How can the Brits protect themselves against Sayeeda Warsi's Saudi backed humanrightsophobic Shariade

A non-elected muslim extremist, Sayeeda Warsi, is robbing Brits (incl. Sharia opposing muslims) of their Human Rights* 

 * Always remember that Sharia in OIC's Cairo declaration is called "islamic human rights", i.e. despite they are just the opposite to the most basic of Human Rights!

The islamofascist propaganda war today resembles the German National-socialists' (aka Nazis) of the 1930s. 

Sayeeda Warsi and the Saudi based OIC's islamofascist agenda

Concerns have been raised by the National Secular Society that the UK's stance on free speech could be compromised by an agreement signed at the United Nations between UK and the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC).

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi – the new "Minister for Faith" - and pledges that the UK and the OIC will "work together on issues of peace, stability and religious freedom."

At present, the OIC is agitating at the United Nations for a global blasphemy law that would make criticising or satirising religion a punishable offence.

Terry Sanderson: Baroness Warsi needs to be challenged on her theocratic ambitions. We think it is important to track what the Government is doing in our name, and so we are reproducing below a statement by Baroness Warsi that was published in The Tablet this week.

You will remember that Baroness Warsi is the rather elaborately titled "Senior Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Minister for Faith and Communities."

You will also remember that she is not an elected Government Minister. There is absolutely no evidence that a post of "Minister for Faith" is wanted or necessary. On the contrary, recent research showed that 71% of Briton's do not want religion and politics to mix and they don't want religious leaders involved in policy-making.

All this talk of Britain being a Christian nation is a fantasy employed by Baroness Warsi and other pious politicians to push forward their own religious agendas.

Warsi says that she thinks it is important for all religions to respect each other and for atheists to respect religions. That's fair enough, but then she goes on to make the familiar claim that religion is under attack and that there are "increasing movements to drive faith from the public square". As usual no convincing evidence is brought forward to support this.

We know that the Government has been at loggerheads with religious bodies on a number of issues in recent years, and we suspect that Baroness Warsi's "Minister for Faith" role has been invented to appease them. She has already had meetings with the Pope, the Archbishops of Westminster and Canterbury and has signed a pact with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation assuring them that that Britain will co-operate on issues of "religious freedom" (a concept that has not been defined, but takes on a sinister hue in relation to the OIC).

Although the Baroness's job may merely be to flatter "faith leaders" with the impression that they are being listened to, we fear such an enthusiast for religious power in politics may still manage to cause irreparable damage before the post is quietly abandoned.

It is always dangerous for governments to become entangled with religions.

We are all for co-operation between nations to try to foster peace and understanding, but the concept of 'religious freedom' is one that the OIC has distorted to mean restrictions on free expression.

We hope that by signing this document the UK will not in any way compromise its commitment to human rights – particularly the human right to free speech. The British Government has been steadfast in its opposition to the OIC's blasphemy proposals up until now. We hope that this document will not change that in any way.

A leading humanrightsophobe and homophobe representing Britain

Unelected extremist muslim as lead minister responsible for islam, Sharia, OIC, UN and the International Criminal Court -  scary is just the prelude!

Secular Society: Sayeeda Warsi's other remit – as well as being 'Minister for Faith' – is at the Foreign Office and includes being the lead minister responsible for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Central Asia, the UN, the International Criminal Court and the OIC, which is the largest multi-lateral organisation in the world after the UN.

She became the first British minister to speak at the OIC's conference in June 2011 in Astana, Kazakstan. Previously she had hosted the secretary-general of the OIC in London and visited its secretariat in Jeddah, while she was in Saudi Arabia for performing Hajj. This led to the appointment of Britain's first special representative to the organisation and its 57 members. Baroness Warsi has visited Pakistan five times during the past two and a half years in government, a country which was so central to the formation of the Islamic Conference.

In the landmark agreement there is a particular emphasis on promoting the "key role Muslims have played in shaping modern Britain" and encouraging Muslim communities to play a key role at all levels in public life.

She also praised the Framework Co-operation Agreement, signed with the OIC's secretary-general, for its focus on promoting inter-religious understanding and interfaith dialogue, especially as these are two vital areas in the senior minister's new governmental role.
Terry Sanderson commented: "There is certainly a need for some kind of inter-religious understanding among OIC member states, a number of which suppress Christianity and other religions in a brutal and merciless fashion.
"The blasphemy law which is being proposed by the OIC on behalf of its members would be an entirely dangerous and regressive step if it were to be approved at the UN. It is quite clear that it would be used to persecute and oppress non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority countries, as the domestic blasphemy law in Pakistan does at present.

Mr Sanderson continued: "In Egypt the blasphemy laws are also used to get rid of political opponents and are sometimes used as a means of revenge by neighbours or colleagues who are in dispute. We do not need this kind of primitive legislation in our democracies and we need reassurance from our Government that their resolve remains unaffected by the signing of this agreement with the OIC."

Demand for additional resources - the key to civilizations

New "research"

PNAS May 28, 2013 vol. 110 no. 22

Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene

Samuel Bowles, and Jung-Kyoo Choi

The advent of farming around 12 millennia ago was a cultural as well as technological revolution, requiring a new system of property rights. Among mobile hunter–gatherers during the late Pleistocene, food was almost certainly widely shared as it was acquired. If a harvested crop or the meat of a domesticated animal were to have been distributed to other group members, a late Pleistocene would-be farmer would have had little incentive to engage in the required investments in clearing, cultivation, animal tending, and storage. However, the new property rights that farming required—secure individual claims to the products of one’s labor—were infeasible because most of the mobile and dispersed resources of a forager economy could not cost-effectively be delimited and defended. 

 

The resulting chicken-and-egg puzzle might be resolved if farming had been much more productive than foraging, but initially it was not. Our model and simulations explain how, despite being an unlikely event, farming and a new system of farming-friendly property rights nonetheless jointly emerged when they did. This Holocene revolution was not sparked by a superior technology. It occurred because possession of the wealth of farmers—crops, dwellings, and animals—could be unambiguously demarcated and defended. This facilitated the spread of new property rights that were advantageous to the groups adopting them.

Klevius comment: I'm surprised not to find myself in their citation list although I did this work deeper and more carefully already back in 1992 (available on line since 2004) with some assistance by George Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge).

I quote from my 1992 summary: Sedentism is a consequence of expanded demands for resources (EDFR) but not a necessary outcome. What was needed was a suitable climate with domesticable plants/animals (i.e. what was missing in other places during late Pleistocene/early Holocene, which produced high quality artefacts and sofisticated cultural traits without evolving into what we use to name civilizations). Why have humans been both progressive and static in their cultural development over time, and how is this connected to evolution? You want/demand what you need but you do not necessarily need what you want/demand. The latter is here described as Expanded Demand For Resources (EDFR). By using this as a basis a new way of characterizing human societies/cultures becomes possible. Departing from C. Levi-Strauss idea on "warm" and "cold" societies, civilized societies are here described as representing dynamics, hence contrasting against the more static appearance of the economic setting (lack of investment) of e.g. hunter-gatherers. As a result the following categories emerge:

A. Uncivilized without EDFR

B Affected by EDFR but still retaining a simplistic, "primitive" way of life.

C. Civilized with EDFR

These categories are, of course, only conceptual. Applied to a conventional classification the following pattern appears:

1 The "primitive" stage when all were hunter/gatherers (A, according to EDFR classification).

2 Nomads (A, B, C).

3 Agrarians (B, C).

4 Civilized (C).

Evil is inherent in islam

Is Sayeeda Warsi Britain's most dangerous extremist?

The mosque rat and the moderate mosque mouse

Sayeeda Warsi is the high priest of the "islamophobia" doctrine* in England. She is also an eager supporter of Saudi based OIC and their effort to implement Sharia all over the world via UN as well as criminalizing criticism against islam, the worst crime ever against humanity.

* The islamophobia doctrine uses the proportionally extremely few incidents against muslims by deranged individuals, as an excuse for their real target, namely those who defend Human Rights. This already fulfills the most important criterion for fascism!

A British islam defender on BBC Radio 4 reveals his extreme hypocrisy and bigotry by stating that only the belief in a "god" can protect from moral disintegration because secularism is based on human wills and interpretations.

Klevius: So what about the Bible and the Koran?! Who reads them without will and interpretation?! No, my dear idiot, it's just the other way round. Whereas negative Human Rights protects you from the wills and interpretations of others, the Koran imposes them on everyone involved. From muslim girls/women in marital sex slavery to non-muslims who have to tip-toe when encountering muslim racism.


Muslims use to say: "Killing of innocent people has no place in islam". However, they forget to mention that Sharia determines who is "innocent".


Clive Kessler, who is emeritus (of course, who else working professor would/could dare to speak out) professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of NSW: YES, following last week's horror in Woolwich it is correct to point out that there are Muslims and there is Islam. And that they are not always the same thing.

But it is no good to say such acts have nothing to do with Islam. It is an evasion to assert such acts are based on "extremist" misconceptions and deviations, not "true Islam", or are responses to "Islamophobia".

Nor will it do to say (as British Prime Minister David Cameron did) that such acts have no place or basis in Islam, that this act dishonours and misrepresents Islam, that it is "a betrayal of Islam".

"This was not just an attack on Britain - and on our British way of life. It was also a betrayal of Islam," he said. "There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act," he added.

True, there are Muslims and there is Islam, and they are not the same. But Muslims must acknowledge their ownership of Islamic history, cultivate what is good in it and take a clear stand against what is not.

Modern Muslims, especially in the West, must be prepared to clearly acknowledge from where the evils, such as last week's depravity, have come.

Klevius: "Muslims must acknowledge their ownership of Islamic history, cultivate what is good in it and take a clear stand against what is not." A terrible mistake, dear professor emeritus. This is precisely the kernel of the problem! There is no good whatsoever in islam. Good is replaced witd god!

