Harry’s Place

On the 28th of October, Jacqui Smith’s Home Office issued a statement headlined “Tough new measures would prevent those who foster extremism from ever entering the country”.

The first two bullet points on the press release are as follows:

Through these new rules we will:

* create a legal ‘presumption in favour of exclusion’ for known extremists and hate preachers - in other words, they would have to argue why they should be allowed into the country

* require that, even if somebody says they’re no longer an extremist, they would have to prove they’d changed their views

Jacqui Smith added:

Through these tough new measures I will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.

Well, Jacqui Smith? Yasir Qadhi hates Jews and Shiites, and preaches his hatred. Will you do something about it?

Not only should he be banned from returning as quickly as possible; he should also be banned as quickly as possible from returning at all.

I wouldn’t normally listen to Yasir al-Qadhi, but in this case you’ve “done a Joe Kaufman” and posted material intended to give one (negative) impression of someone, and linked (or embedded) the original which pretty much refutes the impression you try to give. (Joe Kaufman is an American Zionist nut who smeared a whole load of Muslim bloggers in 2006, apparently without caring that he got caught out lying.)

For anyone who didn’t play the YouTube video, he clearly says that he does not regard all Shi’ites as kaafirs (unbelievers), but only those who believe in what the book he is talking about (al-Kaafi) says, regarding temporary marriage (mut’a), which he regards as prostitution, and the slanders against the Companions, which any Sunni Muslim would find offensive. I notice you snipped out the bit where he said “Ayatollah” Khomeini was not a Muslim. Actually, a lot of Shi’ites don’t follow Khomeini - they followed the Iraqi imam who was the predecessor of al-Sistani. Anyhow, he specifically tells his followers not to regard all Shi’ites as unbelievers.

As for “what that means”, it means they don’t call them brothers or give them the “salaam” greeting, or in general treat them like other Muslims. Nothing more than that, particularly in the case of those al-Qadhi was addressing (probably in the USA or UK).

Meanwhile, back in Iran, Shiite clerics truthfully (or not) accuse Vice President Mashaie of taking part in a “shameful” ceremony involving the Koran, music, and women, who may or may not have been dancing.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE4AF1ED20081116

Absolutely disgusting.

I don’t think I’ve ever said that to you, Yusuf, but I’m astonished. You’re actually defending this man, who says very clearly that he regards Shiites as liars, that lying is a central tenet of their faith, and that they cannot be believed.

He’s saying that he are lying about one of the central figures of your religion: this is not just casual lying, but lying about THE most important thing one could lie about. He says that this is akin to lying about your mother being a prostitute (or words to that effect - you’ll remember better than I). He ends by stating that to believe what he says Shiites believe, is to be a Kufaar. He pronounces takfir on them!!

Yes, certainly, he does defend individual Shiites who - he says - are ignorant of the true nature of their religion.

Can I put this in context for you. You have just deployed PRECISELY the same argument that is used by anti-Muslim bigots who - I confidently predict - will be on this thread in a few minutes, and who will declare that you are also a terrorist supporter, that you are plotting to destroy this country, and that any denial of that ‘truth’ will prove that you are practicing ‘taqiyya’.

How can you possibly defend yourself against that, now?

Having listened to the YouTube screed, I am fully persuaded that Sheikh Qadhi and John P. are one and the same individual.

he clearly says that he does not regard all Shi’ites as kaafirs

Yes, those who “don’t know what Shiism is”, the “ignorant” ones “on the street”, who, if they knew the truth as revealed to Islamist sicko Yasir Qadhi, “would be the first to reject it”.

As for “what that means”, it means they don’t call them brothers or give them the “salaam” greeting, or in general treat them like other Muslims.

Oh, so they’re not really Muslims, those Shiites. That’s OK then.

It is their religion to lie, says Qadhi.

Complacent much, Mr Smith?

For all those who may be confused about Taqiyya, this from the very accurate Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch) is helpful:-

******

Also, mainstream Muslim theologians have explained that religious deception is taught by the Qur’an itself: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them” (Qur’an 3:28). In other words, don’t make friends with unbelievers except to “guard yourselves from them”: pretend to be their friends so that you can strengthen yourself against them. The distinguished Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that in this verse “Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers.” However, exempted from this rule were “those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’ Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, ‘The Tuqyah [or taqiyya, the shielding of what is in one's heart] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.’”

When Shi’ite Muslims were persecuted by Sunnis, they developed the doctrine of taqiyya, or concealment: they could lie about what they believed, denying aspects of their faith that were offensive to Sunnis. This practice is sanctioned by the Qur’an warning Muslims that those who forsake Islam will be consigned to Hell — except those forced to do so, but who remain true Muslims inwardly: “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” (Qur’an 16:106). Closely related to this is the doctrine of kitman, or mental reservation, which is telling the truth, but not the whole truth, with an intention to mislead.

Although these doctrines are commonly associated with Shi’ites, throughout Islamic history they have also been practiced by Sunnis, because of their Qur’anic foundation. You can find discussion of Sunni acceptance of taqiyya in Ignaz Goldziher’s illuminating Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law. Ibn Kathir, who was no Shi’ite, explains that “the scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation, or to refuse.” Jihadists today have spoken of the usefulness of deceptive practices.

There are cranks and nutcases in all walks of life and in all religions. How to deal with them is the question. One way is to laugh them. Another way, which they really don’t like, is to ignore them. Insulting them and throwing them out only serves to boost their ego.

<i.I wouldn’t normally listen to Yasir al-Qadhi, but in this case you’ve “done a Joe Kaufman” and posted material intended to give one (negative) impression of someone, and linked (or embedded) the original which pretty much refutes the impression you try to give.

You’re brain has morphed into that of a sociopath.

This sack of shit is unfit to be released into civil soceity, and you, sweetie, are a case study in how islam systematically perverts and inverts true Judeo-Christian morality.

To even suggest a demopath like Al Qadhi is ‘not too bad’ demonstrates a rejection of Abrahamic morals and the embrace of pagan ones.

The good cleric claims that 90% of the shiite ‘religion’ is a lie.

There are virtually no crucial theological differences between Shiite and Sunni Islam, and so what applies to the one also applies to the other.

And it also applies to you, Matthew.

‘There are cranks and nutcases in all walks of life and in all religions.’

But they’re distributed evenly over all walks of life and all religions.

Oops.

But they’re not distributed evenly over all walks of life and all religions.

Takfir is never a pleasant thing, and for Qadhi to engage in it before going to a “peace and unity” event is deeply disturbing and clearly makes him an unwise person to invite. But is it an offence meriting banning from the country (if no violent penalty is called for)? You said that you think we all know what being a kafir means. Please clarify.

As for the talk of lies. Yes, the way in which it was said is not exactly going to encourage peace or unity, but the Shi’i accusations against the first three (Sunni) Raashidun/Rightly Guided Caliphs will, in the mind of many Sunni Muslims, be offensive lies aimed at three of the most respected and venerated men in Islamic history.

Furthermore, differences between Sunni and Shi’i hadith collections (and between the theology and laws both sects then derived from these different hadith collections) was a direct result of the disagreements between the sects about the reputations of these (and other) men.

For example, the claim made by most Shi’as, that Abu Bakr conspired to prevent Ali from succeeding Muhammad still has the power to enrage much souls much more pleasant than Qadhi.

To accuse 90% of the Shi’ism of being lies is obviously more than a tad extreme and rather unpleasant and it would be great if people discussed their religious differences with rather more temperate language - but again, are we really talking an offence meriting banning from the country?

Incidentally, I couldn’t get the video to work so I’m only responding to the points in David T’s entry.

Gsirrah:

“You said that you think we all know what being a kafir means. Please clarify.”

David used the term apostates. I do not think there is any school of islamic jurisprudence which does not mandate execution for apostates.

Thanks for clarifying. You’re right, there is consensus between the four main schools on that.

Well, Gsirrah, ahlan wa sahlan. When it comes to banning from the UK, on top of everything else, how about connections with al Qaeda and the Taleban?

Qadhi’s admiration for Ali al-Timimi has been documented here.

So has his web site MuslimMatters.org’s campaigning for Aafia Siddiqui.

Now add Tarek Mehanna, apparently AKA Abu Sabaya, to the Muslim Matters crew’s public list. He’s been busted.

Pattern, anyone?

The original question, was why did they let this bloke into the country.

And the answer is that we are governed by people who don’t dare tell us the true ramifications of what they have already done. So they keep announcing grand sounding, but dishonest, measures which will never be implemented.

In the fullness of time, all administrations decay into this mess, which is why term limits are such a good idea.

The blog of “Abu Sabaya”

Tarek and the FBI.

I think that what you’re saying, effectively, is that this is a mere theological dispute between different religious traditions.

