130 UK imams hailed for refusing to perform funeral prayers for jihadis, but Islam forbids funeral prayers for jihadis

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, June 8, 2017:

The Muslim Council of Britain has gained worldwide headlines — and praise — for the announcement. Secretary of State Tillerson said Monday in New Zealand: “I was actually encouraged when I heard on the news this morning that a number of imams in London have condemned these attackers and said they will not perform prayer services over their funerals, which means they’re condemning their souls. And that is what has to be done, and only the Muslim faith can handle this.”

Moderate Muslims stand up at last, right? Here is the MCB’s statement:

“Over 130 Imams & Religious Leaders from diverse backgrounds refuse to perform the funeral prayer for London attackers in an unprecedented move,” Muslim Council of Britain, June 5, 2017

Imams and religious leaders from across the country and a range of schools of thought have come together to issue a public statement condemning the recent terror attack in London and conveying their pain at the suffering of the victims and their families.

In an unprecedented move, they have not only refused to perform the traditional Islamic prayer for the terrorist – a ritual that is normally performed for every Muslim regardless of their actions – but also have called on others to do the same. They said:

“Consequently, and in light of other such ethical principles which are quintessential to Islam, we will not perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer over the perpetrators and we also urge fellow imams and religious authorities to withdraw such a privilege. This is because such indefensible actions are completely at odds with the lofty teachings of Islam.”

This all sounds great, but there’s just one catch: Muhammad is depicted in hadiths as forbidding funeral prayers for martyrs, and Islamic law forbids such prayers as well:

“Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger used to shroud two martyrs of Uhud in one sheet and then say, “Which of them knew Qur’an more?” When one of the two was pointed out, he would put him first in the grave. Then he said, “I will be a witness for them on the Day of Resurrection.” He ordered them to be buried with their blood (on their bodies). Neither was the funeral prayer offered for them, nor were they washed. Jabir added, “When my father was martyred, I started weeping and uncovering his face. The companions of the Prophet stopped me from doing so but the Prophet did not stop me. Then the Prophet said, ‘(O Jabir.) don’t weep over him, for the angels kept on covering him with their wings till his body was carried away (for burial).’” (Bukhari 5.59.406).

“Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah: The Prophet collected every two martyrs of Uhud in one piece of cloth, then he would ask, “Which of them had (knew) more of the Qur’an?” When one of them was pointed out for him, he would put that one first in the grave and say, “I will be a witness on these on the Day of Resurrection.” He ordered them to be buried with their blood on their bodies and they were neither washed nor was a funeral prayer offered for them.” (Bukhari 2.23.427)

Muhammad’s words in hadiths that are deemed authentic are normative for Islamic law, and Islamic law consequently states: “It is unlawful to wash the body of a martyr (O: even if in a state of major ritual impurity (janaba) or the like) or perform the funeral prayer over him. A martyr (shahid) means someone who died in battle with non-Muslims (O: from fighting them, as opposed to someone who died otherwise, such as a person killed out of oppression when not in battle, or who died from fighting non-polytheists, such as (N: Muslim) transgressors).” — Reliance of the Traveller g4.20

So what has been taken by Rex Tillerson and the world as a great show of Muslim rejection of terrorism is actually a display of Muslim adherence to Islamic law, acceptance of terrorist deaths as Islamic martyrdom, and application of Muhammad’s dictum “war is deceit.”

Also see:

The Manchester Bomber: Martyr or Murderer?

AP

Crisis Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick, May 24 2017:

The most radical part of President Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia was not the moment when he referred to “Islamic extremism” and “Islamic terror,” but the next moment when he said, “Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear… If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED” (caps in original text).

That’s a fairly confrontational thing to say when you’re speaking to a crowd of people who believe that your soul will be honored if you commit jihad for the sake of Allah. Martyrs are the most honored people in the Islamic world. For instance, in the West Bank, streets, squares, parks, and schools are named in honor of “martyrs” who, by non-Muslim reckoning, are simply terrorists.

The day after Trump’s speech, a Muslim in Manchester, England provided a test case for the new initiative the president is urging on Muslim leaders. He blew himself up outside a concert arena and, at last report, killed 22 people and injured 59 in the process. Trump said “Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear … if you choose the path of terror … YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED.” The question is, what do Muslim religious leaders think about the Manchester murderer—or is he the Manchester martyr?

Has he gone straight to paradise, or has he ended up in the other place? It’s not an academic question. The lives of countless potential victims of jihad terror depends on the answer.

Islamic leaders in the West have ways of fudging the answer in cases like this. Typically, they say that “Islam condemns all terror” or “Islam condemns the taking of all innocent life.” But this is pure evasiveness because, from an Islamic perspective, jihad is not an act of criminal terror, but of justified retribution; moreover, non-Muslims are, by definition, not innocent; and, finally, Muslims are not required to explain any of this because they are allowed to practice taqiyya (deception) in order to defend Islam.

In addition, Muslim leaders can count on Western reporters not to press the issue. A reporter might logically ask “Is this particular individual now in paradise?” But he most probably won’t because paradise is not something that secular reporters are comfortable talking about. For them, it’s alien territory.

But that’s really the central question, isn’t it? If a pious Muslim kills non-believers for the sake of Allah, isn’t he entitled to his reward? And won’t Allah reward him? If that’s not the case, then shouldn’t Muslim religious leaders clearly say so? If Allah condemns suicide bombers to hell, the least that the mullahs and imams can do is to inform impressionable young Muslims of the truth and save them from an eternity in hell. Of course, they would also be doing a great favor to potential future victims of jihadists.

After the Manchester attack, Prime Minister Theresa May vowed to “defeat the ideology that often fuels this violence.” We’ve been hearing the mantra about “ideological war” for some time now, but it wasn’t until President Trump’s speech that a world leader actually pinpointed the central front in the ideological war. Young men join the jihad for a variety of reasons, but we know from letters, diaries, and interviews that virgins in paradise is a primary motive. Take away the eternal reward and you take away one of the major incentives to commit terror.

The Koran contains many detailed accounts of the tortures of hell. In fact, these accounts appear on almost every page. The young men who believe in the virgins also believe in hell. And many—especially if they have been indulging in Western-style vices—are fearful they might end up there. Luckily for them, Islam provides a get-out-of-hell-free card called martyrdom. All your sins, whatever they are, can be wiped away by a single act of jihad for the sake of Allah. Many people think that the sinful lifestyle of some jihadists is proof that they are not pious Muslims, but it may simply prove that they trust that Allah, all-Merciful, will forgive the sins of those who sacrifice all for his name.

In line with Trump’s advice and in the wake of the latest atrocity in Manchester, now would be a good time for all the imams and mullahs of the world to set the issue straight and to inform their communities that the reward for killing innocents in concert arenas or any other place is everlasting hellfire.

Will they do so? Probably not without a great deal of pressure. And even then, we can expect lots of fudging, prevarication, and, from some quarters, outright praise for the martyrs. But it’s worth making the effort because, apart from massive worldwide military and police operations, there is no other way of breaking the cycle of jihad violence. The best way to break the back of jihad is to forcefully nudge Muslim leaders to cast doubts in the minds of potential jihadists about their prospects for paradise.

With that in mind, the major world media outlets ought to dispatch reporters to interview prominent imams worldwide and ask them what they think of the Manchester massacre and, specifically, whether the perpetrator is now in paradise or in hell. If the news teams can’t get their act together before the Manchester story has cycled out of memory, they can ask the same question after the next terrorist attack—because there will be more. Many more.

Meanwhile, world leaders can stop talking about defeating “the ideology that often fuels this violence,” and actually do something about it. They could, for example, put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to stop providing cash incentives to jihadists. In the Palestinian version of Islam, jihad is rewarded not only in heaven but also on earth. If you die while committing jihad, your family will be well provided for. If you live and end up in an Israeli jail, the Palestinian Authority will put aside a pension fund in your name. The Palestinian practice of jackpot jihadism is a fairly blatant incentive to murder. Can Muslim nations be persuaded to condemn the practice? Can Western nations do the same? It would be an important sign that they are really serious about fighting radical ideology.

How about Saudi Arabia? As far as we know, the Saudis don’t offer cash rewards for suicide bombers. On the other hand, they are the world’s largest funder of radical Islamic ideology. Saudi money pays for countless TV stations, madrassas, radical textbooks, mosques, and the extremist imams who commonly staff the mosques. The U.S. just offered the Saudis a massive military aid package as an incentive for fighting ISIS and Iranian terror. We ought at the same time to be threatening massive dis-incentives should the Saudis continue on their path of financing ideological indoctrination.

Even if attempts to pressure Muslim leaders to condemn jihad martyrdom should fail, these efforts would at least have the salutary effect of clarifying things for non-Muslims. It would serve to show naïve Westerners that violence does indeed have something to do with Islam, and that jihad martyrdom is not an aberration of the faith, but a central feature of it.

It will be interesting to see how Catholic and Anglican leaders respond to the Manchester attack. They can play an important role in informing the uninformed about what is really happening and what is really at stake. But so far they haven’t done that. Instead, after every jihad attack, prominent clergy talk in terms of “tragedy” and “blind violence,” as though there were no rhyme or reason to the terror. Unfortunately, that narrative shows no sign of changing. A statement just issued by the Vatican says:

His Holiness Pope Francis was deeply saddened to learn of the injury and tragic loss of life caused by the barbaric attack in Manchester, and he expresses his heartfelt solidarity with all those affected by this senseless act of violence.

Which is pretty much what the pope says after every terrorist attack. The trouble is, these attacks are not “senseless acts of violence.” They make a lot of sense to those steeped in Islamic ideology. How so? Well, you get to punish those who have offended Allah (mere unbelief is considered an affront to Allah’s majesty). You get remission of all past sins (no need to worry about hell). And you get a ticket to paradise.

Of course, jihad martyrdom doesn’t make sense from a Christian point of view, and maybe it’s time for the pope and other Christian leaders to advance that viewpoint more forcefully and unapologetically. That might involve saying that the idea of Heaven as a brothel is offensive to God and demeaning to women. It would certainly involve saying that those who kill innocents are risking their immortal souls. For the benefit of young Muslims, the pope might even explain the Catholic belief in purgatory—that merciful place which offers the opportunity for sinners to eventually get to heaven without having to resort to the murder of young girls.

According to reports, Salman Abedi, the Manchester suicide bomber, was “chanting Islamic prayers loudly in the street” in the weeks before the massacre. Undoubtedly, some Muslim leaders, especially in England, will be willing to strongly condemn his actions and—predictably—to leave it at that. They are confident that they can leave it at that because they know full well that the British press will be quite content to leave it at that, and not raise the troubling question of the fate of Mr. Abedi’s soul. It seems well past time, however, to press for an answer to the troubling questions. If Islam really is a force for peace, then Muslim leaders could prove it by uniting to warn potential jihadists that God is not pleased with the murder of innocents, and that Mr. Abedi is now residing in hell.

If they will not say it, then the pope and other Christian leaders must say it. It should not be left to Donald Trump to be the only one talking about the possibility of spiritual damnation. The objection to be expected here, of course, is that it is not the business of the pope or the president to talk about Muslim beliefs. But when Muslim beliefs result in the mass slaughter of school-aged children in England, it’s not simply a matter for Muslims to sort out among themselves.

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

Also see:

Hugh Fitzgerald: “Should We Blame Islam For Terrorism?”

Clare Lopez: Superb essay here by Hugh Fitzgerald – very clear, scholarly while still very readable – explains what jihad is & where it comes from – hint: its practitioners are now living among us because we were foolish enough to let them in

Jihad Watch, by Hugh Fitzgerald, March 31, 2017:

This is the rhetorical question — “no” being the only conceivable response — that the Iranian-born David Shariatmadari, now living in the U.K., asked in a recent article in The Guardian.

He began his exercise in taqiyya by insisting that while in the late 20th and early 21st century, some Muslims have begun to resort to “jihadi terrorism,” such a weapon had never before been used in the 1400-year history of Islam. And since nothing had changed in the message of Islam – the texts have remained the same since Islam’s beginning – what could explain this sudden appearance, in the late 20th century, of “jihadi terrorism”?

Shariatmadari locates the cause in the “political economic, military, and social changes in the Middle East.” He deplores the fact that many non-Muslims are starting to seek in the Qur’an the explanation of Muslim violence. He quotes the philosopher Roger Scruton as saying “that we need to deal with these difficult suras,” and notes condescendingly of Scruton that “it’s not an unreasonable thought if you’re unfamiliar with Islam.” For Shariatmadari says that what’s in the Qur’an “provides an easy-to-grasp account of acts that otherwise seem inexplicable. Who knows (or can be bothered to find out) what those verses [really] say, and how they can be interpreted?” Yes, Infidels will misunderstand the Qur’anic verses – they can’t “be bothered to find out” what they really mean – that is, will take them literally, and in this manner, will explain the phenomenon of “jihadi terrorism.”

However, he doesn’t feel obliged to let his readers decide for themselves what Qur’anic verses may mean. He fails to quote a single verse or sentence or phrase from the Qur’an or Hadith. Shariatmadari wants you to stay well away from those texts, insisting that “a proper explanation [for Muslim terrorism and violence] isn’t to be found here [in the Islamic texts].” In fact, the Qur’an gets in the way of a meaningful inquiry: “all it [looking into the Qur’an] really does is stand in the way of a proper investigation. It’s like a sign that says ‘look here and no further,’ obscuring sometimes a little too conveniently, far more complex causes.” So let’s have no more talk about the Qur’an.

