitate extreme religious racial hatred while simultaneously changing views like a chameleon when it suits him: You idiot hide behind the otherwise non-related facts that Arabic islam managed to destroy most of Africa for more than a Millennium, and that a majority of African people have darker skin than most of the rest of the world. And of course, when the most advanced cultures (meaning they are based on the non-religious idea of Universal Human Rights) are predominantly "white" (actually really white people, so called albinos you find mostly oppressed in Africa!) this has been utilized by NOI and you as a ground for agitating dangerous racism especially in children and youth. You moron are lowering, not bettering the moral of what you try to lump together under skin color as "blacks".

You, Louis, and your butt-wipes are so funny to watch in your pompous appearance, was it not for all the misery and suffering you cause! All the way from Wallace Fard Mohammad (a white guy with extremely confused ideas) via a string of serial killers incl. Black Panthers etc to British street riots and looting. And on the way your organization didn't only murder people like Malcolm X but also, of course, targeted Martin Luther King and others (a god's gift was it that a "white" man was sentenced).



The founder of Nation of Islam, who actually existed - unlike the made up founder of islam

Drug dealer Wallie Wallace Dodd Fard Ford Farrad David Ali Mohammad (or whatever - i.e. the NOI foudner that Farrakhan forgot to refer to) was born somewhere and died somehow. He founded the fascist organization Nation of Islam in the period between World War 1 and 2 that saw all kinds of fascist movements appear. He became the head of the Chicago mosque in 1929, i.e. when Hitler led the growing National Socialist Party in Germany (by the help of his ability to evoke a sense of violated national pride - compare NOI). Already at the start NOI was connected with murders and suspicious disappearances. He himself also disappeared in 1934, most probably murdered by the next NOI leader, Eliah Muhammad, just as Hitler murdered his competitor Ernst Röhm.


So how does BBC's "muslim" presenter Mishal Husain fit the picture?

   

Well, she can't possibly be equally ignorant as Snoop dog. So why does she lump herself together with the Saudis and the Islamic State under the same umbrella named islam? 'Apostislam', 'Euroislam', 'cultural islam' or whatever but not islam! She is the furthest away from anything resembling islam, its texts and its teachings. And arguing she represents some naive fantasy about a "reformed islam" makes no sense as long as she keeps silent/apolegetic about real islam (as exemplified by Saudi based and controlled OIC and its sharia declaration).

Klevius wrote:
   

A Nuremberg trial against BBC's bigoted and hypocritical muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain - defended by Klevius




In a May 1 sermon, Tunisian cleric Sheik Bechir Begga said that Satan and the Jews are the enemies of Muslims. He added that Allah was gathering the Jews “in Palestine, or in Tel Aviv,” where they would meet their end.


Koran 5:82.

    The Muslim has two enemies. The first is Satan. The Prophet Muhammad said: “Satan flows through human beings like blood flows through the veins.” Satan is the first enemy. “Surely Satan is your enemy, so treat him like an enemy.” This is what Allah said.

    The second enemy is the Zionist Jew.

    […]

    They violated pacts and covenants. They slayed the prophets. They disobeyed Allah’s commandments and violated his prohibitions. What we are witnessing today is their second and final corruption.

    […]

    “When there comes the promise of the Hereafter, We will gather you in droves.” [Allah] will gather them from all over the world. After He had dispersed the Jews all over the world – some in Britain, some in Germany, some in the Soviet Union, and some in other countries – they will gather again in the lane of Palestine, or Tel Aviv.

    “We will gather you in droves.” This is one of the signs heralding the Day of Judgment. These are glad tidings for us, because that is their end. They will meet their end by gathering in Israel. This is the beginning of the end for Israel.

Mishal Husain grew up in Saudi Arabia, the country that gave birth to and shares the same version of islam that propels the Islamic State


Islamic ideology has committed genocides, enslaved, murdered, raped and victimized more people than any other ideology throughout 1400 years. Although history is full of proof of this, the most obvious evidence of islamic evilness* is to be found in the Koran, Muhammad's biographies and the hadiths. And cherry picking away the mass of evil in islamic texts would never have been accepted re. for example Nationalsocialism (aka Nazism).

* Measured by Human Rights standard




BBC's muslim sharia presenter (or?)*: "You could argue couldn't you, that Hamas was also stopping worse happening all of this period, because although there was rockets being fired - they weren't the.. the big rockets that have caused damage in recent days, they were mostly home-made contraptions."

 This support for violent jihad terror alone would be enough to render Mishal Husain morally guilty. However, a much more serious side of Mishal Husain is her support for islam in general, well knowing (unlike many less well informed muslims) that islam means sharia and that sharia inevitably means  grave violations of the most basic of Human Rights.

Mishal Husain, while islam kills and victimizes millions, says that she doesn't think her way of life is under any kind of threat and that she is a proud muslim who doesn't care to fast during Ramadan and rather drinks some alcohol

However. either she is a muslim and thereby has to support Human Rights violating sharia - or she is a lying apostate committing the worst crime known to islam. There is no such a thing as an individual muslim! Although, according to Human Rights, Mishal Husain as an individual is free to believe whatever she likes, if she calls herself a muslim she automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani.


A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

Could there be any doubt that Mishal Husain isn't aware of OIC and its world sharia declaration? After all, it's even on Wikipedia.

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain and Michael Adebolajo (who murdered Lee Rigby). Mishal Husain is BBC's top muslim presenter and BBC is the world's leading media. The only thing she needs to say is that she opposes Human Rights violating sharia - and thereby also opposes islam because islam without some form of Human Rights violating sharia is not islam anymore - it's just a private belief and won't bother Klevius a bit.


Adolf Eichman's defense: I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did.

Mishal Husain's defense as outlined by Klevius: Mishal Husain doesn't persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That's what the militant part of islam does. Jihadis who are fighting in an unjust war (i.e. against "islamophobia") must still be treated as legal combatants, and not held responsible for the war itself. Only those behind the policy (islam) should be sentenced.

So Klevius proposes that all charges against Mishal Husain should be dismissed, because circumstantial evidence ought not to be allowed.  However, this also implies that Mishal Husain has to avoid supporting violent jihad islam wherever it appears, incl. Israel, so to keep circumstantial evidence from becoming factual evidence and thereby turning her case on its head.

Comment by Anonymous:  But hasn't Mishal Husain asked for muslim "scholars" to address jihadism?

Comment by Clevius: You're so right, Anonymous, that's exactly what she did - asked the government those behind the policy!

Comment by Haram: Does Mishal Husain eat halal meat?




Acknowledgement: A Google search today couldn't find any pictures of Mishal Husain signed Klevius. Not even on 'more images'. Must be a bug or something.
I'm sure BBC or Mishal Husain would never lower themselves to anything like that.

Here are some more in case you've missed them:





Monday, July 27, 2015

The oxymoron "diversity" means sharia islam steered from Saudi Arabia. So "diversity training" most often feeds intolerance.


Britain's "diversity" stuck in the uniformity of Saudi Arabian sand dunes?


Whenever you hear the politically correct oxymoron "diversity" you can be sure that it can be traced directly to the least diverse place in the world, Saudi Arabia, the "custodian" of sharia islam and its idolatry of the most intolerant city in the world.

 Why does Cameron seem to have such a problem using the word sharia when precisely this word could help him finding the code to "radicalization"?

Calling oneself a true muslim automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Fuhrer Iyad Madani, who belongs to the Saudi dictator family.




A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

In 2008 the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) tried to make a brief statement about honour killings, female genital mutilation and stoning. IHEU and the Association of World Education had three minutes to put their case. But as they tried to make the statement, they were constantly interrupted by the representative of Egypt who accused the NGOs of trying to “crucify Islam”. They insisted that sharia law must not be mentioned at the UNHRC, let alone criticised. A Pakistan delegate — whose country speaks for the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in the rights body — said the grouping had “strong objections” to any direct or indirect discussion of sharia. Joining Egypt in asking the president, Romania's Daru Romulus Costea, to bar any debate that took this path, he said that if allowed it would “amount to spreading of hatred against certain members of this Council”.

Costea suspended the council and is reported to have asked the NGOs not to mention sharia.

Later Mr Costea told a press conference that he had ruled that only Muslim scholars can be permitted to talk about Islam in the Council. He said that religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense”.

While Cameron contemplates "radicalization" (sharia islam) BBC asks* for more sharia muslim judges in Britain. Klevius: "British values"?

* A news organization such as BBC can easily cherry pick guests and topics to suit their islam propaganda.

