CAIR’s Deceptive Video About Islamist Deception

From CAIR's new video about the Islamic concept of taqiyya (Photo: Video screenshot)

From CAIR’s new video about the Islamic concept of taqiyya (Photo: Video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Aug. 10, 2016:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front by the U.S. government, has released a new video through its Michigan chapter that ironically uses deception to allay worries about Islamist deception.

The video featuring CAIR-MI Executive Director Dawud Walid says that “anti-Muslim bigots” who “sow the seeds of distrust about Muslims and Islam” are incorrect in referencing taqiyya, an Islamic doctrine permitting deception. Some Sunnis reject taqiyya as being Shiite in origin, but doctrines of deception nonetheless exist and are used by Islamists from either branch of Islam.

Walid says that taqiyya “gives permission for individuals to conceal some of their thoughts or beliefs due to extremely dire circumstances,” such as a Muslim who worships a false idol under threat of torture or death.

He later says it can only be done for “saving one’s life.” However, since Muslims believe they are part of one ummah or community, it is implied that lying to save another Muslim’s life is permissible.

The problem is that Islamists believe they are working to save other Muslims from “extremely dire circumstances.” And, of course, an Islamist is permitted to lie to protect his own life from repercussions like jail time.

If you think that is an unfair parsing of words, look at what CAIR—the source of this video–has done and said.

The Justice Department identified CAIR as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood when the Holy Land Foundation was prosecuted for financing Hamas. CAIR was labeled as an unindicted co-conspirator in that trial. The Muslim country of the United Arab Emirates ended its support of CAIR when it banned the Muslim Brotherhood and designated CAIR as a terrorist group.

The FBI wiretapped two of CAIR’s founders at a secret Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in 1993 where the leading participants were recorded explicitly discussing advancing the Islamist agenda through deception. They discussed forming a new non-profit with a clean trail for this purpose. Here is a partial transcript of the exchange:

“Holy Land Foundation leader Shukri Abu Baker: I swear by your God that war is deception. War is deception. We are fighting our enemy with a kind heart and we never thought of deceiving it. War is deception. Deceive, camouflage, pretend that you’re leaving while you’re walking that way. Or do we have to be…Deceive your enemy.”

CAIR founder Omar Ahmad: This is like one who plays basketball; he makes a player believe that he is doing this while he does something else…UI. I agree with you. Like they say; politics is a completion of war.

Holy Land Foundation leader Shukri Abu Baker: Yes, politics—like war—is deception.”

This exchange is part of the reason why federal prosecutors said in a court filing for another terrorism trial:

From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists…the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.

Dawud Walid, the CAIR official in the video about deception, has a history of inflammatory statements that include repeated deceptive characterizations of law enforcement, including accusing the FBI of “basically cultivating and inciting people towards extremism” and “manufacturing their own terrorism suspects to give the appearance that they’re actually doing something tangible in the so-called ‘War on Terrorism.’”

He has also accused the U.S. of undermining the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and made comments disparaging Independence Day and Memorial Day, including being quoted by another CAIR official as suggesting fallen U.S. troops should not be honored. You can read more in our profile of CAIR’s Michigan chapter.

This deception is justified by Islamist doctrine beyond the concept of taqiyya.

The Reliance of the Traveler is an authoritative manual on sharia law endorsed by Al-Azhar University (the top school of learning in Sunni Islam), the U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood front International Institute of Islamic Thought and the Fiqh Council of North America, a section of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). It teaches that Muslims first preference should be to tell the truth, followed by “employ[ing] words to give a misleading impression,” followed by lying if it is for a “praiseworthy aim.”

In such cases where the objective cannot be achieved truthfully, it is “obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.” Accompanying examples include lying to an “oppressor” about where a Muslim is located or lying to someone who is trying to stop a Muslim from performing an obligatory act.

In word and in deed, CAIR has shown us that it believes in using deception for its cause. The latest video is a deceptive attempt to make you unconcerned about the deception it practices.

The Non-PC Reason Iran Lies to Obama and the West

index.sized-770x415xtPJ MEDIA, BY ROBERT SPENCER JUNE 10, 2016:

Newly declassified State Department cables revealed that, in January 1979, sent a secret message to the Jimmy Carter White House. He promised that if Carter did not stand in the way of the mullahs taking power in Iran, the new Islamic Republic would safeguard U.S. interests there.

Khomeini was lying, of course.

The Carter administration had not been willing to allow for that possibility, any more than the Obama administration is willing to admit that Iran today is lying about the nuke deal. (Given that Ben Rhodes and the rest of the Obama team was busy lying to the American people about the deal, it is odd they would assume the Iranians were being truthful.)

Washington policymakers in both eras — tightly bound to the politically correct dogma that Islam is peaceful and benign — failed to consider the importance of the Shi’ite doctrine of taqiyya.

Yet if any of our political leaders had dared bring up taqiyya in connection with the deal, it might have been much clearer to the nation why the deal had to be stopped.

No one can say we weren’t warned that the whole thing was a lie. The warning couldn’t have been clearer.

On November 24, 2013, Iran, the U.S., and its allies concluded a preliminary agreement on Iran’s nuclear program that paved the way for the later deal. Several weeks later, Iranian political analyst Mohammad Sadeq Al-Hosseini — who had been a political advisor to the “moderate” Mohammad Khatami, president of Iran from 1997 to 2005 — gave a revealing interview.

Hosseini was contemptuous of the notion that the Geneva deal represented a new friendship between the U.S. and Iran:

There is no honeymoon. We are engaged in a fierce war with the Americans on all levels. This is the Treaty of Hudaybiyya in Geneva, and it will be followed by a “conquest of Mecca.”

This was a clear admission of deception.

Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, concluded the Treaty of Hudaybiyya with the pagan Arabs of Mecca at terms disadvantageous to the Muslims — but only to give them time to gather strength. When the Muslim forces were much stronger several years later, he broke the agreement, marched on Mecca, and conquered it. The treaty, with its unfavorable terms, was based on a lie, and Muhammad discarded it when he didn’t need it anymore.

Hosseini boasted openly about Iran’s long-term plan:

The Geneva agreement was achieved due to three things. The first was our strategic patience. Iran has maintained strategic patience for a very long time — 10 or 11 years. We have been patient, preparing for the day that comes after those 10 years.

Hosseini was referring to the day when the deal lapses, and Iran is completely free to pursue nuclear weapons without the deal’s sham restrictions. More:

When you conduct political negotiations with Iran, you lose even when you think you have won.

Hosseini — again, an advisor on policy for a prior “moderate” Iranian administration — was admitting that deception is a core element of Iranian foreign policy. It has been right from the beginning of the Islamic Republic, when Khomeini sent his secret cable to Washington.

Deception is a frequently used weapon of the Islamic Republic because it is a core element of Shi’ite Islam.

Although deception of unbelievers is found in the Qur’an (3:28) and is thus acceptable among all Islamic sects, taqiyya (concealment) is a particularly Shi’ite doctrine. When he gave his assurances to Carter, Khomeini, as a Shi’ite leader, was using taqiyya in its classic sense.

The concept of taqiyya developed during the time of the sixth Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq, in middle of the eighth century. The Shi’ites were being persecuted by the Sunni caliph al-Mansur. Taqiyya allowed Shi’ites to pretend to be Sunnis in order to protect themselves, as Sunnis were killing Shi’ites.

Read more

***

Here is a great site recommended by Citizen Warrior:

http://www.sneakyislam.com/home.html

Frank Gaffney: Erdogan Transformed Turkey into an ‘Islamist Police State’ That Is No Longer a ‘Reliable NATO Ally’

AFP

AFP

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 15, 2016:

Center for Security Policy founder and Sen. Ted Cruz foreign-policy adviser Frank Gaffney joined host Stephen K. Bannon on Breitbart News Daily Friday morning to talk about the recent proclamation of “Islamic unity” from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose country will now assume the chairmanship of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for two years.

Gaffney argued that Erdogan’s statement was actually an example of taqqiya, the Muslim practice of lying for the greater good of the faith, and Erdogan’s true agenda was Islamic supremacism.

“I think what he’s trying to tell us is different from what he’s trying to tell his own people,” Gaffney said of Erdogan’s proclamation.  “He’s telling us that he’s all about solidarity, and tolerance, and ecumenicalism, and we all need to pull together, and so on.”

“But the main message he’s been sending to his own people, for something like 13 years now, is Islamic supremacism,” Gaffney continued.  “It has nothing to do with [singing] ‘Kumbaya’ with infidels.  It is about forcing them to submit, in the classic tradition ofsharia.

He described Erdogan as “Muslim Brotherhood old Islamist who believes, at the end of the day, that he is going to be the new Caliph.”

“He is going to create a neo-Ottoman Empire.  And anything that is communicated to the West – in various international fora, or through proclamations, or through other means – is what is known, in the traditions of sharia, as taqqiya – that is, essentially, lying for the Faith.  And I think this should be discounted as such,” said Gaffney.

Gaffney explained that it’s not just permitted, but “obligatory,” for followers of the Islamic supremacist doctrine to “dissemble, to deceive the unbeliever, and to use deception as Mohammed did – the perfect Muslim – to triumph over the infidel, and to successfully create conditions under which they will be effectively enslaved, or reduced to a dhimmistatus.”

He thought the Turkish president’s carefully crafted message would play well to Western media and government, which are suffused with the endless hope that “there’s a degree of moderation on the part of people like Erdogan, or others in the Muslim Brotherhood movement – the global jihad movement, for that matter.”

“It just ain’t so,” Gaffney argued.  “This is a guy who has transformed his country, let’s be clear, from a secular democratic nation – a Muslim one to be sure, but definitely in the secular tradition of Ataturk – into what is now an Islamist police state.”

“Particularly people in the press, who are trying to portray this in the most rose-colored glass mode, should understand what he’s doing to the press in Turkey,” Gaffney stressed.  “He’s crushing it, unless it bends to his will.”

He noted that Erdogan is famous for having said “Democracy is like a bus – you take it to your destination, and then you get off.”

“He’s long since gotten off, internally,” Gaffney warned.  “We should be under no illusion: he is not aligned with us.  He is aligned with the Islamists around the world – with Iran, with China, with Hamas of course.  This is a guy who is no longer, in his country, a reliable NATO ally.  And that’s the unvarnished and unhappy truth.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00AM to 9:00AM EST.

You can listen to the full interview with Frank Gaffney below:

Also see:

What Britain’s Muslims Really Think… Is That Nothing Is Ever Their Fault

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Breitbart, by James Delingpole, April 14, 2016:

In a Channel 4 documentary called What Britain’s Muslims Really Think, presenter Trevor Phillips presented survey evidence suggesting that large numbers of British Muslims don’t want to integrate and dislike Jews and that many thousands of them support extremist views including terrorism and suicide bombing.

The British Muslim community has responded in the usual way…

Smear the polling company

“Lets not forget ICM is one of the polling companies that wrongly predicted the 2015 general election. The stats just don’t hold enough weight.” (Nazia, 35, W. Yorkshire)

Cast doubt on the methodology

“Other issues include the fact that the study targeted areas that were at least 20% Muslim and a large chunk of the sample were born abroad. If the study was conducted where English is not widely spoken, how do we know the participants fully understood what they were being asked?” (Nazia, 35, W. Yorkshire)

Hint that even asking these questions is divisive and Islamophobic

What is going to happen to our stated desire to build robust social cohesion if we keep singling out British Muslims as unique special cases? And what is it that is really underlying such constant scrutiny? (Rachel Shabi, Al Jazeera)

Nothing to do with Islam. It’s ‘cultural’, innit?

Moreover, Trevor Philips and the show portrayed segregated schools as an Islamic problem, that somehow where a school finds itself admitting children of a certain colour, that it is a religious issue. I would argue that this is a cultural and geographical issue and conflating religion with state school segregation is ridiculous. (Ibraham Ilyas, 18, Birmingham)

There’s no such thing as a ‘Muslim’

Being a Shia Muslim I wish Wahhabi or Salafi elements of society weren’t able to answer on my behalf. (Zaynab Mirza, 32, London)

I have a degree in social sciences, majoring in grievance studies

“We were presented in an extremely negative light. We were othered.” (Ismail, 32, Dewsbury)

Some Muslims are doctors, nurses, and teachers – so that makes everything nice

The show did not look at all at the positive contribution Muslims have made to Britain; that we serve as doctors, nurses, teachers and we actually aid the community we live in. (white convert Sarah Ward Khan, 36, London)

Whatabout…?

None of this is to give sexism, homophobia or any other prejudices a free pass. Nobody is suggesting that it’s brilliant that a minority of British Muslims support stoning – or, for that matter, that 45 percent of the overall British population would bring back hanging. (Rachel Shabi, Al Jazeera)

Lovely Nadija from Great British Bake Off make everything nice

But when there are 13 Muslim MPs, a British Muslim candidate for mayor of London, aMuslim dragon in the Dragons’ Den, and a Muslim winner of the Great British Bake Off, it seems that in reality, Muslims are very much part of British society. (Miqdaad Versi, Muslim Council of Britain)

Nothing to do with Islam. Did we mention this already? Well, it isn’t. And here’s some made-up stasticoids from a parti-pris organisation with affiliations to the Muslim Brotherhood…

The Muslim Council of Britain’s own research has shown that far more serious concerns relate to poverty, gender, criminality and Islamophobia. (Miqdaad Versi, Muslim Council of Britain)

Have you noticed something glaringly absent from these responses?

At no point does anyone seem to be suggesting that there is a serious problem here which Muslims need to address.

Perhaps there isn’t.

Perhaps, for example, you think it’s perfectly OK that – as the programme reported – a nine-year old boy at one of the Trojan Horse schools in Birmingham suggested that his middle-aged Muslim headmistress was a “slag” because she wasn’t wearing a headscarf.

Or that boys at the same Birmingham state primary school would act like religious police and clout girls not wearing the veil over the head.

Or that there are now 85 Sharia councils in Britain which – according to Zurich professor Elham Manea, herself a Muslim – are enforcing on Muslim communities (especially with regard to marriage) a version of Islam as extreme as that practised by the Taliban or in Manea’s native Yemen.

Or that over 40 per cent of the mosques in Britain are controlled by the Deobandis, promoters of the same form of fundamentalist Islam as the Taliban.

Or that in part two of BBC Radio 4’s excellent investigation into the Deobandis, researchers found literature in a London mosque aggressively promoting the kind of hatred against the supposedly heretical Ahmadi sect which led to the recent murder of a peaceful Muslim Glasgow shopkeeper?

Call me an Islamophobe but I’m not sure that any of the above represent shining examples of a community that is bending over backwards to accommodate itself with the host culture.

Isn’t about time we heard a bit more from British Muslims about what they plan to do remedy this?

I worry, you see, that if they’re not careful that harmless, peace-loving religion of theirs might start to get a bad rap.

***

Also see:

“Moderate Reformer” Tariq Ramadan Defends Brussels Attack

tariq-ramadan1Frontpage, Daniel Greenfield, April 3, 2016:

Tariq Ramadan was barred from the US under Bush, but Obama threw open the doors for him. Ramadan was billed as a moderate reformer. And here is the “moderate reformer” on the Brussels attacks. After the formality of condemning the attacks, mumbling that terrorism is wrong, Ramadan pivots to the same old song and dance.

We cannot, today, afford to disconnect these events with the violence, terror and death that have long been commonplace in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and in Africa and Asia more widely. European and American foreign policy does not happen in a vacuum, as those who target us have repeated in countless videos: You have caused war and death in our countries, now you will suffer the consequences.

Now the “war and death” that ISIS terrorists are talking about is the US and the rest of NATO pushing back against its genocide of Christians, Yazidis and other minorities. Or to put it another way, American intervention against Islamic terror doesn’t happen in a vacuum either. “You have caused war and death in our countries, now you will suffer the consequences.”

But what is Tariq Ramadan really suggesting? That bombing ISIS is wrong?

We must hear those who criticize the incoherence of our allegiances and our support of dictatorships.

What dictatorships? Obama threw them overboard. And the Islamist alternative is itself a dictatorship. That’s what ISIS is.

Does the condemnable violence of their reaction mean we can ignore their arguments?

