Obama’s Strategy to Deal with Militant Radical Islam in the Middle East


National Motto [Click to enlarge]

Radical Islam

The Obama Administration thinks we Americans are too stupid to understand the nuances of their thinking, Yet they also think the “uneducated” and “jobless” ISIS members do. Amazing, is it not?

Eric Holder complains “we spend more time talking about what do you call it as opposed to what do you do about it…you know? I mean really, you know, you know! If Fox [News] didn’t talk about this they’d have nothing else to talk about, it would seem to me. You know Radical Islam, Islamic Extremism, you know, um, (sighs heavily) I’m not sure an awful lot is gained, by, um, by saying that”

I can assure mr. Holder, Fox News spends much more time talking on what we do about it, than they do on what the administration is calling it. They also talk about how little the Obama administration is doing about it, as well as what should be done about it, with numerous military experts, generals, colonels, special ops, and various other experts, including Muslim reformers, experts on Muslim history and culture, ex-administration officials, diplomats, etc.

However the problem lies with the Obama administration, the reason the question of why Obama, and the people in his administration is even raised, is because of the fact Obama and his administration are doing as little as possible to prevent it. Obama and his administration are doing so little to stop the spread of Islamic extremism, not only are people of his own party also raising the question, even extreme leftist democrats are starting to take issue with it.

I see and hear all of these news people, political pundits etc., on Fox News or elsewhere, who strain their brains trying to analyze why Obama and his administration will not name the enemy, as they exist, they also ask why the admin is not doing more to stop the spread of the militant Muslim fanatics.

The Obama administration also says we need to change the economic outlook of the Muslim terrorists and the ideology that causes them to be terrorists. Wouldn’t that require “occupation” of those countries where the ideology is prevalent, and the control of those same countries economy? For years the Islamic administrations in those countries have failed to stop the Imam’s from spreading their extremist ideology, and have failed to control the corruption of their economies participants or governments who commandeer the relief funds, food, etc. that are given by other countries, meant to go to help the people. It is only reasonable then to come to the conclusion, all of this will require occupation forces, just as it did in Germany and Japan after World War 2. Isn’t it liberals and the democrats who have always accused Americans of being occupying forces or somehow Imperialistic? If the leaders in the Muslim world could be trusted to take on the ideology that creates Islamic terrorists, or have failed to grow their economies in order to benefit the people enough, where they do not turn to terrorism because of their poverty? How else do they propose to accomplish all of the incredibly clever nuanced strategy they promote?

If you look at Obama and the history of his administration, since he took office you can only conclude one thing. I will get to that conclusion later in this article.

Getting into history as I do, I tend to look, not only at the present, but also the past. This helps to give me a better understanding of the why, what, and where of something, so I can come to the correct conclusion, or at least one that is close to being correct.

Obama at the recent prayer breakfast referred to the Christian Crusades when talking about what is taking place in the Middle East with ISIS / ISIL, as if the Crusades that happened 900-1200 years ago, somehow justified the atrocities committed by present day Islamic Muslim terrorists. He also failed to mention, the crusades took place after 4-5 centuries of Muslim aggression, attacks that make today’s Muslim terrorists look like pikers. Note, the day before the prayer breakfast he had a meeting with various Muslim leaders in the White House, who the administration refused to name. Then within days after the prayer breakfast we are faced with a new ISIS / ISIL video showing the mass beheading of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt, by militant Muslim savages who made the ISIS video and titled it. “A Message Signed With Blood To The Nation Of The Cross.” In the video an ISIS member with an American accent said among other things.

“Oh people, recently you have seen us on the hills of Al-Sham and Dabiq’s plain, chopping off the heads that have been carrying the cross for a long time, and today, we are on the south of Rome, on the land of Islam, Libya, sending another message. All crusaders: safety for you will be only wishes especially if you are fighting us all together. Therefore we will fight you all together. The sea you have hidden Sheikh Osama bin Laden’s body in, we swear to Allah we will mix it with your blood.”

This coming from Libya where Obama in 2011 took part in military action to remove Gadhafi saying when he did. “To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are,” Obama said. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” Libya, also touted by Obama as one of the successes of his foreign policy in the Middle East. Kind of amazing he doesn’t use the same kind of language when talking about the Islamic terrorists.

