Saturday, September 02, 2006

Useful Idiots Are Islam's Best Soldiers

sep 2nd, 2006

more on the same theme of useful idiots. once again, good stuff, shahryar! thank you. and that too, from an iranian.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shahryar

 
Useful Idiots Are Islam's Best Soldiers
Amil Imani - Persian Journal
Aug 9, 2006, 00:38


Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of "Useful Idiots,"? that Lenin identified as those who lived in liberal democracies and furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies but serves the cause of Islamofascism, another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.

Useful Idiots are naive, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.

Arguably, the most dangerous Useful Idiot is the "Politically Correct."? He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.

The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.

The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception.

Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining "liberal practices of the Useful Idiot" require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and "Monday Morning Quarterback."

The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society, the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct.

Even the "normal" spends a great deal more energy aiming to fix things out there than working to overcome his own flaws and shortcomings, or contribute positively to the larger society. People don't like to take stock of what they are doing or not doing that is responsible for the conditions they disapprove.


The Useful Idiot, among other things, is a master practitioner of scapegoating. He assigns blame to others while absolving himself of responsibility, has a long handy list of candidates for blaming anything and everything, and by living a distorted life, he contributes to the ills of society.

The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as "Political Islam," or "Radical Islam," for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter "the Quran" is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the "real Islam"? constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.

Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political.

But Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and state are one and the same the mosque is the state. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical to the extreme. Even the "moderate" Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well-deserve being maltreated to the utmost.

No radical barbaric act of depravity is out of bounds for Muslims in dealing with others. They destroy precious statues of Buddha, level sacred monuments of other religions, and bulldoze the cemeteries of non-Muslims a few examples of their utter extreme contempt toward others.

Muslims are radical even in their intrafaith dealings. Various sects and sub-sects pronounce other sects and sub-sects as heretics worthy of death; women are treated as chattel, deprived of many rights; hands are chopped for stealing even a loaf of bread; sexual violation is punished by stoning, and much much more. These are standard day-to-day ways of the mainstream "moderate" Muslims living under the stone-age laws of Shariah.

The "moderate" Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man beheaded 700 Jewish men in the presence of the prophet himself. The prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men, women and children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most vicious and shameless practitioner of slavery. Slave trade, even today, is a thriving business in Islamic lands where wealthy, perverted sheikhs purchase children of the poor from traffickers for their sadistic gratification.

It is a well-established fact that a Jew's word is his bond. The exact opposite is the case with Muslims. Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself, something that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same. Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a ruse of a true Muslim. As soon as he gathered the reign of power, Khomeini went after the Useful Idiots of his time with vengeance. These best children of Iran, having been thoroughly deceived and used by the crafty phony populist-religionist, had to flee the country to avoid the fate of tens of thousands who were imprisoned or executed by the double-crossing imam.


Almost three decades after the tragic Islamic Revolution of 1979, the suffocating rule of Islam casts its death-bearing pal over Iranians. A proud people with enviable heritage is being systematically purged of its sense of identity and forced to think and behave like the barbaric and intolerant Muslims. Iranians who had always treated women with equality, for instance, have seen them reduced by the stone-age clergy to sub-human status of Islamic teaching. Any attempt by the women of Iran to counter the misogynist rule of Muhammad's mullahs is mercilessly suppressed. Women are beaten, imprisoned, raped and killed just as men are slaughtered without due process or mercy.

The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.

---
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at http://amilimani.com/index
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner, The comments and 
submissions are property of their posters and their source.


To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

10 comments:

iamfordemocracy said...

Unfortunately, there are no useful surviving idiots on the opposing side. If some idiot does take the other side, the rationals and the non-facists tend to focus on his idiocy than on the side he takes. Islamic fundamentalists accomodate the Shekhar Guptas and the Prafull Bidwais of this world in quite an honorable way. Contrast this with the way the Indian society treated the idiot on the other side - one Mr. Oka who maintained all throughout that Tajmahal was a Hindu Shivmandir with extensive proofs. Ever heard of that?

Here is an idiotic thought. This excellent essay on "useful idiot" could be a part of the californian textbooks. Can we make a suggestion to that effect somewhere?

.

daisies said...

It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the "real Islam"? constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.

--- How true. I came across one such specimen recently who I will describe.

Btw, I am also trying to figure out why they are called 'Useful' Idiots. They might even believe more than ever that they are very very useful.

One person that fits the description above is an Islamic "scholar", claiming to be also a great "Hindu scholar", simply because he can quote from many Hindu texts, and has arrived at elaborate proofs that Islam is grater than Vedas, and hence has existed since time immemorial, and that the "prophet" and his message is important because his word is the last and final word of God.
(sigh, what a terrible message God has left for the world).

Beware of this man's scholarship. It is so easy to spout a few texts and make selected theological comparisons between a quote here and a quote there, and presto, conclude that "Islam is the ultimate truth".

This is what he goes around doing. I have even heard Hindus get impressed by his scholarship and instantly say "Wow, he knows so much". And no one can find the flaws in his twisted logic, because they are so totally impressed with his scholarship in Hinduism.

He even went to engage one Hindu guru in argument. However, this guru who gives the light of atma gnynan/brahma gnynan, would not counter-argue with the great svholar, and unfortunately, the one who yap-yapped the most was appreciated the most.

"Dangerous Idiots" is a more accurate term than "Useful Idiots".


_

hUmDiNgEr said...

Daisies,

I am sure you are referring to the Idiot Zakir Naik.....he is a joker who is tolerated by stupids and imbeciles. You cant win against him in a "speech" debate because his debates are time bound and he talks very fast. By the time audience understand what he is talking he comes to conclusion. If you have a Orkut memebership, go to a community called "Hindu Muslim Roundtable". One of my friends Krishna ( his screen name would be different) ripped this guy Zakir Naik apart.

Sri Sri Sri Ravi Shankar couldnt defeat ZN only because SSS RS is a Puranic. If there is any Hindu Scholar who is a "Vedantin" debated with ZN , it is very easy to defeat ZN.

Alas, the Land of Shnkaracharya is befert of someone who can be debate...!!

daisies said...

Surya,

You wote:
"Sri Sri Sri Ravi Shankar couldnt defeat ZN only because SSS RS is a Puranic. If there is any Hindu Scholar who is a "Vedantin" debated with ZN , it is very easy to defeat ZN."

--- Well, to defeat another in argument, one has to be first willing to be argumentative. Sri Sri does not have the slightest inclination to argue with anybody. No one can ever hope to draw him into verbal combat.

Following in his footsteps, much as I am itching to argue with you based on my firsthand experience, that Sri Sri is not a Puranic but an advaitin, I will desist from arguing with you.

I will instead deal with my "itch to argue". :-)

_

hUmDiNgEr said...

Virat0 and Daisies,

I dint want to argue with anyone here. I just presented a fact which I though was genuine.As far as I know there is not a single "famous" vedantin or Advaitic guru these days.

I dont know why you guys get defensive when someone tells you some unfamiliar trait of your guru. I am sorry if I hurt your sentiments but I was speaking of what I know.

As far as RS being an Advaitin...well I dont want to argue about it as it might again hurt some of the establised sentiments.
:)

hUmDiNgEr said...

"Well, to defeat another in argument, one has to be first willing to be argumentative. Sri Sri does not have the slightest inclination to argue with anybody. No one can ever hope to draw him into verbal combat.
"

I really wonder why did her agree to participate in a debate with that Joker??????

As Swami Vivekananda said " why it is always that disciples misundestand and misinterpret their Gurus"...;)

daisies said...

"I dont know why you guys get defensive when someone tells you some unfamiliar trait of your guru."

--- Surya, you wrote to ME in particular, and I wrote back to you simply disagreeing with you.

Are you saying only you have a right to write to me, and I should not write anything to you ? If I reply to you, I am being defensive ? That's silly.

Anyone, since that's your rule of the game, I will not answer any of your questions or points again, even if my answers are worthwhile.

_

daisies said...

typo:

i meant "Anyway, since...", not "Anyone, since.."

_

daisies said...

.

Surya,

For your reference, here is your exact words to me in Jan 2006, when I wrote on this blog that this guru is an Advaitin. Your response to me, reproduced below. How come you were entitled to toss aside my evaluation of Sri Sri, and assert that you are right ? You mean, non-disciples have a right to say anything, and whatever they say is correct ? And disciples should say nothing. If they say anything, it is a misinterpretation and defense of the guru.

Surya wrote: 30th Jan 2006:
------------------------
@Daisies,

Sri Ravisankara is not an "Advaitin"...he is a Puranic and whatever he advocates is Puranic concepts.

And, why dont you enlighten us about the "debate" Sri Ravisankara had with that joker Zakir Naik on 21st Jan 2006?
# posted by surya : 1/30/2006 1:33 AM
---------------------------

p.s. I am not looking for an answer, I am merely showing you how you disagreed with me when I called RS an advaitin.

_

hUmDiNgEr said...

Ali Sina debates with ZN to disprove Islam. But ZN tries to ascribe everything to Islam. He can prove to you that ( if you are gullible enough) that Brahman is nothing but Allah. All Upanisadic thought is nothing but Allah. He even conjured up something called "Allopanishad". He is such a joker that he wrote that Allopanishad in Samskrut. Anyone who knows basic Samskrutham can easily notice simple gramatical errors in every stanza.

But belive me , if you have sense of humor, you can enjoy his speeches. Tune into Q TV and you can listen to his speeches. It is such a fun to listen to this joker. Another of my favouties is that "Chelladurai" of God TV. :)