ZEALOTS
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Middle ground
03-Jul-2009
How to Win a Cosmic War
God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror
by Reza Aslan
REVIEW
How to Win a Cosmic War is Dr. Reza Aslan’s newly released book after the successful publication of his first. In this book, he offers a detailed examination of Jehadisim and Islamism as two widespread Islamic movements with different ideologies and agendas. Although religious fanaticism has been blamed by the majority of observers for the violence and the deadly attacks against the U.S. and other Western countries, Dr. Aslan tries to defend religion as a decisive force that, if utilized prudently, can play a constructive role in mobilizing the masses toward a peaceful emancipative cause. No religion, including the religion of Islam, promotes violence and sanctions unjustified attacks against innocent people, “… no religion is inherently violent or peaceful; people are violent or peaceful” the author says. Throughout the book, Reza explains how both the ill-conceived doctrine of the Bush administration and the misguided beliefs of the organized Jihadist groups like Al-Qaeda have changed the nature of the war on terrorism and transformed it into a cosmic war, a divine struggle with an important mission that is neither political nor economic; it is rather the fulfillment of a much bigger spiritual cause. “Once cast as a ‘cosmic war,’ a conflict conveys a sense of importance and destiny to those who find the modern world to be stifling, chaotic and dangerously out of control” one researcher says. A war that cannot be won through military might should have not been waged to begin with. According to Dr. Aslan, the best way to win a cosmic fight is to “refuse to fight in it.”
Throughout his book, the author keeps reminding us of the unavoidability of religious movements, especially in many Muslim countries, as a legitimate development that, if given the opportunity, may evolve into a democratic and responsible political force or governing body as we have seen in Turkey. The greatest threat to world peace, he believes, does not come from Islamic movements but from “religious trans-nationalist movements” best typified by the nascent borderless movement branded in the Unite States as Jihadism.
In his book, the author carefully examines the historical roots of the religious movements in different Muslim countries, especially in Egypt, and the events that have led to the rise and the demise of many such movements. His meticulous research on the theoretical foundation of such movements is indeed scholarly, revealing, and enlightening. In particular, he tries to explain why the two Islamic movements, Islamism and Jihadism, once close cousins, have split into two separate, opposing, or even hostile, movements with different worldviews. He writes that today “Islamism remains a nationalist ideology, whereas, most Jihadists want to erase all borders” and become global. In a nutshell, Islamism, like Harakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, Hamas in Gaza is a national movement that draws its strength from the suffering of Moslem Palestinians and their unbearable living conditions under the Israeli occupation. In other words, the plight of Palestinian people has become a bonding factor, a drive to the creation of Hamas and similarly the Hezbollah. Jihadist, on the other hand, is a global movement that does not recognize any boundaries. It “seeks a deterritorialized Islam” according to the author, thus launching a cosmic war which “… in its simplest expression refers to the belief that God is actively engaged in human conflicts on behalf of one side against the other.” And, it is because of this divine involvement that ultimate victory is presumably guaranteed for the Jihadists.
The treatment of Muslims by the Bush administration, the war with Iraq and Afghanistan, and the doctrine of preemptive strike against Islamic countries have given the Jihadists the necessary grounds to represent themselves as the sole defender of the faith against the forces of those who contemplate the obliteration of Islam, the Crusaders in particular, thus justifying their destructive campaign against the U.S. and its allies. “There is no doubt that the policies of the Bush administration have only strengthened Jihadism and increased its appeal, particularly among Muslim youth.” However, the author expects that with a new administration in power and our new president “who finally understands that the only way to win a cosmic war is to refuse to fight in one” there is a hope that “the ideological conflicts against militant forces in the Muslim world” will be reformulated “not as a cosmic war between good and evil but as an earthy contest between the advocates of freedom and the agents of oppression.”
