Sharia, Permissible Lying, and the Duality of the Message

taqiyya1-300x225By John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat, 6/18/14:

“You send two messages, one to the Americans and one to the Muslims.”

Omar Ahmad
Chairman of the Board
Hamas (dba CAIR), 1994-2005

“It is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”

Um Dat al Salik
Islamic Sacred Law (Reliance of the Traveller)

While there are individuals who identify themselves as Muslims who do not seek to impose Sharia on the world, there still exists a Global Islamic Movement which seeks to do just that through all means possible including armed conflict. Woven into Sharia is the self-protective measure of lying to the unbeliever in order to further the Jihad until the war is won. As a matter of fact, lying to the infidel is obligatory if the goal is obligatory—Jihad is obligatory in the Sharia until the world is claimed for Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (all 57 Islamic States in the world represented at the Head of State/King level) all seek to impose Sharia on the rest of us per their stated doctrine.

So when Western leaders turn to their left or to their right to get advice from their “Islamic Advisors” and these advisors can be easily identified as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, we know our leaders are most likely being lied to. The strategic loss in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq despite overwhelming U.S. military victories there is just one example of the cost of relying on men who we know are not telling us the truth about the reality on the ground.

The US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”) was the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (Northern District of Texas, Dallas, 2008). When HLF was indicted immediately after 9/11 it was the largest Islamic charity in America, and it was Hamas. HLF was one of four entities created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee (Hamas) in the United States. The other three organizations were the UASR (United Association for Studies and Research), IAP (Islamic Association for Palestine), and CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).

During a 1993 meeting of the U.S. Palestine Committee in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hamas leaders from all over the country attended including senior Hamas official Omar Ahmad, founder of CAIR. The FBI wiretapped phone conversations, microphones meeting rooms, and conducted physical surveillance the attendees because this was a meeting of Hamas leaders in America. During a meeting on October 2nd, Omar Ahmad – who helped plan and organize this meeting—was recorded discussing his assessment of where Hamas was in the United States and how to move forward. Specifically, he stated:

“I believe that our problem is that we stopped working underground. We will recognize the source of any message which comes out of us…the media person among us will recognize you send two messages; one to the Americans and one to the Muslims. If they found out who said that – even four years later – it will cause discredit to the Foundation as far as the Muslims are concerned as they will say ‘Look, he used to tell us about Islam and that it is a cause and stuff while he, at the same time, is shooting elsewhere.’ Then if we want to do something like that it is better that it is an independent, separate and new organization and no one knows any connections it has with Holy Land.”

In very practical terms, Omar Ahmad was restating what Sharia demands – there must be a duality of communications from Islamic leaders. It is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim something that is false about Islam, yet it is obligatory for Sharia adherent Muslims to lie to non-Muslims in pursuit of Jihad and the imposition of Sharia globally. Therefore, Sharia adherent Muslims must “send two messages” that necessarily contradict one another – one to the Muslim community and one to the non-Muslim community.

The key to Ahmad’s above mentioned recorded conversation is he is articulating what all of the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leaders understand—if we (Americans) find out these Muslim leaders are lying to us, it will discredit them. Then we would realize the same guys telling us they mean us well and want to help us are actually a part of a larger jihadi organization killing people elsewhere. Well, that wouldn’t be good for business.

Factually, we know the Muslim Brotherhood, in the form of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the Fiqh Council of North America (which ensures everything the Muslim Brotherhood does in North America is done in accordance with the Sharia) has its authoritative stamp of approval in the front of the Reliance of the Traveller—14th century authoritative Islamic Sacred Law published in Beltsville, Maryland. As is true with all authoritatively published Islamic Law, this MB-approved Sharia law only defines Jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims” (Book O, Justice) and makes it obligatory until the world is under the rule of the Sharia. This same book, quoted above, obliges Muslims to lie to non-Muslims in the pursuit of obligatory objectives (e.g. JIHAD).

Therefore, if we can identify Muslim leaders as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s movement, we know they are obliged to lie to us regarding these matters. This might explain why 100% of Sharia is in agreement on the matter of Jihad and its obligation by the Muslim community, but why all of our American leaders argue Islam “doesn’t stand for” what Al Qaeda is doing. Despite the fact Al Qaeda has never misquoted Islamic Law, our leaders call Al Qaeda’s pursuits “extreme” or a “warped version” of Islamic Law.

When we see Muslim Brotherhood leaders like Imam Mohamed Magid, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) sitting on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, giving presentations at CIA Headquarters, and briefing the National Security Council, the one thing we know is this—when his lips are moving, he is lying.

Finally, we must ask ourselves a question – at what point do U.S. officials hold these Muslim leaders accountable for providing years of counter-factual information to our National Security apparatus which has led to catastrophic decisions in our war planning, foreign policy, and domestic counterterrorism strategy. More to the point, when do Americans hold our leadership accountable for the criminal negligence of utilizing such enemies to “help” us while citizens are dying on the battlefield and places like Little Rock, Boston, Fort Hood and elsewhere?

Imam made a Mockery of Pope Francis at Vatican Ceremony

20140617_VatikanImame1402954514108Family Security Matters, by ALAN KORNMAN:

On June 8, 2014 at a ‘Peace Gathering’ in Vatican City, prayers from a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish cleric that were meant to draw different faiths together, got horribly derailed by the truth.

The Palestinian Imam, in Arabic, who called for “victory over the nation of unbelievers” knowingly made a mockery of the Pope’s attempt at interfaith dialogue and reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians.  The Imam quoted the last Ayat of Surah Baqara which calls for Islam to reign supreme over all the non-Muslims.

This Palestinian Imam did us all a huge favor by spelling out in clear Arabic what the definition of Peace is for the followers of Islam.  When Islam is victorious over the non-Muslims, then and only then, will there be Peace between the Christian, Muslim, and Jews on earth.  That my friends is a call for domination and submission not equality and tolerance.