Shariatmadari says we have to “look beyond the [Islamic] texts.” Why? Is it because the texts are beyond an Infidel’s understanding, and would only confuse him, as he implies, or is it, rather, that the texts are all too clear – and have been for 1400 years – in commanding the use of violence and terror against the Infidels?

Few will agree with Mr. Shariatmadari that looking into the Qur’an “stand[s] in the way of a meaningful inquiry” into Islam. It is, in fact, the only way to find out what Islam teaches. And when he mocks those who claim that “Islam is especially predisposed towards violence,” this makes one even more eager to take a look at those texts. So let’s round up the usual Qur’anic suspects. Here are just four of the most telling:

Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.

Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

There are more than one hundred other verses in the Qur’an that are all about violence and terror. Shariatmadari does not mention, not even in an attempt to explain away, by “contextualizing,” any of the 109 Jihad verses, and the violence that runs through the Qur’an and the Hadith. He keeps up his extended mockery of those who want to draw conclusions from what is in those texts: “Who knows (or can be bothered to find out) what those verses say, and how they have been interpreted?” Well, many Unbelievers have not been dissuaded from finding out “what those verses say”and “how they have been interpreted” is clear from the 1400-year behavior of Muslims. If 1.5 billion Muslims can find out “what those verses say” then so can I, and so can you, and so can any man. And we discover those commands to Believers, telling them to engage in violent Jihad against, and to terrorize the Infidels, the very verses cited by al-Awlaki and al-Baghdadi and Osama bin Laden and other leaders or members of terror groups, so scrupulous in adducing textual justification for their acts.

These verses are prescriptive, valid for all time, for Muslims everywhere. Can similar verses commanding violence and terror against an enemy, and prescriptive rather than descriptive, be found in the Jewish scriptures? In the New Testament? Robert Spencer notes the significance of this difference: “Indeed, throughout history, these texts[in the Bible] have never been taken as divine commands that either must be or may be put into practice by believers in a new age. All these passages, after all, are descriptive, not prescriptive. They nowhere command believers to imitate this behavior, or to believe under any circumstances that God wishes them to act as his instruments of judgment in any situation today.”

Read more

The Battle of Ohio State

161129ohiostateattack

CHQ, by George Rasley, November 29, 2016:

Yesterday, the war Islam has declared on the West came to America’s heartland when Abdul Razak Ali Artan, an observant Muslim “refugee” from Somalia, rammed his car through a crowd of students and faculty at Ohio State University and then leapt out of the car and began stabbing the stunned onlookers with a butcher knife

In recent months, federal law enforcement officials have raised concerns about online Islamist propaganda that encourages knife and car attacks, which are easier to pull off than bombings.

However, as usual, Republican and Democratic establishment politicians and the establishment media could not bring themselves to confront the reality imposed upon the American people by their support for mass Muslim immigration to the United States.

Establishment Republican Governor of Ohio John Kasich cautioned that “we may never find out” the motivations of the attacker.

Columbus Police Chief Kim Jacobs, whose officers also responded to the attack, said terrorism had not been ruled out. “That’s why our federal partners are here and helping,” she said. “I think we have to consider that it is.”

So, police are investigating whether it was a terrorist attack – no mention of “Islamist terrorist attack” or “radical Islam” or “Muslim extremism” just generic “terrorism.” With no working hypothesis on a motivation attributed to the terrorist what kind of an investigation can they possibly conduct?

He was “upset,” he was “deranged,” he was anything but a motivated Muslim fighter fighting for his cause is where this is undoubtedly headed in Chief Jacobs’ mind, given that under Obama, all references and information about the doctrine of jihad and the Islamic foundations of terrorism have been purged from law enforcement and military training.

“Ohio State University Student Dead After Driving Into Crowd, Stabbing People at OSU Campus” ABC News reported, without mentioning that the attempted mass murder was perpetrated by an outspoken Muslim student and bore a striking similarity to the Muslim terrorist attack in Nice, France.

Columbus, Ohio Mayor Andrew J. Ginther said. “It is important in these difficult times that we come together as a community to support one another, and to resist the temptation to lash out in anger, or to let the actions of one person define an entire community. As an open, diverse and inclusive city, it is especially important to stand with our entire community and work toward productive strategies to stop senseless acts of violence everywhere.”

Ginther made no reference to Artan’s background, but said he is proud that Columbus is “warm and welcoming” to immigrants and refugees. “We welcome people from all over the world,” said the Mayor.