What ISIS arguments would Tariq Ramadan like us to listen to?

Tariq doesn’t answer. Instead he recycles the same old tedious nonsense. ISIS wants to wreck Muslim integration in the West. (The Brotherhood and the Saudis and Erdogan have done that on their own already.) Muslim terrorists are irreligious and need to be taught Islam propertly. (Fight Islamist indoctrination with our flavor of Islamist indoctrination.)

But then Tariq Ramadan informs us that if we don’t bomb the right Muslims, then maybe we also deserve to be bombed.

 We cannot support dictatorships, be political and economic partners with states who export literalist Salafi doctrine, be silent when civilians are massacred south of our borders and hope that we will not receive a response to the injustice and humiliation we have provoked.

Wait… so we can’t bomb Muslim countries and not expect to be bombed. Also we can’t not bomb Muslim countries and not expect to be bombed.

According to Tariq Ramadan, we need to bomb the countries that Islamists want us to bomb (non-Islamist dictators) and not bomb the wrong ones (Islamist dictators and terror groups) or… we will receive a response to the injustice and humiliation we have provoked.

But that probably sounded better in the original Jihadist.

France bombed Syria. So it deserved to get bombed. So why did Brussels deserve to get bombed? Well it wasn’t bombing Syria was it. So it deserved to get bombed. This is the Islamist Catch 22 that Tariq Ramadan is offering. Anything you do or don’t do is an excuse for Islamic terrorists to bomb you.

Acknowledge, Don’t Apologize

Political Islam, Mar 29 2016, by Bill Warner:

Every time jihadis kill Kafirs, our leaders and Muslims launch another “Don’t blame Muslims” campaign. The latest campaign is presented by Omar Alnatour. He takes the approach of Muslims should not apologize for what criminals do, because terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.

OA: “Radicals have hijacked his religion”
If a Muslim imitates Mohammed, he is following the Sunna, which the Koran commands Muslims to do. It is not a crime, if you do what Mohammed did.

OA: “Islam teaches peace”
Islam does preach peace, but it also preaches jihad. Mohammed rose to power on politics and jihad, not peace.

OA: “Islam says not to kill the innocents”
Yes, but Kafirs are guilty of rejecting Mohammed and are not innocent.

OA: “Muslims are not terrorists”
No, Muslims are called to be jihadis, not terrorists. The Koran devotes 24% of the Medinan Koran to jihad.

OA: “Muslims condemn terrorism”
Perhaps, but will Muslims acknowledge that they cannot condemn what Mohammed did? They cannot condemn Mohammed’s jihad.

OA: “Good Muslims have no relationship to terrorists”
Peaceful Muslims say the same prayers, read the same Koran and follow the Sunna as the jihadis.

Also see:

Where is the Mystical “Peaceful” Version of Islam Taught?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 12, 2016:

American and European leaders tell us that Islam is a “wonderful” “religion” which teaches peace and love among all peoples.  Officials often quote the Koran in order to demonstrate the truth of this narrative.  Yet, the question remains:  Where do MUSLIMS teach other MUSLIMS that Islam requires them to love all other people in the world, and “do unto others?”

The answer:  Nowhere on the planet except in Muslim homes where parents teach their children these principles, which are entirely contrary to the teachings of Islam.

Islam is Sharia and Sharia is Islam.  Sharia (Islamic Law) comes from the Koran (the direct word of Allah) and the example of the prophet Mohammad (Sunnah) – the most perfect man according to Islam.  Allah in the Koran said whatever was revealed to Mohammad chronologically last overrules what was revealed before it (Koran 16:101, 2:106).  The last chronological verses in the Koran to discuss jihad include Sura (chapter) 9 verse 5 which says, “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.”

islam (3)

Verses in the Koran such as “Let there be no compulsion in religion” are overruled (abrogated) by verses like Koran 3:85 stating that all people who are not Muslim go to hell, and Koran 5:51 which states, “Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends…”  Muslims who do will go to hell.

In fact, the Koran says that non-Muslims are the “worst of creatures.”

“Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.” (Koran 98:6)

Mohammad himself, in the most authoritative reports (hadith) in Islam, said, “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
(Bukhari 385 / Muslim, Book of Faith, 29)

In fact, Mohammad called for all Jews to be killed when he said in the most authoritative hadith in Islam: “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.” (Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926)

Authoritative Islamic hadith by the most revered hadith scholar (Bukhari) says the Muslim prophet Jesus will return at the end of days to kill all the Jews and cast all Christians into hell for not converting to Islam.

The purpose of Islam, according to Islam, is to eliminate all places on the earth where sharia is not the law of the land (Dar al Harb/House of War), until the entire world is made the Dar al Islam (House of Islam) under sharia.  Then you have “peace.”  The vehicle to do this is called “jihad.”

So, Islam is the religion of peace, so long as you remember to translate English to English through the filter of sharia and how it defines “peace.”

Back to the question:  Where is the Mystical “Peaceful” Version of Islam Taught?

It is not taught in Islamic elementary, junior high, or high schools anywhere on the planet.

It is not taught in the most prestigious and oldest Islamic schools of jurisprudence, such as Al Azhar in Egypt.

It is not taught in Islamic Centers/Mosques anywhere in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, Africa, or North America.

It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims at the Department of Defense.  It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims inside American churches and synagogues.  It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI, CIA, and elsewhere in our intelligence and law enforcement services.  It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims to Members of Congress, National Security staffs, state legislators, and many other elected and appointed officials in the United States.

It appears many people may be unaware it is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim anything that is untrue about Islam, but it is obligatory for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim when the goal is obligatory – like in Jihad.

Maajid Nawaz: Stealth Jihadist Exposed

Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey, Dec. 22, 2015:

Maajid Nawaz is a prominent “moderate” or secular Muslim and the founder of the Quilliam Foundation in Britain. His organization was featured briefly in this space two years ago, when Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll left the EDL and teamed up with Quilliam just before Tommy’s trial (see these three posts from October 2013 for more on Tommy Robinson and Quilliam).

The following exposé by Vikram Chatterjee examines the extensive use by Maajid Nawaz of untruths, dissimulation, evasions, and misleading statements in his writings about Islam. In these he reveals himself to be a practitioner of taqiyya, tawriya, and kitman, the time-honored Islamic doctrines of lying and sacred misdirection.

Update: Mr. Chatterjee has cross-posted this article to his own blog, where you will find his further thoughts on Maajid Nawaz.

maajidnawaz

Maajid Nawaz: Stealth Jihadist Exposed
by Vikram K. Chatterjee

Thanks in part to the help of Douglas Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Prime Minister David Cameron and others, Maajid Nawaz has acquired an undeserved reputation as a secular liberal. Despite his outward facade of secularism and liberalism, Nawaz is in fact a deeply devout Sunni Muslim supremacist, operating far behind enemy lines in the Dar al-Harb, the House of War. Nawaz, to fulfill his duties as a Muslim, is waging a campaign of stealth Jihad in order to further the cause of Islam by making himself appear friendly and open to the Infidels of the West while simultaneously carrying out a campaign of mass deception about Islam itself. His goal is to weaken any resistance to the conquest of the Infidel lands of the West by publicly spreading disinformation about the faith, about its many ways of conquest, and deceiving his audience about the doctrinal details of Islam itself. While this may seem like a preposterous claim to make, it merely reflects the ordinary reality of stealth Jihad.

In what follows, Nawaz’s campaign of deception will be demonstrated.

