Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

 
Rumi - Quotes
 
“Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”
― Rumi

  
“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass the world is too full to talk about.”
― Rumi

 
“If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?”
― Rumi

 
“The minute I heard my first love story, I started looking for you, not knowing how blind that was.
Lovers don't finally meet somewhere. They're in each other all along.”
― Rumi

 
“What you seek is seeking you.”
― Rumi

 
“The wound is the place where the Light enters you.”
― Rumi

 
“Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment.”
― Rumi

 
“You were born with wings, why prefer to crawl through life?”
― Rumi

 
“Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.”
― Rumi

 
“Dance, when you're broken open. Dance, if you've torn the bandage off. Dance in the middle of the fighting. Dance in your blood. Dance when you're perfectly free.”
― Rumi

 
“When I am with you, we stay up all night.
When you're not here, I can't go to sleep.
Praise God for those two insomnias!
And the difference between them.”
― Rumi

 
“When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy.”
― Rumi

 
“Ignore those that make you fearful and sad, that degrade you back towards disease and death.”
― Rumi
 
“Knock, And He'll open the door
Vanish, And He'll make you shine like the sun
Fall, And He'll raise you to the heavens
Become nothing, And He'll turn you into everything.”
― Rumi

 
“Forget safety.
Live where you fear to live. Destroy your
reputation. Be notorious.”
― Rumi

 
“My soul is from elsewhere, I'm sure of that, and I intend to end up there.”
― Rumi

 
“In your light I learn how to love. In your beauty, how to make poems. You dance inside my chest where no-one sees you, but sometimes I do, and that sight becomes this art.”
― Rumi
 
    

print this article Add this page to your favorite Social websites
Share |

Khamnei's Islamic Republic of Horror
 
What was the Original Intention of the 1979 Revolution in Iran? What are the Function and Purpose of a Government?

By Freydoon Khoie

It is refreshing to re-visit Ayn Rand when she wrote over seventy years ago about the function and purpose of government: "If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government. A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws".    

As Iranians are being strangulated by the Khamnei's Terrorist regime which is calling itself a 'government' but I call it more appropriately "Islamic Republic of Horror" we cannot help but ask ourselves what was the original intention of the 1979 revolution and ask what is the meaning, purpose and the function of a government? One view is that the only proper purpose of a government is to protect citizen’s rights, which means: to protect him/her from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. When the only proper function of a government is the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But if a government violated its social contract and turned against the citizens? What if the criminals become the police? What if our national army changed its name into revolutionary guards and started acting like a foreign invading army? And what if the courts become the perpetrators and source of fraud and confiscators of our properties, breaching our contracts and going against our interest in all dispute settlements? As horrifying as it is to imagine this scenario, I am afraid to say that this is exactly what happened in Iran back in 1979 and where we are today under the rule of the Ayatollahs. The Khamnei's regime in Iran initiates the employment of force against the citizens who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, and life has become a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government as Islamic Republic of Iran has reversed its only moral purpose and switched from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right and means of self-defense. The Khamnei's regime has substituted for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his. This has been the true character of the Khamnei's Islamic Republic of Horror in Iran since 1979.

To lecture Khamnei and the other 299 Mullahs like Yazdi, Rafsanjani, Jannati, Sharoudi, Tabassi, Khatami, and the rest that the source of government’s authority is “the consent of the governed" is like asking a bear to speak French. To tell them that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; is like trying to explain to a five year old Einstein's law of relativity. To object that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose is like asking a donkey wear suite and walk on two hind legs. So what could be done if the government to whom we gave our consent – by mistake - to rule, becomes disobedient and turns against us? What if the security staff in a given bank in charge of protecting the bank and its clients, decides to take over the bank? What if the police force joined forces with the criminals and hold-up the citizens and go on looting the banks, raping the girls and do as they like? This is exactly what happened in Iran after Khomaini's revolution and goes on until today and getting worse by the day. The citizens are not the masters of the government but a defeated population and occupied land at the mercy of the 'government'.

Ayn Rand put it beautifully when she writes: "The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power,” between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force". This distinction is so important and so seldom recognized today that I must urge you to keep it in mind. Let me repeat it: a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. And no individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power. The nature of governmental action is: coercive action. The nature of political power is: the power to force obedience under threat of physical injury—the threat of property expropriation, imprisonment, or death. So what can we do if those to whom we gave our consent to rule over us as government turn out to be criminals who masterfully deceived us with such tricks like invoking our Holy religion and wearing a religious turban which we love, respect and trust, but once they got their hands on the treasury and the guns, they forgot all about their promises and responsibilities and turned against us and started acting as invaders and oppressors?

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled. So what if they take over and disregard all that and rule by sheer force of violence?

Under a proper civilized and free social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is supposed to be bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted. This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.” But what if a few hundred Ayatollahs tricked our nation, quickly took over the apparatus of power, treasury, police and army and then turned against the body of citizens, looted their properties, raped their girls and boys, beat, imprisoned, tortured and murdered those who stood up against them and coerced the rest to live in fear and terror? And since we, as civilians, cannot fight back, we ask our friends and outside world for humanitarian aid and the outside world after years of diplomacy to no avail, imposing economic and political sanctions, again, to no avail, will consider military action to come to our rescue, but then the violent regime will build nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and blackmail the world? Case in point, North Korea, Russia and China. The governments in these three countries are utterly corrupt, increasingly violent and grossly oppressive but the free world cannot take military actions to liberate their people because the oppressors have nuclear weapons. This is why the Khamnei's regime should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons so that in case it is necessary for the international community to take military action to liberate the people of Iran from tyranny, it would be possible.

Most of us have read the famous poem by Pastor Niemolle's : "First They Came for the Jews"

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Today, if we do not stand up to the Khamnei's tyrannical regime and put an end to the rule of such pyro-maniacs like Assad, Jung il, and the likes who stand against every principle of human dignity, political, economic and social liberties then the day will come that it will be too late and we shall have only ourselves to blame. Stand up to Islamist terrorism and let us remove this virulent virus from our midst and secure the future of our children and our posterity. Join or support Pro-Democracy movement of Iran.

comments powered by Disqus

     
 
Home   |   About Khoie   |   Books   |   Articles & Essays
2014 © mrkhoie.com, All rights reserved. International copyright laws apply to all content