Translating Words, Interpreting Events

Taqiyya about Taqiyya

Print Friendly

I was recently involved in an interesting exercise—examining taqiyya about taqiyya—and believe readers might profit from the same exercise, as it exposes all the subtle apologetics made in defense of the Islamic doctrine, which permits Muslims to lie to non-Muslims, or “infidels.”

Context: Khurrum Awan, a lawyer, is suing Ezra Levant, a Canadian media personality and author, for defamation and $100,000.  Back in 2009 and on his own website, Levant had accused Awan of taqiyya in the context of Awan’s and the Canadian Islamic Congress’ earlier attempts to sue Mark Steyn.

For more on Levant’s court case, go to www.StandWithEzra.ca.

On behalf of Awan, Mohammad Fadel—professor of Islamic Law at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law—provided an expert report to the court on the nature of taqiyya, the significance of which he portrayed as “a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America.”

In response, Levant asked me (back in 2013) to write an expert report on taqiyya, including by responding to Fadel’s findings.

I did.  And it had the desired effect.  As Levant put it in an email to me:

It was an outstanding report, very authoritative and persuasive. Of course, we don’t know what the plaintiff’s [Awan’s] private thoughts about it were, but we do know that after receiving the report, he decided to cancel calling his own expert witness [Dr. Fadel]—who happens to be a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. After reading your rebuttal, he decided he would rather not engage in that debate.

My expert report follows.  In it, I quote relevant portions of Fadel’s expert report (which can be read in its entirety here).  Most intriguing about the professor’s report is that it’s a perfect example of taqiyya about taqiyya.  By presenting partial truths throughout the report, Fadel appears to have even employed taqiyya’s more liberal sister, tawriya.

Accordingly, readers interested in learning more about the role of deception in Islam—and how to respond to those trying to dismiss it as an “Islamophobic fantasy”—are encouraged to read on.

Raymond Ibrahim’s Expert Report on Taqiyya

Instructions: I have been asked to assess a report concerning the doctrine of taqiyya in Islam, written by one Mohammad Fadel; and, if I disagreed with any parts of it, to explain why—objectively, neutrally, and in a non-partisan manner.  My findings follow.

Introduction

The Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to actively deceive non-Muslims—above and beyond the context of “self-preservation,” as is commonly believed.

One of the few books exclusively devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (“Taqiyya in Islam”) make this unequivocally clear. Written (in Arabic) by Dr. Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya in its opening pages:

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[1]

The following report is written as a response to Mohammed Fadel’s report (henceforth referred to as MFR) which deals with the topic of taqiyya and its place and usage in Islamic jurisprudence.   Because MFR is written in a premises-conclusion format, the following report will follow MFR’s numbering schemata, pointing out which premises are agreeable and which are not—offering correctives to these latter resulting in an antithetical conclusion.

Numbers/Premises of MFR in Order:

1-3: Preliminary statements.

4: Agreed.

5:  Agreed, with the following caveat:  To many Muslims, jihad, that is, armed struggle against the non-Muslim, is the informal sixth pillar.   Islam’s prophet Muhammad said that “standing in the ranks of battle [jihad] is better than standing (in prayer) for sixty years,”[2] even though prayer is one of the Five Pillars, and he ranked jihad as the “second best deed” after belief in Allah as the only god and he himself, Muhammad, as his prophet, the shehada, or very First Pillar of Islam.[3]

All this indicates jihad’s importance in Islam—and thus importance to this case, since, as shall be seen, taqiyya is especially permissible in the context of jihad or struggle to empower Islam and/or Muslims over non-Muslims.

6: Agreed.  Qiyas, or analogical reasoning, the practice of finding antecedents in the teachings of the two revelatory sources (Qur’an and Hadith) and rationalizing their applicability to modern phenomena, also belongs to usul al-fiqh, or Islam’s roots of jurisprudence.  It gives more elasticity to Islam’s rules (a major theme throughout this report).  Qiyas, for example, is the way al-Qaeda and other jihadi organizations justify suicide attacks: although killing oneself is clearly forbidden in Islam, in the context of jihad—in the context of trying to empower Islam—suicide attacks are rationalized as legitimate forms of stealth warfare, since those giving their lives are not doing so out of despair but rather for Islam (as in Qur’an 9:111).[4]

7-19: Generally agreed (or indifferent to: some information in these numbers is not necessarily germane to the issue at hand and did not warrant confirmation).

20“Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on the obligation to speak the truth.”

This is the first of many statements/premises that are only partially true.

For starters, Islamic jurisprudence separates humanity into classes.  The rules concerning the relationship between a Muslim and a fellow Muslim differ from the rules concerning the relationship between a Muslim and a non-Muslim.

First there is the umma—the “Islamic nation,” that is, all Muslims of the earth, irrespective of national, racial, or linguistic barriers.  Many of the Qur’an’s and Hadith’s teachings that appear laudable and fair are in fact teachings that apply only to fellow Muslims.

For example, although the Qur’an’s calls for Muslims to give charity (zakat) appear to suggest that Muslims may give charity to all humans—in fact, normative Islamic teaching is clear that Muslim charity (zakat) can only be given to fellow Muslims, never to non-Muslims.[5]

As for legal relations between Muslims and non-Muslims—or kuffar, the “infidels” (kafir, singular)—within the Islamic world, these fall into two main categories: first, the harbi, that is, the non-Muslim who does not reside in the Islamic world; if at any time a Muslim comes across him in the Muslim world, according to classic Islamic doctrine, he is free to attack, enslave, and/or kill him (the exception is if he is musta’min—given a formal permit by an Islamic authority to be on Muslim territory, such as the case of the many foreigners working in the Arabian Peninsula).[6]

Second is the dhimmi, the non-Muslim who lives under Muslim domination (for example, all the indigenous Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Berbers, etc. whose lands were conquered by Muslims beginning in the 7th century).   By today’s standards, the rules governing the dhimmi, most of which are based on the so-called “Conditions of Omar” (sometimes the “Pact of Omar”) are openly discriminatory and include things such as commanding non-Muslims to give up their seats whenever a Muslim wants it.[7]

It is, then, in this divisive context that one must approach the Qur’an, keeping in mind that most of the verses discussing human relations are discussing intra-relations between Muslims, not Muslims and non-Muslims.  For examples of the latter, see Qur’an 9:5, 9:29, 5:17, and 5:73 for typical verses that discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, verses which have further abrogated the earlier, more tolerant ones.[8]

As for the Qur’an verses listed in MFR 20—which are meant to support the statement that “Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on the obligation to speak the truth,” a close reading, supported by mainstream Islamic exegeses, demonstrates that the true function of those verses is to portray true believers (Muslims) and Islam’s prophets as the epitome of honesty and sincerity.  Significantly, none of the verses mentioned in MFR 20 actually exhort Muslims to be honest and truthful, including to fellow Muslims, in the same vein as, for example, unequivocal statements such as Do not lie to one another” (Colossians 3:9) and “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).

