Jahanshah Rashidian

Secular Aspects of Opposition in Iran

2012-01-28T01:53:00.001-08:00

The lack of a strong, united, democratic, and secular movement in Iran has left the arena empty for the Islamic regime and its factions, namely an Islamic “Green” alternative. The Islamic regime plunders our national wealth, sheds blood of our people, rapes male and female dissidents while growing conflict within the factions, as it happens for any totalitarian regime at its end.

After the 2009 ragged elections, millions of chests were ready in the streets of Iran to challenge the forces of this regime. Although bullets of panic-stricken Islamic mercenaries would suffocate any voice of protest, people were brave enough to resolutely claim their freedom despite risk of torture, rape, forced confessions and finally execution as “Mohareb” (heretic).

Unfortunately, the worst-ever condition of our people have not stimulated enough responsible reactions among democratic and secular activists on how to form a united movement to free the country from the plague of the Islamic regime. Sadly, yet the people of Iran must wait; such a liberation movement has long been deemed illusory.

It is however time that such a movement be formed without further delay. We should learn from the historical experiences from our own past and from all peoples’ struggles of the world, those who have freed their countries from tyrannies and colonial powers. We should realistically use any tactical method in our favour to hasten the fall of the Mullahs’ regime because each day of its parasitic life costs our country more lives and more lootings so that its existence is far worse than imagined.

People trust a democratic and secular movement if it aims to form a democratic and secular state in Iran, in which all authorities can be directly elected or dismissed. Leaders of such a movement must be secular and democratic; their political background must be clean with no ties or sympathy for any religious or dictatorial form of state. People want to be sure that the leftovers of despotic and corrupt regimes will have no place in the leadership. People grow the idea that all authorities of free Iran must take oath to respect Human Rights, separation of religion from sate and unconditional democracy; the leadership must prove its competence and independence from foreign countries and ideologies.

Our national interests should never be bargained by whims of any foreign power, religion, and ideology. Our society is not a lab of such an experiment. National leaders should be the fruit of Iranian people’s struggles for freedom from any kind of regime which based on historical experiences ends up with dictatorial or despotic leadership. Thanks to our knowledge-hungry society, now it is ripe enough not to bow to any ideology, religion of submission, and domination of an elite class.

A democratic and secular movement now is needed to be representative as people take to protests against the Islamic regime. Although this will spontaneously surface in the process of revolution, an immediate formation of it will hasten and plan the revolution itself. Such a movement should immediately present its programme which must be an attractive alternative to encourage people in their fair struggles against the Islamic tyranny. The programme must contain effective solutions to free Iran from the long yoke of both backwardness and dictatorship because these go together. The Shiite sect of Islam is historically a precondition of despotism.

The programme should expressly explain how it creates the stage for unconditional democracy, social justice, gender equality, question of Islamic hijab, development of national economy, rehabilitation of an Iranian identity, reviving of art and culture, negation of Islam as state religion, elimination of all religious institutions, removal of all religious influence from education, judiciary, calendar, language and many aspects of social life in an effective, democratic, and progressive process.

The new government after the fall of Mullahs is expected to bring all criminals of the regime, since its inception, and all their collaborators before an international court for crime against humanity. This is vital for the sake of justice and rehabilitation of regime’s victims. As such, the process should emphasise on the following tasks:

No Iranian woman is half that of a man, no Iranian can be punished for his political or religious belief. Iran will never possess dungeons, torture, and political prison. From now on, no Islamic instance or personality will be ever permitted to commit stoning, amputation of limb, lashing, forcing hijab, genital circumcision, gender segregation… or any female humiliation.

By condemning the judiciary of a medieval belief system, which 1400 years ago has been imposed on our country in a very violent and long process, it is time that our generation transcends our lesson to the next generations and those Iranians who need practical proofs to quit the imposed teaching of this imposed cult. A secular and democratic programme must describe its clear position towards Islam while avoiding any Islamophobia and unethical behavior.

As we know, the key powers are traditionally interested in economic gains. The EU, unless for its atomic conflict with the regime, would ignore the fact that their barrels of Iranian oil cause the survival of Mullahs and consequently cost many lives extinguished by the criminal Mullahs. We must demand an adequate policy from the EU to handle with the crimes of the Islamic regime, not to alleviate their crimes limiting them to atomic dossier. While demanding the West to sanction the Islamic regime by any means, we must focus on the plague of the political Islam so that do not let a faction of the regime represent itself as the “opposition”. The only real opposition is the one which will be a secular alternative with clean leadership.

The US, despite rhetoric of regime change under Bush administration and appeased policy of Obama administration, may ultimately feel satisfied with some phony reforms by and within the regime. An Iranian democratic movement should not rely on agenda of any key foreign power; instead, it must try to influence their policies toward a total rebuff of the Islamic regime under any form and colour.

In the ongoing critical conditions, and under pressure of a chain of crises, the ruling Iranian regime can be further divided into many cliques and factions. The ruling apparatus may even seek for handles with inner or outer interlocutors, the one is called today “Green movement” it might have another name or colour later. A secular and democratic opposition should be vigilant against accepting any leftovers of the Islamic regime. The ultimate demand is “no” to any model of the Islamic regime.
Freedom-loving Iranians must also recognise the fact that the Islamic regime with nuclear weapons will have greater bargaining power to intensify its dictatorship; therefore, an opposition movement should take part in any international campaign against the regime’s nuclear ambition.

The ‘atomic conflict’ can be used to isolate the regime internationally, but is not all. While condemning regime’s dangerous nuclear programme, we should also put the priority on the question of defending the basic rights of people, what cannot be guaranteed under this regime or one of its factions, led by phony “reformists”, namely Moussavi and Karrubi. What the opposition needs to present is to focus on the common denominator, to kick the occupying Islamic regime out of Iran, and to put a democratic and secular regime in its place.

The regime is using the ‘nuclear conflict’ as a "national" right to rally popular support, but it masks the regime’s ambition to linger its “God’s command” which is the exportation of Islamic revolution in the region and even around the world. No stone must be left unturned; the Islamic regime must give up its nuclear programme, even if it is expressly a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty because nuclear in the hands of an Islamic regime jeopardises the lives of innocent people.
The Islamic regime of Iran must be internationally isolated; all diplomatic, cultural, and sport contacts with it must be suspended. All foreign accounts of the regime officials, not the second ranking officials but its leadership, must be frozen.

Because of crimes and lootings of Iranian people, the Islamic regime, along with its factions, all collaborators, and lobbyists abroad has achieved a point-of-no-return. This is the reasons, the regime’s front does not hesitate committing any unethical act to remain in power. Nevertheless, survival of the regime is partly relying on the discord among opposition in the Iranian Diaspora. A secular and democratic opposition must expose the Islamic regime’s front abroad while improving its own common goals.

In short, here is my suggestion for a common platform of secular and democratic forces with aims to fulfill the following four major aspirations of most Iranian people:

Organising and leading Iranian people’s struggles to sweep away the Mullah regime and all its Islamic relics, institutions, and suppressive organs.
Forming a temporary government to organise a constitutional assembly for a new constitution. The new constitution is only legal when it is approved by the majority of people in a referendum supervised by international observers.
Preparing conditions as quickly as possible for a democratically elected parliament and government based on the right that people can elect and dismiss all key authorities.
Transferring power to the hands of the elected government without monopolising or influencing in the military, security forces and political apparatus.

در باره یک پلاتفرم مشترک

2012-01-19T04:05:00.000-08:00

تجارب ۳۳ سال حکومت اسلامی، بویژه بعد از انتخاب مجدد احمدینژاد و آغاز فصل جدیدی از اعترضات مردم، صفوف دوست و دشمن را بیشتر مشخص کرده است. ما سه گرایش غالب در اوپوزیسیون سرنگون طلب داریم: جمهوری خواهان، سلطنت طلبان و مجاهدین. در مقابل ان, ما سه گرایش در درون رژیم اسلامی داریم که طالب حفظ رژیم اسلامی هستند:

1 - جناح غالب که شامل بیت رهبری، تیم احمدینژاد و نیروهای نظامی، بسیجی، سپاه و لباس شخصی آنان هستند ( آنان در رابطه با متد "چماق / هویج" با منطق چماق، سرکوب، حکومت میکنند و کمتر به اصلاحات ,هویج, اعتقاد دارند).

2- جناح اصلاحات: که بقا رژیم را در اصلاحات میبینند. آنان ضمن چماق از هویج نیز اسفاده میکنند. این دو جناح دو طرف یک سکه و دو بال جغد شومیست که ۳۳ سال است بر فراز ایران پرواز میکند و با خصلت اشغالگرانه منافع ایران را مانند غنائم جنگی و نیروی انسانی مردم را مانند بردگان صدر اسلام در جهت منافع شخصی و مسلکی خود به هدر میدهند. نتیجه ۳۳ سال حکومت این دو جناح کشتار، شکنجه، تجاوز، خانه خرابی میلیونها ایرانی و تخریب و غارت منافع ایران توسط مافیای دو جناح بوده و است.

3- در کنار این دو جناح رژیم طیفی را که من خط تودهای-اسلامی مینامم نیز در خدمت دارد که از ابتدای حکومت در جنایت و خیانت های رژیم سهمیند. امروز این طیف شامل تمام حامیان، لابی ها و مزدوران رژیم هستند که ضرورتا اسلامی و یا اسلام گرا نیستند ولی با مافیای رژیم شریکند. برخی از آنان مانند سازمان های لابی نیاک و کاسمی در خارج افشا شده اند و ما میدانیم که از سفارتخانه ها، وزارت اطلاعات رژیم و یا شرکای بزرگ نفتی و اسلحه سازی رژیم در غرب تغذیه میشوند.

اگر چه اوپوزیسیون سرنگون طلب که شامل سه بخش اصلی جمهوری خواه، سلطنت طلب و مجاهدین است در تضاد با بقا رژیم است, کماکان خصلت آنان به سه مقوله سکولاریسم، دموکراسی و منافع مردم یکسان نیست. این تضاد درونی اوپوزیسیون گره کور وحدت ملی حول یک پلاتفرم مشترک است.

بعید نیست که برخی از محققان اسلام به این نتیجه رسیده اند که اسلام هیچ پشتوانه الهی و اخلاقی ندارد و از ابتدا تا کنون تنها ابزاری برای ارضای جاه طلبی های شخصی به قیمت رواج جهل و جنایت است. در چنین صورتی رژیم اسلامی صلاح را در به خدمت گرفتن افردای با ظاهر و گفتمان غیر اسلامی نیز میبیند. بر این مبنا از "ناسیونالسیتی " مانند تیترا پارسی و یا "مارکسیستی"مانند مرتضی محیط و فرخ نگهدار میتواند مشروعیت سیاسی گیرد تا به هر طریق ممکن به عمر انگلی رژیم خود بیافزاید. فعالیت این بخش در خارج خرید وقت برای عمر انگلی رژیم است.

رژیم اسلامی، مانند تمام رژیم های توتالیتر، به حامیان، جاسوس و یک ملیشا نیاز دارد که با یکی از یا هر دو فاکتور، فکری / مالی، با رژیم همکاری کنند. در کنار اوباش بسیجی و لباس شخصی در داخل، رژیم حامیانی در طیف چپ و ملی مذهبی دارد که با آنان تفاهم فکری در مورد ضدیت با غرب یا امپریالیسم دارد. این طیف با وجود اختلاف ایدئولوژیک، در نهایت در جبهه رژیم قرار دارد و
خواستار حفظ, ولی اصلاح, رژیم اسلامی است

در میان جبهه اوپوزیسیون، مجاهدین یک جریان اسلامیست, در نتیجه نه سکولار است و نه دمکرات. آنان برای یک رژیم "دمکراتیک" اسلامی به رهبری زوج رجوی تلاش میکنند. این سازمان تمام شرایط ذهنی میرندگی را دارد، اگر چه کماکان هنوز فعالترین گرایش اوپوزیسیون است.

مجاهدین اگر چه هم مسلک رژیم هستند ولی از نظر سیاسی بین آنان دریایی از خون جاری است. این پدیده هم در تاریخ اسلام، هم در دوران دیکتاتوری استالینیسم و مائویسم دیده شده که معمولا هم مسلکان بین خود بیرحمانه برادر کشی یا رفیق کشی میکنند.

سلطنت طلبان اگر چه دراکثریت سکولار و دموکرات هستندد ولی شاخص های ناسیونالیسم کور و نژاد پرستی میان آنان نیز دیده میشود. آنان خواستار احیای سلطنت در خانواده پهلوی هستند و برای این منظور تلاش میکنند.

جمهوری خواهان, گرایش غالب اوپوزیسیون, اکثرا سکولار و دموکرات هستند، بخش کوچکی از آنان ناسیونالیست و یا مذهبی است. آنان شامل طیف بزرگی از ملی گرایان تا کمونیست ها هستند. تمام طیف جمهوری خواه منافع مردم را در نظر دارند با اینکه برخی از کمونیستها ایدئولوژی خود را مقدم یا ضامن منافع مردم میشمارند.

سه فاکتور مذکور، یعنی دموکراسی، سکولاریسم و منافع مردم، پاشنه آشیل معضله ما برای رسیدن به یک پلاتفرم مشترک، واحتمالا نوعی وحدت، بین سه ضلع اوپوزیسیون سرنگون طلب در مقابل جبهه رژیم اسلامی است.

به گمان من تمام بحث ما باید بر اساس تعریف این سه فاکتور و راه میانگیری برای تفاهم باشد. در غیر این صورت، جبهه رژیم اسلامی در غیاب چنین پلاتفرمی با فراغ خاطر به حیات انگلی دو جناح رژیم اسلامی ادامه میدهد.

2012-01-05T23:16:00.001-08:00

Colour of Iranian Awareness

2012-01-05T23:09:00.000-08:00

Political Islam is an ideology of a bankrupt regime in Iran and knowing all its historical flaws and now tangibly existing characters of an occupier force is progressively more challenged by Iranians. Therefore, the Islamic regime needs another alternative with a symbolic colour, say a green make-up, to cover its rotten darkness up.

In this light, the Green movement under Moussavi / Karrubi’s ex-leadership of the same rotten regime aims to ultimately safeguard the Islamic regime in Iran under any form and colour. Their real aims are not the idea of democracy and secularism because such things would never emerge under any Islamic regime, neither do they care about the national interests because these latter can be easily wasted and robbed as war-trophies under Islam. We know that brutal animosities among birds of prey do not mean love for the prey because they devour the prey. Various factions of the regime seem to be the same birds of prey or fierce aggressors. Their inner struggles are not to save Iran and Iranians from the clutches of Islam, but mainly to safeguard Islam. Regardless if the bird of prey is “green” or black, it devours.

We should learn from the history: Stalin murdered millions and sent many more of his people and comrades to labour camps (Gulag). After his death in 1953, he was replaced by Nikita Khrushchev. He criticised Stalin in his 1956 speech and promised destalinisation. Nevertheless, the communist dictatorship continued under his leadership as well. Imagine the historical affinities, when we believe in Moussavi and his clique, we will let them continue the same dictatorship. Transforming Green movement to a democratic and patriotic alternative is so wrong as if we cannot believe in Khrushchev as an end to the Stalin’s legacy. In the several decades of the East Bloc and before its collapse, no change in leadership brought a change in the nature of communist dictatorship. So a super- man like Khatami, Moussavi, Karrubi… may seem as plausible as to accomplish some reforms, but after all this would be another way to continue the dictatorship of Khomeini’s legacy.

We, freedom-loving Iranians, wash out this fake “Green” colour and show the other dark side of this coin, as another side of Islamist-Stalinist legacy.Calling themselves “Green” with secularism, as some Iranian non-Muslim activists do, is a big mistake. Associating “Green” with this concept can be complaisance to the factions of the regime or at least be a lack of courage and self-perseverance. Something is missing in their “Green” of our Iranian secularists who live in the secular world. Their “Green” is not originally a symbolic colour or emblem representing “secularism”. Since no member of factions of the regime, who are all the trained cadres of this regime, would ever align with their “secularism”-- such secularism gradually loses credit. First they must take over “Green”, while conventional oppositions do not have any platform, yet alone unified.

There are other Islamist groups, quite unified, and are ready to take over the opposition. The top members of leadership in any Islamic alternative are pushing movement to keep it aligned with their own agenda, In fact are singing some new verses to confine within Islamic boundaries. How can a secular movement align with that?When we see a regime use more and more violence, we know that the regime is politically bankrupt. Such a regime not only uses violence, and reforms, but has inner-splits too and consequently attempts to find “coloured” alternatives to taint people’s opposition. These “coloured” alternatives, along with violence, are the only methods which might prolong its parasitic life. From the beginning, Green movement was not a people-led movement. The Islamic leaders of Green movement use the word “Green” to associate it with values of Shiite Islam. This colour is not owned by the people of Iran who want to end the whole Islamic regime, but symbolised by the Imams of Shiites -- Shiites believe in 12 direct descendants of Prophet Muhammad as his successors. Therefore, the colour was baptised by Mousavi / Karrubi and Co.

It implicitly means “Islam, Islamic Constitution, and the path of Khomeini”, all of which have long-broken rules of human rights, democracy and support for our country.Green in the first sense means the values of Islam. Green movement misuses it as a trick to disperse the opposition. Green movement knows that a subjugated Iran finally comes to the conclusion that people need unity for freedom. The factions of the regime divert and warn our people that the price of unity is too high and too expensive. For that diversion, a crowd of sell-outs are hired by the regime to support it. To understand these sell-outs and their lobbying activities in the West, I suggest my readers see Mr. Hassan Dai’s facebook-site. It is obvious that supporters of the regime are among us, and they can undermine our unity.

The totalitarian Islamic regime seems to be like a withdrawing shadow, changing colours, presenting both “Dark” and “Green” alternatives, but a Mullah remains a Mullah, and a thorn in the eyes of a whole Iranian nation. We have all seen their tricky manipulations through the state-run or state-bought media, the exported journalists, the sold media and lobbyists in the West, but now these old methods do work anymore because we expose them. This is the appropriate occasion to mobilise as much angry people as possible to topple this regime. Later, it may be too late because the Mullahs who have started their war against our people might expand their war out of our country. They may cause a total destruction of our country.

Our people are vastly increasing awareness; their awareness has no colour and will gradually not be tainted by “Green”. It will find, in relation to their need for freedom, new colour or symbol. It will be the colour of awareness. Now, it is vitally than ever to be aware of our powerful awareness. If this enthusiastic power is not properly used, we will carry the dark yoke of subjugation for years or centuries to come.

Dogme des Ségrégations sexuelles en Islam

2012-01-04T02:28:00.000-08:00

Toutes les mesures mysogènes dans les societés musulmanes se relient à un dogme que l’on appelle « mahram / non mahram ». Pour expliquer ce qui est « non mahram », il faut d’abord connaître ce qui est considéré comme « mahram » : un « mahram » est un très proche membre de la famille comme les enfants, les parents, les sœurs et les frères, les grands-parents, les oncles, les tantes et les beaux-parents avec lesquels une personne musulmane ne peut pas se marier.

Par contre, toute autre personne avec laquelle on peut éventuellement se marier est considérée comme « non mahram ». D’après la tradition islamique une femme musulmane ne doit pas montrer ses atours à un « non mahram. »

Ainsi, pour séparer la femme musulmane du champ visuel des « non mahrams » ( en gros, de la quasi-totalité des hommes), on a imposé le hijab islamique. Le hijab islamique est en effet un mur qui sépare la femme musulmane de son environnement de « non mahram ».

D’après l’application de ce dogme « mahram / non mahram », toute une série de mesures ségrégatives sont ainsi nées qui ont été considérées comme un recours à l’islam par toutes les sociétés islamisées et surtout dans des pays dirigés par les régimes islamiques. C’est sous ce dogme que les femmes et les jeunes filles iraniennes sont déjà forcées à porter le hijab islamique.

Il va de soi que ce dogme s’applique aux mesures visées de répression contre les femmes en général et surtout les femmes qualifiées de “bad hijab” (mal voilées). Lutte contre les « mal voilées » fait partie d’une campagne nationale de haine et contrainte contre les femmes iraniennes depuis la prise du pouvoir par le régime islamique en 1979.

Le voile (le chador ou le hijab islamique) ne signifie pas forcément un degré élevé de respect de l’islam, mais démontre plutôt l’existence du dogme islamique qu’on appelle dans la langue persane « na mahram », non-mahram. C’est un dogme qui est devenu dans les sociétés musulmanes un phénomène plus présent et plus significatif que l’islam lui-même l’ordonna.

Le hijab islamique diffère d’un pays musulman à l’autre, mais quelle que soit la forme, la couleur, et la taille, il est un vêtement qui ne laisse pas apparaître le corps d’une femme musulmane aux yeux des « non mahrams. »

L’application du dogme de « non mahram », en tant que méthode d’exclusion des femmes, a ses racines dans une période préislamique de la péninsule d’Arabie, lorsque la petite fille était enterrée vivante. Malgré l’interdiction formelle par l’islam de la pratique de l’infanticide, certains critères misogynes ont été intégrés et puis institutionnalisés dans le statut des femmes dans les normes, traditions et lois islamiques.

Dans la société primitive des clans d’Arabie, le système patriarcal n’a pas garanti l’égalité des droits au sexe « faible ». Dans ce sens, le respect du dogme « mahram / non mahram » est synonyme d’une diminution générale du rôle social de la femme musulmane. Cet héritage archaïque montre aujourd’hui comment les femmes musulmanes font juridiquement et moralement face à la discrimination : la plupart de leurs droits sont abolis à la naissance et elles sont quasi écartées de la vie sociale.

L’introduction du dogme de « non mahram » dans l’islam n’est pas sans rapport avec les ennuis du Prophète vis-à-vis de son harem. Comme décrit par le penseur iranien, Ali Dashti, dans son livre Bisto-Seh Saal (23 années, une référence à la durée de la prophétie de Muhammad). Selon lui, le Prophète utilisait des versets du Coran ”Surah Ahzaab” pour consolider sa position vis-à-vis ses jeunes femmes pour les forcer à l’obédience absolue et la chasteté.

Pourtant pour y arriver, le prophète n’a pas mentionné un standard de hijab islamique. Ce qui laisse pour certains Musulmans modérés à penser que le hijab islamique est un produit du dogme du « non mahram » qui se trouve de plus en plus loin de ces racines mais reste à la même contrainte que tous les dogmes.

Le dogme du « non mahram » ne s’applique pas seulement dans la tenue ou le code vestimentaire de la femme, mais il est devenu dans la culture des pays musulmans un dogme qui s’implique dans tous les aspects de la vie sociale. Même l’architecture n’en était pas épargnée :

Une maison musulmane typiquement traditionnelle est construite autour d’une cour, une partie de la maison est réservée pour les femmes. La réception des hommes invités se trouve à côté du couloir de l’entrée de la maison afin que les visiteurs « les non mahrams » ne voient pas les femmes. Les fenêtres donnent sur la cour afin qu’un contact visuel ne se produise pas entre les habitantes de la maison avec les passants masculins, considerés comme « non mahrams. » Dans la grande maison où plusieurs générations peuvent vivre ensemble, les mesures les plus strictes sont imposées afin que le contact entre les « non mahrams », comme les cousins, beaux-frères ou belles-sœurs… ne mène pas à une tentation sexuelle.

Les traces du dogme de « non mahram » sont encore plus visibles dans les anciens palais, où aucun homme « non mahram », à l’exception des domestiques castrés, n’avait le droit d’accéder au harem du roi. De tels palais, comme l’habitation du Calife ou du roi, ont dû se conformer aux principes islamiques : alors le corps féminin y restait derrière la ligne rouge du champ visuel de tous les yeux masculins, ou des « non mahrams » fréquentant le palais.

Donc, on n’y voit guère des tableaux, des fresques, de musique, du théâtre, des cérémonies… dans lesquels le corps féminin soit apparu. L’application des mesures préventives a engendré une culture dominante qui s’est étendue dans la société musulmane. Elle dominait et domine toujours plus ou moins l’art, la musique, la poésie, et les normes morales et la vie sociale dans le monde musulman.

À cause de l’imposition du hijab islamique, l’outil symbolique du dogme « de non mahram », une série de discriminations contre les femmes comme celles concernant les conditions de travail, l’éducation, les loisirs et les sports, et d’autres aspects de la vie sociale ont émergé dans la société musulmane. Celles-ci prennent une allure ennuyante dans certains pays dirigés par les régimes islamiques.
Le poids de la ségrégation sexuelle et de la répression des femmes s’accrurent toujours sous le régime islamique en Iran. Depuis l’installation du régime islamique en 1979, des milliers de femmes iraniennes et leurs défenseurs ont été tués, emprisonnés et forcés à quitter le pays pour avoir lutté pour l’égalité des sexes. Des millions de femmes, considérées mal voilées, ont été punies, humiliées, et harassées en public par la police de la moralité du régime. Dans le fond de toutes ces mesureuses myogènes, on trouve le dogme de « mahram / non mharam ».

Sakineh wird gehängt

2011-12-26T10:08:00.001-08:00

Das islamische Regime droht Frau Sakineh Ashtiani wiederholt zu töten, diesmal durch erhängen. Die im Jahre 2010 geplante Tötung durch Steinigung sorgte international für Proteste, deshalb hat das Regime das Urteil suspendiert und in einen Tod durch den Strang umgewandelt. Nach wie vor gibt es kein definitives Urteil gegen Sakineh.

Sakine Mohammadi Ashtiani, 43 Jahre alt und Mutter von zwei Kindern ist wegen angeblichen Ehebruchs und Beihilfe zur Ermordung ihres Ehemannes verurteilt und laut der Behörde des Regimes kann bald gehängt werden sein.

Die Steinigung war für den 11.07.2010 vorgesehen, wurde jedoch wegen der internationalen Proteste gegen diese mittelalterliche und barbarische Art der Hinrichtung und gegen die Todesstrafe allgemein aufgeschoben.

Während Sakine auf ihre Hinrichtung wartete, hat ihr Sohn, Sajjad Ghaderzadeh, erklärte, dass seine Mutter erneut verurteilt worden ist und zwar zu 99 Peitschenschläge wegen Korruption und Prostitution. Hintergrund ist die Veröffentlichung eines angeblichen Fotos seiner Mutter in der Londoner Zeitung „Times“ am 28.08.2010, welches Sie ohne Schleier zeigt. Der Sohn und auch später die „Times“ bestätigten, dass dieses Foto nicht Sakine darstellt sondern eine andere Iranerin. Dieses Vorgehen der iranischen Regierung führte wiederum zu weltweiten Protesten; insbesondere deshalb, weil die zusätzliche Bestrafung für zum Tode verurteilte Personen im Iran obligatorisch ist und die iranische Bevölkerung damit moralisch erpresst werden soll. Im Übrigen hat das islamische Regime zwischenzeitlich jeglichen Besuch von Sakine verboten. Dies ist für internationale Beobachter, für ihren Anwalt und ihre Kinder ein Zeichen dafür, dass die Exekution nach dem Fastenmonat Ramadan vollzogen werden soll.

Sakine ist nicht das erste Opfer das gesteinigt werden soll. Das iranische Regime verurteilte in der Vergangenheit bereits 100 Frauen und Männer zu dieser barbarischen Art der Tötung eines Menschen. Sie wird in islamischen Regimen heute noch angewandt, um unter anderem sexuelle Verbrechen und Blasphemie zu bekämpfen. Unter dem Regime der Mullahs dient diese Form der Bestrafung der Einschüchterung der Bevölkerung und wird verstärkt durch die Demütigung der Verurteilten in der Form, dass sie zusätzlich ausgepeitscht werden und eine Exekution simuliert wird.

Für die Verhängung der Strafe „Steinigung“ sind nach islamischer Gesetzgebung vier Augenzeugen notwendig. Ohne diese Zeugen, die die Tat des Ehebruchs augenscheinlich beobachtet haben müssen, ist eine Verurteilung nicht möglich. Um dieses zu umgehen, werden Verdächtige unter der psychosomatischen Folter gezwungen, die Tat zu zugeben, um dann in einem stalinistischen Show-Prozess ihre Sünden im Fernsehen zu gestehen. Ein derartiges falsches Geständnis wurde auch von Sakine erzwungen und vor kurzem im Fernsehen übertragen.

Bei der Steinigung werden die Verurteilten im Sand eingegraben: der Mann bis zur Taille, die Frau bis zu den Brüsten. Dann werden Steine auf den Körper geworfen bis der Verurteilte tot ist. Bei der Auswahl der Steine wird genau darauf geachtet, dass diese eine Größe haben, die einen langsamen schmerzvollen Tot verursachen. Um die einschüchternde Wirkung dieser Hinrichtungsmethode besser zur Geltung kommen zu lassen, werden Steinigungen, Auspeitschungen oder andere barbarische Bestrafungen öffentlich vollzogen. Nicht nur international sondern auch im Iran selbst wird diese Art von Bestrafungen verurteilt.

Ob die weltweiten Proteste gegen derartige Hinrichtungen den erhofften Erfolg bringen mag umstritten sein. Die Reaktionen des islamischen Regimes, wonach die gegen die Exekution protestierenden Regierungen ihre Mörder freilassen sollen, kann keine Rechtfertigung für ein derart mittelalterliches Ritual sein. Ohne sich in die inneren Angelegenheiten des Iran einmischen zu wollen, für eine angeblich demokratisch gewählte Republik ist diese Form der Verurteilung eines Menschen undenkbar. Zumal Sakine beide „Vergehen“ bestreitet – unabhängig von dem erzwungenen Geständnis.

Sakineh befindet sich noch heute in den blutigen Händen der Mullahs, deren Hass und Rache mit Tot, Vergewaltigung, Folter und Demütigung von Iranern zum Ausdruck gebracht wird. Die Ausführung der Todesstrafe kann nur verhindert werden, wenn die internationale Gesellschaft auf das Unrecht aufmerksam macht und weiterhin dagegen protestiert.

Humanitarian Intervention

2011-12-20T21:48:00.000-08:00

To acquire freedom against a totalitarian regime or a foreign force of occupation, we have seen efficient helps and military interventions from outside. When the helps do not aim to reoccupy or install a proxy regime, these can be justified as “right of intervention”. The expression « Le droit d'ingérence » was first proposed by the French philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979.

Freedom of many European countries during the World War II from the Nazi regime, the imposition of no-fly zones over Shiites in Iraq before the 2003 invasion, release of Cambodia from the Pol Pot’s terror regime in 1978, and recently release of Libya from lunatic Kaddafi are some examples of military intervention with humanitarian goals.

Military intervention can be deployed to help a subjugated nation to free themselves from their yoke on the condition that all military actions and presence of the foreign forces will be limited to a period of time and to precise aims proposed by UN Security Council.

Military intervention can become a legitimate option when human catastrophes like Holocaust, ethic and political massacre are committed by a regime or foreign force of occupation. Needless to mention that peoples of the world must map a bigger solidarity together to legitimise such an intervention, without that, the intervention is not trusted as a humanitarian action. Popularity of humanitarian intervention can considerably rise when the international solidarity take over the skeptical misunderstandings due to the geological ambitions of key powers and their lucrative handles with totalitarian regimes.

The 2003 controversial US intervention on Iraq aside, the NATO’s interventions in Kosovo in 1999 and in Libya in 2011 were the two exemplary interventions permitted by the UN. They have ignited pragmatic debates over the philosophy of right of intervention mostly debated in French media as “le droit d’ingérence”.

Today, Mullahs work to acquire nuclear weapons. An atomic Islamic regime would use Iran as a bastion of human shield to violently export its planned Islamic revolution in the region. It will be brinkmanship of catastrophic risks, which may lead to millions of deaths among Iranians and people of the region. The Mullahs blink is neither the U.S. nor Israel, but mainly preparing of saint “jihadi” wars and human catastrophes which are supposed to precede the reappearance of the Shiite Hidden Imam, Mahdi.

However, far from the ongoing nuclear conflicts between the Islamic regime and the international community, the concern of Iranians is above all the existence of the Islamic regime itself. The idea grows among Iranian grassroots whether a UN mandated humanitarian intervention can help the people of Iran to free themselves from the yoke of Mullahs’ regime or the intervention worsens their plight.

The Islamic regime managed to divert the 1979 revolution from its anti-dictatorial goals. Mullahs grasped the power and since rule while imposing the archaic Islamic norms and laws, sharia on Iranians. The Mullahs’ atrocities show on a daily basis in Iran all characters of both totalitarian and occupier force. Their brutalities know no limit to the point any freedom fighter can be tortured, raped and brutally killed. Under such difficult circumstances, the idea of intervention either legitimates a military solution or rejects it as “colonial / imperialistic”, plot or promotes it into alleviated debates. People have right to raise question whether a military intervention with all possible damages will be less destructive than each day passing with the Islamic regime. People are aware that the Islamic regime loots the country as inspired by the tradition of early Muslims invaders of Iran. Oil production, national resources, export / import trades… are all in the hands of Mafias of the regime.

Most Iranian political milieus still rejected the intervention in a traditional taboo; it is labelled as “invasion”. The legality of using military force to respond to human rights violations remains a controversial issue among the Iranian opposition. Milieus opposing to the option of military intervention still have the upper hand and they control most Iranian opposition media.

Most of what in the West is called green “opposition” is in fact one or several factions of the Islamic regime. They hope any political change within the regime itself, not a regime change especially in a western-like secular political form. This so-called opposition with internet sites and TV broadcastings and all propaganda materials are affiliated with the factions “outsiders” of the regime and sponsored by them. Because of financial helps, it has advantage of opinion making among Iranian Diaspora. Among them, lobbying groups like NIAC, CASMII, and many related internet sites are also sponsored by foreign sates or oil companies who work with the regime. All these provide them a viable advantage for coverage of news, reportage, and analyses in the favour of the regime’s survival under a faction of the regime namely “reformists”, inclusionary the Green Movement. This category of false opposition is strictly against any regime change and consequently against foreign military intervention in Iran.

We have leftist groups or individuals, who can be called as Toodehist-Islamists. They are orthodox communists, previously pro-Soviet, close to radical Islam with their common phobia against the West. They have been long prostituted themselves by serving different factions of the Islamic regime. Their biased coverage of activities and bottom lines of ideas justify survival of the Islamic regime as the only solution to prevent any “imperialistic” ambition in the region – they oppose to bad” factions of the Islamic regime while support the whole regime. For them any foreign military intervention ineluctably corresponds to a destructive “imperialistic” agenda.

Although most nationalists close to National Front and leftists close to WPI, the Worker-communist Party of Iran, hope to get rid of the Islamic regime, are skeptical by considering the intervention as a plot of “colonial” or “imperialistic” powers against Iran’s sovereignty. Both Nationalists and leftist are more or less anti-American to the point they implicitly interpret a UN mandated intervention as a potential American / Israeli or western plot.

Nevertheless, with the continuity of the Islamic regime, people’s utility of any option against the regime can reach a maximised level. For them, the taboos on public display of reformists, nationalists or leftists cede place to more reflexive reactions. The negative experience of Iraqi intervention can be gradually overshadowed by the recent contingency model of Libya. Iraqi predicaments of intervention are actually worsened by political Islam led by the Islamic regime and do not forcibly justify the preference of non-intervention. The anti-interventionists focus on war from outside, but never the war infected by the regime on Iranian people. Under such a tangible imposed war, people in Iran look for immediate solutions. In this perspective, sooner or later, people might come to the conclusion that a UN mandated military intervention against the Islamic regime is preferred.

Achoura rejeté par les iraniens

2011-12-14T06:24:00.000-08:00

Le mois de Muharram recommence chez les chiites, adhérents d’une secte de l’islam majoritaire en Iran et l’Irak. Les cérémonies de deuil pendant les dix premiers jours du mois rappellent leur troisième Imam, imam Hossein, « martyrisé », avec sa petite troupe de 72 fidèles, en 680par le Calife omeyyade, Yazid.

Qui est Imam Hossein ?

Hossein est né en 624 à Médine de Fatima, la fille du Prophète Mohammad, et de père d’Ali, le premier Imam des chiites. Hossein succède son frère Imam Hassan comme le troisième Imam et peu après il est mort en 626 lors de bataille de Karbala, où son mausolée reçoit des pèlerins chiites.

Qui sont les chiites ?

Les chiites, minoritaires depuis l’apparition de l’islam, croient en imamat et califat selon les directives héréditaires, alors le pouvoir de Calife ou l’Imam doit rester dans la famille du prophète. Pour les chiites, Ali es ses descendants sont les seules successeurs légitimes du prophète, ce qui stipule que seulement les descendants du prophète possèdent une mission prophétique pour guider les musulmans. Le premier Imam est Ali et le douzième est Mahdi qui est en occultation depuis des siècles et réapparaitra à la fin des temps sur la terre pour régner le monde.

Deuil d’Achoura des Chiites

C’est pour l’assassinat de l’imam Hossein, que les chiites célèbrent dans le monde entier, surtout en Iran et en Irak de poste-Saddam l'Achoura, le jour commémorant de son martyre suivant la bataille de Karbala en septième siècle.

Achoura en Iran

C’est sous la dynastie des Safavides en 16ème siècle que le chiisme fut brutalement imposé sur la majorité de non-chiites des iraniens, et avec celui-ci, le deuil d’Achoura se divulgua en Iran. Sous la dynastie Qadjar, une nouvelle cérémonie de deuil émergea. Il s’agissait de Ta’zieh qui s’inspire des événements de jour de l’Achoura, dont l’impression devient trop caractéristique dans les cérémonies de deuil. Un exemple est Ta’zieh qui est une représentation théâtrale de ces cérémonies. Ta’zieh est accompagné de lamentations et de récits de deuil -- bien que ces récits ne soient que des prêches imaginaires de tragédie de bataille de Karbala.

La dynastie Qadjar et l’Achoura

C’est dans la cour royale de Nasser-al-Din Shah Qadjar que cette cérémonie a été officiellement lieu. Pour le shah qui se prenait pour « l’ombre de Dieu sur la terre », Ta’zieh représentait une occasion supplémentaire que son populace prouve sa foi et son attachement aux valeurs divines du roi, par lesquelles le roi justifie son royaume chiite. Ensuite, ta`zyieh prend un aspect plus publique et aura lieu sur les grandes places « takieh » dont takieh de « dolat » (…de l’état) et encore connu. Les acteurs du ta’zieh sont toujours des hommes, et le rôle des femmes est tenu par des jeunes garçons impubères. Pendant les dix premiers jours du mois, et spécialement le neuvième jour (Tasou'ah) et le dixième jour (Achoura), les chiites se consacrent aux cérémonies de deuil en souvenir du martyre de l’Imam Hossein et de ses partisans à Karbala.

Tout au long de la journée d’Achoura, des cortèges d’hommes vêtus de noir déambulent dans les rues au son des tambours rythmés par le frappement des poitrines et des chaînes et précédés par des porte-drapeaux et des groupes de musique funèbre. Les hommes marchent dans les rues en se frappant la poitrine et la tête pour exprimer leur deuil. Des cérémonies émouvantes des coups de la flagellation (chaînes en grappes attachées à une poignée pour se frapper successivement les épaules ou la tête) sont rythmés avec le chant et instruments de deuil. Certains se tailladent même le crâne pour que le sang jaillisse. La couleur de rouge représente le sang versé des martyres de Karbala, associé avec ce sang versé, les animaux sont égorgés, les objets de deuil sont colorés de rouge, on se blesse et blesse les petits enfants au coup de couteau pour montrer la douleur et souffrance des martyres de Karbala.

Les objets de deuil, comme les mains amputées en bois qui symbolisent les deux mains du martyre Abbas, le frère d’Hossein, coupole et ses minarets, des épées et d’autres armes de la guerre de Karbala, des pigeons de deuil sont présentés dans les cortèges. Des chants traditionnels du deuil se transmettent en Persan et Arabe afin de rappeler le drame de Karbala. Des innombrables scénarios et récits sont racontés pour le seul jour d’Achoura, des propos sans fondement historique sont dramatiques pour rendre un tableau le plus tragique possible. Des symboles comme drapeaux vers ou noirs et longs drapeaux "Alam" sont portés avec des groupes de musique funèbre a la tête des cortèges. Les cortèges sont toujours organisés et participés par les hommes, les femmes séparées des hommes peuvent voir ou suivre les cortèges.

La douleur et souffrance ainsi présentées dans ces cortèges favorisent l’industrie du chiisme par l’effet psychologique. Le deuil et la souffrance s’associent avec une punition réservée aux déviants qui malgré les sommations refusent de complètement réintégrer la secte chiite de l’islam. Témoignage très poignant et choquant sur les faits tangibles qui peuvent toujours découler dans toutes les cérémonies de deuil montrent qu’il s’agit effectivement d’un culte de violence. La violence sadique et masochique déclenchée par ces cérémonies de deuil ne connait aucune limite : sur une photo parue dans internet, on voit une femme qui tranche avec un sabre la peau du crane de son enfant avec un sourire de satisfaction. Cette photo montre la barbarie d’un culte qui peut nous dire pourquoi les Mollahs chiites sont tellement atroces.

Les sentiments douloureux justifient les actes de blessure comme un rite expiatoire chez ces chiites, le contraire tant qu'une déviation est alors punissable. En plus, le deuil d’Achoura dévoile l’assujettissement aveugles des iraniens aux envahisseurs et assassins de leur ancêtres comme l’imam Hossein lui-même qui faisait partie des troupes musulmanes à la conquête de la Perse sous le calife Omar. Tout est une perception humiliante qui devient pour les nouvelles générations iraniennes de plus en plus dérisoire en l’assimilant avec les crimes de l’islam en Iran depuis l’invasion de 7eme siècles et le règne des Mollahs aujourd’hui.

Le mois Muharram ainsi devient un mois vraiment maudit où il faut éviter transactions commerciales importantes, tous les signes de réjouissance, vacances, et toute fête y comprise mariage. Par contre c'est plutôt la tristesse et le deuil qui doivent prédominer la vie sociale. Tout concourt à signifier le deuil et également à une culture de s’aliénation contre la culture de joie, celle qui faisait partie de la culture persane avant l’invasion.

Achoura et le Régime Islamique

L’exigence de l’Achoura est aussi associée au pouvoir de la caste de clergé, surtout les Sayed, en Iran qui se prennent pour les descendants du prophète et l’imam Hossein et qui sont aujourd’hui une suprématie politique en Iran. En effet depuis les Qadjar, les Mollahs contrôlaient les institutions religieuses et culturelles comme des « madressehs » (écoles pour les garçons), la justice, et d’autres instituions publiques qui pouvaient restreindre les droits égalitaires des citoyens, l’égalité de femme, l’épanouissement d’arts et de sciences modernes et surtout contrarier l’identité préislamique de l’Iran, la Perse.

Depuis la réélection protestée de président Ahmadinejad, l'Achoura intervient chaque année en Iran dans un climat de tension politique entre les différentes fractions du régime islamique. C’est une occasion aussi pour une majorité d’iraniens exacerbée par l’ensemble du régime islamique et son islam imposé à manifester leur mécontentement vis-à-vis l’islam politique et l’ensemble du régime. Parfois les cortèges d’Achoura étaient une occasion pour se transformer en défilé de l'opposition, des manifestations sont attendues chaquee année contre la dictature des Mollahs chiite en Iran.

