Truth Or Dare

"Cerberus" by Peter Howson 1992, Private Collection London

SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATES

It really doesn't matter whether or not the Iranian Mullahs have actually passed the law forcing Iranian Jews and Christians to wear colored badges identifying them as non-Muslims. To wait for the final approval of Khamenehi, the very person who would have instigated the revival of the 2004 drafted Katami law in the first place, is hardly cause for a credibility check of the supposed "secondary motion" that fits the pattern of laws that Iran has already instituted.

What matters is, that they are not only perfectly capable of passing such a law, but that Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and his cohort Mullahs are most certainly breathlessly awaiting the day when such laws are testament to their progress towards establishing the Caliphat, complete with Shari'a laws imposing segregation of first class, i.e. Muslims and second class citizens, otherwise known as Dhimmis, whose right to live depends at best on their ability to pay 'protection tax', or Jizya poll tax. Amir Taheri confirms in the article today (NP's is free though), which the New York Post runs defiantly despite yesterday's controversy:

The law mandates the government to make sure that all Iranians wear "standard Islamic garments" designed to remove ethnic and class distinctions reflected in clothing, and to eliminate "the influence of the infidel" on the way Iranians, especially the young, dress.

It also envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct color schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable Muslims to instantly recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis" (unclean). [...]

The new law, drafted during the presidency of Muhammad Khatami in 2004, had been blocked within the Majlis. That blockage, however, has been removed under pressure from Khatami's successor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. [...]

According to Ahmadinejad, the new Islamic uniforms will establish "visual equality" for Iranians as they prepare for the return of the Hidden Imam. [...]

Religious minorities would have their own color schemes. They will also have to wear special insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faiths. Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes, while Christians will be assigned the color red. Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the color of their zonnar. [...]

The new law imposes a total ban on wearing neckties and bow ties, which are regarded as "symbols of the Cross." Will Iranian Christians be allowed to wear them, nevertheless? No one knows. [...]

One aim of the new law is to impose a total ban on imports of clothes and dress designs from the West. The Majlis hopes that all jeans will disappear form the Iranian scene within five years. The boutiques selling haute couture Western gear for men and women will also be closed over the next few years. A total ban on designer items, marked by logos, will come into force by the end of the year.

'There is no sense in a Muslim man or woman wearing something that is, in fact, an advertisement for an infidel designer or clothing merchant," says Pourhardani. [...]

What is already labeled "the Islamic clothes revolution" will not be limited to Iran. Tehran has already sent a team to Lebanon to inform the Hezbollah of the new law and train cadres to impose it on Lebanese Shiites.

"Our aim is to make sure that every Muslim, wherever he or she happens to be on this earth, is a living and walking symbol of Islam," says Pourhardani.

In any event, if Iran is able to split hairs with their categorical and absolute denial, beware not to take aim at the messenger (I am so sickened by absolutely outrageous journalism like this, that I had better refrain from commenting any further) but instead at the source. Taheri's reporting is based on his deep understanding of the Iranian Mullahs and their long-term intentions. Indeed, we should all be experts, as Thug-In-Chief makes no qualms about his vision, lest we belong to the "reality-based community at Daily Kos".

One can only imagine the rage caused in Tehran's Führer-Haupt-Quartier by each and every new indictment, coherently and expertly penned by Taheri and read by previously ignorant Millions; who believed 'Pax Islamica', or "Islam - the Religion of Peace", to be an unqualified truth; who were ignorant of the still far too little known fact, that it only applies to a dark future, during which all mankind has finally converted to Islam; when finally Jihad is no longer necessary, as all have been subjugated as slaves to Allah.

The immediate benefit of the story is that it serves as a test balloon gaging international reaction and resolve; the windfall for the Mullahs is that it further provides an excuse (as if they ever needed one) for disseminating yet another barrage of anti-Semitic bile and to further fuel Zionist conspiracy theories, along with many who hate Bush more than Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad.

I wish Tony Snow could explain the purpose of the recent letters to President Bush and to Pope Benedict XVI, namely the need to comply with Shari'a law, dictating the manner in which to prepare for 'lawful warfare' against Infidels, meaning inviting the Infidels to embrace Islam or prepare to be put to nuclear death. Andrew Bostom explains:

Jihad was pursued century after century, because jihad, which means “to strive in the path of Allah,” embodied an ideology and a jurisdiction. Both were formally conceived by Muslim jurisconsults and theologians from the 8th to 9th centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Qur’anic verses (for e.g., 9:5,6; 9:29; 4:76-79; 2: 214-15; 8:39-42), and long chapters in the Traditions (i.e., “hadith”, acts and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, especially those recorded by al-Bukhari [d. 869] and Muslim [d. 874]). The consensus on the nature of jihad  from all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i) is clear:

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), Maliki jurist

“Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.” 