Maajid Nawaz’s not-so-subtle threats of decapitation

The first thing to be said is that Nawaz is easily shown to have deployed threatening, jihad-tinged language after he supposedly became a secular liberal. In July of 2012, Nawaz’s book Radical: My Journey Out of Islamist Extremism was published by WH Allen. The book purports to be a memoir in which Nawaz describes his youth in Essex, how he joined the Sunni supremacist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, and how he became a political prisoner in Egypt where he supposedly had a revelation in which he saw that “Islamism”, or variously “Islamist extremism” was a divisive political ideology, and decided to leave it (but not, crucially, Islam itself), becoming a secular liberal. Fifteen months later, in October 2013, a year and a half after the UK publication of Nawaz’ memoir, Tommy Robinson quit the English Defense League, the organization which he started, out of fear that its ranks were swelling with neo-Nazis. He embraced Maajid Nawaz and Quilliam Foundation instead, accepting at the time their claims of secularism to be genuine. In an email obtained by Huffington Post Assistant News Editor Jessica Elgot, Nawaz described this event as the “UK’s largest right-wing street movement — the EDL — is being decapitated.”[1] (emphasis added)

Interesting choice of words, no? Why would the “former Islamist extremist” Maajid Nawaz use such threatening, jihad-tinged language? Could his secular liberalism be a clever sham? As we shall see, turning to the book he co-authored with Sam Harris, the evidence shows Nawaz is cold and calculating in his bald-faced telling of untruths, repeatedly deploying outrageous falsehoods about Islam.

The lies of Maajid Nawaz in Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue

Published in October 2015, Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue purports to be a conversation between two liberals, one an acknowledged atheist and secularist, the other a supposedly nominal Muslim. The goal of the book seems to be to find a way of talking about Islam and its attendant problems in a polite way, and search for a path for a kind of Islamic secularism. Harris, apparently convinced of Nawaz’ liberalism and secularism, entered into the “dialogue” with him in October 2014. In an article entitled “Can Liberalism Be Saved From Itself”, Harris wrote what will prove to have been a fateful sentence:

Whatever the prospects are for moving Islam out of the Middle Ages, hope lies not with obscurantists like Reza Aslan but with reformers like Maajid Nawaz.[2]

Harris called Aslan an obscurantist, yet turning to his book with Nawaz, on page 44 we find Nawaz saying, of Sayyid Qutb, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader, theologian and author of Milestones, and In The Shade of the Qur’an, whose zealous career was a primary force in creating the modern Islamic movements to restore the Caliphate, that “the Egyptian regime killed him for writing a book”.

This is a straightforward falsehood. Notoriously, Qutb was executed by the Egyptian state for his alleged involvement in an attempt to assassinate Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.[3] By saying that Qutb was executed for merely writing a book, Nawaz portrays Qutb as a devout Muslim as an innocent victim, a tried and true tactic of Islamic propaganda. It seems highly unlikely that Nawaz is unaware of the real reason for Qutb’s execution, given that Nawaz spent four years at the same prison in which Qutb was held, Mazra Tora.

Moving on, on page 61 of the book, Harris brings up the important point of Qur’anic literalism:

I want to ask you about this, because my understanding is that basically all “moderate” Muslims — that is, those who aren’t remotely like Islamists, or even especially conservative, in their social attitudes — are nevertheless fundamentalists by the Christian standard, because they believe the Qur’an to be the literal and inerrant word of God.

Excellent question, Sam. Do mainstream Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the literal and inerrant word of God? What is Nawaz’s reply?

Well, Nawaz’s three-page reply on pages 61-64 gives no answer whatsoever to this question. He avoids it entirely, beginning with the evasive phrase “I think we have to be careful to avoid two mistakes…” and so on. Nawaz then goes on a curious series of tangents, offering up entertaining thoughts about the meaning of the term literal, which is apparently a big mystery. He then turns down a series of historical side tracks about the Mu’tazilites, Iranian philosophy, and the Council of Nicaea before telling us, in answer to the question of whether the Qur’an was created by God that he “won’t take theological stances here”.

Having done all that, on page 64 Nawaz drops the arresting phrase “because there is no clergy in Islam”, apparently confident that Harris and the reader have never heard of the ulama. Nawaz finishes by stating that “My role is to probe and ask skeptical questions about interpretive methodology, Muslim history, identity, politics, policy, values, and morality”, a job description that apparently does not include answering straightforward questions like “Do Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the literal and inerrant word of God?” The reader ends up finding no definitive answer to this salient question, which is curious, since Nawaz is supposedly an honest secularist and liberal who should be eager to answer simple questions. That Harris cannot bring himself to press Nawaz on this important point, or catch Nawaz’s lie about there being “no clergy in Islam” demonstrates his inadequacy to the task at hand.

After a further set of comments from Harris about the nature of religious moderation and the different range of problems posed by literal readings of different religious traditions, Nawaz responds on page 69 with some apparently secular-minded comments about “sad and horrendous atrocities committed against hostages in Syria by British and European Muslim terrorists.” From the context, it appears that Nawaz is referring to Islamic State beheadings and immolations of captives, but without specific definitions of the terms used in the sentence: “hostage” and “British and European Muslim terrorists”, the statement could be read in other ways. He could just as easily be referring to bombing done by the British and French states in Syria, and using tawriya[4] to privately redefine what a “hostage” and a “European Muslim terrorist” is, so that he appears to be denouncing Islamic State atrocities, while in his own heart he actually isn’t. That may sound to some readers like a paranoid suspicion to have, but time and again we have seen Muslims appear make overtures of peace or condemnations of Muslim atrocities, employing vague language like “we condemn the killing of innocents” while not deigning to mention what is meant by the term “innocent”. Nawaz may well be up to similar shenanigans with this phrase.

On the next page, we find Nawaz saying, of Islamic reform, that “I think the challenge lies with interpretation…” In Islam, interpretation of scripture and tradition is dictated from the top down, beginning with the ulama, the clergy, who in turn are today mostly re-iterating interpretations (generally called tafsir — commentary or elucidation) that were arrived at by Muslim theologians about a thousand years ago. This class of Muslim clergy, the ulama, in turn runs the various schools where Islam is taught to Imams, qadis and the like, so that the teaching of the ulama spreads outward from the main centers of Islamic teaching, such as Al-Azhar University in Cairo, and the schools run by and for Shia clerics in Qom, Iran.

That Maajid is telling Harris that the path forward for Islamic reform is to have new ‘interpretation’ (tafsir) of scripture should be very troubling to Harris. This kind of interpretation in Islam is only permitted to the learned scholars of Islam. It is not a democratic notion, with everyday Muslims reading scripture for themselves. Rather, Nawaz’s stated position on Islamic reform is basically “let’s leave it to the ulama to give us new tafsirs. That will result in a reformed Islam.” This indicates that he is not willing to really break with orthodoxy in Islam, and make Islam open to lay Muslims to read for themselves, in their own languages, the way that William Tyndale, who was burned at the stake for daring to translate the Bible into English, insisted on for his fellow Christians.

This point of language is one that Harris appears not to understand, or doesn’t think worth discussing. Muslims don’t really read the Qur’an. Rather, they just recite it in a language they don’t understand. At no point in the book does Harris even ask Nawaz if he would encourage his fellow Muslims to read the Qur’an in a language they can actually understand, as the number of people who can actually read and understand the classical Arabic of the Qur’an is vanishingly small. Since Nawaz does not suggest this crucially important change himself, we can safely assume he does not want to break with orthodoxy and encourage Muslims to read the Qur’an in their own languages and thus be able to interpret it for themselves. From this we can see his true agenda: he wants to keep scripture, and the authority that goes with it, in the hands of the few. When it comes to interpreting the Qur’an, Nawaz is no democrat. He’s an authoritarian.

Read more 

The Danger in Islamic Prayer

American Thinker, by Sonia Bailley, Dec. 1, 2015:

It is crucial that Westerners discover what Muslims are saying when they recite the Islamic mandatory prayers before sharing their places of worship. A few days ago, an Ontario synagogue invited Muslim worshippers to lead the Friday prayer. This article explains what the Islamic daily prayers mean, with focus on the Friday prayer within the context of Islamic law or sharia. Being better informed will make Westerners think twice before opening the doors to Muslim for prayer.

Canadian Muslims in southern Ontario were invited to preach the supremacy of Islam at a local synagogue and church. In a goodwill gesture, Peterborough’s Mark Street United Church and Beth Israel Synagogue opened their doors to Muslims for prayer following the recent fire damage of the Masjid al-Salaam mosque. President of the Beth Israel Synagogue and his board of directors hosted two Islamic prayer sessions this past Friday with not even a suspicion that the underlying theme in Islamic prayer is to curse and do away with nonbelievers like them.