I accept that there are either theological roots, or manifestations, of Sunni-Shia emnity. There are deep and nasty divisions between most sects, and most religions: at least those which claim an exclusive message for the whole world. That doesn’t bother me. Well, it bothers me a bit, I suppose. But what you hope and expect people in a pluralist society to do - a society like the UK or the US, for example - is to gloss over those points of conflict, and not to stir up hatred.

Take one of the central claims of Christianity: that the Jews orchestrated the death of Jesus. Now, there are many reasons to doubt that this was the case. However, be that as it may, most polite Christians do not harp on about it, and most polite Jews do not seek out opportunities to be offended by the charge. All very nice and civilised, see?

Now, if a demagogic Christian preacher turned up and gave a sermon, to his followers - which they then put on the internet!! - not simply reading the scripture, not merely noting in passing what the Bible said, but addressing the point directly, said:

“With regard to the Jews, really they are the most murderous lot in the world. In other words, it is a part of their religion… that they are allowed to murder …. They have an ascription to one of their Rabbis - “Murder is nine tenths of this religion”. Now by the way I’m speaking of their religion that is based on certain knowledge. I have their main book, the Talmud …I have looked over it, I have read their chapters. I’m not taking this from what the Jews say. The Jews are allowed to lie. It is their religion to lie. Ok. Any person who knows the Jews knows this. 90% of their own religion, by their own statement, is lies. They are allowed to lie… they lie about having murdered Jesus. The Jews killed God! They are murderers!”

What would you say then?

Would you say - well, its all just theology, isn’t it? It is just what some people believe. I mean, it isn’t as if millions have been killed over religious disputes like this. Go on, let him in to the country. Broadcast him on the Christian Broadcasting Network. Have him at a revivalist meeting, and get senior politicians from all three main parties, plus the SWP, to turn up and congratulate everybody on what a splendid conference it has been.

Wouldn’t happen, would it?

Come on!

“Now, if a demagogic Christian preacher turned up and gave a sermon, to his followers”

The point is, it would be easy to keep him out of the country. He would have no traction, no popular support. The Christians would just be relieved he was banned. That creep Fred Phelps would never get into this country either.

But it is easy for Fattie Smith to ban people, when she is confident that they have no undertow of popular support here.

So why was she afraid of banning this creep?

Oops, the Aafia Siddiqui link didn’t work either. Sorry. Hopefully this one will.

Why should a foreigner whose web site campaigns for al Qaeda / Taleban supporters, of all the Muslims in trouble in the world, and who preaches hatred for Jews and Shiites, be admitted to the UK to share a platform with senior politicians?

Trying again: Aafia Siddiqui

I do not have to defend myself against anyone. Taqiyya is a common accusation Muslim-haters make against any Muslim who asserts something about Islam that conflicts with their prejudices. That is not the taqiyya that Yasir al-Qadhi was referring to; it is the practice of Shi’ite scholars keeping the offensive aspects of their belief secret from Sunnis and also from uninitiated Shi’ites. “90% of it is lying” is the same rhetorical device as “possession is nine tenths of the law”: it means it is a vital part of the religion.

So what if he makes takfeer? Distinguishing who is a Muslim and who is not is part of Islamic scholarship, and some things are obvious, such as when someone specifically contradicts something known of the religion, such as something made clear in the Qur’an. What is offensive is people calling Muslims unbelievers carelessly, or for differences of opinion or for bad practice (such as with unjust or corrupt rulers, so as to justify making war on them). In this, he distinguishes himself from some of the more hardline “salafis” who say that all Twelver Shi’ites are unbelievers; he says that only those who actually hold those beliefs are, which probably excludes most nominal Shi’ites. He does not say that all Shi’ites are liars, only some of them.

By the way, I have come across people of a far more placid religious tendency than al-Qadhi who hold the same opinion, and also tell me that, while they promote a moderate, “sanitised” version of Shi’ism for the general public, there is another version for the initiated which involves a lot of hate and blaming. I have personally been buttonholed at East Croydon station by a Shi’ite who was trying to persuade me of the ill character of A’isha (and one of the other wives of the Prophet) and their respective fathers; I’ve also had some guy trying to get me into a debate over similar matters at Speakers’ Corner and who then tried to turn it into a shouting match when I argued back. There have also been attempts by Shi’ites to use dishonest tactics to spread their beliefs in forums I and some of my friends use. So, the accusation that many Shi’ites are dishonest has some foundation.

David T: If a Christian believes that the Jews killed Jesus then they believe that Jews were responsible for that one event. If that same Christian were to derive a rule with universal validity about the murderous habits of Jews then I would of course be horrified.

But the mutually incompatible doctrines of each sect are no more compatible today than they were centuries ago and to many people who hold strongly to one side, the other will be lying about people they revere greatly.

Habibi -
Ahlan bikum
The campaigns for these people are on the basis that they are innocent. If they were campaigning for them on the basis that what they’d done was perfectly OK then I’d be agreeing on a ban. But to ban somebody from the country for expressing the opinion that a court has made a mistake is not something I could support.

So, the accusation that many Shi’ites are dishonest has some foundation.

Well, as you know, I run a no censorship policy.

You’re a convert, right?

Remind me again how you got mixed up with this Dungeons and Dragons nonsense?

(Also, I think the problem you’re having with the link is that you didn’t include http:// at the beginning and therefore a browser reads it like it’s a link to something on the same page - but then if somebody wants to read it they can easily delete the bit up to the second www)

“it is the practice of Shi’ite scholars keeping the offensive aspects of their belief secret from Sunnis and also from uninitiated Shi’ites.”

You just can’t help it, can you.

I don’t mind. Keep digging. It’s good for you.

field,

Robert Spencer’s entry on Taqiyya is very muddled. If, as he claims, Taqiyya is to protect the lives of a Muslim person from persecution, what at all does that have to do with not befriending non Muslim peoples?

“In other words, don’t make friends with unbelievers except to “guard yourselves from them”: pretend to be their friends so that you can strengthen yourself against them.”

What a presumptive inference. It doesnt say anything about domination but self preservation. How many meanings of the word are there?

“The distinguished Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that in this verse “Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers.”

But the distinguished Quranic scholar Ibn Kathir didnt describe the above as Taqiyya. Spencer did without any justification really.

“This practice is sanctioned by the Qur’an warning Muslims that those who forsake Islam will be consigned to Hell — except those forced to do so, but who remain true Muslims inwardly: “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” (Qur’an 16:106).”

Now if the above is the standard definition of Taqiyya, what does it have to do with voluntary interactions with non Muslims?

It seems like you believe any and all lies are an act of Taqiyyah, when the references from the Quranic verses state that it is only under compulsion with a threat of death. Conditional lying.

Monty.
Whilst this:
“it is the practice of Shi’ite scholars keeping the offensive aspects of their belief secret from Sunnis and also from uninitiated Shi’ites”
sounds like the standard taqiyya crap from BNP types, it is not untrue. When he says “offensive” - certain of these beliefs have to do with celebrating the deaths of people respected by Sunnis.

Alawites (offshoot of Shi’a) go even further and not even their women are taught all of their beliefs.

Well, as you know, I run a no censorship policy.

Why would what I said fall foul of any reasonable censorship policy anyway? I would probably not censor anything you had to say on my blog. I have not come on here and said that Shi’ites are sheep shaggers or that they abuse their children; I have said that, in my and my friends’ experience, many of them use dishonest tactics to convert people. As it happens, some Christians also use trickery in missionary work, such as disguising themselves as Muslims and then introducing themselves as “Muslims on the path of Jesus” or something like that, something which has appeared in “Mother Jones”, so why should it be surprising that other groups lie and trick people to recruit new followers?

Black Voter: What Field is quoting about Taqiyya is infinitely better than what he was peddling just a couple of days ago. Shame that the resource he went to for more info was Jihadwatch but what can you do?

As for the bit about Ibn Kathir. In the original Arabic of 3:28 there is a word from the same root as taqiyya but it is used to mean fear (the concept of taqiyya being very much tied up with fear) rather than refer to hiding your religion. Thus treating them together makes some sense. I may be crediting Robert Spencer with a bit too much though.

Bit his usage of Ibn Kathir’s tafsir (and a quotation from the Qur’an) is definitely misleading. It is decontextualised and in translation - not the best of starts.

Black Voter -

I understand what you are saying. Something similar floated through my mind when I first read it. But read it carefully I would say. The key phrase is “However, exempted from this rule”. He’s saying the Islamic commentators have said that believers can pretend to be friendly to non-Muslims when they are in a weak or dangerous position.

This extract doesn’t deal with the whole of the Taqiyya concept. For instance Mohammed is definitely reported as saying lying is acceptable in marriage - and I think we can assume that (for the most part) you are not under threat of being killed by your spouse. It’s supposed to be allowed as a way of cementing the relationship. This is one of few points of Islamic ideology I can accept! It is much safer to say that you like your wife’s new hairstyle than to point out it makes her look like someone who’s just had an electric shock.

