Thoughts and Truth from the Impossible Life

Sleeper Cells in the USA

Family Security Matter

January 26, 2011
Sleeper Cells in the USA

Dave Gaubatz

There is every reason to suspect that we will endure suicide missions by Islamist sleeper cells. They are already in place. They are waiting for the right time. I know this from experience.

I have worked over 15 years as a U.S. Federal Agent, a U.S. State Department Arabic linguist, and the first civilian Federal Agent deployed into Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Since returning from Iraq I have been involved in terrorism analysis, specifically the mindset of terrorists. During my extensive research on sleeper cells I have talked with hundreds of people from the Middle East from all walks of life, and have talked with Iraqi Government officials, Iraqi military and Iraqi police officers. In addition I have interviewed numerous counter-terrorism specialists in the U.S. and abroad. In 2006 I trained over 4000 U.S. Law Enforcement officers in Basic Investigative Arabic and counter-terrorism. The conclusions of my research lead to the title of this article.

Before I departed for the Middle East in 2003 I had been assigned to Kirtland AFB, NM. Kirtland has some of the best scientists in the world working on U.S. Government projects. I had been working closely with these scientists who specialized in nuclear energy, directed energy, laser technology, bio-weapons and more. I fully understand the impact if suicide bombers begin progressing from conventional explosives to unconventional methods.

The Middle East

In Jan 2003, I was assigned to Arar Air Base Saudi Arabia. Arar is located near the border of Iraq. My mission was to interact with Saudi military officials in order to determine the support we could expect from the Saudi government, to determine if Iraqis were monitoring the activities of the U.S. forces at Arar, and to infiltrate the encampments of the Bedouin community (Saudis and Iraqis living in the desert of Arar). This involved leaving the relatively safe confines of Arar Air Base and driving to the Bedouin camps.

It was most important the Saudis did not know we were leaving the compound because they had forbidden us to do so. Four U.S. special Agents would use our ATV’s and/or four wheel drive vehicles to conduct these missions. The Saudi Government had active spies collecting information pertaining to our troop strength, our weapons, and any other intelligence they could obtain. The Saudis were providing the intelligence to the Saudi Government, and we were very confident it was also being passed to Iraqi intelligence.

During January 2003 and Feb 2003, Saudi Intelligence officers would boast that the American military was overreacting about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Their bravery changed as we approached the invasion of Iraq in Mar 2003. The high-ranking Saudi officers were scrambling to obtain gas masks and other protective equipment. They knew their equipment was substandard and they wanted U.S.-made protective equipment. We gave them some of ours. The Saudi Intelligence officers were visibly frightened about a potential chemical, biological, or nuclear attack and expressed their fears.

While in Iraq we determined the following:

1. Russian activity in Iraq had been rampant several months prior to the war and up until the day before the invasion.

2. Iranians were infiltrating southern Iraq by the thousands and were preparing to assist insurgents in removing U.S. forces from Iraq.

3. We found numerous pieces of evidence indicating WMD were in Iraq before the war began and some were still in Iraq.

4. I and other agents were informed by Iraqis that a civil war would erupt and violence against U.S. forces would increase due to the Iranian and Russian influence.

All of this information was provided through intelligence channels, but was ignored. Today we are seeing the results of our intelligence being ignored in 2003.

Vulnerability at home

Upon returning from Iraq I left Federal Service to pursue a career educating U.S. law enforcement in the U.S. I wrote a book titled “Arabic for law enforcement and military”. During my lectures to local, county, and state law enforcement officers it was revealed the true first line defenders in the U.S. are not trained nor prepared to combat terrorism in the U.S. (through no fault of their own). The local law enforcement agencies were not receiving adequate funds or assistance from the Federal Government to fight terrorism. The majority advised they were supposed to be the first line defenders, but in actuality they did not even know what Al-Qaeda meant, and/or could not point out Iraq or Iran on a map. They had no Arabic language training.

I began conducting research and talking with experts from various fields and determined three significant facts that I corroborated by further research:

1. The terrorists groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda each had different leaders and to some degree operated in different ways, but they each had the same two goals (destroy Israel and destroy America and any country that supported either).

2. Our nuclear research centers were very vulnerable to an attack and the potential for a suicide bomber using a dirty radiological bomb from these facilities was and is a high probability. Note: Vic Walter and Brian Ross of ABC News did an excellent report on the lack of security at these facilities. I received an enormous amount of information from individuals associated with Russian nuclear programs that there is nuclear material being sold on the black market and nuclear material is in the hands of Islamic Extremists.

3. Terrorist sleeper cells are located primarily in Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Michigan, Florida, California, and Canada. The “sleepers” are prepared to conduct terrorist attacks within the U.S., and nuclear material is available to them. “Prepared” in this instance indicates they have the necessary tools to carry out their attacks and are prepared to die.

4. Non profit organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MANA, MSA, and several other Islamic based groups are in actuality simply fronts for Al Qaeda and Hamas. The leadership within these groups receives funds and training from the Saudi government. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allows these groups to operate freely throughout the U.S. and at American’s taxpayer’s expense. Essentially the IRS grants the groups immunity and the authority to train, organize, and prepare for attacks against our country. Why? Because CAIR and other such groups have a confidential informant network much better than even our FBI. CAIR uses contractors such as Corey Saylor (Simple Resolve Company) to place interns into our elected official’s offices, and into organizations such as the IRS.

Terrorist operations are active in the U.S. and are being operated/financed by Al Qaeda throughout the U.S.

U.S. citizens need to understand there are people trained and prepared to carry our suicide missions in the U.S. and nothing are off limits. Churches, malls, and even the schools our children attend are not off limits to suicide bombers. It is only a relatively short time before the U.S. will begin seeing suicide terrorist missions.

I will continue to research terrorism related issues in the U.S. and Canada and will bring forward the results. Nuclear reactors are located on a large number of major university campuses in the U.S. There locations are not classified and are described on the internet.

Children are the ones who suffer in wartime and I want to prevent any child from ever having to experience a terrorist attack.

In Feb, 2007, I wrote the above article for ‘American Thinker’. I have updated the information for readers.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dave Gaubatz spent 20 years as an active duty USAF (Special Agent/OSI), 3.5 years as a civilian 1811 Federal Agent, trained by the U.S. State Department in Arabic, and was the first U.S. Federal Agent to enter Iraq in 2003. He is also a counterterrorism counterintelligence officer. He is co-author of the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America. His websiteis here, and he can be reached at davegaubatz@gmail.com.

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (23) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!

You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8528/pub_detail.asp

The views expressed in the articles published in FamilySecurityMatters.org are those of the authors. These views should not be construed as the views of FamilySecurityMatters.org or of the Family Security Foundation, Inc., as an attempt to help or prevent the passage of any legislation, or as an intervention in any political campaign for public office.

COPYRIGHT 2010 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.

October 8, 2012 Posted by | Christianphobia, Constitutional Issues, Islamorealism, Israeli-Palestinian Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Islam’s doctrines of deception

The below article from the The Middle East Forum reveals in vivid details the truth regarding Islam’s official policy of deception and lying to achieve its end of spreading itself and achieving a world wide caliphate in which all non-muslims are forced to convert or killed.

When ever a website or any media exposes any truth that puts Islam in its true light, muslims immediate dismiss it as a “hate” site.  Obviously, they HATE the truth being revealed.  Even this blog has been called a hate site for exposing the truth.  That is really a compliment as it shows that the truth on this blog has touched the accusers in some small way with the truth. (For a further understanding of the Islamic “hate” card being played please see:   https://paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/islamophobia-watch-website)

In any case, the The Middle East Forum is a respected and fair website and I recommend it for the article below and every other article I’ve read on it for its accuracy.

The Middle East Forum

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst
October 2008

To better understand Islam, one must appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of the religion. According to sharia (Islamic law) every conceivable human act is categorised as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory.

“Common sense” or “universal opinion” has little to do with Islam’s notions of right and wrong. Only what Allah (through the Quran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the Hadith) have to say about any given issue matters; and how Islam’s greatest theologians and jurists – collectively known as the ulema, literally, “they who know” – have articulated it.

According to sharia, in certain situations, deception – also known as ‘taqiyya’, based on Quranic terminology, – is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. For instance, contrary to early Christian history, Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death are not only permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatised, but many jurists have decreed that, according to Quran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie in such instances.

Origins of taqiyya

As a doctrine, taqiyya was first codified by Shia Muslims, primarily as a result of their historical experience. Long insisting that the caliphate rightly belonged to the prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali (and subsequently his descendents), the Shia were a vocal and powerful branch of Islam that emerged following Muhammad’s death. After the internal Islamic Fitna wars from the years 656 AD to 661 AD, however, the Shia became a minority branch, persecuted by mainstream Muslims or Sunnis – so-called because they follow the example or ‘sunna’ of Muhammad and his companions. Taqiyya became pivotal to Shia survival.

Interspersed among the much more numerous Sunnis, who currently make up approximately 90 per cent of the Islamic world, the Shia often performed taqiyya by pretending to be Sunnis externally, while maintaining Shia beliefs internally, as permitted by Quranic verse 16:106. Even today, especially in those Muslim states where there is little religious freedom, the Shia still practice taqiyya. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, Shias are deemed by many of the Sunni majority to be heretics, traitors and infidels and like other non-Sunni Muslims they are often persecuted.

Several of Saudi Arabia’s highest clerics have even issued fatwas sanctioning the killing of Shias. As a result, figures on the Arabian kingdom’s Shia population vary wildly from as low as 1 per cent to nearly 20 per cent. Many Shias living there obviously choose to conceal their religious identity. As a result of some 1,400 years of Shia taqiyya, the Sunnis often accuse the Shias of being habitual liars, insisting that taqiyya is ingrained in Shia culture.

Conversely, the Sunnis have historically had little reason to dissemble or conceal any aspect of their faith, which would have been deemed dishonorable, especially when dealing with their historic competitors and enemies, the Christians. From the start, Islam burst out of Arabia subjugating much of the known world, and, throughout the Middle Ages, threatened to engulf all of Christendom. In a world where might made right, the Sunnis had nothing to apologise for, much less to hide from the ‘infidel’.

Paradoxically, however, today many Sunnis are finding themselves in the Shias’ place: living as minorities in Western countries surrounded and governed by their traditional foes. The primary difference is that, extremist Sunnis and Shia tend to reject each other outright, as evidenced by the ongoing Sunni-Shia struggle in Iraq, whereas, in the West, where freedom of religion is guaranteed, Sunnis need only dissemble over a few aspects of their faith.

