Obama, Ahmadinejab, and a Shia Apocalyptic Scenario?

Dr. Michael G. Davis

http://apologetica.us

Obama, Ahmadinejab, and a Shia Apocalyptic Scenario?

By Dr. D | November 18, 2008

President Mahmoud Ahm...

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejab has been talking about an apocalyptic Shia/Islamic scenario for several years now–predicting that ‘ the Hidden Imam‘ would soon return as the end-time Mahdi that establishes Islamic rule over the entire world.

Following the election of Barack Obama, some Shities actually believe that Obama could be a possible fulfillment of an end-time Islamic prophecy.

I found the link to this at SmartChristian.com and in an article by Daniel Pipes. Here is a quote from the original article

by Amir Taheri:

According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a “tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West.” Commanding “the strongest army on earth,” the new ruler in the West will carry “a clear sign” from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: “Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us.”

In a curious coincidence Obama’s first and second names–Barack Hussein–mean “the blessing of Hussein” in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means “he is with us,” the magic formula in Majlisi’s tradition.

Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama’s rise as another sign of the West’s decline and the triumph of Islam. Obama’s promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat.

Response: This is not good at all. It is the type of scenario that Ahmadinejab might take serious and plan accordingly. If there is a perception that the USA is in decline under Obama’s administration and that he is an actual sign that Islam is about to rise up and dominate, the Iranian leaders might miscalculate and bring about an actual confrontation with Israel, the United States, and the West.

Pres. Ahmadinejab has already threatened Israel’s existence on a number of occasions. The Iranians last week tested some new missiles that could reach Israel and parts of Europe. If and when they actually go nuclear–then this scenario could end up having some serious consequences indeed.

It is doubtful that the Israelis would wait to act until a nuclear missile was actually in the air headed their way. Look for a strike way before the Iranians have that capability. One can only guess what the aftermath would bring–it would not be pretty and it could be apocalyptic!           *Top

LONG BUT VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE: An Anatomy of Surrender: Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.

Bruce Bawer
An Anatomy of Surrender
Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.
Spring 2008

Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho­meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

The Western media are in the driver’s seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that we’re the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”

Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks—and that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.

Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam. Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.” Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norway’s leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)

Last year brought another cartoon crisis—this time over Swedish artist Lars Vilks’s drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps “Vilks should have known better” because of the Jyllands-Posten incident—as if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldn’t be taken “too seriously” and noted approvingly that Sweden’s prime minister, unlike Denmark’s, invited the ambassadors “in for a chat.”

The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it’s because there haven’t been any.” Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned them—and when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters’ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of “Allahu akbar,” for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.

When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombing—even though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. u.s. muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Today’s american muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britain—yet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.

After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an “anti-Muslim backlash”—thus neatly shifting the focus from Islamists’ real acts of violence to non-Muslims’ imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11. The Times described Armstrong’s hagiography of Mohammed as “a good place to start” learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito want to understand islam? start here.

Mainstream outlets have also served up anodyne portraits of fundamentalist Muslim life. Witness Andrea Elliott’s affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful. Though it emerged in passing that Shata didn’t speak English, refused to shake women’s hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. “Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmother’s voice”; “Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . ‘She entered my heart,‘ said the imam.” Elliott’s saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as “right-wing” and insisted that Shata was “very moderate.”

So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are “moderate” (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesn’t have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”

The entertainment industry has been nearly as appalling. During World War II, Hollywood churned out scores of films that served the war effort, but today’s movies and TV shows, with very few exceptions, either tiptoe around Islam or whitewash it. In the whitewash category were two sitcoms that debuted in 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Little Mosque on the Prairie and CW’s Aliens in America. Both shows are about Muslims confronting anti-Muslim bigotry; both take it for granted that there’s no fundamentalist Islam problem in the West, but only an anti-Islam problem.

Muslim pressure groups have actively tried to keep movies and TV shows from portraying Islam as anything but a Religion of Peace. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations successfully lobbied Paramount Pictures to change the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears (2002) from Islamist terrorists to neo-Nazis, while Fox’s popular series 24, after Muslims complained about a story line depicting Islamic terrorists, ran cringe-worthy public-service announcements emphasizing how nonviolent Islam was. Earlier this year, Iranian-Danish actor Farshad Kholghi noted that, despite the cartoon controversy’s overwhelming impact on Denmark, “not a single movie has been made about the crisis, not a single play, not a single stand-up monologue.” Which, of course, is exactly what the cartoon jihadists wanted.

In April 2006, an episode of the animated series South Park admirably mocked the wave of self-censorship that followed the Jyllands-Posten crisis—but Comedy Central censored it, replacing an image of Mohammed with a black screen and an explanatory notice. According to series producer Anne Garefino, network executives frankly admitted that they were acting out of fear. “We were happy,” she told an interviewer, “that they didn’t try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.”

Then there’s the art world. Postmodern artists who have always striven to shock and offend now maintain piously that Islam deserves “respect.” Museums and galleries have quietly taken down paintings that might upset Muslims and have put into storage manuscripts featuring images of Mohammed. London’s Whitechapel Art Gallery removed life-size nude dolls by surrealist artist Hans Bellmer from a 2006 exhibit just before its opening; the official excuse was “space constraints,” but the curator admitted that the real reason was fear that the nudity might offend the gallery’s Muslim neighbors. Last November, after the cancellation of a show in The Hague of artworks depicting gay men in Mohammed masks, the artist, Sooreh Hera, charged the museum with giving in to Muslim threats. Tim Marlow of London’s White Cube Gallery notes that such self-censorship by artists and museums is now common, though “very few people have explicitly admitted” it. British artist Grayson Perry, whose work has mercilessly mocked Christianity, is one who has—and his reluctance isn’t about multicultural sensitivity. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art,” he told the Times of London, “is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to “realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

More recently, high-profile Europe experts Ian Buruma of Bard College and Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford, while furiously denying that they advocate cultural surrender, have embraced “accommodation,” which sounds like a distinction without a difference. In his book Murder in Amsterdam, Buruma approvingly quotes Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen’s call for “accommodation with the Muslims,” including those “who consciously discriminate against their women.” Sharia enshrines a Muslim man’s right to beat and rape his wife, to force marriages on his daughters, and to kill them if they resist. One wonders what female Muslims who immigrated to Europe to escape such barbarity think of this prescription.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and one of Britain’s best-known public intellectuals, suggested in February the institution of a parallel system of sharia law in Britain. Since the Islamic Sharia Council already adjudicates Muslim marriages and divorces in the U.K., what Williams was proposing was, as he put it, “a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resources.” Gratifyingly, his proposal, short on specifics and long on academic doublespeak (“I don’t think,” he told the BBC, “that we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights, simply because it doesn’t immediately fit with how we understand it”) was greeted with public outrage.

Another prominent accommodationist is humanities professor Mark Lilla of Columbia University, author of an August 2007 essay in the New York Times Magazine so long and languorous, and written with such perfect academic dispassion, that many readers may have finished it without realizing that it charted a path leading straight to sharia. Muslims’ “full reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected,” Lilla wrote. For the West, “coping is the order of the day, not defending high principle.”

Revealing in this light is Buruma’s and Garton Ash’s treatment of author Ayaan Hirsi Ali—perhaps the greatest living champion of Western freedom in the face of creeping jihad—and of the Europe-based Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan. Because Hirsi Ali refuses to compromise on liberty, Garton Ash has called her a “simplistic . . . Enlightenment fundamentalist”—thus implicitly equating her with the Muslim fundamentalists who have threatened to kill her—while Buruma, in several New York Times pieces, has portrayed her as a petulant naif. (Both men have lately backed off somewhat.) On the other hand, the professors have rhapsodized over Ramadan’s supposed brilliance. They aren’t alone: though he’s clearly not the Westernized, urbane intellectual he seems to be—he refuses to condemn the stoning of adulteresses and clearly looks forward to a Europe under sharia—this grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and protégé of Islamist scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi regularly wins praise in bien-pensant circles as representing the best hope for long-term concord between Western Muslims and non-Muslims.

This spring, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times Magazine, actually gave two cheers for sharia. He contrasted it favorably with English common law, and described “the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law” as “bold and noble.”

With the press, the entertainment industry, and prominent liberal thinkers all refusing to defend basic Western liberties, it’s not surprising that our political leaders have been pusillanimous, too. After a tiny Oslo newspaper, Magazinet, reprinted the Danish cartoons in early 2006, jihadists burned Norwegian flags and set fire to Norway’s embassy in Syria. Instead of standing up to the vandals, Norwegian leaders turned on Magazinet’s editor, Vebjørn Selbekk, partially blaming him for the embassy burning and pressing him to apologize. He finally gave way at a government-sponsored press conference, groveling before an assemblage of imams whose leader publicly forgave him and placed him under his protection. On that terrible day, Selbekk later acknowledged, “Norway went a long way toward allowing freedom of speech to become the Islamists’ hostage.” As if that capitulation weren’t disgrace enough, an official Norwegian delegation then traveled to Qatar and implored Qaradawi—a defender of suicide bombers and the murder of Jewish children—to accept Selbekk’s apology. “To meet Yusuf al-Qaradawi under the present circumstances,” Norwegian-Iraqi writer Walid al-Kubaisi protested, was “tantamount to granting extreme Islamists . . . a right of joint consultation regarding how Norway should be governed.”

The UN’s position on the question of speech versus “respect” for Islam was clear—and utterly at odds with its founding value of promoting human rights. “You don’t joke about other people’s religion,” Kofi Annan lectured soon after the Magazinet incident, echoing the sermons of innumerable imams, “and you must respect what is holy for other people.” In October 2006, at a UN panel discussion called “Cartooning for Peace,” Under Secretary General Shashi Tharoor proposed drawing “a very thin blue UN line . . . between freedom and responsibility.” (Americans might be forgiven for wondering whether that line would strike through the First Amendment.) And in 2007, the UN’s Human Rights Council passed a Pakistani motion prohibiting defamation of religion.

Other Western government leaders have promoted the expansion of the Dar al-Islam. In September 2006, when philosophy teacher Robert Redeker went into hiding after receiving death threats over a Le Figaro op-ed on Islam, France’s then–prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, commented that “everyone has the right to express their opinions freely—at the same time that they respect others, of course.” The lesson of the Redeker affair, he said, was “how vigilant we must be to ensure that people fully respect one another in our society.” Villepin got a run for his money last year from his Swedish counterpart, Fredrik Reinfeldt, who, after meeting with Muslim ambassadors to discuss the Vilks cartoons, won praise from one of them, Algeria’s Merzak Bedjaoui, for his “spirit of appeasement.”

When, years after September 11, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged publicly that the West was at war with Islamic fascism, Muslims’ and multiculturalists’ furious reaction made him retreat to the empty term “war on terror.” Britain’s Foreign Office has since deemed even that phrase offensive and banned its use by cabinet members (along with “Islamic extremism”). In January, the Home Office decided that Islamic terrorism would henceforth be described as “anti-Islamic activity.”

Western legislatures and courts have reinforced the “spirit of appeasement.” In 2005, Norway’s parliament, with virtually no public discussion or media coverage, criminalized religious insults (and placed the burden of proof on the defendant). Last year, that country’s most celebrated lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, argued that the punishment for honor killing should be less than for other murders, because it’s arrogant for us to expect Muslim men to conform to our society’s norms. Also in 2007, in one of several instances in which magistrates sworn to uphold German law have followed sharia instead, a Frankfurt judge rejected a Muslim woman’s request for a quick divorce from her brutally abusive husband; after all, under the Koran he had the right to beat her.

Those who dare to defy the West’s new sharia-based strictures and speak their minds now risk prosecution in some countries. In 2006, legendary author Oriana Fallaci, dying of cancer, went on trial in Italy for slurring Islam; three years earlier, she had defended herself in a French court against a similar charge. (Fallaci was ultimately found not guilty in both cases.) More recently, Canadian provinces ordered publisher Ezra Levant and journalist Mark Steyn to face human rights tribunals, the former for reprinting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the latter for writing critically about Islam in Maclean’s.

Even as Western authorities have hassled Islam’s critics, they’ve honored jihadists and their supporters. In 2005, Queen Elizabeth knighted Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, a man who had called for the death of Salman Rushdie. Also that year, London mayor Ken Livingstone ludicrously praised Qaradawi as “progressive”—and, in response to gay activists who pointed out that Qaradawi had defended the death penalty for homosexuals, issued a dissertation-length dossier whitewashing the Sunni scholar and trying to blacken the activists’ reputations. Of all the West’s leaders, however, few can hold a candle to Piet Hein Donner, who in 2006, as Dutch minister of justice, said that if voters wanted to bring sharia to the Netherlands—where Muslims will soon be a majority in major cities—“it would be a disgrace to say, ‘This is not permitted!’ ”

If you don’t find the dhimmification of politicians shocking, consider the degree to which law enforcement officers have yielded to Islamist pressure. Last year, when “Undercover Mosque,” an unusually frank exposé on Britain’s Channel 4, showed “moderate” Muslim preachers calling for the beating of wives and daughters and the murder of gays and apostates, police leaped into action—reporting the station to the government communications authority, Ofcom, for stirring up racial hatred. (Ofcom, to its credit, rejected the complaint.) The police reaction, as James Forsyth noted in the Spectator, “revealed a mindset that views the exposure of a problem as more of a problem than the problem itself.” Only days after the “Undercover Mosque” broadcast—in a colossal mark of indifference to the reality that it exposed—Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair announced plans to share antiterrorist intelligence with Muslim community leaders. These plans, fortunately, were later shelved.

Canadian Muslim reformist Irshad Manji has noted that in 2006, when 17 terrorists were arrested in Toronto on the verge of giving Canada “its own 9/11,” “the police did not mention that it had anything to do with Islam or Muslims, not a word.” When, after van Gogh’s murder, a Rotterdam artist drew a street mural featuring an angel and the words thou shalt not kill, police, fearing Muslim displeasure, destroyed the mural (and a videotape of its destruction). In July 2007, a planned TV appeal by British cops to help capture a Muslim rapist was canceled to avoid “racist backlash.” And in August, the Times of London reported that “Asian” men (British code for “Muslims”) in the U.K. were having sex with perhaps hundreds of “white girls as young as twelve”—but that authorities wouldn’t take action for fear of “upsetting race relations.” Typically, neither the Times nor government officials acknowledged that the “Asian” men’s contempt for the “white” girls was a matter not of race but of religion.

Even military leaders aren’t immune. In 2005, columnist Diana West noted that America’s Iraq commander, Lieutenant General John R. Vines, was educating his staff in Islam by giving them a reading list that “whitewashes jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law with the works of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito”; two years later, West noted the unwillingness of a counterinsurgency advisor, Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen, to mention jihad. In January 2008, the Pentagon fired Stephen Coughlin, its resident expert on sharia and jihad; reportedly, his acknowledgment that terrorism was motivated by jihad had antagonized an influential Muslim aide. “That Coughlin’s analyses would even be considered ‘controversial,’ ” wrote Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, “is pathognomonic of the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global terrorism.” (Perhaps owing to public outcry, officials announced in February that Coughlin would not be dismissed after all, but instead moved to another Department of Defense position.)

Enough. We need to recognize that the cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which they’re determined to impose on us. So far, they have been far less successful at rolling back freedom of speech and other liberties in the U.S. than in Europe, thanks in no small part to the First Amendment. Yet America is proving increasingly susceptible to their pressures.

The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that they’re incapable of defending it when it’s imperiled—or even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled. As for Muslims living in the West, surveys suggest that many of them, though not actively involved in jihad, are prepared to look on passively—and some, approvingly—while their coreligionists drag the Western world into the House of Submission.

But we certainly can’t expect them to take a stand for liberty if we don’t stand up for it ourselves.

Bruce Bawer is the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within. He blogs at BruceBawer.com.

 

 

 

Thug-In-Chief: “Iran becoming a nuclear country was one of the Imam Mahdi’s miracles”

Thug-In-Chief: “Iran becoming a nuclear country was one of the Imam Mahdi’s miracles”

Here, courtesy Jihad Watch reader Charlemagne’s Funny Bone, is a quick summary — but fuller than most that have appeared in the mainstream media — of Ahmadinejad’s one hour and three minute speech before 200-300 clerics in the City of Mashad, Iran.

The last two years was the hardest time, after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, through which we have passed. Some Iranian people are telling me that the price of oil has gone up so why we don’t see any of its effect in our country. They ask me why the price of food and many other things are rising. I have to tell you when the price of oil goes up the price of everything go up. My government won’t receive all of the money that we make out of oil. Whatever Majlis approves, my government spends and rest of the money that we made on oil goes to the treasury. The government before me (Rafsanjani, Khatami) changed many things. Whenever I want to fix any corruption, many people within regime that I do not want to name begin to talk against me. In one of their meetings they (Rafsanjani, Khatami) said someone (Ahmadinejad) wants to go against us, but he has to know two things in the country that are in our hands: the Banks and Oil. So, he cannot do anything.We have to work very hard to establish justice in our country. Our foreign enemies thought that by passing resolutions in the United Nations, they could stop us from becoming a nuclear country. But with God’s help, now we are a nuclear country and they cannot do anything about it. There are many problems that, God willing, we will pass. I will talk about how we pass all of these problems in the second part of my speech.

You people know that God did not create man to live the way he is living today. No one used his mind better than prophets and Imams. The glorifications of men all will happen with divine management. If there is not any divine management, nothing happens in the world. All of the fights from the beginning of humanity have been because of he who has to manage and govern the world. From the beginning of humanity, all of the prophets said that the world must be managed through divine direction. We have to create a situation for the establishment of divine government. Anything that happens in the world happens because of Imam Mahdi. The creation of the world was because of the Imam Mahdi. The misery of humanity is because they don’t think about establishment of divine government on earth. There is no other truth or goodness in the world except the establishment of Imam Mahdi’s government on earth.

One day I was in a gathering, some people asked me what are these things that you are talking about, I told them that I did not say these things, God said them. If we don’t connect ourselves to the Imam, we are nothing. The return of Imam Mahdi is the only truth that we must think about. From the beginning of humanity there have been people with evil intentions that have been trying to stop us from thinking about the return of Imam Mahdi. Some people just see the body of the enemies but not their intentions. For example, the people who came and occupied Iraq, it seems their intention is to steal Iraqi’s oil, but that is not the case. Actually they have studied and analyzed that something is about to happen in this area. A divine hand is about to come out from this area and obliterate the corruption in the world.

Some people think that at this time Imam Mahdi is living somewhere and doesn’t care about humanity, but they are wrong. At this time Imam Mahdi is managing the world. My dear people, let me tell you something, at this time humanity has entered a new era. The people around the world are up rising against the arrogant powers. At this time we are seeing many of miracles of Imam Mahdi. For example, Iran becoming a nuclear country was one of the Imam Mahdi’s miracles. The victory of Islamic Revolution in Iran was another miracle of Imam Mahdi.

Let me tell you something, one day one of the grand Ayatollahs, whom many of you know, told me, “I have heard that you are talking about the return of Imam Mahdi and that you are in contact with him. Is that right?” I told him that I believe Imam Mahdi is managing the world. Furthermore, I told him, “Do you know what my problem is? My problem is that I believe everything people like you taught me.”

I believe that Iran is becoming the center of this management. “We must solve Iran’s internal problems as quickly as possible. Time is lacking. A movement has started for us to occupy ourselves with our global responsibilities, which are arriving with great speed.”

 

Posted at May 8, 2008 10:19 PM

Islamic Bigotry: The Slaughter of 4,000 Gays

Islamic Bigotry: The Slaughter of 4,000 Gays

By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | 10/2/2007

At Columbia University on Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared: “We don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. We don’t have this phenomenon; I don’t know who’s told you we have it.”

If there were any truth to this – and there is none – it would be because because the Islamic regime in Iran had killed them, since homosexuality can be a capital crime in that country. One notorious case occurred on July 19, 2005, when two teenage boys, Mahmoud Asgari, 14, and Ayaz Marhoni, 16, were hanged in a particularly brutal manner in Iran for the crime of homosexual activity. Although Iranian officials insisted that the death sentence was for the rape of a third boy, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, has said otherwise. But Asgari and Marhoni were not alone. According to the Iranian gay and lesbian rights group Homan, the Iranian government has put to death an estimated 4,000 homosexuals since 1980. According to Scott Long, director of the Human Rights Watch Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program, Iranians who are suspected of being gay commonly face torture. Hossein Alizadeh of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission said Iran gays live with “constant fear of execution and persecution and also social stigma associated with homosexuality.”

This is true not only in Iran, but in all too many areas of the Islamic world. The Qur’an characterizes those who “practice your lusts on men in preference to women” as “transgressing beyond bounds” (7:81). A hadith pronounces “the curse of Allah” upon those who engage in homosexual activity. A contemporary Muslim writer, Shaykh Abdul-Azeez Al-Fawzaan, called homosexuality “one of the most sinful acts known to humankind” and said that it was “evidence of perverted instincts, total collapse of shame and honor, and extreme filthiness of character and soul.”

Legal views on punishment vary. Among the Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence (madhahib), the Hanafi school mandates a severe beating for the first offense, and the death penalty for a repeat offender. The Shafi’i school calls for 100 lashes for an unmarried homosexual, death by stoning for a married one. The Hanbali school requires stoning across the board. Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, directed his followers to “kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him” (‘Umdat al-Salik, p17.3).

In many areas these injunctions are still followed. The Islamic Penal Law Against Homosexuals in Iran calls for the death penalty for sodomy and one hundred lashes for lesbianism for the first three offenses, with death for the fourth offense. Homosexuality is a capital offense not only in Iran, but also in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and Mauritania. In Malaysia, it can draw a twenty-year prison sentence, and is illegal also in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan, among others.

Of course, Afghanistan under the Taliban regime drew international attention for killing gays by toppling walls onto them. Pakistani law mandates two years in prison for homosexual activity, but the traditional Islamic penalties of lashing and stoning are still widely popular. When authorities in the United Arab Emirates arrested twenty-six men whom they accused of participating in a mass gay wedding – with twelve dressed as grooms and twelve as brides, plus a disc jockey and a man who was to perform the wedding ceremony – in November 2005, they announced plans to subject the men not only to lashings and jail time, but also to hormone treatments.

In light of all this, the silence of campus gay rights groups and the so-called “progressive” Left generally about the global efforts by Islamic jihadists to impose Islamic Sharia law is appallingly short-sighted. While they attack Christians, who are not calling for gays to be imprisoned or killed under any circumstances, they say nothing about a genuine threat to their survival. While they attack Israel, a gay-friendly country, they are silent about the murder of gays in Islamic Iran.

The late columnist Cathy Seipp recounted a telling incident in March 2006, when a friend of hers went into San Francisco’s City Lights bookstore and asked for a copy of the late and much-missed Oriana Fallaci’s The Force of Reason. “We don’t carry books by fascists,” sniffed the clerk, prompting Seipp to muse: “Strangest of all is the scenario of such a person disliking an author for defending Western civilization against radical Islam — when one of the first things those poor, persecuted Islamists would do, if they ever (Allah forbid) came to power in the U.S., is crush suspected homosexuals like him beneath walls.”


Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.

President Ahmadinejad’s Vision

President Ahmadinejad’s Vision  
Saturday, 10 June 2006
Being the observing Shia that he is, President Ahmadinejad, Mahmood (let’s call him PAM, for short) has adopted for himself a Marjae Taghleed (Spiritual Guide, Point of Emulation), as recommended by Shia doctrine. The Spiritual Guide, chosen from the ranks of the clergy, supposedly personifies a living example of piety to be consulted in all matters, revered and emulated.

It is no secret that Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi (let’s call him AMY, for short) is Ahmadinejad’s Point of Emulation. AMY is nicknamed crocodile for his reptilian brains, by his numerous “admirers.” Given the high office Ahmadinejad holds, he has free access to AMY and frequently seeks solace and guidance from him on religious as well as matters of the state. Furthermore, AMY often times serves the role of father figure, confidant, as well as therapist for PAM.

Recently, petrified by a vision, PAM rushed to AMY for interpretation of the meaning of his vision and regarding the course of action he should take. Below is a digest of what transpired between PAM and AMY.

PAM. Your Holiness, no words can adequately express my infinite gratitude to you for your unfailing generosity to this worthless speck, for your willingness to see me, for your priceless counsels…

AMY. (Okay Speck speak up, he says to himself). Yes, yes. No need, no need. Please proceed. What is troubling you my son?

PAM. Your Holiness, I had a vision—an incredible and disturbing vision. I could not sleep the night, counted the minutes until I could attend your presence and find relief from my torment…

AMY. Yes?

PAM. Last night, I was pulled by an irresistible force to pilgrimage the holy mosque at Jaamkaaraan…

AMY. (Sighing exasperatedly and saying, “Oh, oh, not again”). Yes?

PAM. Your Holiness, you will excuse my imposition if I report to you in some details. It is a matter of great disturbance to me. I beg your forgiveness in advance for wasting your invaluable time…

AMY. You are already doing so by not getting to the narrative. Please proceed.

PAM. Yes, Your Holiness. As always, you are so correct and wise. Yes, as I was about to say, it was last night, this very past Friday. As it is my habit I performed the ablution, secluded myself in my chamber and busied myself with earnest prayers of thanksgiving to God, the Prophet, and the Pure Imams. I particularly prayed to the object of my heart, the Hidden Imam, the Saaheb-u-Zamaan__ Lord of the Age…

AMY. (If this s.o.b. was not the president of our nation I would already have him tossed out). Yes, that is commendable that you prayed so earnestly. So, what is so unusual about that?

PAM. Your Holiness, I am getting to that part. You, in your infinite wisdom have frequently admonished me, “Patience is Godly while haste is Satanic.” Hence, I am taking your advice and describing things in details hoping that I do not tax your patience.

AMY. (Well, you take in a snake, you live with a snake. Hear out the bastard). Yes?

PAM. Immersed as I was in my prayers, oblivious of the entire world, when bandeh manzel—my house [a way good Muslims refer to their wives]—entered the chamber and entreated me to take my evening meal. What an atrocious thing to do? Interrupting my state of utter bliss and spiritual ecstasy in order to take food? But, women! What is that old saying, “Women are catastrophe, yet no home should be without one?” That is exactly what they are. Catastrophe…

AMY. (I certainly can think of many men who give women a run for that distinction. And you, my little idiot are definitely one of them. Except that no home should ever be cursed with your presence, and here you are inflicted on an entire nation). Yes, yes, I have heard that gem.

PAM. My bandeh manzel is an insistent woman. She has her ways of doing things in matters domestic. She insists that I eat and drink more nurturing food to gain strength since on my frail shoulders rests the responsibility of leading God-fearing Muslims of our nation, nay the entire world of Islam…

AMY. (I wager that she has found you sub-strength in performing on her, you little weasel. Just think what the faith of God has come down to—for an imp like you seeing himself as the one to lead the Muslim world). Yes, yes, it is so. Please get to the main point—the vision.

PAM. After consuming a sumptuous meal, together with delectable beverages and partaking of a few puffs of smoke, bandeh manzel felt amorous—if you know what I mean?

AMY. (No, I really do not know what you mean. I can not fathom any woman, naaghes-ul-aghl—[mentally deficient that women are by nature]—would feel amorous toward a monkey like you). Yes?

PAM. Having discharged my conjugal duty, once again I embarked on deep meditation…

AMY. (I bet you did discharge). Which wife?

PAM. The first one, Sakeeneh Sultan. She is so demanding Your Holiness.

AMY. Yes, yes. Women, as they get older they become less pleasing and more pain. This is one of the reasons that we men are allowed tajdeede faraash—renewal of bedding [bedding in this case means wife]. No matter, proceed.

PAM. Your Holiness, would you overlook my impertinence if I am to ask you a personal question? I am terribly embarrassed to present you with this question. But, it is of vital importance to me…

AMY. Proceed.

PAM. When you are in amorous disposition, how do you convey your desire to a wife?

AMY. Simplicity itself, my dear son. I whistle.

PAM. But how would whistling convey the message to the desired wife?

AMY. I whistle a different tune for each zaeefeh—[weak-one—another Islamic way of referring to women].

PAM. Ingenious. It is an outstanding solution indeed. But, what if a zaeefeh finds herself in amorous mood? How does she signal her desire?

AMY. Simplicity, again. She enters my chamber and asks, “Did you whistle, sir?” Enough of all this side-tracking, please proceed with the vision.

PAM. Thank you, Your Holiness. You, with your infinite wisdom, never fail to resolve my profoundest of puzzlements. Yes, back to the vision. Deeply immersed in meditation, I lost track of time. Suddenly the room was filled with luminous light, two magnificent angels appeared. I was completely overwhelmed. Beads of sweat covered me from head to toe, tears gushed out of my eyes, and I felt soaked all over…

AMY. (You little creep. I wager you had pissed all over yourself). You said that you consumed a sumptuous meal and delectable beverages. What kind of beverages did you imbibe, my son? Were they by any chance, God forbid, the kind that should never touch our lips? And you also said that you had a few puffs of smoke after the meal. You must tell me about that too.

PAM. Your Holiness, no, no. I swear on the Quran that not a drop of that satanic brew did touch my lips last night or ever…

AMY. (Why is it that anytime anyone wants to lie, they swear on the Quran?). Yes, yes. I do believe you that not a drop of the satanic brew has ever touched your lips. I heard that line from another president of our country, Akbar Refsanjani—a pistachio farmer turned billionaire by stealing the nation blind. Yet, all evidence indicated that the conniving hypocrite was a habitual imbiber of alcoholic beverages. To make matters worse, rumor circulated that he had a special affection for Scotch whisky and Bourbon, distillations of the infidels. No matter.

PAM. Did he actually break that cardinal law of our faith?

AMY. Well, I had personally seen in him signs of drunkenness and decided to investigate the matter for myself. First, I confronted him and he brought out the Quran, placed one hand over it and the other over his black heart and swore that not a drop of any form of satanic brew has ever touched his lips. Never trusting a word of him, I assigned one of my loyal agents to stealthily keep Akbar under observation, and guess what he found out? You get three guesses.

PAM. I give up, Your Holiness.

AMY. Mullah Akbar was telling the truth, just like you are. Not a drop of the stuff touched his lips, while his gut got loaded to the rim. Do I have to spell it out for you? Fine. He was drinking right from the bottle, using straws. Not a drop was touching his lips. You must have at some point attended Akbar’s hozeh—religious seminary—of chicanery. Have you?

PAM. Your Holiness, it is for this very reason that I have chosen you as my Spiritual Guide. Not only are you a true man of God, you have unsurpassed intelligence—something that I sorely lack. Admitting my sins to you is like confessing to the All-forgiving and Merciful God. You recognize my failings, forgive my sins, and admonish me to do the right things and to mend my ways…

AMY. Now, be done with the confession and get to the vision. And the puffs of smoke you had? Opium, correct? The stuff is not forbidden in our faith. I can not chastise you for its use. Why do you not limit yourself to the ones that are sanctioned? Does not the holy Quran command us, “Eat and drink of what we have given you?” Of course we must refrain from the use of the ones that are specifically forbidden, pork, alcohol and the blood of the dead.

PAM. Are we allowed to drink the blood of the living?

AMY. (Wise ass s.o.b.). We suck the blood of the living of people. Can’t you see the emaciated skeletons of our poor people? They do not have much blood. And that is the way it should be. They prosper and we will have a rebellion on our hand. It is either them or us. And I say, it better be us.

PAM. Yes, yes Your Holiness. Admitting that you are correct is as superfluous as saying that the Quran is the book of God. It is self-evident. Yes, indeed I took a few puffs of the stuff, but I did not inhale…

AMY. Now, you are using a page from the book of another conniver president. This one was the president of the Great Satan, Clinton the name. Recall what he claimed? That he had smoked marijuana, but had not inhaled. Also fornicating with that young Jewess, Monica was it? Yes, Lewinski or such. The fool made matters worse by saying that he did not have sex with that woman. Then, when he was proven lying, he was demanding people define “truth.” What are you doing my son, scouting the world to learn every form of deception?

PAM. I apologize for taxing your patience, Your Holiness…

AMY. While I am at it, I would like to elucidate the Clinton-Lewinski shenanigan. It was just another case of Zionists controlling every aspect of America: its finances, by owning the Wall Street; its culture, by monopolizing Hollywood; and, its government by having the politicians by their proverbial. Clinton was not 100 percent in their pocket. He paid some lip service to the cause of our Palestinian brothers. So, the Zionist set up the Monica trap for him and they almost had him impeached. Yet, they stopped short of impeaching him, because all others got the message. Fail to toe the line of Zionism, and you do it at your own peril.

PAM. Yes indeed, Your Holiness. It is precisely the way I see it. Zionism and America are two sides of a bad penny; two names for the same satanic entity. Once we defeat one, we destroy them both.

AMY. Yes. As for you being the president of our God-fearing nation, it is understandable that you are in a very delicate and difficult position; that you rightfully need to master the art of statesmanship and exercise it to full effect to the advantage of our people. You should study your predecessor’s practices. You know who I mean, not the thieving pistachio farmer but the smiling mullah Khatami: The conman who had the world fooled by his rhetoric on “Dialogue of Civilizations,” reciting the names and works of infidel philosophers, while all along pushing his agenda forward. The Master Cotton Killer…

PAM. Pardon me for interrupting. But, what is a Cotton Killer?

AMY. There are two major ways of killing your enemies. The most obvious and crude type is the overt method—use of the sword or its modern versions. These weapons, as deadly as they are, are not easy to use without producing undesirable consequences for the user. The other is the covert method—Cotton killing. The latter is most deadly and if practiced skillfully, it can kill without anyone suspecting a thing. You perform the latter while smiling and appearing most gentle all along. See how the Cotton Killer Khatami in the course of his eight years as president managed to kill the budding movement for democracy and secularism? Now, you have it easy. Thousands of troublemakers are either dead, in prison or in exile. It is credit to the smiling mullah, and no one can really pin any blames on him, even to this day.

PAM. (How can Cotton Killing work for my mission, how could I eradicate Israel by this method, and pave the way for the Hidden Imam to appear? Each problem requires its own solution. I can realistically achieve my objective by the bomb. But, Israel is in a small area of Palestine. Palestinians and Jordanians are within an earshot. A bomb can get them also. No matter, those people are not true Muslims. They are Sunnis. They deserve what is coming to them. What about our Shia brothers in the Baka Valley nearby? Well, we all must make sacrifices for the cause. They will go to heaven anyway…)

AMY. My son, wake up. Speak up. Where are you?

PAM. I apologize, Your Holiness.

AMY. No matter, tell me about the vision. (Somehow Friday nights seem to be the nights for visions. Every other two bits lout imbibes the satanic brew, takes a few puffs and in his drunken opium-induced trance has visions).

PAM. Your Holiness, I am afraid that I am taking the risk of making a jackass of myself…

AMY. (You already have done that many times, take the next bus). No matter, no matter.

PAM. As I was saying, overwhelmed as I was, soaked and shaking uncontrollably with excitement, the two magnificent angels, grabbed me, each under one arm and in an instant I found myself in Jaamkaaraan. I am certain that only you can fully appreciate the ecstasy that enveloped me. I felt that the Imam had sent his very own emissaries to take me to his hallowed presence…

AMY. (Horse feathers, you bastard. Do I have to listen to you gherd—a derogatory term for monkey). Get to the point and leave the details out. I have a seminar to attend to.

PAM. Yes Your Holiness. Next thing I knew, I was at the bottom of the well in semi darkness and I saw the visage of the beloved of our hearts…

AMY. Are you absolutely certain that it was the blessed Imam?

PAM. Now that you mention it, I can not swear on the Quran that it was him, particularly after what transpired in my extended meeting with him…

AMY. Strange things transpired?

PAM. Yes, unbelievably strange and frightening indeed. For this very reason I sought your presence to relieve me of my perplexity.

AMY. It sounds serious. You must tell me all about it.

PAM. Fearing to run the risk of boring you Your Holiness, I shall make it short…

AMY. (Boring me? You are killing me). Please continue. So, you are not certain that it was our Beloved? Then why bother with the vision. It may have been nothing more than what we call khaabe shekammee—gut-overload dreaming—as the saying goes. Or, it could be that the demon alcohol had done its mischief.

PAM. No, no, Your Holiness. It was no such a thing, since I have had those types on occasion. Yet, this vision was far from being due to perturbations of the guts by excessive eating and drinking…

AMY. No matter. Proceed.

PAM. Thank you. I had difficulty breathing in that tiny pit. It seemed like the walls were pressing on me from all sides. Dampness and stench were intolerable. It broke my heart to think that the beloved Imam had taken refuge in that dreadful hole for over a thousand years. I looked all over hoping that there was a passageway that led to paradise where the Imam actually resided. I found none. Of course it was fairly dark in there…

AMY. Yes, yes. Wells are known to be dark, and the deeper the well, the darker the well. And it is believed that where the Imam is in occlusion is several leagues deep.

PAM. Now I understand. No wonder I could not breathe. No wonder the stench and dampness. No ventilation. That is what I say.

AMY. (You must have lost control of your systems, covered under the quilt. That is what I say you little twerp). Yes? Please relate the salient points and dispense with the ancillary material.

PAM. Yes Your Holiness. As you can imagine I had so many questions to ask. I did not know where to start. But, I felt that I must first thank him for all the things he has done for me. It is only decent to do that, is it not Your Person?

AMY. (If I and my hozeh were not dependent on your financial largess, I would have kicked your bonny hindquarters out of here, the minute you arrived. You are killing me). Please get to the salient points.

PAM. You will forgive me, in obedience to your command, if I share with you some of the points in a random manner as they come to my mind?

AMY. (I was not aware that you had a mind). Yes.

PAM. I thanked the Imam for making me, his servant, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran and his Viceroy.

AMY. (Why thank him? Thank the illiterate Khameniei, the egomaniac supreme guide. He is the one who hand-picked you and gave the desperate people of Iran a choice between a crook and a monkey. People picked you, the monkey, hoping that you would not loot them as heartlessly as the crook Refsanjani would). Yes?

PAM. I thanked him for answering my prayer by inflicting severe harm on that fat Zionist dog, Ariel Sharon. Do you know what the beloved said in response? You get three guesses just like you in your fairness allowed me three guesses earlier.

AMY. I give up.

PAM. You would not believe this, Your Holiness. I swear on my late father’s grave…

AMY. (Oh, oh, he must be telling the truth. He is not swearing on the Quran). Yes?

PAM. The Imam looked puzzled and asked, “Who is Ariel Sharon? I do not get the papers here regularly. Besides, it is too dark to read and my contacts with the outside world are infrequent and not very reliable.” Would you believe that? See what I mean when I said that the pilgrimage was most perplexing?

AMY. I see. I see. Is this the end of it, I hope?

PAM. I am not perplexed because I am dumb. It is a most confounding thing to be coming from the one who knows everything, spoken or unspoken, overt or covert…

AMY. (You could have fooled me. No, you are correct. You have to work your way up to dumbness. Idiot. That is what I say you are. Idiot). Yes?

PAM. I can see that I am taxing your patience. It shows in your visage. In any event, I will make it short. Then he asked me to tell him a bit about Sharon. I did. He was visibly upset when I related to him the terrible things that this man and his Zionist occupiers of our holy land have done and continue to do to the God-fearing Palestinian Muslims in their very own ancestral land. Then the Imam wanted to write down Sharon’s name. He said, “I must be getting old. I do not remember things like I used to. I have become very forgetful. I must write things down.”

AYM. (I might just forget that you, imitation human being, are the President and have my servants cut your both earlobes, stuff them in your mouth, before tossing you out of my chamber). Did he truly say that?

PAM. Yes, he did indeed. The sad part is that there was no one around to bring him his writing instruments. No one showed up. Just the two of us squeezed in the terribly confining quarters. I reached in my pocket and offered him my PDA. He was visibly upset when I did that and chastised me, “What in the world is this? This is not a writing instrument. Are you mocking me?” See what I mean by this terribly puzzling vision?