The war in Libya was preceded by protests in Zawiya, 8 August 2009 and finally ignited by protests in Benghazi beginning on Tuesday, 15 February 2011, which led to clashes with security forces that fired on the crowd. The protests escalated into a rebellion that spread across the country,with the moderate Muslim forces opposing Gaddafi establishing a governing body, the General National Congress, whose President [Mohamed Yousef Magariaf] came to the U.S. and did an interview on CBS’s “Face The Nation” with Bob Schieffer on September 16, 2012. This interview was in reference to the terrorist attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, where the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were killed. This interview was also the same day Ambassador Susan Rice did her infamous five Sunday talk shows blaming a youtube video, nobody ever watched until the Obama administration started blaming it on the video “The innocence of Muslims” whose creator, they promised would be jailed or punished.

In this interview the Libyan President Magariaf] was asked by Schieffer about the attack in Benghazi, among the things Schieffer asked was whether the attack was preplanned, if the attackers were connected with al Qaeda, and where the attackers were from. Magariaf told him, yes the attack was preplanned [i.e. not spontaneous or part of a protest], the attackers were connected with al Qaeda, and it was planned and carried out by mainly foreigners, and some of them were definitely from Algeria and Mali.

Directly after having the Libyan President on, Schieffer then introduced Susan Rice “And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?” Susan Rice after referring to a non-existent FBI investigation went on to tell him according to the best intelligence they had,  it was a spontaneous protest, brought on by the video and the attackers had no connection to al Qeada.

As a side note: It would seem to me, the best intelligence would come from the President of Libya, who Schieffer had just interviewed before Rice.

What a slap in the face this must have been to the Libyan President, who had just told Schieffer it was al Qaeda, and a preplanned well organized attack. No wonder he and the Libyan government refused to let the FBI in to conduct an investigation until a month after the Benghazi attack.

Add to this the fact Obama refused to assist the fledgling moderate Muslim Libyan government, after helping them depose Gadhafi by bombing Libyan government forces. You begin to then wonder, why Obama helped them in the first place, if he was just going to leave Libya’s fledgling government, military, police, etc., to deal with the Radical Islamic Jihadis after Gadhafi’s overthrow and death, without assistance from the U.S.

We then go back to the Iranian Green revolution of 2009-2010 when moderate Muslim students, business owners, and others rose up against the tyrannical Iranian Mullah’s, and the government they have imposed in Iran. Out of all the moderate Muslim uprisings in around the world that took place after Obama took the presidency, the Muslims who rose up in Iran were truly moderates who wanted to overthrow the radical Muslims in power.

What did Obama do to encourage or help those moderate Muslims during the Green Movement in Iran? Not a thing, not a word of encouragement, not humanitarian aid, no condemnation of the radical mullah’s and their government henchman, nothing. This seemed strange, the whole world was clamoring for him to speak out, give some encouragement, something, anything!

When young people in Egypt started protesting and calling for change in 2011, Obama encouraged them a little, after refusing to for weeks or months. It wasn’t until the Muslim Brotherhood members took over the government in Egypt, that Obama became really supportive of the Egyptian movement. Then when the people rose up against the Muslim Brotherhood led government, Obama once again did little to encourage the protesters or take up their cause, angering many of the Egyptian protesters. This seems strange since the Muslim Brotherhood is known for its ties to terrorism, and other Islamic Jihadi organizations. Then however, you look at Obama and his administrations ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, its associates and members and you begin to understand.

The reason news journalists and political pundits on places like Fox news, keep asking the seemingly asinine questions, like why does Obama refuse to refer to mass beheadings, and other atrocities as Islamic terrorism, Radical Islam, etc., it is because Obama does very little to stop Radical Islam. In fact Obama does little to encourage the truly moderate Muslims, take Syria for example, or any of the other moderate Muslim movements. He does little or nothing to encourage, aid, or assist the moderates, and does little or nothing to stop the radical extremist Muslims. Look at Yemen, which just a few weeks or months ago Obama was holding up as a beacon of his successful foreign policy.

Speaking of Syria, we have heard numerous politicians and political pundits from the GOP and the democrats since the beginning of the “moderate” Muslim uprising in Syria: We’ve heard them say, the reason Obama, his administration and Congress weren’t doing anything to support the moderate rebels is because, they are having such a hard time identifying them. Why is it so hard to identify the “moderates”? If the “vast majority” of Muslims are moderate, why is it so hard to identify them? When Ali Khamenei the “Supreme Leader of Iran” shouts “death to America” this week, the Obama administration said Khamenei is saying it for “Domestic Consumption”. So what the Obama administration are really saying is the majority of Iranians are militant Islamic Muslims bent on Jihad and the leaders of Iran are really moderates who say these radical things to appeal to the vast majority of Muslims in Iran.

Let’s get back to the comments Barrack Hussein Obama made at the recent prayer breakfast, where he referred to the crusades in medieval times. You’ll notice Leftist democrats and Muslim terrorists use the same tactics, techniques, or same talking points when referring to events, past or present.

Obama’s sympathy is always with the enemies of America, especially the radical Muslim element. Leftist democrats also refuse to call out radical Muslims or refer to them as Islamic, and refuse to condemn Muslims, for what they do in reference to Sharia Law. This is because, leftist liberal progressive democrats serve the same master as the radical Muslims, both groups believe in forcing their beliefs, ideas, views, and ways on others who disagree with them, oppose them, or are part of the general population just trying to live their lives. Both groups also believe in punishing and / or destroying those same people, when those people say, do, or are in noncompliance with the beliefs, rules, etc., the leftist democrats or radical Muslims espouse.

Look at Obamacare that was “forced down the throats of the American people”. Look at what the media, especially the main stream leftist media did to Sarah Palin or any other number of conservative or christian republicans. Look at what they’ve tried to do to Ted Cruz, I don’t care who you are, you have to admit Cruz and Palin are the only ones who have shown they would actually change the way Washington DC works. Not change as Obama did, i.e. more of the same, only on steroids, but real change to the bureaucracy, change that brings it in subjection to the American people, instead of the American people being subjected to the dictates of faceless non-elected bureaucrats.

This leads us back to the news journalists, pundits, etc., mainly on the right or centrists when it comes to politics. The reason people like O’Reilly and others twist themselves in knots trying to understand why Obama does what he does, and says what he says, when it comes to radical Islam; It is because: They can’t bring themselves to believe, the American people actually elected a president who hates America, what it stands for, the principles of its founding, you name it. Let’s not forget Obama and his administrations attacks on conservatives and war against traditional Christian American values and the Bible. You know those Americans Obama referred to among his rich friends as “clinging to their guns and religion”. Funny he has never said that about the fundamental Islamic Muslim terrorists.

Why do you think Obama has done more to stir up racial, class strife, and other grievances  between various groups of Americans than he has done to unite the people and the country? He uses stronger words, and shows greater animation when talking against conservatives, than he ever does when speaking about the Islamic Muslim terrorists! If the terrorists from al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, (or violent extremists as Obama likes to say) If, as Obama says, the Arabic terrorists are not Muslim, and they do not represent the “religion” of  Islam; Why are the U.S. State department, Pentagon / Defense department, and the Obama administration giving the terrorists / enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba copies of the Koran, Islamic Muslim prayer rugs, prayer beads, and giving them Islamic meals, etc?

When I take all of this into consideration, I can only conclude Obama hates America, and as he said he would in his book, he stands with the Muslims, he just failed to add radical, when he spoke of the Muslims he would stand with. All part of that great fundamental change he referred to…

Obama’s strategy to deal with Islamic terrorism is for America to lose, why else would he go to congress to get an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that ties not only the hands of the military, but also the hands of the next president, who would have to get a new authorization 3 years after the American people have become even more war weary in the first year of his / her administration?

Some other things I have noted: Rudy said “Obama doesn’t love America” the media throws a fit because they believe this is wrong or it is somehow saying Obama is unpatriotic. Yet Obama himself called his predecessor “unpatriotic” the media and the democrat party compared him to Hitler, wrote a book about killing him, and said numerous other outrageous things about him personally. Obama himself has numerous times said all Americans who don’t want to be taxed more are unpatriotic. The democrat party have said numerous completely outrageous things about Tea Party participants, conservative or christian republicans, yet you never hear the media throw a fit about it.

You have democrats throw a fit when a republican or conservative call Obama a Muslim or even question that he considering his numerous actions against traditional christians, conservatives, etc. and his obvious sympathy for Muslims. Why do they get outraged when people call Obama a Muslim when they are constantly telling us Muslims are good peace loving people. Then you had Obama say “America is no longer a Christian Nation” yet along with the outrage shown when he is called a Muslim, Obama and the media turn themselves in knots trying to convince the American people he is a christian.

Then we can all remember the Democrat National Convention where they voted 3 times whether “God” was going to be part of their party platform, the majority of convention goers voted “No” and finally the 3rd time amid the majority of the members there hissing and booing, the convention managers declared they had “voted” to add “God” to their party platform. Of course this was during election season and they were trying to convince Americans they believed in “God” and that Obama is a christian.

Why doesn’t the democrat party “own it” why do they not stand by what’s in their hearts. Why will they not admit they hate or at the very least greatly dislike the way America was founded, the principles the USA was founded on, and the obvious fact we were, are, and hopefully will always be a nation where the majority of the people are guided by christian principles. Why doesn’t the democrat party finally just own how they really think and feel? They have been accusing republicans and conservatives of being cowards, why don’t the democrats just own who they are? Cowards by any chance?

Obama is an embarrassment to our historic allies and a malleable dunce to our historic enemies!

Copyright © 2015 TeaPartyEdu http://teapartyedu.net Foundation Truths http://captainjamesdavis.net The Patriot Brotherhood @CaptainJDavis ™

Non-Revisionist Politically Incorrect History of the World compiled from the original authors: Part 3

For the Non-Revisionist, Politically Incorrect History of the World: The Modern Part compiled from the Ancient Historians of the time.

I am giving you links to the books on the history of the world, that the Founder’s of the United States of America studied in their time. These are history books that were published in the mid-late 18th century, and were the most popular history books of that time period. There is ample evidence that the Founder’s of the United States studied these to aid them in gaining their perspectives of the world. I have divided the links into the different sections to make it easier for you, the reader to find the history that interests you.

NOTE: Remember when reading the Old English, the lowercase “F” in a lot of instances is equal to an “S”, example in the partial sentence “WE have feen, In the courfe”

It reads “WE have seen, In the course”

OR in this example “affuming the royal title of foltan only over their Seljuk fubjects, and their other conquefts : fo that, in order to fet forth the furprifing decline,”

It reads “assuming the royal title of Soltan only over their Seljuk subjects, and their other conquests : so that, in order to set forth the surprising decline,”


See also Non-Revisionist Politically Incorrect History of the World With Biblical References Part 1

Non-Revisionist Politically Incorrect History of the World With Biblical References Part 2

The modern part of an universal history from the earliest accounts to the present time; (1780) Volume 1

  • Contents:
  • Preface:
  • Chapter 1, The Life of Mohammed.
  • Chapter 2, The History of the Empire of the Arabs, under the First Four Khalifs.
  • Chapter 3, The History of the Arabs from the accession of the Family of Ommiyah to the transferring of the Khalifat to the Family of Abbas.

The modern part of an universal history from the earliest accounts to the present time; (1780) Volume 2

  • Contents:
  • Chapter 3: The History of the Arabs from the accession of the Family of Ommiyah to the transferring of the Khalifat to the Family of Abbas.
  • Chapter 4: The History of the Arabs from the Elevation of the Family of Abbas to the Throne of the Muslims, to the Taking of Baghdad by the Tartars.

The modern part of an universal history from the earliest accounts to the present time; (1780) Volume 3

  • Contents:
  • Chapter 4: The History of the Arabs from the Elevation of the Family of Abbas to the Throne of the Muslims, to the Taking of Baghdad by the Tartars.
  • Chapter 5: General History of the Turks, and the Empires founded by them in Tartary and Lower Asia, the Origin, Country, and different Tribes, or Branches of the Turkish Nation; with their Public Transactions till their destruction in Tartary.
  • Chapter 6, The History of the Seljukians of Iran, or Persia, at large, and of Kerman.
  • Chapter 7, The History of the Third Dynasty of the Seljukians, called that of Rum.