 

The Vatican Response 

On June 10th, Jesuit, “Fr.” Bernd Hagenkord, SJ, editor at the German-speaking offices of Vatican Radio, says the claim that the Muslim cleric ended his prayer with a quote from the Koran or with a petition against infidels is “nonsense” (source here )

On June 12th, Vatican Radio acknowledges the Palestinian Imam recited the controversial Qur’an passage but said it doesn’t matter, one has to understand how Muslims pray. 

Conclusion 

Hamed Abdel-Samad who originally exposed what the Palestinian Imam said in Arabic explains what happened this way.

“Pope Francis had invited two political leaders in a prayer of “prayer for peace” in the Vatican gardens, 8 June 2014…by using the usual ploy when Palestinian say they want peace when they speak English, and war when speaking in Arabic. The Imam did not produce the text in English that he knew would be refused. The Imam expressed to the world who speaks Arabic he was not about peace with Israel, but to ask that Allah gives victory to the Palestinians. 

Palestinian Arabs have benefited from the international forum that offered them the Pope to advance peace, and they have deceived, betrayed, and planted him in Arabic, a knife in the back.” 

I am sorry to have to tell you this, but there is no separation of religion and politics in Islam.  This fact was validated less than a week ago when Sunni Islamic terrorists ran their successful offensive Jihad taking over Iraq and replacing it with the Black Flag of Islamic Jihad and strict Shariah Islamiyya (Islamic Law).

The only thing separating the Palestinian Imam truth teller in this story and the violent Jihadis are tactics.  This Palestinian Imam may not be carrying an AK-47 at the moment but he is advancing the Civilization Jihad against the non-Muslims.

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is the regional coordinator of The United West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. His email is: alan@theunitedwest.org

*************

Gates of Vienna Reveals Cover Up of Imam’s Prayer at Vatican, by Jerry Gordan:

Our colleagues at Gates of Vienna posted a translation of a Muslim Imam prayer  captured on video at the Vatican on June 8, 2014 that exposed the real message, “Make us Victorious Over the Tribe of Unbelievers“.  The Vatican edited a video of  the Imam’s prayer to exclude a crtical portion of  the Sura upon which his personal prayer was based. Essentially,  he went off message. Instead of conveying the taqiyyah of peace and tolerance, the Imam opted for praying to his God Allah for supremacism over his unbelieving Vatican hosts. The irony was that in the process of the cover up  the Vatican committed the religiously sanctioned act under Islamic doctrine of Kitman, not telling the whole truth by omission thereby excluding the full context. The oh so politically correct Vatican under Pope Francis simply air brushed the Imam’s prayer so as to avoid controversy. However, in the end through diligence, translation and exegesis, the cover up was revealed. Many thanks to Baron Bodissey, Vladtepes.blog and  Dr. Andrew Bostom for revealing the missing context of the Imam’s personal prayer with its anti-Christian and anti-Semitic context by two recognized Islamic commentators .

Here’s the story:

As we have reported extensively over the past week, a Muslim imam who was invited to participate in the “prayer for peace” event at the Vatican on June 8 went off-script and asked Allah to help him gain victory over the unbelievers. The Vatican at first denied that any such thing had happened, and an edited video of the event was released that supported their denial — the end of Sura 2 Verse 286 that the imam quoted from the Koran had been judiciously removed from the publicized version.

Below is the full video of the imam’s part of the Vatican ceremony, as provided by an Arabic TV channel. Many thanks to ritamalik for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the editing, subtitling, and general project management.

The translator notes that the personal prayer with which the imam concluded was not the controversial part of the ceremony, since his choice of prayer was generally unexceptional. His quotation of the last verse (286) of Sura 2 of the Quran, however, is what made his words controversial.

Read more with transcript of the video

 

Deception in Political Islam

Political Islam, by Bill Warner:

Islam is a political system that includes deception and lying. Many people have heard of taqiyya, but there is a lesser known form of deception called tawriya.

 

That was taqiyya 101. You may now proceed to the advanced course:

Taqiyya about Taqiyya

raqBy Raymond Ibrahim:

I was recently involved in an interesting exercise—examining taqiyya about taqiyya—and believe readers might profit from the same exercise, as it exposes all the subtle apologetics made in defense of the Islamic doctrine, which permits Muslims to lie to non-Muslims, or “infidels.”

Context: Khurrum Awan, a lawyer, is suing Ezra Levant, a Canadian media personality and author, for defamation and $100,000.  Back in 2009 and on his own website, Levant had accused Awan of taqiyya in the context of Awan’s and the Canadian Islamic Congress’ earlier attempts to sue Mark Steyn.

For more on Levant’s court case, go to www.StandWithEzra.ca.

On behalf of Awan, Mohammad Fadel—professor of Islamic Law at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law—provided an expert report to the court on the nature of taqiyya, the significance of which he portrayed as “a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America.”

In response, Levant asked me (back in 2013) to write an expert report on taqiyya, including by responding to Fadel’s findings.

I did.  And it had the desired effect.  As Levant put it in an email to me:

It was an outstanding report, very authoritative and persuasive. Of course, we don’t know what the plaintiff’s [Awan’s] private thoughts about it were, but we do know that after receiving the report, he decided to cancel calling his own expert witness [Dr. Fadel]—who happens to be a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. After reading your rebuttal, he decided he would rather not engage in that debate.

My expert report follows.  In it, I quote relevant portions of Fadel’s expert report (which can be read in its entirety here).  Most intriguing about the professor’s report is that it’s a perfect example of taqiyya about taqiyya.  By presenting partial truths throughout the report, Fadel appears to have even employed taqiyya’s more liberal sister, tawriya.

Accordingly, readers interested in learning more about the role of deception in Islam—and how to respond to those trying to dismiss it as an “Islamophobic fantasy”—are encouraged to read on.

Raymond Ibrahim’s Expert Report on Taqiyya

Instructions: I have been asked to assess a report concerning the doctrine of taqiyya in Islam, written by one Mohammad Fadel; and, if I disagreed with any parts of it, to explain why—objectively, neutrally, and in a non-partisan manner.  My findings follow.

 Introduction

The Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to actively deceive non-Muslims—above and beyond the context of “self-preservation,” as is commonly believed.

One of the few books exclusively devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (“Taqiyya in Islam”) make this unequivocally clear. Written (in Arabic) by Dr. Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya in its opening pages:

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[1]

The following report is written as a response to Mohammed Fadel’s report (henceforth referred to as MFR) which deals with the topic of taqiyya and its place and usage in Islamic jurisprudence.   Because MFR is written in a premises-conclusion format, the following report will follow MFR’s numbering schemata, pointing out which premises are agreeable and which are not—offering correctives to these latter resulting in an antithetical conclusion.

Numbers/Premises of MFR in Order:

1-3: Preliminary statements.

4: Agreed.

5:  Agreed, with the following caveat:  To many Muslims, jihad, that is, armed struggle against the non-Muslim, is the informal sixth pillar.   Islam’s prophet Muhammad said that “standing in the ranks of battle [jihad] is better than standing (in prayer) for sixty years,”[2] even though prayer is one of the Five Pillars, and he ranked jihad as the “second best deed” after belief in Allah as the only god and he himself, Muhammad, as his prophet, the shehada, or very First Pillar of Islam.[3]

All this indicates jihad’s importance in Islam—and thus importance to this case, since, as shall be seen, taqiyya is especially permissible in the context of jihad or struggle to empower Islam and/or Muslims over non-Muslims.

6: Agreed.  Qiyas, or analogical reasoning, the practice of finding antecedents in the teachings of the two revelatory sources (Qur’an and Hadith) and rationalizing their applicability to modern phenomena, also belongs to usul al-fiqh, or Islam’s roots of jurisprudence.  It gives more elasticity to Islam’s rules (a major theme throughout this report).  Qiyas, for example, is the way al-Qaeda and other jihadi organizations justify suicide attacks: although killing oneself is clearly forbidden in Islam, in the context of jihad—in the context of trying to empower Islam—suicide attacks are rationalized as legitimate forms of stealth warfare, since those giving their lives are not doing so out of despair but rather for Islam (as in Qur’an 9:111).[4]

7-19: Generally agreed (or indifferent to: some information in these numbers is not necessarily germane to the issue at hand and did not warrant confirmation).

20:  “Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on the obligation to speak the truth.”

This is the first of many statements/premises that are only partially true.

For starters, Islamic jurisprudence separates humanity into classes.  The rules concerning the relationship between a Muslim and a fellow Muslim differ from the rules concerning the relationship between a Muslim and a non-Muslim.

First there is the umma—the “Islamic nation,” that is, all Muslims of the earth, irrespective of national, racial, or linguistic barriers.  Many of the Qur’an’s and Hadith’s teachings that appear laudable and fair are in fact teachings that apply only to fellow Muslims.

For example, although the Qur’an’s calls for Muslims to give charity (zakat) appear to suggest that Muslims may give charity to all humans—in fact, normative Islamic teaching is clear that Muslim charity (zakat) can only be given to fellow Muslims, never to non-Muslims.[5]

As for legal relations between Muslims and non-Muslims—or kuffar, the “infidels” (kafir, singular)—within the Islamic world, these fall into two main categories: first, the harbi, that is, the non-Muslim who does not reside in the Islamic world; if at any time a Muslim comes across him in the Muslim world, according to classic Islamic doctrine, he is free to attack, enslave, and/or kill him (the exception is if he is musta’min—given a formal permit by an Islamic authority to be on Muslim territory, such as the case of the many foreigners working in the Arabian Peninsula).[6]

Second is the dhimmi, the non-Muslim who lives under Muslim domination (for example, all the indigenous Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Berbers, etc. whose lands were conquered by Muslims beginning in the 7th century).   By today’s standards, the rules governing the dhimmi, most of which are based on the so-called “Conditions of Omar” (sometimes the “Pact of Omar”) are openly discriminatory and include things such as commanding non-Muslims to give up their seats whenever a Muslim wants it.[7]

It is, then, in this divisive context that one must approach the Qur’an, keeping in mind that most of the verses discussing human relations are discussing intra-relations between Muslims, not Muslims and non-Muslims.  For examples of the latter, see Qur’an 9:5, 9:29, 5:17, and 5:73 for typical verses that discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, verses which have further abrogated the earlier, more tolerant ones. [8]

As for the Qur’an verses listed in MFR 20—which are meant to support the statement that “Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on the obligation to speak the truth,” a close reading, supported by mainstream Islamic exegeses, demonstrates that the true function of those verses is to portray true believers (Muslims) and Islam’s prophets as the epitome of honesty and sincerity.  Significantly, none of the verses mentioned in MFR 20 actually exhort Muslims to be honest and truthful, including to fellow Muslims, in the same vein as, for example, unequivocal statements such as Do not lie to one another” (Colossians 3:9) and “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).

The fact is, other Islamic teachings and caveats have permitted Muslims to deceive even fellow Muslims.  For example, the doctrine of tawriya allows Muslims to lie in virtually all circumstances provided that the lie is articulated in a way that it is technically true.

The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya as, “hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy; equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion.” Conjugates of the trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Quran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).

As a doctrine, “double-entendre” best describes tawriya’s function. According to past and present Muslim scholars (several documented below), tawriya is when a speaker/writer asserts something that means one thing to the listener/reader, though the speaker/writer means something else, and his words technically support this alternate meaning.

For example, if someone declares “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies.

This is legitimate according to Islamic law, or shari‘a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—and does not constitute “lying.”