In so far as the war on terrorism is fought as a cosmic war, it cannot be won through conventional warfare because there are no specific enemies with a clear agenda, no one knows what the Jihadists want and what they ultimately try to achieve. “There is no central front to the war on terror because their (Jihadists’) identity cannot be centered on any territorial boundaries” and “indeed, it is their utter lack of interest in achieving any kind of earthy victory that makes them such a distinct and appealing force in the Muslim world.” Furthermore, Jihadism is a social movement as the author emphasizes repeatedly. “Yet whatever military success the United States and its allies have had in disturbing al-Qaida’s operations and destroying its cells have been hampered by their utter failure to confront the Global Jihadism as a social movement.” Accordingly, success in the war on terrorism “requires a deeper understanding of social, political, and economic forces that have made Global Jihadism such an appealing phenomenon, particularly to Muslim Youth.” “It is a battle that will be waged not against men with guns but against boys with computers, a battle that can be won not with bullets and bombs but with words and ideas.”
Dr. Aslan’s rigorous examination of the key factors that transform young men into zealous Muslims willing to sacrifice their lives, determined to challenge the existing world order, and serving as the conduit for horrific attacks against innocent human beings helps us to better understand Jihadism and why it should be considered a social movement. The author argues that it is the demonization of Muslims in many Western countries like the UK that changed otherwise peaceful Muslims like Hasib Mir Hussain - one of the four terrorists who carried out a suicide attack by detonating a bomb on a bus that exploded in Tavistock Square in London killing 13 including himself - into violent Jihadists. “It may have been anger and humiliation and a deep-seated feeling of inequality that led Hussain to Global Jihadism” he declares.
Pivotal to the central theme of his book is the argument that “in this new, emerging century, as the boundaries between religion and politics are, in part of the world, becoming increasingly blurred, we can no longer afford to view the religious movements as inherently different from any other groups of individuals who have linked their individual identities together with the purpose of challenging the society.” He continues to say: “The truth is that religion has certain qualities that make it a particularly useful tool for promoting social movement activism.” Religion can provide unity among people who belong to different ethnicities, cultures, languages, etc. “most significantly, religion’s ability to sanction violence, to declare it permissible and just to place it within the cosmic framework of order versus chaos, good versus evil, is indispensable to the success of social movement.”
He seems to suggest that while the fear of Jihadism is warranted, the fear of Islamism is overblown. Islam, like any other religions, is not inherently violent. It is the humiliation and the hectoring of young Muslims that adds fuel to the fire of violence and not the teachings of Islam per se. Thus, terrorism is a symptom of much deeper problems that drive some Muslims into despair and anger and into taking revenge out of desperation. We want to make sure the sources of terrorism do not remain undetected or untreated. Imposition and the use of force make Jihadists resentful, defensive, and more determined.
In the final Chapter of his book, Reza Aslan presents his “Middle Ground” viewpoint, his optimistic argument that the Islamist groups if allowed to take active part in social and political processes “albeit within certain accepted parameters” not only soften their otherwise uncompromising views but “they can evolve into responsible political actors committed to democratic ideals of human rights, women’s rights, government accountability, the rule of law, pluralism, and judicial reform.” Doing so also weakens the support for the extremists according to the author. Therefore, given the chance to choose between bad and worse, “Islamism is the preferable middle ground. It may in fact be the antidote to Jihadism.”
| Recently by varjavand | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| The Rise of Secular America | 6 | Oct 29, 2012 |
| War with Iran and the Economy | 10 | Oct 10, 2012 |
| Why Do We Believe? II | - | Aug 25, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Mr. Varjavand
by Amil Imani on Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:26 AM PDTMr. Varjavand,
You are out of line to order us not to defend Mr. Imani from countless attacks. Many people who post here are internet junkies, riffraff, Hezbollah thugs. There are few honorable Iranians who are well-known in the community and only want to share their views with other Iranians. The owner of site allows these thugs to roam around and attack any poster viciously. It appears you do not get the point here.
Come on Mr. Amil, give
by varjavand on Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:04 AM PDTCome on Mr. Amil, give it up and focus on substance
I agree
by IRANdokht on Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:01 AM PDTWell said bacheh tehrooni. I have wondered about the same things for a while too... aren't we here to exchange ideas about our homeland?
why so much bullying, intimidation, accusation and threats?
IRANdokht
Mr. Javid
by Amil Imani on Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:13 AM PDTMr. Javid,
Again, we hold you accountable for any thug attacking Mr. Imani. We are here to exchange thoughts and ideas regarding different issues, no insults or personal attacks. We are not interested in people’s personal life. We will never attack them. We are not here to communicate with individuals about their health. It is not our business.
Mr. Javid, you need to stand up and defend your forum from these savages. Allowing these thugs to roam and personally attack a poster is a crime and we surely can handle this legally. You are the moderator and nothing gets posted before verified by you, thus you are responsible for any defamation and injury caused by your posters. Perhaps it is time for you to set new rules. Stand up and protect your site from these zealots.
PS. It is perfectly legal and proper to challenge Mr. Imani’s articles, his opinion and his thoughts, but not to attack him personally. That is totally out of line and everyone knows it. For example, we much rather to speak about Mr. Asalan’s book and his opinion if we decide to do so, rather than keep warning you for something you should have known for years. We respect individuals, but their opinions can be challenged.
Sepration of Church and State
by varjavand on Sun Jul 05, 2009 09:45 AM PDTDr. Aslan’s attempt to differentiate between the tolerable and intolerable versions of Islam, his refusal to dismiss religion, whatever the justification might be, should not be rejected outright; it is a proposition worth looking into especially when it comes from a cognizant individual like him. I believe, he is trying to run an analytical strainer through the Islamic movements, teachings, to separate the good from the evil, gold from the garbage, to lift the gold and to let the rubbishes sink into the canister of the history.
Our distrust of religion, Islam in particular, especially among the visitors of this site, is understandable and is based on the reality that evils have been committed under the name of religion throughout the history of human being even to this very moment. Exploitation of religion has occurred frequently with deadly results, especially in recent years. We have been inundated by negative images such as: suicide bombings, destroyed buildings, hijackings, swift retributions, and harsh and inhumane punishments all take place under the name of religion. Obviously, it is the mix of political power and religion that results in such horrible acts being committed, not the religion per se. It is religion backed by an imprudent idealistic government that creates the means and the power to oppress, to suppress, to brutalize, and to censor.
Suffering from centuries of devastating experience under the dominance of the church, Western countries like the United States decided to break the association between religion and the authority long time ago, and rightfully so. With that came the popularity of the notion that religion must be kept in its proper private place and its proper perspective. Consequently, what we see in such countries is what seem to be the absence of religion from public life and not necessarily its trivialization.
I think all comes dawn to the separation of church and state quarrel. What follows is a brief analysis on this subject based on a popular book by Steven Carter; The Culture of Disbelief. The separation of church and state is based on a cherished novelty of the American political philosophy. The link between religion and law is a precarious and controversial matter. Laws must change always to accommodate the changing nature of societies. Human spirit would not. However, we should be careful not to misunderstand the intention of the separation, which is an ongoing discourse. Opinions differ as to what is the intention of the doctrine of separation of church and state. Is the intent the protection of church from government influence or vice versa to protect government from religious pressure groups, shielding the state and the secular society, from too strong influence of the religion, is a prerequisite for religious freedom. Imagine the calamity that may result if state uses religion to justify its unpopular, unfair, unreasonable, or its illogical policies. American religious freedom prevent state from interference unless there is “compelling state interest” as the justification for state intervention. According to the first amendment, Congress shall make no laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion” Similarly, congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. In other words, Congress is not only the guardian of religious liberty but also the supporter of public secularism (religious neutrality). Religion can play a much more effective role as an independent, respected, source of meaning and moral values for its followers, and as a critic of government.
Religion, as the other external sources, is welcomed to influence government policies and decisions. It will lose its righteousness and respect if mixed with politics. As complicated and controversial this issues, the US Supreme Court has tried consistently to enforce the separation of church and state even though its decisions sometimes has been considered unpopular, but appropriate.
The secular society, not the religious convictions, must decide what should be done. Stephen Carter has observed the marginalization of religion especially during recent decades and wanted to study the causes. Especially he wanted to look into the role of the laws. In earlier era, people had more respect for religion even though their vision was limited as to what counts as religion. Whatever counted as religion was respected, practiced, and honored. That has changed today, less respect for religion, less appreciation of it as an effective impetus that can genuinely motivate people although sometimes a symptom of something troublesome. He examines many historical cases concerning the dispute between church and state. Carter argues that the American ideal will be threatened if religion is mixed with politics. However, he says, a greater threat may result when religion is forced into the position of complete sub-services, with its voice being utterly disregarded in public debate. Moreover, citizens are being drawn into accepting this notion that religious faith has no bearing on civil responsibilities. Accordingly, the prevailing cultural codes of right and wrong have a higher command on us than do the privately held convictions of conscience.
Carter argues that faith necessarily carries with it a sense of opposition to prevailing culture that makes tension between church and state inevitable, examples Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi, and Prophet Muhammad. Religions always bear extraordinary power of resistance, resisting war, and resisting injustice, resisting changes. Religious leaders live under the sanctified shield of status quo because they know that their social status and their benefits will be at Jeopardy if things change. They have stake in keeping thing where they are. Otherwise, they loose their grip on power. Religions live by refusing to go along with prevailing norms. The faith properly enables the religious citizens to resist government policies; it does so because it has first enabled them to resist the dark sides of themselves, temptations.
Although Mixing religion with politics and utilizing religion to secure political and economic power in some countries is considered by some an innate characteristic of Islam, however, all Muslims including some high ranking Ayatollahs do not certainly approve this ideology. Those who have pushed this approach too far have succeeded but only in the short run. However, as the experience of Afghanistan under Taliban showed it is doomed to failure in the longer term. You may put people in prison physically, and suppress them for a while; however, you cannot imprison their thoughts and their opinions. Society’s laws must be uniformly applied to all its citizens and your system of beliefs should not determine how you should be treated by law. If there is a conflict, we let the court of law, not the court of mobs, to make decisions. So far, the court, in democratic countries, like the U. S., has kept its support of secularism and against religious interference. Separation has the advantages that state need not to concern itself about religious matters and should not police the citizens when it comes to their private mattes
Reza Varjavand
Trying to kill the voice of reason
by Bache Tehrooni (not verified) on Sun Jul 05, 2009 09:31 AM PDTWhy is it that when people who are against fascism and radical ideas are constantly refered to as pro-IRI and thugs?
Why is it that when the fascists are exposed, they start threatening the ones who don't obey them fully?
Why is it that when one tries in vain to indicate that Islam is not represented by any government or group in this world, they should be labeled pro-IRI, thugs?
Why is it that when a fascist is labeled an animal, the comment is removed, but when a fascist calls people who oppose them, 'thugs' or 'pro-IRI', that comment still remains?
I want my country to be free from any religious or any non-religious fascist thug who may want to take over. Is that wrong?
Imani on "Mr. Imani"!
by Ostaad on Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:47 AM PDTDear Amil Imani, please tell "Mr. Imani" very quietly that sane people do not refer to themselves as "Mr. so and so"! Only the self-absorbed, egotistic and ignorant characters do what you're doing.
Dude, it seems you're all bent out of shape because your xenophobic and bigoted remarks have made some descent folk here to hold your face to the mirror. To add insult to injury you have started barking at "Mr. Javid" with your idiotic and thuggish "khat-o-neshoon", which he's wisely ignoring. You're not "exchanging ideas" on this site. All you are doing is, as your Web site clearly shows, spewing bigoted and xenophobic garbage.
Here's my suggestion, if "Mr. Imani" can't the take the heat, "Mr. Imani" cam get the hell out of the kitchen. The traffic to "Mr. Imani's" Web site must have dried up, thus, the appearance on this site to dpread his bigotry. I wonder how many sane people visit "Mr. Imani's" Web site to read his claptrap. I'm sure not very many.
PS - "Mr. Imani" is descrating Zardosht's great seal by using it as an avatar. Every thing "Mr. Imani" is doing is agianst Zardosht's tenets. For "Mr. Imani 3 "Ks" would be more appropriate.
Mr. Javid
by Amil Imani on Sun Jul 05, 2009 08:26 AM PDTMr. Javid,
Again, we hold you accountable for any anonymous thugs who are addressing Mr. Imani. We are here to exchange thoughts regarding different issues, no insults or personal attacks. Mr. Javid, you need to grow out of this mentality and stop your wild dogs chasing after people. Use this forum for enlightenment, not for savagery. If you want us to leave the Iranian.com completely, please e-mail us and we will be more than happy to leave, but if we stay, we ask you to chain your wild dogs. We are well capable to use the same tactics as these wild dogs have been using, but that is not why we are here.
Dear ostaad
by kane on Sun Jul 05, 2009 01:52 AM PDTIranian movement started more than 100 years ago in the form of MASHROOTEH. Not only it limits the power of persian king but also limits the religious role in the government. If you remember the heads of that movement even executed Sheykh Fazlollah Nori because he said MSHROOTEH MUST BE MASHROOEH. After the enlightement movement in Europe Mashrooteh was the only unique movement in whole Asia or Middle East. That means we the persians were way ahead of our time and other nations in that Enlightement movement. This mentality still goes on.
Dear capt-ayhab
by kane on Sun Jul 05, 2009 01:22 AM PDTI did not call Christianity religion of love and peace, I simply refered to its teachings which are different from Islam's. If you remember I compared the fundemental differences among these three religions. you are talkning about persons and events and concepts and i didn't talk about a particular person or event nor a concept. Even Christianity didn't soften the christians hearts during Crusades. For your information my friend I am not defending any particular religion and I am not and Islamophobia. I used to be a muslim myself, but now I am against any religion that promots ignorance. Do me a favore, when you read something please think deeply not just below the surface. Look at the points of argument and compare them with the same concepts not with other logics.
you are wrong too Ostaad
by kane on Sun Jul 05, 2009 01:55 AM PDTfirst of all I know my shit. Do not tell me that i don't have a clue because you don't know me. Second of all your 60 to 40 percent ratio is coming out of your idealism. Religious democracy is an oxymoron in nature not just in name. please study history of Enlightement and you can see even in USA the founding fathers believed in the separation of church and state.
Do i have to explain that to you........
Amil Imani
by Dariush (not verified) on Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:53 PM PDTProphet Amil, Since Islam is a religion of hate and you don't belive in Islam, therefore it has no effect on you, then where did you get all these hate from? Did it come from Christianity or Judaism that you belive in, which are so full of love?
You were gone for months and when I read your posting, I thought you are back from mount Sinai with your 10 commandments. Then I realized they are not 10, but 100 and not commandments, but charges against Allah.
Were the charges just for the God of Muslims or the God of Christians, Jews and other as well. Are you saying the other good Gods cannot handle one bad God called Allah and save the world? or the Good Gods think there should also be good cop bad cop or republicans and democrats among Gods too? I think you should bring some charges against the good Gods as well.
Prophet Amil, when you announced your prophecy last year, no one bought it, and the only one was following you was your shadow. The way you are going this year, even you shadow will give up on you.
One of you made a recommendation about changing names from Arabic to Farsi. I have been telling the same thing to Iranians who curse the prophets and Imams and still they share the same names. Do You like it keep it. You don't like it, change your name, change the name of the streets, make a new map for the city with new names, teach your history, use education to change the environment and this will reduce and change even the hardliners in time, but don't teach them to hate. Then One criminal goes, another criminal takes his place.
Reza's theory does not hold water
by shirazie (not verified) on Sat Jul 04, 2009 04:39 PM PDTReza is a very bright man and I admire his skills. I do not buy the Jihadist are winning in Islamic countries. Bush is gone and new era is upon us.
If anything- Iran uprising showed us Muslims are fed up with extreme interpretation of their religion.
So he will be writing a book soon about Islamic secularism
Foundational Lectures on Political Islam by Bill Warner
by Amil Imani on Sat Jul 04, 2009 04:22 PM PDTBill Warner, one of the foremost scholars of Political Islam, and the history and doctrine of the so-called “religion of peace” has kindly given ACT West Nashville permission to post these superb lectures.
Few are doing the work that Mr. Warner has done. The information contained in these lectures is fundamental to understanding what is happening in the world today, and why Islam is in conflict with us though we would prefer it not to be so.
Our preferences and opinions are not relevant; what is important is that we learn as much as we can about the doctrine of Islam, the foundational documents of Islam that drive the conflicts of the past, present, and into the future.
Understanding the doctrine of Islam is critically important if we are to defend our country, our friends, our way of life and our democracy from the brutality and cruelty that is Islamic totalitarianism. Islam is a unified political, religious, military, cultural, legal system, an all-encompassing ideology of existence. According to Islam all peoples, all countries, all cultures must be Islamic; no other option is acceptable.
For those who are not interested in becoming Islamic, and do not want to live under the harsh and intollerant Islamic law that is called Sharia and who prefer a different way of life Islam is an active and brutal existential threat.
The high cost of Islamic conquest through jihad is in the hundreds of millions of lives since the founding of Islam by Mohammed 1400 years ago in the Arabian desert. Jihad continues today. War is upon is, our opinions are not relevent; only what we know matters.
Knowledge is the foundation of our response. Without knowledge we cannot understand nor respond. The information you will learn in these lectures is not taught in any university or discussed from any pulpit. This is the hidden history that moves the world today and has for the last 1400 years.
We must break through the darkness of ignorance and into the light of knowledge and understanding. With these lectures, you will understand.
-D. L. Adams
//actwestnashville.com/?page_id=544
Whatever .....
by Private Pilot on Sat Jul 04, 2009 02:58 PM PDTHow pathetic. So sorry to sea so many of my fellow Iranians, not surprisingly of course, are SO DMAN CONFUSED about Islam - either intentionally (as this Aslan Due who makes his rather comfortable living by further propagating such CONFUSION) or by so many others (who are still in mental slavery of the childhood stories they were told on their grandmas' laps). In either case, as they say "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts". The undisputed historical facts about the EXTREMELY VIOLENT nature of Muhammad and the "early Islamic leaders" (Khalifehs) followed by the barbaric treatment of the citizens of the nations that the Muslims forcefully conquered are not subject to debate, except by MORONS like Mahmoud Joon (the petty dictator - el Presidente of Iran) and his alike (including this dude - Aslan Khan gol-o-bolbol). Oh, my beloved country how I weep for thy !!!!!
Private Pilot
I agree with Amil's point about Iranian.com attitude
by David ET on Sat Jul 04, 2009 03:04 PM PDT"allowing anonymous users under variety of differnt names to trash another poster whose only intention is exchanging thoughts and ideas." is what sells and by now it is obvious that what sells matters here.
My suggestion for a long time has been registeration. Requirement to register takes away noones freedom to express but it creates accountability and protects the rights of readers and writers and in fact protects freedom of expression.
Mr. Jahanshah Javid's attitude toward non-registered users has been quite similar to IR's policy towards those who attack people in plain clothes. IR allows them and acts like trying to even control them at times but then does not take responsibility for allowing them to begin with!
No freedom whatsoever is taken away by requiring accountability by regsitering using an email address but it would help substantially reduce the games played by some who keep posting under different ID's to attack different people here and the editor who continues allowing this is fully responsible for allowing such environment and should not complain much about what IR does in the same aspect either.
Responsibility and Democracy can not exist independent of one another.
People don't need Vali Faghih, they need freedom and accountability. This critique is not to undermine or not appreciate all the good things that Mr. Javid and Iranian.com has done for Iranians with this site.
Human Rights ARE sacred
respectfully
Mr. Javid
by Amil Imani on Sat Jul 04, 2009 02:32 PM PDTAgain, every time a thug attacks Mr. Imani, we will document it and hold you accountable. We hold you accountable for any intimidation, harassment caused by these irresponsible characters and thugs who have no honor, no family, no dignity, no pride and no identity. We understand that it is you who allows the thugs to attack Mr. Imani. It is you who moderates this forum. You are trashing your own site by allowing anonymous users under variety of differnt names to trash another poster whose only intention is exchanging thoughts and ideas.
Iranian.com has become the hob for Hezbollahi and Hamas terrorists. Why don’t you use this great forum to promote the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks? Yes, some of the writings of Mr. Imani is straight forward and strong, but that does not mean to attack him personally. This place should be a place for clashing ideas, not character assassination. It should not be free for all.
Brutality & Islam are two sides if one coin
by Mazdak (not verified) on Sat Jul 04, 2009 01:07 PM PDTLets open our eyes and our minds. Lets review history of the early days of Islam, especially the first 23 years. That is the era that Mohhamad was alive. Now, have you ever given a thought to the number of bloody wars that took place during those years? In a region sparcely populated like Hejaz wars after wars and death. Islam was and is so unpopular to the point that neighbours of Mohammad speaking Arabic and living with same culture and customs as Mohammad did not want to accept that religion. They hated Islam to the point that Mohammad had to flee his home in middle of the night and hide in a cave. No religion other than Islam has been forced into the lives of its believers through broutal fights and submission mainly because of fear. Look around of you and see how Moslim leaders through the fear of hell are keeping Moslims from converting to other religion or becoming atheists. Brutality and Islam are two sides of one coin. We outside of Moslim countries have the choice to leave this unhuman religion one by one. Lets begin with changing our Arabic names to Persian and promote the Idea. We owe it to our children and grand children. lets start the movement of:
Noe naman. The "Persians with new names".
Thank you.
Capt Drama
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Sat Jul 04, 2009 01:05 PM PDT"Bit of civilized and intelligent dialogue and reasoning won't hurt you, I promise you."
aren't you the same guy who's comments are full of personal attacks in various article's including this one!
Who are you fooling?
Aslan and his Money making schemes!
by Yari Jan (not verified) on Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:38 PM PDTReligon is a Dookan for certain people to make money out of. This is no exception to that rule.
It is funny! Just the other day was thinking what will Aslan say to what is going on Iran? Guess it's best not to wish anything good come out of appeasers all around!
Anony7
by capt_ayhab on Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:31 PM PDTWhat ever you say sweetheart[WINK].
Just stop stalking me around. I have nothing against you but obviously you have some sort of problem with my posting. In such case bring your rebuttal instead of childish and stupid name callings.
Solution is: don't bother reading my comment and threads. There are plenty of article that you can read and make your childish remarks about.
And as for who you are and what you represent, I could not care less for anyone so shallow and ignorant like you who sees chasing me and calling me names as her divine duty in life.
Bit of civilized and intelligent dialogue and reasoning won't hurt you, I promise you.
Hopefully we understand each other this time around. Remember that up to this moment I have never disrespected you.
Have a safe 4th
-YT
you don't stand for it! (to Capt)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:05 PM PDT"I am done with you and stop chasing my hariy MUSLIM rear end around. ;-0)"
Capt Dram, besides who I am, and confusing me with someone else you are wrong about what I think about Amil Imani's type of extremism. See my comments in the link here (//iranian.com/main/2008/obamas-life-dange...).
BTW, as far as I am concerned you stand for drama, and nothing else including Islam. .... and don't insult Jaleh by confusing her with me!
Oh now you go after J. Javid ...
by Bache Tehrooni (not verified) on Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:57 AM PDTI am really surprised at this. After all it is this site that allows all the lies and trash you keep writing here. Now you go after him too!!!!!!
Let's get this straight. As you put it:
"We hold you responsible for allowing personal attacks against Mr. Imani by anonymous and IRI posters.
Please make a note of it, this type of harassment and intimidation will not be tolerated."
Let's see. That sounds familiar to your 'Mission Statement':
"Therefore, I find it both my sacred duty and inalienable right to indict Muslims as either criminals themselves or accessories to the crimes ..."
So what are you going to do after the IRI regime is changed? Are you going to put Mr. Javid in a criminal court and punish him?
Who are these "anonymous and IRI posters" you write about? Nobody buys your lies and trash talk here.
Anony7 aka Jaleh0
by capt_ayhab on Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:47 AM PDTYou are entitled to kiss anyone's rear end as you wish, including but not limited to Mr. Imani's KKK gang. What I am wondering is what kind[wet wood] "Hizome tar" have I sold you that you have been chasing and stalking my hairy behind around the threads to make your stupid and ignorant remarks?
Please tell me that you have more in you than acting like little 14 year old girl by boring, rude, illiterate, sheepish and ignorant nicknames? Is that your family treat to have nickname for everyone, or you simply learned them while growing up in the gutters?
Is teenage type name calling your only intellect? Is that all you have to show for?I do hope not sweetie. I tell you Abji you sure have wasted $14.99 worth chemical compounds called Anony7.
I am done with you and stop chasing my hariy MUSLIM rear end around. ;-0)
happy 4th
-YT
P/S The prices may have gone due to inflation and such, so I am not sure how much you worth now. Mibakhshi
Amil Imani threatening JJ now?!
by IRANdokht on Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:46 AM PDT"We hold you responsible for allowing personal attacks against Mr. Imani by anonymous and IRI posters.
Please make a note of it, this type of harassment and intimidation will not be tolerated."
what you're saying is: this forum is too free and people are attacking your point of view so he should shut them up or else. That's rich!
It seems like people don't like what you say and you want to silence them by trying to twist JJ's arm and make him edit or delete their comments.
Is that the preview of an Iran under the rule of people like Imani?
what's the difference between extremists like IRI and Amil Imani's gang? NONE!
IRANdokht
Dear Mr. Javid
by Amil Imani on Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:32 AM PDTWe hold you responsible for allowing personal attacks against Mr. Imani by anonymous and IRI posters.
Please make a note of it, this type of harassment and intimidation will not be tolerated.
Capt Drama
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:13 AM PDTFor once you posted something worth reading! I am not a Muslim, but I had recently heard about what AI was saying about Allah and was curious about it.
Mr. Imani
by capt_ayhab on Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:01 AM PDTBrush up on your history dude.
Allah , [Arab.,=the God]. Derived from an old Semitic root refering to the Divine and used in the Canaanite El, the Mesopotamian ilu, and the biblical Elohim, the word Allah is used by all Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others.
//www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Allah.aspx
-YT
Religion and Politics
by Bache Tehrooni (not verified) on Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:05 AM PDTOstaad:
There are other nations who have very religious people, like Greece, Italy and even USA. So it's not just Iran. As long as religion and politics are separated, then that would be ideal.
-------------------
Imani:
The more you write, the more you bury yourself. your lies and deceit are transparent.
Chanting Allah o Akbar
by Amil Imani on Sat Jul 04, 2009 09:39 AM PDTChanting Allah o Akbar is just a pretext. They are simply fighting the establishment with their own doses of medicine, in other words, they are using the cliché “Allah o Akbar” so that the regime would not label them they are at war with Islam. Actually, that is a good tactic for now. They will gradually change their slogans which is directed at the Supreme Leader and the regime itself.