God’s view of telling lies, for any reason:

“The unclean are shut out, and so are all who practise magic, all fornicators, all murderers, and those who worship idols, and every one who loves falsehood and tells lies.’ (Revelation 22:15)

Does not bode well for muslims, for a number of reasons.

by Hesperado

The Latin words Tu Quoque literally mean “You too”.

The Tu Quoque Fallacy, put simply, is the fallacy of responding to a criticism with –

“You also do those bad things you are accusing me of doing”

– instead of actually dealing with the points of the criticism.

This deflection of criticism is a type of obfuscation that evades the responsibility of addressing the arguments put forth by the critic.

The Tu Quoque is used by the object of the criticism. Thus, if a non-Muslim criticizes a Muslim for the Islam he follows, the most common deployment of Tu Quoque comes out of the mouth of the Muslim, attempting to turn the tables of the criticism back on his accuser, the non-Muslim critic.

Now, what about the non-Muslim who defends Islam? You know the type — they are all around us in the West; indeed, I maintain they are the mainstream majority.

To explain their use of the Tu Quoque Fallacy, I have coined the term the “Ego Quoque Fallacy”. The variation Ego Quoque means literally “Me too”.

When a non-Muslim, in a dialogue with a fellow non-Muslim, criticizes Islam or Muslims, and when that fellow non-Muslim happens to be deformed by PC MC, he will tend to respond to the criticism of Islam or Muslims by jumping in to defend them with a variation on the Tu Quoque Fallacy. Since, of course, the non-Muslim is not a Muslim, but rather belongs to the same civilizational or cultural community as his fellow non-Muslim, I call his similar ploy the Ego Quoque Fallacy. It is, in effect, saying:

“Well, we also do the bad things we are accusing them of doing”

or:

“Well, we’re no better than they are.”

This is, on the surface, a rather self-sacrificing posture, potentially noble and laudable and open-minded. In the context of PC MC, however, it lurches into the territory of the incoherent, the inane, the perverse, the hypocritical, the treasonous and the suicidal — particularly when the object of the criticism (Islam) is an outrageously anti-liberal system which is nourishing innumerable fanatics around the globe who want to destroy us if they cannot subjugate us to their evil totalitarianism.

Thus, in our politically correct times, we commonly encounter the normal perversity of a non-Muslim Westerner coming righteously to the defense of Islam and Muslims whenever they are criticized, by employing the Ego Quoque Fallacy – usually manifested in various questions meant to be self-evidently rhetorical:

What about the Crusades?
What about the Spanish Inquisition?
What about the witch-burnings?
What about Christian wars of religion?
What about slavery?
What about Western Colonialism?
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What about Vietnam?
What about the “genocide” of the American Indians?
What about Abu Ghraib?

Etc., ad nauseam.

Indeed, President Obama did exactly this in his speech on April 6, 2009, before the parliament of Turkey when, in the context of the subject of the attempted genocide of Armenians by Turks which he with gingerly (yet transparent) adroitness sidestepped, he invoked “the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans.”

The purpose of these falsely rhetorical questions, of course, is to counter the criticism of Islam and Muslims by saying, “We the West have been just as bad, so who are we to throw stones…?” The fundamental incoherence of this tactic rarely dawns on the person using it: Is he saying that we used to be as bad as Muslims, but are no longer? — in which case why does he maintain opposition to our criticism of Islam? And does this not matter?

Or is he saying that we are still as bad? On what basis then does he believe in any ethic worth pursuing sociopolitically, if he thinks everybody, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are equally bad? On what basis is ethical progress to be pursued when all sides are equally bad? Where does the blueprint for progress come from?

The answer to that last question can not be rendered coherently when we try to explain our fellow PC MCs, for their heads and hearts are in a muddle about this. For our fellow Leftists, however, the question acquires increasing clarity the more radical they are (leading to the fork of Leftist Fascism or Leftist Communism): the blueprint for progress in their case derives from the utopian complex of modern Gnosticism, which seeks to destroy their own wicked West and replace it with, or transfigure it into, an immanentized eschaton. Beyond Leftist Revolution against the West lies a further, ultimate position, which may be crystallizing in our time: conversion to Islam — i.e., joining the Jihad against one’s own West. The Leftist terrorist of the 80s, “Carlos the Jackal”, for example, has precisely discovered this sublime way to express the self-hate he has been cultivating all his life. In his special prison cell outside Paris, he has converted to Islam, and has written a book about how the Communist ideal for world transformation is best realized through Islam.

At this juncture is where another twist on the Tu Quoque Fallacy is illuminated, for which I came up with a second coinage: the Ego Peior Fallacy. The word “peior” in Latin means “worse”. The term thus means, effectively:

“We are worse than they are”.

The Ego Peior is the ulterior position beneath the incoherence of the Eqo Quoque. No longer is the PC MC Westerner trying to argue that “We are just as bad as they are”. What he really intends is something even stranger: “We are actually worse than they are.”

Thus, often those who employ the Ego Quoque are not merely positing a level playing field of “Well, we are just as bad as they are”. Oftentimes what is lurking beneath the apparent equivalency of the Ego Quoque is the deeper Ego Peior — “We are worse than they are.”

The logical conclusion of this pathos can only be either to willingly submit as dhimmis to the superior civilization of Islam, or to convert to Islam and join the Jihad against one’s own worse West.

This, however, is an option — psychologically and subculturally — only for the disaffected Leftists of the West; the PC MCs of the West tend to prefer to try to maintain an incoherent balance between cultivating a glibly profound self-hatred and self-shame of their own West, while at the same time blithely enjoying — and even sustaining — its advantages.

The Ego Peior beneath the Ego Quoque is fundamentally incoherent, and the clearest formulation that can be wrested from it is the startling, and absurd, paradox I discovered to lie at the heart of Montaigne’s self-critique of his own West:

“We are worse because we are better.”

The fundamental incoherence of Ego Quoque can be kept in suspense virtually forever, as the interlocutor deploys other diversionary tactics either out of a muddled head deformed by PC MC, or out of a darker antipathy to the West that festers in Leftism.

In sum, the Tu Quoque/Ego Quoque/Ego Peior Complex does not really even rise to the level of a logical fallacy: it resembles more the elementary tactic of childish evasion, further warped by the neurosis of PC MC, or the psychosis of Leftism. All these deficiencies do not, however, prevent it from being used regularly and nearly universally, among our millions of fellow Westerners whenever one has the impertinence of raising criticisms of Islam and of its followers.

Further Reading:

For an extended analysis of the Tu Quoque/Ego Quoque/Ego Peior complex, see my essay on Montaigne.

It is a misstatement of facts to say that patience under attack
was taught at Makkah, because there was no other alternative, and
that the right to repel attack came at Madßnah. The attitude was no
doubt changed but that change was due to the change of circumstances.
At Makkah there was individual persecution and patience
was taught. If the conditions had remained the same at Madßnah,
the Muslim attitude would have been the same. But individual
persecution could no more be resorted to by the Quraish of
Makkah, as the Muslims were living out of their reach. This very
circumstance fanned the fire of their wrath, and they now planned
the extinction of the Muslims as a nation. The sword was taken up
to annihilate the Muslim community or to compel it to return to
unbelief. That was the challenge thrown at them, and the Holy
Prophet had to meet it. The Holy Qur’ån bears the clearest testimony
to it. The earliest permission to repel attack is conveyed in
words which show that the enemy had already taken up the sword
or decided to do so: “Permission (to fight) is given to those on
whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allåh
is able to assist them — Those who are driven from their homes
without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allåh. And
if Allåh did not repel some people by others, cloisters and churches
and synagogues and mosques, in which Allåh’s name is much
remembered would have been pulled down. And surely Allåh will
help him who helps His cause” (22:39, 40). The very words of
this verse show that it is the earliest on the subject of fighting, as
it speaks of a permission being given now which evidently had
not been given up to this time. This permission was given to a
people upon whom war was made by their enemies (yuqåtal∂na);
and it was not a permission to make war with people in general
but only with the people who made war on them, and the reason
is stated plainly “because they are oppressed” and “have been
expelled from their homes without a just cause.” It was clearly an
aggressive war on the part of the enemies of Islåm who thus
sought to exterminate the Muslims or to compel them to forsake
their religion: “And they will not cease fighting with you until
they turn you back from your religion if they can” (2:217). It was
a holy war in the truest sense because, as stated further on, if war
had not been allowed under these circumstances, there would be
no peace on earth, no religious liberty, and all houses for the worship
of God would be destroyed. Indeed there could be no war
holier than the one which was needed as much for the religious
liberty of the Muslims as for the principle of religious liberty
itself, as much to save the mosques as to save the cloisters and the
synagogues and churches. If there had ever been a just cause for
war in this world, it was for the war that had been permitted to the
Muslims. And undoubtedly war with such pure motives was a
jihåd, a struggle carried on simply with the object that truth may
prosper and that freedom of conscience may be maintained.
The second verse giving to the Muslims permission to fight runs
as follows: “And fight in the way of Allåh against those who fight
against you, and be not aggressive; surely Allåh loves not the
aggressors” (2:190). Here again the condition is plainly laid down
that the Muslims shall not be the first to attack, they had to fight—
it had now become a duty—but only against those who fought
against them; aggression was expressly prohibited. And this fighting
in self-defence is called fighting in the way of Allåh (fi sabßlillåh),
because fighting in defence is the noblest and justest of all
causes. It was the cause Divine, because if the Muslims had not
fought they would have been swept out of existence, and there
would have been none to establish Divine Unity on earth. These
were the very words in which the Holy Prophet prayed in the field
of Badr: “O Allåh! I beseech Thee to fulfil Thy covenant and Thy
promise; O Allåh! if Thou wilt (otherwise), Thou wilt not be worshipped
anymore” (Bu.56:89). The words fi sabßli-llåh are misinterpreted
by most European writers as meaning the propagation of
Islåm. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Muslims were
not fighting to force Islåm on others; rather they were being fought
to force them to renounce Islåm, as shown by (2:217) quoted
above. What a travesty of facts to say that war was undertaken by
the Muslims for the propagation of Islåm!
It is sometimes asserted that these injunctions, relating to defensive
fighting, were abrogated by a later revelation in ch. 9. Yet anyone
who reads that chapter cannot fail to note that it does not make
the slightest change in the principles laid down earlier. Fighting
with idolaters is enjoined in the ninth chapter, but not with all of
them. In the very first verse of that chapter, the declaration of
immunity is directed towards only “those of the idolaters with
whom you made an agreement” not all the idolaters—and even in
their case an exception is made. “Except those of the idolaters with
whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in
anything and have not backed up anyone against you, so fulfill their
agreement to the end of their terms; for Allåh loves those who keep
their duty’’ (9:4). This shows that there were idolatrous tribes on
friendly terms with the Muslims, and the Muslims were not allowed
to fight with them; it was only the hostile tribes who broke their
agreements and attacked the Muslims that were to be fought
against. And individual idolaters, even if belonging to hostile tribes,
could still have safety, if they wanted to enquire about Islåm, and
were given a safe conduct back home even if they did not accept
Islåm: “And if anyone of the idolaters seek protection by thee, protect
him till he hears the word of Allåh, then convey him to his
place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not”
(9:6). The idolater who stood in need of protection evidently
belonged to a hostile tribe, because the friendly tribes, being in
alliance with the Muslims, had no need of seeking protection of the
Muslim government. Thus even a hostile idolator was to be sent
back safely to his own tribe and not molested in anyway, as the
words of the verse show. The idolaters with whom fighting was
enjoined were those who had violated treaties and were foremost in
attacking Muslims, as the words that follow show: “If they prevail
against you, they respect neither ties of relationship, nor of
covenant in your case” (9:8). “Will you not fight a people who
broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger and
they attacked you first” (9:13). Thus chapter 9, which is supposed
to abrogate the earlier verses, still speaks of fighting only against
those idolaters who “attacked you first”, and this is the very condition
laid down in earlier verses, such as (2:190).
So-called “Verse of the Sword”
Notwithstanding that ch.9, as shown above, does not go beyond
what is contained in the earliest revelations on the subject of war,
the fifth verse of that chapter is called by some people “the verse of
the sword”, as if it inculcated the indiscriminate massacre of all
idolators or unbelievers. The misconception is due to the fact that
the words are taken out of their context, and a significance is forced
on them which the context cannot bear. The following words occur
in the 5th verse: “So when the sacred months have passed away,
slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5). But similar words
occur also in the earliest revelation on the subject: “And kill them
wherever you find them” (2:191). In both places it is the context
which makes it clear as to the identity of the persons regarding
whom the order is given. In both cases those against whom the
order is given are the people who have taken up the sword and
attacked the Muslims first. It has already been shown that the
injunction to fight against the idolaters, as contained in the opening
verses of the 9th chapter, relates only to such idolatrous tribes as
had made agreements with the Muslims and then broken them and
had attacked the Muslims, and not to all idolatrous people, wherever
they may be found in the world. If only we read the verse that
precedes the fifth verse, not the shadow of a doubt will remain that
all idolaters are not spoken of here. For the fourth verse, as quoted
already, states that those idolaters were not within the purview of
the order who had remained faithful to their agreements. The order
was therefore directed against specified idolatrous tribes, the tribes
that had made agreements with the Muslims and broken them
repeatedly, as expressly stated in (8:56). It is a mistake to regard the
order as including all idolatrous people living anywhere in the
world or even in Arabia. And if the verse preceding the so-called
“verse of the sword” makes a clear exception in case of all friendly
idolatrous tribes, that following it immediately makes a clear
exception in favour of such members of idolatrous hostile tribes as
ask the protection of the Muslims (see v. 6, quoted in the preceding
paragraph). And then continuing the subject, it is further laid down
that the order relates only to people “who broke their oaths and
aimed at the expulsion of the prophet and they attacked you first”
(9:13). With such a clear explanation of the fifth verse contained in
the preceding and following verses, no sane person would interpret
it as meaning the killing of all idolaters or the carrying on of unprovoked
war against all idolatrous tribes.
To read the remaining article, plz view the book:
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/bookspdf/jihadinislam.pdf

http://staringattheview.blogspot.com/2010/05/omid-safi-memories-of-muhammad.html

Following is my comment from that posting on Reza’s description of Muhammad’s early raids in Medina:

In No god but God, Reza Aslan describes Muhammad’s practice of robbing trade caravans as follows, “Just to make sure the Quraysh got Muhammad’s message challenging Mecca’s religious and economic hegemony over the Peninsula, he sent his followers out into the desert to take part in the time-honored Arab tradition of caravan raiding. In pre-Islamic Arabia, caravan raiding was a legitimate means for small clans to benefit from the wealth of larger ones. It was in no way considered stealing (italics mine), and as long as no violence occurred and no blood was shed, there was no need for retribution. The raiding party would quickly descend on a caravan – usually at its rear – and carry off whatever they could get their hands on before being discovered. These periodic raids were certainly a nuisance for the caravan leaders, but in general they were considered part of the innate hazards of transporting large amounts of goods through a vast and unprotected desert.”

