Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald recommends a book that everyone should read, Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad.
I know what it's like to have a book ignored: at this point my book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) has been on the New York Times Bestseller List for five weeks, and has been reviewed exactly twice: in The American Thinker and Human Events. Why would even most "conservative" media outlets, as well as liberal ones, ignore this book? The short answer is because they cannot answer it, and so they do not attempt to try. But its very popularity shows that many concerned Americans already see how hollow and superficial their analysis of our present crisis really is.
Andrew Bostom's book, as Hugh points out here, is likely to get similar treatment -- although it has already received some most welcome attention from outlets such as the Jerusalem Post. But the truth will out: it cannot be ignored and suppressed forever. Bostom has assembled in this book a huge mass of evidence demonstrating that the analysis of Islam and Islamic terror you read at Jihad Watch and from similar sources is true. If the learned analysts ever want to get down to the hard work of finding real practical solutions for the fix we're in, if they can be found at all, they will not forever be able to ignore what is in this book.
Those who choose to ignore or dismiss this book because of some contretemps or other with the author, or compiler (who has his maddening side), should think again.They should think again, and read and thoroughly assimilate the contents of this book -- which are the work of, in the 20th century alone, 21 "major contributors" (listed in the back). These include such figures as Snouck Hurgronje and K. S. Lal and Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq and Edmond Fagnan and Roger Arnaldez and Clement Huart and W. R. W. Gardner, and Majid Khadduri, and Dimitar Angelov, and Maria-Matilda Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru, and Vasiliki Papoulia and Aram Ter-Jhevondian and John Ralph Willis. Their work, their scholarship, in some cases unearthed from journals and books unobtainable except in the most remote stacks in the largest libraries, is now collected, translated, and republished for a public comprised of both specialists and the common reader – for those who wish to know, who need to know, who find it essential to know, a good deal more about the theory and practice of Islam than they have been getting from the small army of apologists, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who have managed to penetrate, to infiltrate, and to seize power, in almost every major (and many minor) academic center of teaching (but not real "learning") about Islam.
Among the unhappy will not only be the usual suspects at MESA Nostra, but also those who think of themselves as brave battlers against those same apologists, yet regard Bostom as one more upstart crow, a "non-specialist," an outsider, someone who didn't write a Ph.D. (for what that is worth, or means) in Islamic studies.
But in the case of discussions of Islam, it is a few outsiders (including such ex-Muslims as the scholar Ibn Warraq and tireless polemicist Ali Sina) who are running rings around both the obvious apologists and those who, while smiting this or that Muslim terrorist or Muslim-related outrage, still do not get the problem quite right, and offer incomplete analyses of Islam and of the dangers of a large-scale Muslim presence within the Lands of the Infidels.
There are many who have been taken as non-apologist experts on Islam who rely, expressly or by implication, on a view of Islam that none of the contributors to this massive work would agree with. Some of those "experts" have carved out little empires for themselves, with the usual melange of a few Deep-Pocketed Contributors Who Are Profoundly Impressed With the Work You Are Doing, supplemented either by foundation money, or think-tank largesse, or of course -- how could I forget -- the vast sums that some command on the lecture-tour circuit (and if the lecture-tour circuit includes nubile listeners, so much the better).
Now comes Andrew Bostom, infuriatingly correct, and personally often infuriating, with a text that, if thoroughly read, if thoroughly studied, if thoroughly analyzed, blows up a good deal. And not a few fixed formulas, not a few fixed ideas, not a few careers, as well.
Whatever else Bostom is, he is not in it for empire-building or the money. His career is elsewhere. His contribution to the understanding of Islam, its history and its practice, is, with this book, indispensable. And I would have added "beyond compare" except that in such a case, I would have deprived myself of the chance to -- compare it. And his book does not suffer by comparison. And what's more, he promises more to come.
So, to a great many people, ready and willing to ignore this book, I suggest that they not take the author's phone calls. Don't open his e-mails. But do read his book -- do read Lal, Hurgronje, Fagnan, Huart, e tutti quanti. They aren't sending you emails. They aren't phoning. They are safely dead. But the Islam they described is the Islam that is based on immutable texts. The only thing that has changed, since the days when they wrote, is that Muslim apologists of the hard variety and of the soft have seized control of the study of Islam, the scholarly journals, the outlets through which one would once have studied Islam.
Now someone comes along and blows a hole in the whole meretricious edifice constructed over many decades by many Muslim and Arab donors, and by the willing handmaids in, first ARAMCO, and now in MESA Nostra.