So, to address the points you make:

Taqiyya is definitely more than just lying to preserve yourself when under threat of persecution. But when you are threatened (and probably most clerics would define Muslims in non-Muslim countries as being under threat) then you can lie and pretend friendship.

Moreover it is well attested Mohammed lied in times of war and that example is held to be a good one, to be followed. The issue then is whether the Muslim world is at war with the non-Muslim world.
Given that the non-Muslim world is call Dar Al Harb (normally translated as house of war or chaos), it seems reasonable to think most Muslims would answer that the Muslim world is in conflict with the non-Muslim world and Taqiyya could apply.

Gsirrah -

You ignorance is shown by your assumption that Taqiyya relates only to concealing your religion.

See above for more details.

As for this debate only being open to persons conversant in Classical Arabic I treat that suggestion with the derision it deserves. The Koran is supposed to be a perfectly clear book and there should be no problem in expressing it in English. Unless you are putting forward the heretical (for a Muslim) belief that only speakers of Arabic can be saved.

Gsirrah,

al-Timimi has been found guilty.

If you read Muslim Matters, you will find that there is little to no discussion of the legal facts, in this case and others. Instead, it is all about inciting rubbish “war on Islam” hatred.

Qadhi, fear-mongering, says this of al-Timimi:

It is because of this ignorance that many hundreds, in fact thousands, of innocent people have been locked up, deported, or otherwise harassed in the last few years. Sometimes, the very people who would be the best defense against radicalization are the subject of such governmental scrutiny.

Perhaps the most painful of the voices that has been locked up and silenced is that of Dr. Ali al-Timimi, an intellectual theologian and political analyst, and one of the more sophisticated voices of reason representing orthodox Islam in the Western world.

And this:

I personally owe a lot to Sh. al-Timimi, and I can say (with pride) that fifteen years ago, back in the early 90’s, he played an instrumental role in shaping and directing me to take the path that has led me to where I am today.

How is this not campaigning for them on the basis that what they’d done was perfectly OK, in the case of al-Timimi for starters?

field,

“He’s saying the Islamic commentators have said that believers can pretend to be friendly to non-Muslims when they are in a weak or dangerous position.”

Yes but the Islamic commentators wouldnt describe faux friendliess as Taqiyya would they? Is Taqiyya a catch all for all manner of lying for any reason?

“This extract doesn’t deal with the whole of the Taqiyya concept. For instance Mohammed is definitely reported as saying lying is acceptable in marriage…”

Would the above be considered Taqiyya?

“Taqiyya is definitely more than just lying to preserve yourself when under threat of persecution.”

Except none of the verses you cite say that. Ibn Kathir doesnt say that. Just you. Just Spencer.

“But when you are threatened (and probably most clerics would define Muslims in non-Muslim countries as being under threat) then you can lie and pretend friendship.”

I believe somewhere in the Quran there is chastisement of Muslim wo remain in non Muslim countries despite their conditions there. Does that mean, in addition to not having to be truthful, according to you, they have to repatriate?

“Moreover it is well attested Mohammed lied in times of war and that example is held to be a good one, to be followed.”

Again, is all lying Taqiyya? You seem to think so.

Of all the things that go on during war, lying should be the least reprehensible. I think you may have a prejudice against Muslim peoples.

Taqiyya in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. This might straighten a few things out:
Taḳiyya (a.)

, also tuḳan, tuḳāt, taḳwā and ittiḳāʾ, “prudence, fear” (see LʿA, s.v. w-ḳ-y, Beirut 1956, xv, 401-4; TʿA, x, 396-8), and also, from the root k-t-m, kitmān “action of covering, dissimulation”, as opposed to id̲h̲āʿa “revealing, spreading information”, denotes dispensing with the ordinances of religion in cases of constraint and when there is a possibility of harm.

The Ḳurʾān itself avoids the question of suffering in the cause of religion in dogmatics by adopting a Docetist solution (sūra IV, 156) and in everyday life by the hid̲j̲ra and by allowing in case of need the denial of the faith ( XVI, 108), friendship with unbelievers ( III, 27) and the eating of forbidden foods ( VI, 119; V, 5). This point of view is general in Islam. But, as Muḥammad at the same time asserted the proclamation of his mission to be a duty and held up the heroic example of the ancient saints and the prophets as a model ( V, 71; III, 40; etc.), no definite general rule came to be laid down, not even with the separate sects. Minor questions, which are very fully discussed, are whether taḳiyya is simply a permitted alleviation through God’s indulgence (ruk̲h̲ṣa) or a duty, if it is necessary in the interest of the community.

Although taqiyya is known to have been practiced by Sunnī Muslims in particular political situations (Meyer, Anlass und Anwendungsbereich, 47f.; Kohlberg, Taqiyya in Shīʿī theology, 361-2, n. 89), dissimulation has remained closely linked to the Shīʿīs (with the exception of the Zaydīs; see shīʿīsm and the qurʾān ) since the classical period. The origin of the practice most likely derives from the Shīʿī doctrine of associating (tawallī) with ʿAlī (see ʿalī b. abī ṭālib ) and disassociating (tabarrī) from the first three caliphs, in particular the first two, Abū Bakr (q.v.) and ʿUmar (q.v.; Ashʿarī, Maqālāt, 17; Shahrastānī, Milal, 435). Later taqiyya would be more precisely applied to the concealment of particular religious beliefs, divulgence of which ran the risk of putting believers and especially their leader, the Imām (q.v.), in danger. Qarmāṭīs and later Ismāʿīlīs use it frequently (Daftary, The Ismāʿīlīs), but the notion and practice of taqiyya became an article of faith with important doctrinal developments only amongst the Twelver Shīʿa (Kohlberg, Imāmī-Shīʿī views; id., Taqiyya).

Habibi: You make a good case. But I still have not seen any evidence that Qadhi is defending the things for which Timimi (and others) were convicted. Fear-mongering about a “war on Islam” is infantile and bloody annoying but still not grounds for banning from the country.

David T: “What would you say then?”

I would say that if you take someone who had never heard of God, say at the age of 16, and taught him Christianity, you would make him more decent, whereas should you teach him Islam, you would make him less decent. Such a conclusion could be drawn from David’s prior remarks, yet in his original article, he alludes to “anti-Muslim bigots”.

Perhaps you could clarify your own position, because it certainly confuses me, and then stop the innuendo (presumably aimed at John P and others, possibly including me) that to dislike Islam is to be an “anti-Muslim bigot”. I don’t know many Muslims, but I treat them as I would any other. That is, should they actually deign to smile, greet or even make eye contact - none of which is particularly easy from behind a niqab of burqa, and which is in any case not as forthcoming as from all others.

A related issue, treated with facile opprobrium by the BBC Today Programme, is the lack of Muslims in the Intelligence Services, particularly in anti-terrorism. Beeboids seem to think that Muslims, with their cultural empathy, would be ideally suited for such work. Is it necessary to be a bigot to see the obvious flaw in this logic? Rarely was suspicion (some may say prejudice) more warranted. You ration trust according to the consequences of betrayal.

Yusuf Smith:

“many of them use dishonest tactics to convert people. ”

There isn’t a single evangelist, of any stripe, who could stand up in an English court and prove the truth of his scripture. You are all using dishonest tactics, you are all on the lookout for credulous members of the public, and all you ever do is say “This book is perfect because it says it is on page x”.

Field: You don’t know what you’re talking about and you are wrong in pretty much everything you say.

You ignorance is shown by your assumption that Taqiyya relates only to concealing your religion.

Taqiyya is “dispensing with the ordinances of religion in cases of constraint and when there is a possibility of harm”. My ignorance is shown by the way in which, when I want to look something up, I use an actual work of scholarship rather than Jihadwatch? Good logic.

See above for more details.
No thank you. I will use the resource that I have used up to this point, the Encylopaedia of Islam.

As for this debate only being open to persons conversant in Classical Arabic I treat that suggestion with the derision it deserves.
I do not suggest that. But, being able to read some Arabic I find comes in handy when looking at the Qur’an.

The Koran is supposed to be a perfectly clear book and there should be no problem in expressing it in English.
You could not be more wrong. Who supposes it to be so? Clearly not Allah: take a look at 3:7. Your talk of it being a clear book (I assume you base that on 16:103) is where a little Arabic might have helped you: the point (at least traditionally speaking) is that it is in very eloquent Arabic. In fact, the Qur’an is generally divided into that which has a clear meaning and that which does not.

Also, why have some many people spent so much time throughout history writing exegesis of the Qur’an is if is “a perfectly clear book”? Also, explain the mysterious letters at the beginning of several of the chapters. As for there being no problem expressing it in English. I don’t really know what to say to that. It’s just so very very wrong.

Gsirrah -

So is the Encyclopedia saying Mohammed was wrong to sanction lying within a marriage for the purposes of sealing the bond between man and woman?

Because they seem to have no category for that.

I think you are full of gaseous substances, matey.

Let’s face it, this is the bloke who sanctioned raping sex slaves. He’s not going to flinch at a bit of fibbing is he?

You are confused between taqiyya - related to fear - and straight-up lying.

There is a hadith which might make things a little clearer for you:

Chapter 25: FORBIDDANCE OF TELLING A LIE AND THE CASES IN WHICH TELLING OF LIE IS PERMISSIBLE
Book 032, Number 6303 Sahih al-Bukhari:

Humaid b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of ‘Uqba b. Abu Mu’ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).

ie. lying is allowed in battle, to bring about reconciliation between people and when reporting speech between a husband and wife (again, to bring about reconciliation).

Taqiyya is not, not, accepted by muslims when used be non-moslems.
Thus, if, at the wrong end of a gun, you convert, or revert as moslems prefer to say, to islam, even though remaining christian, jewish or hindu in your heart, the cost of leaving islam is death. Though i seem to remember that the cost to the earliest non-moslems who were converted/reverted at the point of sword, and chose to reclaim their earlier beliefs afterwards, was only (!) the amputation of a hand and the opposite foot. Of course, mohomeed
‘ the man’ was alive then, so it must have been a time of unusual kindness and mercy.
Christianity, in its earlier travails, was just as idiotic as this sheik, and the various christian sect/religions were just as ignorant and bloodyminded in sorting things out. What has changed is that christians, to name one group, have moved ahead, while moslems have not.

I have come across a number of accounts by ex Muslims that many Muslims are given to two facedness towards non Muslims, that the disparaging term ‘Kuffar’ is extremely common currency amongst Muslims when referring to non-Muslims out of earshot.

Anyway, I think on balance that the Islamic religion is one of the most malign influences on the planet. It really is’nt a good thing. I’m not inclined to equivocate on this, make-nice and pretend I think otherwise.

Does that make me a bigot David T?

Nick (South African)

“I have come across a number of accounts by ex Muslims that many Muslims are given to two facedness towards non Muslims…”

I think it may have something to do with being immigrants. Its always been my suspicion that alot of immigrants especially during business transactions are full of shit. Its probably common between Muslims of different ethnic groups.

“Does that make me a bigot David T?”

As long as you restrict your remarks to Shia Islam, I think you could be a speaker at next year’s GPU Event.

Anyway, I think on balance that the Islamic religion is one of the most malign influences on the planet. It really is’nt a good thing. I’m not inclined to equivocate on this, make-nice and pretend I think otherwise.

Does that make me a bigot David T?

I think that David T has pricked the conscience over the last 10 days with an item or two that point-out that some language directed towards Muslims is similar to language used against Jews.

However, I do feel that the demonstrable attitude of some Muslims towards society and host countries is in negative excess to the attitudes of Jews in similar circumstances.

It is undoubtedly true that some Muslims want to kill us and say so. It is also true that some Muslims want us to change our laws and policies to suit them. The things that some want are backed with an implied threat of violence. Hence, I feel there is some justification to argue against the Islamist Tendency of Muslims where it threatens us.

Us, simply means the majority and includes Muslims who don’t support the Islamist policies. Hence, the language used agaisnt some Muslims is justified by the circumstances as long as it doesn’t mean ALL Muslims and is specific about its target.

Nick Griffin said “Islam is a wicked and vicious faith” and a jury said that wasn’t inciteful. Those comments refer to a religion and idealogy and not its followers - although its followers may take that to be insulting. Contrast that some people say that Islam is a “Religion of Peace”. Equally, some might fing THAT insulting.

Its the edge of Freedom of Speech.

Bob B, I agree that we don’t know if the world’s crank and nutcases are ‘distributed evenly’ but I don’t think they have to be. The point is that we should treat them with the contempt they deserve and the best way to do this is to ignore them. If the Germans had ignored Hitler he could not have come to power. They were fooled by his oration. We should learn from history not to keep making the same mistakes. We should not give any credence to the outpourings of cranks and nutcases. When an idiot gets up to speak the best thing the audience can do is to quietly leave the room. I have seen this tactic work in practice. It is most effective. Your point about the even distribution of the world’s fools is a non-starter. It is irrelevant. You imply ‘they have more nutcases than we do’. You are only giving the world’s nutcases somewhere to go, a destination. This is a bad tactic. History proves it to be so.

Gsirrah,

I respect your learning, but, sorry, I disagree with you on this issue.

You say:

But I still have not seen any evidence that Qadhi is defending the things for which al-Timimi (and others) were convicted.

He does not directly defend them, he simply denies them and then uses the fact of justice being done to incite hatred. This is his insidious “defence” tactic.

Look at his Muslim Matters post of 9 October 2008. He calls the prosecution of al-Timimi a “witch hunt”. What is this, if not a defence of al-Timimi?

He also says this of the prosecution: ”It adds more fuel to their already raging fire that they build against the entire ‘United States’, as it demonstrates, in their eyes, that the whole country is ‘out to get Islam and all Muslims’. “

This is a typical Islamist move – don’t bust this man, or there will be trouble. It is sinister and sickening.

Then Qadhi makes this specific statement: ”…he [al-Timimi] never espoused any radical message of terrorism…”.

This is a direct contradiction of sworn testimony in the case against al-Timimi.

To give readers a bit more of an idea of Ali al-Timimi’s “thinking”, I note his message to followers after the Columbia space shuttle disaster in 2003. According to the grand jury indictment, it was as follows:

This morning, the world heard news about the crash of the space shuttle. There is no doubt that Muslims were overjoyed because of the adversity that befell their greatest enemy. Upon hearing the news, my heart felt certain good omens that I liked to spread to my brothers.

First: The Name of the Shuttle: “Columbia” is the name of the shuttle, called after the name of “Columbus,” the sailor who discovered the American Continent in 1492 after the fall of Grenada, the last Islamic stronghold in Andalusia. Historians know that, after discovering the two American Continents, the Romans (the Christians of Europe) exploited their wealth in order to be able to control the Islamic World. The Columbia crash made me feel, and God is the only One to know, that this is a strong signal that Western supremacy (especially that of America) that began 500 years ago is coming to a quick end, God Willing, as occurred to the shuttle.

Second: The Shuttle Crew: The Israeli Ambassador to the UN described the Israeli astronaut as someone carrying all the hopes and ambitions of the Israeli people. And so, God Willing, all these hopes and ambitions were burnt with the crash and the burning of the shuttle and one of its astronauts, the Israeli.

Third: The Crash Location: As soon as CNN announced the crash of the space shuttle nearby the city of Palestine, in Texas, I said to myself “God is Great”. This way, God Willing, America will fall and disappear (nearby Palestine). The State of Texas is also the state of the foolish, obeyed President Bush the son. And so we hope, God Willing, similar to the crash of the shuttle on his state, his nation would fall upon his head due to his foolish policy.

Fourth: The President’s Condolences to the American People: In the words that President Bush used to console his people, he referred to the Book of Isiah where there is a praise to God’s creation, His stars and planets. I said to myself, Praise the Lord, in this same Book of Isiah there are news about the coming of Prophet Muhammad and a warning of the destruction of the Jews at the end of time. [A citation from the Koran follows].And so, there are other signs that would take a long time to recount. For example, every time the Americans believe that they control the whole earth and the skies, and act as they wish, there comes a sign that reminds us that God, Almighty, is greater than his creatures, sitting on His Chair, handling everything, and that His angels act according to His commands. And so, he whoever will try to raise the Jews, who are a nation that God covered with humiliation and deserved God’s wrath, will be afflicted with divine humiliation and wrath as much as he supports them.

As I mentioned earlier, these are all ideas that came to me when I heard of the accident, and hopes that I wish God would fulfill, and God is the only One to know.

These are the words of a man Yasir Qadhi calls “…an intellectual theologian and political analyst, and one of the more sophisticated voices of reason representing orthodox Islam in the Western world” who “… played an instrumental role in shaping and directing me to take the path that has led me to where I am today.”

Yes, Mr Qadhi should be banned from the UK.

Gsirrah -

Having been shown to be wrong you are now trying to change the definition of Taqiyya used by Muslim scholars.

Whatever its roots as a word, there is no doubt that the concept as used today by Muslim scholars incorporates the idea of lying for reconciliation between man and wife and within the community.

Are you really going to try and dispute that?

You’re a convert, right? Remind me again how you got mixed up with this Dungeons and Dragons nonsense?

He obviously failed his saving throw versus spell.

It’s obvious why Islam forbids Muslims mixing with non-Muslims because once they did, and learnt a bit about how the rest of the world lives, they would forsake this magical-thinking (sorry Morgoth) nonsense. Is the Islamic world collectively psychotic? Arguing about what someone said about someone else long since dead and crumbled into dust, FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AGO. What about world hunger, water shortages, joblessness, cancer, disease, things that human agency can actually affect and solve?

Sorry, that should be FOURTEEN HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

My own personal feeling is that we should not get involved in theological disputes within a religion that we are not part of.

Perhaps we could all join and vote to change the rules!

“Take one of the central claims of Christianity: that the Jews orchestrated the death of Jesus”
Debatable.
Bearing in mind that all the leaders of Christianity were Jews any Christian who hates all Jews would hate the founders of his own religion.

My own personal feeling is that we should not get involved in theological disputes within a religion that we are not part of.

That Would Be An Ecumenical Matter.

Thanks for furthering my research. I think I have learned more about why many Muslims feel that, and maybe are, held back from advancing and there is unikely to be peace among them and full collaboration between them.

It’s because people make excuses for the more off the wall pronouncements by some of them against their brothers and sisters in faith.

Sue R, after 7/7 I wanted to write about how it felt to have just missed being involved in that massacre of innocents - I had to take a ‘phone call at home and by the time I was ready to leave, all the stations were locked down otherwise I would have been travelling from Kings Cross and probably on that tube train to Russell Square.

I asked my mentor, in a genuine spirit of enquiry rather than from an angry, emotive place, whether it was possible for a whole religion/culture/faith system to be collectively personality disordered. He was shocked at the question then, but I have asked it subsequently and my research (which I have had to pursue on my own because it’s such a “sensitive topic,” don’t you know?) makes me feel very nervous about the way even moderate Islam sees the rest of the world.

I would dearly love to talk with my Muslim friends about what I am perceiving but we get only so far and up comes a brick wall.

Andrew, perhaps not, if results of those theological disputes did not affect adversely the lives of other people who have no say in the decisions made.

Bearing in mind that all the leaders of Christianity were Jews any Christian who hates all Jews would hate the founders of his own religion.

Well, that’s precisely the sort of thing that polite people say.

“..It is undoubtedly true that some Muslims want to kill us and say so. It is also true that some Muslims want us to change our laws and policies to suit them. The things that some want are backed with an implied threat of violence. Hence, I feel there is some justification to argue against the Islamist Tendency of Muslims where it threatens us.”

Spot on!

In my limited experience of living in a Muslim country, it always seemed that there was a major divide between a man’s public face and his private one. This someone could be very devout in public and give money for good works and avoid alcohol etc and be quite the opposite in his private life - drinking, donating money to terrorist causes, etc He would still be regarded as a “good” Muslim and the charges of hypocrisy which this might arouse in the west would never be raised.

Thus if for example Max Moseley was a charitable giver, and a devout believer in public, no one would even question what he did in private. This double standard, as we would see it in the west, seems to extend to various Islamic religious thinkers making different pronouncements for different audiences. You are only supposed to take notice of the pronouncement directed at you not at an alternative audience. Hence one speech for the west and another for home consumption which contained apparently opposing views.

This is of course not an exclusively Islamic characteristic. Much nearer to home Tony Blair was also very good at making apparently conflicting speeches to different audiences, e.g. over the EU and its policies.

Taqiyya is a common accusation Muslim-haters make against any Muslim who asserts something about Islam that conflicts with their prejudices.

And ‘islamophobia’ is a common accusation islamist whack-jobs make against vigilent kuffars when deceitful attempts at piecemeal islamisation of the public space are exposed, denounced and thwarted.

Truth =’s *islamophobia*.

As it happens, some Christians also use trickery in missionary work, such as disguising themselves as Muslims and then introducing themselves as “Muslims on the path of Jesus” or something like that, something which has appeared in “Mother Jones”,

Yeah, “Mother Jones” is where every intelligent progressive gleans their theology.

What were you smoking when you converted?

No doubt some evangelicals are dishonest, but that dishonestry is in violation of certain Christian principles. Islam, on the other hand, has dishonesty as its main operating principle. For example, it attempts to expropriate Christ, not in an effort to propagate his mesage, but rather in a deceitful sleight of hand designed to dissimulate what is a neo-pagan death-cult as somehow the ultimate expression of the Abrahamic line.

Exhibit “A”: Yusuf Smith’s tortured and incoherent logic.

They attempt to kite a false prophet on deliberately perverted Jewish and Christian theology.

I’ve confronted Muslims prosletysers many times engaing in such tactics, stopping them dead in their tracks with a little obstacle know as the crucifixion. If Islam ‘has’ Christ, then it must necessarily ‘have’ the crucifixtion.

But were Islam to have the crucifixtion, it would thenhave salvation, and were Muslims to have Christ’s salvation, then both the Koran and Mohammed become useless redundancies, don’t they?

Dressing up ‘Pagan’ in Abrahamic language is exactly the same tactic used today when islamists dress up religious fascism in a beguiling progressivist prose

The lapidation of that 13 year-old gang-rape victim in Somalia ( in front of more than a 1,000 people) 10 days ago wasn’t a criminal execution in the ways a Jew or a Christian could ever understand, but rather a blatant case of pagan human sacrifice>/b>

Satan is mimicry.

Field. Yes, I am going to dispute that, based on the academic resources which I read. I am going to stick with the Encyclopaedia of Islam (and Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an) definition, if you can show me something to make me think otherwise then I will happily change my mind.

Habibi: I can see what you’re saying but Qadhi’s obtuseness in failing to recognise the unpleasantness of his friends and his offensiveness when talking about Shi’is (whilst stopping short of actually inciting violence or saying anything more extreme about Shi’is than many people on HP say about Muslims in general) are not, in my mind, grounds for keeping something out of the country.

That said, I don’t think we’re going to change each other’s minds but you’re welcome to try.

Take one of the central claims of Christianity: that the Jews orchestrated the death of Jesus. David T.

I went to Catholic schools, conservative Catholic schools, and never once was it asserted, claimed or even intimated that the Jews had orchestrated the death of Jesus.

Christ’s life AND death were ultimately ‘orchestrated’ by g-d himself. His crucifixion, death and resurrection were basically pre-ordained, with the Jews AND the Romans bit actors in a morality play designed to introduce humanity to the concept of salvation. The ’sacrifice’ was g-d’s to make, and g-d’s alone; the Jews aren’t criminally guilty because they ultimately had no say in the matter.

The whole blood-libel thing didn’t come to the fore until a couple of centuries later. In early Christianity there is no record whatsoever of emnity between Christian and Jews. In fact, in the early days both would sometimes share the same houses of worship.

Bearing in mind that all the leaders of Christianity were Jews any Christian who hates all Jews would hate the founders of his own religion.

Well, that’s precisely the sort of thing that polite people say.

No it isn’t.

It’s a fact that Christinaity’s founders were Jews.

Manners and politeness have no role in that.

You’re Christophobic and it’s clouding your judgement.

Have you not read the bible recently?

Do you know nothing of the history of the early Church?

Can you not see why they might have had a particular need to distance themselves from Jews: particularly, as (a) Christians were already being persecuted by the emperors and (b) Jews were well established as dangerous rebels against Roman rule

?

My point is that, Vatican II onwards, your church made efforts not to be quite so beastly to the Jews, and that this was a good thing. From which you benefited. As did I.

DavidT: My understanding is that Christianity originally started as a Jewish reform movement. There was a lot of arguing at the beginning about whether they should follow the dietary laws etc and restrict their membership to Jews. St Paul argued that they should ditch all the hard stuff and open the membership to anyone. He won the day and the rest is history. Of-course later there were pogroms and massacres, but I would argue that their causes can be found in economic developments and I don’t think the Church bagan by blaming or killing Jews. Anyway, Jews would not have been so widespread throughout Europe then, that most people would have even seen one.

Is the Islamic world collectively psychotic?

Yes. It is psychotic and malign. The hard facts, the hard evidence, is all around us.

Andrew: what nonsense. This is not abstract discussion. This is about who is allowed to murder whom with no come-back.
If you don’t grasp this, if you are too stupid to grasp this, you have reached the point where you are just the man to be the UK’s home secretary.

Anyway, Jews would not have been so widespread throughout Europe then, that most people would have even seen one.

Your desperate attempt to absolve the Christian church from antisemitism is laughable. There were enough Jews in Rome in AD 200 or 300 or 400 - along with every other nationality from the corners of the empire - that people knew who they were.

“I don’t think the Church bagan by blaming or killing Jews. Anyway, Jews would not have been so widespread throughout Europe then, that most people would have even seen one.”

A very high percentage of the Roman Empire was Jewish.

Prior to AD 67-70, and the destruction of the 2nd Temple, Jews did reasonably well. King Agrippa was friends with the emperor, etc.. Nice little client state, everything pretty cushty. Jews get mocked for not working on the sabbath, and not eating pork etc - but are regarded as odd rather than pernicious.

