Dallas: A tribute to the great Islamic visionary, Ayatollah Khomeini

metroplex-muslim-ayatollahRod Dreher and several others have kindly alerted me to this conference that was held in Dallas last weekend: a “Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary,” Ayatollah Khomeini.

Dreher comments at the Dallas News blog (thanks to R. Solomon):

Take a look at who the guest speakers were. There was Imam Yusuf Kavakci of the Dallas Central Mosque, a religious leader widely regarded outside the Islamic community as a moderate. Do real moderates agree to speak at a conference in praise of Ayatollah Khomeini? Just wondering.

Another speaker was Imam Mohammed Asi of…Washington, DC. Asi co-hosted a National Press Club forum not long after 9/11, in which militant Islamic speakers trashed Jews, Christians and America; according to this report from Michelle Malkin, he did nothing to stop them. Malkin writes of the rally, which was broadcast on C-SPAN, “If this event had been an anti-Muslim rally, the story would be front-page news.”

Imam Shamshad Haider, another local speaker, has publicly condemned Islamic terrorism. Good for him. But if he really means it, how can he host a conference praising Khomeini? Inquiring minds want to know. An unnamed representative of Dallas’s Council on American-Islamic Relations was set to speak at the Ayatollahpalooza; again, they say they’re against terrorism, but it’s hard to square being against it with making a “tribute” to a devil like Khomeini.

Also on the bill at Khomeinifest: Dallas Mavs player Tariq Abdul-Wahad, who says on his website that he prays at the Richardson mosque — presumably, that’s the Dallas Central Mosque.

Would someone from the Muslim community please write to explain to me why this conference in “tribute” to one of this country’s worst enemies, and an avatar of worldwide Islamic radical revolution, is not something that I, or anybody else, should worry about? I’ll post your comments, promise.

Not long ago I wrote a column about an Islamic demonstration in Dearborn, Michigan, in which several demonstrators held aloft large pictures of the Ayatollah. I think the last bit of it bears repeating:

It is unlikely that the protestor knew that in 1985, Sa’id Raja’i-Khorassani, the Permanent Delegate to the United Nations from the Islamic Republic of Iran, declared, according to Amir Taheri, that “the very concept of human rights was “a Judeo-Christian invention” and inadmissible in Islam. . . . According to Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the Shah’s “most despicable sins” was the fact that Iran was one of the original group of nations that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

I wonder if anyone at the Dearborn protest realized that the appearance of these signs in Dearborn, Michigan, exalting this man as a hero, indicated that Khomeini’s vision for society is alive in America today — and that it is dangerously naive to assume that all Muslims immediately and unquestioningly accept American pluralism and the idea of a state not governed by religious law. The Netherlands is just finding out, thanks to the cold-blooded murder and attempted decapitation of the “blasphemer” Theo van Gogh by a Muslim who appears to have been part of a larger jihadist cell, that not all the Muslims in Holland are the committed pluralists and secularists that they have been assumed to be by credulous European authorities.

With Khomeini a hero in Dearborn, Americans may be finding that out for themselves before long. Just where American Muslims stand on Khomeini’s doctrines — and how many stand with Khomeini — are still forbidden questions for the major media. But if the old man could have spoken from his sign in Dearborn, he might have said, “Ignore me at your own risk.”

UPDATE: The link has been removed, so I put up a jpg of the conference announcement, courtesy LGF.

Spencer: The Million-Dollar Qur'an Challenge
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    I read about this at LGF. Like I posted there, who in high government position is allowing this to grow into a critical situation? They have to understand Islam’s goals and intent. Is there someone in high position who wishes for an Islamic takeover? I am beginning to wonder.

  2. says

    Many of the comments will, quite understandably, be of the “revenons a ‘revenons a nos moutons'” variety. But I would like to repost a comment from last August, because it contains a tribute to Edward Mortimer, Chief Speechwriter of Kofi Annan and perhaps more.

    The posting from August 2 has not dated, and it retains the confident prediction as to the U.N.’s inability to do anything significant in Darfur — a prediction borne out.

    So, not by popular demand but simply because I’m too lazy to type out the same sentiments again, that August 2 posting:

    “The Director of Communications at the U.N., and Kofi Annan’s Chief Speechwriter (and also his “Senior Adviser”) is one Edward Mortimer, formerly with the Euro-Arab Dialogue branch of the E.U., and before that, a journalist with a variety of English newspapers. He is most famous, among those who remember what he wishes they would forget, for the absolute delight with which he greeted that primitave pro-fascist and mass-murderer, the Ayatollah Khomeini, the man who in his writings carefully explains to whom it is licit to serve the cooked remains of a goat, a camel, a sheep with which you have had sexual intercourse, and then killed and cooked that allows one to deal with that famous problem immortalized in song — “breaking-up-is-hard-to-do” — and at the same time thriftily observing the ethic of “waste not, want not.” And then, of course, there are the Ayatollah’s remarks on the absolute necessity of making war on the Infidels (see, for bloodthirsty samples, Ibn Warraq’s “Why I Am Not a Muslim,” pp 11-12)

    Here is what Edward Mortimer, the man who puts the words in Kofi Annan’s mouth, and therefore helps to mold what pass for Kofi Annan’s “thoughts” wrote when the Ayatollah Khomeini first came to power, as reported by the English writer Anthony Howard:

    Way back at the start of 1979, when the Iranian people took to the streets and the late Shah was overthrown, the media – as I recall – did not so much give a shudder of horror as heave a sigh of relief. Indeed, one London periodical (the ultra-respectable, middle-of-theroad Spectator) went almost overboard in its exultation. Writing from Teheran, one of its contributors, Mr. Edward Mortimer of The Times of London, actually went so far as to begin his article with Charles James Fox’s comment on the fall of the Bastille: ”How much the greatest event it is that ever happened in the world, and how much the best!” Those words, added Mr. Mortimer, seemed to him ”entirely apposite.”

    That is Mortimer on Khomeini’s resistible rise: “How much the greatest event it is that ever happened in the world, and how much the best” are words, he wrote, that seemed to him “entirely apposite.”

    And not surprisingly, Mortimer is venomous on the subject of Israel. Now the real antisemites, as is known, have a few topics that they cannot leave alone, that haunt them, that they love to discuss, endlessly. For some, it may be the supposedly “deliberate” attack by Israeli planes on the U.S.S. Liberty in June 1967 — despite the careful analyses and now the released tapes, that show conclusively that it was, of course, a mistake, friendly fire of the most understandable kind. (This does not prevent the likes of James Bamford in one of his books of claiming, without the least evidence, that Israel did this in order to “cover up” its crimes of executing Egyptian prisoners–but then Bamford, of course, is the kind of man who pretends to be a tough, no-nonsense clear-eyed defender of America when he insists that there is no problem with Islam or a JIhad, no, of course not — the problem is America’s unreserved and total (!) “support of Israel.” (tell that to the Christians in East Timor or the Southern Sudan).

    Now there is one other favorite topos of the convinced antisemite. And that is that the “Zionists” collaborated with — the Nazis. This nauseating charge is made, in fact, by among others, one Lonnie Brenner. No serious reviewer would bother with such trash. But Edward Mortimer found the thesis of a Zionist-Nazi collaboration so convincing, so meritorious, that he wrote a rave review that was then used as the introduction for a new edition of the book. That tells one all one needs to know about Edward Mortimer’s deepest impulses, and not only when it comes to Israel.

    So, Nikoz [a poster above], you asked quite correctly who puts the “twaddle” in Kofi Annan’s mouth — the mouth of the man who heads an organization that has been taken over by the Islamintern? Why, it is Edward Mortimer, the Man Who Loved Khomeini and is willing to believe the most intolerable calumnies against Israel and the Zionists.

    Mortimer deserves the U.N.; the U.N. deserves Mortimer. What a mix, what a continuous Witches’ Sabbath on the East River.

    Meanwhile, a million black Christians in southern Nigeria died, many of them killed by Egyptian pilots bombing civilians — and the U.N. did nothing. The U.N. did nothing when 200,00 Christians in East Timord died; it was the Australians who had to rescue the rest, with their own troops. In 20 years of genocidal attacks, the U.N. has done nothing effective to help the Christians of the southern Sudan, despite the superb and anguished reports of its Special Rapporteur Gaspar Biro. Kofi Annan went out of his way to prevent General Romeo Dalaire from acting to intervene and head off the Rwanda Genocide (the Hutus, incidentally, had earlier received arms from Egypt; at the time, the Secretary-General was the sad-eyed Boutros Boutros Ghali, a man deeply afraid of the Egyptian Government, and Kofi Annan was in charge of peacekeeping).

    The discussions about Darfur are farcical. The U.N. will not and cannot act, because the Arab League, and many other Muslim countries, will simply not permit any intervention to save either non-Muslims, or non-Arab Muslims, when they are under attack by Muslim Arabs. Only against Iraq, in the past 30 years, has the U.N. authorized military force against a Muslim power. And it was not to rescue the Kurds during the Al-Anfal Operation against them. No, it was only in response to the invasion of Kuwait, and threatened invasion of Saudi Arabia — for there, other Muslim powers were directly threatened. And the resolutions left over from the end of that first Gulf War were the only reason the United States obtained some half-hearted backing this time around.

    But unless it is other Muslims who are being threatened, the U.N. will never, ever, take the side of intervention. It has been thoroughly infiltrated by pro-Islamic, and anti-Israel and anti-American forces. And Edward Mortimer beautifully exemplifies all three strands. He deserves special attention, and no doubt a special prize from Muslim sources — for efforts that surpass even what they expected.

    Well done, Edward Mortimer.”

    Posted by: Hugh at August 2, 2004 06:57 PM

    In fact, should not Edward Mortimer have been invited to the Dallas shindig that celebrated the Works and Days of the Ayatollah Khomeini, so as to have leant a certain false olde-worlde charm, and that pseudo-plummy voice, brimming with self-confidence, and all the rest of what Edward Mortimer has to offer — which is what, exactly?

  3. says

    In Khomeini’s own words, which judging by the degree of enthusiasm with which the subject conference was promoted and attended, we can easily infer are the true intentions of the mainstream members of the Muslim communities in the United States:

    Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

  4. says

    Ayatollah Khomeini’s book ‘Tahrir-something-or-other’ gave guidance of what is morally okay.

    This sick old man gave the thumbs up to buggering livestock and having sex with your auntie if the house collapsed during an earthquake and you happened to fall on top of her.

  5. says

    I remember going to the Federal Building in Los Angeles during the time of the hostage crisis to watch the protests. I was about 14 or 15 years old. These pigs would stand and shout “Death to America” while a handful of Americans (myself included) would shout back. I recall one day a couple of guys in their 20’s shouted down a few “protesters” and wound up beating them senseless, snatching their placards and hitting them with them. As a kid, I was a little scared at the violence, but looking back and comparing those times to now, at least America was united in its disgust with the Iranians, not kissing up to them and trying to somehow rationalize their terrorist acts.

  6. says

    I remember at school just before the Shah was deposed my headmaster saying he couldn’t understand why so many Iranian women were demonstrating to have their human rights taken away from them.

    I suppose headmasters in those days had grown up before political correctness.

  7. says

    OT:

    I just wanted to take a moment and welcome all the new members to the e-mail sign up.

    And to the members that have been with it for a while, thank you for all the information that you pass along and your helpfulness.

    Many have asked how they can contribute. On the main page for the site is an area to contribute. It’s Amazon-paypal.

    Just there and click onto it and it will take you to a secure site.

    Some have asked how the money is spent.

    The money helps fund the site, also, pays for travel expenses for Robert to be able to appear on various news programs. He doesn’t get paid for those.

    Also, Robert has been kind enough to send copies of his books to those overseas that can’t get the books or the money to buy them.
    $24.99 here is the same as a $1,000.00 in some countries.

    Everything that is donated, goes to support the work of Robert, Hugh and the site and is much appreciated.

    Susanb

  8. says

    Carolyn2 asks:

    “who in high government position is allowing this to grow into a critical situation? They have to understand Islam’s goals and intent. Is there someone in high position who wishes for an Islamic takeover? I am beginning to wonder.”

    You may be interested in looking into Grover Norquist … In my humble opinion, he is a closet Muslim. Nobody in politics who considers himself a conservative would flutter so close to the IslamoFascist flame unless …

    Read the following:

    http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11209

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14267

    http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/grover_norquist.htm

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000376.php

  9. says

    Hulequ Khan,

    Thank you for publishing Khomeini’s sermon again.
    This is hideous!

    If this is what we are up against (and sadly we are!) then do we have a choice but to ban their activities, shut down the mosques, lock up the so-called ‘clerics’ and arrange mass deportations even for those who have dual nationalities.

    They are out to get us and the sooner we have a go at them the better for all of us!

  10. says

    I’d like to see a journalist go up to these people holding up pictures of Khomeini and ask them why they honour a man who advocated pedophilia and bestiality. It would be interesting to hear their answers, and to have them broadcast on the nightly news, along with the excerpt from Khomeini’s speech. Or would the journo end up being beaten with the signs and run off, accused of “Islamophobia” and inciting hatred against Muslims?

  11. says

    Ummagumma:

    Don’t forget that this is not something from 1000 years ago, Khomeini is the founder of the “Islamic Republic of Iran” who virtually unopposed toppled the Shah just 3 decades ago.

    When we see what’s ging on in muslim countries today the Shah must now be regarded as an enlighted and modern ruler.

    We, (the US) dropped the Shah like a hot potato,- totally oblivious to the fact that such med-evil caracters like Khomeni could possibly exist this day and age.

    And feralee: Absolutely right: This is the stuff we should see on the nightly news! Islamic paedophilia, bestiality, Jihad- this is the stuff that SHOULD BE DISCUSSED and brought out into the open for everyone to see. We need smalltalk like a hole in the head: Get real!!!

    But try telling that to Larry King, the grand master of PC!

  12. says

    The lionization of the Ayatollah Khomeini in the United States’ Islamic community is a perfect illustration of the power and persuasiveness of Islamic propaganda in action. The leaders of Islam have been at it (propagandiziation) a lot longer than anyone else has (and that includes Christians who are commanded by their deity Yahweh–not ‘al-lah’–to remain truthful even in their evangelization efforts…which Muslims are NOT required to do). Islamic leaders have gotten GOOD at propagandizing the masses, something those of us who want NOTHING to do with Islam at all must deal with effectively and have yet to come to terms with.

    Yes this adulation of the Ayatollah Khomeini is extremely offensive. It is also a very disturbing development. Americans will need to successfully do two things to effetively counter this and the even worse developments that are certain to follow.

    1-)We will need to conduct a campaign exposing Islamic propaganda and that will educate the masses as to the TRUE beliefs of Islam and its leaders–not the Pollyannish, “politically correct” and highly misleading tripe we get from the so-called Islamic apologist “experts” like Esposito, Armstrong et al who do nothing but strengthen the hand of the militant Islamic lobby by keeping Americans misinformed about the actual nature of Islam. Such a campaign could remain ideologically neutral about Islam and in fact all religions since its goal would be to expose Islam as the homicidal and dehumanizing force it actually is. We are after truth here. When that is established among the American public, the leaders of the US Islamic community will have a much harder time palming off such things as the sainthood of the allegedly ‘heroic’ Ayatollah Khomeini on us.

    2-)We will need to outlaw Islam in the United States and pressure Canada and Mexico to do the same. Yes, Muslims in America will either have to stop practicing or else immigrate into another country. But as long as Islam is allowed in North America we are going to be plagued with dilemmas like watching a notorious enemy of democracy like Ruhollah Khomeini be canonized by Islam.

  13. says

    Thanks for the links, Kemaste. Now I am even more concerned about the influence of the islamonazis on the highest levels of our government. I know it has been asked.. is Grover Norquist a convert? If not his devotion to islam is hard to understand.

  14. says

    “Khomeini Acquires Co-Maniacs”-(my headline)

    This bizarre use of sentient protoplasm, AKA the late Ayatollah Khomeini, and all of his venal followers, are a poisonous cul de sac in the hopefully opening development of the knowledge of the Koran by Muslim believers.

    And an embarrassment to any life form higher than a butcher bird.

    But, where are the Texans? Or have they forgotten the old psychopath?

    In one ayatollah and out the other?

  15. says

    Just wanted to point out that there is not a single Iranian name among the organizers or speakers. That should show that these people were praising a man whom they do not know.

  16. says

    Thanks Hugh, for the info on Mortimer- why the heck hasn’t this character been outed, and loudly, by our media. Certainly shows Koffi’s character, or lack of.
    Seenthepersian makes a great point. Similarly, arabs outside Iraq saw saddam as great hero, a power arabs could be proud of; inside Iraq most knew him a butcher and worse, save a few favoured sunnis.
    Khomeini should show the world the sort of thinking that is taken as leadership and scholarship in the moslem world is insulting to any intelligent being.

    islam is not a religion, and should not be treated as such. Until our governments get that bit right, i’m not sure we can defend ourselves.

  17. says

    Grover Norquist a closet Muslim?

    Sounds more like he is in it for the money!!!??

    A “greenback Islamist”…

    No doubt there are a lot more like that out there. The Saudi coffers are deep and the propaganda machine neeeds to be oiled to run at top speed at all times.

    There will be a lot more of those, that’s why: Jihad Watch!

    Keep you nose on the grindstone, boys, we gotta bring it out in the open!

  18. says

    Grover Norquist a closet Muslim?

    Most likely not.

    He’s only in it for the money!!! Let’s call him a “greenback” Islamist.

    There would be a lot more of his ilk out there. But as long as we bring it out in the open we can force them to show their true colours.

    That’s why ‘Jihad Watch’…

  19. says

    At least the Shah tried to modernise Iran and encouraged women’s education. As for Iranian women – can’t understand why they would support
    a sheepshagging and paedophile advocate like Khomeini?? In a pessimistic mood and wonder if ANY MUSLIM COUNTRY is compatible with principles of DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM. Islam and Democracy seem directly opposed .The problem is [and always has been]ISLAM.

  20. says

    These people don’t know who he is and if we told them, they wouldn’t care. The fifth column academics have inculcated Khomeini’s sainthood so well into these Muslims that they will dismiss any criticisms of him -i.e. that he was a filthy rapacious dictator – as a “smear”. And Khatami wonders why there are no Persian philosophers. With figureheads like these, Charles Manson looks enlightened.

  21. says

    Igor: There are no Persian philosophers, the ‘Islamic revolution’
    killed them all.

    Islam does not need Philosophy, they need more Jihadi’s…

    Hugh Fitzgerald:

    Khomeini did take a minor for a wife after he came to power in Iran, did he not?

    What was her age and when did he ‘consume’ the marriage? When she was 9 like Aisha?
    Or even earlier before she had ‘her first blood?’

    Being the expert historian: Surely you would know?

    I am curious!

  22. says

    Pythagoras posts:
    “The lionization of the Ayatollah Khomeini in the United States’ Islamic community is a perfect illustration of the power and persuasiveness of Islamic propaganda in action.”

    Indeed, and we need look no further than CAIR to see how sophisticated it has become. To confront and combat these groups publicly will require an equal degree of sophistication – we must learn to play the media like a Stradivarius.

  23. says

    BTW, make sure you make a note of the speakers, I suspect we will find them represented as “moderates” somewhere down the road…

  24. says

    Please everyone take a minute and ask yourselves about the American Media and ITS itinerary.

    Another speaker was Imam Mohammed Asi of…Washington, DC. Asi co-hosted a National Press Club forum not long after 9/11, in which militant Islamic speakers trashed Jews, Christians and America; according to this report from Michelle Malkin, he did nothing to stop them. Malkin writes of the rally, which was broadcast on C-SPAN, “If this event had been an anti-Muslim rally, the story would be front-page news.”

    Events unfolding right now in Greece where Albanian criminals have hijacked a bus

    How about some coverage on the religion that hijacked a people.MMmm….. I may be on to something here, an Occult group

    money demands for hostages in greece or they blow themselves up.I pray that the Greece Government is preparing condolence letters to families of the rest of the hijacked prepare to die.

    My prayers for the family and the Government that has to face this
    They are all Jamah

  25. says

    Terminator,

    Khomeini did not take any wife (minor or adult)after he came to power (he was 78 at the time).

    His own wife was 13 and Khomeini was 27 when they married in 1925.

  26. says

    SeenathePersian:

    I was rather mature looking for my age at fifteen year old and was absolutely horrified when men in their late 20s approached me to go out with them on dates.

    A 13 year old female is hardly emotionally mature enough to pair off with a 27 year old man (who may not be much more emotionally mature himself, but is definitely sexually mature and looking for someone to control rather than for an appropriate companion).

    From a different thread, I most certainly hope you are right about Iran being on the edge of ridding themselves of the mullahs and the Revolutionary Guards. They have suffered greatly for far too long.

  27. says

    Dear Waterdragon,

    I would not have concerned myself too concerned about the age of Khomeini’s wife, which was and is an acceptable age in many parts of the world, and not limited to muslims either. The problem with Khomeini’s ideology was not about his personal drive or characteristics, but his ideas itself. By all account he was a pious man with little or no materialistic interests. But his vision and ideals of a religiously-directed government with clerics as the heads of government ruined a once prosperous country.

    Attempts to depict leaders like Khomeini as inherently evil and corrupted men, obscure the fact that the problem is with the idea itself, not just the people who advocate it. It basically shows how a dangerous idea could be advocated by people who at first seem virtuous, spiritual or God fearing.

    My 2 cents.

  28. says

    SeenathePersian:

    Agreed the Islamic world is not alone in its mysogeny and pedophilia. There are many Europeans and Americans who happily engage in sex tourism to exploit minors of both genders.

    Khomeini may not be corrupt in the sense that Saddam was corrupt, but the taking of so young a female as a wife is symptomatic of of an ideology that requires unquestioning submission of its adherents.

  29. says

    To the query above about whether the Ayatollah Khomeini marryied a nine-year-old. I know nothing about it, but had it happened, I assume it would have gotten out.

    What I do know is that after Khomeini came to power, during that period when the leader of the Jewish community was shot, and the leader of the Baha’i community was shot, and Jews were fleeing, and the French lycee in Tehran was shut down, and the hanging judge Khalkhali was having the time of his life, and assorted figures from the Shah’s regime who had not hightailed it out of there during the months of violence (remember that cinema that was burned down by Khomeini’s supporters, killing 600 moviegoers?), now tried to make their away out. When did Hoveyda get caught? And how many of those ancien-regime people, with first names such as Cyrus and Darius, make it out? Assorted Tabatabais left, but the Air Force general named Tabatabi stayed on, and was still alive, I believe, into his 90s (he must have died by now). Azar Nafisi stayed, but now she is out, and everyone and her sister has bought a copy of “Reading Lolita in Teheran,” so maybe, in the end, for her it worked out. Many stayed, and were murdered, including a nice old couple who, because of the intellectual activities of the husband, were in their 70s visited by Islamic Republic goons, and both were decapitated, their heads left nicely, I have read, on either end of the mantlepiece in their house.

    The writer Ali Dashti, author of “Twenty-Three Years” (the title refers to the total time it took Muhammad, supposedly, to receive all of his intermittent “revelations” or dictation from the Angel Gabriel), was imprisoned, tortured, released, and died, in his 70s or 80s.

    And to get back to the influence of little Aisha — yes, one of the first, or perhaps the firs law, that Khomeini put through was to lower the marriageable age of girls to nine — so that Iran would imitate, it its own moeurs and manners, the barbaric customs of the Sunna, of 7th century Arabia. Well, they got it in spades — 7th century Arabia, or an un-resonable facsimile thereof, imposed on 21st century Iran. No wonder the Iranians despise the Arabs. What have they ever gotten from their connection with 7th century Arabia? Everything interesting about Persia, including Persian miniatures, and the poetry of which Iranians are inordinately proud, or of which they think they should be proud and refer to whenever they can (Sa’adi, Hafez, Firdowsi, Omar Khayyam — though with the latter, because the silly English-speaking world appreciates only the inaccurate, if wonderful in English, Edward FitzGerald version or rather versions, Iranians tend, in talking to those silly Americans and English, to downplay him), everything, is despite the attempt at forced arabization that always accompanied islamization. The resentment of a civilization that regards itself as superior (the Persian one) to the Arabs, is something that should both be noted, and exploited, both by those Iranians who, having learned their lesson, would like nothing better than to de-islamify Iran, and the Infidels who need to figure out ways to split the world of Islam, and exploit those fissures, wherever and whenever they can.

  30. says

    To the query above about whether the Ayatollah Khomeini marryied a nine-year-old. I know nothing about it, but had it happened, I assume it would have gotten out.

    What I do know is that after Khomeini came to power, during that period when the leader of the Jewish community was shot, and the leader of the Baha’i community was shot, and Jews were fleeing, and the French lycee in Tehran was shut down, and the hanging judge Khalkhali was having the time of his life, and assorted figures from the Shah’s regime who had not hightailed it out of there during the months of violence (remember that cinema that was burned down by Khomeini’s supporters, killing 600 moviegoers?), now tried to make their away out. When did Hoveyda get caught? And how many of those ancien-regime people, with first names such as Cyrus and Darius, make it out? Assorted Tabatabais left, but the Air Force general named Tabatabi stayed on, and was still alive, I believe, into his 90s (he must have died by now). Azar Nafisi stayed, but now she is out, and everyone and her sister has bought a copy of “Reading Lolita in Teheran,” so maybe, in the end, for her it worked out. Many stayed, and were murdered, including a nice old couple who, because of the intellectual activities of the husband, were in their 70s visited by Islamic Republic goons, and both were decapitated, their heads left nicely, I have read, on either end of the mantlepiece in their house.

    The writer Ali Dashti, author of “Twenty-Three Years” (the title refers to the total time it took Muhammad, supposedly, to receive all of his intermittent “revelations” or dictation from the Angel Gabriel), was imprisoned, tortured, released, and died, in his 70s or 80s.