What will they do? How can they deny the scholarship compiled here?
They can't. They can only ignore.
Tant pis for them. The jig is not exactly up, but it’s getting close.
Amen Hugh.
It's amazing and UNCONSCIONABLE how many in the media and the general public are ignorant of the dangerous threat we are facing.
We must pray that we can wake them up IN TIME.
With Robert's book being on the best seller list for weeks, the numbers suggest that his P.I.G. book IS being read by members of the conservative media (as well as others) but 'fear' of repercussions similar to that of Michael Graham or Jillian Bandes, or concern over suddenly reinterpreted p.c. company policy inhibits them from openly discussing it.
Over the last year+, I have kept a list of the recommended readings suggested by Hugh. The list contains many of the contributing authors in Bostom's new book. Prior to Bostom's book, much of these works could not be accessed locally, or was out of print or in a foreign language. As 'one' of MANY concerned Americans, I look forward to this new book as well.
***As a sidenote -
I'm relieved to see that the comments are still open since I learn so much from the many varied contributions.
On another thread a few weeks ago, someone recommended another book which I'm in the process of reading, called "JIHAD in the West". A prescient work by Paul Fregosi as it was published pre 9/11 in 1998.
One paragraph found midway down page 22 is haunting . . .
I read Jihad by Fregosi and it was excellent. Available at the library. Just the little bits from Bostom's book I have read are eye opening.
Some day soon the Espositos and Armstrongs and Volls and Khans and Al-Khadrys and Awns of the corrupt university Middle East programs, our 'intellectual guides' to Islam, our 'experts on Islam on a pedestal', will be exposed for the corrupt and compromised organizations they are.
The day can come none too soon.
John Sobieski, PI
The Pedestrian Infidel Blog
That is quite a compelling review, Mr. Fitzgerald. I personally have no problem with independent scholars especially when the incestuous nature of some academic specialties produces a contorted intellectual output that is far removed from the real world.
I’ve found several other positive reviews and mention them here:
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2005/09/whole-book-on.html
I’ve always found Bostom’s articles well written and informative. Many are on Front Page Magazine. Now to get the book and make time to read it!
I would really like to know more about the articulate and informed Hugh Fitzgerald. I can't find anything on the net. Perhaps he has his reasons to remain private, but could we please know something about his education and career? Is he an academic? Is he with a think tank? What does he do for a living? How did he get interested in the Muslim world (other than the obvious danger to us)?
Thanks
Benjamin
Bostom is excellent and so is Fitzgerald. Don't forget that "The American Thinker" has a fine collection of Bostom's articles.
"How did he [Hugh] get interested in the Muslim world (other than the obvious danger to us?)"
-- from a posting above
Surely that "obvious danger" is reason enough to get interested --and to keep up one's interest, in a subject that I, unlike Robert, do not find intrinsically interesting. Who wants to know all about what Islam teaches, or what Muslims did here, or there, in 900 or 1200 or 453 or last year, at a meeting in Malaysia or Tunisia or Saudi Arabia? Any good anthology of English verse is more interesting than all of Islam.
As for the other Nosy Parker queries, happy to answer many of them at the end (Question Time) of any well-paid lecture, and if invited to deliver such a lecture (especially in someone's grand living room, to carefully-selected guests) will happily accept. And as for what I "do for a living" -- well, I'm a bit put out that you think what I offer here at JW is just a little thing on the side, while I have some other "real work" that currently consumes my days and nights. All kinds of things have to be read, and re-read, and understood, and be shaped in my head, not only about what Islamic texts contain, but about Iraq, about the psychology of Muslims, about the psychology of Infidels, about the discontents and declines and degradations within the Western world, education (ditto), about the origins and development of early Islam, about all sorts of things -- in order for my postings to be logical, plump with meaning, and even at times entertaining. It takes a village library to raise this child. And not everything is immediately evident on the surface of whatever is written; some things may, like the Loch Ness Monster, hardly come up for air at all. It all takes time, even the time just to engage in those reveries d'un promeneur solitaire that can be so useful. I may be a fast typist, but I'm a slow reader.
One more thing. I have unembarrassedly held out my hand in eleemosynary appeal at regular intervals, suggesting that donations be made to my favorite charity -- me (c/o Robert) -- because I am convinced "I have done the state some service" and see no reason why others would not ultimately come to share that conviction and would therefore do something about it. Perhaps someone will eventually respond; I can only hope. But I have no intention of hastening the day when it will no longer be possible for anyone to send such future tangible tokens (or more than tokens) of affection and esteem, because that "favorite charity" will no longer exist, and instead one will have to send, in its -- that is to say in my -- memory, either flowers for a freshly-dug grave, or a contribution to the United Way.