Post AD70, everything goes pretty much tits up. A special tax to Rome is paid by Jews, all over the empire. The Bar Kochbar rebellion REALLY screws things up, hugely.

By the time of Nero, Christians aren’t that popular either. They are, in fact, thrown to lions. Chiefly, this is because they’re associated with Jews. More generally, their problem is that they’re monotheists - which means that, like the jews, they don’t do civic things, like worshiping Emperor-Gods etc.

This is a huge problem.

The Christians solve it my making it VERY clear that they’re not Jews.

This becomes a huge problem for Jews.

Yeah, I’ve read estimates that 10% of the Roman Empire population were Jewish. Lots of gentiles had effectively converted (although they didn’t get circumcised). A lot of these subsequently became Christian.

Some have theorised that the Phoenicians largely became Jewish over time, losing their “Phoenician” identity. There was a large Jewish kingdom around or near the Black Sea I believe - can’t recall what it was called now.

Personally, I blame the Romans.

But actually, I’d have done a Flaviuis Josephus myself - probably from Day 1. I mean, subsidiarity and all that… but the Roman Empire couldn’t let rebellion like that slip past. They were right to act as they did, in my view.

“Qadhi concludes his rant by declaring any adherent to Shiism “a clear Kufaar”. That’s right. Like the Taliban, Sheikh Qadhi pronounces “takfir” on an entire religious group. That means that they are not Muslims. They are apostates. I think we know what that means.” – David T.

Why be vague (coy?). What does that mean?

Field: ‘ere was a large Jewish kingdom around or near the Black Sea I believe - can’t recall what it was called now.’

Are you referring to the Khazars? they only converted to Judaism in the 8th century AD or so.

Going back to something rather more related to the original topic you posted on, David T:
The Guardian’s podcast ‘Islamophonic’ in May gave a platform Mohammad Ali and Abrar Hussain of the Islam Channel who pronounced Ahmadis as “from a separate religion.”

Most of it seems to me to be reasonable discussion of theological differences but there is a definite under-current of accusing Ahmadis of misleading people about their religion. It starts with a discussion with an Ahmadi guy and then moves on to the Islam Channel chaps at about 9m30.

Wasn’t really sure what to make of it. Would be interested to hear what you (and other posters here on HP) thought.

Gsirrah @2:48 PM

Well I suppose we have indeed both made our minds up and should disagree amicably. This can be done at HP!

However, I would raise two more points.

First, in case you (or other readers for that matter) have not seen it, I would suggest watching another Yasir Qadhi clip that has been mentioned here in recent days. It is his reaction to “Undercover Mosque”, broadcast on Islam Channel. He attacks the programme in what amounts to a disturbing rallying call to Muslims to stand up for some of Britain’s most extreme preachers and against the programme’s makers, who, he said, had “evil in the heart” and were aiming to divide Muslims.

The clip is typical of his approach in so many public spheres – downplay or simply deny extremism, and then encourage separatism, anger and fear. For me, in the current situation this has “not conducive to the public good” written all over it.

Second, I think you are too kind to the man. Surely the terms “unpleasantness” and “offensiveness” are too soft to describe the criminal record of al-Timimi and the strong and sickening religious hatred both he and Qadhi have expressed.

Nor do I believe he is being obtuse about his friends and allies. No, once again, this is his approach. He thinks the record can somehow be distorted, or pushed to one side, in large part by crying “Islamophobia” when that charge is entirely inappropriate. This is not being obtuse, no, it is his attempt to advance a nasty agenda.

Anyway, the government’s approach to Islamism seems to be in complete disarray, so I guess Mr Qadhi needn’t worry much.

On Roman and Jewish society and the revolts….I can recommend this truly fantastic book!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rome-Jerusalem-Clash-Ancient-Civilizations/dp/014029127X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226946025&sr=8-1

It also clarifies the prolonged historical presence of Jews in Israel post-revolts….

test

On Roman and Jewish society and the revolts….I can recommend this truly fantastic book!

Rome & Jerusalem by Martin Goodman

It also clarifies the prolonged historical presence of Jews in Israel post-revolts….

My point is that, Vatican II onwards, your church made efforts not to be quite so beastly to the Jews, and that this was a good thing. From which you benefited. As did I.

What made such a mea-culpa possible was Christian theology itself. Or more preciesly the fact that persecuting a people who are the genesis and who provide the basis (along with some classical Greek contributions)of all we believe in is obviously stupid, wrong and self-defeating.

At least that’s the theory.

I don’t mind religious scholars expressing views on where the dividing lines between sects/religions should be drawn.

It is the vicious incitement of hatred against people of another religion that I find objectionable. Particularly, when it is pronounced by a cleric.

Ahmadis get a VERY hard time. So, if a prominent voice declares that some Muslims are “not Muslims”, it is worth remembering that this is precisely the reason that they are attacked and murdered.

At least that’s the theory.

Fortunately, the word of God was revealed to the Pope… a bit late, but still, a nice thing to happen.

Thanks for the link to the clip.
He’s clearly ill-informed, willing to fire from the hip (he was speaking a day before the programme was even broadcast) and a believer in conspiracy theories none of this stacks up, in my mind, to encouraging violence or hatred. You’re right, obtuse is too kind. I would like some kind of emphatic/superlative form of obtuse to exist - then I would use that form rather than just calling him very very obtuse.

I finally got the clip in the original post to work and I don’t think his takfir and accusations of lying against Shi’ism does either. He is, so far as I can tell, careful to keep his comments confined to beliefs held by Shi’is (about Aisha in particular).

Yes, he does not help the public good, but I do not see him transgressing reasonable limits of freedom of speech.

If you really think HP is ready for people disagreeing amicably then I think that’s what we’d better do.

(And I agree with you completely when you said: Anyway, the government’s approach to Islamism seems to be in complete disarray, so I guess Mr Qadhi needn’t worry much.)

David T: It wasn’t so much the drawing of lines between sects/religions etc that concerned me but the suggestion that Ahmadis were actively trying to trick people and that the Guardian’s podcast did not give an Ahmadi the chance to respond to what was said by the two from Islam Channel. Instead it gives the impression that a conclusion had been reached with Riazat Butt and the Guardian’s approval: Ahmadis are not Muslims.

Well, it was just one article.

I haven’t listened but will later.

I got to the end of this barrage of lies, bigotry and disinformation hoping to comment definitively on each of the offending posts…I can’t be bothered now except to point out a few things (which have probably already been pointed out ad nauseam) and pass on a few links (useless unless you have some basic knowledge of Arabic):

David T:

“One of the most disgusting calumnies that anti-Muslim bigots spread about Muslims, is that they are liars, and that lying is religiously mandated.”

This is just literally dripping with faeces. Whilst many uninformed ‘Islamophobes’, in the narrow sense, may refer to individual Muslims as liars or dissimulators from the truth, I have yet to meet or hear anyone discussing Islam smear ALL Muslims with the strap line ‘liar’; perhaps you frequent places or parts unknown?

Given that taqiyyah and kitmaan ul-haq are religiously mandated by virtue of their presence in so many Qur’an commentaries, fiqh treatises and fatwa compendia by the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence and the main Shi’ah school, I would have thought that there were grounds for assuming all believing Muslims to accept these doctrines, no?

More DT:

“Can I put this in context for you. You have just deployed PRECISELY the same argument that is used by anti-Muslim bigots who - I confidently predict - will be on this thread in a few minutes, and who will declare that you are also a terrorist supporter, that you are plotting to destroy this country, and that any denial of that ‘truth’ will prove that you are practicing ‘taqiyya’.

What a ludicrous notion: man posts article concerning ‘taqiyyah’ and tabloid-famous ‘radical’ cleric; man condemns and baulks at postings that correctly make the connection between mainstream Islam and dissimulation; man effectively smears all further comment that might just link Islam and ‘lying’…preposterous!

Black Voter:

“field,

Robert Spencer’s entry on Taqiyya is very muddled. If, as he claims, Taqiyya is to protect the lives of a Muslim person from persecution, what at all does that have to do with not befriending non Muslim peoples?

“In other words, don’t make friends with unbelievers except to “guard yourselves from them”: pretend to be their friends so that you can strengthen yourself against them.”

What a presumptive inference. It doesnt say anything about domination but self preservation. How many meanings of the word are there?

“The distinguished Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that in this verse “Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers.”

But the distinguished Quranic scholar Ibn Kathir didnt describe the above as Taqiyya. Spencer did without any justification really.

“This practice is sanctioned by the Qur’an warning Muslims that those who forsake Islam will be consigned to Hell — except those forced to do so, but who remain true Muslims inwardly: “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” (Qur’an 16:106).”

Now if the above is the standard definition of Taqiyya, what does it have to do with voluntary interactions with non Muslims?

It seems like you believe any and all lies are an act of Taqiyyah, when the references from the Quranic verses state that it is only under compulsion with a threat of death. Conditional lying.”

Firstly, I’m not sure of the Jihadwatch article or post you’re all referring to, but Mr Spencer invariably writes clearly and concisely; I certainly wouldn’t characterise his writing as ‘muddled’ and he always provides copious references citing authentic Islamic texts to support his arguments.

Clearly, when reading this verse (3:28) in context, and by referring to the accompanying commentary by Ibn Kathir (http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=28&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0), we note that Muslims are commanded not to take disbelievers as ‘companions’ or ’supporters’ UNLESS Muslims are likely to incur danger from their decision. Ibn Kathir discusses the various reports concerning this verse and concludes that Muslims may ‘protect [themselves] through concealment’. Seems to me that Mr Spencer was spot on in what he surmised given the evidence from the classical Islamic sources.

The words underpinning both doctrines, taqiyyah (تقية) and kitmaan ul-haq (كتمان الحق), are derived from Qur’anic lexis and traditions surrounding the revelation. Although it might be possible to argue that, doctrinally, such prescriptions are not valid for all time, one cannot argue with their linguistic basis in the Islamic canonical texts. Moreover, given the renowned scholarship and erudition of the classical scholars to have discussed the various Islamic sources for dissimulation in the face of adversity by any means necessary, it would seem foolish to attempt to invalidate their commentary on a linguistic basis more nearly 1 1/2 millenia after the revelation. Surely it’s extremely presumptuous and more than a little ridiculous to suggest that your understanding of a text is more ‘correct’ than theirs given their serious academic qualifications?

David T again:

“Take one of the central claims of Christianity: that the Jews orchestrated the death of Jesus. Now, there are many reasons to doubt that this was the case.”

This is an absolutely barking statement: Christianity, monolithic as you present it, does no such thing; it doesn’t ‘claim’ any such conspiracy. Even if it did, as a monolithic entity, it certainly doesn’t ritualise this catastrophic Judaeo-conspiracy as you would have it. Moreover, I’m not aware of any Christians in the present time who demonise all Jews in perpetuity for the alleged conspiracy by the sanhedrin to murder God.

One of the few things about Christ of which we can be pretty certain is that he was crucified: what are these ‘many reasons to doubt that this was the case’?

Yusuf Smith:

“As it happens, some Christians also use trickery in missionary work, such as disguising themselves as Muslims and then introducing themselves as “Muslims on the path of Jesus” or something like that, something which has appeared in “Mother Jones”, so why should it be surprising that other groups lie and trick people to recruit new followers?”

Positively barking. No doubt you’ve been reading so much propaganda it has addled your brain. Even Arabic disagrees with you: mssionary activity is translated as tabsheer (تبشير) which carries absolutely no connotations with ‘lying’ or ‘concealing oneself’; quite the contrary, Christians are enjoined to ’spread the good news’ of the Gospel. There are absolutely NO commands, pronouncements, discussions etc. etc. etc. in the Biblical corpus to condone lying for evangelisation. The only concealment that is done by Christians is for safety purposes because by ’spreading the good news’ they often find themselves in some of the most repressive, least plural and retrogressive environments on the planet where the perceived sin of even carrying a Bible and reading it can incite some to kill (note I include supposedly enlightened Egypt in this category). No, Christians never conceal their religion to deceive.

Forgotten who wrote this but it could well be a classic example of conscious or sub-conscious taqiyyah:

“As for the bit about Ibn Kathir. In the original Arabic of 3:28 there is a word from the same root as taqiyya but it is used to mean fear (the concept of taqiyya being very much tied up with fear) rather than refer to hiding your religion. Thus treating them together makes some sense. I may be crediting Robert Spencer with a bit too much though.

Bit his usage of Ibn Kathir’s tafsir (and a quotation from the Qur’an) is definitely misleading. It is decontextualised and in translation - not the best of starts.”

The verse in question (Qur’an 3:28) states:

(إِلاَّ أَن تَتَّقُواْ مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً)

Here we have in Arabic what is known as an absolute object construction; where a verb is used with an object (often from the same root) to amplify the meaning of that particular verb, often in terms of its relative ‘intensity’. In this particular verbal construction, the absolute object behaves syntactically like an infinitive in English. We have an extended verb form from the root (وقى) and a verbal noun object complement from the same root but composed from a different weighting of the root letters. In this case, and with this particular verb, to form an absolute object expression using one of the extended verb forms with a verbal noun composed from one of the other extended verb forms, makes litle difference, as virtually the entire range of extended verb forms applied from this root are semantically the same.

If we establish that the verb (تتقى) means to ‘beware of’ or ‘protect oneself against’ and accept that the verbal noun (تقاة) comes from the same root and represents semantically the same core meaning, albeit it is formed from a different extended verb form, then we get ‘fear’, ‘caution’ or ‘prudence’ in the face of infidel adversity. Therefore we get the sense of ‘protecting oneself against danger’ or ‘being wary of adversity’. My guess, and I have no evidence to back this up, is that the verbal noun here has led to a new coinage incorporating the meaning of the the verb and verbal noun combined (i.e. taqiyyah - تقية) and commentators first used this word whilst glossing this verse and others. The root itself is an awkward one morphologically as it encoporates two mater lectionis having serious implications for extended form word morphology.

It is quite clear from the most authoritative commentators on the Qur’an (at-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, ar-Razi, al-Qurtubi etc.) that taqiyyah refers to dissimulation under perceived duress and that the dissimulation can take the form of lying.

Purchase this excellent book which is a polemic expositional treatise on taqiyyah:

http://www.adabwafan.com/display/product.asp?id=55412

Read this article, abridged from a book:

http://www.esnips.com/doc/62ef123f-069b-40d6-a52f-f69cc1b7a4e3/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85

Check out the Arabic Wiki on taqiyyah:

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A9

Peace!

Yusuf Ibrahim Tadros:
I certainly was not trying to say (I’m the person you forgot) that there is no connection between taqiyya and mainstream Islam. Nor do I think David T was trying to say that.

As you rightly say, taqiyyah refers to dissimulation under perceived duress and that the dissimulation can take the form of lying..

What I disagree with is people who accuse all Muslims of lying بشكل عام. Or of lying about their faith as part of some offensive, rather than defensive, strategy.

When I accused Robert Spencer (who was being quoted by Field) of decontextualising Ibn Kathir this was because Spencer alleges that Ibn Kathir says Muslims should never be friendly with non-Muslims. But my reading of Ibn Kathir does not support this.

In context, it seems to me that he was talking about Muslims who are in a weak position and threatened by non-Muslim not choosing to have non-Muslim friends in preference to having Muslim friends-unless they fear for their life.

Incidentally, I think the verb you were looking for is توقّى or اتّقى. But that’s hardly important.

Is the Islamic world collectively psychotic?

Andrew: what nonsense. This is not abstract discussion. This is about who is allowed to murder whom with no come-back.
If you don’t grasp this, if you are too stupid to grasp this, you have reached the point where you are just the man to be the UK’s home secretary.

Nearly Oxfordian, while I can buy the idea that we can’t use a broad brush stroke to state our definition of Muslims as a single entity I can identify that humans only comment on groups based on the dangerous excess of that group and how we perceive it affects us.

So, for people who were poor, or the poor disaffected masses the idea that some Jews were successful led to the manifestations of The Protocols and The Holocaust. It ignored that Jews were also doctors, artists, lawyers, scientists and net contributors to society.

What your comment illustrates is that Islamists are the front-line of Muslim attitudes due to the dramatic threat of death they convey, or the threats to change our society.

Hence, we tend to adopt the same catch-all mode that was applied to Jews.

However, it IS human nature to rail against perceived threats and in the case of Islamist that threat is death by terrorism and in the case of Jews in history it was simply an economic disparity threat based on jealousy.

Despite the desire not to be trapped into demonising ALL Muslims because of some Muslims I do feel it is right to put the blame on Islam which is the very device used to justify the Islamist cause.

It is a shame that this is then hijacked by Islamist to cry Islamaphobia.

I don’t know if this contributes to the definition of Taqiyya but I remember a poster (Azania) at 5Live who would post a number of quotes from the Talmud and asserted that Jews were allowed to lie, mandated to lie to non-Jews.

It turned out to be a paragraph where it was stated that Jews were allowed to lie to the Romans to avoid paying an illegal land-tax. The fact that a specific case for lying had to be written was actually a proof that Jews were not mandated to tell lies by The Talmud.

The definitions of Taqiyya are long and complicated. My understanding is that a Muslim may tell a lie in order to protect their lives or their religion. Now that may be too simplistic and unfair. Maybe its the Dhimmi Watch/Jihad Watch definition.

I see little wrong with that if there weren’t so many cases of Arab’s telling lies concerning the Middle East conflict. Jenin, Al Dura, The Lebanon are the shorthand items.

