Communism at its peak
and some Communist zombies clinging on
Acknowledgement: Care for proofread and edited text? Then start donating!
Now it's not IS (Islamic State) but IU (Islamic Ummah/OIC*) that is the worst threat to the free world
* The Turkish wannabe Ottoman
Caliph (according to himself), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who previously used to lead the OIC Caliphate together with the
Saudi caliph (yes, there have been more than one caliph before), who gets his position as “the Guardian of islam” because the
Sauds’ right hand happens to possess the stolen land where Mecca and Medina are
situated as well as the oil that generates the the wealth of the Saud family! OIC’s former Fuhrer, Secretary-General
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu himself said “that for 13 centuries, muslims had shared a
feeling of belonging to the muslim ummah, or global community, bound
together under the banner of the caliphate that ended when the modern Turkish
republic succeeded the Ottoman Empire in the years after World War I. Following
the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate, many muslims found themselves, for the
first time throughout their history, facing the absence of the polity under
which they lived for several centuries. The establishment of the Organization
of the Islamic Conference (now name changed to the Organization of the Islamic
Cooperation) can be seen as the embodiment of the concept of islamic solidarity
in the contemporary world”. However, OIC was initiated by, based in, and now also led by Saudi Arabia.
Under a worldwide muslim sharia Umma (OIC) Saudi islamofascism is protected from Human Rights criticism
Had the Saudi islamofascist not been that stupid and presumptuous* that
they created OIC as an open excuse for abandoning Human Rights, then the
downfall of islam might had become less "revolutionary".
* spurred by ignorant or cunning islam supporters in the West (many of them communists)
The muslim UK ambassador of Saudi islamofascism implies that 'the vast majority of muslims around the world' are Wahhabists - or
Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to
the United Kingdom: Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahhab, was a well-travelled,
learned, scholarly jurist of the 18th century. He insisted on adherence
to Qur’anic values and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
which includes the maximum preservation of human life, even in the midst
of jihad. He taught tolerance and supported the rights of both men and
women.
Klevius: See below, Klevius' more truthful description of this immoral muslim islamofascist cleric.
Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to
the United Kingdom: Let me make it perfectly clear. The government of
Saudi Arabia does not support or fund the murderers who have collected
under the banner of the Islamic State. Their ideology is not one that we
recognise, or that would be recognised by the vast majority of Muslims
around the world – whether they were Sunni or Shia.
Klevius: Nor would the Saudi ideology!
Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to
the United Kingdom: Under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two
Holy Mosques, King Abdullah, we launched an initiative for dialogue
between all religions and cultures in 2008 with the establishment of the
King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and
Intercultural Dialogue in Vienna.
Klevius: Why not in Mecca?!
Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to
the United Kingdom: Following an international counterterrorism
conference held in Riyadh in 2005, the UN counterterrorism centre was
established with financial support of $200m from our government. We have
been and are fighting extremism within our own borders daily, indeed
hourly.
Klevius: Really! Counterterrorism? Meaning chasing down Human Rights
defenders, Atheists etc "terrorists" and "extremists" in accordance with
your new sharia laws protected by your own islamofascist UN
organization OIC!
Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to
the United Kingdom: Firm action is taken against any imam who is found
to hold extremist views (like the Shia imam you are about to behead) and
who tries to incite their followers to violence (i.e. what you in other
contexts name liberators). We have passed laws and warned our citizens
that they will be arrested and prosecuted if they attempt to join Isis
or any other international terrorist group, or to take part in any of
the conflicts raging in any region. We have done and will do everything
we can to stop the spread of this corrosive poison in our country and
region and encourage all other governments to do the same.
Klevius: You are the 'corrosive poison' that has ruined so many peoples
lives! Not only are you the world's worst per capita polluter, you are
also the country with the worst Human Rights record. And no wonder
because you have criminalized Human Rights equality. You are the most
immoral and hypocritical state the world has ever seen!
David Commins, author of “The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia” and a
professor at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania: Islamic State and
Wahhabi doctrines overlap in puritanism and xenophobia toward
non-muslims and Shiite”. A key difference is the caliphate agenda used
by Islamic State’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and a revival of a term
used by earlier islamic leaders that suggests a wider ambition to rule
all Muslims. That was never part of Wahhabi doctrine.
Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid (sad
isn't it) and therefore also origin of islam: Of course it was, it just
lacked the means. Wahhabism means going back to the origin of islam and
that inevitably means opening up for whatever totalitarian world
conquering ambitions. Certainly bigger than Hitler and his German
Nationalsocialists ever dreamt about.
James Dorsey, a senior fellow in international studies at Nanyang
Technological University in Singapore: Abdulaziz halted his expansion
once most of the Arabian Peninsula was conquered, and turned against the
Ikhwan, whose main leaders later surrendered to the British. That
history underscores another distinction with Islamic State, that between
an established power and an expansionist upstart.
Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid (sad
isn't it) and therefore also the origin of islam: Established power?
Like the Soviet union!
James Dorsey: The House of Saud wants to ensure its grip on power and
doesn’t seek to expand beyond its borders or “create one unified Muslim
state that would be ruled by a caliph. Islamic State seeks to topple
existing regimes that it views as apostate.