Get my drift?
I've been doing all the heavy lifting against Hugh's Moriarty over at the Examined Life philosophy forum. I wish his Holmes would come over to give him a suckerpunch or two or a jab in the eye from his pipe or violin bow; there's only so much an earnest but ultimately ill-suited Watson (no Dr. Bostom here) can do manning bastions.
"the fact remains," says Anonymous, "that the majority Sunnis reject the concept and practice of taqya and consider it to be part of the Shi’a heresy, as is clear from the Sunni commentaries on this verse in their editions of the Qur’an and from the text which you cited. Yet the Shug-man [i.e., Hugh] imputes this heresy to all Muslims in his project to discredit the sincerity of the public statements and actions of those who, by such statements and actions, seek to distance themselves from the radicals. Why does he do that, Erich: dishonesty or ignorance?"
http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/
Why would even most "conservative" media outlets, as well as liberal ones, ignore this book?
You KNOW the answer: because Saudi money is as green as the rest of it.
Every now and then Mike Moore tells the truth about Saudi Arabia and Mike Savage tells the truth about "palestine" but across the entire MSM spectrum, between--and especially including--Ralph Nader and Pat Buchannon, they are so enamoured with that sweet petrobuck that they don't say nuttin' to raise the ire of the Religion Of Peace©.
They can't. They can only ignore.
No, they can also accuse anyone that questions the jihad a "racist" and someone who "hates brown-skinned ay-rabs." They can accuse us of disparaging the Religion of Peace and accuse us of being "ignorant" as to the true, lovable nature of Islam.
Would that they just ignored us.
Dr. Pepper,
"that the majority Sunnis reject the concept and practice of taqya and consider it to be part of the Shi’a heresy, as is clear from the Sunni commentaries on this verse in their editions of the Qur’an and from the text which you cited.
Wow, is that a generalisation. Just paying attention to the Israeli Palestinian conflict should expose the taqyia of sunni Arafat and his gang.
After Oslo when he went to South Africa and stated his "Mein Kampf" should have been clear enough and also that he was supported by the Egyptians, Saudis and others.
Dr. Pepper -- google "taqiyya" and "Sunni." You will find a number of guides.
Surely your interlocutor, whom you insist on taking seriously, would not deny that Sunnis lie about Islam. Surely he would not deny that when a Sunni cleric or other spokesman says something obviously absurd about what Islam teaches, and offers highly misleading selective quotations from the Qur'an, and of course remains silent about the Sunnah (which is even more telling than the Qur'an) he knows that this is regarded by other Muslims, who do not hasten to correct him, as perfectly acceptable. Because, after all, he is defending the Faith, Islam, and the umma al-islamiyya. And anything goes. "War is deception" and Jihad is war, and "deception" may at any point be necessary.
As for the dreamy idea that no one authoritative in Islam has ever claimed Taqiyya as a doctrine that Sunnis can adhere to, would al-Suyuti not meet the definition of someone who is regarded as "authoritative"?
If you merely google "Taqiyya" and "Sunni" you will find, for example, an article about the charge, by some Sunnis, that only Shi'a practice Taqiyya, an article that shows that the doctrine can be found rooted in the Qur'an and Hadith, and is therefore available to all -- as the behavior of Sunnis shows.
Here is one of those articles. Read it, and then possibly post it at that website you have referred to:
al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation (Part I)
Assallamu `Alaykum,
Today, I would like to present the concept of "al-Taqiyya" in the
following exposition. This topic is as thorny as previous ones have
been, and many people have experienced great difficulty in trying to
understand it. I pray to Allah (SWT) that this discussion will help loosen
some of the intellectual rust that has accumulated over the years in many
peoples' minds. The interminable negative propaganda that people are
bombarded with on a daily basis serves to nurture feelings of animosity and
disbelief towards the Shia; additionally, it may promote the explicit
denial of proven facts and truths. Nonetheless, you owe it to yourself to
search for the truth; and, indeed, Allah (SWT) has commanded that you do.
As such, it is your prerogative to believe or reject everything that the
Shia claim; but my plea is that the next time you hear a discussion about
the Shia in your Mosque, or any place else, please remember my posts, and
question the person who is discussing the topic. Only then, will you see my
point, In Sha' Allah (SWT).
I intend to demonstrate and prove that the concept of "al-Taqiyya" is an
integral part of Islam, and that it is NOT a Shi'ite concoction.
