Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Iranians Are Friends of the Jews

Is there anyone left in the world that does not know the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hates the Jews? His welcoming of representatives of an extremist branch of Orthodox Judaism to his conference denying the Holocaust reminded us of the Nazis' use of some Jewish community leaders to facilitate the deportation of the Jews to the death camps.

This devout man of Allah, Ahmadinejad, known affectionately by Iranians as “The Monkey” for his non-stop silly and embarrassing antics should be given a fair hearing, never mind the fact that he would not even think of doing the same for others. What makes The Monkey more than a laughing stock is what he represents and the power he wields at arousing millions of his co-Islamofascists against the “undesirables” of the world.

For some reasons, Jews are on the top of The Monkey’s hit list as they have been in the same position of “honor” with other past fascists of the world. Perhaps precedence by itself constitutes the basis for arriving at a verdict, as is sometimes the case in the law.

And when it comes to the Jews’ guilty verdict, there is no shortage of precedence. Jews have been around for a long time and have been a convenient target of scapegoating. People being people have a difficult time looking at themselves for their problems. It is by far easier to find others to blame than to try to mend one’s own ways. So the Jews became convenient scapegoats for bigots, the fascists, and all manners of malevolent louts.

This is neither the place, nor is it necessary for the purpose of this article to provide an exhaustive documentation of the historical suffering of the Jewish people. The main purpose of this article is to tell the world that Iranians are proud of their historical friendship with the Jewish people. The bond of friendship goes back to the landmark action of King Cyrus the Great of Persia. In 537 B.C., having conquered Babylon, the benevolent King Cyrus freed the Jews from captivity and empowered them to return to the Promised Land and build their temple.

For his acts of kindness, Cyrus the Great is immortalized in the Bible in several passages and called “the anointed of the Lord.” The Jews throughout the recorded history looked to Cyrus’ people, the Iranians, as their friends and protectors against oppressors such as the Seleucids and the Romans. There existed, in the ancient world, a universal admiration for the beliefs and practices of the Persians as enshrined in Cyrus Charter of Human Rights. Even the Greeks, the traditional adversaries of the Persians, called Cyrus “The Lawgiver.”

The return of the Jews to the Promised Land did not mark the end of their ordeal. Successive waves of ill-wishers, notably the Romans and then the savage Muslims unleashed their unjustified wrath on the Jews.

The Jewish people, in spite of suffering huge losses at the hands of their enemies, remained resilient and, with one exception, outlived their tormentors. The Pogroms in Russia, the ghettoization in much of Europe, and even the genocidal Hitlerism failed to wipe out the Jews.

One diehard enemy, Islam, has been hard at work for some 1400 years to complete the work of finishing off the Jews that Muhammad himself had started.

Iranians are saddened and ashamed by the appearance of Ahmadinejad on the international scene and his declared intent to wipe out the Jewish homeland from the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad is not an Iranian. Numerous photos show him proudly donning the Arab headscarf around his neck—a Palestinian headscarf that presently stands as a symbol of Arabo-Islamic genocidal hate campaign against the Jews as well as non-believers of all stripes.

Ahmadinejad does not represent the Iranian people any more than his turbaned-colleagues presently ruling Iran do. What needs to be understood is that in fact Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, above all else, are true Muslims and despise anything “Iranian” and its ancient “pre-Islamic” heritage.

You can tell a true Muslim by the ferocity of his hatred. Islam is driven by hate. And the Islamic hate is so intense and blind that it consumes even its own adherents. Just consider, for instance, the rocketing of mosques full of Friday worshippers by one sect of the religion of peace against another sect of the same religion. Or, the raging gun battle between the Hamas thugs and the Fatah murderers in the Palestinian territory.

Iranian Muslims are victims of the Islamic virus that has destroyed in them their traditional respect for diversity. It is the Iranian ancient fundamental belief in the validity and value of diversity that has held the nation together over the millennia.

The diverse people who give Iran its enduring strength include Persians, Azaris, Kurds, Baluchis, Torkemans, Arabs and more: one and all have their allegiance to Iran as an idea and a nation. Iranians are spiritual children of Cyrus the Great and adherents of his Charter—the first Charter of Human Rights—that clearly proclaims the equal rights and worth of the beliefs and practices of all people.

Islam overtook Iran and brutally strived to replace the traditional lofty Iranian belief in human rights with its barbaric exclusionary dogma of the primitive Bedouin Arabs. Regrettably, the forced subjugation of the Iranians succeeded to some degree in transmitting the Islamic psychosocial virus to many Iranians. The virus transforms the person into a bigot—one who sees only his way and his belief as the right way and the only right mandate. Any and all people who do not see things his way are wrong and must be reformed by whatever means, including eradication, if the bigot sees fit.

True Iranians have remained friends of the Jews by both belief as well as deeds. During the shameful Hitlerian campaign of exterminating the Jews, for instance, Iranian missions in Europe, notably the one in France, issued Iranian passports to facilitate the flight of French and other European Jews from the claws of Nazis and their gas chambers—the very gas chambers that the true Muslim, disgracing Iranians, Ahmadinejad, denies ever existed.

Iranians stand for the right of the Jews as well as the equal rights under the law for any and all religious and secular people. Iranians believe that Islamofascism is a present and imminent danger and call on all free peoples of the world to do all they can to frustrate its “Pogrom,” heeding Martin Niemoller’s warning:

"They came for the communists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist; They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist; They came for the union leaders, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a union leader; They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me."

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Dear Muslims: Which "House" is America to you?

People are familiar with Islam's classification of the world into the Dar-ul-Solh, the house of peace, meaning the house of Islam-and the Dar-ul-Harb-the house of war, meaning the house of non-Islam. Ironically, the self-proclaimed house of peace, from its early years, has waged war against the house of war.

Also there is a little-known third "house" according to Islam-Dar-ul-Aman, the non-Islam house of safety where Muslims find refuge. We already know which of the three houses America is to Al Qaeda, the Iranian mullahs, the Taliban, the Muslims Brotherhood and their ilk. We are posing this question to the rank and file Muslims, particularly to the arrivals of recent years who are finding refuge in the non-Islamic world, including the United States of America:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/dear_muslims_which_house_is_am.html

Monday, November 20, 2006

Democracy’s Problems with Islam

A relatively recent demographic change—significant increase in Muslim population—poses a serious challenge to the American system of governance—democracy.

Historically, people from all over the world came to this land-of-take-all and made it their home. In becoming American, each new aspirant had to meet specific provisions and take the “Pledge of Allegiance” as sworn affirmation of his highest loyalty to his new homeland. After a couple of generations, all hyphenated Americans saw themselves as Americans with a special affection for their ancestral heritage. An Irish-American, for instance, considered himself every bit as American as a German-American, or a Chinese-American.

Traditionally, America did not homogenize its diverse people. The notion of the “melting pot,” is inaccurate. Instead, America did one better. As it welcomed its diverse people, America united them around a set of core values such as respect for human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law.

The large number of Muslims arrival of recent years is posing a serious problem to this nation of all nations. Bluntly speaking, no one can be a faithful Muslim and an American at the same time. Here are some of the reasons.

* A Muslim is, first and foremost, an Ummehist—a citizen of international Islam. So, when a Muslim takes the Pledge of Allegiance, he is either ignorant of the implication of his pledge or is lying willfully. Ignorance is never a valid reason in the court of law, and lying in the process of becoming citizen is a ground for denying the application and even deporting the violator. Sadly enough, tagyyeh—lying, or dissimulation—is not only condoned, it is recommended to the Muslims in their scripture. Hence, a Muslim can and would lie without any compunctions, whenever it is expedient.

* Muslims, by belief and practice, are the most blatant violators of human rights. We hardly need to detail here Muslims’ systemic cruel treatment of the unbelievers, women of all persuasions, and any and all minorities across the board. To Muslims, human rights have a different meaning, and it protective provisions are reserved strictly for Muslims—primarily for Muslim men. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.

Oppression of women, for one, is so systemic in Islam that to this day women are, at best, second class citizens under Islamic law. Saudi Arabia, the custodian of Islamdom, denies women the right to drive, vote or hold elective offices—the most basic rights of citizens in democratic societies.

For another, no non-Islamic literature are allowed in Saudi Arabia. A visiting Christian, for instance, is denied to enter the Kingdom with a Bible. Further, severe punishment is meted out to anyone daring to disagree with Islam or espouse a different religion. Iran’s resurgent Shiism often vies with Saudi Arabia in its mistreatment of religious and non-religious minorities. To the fanatical ruling gang in Iran, it is their brand of Islam or disenfranchisement of rights of citizenship and even death for the “sin” of apostasy. And of course, there is no point at all in talking about the savage Islamic Taliban.

* Respect for the rule of law, as it is understood and practiced by civilized people, is an instrument of convenience to be used to advantage and to be violated when it is not, for the Muslim. A Muslim believes in a different law—the Shariah: a set of stone-age rules. Violation of the non-Muslim laws, therefore, is no violation at all to a Muslim.

What is incredible is the gull and audacity of Muslims in demanding that Western and other democracies legalize Shariah in their societies. Large populations of Muslims, mostly recent arrivals, in countries such as Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden are experiencing the insistent demands by Muslims to have Shariah rule their Islamic communities. This is just the beginning and it may seem relatively harmless to the simpletons in our midst. Yet, once Shariah is recognized to any extent, it will reach out to rule not only on matters that concern Muslims, but also those that may involve a Muslim and non-Muslim. Under Shariah, a Muslim man married to a non-Muslim woman is able to divorce the woman at will, automatically have custody of the children, and literally toss the wife out of “his” home with just about no compensations.

* As for democracy, the rule of the people, Muslims have no use at all. Muslims believe that Allah’s rule must govern the world in the form of Caliphate—a theocracy. Making mockery of democracy, subverting its working, and ignoring its provisions is a Muslim’s way of falsifying what he already believes to be a sinful and false system of governance invented by the infidels.

To Muslims, Ummeh-ism—international Islamism—is the legitimate form of government. Ummeh-ism is another form of despotism such as Communism and Fascism, with the added feature of enjoying “divine” authority.

The world has good samples of Ummeh-ism in practice to scrutinize in Islamic autocracies. Khamenei of Iran is not called “Caliph.” He is called the “Supreme Guide.” The Saudi King is just another Caliph vessel of the “divine.” These Islamic despots are every bit as vile as the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Pol Pots, and the Mussolinis. The government these Islamic autocrats head is infested to the core with the Islamic disease of oppression, corruption and the absence of accountability to the people.

Democracies believe that government must be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Ummeh-ism is anathema to this sacrosanct fundamental democratic ideal.

As more and more Muslims arrive in non-Islamic lands, as they reproduce with great fecundity, as they convert the disenchanted and minorities, and as petrodollar-flush Muslims and Muslim treasuries supply generous funds, Muslims gather more power to undermine the democratic rule. A consortium composed of pandering politicians, blinded with short-term self-interest and egoism; attention and fund-seeking self-proclaimed prima donna professors; and, bastions of useful idiot liberals, universities, is the witting or unwitting promoter of Ummeh-ism.

It is human nature to be concerned, first and foremost, with his personal well-being. Some people evolve to a higher level of humanness and place the welfare of the general public above their own. Yet, many remain fixated at the constricted stage of “self first, self, last.” Even if you belong to this latter group, your self-interest demands that you do all you can to make sure that the disease of Islamofascism does not devour democracy. Democracy is both fragile and corruptible. It takes vigilant citizenry to protect its integrity.

We fully agree with Churchill’s observation, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.” Yet, as imperfect as it is, democracy is still humanity’s best system of self-rule. We, one and all, must defend it with our all.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Holding Islam to Account

Islam has spawned many sects that are master practitioners of the art of double standards. As far as Muslims are concerned, what is good for Muslims is not good for the non-Muslims; and what is bad for Muslims is good for non-Muslims. What complicates matters is that there is no way of knowing which of the dozens of at-each-other's-throat sects is the legitimate Islam.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=6674

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Stand and Fight, or Cut and Run: You Decide

Stand and Fight, or Cut and Run: You DecideOctober 12th, 2006
Mid-term elections are just around the corner. Polls show that many Americans are unhappy with the Republicans and are likely to vote for Democrats. Fine and dandy. This is America where the voter is king. And when one is king, he needs to be a wise king.

The foremost topic on the mind of the voter is the Iraq mess. Republicans, particularly the person of George W. Bush, are blamed for making the mess and not being able to clean it. So, the Democrats may be the answer, some think.

The Democrats can indeed be the answer. Unfortunately, their answer most likely will be disastrous. Faced with a ruthless enemy bent on your destruction, you either stand and fight or cut and run hoping that the enemy will not pursue you to your grave.

Once again it is decision time. We do well to recognize that short-sighted people with short memories are prone to make terrible choices, even when they have the best of intentions.

So, we want to refresh the voters’ memory to help them in making wise decisions. The vote you cast will not simply replace one politician with another. At this point in time, every vote has great existential implications. Whether we like it or not, we are truly in a war of survival with Islamofascism.

You cannot negotiate co-existence—live and let live—with Islamofascists any more than the Clinton administration succeeded with its compact with North Korea. Before the ink dried on the Clinton-North Korea agreement, the North Koreans embarked on cheating. Now, we are faced with a suicidal-genocidal adversary with nuclear weapons headed by a megalomaniac playboy.

The present mess in Iraq is plenty bad. Perhaps mistakes were made. Perhaps we should not have invaded the country. Perhaps we should have kept up the terribly costly over-flights over Saddam to keep him in his cage. Perhaps we should have taken our chances with the French and the Russians who were ruthlessly working to end Iraq’s embargo to enrich themselves from ill-begotten deals with Hitlerian Saddam. Perhaps we should have ignored all reports that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. All this hindsight was not at hand, unfortunately, when the decision was made.

Admittedly, Iraq is a mess. The Administration claims that there is progress, although much killing, mostly internecine, goes on. But, should we cut and run as many Democrats demand? The Democrats say that we should quickly bring our men and women home and let the Sunnis and Shiites and the rest of the Jihadists kill one another all they want. They further appeal to the pocketbook of the taxpayer by saying that the billions going down the Iraq sinkhole can be spent on the sorely needed domestic projects. Sounds good indeed, as if it were the only true and prudent thing to do.

But the battle in Iraq is all about power.

Islamofascists want power and the region is flush with it—oil. The factional fighting is about who is going to get control of the oil spigot. He who controls the spigot shall dictate his terms to all the oil addicts of the world. That’s us. Then starts the real “negotiation” with the turbaned oil barons. Muslims’ preferred negotiation style is very straightforward. You give, they take. You give as much as they can extract now and you will be forced to give the rest of whatever they want down the road. What is it that you have to give? Whatever they demand. You want oil? You comply and meet their terms.

Keep in mind that Islamofascists have a compact with Allah that allows them to make and break any commitment to anyone at any point. They share this “justifiable” deception belief with their atheistic kin, the Communists—the end justifies the means. It is indeed foolish for principled people to delude themselves into thinking that the Islamofascists honor the commitments they make. History is replete with instances where Muslims have sworn and sealed the Quran with a compact and have turned right around and violated their promise at terrible costs to their victims who took them for their word.
What are some of the Islamofascists oil barons’ terms? Just a few for starters:

* The United States of America completely pack and leave the Middle East.
* All kafir oil addicts pay for their fix through the nose.
* Islam to be granted all its God-given rights in kafir lands.
* The entire package of sharia stone-age rules and laws supercede local rules and laws.
* Mosques, Islamic centers and medressehs be granted privileged status and exempted from civil scrutiny and laws.
* Women be relegated to their Islamic place—caged in the house, deprived of education, don the hijab, and live at the pleasure of men.
* Taliban-type of Islamic purity becomes the standard.
Now, is all the above just fear-mongering and Democrat-bashing at election time?

You are free to see it that way. But, it is always more prudent to go with the facts than fiction. Do you think the Democratic fumble with North Korea under Clinton was an isolated instance? Well, what about Clinton occupying himself with handling other things instead of the Osama problem? Do you buy the story that he truly devastated Osama by firing a few missiles into the rocks of Afghanistan?

What about that other Democratic genius, Jimmy Carter’s handling of the 1979 Revolution in Iran? The 1979 uprising of the Iranian people was hardly Islamic until Carter and his mis-advisors decided to support the mullahs, instead of going to the aid of the secular Iranians who yearned for a democratic society.

So, here are George W. Bush and the Republicans trying to clean up the horrific mess the Democrats left behind. The savage mullahs of Iran are plenty evil without the bomb. With the bomb, the end is truly at hand. The mullahs have no compunctions about killing tens of thousands of their own people. They have set up a “Special Court of the Clergy” to try and imprison any of their own clerics who dare to oppose their doomsday designs. They even arrest and torture the ordinarily untouchable ayatollahs for speaking up for the rule of law and tolerance.

These are terribly trying times. Free people must decide their priorities with foresight and wisdom and shy away from shortsighted simplistic solutions. It is by far more prudent to face the implacable Islamofascists on the march now than to cut and run.

There is no safe place to run.

Our best hope for safety is to firmly resist Islamofascism in all its forms. We Iranian-Americans greatly cherish freedom, perhaps a bit more than others, because we have been first-hand witnesses to the horrors of Islamofascism. And we keep in mind that freedom is not free. Anyone or any party that promises otherwise is either a fool or a charlatan.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

The Islam Conundrum

A dictionary defines religion as,
“The expression of man’s belief and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.”

By this definition Islam qualifies as religion, so do numberless others. A definition this broad is ambiguous and must be further defined with the specific tenets and practices of the belief.

Simply because someone or some people say that they believe in a superhuman deity and revere him, the belief is accorded the privileged status of religion, it seems.

It is generally assumed that religion addresses issues of importance to daily life as well as matters that transcend it. Religion is thought to exercise a civilizing influence by ordering the social life, promoting spirituality, as well as advancing an array of human virtues. Zoroaster, for instance, based his faith on the triad of goodly thoughts, goodly speech and goodly deeds: Moses framed the fundamentals of his faith in the Ten Commandments; and Jesus placed love at the core of his religion.

Many people adhere to religion to provide them with comfort and a compass in life. It is these assumed-benevolent features of religion that confer it special status. Yet concern with religion overreaching has led societies to enact safeguards against that possibility.

Some, for instance, feared that Christ was a rebellious Jew aiming to challenge the ruling Romans. Perhaps to assuage this fear, Christ emphatically proclaimed,

“Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

To this day, there are those who still believe that the Christ was a mere social revolutionary.

In the case of Islam there is no ambiguity at all.

The mosque and the state were one and the same from the very start. During his lifetime, Muhammad embodied in his person all three branches of worldly secular governance—the legislative, the judiciary and the executive—as well as the religious domain. As a messenger of Allah, he transmitted Allah’s laws, adjudicated according to those laws and implemented Allah’s design. He also prescribed a set of religious instructions for the spiritual life of the faithful.
After Muhammad, Islamic rule was continued by Caliphs and Imams. To this day, wherever it is able, Islam governs as the state, either directly as is the case in Saudi Arabia, or indirectly as practiced in places such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

When religion crosses the line that separates it from the state, serious problems present themselves. In the case of Islam, the rule of the people, by the people, for the people is supplanted by the rule of Allah, by the faithful to Allah, for the pleasure of Allah.

Other problems arise. Liberty, deeply cherished by democracies, is replaced by submission—unquestioning obedience and adherence to the dictates and precepts of the all-knowing and all-wise Allah. It is this total form of submission that, among other things, prompted Muslims to systematically burn libraries of some of the lands they invaded. They justified their actions by contending that the Quran, the comprehensive unerring book of Allah, contained all perfect knowledge that humanity needs. To this day, in many places where Islam rules, various books are banned, newspapers and magazines are systematically either censored or shut down, and other non-print media are methodically blocked.

The contempt for free inquiry is encapsulated in the statement of Muhammad, “Al-elmo noghtatan katharoho al-jaheloon”—Knowledge is only one dot, expanded by the ignorant.

Once liberty is surrendered for submission, a host of serious consequences present themselves. The individual becomes little more than a passive obedient vessel of Allah and his perspective of himself and life is drastically changes. Once he submits to the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-alls, then he is absolved of the responsibility of having to chart his own way in life.

There is considerable allure in submission to a power that is willing and able to take care of the person. It is not a bad arrangement. The problem is that all past claimants have invariably been proven as either frauds or failures in honoring their part of the bargain. Islam is no exception. A cursory glance is enough to show the condition of Muhammad’s flock. In spite of huge material wealth, Muslims in the oil-rich countries are imprisoned in the paralyzing mentality of submission and all the terrible ancillaries that go with it.

There is no reason whatever to believe that Muslims have inferior intelligence. Their inferior material existence is strictly a function of the doctrine of Islam: a doctrine of nihilism, ignorance, and violence that denigrates this life and fixes the starry eye of the faithful on the next life.

A case in point is the Islamic madressehs in places like Pakistan. Never mind the girls. Girls are not in the calculus—women are incidental in Islam. Consider boys. Millions of young boys are enrolled in madressehs—religious boarding schools—learning very little beside memorizing and reciting the Quran. This is a case of total submission: Islam at its best, as championed by the oil-money-flushed Saudi patrons of the Wahabi sect.

Sadly enough, instead of Muslims marching out of the suffocating swamps of submission to the meadow of liberty, Allah’s faithful aim to drag the rest of humanity into the deadly Islamic quagmire. Islam may have been an improvement to the life of the nomads that roamed the Arabian deserts some 1400 years ago. The 21st century world, in spite of all its problems and challenges, is not willing to surrender to the clearly failed and failing Islamic experiment.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5912