Sinem Tezyapar’s Obfuscation Jihad

Here’s how I see it:

Why should a kafir buy mental tosh from a female who is no more than chattel according to her own ‘religion?’

Didn’t the profit of Islam say ‘women are deficient in intelligence?’

Why should we bother with the da’awa efforts of a Muselmanic female who is only worth half of a man, according to her own belief-system?

Not to be taken seriously.

Jewish Press publishes Muslim writer’s whitewash of Islamic antisemitism

Robert Spencer

Sinem Tezyapar was so proud of this article that she sent it to me directly. I read it with great interest, as we’re constantly told by Muslim and non-Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. that when jihadis justify their violence by referring to the Qur’an and Sunnah that they are misinterpreting and misunderstanding those sources, and that they really teach peace and tolerance. But rare indeed is a detailed explanation of exactly how the Qur’an and Sunnah teach peace and tolerance. So I read this to see if it could fill that gap. No such luck.

In this entire lengthy piece that purports to establish that Islam “does not command war against Jews,” Tezyapar never mentions Qur’an 5:82, which designates the Jews “the most hostile of men to the believers.” She never mentions 5:51, which tells Muslims not to take Jews or Christians as friends and protectors. She never mentions Sahih Muslim 6985, in which Muhammad says that “the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.”

In an article purporting to show that Islam doesn’t command war against Jews, these omissions (and there are others) make the whole piece highly questionable. If Sinem Tezyapar really wanted to strike a blow against Islamic Jew-hatred, she could have explained why those and other passages should not be taken at face value, and shown how Islamic antisemites were actually misunderstanding them (if such a thing could really be done). Pretending they do not exist may fool credulous kuffar into complacency, but it will do nothing to stop Islamic Jew-haters from reading such passages and acting on them.

So why did the Jewish Press publish this exercise in soothing deception?

“Listen to Me: Islam Does Not Command War Against Jews,” by Sinem Tezyapar in the  Jewish Press, January 6:

In an op. ed. piece for the Jewish Press, I cited from the Qur’an to show that war is an exceptional matter for Muslims, an unwanted obligation to be fulfilled in limited circumstances, and for defensive purposes only.In response, I’ve been denounced and accused of being a Trojan horse, the wolf trying to devour Little Red Riding Hood, of not being a Muslim or being the worst kind of liar, misguided, deceiver, of practicing taqiyya, of disseminating propaganda with the intention of deceiving Israelis & Westerners, of using jihadist tactics in disguise, etc.

The most moderate reaction has been that I am young, naive… and don’t know my religion and the real world.

Despite the criticism, I stand behind my words, and I say further that Hamas or any other Islamic group that uses violence against civilians is doing wrong according to the Qur’an and that Jews, Christians, and Muslims must and can live co-exist together in harmony and peace. The reactions to my statements have been along the following lines: “What about the jihad verses in Qur’an? What about taqiyyah? What about abrogation of the verses which counsel peace?”

Let me clarify these misconceptions about Islam so that there is no excuse for warmongers and those who wish to shed oceans of blood.

She then goes on at great length, sidestepping the real issues, and thereby raising the question of whether she really wants to take away the “excuse for warmongers,” or aid and abet them.

Comments from poster Gravenimage:

Notice that she never actually addresses these issues? So much better just to mention them, and then act as though they are so absurd that she needn’t comment on them further…

And she’s an old hand at such whitewashing.

Here she sounds a warning to the infidels not to resist the jihad:

  • Here she is, urging Turks and—unbelievably!—Israelis to aid the opposition—Jihadists—in Syria:


16 thoughts on “Sinem Tezyapar’s Obfuscation Jihad”

  1. Op-Ed: Islam, Jihad and Non-Muslims

    Published: Wednesday, January 16, 2013

    A definitive summary of the recent articles on the subject. For a current object lesson, read the article below on Egypt.

    Reading the title of Sinem Tezyapar’s latest article, “The Koran Does Not Sanction War Against Non-Muslims”, in which she responded to – and attempted to refute –my critique of her first article on the subject, I felt a surge of optimistic hope. I had entertained the notion that perhaps she had really discovered that my reasoning as to why Islam is inevitably hostile to Israel was faulty.

    I had presented two principle arguments for this unfortunate conclusion. The first is the doctrine of naskh (abrogation), the second is the doctrine of ijma’ (consensus).

    To recap briefly: the doctrine of naskh dictates that the later suras of the Qur’an abrogate the earlier ones, and the doctrine of ijma’ dictates that what the majority of Muslims believe is the authoritative interpretation of Islam.

    Ms. Tezyapar did not address these arguments. She restated certain tolerant Qur’anic verses (“Your religion is to you, our religion is to us”, “There is no compulsion in religion”), but this is sadly irrelevant as long as Ms. Tezyapar did not refute the doctrine of naskh.

    She also stated that “in my own religious community, there are fanatics who believe that my religion should fight against those who do not embrace it…. But I disagree with them” and continues: “I believe that I have far better proof that the radicals distort the true meaning of my religion”. But the doctrine of ijma’ dictates that the majority opinion among Muslims is authoritative.

    She used a known argument that just as the Bible (Tanakh and New Testament) contains verses both of war and of peace, both of love and of hate, so too does the Qur’an. Just as Jews and Christians can pick and choose which verses they live by, so can Muslims.

    Again, this claim is faulty. Of these three religions, Christians have the greatest autonomy in interpretation of their scriptures. For Jews, the Talmud and the Halakhic works (Mishneh Torah, Shulchan Aruch, and so on) provide the authoritative definitions of which Biblical verses have practical application and how to apply them. For Muslims, the doctrine of naskh precludes any autonomy to pick and choose which verses to apply in their lives, and the doctrine of ijma’ precludes any autonomy to apply their own personal interpretations – regardless of how peaceful and loving those interpretations are.

    I do not doubt the writer’s integrity and peaceful ideology. But her personal interpretation and application of Islam is not the subject under discussion.

    Ms. Tazyapar argues that “Jihad is not synonymous with holy war…Jihad means rather exertion, which is to strive, to make effort toward some object identified to the will of God as revealed in the Qur’an. Some worthy objects of jihad include strife against one’s egoistic passions, or to make an intellectual challenge against irreligion, radicalism or fanaticism”.

    To understand the concept and purpose of jihad, we first have to understand how Islam views the world.

    Islam divides the world into dar el-salaam (the abode of peace) and dar el-harb (the abode of war). Dar el-salaam is that part of the world in which Islam rules, i.e. any area which has been subjugated to Islam. According to different Muslim theologians, this could include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other countries where the law of the land is either sharia’ (Islamic religious law) or based upon sharia’; some would also include such countries as Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Indonesia which, although sort of secular and sort of democratic, nevertheless define themselves as Muslim and have solid Muslim majorities.

    Dar el-harb is anywhere in the world which has not been subjugated to Islam. Again, there are differences of opinion among Muslim theologians as to what exactly constitutes dar el-harb: some would include secular Muslim countries, and some would even include Islamic theocracies on the grounds that they are not governed by the Caliphate.

    Theologically, the purpose of jihad is to increase Allah’s sovereignty in the world; that is, to subjugate the world to Islam. And this is done by conquering countries and absorbing them into dar el-salaam. To quote the definition of Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra (member of the Academy of Islamic Research), “jihad…had been decreed to repel aggression and to remove obstructions impeding the propagation of Islam in non-Muslim countries” (from a paper delivered to the Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research in Al-Azhar University, the most important Islamic university in the world, Rajab 1388/October 1968).

    Now it is a fundamental principle of Islamic eschatology that one day the entire world will become dar el-salaam. Those Muslims whom we see holding up signs “Islam will dominate the world” are not “extremists” or “fundamentalists”; they are simply expressing one of the fundamental beliefs of mainstream Islam

    It is also a fundamental principle of Islam that the entire Qur’an is eternal and immutable – including such passages as mandate jihad.

    The combination of these principles leads to an apparent contradiction: if Islam will indeed one day conquer the world, then what will happen to jihad when that day comes? Since the Qur’an itself mandates jihad, and since the purpose of jihad is to subjugate the world to Islam, and since the mandate of jihad is eternal – then how will jihad be conducted after the day that the last street in the last village in the last country in the world has been subjugated to Islam?

    To continue with Sheikh Abu Zahra’s dissertation, “Jihad would never end, because it will last to the Day of Resurrection. But war comes to a close so far as a particular group of people is concerned. It is terminated when the war aims are realised, either by the repulse of aggression and the enemy’s surrender by the signing of a covenant, or a permanent peace treaty or truce etc.”

    When Islam will have conquered the entire world – and not before that – jihad will become the spiritual struggle that the Muslim wages against his own dark nature. Ms. Tazyapar’s depiction of jihad as “strife against one’s egoistic passions, or to make an intellectual challenge against irreligion, radicalism or fanaticism” is not false, merely not applicable until the violent Jihad has reached its goal.

    To prove this, I turn to the Imam Abu Hanifa (699-767), who founded the Sunni Hanafi school of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). Abu Hanifa was to what St. Augustine is to Christianity – the greatest ever post-canonical authority. I cite here his religious ruling as to which animals are hallal (permitted to be eaten) and which are haram (forbidden). Abu Hanifa ruled that though the horse is hallal (which is standard sharia’), horse-meat is nevertheless makruh tanzihan (preferable not to eat), because the horse is a majestic and noble beast which is used in jihad. Now no one uses a horse for “strife against one’s egoistic passions, or to make an intellectual challenge against irreligion, radicalism or fanaticism”; one uses a horse in temporal warfare on physical battle-grounds. Clearly, Abu Hanifa does not accept Ms. Tazyapar’s interpretation of jihad.

    In her final paragraph, Ms. Tazyapar writes: “The vision of all the Abrahamic religions talk about the coming of a better world, without pain, hunger, hatred and war”.

    True. But Judaism and Islam have widely differing visions of that perfect world. While Islamic eschatology holds that in the End of Days the entire world (that is, all people who survive) will believe in Islam and the entire world will be Islamic, Judaism has no parallel claim. In Jewish eschatology, the end-game scenario involves the Return to Zion – that is to say, all Jews will be in Israel, while the other nations will remain non-Jewish.

    Putting this bluntly, Islamic eschatology sees Islam dominating the entire world; Jewish eschatology sees Jews dominating the Land of Israel and leaving all other nations to continue as they see fit. Of course, the belief is that the perfect Jewish society in Israel will inspire the rest of the world and will engender universal recognition of the G-d of Israel, without, however, calling on any non-Jews to convert to Judaism.

    I am heartened by Ms. Tazyapar’s description of herself as “a devout believer who strongly believes that the message of Islam, Judaism and Christianity is the same: Peace”. Of course we must all do whatever we can to encourage and strengthen such beliefs and, in Ms. Tazyapar’s words, to “unite against terrorism, radicalism and bigotry, and help each other by building bridges across the rift that the radicals work so hard to deepen

  2. It is disheartening that some people like SHEIK YERMAM and Robert Spencer have in this age and space made it their life’s mission to demonize Islam and Muslims for their own political and neo-con agenda and obligation.
    Such ignorant people call themselves Islam experts, quote Quranic verses like Devil reads the bible and intentionally try to find twisted interpretations where there is none.
    We all know that Israel and Palestinian conflict plays a great part in this demonization of Islam, especially in USA where many organizations support such anti-Islam campaigns to influence the public to support Israeli official position.
    I have visited Israel several times and know for a fact that most Israelis are decent people and want to live in peace with Palestinians. It is a little American propagandist lobby, which does not want peace and inflames the situation to attain its political goals. I hope that my Jewish cousins would distance themselves from these enemies of Islam and Judaism in the long run.
    Here is an article, which explains in details what I have written.

  3. You’re a genius, Bashi.

    Don’t be ‘disheartened’ by ignorant people (who) call themselves Islam experts. Just read the Koran in a language you can understand and you will find Islam…. demonic and diabolical.


  4. this woman is full of shit and is on a huge campaign to fool Jews who are so willing to believe anything for “peace.”….She never says what is really in the Koran..and it is to kill is all over the thing…..She is heinous and man, too much makeup does not make her that pretty..She is not all that.

  5. It’s unbelievable how much hatred you have. Of course – in the name of “love”.
    Now, why does this sound familiar to my little Jewish ear?

    Some of you claim that YOU know better than her what HER beliefs are! Would you like ME to tell YOU what YOUR values really are? Would like little Jewish me to expose YOUR true motives for “loving” Jews and Israel?

    Ms. Sinem Tezyapar and her mentor, Mr. Adnan Oktar, are not telling us what Islamist terrorists believe Islam to be, but what THEY believe Islam SHOULD be! They preach to Muslims all over the world to understand that their religion SHOULD promote love and peace, tolerance, democracy and acceptance of the Jews and Israel.
    Would you prefer them to stop this and join the terrorists?
    Are you totally out of your minds??

  6. Hello Ehud!

    Why do you sound and smell like a false flag operation? Are you a smelly Museltroll?


    It’s amazingly clear to me that these supposed ”moderate” adherents to Islam are simply not up to the task of speaking the truth about their belief system, and I refuse to play along with it. If they won’t play straight, then we have to drag them to it, kicking and screaming.

    Tundra Tabloids:

    Latest outrage by Sinem Tezyapar:

    The use of the concept of “jihad” for acts of aggression against innocent people is a great distortion of the true meaning of the term. Jihad—meaning to strive, to show an effort—is about telling people about Islam with knowledge, culture, love, affection and compassion; and to tell people the truth kindly, to treat them warmly, to respect their ideas, not to be ruthless toward them or shed blood, kill or hurt people or kill oneself.

    ALSO: The Definition of “Jihad”By: Robert Spencer
    ACTION ALERT by Lisa Michelle: The following article by Sinem Tezyapar, which was published by The Jewish Press, is a piece of utter journalistic negligence on the part of its editors and is the final straw! Please express your outrage and share my comments.

    Yet, Sinem is merely the messenger. The true voice and conductor behind the messenger is Adnar Oktar, who is virulent anti-Semite and Holocaust denier with an agenda all his own and who has plans to unite Islam with Turkey: a new and better Ottoman Empire perhaps?

    (See for details about Oktar and his plans; also see MEMRI Video at and for Oktar’s plans for a Turkish-Islamic Union).

    Sinem Tezyapar, the author of this article, dishonors the victims and their families of the Boston Marathon Bombing by passing off the very real threat of terrorism and Jihad as an individual act of “sickness” and psychosis. She then goes on to reduce the fatal threat of terrorism by comparing the act to that of the person who perpetrated the Sandy Hook massacre. This is known as Taqiyya (lying that is condoned by and promoted by Islamic decree. The Jewish Press is complicit in propagating this dangerously false narrative and whitewashing the ideologies inherent in the Koran.

    (See for oped by Daniel Pinner, which discredits some of Sinem’s claims about the Koran; also see by Andrew Bostom, who is an expert and author of several books on the subject; and an article by Pamela Geller about Sinem whitewashing Jewish hatred by Islam at

    We are in the information battle of our lives. Oktar and his harem, which includes Sinem, only propagate these lies in Jewish/pro-Israel social network groups and publications. Yet, we are not the ones who need to be convinced that the world would be a far better place with peace and love, and this kind of crap would never hold water in Muslim circles. If Sinem and Oktar were sincere, they would be placing their efforts in raising awareness among their own–not in Jewish/pro-Israel circles–and calling attention to the hatred that is indeed inherent in the Koran and Hadith. Nor would they whitewash the truth. Change cannot occur when it’s based on lies. It can only be achieved when we take a cold and hard look at the facts and the truth.

    Please bombard the editors of The Jewish Press through emails, comments under the Website article and on its Facebook page, Tweets, and any other social networking means at your disposal.

    A Muslim Perspective: Boston’s Tragedy Must Not Generate More Hate

    I also would like to strongly criticize those who express joy at the sight of horror in America.

  7. Sinem Tezyapar has been expressing thoughts which are diametrically opposite to Radical Islam, and which differ from much of current mainstream Islam. In response to her courage, she has been attacked from all sides: by Muslims and by non-Muslims.

    Of course it is natural that she is attacked by radical Islamists. Radical Islam, which insists that Islam is the one universal religion, and that all people except Jews become Muslim, either willingly, or by submitting to the Sword of Allah, but Jews should killed, as should all people who refuse to submit to them.

    Sorry to say, it is also natural that she is attacked by non-Muslims. Anyone who sees the hate and reads or hears the threats of Muslims to Jews – and to the West – immediately feels a strong aversion to Muslims.

    Let’s put emotion aside for a few paragraphs. Let’s think what OUR interest is, and act according to our interest.

    Certainly OUR interest is that we have peace and harmony with our neighbors – of whatever religion. Certainly it is in our interest that all people in our society are not driven to desperation because of economic failure. Certainly it is in our interest that they do not feel threatened and that we do not feel threatened.

    So it is incumbent upon us – us well as our neighbors – to agree to make an effort to find an mutually acceptable modus vivendi. There are things Westerners say and do which are anathemas to Muslims, and things Muslims say and do which are anathemas to Westerners. Western trends diminish the value of family and community in favor of the individual, traditional Muslim culture comprises putting family and community before the individual. This threat to the Muslim family and community is one of the most serious problems to Muslims, both the generation which immigrated to the West and to the younger generation. The West is threatened by calls for Sharia law to be recognized and enforced in Western countries, by calls for Jihad, and by acts of violence. It is up to the West to do its part, it is up to Muslims to do their part. It is obvious that both sides have difficulty. It is also obvious to the observer that millions of Muslim immigrants to Europe are searching for a way to live in the West without endangering the dearest parts of their identity: their family relationships and their religion. Family and religion give religious people the strength to overcome difficulties. Emigration is always a difficulty, acclimatization is always difficult, certainly for people of Muslim background coming to live in the West. These people have a need for an Islam which does not create tensions, which does not see the non-Muslim world as calling for Jihad.
    The writings of Miss Tezyapar offer exactly that kind of Islam. Therefore the writings of Miss Tezyapar are helpful to US.

    Whether Miss Tezyapar really believes what she writes or not, is not really relevant to us. Can we really know what is in the heart of another person? Very often we have problems knowing our OWN feelings!!

  8. # Radical Islam, which insists that Islam is the one universal religion, and that all people except Jews become Muslim …

    My koran makes no mention of radical islam – maybe it should come with a disclaimer, but meanwhile this is what muslims submit to … enforcing allah’s protection racket:

    Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

    The false prophet found himself a nice little earner.

Comments are closed.