So robbing caravans carrying the foodstuffs entire Arab tribes depended upon for survival was just a matter of boys will be boys, like university students on spring break in Daytona? Tell that to Amr bin al-Hadrami. He was leading a trade caravan carrying dry raisins, leather, and other goods when Muhammad’s marauders decided to attack. Historian Ibn Ishaq records that the Muslims determined to kill as many caravan personnel as possible before making off with the booty. Amr was killed with an arrow, the others were taken prisoner and later released for ransom, and Muhammad was given one-fifth of all the stolen merchandise.

The truth is that most of the people who migrated with Muhammad from Mecca to Medina were poor ex-slaves with no skills or trade. They joined illiterate Arab tribespeople in Medina who had migrated north from Yemen a few generations before and both worked for and stole from the Jewish majority who had lived in Medina for six centuries and were excellent farmers and tradesmen. The Muslims quickly put themselves in opposition to the Jews, and rather than meeting their economic needs by forming their own trade caravans found it easier to plunder the caravans of others.

“No god but God”, Reza Aslan

http://staringattheview.blogspot.com/2010/05/omid-safi-memories-of-muhammad.html

by Raymond Ibrahim

How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War

According to Shari’a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—deception is not only permitted in certain situations but may be deemed obligatory in others. Contrary to early Christian tradition, for instance, Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves, based on Qur’anic verses forbidding Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.

This is the classic definition of the doctrine of taqiyya. Based on an Arabic word denoting fear, taqiyya has long been understood, especially by Western academics, as something to resort to in times of religious persecution and, for the most part, used in this sense by minority Shi’i groups living among hostile Sunni majorities. Taqiyya allowed the Shi’a to dissemble their religious affiliation in front of the Sunnis on a regular basis, not merely by keeping clandestine about their own beliefs but by actively praying and behaving as if they were Sunnis.

However, one of the few books devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam) makes it clear thattaqiyya is not limited to Shi’a dissimulating in fear of persecution. Written by Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book clearly demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of 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.”

Taqiyya is, therefore, not, as is often supposed, an exclusively Shi’i phenomenon. Of course, as a minority group interspersed among their Sunni enemies, the Shi’a have historically had more reason to dissemble. Conversely, Sunni Islam rapidly dominated vast empires from Spain to China. As a result, its followers were beholden to no one, had nothing to apologize for, and had no need to hide from the infidel nonbeliever (rare exceptions include Spain and Portugal during the Reconquista when Sunnis did dissimulate over their religious identity). Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in the place of the Shi’a: Now they are the minority surrounded by their traditional enemies—Christian infidels—even if the latter, as opposed to their Reconquista predecessors, rarely act on, let alone acknowledge, this historic enmity. In short, Sunnis are currently experiencing the general circumstances that madetaqiyya integral to Shi’ism although without the physical threat that had so necessitated it.

The Articulation of Taqiyya

Qur’anic verse 3:28 is often seen as the primary verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims: “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.”

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of a standard and authoritative Qur’an commentary, explains verse 3:28 as 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] God 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.”

Regarding Qur’an 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prime 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].”

Other prominent scholars, such as Abu ‘Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi ‘d-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: “Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity—even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.”

- “Slay the unbelievers wherever you catch them.” (2:291)
- “Fight them, until there is no more dissent and religion is that of Allâh” (2:193)
- “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks (beheading) and smite all their fingertips off them.” (8:12)

Did you know that dehumanization is the 3rd stage of the genocide process ( http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html )?:

- ““The vilest of *animals* in Allâh’s sight are those who disbelieve.” (8:55)
- “Verily, the *unbelievers are unclean*.” (9:28), etc.

Taqiyya (Raymond Ibrahim)

An important article about the Muslim religious doctrine of deceit in wartime, by Raymond Ibrahim, was published in Middle East Quarterly.

Read the whole thing.

From Answering Muslims:

Deliberate Deception: CNN and Arsalan Iftikhar Massacre Qur’an 5:32 in Order to Defend Islam

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.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=barDTNhEz-4[/youtube]
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 above.

Update:

A comment from Hugh Fitzgerald:

Fitzgerald: When Obama Channels Bush, Or, Qur’an 5.32 Without 5.33

“The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” — from the speech by Barack Obama

Is that really what the “Holy Koran” teaches? It’s true, there is a verse in the Qur’an, taken verbatim from an earlier Jewish text, that says “whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind,” etc.

But that verse, verse 5.32, in the Qur’an is followed by another verse, one that Barack Obama carefully or carelessly — it hardly matters which — chose to overlook, and by overlooking, mislead not his Muslim audience (who were no doubt pleased he left out, just as any Muslim apologist for Islam would have left out, the following verse 5.33) but rather, all of the world’s Infidels, which includes 99% of the American people, whose welfare he is supposed to keep foremost in mind, for the right instruction and the protection of the American people is his solemn duty.

We’ve been here before, of course. When Barack Obama quotes 5.32 and leaves out 5.33, he is merely channeling George Bush. For Bush, in his deep respect for the “religion” of Islam, liked to quote the same Qur’anic passage, that is, 5.32. The passage, of course, one of the more appealing ones in the Qur’an, was lifted wholesale from the Jewish text of the Mishnah. Barack Obama might have recognized that, but he didn’t dare — for if he had said it, it would have infuriated Muslims. They don’t want to have the Qur’an’s sources in other, prior monotheisms, revealed, and they don’t even want the elements, such as the djinn, borrowed wholesale from pre-Islamic Arab pagan lore, connected to their original sources. For the Qur’an is for Muslims never to be subjected to the kind of historical analysis that was done for both Judaism and Christianity by the practitioners of what is called the Higher Criticism, beginning with Julius Wellhausen and other German and English Protestant scholars of the mid-to-late 19th century.

What Bush always left out, and what Obama left out today, was the following passage, 5.33, that was added by the composers of the Qur’an and that they did not lift from any Jewish text. This is 5.33:

“The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land” (Qur’an 5:33).

And who do those who take their Islam most feelingly to heart and most thoughtfully to mind think are the people who “make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land”? Why, it’s non-Muslims, it’s the Infidels, the ones who do not submit to Islam but for some strange reason hew to their own non-Muslim beliefs, and their own legal and political institutions and founding documents (such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man in France, and the Constitution of the United States in this country). Those institutions and which founding documents are flatly contradicted by the letter and spirit of the Shari’a, the Holy Law of Islam, and thus those who continue to support them are people who, in the Muslim view, are not acting defensively but offensively. Anyone who resists Islam is making offensive war on Islam, and thus they are those who “make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land” — so that, according to 5.33, that follows the appropriated Jewish text of 5.32, they should be “killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.”

Fitzgerald: Cat’s out of the bag
Those at the Emory Wheel are reduced to this transparent nonsense of Taqiyya and Tu Quoque. How else can they proceed? They know what is in the texts. They know what states, societies, families suffused with Islam are taught. They know the tenets. They know the attitudes. They are well used to the atmospherics. They just don’t know how to handle those Infidels who also know those texts, those teachings, those attitudes, those atmospherics.

And there is nothing they can do to stop more and more Infidels, as they pick up their newspapers or turn on the evening news, from realizing how much of it is about this or that local manifestation of the worldwide and permanent Jihad — which can only get worse, and examples of which will only proliferate. Those Infidels will find out, slowly and then more rapidly, in greater and greater numbers, about Islam. There is nothing Islamic apologists can do about this, try as they will to lie, or to hide, or to distract with irrelevancies, or by appeals to Western “guilt” and false claims of victimization. Islam itself, as the vehicle for Arab imperialism, is the most successful imperialist project in history, the force which caused whole peoples to jettison and ignore, or despise, their own histories, pre-Islamic or non-Islamic. In light of that, the raising of idiotic claims of “racism” will not forever prevent Infidels, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and all others, everywhere and not just here in this country, from finding out about Islam.

How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War
Here is an illuminating piece that you would do well to keep around for future reference: “How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War: Defeating Jihadist Terrorism,” by our old Jihad Watch friend, the great scholar Raymond Ibrahim in the Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2010:

Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion of the law. Islam’s dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal its paradoxical nature: While the Qur’an is against believers deceiving other believers–for “surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar”–deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur’anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.

Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to the glorious end of Islamic hegemony under Shari’a, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims. In this sense, lying in the service of altruism is permissible. In a recent example, Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri publicly recounted a story where a Muslim lied and misled a Jew into converting to Islam, calling it a “beautiful trick.”

Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one’s religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi’i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya–not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal–sometimes superior–to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

Yet if Muslims are exhorted to be truthful, how can deceit not only be prevalent but have divine sanction? What exactly is taqiyya? How is it justified by scholars and those who make use of it? How does it fit into a broader conception of Islam’s code of ethics, especially in relation to the non-Muslim? More to the point, what ramifications does the doctrine of taqiyya have for all interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims?

. . . continue reading . . . .

Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah

by Warner MacKenzie/ Islam Watch

Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]

“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38]

The word “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.

Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur’an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart. (See endnotes)

Like many Islamic practices, taqiyya was formed within the context of the culture of Arab tribalism, expansionary warfare, Bedouin raiding and inter-tribal conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse, confound and divide ‘the enemy’.

A favoured tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; used to persuade the enemy that preparations for a raid were not aimed at them but at another tribe altogether. The fate in store for the deceived enemy target was an unexpected plunderous raid, enslavement of the women and death to the post-pubescent males.

The core foundation of hyper-masculine Arab culture is bound up in perceptions of “honour and shame”. At all times, he (it’s usually a male) must avoid having his face “blackened” by words or actions which are a slight upon, a challenge or affront to, his status in the family or broader social / tribal group. To be open, frank and forthright or to make self-damning admissions in his dealings (particularly with the infidel enemy) is to leave himself open and vulnerable to humiliating shame and to the subsequent disrespect from his peers. Tongues will wag in the bazaar’s coffee shops and rumours will rapidly spread that so-and-so has lost his “manliness” and status. In short, he is no longer worthy of deferential respect; to an Arab, this is worse than death itself.

The higher one is placed in the social order (or rather, on how important the individual perceives himself to be), the more imperative it becomes to strenuously avoid “loss of face”. The male’s perceived loss of honour and status, must be redressed and his face “whitened”, i.e. his honour regained and restored, at any cost; even to the extent of (as in the honour killing of daughters) murdering the person “responsible” for causing the initial humiliation. When taqiyya is used to avoid making an admission or concession it is simply an essential means of ensuring that ones honour and standing remain intact and untarnished. Blood feuds and vendettas, caused by an ancient humiliation of a long dead ancestor, can persist, fuelled and propelled by shame and honour, for generations. Muhammad, who is promoted as every Muslim’s exemplar, set the precedent for vengeful retaliation when he ordered the murder of those who mocked or satirised him and, as he was an Arab, caused him potential loss of face. [See link, “Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society”]

Outwitting:

Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of ‘outwitting’. The skilled taqiyya-tactician doesn’t want the matter at hand to be debated or discussed; so his opponent must be outwitted or preemptively outflanked by the use of taqiyya. The objective is to divert attention away from the subject through duplicity and obfuscation.

The claim is often made that difficulties in translating from Arabic to English makes the meaning of what they say or write difficult or impossible to convey….this is simply another subterfuge. Keysar Trad has repeatedly claimed that Sheikh Hilali’s obnoxious, inflammatory and misogynistic comments have been “mistranslated”, misquoted or “taken out of context”. The aim of this ploy is to dilute or neutralise public opprobrium. The use of independent translators has, in the past, disproved his assertions. The Sheikh states what he believes to be correct according to Islamic precepts and his “interpreter” reconfigures the statement to make it palatable to the unwitting listener.

Consider the following statement by Mr. Trad on the February 24 2006.

Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, told Reuters that Australian Muslims

agreed with Costello’s (Australia’s Treasurer, Peter Costello) sentiments about being good, law abiding citizens.

“But to continually single out the Muslim community like this is very unhelpful, it’s very divisive and it does stir up Islamophobia”,

Trad said.

“We’re proud to be Australian and our religion strongly stipulates that if you make an oath, whether it’s an oath of citizenship or any other oath, that you honour it, abide by it.”

However, the Prophet Muhammad seems to have a different idea on the subject.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427:

“By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. Then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’ ”

Role playing as the victim:

When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the ‘the victims’. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and ‘outwitting’….. Defence by offence.

Manipulative ambiguity and Semantics:

Sheik Hilali and the late Yasser Arafat are both on public record as (a) ‘condemning’ the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their Arabic speaking audiences .

Islamic spokesmen will rarely unequivocally condemn a specific act of terrorism and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.

(NB: because Muslims regard Islamic attacks as “jihad”, and not terrorism, their spokesmen can truthfully deny any support for terrorism.)

Interviewers would be better advised to ask the more precise question “do you believe in jihad against the unbelievers?

However, a direct question requiring a simple “YES” or “NO” reply is rarely forthcoming and is usually deflected by responding with a tangentially irrelevant rejoinder or, in an attempt to neutralise the original question, counter-challenging with another question such as “are you in favour of killing children in Iraq?”…..Touché and Checkmate!

Diversion, deflection and “tu quoque”:

Questions relating to the 9/11 terrorist attacks will usually be diverted by either making outrageously wild conspiracy claims “the CIA did it to give the U.S. an excuse to attack Muslims,… Mossad was the perpetrator… No Jews came to work at the World Trade Centre on September 11” etc. or by making an irrelevant counter reference to “the plight of the Palestinians”,.. Iraqis,.. colonialism,.. the crusades, or US foreign policy’s support for Israel” as the ‘root causes’ of terrorism.

Then, of course, there’s the ever popular, specious allegation that George Bush is a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden.

Diversionary “tu quoque” response ploys usually start with the words “but” or “what about…?” in an attempt to turn, and transfer an equal culpability back on their interlocutor.

Demanding ‘evidence’:

Islamic spokesmen practice a form of taqiyya defined in psychology as ‘cognitive denial’ by repetitive and persistent demands of ‘where is the evidence!’ and ‘prove it!’ whenever there is Muslim complicity in terrorist acts, evidence, which they know very well, for security or legal sub-judice restraints, can not be disclosed. If indeed the “evidence” were to be publicly presented, they would then move on to the familiar “prejudicial to the defendant receiving a fair trial–grounds for a mistrial” default position.

Tactical denial:

Rather than admitting that a proposition concerning a subject under discussion can be partly true, an Islamic spokesman will flatly deny a claim or proposition in absolute terms. For example, “It is impossible to be a Muslim and a terrorist”; this semantic argument is purely a matter of definition, because radical Islamists don’t define their violent attacks as terrorism, but jihad. (i.e. holy war in the way of Allah) .Another popular assertion is that ‘Islam forbids suicide’, which is true, but by virtue once again of definition, irrelevant, because suicide bombings are regarded as “martyrdom operations” and are therefore not forbidden, but on the contrary, admirable and praiseworthy. Muslim spokesmen are also fond of using extreme hyperbole. Their refutations regularly include the word “percent”. e.g. “I am 150% certain that Jews orchestrated September 11”…. “I guarantee the accused is 200% innocent”.

Exploiting cognitive dissonance:

Islamic spokesmen regularly perplex and baffle interviewers and their audiences as they resort to double talk, ‘clichés and platitudes’ concerning Islam. A state of cognitive dissonance (i.e. holding two contradictory beliefs and attempting to resolve them) is therefore induced in viewers and readers as they attempt to mentally process the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion despite the indisputable evidence before them of Islamist involvement in terrorist acts or criminal conduct.

The Islamic ‘defence’ script:

Islamic spokesmen repeat the same predictable duplicitous clichés concerning Islam in Europe, as do their counterparts in Australia and America. They appear to follow a well prepared script as they repeat “Islam is tolerant and peace loving”. In instances where they find themselves presented with, and cornered by, undeniable evidence that murderous radicals are indeed guilty as charged the spokesman will then fall back on the old chestnut that the culprits are only a “small minority” and not “true Muslims” anyway. Islamic spokeswomen use taqiyya when making the somewhat Orwellian claim that wearing the hijab, niqab, burqa etc. is “liberating” and “empowering”, and that, for reasons known only to them, these symbols of submissive exclusion offer them more freedom than Western women, thereby implying that women in Muslim countries are somehow ‘freer’ than women in the West. This ruse is designed to preclude further examination into the well documented inferior status of females in Islamic societies. Being put on the spot, and having to admit their true obedient and subservient status, would be embarrassing and therefore shame inducing so resorting to denial and exaggerative taqiyya is their only option.

There’s a common and oft repeated lie that “Islam” means peace”, it doesn’t, it translates as “submission” (to Allah).

Islamic falsehoods are echoed uncritically by Western politicians and other apologist dupes, for example “A small group of fundamentalists have hijacked a great and noble religion”. This timely, skilful, misleading and diversionary theme of the ‘hijacking’ of Islam was introduced into public, political and media discourse by an Islamic ‘spokesman’ in the United States shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has become an “accepted fact” repeated, ad nauseum, ever since.

The “Islam has been hijacked” myth is now a clichéd media and political reference which serves to deflect attention from the empirical proof of a fourteen hundred year continuity of the doctrinal, political and religious nature of Islamic jihad.

A related theme that “a small minority of Muslims are engaged in terrorism” is utterly irrelevant as terrorism is always perpetrated by ‘small minorities’ or more accurately small groups or cells. Surveys consistently reveal that between 10-15% of all Muslims sympathise with the aims and methodology of this radical strain of Islam which has been “hijacked”. This means, that within an estimated world population of 1.2 billion Muslims, there are 120-180 million people prepared to fund, facilitate and in general, give moral and financial assistance to the jihadists….. “a small minority”?….you decide!

The indisputable truth is that there has been no “hijacking” of Islam. Islamic extremists can, and do, find ample inspiration, justification and encouragement for their violent ideology in the Quran and Hadith.

Taqiyya as impressions and perception management

Pathos and the tactical use of children:

Australian television viewers may recall that interviews with terrorist suspects raided by ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) and AFP (Australian Federal Police) frequently featured women in hijabs holding small children or a crying baby as they plaintively protested their husband’s innocence and attested to his innate piety, decency and kind-hearted nature.

Trembling fingers and quavering voices pointed out damage, disruption and disarray to the family home. In some interviews the suspect / father holds the child, whilst denying any involvement in, or knowledge of, radicalism .

Sheikh Hilali’s daughter, in a newspaper interview, played the taqiyya pathos card by claiming that, because the cold northern winter was imminent, her father was travelling to Lebanon to “hand deliver” thousands of blankets to “orphanages” and homeless victims of the war between Israel and Hizbollah.

In the same Israel /Hezbollah war, a photojournalist filmed a Lebanese man, strewing, for the purpose of emotional impact, the contents of a large cardboard box full of children’s stuffed toys amongst the wreckage and debris. This was obviously for the benefit of a large contingent of international TV film crews who were about to be taken on a guided tour of the bombed buildings later that morning.

Photos of carefully placed baby’s bibs and dummies (pacifiers) also appeared to be extraordinarily abundant on the internet, as were “staged” photos of a “body” being removed from the piles of collapsed concrete. One sequence of photos clearly shows the “body” in question, alive and well, walking around with his “rescuers” before and after the “retrieval” of his dusty, “lifeless body”. This is taqiyya by imagery!

The above are examples of taqiyya in the age of impressions and perception management and are designed to, dupe, play on the emotions of, and elicit sympathy from, the compassionate, unwitting public.

Taqiyya and the Deceptive definition of Jihad:

The contemporary political meaning of jihad is clear: it is “Jihad of the sword” and not the peaceful internal struggle for spiritual improvement as their spin-doctors would have us believe. Islamic fundamentalists consider jihad to be the sixth pillar of Islam, a binding duty and integral to the faith. Claiming that Jihad is a subjective and psychological state to become a better person is taqiyya. In contemporary terms, Jihad means – HOLY WAR – against the unbelievers and it is in this context that Al Qaeda training manuals and other radical preachers use and refer to jihad.

The study of taqiyya is crucial to an understanding of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Its use ranges from the issuing of false terrorist threats, operational and strategic disinformation issued by Al Qaeda in the form of ‘intelligence chatter’ for the purpose of throwing national defence groups into confusion. Terrorist in captivity resort to taqiyya during interrogation. It is most frequently used by Muslim ‘spokesmen’ whilst intentionally making misleading public statements concerning Islam and terrorism.

The Arabs have a story which exemplifies subtle, semantic dissimulation (taqiyya) perfectly. Legend has it that Mohammed’s nephew, son-in-law and future Caliph, Ali, was sitting on a stool outside his dwelling when one of his allies ran red-faced and gasping into the village and hid in Ali’s home. Perceiving that the man was being pursued, Ali promptly got up and sat on another nearby stool. A few minutes later, a group of angry pursuers ran into the encampment and asked Ali if he had seen the man they were pursuing. Ali responded with the statement “AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THIS STOOL I HAVE SEEN NO ONE”

This story demonstrates why nothing an Islamist says can be taken at face value. Every statement and utterance needs to be thoroughly analysed, or “unpacked”.

After yet another violent incident in Sydney, involving “Males of Middle-Easter Appearance”, a spokesman for the Muslim community appeared on a Sydney television evening newscast. In the brief soundbight he defensively declared “our religion teaches us that we must be kind to one another” ….and indeed it does, it simply depends on how we are to interpret the words “one another”, as these verses from the Quran demonstrate:

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. – (Q 48:25)

Muhammad is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.

Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers*. – (Q48:29)

So, was this spokesman lying?

Or was he telling the truth?

The answer is both, YES,… and NO! –Or, perhaps neither, and if you are confused by this apparent contradiction?,. You’re meant to be, because he was practising taqiyya; ……where the devil is ALWAYS in the detail.

* The precise identity of the “unbelievers” in the above references requires no further explanation.

Endnotes

1. Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.

When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

2. Bukhari Vol 3: 857 “Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba”:

That she heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.”

3. Bukhari Vol 4: 269 “Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”

4. Bukhari Vol 5: 668 “Narrated Zahdam:

“When Abu Musa arrived (at Kufa as a governor) he honored this family of Jarm (by paying them a visit). I was sitting near to him, and he was eating chicken as his lunch, and there was a man sitting amongst the people. Abu Musa invited the man to the lunch, but the latter said, “I saw chickens (eating something (dirty) so I consider them unclean.” Abu Musa said, “Come on! I saw the Prophet eating it (i.e. chicken).” The man said “I have taken an oath that I will not ea (chicken)” Abu Musa said.” Come on! I will tell you about your oath. We, a group of Al-Ash’ariyin people went to the Prophet and asked him to give us something to ride, but the Prophet refused. Then we asked him for the second time to give us something to ride, but the Prophet took an oath that he would not give us anything to ride. After a while, some camels of booty were brought to the Prophet and he ordered that five camels be given to us. When we took those camels we said, “We have made the Prophet forget his oath, and we will not be successful after that.” So I went to the Prophet and said, “O Allah’s Apostle ! You took an oath that you would not give us anything to ride, but you have given us.” He said, “Yes, for if I take an oath and later I see a better solution than that, I act on the later and gave the expiation of that oath”

5. Bukhari Vol 6: 138 Narrated Aisha:

“That her father (Abu Bakr) never broke his oath till Allah revealed the order of the legal expiation for oath. Abu Bakr said, “If I ever take an oath (to do something) and later find that to do something else is better, then I accept Allah’s permission and do that which is better, (and do the legal expiation for my oath ) “.

32. For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if be had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had: saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’ssovereignty) , but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

Who are the corruptors (and mischief-makers in some translations)?

“Non-Muslims ‘cannot be called human beings but are animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption.’ said Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati last week at a ceremony in north-eastern Iran to commemorate the ‘martyrs’ of the Revolutionary Guards and the war against Iraq (1980-88).”(From http://www.adnki.com/index_English.php?ln=1, IRAN: ZOROASTRIAN LAWMAKER FACES SLANDER CHARGES, November 28, 2005)

“The non-Muslims are [like] those animals that graze, chew their cud, and cause corruption.” (From http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR3906#_ednref12. Scroll to the section entitled “On Shahada – 1. Guardian Council Secretary Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati”)

“…in 1988, the singer of ‘Peace Train’ authored an ‘informational pamphlet,’ called ‘Eyewitness,’ containing these peaceful words:

‘The Jews seem neither to respect God nor his creation. Their own holy books contain the curse of God brought upon them by their prophets on account of their disobedience to Him and mischief in the earth. We have seen the disrespect for religion displayed by those who consider themselves to be ‘God’s chosen people.’” (From http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/schlussel_026.htm)

Also:

“‘The sons of Israel are mentioned as those who are corrupting humanity on earth,’ Abbas said…,” quoting Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), the leader of Fatah and Yasser Arafat’s replacement. (From: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53732)