However, Kessler falls short of fully understanding the inevitable logic in the early history of islam. I.e. the fact that it's precisely those now troublesome parts of the Koran that made it ticking.

Islam is Jihad

Robert Spencer: Nidal Malik Hasan the U.S. Army psychiatrist (sic) who murdered thirteen people at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009 in the name of Islam and jihad, is still be fighting his jihad.

In Islamic theology, jihad warfare is fard kifaya, an obligation of the community as a whole but not of every individual believer. Jihad becomes fard ayn, obligatory on every individual Muslim to aid in some way, when a Muslim land is attacked. Many Muslims around the world today consider that Muslim lands have indeed been attacked, because of the American presence in Afghanistan and the very existence of the State of Israel. The most serious and devout among them will see those attacks and making incumbent upon them the responsibility to wage jihad warfare against the Infidels.

A military judge ruled that Hasan could be forcibly shaved, and he most certainly would have been had he not been a Muslim. But he is a Muslim, and so his attorneys were able to charge that that judge was overcome by “Islamophobia” to the detriment of his duty when he ruled that Hasan be shaved, and was summarily removed from the case. The new judge, Colonel Tara Osborn, was more sensitive to the multicultural imperatives involved here, and ruled that Army regulations had to give way to Islamic law, and Hasan could keep his beard.

The fact that Hasan murdered thirteen people for the same reason he grew the beard -- because of his Islamic faith – doesn’t seem to have entered into her calculations.

 Not only that. The very core idea in original islam was to codify parasitism for the purpose of defending one's, even back then, evil acts by the help of racism (the infidel). And this original formula is inherent in islam and cannot be removed without completely altering islam itself to something else.


And here is the murderous racist and sexist root problem, Saudi Arabia, the "guardian of islam". This is the homeland of most of the bloodshed in the muslim world and elsewhere.

From mosque mice to mosque rats

How many muslim terrorists are needed in Britsh MI5/MI6 to eradicate "islamophobia"?

Theresa May ponders how to exterminate mosque rats - and thinks giving money to mosque mice will do. But young rats may look almost as innocent as do mice.

In a BBC news program today a politician said that extremist non-British citizens should be immediately put on a plane. And although the muslim terrorist whom they talked about was a fluently English speaking British citizen born in England, BBC's female program host did no effort whatsoever to question this remarkable lack of balance.


From a Human Rights perspective Sharia is extremism and its supporters consequently extremists

There is a repetitive myth that "most muslims don't have extremist views". But if you consider Sharia as extremism - and you ought to if you prescribe to Human Rights - then a majority of British muslims have extremist views. And most of them are fluently English speaking British citizens.

UK wants to give more money to mosque mice, altough well knowing that it will only produce more mosque rats.

Sharia is "promoting extremist views".

The often used oxymoron "wants to impose a strict version of Sharia" is a lame effort to make it look as there is "moderate Sharia". But no, there isn't! Ask OIC! No Sharia is compatible with basic Human Rights!


Fascism can only thrive when it's fed  by the state

Given British consular support in Kenya British MI5 tried to recruit UK born muslim terrorist Michael “Mujaheed” Adebolajo who together with an accomplice brutally murdered and decapitated a British soldier in broad daylight on a London street while shouting “Allahu akbar” (compare "Heil Hitler") and saying he murdered for the sake of muslims.

Those in charge failed to realise that Michael Adebolajo, one of the Woolwich suspects, represented a serious threat to national security, even though the services had been tracking him for years.

Theresa May knew that the Koran reciting British born and educated muslim terrorist Michael Adebolajo was arrested in Kenya for terrorism. She knew for long that he was a serious threat also in Britain. Yet she didn't do anything - except, of course, trying to hire him to the secret police that is supposed to keep the Brits safe (gives a glimpse of the qualification criterion, doesn't it).

However, it appears that had she only had access to all Brits emails and telephones everything should have been different and the poor slain and decapitated British soldier would be still alive, or...

Theresa May: "We do need to look, for example, at the question of whether perhaps we need to have banning orders to ban organisations that don't meet the threshold for proscription." Tighter rules could also be imposed on internet service providers. "One of the issues we need to look at is whether we have got the right processes, the right rules in place in relation to what is being beamed into people's homes".

 A new terror task force to crack down on extremism is also planned. And when this group has enough muslims, a qualified guess would be that there would be little room for chasing islamists because all resources would be consumed by muslim groups defending islam, in accordance with Sharia, against "islamophobes" i.e. Human Rights defenders.

Human Rights or Sharia (islamofascism) - you decide. Take your responsibility and kick out fascist politicians! The Germans didn't.

Fascism in our time

BBC is "concerned" about too much talking about "isolated" muslim terrorists - but talks a lot about BNP, EDF and "islamophobia"

Sweden seems also invaded by mosque mice.

Politicians and media shout in unison with mosque mice: It's ABSOLUTELY not islam!

And all of this no matter that the British born muslim terrorists, who slew and decapitated a British soldier on an open street in broad daylight in London outside a military barrack, had learned to recite the Koran and that they themselves said they were muslims and did their evil acts for the sake of other muslims and islam, and that even MI5 had considered them true muslims and therefore had even offered them jobs within MI5!

And while muslim-wing street terrorists continue burning Stockholm, Swedish police attack "right-wing" demonstrators. The pattern is always the same. Muslims start riots and when someone complains about it they will be attacked by muslims and then police attack, not muslims, but the "right-winged" "islamophobes". And when among these "islamophobes" there are a few really stupid ones, just like among muslims, these stupid "islamophobes" are used to generalize all "right-wing" and/or "islamophobic" protesters, whereas the muslim ones are called (if anything at all) "extremists" which have nothing to do with islam.

Klevius comment: Ever, like me, wondered how National-socialist fascism was possible in Germany? Well, you have the answer right in front of you. Propaganda!

And the most evil of this propaganda is that, just like in Germany, it's always the most evil of an inherently evil (i.e. anti Human Rights) ideology that will prevail. So by using non-representative (i.e. superficial or secular, if you like) muslims to describe islam leaves the stage open for evil muslims and evil islam. On Western streets as well as globally

UK PM and BBC think muslim terrorism has nothing to do with islam

Has Britain also been invaded by mosque mice?

UK PM Cameron and his Minister of Faith: "It's got nothing to do with islam light"! Klevius. "It's got everything to do with original islam"!

Islam is "the bigger plot", stupid!

BBC isn't sure whether the murdering and decapitating of a British soldier on a London street by two home grown Koran reciting muslims who are British citizens and who said they did it for muslims in the name of Allah, is connected to religion!

BBC also describes the muslim/islam led riots in Stockholm as "possibly involving some muslims"!

The evil pops up through the poorly wrapped package of bigotry and hypocrisy that is meant to cover true islam

Muslim Sayeeda Hussain Warsi wants to increase Syria's death toll by proposing more weapons to the islamist jihadi fighters

Sayeeda Warsi: We are stepping up our efforts to support the opposition and increase pressure on the regime, in order to create the conditions for a political transition. The core group nations agreed to expand support to the coalition and its military council, as the United Kingdom has already done. And we are working as I speak to broaden and unify further the Syrian opposition.

Klevius: The core group of the “Friends of the Syrian people” includes Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan, Italy, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the UK, and the U.S. I.e. the majority consists of six Human Rights violating islamist Sharia states! Btw, do these people really like Shia muslims?!

So what is the "Syrian opposition"?

Phil Greaves: The clearest and most glaring dynamic that occurred along this timeframe, and also continued to rise and greatly increase, is both the death toll, and displacement within Syria. A recent interview given by: an ‘anonymous’ Qatari security official, has shed further light on CIA-led covert arms shipments to militants fighting in Syria. In this Reuters article, the security official and several ‘anonymous’ rebel Commanders confirm that Qatar has “tightened coordination of arms flows [plural] to Syria,” under alleged concern of weapons ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda linked Islamic extremist militants; the very militants as noted previously, that have continually formed the spearhead of the insurgency against the Syrian Government: “Rebel fighters in Syria say that in recent months the system for distributing arms has become more centralized, with arms being delivered through opposition National Coalition’s General Command, led by Selim Idriss, a general who defected to the opposition and is a favorite of Washington.”(my emphasis) What has been long confirmed by ‘official sources’ in the mainstream press, is that these arms shipments commenced in at least “early 2012″. We can be sure, as with the majority of the official timeline, that leeway has been given in these statements: its highly likely smaller arms shipments/smuggling into Syria started much earlier. Statements from eyewitnesses in Libya confirm that arms shipments from the port of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group stronghold Misrata, commenced rapidly after the fall of Gaddafi. Sibel Edmonds also reported in November 2011, long before any corporate media revealed, that the CIA, along with its Turkish and NATO counterparts had been working from the “nerve centre” at the joint US-Turkish air-base in Incerlik, Turkey, since April/May of 2011, coordinating ‘rebel’ elements and ‘activist’s’. Edmonds posits the likely theory that this was one of the initial staging grounds used by the CIA and its regional partners, to smuggle weapons, fighters and materiel into Syria as the insurgency took hold. Enough of this background information, ‘official sources’ and timeline discrepancies gives the impression that the ‘news’ media is not releasing information when it receives it, and is holding back crucial pieces of the timeline, to fit into the desired narrative of “Assad forces killing peaceful protesters”. who were Qatar (under CIA auspices) distributing the arms thousands of tonnes of arms to before April 2013? The report goes on to state: “Before the Coalition was formed they were going through liaison offices and other military and civil formations. That was at the beginning. Now it is different – it is all going through the Coalition and the military command.” “There’s a lot of consultation with the CIA, and they help Qatar with buying and moving the weapons into Syria, but just as consultants,” he said. The CIA declined to comment. (my emphasis) At least a pinch of salt needs to be taken with this piece of misinformation. What exactly are “liaison offices, military and civil formations?” The ‘opposition’ has never had anything resembling a military formation. Regardless, this raises several important questions and draws several distinctions into the timeline of the Syrian conflict. We have long known, the main supplier of arms to ‘rebels’ was and still is Qatar, acting directly under the CIA’s “consultation”.