Articulation of taqiyya

According to the authoritative Arabic text, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam: “Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream…Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.”

The primary Quranic verse sanctioning deception with respect to non-Muslims states: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah – unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” (Quran 3:28; see also 2:173; 2:185; 4:29; 22:78; 40:28.)

Al-Tabari’s (838-923 AD) Tafsir, or Quranic exegeses, is essentially a standard reference in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he wrote: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harbouring inner animosity for them… Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers – except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.”

Regarding 3:28, the Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) wrote: “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil, may protect himself through outward show.”

As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s companions. Abu Darda said: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Al-Hassan said: “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the day of judgment [in perpetuity].”

Other prominent ulema, such as al- Qurtubi , al-Razi, and al-Arabi have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. Muslims can behave like infidels – from bowing down and worshipping idols and crosses to even exposing fellow Muslims’ “weak spots” to the infidel enemy – anything short of actually killing a fellow Muslim.

War is deceit

None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad himself, whose example as the “most perfect human” is to be tenaciously followed, took an expedient view on the issue of deception. For instance, Muhammad permitted deceit in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties; husband to wife and vice-versa; and in war (See Sahih Muslim B32N6303, deemed an “authentic” hadith).

During the Battle of the Trench (627 AD), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes collectively known as “the Confederates”, a Confederate called Naim bin Masud went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered the Confederates were unaware of Masud’s conversion, he counseled him to return and try somehow to get his tribesmen to abandon the siege. “For war is deceit,” Muhammad assured him.

Masud returned to the Confederates without their knowledge that he had switched sides and began giving his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded and lifted the siege. According to this account, deceit saved Islam during its embryonic stage (see Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam; also, Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, the earliest biography of Muhammad).

More demonstrative of the legitimacy of deception with respect to non-Muslims is the following account. A poet, Kab bin al-Ashruf, had offended Muhammad by making derogatory verse about Muslim women. Muhammad exclaimed in front of his followers: “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his prophet?”

A young Muslim named Muhammad bin Maslama volunteered, but with the caveat that, in order to get close enough to Kab to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed.

Maslama traveled to Kab and began denigrating Islam and Muhammad, carrying on this way till his disaffection became convincing enough for Kab to take him into his confidences. Soon thereafter, Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Kab’s guard was down, they assaulted and killed him. They ran to Muhammad with Kab’s head, to which the latter cried: “Allahu akbar” or “God is great” (see the hadith accounts of Sahih Bukhari and Ibn Sad).

The entire sequence of Quranic revelations are a testimony to taqiyya and, since Allah is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the perpetrator of deceit. This is not surprising since Allah himself is often described in the Quran as the “best deceiver” or “schemer.” (see 3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Quran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones.

The ulema were uncertain which verses to codify into sharia’s worldview. For instance, should they use the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims until they either convert or at least submit to Islam (9:5, 9:29)? To solve this quandary, they developed the doctrine of abrogation – naskh, supported by Quran 2:105. This essentially states that verses “revealed” later in Muhammad’s career take precedence over those revealed earlier whenever there is a discrepancy.

Why the contradiction in the first place? The standard answer has been that, because Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels in the early years of Islam, a message of peace and co-existence was in order. However, after Muhammad migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the militant or intolerant verses were revealed, urging Muslims to go on the offensive.

According to this standard view, circumstance dictates which verses are to be implemented. When Muslims are weak, they should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses; when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the Medinan verses. Many Islamic books extensively deal with the doctrine of abrogation, or Al-Nasikh Wa Al-Mansukh.

War is eternal

The fact that Islam legitimises deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; strategist Sun Tzu (c. 722-221 BC), Italian political philosopher Machiavelli (1469-1527) and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) all justified deceit in war.

However, according to all four recognised schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39). According to the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online edition): “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorised. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.”

The concept of obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam’s dichotomised worldview that pits Dar al Islam (House of Islam) against Dar al Harb (House of War or non-Muslims) until the former subsumes the latter. Muslim historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun (1332- 1406), articulated this division by saying: “In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defence. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya , ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca (628), ten years is theoretically the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels (as indicated earlier by the Encyclopaedia of Islam). Based on Muhammad’s example of breaking the treaty after two years, by citing a Quraish infraction, the sole function of the “peace-treaty” (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive. Muhammad is quoted in the Hadith saying: “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath (see Sahih Bukhari V7B67N427).”

This might be what former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat meant when, after negotiating a peace treaty criticised by his opponents as conceding too much to Israel, he said in a mosque: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca.”

On several occasions Hamas has made it clear that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel destroyed. Under what context would it want to initiate a “temporary” peace with the Jewish state? When Osama bin Laden offered the US a truce, stressing that “we [Muslims] are a people that Allah has forbidden from double-crossing and lying,” what was his ultimate intention?

Based on the above, these are instances of Muslim extremists feigning openness to the idea of peace simply in order to bide time.

If Islam must be in a constant state of war with the non-Muslim world – which need not be physical, as radicals among the ulema have classified several non-literal forms of jihad, such as “jihad-of-the-pen” (propaganda), and “money-jihad” (economic) – and if Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty to the infidel to further their war efforts, offers of peace, tolerance or dialogue from extremist Muslim corners are called into question.

Religious obligation?

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States of 11 September 2001, a group of prominent Muslims wrote a letter to Americans saying that Islam is a tolerant religion that seeks to coexist with others.

Bin Laden castigated them, saying: “As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarised by the Most High’s Word: ‘We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us – till you believe in Allah alone’ [Quran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility – that is battle – ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi – a non-Muslim subject living as a "second-class" citizen in an Islamic state in accordance to Quran 9:29], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [a circumstance under which taqiyya applies]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity and hatred, directed from the Muslim to the infidel, is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.”

This hostile world view is traceable to Islam’s schools of jurisprudence. When addressing Western audiences, however, Bin Laden’s tone significantly changes. He lists any number of grievances as reasons for fighting the West – from Israeli policies towards Palestinians to the Western exploitation of women and US failure to sign the Kyoto protocol – never alluding to fighting the US simply because it is an infidel entity that must be subjugated. He often initiates his messages to the West by saying: “Reciprocal treatment is part of justice.”

This is a clear instance of taqiyya, as Bin Laden is not only waging a physical jihad, but one of propaganda. Convincing the West that the current conflict is entirely its fault garners him and his cause more sympathy. Conversely, he also knows that if his Western audiences were to realise that, all real or imagined political grievances aside, according to the Islamic worldview delineated earlier, which bin Laden does accept, nothing short of their submission to Islam can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be compromised. As a result there is constant lying, “for war is deceit”.

If Bin Laden’s words and actions represent an individual case of taqiyya, they raise questions about Saudi Arabia’s recent initiatives for “dialogue”. Saudi Arabia closely follows sharia. For instance, the Saudi government will not allow the construction of churches or synagogues on its land; Bibles are banned and burned. Christians engaged in any kind of missionary activity are arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed. Muslim converts to Christianity can be put to death in the kingdom.

Despite such limitations on religious freedom, the Saudis have been pushing for more dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. At the most recent inter-faith conference in Madrid in July 2008, King Abdullah asserted: “Islam is a religion of moderation and tolerance, a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers of all religions.”

Days later, it was revealed that Saudi children’s textbooks still call Christians and Jews “infidels”, “hated enemies” and “pigs and swine”. A multiple-choice test in a book for fourth-graders asks: “Who is a ‘true’ Muslim?” The correct answer is not the man who prays and fasts, but rather: “A man who worships God alone, loves the believers and hates the infidels”. These infidels are the same people the Saudis want dialogue with. This raises the question of whether, when Saudis call for dialogue, they are merely following Muhammad’s companion Abu Darda’s advice: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them”?

There is also a philosophical – more particularly, epistemological – problem with taqiyya. Anyone who truly believes that no less an authority than God justifies and, through his prophet’s example, sometimes even encourages deception, will not experience any ethical qualms or dilemmas about lying. This is especially true if the human mind is indeed a tabula rasa shaped by environment and education. Deception becomes second nature.

Consider the case of former Al-Qaeda operative, Ali Mohammad. Despite being entrenched in the highest echelons of the terrorism network, Mohammed’s confidence at dissembling enabled him to become a CIA agent and FBI informant for years. People who knew him regarded him “with fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism”, according to Steven Emerson. Indeed, this sentiment sums it all up: for a zealous belief in Islam’s tenets, which, as has been described above, legitimises deception, will certainly go a long way in creating incredible self-confidence when deceiving one’s enemies.

Exposing a doctrine

All of the above is an exposition on doctrine and its various manifestations, not an assertion on the actual practices of the average Muslim. The deciding question is how literally any given Muslim follows sharia and its worldview.

So-called “moderate” Muslims – or, more specifically, secularised Muslims – do not closely adhere to sharia, and therefore have little to dissemble about. On the other hand, “radical” Muslims who closely observe sharia law, which splits the world into two perpetually warring halves, will always have a “divinely sanctioned” right to deceive, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39).

November 23, 2011 Posted by | Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Response to Dearborn Mayors Open Letter

Mr Mayor, reading your open letter was painful in the obvious errors in thinking it expressed.


1. All of the United States of America is a FREE SPEECH ZONE that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Permit Free Zones? That is clearly Un-American and has no basis from the Constitution. The only reason a permit is needed for Free Speech Demonstrations is to notify the local government of the Demonstration so that it may adequately prepare any necessary security and area clean-up as needed.


2. You are mistaken regarding no illegal behavior occurring in the mosques of Deerborn. Failure to investigate or to prosecute jihadist behavior, support, or illegal activity does NOT mean it isn’t occurring. And behaviors that are not illegal, but against the interests of the United States of America are still Un-American behavior and Un-welcomed.


3. “It appears your choice of the Islamic Center of America is not because it has any relationship to the stated object of your free speech, but because it symbolizes the Islamic faith in general. If so, that is not truly in line with the Constitution you say you are defending.” – This is purely your opinion and has nothing to do with the Constitution. Anyone has a right of free speech regardless of the subject matter. The Supreme Court has repeated affirmed this right is guaranteed in the Constitution, even if the content of the free speech is abhorrent to must people.


4. Your defense of smut outlets and the use of them, a sausage factory and The Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village as “proof” that Sharia Law isn’t being implemented in Deerborn is ludicrous. None of these three paragraphs has anything to do with the Constitution, the Dhimmi support of the Deerborn Muslim community, or the objections to the planned demonstration or Pastor Jones exercise of his free speech rights.

Mayor O’Reilly: An Open Letter to Pastor Jones

April 20, 2011

“Dear Pastor Jones:

I watched you on television speaking about the Constitution and Dearborn, and it appears you need more information about both before you come to our city. I can provide insight on the Constitution, and expertise on Dearborn.

First of all, Dearborn supports the Constitution as well as any city in America. Our commitment to the Constitution is unwavering, not merely convenient, which makes your hyperbole about Sharia Law being practiced in the courts or civil law of Dearborn nonsensical. So, you are coming to protest against an imaginary threat that doesn’t exist in our community. Not in our courts, not at our City Hall, not on our streets and not in any of our places of worship.

Still, because we do understand the Constitution here, we are not preventing you from expressing your free speech. In fact, in Dearborn, we’ve even gone one step farther than most communities in support of free speech. We established, by ordinance, “Permit Free Zones” intended for demonstrations and free speech.

One of those zones is at City Hall, where from my office I have heard many rallies being conducted in response to international, national or regional issues. This is a high-visibility spot, seen by thousands of motorists but safe from traffic, with plenty of public space for protestors, supporters and the media. It is where we are asking you to conduct your demonstration. The steps of City Hall can even make an impressive platform for speeches.

And, if you are unhappy with what you think is going on in Dearborn, then what better place to protest than with City Hall as the back drop?

Instead you insist on protesting in an area that has no public property to accommodate crowds, spectators, parking or the media. There is just a small public road with limited access which can’t be blocked and an adjacent grassy area for drainage. It is parallel to a major state road, but the small shoulder can accommodate people only when they have auto emergencies.

And, this property you are focusing on, in front of the Islamic Center of America, is also adjacent to four Christian churches, all of which will be hosting Good Friday services, adding to the traffic flow and congestion. It is ironic that the road that you want to protest near is called Altar Road, so named because it was first constructed to provide access to a row of churches constructed in the 1950s reflecting Dearborn’s diverse faith communities.

But I can understand if you don’t know the details of the site, or the particulars about Dearborn. But you should know about the Constitution that you claim to be defending.

The Constitution says that your rights must be balanced with the rights of others under the same document. Your free speech rights do not allow you to trespass on the private property of others or prevent them from the Constitutional right to freely practice their religion. I am not just talking about Muslims, but members of all faiths.

The members of the Christian churches on Altar Road asked me last week if they should cancel their Good Friday services because of your planned visit. I assured them that they should not because the Constitution does not allow you to violate their rights. I don’t know why you selected Good Friday, but it wasn’t very considerate of the significant Christian services being held at that time. I assure you that you will not make them forfeit their services.

You claim that you are coming to protest the radicalism of Islam. Like all of America, we are concerned about the radicalization of any religion that would rationalize extreme actions. However we have not let this concern turn into a twisted paranoia that promotes fear-mongering and misleading generalizations. You state that you are coming to the Islamic Center of America because it is the largest mosque in America. What does that have to do with the radicalism of Islam? While size may matter to you, we prefer to focus on actual behavior. And according to our Police Department and the anti-terrorism agencies they work with, there has never been evidence of any wrongdoing in any of Dearborn’s mosques.

It appears your choice of the Islamic Center of America is not because it has any relationship to the stated object of your free speech, but because it symbolizes the Islamic faith in general. If so, that is not truly in line with the Constitution you say you are defending.

There is no Sharia Law in Dearborn, only Constitutional Law. Sharia Law is church- or faith-based law that is applicable only to the followers of that faith. For me it is Cannon Law of Catholicism, in Judaism it is Torah Law, and for Muslims it is Sharia Law. The actual originator of the event you plan to hold in Dearborn, Frank Fiorello of the Fraternal Order of the Dragon, accepted my invitation to learn more about Dearborn, and after seeing the truth, he canceled his protest.

But, if you don’t believe that Dearborn follows the Constitution, here are some realistic facts for you. Businesses in Dearborn lawfully meet the diverse needs of our Greater Detroit area, but if Dearborn practiced Sharia Law, would we have three adult entertainment bars and more alcohol licensed bars and restaurants per capita than most other cities? None of that should be allowed under Sharia Law.

How about this? A business we boast about, the nationally known Dearborn Sausage, opened more than 60 years ago across the street from the first mosque in Dearborn and is famous for its sausages and spiral-sliced hams. It is one of many meatpacking operations in our City and no one has ever objected.

Dearborn is also famous for The Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, where more than 1.5 million visitors come each year from across the country and the world to learn about the foundations of our American way of life.

Dearborn is a diverse, safe and unified city that is addressing its future in a proactive manner. We cherish the American Dream that brought so many people here during the last century to earn a decent wage and enjoy a high quality of life thanks to Henry Ford and the Ford Motor Company. And for Dearborn, our success and our identity is tied to welcoming people of all backgrounds who have chosen to make America, and our community, their home. We are proud to have welcomed them.

As we work hard to balance your rights with the rights of others in Dearborn, you will be extended every courtesy during your visit–as long as you follow the law based on the Constitution’s protection of everyone’s rights. That should be a familiar statement to you.

You have said over and over that “Muslims are welcome as long as they follow the Constitution.” Surely, then, you wouldn’t ask less of yourself.”

April 21, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Muslim god is not Christian God

Muslims do not worship the same God and His Son Jesus Christ. Their god is an evil god that promotes death, murder, rape, child molestation, oppression, subjugation and slavery, violence, lying to hide these truths and other evils as proclaimed by their false prophet Mohammad. Part of this lie and deceit is to attempt to relate their god (the great deceiver known as the devil) to the one true God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob while denying the divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Their religious texts consists of the Qu’ran of which the first semi calm veneer was copied from half remembered Christianity, Judaism and the local pagan traditions of the Medina/Mecca areas of present day Saudi Arabia. As this failed to recruit Christians or Jews and few pagans to his newly created religion, Mohammad invented newer “revelations” that justified his actions of robbery, rape, murder, child molestation and child rape, and violence. These new “revelations” also allowed slavery or murder of any non-Muslim who refused to accept Islam as it does still today. This is both in the Qu’ran and the other equally important Islamic scriptures, the Hadith and Sunnah/Sunnat. Mohammad also established the theology of aberration, that newer revelations (which frequently conflicted with those he had half remembered in the writing of the beginning of the Qu’ran as well as others as his need for justifications changed) replaced completely previous revelations. (Effectively saying the Muslim god changed his mind at the whim of Mohammad’s need for justification.

And yes, this does mean all those surahs (verses) in the Qu’ran that seem calm have been replaced and are no longer valid due to aberration (except while lying to non-Muslims to conceal the truth and spread Islam which is called Taqiyya).

March 30, 2011 Posted by | Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

God Says Tell The Truth Always

Ephesians 4:25

“Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another.”

This is not something that has any “wiggle room”. Either it is the truth, the WHOLE truth, or it is a lie. Withholding information is just as much a lie as direct lying. If there is any area in your heart that is not based on truth, you’ve made the devil a home.

    God expects us to tell the truth, period.

Exodus 20:16 “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” (LIE)

Colossians 3:9

“Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

On a side note, this is one of the many thousands of ways that prove the falsehood of the satanic lie of Islam. The evil of the Islamic religion book, the Qu’ran, teaches that lying is ok! God says lying is a sin. Mohammad teaches sin is permitted. Who would you believe the One True God and His Son Jesus Christ or the evil pedophile, murderer, robber, enslaver, Mohammad?

February 17, 2011 Posted by | Christianity / God, Daily Gospel, Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

East London Mosque Leader Molests Children

The Telegraph Newspaper (London, England)

By Andrew Gilligan Last updated: January 20th, 2011

East London Mosque

Here’s the full version of a story which appeared in the print edition of the paper:

A MAN has been jailed for a series of sex attacks on children [poster's note- following the example of Mohammad] committed while he was leader of a Muslim extremist group and a teacher at a hardline London mosque.

Ashraf Miah, 38, from Mile End, a former teacher at the East London Mosque, repeatedly molested the girls whilst they recited religious texts. The youngest victim was five and the oldest only seven.

Miah was at the time the East End leader of the notorious extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir, which believes that voting and democracy is forbidden in Islam and wants to turn Britain into a sharia state. He is listed as its contact for a number of events.

“He was a bit of a loner in the Hizb and did not have many friends, but he was a senior figure,” said one former member of the group.

During his trial, Miah claimed that the prosecution was a “conspiracy” against him because of his political views. Senior members of Hizb ut Tahrir gave evidence in Miah’s defence. However, the jury rejected his claims.

The assaults took place over a four-year period, from 2003 to 2007, during lessons at Miah’s flat and other houses in east London. Some of the girls complained to their parents about the abuse, but were not believed.

Snaresbrook Crown Court heard that the offences came to light after one of the girls’ fathers had a change of heart and reported her case to police. More victims were traced and Miah was convicted of a total of 13 sexual assaults against five different youngsters.

Sentencing him to three years and three months, Judge William Kennedy told Miah: “The children in this case came from three entirely separate and different families.

“Your suggestion at trial, and apparently still now, was and is that somehow the parents of those children have conspired to destroy your reputation. The suggestion that any parent would willingly encourage his or her daughter to lie about events in these circumstances was one which the jury considered and rejected.

“The possibility of coincidence of similar complaints by unconnected children is simply impossible.”

The court heard that Miah also taught at the hardline East London Mosque, controlled by the Islamic Forum of Europe, which also believes in turning the UK into a sharia state, though by different methods. The mosque has hosted many hate, extremist and terrorist preachers, including Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda spiritual leader. Some of the victims were introduced to Miah via the mosque. The mosque said last night that it had “no record” of his working there.

The judge told Miah: “You were entrusted with these children as a religious teacher. As such you occupied a position of great importance and reputation. You repeatedly abused that trust.

“Right thinking people find it impossible to understand what gratification could possibly be achieved by the almost surreptitious touching of very small children. That the touching was sexual is beyond doubt.

“The offending was persistent, extending over a period of four years, and always involving children unlikely to be able to complain believably about what you were doing to them.

‘Whatever may be the answer as to why you committed offences of this sort, the fact is that all decent people reserve a particular condemnation for those who abuse positions of trust to interfere with children.”

A Hizb ut Tahrir spokesman said last night that Miah had not been part of the group for two years and it was “satisfied that he did not use Hizb ut Tahrir for any criminal purpose.” The spokesman said that Hizb ut Tahrir members who testified for Miah “did so in a personal capacity.” [poster's note- Taqiyya, lying for Islam]

Original Article:

January 24, 2011 Posted by | Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

THE THIRD JIHAD

January 18, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Talking with Muslims about Qur’an Contradictions

Talking with Muslims about Qur’an Contradictions

A web page and a personal dialog need very different approaches. The big handicap of a web page is that I cannot lead a dialog but have to present my whole case in a monolog. Since I am not able to respond to the agreement or disagreement of my dialog partner I have to lay out the complete argument at once and can’t ask questions without answering them myself on the same page.

For everybody it is much easier to accept as well as be impressed with that which he found himself, therefore it is so much more effective to ask questions and help others to discover facts than to just tell them.

Also, be sensitive. The suggestion that there are contradictions in the Qur’an is an attack on the most holy and central element of a Muslim’s faith. If there is no need, I would prefer to not even mention the issue. But if the topic of the discussion moves in this way and the Muslim makes the property that the Qur’an is free of contradiction a major part of his argument, then you might want to have a few of them ready to talk about them.

But when you want to use some of the difficulties in the Qur’an, please make yourself thoroughly familiar with the argument first. Don’t use it if you haven’t clearly understood it yourself.

Second, reformulate it and make it a sequence of questions. Don’t come up to a Muslim and claim that Allah said to Moses that he can find Muhammad mentioned in the Gospel and that is a clear contradiction since the Gospel does not exist in Moses time.

Rather take the information you find in the article “Moses and the Gospel?” and ask the Muslim to read the verses 155-158 and that if he could tell you who speaks to whom in each of these verses. Maybe you can even be so bold to ask if the wrong interpretation is possible: In 157 and 158 “unlettered” is mentioned, and since 158 speaks to Muhammad, doesn’t that mean that 157 also have to speak to Muhammad? If the Muslim is fluent in Arabic or even has a clear perception of the English translation, he will deny and insist that 156-157 is spoken to Moses. After he has committed himself to that correct interpretation, THEN you ask the question whether it makes sense that Allah tells Moses that he can find Muhammad mentioned in the Gospel.

If he doesn’t realize it, ask him “Whom was the Gospel revealed to?”, and “When did Jesus live?” and supply the information if he doesn’t know.

This way the Muslim himself will discover the problem, instead of you pushing it on him, and after he has committed that 157 is spoken to Moses, he can’t really just change his mind after he has rejected the wrong interpretation already when you suggested it.

In a similar way, for any contradiction you want to use for yourself, reformulate it in a sequence of questions when you use it in a personal face to face dialog. Never give all the details away in the beginning. Leave some of it to strengthen your case after the Muslim will start to defend and try to explain it away. So, you will need some more material to back up your claim. On the web page, no interaction happens, and I have to give the whole argument away from the start.

But most of all, ask God that he will give you wisdom and love and sensitivity who to present these issues. We are not here to score points, but to win people. If you win the argument and loose the person then you have lost, not won.

December 29, 2010 Posted by | Christianity / God, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Terrorist in US – Salam al-Marayati

Salam al-Marayati

A founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and its current executive director, Salam al-Marayati’s family moved to the United States from Iraq when he was a young boy.[1] He gained national attention in 1999, when then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt nominated him to serve on the National Commission on Terrorism. Gephardt later withdrew the nomination after a public backlash highlighted al-Marayati’s defense of terrorist acts and the groups who carry them out.[2]

Al-Marayati’s record on defending terrorist groups and extremists is substantial. During a 2002 speech at the State Department, Salam al-Marayati, said, “Rashid Ghannouchi is an example of those who promote this need for dialogue between civilizations, not confrontation.”[3] Ghannoushi was the head of Tunisia’s banned Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Al-Nahda Party and was convicted by a Tunisian court of responsibility for a bomb blast that blew the foot off a British tourist.[4]

In a 1999 PBS interview, he called Hizballah attacks “legitimate resistance,”[5] but later added “when a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, we stand very loudly and clearly against that Muslim that committed that act of violence.”[6]

Yet in 1996, he issued no condemnation for a man who crashed his car into a crowded Jerusalem bus stop, shouting Allahu Akbar. One person was killed and 23 others injured in the incident. The attacker was shot dead at the scene, something al-Marayati condemned as a “provocative act” and he called for the shooter’s extradition to the United States to stand trial.[7]

Al-Marayati has continued to attempt to minimize terrorist attacks by Muslims, decry U.S. government anti-terrorism measures, and blame anything he can on the state of Israel. For instance, on September 11, 2001, on a Los Angeles radio program al-Marayati said, “”If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.”[8]

Two years later, in a March 2003 Los Angeles Times article, Salam al-Marayati blasted the FBI, stating that they had been targeting people on the basis of race and religion.[9] Ignoring several prominent terrorism cases across the country, he added, “That’s what they’ve been doing since the attacks, and we don’t know of any case that has resulted in the arrest, indictment or prosecution of a terrorist.”[10]

Commenting on the government’s actions against alleged terrorist financiers, specifically of Rafil Dhafir of Help the Needy (indicted in February 2003, convicted and sentenced to 22 years in prison in 2005) and his cohorts, in October 2004, Salam al-Marayati said, “It is a sham. You just hope at the end of a long battle these people can be vindicated because they did nothing wrong.”[11]

In response to the government’s recent refusal to grant MPAC’s request to release Holy Land Foundation, Benevolence International Foundation, and Global Relief Foundation funds to a third-party,[12] al-Marayati asserted, in 2004, that “the government…betrayed us.”[13]

At a fundraising dinner for Palestinian Islamic Jihad member Sami Al-Arian in Anaheim, California in 2006, al-Marayati said to the attendees, “So if we have this case where we are being dictated upon, not only on terminology, but dictated upon on who speaks for us, and our organizations, our charities, are shut down one by one. Therefore, brothers and sisters, there is a storm that is coming. That storm is going to be worse than Japanese internment.”[14]

Beyond the effect these words may have in causing hysteria, distrust, and fear in the Muslim-American community, al-Marayati has advised Muslims to shun FBI efforts to recruit informants. Speaking to an audience in Dallas in 2005, he stated, “We reject any efforts, notion, suggestion that Muslim should start spying on one another. In fact if you look at the Lodi case, the disaster of Lodi is that Muslims were reporting each other to the authorities saying, ‘Oh, this person is an extremist’ and the other camp saying the same things so both of them got in trouble. So, we are, this is the model not to follow.”[15]

MPAC, meanwhile, has issued policy papers which argue for the removal of Hizballah and Hamas from U.S. terrorist designations. The 1999 counterterrorism “policy paper” asks “…is Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which calls for the creation of an Islamic republic, a terrorist organization? Again, most of its members are not actively involved in terror.”

It then tries to minimize Hizballah’s brutal attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 — an attack which killed 241 U.S. military personnel:

“…this attack, for all the pain it caused, was not in a strict sense, a terrorist operation. It was a military operation, producing no civilian casualties — exactly the kind of attack that Americans might have lauded had it been directed against Washington’s enemies.” (emphasis added) [16]

The 2003 counterterrorism paper advocated removing Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hizballah from the federal government’s list of designated terrorist groups. It reads:

Meanwhile, Arab states question Washington’s list of designated pro-Palestinian groups and humanitarian organizations. It is clear that the current terrorist threat to the US emanates from Al-Qaeda and not Palestinian groups. There is no evidence that Palestinian groups designated as terrorist organizations have any connections to Al-Qaeda. Yet the preoccupation with these groups raises the question as to whether targeting Palestinian groups serves true national security interests or is based on political considerations. [17]

[1] “Salam al-Marayati,” Muslim WaveLength Website (in association with IslamiCity and MPAC), http://www.islamicity.com/mpac/salam_al-marayati.shtm (Accessed August 17, 2007).

[2] “U.S. Muslim leader denies he’s terrorist sympathizer,” CNN, July 29, 1999, http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/29/terrorism.commission/ (Accessed August 17, 2007).

[3] “MPAC’s Speech on Moderation at the State Department,” January 28, 2002, http://www.mpac.org/popa_article_display.aspx?ITEM=178 (accessed August 23, 2004).

[4] Michael Binyon, “Britain Shuts Door on Fundamentalists,” The Times, January 5, 1996. Note: According to The Sunday Telegraph, Ghannouchi was “rounded up with several thousand other opponents of the Tunisian government following an alleged plot to assassinate the country’s president, Ben Ali, in 1991.” See: Con Coughlin, “Senators fight to keep sheikh out of the US State Department told of Islamic fundamentalist’s alleged links with terrorism,” Sunday Telegraph, May 22, 1994

[5] Salam al-Marayati, “Muslims in America.” NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS, November 24, 1999

[6] Salam al-Marayati, “Muslims in America.” NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS, November 24, 1999

[7] The Minaret, March 1996.

[8] Larry Stammer, “After the Attack: Jewish-Muslim Dialogue Newly Tested,” The Los Angeles Times, September 22, 2001.

[9] H.G. Reza ,”FBI Has a Pledge and a Request for Muslims,” The Los Angeles Times, March 16, 2003.

[10] H.G. Reza ,”FBI Has a Pledge and a Request for Muslims,” The Los Angeles Times, March 16, 2003.

[11] Renee Gadoua, “Muslim Vote’s Impact Weighed,” The Post-Standard, October 12, 2004.

[12] Gregory Vistica, “Frozen Assets Going to Legal Bills,” The Washington Post, November 1, 2003 and “Steve Emerson’s Self-Serving Distortions,” MPAC Press Release, January 28, 2004, http://www.mpac.org/news_article_display.aspx?ITEM=639 (accessed July 21, 2004).

[13] Audio recording, “The Shape of the American Muslim Community in the Next Decade,” MPAC, Houston, Texas, June 18, 2004.

[14] Salam al-Marayati, Audio Recording, Sami al-Arian Banquet Dinner, Anaheim, CA, March 12, 2006.

[15] ISNA Dallas Conference. July 1-3, 2005.

[16] “A Position Paper on U.S. Counterterrorism Policy,” Muslim Public Affairs Council, June 1999.

[17] “A Review of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy: American Muslim Critique & Recommendations,” Muslim Public Affairs Council, September 2003. http://www.mpac.org/publications/counterterrorism-policy-paper/counterterrorism-policy-paper.pdf

December 26, 2010 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Islamification: an Infidel Warning!

December 23, 2010 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Taqiyya – Kitman – Islamic Lying

Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman) — Question: 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”

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) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 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 – Saying something that isn’t true.

Kitman – 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.”

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 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 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.

Conquests of Prophet Muhammad and the Rashidun...

Conquests of Prophet Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphate, 630-641

October 13, 2010 Posted by | Islamorealism, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers

%d bloggers like this: