Thursday, September 27, 2012

Iranian-American Democrats: Why Is It Important to Get Involved with American Politics and How?

At an "Iranian-Americans for Obama" event, BAIAD Officer Nima Rahimi talks about BAIAD (Bay Area Iranian-American Democrats) and explains why it is so important to not only participate, but also get involved with American politics.

Visit for more details.

Edited by Arrash Jaffarzadeh
Shot by Arrash Jaffarzadeh and Savannah Silva

Sunday, September 23, 2012


There are two FBI reports on MEK that were publlished in 2002 and 2004.

A 2004 FBI report on the Mujahaddin-e-Khalq (MEK) was revealed in June 2011 which states that the MEK “is actively involved in planning and executing acts of terrorism,” despite the organization’s alleged renunciation of terror in 2001. 

The document states that the MEK “routinely lobbies unwitting members of Congress under the pretext of human rights issues in Iran,” and that MEK members have endured “years of ideological training and for lack of better word ‘brain washing’.” 

The report also discusses cult practices by the organization, including the separation of families, stating that the children of MEK fighters are sent to Europe where they are “further indoctrinated into the organization” and “used for various social benefit fraud” to raise funds before being returned “to be used as fighters upon coming of age.”

Some of the highlights (all direct quotes):
  • “Los Angeles investigation has determined that the MEK is currently actively involved in planning and executing acts of terrorism.” [pg 4]
  • “This organization routinely lobbies unwitting members of Congress under the pretext of human rights issues in Iran.“ [pg 5]
  • “NLA fighters are separated from their children who are sent to Europe and brought up by the MEK’s Support Network.  Investigation has learned that these children are then further indoctrinated in to the organization and are often used for various social benefit fraud such as was revealed during joint FBI/Cologne Police Department investigation in Germany.  In one case one of the children was chained to a bed and only after her escape and report to local police was the fraud scheme discovered.  Interviews of some of these MEK children found children fully indoctrinated into a “cult-like” organization with no regard to the welfare of the child.  These children are then returned to the NLA to be used as fighters upon coming of age.  Interviews also revealed that some of these children were told that their parents would be harmed if the children did not cooperate with the MEK.  Open source reporting from defecting MEK members has revealed that MEK fighters are often told the same story about their children should they take issue with MEK leadership and desire to leave the organization.” [pgs 26-27]
  • “The MEK, in addition to being a foreign terrorist organization, is a “cult”…MEK members and supporters often indicate that Rajavi makes his decision based on input from God.” [pg 26] 
  • “MEK members/supporters/fighters have been through years of ideological training and for lack of better word ‘brain washing’.” [pg 31]
  • “This (Foreign Terrorist Organization) designation was made due to the MEK’s long and violent history of past terrorist activity directed against U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Iran during the 1970s, the assassinations of multiple Americans, the MEK’s ongoing acts of terrorism in Iran, and the MEK’s past terrorist activities in Western Countries to include hostage taking and attacks on Iranian diplomatic establishments and officials.  This designation was also made to send the message that the U.S. had taken the high road on terrorism and would designate any foreign group engaged in terrorist activity abroad to include not only groups that target U.S. interests, but terrorists groups that target any sovereign nation.” [pg 24]               
  • “Additionally, the MEK continues to practice misinformation operations in the U.S. and Europe.  MEK lobbyist routinely hold press conferences and pass information regarding the current Iranian government that is inaccurate and is designed to influence Western Media and governments.” [pg 18]
  • “Interviewers should keep in mind that membership in the MEK is a significant step in the MEK hierarchy or leadership cadre.  It is safe to say that only the high echelon leadership will most admit to being MEK members.” [pg 29] 
  • “ Another tactic that the MEK has been employing is disinformation regarding former MEK members and witnesses who have come forward to testify and speak against the MEK. The MEK will brand these former members and witnesses as Iranian government agents. This information is often picked up by Western Intelligence agencies as factual information and is disseminated as intelligence. This further frustrates criminal investigators as they attempt to interview these former MEK members and potentially use them for testimony." Pg 18-9  
The 2002 FBI document includes a report of an FBI raid of the MEK’s offices in Falls Church, Virginia in December 2001. It states that the FBI discovered that “the indoor swimming pool had been drained and a floor placed over the drained pool. The area above the pool was divided into offices. In each of these offices, a hatch in the floor led into the drained swimming pool. This area was used for storage of materials…”
Among the materials discovered were “signed, blank checks,” and the report states, “Confidential sources have reported to the FBI and that the NCRI and the PMOI use the signed, blank checks to pay their expenses and fund their activities.”