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), Hanbali jurist

“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).” 

From the Hanafi school (as given in the Hidayah)

“ It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”

al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), Shafi’i jurist

“…The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…”

Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Indeed El Fadl wrote the following in 1999:

"There is no doubt that Muslim jurists do equate just war with religious war (jihad)” [parenthetical insertion of the word jihad by El Fadl himself]

His footnote for this quote cites the classical Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya, as well as two authoritative modern scholars of jihad, Professors Majid Khadduri, and Rudolph Peters. Appropriately elaborated, the contents of El Fadl’s quote reflect exactly what another respected contemporary Sunni Muslim scholar, Professor Bassam Tibi, maintains:

"...The Western distinction between just and unjust wars linked to specific grounds for war is unknown in Islam. Any war against unbelievers, whatever its immediate ground, is morally justified. Only in this sense can one distinguish just and unjust wars in Islamic tradition. When Muslims wage war for the dissemination of Islam, it is a just war (futuhat, literally "opening", in the sense of opening the world, through the use of force, to the call of Islam); when non-Muslims attack Muslims, it is an unjust war ('idwan). ..."

By the time of the classical Muslim historian al-Tabari’s death in 923, jihad wars had expanded the Muslim empire from Portugal to India. Subsequent Muslim conquests continued in Asia, as well as on Christian eastern European lands. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, and Albania, in addition to parts of Poland and Hungary, were also conquered and Islamized. When the Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, over a millennium of jihad had transpired.

These tremendous military successes spawned a triumphalist jihad literature. Muslim historians recorded in detail the number of slain infidels, the enslavement of the populations, the booty in captives, cattle and movable goods, the cities which were destroyed, razed or spared and taken by treaty, and the countryside pillaged or set on fire. Christian sources (Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, Greek, Slav, etc.), in particular, independently validate this narrative, and complement the Muslim perspective by providing testimonies of the suffering of the non-Muslim victims of jihad wars.

Watch this space...

SUNDAY MAY 21ST UPDATE: Wow, this blogger has really lost it...writing a whole article about me being a Nazi. Are these people completely crazy?

Well my answer is simply this. Siggy meanwhile writes a brilliant post defending my honor, and pointing out some serious home truths to the "Apes In Tuxedos" . Read the whole thing its damming.

Charles Johnson @ Little Green Footballs elevates my position into the elite Nazi labeled bloggers, and brings a happy smile to my face:

Congratulations to Alexandra at All Things Beautiful, who joins the elite group of anti-idiotarian bloggers who have been labeled “Nazis” for writing about the true heirs of the Third Reich—the mullahs of Iran: Truth Or Dare. (Scroll down for her link to the idiotblogger’s venomous rant.)

In all modesty, however, I must point out that I hold a unique position in the Nazi-obsessed world of the stalking left, since I’ve been called both “Hitler” and his mistress Eva Braun. Some guys have all the luck.

My friend Jeremiah @ Jeremiahkovka writes an e-mail: "Being called "Hitler" is a badge of honor and a rite of passage for any blogger who wages counter-jihad on Islam (and on multiculturalism generally).  By the way what took you so long?  (I was called a Nazi by someone who's known me for years, just because I registered Republican.)
 
Given your family's legacy, however, perhaps it comes across as a particularly ignorant slap."

The great blogger and brother in arms in the fight against Islamofascism, Marc Schulman is not worried and checks on the blogger's credentials.

Michael van der Galien, a  dear friend and talented blogger, jumps to my defense in "The Beauty And The Ignorant Beast"

UPDATE II: John Hinderaker has also noticed Bostom's article which I quote from at length above, and says: "such action would be consistent with strong currents of bigotry against non-Muslims that go deep into Iran's history. Bostom argues that those who saw the color-coding concept only as a reference to the Third Reich are missing a far more significant historical context"

Linked to Saturday's Wizbang Carnival.

UPDATE III MAY 22ND: Amir Taheri issues a press release and stands by his column.

Comments

[The Ugly American]

WOW! I leave the country for a few days and all hell breaks loose.

