Quote of the Day
As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate.
Hamid Reza Taraghi
February 28, 2026
Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes
The sponsor of terrorist activities for many decades considers itself the role model for the Islamic world? And that is ignoring the whole theocracy thing, the treatment of women, death to Jews, taxing of non-believers, death to protesters, mistreatment of women, and forced sexual transitions (or death) to homosexuals.
If they really are considered a role model in the Islamic world then that does not bode well for a civil relationship between the non-Islamic world and Islam. That makes certain decisions much easier.
Thank you Taraghi. It is good to have clarity.
Yes, it’s a role model for islamist theocracy, just as North Korea of Kim 3rd is a role model for communist totalitarianism. In both cases, a clear and easily understood example of why such a thing should not exist and should never again be allowed to emerge.
I think the other followers of the prophet might object to the idea.
It would be the same as saying the Pentecostals are the role model for Christians.
Only two sects of Islam make up the *overwhelming* majority of muslims. The stuff they disagree on is like the disagreements between Pentecostals and Catholics. The parts of Iran that we can’t get along with? Both sects agree with all of that.
When your enemy tells you his plans, believe him. While I support freedom of religion, Islam is an existential threat due to a theology based on world domination and extermination of non-believers
More speculative clarity?
https://web.archive.org/web/20060418040155/http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm
“And that is ignoring the whole theocracy thing, the treatment of women, death to Jews, taxing of non-believers, death to protesters, mistreatment of women, and forced sexual transitions (or death) to homosexuals.”
Those are all considered to be virtues in the Islamic world.
“The sponsor of terrorist activities for many decades considers itself the role model for the Islamic world?”
Decades????
Almost all that is-lame inhabits today was once Christian. Conquered most all by belief, not sword.
Islame would have never made it out of Saudi Arabia’s backyard if not for the doing of all those things. With the sword.
“Islam” mean submission to the will of God.
The disconnect is who is determining God’s will.
And does not all power resort to this, the most misused of all syndromes in the human condition? Belief in greatness of some kind?
Qui bono? Who benefits? (It certainly isn’t God.) But evil men.
In all this, islam is not alone. It’s not the first, nor will they be the last.
But it’s ideas of forced conversion were the only reason it ever existed in the first place. Terrorizing people to make yourself powerful is all it was ever about.
And that’s been over 1500 years now.
As you say Joe. We have to fight smart.
The problem is no one in power is ever going to allow someone with “smarts” to come up for election.
Maybe that’s why;
Albert Einstein is often quoted saying, “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
That’s if AI doesn’t kill us all first. (islam is a piker.)
Islam is a throwback to a much earlier politico-religious social structure. It is clearly stated in the Koran that it is a Totalitarian ideology in the original sense of the word, invented by Benito Mussolini . Islam encompasses all life. It tells its adherents how to act and why. Things beyond the scope of the Koran are supposed to be haram, unclean. Somehow the billion+ Muslims today seem to ignore that part and gleefully use aircraft, firearms, internal combustion engines, radios, computers, modern medicine, etc. Islam should be treated like any other totalitarian political philosophy and be largely stomped out when it extends beyond a tiny fraction of any population
Islam is closer to a political scheme than it is to a religion. It is not deserving of First Amendment protection.
SCOTUS ruling United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), the net result, is that ideological belief is indistinguishable from religious belief, from a third-party and legal standard. Thus both have First Amendment protection.
Which is why, for me, starting a company meeting with a land acknowledgement or “Our Democracy” lamentations by someone in management or C-suite is just as welcome as opening up with a decade of the Rosary. Welcome, as in, both deserve a little EEOC attention.
To many, if not most “fundamental” muslims Iran is and has been a role model. Remember…true islamists are COMMANDED to make war on the rest of the world and kill ALL non muslims. They DON’T HAVE A CHOICE. And Iran has for half a century consistently embraced that command. Which is why the fundamentalists in charge there cannot and will not surrender…or willingly relinquish power. And while the “god” they worship and the “teachings” they follow are different there is little else to differentiate between the islamists and the communist left. Both want to rule the world and are more than happy to kill ANYONE opposing them.
“SCOTUS ruling United States v. Seeger, ……ideological belief is indistinguishable from religious belief, from a third-party and legal standard.”
Well, OK then. But…..is the analysis regarding Constitutional protection allowed to go deeper? Had it been practiced in, say, Cleveland, rather than Guyana, would Jim Jones’ received full Consitutional reverence? How about on November 19, 1978? Would it have been treated the same as it was on November 17th? (Kind of a moot point, as by the 19th the number of practitioners, at least as far as is known, had dropped to zero, but even at that level the philosophy, if not the practice may have enjoyed Constitutional protection.)
If one looks at “religions” one sees similarities; Catholicism, for example, has sought expansion through several mechanisms: recruitment, proselytism, policies leading to increasing family size, etc. The major differences being, first, Catholicism accepts the existence of other religious orders without labeling them a threat, and Catholics don’t promise to kill you if you don’t remain unconverted. But, advancement of the order, its philosophies and practices, were, and are, no different from any other group philosophy.
All that said, is Catholcism, or Episcopalianism, or Buddhism, or the Baptists, the same as Islam? Until one gets to the “we’ll kill you if you don’t convert,” or the “marriage with minors,” “freedom to rape,” and “honor killings” parts, they’re not greatly dissimilar. While those notable discrepancies would seem to offer reasonable opportunities for exclusion, and even, perhaps, denial of Constitutional protection (assuming the Constitution officially grants one the right to life and proscribes imposition of a death penalty applied by religious, or social, practitioners for philosophical differences).
In a pluralistic society, specifically in this instance, a democratically-determined representative Republic, the operational standards allow a wide range of acceptable practices which, also specifically, do not accommodate heretically-based application of cessation of life for religious non-observance.
So, back to the original point: Is Islam, as it is practiced, compatible with Western, and specifically, American, philosophies, practices and behaviors? Study at intellectual levels has often demonstrated to be quite different from what actually happens at the practical level; does Intellectialism outrank Experience?
No. Islam is fundamentally totalitarian as written. Christianity says you have free choice, and the primary consequence is in the afterlife. To be a good Muslim you MUST embrace Muslim government control, and it clearly declares all non-Muslims dhimmi, or second-class beings. OTOH, Jesus said “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar” Mark 12:17, clearly recognizing a difference between normal government power and the faith / duty of believers.