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Friday, September 21, 2012

The Prophet Muhammad In The Bible

Several verses of the Qur'an state that previous prophets and religious texts foretold the coming of the Prophet Muhammad. Verse 157 of Chapter 7 states: "Those who follow the Messenger, the unschooled one, who has been described in the Torah and Gospel with them…"
This verse clearly states that the Prophet Muhammad has been foretold even in the distorted versions of the Torah and Gospel among the Jews and Christians. It is not referring to the original Torah which was revealed to Moses or the original Gospel which was revealed to Jesus. These two do not exist any longer except with Imam Mahdi (may Allah hasten his reappearance). It is referring to the Bible that existed during the time of the Qur'an's revelation and that which also exists with us today.
From among all the Biblical verses that speak about the coming of the Prophet, we will discuss two verses, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament.

Verse Number 1: Deuteronomy 18:18

"I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I command him."
Whom is this verse talking about? The Christians claim that this verse is speaking about Jesus. The Muslims claim that it is talking about Muhammad. We will present our arguments and the world can judge.

"Their brethren"

First, if it was talking about Jesus, it would say "I will raise them up a prophet from among themselves," not "from among their brethren." The Israelites are the children of Jacob, who is also known as Israel. He is the son of Isaac, son of Abraham. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Jacob's children are known as the Israelites. And the children of Ishmael are known as the Arabs. In this sense, the Arabs and Israelites are brethren.
Certainly, brethren can include the brothers among the Israelites; however, the verse is addressing Moses, an Israelite. And Moses is addressing his people. Therefore, why doesn't it say "from among them" or "your brethren" (i.e. the Israelites) but rather "from among their brethren"? This indicates two wholes: one whole the Israelites and another whole their brethren (i.e. the Ishmaelites).

"Like unto thee"

The next part of the verse states that this prophet is like Moses. We have to study the major similarities between Moses and Jesus and Moses and Muhammad to see who it suits more. Of course, we can mention universal similarities which all human beings have, such as eating, sleeping, becoming ill, or minor similarities. However, such a comparison will not benefit anyone and is illogical.

Moses and Jesus

  1. Christians believe that Jesus is God and the Son of God. This is a fundamental principle in Trinitarian Christianity. If one does not believe in this, he is not a Christian.  But Christians do not say that Moses is God or the Son of God. Therefore, this is a major difference between Moses and Jesus. If Christians say that Jesus is not God or the Son of God, or that Moses is also God and the Son of God, then their entire belief system will be turned upside down.
  2. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of humanity. But they do not believe that about Moses. This belief is a core requirement of Christianity. If one does not believe in it, he will not be saved and is not considered a Christian. This is another major difference between Jesus and Moses. Either the Christians will have to deny what they believe about Jesus or believe the same thing for Moses, both of which puts the very foundation of their religion in question.
  3. Christians believe that Jesus was miraculously born from only a human mother and Moses had a natural birth from human parents. This is another major difference. Certainly, there are many other major differences between Moses and Jesus which clearly show that Deuteronomy 18:18 is not talking about the coming of Jesus but someone else. Nevertheless, the above examples should suffice anyone who approaches this subject with an open mind.

Moses and Muhammad

  1. Both Moses and Muhammad were married and had children. Jesus never married and did not have any children. Muslims, Christians, and Jews believe that Moses went into the wilderness and met Jethro (Shu'ayb) and married one of his daughters. No Christian theologian believes that Jesus ever married. There is some speculation, however, in Hollywood and other make-belief venues that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. These as just speculations or false accusations and are outside the realm of an intellectual discussion.
  2. Moses and Muhammad had natural births from a human father and mother, while according to both Muslims and Christians, Jesus had a miraculous birth from only a mother. Certainly, miraculous events took place in relation to the births of both Moses and Muhammad; however, their births were not out of the ordinary. Christians only refer to the birth of Jesus as the Immaculate Conception.
  3. Moses and Muhammad and their respective messages were eventually accepted by their people, while the Israelites rejected Jesus and his message. He had only a small group of people accept him. John 1:1 states: "He (Jesus) came unto his own, but his own received him not."
  4. Both Moses and Muhammad brought laws for their people. But according to Christianity, Jesus did not bring any new laws. Matthew 5:17-18 states that Jesus said: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets, but I have come to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
  5. Both Moses and Muhammad died natural deaths. But Christians believe that Jesus was crucified. So in this manner, Jesus and Moses are different, and Muhammad and Moses are similar.
  6. Both Moses and Muhammad established governments. Moses and Muhammad became the rulers over their people. They had executive powers over their people. But Jesus did not.
  7. Both Moses and Muhammad had an exodus. Moses led his people to freedom from Egypt to Palestine, and this migration was called the Exodus. Muhammad led his away from the oppression of the people of Mecca to Medina, and this migration was called the Hijrah. Both events were major episodes in the histories of these two great prophets.

"And will put my words in his mouth…"

This prophet will speak only God's words. What is interesting is that whenever God's words were revealed to Muhammad, he told them to the people exactly as it was revealed to him. That is why we see throughout the Qur'an verses that start with the command "Say!" (Qul). He was told to say such and such, and he even included the "Say!" when relating it to the people.
Moreover, verses 53:1-4 of the Qur'an state, "By the star, when it goes down: your companion (Muhammad) does not go astray, nor is he misled: nor does he speak out of desire; it is not but revelation revealed to him." Scholars have used this verse to show that whatever Muhammad says is God's word.

Verse Number 2: John 16:13-14

"How be it when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you."

Who is the spirit of truth?

 Christians claim that it is the Holy Spirit. However, the original Greek word for it was eitherpariklytos, which means "the praised one" (Muhammad in Arabic) or parakletos, which means a comforter, an advocate, or the spirit of truth. We know that Jesus spoke of the praised one and mentioned his name. However, in order to bury this truth, the words were played with. Instead of mentioning the name that Jesus stated, its meaning was spread among people in order to hide the truth.
At any rate, when we study these verses closely, we see that they do not refer to the Holy Spirit. In reality, they cannot refer to anyone other than Prophet Muhammad. John 16:7: "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."
Jesus has to go away in order for the Comforter or Spirit of truth. But the Bible clearly states that the Holy Spirit was on the earth while Jesus was there. From among the verses that testify to this are Genesis 1:2, 1 Samuel 10:10, 1 Samuel 11:16, Isaiah 63:11, Luke 1:15, 1:35, 1:41, 1: 67, 2:25-26, 3:22 and John 20:21-22. For example, Luke 3:22 states: "And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon him (Jesus)…"
Furthermore, the Bible uses the word "spirit" to mean prophet. 1 John 4:1-3 states: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits to see if they are from God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
In addition, the verses under discussion say that the Spirit of truth "shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak." We already demonstrated this under the explanation of Deuteronomy 18:18. It also says: "That he shall glorify me," meaning this spirit or prophet will glorify Jesus. We see that the Qur'an and sayings of Prophet Muhammad are full of praises about Jesus. In reality, no one has praised Jesus as much as Prophet Muhammad.
The summary of all that has been said shows that these verses can only be about Muhammad. As the Qur'an (39:17-18) says: "Give the good news to those of My servants who hear the different sayings and choose the best one from among them; they are the ones guided by God, and they are the possessors of intellect."

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

The Shia: Interesting view from well known Sunni scholar, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

Interesting view from well known Sunni scholar, Sh. Hamza Yusuf, on the Shi'a...Mentions Shia narrators of Hadith in Sahih Bukhari and He talks about the Sunni whitewashing of Islamic history as well.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Persia's Contribution to Islam: Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

Sunni Shaykh Hamza Yusuf explains Persian contribution to Islam shedding insight on why the West would want to attack Iran. However, if the west was smart...they would take Iran as an ally, because Shia Islam and Persians are the most rational, sophisticated and smartest of the people in the region.  Even Ex-CIA Officer Robert Baer would agree with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf on this issue.  To watch more of this lecture for free register for free at

Thursday, September 13, 2012

What is the Root of Wahabi Terror in Libya, Egypt, and Syria?

An important family or clan in Saudi Arabia; one of only two nonroyal families, the other being the Al Sudayri, with whom Al Saʿud princes may marry.
The Al al-Shaykh (the family of the Shaykh) are descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the Islamic reformer who formed an alliance with Muhammad ibn Saʿud in the mid-eighteenth century. This association has shaped their families' fortunes and those of most of the Arabian peninsula since. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was born in 1703 in the Najd, probably in the central Arabian town of alUyayna. Influenced by the strict teachings of Ibn Taymiya, a thirteenth-fourteenth century jurist of the conservative Hanbali Law School, he returned home from prolonged study to preach a simple, puritanical faith that eschewed theological innovations and aimed at countering the moral laxity of his Najdi contemporaries. Those who accepted his teaching and its emphasis on tawhid, the oneness of the Qurʾanic god unchallenged and untainted by any earthly attributes, were Muwahhidun (unitarians), known outside Arabia as Wahhabis. Unwelcome in al-Uyayna, the preacher moved to al-Dirʿiya, where Muhammad ibn Saʿud was amir, ruler of a district in Najd. The latter's political leadership and the military abilities of his son, Abd al-Aziz, combined with the reformer's zeal, brought all of Najd under Saudi rule within thirty years. In 1803, the year of his death by assassination, Abd al-Aziz took Mecca, and his son Saʿud expanded the first Saudi state over the course of the next decade to approximately its present limits.
During his lifetime, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was the imam (Muslim spiritual leader) of the expanding Saudi state, a title conveying responsibility for enforcing norms of correct Islamic belief and behavior as well as carrying the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam to the rest of the Islamic world and beyond. When he died, the title passed to the Al Saʿud rulers. The shaykh's descendants did not exercise direct political power in the decades that followed, although they were accorded special respect. The Al Saʿud have continued the practice of intermarriage with members of the Al al-Shaykh, begun when Abd al-Aziz ibn Muhammad married a daughter of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The late King Faisal's mother was Tarfa bint Abdullah, daughter of a distinguished Al al-Shaykh scholar and jurist, making Faisal the great-great-great grandson of the original shaykh. Moreover, the family continued to produce religious leaders who exercised great influence on all decision-making in a state whose legitimacydepended on adherence to and propagation of Muwahhidin beliefs. Members of the Al alShaykh held the post of qadi (judge) of Riyadh, the Saudi capital, and later the position of grand mufti, highest judicial office in the state.
In recent years the position of the Al al-Shaykh has changed in significant ways. In 1969, as part of his effort to create a more efficient government securely under Al Saʿud control, King Faisal ibn Abd al-Aziz abolished the office of grand mufti and replaced it with a ministry of justice. Although the first minister of justice deliberately was not an Al alShaykh, subsequent ministers have been. Moreover, from the early 1960s on, members of the Al alShaykh have held ministerial positions. The family's representation in the cabinet dropped from three to two members with the reshuffle of April 2003: minister of justice, Dr. Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Al al-Shaykh; and minister of Islamic affairs, waqf, daʿwa, and irshad, Salih ibn Abd al-Aziz ibn Muhammad Al al-Shaykh. Other members of the family serve in important military and civilian capacities, as well as serving as qadis and other religious figures. Although the Al al-Shaykh domination of the religious establishment has diminished in recent decades, the family alliance is still crucial to the Al Saʿud in maintaining their legitimacy. At the same time, the Al al-Shaykh wholeheartedly support the continued rule of the Al Saʿud because of the exceedingly close ties between the two families.
Helms, Christine Moss. The Cohesion of Saudi Arabia: Evolution of Political Identity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; London: Croom Helm, 1981.
Holden, David, and Johns, Richard. The House of Saud: The Rise and Rule of the Most Powerful Dynasty in the Arab World. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1981.
Kechichian, Joseph A. Succession in Saudi Arabia. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Read more:

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

American Ambassador to Libya Has been Slain by Libyan 'Wahabi' Savages!

RIP US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, you will be avenged inshallah. As an American Muslim I see this as an outrage, especially on 9/11...insult to injury to say the least. What these Wahabi Savages are doing is an act of war...what else does somebody have to do to declare war than to kill your Ambassador? WTH! First Egypt and now Libya!

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Wahabis in Egypt and Libya Attack American Embassy and Consulate on 9/11

Saudi tutored and funded Wahabis in Egypt and Libya attacking the American Embassies...this Wahabi Caliphate is rising from Tunis to Syria with the blessing of Israel and the right wing groups within our nation.  Any support to Wahabis is treason as well as pushing us to war against countries like Iran on false pretenses to the benefit of Saudi Arabia and Israel.  The USA needs to divest from Saudi Arabia and Israel and instead work on normalizing relations with Iran in order to have a safe road ahead for the region.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Violation of US Constitution & Sovereignty: California passes resolution defining criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism

California passes resolution defining criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism
By Tom Carter 
4 September 2012
Last month, the California State Assembly passed a resolution urging state educational institutions to more aggressively crack down on criticism of the State of Israel on campuses, which the resolution defines as “anti-Semitism.” The anti-democratic resolution is the latest step in the broader campaign to stifle and suppress dissent on California's increasingly volatile campuses.
The California State Assembly is the lower house of the state legislature, consisting of 80 members. The resolution—H.R. 35, "Relative to anti-Semitism"—was passed by a voice vote, after 66 members co-sponsored it, including a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the Assembly.
The resolution was drafted by Republican Linda Halderman and passed without public discussion. The vote on the resolution came when most students were between semesters and away from their campuses.
The resolution (available here) uses the classic trick employed by defenders of Israel’s Zionist regime: lumping together any criticism of the Israeli state’s policies or of the US government’s support for them with racist attacks on Jews.
On the one hand, the resolution denounces “swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti in residential halls, public areas on campus, and Hillel houses,” and denounces those who accuse “the Jewish people, or Israel, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.”
On the other hand, the bulk of the resolution is dedicated to defining criticism of the state of Israel as “anti-Semitism.” It lists the following as examples of “anti-Semitism”:
• “language or behavior [that] demonizes and delegitimizes Israel;”
• “speakers, films, and exhibits” that indicate that “Israel is guilty of heinous crimes against humanity such as ethnic cleansing and genocide;”
• describing Israel as a “racist” or “apartheid” state;
• “student-and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment, and sanction campaigns against Israel;”
• “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination;”
• “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;” and
• “actions of student groups that encourage support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”
This list makes clear that the accusations of anti-Semitism are a red herring, employed to attack students’ democratic rights and stifle dissent. The resolution recalls the smear campaign against German author Günter Grass and his poem “What Must Be Said” earlier this year.
Defending the poem, the World Socialist Web Site explained: “Anti-Semitism is the term used to describe racist hatred aimed at the oppression and persecution of Jews—and in the case of the Third Reich, the extermination of Jews. Grass’s criticisms of the war policy of the Netanyahu government are not directed against Jews, nor against Jews in Israel. His overwhelming concern is the well-being of both the Jewish population in Israel and the Iranian people. This is in stark contrast to the Israeli government.
“The Israeli regime does not represent the interests of the Jewish population, but rather a tiny rich and corrupt clique that has always worked closely with American imperialism.” (See Defend Günter Grass!)
The aggressive narrowness of the resolution's definition of acceptable political discussion, combined with its broad definition of anti-Semitism, prompted the University of California to distance itself from the resolution, though without rejecting or denouncing it. “We think it's problematic because of First Amendment concerns,” UC spokesman Steve Montiel told the San Francisco Chronicle last week.
The resolution does clearly implicate the First Amendment, which protects not only criticism of the state of Israel, but generally protects anti-Semitic hate speech as well.
Moreover, it must also be said that the State of Israel is, as a matter of fact, guilty of crimes against humanity.
To cite only a more recent example, the 574-page UN Goldstone Report published in 2010 found that the State of Israel had deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza during the 2008-2009 “Operation Cast Lead.” The invasion of Gaza saw 1,400 Palestinians killed compared with 13 Israelis killed. More than 21,000 buildings, factories, and apartments were damaged or destroyed.
Under California H.R. 35, it appears that the Goldstone report is now to be considered “anti-Semitic.”
The resolution also contains a denunciation of “suppression and disruption of free speech that presents Israel's point of view.” This appears to be a reference to the “Irvine 11” incident last year, in which 11 students shouted down Israeli ambassador Michael Oren during his speech at the University of California at Irvine.
The 11 students shouted, “Michael Oren, you’re a war criminal,” and “You, sir, are an accomplice to genocide.” These students were later arrested, charged, and convicted of the crimes of “conspiracy” and violating Oren’s rights. (See University of California students convicted for protesting Israeli ambassador’s speech.)
The resolution goes on to state that the “Assembly recognizes recent actions by officials of public post secondary educational institutions in California [e.g., the prosecutions of the Irvine 11] and calls upon those institutions to increase their efforts to swiftly and unequivocally condemn acts of anti-Semitism on their campuses and to utilize existing resources . . . to help guide campus discussion about, and promote, as appropriate, educational programs for combating anti-Semitism on their campuses.”
On California's campuses, as on campuses and workplaces internationally, explosive class antagonisms are increasingly apparent. Massive tuition hikes year after year coupled with job losses and skyrocketing youth unemployment present an entire generation of young people with an increasingly impossible situation.
State authorities in California, which is controlled by the Democratic Party, have watched the large campus protests that took place across state campuses over the past two years with hostility, consternation, and fear.
Over the past year, at the behest of Democratic Party officials, demonstrating students across the state have been attacked by paramilitary police squads armed with batons, tear gas, and flash grenades, with hundreds of students arrested and jailed. The world's attention was captured when students peacefully protesting tuition hikes at UC Davis were pepper sprayed by police in cold blood.
In the face of increasing tensions and protests, state authorities are moving to clamp down on the campuses, intervening to “guide campus discussion” and criminalize criticism of both domestic and foreign policy. Under the guise of criticizing “anti-Semitism” the state government signaling that the persecution of student protesters will be tolerated or welcomed.
The resolution concludes that “strong leadership from the top remains an important priority so that no administrator, faculty, or student group can be in any doubt that anti-Semitic activity will not be tolerated in the classroom or on campus, and that no public resources will be allowed to be used for anti-Semitic or any intolerant agitation.”