Tag Archives: strategy

Four Arabic Words Every Infidel Must Know

This is a must read for newcomers and surface gliders of the pernicious groupthink of Islam and old hats alike. In fact I had never heard of two words of the four after seven years of fairly heavy reading with eyes wide open and a mind ready to critique the ugly morality Islam has spent on Muslims and non-Muslims for nearly 1400 years.

Let this be a lesson. There is always something new and revolting about Islam to discover before it's too late...

In 539 BC, King Belshazzar of Babylon saw a dismembered hand-written four prophetic words on the wall. This "handwriting on the wall was finally interpreted by the prophet Daniel as predicting the fall of the kingdom. He was right. Babylon fell to the Medes-Persians that very night."

Like the "handwriting on the wall" that Prophet Daniel had interpreted, there are four Arabic words, which could lead to submission of the entire world to Islam, if non-Muslims do not fully understand their meaning and implications. Those words are taqiyya, tawriya, kitman and muruna.

Each of these words describes a different style of deception used by Muslims when discussing Islam or their activities as Muslims.

Mohammed famously uttered, "War is deceit." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Nr.268). The Quran boasts that Allah is the "master of all scheming" (Quran 13:42) and that he is "profound in his machinations" (Quran 8:30). Western civilizations are not accustomed to dealing with people, who have developed deception into an art form. Knowledge is power, and the best way to combat the Islamist agenda is to say, "We know the method of your lying. You can stop now!"

Taqiyya

The Kaaka Meteorite
The Kaaka Meteorite
Taqiyya is defined as dissimulation about one's Muslim identity. It originates from the verse in the Quran that says, "Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful—he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah—except in self-defense [illaan tattaqoo minhum tuqatan (Quran 3:28)].

This "self-defense" justifies dissimulation. As you might imagine this particular tool of the Islam faith is a powerful one when used to disarm Infidels of notions that Islam is not a religion of peace because of this fact or that fact, they will never admit as a character flaw of Islam, or its policing mechanism called Sharia Law. It is the Islamic Sharia Law that no Muslim can avoid that provides, "When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory."

Reliance of the Traveller. Section r8.2 PERMISSIBLE LYING. The Prophet said: "He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar"). Examples include lying to protect Islam or a Muslim.

Tawriya

Tawriya is defined as concealing, and it could be called "creative lying" or where appropriate "lying under oath". It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath.

Reliance of the Traveller. Section o19.1 If one swears "I will not eat this wheat," but then makes it into flour or bread (and eats it), one has not broken one's oath.

Reliance of the Traveller. Section o19.5 When a person swearing an oath about something (in the future, affirming or denying that it will occur) includes the expression "in sha' Allah ("if Allah will"), before finishing the oath, then the oath is not broken in any event if he thereby intends to provide for exceptions.

tawriyaHow does this work? Suppose someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, because it is a supplication Muslims make to Allah seventeen times a day to keep them from the path of“those with whom God is angry” and “those who have lost their way”.

A Muslim might respond, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians.” He is practicing tawriya, because while Surah 1 does not mention Jews and Christians by name, but he knows full-well that the words "those" refer to Jews and Christians.

Another example would be when a Muslim responds to your greeting of "Merry Christmas!" He might say, "I wish you the best." In your mind, you think he has returned a Christmas greeting. In actuality, he has expressed his wish for you to convert to Islam; he wishes the best for you which, in his view, is becoming a Muslim. This principle of tawriya is also at play, when prominent Muslims decry killing on innocents. To a Muslim, only Muslims are innocent. The infidels have rejected Allah, the High Most God, and therefore are not innocent.

Kitman

Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth. The most common example of this is when a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle. He is not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses are sworn to do in U.S. courts.

Often, kitman results in a gross distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 (27%) could be considered “internal” with no object as the target of the struggle based on the context of the surah.

Another common form of kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant,contradictory verse.kitman

Here is an excellent example: "There is no compulsion in religion." (Quran 2:256)

"Are they seeking a religion other than Allah's, when every soul in the heavens and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?" (Quran 3:83)

Another example: "Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged." (Quran 22:39)

"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them." (Quran 9:5)

And another example: "Anyone who kills a human being... it shall be as though he has killed all mankind. ...If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all mankind..." (Quran 5:32)

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah... that they should bemurdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned;" (Quran 5:33)

Muruna

Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Quran 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.”

Thus, Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard and place their trust in their Muslim counterpart.

At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. Nothing is more valuable these days to the Islamists than a blue-eyed Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.

Another common way of using muruna is for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim or to behave like a non-Muslim so their true agenda will not be suspected.

Huma Abedin, Muslim Brotherhood?
Huma Abedin
The 9/11 hijackers visited strip clubs and bars during their off-times while taking classes in the U.S. to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon,and the White House. Many Americans believe that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's aide, Huma Abedin, married Jewish Congressman Anthony Weiner at least in part to burnish her security credentials so she could infiltrate the highest levels of the Administration, speculating on the fact that her father and her brother hold high rank among the Muslim Brotherhood...

The implications of these highly-honed tactics of deception could be enormous for unassuming Western societies. Twenty years ago, psychologist Paul Ekman wrote an insightful book, "Telling Lies," which demonstrated that people give off recognizable clues when they are practicing deceit. Their consciences cause them, involuntarily,to sweat or raise their voices or make other recognizable gestures.

However, Dr. Ekman’s research was exclusively with people from Western cultures. Muslims, on the other hand, show no discernible signs when they are being deceitful because there is no feeling of guilt. In their minds they are doing exactly what Allah wants them to do to advance Islam. Because any Western person who has raised children knows almost intuitively when someone is lying, so they assume they can do that in all cases. Unfortunately, those same Western people can be easily duped by Islamic deceit because there are no tell-tale signs in the deceiver.

Mosab Hassan Yousef
Mosab Hassan Yousef
Another example of playing muruna to the tease of perfection is Mosab Hassan Yousef, self-proclaimed "The Son of Hamas".

Yousef, the son of a jailed Hamas terrorist leader and MP, Sheikh Hassan Yousef, the most popular figure in that extremist Islamic organization. Mosab, as a young man, assisted his father for years in his political activities. He converted to Christianity and operated under cover in the service of Israel's intelligence agency for a decade. Yousef reveals this information in his book, Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices.

Mosab however, did not convert to what the West would recognize as Christianity, but to a fiery, Palestinian brand of the faith that is vehemently anti-Israel. According to Mosab, his main goal in coming to the U.S. is to infiltrate the main source of international support for Israel: the American church. From an interview with Al-Arabiya:

"During my tours in universities and even churches, [I found] the real support for Israel stems from the church in the West... We need to understand the difference between "revenge" and "resistance" and once the Palestinians do, we will have our victory against Israel."

Hopefully, this article will be a wake-up call to the unsuspecting infidels. Trust but verify—as was an old American strategy in dealing with potentially hostile parties—is the way to go in dealing with Islamists.

  • Thanks to Apostates & Infidels and a special thumbs up to SIOA stalwart Pamela Geller.
  •  

    Rejecting The Diversity Con Game (But Not Diversity Itself)

    The White Negro
    Mailer christens the hipster as a psychopath. Disillusioned by the systematic violence of the two world wars, the hipster nihilistically seeks meaning in his life through immediate gratification, especially in the realm of sex. In the rejection of the conformism wrought by industrial society, the hipster valorizes individual acts of violence as infinitely preferable to systematic violence.
    By Michael Filozof: The Origins of Leftist Racial Orthodoxy

    IF "diversity" is good, why do liberals congregate in lily-white enclaves like Vermont (the whitest state in the Union, according to the Census) and Marin County, California? White liberals hector others incessantly about the need for "diversity," but most have no interest in living in neighborhoods with large numbers of blacks. The ideal society in the liberal mind always seems to be a Scandinavian socialist one (which is to say that liberals strive to make the U.S. more like some of the most uniformly white nations in the world).

    The liberal enforcers of racial correctness are quick to decry the evils of racism, yet they are quite willing to practice it themselves in the form of affirmative action—and they are strangely silent when blacks engage in "hate crimes" against whites. Conservatives have been increasingly willing to point out these and other hypocrisies of our racial orthodoxy, but they invariably fail to understand its true origins.

    What drives our contemporary racial orthodoxy? Many conservatives mistakenly believe that liberals obsessed by race are afflicted with "white guilt." Not so. The truth about racial matters in the U.S. is this: racial issues are not actually about race. In the hands of the progressive left, race is a tool used by powerful whites against other whites; specifically, race is a weapon used by liberals to bludgeon conservatives and delegitimize conservative, patriotic values.

    But it has not always been so.

    Prior to World War II, progressives and leftists—like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger—viewed blacks as inferior human scum who should be eliminated through eugenic hygiene. But after World War II, "progressive" thinking about race underwent an astonishing metamorphosis. The American left forged a strategic alliance with blacks, using race to attack the core values of an American society they had now come to despise as the ultimate evil.

    The dominant theme of the literature of the postwar era—which 76 million Baby Boomers absorbed as the first generation to attend college en masse—was the moral equivalence between the United States and the totalitarian regimes it had just fought.

    In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, the founder of the modern American feminist movement, wrote that the American suburb was a "comfortable concentration camp" for women. (Friedan, a Jew, wrote this in 1963, less than 20 years after the liberation of Auschwitz.)

    In The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger's protagonist Holden Caulfield (narrating the story from an asylum after having been driven insane by the "phoniness" of American life) says of his brother D.B., a World War II veteran, "I really think he hated the Army worse than the war ... [h]e said the Army was practically as full of bastards as the Nazis were."

    In Kurt Vonnegut's semi-autobiographical novel Slaughterhouse-Five, the real enemy is not Adolf Hitler or the Nazis, but the American military, the American officer corps, and American society. Vonnegut's character Billy Pilgrim is a WWII vet who survives the bombing of Dresden as a POW; after the war, he becomes a respected citizen and a financial success. Pilgrim absorbs conservative American values right down to the "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper sticker on his car—and goes insane, just as his fictionalized son patriotically heads off to Vietnam.

    In the early 1960s at Edinburgh, Mailer along with Mary McCarthy began the process of legitimizing Burroughs. Mailer opened the back door and let Burroughs in. Literally. One of Burroughs’ most ardent supporters for admission to the Academy of Arts and Letters was Mailer. This recognition was very important to Burroughs, and he wore his Academy pin proudly. From what I can gather, Burroughs was grateful for Mailer’s support. —Jed Birmingham
    But the author who provided the direct link between left-wing America-hatred and race was Norman Mailer, also a disillusioned WWII veteran. In his 1957 essay "The White Negro," Mailer equated the atomic bomb with the concentration camp and urged whites to identify with black social outcasts as a means to escape the "totalitarian tissues of American society." The "hipster" should encourage the "psychopath" within himself and "absorb the existentialist synapses of the Negro." The white "hipster" would follow psychopathology-as-liberation "along the road of the homosexual, the orgiast, the drug-addict, the rapist, the robber and the murderer..."

    "[W]hat makes [the "hip" ethic] radically different from Socratic moderation with its stern conservative respect for the experience of the past[,]" Mailer wrote, "is immoderation[.] ... [T]he nihilism of Hip proposes ... that every social restraint and category be removed[.]" (Emphasis mine.)

    The White Negro is perhaps the most important work of literature in postwar America. It provided a blueprint for the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and in hindsight, it explains nearly all left-wing, anti-conservative behavior since. If blacks were social outcasts in American life, then the white enemies of traditional American values would align with them. An immoderate drunk like the late Sen. Edward Kennedy—who was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, then killed a young girl he was presumably cheating on his wife with, and got away with it—could not possibly point the finger at blacks and tell them to be honest, chaste, and sober. He could, however, falsely accuse Judge Robert Bork of wanting blacks to "sit at segregated lunch counters" to deflect attention from his own behavior. And it worked. (Today, following the same "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy, leftists align themselves with Islamic terrorists and radicals, under whose rule they would never actually want to live.)

    When white Americans finally began to see the justice of Martin Luther King's cause and the injustice of Jim Crow, leftists pushed harder and harder to include items under the rubric of "civil rights" that King, a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus, would never have approved of. "Civil rights" became a foot-in-the-door that leftists used to attack and destroy all "social restraints and categories" in American society.

    Left-wing racial rhetoric about "fairness" and "equality" and "non-discrimination" has been used to conceal a subterranean leftist agenda of anti-Americanism and anti-conservatism for over fifty years. Conservatives persist in stupidly taking this rhetoric at face value; hence, they always find themselves on the racial defensive.
    Want to kill your unborn baby? That's a "civil right." Marry another man? "Civil right." Dress in drag and use a woman's bathroom? Another "civil right." (It is hardly a surprise that while King remains a revered figure on the left, his Christianity has been airbrushed from his legacy. He is almost always referred to as "Dr." King today—rather than "Rev." King, a Man of God.)

    The anti-conservative alliance between the left and blacks as described by Mailer neatly explains why Tea Party whites who admire the likes of Herman Cain and Allen West are nonetheless tagged as "racists" by the left. It explains why Democratic Party leftists welcomed former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd into their fold while slandering former Sen. Trent Lott as a "racist." It explains why the Republican Party, founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party, routinely loses 95% or more of the black vote; it explains why the conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas is the most hated man in black America—hated more than the reprehensible O.J. Simpson.

    It explains the virulent left-wing racial demagoguery surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting. Everyone knows that blacks are not being profiled and victimized by white "vigilantes," as the politically charged indictment against George Zimmerman alleged. But the shooting provided a perfect platform for white liberals like Michael Bloomberg and Charles Schumer to attack the traditional, conservative American institutions of gun ownership, the National Rifle Association, and the right of self-defense by smearing these things as "racist."

    Read it all.

    We accept the proposition that human relationships are simultaneously strong but fragile, that human notions of familiarity are natural but confining, that competitive divisions existing due to culture, class, and individuality are not insurmountable when the push and pull properties of each axis is properly cherished and protected according to natural forms. We insist that deep friendship and brotherly love exist among and across all the races and peoples, made possible most notably in the context of free men and free women behaving towards each other in a spirit of compassion and respect whenever the measurement and surety of common goals and individual interests is put to the test.

    Diversity is a beautiful concept, one found in nature itself, but diversity cannot, or should not be coerced, or engulfed in political struggles for which its players are ill-equipped and ill-advised to condone, even though the eco-political whip and needle is often indeed the primary social thrust governments prepare to inject diversity—of every kind and unkind—into the populations at large. Even then, every vector of cultural inertia should be allowed to insinuate its own organic passage into the social soup without the centralized authority of governmental quotas handicapping the game, a tactic which both complicates and falsifies the vaguely apotheosized experiment of diversity for its own sake.

    —GT

    Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism

    Dr. John Lewis of Ashland University is the author of this superb, must-read piece. Below, he kindly offers some clarifications to those who sent him questions after reading it, to Jihad Watch:

    Prayer Jihadists
    Prayer Jihadists
    Regarding my article “No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism” in The Objective Standard, readers have brought up several questions that must be confronted. Among them: (1) how can religion and state be separated in Islam, since Islam is a social/political/legal system as much as a religion, and (2) isn't the enemy stateless, i.e., without the centralized political state as controlled Japan?

    I will address such issues in the next Objective Standard, in a reply to readers' comments. Here is a short answer.

    The power of a policy that defines the goals of the war as eliminating State Islam is that it defines the threat precisely: those who use force to impose Islam politically. It states exactly what we want from the enemy: an end to his use of force. It has a successful historical precedent, and it is fully consistent with the requirements of freedom. It leads directly to a clear strategy to achieve the policy.

    This definition implies several things. First off, since the elimination of the threat is the goal—and not a better way of life for foreign populations—then we could have installed a ruler over Iraq, akin to the Shah in Iran, and told him to do what is needed to control the violence—but never, ever, to attack America, or threaten American interests. We are in a mess in Iraq because we took on the task of bringing freedom and prosperity to them—which never should have been our goal. Altruism led us into such a sacrifice. If we remove an enemy, and the country falls into civil war, that is better than their building nuclear bombs.

    Second, since political Islam would be the target, meaning first and foremost wherever Islam has achieved actual political power, then Iran would be first—with the goal of eliminating the theocratic government, installing an America-friendly ruler, and then confronting the Saudis. We would never have ended Iran's strongest regional opponent (Saddam Hussein) and tried to free his country without dealing first with the main threat next door.

    Third, had we stated these goals openly, the way would be clear for other governments to clean house. They’d be less inclined to compromise between Islamic Totalitarians and us, since they’d want to avoid our wrath at all costs. We should never allow ourselves to be seen as equal to them, not morally, not politically, and not militarily. The demonstration of resolve in war is very important, whether Sherman's burning of Atlanta (which collapsed the southern will to fight) or the atomic bombs in Japan (which made it clear to the Japanese leadership that we had, and would use, them).

    To answer another persistent point, we do not, in my opinion, need nuclear weapons in the Middle East (although I am not a military tactician). But we do need to demonstrate the will to remove such a government because it is a threat, without apologizing every time a civilian is hurt. This demonstration would sweep across borders, to be seen by every government in the world, thus transcending the stateless nature of Islam, and eliminating any equality between supporting us and the Islamists.

    In the long run, however, this is an intellectual battle. My stress on integrity means that we must understand the issues, and talk the talk as well as walking the walk. We have not properly stated our own goodness, and why we have a right to defend ourselves. It is the job of the intellectuals to state and defend these truths philosophically.
    Islam itself is stateless, meaning that it respects no borders. It was designed precisely to rise above ethnic/tribal/clan groups, to unite all those who submit to Allah. We have to adopt the same attitude, only with freedom and individual rights as our central ideals. By defining the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism—meaning, government imposition of Islamic Law—we exempt no such state from our reach, and yet allow every state a chance to avoid the title and our action.

    As to the claim that Islam, practiced literally, cannot be separated from politics, this is true, by the evidence I know—I see Islam as descending from common roots with Zoroastrianism, the ideology of Ahuramazda, and Manichaeism in the Near East. I wrote a short piece on this, “Notes on the Near Eastern Legacy of Islam,” here, dated May 27, 2006, and others have done a better and more comprehensive job:

    Islam is a way of life, not a religion as distinguished from state. But it is not true that Muslims cannot live under non-Muslim laws; the majority in western countries do. If they are compromising their religion, then so be it. Setting the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism would allow us to end attempts to import Islamic Law into our own country, and to empower our allies to end it themselves in their own countries. It would allow individual Muslims to comply, and would reveal those who refuse. It would also demonstrate the failure of Islam as a political movement, and thus challenge the premise, in the minds of many, that the Islamic Totalitarians are some kind of misguided idealists, right in principle but taken to extremes.

    As to the issue of realism: there can be no realistic discussion of a proper “strategy” (a means to attain policy ends) without proper definition of the end that the strategy is intended to achieve. There is nothing more un-realistic than to try to create a plan without knowing where we are going—or to assume that no plan is possible, since reality is “really” always in flux. The realism that we need is the recognition that those supporting Political Islam—meaning, not a type of Islam, but rather Islam considered with respect to its political characteristics—are the real enemy. I'll gladly listen to someone who has a different strategy for eliminating Islam as a political power all the while ending the threat to us—but I’ve not yet heard it.

    In the long run, however, this is an intellectual battle. My stress on integrity means that we must understand the issues, and talk the talk as well as walking the walk. We have not properly stated our own goodness, and why we have a right to defend ourselves. It is the job of the intellectuals to state and defend these truths philosophically. If we do not present an alternative to the Qu’ran, and are unwilling to destroy those building nuclear bombs in order to impose it, then why should anyone re-write it? This may take five generations—but it will never happen if the political success of Islamic Totalitarianism is allowed to continue.