Klevius: Then he pukes out the usual PC vomit: Saudi Arabia’s King
Abdullah, has tentatively promoted women’s role in the workplace since
ascending to the throne in 2005 and encouraged thousands of young Saudis
to study abroad through a state-sponsored scholarship program.
Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid (sad
isn't it) and therefore also the origin of islam: Poor dictator "king"
Abdullah, all women's liberator in his heroic fight against the
unspecified dark forces in Saudi Arabia?! Really?
Fahad Nazer, a political analyst at JTG Inc., a consultancy based in
Vienna, Virginia, who has worked for the Saudi Embassy in Washington:
Comparing Saudi Arabia to the Islamic State “neglects the gradual but
significant cultural change that has taken place since the 1990 Gulf
War.
Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid (sad
isn't it) and therefore also the origin of islam: 'The gradual but
significant cultural change' is nothing else than petrol-dollars and as
such doesn't alter the evilness of original islam in any positive
direction. Saudi fueled global street jihadism is directly proportional
to the oil barrel price.
Wahhabism is more or less the same in Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State
A dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad
ibn Ê¿Abd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his
radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was
then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually
sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor
deserts of the Nejd.)
The second strand relates to dictator
Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his
curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a
nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the
original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the
opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the
volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export.
Based on
the 14th century islamist Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised the
decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding
Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at
Mecca.
Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi'ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy.
One
of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine has become the key idea
of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers
could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that
in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute
Authority (i.e. the "king").
There is really nothing that
separates Wahhabism from the Islamic State other than that the latter is
closer to Wahhabism than the Saud dictator family.
Like
"prophet" Mohammad, Abd al-Wahhab was expelled from his own town and in
1741 he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe.
What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab's novel teaching was the means
to seizing power, again a repetition of the origin of islam. Their
strategy, like that of the Islamic State today, was to bring the peoples
whom they conquered into submission by instilling fear, and by
"justifying" it as jihad.
Ibn Saud's gangsta clan, seizing on Abd
al-Wahhab's doctrine, now could do what they (and "prophet" Mohammad)
always did, i.e. raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their
possessions in true islamic manner.
In the beginning, they
conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The
conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to
Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the
Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.
A
British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden: 'They pillaged the whole
of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the
course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five
thousand of the inhabitants ..."
Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi: Ibn Saud
committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. We took Karbala and slaughtered
and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the
Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: 'And to the
unbelievers: the same treatment.'
In 1803, Abdul Aziz entered
Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (as did
Medina). Abd al-Wahhab's followers demolished historical monuments and
all the tombs and shrines.
1803 a Shiite assassin killed Abdul
Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd
al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. In 1812,
the Ottoman army pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca.
In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died and his son Abdullah bin Saud, was
taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was executed after having
been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged
and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out
and impaled on his body.
18th century Wahhabism reignited when
the Ottoman Empire collapsed during World War I. Compare this to the
origin of islam in the wake of Roman withdrawal and the fall of the
Sasanian empire. The Al Saud were led by Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting
the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi "Ikhwan" in the spirit
of Abd-al Wahhab.
The Ikhwan was a movement of armed Wahhabist
"moralists" who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early
1800s. Now the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and
Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. The Ikhwan and Abd-al Aziz, however, ended
up in a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when Abd-al Aziz by the
help of Western technology had them machine-gunned down for good.
With
the help from oil dug up and processed by Western technology Saudi
goals were to reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world,
thereby utilizing islam's "single creed" message for Saudi Arabia.
Sunni (i.e. Saudi) islam embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the muslim Umma, hence also
creating a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt.
Westerners chose to presume that Saudi Arabia was bending to the imperatives of modern life.
What Klevius has said before about Wahhab the father of Saudi islamofascism (2010)
The root man of Saudi islamofascism was Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab who,
during his studies in Basra in the 18th C, got seriously dazzled by
glimpses of the European Enlightenment twinkling through the temporary
crack to the West called the "Tulip period". He then retreated back into
his medieval islamic darkness & as a result, came to position
himself as the very opposite to the British "Glorious revolution" which
fought against Catholic papacy, & which ended up in Lancashire's
coal fueled textile industries as the beginning of the modern
industrialized* world based on technology & rationality rather than
on religious superstition & fundamentalism (also compare Shinto vs
islam). A major outcome of industrialization was universal suffrage
& the idea about negative human rights.
* isn't it an irony then that Britain, who started the series of modern
revolutions as well as industrialization, came to deeply embed itself
with the most intolerant, racist & sexist constitution, i.e. the
Saudi islamofascist state which was incapable of producing anything by
itself except hatred & more fanatic muslims!
Together with the criminal "house of Saud" Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab
then confined the Arabs in islamic backwardness &, in addition, the
Arab women in an islamic burka of extreme Sharia sex
segregation/apartheid.
After having robbed Mecca & Medina, the Sauds/Wahhabis run the
stolen country by the help of what they fleeced from visiting pilgrims.
This was the main source of income until Westerners found/drilled oil
& made the lazy islamist looters even wealthier.