What values? Sharia or Human Rights? 

Sharia supporting Sayeeda Warsi: "If you can't live by our values, get off our island."

Klevius: Said by a muslim woman who calls other muslims "idiots" and who willingly follows islamofascist Saudi based OIC and its Turkish Fuhrer Ihsanoglu in their effort to silence critical scrutiny of islam and to implement Sharia on all the world's muslims.

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, hosted a conference in the House of Lords organised by the "Federation of Student Islamic Societies" (FOSIS), an umbrella group that claims to represent Muslim students across the United Kingdom. While FOSIS is known to outwardly maintain that it seeks peace promotion and harmony on university campuses, their campaigns as well as the speakers they promote prove that the organisation is anything but conducive to peaceable relationships on campuses.

How come that a British cabinet member, especially the Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, endorsed FOSIS with her attendance at the event?

FOSIS’s continued promotion of muslim extremists at events, and its willingness to share platforms with muslim individuals with deeply intolerant views seems to fit well for Sayeeda Hussain Warsi whose main problem is "islamophobia" - not muslim terrorists.

The Student Rights blog reports:

Just the day before the conference, FOSIS organised an event at Imperial College called ‘Need for Creed’ which featured Hamza Tzortzis as a speaker.

A former member of the radical Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir, Tzortzis has claimed of apostates “if someone’s going to fight against the community they should be killed”, and rejects freedom of speech.

In March 2013, the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA), which Tzortzis is a leading member of, was barred from University College London after attempting to enforce segregation by gender.

Compounding this, only a few days later Omar Ali spoke at a rally in support of the convicted Al-Qaeda facilitator Dr Aafia Siddique, sharing a platform with extremists including Dr Khalid Fikry andHizb ut-Tahrir spokeswoman Dr Nazreen Nawaz.

Dr Fikry is a virulently sectarian speaker who has claimed that “Shia are one of the worst and greatest enemies against our Ummah nowadays”, hardly something likely to reassure Shiastudents that FOSIS will challenge bigotry on campus.

The UK born London terrorist Adebolajo: "The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. Remove your governments – they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start bursting our guns? You think politicians are going to die? ‘No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you, and your children. So get rid of them – tell them to bring our troops back so we can … so you can all live in peace."

Both muslim terrorists were known to security sources. The attacker, speaking in a clear south London accent, declared: You people will never be safe. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ Throughout the frenzied attack the two killers shouted ‘Allah Akbar’ – Arabic for ‘God is great’ – then demanded horrified witnesses film them as they ranted over the crumpled body. The two attackers in their 20s, waited calmly for armed police to arrive before charging at officers brandishing a rusty revolver, knives and meat cleavers. When the old pistol was shot towards police it backfired and blew the thumb off one of the men. Moments later they were cut down in a hail of bullets believed to be fired by a woman marksman.

Klevius comment: That's interesting. Islamic patriarchy taken down by a woman. I think we will see much more of that before evil original islam is dead.

Adebolajo: ‘We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.

Are some, most or all muslims racists and Humanrightsophobes?

When you pour money into evilness, don't be surprised if you get more evilness back!

When anthropologists such as, for example, Dienekes, try to adapt to the inevitable Out of Asia paradigm by placing the origin of modern humans in the Arabian peninsula instead of in Siberia where it belongs, it's just one more example of the magnetic attraction of islamofascists' oil money. Unless, of course, it's just pure incompetency or wishful thinking from Dienekes side. Greece is closer to Mideast than Siberia.

However, islam is the by far biggest evil* that has ever contaminated mankind. It started when ordinary Jews and Christian Jews in their internal conflicts let loose the most uncivilized racist/sexist forces imaginable in their strive for hegemony. When these blood and sex thirsty illiterate Arab looters under the leadership of monophysitist Christian Jews, had decapitated and raped all resistance (which was mostly almost non-existing) and had grown via enslavement, rapetivism and submission under the sword, this thug "empire" that emerged became later institutionalized and codified to what we now call islam. And from then on the successful root formula of islam was: Slavery finance+"infidel" racism+sex segregated rapetivism for the physical and cultural reproduction of new muslims+Sharia blasphemy("islamophobia")/apostasy ban.

Always keep in mind that islam, Mohammed and the Koran as they are presented today came LONG AFTER the initial "conquest". Hugh Kennedy (considered a foremost expert on the muslim atrocities in the vacuum left by previously retreating Byzantine forces): ”Before Abdul Malik, Mohammed is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever, nor any form of religious pronouncement”.

Our (the civilized world that rests on technology) own oil money has been used by creepy and evil Arab dictator family members for the spreading of not only hateful racism and sexism but also a deep misinformation via bribed media, bribed politicians, bribed universities etc. to an extent that many adults and almost all school children believe in the presented lies about Mohammed, the Koran and islam. And charlatan Wikipedia happily presents myths about islam as established facts.

* Measured by the values set out in the basic (negative) Human Rights of the 1948 Declaration which was supposed to protect us from such fascist and totalitarian ideologies. And please, don't come with that crap that it's a Medieval ideology that ought be "reinterpreted" in our time. OIC, the Saudi based world organization for all muslims has clearly stated via UN that it will violate the most basic Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia. In other words, islam (and its muslims) continues its tradition of being racist and sexist.

Disgusting muslim racism and acessory at Heathrow

play video


ICLA has written about how Muslims who want to frighten Christians in places like Pakistan merely have Sharia UK 250pxto accuse them of blasphemy in order to turn their lives upside down.  Increasingly it seems that this kind of mentality is beginning to thrive in places like the United Kingdom.

A recent report by CBN tells the story of a Christian worker at Heathrow airport who appears to have been sacked because she stood up for her Christian religious beliefs in response to harassment by Islamists.  As in OIC countries like Pakistan, it seems that the views and opinions of Islamists trump those of other religions in the UK.  It always seems to be the non-Muslims who have to give ground, bite their lips, and put themselves second.  The CBN report can be found below (and HERE):

For some time now, the UK has been experiencing an atmosphere of fear when it comes to discussing Islam.  The hysteria has been stoked up by oil rich Islamic nations keen to expand the influence and power of Islam in the West.  Servile Western politicians seem happy to aid and abet such nations in their goal to increase the power and influence of Islam.

Only a few years ago UK citizens could go through life without being adversely affected by religious dogma.  Now that dogma is everywhere and everyone is aware of it.  In the home of freedom of speech people are now aware that speaking their minds can ruin their lives.

The UK’s old rarely used blasphemy laws may have been repealed but new more extreme heresy laws have taken their place.  The Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 has had a chilling effect on freedom of expression and on freedom in general.  It must be remembered that the right to freedom of expression has been a far more potent protect of freedom of religion that any Act of Parliament could ever hope to achieve.   The point of getting rid of the old blasphemy laws was that they restricted freedom of expression and they could be used as tools of religious persecution.  A situation has been created in the UK where even whispering the word Islam is not attempted lest someone becomes offended!

There is a great deal of handwringing about how ‘Islamophobia’ is on the rise in Western countries.  Nothing is said about how people are oppressed by Islamic regimes for not being Muslim.  Little is said about non-Muslims who feel that they are being treated like second class citizens in the West, other than that such people are somehow racist.  It seems that the term ‘Islamophobia’ was invented as a way to prevent non-Muslims from being listened to when they experience abuse at the hands of Islamists.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is doing its best to institute a global blasphemy law and to make criticism of Islam illegal.  It is a key advocate for UNHRC resolution 16/18 which purports to protect religious freedom.  However, there is a tendency in OIC countries for religious freedom to mean that Islam is promoted and other religions are harassed. It seems quite clear that Christians for one are not those who are being protected by UNHRC 16/18.

If an airport worker can lose her job because she is not Muslim or she does not show Islam the respect that its proponents believe that it deserves then she is not being judged by the rule of law – she is being judged by sharia law.

The case of the airport worker suggests that sharia law is now thriving in the UK.  Non-Muslims are being persecuted, demonized, and discriminated against just like they are in many member states of the OIC.  Like in Muslim majority countries non-Muslims in the UK are being picked on and their lack of Islamic faith is being used against them.   This situation has been facilitated by successive British governments whose obsession with political correctness has meant that rights and freedoms built up over the centuries have now been lost.  As a result Islamism is now out of control in the UK and there is hardly anyone who is prepared to raise even a whisper in opposition!

The mosque mice and Sharia islam

Klevius comment: This case is just one that happens to be (slightly) noticed of possibly millions of similar examples of muslim racism. However, the most interesting point is whether all muslims can be accused of being racists or accomplices to racism? And that question is completely dependent on whom we conceptualize as a muslim. And who better to define a muslim than muslims themselves represented by their own and most powerful world organization, the Saudi based OIC according to which a muslim is someone who obeys Sharia.

And Sharia, in all forms, is not only compulsory for true muslims, but it's also  is racist and sexist, because it violates Human Rights on precisely these points. In fact, it was these points that forced islamic countries to abandon Human Rights in the first place. Without Sharia no real islam and no real muslims.

So the widespread but unfounded view that muslim individuals can define themselves as muslims without adhering to Sharia is definitely obsolete.

Against this background all muslims are racists. 

Daniel Pipes, mosque mice, and Human Rights

Every sensible muslim would abandon islamic Sharia if they only really knew the basics of Human Rights. How, for example, could muslim women possibly resist an ideology that gives them the right to dress, act and be suppressed by their husbands if they so like, but which also gives them the right not to do so?! Or could they? Can't they stand the right to let other women live a different life?