A deep hatred and rejection of Judaism and Christianity are hardwired into Islamic doctrine, including the Koran. Many of its chapters are incorporated into mandatory daily Islamic prayer. The very first Koranic chapter, considered the most exalted of all chapters, is a prayer directed to Allah asking him to keep Muslims away from the misguided path of Jews and Christians. This chapter is a necessary part of the five mandatory daily prayers, and is recited not once, but anywhere from 17 to 100 times a day by devout Muslims (or in a broader sense, 6200 to 36,500 times a year).

195677_5_-bicubicRepetition priming inculcates the notion of superiority over non-Muslims into the minds of all Muslims, instilling a deep mistrust of non-Muslims: “Guide us along the right path, the path of those whom you favored (referring to Muslims), and not along the path of those who earn your anger (referring to Jews), or those who go astray (referring to Christians). The references to Jews and Christians are in accord with Al-Tirmidhi’s authentic hadiths (or Islamic narrations attributed to Mohammed) and other venerated Islamic interpretations, as reflected in some English translations of the Koran.

Friday prayers also include recitation of Koranic chapters 62 and 63 where Jews who reject Allah’s commandments in the Torah are loathed and compared to “the likeness of a donkey carrying books but understands them not.” Jews are told to “long for death” if they pretend to be Allah’s favorite.  Nonbelievers are condemned to a state of error until Mohammed is sent by Allah to purify them “from the filth of disbelief and polytheism” with his verses or revelations from Allah.  “Hypocrites” or apostates from Islam are considered enemies, “so beware of them, may Allah destroy them!”. Is it any wonder why many Muslims are prohibited from being friends with Jews and Christians? The Koran condemns them to hell (which melts their skin and bellies) in nearly 500 verses for not believing in Mohammed and for not converting to Islam.

Such are the prayers that are recited over and over again in mosques, and now in some churches and synagogue across the world as more Muslim communities continue to grow and expand. Oblivious to the ignorant Jewish and Christian hosts — whom the Koran portrays as sons of apes and pigs and as the worst of creatures — those very same prayers were recently recited by the Peterborough mosque’s muezzin (one who recites the Islamic call to prayer) in the local church and synagogue. His sonorous and somber voice evoked emotion and tears expressing compassion and admiration of Islam during the Islamic prayer session at the Mark Street United Church a couple of Fridays ago.

Little did these people know that he was chanting verses expressing disgust and disdain for nonbelievers, such as themselves. They appeared to be in a trancelike stupor as if undergoing a spiritual awakening — despite not understanding one word of Arabic prayer that calls for their rejection and eradication due to their misguided behavior. If they only knew what Islamic prayers meant in English, they would not be shedding tears of ignorance, and certainly thinking twice before allowing Muslims to pray in their places of worship. Love thy neighbor should not be a one-way street.

The Peterborough mosque’s imam Shazin Khan, along with other imams and Islamic spokespeople, uses a common deceptive tactic to show the Church audience that Islam cares about people of all religious faiths. He repeats only part of a well-known Koranic verse taken from the Jerusalem Talmud, asserting that saving one human being is like saving all of humanity. However, unlike the original Talmudic verse that applies equally to all humans, the Koranic verse was modified and prohibits only the murder of Muslims. This verse in its entirety is in accord with Islamic law or sharia, which applies the death penalty for killing Muslims, not non-Muslims.

Referring to Judaism and Islam, Kenzu Abdella, president of the Kawartha Muslim Religious Association (in the Peterborough area near Toronto) who formed an alliance with Larry Gillman, President of the Beth Israel Synagogue, informed the Canadian Broadcasting Cooperation that “we have more similarities than differences. We have so much common”.

Contrary to his claim, the differences are so great that 57 Islamic states united in the highly influential Organization of Islamic Cooperation rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that views all people as equal and free, and replaced it with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) that views people as neither equal nor free.

The CDHRI, being subject to sharia, limits the right to freedom of religion and expression according to what sharia permits.  Women have lesser rights than men, as do non-Muslims than Muslims. Slavery is allowed as it still has not been abolished in Islam. Human rights in Islam rely upon the most illiberal, draconian, and barbaric corporal punishments imaginable. Where are the similarities?

Mr. Abdella failed to mention that Islam considers itself the mother religion of both Judaism and Christianity, that it existed prior to those two false religions that veered away from the path of strict monotheism. They became corrupt and ignorant until Mohammed was sent by Allah as a gift to set things straight and convert all back to Islam or “the religion of true unspoiled nature”, as per the CDHRI.

The Islamic end-times, according to Bukhari, the most authentic of all hadith collections, occurs when Jesus, considered the last Muslim prophet in Islam, returns to earth to destroy Christianity (“break the cross”) and forces all to convert or die. But until such a time, radical Muslims must continue waging jihad against Christians and Jews who pay an Islamic tax calledjizya that masquerades as halal products to support Islamic terrorism worldwide.

It’s long past time that Westerners familiarize themselves with Islam and think twice before rolling out the welcome mats in their places of worship, especially in light of the tens of thousands of unvetted Muslim migrants coming soon to a city near you. Westerners who remain true to their faith by reaching out to Muslim neighbors with compassion will soon find out the hard way that mutual respect can never exist amongst different religions when one views itself as the perfect and supreme religion above all others, as Islam does.

Before sharing premises with Muslim worshippers, ask yourself the following question: would Muslims anywhere ever allow Jews or Christians into a mosque sanctuary to lead a Jewish or Christian prayer service?

The Taqiyya Factor

taqiyya2American Thinker, by Carol Brown, Nov. 12, 2015:

Taqiyya is an Islamic doctrine that allows Muslims to deceive non-Muslims. As in lie to them. Dr. Sami Mukaram, author of Taqiyya in Islam, writes: “Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it… Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.” (Specific references to taqiyya in the Quran, the Hadith, and in Islamic law, can be found here.)

One of the most common and persistent forms of taqiyya we are witnessing today is noted at Islam-Watch:

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

Indeed. We see this manifest just about every day as Muslims claim to be victims when it is they who are the aggressors. And the goal is always the same: deceive the non-believer in order to advance Islamic supremacy. Of course, the non-believers can only be outwitted if they are also non-thinkers.

Here are three among a seemingly infinite number of examples of taqiyya in action.

The first example is of taqiyya played out at the highest levels of politics and world affairs, as Raymond Ibrahim recalled an anecdote brought to his attention by Daniel Pipes.

Back in the 1980s, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the president of Pakistan, explained to Ronald Reagan how it was no problem for the Pakistanis to sign the Geneva agreements and yet continue supplying weapons to the Afghan jihadis (“freedom fighters”) combating the Soviet Union.

Why wasn’t it a problem? According to Zia, “We’ll just lie about it. That’s what we’ve been doing for eight years.” He added, “Muslims have the right to lie in a good cause….”

The second example is when Boston bombing jihadist, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, became a suspect (posthumously) in an unsolved triple murder that took place on 9/11/11. The Boston Globe reported:

It was one of the most gruesome killings in Greater Boston in many years: three young men found with their throats slit inside a Waltham apartment….

Now, police and prosecutors are stepping up their investigation into the unsolved 2011 triple homicide at the request of victims’ relatives who believe that suspected Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have played a role, noting that Tsarnaev had been close friends with one of the dead men.

What is more, the grieving relatives say the killings took place on a highly symbolic date for Islamic extremists: the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

What the Boston Globe article omitted was that all three of the young men were Jewish. The fact that one of them was Tsarnaev’s “friend” is a classic example of how some Muslims may outwardly befriend non-believers, only to turn around and kill them. (For more examples of this pattern, see here.)

The third example is when, most recently, Muslim academics claimed that Ben Carson’s comments on taqiyya were false (which they weren’t), as reported by Raymond Ibrahim covering a Washington Post story:

…according to the Muslim professor, “there is no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal. That is a complete invention.” (snip)

Apparently it never occurred to the WaPo’s Kessler that El Fadl himself may have been exercising, in Zia’s words, his Muslim “right to lie in a good cause” — in this case, to prevent Americans from ever being suspicious of Muslim individuals and organizations in the U.S.

Taqiyya about taqiyya.

The obvious problem with lying is that once you know a group of persons will intentionally deceive, everything they say or do is called into question. And therein lies one of the rubs with Muslims. How can any non-Muslim know when a Muslim is telling the truth or telling a lie? We can’t. For the sake of self-preservation, one must err on the side of caution and maintain skepticism at all times. Because taqiyya can only work if the person being lied to is uninformed.

As Daniel Pipes wrote (emphasis mine): “…Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split ‘the enemy’. A favored tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death.”

And there you have it. Deny jihad and invite your demise.

The Islamic world has got the West coming and going. When they truthfully tell us what they plan to do (such as with ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood), the West opts for deaf, dumb, and blind.  When the Islamic world deceives us, the West falls for it every time.

How can any nation survive such willful stupidity?

(To read more articles about taqiyya, see here, here, and here.)

Hat tips: Front Page Magazine, Jihad Watch, The Religion of Peace, Atlas Shrugs, Counterjihad Report

Also see:

Lies, Lies, Beautiful Lies

Steve Amundson, president of CJC

Steve Amundson, president of CJC

Citizen Warrior, Oct. 27, 2015:

We received the article below from Chris at the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC), a group that mans an information booth every Saturday night to expose Islam for what it is to passersby (read more about it here). 

When Chris sent us the article, he added, “We had an interesting encounter on the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica Saturday night. A pro-Islam group set up a table right between the Counter Jihad Coalition table and a table set up by a Christian street evangelist, Louis Lionheart. The people behind the table were not bearded or wearing thobes, as the Islamic dawa folks usually are. Their message was ‘coexist,’ but there was also an anti-Zionist spin to their materials as well. In an ‘open mic’ session I read several passages from Reliance of the Traveller to demonstrate that there is no equality in Islam. The moderator, ‘Mecca Mona,’ claimed that she had never heard of Reliance of the Traveller. End of conversation.” 

Here is the article by Chris:

After bombing Pearl Harbor in 1941, Japan created “Tokyo Rose” to undermine American soldiers’ morale by giving them false information about the war effort. Now, after the Islamic terror attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, local Muslims have created their own charming “Mecca Mona” to provide shoppers on Santa Monica’s Third Street Promenade false information about Islam.

Charming “Mecca Mona” set up her information table, complete with a handsome, muscular bodyguard wearing an Abercrombie and Fitch T-shirt and a bearded wali (guardian) stage-managing the whole operation from a safe distance right between the Counter Jihad Coalition table and the table set up by the Christian street evangelist, Louis Lionheart.

The problem is that most of her “information” was false or misleading, beginning with the headline. Islam wants Americans to be tolerant of Muslims, but Islam is the most intolerant religion in the world. In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood developed a 10-Year Plan of action called “An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the [Muslim Brotherhood] Group In North America” which stated that their mission for America was “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In 1996, Omar Ahmad the founder of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations said, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

“Mecca Mona’s” poster makes a number of false statements about Islam, seven of which are listed below. We will take each statement from her poster (in bold below) and then show how those statements are contradicted usually by the Quran itself.

1. All are treated equally in Islam.

  • Men are superior to women – Surah 4:34 and Surah 2:228
  • Males inherit twice what women inherit – Surah 4:11
  • A male’s testimony is twice that of a woman – Surah 2:282
  • Unbelievers are the basest of creatures – Surah 8:56

2. Islam teaches acceptance and not intolerance.

  • “He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost.” – Surah 3:85
  • Followers of Muhammad are described as “ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another” – Surah 48:29
  • The full quote of the Arabic text of Surah 109 on “Mecca Mona’s” poster “lakom deenakom wlya deen” is “I don’t worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you worship what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.”

The context of the quotation above is important for understanding Islam’s intolerance:

According to Muslim chronicler Baihaki in “Proof of Prophecy,” Muhammad has been insulting the Gods of the Ancient Arabs in Mecca for years. His disciple, Amru ibn al-Aas, testified about the Quraysh leaders’ discussion about Muhammad one day: “Never have we had to tolerate from anyone what we have had to tolerate from this man. He slanders our fathers, criticizes our religions and divides our people, and blasphemes our gods. Such grievous things have we tolerated from this man…” The Prophet who was nearby and hearing this conversation, he responded, “Men of Quraysh! I will surely repay you for this with interest.” Finally, the elders of the Qurash decided to talk with him. In trying to prevent Muhammad’s insults, the Quraysh sat with him in their sacred shrine of Ka’ba in 615 and requested him to desist from reviling and speaking evilly of their Gods. They offered to worship his God for one year, if Muhammad would reciprocate by worshipping theirs for the same period. Can you imagine something more tolerant than this offer? And what did Muhammad answer? In rejection, he responded with Surah 109, quoted above. And he went on slandering the gods worshipped by other people until one day the Quraysh got sick of this and decided to arrest and judge him. When he learned about this, he fled from Mecca to Medina.

3. Islam is an Abrahamic religion, same as Judaism and Christianity.

  • Muslims are commanded not to take Jews or Christians as friends – Surah 5:51
  • The Koran claims that Jews are descendants of apes and swine — Surah 2:65 and 5:60
  • The Koran denies the three principal tenants of Christianity – that Jesus was the son of God (Surah 19:35), that Jesus was Crucified (Surah 4:157), that Jesus was resurrected (Surah 4:158).
  • The one aspect of Abraham that Islam rejects was his forgiving his father for not being a Muslim. — Surah 60:4

4. One’s belief in Islam is incomplete without the Torah, Bible, and Quran.

  • Possessing a Bible is forbidden in the following countries according to Gideon’s International: Afghanistan, Algeria, China (People’s Republic), Comoros, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Yemen. All but two countries on the list are Muslim majority countries. Saudi Arabia has imposed the death penalty on anyone importing Bibles.

5. Islam upholds the utmost respect for women.

  • Muslim men are commanded to beat their wives – Surah 4:34
  • Muslim men may marry up to four wives – Surah 4:3
  • Muslim men may marry prepubescent girls – implied by Surah 65:4
  • “Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please.” – Surah 2:223

6. Some of the world’s most significant scientists and doctors that molded our understanding of matters till this day were Muslims.

  • The Koran says the sun sets in a pool of black mud – Surah 18:84
  • The Koran implies that babies are formed from a clot of blood – Surahs 23:12 and 75:38
  • The Muslim lunar calendar is 11 days short of an actual year, and using a solar calendar is a “grossly impious practice in which the unbelievers are misguided.” — Surah 9:37
  • Eight hundred Nobel Prizes have been awarded to individuals since 1895. Muslims, who represent 23 percent of the world’s population, have been awarded only 1.4 percent of the awards.

7. Muhammad was ranked in 1992 by Michael Hart as the most influential person in history.

  • The ranking said nothing about Muhammad’s character, as other high-ranking historical figures were Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin
  • In 2013, Time Magazine ranked Jesus as the most significant figure in history. Other web surveys with Jesus ranked #1 include Listabuzz, thetoptens, and ranker.

A handout offered by “Mecca Mona” claims that the Islamic faith has been unfairly stigmatized by the extremely polarized media. “[T]he actions of certain extremist individuals taken out of context do not reflect upon the beliefs and ethical views of a nation.” Apparently, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State don’t represent Islam in her view. She urges people to refer to original primary sources. A handy source for the Quran is: https://puneymir.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/pdf147.pdf

We also urge people to read the Quran for themselves and confirm that “Mecca Mona’s” entire presentation is made up of lies, lies, beautiful lies.

“Muslims Have the Right to Lie in a Good Cause”—Paki President to Reagan

Ronald Reagan and Zia ul-Haq

Ronald Reagan and Zia ul-Haq

by Raymond Ibrahim on October 7, 2015:

Ben Carson recently created controversy by warning against the Muslim doctrine of taqiyya, which allows Muslims to deceive non-Muslims.  I already addressed the accuracy of Carson’s statements here, and the media’s attempts to discredit him here.

Soon thereafter, Daniel Pipes, the president of the Middle East Forum, brought an interesting anecdote to my attention.

Back in the 1980s, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the president of Pakistan, explained to Ronald Reagan how it was no problem for the Pakistanis to sign the Geneva agreements and yet continue supplying weapons to the Afghan jihadis (“freedom fighters”) combating the Soviet Union.