As usual, the two perspectives, the Sunnis and the Shia, will be presented
to maintain a level of fairness and integrity in the reporting of this
topic.
============
Introduction
============
The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's
beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a
time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from
physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be
"Dissimulation."
The above definition must be elaborated upon before any undertaking of this
topic is to ensue. Although correct, the definition suffers from an
apparent generalization, and lacks some fundamental details that should be
construed:
First, the CONCEALMENT of one's beliefs does NOT necessitate an ABANDONMENT
of these beliefs. The distinction between "concealment" and "abandonment"
MUST be noted here.
Second, there are numerous exceptions to the above definition, and they
MUST be judged according to the situation that one is placed in. As such,
one should NOT make a narrow-minded generalization that encompasses all
situations, thereby failing to fully absorb the spirit of the definition.
Third, the word "beliefs" and/or "convictions" does NOT necessarily mean
"religious" beliefs and/or convictions.
With the above in mind, it becomes evident that a better, and more accurate
definition of "al-Taqiyya" is "diplomacy." The true spirit of "al-
Taqiyya" is better embodied in the single word "diplomacy" because it
encompasses a comprehensive spectrum of behaviors that serve to further the
vested interests of all parties involved.
==================================
al-Taqiyya According to the Sunnis
==================================
Some Sunnis assert that al-Taqiyya is an act of pure hypocrisy that serves
to conceal the truth and reveal that which is the exact opposite (of the
truth). Furthermore, according to those Sunnis, al-Taqiyya constitutes a
lack of faith and trust in Allah (SWT) because the person who conceals his
beliefs to spare himself from eminent danger is fearful of humans, when, in
fact, he should be fearful of Allah (SWT) only. As such, this person is a
coward.
======================================
Sunni Sources in Support of al-Taqiyya
======================================
The following exposition will Insha Allah demonstrate the existence
of al-Taqiyya in the Quran, Hadith, the Prophet's (PBUH&HF) custom, and the
companions' custom. As usual, Sunni books will be used to further the
argument. This is in keeping with the commitment to reveal the truth by
showing that the Sunnis reject the Shia's arguments, while THEIR OWN books
are replete (full) with the SAME ideologies that the Shia uphold! Although
some Wahhabis staunchly argue their aforementioned statements, and
aggressively defame the Shia and refute their doctrines, they have failed
to explain the validity of their argument vis-a-vis the existence of these
SAME doctrines in their own books, as has been demonstrated in ALL the past
posts about the Shia. Those who think that they are the true protectors of
the custom of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and the only guardians of the Islamic
Faith, how can they explain their own rejection of that which they are
supposed to protect? Rejecting al-Taqiyya is rejecting the Quran, as will
be shown shortly.
Let's Begin...
Reference 1:
-----------
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al-
Ma'athoor," narrates Ibn Abbas', the MOST renowned and trusted narrator of
tradition in the sight of the Sunnis, opinion regarding al-Taqiyya in the
Quranic verse: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers
unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, (they) shall have no
relation left with Allah except by way of precaution ("tat-taqooh"), that
ye may guard yourselves ("tooqatan") from them....[3:28]" that Ibn Abbas
said:
"al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only; he who has been COERCED into
saying that which angers Allah (SWT), and his heart is comfortable
(i.e., his TRUE faith has NOT been shaken.), then (saying that which
he has been coerced to say) will NOT harm him (at all); (because) al-
Taqiyya is with the tongue only, (NOT the heart)."
NOTE: The two words "tat-taqooh" and "tooqatan," as mentioned in the Arabic
Quran, are BOTH from the same root of "al-Taqiyya."
NOTE ALSO: The "heart" as referred to above and in later occurrences refers
to the center of faith in an individual's existence. It is mentioned many
times in the Quran.
Reference 2:
-----------
Ibn Abbas also commented on the above verse, as narrated in Sunan al-
Bayhaqi and Mustadrak al-Hakim, by saying:
"al-Taqiyya is the uttering of the tongue, while the heart is
comfortable with faith."
NOTE: The meaning is that the tongue is permitted to utter anything in a
time of need, as long as the heart is not affected; and one is still
comfortable with faith.
Reference 3:
-----------
Abu Bakr al-Razi in his book, "Ahkam al-Quran," v2, p10, has explained
the aforementioned verse "...except by way of precaution ("tat-taqooh"),
that ye may guard yourselves ("tooqatan") from them....[3:28]" by affirming
that al-Taqiyya should be used when one is afraid for life and/or limb. In
addition, he has narrated that Qutadah said with regards to the above
verse:
"It is permissible to speak words of unbelief when al-Taqiyya is
mandatory."
Reference 4:
-----------
It has been narrated by Abd al-Razak, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim,
Ibn Mardawayh, al-Bayhaqi in his book "al- Dala-il," and it was corrected
by al-Hakim in his book "al- Mustadrak" that:
"The nonbelievers arrested `Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA) and (tortured him
until) he (RA) uttered foul words about the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and
praised their gods (idols); and when they released him (RA), he (RA)
went straight to the Prophet (PBUH&HF). The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said:
"Is there something on your mind?" `Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA) said: "Bad
(news)! They would not release me until I defamed you (PBUH&HF) and
praised their gods!" The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "How do you find
your heart to be?" `Ammar (RA) answered: "Comfortable with faith." So
the Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "Then if they come back for you, then do
the same thing all over again." Allah (SWT) at that moment revealed
the verse: "....except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in
faith...[16:106]"
NOTE: The full verse that was quoted partially as part of the tradition
above, is: "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 Chastisement [16:106]." (Emphasis Mine)
Reference 5:
-----------
It is narrated in Sunan al-Bayhaqi that Ibn Abbas explained the above verse
"Any one who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief....[16:106]"
by saying:
"The meaning that Allah (SWT) is conveying is that he who utters
unbelief after having believed, shall deserve the Wrath of Allah (SWT)
and a terrible punishment. However, those who have been coerced, and
as such uttered with their tongues that which their hearts did not
confirm to escape persecution, have nothing to fear; for Allah (SWT)
holds His (SWT) servants responsible for that which their hearts have
ratified."
Reference 6:
-----------
Another explanation of the above verse is provided by Jalal al-Din al-
Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al- Tafsir al-Ma-athoor," vol.
2, p178; he says:
"Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Munzir, and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated
on the authority of Mujtahid (a man's name) that this verse was
revealed in relation to the following event: A group of people from
Mecca accepted Islam and professed their belief; as a result, the
companions in Medina wrote to them requesting that they emigrate
to Medina; for if they don't do so, they shall not be considered
as those who are among the believers. In compliance, the group left
Mecca, but were soon ambushed by the nonbelievers (Quraish) before
reaching their destination; they were coerced into disbelief, and they
professed it. As a result, the verse "...except under compulsion, his
heart remaining firm in faith [16:106]..." was revealed."
Reference 7:
-----------
Ibn Sa'd in his book, "al-Tabaqat al-Kubra," narrates on the authority of
Ibn Sirin that:
The Prophet (PBUH&HF) saw `Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA) crying, so he
(PBUH&HF) wiped off his (RA) tears, and said: "The nonbelievers
arrested you and immersed you in water until you said such and such
(i.e., bad-mouthing the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and praising the pagan gods
to escape persecution); if they come back, then say it again."
Reference 8:
-----------
It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that:
After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet
(PBUH&HF) was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of
Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I
would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to
escape persecution)?" The Prophet (PBUH&HF) excused him and said:
"Say whatever you have to say."
Reference 9:
-----------
It is narrated by al-Ghazzali in his book, "Ihya `Uloom al-Din," that:
Safeguarding of a Muslim's life is a mandatory obligation that should
be observed; and that LYING is permissible when the shedding of a
Muslim's blood is at stake.
Reference 10:
------------
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Ashbah Wa al-Naza'ir," affirms
that:
"it is acceptable (for a Muslim) to eat the meat of a dead animal at a
time of great hunger (starvation to the extent that the stomach is
devoid of all food); and to loosen a bite of food (for fear of choking
to death) by alcohol; and to utter words of unbelief; and if one is
living in an environment where evil and corruption are the pervasive
norm, and permissible things (Halal) are the exception and a rarity,
then one can utilize whatever is available to fulfill his needs."
NOTE: The reference to the consumption of a dead animal is meant to
illustrate that EVEN forbidden things become permissible in a time of need.
Reference 11:
------------
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al-
Ma'athoor," v2, p176, narrates that:
Abd Ibn Hameed, on the authority of al-Hassan, said: "al-Taqiyya is
permissible until the Day of Judgment."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Reference 12:
------------
Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p102, that Abu al-Darda' said:
"(Verily) we smile for some people, while our hearts curse (those same
people)."
Reference 13:
------------
Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p81, that the Prophet (PBUH&HF)
said:
"O `Aisha, the worst of people in the sight of Allah (SWT) are those
that are avoided by others due to their extreme impudence."