The modern part of an universal history from the earliest accounts to the present time; (1780) Volume 4

  • Advertisement (NOTE) To Readers Concerning this Fourth Volume
  • Book 1: General History of the Turks, and the empires founded by them in Tartary and the Lower Asia. Chapter 1: The origin country and different tribes or branches, of the Turkish nation with an account of their affairs till the destruction of their empire in Tartary. Section 1: The Origin of the Turks
  • Section 2: A General Description of Great Tartary, with an account of the Turkish tribes or nations inhabiting it, according to Arab authors
  • Section 3: An account of the Turkish tribes or nations, as delivered by the Turkish and Tartarian historians.
  • Section 4, The affairs of the Turks with the nations bordering on Tartary, and among themselves, from their first appearance, till the time of Genghis Khan.
  • Section 5, Character of the Turks before the time of Genghis Khan; and whether they were descendents of the ancient Scythians, or the present inhabitants of Tartary are descended from them.
  • Section 6: Of the original country inhabited by the Turks, with a description of the present Turkestan.
  • Chapter 2: The History of the Seljukians of Iran, or Persia, at large, and of Kerman. Section 1: The authority on which the Seljukians history is grounded.
  • Section 2: The origin of the Seljukians, and their entrance into Persia.
  • Section 3: Their transactions in Persia, and founding of their first monarchy there.
  • Section 4: The reign of Togrol Bek, (First Sultan)
  • Section 5: The reign of Alp Arslan, (Second Sultan)
  • Section 6: The reign of Malik-Shah I, (Third Sultan)
  • Section 7: The reign of Barkiarok, (Forth Sultan)
  • Section 8: The reigns of Mohammed and Sanjar. (5th & 6th Sultans)
  • Section 9: The reigns of Mahmud, Togrol, and Massud (7th, 8th, 9th Sultans)
  • Section 10: The reigns of Malek Shah II, Mohammed II, Soleyman Shah, Arslan, and Togrol II, in whom the dynasty ended.
  • Chapter 3: The Sultans of the second branch, or dynasty of the Seljukians, called that of Kerman.
  • Chapter 4: History of the third dynasty of the Seljukians, called that of Rum.
  • Section 1: Their dominions, conquests, establishment and succession.
  • Section 2: The reign of Sultan Soleyman.
  • Interregnum: (Interregnum is a period of discontinuity or “gap” in a government, organization, or social order.)
  • Section 3: Reign of Sultan Kilij Arslan I.
  • Section 4: The reign of Sultan Saysan.
  • Section 5: The reign of Sultan Massud.
  • Section 6: The reign of Sultan Kilij Arslan II.
  • Section 7: The reigns of Gayatho’ddin Kay Khosraw, Rokno’ddin Soleyman, Kilij Arslan III, and of Kay Khosraw a second time.
  • Section 8: The reigns of Sultan Kaykaws and Also’ddin Kaykokad.
  • Section 9: The reigns of Gayatho’ddin Kay Khosraw, and Azzo’ddin.
  • Book II: The history of the Moguls and Tartars from the time of Genghis Khan;
  • Chapter 1: A description of Western Tartary, as divided at present among the three branches of Mungls, or Moguls.
  • Section 1: Country of the Mungls properly so called.
  • Chapter 2: The country of the Kalka Mungls.
  • Chapter 3: The countries belonging to the Eluths, or Eluth Mungls.
  • Chapter 4: The conquest of Karazm, Great Bakharia and Iran (or Persia at large), till the defeat of Sultan Jalalo’ddin Mankberni.
  • Chapter 5: Conquests in Iran, from the battle of Indus, to Genghis Khan’s return into Tartary.
  • Chapter 6: Conquest of the kingdom of Hya, and progress in that of Kitay, till the death of Genghis Khan.
  • Book IV: The history of Genghis Khan’s successors in Mogulestan, or the country of the Moguls.
  • Chapter 1: The reign of Oktay Khan, second emperor of the Mungls.
  • Chapter 2: The regency of Tolyekona, and reign of Quey-yew Khan.
  • Section 1: The regency of Tolyekona, or Turakina Khatun.
  • Section 2: The reign of Quey-yew, or Kayuk Khan.
  • Chapter 4: The reign of Mengko, or Mangu Khan.
  • Chapter 5: The reign of Hu-pi-lay, or Kublay Khan.
  • Section 1: Progress of the War in China, till Peyen, or Bayan, was made Generalissimo.
  • Section 2: Pe-yen’s victories, and the ruin of the Song dynasty by that great Captain.
  • Section 3: Commencement of the Ywen dynasty, and its affairs, to the death of Hu-pi-lay.

The modern part of an universal history from the earliest accounts to the present time; (1780) Volume 5

  • Book II:
  • Chapter 6: The history of Genghis Khan’s successors in Tartary and China, The reign of Timur, called by the Chinese Chingtsong.
  • Chapter 7: The reign of Hayshan, called by the Chinese Vu-tsong.
  • Chapter 8: The reign of Ayyuli-palipata, styled by the Chinese Jin-tfong.
  • Chapter 9: The reign of Shotepala, called by the Chinese Ing-tsong.
  • Chapter 10: The reign of Yesun-temur, styled by the Chinese Tay-ting.
  • Chapter 11: The reign of Hoshila, known to the Chinese by the title of Ming-tsong.
  • Chapter 12: The reign of Tutemur, styled by the Chinese Ven-tsong.
  • Chaoter 13: The reign of Towhan-temur, styled by the Chinese Shun-ti.
  • Section 1: The distractions and rebellions which attended his bad government.
  • Section 2: The rise of Chu, or Hong-vu, and ruin of the Ywen dynasty.
  • Chapter 14: History of the Mungls, after their expulsion out of China, to the present.
  • Book III:
  • Chapter 1: The history of Juji, or Tuthi Khan, and his descendents, who reigned over the Kipjaks, with that of the Khans of Krim Tartary.
  • Book IV: The history of the princes of the race of Genghis Khan, who have reigned in the Great and Little Bukharia, with part of Karazm.
  • Chapter 1: A description of Great Bukharia.
  • Chapter 2: A description of Little Bukharia.
  • Chapter 3: The history of Great Bukharia, of Jagatay Khan, and his successors.
  • Chapter 4: The history of Little Bikharia, Of the descendents of Jagatay Khan, who reigned in Little Bukharia.
  • Book V: History of the descendents of Genghis Khan, who reigned in Iran, or Persia at large.
  • Chapter 1: The reign of Hulagu Khan.
  • Chapter 2: The reign of Abaka ll Khan.
  • Chapter 3: Section 1: The reign of Nikudar Oglan, or Ahmed Khan.
  • Section 2: The reign of Argun Khan.
  • Section 3: The reign of Gantaju Khan.
  • Section 4: The reign of Baydu Khan.
  • Section 5: The reign of Gazan or Kazan Khan.
  • Section 6: The reign of Aljaytu or Aljaptu Khan.
  • Section 7: The reign of Abusaid Khan.
  • Chapter 4: Dynasties which sprung up on the death of Abusaid Khan.
  • Section 1: The dynasty of the Il Khanians, The reign of Sheikh Hassan Buzruk.
  • Section 2: The dynasty of the Jubanians, or Chubanians, The reign of Sheikh Hassan Kujuk.
  • Book VI: The history of Timur Bek, commonly called Tamerlan, and his successors.
  • Chapter 1: The transactions preceding Timur’s reign.
  • Chapter 2: The exploits of Timur, from his enthronement, to the reduction of Iran, or Persia at large.
  • Chapter 3: Wars with the Kipjaks and Getes, Conquest of the countries to the Euphrates.
  • Chapter 4: Timur invades and conquers Hindustan.
  • Chapter 5: Timur overthrows Bayezid, and reduces Georgia. Dies on his march to conquer China.
  • Chapter 6: Distractions which arose on the death of Timur, and the usurpation of Kalil Sultan.
  • Chapter 7: The reign of Shah Rukh.
  • Chapter 8: The reign of Abusaid Mirza.
  • Chapter 9: Of the Princes descended from Timur, who reigned in Khorassan, and other parts of Iran, after the death of Shah Rukh.
  • Book VII: The history of the Shahs reigning in Persia.
  • Introduction: Of the Sosian family, and origin of the Shahs.
  • Chapter 1: The reign of Shah Ismael Sofi.
  • Chapter 2: The reigns of Tahmasp I, and Ismael II.
  • Chapter 3: The reign of Mohammed Khodabandeh, Hamzeh, and Ismael III.
  • Chapter 4: The reign of Shah Abbas I, surnamed the Great.
  • Chapter 5: The reign of Sasi, or Sesi I.
  • Chapter 6: The reign of Abbas II.

Continue in Part 4 (Still working on it)