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.

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.

– 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 opponent ignoring the black backgrounds human rights in Iran and the ultimate goals of Mullahs 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.

No gullible schoolchild believes that the nuclear programme is not intended to build a nuclear bomb. Furor over the bomb is not only an international fear, but rather catches the breath of Iranian people who are the first victims of this Islamic regime because the regime has proved all aggressive characters of an occupying force in Iran.

The question is why the Shiite Mullahs need nuclear weapons. It does not make sense if we do not know their real belief behind their nuclear ambitions.

Shiite sect of Islam believes in Twelve Imams, started from Imam Ali, the 4th Caliph, and ended with Imam Mahdi who went in the occultation since 872. His return is believed by Shiites to establish the rightful rule of Islam and bring justice for humankind. Mahdi means “guide” and will appear on the earth alongside with Jesus whose aim is to ask Christians to convert into Islam and Mahdi’s rule. Mahdi is the saviour and redeemer of Islam, the only accepted religion for mankind under his rule.

A strong current within the Islamic regime, to which Ahamadinejad is believed to belong, is called “Hojjatieh”, referring to “Hojjat” or another name for Mahdi. They believe that since the Imam’s reappearance is stipulated by the extreme sufferance and commitment of sins, the Islamic regime of Iran whose leader is the Mahdi, suffice to hasten his appearance by inflicting sever, unfair, and repressive conditions.

Among a number of signs, it is believed that the following catastrophes precede the Imam’s reappearance:

The Sufyani (a descendant of Abu Sufyan) will emerge before Imam Mahdi from the depths of Damascus. According to some weak narrations, his name will be Urwa bin Muhammad and his kunniya ‘Abu Utbah’. The hadith regarding the Sufyani specify that he is a tyrant who will spread corruption and mischief on the earth before Imam Mahdi. He will be such a tyrant that he will kill the children and rip out the bellies of women. When he hears about the Mahdi, he will send an army to seize and kill him. However the earth will swallow this army before it even reaches Imam Mahdi. Abu Hurairah Radiallahu Anhu has narrated that the Prophet said: http://www.maybenow.com/What-are-some-of-the-signs-of-the-reappearance-of-imam-mahdi-q7382877

Concerning the Sufyani, another source says:

- There will be an insurgence by the Sufyani, a descendent of Abu Sufyan, who was one of the Muhammad’s enemies, along with his son, Muawiya and his Muawiya’s son, Yazid. The insurgence starts from Palestine and Jordan, and his reign of tyranny will span the Middle East from Iraq to Egypt.

- 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. It 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.

- Natural catastrophes are expected as signs: land shall be turned into deserts, earthquakes and volcanoes and other natural disasters will occur regularly.

Although inauthentic quotations describe the catastrophes through natural phenomena like fire, storm, earthquake, volcano and the arm of battles as sword, these conditions seem to be in a strong correlation with atomic explosions and radioactive contamination. This is apparently a reason for the Islamic regime to classify the nuclear programme as a holy weapon for the Armageddon between the Mahdi’s adepts and the rest of the world. Only radioactive explosives can blow a big area in jets of fire and plumes of smoke.

In such an apocalyptic world, since the main characteristic of the Mahdi is that he is absolutely guided by God, the IRI, as a part of the divine scenario, has nothing of a normal state, it is a self-appointed God’s handpicked guidance for the future mankind, and its acts are in complete accordance to God’s will. Mullahs, who have already established a God’s state in Iran, are now preparing world God’s state for the return of Mahdi.

Ahamadinejad, who is known for his personality disorder, boasts of being in close contact with Mahdi and has been assigned to prepare Imam’s messianic return. Mahdi will establish an Islamic state under which all other religions and belief systems will be abolished. Under his rule only faithful Muslims and those Christians converted into Islam survive; a great number of the world population “unbelievers and hypocrites” are predicted to be killed.

In this light, nuclear weapons will gain a vital meaning for Mullahs because as mentioned, “Seif-al-Islam” (Sword of Islam) can no longer expand “Daral-al-Islam” (territory of Islam).

In the course of history, Islam without its sword could never be as expanded as today. This sword of nomadic Arab tribes, whose bearers were mandated to convert a great part of today’s Islamic world into Islam, is still on the flag of Saudi Arabia. The sword killed millions of non-Muslims and “hypocrites” to reach the size of today’s “Dar-al-Islam”.

At the time when sword of Islam can no longer be the effective weapon like the Golden Age of Islamic Caliphate, a new arsenal would be necessary to defend and expand the message of Islam. This arsenal can be likely atomic in the hands of Shiite Mullahs, who consider themselves the only legitimate leaders of the Islamic world.

Mullahs’ continuation of nuclear programme will consequently result in a convinced failure of diplomatic efforts and policy of appeasement led by 5+1, what can ultimately result in more UN sanctions or a military attack on Iran. Yet, the Islamic regime needs this technology to build weapons to pursue both its long-term and short-term strategy; the long-term plan is related with the conditions of Mahdi’s reappearance. The short-term plan serves the regime to guarantee its survival against the oppressed people of occupied Iran and all enemies of Islam.