“All religions practice taqiyya, early Christians practiced taqiyya”
Muslims say the weirdest things to protect their genocidal cult. Thanks to Mullah
From Answering Muslims:
As everyone knows, the major media organizations were quick to defend Islam after the Fort Hood Massacre. What is now becoming clear is that some were deliberately deceptive in their efforts to portray Islam as peaceful. For instance, CNN wasted no time publishing an article by “the Muslim Guy,” Arsalan Iftikhar, who began his article as follows:
Most of the world’s 1.57 billion Muslims know that the Holy Quran states quite clearly that, “Anyone who kills a human being … it shall be as though he has killed all of mankind. … If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all of mankind.”
Accordingly, it should come as little surprise to any reasonable observer that when Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan recently committed his shocking acts of mass murder at Fort Hood, Texas, America’s Muslim community of over 7 million felt an added sense of horror and sadness at this senseless attack against the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces.
The problem, of course, is that Iftikhar has to massacre 5:32 in order to pretend that it provides proof that Islam forbids killing. In context, and with the omitted sections of the verse reinserted, the verse proves that the Fort Hood Massacre was entirely consistent with the teachings of the Qur’an. The proof is in this video:
Posted By David Meir-Levi On January 13, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 24 Comments
On May 10th, 1994, just a few months after signing the Oslo Accords (September, 1993), Yasir Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims in a Johannesburg mosque where he justified his actions by explaining: “This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraysh.” And he concluded by calling on the worshipers “to come and to fight and to start the jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”
What did those words mean?
Muhammad signed a 10-year truce with the Arabian pagan Quraysh tribe in the city of Mecca (the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, 628 AD). At the beginning of the second year of that ten-year period he found a pretext to justify breaking the truce. He pounced on the Quraysh in a surprise attack, conquered Mecca and defeated the Quraysh, who were not prepared for more hostilities since they were honoring the 10-year accord and assumed that Muhammad was too. Since then this agreement between Muhammad and the Quraysh has been an example for Muslims world-wide of how to trick the enemy in wartime. In other words, Arafat explained to his Muslim audience that he gave his word to President Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin, and signed the Oslo Accords, only because he planned to annul his commitments and attack Israel as soon as it was expedient for him to do so. He lied to Clinton and Rabin; but once he was out from under the scrutiny of western media and in the comfort of a Muslim group whose support he could assume, he told the truth to his Muslim audience. He was not aware that his speech was recorded.
Arafat’s lies to Clinton and Rabin were an excellent example of a 1,400 year old Muslim tradition of Taqiyya: tricking the enemy in wartime by offering a false peace or truce, but preparing to attack once the enemy lets down its guard.
Taqiyya (lit. ‘caution’) denotes the deceit or dissimulation used by Shiites, who may lie and even commit blasphemous acts to conceal their religion when they are under threat of persecution from majority Sunnis. It has long been used in its other manifestation, as an integral part of Muslim military strategy, employing trickery and deceit to mislead the enemy (for a detailed discussion see John Esposito’s The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Oxford University Press, 2003).
The Qur’an in a variety of verses (2:225, 3:28, 3:54, 9:3, 16:106, 40:28, and 66:2) establishes the religious legitimacy of breaking oaths, lying, unilaterally violating treaties, and generally scheming against non-Muslims. Allah Himself is described as “the best of schemers” (3:54, 8:30, 10:21), and Muhammad declared, as a justification for murdering unarmed prisoners after offering them safe passage, “war is deceit” (see the Hadith collection of Bukhari, vol. 4, book 52, nos. 268-271). So during the negotiations of Oslo I and II, Arafat’s willingness to acquiesce to Israeli demands was merely his acting as a good Muslim warrior, using taqiyya, deceit in warfare, to put his enemy at a disadvantage.
Arafat’s taqiyya began long before Oslo. For decades he told the West that he was just a scruffy little guy doing his best to keep his rough-neck boys (Fatah, the PLO, the el-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Hamas, inter alia) under control so that he could make peace with Israel; even as he called in Arabic for a million martyrs to march on Jerusalem to destroy Israel and create their “Palestine…from the river to the sea”. Similarly he told the west that he was trying to rein in Hamas and enforce the ban on terrorism to which he had agreed in the Oslo Accords. Yet, as became apparent when Israel invaded his muqata (military compound) in Ramallah during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, and translated thousands of documents taken from his files and computers, he in reality had partnered with Hamas, funded Hamas, armed Hamas, and aided in Hamas’ terrorism. Far too many in the West fell for his “good cop – bad cop” act.
Hamas too uses the taqiyya ruse at will, frequently telling the West that it really wants peace, but reminding its followers in Arabic that they must continue the ‘struggle’ (the terror war against Israel) until victory or martyrdom.
Examples of taqiyya are endless. To the west the PA explains its refusal to negotiate with Israel as a result of Israel’s settlement construction. But the reality is revealed in the Palestine Strategy Group’s 2009 proposal for a strategy of “intelligent resistance” (i.e., the priority of law fare, boycott campaigns and other anti-Israel propaganda over terrorism) as a means of continuing the struggle against Israel.
Fatah leader, Abbas Zaki, has repeatedly revealed the duplicity of the PA leaders. On April 9th 2008 he told NBN TV the following: “The PLO has not changed its platform even one iota….The PLO proceeds through phases…..Allah willing we will drive them out of all of Palestine.” The following year he revealed on Lebanese TV: “When we say that the settlement should be based upon these (1967) borders, President (Abbas) understands, we understand, and everybody knows, that the greater goal (destruction of Israel) cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end.” He then cautioned his listeners: “It is not acceptable policy to say that we want to wipe Israel out. Don’t say these things to the world, keep it to yourself.”
Mahmoud Abbas in an interview with European reporters (December, 2011) insisted that the PA’s unification with Hamas did not threaten the so-called “peace process:” ”We set the agreement’s pillars, and Hamas agreed with us that resistance will be popular and adopt peaceful ways, rather than military resistance.” But when Hamas celebrated its 23th anniversary in Gaza the same week (14 Dec 2011), Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh called upon the Muslim Brotherhood to start a war to liberate Jerusalem: “We affirm that armed resistance is our strategic option and the only way to liberate our land, from the (Mediterranean) sea to the River (Jordan.) God willing, Hamas will lead the people… to the uprising until we liberate Palestine, all of Palestine”.
Palestinian Media Watch recently published “Deception: Betraying the Peace Process,” which documents the hate-speech, hate-preach and hate-teach promoted by PA officials and Arab media, and the manner in which they lie about it to the west. The book, recently reviewed in the NY Times (but see here for a very harsh but accurate critique of the reviewer’s minimization of the PA’s strategy of deceit), lists many examples of deceit.
Despite its public pronouncements in English, the PA glorifies terrorists, libels Israel and promotes a culture of violence. Palestinian Authority television programs, including those on children’s quiz shows, portray cities along Israel’s Mediterranean coast, like Haifa, Jaffa and Acre, as being part of “Palestine.” Some news reports refer to Israel as the Palestinian interior.
A constant theme is the Palestinian denial of any Jewish historic or religious connection to Jerusalem or the Holy Land (see here for a summary and rebuttal of this Israel-denial).
A most recent example of Israel-denial is an op-ed in the Washington Post (12.21.2011) by the PA’s political representative in Washington, in which he promotes a series of fantasy assertions that Palestinians lived in Jericho 10,000 years ago, that Jews and Arabs lived in harmony until 1948, that Israel is to blame for Arab terrorism, and that the PA today has agreed to a two-state solution (for an accurate discussion of this new taqiyya, the invention of Palestinian ancient history, seehere).
It is nothing more than common sense that deception of the enemy during war is a commendable tactic and an important part of an effective military strategy. But in the context of war with Muslim powers, there is a critical difference that must be taken into consideration: jihad is eternal and “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only.” Therefore, every truce, treaty or cease-fire agreement made by a Muslim entity with a non-Muslim entity is nothing more than a treaty made to be broken, as soon as the Muslim side finds it useful to do so. This being the case, the most frightening aspect of Palestinian taqiyya is that our own leaders are repeatedly deceived by it, or worse, turn a blind eye to it. Recall that taqiyya is a strategy of deceit against adversaries in wartime. By making taqiyya such a major part of their strategy, PA leaders and Hamas demonstrate that, rather than trying to make peace, they are engaged in continuous war against Israel. So much for the peace process.
A Catholic anecdote says that Satan’s greatest victory was getting the world to believe that he did not exist. Did Satan learn about taqiyyeh from Allah, or the opposite?
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
To get the whole story on how the Left shapes our society to be tricked by Islamic taqiyya, read Jamie Glazov’s book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror.
Instead of trying to be “bold” and tackling a “controversial” topic, innate apologists would do better to simply remain silent.
In “Secret Muslims: Are Muslims allowed to hide their faith?” in Slate, July 3, Juliet Lapidos wonders “whether there’s a history of Muslims who deny their faith publicly while maintaining it privately.” She concludes:
Yes, if you’re a Shiite; maybe, if you’re a Sunni. According to Chapter 16, Verse 106 of the Quran, “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief—except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith—but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” Shiites cite this verse to justify taqiyya, a religious dispensation by which persecuted Muslims may hide their beliefs. But Sunni scholars have a more equivocal take. Some reject taqiyya as unacceptable hypocrisy and evidence of cowardice: Muslims shouldn’t fear other humans, only Allah. Others argue that concealment is warranted under life-threatening circumstances.
This is inaccurate. For starters, the author quotes a secondary verse to justify taqiyya; the primary verse (to say nothing of some very straightforward hadiths) that all the ulema have relied on to articulate doctrines of deception states: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers; whoever does so shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” (3:28).
Note: this verse says nothing about forced conversions. So why does Lapidos evoke 16:106, the one that does? As the remainder of her article makes clear, she wants to portray Islam as justifying dissembling only when non-Muslims try to forcefully convert Muslims—that and nothing else.
She goes on to claim that “Sunni scholars have a more equivocal take” regarding the validity of taqiyya, as opposed to Shias. While it is true that, historically, Shia minorities living among Sunni majorities have had more need to dissemble (tells you something about residing with Sunnis, no?), that is simply a quirk of circumstance. In other words, now that Sunnis are minority groups living among infidel majority groups, such as in the West, they, like Shias surrounded by Sunnis, have developed perhaps an even greater need to hide their true beliefs.
As for the notion that “some [Sunnis] reject taqiyya as unacceptable hypocrisy and evidence of cowardice…. Others argue that concealment is warranted under life-threatening circumstances,” the very first lines of one of the few Arabic books wholly dedicated to treating the doctrine of taqiyya, called al-Taqiyya fi al-Islam (“Taqiyya in Islam”), by Islamic studies professor Sami Makarem, unequivocally states in its opening page:
Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Nearly every Islamic sect has agreed to it and practices it….Indeed, we can go so far as to say that mainstream Islam practices taqiyya, and that those few sects that do not practice it are aberrant, diverging from the mainstream. (p.7)
Lapidos continues later on in her article:
Outside the Islamic world, there are two major historical examples of Muslims practicing taqiyya. During the 16th century, Catholic authorities in Spain gave the local (predominantly Sunni) Muslim population an ultimatum: Convert or leave the country. Some of the converts (called Moriscos by the Spanish) became sincere Catholics while others perpetuated their faith in private. Crypto-Muslims attended church services on Sundays but used Aljamiado—an Arabic alphabet for transcribing Romance languages—to secretly pass down Islamic traditions. In antebellum America, slaves from West Africa, many of whom were Muslim, were forced to convert to Christianity. As in medieval Spain, some slaves converted sincerely while others maintained their religion in secret.
Lapidos maintains that the “two major historical examples of Muslims practicing taqiyya” were when Christians tried to forcefully convert them—again, as if that’s the sole purpose of Muslim deceit. (Of course, subtly injecting the image of “intolerant,” “slave-driving” Christians goes a long way in justifying, or at least further clouding, the issue of taqiyya—especially for an audience such as Slate’s.) But aside from the fact that current events are full of Muslims engaging in taqiyya, and not because they fear for their faith—from “reneged” peace treatises with Israel and other infidel entities to terrorist-linked organizations and people like CAIR and Tariq Ramadan constantly proclaiming that “Islam means peace”—history in fact furnishes numerous anecdotes where Muslims deceived, and not because anyone was trying to force them into another religion, starting with Islam’s prophet Muhammad himself:
“Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.”
As for Islam’s ulema, Taqiyya in Islam quotes from a number of the most prominent, the vast majority of whom agree that taqiyya is not just limited to preserving one’s faith. Here, for instance, is the premiere exegete al-Tabari: “Allah Almighty has forbidden the believers from being friendly with infidels or from taking them as confidants in place of other beliers—except when they are clearly outnumbered by the infidels, in which case let them display outward friendliness, while holding onto their faith” (p.22).
After quoting from a number of other authoritative ulema, Makarem concludes that “There is no major difference between what al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Baydawi, and al-Jilalan all say in regards to taqiyya” (p.26).
Note: Tabari recommends that Muslims feign goodwill towards infidels not when the latter are trying to forcefully convert them, but because they are natural enemies, at least from a Muslim perspective. So, far from being a question of preserving their faith, taqiyya is to be practiced when Muslims are in the minority and living among majority infidels—precisely the scenario we have today in the West.
The Slate article tries to pull a fast one: it admits to taqiyya, but then quickly portrays it as “controversial” and only used as a last resort from Muslims trying to escape (Christian) persecution. Depicting an incomplete picture is worse than no picture, and Slate would have been more objective to stay silent on the matter. At any rate, I am more inclined to heeding the words of Islamic scholar Sami Makarem, who has written an entire book on taqiyya—not to mention the plain words of al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Baydawi, indeed, Muhammad himself—as opposed to half truths coming from one Juliet Lapidos.
Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam recently forwarded me an article titled “Tawriya: Islamic Doctrine of ‘Creative Lying’? Response to Raymond Ibrahim,” appearing on a website called Muslim Debate Initiative, and written by one Shadid (“Severe”) Lewis in response to my recent exposition on the doctrine of tawriya. Although this response—poorly written, poorly argued—would normally be ignored, I address it for three reasons: 1) To date, it is the only rebuttal I have seen from a Muslim concerning tawriya; 2) Far from rejecting tawriya, it actually validates it (the author spends his time chasing red herrings, not disproving the doctrine); 3) It is a good example of the speciousness and sophistry employed by those who try to downplay or rationalize some of Islam’s more problematic doctrines, in this case, tawriya. (Note: Although Shadid’s original article is littered with grammatical and punctuation errors, in the interest of readability, I have corrected the more egregious when quoting him.)
At the start, after informing readers that he “read the article of Raymond Ibrahim posted on Frontpagemag.com and I just had to respond,” Shadid argues that tawriya really “means deliberate ambiguity rather than creative lying.” Discerning readers understand such euphemisms change nothing about the doctrine.
After I pointed out that most Muslim scholars (or ulema) are agreed that tawriya should not be used to commit an “injustice,” I added “‘injustice’ as defined by Sharia, of course, not Western standards.” To this, Shadid responds: “Says who? None of the sources he [me] cited said as only defined by Sharia. A commonly known wrong is a commonly known wrong just the same in Islam (stealing, cheating, murder, etc. is wrong and accepted as such in Islam).”
First, of course the Muslim authorities do not bother pointing out that they mean justice and injustice as defined by Sharia; that’s a given. Likewise, anyone familiar with Islamic law and doctrine—presumably Muslims like Shadid himself—know that many of Islam’s views on “right” and “wrong” do not agree with “universal standards.” One example: Islamic law holds that any Muslim who converts out of Islam and refuses to return is an apostate to be executed. Whereas in Islam, such executions are deemed “just,” from a Western point of view, which acknowledges religious freedom, they are unjust. In this context, then, it is “just” to use tawriya (lying) to enable the execution of an apostate.
Next, Shadid distracts the issue by making irrelevant points: “Sheikh Al-Munajjid, another source cited by the article’s author, said excessive use of puns leads to lying. So the claim that this [tawriya] can be used whenever and wherever is a lie in itself.”
Yes, at the very end of his fatwa, after giving many proofs validating tawriya, Munajjid warned that too much tawriya can “lead one to slip into a lie,” meaning that, by getting caught up in one’s own dissembling game, one can end up committing an actual lie—one that is not “technically” true, a criterion of tawriya—without realizing it. More to the point, saying that some ulema warn against using tawriya too much, does not change the fact that Islam permits lying through tawriya, and that it is up to the individual Muslim to decide how much is too much.
Shadid continues: “Al Munajjid said this [tawriya] is used for embarrassing circumstances. Yet the author would have us believe Muslims can use this to lie in business transactions, and to take peoples’ property and other commonly accepted wrong activities.”
Seems like Shadid is engaging in his own bit of tawriya here: yes, Munajjid did say tawriya can be used for embarrassing circumstances, but he mentioned embarrassment as an example of, not the sole justification for, tawriya. Rather, the two criteria he gave, and which I noted in my original article, are 1) that the words literally fit the alternate meaning, so that the lie is technically true, and 2) that there is a “legitimate need” (i.e., a Sharia compliant need).
Caught up in his own convoluted logic/tawriya, Shadid next contradicts himself: “Another source cited by the articles author which he ignores is: Al-Nawawi, who said the deliberate ambiguity [tawriya] is permissible if the need arises or a legitimate interest …”—there it is again, “legitimate interest.” In other words, Nawawi, just like Munajjid, is simply another Muslim scholar who confirms that tawriya is permissible if it serves a “legitimate interest,” i.e., if the lie enables something deemed “legitimate” according to Sharia.
Then there are Shadid’s ridiculous arguments:
Mr. Ibraham told us Muhammad is recorded 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” (Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).
However the source he cites clearly is Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30). Did you catch it? The source is about AL TAQIYYA not about TAWRIYA. And taqiyya deals with a situation only when a Muslim’s life is in immediate danger [not true] and they utter words of disbelief because they are threatened with being killed or tortured. Thus this citation does not support any proof for “creative lying.”
Apparently Shadid’s point is that any quote contained in a book that is not specifically devoted to the topic of the quote, is to be ignored. This is tantamount to saying “I reject any quote on jihad, regardless of the authority, unless it comes from a book with the word ‘jihad’ in its title. But if the title of the book is, say, ‘Islamic Law,’ or ‘War in Islam,’ then the quote on jihad is inadmissible.”
Better for you, Shadid, to address the actual quote itself—that your prophet’s mission was rooted in obfuscation, according to his own words—rather than quibble about the title of the book containing the quote.
Next he complains that I misrepresented a hadith when I wrote:
Muhammad said: “If any of you ever pass gas or soil yourselves during prayers [breaking wudu], hold your nose and leave” (Sunan Abu Dawud): ” Holding one’s nose and leaving implies smelling something offensive—which is true—though people will think it was someone else who committed the offense.”
According to Shadid:
Those familiar with this hadith can quickly see that Ibrahim has added his own conclusion about this hadith not endorsed by the Islamic position. No where is it taught that this hadith teaches for one to pass gas and leave thereby allowing some one else to take the blame for passing gas and the offensive smell.
Yet, he fails to mention that this hadith figures in the literature devoted to justifying tawriya, including Munajjid’s fatwa. And if this hadith does not teach “one to pass gas and leave thereby allowing some one else to take the blame for passing gas and the offensive smell,” then what is its significance, why does Muhammad teach to hold the nose, and why are the ulema referring to it in the context of tawriya? After all, wasn’t Shadid himself arguing earlier that tawriya is to be used only for “embarrassing” situations—and what’s more embarrassing than this?
In light of all the above, readers are free to conclude whether, as Shadid put it, my article on tawriya is “a clear example of how these haters just make up blatant lies to taint Islamic teachings and draw false conclusions based on their over zealous bias against Islam,” or whether Shadid’s entire rebuttal—which strains out a gnat while accepting that Islam permits lying—is itself an example of obfuscation.