I hope you enjoy reading the below article, or to be more sincere as the editor of the journal, I hope you love it ... but putting our hopes and wishes aside, before reading Sarah's comment on recent events, let me remind you that she is not a religious figure and her opinions are that of a human being's understanding from the book, so we are not aimed at launching or encouraging others to launch a secret service to distinguish the fake and real believers.
With the advances in technology, if you can access our website and understand our writings, you will find some translations of Quran available for free, you can read and judge for yourself how much her commentary is relevant to the texts of the book.
Unlike many other established publications, we don't fear of addressing an issue in its entirely, however, The Lost Ideas Lab Journal is never meant to be a journal about or around Islam or even the religion itself. There are plenty of resources available, schools, magazines, websites, news, and even fortunately or unfortunately governments, who aim at representing one or the other religion, we don't, yet, we aim at being honest and part of that honesty means to not hold back our understanding, and the recent events have pushed us to address the misrepresentation of Islam both in the Western and the Middle Eastern mainstream media, intellectuals, and commentators, and … and because of that matter I stated „Light against darkness“ ...
The Lost Ideas Lab Journal is not aimed at following the trends, yet I believe Sarah’s analysis is worth to be heard not only by those with the interest in radical terrorism. May this text results in a mass enlightenment ...
Regardless of claims made by loud voices in the West or the Middle East, the terrorist attacks by standalone actors are results of economical, political and social structures and functions in our societies. As a society can't exist without each of its individual members, and as these symptoms as grown so far that they appear as a problem, it is upon each of us, at least each free-spirited human beings in these societies, to take action on changing these economical, political and social structures and functions in our societies.
As a fake and stupid understanding of Islam has been used to cover up the eyes of the terrorized mass and standalone terrorist and to distract both of them and bring them out of touch with reality, the red thread of this article is about disentangling lies from the truth.
Looking at an example of a previous transgression
Before talking about this attack specifically, let's have a look at an older terrorist attack, one in which the terrorists weren't all dead by the end of it and the only thing left at the crime scene being their passports. Even 9-11 hijackers were careful enough to leave their passport at the crime scene, not think of, that the crime scene was two collapsed towers with more than 100 floors and 2,753 death bodies ... But as you see, apparently Muslims's are so brilliant that they always bring their identity card with themselves and they always make sure it is discoverable.
Apropos 9-11, it is interesting to remember, this wasn't actually the first terrorist attack by so-called "Muslims" on the World Trade Center. 1993 someone or better said a group of people tried to achieve the same goal by putting a bomb in a truck and exploding it inside the parking of one of the Twin Towers. Whomever the real mastermind behind the attacks, it took them 8 years to teach Muslims you can't blow a Tower by a single bomb, and that you need to add some more drama to the scenery. Apparently, the guy who pitched the idea to the master-mind was unaware that a group like al-Qaeda would be more familiar with camels, horses, or the most modern example being a truck than flying airplanes and planning crashes to the exact minutes. Anyhow, we happen to live in a world in which a group of fundamentalists leaving in villages without even the technology of vaccination, who ban TV, radio and even wearing watches, watch Hollywood blockbusters and know pretty well how to recreate a drama that is acceptable for the taste of Western audience to take them seriously. That's why we rather look at the first attempt, at least that seems more plausible to an outsider who isn't used to Hollywood representation of terrorists.
Even if the killing is not labeled with the term "terror", the first thing one wants to know is "why", and back in 1993 unlike 2016 and 2017, the Muslim terrorists cared more about initiating a message than leaving their passports at the crime scene, hence there is a record of what the guy actually desired to achieve:
... This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region. ...
... The terrorism that Israel practices (which is supported by America) must be faced with a similar one. The dictatorship and terrorism (also supported by America) that some countries are practicing against their own people must also be faced with terrorism.
The American people must know, that their civilians who got killed are not better than those who are getting killed by the American weapons and support.
The American people are responsible for the actions of their government and they must question all of the crimes that their government is committing against other people. Or they — Americans — will be the targets of our operations that could diminish them. 
Interesting! There is nothing about Islam. It is also not an attack on "American Way of Life", or "Democracy" or "American Values". The guy sounds like an angry woman being in fight with her husband telling the curious neighbor, this is their private life and they shouldn't step in their home just because they were shouting to one another. And interestingly enough Ramzi Yousef sees himself forced to remind American people that they are actually responsible for their government's deeds. It is funny that a Muslim committing an act of terror doesn't see any necessity to communicate anything about the Lord [or as Westerners who want to differentiate themselves from Islam call it Allah], Islam, or any other thing Islam related, rather he kind of see himself obliged to remind Americans that they live in a democracy and what democracy is. I guess there is some truth to the common practice of putting the term "young" and "fool" together. Perhaps if the guy had enough wisdom, it would have been obvious that the United States of America is no more democratic than the Islamic Republic of Iran is an Islamic country or let's give a simpler comparison, the United States is as democratic as the presents you received on Christmas were from Santa Claus. The funniest part is that he doesn't even recognize that if the US was a democracy, there would have never been a need for him to devote tow paragraph explaining it to his readers.
From the genocide of the Native Americans to the toppling of democratically elected authorities and replacing them with dictators, finally, a single guy tried to organize an act of revenge. In Islam there is no imprisonment1, and Islam views death in reward of death as "life":
And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil). [2:179]
However, one verse before Quran has more a interesting suggestion:
O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. And for him who is forgiven somewhat by his (injured) brother, prosecution according to usage and payment unto him in kindness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. He who transgresseth after this will have a painful doom. [2:178]
And of course Ramzi Yousef mentions some of the US's atrocities in his trial:
... you are the first one who introduced this type of terrorism to the history of mankind when you dropped an atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands of women and children in Japan and when you killed over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, in Tokyo with fire bombings. You killed them by burning them to death. And you killed civilians in Vietnam with chemicals as with the so-called Orange agent. You killed civilians and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent people every single war you went. You went to wars more than any other country in this century, and then you have the nerve to talk about killing innocent people.
And now you have invented new ways to kill innocent people. You have so-called economic embargo which kills nobody other than children and elderly people, and which other than Iraq you have been placing the economic embargo on Cuba and other countries for over 35 years ... 
But as Quran suggested, it is not all a terrible idea to forgive people who murdered someone and ask them for materialistic compensation instead of death penalty, and after forgiving someone you shouldn't seek retaliation afterward anew. Perhaps, if Ramzi Yousef could have thought about Quran's teachings in advance, he could have come up with more creative ideas, I mean, after all, those who dropped the atom bomb are dead, and most of those who won the elections and voted for wars, won those elections because of campaign contributions by big corporations, otherwise it was the activism of American people that pushed for an end to Vietnam War, even though it was too late.
Some 8 years later, George W. Bush proved how much the message of Ramzi Yousef came across in the US:
On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. ...
All of this was brought upon us in a single day, and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.
The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. ...
Al Qaeda is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money, its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.
The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children.
You are actually right, this is about another terrorist attack, of course, the same target, but how could President Bush be so wrong about the attackers, of course, the attackers should be totally different than Ramzi Yousef. Think twice before making conclusions:
U.S. District Judge Kevin Duffy, who sentenced Yousef to life plus 20 years, called him "a virus that must be locked away." He was arrested in 1996 in a plot to bomb U.S. airliners in Asia, and he's the nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- the accused mastermind of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people and brought down the World Trade Center.
At least according to CNN, Ramzi Yousef's uncle is the mastermind behind 9-11 hijacking plot. Perhaps the attack wasn't done for much different reasons than those expressed above. If you think clearly, it is ridiculous that only 8 years later the same group of people tries the same, forgetting the first time they did it, it didn't help them to achieve any of their goals. Did the US government stopped its support for Israel in 1993? Stopped supporting dictators in the middle east in 1993? Or let's go for an easier goal, did the US public realized that they carry the burden of killings of innocents around the globe because they are voting for the government and paying its fees, after the 1993 terror attack? Of course, the 9-11 attack in 2001 would note have helped to achieve these goals either. The Word Trade Centers aren't the buttons of computers that you can just push them and then the American's public is awaken about their responsibilities and the harm that has been done in their name and in their responsibility to others around the globe. 9-11 only made the complicated conditions more complicated, and it helped a president who was actually president because of frauds in voting counts to be seen as the warrior against the group of people who are attacking "the freedom". The idiot couldn't grasp that if "freedom" means European could conquer the globe and kill, enslave or plunder the native population, of course, the rest of the world could do the same to the European or in this case, its offshoot the United States. But American has a long history of forgetting what words actually mean, like the time when they forget that slaves are humans too, or when they weren't really sure if the founding fathers did really mean women could or couldn't vote. American usually use the language in the way that favors their individualistic self-interest, whatever the notion "individualistic self-interest" means, is also another American invention.
More than a decade after 9-11, we are still facing similar acts, with similar motives by similar individuals, more or less. I mean just one of the latest incidents2:
PARIS (AP) — The Algerian doctoral student suspected of attacking police officers in front of Notre Dame Cathedral — with cries of "This is for Syria!" and a hammer — was identified Wednesday by a relative and a friend as an ex-journalist who firmly believed in democratic values and showed no signs of radicalization.
Most of those who carry out terrorist acts are individuals without good understanding of Islam, and without good understanding of Europe and its offshoots, who repeat what others have done and didn't got them any closer to what they desired, and in essence most these people desire to live an autonomous life where they can be happy and successful and materialistically and spiritually fulfilled. I don't think most American citizens wouldn't share the same aspirations, not to forget most of these individuals were indeed the citizens of the very places where they carried out the terrorist attacks.
With this little background, let's go back to the case of ISIS aspired terror attacks, which have another degree of complexity added to them: "Islamic State".
The Islamic State
The reality of it
It only remains now to speak of ecclesiastical principalities, touching which all difficulties are prior to getting possession, because they are acquired either by capacity or good fortune, and they can be held without either; for they are sustained by the ancient ordinances of religion, which are so all-powerful, and of such a character that the principalities may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These princes alone have states and do not defend them; and they have subjects and do not rule them; and the states, although unguarded, are not taken from them, and the subjects, although not ruled, do not care, and they have neither the desire nor the ability to alienate themselves. Such principalities only are secure and happy.
The case with "The Islamic State" is a very strange one, because while it never exists in Quran, it has proven to be the best mean to fool people since years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him] till the present day and perhaps in the future.
In this regard, the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is no more different than some hardliners' definition of "Islamic Republic of Iran" and for most of The Islamic State(s) in the history since the beginning of Islam, or for that matter, not even much different than the "ecclesiastical principalities" that Nicolo Machiavelli was talking about back in 1513. What makes all these similar is the fact that such concept have no foot in reality. While the idea of having a state in which majority of the population are Muslim can and indeed has been reality in history and in present day, the idea that there is a such a thing as "The Islamic State", the concept that a state on itself could be "Islamic" or "Non-Islamic" is bullshit.
Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things? [2:106] Knowest thou not that it is Allah unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth; and ye have not, beside Allah, any guardian or helper? [2:107] Or would ye question your messenger as Moses was questioned aforetime? He who chooseth disbelief instead of faith, verily he hath gone astray from a plain road. [2:108] Many of the people of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things. [2:109] Establish worship, and pay the poor-due; and whatever of good ye send before (you) for your souls, ye will find it with Allah. Lo! Allah is Seer of what ye do. [2:110] And they say: None entereth paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. These are their own desires. Say: Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful. [2:111] Nay, but whosoever surrendereth his purpose to Allah while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. [2:112]
Some Muslims are such bold idiots that they believe the Lord to have forgotten to reveal clear word rules about the issue of "government" in Quran, others who are less insane in their stupidity have tried to translate some of the verses of Quran into rules for government, but this verse from Quran is quite clear in what this all is about.
Many of the people of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things. [2:109]
Both some idiot westerners and some idiot Muslims are obsessed with the idea of Jihad meaning killing those who don't think the same as their interpretation of Quran and that it is the duty given to them by the God, however, they easily forget, the verses that prescribed a fight between believers and non-believers were direct orders from the Lord revealed to His prophet, they weren't the understanding of this or that leader about what should our next strategic target be in order to establish "The Islamic State" or in order to turn all the world into "The Islamic State". These people are blind, look:
until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things. [2:109]
In Islam there is only one and one true commander, that is Allah and indeed He is able to do all things, look, if he desired to give command to Muslims to establish the Islamic State and if necessary kill and force disbelievers to Islam, he would have exactly done that. There have been one or two moments in the prophet's life when events close to this happened, but they happened only by the Lord's direct order. Even though Muhammad [peace be upon him] is highly regarded in Islam, he wasn't the one who choose when to go to war and when to make peace and when to "forgive and be indulgent (toward them)", it was the Lord's order.
Since prophet's death many individuals and their respective unjust regimes have believed to be better than the Lord in judgement and to declare war on the basis of difference in beliefs, on others who weren't displaying any act of violence to them.
Here is how the Lord reveals it in Quran:
There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. [2:256]
"There is no compulsion". and the idea that "there is no compulsion" is so repeated over and over again in Quran in different contexts, that is hard to dismiss it, for example take a look at how the Lord describes the duties of His prophet:
With truth have We sent it down, and with truth hath it descended. And We have sent thee as naught else save a bearer of good tidings and a warner. [17:105] And (it is) a Qur'an that We have divided, that thou mayst recite it unto mankind at intervals, and We have revealed it by (successive) revelation. [17:106] Say: Believe therein or believe not, lo! those who were given knowledge before it, when it is read unto them, fall down prostrate on their faces, adoring, [17:107]
Idiots who claim to be the successor's of Muhammad [peace be upon him] without any proof from the Lord, clearly forget that he wasn't supposed to be the great emperor of the Islamic state, he was nothing save a bearer of good tidings and a warner, how could his successor turn into an all-mighty lords who orders the Muslim to carry out terrorist attacks, and promises them the paradise, have they forgotten how the Lord described the wrongdoings of those whom He gifted with the Scripture before Islam:
And they say: None entereth paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. These are their own desires. Say: Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful. [2:111] Nay, but whosoever surrendereth his purpose to Allah while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. [2:112]
Who had put them in the position of leadership? Have they forgotten the Lord's warning about the people of Scripture how they went astray:
They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! [9:31] Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse. [9:32] He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse. [9:33]
The statement of "taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks" is certainly true about the followers of all those who claimed to be the ruler of the Islamic state without any proof whatsoever from the Lord, and in this respect the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Shia ruler is no different that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its Sunni ruler as neither have any order from the Lord to carry out the atrocities they had done in the name of the Lord.
The unreality of it
Don't be too foolish, I am not a conspiracy theorist, claiming the idea of Islamic state is a conspiracy theory, in contrast, this is not the only concept that gets so twisted that has no foot in reality, yet all people try to fool themselves that they believe in it, do you remember another one? The concept of the Islamic state is no different than that of Santa Claus. It is ridiculous and it is against our true nature, children would rather receive a gift from their parents, instead of a stranger man, what is your problem to not want children to have emotional attachment to you?
Just like Santa Claus, everyone loves the idea of Islamic state. Most fake and stupid religious preachers would agree with it, because it means income and power, but they are not the only group, those who are misled by this concept also love it, because it provides them with the answer to their unreasonable demands.
Young and stupid Muslims believe Islam to mean the success and then they believe success to mean, being praised by their family, having power and social status, having a beautiful wife and children, and having lots of wealth, none of which is considered as a criterion of success by the Lord, in contrast:
Beautified for mankind is love of the joys (that come) from women and offspring; and stored-up heaps of gold and silver, and horses branded (with their mark), and cattle and land. That is comfort of the life of the world. Allah! With Him is a more excellent abode. [3:14]
The issue is that most fake Islamic states try to make the case that "because you are not lead by an Islamic state" you are living in a misery and if you were in a truly Islamic state, it would be all honey and milk. Instead of talking about what really makes the life of those people miserable, why they are deprived of social and cultural opportunities, why they weren't able to socialize and etc, the concept of the Islamic state provides a dead simple answer to all problems: "the Islamic state".
The truth is the Lord itself is not that much supporting of the idea of making the life honey and milk for Muslims:
If ye have received a blow, the (disbelieving) people have received a blow the like thereof. These are (only) the vicissitudes which We cause to follow one another for mankind, to the end that Allah may know those who believe and may choose witnesses from among you; and Allah loveth not wrong-doers. [3:140] And that Allah may prove those who believe, and may blight the disbelievers. [3:141] Or deemed ye that ye would enter paradise while yet Allah knoweth not those of you who really strive, nor knoweth those (of you) who are steadfast? [3:142]
This article is too short to discuss the basic concepts of Islam and some distinct features of the worldview that prevails in Quran, however, there are few other verses pointing to the same feature of our collective lives.
The advantage of believing in the concept of the Islamic state instead of what Quran is really about is that you give away your responsibility to a third-party. While Quran is about examining those who claim to be the Lord's servants to distinguish the honest from the fake, the concept of "the Islamic state" is almost like the fake idea of democracy that prevails in West during the election sessions, vote to me and I will bring "Hope & Change", in case of "the Islamic state": waste your blood for me and I will put you in paradise. Do they have a contract with the Lord on this matter? Of course not, so then how they guarantee you a place in the paradise for wasting your blood? They are just lying to you and it is a beautiful lie one that most people prefer to the truth.
Fake and idiot Muslims are not the only group of the population who love the untrue concept of "the Islamic state", there is another one: fake representative of people in democratic countries. What could you possibly wish for than a foreign enemy to divert the attention of the population, so no one realizes the mess you built inside. Take the example of the United States:
It is the richest country on Earth and comparing our technological advances to the past of human history, at least as much as we know, there is no comparison with the US possible:
In 2015, a total of 11,774 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 28,300 total deaths and more than 35,300 people injured. In addition, more than 12,100 people were kidnapped or taken hostage.
Terrorist attacks took place in 92 countries in 2015; however, they were heavily concentrated geographically. More than 55% of all attacks took place in five countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Nigeria), and 74% of all deaths due to terrorist attacks took place in five countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Syria, and Pakistan).
Now, let's look at one of the issues that the US public is facing:
Lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44 789 deaths per year in the United States, more than those caused by kidney disease (n = 42 868).41 The increased risk of death attributable to uninsurance suggests that alternative measures of access to medical care for the uninsured, such as community health centers, do not provide the protection of private health insurance. Despite widespread acknowledgment that enacting universal coverage would be life-saving, doing so remains politically thorny. Now that health reform is again on the political agenda, health professionals have the opportunity to advocate universal coverage.
Andrew P. Wilper, and Steffie Woolhandler and Karen E. Lasser, and Danny McCormick, and David H. Bor, and David U. Himmelstein; Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults; American Journal of Public Health, Vol 99, No. 12 (December 2009)
The Republican party being in executive and legislative power, is trying to take off poor Americans out of health coverage, by persuading the not so poor Americans that they shouldn't pay for the burdens of the poor, even if they die, because this will provide them cheaper and more attractive health insurance offers by private companies. The number of deaths worldwide from terrorism according to the way that the Department of State count them, doesn't come close to the number of individuals estimated to die partly due to lack of coverage. What is Trump's suggestion: let's invest more in the military and dismantle all public services the poor might be eligible to gain something from the federal government. And whenever he is in crises of popularity by major news pundits, he can bomb this or that location and receive unanimous cheering across the aisles. For example, Fareed Zakaria of CNN who was used to call him a "bullshit artist" changed his mind that night to "Donald Trump became the president of the United State". You kill defenseless poor in home and abroad, you become "president". If these pundits weren't prostitutes of wisdom there are terms for such individual in the language, it is called "murderer".
It is not only the celebrities of the media that love the concept of the Islamic state, there is also another type of experts who won't like to live without it, the intellectuals.
While many people may wish it to be so, Quran does not contain any direct suggestion about how an Islamic government or an Islamic state should be or should operate, because this concept is not real, but Quran does indeed contain suggestions about economic relations, suggestions that discussing them will bring the hell out of so-called intellectuals. While idiots both in West and the Near East try to make ridicule out of Islamic limitations, for example by focusing on Hijab or stoning penalty for adultery, the reality is that there are serious issues discussed in Quran in enough detail that remain out of the discussion. In Islam concepts such as "currency", "interest rate", "legal person and limited liability" are not allowed to exist, and indeed without these constructs, the monstrous and evil big corporations would never find air to exist. The elections are not going to be bought by private interest, because they own the big manufacturing, finance, and capital resources, indeed the whole society will be more equal and the economic hierarchy will be more volatile, as there won't be any legal system that is going to protect the big corporations of bankruptcy. But questioning the foundations of the current social-economical structure of our lives is too hard an endeavor for any intellectual, not to forget most these intellectual are granted their financial needs by big corporations one way or the other. It is fairly easy to condemn Islam and all the associated economic and social limitations that Islam suggests one has to observe in his or her life as long as you can demonstrate there is the Islamic state out there and put their behavior equal to what Islam is. In almost all cases neither the intellectuals themselves nor their reader have the patience to look at what Islam's suggestions really are and how a society that observes those suggestions would look like, instead we rather rely on superficial understanding of instances of those limitations that either true or untrue provoke some controversial point and we never discuss any aspect of Islam that might be to benefit. Another bold example is Islam's stand on homosexually and it's suggested treatment of such individuals. While the acts of the Islamic state and the acts of heroes in Quran has nothing in common, everyone is happy with the reading that the Islamic state observes the suggestions of Islam in these regards.
The Islamic Republic of Iran vs Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
While in the past chapter of this text, we discussed the idea that the concept of the Islamic state is an unreal construct with no roots whatsoever in Islam, and that some Iranian understanding of their current political regimes is similar to ISIS, however, there are distinctive differences that are relevant to understanding of how to combat such events, before they ever take place.
Why ISIS hate Shia the most
The Western media love to reflect that ISIS particularly kills Shia Muslims because of sectarian differences between Shia and Sunnis, the reality is pretty simple, Iran uses Shia interpretation of Islam as its ground of legitimacy as the Islamic State and ISIS uses the Sunni interpretation of Islam as its ground of legitimacy for the same goal. The idea that the children of a King would kill each other more eagerly than they would kill a foreign king when it comes to power, is the exact same reason why ISIS is far more eager to kill Shia Muslims even though in Islam Muslims are brothers, than foreign enemies such as Israel or the United States, which according to hardliners we should even be more hostile against them, one of them is Christian the other Jew, and for both groups there are lots of condemnation in Quran. However, as with the princes fighting over the Kingdom, one's own brother is the biggest threat.
That Iran is not as hostile towards Sunnis as the ISIS is towards Shias is because of the biggest difference between Iran's regime and ISIS. The revolution that caused to overthrow the Shah and establish the new regime was not the result of Western attempts to change regimes, instead it was in some respect the gradual result of centuries long discussions and political battles on the nature of government and the role of religion in its legitimacy and on the other side there was a strong presence of free-spirited Islamic scholars, regardless of how much I agree or disagree with their opinions, resulted in tying the hands of any group of people to rebuild a totalitarian regime. While there are people who would rather use religion as a tool to build their empire under the disguise of the unreal Islamic state, free-spirited scholars made it bitterly hard for them. The works of these scholars made the life so miserable for those people that even passing multiple laws and regulations on what can and cannot be published and trying to gain the ownership of all major religious publishing houses, haven't so far allowed them to wipe out those ideas out of the people's conscious. However, under current circumstances it will only be a matter of time till the last ones of individuals who remembers what was written in those books dies and with him or her dies the hope that Iran's population won't becoming the servants of tyrannies who's been waiting to guide them to carry out wrongdoings and guarantee them a place in hell, while with their tongue claiming that God's reward for them is Paradis, the unauthorized claim that the leaders of ISIS don't shame themselves of using it. How blind a folk could be to not understand a leader who has no fear of the Lord and claims whatever he wants, is promised endless punishment by the Lord.
The start of ISIS vs IRI
Regardless of conspiracy theories which dates back to the very time as the signs of the revolution became too visible to deny in Iran, the role of the United States in the formation of ISIS is even accepted by the formal opinion maker inside the United States, not a FOXNews case against Obama, it is a piece by CBS:
CBS News traced ISIS back to a U.S. military prison.
Camp Bucca was known as the largest, and one of the toughest, American prisons in Iraq.
As a vicious insurgency raged across the country, Bucca's numbers swelled.
But there is growing evidence that the sprawling prison was also the birthplace of ISIS.
According to a CBS News investigation, at least 12 of the top leaders of ISIS served time at Camp Bucca, including the man who would become the group's leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. CBS News obtained photos of 10 of them in Bucca's yellow prison jumpsuits.
At the time, few predicted that Baghdadi would become one of the world's most wanted men. He spent 10 months at Camp Bucca for an unknown crime. But during his time there, he would have rubbed shoulders with some of the most dangerous Islamic extremists.
"I think it's undeniable that one of the main causes of ISIS's explosive growth after 2010 was Bucca. It's where they met, it's where they planned," said Patrick Skinner.
Skinner is with the Soufan Group and was a former CIA case officer who spent time in Iraq.
"Everybody could see what was happening but nobody could do anything about it," Skinner said.
U.S. officials who worked at Bucca told us they were concerned that prisoners were becoming radicalized. The prison has been described as "a pressure cooker for extremism."
And that wasn't the only problem. It was at Bucca that an unexpected and powerful alliance was formed between the Islamic extremists and the Ba'athists loyal to Saddam Hussein, who were angry at losing power.
"You put them together and you get a mixing of organized military discipline with highly motivated, highly active ideological fervor, and the result is what we see have today," Skinner said. "I mean, there were other circumstances, but the toxic brew of Bucca started this recipe."
The U.S. set up a rehabilitation program at Bucca to try to combat extremism, but some who worked there have said that it wasn't implemented effectively.
At the time, Iraq was in a state of complete chaos. There were 100,000 prisoners in the country, and the U.S. was completely focused on the insurgency -- they weren't necessarily thinking of the future.
While this article tries to present their discovery as if the US had no clue about what was happening in advance, there are few points you have to consider:
- The US invaded Iraq based on a false intelligent hint about WMD, which after the details were revealed it became more and more clear that that intelligence was rather only a pretext for the public
- The US deliberately crushed the social, economical and political structure at place under the disguise of aiding the development of Iraq
- since the civilization had been in place men had known the phenomena of group influence on one another, of course, prisoners learn from each other and become better criminals
We don't need to go into details of these, but if you doubt these assumptions, the details about each of them are available in public domain, and in our other writings ...
Making such a prison and collecting all possible insurgents from around the nation and bringing them all in one place is exactly what we do in other occasions in order to fund something new. For example, events that gather entrepreneurs, investors, and coders, so somehow their meeting with one another and getting to know one another could result in future successful ventures. So, it looks like the United States did exactly that, not only the United States gathered individuals at one place whom would have never meet each other otherwise, but the United States provided a blank slate in Iraq by destroying the existing regime.
As said, the United States loves the idea of a totalitarian regime that bears the flag of the Islamic state. And while the beginning of the Iran's revolution was way much more diverse, a couple of years down the way the United States supported enough terrorist actions inside Iran that any free-minded significant individuals who weren't silenced by the revolutionary hype, got silenced by terror.
The fun part is that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ruhollah Khomeini argue exactly the same. For example here is a passage from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declaring himself as the leader:
… He has granted them success and enabled them to achieve their goal, where they have rushed to declare the Caliphate and the inauguration of Imam. This is the duty of Muslims, which has been lost for centuries, and absent from the reality on the ground, thus it has been neglected by many Muslims who have neglected this duty as sinners, and they should seek its establishment. They have already established this goal praise be to Allah. I have been tasked with this great burden, and this great responsibility. It is a great responsibility, and I was chosen to lead you, while I am not the best among you, and no better than you. If you see me doing the right-hood, help me, and if you see me on falsehood, advise me and lead me to the right path. Obey me as long as I obey Allah, and if I disobey Him, you should not obey me.
Another one from Khomeini, as appointing the transitory government after arriving in Tehran:
Through the guardianship that I have from the holy lawgiver ["The Prophet Muhammad"], I hereby pronounce Bazargan as the Ruler, and since I have appointed him, he must be obeyed. The nation must obey him. This is not an ordinary government. It is a government based on the Sharia. Opposing the government is a revolt against God. Revolt against God is blasphemy.
"The guardianship", "Caliphate" or "Imaam" are all the same things, and when these positions are filled by individuals who received no authorization from the Lord, they are also equal to another prominent figure: While Moses left his folk, they turned back from the God and started worshiping the sculpture of a cow.
He said: O Moses! I have preferred thee above mankind by My messages and by My speaking (unto thee). So hold that which I have given thee, and be among the thankful. [7:144] And We wrote for him, upon the tablets, the lesson to be drawn from all things and the explanation of all things, then (bade him): Hold it fast; and command thy people (saying): Take the better (course made clear) therein. I shall show thee the abode of evil-livers. [7:145] I shall turn away from My revelations those who magnify themselves wrongfully in the earth, and if they see each token believe it not, and if they see the way of righteousness choose it nor for (their) way, and if they see the way of error choose if for (their) way. That is because they deny Our revelations and are used to disregard them. [7:146] Those who deny Our revelations and the meeting of the Hereafter, their works are fruitless. Are they requited aught save what they used to do? [7:147] And the folk of Moses, after (he left them), chose a calf (for worship), (made) out of their ornaments, of saffron hue, which gave a lowing sound. Saw they not that it spake not unto them nor guided them to any way? They chose it, and became wrong-doers. [7:148]
So, all the fake and stupid Muslims in Iran, Iraq, Syria and around the globe, who took humans whom never been chosen by the Lord to be their guardian (ولی) as such, have done no noble act but following the path of the wrongdoers of the Moses' folk. As we discussed briefly in the chapter before there is no guardian for believers but the Lord. Yet, this men who had never been chosen by the Lord to become the guardians of a group of people, did so by their stomach and promised their followers what the Lord has promised to His followers, that in following them, they will reach the prosperity and wealth and unity, in nations destructed by the foreigners. In all the countries that there is a presence of such fake and stupid Muslims who follow these fake and stupid guardians there is a presence of foreign authorities who either destroyed the region directly or arranged the destruction by appointing a dictator upon those people.
I guess there is a good reason that the United States and its allies, do indeed support the extreme totalitarians in IRI or ISIS in existential threats, in comparison to believers. Don't be shocked, supporting something doesn't always need acts of kindness. For example one of the reasons that Donald Trump became president was because the media gave him absolute coverage for every stupid statement he made and never questioned any of his policies. While someone like Bernie Sanders was largely dismissed from the press and his claim that the Democrat party's leadership is conspiring against him never received serious investigation by journalists until after Wikileaks leaked Podesta's emails. In the same way, all the coverage of the media goes to wrong interpretations of Islam. The United States only crushes more innocents across the globe making the claim of those fake guardians only stronger that the Christians are at fight with Islam. The means of supports are plenty and just as in the comic book industry the villain and hero never die and they alway come back, the Islamic state and the US also always come back, did you ever question yourself why? About the comic book industry the reason is pretty simple: if the villain is defeated, then they can't sell the endless successive series, in terms of states it is not much different. If one day we aren't at war, the question about the legitimacy of these tyrannies will raise, in war times, nobody has the free mind and time to put some steps back and think about what's going on, if you don't obey the commands of general, your troops are going to be killed, however, in the times of peace the generals become superficial figures of no use.
Breaking out of these false narratives
While the Islamic states have always tried to give untrue explanations of why the Muslims don't have as prosperous life as they should have had, and the only solution they offer is that you should follow our orders more eagerly, the most eager one being to kill yourself and others for us, the Lord's view on the matter is totally different:
That is because Allah never changeth the grace He hath bestowed on any people until they first change that which is in their hearts, and (that is) because Allah is Hearer, Knower. [8:53]
If today Muslims are in misery unlike the glorious times at the beginning of Islam when Muhammad was still alive, there is one reason to it: the Muslims themselves.
Now and here is not the right time to discuss all the verses from Quran where there is a mention about killing or not killing of non-believers, or non-Muslims, but let's mention one of most general verses of Quran in this respect:
They ask thee, (O Muhammad), of new moons, say: They are fixed seasons for mankind and for the pilgrimage. It is not righteousness that ye go to houses by the backs thereof (as do the idolaters at certain seasons), but the righteous man is he who wardeth off (evil). So go to houses by the gates thereof, and observe your duty to Allah, that ye may be successful. [2:189] Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. [2:190] And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. [2:191] But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [2:192] And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. [2:193]
So, putting everything in one sentence: fight with who fights with you but don't more than this, for example, if they desist. So, attacking the military of the invader in the battlefield is fine, but things get tricky when we are out of battlefield, and there comes the drone attacks and CIA cover activities and missile launches that provide an excuse for those fake and stupid guardians to command their followers to commit acts of terror.
Yet, there are few bold and strong reasons why one should never do so, and those fake and stupid guardians who command to such acts are nonetheless commanding to wrongdoings:
Civilians in fake democracies and accountability
There is no democracy in the west, therefore civilians can't be accountable. Not only because the population has no clue what is going on but also because those who win the election do so because of campaign contributions and false promises orchestrated by their PR staff, not for their actual policies, if you don't believe me, here are just two examples, the reasons are numerous and they go way back to the very foundation of the US:
A National Geographic poll of over 500 young Americans, aged 18 to 24, ... In the same National Geographic poll, conducted three years after the Iraq War began, only 37 percent of young Americans could find Iraq on a map of the Middle East. The same percentage could point out Saudi Arabia. Only one in four could locate Israel or Iran.
Do you really believe the people who were killed in the terrorist attack in Manchester could have any responsibility for the invasion of Lybia? Some of them perhaps didn't even know such a country exists, not to mention locating them on the map.
Super PACs are playing a very destructive role in our political system. American democracy is not about billionaires buying elections or trying to buy elections.
This is not the opinion of an Anti-American Muslim, but the Senator and candidate for the presidency of the United States of America who cast 13,206,428 votes. Can you really punish the civilians for the atrocities that their regimes carries on with their money and the power taken away from them?
Personal misfortune as result of institutionalize discrimination
That you don't have any place in the West, while you were born and grown up there and live with their culture, is not because you have abandoned Sharia law, nor because Western population is at war with the Islam, unless you belong to the ruling class, or the elites or the celebrity, or the oligarchy, you certainly have no place in the society, because that's how the society is designed and killing innocent people is not only not going to help that but it will provide more distraction from the real issues and provide more reasons for the oligarch to crash the rest of population. Just look at two examples:
Grenfell Tower’s £10m makeover saw it encased in aluminum composite panels that have a synthetic core and are manufactured by a subsidiary of a US firm, Arsenic. Some of the more expensive cores are more fire resistant but Grenfell was fitted with a cheaper version, banned in the US for taller buildings because of safety concerns. Some estimates suggest that the additional cost of fitting the fire-resistant product would have been as little as £5,000.
Do you think politicians who would pay rather £10m for a better view of outside instead of protecting the lives of the people they supposedly represent, would even remotely try to provide a place in the society for the children of immigrants from Muslim nations? Of course not. Of course, they would rather use them as a tool to threaten the voters and distract them from the real issues.
Punishing humans for the cultural choices of imprisoned minds & souls
Assuming the atrocities of the West are so unjust that it is not wrong to fight them outside of ordinary battlefields, even then it doesn't make sense to kill the ones who live in an illusion, or support the system only because it is the only available alternative. That's also the key to understand why these fake and stupid Islamic states have no grounds in reality. ISIS criticizes Western culture or US culture for that matter, but what they don't remember is that if women today wear bikinis instead of bathing machines in the 19th century, the reason to it is the ruling class interests in demoralizing the population. An obedient mass that is obsessed with what has no benefit to it. Chomsky puts it in a better way:
The elite media set a framework within which others operate. If you are watching the Associated Press, who grind out a constant flow of news, in the mid-afternoon it breaks and there is something that comes along every day that says “Notice to Editors: Tomorrow’s New York Times is going to have the following stories on the front page.” The point of that is if you’re an editor of a newspaper in Dayton, Ohio and you don’t have the resources to figure out what the news is, or you don’t want to think about it anyway, this tells you what the news is. These are the stories for the quarter page that you are going to devote to something other than local affairs or diverting your audience. These are the stories that you put there because that’s what the New York Times tells us is what you’re supposed to care about tomorrow. If you are an editor in Dayton, Ohio, you would sort of have to do that, because you don’t have much else in the way of resources. If you get off the line, if you’re producing stories that the big press doesn’t like, you’ll hear about it pretty soon. In fact, what just happened at San Jose Mercury News is a dramatic example of this. So there are a lot of ways in which power plays can drive you right back into line if you move out. If you try to break the mold, you’re not going to last long. That framework works pretty well, and it is understandable that it is just a reflection of obvious power structures.
The real mass media are basically trying to divert people. Let them do something else, but don’t bother us (us being the people who run the show). Let them get interested in professional sports, for example. Let everybody be crazed about professional sports or sex scandals or the personalities and their problems or something like that. Anything, as long as it isn’t serious. Of course, the serious stuff is for the big guys. “We” take care of that.
What are the elite media, the agenda-setting ones? The New York Times and CBS, for example. Well, first of all, they are major, very profitable, corporations. Furthermore, most of them are either linked to, or outright owned by, much bigger corporations, like General Electric, Westinghouse, and so on. They are way up at the top of the power structure of the private economy which is a very tyrannical structure. Corporations are basically tyrannies, hierarchic, controled from above. If you don’t like what they are doing you get out. The major media are just part of that system.
Seriously IRI or ISIS want to fight the West? What about starting from the freedom of speech and which is the foundation for disillusionment? Instead, they come up with the idea that whomsoever criticizes the caliphate, has indeed criticized the God, and then they order you to kill the people who has literarily no clue about why they are doing what they are doing.
The legislation creates a legal framework authorizing state actors to hack into devices, networks and services, including in bulk; maintain large databases of personal information on U.K. citizens, including individuals suspected of no crime; and force companies to decrypt data on request — effectively placing limits on the use of end-to-end encryption.
The government argues the incoming law provides intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the powers necessary to fight terrorism and investigate crime ...
Critics disagree, dubbing it the most extreme law ever passed in a democracy — because it cements the legality of mass surveillance.
And I guess those critics do indeed take into account the German Democratic Republic, and its Stasi because even if the Stasi had the will for such mass surveillance, they did not have the technology. That's why while on the surface the so-called free world and the Islamic state hate each other, yet behind the scene, the existence of one guarantees the existence of the other.
The fundamental moral principles
These methods regardless of the goal(s) one tries to achieve might be, are against lots of different kinds of principles in different interpretations of moral, we will discuss two of them:
The most general one regardless of any religion is the fact that you have had some benefit from those people by being born and grown up there, so you can't simply ignore this aspect of the matters and go on and kill a few of those people, because thousands kilometers away, a no name guy has appointed himself as the guardian by the rule of his stomach and promised you by doing so, you will end in paradise. Even in the Quran the Lord does not promise paradise to Muslims, nor even to believers but only those among them who do good deeds and avoid wrongdoings and etc, so it is not easy to end in paradise and certainly something being not easy doesn't mean every hard task is a path to achieving it, of course, killing yourself and others is not easy either, but done without just reasons it is only great wrongdoing.
At least as far as the heroes in the Quran goes, barely any of them have been following the order of a Caliphate or Imam or Wali or whatever you name it, rather all of them submitted themselves in doing good things and avoiding evils and the Lord took the responsibility of guiding them, and all these people are referred to as Muslim. A meaning of Muslim is about submitting oneself to the orders of the Lord and not necessarily to the interpretation of this or that other prominent figure who gained prominence because of their number of followers and not because the Lord directly chose them and authorized them with such tasks.
What can we do now ...
Hopefully this text so far clears some aspects of how to avoid terrorist attacks, but it is important to understand that these terrorist attacks are side-results of how our social, economic, and political structures are designed both in the Middle East and in the West and the role of Quran or Islam is nothing more than a brand, for those who actually put these structures in place ...
However, the turret is that power resides with the mass, and in case we commit ourselves to change, regardless of how endless the power of the ruling class may appear at the first sight, one day that change will affect them too. and regardless of whether you live on the Muslim or the non-Muslim side, the necessary changes are not that different and it can only start with yourself, before you can join a community of individuals who actively work on such changes.
One good start point, is awareness, another one is the will to commit yourself to change your behavior based on what you have learned, maybe the next time around you should stop listening to someone who presents Islam as the religion who punishes adultery with stoning, as it is not true, maybe next time you can more aware of class differences and support a political group who have a record of working in your interest instead of that of the rich and wealthy and be more politically educated so you don't get fooled. The examples of plenty, hopefully, you can find the ones that best suits you on your own ...
In condemnation of the attacker and in respect to innocent killed with no just reason, if this text cause any good in the world, I ask the Lord to give away His reward to Chloe Rutherford, Eilidh MacLeod, Olivia Campbell, Saffie-Rose Roussos, Sorrell Leczkowski, and Megan Hurley,
Unless the temporary order of imprisonment of adulterous women till their death in their own home, which was later on changed with a weaker form of punishment ... Sorry for you mate, the punishment of stoning is never ever mentioned in Quran and as you see, there have been several punishments offered on handling adultery, so stoning is a false invention, even if it disappoints you and your picture of Islam. ↩
even though by now, terrorists spread as fast as mushrooms that by the time this article finishes it won't be one the latest ↩