Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe on July 9, 2013 at 10:51

In response to criticism of the above article, Raymond Ibrahim wrote this rebuttal.

http://www.meforum.org/2094/taqiyya-revisited

Taqiyya Revisited: A Response to the Critics

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jihad Watch
February 26, 2009

Having written at length on various aspects of Islam, it is always my writings concerning doctrinal deceit that elicit (sometimes irate) responses. As such, the purpose of this article is to revisit the issue of deceit and taqiyya in Islam, and address the many ostensibly plausible rebuttals made by both Muslims and non-Muslims.

The earliest rebuttal I received appeared last year, days after I wrote an essay called "Islam's doctrines of deception" for the subscription-based Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst. Due to the controversy it initiated among the intelligence community and abroad, the editors were quick to publish an apologetic counter-article by one Michael Ryan called "Interpreting Taqiyya."

For starters, Ryan is not a careful reader: he says I fail to mention ijma (consensus) among the ulema, even though I repeatedly cite and delineate the ulema's (quite consensual) verdicts supporting taqiyya; he sardonically suggests that, of course all people, not just Muslims, engage in deception during war—a point I stressed; and he evinces shock that I say Islam has no "common sense" and is "legalistic," when I simply wrote that sharia law is not based on common sense but rather the 7th century words of Muhammad, which may or may not rely on what we would today call "common sense." (I had in mind anecdotes of Muhammad saying camel urine heals, people should cover their mouths when yawning (lest Satan dive down their throat), men cannot wear gold, only silver, and in order to be in each other's company, women should "breast-feed" strange men ).

Next, Ryan makes the usual (and ultimately superficial) arguments without any backing: that I "cherry-picked citations from the Quran"; that I focused on a "very narrow use of the term taqiyya"; and that there are "other respected jurists who disagree" with the notion of taqiyya I stressed.

Unfortunately, he overlooks the fact that, right or wrong, none of this denies that there are Koranic references that do permit deception; that, even if there are "broader" definitions for taqiyya, the "narrow" one I delineated is still valid; and that if there are "respected jurists who disagree," there are still more who agree.

As expected, whereas I listed and quoted several authoritative jurists justifying taqiyya, Ryan makes only flat counter-assertions whose plausibility rests solely in the fact that they comport with the epistemology of the Western, secular reader, who cannot comprehend that a religion would actually mandate temporal conquests and permit deceit in their furtherance.

For instance, he makes comforting assertions such as "[I]t is manifestly not true that Muslims as a whole desire eternal warfare with non-Muslims," even though I never argue that Muslims desire eternal war but rather that sharia mandates it. Regarding a verse I cited as being relied on by the ulema in support of taqiyya (2:73), he writes, "To this reader, the verse inspires admiration rather than any other emotion." Odd that an article in a publication geared to the intelligence community and dedicated to analyzing Islam would bother evoking "emotions" in the first place—further revealing that Ryan's rebuttal relies more on "shared feelings," not facts.

Moreover, like most of Islam's apologists who are obsessed with portraying the "true-peaceful-and-tolerant" face of Islam, Ryan overlooks the pivotal fact that it matters very little if the entire Muslim world believes in jihad and deception. What matters is that some Muslims have, do, and always will. If 19 surreptitious jihadists managed to cause horrific deaths and destruction on 9/11, insisting that not all Muslims accept these doctrines is neither relevant nor reassuring.

Ryan next spends time making the argument that the word taqiyya "never appears in the Quran. The root in other forms appears in various contexts, but it never means dissimulation." As for taqiyya's cornerstone verse (3:28), Ryan, presuming the mantle of mufasir (exegete), and after quoting an English translation, writes: "The English 'guard against' is a translation of a verb that is taken from the same root as the word taqiyya but it has nothing to do linguistically with lying or deception [emphasis added]."

Absolutely true. But of course, all this overlooks the fact that the Koran is not the all-in-all in Islam; more important in determining right and wrong (i.e., in articulating sharia) are the hadith-derived sunna, and the indispensable tafsirs and ijma (exegeses and consensus) of the ulema. And these douse the word "taqiyya" and do define it as lying and deception.

Moreover, there is widespread consensus among the ulema. According to Imam Tabari, whose multi-volume exegesis is a standard reference work in the Islamic world, 3:28 means: "If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them." Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir recommends the advice of Muhammad's companion: "Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them."

Perhaps Ryan thinks his non-Muslim, that is, infidel, exegesis of 3:28 will be more acceptable to the average Muslim than the exegeses of the pious Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and other ulema? And what "consensus" does he have in mind when the Muslim author of the authoritative Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islamasserts, "Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it [taqiyya] and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream"?

Ironically, and despite all the above, Ryan closes his article by saying

"It would be fundamentally incorrect to suggest that the strained positions of Osama bin Laden and other extremists somehow grow out of normal or mainstream Muslim thought: Al-Qaeda's deception does not grow out of valid religious duty. [Yet Muhammad said, "War is deceit."] If we fail to make the distinction between radical Islamists and valid, thoughtful and authoritative views of expert Muslim jurists, [apparently the many I delineated in my original essay don't count] we risk undermining one of the most promising tools to defeat radical thought. I am referring to recent successful programmes by the Saudis and Egyptians to persuade what the West might call radical jihadists that their extremist activities are actually against the canons of Islam as interpreted by mainstream jurists [emphasis added]."

What "successful programmes" have been initiated by the Saudis and Egyptians to de-radicalize Muslims? Is he referring to Saudi Arabia's rehabilitation through tennis, finger-paints, and GameBoys—which has by and large not been successful? And again, which "expert" and "mainstream" jurists is he talking about?

In short, Ryan's points crumble in face of the fact that, all philology, sophistry, and appeals to emotions aside, in mainstream Islam, what ultimately matters is how the ulema—especially the "mainstream jurists" he continues evoking—have understood and articulated the doctrine of taqiyya.

Regarding my more recent "War and Peace—and Deceit—in Islam," others have written to me complaining that, by not juxtaposing more "moderate interpretations" to the mainstream ones I delineated (e.g., Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Qurtubi, al-Razi, al-Arabi, et al), I am supposedly "distorting." While there are in fact "moderate interpretations," most of these come from minority sects—such as the Ahmadiyyas or the Quraniyuns—who, as they make up a trivial percentage of the Islamic world, and are in fact often accused of and persecuted for apostasy by mainstream Muslims, are definitely not representative of the latter.

Other critics express dismay as to how I can interpret certain verses as being supportive of taqiyya. Of course, being neither a Muslim nor one of the ulema, I hardly ever interpret this or that verse as being supportive of taqiyya/deception, but rather always attribute such exegeses to the appropriate jurist, scholar, or theologian—the ulema, who have the final say in mainstream Islam. (Ironically, being only a 4,000 word essay, I only supplied a tithe of the numerous albeit subtle taqiyya decrees and interpretations I have surveyed in Arabic texts dedicated to this topic.)

Still other critics point to strange English translations of the Koran that do not capture the actual meaning of the Arabic—definitely not the way the ulema understand it—in an effort to obfuscate the doctrine of taqiyya. For instance, some have written to me insisting that Koran 3:28 has "absolutely nothing" to do with deceit. As evidence, they quote the following translation from the websiteIslamUSA.org: "Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends in preference to the believers unless you very carefully guard against evil from them."

The original Arabic says absolutely nothing about "guarding against evil from them." (Is IslamUSA.org practicing taqiyya in regard to ayat al-taqiyya, or the verse of taqiyya?) Instead, the original Arabic most literally says, "Let believers not take infidels for friends in place of the believers; whoever does this shall have nothing left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions." In other words, it does not warn Muslims against befriending infidels due to the latter's proclivity for evil (which may contaminate Muslims who do not actively "guard" against it), but simply because they are infidels, non-Muslims—by default, the enemy. As for "guard[ing] yourselves" and "taking precautions," once again, however one wants to interpret these, the fact is, the ulema have already settled and interpreted it as aforementioned: deceit.

(Incidentally, is it not curious that while people are nitpicking about what the latter half of that verse means, no one seems to be interested in the far from ambiguous former half, where Muslims are simply commanded to not befriend non-Muslims in the first place? Is that not, in and of itself, demonstrative of Islam's position vis-à-vis the other, the infidel?)

Others have written to me, absolutely flabbergasted that I say Koran 4:29 or 2:195, which command Muslims to not "kill/destroy themselves," encourages taqiyya. For the record, I said no such thing; the ulema have—such as the classical exegete Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (see Tafsir al-Kabir, vol.10, p.98). According to him, since Muslims are commanded to not "destroy themselves," disclosing any truths that might lead to their destruction is forbidden. Thus a mujahid ("jihadist"), according to Razi, must conceal his identity, since infidels might "destroy" him if they were to discover what he was about. And so, in this sense, 4:29 and 2:195 do permit deception.

Others are scandalized that I wrote Allah himself is described in the Koran as being the best "deceiver" or "schemer." They write to me insisting that the Koran uses no such language (based on their trusty English translations), but rather portrays Allah as the best "planner" or "plotter"—the words used, for instance, in the widely quoted translations of Yusuf Ali and Shakir. So, who am I to ascribe the word "deceiver" or "schemer" to Allah?

Simple: in the original Arabic, the word translated (actually, euphemized) into English as "planner/plotter"—makar—most literally denotes (and, to Arabic ears, connotes) deception. Moreover, according to the definitive Hans Wehr Arabic-English dictionary, the trilateral root "m-k-r" means "to deceive, delude, cheat, dupe, gull, double-cross." One who takes on the attributes of "m-k-r"—such as Allah in the Koran—is described as "sly, crafty, wily, an impostor, a swindler." In colloquial Arabic, a makar is a sly trickster.

My reliance on one canonical hadith as supportive of deception has also come under fire: Muhammad said, "If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath." He also encouraged Muslims to do the same.

Many have written to me insisting that I "shamelessly" took these hadiths "out of context." For the record, then, here is the context: Some Muslims came to Muhammad requesting camel mounts to ride, but "he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, 'I have nothing to mount you on.'" Later, some mounts fell into the prophet's share of war plunder, and he gave these to the men. Overcome by altruism, one of the men reminded Muhammad of his oath to which the latter replied, "If I take an oath [to not give the men mounts] and later find something else better [the opportunity to give mounts presents itself], I do what is better and break my oath."

Now, if Muhammad swore he would not give mounts, but then when he was able to, he broke his oath ("to do what is better"), why should, say, jihadists fighting to make Allah's word supreme, after giving oaths to infidels (e.g., peace-treaties of sulh, truces, etc) not break their oaths when they too are able "to do what is better"? After all, what is "better": breaking an oath so some men can have camels to ride, or breaking an oath to make Islam—the embodiment of all good—supreme?

Once again, and whichever way one interprets this oath-breaking hadith, the fact remains: breaking truces with infidels has a long lineage in Islam. The authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam, for example, simply states: "[T]here can be no question of genuine peace treaties [between Muslims and non-Muslims]… only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict"—that is, if the opportunity to do "something better" presents itself.

In closing, it should be noted that the most revealing aspect of the recent, and atypical, barrage of disgruntled e-mails regarding my "War and Peace—and Deceit—in Islam," is that no Muslim (minus fringe Ahmadiyyas, etc.) has written to deny the more troubling aspects of the essay. For instance, while many nitpicked over the aforementioned, none have denied the fact that Muhammad permitted lying in certain situations, affirmed that "war is deceit," and permitted Muslims to deceive and assassinate infidels—all according to canonical (sahih) hadiths (hence the reason mainstream Muslims cannot refute them).

Moreover, the main point of my essay was not to demonstrate that Islam permits deceit during war—a phenomenon I indicated also prevails among many non-Muslim strategists as well—but to show that, for Islam, warfare with non-Muslims is eternal, "until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah (Koran 8:39). Yet no one wrote denying this classical Islamic formulation of the world into Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, which must be in perpetual war until the latter subsumes the former (except of course Michael Ryan, but he is simply another non-Muslim apologist).

Usually, silence is not necessarily indicative of assent; however, when large numbers of people take it upon themselves to criticize certain (minor) aspects of an argument, it seems reasonable to assume that their silence regarding the more revealing and problematic issues—such as perpetual jihad—is, in fact, implicit assent.

Permalink Reply by Joe on July 9, 2013 at 10:55

There is also a doctrine within islam which is less than Taqiyya.  This is Tawriya, the permission to use language that is deliberately ambiguous.

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/tawriya-lying/

Tawriya: New Islamic Doctrine Permits ‘Creative Lying’

by Raymond Ibrahim on February 28, 2012 in From The Arab World, Islam

Originally published by the Stonegate Institute

Perhaps you have heard of taqiyya, the Muslim doctrine that allows lying in certain circumstances, primarily when Muslim minorities live under infidel authority. Now meet tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is true to him. (Though tawriya is technically not “new”—as shall be seen, it has been part of Islamic law and tradition for centuries—it is certainly new to most non-Muslims, hence the need for this exposition and the word “new” in the title.)

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

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

For example, if someone declares “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies. Likewise, say a friend asks you, “Do you know where Mike is?” You do, but prefer not to divulge. So you say “No, I don’t know”—but you keep in mind another Mike, whose whereabouts you really do not know.

All these are legitimate according to Sharia law and do not constitute “lying,” which is otherwise forbidden in Islam, except in three cases: lying in war, lying to one’s spouse, and lying in order to reconcile people. For these, Sharia permits Muslims to lie freely, without the strictures of tawriya, that is, without the need for creativity.

As for all other instances, in the words of Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid (based on scholarly consensus): “Tawriya is permissible under two conditions: 1) that the words used fit the hidden meaning; 2) that it does not lead to an injustice” (“injustice” as defined by Sharia, of course, not Western standards). Otherwise, it is permissible even for a Muslim to swear when lying through tawriya. Munajid, for example, cites a man who swears to Allah that he can only sleep under a roof (saqf); when the man is caught sleeping atop a roof, he exonerates himself by saying “by roof, I meant the open sky.” This is legitimate. “After all,” Munajid adds, “Quran 21:32 refers to the sky as a roof [saqf].”

Here is a recent example of tawriya in action: Because it is a “great sin” for Muslims to acknowledge Christmas, this sheikh counsels Muslims to tell Christians, “I wish you the best,” whereby the latter might “understand it to mean you’re wishing them best in terms of their [Christmas] celebration.” But—here the wily sheikh giggles as he explains—”by saying I wish you the best, you mean in your heart I wish you become a Muslim.”

As with most Muslim practices, tawriya is traced to Islam’s prophet. After insisting Muslims “need” tawriya because it “saves them from lying,” and thus sinning, Sheikh Uthman al-Khamis adds that Muhammad often used it. Indeed, Muhammad is recorded saying “Allah has commanded me to equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation”; and “whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr” (Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).

More specifically, in a canonical hadith, Muhammad said: “If any of you ever pass gas or soil yourselves during prayers [breaking wudu], hold your nose and leave” (Sunan Abu Dawud): Holding one’s nose and leaving implies smelling something offensive—which is true—though people will think it was someone else who committed the offense.

Following their prophet’s example, many leading Muslim figures have used tawriya, such as Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, founder of one of Islam’s four schools of law, practiced in Saudi Arabia. Once when he was conducting class, someone came knocking, asking for one of his students. Imam Ahmed answered, “He’s not here, what would he be doing here?”—all the time pointing at his hand, as if to say “he’s not in my hand.” The caller, who could not see Ahmed, assumed the student was simply not there.

Also, Sufyan al-Thawri, another important Muslim thinker, was once brought to Caliph Mahdi who refused to let him leave, until Thawri swore to return. As he was going out, Thawri left his sandals by the door. After a while, he returned, took his sandals and left for good. When the caliph asked about him, he was told that, yes, Thawri had sworn to come back—and, indeed, he had come back: only to take his sandals and leave.

Lest it seem tawriya is limited to a few colorful anecdotes more befitting the Arabian Nights than the religious law (Sharia) of a billion people, here are some more modern Muslim authorities—Sheikh Muhammad Hassan, the famous cleric who says Islam forbids Muslims from smiling to infidels, except when advantageous, and Dr. Abdullah Shakir—justifying it. They both give the example of someone knocking on your door, you do not wish to see them, so a relative answers the door saying, “He’s not here,” and by “here” they mean the immediate room, which is true, since you will be hiding in another room.

Likewise, on the popular Islam Web, where Muslims submit questions and Islamic authorities respond with a fatwa, a girl poses her moral dilemma: her father has explicitly told her that, whenever the phone rings, she is to answer saying “he’s not here.” The fatwa solves her problem: she is free to lie, but when she says “he’s not here,” she must mean he is not in the same room, or not directly in front of her.

Of course, while all the sheikhs give examples that are innocuous and amount to “white” lies, tawriya can clearly be used to commit terrible, “black” lies, especially where the adversarial non-Muslim infidel is concerned. As Sheikh al-Munajid puts it: “Tawriya is permissible if it is necessary or serves a Sharia interest.” Consider the countless “Sharia interests” that run directly counter to Western civilization and law, from empowering Islam to subjugating infidels. To realize these, Muslims, through tawriya, are given a blank check to lie—a check that surely comes in handy: not just in trivial occasions, like avoiding unwanted callers, but momentous ones, such as at high-level diplomatic meetings where major treaties are forged.

Note: The purpose of this essay was to document and describe the doctrine of tawriya. Future writings will analyze its full significance—from what it means for a Muslim to believe the Supreme Being advocates such lying, to how tawriya is liable to suppress one’s conscience to the point of passing a lie detector test—as well as compare and contrast it with the practices of other religions, and more.

Permalink Reply by Joe on July 9, 2013 at 10:58

Here is another article where Raymond Ibrahim takes apart a defense by an islam-enabler.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/07/excusing-taqiyya.html

Excusing taqiyya?

Instead of trying to be “bold” and tackling a “controversial” topic, innate apologists would do better to simply remain silent.

In “Secret Muslims: Are Muslims allowed to hide their faith?” in Slate, July 3, Juliet Lapidos wonders "whether there's a history of Muslims who deny their faith publicly while maintaining it privately.” She concludes:

Yes, if you're a Shiite; maybe, if you're a Sunni. According to Chapter 16, Verse 106 of the Quran, "Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief—except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith—but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty." Shiites cite this verse to justify taqiyya, a religious dispensation by which persecuted Muslims may hide their beliefs.But Sunni scholars have a more equivocal take. Some reject taqiyya as unacceptable hypocrisy and evidence of cowardice: Muslims shouldn't fear other humans, only Allah. Others argue that concealment is warranted under life-threatening circumstances.

This is inaccurate. For starters, the author quotes a secondary verse to justify taqiyya; the primary verse (to say nothing of some very straightforward hadiths) that all the ulema have relied on to articulate doctrines of deception states: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers; whoever does so shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” (3:28).

Note: this verse says nothing about forced conversions. So why does Lapidos evoke 16:106, the one that does? As the remainder of her article makes clear, she wants to portray Islam as justifying dissembling only when non-Muslims try to forcefully convert Muslims—that and nothing else.

She goes on to claim that “Sunni scholars have a more equivocal take” regarding the validity of taqiyya, as opposed to Shias. While it is true that, historically, Shia minorities living among Sunni majorities have had more need to dissemble (tells you something about residing with Sunnis, no?), that is simply a quirk of circumstance. In other words, now that Sunnis are minority groups living among infidel majority groups, such as in the West, they, like Shias surrounded by Sunnis, have developed perhaps an even greater need to hide their true beliefs.

As for the notion that “some [Sunnis] reject taqiyya as unacceptable hypocrisy and evidence of cowardice…. Others argue that concealment is warranted under life-threatening circumstances,” the very first lines of one of the few Arabic books wholly dedicated to treating the doctrine of taqiyya, called al-Taqiyya fi al-Islam (“Taqiyya in Islam”), by Islamic studies professor Sami Makarem, unequivocally states in its opening page:

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Nearly every Islamic sect has agreed to it and practices it….Indeed, we can go so far as to say that mainstream Islam practices taqiyya, and that those few sects that do not practice it are aberrant, diverging from the mainstream. (p.7)

Lapidos continues later on in her article:

Outside the Islamic world, there are two major historical examples of Muslims practicing taqiyya. During the 16th century, Catholic authorities in Spain gave the local (predominantly Sunni) Muslim population an ultimatum: Convert or leave the country. Some of the converts (called Moriscos by the Spanish) became sincere Catholics while others perpetuated their faith in private. Crypto-Muslims attended church services on Sundays but used Aljamiado—an Arabic alphabet for transcribing Romance languages—to secretly pass down Islamic traditions. In antebellum America, slaves from West Africa, many of whom were Muslim, were forced to convert to Christianity. As in medieval Spain, some slaves converted sincerely while others maintained their religion in secret.

Lapidos maintains that the “two major historical examples of Muslims practicing taqiyya” were when Christians tried to forcefully convert them—again, as if that’s the sole purpose of Muslim deceit. (Of course, subtly injecting the image of “intolerant,” “slave-driving” Christians goes a long way in justifying, or at least further clouding, the issue of taqiyya—especially for an audience such as Slate’s.) But aside from the fact that current events are full of Muslims engaging in taqiyya, and not because they fear for their faith—from “reneged” peace treatises with Israel and other infidel entities to terrorist-linked organizations and people like CAIR and Tariq Ramadan constantly proclaiming that “Islam means peace”—history in fact furnishes numerous anecdotes where Muslims deceived, and not because anyone was trying to force them into another religion, starting with Islam’s prophet Muhammad himself:

Apart from his famous assertion that “War is deceit,” Muhammad allowed his followers to feign goodwill towards infidels, solely in order to treacherously strike them down, as in the following hadith:

“Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it."

As for Islam’s ulema, Taqiyya in Islam quotes from a number of the most prominent, the vast majority of whom agree that taqiyya is not just limited to preserving one’s faith. Here, for instance, is the premiere exegete al-Tabari: “Allah Almighty has forbidden the believers from being friendly with infidels or from taking them as confidants in place of other beliers—except when they are clearly outnumbered by the infidels, in which case let them display outward friendliness, while holding onto their faith” (p.22).

After quoting from a number of other authoritative ulema, Makarem concludes that “There is no major difference between what al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Baydawi, and al-Jilalan all say in regards to taqiyya” (p.26).

Note: Tabari recommends that Muslims feign goodwill towards infidels not when the latter are trying to forcefully convert them, but because they are natural enemies, at least from a Muslim perspective. So, far from being a question of preserving their faith, taqiyya is to be practiced when Muslims are in the minority and living among majority infidels—precisely the scenario we have today in the West.

The Slate article tries to pull a fast one: it admits to taqiyya, but then quickly portrays it as “controversial” and only used as a last resort from Muslims trying to escape (Christian) persecution. Depicting an incomplete picture is worse than no picture, and Slate would have been more objective to stay silent on the matter. At any rate, I am more inclined to heeding the words of Islamic scholar Sami Makarem, who has written an entire book on taqiyya—not to mention the plain words of al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Baydawi, indeed, Muhammad himself—as opposed to half truths coming from one Juliet Lapidos.