I read the SJ post you referred to and several others. This is one of those people that will never fight fair or argue facts. It is a waste of time to even engage if you are looking for an honest productive discussion.

[Guest at the Feast]

Dear Michael and Patrick,
Thank you for the kind words. Since March I have been under a self-imposed blogging moratorium due to an appalling amount of work and pressing deadlines, so I shall appear here very infrequently until autumn, by command performance only, and even then only in cases of dire need and/or deep outrage.
With sincerest good wishes to all people of good will on this blog,
Guest

[Robert]

I think the real shameful story of the Islamic dress code law being considered in Iran has been completely obscured by Taheri's self-serving disinformation campaign, aimed at getting western and Jewish/Israeli political support for his regime change agenda.

The real story, and the real reason why the dress code law should be viewed with abhorrence, has nothing to do with Iran oppressing religious minorities like Hindus, Christians or Jews. They don't give a damn about them. The proposed law is a harsh, reactionary measure that has everything to do with persecuting a completely different ethnic group, a group that nobody caught up in the neo-holocaust fervor has mentioned.

Muslims. The Iranian dress code law is clearly designed to oppress Muslims, and most specifically Muslim women.

[Patrick]

Guest, OUTSTANDING RESPONSE. I could not agree with Michael's comment more...BRAVO!

For the implacable foe of Israel (AKA Amalek), can we check your math please? Where do you get these numbers? Tell you what. I will go ahead and show you mine and if you do have some basis (with 9 billion dollar range, probably not) for your numbers put it on the table...

Let us first consider standard aid we give through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development...Israel ranks number 9 in aid from the US (550 million [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/30/1860571.gif] which is more than 250 million less than Egypt and 140 million less than Jordan). This is typically the numbers most people use since they show how "stingy" the US is with it's aid to other nations. (It is funny how France can count it's military assistance during disasteres as humanitarian aid, and yet the US can't--another discussion entirely).

These are not really the numbers you used, so how about this number from the embassy report to Congress dated January 19, 2005 by Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs and National Defense. It can be found at : http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/98-916.pdf. BTW, it shows assistance to the top 15 countries and according to it, Israel received $2.58 Billion. Please read the explanation of all the various aid categories so that you get a clearer picture of the how the numbers come about (better than can be found in the drivel presented by Washington Report on Middle East Affairs site [http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer] which obviously has NO BIAS (heavy sarcasm is intended).

We are still nowhere near the low end of the amount you cite:
-----
...6-15 billion dollar "jizya" to Israel every year. And our youth are forced to fight and die for the international corporate money manipulating community and their base of Israel
------
We will ignore everything in your post but the numbers (6-15 Billion every year). Let us go back to that WRMEA site I mentioned earlier. I must admit, this site was quite informative. This report uses even personal donations to inflate the numbers (still not the 6-15 Billion WAG (Wild A@@ Guess) you throw on the table. As an aside, the US gives over 71 billion a year in aid by our private citizens, add this to the 20 billion our government gives (more than twice the amount any other government gives) and we are a very charitable nation. With recent events in the news, let me be clear that this 71 billion doesn't count the money immigrants (legal or illegal) send to their own families (20 billion to Mexico alone last year-another discussion entirely).

I find it quite interesting how they take an 85 Billion (total since 1949) and make it 135 Billion. So only if we take 6 billion dollars a year since 1949 and then take into account a 4% interest rate (time value of money) do we get the 135 Billion dollars. Otherwise we would be at say, 342 billion if we had been giving them 6 billion a year since 1949. Of course this still doesn't make sense, so please educate me because I just can't make the numbers work with standard assumptions. The good old apples versus oranges false comparisons get me every time.

Of course we haven't mentioned things like the bribes (starting at Camp David) for Egypt to make nice with Israel. I guess we could claim that was money for Israel also... Maybe if we took the money we give the entire middle-east every year (with Egypt right behind Israel), we could claim it was all because of Israel. That could hit that figure between 6 and 15 billion a year you cite. Help me out since I am just flailing around out here.

I only use the strawman above (please forgive me for the - ad ridiculum) since you gave no references to the dollar amount. I would be happy to see what you have. I know I always learn something on Alexandra's site.

BTW, as many of you no doubt did, I also attempted a response on the offending site that started this thread, but failed to post. I am quite offended that any boor would stoop so low as to compare our beloved muse to a Nazi. Such a distasteful incident!

Hate-mongers always spoil the festivities.

[Ron Wrght]

Never Again - No More Stinking Final Solutions!