Offener Brief an Kanzlerin Frau Merkel

2011-11-22T07:09:00.000-08:00

Frau Dr. Merkel, wie ihnen sicherlich bekannt ist, hat Großbritannien im Zusammenhang mit dem Nuklearprogramm des Irans an den 21.11. 2011 neuen Sanktionen gegen den iranischen Bankensektor verhängt. Als Vorbild folgten Kanada und Amerika mit neuen Strafmaßnahmen gegen den Energiesektor des Mullah-Regimes. Deutschland hat noch nicht reagiert.

Weil das islamische Regime wie eine Besatzungsmacht das iranische Volk brutal unterdruckt, verlange ich als deutscher Bürger mit iranischer Abstammung, dass unsere deutsche Regierung das Beispiel Englands folgen sollte. Die Strafmaßnahmen sollen sich gegen die Zentralbank des Mullah-Regimes richten. Diese deckt alle Transaktionen im Bezug mit militärisch und terroristisch Politik des islamischen Regimes ab-- Persönliche Konten der korrupten Behörden sollen gesperrt werden.

Die Sanktionsregelung soll sich in einen Model teilen, das so weit wie möglich die Bevölkerung wenig und das Regime am meisten betreffen kann. Deshalb schlage ich ihnen vor, dass neben Energiesektor und Banken, ein Reiseverbot aller islamischen Behörden eingeführt wird. Zusätzlich fördere ich die Sperrung aller Konten der islamischen Institutionen, Behörden, Kommandeure des iranischen Revolutionsgarden, die in Deutschland geführt werden.

Um die Gefahr des Mullah-Regimes zu stoppen, betrifft es eine wirksame Sanktion wenn sie den ÖL und Gassektor des Mullah-Regimes boykottieren. Mit Verkauf des Öls und Gas finanziert das Mullah-Regime militärische Rüstung, terroristische Verbrecher im Ausland, Hamas und Hisbollah und andere islamische terroristische Gruppen in der Region, und alle innere Unterdrückungen gegen das iranische Volk. Transaktionen und Zahlungsabwicklung für solche Aktivitäten werden leider immer noch durch die erfolgte Leistung von iranischen Banken im Ausland garantiert.

Liebe Frau Merkel, unsere deutsche Geschichte hat viel über das Verhältnis von Nationalsozialismus in Deutschland kritisiert. Im Angesicht der systematischen Menschenrechtsverletzungen des islamischen Regimes betrachtet die iranische Bevölkerung das Regime wie ein faschistisches Regime.

Liebe Frau Kanzler, ich möchte Sie erinnern, dass nach unserem deutschen Grundgesetz jede Beziehung mit Faschismus verboten ist. Das islamische Regime mit seinem Rechtssystem (Scharia), welches Menschen nach Sex und Religionszugehörigkeit klassifiziert, eine Art von Faschismus darstellt. Desselben verlange ich dem islamischen Herrschaftssystem nicht wegen lukrativer Interessen, sondern nach dem Esprit unserer Verfassung handeln.

Frau Kanzelerin! Obwohl das Mullah-Regime ein faschistisches Regime vergleichbar ist, werden leider keine entsprechenden politischen Rückschlüsse gezogen. Im Gegenteil, sowohl Mitglieder der Regierungsparteien als auch deutsche Unternehmen stehen in engen Kontakt mit dem islamischen Regime. Ein solches Beispiel sind die deutschen Firmen wie Siemens. Diese rüsten das Mullah-Regime mit neuen Technologien aus, um Repressionsorgane mit der Überwachungstechnik im Iran zu entwickeln.

Frau Dr. Merkel, wir alle Iraner und friedensliebenden Menschen aller Welt erwarten, dass Deutschland auch, wie England, sich für schärfere Sanktionen gegen alle Banken und den Energiesektor des Mullah-Regimes entscheidet.

E-Mail Adresse von Frau Dr. Angela Merkel

http://www.123people.de/s/angela+merkel

Psychopathic Dictators

2011-11-19T02:42:00.000-08:00

In the history of mankind, psychopathic atrocities of power-hungry dictators like Nero, Ahmadinejad, Gaddafi, Idi Amin, Khomeini is not forcibly due to their brain activity or genetic reasons, but due to the psychological conditions of their social status that may push a normal individual into a psychopathic leader.

Common traits distinguish psychopathic leaders from others; they prove an exercised authority, what unfortunately causes characteristics of such psychopaths. They edge with self-confidence and independence in decisions -- to the point of being self-centered. They know how to be good liars, to the point to distract and simply fool their devout grassroots. Their very common personality trait is their compassionless, to the point of being often sadistic. They are narcissistic and megalomaniac to the point of attaching to a boundless appetite for being hand-picked for divine purposes. They are paranoid, to the point of suffocating any voice of other-thinker as a plot of foreign enemies. These are just several genuine traits among many others conditioned by specific circumstances.

There is no doubt that a deficiency of genetic or brain activity might reinforce the atrocities, what has been proved by Stalin, http://www.bild.de/news/ausland/josef-stalin/geheime-arzttagebuecher-stalin-hirnkrank-17552124.bild.html, but the distinct psychological traits common to any psychopathic leader can be used as a starting point in studying their dictatorial attitudes. Many perverse traits finding in Gaddafi can be namely found from Nero to Ahmadinejad.

All psychologically normal people with a brim of hungry power may turn into sadist, pervert and criminal dictators like those of communist, fascist and Islamic regimes -- ideologies which are morally bankrupt, but politically can always emerge as long as we do not know or ignore the psychological mechanisms of their emergence. Such dictators carry in themselves all potential of catastrophes which may happen for mankind, if not a whole nation.

Despite the fact that many psychopaths are incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals and penal institutions, it has been recognised that a few of them were clever enough to enter the history of mankind, creating totalitarian regimes. All these misfits need to rule is an insane ideology or belief system through which they surround themselves with devout people who are devoted followers to the point of being blindly ready to kill. They are actually the social pillars of the dictator, without them, a hungry-power dictator cannot be equally clueless about what it means to have a sense of humanity.

In the nineteenth century scientists elucidated the nature of that disturbing category of human beings that we now call psychopaths. History shows that they have always been living with us and some would appear as “enlightened” prophets / gurus, “great” despots, and “charismatic” leaders. They might stick to an ideology, religion, or cult, as Muhammad’s self-appointed “prophet”, titled as Alexander the Great, Khomeini as Imam, Hitler as Führer. Megalomania is a common character for any self-appointed title. Nero exalted himself to a god and Stalin who became father of Russians (petit père). All of them used their intellectual capacity in the service of their immoral drives (belief, ideology, power).

As mentioned before, “They use lofty words and emotional speech — an easy thing for a fairly intelligent psychopath — but there is no genuine content to them. Being fairly bright, they learn how to imitate emotional expressions suggestive of some higher emotions (compassion, sympathy, sociability, patriotism and morality), through which they fool the grassroots. However, they hardly fool any intellectual observer because they ring hollow as there is no truth and authenticity in their words. Their fraudulent but emotional speeches distinguish them from sane leaders.”

We know dictators in uniform, in suit, in a robe and turban. A dictator would never discard the idea that he is above every one. He would consider himself a God’s hand-picked chosen one– even a supposed atheist dictator like Kim Jong-il of communist North Korea has trend to be a hand-picked one by a metaphorical force beyond all -- after the death of his father, Kim Il-sung, who “joined the sun!”, the son was declared the country's life president. With a life president or king, lasting compromises is impossible and thus they would refuse to allow other ideas to cramp their authority.

The guiding principle of them to guarantee their life-time authority is fear which must be spread among the subjects because there is no room for a subjugated nation to threat his authority. Fear has always been used to silence people and groups in a population. Fear is widespread in all dictatorial systems. Fear is a powerful motivator in enforcing tolerance, obedience, and making people submit to authority, it is a pillar of religious and totalitarian systems. Fear from God or State has always been tangibly present in all totalitarian, religious, and cult systems, such as Italy under Mussolini, Nazi Germany under Hitler, China under Mao, the Soviet Union under Stalin, Libya under ousted Gaddafi, and Iran under the Islamic regime. The threat of punishment, torture and being killed is widely dispersed enough to cause fear. Fear has systematically been increased by state and religious institutions throughout history in nearly all societies.

Most psychopathic Sign of dictator is his narcissism which explains his utopia in grandiose. He feels himself in a kind of splendid isolation from the outer world, in which his megalomaniac grandiose takes precedence over legal, moral, and interpersonal commitments. Although such a psychopathic leader gives no real affection, is greedy of receiving affection of his subjugated followers. His affection is nothing but false inspiring affection of sometimes fanatical degree in his followers. Indeed, he has no genuine human qualities to give, but opportunistically adapts himself to any affective relation. This is not a normal type of behaviour normal people would adjust themselves to, but purely a trick of dictators which is amazingly an important factor of their popularity.

Leaders with psychopathic attitudes have no feeling of guilt or remorse no matter what happens. A good example is the famous Khomeini’s response when he was asked about his feeling in his flight to Iran after 15 years in exile, when he surprised a whole nation by saying: “I have no feeling on my return to Iran!“ His spontaneous, unscripted and unadvised reaction to a simple obvious question that would require him to express either empathy or caring and compassion for others, including the millions of his followers waiting enthusiastically for his arrival, shows his real side and his lack of human feelings.

Although Khomeini’s peculiar sentence in itself was very revealing, it was not seriously taken in consideration at the time. Khomeini’s fumbling with statements and phraseology was not a proof that he was merely unintelligent in a conventional sense; he even showed his typical apathy for Iran and Iranians and considered the all people and resources of country as spoils of Islam. Khomeini showed from the beginning no sense of concern for his people. Why these people accepted his leadership, this is the odd and controversial factor that a dictator like Khomeini is not an isolated phenomenon; he is a product of a social psychology wrapped in a belief system.

Only so, a mediocre dictator like Khomeini who was not intelligent enough to make correct sentences in his mother language could grab the power. In fact Khomeini is not alone in the arena; his devout followers are the most reliable helps for his victory. Nobody would become psychopathic dictator without mad followers. A dictator’s subordinate has to be a devoted followers and blindly obedient. Without them Khomeini, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. would not succeed in forming their dictatorship and sacrificing millions of lives. Devotees are there to cheer, identify, arrest, torture, and kill innumerable individuals as a sign of their loyalty to their leader. In other words, the more devoted they are, the more dictatorial the leader will be, and the more cold-blooded. Even though some of the devoted followers can be the future pathetic victims of the beloved leader, some remain so mesmerised that their last words before execution can be “Heil Hitler!” or “Long live Stalin!” what proves a pathological depth of devotion to the leader.

Although after two centuries of occupation, Iran became free from the Muslims’ occupier force, people did not restore their own religion and culture, but voluntarily remained faithful for submissive cult of the primitive and brutal Muslim invaders. The reasons of this submission remained long time a taboo until thanks to the plague of the Islamic Republic of Iran inner calls finally slipped through approval of the facts. The obvious reasons of submission are no longer unnoticed. Among others, a general and psychological factor of submission called Stockholm syndrome is one of the main factors.

The reason of pathological submissiveness must be explained by Stockholm Syndrome. It is a new discovery of psychology analysing a pathological love of a female hostage to her brutal captor in 1973 in Stockholm. If the syndrome functions for a single hostage, why it must not be functional for a group of people or a nation? In this case, Muslim invaders of 7th century massacred, raped, enslaved, humiliated and destroyed the advanced civilisation of Iranians during a two-century- long occupation. When finally Iran pushed the invaders back, the brutal invaders left behind themselves their primitive cult of Islam, the cult was amazingly accepted, loved, and promoted by Iranians! This, at least, discusses the fact that a dictatorial system or belief system is not only due to atrocities of dictator, but accomplice of pathological submissiveness of subjugated people. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=399491266663

Khomeini, Hitler, Stalin were not born despotic, but because they became, at least for a period, the heroes of people. People, particularly clueless and politically underdeveloped, rally around their “heroes”, seeing in them both a reflection of themselves and a promise of a “victory” that would release their frustrations, and avenge their sorry and hopeless fate. Of course what they do not realise is that their leaders would not care about people’s fate. To such fanatical leaders, people are an echo chamber for their words and cannon fodders.

Normally, political or cult leaders have an outstanding ability to charm and win over followers. They are good at rhetoric and present plausible solutions for any problem. They beguile and seduce through certain logic, but this is not the case for all leaders. Khomeini did not have such an intellectual ability; his political knowledge was less than average. His success at garnering attention was due to a fatal lack of people’s utopia in Islam to the point many at the time doubted Khomeini’s credentials but did not dare to say so. This is an odd subject to see how a character like Khomeini could seduce his followers. Even later, when Khomeini learned to answer questions on advice of his advisors who reminded him to be sensitive, he could hardly express his sympathy for his people. Amazingly, this lack of emotion was rarely a problem for his followers. The devotees never expected Khomeini to be assimilated to their national problems or even to their Iranian identity. This is another proof to how a common person like Khomeini can become a monster through social condition, not forcibly psycho-biological anatomy.

All religions share, to one degree or another, a denial of the modern and civilised world. All “true” believers subscribe to a belief in delightful ideals of their archaic thoughts. Religious fanatics believe in a selective class of elite believers (mullahs /priests /rabbis etc.). They eliminate the possibility of any critical thought. While all these aspects are true for most religions, they are particularly flagrant in Islam and practiced in its political form in Iran. The Islamic regime in Iran, as a recent example of a political Islam, characterises the dark period of the Inquisition in a time that the civilised world had already many centuries far from the effects of the Inquisition. The danger of religious ideology is not only found in mentalities as before, but radically in methodologies of Islamism. Islam as today practiced as a political ideology, denies the civilised world and forces an unhealthy backwardness of society. In its paranoid and naive fashion, it develops its own perverse ideology of a new “Dar-al-Islam” (territory of Islam), pushing the methods of divine violence into an extreme and dangerous level of a jihadist strategy. In this perspective dictators in the Islamic world are particularly dangerous because their dictatorship is a direct heritage of religion.

As soon as a dictator is enthroned, he can turn to be an unchained ferocious beat with revengeful hate for all, in the realm of politics the psychopathic ousted leader is at his worst. We know that Hitler at the end of his reign ordered to burn and destruct all German infrastructures while saying a country without Nazi leadership would not need them anymore. We know that ousted Gaddafi and many other psychopathic rulers would do the same. In full possession of his political ability, a psychopathic leader demonstrates an inability to comprehend the meaning and significance of his own faults. This is why he never tries to remedy the faults; instead he punishes criticsand abolishes what his personal ambitions cannot satisfy. He is often astounded to find that people are upset by his exploits, as acknowledged by some enthroned despots. Although he knows intellectually what punishment is decreed for certain crimes, when caught for the same crimes, he puts up elaborate rationalisations and defences, and seems surprised when he is actually punished, as seen in Saddam’s process in 2004 before being hanged.

Members of a dictatorial regime need blind followers, devotees who are free of remorse and understanding because they cannot be under normal circumstances heroes of people. Some will ultimately find out that they can lose the head if they desert the camp of leadership; otherwise they remain symbols of shame. Once they were heroes, their “bravery” helped them to win the affection of theirs fellow followers, but they know that people one day do not accord their regime the status of hero. Authorities of a dictatorship may be disillusioned by a subsequent comprehension, but too late theirs destiny is tied with the whole dictatorial regime. In this light, we saw some Iranian deserters of the totalitarian Islamic regime who in power struggles were thrown out of the leadership. Many ex-members of leadership or ex-collaborators of the Islamic regime still never condemn the whole regime, because in the case of its fall, they would sit on the same bench of the accused as those still in the leadership.

Another aspect of the thoughtlessness is the obliviousness of the psychopath in power is his complete careless to any future punishment toward oneself. Not only a punishment has no power to deter him from wrongdoing, but actually punishment does not reform him. Historical experiences and most psychiatrists consider such psychopaths untreatable. It is historically proved that there is no way to handle psychopaths when they possess political power. Tragically, as a nation, we will remain in the dark ages as long as some of our people keep choosing or tolerating psychopaths as their leaders.

In conclusion, the basis emergence of psychopathic dictators is not forcibly conditioned by the dictators’ functional and structural brain in comparison to normal people, but mainly a series of common patterns favouring their promotion. Although there must be functional factors in the cortex-- in the frontal lobe and, the anterior-medial temporal lobe especially in the amygdale, and adjacent limbic cortices such as the anterior cingulated cortex, and chromosome XY combinations --, but the main factors remain social impacts. Atrocities of dictators or dictatorial regimes are rather the products of social conditions.

Against EU Visit to Iran

2011-10-27T00:19:00.000-07:00

English:
According to Mr. Kazem Jalil who is the spokesman of the Foreign Policy and National Security Commission of Iran, a delegation including members of European Parliament will visit Iran next week.
The Islamic regime represses, imprisons, tortures, rapes, and kills the Iranian people who oppose it. Therefore we, all Iranian opposition entities and freedom-loving people of the world, condemn this visit and demand the EU to cancel this visit.
Please contact your local authorities to express your protest.

فارسی:
بنا بر گزارش اخبار، به نقل از آقای کاظم جلیلی، سخنگوی شورای امنیتی و سیاست خارجی مجلس رژیم اسلامی، یک هیئت از نمایندگان مجلس اروپا هفته آینده به ایران خواهد رفت.
از آنجایی که رژیم اسلامی یک رژیم اشغالگر به خاک ایران و تجاوز گر به مردم ایران است، ما، اوپوزیسیون ایرانی و مردم صلح دوست جهان، این دیدار را محکوم و خواستار لغو ان هستیم.
لطفآ اعتراض خود را به گوش مقامات کشور مسکونی خود برسانید.

Deutsch:
Laut Herrn Kazem Jalil, der iranische Sprecher der Außenpolitik und nationale Sicherheit Kommission, wird nächste Woche eine Delegation mit Mitgliedern des Europäischen Parlaments den Iran besuchen.
Das islamische Regime unterdrückt, einsperrt, foltert, vergewaltigt und tötet das iranische Volk, das es ablehnt. Deshalb sind wir, alle iranischen Opposition Personen und freiheitsliebenden Menschen der Welt, verurteilen diesen Besuch und fordern der EU von diesem Besuch abzusehen.
Bitte kontaktieren Sie Ihren örtlichen Behörden, um Ihren Protest auszudrücken.

Français :
Selon M. Kazem Jalil, le porte-parole iranien de la commission chargée de la politique étrangère et la sécurité nationale, une délégation comprenant des membres du Parlement européen se rendre en Iran la semaine prochaine.
Le régime islamique réprime, emprisonne, torture, viole et tue le peuple iranien qui s'y oppose. C'est pourquoi nous, toutes les entités d'opposition iranienne et la communauté internationale solidaire à la lutte juste du peuple, condamnons cette visite et demandons à l'UE d'annuler cette visite.
Contacter les autorités locales d'exprimer votre demande s'il vous plaît.

Italiano:
Secondo il signor Kazem Jalil, che è il portavoce della politica estera e di sicurezza nazionale commissione dell’Iran, una delegazione tra cui membri del Parlamento europeo visiteranno l'Iran la prossima settimana.
Il regime islamico reprime, incarcera, tortura, stupri, e uccide il popolo iraniano che si oppone. Perciò noi, tutte le entità opposizione iraniana e amanti della libertà popoli del mondo, condanniamo questa visita e la domandiamo l'Unione europea di annullare questa visita.
Si prega di prendere contatto le autorità locali per esprimere la vostra protesta.

Español:
Según el Sr. Kazem Jalil, quien es el vocero de la política exterior y de Comité de Seguridad Nacional de Irán, incluyendo una delegación de eurodiputados visitará Irán la próxima semana.
El régimen islámico reprime, encarcela, tortura, violaciones, y mata al pueblo de Irán que se opone. Por lo tanto, todas las entidades de la oposición iraní y amante de la libertad los pueblos del mundo, condenamos esta visita y pedir a la Unión Europea de cancelar la visita.
Por favor, póngase en contacto con las autoridades locales para expresar su protesta.

CC: President of European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek,
CC: Offices of European Parliament

Ignorierter Islamismus

2011-10-23T23:20:00.000-07:00

Eine Art, die Hitler-Stalin-Ära zu betrachten, ruht an deren ideologische Dimension. Seit der Französischen und vor dem Aufkommen des islamischen Regimes im Iran hatte es nicht mehr zwei so aggressive Ideologien wie die des Kommunismus und des Nationalsozialismus`gegeben.

Es ist viel über das Verhältnis von Nationalsozialismus in Deutschland und Faschismus in Italien gesagt und geschrieben worden. Nationalsozialismus und Faschismus glorifizierten die Willensstärke, die Unterordnung unter einen Führer, die Macht und den Krieg, ihre raison d'être war der Erfolg; eine endgültige Niederlage, wie Hitler und Mussolini sie erlitten, konnten sie nicht überleben.

Umgekehrt profitierte der Kommunismus außerordentlich von der Rolle, die die Sowjetunion im Krieg gespielt hatte. Nachdem Osteuropa kommunistisch geworden war und Mao 1949 in China seinen spektakulären Sieg errungen hatte, proklamierte eine ganze Generation linker Konvertierten und Mitläufer – in der Dritte Welt ebenso wie im Westen – die Unausweichlichkeit eines weltweiten kommunistischen Siegeszuges.

Die Ernüchterung kam nur langsam, selbst nachdem die Enthüllungen Chruschtschows über Stalin zu wirken und die Rote Armee den angereichten Aufstand gewaltsam unterdrückt hatte, Ereignisse aus dem Jahr 1956. Es sollte noch dreißig Jahren dauern, bis der Kommunismus moralisch und politisch ebenso bankrott war wie Nationalsozialismus und Faschismus.

Im Angesicht der massiven Menschenrechtsverletzungen unter dem islamischen Regime im Iran, dieses totalitäre Mullahs-Regime, treffen dieselben Vorwürfe wie die beiden anderen. Genauso wie bei Kommunismus und Nationalsozialismus / Faschismus, das islamische Regime wird von einem religiösen Führer, Mullah, diktatorisch beherrscht.

Die Willensstärke, die Unterordnung unter einen Führer, der Totalitarismus ist zwischen allen so gleich, dass man sagen kann, der Totalitarismus sei ein logisches und wahrscheinlich unvermeidliches Stadium in der organischen Entwicklung des politischen Islam gewesen. Viele der für kommunistische und nationalsozialtische charakteristischen Elemente finden sich schon bei den islamischen Regimes im Iran.

Allerdings hat man den Eindruck, dass dieselben bararischen Elemente bei dem islamischen Herrschaftssystem nicht wegen lukrativer Interessen von zivilisierter Welt als Totalitarismus betrachtet worden sind. Dass die Ernüchterungen später kommen werden, wenn die das islamische Regime gefallen ist, kostet es das iranische Volks einen schrecklichen Preis.

Wall Street le mur brisé

2011-10-18T05:38:00.001-07:00

La crise capitaliste provoque un mouvement qui symboliquement vise le paradis du capitalisme mondial, Wall Street. Le mouvement a été lancé le 17 septembre 2011 à New York pour protester contre le "terrorisme financier". Leur exemple, "Occupons Wall Street" gagnant de la popularité mondiale. En prenant des grandes ampleurs il est suivi partout dans le monde capitaliste où le capital règne.

Cependant La quasi-totalité des marchés de bourse capitaliste est en mauvais état. Si ce n’est pas une grande banque qui s’effondre, c’est la bourse qui chute. Les indices des places boursières, s’effondrent les uns après les autres au fil du décalage horaire.

La crise capitaliste recèle beaucoup de dimensions inquiétantes qui mettent en danger notre civilisation. Elles sont remises en cause par une série de caractéristiques tels que le consumérisme, la marchandisation généralisée, la non prise en compte des impacts environnementaux des activités économiques, le productivisme, la recherche de la satisfaction des intérêts privés au détriment des intérêts, des biens et des services communs, l’utilisation systématique de la violence par les grandes puissances, la négation des droits élémentaires des peuples comme celui de Palestine et l’Iran. Pour tous ces problèmes cités souvent c’est le capitalisme qui est au centre de la remise en question.

Malheureusement, malgré toutes les preuves historiques l’idée centrale que la crise capitaliste puisse avoir des origines systémiques n’a quasiment pas cours dans les principaux mouvements de gauche. Cela n’est pas impressionné par les dégâts économiques que le capitalisme inflige mais plutôt par les effets psychologiques du communisme dictatorial et les causes de sa disparition. Ce qui donne l’idée de ne pas battre le système actuel, mais c’est d’en inventer des reformes en calmant les indignés du système.

Alors, les indignés du monde capitaliste qui protestent contre la sauvagerie du capitalisme ne savent pas par quelle alternative être contre le système, par contre c’est le système qui sait bien comment être malignement contre eux. Les indignés savent qu’il faut se débarrasser d’un système basé sur l’inégalité ; ils souhaitent un changement mais ne savent pas comment refuser de contribuer à alimenter ce système-là.

La peur au communisme fait que le système actuel possède encore du soutien de la majorité pour être remis en cause par les défilés des mouvements anticapitalistes, pour autant justifiable et justifié qu’ils soient, seule sa ruine pourra faire changer cette peur. Pour justifier sa ruine et la battre, il faudra connaître la bête noire à travers ses manigances. Notoirement le plus corrosif symbole du système capitaliste est son system da la bourse qu’aujourd’hui est attaquée par le mouvement d’ « Occupons Wall Street». Bourse présente l’aspect le plus caractéristique du système capitaliste. En quelques mots qu’est-ce que la bourse et comment elle fonctionne ?

Au fur et à mesure que se sont développés les industries et le commerce, les besoins en capitaux ont grandi. Réunir les capitaux nécessaires au développement des entreprises est souvent difficile, c’est pourquoi se sont souvent constituées des entreprises dont le capital à été divisé en actions. Ainsi les entreprises se financent auprès du public, des pets actionnaires, plutôt qu'auprès d'investisseurs professionnels.

Il est normal que les grands actionnaires aient aussi des méthodes et moyens plus pesants pour en gagner le bon morceau. Leur politique est à perturber la perception de la rentabilité par les petits actionnaires pour optimiser la gestion de l'intérêt personnel. Les grands actionnaires savent la prochaine dégringolade de la crise, or ils profitent au maximum de la situation avant la catastrophe débâcle l’économie nationale. Le système de bourse n’accepte pas les intérêts d’économie nationale de coexister avec divers degrés d’interventionnisme de la part d’État, comme par exemple la fixation des prix de tels ou tels biens ou services, ou encore la définition des conditions d’échange dans un secteur d’activité donné. C’est dans cette perspective que selon l’L’économiste M. Albert (« Capitalisme contre capitalisme » - 1991) le capitalisme est caractérisé par la prépondérance des banques et de leurs avoirs dans les sociétés par actions,… du capitalisme « anglo-saxon », ce que l’on peut décrire comme du capitalisme, Wall Street prend un rôle prépondérant dans son système.

S'il n'y avait pas la bourse, toutes les entreprises seraient obligées de trouver des investisseurs pour lever de l'argent. L’action est un titre de propriété d’une fraction de l’entreprise. Elle donne droit à un certain pourcentage des bénéfices, à la participation aux assemblées générales des actionnaires et à une information sur les grandes orientations de l’entreprise --c’est-à-dire de tous ces possesseurs de capitaux qui, en plaçant et en déplaçant leur argent, nourrissent l’incendie financier .

Le fonctionnement de la bourse est simple: c'est un grand marché où s'échangent les parts, c'est-à-dire, les titres de propriété (ou encore les actions) des entreprises cotées. Chaque jour, chacun peut proposer d'acheter des actions aux vendeurs qui se présentent; de même, chacun peut proposer de vendre des actions aux acheteurs qui se présentent. Le bénéfice effectivement distribué par actions est appelé dividende.

La bourse facilite le regroupement de capitaux importants. C’est pour cette raison que le système capitaliste inclut la fonction de l’actionnariat qui permet de gagner de l’argent en achetant des parts directes aux entreprises et aussi par le moyen du system boursier qui permet de faciliter les transactions.

Les actions ont largement contribué à l’expansion du capitalisme au 19è et au 20è siècle. Dans un tel système, l’argent n’est plus le fruit du travail, on emploi des brokers, afin de chercher le meilleur rapport financier. Lorsque la bourse permet la négociabilité des titres, elle permet d'attirer un plus grand nombre d'investisseurs ; c’est pour cette raison que les sociétés de capital-risque souhaitent que les entreprises dans lesquelles elles ont investi s'introduisent en bourse.

La détermination des prix en bourse est étroitement liée aux mécanismes de déviations de l’offre et de la demande. Les cotations opérées à la Bourse montrent la valeur attribuée par le marché à une entreprise, une matière première ou à une créance dans le temps. Les cours permettent donc de suivre l'évolution du prix de produits et l'évolution générale de la situation économique d'un pays.

La bourse sert aussi à tous ceux (particuliers, entreprises) qui veulent investir dans des entreprises: ils peuvent alors le faire très simplement, pour des montants assez faibles, en direct, de façon transparente et équitable, mais ceci n’est pas la règle dominante. En effet, la bourse sert surtout aux "traders", ceux qui ne produisent rien qu’investir de façon professionnelle sur ce grand marché des titres pour le compte des établissements financiers ou pour leur propre compte.

Les traders achètent et vendent des actions tous les jours, pas forcément pour investir/désinvestir dans les sociétés cotées, mais souvent pour gagner de l'argent: un trader qui anticipe la hausse d'une action va l'acheter maintenant pour la revendre plus tard; un trader qui anticipe la baisse d'une action va la vendre maintenant pour la racheter plus tard. Mais dès les débuts de chaque crise, la Bourse, qui est un bon baromètre de l’économie capitaliste, s’effondre, souvent ce ne sont pas des traders qui perdent mais les pets actionnaire comme toute l’économie capitaliste.

Cette crise de 2011 commencé à Wall Street’est pas comme celle de 1929, un seul « jeudi noir » où les Bourses se seraient effondrées de 40 % en quelques jours, mais il y a ce qu’ils appellent un « effondrement rampant ». Par rapport à son niveau le plus élevé, il y a un an, l’indice de la Bourse de New York en était, au début du mois d’octobre, à une baisse de 32,5 %. Rien que pour le « lundi noir » du 6 octobre 2008 - un « lundi noir » de plus, après celui du 15 septembre où la banque Lehman Brothers, un des piliers de Wall Street, a fait faillite -, le CAC 40, l’indice de la Bourse de Paris, a connu la plus forte chute depuis sa mise en place, soit 9,04 %. Et le lendemain, plus de 6 % de chute supplémentaire. Des chutes de l’ordre de 7 % à Londres et à Francfort. Et la Bourse de Tokyo, qui pouvait se considérer comme heureuse avec une chute de 3 % le « lundi noir », avait perdu 9 % le lendemain !

Chaque fois que le système capitaliste est en crise, les actions sont en en chute, Cette fois-ci, il semble que c’est le système qui est ébranlé et même s’il y avait une alternative démocratique à sa place, le capitalisme pourrait déjà commencer sa chute libre. Le capitalisme ne représente plus un ordre social mais un fléau universel, alors pour sauver le monde, il faut même au-delà des questions de droite et de gauche et d’idéologie mettre en question sa légitimité. Pour cela il faut un rassemblement des intellectuels, des économistes, des organisations humanitaires les hommes et des femmes d’un esprit bienveillant. Donc il faut un immense élan collectif pour un travail d’imaginations, de créativité, de réflexion et espoir pour éviter le pire, pour que le mur brisé de Wall Street ne soit pas reconstruite pour pouvoir imposer son fléau.

Islamic Regime is back to Terror Abroad

2011-10-12T09:43:00.000-07:00

According to the news and a video clip of US Attorney General Eric Holder, an Islamic regime’s plot killing Saudi ambassador in Washington was thwarted. The Quds force, part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and two men originally from Iran have been identified behind the plot.

It seems that the Washington terrorist attack was directly sponsored by the regime, this is what the Islamic regime has committed since 1979 in a number of terrorist attacks around the world against both Iranian and foreign opponents considered as “the enemies of Islam”.

What concerns non-Iranian victims in the last 33 years: the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri in Beirut was likely planned by the Islamic regime. The Islamic regime was likely behind the bombings of the U.S., French, and Israeli embassies in Kuwait, Lebanon, and Argentina. The regime bombed the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. The regime has been involved in kidnappings, hijackings, killings, and hostage takings of Iranians and Westerners in the Mideast, Europe, North America and South America.

What concerns the list of Iranian victims of the Islamic regime abroad: the Islamic regime has murdered hundreds of Iranian opposition activists outside of Iran, just to name a few the last Shah’s PM Shapoor Bakhtiar in Paris, Fereydoun frokhzad in Germany, four members of Opposition Kurdish Democrat Party in Berlin , Dr Kazem Rajavi in Austaria, Dr Ghasemloo, leader of Kurdish Democrat Party in Wien, etc.

Since the Mikonos terrorist attack of 1980 in Berlin, where four members of Iranian Kurdish opposition were killed, it is the first time the Islamic regime plans terrorist attacks on a western soil. The last terrorist attack of the regime on the US soil in 1980 was the assassination of a Shah’s diplomat Mr. Ali Akbar Tabatabaei who was simply a press attaché of the Iranian embassy in Washington DC during the Shah's reign.

The various factions of the Islamic regime use their lobbying groups like NIAC, CASMII, ALAVI-Foundations, and a crowd of exported or in the West-exiled journalists, activists, Greens, ex-collaborators of Toodeh-Party, etc., for their political agenda. The common goal of this false opposition is to use various and updated maneuvers to buy time for the Islamic regime under any name and colour. However, they have never been directly used for a terrorist agenda. For any terrorist activity, the Islamic regime has always used its non-Iranian agents, mostly from Lebanon. It is the first time that the IRI has so overtly used its own Iranian agents as opposed to foreign mercenaries.

Why the regime or a faction of the regime in Tehran is again plotting terror on the western soil and targeting a Saudi ambassador? It seems a puzzle of policy makers in Tehran. The Islamic authorities are since 33 years humiliating, persecuting, arresting, torturing, raping and lynching Iranians on fabricated charges and on a daily basis. All this Barbary has not caused adequate reactions of the international community.

The Saudi ambassador would not seem to be high on the list of “enemies of Islam”. Such a terrorist action however deliberately provokes tough reactions of the US and Saudi Arabia! So is it the why the Islamic regime or a faction of it doing so to provoke both US and Saudi reaction?

Knowing the sensibilities of the US citizens, the terrorist plan can be described as an attack of an eleven September’s magnitude on the US soil. It would have been nothing short of an act of war. There is no doubt that this plot seems a typical characteristic of the regime’s terrorist apparatus. The goal of the action can create an atmosphere of war, perhaps a military war against the US and Saudi Arabia. No matter how such a plan stupid, dumpy, dangerous and unprofessionally looks like, the warmongering seems the simplest and most reasonable explanation of this Washington terrorist plan.

Whatever the goal of the terrorist Islamic regime, the reaction of the US authorities are verbally tough, in reality we need more time to see what kind of sanctions or other adequate options are on the table. Needless to mention, most Iranians, who are the most exposed victims of the Islamic regime, expect the international community, in its head the UN, to finally deal with the terrorist Islamic regime in Tehran adequately.

Iranians are not proud of Islam

2011-10-05T00:34:00.001-07:00

Iran aside, all Middle Eastern countries might freely choose Islamic states. The choice is due to an identity pride in their people's collective conscience. It is formed by emotion, tradition and history, not rationality. Rationality is a new paradigm shift in the Islamic world now initiated by Iranians.

Islam to Arab Middle East is melt with their history, a history of Caliphate and a period of "Golden Ages" of Islam, what led to military Muslim conquerors in long wars of “Jihad”, holly wars, against the “non-Muslim” world. The history of Arab and Sunnite Muslims has been proudly associated with this “Golden Ages” of Islam.

Reinforced by accumulated defeats during the Crusades and finally collapse of the “Golden Ages”, the Arab / Sunnite Muslims have the impression of being looked down by "non Muslims”, especially during the period of British / French colonisation -- a second Crusade of non-Muslims! The broken pride of Muslims is followed by the inception of a Jewish sate in 1948 in the “holy lands” of Muslims.

This Islamic identity which has been so mechanically imposed or patched up with the Arab / Sunnite world plays after all an identity formation for them and once being violated by “non-Muslims”, the reaction reaches nationalism coloured by a pan-Islamism. The reactions like Taliban’s anti-American, Hamas and Hezbollah anti-Semite character formations and are the recent examples of the pan-Islamic transformation.

Islamism in the ME is highlighted by the "non Muslim" invasion of the "holy" territories of "Muslim" Palestine -- a "third Crusade" of western arrogance by propping Israel potential up to occupy "Muslim" territories. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by Bush administration radicalised the ends. Under such circumstances, Islam has created an emotion of self-identity-defence which is expressed through an Islamic front of unity with its jihadist impetus endorsed by all its traditional and historical mentioned factors--such a right-wing and Islamic front has nothing to share with the leftist anti-imperialism.

However, in Iran we have the opposite factors, factors not in the favour of an Islamic identity, but even a disgrace to such an identity pride. The reasons are many, among which: We have the plague of the 33-year anti-Iranian Islamic regime, considered by most Iranians as a force of occupier. It is a reminder of the 7th. invasion of Muslim Jihadists who ravaged, killed, enslaved, destroyed and humiliated Iranians during two centuries of their occupation. Then we had the 16-17th century Safavid Dynasty that brutally imposed the Shiite sect on Iran by shedding blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Then we had the dark period of Ghajar Dynasty in 18-19th century by Shiitising Iran with all hysterical mourning rituals of Shiite Islam.

So, with all these negative and sorrowful experiences of Islam in Iran, Iranians are not proud of Islam, thanks to the Mullahs’ regime are now getting awareness to how Islam damaged and is damaging their country. This is the reason Iranians would never freely choose an Islamic state if there were such a choice. In this perspective, the Islamic regime in Iran seems to be the last bastion of leftovers of the Islamic invasion of Muslims in the 7th. Century and once collapsed will never be reset.

Iranians are the first nation in the Middle East who reached to this revolutionary awareness that Islamic values within an Islamic state do not lead to any future for freedom, independence and democracy because it categorically denies all of them. An Islamic state does not solve the future problems in our today's world at all, but will rather be used as populist trampoline for the corrupt, reactionary bunch of Mullahs or Islamists to create governments even with the help of "non Muslim" West, as it is the case of Wahhabites, Pakestani Islamist Generals, the US-backed Shiite government in Iraq, Hamed Karzai in Afghanistan, and maybe a faction of the Islamic regime called “Green Movement” as a government alternative to Hardliners in Tehran.

Nevertheless, Iran aside, thanks to imperialistic policy of the West and Zionistic territorial ambitions, accompanied with lack of democracy and high education, Islamisation of the region is occurring at a faster speed than its "democratisation". The average peoples in the ME are more gravitating towards Mullah’s regime while Iranians rebut them. For them, the brutal Mullahs and clown Ahmadinejad are celebrated as the “anti-Western” heroes who stand up to Western injustice!

I do not believe such a western-phobia helps us to push back imperialistic interests of the West. Such a baseless phobia is orchestrated by radical Muslims and their orthodox leftist chorister and does not lead to independence, democracy, welfare, and progress of people, but rather is an ideological tool of extremists to cook up extremist regimes like Mullahs’ regime in the region. Such extremist states sooner or later will be economically new dependent client states to the one or another foreign key power.

A sane state is a servant of its people, a friend of humanity, and is based on the universally recognised values of democracy. Only such a sate can be independent because it is a free and conscious choice of its people and less likely would bargain over the national interests with the key powers. Such a regime will be a part of the international community with no ideological love or pathological hate towards any country.

Iranian people today distance themselves from such an ideological sate, namely from anti-western phobia by the fact that they share many traits of western values in their life, values which are banned by the Islamic regime. Iranians look for western values of secularism and democracy despite of having 1400 years of despotic Islam behind them.

The trend of such a westernisation is not solely due to a spontaneous or conscious reaction to the disliked Mullahs’ regime, but long time before the inception of this regime, Iranian middle class has followed in majority a secular and western way of life. Sometimes confused between traditionalism and modernism or melt with a moderate Islam, Iranians have been more Iranians than Muslims and this is the core of discrepancy between the Islamic regime and an increasing majority of Iranians. This is a characteristic of Iranians who differentiate them from Arab /Sunnite Muslims and it is due to the fact that Islam, contrary to most Arabs / Sunnite Muslims, has never been an identity pride for Iranians. In the depth of collective consciousness of Iranians Muslims or non-Muslims alike, Islam is regarded as an imposed doctrine of non-Iranians.

Athéisme et Marxisme

2011-09-28T00:29:00.000-07:00

Marx a mis en évidence les aspects pervers de la croyance religieuse mais il n’a rien proposé en échange pour répondre à la question de Dieu. Marx ne prend parti ni pour l’existence de Dieu ni pour la non-existence de Dieu et ne développe pas ce débat. Marx ne défini pas l’athéisme comme une négation de Dieu. La question de Dieu comme le médiateur entre l’homme et son existence n’est pas le sens de son athéisme.

Pour Marx L’athéisme est l’humanisme laïque par la suppression de la religion de sa vie sociale car la religion est l’expression pathologique d’une misère économique, éprouvée par des gens qui espèrent et qui croient en un au-delà qui viendra compenser toutes les privations subies au cours de cette existence traversée comme “une vallée de larmes”. Marx ignore que l’être humain s’attache aux valeurs sacrées en dehors des rapports de production.

La pensée de Karl Marx semble dérivée des entreprises de son temps, 1848, lorsqu’il écrit le Manifeste du Parti communiste : leur succès est garanti par l’exploitation de force de travail. Les mécanismes qui utilisaient les entreprises, qui d’ailleurs sillonnent toujours notre monde d’aujourd’hui, ce qui approfondi la pauvreté en faveur d’accumulation de richesse dans les mains d’une petite minorité des capitalistes. Pour Marx, ce sont ces rapports-là, entre l’exploiteur et exploité, qui évoluent des déterminations matérielles économiques et idéologiques. Marx est alors indifférent aux sources et le but spirituel de l'homme et généralise son athéisme en rapport avec la religion du seul point de vue sociologique.

Pourtant les partis qui se réclamaient marxistes ont plongé des racines athéistes dans la tradition et la philosophie de marxisme. Comme nous montre l’histoire, une fois que ce Marxistes-là prenne une valeur sacrée et absolue, il devient lui-même une religion violente d’État comme ceci était le cas sous les pays communistes depuis la révolution 1917 en Russie. On a témoigne sous leurs régimes communistes les pires violations de droit de l’homme.

L’athéisme est une présupposition du projet de Marx, un moyen nécessaire à l’avènement de l’humanisme, ce qui est aussi associatif avec la laïcité républicaine en France et ailleurs. Ceci étant le marxisme est moins un athéisme qu’un dépassement de celui-ci, qu’il présuppose. Dit autrement : l’extermination de Dieu n’occupe pas les veillées marxistes. Mais la veillée ne commence que si Dieu est mort !