BBC today first asks for more "diversity" among judges. You might think that means more Polish or EU citizen judges. Or perhaps Chinese or Russian judges. Or maybe Hindu judges. No, predictably BBC then transfers "diversity" to muslim "scholars and imams". What else. But what about "radical" muslim judges? Will their intentions be alighed with Saudi sharia islam rather than "British values"?

What's the point anyway of muslim "diversity" when Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is destroying islam as we know it?




Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is inevitably winning over islam and its one Billion plus muslims. There's no return whatsoever simply because of the bedrock logic of the so called basic "negative"* rights underlying the thought of universal Human Rights equality. Due to islam's parasitic origin (booty and slaves) it's inherently racist (the "infidel") and sexist (sex segregation/apartheid). This is the essence of sharia and should not be confused with contracts. A contract means having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. Islamic sharia doesn't qualify under Human Rights guided legislation because of its unlawful racism and sexism. A muslim can't legally make an agreement with other muslims to treat non-muslims, wrong-muslims, LGBTs, Atheists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, women etc. as not equal to themselves. And this is just the tip of the iceberg Cameron calls "radicalization" and "silent muslim [sharia] supporters".

* Whereas 'positive rights' can be abused as impositions, 'negative rights' means the very opposite, i.e. lack of content, in other words freedom from impositions.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Without Human Rights violating sharia (OIC) there is no islam worth of Klevius' or Cameron's "islamophobia" or islamofascists' love

Sweden's only party critical of islam, Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats), is the most publicly smeared party ever. Yet they now in July scored 23.3%  making them only 0.8% behind Sweden's biggest party the Socialdemocrats. As their politics differ only marginally in most questions except for islam, this is the only clue to their tremendous success. Klevius is against state socialism (i.e. the self interest of the social state - see Angels of Antichrist) and would therefore check carefully before giving a vote for any social state friendly party. However, if a party is the only one against sharia islam, then Klevius would give it his vote anyway. The choice is extremely easy. 

If you just dare to utter the evil word 'sharia' (e.g. OIC's), then the muslim problem is solved, PM Cameron?


Because then you have finally found your real enemy and its position (Saudi Arabia/OIC).


Private belief and thinking is ok as is its public expression - not its connection to a sharia ideology that goes against the most basic of Human Rights equality.

However, question is, is it sharia islam or BBC that's the biggest stumbling  bloc for Cameron?


 
As David Cameron set out his 5 year plan to combat Human Rights violating sharia islam and sharia muslims, BBC's eager supporter of sharia islam and sharia muslims, Edward Stourton, wastes almost an hour on BBC to spray compulsory license fee paying British listeners with a heavy and cherry picked muslim propaganda from the notorious East London Mosque.

Nothing in the show addressed the key issue of widespread islamofascism. Instead compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were showered with bee hives and "an historic collection which documents the history of one of the UK's oldest mosques".

Then compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were informed about "inter-faith dialogue", i.e. the Saudi initiated one way sharia islamic monologue.

Then compulsory taxes and license fee paying British listeners were fed with the Human Rights violating sharia preacher Muhammad Abdul Bari from the East London Mosque who of course opposed every effort made to break down barriers and build greater understanding between faiths, if it criticized islam at any point, i.e. so called "islamophobia".



Not a word about the Koran's richness of incitement to rapetivism etc:

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"  This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners.  Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:

Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."   This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves.  See also Qur'an (70:29-30).  The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very important to him.

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."  Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Qur'an (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good"  A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part.  The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."

Qur'an (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..."  Breeding slaves based on fitness.

Qur'an (2:178) - "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female."  The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal.  The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman's worth is also distinguished from that of a man's).

Qur'an (16:75) - "Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah."  Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master.  In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah's will.  (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah's gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).






Friday, July 24, 2015

There was no Muhammad nor any Koran in the robbing/booty taking/raping/murdering/enslaving movement people now call islam.




There is no part* of a Muhammad time Koran in Birmingham - only some random Judeo-Christian texts copied god knows when! But there is an eager effort to cheat ignorant Brits!

* You don't call Old Testament texts cited in the New Testament New Testament, do you. And whereas the New Testament is an independent text, the Koran is just a patchwork of previous texts found useful for the Saracens. This is why much in the Koran is hard to distinguish from same type of original Christian texts.

The most dangerous, widespread and supremacist racism the world has ever seen is called islam. It's main ideology was parasitism, its main tool was sword intimidation, and its main currency was slaves.

