Why is evil Saudi Arabia supported in its extreme intolerance and racist hate of Shia muslims?
The prophetic terror slaughter of Jews and other "infidels" in Medina and elsewhere is at the core of islam
Violent jihadism against the "infidels" was the trade mark of prophet Muhammad and sharia (in whatever form) is always against themost basic Human Rights but compulsory to everyone wanting to call himself a muslim (a woman can never be fully muslim). Ask every muslim you encounter if he approves of sharia or Human Rights. If he says both he lies you straight up your infidel face!
No one in his full mind can argue that the original islamic expansionism was a jihad "in defense of islam". It was islamic jihad for conquest, enslavement and rapetivism period.
Wanna know the origin of islam? Look at the Islamic State!Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Islamic State doesn't have a sword on their flag!
Do the muslim test by asking them if they are against Human Rights. If they are not they are no real muslims, according to OIC (all muslims world Ummah) and every possible form of Sharia! And don't get yourself fooled by muslims (or their supporters) using the taqiya oxymoron islamic "human rights" because that is in fact sharia (see OIC's Cairo declaration 1990)!
In other words, a true muslim is then per definition always a supremacist racist and sexist individual through the tie to islam and Sharia. And there is no real islam without Sharia! Got it dude? And stop cheating yourself and others with that "moderate islam" crap, will you!
Nawaz said goodbye to all that in 2007, he says. In 2008, he and fellow defector Ed Husain founded Quilliam, a British “counter-extremism” foundation named for William Quilliam, a 19th-century British convert to Islam. Abdullah Quilliam, as he became known, opened the first British mosque on Christmas Day, 1889. “Co-exist,” right? It’s no stretch, however, to imagine Sheikh Quilliam at home in Hizb ut-Tahrir as a fatwa-issuing advocate of the caliphate and sharia both. He also issued a fatwa prohibiting Muslims from fighting for or assisting Britain (“contrary to the sharia”), then fighting Muslim tribes in the Sudan.
Scholar of Islam Andrew Bostom first brought these fatwas to my attention, but they are now accessible on Abdullah Quilliam’s Wikipedia page. Should we take a “counter-extremism” think tank in Quilliam’s name seriously? Could the name have been a mistake? Or is it a joke on gullible infidels? A wink to stealth jihadists?
This piqued my interest in Kelly’s Nawaz interview. Zeroing in on the ISIL beheading of Steven Satloff, she asked: “Where does their thinking come from? ... The first reaction many here in the United States and around the world had was these people who are doing this are psychopaths.”
Really? Such mystification wasn’t my first reaction. I know where their thinking comes from. It comes from Islam. Who doesn’t know that but the highly educated and politically empowered? Not for nothing does the immutable Koran say (Surah 47, Verse 4): “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite them at their necks,” among other directives of open-ended jihad. Then again, take the life of Muhammad, Islam’s “perfect man.” He followed his jihad campaign against the Qurayzah, a vanquished Jewish tribe, by beheading all of the 600 to 900 men in the tribe, setting the example for Muslims through the ages. Mohammed also condemned the tribe’s women and children to slavery, keeping some women for himself and his companions, which, bonus, set an example of jihad sex slavery.
Surely this suggests it’s the extremism of Islam that requires “countering.” Will Nawaz agree?
Of course not. In response to Kelly’s question, he repeatedly blames a generic “ideology” that must be “undermined.”
Kelly asks: “You can’t help but look at the killer and think, ‘How could he possibly have come from anything resembling humanity?’”
Nawaz replies: “Yes. Of course we’ve seen this before, we saw it with Nazism in Nazi Germany and that phrase, ‘the banality of evil.’”
Wait a sec. Have we been hearing “Allahu Akbar,” or “Heil Hitler” on all those Islamic snuff videos? Never mind. With a few cliches about “group think” and “the new normal,” Nawaz is back to calling on society to work “to undermine the ideology that underpins (these acts).”
Kelly asks: “Do you feel the Muslim community has been vocal enough in doing that?”
Nawaz pivots in reply. “I think no one’s been vocal enough. I mean, look, Muslims need to do more, but so, frankly, does President Obama.” He then raps Obama for announcing he had no Islamic State strategy — but, hey, our best pundits have no state of Islam conversation. “So, Obama needs to do more,” Nawaz continues. “Mainstream society needs to do more. One way in which mainstream society can do more is to accept that this isn’t a clash of civilizations between Islam and the Western world. But in fact, it’s an intra-religious struggle within Islam.”
My ears pricked up. “Accept” what? Answer: that this crisis of our age, the Islamization of the West, is only so much intra-Islamic jockeying. That we should shut up about the demonstrably Islamic nature of the attacks on the West, on our liberties, our security, on our allies, our children, our law and culture, and not fight back against them. “Accept” that Muslims will work it all out among themselves —not that Islam, of course, has anything to do with it.
This is dangerous, deceptive nonsense. Then again, how might Nawaz’s way work? One quick way to “counter” “extremism” is to prevent ISIL fighters from returning to their Western countries by canceling their passports. But Nawaz opposes this no-brainer. On Twitter, he called it unimaginative, adding: “Passports can be faked.” Huh?
Quilliam co-founder Ed Husain (now at the Council on Foreign Relations) elaborated in an op-ed. Canceling passports of “hardline Islamists,” he wrote, could cause them to target the U.K. because they would see Britain as having “nullified” their “apd al amaan” — or “covenant of security” — which they believe Britain offers.
Thus, what amounts to an “extremist” protection racket should remain in place, at least according to the “counter-extremism” specialists.
Here's what Klevius wrote about Saudi Arabia's violent islamofascist flag
Friday, December 10, 2010
For your information! December 06, 2009 Klevius wrote: "It was probably islam, not Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito who murdered Meredith Kerchner". The murder was most probably influenced by Saudi/Koranic hate mongering!
Saudi Anthropologist Sa'd Al-Sowayan suggests removing the jihad sword from Saudi flag. However, Klevius suggests removing islam!
Klevius question to the Chinese (and the World): Why did the Chinese workers in Mecca have to convert to islam to finish what the Arab muslims were incapable of doing?! And what about the islamic apostasy ban? Can these workers drop islam when finished without breaking the Sharia of the "guardians of islam"?!
Klevius question: How many of these know what they are really bowing for?
The koranic (2:256) "there is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi d-dini) is generally misunderstood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith.
However, the circumstances governing the origin of islam differed from those of today so that presuppositions for religious tolerance made no sense other than as beneficial for parasitism. Today islam has to fight against the unbeatable* logic of the universal Negative Human Rights.
The real original meaning was that no one can be compelled to islam (the “right” belief). Koran, then, doesn’t proclaim tolerance, but rather an emphasize on the importane of a rigid and heavily ritualised belief in Mohammed’s gangsta gang (im)moral.
Contemporary islam apologetics’ naïve or deliberate “interpretation” of “no compulsion in religion” as religious tolerance, only contributes to the widespread misunderstanding of islam’s true original nature, and due danger it poses.
* “Unbeatable” precisely because they lack content, i.e. are filled with freedom. Moreover,they stay in direct opposition to the positive impositions in islam/Sharia. We cannot rigidly settle for any particular moral axiom in an inevitably changing world. Laws, no matter if “man made” or “god’s will”, will hence also change. So why put “allah” in between and then call the change “interpretation” or “adaptation”?!