Good Morning Alexandra and All

I'm glad your are continuing to follow this story. The more the better for finding the real truth.

See my two cents worth I've been posting around the Blogos this morning.

RBT

*****
[Kobayashi Maru]

KBM

Atlas is continuing to follow this story this morning and I posted this comment in her thread.

[...]

Good Morning Super Babe,

The world must never forget the "Big Lie" and "The Final Solution." Also Hitler wasn't the originator of this Evil and madness as some have noted this has strong Islamic historical roots.

We must stick on this story like stink on poop and run it to ground. There is no excuse in the free world for Final Solutions with the interconnectivity of the Net, the Blogos and the Army of Davids Effect

Lose the Army of Davids!

I posted this comment below in your other thread and thought it appropriate here too.

Go get them girl!

*****

It ain't over until the fat lady sings. The fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Dr. Zin has returned home and is commenting. See this piece re the dangers of not dealing with Evil starring us in the face. There is historical precedence for this unlike Rathergate and "fake but accurate" nonsense of the LL and the MSM.

[...]

UPDATE - Dr. Zin is now back and commenting on the Islamic dress code story from yst. See his thoughts here and follow his site Regime Change Iran as this story continues to develop.

There is truth to this story and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. President MAD and the Mad Mullahs as Dr. Zin notes are pursuing an incrementalistic strategy.

RBT has this further analogy. A frog will die in a pot of boiling water if brought slowly to a boil!

Read More

[igout]

Maybe I've been hanging around blogs too much lately, but it seems to me that a lot of trolls & wreckers have shown up all over, more or less at the same time. I'm not much on conspiracy theories; often such thigns just get around like the flu.
Anyway, in my opinion, it's a great mistake not to simply ignore them. We're not here to swat at flies.
PS: So has that report about making non-muslims wear colored markings on their clothes been verified or retracted yet?

[Michael Galien]

*performing standing ovation for Guest at the Feast*

Guest; you didn't comment in a while, but it is great to see you're still alive and kicking.

Truly brilliant comments!

[MarcH]

Jeremayakovka wrote above: “Mazal tov! You are so cool”

Agent J! You have committed a serious error! Your use of the project code word: “Mazal Tov” in a message to Agent A has clumsily given evidence that this site is actually a false front of the International Jewish Conspiracy. Fortunately you did not give out our location in the rear of a small delicatessen in Brooklyn. See that you exercise greater care in the future!

[Guest at the Feast]

NB One more thing, Mr. Jones: Dhimmis in Iran are only allowed to hold those seats in the Majlis specially set aside for them; they cannot represent, "rule over" or legislate for Muslims. That is, the number of Infidels in parliament is fixed and they cannot compete with Muslims for seats. Compare this to, for instance, Israel (no doubt one of your favorite objects of excoriation), where Muslim Arabs not only win as many seats as they can take, but even do so within the lists of mainstream parties such as Likud and Labor. That sort of thing cannot happen with non-Muslims, by law, in an Islamic Republic. Jim Crow can't compete with dhimmitude or apartheid- but I guess anything non-white non-Christians do, no matter how immoral, bigoted, or genocidal, is fine in your books. Some of us, Mr. Jones, uphold consist standards.

[Guest at the Feast]

Amalek, your name is aptly chosen; and it is good that you know what you are. But then, since Alexandra does not approve of your ilk (look what she has to say about Mr. Ahmadi-Nejad), why show up and pollute her site? Surely Mr. Stanton Jones would be far more welcoming, and you could discuss the World Jewish Conspiracy together,maybe bond while you fantsize about lynching a kike or two- or several million. Alternatively, there is always Stormfront.org for you folks.

[Guest at the Feast]

