Tuesday, 29 December 2009


This youtube clip was brought to my attention. I have been asked to provide a critique on it, so here it is.

I whole-heartedly agree with the final sentiment of the clip that the postal stamps honouring the heroes of 9/11 should be re-circulated permanently. Innocent people lost their lives in the atrocious and evil attack, many heroic serviceman and civilians risked their lives in the rescue attempt; many of such died. However, to raise the issue of Islamic stamps circulating the country over the heroic stamps and imply that the two issues are connected is highly erroneous and a lamentable attempt at inappropriately merging the two distinct matters and using it to instill frustration and manipulate such so that people misguidedly embark on Islamophobic campaigns.

The clip is nothing short of ignorant propaganda. It may be correct that the attackers were 'Muslim'; however, the IRA attacks were perpetrated by Christians, does that mean that all Christians are terrorists, engaging in 'Christian Terror'? When the 'Muslims attacked' the majority of Muslims sighed in despair that another misguided fool has tarnished their faith by inflicting abhorrent acts in the name of their religion. Any religious text can be manipulated to satisfy the urges of a frustrated and corrupt individual.

America, the 'land of the free'... Where is the freedom when there are ignorant people campaigning against Muslims, Jews, homosexuals, blacks etc? Where is the freedom when there are White Supremacists distorting the codes of Christianity and claiming America is a white nation invaded by foreign hordes? Have people forgotten that the United States of America was founded on the blood of the native Indians when first Columbus arrived and then the 'Conquistadores' invaded and forced their way of life on them? After such a brutal and oppressive invasion, suddenly, America is a white country, and now the new target for the campaign of angry propaganda seems to be the Muslims. America no longer belongs to any one particular race - history has proven that.

However, there are a lot of Iranians who are rapidly turning anti-Islam. Who can blame them, when their rights have been incessantly violated by a government who claims to act in accordance with the dictates of Islam (see Artice1-4 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran). If only they investigated a little further would they then find that the IRI authorities have breached almost every evidential and procedural requirement of Islam in their conduct; for example, the high rate of executions of 'adulterers'. One should not force religion on another; equally, one should not force anti-religious views on another. When one is forced to believe, they cannot truly believe.

If one is to attack/criticize a religion, at least let them do so with credible and justified evidence, rather than emotional opinion.


  1. William King29 December, 2009

    Good piece, I went on the Knights Party website from your link and it's astounding what crap they follow and preach...people in the US need to wake up and see that their freedom is under attack not just from terrorists but from their own political bodies and candidates.

  2. Such a video should quite simply be banned and is so patently wrong that it is a waste of your words (though it is a pleasure to read them:).
    It is in the same way a part of a vicious hate cycle as is the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo or the unconditional support of Israel or indeed any other discriminatory or unjust practice or preaching.
    Anybody in their right mind can figure out quite simply, that such propaganda will ignite hate even where there is no hate yet to be found. Hell, even I'm angry, and I'm not even Muslim!

  3. Thank you Mehrtash,
    What we should preach and educate our children is how to be tolerant and the true understanding of Human Rights,
    Heart of the teachings of Gandhi, Dr. King, Nelson Mandela, Dali Lama and other pioneers in the struggle for humanity, not hate in any shape or form .
    We have to introduce equal Justice for all but abondon revenge

  4. Mr King, thank you for your comment.

    Cynical Child - I agree, even though I am in favour of free speech, I am against abusing the practice of free speech, and this youtube clip simply abuses free speech. Religious stance is immaterial, what is of prime concern is that the pot-holes in their arguments should be exposed, so that no one falls for their rhetoric.

    I consulted your blog, and it appears well laid out, shame I cannot read it, as I can only read English ;)

  5. Homayoun - thank you for your wise words. I agree, education and an understanding which leads to acceptable tolerance is the way forth.

    With regards to 'equal justice', and not revenge, how would you define justice, a 'balance' in the way of 'an eye for an eye', or a response that may appear to be less than the harm inflicted by the perpetrator?

  6. according to the Knights party, Dr King was not the great man he was made out to be. just click on my name to read the ludicrous article on it.

    This party is so up its own ass that they think Christ prophesized peopel would one day turn against the church in favour of the 'church of human rights'; and that it is a sin to have interracial mixing! http://www.kkk.bz/jesus_christ_warned_his_disciple.htm

    This is a growing party in America and they should be stopped! Read and spread the word!

  7. Dear Mehrtash,
    No punishment should be inhumane or cruel or exessive, by equal justice I meant that everybody should enjoy equal protection and equally accountable under the law.
    may be there was a time that eye for an eye made sense, but look at Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, and few other countries that apply eye for an eye
    If it did work they should have very few executions, but they rank among the top 5 countries and if we go execution per capita then Saudi Arabia is No.1 so it does not work even in a third world countries...

  8. Homayoun - you maintain a formidable argument, and I for one have had difficulty in digesting capital punishment. It has even been shown that the IRI, for example, violate rules of evidence and procedure, so many people are 'illegally' executed, which may serve in the high statistics of state executions carried out.

    However, when we analyze justice applied in the case of the attacking basijee in Iran, and the police who run over innocent people and shoot them in the head, what justice is the answer? A reactionary action of defence, which includes the use of force, at the time of the attack by the authorities - then yes, I condone that. I am not yet too sure about revenge attacks days after the event...but then again, it is very easy to say this sitting in the warm comfort of my home outside of Iran, whilst people are witnessing heads being run over, women being beaten down til their skulls open, and people shot dead and left in the street.

    Theory is easier than practice, and may not always apply effectively.

  9. Of course it is wrong to equate all Muslims, as that rather simple minded video does. And the relationship of the US establishment and Islamism is not what both sides present it as being - e.g., Bush aggressively backed the ascension of the Islamist Erdogan in Turkey; the US military worked intimately with Iran in Bosnia; Khomeini came to power in fact with Brzezinski's support; and as I have documented on my website, the Western powers aided Iran by invading Iraq and by doing Iran's work in Afghanistan; and the IDLO, a key organization of the international community, so-called, has indeed said that Shar’ia is fine for human rights, based on which, the IDLO, with participation of the US state department, involved IRI representatives in planning Afghanistan's constitution. That said, in February you wrote that the IRI rulers violate what SOME consider the precepts of Islam. Now you say flatly that they do violate virtually all of Islamic law. Perhaps you have been carried away by your own argument. From my own research, I would say that to the extent advocates of Shar’ia get a free hand, *to that extent* they are repressive of free thought and secular politics, stunningly misogynist, repressive of other religions and especially of atheism, repress all movements for progressive social change, and generally impose ancient, tribal warlord thinking - not surprising, since Muslim texts are the rule books of an ancient conquering warlord society. Islamic religious law serves the most reactionary classes in society. That said, I think what Iran has shown is that Muslims themselves can be the most heroic resisters of such nightmarish ideas, imposed, in the case of Iran, with manifest support of Western powers. (Just as it was the Italians - almost all Catholics - who destroyed the horrific papal empire in 19th century!) As an Iranian friend says, the IRI is in fact "the world's conspiracy,' i.e., it was imposed with complicity of both sides in the cold war.

  10. Jared Israel- A pleasure to read from you, learning from your wise insight.

    By stating that the IRI violate all the laws, I maintain that they violate the evidential requirements and rules of procedure when it comes to penology. Perhaps I should have been more explicit; apologies for my shortcomings.

    I agree with the argument that the IRI is the 'world's conspiracy'.