For those who are not already aware of it the prime example of al-takeyya in action was Arafat at Oslo. He lied through his teeth every day. Prof Moshe Sharon, a Professor of Islamic History at the Hebrew University, summed his behaviour up:

“Islam and Peace

“Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.

“With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.

(Stand by for the al-takeyya):

“Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace - you wouldn’t believe that you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can’t believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.

“A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, “Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?” (I have obtained a copy of Arafat’s recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, “That’s not so. I’m doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did.”

“Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, “Remember the story of Hodaybiya.” The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.

“Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].”

Hi Gsirrah,

Yes this is often a headbanging place. May it prosper for the duration.

That doesn’t mean peaceful and civil exchanges of views are impossible!

And so:

none of this stacks up, in my mind, to encouraging violence or hatred

Well, Qadhi is very cautious about talk of violence. As one would expect him to be as an American Muslim on the FBI’s radar.

Note what he says in that article:

Qadhi said he feels “frustrated” by a system that he thinks will never tell him what list he is on so that he can get off it. “I’m treated like a second-class citizen, and there’s absolutely nothing I can do,” he said. “This is simply not the America I grew up in.”

That’s pretty rich, when one knows a thing or two about his background, views and dishonest campaigning for a man convicted of convincing young men to join jihad against the United States right after September 11. And his twisted Islam Channel shout out to the ummah on behalf of British extremists. And so on.

Never mind open and direct advocacy of violence for a moment. I think hatred is precisely what he is fomenting. One can do this fairly carefully, smoothly, calmly, and systematically, without instantly and overwhelmingly striking mad ranting like the bile of Omar Bakri or Anjem Choudary.

If anything, I find the smoother types more sinister and threatening. The aim is to move people away from mainstream society, emphasise the differences and the conflicts, and ultimately create an angry separatist identity.

This is where serious trouble can start. Qadhi must know this. This is what al-Timimi, his hero, did. Qadhi is following the same path, in an environment where he is more constrained (in public anyway) than his old teacher. He’s learned plausible deniability, so to speak, rather well.

I do not see him transgressing reasonable limits of freedom of speech

Nor do I, in the US context anyway and judging by the public record alone.

As for the UK, this is what Jacqui Smith said at the end of October:

Through these tough new measures I will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.

Coming to the UK is a privilege, and I refuse to extend that privilege to those who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life.

Yes, a privilege, not a right. That privilege should not be granted to Yasir Qadhi ever again.

*

Here, for the purposes of information, is another American Muslim’s view on Qadhi and Co. It is not very flattering. I believe its substance is also accurate, and telling.

*

The very best of luck to you in your pursuit of Islamic and Arabic studies, if this is what you are doing.

Gsirrah,

“Incidentally, I think the verb you were looking for is توقّى or اتّقى. But that’s hardly important.”

Yes. Spot on. No such verb تتقى exists. The ayah in question confused me though, and although I should have spotted the verb correctly as (اتَقى) not (توقى) and definitely not تتقى as I so erroneously thought, the verbal noun stumped me: I tried all the online dictionaries, the mughny, the lisaan etc. but came up with zilch; the noun doesn’t seem to fit either extended verb…

نهى تبارك وتعالى عباده المؤمنين أن يوالوا الكافرين، (http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=28&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0)

I think this was the sentence you missed ; )…something like ‘Allah prohibits believers from taking infidels as companions’…and this is just his gloss on the Qur’anic text after all, laysa kadhalik/mish kidah?

“What I disagree with is people who accuse all Muslims of lying بشكل عام. Or of lying about their faith as part of some offensive, rather than defensive, strategy.”

Yep. I’m with you there. Smearing all members of a religious, cultural or ethnic grouping is just not cricket; it’s bigotry! I could be wrong, but my impression of Robert Spencer is that he doesn’t do that عامة but rather خاصة concerning the educated and not so well educated, to use his term, ‘misunderstanders’ of Islam.

Incidentally, investigating my fresh new copy of Ibn Abi Dawood’s Kitaab ul-Masaahif (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=7&book=2177) tells us that the word تقاة that has already been discussed (q.v. 3:28), is considered a textual variant, with ya’ and ha’ recorded elsewhere in the mushafs of Ubay and Ibn ‘Abbaas. Wonder what the ‘original’ was?

Fortunately, the word of God was revealed to the Pope… a bit late, but still, a nice thing to happen.

Comment well-taken despite undertone of sarcasm. Catholics and Jews may not eat the same things or pray in the same manner or agree on much, but they have two things in common that betray common origins; a sharp sense of humour and that little red flame this burns in every synagogue and church and which is never extinguished.

You have several wonderful and informative postings above by some islam pros.

I would also suggest you glean more info by reading what ex-muslim intellectuals such as Magdi Allam have to say on the subject. He has some very unflattering comments on Islam, but ‘unflattering’ is quite different from ‘bigoted’.

Came across a related item on a blog, “Seeking Ilm”, that advocated reviving takfir against rafidis (usually a term used for Shi’ites). The ensuing discussion makes for an interesting read:

http://seekingilm.com/archives/436

Habibi: Thank you. I remain unconvinced but your efforts were noble. Personally he strikes me more as the pathetic, conspiracy theorist type rather than a smooth operator. The blog you linked to confirmed to me that he is of the “war on Islam” school which, undoubtedly, is used by some Islamists to stifle opposition but is also supported by many moderates and liberals in the wider Muslim community.

Yusuf:
I would imagine that تقيّة is the verbal noun from the pattern فعّل. This would, mechanically, have been توقيّة but it’s the best I can come up with as an explanation.

Glad I found another altafsir.com fan - the reason I accused Spencer of decontextualising Ibn Kathir was because he failed to add the next sentence:
وأن يتخذوهم أولياء يسرون إليهم بالمودة من دون المؤمنين
A translation of this renders it as:
Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way, unless you indeed fear a danger from them.

Furthermore, the rest of the sura is about how Muslims should behave when oppressed by non-Muslims. Whilst there are Muslims who have interpreted this passage as a general rule against befriending non-Muslims, as Spencer seems to in what was quoted above, it would be wrong to quote this extract from Ibn Kathir to suggest a general rule about how Muslims should interact with non-Muslims.
I should make clear that this is the only thing Spencer has written about Taqiyya that I have read.

As for distrust of Shi’is. It seems that even Cambridge does not escape that kind of thing. Someone from their Isoc seems to have gone to askimam.org (a South African run operation according to their website) to ask what to do about the potential threat from Shi’is “infiltritating.”

Anyone else enjoying the juxtaposition of David T’s title with the photo of Alastair Darling provided by the ad on the right?

G:

“I would imagine that تقيّة is the verbal noun from the pattern فعّل. This would, mechanically, have been توقيّة but it’s the best I can come up with as an explanation.”

You’ve nailed it! Spot on! It doesn’t fit the regular pattern تفعيل because it contains two ’sickies’ and the ta’ marbutah replaces the phonologically and morphologically impossible coincidence of a long vowel and a semi-vowel in the theoretical but erroneous verbal noun. Thanks for this!

‘altafsir’ is excellent but you can’t always cut and paste…’qtafsir’ with its large Arabic font looks like becoming a seminal resource! Cheers!

No juxtaposition for me - Arab dating instead!

Hello David

I would like to commend you for your stand against extremist elements within all religions; Islam, Christianity, Judaism and cultural groups; Shi’ite and others. I also support your view on taking a firm stand against those extremists, and the western governments should take a real action to refuse visa entry to any one who instigate hate against any group. Takfeer phenomenon among Muslims is the most despicable disease of the Muslim theological doctrine which has nothing to do with the great teachings of the prophet of Islam and the Quran. Takfeer is not within the jurisdiction of any one except the individual himself. According to the Quran and hadith no one can nullify someone’s belief after having uttering the declaration of shahada statement unless the same individual revokes this declaration by himself freely wit no compulsion and then and only then he take himself, by choice, out of the fold of Islam. History tells us that God did not permit the Prophet Muhammad to declare many hypocrites among his people as kafirs rather God alone has taken the responsibility of their fate, as it is stated in 9:101 “But among the bedouin who dwell around you there are hypocrites; and among the people of the [Prophet's] City [too] there are such as have grown insolent in [their] hypocrisy. Thou dost not [always] know them, [O Muhammad - but] We know them. We shall cause them to suffer doubly [in this world]; [134] and then they will be given over to awesome suffering [in the life to come].”
Some Muslims who have left comments in defense of “Qadhi” when they stated that “Qadhi” did not declare all the shitties kafirs but only some of them. This kind of apologetic approach make them complicit in the crime of “Qadhi” against the shittes. I believe one is too many to be declared kafir. God is the only entity to decide on such matter.
This phenomenon within the Muslim theology has caused the killings of more than 500 thousands of Iraqis mainly shittes, recently. Muslim scholars should abandon this business of takfeer and instead begin preaching a more positive philosophy towards life.

thanks

Katib