Pseudo-Persian Epistle to Friend in Allah

Don_Quixote_de_la_Mancha 7
Don Quixote de la Mancha





My Dear Friend Only in Allah,

Thank you for responding.

First of all, I pray that neither you nor your brothers and sisters were unduly offended when I referred to you as a “knight,” a term that I associated with the honorable King Arthur and his noble knights although you appear to be an Anglo-Saxon and not a Celtic warrior. I know why the table was round, but they were still noble knights.

Many of the knights who joined the pre-emptive Crusade against Allah’s people, however, were much less noble than the Arabs. As a careful student of history, you must know that “arab” means “noble.” Although we Persians have our differences with our Arab brothers, we certainly intend no insult when we call them Arabs; that is, “nobles.” Although we ourselves are a humble people, we are proud of our heritage. Our heritage is the foundation of our personalities, which are all not merely biased but faithfully prejudiced in favor of All-Merciful-Allah.

Unlike infidels (may Allah have mercy on their souls) who believe they can take off their personalities like hats under the pretence of searching for the truth, we find our truth within the personal commune. The infidels would too, if only they took to heart the truth revealed by foremost modern Christian philosopher and pope, Karol Wojtyla, in THE ACTING PERSON, a work that I have lately been interpreting for my students.

Indeed, every Christian who sincerely believes that the Prophet Jesus was the son of god – we respectfully do not share that belief – and was and is the same as god but in the form of the Supreme Personality, would esteem the person even higher than we do, and would not pretend to set aside the very personal feelings and prejudices that make him a human being made in the image of his personal god.

Even in the common parlance of your English language, the term ‘person’ is synonymous with an acting human being. Sometimes it is difficult for a people to know themselves through their own eyes, therefore it is useful for other people’s to come to their assistance; in this case, to point out that, no matter how impersonal or objective or detached or scientific a Westerner may think he is, he is still personally motivated and prejudiced, otherwise he would be an inhuman monster.

And, more often than not, when he claims that he is going to set aside his personal biases and feelings in order to speak truly, as you have done in your letter to me, he is about to lie, and is trying to deceive people into thinking he will not conduct himself as usual, most often badly, which if he were honest, he might as well do, that he might be corrected when in error. For the highest Christian truth, what you enjoy capitalizing in English, as Truth, although all truths are one in Allah, is not only personal but is a Person. And this brings me to question that my students are curious about:

How can Christian Americans believe in the Supreme Person while at the same time thinking the person is some sort of dirty thing, a mask that must be set aside in order to tell the truth, which is in effect a lie?

I neglected to pose that question on their behalf in my first epistle to you. I hope you will take it under consideration now while allowing me to address you as a noble person, or “knight,” as it were. For I see that you have proven my thesis true: you have pretended to set aside your personal feelings and biases, but you could not conceal them, wherefore you launched a personal attack on your Muslim cousins.

I assume that, if you are not Semitic by birth, you are, nevertheless, Judeo-Christian by culture if not by faith. Therefore may the All-Compassionate Allah have mercy on your person for the cultivated animosity that you feel for his slaves; may you be forgiven for your defamation of their characters for being Muslims and for mercifully pointing out the hypocrisy of Jewish leaders for their own edification and for surrendering to Allah’s will and following the holy prophets.

Without Allah’s compassion, your groundless hatred of your own kind shall surely work your ruination shortly after Election Day of your Common Era year 2016. Now what have you done, within the context of the Judeo-Christian culture, other than further foment or perpetuate, with your angry accusations, the very preaching of hatred and commission of murder among us that you yourself condemn?

In fact, your speech resembles that of the more “rabid” (as you say) fanatics among our beloved people in Palestine, who are taught to hate their Zionist oppressors in schools. Their teachers fail to make a clear distinction between political Zionism and religious Judaism, a flaw that our Iranian schools are correcting under my direction.

Naturally your personal animosity is due to certain vicious defects in your personal upbringing as well as your public education, which is a political mockery of the meaning “under God” in the idolatrous pledge to a flag of a country instead of a confession of faith in Allah, conditioning all docile students in the confusion of religion with politics, and inciting them to mass murder and organized terrorism.

Naturally religion is the worship of the Absolute Power, while politics is an attempt at its worldly distribution. All peoples have worshipped the Absolute Power, the Eternal Subject of universal religion, the Giver of Life and Death. Fire was the symbol of that Power for my Persian ancestors, as well as for the ancient peoples of Bharat. (Mind you that I capitalize certain nouns as proper without intention of idolizing them).

The Pharaoh of Love looked at the ultimate form of Fire, the Sun, or rather to “the energy within the Sun,” for the solace of the Egyptian people. Our Arab brothers in the deserts preferred the Canopy to the Sun, so they looked to the vast Sky as the one and only, the encompassing deity.

Monotheism was the original religion in our great cradle of religion. But power-hungry politicians worked vainly to variously distribute Allah’s power according to their base, materialistic inclinations, and therefore the number of idols multiplied. Infidels believe that power resides in the ability to manipulate people and to accumulate wealth for their minority interests, and thus do we have the “power elite” that you have mentioned, and we have them even in so called republics and democracies – their abstract idol is money, on which they crave usurious interest.

And it is well worth noting that that both communism and capitalism idolize matter and constitute political instantiations of greed. Your own country, where many immigrants found some fortune relatively small and great because of the vast resources that the invading European barbarians plundered from its natives, is for the most part owned by a neo-barbarian superpower elite that colludes with the money-hungry power elites of its allied infidels to exploit the poor countries of their natural resources.

Your infidel leaders commit this crime against Allah’s desire for peace: that is why we call the barbarian party the Party of War; that is why Iran exports the means for freedom from the perpetual mass terrorism of the infidels.

Now you have mistakenly charged Muslims with the hatred of Jews, when it is actually the Party of War that has perpetrated the persecution of Jews, and has often done so in the name of the Judeo-Christian deity identified under the pagan rubric capitalized, ‘God.’

As a highly educated man, you must surely recall that German philosophers, before and during the Great World War, went so far as to take the Jew out of Jesus by claiming that this holy prophet was Greek, in order to justify their hatred for Jews and greed for their property. Indeed, as the hateful Satan perpetrated a holocaust, just as before the Jews and other Semites had sacrificed enemies (herem) by setting them apart and sacrificing them to their Lord, devout Catholics got on the political stage and gave the Nazi salute (my students have photos of these rallies).

In point of historical fact, Muslims have always treated Jews well in comparison to the barbaric Party of War, and had not the Muslims converted the hordes from the East to tolerant Islam, there would be no remnants of Judah today.

But allow me to return briefly to your confusion in respect to the nature of nations as the native or navel origin of tribe, clan, and folk, and from this origin to the development of diverse populations, via seed-mixing in the harlot cities, into conglomerations subservient to political states that in effect incorporated many nations yet called themselves “nations” – to wit, mongrels – and to your confusion of the political state of Israel with the Semitic tribes, and your mistaken belief that the Israelites or Hebrews before them were the only Semitic people.

You would discover if you took the political course I have laid out for my students, that there is only one god with many names, namely, Allah, and that the hatred you speak of is not the fault of religion but is rather the use of religion by the Party of War as a political excuse to set one individual against another in the name of godless liberty and democracy, to use their mutual fear of one another in their protesting irreligion to organize them into warring parties ruled by the power elite for the accumulation of material wealth via the destruction of the world. The love extolled by the infidel elite is hate-others based self-love. Such is the greed of the Great Satan.

I shall provide you with some scholarly edification on the subject later on, if you wish, but suffice it to say at this juncture that the Great Satan is doomed for his hatred of man. The Great Satan was cast down in the first place because his love for Allah was constituted by his hatred for man. It is this very hatred that is cultivated by the false prophets of Judeo-Christianity, who, on the one hand, profess love for and faith in God in the form of Divine Personality, the God-Man, yet, on the other hand, curl their lips in disdain at humanity and snarl at “humanism” like dogs.

We Muslims do not hate our own kind as infidels do. Allah alone is merciful; therefore, you are our friend only in Allah. No, my noble knight, we do not hate the Jews that you and your commander-in-chief have professed to love. But many of us hate Zionists, for they have forcefully, without a referendum, established an unwanted political state in Muslim country, where nations are anathema.

Your Friend Only In Allah,

Dajen Doomah

School Teacher

Postscript: Incidentally, contrary to your stated opinion, neither kings nor sheiks nor emirs rule Iran. Iran is a holy democratic republic. Lest politicians stray from Allah, we have a council and a supreme holy man to keep it them in line with merciful Allah’s will.


The Almighty Terrorist’s Beloved

The elders said my name means “beloved”






‘The great curse of the house, the spirit, dead weight wrath – and you can praise it! Praise the insatiate doom that feeds relentlessly on our future and our sons. Oh all through the will of Zeus, the cause of all, the one who works it all. What comes to birth that is not Zeus? Our lives are pain, what part not come from god?’ Aeschylus

“And it happened as they were coming, when David returned from killing the Palestinians, that the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with joy and musical instruments. And the women sang as they played, and said, ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.’ Then Saul became very angry, for this greatly displeased him; and he said, ‘They have ascribed to David tens of thousands, but to me they have ascribed thousands. Now what more can he have but the kingdom?’”

The reign of King David is fondly remembered by his nation as its Golden Age. David united the so-called hibirus or outlaw tribes into a nation and located its capital, which he named Jerusalem, midway between what would be called Israel and Judah; he brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, hence the capital served as the national religious center. Furthermore, he expanded the nation’s borders in all directions.

David had many qualities that endeared him to his people, not the least of which was his military prowess. Every boy familiar with the story of David and Goliath would fain take on a giant if need be, at least in his imagination. To be virtuous in days where might made right was to be the most powerful (vir or man): to overpower and intimidate other men and establish a monopoly on violence was the highest virtue. David’s popularity to that end gave Saul due cause for jealousy, and that motivated him seek David’s destruction.

Now women are more inclined to peace and disposed to cooperate than are men, and for good reason, for they are the more easily overpowered. But their nature does not prevent them from inciting men to violence and cheering them on to victory, particularly when their brood is at risk. A mere glance from a woman can invigorate men and inspire them to rise to the occasion. Women singing and dancing to the clapping of hands and cymbals and the jangling of tambourines and blowing of trumpets have set armies of men into motion.

And so it was Miriam the high prophetess who composed the original chant that parted the elemental water of the Red Sea for Moses. And tt was she, with Moses in tow waving his magic wand to conduct the crowd, who led her people to safety, although scripture was revised to reverse the order: Exodus 15:20 still casts the high priestess in a leading role, putting her at the head of the fair sex only:

“Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, took the tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed, dancing and clapping their tambourines. Miriam sang to them: ‘Sing to the Lord, for he is highly exalted. The horse and the rider he hurled into the sea.”

We do not hear words of praise or a joyful exclamation from the Hebrew men in this case, nor does the holy record have them banging on tambourines and dancing.

Male praise normally abounds in god-fearing quarters; those who do not fear the fearsome Lord are undoubtedly doomed. After all, the Terrorist Almighty displays the characteristics of the abusive father that many fatherless homes lack: Abusive fathers tend to beat up their children on a whim. They require constant praise. They seldom take responsibility for problems, blaming others instead. They are impatient and incompetent, and cannot take the slightest criticism without angering. They are abusive even when a child acts like a child, and especially so if the child acts independently. They claim their violence is “because I love you,” and can be kind when in the mood. They are bad examples of what they say they want their children to be. They are bullies who mistreat their children in order to prop up their own weak ego. They are hypocrites who demand self-blame from their children while modeling angry, self-righteous, false pride.

Like father like son. The Terrorist Almighty, in marked contrast to his other half, the Loving Lord, is a Severely Emotionally Disturbed brat writ large. The SED progeny of such an abusive father might cower when the Terrorist Almighty is around but otherwise strike back and be a bully, antisocial, unruly and defiant, especially in those permissive precincts where intelligent liberals urge leaders to rule with the milk and honey of loving kindness instead of the resounding whacks of awful ruler. Yet when liberals have a chance to obtain the power to bully others with impunity, doves turn into hawks, wolves throw off sheep’s clothing, and crazy foxes appear in the chicken coop: they get even, purportedly in the interest of equal justice under arbitrary power for all. Mountains are brought low and valleys are raised to that justificatory end. Misunderstanding their share of nature, men attribute the cause of natural disasters to supernatural beings, and believe that social upheavals and storms are caused by the same gods, who are irrational and disorderly for a reason, that the proud should be brought low, that the exalted should be crushed that they might know the power of the Terrorist Almighty and set right by righteousness per se.