Since I am not about to go through the bother of creating an account solely for the benefit of Mr. Jones (who would interest absolutely nobody had he not launched his attack upon you, Alexandra), I shall take the liberty of commenting here upon his rather rude posting- particularly since I do happen to know Farsi (and Arabic, and Turkish, and a goodly number of other languages that probably wouldn't interest you, Mr. Jones). A word of advice, Mr. Jones: you should try not to let your liberal arrogance show so much; this may shatter your world-view, but I really must inform you that not everyone who disagrees with your politics is an uneducated idiot. So, do try to rein in that unwarranted superciliousness and condescension, if you are constitutionally capable of doing so.
Um, Mr. Jones, that statement you post in Farsi says there, black and white, that "The Great Imam has commanded us that the "Jerusalem-Occupying Regime" [e.g. Israel]must be obliterated from the page of time." How exactly does one interpret that in any way OTHER than as a call for Israel's destruction? Particularly, by the way, taken in the larger historical context of all of Mr. Ahmedi-Najad's other numerous calls for "surgery" to "excise the cancerous tumor," suggestion to relocate Israel's 6 million Jews to Germany (how symbolic), TV programs about how Jews consume the blood of small children, liberal quotation from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Ahmedi-Nejad's speech from last year about how Israel, as the spearhead of Western culture, must be destroyed because in it hangs the balance of the entire war between Islam and non-belief, etc. etc. etc. You can find much of this, including the original Farsi videos (although you yourself obviously have some difficulty comprehending Persian texts) on the MEMRI website.
Perhaps you will claim that Iran's president has changed his mind since a few weeks ago; so let us look at this week's AP photos. If one does so, he will see very clearly an Iranian mullah putting a folder of cash into a new Revolutionary Guards fund box for the annihilation of Israel, on which is clearly written " Kamakiyya na-Budi Isra'il"= "The Fund for the Annihilation of Israel." It's featured on the front page of today's Ha'aretz, with an incorrect translation, however ("aid for the Palestinian" rather than "Wiping out Israel," which is the actual declared aim written in black and white). What precisely is de-contextualized or unclear about those three words? Like John Kerry, Mr. Jones seems to be constitutionally incapable of realizing that some things are, indeed, lucidly clear. Or, rather, what he and the other leftists don't want to state in a forthright manner is that, for all their proclaimed abhorrence of racism, they are deeply and incorrigibly anti-Semitic, and don't really mind at all if the Iranians carry out their stated aims. There could be no other rational reason for their insistence on ignoring such a clear "Mein Kampf," particularly after the lessons of historical experience (of course, I am making the rather big assumption here that extreme leftists are indeed rational).
But seriously, Alexandra, Mr. Jones is either a) not interested in empirical evidence; b) living in an alternate universe; or, most likely c) Both a and b (sorry, I've just been composing multiple-choice final exams). How does Mr. Jones explain the infamous "Israel is a cancerous tumour that must be excised" metaphor? The Holocaust denial? Ali Khamenei's "Israel is a one-bomb state" remark?
As for Alexandra's citation of Islamic legal sources (albeit Sunni ones): maybe no one informed you of this, Mr. Jones, but Iran is an Islamic Republic. This means that Islamic law is binding. Islamic law is based on the interpretations given to the Qur'an and the hadith by medieval theologians and jurisprudents; these are the people Tantawi, Qaradawi, and all the other Islamic religious leaders are citing; that is why they are eminently relevant, just as, say, Maimonides would be for a Jew, or Aquinas or one of the Patristic writers would be for a Catholic.
Now, you seem to think, for some inexplicable reason, that the dhimma laws- not being allowed to worship in public, build new places of worship, carry arms, speak freely about religion, pay penalties for being the wrong religion,have to make way on the street for the followers of the "superior" religion, etc. etc.- are a fine thing; free human beings tend not to. And, mind you, this is not including the real historical context, which was one of constant insecurity of life, limb,and conscience, whether in Mamluk Egypt, 'Abbasid Baghdad, Saljuq Iran- or the Islamic Republic (apparently you are unfamiliar with all the Amnesty, State Department, Human Rights Watch, and other left-wing organizational reports on what Baha'is, Zoroastrians, Sunnis, Christians, and others are undergoing in Iran). I should be happy to supply specific instances from the major chronicles if you should so wish- although at least for the Buyid Era and for the early Saljuq history translations into English have been made.
Finally, Mr. Jones, you apparently failed to grasp the meaning of Alexandra's comment that "it doesn't matter whether or not they actually passed the law." She did not mean, as you did, that one can toss off any scurrilous, slanderous, or patently false accusation (after all, she is not a leftist); but, rather, the fact that the Iranians could even discuss such legislation (which they not only discussed but actually approved a few years ago under President Khatami, although it was never put into effect because of fear of international repercussions), that the climate in Iran is so bigoted, oppressive, and faithful to the Shari'a in all its dark-age "glory", speaks volumes about the nature of that society. This is very different in nature from approaching a person, on the basis of his writings and statements, and beginning to throw unfounded and unwarranted libels at him. As one of Iran's (and National Socialism's) intended victims, I can safely say that on the basis of Alexandra's writings and yours, I know who is more likely to want me and my children dead- and it is not Alexandra.
Re Infidels: Read Sura 9 of the Qur'an, either in the Arabic or, if you are too linguistically challenged, Mr. Jones, in Majid Fakhry's very literal translation (he is a Muslim, not an Infidel Right-wing Imperialist Lunatic). Since this is one of the very last Medinan revelations, according to Islamic law (viz.: the official law of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or of any Islamic Republic, for that matter), it abrogates all prior verses.
And, finally, Mr. Jones, a word of personal advice: although it is imperative that you should become more educated if you will issue pronouncements in matters about which you are intensely ill-equipped to comment, it is equally pressing that you become more civilized. I shall speak plainly: you should you learn to write like a cultured adult, rather than a foul-mouthed teeenager, if you are going to appear in public; you must also learn not to hurl personal slander at people. This will help you in life: not only because it will be conducive to facilitating polite and courteous discourse with other people, from some of whom you just might learn something, but also because it will help you to avoid expensive and tiresome lawsuits.
Sincerely,
Guest at the Feast

