The heart of Britain is choosing between sharia islamofascism and - sharia isalmofascism
Soon London will have its first islamofascist (i.e. sharia) Mayor -.
and if he wouldn't win (which is extremely unlikely considering how he
is supported by Labour), a Jew would step in and defend
muslims sharia islam.
Isn't it remarkable how far British "diversity" politics has come. One
sixth of UK (and much more when it comes to influence) will be steered
by someone representing a tiny minority of the population. And in the
case of Khan, someone who represents values (sharia) that according to
the soon previous Mayor Boris Johnson "is absolutely unacceptable in the
UK".
It was Jews and Jewish Christians who let loose the bloodthirsty
illiterate Arab speaking Bedouins (see Ibn-Khaldun, islam's main
historian) and copied the Roman system of enslaving, taxing, and
segregating themselves from those "dhimmis" who were colonized (see the
Roman garrison practice).
Historically Jews (incl. Jewish believers in Jesus) have always paved
the way for islamofascist conquest. The first on being in Medina where
eventually Muhammad slaughtered and raped all the Jews.
Klevius wrote:
Klevius (the world's foremost authority on sex apartheid - sad isn't
it) to all the world's women on women's day: Here's your main enemy
exemplified as a timid "mosque mouse"!
Sharia islam is never good for your Human Rights if you are a woman. But
willing whores and deceptive but off the point talks may well lure many
women still.
But the more important question is: Can you as a woman face your own sex apartheid history fully?
The origin of islam was plundering and raping booty jihad along Jewish slave trade routes.
Here's an approximate map of Judaism (i.e. essentially Judaic slave trade) just before the origin of islam.
And below an approximate map of the violent muslim colonization in the foot steps of the Jewish slave trade routes.
The above maps could be almost
identical if produced with same techniques. This is no coincident but
due to the "mysterious" code (the Jews) that made Arab imperialism
possible and historical analysis impossible ("mysterious") if not
included.
Except for Khazaria, Jews were more business orientated than eager to
waive swords compared to their copycats the Arab Bedouins. However,
without wealthy and influential Jews leading the bloodthirsty and
illiterate Bedouins (compare Ibn-Khaldun's description) and paving the
way for the Arab looters (compare how the Jews used Turkic people in
Khazaria in pretty much the same manner) the "Arab conquest" would have
quickly dried out in the Arabian sand.
Dear reader. When reading Klevius analysis of the origin of islam, do always keep in mind the following important facts:
1 There was no Koran - only some Jewish/Christian text manipulations.
2 There was no Muhammad - only the old Jewish Messias (the
rescuer/saver/leader) myth. Muhammad as described by muslims is a later
invention snd doesn't appear in any official documents whatsoever before
Malik.
3 Conventional "descriptions" of the "Arab conquest" are impossible and
leave historians "amazed". Instead looting, booty, and sex slaves were
the main incentives for the Bedouins. What was new was a more tight
racist system of "we-and-the-other" which hindered (for a time) hindered
internal divisions. On top of this was the Dhimmitude taxation system
under the sword.
4 Understanding these point is also understanding that islam originated
as a parasite and therefore never functioned as inspiration in itself
for innovations etc. This is why every islamic colony has ended in
bachwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able
to drain a whole continent.
Klevius will tell you much more later. Keep tuned and excited!
A little, timidly nonsense speaking Swedish "reformist" Shia muslim
"professor"* who rides on the non-muslim world's longing for "nice
muslims".
* Klevius uses 'professor' only re. scientific researchers. Mixing in a "god" isn't science.
Whereas few women believe in the Islamic State, some morons still
believe in the oxymoron "reformed islam". To understand the
impossibility of a civilized islam one only has to go to its evil origin
(as Klevius has done since 9/11). And if you for some strange reason
don't want to listen to the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid -
and therefore also islam -just take a closer lookj to what BBC and
others don't want to talk about.
And you may laugh this Saudi billionaire hoodlum away as a Saudi joke but then you miss the very point, namely that:
1 OIC's sharia includes both the Saudi sharia as well as any other
sharia that fulfills the lofty definition of the Cairo declaration.
2 The main reason (except for protecting the Saudi and other muslim
nations medieval systems) for OIC's sharia declaration was that the 1948
Universal* Human Rights Declaration gives women full equality with men,
which fact made it impossible for islam in whatever sharia form.
* There's a dumb view presented for
even dumber people that the UN declaration was "Western made" and
therefore biased. Nothing could be more wrong. The paper and the pen may
have been "Western made" but the content is from scratch made
deliberately "non-Western" i.e. universal. Educate yourself!
Unlike many other forms of sexism, muslim sexism is pure racism: Muslim
women in every single variant of possible sharia islam are always
treated as "the other".
A Shia muslim that is on the extreme fringe of Shia muslims and not even
considered a muslim by the majority of the world's Sunni muslims, incl,
most muslim so called "scholars".
A pathetic and disgusting Human Rights denier who "accuses" basic and
universal Human Rights for being bad "because they came out of the
West". Ok, cars etc. also came out of the West and yes, he could blame
them for some pollution etc. and call it "post-colonialism". But how on
earth could you possibly deny the logic of the negative (basic) Human
Rights, or deny them because they "came out of the West". Well the
reason "they came out of the West" is that the islam contaminated parts
of the world didn't give them a chance to come out there.
So is he an outright lier trying to camouflage islam's incompatibility
with the most basic of Human Rights- or is he, like so many muslims,
incredibly dumb/ignorant/brainwashed?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and
filosophy (sic)* at Uppsala University in Sweden: There are some
essential norms in the Koran that can be used to protect human dignity
in different ways depending on time and cisrumstances.
* As Wittgenstein already pointed out, philosophy is a difficult
discipline even without trying to squeeze in a God scheme in it. And
even more so when the "God" is totally out of reach and only exists as
differing human "interpretations".
Klevius: "Protecting" women from having access to full Human Rights? And
"human dignity" should be read "muslim male dignity" added by the
important "who is interpreted as being a true muslim" which could, as we
all know, vary quite a lot among muslims. Moreover, what about the
dignity of non-muslims? Either you let muslims "interpret" it or you
skip islam alltogether, because here lies the real difference between
Human Rights that gives every Atheist or whatever person (even muslims)
equal rights, and sharia islam which openly violates these rights, as
can be seen, for example, in Saudi based and steered OIC's (all muslim's
main world organization) official abandoning of Human Rights in UN.
Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and
racist/sexist "muslimn filosophy" can't possibly be unaware of OIC, the
muslim world's biggest and most important institution, can he!
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: That islam is good can be proved by comparing it to the illiterate Arab speaking bedouins.
Klevius: Is that really a good enough standard as reference?
Mohammad Fazlhashemi: There's no logical connection between a muslim's belief and a muslim's rights.
Klevius: Apart from the fact that most muslims completely disagree with
you, why do you then keep asking for muslim's rights? Why should
muslim's have special rights because of their "beliefs"?
And here's this small minded muslim reformist's Shia source:
Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari: I do not call for a separation of politics
and religion. Of course there should be cooperation between them.
Klevius: Cooperation between Human Rights violating sharia and
politicians representing Human Rights doesn't sound very reformist, does
it.
From an interview with Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari (spiced with Klevius
comments): The way of life in Medina and Mecca was quite simple. But
what took place then cannot be a model for today's world. Nowadays,
Muslims live in intelligent social systems, in which there is a wide
diversity of institutions. This requires us to develop a proper plan
with the aid of reason. This is not something that can be derived from
the Koran.
Klevius: At least he seems to admit that the slaughtering of all the
Jews in Medina wasn't a good "model". Or did he mean something else? The
muslim booty and sex jihad?
"During its Golden Age, Islam was known for highly controversial and
pluralistic debates. Today, the reality in many Muslim countries is
quite different. There is little freedom of thought.. What can be done
to promote more freedom of thought in Muslim countries?"
Klevius: The "golden age" was just the same as today, i.e. muslims
sponging on resources they haven't themselves created. Slaves back then -
oil and Western welfare today. More than 90% of the economy in Andalus
was based on slavery - fully in line with islam's original enslavement
formula: "Infidels" (i.e. non-muslims and women) could be enslaved
because Muhammad had heard Allah (via an angel though) saying so.
Shabestari: Freedom of experession all depends on whether a people has
politically developed to such an extent that it understands what freedom
is. Then it will demand freedom of expression. Even now there is a
great tendency towards freedom in Islamic countries. Yet, why it hasn't
truly developed is another question. This has to do with political
hurdles and the system of government in these countries. It is more of a
cultural difficulty than a difficulty related to Islam or religion in
general. Unfortunately, this is a retrograde cultural reality.
Klevius: Admittedly Hillary Clinton's sharia campaign against freedom of
expression represents "a retrograde cultural reality". However, how
could it possibly not be directly connected to islam itself when she
works for the world's biggest and most fundamental islam representing
organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC?!
"The Arab protest movements are associated by many people, both within
these countries and also abroad, with the hope for democracy. Others
(muslims) say that Islam fundamentally forbids democracy."
Klevius: Yet it's all islam and muslims - no matter what it stands for.
As a consequence it encompasses both the most evil of muslims as well as
those "muslims" who can't be distinguished from non-muslims other than
by name. And this state of affairs is of course most handy for the most
evil of muslims.
Islam's willing whores - a threat to women's Human Rights equality
As it stands now a woman, Hillary Clinton, is by far the worst option
for the freedom and emancipation of US women. Hillary not only approves
of sharia blasphemy laws but also of sharia as over ruling women's full
Human Rights (just check OIC's sharia declaration).