(analysis taken from Homo Filius Nullius by Peter Klevius).
Klevius comment: And today this evilness threatens the free world
through spineless politicians and UN! The banner of Enlightenment is now
upheld by heroic women, e.g. African Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has suffered
as a victim of islam(ofascism) and escaped to the West, only to find
that she was abandoned by those she thought would protect her! In fact,
Western politicians and media are busy implementing that very
Arab-islamic oppression so many muslims have escaped!
Human rights vs islamofascist "rights"
According to Koran-islam only true muslims can be considered real
humans. The rest of the world hence belongs to either category two
infidels "of the book" and or category three infidels (without "a book"
presumably). However, there's also a fourth category which can never
reach a fully human level in accordance with Koran-islam. Those are
girls and women!
Sex segregation is to be understood as lack of rights because of one’s
sex as referred to in the UN Declaration on Human Rights from 1948:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the
Human Rights Declaration, without distinction of sex. Furthermore, no
distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional
or international status of the country or territory to which a person
belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under
any other limitation of sovereignty."
This conceptualization may be compared to the sex segregated "rights",
in the Cairo declaration from 1990: "All men are equal in terms of basic
human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any
discrimination on the grounds of sex."
The main difference between these declarations is that the former is
negative, i.e. without room for interpretations and negotiation and due
interventions, whereas the latter is positive, i.e. connected to
“obligations and responsibilities”. Negative rights are here seen as not
synonymous with natural rights, because the latter presumes the
existence of certain rights, i.e. is in fact positive, whereas the
former does not.
Whereas "entitled all the freedoms" is a negative right, "basic human
dignity and basic obligations and basic responsibilities" are all
positive rights. Through "responsibilities" negative human rights can
easily be restricted & even eliminated.
Furthermore, "in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and
basic responsibilities" are all tied to some imagined or real basic
tenets which may include whatever tradition or belief about segregation
that is at hand, i.e. the very opposite to freedom in the original UN
charter. The very fact that "obligations and responsibilities" are
mentioned and tied to "equal" opens up for inequality on the grounds of
sex. If dignity, obligations and responsibilities are coupled to sex it
inevitably means that they differ between the sexes.
So when Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
the Saudi islamofascists were already busy with the opposite task, i.e.
the original islam. In fact, the true nature of islam & its “Allah”
is now slowly emerging in all its evil infidel racism & sexist
confinement/rapetivism, easily traceable through 1400 years of heinous
crimes (incl. physical genocides, hundreds of millions murdered &
enslaved) against humanity, not to mention ethnic & cultural
genocides - still ongoing in Sudan etc.
Don't let Arabian oil wealth obscure the true nature of their backward
ideology - not because it's backward but because it's truly evil!
The stereotype of the “peaceful” muslim isn’t true. S/he isn’t
necessarily peaceful but rather ignorant about her own "religion" which
is in fact nothing but politics pretending as a faith.
Here's what Klevius wrote
Always this tiresome, empty but utterly laughable islam excuse "not all
muslims are..."! Quite the contrary, By calling yourself a muslim
believing in islam you inevitably also support OIC and Sharia, and, as a
consequence, violate Human Rights (see more about this fact below)!
This is Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, an Egyptian born Turkish islamist and
der Fuhrer of OIC, the Saudi initiated and based islamist organization
that has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia, and which
tries to criminalize all scrutiny of islam's atrocities! Are you for or
against him and OIC?
So let's rather talk about what real islam is really doing! I try to make it short and easy:
1 Real islam is today undeniably OIC (Organization of islamic
cooperation). OIC consists of 57 member states and has abandoned Human
Rights and replaced them with Sharia in the UN (a fact most ignorant
"revolutionaries" in the "Arabic spring" were quite misinformed about!
2 Because of the enormity of islam's slavery and genocide atrocities
throughout its existence, and because of the share numbers of those poor
(because of islam's innate parasitism and due impotency for producing
other than new muslims) people not daring (apostasy ban) calling
themselves other than "muslims", many feel it's impossibly to really
point out how disgusting islam really is!
Hence the only option is to cover it up by calling it "defamation of
religion" thus protecting islam from its own evilness.
It was pure evilness (hateful racism and sexism) that paved the way for
islam's original jihad slaughtering and enslaving and much later on,
under Malik, became Koran and Mohammedanism, i.e. the atrocities were
reformulated as "the will of Allah", i.e. blamed on "god".
Not only that, islam's specific evilness also consists of its one way
policy, i.e. that islam ideally wants to swallow individuals but never
let them out again. Likewise, for islam it's impossible to accept full
equality between the sexes. Especially this point makes it impossible
for islam to exist in a world that follows the 1948 Human Rights
declaration which clearly states that there should not be any limitation
because of an individuals sex etc.
Of course one could imagine a scenario were islam reforms in accordance
with the basic freedom principles in the original Human Rights
declaration. However, that would be the end of islam itself and Klevius
could immediately stop writing about it!
This ideal scenario, however, has been made impossible by Saudi based
OIC and those who naively or deliberately have supported it!
Every muslim who doesn't accept this must rename to non-Sharia muslim or
abandon muslimhood altogether.