[Return of Amalek]

American's pay a 6-15 billion dollar "jizya" to Israel every year. And our youth are forced to fight and die for the international corporate money manipulating community and their base of Israel (in other words: zionist Jews, yes, I am an "antisemite").
The dhimmi card is useless.

[Stefan]

Alexandra, I think that Staton Jones was trying to make a point, however stupidly, by calling you a “Nazi” he wrote:

“After all, it doesn't really matter whether or not she claims to be a Nazi, what matters is that in my fevered imagination, she's ready to don a Gestapo uniform the minute the UPS guy delivers it to her doorstep.”

This is supposed to be a cheap attempt at showing error in your assertion that “it really doesn't matter whether or not the Iranian Mullahs actually have passed the law forcing Iranian Jews and Christians to wear colored badges identifying them as non-Muslims” as condemning the criminal before the crime and his calling you a Nazi was supposed to be the equivalent. He has, unfortunately, completely missed the larger point that you have, quite correctly, made. That is that while the law that would demand that Jews and Christians be identified with armbands may or may not be enacted it would be a law that is completely consistent with Islamic teaching in regards to infidels living in Muslim lands as you go on to point out by citing Muslim jurists and Ahmadinejad himself. It is no great stretch of the imagination that such a law be enacted especially when dealing with a the current leaders of Iran who have shown a great delight in intentionally being provocative and relish spitting in the eye of the West.

It is also absurd for Jones to imply that translations are an invalid source of information. That would mean that most people couldn’t “truly” understand Plato, Socrates, Voltaire, Dostoevsky, or any other writer that put their thoughts in a language that one didn’t speak or read. This is so beyond absurd that not another word needs to be said about it.

The point is that this is not a case of convicting the criminal before the crime (which would be unfair) but rather a warning that the potential crime is fully consistent with the stated intentions and attitudes and past actions of the potential criminals and must be taken very seriously.

Staton Jones is a good example of someone who reads only what they think you are saying or what they wish you were saying and not what you are actually saying.

[ric ottaiano]

this "staton jones" guy, like many others who comment on Islam, is simply ignorant...i tried to post a comment explaining that the later suras control over any earlier and contrary ones, but could not sign on...fortunately someone else beat me to it...

[epaminondas]

I've crossed swords with this guy by email, he's a lightweight short on facts.

However, Alexandra, I must express by etreme jealousy that you got to be Hitler before me.

Now go here:
http://beautifulatrocities.com/archives/2005/06/in_the_future_e.html

[Michael Galien]

Alexandra and others, if you are not willing to read an aggressive rant, please skip this comment:

What the heck is that Canadian prick thinking? Seriously. Comes on the net, has some freaking communist blog and thinks he can bash those who try to do something about the lack of meaningful debate about Islam.

What that bleeping Canadian should do, is to crawl back in the hole, from which he came from. The freaking idiot doesn't even understand the way TrackBacks work (PLEASE ONLY TRACKBACK WHEN YOU LINK TO SOMEONE, PRICK).

Oh, and if all beautiful blond women look like Nazis, my country is filled with them; lots of blondes (although not all of them are beautiful of course) here. What's next? I'm a Nazi because I'm a blond haired, blue eyed man?

I have arrived at the point that I have completely had it with communists like that. To think that I, for a long while, defended their point of view regarding Islam, makes me sick.

F(*censored*) that stalinist klootzak (sorry for writing that it Dutch, but it would probably be censored if I wrote it in English).

[Jeremayakovka]

Mazal tov! You are so cool. Being called "Hitler" is a badge of honor and a rite of passage for any blogger who wages counter-jihad on Islam (and on multiculturalism generally). By the way what took you so long? (I was called a Nazi by someone who's known me for years, just because I registered Republican.)
Given your family's legacy, however, perhaps it comes across as a particularly ignorant slap.
After a proper smashing riposte, you must let it roll off your back. Perhaps with the help of this and this. And there's this (the insignia from the Muslim SS division mustered in your ancestral home).

[MarcH]

Alexandra,

I was going to fisk Stanton Jones and drop a comment at the site, but I couldn’t do it. I just can’t take him seriously enough to do spend this beautiful Sunday afternoon on that. To take “Winston Smith” (his posting tag) seriously I’d have to believe the following (from Winston’s post):

1. Iranian leaders, since the time of Khomeni, haven't really given loads of evidence of their desire to destroy Israel;

2. “Christians and Jews living in Islamic Republics are not second-class citizens”;

3. Any Jew in the pre-19th century Europe ever referred to his house of worship as a “temple”;

4. The theology of Islam in the "10th to 14th centuries" is irrelevant to understanding Islam today (“Winston” used the term b*llshit);

5. The Mullah’s of Iran and their supporters are as benign and beneficial a presence in the Middle-East as the Jews were in Germany circa 1936;

6. Alexandra is probably a Nazi because she:
-throws a spotlight on the Nazi-wannabees of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. and their fellow travelers in the U.S
-Has a distinguished Serbian background
-Has attractive features typical of Northern Europe
-Has that funny “von” in her name (oh, he left that out? I thought he’d see a sure connection to other “Nazis” such as von Stauffenberg and von Trapp);

7. It is not ridiculous for a lefty blogger to be so consumed by the fear that he’s living in Bush-Hitler’s AmeriKKKa that he takes the tag, “Winston Smith”; and,

8. It is not ridiculous for “Winston” to write posts in a style he must have picked up from NYPD Blue: “f*ck*ng … b*llsh*t …perp”.

[Alexandra]

Siggy has just written a brilliant and damming post entitled "Apes In Tuxedos" defending my honor and explaining some home truths about the religion of peace so fiercely defended by the left.

[Baron Bodissey]

foreign devill --

No, Godwin's law really only applies to the situation where someone compares his interlocutor to Hitler, e.g. "What you say is just like what the Nazis said!" or "That's how Hitler justified what he did!"

Comparing the rhetoric coming out of Tehran or from Hamas to Nazi rhetoric is not in the same category. Although, I suppose, if we started debating the mullahs or Hamas directly, it might become an issue. But how likely is that?

[foreign devil]

Baron and everyone:

Unfortunately, since the version of Arabist/Islamic fascism we face was reborn and reenergized by the Nazis in WWII and the long-time ties between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and other Arabs in the lead-up to the war and since, which are detailed in the following link, actually ARE Nazi-inspired, Godwin's Law cannot be applied to the subject in the same way when discussing Islamic aggression and it's inspirations and motiviations:

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

At this site, the top left-hand side has a link on Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the Second World War. Everything about his long association with Nazi Germany even before WWII, is there to be read. The other links at this site have articles and photographs also of the long associations between this Nazi-inspired Islamic fascism and other world leaders. The poison has been spread worldwide.

[Liquid]

Alexandra,
The response you got was typical hon! It's kinda like when someone tells you that you cannot understand any interpretation of the Quran because you cannot read Arabic! Ha Ha I find it funny how the "action/fruit" is always ignored and yet so many are doing evil things in the name of Allah and are backing it all up via the Quran! I especially got a deep belly laugh at the comment about the "people of the book" in their fevered rant-- since this person apparently hasn't read what the Quran commands concerning the "people of the book"

I do agree with the Baron on this one though, you should try the 'Godwin approach'. I remember Bob giving me advice around Thanksgiving and it truly worked! You just cannot reason with the blind at heart that continue to choose to not see. Some will support and defend Islam till the end and if that means painting Ahmadinejad as misunderstood -- they will surely do it, just as some claim that Saddam is misunderstood; despite his words and past deeds.

[Baron Bodissey]

Alexandra,

It seems time to invoke Godwin's law on Winston Smith.

Personally, whenever a discussion plays the Nazi or "racism" cards, I withdraw from it, since it has lost all rational point.