Except Abdul Razak Ali Artan wasn’t a “refugee,” he is part of an invading army, and this act of violence wasn’t “senseless” at all – it was part of a strategy of war Islam has used for 1,700 years to spread terror in the infidel enemy’s heartland.

Rep. Adam Schiff, of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that while the bloodshed is still under investigation, it ‘‘bears all of the hallmarks of a terror attack carried out by someone who may have been self-radicalized.’’

Self-radicalized to what? The Amish version of Anabaptist Christianity? Cornish nationalism? Independence for the Conch Republic? Mr. Schiff cannot say, but he is quick to sever Artan’s actions from Islam by suggesting he was “self-radicalized.”

Leaders of Muslim organizations and mosques in the Columbus area quickly condemned the attacks while cautioning people against jumping to conclusions or blaming a religion or an ethnicity.

This is now a well-rehearsed bit of taqiyya, the doctrine of deception well-defined in the Quran. In Suras 16:106 and 3:28 the Quran allows Muslims to lie in order to protect themselves or to protect the Muslim community.

And so, almost word for word, the same phrases are mouthed before a compliant establishment media after every attack – don’t blame Islam for 9/11, don’t blame Islam for San Bernardino, don’t blame Islam for Chattanooga, don’t blame Islam for Orlando, don’t blame Islam for the Moore, Oklahoma beheading, don’t blame Islam for the attack on Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett, don’t blame Islam for the Mall of America slashings, don’t blame Islam for the bombings in New York and New Jersey, or the shooting at the Cascade Mall Macy’s in Burlington, Washington and certainly don’t blame Islam for the Boston Marathon bombing.

When are America’s establishment elite, the politicians and media personalities who work behind metal detectors and armed guards and who have staff to run to Macy’s, going to recognize and admit that Islam is indeed to blame when Americans going to class, or to the mall or to work are killed or maimed by jihadis?

And it’s not “radical Islam,” it’s the Islam that is practiced by millions of Muslims throughout the world, including those living right here in America.

If you follow the news from Israel, you might have a better sense of the practical reality of how living with a large population of Muslims actually works.

A year or so ago The Wall Street Journal described two weeks of Palestinian assaults that began when Hamas killed a Jewish couple as they were driving with their four children in the northern West Bank. Two days later, a Palestinian teenager stabbed two Israelis to death in Jerusalem’s Old City, and also slashed a woman and a 2-year-old boy. Hours later, another knife-wielding Palestinian was shot and killed by Israeli police after he slashed a 15-year-old Israeli boy in the chest and back.

Other Palestinian attacks include the stabbing of two elderly Israeli men and an assault with a vegetable peeler on a 14-year-old. On Sunday, an Arab-Israeli man ran over a 19-year-old female soldier at a bus stop, then got out of his car, stabbed her, and attacked two men and a 14-year-old girl. Several attacks have been carried out by women, including a failed suicide bombing.

These attacks are not random acts of “self-radicalized” madmen, they are instigated by Muslim imams preaching hate in mosques, which are not so much religious institutions as they are the command centers of a cultural and military invasion.

“Brothers, this is why we recall today what Allah did to the Jews,” one Gaza imam said in a recorded address, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri, and quoted by The Wall Street Journal. “Today, we realize why the Jews build walls. They do not do this to stop missiles but to prevent the slitting of their throats.”

Then, brandishing a six-inch knife, he added: “My brother in the West Bank: Stab!”

One of the few politicians to get the Battle of Ohio State right was Ohio’s Republican State Treasurer Josh Mandel, who tweeted: “Looks like Radical Islamic terror came to my alma mater today. So sad what happened at OSU. We must remain vigilant against Radical Islam.” About two hours later, he tweeted the last line again.

Mandel’s tweet came after the student responsible for the attack was identified as a Muslim, a Somali refugee who stayed for a short time in Pakistan, characteristics shared by several other Muslim terrorists.

But here’s what truth-tellers like Josh Mandel and President-elect Donald Trump are up against in trying to win this war.

No sooner had Mandel tweeted his call for vigilance than he was attacked by Michael Premo, chief of staff for Ohio Senate Democrats, who blasted Mandel, tweeting, “Looks like knee-jerk islamophobia came to my state today. So sad what @JoshMandelOhio said. We must remain vigilant against prejudice.”

Vigilance is not Islamophobia. As long as establishment politicians like Governor John Kasich, Mayor Andrew J. Ginther, Michael Premo and Congressman Schiff refuse to recognize and name the Muslim enemy – and use every tool of our national power to fight it – more Americans going to class, to work and to the mall will find themselves in the middle of a battle zone, as they did yesterday at Ohio State.

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: