he knows his people very well,i know he loves Iran,but why is he sacrificing his country? Did he had no other choice?

'

Disunity among the Ummah is very dangerous and it may provide a murderous opportunity for the adversaries to add fuel to the fire.

After all, Ahmedinejad had not been a corrupt, incompetent or an immoral ruler. He has scored more than pass mark (I will give him a Merit Pass) There is no hard evidence to prove that the election was a farce.

Try to go back to the earliest time of Islamic history when Khalifa Uthman ibn Affan (ra) was assassinated and when Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) assumed the leadership of the nation of Islam.

The cunning Muawiyah and his group wanted the culprits, who planned and executed the assassination to be caught and punished as soon as possible, but Ali (ra) wanted to concentrate on the peace, unity and administration of the Ummah, but his adversaries were stubborn and had a political axe to grind.

 This led to the weakening and disintegration of the Nation of Islam. Did Islam gain by this sort of freedom?

This is exactly what may happen in Iran if the followers of Mousavi pursued their selfishness and greed for political power. They may play into the hands of the enemies of Iran who have been waiting for a pretext and an opportunity to destabilize the nation and in the process help the ambitions of the greatest enemy of Islam (Israel).

For the sake of  saving the millions of innocent people  of a Muslim nation, at times we have to forgive and forget the shortcomings of our rulers rather than trying to change the regime, create massive anarchy ( look at Afghanistan) by getting help from insincere and manipulating Non-Muslim world powers.

Iraq is right in front of our eyes. Tens of thousands of People like me hated Saddam Hussein and went to the extent of morally co-operating with his opponents and dissidents in seeking help to punish and execute Saddam and over throw his administration (Remember Dr. Ahmed Chalabi and group).

 What were the consequences?

But right now the same people feel the foolishness, naivety and immaturity of such political thinking and wish if only Saddam had remained in power and we could have saved the deaths of about 1.2 million Iraqis and about 4 million people becoming refugees and the nation going to the dogs.

Who was responsible for this tragedy?     

People like Mousavi and his supporters. 

Case Two: Afghanistan: Islam was trying hard to destroy group loyalty and tribalism, but the people of Afghan gave importance to their tribes: Pushtu, Hazar, Tajik, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Kyrgyzs etc, and their leaders like Burhanuddin, Ahmed Mashod, Hikmatyar and others could have reconciled  for the sake of the unity of the nation and Ummah but ego and greed for political power corrupted them and brought horrendous bloodshed and sufferings to the millions of innocent people and brought a shame to Islam in the world.

In conclusion I will say that we have to be patient, pray hard and should not try to create anarchy and confusion in Muslim societies for the sake of political power. Let us wait until Allah swt, bring a change in investing power in the hands of other leaders.

The question that you have raised is a serious religious question and you should address this to “ASK THE SCHOLAR” section of islamonline.net.

 But mind you brother Allah says several times in His Book that the right conduct is clear from the wrong conduct. Allah swt has not given to man anything superior than REASON.

It is the touch stone to test human behaviour. Apply your ability to reason out and let your intentions be sincere.

As Rasulullah (saw) says man’s actions are judged by his intentions. Think about the real intentions of the learned, supposedly righteous Alims in Iran in the case of the present chaos and creation of mischief. Who benefits out of this? Muslims or the enemies of Muslims? Forget about the Shiah Sunny Divide.

If you had been living in 1953, you might have said the same thing, that is Allah swt wanted a Regime Change in Iran engineered by the U.S. and Britain. A democratically elected Govt. was ruthlessly overthrown by the greatest democracies in the world simply because they wanted to control the oil resources. And you and the world are aware of the horrendously anti-Islamic rule of Shah for 26 years. He became the best friend of the Zionists and was trying hard to prevent the liberation of Palestine.  Please read the following extracts

“The New York Times recently leaked a CIA report on the 1953 American–British overthrow of Mossadeq, Iran’s Prime Minister. It billed the report as a secret history of the secret coup, and treated it as an invaluable substitute for the U. S. files that remain inaccessible. But a reconstruction of the coup from other sources, especially from the archives of the British Foreign Office, indicates that this report is highly sanitized. It glosses over such sensitive issues as the crucial participation of the U. S. ambassador in the actual overthrow; the role of U. S. military advisers; the harnessing of local Nazis and Muslim terrorists; and the use of assassinations to destabilize the government. What is more, it places the coup in the context the Cold War rather than that of the Anglo-Iranian oil crisis — a classic case of nationalism clashing with imperialism in the Third World.

“Matters came to a head in August when, for three days, Mossadeq, backed by the communist party, seemed to be the irresistible dictator of Iran. One senior diplomat even advised that we should snuggle up to him . . . but fortunately, the loyalty of the army and the fear of communism saved the day.”

— President Eisenhower

Look at the way a great personality like Eisenhower lying to the world.

Most probably, President Barack Obama may not be allowed to have a free hand and free thinking to be different. Quite often an American President is remotely controlled by hidden forces that come to light after 20,30, 40 years.

Please go through the painful colonial history and the history of modern neo-imperialism. We have to sacrifice a lot for the sake of  Islamic Unity, other wise our enemies will have the last laugh all the times.

And I guess the FACT that Saddam oppressed his people, and killed MANY MORE in the years he was in power doesn't matter at all?

Same goes for the Taliban.

Are they better of today? No, and mostly because of radical islamist who are the biggest obstacle the genuine freedom and democracy in the middle east.

Will they be better of in the future? If they succeed in bypassing/eliminating radical islamist, then yes, most definatly. Far better then today and far better then under their previous dictators.

A wrong is a wrong, a crime is a crime, but you can not increase the first crime by a thousand times in order to correct the first wrong, this is what the Americans did,

More over it is not the business of the West to be the moral leaders of the world. Their motive was not correction.

The US’s motive in trying to change Saddam was not based on Saddam’s oppression. First the Americans said 9/11, then they said Weapons of Mass Destruction, when both turned out to be lies, they said bringing democracy. Is there any truth in any of these?

The US motive is to put someone in power who will listen to the US political administration in controlling the oil resources.

This is what the US did in Iran in 1953, they eliminated a properly elected democratic Govt, and the  pretext was the bogey called the Govt was supported by communists.

Please read the book “THE ROGUE STATE” by William Blum. Think clearly, deal with any international crimes of any body Muslims or non-Muslims, based on international law and accepted ethics and stop neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism.

Allow the natives to decide their destiny and fate based on their development and culture. White men need not be the world rulers and decision makers in all issues.

Would you justify the killing of 1.2 million Iraqis and making 4 million refugees to punish Saddam Hussein?

America committed crimes in Nicaragua and the country took the case to

Based on this should Nicaragua punish the US, they should kill by ratio a few million Americans? Will you accept this. The White Man has one rule for him and another rule for Non-Whites. Might can not be always right.

In the creation of God all are equal. Kill your racial prejudice 

Meagain on a different account here.

I'm not a fan of the US and I most certainly didn't (and still don't) support the war in Iraq by any means whatsoever.

I just hate it when people state false things.

The iraqi's were NOT better off under Saddam and the afghanis were NOT better off under the Taliban.

The only difference is that now the oppression and the violence is out in the open instead of secret operations.  How many mass graves have they uncovered in Iraq??  How many executions were held by the Taliban?

How many times did they whipe their behinds with human rights?

Dictators are the worst of the worst, especially when they motivate their actions through some religion.

So while I certainly not agree with what the US did in Iraq, I can't help myself from saying "good riddance" when they killed Saddam.  Most definatly.  Djeezus man, the guy gassed 100.000+ of his own people for all to see.  And that number is just a fraction of the people he made "dissappear".

The Iraqis were a 1000 times better off under Saddam. Most of the human right abuses carried out by Saddam were done when he was the best friend of the US, not after the US ended its honeymoon with Saddam.

 It was the US who supplied to him all the necessary weapons and substances to carry out his human right violations.

The root cause of oppression by a third world tyrant are the Western powers and their greed to control the oil resources or the economy or to protect their darling Israel or to stop the spread of economic independence by nations like Iraq and Iran or to make sure that they do not shift their foreign reserve currency to EURO or invent their own monetary system and so on.

 Tyrants like Saddam should obey the American directive or ready to be (i) economically finished off by sanctions (ii) replaced by a more pliable dictator (iii) to be assassinated by a conspiracy as ( Read the book Spy Catcher, by Peter Right to see how the British MI5 planned the assassination of the Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser), if nothing of the above three works, the final solution is invasion, occupation and devastation of the entire nation, as it has been happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, and as it happened in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, Haiti, Dominican Republic and many other countries.

Read Noam Chomsky’s book, Title “INTERVENTIONS”, Prof. Chomsky’s writings are based on profound research. 

American shouting about human rights record is selective and hypocritical. During the time of the tyrant Suharto's period in Indonesia, Suharto’s record of human right violations were appalling, but Suharto was America’s ally and he allowed them total economic exploitation and day time robbery and hence the US closed its eyes, same thing happening in Egypt now, in Saudi Arabia, why not call for a Regime Change in Egypt, in Saudi Arabis...the US will never do it, because through out history it has been the policy of the US to prop up military juntas, tyrants, dictators, autocrats and Kings like Shah of Iran , simply because the military industrial complex in the US can milk more only under a non-democratic system, not in  countries  like Iran, Malaysia, Venezuela.

 You say you are not on the side of the US but you seem to be not well informed about the under currents in American politics that cause immense problems in third world countries. You need to read more. 

Please read from the following link.

ttp://www.geocities.com/thelasian/1953-coup-Iran-CIA.html

Salam Alaikum

I don't know whether everyone here has actually heard the speech in total as I did. I found it to be a logical and a balanced speech and in accordance with his duty as the Leader of the Republic. He did not label any of the candidates as agent or spy as is customary. In fact he was very patronising when he said that all the candidates are parts of the Islamic establishment. He remembered Mr. Mousavi's services as Prime Minister when he himself was the president.he had special praise for Hashmi rafsanjani and severly criticised Ahmadinejad for having brought in the name of Rafsanjani in the televised debate. He made a very relevant point. If Mr.Mousavi thinks that elections were rigged he should take recourse to legal means and seek remedy by legal means available. Those who think that this is an exercise in futility as the whole system is against Mr. Mousavi should remember that this argument is weak. You cannot assume things. He could have taken recourse to street demonstration if he had exhausted the legal means available to him. I think Mr. Mousavi by ignoring the call of the Leader to refrain from street protests and by ignoring the meeting with the Gaurdian's Council has crossed the red line. This is now no longer a matter of elections but a direct challenge to the very basis of the system. It is like challenging the monarchy while you are in Saudi Arabia. What the result will be is clear to everyone. No one should have any doubt that the response will be ruthless. Mr. Mousavi has chosen the path of confrontation and he sholud therefore not accept reconciliation. The ultimate outcome will depend on what people of "Iran" want not what people of "Tehran" want because Iran is not Tehran only.

Waalaikumussalam Br Hussain,

Alhamdulillah, thanks for that excellent, well thought out and logical comment. What was happening when a dispute in the counting of votes took place in the U.S. in 2000, the matter went to the supreme court which ordered recounting of Florida votes and finally Mr Bush was declared the winner ( heaven Knew the truth on the decision, after all most of the Supreme Court Judges were hand picked Republicans then) the process took about 4 weeks or so.

Iranians as you say must follow that sort of legal remedy and accept the decision of the Court final, because that would be the best solution considering the national interest. Right now the adversaries of Umma exploit the situation as it happened in 1952 when a democratically elected Prime Minister was scandalised and over thrown by the plan worked out by Britain and the U.S.

I feel that the disease of Western liberalism is spreading in Iran too and many youngsters who reject Islamic discipline have been unduly influenced by the Western propaganda and want a change in leadership thinking that a new leader may allow more freedom, liberty and eventually the western profligacy