The butcher with privilege

Eagerness to be seen complying with Shari’a is why Western leaders fall over themselves to support the Palestinians, appease Iran and pay their respects to the butcher of Tehran.

The butcher with privilege
Respect, man!


There was no half-mast for Papa Doc, no minute’s silence for Idi Amin, no condolences for Slobodan Milošević. Ebrahim Raisi, however, got all three. I’m not the only one who noticed.

What does a butcher have to be or to have, to accomplish such stature in death? In life, it was generally only the most downtrodden of their own people, and those higher up who had offended the butcher’s ever-so-frail ego, who feared him and eulogised him. World leaders, especially those at the head of great powers, bolstered butchers who towed their line, toppled those who went against them, and generally did not “meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign states” when it came to the rest. Sometimes, if the butchers were “of vital strategic importance” (our son of a bitch), such as the Emir of Qatar, or the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, they minded their Ps and Qs and undertook their deferential state visits. But the butchers thus grovelled before are alive. Ebrahim Raisi is dead.

My mind is driven to wild speculation: What about Pol Pot? What kind of send-off did he get? What about Pinochet? Atatürk? Mao? What about Zia ul-Haq? Mobutu Sese Seko? Lavrentiy Beria? Muammar Gaddafi ...and so it went, with a steady procession of the infamous and the iniquitous making its way through my head, all men of state, all entitled to diplomatic immunity, the biggest scam ever devised. The latest of this despicable horde to breathe his last, Ebrahim Raisi, has eulogies said to him at the highest levels of that diplomatic order.

The world’s top diplomats, Josep Borrell, Antony Blinken and António Guterres, right honourable gents all, wasted not a moment to prostrate before this dead butcher. Each of them served the butcher’s blood-soaked regime. They minimised the excesses of that regime, while assuring us that they were doing everything, everything, to bring the mullahs back to the “rules-based order”. I’ve compiled some of Antony Blinken’s assurances as a single passage:

We will continue to enforce all of our sanctions. We will continue to push back resolutely against Iran’s destabilizing activities. We continue to take strong action against Iran’s other activities that we and so many other countries profoundly object to. We continue to believe strongly that diplomacy is the best way to resolve this problem. We continue to be willing to explore diplomatic paths. We continue to believe that diplomacy is the best way to verifiably, effectively, and sustainably prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. We continue to believe that the most effective way to deal with the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program is through diplomacy. We continue to look for ways to disrupt the malicious activities that they’re engaged in. We continue to believe that the most effective way to do that is through diplomacy. We will continue to consult closely with European allies, with Israel, with partners in the region, and colleagues in Congress on the way forward. We continue to believe that the best way, the most effective way, to resolve the nuclear challenge posed by Iran is through diplomacy. We continue to believe that a return to compliance with the agreement is the best way forward, that is not an infinite prospect, because what we will not allow is for Iran to, in effect, tread water at talks and not come forward with any meaningful and serious propositions for finally – for resolving the outstanding issues to returning to compliance while at the same time advancing its program. So the runway is getting very, very short on that. The JCPOA... was succeeding on its own terms in blocking Iran's pathways to producing fissile material for a nuclear weapon on short order. It also featured a feature that continues the most intrusive inspections and monitoring regime in the history of arms control. The biggest problem that we face with Iran, and I think that we unfortunately continue to face, and it may get worse again, is that with regard to all of the egregious actions that Iran takes across all of these areas, an Iran that has a nuclear weapon, or has the capacity to develop one, or the material for one in very short order, risks acting with even greater impunity than it already does.” (Various sources)

“Iran right now does not seem to be serious about doing what’s necessary to return to compliance, which is why we ended this round of talks.” — Secretary of State Antony Blinken, 3 December 2021.

“Does not seem to be serious.” Wow! Sherlock strikes again! Nonetheless, it still came as a shock to see the following statement from Antony Blinken’s staff at the US Department of State:

For Immediate Release


May 20, 2024

On the Death of Iranian President Raisi and Others in a Helicopter Crash

The United States expresses its official condolences for the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian, and other members of their delegation in a helicopter crash in northwest Iran. As Iran selects a new president, we reaffirm our support for the Iranian people and their struggle for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

All of this is genuine, except, “We reaffirm our support for the Iranian people and their struggle for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Sorry, US Department of State, your track record shows exactly the opposite.

The EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, the second-most useless man on the planet after Blinken, rushed out his own grovel on X:

The European Union offers its condolences for the death of President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Hussein Amir Abdollahian and other Iranian officials involved in the tragic helicopter crash on Sunday.

The diplomatic eulogies from the United Nations topped them all. That august body founded in the wake of the last fascist attempt to take over the world, for the umpteenth time in seven months, demonstrated brazenly and unequivocally, that it now serves fascist masters. António Guterres’s organisation ordered:

The UN Flag will be lowered to half-mast as a mark of respect for the passing of His Excellency Mr. Seyyed Ebrahim Raisi, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. All offices and duty stations are encouraged to lower their flags on this occasion.

“Encouraged.” If that verb does not send a chill down your spine, dear reader, then you do not know totalitarianism. Think of it as the equivalent of, “Nice place you got here. Shame if something happened to it.”

If all the Western diplomatic prostration before the butcher of Tehran shows us anything, it is that Iran clearly does not need a nuclear weapon to subjugate the West. The bigger picture is far from entertaining, for what it shows is Western submission to the presumptions and precepts of Shari’a. Israel and her supporters were horrified and outraged when the United Nations and its various organs came out clearly on the side of Hamas and against Israel after the Simchat Torah massacre on 7 October 2023. They should not have been, because the signs have been clear for a long time.

The United Nations is under the control of people for whom the UN’s founding principles are anathema. The then Soviet Union (with three votes), and now Russia, together with its Arab Muslim allies, from the very beginning set out, through exploiting the Western presumption that we are all equal and must live side by side in peace for mutual prosperity, to restore the pre-Enlightenment world, which is their element. Despite all indications down the decades that the Nuremberg Trials had not put paid to efforts to reduce the entire world to totalitarianism of one kind or another, and those striving for such a world were seizing control of the United Nations and its organs, Western idealism persisted, because that was the right thing to so, “else we become like them”.

The UN’s response to the Simchat Torah massacre and to the death of Ebrahim Raisi are not simply moral failures for which they should rightly be condemned. They are a barometer of the state of decay of the freedom we all in the West take for granted. Consider, for example, the Rome Statute by which the International Criminal Court was founded. The Statute is very clear on what constitutes a crime against humanity:

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Article 7: Crimes Against Humanity

For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:




Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;


Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

Enforced disappearance of persons;

The crime of apartheid;

Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

For the purpose of paragraph 1: ‘Attack directed against any civilian population’ means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;”

Every single act listed above constitutes a crime against humanity. Every single act listed above is permitted under Shari’a. Most of it is obligatory under Shari’a. All of these acts, every single one of them, the Palestinians, through their organisation Hamas, had perpetrated on the people of Israel on 7 October 2023, and are continuing to do on those they still hold prisoner. How do you stop anyone from noticing? Why, you accuse everyone’s favourite whipping boy, Israel, of all these things. The United Nations, where Israel begs and pleads for fair treatment, has done nothing more than flaunt its Shari’a-compliance credentials. It did so again on 21 May 2024, when it hastened to register its “mark of respect” for a man who could well have stood trial at Nuremberg.

One more thing about crimes against humanity: they enjoy universal jurisdiction.

Although the concept of universal jurisdiction remains controversial; proponents of universal jurisdiction invariably include crimes against humanity within its scope. ...A crime against humanity arguably can be tried in any criminal court in the world” (Margaret M. deGuzman, “Crimes Against Humanity,” (p4). “States are increasingly seeking to exercise universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and to require States harbouring persons accused of these crimes to extradite or prosecute them. (p25)

The most serious issue with the universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity is that Shari’a, the Islamic legal system, not only denies that there is a such thing as a crime against humanity, it arrogates unto itself, exclusively, universal jurisdiction, since it is “Sacred Law”. In other words, the United Nations and other world bodies can propound all the international law they want, Shari’a trumps them all. As far as Muslims are concerned, Shari’a is the only valid law, everywhere. The United Nations made its submission to Shari’a clear when it lodged into its document archive the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), the Muslim answer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The CDHRI is peppered throughout with caveats such as:

In accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah;

Except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason;

A duty prescribed by Shari’ah;

Without a Sharia prescribed reason;

In accordance with ethical values and the principles of the Shari’ah;

In accordance with the tenets of the Shari'ah;

Within the framework of Shari’ah;

Unless motivated by an act which Shari’ah regards as a crime;

There can be no subjugation but to God the Most-High [i.e., Shari’a];

Except as provided for in the Shari’ah;

As would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah;

In accordance with the provisions of Shari’ah;

Subject to the Islamic Shari’ah;

According to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.

Some CDHRI Articles bear quoting in full. Remember the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCSORM) that so many Western leaders scrambled to sign up to back in 2018? Well, guess where that originates?

ARTICLE 12: Every man shall have the right, within the framework of Shari'ah, to free movement and to select his place of residence whether inside or outside his country and if persecuted [inside or outside his country, AP], is entitled to seek asylum in another country. The country of refuge shall ensure his protection [regardless of how he entered, AP] until he reaches safety, unless asylum is motivated by an act which Shari’ah regards as a crime. (My emphasis. Note that “country of refuge” is not equated with safety).

Now guess why the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration never mentions “legal migration” or “illegal migration,” but throughout speaks only of “regular migration” and “irregular migration,” neither of which are defined, although the intended meanings are clear: "regular migration" = the affected country acquiesces; "irregular migration" = the affected country does not acquiesce.

ARTICLE 19: (d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.

Under Shari’a, migration in not only not a crime, it is an obligation (Hijra) and it is from Muslim lands to non-Muslim lands. The Global Compact is not about migration; it is about Muslim migration, specifically. A careful reading of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration reveals it to be the policy implementation of Article 12 of the CDHRI. Within the GCSORM lies the kernel of destruction of the nation-state, and the unravelling of all law that is not Shari’a. Hence:

ARTICLE 24: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah,


ARTICLE 25: The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

Islamic apologists and those forever making excuses for Muslims might point to Article 21: “Taking hostages under any form or for any purpose is expressly forbidden,” to claim that Hamas is not Islamic. Let me just point out that Hamas did not take a single hostage on 7 October. Everyone they seized and spirited across the border into Gaza is a prisoner of war. Jihad is war. They were taken prisoner in war. Everything that the Muslims have been doing to their prisoners of war, whether in the attics of private homes or in dungeons underground, was in accordance with Shari’a. Releasing them is only one of four options that Shari’a permits them to do with their prisoners. From their point of view, there is nothing at all wrong with swopping the prisoners of war they hold for the prisoners of war in Israeli jails, even Member of Knesset Ayman Odeh demanded this. He is still an MK.

And then there are such sinister totalitarian guarantees as, “True faith is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human perfection.” Read: all religion must be for Allah alone. Shari’a is the alter on which Western elites are sacrificing their own populations while they are willingly stoked into madness-of-crowds divisions over climate change, racism and transgender people. Eagerness to be seen complying with Shari’a is why Western leaders fall over themselves to support the Palestinians, appease Iran, indulge every Muslim demand and pay their respects to the butcher of Tehran. Shari’a stipulates that a Muslim leader must be obeyed, no matter how bad a leader he may be, so long as he implements Shari’a. The farce that played out at the International Court of Justice over the last months makes a mockery of all law except Shari’a, whose standard of justice is that the judge shall be “lenient towards the Muslim and harsh towards the infidel.” By our leaders' calculations, our realising the depth of they betrayal when they paid their respects to Ebrahim Raisi was a risk worth taking.

Picture credits:

Stevan Kragujević - This file has been extracted from another file, CC BY-SA 3.0,

Unknown artist - This file has been extracted from another file, Public Domain,

Bernard Gotfryd - This file has been extracted from another file, Public Domain,

Unknown author - Store norske leksikon, Public Domain,

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile. - Archivo General Histórico del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores at the Wayback Machine ([1]), CC BY 2.0 cl,

Unknown author - Biblioteca Virtual de Defensa: RETRATO DEL GRAL. FRANCISCO FRANCO BAHAMONDE (MUE-120973), CC0,

неизвестный (unknown) -, Public Domain,

Pakistan Army -, CC BY-SA 4.0,

Frank Hall - This file has been extracted from another file, Public Domain,

Unknown author -, Public Domain,

Stevan Kragujević - Transferred from sr.wikipedia to Commons., CC BY-SA 3.0,

Unknown Author -, Public Domain,

Unknown author -ürk-portresi-1932.jpg, Public Domain,

Denelson83, Zscout370 ve Madden - Flag of the United Nations from the Open Clip Art website. Modifications by Denelson83, Zscout370 and Madden. Official construction sheet here.(1946-presentUnited Nations) The United Nations flag code and regulations, as amended November 11, 1952, New York OCLC: 7548838., Public Domain,


On 25 May 2024 at 3:17, Ben Dor A. wrote:

Dear Anjuli Pandavar

An excellent essay. Thank you. I will share it with friends, family and Quora.

Below is a reminder to us all.

"When Hamas started this war on October 7, President Biden declared, “We stand with Israel.” He promised US arms for Israel “to make sure that Israel does not run out of these critical assets to defend its cities and its citizens.” His commitment to Israel, Biden has said over and over again, is “ironclad.” Yet now he is withholding delivery of munitions.

There’s a lesson here: The promises of foreign officials are never entirely trustworthy. Moreover, those officials cannot always be counted on to protect even their own country’s interests, let alone those of others."

Joe Biden’s Empty ‘Ironclad’ Promises to Israel

Biden holds press conference with Kenyan President(Source: C-SPAN) President Biden is “pausing” US arms shipments to Israel because he does …

O'Biden's flip-flop on the war is a reminder that international commitments are only as strong as the character and the interests of the people who make them.

In no event are they enforceable — even if written down or called “legally binding.”

Best Regards

Ben Dor A