As for the issue in question -- dhimmi dress restrictions in Iran -- I would certainly like to see more reportage out of Iran addressing the matter; our sources so far are very limited.

But it certainly would be in accord with everything else the mullahs have done or attempted to do. No matter what the frothing-at-the-mouth left thinks, a quick look at Bostom's book (which I am reading right now) or other sources shows that such dress codes clearly fit the pattern of laws that Iran has already instituted.

[Francis W. Porretto]

Do you really need that question answered, Alexandra?

Note how frequently they use profanity of the lowest sort. Note how little respect they show for admissions of error -- ours when we admit them, theirs when they don't. Note how repetitive they are: always the same allegations, even after they've been disproved, and of course always the same insults.

Sometimes, all one must do to prevail is to point to one's adversary and say, "There he is, and here I am. Choose according to your tastes."

[Alexandra]

UPDATE: Wow, this guy has really lost it...writing a whole article about me being a Nazi. Are these people completely crazy with hate?

My answer? Umh...

[Saunders]

What you should be doing is ignore those silly facts and just believe that all human beings are essentially good people.

Human beings are not "essentially good people." Quite the opposite is true, in fact. As the bard wrote in Henry VI, Part III:

Look, as I blow this feather from my face,
And as the air blows it to me again,
Obeying with my wind when I do blow,
And yielding to another when it blows,
Commanded always by the greater gust;
Such is the lightness of you common men.

[Alexandra]

I am really glad that the New York Post stuck its finger up and published Taheri's article today, despite the controversy, as well as another one written by Andy Soltis on the same subject.

At least someone had the guts to stand up to the fact that despite it being brushed off as possibly only a "secondary motion" whether approved as law or not, the proposal demanded that Jews will have to wear a yellow band on their exterior in public, while Christians will be required to don red ones. We know already that the law always has to have the final approval from Khamenehi, and? Considering he would have been the one to have instigated it in the first place, that will be a close call.

I mean the introduction of the jizya for Christians...all this is nothing new to these people. The best quote yesterday which all the leftie sites were getting excited about was that someone had said "The Iranian people would never stand for it!". Really, well that's convincing...

[foreign devil]

Several months ago an item appeared that HAMAS has announced the institution of the jizya on Christians only in Bethlehem:

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=44202&eng=y

If HAMAS, which takes its orders from Iran as does Hezbollah, can feel free to institute this abominable tax on Christians, what's to stop them instituting dress laws as well. The Simon Wiesenthal Center investigated this rumor and found it to be true. I'd believe the Simon Wiesenthal Center before I'd believe the Iranian Ambassador to Canada or any of the Iranians at this point.

[North by Northwest]

Alexandra,

This post from Canadian journalist, Antonia Zerbisias really did make me feel ill. What is wrong with these people. How can she allow herself to spin the point of the Post's outrage in such an insensitive and politically biased way. Taheri doesn't even promote war against Iran and is far from being one-dimensional. Yet she doesn't even extend him a whiff of collegial respect but decimates him not even on his writing but merely on his association with one agent, Benador Associates - who btw should sue her for libel.

I fully understand why you didn't expand on her writing. It is more than sickening because it is so indicative for what is wrong with our times and society. It conjures up dark thoughts, wondering whether we might need an Ahmadinejad to do his worst to us. Not in far away Israel, where people like her will not loose sleepless nights for she already made up her mind that they were asking for it. No, right here, bit by bit. Honor killings, gang rape 13 year old Infidel girls...

God strike me down, but people like her seem to need an up close and personal; one where there is no chance for blaming Bush or Harper. One where she experiences the agony those German parents are feeling right now in Berlin after their 13 year old was gang raped by Muslim thugs. One where she realizes that the source for such evil is not a RE-action but action rooted in centuries of precedent and 'tradtion'. One where her tears are purging her inexplicable bias and hatred once and for all, finally opening her eyes, that it is not us waging war on Islam, but it is Islam waging war on us, soon nuclear. One where she chokes on her naive cold war comparisons as the ultimate justification for an nuclear Iran.

May God have mercy on her and all of us.

[Michael Galien]

I must say that you do not play the games by the rules - you use Muslim jurists, you do a lot of research, you choose yet another beautiful painting; in short; you are breaking every rule.

What you should be doing is ignore those silly facts and just believe that all human beings are essentially good people. To not close your eyes equals racism. You should know that.

Must I repeat myself every day?