How many millions of victims has the Saudi's islamic hate mongering caused?
Muslims are committing a continuing open and stealthy global Holocaust - but BBC warns for "right-wingers"and "islamophobia"
The new Holocaust is already here and the perpetrators are muslims*, yet few seem to realize because islam inspired street jihad is covered up by the help of muslim "sensitivities" and "islamophobia" accusations.
* Just as the old Holocaust perpetrators were Germans. Or "radical" Germans, if you insist. Or would you prefer "radical" Nationalsocialists (like "radical" islamists?
Saudi Abdullah & Co constitute the main source for the ongoing global hate crime wave called street jihadism.
Even with a microscope you won't find any main differences between Saudi Wahhabi islam and that of the Islamic State.
If the Islamic State is happy with just being the new Guardians of islam and not bothering Human Rights loving civilized people - let'em have it!
So what about muslims outside the caliphate?
Simple, just give them the choice between sharia and Human Rights. If they prefer the latter everything is fine because then they are no longer any islam supporters. And if they prefer sharia then they can't feel at home in a society based on Human Rights and therefore should have the right to enter the caliphate instead.
I'm confident the Islamic State would eagerly accept our terms if they can be sure we leave them alone in what is now Saudi Arabia. We could then continue the usual commerce, however now without hate preaching jihadist mosques on our own streets.
Sooner or later the caliphate will fall apart anyway because of its inherent impossibility - just as all other evil islamic caliphates throughout history. But why bother as long as the muslims keep it within the borders of their Ummah and don't mess with civilized people.
The chocking ignorance about the inevitable difference between islam/sharia and Human Rights
Here Klevius uses Kamilia Lahrichi as an example of this bottomless ignorance (or taqiya?/islamophilia). The word 'stupid' is chosen because it signals a less deliberate confusion.
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Human rights may not be applicable or relevant to Islamic countries because international law originated in the practices of Western states.
Klevius: No! Because islam is built on racist/sexist principles that Human Rights steers EVERYONE away from!
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Islam does not deal with individual rights like in the West. The Quran refers to Muslims as part of the Ummah (i.e. community of believers).
Klevius: At least you got that right.
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Human rights need to be embedded in social practices to ensure compliance.
Klevius: Terribly wrong again! Racism and sexism ARE social practices! Basic Human Rights (so called negative rights) are above social practices. Driving against red light may be a social practice somewhere.
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In March 2000, hundreds of thousands of Moroccan women marched in Casablanca against the government’s National Plan to Integrate Women in Development. This project aimed at “removing the conditions of inequality between men and women” by limiting polygamy, abolishing repudiation and ensuring economic security for women after a divorce.
Klevius: There you see, women abused by islam is the key to islam's survival. Muslim women do their utmost to strangle other women in their own sharia jail.
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): One possible way to enforce international human rights law in Muslim countries is to integrate it into the domestic law.
Klevius: Precisely what Saudi based OIC with its Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani have done by abandoning Human Rights in UN and calling sharia "islamic human rights"!
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Liberal interpretations of the Sharia prove that international human rights law is applicable to Islamic states.
Klevius: Just exactly the contrary! Both OIC and the support for the Islamic State prove you dead wrong. You are trying the old muslim trick that says: We should only look at the parts we agree on, not the parts we disagree on. As for example women's rights, right. No?
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Islamic countries need therefore to find the right balance between religion and respect of individual rights like gender equality.
Klevius: 'Gender equality' is a stupid oxymoron, but how could poor you possibly have known from your confused feminist/islamophilia standpoint. You probably mean equality between the sexes. No, that's not possible in a muslim society simply because then it wouldn't be a muslim community anymore!
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In Islam, human rights do not take place in the same secular setting. It deals with duties toward God.
Klevius: Not exactly, in islam Allah is completely removed from any practical issues. God doesn't simply exist in living islam, period.
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): The concept of “freedom” in Islam is different from the modern concept of individual freedom, a legacy of European Enlightenment promoted in the Charter of the United Nations.
Klevius: Read Negative Human Rights definition by Klevius and get a little bit less ignorant! The sooner the better...
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Muslim jurists can interpret Islamic law in a way that is consistent with international human rights law.
Klevius: Never ever! There is no place on the map where that would be possible. Not only has Saudi based and steered OIC proved you wrong via UN but more importantly, what would be left of islam if it had to comply with basic Human Rights? Absolutely nothing. As Linus Thorvald (a Finland-Swede like Klevius) used to put it: Talk is cheap - show me the code!
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): International human rights law puts pressure on Muslim countries to split their judicial system to weaken the influence of the Sharia.
Klevius: No, but Klevius, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and a few others do by pointing out the impossibility of islam's racist/sexist hate agenda in a civilized society based on all humans equality..
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): International law needs to become more pluralistic to reflect the interests and perceptions of all nations, like in Africa or Asia. International law is not a fixed institution but a multilateral development that must be applicable to all.
Klevius: There you go! Now she talks like a Saudi wahhabi imam. And as you know, defending Human Rights is considered a terrorist crime in Saudi Arabia and can easily lead to loosing one's head. She, however, would be safe there with that kind of sharia support.
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Muslim scholars did not know for some time the legal meaning as well as the political and philosophical concept of freedom.
Klevius: What 'muslim scholars'?! They are Koranic myth readers, not scholars. Historical facts (or lack of facts) that do not fit islam have no room in their "scholarship".
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Muslims are denied political authority unlike their Western counterparts.
Klevius: Denied by what? By islamic submission of course.
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Power structure as well as social and economic relationships in Western states are based upon individual autonomy, equality, free choice and secularism.
Klevius: And the most successful in technology was Japan - a country that used to be as far from islam you can get.
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): This notion of political authority directly conflicts with the Islamic principle of political justice. In Muslim countries, authority resides with the people but did not originate with them. God defines political power.
Klevius: And "god" is always absent or secondary to "god's" human interpretors.
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In Islam, the individual is not the main actor in the development of domestic and international laws. The Muslim man or woman exists only as a part of the broader Islamic community. For instance, the Islamic veil or the burqa – which cloaks the entire body – hides a woman’s identity behind her function: she is a daughter, a wife and a mother.
Klevius: Never an individual. Moreover, there are no such creatures as 'muslim women' - only muslim men and their sex slaves who have to entertain them and foster their (the muslim men's) sons to new muslim men!
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Hence, there is no room left for international law to rule behaviors in Islamic societies. In other words, the Islamic world repudiates the very foundation of international law.
Klevius: Just as the basic Human Rights repudiate islam. Only difference being that Human Rights cover equally all individuals while islam/sharia only covers (the "right") muslims.
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): The historical context in which the Sharia was developed in 622 A.D. explains – although it does not legitimize – Muslim states’ conservative position on human rights.
Klevius: But isn't this precisely what you (unknowingly?!) mean by the 'cultural context' we have to "understand"!
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Pre-Islamic societies in Arabia, in the early seventh century A.D., lived in the age of ignorance (“Jahiliyyah” in Arabic). Immorality and sexual debauchery abounded.
Klevius: Indeed! This is the root origin of islam's evilness. Immorality and sexual debauchery utilized for the purpose of robbery and pillaging etc that we now sort under the title 'muslim conquest'.
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): Notwithstanding indications (sic) in Islamic texts that women held high positions in society, gender discrimination was widespread. Arabs practiced female infanticide and polygamy, for example. Women could seldom choose their husband, divorce freely or inherit from their family.
Klevius: Female infanticide was stopped because islam values sex slavery and the reproductive power of females. And to make this reproductive power into male muslims sharia apartheid was needed. In the non-historical islamic mythology Mohammad's wife Khadija was a very successful merchant before the birth of islam. It is said that when the Quraysh's trade caravans gathered to embark upon their summer journey to Syria or winter journey to Yemen, Khadija's caravan equalled the caravans of all other traders of the Quraysh put together. She was known by the by-names Ameerat-Quraysh ("Princess of Quraysh"), al-Tahira ("The Pure One") and Khadija Al-Kubra (Khadija "the Great"). It is said that she fed and clothed the poor, assisted her relatives financially and provided marriage portions for poor relations. And all of this happened BEFORE islam!
Kamilia Lahrichi (a very stupid rights "analyst" or, alternatively, just out to confuse you for the sake of islam): In light of this, Muslim countries have contended that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fails to take into account the cultural and historical context of Islamic states. They say that Muslims cannot implement the declaration without transgressing Islamic law.
Klevius: Just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fails to take into account the cultural and historical context of the Islamic State, which btw exactly follows the same islam as Saudi Arabia!
Reading what Kamilia Lahrichi really says reveals that she at any moment could be a servant for the Saudi mufti.
Under Human Rights a woman may choose to lead a sharia style life if she so wishes. However, under sharia women may not choose to lead a life free from sharia limitations. So why do women want to impose sharia restrictions on other women by asking for sharia law?! Klevius' only explanation is muslim racism against the global ethnic community of believers in freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment