Lies about Islamic Taqiyya (Dissimulation)

Dr. Carson Right: Washington Post and Academics Wrong

• Tell that to Ka’b ibn Ashraf, whose head was cut off. for The prophet of Islam allowed his followers to lie to the Jew to slaughter him.

• Muslims deceived non-Muslims not because they were being persecuted for being Muslim — according to the Washington Post’s definition of taqiyya — but in order to make Islam supreme.

• Dr. Ben Carson got it right when he said that taqiyya “allows, and even encourages, you to lie to achieve your goals.” The prophet makes that clear.

Dr. Ben Carson’s recent assertion that the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages Muslims “to lie to achieve your goals” has prompted the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler to quote a number of academics to show that the presidential candidate got it wrong:

The word “taqiyya” derives from the Arabic words for “piety” and “fear of God” and indicates when a person is in a state of caution,[1]read here The word “taqiyya” derives from the Arabic words for “piety” and “fear of God” and indicates when a person is in a state of caution, said Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of … Continue reading said Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles and a leading authority on Islam.

[…]

“Yes, it is permissible to hide the fact you are Muslim” if a person is under threat, “as long as it does not involve hurting another person,” Abou El Fadl said.

The other academics whom Kessler quotes — including Omid Safi,[2]read here “It is a dispensation within some aspects of Shia law, which was developed out of the experience of a persecuted religious minority,” said Omid Safi, director of the Duke University … Continue reading director of the Duke University Islamic Studies Center, and Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School[3]read here Another expert on Islamic law, Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, agreed that Carson’s comment was “very much oversimplified to the point of misrepresentation.” As Feldman put it, … Continue reading— make the same argument: yes, taqiyya is in the Koran but it only permits deception in the case of self-preservation, nothing more.

Not exactly.

Although the word taqiyya is related to the Arabic word “piety” and its root meaning is “protect” or “guard against” — and the Koran verses that advocate it (3:28 and 16:106) do so in the context of self-preservation from persecution — that is not the whole story.

Dr. Ben Carson asserted that the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages Muslims “to lie to achieve your goals.” (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Gage Skidmore)

Unfortunately, none of the academics quoted by Kessler acknowledges that the Koran is not the only textual source to inform Muslim action.

They ignore the Hadith, the collected words and deeds of Muhammad.

Koran 33:2, for instance, commands Muslims to follow Muhammad’s example, and his example — also known as the prophet’s Sunna — is derived from the many volumes of Hadith.

The importance of Muhammad’s example is seen in that the Sunnis, approximately 90% of the world’s Muslim population, are named after his Sunna.

As one Muslim cleric puts it,

Much of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith [whence the Sunna is derived]. We would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith…

It is therefore either careless or disingenuous for Kessler and his “experts” to ignore Muhammad’s example as recorded in the Hadith in their discussion of taqiyya.

al-taqeyyahAs usual, for the complete truth, one must turn to scholarly books written in Arabic. According to Dr. Sami Mukaram, an Islamic studies professor specializing in taqiyya, and author of the only academic book[4]Al Taqiyya fil Islam [Dissimulation in Islam], 2004

exclusively devoted to it,Taqiyya in order to deceive the enemy is permissible.”[5]At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam, or “Dissimulation in Islam,” p. 32

This sounds quite close enough to Carson’s assertion that taqiyya allows Muslims “to lie to achieve your goals.”

As proof, Mukaram documents two anecdotes from Muhammad’s Sunna — his example to Muslims — that make clear that the prophet allowed his followers to lie and deceive non-Muslims above and beyond the issue of self-preservation:

The Assassination of Ka’b ibn Ashraf

An elderly Jewish leader, Ka’b ibn Ashraf, mocked Muhammad, prompting the prophet to exclaim, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?” A young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that to get close enough to Ka’b to murder him, he needed to be allowed to lie to the Jew.

Allah’s messenger agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka’b and began to complain about Muhammad until his disaffection from Islam became so convincing that Ka’b eventually dropped his guard and befriended him.

After behaving as his friend for some time, Ibn Maslama eventually appeared with another Muslim pretending to have apostatized, slaughtered Ka’b’ and brought his head to Muhammad to the usual triumphant cries of “Allahu Akbar!”

The Disbanding of the Confederates

In another account, after Muhammad and his followers had attacked, plundered, and massacred a number of non-Muslim Arabs and Jews, the Jews and Arabs assembled, poised to annihilate the Muslims, to try to neutralize the Muslims once and for all (at the Battle of the Trench, 627). But then Naim bin Mas’ud, one of the leaders of these “confederates,” as they became known in history, secretly went to Muhammad and converted to Islam. The prophet asked him to return to his tribesmen and allies — without revealing that he had joined the Muslim camp to try to get the Jews and Arabs to abandon the siege. “For,” Muhammad assured him, “war is deceit.”

Mas’ud returned, pretending to be loyal to the Arabs and Jews, and began giving them bad advice. He also subtly instigated quarrels between the various tribes until, no longer trusting each other, they disbanded.

Mas’ud became a hero in Islamic tradition. He is often seen as being responsible for helping an embryonic Islam grow at a time when its existence was threatened. One English language Muslim site even recommends his actions as illustrative of how Muslims can subvert non-Muslims.

In the two examples above, Muslims deceived non-Muslims not because they were being persecuted for being Muslim — according to the Washington Post’s definition of taqiyya — but in order to make Islam supreme. (The Arabs and Jews met Muhammad at the Battle of the Trench because Muhammad and his followers first attacked them at the Battle of Badr and massacred hundreds of them on other occasions.)

Despite these stories being part of the Sunna to which Sunnis adhere, UCLA’s Abou El Fadl — the primary expert quoted by the Washington Post in an effort to show that Islam does not promote deceit — claims that “there is no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal. That is a complete invention.”

Tell that to Ka’b ibn Ashraf, whose head was cut off for believing Muslim taqiyya. The prophet of Islam allowed his followers to lie to the Jew to slaughter him.

kitman-01

Dr. Ben Carson got it right when he said that:

taqiyya

allows, and even encourages, you to lie to achieve your goals.

The prophet makes that clear.

September 28, 2015 | by Raymond Ibrahim | Source: gatestoneinstitute.org "Lies about Islamic Taqiyya (Dissimulation)"

References

References
1 read here The word “taqiyya” derives from the Arabic words for “piety” and “fear of God” and indicates when a person is in a state of caution, said Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles and a leading authority on Islam.
2 read here “It is a dispensation within some aspects of Shia law, which was developed out of the experience of a persecuted religious minority,” said Omid Safi, director of the Duke University Islamic Studies Center.  “In brief, it states to value human life over declaration of faith. It is the proverbial question: If a Shia is being persecuted, and someone holds a gun to your head asking ‘are you a Shia?’ you are allowed to say ‘no’ in order to save a human life.”
3 read here Another expert on Islamic law, Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, agreed that Carson’s comment was “very much oversimplified to the point of misrepresentation.” As Feldman put it, “taqiyya is dissimulation when one is being oppressed or tortured or having one’s views banned, a bit like Jesuit dispensation to lie under oath when your life is in danger.”
4 Al Taqiyya fil Islam [Dissimulation in Islam], 2004
5 At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam, or “Dissimulation in Islam,” p. 32

Deceit, not Justice: Palestinian Lies Peddled Again

Ali Kazak knows perfectly well that his narrative is deceitful in the extreme. Kazak’s fantasy about a Greater Israel is false, yet he does not mention a word about the most popular slogan used by Palestinians and their supporters: “Palestine will be free From the river to the Sea.” All Palestinian maps show this same thing: a Palestine stretching from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean. The slogan and the maps show one thing: no Israel. To call for the extinction of a people and country is a threat of genocide, something the Jews of all people have never called for and will never urge.

“The Jewish settlement is not designed to undermine the position of the Arab community; on the contrary, it will salvage it from its economic misery, lift it from its social decline, and rescue it from physical and moral degeneration. Our renaissance in Palestine will come through the country’s regeneration, that is: the renaissance of its Arab inhabitants.” – David Ben Gurion, 1906, later to become Prime Minister of Israel.

Why does Kazak not address the genuine threats of extremist Muslim sheikhs and organizations that say Islam will conquer the world, Muslims will dominate, and the earth will become a single umma [community]?

In 1947, the United Nations decided to partition the land. One slender part was given to the Jews, who accepted the space allotted to them without grumbling, but the Arabs rejected the arrangement, refused to establish a state of their own, and have gone on since then fighting, turning down generous peace offers, using terrorism on a vast scale, and doing all in their power to destroy Israel. That is why they do not have a state today.

The “occupation” of the West Bank and Gaza was not an occupation of Palestinian territory. It simply retook these two areas from the Jordanians and the Egyptians, who had been occupying them since 1948. Today, Gaza has been wholly restored to the Palestinian people. The Israeli administration of the West Bank is totally legal under international law and is endorsed by UN Resolution 242 (1967), and which makes it clear that Israel has to move out from only some of the territory, and that only once the Palestinians have agreed to secure final and secure borders for Israel and recognized the state of Israel — something they have never done. It is also legalized under the Israel-Jordan peace treaty of 1987 and the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords.

A revelation of Palestinian diplomatic tactics came to light recently in the form of a diplomatic response to an article that opposed the formal acceptance of a Palestinian state, at least at this time.

In an important article last July, titled “The Case against Recognition of Palestine,” the Director of the British Israel Communications and Research Centre, Professor Alan Johnson, argued that the Australian Labour Party’s proposal to recognize the so-called State of Palestine would be a grave error that would harm the ALP itself. Johnson made a reasoned and informed plea for ALP members to reject the motion, reminding the public that Israel has always been open-handed in its offers of peace, unlike the Palestinians, who have consistently refused to accept even the most generous proposals. It is important to note that Johnson, an authoritative writer and speaker, with a longstanding reputation as a political theorist, is a moderate left-winger and British Labour Party member, a former Trotskyite. In other words, he would seem to be the last person to argue Israel’s case and oppose Palestinian statehood.

Rather than respond to Johnson’s scholarly arguments by issuing a serious piece by a pro-Palestinian academic of similar stature, the journal published just one week later a diatribe by a Palestinian diplomat named Ali Kazak, titled “Justice, not Deceit, will achieve Peace.”

Kazak is probably the leading Palestinian lobbyist in Australia, (where he moved in 1970, after being raised in Syria). He set up the Palestine Information Office (later the General Palestinian Delegation), recognized by the Australian government, and has gone on to obtain recognition in New Zealand. He is treated as the Palestinian ambassador in several Pacific states such as Vanuatu. He writes copiously for the Australian press in English and Arabic, and for Arabic-language papers across the globe.

Kazak may be little known outside his region, but his response to Alan Johnson is not a presentation of one man’s opinions; it is an official document that one may take as a formal statement of Palestinian views. As such, it merits close analysis.

In over forty years as an academic and writer on Islam and the Middle East, there has rarely come to my attention a more misguided, distorted, exaggerated, and factually incorrect article than Ali Kazak’s. It is so filled with deliberate distortions that it might take several articles to show all of them for the ahistorical garbage and brazen polemic they are.

It is hard to know where to start. In his first page, Kazak uses a straw man argument to tar all Zionists as unashamed colonizers who demand a Greater Israel far beyond the modern boundaries of the state of Israel: “The aims of Zionism since its creation in 1897… was (sic) never for coexistence, nor was it to establish a Jewish state on part of Palestine. Instead, the aim of Zionism been to colonize all of Palestine and parts of the neighbouring Arab states, and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people.”

Kazak quotes at length passages from a letter — written on October 5, 1937 by David Ben-Gurion to his son, Amos — which contains such gems as “We must expel Arabs and take their place… I am confident that the establishment of a Jewish state, even if it is only a part of the country, will enable us to carry out this task.” This quotation has been taken from an erroneous transcription of the letter and uses a bad English translation from that. Fortunately, the handwritten original still exists and has been compared with the transcription. Ben-Gurion never wrote “We must expel Arabs and take their place.” This is nowhere in the letter. What Ben-Gurion wrote was, in fact, the exact opposite:

“We do not want to and we do not have to expel Arabs and take their place.”

The letter continues in similar vein:

“All of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land [of Israel] — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel]. And if we will have to use force, not for the sake of evicting the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but rather in order to secure the right that belongs to us to settle there, force will be available to us.”

Here are some further passages:

“The greater the Jewish strength in the country, the more it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well. … the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become our allies … They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country. … the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not occupiers or tyrants over them…. It is very probable that they will agree that we undertake the development of the Negev and make it prosper in return for our financial, military, organizational, and scientific assistance.”

As far back as 1906, the young Ben Gurion wrote that “The Jewish settlement is not designed to undermine the position of the Arab community; on the contrary, it will salvage it from its economic misery, lift it from its social decline, and rescue it from physical and moral degeneration. Our renaissance in Palestine will come through the country’s regeneration, that is: the renaissance of its Arab inhabitants.”[1]Cited Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, New Haven and London, 2010, p. 22.

Throughout his life, Ben Gurion made many such comments, constantly pleading with the Arabs to live and work alongside the Jews to create a flourishing state. Why does Kazak mention none of these, but substitutes a falsified, mistranslated, and deceitful quotation to “prove” that the Jews were intent from the beginning on expelling the Arabs?

Written while a civil war launched by the Arabs still raged, and as five Arab nations prepared to invade the new state, Israel’s Declaration of Independence reads in part:

WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

It must have stuck in Kazak’s throat to cite this, yet further evidence that he is peddling a lie. There is more. Kazak’s view (reflecting a long-standing Palestinian myth) is that the whole Zionist enterprise was aimed at the colonization of much of the Middle East. He even manages to dredge up some statements by Theodor Herzl and other Zionists to enforce this view.

In truth, there has been and still is a tiny minority of Zionists who cling to the fantasy of a Jewish state embracing the Biblical region from eastern Egypt to northern Arabia. But to present this as evidence that Zionists as a whole hold such views is deeply misleading. When I say “a minority,” I really mean it. After 1967, a movement and political party named The Movement for Greater Israel emerged, and in 1969 it stood in a general election. It received 0.6% of the vote, below the electoral threshold of 1%, and collapsed.

Kazak weaves a fiction of malign Zionist aims to take over territories beyond the borders of Israel, when all the Jewish people as a whole ever wanted to do was have a state of their own.

By 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made the country’s position clear when speaking to his cabinet:
“Greater Israel is over. There is no such thing. Anyone who talks that way is deluding themselves.” It is not hard to conclude that Ali Kazak is one of the deluded.

Kazak’s fantasy about a Greater Israel is false, yet he does not so much as breathe a word about the most popular slogan used by Palestinians and their supporters abroad: “Palestine will be free From the river to the Sea.” All Palestinian maps show this same thing: a Palestine stretching from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean. The slogan and the maps show one thing: no Israel. To call for the extinction of a people and country is a threat of genocide, something the Jews of all people have never called for and will never urge.

Palestinian Authority leaders, official television, schools and media outlets often display maps showing Palestine stretching from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean. The maps do not show the existence of Israel.

The notion that all Zionists and Jews want to build a Greater Israel has disturbing echoes of one of the hoariest and most frequently dismissed myths of anti-Semitism: that the Jews control everything and have taken over everything from banking to the film industry, to all the wars and revolutions, even entire governments. This was an evil conspiracy theory constructed by the Russian secret police to justify their pogroms and later promulgated by the Nazis to explain their extermination of six million human beings. It is shameful even to hint at it.

Not only that, but the claim falls flat when compared to what Israel has actually done down the years. In 1979, Israel reached a peace treaty with Egypt and, as a gesture to improve relations, it pulled out of the Sinai Peninsula entirely, tearing down every last Jewish settlement there. Today, Egyptian forces are fighting ISIS on the peninsula.

On May 24, 2000, Israel completed its withdrawal from Lebanon in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425, thus ending a 22-year military presence there since the First Lebanon War began in 1982. All IDF troops were pulled out of the region and all IDF and South Lebanon Army (SLA) outposts were evacuated and destroyed.

In August 2005, Israeli troops dragged Jewish settlers screaming out of their homes in Gaza and totally ended any Israeli presence there. The Jews left behind greenhouses and other advanced equipment and buildings to help advance the Gazan economy. Within days, everything had been destroyed by local Palestinians. The next year, Hamas took control and has since used Gaza as a base from which to fire thousands of rockets into Israeli towns. And some days after the Gaza pullout, Israel also closed down four settlements in the northern West Bank and expelled their Jewish inhabitants.

How does all this fit Kazak’s accusation that Israel wants to expand its borders? Are pullouts from territory won in defensive wars a sign of irrendentism?

Finally, why does Kazak not address the genuine threats of extremist Muslim sheikhs and organizations that say Islam will conquer the world, Muslims will dominate, and the earth will become a single umma [community]? These people fight actual offensive wars, destroying whole countries and massacring their inhabitants. I would have thought that a greater worry to Kazak and his people than a tiny handful of Jewish fantasists who are rejected by their own society.

But Kazak’s article goes beyond this fiction to re-write history. As a historian, I can only goggle at the effrontery of his version of events. He leaves out far more than he adds, and does so knowing perfectly well that his narrative is deceitful in the extreme and with so many howlers.

Here is one: Kazak claims that “the United Nations has no jurisdiction to partition any country against the wishes of the majority of its people.” Even if that were true, it is completely irrelevant to the case of Israel and the Palestinians. The will of the majority was meaningless and there has never been, at any time, a sovereign state of Palestine.

Since the Islamic invasions of the 7th century, the entire region has been a province of a sequence of empires from the Umayyads to the Ottomans, and it has been known as al-Sham or Syria. What became the Palestinian Mandate was originally southern Syria. But when the Ottoman Empire fell to pieces in 1918, the world powers had to do something to create new states where the provincial peoples could rule themselves, and to do this they had to create mandates. The French were given northern Syria, from which they created modern Syria and Lebanon. Britain held the mandates for Iraq and Palestine. Part of the Palestine Mandate required by law under the League of Nations was the creation of a Jewish homeland there.

But here is something Kazak does not tell us. The British divided the original mandate of 120,466 square kilometres into two distinct halves. The section to the east of the Jordan River was declared a purely Arab state known as Transjordan, which took 77% of Palestine. The remaining 23% (28,166 sq. km.) was set aside for equal Jewish and Arab settlement. When Kazak claims that “On May 14 1948 the Zionists declared the establishment of a Jewish state on 78% of Palestine and renamed it Israel” he is talking through his hat and really needs to go back to school and attend some lessons in mathematics.

In November 1947, the United Nations, which acquired the legal responsibilities for the mandates from the League of Nations, after years of trying to convince the Arabs in the 23% territory to live alongside the Jews, decided to partition the land. One slender part was given to the Jews, who accepted the space allotted to them without grumbling, but the Arabs rejected the arrangement, refused to establish a state of their own, and have gone on since then fighting, turning down generous peace offers, using terrorism on a vast scale, and doing all in their power to destroy Israel. That is why they do not have a state today.

Let us turn to the supposedly historical events Kazak lists in the rest of his screed.

First, this:

“On April 1, 1948, the Jewish underground terrorist groups, the Haganah, Stern Group and Irgun, which became the Israeli army, launched a war putting Plan Dalet into force, with two objectives:

* To establish a Jewish state beyond the boundaries demarcated by the United Nations.

* To establish a state devoid, as much as possible, of its indigenous Palestinian population by expelling them, in order to turn the Palestinian majority into a minority and the Jewish minority into a majority.”

Where to begin? Kazak provides no context at all for this, and no sources. In fact, when the UN General Assembly voted for partition in November 1947, it was the Palestinian Arabs who rejected the state they were given and started a major civil war against the Jews. That war was still in progress in April 1948, when five Arab states were mobilizing to attack Israel once the British left in May.[2]The best account of the ensuing war is Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, New Haven and London, 2008, p. 121 The Haganah was never “an underground terrorist group,” but was an open force for the defence of the Jews in Palestine and was later merged into what became the Israel Defense Force (IDF).

The Stern Group (properly “Lehi”) and the Irgun (“Irgun Zva’i Leumi”) were indeed terrorist groups, but they were greatly disliked by the Jewish community. In September, the Israeli government declared them to be a terrorist outfit and arrested and imprisoned most of the members. Even then, the Stern Group had the decency, as is still uniquely done by the IDF today, to warn the British who were camped out in the King David Hotel, that there were plans to blow up a part of it, so that they would have a chance to evacuate the building. Regrettably, the British chose to ignore the warning.

The Irgun was a breakaway from the Haganah, and was, from the start, condemned for its terrorist tactics. At the start of Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, however, the Irgun abandoned these and later merged with the Israel Defense Force, which acted as a regular army under legal state control.

The document containing Plan Dalet (Plan D), according to historian Benny Morris, nowhere speaks “of a policy or desire to expel ‘the Arab inhabitants’ or of any of its constituent regions; nowhere is any brigade instructed to clear out ‘the Arabs’.”[3]Morris, 1948, p. 121 Nor does Plan Dalet refer to a goal “to establish a Jewish state beyond the boundaries demarcated by the United Nations.” Quite the opposite, in fact. While Palestinian Arabs and, weeks later, thousands of troops from Arab states were trying to destroy Israel and the Jews, Plan D “called for securing the areas earmarked by the United Nations for Jewish statehood and several concentrations of Jewish population outside those areas (West Jerusalem and Western Galilee)”.[4]Morris, 1948, p. 119 Morris’s information is based on contemporary archival documents that are open to researchers to consult. Kazak cannot back up his claims with a single document.

Kazak follows this nonsense with an even more fantastic paragraph:

“Through terror and the perpetration of tens of massacres against unarmed and unprotected Palestinians, Jewish terrorist groups eradicated, under the watchful eyes of the British troops, between 800,000 and 950,000 Palestinians from their homeland (about 70% of the Palestinian population).”

Here, we are truly in the realm of fiction. None of this is true. He is merging events of the civil war of November 1947 to May 1948 with the succeeding Israeli War of Independence fought against Palestinian Arab partisans and armies from Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Many histories of this event may be consulted.[5]The best is Benny Morris, already referred to. Others include Uri Milstein’s 4-volume History of Israel’s War of Independence, the most detailed; Chris Hayhurt’s short Israel’s War of … Continue reading Once the underground Jewish groups had been disbanded or merged with the IDF, the only terrorism came from the Arab side. There were no “tens of massacres”; just one attack, against armed Arabs, after they had cut off a supply route for Jews, at Deir Yassin. Arabs later admitted they had greatly exaggerated the number of dead.[6]Sharif Kanaana, “Reinterpreting Deir Yassin,” Bir Zeit University, April 1998.

During the earlier civil war, large numbers of mainly wealthy Arabs took flight, to wait abroad until it was safe to return. Once the war proper started, the British forces were gone, so little of this happened “under the watchful eyes of the British troops.” As the war continued, the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab Liberation Army ordered thousands of Palestinians to leave. This happened during the civil war in Haifa, when the Jewish authorities offered peace to the Arabs and even pleaded with them to stay.[7]Morris, pp. 145-147; Karsh, pp. 124-42.

Some Arabs were expelled by Israeli forces fighting for their survival against Arab states, and forced out in a war they themselves had started. In the end, those Arabs who stayed were welcome, and now number well over a million people, or more than 20% of the population. Those who left were not considered loyal, and were not allowed to return. With the partial exception of Jordan, none of the Arab countries has ever granted citizenship to them or their descendants, or freed them from their refugee camps — the only group of refugees to remain for political reasons from that period, and now multiplying with every passing generation. And Kazak forgets to mention that the Arab states of the Middle East and North Africa expelled some 900,000 Jews in retaliation — Jews who had taken no part in the fighting.

Kazak continues:

“On May 14, 1948, the Zionists declared the establishment of a Jewish state on 78% of Palestine and renamed it Israel. On the same day, the British government declared the end of its mandate and Palestine disappeared from the maps of the world.”

As explained earlier, the 78% (or 77%) figure is a mistake — 77% of the territory of the Palestine Mandate was allocated by Britain to the Arab state of Transjordan (later Jordan). The UN partition plan had taken the remaining 23% that had been earmarked for wide Jewish settlement and split it, giving the Arabs in the West Bank (occupied by Jordan in 1948) about 80% of the territory, leaving the Jews with 17.5%, of which most was desert (the Negev). “Palestine” did not “disappear from the map”: Jordan is a Palestinian state created from the Palestine Mandate, and if the remaining Palestinians ever make peace with Israel, they will either merge with Jordan or create another state for themselves, which they are perfectly entitled to call “Palestine.” Again, Palestine never existed as a state, only as a Mandate territory that was designed to be dissolved under international law.

Next, Kazak fictionalizes the purpose of UN Resolution 194 (11 December 1948): “The United Nations passed resolution 194 calling on Israel to allow the Palestinian refugees to return, but Israel refused to comply. Instead, they destroyed 531 Palestinian towns and villages to prevent the refugees from returning to their homes.”

The resolution, however, was not primarily concerned with refugees. It was issued to bring about a truce in the middle of a war. Eli Hertz has summarized the resolution as follows:

Of the 15 paragraphs, the first six sections addressed ways to achieve a truce; the next four paragraphs addressed the ways that Jerusalem and surrounding villages and towns should be demilitarized, and how an international zone or jurisdiction would be created in and around Jerusalem. The resolution also called on all parties to protect and allow free access to holy places, including religious buildings.

One paragraph has drawn the most attention:

Paragraph 11, which alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged. Contrary to Arab claims, it did not guarantee a Right of Return and certainly did not guarantee an unconditional Right of Return – that is the right of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel. Nor did it specifically mention Arab refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab.

Instead, Resolution 194 recommended that refugees be allowed to return to their homeland if they met two important conditions:

  1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors
  2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date”

The resolution also recommended that for those who did not wish to return,

“Compensation should be paid for the property … and for loss of or damage to property” by the “governments or authorities responsible.”

Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to return or be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution.

It was not Israel that refused to comply with the resolution, but the Arab states. Referring to the clauses that suggested the Arabs would have to resettle or compensate the Jews, Efraim Karsh writes: “It was just these clauses in Resolution 194 that made it anathema to the Arabs, who opposed it vehemently and voted unanimously against it.”[8]Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, p. 227. Why, then, does Kazak blame Israel for something the Arabs did?

But it gets worse. Karsh follows that remark with this:

Not that the Palestinian leaders were eager to see their hapless constituents return to their homes, lest this be interpreted as implicit recognition of Israel. On September 21… Hajj Amin [al-Husayni, former ally of Hitler and chairman of the Arab Higher Committee] argued that repatriation could only be achieved through the expulsion of the Jews from Palestine. So did his AHC [Arab Higher Committee] colleague Emile Ghouri. “It is inconceivable for the refugees to return to their homes, for the Jewish occupiers will capture and torture them…. The very suggestion to do so is an attempt for those culpable for the problem to shun responsibility, and will serve as a first step to Arab recognition of the state of Israel and the idea of partition.”

Kazak’s claim that the Israelis destroyed 531 villages “to prevent the refugees from returning to their homes” is open to question. Only one source gives that high figure, Salman Abu Sitta; others are lower. But most of these locations were abandoned, evacuated or destroyed in fighting during the war — a war that the Arabs, including the Palestinians, had started. As with Germany in 1945, if you start a war you must expect destruction. Since the state of Israel gave full citizenship to its Arab population, it is mere bias that interprets their motives in this way.

Perhaps the worst statement in Kazak’s screed is this:

“In 1967 it [Israel] launched another act of aggression, occupying the whole of Palestine and parts of neighbouring Arab states, killing another 325,000 Palestinians, subjecting three million Palestinians to brutal military occupation, and refusing UN resolutions calling for its withdrawal.”

I’m afraid to say, this is beyond fantasy. Not one word is true. The Six-Day War of 1967 was not an act of aggression by Israel (and certainly not “another,” since Israel was not the aggressor in 1947 and 1948 either). Just so we understand who the aggressor was, let us look at a string of statements made by Arab leaders, notably, Gamal Abd al-Nasser, the Egyptian president, in the run-up to hostilities. And we shall follow that by mentioning some of the acts of aggression committed by Egypt and its allies, acts that provoked a war for Israel’s very survival.

As far back as 1965, Nasser announced, “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand; we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.”[9]Samuel Katz, Battleground – Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, Taylor Productions, 2002, pp. 10-11, 185. A few months later, he said, “We aim at the destruction of the state of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.”[10]Netanel Lorch, One Long War: Arab versus Jew since 1920, Herzl Press, 1976, p. 110. This is hardly what one might call a peaceful overture.

As documented by Isi Leibler in his book “The Case for Israel,”[11]Isi Leibler, The Case for Israel, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, 1972, p. 60. on May 18, 1967, Sawt al-‘Arab (“Voice of the Arabs”) radio station announced, “We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.” Two days later, the Syrian Defence Minister Hafez Assad (later to become a brutal dictator) stated, “Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united…. I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.”

Nasser ratcheted up the aggression on May 27: “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel” (Leibler, p. 60). The next day he declared, “We will not accept any… coexistence with Israel… Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel… The war with Israel is in effect since 1948”. (Leibler, p. 18)

On May 30, the Jordanians signed a defence pact with Egypt, and Nasser proclaimed “The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel… to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived”. (Leibler, p. 60)

Joining the Arab military alliance, the president of Iraq, ‘Abd al-Rahman ‘Arif, joined in the verbal fray: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map.” (Leibler, p. 18)

Does any of this bellicose rhetoric sound as if the Israelis were the aggressors and that they attacked peace-loving neighbours?

On May 15, Egyptian troops moved into the Sinai and massed along the Israeli border. The following day, Nasser ordered the UN peacekeeping force (UNEF) out of the Sinai Peninsula. Two days later, Syrian troops prepared for battle on the Golan Heights overlooking Israel.

On May 22, Nasser confirmed his aggression by blocking the Straits of Tiran, cutting off Israeli access to the Red Sea. A major breach of international law, this act was described by American President Lyndon Johnson as the true casus belli, the cause of the war. “If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Strait of Tiran would be closed.”[12]Yehuda Lukacs, Documents on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 1967-1983, Cambridge University Press, 1984, pp. 17-18; Abba Eban, Abba Eban, Plunkett Lake Press, 2015, p. 358.

As the threat to Israel escalated over the following weeks, on June 5 the Israeli air force attacked the Egyptian air force squadrons on the ground and began what was to be a massive victory over the aggressor states in the space of six days. If Israel had not been quick off the mark, there was every likelihood that the Jewish state would have been destroyed and its Jewish inhabitants massacred in a second Holocaust.

Kazak’s claim that Israel killed 325,000 Palestinians is the most egregious error in his entire article. Some 300,000 Palestinians fled the West Bank during the war, but only some fighting men were actually killed. This statement alone demands an apology from Kazak. It is every bit as malicious and uninformed as any of the blood libels that have pursued the Jews for centuries.

The “occupation” of the West Bank and Gaza was not an occupation of Palestinian territory. It simply retook these two areas from the Jordanians and the Egyptians, who had been occupying them since 1948. Today, Gaza has been wholly given over to the Palestinian people. The Israeli administration of the West Bank is totally legal under international law and is endorsed by UN Resolution 242 (1967), which makes it clear that Israel has to move out from only some of the territory, and that only once the Palestinians have agreed to final and secure borders for Israel, and have recognized the state of Israel — something they have never done. It is also legalized under the Israel-Jordan peace treaty of 1987 and the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords.

Kazak compounds his nonsense when he talks about the 1968 PLO proposals, which he, with unerring stupidity, describes as a “peace proposal”:

“In October 1968 the PLO, with the support of all resistance groups, proposed the establishment of a democratic, secular, non-sectarian state in the historic land of Palestine, where Jews, Muslims and Christians would live equally side by side, as an acceptable solution to the conflict. Israel rejected the PLO peace proposal.”

What this proposal actually said was that a single state should be established, but since it would have an Arab majority, Israel would cease to exist and there would no longer be a Jewish state. Given the high level of anti-Semitism among Muslim Arabs then and today, life would quickly become intolerable for Jews in a unitary Palestine, and most would leave — precisely the aim behind the proposal.

It is hard to take the proposal seriously in the first place. Several months earlier, in July, the PLO had published its first National Charter, much influenced by the growing strength of its military wing, Fatah. Has Kazak actually read the charter? It has been widely published, in Laqueur and Rubin’s The Israel-Arab Reader (pp. 117-121), Charles Smith’s Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents (pp. 338-40) and elsewhere, and online in many places, including Yale University Law School’s Avalon Project.

There is no space here to study the whole document, so a few citations will suffice. You can decide for yourself whether this is the basis for a “peace proposal.” [Author’s emphases inbold]

Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

(Note that this contains no mention of the Jews. Article 6 stipulates that only Jews resident before the “Zionist invasion” may become citizens and be regarded as Palestinians.)

Article 8 reads in part:

The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine… the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute – both their organizations and the individuals ­– one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle.

It is followed by Article 9:

Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.

This theme continues in Article 10:

Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.

Article 15 makes it clear just where this armed struggle will lead:

The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.

Article 21 refuses to accept any international proposals for a peaceful settlement:

The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

Article 30 states unequivocally that this armed struggle is a war to be fought by a popular Palestinian army

Fighters and carriers of arms in the war of liberation are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people.

The PLO Charter removes all the rights granted to Israel under international law. Article 19 reads:

The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; particularly the right to self-determination.

And again, Article 20:

The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

Here, the Jewish origins of the Holy Land are swept from under the feet of the Jews, and the Nazi slaughter of Jews based not on their religion, but on their ethnicity, is totally ignored as a factor in the Jewish desire for a state of their own from which to protect themselves from the devastating consequences of anti-Semitism.

Is it surprising that the Israelis might not have been comfortable with the PLO’s “peace proposal”? And given the thousands of terrorist attacks made by Palestinian fighters on Israeli civilians since then, we may ask exactly which side works hard to reject peace on any terms and which bids for peace again and again.

Kazak writes that, “In September 1988 the PLO accepted the two-state solution in the historic land of Palestine and recognized all related the UN partition resolutions. Israel again refused the second Palestinian peace initiative.” The documents to which he refers seem to be the PLO Political Resolution (November 15, 1988; Israel-Arab Reader, pp. 349-53) and the PLO Declaration of Independence of the same day (pp. 354-358). The complexities involved here would require a separate article of their own. Suffice it to mention that, in the PLO Political Resolution, the first section is entitled “On the Escalation and Continuity of the Intifada.” The Intifada (later, the “First Intifada”) was an armed uprising against Israel from 1987 to 1993. The Intifada was violent from the start. During its first four years, more than 3,600 firebomb attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 attacks with guns or explosives were reported by the Israel Defense Force. The violence was directed at soldiers and civilians alike. During this period, 16 Israeli civilians and 11 soldiers were killed by Palestinians in the territories; more than 1,400 Israeli civilians and 1,700 Israeli soldiers were wounded, and approximately 1,100 Palestinians were killed in clashes with Israeli troops.

But here is what the PLO Political Resolution says about it. It resolves

A. To provide all the means and capabilities needed to escalate our people ‘sintifada in various ways and on various levels to guarantee its continuation and intensification….

C. To bolster and develop the popular committees and other specialized popular and trade union bodies, including the attack groups and the popular army, with a view to expanding their role and increasing their effectiveness…

H. To call on the Arab nation, its people, forces, institutions, and governments, to increase their political, material, and informational support for the intifada.

Why would Israel trust Palestinian intentions? Especially since 1988 was also the year in which terrorist group Hamas issued its infamous Charter, in which it states (in Article 13) la hall li-‘l-qadiyya al-Filastiniyya illa bi’l-jihad, “There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except through Jihad,” and that “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement,” and that “initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors,” while calling for the slaughter of all Jews in the world. Why does Kazak ignore this?

That evidence should be more than enough. The rest of Kazak’s article is full of further distortions, putting words into people’s mouths, and deliberately misrepresenting the Israeli position. Given the errors and misrepresentations exposed here, and that this information has been in the public domain for decades, one can only conclude that Mr Kazak has been knowingly dishonest and deceitful in his portrayal of historical and political information. Alan Johnson and everyone who has read Kazak’s diatribe deserve an apology, but I fear none is likely to be given.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has turned out to be one of the most resistant to compromise and solution in history. It has cost thousands of lives; exposed Israelis to wave after wave of terrorism; denied Palestinian Arabs a future free from hatred and self-destruction; and resulted in wars, suicide bombings and endless anger. Countless generous offers of peace and co-existence from Israel have been turned down, out of spite or simple intransigence. Palestinians insist that they will never recognize a Jewish state; will never agree to secure borders for Israel, and that they will continue to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children.

At the heart of this unending strife lies a body of historical and political facts that, properly understood, could lead in time to a result that will give freedom to the Palestinians and a guarantee of survival to the Jews. But when a writer on one side distorts, conceals, and refashions those facts and dares to title his invective “Justice, not Deception,” those who seek peace feel trapped in a cycle of bias and culpable enormities. If we cannot escape from Orwellian misdirection and double speak, we can never find the truth and act on it. Ali Kazak may never understand that. He will, no doubt, continue to peddle lies.

Denis MacEoin PhD, is a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Britain’s Newcastle University and currently a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, New York.

by Denis MacEoin | September 30, 2015 | Source: gatestoneinstitute.org "Deceit, not Justice: Palestinian Lies Peddled Again"

References

References
1 Cited Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, New Haven and London, 2010, p. 22.
2 The best account of the ensuing war is Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, New Haven and London, 2008, p. 121
3 Morris, 1948, p. 121
4 Morris, 1948, p. 119
5 The best is Benny Morris, already referred to. Others include Uri Milstein’s 4-volume History of Israel’s War of Independence, the most detailed; Chris Hayhurt’s short Israel’s War of Independence; and Chaim Herzog’s The Arab-Israeli Wars.
6 Sharif Kanaana, “Reinterpreting Deir Yassin,” Bir Zeit University, April 1998.
7 Morris, pp. 145-147; Karsh, pp. 124-42.
8 Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, p. 227.
9 Samuel Katz, Battleground – Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, Taylor Productions, 2002, pp. 10-11, 185.
10 Netanel Lorch, One Long War: Arab versus Jew since 1920, Herzl Press, 1976, p. 110.
11 Isi Leibler, The Case for Israel, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, 1972, p. 60.
12 Yehuda Lukacs, Documents on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 1967-1983, Cambridge University Press, 1984, pp. 17-18; Abba Eban, Abba Eban, Plunkett Lake Press, 2015, p. 358.

