Today in history, on June 15, 1094, one of the most remarkable feats in the long war between Islam and Christianity took place: the great kingdom of Valencia, which had been under Muslim control for more than 350 years, capitulated to the warlord Roderick Díaz of Vivar — better known to posterity as “the Cid” (from the Arabic honorific al-sayyid, “the lord”).

In the late eleventh century, the Almoravids, a North African group committed to jihadist teaching, began to pour into Spain from Africa to aid their Spanish counterparts, the Moors, against the Reconquista—the centuries-long Christian attempt to liberate Spain from Islam. The Cid’s premiere modern biographer, Professor Ramón Menéndez Pidal (d. 1968), summarizes the mood and stakes as follows:

With the Almoravid invasion, the struggle between the two civilizations had reached its height. … [W]ith the invasion of the desert races and the recrudescence of Islamic fanaticism, a new chasm opened out between the two. And, on the Christian side, it was the Cid who, as the leader of the resistance against the victorious invaders, showed himself the most determined to carry on the war without giving or seeking quarter. … [I]t was upon the Cid that the task devolved of resisting, unaided, the whole might of Islam.

Toward the end of the year 1093, a secret plot between the Almoravids and the Moors of Valencia, which had only recently become tributary to the Cid, resulted in the overthrow of its king, Yahya al-Qadir, who had “increased their [Valencians] hatred by being a friend to the Christians” — that is, by being a vassal to the Cid. During the uprising, fanatical Muslims discovered al-Qadir trying to abscond out of Valencia dressed in and concealed by a woman’s burqa. To cries of “Allahu akbar,” the mob slaughtered him as an apostate and hurled his body into a camel dung pit.

On learning of the Valencians’ treachery and murder of his vassal, the Cid’s “anger was kindled, and his soul was inflamed,” writes the Muslim chronicler al-Maqqari. Like a fierce storm, he came and with extreme violence thrashed the Valencian countryside, taking all the castles and suburbs up to the city’s very walls. He “fought so fiercely,” writes Ibn al-Qama, who was present in Valencia, “that the Moors were terrified at the havoc he played among them.”

Months passed, and mass starvation soon plagued the besieged Moorish kingdom, but the Muslims continued to hold out on the conviction that their Almoravid allies would eventually come to their rescue. At long last, an immense host of Almoravids was espied marching to Valencia’s relief.

Acting fast, the Cid, who was camped outside the walls of Valencia, destroyed all of the bridges leading to the city and flooded the countryside with water from the canals, so that only one strip of land, which he now controlled, was dry. Done none too soon, a massive dust storm heralded the arrival of the Islamic hordes of North Africa.

[Now] when the news came that the Africans had arrived at Alcira, the Valencians, frantic with joy, rushed to the walls to scan the horizon for signs of their saviors and watch by night the twinkle of the numberless fires of the Almoravid bivouacs. … And all the time the citizens prayed unceasingly for Allah’s aid against the Cid and agreed in council to plunder the Christian camp and the stores and hostels of the suburb when the battle reached the wall.

When morning came, the Cid and the Valencians awoke to a strange sight: empty fields. The jihadist saviors of Valencia had retreated in the dark over the flooded plains, abandoning the city to its fate. A contemporary chronicle allots two sentences to this ignominious event: a large “army of Moabites [Almoravids], swiftly on its way to relieve the siege, approached Valencia. But they did not dare to commit themselves to battle with Roderick. Greatly fearful of him they dispersed by night and retired to their bases in confusion.”

Black despair now fell on the Moors of Valencia: “they were like drunkards who understand not one another,” wrote Ibn al-Qama; “they became as one that falls into the sea.” Their mood was not helped by the Cid’s army. Completely unopposed, it now surrounded the city’s walls and loudly reviled the oath-breaking Muslims with vows of unrestrained vengeance. Topping it all off, the famine had reached the point that “the poor were driven to eating the flesh of human corpses.” With no hope, Valencia finally surrendered to the Cid — “may the curse of Allah fall on his head!” to quote al-Maqqari — on today’s date, June 15, 1094, after a nearly nineteen-month-long besiegement, and Roderick Díaz of Vivar became its undisputed lord — literally, its sayyad, Cid.

Although it did not ostensibly concern them, even Europeans outside Spain rejoiced at this outstanding feat — for “the conquests by the Cid” were seen as “a barrier protecting, not only Spain, but the whole of Western Europe from the Moslem peril.”

The Cid’s conquest of Valencia is important for another reason: a contemporary document drawn out following that event underscores that the Cid—who most modern historians portray as a callous, irreligious mercenary—was in fact a committed Christian and “propagator of the Christian religion.” He further lamented how Spain had “endured sudden destruction … through the cruel sword of the sons of Hagar”—a reference to Islam’s invasion and conquest of Spain in the eighth century—and saw his struggle against the Muslims as an existential war against “the traps of our enemies both visible and invisible,” to quote from said document, signed by Roderick in 1098.

Although there is much more to say about the Cid’s exploits against the jihad, it is perhaps his conquest of Valencia that, when closely examined, truly underscores his remarkable nature. As Roderick’s modern biographer, Pidal, explains:

It savors of madness that a single man, unsupported by any national organization and lacking resources even for a single day, should appear before [the walls of] Valencia determined upon restoring a rule that had been overthrown this second time by an enemy [the Almoravids] who had proved irresistible to the strongest power in Spain [Emperor Alfonso VI]: that he should dream of doing what the Christian Emperor had failed to do, and in the teeth of the Moslem Emir’s opposition [and succeed is] … the most extraordinary achievement ever performed in Spain by anyone but a king.

This article was abstracted from Raymond Ibrahim’s Defenders of the West: The Christian Heroes Who Stood Against Islam (Chapter 2 of which is dedicated to the Cid).

Gatestone Institute

The Muslim doctrine of taqiyya, which permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims, is back in the news. In a speech delivered on May 20, 2023, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, according to a report,

used the Islamic concept of ‘Taqiyya’ to describe the regime’s decision to accept the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal with the West. Taqiyya means the permissibility to deny or conceal one’s real beliefs to secure a worthy goal.

Taqiyya, in fact, is one of the most important doctrines that Westerners always overlook in their dealings with Muslims. In short, it permits Muslims to say or do anything—from cursing and condemning Muhammad to being baptized and partaking of communion—so long as they remain committed Muslims at heart, and their deception either benefits themselves or Islam. (For copious documentation, see here).

For those with a discerning eye, taqiyya is all around us. Whether Muslims pretending to convert to Christianity (past and present), or whether an Islamic gunman gaining entrance inside a church by feigning interest in Christian prayers—examples abound on a regular basis.

As such, that Khamenei relied on the concept of taqiyya to pretend Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes is unsurprising.

According to the late Sami Mukaram, the world’s leading authority on taqiyya,

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.

Moreover, taqiyya is not merely about safeguarding one’s life but can be used to get an advantage over one’s enemy: “Taqiyya,” writes Mukaram, “in order to dupe the enemy is permissible.”

One example from the life of Muhammad: A poet, Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, had offended the prophet of Islam with his verse, prompting Muhammad once 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.

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

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

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—including through nuclear armament.

Professor Mukaram continues: “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.” [Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, pp. 41-42]

Indeed, 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 and Ottomans to reconquer the Iberian Peninsula.

From here one also understands why, according to the report, “the Supreme Leader often speaks with double meanings, leaving room for himself to shirk responsibility if a certain policy proves to be a failure.”

Speaking with double meanings—or a double-entendre—is also promoted by Islamic teaching, through the doctrine of tawriya, or “creative lying.”

Khamenei’s open employment of taqiyya is also unsurprising considering that, when speaking to one another, Muslims regularly reference taqiyya to justify their dealings with infidels.

For example, in 1994, after he made a peace treaty with Israel that was predictably criticized by fellow Arabs as offering too many concessions, PLO leader Yasser Arafat justified his actions by saying, “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca”—that is, a truce that Muhammad abolished on a pretext once he was in a position of power and able to go on the offensive.

In like manner, by referencing taqiyya in the context of Iran’s agreement to a nuclear deal with the West, Khamenei is signaling that Iran is only going along for expediency’s sake—until, that is, it finds itself in a position to renege and realize its nuclear aspirations. As Khamanei said during his speech, “Expediency means finding ways to circumvent difficult obstacles and pursuing the same path.”

In short , and as discussed and documented more fully here,

The prophet of Islam, Muhammad … 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.

That said, is there a single authority representing the West at these international nuclear talks that knows—let alone cares about—any of this? Or is the fix already in?