Brits, you used to be down to earth people culturally and genetically strongly connected to Fennoscandia (Goths, Kvens, Vikings, Normans etc). You talk a Scandinavian language although you spell and pronounce it in a funny way. As a person with Swedish as one of his native languages Klevius use to point out common old Nordic words still in use in Fennoscandia, such as (just a tiny tip of the iceberg): hand, finger, arm, fot, knä, bröst, navel, huvud, skalle, hår, öra, näsa, nacke, socka, sko, hatt, hus, land, yxa, såg, hammare, kniv, etc etc etc. Then there are myriads of words which are rooted in old Nordic but have slightly changed usage, such as, for example: Swe. 'ben' (bone or leg), Swe. bord (table). The rest is mostly latin or Greek based loanwords similar to those used in Swedish. Moreover, culturally Fennoscandia shares "British values" in the form of Human Rights equality. Islam does not! So how come that you Brits got so entangled in a non-British culture most of your immigrants have escaped?!  

Klevius islam/Koran/Muhammad tutorial


What so many (Human Rights violating sharia) muslims and normal people (i.e. believing in Universal Human Rights equality) have not fully digested, is the inevitable fact that there was no such a person as Muhammad hanging around at his alleged time because he never shows up in any official records before Malik.

Moreover, it's proven beyond any doubt that the alleged Muhammad's death date is a historical impossibility by several years (no, for you stupid no references are given, unless, of course, you nicely ask for it via comments - Klevius second most important duty after hunting bias, is to fight dangerous ignorance).

Carbon-dating usually gives too early dates.  Moreover, there is no certain
connection between the time of the leather on which the text is written and the text itself. One may also consider the effects of later changes or additions to the original text.

However, nothing of this really matters in the case of the Birmingham "Koran" pages because they are just Jewish/Christian inspired texts what we already have lots of and which only connection to a later Koran is that the latter is based on these pre-islamic texts.


There was no Muhammad nor any Koran back then


Islam, seen as a Muhammad/Koran complex was a much later  invention (Malik).

Of course there were robbers or warlords/rebels if you like, and some of them may even had become the main "Godfather", but, as Wittgenstein said, whereof one can't talk one must keep silent. Official records certainly do.

The origin of islam was the historical precedents for local rebels defying the ruling elite which was later transformed by a new ruling elite to justify the submission of local rebels - plus, of course, justifying islamic sharia finance through enslavement and booty.

The earliest known fragments of the Koran are called Hijazi script, and under Abd al-Malik’s reign 685-785, Abu’l Aswad al-Du’ali, who died 688, founded the Arabic grammar and invented the system of placing large colored dots to indicate the tashkil. Meaning texts before this period can't be reliably translated. The dots on the Birmingham fragments are either later additions or proof that the text isn't even close to "Muhammad's time". Moreover, separated chapters was not a habit of the time but came much later.

The so called "close match" to the Koran of today is hence a deeply unfounded statement and should be called what it is, i.e. historical falsification. The laughable British Piltdown man springs to mind.

We can be reasonably sure that the Koran is a patched collection of Jewish/Christian texts authorized by Malik some half a century after the alleged Muhammad's death.

The key to the origin of islam is rooted in three words: parasitism, racism and sexism (rapetivism).

Islamic parasitism started with Arab bedouins robbing caravans, some of them becoming influential and parting with already powerful Jewish/Christian outliers.

This developed into a religiously "justified" Arab jihad where the "infidels" either didn't speak Arab or didn't share the basic tenets of this particular Jewish/Christian sect. These tenets were extremely simple, effective - and evil, seen from our Human Rights perspective today. Arab muslims segregated themselves from the "infidels" for the purpose of sponging on them in different ways including booty, women, taxes etc. that interested poor bedouin boys and wealthy Jewish/Christian outgroups whose sectarianism became what we know as islam.

Enslavement was the very core of islam. Islam means submission in two ways: Submission to the Arabic Allah and thereby building a racist wall against the "infidel" who then accordingly had to be submitted under slavery in three main forms, i.e. as humiliated taxpayers, as sex slaves or as ordinary slaves for work or to be sold.

An inscription attributed to the first Umayyad caliph -- Muawiya -- in 677 or 678 CE makes reference to belief in God but gives no indication of belief in Muhammad as his messenger or the Koran as "revealed scripture".

On coins from this period, we do find the word "Muhammad" inscribed, but the inscription comes under kingly figures bearing a cross.

The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock -- completed in 691 CE and often thought to be the first inscribed sign of islam refers to Tayyaye d-Mhmt who was a honorific Jewish/Christian title, rather than a proper name. Tayyaye’ is a Syriac name for the Arab nomads.

Mhmt can not be translated as ‘the Arabs of Muhhamad’ because the right transcription into Syriac would have been Mhmd. Moreover, the text does not say anything about this alleged person.

Contemporary non-Muslim sources of the 7th century do not corroborate the canonical story. For example, the Doctrina Jacobi (a document dating to 634-40 CE and probably written by a Christian living in Palestine), an account of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem by Sophronius -- the patriarch who is said to have surrendered the city in 637 -- and a letter written in 647 by the patriarch of Seleucia make no reference to the Arab conquerors as muslims, or show any awareness of a religion called Islam.

The earliest account that can reliably be taken to refer to Muhammad is a chronicle by the Armenian bishop Sebeos, dating either to the 660s or 670s but containing material that sharply diverges from the traditional Islamic accounts: thus he has Muhammad "insisting on the Jews' right to the Holy Land -- even if in the context of claiming that land for the Ishmaelites, acting in conjunction with the Jews" (p. 32).

Only by around 730 CE, nearly one hundred years after Muhammad's death in 632 CE according to the canonical story, do we see an account by John of Damascus make detailed reference to parts of the Qur'an, but even then he does not name the Qur'an or allude to the existence of a complete holy book for those he calls "Hagarians," "Ishmaelites" or "Saracens" (but not Muslims).

Instead, we have reference to Qur'anic chapter titles like "The Women" (this is the fourth Sura of the Qur'an today), implying that he was drawing on fragments of text that were later incorporated into the Qur'an.

Arabic epigraphic evidence from the 7th century similarly fails to validate the canonical account. An inscription attributed to the first Umayyad caliph -- Muawiya -- in 677 or 678 CE makes reference to belief in God but gives no indication of belief in Muhammad as his messenger or the Qur'an as revealed scripture.

It's alleged that the significance of Birmingham’s leaves was missed because they were bound together with another text, in a very similar hand but written almost 200 years later. Really, same hand two centuries later.


Robert Spencer: The only thing it actually establishes is that this portion of suras 18-20 existed near or during the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived. That it was part of the Qur’an at that time is taken for granted by Holland and the Times, but there is actually no evidence for it: there isn’t even any mention of the Qur’an’s existence in the contemporary literature until some fifty years after the outer-limit date of 645 for this fragment — a fact that is extremely uncomfortable for those who accept the canonical Islamic account that has the Qur’an complete by 632 and collected and circulating by 653. If it was known in this period, why does no one ever quote or even refer to it? - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/07/you-wont-believe-todays-the-new-york-times-front-page.html/#sthash.VgsGJOBC.dpuf

The name Muhammad actually appears in the Qur’an only four times, and in three of those instances it could be used as a title—the “praised one” or “chosen one”—rather than as a proper name. By contrast, Moses is mentioned by name 136 times, and Abraham, 79 times. Even Pharaoh is mentioned 74 times. Meanwhile, “messenger of Allah” (rasul Allah) appears in various forms 300 times, and “prophet” (nabi), 43 times. Are those all references to Muhammad, the seventh-century prophet of Arabia? Perhaps. Certainly they have been taken as such by readers of the Qur’an through the ages. But even if they are, they tell us little to nothing about the events and circumstances of his life.

Indeed, throughout the Qur’an there is essentially nothing about this messenger beyond insistent assertions of his status as an emissary of Allah and calls for the believers to obey him. Three of the four times that the name Muhammad is mentioned, nothing at all is disclosed about his life.

1
The first of the four mentions of Muhammad by name appears in the third chapter, or sura, of the Qur’an: “Muhammad is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (3:144). The Qur’an later says that “the Messiah, the son of Mary, is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (5:75). The identical language may indicate that in 3:144, Jesus is the figure being referred to as the “praised one”—that is, the muhammad.

2
In sura 33 we read that “Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men, but the Messenger of God, and the Seal of the Prophets; God has knowledge of everything” (33:40). This is almost certainly a specific reference to the prophet of Islam and not simply to a prophetic figure being accorded the epithet the “praised one.” It is also an extremely important verse for Islamic theology: Muslim scholars have interpreted Muhammad’s status as “Seal of the Prophets” to mean that Muhammad is the last of the prophets of Allah and that anyone who pretends to the status of prophet after Muhammad is of necessity a false prophet. This doctrine accounts for the deep antipathy, often expressed in violence, that traditional Islam harbors toward later prophetic movements that arose within an Islamic milieu, such as the Baha’is and Qadiani Ahmadis.

3
Less specific is Qur’an 47:2: “But those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in what is sent down to Muhammad—and it is the truth from their Lord—He will acquit them of their evil deeds, and dispose their minds aright.” In this verse, “Muhammad” is someone to whom Allah has given revelations, but this could apply to any of the Qur’an’s designated prophets as well as to Muhammad in particular.

4
Qur’an 48:29, meanwhile, probably refers only to the prophet of Islam: “Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to another.” Although the “praised one” here could conceivably refer to some other prophet, the language “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” (Muhammadun rasulu Allahi) within the Islamic confession of faith makes it more likely that 48:29 refers specifically to the prophet of Islam.

That is all as far as Qur’anic mentions of Muhammad by name go. In the many other references to the messenger of Allah, this messenger is not named, and little is said about his specific actions. As a result, we can glean nothing from these passages about Muhammad’s biography. Nor is it even certain, on the basis of the Qur’anic text alone, that these passages refer to Muhammad, or did so originally.

Abundant detail about Muhammad’s words and deeds is contained in the Hadith, the dizzyingly voluminous collections of Islamic traditions that form the foundation for Islamic law. The Hadith detail the occasions for the revelation of every passage in the Qur’an. But (as we will see in the next chapter) there is considerable reason to believe that the bulk of the hadiths about Muhammad‘s words and deeds date from a period considerably after Muhammad’s reported death in 632.

Then there is the Sira, the biography of the prophet of Islam. The earliest biography of Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq (d. 773), who wrote in the latter part of the eighth century, at least 125 years after the death of his protagonist, in a setting in which legendary material about Muhammad was proliferating. And Ibn Ishaq’s biography doesn’t even exist as such; it comes down to us only in the quite lengthy fragments reproduced by an even later chronicler, Ibn Hisham, who wrote in the first quarter of the ninth century, and by other historians who reproduced and thereby preserved additional sections. Other biographical material about Muhammad dates from even later.

This is chiefly the material that makes up the glare of the “full light of history” in which Ernest Renan said that Muhammad lived and worked. In fact, arguably none of the biographical details about Muhammad date to the century in which his prophetic career was said to unfold.

 The earliest records offer more questions than answers. One of the earliest apparent mentions of Muhammad comes from a document known as theDoctrina Jacobi, which was probably written by a Christian in Palestine between 634 and 640—that is, at the time of the earliest Arabian conquests and just after Muhammad’s reported death in 632. It is written in Greek from the perspective of a Jew who is coming to believe that the Messiah of the Christians is the true one and who hears about another prophet arisen in Arabia:

When the candidatus [that is, a member of the Byzantine imperial guard] was killed by the Saracens[Sarakenoi], I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying “the candidatus has been killed,” and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: “What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?” He replied, groaning deeply: “He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared.” So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men’s blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.

In this case, “incredible” means “not credible.” One thing that can be established from this is that the Arabian invaders who conquered Palestine in 635 (the “Saracens”) came bearing news of a new prophet, one who was “armed with a sword.” But in the Doctrina Jacobi this unnamed prophet is still alive, traveling with his armies, whereas Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632. What’s more, this Saracen prophet, rather than proclaiming that he was Allah’s last prophet (cf. Qur’an 33:40), was “proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come.” This was a reference to an expected Jewish Messiah, not to the Jesus Christ of Christianity (Christ means “anointed one” or “Messiah” in Greek).

It is noteworthy that the Qur’an depicts Jesus as proclaiming the advent of a figure whom Islamic tradition identifies as Muhammad: “Children of Israel, I am the indeed the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that is before me, and giving good tidings of a Messenger who shall come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad” (61:6). Ahmad is the “praised one,” whom Islamic scholars identify with Muhammad: The nameAhmad is a variant of Muhammad (as they share the trilateral root h-m-d). It may be that the Doctrina Jacobiand Qur’an 61:6 both preserve in different ways the memory of a prophetic figure who proclaimed the coming of the “praised one” or the “chosen one”—ahmad or muhammad.

The prophet described in the Doctrina Jacobi “says also that he has the keys of paradise,” which, we’re told, “is incredible.” But it is not only incredible; it is also completely absent from the Islamic tradition, which never depicts Muhammad as claiming to hold the keys of paradise. Jesus, however, awards them to Peter in the Gospel according to Matthew (16:19), which may indicate (along with Jesus’ being the one who proclaims the coming of ahmad in Qur’an 61:6) that the figure proclaiming this eschatological event had some connection to the Christian tradition, as well as to Judaism’s messianic expectation. Inasmuch as the “keys of paradise” are more akin to Peter’s “keys to the kingdom of heaven” than to anything in Muhammad’s message, the prophet in the Doctrina Jacobi seems closer to a Christian or Christian-influenced Messianic millennialist than to the prophet of Islam as he is depicted in Islam’s canonical literature.

Was That Muhammad?

In light of all this, can it be said that the Doctrina Jacobirefers to Muhammad at all? It is difficult to imagine that it could refer to anyone else, as prophets who wielded the sword of conquest in the Holy Land—and armies acting on the inspiration of such prophets—were not thick on the ground in the 630s. The document’s departures from Islamic tradition regarding the date of Muhammad’s death and the content of his teaching could be understood simply as the misunderstandings of a Byzantine writer observing these proceedings from a comfortable distance, and not as evidence that Muhammad and Islam were different then from what they are now.

At the same time, there is not a single account of any kind dating from around the time the Doctrina Jacobiwas written that affirms the canonical Islamic story of Muhammad and Islam’s origins. One other possibility is that the unnamed prophet of the Doctrina Jacobi was one of several such figures, some of whose historical attributes were later subsumed into the figure of the prophet of Islam under the name of one of them, Muhammad. For indeed, there is nothing dating from the time of Muhammad’s activities or for a considerable period thereafter that actually tells us anything about what he was like or what he did.

One apparent mention of his name can be found in a diverse collection of writings in Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic common in the region at the time) that are generally attributed to a Christian priest named Thomas and dated to the early 640s. But some evidence indicates that these writings were revised in the middle of the eighth century, and so this may not be an early reference to Muhammad at all.5 Nonetheless, Thomas refers to “a battle between the Romans and the tayyaye d-Mhmt” east of Gaza in 634.6 The tayyaye, or Taiyaye, were nomads; other early chroniclers use this word to refer to the conquerors. Thus one historian, Robert G. Hoyland, has translated tayyaye d-Mhmt as “the Arabs of Muhammad”; this translation and similar ones are relatively common. Syriac, however, distinguishes between t and d, so it is not certain (although it is possible) that by Mhmt, Thomas meant Mhmd—Muhammad. Even if “Arabs of Muhammad” is a perfectly reasonable translation of tayyaye d-Mhmt, we are still a long way from the prophet of Islam, the polygamous warrior prophet, recipient of the Qur’an, wielder of the sword against the infidels. Nothing in the writings or other records of either the Arabians or the people they conquered dating from the mid-seventh century mentions any element of his biography: At the height of the Arabian conquests, the non-Muslim sources are as silent as the Muslim ones are about the prophet and holy book that were supposed to have inspired those conquests.

Thomas may also have meant to use the word Mhmt not as a proper name but as a title, the “praised one” or the “chosen one,” with no certain referent. In any case, the Muhammad to which Thomas refers does not with any certainty share anything with the prophet of Islam except the name itself.




Sunni Shia


It is notable that the invocation of Muhammad's example begins with the same caliph who had the Dome of the Rock built and issued the first coins invoking Muhammad as the "prophet of Allah": Malik, whose successors would do likewise.

Since the invention of Muhammad became such an important part of islam, there arose a need for people to know what the "prophet" said and did in various matters of life. The Ahadith in particular then became political weapons, liable to be completely fabricated. Even in the first half of the 8th century, one islamic scholar wrote that the "emirs forced people to write hadiths".

For example, in the midst of the dispute between the followers of the caliph Muawiya, who Shi'a believe usurped the place of Ali's son and designated successor Husayn, and Ali's followers who would later become the Shi'a, a hadith arose in which Muhammad declared that Ali's father was burning in hellfire, while Ali's partisans invented a hadith in which Muhammad declared, "I go to war for the recognition of the Koran and Ali will fight for the interpretation of the Koran."