Muslim women's "shariaphobia" in India vs. Theresa May's 'sharia is good for the Brits'

"Shariaphobia", a synonym for "islamophobia" - when will it be criminalized as "hate speech"? And more importantly, when will these muslim women realize that islam is sharia and resisting or criticizing it is "islamophobia"?

The Muslim Women Quest for Equality group petitioned the Supreme Court of India for a long overdue review of the Islamic legal system, which they claim is biased against women. They also want to end the control of religious institutions over education.

The women are requesting that bodies with jurisdiction over the Islamic community, such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) to be abolished, sparing India from the “… clamp of fundamentalists/activists having the ideology similar to Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and his organisation Jamat-ud-dawa (JuD).” That is a reference to a terrorist organization with a stronghold in Afghanistan and Pakistan that has been fomenting bonds with ISIS and is active in Kashmir and India.

However, the islamofascist All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) is warning that a uniform civil code would be unenforceable. This is the same board that is defending the practice of the “triple talaq,” granting men the right to divorce by repeating the word “talaq” three times. Last week the AIMPLB issued statements to the effect the practice was preferable to murder and in line with islamic law. According to the board, men are more emotionally stable and are not likely to abuse the law (sic).

Commenting on the reluctance of the successive Indian governments to enforce the Constitution, the women’s advocacy group suggests there is political give-and-take at play.

The ponzi scheme called "sharia finance" (or islamic finance) is - sharia. Why isn't it forbidden, just like money laundering, tax fraud etc. financial crimes? Especially considering that unlikes those crimes, sharia also spreads hate and sexism.

 

Islam's Human Rightsphobia is by far the main source of hateful racism and sexism today.

Who of these women would have survived an attack by a muslim asking "are you a muslim"?

However, Hillary Clinton considers vetting of muslims "islamophobic" whereas Donald Trump thinks not.

But we are also vetting for DUI - no matter how "insulting" it might feel for drivers not using any kind of drugs, alcohol etc.

And we have for long been vetting parents for child abuse, and more commonly starting to vet for 'controlling and coersive behavior' by spouses. And how will this latter one affect muslims? Should they be excused from such vetting because "freedom of religion" gives them the right to practice a sharia coersive control sanctioned by "allahu akhbar"?

Hillary Clinton stupidly warned against 'the instinct to villainize entire groups of people based on religion'.

"There are millions of law-abiding, peaceful Muslim Americans."

"That is why I have been very clear. We are going after the bad guys and we are going to get them, but we are not going to go after an entire religion and give ISIS exactly what it is wanting," Clinton said.

Pamela Geller: As bombs go off in the streets of New York City, jihad shoot-outs in the streets (with four cops shot), and shoppers are at first questioned weather they are Muslim or not – before being stabbed repeatedly — The President of the United States describes the war as a “battle of narratives.”

Klevius wonders whether BBC's bigoted and hypocritical muslim sharia presenter Mishail Husain could possibly suffer from a slight doses of "shariaphobia" herself.

Isn't it funny that BBC's main muslim presenter Mishail Husain only gets Klevius hits on Google when combined with the most important muslim word, i.e. 'sharia'?

Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, March 09, 2016

How come that BBC's most notorious, sorry famous, muslim presenter Mishal Husain scores highest on Klevius Atheist* blogs when it comes to the very core of her own religion?

* No dude, Klevius doesn't believe in Communism or state socialism. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. were all relatives to totalitarian sharia islam. And it's only religious fanatics who try to smear the lack of a belief in an unknown and impossible "god" that opens up for racism and sexism. And no matter how "nice" a religion pretends to be, it can never even in theory achieve full Human Rights equality -  especially not for women. And a "women religion" would face the same problem as feminism. Unless of course, you equalize feminism with Human Rights, in which case you would be attacked by feminist theories because true feminism puts all responsibility on men.


BBC's muslim presenter Mishal Husain stands as the perfect sharia deceiver.

She doesn't respect the Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol etc. etc. and she states that she feels no threat to her way of leading her life as someone who doesn't differ from non-muslims.

Well, says Klevius, that's just fine - as long as you don't give the impression that such a "muslimhood" has anything to do with real sharia muslims. Moreover, isn's it a cruel spat in the face of all those women who are raped, murdered , abused etc. because of sharia supremacist hate mongering?

What is Mishal Husain's role/responsibility as a media person when it comes to the misleading information about islam and sharia jihad that caused the death of these girls? How could they possibly have believed that Koran reading mosque attending men who fast during Ramadan  etc. are lesser muslims than Mishal Husain?!

Klevius suggestion to Mishal Husain: Either you tell the license fee paying public that you as a muslim propose and support sharia (e.g. OIC's Human Rights violating sharia declaration) or, alternatively, you openly abandon sharia as you abandoned Ramadan - and admit that the consequence of this would ber that you no longer classify as a real muslim. Please, clarify this in honor of islam's victims and potential future victims.

Google searches on 'sharia Mishal Husain' and 'Mishal Husain sharia' give the following results:

Klevius again beats the world's biggest news organization when it comes to really important info. Sad isn't it.

The appalling Saudi steered Obomba bombs Syria on the side of the Islamic State and under the cover of "seasefire".

Muslim born and muslim raised (muslim adoptive father) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Hussein Obama Soetoro Dunham (or whatever) seems to be 100% scrupulous when it comes to a simple choice between: 1) supporting the Saudi dictator family and muslim terrorist, or 2) supporting suffering people in Syria by stopping muslim terrorist attacks. He chose to bomb Syrian soldiers who fought against attacking Islamic State terrorists.

Obama helps IS and the Saudi dictator family to worsen the human catastrophe in Syria while the Saudi dictator family continues (with Obama's helping hand) its bombing of schools and hospitals etc. in Yemen.

The four bomb strikes today can in no way be excused as "mistakes" as they happened to precisely hit Syrian soldiers surrounded by IS jihadists who as a result of the bombings got free access to an extremely important locality.

US-led coalition jets have bombed Syrian government forces’ positions near the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor, killing some 80 troops hence paving the way for Islamic State jihadists.

According to Syria’s official SANA news agency, the bombing took place on al-Tharda Mountain in the region of Deir ez-Zor and caused casualties and destruction on the ground.

Obama's boots on the ground: Al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

US-controlled forces haven't fulfilled any Syria ceasefire deal obligations. Instead Obama uses the ceasefire to help muslim terrorists against the Syrian army. 

Pentagon: “We are aware of the reports and checking with Centcom and CJTF (Combined Joint Task Force).”

US Central command: “We are aware of the reports and will provide further information when available.”

The Russian Defense Ministry said on Saturday that the aircraft which carried out the bombings had entered Syrian airspace from the territory of Iraq.

Four strikes against Syrian positions was performed by two F-16 jet fighters and two A-10 support aircraft, it added.

“If the airstrike was caused by the wrong coordinates of targets then it’s a direct consequence of the stubborn unwillingness of the American side to coordinate with Russia in its actions against terrorist groups in Syria,” Konashenkov stressed.

Klevius comment: "Wrong coordinates of targets extremely unlikely in this particular area and situation.

The Defense Ministry also confirmed a report by SANA that an Islamic State offensive began right after Syrian Army positions were hit from the air.

"Immediately after the airstrike by coalition planes, Islamic State militants launched their offensive. Fierce fighting with the terrorists is currently underway in the area of the airport where for a long a time humanitarian aid for civilians was parachuted,” Konashenkov said.

The Syrian General Command has called the bombing a “serious and blatant aggression” against Syrian forces, and said it was "conclusive evidence" that the US and its allies support IS militants.

Earlier on Saturday, Russia accused the US of being reluctant to take measures to force rebels under its control to fall in line with the terms of the Syrian ceasefire.

Numerous Russian appeals to the American side remain unanswered, which “raises doubts over the US’s ability to influence opposition groups under their control and their willingness to further ensure the implementation of the Geneva agreements,” senior Russian General Staff official, Viktor Poznikhir, said.

Poznikhir also said that the truce is being used by the militants to regroup, resupply and prepare an offensive against government troops.

Last week, Moscow and Washington agreed to influence the Syrian government and the so-called moderate rebel forces respectively in order to establish a ceasefire in the country.

Since then, Russia has repeatedly complained that the US is failing to keep its part of the bargain. The US, on its part, has blamed Russia for not pressuring Damascus enough to facilitate humanitarian access to Syria.

Klevius comment: This last point is interesting because it regards precisely terrorist held areas.

Klevius wrote:

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Why do friends of Syria hate Syria to an extent that they want to bomb it?

The Group of Friends of the Syrian People (sometimes: Friends of Syria Group or Friends of the Syrian People Group or Friends of Democratic Syria or simply Friends of Syria) is an international diplomatic collective of mostly OIC countries and bodies convening periodically on the topic of Syria outside the U.N. Security Council. The collective was created by the Saudi dictator family in cooperation with Turkey.

More than 50 U.S. mid-level diplomats have sent a memo through the State Department’s “dissent channel” to a likely sympathetic Secretary of State John Kerry, advocating an American bombing campaign to bring down Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The memo concluded, “It is time that the United States, guided by our strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end to this conflict once and for all.”

Many supporters of bombing Syria are precisely those who opposed taking down Saddam Hussein who had used chemical weapons to mass murder some 100,000 Kurds. Moreover, although there are no evidence of Assad having ordered the use of chemical weapons, there are strong evidence linking the Syria crisis and the bloodshed and suffering to the Saudi dictator family.

 Assad’s government is the only legitimate government in Syria and, as the sovereign, has the legal right to seek international support as it has from Russia and Iran. There is no such legal right for the United States and other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to arm Syrian rebels to attack Assad’s government.

The dissent cable advocates what it calls “the judicious use of stand-off and air weapons,” which, the signatories write, “would undergird and drive a more focused and hardnosed US-led diplomatic process.”

Inside Syria, both the United States and Russia are battling the Islamic State and other jihadist groups seek to overthrow the Assad government. But while the U.S. is supporting muslim terrorist groups, Russia is backing Assad and waging a broader fight against these terrorists, including Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front.

Posted by Peter Klevius at 2:18 AM

9/11 and the deplorables

A deplorable Human Rightsophobic* (but certainly not "islamophobic") woman surrounded by some of the world's most deplorable muslims

* Saudi based and steered OIC invented the oxymoron "islamophobia" for the purpose of hiding islamic evil. Simultaneously OIC launched an attack on Human Rights via UN calling for the criminalization of criticism of islam (and themselves). And by stating that "there's only one islam", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family managed to take all muslims as hostages.

The evil "custodians of islam" - and their deplorable "Western whores".

Hillary Clinton says half of Americans voting for Trump are "deplorable" - so how many muslims are "deplorable"? A billion?! Or none? The latter being true if "deplorable" is measured by islamofascist Saudi based and steered OIC's "islamophobia" standard - which Hillary apparently used. However, measured against the most basic Human Rights equality standard, every sharia muslim is utterly "deplorable" - although not everyone to the extent of Hillary herself.

The Saudi steered "islamophobia" campaign - and due "blasphemy" criminalization efforts - is ultimately a reflexion of the understandable desperation of having to admit sharia islam's incompatibility with Human Rights equality. 

Architects of good and evil

Minoru Yamasaki, who built WTC, grew up in slums and was bullied for being Japanese-American. Mohamed Atta, who took it down, grew up in a wealthy family and bullied non-muslims.


Rape accused Alwaleed bin Talal, suspected as a financial mastermind behind 9/11 also offered $10 million to New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (who didn't accept it) stating, "At times like this, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East." After the rejection by the mayor he stated: "The whole issue is that I spoke about their position and they didn’t like it because there are Jewish pressures and they are afraid of them."

Unfortunately (for the victims of Saudi islamic hate mongering domestic and abroad, terrorism, bombings of neighbors etc) the West has used the islamofascist Saudi dictator family as overpaid "clerks" in an oil bank stuffed with Western money.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the core tumor of the cancer spreading from Mideast.

Klevius (a main representative of "the critical European tradition of thought"): I'm ashamed and disgusted by "the West's" appalling appeasement of hateful racism and sexism breeding islamofascists!

Well knowing that the Saudi dictator family was behind the war in Syria, and well knowing that we don't know who* threw chlorine (which anyway has been a drop in the ocean compared to what the Saudis have caused there and in Yemen)

* Who would gain from throwing chlorine in a part where only civilians but no muslim terrorists resided - and the resulting casulties were comparably small compared to what's going on nearby?

BBC asks: How do we stop Assad from 'barrel bombing his people with chlorine' (sic)?

Ash Carter, US Secretary of Defense: 'Assad is the tumor of the cancer'.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family's "grand mufti" (i.e. the religious leader of Saudi Arabia): 'Shia muslims are no muslims!'

Klevius: Your despicable "ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family, is the very core tumour of the islamic cancer in Mideast and the world.

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family invented "islamophobia" and spread it via Saudi based and steered OIC over the world for the purpose of protecting - Saudi islamofascism

The evil faces of evil islam

.

Per capita, China pollutes as UK but produces more - and has far less sharia islamists. However, UK PM prefers her "secure" ally Saudi Arabia (which, btw, is a top polluter in world ranking - far worse than UK and China)

Childless mothers encouraging overpopulation and criticizing China

Mother Teresa and

not-mother Theresa

Klevius question to the Brits: Which one do you think is better for you, China manufacturing or Saudi sharia?

Mother Theresa inspired the fight against forced abortion in China. However, she also campaigned against birth control and abortion in India, a country battling over-population, leading to the very poverty Mother Teresa purported to be against.

Mother Theresa: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

This same naive/nostalgic and essentially deeply racist view echoes Klevius childhood friend who came from Pol Pot's "Campuchea" on his way to Mugabe's Zimbabwe while eagerly defending the "rights" of the poor farmers to just stay poor. However, this same Maoist bloke who despised his father (who was a professor in Mathematics in Sweden) later inherited farmland that had tremendously increased in value due to its sub-location in a wealthy state.

Today this essentially racist naivety seems to be widespread among many ignorant people who "feel so much" about muslims in general that they blink the evil origin of islam - and how it effects those able to read the Koran as it's written.

French Minister Bernard Cazeneuve: Secularize islam! Klevius: That's a death fatwa against islam!

Klevius: Let's do as the French Interior Minister suggests: Decapitate "tailor" islam to an eunuch among rapist ideologies.

France’s Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve: We need to tailor islam to the values of secularism.

Klevius: That would cure Klevius "islamophobia" in no time. And it would be the death of islam as most true muslims see it, i.e. as a supremacist ideology.

David Horowitz: “Leftists and Democrats have also joined the Islamist propaganda campaign to represent Muslims — whose co-religionists have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents since 9/11 in the name of their religion — as victims of anti-Muslim prejudice, denouncing critics of Islamist terror and proponents of security measures as ‘Islamophobes’ and bigots. Led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats have enabled the Islamist assault on free speech, which is a central component of the Islamist campaign to create a worldwide religious theocracy.”

Saudi based and steered OIC is a disgrace for UN and the free world

That this disgusting creature of appalling muslim "cultural values" managed not only to sneak into what was supposed to be the bastion against such "values" (i.e. "values" against basic Human Rights equality) but also to rule it (main tool being the "islamophobia" slogan) reveals something very disturbing about our politicians, doesn't it.

 Theresa May: Sharia is good! Klevius: For what?

Whatever doesn't fit islamofascist Saudi based and steered OIC is blocked in UN

Not surprisingly, when he United Nations’ choice to be its first ever monitor against anti-LGBT violence was unveiled, Saudi based and steered OIC has boycotted the process.

Hillary Clinton promotes islamist rape and violence by her appeasement of Saudi based and steered OIC and its "islamophobia"/"blasphemy" campaign

Joseph Klein: For a variety of reasons, Hillary Clinton as president can be expected to move the United States towards an even more accommodative stance than her predecessors with Islamists who mean to do us harm. A Hillary Clinton presidency would likely continue along the pro-Islamist foreign policy arc that both her husband’s administration and the Obama administration have developed.

President Bill Clinton committed U.S. military resources to help Muslims during the so-called “humanitarian” intervention in Bosnia. However, he chose to turn a blind eye to the genocide that swamped Rwanda during his administration. As G. Murphy Donovan wrote in his American Thinker article “How the Clintons Gave American Foreign Policy its Muslim Tilt,” “Muslim lives matter, Black Africans, not so much.” Noting that “it was Muslim unrest that precipitated Serb pushback, civil war, and the eventual collapse of Yugoslavia,” Donovan added, “Bosnians are, for the most part, Muslims with a bloody fascist pedigree.” Nevertheless, with no strategic U.S. national interest at stake, Bill Clinton tilted American foreign policy in favor of the Muslim side in the Bosnia conflict. We are now reaping the lethal consequences of that tilt. Donovan points out in his article that, on a per capita basis, Bosnia Herzegovina is the leading source of ISIS volunteers in all of Europe.

President Obama, along with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, took the side of Islamist “rebels” against the secular authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Libya and Syria that had managed to keep the lid on jihadist terrorism for many years. These Islamists included members of al Qaeda as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Libya, Hillary Clinton was the leading voice pressing for military intervention against Col. Muammar el- Qaddafi’s regime. She did so, even though, according to sources cited in a State Department memo passed on to Hillary by her deputy at the time, Jake Sullivan, in an e-mail dated April 1, 2011, “we just don't know enough about the make-up or leadership of the rebel forces.”  In fact, as subsequently reported by the New York Times, the only organized opposition to the Qaddafi regime that had developed underground during Qaddafi’s rule were the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a terrorist group, and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The author of the State Department memo had acknowledged the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s terrorist past but said they “express a newfound keenness for peaceful politics.” Was Hillary Clinton relying on such assurances of a reformed “peaceful” Islamic group fighting against Qaddafi, even though it had been on the State Department’s terrorist list since 2004 and one of its leaders, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi,  praised al Qaeda members as “good Muslims” in a March 2011 interview?  If so, that is just another indication of her bad judgment.

As for Egypt, Hillary was informed by her outside adviser and confidante Sid Blumenthal, in an e-mail dated December 16, 2011, that the Muslim Brotherhood’s intention was to create an Islamic state. Moreover, the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and other radical groups was "complicated," Blumenthal quoted a source "with access to the highest levels of the MB" as saying. Blumenthal also reported, based on a confidential source, that Mohamed Morsi, who was then leader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, believed that “it will be difficult for this new, Islamic government to control the rise of al Qa'ida and other radical/terrorist groups.”

Nevertheless, the Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood in its bid to seek power in Egypt through a shaky electoral process. After Morsi’s election to the presidency, Hillary visited Egypt where Morsi warmly welcomed her and she expressed strong support for Egypt’s “democratic transition.” However, the only real transition Morsi had in mind was to impose sharia law on the Egyptian people, the very antithesis of true democratic pluralism. Yet the Obama–Clinton gravy train of military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Islamist regime continued without any preconditions. Hillary Clinton herself and her State Department referred to the importance of the U.S.’s “partnership” with the Muslim Brotherhood-backed regime.

When Morsi was removed from power, after millions of Egyptians had taken to the streets to protest the increasingly theocratic regime, the Obama administration decided to suspend aid to the more secular successor military regime. The “partnership” was no more once the Islamists were swept out of office.

While Morsi was still president, the Clinton Foundation, which has taken millions of dollars in donations from Muslim majority governments and affiliated groups and individuals, invited Morsi to deliver a major address at the Clinton Global Initiative. This invitation was extended just a month after an individual named Gehad el-Haddad, who was working simultaneously for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Clinton Foundation in Cairo, left his Clinton Foundation job to work for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood full time. Fortunes changed for this individual, however, when, after Morsi was overthrown, Haddad was arrested for inciting violence and given a life sentence.

The Obama administration, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, also cooperated with the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to pass and implement a United Nations resolution that was intended to curb speech considered Islamophobic. Clinton, in full spin mode, insisted that the new UN resolution was totally consistent with the free speech protections of the First Amendment, as opposed to the "defamation of religions" resolutions that the OIC had sponsored in the past but was willing to have replaced. The truth, however, is that all we were seeing was old wine in new bottles. To make sure that the OIC was comfortable regarding the Obama administration’s intentions, Clinton assured the OIC that she was perfectly on board with using “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” She was trying to publicly assure American citizens that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press were safe, while working behind the scenes with her OIC partners to find acceptable ways to stifle speech offensive to Muslims.

The signs of Hillary Clinton’s Islamist tilt as she runs for president include the sweepingly general and demonstrably false assertion in her tweet last November that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."  She has obviously learned nothing from her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State. Neither is she willing to acknowledge that the terrorists whom she has called a “determined enemy” are jihadists animated by an ideology rooted in core Muslim teachings of the Koran and the Hadith (Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and actions).  Is there something about the word “Muslim” in the Muslim Brotherhood and “Islamic” in the Islamic State that she is having problems understanding?

Perhaps, it is Hillary’s close association with Huma Abedin, her top campaign aide and confidante, who has had questionable links to Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations, which explains Hillary’s denial of the truth. If someone as close to Hillary as Huma Abedin, whom she apparently trusts with her life, is a Muslim, then how could any Muslim possibly have anything to do with terrorism?  

Then again, perhaps Hillary’s willingness to give Islamists the benefit of the doubt is all the money that the Clintons have received over the years from foreign donors in Muslim majority countries, including the Saudi government and affiliated groups and individuals. Hillary Clinton has also reached out for campaign donations from a pro-Iranian lobby group, the National Iranian American Council. Whatever human rights abuses are inflicted on people in these countries, it would be counterproductive to bite the hand that feeds you, in the Clintons’ way of thinking.