Sadly many Westerners aren't that educated about Negative Human Rights either, and if they are they hide it behind political correctness and "muslim sensitivities".

Daniel Pipes is a Jewish islamophobe who isn't afraid of islam - but how does he differ from a mosque mouse?!

Or is he just too shy to criticize islam?

Klevius: Islam is against Human Rights! Oops, sorry for that "crime against humanity". However, Erdogan and his pal, Egyptian born Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and his Saudi based OIC deliberately violate Human Rights via OIC's Cairo declaration (Sharia) which covers the whole muslim world Umma.

An overwhelming majority of muslims are against Human Rights

According to the latest Pew Research Forum report, "The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society," released April 30, 2013, including a total of 39 countries and territories on three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe, and covering "more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages and dialects, from every country that has more than 10 million Muslims", 72% of Indonesian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 82% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 74% of Egyptian Muslims, and 71% of Nigerian Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies. The population-weighted average from these 5 countries was 77% supportive. (Composite regional data confirmed these individual country trends -- 84% of South Asian Muslims, 77% of Southeast Asian Muslims, 74% of Middle Eastern/North African Muslims, and 64% of Sub-Saharan African Muslims favored application of the Sharia as official state law.)

Could this be why mosque mice are so silent?

Daniel Pipes' "defense" of islam

Daniel Pipes: Those arguing for Islam itself as the problem (such as Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) point to the consistency from Muhammad’s life and the contents of the Koran and Hadith to current Muslim practice. Agreeing with Geert Wilders’ film Fitna, they point to striking continuities between Koranic verses and jihad actions. They quote Islamic scriptures to establish the centrality of Muslim supremacism, jihad, and misogyny, concluding that a moderate form of Islam is impossible. They point to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s deriding the very idea of a moderate Islam. Their killer question is, “Was Muhammad a Muslim or an Islamist?” They contend that we who blame Islamism do so out of political correctness or cowardliness. To which, we reply: Yes, certain continuities do exist; and Islamists definitely follow the Koran and Hadith literally. Moderate Muslims exist but lack Islamists’ near-hegemonic  power. Erdogan’s denial of moderate Islam points to a curious overlap between Islamism and the anti-Islam viewpoint.

Klevius: Indeed, the next best way of fast learning about the origin of islam is to read islamist websites and listening to islamist imams etc. However, the best way is still by reading Klevius, of course. Why? Because Klevius is neither a Jew, nor a Christian nor a muslim, and hence he isn't entangled with philosophical difficulties regarding Human Rights. Moreover, both islamists and Klevius' view on islam is in full agreement with what otherwise puzzle most historians, i.e how islam could spread so quickly.

Daniel Pipes: My analysis goes like this:

Islam is the 14-century-old faith of a billion-plus believers that includes everyone from quietist Sufis to violent jihadis.

Major dissonance began around 1800, when Muslims unexpectedly lost wars, markets, and cultural leadership to Western Europeans.

Klevius: Unexpectedly!? Dear Mr Pipes, don't you know that the main currency of islam's Sharia finance was slaves, and when Europeans in the early 19th century eventually finished a long series of efforts to stop Jewish and muslim slave raiding/trading, then the islamic economy based on parasitism collapsed and the islamic "civilization" decayed into hopeless misery until renewed by the power of oil.

In fact, Mr Pipes, some of the most long lasting and ugliest forms of slave raiding/trading existed in the area where your forefathers are from. I refer to Russia and the Jewish Khazars and the Ottoman Turks.

To understand the origin of islam, Mr Pipes, take a look at the origin of the Vikings!

Daniel Pipes: It (major dissonance) continues today, as Muslims bunch toward the bottom of nearly every index of achievement. This shift has caused massive confusion and anger. What went wrong, why did God seemingly abandon His faithful?

Muslims have responded to this crisis in three main ways. Secularists want Muslims to ditch the Shariah (Islamic law) and emulate the West. Apologists also emulate the West but pretend that in doing so they are following the Shariah. Islamists reject the West in favour of a retrograde and full application of the Shariah.

Klevius:In the enlightenment of Human Rights it's impossible to "pretend" Sharia. No matter if we talk moderate or islamist Sharia they both share an undeniable element of sexism and racism that stands in sharp contrast to Human Rights. This is why OIC has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia in the UN. This is also why torture doesn't exist under Sharia, simply because it's part of the sentence.

Daniel Pipes:  Islamism represents the transformation of Islamic faith into a political ideology. Islamism accurately indicates an Islamic-flavoured version of radical utopianism, an -ism like other -isms, comparable to fascism and communism. Aping those two movements, for example, Islamism relies heavily on conspiracy theories to interpret the world, on the state to advance its ambitions, and on brutal means to attain its goals.

Klevius:Let me remind you that just like the most important Human Rights are the negative ones, the most important -ism is the negative atheism.

