Urgent Request fro all Iranians - Please read this and support this poor man.

درخواست اضطراري
Urgent Request
With hello and respect - The condition of Ayatollah Kazemeini Boroujerdi is very critical and grave. Recently they have broken and fractured his jaw and his left eye approximately is unable to see. In addition there has been a tumor in his stomach in which annoys him a lot and injected some suspecting injections as well. In other words Ayatollah Boroujerdi is in grave danger and not able to walk or do his personal affairs by himself any more in which anyone sees he may not be able to recognize him.He has set a written complaint opposed Iran regime. We urgently request you by using your great situation, you ask UN, Europe Union or every credible organization to send a legal representative for visiting Ayatollah Boroujerdi in Evin prison to get his written complaint against Iran regime and follow it formally.Ayatollah Boroujerdi is representative of huge crowd of Iranian people and wants separation of religion from state and believes in freedom of speech, press and religion as well.Documents relating to his before illnesses:http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/06/05/iran19031.htmwww2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/8session/A.HRC.8.4.Add1.docwww.iranhumanrights.org/themes/news/single-news/article/49/imprisoned-clerics-life-in-danger.htmlhttps://iranbbb.org/25097.htmhttp://www.hra-iran.org/Archive_87/805.htmlhttp://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE131032007http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engMDE130742007?open&of=eng-IRNhttp://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130402007?open&of=ENG-2MDhttp://iranppa.blogspot.com/search?q=boroujerdi

درخواست اضطراري - با سلام و احتراموضعيت آيت الله كاظميني بروجردي بسيار وخيم است. اخيرا، فك ايشان را شكسته‌اند و چشم چپ ايشان تقريبا قادر به ديدن نيست، همچنين در معده ايشان غده‌اي ايجاد شده كه به شدت ايشان را آزار مي‌دهد و حتي آمپولهاي مشكوكي به ايشان زده‌اند و در يك كلام، آيت الله بروجردي به شدت در معرض قتل قرار دارد و ديگر قادر به راه رفتن و انجام امور شخصي خود نيست و هر كس ايشان را ببي 6;د نمي‌تواند او را بشناسد.ايشان شکایت‌نامه‌ای بر علیه حکومت ایران تنظیم نموده است. از شما درخواست فوري داريم كه با استفاده از موقعيت ممتاز خود، از سازمان ملل متحد يا اتحاديه اروپا و يا از هر سازمان معتبر ديگري، بخواهيد كه نمانيده‌اي قانوني براي ديدار با آيت الله بروجردي در زندان اوین، فورا به ایران اعزام شود تا شكايتنامه آیت الله بروجردی از حكومت ايران را دريافت كند و رسما پیگیری نمايد.آيت الله بروجردي نماينده قشر عظيمي از مردم ايران است كه خواهان جدائي دين از حكومت هستند و به آزادي قلم و بيان و حق انتخاب دين، اعتقاد دارند.

Should The President of the United States Talk to Ahmadinejad?
Written by Cisco : Thursday, 03 July 2008

Patrick O'Brian wrote a series of twenty-one novels that are set in the Napoleonic wars and that have Captain Jack Aubrey and Dr. Stephen Maturin as the protagonists. Aubrey is an English naval captain who always sails with Maturin as his ship's surgeon. If you are not familiar with the O'Brian novels, perhaps you will recall a movie, Master and Commander of the Far Side of the World, which was loosely based upon these novels and starred Russell Crowe as Captain Aubrey. The eighth novel in this series is called The Ionian Mission, and it has Aubrey and Maturin sailing to Greece in order to fight the French.
At the time of the Napoleonic wars, Greece was part of the Muslim Ottoman Turk empire. In The Ionian Mission, the French have taken possession of the fictional city Marga, and it is Captain Aubrey's responsibility to negotiate with the Muslim beys (tribal chieftains) in the area in order to most effectively accomplish the removal of the French troops from the Grecian peninsula. There are three Muslim beys who are vying for power in the region, and the one factor that will tip the balance of power is the guns that the English are willing to provide to whichever bey is most willing to assist the English in fighting the French.
Jack Aubrey meets with each of the beys, and in the final bey that he meets with, he finds a kindred spirit. This bey, Sciahan by name, is “much more what Jack had expected of a Turk: a plain man, and one that he could trust.” Jack unilaterally determines that he will support Sciahan and tells him that he will immediately send a ship to bring the guns that Sciahan desires.
Captain Aubrey makes his decision about which bey he will support without consulting with the politico who accompanied him, a Professor Graham. When Professor Graham realizes what Captain Aubrey has agreed to, he becomes irate and begins berating Captain Aubrey for being so naïve. Professor Graham insists that “In all negotiation, and a fortiori, all Oriental negotiation, each side was expected to extract all possible profit from the balance of forces: if either did not do so, it was because there was some hidden weakness – a plain unconditional acquiescence in a demand must be taken as the greatest proof of weakness.” Professor Graham goes on to say that Captain Aubrey should have insisted on taking as hostage one of Sciahan's nephews, and should have held the nephew until Sciahan had indeed fulfilled his verbal commitment. Professor Graham goes so far as to intimate that Captain Aubrey was not fully committed by the words that he had spoken to Sciahan, and that he could renege on his commitment by begging a misunderstanding. Captain Aubrey “replied coldly that he regarded his words as wholly binding, that he was convinced that he and Sciahan understood one another.”
Captain Jack Aubrey personifies the English and American spirit. We people of the Western world, especially those of us who are American, are very much attached to the idea that if we can sit down with a person, look that person in the eye, and discuss a mutually beneficial relationship, then we tend to believe that the person into whose eye we are looking will fulfill their end of any agreement that is reached. You may call it American naiveté or English gullibility, but we people of the Western world tend to trust verbal, personal commitments. If we make an agreement without extracting the last ounce of blood from the other agreeing party, we do not care if we are are perceived as being weak for doing so. We tend to accept people at their word, rather than taking their family members as hostage in order to ensure that they will fulfill their word.
In 2007 during a Democratic presidential debate, Barak Obama said that if he were President of the United States, he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, without pre-conditions. Since that time, much has been said about the advisability of such an action. Rush Limbaugh has taken Obama to task because he believes that meeting with Ahmadinejad would be beneath the dignity of the President of the United States. Others have stated that the President of the United States should never meet with an avowed terrorist. Being something of an egalitarian, I tend to be skeptical of Limbaugh's idea of a dignity associated with the Presidential office that is not earned by the person occupying that office. And I am not altogether certain that refusing to speak with terrorists is the best method of dealing with them. Additionally, I am well aware of the fact that both Captain Jack Aubrey and Professor Graham are fictional characters. But I also know that those fictional characters do verbalize the dichotomy between the Muslim and Western worlds. I think that substantively, the advice of Professor Graham to Captain Aubrey is applicable today just as was in the early 19th century, and the politically incorrect advice that I would give to Barak Obama and to John McCain is this: You can not trust a Muslim.
Within the politically correct world of the United States, multiculturalism dictates that we look for similarities rather than differences, and so we tend to look at Islam through an American filter. As Americans, we tend to believe in a covenant-making God. The most basic instance of this idea can be found in the saying that “there are no atheists in foxholes,” which implies the idea of a covenant, that is, “God, if you will just get me out of this mess, I will do whatever you want me to do.”
The idea of a covenant-making God is not relegated to foxholes, but is a large part of both Christianity and Judaism. In Judaism we have the classic “if-then” covenants with God, such as that found in II Chronicles 7:14 which states, “If my people, which are called by name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will hear their land.” Then in Christianity, we have Paul's covenant promise of, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
But Islam does not serve a covenant-making god. Indeed, Allah is quite the opposite of what Christians and Jews expect from their God. The Islamic Allah is a master of deception. In the Qur'an, Sura 3:54 states “...and Allah too deceived, and the best of deceivers is Allah.” When the Qur'an is admitting of, and somewhat proud of the deception of Allah, does it not stand to reason that the adherents of Islam might not have the same negative view of deception that we in the Western world have?
When one cannot trust the fidelity of one's own god, then the next logical step is that one is allowed to be deceptive in their personal dealings. In the Qur'an, Sura 9:1 states, “Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans.” Martin Luther vehemently opposed the selling of indulgences by the Catholic church. He opposed the idea of forgiveness of sins based solely upon one's ability to buy forgiveness. With the Islamic religion we have something infinitely more offensive than the buying of forgiveness. We have the freedom to deceive all who are not of the Islamic faith.
This deception becomes even more sinister when it is paired with the doctrine of Takkiya. Takkiya literally means “cover up,” and this doctrine sanctions the lying to or deceiving others in order to advance the cause of Islam. Under this doctrine, an Islamist is allowed to totally deny his faith if such denial will advance the cause of Islam or preserve it's good name. This doctrine is based on Sura 16:106, and allows the Islamist to deny his faith if he fears threats, injury, or compulsion of any kind. Needless to say, this doctrine flies in the face of the Christian history of martyrdom. We tend to proclaim our beliefs, regardless of consequences, trusting in an almighty God. We have our Foxe's Book of Martyrs, but apparently there is no Islamic equivalent.
Adherents to the Islamic faith worship a god that they acknowledge is deceitful. In addition, they are instructed that they do not need to fulfill any obligations to Christians or Jews. In addition to these two beliefs which are totally abhorrent to both the Jewish and the Christian mindset, they are allowed to lie about their beliefs if they feel threatened, of if their deception will further the cause of Islam. Regardless of who our next President is, that person would do well to understand that Islamic fundamentalists have a very different view of the need for truthfulness. I love O'Brian's fictional character, Captain Jack Aubrey. But there is a part of me that thinks that taking a few Islamic fundamentalist nephews as hostage is not such a bad idea.