Why wasn’t it a problem?  According to Zia, “We’ll just lie about it.  That’s what we’ve been doing for eight years.”  He added, “Muslims have the right to lie in a good cause.”  (From the Cold War to a New Era: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1983-1991, p.280. Image below)

Compare this casual statement from the president of a Muslim nation with the claims of UCLA’s Abou El Fadl, whom the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler quoted at length in an effort to prove Carson wrong about taqiyya.  According to the Muslim professor, “there is no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal. That is a complete invention.”

So which Muslim do you believe?  The strong and secure Muslim who said that “Muslims have the right to lie in a good cause” — in this case, jihad against “infidels.”  Or the Muslim minority surrounded by American “infidels” who claims that there is “no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal”?

Apparently it never occurred to the WaPo’s Kessler that El Fadl himself may have been exercising, in Zia’s words, his Muslim “right to lie in a good cause” — in this case, to prevent Americans from ever being suspicious of Muslim individuals and organizations in the U.S.

***

The Glazov Gang-Islamic Lobbyist Saba Ahmed vs. Ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish on “Taqiyya”:

SIGNS OF TAQIYYA

Deceitful Islamic signs scattered across an English city and the truth about Islam:

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Cherson and Molschky, by Paul Wilkinson, July 13, 2015:

For some time there have been numerous Islamic signs popping up on the sides of Muslim-owned businesses and mosques in the neighbourhood in which I live.

I previously wrote a personal account of ‘How Nottingham Has Changed in the Last 15 Years’ regarding Islamisation due to a large population of Pakistani Muslims, but because these signs seem to almost sink into the subconscious, I decided to examine their messages further.

Firstly, these signs strike me as something from an authoritative state, for example George Orwell’s 1984. Daniel Greenfield highlighted in his article: ‘The Islamic Hijacking of George Orwell: Islam is peace, freedom is slavery.

“Islam is a religion of Peace. That is as certain as the three slogans of the Ministry of Truth; War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength. These three slogans of the Party in George Orwell’s 1984 are especially applicable to Islam; a religion of war that claims to be a religion of peace, whose political parties (such as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party) use “Freedom” in their name but stand for slavery, and ignorance of its true nature creates an illusion of strength for industrialized nations that imagine that they are only battling a tiny handful of outmatched extremists.”

Unsurprisingly, the opposite of what is portrayed in the signs is true. Muslims rely on decades of empowering political correctness and the ignorance of Islam that most of the general public possess, for a variety of reasons, to spread Islam further. Those possessing an understanding of Islam are usually unable to challenge the signs’ presence or wording due to obstacles of political correctness, stigma and even lawfare from Muslim groups.

‘Fruit of Islam’
Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

This sign apparently informs us that the following attributes are all components of Islam: Generosity, Kindness, Forgiveness, Justice, Gentleness, Patience, Courage, Gratitude, Humility and Honesty.

How does this fare with reality?

Indeed Muhammad’s ‘virtues’ included being a thief, waging war, having concubines, encouraging rape, having sex with a child, murder, etc. Muhammad was a brutal, unforgiving warlord and painting him in a different light is plain deception.

‘Read it! The Most Positive Book in the World’
Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

This is utterly bizarre, the sign actually challenges people to receive a free Qur’an, and see the imaginary ‘positivity’ for themselves! Most Muslims spend their time playing on nonbeliever’s ignorance to further Islam but this project should open people’s eyes to what the Qur’an actually contains!

image005Source: Twitter @mattpope123

The Qur’an could be classified as hate speech, as ‘The Religion of Peace’ site illustrates:

  • The Qur’an draws a distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it.
  • Moral comparison based on this distinction.
  • Devaluation or dehumanisation of other groups and the personal superiority of one’s own.
  • The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership.
  • A call to violence against members of other groups.

“The holiest book of Islam (61% of which is about non-Muslims) draws the sharpest of distinctions between Muslims (the best of people, 3:110) and non-believers (the worst of creatures, 98:6).  Praise is lavished on the former while the latter is condemned with scorching generalization.  Far from teaching universal love, the Qur’an incessantly preaches the inferiority of non-Muslims, even comparing them to vile animals and gloating over Allah’s hatred of them and his dark plans for their eternal torture.  Naturally, the harsh treatment of non-believers by Muslims is encouraged as well.”

How this book can remotely be described as being ‘positive’ is anyone’s guess. Only if the reader believes in Muhammad and Allah I suppose, whereas for nonbelievers there is a feeling of inferiority due to its supremacist nature.

When the Qur’an is laid out in chronological order, Muhammad’s last commands were open-ended war against nonbelievers and to spread Islam by any means possible. Chapter 9 is a huge inspiration to jihadists. What better way to be a good Muslim by following in Muhammad’s footsteps and waging holy war for Allah? Why the Qur’an is not banned in civilised countries is a mystery.

Read more

Whitewashing Islam: Egypt’s Grand Mufti and Muhammad’s Transformation in Medina

ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images

ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by ADMIRAL JAMES A. “ACE” LYONS, July 13, 2015:

On July 2, the Wall Street Journal carried an article by Shawki Allam, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, who claimed that “violent extremists” are distorting the true purpose of fatwas and thereby, the true meaning of Islam. He goes on to extoll the virtues of Muhammad’s many roles – calling him a divine inspiration, social reformer, military leader, statesman, and also a Mufti.

Shawki Allam claims that among the many fatwas issued by Muhammad were included those that “banned burying baby girls alive; asserted a woman’s right to choose her husband and to seek divorce; and emphasized women’s rights of inheritance.” He goes on to state that Muhammad “established a safe environment for religious minorities and laid out principles for equality and citizenship.” Allam claims these fatwas were offered as guidelines for later Muslim clerics to follow on the path of mercy, justice and compassion. Breathtaking!

Aside from what might charitably be called the Mufti’s rather loose treatment of actual Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture, what he also fails to mention is that most of these so-called fatwas (or pronouncements of Muhammad recorded in the hadiths) were issued before the hijra, when Muhammad moved from Mecca to Medina, where he expanded his forces until they were strong enough to annihilate all opposition to his new teaching, including three entire Jewish tribes of the Peninsula. Here, as all too often, slyly deceitful Islamic explanations for Westerners are strictly limited to an incomplete understanding Islam in its early, pre-violent Mecca phase, when, for lack of capability, the early Muslims were limited to preaching. Clearly, the Mufti’s intent is to support the wishful claim of many Western leaders that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Therefore, the atrocities and barbarism we are subjected to by the Islamic State (IS) as reported by the mainstream and other social media are a perversion of Islam. If it were only true.

The actual biography of Muhammad aside (which is a veritable litany of rape, pillage, and plunder), there are at least 109 verses in the Koran that sanction violent acts against the “unbelievers” or “infidels.” For example, Koran 2:191 compels Muslims to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” IS and its affiliates demonstrate this on a daily basis in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Koran 5:33 lays out the penalties for those who “wage war against God and His Apostle” [i.e.,fail to submit to Islam] or commit “mischief through the land”: “execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.” The Istanbul Process, a campaign to impose Islamic blasphemy law on all non-Muslim societies, is led by the 57 Muslim members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has sponsored (with U.S. support) a UN resolution insisting that all countries “criminalize” what it calls “defamation of religions” (code for Islam).  The OIC rejects our First Amendment rights of free speech and religion.

While calling for UN resolutions to limit speech, the Muslim OIC nations withdrew from the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1990, replacing it with the Cairo Declaration, which states that the only human rights they would recognize are those granted under Islam’s shariah (Islamic law).

Koran 9:12 condemns Muslim apostates: according to both hadiths and the shariah, one who leaves Islam, whether to convert to another religion or not, must be killed. Regrettably, shariah is as actively enforced today in places under Muslim rule as it was 1,300 years ago. It is this penalty of death more than anything else that prevents more Muslims from leaving Islam. It should be noted that in Sura 2 verse 106 (on abrogation), the Koran makes it clear that all the later violent verses take precedence over the early, less violent ones. Actually, it is nearly impossible to understand the full import of Islam without mastering the doctrine of abrogation and its associated doctrine of progressive revelation.

Islam is generally acknowledged to be a “complete way of life” and at the core of this code is Islamic law or shariah. Of course, shariah is incompatible in the most fundamental ways with the United States Constitution.

Mufti Allam goes on to claim that ill treatment of women is forbidden. He states that Islam in its true form is also adamant about finding balance with religious minorities. He states that people of differing faiths are not to be treated as second-class citizens, and that their right of religious freedom and worship is to be respected. Of course, this conflicts completely with the so-named “Sura of the Sword (the 9th Chapter).” The doctrine is clear for Christians and Jews (aka ‘People of the Book’): they must either convert or die, or accept the third choice and pay the jizya (blood tax), then willingly submit to live under Islamic law as dhimmis (9:29). So much for tolerance.

Finally, Koran 3:85 states that “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him…” It should be clear to any thinking person that Islam is a totalitarian political movement bent on world domination (same as communism), but masquerading as a religion.

In view of the above, how can the Mufti of Egypt stand by his claims that Islam is being distorted and perverted? In my opinion, clearly the propaganda the Mufti is promulgating falls under the well-known Islamic principles of “Taqiyya” and “Kitman” – “lying” to advance the cause of Islam. The Mufti, if he wants to advance the cause of Islam and bring it into the twenty-first century, should embrace President al-Sisi of Egypt’s call on January 1, 2015, before the leading Sunni clerics at al-Azhar, for the reformation of Islam, which has not occurred in over 1,300 years. “That corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world,” Sisi said then, asserting that a “religious revolution” is needed.

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior
U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

When Muslims Betray Non-Muslim Friends and Neighbors

raqFrontPage MagazineBy Raymond Ibrahim, July 9, 2012:

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz freedom Center.

Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions – Koran 3:28

Days ago, after the Islamic State [IS] entered the Syrian city of Hassakè, prompting a mass exodus of Christians, a familiar, though often overlooked scene, took place: many otherwise “normal” Muslims joined ranks with IS, instantly turning on their longtime Christian neighbors.

This is the third category of Muslims that lurks between “moderates” and “radicals”: “sleepers,” Muslims who appear “moderate” but who are merely  waiting for circumstances to turn to Islam’s advantage before they join the jihad; Muslims who are waiting for the rewards of jihad to become greater than the risks.

There is no lack of examples of these types of Muslims.  The following are testimonials from non-Muslims, mostly Christian refuges from those regions of Iraq and Syria now under Islamic State (or other jihadi) control.  Consider what they say about their longtime Sunni neighbors who appeared “moderate”—or at least nonviolent—but who, once the jihad came to town, exposed their true colors:

Georgios, a man from the ancient Christian town of Ma‘loula—one of the few areas in the world where the language of Christ was still spoken—told of how Muslim neighbors he knew all his life turned on the Christians after al-Nusra, another jihadi outfit, invaded in 2013:

We knew our Muslim neighbours all our lives. Yes, we knew the Diab family were quite radical, but we thought they would never betray us. We ate with them. We are one people.

A few of the Diab family had left months ago and we guessed they were with the Nusra [al-Qaeda front]. But their wives and children were still here. We looked after them. Then, two days before the Nusra attacked, the families suddenly left the town. We didn’t know why. And then our neighbours led our enemies in among us.

The Christian man explained with disbelief how he saw a young member of the Diab family whom he knew from youth holding a sword and leading foreign jihadis to Christian homes.  Continues Georgios:

We had excellent relations. It never occurred to us that Muslim neighbours would betray us. We all said “please let this town live in peace — we don’t have to kill each other.”  But now there is bad blood. They brought in the Nusra to throw out the Christians and get rid of us forever. Some of the Muslims who lived with us are good people but I will never trust 90 per cent of them again.

A teenage Christian girl from Homs, Syria—which once had a Christian population of approximately 80,000, but which is now reportedly zero—relates her story:

We left because they were trying to kill us. . . . They wanted to kill us because we were Christians. They were calling us Kaffirs [infidels], even little children saying these things. Those who were our neighbors turned against us. At the end, when we ran away, we went through balconies. We did not even dare go out on the street in front of our house. I’ve kept in touch with the few Christian friends left back home, but I cannot speak to my Muslim friends any more. I feel very sorry about that. (Crucified Again, p. 207)

When asked who exactly threatened and drove Christians out of Mosul, which fell to the Islamic State a year ago, another anonymous Christian refugee responded:

We left Mosul because ISIS came to the city. The [Sunni Muslim] people of Mosul embraced ISIS and drove the Christians out of the city. When ISIS entered Mosul, the people hailed them and drove out the Christians….

The people who embraced ISIS, the people who lived there with us… Yes, my neighbors. Our neighbors and other people threatened us. They said: “Leave before ISIS get you.” What does that mean? Where would we go?…  Christians have no support in Iraq. Whoever claims to be protecting the Christians is a liar. A liar!

Nor is such Muslim treachery limited to Christians.  Other “infidels,” Yazidis for example, have experienced the same betrayal.  Discussing IS invasion of his village, a 68-year-old Yazidi man who managed to flee the bloody offensive—which included the slaughter of many Yazidi men and enslavement of women and children—said:

The (non-Iraqi) jihadists were Afghans, Bosnians, Arabs and even Americans and British fighters….  But the worst killings came from the people living among us, our (Sunni) Muslim neighbours….  The Metwet, Khawata and Kejala tribes—they were all our neighbours. But they joined the IS, took heavy weapons from them, and informed on who was Yazidi and who was not. Our neighbours made the IS takeover possible.

Likewise, watch this 60 Minute interview with a Yazidi woman.  When asked why people she knew her whole life would suddenly join IS and savagely turn on her people, she replied:

I can’t tell you exactly, but it has to be religion.  It has to be religion.  They constantly asked us to convert, but we refused.  Before this, they never mentioned it.  Prior, we thought of each other as family.  But I say, it has to be religion.

Lest it seem that this phenomenon of Sunni betrayal is limited to Islamic jihad in Mesopotamia, know that it has occurred historically and currently in other nations.  The following anecdote from the Ottoman Empire is over 100 years old:

Then one night, my husband came home and told me that the padisha [sultan] had sent word that we were to kill all the Christians in our village, and that we would have to kill our neighbours. I was very angry, and told him that I did not care who gave such orders, they were wrong. These neighbours had always been kind to us, and if he dared to kill them Allah would pay us out. I tried all I could to stop him, but he killed them — killed them with his own hand. (Sir Edwin Pears, Turkey and Its People, London: Methuen and Co., 1911, p. 39)

And in Nigeria—a nation that shares little with Syria, Iraq, or Turkey, other than Islam—a jihadi attack on Christians that left five churches destroyed and several Christians killed was enabled by “local Muslims”:

The Muslims in this town were going round town pointing out church buildings and shops owned by Christians to members of Boko Haram, and they in turn bombed these churches and shops.

Such similar patterns of traitorous behavior—patterns that cross continents and centuries, patterns that regularly appear whenever Muslims live alongside non-Muslims—are easily understood by turning to Koran 3:28:

Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.  But Allah cautions you [to fear] Himself. For the final goal is to Allah.

Here is how Islam’s most authoritative ulema and exegetes explain Koran 3:28:

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of a standard and authoritative commentary of the Koran, writes:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prime authority on the Koran, writes:

The Most High said, “[U]nless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions”—that is, whoever at any time or place fears their evil may protect himself through outward show—not sincere conviction. As al-Bukhari records through Abu al-Darda the words [of the Prophet], “Truly, we grin to the faces of some peoples, while our hearts curse them.”

In other words, Muslims are not to befriend non-Muslims, unless circumstances are such that it is in the Muslims’ interests to do so.  For example, if Muslims are a minority (as in America), or if their leaders  brutally crack down on jihadi activities (as in Bashar Assad’s pre-Islamic State Syria): then they may preach and even feign peace, tolerance and coexistence with their non-Muslim neighbors.

However, if and when circumstances to make Islam supreme appear, Muslims are expected to join the jihad—“for the final goal is to Allah.”[1]


[1]For more on Islamic sanctioned forms of deception, read about taqiyyatawriya, and taysir.  For more on how Muslims are never to befriend non-Muslims—except when in their interest—see Ayman al-Zawahiri’s “Loyalty and Enmity,” The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs., 63-115.