In a fatwa, or Islamic decree, popular Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid asserts that, “Tawriya is permissible if it is necessary or serves a shari‘a interest.”  As mentioned, empowering Islam is one of the highest shari‘a interests [9] (hence why jihad, so lauded by Islam’s prophet as aforementioned, is sometimes seen as the “sixth pillar”).

Read more at Front Page

Sunna – Deceiving the Politically Gullible

TAQIYYA+SOftening+hearts+of+non+believer+fingers+crossedPolitical Islam, By Bill Warner:

One of the most discouraging things about dealing with Islam is how our leadership has learned nothing in the years since Sept 11, 2001. Leadership’s favorite fantasy is that Islam is whatever a Muslim wants to say it is. So if you want a nice Islam, ask a nice imam. But, would a Muslim deceive the Kafir (non-Muslim)? Mohammed did.

 

London Holocaust Day Speaker Admires Hitler, Despises Jews

hassan-farooq-city-hall-450x254

Arutz Sheva, by Colin Cortbus, Gil Ronen & Ari Soffer 1/27/2014

An interfaith group which works to combat political and religious extremism in the UK has raised awkward questions about the way anti-Semites “use” holocaust memorials to “sanitize” their own images, even as they actively engage in anti-Jewish bigotry.

On Holocaust Memorial Day in 2013, a young British Muslim named Hassan Farouq was a participant in the official Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony at London’s City Hall. During the ceremony he read out a text about the importance of reflecting upon the consequences of the Holocaust and remembering the victims of Nazi persecution.

Yet Stand for Peace today released clear evidence of Farooq’s own rabid anti-Semitic views, including open glorification of Nazism and Adolf Hitler, and questions whether London officials who approved his participation in the ceremony ascribe any value to Holocaust Memorial Day at all.

Hassan Farooq – Nazi sympathiser

 

“I look up to Hitler”

As part of its investigation, Stand for Peace has published a slew of offensive tweets made by Farooq. They include the following:

“The hour will not come until the Muslims kill the Jews.”

“Let’s go Jewish bashing.”

“Oh hypocrisy nothing new its in his blood after all you can’t blame him he’s a Jew”

“I look up 2 Hitler :p”

“Hitler: I can kill 10000 by putting them into gas chambers B-)”

“Gassing is my hobby”

Glorifying Nazism on Twitter Screenshot – Stand for Peace

Support for terrorism

Apart from anti-Semitic tweets, Farooq has also expressed his extremist views on Facebook, including a passionate defense of the infamous Woolwich terrorists who murdered off-duty British soldier Lee Rigby.

In another message on Twitter, he defended extremist preacher Anjem Choudary, who was recently implicated as being a key player behind an Islamist network actively recruiting young British Muslims to fight in Syria.

Farooq also posted messages against women and homosexuals.

One way of “remembering the Holocaust” Screenshot – Stand for Peace

According to Stand for Peace, Hassan Farooq is a “senior member” of the Newham Dawah Team, an East London-based Islamic missionary organization which attempts to spread the message of Islam.

In 2009 students at NewVic Sixth Form College, which Farooq attended, released a video featuring calls in Arabic for a “war against the Jews”.

‘War against the Jews’

 

Newham Dawah Team is part of the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA) Network, and its officials regularly liaise with iERA officials such as Abdurraheem Green. The iERA is an extremist Salafi group, some of whose officials have been banned from the UK. In the past – despite his apparent work with various “interfaith” initiatives – Abdurraheem Green has been quoted as talking of a Jewish “stench” and advocates the killing of homosexuals.

Sam Westrop, Director of Stand for Peace, questioned how “such a solemn and important duty can be entrusted to a vile extremist who does not even try to hide his hatred for Jews, women and homosexuals?” and suggested that the apparently puzzling contradiction in Farooq’s action is actually nothing new.

“Once again, anti-Semitic activists are attempting to exploit the commemoration of the Holocaust to sanitize their public image,” he explained,but added that “the facade is a thin one.”

Westrop questioned the commitment of the event’s organizers, given that Farooq apparently made little effort to hide his anti-Semitism.

“The public officials who chose this extremist clearly do not believe the Holocaust Day Memorial has any real value, or they would have made the minimal effort to ensure suitable speakers were found.”‏

Stand for Peace recently published a comprehensive document detailing how Islamist groups with openly bigoted agendas and support for terrorism are similarly whitewashing their images by “monopolizing” interfaith efforts, and using the opportunity to sideline moderate voices within the Muslim community.

Obama Laughs When Questioned About Benghazi Terror Attack

Barack-Obama-laughing-at-mention-of-Benghazi-and-Susan-RiceWeasel Zippers:

During the interview today, Bill O’Reilly brought up Benghazi and this one makes my blood boil.

O’Reilly says General Carter Ham testified he told Leon Panetta it was a terror attack. Then Panetta went right into speak to Obama. So O’Reilly asked “did Panetta tell you it was a terrorist attack”?

Obama dances this way and that and refuses to answer the question. It’s very simple. Either he did or he didn’t. But Obama refuses to say. O’Reilly says the question about whether it was a terrorist attack matters because of Susan Rice (because she was sent out to lie on the Sunday talk shows and say it was all because of the video). At this point, Obama broadly smiles and laughs dismissively about the question at around 4:10 of the video.

 

 

He repeats that he called it an “attack of terror” the next day, but then says any attack is one of terror by definition. He is thus on all sides of the question at the same time. Yet he still doesn’t explain, if in fact, he knew if was a terror attack why he sent Susan Rice out to lie. They had immediate intel as to the nature of the attack. Yet, even had they not, Sept 11, 2012 was a Tuesday. They would have known by Sunday. Yet still they sent her out.

Around 6:10, Obama also laughs when O’Reilly says that people think he didn’t call it a terror attack for political reasons. “They believe it because folks like you are telling them that”. No one is entitled to question him, and if they do, they must be under someone else’s dictate, the evil Fox News.

He also lies, saying we all said it a week later, that it was a terrorist attack. Well, now, no you didn’t you lied for at least two weeks, until you were forced to admit that it wasn’t what you had been saying. In the interim, Hillary lied to the parents of the dead and Obama talked about the video at the U.N.

CAIR’s Ayloush Gives Dishonest, Bullying Answer to Hamas Question

Orwellian Islamist Tariq Ramadan Delivers Annual George Orwell Lecture

8870130_origBy Daniel Greenfield at Front Page:

The George Orwell Memorial Fund appears to have missed the point of the Orwell lecture. It’s not supposed to be a lecture by someone who embodies Orwellian societies.

But nonetheless the George Orwell Annual Lecture was given by Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim Brotherhood Islamist stooge who misrepresents his affiliations, on a properly Orwellian topic.  ‘Democratising the Middle East: A New Role for the West’

When Tariq Ramadan talks about “democratizing”, he really means allowing a fundamentally undemocratic Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, to take over, in pursuit of its agenda of Islamizing, not Democratizing, the Middle East.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a totalitarian organization dedicated to taking away everyone’s civil rights while manipulating language. Its self-description as the Freedom and Justice Party turns out to mean slavery and injustice.

That’s certainly what we think of as Orwellian.

So the George Orwell Annual Lecture presented a properly Orwellian lecture while being too stupid to realize what it was doing, thereby proving that Orwell really is dead.

The “popularization” of George Orwell by college students helps lead to an absurd situation in which everyone completely misses the point. And that leads to an event like this coming to you in 2014

Emirates Airline Festival of Literature is held under the patronage of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, The Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai.

The Inaugural George Orwell Lecture in Dubai. This event is staged in association with the Orwell Trust

Gavin Esler delivers the inaugural Orwell Lecture at Emirates Litfest. And he points out that The Ministry of Truth, depicted in Orwell’s iconic novel, 1984, was mostly dedicated not to rewriting the past, but to producing dim-witted but catchy pop songs, idiotic TV programmes and newspapers obsessed with crime, sport and sex. Did George Orwell really see into the 21st century world of the X-Factor, tabloid newspapers and Wayne Rooney?

And so we have it.

An employee of a national news outlet which everyone must support by law will deliver a lecture in a totalitarian Islamist state that argues that George Orwell wasn’t writing about totalitarianism… but about catchy pop songs.

It’s so brilliantly evocative of the manipulation of ideas that Orwell was against. And it’s being done in his name. Islamists are using Orwell to promote the Islamization of Europe.

(Note to readers, Islamist does not refer to a separate branch of Islam, as some seem to think, it refers to organized Islamic political groups and individuals who promote Islamization.)

From the Telegraph article Greenfield linked to:

download (35)

George Orwell betrayed: Islamist Tariq Ramadan gives a lecture in his name

The present political chaos is connected with the decay of language. (George Orwell, Politics and the English language, 1946.)

This week in London, the annual George Orwell Lecture was given by the Islamist writer Tariq Ramadan. Where is one to start?

George Orwell was against religious censorship. Tariq Ramadan campaigned successfully to cancel a production of Voltaire’s play Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete in Geneva.

Orwell was a rational man. When Ramadan taught at the College de Saussure he argued in favour of Islamic biology over Darwin.

Orwell risked his life fighting for the Spanish Republic against Franco’s fascists. Ramadan is a coward when it comes to fighting fascism. In November 2003, on French television, the future French president Nicolas Sarkozy invited Ramadan to condemn the practice of stoning women. He would not. Ramadan squirmed: “I have called for — because I know my position is a minority one within the Muslim world today — a moratorium so that there can be a real debate between Muslims.”

Orwell opposed state control and religious indoctrination. Ramadan would like the former to impose the latter. He wants Muslim parents to control the content of state school programmes according to “Islamic values”.

Ramadan pokes fun at feminism with silly jokes. Western society supposedly obliges women to “become brick workers or lorry drivers to show that women are effectively liberated”. (OK, so maybe there is a connection to Orwell, who was a bit of a sexist.)

Orwell was for liberty and justice. By contrast, according to the US essayist Paul Berman “Ramadan reveres [the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide], Sheikh al Qaradawi above all other present-day Islamic scholars, and in one book after another he has left no room for doubt about his fealty. If anyone in the world offers a model of modern enlightened Islam, Ramadan plainly judges Qaradawi to be that person.” That’s the same Qaradawi who, as Peter Tatchell points out, “condones suicide bombing, the killing of civilians, female genital mutilation, forced veiling, wife-beating and the killing of Muslims who turn away from their faith. He also blames rape victims who dress immodestly and supports the execution of LGBT people.”

Orwell’s 1946 essay Politics and the English Language famously observed that most political language  “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”. This is a good description of…Tariq Ramadan. Entire books have been written about Ramadan’s linguistic evasiveness and manipulation. One of those books is even called Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan. In it Caroline Fourest catalogues all of the ways in which a naive French press have fallen for his manipulations.

One French leftist, Yves Coleman, accuses Ramadan of “using the key words of today’s public relations industry: ‘respect’, ‘tolerance’, ‘communication’ and ‘dialogue’ in the manner of a cynical politician.”  Coleman offers this telling example of Ramadan using language to “make lies sound truthful and murder respectable”.

In 1998 Ramadan wrote a foreword to a collection of fatwas by Yusuf al Qaradawi, published by the European Council of the Fatwa … When Ramadan is asked about this foreword and his “deep respect” for such a reactionary theologian he has an answer which is typical of what is called in French “langue de bois” (or “wooden tongue”, a term used to qualify politicians’ language: something which is vague or impossible to understand): “I quote [his work] when I find it interesting. I also express criticisms or distance myself from some of his positions, which can be explained by the fact that he does not live in Western society. He develops social, political and geostrategic analyses which belong to him, and which I don’t always share.”

The gifted American essayist Paul Berman – why not invite him to give the Orwell lecture, by the way? – has brilliantly explained the deeper meaning of Ramadan’s abuse of political language. In his essential bookThe Flight of the Intellectuals, Berman shows that Ramadan is really a “Salafi Reformist”. In other words, Ramadan believes that an Islamic way of life is pure and authentic (the only really good way of life) but that Muslims are oppressed by “a western aggressive cultural invasion” and a “colonisation of minds”. Muslims must find the road back to a life free of animalistic, decadent western oppression and influence. The road back is textual, via the foundational documents of seventh-century Islam. This Koranic revolution is so large that the modern world will be swallowed whole as it is “reformed” in the light of Koranic revelation.  “Reformism” then means the Islamification or Salafication of modernity. That’s the scale of Ramadan’s ambition in the West.

Ramadan’s project proceeds in the west strategically. It appropriates the language of modern democratic politics, occupying it, infusing it with Koranic meaning. This is why salafi reformists can sound like contemporary western politicians to wilfully naive people like those who invited Ramadan. But as Berman puts it, “the modern rhetorics [of Ramadan] always turn out to be translations, in one fashion of another, of Koranic concepts. They are worldly exteriors with Islamic interiors.”

Ramadan’s project is organised, pro-active and entrepreneurial in advancing its ideas and influence. By contrast the modern Left has mostly lost touch with what the ideas it should positively stand for, knowing only what it is against (Israel and, most of all, America). For Ramadan, one imagines, the encounter resembles the act of taking sweets from a child.

 

 

Misinterpretation or Misdirection?

702_largeBy Justin O. Smith:

On November 3, 2013, a small group of about 25 protesters from the surrounding area met in front of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, in order to protest the appearance of Dr Jamal Badawi, a fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation. He is one of the founders of the Muslim American Society, a Brotherhood entity. His name is listed in a 1992 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood directory. In 1999, he justified suicide bombings. In 2009, he praised the “martyrs” of Hamas and endorsed “combative jihad” in March 2010. He is also closely linked to Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi. And it was well that we showed up, as I managed to make it inside to listen to the misdirections of Dr Badawi and his explanation that all too often the Q’uran is misinterpreted; this is the same man who minutes into his speech was mesmerizing his mostly white liberal crowd with glib, disingenuous tales of how jihad has nothing to do with “Holy War” and nowhere in the Q’uran does it command Muslims to commit “Holy War.”

Which Dr Badawi are we to believe?… The Badawi praising Hamas and endorsing “combative jihad” or the one telling us that such a thing doesn’t come from the “Holy” Q’uran.

The theme of this conference, ‘God’s Books _ Reading Scripture in Judaism, Christianity and Islam’, appeared to center immediately from the first few words of the first speaker, Sheikh Ossama Bahloul (Imam of ICM), on the frequency of misinterpretation of the Q’uran, which on the face of the argument is quite valid. Anything can be misinterpreted, and many things often are. But how can they reconcile such glaring gaps between their own words and actions, as in the example of Jamal Badawi? They can’t!

Pretty spoken words in front of a crowd of Sunday’s People means little, when with the next breath one hears of them endorsing terrorism abroad and at home. Badawi protested to the crowd that jihad had nothing to do with Holy War, after explaining that jihad was more of a personal battle, and then, in the very next sentence he stated, “Oh…but there is a type of jihad fighting (a military war) for unprovoked aggression or suppression.” And just who makes this determination, if not the imams/sheikhs and Islam’s religious leaders?

Am I misinterpreting Badawi or is he misleading and misdirecting the “dhimmis” of America….those all to willing to place America in harms way for a handful of false promise?

Bahloul and Badawi would have us believe that this clash of civilizations is just all one big misunderstanding stemming from the misinterpretation of the Q’uran by Muslims as well as non-Muslims.In order to fully understand Islam they said one must be well studied in all the verses on any particular topic, so it is seen in its historical context, as well as its entirety. Badawi later expanded on this as he differentiated between “normative” Islam and “the reason behind each revelation”, as decided by Islamic “familiar researchers”, and “interpretive” Islam, as it is practiced by cultural groups within Islam and the various Islamic nations; the same verse of the Q’uran may have several different interpretations, depending upon one’s location.

In one example, Bahloul stated that when the Q’uran says “to kill the Jew, God was talking specifically about the community in Medina.” Little good this has done the Jews across the centuries. I’ll just bet the Jews wish someone had sent out that memo to all the Muslims in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan and Syria over the centuries, as their property was confiscated and they were murdered by the millions; 750,000 Jews were forced from their homes in Islamic nations in 1948 alone, because of Islam’s “peaceful and tolerant” nature.

In April 2004, radical Muslim Brotherhood ideologue and Hamas spiritual leader, much touted at the ICM,Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi credited Allah with providing Palestinians “human bombs,” instead of the planes,missiles and weapons that Zionists have. In addition, his Friday sermons at the Umar bin al Khattab mosque, a government sponsored mosque in Doha, have been regularly broadcast live on Qatar television.In a 2005 sermon, while speaking about notable Hamas leaders killed by Israel, Qaradawi asserted, “Their fate was paradise. They died martyrs. They met the death that every Muslim wishes for himself, which is martyrdom in the cause of God;” Qaradawi is also influential through a wide network of affiliations. In the U.S., he is the chairman (in absentia) of the Michigan based Islamic American University (IAU), a subsidiary of the Muslim American Society (MAS) , according to the MAS Website. The university aims to provide Islamic higher education, especially to converts and non-practicing Muslims, according to the IAU Web site. Qaradawi is also listed by the IAU as a faculty member.

Is Qaradawi misinterpreting his Q’uran, Allah’s and Islam’s desires for his actions, or is he simply following the true path for any and all devout Muslims, as detailed in the Q’uran?

As I watched the opening address by Ossama Bahloul and the obviously white, liberal, smiling faces in the crowd (see Dr Ron Messier’s 3/18/2011 speech at the International Institute of Islamic Thought), I realized this was pablum for their consumption. Basically he was suggesting that there exist bad and good Muslims. He wanted the crowd to believe he and his crowd are the good Muslims, when he stated: Sunni or Shia…liberal or conservative…they all use the same book. He or she can have their own translation; keep in mind this may not be the true meaning of the Holy Q’uran.”

Misinterpretation or misdirection…increasingly, we also see a number of individuals who find justifications for killing other people by identifying the U.S. and other countries as enemy countries open for war. That is something unfortunately that is inherent in Islam and Islamic scripture; Sayyid Qutb’s writings and legacy are admired by parts of the Muslim Brotherhood and found in Al Qaeda’s ideology in advocating violence against every current government and society because all are in a state of “Jahiliyyah” (Apostasy). Qutb advocated Jihad to force society to submit to God alone.  His book “Milestones” has become a manifesto for Jihadists seeking to free Muslims from Jahiliyyah and to establish “Divine Law” (Sharia) to bring about man’s submission to God, and this influence was heavily felt during the Arab Spring.

It is hard to accept the words of Dr Jamal Badawi as honest, once one learns that he has regularly engaged in terrorist support/finance activities (e.g. Holy Land Foundation conspiracy). But even more troubling was the fact that not too many Muslims felt that this event was important enough to attend, which may suggest that they don’t accept the concept either; all Muslims may not be terrorists or dangerous or bad and cruel, but we see an increasing number of people who are finding in Islamic scripture justifications for cruel behavior toward non-Muslims and even the people of their own respective societies. And, the silent Muslim majority have a hard time condemning fellow Muslims who are violent because they feel they can’t criticize the Koran, since they have all been indoctrinated with the idea the prophet Mohammad is infallible, he can do no harm, he has done no harm, he was a pure man. He’s out of bounds and that’s the predicament: As Badawi uttered, “Peace Be Upon Him”, he stated that in any difference of opinion among Muslims, one must accept Mohammed’s words as the “final interpretation”.

‘Islam, Shariah, and the Brotherhood Make Inroads at Chautauqua’

20130726_feisalabdulrauf__large

 Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf

By Clare Lopez:

The Chautauqua Institution, located amidst lovely natural surroundings on the shores of Lake Chautauqua in southwestern New York State, is home to a “unique mix of fine and performing arts, lectures, interfaith worship and programs, and recreational activities,” according to its online Home Page. Drawing tens of thousands of visitors each year, Chautauqua is also one of the most liberal organizations one could possibly imagine anywhere on earth….especially about topics involving faith-based belief systems, like Islam. Regular summer program speakers who downplay and whitewash the counter-Constitutional aspects of Islamic jihad and shariah are not balanced with others who might address the issue with more honesty. The name of Chautauqua’s 2013 Week Eight lecture theme offers a glimpse of its delusions about Islam-dominated societies: “Turkey: Model for the Middle East.” But the introduction to the 2013 “Pursuit of Happiness” lecture series is the dead giveaway:

“The goal of every religion is to help seekers everywhere learn to cultivate true and lasting happiness within themselves.”

If they were referring to Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, or any of a number of other great world religions, this quote would make perfect sense. With reference to Islam, though, not so much, as its own founding figure, Muhammad made quite clear in everything from the Qur’anic verses Muslims believe he received from Allah, to his recorded biography (the Sirat), to the actions and sayings recounted by his followers (ahadith). A few examples will illustrate:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (Qur’an 8:12)

Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.  (Qur’an 98:6)

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”  Hadith of Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196)

Putting the seal of immutable law on these authoritative Islamic sources, the shariah (Islamic Law) likewise codifies Islam’s rejection of any other faith, even Christianity or Judaism.

… It is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world. (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, ‘Umdat al-Salik, w4.0[2])

And yet, deliriously heedless of what Islam really says about how Muslims should think of non-Muslims, the Chautauqua Institute continues to feature honey-tongued apologists for interfaith dialogue on its annual program line-up. In July 2012, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf spoke to rapt audiences about the non-existent Islamic commandment to “love thy neighbor” while his wife, Daisy Khan is reported to have played the gullible Chautauqua audience with shovels-full of taqiyya about how gender equality is an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith. She is said to enjoy speaking at Chautauqua because “she has found audiences are mature concerning religious and faith-based arguments.” Utterly clueless about Islam would seem to be a more accurate description.

Read more: Family Security Matters

The Threat of Islamic Betrayal

crossed-finger-liarBy Raymond Ibrahim:

A recent assassination attempt in Turkey offers valuable lessons for the West concerning Islamist hate—and the amount of deceit and betrayal that hate engenders towards non-Muslim “infidels.”

Last January, an assassination plot against a Christian pastor in Turkey was thwarted.  Police arrested 14 suspects.  Two of them had been part of the pastor’s congregation for more than a year, feigning interest in Christianity.   One went so far as to participate in a baptism.  Three of the suspects were women.  “These people had infiltrated our church and collected information about me, my family and the church and were preparing an attack against us,” said the pastor in question, Emre Karaali, a native Turk: “Two of them attended our church for over a year and they were like family.”

And their subversive tactics worked: “The 14 [suspects] had collected personal information, copies of personal documents, created maps of the church and the pastor’s home, and had photos of those who had come to Izmit [church] to preach.”

Consider the great lengths these Islamic supremacists went to in order to murder this Christian pastor: wholesale deception, attending non-Islamic places of worship and rites to the point that “they were like family” to the Christian they sought to betray and kill.  While some may think such acts are indicative of un-Islamic behavior, they are, in fact, doctrinally permissible and historically demonstrative.

Islamic teaching permits deceits, ruses, and dispensations. For an in depth examination, read about the doctrines of taqiyyatawriya, and taysir.  Then there is Islam’s overarching idea of niyya(or “intention”), best captured by the famous Muslim axiom, “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” According to this teaching, the intentions behind Muslim actions determine whether said actions are permissible or not.

From here one may understand the many incongruities of Islam: lying is forbidden—unless the intention is to empower Islam; killing women and children is forbidden—but permissible during the jihad; suicide is forbidden—unless the intention is to kill infidels, in which case it becomes a “martyrdom operation.”

Thus, feigning interest in Christianity, attending church for over a year, participating in Christian baptisms, and becoming “like family” to an infidel—all things forbidden according to Islamic Sharia—become permissible in the service of the jihad on Christianity.

Read more at American Thinker

Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum, is author of the new book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians 

 

Will Al Jazeera keep Muslim Apostate Cenk Uygur after Current TV sale?

by :

After the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera was announced earlier this year, Cenk Uygur, one of Current TV’s political pontificators, told POLITICO that he wouldn’t mind staying with the network when the dust settles:

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks told POLITICO that unlike some of his Current TV colleagues, he’s open to staying with Al Jazeera America.

Cenk_Uygur

In theory, this should pose a problem for Uygur because Al Jazeera is essentially a media arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is extremely fundamentalist. Uygur, on the other hand, is a Muslim apostate by his own admission. In a 2008 op-ed by Uygur that appeared in the Huffington Post, he explained…

I am a fervent agnostic. I have argued vehemently against religion… Worse yet, I was born Muslim. I went to school in Turkey until I was eight (that will be translated as “attended a madrasa” by Fox “News” Channel).

Note how Uygur is not just an agnostic but a “fervent” one. This makes him a Muslim apostate, does it not? Assuming the Current TV sale to Al Jazeera goes through, what should we make of things if Uygur is retained? After all, it would mean that a fundamentalist Arab Muslim network will be prominently featuring a “fervent agnostic” who used to be a “Muslim”.

Perhaps the answer might lie in the teachings of a prominently featured Muslim Brotherhood scholar on Al Jazeera – Yusuf Al Qaradawi. Qaradawi is a “fervent” proponent of Muruna, an Islamic practice that is similar to taqiyya but is far more stealthy in nature.

On the other hand, if Uygur is let go, it will mean that Al Jazeera is being true to Islam instead of to Muruna. Then again, according to Qaradawi, Muruna is true to Islam.

Then again, consider that the “fervent apostate” Uygur, in 2010, mocked Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia legislation. Why on earth would a “fervent agnostic” come to the defense of Islam in Oklahoma?

Read more at Shoebat.com

Spot the ‘Xenophobic Butcher’

Andrew Higgins

Andrew Higgins

By Andrew G. Bostom:

In my earlier blog about NY Times agitprop journalist Andrew Higgins, who calumniated a real journalist and historian, Lars Hedegaard, I mentioned Higgins’ warped hagiography of The Danish Muslim Society, and its two recent leaders, whose role in fomenting the cartoon riot carnage – 200 dead and over 800 wounded — Higgins failed to discuss.

Higgins also singled out for praise Minhaj ul Quran International, which he characterized as “the Danish offshoot of a controversial group in Pakistan that has taken a hard line at home against blasphemy.” Diana West, citing a 2006 article “Free Speech in Denmark“,  which was co-authored by Lars Hedegaard, notes that Minhaj ul Quran’s leader, Tahir ul-Qadri wrote these words, consistent with the Sharia, on the universal application of Islamic “blasphemy” law:

The act of contempt of the finality of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is a crime which can not be tolerated whether its commission is direct or indirect, intentional or un-intentional. The crime is so sanguine that even his repentance can not exempt him from the penalty of death.

Although ul-Qadri, of Pakistani descent, tried to deny his own words, in a failed effort at sacralized Islamic dissimulation, or “taqiyya,” watch the video, below, which captures his proud championing of Pakistan’s blasphemy law and its lethal consequences for non-Muslims, in particular.

 

These liberty-crushing, murder-inciting remarks of ul-Qadri were apparently of no concern to Mr. Higgins. But Higgins did find time to label Anders Gravers (using, perhaps, a deliberately vicious pun on his trade), “a xenophobic butcher from the north,” because Gravers opposes the aggressive efforts of Denmark’s Muslims to Islamize Danish society.  Compare Gravers’ peaceful exercise of free speech,  voicing his strong opposition to Sharia encroachment in his native Denmark, to ul-Qadri’s unabashed call for the murder of non-Muslim “blasphemers”-and then lying about that heinous record of support for the application of Islamic blasphemy law.

Who is the “xenophobic butcher” again, Mr. Higgins?

American Muslim Jurists: Offensive Jihad — Not Yet

156x147x3LPK19nTduHE_png_pagespeed_ic_V7NAL6Wc89By Ryan Mauro:

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) opposes offensive jihad in the West, but for reasons that may surprise you. In an Arabic fatwa (religious decree) that doesn’t appear on its English website, it states that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time [emphasis added].”

This doesn’t mean that all jihad is to be abandoned. “With our current capabilities, we are aspiring towards defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation,” it said.

It is important to notice that it was issued in Arabic on the website of its Secretary-General, Salah Al-Sawy. Even though AMJA is based in Sacramento and its mission is to serve their American Muslim audience, it decided against issuing this fatwa in English. If it wasn’t translated by the Translating Jihad blog and reported by Andrew Bostom in 2011, we probably wouldn’t know about it.

AMJA Secretary-General Salah Al-Sawy

AMJA Secretary-General Salah Al-Sawy

Deception is something that AMJA approves of. In an English-language fatwa on its website, issued by Al-Sawy inAMJA Secretary-General Salah Al-Sawy 2005, Muslims are authorized to lie for the sake of “repulsing evil” if there are “compelling strokes of necessity.” In that case, “he can indirectly say something that his listener can understand something else.”

Read more at Radical Islam