NOTE: The meaning here is that one is permitted to use diplomacy to get
along with people. The above tradition was narrated when a person sought
permission to see the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) and prior to his asking
permission the Prophet (PBUH&HF) said that he was not a good man, but still
I shall see him. The Prophet talked to the person with utmost respect, upon
which Aisha inquired as to why did the Prophet (PBUH&HF) talk to the person
with respect despite his character, upon which the above reply was
rendered.
Reference 14:
------------
Narrated in Sahih Muslim (English version), Chapter MLXXVII, v4, p1373,
Tradition #6303:
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 wife, and the narration of
the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to
bring reconciliation between them).
The (Sunni) commentator of this volume of Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid
Siddiqi, provides the following commentary:
Telling of a lie is a grave sin but a Muslim is permitted to tell a
lie in some exceptional cases, and this permission is given especially
on three occasions: in case of battle for bringing reconciliation
amongst the hostile Muslims and for bringing reconciliation between
the husband and the wife. On the analogy [Qiyas] of these three
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cases, the scholars of Hadith have pointed out some other exemptions:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for saving the life and honor of innocent person from the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
highhandedness of tyrants and oppressors if one finds no other way to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
save them.
^^^^^^^^^
Notice that neither the above tradition nor the commentary are concerned
with dealing with non-Muslims only.
Please refer to Sahih Muslim Volume IV
Chapter MLXXVII
Tradition no. 6303 p1373
English only - Abdul Hamid Siddiqui
End of Part 1 of 3
-------------
Then take a look at the other parts.
Tell me what you think. Do Sunnis lie about the teachings of Islam when they speak to Infidels, or don't they? Do they do it only intermittently, or randomly? Do some individuals do it, only to be swiftly corrected and condemned by other Muslims, or do those Muslims almost to a man rally round and participate in the dissimulation?
If the word "taqiyya" won't do, because it originates in Shi'a Islam, and "kitman" won't do (but why not?) then let's stick to another word that doesn't need to be translated: Lying. Islam permits lying, deception, to protect and further the faith and the Believers from the Infidels.
Will that do as a compromise?
Good, I knew it would.
Hi Hugh,
I hope you check back, and I thank you for (sort of) answering my question. You sound cantankerous, pugnacious, feisty, whatever the right word is. Let's make it that last one. I like that! Keep it up. You're doing a great job.
I also like your facility with words. I knew already that you appreciate good literature, and would prefer to be reading it than studying the mind-numbing 'thought' of Islam.
There was no implication that you are an amateur. I think you did a fine job of exposing the sacrosanct Bernard Lewis. Not that either of us fail to realize his considerable talents, but a hard-nosed pursuit of the ugly truth wasn't one of them. Yes, having valuable, and no doubt beloved, Turkish friends put a slant on his work, shall we say.
Still, I wonder how you manage. My guess was that you had some inherited wealth and grew up in a rich and cultured environment, which would explain your love of literature. A gentleman scholar in the classic English sense, but I see I am wrong. Sorry, but I am not rich either, though I have given a bit of money to Robert (and FrontPageMag) and will do so again.
I also like to write, though I am less eloquent than you. I run several blogs, one of them warning of Islam, where I basically echo stuff found here. (I hope Robert doesn't shut me down. I always give credit!) If you go there, you can see some of my articles on the sidebar. All quite elementary, but I found satisfaction in it, and that is what counts for me.
http://islamtodayarchive.blogspot.com/
If you pursue my links further, you will see that I have abandoned Christianity for Eastern religions. How about that! Conservative, clear-headed, and anti-Armstrong when it comes to Islam and defense, but way out there (like a liberal?) when it comes to philosophy and spirituality! I know that Robert is a Greek Catholic Melkite and that many people associated with his group are conservative Christians. I am not hostile to Christianity per se, but I am sympathetic to those Hindus in India who don't like missionaries much. I was hoping to get a dialogue going with Robert by email, back when I was so naive as to think he was a poor lonely guy getting maybe 2 or 3 emails a day!
By the way, Robert, you do a great job on the radio, which I listen to on my computer. You are a natural born interviewee.
Thanks
Benjamin
Benjamin:
Hugh is in his early 80s and, presumably retired [from the rat race], so he has the time to make lengthy comments in response to posted items and in reply to comments by various bloggers on the threads.
"My guess was that you had some inherited wealth and grew up in a rich and cultured environment, which would explain your love of literature."