The fact is, other Islamic teachings and caveats have permitted Muslims to deceive even fellow Muslims.  For example, the doctrine of tawriya allows Muslims to lie in virtually all circumstances provided that the lie is articulated in a way that it is technically true.

The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya as, “hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy; equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion.” Conjugates of the trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Quran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).

As a doctrine, “double-entendre” best describes tawriya’s function. According to past and present Muslim scholars (several documented below), tawriya is when a speaker/writer asserts something that means one thing to the listener/reader, though the speaker/writer means something else, and his words technically support this alternate meaning.

For example, if someone declares “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies.

This is legitimate according to Islamic law, or shari‘a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—and does not constitute “lying.”

In a fatwa, or Islamic decree, popular Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid asserts that, “Tawriya is permissible if it is necessary or serves a shari‘a interest.”  As mentioned, empowering Islam is one of the highest shari‘a interests [9] (hence why jihad, so lauded by Islam’s prophet as aforementioned, is sometimes seen as the “sixth pillar”).

After surveying the consensus of the Islamic community (ijma, a root source of Islamic jurisprudence, as MFR 6 correctly indicates) Sheikh al-Munajid concludes by saying: “Tawriya is permissible under two conditions: 1) that the words used fit the hidden meaning; 2) that it does not lead to an injustice” [“injustice” as defined by shari‘a; empowering Islam through tawriya or empowering a Muslim against an infidel is certainly not an injustice from an Islamic point of view].

Otherwise, it is permissible for a Muslim even to swear when lying through tawriya. Munajid, for example, cites a man who swears to Allah that he can only sleep under a roof (saqf); when the man is caught sleeping atop a roof, he exonerates himself by saying “by roof, I meant the open sky.” This is legitimate. “After all,” Munajid adds, “Qur’an 21:32 refers to the sky as a roof [saqf].”

By way of modern examples, and because some Muslims hold it to be a “great sin”[10] to acknowledge Christmas (since doing so validates Christianity, a different message than Islam), one Muslim cleric recently appeared on video counseling Muslims to tell Christians, “I wish you the best,” whereby the latter might “understand it to mean you’re wishing them best in terms of their [Christmas] celebration.” But—here the sheikh giggles as he explains—“by saying I wish you the best, you mean in your heart I wish you become a Muslim.”[11]

As with most Muslim practices, tawriya is traced to Islam’s prophet Muhammad. After insisting Muslims “need” tawriya because it “saves them from lying,” and thus sinning, in a video, Sheikh Uthman al-Khamis adds that Muhammad often used it.[12] Indeed, Islam’s prophet is on record saying “Allah has commanded me to equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation”; and “whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr.”[13]

More specifically, in a hadith, Muhammad said: “If any of you ever pass gas or soil yourselves during prayers [thus breaking ablution purity, or wudu‘ [14], hold your nose and leave”[15]: Holding one’s nose and leaving implies smelling something offensive—which is true—though it implies someone other than the offender is responsible.

Following their prophet’s example, many leading Muslim figures have used tawriya, such as Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, founder of one of Islam’s four schools of law, practiced in Saudi Arabia (the teachings of which have spread far and wide among the world’s Muslims, thanks to Saudi funding). Once when Hanbal was conducting class, someone came knocking, asking for one of his students. Hanbal answered, “He’s not here, what would he be doing here?”[16]—all the time pointing at his hand, as if to say “he’s not in my hand.” The caller, who could not see Hanbal’s hands, assumed the student was simply not there and left.

Sheikh Muhammad Hassan,[17] another very popular Egyptian cleric (who once said Islam forbids Muslims from smiling to infidels, except when to Islam’s advantage [18]) and Dr. Abdullah Shakir, [19] are also on record justifying tawriya. In recorded videos they both give the example of someone knocking on your door, you do not wish to see them, so a relative answers the door saying, “He’s not here,” and by “here” they mean the immediate room, which is true, since you will be hiding in another room.

On the popular Islam Web,[20] where Muslims submit questions and Islamic authorities respond with a fatwa, a girl poses her moral dilemma: her father has explicitly told her that, whenever the phone rings, she is to answer saying “he’s not here.” The fatwa solves her problem: she is free to lie, but when she says “he’s not here,” she must mean in her mind that he is not in the same room, or not directly in front of her.

Despite their deceptive natures, and in accordance to mainstream Islamic teaching, none of the aforementioned examples of tawriya—beginning with Islam’s prophet and followed  by Islam’s doctrinaires, past and present—are considered lies.

This is significant.

Furthermore, that tawriya, which allows Muslims to deceive fellow Muslims, is legitimate according to shari‘a, should be indicative of how much leeway there is for Muslims when speaking to non-Muslims—considering that Islam also teaches Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims and to have enmity for non-Muslims, as in the doctrine of wala’ wa bara’.[21]

­­21: Again, the statement that “The Prophet Muhammad also emphasized the importance of honesty as a central principle of Islam,” followed by the hadith “Honesty leads to righteousness…” is only valid in the context of Muslim to Muslim relations.

Again, because tawriya is techincally not lying, as Islamic consensus holds—provided the words fit the meaning used to mislead others—it is considered permissible, or mubah, though a minority categorize it as “disliked,” meaning that its performance is not a sin, though not performing it is rewarded (as MFR 17 correctly indicates).

As for the Islamic prophet himself—whose example is to be upheld as closely as possible by Sunni Muslims (sunna meaning “example”)—above and beyond the aforementioned, according to a canonical hadith, it is well known that he permitted lying in three scenarios: to reconcile quarreling parties, to one’s wife, and in war, or jihad.[22]

It is the third of these categories, jihad, that is relevant here.

According to one Arabic legal manual devoted to jihad as defined by the four schools of Sunni Islamic law, “The ulema [“scholars”] agree that deception during warfare is legitimate … deception is a form of art in war.”[23]  Moreover, according to Dr. Mukaram, the foremost expert on taqiyya, this deception is classified as taqiyya: “Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible.”[24]

This Muslim notion that “war is deceit” goes back to the Battle of the Trench (year 627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes known as Al-Ahzab. One of the members of Ahzab, Na‘im ibn Mas‘ud, went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered that the Ahzab were unaware of his conversion, and thus defection, he told Mas‘ud to return and try to get the Ahzab forces to abandon the siege. It was then that Muhammad memorably declared, “For war is deceit.” Mas‘ud returned to the Ahzab without their knowing that he had switched sides and intentionally began to give his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded, lifting their siege.[25]

A more compelling expression of the legitimacy of deceiving non-Muslims is found in the following authentic anecdote from the Muslim prophet’s life. A poet, Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, offended Muhammad with his verse, prompting the latter to exclaim, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his prophet?” A young Muslim named Muhammad ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that in order to get close enough to Ka‘b to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet.

Muhammad agreed.[26]

Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began to denigrate Islam and Muhammad. He carried on in this way till his disaffection became so convincing that Ka‘b took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Ka‘b’s guard was down, killed him.[27]

Accordingly, normative Islam teaches that deceit is integral to jihad: Ibn al-Arabi declares that “in the Hadith [sayings and actions of Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than the need for courage.” Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333) writes, “War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged by a holy warrior [mujahid] is a war of deception, not confrontation, due to the latter’s inherent danger, and the fact that one can attain victory through treachery without harm [to oneself].” And Ibn Hajar (d. 1448) counsels Muslims “to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels.”[28]

In short, the earliest historical records of Islam clearly attest to the prevalence of taqiyya—deception and betrayal, as in the case of the poet Ka‘b —as a form of Islamic warfare against the non-Muslim infidel.  And this is still a legal strategy for Muslims vis-à-vis non-Muslims—especially if the lying is rationalized as a form of jihad to empower Islam or Muslims.

Furthermore, early Muslims are often depicted in early Islamic texts as lying their way out of binds—usually by denying or insulting Islam or Muhammad—often to the approval of the latter, his only criterion being that their intentions (niya) be pure.[29] During the centuries-long wars with Christians, whenever and wherever the latter were in authority, the practice of taqiyya became even more integral and widespread.

Professor Mukaram states, “Taqiyya was used as a way to fend off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to the raids of the Franks and others.”[30] The widespread use of taqiyya was one of the main reasons that prompted the Spanish Inquisition: hundreds of thousands of Muslims who had feigned conversion to Christianity secretly remained Muslim, conspiring with North African Muslim tribes to reconquer the Iberian Peninsula.[31]

22-23-24:  Partially agreed. These three sections deal primarily with the importance for a Muslim to uphold his covenant (a presumably immaterial point in the case at hand).  Covenants are in fact to be honored according to mainstream Islamic teaching.  Even so, however, and as with the general ban on lying, caveats abound:

Consider the role of covenants between Muslims and non-Muslims in the context of the perpetual nature of jihad: based on the 10-year treaty of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca, mainstream Sunni jurists are agreed that ten years is the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with non-Muslims; once the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised.

Based on Muhammad’s example of breaking the treaty after two years (by claiming a Quraish infraction), the primary function of the truce is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before renewing the offensive.[32] According to shari‘a law expert Dr. Majid Khadurri, “By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for in Muslim legal theory, the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but warlike.”[33] Hence “the fuqaha [jurists] are agreed that open-ended truces are illegitimate if Muslims have the strength to renew the war against them [non-Muslims].”[34]

Some of Sunni Islam’s four schools of law (or madhahib), such as the Hanafi, assert that Muslim leaders may abrogate treaties merely if it seems advantageous for Islam.[35] This is reminiscent of the following words of Prophet Muhammad as found in a canonical hadith: “If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better.”[36]

Nearly 1400 years after Muhammad abrogated the covenant with the Quraish, Yasser Arafat, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, addressed an assembly of Muslims in a mosque in Johannesburg justifying his actions by referring to Muhammad’s example: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca.”[37] In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once “something better” came along—that is, once the opportunity to renew the offensive to empower Islam came along.

In short, the idea of making covenants with non-Muslims revolves around Muslim capability. This is made clear in an authoritative Sunni legal text, Umdat as-Salik, compiled by a 14th century Egyptian scholar, Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri: “There must be some benefit [maslaha] served in making a truce other than the status quo: ‘So do not be fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are uppermost’ [Qur’an 47:35].”[38]

25-26-27: These sections finally deal directly with the topic of taqiyya.  Again, because they are built atop some invalid premises, they are only partially correct.

Thus,  “A Muslim who is subject to severe religious persecution—which exposes him to a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury unless he renounce Islam—is permitted, but not required, to renounce Islam verbally even though he remains inwardly a faithful Muslim.”

This is true. However, fear of religious persecution is hardly the only criterion to justify deception in Islam, as demonstrated above.

Accordingly, the assertion from MFR 26 that “Significantly, however, he [Muslim] is only permitted to lie about his religious belief if he is subjected to severe persecution, e.g., loss of life or severe bodily pain” is plainly false.

As mentioned, according to shari‘a law, deception is permissible in several contexts above and beyond the question of self-preservation against persecution.

Furthermore, MFR mentions Qur’an al-Nahl (16:106), which discusses the permission for Muslims to dissemble their identity if persecuted by non-Muslims, as the primary verse justifying taqiyya.  In fact, Muslim jurists often point to another verse, Qur’an 3:28, which better captures the overall nature of taqiyya in a more applicable context: “Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”[39]

The exegesis of Qur’an 3:28 of Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of one of the most standard and authoritative Qur’an commentaries throughout the Islamic world, follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[40]

Regarding Qur’an 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another standard authority on the Qur’an, writes, “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Another companion, simply known as Al-Hasan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].”[41]

Other prominent scholars, such as Abu Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi al-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240), have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave like infidels and worse—for example, by bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, and even exposing the weaknesses of their fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy—anything short of actually killing a Muslim.[42]

[Note: Although MFR 25 correctly asserts that “there are occasions in which it is permitted, or even required, to lie,” nowhere in the report are examples offered of when it is “required” for Muslims to lie.]

28-29“In no case, as far as I know, have Muslim theologians taken the position that it is generally permissible, much less obligatory, for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims, whether in matters regarding religious belief or secular practices…”  And (#29), “…there is no doctrinal basis in authentic Islamic teachings to support the claim, made by Ezra Levant and others … that taqiyya is anything other than an exceptional doctrine justified under circumstances of extreme duress that are simply inapplicable to Muslims living in Canada and the United States.”

The many references above (with endnotes below) from the Qur’an, from the sayings and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, and from the decrees and consensus of past and present Islamic authorities, demonstrate otherwise.

As for the idea that taqiyya is “an exceptional doctrine justified under circumstances of extreme duress,” it is well to remember that the premiere authority on taqiyya, Dr. Mukaram, asserts that:

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[43]

Conclusion

Deception—known under the broad term taqiyya—is permissible in Islam, above and beyond the limited issue of self-preservation.  This assertion is not “Islamophobic”; it is true.  From a legalistic point of view, and as seen especially via the concept of tawriya, as long as deceptions are technically true (“I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” only dollars), they are not even considered lies.  The prophet of Islam, Muhammad—the example that Sunni Muslims especially pattern their lives after—regularly made use of deceit. In order to assassinate a poet (Ka‘b ibn Ashraf) who offended him, Muhammad permitted a Muslim to lie to the poet.  Muhammad is further on record giving license to breaking oaths (“if something better” comes along) and openly lying (without even employing tawriya) to one’s wife and in war.  As for the latter, which assumes a perpetual nature in the guise of the jihad against the non-Muslim in order to make Islam (and Muslims) supreme (e.g., Qur’an 8:39), deception and lies are certainly permissible.


[1] Sami Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam (London: Mu’assisat at-Turath ad-Druzi, 2004), p. 7, author’s translation.

[2] John Calvert, Islamism: A Documentary and Reference Guide (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008),  p. 197.

[4] See Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pgs. 141-144 where al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri tries to rationalize suicide attacks through qiyas and in the context of deceit.

[5] Shaykh Faraz Rabbani, “Zakat Cannot Be Given To Non-Muslims,” Sunni Path, Question ID 1527: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1527&CATE=5

[6] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. 162-163.

[7] Mark Durie, The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude, and Freedom (Australia: Deror Books, 2010), pgs. 40, 141-146.

[8] David Bukay, “Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2007, pgs. 3-11: http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam

[9] Sheikh Muhammad al-Munajid, “When Is Tawriya Legitimate,” Islam Q&A, Fatwa no. 27261: http://islamqa.info/ar/ref/27261

[10] “Saying Merry Christmas is worst [sic.] than fornication or killing someone,” Islamic scholar.  YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FFW3ZNC8sjw

[11] “Don’t say Merry Christmas, say I wish you the best, meaning I hope you come to Islam,” Islamic scholar. YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-ssc7MB32Sk

[12] Sheikh al-Khamis, “The Ruling on Tawriya and Lying.”  YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0XZxF7uvSo

[13] Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam (London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004), p. 30.

[14] “Does little amount of gas (a bubble) break wudu,” Qibla, Question ID:7260: http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=7260&CATE=102

[15] Sunan Abu Dawud (one of the six canonical hadith collections), 681: http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=74&ID=649

[16] “What to do in the following situations,” Islam Door: http://www.islamdoor.com/k/297.htm

[17] “What is the difference between lying and obfuscating?” YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUcTJPS2po4

[18] Raymond Ibrahim, “Sharia’s Sinister Smiles,” RaymondIbrahim.com: http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/sharias-sinister-smiles/

[19] “Fatwa concerning lies and their circumstances.”  YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEAjSTsieQg

[21] See “Loyalty and Enmity” in Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pgs 63-115.

[22] Imam Muslim, “Kitab al-Birr wa’s-Salat, Bab Tahrim al-Kidhb wa Bayan al-Mubih Minhu,” Sahih Muslim, rev. ed., Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, trans. (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2000).

[23] Ahmad Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi’l Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar, 2003), p. 304, author’s translation.

[24] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam, p. 32.

[25] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam, pp. 32-3.

[26] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith no. 4271: http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/bh4/bh4_274.htm

[27] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 367-8.

[28] Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 142-3.

[29]  Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam, pp. 11-2.

[30] Ibid., pp. 41-2.

[31] Devin Stewart, “Islam in Spain after the Reconquista,” Emory University, p. 2, accessed Nov. 27, 2009.

[32] Denis MacEoin, “Tactical Hudna and Islamist Intolerance,” Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2008, pp. 39-48.

[33] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), p. 220.

[34] Ahmad Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi’l Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina, p. 461, author’s translation.

[35] Ibid., p. 469.

[36] Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 260: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/089-sbt.php#009.089.260

[37] Daniel Pipes, “Lessons from the Prophet Muhammad’s Diplomacy,” Middle East Quarterly, Sept. 1999, pp. 65-72.

[38] Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Beltsville: Amana Publications, 1994), p. 605.

[39] See also Quran 2:173, 2:185, 4:29, 16:106, 22:78, 40:28, verses cited by Muslim jurisprudents as legitimating taqiyya.

[40] Abu Ja’far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an ta’wil ayi’l-Qur’an al-Ma’ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari(Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, author’s translation.

[41] ’Imad ad-Din Isma’il Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 1, p. 350, author’s translation.

[42] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam, pp. 30-7.

[43] Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam (London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004), p. 7.

 

 

Subscribe and Get Connected

Enter your email to subscribe for free updates and get the latest content to your email.

, ,

  • TokyoTengu

    Interesting.

  • Tanks-a-lot

    I’m pretty sure you have disqualified yourself from being offered an honorary degree from Brandeis University.

    • dia61

      Read the comments attached to the Washington Post article that I posted. More than one person had something to say about “taqiyya”. Knowing the TRUTH about the dogma of Islam doesn’t make anyone “Islamophobic”, rather, it makes them educated and enlightened. In other words, it makes it harder for the con artists to do what they do best.

    • http://pislamonauseacentral.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

      I’m sure he’ll get over it.

  • dia61

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/09/brandeis-universitys-double-standard/

    It would be a compliment to NOT be awarded an “honorary” degree from Brandeis.
    Shame on them. It would appear that those bin Talal dollars, which have bought the Jesuits at Georgetown and the Unitarians at Harvard, have FINALLY overpowered the Zionists at Brandeis. Wow,…..that’s called dumber than dirt.
    It’s disgusting and oh so very dangerous.

    • reason1984

      Spot on.

  • Larry

    YO RAY,

    MUZZIES AREN’T THE ONLY ONES INTO TAQIYYA!

    Shalom,

    WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF PARASITOLOGY & HISTORY, THE WORLD IS IGNORANT OF WHAT REALLY IS GOING ON IN THE MIDDLE EAST:

    A PARABLE:

    THE JEWISH WASP & THE MUSLIM COCKROACH

    Researchers discover how wasps’ venom makes roaches their slaves.

    Sting in the brain: a toxic injection renders cockroaches submissive. Libersat

    Researchers have worked out the neurological trick used by a species of wasp
    to turn cockroaches into ‘zombie slaves’. The discovery explains why, once stung, cockroaches can be led by a much smaller master towards certain death.
    Researchers have proven their theory by replicating the effect, and by using an
    antidote injection to release the cockroaches from their zombie state.

    Zombie insects might sound like the B-movie plot device from heaven (or hell, depending on your cinematic preferences). But to the emerald cockroach wasp (Ampulex compressa), they’re a tried and tested way to provide food for their hungry larvae.

    The wasp, which lives in tropical regions of Africa, India and the Pacific Islands,
    relies on cockroaches for its grisly life cycle. But unlike many venomous predators, which paralyse their victims before eating them or dragging them back to their lair, the wasp’s sting leaves the cockroach able to walk, but unable to initiate its own movement.

    The wasp then grabs the cockroach’s antenna and leads it back to the nest.
    The cockroach walks “like a dog on a leash”, says Frederic Libersat of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel, who led the research and has previously described the wasps’ behaviour in detail. Once home, the merciless wasp lays an egg on the docile cockroach’s belly, and the larva, once hatched, devours the hapless insect, support that theory. The researchers report that the venom works to block a neurotransmitter called octopamine, which is involved in preparations to execute complex behaviours such as walking.

    Libersat and his team found that they could restore spontaneous walking behaviour in stung cockroaches by giving them a compound that reactivates octopamine receptors in the insects’ central nervous system. This, they conclude, means that the wasp venom probably blocks these receptors.

    What’s more, the researchers discovered that injecting unstung cockroaches with a compound that blocks these receptors produced a similar effect to that of the venom.

    · References

    Rosenberg, L. A., Glusman, J. G. & Libersat,
    F. J. Exp. Biol. 210, 4411-4417 (2007).

    BABY AISHA & THE JEWISH PEDOPHILE

    MOHAMMED’S MOTHER WAS JEWISH!
    THIS MAKES HIM A JEW
    HIS TRIBE WAS JEWISH/ARAB
    MOHAMMED BASED HIS QURAN ON THE JEWISH TORAH/TALMUD
    ISLAM IS A SECT OF TALMUDIC JUDAISM WHICH WAS CREATED TO FIGHT THE ROMANS

    The Mother of Mohammed, Amina was of Jewish birth. Von Hammer.

    “Mohammed, who was the only son of Abdallah, a Pagan, and Amina, a Jewess, and was descended from the noble but impoverished family of Hashim, of the priestly tribe of Koreish, who were the chiefs and keepers of the national sanctuary of the Kaaba, and pretended to trace their origin to Ismael, the son of Abraham and Hagar, was born at Mecca, August 20, A.D. 570 …’

    At that period, there were many “Jews’ in that area. Again from The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, volume 5, page 202:

    “Seven hundred years before the death of Mahomet the Jews were settled in Arabia; and a far greater multitude was expelled from the Holy Land in the wars of Titus and Hadrian. The industrious exiles aspired to liberty and power: they erected synagogues in the cities, and castles in the wilderness; and their Gentile converts were confounded with the children of Israel [Jews]…”

    Waves of Israelites to Arabia bringing Judaism in various stages of development

    The traditional view of Arabian history centers on Yemen.
    It is assumed that a fairly developed civilization grew in the south of the Arabian Peninsula. For several hundred years it grew rich by exporting gold, frankincense and myrrh to the Roman Empire; as well as controlling the overland routes to India and the East. The first collapse of the Marib dam around 450 CE; the decline of the use of frankincense due to the Christianization of Rome; and the Rome success bypassing the desert by using a sea route led to the collapse of southern Arabian society. This in turn led to waves of immigration from the South to North, from the city to the desert.

    Dr. Günter Lüling proposes an alternative paradigm.[1] He proposes a “more historical picture of Central Arabia, inundated throughout a millennium by heretical Israelites”. He envisions waves of Israelite refugees headed, North to South, to Arabia bringing with them Judaism in various stages of development. Linguistic and literary-historical research in the Qur’an tends to support the notion of a more northerly origin for linguistic development of Arabic.[2] Here is a brief summary of three of these waves of Judaic immigration: Herodian, Sadducean and Zealot (explained in more detail elsewhere).[3]

    KAABA BUILT BY JEWS

    During the time of Ptolemy, the native population of Cush originally inhabited both sides of the Red Sea: on the east, southern and eastern Arabia; and on the west, Abyssinia (Ethiopia-Eritrea). During the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (r 181–145 BCE), the Jewish High Priest Onias IV built a Jewish Temple in Heliopolis, Egypt and
    also one in Mecca, Arabia. He did this to fulfill his understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah 19:19, “In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord (Heliopolis) in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border (Mecca) thereof to the Lord.” The border of Ptolemy’s empire was in Arabia.

    The first wave of immigrants came with the success of the Maccabean, later Herodian, Judeo-Arab kingdom. Romanized Arabs (and Jews) from the trans-Jordan began migrating southward. The Tobiads which briefly had controlled Jerusalem
    extended their power southward from Petra and established the “Tubba” dynasty of kings of Himyar. Yathrib was settled during this period.

    The second wave of immigrants came before the destruction of the Temple, when
    refugees fleeing the war, as well as the Sadducean leadership, fled to Arabia. Khaibar was established as a city of Sadducean Cohen-Priests at this time.

    The third wave of immigrants were mostly refugees and soldiers from Bar Kochba’s revolt – fighters trained in the art of war and zealously nationalistic – sought refugee in Arabia.

    This last wave of immigrants included people who are known in Islamic literature as the Aus and the Khazraj. Around 300 CE, they were forced out of Syria by the rising strength of Christian Rome, and the adoption of the Ghassan leader, Harith I, of Christianity. At first the Aus and Khazraj lived on the outskirts of Yathrib. According to Islamic sources, the Khazraj, headed by Malik ibn Ajlan, sought and obtained military assistance from the Bani Ghasaan; and having enticed the principal chiefs of Yathrib into an enclosed tent, massacred them.[4] Then the citizens of Yathrib, beguiled into security by a treacherous peace, attended a feast given by their unprincipled foes; and there a second butchery took place, in which they lost the whole of their leaders.[5]

    REFERENCES:

    1.”A new Paradigm for the Rise of Islam and its Consequences for a New Paradigm of the History of Israel” by Dr. Günter Lüling; Originally appeared in The Journal of Higher Criticism Nr. 7/1, Spring 2000, pp. 23-53.

    2.Hagarism, Crone and Cook

    3.See the authors essays “The Prophet Muhammed as a descendant of Onias III” and “From Bar Kochba to the Prophet Muhammed”

    4.See Katib at Wackidi, p. 287.

    5. “Life of Mohamet I”, by Sir Walter Muir, Chapter III, Section 6

    YOU OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE JEW MUHAMMAD!

    • dia61

      Zip it, Homer.
      Raymond crushed the “taqiyya” bullies with THE TRUTH and THAT”S the point of the article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      True, unadulterated, easy to read, easy to “connect the dots” scholarship is a gift to all of us, and I , for one, am so very thankful for Raymond’s contributions.

      • Larry

        YO MADGE,

        HE ONLY HIT ONE BRANCH OF THE “TAQIYYA” BULLIES”!
        HE NEVER HITS THE ONES WHO CREATED ISLAM & COMMUNISM!
        FIRST IT WAS REDS UNDER THE BEDS, NOW ITS JIHADISTS IN THE JETS!

        JEWS SLAUGHTERED THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIANS

        Palestinian monk Antiochus Strategos of Mar Saba. in his Capture of Jerusalem, the Georgian text of which fills 66 large octavo pages of 33 lines each.38 Strategos devoted particular attention to the massacre perpetrated by the Jews in “the reservoir of Mamel [the Mamilla Pool]” after thousands of Christians were confined there by the conquering Persians: Thereupon the vile Jews . . . rejoiced exceedingly, because they detested the Christians, and they conceived an evil plan. . . . And in this season then the Jews approached the edge of the reservoir and called out to the children of God, while they were shut therein, and said to them: “If ye would escape from death, become Jews and deny Christ; and then ye shall . . . join us. We will ransom you with our money and ye shall be benefited by us.” But their plot and desire were not fulfilled
        . . . because the children of Holy Church chose death for Christ’s sake rather than to live in godlessness. . . . And when the unclean
        Jews saw the steadfastness of the Christians and their immovable faith, then they were agitated with lively ire . . . and thereupon imagined another plot.
        As of old they bought the Lord from the Jews with silver, so they purchased Christians out of the reservoir. . . .

        How many souls were slain in the reservoir of Mamel! How
        many perished of hunger and thirst! How many priests and monks were massacred by the sword! . . . How many maidens, refusing their abominable outrages, were given over to death by the enemy! How many parents perished on top of their own children! How many of the people were brought up by the Jews and butchered, and
        became confessors of Christ! . . . Who can count the multitude of the corpses of those who were massacred in Jerusalem!”
        Strategos, cited a total number of 66,509 Christian corpses, of which 24,518 were allegedly found at Mamilla, many more than were found anywhere else in the city.

        The Greek Theophanes (d. ca. 818), cited numbers of Christian dead as high as 90,000, which became a favorite among modern
        historians. See The Chronicle of Theophanes . . . (A.D. 602-813), trans. Harry Turtledove (Philadelphia, 1982), 11: “In this year [614] the Persians took . . . Palestine, and its holy city in battle. At the hands of the Jews they killed many people in it; some say, 90,000. The Jews, according to their means, bought the Christians and then killed them.” The veracity of the claim by Strategos (and later Theophanes) that Jews purchased Christian captives and then butchered them has been challenged by many scholars, it has been taken quite seriously, even in recent years, by leading Byzantinists such as A. N. Stratos and Cyril Mango (the Bywater and Sotheby Professor of Byzantine and Modern Greek Language and Literature at the University of Oxford). N. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, 4 vols. (Amsterdam, 1968-78), 1: 109 (“The Jews raised a
        fund to which each contributed according to his fortune, ransomed the prisoners, and slew them”); C. Mango, Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome (London, 1980), 92 (“In 614, the Jews bought Christian captives and put them to death”).

        JEWS ARE NOT UNITED BY A LOVE OF ISRAEL, BUT BY A HATRED OF CHRISTIANS

        It is now official… Jews are the world’s greatest HATERS

        And it is Christians whom they HATE.

        Michael Medved

        Host of the Michael Medved show Co-founded Pacific Jewish Center, an Orthodox synagogue in Venice, California, with his friend and teacher, Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

        For fifteen years, Medved served as president of PJC, which
        states that its mission is outreach to unaffiliated and disconnected Jews.

        Medved does prove he understands the Jewish mind. He states,

        “For most American Jews, the core of their Jewish identity isn’t
        solidarity with Israel; it’s rejection of Christianity.”

        A “rejection of Jesus” Medved tell us, “has replaced acceptance of Torah”

        In fact Medved states

        “We accept atheist Jews, Buddhist Jews, pro-Palestinian Jews,
        Communist Jews, homosexual Jews, and even sanction Hindu-Jewish meditation societies.”

        For all this acceptance and tolerance on the part of Jews, Medved informs that

        “Jews for Jesus,” however, or “Messianic Jews” face resistance and
        exclusion everywhere. ”

        “Many Jews therefore view enthusiastic Christian believers—no
        matter how reliably they support Israel and American Jews—as enemies by definition,” says Medved.

        “Rather than acknowledge the key role played by Christian Zionists
        (prominently including Harry Truman) in establishing and sustaining the U.S.-Israel alliance,” which Medved seems to indicate would deserve never-ending Jewish appreciation, but instead there is never-ending condemnation as, “liberal partisans love to invoke 2,000 years of bloody Christian anti-Semitism.”

        “The liberal belief that Jews should be pro-choice and pro–gay
        marriage has nothing to do with connecting to Jewish tradition and everything to do with disassociating from Christian conservatives,” as Medved provides an inrational explanation of the mind of an irrational Jew.

        “According to this argument, Catholic and evangelical attempts to
        ‘impose’ their values on social issues represent a theocratic threat to American pluralism”, a pluralism Medved ironically notes, “has
        allowed Judaism to thrive.”

        In the final analysis, Medved informs us,

        “They should recognize that Jews, like all Americans, vote not so
        much in favor of politicians they admire as they vote against causes and factions they loathe and fear.”

        Hate drives the Jewish heart. Not a surprise for a group who rejected a Jew who told us to love one another.

        • dia61

          I think that you should start your own site. You can call it either “Larry’s Jew Guide” or “Talmud Translated”, or “YO HOMER,….. Watch out for Those Jews ” ( I’m just trying to help you out).
          Will you please cut him a break? His focus isn’t on educating people about Judaism. His focus is on educating people about Islam. You might have valid points, but you are missing his point. Get the POINT????

          • Larry

            A JEW ONCE SAID:

            “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees…….” Matthew 16:6

            Do YOU know what he meant?

    • Paul Austin Murphy

      Try to use your own words, Larry, and stop being a cut-and-paste parasite.

      • Larry

        YO MURPHY,

        (1)
        Paddy Irishman, Paddy Englishman, and Paddy Scotsman

        One day, Paddy Irishman, Paddy Englishman, and Paddy
        Scotsman walked into a pub together. They proceeded to each buy a pint of Guinness.

        Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints and got stuck in the thick head.

        Paddy Englishman pushed his beer away from him in disgust.

        Paddy Scotsman fished the offending fly out of his beer and continued drinking it as if nothing had happened.

        The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink, held it out over the beer and then started yelling: “AH YOU LITTLE THIEF! SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT!”

        (2) An Irishman goes to a carpenter. “Can you build me a box that’s two inches deep, two inches wide and 50 feet long?”

        “Well,” says the carpenter, “it could be done, I suppose, but what would you want with a box like that?”

        “Well’” said the Irishman, “my neighbour moved away and forgot to take a few things with him — and he asked me to send him his garden hose.”

        (3) Paddy Irish man, English man and Scotsman were travelling in the Australian outback when their campervan broke down. They had to leave the van to go look for help.

        They were only able to take one thing from the van each, so the Englishman took water to keep him hydrated. The Scotsman took food to give him engery and Paddy Irishman takes the door.

        The English man asks Paddy, “Why did you take the door?”

        Paddy Irishman replies, “Cause if I get too hot, I can roll down the window.”

        (4) Paddy takes his new wife to bed on their wedding night. She undresses & lies on the bed spreadeagled and says
        “You know what I want don’t you?”

        “Yeah,” says Paddy. “The whole friggin’ bed by the looks of it!”

        (5) Paddy and Murphy walking down the street and Murphy falls down a manhole. Paddy asks Murphy “Is it dark down there?”

        Murphy replies “I don’t know I cant see.”

        (6) Paddy and Murphy were walking past the local police station when they saw a sign saying “SCOTTISH RAPIST WANTED”.

        Paddy turns to Murphy and says, “Don’t the Scots get all the good jobs”.

        (7) Paddy and Murphy were stood at the top of a cliff. Paddy says ‘Murphy, can you see that there beautiful forest down there’

        Murphy replies ‘Nah, all them feckin trees are in the way!’

        (8) Paddy says to Murphy,
        “What are you Doing Murphy?” Murphy replies. “I’m building a
        rocket to send to the sun.” “Don’t be daft!” Paddy says
        “It’ll burn up before it gets there.” “Ah well Paddy, I’ve
        thought of that already clever cloggs, I’m launching it at night.”

        (9) Paddy was planning to get married and asked his doctor how he could tell if his bride is a virgin.

        The doctor said, ‘Well, you need three things from a Do-It-Yourself shop. A can of red paint, a can of blue paint… And a shovel.’

        Paddy asked, ‘And what do I do with these, doc?’

        The doc replied, ‘Before the wedding night, you paint one of your testicles red and the other one blue. If she says, “That’s the
        strangest pair of balls I ever saw”, you hit her with the shovel!!!.”

        (10) Paddy was coming through the customs at the airport carrying a large bottle. “What have you there?” said a suspicious customs officer. “Tis Lourdes holy water. I am bringing it home with me”, said Paddy. “The officer took the bottle and tried some.” Why it’s Irish whiskey!” he spluttered. “Lord bless me!” said Paddy, “another bloomin`miracle.”

  • Donald J DaCosta

    It’s obvious that a very large majority in the west who, religious or not, have been immersed in Judeo/Christian dogma since birth, are not even remotely aware of any of this. That is the only way to make sense of the blatant ignorance surrounding Islam, “the religion of peace.” The western mind cannot wrap itself around a monotheistic “religion” that sanctifies a perpetual state of war and all that that implies. Lies are not only permitted they’re encouraged as a legitimate act of war, a war that rages within the Muslim world, is rapidly spreading into territories where Muslims have a significant presence and beyond.

    And, when the alarms begin to sound, faintly, those raising them are bitterly attacked, vilified and classified as the dreaded Islamophobes by organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood; organizations considered unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial that are not only still operating openly in the U.S. but are often given a large public voice on national television and the print media. Organizations that advise Muslims in Muslim enclaves not to cooperate with the FBI. And western media dutifully and gleefully join the pro Muslim chorus apparently proud to be on the righteous side of the issue and certainly relieved that they are not considered Islamophobes.

    The tactic, obvious to anyone paying attention, is to play the race card (what race is Islam again?), claim victim status, demonize and marginalize their opposition, label them Islamophobes to shut them up and take them to court. It’s called lawfare and despite its regularity and consistent failure to win their bogus arguments, is
    accomplished by consistently lying through their teeth, a fact that invariably comes out in the trial proceedings but never exposed by the media who are more interested in the sensational accusations up front than they are in the truth in the aftermath. This strategy can turn any attempt to expose these fanatics into a very costly often
    ruinous financial exercise and career ending character assassination. The unwritten rule: do not dare to reveal the truth; the criminal denial of free speech; exactly as intended and orchestrated.