Trusting the Ayatollahs – ‘taqiyya’ ‘Kitman’

Middle East: Islam a Explosive Sitituation

Definitions 

Taqiya
 kitman-01Taqiya: In Shi’a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, specially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.[2] A similar concept in Sunni Islam is known as idtirar (إضطرار) “coercion”. A related concept is known as kitman“concealment; dissimulation by omission”. Also related is the concept of ḥiyal, legalistic deception practiced not necessarily in a religious context but to gain political or legalistic advantage. (source wiki)

Related: 
 “Islam Approves Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman)” article 
Taqiyya: Qur’an Sanctioned Deceit to Promote islam as a ‘Religion of Peace'” article 
No, Hollywood. “Islam does not have a PR Problem”” article

Kitman: In Islamic jurisprudence kitmān (كتمان “secrecy, concealment”) is a subfield of Ḥiyal (the science of deception or legal trickery), consisting of the art of making ambiguous statements, paying lip-service to authority while reserving personal opposition, in a kind of political camouflage or reservatio mentalis. The use of such practices to conceal one’s religious affiliation when facing persecution or oppression is known as taqiyya. (source wiki)

As Iran continues edging closer to developing nuclear weapons — a major threat to the entire Mideast region, especially longstanding U.S. ally Israel — U.S. President Obama has come to the aid of the Islamic Republic, by citing an Islamic fatwa no less.

Raymond_IbrahimBy Raymond Ibrahim
In a video recording posted on the White House’s website, Obama said, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.

This is the same Rouhani who, after recently showcasing Iran’s newly developed missiles, described his nation’s diplomatic talks with the U.S. as an active “jihad”: “Our negotiations with the world powers are a source of national pride. Yesterday [during the Iran-Iraq War], you’re brave generals stood against the enemy on the battlefield and defended their country. Today, your diplomatic generals are defending [our nation] in the field of diplomacy — this, too, is jihad.

Other administration officials — such as Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes — have previously referred to the ayatollah’s reported fatwa in the context of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The Obama administration’s citation of this fatwa is utterly wrongheaded on many levels.

barack-hussein-obama-muslimFirst, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims. Islamic prophet Muhammad himself regularly lied to his infidel enemies, often resulting in their murder (such as the case of Ka‘b ibn Ashraf). He also proclaimed that lying was permissible in three contexts, one being war. Moreover, throughout the centuries and due to historic circumstances (discussed here), taqiyya became second nature to the Shia — the sect currently ruling Iran.

Then there is the fact that Islamic law takes circumstance into account. When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance (hence why Meccan Suras appear peaceful); when he became strong in Medina, he preached war and went on the offensive (hence why Medinan Suras are violent and intolerant). This dichotomy — reach peace when weak, wage war when strong — has been Islamic modus operandi for centuries.

Speaking of fatwas, Dr. Yusuf Burhami, a prominent Islamic cleric in Egypt, recently said that destroying churches in Egypt is permissible if not advisable — but not if doing so prompts Western infidels to intervene and occupy Egypt, which they could do “because the condition of Muslims in the current era is well known to the nations of the world — they are weak.”  Burhami further added that circumstance is everything, “just as the prophet allowed the Jews to remain in Khaibar after he opened [conquered] it, once Muslims grew in strength and number, [second caliph] Omar al-Khattab drove them out according to the prophet’s command, ‘Drive out the Jews and Christians from the Peninsula.’”

And who can forget Yasser Arafat’s reference to Muhammad’s Hudaybiya pact? In 1994, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims and said: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the [infidel] Quraysh in Mecca.” In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once his ranks became strong enough to go on the offensive.

In short, it’s all very standard for Islamic leaders to say they are pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while they are weaker than their infidel foes — as Iran is today — but once they acquire nukes the jihad can resume in earnest.

Then there is the fact that Shia theology is rife with apocalyptic aspirations. An August 2007 report compiled by the Congressional Research Service said: “Ahmadinejad [previous president of Iran] believes his mission is to prepare for the return of the 12th ‘Hidden’ Imam, whose return from occultation [i.e., “hiding”] would, according to Twelver Shi’ite doctrine, be accompanied by the establishment of Islam as the global religion.”

Like other Iranians, Ahmadinejad cited the eschatological (and canonical) hadith wherein Muhammad said: “The Hour [Judgment Day] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and until the Jews hide behind the trees and rocks and the trees and rocks will say, ‘O Muslim, O Servant of God! Here are the Jews! Come and kill them!”

Indeed, during a recent speech, supreme leader Khamenei — whose fatwa Obama is now citing — boasted about Iran’s uranium enrichment, even as his military commanders shouted, “Allah Akbar. Khamenei is the leader. Death to the enemies of the leadership. Death to America. Death to England. Death to hypocrites. Death to Israel.”

Yet despite all this — despite the fact that Islamic doctrine mandates lying to infidels; despite the fact that the Shia — Iran’s leadership — have perfected taqiyya into an art; despite the fact that Islamic law holds that Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong; despite the fact that Iranian leadership openly boasts that its nuclear negotiations are a “jihad” against the infidel; despite the fact that Iran has previously been exposed developing uranium enrichments suitable for nuclear warheads — here is Obama and his administration relying on the “word” of the ayatollah of Iran.

By Raymond Ibrahim April 1, 2015 Original Soure: breakingisraelnews.com "Trusting the Ayatollahs"

Islam approves Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman)

About Islam Religion feature

taqiyya-01Question:

Are Muslims permitted to lie?

Summary Answer:

Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman.  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

 

The Qur’an:

Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”

Qur’an (9:3)“…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…”  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith”among those who are not believers.

Qur’an (2:225)“Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”  The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur’an (66:2)“Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”

Qur’an (3:54)“And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.”  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) ismakara, which literally means ‘deceit’.  If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:269)“The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'”  The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857)“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.”  Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an “enemy.”

Muslim (32:6303)“…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”

Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence.  The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad.  This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2) –  “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 (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…

“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

Additional Notes:

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them.  The two forms are:

Taqiyya

quote-128-left-side

Saying something that isn’t true.

quote-128-right-side

Kitman

quote-128-left-side

Lying by omission.  An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”

quote-128-right-side

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover.  The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace.  This happened in the case of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war).  Muhammad’s “emissaries” went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace.  Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who “accepted Islam” did not feel entirely safe.  The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this.  When Muslim “missionaries” approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already “converted” to Islam to avoid just such a demise.  However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader’s promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance.  (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded – Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today’s Muslims often try to justify Muhammad’s murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions.  Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims.  From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic.  Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad.  This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of ‘hypocrisy.’

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is “a bomb on board” but that everyone will “be safe” as long as “their demands are met.”  Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to “slay and be slain for the cause of Allah” (as the Qur’an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it “has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization.”  In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas.  At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people.  An interesting side note is verse 7:99, which says that the only people who feel secure from Allah are actually those who will perish in Hell.  Taken literally, this would mean that those Muslims who arrogantly assume that they will enter heaven are in for a rude surprise (such are the hazards of worshipping an all-powerful deceiver).

The near absence of Qur’anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty.  In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest.  When lying is addressed in the Qur’an, it is nearly always in reference to the “lies against Allah” – referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad’s claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well).  Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

Additional Reading:  Taqiyya about Taqiyya (Raymond Ibrahim) Taqiyya-about-Taqiyya

Glen Roberts, Editor thereligionofpeace.com/quran

Taqiyya: Qur'an Sanctioned Deceit to Promote Islam as a 'Religion of Peace'

About Islam Religion feature
Bethany Blankley is a conservative political analyst and columnist who regularly appears on Fox News Radio.

Bethany Blankley is a conservative political analyst and columnist who regularly appears on Fox News Radio.

Not a day goes by without newscasters, commentators, or social media chatter using the phrases, “a faction of radical Islamists,” or “Islam is a peaceful religion.” Because the majority of Americans include the non-religious and self-identifying Christians who know little to nothing about Christianity, it’s not surprising that these statements go largely unchallenged.

Americans know little to nothing about Islam. Few non-Muslims have read the Qur’an or the Hadith. If they had, they would know Islam is neither peaceful nor a religion as the West defines either of these terms.

The Qur’an, unlike the Bible, was written by one man, Muhammad, over the course of his lifetime. Knowing what and when text was written is essential. Passages written later supersede passages written earlier. Because the “peaceful” or “tolerant” passages of the Qur’an are in the beginning and the violent and “intolerant” passages are written later, the latter are prioritized.

While many people proof-text the Bible, picking and choosing texts to justify an argument, the Qur’an cannot be misinterpreted in that way. Muhammad’s commands are to be taken literally. The Qur’an’s syntax and epistemology do not include parables, anthropomorphic analogies or symbolism, phonology, morphology, poetry, hymnic, apocalyptic or wisdom literature as found in the Bible. Muhammad explicitly states that no Muslim can alter or ignore any part of his clear and direct commands. If they do, he warns they will burn in torment forever.

Muhammad’s commands refer interchangeably to Islam and Shari’a Law. They are one in the same and are considered the law of Allah. Shari’a ideology outlines a very specific and mandatory legal and political plan to infiltrate every area of society. It is a Muslim’s duty to convert all governments to Shari’a Law.

Islam, a totalitarian system, orders religious worship, financial transactions and contracts, morality, philosophical and other beliefs, and criminal and civil law. Under Shari’a, drinkers, gamblers, and unmarried sexual partners must be whipped, and domestic violence, child marriage, and honor killings are supported. Shari’a exacts equal punishment against a perpetrator; such as requiring the cutting off of a thief’s hand, or killing an adulterous wife. Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people must all be executed.

As Belgian leader Abu Imran explains, “democracy is the opposite of Islam. A Muslim who supports democracy is equivalent to a Jewish Muslim. It’s impossible to be both Jewish and Muslim and impossible to be a Muslim against Shari’a.”

Through immigration and a birth rate of 2:1 to all others, Muslims are patiently, deliberately, and methodically advancing Islamic law in non-Muslim countries. Whether Islamists are Shi’ite, Sunni, Wahhabi, or another sect, they all seek to eliminate individual freedom and free speech.

· In the UK, Shari’a courts, public schools, no-go zones and street patrols ignore and violate British law.
· In Holland and Belgium momentum is gaining to dominate central cities and eradicate all Jews.
· In Norway, Muslims advocate decapitation and jail for those who reject Islam.
· In Germany, Muslims reject existing law, causing increased crime and civil unrest.
· In Spain, Saudi Wahhabis are funding schools for immigrants against Spanish law.
· In France and Moscow entire streets are illegally shut down by thousands of men praying, who also demand more space to pray.

These are only a few of many examples of Shari’a.

More importantly, the Qur’an instructs Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their beliefs and political ambitions.

Known as Taqiyya, Muslims make claims in English to the West, but state the opposite in their Mosques and to those in their native tongue. Non-Muslims are considered enemies to be conquered as in a war, which is why the Qur’an encourages deceit as a method to spread Islam. Numerous “humanitarian” organizations and businesses act as fronts to fund Jihad. Some downplay Jihad, stating it means “struggle.” But the Qur’an defines it as “Holy War.” The Qur’an and Shari’a both order death for anyone who criticizes Muhammad, the Qur’an and Shari’a.

When Muslims state, “Islam is a religion of peace,” they mean something entirely different from that of a Westerner’s concept of peace. According to the Qur’an, the world will only be at peace when every country is Shari’a-ruled.

Any American who claims that Islam is a “religion of peace,” need only research how women and children live in any of 57 Islamic countries. Americans should also visit one of thirty Jihad training camps on American soil. Jamaat ul-Fuqra (Muslims of America) has purchased or leased hundreds of acres of land to conduct “the most advanced training courses in Islamic military warfare.”

ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and many others are not “extremist groups.” They simply adhere to what the Qur’an teaches: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Qur’an is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Promoting peace means, peace will exist when all non-Muslims are converted or dead.

Bethany Blankley's articles and columns are published by national news outlets and she contributes political analysis on national television and radio. An Independent Conservative, she supports a substantial overhaul of all three branches of government, that American citizens should receive the same benefits as those who are supposed to serve them, and that fiscal policy be prioritized to improve America's socio-economic crisis before another penny is sent abroad. She is a political analyst for Fox News Radio and her columns primarily focusing on religious freedom are published by Patheos at Hedgerow.
BY BETHANY BLANKLEY , CP OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR |  christianpost.com