Monday, February 28, 2011

The Middle East’s Third Wave

In a private phone call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, almost two weeks after the unrest began; President Barack Obama finally called for Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi to step down. While the President’s inertia may have been mitigated by the need to get Americans out of the country so Qadhafi could not take any hostages, the incident demonstrates again that the wave of revolution currently sweeping North Africa and the Middle East took the Obama Administration completely by surprise. And for good reason: President Obama’s “engagement” strategy toward the “Islamic world” is thoroughly outdated and irrelevant.

The first wave of revolutions in the region came in the middle of the last century and was made up of nationalist revolts against European colonialism. The next wave, the Islamist revolt, came a generation later, upending corrupt monarchies and nationalist regimes set up after the colonial era. Each of these movements—nationalist and Islamist—pretended to be “pan” movements of some kind. But they never caught on for very long because their universal claims were myths, undermined by tribal, religious, and nationalist divisions. The third wave we are witnessing today is completely different. Heritage Foundation Vice President and former Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes explains:

Arab nationalism was largely an elite phenomenon that drove and exploited popular sentiments. Islamism is driven by clerics and political ideologues like the Muslim Brotherhood who likewise exploit peoples’ religious beliefs and social resentments. The current third wave of revolt is truly a bottom-up, people driven movement. It’s driven not by nationalism, Islamism or any other 20th Century “ism,” but by a 21st Century socially linked-up mass movement of people who are sick of corruption, the lack of representative government, and being poor. … Despite the unique national and tribal features of each movement, it is united by the same emotional revulsion to the ruin and corruption created by the first two waves of revolution in the Middle East. The people of Libya are no less disgusted with Qadhafi than the people of Iran are with Ahmadinejad. One may be largely Sunni Arabs and the other Shiite Persians, but both are utterly finished with the ideologies, pretentions, and results of the Middle East’s first two failed revolutions.

This new movement exposes the fact that everything the Obama Administration believed was important in the Middle East – from the Arab-Israeli talks to Obama’s apology tour – is completely irrelevant. Just look at how al-Qaeda has been sidelined by events. Its leaders have been horrified by the outbreak of demands for democracy and freedom, since they are utterly against those values. Of course, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are trying to figure out how to take advantage of this new opening, so we must watch out for an Islamist backlash. But that is all the more reason the world needs a strong voice in favor of democracy and individual freedom from the United States.

The Administration must get our objectives and strategy clear very quickly. If we want to see the Egyptian revolution turn out well, we need to be more forceful in talking with the army there about how to proceed with elections and reform the economy. If we want Qadhafi out of power without further bloodshed, we need a clearer and more public voice. And most importantly, if we find Ahmadinejad’s behavior unacceptable, we need to consider options more forceful than talking with “multilateral institutions.”

Muslims Will March On Washington Soon

As expected, Muslims across the world have started to lock arms in their quest to impose Shariah Law (Islamic Law) on all. For the most part, Muslims in America had confined this call to their barracks; I mean Mosques and Islamic conferences. Now, in a brazen display of united force, Muslims calling for the adoption of Shariah in this country plan to march near the White House on March 3rd. The leader of the pack is the U.K.’s Anjem Choudary, a Muslim cleric.

His partners, who actually believe that America will bow to Islamic Law, are NY’s “Islamic Thinkers Society”, the group who desecrate the U.S. flag.

The name of this doomed movement is Shariah4America. They rely on the verses of the Koran to support their mission. Muslims believe the Koran to be the literal words of Allah.


Allah says in the Qur’an; the final revelation sent to all of mankind, “He it is who has sent the Messenger (Muhammad) with the Guidance and Deen of Truth, to make it victorious over all other ways of life even though the disbelievers hate it.” [Q 9:33]

In other words, they do not respect our differing beliefs in the least. Thoughts of Shariah should not even be entertained in America, as Shariah contradicts our rights and freedoms!

The recent eruptions of rage against the dictatorial and apostate regimes of the Middle East appear to have ushered in a new era where tyrants are finally confronted en masse for their crimes and deposed from all positions of authority; from Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak and now what appears to be inevitably Muammar Gaddafi, this wave of fury is showing no sign of relenting.

Ben Ali

Preparations are now underway for the ‘Shariah 4America’ project that will inshaa’allah (God willing) become an unanticipated wild card for the West, galvanising the immense support for Shari’ah in the Middle East and bringing it directly to the doorsteps of the United States of America.

Hosni Mubarak

Anjem, the door will be closed and sealed shut. Count on it!

Muammar Gadahfi

We hereby call upon the Muslims in the US, particularly in New York, Michigan, Chicago and Washington DC to take lessons from their Muslim brothers and sisters in North Africa and the Middle East and rise to implement the Shari’ah in America.

Are you inciting violence here Anjem? Be careful, because the Capital Police won’t be intimidated by anyone, unlike the reaction of U.K. police in the past…

On 3rd March 2011 From 1pm to 4pm (local time), at Pennsylvania Avenue, outside the White House, the Muslims will let the tyrant Barack Obama and the American people know that a new constitution beckons the US called the Shari’ah, and that this worldwide revolution will see it implemented inshaa’allah (God willing) very very soon.

I have heard plenty of “Constitutionalists” stand up for Islam in the name of the 1st Amendment. These misinformed folks believe that Islamic law can co-exist with our Constitutional law. Does is sound like Sharia-loving Muslims care about protecting our Constitution? They only use its provisions against us, and if their movement is not stopped, they will throw the U.S. Constitution into the shredder!

One of the way Muslims attempt to lure non-Muslims into Shariah is with the Islamic welfare system. Hmm….sounds a little like Obama’s pre-election plan, doesn’t it?!

Welfare in the Islamic State The job of the Khalif (ruler of the Islamic state) is to manage the affairs of the people; therefore he is accountable for the welfare of every single citizen under his authority, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims. All have their rights guaranteed by Islam. One of the fundamental welfare rights of the citizen is the provision of basic needs. The Prophet Muhammad said: “The son of Adam has no better right than that he would have a house wherein he may live, a piece of clothe whereby he may hide his nakedness and a piece of bread and some water.”

So the state is obliged to provide the basic food, clothing and shelter to everyone regardless of race, colour or creed. This right is not merely a by-product of the state’s economic success or a measure to satisfy the masses; rather it is a divine right that is permanent.

Unfortunately, entitlements will bring some people to Islam. Free “goodies” have a way of doing that!

The Islamic State:

24 Hours after Implementation  Here is where the nightmare begins. The end of capitalism and freewill…

1. How will the state deal with economic contracts entered into before the establishment of the state?

A. Companies controlling public properties

Some companies at present operate in areas which are recognised as public property in Islam such as oil, gas, minerals, etc. Islam considers that these properties cannot be owned by individuals or private companies and will therefore be placed under the control of the state. The original investment however will be returned to the companies. The state may then allow the companies to continue to work in the areas they have built up as an excuse on a shariah basis but must work as agents of the state on behalf of the nation.

B. Companies based on unlawful contracts.

Companies working in areas of private property and which are therefore legitimate will be examined to see if the company contracts are lawful in Islam. If the contracts are unlawful then the companies will be terminated.

C. Private ownership of public activities

Public utilities such as electricity and railways will be terminated from private companies and put under the control of the Khilafah.

Obviously Islamic Law is not about freedom, it is about total control of the human soul.

2. How will Islam deal with other countries?

A. Dar al Kufr

All other countries in the world, east to west are considered to be Dar al Kufr (The domain of disbelief) and Dar al Harb (The domain of war). Relationships with them are dictated by what Jihad demands according to the divine law and the benefit of the Muslims.

This is what jihad “demands”.


Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

But hey, according to Islamic Law it does not matter what us infidels want.

B. UK, France, Russia and the like.

States with whom we do not have treaties are to be considered as potential enemies, and all precautions must be taken against them. This would be the case with states like the Britain, Russia, and France. The Islamic State will not establish diplomatic relationships with them and they will not be permitted to have their embassies in our state.

This is because Islam calls for perpetual war, until we live under the boot heel of Islam.

Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

C. Israel

Countries which we are at war with, such as Israel, must be confronted with Jihad. Their citizens are prevented from entering the Khilafah. Islam obliges all Muslims to fight them until the land is liberated.

The Islamic scriptures also oblige Muslims to fight and kill Jews so that the Muslims may reach “judgment day”.

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Does Islamic Law sound like something that would be good for America? You make the choice!

Saturday, February 26, 2011

First Salvo On Israel

On Wednesday night a Grad rocket fired from the Gaza Strip hit the southern Israeli town of Beersheva (a resident, I heard the sirens and the boom). It damaged several homes and vehicles, and ten people including four children had to be taken to hospital for anxiety (I heard the ambulances too).

Israel responded with air strikes on Gaza—apparently hitting the responsible terror cell itself and injuring three of its members, and various other terror targets in the Strip, causing damage.

Amid a general escalation in rocket and mortar fire (and other terror) from Gaza in recent months, the Grad attack on Beersheva marked a specific escalation in two ways. For one, the Iranian-made Grad is a longer-range and more powerful rocket than the Kassams that Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, have mostly been firing from there.

For another, Beersheva is a larger and more distant target than any other that Hamas has struck since Operation Cast Lead (Israel’s war on Gaza terror) two years ago, during which seven rockets hit Beersheva and seriously injured two people including a seven-year-old boy.

The timing of Wednesday night’s attack is no mystery. Two Iranian warships—the first to have crossed Egypt’s Suez Canal since the 1979 Iranian Revolution—were simultaneously heading to the harbor in Latakia, Syria. Even a New York Times report acknowledges that the upheaval now sweeping the Middle East is, rather than a triumph of democracy, a boost for Iran and its allies.

In other words, the Grad firing represents growing Axis of Evil assertiveness and further erosion in the deterrence that Israel partly reestablished with Operation Cast Lead. Add in Thursday’s news about four new nuclear sites in Syria, and the mood for Israelis is something other than the celebration that pundits like Thomas Friedman and Peter Beinart—shining optimists of a new, peaceful, liberal Middle East—have harshly demanded of them.

An Israeli institute with close ties to Military Intelligence also reports that Hamas is trying to exploit the Mubarak government’s fall to get Egypt to allow more weapons into Gaza. Mubarak, fearful of Hamas and its parent-organization the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt itself, had acted to stanch the flow—clearly with limited success. Egypt’s current military rulers’ attitude is uncertain; again it’s hard for Israelis to be optimistic.

Israel has never had attractive choices on Gaza, having to decide between the Scylla of occupying over a million deeply hostile Arabs and the Charybdis of terror from the Strip. Clearly, retaliatory raids like Wednesday night’s—wounding three jihadists ready for martyrdom and damaging some facilities—do not deter and have only symbolic value. Is another Cast Lead-type offensive, then, the only real option?

It would risk, for one thing, pushing the new military regime in Cairo—still an unknown quantity—into backing Hamas, and possibly even taking up arms against Israel to prove its nationalist credentials. It would also risk playing into Iran’s hands: one thing Tehran, which has its own domestic problems, may well relish is a diversionary spectacle of Israeli bombs hitting Gaza while the West—in the spirit of the Goldstone Report—joins the Arab and Muslim worlds in a fury of condemnation.

On the other hand, words like Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s on Thursday—that Israel would “not tolerate the bombardment of our citizens” and “I wouldn’t suggest that anyone test our resolve”—risk sounding dangerously hollow. Hamas, backed by Iran, is testing Israel’s resolve and getting away with it. Netanyahu and his defense minister Ehud Barak face the difficult task of deciding how much to tolerate—or when to respond more substantially and how.

To an extent it’s a game of chance. A single Grad or Kassam that causes more serious, even catastrophic harm could force Israel to act—without hope of Western (or any other) backing.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Yemen the early favorite to fall next

Protest In Yemen

Bookmakers are offering odds on the next country to force their leader to step down, with Yemen installed as the early favorite.

Following the fall of Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, Yemen has been installed as 15/8 favorite.

Anti-regime protesters and supports of Ali Abdullah Saleh, the Yemeni president, clashed in Sanaa on Wednesday, with at least four people wounded, according to reports.

A protest march set off from the university heading towards Al-Sabiine square near the presidential palace, but the demonstrators were attacked by hundreds of Saleh's loyalists armed with batons, stones and daggers as soon as they left the campus.

Following the outbreak of protests across the region, Mr. Saleh promised not to seek re-election in 2013, but it has not stopped unrest in the country.

The bookmaker installed Jordan as 9/4 second favorite to fall with Algeria at 7/2.

Bahrain meanwhile, which is facing Egypt-style unrest, could be a good bet, with generous odds of 8/1.

Limited political reforms announced by the countries have done little to stop the angry protests.

Jordan's King Abdullah was forced to swear in a new cabinet last week, days after sacking Prime Minister Samir Rifai after weeks of protests against rising prices and widespread unemployment. Tribal leaders in the country have also called on the king to end his wife's role in politics.

Last week, Alegria shut down internet providers and deleted Facebook accounts as thousands of demonstrators were arrested in violent street demonstrations.

The more oppressive regimes of Saudi Arabia and Syria have been given longer odds of 20/1, although both countries have seen protests.

Odds – next country to topple leader:

15/8 Yemen

9/4 Jordan

7/2 Algeria

7/2 Morocco

8/1 Bahrain

12/1 Iran

16/1 Libya

16/1 Sudan

16/1 Iraq

20/1 Saudi Arabia

20/1 Syria

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Bahrain King Flees, Mercenaries Slaughter Libyans as Qaddafi tries to hold onto Power

Protesters in Bahrain

Bahrain sovereign, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, has released 25 political prisoners and has left for Saudia Arabia. 75 others had already been freed. Thousands of demonstrators continue to mass on the streets of the small island nation of 800.00 half of whom are citizens of other countries.

King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa

The struggle initially was between the Sunni Monarchy and the Shiite majority population. Current sentiment of the demonstrators has shifted more to a nationalistic stance reflected by cheers saying not Shiia, not Sunni, Bahraini.

The day of reckoning creeps closer to Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. The eastern part of Libya is in the control of protesters. The capital and surrounding areas are witnessing terror tactics as African French speaking mercenaries have killed an estimated 1000 Libyans by shooting indiscriminately into protesting crowds in Sabratha and in the capital, Tripoli, near to Gadhafi’s residence.

Eye witnesses are describing Gadhafi’s personal army as composed of non Arabic speaking African mercenaries who are everywhere in the capital. Many of them are serving as snipers in the residential areas. One capital resident described it as a siege.

The areas that have been seized from Gadhafi’s control are being administrated by either tribal authority who are supporting the demonstrators or by committees of residents of the various cities. Army and police units have crossed over to the opposition as well as the minister of the interior and several influential Libyan diplomats such as the Ambassador posted to Washington, DC, Ali Adjali. Ibrahim Dabbashi, deputy Ambassador to the U.N. is also supporting the protestors. Guards at the Egyptian border have left their posts.

Gadhafi in a rambling speech on Wednesday, just hours ago said that he was in power until the last drop of blood.

Planes have been flown across the border rather than carry out orders to bomb or strafe the demonstrators in eastern cities. The crew of one plane directed to Benghazi on a bombing mission bailed out and the plane crashed. They did so rather than carry out the order.

Before the king fled Bahrain demonstrators sleeping in tents in Pearl Square were besieged at 3 am by police throwing tear gas canisters. Dozens of vehicles, ambulances, armored cars, and police cars arrived at the capital city square.

Many of the injured were women and children. Two are reported dead from rubber bullets used by the security forces.

Protestors lay blame at the feet of King Hamad ibn Isa Khalifa. One woman said that though he will apologize tomorrow, tonight he ordered these men to do these things. Many of the security forces are employed to serve from other countries unlike the Egyptian police and Army who were up against their own family and friends.

The police had authorized three days of protest in the square but the raid occurred on the second day according to one man.

At the Salmaniya Medical Complex another group massed made up of distort relatives searching for their loved ones. 50 have received emergency treatment. Doctors confirmed that toddlers were among those treated for injuries. They expect the death toll to increase.

A clinic had been set up in the square to tend to the needs of protesters. The police began beating the doctors and medical personnel in the square.

Those arriving by ambulance had been severely beaten. Some had their hands in plastic cuffs and had been beaten while vulnerable.

The protest in Bahrain is different than Egypt or Tunisia. It involves charges of discrimination by the government of the King’s uncle who is the current prime minister. He is charged with repression and discrimination of the Shiite majority population. The Royal family is Sunni.

Bahrain has a population of 800,000 and is an island nation. It is strategic to U.S. interest as it is home to the US 5th fleet.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Gadhafi Orders Sabotage to Oil Facilities

Time magazine's intelligence columnist reported on Tuesday that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has ordered his security forces to sabotage the country's oil facilities, citing a source close to the government.

In a column posted on Time's website, Robert Baer said the sabotage would begin by blowing up pipelines to the Mediterranean. However he added that the same source had also told him two weeks ago that unrest in neighboring countries would never spread to Libya — an assertion that has turned out to be wrong.

"Among other things, Gadhafi has ordered security services to start sabotaging oil facilities," Baer wrote. "The sabotage, according to the insider, is meant to serve as a message to Libya's rebellious tribes: It's either me or chaos."
Gadhafi and Obama

 The growing violence in Libya has forced a number of oil companies to shut in production in Africa's third-largest oil producer and disrupted flows from the country's export terminals.

Security forces have cracked down fiercely on demonstrators across the country, with fighting spreading to Tripoli after erupting in Libya's oil-producing east last week. As the fighting has intensified some supporters have abandoned Gadhafi.

Baer, a former Middle East CIA officer, said the source told him that as of Monday, Gadhafi had the loyalty of only about 5,000 of the country's 45,000-strong regular army.

Paraphrasing the source, he said that Gadhafi had also ordered the release from prison of the country's Islamist militant prisoners in hopes they would act on their own to sow chaos.

Meanwhile on the New York Stock Exchange:

Oil prices soared Tuesday amid deadly violence in Libya, the first major oil exporter to be hit with political turmoil that has spread across the Arab world.

As leader Muammar al-Gaddafi launched a brutal crackdown against anti-regime protesters and foreign workers fled, traders feared for the impact on oil supplies.

"The market continues to be very focused on the instability in the Middle East, and Libya in particular," said oil analyst John Kilduff.

"The violence against the people, Gaddafi now losing control of some of the regions, the defection of some of the military and even the diplomatic corps -- it has escalated the situation to a point where we are likely to lose, at least for a time, Libya's 1.1 million barrels a day to the oil market," he said.

Gaddafi's pledge to crush anti-regime protesters raised the stakes in an increasing bloody fight for control of the country, a fight that could halt oil shipments.

New York's WTI light sweet crude for March delivery closed at $93.57 a barrel, a gain of $7.37, or 8.5 percent, from Friday's close. There was no settlement Monday on the New York Mercantile Exchange due to a public holiday.

In London, Brent North Sea crude for delivery in April slipped four cents to settle at $105.78 a barrel, after hitting $108.57, a peak last seen on September 4, 2008.

Libya, which has Africa's largest oil reserves and is the continent's fourth largest producer, is a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, the cartel that produces about 40 percent of global supplies.

Speaking on the sidelines of a producer-consumer meeting in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Tuesday, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said OPEC was prepared to meet any shortage of supplies.

"There is absolutely no shortage of supply now... OPEC is ready to meet any shortage in supply when it happens," Naimi said.
 "There is concern and fear but there is no shortage," the minister reiterated in a bid to assure consumer countries that crude oil supplies are guaranteed despite sweeping unrest.

Meanwhile, OPEC said its reference basket of 12 crude oils had breached the $100 barrier on Monday, at $100.59, the highest level in two and a half years.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

"Islamist role rising" in post-Mubarak Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood has role on committee redrafting constitution

Post Mubarak Egypt

The Muslim Brotherhood begins its own post-Mubarak transition, after deliberately downplaying its religious message during the uprising, waiting to make its move.

They know they have the support of so much of a population that is already highly receptive to a Sharia regime: a poll published just over two weeks ago showed Egyptians at once largely think democracy is the most preferable form of government (59% of participants), but also want to see stonings (82%) and a death penalty for apostasy (84%).

There will be a rude awakening for the many in the West who have come to assume democracy and human rights by any standard they would recognize are a package deal. "Islamist role rising as Egyptians plan victory march," by Sherine Madany and Patrick Werr for Reuters, February 17:

Egyptian youth leaders moved to set up a new political party on Thursday as the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood played an increasingly important role in preparing for post-Mubarak elections promised within six months.

The Brotherhood has a member on the committee redrafting the constitution, is on a council set up by activists to protect the revolution and has said it will set up as a political party as soon as laws are changed to let it and others do so.

The Brotherhood's spokesman appeared on state television a few days ago, a first for a movement banned in the Mubarak era. Having been timid in the early days of the revolt, it clearly thinks it is safe to come out.

And on February 2, it saw its shadow, and there will be six more weeks of stealth jihad the world over.

The Brotherhood is viewed with suspicion by Washington but is seen as the only truly organized bloc in Egypt and reckons it could win up to 30 percent of votes in a free election.

In another sign of the transformation of Egyptian politics, al-Gama'a al-Islamiya (Islamic Group), which took up arms against Mubarak's administration in the 1990s and was crushed by security forces, held its first public meeting in 15 years.

"Our position is to turn a new page with the new regime," said Assem Abdel-Maged, a group member who spent years in jail for his role in the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat. "We will perform any positive role we can to help society."...

Friday, February 18, 2011

The many faces of Islam

As Muslims become an increasingly prominent part of Europe’s social landscape, sociologists and politicians try to understand how non-Muslim Europeans feel about Islam, as well as what Muslim communities make of the continent’s native values and lifestyles.

As a result of globalization, a burka-clad girl from some backwater Afghan or Turkish village can now find herself inhabiting the same space as female college student in Paris sporting a bare midriff. What role does Islam play in the West today? Is its influence possible to manage?

Discussion Club moderator Yevgeny Shestakov discusses this issue with Alexander Ignatenko, Ph.D in Philosophy, head of the Russian Institute of Religion and Politics and a member of the Presidential Council for Interaction with Religious Associations and the Council for Foreign and Defense Policies, who specializes in Arab and Islamic studies and has written extensively on various aspects of Islam.

Shestakov: Why do you think Islam arouses so much controversy among non-Muslims in Europe and the United States?

Ignatenko: It’s true that anti-Islamic sentiment is quite widespread in Europe these days. But there’re Islamophiles out there, too. For instance, 66% of France’s population have a negative attitude toward Islam whereas about a quarter (23%) feel positively and 11% have no opinion.

On the flip side of the coin, there’s the attitude of Europe’s Muslim communities toward their non-Muslim fellow citizens. In France, 41% of Muslim residents have a favorable attitude toward non-Muslims while 58% have an unfavorable attitude. In the UK, this gap is much wider: 23% and 62%, respectively. I won’t cite any more figures here. Anyone interested can find this information on the Internet. The important thing to realize is that the animosity in Europe between indigenous populations and immigrants from Muslim countries is on the rise.

According to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, this increasingly pronounced trend shows that multiculturalism has failed. She said recently that the “multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side, and live happily with each other, has failed, utterly failed.”

What we’re facing in reality is a clash of cultures rather than their harmonious and meaningful co-existence. As a result of globalization, a burka-clad girl from some backwater village in Afghanistan or Turkey and a female Sorbonne student in Paris with a bare midriff now often find themselves living side by side. The culture clash has nothing to do with one set of values being right and the other wrong; it arises because the two girls were shaped by different cultural milieus.

There are several reasons why sociologists and politicians are so concerned by European attitudes toward Islam and Muslims’ attitudes toward European culture. First of all, the percentage of Muslims – both immigrants and native born converted to Islam – has increased sharply in recent years and they have gained prominence in the European landscape. Another reason, I think, is the emergence in Europe of anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant parties and movements, such as [Geert] Wilders’ Freedom Party.

Also, it seems that immigrants from across the Muslim world are more reluctant to integrate with the native population of their adopted countries, in comparison with representatives of other traditions, such as Judaism, Buddhism, Orthodox Christianity, or Confucianism. Which may have something to do with the circumstances in which Islam emerged on the Arabian Peninsula back in the 7th century. In its early years this religion had to compete with Christianity and Judaism, two traditions that had spread here before, but ultimately Islam prevailed. The record of Islam’s triumph can be found in its two main holy books, the Quran and the Sunna. Small wonder, then, that devout Muslims, educated in the Islamic tradition, should experience something of a culture shock upon their arrival in Europe, which is still dominated by Christian values.

Let me give you one example. Muslims believe that Jesus, known in Islam as Prophet Isa, a son of the Virgin Mary (or Marium), was carried up to Heaven by Allah when the Romans, led by Judas Iscariot, came to arrest him. Allah then made Judas look like Isa, and, as a result, the traitor ended up crucified instead of Jesus. So, according to Islam, it is Judas, not Jesus, who is actually worshiped in Christian churches. Sounds shocking, doesn’t it?

Shestakov: Indeed. And why is the term “militant” used these days mainly in reference to Islam, do you think?

Ignatenko: This term is a Western invention, as a matter of fact. In Russia, it isn’t used just as widely. In my view, this and other epithets – including “fundamentalist,” “radical,” “extremist,” “orthodox,” and “moderate” – all stem from a desire to see Islam as a multi-faceted religion divided by inner conflicts.

There’s little sense in talking about Islam in general terms because this religion is very region- and country-specific. Incidentally, the Prophet Muhammad predicted the Islamic schism by saying that after his death, Islam would split into 73 sects. He also said that only one of those sects would be saved while the rest would be committed to the fires of Hell as un-Islamic.

Islam has at least 73 facets. They cannot reconcile their many differences and often commit fierce acts of violence against one another. That’s especially true of Pakistan, which has recently seen a string of terrorist attacks by Sunni Taliban militants against mosques and shrines of the Shiite, Sufi and Ahmadi communities. I think it would be appropriate to describe Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) as militants. Especially if they plot or attempt attacks against Shiites, Sufis, or Ahmadis in Europe. In Western Europe, these and other Islamic and non-Islamic sects enjoy freedom of worship, and London is home to the world’s largest Ahmadi mosque.

Also, it’s important to note that the term “militant” makes it possible for politically correct Europeans to avoid accusing Islam per se of extremism. So when speaking of recent terrorist attacks in Paris, London and Madrid, Europeans can make it clear that those acts of terror were committed by militants who had hijacked Islam to achieve their own political ends. Al-Qaeda, whose full name is the World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders, is the most notorious militant movement.

Shestakov: Why, then, when talking about terrorism, people usually link it with Islam, while so little is known about terrorists who follow other religions?

Ignatenko: In an editorial published September 2004 in the liberal Arabic-language newspaper

Asharq Al-Awsat, Al Arabiya Managing Director Abdul Rahman al-Rashed admitted that, although not all Muslims are terrorists, the majority of terrorists in the world are, indeed, Muslims. He went even further in the headline, which reads “All terrorists are Muslim.” This editorial was quickly translated into all major languages, including Russian, and has been widely quoted ever since, so it’s no problem finding it on the Internet.

As for this authoritative Arab essayist, I think his main ambition was to shake up the paper’s Arab and Muslim readers. Indeed, he was writing his editorial with the memory of the atrocious September 11 terrorist attacks still fresh in people’s minds. Most importantly, terrorism then came, or rather returned to Islamic countries in and outside the Arab world. In 2004, Saudi mujahedin sent on jihadist missions to places such as Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya came back to Saudi Arabia and staged a series of terrorist attacks in that country.

A case in point is Yosif Saleh Fahd al-Uyayri (Ayyri), the first operational leader of the Arabian Peninsula’s Al-Qaeda network, based in Saudi Arabia. He assumed the role after returning from fighting Russians in Chechnya, where he had planned and perpetrated a number of terrorist attacks under the pseudonym Abu Qatada al-Makki, eventually becoming a founder of the shaheedism (or martyrdom) movement.

The problem is that almost all Islamic countries tend to use Islam – or rather its country-specific forms practiced in Muslim communities across Europe – as a means of influencing the domestic and foreign policies of European states. All major Muslim countries employ these tactics, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco.

No Islamic state can resist the temptation of using that kind of leverage in its European policy. They all extensively employ pan-Muslim rhetoric, too, although in most cases it conveys the ideas and interests of some specific Islamic centers of power rather than of Islam as a whole. And they try to exert their influence in various ways, ranging from rallies to suicide attacks. Perhaps the most graphic example so far is the bombing in Madrid on March 11, 2004, which killed 191 people and injured 1,900 others. This terrorist attack brought the Spanish Socialist Party into power in a landslide victory in the March 14 vote. Shortly after the election, the party’s leader, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, announced the withdrawal of Spanish forces from Iraq. It was determined with absolute certainty that the perpetrators of the Madrid attack were Arab Muslims. One shouldn’t be surprised therefore that 83% of the Spaniards now identify Islam with radicalism and terrorism.

Shestakov: Would you agree that radical Islam has turned into a social, rather than religious, phenomenon?

Ignatenko: We, Russians, just love splitting hairs. We can spend hours on end debating heatedly over definitions. I’m not sure, though, that within the scope of our conversation, we would be able to draw a clear-cut line between the social and the religious.

There’s one more thing we shouldn’t lose sight of. Activities of that sort, both in the political arena and in society, have led to transformations and even distortions of Islam in its various country-specific incarnations.

Simplifying a bit, we could assert that the traditional, or pre-globalization, form of Islam, once predominant among Europe’s Muslim communities, was integrated into European culture or coexisted with it peacefully.

Later on, due to globalization and as a result of targeted operations by Islamic centers of power, other forms of Islam were introduced into Europe, with Wahhabism being the most proactive, or the most aggressive, I should say. It began to squeeze out traditional Islam while at the same time trying to reinterpret its teachings. As a result, both among traditional Muslims and new converts, extremists have emerged who are ready to commit acts of terror against non-Muslim fellow countrymen. So, perhaps, [al-Rashed’s] formula should now be modified to read as follows: “Not all Wahhabis are terrorists, but all terrorists are Wahhabis.”

Shestakov: Can a secular, democratic state resist radicalism? Or this is a threat that only a totalitarian state can handle?

Ignatenko: That’s a good question. It also comes to mind if we contrast Iraq under Saddam to post-Saddam Iraq. There was almost no radicalism in the country under his watch, neither among the Shiite nor the Sunni communities. But the introduction of “democracy” there triggered a fierce sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as an anti-Christian genocide.

Pakistan is another revealing example. Under the heavy-handed General Musharraf, the military was able to keep local Islamic extremists at bay. But the Taliban resurged after a democratic leader, Asif Ali Zardari, was elected president of Pakistan a few years ago, and there have been almost routine suicide bombings ever since.

Luckily, Europe today is free of dictatorships, and there’re no signs of a totalitarian regime emerging on the continent in the near future.

Shestakov: How can we deal with the problem?

Ignatenko: Europe is now involved in a painstaking search for solutions to the many problems it faces. Admittedly, not all the solutions proposed have proved workable, and we’ve seen expressions of Islamophobic sentiments. Having said that, I believe the European Muslims have a big role to play in resolving the existing conflicts. Many of them hold that Islam and terrorism are incompatible because Islam is a religion of peace. To quote the Holy Quran, “Produce your proof if ye are truthful” (Surah 2 (al-Baqarah), Ayah 111).

We are Witnessing the Collapse of the Middle East

If Egypt should fall, it will mark the beginning of the end for what little remaining stability there is in the Middle East. Jordan is facing similar unrest, as is Algeria and Yemen. Lebanon and Tunisia fell in January. It is highly unlikely that these events are unrelated. A combination of leftist and Islamist forces provoked the protests, and we are likely looking at a ring of radical Islamic states rising up to surround Israel.

Once their power is solidified, they will combine forces to attack Israel. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood has already said that Egypt should prepare for war with Israel. If Israel falls, the United States will stand alone in a sea of virulent enemies and impotent allies.

So who does Obama support, Mubarak or his enemies?

Obama wasted no time in telling us. He supports Mubarak’s opponents, and probably has been all along. The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that the Obama administration favors a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new Egyptian government.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest extremist Muslim organization, is behind practically every Muslim terrorist organization ever formed. And while they may have publicly renounced violence as the LA Times article claims, internal documents tell a completely different picture.

And if that weren’t bad enough, Obama’s latest comment to Egypt’s leader is that “…an orderly transition …must begin now.”

Must begin. Now.

Simply stunning.

Juxtapose Obama’s statements toward our allies with his reaction to the genuine uprising that occurred last year in Iran. Tunisia: “Reform or be overthrown.” Egypt: “…an orderly transition …must begin now.” Iran: “It is not productive… to be seen as meddling." Meanwhile, candidate Obama claimed the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have “legitimate claims,” and we all remember his mindless Counterterrorism Czar, John Brennan, out to “moderate” Hezbollah members last spring. Hezbollah moderates?

The seeming inconsistency is astonishing. Unfortunately, there is a consistency. Obama uniformly sides with our enemies, but rarely, if ever our friends and allies. His administration is packed with far left radicals and vicious anti-Semites. And therein lies the rub, because what we are witnessing in reality is this President’s un-American, anti-American, treasonous ideology in full play.

Perhaps this is the real reason for Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin and Jody Evans trips to Egypt in 2009. Following those trips, these same people made visits to the White House.

Obama’s breathlessly arrogant answer? Not the same Ayers, Dohrn, Benjamin and Evans. Sure.

A few years back it was quoted by Lynn Stewart, the Guild attorney jailed for helping blind Sheikh, Omar Adel Raman, foment terror from his New York jail cell. One thinks that atheistic radical leftists would be foursquare against a political movement that tramples women’s rights, murders homosexuals and enforces strict theocratic mandates. No such luck Stewart said:

They [radical Islamic movements] are basically forces of national liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination…My own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements within their own countries…to liberate.

“…movements within their own countries… to liberate.” Given recent developments, her statement was prescient. But I think it had a special meaning. The words “liberate” and “national liberation” hit the sweet spot for leftists everywhere. Because when movement leftists like Stewart talk about “liberation,” they are really talking about communism.

It has been my longstanding assertion that Muslim terrorism is simply a false flag operation, managed in the background by our main enemies, Russia and Red China. This is in no way intended to suggest that radical Muslim movements are not a threat. They are. But almost since the beginning, these organizations have been supported and nurtured by the Soviet Union or their Middle Eastern surrogates. They remain behind the scenes, plausibly deniable, yet are the puppet masters pulling the strings, a fact of which even many of the terrorists are unaware.

Yasser Arafat’s PLO is a prime example. Created by the KGB, the PLO was always about providing a Soviet counterweight to Israel in the Middle East. They were uninterested in the Palestinian cause, and said so! Rather, the Palestinian fight for “statehood” was a PLO invention, created to provide an excuse for aggression against Israel. They said so! Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB defector poisoned by Polonium 210 in what was assumed to be a KGB hit, claimed in his book, Allegations, that al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al Zawahiri, was a Soviet agent. And while today Hezbollah is the defacto ruler of Lebanon, the real power is Ba’athist Syria.

David Horowitz wrote of the alliance between Leftists and Muslim terrorists in his seminal book: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. He describes in detail how the Left and Muslim radicals work together to achieve their mutual ends: the destruction of America.

It is incomprehensible that President Obama does not recognize the strategic significance of what is happening, and if he does, then his support of Egypt’s sham “democracy movement” is a naked betrayal of our Middle Eastern allies, and by extension, our own country.

Unfortunately, his view is shared by republicans who are so in love with the idea of “democracy” that it doesn’t appear to matter to them that the “democrats” in this case are fanatic mass murderers. At best, it can only be seen as incredibly myopic and ignorant to support Mubarak’s enemies.

People make the same mistake Carter did with Iran and Nicaragua: they commit the logical error of assuming that just because a country’s current leadership is flawed and “undemocratic,” that automatically someone else would do better. Newsflash, they can do worse, and almost without exception, they do, because people who take power by street riot have no interest in “democracy.”

If their street revolutions are successful, these Middle Eastern countries will rapidly degenerate into radical Muslim thugocracies, allied with our communist enemies. Israel will be the first target and with Obama’s radically anti-Israel orientation, they will stand alone. We will be next. One is left to wonder if Obama will then stand to defend the country he swore to, or if he will be out in the streets with his fellow radical leftists burning American flags.

My bet is he will be in the street.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Iran Ups its Anti-Israeli Ante

With protests gathering steam in Bahrain, demonstrations reported in Libya, and clashes between pro- and anti-government movements in Yemen, Iran has exacerbated Middle Eastern tensions even further with its reported plan to send two warships through the Suez Canal. Israeli government officials and the Israeli Navy are closely monitoring two Iranian warships, which are anticipated to make a rare crossing of the Suez Canal. This would be the first time since 1979 the Iranian Navy has used the canal, and it is believed the ships’ destination is Syria. The Iranians, it was reported, are planning to send a “fleet” to the Mediterranean for a year.

With Mubarak having stepped down only days ago, the vessels’ appearance in the canal and in the Mediterranean is obviously meant to provoke and challenge Israel, which first alerted the world to the Iranian design. In this, the Iranians have succeeded. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the ships’ movements would be closely followed and “friendly states updated,” while Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called the Iranian move “a provocation that proves Iranians’ overconfidence.” Lieberman also castigated the international community for allowing “the recurring Iranian provocations,” indicating Israel’s patience may be coming to an end.
Joe Lieberman

“The international community must understand that Israel cannot forever ignore these provocations,” said Lieberman.

The ships themselves appear to oppose no real danger to Israel’s military. They are described as a British-built frigate dating from the 1960s and a supply ship. The arms embargo the United States imposed on the Iranian regime after the 1979 revolution has left the Iranian military, three decades later, outfitted with mostly aged equipment from the shah’s time. Attempts have been made to smuggle in spare parts, modern weaponry and technology, but this has met with limited success. Many of the smugglers have also simply wound up in Western prisons.

China enjoys friendly relations with Iran and has sold it some modern arms, principally because the Persian Gulf country is a major source of oil for its expanding economy. Russia was also going to sell its modern S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to the Iranians to upgrade their 1970s-era air defense system but backed off due to the anger the proposed sale aroused in Israel and among Western states. The new, home-built weapons systems the Iranians announce from time to time also never seem to make it into production after the initial photo-op and are probably meant solely for propaganda purposes. This may include the new warship the Iranians unveiled a year ago, the Jamaran.

Weapons Seizure
 But while the two Iranian ships currently making their way to the Mediterranean may be museum pieces, their possible cargo could be another, and more deadly, story. War materials for Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon; have been discovered on other Syria-bound ships in the past. In 2009, US soldiers found containers of ammunition for Kalashnikov rifles on a German-owned cargo ship in the Gulf of Suez that was heading for Syria. The ship had been leased to Iran. The same year, Israeli forces boarded another freighter, allegedly outbound from Iran, and came upon an arsenal of weapons, bombs, artillery shells and rockets destined for Hezbollah. Much of the weaponry Hezbollah now possesses, including UAVs used over Israeli territory, originated in Iran.

Although in a coalition government with other parties, Hezbollah now essentially rules Lebanon. After its 34-day war with Israel in 2006, the United Nations adopted a resolution calling for the Shiite militia to disarm. Instead, Hezbollah has made Lebanon a client state of Iran, which is rearming its proxy with even deadlier weapons, preparing it for the next round of war with the Jewish State.

Iran’s latest ploy to challenge Israel, however, may contain a more sinister element than that of supplying arms to Hezbollah. Since Hosni Mubarak stepped down last Friday, protesters have reappeared on the streets of Tehran in numbers not seen since the Green Movement in 2009. The unrest continued on Wednesday, as pro- and anti-government demonstrators clashed at the funeral for one of the protesters killed two days ago.

But there were two things about this latest round of disturbances that have unsettled the Iranian leadership. According to columnist Pepe Escobar, the first is that the demonstrators were demanding the resignation of Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini and not President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The most popular chant, Escobar writes, was: “Mubarak, Ben Ali [of Tunisia]! Now it is Seyed Ali [Khameniei’s] turn!”

The second element references the fact that some demonstrators were from Tehran’s working class neighborhoods, the traditional areas of support for Iran’s theocratic regime. With drastic rises in food prices and living costs, some workers appear to have had enough of the Iranian Revolution, since it now can’t meet even their basic needs. These price hikes, in which the opposition to the mullahs among the workers has it roots, is largely due to the government having abolished food and fuel subsidies, amounting to $100 billion a year. Escobar states Iran’s economic situation is so bad, “Iranian banks such as Meli, Saderat and Melat Sepah are very short on cash.”

As much as Ahmadinejad tries to portray the current unrest as the work of hostile foreign elements, the mullahs know they are ruling a deeply divided country and that their time may soon run out. The demographic situation in Iran is also in a perilous state, especially for a government that has pretensions to some day rule the Islamic world. The birthrate of Iranian women has fallen below replacement levels and Iran will not have the young men to go to war with in 20 years. This demographic implosion, one columnist believes, is what will eventually cause Iran to launch a war in the near future rather than just go quietly into the night.

Stuxnet computer virus attack

The unknown quantity in all this is how badly the Stuxnet computer virus attack against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, believed to have been carried out by Israel and the United States, set the program back. The Iranian regime wanted nuclear arms as leverage against, and possibly to destroy, Israel, and to establish Iran as the regional power. Now, the Stuxnet attack, combined with the country’s current political and economic troubles, may not allow time for this plan to come to fruition, causing the mullah regime to seek another avenue to prosecute its jihad.

And that avenue appears to lie in provoking an attack by Israel. The one thing that would now unite Iranians and get them behind their leaders again would be an attack by Israel or the United States. The two warships are probably just the start of a campaign to provoke the Jewish State into making such a move, since Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the previous reason for possible US-Israeli military action against Iran, may now be nothing but a shambles. With an Israeli attack, not only would the Iranian people, who have for decades drunk deep draughts of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, forget their difficulties and support the jihad, but so would other Muslim peoples of a rapidly changing and unstable Middle East.

Launching foreign military adventures to distract people’s attention from problems at home is nothing new. Both Hitler and the military junta in Argentina that attacked the Falkland Islands were facing similar disastrous economic situations as the mullahs before they launched their military adventures. Shortly after Munich, Hitler said Germany had only one year remaining before it faced bankruptcy, so he had to start war soon. After occupying the Falklands, the Argentinean generals were greeted by cheering crowds who only days earlier had been demonstrating against economic hardships. For the same reasons and out of the same criminal spirit, Iran is now sending its warships through the Suez Canal in the hope of incrementally reaching its goal of war with Israel, but without appearing to be the aggressor.

Immigration 2011










1 - A JOB,













Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The Eventual Caliphate

      When he was asked why the vast majority of Egyptians, the heirs to a great pre-Islamic civilization, speak Arabic rather than Coptic, a leading Egyptian historian replied, "Because we had no Ferdowsi." That would be the tenth-century Persian poet and the author of the "Shahnameh, (Book of Kings)" who revived not only the Persian language, but also Persian identity. Ferdowsi is known for his efforts to save the Persian language, and the history, from oblivion. It has been suggested that Ferdowsi is Iran's Homer:

      Twice as long as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey taken together, the Shahnameh blends Iran's ancient myths and legends with accounts of major events in its past. Its 55,000 rhyming couplets chart the history of the Iranian world from its creation to the fall of the Persian Empire in the seventh century.

Muslim Conquest Of Persia

      The cruel, successful subjugation of the Persian people by the Arab invaders wetted the latter's appetite for further conquests. They ventured elsewhere into the civilized world -- to Egypt, Syria, the Levant, Spain, and eventually to the gates of Vienna. Cruelty and terror were their instruments of policy. Terrorism is nothing new to Islam's ideology, they've employed this technique for more than a thousand  years.

      Out of all the peoples conquered by the Arab invasion in the seventh century, the Persians are the only one who can boast of a major body of literature in the indigenous language that they were using before the conquest. The Persian language, culture, and traditions have been Iranians' shields against the Muslim hordes and their barbaric Islamic ideology for the past 1,400 years.

      In English, this language is historically known as "Persian," though some Persian-speakers migrating to the West continue to use inaccurately and inappropriately the word "Farsi"to identify their language in English. Farsiis encountered in some linguistic literature as a name for the language, used both by Iranians and by foreign authors. But in fact, Farsi is the Arabized form of the native word Parsi. Due to a lack of the p phoneme in standard Arabic, the word Farsiwas born. The Academy of Persian Language and Literature has declared that the name "Persian" is more appropriate, as it has the longer tradition in the Western languages and better expresses the role of the language as a mark of cultural and national continuity.

      The enumeration of the influences of Iranian civilization on world cultures is not the primary objective of this author and is out of the scope of the present article. It is important, however, to demonstrate the salient point of how Islam has been on a collision course with great ancient civilizations such as Egypt, Persia, and many more from its inception up to now. Just as it brutally conquered and bitterly stifled one of the fountainheads of progress in ancient times, Islam remains a very real threat to Western civilization and to any progressive civil society in the 21stcentury. It is virulently capable of great destruction and retardation of minds, as we have seen in the past three decades in Iran and elsewhere. Any and all enlightened citizens of this planet who care about freedom, human rights, and progress should take this clear and present danger very seriously.

      Egypt is one of the crown jewels of the ancient world, rich in culture and filled with illustrious antiquities. Unlike the Persians, the Egyptians became completely Arabized and have little or no nostalgia for their ancient past. Islam has dominated the Egyptians' lives. Pew's Global Attitude Project poll shows that the Egyptians want more Islam in politics.

      At the time of the Muslim conquest, the population of Egypt was made up of Christian Copts and estimated to have been about nine million at the time of the invasion of 641 AD. Today, Copts form 15% to 18% of Egypt's population. The Arab conquerors imposed a special tax, known as jizya, on the Christians, who acquired the status of dhimmis. Egyptian converts to Islam, in turn, were relegated to the status of mawali.

      Early on, the Prophet Muhammad explicitly said, "There is no compulsion in religion." He further confirmed that admonition: "For you, your religion; and for me, my religion." But as soon as he gathered enough power, Muhammad violated those exhortations and set out to force his belief and way of life on others at the point of the sword. Further, he conveniently ignored his own teaching by unsheathing his sword upon "the people of the book" -- Jews and Christians. He spared them death only if they converted or consented to pay the backbreaking religious taxes of jizya.

      I hope that people in the West and in America are beginning to see the real face of Islam and the danger it poses to secular democratic societies. In the past, Islam succeeded in largely displacing the magnificent Persian civilization with a primitive, myopic, discriminatory system of belief. Presently, once again and with renewed vigor, Islam is aiming to destroy another civilization -- the Judeo-Christian civilization, a civilization that constitutes a living falsification of the primitive and backward Islamic creed. Islamofascism presents a clear and present danger -- not only to Western civilization, but to the entire civilized world, as is evidenced by the ruling Islamists in places such as Iran, the Sudan, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia.

      With the just concluded Egyptian uprising, the very notion of rapidly advancing 1.6 billion human beings from illiteracy and barbaric 7th-century mentality up to 21st-century Western standards of democracy is an utter impossibility. Over 60% of the "Muslim world" (excluding Iran) is illiterate and only Quran-trained. The task is insurmountable, in my opinion. I believe first and foremost that we should support the Iranian people efforts to gain their freedom, draw them back into our Western civilization, and declare Islam a defunct ideology that has simply failed in Iran.

Barbaric Christian Beheading

      While the Egyptian demonstrators are as much against Hosni Mubarak as they are against his tyrannical regime, they don't mind having sharia law injected into their day-to-day lives. On the contrary, the 2009 Iranian protests were just as much against the Islamic Republic as they were against Shi'a Islam. In fact, much of the protesting was against Islam itself. People have experienced what a primitive and defective system of belief Islam is, and they aim to abandon it for good. In fact, millions of Iranians representing the entire spectrum of society are demanding change from the repressive Islamic theocracy to an open secular democracy.

      Young Iranians, particularly the urban educated Iranians, are among the most ardent believers in democracy in the world. Many view America as the country that holds the best hope for spreading and protecting the high ideals of democracy. In a sense, many Iranians feel a closer affinity with a democratic Israel than with all the neighboring Arab Muslim dictatorships. Although Islam was imposed on Iran some 1,400 years ago, Iranians deeply value their own ancient non-Arab identity and have never fully surrendered to the Arab culture. During the bloodletting war initiated by the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein against Iran, all Arab states sided with the "Butcher of Baghdad" against Iran. Israel was the only Middle Eastern country that remained neutral and in fact helped Iran in the struggle. We Iranians don't forget our friends, and we also remember our enemies.

      While I'm worried that the Muslim Brotherhood will take over this quasi-popular revolt in Egypt, I am also hopeful that the Iranian patriots will see the Egyptian demonstrations and be inspired to make yet another try at toppling the loathed mullahcracy in Iran.