Permalink Reply by Joe on July 9, 2013 at 11:00

Here is an article where Ibrahim responds to a muslim "refutation" of his account of Tawriya

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/-sam-shamoun-of-answering-islam.html

Raymond Ibrahim: Refuting Muslim Apologetics Concerning Tawriya (“Creative Lying”)

Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam recently forwarded me an article titled “Tawriya: Islamic Doctrine of ‘Creative Lying’? Response to Raymond ...,” appearing on a website called Muslim Debate Initiative, and written by one Shadid (“Severe”) Lewis in response to my recent exposition on the doctrine of tawriya. Although this response—poorly written, poorly argued—would normally be ignored, I address it for three reasons: 1) To date, it is the only rebuttal I have seen from a Muslim concerning tawriya; 2) Far from rejecting tawriya, it actually validates it (the author spends his time chasing red herrings, not disproving the doctrine); 3) It is a good example of the speciousness and sophistry employed by those who try to downplay or rationalize some of Islam’s more problematic doctrines, in this case, tawriya. (Note: Although Shadid’soriginal article is littered with grammatical and punctuation errors, in the interest of readability, I have corrected the more egregious when quoting him.)

At the start, after informing readers that he “read the article of Raymond Ibrahim posted on Frontpagemag.com and I just had to respond,” Shadid argues that tawriya really “means deliberate ambiguity rather than creative lying.” Discerning readers understand such euphemisms change nothing about the doctrine.

After I pointed out that most Muslim scholars (or ulema) are agreed that tawriya should not be used to commit an “injustice,” I added “‘injustice’ as defined by Sharia, of course, not Western standards.” To this, Shadid responds: “Says who? None of the sources he [me] cited said as only defined by Sharia. A commonly known wrong is a commonly known wrong just the same in Islam (stealing, cheating, murder, etc. is wrong and accepted as such in Islam).”

First, of course the Muslim authorities do not bother pointing out that they mean justice and injustice as defined by Sharia; that’s a given. Likewise, anyone familiar with Islamic law and doctrine—presumably Muslims like Shadid himself—know that many of Islam’s views on “right” and “wrong” do not agree with “universal standards.” One example: Islamic law holds that any Muslim who converts out of Islam and refuses to return is an apostate to be executed. Whereas in Islam, such executions are deemed “just,” from a Western point of view, which acknowledges religious freedom, they are unjust. In this context, then, it is “just” to use tawriya (lying) to enable the execution of an apostate.

Next, Shadid distracts the issue by making irrelevant points: “Sheikh Al-Munajjid, another source cited by the article’s author, said excessive use of puns leads to lying. So the claim that this [tawriya] can be used whenever and wherever is a lie in itself.”

Yes, at the very end of his fatwa, after giving many proofs validating tawriya, Munajjid warned that too much tawriya can “lead one to slip into a lie,” meaning that, by getting caught up in one’s own dissembling game, one can end up committing an actual lie—one that is not “technically” true, a criterion of tawriya—without realizing it. More to the point, saying that some ulema warn against using tawriya too much, does not change the fact that Islam permits lying through tawriya, and that it is up to the individual Muslim to decide how much is too much.

Shadid continues: “Al Munajjid said this [tawriya] is used for embarrassing circumstances. Yet the author would have us believe Muslims can use this to lie in business transactions, and to take peoples’ property and other commonly accepted wrong activities.”

Seems like Shadid is engaging in his own bit of tawriya here: yes, Munajjid did say tawriya can be used for embarrassing circumstances, but he mentioned embarrassment as an example of, not the sole justification for, tawriya. Rather, the two criteria he gave, and which I noted in my original article, are 1) that the words literally fit the alternate meaning, so that the lie is technically true, and 2) that there is a “legitimate need” (i.e., a Sharia compliant need).

Caught up in his own convoluted logic/tawriya, Shadid next contradicts himself: “Another source cited by the articles author which he ignores is: Al-Nawawi, who said the deliberate ambiguity [tawriya] is permissible if the need arises or alegitimate interest …”—there it is again, “legitimate interest.” In other words, Nawawi, just like Munajjid, is simply another Muslim scholar who confirms that tawriya is permissible if it serves a “legitimate interest,” i.e., if the lie enables something deemed “legitimate” according to Sharia.

Then there are Shadid’s ridiculous arguments:

Mr. Ibraham told us Muhammad is recorded saying “Allah has commanded me to equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation”; and “whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr” (Sami Mukaram,Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).

 

However the source he cites clearly is Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30). Did you catch it? The source is about AL TAQIYYA not about TAWRIYA. And taqiyya deals with a situation only when a Muslim’s life is in immediate danger [not true] and they utter words of disbelief because they are threatened with being killed or tortured. Thus this citation does not support any proof for “creative lying.”

Apparently Shadid’s point is that any quote contained in a book that is not specifically devoted to the topic of the quote, is to be ignored. This is tantamount to saying “I reject any quote on jihad, regardless of the authority, unless it comes from a book with the word ‘jihad’ in its title. But if the title of the book is, say, ‘Islamic Law,’ or ‘War in Islam,’ then the quote on jihad is inadmissible.”

 

Better for you, Shadid, to address the actual quote itself—that your prophet’s mission was rooted in obfuscation, according to his own words—rather than quibble about the title of the book containing the quote.

Next he complains that I misrepresented a hadith when I wrote:

Muhammad said: “If any of you ever pass gas or soil yourselves during prayers [breaking wudu], hold your nose and leave” (Sunan Abu Dawud): ” Holding one’s nose and leaving implies smelling something offensive—which is true—though people will think it was someone else who committed the offense.”

According to Shadid:

Those familiar with this hadith can quickly see that Ibrahim has added his own conclusion about this hadith not endorsed by the Islamic position. No where is it taught that this hadith teaches for one to pass gas and leave thereby allowing some one else to take the blame for passing gas and the offensive smell.

Yet, he fails to mention that this hadith figures in the literature devoted to justifying tawriya, including Munajjid’s fatwa. And if this hadith does not teach “one to pass gas and leave thereby allowing some one else to take the blame for passing gas and the offensive smell,” then what is its significance, why does Muhammad teach to hold the nose, and why are the ulema referring to it in the context of tawriya? After all, wasn’t Shadid himself arguing earlier that tawriya is to be used only for “embarrassing” situations—and what’s more embarrassing than this?

 

In light of all the above, readers are free to conclude whether, as Shadid put it, my article on tawriya is “a clear example of how these haters just make up blatant lies to taint Islamic teachings and draw false conclusions based on their over zealous bias against Islam,” or whether Shadid’s entire rebuttal—which strains out a gnat while accepting that Islam permits lying—is itself an example of obfuscation.

Permalink Reply by Joe on May 17, 2014 at 10:58

I think people are being caught out by all the different ways in which muslims are permitted (and trained) to deceive.

Recently there's been some faux outrage that Mo Ansar had often passed himself off as a lawyer.

https://twitter.com/LUTONPE7E/status/466536848118923264

But this is Mo Ansar operating tawriya (language that is meant to be misunderstood).  One can conclude that this man thinks he is a lawyer in islam.

Islam is a totalising world view. That means every statement by a muslim must be seen in the context (framework) of islam.  We all assume that when a muslim speaks to us, they are using our framework. Since islam considers us to be somewhere between shit and syphillis, why would muslims use our framework in preferene to their own totalising & supremacist framework?

At this point, Mo Ansar has two choices 1) confirm that muslims operate a systematic deception of non-muslims, 2) say people have misunderstood and he never meant to pass himself off as a lawyer.  Rather than concede the first point, he's taken one for the gang.

Permalink Reply by Philip Smeeton on May 17, 2014 at 19:25

"Islam is a totalising world view. That means every statement by a muslim must be seen in the context (framework) of islam.  We all assume that when a muslim speaks to us, they are using our framework. Since islam considers us to be somewhere between shit and syphillis, why would muslims use our framework in preferene to their own totalising & supremacist framework?"

I agree Islam uses a different language to us in every sense of the term. Even basic and important words have different meanings to a Muslim than they do to us. The word "peace" being a prime example. To a Muslim this entails constantwar until everyone submits to the will of Allah only then can there be peace. To us I guess it means quiet, a period without war.

To me everyone has a right to the factual truth, to a Muslim non-Muslims deserve nothing, let alone the truth about anything.

Permalink Reply by Joe on December 18, 2014 at 19:41

Here's a compilation of some of the CJM experts on the duplicity of muslims.  

http://vladtepesblog.com/2014/12/17/the-weaponized-rhetoric-of-jihad/

It's quite gratifying to think that we on 4F could stand in for these people.

Permalink Reply by Philip Smeeton on December 19, 2014 at 12:16

Boils down to that you can't trust a Muslim, and how important it is to understand that the one and only goal of Islam is that everything should be Muslim. We must realize that every Muslim is bound to support the achievement of this final goal and that his life is basically devoted to it. It is Jihad at every level and no Muslim is exempt. Every means is allowed, no method is forbidden, in the achievement of this end. It is pure fanaticism and the direct opposite of everything that the free secular democracy stands for, freedom.

Permalink Reply by Joe on January 7, 2015 at 10:02

The muslim who took the hostages at the Lindt cafe in Sydney got into Australian claiming to be a spy against Iran.  His access was aided by Shamnesty International taking up his case.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/sydney-siege-jihadi-fooled-austra...

Permalink Reply by Philip Smeeton on January 7, 2015 at 10:33

We have to start sending Muslims back where they came from or else our civilisation will be destroyed from within. Our greatest enemy is not the Muslims themselves but the islam-enablers; our leaders that excuse Islam no matter how badly its followers behave, the media that attacks anyone and any political party that is anti-islamic-immigration, and the schools that teach that multiculturalism is possible and beneficial. Our leaders do not defend us, our press attacks us, our schools teach us acceptance. We experience that our liberal socialist neighbours shun us for pointing out the damage that indiscriminate immigration is causing. It is as if our whole civilisation is willingly committing cultural suicide in some sort of contagious insanity. I refuse to go mad but they will probably lock me up anyway. because I object most strenuously to what is happening.

Permalink Reply by Joe on May 22, 2015 at 19:23

America's 1st gay imam.  Of course, there's deceit going on.  He says there's nothing anti-gay in the koran. As if the koran is the only source of islam. It's in the hadiths where it is commanded to kill gays.

---

Meet America’s Only Openly Gay Imam

He’s black. And he’s Muslim. Think that’s not hard enough? He’s gay. Think that’s still not hard enough? He’s an Imam. And he loves life.

Think you have challenges in your life? What do you think the challenges are for a gay, black, Muslim who is the United States’ first openly gay Imam?

Well, Imam Daayiee Abdullah is all those things. Plus you can add one more thing to his description: He’s truly one of the most optimistic people you will meet—and for good reason.

“When I graduated from high school, I hoped that one day gay Americans would be able to get married. And now here I am 45 years later officiating same-sex marriages—how can I not be optimistic that the future is bright?” explained the 61-year-old Abdullah, who lives in Washington, D.C.

Abdullah has been fighting for civil rights all his life. First, for African Americans. Then for gay rights beginning in the 1970s. And since the 1990s, he has been on the front lines advocating for LGBT Muslims in America.

Yes, I know for some the idea that there is a gay Imam is astounding. I’m sure many are asking: Aren’t Muslims supposed to kill gays?

We do see gays killed by ISIS, and there are five Muslim majority countries (out of more than 50) that have a statutory death penalty for homosexuals: Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen.

But what I would imagine only a few non-Muslims know—and ISIS and others like them could care less— is that there is absolutely no mention in the Koran about punishing gays, let alone killing them.

As Imam Abdullah explained on my weekly SiriusXM radio show on Saturday, “Nowhere in the Quran does it say punish homosexuals. And historians have also never found any case of the Prophet Muhammad dealing with homosexuality.”

To his point, there are at least eight Muslim countries that do not criminalize a gay lifestyle on a national level including Indonesia (the world’s most populous Muslim country,) Jordan, Turke.... Keep in mind Jordan is governed by King Abdullah, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, so if the tenets of Islam truly called for gays to be punished, that law would surely be in place there. (Most Muslim majority countries still have criminal penalties on the books that call for imprisoning gays, but the degree to which these laws are currently enforced varies greatly.)

So if there’s no discussion of sexuality in the Koran—why do some punish or kill gays under the guise of Islam? Abdullah explained that “it’s based on culture, mythology, and pre-Islamic laws, with the goal being power and control over people.” And when he says pre-Islamic rules, we are talking laws based on Bible passages such as in Leviticus, where it states that if men engage in homosexual acts, they are to be put to death.” (Islam was founded around 700 years after Christ’s time, and Leviticus was written probably 1,400 years before that.)

But here’s the reality that is not often discussed. The practice of Islam is influenced by the country and culture in which it is practiced.  For example, this weekend, the Imam is part of retreat of over 100 LGBT Muslims. In the United States, no American Muslims will demand they be imprisoned or killed. (The worst fear they have is going to a red state, where “religious liberty” laws could possibly result in them being denied service; fortunately, the retreat takes place in Philadelphia.) If the same retreat took place in Iran or Saudi Arabia, of course, the participants could be met with jail or even death.

What makes Abdullah particularity optimistic is the growing acceptance he has received among Muslim Americans. “The younger they are, the more tolerant and accepting they are of LGBT Muslims,” he noted. This is unsurprising given that polls of Americans of all faiths have found a generational divide, with younger people being more accepting of gays and supportive of marriage equality than older ones. Abdullah added, “But there are even older Muslims who are now supportive, including a grandmother here and there.”

Abdullah noted, with his trademark enthusiasm, that technology has helped quicken the pace of tolerance and acceptance of gays. Even a Facebook friend who is gay can help put a human face on the entire LGBT community.

But still there are those Muslims, even in the United States, who might see a problem with an openly gay Imam. I witnessed that first hand when I posted on my Facebook page that he would be on my radio show. While most were fine with it, some objected to me “promoting a gay lifestyle” by featuring him on my show. Others had no issue with his sexuality, but rather didn’t think he should be openly gay and an Imam.

In response to those who don’t believe a gay person should be a religious leader, Abdullah responded, “Some don’t believe that homosexuals can be pious. But we can be just as good at our faith as anyone else. We are simply different from other folks, not less committed to our faith.”

But being gay in American poses challenges apart from intra-Muslim community concerns. We see some conservative Chirstians who oppose marriage equality and want to deny service to gays simply because of their sexual orientation.

“Some people are uncomfortable with gays,” Abdullah acknowledged. “But your discomfort with my sexuality should not translate into me having less rights as an American.”

Abdullah’s next project is an online school he intends to launch this fall called the Mecca Institute. His hope is that the school will be a vehicle to connect Muslims and non-Muslims alike to have discussion about Islam that’s both open and honest. Abdullah explained that his inspiration for this project was the “golden age of Islam,” which dated from the 7th century to 13th century and was marked by, among other things, scholars of different faiths sharing ideas, which in turn become an intellectual linchpin of science, philosophy, education, etc.

When you speak to Abdullah you can’t help but get caught up in his optimism. In a time where we see such negativity, it’s truly refreshing to hear a person who can paint a picture that the days ahead will be better than our past. And here’s the thing: He truly believes it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/21/and-now-america-an...

---

Fucking Pollyanna journalist. Fucking deluded homo.

Permalink Reply by Joe on December 9, 2015 at 6:42

Excellent summary over at Gates of Vienna

Islam, Lying, and Sacred Misdirection

Posted on December 7, 2015 by Baron Bodissey

A discussion in the comments on yesterday’s post about the San Bernardino massacre brought up an important topic: lying and sacred misdirection under Islam. According to Islamic law, lying is not only permissible under certain circumstances, it is mandatory if the goal it serves is obligatory upon Muslims and cannot be accomplished by other means.

Spreading Islam over the entire globe is an obligatory goal for Muslims. For that reason there is absolutely no doubt that Muslims are sometimes lying to us in furtherance of that goal.

I am indebted to Major Stephen Coughlin for the sources and analytical framework used in the following examination of lying and sacred misdirection under Islamic Law.

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

In September of 2006 Pope Benedict XVI gave a lecture in Regensburg on the reconciliation of faith with reason. In his address, the pope, speaking in German, quoted an unfavorable remark about Islam made in the 14th century by Manuel II Palaiologos, a Byzantine emperor. Muslims heads of state described it as an “outrage”. Dawah organizations[1] such as the Muslim Brotherhood called for a “day of rage”, which actually occurred the same day across the entire Muslim Ummah[2] — a day when people died.

Exactly one month to the day after that happened, an open letter[3] to His Holiness the Pope was written in English by thirty-eight Muslim clerics and posted on the internet. So who was the primary audience for this? Who were its expected readers?

The English-speaking world, of course. We were the intended audience:

What is “Holy War”?

We would like to point out that “holy war” is a term that does not exist in Islamic languages. Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in the way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force. Though a jihad may be sacred in the sense of being directed towards a sacred ideal, it is not necessarily a “war”.[4]

In effect they were saying that Islam has no understanding of holy war, and jihad just means struggle and nothing else. One of the signatories to this document was Sheikh Nu Ha Mim Keller.

It just so happens that we actually have a text of Islamic law that defines jihad. It is called ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper. It is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.

The Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994) is “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ’Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”. This is an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.

Book O, “Justice”, § 9[5] begins the section on jihad. Jihad is similarly defined in Book X “The Book of Jihad” from Ibn Rushd’s book The Distinguished Jurist,[6] and in Book XIII “Siyar (Relations with non-Muslims)” of theHidayah:[7]

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying war to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.

Reliance of the Traveller is a book you that you can get in virtually any Muslim bookstore. It is available on Amazon. The primary target audience for the book is English-speaking Muslims.

And its translator is Nu Ha Mim Keller.

So Nu Ha Mim Keller translated relevant sections of Reliance of the Traveller, a book for Muslims, to the effect that jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the wordmujahada, which signifies “warfare to establish the religion.” Yet at the same time, in a message meant for non-Muslims, he says that he would like to point out that Islam has no understanding of holy war at all!

Is Sheikh Keller being dishonest? No, not really; not from an Islamic point of view. There is a message that Muslims are required to know and there is a message that you, the non-believer, are allowed to know. And those two messages are not the same.

It is important at this point to note what Islamic law says about lying.Reliance of the Traveller, Book R “Holding One’s Tongue,” tells us that lying is forbidden:

Lying

Primary texts from the Koran and Sunna say it is unlawful to lie… because of the scholarly consensus of the community that it is prohibited. [section §§r8.0, r8.1]…

…our only concern here being to explain the exceptions to what is considered lying, and apprise of the details.

Ah, the exceptions! §r8.2 explains the exceptions, citing the words of the prophet to back up the law:

He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.

And:

I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him. (in smoothing over differences.) [emphasis added]

So lying is permitted when a Muslim is engaged in war. But Islam is, by its own definition and understanding, always at war with us, the non-believers. Therefore, in his interactions with the kuffar, a Muslim is given a wide latitude about what he may utter that is not factually true.

Section r8.2 on “Permissible Lying” cites the iconic Islamic legal jurist Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali:

This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest…When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: i.e., when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible) and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. [emphasis added]

Other excerpts from the same book are also applicable:

Giving directions to someone who wants to do wrong…

It is not permissible to give directions and the like to someone intending to perpetrate a sin, because it is helping another to commit disobedience. [§ r7.0, r7.1]

This is disobedience as understood under Islamic law. Al-Misri gives this as an example:

Giving directions to wrongdoers includes:

1) showing the way to policemen and tyrants when they are going to commit injustice and corruption. [ §r7.1 (1)]

Besides lying, there is §r10.3, giving a misleading impression:

Scholars say that there is no harm in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law.

Thus Islamic law permits statements that are not completely truthful to be uttered if doing so would accomplish a purpose approved by sacred law. And if that purpose is an obligation required of Muslims, then misleading others is obligatory, provided that full candor will not accomplish the same purpose.

In a modern Western country, full candor about the nature and purpose of Islam would definitely not serve the interests of Islam. If Westerners ever fully understood what Islamic law requires, the practice of Islam would be circumscribed, suppressed, or forbidden.

Therefore we know that Muslims are lying to us.

They are not always lying. But we have no way to detect which statements are lies and which are true. A general rule might be this: If a Muslim says something that is soothing and makes Islam seem harmless and beneficial in a Western context, he is probably lying.

In yesterday’s post, Hesperado made a comment about the impossibility of knowing whether any given “moderate” Muslim is in fact sincere.

This the central problem for non-Muslims in dealing with Islam, and one to which there is no easy and palatable answer. Any attempt to devise a meaningful solution leads into the sort of ugliness that the average Westerner prefers to avoid thinking about.

The unavoidable fact is that there is no reliable way to determine whether any given Muslim really believes everything in Islamic scripture and law, and is therefore dangerous. He may be a nice guy; he may drink beer and eat bacon and hang out with the kuffar. Yet, since the core tenets of his faith require him to lie, dissemble, and mislead in order to advance the cause of Islam, there is no way to determine his sincerity.

To make matters worse, we have numerous examples of Muslims in the West (often second- or third-generation) who seem fully “integrated”, but who suddenly become more religious and are rapidly “radicalized”. Then come the bodies lying in pools of blood in the street, with all the neighbors saying, “I can’t believe it! He was such a nice, quiet, polite man.”

The problem arises because we have imported millions of Muslims into our midst en masse. Now they are here. They’re not going to suddenly decide to make hijra to Somalia or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. So what are we to do?

Ordinary citizens can do nothing, of course; and by the time our governments take action, the situation will of necessity be very ugly indeed.

The only “safe” Muslim is a former Muslim, but even that can be tough to determine for certain as long as the fellow is still alive. A public repudiation of Islam, the profession of another faith, and multiple death fatwas against the murtad for apostasy are fairly reliable indicators. But Muslims who no longer believe in Islam are understandably reluctant to go that route.

It is difficult to envisage a peaceful and humane solution to this problem. There is an inherent horror to it that makes most of us shy away from discussing it, or even thinking about it.

Notes:

1.		Dawah means proselytizing for Islam, According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, Dawah is also described as the duty to “actively encourage fellow Muslims in the pursuance of greater piety in all aspects of their lives,” a definition which has become central to contemporary Islamic thought. Organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood apply an aggressive version of Dawah that includes jihad.
2.		Ummah is an Arabic word meaning “community” or “nation”. In the context of Islam, the word ummah is used to mean the diaspora or “Community of the Believers” (ummat al-mu’minin), and thus the whole Muslim world, including Muslims in non-Muslim countries.
3.		ammanmessage.com/media/openLetter/english.pdf
4.		OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI, Concerning his Lecture in Germany on September 12, 2006, www.duaatalislam.com/english_letter.htm 12 October 2006. (also in Italian, French, German, Arabic, Swahili, Spanish, Bosnian, Albanian, and Russian).
5.		Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law), rev. ed. trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Beltsville: Amana Publications, 1994).
6.		al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid (The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer), vol. 1, trans. and ed. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, (Reading: Garnet Publishing Ltd, 2002), 454-487.
7.		Burhan al-Din al-Farghani al-Marghinani, Al-Hidaya: The Guidance, vol. 2, trans. and ed. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, (Bristol, England: Amal Press, 2008), 285-348.