Lying
and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a
method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all
times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly
and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and
vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating
may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]
“No
dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight,
deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at
gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely
quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not
to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38]
The word "Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing, precaution, guarding.”
It is employed in disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions,
ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is
manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding
with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive
blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any
criticism of Islam or Muslims.
Falsehoods
told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to
promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur'an and Sunna,
including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by
making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is
a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce
his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of
Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart. (See
endnotes)
Like
many Islamic practices, taqiyya was formed within the context of the
culture of Arab tribalism, expansionary warfare, Bedouin raiding and
inter-tribal conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse, confound and divide 'the enemy’.
A
favoured tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; used to persuade the
enemy that preparations for a raid were not aimed at them but at another
tribe altogether. The fate in store for the deceived enemy target was
an unexpected plunderous raid, enslavement of the women and death to the
post-pubescent males.
The
core foundation of hyper-masculine Arab culture is bound up in
perceptions of "honour and shame". At all times, he (it's usually a
male) must avoid having his face "blackened" by words or actions which
are a slight upon, a challenge or affront to, his status in the family
or broader social / tribal group. To be open, frank and forthright or to
make self-damning admissions in his dealings (particularly with the
infidel enemy) is to leave himself open and vulnerable to humiliating
shame and to the subsequent disrespect from his peers. Tongues will wag
in the bazaar’s coffee shops and rumours will rapidly spread that
so-and-so has lost his "manliness" and status. In short, he is no longer
worthy of deferential respect; to an Arab, this is worse than death
itself.
The
higher one is placed in the social order (or rather, on how important
the individual perceives himself to be), the more imperative it becomes
to strenuously avoid “loss of face”. The male's perceived loss of honour
and status, must be redressed and his face "whitened", i.e. his honour
regained and restored, at any cost; even to the extent of (as in the
honour killing of daughters) murdering the person “responsible” for
causing the initial humiliation. When taqiyya is used to avoid making an
admission or concession it is simply an essential means of ensuring
that ones honour and standing remain intact and untarnished. Blood feuds
and vendettas, caused by an ancient humiliation of a long dead
ancestor, can persist, fuelled and propelled by shame and honour, for
generations. Muhammad, who is promoted as every Muslim’s exemplar, set
the precedent for vengeful retaliation when he ordered the murder of
those who mocked or satirised him and, as he was an Arab, caused him
potential loss of face. [See link, “Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society”]
Outwitting:
Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of 'outwitting'.
The skilled taqiyya-tactician doesn’t want the matter at hand to be
debated or discussed; so his opponent must be outwitted or preemptively
outflanked by the use of taqiyya. The objective is to divert attention
away from the subject through duplicity and obfuscation.
The
claim is often made that difficulties in translating from Arabic to
English makes the meaning of what they say or write difficult or
impossible to convey….this is simply another subterfuge. Keysar Trad has
repeatedly claimed that Sheikh Hilali’s obnoxious, inflammatory and
misogynistic comments have been “mistranslated”, misquoted or “taken out
of context”. The aim of this ploy is to dilute or neutralise public
opprobrium. The use of independent translators has, in the past,
disproved his assertions. The Sheikh states what he believes to be
correct according to Islamic precepts and his “interpreter” reconfigures
the statement to make it palatable to the unwitting listener.
Consider the following statement by Mr. Trad on the February 24 2006.
Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, told Reuters that Australian Muslims
agreed with Costello's (Australia’s Treasurer, Peter Costello) sentiments about being good, law abiding citizens.
"But
to continually single out the Muslim community like this is very
unhelpful, it's very divisive and it does stir up Islamophobia”,
Trad said.
"We're
proud to be Australian and our religion strongly stipulates that if you
make an oath, whether it's an oath of citizenship or any other oath,
that you honour it, abide by it."
However, the Prophet Muhammad seems to have a different idea on the subject.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427:
“By
Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something
else better than that. Then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' "
Role playing as the victim:
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'….. Defence by offence.
Manipulative ambiguity and Semantics:
Sheik
Hilali and the late Yasser Arafat are both on public record as (a)
'condemning' the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media
and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their
Arabic speaking audiences .
Islamic spokesmen will rarely unequivocally condemn a specific act of terrorism and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.
(NB: because Muslims regard Islamic attacks as “jihad”, and not terrorism, their spokesmen can truthfully deny any support for terrorism.)
Interviewers would be better advised to ask the more precise question “do you believe in jihad against the unbelievers?
However,
a direct question requiring a simple "YES" or "NO" reply is rarely
forthcoming and is usually deflected by responding with a tangentially
irrelevant rejoinder or, in an attempt to neutralise the original
question, counter-challenging with another question such as “are you in
favour of killing children in Iraq?”…..Touché and Checkmate!
Diversion, deflection and "tu quoque”:
Questions
relating to the 9/11 terrorist attacks will usually be diverted by
either making outrageously wild conspiracy claims “the CIA did it to
give the U.S. an excuse to attack Muslims,… Mossad was the perpetrator…
No Jews came to work at the World Trade Centre on September 11” etc. or
by making an irrelevant counter reference to “the plight of the
Palestinians”,.. Iraqis,.. colonialism,.. the crusades, or US foreign
policy’s support for Israel” as the 'root causes' of terrorism.
Then, of course, there’s the ever popular, specious allegation that George Bush is a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden.
Diversionary
“tu quoque” response ploys usually start with the words “but” or “what
about…?” in an attempt to turn, and transfer an equal culpability back
on their interlocutor.
Demanding 'evidence':
Islamic
spokesmen practice a form of taqiyya defined in psychology as
'cognitive denial' by repetitive and persistent demands of 'where is the
evidence!' and 'prove it!'
whenever there is Muslim complicity in terrorist acts, evidence, which
they know very well, for security or legal sub-judice restraints, can
not be disclosed. If indeed the “evidence” were to be publicly
presented, they would then move on to the familiar “prejudicial to the
defendant receiving a fair trial--grounds for a mistrial” default
position.
Tactical denial:
Rather
than admitting that a proposition concerning a subject under discussion
can be partly true, an Islamic spokesman will flatly deny a claim or
proposition in absolute terms. For example, "It is impossible to be a
Muslim and a terrorist”; this semantic argument is purely a matter of
definition, because radical Islamists don’t define their violent attacks as terrorism, but jihad. (i.e. holy war in the way of Allah) .Another popular assertion is that 'Islam forbids suicide', which is true, but by virtue once again of definition, irrelevant, because
suicide bombings are regarded as “martyrdom operations” and are
therefore not forbidden, but on the contrary, admirable and
praiseworthy. Muslim
spokesmen are also fond of using extreme hyperbole. Their refutations
regularly include the word “percent”. e.g. “I am 150% certain that Jews
orchestrated September 11”…. “I guarantee the accused is 200% innocent”.
Exploiting cognitive dissonance:
Islamic
spokesmen regularly perplex and baffle interviewers and their audiences
as they resort to double talk, 'clichés and platitudes' concerning
Islam. A state of cognitive dissonance (i.e. holding two contradictory
beliefs and attempting to resolve them) is therefore induced in viewers
and readers as they attempt to mentally process the claim that Islam is a
peaceful religion despite the indisputable evidence before them of
Islamist involvement in terrorist acts or criminal conduct.
The Islamic 'defence' script:
Islamic
spokesmen repeat the same predictable duplicitous clichés concerning
Islam in Europe, as do their counterparts in Australia and America. They
appear to follow a well prepared script as they repeat "Islam is tolerant and peace loving”.
In instances where they find themselves presented with, and cornered
by, undeniable evidence that murderous radicals are indeed guilty as
charged the spokesman will then fall back on the old chestnut that the culprits are only a “small minority” and not “true Muslims” anyway.
Islamic
spokeswomen use taqiyya when making the somewhat Orwellian claim that
wearing the hijab, niqab, burqa etc. is “liberating” and “empowering”,
and that, for reasons known only to them, these symbols of submissive
exclusion offer them more freedom than Western women, thereby implying
that women in Muslim countries are somehow 'freer' than women in the
West. This ruse is designed to preclude further examination into the
well documented inferior status of females in Islamic societies. Being
put on the spot, and having to admit their true obedient and subservient
status, would be embarrassing and therefore shame inducing so resorting
to denial and exaggerative taqiyya is their only option.
There’s a common and oft repeated lie that “Islam” means peace”, it doesn’t, it translates as “submission” (to Allah).
Islamic
falsehoods are echoed uncritically by Western politicians and other
apologist dupes, for example "A small group of fundamentalists have
hijacked a great and noble religion”.
This timely, skilful, misleading and diversionary theme of the
'hijacking' of Islam was introduced into public, political and media
discourse by an Islamic 'spokesman' in the United States shortly after
the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has become an “accepted fact” repeated,
ad nauseum, ever since.
The "Islam has been hijacked” myth is now a clichéd media and political reference which serves to deflect attention from the empirical proof of a fourteen hundred year continuity of the doctrinal, political and religious nature of Islamic jihad.
A
related theme that “a small minority of Muslims are engaged in
terrorism” is utterly irrelevant as terrorism is always perpetrated by
'small minorities' or more accurately small groups or cells. Surveys
consistently reveal that between 10-15%
of all Muslims sympathise with the aims and methodology of this radical
strain of Islam which has been “hijacked”. This means, that within an
estimated world population of 1.2 billion Muslims, there are 120-180
million people prepared to fund, facilitate and in general, give moral
and financial assistance to the jihadists….. “a small minority”?....you
decide!
The
indisputable truth is that there has been no “hijacking” of Islam.
Islamic extremists can, and do, find ample inspiration, justification
and encouragement for their violent ideology in the Quran and Hadith.
Taqiyya as impressions and perception management
Pathos and the tactical use of children:
Australian
television viewers may recall that interviews with terrorist suspects
raided by ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) and AFP
(Australian Federal Police) frequently featured women in hijabs holding
small children or a crying baby as they plaintively protested their
husband's innocence and attested to his innate piety, decency and
kind-hearted nature.
Trembling
fingers and quavering voices pointed out damage, disruption and
disarray to the family home. In some interviews the suspect / father
holds the child, whilst denying any involvement in, or knowledge of,
radicalism .
Sheikh
Hilali’s daughter, in a newspaper interview, played the taqiyya pathos
card by claiming that, because the cold northern winter was imminent,
her father was travelling to Lebanon to “hand deliver” thousands of
blankets to “orphanages” and homeless victims of the war between Israel
and Hizbollah.
In
the same Israel /Hezbollah war, a photojournalist filmed a Lebanese
man, strewing, for the purpose of emotional impact, the contents of a
large cardboard box full of children’s stuffed toys amongst the wreckage
and debris.
This was obviously for the benefit of a large contingent of
international TV film crews who were about to be taken on a guided tour
of the bombed buildings later that morning.
Photos
of carefully placed baby’s bibs and dummies (pacifiers) also appeared
to be extraordinarily abundant on the internet, as were “staged” photos
of a “body” being removed from the piles of collapsed concrete. One
sequence of photos clearly shows the “body” in question, alive and well,
walking around with his “rescuers” before and after the “retrieval” of
his dusty, “lifeless body”. This is taqiyya by imagery!
The
above are examples of taqiyya in the age of impressions and perception
management and are designed to, dupe, play on the emotions of, and
elicit sympathy from, the compassionate, unwitting public.
Taqiyya and the Deceptive definition of Jihad:
The
contemporary political meaning of jihad is clear: it is “Jihad of the
sword” and not the peaceful internal struggle for spiritual improvement
as their spin-doctors would have us believe. Islamic fundamentalists consider jihad to be the sixth pillar of Islam, a binding duty and integral to the faith. Claiming that Jihad is a subjective and psychological state to become a better person is taqiyya.
In contemporary terms, Jihad means – HOLY WAR - against the unbelievers
and it is in this context that Al Qaeda training manuals and other
radical preachers use and refer to jihad.
