That sentiment, of course, goes for all unbelievers: the subjugation of non-Muslims under Islamic law includes the prohibition of outward manifestations of non-Islamic belief, including displaying crosses or ringing church bells. Malaysia is applying the same principle to what it sees as a heretical, inferior Islamic sect.
One wonders when or if Iran, for its part, will accuse Malaysia of being in league with the Zionists and the Great Satan on this. "Muslim-majority Malaysia is known for religious tolerance, but not when it comes to Shiites," by Eileen Ng for the Associated Press, January 14 (thanks to Twostellas):
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) -- In this Muslim-majority country, it's OK to be Christian, Buddhist or Hindu. But not Shiite.
Well, it's not that OK to be any non-Muslim in Malaysia, and it's getting less and less OK all the time. We have over 7 years of stories in our archives that amply demonstrate that.
Malaysian religious police raided a three-story shop-house last month and detained more than 100 Shiites who had gathered to mark the death of one of their most beloved saints, Prophet Muhammad's grandson, who was killed in the year 680.
Whose prophet?
It was one of the largest such sweeps in years, sparking outrage and fear in the country's small but growing Shiite community. Some religious scholars see it as a worrying sign that Islamic authorities are becoming more hard-line.
"Malaysia is trying to become a country a la Taliban that only allows one school of thought," said prominent scholar Asri Zainul Abidin.
Despite its reputation for religious tolerance, Malaysia has been quietly discriminating against its own for years. The government recognizes only the Sunni branch of Islam and prohibits all others including Shiites, the world's second largest Islamic group.
Shiites face discrimination elsewhere, but Malaysia appears to be the only place that actually outlaws them. [...]
It's not clear what prompted the recent raid in Malaysia, but Islamic officials defend the ban as crucial to prevent unrest among Muslims.
"Shia is an Iranian sect," said leading cleric Harussani Zakaria, a member of the National Fatwa Council. "It has expanded secretly and now has many supporters who are starting to practice their faith in public. We don't want any religious differences. They are a threat to Muslim unity in Malaysia."...
The raid was probably called in response to a public health complaint, as it should be for all displays of Shiite self-flagellation where the blood flows freely. Think of the HIV threat. The police acted responsibly.
Malaysia is Saudi Arabia of East!!!! Nothing surprise me when stories like this come out. If they can help they would like to move Mecca and Medina to Malaysia and be called birhtplace of Islam!!! LOL...
Muhammad founded a cult that has brought nothing but hatred and discord between his followers (among themselves) and his followers and the rest of mankind.
you siad that right!!
I wish the ignorant will stop defending the equally violent-loving Shiites - which is as vile as the Sunnis where the Shiites slashe themselves with knives and thus hardening young children with loving violence; Islam on the whole is so evil! As a Malaysian convert from Islam, I'm sick to death with this evil and barbaric 'religion', sunni, shiites or whatever - where Islam is created by the Arabic Pedophile rapist Mohammed to legitimize evilness including SLAVERY rape of children, both boys and girls, including conquest captives such as Jewish children, and the first systematic racial Genocide of the Jews to create pure Nazi-like Arabian kingdom!
Jaladhi, South-East Asia (that include oil-rich Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei) must be saved, from the oil-hungry suspected alliance of Saudi-Iran-Turkey's Islamic grip (since their oil is diminishing!) - massive new oil & gas discovery in Borneo island especially. Thus is why they're stealthily radicalizing through showering poor blind Muslim fools and the equally greedy rich Muslim fools with lots of money, in cash, or through mosque building (including in Hindu-dominated Bali through poor or bribed Javanese Muslim settlers) or infiltrating or setting up Islamic depts. in Universities and also pushing their many foot-soldiers including from Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims (where many are brought in as migrant workers) to seduce poor uneducated women particularly non-Muslim women, from the villages like in Borneo. Non-Arab Muslims especially used to be modern people in SEA must breakaway from these primitive and barbaric influences if they want to stay modern and become more civilized like in the mostly progressive Western world. Or completely abandoned Islam, where Islam is really about being SLAVES to savage Arabic Imperialism.
So Malaysia has the temerity to stand up against a way of life it finds antithetical to its national identity.
How refreshing.
(Not defending the majority of course, but U.S. Administration, if even Malaysia knows what to do with its latest incursion of Muslims....)
Noticed from one of your previous posts that your are an Iranian apostate. Ancient persians were a very civilized people. I know many people who are parsis - followers of the religion started by Zoroaster, a Persian prophet - monetheistic faith without the rubbish found in islam. Parsis are a wonderful, gentle people, hard working, secular and modern in their outlook. Have you considered studying or following and ancient Persian religion like zoroastrianism?
SYABAS !!
SYABAS LAGI !!
here is Islam for you:
shia does not like sunnis
sunnis does not like shia
shia does not like bahai
sunni does not like copts
if you are a convert from chrstianty or juasim both sunnis and shias like you.
if a sunni or shia left their religion both will be killed
non muslims are not allowed to enetr either shia or sunni holly sites! where as my sister who is a devout muslim and was visiting me in new york asked where a musque is and I told her i don't know then she siad take me to a church it is the same god so we to st patrick no questions asked and none of were killed!!
so you ask me do any of these mulims share something in common? it hard to believe but they do. ready one.two. three
JEWS arethe cause of all thier fucking misery!!
Miriam, Judeo-Christian religion is about our shared God anger at evilness and reconciliation through Salvation for repenters; thus He gave the Ten Commandments that founded civilized modern Western law. But Islam and its false Islamic god are created by the Arabic Pedophile rapist Mohammed to legitimize evilness including slavery rape of children, both boys and girls, including conquest captives such as Jewish children, and the first systematic racial Genocide of the Jews to create pure Nazi-like Arabian kingdom – so you see the difference now?
Afikomen, thanks for your kind word. But all of us must do our part, no matter how small, to fight this most threatening evil, Islam. Although the suspected most dangerous Islamic Trojan Horse, Hussein Obama and his crooked communist gang/slaves in the White House, wants to stop our freedom of speech; esepcially with the current manipulation to the vile extreme of the Arizona shooting despite that the shooter was a fan of the Communist Manifesto!
No there is no diffirence. I am talking about tolorance and civility you are talking about one religion being better that the other. religions are evil. let's get real. do you know the contoversy about the remarks Sara Palin made regarding blood libel? do you know what that is? tens of thousands of jews were killed by your christain religion in the year 1200 and 1300 hundred because thay thought jews were killing young chritian boys for their blood. did you forget that? did you forget that christains killed 3000 jews in one day in germany blaming them for the plaugue? or did you forget that chritain Nazis slaughtered 6 million jews? or did you forget the morman marrying 14 year old girls? or do you not know the best form of sexual contact for the catholic church is to rape and sodomize 9 year alter boy? or right here in Brooklyn Hasidic jews are the most incestuos people? as are mulims men in afghanistan having little boys as their lovers? this is religion for you. so don't tell yours is better that the others. western people have reformed themselves and freed themselves from most of the bull shit about christianity and judaism. were muslims are still in the 6th century coupled with povery, illitarecy and the fact that Islam has violence attached to it and also their ferverent belief the Muhammad was the last profit and Islam is the ultimate religion and everyone else has to give in to them or be beheaded.
so please let's get real.
thank you for your kind words. I hate religions. Please see my response to Katherina below.
M
Bolehkah bertanya Katharina ialah pendapat keluarganya
(bapak dan ibu) Katharina tentang Katharina 'Masuk
Kristian'...apakah ?
A while ago, I was reading Michael Axworthy's book 'The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant', which has a few valuable insights with regards to the Sunni view of Shi'ites.
Nader Shah, in trying to establish Persian unity in the wake of the Safavids (who forcibly converted most Persians to Shia Islam) regularly battled with the Ottomans, who were Sunni Muslims. During this period of Iranian history, the borders between the Ottoman Empire and Persia regularly shifted. When the Ottomans for instance raided the West of Iran (nowadays Iranian Azerbaijan) they used to cart the inhabitants of conquered cities in the region off to Turkey as slaves.
In other words, Shi'ites were treated as slaves, regardless of them being Muslims, simply because Sunni Muslims regard them as heretics. Second of all, Nader Shah was feared by the Ottomans, because he modernized his own army to the point where he inflicted serious defeats on the Ottomans both in Ottoman-occupied Iraq and the Caucasus region, thereby regaining lost territories. Shi'ites became very much feared by the Ottomans at this point in time.
Nader's army was a mix of Shi'a and Sunni and included Persians, Kurds, Turco-Mongol tribes, Afghans and others. Outwardly, it seemed like he wanted Persia to adopt a form of religion that would be more acceptable to Sunnis and suggested Persia should adopt a form of Shi'ism he called "Ja'fari" in honour of the sixth Shi'a imam Ja'far al-Sadiq. However, Axworthy mentions that Nader adopted this seemingly reconciliatory religious policy for two main reasons:
1) he wanted to be more acceptable as a Muslim ruler, because in his megalomaniac vision he had already adopted the honorary title of King of Persia, India AND the Ottoman Empire for himself.
2) he had to make sure he would have kept his army of both Sunnis and Shi'ites unified to avoid his goals (of establishing dominance over the Middle East) being thwarted.
Although his newly-found heterodox religious policy was designed to avoid religious strife between Shi'ites and Sunnis in his army (in which he succeeded), he wasn't able to convince the Ottomans of formally recognizing this new doctrine as valid and on par with mainstream Sunnism (something he regularly pushed forward at the negotiation table), because the Ottomans very well knew he did this with his own interests in mind and because they perceived this religious innovation as a type of taqiyya: a Shi'ite who claims to be a Sunni Muslim, still remains a Shi'ite at heart and therefore practices a form of dissimulation !
goes to show you some muslims are not muslim enough for the arabists. if these stupid malaysians only knew once in the land of the sowdis they are the inferior even though they may be sunni muslims. to the non- Muslims they are pray to the black rock in mecca.
Why? Why hate something that you have not studied? Zoroaster was a great person and his religion is not hate filled.
Moreover the population of the parsis is dwindling. It is up to the Iranians/Persians to rebuild their rich ancient heritage and traditions(one especially that does more good than harm)
we call them Zadoushtis. they are probably 10,000 of them may be a few more. would we be here and have this discussion if it was not for religion? I think not.
Religions as such are not necessarily bad and in many cases do good to individuals. Research has shown that religious people tend to be more optimistic, happy and generous than atheists. (Not that atheists are not optimistic,happy or generous but statistically this particular research paper pointed to that). Religions especially when reformed have a lot to offer in terms of a framework for behavior.
But you have not answered my question - are you not interested in restoring ancient Persian culture and traditions and if not why not?
Can't we arm both sides and set them against each other? We don't have to give them fancy weaponry. Hatchets will do.
I wish the ignorant will stop defending the equally violent-loving Shiites - which is as vile as the Sunnis where the Shiites slashe themselves with knives...
Every year I look forward to the self-flagellation as a reason to celebrate being an Infidel.
But equally high in my entertainment book is when the Moslems hurl rocks at that wall in Mecca during Hajj.
The Jews have their wailing wall; the Moslems have their stone throwing wall. This succinctly illustrates the diff bewteen Jews and Moslems. I'll take the former.
Eastview wrote:
The raid was probably called in response to a public health complaint, as it should be for all displays of Shiite self-flagellation where the blood flows freely. Think of the HIV threat. The police acted responsibly.
................................
Normally, I would agree with you, Eastview. The horrendous blood-letting of Ashura is indeed a public health issue.
On the other hand, does anyone here really believe that *public health* is Malaysia's motivation here? I certainly don't. No more than the Taliban's oppression of the Shi'ite Haraza is to protect women from marital rape.
Shi'ites do the same things to Sunnis—and Ahmadis, and Baha'i, and any other small sect—when they are in power. Just look at Iran, or the tendency in Iraq.
It is just one more attempt to impose Islam—and whatever sect of Islam happens to hold the most power, at that.
your question is a very idealistic question. it si like are we ever going to get rid of poverty. the answer is no. remmebr islam has been there 1400 years and it would take many genrations to undo this mess and bring back an older religion. the main goal now is to get rid of Islam so it is not governing us. People will uddoubtedly will practice Islam as they do here parctsicing christianity. but here is separation of church and state and there it is not. the main goal should be to create an Iranian stae that religion has no place in it. this would be great for the entire humanity. also son't forget our people are so sick of Islam so what they choose later is defenitly not Islam. m
Islam. A political cult whose quest it is to rule the world, disguised as religion. What a ruse. This way it can infiltrate and take over any religious tolerant nation it chooses. It's just a matter of time. The only way a nation can avoid being taken over by Islam, and still keep it's religious tolerance, is to see Islam for what it is. Not a religion, but a political death cult whose aim is world domination. Once it is recognised as not a religion, then it can be outlawed and dealt with in a way that befits all terror organisations. Islam is a snake with many heads. To destroy a snake you have first to get rid of the head. In this case, many heads in many places.
We don't want any religious differences.
Well, at least you Sunnis and Shi'ites will always agree on jihad, sexual slavery, the inferiority of non-Muslims, etc. You know, the important stuff.
What is the game plan? How do you separate religion and state in Iran when shariah is the highest law? For this the mullahs must be totally defeated. But even if they are defeated, what is the guarantee that the masses will not once again install shariah as the basic constitution? I do believe the only way out for Iran is for its people to remember its ancient glorious past
I know, GI. There was a bit of tongue-in-cheek in my comment. I fully agree that public health probably had nothing to do with these actions. But, as you said, it should.
there is a huge difference between Iranians and let's say the Saudis or Pakistanis. this regim has forced the religion down our throat. did you know that 65% of all university students a female? when this regim is deafeted thetr is no way our people are going to have sharia laws. we hate it sharia laws as much as you see the danger in it.
m
Eastview wrote:
I know, GI. There was a bit of tongue-in-cheek in my comment.
..........................
Sorry, Eastview. It is often difficult to pick up sarcasm on-line. I should have realized that was your take on things.
hey Miriam, why do you blame all religion and generalizing all religion as the same with your lies? Don't lie as if Islam and Judeo-Christianity are founded by the same God! No, Islam is created by the Arabic Pedophile rapist and mass murderer of the Jews, the Arabic Mohammed; whilst Judeo-Christianity is founded on our God's SALVATION for all humanity from all kinds of evilness! Evil people have hijacked Judeo-Christianity but our God did not teach us to love evilness unlike in Islam! By the way,here's the real truth instead; read up on true history, not some Socialist propaganda lies - between God-hating Socialists Hitler, Stalin and Mao, they've butchered around 40 million innocent human beings especially Jews and Christians! Hitler was a Socialist/Communist Left who loved Islam (and the Arabic-led Muslims have always and still are using or advising Western Socialists and Nationalists to promote Arabic conquest and Jew-hatred); see http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html
HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
Alarmed Pg Farmer, Islam creates nutcases believers and dangerous psychopaths like the Nazis but might be more dangerous since they can claim their god makes them do it. And as have been proven, they're increasingly getting away with more and more of such sociopath behaviour even in modernity, due to the "useful idiots" of their lefty SLAVES in the West. If we don't stop such conquest of Islam; this is what we will be up against! See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346825/Husband-hacked-brother-law-pieces-caught-bird-dropped-severed-thumb-sky.html
Husband 'who hacked brother-in-law to pieces caught when bird dropped severed thumb from the sky'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:50 PM on 14th January 2011
Mahmood Ahmad's severed thumb 'fell from the sky' after being dropped by a bird, St Albans Crown Court heard
A husband who hacked his brother-in-law to pieces was caught when a severed thumb 'fell from the sky' after being dropped by a bird, a court heard today.
Mohammed Riaz, 33, allegedly kidnapped Mahmood Ahmad, 41, and tortured him to death in an attempt to track down his estranged ex-wife Nahid Ahmad.
He enlisted the help of five accomplices to kidnap, imprison and murder father-of-two Mahmood with a mechanical butcher's saw, St Albans Crown Court heard....
Great.
More islamofascism from yet another unbelievably beautiful natural locale (same garbage in S. Phillipines) - Malaysia.
Who woulda thunk it?
I have mixed feelings about when the boneheads finally come to Baja; sort of like the mixed feelings I had when my Mother-in-Law backed my brand-new SUV off a cliff and died.
I'll never go back to Malaysia, and if they ever bring their crap 'round these parts, I guarantee a whole passel of Mexican/Catholic fisherman will "make them feel right at home."
miriam rove wrote:
the main goal should be to create an Iranian stae that religion has no place in it. this would be great for the entire humanity. also son't forget our people are so sick of Islam so what they choose later is defenitly not Islam.
...
there is a huge difference between Iranians and let's say the Saudis or Pakistanis. this regim has forced the religion down our throat. did you know that 65% of all university students a female? when this regim is deafeted thetr is no way our people are going to have sharia laws. we hate it sharia laws as much as you see the danger in it.
.................................
I hear this all the time, miriam. Many Iranians in the West claim that Iranians *in general* are much more sophisticated than the general run of Muslims.
There seems to be a small, well-educated Iranian elite who really are relatively liberal, and "moderate", and generally only nominally Muslim, who believe that Persia—by dint of its history and culture—stands out from the rest of Dar-al-Islam. Reading Marjane Satrapi's "Persepolis", or Azar Nafisi's "Reading Lolita in Tehran", or Houshang Asadi's "Letters to my Torturer", all these authors—or their families, in the case of Satrapi, who was only 10 years old at the time of the "Islamic revolution"—seemed genuinely stunned at the turn towards Islam after 1979.
All believed allying with the "Islamists" against the Shah was only a short-term strategy, and that Iran would then be either a liberal democracy (in the case of the first two authors) or a communist paradise (in the case of the latter). *Not one of them* considered Islam a serious force in Iran.
All of them, in fact, considered serious Islam rather a joke—something that was rather provincial and ignorant and old-fashioned, and very much on its way out.
And yet, despite their education, intelligence, and sophistication—or, perhaps in some ways *because of them*—I believe that they have been proven wrong. Islam—despite Iran's pre-Islamic history, and its general artistic and cultural richness—*is very much a force* with most Iranians.
Because the fact is that Iran is *one of the very worst Shari'ah states*—in every way comparable with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and only slightly better than Taliban-era Afghanistan and Somalia. It may function a bit better on a day to day basis, but is every bit as Islamically brutal.
I am not trying to put you on the spot, miriam, and I am always interested in your take on things. But I believe that intelligent, educated Iranians—such as yourself—consistently underestimate the power and attraction that Islam holds for a great many of your countrymen. I'm sorry, I believe that Islam has a much stronger stranglehold on the country of your birth than you would like to believe.
To Miriam Rove "when this regim is deafeted thetr is no way our people are going to have sharia laws."
The only way you can get rid of sharia laws is by getting rid of every mullah in Iran because in Islam a mullah(imam) is a general, administrator, a religious teacher and judge. There is no other way.
Sounds as if Malaysian Sunnis are worried about the resonance Shi'ism has with some parts of the population. But I'm surprised that they're shocked at Shi'ism among them. Malaysia has taken in Muslim immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, among whom there must have been a few Shi'ites.
Miriam Rove:
About Sarah Palin and her "blood libel" comments, it seems that these were made in response to some in the left-wing media who accused Ms. Palin's campaign rhetoric of informing Loughner's shooting spree in Arizona. In short, Ms. Palin and people like her were immediately attacked as bloodthirsty would-be assassins just waiting for their chance to strike, and made a counter-charge that such an accusation was of the character of a baseless superstition. On this, I will stand with Sarah Palin, even if I'd like to see someone else drive Mr. Obama from the White House in 2012. Palin's comments had nothing to do with the historical context of medieval calumnies against the Jews.
Further, did you know the ultimate origin of the "blood libel"? Before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the early 300's, Roman and Greek Pagans accused the Christians of eating children and drinking their blood. This seems to have come from either a misunderstanding of or deliberate misrepresentation of Jesus' words when he instituted the Lord's Supper (which uses bread and wine): ""And when he had given thanks, he brake it [the bread], and said Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." (I Corinthians 11:24-26; cf. Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20).
Apparently, a lot of Graeco-Roman pagans seized on this to prove that the Christians were cannibals.
After the older organized paganism disappeared from the West, medieval Christians did indeed turn this same calumny on the Jews (the last truly visible non-Christian community in much of Europe). An example is found in the 14th century writer Geoffrey Chaucer's retelling of the Legend of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, found in the Prioress's Tale in _The Canterbury Tales_. However, there is nothing in the Scriptures that tells me that I must believe such things of the Jews (the New Testament writers, being Jews themselves, would probably have been quite aghast to find that a later generation of Christians launched such a calumny), so I accept it as a calumny and historical error that must not only be acknowledged, but also avoided.
Perhaps a couuple of the big differences between Islam and the biblical religions is that Christianity demands that we recognize ourselves as sinners constantly in need of divine grace; and that sin includes wrongs against people outside our own community as well as against God and fellow believers.
But, while I find your comments interesting, I still agree with the main lines of Katharina's assessment. It seems that you were chased out of Islam by the practices and beliefs you saw among those who claimed to be the best of believers; it seems that Katharina was drawn out of Islam by finding that the earlier revelations which Islam claimed to be carrying on were in fact very different from what Muhammad preached, thoroughly misrepresented by Islam, and that the Old and New Testaments offered a much better way for humanity. This is a judgment with which I--an apostate from evolutionary naturalism--concur. My apologies if I misrepresented or misunderstood yours and Katharina's positions.
Hodu Hafiz
Actually there are Iranian mullahs/ayatollahs who support separation of state and mosque. There's at least one in Iranian prison right now whose name I forgot.
Hojjatoleslam Hasan Yousefi Eshkevari? I don't think he's in jail now.
The Shi'ites were next in the queue after the Ahmadis.
http://daudahmed.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/malaysian-government-set-to-go-after-ahmadiyya-muslim-community/
The State Minister of Selangor - Malaysia, in charge of Islamic Affairs, Dr Hassan Mohamed Ali was recently quoted by local media stating that 'action would be taken against Jama`at (Ahmadiyya Muslim Community) leaders soon.' In
the same article he further claimed that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama`at was the 'last of the deviant groups operating in the state'.
Another newspaper quoted him as saying, 'Qadiani teaching would be buried' and that the authorities were discussing how to 'solve the problem' of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama`at.
Dr Hasan Ali, the State Islamic Affairs, Malay Customs, Infrastructure and Basic Amenities Committee chairman....
“The action by the district office and the local council is the first phase. We hope that it will send out the message that we are going after them,”
“If they remain defiant and refuse to abandon their teachings, we will start looking at sterner action, including arresting the leaders behind it,”
la ikrah fi'd-din
..and what do our intrepid atheists plan to do to combat the spread and effects of Islam? eliminate all religions? my, what a herculian task.. are you up to the challenge?
hi there
i am assuming you were born and raised here.
yes a lot of people supported khomeini tio get rid of the shah as he was so hated. non of them could see this coming. noe of us. we will get rid of them that is for sure
miriam rove wrote:
yes a lot of people supported khomeini tio get rid of the shah as he was so hated. non of them could see this coming. noe of us. we will get rid of them that is for sure
.................................
Of course, I understand allying with some pretty strange bedfellows out of necessity. The US and Britain allying with the appalling Stalinist Soviet Union to break the Fascist Axis during WWII is one such example.
But as bad as the Shah was, the "Islamic Republic" of Iran is by almost any yardstick much, much worse. And no, I'm not saying you could have fully foreseen this.
But I stand by my assertion that Islam in Iran has turned out to be a much stronger force—and one that runs much deeper—than many would like to believe.
For what it's worth, I *wish* you were right, and that the savagely oppressive "Islamic Republic" was on its way out.
I actually have a grudging admiration for Khomeini. He slipped in under everyone's radar, used people who perhaps hated him, and came out on top. He would've made old Sun Zi proud.
If the Iranian people oust the mullah-ocracy and come up with something better, my hat's off to them. But I'll wait and see before I start kissing up to any Iranian regime.
I get angry as all get-go when I see the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq raising petitions for signatures on the National Mall. Those people are an unholy mix of Marxism and "Mahoundianism", and boast in their own circles of being the first "revolutionary fighters" into the 'nest of spies" back in 1978-80. That kind of act is a pretty open declaration that the only relations they foresaw between the USA and Iran would be hostile. Fired up as we were after 1941, we nonetheless let the Japanese diplomats leave the country according to accepted protocols. Honestly, the whole lot of MEK in the USA should be rounded up and deported; and any immigration officer who decided to give those people asylum should be fired, and any immigration judge who supported their asylum claims ought to be impeached, tarred, and feathered.
Further, I have no sympathy for the Tudeh and other Communists who got bested by Khomeini. They whined till the cows came home about "imperialism" in Iran, but it was their people who came within an ace of detaching southern Azerbaijan and Kordestan and giving them to the Soviets back in the late 1940's. And they have the gall to call Mossadeq, who was in bed with the Tudeh, a "patriot".
Worst of all, all those Iranian students who screamed bloody murder against Mohammed Riz Pehlavi back in the 1970's in between terrorizing American female students were in a real sense Pehlavi's children, who wouldn't have had a chance had not the Shah brought some modernization to their country. Maybe some are older and wiser now that they've made the USA their home, and I welcome them as neighbors, but even in the 1970's it was clear that the outcome of any Iranian revolution was going to be bad for Iran and bad for the world.
In the late 1970's, all the smart money was on Iran becoming the Soviets' first foothold in the Mideast and the USSR's outlet to warm water. That went for the Iranian opposition to the Shah, Europe, the CIA, everyone. By doing an end run around the Tudeh and its better-organized and better-backed movement, Khomeini may well have been the one who let us all know that Communism was getting very, very vulnerable. Sure, I'm of the mind that barring any deathbed repentance, Imam Khomeini is now shoveling coal in the pits of Hell. But he's a good example of how the smart people can be confounded.
The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant
Thank you, I'll have a look at that one.
Good post, Kepha—I agree with all your major points—with the pointed exception that I cannot truly "admire" Khomeini, any more than I can Stalin or Hitler.
Have you read Houshang Asadi's "Letters to my Torturer"? He is a hard-core communist who allied with the "Islamists" against the Shah, and then was caught up in the horrifying purge of leftists in Iran in the early 1980s.
And yet, through it all, he is proud to have been among the first screaming "Death to Britain!" and "Death to America!". Under torture, he fairly quickly confessed to being a Soviet spy (even though this was false), but he balked at confessing to being a British spy (also false) because of his knee-jerk hatred of the West.
He was always proud of the fact that the Tudeh Party always supported the Iranian revolution—even when the Mullahs were busy liquidating everyone he knew.
He barely escaped with his life. He came so close to being executed that he was actually in a line of victims being hanged.
What he suffered was horrifying. In many ways, he is a decent and intelligent man. Even after he began "confessing", he always avoided implicating anyone who was not already under death sentence, already dead, or safely out of Iran. I admire him for this.
And yet, despite his obvious intelligence, he seems to have learned little. Even though he now lives in civilized France, and regularly visits Britain and the US on speaking tours, he doesn't seem to appreciate or understand in any way *why* these places are so much freer and better than Iran and the Soviet Union. I doubt he ever will.