From: saied@cwis.unomaha.edu (Saied*)
Subject: Re: SAIED keeps contradicting himself
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:23:17 GMT

abbasa@ul.ie writes:
>Saied always keeps contradicting himself.  Let us see an example. 
>> 
>> Kamran, you do not have to challenge me; I never said there
>> were any Baha'i in the Mojahedin. The Mojahedin's ideology
>> is Islam; thus for one to join the Mojahedin, he or she must
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> first believe in Islam (and in the case of Baha'is, to embrace
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Islam and leave baseless Baha'i religion behind).

>Here Saied says that Islam is precondition for any one to join
>MKO.

>|> Now the idealogy. The Mojahedin believe firmly in Islam.
>|> However, they do not impose their ideaology on others. They
>|> also cooperate closely with groups or personalities who are
>|> non-Muslims (and who are in fact non-believers). The majority
>|> of the Mojahedin supporters are Muslims (or at least believe
>|> in the legitimacy of Islam.) I am one of them. But believing
>                                                  ^^^ ^^^^^^^
>|> in Islam is not a prerequisite. There are MANY Mojahedin
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> supporters who do not believe in Islam.
>|>
> 

>Here Saied says Islam is not a precondition .

>Saied is it policy of MKO to use as much lies as possible to
>achieve "islamic goal"

>If your organisation believes "firmly" in Islam, then please
>answer the following questions from Koran and Hadith.

>1: Which constituents of the present  constitution of Iran are
>   against Koran and Sunnah?  

For a dumb person who doesn't know the difference between
*joining* and just *supporting* an organization and who
wants to know which piece of the Khomeini regime's
constitution is against "Islam" and "Qur'an", I have to
say this "javAbe ahmaqAn khAmushist."

For others' benefit, the very fact that Khomeini's constitution
calls for a person called "velAyate faghih" who has the
authority to intervene in every aspect of a person life and
whose word is above all laws and can, for example, remove a
president who has been elected by the majority of people, attest
to the fact that the constitution is the most backward and the
most dictatorial constitution. The dictatorship in Iran is
worse than Hitlerism and Mousulinism dictatorship since the latter
only dictated their will but didn't intervene in the private
life of a person. Furthermore, Hitler and Mousulini didn't
openly order the execution of girls as young as nine; they didn't
sanction rape-before-execution of virgin girls, and so forth.
Look at the Amnesty International's recent report of Oct 1, 1992
for shocking and hair-raising crimes such as mass execution of
groups of 600, 700, ..., by the Khomeini regime. Furthermore,
it is not words in the constitution that measures the degree
of atrocities but rather widely reported crimes of the regime
in power. The outcome of Iran's Constitutional Revolution of
1906 was fairly progressive; it was the subsequent and reinstated
tyrants and "kings" who mis-used it and commiitted all sorts
of crimes agianst Iranian people. Shah's constitution was not
against "Islam" either; it was the ruling system, and Shah himslef
on the top, who brought years of misery to the people.

The Shah's regime may have looked civilized on the surface, but
it was merely a beautiful carpet over a swamp teeming with filth.
When the carpet was rolled back, it revealed creatures known as
akhounds with unsatiable appetites. The akhounds' regime misused
Islam and gradually encompassed every aspect of Iranian life and
its thugs and officials, these masters of hypocrisy, have committed
all kinds of crimes against the very people who removed the Shah.
All under the name of Islam!

Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic,talk.politics.mideast