US slams Iran's nuke offer

It's not only irresponsible, it's insane. It's like handing four year old children loaded guns and saying, "run along and play."

This ought to make the "sane" citizens of Iran , the middle east and others throughout the area sit up and realize they have lunatics in charge and get rid of them while they still can.

The offer to Sudan to share nuclear technology is revealing. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a danger to the Sunni Arab regimes, especially those of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, even tiny Bahrain. It is a danger partly because of its appeal to the Shi'a minorities (in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen), and majorities (in Bahrain) but also because it is proving itself "plus arabe que les arabes." By taking the lead as Defender of the Faith, that Faith being Islam, it hopes that it may overcome, or rather go around, the suspicions and fear of the Al-Saud, of Mubarak, of King Abdullah.

Though Shi'a (who are regarded by Sunni Muslims with some misgivings, as not quite the real thing, and historically often subject to persecution or even murder in some cases for not being that real thing -- see Zarqawi's foaming about "Rafidite dogs"), and non-Arabs, the Irnaian government today has tried to appeal to Sunni Arabs by outdoing the Sunni Arab governments in its willingness, and capacity, to fulfill that heart's desire of so many of them: to bring about the total elimination of Israel. For that is warmly wished by hundreds of millions of Arabs, and many non-Arab Muslims with sometimes more (Pakistanis), and sometimes less (Indonesians, on the whole) fervor. There's disagreement over the time-table, and over the most effective means to employ, but about the ultimate ends -- no difference.

Can the Islamic Republic of Iran, Persian and Shi'a, continue to attempt to replace Saddam Hussein with his own pretensions at being king of the Arabs? Not with the rulers, who rightly see Iran as a threat. But with the hysterical and primitive masses of Sunni Muslims Iran has had, and may have more, success. Of course, were Shi'a and Sunnis in Iraq now in open warfare, and Iranian agents perforce helping the Shi'a (even if some of those local Shi'a did not wish Iranian influence or involvement) that might help queer the Iranian government's pitch.

The offer to the Sudan, which is a fellow Muslim state, with the clear indifference to the Jihad now underway -- a Jihad against nominal Muslims, but Muslims who are black Africans and therefore, inferior, second-class, not-quite-Musilm Muslims. Besides, the Arab supremacist ideology that is part of Islam justifies, and Qatar (look at what it did at the U.N. yesterday), Egypt, and the rest of the Arab League are all foursquare behind Sudan in its two genocideal campaigns. The first campaign, the one against the Christians and animists in the south, who have already taken nearly 2 million casualties, appears to have ended. "Appears," because what the Western powers who think everything has been settled through a "Peace treaty" do not undestand that as far as the Arab Muslims of the north (and their outside backers in the Arab League) are concerned, this is merely a "truce" treaty, as it must be. And as soon as that Western pressure ends, the war against the non-Muslim south will be resumed. But of course, what do the Western policymakers know about the basis of all Muslim treaty-making with Infidels, the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya?).

As for the second campaign, the one in Darfur, in which 300,000 dead and 2 million refugees who have not only been driven from their homes, but their homes have been destroyed, their crops burned, their cattle stolen, their women kidnapped and raped, that may at first seem to have nothing to do with Islam. After all, aren't those black Africans in Darfur Muslims too? So shouldn't we nod our heads in solemn agreement when Nicholas Kristof, this year's winner of a Pulitzer Prize for his impassioned reporting (mere reporting, I should add, for he has failed completely to make sense of the events he reports on, to understand the deep wells of ideology and attitude that explain what is doing on in Darfur, that identify what poompts the hehavior of the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government that is using them), refers to the "nationalist" desire to keep out Western powers. What nonsense. What a complete failure, after so much reporting, to comprehend, or even to make a start at comprehending, what a few weeks of reading Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and then the histories of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Musliims, and then, finally, and most relevantly, the texts (Naipaul's "Among the Believers," Anwar Shaikh's "Islam the Arab National Religion," Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim)) that carefully explain how Islam is a vehicle for the suppression of a non-Arab identity or history, a vehicle for Arab linguistic and cultural imperialism (ask the Berbers, ask the Kurds, ask any non-Arab Muslims under Arab Muslim control). This is beyond Kristof and all the other kristofs. That is why, above, I referred to "mere reporting" -- they are "mere reporters" who have been unable to make coherent sense of what it is that they repoort on, but that they cannot fully comphrehend. Kristof has no idea, not even a glimmer, that Islam is a vehicle for an Arab supremacist ideolgy, and not understanding all the ways in which that is true (from the taking of Arab names, to the recitation and memorization of the Qur'an in Arabic, to prostrating oneself in the dirdction of Arabia five times a day, to taking as one's model of human perfection a 7th-century Arab, to finding Arab customs and mores of that same 7th-century to be a guide for the Total Regulation of Life), he cannot possibly see what is obvious to the rest of us: the tenets and attitudes and promptings of Islam in explaining the Arab assault on non-Arab Muslims in Darfur, as those tenets and attitudes and promptings explain, slightly different aspect of Islam, the 20-year war on Christians and animists in the south.

And here is Iran: the Persian Shi'a Ahmadinejad, now doing his not-quite-plausible turn as King of the Sunni Arabs, offering to share that nuclear manna in order to wipe out Israel, and what's more, wipe out all the enemies of Islam, which means the enemies of the Arabs, which means the black African Muslims in Darfur as well.

Amusing, in a way, isn't it? Because, after all, what other non-Arab people have suffered from the Arab "gift" of Islam, and the Arab attempt to impose Arabic that was successfully resisted only by the superior quality of certain poets such as Firdowsi with the "Shahnameh" and Sa'adi, and Hafiz, and Omar Khayyam? Can you guess? Begins with a "P." Rhymes with version.

Free Woman;
I'm with you on that. But the only problem is that the ones that are sane are either in hiding, imprsioned, or dead. It's time to use satelite targeting and "Let the rockets red glare!"

To the Army, Navy, Air Force, the Marines
And the battles they have won.
To red, white and blue.
The colors that never run!

Hugh,

what you said is true. But I think there are some more aspect about Iran's role. And they all relate to Madhism -- Muslims expectation of the coming of al-Mahdi. The fervor in this expectation has reached a very critical mass, both in the Sunni world and the Shiite world.

1. The hadiths say that al-Mahdi will be a descendent of Muhammad. That is agreed upon by both Sunnis and Shias. The only descendents of Muhammad that have survived are descendents of Ali and Fatimah (specifically those of Hasan and Hussein who were poisoned and brutally killed respectively). Although none of us know where all of them are, you can bet that people are looking for him among the Shias ... for afterall, Ali was the first Imam of the Shias. Sunnis may have some reservations of him among the Shias, but they all agree that when he comes, all Muslims are to pledge allegiance to him, even if "they have to crawl over ice".

2. al-Mahdi is said to come from Khorasan (Greater Khorasan is the area covering northern Iran, parts of Afghanistan and some central Asia republics). Khorasan is also a northern Iranian province. There is great fervant expectation that he could be an Arab living in Iran.

So, while Sunnis may not always be comfortable with the Shias, and also disagree with the Shias that al-Mahdi will be the 12th Imam who is supposedly in occultation, they are fully aware of the possibility that al-Mahdi may come from the ranks of the Shias. On the other hand, they expect that he will be able to unite all the Muslim factions into one.

3. In anticipation of the coming of al-Mahdi, many Muslims try to create the chaotic situations that were supposed to prepare the way for al-Mahdi. Ahmadinejad belongs to a society whose aim is to do just that. Global jihad is being declared (although somewhat illegally since there is no Caliph today) in order to advance this cause. al-Mahdi will unite the Muslims and then wage jihad against the rest of the world and in order to bring "justice" to the world.

yaqub:

#3: I think you're dead on correct in that analysis.

yaqub

Your point is an intersting one and we shall see if another al-Mahdi (the previous being Mohammed Ahmed) will make his presence known in the midle East.

It is interesting to note that a Mahdiyya (Mahdist regime) was formed in the Sudan in (1885) implementing Sharia law.
The three deputies which replaced the al-Mahdi after his death , tried to emulate the Prophet Muhammad, but disagreements broke out between them, due to rivalry.

All the Mahdiyya succeeded in doing was to destroy the Sudanese economy and about half of the population died due to famine, disease, persecution and warfare.
Their efforts to unite Muslims and eliminate the former tribal differences left them in a chaotic situation. In general the country welcomed the fall of the Mahdiyya.

I do not believe that the Muslims can unite because of the presence of an al-Mahdi, they simply have too many differences.

i.e. Shai's have sects susch as the Twelvers, Seveners and Fivers and are deeply religious, on the other hand Sunnis do not even have a formal Clergy just scholars and jurists.

It is hard to see just how they will be able to agree except on the point of hating the West.

The importance of Iran in the middle East is its connection to China and Russia.

The leverage that this puts on the International community is very significant.
We are being out manoeuvred from within our own organistaions, the UN and the Security Council,
which incidently were set up to protect us in the first place.

yaqub i think your analysis is very commendable, I am just not convinced that your conclusions are completely correct.

Peter-

You got it!

The enemy is the only unity of Islam.

Without it, schismic chaos.

Peter,

I understand your reservations about what I said.

Perhaps you want to read this article :

Ahmadinejad’s Tea with the Mahdi?