-- from a posting above, in reply to a previous posting
Yes, I was afraid of giving that impression, but alas, I am not leading the imagined existence of the roue and rentier, in smoking and pencil-mustache (with Edward Everett Horton playing the role of my loyal butler, briskly brushing my topcoat whenever I am about to go out on the town), the kind of well-heeled heel who repairs post-prandially to the drawing-room, where when I am not entertaining chorus girls I sit each night, for an hour or so, with a glass of Musigny at hand, cutting open envelope after envelope, removing the various checks, and putting them in piles -- oh, how tedious -- dividends here, capital-gains from the sale of stocks over there.
And there is now a third pile for returns on real estate. Just for fun, you see, I sometimes like to rent out one of my houses. The one on Lake Como, with the palm-trees and the elaborate parterre and 44 rooms, which Hollywood actors like to rent for themselves and a few friends, or that other one in the south of France, near St. Jean-Cap-Ferrat, favored by captains and kings of the computer industry in San Francisco, the ones who have branched out into wineries and film-making (or is it the film-makers who have branched out into computers, or the winemakers who have branched out into films -- it's so hard to keep things straight these days), or that castle on the salmon-filled river in the Highlands, which that publishing magnate who fancies himself a Munro-bagger has taken for the past three years running, the castle with the 22-man staff, the experienced gillie, and even a personal mountain guide, who claims he was raised in the Gaeltacht but in my infrequent lightning visits to the castle I've never heard him speak a word of it, and once on the phone I heard him speaking perfectly Home-Counties English to his mother. But what do I know -- I'm just an American visitor.
By the way, I have never noticed any relation between the possession of large sums of money, and this "rich and cultured environment" you mention. It costs nothing to read books or look at paintings (especially if the museum asks only for a "suggested contribution"). There may once have been such a relation, but too often the strike-it-richers have lowly ambitions, such as owning a sports team, or giving money to establish some absurd Foundation for World Peace, or other ignoble or hopeless, self-defeating enterprises. Think only of what Soros or for that matter Haim Saban spend their money on -- do you think Soros is acting to promote the Open Society of his beloved Popper, when he indirectly makes things easier for Islam, a belief-system in which Karl Popper would not last a minute? Do you think Haim Saban, with his modestly-titled Saban Center, is getting his moneysworth as a supporter of Israel with the kind of people he's put in charge there? There is no connection between the ability to make a fortune and political, or any other kind, of sophistication. This isn't Lincoln-Kirstein's America. And even in his day, Lincoln Kirstein was an exception.
Perhaps among the visitors to this site there are one or two who possess the sums necessary for the kind of discretionary spending that, if discreetly distributed correctly, my way,could help -- well, help save the world, and make it safer for the things that count -- for one thing. Really, it's about time.
Oh, I like that "in his early 80s" comment above. It will amuse all kinds of people.
Fo shizzle.
Hugh,
Well, I had already quoted, at length, from that A Shi'ite Encyclopedia to which you kindly referred me, and the anonymous Moriarty had responded, "...in the text you cited, the Shiite author proposes to show by reference to those Sunni texts that the Sunni rejection of theory and practice of taqya is contrary to their own scripture. Read the damn thing, Erich." [Erich being moi as you might have gathered] This was his statement that preceded the statement I had quoted for you before, "So, the fact remains that the majority Sunnis reject the concept and practice of taqya and consider it to be part of the Shi’a heresy, as is clear from the Sunni commentaries on this verse in their editions of the Qur’an and from the text which you cited."
So, while waiting for your response to my appeal, I went ahead and did some more heavy lifting from my humble doctor's satchel (three sets of curls with a reflex hammer and some isometric exercises with the syringe for my mentor's solution), and constructed a lengthy response which I introduced thusly:
"I think you are misunderstanding what it is that that Shi’ite Encyclopedia, in those passages quoted, is attempting to show. He is attempting to show, particularly with his 14 references, not that Sunnis don't do al-taqyah by another name (remember the rose that's still a rose by any other name) nor that they don't believe in that al-taqyah by another name; what he is attempting to show is that Sunnis are denying what they do & believe, and doing & believing what they deny. To point at the name of the rose and think that settles the matter about what Sunnis do and believe -- particularly when their holy Koran enjoins al-taqyah by another name -- seems specious."
I then went on to quote an exchange which R. Spencer had with the irascibly beleagueured and rather witless Kahleel Mohammed, in which Spencer makes some good points about taqyah, among other related problems with Islam. My presentation, either in the context of Spencer's exchange or culled from elsewhere, provided quotes clearly supporting the deceptive strategy from, as I put it, "three Muslim commentators whom most Sunnis esteem with utmost respect, Al-Tabari, Al-Bukhari, and Ibn Kathir".
I will presently add some of your recent comments on deception generally in Islam.
I'm awaiting Anonymous's next response. I have had years of experience wrangling with this bloke. Though the quotes I've shown you and which you might have gleaned from taking a peek at that site may not show it, he is a formidable wise guy, erudition-wise as well as logic-wise, if an enemy like the best of the Sophists, of the love of wisdom.
Hugh:
Being in my early 50s, my memory fails on occasion. Could have sworn I read something somewhere on these pages stating your age. Apologies if I overestimated your age.
No apology necessary -- you gave me a chance to quote Snoop Doggy Dog. And nowadays, isn't that the real business of living?
And besides, I have at least twice, over a two year period, owned up at JWto being 98 years old. I thought that number plucked from the air might help explain my interest in music of the 1920s and 1930s, from Jack Teagarden to Mistinguett, not to mention the appearances of Fiorello La Guardia reading the funnies, Nov Shmozz Kapop, potsie, and other bits of chronological local color. And if you want out of New York, if we must open and close in Boston, Boston Blackie, Foster Furcolo, the Pogo riots, Norbert Weiner, Al Capp, and so on should do the trick. If London, then Harry Lauder, Ivor Novello, Jack Buchanan, Elsie Randolph, and things like that. And so on. The thoroughly modern backward-looking Miniver Cheevy need no longer dream of knights of old to escape the unfortunate present. He need only go back 70-80 years, and then he's sitting on top, top of the world, just rolling along, just singing this song.
Of course this should all be taken for the mistifikatsiya it is intended to be, there not so much in order to distract from the important matter at hand but actually to help concentrate minds on it, by having, in the midst of our morality play, what used to be called way back, after the Flood but before Shakespeare, interludes.
The notion that in someone's mind's eye I bear a resemblance to Homer Simpson's father -- well, take that, young whippersnapper.
FYI, a little under one year ago, Snoop Dog issued a Bull, ex cathedra (the cathedra in this case being the guest chair on the Conan O'Brien show), to the effect that the "-izzle"-speak he had coined was no longer cool.
Well, cool I do not wish to be.
Hugh,
You make a great read! We all think so. And you've alerted me to a few things that even slipped by Robert! :-)
It's because you write in the flourishing and elegant style of an earlier age that I thought you were 'rich and cultured', though that was partly meant as tongue in cheek. Of course, erudition and wisdom have little or nothing to do with money, though it helps to have a bit of free time and not fall asleep exhausted when one gets home.
Thanks
Benjamin
"I thought you were 'rich and cultured'"
Can't be one without the other? There is a difference. Ask Paris Hilton, or the Arab sheikh who went into Hatchard's and, because he had recently bought an estate in the Home Counties, pointed to the groaning bookshelves in ever corner of the store and told the clerk "Send me one of each."
Dr.Pepper:
Snoop has a commercial out right now where he's golfing with Lee Iacocca where he does his "-izzle-" schtick, so Hugh is more current - and cooler - than you thought.
waterdragon52:
I distinctly remember Hugh referring to a book from "his childhood in the fifties" which would make him somewhat of a contemporary of yours - unless he purposely misled, that is.
My guess is that Hugh is a university professor, one of the few professions which would afford him the time to post at JW. Apart from his erudition and scholarship, he knows WAY too much about faculty and departments EVERYWHERE, in fact about academia in general, not to be a part of that system. That is not to say that he is not well-rounded, as his knowledge of popular culture and sense of humor clearly show.
How about it, Hugh? How close did I come? Or will you continue to play the man of Mystery?
Man of mystery. Trench coat. Dark glasses. Rendezvous tonight at the witching-hour under the Biltmore clock. Or just outside the hall where Mr. Memory will be appearing, at precisely 9:15 p.m., while a noisy crowd of ordinary Englishmen are crying out their challenges to him. Or if you prefer, just buy an aller simple and join me on Car 22, Compartment 7, of the train which of course belongs to La Compagnie internationale des wagons-lits, the Paris-Prague express, that will be leaving the Gare du Nord at 3:10 a.m., on November 7, 1938. Or perhaps you will meet me at the Hotel de Pera in old Stamboul, on August 17, 1952, where Andrey Demianovich will be waiting (Room 16, the one closest to Istiqlal Caddesi) and he promises to bring the documents.
And please, wear your prettiest frock, and bring your frilliest nightgown. You know what travel does to me.
Hypothesis confirmed.