-- Amil Imani

In dealing with the mullahs ruling Iran, what you see is not what you get, and what you hear is not what they mean. Transparency and honesty are not their strong suit. So, we need a first-rate sleuth to see through their smoke-and-mirrors, as well as beyond their twisted tongues into their warped brains. Who else but Sherlock Holmes can be our man to tell us what the mullahs really want?

The fact of the matter, as far as we can tell, is that the mullahs are waving a big menacing stick over the world’s head -- their nuclear program and its ramifications. The mullahs, however, say to the world (if you are ever foolish enough to trust the word of a people whose religion not only officially condones but recommends taqqeyh -- lying -- to achieve a higher purpose) they promise, on their Boy Scout’s honor, to limit their nuclear activity to peaceful endeavors under the United Nation’s watchdog. From its past performance, rather its absence of performance, we know that the UN watchdog is a true disgrace to dogs, since all it does is eat, sleep and look the other way. Furthermore, the dog has no teeth.

The current Islamic regime under the mullahs has shown, on countless occasions, its contempt both in words and deeds for the memory of the founding father of Persia – Cyrus the Great – including flooding the plain which houses the King’s tomb, destroying the archaeological sites of Pasargad and Persepolis, and harassing and intimidating those who would gather at the tomb of the enlightened king to commemorate the International Day of Cyrus the Great.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is staffed by diehard Islamists who are determined to wipe out all the traces of the pre-Islamic era. They aim to surpass every heinous crime committed for the past 1400 years by the Mohammedan followers. What is enshrined in the Cyrus Cylinder is unconditional respect for the complete rights of all the people of the world, an anathema to the Islamists’ credo.

By Robert Spencer

Louisiana, Arizona ,and Tennessee have already passed legislation restricting the use of foreign law in state courtrooms, and twenty-one other states are considering similar laws.  These statutes are designed to halt the use of Islamic law, sharia, by American judges -- a measure that many see as necessary, since sharia has already been involved in cases in twenty-three states.  Many see this as an alarming encroachment upon First Amendment protection of religion; however, anti-sharia laws do not actually infringe upon religious freedom at all, and they become more urgently needed by the day.

In the March issue of First Things, law professor Robert K. Vischer equates anti-sharia laws with recent intrusions upon the religious freedom of Christians, such as laws that now require "pro-life pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill" and "Christian adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples, and religious entities to pay for their employees' contraceptives."  He asserts that "[t]he recent spate of 'anti-Sharia' initiatives is just the most politically popular example of such threats" to religious freedom.