Muslim civil war continues as ISIS strikes Iran

From Tehran, the capital of Iran, comes a reminder that Islam is not monolithic. As with the other Religions of the Book -- Christianity and Judaism -- there are a number of divisions and even more subdivisions, each one claiming that they and only they have the True Faith. The main groups Sunni extremists, including ISIS, despise Shia-majority Iran. Iran has also come under attack in the past by Arab insurgents. The two biggest Muslim groups are the Sunnis and the Shias. (Westerners used to call Shias "Shi'ites", but had a tendency to mispronounce the word.) They hate each other.

Wahabism, the sect that dominates Saudi Arabia, is an extreme form of Sunni Islam, which is itself more extreme than the Shia version. Sunni extremists, including ISIS, despise Iran, which is mostly Shia. There's also an ethnic divide, as the Iranians aren't Arabs, but a different ethnic group which we used to call "Persian". Anyway, whether through fear or having other things to do -- blowing up Christians -- ISIS hasn't attacked Iran... until today.

Today, ISIS has claimed responsibility for a deadly pair of attacks on Iran's parliament and... wait for it... the shrine of the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

The Tehran attacks began mid-morning, local time, when assailants armed with AK-47s stormed Iran's parliament building, where a session was in progress. One of the attackers blew himself up inside. The siege lasted until mid-afternoon. Not counting the jihadis, 12 innocent Muslims were killed and 42 wounded. This is the first ISIS attack on Iran itself. Until now, when not hunting "infidels" in the streets of London, Paris, Berlin etc., ISIS has been fighting Iranian-backed forces in Syria and Iraq.

In addition to being lethal, the attack on the shrine of Khomeini is symbolically stunning. As Iran's first Supreme Leader, Khomeini is a towering figure in the country and was its revolutionary leader in the 1979 ouster of the shah.

And here's a little detail for clueless Western security forces to keep in mind. Iranian Deputy Interior Minister Mohammad Hossein Zolfaghari told Iran's state TV the "apparently male" attackers wore women's attire. Just yesterday Walt told you about the (perhaps) demented Arab woman who rampaged through a Canadian Tire store in Toronto, attacking innocent bystanders with a golf club (really) and a knife which she had hidden under her Islamic attire. Her face was obscured by a niqab, which she was still wearing when she appeared in court yesterday afternoon.

Dear readers, the Muslim civil war is being fought in the Middle East, but the Islamic extremists' mission to conquer the world (or at least the worthwhile parts of it) and exterminate the "infidels" (meaning US) knows no boundaries. I don't recommend nuking Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia or Iraq. I think we should let them fight it out until there's just one left and then throw that guy down a deep well. But I do think we should defend ourselves and our Western Christian (?) civilization in our own lands. And the best defence is a good offence!

Question of the day: Where is Santiago Matamoros (St. James, slayer of Moors) now that we need him?

The religion that must not be satirized... on pain of death!

In yesterday's second post on the assassination of Charlie Hebdo, Walt drew attention to the craven refusal of the lamestream media to draw attention to the fact that the terrorists being hunted for the murders of a dozen people are Muslims of North African ancestry. Instead, all we hear is calls for brotherhood and unity, as if the massacre had nothing to do with the perps' ethnicity or religious motivation.

Why is the fact that the murderers are Islamic extremists being downplayed? Political correctness, of course! The Taliban, al-Qaeda and now IS have bullied Western politicians -- including Francis the Party Pope -- and media into fearing to say, let alone do anything which might possibly give offence to followers of the Prophet.

Such is the post-Christian, post-religious Western world today. It's OK to make fun of Christianity, particularly the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestants. Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons have all been satirized in South Park and other TV comedies. Even Judaism is fair game. The Eastern religions -- Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism -- don't even get a laugh. But the one religion that can't be touched, or even mentioned, is... dare we name it... Islam!

Islam is untouchable because our "leaders" and chattering classes have got The Fear. This goes back at least as far as 1989 (before the word "Islamophobia" was coined), when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa (an order to Muslims to kill someone) against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses. English writer Hanif Kureishi called the fatwa -- which is still in effect -- "one of the most significant events in postwar literary history."

The controversy over The Satanic Verses may be said to have divided Muslims from Westerners along the fault line of culture. The core Western value of freedom of expression -- that no-one "should be killed, or face a serious threat of being killed, for what they say or write" -- is now confronted by the Islamic fundamentalist commandment that no-one should be free to "insult and malign Muslims" by disparaging the "honour of the Prophet" Mohammed.

"Death to those who insult the Prophet!" is what the Islamists preach, and their followers -- including the two North African Muslims who killed the journalists of Charlie Hebdo -- are walking the talk. With a vengeance. Literally!

These thoughts have occurred not just to Walt but to others, including numerous cartoonists, commentators, journalists and writers. But so far I've heard only one make the point that political correctness to the point of fear has silenced public discussion of the issue. The CBC's senior correspondent, Neil Macdonald, spoke out on last night's edition of The National. Click here to watch "Religion, satire, and where we draw the line". Bravo, Neil, for breaking the politically correct silence.

Walt also recommends: "Terrorists have cowed us all into a ridiculous self-censorship", by the deliciously un-PC Crusty Blatchford ["Christie", surely. Ed.] in the Notional Post. ["National Post", surely. Ed.] Sample: You want to talk about common or "shared values", as just about every Western leader has done since the attack? The value most shared in the West, and perhaps in this country in particular, is timidity.

Why the Middle East hates the West - Part I

I think it is not a huge overstatement to say that in the Middle East -- from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean to the Khyber Pass -- the West (read: the USA and its allies) and its people, are generally despised and loathed. Some of the region's governments -- Iraq and Pakistan, for instance -- make a show of co-operating with American policy, but that is out of fear and/or desire for the largesse of "foreign aid" (read: military aid).

Why is this? At the end of World War II, America was arguably the greatest power in the world, and generally respected (if not loved) for having saved the world for freedom and democracy. How could the rest of the world have won the war without John Wayne? But somehow, the huge reserve of goodwill built up by the USA was frittered away.

Squandered with the best of intentions, to be sure, but squandered all the same. Three incidents or phenomena come to Walt's mind.

Let's begin with Iran. This gentleman -- Mohammad Mosaddeq -- was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953. Although a Muslim, he championed  secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination, until his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA.

Why did they do that? The answer can be spelled out in just three letters: O-I-L. Mr. Mossadeq's most notable achievement was the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later British Petroleum or BP).

But Mr. Mossadeq was only the prime minister. Under a parliamentary system of government, he was answerable to the King (or Shah) of Iran (or Persia, as the country was formerly known).

That was Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who reigned -- with the support of both the UK and the USA -- from 16 September 1941 until his overthrow by the Islamic Revolution on 11 February 1979.

He was on the Peacock Throne long before and long after the nationalization of the oil industry, and was not unhappy to see the return of foreign oil firms. Between the oil revenue and the American and British foreign aid, the Shah became one of the richest men in the world. He is said to have had a gold-plated toilet in his private jet, so that he could boast "I shit on gold!"

To be fair, it was Shah Pahlavi who introduced the White Revolution, a series of economic, social and political reforms with the proclaimed intention of transforming Iran into a global power and modernizing the nation by nationalizing certain industries -- not including oil! -- and granting women suffrage. These policies cost him the support of the Shi'a Muslim clergy, as well as the working and merchant classes.

The Shah's recognition of Israel didn't help either, nor did corruption issues surrounding himself, his family, and the ruling elite. Nor did the banning of the Communist Tudeh Party, and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran's notoriously brutal intelligence agency, SAVAK. According to official statistics, Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978.

The factor which contributed most to the opposition to the Shah was the American and British support for his regime. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which forced him to leave Iran. Soon thereafter, the Iranian monarchy was formally abolished, and Iran was declared an Islamic republic led by Ayatollah Khomeini, the one who characterized the USA as "the Great Satan".

Note from Ed.: That's enough Mohammeds for one post. Scroll down to read Part II.