AMY. Yes.

PAM. Moments later, he calmed down and I decided to thank him for commissioning Imam Khomeini on his mission of reviving Islam. Do you want to guess what his response was? Again, you will definitely get three guesses, even more if you like.

AMY. What was his response? (You slime).

PAM. Unlike his oblivion about Sharon, he indeed recognized Khomeini. What he said however, seemed blasphemous to this speck of dust, particularly coming from the Imam. He said, “That imposter villain? Why do you call him imam in the first place? You fools have no sense, do you? He was an imam, murdering thousands of Iran’s young men and women for the sin of wanting to be treated as humans, rather than fanatical jackasses like you and your ilk? Tangling with the accursed Saddam in a senseless war and between the two of them maiming and killing millions of people from both sides? He was imam by making stone-age rulings, supporting terrorism and promoting a doctrine of hate? By dishonoring an ancient nation, making Iran a pariah, the nation of Cyrus the Great who was the very first author of the Charter of Human Rights and by thoroughly sullying the reputation of Islam? That killer is presently, and forever, is paying for his crimes. No 72 virgins for him, no rivers of milk and honey, no lush fruits, just the full amenities of the dreadful hell. He shares a cell with Hitler, soon to be joined by Saddam…

AMY. Please that is enough…

PAM. Only one last thing, Your Holiness. I begged the Imam to appear and set the world aright. I told him that it was beyond any mortal’s capability to do so. Do you know what he said?

AMY. No, and I do not want three guesses. Please be done with it.

PAM. He said, in unequivocal terms that we should not accommodate the Great Satan and its little proxy, the Zionist State; that any negotiated settlement of our difference would constitute appeasement of the satanic forces; and, that we should take the struggle to its very end. It is then and only then that he would emerge and rescue the world. Would you believe that? Is it not wonderful? He will be coming, only if we do our assignment and prepare the conditions…

AMY. (I hope that he brings with him the sure cure for the mentally-deranged like you).Yes, yes, yes. I believe that is enough. I recommend that you completely forget about this vision and attend to your urgent duties as the head of our nation during these turbulent times.

Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

By Amil Imani

To understand Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mindset and behavior require close scrutiny of the elaborate and intricate theology of Hujetieh Shiism, perhaps the most fundamentalist of the numerous Shiite sects.

In the 1950s, a group of Islamic clergy led by Sheikh Mahmoud Halabi (a close associate of Ayatollah Khomeini) formed a society called the Anjoman-e Khayryyehye Hujjatiyyah-ye Mahdaviat (Charitable Society of the Mahdi), based in Mashhad, Iran. The Hujjatyyah membership was mostly composed by the bazaar-i  businessmen and fanatical mullahs. Among many things, they were against the communists, Marxists, and atheists. Their overarching “raison d’être,” however, was to prepare the world for the upcoming of the 12th Imam — the Mehdi.
However, the most important immediate agenda item on their list was to harass and persecute the Baha’is, a religious group representing a small percentage of Iran’s population. In fact, the Hujjatiyyah-y’s alternative name became “The anti-Baha’i Society” (Anjuman-e Zidd-e Baha’iyat). They collectively worked for a single purpose: the eradication of Baha’is.
The terrible plight of the Baha’is in Iran is particularly heart-wrenching, since they are the largest non-Muslim population in the country and have been, from day one, severely brutalized by Muslims. Baha’i teachings of tolerance and openness to science are anathema to the Islamofascists on many levels, but the history of the faith includes direct challenges to the theological legitimacy of the mullahs. These slaveholders find the Baha’i faith a threat to their own version of Islam and the absolute theocratic power it puts their hands.
The egomaniac President Ahmadinejad is a member of Hujjatiyyah. He sees himself as the personal vassal of the Mahdi-Messiah or Hidden Imam, with whom he has fantasized tête-à-têtes frequently.
Ahmadinejad, a man driven by his religion, has a spiritual advisor in Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi (the defacto leader of the Hojatieh). The President’s advisor is known for his extremist views on Islam and promotes suicide bombings and attacks on civilians in the West.  There is only view of Islam for him. He once said, “…if anyone tells you their own interpretation of Islam, punch them in the mouth!”
President Ahmedinejad has in a short time acquired great many descriptors at home and overseas: zealot, fascist, fanatic, anti-Semitic, lunatic and more. One prominent Western columnist called him “unhinged.”  But we cannot just dismiss the man as an aberration, someone who is in urgent need of psychological help, a person out of touch with reality, who represents nothing of substance.
Once again the West is misreading and misjudging people and events in the Middle East, due to the fact that it views things through its own prism.

Looking at the man through Western spectacles, he indeed appears to be all of the above and more. Yet Ahmadinejad is far from unhinged. As a matter of fact he is firmly hinged to a set of beliefs that dictate his views of the world, and inform him how he should deal with it from his position of power.
An unhinged man has the potential of becoming once again hinged. But, there is very little that can be done to a person who is inseparably hinged, and Ahmadinejad views are firmly rooted in the most orthodox philosophy of Shiism.
For our purposes, however, it is sufficient to document the fact that Ahmadinejad is not mentally disturbed; there is no display of contradictory thoughts and behavior. There is a full internal consistency in Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad’s words, deeds and beliefs show a fully hinged person.
Below are a few examples of his sayings, beliefs and actions. Whether one agrees or disagrees with them, they all fit perfectly into a consistent pattern.

▪ He literally believes in the imminent emergence of the Mahdi – the Shiites’ promised one who is expected to appear to set aright a decadent and wretched world.

▪ He views himself as the vassal of Mahdi, working for him and being accountable to him.

▪ His main task is to prepare the world so to hasten the Mahdi’s coming. If this preparation requires much destruction and bloodshed, so be it.

▪ As a former mayor of Tehran, he developed elaborate detailed plans preparing the city for the arrival of the Mahdi.

▪ He allocated generous sums for extensive road improvement to a mosque at Jamkaaraan near the city of Qum where it is believed the promised Mahdi is hiding in a well since the age of nine, over 1100 years ago.

▪ He reportedly visits the well frequently and drops his written supplications into the well for the hidden Mahdi to act upon them.

▪ He has said in private that it was he who asked the Mahdi to inflict the massive stroke on Ariel Sharon.

▪ He sees the Jews as the sworn enemies of Islam. The hostility dates back to the time of Muhammad’s own treatment of the Jews in Medina. At first, expediently, Muhammad called the Jews “people of the book,” and accorded them a measure of tolerance until he gained enough power to unleash his devastating wrath on them.

▪ He says that the Holocaust is a myth. He is, in this respect, in good company with a number of other revisionist fanatics.

▪ He wants Israel to be wiped out of the map or transferred to Europe.

▪ In his speech at the UN general assembly, he implored the Mahdi to come and save the world. He claimed that during his speech of some twenty odd minutes, a powerful light enveloped him and all participants were held transfixed, unable to move their eyes.

▪ He believes that the earth is Allah’s and all people must either become believers of his brand of Islam or must perish as infidels najis (unclean) who by their very presence defile Allah’s earth.

▪ He believes that this earthly life is passing and worthless in comparison to the afterlife awaiting a devoted and faithful believer. Hence, he holds to the old belief that if a faithful kills an infidel, he goes to Allah’s paradise; and, if the faithful gets killed in the process of serving the faith, again he goes to Allah’s paradise. Hence, it is a win-win proposition for the faithful.
Ahmadinejad is a true devoted Muslim. Being unpredictable, self-contradictory and inconsistent are major symptoms of the mentally unhinged. By these standards of insanity, Ahmadinejad emerges as completely sane. He is fully predictable, consistent and has shown no self-contradiction. He does not even pretend that he misspoke or apologize for his outrageous statements. He is not a typical politician who practices the devious art of doublespeak, deception and change of position to suit his immediate convenience.
He knows who he is, what he believes, and what his own mission in life is: serving as the instrument for the revered Mahdi. Allah will make him emerge from the well as soon as the world’s conditions hit absolute hopeless bottom. Ahmadinejad sees himself as a driver who can play a critical role in doing just that, driving the world to the very bottom. And he plans on having an arsenal of nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

There is nothing really “unhinged” about Ahamadinejad’s thinking, statements and actions. They are internally consistent. He is simply a fanatic who is wedded to an extremely dangerous exclusionary system of belief. Humanity must learn that dismissing him as alunatic will result in great suffering, as it did with Hitler.
Tragically, Ahmadinejad is the embodiment of several million people who are hinged exactly like him and who are willing to give their lives, and take with them as many lives as required in the service of their belief.  In this age of Weapons of Mass Destruction a man with huge sums of petrodollars can serve as the catalyst of total annihilation.
Prudence would err on the side of being an alarmist than a complacent dismissive.
 
Ahmadinejad and his ilk are not interested in any negotiation, any compromise or any live-and-let-live final solution. They are determined to be the soldiers of Mahdi come-what-may. They have no problem with the total destruction of the world. They are headed for a life of eternal bliss in Allah’s paradise. They hardly care, even rejoice, if the rest of humanity is subjected to a tragic death in the nuclear, biological and chemical wasteland of planet earth.
Humanity cannot afford and must not ignore the emergence of the final threat to its very existence on this planet.
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. He maintains a website at Amil Imani

The nasty Saudi face

The nasty Saudi face

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury

Saudia, the official flag career of Saudi Arabia has officially declared in its web sites that any passenger flying with it to Saudi Arabia are now allowed to carry ‘due to religious reason’. These include alcoholic beverages, pork and pork products, prohibited drugs and narcotics, firearms, explosives, edged weapons and pornographic materials.Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are also prohibited. These may include Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David, and others.As soon as I came to know such heinous announcement, I called the local office of Saudia in Dhaka to know for sure if such restrictions on carrying holy Bible and other religious items were really forbidden. The reply was shocking and it was ‘yes’.According to another information, signs in Saudi airports warn Muslim travelers that the airport’s mutawwa’in, or religious police, confiscate Korans, other Islamic literature, and Muslim objects of non-Saudi origin. While discriminating specifically against Shiites and Ahmadis, this policy manifests a wider insistence on Wahhabi supremacism. More broadly, the Saudi leadership runs a country that the American government has condemned repeatedly as having “no religious freedom” and being among the most religiously repressive in the world.When an employee at the Saudi Consulate in New York was contacted by a newspaper, it was told that anyone bringing a Bible into the country or wearing a crucifix or Star of David around their neck would run into trouble with Saudi authorities. “You are not allowed to bring that stuff into the kingdom,” the consular official said. “If you do, they will take it away,” she warned, adding, “If it is really important to you, then you can try to bring it and just see what happens, but I don’t recommend that you do so.” It may be mentioned here that over the summer, the Saudi government-run Supreme Commission for Tourism announced a number of steps, such as issuing group visas to foreigners through tour operators and granting longer entry visas, in the hopes of boosting the number of foreign tourists to 1.5 million annually by 2020. I really fail to understand, who are those senseless and shameless people, who would love to visit this ridiculous land of wahabis knowing their extreme nasty attitude of religious intolerance.Before I comment on the latest move of Saudi Arabian Airlines, let me try to look into this on Islamic perspectives. If I am not mistaking, one of the pillars of remaining Muslim is to believe in all previous prophets and previous holy books. If someone would violate this Koranic instruction, he or she will no more remain a Muslim. I know, Wahabism is not Islam. It is a kind of peculiar theory of the Arab monarchs in order to protect their crowns for centuries and let them remain at the helm of Muslim world. But, the latest decision of Saudia is a clear violation of Koran. So, it is no need to even argue that the Arab monarchs now automatically loses their rights to be termed as Muslims. They are Wahabis, not Muslims. And, in this case, my question to millions of Muslims around the world. Should we let those Wahabis remain the custodian of the key of Holy Kabaah? Unfortunately, in today’s world, true spirit of Islam is being hijacked by many evil forces under many names. Wahabis, Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmedinejad etc., etc. The entire Muslim world has become a kind of captive in the whims and cruelties of these bad elements. If the Muslims are truly willing to fight evils, they must raise voice against Wahabis, Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmedinejad and others, which are continuing to spread poison of religious hatred in the world. Those who tries to be non-respectful to Bible, Torah and other holy books and messengers of Allah should remember one very specific verse of Koran. It says, do not differentiate my prophets. If you do so, you will become atheist. So, being a Muslim, I can say with all my confessions that Wahabism is a Arab format of atheism. It is in fact even worst. Let us look into the Arab societies. One man is marrying several women and always leaving them unattended regularly and depriving them of their right accorded by Allah through the verses of Koran [Sura Nisa and others]. I know of facts of many Arab men having 10-12 wives. Now, even in Islam, it is not allowed to have more than four wives. How these Arabs marry more than four? This is surely not Islam!And now going back to the titled topic, we heard of many injustice in Saudia for years. Last year, we published series news items on the sordid story of an Indian Muslim female, who worked for Saudi Arabian Airlines and finally was sexually harassed by her Arab colleagues. She knocked the doors of Saudi king. But, no result, as if the monarchism in Saudi Arabia are also ready to defend such notoriety of the men in their society. In fact, Saudi men are ‘skilled’ in sexual harassment. They consider women as a kind of amusement element – not human being. In ancient Arab time, even when fathers died, sons were becoming the owners of their own mothers. Mothers were then giving birth to child from their own sons. Just imagine the degree of sickness in that society. Can we really expect anything morale and good from those sick people? Nah!

Posted on 06 Sep 2007 by Root