Comme disait Marx, « la religion est l’opium du peule », ce constat est globalement reconfirmé depuis la renaissance de l’islam politique en Iran et ses bras mondiaux de terrorisme mais Marx n’a nulle part parlé de Dieu en tant que l’opium même si c’est ainsi que le propos fut véhiculé. Il est vrai que pour Marx, d’ailleurs pour beaucoup d’autres penseurs de post-Renaissance, le monde physique newtonien détermine la conscience humaine, ce que ne veut pas forcement dire que le Dieu n’existe pas. Ce qui semble ses propos, que les définitions médiocres proposées par les religions sont hors-sujet de la question de l’existence de Dieu.

À mon avis, le Marxisme, en tant qu’une idée comme les autres, devrait être adoptif à la transformation de société vers une phase plus évolutive. Il ne devait pas être limitatif dans les démarches des nouvelles idées et nouveaux camps de lutte pour y arriver, puisque il s’agit de l’homme libéré de l’ancien ordre social restrictif, avec lequel la religion est un ingrédient, le marxisme suppose un engagement dans l’action pour le changement de la société et ses conditions de vie. Le marxisme est donc une base pour le partage de vue de meilleures idées pour l’équilibre de la société mais il n’est pas la seule base valable.

Beaucoup de gens qui se réclament de la philosophie marxiste la classent dans la catégorie des philosophies athées. Pourtant il s’agit d’un athéisme antireligieux. Cela ne signifie pas forcement que Marx réfute l’existence de Dieu en tant que principe intelligent. Nous devons pousser plus loin la réflexion et s’avouer comme Sartre l’a fait, avec certaines difficultés et après longs années de travail intellectuel, que l’athéisme dans le sens de négation de Dieu est une cruelle ascension et que l’on n’y parvient jamais. Sartre à la fin de sa vie a dissout ses idées sur « l’être et néant » car c’est n’étais si facile d’affirmer de tels propos.

Marx, quant à lui, a voulu déraciner les religions en révoquant l’opium du peuple. C’est vrai que l’opium fait du bien quand on y fume mais cela tourne vite en fiction quand on atteint l’état de dépendance, c’est- à-dire l’oppression d’un système religieux qui enferme la conscience. La religion n’est pas une philosophie, elle ne conduit pas l’homme à réfléchir sur sa condition. La religion enferme la pensée humaine dans des croyances punitives et nous trouvons aujourd’hui encore sous les régimes islamiques ses effets néfastes. En principe ce genre de châtiment primitif reflète une forme de conditionnement et d’avilissement à la moindre déviation de la charia, lois islamiques, qui applique encore la loi de talion.

Pour changer les conditions sociaux-économiques, il faut commencer par transformer, le mot « transformer » qui est cher chez Marx, nos consciences. Marxisme dans le sens d’athéisme par contre n’a pas transformé nos consciences, il a crée plutôt des tortionnaires stalinistes que des gens altruistes comme un seul Che Guevara qui était une icône pour les mouvements anti-impérialistes, un symbole d’altruisme qui sacrifia sa vie pour la cause d’autrui. Quand l’homme prend conscience qu’il faut se tourner vers l’autrui, alors cette transformation morale signifiera aussi qu’il faudra se tourner sur une réflexion plus profonde, sur les valeurs humaines qui sont inscrites dans notre code d’évolution morale et qui sont ainsi assimilées pour faciliter notre transformation. Pour cela une négation de Dieu par une idéologie figée n’aide ni scientifiquement ni moralement. C’est l’addition des consciences morales qui ouvrira une voie pour mieux comprendre la question de Dieu.

Comme nous savons, le système capitaliste a aujourd’hui envahie le globe tout entier, même un pays communiste comme la Chine ne s’échappe pas d’aujourd’hui de son sphère. L’éradication de ce système du mal ne trouvera sa réalisation que dans l’association des hommes pour l’idée du partage, ce qui n’était pas possible sous tous les dictateurs communistes depuis Lénine. Quelque soit la certitude da la conviction scientifique ou le dogme idéologique envers le refus ou l’aval de l’athéisme, un system économique basé sur l’athéisme a historiquement échoué car il crée une philosophie politique qui ne s’engage pas moralement pour la cause d’autrui. De tant plus que l’athéisme dans le sens de négation de Dieu n’est pas un débat marxiste, l’idéologie en général, et politico-économique mais celui d’une philosophie des sciences.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

Islam is the Core of Problem

2011-09-21T03:29:00.001-07:00

The vicious character of theIslamic regime toward Iran and Iranians is in fact an obvious matter of Islamiccredo itself. This fact is so obvious that even many Muslims feel themselves ashamedand embarrassed to directly support their once beloved Islamic regime. Today, theevaluative achievement is that everybody knows that Islam is incompatible withthe output of evolution thus it disturbs or even inhibits the normal process ofIranian social evolution.http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150168137921664

Our species evolve in long-terminto the realisation of freedom, of course in term of evolution with up anddown phases. As long as the Islamic regime exists, the down phase continues inIran. A constantly increasing numbers of Iranians do no longer believe that therules of evolution fit survival of this regime. The salvation-day or the Day ofLord in which Islam brings satisfaction will not happen but in a la-la land, thisthe core of problem, at least, since this Islamic regime divulged the real faceof Islam.

Not only the oppressed people ofIran, but some of their ex-oppressors came to the conclusion that Iran needsanother regime adaptive to her evolution. Iranians would not only live up to theirultimate potential, but would also create facts on the ground that goes a longway to ensure their evolution. Iran under such an archaic belief system willregress further this is the taboo-breaking which should appeal the up-phase ofevolution.

The Islamic ruling system cannever be in harmony with the moral and logical views of the Iranian newgeneration. This regime is inspired from a 1400-year old belief system whichwas first imposed by the Muslim invaders in 7^th century and then mechanicallyre-grafted on our society after the revolution of 1979. After a relativeoffside period of Islamic domination under the reign of Pahlavi dynasty, the 1979revolution was a rebirth of Islam in Iran. Being not aware of its archaic andincompatible results, people revolted against the secular despotic Shah andwere trapped by Mullahs. Now Iranians pay a colossal price for the dictatorialshift which turned from bad to worse. The Islamic dictatorship is more than that;it has all characters a totalitarian regime.

Since the 1979 revolution inIran, Islamic regime has committed the most hideous crimes. Since the invasionof Muslims in 7^th century, Mongols in 13^th century ofIran, and the brutal Safavid’s Shiitisation, such Mullahs ‘crimes have not beenever committed in Iran-- executions of many thousands political prisoners,imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of other thinkers, many of whom were systematicallysubjected to torture and rape.

Besides all political crimesthe Islamic regime inflicted Sharia sets of punishments like stoning,amputation, lashes. Mullahs have committed terror, chained killings,kidnappings, corruption, and finally the 2009 ragged presidential elections,what resulted in Ahmadinejad’s own disputed re-election. All in all, this Islamic regime shows similarities to the7^th century invasion of Muslims; they both have proved theircharacters of occupying states.

The Islamic regime, as itsname says, is inspired from Islam. In the first analysis, one would think Islamis like any other religion and normally should remain in the field of Muslim'sprivacy! This is exactly the wrong idea with which some Islam’s apologistsattempt to deceive people. Although, like any religion, Islam is composed of a setof beliefs based on traditions and cultures of Early Arabia, it is meanwhilethe base for the constitution and jurisprudence of the first political state inArabia. Islam was imposed on many nations, including ours, by its jihadistinvaders sent by this political apparatus called Caliphate. Under the reign ofCaliphs, Islam has as a motto, “Al-Islam w’al Dawla” (Islam is the sate) andwas brutally expanded to its today’s “dar-al Islam” (the territory of Islam).So no scholar with historical evidence can separate Islam from its politicalstates and its political ambitions.

Of course some religions likeHinduism, Buddhism, Confucius, Judaism or even nature religions in some Africantribes reflect their direct cultures and are the outcome of their daily needs.Through them, they understand their human conditions because religion suggestsa supreme being(s), a pathway to an ideal life here and after. However, Islamhas been derived from a clan society of Arabia with rough traditions. It intervenesin all aspects of both private and social lives. As such, it does not tolerateany critic; any other idea or belief will be stamped on by its institutions.

Although Islam strongly prohibits any criticism, Islam critics in Iran are no longer considered asbacksliders. Today each school kid in Iran can be a critic of the Islamicregime and thus very likely its ideology, Islam because there are limits towhat people can allow when it comes to use of Islamic violence. Intoleranceof the Islamic regime was internationally witnessed by the regime’s suppressionof peaceful demonstrations across the country while simply protesting theobvious ragged re-election of Ahamadinejad. Iranians are more and more sickened by a flawed Islamicregime which has been deceiving, cheating, killing and raping them. Iran is notthe only country with a crisis of Islam, but Iranians are the only nation inthe Islamic world who now recognise this revolutionary fact that Islam is thecore of their tangible problems.

Nevertheless, Islam keepsroots in the Iranian grassroots because it has never been intellectuallychallenged and denounced any secular and democratic regime in a free Iran mustconsider this fact—Once brutally imposed in 7^th century, then withthe effects of Stockholm Syndrome, Islam continued to remain for many centuriesas a pivot character formation of our people, it had a wishful role in humanexistence and many daily attitudes of Iranians who needed spiritual support atany cost.

However, time- and- motionstudy shows that Islam has no future in Iran. This is due to the 33 years ruleof the Islamic regime that such a paradigm shift appeared gradually out in thelast years especially thanks to the effects of social net like internet,facebook twitter, etc. Today the realities of Islam are no longer deep down; itis criticised without taboo in Iran and is not wished to the way of life forthe Iranian youth at all.

Very likely Islam will belongto the history of Iran once the Islamic regime falls. It means that it is notthe clergy or political elite who have caused it to stray away from Islam, no; thestray is deeply embedded in the core of Islam itself. This is not only confirmedby many surest of the Koran commanding the killings of “unbelievers”, but also bythe history of Islam since the early jihadist wars, wars on non-Muslims, led bythe Prophet himself and killings of those who refused conversion in Islam. http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm

Pendaison Continue en Iran

2011-09-13T02:22:00.000-07:00

Avec la montée des manifestations d’anti régime provoquées par l’assèchement accéléré du lac d’Oromieh(un immense lac de 5 200 kilomètres carrés en Azerbaïdjan), le régime islamique a trouvé une bonne occasion pour accélérer le nombre d’exécutions pour faire peur aux Iraniens. Le régime islamique a exécuté dans la semaine dernière plusieurs « trafiquants de drogue » et homosexuels à travers le pays.

La situation des droits de l’homme ne suscite que peu d’attention. Le régime des mollahs continue triomphalement sa pendaison quotidienne en Iran-- trois pendaisons par jour, un taux moyen qui risque s’accélérer avec le risque d’effondrement du régime. Tandis que la communauté internationale et la Cour internationale de justice à la Haye demeurent relativement insouciantes au sujet des droits de l’homme en Iran, les Mollahs continuent leur barbarie contre le peuple Iranien. Ceci étant dit, voici quelques nouvelles très déprimantes, extraites de la presse officielle qui ne suscitent pas des réactions adéquates par la communauté internationale.

Selon Iran Focus, le régime exécute 15 mai 2011 trois activistes arabes dans la ville pétrolière d'Ahvaz, dans le sud-ouest du pays. Mme. Zahra Kazemi, journaliste irano-canadienne, résidente au Canada, avait été interpellée le 23 juin 2003 alors qu’elle photographiait des familles de détenus devant la prison d’Evine, elle été violée et battue à mort en 2003. Deux adolescents homosexuels pendus en 30 mars 2010. Sur l'ensemble de l'année 2009, pas moins de 388 prisonniers ont été exécutés en Iran – chiffre record enregistré par Amnesty International.

L'année passée, Amnesty International, malgré du manque de données officielles, place Iran deuxième en nombre d'exécutions après la Chine, mais leader en taux d'exécutions par habitant. En 29 décembre, 2010, Ali Saremi 63 ans, un ancien prisonnier politique sous la dictature du Shah, le père d’un membre des Moudjahidine du peuple a été exécuté par pendaison. L'exécution de l'Irano-néerlandaise Zahra Bahrami en même année a été fermement condamnée par le Parlement Hollandais mais sans avoir un impact important dans les relations de l'UE avec le régime islamique. Ces exécutions ne sont que plusieurs exemples parmi des milliers Iraniens qui ont perdu leur vie depuis 1979, l’installation du régime islamique en Iran.

Le bilan 2011 est lourd. Alimenté par des sources officielles iraniennes et par les informations collectées et recoupées par IHR, « il fait état de 546 exécutions - 144 de plus que l'année précédente, dont 19 se sont déroulées en public ». Les deux tiers des personnes mises à mort avaient été condamnées pour trafic de drogue et 13% pour appartenance à un groupe d'opposition armé. Les chiffres des victimes du régime islamique pourraient bien être très en deçà de la réalité. En effet, faute de pouvoir vérifier les faits, l'association a omis de comptabiliser les 200 cas supplémentaires qui lui ont été signalés. La plupart de ces exécutions, extrajudiciaires, auraient eu lieu dans les geôles de la province du Khorasan, au Nord-est de l'Iran, et notamment à la prison Vakilabad, dans la ville de Machhad.

Pour propager la peur, chaque fois un nombre des prisonniers du régime sont arbitrairement pendus. Les charges de routine contre ces condamnés sont : trafic de drogue, délinquance, viol, homosexualité, et violation des normes islamiques. Le régime islamique pend ces condamnés dans les lieux publics: au centre ville, aux lieux et en occasions symboliques.

Parmi d’autres méthodes conventionnelles d’élimination, le régime islamique exécute aussi les activistes politiques sous le prétexte d’être des « voyous ». Ainsi le régime se débarrasse en même temps de ses opposants politiques. L’action draconienne de grande envergure commença pour le 22 Juillet, 2000, lorsqu’une douzaine de «voyous » ont été collectivement pendus à l’intérieur de la redoutable prison d’Evin. Il est à noter que selon des sources d’opposition iranienne, parmi ces « voyous », il y a avait au moins trois prisonniers politiques.

Exécutions des membres de minorité ethniques est un autre crime commis depuis l’installation du régime islamique en Iran Pourtant ces exécutions-là ne sont que des exemples occasionnellement annoncés par le régime. Aussi, ceux qui sont tués sous la torture ou bien discrètement par les sbires du régime ne se figurent pas sur une liste officielle. L’appareil judiciaire du régime ne cache pas à dire qu’il affronte les « corrompus commettant des crimes et menaçant la sécurité du peuple". Le régime des Mollahs accélère le rythme des exécutions chaque fois que le mécontentement populaire s’intensifie. Ses victimes peuvent varier des prisonniers politiques aux prisonniers civiles et membres des minorités ethniques. Dans le cadre d'une campagne visant officiellement à améliorer la sécurité, les Mollahs imposent une atmosphère de peur et de l’insécurité dans la population.

A part les exécutions par pendaison, fusillade, lapidation, chute d’une hauteur etc., l'amputation a aussi une signification symbolique dans la Charia exercée par les Mollahs. Elle est une cicatrice permanente et humiliante au front de l'accusé qui est un héritage des sociétés primitives. L’amputation de la main gauche est par exemple est un symbole humiliant du vol. Le régime corrompu, qui est connu en Iran comme une mafia criminelle, préfère rebondir cette punition de la charia pour faire peur aux pauvres. Tous ceux qui sont amputés, tués, lapidés, tués sous la torture ou bien discrètement par les sbires du régime ne se figurent pas sur une liste officielle. Seulement les actes d'accusation sont rendus publics lorsque le régime veut faire peur à la population en menaçant le peuple.

La lapidation, une punition d’adultères, prévue pour la fameuse prisonnière du régime, Mme. Sakineh Ashtiani, est une manière douloureuse d’exécution L’homme et la femme adultères, vêtus d’un linceul blanc, sont enterrés dans un creux, l’homme jusqu’à la taille avec les bras dégagés, la femme jusqu’au-dessus des seins, et ensuite ils sont lapidés par une foule fanatique autour du creux en chantant « Alahh Akbar » le Dieu est grand ! La tradition vient de la charia, droit islamique découlant directement du Coran et des enseignements du Prophète Mohammed collecté sous le nom « Hadith ».

C’est dans cette situation délicate qu’au nom de l’humanité, il est demandé à la communauté internationale de réagir contre ces punitions islamiques qui d’ailleurs ne respectent aucun principe judiciaire universellement reconnues. Le Conseil de l'Europe et l’ONU sont demandées de faire arrêter la chaîne de pendaisons arbitraire en Iran. La Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, qui abolit la peine de mort "en toutes circonstances, doit y réagir concrètement.

L’indifférence de la communauté internationale peut toujours aggraver la situation des droits de l’homme en laissant la balle dans le camp des Mollahs. Ainsi les Mollahs ont la main libre pour appliquer leur system judiciaire, autrement dit les lois islamiques (la charia). La charia contient des lois d’origine coranique qui doivent être appliquées dans une société musulmane. D’après ces lois archaïques, sévères formes de punitions comme la lapidation, l’amputation, coup de fouets seront appliquées.

Pour beaucoup d’iraniens, le problème n’est pas le fait que l’islam soit une religion de la vie privée, le problème est que l’islam est la religion d’État, et encore plus abusivement, elle est une idéologie d’État. Quand même, cet État, malgré toute sa capacité d’application de la charia, est un État économiquement dépendant qui a besoin de la technologie et d’aides des pays occidentaux pour sa survie. Il est donc possible que les pays occidentaux fassent reculer les mollahs pour sauver la vie des prisonniers en danger de mort, comme c’était le cas chaque fois que la pression internationale était pesante.

Les vagues montantes de la répression et d’exécution, visant les femmes, les étudiants, les travailleurs, les journalistes ont pris une allure très violente en Iran. Alors cet article est aussi un appel à toutes les organisations et associations et à tous les esprits libres et humains qui peuvent soutenir le droit de vie en Iran. Quelque soient vos réactions individuelles ou collectives, on peut sauver la vie des humains en danger de mort sous le régime islamique en Iran.

Muslims’ Khoms and Zakat, Charity or Extortion

2011-09-07T03:06:00.000-07:00

Both “Khums”, one fifth of a Shiite income or profit, and “Zakat”, one tenth of those, are two “charitable”- sums wherever Muslims’ gain or profit is involved. These are collected at the end of the each lunar year by the local clergy. Khoms-tax belongs to “Seyyeds (descendents of the Prophet Muhammad) and Zakat will be contributed to the poor. Mullahs, who traditionally do not work, receive a bigger part of these charitable-sums. Shiite institutions, furthermore, set up an extra Khoms-payment, to the Hidden Imam (Mahdi) and his deputies on earth.

Almsgivings are not limited to Islam it is recommended by all religions. Khums or Zakat are both based on interpretation of verses from Koran. They are shared by both Shiites and Sunnis. However, there is a difference of opinions between Shiite and Sunnite scholars when it comes to the distribution and the subjects of Khums and Zakat. Although Khums and Zakat are both voluntary almsgivings based on honor system—with an exception of Saudi Arabia, they are not like tax system, as applied by a state-- but in an Islamic society the enforcement mechanism is so religiously imposed that enormous sums are collected through them.

Khums is a Shiite tradition, originally concerns about the submission of one-fifth of booty seized by the early Muslim conquerors from the “infidels” to the Prophet Muhammad. The tradition was applied when Iran was conquered by Muslim invaders in 7th century. Although during the occupation most Iranians were forced to convert into Islam, Khums-tax is still collected for the invader’s offspring or descendents of the Prophet Muhammad called Seyyeds. These alleged Sayyeds were grotesquely proliferated in Iran after the 7th Muslim invasion and then in 16th century were recruited by Shah Esmail Safavid from Lebanon when the shah imposed Shiite sect as the state religion on Iranians and needed an elite clergy. Since Seyyeds, are not allowed to be belittled by receiving “Sadaqeh” (alms) and aggressors by seizing booty of war, cunningly promoted Khoms into the Shiite sect referring to the Koran (ayah 41, Surah Al-Anfaal).

Needless to mention, booty (Ghanima / Ghanaem) in Islam compasses any worthy object, like money, herds, women for sex-slave, and children for child-slave, taken by Muslims from “Infidels”. It is legal after paying a portion of that -- The lands seized as spoils of war belong to the Muslim society or Ummah, not the native people. It is commonly held that a Muslim can appropriate things owned by a non-Muslim and just pay its Khums to the Prophet or his descendets. When the land of non-Muslims is occupied, there is no difference between movable and immovable booty, Muslim invaders have property right. A historical example is Iran which still continued to be occupied and robbed by the Muslim occupiers, namely the Mullahs’ regime.

Zakat “purification” is technically a fixed proportion of 2.5% from the net income or surplus wealth of a Muslim at the end of the “Hijri” year (lunar year). It is an almsgiving which every Muslim pays to the poor of community.

Wealth is not supposed to be frowned upon in Muslim communities. After all, Allah blesses the faithful rich. Feudalism was until 1960th the dominant social system in Iran. Landlords held lands in exchange for tax collection for the state and loyalty to the Monarch, who based on Safavid definition of monarchy, represented Mahdi or the Shiite Hidden Imam on earth. In a global aspect, feudalism is considered a pre-capitalist system of private ownership of the means of agricultural production. It is a system in which the landlord is given a free hand and hence there is no room for fair conditions of the peasants.

A Mullah is beneficiary and distributor of Khoms / Zakat funds in a rural area. He would religiously justify the legitimacy of landlord’s ownership and remedies the pains the peasants suffer from their landlord. He appreciates his “benevolent and generous” almsgiving. Since our Mullah, as collector and distributor, has the right to keep a part of the alms for himself, in reality, a clergyman” Seyyeds and their co-partners, Sheiks, would go on the day of harvest to villages in order to collect Khom / Zakat, money,cereals, foods etc., and thus lives on them which are the consequences of unfair relations of exploiter- exploited. It is in this perspective that Ayatollah Khomeini ardently opposed to the land reforms under the Shah beause it restrains cleric’s income. The Iranian clergy have never had interests to work, as other segments of the society. Neither have they ever had interests in social reforms to reduce any social inequality.

In the course of Iranian post-Islamic history, Seyyeds achieved the top of the caste system. The religious society was divided into several groups with determined status and it was a tenet of religion that the only way to be a part of society was to live an exemplary humble life, following the rules of the caste into which people are born. As said, to help the imposition of Shiite sect by the Safavid Dynasty (1501 to 1722), Seyyeds were recruited from Lebanon. This mentally and originally non-Iranian caste helped the dynasty to enforce its despotic rule through the atrocious process of Shiitisation to wich Khoms for Seyyeds belongs. From this limited number of Seyyeds, millions Seyyeds, alleged descendants of the Prophet, mushroomed in four corners of Iran to gain various social and financial privilege including their Khoms-income. Since all of the Seyyeds in Iran cannot proportionally have roots in Lebanon or any Arab background, most of them must be false Syyeds, belonging to those whose charlatan ancestors entitled themselves “Seyyed”. Since a Mullah, at best a Seyyed, can better manipulate people, and in our case, collect Khums / Zekat, they were motivated to do so. In Shiite Iran, the privileged and religious caste is firstly represented by Seyyeds, wearing black turban, and in a second rang by Sheiks, with white turban.

Khoms and Zakat function are based on the premise that the society is divided into rich and poor classes. In absence of a social and welfare system in the Islamic world, Khoms and Zakat advocate tolerance of the poor in exchange for generosity of the rich. This alleged “solidarity” amongst Muslims of different social classes in facts justifies the gap between the poor and rich. Apart from these two Islamic tax-like systems, Islam has not recognised other tax systems limiting the means of acquiring wealth to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth by a minority in the cost of poverty imposed on an increasing majority. Charities given to hospitals, schools, non-religious foundations or humanitarian organisations cannot be considered Khums or Zakat because the funds are not collected by the religious authorities or in charge of their contribution. The apathy goes to the point that state-provided services like national health care can be totally ignored in the Islamic world. Through the philosophy of Khom / Zakat the whole scheme of welfare and reforms against the poverty, social injustice is practically weaned off as “un-Islamic”.

The financing of terrorism is normally funneled by secrecy, but also Islamic charity organisations collecting Zakat assumes a significant role in terrorism. In Saudi Arabia, which for religious reasons has no income tax, individuals are expected to donate Zakat to the charity oranisation. Some of the donations find their way to Islamic terrorist groups around the world, not only that, but also such Zakat-collecting organisations also serve as a conduit for the transfer of money to finance terrorist activities.

According to Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington, DC. http://ipac.kacst.edu.sa/eDoc/2006/157358_1.pdf. Money collected by “Islamic Relief Organization (HRO), which is a Saudi charitable organisation, was used by Al-Qaeda to fund the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines and Ansar al-Mujahideen in Chechnya. The HRO is characterised by a Saudi daily as ‘the world’s biggest Islamic charity Funds may also originate from charitable contributions at mosques. Zakat funds help, among others, the new converts to Islam. Furthermore, for those who may be enticed to Islam, Islamic foundations, cultural centres, mosques and social networks have been set up around the world to promote Islam. The funds provide religious books, means of propaganda, newspapers, magazines and other necessary methods of propagation Islam. Enormous sum is spent from poor nations of the Islamic world to recruit, educate and train people especially children and youths to fulfill the ambitions of political Islam. All funds for Islamic propaganda, Islamic organisations, and Islamic terrorists around the world are not only covered by petrodollar of rich Sheiks, but also the funds collected from Muslim citizens under the name of Khoms / Zakat.

Although, the priority should be given to the poor and needy, today, terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas rely on the contributions from both petrodollar and charity funds diverted from Khums / Zakat. These Islamic funds can be funneled through reputable charities into the hands of operatives. One of the purposes of the Mullahs’ regime, which is responsible for the increasing poverty in Iran, is to financially support those struggles aimed “in the Cause of Allah. Radical Islam propagates the idea that Allah's Cause entails supporting “Jihadis and Mujahideen” (those who are fighting in the battles and wars of Allah). It is no wonder that Islamic charitable organisations and foundations send a part of their funds collected from Khoms / Zakat to those militant organizations around the world.

Early Muslim invaders imposed Jizieh-tax on the non-Muslims whose lands were occupied by Muslim troops. Iran was two centuries occupied by the Muslim troops and then remained under the influence of their cult and medieval culture. During the occupation, Iranians, even Muslim converts, had to pay Jizieh. Collecting jizieh tax was possible through a number of factors as bullying, terror, intimidation, abuse of power, or manipulation of thoughts through Stockholm Syndrome-effects. Later when all other factors were not gathered, manipulation of converts, without necessarily physical abuse, remained the main factor. In a long process, Muslim Jizieh-collectors had to stop using force or threat to obtain money, but instead used another mask by wearing Shiite black or white turban in order to manipulate people, what resulted until our days to the Khoms / Zakat income of Mullahs. We witness today such a manipulating system in some sects, hard and manipulators or their gurus comfortably live on the money the manipulated followers earn. No wonder that neither such gurus nor Mullahs in Iran need to work, but live on the money of their manipulated victims.

Today in Iran, collecting Khoms / Zakat under the influence and agenda of an imposed religion and its occupier force, the Islamic regime, seems rather Extortion than Charity. Why a number of Iranians voluntarily are Khoms-payers to Seyyeds, whose Arabic ancestors, Imam Ali, Imam Hussein, Imam Hassan during their 7th invasion, killed millions of Iranians, enslaved hundreds of thousands of Iranian women and children and destroyed the whole advanced culture of ancient Iran, is another topic with amazing effects of psychological analyses, like Stockholm Syndrome-effects when hostages fall in love with their captors.

23. Jahrestag des Massakers im Iran

2011-08-30T23:32:00.000-07:00

Über das Massaker an politische Gefangene 1988 im Iran wurde viel geschrieben und diskutiert. Es fehlt jedoch eine internationale Reaktion und entsprechende Stellungnahme von der UNO. Ich werde dieses Thema in verschiedenen Sprachen weiter veröffentlichen, bis die Täter juristisch zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden.

Die Todesmaschine des Mullah-Regimes startet Kurz nach der iranischen Revolution von 1979. Die Exekutionen begannen mit den im Iran übrig gebliebenen Monarchisten, Funktionären und Offiziere des gestürzten Regimes, dann folgten unterschiedliche linksorientierte Gruppen und die islamische Organisation der Volksmujahedin. Die Ereignisse erreichen ihren Höhepunkt im Sommer Jahr 1988 und dauern drei Monaten, das blutigste Massaker des islamischen Regimes im Iran.

Ayatollah Roohallal Al-Mossavi-Al- Khomeini, der Gründer der islamischen Republik Iran, gab den Befehl für die Endlösung der politischen Gefangenen. Khomeini nimmt den Beschluss der UN-Resolution 598 des Waffenstillstandes im Juli 1988 und dem Ende des Krieges mit Irak an. Gleichzeitig ordnete er einen Fetwa, ein religiöses Dekret, um politische Häftlinge im Iran zu vernichten. Er gründete einen Ausschuss, in dem er bestimmte einige Mullahs einsetzte, um die Hinrichtungen der politischen Gefangenen zu organisieren. In Befehl Khomeinis, einige Worte von Islamischen Bücher zitierend “Aschadan ala‘al-Kofar“ forderten den Todesauschuss auf "ohne Gnade gegen die Feinde des Islams vorgehen.“

Wer seinen schlimmsten Befehl ausführte – der an die Symbolfigur von Adolf Eichmann erinnerte –, bekam als Belohnung eine Promotion innerhalb der islamischen und staatlichen Institutionen ; sie galten als die hochrangigsten Personen des Regimes und sind in der Regierung Ahmadinejads oder an der Spitze der heutigen grünen Fraktion von Moussavi, unter dessen Regierung in `88, das Massaker geplant wurde.

Zunächst dachten alle, dass der Todesfatwa ausschließlich auf Häftlinge der Volksmojahedin, eine bewaffnete islamische Oppositionsgruppe, die sich von den Mullahs abgewendet hatten und beim "Feind" Saddam um Asyl suchte. In der Tat, der Todesfatwa richtet sich gegen politische Häftlinge unabhängig vom Glauben oder politische Zugehörigkeit. M. Abrahamian, iranischer Historiker, zufolge ist das Massaker der Häftlinge im geheimen vor dem militärischen Angriff im Juli 1988 der Volksmojahedin "Forough Javidan" geplant worden. kurz nach dem Iran-Irak Krieg, in den Monaten August bis September, unter der Regierung von Mir Hossein Moussavi (Präsidentschaftskandidat im Juni 2009) fand das Massaker statt.

Die von einem Überlebenden des Massakers, Herrn Iraj Mesdaghi, veröffentlichten Artikel verdeutlichen, dass sowohl die jetzigen Opposition-Führer nämlich Mooussavi und Karrubi sowie die Hardliner, die jetzt die Regierung bilden, an dem Massaker entweder beteiligt waren oder es stillschweigend duldeten. Die Veröffentlichung von zahlreichen Artikeln und Informationen bisher geheimer Akten des Regimes hat neue Einzelheiten darüber ans Licht gebracht, wie eng alle islamischen Fraktionen des Regimes mit der Führungsschicht von Khomeini verbunden waren.

Die Veröffentlichung der Dokumente des Massakers geht auf die Geständnisse von Überläufern zurück, die sich der Durchführung dieses Massakers lange widersetzt hatten. Es regelt die Freigabe von Unterlagen die im Zusammenhang mit Innermacht Konflikten der rivalisierenden Fraktionen des Regimes können heute mehr Licht auf die Wahrheit werfen und mehr konkrete Informationen zugänglich machen.

Der Todesauschuss exekutierten von 7h30 bis 17h00 durchgehend jede Stunde Häftlinge in den Gefängnissen von Evin und Gohardashts in Teheran. Die meisten der Opfer waren Jungendliche und sogar einige schwangere Frauen, die jahrelang im Gefängnis inhaftiert waren und ihre Gefängnisstrafe bereits verbüßt hatten. Jeden Tag wurden Hunderte nach einem 2-3 minütigen Prozess zum Tod verurteilt und sofort hingerichtet. Es war notwendig, alle Häftlinge vor dem Schulanfang im Iran zu töten. Aber da die Zeit an Ende knapp wurde, nahmen die Exekutionen zum Ende hin ein rasantes Tempo an. Die Henker des islamischen Regimes töteten zweihundert Häftlinge in nur 20 Minuten. Als Mittel wurden dabei wahrscheinlich chemische Substanzen eingesetzt, die zur Vergiftung der Häftlinge und zu einem schmerzhaften Tod führten. Überwacht wurden die Tötungen von zwei Ärzten. Die Ärzte kooperierten mit dem berühmten Henker des Regimes, Herrn Lajavardi, dem Direktor des Evin Gefängnisses.

Die Verhandlungen dauerten nur wenige Minuten und endeten regelmäßig mit dem Todesurteil. Die Häftlinge wurden zu ihren politischen Positionen befragt, insbesondere ob sie bereit sind, diese aufzugeben und mit dem iranischen Regime zu kollaborieren. Die Formel war einfach: Seid ihr treu zur islamischen Republik? Opfert ihr euer Leben für das islamische Regime? Seid ihr Muslime?" Führt ihr eure täglichen Pflichtgebete aus?" Die Gefangenen, die diese Fragen mit "nein" beantworteten oder aus Protest auf die Fragen nicht antworteten, wurden dem Hinrichtungskommando zugeführt und hingerichtet.

Die meisten Opfer waren einfache Sympathisanten von oppositionellen Gruppen. Sie hatten nichts zu tun mit der streitsüchtigen Position ihres Gruppen-vis-à-vis das Regime. Sie wurden unter anderem wegen Verteilung einer Zeitung oder eines Buches festgennomen. Meisten wurden sie als Teenager inhaftier und nach dem Ende ihrer Haftzeit nicht frei gelassen. Die genaue Anzahl der Exekutionen und die Zustände in den Gefängnissen werden von der islamischen Republik verschwiegen. Die Anzahl der von der islamischen Republik durchgeführten Exekutionen wird mit 4.485 beziffert. In den Berichten des Widerstandes werden 30.000 Exekutionen und mehr angegeben.

Die Körper der toten Teheraner Häftlinge wurden hastig in kollektiven Gemeinschaftsgräbern in einer Stelle außerhalb Teherans, in Khavaran, begraben. Diese Gräber entdeckten ausgehungerte Hunde, die die Kadaver aufspürten. Einige Namen von Autoren, Richtern und Henkern, und den Komplizen des Massakers sind von den Überlebenden des Massakers veröffentlicht worden. Weitere sind von Überläufern des Regimes mitgeteilt worden.

Als Hauptschuldiger dieses Massakers werden die Anhänger des Ajatollah Khomeini genannt; jedoch nahmen viele andere gegenwärtige Leiter des Regimes daran teil. Die Täter wurden von den Präsidenten Rafsandjani, Khatami und besonders während der Regierungszeit von Ahmadinejad in höhere Positionen befördert.

Einige der heutigen Generäle von der iranischen Revolutionsgarde haben an allen Massakern teilgenommen; schlimmer ist jedoch, dass die im ersten Kabinett Ahmadinejads Verantwortlichen des Innenministerium, Hojjatoleslam Mostafa Pour Mohammadi (einer von drei Mitgliedern des Todesausschusses), und des Informationsministerium, Hojjatoleslam Gholamhossein Mohseni Ezhei, an den Massakern beteiligt waren und diese koordinierten. In einem Dokument der Organisation für Menschenrechte vom 15. Dezember 2005 wird die Beteiligung der Rolle von Herrn Pourmohammadi und Herrn Azhei an den Massaker nachgewiesen.

Die Überlebende des Massakers Aufgrund ihrer weitere psychosomatische folter, Depression, und weitere Schaden lebten mit extremen Belastungen. Manche davon wurden nach der Freilassung wieder festgenommen und hingerichtet – Herr Mohammad Ali Hajaghaii ist ein letztes Beispiel, er war in Jan.2011 hingerichtet.

Seit 1988 ist keine amtierende iranische Regierung bereit, den Völkermord von 1988 aufzudecken. Das Dossier bleibt immer im Archive des Regimes. Darüber hinaus wird systematisch versucht, die Familien der Opfer durch Einschüchterungen und Drohungen zum Schweigen zu bringen. Nicht nur die Familien sondern die gesamte iranische Bevölkerung wollen endlich Aufklärung.

Die Amnesty International hat den 1. September als " der Tag des Massakers" benannt. Dieses reicht jedoch in keinem Fall aus. Die gesamte "zivilisierte" Welt muss dieses Massaker von 1988 erkennen und verurteilen. Solange die internationale Kommunität nicht ernsthaft reagiert hat, werden solche Massaker kein Ende im Iran finden. Es gibt keine Garantie dafür, dass weitere Massenvernichtungen im Iran nicht stattfinden. Gegenüber den Massenmördern Regimes leider reagieren die ONU, EU und internationale Kommunität, aus den lukrativen Beziehungen zum islamischen Regime, nicht erwartungsgemäß.

Dilemma of Iranian language

2011-08-29T08:06:00.000-07:00

Islam has gained territories through its sword and then manipulated conquered peoples by its imposed cult. Language of Islam which happens to be Arabic is one of the main yoke of its domination until our days. Iran was forced to speak Arabic during the two centuries of Muslim occupation. After the military occupation, Iranians could partly restore their language, however botched it into Islam, a mishmash called “Farsi”. Farsi remains until now a mixture of language of Islam with the ancient Persian or Parsi.

In the course of Iranian history, Iranian languages have been written with a number of different scripts. The last one was Pahlavi Sassani, which was banned along with the Persian language itself after the Islamic invasion in 642 AD. The Islamic conquerors imposed their language as the only allowed language on Iranians. The current language, Farsi, appeared during the 9th Century and is written in a version of the Arabic script. Because of its “divine” links with the language of the Koran and Islam, nobody has ever had the right to reform or modernise this script.

In this article, I open a debate over the factual adaptability of this “Farsi” language. The point is if the language is useful for a modern society and especially for our future generations. Such questions are raised up in a sensitive era of our history when our country is de facto occupied by a privileged caste of Muslims who call themselves Seyeds, Sheiks, or devotees of Shiite Islam who considered for many as a force of occupier. This odd era reminds many of our people of the early Muslim aggressors in 7th century when everything including our language was brutally smashed. No wonder, our already crippled Islamised Parsi or what we call it now “Farsi language” is now constitutionally forced to take further Arabo-Islamic allure, a project called “The Cultural Revolution”, planned since 1980 by the Mullahs’ regime. Mullahs believe it is effective to learn Arabic, what would give an edge over the Islamic language – this however has created the opposite so that most people exaggeratedly hate this language, furthermore, right-wing Iranians not only hate Arabic, but also blindly Arabs, labeled them as the mind patterns of “pro-Arab” Mullahs!

The long-term objective of The Cultural Revolution is to root out any aspect of non-Islamic identity from the society by introducing a greater portion of Arabo-islamisation in the language. It is to promote the existing “Farsi” into a more Arabo-Islamic language. The process aims a negation of the rest of pre-Islamic Iranian identity--the similar process of 7th.century when the early Muslims occupied the country and destroyed the advanced Persian civilisation.

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran considers educational institutions based on Islamic principles and norms. The constitution does not tolerate any other identity in faith and language. It has implied this wish by saying, “since the language of the Koran and Islamic texts and teachings is Arabic, and since Iranian literature of post-Islamic history is thoroughly permeated by this language, it must be taught after elementary level, in all classes of secondary school and in all areas of study. Therefore, lessons of Arabic language and reading of the Koran will gain more compulsory character despite dislike of an increasing majority of students to such Islamo-Arabic lessons.

It is highly predictable that after the collapse of the Islamic regime, Iranians will enthusiastically develop a popular trend of both de-Arabisation and de-Islamisation of whole Iranian space, including our language. The words, names, items, numbers, symbols, and all those which remind us of an era of invasion, subjugation, humiliation by Islam will be spontaneously replaced with non-Islamo-Arabic words. In my view, not only in Iran, but all over the Arabo-Islamic world, the inadequacies (or backwardness) of this Islamised language has been a debilitating factor in cross-cultural understanding of necessity for a culture of modernisation.

To avoid any linguistic chaos after the fall of the Islamic regime, we need appropriate reforms to free our language from the long Arabio-Islamic domination. A modernised language not only can fit our pre-Islamic civilised culture, but also can effectively push back the backward effects of Islamic influence among our grassroots. An adaptive language to our modern needs has psychological effects to stop people from creeping back into archaic way of thoughts, obscurantism, and backwardness.

While many languages around the world, including in some Islamic countries, can be permanently and adaptively reformed and modernised, our current language, Farsi, has been used since the invasion of Islam as a cloak for the safeguard of Islamic culture. Since the advent of Islam in Iran, not only Islam has been a launch pad to attack our past identity, but also has been practically crippled our normal attempts toward freedom, progress, gender equality, and modernisation.

No wonder, in a spirit of growing civil disobedience in Iran against the Islamic backward regime, a trend of language reform spontaneously grows among the Iranian youth. It challenges the unpopular Islamic influence in our language. As spontaneous reactions, the young generation in Iran chooses non-Islamic names for children, learns Western languages instead of the institutionalised Arabic, wears T-shirts with Latin writings on them, use a Latino-Persian writing called finglish on the internet. All these “renegades” show the trend for an adaptive language than the current Farsi or in fact an Islamised Parsi.

Once Iran is free from Mullahs’ clutches, a secular state will certainly pass legislative proposals to ensure the task that our current language will be reformed, modernised, and useful to our new society. On the other hand, modern-day methods of instantaneous communication and globalisation require fundamental need in a range of modern languages in order to create and maintain vibrant activities. Therefore, after the fall of the Islamic regime, parallel to restoration of Farsi, Parsi or whatever it will be called, a modern international language as the second language will be be highly promoted nationwide. It will be a solid support for advanced education, research, computer use and any use of modernisation in Iran. Both (Farsi / Parsi /Persian) and the international language open common doors of the continuing struggle for secularisation, democratisation and modernisation.

Let me emphasise, the reformed language has nothing to do with disregarding a part of our classic literature. In fact, no reformed language has taken away the worth of its classic literature. After modernisation of our language, our classic literature will be respected as a patrimony of our literature, but let me emphasise again that Islamic culture behind it has little chance to resist in a free and secular Iran. A modernised language finds effective ways to sustain its literature and heritage. This is not the problem. The problem is the religious influence which couple with our language. A trend I call “Pan Islamo-nationlism” wants to keep Islamic influence at any cost.

It is clear that some people with religious or traditional backgrounds will likely attempt to block or delay the process of language reforms. The 1400-year-domination of Arabo-Islamic language over our country has left its mental debris behind. Nevertheless, free people can no longer bow to the indoctrination of religious values with the aim of such a mental retardation. Thanks to the Islamic regime, our people require a complete revamping and can choose their way of life including their means of communication.

Those Iranians who speak modern languages know better that our current language, in its current stagnation, is scientifically poor. A scientific transformation must be mandatory for educational, industrial and business communities in a free Iran In many domains of modern sciences; it is not sufficiently expressive under “Farsi”. Developing a modern language in high levels of proficiency, particularly in higher education, will require significantly greater resources than are fortunately at hand. Our linguistic experts in a secular Iran can focus on the study of development of our modern languages. They may change or modify the words, proper names, verbs to the pre-Islamic synonyms or a simpler way of linguistic use.