Everyone is equal under the Lord’s law: Life is greeted with death; justice is retributive: an eye for an eye; if the victim had only one eye, then whosoever takes it lose both eyes, reads the talion tale of just accounting. An allowance is made for preventative justice: crushing blows may render a man contrite and set him on the path of righteousness, in which case he shall be blessed with surfeit in the next life if not presently. And, whereas the Lord is often hypocritical; whereas his Word is ambiguous in accordance with his Mysteries; discretionary justice provides merciful relief to both guilty and innocent in the form of pardons people are wont to clamor for.

The Lord is close to the brokenhearted; those crushed in spirit he delivers,” declares David’s Thirty Fourth Psalm.

But when deliverance is not in sight, a depressed spirit might feign madness before the crime is committed, and then mercy might be obtained at public expense by virtue of the insanity plea. We have empathy for the man who says, “God made me do it,” for both are mad. Nothing is perfect: man and the god he created in his image are fatally flawed; therefore we should not be too surprised when Hell breaks loose at any moment. We excuse our imperfections with a claim to normality, and define deviance as abnormal, unwholesome, sinful, crazy, sick, or mentally ill. That is, unless the deviant succeeds and becomes a great hero, in which case his atrocities are overlooked, for the goods obtained by any means far outweigh the evil deeds to so obtain. Man is normally incomplete and fatally flawed to boot. To understand ourselves, and to fathom why someone might suddenly run on a murderous rampage in the footsteps of the Almighty Terrorist who is fundamentally adored in houses of God, we had better proceed from the study of pathology to the norm once in awhile, rather than the reverse, for the normal person is more or less insane and is best understood as a variant of some pathological type.

Doubly mad are those who feign the madness that strikes home and becomes the norm. The Thirty Fourth Psalm bears the caption, “Of David, when he pretended to be insane before Abimelech (Achish), who drove him away, and he left.” The moral of the psalm is that the righteous who are crushed and brokenhearted and who are therefore nearest the Lord will be saved by the Lord and only the Lord; therefore, fear only the Lord, do good, avoid evil, and seek peace. Apparently the psalm was written long after David’s death: neither the level of morality nor the sophisticated style of the poetry coincides with David’s deeds and literature of his time.

We recall that Saul wanted David killed, and that David was apprised of Saul’s intentions. We do not find David cowering or groveling before Saul, but we do observe him fleeing, hiding, and escaping from Saul’s murderous designs. No doubt David fled at the Lord’s bidding, for we are duly informed that David often consulted the Lord. And we note well that he had two occasions to kill Saul, but he refrained from doing so, not because he abhorred murder per se but because Saul had been reputedly anointed by the Lord, hence killing him would provoke the Lord’s wrath, in which case he would be duly crushed.

So David fled to the Philistine city of Gath, ruled by Achish. But the servants spotted him:

“…the servants of Achish said to him, “Isn’t this David, the king of the land. Isn’t this the one they sing about in their dances: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands?’ David took these words to heart and was very much afraid of Achish king of Gath. So he pretended to be insane in his presence: and while he was in their hands he acted like a madman, making marks on the doors of the gate, and letting saliva run down his beard. And Achish said to his servants, “Look at the man! He is insane! Why bring him to me? Am I so short of madmen that you have to bring this fellow here to carry on like this in front of me? Must this man come into my house?”

Therefore David obviously feared someone besides the Lord; to wit, a Palestinian king. So much so that he employed a deceitful strategy: feigning madness. We recall other notable instances of the trick: Lucius Junus Brutus (“brute” or “dullard”) the founder of the Roman Republic, acted crazily with good effect; and so did Hamlet and his brutal prototype, the Icelandic hero Amleth (“stupid”); in fact, the stories about Brutus and David may have influenced the legends of Amleth.

However that might be, David’s apparent madness afforded him the opportunity to escape to a cave. But he eventually returns to Gath, where he and his hibiru (‘outlaw’) band of six-hundred men managed to gain the trust and protection of Achish. Although David and his troop were actually raiding Palestinian settlements, David convinced Achish that they were conducting raids on Israel and Judah.

“Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes… He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, ‘They might inform on us and say, “This is what David did.”’ And such was his practice as long as he lived in Palestinian territory. Achish trusted David and said to himself, ‘He has become so odious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant forever.’”

Quite to the contrary.