    And to get back to the influence of little Aisha — yes, one of the first, or perhaps the firs law, that Khomeini put through was to lower the marriageable age of girls to nine — so that Iran would imitate, it its own moeurs and manners, the barbaric customs of the Sunna, of 7th century Arabia. Well, they got it in spades — 7th century Arabia, or an un-resonable facsimile thereof, imposed on 21st century Iran. No wonder the Iranians despise the Arabs. What have they ever gotten from their connection with 7th century Arabia? Everything interesting about Persia, including Persian miniatures, and the poetry of which Iranians are inordinately proud, or of which they think they should be proud and refer to whenever they can (Sa’adi, Hafez, Firdowsi, Omar Khayyam — though with the latter, because the silly English-speaking world appreciates only the inaccurate, if wonderful in English, Edward FitzGerald version or rather versions, Iranians tend, in talking to those silly Americans and English, to downplay him), everything, is despite the attempt at forced arabization that always accompanied islamization. The resentment of a civilization that regards itself as superior (the Persian one) to the Arabs, is something that should both be noted, and exploited, both by those Iranians who, having learned their lesson, would like nothing better than to de-islamify Iran, and the Infidels who need to figure out ways to split the world of Islam, and exploit those fissures, wherever and whenever they can.

  31. says

    Thanks Hugh!

    Is that right: Khomeini had only ONE wife? Must have been quite a hack otherwise why would he recommend goats, camels and donkeys…

    But then again… there must be something to it since they (the Persians) been doing that since millenium!
    But not only that:
    Iran’s carpet industry goes back I don’t know how many years? Thousand? 2-thousand? Fact is there are carpets ( I have only seen pictures!) with guys doing not only camels, but of course: The most forbidden thing in Islam:

    Homosexual activity! When were these carpets made? Some of them still around, friend of mine biggest antique Carpet merchant in New York, some of the most ‘precious pieces’…

  32. says

    With some chagrin I just realized that Robert had answered the question about the age of Khomeini’s wife when he married her — I had gone straight from the question to an answer that then became something else, once I fessed up that I did not know how old Khomeini’s wife had been. But in any case, I’m sure he was a dutiful husband and breadwinner. In fact, Khomeini wouldn’t hurt a fly — there are reports of his whisking a fly out of a room and then out of the house so it could gain its freedom. A regular Albert Schweitzer.

    Unfortunately, his reverence for life did not extend to Infidels — see the posting by Hulegu Khan above, that quotes from something Khomeini wrote early on, and that is quoted by both Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq in their own books.

    As well as being truthful about Islam — just like Al-Zawahiri, and Bin Laden, and many imams — Khomeini had, as you may recall, some Emily-Post-like tips on matters of etiquette. He suggested that after having sexual intercourse with a chicken, a lamb, a goat, if you decide to kill and cook your former lover, who at least did not make many conversational demands — this is the Iranian version of not calling someone in the morning, and call me old-fashioned, but I think it illustrates the sad truth that chivalry really is dead — you must not eat that chicken, lamb, or goat yourself, nor serve it to your family or to your neighbors or even to those inthe village in which you live, but if you know someone in an adjacent village — Bon Appetit!

    Remember that this figure of grim fun ran, completely and with the enthusiastic endorsement of most Iranians, a country with 60 million people, and set his stamp everywhere, and arranged a regime that managed to kill or drive out almost every major intellectual figure. Azar Nafisi never comes to grips with this in her One Woman’s Story, or How the Transformative Power of Literature Sustained Me and My Students, a book that is wildly popular not for any supreme literary merit (Nabokov it isn’t), but because it addresses obliquely the problem of Islam, and obliqueness that really doesn’t get to the point is what currently soothes.

    Ayatollah Khomeini was not a sport. His views were not out of the main stream of Shi’a thought. It was the Shah and his father — not to mention that Frenchified shahbanou — who in their treatment of non-Muslims represented a break with the past. Most Iranians prefer not to recognize that, just as many secular Turks pretend that the Kemalist reforms always were, or that the more relaxed Turkish atmosphere (as compared to that of Arab or Iranian Islam) is not to be attributed to the 80 years of Kemalism, but extends back into the Ottoman times. Not understanding your own history, and providing yourself with a pleasing version of that past, is not limited, of course, to inhabitants of Turkey and Iran. Nor, however, is it quite so pronounced in the West.