Daniel Pipes: Supported by 10 to 15 per cent of Muslims, Islamism draws on devoted and skilled cadres who have an impact far beyond their limited numbers. It poses the threat to civilized life in Iran, Egypt, and not just on the streets of Boston but also in Western schools, parliaments, and courtrooms.

Klevius:150 million extremist muslims - and counting! And they thrive equally well in Western Universities as in Mideast etc. Isn't that more than enough to keep us busy from even bothering about possible "moderate muslims"?

Daniel Pipes: Our killer question is “How do you propose to defeat Islamism?” Those who make all Islam their enemy not only succumb to a simplistic and essentialist illusion but they lack any mechanism to defeat it. We who focus on Islamism see the Second World War and the Cold War as models for subduing the third totalitarianism. We understand that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. We work with anti-Islamist Muslims to vanquish a common scourge. We will triumph over this new variant of barbarism so that a modern form of Islam can emerge.

Klevius: The mechanism to defeat islam is called (negative) Human Rights! Simple as that and rock solid if you just put it on the agenda. And most of us non-muslims have already agreed on it via the 1948 Human Rights Declaration, which was aimed to hinder people like Goebbels and Erdogan etc. to rise their evil agendas.

And Erdogan is right, there's no such creature as moderate islam and, as  a consequence, no moderate muslims.

Working with "anti-islamist muslims" (what's that?) can only harm Human Rights. If they are true muslims they simply cannot stretch that far, and if they do they aren't muslims in any meaningful sense anymore. Islam is a life covering totalitarian ideology.

OIC, the world's largest organozation after UN covers all the world's muslims. OIC also tries to say it is "anti-violence" yet it has strongly adopted as its basis islamist Sharia. And by "islamist" I here refer to the undeniable fact that OIC's Cairo declaration is the very opposite to Human Rights on the most basic points!


Here's what Klevius wrote eight years ago:

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Creeping Islam uses Mideast "monolitheism" and vanishing Christianity for global fascism

Islamic terrorism is just the tiny tip of a giant Arabic/Islamic iceberg fueled by oil-money and extending deeply into Western institutions. Asking Muslims for help against Muslims makes little sense. A strong re-evaluation of their "religion" is the only possible future

The problem isn't about immigrants, Arabs or Jews etc but solely about Islam as a facist/sexist totalitarian idea - and those detached lost souls (often in need of immediate care) who pick it up in Koran schools, Mosques, youth organizations etc. Another problem constitutes of all those millions who call themselves Muslims without, in most cases, having even a remote sense of what it really stands for as an idea. For these "Muslims" Islam is instead a synonyme (most often historically forced upon them) for their real ethnicity, not the Koran.

Just as Christianity was stimulated by the New Testament's replacement theology (or supersessionism), which taught that with the coming of Jesus a new covenant has rendered obsolete and has superseded the religion of Judaism, Islam is stimulated by Koran and the "last prophet" whose words should not be critisized or questioned (although Muslims do it all the time through a variety of interpretations).

Furthermore A number of Christian preachers, particularly in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, additionally taught that religious Jews choose to follow a faith that they actually know is false out of a desire to offend God Although this pattern is now repeated by "radical" (interesting word) Islamists, "moderate" Islamists have long since figured out a much more effective strategy. By equalizing Arabic Islam from the 7th century A.D. (neither Arabic nor Islam was around before that time) with the fate of Abraham some 1.900 B.C., "moderate" Islamists now try to convince other religious groups belonging to the same Mideastern "monolitheism" (new word by Peter Klevius) that they have a common interest. But this "interest" is, in fact, a catalyst for
replacing rapidly vanishing Christianity with a racist ("infidel"), sexist (sex segregation) totalitarian (anti-human rights) jihadist world-Islam that always supports "radical" interpretations no matter how many timid "Muslims" might be around.


Today's Hitler, bin Laden, and his meek and lost followers, and blind supporters.

In this light the difference between so called "radical" and "moderate" Islamists is less than thin Also compare posting on Saudi Islamist and Muslim feminist Mai Yamani and her opposite, Condoleezza Rice. The London bombs can be traced back to that very same Sudan which now rapes and kills women in Darfur, in front of Mai Yamani's shut eyes.

Klevius' definition of religion.


What do the terrorists want?

They want precisely the same as Islamists in general, i.e. to boost Islam!


So what should Muslims and "Muslims" do?

Start with the Fundamentalist test and then openly state that non-Muslims, "infidels", unbelievers, Atheists etc are exactly equally good and worthy humans as are Muslims, and that they don't need an Allah or other specified God to remain so! Very simple, isn't it?

Islam, not Bush, was responsible for 9/11! Islam, not Bush, is responsible for Islamic suicide-killers/terrorists around the globe! Islam (and an Islamist government), not Bush (or the "West"), is responsible for the rapes and killings in Sudan! And Islam, not Bush, is responsible for the continuing mess in Iraq!

The solution for Iraq: 1) The whole world should now send troops there to protect non-violent Iraqis against Islamic terrorists. 2) Avoid Islam in the constitution!


Klevius comment May 2013: Same applies to Syria etc!