In my opinion, for the use of scientific terms, it seems more practical and easier to use the most common international words and terms, what most languages do in advance or developing countries. In this perspective, the pivotal point is how to form a useful and productive language freed from the traditional burden and unnecessary complications. We have rich sources of pre-Islamic Persian and international common terms to reform the language, but in the field of science, we should not complicate the language by too much attaching to the past.

In fact, a language is not only a coding system of communication, but also a bridge between thought and action. In other words, the way we talk can in turn influence the way we think — psychological effects of language. A rich and modern language can considerably improve our cognitive faculties, memory, mental ability, emotional expressions, and behaviour.

In my view, language, before anything else, is a set of arbitrary symbols through which we communicate. The symbols appear and disappear with time and material conditions; they are not sacred and eternal. The culturally determined patterns and values of these symbols alongside with many languages and dialects will permanently appear and disappear during the course of social evolution. Since language is a medium of our thoughts, feelings, and especially ideas, it must be permanently adapted to our realities and immediate needs otherwise can easily be abused by the totalitarian regimes or a belief system like Islam. Nazi Germany also imposed its own racial terms in its short-12-year domination. Islam has down worse in a very longer period of its domination. Germany reformed the language after the fall of Nazism; we can do the same after the fall of Islamism.

All experiences show that the language we use because of its shortage gives way to Western languages. For example, the Iranian communities in the US or Europe can expect that only a small percentage of their children will be fluent in Persian. It is not however the case for Westerners living in Iran-- their children would speak their original language fluently. The reason is not only due to their own mother language but the fact that our language is not adapted to modern life. For example, we cannot use our script on the internet or for many other means of written communication which appear on the market. The goal of language reform is to introduce a language which should be modern, precise and easier to learn.

The alphabet we use is mainly Arabic; it does not cover all the sounds we pronounce. Apart from some regions in Khuzestan and Kurdistan, most Iranians cannot phonetically pronounce all letters of the alphabet-- this is also one of the main reasons we have so many different accents and dialects within Iran. Furthermore, apart from some ignored signs, we have no letters clearly representing some vowels. All of which turn the language more difficult and imprecise -- a great number of Iranian high school students cannot write and read correctly.

Regarding the various problems of today’s language, a reform in alphabet seems to be necessary, one which phonetically adjusts to the verbal language. The only solution is the introduction of an accessory alphabet for computer which is the language of sciences, researches and a spirit of modern and secular life. As mentioned, such a transformation is of course a long process; it might last one or several decades but should not be considered an overdue reform.

In my view, such reforms will necessarily require adoption of Latin type alphabets in order to facilitate and enhance the ease of cross-cultural communications. An accessory alphabet should be worked out so that it harmonises the phonetic part to the written part. That is to say, we need an alphabet which correctly relates sounds to the written words. The new alphabet must solve the problems of vowels and consonants which are not phonetically pronounceable because they have Arabic origins that cannot be pronounced by the majority of Iranians.

In essence, the new alphabet must be simple and avoid composed letters and irregularities which appear in the history of any language. It should consider two main elements:

• The modernisation and adaptation of the society to the modern needs.
• The purification of our language from too much influences of Islam.

During the period of transformation and maybe after that the old alphabet must be kept for those who need it.

In a free and secular Iran, our future democratic establishments should take care in rending language modern and attractive. Meanwhile, there should be little need for speakers or writers to waste time looking for words, terms, and expressions to mean objects or ideas. What is to be made of all of this? To ensure that a language remains the predominant way of communication, learning, and development we have to accept all necessary reforms. What I rather attribute to any language is its aspect of intercommunication which in turn affects our mental faculties and social efficiency. Therefore, morphology and semantics of language is more important for me than the historical part and only in this perspective a language must be permanently and adaptively reformed. This is the case of modern languages and only so they can be called "modern"--German language has been twice reformed since the fall of the Third Reich.

Apart from an expected resistance from some traditionalists, pan-post-Islamic Islamists, and those who love the classic literature more than the future of country, there are some relics of the Islamic regime who under any guise and trick will attempt to harm the process of such a language reform. Contrary to the first group, the second one has belief and interest to rescue Islam even after the collapse of their regime under any colour or nickname. For them a fundamental reform of our language remains synonymous to a sinful violation to the values of Islam, even if their argument opportunistically hides this point behind a fake nationalism.

Considering all the problems with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the reality of the origin and conditions under which Islam was imposed on the Iranian people, it is legitimate to raise the question: how do we best bring an end to Arabo-Islamic ills in Iran after the fall of its political regime? Here, the question is not only about political secularism, but about de-Arabo-Islamisation of Iranian culture.

This must be fulfilled through a democratic process. It should not only be a turn of leaf in our history, but open a whole new chapter in our evolution so that we can free ourselves from the long and pernicious influence of Islam. Only through democratic process would it not only signal a new beginning and bring forth a new era for Iran, but also signify a Renaissance for the Islamic world. Our fullest Renaissance will officially start when we get rid of the plague of the Mullahs’ regime.

However some seeds of the Renaissance have spontaneously budded. One of them deals with our or language. Since such a democratic state does not exist yet, as much as we can, we, Iranians with some sense of responsibility, should try to restore Persian / Parsi / modern Farsi in our writings and verbal conversations. We have engaged and responsible people who do their best to use and teach this. The conditions are at hand for Iranians, inside or outside, to start to introduce the demanded reforms into the realm of our language. Thanks to the vast internet communication, facebook, twitter and etc., we can help each other to modernise and secularise our language.

Émotions de violence en Islam

2011-08-24T09:43:00.000-07:00

Bien que le mécanisme général de l’émotion soit encore inconnu, on peut voir des attitudes déclenchées chez les musulmans émus, un syndrome de conduites qui peut arrive à des actes d’automutilation et des crimes sadiques dans les cas échéants.

Par exemple : les cérémonies de deuil chez les Chiites, une secte de l’islam répondue en Iran, caractérisent les effets de cette émotions intense. Ces cérémonies se produisent en souvenir du martyre de l’Imam Hossein, le troisième Imam des Chiites et martyrisé en 680 par son rival, le Calife Yazid. Des cortèges du deuil démontrent un degré d’émotion intense et trop violent qui se manifeste dans ces cérémonies par différents actes d’automutilation -- le frappement des poitrines par les mains et le dos par les chaînes parfois et parfois même se taillant le crâne pour que jaillisse le sang. On pouvait se demander si l’émotion qui est évoquée à tel propos, n’explique pas de drames tels que les terrorismes suicidaire des musulmans, les suicides collectifs de Guyana, de Waco ou, plus proche, la tragédie du Temple Solaire.

Nous avons tous eu le moment d’être impliqué dans des situations qui, d’un point de vue subjectif, caractérisent par l’intensité des impressions vécues, par la vivacité des réactions siccités. Cet état général d’émotion peut se diversifier suivant les circonstances. La peur, la colère, l’anxiété, la joie, peuvent se dégager d’un degré d’émotion. Parmi autres, ce qui rend ce degré trop intense et inquiétant, peut être une religion, une secte, et un mouvement sectaire qui poussent l’émotion dans une intensité nuisible. En tant qu’une volonté d’origine sacrée, les effets de cette émotion sont dangereusement justifiés. Le comportement change sous l’effet de cette émotion sanctifiée qui voit les actes agressifs et violents justifiés. Des réactions émotionnelles pareilles sont souvent incontrôlables. Elles se dépassent le seuil d’une procédure adaptive et non-nuisible d’émotion et souvent s’achèvent chez les musulmans par les actes d’automutilation du type dans les cérémonies de deuil chez les Chiites -- dont les blessures physique signifient elles-mêmes une possible transformation d’actes de violence sur l’autrui.

On voit cette transformation dans les terreurs sacrés, commis par les terroristes musulmans et la barbarie des régimes islamiques contre leur propre peuple. Là, aucune critère ne limite le degré de la barbarie ainsi justifiée, viol, torture, amputation, mort douloureuse, massacre aveugle … seraient tous justifiés par certains versets du Coran ou Hadiths (récits du prophète). Dans une interview de Mr. Lajavardi, appelé le bourreau du régime islamique et l’ex-directeur de la prison d’Evin, il manifestait sa tendance à justifier la torture plutôt qu'à la nier. Dans cette interview, il s’exprimait que les coups de fouets que les prisonniers politiques recevaient ne leur étaient administrés que pour " chasser le mal qui était en eux " et aucunement contre eux ! En effet, il s'agissait d’une purification spirituelle et bienveillante!

Il y a des situations différentes qui suscitent l’émotion créée par les stimuli sans avoir des effets nuisibles -- ce qui se produit par exemple par peur, colère, surprise…dans notre vie quotidienne. Pourtant chez les musulmans intégristes émus, la situation est différente car l’émotion est chargée par leur foi qui justifie la violence contre les « infidèles » et en conséquence l'émotion ainsi déclenchée devient d’un degré trop intense. Cette différentiation est largement cultivée dans les milieux des islamistes lorsqu’ils traitent leurs victimes en tant que les « ennemies de l’islam ». Violence contre humains et animaux est un héritage qui vient de l’époque préhistorique lorsque l’homme primitif avait fait souffrir les gens ou des animaux pour un culte ridicule et vain. Cette violence contre « les infidèles » est institutionnalisée dans 149 versets du Coran et reflétée dans la constitution du régime islamique en Iran.

Au-delà des exemples cités à l’occasion des rites d’automutilation se prêtant à un sadisme potentiel, on peut décrire une large catégorie de situations dans lesquelles les effets d’émotion sont nuisibles car la densité de la motivation est dérivée de la foi. On y voit cet état chez des adeptes d’autres sectes religieuses ou des mouvements sectaires. L’apparition de l’émotion est basée sur les mécanismes psychologiques et physiologiques qui déclenchent leurs effets diversifiés. Il s’agit davantage d’une évolution humaine qui dérive de notre espèce et déclenche ces effets mais qui pourraient être contrôlés par notre « sur-moi » (la ration de soi dans le langage Freudien). Ces effets peuvent être nuisibles lorsque le dégrée d’intensité s’approche à une foi trop forte qui devient hors du contrôle de sur-moi.

Les effets violents d’une telle émotion religieuse sont connus -- la rhétorique hostile, menaçante, et en même temps incontrôlé d’Ahamadinejad est un exemple de cette émotion déclenchée par la foi.

Manipulation de l’émotion par un régime totalitaire est dans le but d’enflamme les esprits et permet de justifier fallacieusement une violence d'État en amplifiant à grands renforts de média étatique. L’utilisation de la violence ou de sa menace pour susciter une peur extrême ou terreur au sein de la population cible exige un haut degré de l’intensité émotionnelle manipulée dans la population, c’est dans ce sens-là que le président du régime islamique, malgré sa personnalité dérangée, fait une analyse de la mise en discours de l’émotion dans sa rhétorique. Même s’il attaque Israël et les Occidentaux, son but principal est de semer plutôt la peur dans la population Iranienne que la communauté internationale. En plus, la diatribe d’Ahmadinejad, même si souvent insensée et ridicule, montre clairement que son islam politique ne respect la paix et le droit d’autrui nulle part. La paix et le respect d’autrui contribués à un tel islam et hypocritement attendus par les occidentaux ne signifient qu’un cache misère de leurs intérêts lucratifs.

On a crée dans les pays occidentaux des centres d'éducation, d'information, et d'action contre les manipulations mentales des sectes et des mouvements sectaires mais ils sont simplement consacrés contre les sectes et mouvements sectaires qui sont pratiquement beaucoup moins nuisibles que l’islam politique et ses organisations bien organisées qui menacent la paix mondiale et bafoue la liberté de leur propre peuple. Aucune secte n’a pas abusé et manipulé l’émotion de ces adeptes sur un model totalitaire et institutionnalisé d’un niveau si destructif que le culte de l’islam. Pourtant l’islam continue librement à abuser et manipuler l’émotion de ses adeptes à pratiquer la violence sur l'autrui. Certains des adeptes plus manipulés exercent sur les autres des actes abominables de viol, torture, massacre des prisonniers politiques, même musulmans: les actes que l’on témoigne sous le régime islamique en Iran.

La raison pour laquelle l’islam politique est épargné de la catégorie de secte par le monde non-musulman n’est pas annoncée par les pouvoirs occidentaux mais on parle banalement de 1,3 milliards musulmans sans demander combien de ces « musulmans » pratiquent leur religion et combien entre eux portent consciemment ou inconsciemment ce nom « musulman » parce que leur ancêtres étaient forcés par les jihadistes d’islam à se convertir à I’ islam? Si l’on interdit une secte comme la scientologie en France et en Allemagne, alors pourquoi l’islam politiques et ses organisations criminelles ne sont pas également interdis? Si ces sectes professant une doctrine en marge ou en réaction à l’église et sont profondément anti-intellectualisme et refus du politique, les adeptes de l’islam politique par contre suivent une doctrine suffisamment connue par ses pratiques de violence contre les droits fondamentaux de l’homme, et pourquoi pas réviser le statut de la liberté de religion vis-à-vis d’une religion répandue par l’épée de l’islam « Seif-al-islam » et maintenue par les effets de la peur et la manipulation mentale des peuples vaincus.

Aujourd’hui, la violence comme un paramètre du dynamisme émotionnelle est la première arme destructive de l’islam politisé. Cette arme justifie et encourage la violence, c'est en somme le droit justifié de violence sur l’autrui qui reste encore inaperçu par beaucoup de nous. Le terrorisme islamique ne choisi pas ses victimes au hasard, comme on le dit trop souvent. La violence sous le nom « jiahad fi-sabil-Allah » (guère pour la cause d’Allah) est commandée par l’islam et inspiré de la vie du prophète lui-même, cela jusqu'à l’expansion de l’islam pendant les Califats des Rashidun, Omeyyades, Abbassides, Ottman -- les terroristes islamiques n’en est qu’un scenario répété des longs siècles d’expansion de l’islam par l’épée de l’islam (Seif-al-islam) -- d’ailleurs deux épées sont portées sur le drapeau national d’Arabie Saoudite rappelant l’émotion d’expansion ! L’émotion dans le monde musulman peut dangereusement être manipulée et abusée par l’élite religieux surtout si cela est au pouvoir.

Defense Mechanisms in Muslim Societies

2011-07-08T01:31:00.000-07:00

Under Islamic supremacy, all victims of the cult cannot defend their right consciously. Defense mechanisms may replace the direct taboo to challenge against the rough credo of their cult. Complicated set of mechanisms emerge against their own religious belief, traditionally adopted while socially incompatible to any logic. Defense mechanisms mostly unknown for the victims characterise their unconscious rebut.

Defense mechanisms are distinguished from passivity. In passivity, an absolute submissive attitude permits aggressor to control his victim, whereas defense mechanisms are highly pervasive characteristics of the individuals. They not only reflect their general personality, but also, in an important sense, may influence the course of its development. The failure of these mechanisms to fulfill their defensive functions contributes to mental disorders. Moreover, the quality of the disorder may mirror the person’s characteristic defense mechanisms. Muslim societies are full of conflicts between both Islamic and secular values. This mix confuses all members, especially the youth, in terms of personal identity.

The source of the conflicts among the Muslim population is in fact religion opposing desired tendencies among their ego, and “logic” superego, what has been in a general rule developed by Freud. An inferiority feeling versus striving for perfection is a similar notion developed by Adler. Islam has historically inflicted its credo upon people to force them to acknowledge their submissive inferiority, a contradiction between imposed belief and aware perfectionism. Total submission to Islam proves a psychological source of anxiety in the Islamic world, a vast problem which has never been objectively discussed in the course of history. With the evolution of today’s rationality among the new generations of Islamic societies, this problem appears in Muslim societies. Especially due to the development of social network like facebook and flux of ideas thanks to cyber-communication, the problem becomes uncontrollable for the protagonists of Islam. A mix of secular and religious practices confuses Islamic societies in term of creating their own social norms and cultural expectations, all a thorn in the eyes of the clergy.

In a society like Iran which intellectually rejects the cult of ruling Islam, the imposed norms of religiosity are consciously rejected, not forcibly unconsciously, what contributes to a set of defense mechanisms. The pre-Islamic regime- existing mixture of religiosity and secularism now rapidly turns to the detriment of religion. This detrimental process favours less confusion, especially for the youth, in terms of understanding their identity and concrete interests. In this light, defense mechanism plays a dominant role on a daily basis, but much more close to our understanding.

From one side, the followers of the ruling Islam, as incompatible neurotic crowd, needs the population to obey them. They aggress against them while are dependent of them as docile populace to satisfy their neurotic desires. From the other side, people indirectly resist (I am not here talking about those who bravely resist taking in the streets), what results into conflicting requirements of highly complex and interpersonal relations. A large number of defense mechanisms appear to some extent protect the “passive” people against aggression, but at the price of a certain degree of denial or distortion of reality and concrete interests– a case which unfortunately favours survival of the regime in a political term. Needless to mention, it is up to the opposition to help this category of people to know more about their real selves, what can be covered by a high degree of fear and anxiety. Otherwise, fear and anxiety can find a complete passive mechanism through what is called by psychologists “repression”. Repressed fear and anxiety find a way into unconsciousness from where may appear in the consciousness under other contents or passive forms, forms which favour survival of tyrannical regimes. Here are the two known forms of defense mechanisms:

1- Repression
The mechanism of repression was first proposed by Sigmund Freud and, for some time, occupied a special place in psychoanalytic theorising, perhaps because it involves the most direct approach to avoiding the experience of anxiety. As a result of repression, the person is not aware of his own anxiety-producing impulses or does not remember deeply emotional and traumatic past events. A Muslim victim of the Islamic regime with still justified impulses of Islam in his character (recognition of which might produce anxiety in him) may thus, through repression, become completely unaware of such impulses; a person who has suffered a mortifying personal failure in a rational way of thinking, through repression, become unable to recall the source of failure (in our case, Islam).

The deliberate suppression of experience of painful feelings or recollections is very commonplace, but it is not repression, I do not talk about it because it is a banal mechanism, but it is important to remind people of it to bring them into consciousness. Repression is not deliberate; it is psychologically more complicated, somehow occurs automatically as a reaction in certain situations of conflict, serving as a defense of the ego hiding or against anxiety. Most Muslims escape from painful reality of their cult because it is a taboo or an anxiety to be rationally confronted. Painful experiences repress automatically into unconsciousness. The worst is when elements of such repressed experiences emerge dangerously targeting real selves or other members of society.

Repression is assumed to be more than forgetting. In support of this view is the observation that some experiences seem to be so deeply repressed that intensive psychotherapy, hypnoses, or treatment by drugs may be required to recover the lost material. Furthermore, not only may there be difficulty in reinstating memory of the painful events themselves; the repression may also extend to neutral events that were associated with the traumatic event. In cases of amnesia, for example, a person suffering an emotional crisis may forget not only the conflict but also everything that reminds him of it, including his own name and identity. And when the amnesia attack begins to wear off, the memories that return first are those most remote from the precipitating emotional crisis. It is for all these reasons that repression has been termed motivated forgetting --- collective repression of Iranians due to the extreme atrocities of the early Islamic invaders seems to repress painful traumatism in their unconsciousness of history, what, in a sense of great psychoanalyst Gustav Jung, as painful archetypes today under the Islamic regime have found an access in our collective consciousness.

Muslims need only some verses of the Koran or a few Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) to split into hostile groups and kill each other or outside “infidels”. Since beneath the self righteous exterior in every human being there lies a murderous savage from the very past, Islam used the primitive instinct of aggression to expand among conquered communities. For the murderers of Islam, paradise with 72 Virgins is the eternal rewards if they massacre and, at best, be themselves martyrs of Islam. Most conquered communities of the early Muslim invaders are embedded from painful memories, what historically has feed anxiety and various forms of defense mechanisms among these communities. Assimilate such painful events with the crimes committed by the Islamic regime in Iran, reminds us that such a religion creates psychopathological symptoms of anxiety within the conquered communities.

The principal evidence that such a process, as repression exists, rests upon a large body of clinical observation made in the course of psychotherapy. However, no genuine psychological research is permitted under an ideological or Islamic regime because such a research would recall the totalitarian system as the source of collective anxiety. Although, the precise nature of the process underlying repression is still unknown, a totalitarian system would enforce its ideology in an attempt to define any individual attitude through it. Laboratory experiments are rare or twisted and abused by and under such systems.

If repression were a simple matter of blotting out the conflict and all its attendant anxieties, it would of course be the ideal defensive reaction. However this blotting out does not seem to happen effectively when an oppressive regime is the main profiteer. The relief from anxiety bought by repression is paid for in other ways, for example, in reaction formation.

2- Reaction formation
Repression of strong anxiety-provoking impulses is often accompanied by a counteracting tendency that is exactly opposed to the repressed tendencies: reaction formation. For example, a person may have become a fanatical crusader against vice because of an unconscious attraction toward those sinful (for him) activities. Thus, he may repress his impulses and ended by denouncing the very vices he unknowingly yeans for. In like manner a Muslim’s excessive manifestation of concern for his faith may mask an actual (repressed) hostility toward the faith itself – a similar behaviour of Stockholm Syndrome which bizarrely characterised by love of hostage (the conquered) for his captor (the Muslim invader). This must psychologically be a reason of expansion of Islam through extreme brutalities of Muslim invaders (captors) toward extremely brutalised non-Muslims (hostages): extreme politeness toward a person may really mean concealed disdain; bravado may mean hidden fear, the exaggerated attitudes we realise within traditional Islamic societies as mechanisms of Reaction formation.

Reaction formation can prevent the individual from behaving a way that would most basically create anxiety as frequently can prevent him from behaving in an antisocial manner. On the other hand, reaction formation is also likely to have dangerous social consequences because of the irrational intensity of reaction—victims of rape and torture in the prisons of the Islamic regime have confessed then repented their “sin” and become themselves rapists and torturers of the same regime!

Knowing only a little about the phenomenon of reaction formation makes all too easy to develop a thoroughly skeptical attitude toward people’s motives. If things can sometimes mean just the opposite of what they seem on the surface, how can one distinguish the real motivation in any given case? The answer is that reaction formation, like every defense mechanism, occurs only under fairly special circumstances. Most zealous rituals are not secret sinners; most naively religious beliefs are not hiding hatred of the faith. One difference is likely to be found in the degree of obvious exaggeration of the behaviour. But the intensity of the behavior is not a certain proof of reaction formation. We must know a great deal about various Muslims (convicted or repressed Muslims) and all the attendant circumstances before we can safely interpret an intense feeling of behaviour as indicating a reaction formation.

Many of items in this repertoire of defense mechanisms are by now familiar to us all, another illusion of the diffusion of psycho-analytic concepts in our everyday practice however we cannot wishfully generalise about all. Mechanisms must be discussed by experts to shed light on the reasons of passive or submissive attitudes of our people under one of the most barbaric and brutal regimes of history.

Schicksal des islamischen Hijabs nach dem islamischen Regime

2011-07-05T00:10:00.000-07:00

Das islamische Hijab stellt heute sowohl eine islamische Tradition als auch ein Symbol für den politischen Islam dar. Im Iran, einem Land, das von den Mullahs besetz ist, repräsentiert das Hijab ein offizielles Emblem der Besetzung des islamischen Regimes. Das islamische Hijab symbolisiert den politischen Islam, vergleichbar mit dem Hakenkreuz, welches das Symbol des Faschismus in Nazi Deutschland.

Von muslimischen Frauen in der islamischen Welt wird das Hijab für zwei Zwecke benutzt: traditionelle Erbschaft sowie politisches Emblem. Das politische Symbol des Hijab ist heute widerlicher als der traditionelle Zweck. In der Tat ist das Hijab nicht nur ein Symbol für frauenfeindliche Tradition sondern stellt viel mehr den heutigen islamischen Faschismus dar-- ein politisches System, das das barbarischsten Mullahs-Regime verkörpert. Daraus ergibt sich die Frage: Was werden wir, Iraner, mit dem Hijab machen, wenn wir das islamisch faschistische Regime im Iran stürzen?

In Abhängigkeit von der persönlichen Einstellung, gibt es vier mögliche Antworten:

1. Die erste Antwort kommt von der fanatisch muslimische Gruppe: Sie werden nach dem Sturz des islamischen Regimes im Iran versuchen, das Hijab als eine Tradition ihrer Religion aufrechtzuerhalten. Das Hijab stellt für diese Personengruppe nicht eine Form des islamischen Faschismus dar sondern eine apolitische Tradition und eine religiöse Pflicht, diese beiden Begriffe werden voneinander getrennt betrachtet. Sie bevorzugen ein Verbot jedweder Formen des islamische Hijab: entweder in Form von Kopf-zu-Zehe (schwarzer Tchador) oder ein Kopftuch um die Haare und den Hals (in der Regel durch einen dicken Schal). Dadurch sollen sowohl ihre islamische Tradition als auch die modernen Stile zusammen passen.

2. Weltliche muslimische Frauen würden das Hijab weder als streng islamische Tradition noch als eine Annahme West kultureller Hegemonie betrachten. Diese Gruppe lehnt das Hijab als eine politische und altmodische Tradition ab. Für diese Personengruppe sind die heutigen Normen emanzipierter Frauen und Aktivitäten wichtig. Dabei schwanken siezwischen Islam und Modernität. Dies war bei der individuellen Freiheit von Frauen unter dem Schah Muhammad Reza Pahalvi ähnlich. Zu dieser Personengruppe werden viele muslimische Frauen gehören, die heute gezwungen sind, sich dem islamischen Hijab unter dem Regime der Mullahs zu beugen.

3. Alle anderen Personengruppen, die von den politischen Limitierungen oder/und Freiheitsbeschränkungen des islamischen Regimes frustriert sind, werden den islamischen Hijab automatisch entsagen, wenn das Regime nicht mehr existiert. Personengruppen mit solchen Ideen würden radikale Gesetze einbringen, die das Tragen von islamischem Hijab verbieten oder beschränken. In der radikalsten Ausprägung werden sie verlangen, das islamische Hijab in jeglicher Form aus Öffentlichkeit zu beseitigen. Solche Vorschläge haben heute bereits überzeugte Anhänger. Ihre Argumente sind, dass das von Kleidungsstücken, die das Gesicht verdecken die Identifikation einer Frau verhindert. Sie sind dafür, dass das Hijab in Schulen, Universitäten, beim Sport und ähnlichen Ereignissen, in staatlichen Einrichtungen und an allen öffentlichen Orten verboten wird. Der primäre Zweck eines derartigen Verbots soll die Frauen von irrational religiösen Beschränkungen befreien, was das hauptsächlichste Ziel des frauenfeindlichen islamischen Regimes ist.

4. Eine weitere liberale Gruppe von Iraner wird argumentieren, dass Frauen frei sind, selbst zu entscheiden ob sie vom Kopf-zu-Zehe einen schwarzen Tchador, mit Burqa, mit islamischen Kopftuch oder irgendeine andere Form von Kleidern wählen, z.B. Mini-Rock “Minijupe” oder Bikini. Diese Gruppe ist entweder nicht politisiert oder es sind bedingungslose Anhänger der individuellen Freiheit. Für sie stellt Hijab oder nicht-Hijab keine obligatorische Norm dar, die vom Staat vorgegeben werden muss. Sie vertreten die Ansicht, dass muslimische Eltern sich für ihre Töchter entscheiden sollen, ob diese ein Hijab aus moralischen Gründen oder zur Sicherheit oder gar nicht tragen.

Das Verbot des Hijabs im Iran wurde zuerst von Reza Shah im Jahre 1936 durchgesetzt. Die Umsetzung allerdings scheiterte. Das von Reza Shah gewünschte "Genehmigen der einheitlichen Kleidung" zu verallgemeinern schlug fehl, weil der Einfluss des Islam in der Bevölkerung noch zu mächtig war. Die meisten Frauen lehnten das Verbot vom sogenannten “nackt auf die Straßen gehen" ab und blieben zu Hause. Nach dem Sturz von Reza Shah wurde die erzwungene Enthüllung des Hijab abgeschafft. Mit Unterstützung der Alliierten wurde er 1942 entthront und durch seinen Sohn ersetzt. Dieser korrigierte das von seinem Vater erlassene Gesetz und führte das Hijab wieder ein, weil er von den schiitischen Mullahs beeinflusst wurde. Die von Reza Shah übernommenen weltlichen Ambitionen – inspiriert von Mustafa Kemal Atatürk – wurden von seinem Sohn, Mohammad Reza Schah, wieder abgeschafft.

Weil das Tragen des islamischen Hijabs ein unumstößliches Symbol des islamischen Regimes ist, wird es mehr und mehr als eine Manifestation des politischen Islams betrachtet. Aus der Sicht eines freien Irans gegenüber dem heutigen islamischen Faschismus, gibt es keine Analogie zwischen dem Entschleiern Reza Shahs und einem Verbot des Hijabs, was heute einen populären Wunsch darstellt. Das Verbot ist keine Angelegenheit eines weltlichen Staates sondern lieber ein Wunsch vieler Leute im Iran, die sich nicht gut fühlen mit verschleierten Frauen mit schwarzen islamischen Emblemen auf iranischen Straßen. Vergleichbar als Neonazis mit Hakenkreuz-Symbole auf deutschen Straßen marschierten.

In einem (hoffentlich bald) freien Iran, dass sich durch demokratische Gesetze und Bildungs-/berufliche Chancen für alle Bevölkerungsgruppen auszeichnet, werden Frauen das islamischen Hijab, Tchador, Burga, Kopftuch oder irgendeine andere Form von verdeckender Kleidung nicht mehr tragen und diesen Traditionen entsagen. Alle Säkulare, Demokraten und patriotischen Iraner sollten das islamische Hijab als eine fanatisch politische Erbschaft eines frauenfeindlichen Kultes betrachten.

Movement continues in Iran

2011-06-29T00:27:00.000-07:00

After the disputed Iran's 2009 presidential election, we have three different categories of Iranian people who now challenge the government of Ahmadinejad.
-- The first category belongs to a Muslim population who voted Mousavi or Kahroubi by conviction, they still capitalise their hope on reforms within the Islamic regime.

-- The second one is those who voted one of the reformist candidates as a "catalyst' to ease the future way for a secular and democratic regime. They voted a reformist as the lesser evil, hoping to have him paved the way toward freedom and secularism and a gradual regime change.

-- And the third category belongs to the Iranians who boycotted the election. They want an immediate end of this regime and a new regime by any means on the ruins of the Islamic regime.

Without bringing up the value of democracy and secularism, without denouncing the 32-year-old human rights violations in Iran, the first category is a hollow bubble which either disappears soon or will be transformed, materialised, and polarised into a national freedom movement close to the ideals of second or the third category.

Now, according to the news coming from the ongoing anti regime protests in and outside the country, the first second categories is gaining momentum by joining to the third one to the point that the Iranian youth do not want to risk their lives for the survival of such a regime under any colour. They start casting doubt on the legitimacy of the whole regime not under Ahmadinejad, bzt also from the beginning and under any leadership including PM Mousavi. A steadily increasing trend shows that Iranians join the third category and want a total elimination of the Islamic regime with all its factions and supporters.

By asserting that the first category is not hostile to survival of the regime, the regime will try to find a compromise with their leaders namely Mousavi and Kahroubi to halt uncontrolled development of the movement. This is also an option which is desired by Mullahs' international partners and all lobby groups in the West which, among others, broker IRI state mafia with the western Oil Companies and military investors. In this light and as a trump card to play in a suitable occasion, the Green movement is highlighted in the western mainstreams as the only opposition to the regime.

A committee of the Green Movement called Coordinating Committee of the Green Path of Hope has been formed in Europe. The members of this committee have never been presented, obviously because of their ties to their controversial past serving the governmental terrorism ruling Mullahs within the last 32 years. The only unveiled member of this secret society is its spokesperson, a bearded Islamist called Ardeshir Amir Arjomand with ties to the period of the most human rights violation in Iran. He has been serving the Islamic educational system and Islamic judiciary of the regime in 1980s when the most crimes were committed against humanity and the universities were cracked down in a so-called Cultural Revolution.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the ex-President and still one of the top leaders of the regime, was the one who realised some reforms are necessary to safeguard the regime; he set up the idea of reforms from within the regime to hinder its collapse. Another ex-President, Mr. Khatami, continued the lines of reforms, but these reforms were halted by the actual President Ahmadinejad, a Hardliner.

The Green Movement is a new challenger of reforms within the regime. It managed for a while to divert people’s plight from the main source of problems which is the Islamic regime itself. While picked up the occasion of the goddammed 2009 rigged election to play-act “opposition”, Mousavi / Karrubi attempt to justify Islam and a “reformed” Islamic regime as the only solution to the ongoing crises.

But the time works to the detriment of such a false opposition and its top leaders who were the complicit of crimes against humanity when they were in key positions under Khomeini’s fatwa of crimes. Furthermore, these ex-top leaders still dream of the era of Khomeini as a “Golden Age” and postulate a return to that time. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/08/mir-hussein-moussavi-was-a-war-criminal-who-killed-political-prisoners.html

This movement is increasingly losing legitimacy among the continuously aware people of Iran. The social perception of Islam does not follow anymore the once formed stereotyped belief. This paradigm shift degrades the value of political Islam including that of the Green Movement. There is no taboo or extremely resist to reject such an imposed belief system which is today known as the main doctrine of plague. Iranians are growing awareness that Islam has been violently imposed on their ancestors; millions of their ancestors were brutally killed, enslaved, humiliated, and raped by the early Islamic invaders 1400 years ago.

The Islamic doctrine has been violently imposed from beginning on thus has no legitimacy to rule under any pretext. People know today that democracy is the wish of the majority while guaranteeing the rights of ethnic minorities and support for human rights, gender equality, and individual freedom. Such a wish never occurs under an Islamic regime. The classic and common view encompasses the separation of religion and state enlightens the new generation of Iran. Their ideal is to ascertain democracy in a secular context as they see it in the modern world. Islam, Islamic regime, its constitution and institutions are incompatible to such an ideal.

By contrast, the Coordination Council for the Green Path of Hope claims that the current Islamic Constitution is fully legitimate, it must only be reformed and amended, not abolished. http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/6/19/iran-document-opposition-advisor-arjomand-the-goals-networks.html. They claim the current Constitution was voted on and ratified by the people of Iran some 32 years ago when the referendum was a yes-no-hasty answer to the new Islamic regime. The Coordination Council believes in the democratic elements of the current Constitution. In reality, no true opposition believes in a constitution which is based on the 1400- old- primitive doctrine of the Arabian clan society, in which the patriarchal traditions of Islam do not leave any room to amend it.

The dying regime is now much more prudent. It reinforces its troops on the streets while trying to separate "reformists" from the "agents of foreign enemies" or in fact from the second and third categories which are rapidly increasing. The regime openly threatens them through their propaganda machinery, mainly from the Imams of Friday prayers in front of their thuggish followers, mainly Basiji (paid mercenaries of the regime) or Plainclothes close to Hardliners.

What concerns all secular and democrats, we should avoid any mistrust and confusion which may result into an unnecessary rapture of unity while denouncing the destructive role of the Islamic Green Movement, namely notorious role of Mousavi and Karrubi in their crimes against humanity. It would be vital to focus on the unity of our nation in their fair struggles against the plague of the whole Islamic regime. Only so the first two categories will get closer to the third category and so a regime change will be soon possible. Only thanks to this unity, a possible desertion of state troops and their solidarity with their people can be expected. It would not matter to which category people belong, in its most common acceptation of Iranian realities, a regime change movement must prudently keep its common front with any popular protest as long as it has achieved complete and upper hand over the popular movement.

Unity is our immunity against the occupying Islamic regime. Since Khomeini symbolise for his devotees the legacy of "no feeling for Interests of Iran and Iranians but Islam”, we need to protect ourselves against this non-Iranian regime. Being targeted of very oppression, we need more than any time our maximal unity to push back this occupying regime. This current spontaneous movement improves and like any spontaneous movement needs tactical phases to fulfill its strategy. In a spontaneous uprising, people need their immediate unity and in a further process they form their leadership from their best pioneers. Unity among all segments of society who want democracy and secularism is the core goal. Those who are against democracy and secularism must be denounced and isolated; otherwise the movement does not improve.

We must create awareness amongst large segments of our society. We must establish social networks like Facebook designed to foster the exchange of ideas and open discussions on the necessity of a regime change in Iran. The regime is week, but many mechanisms like its various factions, ex-collaborators, western investors, Russia and China, etc., attempt to safeguard it. We must mobilise a huge public opinion all over the world by transmitting the people's voice for a regime change. We must expose the false opposition which have been set up by the regime or dubious sources and finally force these elements to suffer setbacks.

Unter Folter und Vergewaltigung

2011-06-14T01:00:00.000-07:00

In diesem Videoclip http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1613615320706&oid=163359787025180& erzählt uns Frau Nazanin Sadighi ihre traurige Geschichte. Eine Geschichte die uns tief treffen kann. Sie war erst 15 Jahre alt, als sie verhaftet und von den Folterknechten des islamischen Regimes brutal behandelt wurde. Ein Mullah und zwei Waechter haben sie systematisch vergewaltigt und gleichzeitig gefoltert und verhört.

Nazanin war ein junges Mädchen, das wegen ihres nicht islamischen Verhaltens und ihrer Wünsche in der Schule verhaftet wurde. Während ihrer Haftzeit sollte sie nach Schiitischer Tradition beten. Da sie dies verweigerte, wurde sie ausgepeitscht. Wie tausende anderer Freiheitskämpfer wurde sie unter Premierminister Mousavi inhaftiert. Gemeinsam mit ihr erlitten zahlreiche Jugendliche das gleiche Schicksal. Nazanin musste ihre kleine Zelle mit anderen teilen. Verhöre, Folter und Vergewaltig gehörten zum täglichen Programm.

10 Jahren später, wurde Nazanin wieder verhaftet. Dieses Mal hat sie durch schwere Folter den grössten psychosomatischen Schaden erlitten. Sie wurde brutal gefoltert. Einer ihrer Folterknechte hat mit einem schweren Schlag mit dem Kolben eines Gewehrs Nazanins Knie gebrochen, während andere Folterknechte ihre Hände festhielten und ein Weiterer sie vergewaltigte. Nach dieser schmerzlichen Fraktur wurde sie weiter und weiter vergewaltigt.

Drei Tage wurde sie in einer Zelle mit Betonboden, ohne Teppich, im Halbkoma mit gebrochenem und blutigem Knie und durch die Peitschenhiebe offenen Rücken und ohne ärztliche Hilfe allein gelassen, damit so weit wie möglich leiden sollte. Weil ein Stück des Knochens aus dem Fleisch herausragte, bekam sie eine schwere Entzündung und hatte starke Blutungen. Da sie zu spät in das Krankenhaus des Gefängnisses überführt wurde, haben sich in der Wunde weiße Würmer gebildet. Auch blieben Teile ihrer Haut am Boden kleben als sie ins Krankenhaus abgeholt wurde.

Aufgrund der zweiten Inhaftierung, bei der Nazanin systematisch gefoltert, erniedrigt und vergewaltigt wurde, ist dieses Trauma noch immer unvergesslich schmerzhaft. Sie lebt jetzt als freie Frau in einem freien Land aber Tausende wie Nazanin sind in die kriminellen Hände der Mullahs gefallen und wurden Opfer des islamischen Regimes. Als eine freie Frau, mit Mut und Selbstbewusstsein erzählt uns Nazanin, wie alles bei ihr passiert ist und was alles passieren kann in den Gefängnissen des Islamisches Regimes.

Intérêts diversifiés de Classe

2011-06-10T10:25:00.000-07:00

Le concept « intérêt » toujours se résume aussi en politique. Tout parti politique se réclame « garant » d’intérêts du peuple ou une classe sociale, même si souvent une analyse psychologique est évincée de ce concept. Les différances entre les individus d’une même société sont souvent sous estimées ou mal interprétées selon l’intérêt idéologique ou religieux des courants politiques, surtout lorsqu’il s’agit d’un system totalitaire.

L’existence de différences entre individus d’une même société, en matière de motivation et besoin, n’est pas propre à l’espèce humaine. De même que nous avons des animaux d’une même espèce qui ont les préférences alimentaires, conduites d’agression, de fuite et rapports sociaux. Les manifestations de divers comportements montrent que de telles différences s’expliquent par des facteurs héréditaires, de milieux et par l’interaction de ces deux catégories de facteurs.

Il semble que ces différences soient plus amples encore dans l’espèce humaine, les enquêtes d’opinion ont souvent pour objet de décrire sous forme de distribution la diversité interindividuelle qui en résulte. Sans récuser le schéma marxiste sur la multiplicité des classes sociales et sur la diversité des critères d’intérêts de classe. Dans cet article, je me concentre sur les effets psychologiques.

Il existe un type de motivations humaines à propos duquel les différences individuelles ont été spécialement étudié et utilisée par les états et partis politiques. Il s’agit des individus nés, formés et éduqués dans les mêmes conditions pourtant avec des intérêts différents —ce qui me semble un exemple pour les facteurs psychologiques que je l’appelle « facteur de prestige ».

Le facteur de prestige est une forme de prestige qui encourage l’individu vers l’abandon de sa propre classe sociale sans aucun intérêt quelconque. Ce facteur explique l’adhérence de beaucoup d’intellectuels aux partis de gauche et leur sympathie pour les couches moins privilèges. En revanche l’on voit ces « moins privilégiés » montrant une sympathie pour l’état ou les tendences de droite. Dans la première vue, Il n’est pas assez facile de reconnaitre cette différence entre attitudes et intérêts, pourtant le facteur de prestige peut nous montrer comment on se déraille de ses propres intérêts de classe et pourquoi leurs votes et sympathies sont contre leurs propres intérêts sociaux, ce qui amène les partis d’une petite classe de bourgeoisie au pouvoir.

Les attitudes et plus largement, les pulsions socio-psychologiques ne sont pas toujours et forcement liés aux intérêts de classe mais beaucoup plus à la psychologie des masses. Des variables hypothétiques définies par le fait que les conduites d’un individu sont déclenchées plus facilement par certains modes d’intérêts psychologiques, et orientées de façon déterminée à l’égard de ces intérêts-là. On y voit des réactions à l’égard des problèmes divers sans forcement être liées aux intérêts directs du statut de calasse, par exemple l’idée sur la peine de mort, du racisme, de l’avortement etc.

Le terme « intérêts » est psychologiquement employé plus souvent pour une disposition à choisir entre des éventualités plus précises, le choix étant considéré surtout dans sa signification personnelle — l’intérêt pour telle matière scolaire, telle profession, telle activité de loisirs. Cette distinction d’usage traduit le fait que l’intérêt s’est souvent effectué en vue de du choix immédiat voire réflexif. Bien que cet intérêt-là soit plus ou moins introduit en luttes des classes, notamment dans le domaine théorique, en réalité il est parfois décollé de sa logique de classe. Ce constat entre en conflit avec le facteur de la classe, telle qu’il est défini par la gauche orthodoxe.

On ne peut pas attribuer les résulta de votes empruntés des années précédentes dans le monde capitaliste par les intérêts des couches moins privilégiées de façon plus ou moins directe à la notion de classe. En ce qui concerne par exemple le rôle des relations entre les classes sociales et la formation d’intérêts de classe, ces résultats inattendus ne montrent que l’existence des facteurs psychologiques y cachés. Bien qu’une large part de ces relations soit effectuée par le statut économique, ce facteur seul pourtant ne suffit pas de déclencher une révolte des non-privilégiés contre leur system d’exploitation.

Le vote des classes moins privilégiées en faveur des partis de droite en Europe montre l’existence d’un grand nombre de questions qui souvent surprennent la gauche. Ce vote montre comment s’organisent les préférences ainsi exprimées par les couches moins privilégiés dans leur dérapage électoral surtout quand il s’agit de la tendance d’électorat travailleur pour l’extrême droite, ce qui montre une fois de plus le degré d’instabilité d’intérêts de classe.

Dans la ligne de l’évolution de conscience de classe d’après Marx, l’évolution n’est pas linaire mais effectuée par des bonds et des phases rétrogrades. Les bonds d’évolution décrivent les corrélations entre les intérêts et d’autres caractéristiques psychologiques telle que les aptitudes, les traits de personnalité, la réussite ou échecs professionnels et, etc. Il est à débattre si partant de tels intérêts, on peut conclure si l’idée des luttes des classes domine sur d’autres motivations d’intérêts. Peut-on conclure, qu’à part d’intérêt matériel, d’autres facteurs psychologiques sont absents dans le marxisme ? Il me semble que le point de départ de Marx fixe plutôt l’ambition de l’homme que son état psychologique ; il prend l’homme de la rue pour un homme politique ambitieux.

D’autre part Marx laisse entendre que l’intérêt d’individu d’une classe sociale est d’y être né, bien que l’exemple des nombreux travailleurs qui ont sympathie pour les tendances de droite contre le fait que certains militants de gauche d’issus des familles bourgeoise montrent que l’héritage seul ne suffise pas á maintenir d’une façon permanente un individu parmi le conflit d’l’intérêts de classe.

On voit intervenir chez l’homme des possibilités extraordinaires accrues en ce qui concerne le traitement et le stockage de ces informations. Il est assez évident aussi que les motivations sociales se manifestent chez l’homme sous des formes beaucoup plus diversifiées et complexes. On a beaucoup noté, en particulier sous les régimes totalitaires communistes, nationalistes et islamiques, les moyens de mesurer et de manipuler les attitudes et les opinions. Les intérêts à l’égard de l’idéologie de la classe dominante ont mis en évidence une manipulation rudimentaire par le fait qu’après la chute de telles régîmes totalitaires les différences individuelles se manifesteront et même plus accrues.

Islamic Slavery

2011-06-04T03:07:00.000-07:00

Slavery is a shame of human history. As a weed, slavery grew on every, if not most, soil. In Islamic Empire, its seeds have been sown from Medina along to Iran, Middle East, central Asia, Africa, and Europe widely under the Islamic Caliphs and Ottoman Empire. Millions of poor souls have been the victims of Islamic slavery.

Islamic approach to slavery argues that there are three manners to enslave people:

1-” Dhimmis” (non-Muslim communities under Islamic state) are only allowed to live
under an Islamic rule if they pay a tax “jizieh”. Those dhimmis who cannot pay the tax, cab be enslaved.
2- After an occupation of non-Muslim, the non-Muslim men, if not killed, can be along with their women and children captured as booty of war and thus can be enslaved.
3- Slaves can be bought or gifted.

These three manners have justified slavery throughout all of Islamic history. Muslim invaders enslaved millions of men, women and children. From Muhammad’s time up to the recent history of Islam in 19th century, slavery has been routinely practiced in the Islamic communities.

The Koran contradicts itself by saying, “free men could not be enslaved” whereas the history proves opposite. Although, the Koran sometimes respects monotheist religions, the Arabic Jews, Iranian Zoroastrians, and European Christians became slaves of Muslim invaders, if they were not massacred on the spot. Slaves caught from their lands were considered booty of war and could be abducted like a chattel or any moveable property. The owner has right to sell or keep this property.

Muhammad possessed a number of male and female slaves, mostly captured as booty of war. According to Ali Dashti’s “23 Sal” (23 years, is a reference to the duration of Prophet’s prophecy), “in the Muhammad’s harem, Mariay the Copt was first a slave-girl who was sent from Egypt to Muhammad as a gift. Rayhana, like Maria the Copt, fell into the Koranic category of, those women your right hands have acquired, i.e., she was a slave-girl with whom contractual marriage was unnecessary but concubinage was permissible. She was one of the captives from the Jewish Banu Qorayza and the Prophet’s share of the booty taken from the tribe. She was unwilling to confess Islam and enter into a contractual marriage with the Prophet, preferring to retain the status of a slave in his house.”

Iranian slaves were first captured and deported to Arabian slave markets after the Muslims ‘invasion of Iran, 4 centuries ago. The human tragedy happened under the three Rashidun Caliphs, Umar, Uthman, and Ali ibn Abu Talib -- sanctified Ali is the first imam of Iranian Shiites despite he sent several times troops massacring Iranian freedom-lovers!). In each conquest, most Iranian men were killed, cities were destroyed and burned, and a number of women and children were captured and deported to Arabia to be kept as booty of war or sold on the slave markets.

Slaves had no official right—could not be heard in court, their testimony was outlawed. They had no right to property, could marry only with authorisation of their owner, and were considered to be as worthy as a chattel. Conversion to Islam did not automatically give a slave freedom nor did it confer freedom to their children. Whilst the well educated slaves and brave militaries could win their freedom, those used for basic duties and slave labour rarely achieved freedom. The recorded mortality rate was high. Most male slaves died after 5 years of slavery-- this was still significant even as late as the nineteenth century and was remarked upon by western travelers in the Islamic countries of North Africa and Egypt. Children of slaves were also born slaves, but since many slaves were castrated the offspring was not as common as it had been in the native populations.

The Koran prescribes a contradictory approach to slavery “free men could not be enslaved”, but about 150 verses postulate killing of “non-Muslims”. Slavery is not literally banned or criticised in the Koran. The spread of the Islamic Empire resulted in a much harsher interpretation of the Koran concerning slavery. For example, if dhimmis were unable to pay the taxes they could be enslaved, and people from outside the borders of the Islamic Empire were considered an acceptable source of slavery.

The military victories of Muslim troops under the Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates (8th-10th centuries) reached to new borders in Africa and had driven the rapid expansion of Islam across North Africa. Slave traders were required to provide black slaves for the Islamic Empire and rich Muslim owners. There were organised slave networks that kidnapped or captured their fellow countrymen. These men, women and children were sent across the Sahara to Morocco and Tunisia from West Africa, from Chad to Libya, along the Nile from East Africa, and up the coast of East Africa to the Persian Gulf. Most male slaves were castrated before exposing oin the slave markets. This trade had been well entrenched for over 600 years.

The trade networks across North Africa were as much to do with the safe transportation of slaves as other goods. Black Africans were transported to the Islamic Empire so that we have still their offspring living in all area of ex-Islamic Empire across the Persian Gulf up to Pakistan, and ex-Indian Peninsula. An analysis of prices at various slave markets shows that eunuchs fetched higher prices than other males, encouraging the castration of slaves before export because some of them die as a result of this sexual mutilation.

Not only slaves were used for menial domestic and commercial purposes, eunuchs were especially prised for bodyguards and confidential servants; women as concubines and menials. A Muslim slave owner was entitled by law to use slaves for sexual pleasure. Girl-slaves and young boy-slaves called Gholam (still a common prename of male Iranians, “Gholam” was used by early Muslim invaders as a title of humiliation), were sexual pleasures of their owner.

For the Ottoman Empire, slaves came preferably from the Caucasians. Beautiful slave-girls and brave male-slaves were prised gifts transported in Turkey--women for rich Muslims’ harems and men for cannon fodder in the battle fields.

Since the practice of slavery, and all slavery related matters like slave trade and sexual pleasure of own slave, is permitted in Islam, slave trafficking can extend to a scope of modern sex slave industry. As mentioned, when Muslims occupy a land, they can routinely enslave and use women for sexual pleasure. In this light, under Islamic regime, which has shown as a force of occupier, young women and girls from poor and naïve milieus are deceived or adducted to be sent in the Islamic brothels for “sigheh” (a fixed-term marriage in Shi’a), legalising prostitution. The “sigheh” industry is directly organised and led by Mullahs.

Inspired from the tradition of Islamic slavery, another tragedy is the transportation of Iranian girls and young women to the brothels of the Persian Gulf countries. It is believed that the IRGC or regime’s Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, which today acts as an Islamic force of occupier, is the organiser of this inspired method of slave transportation. As believed, the network of traffickers entraps pretty run-away girls and young widows with false promises of a better life including marriage to rich Arabic men; then they are smuggled across borders to the other site of the Persian Gulf.

The IRGC is a military branch of the Islamic regime in Iran, responsible for the protection and survival of the regime. The IRGC maintains a multifaceted business empire while monopolising most branch of domestic economy. As if Iran were their booty of war, its high ranking officers called “Sardar” (general of Islamic troops) pillage and export national wealth to the save foreign countries. The IRGC is believed to transport Iranian young women and girls to the Persian Gulf countries, where they are sold into bars, hotels, harems and prostitution.

The transportation of Iranian young females to the rich Islamic Sheikdoms seems a new slave trade of the Islamic regime committed by their “Sardars”, what reminds us the long history of Islamic slavery in Iran and elsewhere.

ده خواست ازادی

2011-05-31T08:25:00.000-07:00

در ميان جريانات سياسی خارج از کشور سه جريان خواستار سرنگونی رژيم جمهوری اسلامی و جايگزينی ان با يک رژيم ایدال خود هستند. اين سه جريان عبارتند از سلطت طلبان, مجاهدين, و طیف وسيعی از جرياات چپ (به استثنای طيفهای حامی بقا رژیم مثل حرب توده و سازمان اکثريت). در ميان این جريانات چپ سرنگون طلب, حزب کمونيست کارگری که فعالترين جريان خارج از کشور, حداقل در اروپا است، يک پلاتفرم وحدت در ده ماده پيشهاد کرده که به نظر من به عنوان فوری ترين خواسته های مردم ميتواند پلاتفرم وحدت تمام نيروهای سرنگون طلب, سکولار و دمکراتيک باشد. اين خواسته ها عبارتنداز:

ـ بازداشت و محاکمه علنی آمرین و عاملین کشتارهای اخیر و کلیه جنایات جمهوری اسلامی در سی سال گذشته.

ـ آزادی زندانیان سیاسی

لغو مجازات اعدام-

ـ لغو حجاب اجباری و جداسازی جنسیتی

ـ لغو کلیه قوانین ضد زن و تبعیض آمیز علیه زنان. برابری کامل حقوق زن و مرد.

ـ جدائی کامل مذهب از دولت، از سیستم قضائی، و از آموزش و پرورش. آزادی کامل مذهب و بی مذهبی بعنوان عقیده و امر خصوصی افراد.

ـ آزادی بی قید و شرط عقیده، بیان، اجتماعات، مطبوعات، تظاهرات، اعتصاب، تشکل و تحزب.

ـ برسمیت شناسی حقوق مساوی برای همه شهروندان ایران مستقل از مذهب، زبان، و یا قومیت و ملیت.

ـ محاکمه آیت الله ها و مقامات حکومتی و ایادی آنان بجرم غارت و چپاول اموال مردم و باز پس گرفتن اموال غارت شده از آنان.

ـ تامین و تضمین یک زندگی مرفه و منطبق بر آخرین استانداردها و امکانات در پیشرفته ترین جوامع برای همه شهروندان. افزایش فوری حداقل دستمزد و حقوق به یک میلیون تومان.

صرفنظر از نوع حکومت دمکراتيک و سکولاری که بعد از سرنگونی رژیم اسلامی انتخاب شود, ده خواست پيشنهادی حزب ميتوانند حداکثرخواسته های اکثر مردم و اپوزيسيون سرنگون طلب باشند. بحث, حذف و پيشنهاد در مورد اين مفاد ميتواند اغاز سرفصل جديدی برای تشکيل يک جبهه مشترک این نيروهای سرنگون طلب شود. چنين جبهه ای خواستار اکثريت مردم ايران به ویژه نسل جوان را نمیاندگی کرده و خود يک ضرورت تاريخی در شرایط حاد کشور است.

ايده ال من چيزی کمتر از يک جمهوری سکولار, مدرن, دمکراتيک و پارلمانی نيست: نوع حکومتی که تجارب مثبتی در تاریخ معاصر بجا گذشته است. درغياب حزب و جريانی که چنين حکومتی را نمايندگی کند, حزب کمونيست کارگری در روند سرنگونی دارای جايگاه مهمی میباشد. دولتی که بعد از سرنگونی و ازادی کشور از رژيم اشغالگر اسلامی کشور را اداره کند به گمان من و بیشک اکثریت مردم ایران میبایست با رای ازاد مردم تعيين شود.

من عالی ترين نوع دمکراسی و پيشرفت جامعه را در چارچوب يک جمهوری سکولار و دمکراتيک ميبينم و اطمينان دارم که اکثريت مردم ايران نيز چنين فکر ميکنند. به دو جریان سرنگون طلب دیگر یعنی سلطنت طلبان و مجاهدین پيشنهاد ميکنم از"وراثت" تاج و تخت و نوع "بهتر" حکومت اسلامی خود صرفنظر کنند و مانند هر وطن پرست, و نه يک شاهزاده یا رهبر مذهبی, تنها به فکر ازادی مردم باشند و نه تاج و تخت ساقط شده و یا اسلام ور شکسته سیاسی. به گمان من حکومت موروثی و اسلامی با هر رنگ و لعابش دارای تمام شرايط ميرندگی و مانند رژیم اسلامی و جناحهای سياسيش محکوم به فناهستند.

در شريطی انقلابی موجود, ایده سرنگون طلبی، در مقابل حفظ و اصلاح رژیم، به سرعت در حال رشد است و ميتواند جامعه را راديکال و قطبی کند. با وجودی که حزب کمونیست کارگری هيچ تشابه ای به احزاب کمونسيت در دوران ديکتاتوری اين نظام ندارد, کماکان برخی خواسته های سیاسی-طبقاتی انان و کل فلسفه ماترياليسم برای اکثريت مردم قابل هضم نيستند. پیشنهاد من به این حزب حذف آرم داس و چکش و یا ادبیات طبقاتی مربوط بدان و انطباق حزب به یک جبهه چپ، سکولار و دموکراتیک برای تمام جامعه ایران باشد. هدف مبرم ما در اين برهه تاريخی ازادی مردم ايران ازجرثومه حکومت جهل و جنايت اسلامی است و خارج از این استراتژی مشترک، هیچ جریان سیاسی-ایدولوژی نمیتواند کل جامعه را ، به ویژه طبقه متوسط شهری که امروز پیشتاز مبارزه است، متقاعد به امر سرنگونی کند

Hijab Islamique Politisé

2011-05-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

Depuis 1979, la prise de pouvoir de l’islam politique en Iran, les autorités islamiques continuent d’imposer le hijab islamique en tant que le symbole de leur régime. Plus qu’une puritaine traditionnelle, le hijab se reflète les craintes du régime islamique face à une classe moyenne laïque qui se méfie de son règne totalitaire. Le but islamo-politique du régime est de créer une société voilée et fermée à tout prix et tout moyen pour qu’elle soit mieux dominée.

La répression contre les femmes qualifiées de “bad hijab” (mal voilées) s’augmente avec la montée de la température estivale. Pour mieux assujettir les femmes « mal voilées » les autorités du régime islamique vient d’annoncer une mobilisation de 70000 agents de la Police de la Moralité qui devront surveiller et contrôler sur le comportement et vêtements des femmes aux quatre coins du pays.

Même si le hijab islamique tel qu’il est aujourd’hui présenté ne semble pas directement driver des commandements de l’islam, ce fait ne raréfie pas ces aspects politico-religieux d’aujourd’hui. Depuis l’apparition du culte musulman, le hijab islamique fait partie de toutes les communautés musulmanes en s’amalgamant avec les traditions locales et les interprétations de la classe cléricale.

À mon avis, le hijab islamique est traditionnellement dérivé d’un dogme islamique que j’appelle « non-mahram ». Pour expliquer ce qui est ce terme « non-mahram », il faut d’abord connaître ce qui est considéré comme « mahram » : un mahram est un membre de famille directe, comme les enfants, les parents, les sœurs et les frères, les grands-parents, les oncles, les tantes, et les beaux-parents avec lesquels une personne musulmane ne peut pas se marier. Par contre, toute autre personne avec laquelle on peut éventuellement se marier est considérée comme non-mahram. D’après la tradition islamique, contenue dans les rapports mahram / non-mahram, une femme musulmane ne doit pas montrer ses atours à un homme non-mahram.

Le hijab islamique est le mur qui sépare ces deux groupes « des mahrams et non-mahrams ». Pour séparer la femme musulmane du champ visuel des non-mahrams ou bien de la quasi-totalité des hommes de la communauté, on a infligé le hijab islamique. Le hijab islamique est en effet un mur qui sépare la femme musulmane de tout son environnement non-mahram. C’est un dogme qui est devenu dans les sociétés musulmanes un phénomène plus restreint et plus représentatif que le credo de l’islam lui-même.

L’idée de non-mahram, en tant que méthode d’exclusion des femmes, suive une période préislamique de la péninsule d’Arabie dans laquelle la petite fille était enterrée vivante par ses parents pour éviter le déshonneur. Malgré l’interdiction formelle de cet infanticide par islam, ces inspirations misogynes ont été épargnées à la tradition musulmane. Hijab, en tant qu’un instrument de l’exclusion sociale témoigne aussi la volonté personnelle du Prophète d’islam lorsqu’il voulait éloigner ses jeunes femmes des yeux des hommes « non-mahrams ».

L’introduction du dogme de non-mahram dans l’islam alors n’est pas sans rapport avec les ennuis du Prophète vis-à-vis de son harem. Comme décrit par le penseur iranien, Ali Dashti dans son livre ” Bisto-Seh Saal ” (23 années, une référence á la durée de la prophétie de Muhammad), le Prophète, un homme de soixantaine, révéla des versets coraniques ” Surah Ahzaab ” pour consolider sa position vis-à-vis de ses beaucoup plus jeunes épouses pour les forcer à l’obédience absolue et la chasteté.

Pourtant pour y arriver, le Prophète n’a pas mentionné un code vestimentaire qui signifie le hijab islamique. Ce qui fait penser que le hijab islamique est un produit d’interprétation cléricale de chaque communauté musulmane selon leur cultures et situation socioéconomique : plus la communauté est avancée, moins le hijab islamique s’impose. Ceci-étant, le hijab islamique diffère d’un pays musulman à l’autre, mais quelque soit la forme, la couleur et la taille, il est un vêtement qui ne laisse pas apparaître le corps d’une femme musulmane aux yeux des non-mahrams. Cela, pour que les contacts visuels ne mènent pas à une éventuelle tentation sexuelle.

Dans la société primitive des clans d’Arabie, le système patriarcal n’a pas garanti l’égalité des droits au sexe « faible ». Dans ce sens, le principe de non-mahram est synonyme d’une diminution générale du rôle social de la femme musulmane. Cet héritage archaïque montre aujourd’hui comment les femmes musulmanes font juridiquement et moralement face à la discrimination: la plupart de leurs droits sont abolis à la naissance et elles sont écartées des droits égalitaires avec les hommes.

Le dogme du non-mahram ne s’applique pas seulement dans la tenue ou le code vestimentaire de la femme, mais il est omniprésent partout dans la vie sociale des communautés musulmanes. Le dogme contient une série de règles inédites qui s’impliquent dans tous les rapports homme / femme. La ségrégation entre les deux sexes en est le résulta. La séparation des sexes est imposée même dans la construction traditionnelle. Cette architecture islamique sépare les femmes de champ visuel des hommes « non-mahrams ».

Comme j’ai décrit dans plusieurs articles, une maison musulmane traditionnelle est typiquement construite autour d’une cour, une partie de la maison est réservée pour les femmes. La réception des hommes invités se trouve à côté du couloir de l’entrée de la maison afin que les visiteurs non-mahrams ne voient pas les femmes. Les fenêtres donnent sur la cour, jamais sur la rue, afin qu’un contact visuel ne se produise pas entre les non-mahrams. Dans la grande maison où plusieurs générations peuvent vivre ensemble, les mesures les plus strictes sont imposées afin que le contact entre les non-mahrams comme les cousins de deux sexes, beaux-frères ou belles-sœurs ne se croisent pas.

Les traces du dogme de non-mahram sont plus visibles dans les anciens palais où aucun homme non-mahram, à l’exception des domestiques castrés, n’avait le droit d’accès au harem du roi ou calife. De tels palais, aussi l’habitation des nantis musulmans, ont dû se conformer aux principes islamiques: alors le corps féminin y restait derrière la ligne rouge du champ visuel de tous les hommes non-mahrams fréquentant le palais ou la maison.

Donc, on n’y voit pas le corps non-voilé d’une femme sur les tableaux, fresques, ou dans une présentation musicale, théâtrale, cérémoniale etc. L’art patriarcal lié au dogme non- mahram est ainsi exprimé dans tous les œuvres artistiques postislamiques en Iran. Cet aspect va si loin que l’expression de l’amour dans la poésie devient un sentiment vilain, surtout lorsque exprimé par les poètes féminines. Aucune poète, jusqu’à la récente poète, Forough Farokhzad, n’osait pas exprimer ses sentiments amoureux pour un homme « non-mahram ». La poésie lyrique est pleine du dogme « non-mahram » qui la déprave de sa pureté normale. Là, l’amour entre deux sexes se rétréci dans un sens mystique, camouflé et parfois pervers.

L’application des mesures préventives du dogme non-mahram graduellement engendra une culture dominante qui s’étende dans toute société musulmane. Elle dominera plus ou moins l’art, la musique, la poésie et même les normes et critères moraux par lesquelles hijab islamique prendre une ampleur centrale et symbolique.

À cause de l’imposition de hijab islamique, l’outil symbolique du dogme du non-mahram, une série de discriminations contre les femmes comme celles concernant les conditions de travail, l’éducation, les loisirs, le sport, etc., s’émergent dans la société. Celles-ci prennent une allure ennuyante dans une grande partie du monde islamique qui est aujourd’hui dominée par l’islam politique.

La répression islamo-politique contre les femmes en Iran a commencé au lendemain de la prise de pouvoir par la République Islamique en Iran et s'est bien aggravée pendant le gouvernement d’Ahmadinejad. Les femmes mal-voilées sont harassées, maltraitées, blessées et détenues parce qu'elles osent un peu s’habiller comme elles veulent. Ce droit, qui est en dehors d’une communauté islamisée un droit tout à fait normal, fondamental et strictement individuel, est quotidiennement violé dans les pays islamisés. Depuis la prise de pouvoir des Mollahs en Iran, les femmes ont été contraintes de s'habiller et se comporter selon les règles les plus restrictives du dogme non-mahram.

Book burning

2011-05-11T00:08:00.000-07:00

Germany evokes that 78 years ago tens of thousands of books were thrown into the fire on the occasion of (Bücherverbrennung) “book burning” of the Nazi regime in 10th may 1933. Thousands of mesmerised Germans, while applauding and saluting “Heil Hitler”, burned books of Erich Koestler, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Kurt Tucholsky and many others.

The so-called "degenerate" books were burning under Hitler's dictatorship. It started from the capital of the third Reich, Berlin, with 20,000 books and went on in other German cities; the ordered was called (Säuberung) or "cleansing". The Nazis burnt books with "non-German" ideas. Books written by Freud, Einstein, Thomas Mann, Jack London, H.G. Wells and many others go up in flames as they give the Nazi salute.

The target of this historically symbolic action was the suppression of free thoughts and ideas. The action was a tactic of Joseph Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda with the target of brainwashing a whole nation. The works of leading German writers such as Berthold Brecht, Lion Feuchtwanger, and Alfred Kerr were consigned to flames. The promotion of "Aryan" culture and the suppression of other forms of artistic production was yet another Nazi effort to "purify" Germany.

The Nazis were neither the first nor the last book-burners in history. Christianity has a longer history of defending an all-powerful deity by shielding the mind from strange ideas.

The “Dark Ages” of the Middle Ages in Europe is full of religious atrocity, many scientists were burnt with their ideas and books: Jean Calvin was probably the most efficient: in 1600, when he burned Michael Servetus at the stake for heresy, and around his waist were tied a large bundle of manuscript and a thick octavo printed book. Another notorious illustration of this was in July of 1562, when Bishop Diego de Landa burnet five thousand idols and many thousands of their written works.

Scientific inquiry had virtually no support in Western society from the 7th to 15th centuries. Bigoted Ecclesiasticism dammed the flow of free thought, blocking the seepage of knowledge within Western societies. Book was branded as magic and treasonous, and the writer or reader was punishable by torture or death. Bruno was burned at the stake for the crime of claiming that the earth rotates about its axis.

Several decades after the event of Islam in Arabia, Muslim invaders galloped into war to occupy new territories. They brutally destroyed great civilisations and of course all valuable libraries of conquered lands which were the symbol of knowledge and wisdom of those “non-Muslim” cultures. This early book-burning committed by the primitive Muslims paved the way for 1400 years of darkness and backwardness in the Middle East, North Africa and all lands conquered by Muslim invader

Muslim invaders arrived with sword in one hand and the Koran in the other. Since they believed the Koran was a divine revelation, it became the starting point for all knowledge. The Koran instructed them to seek science in all fields. It was in this perspective and under the shadow of Islamic influence that scientists, philosophers, poets and writers of occupied lands wrote their works. Even worse than the censorship, their works were influenced by their own self-alienation.

Centuries later, Muslim scientists, most of them Iranians, upheld the civilisation in the world when the West was in its lowest era of moral and intellectual obscurity. However, the Islamic civilisation appeared in a limited framework of progress due to its limit of progress allowed by religious restrains.

Today, the heritage of the Nazi's and early Muslims' book burning became the political Islam with its shocking results in the last 32 years in the Islamic world, especially in Iran.

Recalling not only the book-burning of 1933 by the Nazis, but also the early invasion of Islam in Iran, the regime launched in 1980 a cultural revolution to alienate Iranians from their pre-Islamic great civilisation by islamo-arbising the whole Iranian culture. Following the Cultural Revolution, bands of Hezbollah and Islamists attacked, destroyed, and burnt libraries in Iranian universities, libraries, bookshops. Millions of books were destroyed, and thousands of allegedly readers of such books were intimidated, beaten up, imprisoned or even executed.

Not only the Islamic Republic of Iran's Ministry of Islamic Guidance and Culture now censors some of Iran's best contemporary writers and researchers, such as Sadegh Hedayat, Sadegh Choobak, Ebrahim Golestan, Gholamhossein Sa’aedi, Ahmad Kasravi, Ali Dashti, Ebrahim Poordavoud, Zabih Behrouz, and others, but even in the recent years, they removed parts and whole pieces of works by well-known poets such as Souzani Samarghandi, Omar Khayam, Molana Jalaledin Rumi, Nezami Ganjavi, Abid Zakani, Iradj Mirza, and even some lexicons from Ali Akbar Dehkhoda and Farhang Mo’in as non-Islamic.

Like the Nazis in 1933, the Islamic Republic of Iran had also its own version of book burning and censorship, as thousands of titles of books are banned from publishing, as hundreds of thousands of books are destroyed by unfortunate publishers who have not been authorised of distributing the books.

The ruling Shiite ayatollahs are not solely aimed at stamping out ideas of freedom but for a more nefarious purpose and in a line with the early Muslim invaders: suppressing all and everything not adjusting to Islam or representing a character of pre-Islamic culture and civilisation of Iran.

Stockholm Syndrome im Iran

2011-04-27T02:30:00.000-07:00

Innerhalb der iranischen Bevölkerung herrschte lange Zeit Verwirrung über die Unterwerfung gegenüber dem Islam. Obwohl zwei Jahrhunderte nach der moslemischen Invasion die Bevölkerung die Möglichkeit zur Unabhängigkeit hatte, stellte sie ihre eigene Religion und Kultur nicht wieder her sondern verblieb freiwillig in der Kultur der primitiven und brutalen Invasoren. Nach den Gründen dafür zu suchen, blieb lange Zeit ein Tabu. Erst Dank der Plage der islamischen Republik nahmen sich Einige die Freiheit, nach den Ursachen zu forschen. So blieben die offensichtlichen Gründe für diese Unterwerfung nicht mehr unbemerkt.

Einer der Faktoren für dieses Verhalten nennt die Wissenschaft das sogenannte Stockholmer Syndrom. Dieses Syndrom beschreibt die pathologische Liebe eines Opfers zu seinem Täter. Um die Natur dieses Phänomens besser zu verstehen, müssen wir einen Blick auf die folgenden Verhaltensweisen werfen: wie erklären wir zum Beispiel wenn sich eine Geisel in ihren Geiselnehmer verliebt oder wenn ein freigelassener Kriegsgefangener sich freiwillig in seinen Folterknecht verliebt. Dieser psychologische Mechanismus wurde erst in nach der Geiselnahme in Stockholm betrachtet.

Letztlich kann man bei vielen Verhältnissen zwischen Opfer und Täter das Stockholm-Syndrome erkennen. Liebe oder Zugehörigkeitsgefühle und ähnlichen Empfindungen entstehen in vielen Beziehungen zwischen Menschen - in der Schule, am Arbeitsplatz, in Sekten oder von fundamentalistischen Religionen bis zu ideologischen Diktatoren. In diesen Fällen spielt das Stockholm-Syndrome eine entscheidende Rolle.

Die pathologische Liebe kann freiwillige Unterwerfung des eroberten Volkes zu ihren Besatzern in früheren Jahrhunderten erkären. Gleiches gilt für die Loyalität von Sklaven, Bauern und Arbeitern zu ihren Herren, Besitzern, Eroberern etc. Ohne den Effekt des Stockholm-Syndroms hätte es möglicherweise keinen charismatischen Verbrecher, wie zum Beispiel, Alexander der Große, Hitler, Stalin, Khomeni, in der Geschichte gegeben.

Die Unterwerfung zum Schwert des Islams und die islamische Scharia wären ohne eine Komponente dieses Phänomens nicht möglich. Meiner Meinung nach ist der psychologische Schwerpunkt der Täter-Opfer Beziehung eine Mischung aus Angst und Stockholm-Syndrome, wobei das Opfer die Angst in Liebe und Gehorsamkeit verwandelt und der Täter dies als Basis für seine narzisstische Dominanz nutzt. Die Opfer–Täter Beziehung rechtfertigt sich nicht durch Angst sondern Liebe. So kann man verstehen, dass der gehorsame und unterwürfige Glaube der Iraner zum Islam und zu islamischen Heiligen, deren Schwerter und Feldzug-Jihadisten, Millionen Perser massakrierten. Ohne diese pathologische Opfer-Täter Beziehung würden so viele Muslime im Iran oder die gesamte islamische Welt mit zwei Milliarden Muslims wahrscheinlich nicht mehr existieren.

Bereits 633 war ein arabisch-islamisches Heer massakrierend, demütigend, plündernd in Persien eingefallen. Im 7-ten Jahrhundert, neben der Zerstörung des Landes wurden Millionen von Perser erniedrigt, massakriert, vergewaltigt und versklavt. Die zwei Jahrhunderte Besetzungen Irans begannen mit der Eroberung des Sassanischenreich, das letzte Persische Reich vor dem Islam, und endeten mit der Zerstörung der Persische Kultur und Zivilisation. Die Invasoren erzwangen den Perser ihrer Religion und Perser mussten sich zum Islam bekehren um ihr Leben zu retten. Nach zwei Jahrhundert Muslemischer Okkupation konnten die Perser (Opfer) ihre Freiheit zurückholen aber merkwürdigerweise behalten die Religion ihrer Feinde (Täter), welche in Spanien nicht der Fall war. Spanier konnten nach mehrere Jahrhunderte Muslemische Okkupation ihre Kultur und Religion wieder aufbauen.

Spaniers haben der konventionelle Weg ausgesucht um ihrer wahre Identität wieder erobern, welche bei Iraner bis heute noch nicht der Fall war. Weil das nicht-konventionelle Stockholm-Syndrome bei der breiten Öffentlichkeit eher weniger bekannt ist, müssen iranische Intellektuellen und politische Aktivisten das Subjekt in Verknüpfung mit Islam und seine Erbschaft, das islamische Regime, lediglich klar machen.

Die pathologische und emotionale Abhängigkeit des Opfers an seinem Täter bleibt eine Erbschaft der extremen Brutalität der muslemische Feldzuger gegen Perser. Das Syndrom symbolisier heute noch durch Millionen Iraner (Basiji / Passdar), die sich als Söldner an islamischen Regime freiwillig verkauft haben und breit sind für Liebe Islam ihre Landleute foltern, vergewaltigen und unterdrücken. Manche von Anhägern des Regimes sogar im Westen leben und von Regime nicht direkt bedroht sind. Ihre Gefälligkeit ja ein Beispiel des Stockholm-Syndromes bedeutet.

Obwohl diese pathologische Liebe von einem direkten Angstgefühl unabhängig ist, entwickelt sich wenn das Opfer keine Kraft hat sich zu befreien. Dieser Mangel an Kraft wird wahrscheinlich zur Verstärkung der Liebe und moralischen Unterwerfung verwenden. Dies ist keine Charaktereigenschaft der fanatischen Islamisten, die für ihren Glauben kämpfen sondern die nicht muslemische Anhänger des islamischen Regimes. Es geht nicht um nur muslemischen oder Söldner des Regimes sondern um die säkularen, linksorientierten, nationalistischen Sympathisanten des islamischen Regimes, die nicht vom Regime bezahlt oder bedroht sind, zum Beispiel die Iraner im Westen, deren Verhalten mit dem umfassenden Stockholm-Syndrom erklärbar ist. Solche Leute verteidigen die Kontinuität des islamischen Regimes unter dieser oder jener Form und Farbe, obwohl alle Fraktionen des islamischen Regimes sich als Garant des Islams, nicht Interesse Irans bezeichnen.

Shiites ‘apocalyptic Hidden Imam

2011-04-20T06:53:00.000-07:00

The Shiite ruling elite in Iran is preparing the conditions for the forthcoming reappearance of the last messiah, Imam Mahdi, the Hidden Twelve Imam, who went in occultation about 1000 years ago. A vast campaign, media, preaches of Mullahs, videos and televised debate the signs preceding the reappearance. Supreme Leader Sayed Ali Khamenei, one of his descendant, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are the main campaigners of the Imam.

Mahdi is the son of Imam Hassan Askari. He was born in 20, 7, and 869 AD and was hidden by Allah at the age of five (874 AD). According to Shiite sect he will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice on earth. There is a clear inspiration coming from the Messiah-figure of Christianity and its ideas of a judgment day in the hands of a religious saviour. While there are many similarities between the Mahdi and Messiah, according to Muslims, the Mahdi precedes the second appearance of Jesus. He establishes justice, peace and truth throughout the world by establishing Islam as the global religion.

There are also many variations over the Mahdi, which have differed from time to time and from region to region. Many tales speak of his visualisation, hidden places, contact people and his future plans against demonic spirit guides. The Arabic term "Mahdi" is best translated with "divinely guided”. The figure of Mahdi, and his mission, is not mentioned in the Koran, or in the “reliable Hadiths” (Sahih). There are several definitions of the Mahdi in Sunni Islam, but there is no such an importance as one can see it in Shiite sect. While Shiites believe that The Mahdi is the son of the 11th Shiite Imam, Hassan al-Askari and a Byzantnie princess, and he was born in 868, still alive in occultation. For Sunni, the Mahdi is not yet born, he will be born in Madina and his father’s name will be Abdullah.

According to many sources, the term "Mahdi" has been also used as an honorific title for several important figures in Islam. This applies to Ali the 4th caliph; his son Hassan; as well as the Umayyad caliph Omar. When "Mahdi" was used for the Abbasid Caliph An-Nasir, he was defined as the final Mahdi, and there was no need to expect any future Mahdis.

Also:
-- Mahdi has been used for converts to Islam, because these people are believed to have been guided by Allah to find the truth.
-- Mahdi has been frequently used for military leaders, defining a future leader who would come and free suppressed Muslims. It has been used as an effort that could relieve Muslim’s frustrations over their problems.
--And one of this usage is The Twelver Imam is one of the mythical legends of Shiite sect, who disappeared as a child. Although probably kidnapped and killed by the Abbasid Caliph, was believed by his followers to have gone into deathless "Occultation", preparing to return as "the Mahdi”, the guide.

In the course of history, people have been infusing their beliefs with reference to holy figures, legends and myths. There is a subtle side of depth psychology hidden in different forms of popular beliefs concerning the figurations of myth. Myths have been carried on from teller to teller. In spite of a name change here and there and details embellished and lost, people like to believe them. Although remarkable amounts of the myths have no origin at all, religion uses these to reinforce its creed.

Myth has been everywhere and at all times and powerfully credited. Myth belongs to human archetypes; these engender many traits of human collective consciousness, according to Gusav Jung. It has united in itself psycho-mythological aspects which have wielded the most powerful sway over the man’s behaviour. It has glided into the mind from one generation to another through archetypes; it has taken the form of divine explanation, more holy and more profound. In another aspect, bearing the most seductive and flattering promises, it has enlisted the motive of religion and superstition. Among many popular myths, like gold legends which abound in many places, stories of buried and hidden treasure and other hidden objects, the more characteristic myths are the hidden legends in many cultures.

There are many hidden legends, saviour figures and divine guides waiting for a return from their graves or hidden places. People in many cultures, especially to their powerless and hopeless fate, symbolically create mythical figures that would release their fears, weakness, poverty, and frustrations to avenge their sorry. The amount of saviour legends is proportionate to the depth of problems in a given time and society. Religion uses the combination of belief and naivety to describe mythological stages of a man's life in term of sacred. All of the sacred legends are representative of mythology or exaggerating figurations. Such a legend is like a wall without foundations, a clear push of awareness is enough for it to rubble. Despite none of these legends has ever come back from his grave or hidden place, people have been always kept unaware of this fact.

However in Shiite’s eyes, the Hidden Imam should not be a myth; a huge propaganda machinery of The Islamic regime does its job to keep him alive. The Mahdi is supposedly in contact with Khamenei and/or Ahmadinejad on a daily basis. For many Iranians who turned their back to Islam, the Imam should be propagated as a divine product, not a figure like an ancient god, goddesses, fable, fairy, or any product of psycho-mythology.

The Twelver Imam firstly became a political figure and was used by the Safavids to establish the first Islamic regime in Iran. The Safavids established their dynasty in 1501 in Tabriz where they had set up a forced Shiite identity for this Turkish speaking region to morally separate them from the enemy Sunnite Turks, the mighty Othman Empire. The Shah Ismail Safavid was the first to set up an Islamic army based on the unifying and militant Shiite nationalism, propagating that defending the Shiite dynasty against the Sunnite mighty Othman Empire was of the utmost importance of a religious duty for the Shiites.

To divinise their dynasty, the Safavids invented the peculiar idea that the Shiite kings are the deputies of the Hidden Imam. Since the status of Imam is sacred, it would be sinful to criticise the king or his deeds. Therefore, no one has been given the freedom to criticise the “holy” kingdom without being persecuted or sentenced to death. It is far less likely for a citizen to get away with criticising such a “holy” state which regards itself as the Hidden Imam’s representative.

A religious state by historical customs is another frame of logic. It pretends to bother about people’s sins; its sacred duty is to punish people committing sins. The Shiite states, mostly assigned by the Hidden Imam from the Safavids on along with the plague of the current Islamic regime, became a divine verdict against all “sinful” values of democracy, modernity and social justice.

Under the Pahlavi regime, the effects of the mythical allegations were different. Reza Shah liked to imitate secular the leaders, like Atatürk and Hitler. He was not interested in having the Imam’s mission to justify his dictatorship. By contrast, his son Muhammad Reza Shah publicly claimed that he was in contact with the Shiite legends, he was not apparently satisfied with the humble position of the Imam’s deputy, instead the megalomaniac Shah promoted his status as the shadow of God on earth.

In 1848, it had already been more than 9 centuries since the Occultation occurred, and the Reappearance was widely expected. Various figures appeared as the Hidden Imam, including the Bab, from whom the Bahai faith is derived. The Bahai faith originated in Iran and has evolved into an independent world religion. Bahais believe that the Hidden Imam had appeared 150 years ago and promised a new prophet who then appeared one year after he died. Under the Islamic regime, Bahai shrines have been demolished, properties have been confiscated, and Bahais have been persecuted. Iran’s High Court of Justice has ruled that just belonging to Bahai institutions justified the execution of the adherents, who create “disorder and disunity amongst Muslims”. The faith with about 500,000 adherents is not listed among the religious acknowledged by name in Iran’s Islamic constitution. What has made Bahais more vulnerable is their belief that the Hidden Imam is already appeared and thus the faith was viewed as heretical by the Shiite ruling elite preparing now the Reappearance.

The legacy of the power-hungry and doctrinal authority in Iranian Schism finally became Khomeini in Iran, who was not personally believed to be the Hidden Imam like the Bab, but was thought to communicate with him. A new version of the Imam’s myth is now shown by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khemnei described as the predicted “Sayed Khrosani” (Sayed from Khorasan, a northeast province of Iran); his reign precedes and prepares the Reappearance. The second figure is Ahmadinejad described as “Sh’ib ben saleh” the commander of Shiite army who must conquer the whole region up to Al-Qods.

In reaction to this imminent Reappearance, all clergymen are not homogenous. The next years in Iran seem to be marked by increasing tensions between the devoted followers of the Hidden Imam following controversial views, conditions and especially the privileged campaigners of the Reappearance. The Reappearance-campaign attempts an effort of giving Khemenei / Ahmadinejad important roles as reincarnation of legendary heroes from religious fiction. Being assigned an enlightened or saint, protected by divine light for divine missions, the two are presented a gift to the Islamic world.

According to the Shiite sect the Reappearance is preceded by a number of signs which the following ones seem massive human catastrophes:
- Before the Imam’s appearance, the people will be reprimanded for their acts of disobedience by a fire that will appear in the sky and a redness that will cover the sky.
- The fire will swallow up both Baghdad and Kufa. People’s blood will cover their destroyed houses. Death will occur amid their people and a fear will come over the people of Iraq from which they will have no rest.
- There will be an insurgence by the Sufyani, a descendent of Abu Sufyan, who was one of the Muhammad’s enemy, along with his son, Muawiya and his Muawiya's son,Yazid, which starts from Palestine and Jordan, and his reign of tyranny will span the Middle East from Iraq to Egypt.

In such an apocalyptic world, since the main principle of the Mahdi is that he is absolutely guided by God, the Shiite ruling elite, as a part of the divine guidance has nothing of a normal state, it is a God’s selected guidance for the mankind, and its acts are in complete accordance to God's will. The Shiite elite, who already established a God’s state in Iran, pursue their nuclear ambitions; now prepare such catastrophic conditions to hasten the reappearance of the Hidden Imam.

Since the Reappearance is to convert the world population to Islam, the amount of crimes is obviously expected to exceed many times that of jiahdi crimes during the expansion wars of Islam plus crimes committed by Mullah’s current regime. Especial groups of elite jihadists are now trained in Iran and throughout the world to convert or massively kill non-believers. Right-wing and anti-Semitic groups and sects like Anti-illuminati around the world are orchestrated and fed propaganda materials by Mullah’s parallel organisations called “Mahdaviat” ( related to the Reappearance of Mahdi). The term Reappearance is not only a cloak to canonise the Mullahs’totalitarian regime which is challenged by an increasing majority of Iranians, but also it jeopardise the whole humanity because the Islamic regime promotes their “God’s sate” into a state of an Armageddon to the extent of a world atomic war.

Camp d’Ashraf réattaqué

2011-04-12T00:46:00.000-07:00

Les forces irakiennes ont lancé une attaque vendredi 08, 04, 2011, contre le camp d’Ashraf situé au nord–est de Bagdad regroupant 3500 membres et sympathisants de l’Organisation des Moudjahidines du Peuple d’Iran (OMPI). L’offensive a causé une trentaine de morts et plusieurs centaines de blessé parmi les habitants du camp, selon l’OMPI. L’entrée des troupes irakiennes fut confirmée par l’amnistie internationale. Le camp est encerclé et les journalistes sont interdits d’y aller. Toute l’opposition iranienne unanimement condamne l’assaut. La fraction des Verts du régime islamique, qui est pris par l’Ouest pour l’opposition, se tait.

Les résidents d’Ashraf sont attaqués sous le commandement direct de Maleki, le premier ministre irakien qui est connu pour son attachement aux Mollahs de Téhéran. L’attaque se produit pendant une visite du secrétaire américain à la Défense, Robert Gates en Irak, ce qui provoque des questions équivoques, Gates a y réagit en anticipant son inquiétude. Pour les observateurs, la présence de l’OMPI en Irak semble futile et comme une carte de marchandage ou coup de pouce dans les mains des Américains et ses alliés pour la jouer contre son adversaire selon les circonstances données.

Selon TIMES ONLINE, 07 mai 2008, Le gouvernement britannique a reçu aujourd'hui l'ordre par la Commission d'Appel des Organisations Proscrites (POAC) de retirer l'organisation des Moudjahidines du peuple d'Iran (OMPI) de sa liste des organisations terroristes interdites. Cette décision de la Cour d'appel britannique a favorablement pesé sur la décision de la Cour européenne de Justice qui retira plut tard l’étiquette du terrorisme. Ce processus de révision ne pourtant commence pas aux États-Unis, qui ont initialement figuré l’organisation sur la liste des terroristes.

Pour un geste de bonne volonté au régime des mollahs, l'OMPI a été placée sur la liste de terrorisme après une décision prise en 1997 par l'administration Clinton et adoptée cinq ans plus tard par l'Union européenne. Le but fut de tenter d'amadouer les Mollahs en déclarant que l'OMPI était un groupe terroriste, placée ainsi sur un pied d'égalité avec Al-Qaïda et le Hamas.

Pourtant, l'organisation ne représente aucun danger ni pour les États-Unis, ni Israël, ni l'Union européenne depuis des années. En revanche, elle constitue bel un bien un danger pour le régime pernicieux et belliqueux des Mollahs. On a même vu une collaboration étroite de l'organisation avec l'Ouest en lui passant des informations importantes sur les sites et le programme nucléaire des mollahs en Iran. L’OMPI constituait en effet un outil redoutablement efficace dans les mains de l'Ouest pour intimider les Mollahs.

Mais le défait de l'islam politique en Iran n'a pas empêché l'OMPI de claironner que son idéologie islamique reste son aspect le plus répugnant pour les Iraniens. L'islam ne doit pas se mêler au champ politique, une grande majorité d’iraniens pensent aujourd’hui. L’islam sous le manteau d’une fraction ou l’opposition islamique ne pourra jamais constituer une alternative démocratique viable, les iraniens concluent. Le danger qui guette l’Iran n'est pas seulement les Mollahs mais l'islam politique qui est aussi l'idéologie de l'OMPI.

On ne peut pas ignorer les crimes liés à cette idéologie commis contre le peuple iranien. Quelque soit le nom et la forme de l'état qui s’identifie avec l’idéologie islamique, il ne respectera point les droits universels de l'homme, les valeurs de démocratie et de laïcité, la parité de femmes, et la séparation totale de la religion de tous les aspects de la vie politique, judiciaire et éducative. Les mesures de solidarité de l’opposition laïque avec l’OMPI vont uniquement dans le sens humanitaire mais jamais un constat de son islam politique. Que cet islam soit présenté par Ahmadinejad, les leaders des Verts (Moussavi / Karrubi) ou par l'OMPI ne fait pas une grande différence. En plus, l'organisation s'avère plutôt une secte qu’une organisation d’opposition. Ceux qui ont quittés l’organisation témoignent sur son sectarisme très approfondi et structuré.

Pour être admis dans l’organisation, il faut que le candidat soit chiite pratiquant et obéir l’hiérarchie et les principes de l’OMPI. Les témoignages d’ex-membres ne relèvent qu’un dilemme entre le refus de la liberté individuelle des membres contre la loyalité a l'épreuve de martyr au leadership sacré, ce qui finalement pousse certains membres à quitter l’organisation. La notion du martyr est calquée des traditions chiites et d’après ce credo chaque membre doit sacrifier sa vie pour les fins sacrées.

Selon les ex-membres, les résidents d’Ashraf sont coupés du monde extérieur, les membres n’ont pas l’accès aux réseaux sociaux comme l’internet, journaux, télévision, radio, téléphone… Les thèmes de discussion abordés sur leurs propres réseaux sociaux vont des simples informations jusqu'aux détails sur l’idéologie en passant par la loyaulté et discipline, bien sûr.

Certains ex-membres vont jusqu'à diffuser publiquement des documents internes ou des informations compromettantes (témoignages accablants comme divorce forcé des couples, séparations de leurs enfants, hijab islamique, défense des rapports sexuels, garde-à-vous des membres pour les interroger sur leurs désires sexuels et l’examen de leur loyaulté et etc.). Certains membres qui quittent l’organisation sont aussi soupçonnés de rejoindre le camp du régime islamique, ainsi que sa fraction islamique des Verts. L’islam reste leur dénominateur commun.

L'utilité de l'OMPI pour les états occidentaux est reflétée par l'illusion de l'Ouest car ils passent le peuple iranien pour un peuple islamiste. Dans leurs calcules à un régime laïque pour l’Iran n'est pas alors envisageable –ce que d’ailleurs résume leur regard sur le Mouvement des Verts, tous ces entités islamiques leur semble une alternative possible pour prolonger d’un régime islamique en Iran.

Passer d'un totalitarisme islamique, version "islamo-Mollahcratie" vers une autre version verte ou "islamo stalinisme " de l’OMPI n’est pas la solution pour les Iraniens. Ces alternatives islamiques n'apporteront que souffrances supplémentaires. Les Iraniens savent bien la différence entre la réalité et les mirages qu'une certaine mouvance qu'une fois le géopoliticien Zbigniew Brzezinski a initialement préparée dans les années 70s sous le nom de « Ceinture Verte ». Dans les mirages de cette théorie, la continuité de l’islam politique semble toujours prévue comme pour les pays dit musulmans. Dans ce sens, l’OMPI semble une carte jouée et rejouée par les Occidentaux. Ce jeu rappelle les conséquences négatives de la Ceinture Verte, ce jeu dérange l'opposition qui cherche une alternative laïque et démocratique pour remplacer l’islam politique.

Enfin, soyons nous assez honnête d'accepter cette autocritique qu’aucun groupe d'opposition iranienne ne puisse faire des démonstrations de force aussi impressionnantes que l'OMPI, avec ses dizaines des milliers de supporters à l'Ouest--chose extrêmement rare pour des millions iraniens dans l'Ouest qui rêvent d'un système laïque et démocratique en Iran.

On ce qui concerne l’opposition démocratique et laïque, elle doit défendre les résidents d’Ashraf et tous les Moujahedines qui sont agressés, mal traités et intimidés en Irak. Cette position ne sous-estime pourtant pas le rôle de ceux qui les abusent pour leur agenda politique. Les responsables sont en premier lieu les dirigeants de l’OMPI eux-mêmes qui sacrifient la vie de la population d’Ashraf, le bas sujet dans leur hiérarchie, et puis les Américains et les Irakiens qui les jouent malhonnêtement sur l’échiquier politique.

Oil Embargo on Mullahs

2011-04-07T08:55:00.000-07:00

Since the revelation of IRI's nuclear ambition in 2002, at the initiation of the group of six, the United Nations Security Council imposed several rounds of economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the US has maintained a trade restriction on the IRI. None of these measures convinced the regime to turn its back to its nuclear ambitions.

The relatively harsher third set of sanctions started by the EU's recent freezing of the assets of Iran's Bank Melli and imposing travel prohibitions on some IRI's seniors, scientists and military officials. Bank Melli Iran, which is fully owned by the state, is the country's largest commercial bank, with about 45,000 employees and 3,000 branches worldwide, and total assets of €38 billion ($59 billion). Its branches in Russia and in the United Arab Emirates continue to process transactions, including, as is rumoured, those originating in Europe.

The pressure exerted by the US had a little effect in recent years. In 2007, German exports to Iran declined to only $5.0 billion--from €3.35 billion to $3.23 billion. The IRI has already turned to trading partners in Russia and China and other Asian countries, which have no qualms about taking over IRI's nuclear ambitions. According to data supplied by Germany's Federal Office for Foreign Trade, China has almost doubled its trade volume with Iran since 2005, from $10 billion (€6.5 billion) to $18.5 billion (€11.9 billion).

Pakistan and India have also expanded their economic relations with the regime, and trade with the Arab nations across the Persian Gulf has much increased. Furthermore, many countries in Asia and Europe, but the U.S. has managed to get around the sanctions by working with middlemen and companies close to the IRI, mostly in the Persian Gulf region. It seems that such sanctions do not put an end to business dealings with the IRI and the new sanctions do not seem to convince the IRI to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

On the other hand, the EU may look for compromises with the IRI to maintain their bilateral economic relations. We know that despite constant IRI's catastrophic records of Human Rights since the Iranian revolution, the EU's share of Iran's total imports is over 40%. EU trade with Iran has even expanded since Iran's secret nuclear programme was exposed. IRI's sponsored terrorism and nuclear programme have been ignored a long time by the EU while partly helped by Russia.

The fact is that Mullahs continue to ignore sanctions with little consequence for the regime even though Iran's economy is stagnating. Consumer prices are raising rapidly, unemployment approaches 30 percent and Ahmadinejad has not redistributed oil profits to the poor as promised, but the regime continues to invest in terrorism, nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Following the first US war against Iraq in 1991, the United Nations imposed sanctions on the country for 13 years, and yet Saddam refused to yield. The sanctions did not significantly weaken Saddam, but brought about more poverty, medical deficiency and infantile deaths in the population. Such sanctions can have the same impacts on Iranian civil population. Sanctions on the basic needs like foods or medicines very likely favour an oasis for the State Mafia to grow, as it was the case during the Iran-Iraq War.

In 2008, 100 Israeli planes flew 1,400 kilometres out over the Mediterranean as part of a military manoeuvre. In the flight, they covered exactly the same distance they would have to cover in an attack on the Iranian uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. In response, the IRI test-fired missiles whose range puts Israel within reach. An eventual air strike on Iran is not excluded. However it will considerably damage the Iranian national infrastructures and will slaughter many innocents, while the regime very likely manages to survive and use the occasion to tighten its noose around the people’s throats.

The IRI has dispersed its nuclear plants and facilities all over the country and among the civil population to use civil people as human shields against any air strike. Therefore, any so-called surgical air strike launched by Israel or the US will certainly kill thousands of innocent people. Both military intervention and blind economic sanctions will damage people and the national infrastructures rather than the regime's interests. The IRI does not care to pay a high price for its refusal to stop enriching uranium and negotiate and will continue to claim its "reactors are purely for civilian purposes."

But what is the alternative? Will international sanctions produce the desired effect? Is there any chance to solve the dilemma with the IRI? Can the group of six results in a breakthrough? Is a military intervention a right solution? The answer to all of them remains negative. As long as the UN does not directly punish the plague of IRI, not people who already suffer from this totalitarian regime, a real solution is not available.

For the moment, the UN can consider various sanctions on the IRI:
--to ensure the end of unacceptable apathy for the crimes committed by the IRI, those UN resolutions can be issued that clearly highlight IRI's human right violations in the last 32 years.

--the UN's highest court, which has once cleared a number of Serbian authorities of direct responsibility for genocide in the 1990s Bosnian war, is now expected to clear many IRI's crimes, especially the genocide of political prisoners in the summer of 1988 with the same principles that the Nuremburg Court applied to Nazi genocide criminals.

--the UN can demand the UN members to freeze all assets of IRI's seniors and their related institutions, foundations, Islamic centres, economic organisations, media, and lobby groups in the world.

--the UN should rule out any military or blind economic sanctions on Iran. An eventual military attack on Iran serves mainly the agenda of IRI's Hard-liners. In this perspective, apart from military goods and industry and oil, trade of other goods with Iran must not be suspended.

In fact, all of these above regimes sanctions produce significant psychological effect to encourage and justify fair struggles of the oppressed people of Iran against the totalitarian IRI.

The UN may also regard oil embargo on the IRI:
--oil embargo, instead of military attack or economic sanctions, can be an effective alternative. It prevents the regime to reinforce all its repressive forces and administration which not only repress Iranian people, but also jeopardise the international peace.

--IRI's export of crude oil or import of refined oil from India pass through the Strait of Hurmoz, where a UN mandated marine force can stop the transport.
According to Iran's Oil Ministry, the country needs to import up to 15 million litres of gasoline a day for domestic consume. Before rationing was imposed, the domestic consume was estimated 75 million litres a day of gasoline, of which about 36 million was imported. In the case of only gasoline embargo, Iran's consummation can be hardly affected.

IRI's revenue of oil is 70%. A great proportion of this national revenue is not invested to improve the cause of people. Oil in the hands of Mullahs fuels corruption and repression rather than boosts development for people. In short, oil income does not play an important role to people's daily life; in fact, both rate of inflation and unemployment increases while line of poverty permanently sinks. By contrast, Islamic foundations and institutions mushrooms quickly with oil income, oil is mainly a high resource of financing the repressive hundreds of thousands of Pasdars, Basijis, masked hooligans, Plainclothes, bearded or veiled militias, thugs of "Morality Police … Plus IRI's financial helps to the international Islamist terrorism.

Although, Iran is the world's fourth-largest crude oil exporter, it lacks refining capacity to meet all domestic demand for gasoline. Backward and corrupt Mullahs do not improve the technology, other than military, to refine oil therefore rationing in an effort to curb consumption and cut the rising cost of importing fuel. India imports Iranian crude oil and after refining it exports it to Iran.

The idea of oil embargo, as a weapon of struggle against the tyranny, can be regarded effective. Without oil income, the Islamic regime can collapse. The strike of Iranian National Oil Company in 1978-79 and oil the risk of shortage was a main factor of Shah's collapse; it can also topple the IRI. When Mossadegh nationalised the oil industry in 1951, it also resulted in temporary political and financial chaos. Production did not resume until late 1954, but we know that it was all in interest of the nation. As part of the nationalisation process, the government formed the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). As owner, the government directed NIOC policy. Today, oil does not belong to our nation; it is in fact in the hands of an anti-Iranian and corrupt regime.

Sales of oil for arms in the hands of Basijis, Pasdars, or Hezbollah in Lebanon to safeguard the savage IRI only serve the agenda of Mullahs. Mullahs do not care about the extraction and abuse of Iranian national wealth. They raise the production of oil to fulfil their political and personal agenda. Through oil embargo, unexploited oil will remain an intact source for a free Iran after the fall of the corrupt IRI. It will help the country to repair the damage done by this regime and will guarantee prosperity and development of the national economy after the Mullahs' regime.

We know that interconnected global economies vitally depend on oil. The industrialised world is the main consumers of fuel. Despite the deep economical interconnections, they are not always in harmony. The EU because of its intensive trade with Iran is rather against to such an oil embargo on the IRI. The EU remained cooperative with Iran after the Iranian revolution. IRI's sponsored terrorism, and nuclear programme, did not seem to play an important role for the EU because after all, EU's share of Iran's total imports has increased to 45%. EU trade with Iran has even expanded since Iran's secret nuclear programme was exposed. The EU imports 40% Iran's oil-the rest goes to Japan, China and other Asian countries.

The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), to which Iran belongs, can raise output by 3,000,000 barrels per day; oil embargo on the IRI cannot be a factor that the whole world economy goes into recession.

Mullahs’ regime knows the risk of an oil embargo; it tries to abuse the relatively expensive oil price, to export as much as it can, even below the market price. Islamic authorities have ordered in 2008 oil tankers from South Korea to increase their transport fleet and consequently oil transportation capacity to 11 million tons by 2010.

Roughly 20% of oil revenues go directly to the pocket of the people in the form of payment for subsidies or employees of the governmental organisations (about 3 million). Oil is the lowest income of these people under the smashing inflation. The mullahs are the real brokers of oil. Oil is a mafia wealth of corrupt Rafsanjani-clan and his likes from any faction of the regime (Reformists and Hard-liners alike). They can fuel any repressive and / or propaganda machine to abate the tension felt at home and mask any real cause for which people suffer from. So, oil income goes on the account of repressive forces, propaganda machine, and terrorist organisations in the world.

The IRI is precarious, unpopular mullahs hold onto power by all means of repression. If the oil revenue were suddenly to drop, the repressive regime would lose its steady income and would have serious problems to invest its repressive machine to repress domestic population and finance the international terrorism.

If oil sanction, as a new weapon of sanction, is imposed as a result of IRI's nuclear row with the West, and it can render the IRI more vulnerable, it is also at the same time a lack of resource in the hand of the Mullahs to finance their repressive forces and a fair occasion for Iranian protesters to challenge the plague of the IRI. Millions of Iranian demonstrators who take the streets to challenge the legitimacy of the whole totalitarian regime will be encouraged in their struggles if an oil embargo is imposed.

The IRI cannot be reduced to a simple dictatorial system. It is an extremely brutal totalitarian system, emulated from the archaic models of a clan society of the Arabian pagans. IRI's criminal records go beyond of any standard of today's imagination, i.e., with one Khomeini's fatwa, several thousand political prisoners, some of them minors, were killed in summer 88. Since the inception of the regime, hundreds of thousands of Iranians have been jailed, tortured, raped, and strained to repent. Many thousands have summarily been executed. Millions of Iranians have been forced to leave the country looking asylum in the West.

The brutal face of Mullahs' regime is camouflaged by the censured of state run media. Furthermore, in the light of any Göbbels-like propaganda system of totalitarian regimes, a crowd of sold intellectuals, paid journalists and Islamic media-networks owned by Reformists and Hard-liners both in and out of Iran do the job to create an international apathy towards the depth of Iranian people's plight. Despite their inner conflicts, their common aims are to safeguard the Islamic regime from a potential fall.

The best reason to impose an oil embargo on the regime is the lack of any other realistic alternative from the UN. Even as the collateral damage from such trade embargo can be immense, including harming those countries that impose it, the other choice is economic sanctions or war. Both hard line and reformist factions of the regime know that oil embargo of the regime, not necessarily along with precise force used against their military targets, will bring this regime to its knees within a week. Therefore, all avid factions of the regime and closet supporter of the IRI, attempt to reject any sanctions including oil one. If some aledged activists really belong to the “opposition”, what are other practical suggestions to help people to free their country from the plague of the whole Islamic regime?

Most data of this article is from Spiegel put together in July 2008 by columnists:
-Dieter Bednarz, Ralf Beste, Hans Hoyng, Cordula Meyer, Wolfgang Reuter, Christoph Schult.
- Translator: Christopher Sultan

وظیفه عمومی اپوزیسیون در غرب

2011-04-04T09:50:00.000-07:00

پیام نوروزی اوباما, بعداز پیام دوستانه ۲ سال پیش و حتا نامه پرانی هايش برای خامنه ای, سیاست های جدید اروپا در قبال دیکتاتور های منطقه و حتی لحن محتاط چين و روسيه از سال ۲۰۰۹ در پذيرش تحريم های جديد بر رژیم اسلامی گواه اين است که بوی عفونت لاشه رژيمهای دیکتاتوری که در حال مرگ هستند به مشام اينان هم رسيده یا بزودی خواهد رسید. این تا حدودی بستگی به اپوزیسیون سرنگون طلب ایران در غرب دارد تا رژیم اسلامی را بیشتر افشا و خواستار انزوای سیاسی ان شود. در صورت تلاش اپوزیسیون سرنگون طلب در خارج، یک مشت روزنامه نگار صادراتی امثال گنجی، نبوی، کشتگر، نگهدار...و لابیهای بد نام مانند نیاک و کاسمی... و فعالان صادراتی با پوشش " اصلاح طلب " اعتباری برای خرید زمان برای بقا رژیم اسلامی خود ندارند. چندین میلیون ایرانی خارج، در اکثریت مطلق خود، خواستار جمع شدن بساط این رژیم ضد ایرانی با تمام فراکسیون های اسلامی, حامیان و مزوران ان هستند. این رژیم با سابقه ۳۲ سال جنایت و خیانت به مردم ایران، بسط ترور در منطقه و جهان, رشد خطر اسلام سیاسی و جنگ در جهان منفور تر از ان است که بقاه خود را با هر رنگ و لعابی توجیه کند.

اعتراضات مردم در چارچوب اعتراضات مدنی و يا محدود به انتخابات اخير ریاست جمهوری گذشته نيست، اینک وارد مرحله ای انقلابی شده است. با هر فرصت و بهانه ای که پيش ايد, مردم راديکال تر

مصمم تر و متحد تر به خيابان ها ميريزند و مبارزه خود را ادامه خواهند داد. شيوه های ديگر ابداعی و انقلابی مبارزه در راهند و جنبش پيوسته رو به اعتلاست. اين مبازه نه تنها مشروعيت دولت احمدی نژاد بلکه کل رژيم جمهوری اسلامی و اسلام سياسی را به چالش می کشد. این چشم انداز آخری را البته حامیان بقا رژیم در خارج خنثی میکنند. غرب استفاده ای برایش ندارد که خواستار سر نگون کل رژیم باشد لذا سیاست دیالوگ و مماشات را در قبال رژیم اسلامی تغیر جدی نمیدهد -- همانطور که در قبال دیکتاتورهای کشور های عربی سال ها تغیر نداد.

از طرفی، جنبشی که بعداز انتخابات اخير بنام "سبز" شناخته شده هنوز در مطبوعات غرب به عنوان "اپوزیسیون" نامیده میشود. غرب در عمل جناحی از رژیم را مهم میکند تا در روابط خود با جناح غالب آنرا وجه مصالحه قرار دهد. اعلامیه های رهبران سبز، نصب یک کانال تلویزیونی اسلامی در اروپا، تشکیل یک کمیته "سبز امید" از افرادی ناشناخته و مشکوک، تهاجم ادبیات اسلامی-توده ای آنان به اپوسیزیون سکولار و سرنگون طلب همگی حکایت از توجه غرب به این جناح رژیم است. در حالیکه از نظر اپوزیسیون سرنگون طلب، ما شاهد طفیلی شدن روزافزون این جریان سبز هستیم. تمام تلاش این مرتجعین در جهت حفظ رژیم قرون وسطائی اسلام ومنحرف کردن امر انقلاب " ساختار شکنی" مردم از پروسه سرنگونی رژیم است. دیری نخواهد گذشت که حامیان موسوی / کروبی / خاتمی... در روند رشد مبارزات مردم و رشد و آگاهی بیشتر خود, به طفیلی بودن این رهبری پی خواهند برد و زیر بار این رهبری مرتجع نخواهند رفت. پیروان اين جنبش"سبز" در روند قطبی شدن جامعه خود شقه شقه خواهند شد. خط تودهی- اسلامی ان دنبال رو رهبران مذهبی يعنی موسوی و کروبی و امثال انها خواهند بود زيرا هدفشان حفظ رژيم اسلامی و اصلاح ان از درون است. بخش و سيعتری از اقشار مختلف به جنبش سرنگون طلبی و یا انقلابی خواهند پيوست و نام و رهبران خود در بطن مبارزات از بهترين پيشروان خود انتخاب خواهند کرد. انان خواهان سرنگونی کل رژيم و تاسيس يک رژيم دومکراتيک و سکولار خواهند بود -- فعلا بدلیل کمبود های اپوزیسیون و خراب کاری حامیان رنگا و رنگ رژیم اسلامی، یک قطب پر جاذبه سیاسی برای جذب اقشار سرنگون طلب در ایران وجود ندارد، کماکان سیل انقلاب در پیدایش ان تاثیر دارد. آنچه مسلم است، انبوه بزرگی از فعالان دموکرات و سکولار در داخل و خارج در اسرع وقت این کمبود را را پر خواهند کرد.

شگرد های رژيم برای بقا خود عمدتا بر دو اصل استوار است:

ـ بستن شمشير از رو: با ادامه سرکوب, بازداشت, شکنجه, تجاز جنسی, اعتراف گيری و احتمالا طرق ديگری که در راهند.

- سياست رعب و سرکوب علنی هدف رژيم خواهد شد يعنی رعب و وحشت نهادينه خواهند شد . رژيم ممکن است در کنار نيروهای سرکوبگرش ,برای اطمينان بيشتر, واحد های جديدی مستقر کند و پرسنل انان از حزب الله لبنان, شيعيان عراق، سوریه... تشکيل شوند. چنين پرسنلی سياست رعب و وحشت علنی رژيم را با سخاوت بیشتر دنبال خواهند کرد -- همانطور که قدافی نیز از مزدوران خارجی برای قلع و قم مردم لیبی استفاده میکند. در این صورت نقش فراکسیون مغلوب ادامه دامنه اعتراض به فراکسیون غالب در چارچوب قانون اساسی مورد قبول دو جناح است.

-ـ متارکه: غلاف کردن شمشير برای سازش با "رفورميست ها",ادغام چهره های "ملايم" در رهبری سياسی/ مذهبی برای ادامه حيات رژيم. اين فاز ممکن است با کنار گذاشتن اجباری احمدی نژاد، قربانی چند چهره منفور رژیم و حتا حذف خامنه ای از مقام خود منتهی شود. اينها آلترناتیو های بعدی رژیم برای ادامه حکومت اسلامی بدون ولايت مطلق فقيه و یا ولایت "مشروطه" است. لازم به یاد آوای است که بخشی از فعالان حامی بقا ریم اسلامی در خارج اینک بدین منظور بسیج شده اند تا در صورت لزوم برگ های جدیدی رو شود. در این صورت جناح مغلوب به جناح غالب تبدیل و مدتی هم آزادی نسبی به مطبوعات و پوشش زنان در تعبیر اسلامی خواهند داد تا در فرصت مناسب دو باره شمشیر را از رو ببندند و عمر انگلی رژیم اسلامی را تمدید کنند.

انچه صرفا مربوط به منافع غرب است,اگر چه رژیم اسلامی بذر بخشش میکند و به مدافعین خارجی را باج میدهد ولی از طرفی این رژیمی است خطر ناک برای صلح و امنیت جهانی. اين مردم ايران و بويژه ايرانيان و فعالان سياسی خارج از کشورند که بايد به کمک افکار عمومی, سازمان های مدنی، احزاب چپ و مترقی، مطبوعات و رسانه های غرب تاثيری برسياست های اين کشورها بجا گذارند. و غرب را مجبور کنند حقوق بشر و منافع مردم ايران را در کنار صلح و امنیت جهانی فراتر از منافع اقتصادی خود در نظر گيرد تا رژیم در سطح جهانی بیش از بیش منزوی شود. کمک غرب به انقلاب تنها به منافع اقتصادی / ژئو -پولیتیک آنان نباید گره بخورد بلکه با کمک اپوزیسیون سرنگون طلب در خارج باید با مقوله حقوق بشر و همبستگی بین مللی ترفیع یابد. این وظیفه فوری اپوزیسیون سرنگون طلب در خارج است.

L’intelligentsia prise par labyrinthe Libyen

2011-03-31T01:10:00.000-07:00

Sur le spectre politique gauche-droite, l’intelligentsia mondiale semble toujours indécise de trouver une position adéquate et unie vis-à-vis l’intervention militaire en Lybie. Même si l’intervention est autorisée par l’ONU et apparemment demandée par le peuple libyen qui est sous le joug de son dictateur barbare. Certains de tendance de gauche ou islamique voient l’intervention uniquement dans les intérêts de l’ « impérialisme » ou des « infidèles », donc ils la condamnent catégoriquement.
Certains la voient une comme occasion utile qui permettra de sauver le peuple libyen tout en sachant qu’un pays pétrolier comme la Lybie n’est pas sans intérêts particuliers pour les pays occidentaux qui interviennent. Cette tendance « pragmatiste » n’exprime pas une opposition totale à toute intervention militaire mais la conditionne.

Pour les marxistes plus orthodoxes, dit aussi « Marxistes-Léninistes », le changement du régime sera seulement possible par une révolution est un soulèvement conscient du peuple. Quoique soient les conditions objectives, l’ordre de jour s’appelle une révolution contre les automatismes de la société bourgeoise. Bien entendu cet ordre n’est donc pas une sorte d’explosion irrationnelle de mécontentement mais il implique au contraire une rupture fondamentale avec les mécanismes politiques, idéologiques et les rapports de reproduction imposés par l’État capitaliste.

Pour eux, l’État capitaliste aussi bien que son despotisme doit être brisé, il doit céder la place à un régime socialiste. C’est la seule condition sin qua non qui légitime le changement du régime. Ils voient l’intervention militaire pour remplacer Kadhafi par des agents des pays impérialistes comme c’était le cas en Afghanistan et en Irak ou les pions d’impérialisme comme Karzaï et Al-Maliki sont là pour plonger ces pays dans le chaos. Ces régimes dépendants ne poursuivent que les intérêts de l’impérialisme et leurs multinationales.

Ils insistent que chaque peuple a le droit de se débarrasser de dirigeants qui ne lui conviennent pas, mais ce droit n’appartient pas aux grandes puissances impérialistes comme USA, France et Grande-Bretagne. Mais comment faire si les conditions objectives et subjectives dépassent ces conditionnements-là ? Comment faire si l’État arrive à réprimer tout le monde et aucune organisation solidaire de lutte de classe ne pourra s’organiser ? Les marxistes orthodoxes n’y pensent pas selon les problématiques de nos jours mais cherchent dans les volumes classiques du Marx leurs réponses, souvent évasives et idealistes.

Pour parvenir à une révolution socialiste, Marx postulait la nécessité de l’organisation politique préalable du prolétariat en parti politique distinct qui soit une véritable avant-garde. Cela paraissait le meilleur moyen de combattre les vues utopiques de ceux qui niaient en bloc l’utilité des partis et des syndicats. Mais on dut s’apercevoir que cette formule recelait bien les équivoques, d’autres formes de luttes de guérilla s’émergent en Amérique latine. D’ailleurs rien ne garanti la survie d’une telle organisation et puis comment recruter la masse ouvrière et intellectuelle lorsque l’État est totalitaire, islamique, staliniste, ou dans le cas de la Lybie, la structure sociale est encore tribale.

D'une part, on accepte tout détriment de l’intervention impérialiste en Lybie, d’autre part on constate les crimes commis aujourd’hui par Kadhafi. Le problème se pose lorsque on condamne l'intervention militaire « impérialiste », qui est mandatée par l’ONU pour battre les troupes et mercenaires de Kadhafi. En même temps qu’on exige la fin du règne de Kadhafi et une reconnaissance du Conseil national de transition intérimaire, comme le seul représentant légitime du peuple libyen et (qui d’ailleurs demande l’intervention), on condamne également l’intervention. Et comment va-t-on accomplir toutes ces procédures sans une intervention militaire? Quelle sera l’alternative à l’intervention militaire des pays « impérialistes »? Partant de là, il ne faut pas oublier que cette intervention a évité une tuerie qui aurait fait bien plus de victimes. Bien sûr, les victimes civiles, ne les oublions pas, cela reste injuste et cruel mais que faire sinon ce qui a été fait par cette intervention?

On sait que la doctrine de l'ingérence n’est pas 100 % humanitaire : on peut spéculer sur l’intention économique à long terme, du même qu’empêcher une révolution socialiste. Mais á mon avis il y a aussi d'autres facteurs modificatifs qui poussent les pays occidentaux à intervenir militairement ; Il y a le facteur d’hégémonie géopolitique qui ne calcule forcement pas sur les intérêts économiques. Il y a le facteur social poussé par les médias, les organisations de droits de l’homme, des institutions démocratiques et humanitaires qui jouent comme une véritable force d’internationalisme à l'intérieur des pays dit impérialistes. Tous ces facteurs-là peuvent aussi jouer un rôle dans la politique étrangère des pays occidentaux. D’autant plus que le monde multipolaire qui se met en place après la chute du communisme n’a plus besoin des dictateurs moyenâgeux mais plutôt des régimes ouverts à une certaine liberté qui favorisent l’entrée des capitaux.

Cela n’empêche pas une réflexion sur les effets désastreux des politiques impérialistes américaines mais il faut aussi réagir dans l'urgence pour sauver les civils libyens de la rage de Kadhafi tout en acceptant qu'on réfléchira après lorsque le pays sera libéré. Mais comme la réflexion ne vient jamais à l’esprit des gauchistes orthodoxes, Ils restent éternellement « dans l'urgence » de la révolution socialiste, c'est-à-dire à la traîne du règne de Kadhafi pour le moment!

Certains gauchistes ne proposent d'alternative autre que verbale. Ils parlent d’organiser les masses. Ils lancent des paroles en l'air au nom de la volonté des masses. Il est évident que ce type d'argumentation contre l’intervention ne puisse guère convaincre la population libyenne qui sont les victimes du leur tyran. Il est naïf de penser qu’un tyran comme Kadhafi qui martyrise un pays depuis plus de 42 ans partira avec des seules négociations et sans faire couler le sang.

Il y a aussi une tendance pacifiste qui condamne chaque guerre. On a l’impression que pour cette tendance, aucune guerre n’est juste, même si ce n'est qu’une guerre défensive. Ce pacifisme inconditionnel ouvre un cliché aux contre-arguments de la tendance interventionniste. Nous savons qu’un régime totalitaire ne sera idéalement changé l’attitude. La traduction du sens du pacifisme inconditionnel dépasse la réalité. Hélas, l’espèce humaine n’est pas encore si évaluée pour mériter une paix gratuite. Sous le nom pacifisme absolu, c’est parfois l’abandon de l’activisme, c’est en fait un appel à la passivité et à l’obéissance de statut qua, ce qui favorise aujourd’hui plutôt Kadhafi, les Mollahs, et aurait pu favoriser hier Hitler, Pol pot, Saddam, Milosevic -- tous renversés par l’intervention étrangère.

Peut-on dire que le peuple libyen n’avait plus qu’à confier aux aides internationales pour se défendre contre les troupes et mercenaires de Kadhafi ? Sans comprendre cet appel d’aide comme un instinct de la vie, la tendance pacifiste et non-interventionniste semble immorale. Les solutions pragmatiques dans un jeu planétaire avec la dictature ne sont pas forcement de nature de calasse sociale mais celle de toute la population et l’intérêt social. Car un refus catégorique d’intervention sans une solution adéquate risque aujourd’hui un d’être compris comme un aveu d’impuissance, une façon d’aspirer à la lutte de demain sans se donner les moyens de la réaliser aujourd’hui.

Immoral Relations with Mullahs’ Regime

2011-03-26T22:53:00.000-07:00

Germany helps the Mullahs’ regime to prolong its parasitic life. The attitude of German governments and firms to keep diplomatic ties and trade with the Islamo-fascist regime of Mullahs contradicts the spirit of German constitution. It refutes retaliations with any form of fascism in and out of Germany. By having trade and diplomatic relation with the Islamic fascistic regime of Mullahs in Tehran, German governments and firms have been violating the spirit of our German constitution.

Germany has tried to maintain its good relations with Mullahs since the inception of the regime in 1979. Although in a rather “critical dialogue” of openly limited diplomacy and commerce, continues and even increases lucrative trades in all domains. The lucrative dealings reach billions of dollars despite the controversial inner conflicts among the West due to Mullahs’ nuclear ambitions.

Germany kept and increased its relations with Iran after the 1979 revolution and during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Until 1988, German export of technology and military parts to Iran were over DM 45 billion (Deutsch Mark, old German currency = half of one Euro). Meanwhile, German firms were supplying Saddam’s machine war industrial and military helps, especially chemical weapons which were used against both Iranian troops and civilian Iraqi Kurds.

After the war, the Iranian infrastructures, ruined by German weapons in the hands of Iraqis, needed the German technology to be rebuilt. Germany reached a primary trading partner of Iran, and remains still Iran’s biggest trading partner. Since then, German firms exported to Iran goods like technical services, military supplies despite worldwide acknowledged atrocities of the regime against people’s protests. In 2010, German Nokia-Siemens Networks has admitted to have sold surveillance technology to the Mullahs’ regime to track down dissidents during the protests that followed the 2009 rigged presidential election.

Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the EU’s share of Iran’s total imports is over 40%. EU trade with the Mullahs’ regime has even expanded since Iran’s secret nuclear programme was exposed. Russia and China represent far behind with only 15% of Iran’s total imports. Under such economic factors, the perspective of moral factors like human rights, Mullahs’s sponsored terrorism, and the fate of oppressed people of Iran do not seem to play an important role for the EU. Since the rigged election of 2009, EU reacts in the favour of the defeated candidates, Mr. Moussavi and Mr. Karrubi, but does not firmly condemn the Islamic regime entirely.

Germany – Mullahs- relations were periodically affected by the following events, but Germany never summoned her ambassador from Tehran for a short time:

–Mykonos Court in Germany– in 1992 several Iranian dissidents were assassinated by a regime’s terrorist commando in Mykonos restaurant in Berlin. The court condemned many Islamic regimes’ senior authorities for plotting the crime.

–In revenge for it, a German detainee, or hostage in Iran, Mr. Helmut Hofer, was condemned and few years in detention for his out-of- marriage relation with a Muslim woman.

–The sensible conflict, which normally should have effectively violated the German basic law, is a vast Ahamadinejad’s campaign beginning in 2005 to deny the historical facts of Holocaust.

However, despite of these cool winds between the two countries, despite of withdraw of some German banks from Iran–Commerzbank, Deutsche Bank, and Dresdner Bank all due to US pressure– Germany dreams of further better economic relations with Mullahs. German officials, from ex-chancellor Helmut Kohl to social democrat ex-chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and the current Chancellor, Angela Merkel, have never openly condemned the Mullahs’ regime for their permanent violations to human rights in Iran.

More than 12% of international joint ventures in Iran are German, with a turnover of half a billion Euros ($620 million). Some German businesses have invested directly in Iran. Linde AG, for instance, has invested almost half a billion Euros in the Iranian oil industry. German carmakers such as Volkswagen and Audi have made their entries onto the Iranian business market with their assembly facilities. German firms are promised to hold shares from the ongoing privatised Iranian economic sectors.

Pro German-Mullahs-lucrative relations are to be won or lost to indoctrinate a paradigm shift for this immoral trade with Islamo-fascism of Mullahs. They pretend the trade as “good relations between two friend nations”! Our German vultures are using the arguement of lobbyists and apologists of the Mullahs’ regime propagate the idea that the best way to promote reforms in Iran is not to try to isolate the regime economically and politically, but rather by bring them into fold, allow them for much better economical and political relationship to actually have some influence. Try and improve the lives of the Iranians so that they can bring changes from within. This campaign is propagated by the various factions, supporters of the regime and of course foreign economic partners of Mullahs’ regime use it alike.

Nevertheless, the relations between the two countries are uniquely based on lucrative interests for Mullahs and German firms while both sides ignore the ongoing daily situation of Iranians who are the hostage of an occupier of the Mullahs ‘regime. Since the 1979 revolution and more flagrantly, since the 2009 election, not a day passes with no report of executions, amputations, stoning, rape, torture attacks on women, and regression of other thinkers in Iran. The trade takes such a determined value that no German official dares talking on the permanent violations of human rights in Iran; this is the reason I call such trades “immoral.”

According to the officials of the Islamic regime, foreign investment in Iran rose to $10.5 bln in the last Iranian (March 21, 2006-March 20, 2007) compared to $4.5 bln the year before. To attract foreign capital, the IRI promises foreign investors with insurance coverage to encourage them invest in Iran. German investors are welcome too. Needless to mention, the private sectors remain in great part in the hands of Mullahs’ confidents. Outsiders, especially non-Muslims investors can never take the helm from business-generals of the RGR, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, or the Mullahs heading the Islamic foundations who today are the main shareholders of the private sectors.

In any case, the economic exchange is not between the two nations, but in fact, between the German government and an illegitimate Iranian regime oppressing Iranian nation. It is to mention that although Germany has been Iran’s economic partner number one, but does not rank higher than thirty-fifth on the list of Germany’s economic partners abroad. Germany does not forcibly need Iranian goods and can import its oil from many other oil rich countries.

As said, Germany must supply nothing but foods and medical goods to Iran. This is the only moral trade; the other domains of trade between the two countries must be suspended. To fulfil this vacuum, Germany is expected to extend its economic relations with relatively democratic countries of the third world.

.

Ist jede militärische Intervention ein Verstoß?

2011-03-21T03:44:00.000-07:00

Wie den Berichten zu entnehmen ist, begrüßten die meisten Libyer die Luftangriffe Frankreichs. Die Militäraktionen in Libyen, haben nicht nur die eingekesselten hilflosen Menschen in Bengasi gerettet sondern ihnen Mut gegeben, gegen die Angriffe Gaddafis weiter zu kämpfen. Militärische Interventionen von ausländischen Ländern gegen die kriminellen Truppen Gaddafis ist von den libyschen Rebellen als eine notwendige Rettung betrachtet worden und nicht als ein ausländischer Angriff im Sinne des Wortes.

Im Laufe der Geschichte gab es militärische Interventionen, welche mit den Interessen des unterdrückten Volkes harmonierten und so gemeinsam gelangen. Ein Beispiel dafür ist die Beantwortung der Frage: Wären die Deutschen in der Lage gewesen, ohne internationale Hilfe das Nazi-Regime zu besiegen? Die gleiche Frage ist auch bei Kamboja zu stellen, welches in den 70er Jahren vom kriminellen totalitären Diktator Pol Pot regiert und durch eine vietnamesische Intervention davon befreit wurde. Viele solcher Beispiele, insbesondere aus der Zeit des 2. Weltkrieges, könnten aufgezählt werden. Gerade im 2. Weltkrieg ist es gelungen durch ausländische Interventionen viele Länder von nationalistischen Regierungen zu befreien.

Ist das Verhalten von Gaddafi, den Mullahs im Iran, dem Islamisten Bashir im Sudan… nicht faschistisch genug, um mit den Nazis verglichen zu werden? Wie lange soll eine unterdrückte Bevölkerung darauf warten, bis die westlichen Regierungen die Vorgehensweise der Öl-/Waffen-Industrie blockieren und die lukrativen Interessen dieser Industrien nicht zum Inhalt ihrer Leitpolitik machen?

Nach den beschlossenen UNO-Resolutionen, war die Reaktion bei Gaddafi sofort sichtbar — er hatte eine Waffenruhe angekündigt. Für einen skrupellosen Diktator, der niemals sein Wort gehalten hat, reicht eine solche Resolution nicht aus. So lange keine konkreten Aktionen eingeleitet werden, sind solche Resolutionen nur reine Attrappe und stehen auf wackeligen Beinen. Gaddafi, Mullahs,… wissen von diesen lukrativen Politikappeasements des Westerns und nutzen es aus. Wir müssen das mit den Augen der unterdrückten Bevölkerung betrachten, welches die Opfer solcher Regime sind und auf sofortige Hilfe warten.

Was die deutsche Passivität in Bezug auf die militärische Intervention in Libyen anbelangt, bleibt das Verhalten der deutschen Politiker auch heute noch von einem Schuldgefühl, welches aus den Jahren 1939 – 1945 resultiert, geprägt. Dieses Schuldgefühl geht so weit, dass deutsche Politiker es zulassen, dass Menschen unterdrückt werden, anstatt pragmatische (bis hin zur militärischen Intervention) Hilfe zu leisten.

Ein totalitäres Regime wie das Hitler Deutschlands führte einen Krieg gegen die Menschheit, ungeachtet der geographischen Grenzen. Aus der Historie haben wir gelernt, dass der absolute Pazifismus praktisch nicht existiert. Solange Diktatoren existieren, können wir nicht von Frieden oder mit anderen Worten von idealistischem Pazifismus reden. Mit einem Kompromiss mit Tyrannen, kann man nicht von dauerhaftem Frieden im Sinne des Pazifismus träumen. Keine Euphorie für den deutschen Pazifismus! Als unsere deutschen Pazifisten mit gewissen Schuldgefühlen über das Schicksal der hilflosen Menschen polemisierten, sind die französischen und alliierten Kampfflugzeuge bereits unterwegs, um dem unterdrückten Menschen gegen die Tyrannei in Libyen zu helfen!

Wer kann mir die Fragen beantworten: Warum deutsche Aufklärungsflugzeuge in Afghanistan eingesetzt werden und für Libyen nicht starten sollen? Warum ist die Hilfe bei einer Katastrophe im Ausland selbstverständlich, aber nicht wenn eine Tyrannei herrscht - sie ist wie eine Naturkatastrophe (wie z.B. der Tsunami im Japan, der internationale Hilfe begehrt)?

Ob Naturkatastrophe oder ein Regime, das von Diktatoren geführt wird, sollte für die internationale Gemeinschaft selbstverständlich sein, entsprechende Hilfe zu leisten. Warum soll diese Hilfe nicht der unterdrückten Bevölkerung im Iran gegeben werden? Auch dort werden die Menschen seit 32 Jahren von der Katastrophe Mullahs beherrscht.

Sind Alle Iraner Muslims?

2011-03-13T13:54:00.000-07:00

Dass meine deutschen Mitbürger mich für einen Pakistaner, Bengale, Araber........ halten und damit zum Ausdruck bringen, dass sie zwischen den verschiedenen Völkern dieser Welt nicht differenzieren können, ist für mich als deutscher mit iranischer Abstammung keine Schande. Unangenehm ist jedoch die Tatsache, dass meine deutschen Mitbürger darauf bestehen, dass ich als Iraner Moslem bin, obwohl meine weltliche Gesinnung genau das Gegenteil zum Ausdruck bringt.

Dieses Bild wird verstärkt durch Berichte in den Medien, in denen verschleierte Frauen, bärtige Männer und/oder Mullahs mit Turban gezeigt werden. Dieses Bild ist sehr ungenau und spiegelt nicht die tatsächlichen Gegebenheiten in dem jeweiligen Land wieder und schon gar nicht die innere Haltung der Mehrheit eines Volkes. Welche Macht derartige Bilder und Berichte haben wird deutlich wenn ich zum Ausdruck bringe, dass viele Iraner denken, dass alle Deutschen Nazis sind und umgekehrt viele Deutschen denken, dass alle Iraner Moslems sind. Das diese Denkweise falsch ist bzw. nicht den Tatsachen entspricht ist jedem bewuβt denkenden Menschen bekannt.

Wegen meines Aussehens, Namens und meiner Abstammung habe ich keine Komplexe, peinlich ist mir, dass mich trotz meiner nicht moslemischen Weltanschauung die gleichen Menschen immer wieder fragen ob ich Moslem bin. Zur Klarstellung: in totalitär geführten Ländern gibt es keine korrekte Statistik, durch die herausgefunden werden kann, wie viel Prozent der Bevölkerung welche Gesinnung haben.

Für den Iran gilt, dass es vor der islamischen Republik mehr Anhänger der islamischen Religion gab als jetzt – 32 Jahre nach Errichtung des islamischen Regimes. Es ist als „Erfolg“ des Regimes anzusehen, dass durch die Vorgehensweise des totalitären Regimes die Bevölkerung sich des islamischen Kults bewuβt geworden ist und sich in Oppositionen zurück zieht. Insofern haben die islamischen Führer, wie z. B. Ahmedinejad, zur Erkenntnis der Menschen im Iran beigetragen.

Commemorating Women’s Day

2011-03-06T01:11:00.000-08:00

Motivated by the militancy of women in US textile mills, Women's Day was proposed by Clara Zetkin, a Marxist woman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). In a conference in Copenhagen in 1910, the International Socialist declared an International Working Women’s Day (IWD) on March 8.

The goal was to emphasise on the end of existing discrimination of women while organising struggles against all kind of discrimination. In this light, women gradually obtained more scope of gender equalities: the right to hold public offices, their right to vocational training, and an end to inequity in other conditions.

As an integral part in the making of history, Women's Day is commemorated and is a national holiday in many countries. It symbolises an age-old struggle of women of all ethnic, religious, cultural and social backgrounds against the existing gender discrimination.

Despite many achievements, IWD remains a thorn in the eyes of capitalist system and their new religious accomplices in the Church and Mosque. This is because a denial of all forms of religion and economic gender discrimination is not in the interests of capitalism, nor matches it with the credo of any religion which considers women less worthy than men. Historically, the day is rooted in the struggles against the Dark Ages of European Church and in the demand for "liberty, equality, fraternity" during the French Revolution.

IWD has originally assumed a new global dimension for the establishment of women's rights in the developed and developing countries alike. Nevertheless, the growing international political Islam, strengthened by the Islamic regime of Iran, is a serious barrier in the way of achieving this goal. Despite many globally coordinated efforts, the international community, including the United Nations, practically ignores the fate of hundreds of millions of Muslim women, who are conscious or unconscious victims of Islamic states or dominant Islamic traditions of misogyny.

According to the World Health Organisation, 85 to 115 million girls and women have undergone some form of female genital mutilation in many Islamic countries, including 28 African nations, despite the fact that it has been outlawed and condemned by the international community. About 95% of women in Egypt are still the victims of this barbaric genital mutilation.

While March 8th was historically a secular symbol against the dominance of Catholic Church in the West, it is now rather a worldwide struggle against the misogyny of Islamic sates, traditions, and the influence of Islamic mosque all over the world. Today, the horrendous shadow of a monster called political Islam has spread its wings over a great sphere of the globe, where hundred of millions of women have fallen into its clutches. The nest of this bird of prey is the occupied territory of Iran. The bird of prey is an Islamic regime composed of a criminal clique whose bloody clutches are today a new sword of Islam to rape, torture, and kill the “infidel” Iranian men and women.

In many Islamic countries, women, fallen victim to rapes, are often killed by their families to preserve family honour. Honour killings as a legacy of Islamic traditions have been reported in Jordan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and other Persian Gulf countries. Rape as a means of humiliation, confession, and torture has been used against women in Iranian political prisons. Rape of girls before execution is systematically committed, interpreted as an Islamic principle that "it is a sin to kill a virgin". – Rape of masculine political detainees was denounced in 2009 by Mr. Karrubi, an unfortunate candidate of the rigged presidential election.

Since the installation of the Islamic regime in Iran (IRI) in 1979, a fast-growing majority of the Iranian women, identified as "bad-hijab" (bad-veiled), have been constantly suffering from the atrocity of the IRI fanatics in their day-to-day life, and under President Ahmadinejad, from nationwide cruelly organised Islamic "Morality Police". Today, after the rigged presidential election in which Ahamadiniejad was re-elected, millions of Iranians, at least 50% women, take the streets against this gender-apartheid-Islamic regime.

Since 1979, physical assaults, arbitrary arrests, acid-throwing, harassment and psychological pressure have become the part and parcel of woman's life in Iran. Mr. Moussavi, the hard-line PM under Khomeini and now one of the “reformist“ Green Movement leaders, by imposing Islamic hijab in his administrations, has clearly specified that for women no other sort of dress is acceptable except the Islamic hijab. Hijab, as an Islamic code of female dress, was unofficially practised under Mr. Mousavi’s government before its bill being passed in the Islamic parliament.

The first public demonstration of Iranian women after the Iranian revolution was short-lived. On 7 March 1979, on the eve of the IWD, Khomeini decreed that all women employed by the government must wear the "chador" (an all-enveloping black veil), an extension of the four walls of home. Thousands of women filled the streets in protest. For three days, they marched and rallied; on the third day, they staged a sit-in protest at the Palace of Justice, demanding a legal guarantee for their right to choose what to wear and where to work, at home and in society at large.

Khomeini's thugs, armed with knives, attacked the women; they cursed them, yelling "Wear your head or get your head rapped." Islamic thugs stood at windows along the parade-route and exposed their genitals, saying, "This is what you want, you whores!" Quite contrary to the demagogic rants of some “reformists” of the regime that men and women enjoy equal rights, opportunities, and responsibilities in all aspects of life in Iran, a growing gap in the woman's rights from that of men always remains a cruel reality of Iran.

Over the years, conferences, demonstrations and commemorations have been held globally to reflect on the progress made in woman's rights. It is now time to call for what has not been made. International Women's Day should now be made a rallying point against Islamic misogyny, poised to damage the achievements gained in the history of women's rights. Although the Charter of the United Nations proposes gender equality as a fundamental human right, the organisation is reluctant to create standards, programmes and goals for advancing the status of women equally worldwide. For example, the UN avoids condemning the enforcement of hijab on women in Iran.

Of course the UN Charter, signed in 1945, was the first agreement to affirm the principle of equality between women and men. However, the Charter was prepared before the advent of the international political Islam. Today, the global community is affected by political Islam. Consequently, the UN needs to adopt new resolutions to defend the rights of women in Islamic societies. Women in Islamic societies need international support. In the light of many conclusive reports of misogyny in Islamic countries, the UN must react effectively without delay.

The UN, which condemned the Apartheid regime fairly in the past, is now expected to condemn the gender apartheid of Islamic regimes in support of full and equal right for women. It is time for the international community to challenge the misogynistic behavious of Islam across the globe. Confrontation of the widespread violation of basic rights of women in the Islamic world has been long overdue but ignored by the UN. Safeguarding the women's rights is now essential to regaining the sense of International Women's Day.

Daily examples of gender discrimination in Iran show that the regime by imposing different status for men and women has reduced the woman's role to a means of procreation. Today, the struggle for equality, justice, peace, democracy, secularism, and development is not separated from the struggle against misogyny.

Concerned of backlash from women against its ongoing misogyny and outside scrutiny, the Islamic regime responded by forming its own women groups. These groups produced a newspaper, "The Muslim Women“, the main task of which was to inculcate misogynistic norms and pseudo scientific arguments into mind of women. Through the twisted sense of freedom and origin of women's rights, its real role is to justify the regime's misogynistic policy, especially for imposition of hijab on women.

The international community must reject and denounce these kinds of state-run women organisations in Iran. These "yellow" organisations are a greater threat than the governing male fanatics to the liberation of women. The real activists, working to defend women's rights and to bring about real change in Iran, risk their safety: IRI authorities have been harassing, detaining and intimidating them in the last three decades.

In this aim, all factions of the Islamic regime are principally misogynous because their common Islamic credo is based on misogyny. Mr. Abolhassan Banisadr, the first Iranian President, who had lived in France for 15 years, was asked by a television interviewer if it was true that woman's hair emits sexually enticing rays and if this is why Islam requires the veil. "Yes, it is true" was his reply. Mr. Moussavi, a newly baptised "reformist" by the West, was the hard-line PM of Khomeini, when the cabinet was accomplice of thousands of summarily executions in summer 1988. Most female political prisoners were raped before execution according to many well-documented proofs.

In the 21st century, the international community should not accept that women's rights be crippled by Islamic laws “Shari'a”, a 14-century-old legal code. It is time to outlaw Shari'a internationally, because it reduces women to second-class citizens in a male-dominated society. It is time for the global community to condemn any archaic belief system that is based on gender apartheid by officially reducing women to a subhuman entity.

Promotion of gender equality is not only a responsibility of women, but of all humanity. Not only is it an important factor for participation of women in social and economic development, but also a necessity for a healthy development of the society as a whole. According to psychologists and historically approved, gender discrimination creates frustrations, perversity and aggressiveness with blind obedience, all of which are typical traits of oppressed societies.

On this International Women's Day, let us re-dedicate ourselves to the hundreds of millions of women who are conscious or unconscious victims of Islamic misogyny. Much should be accomplished to put into place legal foundations to urge the international community to remember that it is the responsibility of all of us to defend the democratic and secular right to live in dignity, freedom and gender equality.

Let us as a part of the left, secularists, democrats, feminists and freedom-loving human being line up behind the struggles of Iranian women against their most reactionary and misogynistic ruling class. Today after the outbreak of the 2009 rigged presidential election, the people of Iran have found a new occasion to continue challenging the whole Islamic regime. As once Rosa Luxemburg used IWD as a focus for anti-war rallies in 1914 and 1915, let us encourage our women movement on toppling of this barbaric regime in spite of efforts at sabotage by their former leaders who today call themselves “Green Movement” led by some bearded men and veiled women who still attempt to safeguard the apartheid Islamic regime under a new colour.

Journée des Femmes

2011-03-04T05:46:00.000-08:00

Sachant que les femmes ont toujours été privées de l’égalité avec les hommes, Les femmes travailleuses n n’ont pas bénéficié des conditions égalitaires, l’Internationale Socialiste décide en 1910 de mettre fin aux discriminations à l’égard des femmes. Le 8 mars alors a été nommé la journée internationale des femmes et a été depuis célébrée dans beaucoup de pays.

Elle demande le droit de vote, le droit au travail avec des conditions égalitaires, la formation professionnelle pour les femmes et d’autres conditions de travail non-discriminatives pour les travailleuses. Depuis lors, le 8 mars est commémorée et fériée dans les pays démocratiques et laïques. Cette journée symbolise une longue lutte des femmes opprimées. Pour la première fois, les femmes avaient l’espoir de quitter leur statut subalterne qui a été imposée par des tardions patriarcales et religieuse depuis des siècles.

La journée internationale des femmes a emmené un nouvel élan pour des femmes dans les pays développés et en voie de développement. Mais dans le monde musulman, l’islam fait barrage à l’égalité de sexe. Un statut non-discriminatif des femmes dans les sociétés dominées par le credo islamique est pratiquement impossible car le credo islamique officiellement considère que la valeur de femme est la moitié de celle de l’homme.

L’islam, surtout en tant qu’une idéologie de l’état, est une nouvelle barrière sérieuse contre la liberté des femmes et l’égalité entre la femme et l’homme. Aujourd’hui, en dépit des efforts coordonnés dans le monde non-musulman, les conditions des femmes se dégradent jour après jour sous les régimes islamiques et les régimes dit laïques qui exercent une partie de lois islamiques dans leur pouvoir judiciaire et leur system éducatif. Malheureusement la communauté internationale et l’ONU ignorent le destin des centaines de millions de femmes qui sont les victimes consentantes de la misogynie islamique. L’exemple flagrant est la misogynie institutionnalisée depuis la partition du régime islamique de 1979, en Iran.

Dès 1910, le 8 mars était un symbole de laïcité contre l’église catholique. Les féministes et d’autres partisans de l’égalité des sexes doivent maintenait doubler le cap en réclamant plutôt une lutte mondiale contre la misogynie de l’islam. Si l’église catholique était une institution favorisant la discrimination sexuelle, la mosquée islamique donne l’ordre de la misogynie et la ségrégation sociale dont le hijab islamique est le mur de séparation entre les femmes et les hommes.

En ce qui concerne les femmes iraniennes le renversement du régime islamique est une condition sine qua non pour leur liberté et les droits égaux. Si nous voulons repousser les principes religieux qui mettent les femmes dans une position inférieure, nous n’y arriverons jamais avec de tels régimes islamiques au pouvoir. Le régime islamique de l’Iran est basé sur le credo moyenâgeux et misogyne de l’islam. Là, la ségrégation des femmes est symbolisée par toutes une série de lois misogynes dont la plus part ont été rectifiées sous le cabinet de l’ex-premier ministre Mr. Moussavi, actuellement le chef présumé du Mouvement Vert opposant le président Ahamadinejad l’issu de l’élection truquée de 2009—hijab islamique a été pratiquement imposée par le cabinet de Moussavi bien avant qu’il soi passé comme une loi.

Ainsi, sous le gouvernement de Moussavi, le viol en tant que moyen d’humiliation, de pression, et de torture a été systématiquement employé contre les prisonnières politiques. Les gardes et tortionnaires ont violé des femmes « infidèles » avant leur exécution. Après la réélection frauduleuse d’ Ahmadinejad et en conséquence des protestations populaires, le viol des détenus masculins ont aussi été rapporté par Karrubi, un autre candidat malheureux de cette élection truquée.

Depuis 1979, les femmes iraniennes sont obligées de porter le voile islamique, un vêtement long et sombre qui voile entièrement le corps. Une majorité entre elle, identifiées comme « mal voilées », souffrent quotidiennement de la pression psychologique et physique commise par les sbires du régime, récemment appelés la Police de la Moralité. Elles peuvent être interpellées et harassées dans la rue et parfois détenues. Durant 8 ans du gouvernement de Mr. Moussavi, pas un jour ne s’est écoulé sans attaque, agression physique, arrestation, jet d’acide, harcèlement et pression psychologiques sur les femmes. Le régime islamique a clairement indiqué que pour les femmes aucune autre sorte de vêtement n’est acceptable sauf le voile islamique.

La croissance écœurante de la violence contre des femmes en Iran a rigoureusement limité les conditions d’accès au travail, à l’éducation, aux arts, au sport, au divertissement et à la liberté générale dans les toutes les branches de la vie sociale. La raison pour laquelle l’islam insiste sur le port du hijab est pour éviter les contacts « inutiles » entre les femmes musulmane et les « non mahrams » (hommes hors du cercle de famille). Cette raison a formé un dogme qui consiste des « mahram » (membre masculins de famille) et « non mahram ». Ce dogme est à la base de ségrégation sexuelle ou bien l’apartheid de sexe. Sa « croix gammée » est le hijab islamique qui symbolise cet apartheid de ségrégation sexuelle--voire mes articles (Hijab Islamique) ainsi qu’en anglais, (Non-Mahram) et (Gendre Division).

Bien que certains musulmans « modérés » proclament que les femmes et les hommes aient l’égalité des droits, les faits quotidiens sont contraires. Les problèmes des influences religieuses, particulièrement dans les sociétés islamiques, n’ont pas été résolus depuis long temps.

Au fil des années, des conférences, des manifestations et des commémorations de toutes sortes se sont tenues pour réfléchir sur les progrès accomplis. Il est maintenant temps de réclamer ce qui n’a pas été fait. La journée internationale des femmes devrait être l’occasion de rassembler des efforts efficaces et communs contre la misogynie islamique qui demeure le principal obstacle devant la réalisation des droits des femmes dans les pays musulmans.

Bien que la charte des Nations Unies propose l’égalité des sexes comme un des droits fondamentaux de l’homme, elle est incapable de fixer des normes, des programmes, et des buts pour avancer le statut des femmes dans le monde musulman. Par exemple, l'ONU évite de condamner le voile obligatoire en Iran qui est le joug le plus symbolique de la misogynie des mollahs qui châtient et harassent des centaines des milliers de femmes « mal voilées » par an.

La charte de l’ONU, signée en 1945, était le premier accord affirmant le principe d’égalité entre hommes et femmes. Pourtant la charte a été préparée avant l'arrivée de l'islam sur la scène politique. Aujourd’hui, l’ONU doit adopter de nouvelles résolutions défendant le statut des femmes sous les régimes islamiques ou semi-islamiques comme en Arabie Saoudite, les pays du Golf Persique, l’Égypte qui tolèrent les traditions misogynes comme crime d’honneur et l’excision. Ces femmes-là, souvent inconscientes, prises par les traditions de misogynie islamique, ont besoin d’appui international. L’ONU doit maintenant réagir en vue des rapports sur la misogynie permanente contre les femmes nées accidentellement dans les pays, dits musulmans.

L’ONU qui a été capable de condamner l’Apartheid doit maintenant condamner l’apartheid sexuel des états islamiques en y imposant des sanctions adéquates. La violation des droits fondamentaux des femmes dans le monde islamique est un fait qui a été trop longtemps ignoré. La sauvegarde des droits des femmes est maintenant essentielle pour redonner un sens à cette journée commémorative de 8 mars.

Sous d’autres pays musulmans, dit laïques, les états (semi-islamiques) tolèrent les traditions misogynes. Selon l’organisation mondiale de la santé, 85 à 115 millions de filles et des femmes ont subi des mutilations génitales. Ces pratiques archaïques sont toujours en cours dans beaucoup de pays musulmans malgré le fait qu’elles soient critiquées par la communauté internationale.

Dans certains pays musulmans, des femmes qui ont été violées sont parfois tuées par leurs propres familles pour préserver l’honneur de la famille. Ces crimes d’honneur, en tant qu’un legs des traditions islamiques, ont été rapportés en Jordanie, au Pakistan, au Liban, en Syrie, en Irak et d’autres pays du Golfe Persique

Beaucoup d’exemples quotidiens de misogynie en Iran prouvent que le régime islamique bafoue le statut des femmes en réduisant leur statut à un simple moyen de reproduction et l’objet du sexe. Le régime islamique de façon démagogique et publicitaire a fait émerger des organisations féminines proches au régime misogyne, souvent dirigées par des femmes voilées. Ces organisations n’ont d’autre but que d’officialiser les comportements les plus abjects et les plus misogynes sous couvert du respect de l’islam.

La communauté internationale doit prendre des actions adéquates pour l’égalité des genres en condamnant tous les régimes et institutions islamiques qui sont responsables actifs de la misogynie. Au vingt et unième siècle, le monde ne peut pas accepter que les droits des femmes soient conditionnés par une doctrine moyenâgeuse et patriarcale. Il est temps de cesser d’ignorer une telle doctrine qui considère les femmes comme des « demi hommes » avec des « demi droits » sociaux !

La promotion de l’égalité des sexes est non seulement de la responsabilité des femmes, mais une responsabilité sociale de toutes les personnes démocrates et laïques. Les droits égaux de femmes dans une société moderne non seulement sont un indicateur de croissance nationale dans la vie sociale et économique, mais aussi un facteur du développement démocratique et laïque pour tous les individus de cette société.

Socio psychologiquement, la séparation des sexes crée des perversités et de l’agressivité. Elles sont le résultat de frustration sexuelle. Politiquement, une telle séparation est favorable pour les régimes totalitaires parc que selon W. Reich les effets secondaires démontrent sous l’aspect de l’obéissance aveugle qui historiquement caractérise toutes les sociétés opprimées.

Dédiions-nous cette journée internationale des centaines de millions de femmes qui sont des victimes conscientes ou inconscientes de la misogynie islamique. Il y aura beaucoup à accomplir pour jeter les bases légales pour inviter la communauté internationale à se rappeler qu’il est de notre responsabilité de défendre les droits de l’homme dans l’égalité, la dignité, et la liberté pour les deux sexes.

Aujourd’hui, nous savons que la lutte pour l’égalité, la justice, la paix, la démocratie, le sécularisme et le développement de la société n’est pas séparée de la lutte contre l’islam politique qui est le berceau de la misogynie dans le monde d’aujourd’hui. La journée internationale des femmes est un symbole des femmes en tant qu’associées à aux hommes. C’est un démenti aux discriminations religieuses, sur tôt celles de l’islam, qui considèrent les femmes moins dignes que les hommes. Ce jour est enraciné dans la lutte historique contre les jours noires de l’église européenne, c’est une demande de « liberté, égalité, fraternité » comme durant la Révolution française. Elles doivent maintenant inspirer le monde musulman.

Was bedeutet der 8. März im Iran

2011-03-02T23:10:00.000-08:00

Der vergebliche Umbenennungsversuch des 8. März des islamischen Regimes ist wenig ehrenvoll. Dieser Tag bleibt das Symbol der modernen und säkularen iranischen Frauen. Das islamische Regime versuchte vergeblich den Tag mit dem Tag der Geburt der Tochter des Propheten zu tauschen.

Das islamische Regime hat ein falsches Bild von iranischen Frauen, welches leider auch in westlichen Medien geprägt wurde. Das Bild symbolisiert den frauenfeindlichen islamischen Hijab. Mehr als religiöse und kulturelle Aspekte, bedeutet heute das islamische Hijab eine politische Akzeptanz des Mullah-Regimes. Weil iranische Frauen sich dem Regime nicht unterwerfen wollen, ist das islamische Hijab mehr durch Politik geprägt.

Das islamische Hijab ist im Iran obligatorisch, es besteht aus zwei unterschiedlichen Formen:
1- Tchador ist ein langes schwarzes oder intransparent dunkles Kleid, das vom Kopf bis zum Fuß verschleiert.
2- Kopftuch, das mit langem Mantel getragen wird.
Diese beiden können dem islamischen Kleidercode entsprechen.

Obwohl die Art und Weise des islamischen hijabs von lokalen Traditionen beeinflusst ist, eher stammt es von der Religion ab. Der Ursprung des islamischen Hijabs kommt von einem islamischen Dogma, welches als „Nicht-Mahram“ bekannt ist. Nach diesem Dogma, soll eine muslimische Frau sich vor fremden Männern verschleiern. Diese Kategorie der Männer sind „Nicht-Mahram“ oder Fremde Männer. Sie bestehen aus eine Gruppe, in die eine muslimische Frau sich einheiraten kann -- Ehemann, Brüder, Onkel, Großeltern und männliche Enkel, Stiefsohn und Stiefvater sind „Mahram“ oder eine Gruppe, in die, eine muslimische Frau sich nicht einheiraten kann.

Dieses Dogma reguliert nicht nur den Kleidercode einer Frau, sondern beeinflusst auch die Rechte, den Status und die Werte der Frau in einer islamischen Gesellschaft, so ist eine Frau halb so viel wert wie ein Mann. Geschlechtertrennung in islamische Gesellschaft ist tatsächlich die direkte Konsequenz des „Nict-Mahram“ Dogmas.

Nach der gefälschten iranischen Präsidentenschaft in 2009, wobei Ahmadinjejad wiedergewählt wurde, haben im Juni 2009 über drei Millionen Iraner, davon mindestens eine gute Hälfte Frauen, gegen die Wahlfälschung protestiert. Seit der Revolution 1979 waren noch nie so viele Frauen auf der Straße um zu protestieren. Es ist heute klar, daß so viele Frauen nicht für Moussavi oder Karrubi, die unglücklichen Kandidaten, protestieren würden, sondern für ihre eigenen fundamentalen Rechte, die seit der Geburt des islamischen Regimes ständig niedergetrampelt wurden.

Grausamkeiten des islamischen Regimes betrifft die Frauen viel mehr. Iranische Frauen ignorieren die islamischen Werte der Mullahs. Auf den Straßen laufen heute viele „Bad jijab“ Frauen, was schlecht verschleierte Frauen bedeutet. Es sind sogar einfache Frauen, bei denen „das Erscheinen in der Öffentlichkeit nicht mit dem islamischen Kleidercode übereinstimmt. Ohne ihre islamische Abdeckung werden sind als nackt und unanständig betrachtet und meistens von Strafbarkeit bedroht. Jedoch kämpfen die Frauen weiter und heute wird ihre Bewegung von der säkularen und demokratischen Opposition begrüßt. Noch einmal weise ich darauf hin, daß Moussavi / Karrubi, die Führer der Grünen Opposition, die ex-Führer des Regimes sind, unter denen das islamische Hijab obligatorisch wurde.

Shaky Opposition to the Islamic Regime

2011-02-26T00:11:00.000-08:00

Since 1979 in Iran, there is a totalitarian and disliked Islamic regime which tortures, rapes, kills the people of Iran. But what is wrong? How can such a regime survive? Where is that people’s will and solidarity that once swept away the mighty Shah in 1979? This article tries to throw a critical look at the Iranian opposition groups who are suspected of complicity or passivity during the reign of Mullahs.

Political Islam in the West
In general, all political entities with Islam attached to their names or amalgamated by political Islam are either the relics of the Islamic regime or propose a wishful form of Islamic state. A great number of bearded men and veiled women exiled voluntarily or exported by the Islamic regime to the West belong to this category. They seem hard dogs kept on the porch of inner establishment or inflexible partners of the mafia state. They have mostly family ties and common interests with the senior Islamic authorities inside Iran. Most of them are active in the West-based "reformist" media as the self-appointed opposition.

Green Movement
It is a faction of the Islamic regime inside Iran, led by Moussavi and Karrubi, two candidates of the 2009 rigged presidential election. Mir Hossein Mousavi served as the Prime Minister from 1981 to 1989, when many thousands from opposition were executed. Moussavi was commended for his office by Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder and the one who commended the mass execution of the political prisoners in 1988. Sheikh Mehdi Karoubi served as the chair of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Parliament, Majlis, from 1989 to 1992 and 2000 to 2004. Both of them ran for the 2009 presidential election in which Ahamadinejad is believed to be fraudulently reelected, “reselected by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.” The Green leadership attempts to safeguard the Islamic regime through some reforms.

Green Movement started as spontaneous protests sparked off against this rigged election. While the Green leaders are still bargaining on the office of presidency and some reforms within the regime, regarding the post-election brutal crackdowns, people argue that a regime that licenses the torture, rape, and murder against its citizens cannot be reformed under any colour. Today, people not only challenge Ahamadinejad, but also demand that the whole Islamic regime must go.

Green “Islamic” Movement publicly proclaims its aims to continue the path of Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic regime, and its entire heritage. Useless to mention that within the movement, there is a rapid self-evolving wing demanding the end of the entire regime. The homogeneity and still popularity of his leaders is not due their political aims and programmes, which actually are not different from those of Ahamadinejad’s government. If Green Movement is still in centre stage it is because there is no an organised democratic and secular opposition in the arena, a big mangle which could lead people to challenge the Islamic regime entirely. Thanks to the tangible lack of such an opposition, Green Movement, which in fact dreams of survival of the Islamic regime under another colour and leadership, is the self-appointed opposition. Nevertheless, thanks to the social nets like facebook, the opinion formation among people gains momentum. The time plays in the detriment of Moussavi, who are gradually losing face before the new generation.

As a faction of the Islamic regime, Green Movement tries to patch up Islam with fate of the people. A “reformed” Islamic state is their objective. An increasing majority of Iranians know that all Islamic factions, Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani, Khatami, Moussavi, and Karubbi, are in fact the different bottles for the same wine; they only differently spill out the same political Islamic. All of them were culprits or collaborators when thousands of Iranian political activists, labelled as “enemies of God”, were tortured and murdered during the 32-year repression of the regime.
All followers of political Islam, ranging from the “modest” Green Movement to the Hardliners in the current government, do not consider the causes of social backwardness and despotism in Islam itself, but instead a lack of a “better” attachment to the Khomeini’s path. Their declared political aspirations are to identify and promote a socio-economic order that should conform to the Koran and Islamic traditions. Their goal is an Islamic state with Islamic contents which are of course variously interpreted.

Both hard-line and “reformist” factions of the Islamic regime see their enemies the seculars and democrats. Although they are split on the power, nothing can prevent their unity when their Islamic regime is ultimately threatened by people. They openly oppose any serious challenge coming from the secular and democratic forces. It seems a foreign observer that some of Islamic senior authorities are more reactionary, fundamentalist, criminal or bloodthirsty; the difference among them however only consists of their methods to prolong parasite’s life of the ongoing Islamic system. None of them is democratic or can adapt itself to the democratic and secular world.

While Leadership of Green Movement is leftover of the Islamic regime, its followers distance themselves from their leaders and in a steady increasing majority look for a secular and democratic regime.

People’s Mojahedin Organisation (MKO)
Among all opposition groups, MKO remains the only one still united. It has been the most combative opposition to the regime. Thousands of its sympathisers and members were executed. The MKO has survived despite many casualties. The organisation has adopted a Stalinist form of leadership with its firm monolithicism, discipline and leader-cult. This helped the MKO to survive the atrocities of the regime, but did not help it to gain trust of people, especially due to its alliance with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.

Despite their allegations to install a secular and democratic state in Iran, Islam, in its sectarian form, continues to rule within the organisation. Most Iranians believe that their alleged “secular and democratic” state is nothing but a continuation of a new Islamic regime under a fresh leadership. The group is for a regime change, and stills the main opposition to the regime, but not regarded as secular and democratic; therefore, apart from some secular members and groups of its National Resistance, the MKO leadership is not accepted by the majority of Iranians as a part of the secular and democratic movement.

Monarchists
The whole Monarchism in concept and background is not a democratic and secular reminder of Iranian people. Its recent Shiite concept originates from an idea imposed by Safavid Dynasty that the king represents the Hidden Imam of Shiites. As such, the king substitutes the Imam until the time the Imam reappears from his osculation. Monarchy cannot historically be in convergence of democracy, secularism and social justice, but of nationalism associated with the previous glory of “Persia.”

We have two main categories of monarchists:
1- Those or whose family members had political ties or financial interests under Pahlavi Dynasty.
2- Those with trend of right-wing / nationalism /admiration for their Arian race/ glory of Persia / aristocracy see their future intertwined with the future of Reza Pahlavi.

Monarchists are not traditionally as combative as Leftists and Mojahedins. They would not take the streets in Iran to conquer their throne back, but rather need foreign helps. As things heat up around Iran-Us, they are believed to lurk in the wings for miracles like a US endeavour to install a new monarchist client state in Iran.

Most monarchists are secular, but not democratic; Monarchists are traditionally right-wing ansd some ourspoken extreme right to the extent of racism– admiration for Arian race and civilisation. Most of their followers are not throughout convinced activists and can change ideas and political ideals. This is the reason they can be encouraged to join a democratic and secular movement.

National Front
National Front has never been a united and organised political force. It is an amalgamation of different parties, organisations and groups set up in a large spectrum. They are known as the religious to democratic and secular sub-groups. Their spectrum is big in sub-group, but not in number. Their common glorious carrier is reduced to their “common path” with the national figure of Dr. Mossadegh and especially proud of his national policy for oil more than a half of a century ago. However, neither Mossadegh nor any of the National front’s constellations was against Monarchy or mighty ayatollahs under his reign. Their skirmishes with the Shah were that “the Shah was placing himself outside the constitution”. They presumed that a solution was fair within the constitutional Monarchy. With the advent of the Islamic regime, most of them supported the regime. Today they have courage to distance themselves from Monarchy and Islamic regime, but are not really trusted by people. Religious members of Front are gathered under the Movement of Freedom, which after having helped the regime to set up now is an outsider. In its traditional tempo, it has its eye on a gradual transformation of the ruling system. The secular National Front can however join an Iranian democratic movement when this one emerges, but people do not trust them for a leadership position.

Leftists
Leftist groups were mostly revolutionary alternatives to the pro-Soviet Toudeh Party. Since their existence, they have been all driven underground and are the main victims of the last two successive dictatorial regimes in Iran. They were more active during and shortly after the revolution. While started splitting, they became more and more vulnerable and marginalised. The most important force of the leftists is the Organisation of Iranian People’ Fedaii Guerrillas. The OIPFG by attacking in February of 1970 the Siahkal Gendarmerie base in Northern Province of Iran opened up a new chapter in struggle against the Shah’s dictatorship. The long-term strategy was to topple the Shah’s regime through an arm struggle, as it happened in Cuba. Determination of the organisation was however not enough to change the political attitude of society.

As shown in the following years, the organisation fought alone at the forefront of the battle without being massively followed by people. The organisation split in 1980 and a big part of it, “Aksariat”“( Majority), under the influence of the Toudeh Party, joined the IRI’s camp. Today, the remainder of the leftists, including many groups of Fedaii, and the relatively popular and well-organised abroad-based Worker-Communist Party of Iran (WPI), cannot be any dynamic locomotive of a popular movement. It is true that their credibility has also to do with the great schism of Communism worldwide, but prior to this schism, the assimilation of their name and emblem with the pro-Islamic regime Toudeh Party, and constant splits damaged their status in Iran.

All leftist groups are secular and radical and despite their concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is an outdated dogma of Marxism- Leninism and creates contradiction with the concept of modern democracy, can join and efficiently an Iranian democratic movement. All leftist groups, except the Toudeh Party, are for a regime change in Iran.

Toudeh Party
Since the existence of the Islamic regime, the party develops contradictions between the theory and practice. It pretends to be in the side of people and the socialism, yet it has been long time a powerless servant of the messianic Mullahs’ regime. The party apparently supports socialism all over the world but supports the Islamic regime and its various factions opportunistically without having criticism or a different policy or perspective. Since its existence, the party has always and typically gone with whichever the wind blows. Toudeh Party has occasionally sided with hard-line and “reformist” factions and politicians of the Islamic. Today it supports Moussavi / Karrubi and their Green Movement.

In 1941 the Toudeh Party was founded. It rapidly expanded and became a major political force in the following years. Because of its passive reaction to the CIA coup of 1953 against PM. Mossadegh and its dependence to the political whims of the Soviets’ interests in Iran its popularity was drastically melded away. The party escaped the repression of the Shah after the coup and returned to public life after the revolution of 1979. The party served at the IRI’s pleasure for many years. By collaborating with the incumbent dictatorship of the IRI, the party helped the regime to identify and to arrest IRI’s opponents. Later, despite their admiration for their “Imam” Khomeini, their atheist label of Marxism sent them to the slaughterhouse of Khomeini, where many of the party’s members were among the victims of the regime’s brutalities.

The party, as the pioneer of complaisant and flattering attitude, introduced the attitude of opportunism in the culture of Iranian politics. This culture helped the Islamic regime to survive so many years. Toudeh Party could convince the leadership of People’s Fedaii to join the “anti-imperialism” camp of the regime. These two were collaborating with the regime although the regime was jailing and executing many of their comrades! The Toudeh Party along with all its relics carries a black record on the shoulder. They can always be suspect charged with treachery; the party is today reduced to a handful activists and journalists abroad, what cannot be an important body, but its treachery culture is still a danger for the opposition. Toudeh and toudhism are not trusted.

Student movement
Student movement abroad was ideologically shaped in great part with the Marxism, Mao Zedong’s thinking, anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism. Being perfectly organised throughout the two decades until the revolution, the Confederation of Iranian Students / National Union (CISNU) played a decisive role in portraying the Shah’s regime as a dictatorship. The movement was the most influential left opposition against the Shah’s regime in Europe and the US, where they were successfully drawing the attention of the international media, human right organisations, political groups, and even foreign governments to the repression under the Shah’s regime. The movement melted away after the Iranian revolution.

The student movement under the Shah was mainly influenced by the Organisation of People’s Fedaii, an Iranian Marxist organisation of armed struggle. Though the student movement in Iran was not as influential as their student comrades in the West, but was the cradle to most revolutionary and activists of two popular organisations, Fedains and Mojahdins in Iran.

Short after the 1979 revolution in 1980, the IRI launched a cultural revolution in Iran. Following a President Banisadr’s warmongering speech, the universities were assaulted by the thugs of the regime, closed and finally purged from the progressive students and professors. The reopened universities and colleges were fully Islamic with medieval theological seminaries, mosques and imposed Islamic hijab. All repressive measures were imposed that any possible idea of leftist and secular thought not be flourished or encouraged on the campuses.

With the help of the IRI’s officials, the Islamic student organisations were in a swift growth reorganised in the country’s universities. These groups originally supported the 1979 “Islamic” revolution and are still fanatically attached to its Islamic values and its founder, Khomeini. However, they have demanded in the recent years more political reforms within the Islamic regime. Most students, despite their organisations with the word “Islam” attached to them, show their secular attitude and political trend for a regime change.

The main problem of the Islamic student movement in Iran is their lack of legacy from the Confederation of Iranian Students and the student movement of the pre-IRI. The Iranian student movement, as is today represented, is not officially secular and democratic. Despite absence of a strong independent student movement, the present student movement has young capacity of swiftly promoting into a secular and democratic movement when the occasion arrives.

Under these conditions and backgrounds of the opposition groups, it seems a rough job for Iranian people to trust 100% all opposition groups and alternatives. We need a secular, modern, and democratic opposition to represent aspirations of the new generation. I am sure such a movement will attract many Iranians. Lack of such a movement is the main reason that Iran has seen less demonstrations and protests against the IRI than once saw against the Shah during the revolution. It is true that the demonstrations can be more easily repressed under this regime, but it is not uniquely because of this brutality that such an opposition does not exist, the main reason remains the lack of a secular and democratic opposition.

The worse result of such a mangle is the emergence of Islamic factions, namely Green Movement, which now act in the eyes of foreign observers and many average Iranians as the opposition. In reality as we hear from Moussavi and Karuubi, their main concern is to prolong the parasitic life of the Islamic regime with all its criminal and anti-human attitudes.

Despite the recent demonstrations and heroic protests of people against the whole Islamic regime, demonstrators do not see yet any organised opposition to lead them. For a steady increasing majority of Iranians, the Islamic regime is an occupier force, as much as the Nazis were in the occupied countries during World War II. Green top leader Moussavi is not only a former prime minster of this occupier regime, but also an accomplice of the most horrendous crimes the regime committed during his time.

The subject of my article is not to discourage people from taking part in the demonstrations called by Moussavi or any other faction of the regime, but on the contrary, we should use any occasion to chant the slogans targeting the whole regime. How and when a front of liberation can be formed to target the whole regime is of course another huge topic for all freedom-loving people of Iran who are bravely ready to take the streets to free their country.

Der Einfluss des islamischen Regimes auf die deutschen Medien

2011-02-21T00:41:00.000-08:00

Im Hinblick auf die demokratischen und weltlichen Massendemonstrationen im Iran, ewarten wir von den deutschen Medien eine Berichterstattung, die die derzeitigen Verhältnisse und Geschehnisse neutral darstellen. Im Gegensatz zu dem Bild, das deutsche Medien verbreiten, sind die jetzigen Proteste keine pro islamische Reformen – wie von den Reformisten Mussavi und Karrubi gefordert - sondern richten sich gegen das gesamte islamische Regime.

Die Situation für die Bevölkerung im Iran, insbesondere die extrem radikal gewordenen Verletzungen der Menschenrechte und die aktuellen täglichen Hinrichtungen, haben ein Stadium erreicht, welche von allen demokratischen Regierungen eine klare Stellungnahme verlangt. Dies gilt in erster Linie für Mitglieder in demokratischen Parteien und für Reporter, die für Medien Berichte veröffentlichen, da diese Personengruppen das Stimmungsbild eines Landes wiederspiegeln und damit einen großen Einfluss auf das Meinungsbild im eigenem Land ausüben.

Die Verantwortung der genannten Personengruppen liegt vorrangig darin, sich einen unabhängigen auf demokratischen Grundsätzen beruhenden neutralen Überblick zu verschaffen und diesen zu verbreiten. Leider muss immer wieder festgestellt werden, dass falsche Berater als Meinungsgeber herangezogen werden. Dazu gehören unter anderem folgende Beispiele:

- Am 10.07.2010 hat das ZDF Der Leiter der iranischen Rundfunk- und Fernsehanstalt und die Intendanten, General Zarghami zu einem Besuch eingeladen und mit ihm mehrere Sendungen im deutschen Fernsehen ausgestrahlt. Weiterhin wurde eine Kooperation zwischen beiden Anstalten vereinbart. Damit es ist klar, dass die Nachrichten über die Situation im Iran nicht mehr unabhängig und neutral sind ist jedem bekannt, denn dieser staatlich iranische Sender verbreitet nur Meldungen im Sinne des derzeitigen Regimes. Das ZDF fördert damit den Erhalt des derzeitigen islamischen Systems. http://www.facebook.com/notes/petra-plotz/zarghami-war-wirklich-hier-aufruf-zum-protestbrief-an-ard-und-zdf/456311921264

- Am 14.02.2010 erschien in der TAZ ein Artikel mit der Überschrift „Keine Parolen auf den Straßen Irans“ von Bahman Niroumand. http://www.taz.de/1/politik/nahost/artikel/1/stille-solidaritaet-in-teheran/ In diesem Artikel werden die Proteste der iranischen Opposition relativiert und die von der iranischen Regierung eingesetzten Beamten als nicht gewalttätig dargestellt.

Eine solche Berichterstattung ist irreführend weil sie nicht den tatsächlichen Gegebenheiten entspricht. Bahman Niroumand ist Iranexperte der Bundesregierung und hat damit einen maßgeblichen Anteil an der Meinungsbildung der Politiker und an das was in den Medien veröffentlicht wird. Die iranische Opposition hat diesen Artikel scharf verurteilt. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=198888340137820&id=634625761

- Die Deutsche Welle, die BBC und der US-Auslandssender Voice of America verbreiten Nachrichten und Analysen, deren Quelle Mitarbeiter des islamischen Regimes oder der heutigen islamischen Opposition sind. Das derartige Veröffentlichungen voreingenommen sind, dürfte jedem klar sein. Von einer unabhängigen, neutralen Berichterstattung kann hier nicht mehr die Rede sein.

Die Vorgenannten Beispiele zeigen, dass der Einfluss des iranischen Regimes auf Politiker und Medien sehr groß ist. Dazu gehört auch, dass sich weibliche Politiker beim Besuch im Iran der dortigen Kleiderordnung (islamisch verschleiert) für Frauen anpassen (s. Claudia Roth, Bündnis90/Grünen). http://vitzliputzli.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/claudia-roth-mit-den-schwulenmordern-und-steinigern-an-einem-tisch/
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=198888340137820&id=634625761

L’Exemple d’Algérie

2011-02-11T00:24:00.000-08:00

Le but de cet article est de tirer des leçons de la guerre d’Algérie qui précède l’indépendance en 1962. Certaines leçons des combats contre le pouvoir colonialiste français peuvent s’appliquer au cas dont il s’agit d’une lutte de libération contre le régime Islamique en Iran, un régime qui a un caractère d’occupation ou colonialiste.

C’est un fait indéniable que l’action de L’Armée de Libération Nationale (A.L.N) a bouleversé le climat politique de l’Algérie. Elle a provoqué une psychologie qui a libéré le peuple de sa torpeur, de la peur, de son scepticisme. Elle a permis au peuple algérien d’une nouvelle prise de conscience de sa dignité nationale. Elle a également déterminé une union psycho-politique de tous les Algériens. Cette unanimité nationale qui féconde la lutte armée et rend inéluctablement la victoire de la liberté.

Le Front de la Libération Nationale (F.L.N) malgré son activité clandestine, est devenu l’unique organisation véritablement nationale. Son effet, dans un délai extrême court a réussi le tour de force de supplanter tous les partis politiques existants depuis des dizaines d’années. Cela n’est pas le fruit du hasard. C’est le résultat de la réunion des conditions indispensables suivantes :

1- Le bannissement du pouvoir personnel et l’instauration de la direction collective composée d’hommes propres, honnêtes, imperméables à la corruption, courageux, insensible au danger, à la prison ou à la peur de la mort ;

2- La doctrine est claire. Le but à atteindre, c’est l’indépendance nationale. Le moyen, c’est la révolution par la destruction du régime colonialiste ;

3- L’union du peuple est réalisée dans la lutte contre l’ennemi commun sans sectarisme. Le F.L.N. affirme au début de la révolution que « la libération de l’Algérie sera l’œuvre de tous les Algériens et non pas celle d’une fraction du peuple algérien, quelle que soit son importance ». C’est pourquoi le F.L.N. tiendra compte dans sa lutte de toutes les forces anticolonialistes, même si elles échappent encore à son contrôle.

4- La condamnation définitive du culte de la personnalité, la lutte ouverte contre les aventuriers, les mouchards, les valets de l’administration, indicateurs ou policiers. D’où la capacité du F.L .N. à déjouer les manœuvres politiques et les traquenards de l’appareil policier français.

Cela ne saurait signifier que toutes les difficultés soient complètement effacées. Certaines forces politiques ne participent pas à la lutte de libération, ce qui était le cas du Parti Communiste Algérien (P.C.A.), malgré son passage dans l’illégalité et la publicité tapageuse dont la presse colonialiste l’a gratifié pour justifier la collusion imaginaire avec la résistance algérienne, n’a pas réussit à jouer un rôle qui méritait d’être signalé. La direction communiste, bureaucratique, sans aucun contact avec le peuple, n’a pas été capable d’analyser correctement la situation révolutionnaire. C’est pourquoi elle a condamné le « terrorisme » et ordonné, des les premier mois de l’insurrection, aux militants du parti des directives de ne pas prendre les armes. Sa sujétion au Parti Communiste Français a pris le caractère dépendent et a préféré un silence qui a suivi son rôle impopulaire pendant la lutte de la libération.

Le P.C.A. a disparu en tant qu’organisation sérieuse, car il a tourné le dos à la réalité, ce qui est d’après nos expérience iranienne un ordre souvent imposé par le « Grand-Frère ». On témoigne l’attitude d’un tel parti pendant et après la révolution de 1979 en Iran. La collaboration du parti Toudeh et d’autres protégés du parti communiste soviétique, mis en place depuis long temps en Iran, est un exemple iranien.

Niant le caractère rétrograde et répressif du régime en place, un tel parti prétend défendre la classe ouvrière contre le danger problématique de tomber sous la domination directe de la « bourgeoisie », comme si l’Independence devait suivre forcement le chemin des révolutions manquées, voire même de faire marche arrière vers un quelque féodalisme. Nous connaissons cette théorie confuse au sein de l’intelligentsia iranienne qui ont aidé et collaboré avec les Mollahs pour battre le débris de la bourgeoisie dite comprador de l’époque du Shah.

Pendant la guerre d’Algérie, on a assisté cependant à certaines initiatives émanant, à titre individuel, de certains communistes s’efforçant de s’infiltrer dans les rangs de la F.L.N. et de l’A.L.N. Il est possible qu’il s’agisse là de sursauts individuels pour retourner à une saine conception de la libération nationale. Il est certain que le P.C.A : essaiera, dans l’avenir, d’exploiter ces « placements » dans le but de cacher son isolement total et son absence dans le combat historique de la Révolution algérienne.

La situation politique nord-africaine est caractérisée par le fait que le problème algérien se trouve encastré dans les problèmes marocains et tunisiens pour n’en faire qu’un seul. Sans l’indépendance de l’Algérie, celle du Maroc et Tunisie n’était pas possible. Les Tunisiens et les Marocains n’ont pas oublié que la conquête de leurs pays respectifs par la France a suivi la conquête de l’Algérie. Les peuples du Maghreb sont aujourd’hui convaincus par l’expérience que la défaite pour tous, chacun pouvant être écrasé séparément.

Aujourd’hui, la présence des islamistes au Maghreb est une menace présente qui peut basculer l’équilibre politique dans cette région. Leur danger est plus destructif que celui de la colonisation française, leur régime idéal est inspiré du régime islamique en Iran qui a eu créée des conséquences très néfastes pour le peuple iranien. Les islamistes sont un leurre empoisonné qui n’est pas encore été gouté par les peuples du Maghreb.

À mon avis, le monde musulman ne pourra jamais jouir l’indépendance réelle, la démocratie, le progrès économique, la justice sociale, l’égalité de sexe, et la paix s’il ne lutte pas d’une manière collective et effective contre l’islam politique. C’est une aberration de l’esprit que de croire Par exemple l’effet négatif d’une colonisation française en Algérie qui datait 132 ans peut être réellement enlevé sans attendre une société de justice et de progrès. L’islam politique dont son imposition coloniale date 14 siècles est le danger d’aujourd’hui dans cette région.

L’expérience de la lutte de la libération sous la direction de la F.L.N. nous renseigne des leçons qui peuvent s’appliquer à la libération de l’Iran qui est pratiquement occupé depuis 1979 par le régime barbare des Mollahs qui n’a jamais hésité d’exprimer son but d’exporte l’islam politique dans le monde musulman y compris l’Égypte et les pays du Maghreb.

ترفند های بقا رژیم اسلامی

2011-02-08T05:44:00.000-08:00

معمولا رهبران و حامیان رژیم اسلامی خود را نماینده مردم میدانند-- نگاه کنید به ادعا های موسوی، نخست وزیر دوران خونین خمینی، و یا تیترا پارسی، لابی رژیم در خارج, که خود را نماینده اکثریت ایرانیان میدانند. این "نمایندگی" به ظاهر مستمسکی برای مشروع بودن رژیم آنان است. با وجود میزان اسلام گرائی تا ظاهر سکولاریسم، هدف مشترک آنان حفظ رژیم اسلامی با هر رنگ و لعابی ممکن است.

حامیان جنبش سبز و اسلام سیاسی نیز خود را بر این مبنا دموکرات میدانند و طبق آمار های من درآوردی اکثریت مردم ایران را مسلمان و پیرو اسلام مورد نظر خود میدانند. از نظر اینان هر تغییری در چهار چوب حکومت اسلامی و با دیالوگ میسراست-- دیالوگ با کی و به چه منظوری؟ این را روشن نمیکنند و یا گاهی پرده پوشی میکنند ولی کیست که نداند که امثال موسوی و کروبی تفاله های رژیم اشغالگر اسلامی هستند که در صورت سرنگونی این رژیم خود باید جوابگوی جنایات و خیانت های این رژیم باشند.

تمام حامیان بقا رژیم اسلامی خود را مقید با حفظ رژیم میدانند و خود را "ساختار شکن" نمیدانند. همین دست اندر کاران و مزدوران رژیم اشغالگر خود در صورت وجود یک حکومت سکولار و مستقل میتوانند به بهانه های واهی ساختار شکن شده و در صف مخالفان بدون و قید شرط ان رژیم قرار گیرند، همانطور که سال ها با رژیم شاه به دلیل خصلت سکولار بودن و "وابسته" بودن ان مبارزه بدون "ساختار شکنی" کردند و به جز سرنگونی ان، و تعویض ان با این دیکتاتوری اسلامی هدفی نداشتند. طیف بزرگی از دست اندرکاران و همکاران سابق رژیم اسلامی، تا مشتی ریشو و لچکی صادراتی فعال در غرب و تا فکل کراواتی های مافیای جناح های رژیم که از ثروت های افسانه ای ملا های جناح های رژیم تغذیه میکنند تا در رسانه های خارجی رژیم مطلب نویسند، و تا لابی های بد نام رژیم مانند نیاک و کاسمی از این جماعت هستند. اختلافات ظاهری آنان نیز یا در ارتباط با منافع باند های مافیایی رژیم است و یا به توصیه وزارت اطلاعات رژیم است. تبلیغات و هدف مشترک آنان این است که رفتار وطبیعت رژیم را در حد اصلاح پذیری توجیه کنند. لذا جائی برای اصلاح دیالوگ , صبر، تحمل...در چهار چوب همین رژیم را تلفیق کنند. شگرد های حامیان بقا رژیم جهل و جنایات اسلامی غالبا مطالب ذیل را تبلیغ میکنند :

اکثریت مردم ایران مسلمان در نتیجه حکومت اسلامی خواستی دموکراتیک و قانونی است. در جواب باید گفت: هیچ دلیلی و آماری نیست که اکثریت مردم، به ویژه نسل جدید "مذهبی، سبز"، و خواستار حفظ رژیم و یا تغیرات "آرام" باشند. برعکس خیلی خواستار سرنگونی فوری رژیم اسلامی هستند چون هر روز این رژیم مصائب بیشتری به بار میاورد که برای نسل های بعدی به سادگی قابل ترمیم نیستند.

فقدان جانشینی در صورت سرنگونی رژیم اسلامی. در جواب این تاکتیک کاسه داغتر از اش باید گفت: اولا این بهانه شما نخ نما شده است، ماموریت شما حفظ رژیم و ضدیت با هر جانشین ان است. دوما، جانشین این رژیم میتواند یک دولت موقت متشکل از روشنفکران دموکرات و سکولار باشد و تا تشکیل دولت جدید با انتخاب مردم، این دولت با مفاد منشور سازمان ملل کشور را اداره کند. دلیلی نیست مردم را، به زعم شما، از فقدان جانشین و یا از لولو حزب توده، تاج و تخت رضا پهلوی، اسلام مجاهدین و... ترساند. مردمی که برای آزادی مبارزه کنند زیر بار حکومت مذهبی مجاهدین، حزب اسلامی- توده و یا استبداد موروثی نخواهند رفت. در ضمن همین مردم حق دارند، بعد از سقوط رژیم اسلامی در یک انتخاب آزاد نوع و رهبران رژیم خود را انتخاب کنند.

عدم حمایت اکثریت مردم از مبارزه قاطع برای سرنگونی رژیم. در جواب این ترفند قدیمی باید گفت: اولا طبق چه آماری شما به این نتیجه رسیده اید، دوما بر فرض که اکثریت مردم هنوز در توهم ۱۴۰۰ ساله باشند، قرار نیست اپوزیسیون سرنگون طلب از جنس این "اکثریت" باشد، همانطور که که در هیچ کشور توتالیتر و یا اشغالی، نه اکثریت بلکه اقلیت پیشتازی مبارزه را آغاز کردند و اکثریت نیز در پروسه مبارزه پا به میدان مبارزه نهاده اند. مردم به طوری که مقدور است از مبارزه حمایت میکنند، هرشکل مبارزه و مخالفت از نوع مسلحانه تا اعتصاب و سر پیچی از فرامین رژیم ممکن و لازم است. به گمان من و بسیاری، ایران کشوری اشغالی است، اشغالگران تداوم اسلامی سیاسی است که ۱۴۰۰ سال پیش به بخشی از جهان از جمله ایران تحمیل و در زمان صفویه با سکت شیعه دربند خرافات و استبداد نگاه داشته شده است. این اسلام خرافی و مروجان ان تنها با مبارزه قاطع و همه جانبه عقب نشینی میکند همانطور که آلمان نازی، پل پت، و اشغال گران اسرائیل به میل خود قلمرو خود را آزاد نکرده و نمیکند.

عمده کردن اسلام به ویژه اسلام سیاسی. در جواب باید گفت، مردم ما نشان میدهند که از هر چیزی که به اسلام خرافی، آخوند، حجاب و شریعت اسلامی مربوط است روی گردان و روز به روز از ماهیت ارتجاعی ان مطلع تر میشوند. کسانی که خود اسلام و یا شکلی "بهتری" از حکومت اسلامی را آرزو میکنند، روی اعتقادات مذهبی عقب مانده ترین لایه های جامعه و استثمار کنندگان فکری و اقتصادی آنان و ذوب شدگان در کیش اسلام سرمایه گذاری کرده اند. اعتلای اسلام تحت هر نام و رنگی هر روز رسواتر و ماهیت غیر قبل اصلاح ان بر ملا تر میشود. پیروان و سرمایه گذاران روی این کیش از سقوط رژیم اسلامی در هراسند چون آینده خود را در خطر میبینند. وقتی آلمان از یوغ نازیسم آزاد شد، افرادی هنوز به ایدولوژی نازیسم باور داشتن ولی ایدولوژی کماکان از حافظه مردم زدوده شد. در قانون اساسی آلمان و اتریش نازیسم غیر قانونی اعلان شد. امروز کمتر کسی در آلمان به نازیسم باور دارد، به گمان من اسلام سیاسی نیز یک ایدولوژی ضد بشری همانند نازیسم، آپارتاید، و فاشیسم است. این پدیده به مردم بسیاری از ملت های منطقه از جمله ایران تحمیل شده و حکومت اسلامی ایران امروز تجلی این تحمیل تاریخی است. بعد از آزادی ایران، این کیش ماند نازیسم و فاشیسم و دیگر ایدولوژی های انسان ستیز با آگاهی جامعه به تدریج محو میشود. آنان که کماکان کیش را حفظ کننند و خود را مسلمان دانند میتواند آزادانه مذهب خود را در حوزه شخصی حفظ کنند. فراموش نکنیم آنان که خواستار یک حکومت دموکراتیک و سکولار هستند نمیتوان اسلام سیاسی را که بنا به تجارب ما نوعی آپارتاید جنسی، فاشیسم، و در ضدیت با آزادی و استقلال مردم ایران است، به نام دمکراسی حفظ کنند. اسلام سیاسی به گمان من در تضاد با روح دموکراسی و حقوق بشر است لذا مانند، آپارتاید، فاشیسم، راسیسم باید ممنوع شود

خطر خارجی در صورت سقوط رژیم اسلامی. این دهن کجی جماعتی معلوم حال به ملتی است که خود زیر یوغ رژیم اشغال گر آنان است. بهانه احتمال حمله خارجی و یا تجزیه در یک کشور اشغالی نمیتواند دلیلی برای قبول رژیم اشغال گر جنایت کار و سخیف باشد، مگر اینکه این هم نوعی مشروعیت تراشی برای رژیم اسلامی باشد. رژیم اسلامی به فعل و به دلیل تاریخی خود اشغالگر و عامل کشتار، سرکوب، تحقیر، تخریب، چپاول، و تجزیه کشور است.

Political Islam lurks in Egypt and Tunisia

2011-02-02T23:48:00.000-08:00

In this article with several introductory remarks, I address myself to the people of Tunisia, Egypt, who are now in a sensitive stage of their history. They are in a position to choose a secular and democratic regime or an Islamic one instead of their current dictatorial and corrupt regimes. I speak up that the obvious cure to the problem is not to argue about this or that interpretation of political Islam, as it is intricately proposed by various factions of it around the world, but to radically reject it both in hard or alleviated interpretations.

Let me tell you, that today apart from criminal Islamists who are still involved in the Islamic regimes in Iran and Sudan, there is another spectrum of political Islam who still hypocritically or naively believe in a “better” Islamic regime. Although, they find it okay to scatter handful words against Mullahs, Taliban, Bashir, Ben Laden or Islamic terrors around the world, but prefer to ignore any ideal example of “good” Islamic regime in the course of contemporary history.

Islam originated from one of the most obscure periods of history. It characterises the patriarchal relations of clan society with the most primitive norms and jurisprudence (Sharia). Because of its absolutism, it has not been adapted to our modern societies. Most people in Iran bitterly experienced this fact and I hope the people of Egypt and Tunisia learn from the Iranian experience. There is no reason that the people of Egypt and Tunisia try an Islamic regime again. It has been proved in the last 32 years in Iran that it denies any form of democracy and human rights. Charge sheet of the Islamic regime contains the most barbaric acts of crime, torture, rape, execution on a daily basis. Furthermore, even if Islam reflects any divinity, there are no positive background and moral values that justify the rule of political Islam.

Regarding the plague of the Islamic regime in Iran, Islam is a synonym of backwardness, intolerance, gender segregation and terror. It has no compatibility to be adapted to the values of democracy and human rights, social justice, peace and modernity. In a Khomeini’s version of Islam, democracy is perceived as a Western idea, if even not blasphemy because it dares to set people as equal to Allah. For them, the original sin of democracy is to have rejected the sovereignty of Allah and put in its place the sovereignty of the people.

The alleviated version of political Islam which might be pretended by some “reformists” in Iran or Brotherhood in Egypt or Ghannouchi in Tunisia is a tactical and conciliatory attempt of separating political Islam from the notorious Mullahs. Such tactics are so baseless as if they attempt to separate Hitler or Stalin from their totalitarian ideologies. Most of these dreamers of Islamic Caliphate, who are now in their tactical defense, are the yesterday’s aggressive devotees of Khomeini and maybe the tomorrow’s followers of another Khomeini-like.

As if the experience of the Islamic regime in Iran were shifting to advantage of a “better” Islam, these self-appointed “moderate” Islamists try to convince inexperienced people of Egypt and Tunisia that a version of Islam is democratic and peaceful. They try to persuade the still inexperienced people that their version of political Islam is not the one unfairly abused by Mullahs and Taliban, otherwise “it is the best”. They even have audacity to falsify the history by claiming that conversion to Islam was a free choice of people, and the early Islamic invaders were helped by native people to achieve an Islamic ideal society. This is a twisted history if Islam was a self-confessed religion and not imposed by the Sword of Allah (Seif-Allah). They twist the all obvious facts that Islam is an improvement of social justice, advanced culture and self-identity of all societies of the Islamic world.

Those who tell us such aberrant lies show in fact how they are far from historical facts. In reality, the early Islamic invaders ruined ancient Iran, Egypt, Tunisia and their native civilisation. They imposed Islam on people through massive massacres and enslaving of their ancestors. Although, today Iranians suffer particularly since the Islamic regime exists, but unlike “modern” Islamists’ claims, from a historical perspective, we can easily recognise the effects of Islamic invasion as the beginning of all ills. Adepts of this invasion who cannot or do not want to point out the religious roots of our ills are either hypocrite or brainwashed.

“Modern” Islamists of the forcibly Islamised countries like Egypt and Tunisia spread the idea if a Renaissance within the values of Islam were possible! To see how the idea of such an alleged “Renaissance” is illusionary, if not hypocritical, let have a look at these following facts:

There are more than 1.3 billion people, one-fifth of humanity, live in the Islamic countries. Within them are Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, UAE and Kuwait that between them possess 700 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. All the 1.3 billion put together have an annual GDP of less than $1.5 trillion. Comparing these with the annual GDP of Western countries like 290 million Americans and their annual GDP is $10.4 trillion. France is at $1.54 trillion, Germany $2 trillion, UK $1.52 trillion and Italy, long the most religious of Europe, $1.4 trillion. The first remark is that in the entire Islamic world, there is no other important source of income; there is no basic improvement in industry and technology. We can clearly consider the affects of Islam as the only common factor of this economic stagnation.

Of the 1.3 billion Muslims more than 800 million, a great majority of them women, continue to be absolutely illiterate. Among many of those literates, there is a great majority who has been traditionally deprived from a secular and free education—Taliban banned girl schools and Mullahs scarcely tolerate them. Furthermore, a little ratio of Muslim scientists and a total of less than 600 universities for 1.3 billion people do not mean a divine love of Islam for culture! (India has 8,407 universities.)

However, the rulers of these Islamised countries which allegedly follow the message of “peace and tolerance of Islam” are among the largest buyers of conventional weapons. Added to them, the nuclear programmes of Pakistan and Iran are wasting a high sum of budget for their military and repressive institutions. Needless to mention, the only aspect of modernity interesting to the Islamic authorities is the military technology which the authorities usually see as an arsenal that can guarantee their rules and mostly is turned against their own oppressed people.

Considering the colonial factor as a cause of backwardness, we will see that some non-Islamic countries, like India or China, are not bogged in their colonial backwardness. We can realise that the backwardness of the Islamised world is not only imposed by the factor of several decades of colonial powers, but rather and more destructive by many centuries of religious burden. Actually, the development of these countries was not only disturbed by colonial exploiters, but prior to them, it was barred by religion. The religion, as a heavy social ailment, has avoided any increase in productivity and national economy-- unless in traditional small-scale production and contribution of basic consumer goods.

Because of the long period of religious obscurity, no Islamised society was in the position to leave behind the obstacles of traditional backwardness. It is an important fact that has even been never mentioned by Islamists of any calibre and ignored by many pseudo-intellectual pontifications; they have been sugarcoating the ills of the society by pointing colonial or “imperialist” powers as the only scapegoats.

Marx once believed that religion belonged to a category of superstructures, but the idea was deduced from a post- Renaissance society of Europe. The fact is that a non-reformed religion is not an ever neutral superstructure. On the contrary, Islam has never been reformed and remains a solid foundation on which the means of production and social activities of economy are traditionally based. Under the restrictions of Islam, the democratic and secular conditions needed to advance the economy and mode of production can never achieve modern and self-fulfillment.

The conspicuous fact is the more an Islamic society is bogged in its religion, the more it is trapped in a vicious cycle of illiteracy, poverty, backwardness, misogyny and violence. Islamists continue to blame non-Muslims for all failures of the Islamic world. This is an old and routine pretext represented by some paranoid pseudo-intellectuals who perceive democracy and secularism as ideas of foreign dominance. They blame outsiders, “infidels” for all the ills of their society.

Utopia and hypocrisy of these people aside, there is no real bridge linking the obscure values of Islam with democracy. It is an absurdity to combine these two opposite words “Islam” and “democracy”. If the Islamic societies were to be reconciled with modernity, social evolution and democracy, the restoration of religion to the sphere of social life would have no sense. In fact secularism is needed to push back the religion in its confined privacy. This is the basic stipulation that must be accepted by the people of Egypt and Tunisia in order to start becoming adaptive to democracy.

Political Islam, by extension, refers to an emotional self-acceptance of Islam. It is not based on a simple analysis of objective needs of people. Both the objective needs and proven advantages of Islam are not presented. However, both fundamentalist and alleviated followers of political Islam differently but stubbornly deny the fact that Islam is the main factor of the existing backwardness and lack of democracy in the Islamic world.

Instead of attaching to archaic and imposed norms, Islamised societies must take on board the values of secularist-humanist principles on which the democracy and modernity is based. If the people of Islamised societies want to render a service to their countries by incorporating evolutionary ideas, they should dedicate the political arena to secular sates. Nobody can restore Islamic states without further victimising the whole society.

A democracy cannot survive long without the values of secularism; the freedom means to argue, to dissent, and even to be free to criticise and offend taboo values. Democracy is an illusion when is under any form of restriction. Without secularism, the Islamised societies will only serve as medieval fortress of Islamists. Without vital secularism, Islam will continue stifling thought, human rights, freedom and progress of these societies.

Democracy is a heritage of social evolution. In our epoch, it evolves with the values of secularism. Religion, especially Islam, is a steady load for it. Tunisia, Egypt and the rest of Islamised world will never be free with wooly interpretations of alleviated political Islam. We, all democrats of the Islamised world should defend secularism or it will die from hypocritical abuses of both hardliners and so-called modern Islamists. Islamic or any ideological democracy does not practically exist. The case of ex-communist regimes, under the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of “class democracy” is another example. More illusionary, democracy can be pretended by Ahmadinejad and Mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Democracy is much needed in the Islamised world, but of course without the word “Islam” attached to it. It is time that we, the people of Islamised world, open the ears and eyes to finally quit the dogma that Islam is a fixed and firmly miracle of any problem. Quite on the contrary, the most frequent facts that I partially mentioned show that Islam has enough damaged our societies.

Today, to free and modernise our societies, we have to reject any form of political Islam, as a doctrine for undemocratic and backward principles. Today Political Islam lurks in the shadow of people in Egypt and Tunisia. As one of one of the millions of Mullahs’ victims, I have a moral duty to alarm people of Egypt and Tunisia not to fall in such a trap. You should learn from the 1979 Iranian revolution, not to replace one dictator with another.

Révolution Tunisienne arrive en Égypte

2011-01-26T02:51:00.000-08:00

Le fantôme de la liberté parcourt le monde musulman et arrive maintenait en Égypte où le peuple opprimé le rattrape avec l’enthousiasme. La révolution Tunisienne fait surgir le fantôme de liberté sur les terres musulmanes. Il a surgi sous la forme de l'insurrection du peuple Tunisien face a la dictature de Ben Ali. Le fantôme de liberté pour le peuple devient en même temps un fantôme de peur qui fait trembler dans leurs palais prodigieux les despotes du monde musulman comme Moubarak, Gaddafi, les Scheiks et Mollahs corrompus.

L’Égypte est minée par les mêmes maux que d’autres pays musulmans. Le pays connait chômage, corruption, répression, misogynie sous le président Hosni Moubarak qui règne sans partage depuis trente ans sur le pays. Des manifestants réclament dans les rues de Caire la fin de son règne. Les cris comme « La Tunisie est la solution » ou « Après Ben Ali, à qui le tour ? », indiquent leur volonté d’en finir avec ce vieux raïs de 80 ans. Ils sont bien inspirés par l’insurrection tunisienne contre leur tyrannie. Leurs cris pour la liberté, reformes sociales, les droits de l’homme, l’égalité, et la justice sociale non seulement défient Moubarak mais aussi indirectement le credo de l’islam qui est officiellement la religion d’état et qu'il traditionnellement ne reconnait pas telles revendications.

L’Égypte tombe en 639 sous le calife Omar. L’islam est depuis imposé par les nomades musulmans. Le credo moyenâgeux des clans primitifs de l’Arabie remplacent la grande civilisation égyptienne, celle qui sert toujours de référence pour les chercheurs de l’égyptologie. L’Égypte ainsi périclita parmi d’autres pays arriérés du monde musulman. Cléopâtre, le symbole égalitaire de femme égyptienne, cède la tradition égalitaire à plus de 90% de femmes musulmanes qui sont aujourd’hui excisées pour être dépourvues de la joie sexuelle.

Les sauvageries des Mollahs en Iran ont réveillé le monde musulman. Les questions sur les valeurs divines et morales de l’islam commencent d’être mises en doute par un nombre grandissant des ex-musulmans en en Iran et ces questions s’étendent à travers le monde musulman. C’est grâce aux réseaux sociaux d’Internet, comme Facebook ou Twitter qu’une jeune génération du monde musulman renifle l’odeur du jasmin déjà arrivé en Égypte et qui va atteindre d’autres pays islamisés.

L’islam ne peut plus résister au progrès de communication. Les valeurs démocratiques et humanistes ouvrent une autre conscience des peuples long temps islamisés et opprimsés : l'homme indépendamment de sa religion est une valeur en soi. Sa liberté et à l'épanouissement dans sa vie temporelle ne passe pas par le credo archaïque des religions mais par une reconnaissance de son vertu humain. À part l’Iran et Afghanistan, Les nouvelles générations du monde musulman n’ont pas tangiblement éprouvé l’État islamique mais l'antithèse de l'islamisme et humanisme est graduellement reconnu, le contraire de l’islam politique à la liberté et les droits les plus fondamentaux est trop flagrant pour être désormais caché.

L'islam, dans son essence, ne connaît pas d'autorité du peuple que sous l’égide d’un État islamique, ou plutôt d’une classe cléricale comme les Scheiks en Arabie Saoudite et les Mollahs en Iran. Aujourd’hui grâce aux effets de cybermonde, les peuples du monde musulman reconnaissent l’atrocité de ces classes dirigeantes. On constate que dans chaque pays que progresse l'obscurantisme de ces classes, les droits de l’homme sont davantage bafoués. Les islamistes égyptiens, Les Frères Musulmans, guettent aussi le pouvoir politique. Ils péchent aux eaux troublent pour le rattraper. Ils mobilisent leurs fous de Dieu pour établir un état islamique qui sera plus réactionnaire, plus despotique et plus antidémocratique que celui de Moubarak.

Reformes laïques appliquées par Atatürk nous montre que des très longues années de laïcité en Turquie fonctionnaient si la classe dirigeante n’était pas elle-même islamisée. En Égypte comme d’autres pays musulmans, le credo islamique est représenté par l’état-- islam est la religion d’état. C’est seulement sous de pareilles conditions de compromis que les islamistes sont tolérés. Les Frères Musulmans représentent en effet une alternative au pouvoir car les dirigeants musulmans oppriment davantage l’opposition démocratique et laïque.

Les manifestations en Égypte et au monde musulman sont maintenant une menace pour les dirigeants corrompus du monde musulmans mais pas un empêchement de prise de pouvoir par les islamistes. Donc il faut en même temps être assezp vigilant et conscient pour ne pas tomber dans leur piège étendu.

A look into Iraq after US Occupation

2011-01-21T01:42:00.000-08:00

New waves of sectarian bomb attacks in Iraq killed at least 50 people and injured more than 150, officials say. In my opinion, “war on terrorism” which was the pretext of the Iraqi occupation under Bush‘s admin let practically more terror in Iraq and, worse, more islamisation of the region.

Iraq was occupied by the US-led troops from March 20 to May 1, 2003. Five years have passed since the Bush administration launched the war on terror beginning with the campaign entitled "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to topple the Saddam regime in Iraq. Yet the panoramic picture of Iraq continues to remain in a sombre situation. The US was yet to reach its target to “disarm” Saddam Hussein’s regime of weapons of mass destruction in the fight against “terrorism”, but nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons were never found in Iraq after the military occupation.

Iraq war is the most expensive in terms of human and material costs in the US history after the Vietnam War. The official statistics released by the US Congressional Budget Office on December 4, the administration had spent some US $350 billion for military operation in Iraq. Recently, the US Congress approved an additional amount of US $70 billion for the war against terrorism, in which US $50 billion is to be reserved for the war in Iraq. In the next few months, the administration is expected to ask the Congress to gear another US $127 billion for the purpose. This shows that the war in the Iraq has cost the US over US $500 billion in three and a half years, equivalent to the 15-year war in Vietnam from 1960 to 1975. It is noticeable that the expenses for the Iraq war rose year after year from an average of US $217 million per day in the first days of the war to the current amount of US $267 million per day.

According to the estimates by Prof. Joseph E. Stiglitz from the Columbia University, Nobel Prize winner in economics of the year 2001, and Congressman Lee Hamilton, the actual spending for the war in Iraq could reach US $1,000-1,500 billion, accounting for one tenth of the US GDP and ten times higher than the initial estimate. They said that the costs for this war should include all indirect expenses such as health care for war invalids and sick soldiers, compensations for families of dead soldiers, social insurance for all those participating in the war and others.

A report released by the Pentagon on December 18 said that the war had killed 3,195 of coalition troops including 2.984 from the US and injured over 25,000 others. Military experts believed that the US casualties could be much higher. The Pentagon only mentioned those troops killed in action without taking into account the deaths during emergency services and in hospitals. It is estimated that this number should account for 16-30% in the past wars. As a result, the total of US soldiers killed in Iraq should have reached over 8,000, much higher than the war against Vietnam—recent reports talk from about 4000 US deaths.

Despite increasing losses and expenses, it is still far for the US to reach its targets in Iraq. Many people have hoped that following the elections on December 2005, the establishment of an official government on April 2006 together with the killing of Al-Queda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on June 2006, the situation Iraq would be improved. However what is developing in Iraq has gone beyond the US expectation. Iraq is falling in a chaotic situation and the sectarian and religious conflicts are pushing the country in the whirl of bloody violence. In an interview with the BBC, UN former Secretary General Kofi Annan criticised the US-led war in Iraq was illegal, saying that “the level of violence in Iraq was ‘much worse’ than that of a civil war.”

A report completed under Bush by the Iraq Study Group under the US Congress said that as many as 750,000 Iraqi people had been killed and another 1, 3 million were forced to leave their country since the US launched the war in 2003. In fact, Iraq is being divided into three regions: the south dominated by the Shiites, the central part by the Sunnis and the north by the Kurds. The US forces failed to ensure security and daily minimal needs for the Iraqi people, let alone the efforts of national reconstruction.

The increasing problems in Iraq are affecting in the US itself and creating outstanding changes in the face of the region and the world at large. There are more and more critics against the US war in Iraq, marked by the resignations of former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Ambassador John R. Bolton, Permanent US Representative to the United Nations and in 2008 the former commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Admiral William Fallon. President Bush’s prestige reduced to the lowest level since he was elected president in 2001, leading to the defeat of the Republicans during the mid-term congressional elections in November, President Bush had to propose ISG that comprises the representatives from both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party led by James Baker, former Secretary of State (Republican), and Lee Hamilton, US congressman (Democrat) to find a way out of the deadlock situation in Iraq.

As having got bogged down in Iraq, it is difficult for the US to open the second front against the Islamic Republic of Iran which is the main sponsor of terrorism and it has failed to bring pressure to bear on the regime concerning their bilateral conflicts. The US knew under Bush and ignores under Obama the fact the IRI is formed from a group of Islamist thugs, masquerading as a state which is responsible for the main problems of the region. The invasion of Iraq unburden the West to seriously consider the criminal background and the constant violations of human rights of this regime, so the regime became the chance not only to further repress its people, but also to interfere in Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel-Palestine conflict. With a huge military potential, the IRI is emerging as a power in the region.

Bush ’s administration ignoring the black backgrounds of human rights in Iran and the ultimate goals of Mullahs for islamisation the region, proposed “grand bargain” with the Mullah’s regime and Syria in a hope to stabilise the security in Iraq. The bargain welcomed by the Islamic regime and its lobby groups in the US gave a new chance to the Islamic regime to develop its killing machine both in Iran and Iraq. Mullahs reinforced their repressive forces: under the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a garrison was opened in 2005 to recruit and train volunteers for “martyrdom-seeking operations”. Its commander of this division, Mohammad-Reza Jaafari, called for jihadi operations in the region.

The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was reacted by an escalation of violence and islamisation in the region. Islamists groups like Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon became significant forces. Many analysts said that the US-led coalition against terrorism is facing the danger of disintegration. So far, over 20 countries, including those actively supporting the war in Iraq namely Spain, Canada, Japan and Italy, have withdrawn their troops from Iraq. Meanwhile, China, Russia and EU focused on development with the IRI, emerging as the new strength to possibly threaten the superpower status of the US.

The development of the US-led wars in Iraq proved the failure of the “pre-emptive theory” in the anti-terrorist war. Its powerful military strength could destroy other countries’ infrastructure in a short time, but Washington found it impossible to control and stabilise the security situation. Regarding this issue, former National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger and new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates assessed that “the US would not gain a military victory in Iraq.” On December 6, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the strongest supporter for the US war in Iraq, also admitted that “the war in Iraq was a "disaster" and was developing in a wrong trend and the US would not be able to win in Iraq.”

Iraq is now overshadowed by sectarian violence and lack of any stability, US troops pretend to do a necessary job for disarming militia groups, persuading all the political and sectarian and religious groups in Iraq to achieve a charter on national reconciliation. It is not an easy decision for the Obama’s admin to withdraw all 155,000 troops from Iraq without letting the arena free for sectarian violence. It is hard to reduce the combat troops and shifting to positive diplomatic activities to improve the situation. The US administration has also been undertaking the contacts and dialogues with resistance groups in Iraq including members of the former ruling Baath party, nothing seems satisfactory. Bush mistakenly entered Iraq and Obama is still bogged, their army has done nothing positive, neither by occupation Iraq nor by withdrawing from Iraq.

The Middle East situation continues to be tense. Violence is still spreading in Iraq and the country is facing the danger of a civil war. The Palestine-Israel conflict is being landed in a cul-de-sac because it has yet to find a way out. The situation in Lebanon and the nuclear issue in Iran are still latent with a possible breaking out. Under such circumstances, it is extremely difficult to find the solutions to all the issues for the whole region. Therefore, it is necessary for all the concerned parties to make greater efforts to step by step establish a real and lasting peace, democracy and stability in the Middle East.

Today Iraq is an arena of war among various Islamic movements, which enjoys widespread and growing support throughout the Arab–Islamic world, encompasses those who believe that all must live in total subjugation to the dogmas of Islamic Sunnite or Islamic Shiite. All these Islamic movement from any Islamic sect conclude that jihad (“holy war”) must be waged against those who refuse to do so. Islamic Totalitarians regard the freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly happiness animating the West as the height of depravity. They seek to eradicate Western Culture, first in the Middle East and then in the West itself, with the ultimate aim of bringing about the worldwide triumph of Islam. This goal is achievable, adherents of the movement believe, because the West is a “paper tiger” that can be brought to its knees by sufficiently devoted Islamic warrior. Bush administration by attacking Iraq while committing civilian crimes in Iraq contributed to highlight such Islamic trends.

In my opinion, islamisation of the region is occurring at a faster speed than its "democatisation" -- this term was abusively used by Bush to justify the Iraqi war. Furthermore the Iraqi occupation feed the region on political Islam: not only political Islam in Iran became more brutal, but also Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Syria are today more gravitating towards Islam in their political equations. Islamic trends and violence in the Middle East has gained momentum since the 2003 Iraqi occupation by Bush’s administration.

Révolution en Tunisie

2011-01-15T01:18:00.000-08:00

Le président tunisien Ben Ali après 23 ans du règne dictatoriale est renversé. Sa chute et légitime selon l’article 2 de la Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme qui justifie la résistance du peuple contre l'oppression d’état. Le peuple reste vigilant dans les rues pour que leurs revendications ne soient pas oubliées.

Le dictateur fuit en Arabie Saoudite, le berceau de l’islam wahhabite, terre d’accueille d’Idi Amin ( un autre dictateur aliéné du monde musulman). Ben Ali comme Idi Amin va vivre en prince une heureuse retraite dans le royaume des Scheiks, les nantis les plus pourris de la planète.

Le gouvernement de Sarkozy malgré sa sympathie pour Ben Ali, s’est trouvé dans l'embarras, tout comme d’autre pays capitalistes, de l’accueillir sur la terre française. Malte et l’Italie ont aussi tourné le dos en refusant son entrée dans leurs pays et obligent le dictateur de trouve refuge dans une monarchie absolue.

Les tunisiens trouvent l’occasion de respirent l’air de démocratie. Espérons que le peuple soit assez vigilant pour ne pas tomber dans les pièges d’autres dictateurs et surtout celle des islamistes du pays qui sont appuyés par les mollahs en Iran.

La chute du dictateur est un avertissement pour d’autres régimes dictatoriaux et pourris dans le monde musulman. Cette révolution surprenante du peuple a sonné le glas des autres dictateurs et monarques qui ont ruiné leurs pays. Cette révolution magnifique donne du courage aux peuples opprimés et appauvri pour acquérir leur liberté longtemps bafouée. La majesté fortunée le Roi Mohammed VI au Maroc, le régime autoritaire en Algérie, le fou dictateur libyen, Gaddafi qui règne depuis 1967, tremblent de peur dans leurs palais prodigieux.

Quand aux mollahs, ils forment le régime le plus totalitaire des régimes du monde musulman. C’est un régime qui n’hésite pas à torturer, violer, tuer le peuple, un régime totalitaire et sanglant d’un caractère antihumain. La révolution en Tunisie donne du courage aux peuples iraniens pour renverser le régime islamique.

Vive le peuple héroique tunisien pour sa révolution exemplaire !

Vive la révolution démocratique et laïque dans le monde musulman !

Vive la révolution du peuple iranien contre le régime totalitaire des mollahs !

Le peuple uni ne sera jamais vaincu !