    That this would still be a problem almost 13 years after 9/11 is indicative of how successful is the weapon of deceit in not only winning a war but completely deceiving the enemy that they’re actively conducting it right under our collective noses. So successful, that linking terrorism with Islam is verboten and acts of
    violence by individuals with Middle Eastern names and backgrounds or who have converted to Islam are labeled random acts or workplace violence or man caused disasters or the result of some mental affliction. A more concise description, in the idiocy of the politically correct world, is considered profiling…..and that is western “terrorism.” This perversity reveals the extent of western ignorance and naiveté in this regard.

    A war in which the enemy is undefined or unknown cannot be won and the west is in the process of engineering its own defeat.

    • Jason Chester

      “And western media dutifully and gleefully join the pro Muslim chorus” This is just complete nonsense. If anything the media, especially foxnews, has an anti-Islam/Muslim narrative. They are hardly pro-Muslim.

      • derbyiter

        Only because of whatever bait they have taken ( CASH,BRIBES OR WTF ELSE IT IS BEEN ACCEPTED ) it’s could even be just sheer stupidity (?) but, there has to be reason behind it all !
        The media doesn’t have much respect these days compared to those days gone by…

  • Paul Austin Murphy

    Taqiyya about taqiyya (or meta-taqiyya) was used on Tuesday during the trial in Birmingham (England) of Tim Burton (which I attended) for defaming Islam and Muslims (i.e. Fiyaz Mughal of Tell Mama).

    He used the used the classic example of second-order taqiyya: that taqiyya is a “Shia phenomenon”. In fact Fiyaz Mughal said it is “a thousand years old and was invented by Shia when under attack” (from Sunnis!).

    This is my account of the trial and his meta-taqiyya:

    http://paulaustinmurphyonislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/fiyaz-mughal-tell-mama-fails-again-in.html

    • dia61

      Excellent. Great that you covered that trial and it’s “taqiyya” orientation.

      Your “problem” has mushroomed over the years.

      I lived in London 30 years ago, and, at that time, the “lunatics” hadn’t taken over the “asylum” . In those days, Islam and Muslim (“Islamist” hadn’t yet been born) were OBSCENE words, especially to the secular Turks, most of whom were so very proud of Ataturk and his legacy. It was called “religion” back then, ( I can’t remember anyone referring to it as “faith”). But, for the most part, it wasn’t discussed. Nationalistic identities were proudly shared ( Syrian, Turkish, Egyptian, Lebanese, Sudanese, Palestinian, etc), but Islam was not the focus.

      My oh my how things have changed, and for the worst. Like most things that Lefties taint with their deranged minds, this experiment, in sucking up to Islam, will backfire. But, by the time people really start to revolt against it, it might be too late. The problem is that they buy their way in, and yes, desperate people will often do desperate things, especially when they buy into the romantic ( and “misunderstood”) outright lie about the nature of the “faith”.

    • http://pislamonauseacentral.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

      Nice to see you here too, Paul. ;-)

      • Paul Austin Murphy

        Yeh! Here also.

        This Fiyaz Mughal meta-taqiyya tactician is interesting on this.

        Fiyaz Mughal, the guy in the link, seems to think that us “bigots” and “haters” think that “Muslims sit around talking about taqiyya whilst eating their family size KFC chicken buckets”. Muslims don’t need to because taqiyya is actually built into both the Koran and Islam generally. Even Allah called himself “the greatest deceiver” in the Koran. There are also many other references to Mohammed’s own deceit. Muslims, on the whole, simply take it for granted that Muslims are allowed to lie in order to protect and advance Islam.

        Mughal tries to make out that all critics of Islam are using the word
        “taqiyya” indiscriminately and that they also claim that all Muslims lie
        about everything. No. Fiyaz Mughal is deliberately lying about what people are saying about taqiyya. No one is saying that all Muslims are compulsive liars on all subjects. We aren’t saying that Muslim lie about, say, financial accounts or voting procedures (even though they do). We are saying, specifically, that Muslims use taqiyya to protect and advance Islam/Muslims within a non-Muslim country.

        So Fiyaz Mughal is lying and dissimulating about Islamic lying and dissimulation.

        Fiyaz Mughal even uses a bit of taqiyya about the Wikipedia article he uses: ‘Taqiyya’. Yes, that article does mention the Shia use of taqiyya. Nonetheless, it’s hardly the case that the entire entry is devoted to how only Shia Muslims used taqiyya. And Mughal also forgets to mention that it was usually Sunni Muslims who were persecuting or oppressing Shia Muslims. Yes, he’s talking about when Shia Muslims were persecuted by Sunni Muslims, as they still are all over the Sunni Muslim world still today: from Pakistan all the way to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

        • http://pislamonauseacentral.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

          Isn’t it interesting that two court cases have appeared at nearly the same time on the same topic.

          BTW, here’s an interesting article for you -

          http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/139-louis-palme/1095-knowing-four-arabic-words-may-save-our-civilization-from-islamic-takeover.html

          • Paul Austin Murphy

            Language is everything. After all, the Left has always believed that if they change the words we use, they can change the way we think. They are right.

            Of course words can be powerful even if they have almost zero content or are basically soundbites: as in “Israeli apartheid”, ‘Islamophobia”, or “far right”. But, as that article suggests (your link), just being aware some pretty basic terms can help in some major ways. As long as they have content and aren’t just word-weapons.

            “Cultural Marxist” is a good one; though I’ve noted that many use it as a synonym for “Marxist”, which sort of defeats the object.

          • http://pislamonauseacentral.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

            Correct. We must be ever mindful of their wiles and this creep into the common parlance of their malicious memes.

  • http://pislamonauseacentral.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

    I prefer to spell it phonetically as takiya since I’m sick of the abuse of the letter q.

    Also, please use the words kuffar and kafir rather than infidels and infidel. The latter is a Christian term rather than a pislamic one.

  • Thomas_Black

    Here is the correct link for footnote 31, “Islam in Spain after the Reconquista,”:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20090902064654/http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/neareast/andalusia/pdf/8.pdf

  • conan_drum

    Bullies who are usually cowards when caught or retaliated against, usually claim that they are the victim. How like our dear friends in the ROP

  • Jason Chester

    Taqiyya does not exist in the Quran as either a concept or word and is, therefore, Bid‘ah.

  • Jason Chester

    I love how the anti-Islam people dig up some obscure shia concept from 100s of years ago which no one even really uses any more and redefine it as something it’s not to try and make Muslims appear to be something they are not.

  • Gervis

    Really well written and explained. I’m going to share this with Muslim friends (assuming they actually consider me a friend given the explanations above), and get their thoughts.