The
study of taqiyya is crucial to an understanding of Islamic
fundamentalism and terrorism. Its use ranges from the issuing of false
terrorist threats, operational and strategic disinformation issued by Al
Qaeda in the form of 'intelligence chatter' for the purpose of throwing
national defence groups into confusion. Terrorist in captivity resort
to taqiyya during interrogation. It is most frequently used by Muslim
'spokesmen' whilst intentionally making misleading public statements
concerning Islam and terrorism.
The
Arabs have a story which exemplifies subtle, semantic dissimulation
(taqiyya) perfectly. Legend has it that Mohammed’s nephew, son-in-law
and future Caliph, Ali, was sitting on a stool outside his dwelling when
one of his allies ran red-faced and gasping into the village and hid in
Ali’s home. Perceiving that the man was being pursued, Ali promptly got
up and sat on another nearby stool. A few minutes later, a group of
angry pursuers ran into the encampment and asked Ali if he had seen the
man they were pursuing. Ali responded with the statement “AS LONG AS I
HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THIS STOOL I HAVE SEEN NO ONE”
This
story demonstrates why nothing an Islamist says can be taken at face
value. Every statement and utterance needs to be thoroughly analysed, or
“unpacked”.
After
yet another violent incident in Sydney, involving “Males of
Middle-Easter Appearance”, a spokesman for the Muslim community appeared
on a Sydney television evening newscast. In the brief sound bight he
defensively declared “our
religion teaches us that we must be kind to one another” ….and indeed
it does, it simply depends on how we are to interpret the words “one
another”, as these verses from the Quran demonstrate:
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. – (Q 48:25)
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.
Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers*. – (Q48:29)
So, was this spokesman lying?
Or was he telling the truth?
The
answer is both, YES,… and NO! –Or, perhaps neither, and if you are
confused by this apparent contradiction?,. You’re meant to be, because
he was practising taqiyya; ……where the devil is ALWAYS in the detail.
* The precise identity of the “unbelievers” in the above references requires no further explanation.
Endnotes
1.
Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: "Speaking is a means to achieve
objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the
truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because
there is no need for it.
When
it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the
truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible."
(Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by
Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)
2. Bukhari Vol 3: 857 “Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba”:
That
she heard Allah's Apostle saying, "He who makes peace between the
people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a
liar."
3. Bukhari Vol 4: 269 “Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "War is deceit."
4. Bukhari Vol 5: 668 “Narrated Zahdam:
“When
Abu Musa arrived (at Kufa as a governor) he honored this family of Jarm
(by paying them a visit). I was sitting near to him, and he was eating
chicken as his lunch, and there was a man sitting amongst the people.
Abu Musa invited the man to the lunch, but the latter said, "I saw
chickens (eating something (dirty) so I consider them unclean." Abu Musa
said, "Come on! I saw the Prophet eating it (i.e. chicken)." The man
said "I have taken an oath that I will not ea (chicken)" Abu Musa said."
Come on! I will tell you about your oath. We, a group of Al-Ash'ariyin
people went to the Prophet and asked him to give us something to ride,
but the Prophet refused. Then we asked him for the second time to give
us something to ride, but the Prophet took an oath that he would not
give us anything to ride. After a while, some camels of booty were
brought to the Prophet and he ordered that five camels be given to us.
When we took those camels we said, "We have made the Prophet forget his
oath, and we will not be successful after that." So I went to the
Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle ! You took an oath that you would
not give us anything to ride, but you have given us." He said, "Yes, for
if I take an oath and later I see a better solution than that, I act on
the later and gave the expiation of that oath"
5. Bukhari Vol 6: 138 Narrated Aisha:
“That
her father (Abu Bakr) never broke his oath till Allah revealed the
order of the legal expiation for oath. Abu Bakr said, "If I ever take an
oath (to do something) and later find that to do something else is
better, then I accept Allah's permission and do that which is better,
(and do the legal expiation for my oath ) ".
No comments:
Post a Comment