* Klevius hasn't heard Amber Rudd's view on sharia but assumes she shares her boss' extremist view. In Klevius world openly encouraging deliberate violations of the most basic of Human Rights ought to be classified as extremism.
Klevius question: Is the English government the most extremist in the West when it comes to counteracting Human Rights via its association with the world's most intolerant regime which has exchanged (and still does) petrodollars to islamist hate, violence, racism and sexism at home and around the world, leading to endless suffering?
The origins of England's dangerous and immoral relations with the islamofascist hate and intolerance spreading Saudi dictator family date back to the time of the First World War, when Ibn Saud signed the 1915 Treaty of Darin, thereby accepting the status of an English "protectorate".
The treaty made the lands (sic) of the "House of Saud" an English protectorate/colony and attempted (sic) to define its boundaries. The English aim of the treaty was to guarantee the sovereignty of Kuwait, Qatar and the Trucial States. Abdul-Aziz agreed not to attack British protectorates, but gave no undertaking that he would not attack the Sharif of Mecca, i.e. the "custodian of islam". The Sharif of Mecca was the title of the leader of the Sharifate of Mecca, traditional steward of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina and the surrounding (sic) Hejaz (i.e. the whole western part of what is now the so called Saudi Arabia). In 1925 the Ibn Saud (supported by England) attacked the Hejaz and expelled the Hashemites.
There are now more than 200 joint ventures between UK and the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's companies, worth $17.5 billion, and some 30,000 UK nationals are living and working in this land of evil on Earth.
Islamic sharia "justic" is injustice.
"Justice" in islam means following sharia. And when a muslim says islamic "justice" is "equal" to everyone, it simply means that sharia affects muslims and non-muslims equally in the sense e.g. that you are equally penalized for not being a proper - muslim. In other words, "justice" means totalitarian islamofascism - no matter that there could never be a real totalitarian islam because of islam's inbuilt contradictions and dependency on "interpretations", only quarrels about which muslim "totalitarianism" is the "best". And the "best" is the one that fits the leaders interpretation.
The only form of justice for all non-muslims is one where they are all condemned to jahannam due to their failure to follow Muhammad as a prophet of Allah. This interpretation is based on the Koran which states that islam is the only true religion. Consequently all other beliefs (or Atheism) are evil in islamic theology.
In the West some idiots try to cling to the "people of the book" argument that some "monotheists" might be excluded from being labeled evil. However, this would be a contradiction in the islamic teaching, and what about non-"monotheists" and Atheists? Just ask a Saudi cleric and you'd know.
Do you really think the 'freedom of religion' clause in Human Rights and the US Constitution means that this is ok?!
Human Rights equality, on the other hand, doesn't give any room for quarreling or "interpretations".
And Klevius does understand that there are many ignorant ranters out there who really don't understand Human Rights equality. Nor do they understand why Saudi based and steered muslim world sharia organization OIC decided to abandon UN's Human Rights declaration.
So here's a simplified picture tutorial for you. Try hard - it will pay off.
Basic Human Rights freedom and equality is not affected by sex, ethnicity or any other characteristics. It's the space that protects the individual from impositions not necessary in a free democratic society. It's like in traffic where everyone has the right to move - within rules necessary to keep the traffic working for all. In this respect Human Rights is the very opposite to islamic sharia which imposes restrictions and "obligations/duties" depending on your sex and belief. And the ultimate proof for sharia islam's incompatibility with the most basic of Human Rights is the undeniable fact that Saudi based and steered muslim world organization OIC decided to openly violate UN's Human Rights and replace them with sharia. So today there are two parallel systems working inside UN: Human Rights and islamic "human rights". And even calling Human Rights violating sharia "human rights" is not only an offense against non-muslims, it's a deliberate effort to obscure the fact that Human Rights are violated under the flag of religion.
Why is England supporting theocracies instead of Human Rights?
The European Court of Human Rights agreed with Klevius already 2002 when it declared sharia nor compatible with Human Rights.
This is why David Cameron and Theresa May so eagerly have tried to dismiss and smear Human Rights so to keep the gate open to the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. It was never really about prisoners right to vote or about sending back muslim extremists to their muslim homelands where they could face torture, it was all about the relations with the Saudis and their associates.
The only time the English government and BBC emphasize Human Rights is when they want to smear them or defend muslim extremism and demonize China or Buddhists - or a very few (compared to muslim extremists) neo-nationalsocialists who usually belong to the lowest of classes in society and many of them mentally ill.
Brexit has become the ultimate full gate opening for an already existing stream of paving in for religious extremism so common in the Commonwealth and other previous English colonies/"protectorates" such as e.g. Saudi Arabia.
But the price paid for the islamofascist oil money is totally unacceptaböe from a Human Rights perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment