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.