How the term "Islamophobia" got shoved down your throat

Claire is extremely brave, living as she does in the Istanbul of Erdoǧan and talking sense like this. It won't be long before there's only her and Burak Bekdil left.

Really imagine that scene: a bunch of Islamists admiring how astutely the queers--people who in their ideal world would be served with the lash or hanged--had portrayed their critics as mentally disturbed. Brilliant. Let's take a leaf from them and then kill them.

Islamophobia for Counterjihadists: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islamic-awareness.html

I thought Islamophobia was a sarcastic joke...I still think it's a sarcastic joke...

Well, it's time maybe then to use, reuse, and continuing to use the term

"INFIDELPHOBIA"

to describe Islam's inherently hostile, condescending, dehumanizing, absurd, delegitimizing, etc., definitions and descriptions of non-Muslims (the "other").

Time to put the onus on the source.

how the word CHRISTMAS (WHAT!)got shoved down your throat
EDL accused of 'blackmail' in Christmas
A council leader says the it is the English Defence League (EDL) are "blackmailing" councils over the removal of the word Christmas from public celebrations.

In a letter, the EDL says it will visit towns and cities that choose titles like Winter Festival when referring to Christmas lights being switched on.

Dennis Harvey, the leader of one of the recipient councils, Nuneaton and Bedworth, said he was "appalled".
The group is staging a demonstration in Nuneaton on Saturday.
A spokesman said they were going to the town because they "want to visit every city in the country and Nuneaton has the country's first ever Sharia court".

For people to say they are supporters of traditional way of life, I do not think blackmail plays any part of a traditional English way of life”

Nuneaton and Bedworth Council
The group said it expected 1,500 people in Nuneaton and the same number at a gathering in Preston on the same day.

The council, which has no party in overall control, said the town will operate as normal while the EDL gathering takes place.

The EDL has written to some councils to urge them "not lose the meaning of Christmas by changing it to Winter Festival".

EDL leader Tommy Robinson said in the letter: "Please keep Christmas as Christmas and not let our culture and traditions be eroded and preserve English values.

"Any council that does not keep the word Christmas in the annual celebrations and opts for Winter Festival, out of the politically correct appeasement of others to the detriment of our traditions, will have their town/city visited by the English Defence League throughout the following year."

bbc website

Exactly! "Islamophobia" is as clever a term as "homophobia". "Islamophobia" is as "real" as "homophobia". Both are deceitful terms of fake victimism in order to silence critics and to project onto these critics "bigotry" that they themselves are completely guilty of.

Both terms, homophobia and Islamophobia, have not been as effective as originally hoped by the leftists and the Muslims, in silencing critics, or changing minds, or affecting the way people actually think about things. It's annoying of course, but for those employing these two terms it's mostly a way of feeling self-righteous, rather than changing existing perceptions. With Islam the main problem is still in educating the people about the true nature of Islam. With homosexuality people already know enough about what it is.

I had long been wondering who made up the term "Islamophobia". Whenever it was brought forward, usually in the form of "Islamophobia has become popular among hate-mongering ..." etc etc I usually answered "no, it is the accusation of Islamophobia that has become popular all of a sudden". But of course I was never quite happy with my answer. It seems a settled thing now, however!

The offended claim by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference that "Islamophobia is the worst form of terrorism" is as much empty vapor. Like many other claims by Islam diverting Western attention from the unwholesome declarations and intolerance of the Quran it is made up, a construct, a self-pitying victimization containing the accusation and the proof and the verdict all in one word with no need of further elaboration. Once spoken the accused is supposed to go away and hide in a hole.

Fear of Islam is a mental malaise and terrorism? Their sensitive faith cannot comprehend that such heresy exists? Sometimes I fear the OIC have not thought the term "Islamophobia" through beyond the usual complaints of persecution and oppression coming so natural to Muslims and justifying their reactions ever since the Muslim prophet Muhammad and his hand puppet invented the term "control freak". But I cannot prove that last claim unfortunately :-(

School head accused of ‘Islamophobia’ wins £400,000 after being forced out by Muslim governors

Why do we have to accept their crackpot term?
Why don't we de-legitimize it by creating alternative silly terms like:

"IZLAM-INA-PHENOBIAN"

I would rather be an "izlam-ina-phenobian"

How's about islumaphobia?

Muslim activist groups, and their Islamic supremest agenda are going to do anything they can to denigrate or marginalize those of us who recognizing the threat of the evergrowing stealth jihad. Our never ending effort is to continuously try our best to make the American people wake up to the growing threat that is sharia within our US Borders.

America is only seeing glimpses of this aggressive totalitarian ideology that demands the imposition of their supremist sharia driven ideology. Imagine dealing with Islamic populations that are now hitting as much as 10 percent or more in some EU Countries like France and the UK while we are at around a little less than 2 percent and we are still seeing their collective efforts at forcing Islam on many of our home fronts,IE Universities,public schools,our courts,our military, and our Federal government.

WE are fighting this battle on at least two fronts and more, from those who give Islam a pass because it is defined as a religion, and they refuse to see otherwise no matter how much information is out there. We have a struggle with a President who has clearly been cow towing to the Islamic world of which if not him his family is part of. We have to deal with a liberal media who also cannot see the forest through the trees or downright just plain refuses to.

On a positive note I have seen an increasing awareness of Americans over the last several years unless your name is Bloomberg,Joyce Behar,or Whoopi Goldberg, the latter did not know what a madrassa was when Bill O'Reilly had her on his program earlier this week---that speaks volumes alone.

I am NOT ISLAMPHOBIC! I dont't fear Islam. It is nothing more than a neopagan belief system controlled by demons. Allah is not GOD, and he has no power over the followers of the real God who is Father Son and HOLY Spirit. These Mohammedans are destined for the lake of fire unless they repent and believe in the Only Son of God for their forgiveness of sins. Jesus said "do not fear any ons who can kill the body ,only fear God who can destoy the body and cast the soul into hell"!

And CanadianBacon we should since their propaganda network is a lot more aggressive than ours.

But we our growing even though we to have deal with those among us who are so easily willing to appease and enable the Islamic supremacists who are working to impose sharia and depress our first amendment rights. And they are doing it right before their dhimmi eyes as they continue to wear those rose colored glasses.

Robert, you've always got the right intuition. What the Moahammedans did was real chuzpah, to learn from gays whom they hate and despise, but use their wording.

Robert makes a good point about the appropriation of terms for a strategic purpose. Muslim organizations are fond of claiming they are experiencing the same kind of prejudice as other minorities, such as anti-Semitism or racism. (However, as we know, Jews and Blacks and homosexuals haven't fought back against discrimination by violence and terrorism, no matter how "justified." Muslims rationalize violence everyday.)

I am sure that common prejudice is true to some extent, however the difference between homophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia is that when people actually come to know homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, and "others" as people, that phobia is seen as unwarranted and released.

I suspect that I am not alone however in finding that the more I learn about Islam, Sharia, jihad, and Islamic cultures the more I abhor the whole enterprise.

I don't think the word islamophobia is all that clever, nonsensical is more like it. When you consider that the traditional definition of a phobia is a fear, particularly an irrational fear of something, it makes no sense. It is actually irrational for an informed infidel not to be fearful of Islam. My guess is that these guys in the Muslim think tank [contradiction in terms] were looking for a word that would convey prejudice against Muslims. Maybe they recocognize their mistake because lately they have been using the word bigot as their main go-to insult.

The Malaysian government is flying in lecturers to the U.S to allay fears of Islamophobia. Read about it at:http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/143687

Basic English grammar.

For those of you who had to endure the minutiae of English grammar, you might remember prefixes and suffixes. Prefixes go in for of words usually to make them the opposite of the original. For example: responsive - unresponsive, relevant - irrelevant.
Suffixes are added at the end of words. For example: commune - communist. You can read more about these things here: http://www.prefixsuffix.com/affixes.php

Now a "phobia" is a suffix that denotes an irrational fear of something. For example, Australia has 3 or the world's top 5 poisonous snakes (Death Adder, Taipan, and Brown Snake). Africa has its Black Mambo, and everyone know about the Cobra and Rattlesnake, but I am not sure about their rankings. I do not have an irrational fear of snakes, but I do know that they can bite, so I am aware of the dangers and generally stay away from snakes unless I am assured of my safety by an expert snake handle at a zoo or nature park. From Wikipedia: Ophidiophobia or ophiophobia is a particular type of specific phobia, the abnormal fear of snakes.

As for "islamophobia", there is a new word with a different suffix that we should be spreading around: "islamosophia"
Do a search on the web for it. Here are a few links...

http://stubblejumpingredneck.blogspot.com/2010/08/islamosophia.html
Here's a better word for us to use. It means: "wise to the ways of Islam and no longer taken in by the pretty-sounding deceits."
We need to make this as common as Islamophobe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Ahmed_Ahmad/mosque-debate-ending----w_b_767791_64313059.html
“It is not Islamophobia. It is called Islamosophia, i.e., the KNOWLEDGE that islam is a troubling ideology.

I think "sophia" if a far better suffix than "phobia." I am an ergophobe and a gamaphobe, but I am also an islamosophe since I have read many articles, news reports and opinions about this totalitarian ideology.

islamomisia = hatred, loathing, disgust of anything islam or islamic.

From the Greek: hate, hater, hatred; disgust for; revulsion of.

Use it, spread it, nullify 'islamophobia'. People should fear islam as they fear the bogeyman.

I thought Islamophobia derived from hydrophobia, which is what you get when a mad Muslim bites you.

i suppose Islamophobia is as clever a term as the phrase Islamic supremacism :) And for the record "Allahu Akbar" means "Allah is Greater"

Allahu A'lam

And what do you suppose would be the proper term for those who despise Islam, like yourself? Having acknowledges that the assertion in the OP, that the term was originally coined by the IIIT, how did you come up with the figure of millions wanting to kill those who insult the Prophet(as)? And how does one who fallaciously uses the term "mohammedan", not qualify as an Islamophobe? Here are few definitions:

Islamophobia is prejudice against, or hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims

Stephen Schwartz has defined Islamophobia as the condemnation of the entirety of Islam and its history as extremist; denying the existence of a moderate Muslim majority; regarding Islam as a problem for the world; treating conflicts involving Muslims as necessarily their own fault; insisting that Muslims make changes to their religion; and inciting war against Islam as a whole

In 1996, the Runnymede Trust established the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, chaired by Professor Gordon Conway, the vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex. Their report, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, was launched in November 1997 by the Home Secretary, Jack Straw. In this report, Islamophobia was defined by the Trust as "an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination."

The Runnymede report identified eight perceptions related to Islamophobia:

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

2. It is seen as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

3. It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.

4. It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilization

5. It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.

6. Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand.

7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.

8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

Sounds about right as one or all of these definitions are fitting and apply in many cases. Bit maybe you guys are correct and the proper term is islamomisia = hatred, loathing, disgust of anything islam or islamic. After all, we are splitting hairs, aren't we

And where exactly is the evidence that Muhammad(saws) killed more than 6 million people? sounds like rhetoric to me.

Allahu A'lam

*Having acknowledged that the assertion in the OP, that the term was originally coined by the IIIT, is not necessarily true.

Allahu A'lam

Fitzgerald: Islamophobia? Really?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-islamophobia-really.html

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/08/26/are-you-an-islamophobe/

PHYLLIS CHESLER: CHESLER CHRONICLES

August 26th, 2009 10:17 am

Are You An Islamophobe? - Take This Test To Be Sure.

Why am I not allowed to despise and reject an ideology that permits men of 30 and 40 and 50 to 'marry' prepubescent girls and forcibly subject them to marital relations, just like Mohammed did to Aisha?

Why am I not allowed to despise and reject an ideology that tells men they can beat their women if they merely fear insubordination of some kind, from those women?

Why am I not allowed to despise and reject an ideology that says that those who leave it for another belief system, must be killed?

Why am I not allowed to despise and reject an ideology that spurns the Golden Rule, in that it feels entitled to kill or to enslave, to rob and rape and slander non-members?

Why am I not allowed to despise and reject an ideology that dares to claim that a 7th century corrupt Arab warlord, a slave-taker, rapist, gang boss, bandit and master of assassins, and a conman to boot, whose character as depicted comes across as a sort of mixture compounded of people like Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Charles Manson, Blackbeard the Pirate, Josef Stalin, and Herr Hitler, just to name a few, is 'an excellent pattern of conduct'??

I like "Christianophobia"

or "Kuffarophobia"

or "Freedomophobia"

I have just decided that the next time anyone asks whether I am islamophobic, I will reply:

Yes, I am also Naziphobic, wife beating phobic, limp chopping phobic, terrorism phobic, bomb phobic, gay bashing phobic, and sharia law being imposed in European countries phobic.

Can you recommend a good therapist??

As a philologist, I at last feel vindicated;
"islamophobia" is a non-word which violates at least two accepted criteria of classical philology.
More generally, the term "islam" violates the general understanding of the term "religion," which is universally considered to be a politically neutral belief system which advocates some version of the golden rule.

Islam is real so the fear of it cannot be a Phobia.

Infidelphobia on the other hand-is real. By command of the Koran.

Islam is real so the fear of it cannot be a Phobia.

Infidelphobia on the other hand-is real. By command of the Koran.

Robert and the supid Government Agents that support him there is no Muslim Brotherhood with the goal of destorying western civilization from the inside. Western Civilization is destorying itself without any help from muslim at all. It will be the muslim that will save the best of Western Civilization for the future.

to Muhammad-blah-blah, thanks for the clarification that Allahu Akbar means "God is greater." A subtle insight, indeed. So, the moongod Allah is GREATER than anyone elses God,eh?

defender of islam: if western civilization is destroying itself from within the what possibly could the darkness of islam have to offer? Look at the sharia complient states like Iran Pakistan etc everyone who can get out tries to get out and head to the WEST! No one is moving to the those ISLAMIC HELL HOLES WITH THEIR WIFE BEATNG, PEDOPHILIA, AND SSHARIA SANCTIONED MISTREATMENT OF NON MUSLINS.

The Muslim will save "the best of it", that is ...which in the Muslim mentality is the best parts of a carcass, of the corpse of a dead murdered civilization. Hyena-pride, it is.

Maybe DefenderofIslam is right and they are trying to de-story us. And it all started with Mohammad buying and stealing stories from the real Bible to write his phony one. :-D
---------------------------------------------------
{{I've added my own little critiques to this.}}

The Runnymede Trust has identified eight components that they say define Islamophobia.
This definition, from the 1997 document 'Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All' is widely accepted, including by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

The eight components are:

1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change. {mostly true - the only division is between Shia and Sunni. Both of those groups kill each other, kill any others who claim to be practicing muslims of another sect, AND kill 'infidels'.}

2) Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them. {All true}

3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist. {All true}

4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilizations'. {all true}

5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage. {true}

6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
{yeah, but that's because they are mostly idiotic}

7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
{What 'discriminatory practices' or exclusion? In western societies, Muslims have the same rights as other citizens. This is typical projection of wrong-doing by the self onto the victim. It is in Muslim countries that there are discriminatory practices towards others and exclusion from mainstream society. Not to mention the killings, stealing, rapes, land-grabs, assaults, kidnappings and other crimes committed against kuffirs while the authorities, who are Muslims also, look the other way.}

8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
{The anti-muslim hostility perceived by Muslims is usually there own disbelief and fear of others that manifests because they can't believe that anyone would dare criticize Islam which in their countries, is a death penalty offense}

Moderate or Unicornish, you be da judge:

*** Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 220 ***

Mohammed said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror cast in the hearts of the enemy, and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand."

*** 33:60 ***

Truly, if the Infidels stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever Infidels are found, they shall be seized and murdered without mercy - a fierce slaughter - murdered, a horrible murdering.

* 570 * 610 * 622 * 633 - 642 * 651 * 700 * 732 * 1012 * 1683 * 1492 * 2001 *

Please sign me up as an Islamophobe as soon as possible, cuz I'm askeert. Are there membership dues? And, if yes, who collects them?

What an ugly people. They know it, but they also know they're winners.

I think the term islamophobia was coined by ibrahim hooper of cair.

There is just one one to overcome the public hatred of the label "Islamophobe" That is "Embrace it with all your heart, soul, and mind" I am an Islamophobe and so is everyone I know, including two Muslim families. We do not dare to criticize the Koran for it love and support of the murder of totally innocent persons, because if we do we will be murdered and most likely our children and other members of our family too! So we are scared of Islam, really scared. The people who are not live in really well guarded gated communities, and, frankly, their anti-anxiety drugs have made them silly. I want to see bumper stickers that say, "I am an Islamophobe" I want to see "IslamophobesUnite.com" It is a word that denotes healthy sanity, prudence, and love of ones family - showing a deep and loving concern for their precious lives. I hate people who are not Islamophobes because they are so silly that they have become a danger to themselves and their families and all the rest of us who can not afford those expensive anti-anxiety pills. Stop getting tricked into believing that that wonderful word is silly or bad - that would be the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

How about "Christophobic" Easy to say and to the point.

Another thought about "Christophobia". It omits our Jewish brothers. I thought of "Judeo-Christophobic". It's a little much to mouth but I can't think of anything right now.

Yes that last bit was to highlight the hypocrisy of those who decry islamophobia while simulateously affirming and exhibiting it. The refutations follow below.

@ Battle_of_Tours

"The Swiss are getting it, expulse ALL alien criminals, regardless of race, religion, or ethnic origin. Clean house, we're fighting back, one criminal at a time. Enough."

Good job equating Muslims with criminals thereby highlighting your Islamophobia and affirming that it will be used to enact discriminatory policies against Muslims if Islamophobes gain too much political power.

@ Alarmed Pig Farmer

"*** Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 220 ***

Mohammed said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror cast in the hearts of the enemy, and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.""

The full narration reads of that hadith reads as follows:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with ru'b (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). (Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)

By using the word 'Terror' for ru'b, the Islam-hater intends to convey the following definition of terror:

Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes, including but not limited to attacking unarmed innocent civilians/non combatants.

However, the word ru'b does not have that meaning at all. It refers to fright and anxiety. In fact, we can derive a better understanding of ru'b by examing other ahadith:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) saod: "I was given victory through Ru`b: the enemy becomes filled with Ru`b even though they are the distance of a month's journey away from me." (Ahmad #20337)

The meaning is thus obvious that when the enemies' attempts to destroy the Prophet Muhammad(saws))failed, they began to fear him as he grew in strength in Arabia and gained more followers. They feared and hated the religion he brought.

Ru`b ', means, ‘Fear': Here is a list of some of the Islamic resources explaining, ‘Ru`b', as, ‘Fear', and, ‘Awe': Fat`h al-Bari bi Shar`h Sahih al-Bukhari ; Tu`hfat al-A`hwadhi bi Shar'h Jami' at-Tirmidhi ; and, Shar`h Sunan an-Nasaii . These books were written by Muslim Scholars explaining Hadeeths contained in, Sahih al-Bukhari , and the Sunan collections of Imams at-Tirmidhi and an-Nasaii, respectively

Al-Waqidi said in his, Maghazi , that Juwairiyah Bint al-Harith said, "We were at the Muraisii` area when the Messenger of Allah marched forth towards us. I heard my father say, ‘There has come to us a gathering that we cannot resist.' I saw men and horses in such numbers that I cannot describe. After I became Muslim and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, married me I looked at the Muslims and found their numbers to be less than what I had thought. I knew that this was Ru`b that Allah, the Exalted, throws in the hearts of the polytheists."

"*** 33:60 ***

Truly, if the Infidels stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever Infidels are found, they shall be seized and murdered without mercy - a fierce slaughter - murdered, a horrible murdering."

You are a liar.

Quran 33:60

If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in Madinah desist not, We shall certainly urge thee on against them, then they shall not be thy neighbours in it but for a little while

La-in lam yantahi almunafiqoona waallatheena fee quloobihim maradun waalmurjifoona fee almadeenati lanughriyannaka bihim thumma la yujawiroonaka feeha illa qaleelan

That verse is about hypocrites(munafiqun and murjifun), not "infidels". Perhaps your conflating your bogus tafsir of the so called sword verses with this verse and interpolating, since there is no mention of murder in this verse?

"* 570 * 610 * 622 * 633 - 642 * 651 * 700 * 732 * 1012 * 1683 * 1492 * 2001 *"

Great job at confirming your Islamophobia just by posting those dates.

"Please sign me up as an Islamophobe as soon as possible, cuz I'm askeert. Are there membership dues? And, if yes, who collects them?"

You are already one.

@ Lenin-McCarthy

"I think the term islamophobia was coined by ibrahim hooper of cair."

Wrong. It was in use since the early 1900's. And the idea that it was coined by the Muslim Brotherhood or the IIIT or some other Muslims with the intent to silence all criticism of Islam smacks of conspiracy theory coming from loons, butthurt that their hate is not being mainstreamed.

@ henry

"I am an Islamophobe" I hate people who are not Islamophobes'

i have encountered you before. Perhaps on Loonwatch? :) Oh BTW as if the rest of that little rant wasn't enough, the words "I hate" should clue you into the truth of your irrationality

Allahu A'lam

muhammad abd al haqq,
If Allah the moongod has been discredited how is it that Muhammad's father was named "Abdullah?" Doesn't the name mean "servant (slave) to Allah?" So Muhammad's father was a slave to Allah before Muhammad invented Allah. Maybe that's where the cart before the horse came from.

Here's a new word:

Islamorrhea

It means running one's mouth about the greatness of Islam, while denying or shutting out serious critical analysis of Islam, often by the use of the term "Islamophobia", but also by any other means.

"Of course, Mohammed did not *personally* kill millions, that would take waay too much time. But by way of his bogus 'religion' he did."

By no means is Islam a pacifist religion, but take a look at what a reknowned pacifist said about the Prophet(as):

Mohandas Ghandi:

“The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind.”

Now how could Gandhi, a clear hater of violence, promote the teachings of Muhammad(saws), and you claim he created a religion inspiring unending mass murder?

"As far as Muslims not wanting to kill people who insult Mohammed ... you are kidding, right? LOL! Turn on the television once in a while, read a paper! Look at the blasphemy laws on the books in several Islamic countries! SEE the protesters in Great Britain with signs that people who 'insult' Islam should be killed! Sheesh!"

You are asking me to put stock in police blotter scholarship? In the absence of a legitimate poll, asking all 1.57 billion Muslims if they have the desire to kill non Muslims for insulting Muhammad(saws),i will treat the media images that we are bombarded with as not enough evidence to conclude that millions of Muslims want to do this. Sure many Muslims have said this, but millions? That's just fear-mongering rhetoric.

" the massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese. We shall quote from the French historian Alain Danielou,"

First off, Alain Daniélou (4 October 1907–27 January 1994) was a French historian, intellectual, musicologist, Indologist, and a noted Western convert to and expert of Shaivite Hinduism.Indian history is to complex and this is too convoluted an issue for anyone to be able to deal with it comprehensively, or even adequately in a brief post on the internet. But it is needless to say that you mention an ideological contributor to Hindutva, a Hindutva activist and defender, and an Indian Hindu mystic and nationalist as your principle authorities in this post.Hindutva has been exposed for it's reductionist, Hindu-centric revisionist history.

Claiming that Muslim atrocities in India, and even worldwide throughout all of history are grater than,

1.Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis

2.The massacre of the Armenians by the Turks

3.The slaughter of the South American native populations by he invading Spanish and Portuguese

without mentioning

4.The massacre of Native americans period, not just in South America

5.Atlantic Slave trade

6.The Crusades and other Christian wars

7.World War 1

8.World War 2

9. The Hindus own massacre of 100 million Dravidians, Dalits, Untouchbles, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims

is merely selective reporting and rhetoric designed to distract. It amounts to trying to prove that Muslims have committed the greatest atrocities throughout human history, while ignoring the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. We can play this game all day but i guarantee you that non-Muslim atrocities far surpass Muslim ones. Bu this is not to defend Muslim atrocities, which are themselves heinous. But mention of them in a way conducive to creating a polemical environment inimical to Islam is nothing but a smokescreen for those who know they cannot prove that it is Islamic teachings that are responsible for them.

Instead the idea is "i will look at the actions of its followers to make my judgement of a religion". Sounds reasonable, but it ignores the possibility of religious adherents not following their faith properly. No one sensible will blame Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism,etc for the atrocities committed by its adherents. Who would be foolish enough to claim that atheism sanctions violence on the basis of say Communist regimes? Why the exemption for Islam?

This is police blotter scholarship a its worst. You are mentioning incidences of Muslim atrocities in a weak attempt to link it to Islam, and apply collective guilt on all 1.57 billion millions, based on the actions of our extremists. You are, like Robert Spencer, pretending to appropriately address the issue of whether Islam sanctions non-defensive(ie offensive) violence in general, and violence for the spread of Islam in particular. You are obfuscating. i am sure i can mention many many more instances of non Muslim atrocities and bring my authorities as you have brought yours. But in the end that is just appeals to authority and police blotter scholarship. Quote from the Qur'an, in context, the definitve verse or verses that sanctions and promotes,

1.offensive violence in general
2. violence for the purpose of spreading Islam

"as well as the Dutch scholar Koenraad Elst who has written a very interesting book called "Negationism in India (see next chapter),"

Koenraad Elst (born 7 August 1959) is a Belgian writer and orientalist (without institutional affiliation). He was an editor of the New Right Flemish nationalist journal Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies from 1992 to 1995, focusing on criticism of Islam, various other conservative and Flemish separatist publications such as Nucleus, 't Pallieterke, Secessie and The Brussels Journal. Having authored fifteen English language books on topics related to Indian politics and communalism, Elst is one of the most well-known western writers (along with François Gautier) to actively defend the Hindutva ideology. His writings are frequently featured in right-wing publications.

" finally from Sri Aurobindo, who was one of the very few amongst Indian revolutionaries, who had the courage to say the truth about what was called then " the Mahomedan factor "."

Sri Aurobindo (Bengali: শ্রী অরবিন্দ (অরবিন্দ ঘোষ) Sri Ôrobindo) (born Aurobindo Ghose, in Calcutta 15 August 1872 – 5 December 1950) was an Indian nationalist, freedom fighter, philosopher, yogi, and poet.[1][2] He joined the Indian movement for freedom from British rule and for a duration became one of its most important leaders.It is always possible to cite, out of context, from the vast body of Sri Aurobindo’s writings, or from his casual talks recorded from memory by his associates, or from his correspondence with his associates some remark or sentence which is critical of Muslims in India or of Islam in particular. This is what he really believed about religion:

“It is true in a sense that religion should be the dominant thing in life, its light and law, but religion as it should be and is in its inner nature, its fundamental law of being, a seeking after God, the cult of spirituality, the opening of the deepest life of the soul to the indwelling Godhead, the eternal Omnipresence. On the other hand, religion when it identifies itself only with a creed, a cult, a Church, a system of ceremonial forms, may well become a retarding force and there may therefore arise a necessity for the human spirit to reject its control over the varied activities of life.”

I could go on an on with respect to Sri Aurobindo. In any event i don't see any quotes from him by you. You rely exclusively on Danielou and Will Durant. Here is another quote:

In this talk delivered to the Annual Convention of Sri Aurobindo Society held at Pondicherry on 13 August 1994, Dr. Mangesh Nadkarni analyses the problem of Hindu-Muslim unity in the light of Sri Aurobindo’s thought. Sri Aurobindo saw this as a national but not as a political problem and cautioned us against adopting an overly political or sentimental approach to it. According to him Mother India has given a permanent place in her bosom to the Mohammedan and therefore the identity of our religious minorities should be safeguarded. Hinduism should show to the world the way to a true religious harmony on a national scale. This calls for a more dynamic, world-affirming Hinduism, strong enough to conciliate Islam. Hinduism has to learn to face the challenge of fundamentalism without either pampering or imitating it. This calls for a truly spiritual “approach and the true love of a patriot”.

"From the time when Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD,"

Contrary to popular belief, Islam came to South Asia prior to Muslim invasions of India. Islamic influence first came to be felt in the early 7th century with the advent of Arab traders. Trade relations between Arabia and the subcontinent are very ancient. Arab traders used to visit the Malabar region, which was a link between them and ports of South East Asia, to trade even before Islam had been established in Arabia. Read what historians Elliot and Dowson in their book: "The History of India as told by its own Historians", H.G. Rawlinson, in his book: "Ancient and Medieval History of India". Shaykh Zainuddin Makhdum’s “Tuhfat al-Mujahidin” also is a reliable work.This fact is corroborated, by J. Sturrock in his "South Kanara and Madras Districts Manuals:, and also by Haridas Bhattacharya in "Cultural Heritage of India Vol. IV".
The first Indian mosque was built in 629 A.D, at the behest of Cheraman Perumal, who is considered the first Indian muslim, during the life time of Muhammad (c. 571–632) in Kodungallur, in district of Thrissur, Kerala by Malik Bin Deenar.

Islam entered India more extensively when sailors and merchants from Arabia travelled to the state of Malabar during the late 7th Century and carried Islam with them.Trade and extensive non violent conversion activities led to the adoption of Islam.In Malabar, the Mappilas may have been the first community to convert to Islam because they were more closely connected with the Arabs than others. Intensive missionary activities were carried out along the coast and a number of natives also embraced Islam. These new converts were now added to the Mappila community. Thus among the Mapilas, we find, both the descendants of the Arabs through local women and the converts from among the local people.

What started in South India was followed by Muhammad bin Kasim invading Sindh(in present day Pakistan) in early 8th century AD. Sindh became the easternmost province of the Umayyad Caliphate.

In the first half of the 10th century, Mahmud of Ghazni added the Punjab to the Ghaznavid Empire and conducted several raids deeper into modern day India. A more successful later entry of Islam through Khyber Pass by Mohammad Ghori at the end of the 12th century was by Muhammad of Ghor. This eventually led to the formation of the Delhi Sultanate. The Timurids a Persianate Central Asian Sunni Muslim dynasty of originally Turko-Mongol descent whose empire included the whole of Central Asia, Iran, modern Afghanistan, as well as large parts of Pakistan, India, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Caucasus. It was founded by the militant conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) in the 14th century.

And of course in the 16th century, Timurid prince Babur, the ruler of Ferghana, invaded India and founded the Mughal Empire, which ruled most of the Indian subcontinent until its decline after Aurangzeb in the early 18th century, and was formally dissolved by the British Raj after the Indian rebellion of 1857. 632 AD is the date of the death of the Prophet(as).The rest is demagoguery.

"From the time when Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, remarks Alain Danielou, the history of India becomes a long monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of "a holy war" of their faith, of their sole God, that the Barbarians have destroyed civilisations, wiped-out entire races."

This is the rhetoric of the extremist Hundutva movement. It is very telling that you are citing them as proof of the intractable evil of all Muslims and proof that Muslims have killed more people than any group on Earth.These Hindu extremists are trying to obfuscate in order to obscure their murder of 100 million low-caste Hindus, Dravidians and Dalits and Untouchables, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and yes, Muslims!

As Aijaz Zaka Syed notes:

Mahmoud of Ghazni, and numerous "Muslim rulers" who invaded India at one time or another, were not driven by a missionary zeal to convert the subcontinent to Islam. They were merely greedy kings and conquerors like hundreds of others who came to India for its fabled riches.

Be it Mahmoud of Ghazni or Mohammed Ghouri, who invaded India 17 times, were merely men driven by a craving for power, not by a holy mission to spread Islam. They just happened to be Muslims - just like some European and Indian conquerors happened to be Christian or Hindu.

Just as Ashoka the Great was not driven by any religious zeal when he painted Kalinga red with the blood of its people, Muslim conquerors were not on a proselytizing mission.

This is why they were equally ruthless in dealing with fellow Muslims. What Babar did to Ibrahim Khilji and what Sher Shah Suri For the recipient of the Victoria Cross, see .

Sher Shah Suri (1486 – 1545) (Pashto / Urdu: شیر شاہ سوری) also known as Sher Khan or Lion King did to Humayun is what emperors and kings routinely did to each other - and not just in India.

Nadir Shah of Iran, who Rajiva says watched from the ramparts of Delhi while the 'infidels' were killed, did not kill only Hindus. If this is any consolation, almost all of those killed in Delhi at the time were Muslim subjects of the reigning King Muhammed Shah.

If Muslim rulers fought and killed Hindu kings and their subjects, they also killed their fellow Muslim rulers and their subjects with equal impunity. Mogul Emperor Aurangzeb incarcerated and killed his own father and brothers.

All this was for power and the religion of these rulers had nothing to do with the whole circus. Even the most benign of Muslim emperors like Akbar did not represent Islam or Muslims, just as most of the current lot of Muslim rulers do not.

As for the charge of forcing the Hindus to convert to Islam, there's a simple answer to the accusation. If the Muslims had indeed converted the indigenous population at sword's point, India would have been a Muslim country today, which is not the case. The Muslims are still a minority in the country of a billion.

You see, a simplistic rendering of the history of Islam allows these so called experts to reach their wild, subjective conclusions

As for William Durant, and "the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history." do i really need to respond to this emotionalism? Just another in a long line of those revisionists of history trying to make the Muslims sound like the worst people that ever existed. All done without real evidence of course, just pseudo-scholarship.

Allahu A'lam

Re the ranting screeds of our latest Mohammedan Dementor, I repeat -

http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

Read Mr Ibrahim's article, then read the Mohammedan's screed, then reread Mr Ibrahim.

Muslims lie. They are People of the Lie. And they have no idea just how repulsive we find them to be, once we have seen through their lies.

As for the Muslim pantomime of victimhood (which is also perfectly repulsive, given that *right now* in Pakistan we have Muslim clerics and howling Muslim mobs demanding the execution of a poor Pakistani Christian woman whose only 'crime' was being FALSELY accused of 'blasphemy' by a bunch of malevolent Muslim females whose invitation to embrace Islam she had rejected, and we also have Iran solemnly preparing to hang a man whose only 'crime' is that he converted from Islam to Christianity; and then there is El-Gohary, and Mohammed Hegazy, and a slew of other apostates from Islam, and critics of Islam - shall I mention Fr Daniel Sysoyev, murdered by Muslims on the front door of his church in Moscow, or Theo Van Gogh, murdered by a Muslim in broad daylight in a street in Holland? - from all over dar al Islam, who have been hounded, and threatened, and persecuted, or *killed*, just in the past few years)

I shall refer new readers to the following.

It's OK to Dislike Islam

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/03/intimidation_re.html

and 'The Passive-Aggressive Jihad'

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/03/the_passiveaggr.html

I quote, from 'It's OK to dislike Islam'

“There is nothing wrong with an attack on Islam (or any other sacred belief).”

'One of the creeping, unanalysed myths of our time is that it is somehow wrong to dislike Islam, or any part thereof, and wrong to take a dim view of its tenets and demands, and wrong to take a still dimmer view of the figure who founded it.

'I can practically hear the distant tutting and grunts of disapproval. Poor Islam. Poor Muslims. Their beliefs are being mocked. How hurtful. How 'racist.' How terribly unfair.

'No. It's not unfair at all.

'What's unfair is a demand for unearned deference and a unilateral exemption from the testing of ideas.

'What's unfair, indeed despicable, are efforts by Islamic groups to cow dissent and stifle criticism with a well-rehearsed pantomime of victimhood and the projection of false motives.

'Pretending to be hurt in order to assert one's will over others, even violently, or to gain unreciprocated favours, or to exert control over what others may say and think, is cowardly and malign. Let me say that once again. It's cowardly and malign."

As a linguistics professional, I can assure one and all that the neologisms "homophobia" and "islamophobia" are functionally meaningless. It is difficult to determine even the intended meaning of "homophobia;" the best I'm able to come up with is "fear of similarity," whatever that might mean.
"Islamophobia" is more readily understandable - "fear of islam." While defensible philologically, the term surely bespeaks the obvious; anyone who doesn't fear islam is an idiot.

Our Mohammedan Dementor in a posting above brazenly denied that Islam teaches that apostates should be killed.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260: 
Narrated Ikrima: 
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
Also 
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57, and 
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 259

Ibn Ishaq - Life of Mohammed, 550 - “The reason that Allah’s Messenger ordered Abdullash Bin Sarh slain was because he had become a Muslim and used to write down Qur’an Revelation. Then he apostatized (rejected Islam) after becoming suspicious of some verses which prophet changed after his suggestions.”

Ibn Ishaq:551 - The Messenger ordered Miqyas’ assassination because he became a renegade by rejecting Islam.”

From _Reliance of the Traveller_, Shafi'i school
o8.1 "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to he killed."
o8.4 "There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die)."

And a detailed study of the subject by one Samuel Zwemer, who was perfectly familiar with all the main Islamic texts, and had plenty of first-hand experience of what had happened to Muslims he had known, who had left Islam to become Christians.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Zwemer/Apostasy/index.htm

Samuel Zwemer's evidence is corroborated by the modern testimony of Canon Andrew White of St George's Church, Baghdad. Thirteen disaffected Muslims came to him, and over time were instructed in the Christian faith. Eventually they asked for baptism; nay, they insisted on it. He baptised them. Within the month all but two were dead: *killed by Muslims*. The two who survived were the two who had been the cagiest about revealing their change of faith.

In Iran, in Somalia, in Saudi Arabia and in Jordan, persons who have left Islam have been murdered by their former co-religionists.

And Canon Patrick Sookhdeo, himself an apostate from Islam and now an Anglican priest, in the Introduction to his book 'Freedom to Believe: Challenging Islam's Apostasy Law', has this to say:

"Islam stands alone among world religions in officially prescribing a range of severe punishments for any of its adherents who choose to leave their faith, punishments that include the death sentence.

"As a result of this aspect of Islamic teaching, most Muslim people feel a strong hostility towards apostates, and many feel they are justified - indeed duty-bound - to harass, attack or even kill former Muslims.

"In some countries apostasy is officially punishable by death (although the sentence is seldom carried out) and in some others it is treated as illegal and carries lesser punishment.

"As Islam becomes increasingly conservative and its calls for the full implementation of sharia become more insistent, the danger of a more consistent and widespread enforcing of the apostasy law increases considerably".

And as for the killing of those who criticise Islam - something with our Mohammedan dementor also brazenly denied - the canonical accounts of Mohammed's life depict him approving wholeheartedly of the assassinations of such persons as Asma bint Marwan or Abu Afak, whose only 'crime' was to have criticised and mocked Mohammed and/ or the Muslims.

"You Islamophobe!" stops conversation.
It's death to informed observation.
So here's the idea:
Say "Islamorrhea!":
"You're a stream of Islamic oration."

@ muhammad: That's a nice deflection, mislabeling Islam as criminal activity to force it to fit your view of legitimate, natural, human hostility. "Islamosophia" aptly defines Islamic scholars; those who fear and/or despise Islam/Muslims do not deserve this description.

That's YOUR definition of "Islamophia" as seen through the prism of the Islamo/Koranic universe with an agenda to 'revert' the whole world for Mohammad/Allah. But that is not the real definition as understood by reasoning human beings who see Islam for what it really is. Your s0-called "scholars" are no more than digging moles within the Islamic propaganda universe, studying the superstitious 7th century Warlord theo-political-scriptural doctrines to better spread that propaganda, not only amongst the 'unbelievers' but also amongst the conquered people of the Ulema, their own Muslims. Daily we get news of Islamic "criminal" activities. Why should we believe you or your 'religion of peace' (TM)?

We do not "fear" Islam or Muslims, in phobias; we UNDERSTAND them, in "sophia". We know.

Ah yes taqiyya, a concept neither you, all Islamophobes, nor the author of the article you linked to understands. The reality is that Islamophobes throw around the word “taqiyya” with little care for its actual meaning. It is simply sloppy rhetoric, with no real substantive value.

So i will suppose that if cries of "Islamophobia" by Muslims are intellectual cop outs, designed to silence all criticism of Islam, then cries of "taqiyya" are the ultimate intellectual cop outs of Islamophobes designed to silence rebuttals of Islamophobes.

i could write an entire treatise to refute Raymond Ibrahim, but i don't think that is necessary here, and i doubt many here would read it thoroughly.

To be sure, just as there are legitimate instances of Islamophobia, there are also legitimate instances of lazy Muslims crying "Islamophobia!". And just as there are legitimate instances of Muslim extremists employing their twisted understanding of taqiyya and kitman, there are many instances of Islamophobes crying "taqiyya" in order to silence Mainstream Muslims, and shove down our throats that the extremists' ideology and narrative is the "real Islam", firmly rooted in the Islamic tradition, texts, and teachings of Islam.

First off telling the truth is commanded in Islam, and honesty is highly praised. It's as if after learning some legitimate Arabic terms used in Islam such as jihad, shari'ah,taqiyya and kitman, you Islamophobes take your twisted or incomplete understanding of the terms and create a new buzz word. How about telling us the meanings of harb, qital, qatal, irhab, hirabah, fiqh, and/or idtirar instead, then get back to me?

You simply take the words of the extremists as truth. But wait..Aren’t all Muslims liars, engaged in taqiyya and active deception? Isn't lying part of our religion? How do you know the extremists aren't lying about Islam? When is a Muslim telling the truth? In short, who is practicing taqiyya, the mainstream Muslim-majority or the Muslim extremists and terrorists? After all, our narratives are diametrically opposed to each other, so it can’t be both groups.

Taqiyya involves the Islamic concept of religious dissimulation, not in fear of persecution, but when actually faced with extreme persecution, imminent death, torture and compulsion. Taqiyya is also defined as the practice of precautionary dissimulation practiced by followers of Shi'a Islam, whereby believers may conceal their Shi'a Muslim faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.

The term taqiyya (تقیه) is derived from the Arabic triliteral root waw-qaf-ya, denoting "piety, devotion, uprightness, and godliness, and it means the brightest star", It did not originate among Shi’a, though, but was expanded upon by them. Contrary to what Raymond Ibrahim claims, not only are taqiyya and kitman not a fundamental part of Islam, it is clear that it isn't necessarily taqiyya that is used as a form of deceit in times of war. The words for lie in Arabic are:

LIE إِفْك IFK
TO LIE كَذَبَ KAZABA

In no way does taqiyya involve active deceit. Stating that deceit is doctrinally grounded in Islam is disingenuous if not a downright lie.The first mistake in assuming that taqiyya is some essential part of Islam is the assumption that Shari'ah is the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances(this is fiqh).

Although taqiyya is a doctrine further developed in Shi’ism, exactly for the reason of persecution at the hands of the majority Sunnis, as we can see, it is also true that there is some justification for such a belief in Sunni canonical sources. Thus, renouncing Islam under duress, torture, and fear of imminent death, is the only application of taqiyya that exists in Sunni Islam, which 85% of Muslims follow. Virtually all Shi’a believe in a similar restriction of taqiyya. It is not permissible to lie about Islam.

As far as one of the few books devoted to the subject(which should give you a clue about its actual importance and application in Islam), "At-Taqiyya fi'l-Islam" (Dissimulation in Islam), the author of which, Sami Mukarem, is a Druze. The Druze are (in)famous for dissembling their religious beliefs, and as a mystical offshoot of Ismai'ilism, they are not even regarded as within the fold of Islam by most Muslims. All of your and the author's assertions about the fundamental importance and applicability of taqiyya among every "sect" in Islam is to be rejected. Most Muslims have never even heard of this doctrine until an Islamophobe brandishes it in a declaration of (faux) victory.

Any moral code worthy enough because it avoids fallacies and logical contradictions would allow for lying in certain circumstances. It's common sense that no moral code should command honesty without exception. It brings to mind the famous Nazi's at your door story. Or my own "Bin Laden at your door asking for Robert Spencer" comparison. Would you tell the truth and turn in Spencer, who is visiting you at your home? There is no need to touch on the fact that this type of allowance for lying in extreme situations is present in Christianity, Judaism, and even in atheistic or humanistic moral philosophy.

Furthermore Islam does not command that Muslims only be honest with Muslims, but lie to unbelievers. Nowhere will you find in any Quranic verse or Prophetic tradition that says lie to the“unbeliever”, lie to the “non-Muslim”, and/or lie to the “infidel”. Lying is permitted in war and under specific circumstances so is dissimulation. And that a war may be with non-Muslims is entirely incidental.

In fact, lying about the religion is considered more heinous than a regular lie, and constitutes an act of kufr; lying about the religion is forbidden. It is classified as a “lie against Allah and His Messenger”, and leads to Jahannum. There are many ayat and hadith warning about lying about Allah and Muhammad(saws), indicating that what is referred to here is lying about the religion. A Muslim who deliberately lies about Islam, would be considered an apostate(murtad), which is why many frequently say Allahu A’lam (Allah knows best),or “whatever I say that is true is from Allah, all mistakes are my own or the whispers of shaytan” to avoid this.
In addition, because the claim that Islam permits lying about the religion to further it is a fabrication, there is not a single instance in the life of the Prophet(as) in which he lied about Islam or allowed anyone else to do so.

Allahu A'lam

Ah yes taqiyya, a concept neither you, all Islamophobes, nor the author of the article you linked to understands. The reality is that Islamophobes throw around the word “taqiyya” with little care for its actual meaning. It is simply sloppy rhetoric, with no real substantive value.

So i will suppose that if cries of "Islamophobia" by Muslims are intellectual cop outs, designed to silence all criticism of Islam, then cries of "taqiyya" are the ultimate intellectual cop outs of Islamophobes designed to silence rebuttals of Islamophobes.

i could write an entire treatise to refute Raymond Ibrahim, but i don't think that is necessary here, and i doubt many here would read it thoroughly.

To be sure, just as there are legitimate instances of Islamophobia, there are also legitimate instances of lazy Muslims crying "Islamophobia!". And just as there are legitimate instances of Muslim extremists employing their twisted understanding of taqiyya and kitman, there are many instances of Islamophobes crying "taqiyya" in order to silence Mainstream Muslims, and shove down our throats that the extremists' ideology and narrative is the "real Islam", firmly rooted in the Islamic tradition, texts, and teachings of Islam.

First off telling the truth is commanded in Islam, and honesty is highly praised. It's as if after learning some legitimate Arabic terms used in Islam such as jihad, shari'ah,taqiyya and kitman, you Islamophobes take your twisted or incomplete understanding of the terms and create a new buzz word. How about telling us the meanings of harb, qital, qatal, irhab, hirabah, fiqh, and/or idtirar instead, then get back to me?

You simply take the words of the extremists as truth. But wait..Aren’t all Muslims liars, engaged in taqiyya and active deception? Isn't lying part of our religion? How do you know the extremists aren't lying about Islam? When is a Muslim telling the truth? In short, who is practicing taqiyya, the mainstream Muslim-majority or the Muslim extremists and terrorists? After all, our narratives are diametrically opposed to each other, so it can’t be both groups.

Taqiyya involves the Islamic concept of religious dissimulation, not in fear of persecution, but when actually faced with extreme persecution, imminent death, torture and compulsion. Taqiyya is also defined as the practice of precautionary dissimulation practiced by followers of Shi'a Islam, whereby believers may conceal their Shi'a Muslim faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.

The term taqiyya (تقیه) is derived from the Arabic triliteral root waw-qaf-ya, denoting "piety, devotion, uprightness, and godliness, and it means the brightest star", It did not originate among Shi’a, though, but was expanded upon by them. Contrary to what Raymond Ibrahim claims, not only are taqiyya and kitman not a fundamental part of Islam, it is clear that it isn't necessarily taqiyya that is used as a form of deceit in times of war. The words for lie in Arabic are:

LIE إِفْك IFK
TO LIE كَذَبَ KAZABA

In no way does taqiyya involve active deceit. Stating that deceit is doctrinally grounded in Islam is disingenuous if not a downright lie.The first mistake in assuming that taqiyya is some essential part of Islam is the assumption that Shari'ah is the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances(this is fiqh).

Although taqiyya is a doctrine further developed in Shi’ism, exactly for the reason of persecution at the hands of the majority Sunnis, as we can see, it is also true that there is some justification for such a belief in Sunni canonical sources. Thus, renouncing Islam under duress, torture, and fear of imminent death, is the only application of taqiyya that exists in Sunni Islam, which 85% of Muslims follow. Virtually all Shi’a believe in a similar restriction of taqiyya. It is not permissible to lie about Islam.

As far as one of the few books devoted to the subject(which should give you a clue about its actual importance and application in Islam), "At-Taqiyya fi'l-Islam" (Dissimulation in Islam), the author of which, Sami Mukarem, is a Druze. The Druze are (in)famous for dissembling their religious beliefs, and as a mystical offshoot of Ismai'ilism, they are not even regarded as within the fold of Islam by most Muslims. All of your and the author's assertions about the fundamental importance and applicability of taqiyya among every "sect" in Islam is to be rejected. Most Muslims have never even heard of this doctrine until an Islamophobe brandishes it in a declaration of (faux) victory.

Any moral code worthy enough because it avoids fallacies and logical contradictions would allow for lying in certain circumstances. It's common sense that no moral code should command honesty without exception. It brings to mind the famous Nazi's at your door story. Or my own "Bin Laden at your door asking for Robert Spencer" comparison. Would you tell the truth and turn in Spencer, who is visiting you at your home? There is no need to touch on the fact that this type of allowance for lying in extreme situations is present in Christianity, Judaism, and even in atheistic or humanistic moral philosophy.

Furthermore Islam does not command that Muslims only be honest with Muslims, but lie to unbelievers. Nowhere will you find in any Quranic verse or Prophetic tradition that says lie to the“unbeliever”, lie to the “non-Muslim”, and/or lie to the “infidel”. Lying is permitted in war and under specific circumstances so is dissimulation. And that a war may be with non-Muslims is entirely incidental.

In fact, lying about the religion is considered more heinous than a regular lie, and constitutes an act of kufr; lying about the religion is forbidden. It is classified as a “lie against Allah and His Messenger”, and leads to Jahannum. There are many ayat and hadith warning about lying about Allah and Muhammad(saws), indicating that what is referred to here is lying about the religion. A Muslim who deliberately lies about Islam, would be considered an apostate(murtad), which is why many frequently say Allahu A’lam (Allah knows best),or “whatever I say that is true is from Allah, all mistakes are my own or the whispers of shaytan” to avoid this.
In addition, because the claim that Islam permits lying about the religion to further it is a fabrication, there is not a single instance in the life of the Prophet(as) in which he lied about Islam or allowed anyone else to do so.

Allahu A'lam

Ah yes taqiyya, a concept neither you, all Islamophobes, nor the author of the article you linked to understands. The reality is that Islamophobes throw around the word “taqiyya” with little care for its actual meaning. It is simply sloppy rhetoric, with no real substantive value.

So i will suppose that if cries of "Islamophobia" by Muslims are intellectual cop outs, designed to silence all criticism of Islam, then cries of "taqiyya" are the ultimate intellectual cop outs of Islamophobes designed to silence rebuttals of Islamophobes.

i could write an entire treatise to refute Raymond Ibrahim, but i don't think that is necessary here, and i doubt many here would read it thoroughly.

To be sure, just as there are legitimate instances of Islamophobia, there are also legitimate instances of lazy Muslims crying "Islamophobia!". And just as there are legitimate instances of Muslim extremists employing their twisted understanding of taqiyya and kitman, there are many instances of Islamophobes crying "taqiyya" in order to silence Mainstream Muslims, and shove down our throats that the extremists' ideology and narrative is the "real Islam", firmly rooted in the Islamic tradition, texts, and teachings of Islam.

First off telling the truth is commanded in Islam, and honesty is highly praised. It's as if after learning some legitimate Arabic terms used in Islam such as jihad, shari'ah,taqiyya and kitman, you Islamophobes take your twisted or incomplete understanding of the terms and create a new buzz word. How about telling us the meanings of harb, qital, qatal, irhab, hirabah, fiqh, and/or idtirar instead, then get back to me?

You simply take the words of the extremists as truth. But wait..Aren’t all Muslims liars, engaged in taqiyya and active deception? Isn't lying part of our religion? How do you know the extremists aren't lying about Islam? When is a Muslim telling the truth? In short, who is practicing taqiyya, the mainstream Muslim-majority or the Muslim extremists and terrorists? After all, our narratives are diametrically opposed to each other, so it can’t be both groups.

Taqiyya involves the Islamic concept of religious dissimulation, not in fear of persecution, but when actually faced with extreme persecution, imminent death, torture and compulsion. Taqiyya is also defined as the practice of precautionary dissimulation practiced by followers of Shi'a Islam, whereby believers may conceal their Shi'a Muslim faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.

The term taqiyya (تقیه) is derived from the Arabic triliteral root waw-qaf-ya, denoting "piety, devotion, uprightness, and godliness, and it means the brightest star", It did not originate among Shi’a, though, but was expanded upon by them. Contrary to what Raymond Ibrahim claims, not only are taqiyya and kitman not a fundamental part of Islam, it is clear that it isn't necessarily taqiyya that is used as a form of deceit in times of war. The words for lie in Arabic are:

LIE إِفْك IFK
TO LIE كَذَبَ KAZABA

In no way does taqiyya involve active deceit. Stating that deceit is doctrinally grounded in Islam is disingenuous if not a downright lie.The first mistake in assuming that taqiyya is some essential part of Islam is the assumption that Shari'ah is the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances(this is fiqh).

Although taqiyya is a doctrine further developed in Shi’ism, exactly for the reason of persecution at the hands of the majority Sunnis, as we can see, it is also true that there is some justification for such a belief in Sunni canonical sources. Thus, renouncing Islam under duress, torture, and fear of imminent death, is the only application of taqiyya that exists in Sunni Islam, which 85% of Muslims follow. Virtually all Shi’a believe in a similar restriction of taqiyya. It is not permissible to lie about Islam.

As far as one of the few books devoted to the subject(which should give you a clue about its actual importance and application in Islam), "At-Taqiyya fi'l-Islam" (Dissimulation in Islam), the author of which, Sami Mukarem, is a Druze. The Druze are (in)famous for dissembling their religious beliefs, and as a mystical offshoot of Ismai'ilism, they are not even regarded as within the fold of Islam by most Muslims. All of your and the author's assertions about the fundamental importance and applicability of taqiyya among every "sect" in Islam is to be rejected. Most Muslims have never even heard of this doctrine until an Islamophobe brandishes it in a declaration of (faux) victory.

Any moral code worthy enough because it avoids fallacies and logical contradictions would allow for lying in certain circumstances. It's common sense that no moral code should command honesty without exception. It brings to mind the famous Nazi's at your door story. Or my own "Bin Laden at your door asking for Robert Spencer" comparison. Would you tell the truth and turn in Spencer, who is visiting you at your home? There is no need to touch on the fact that this type of allowance for lying in extreme situations is present in Christianity, Judaism, and even in atheistic or humanistic moral philosophy.

Furthermore Islam does not command that Muslims only be honest with Muslims, but lie to unbelievers. Nowhere will you find in any Quranic verse or Prophetic tradition that says lie to the“unbeliever”, lie to the “non-Muslim”, and/or lie to the “infidel”. Lying is permitted in war and under specific circumstances so is dissimulation. And that a war may be with non-Muslims is entirely incidental.

In fact, lying about the religion is considered more heinous than a regular lie, and constitutes an act of kufr; lying about the religion is forbidden. It is classified as a “lie against Allah and His Messenger”, and leads to Jahannum. There are many ayat and hadith warning about lying about Allah and Muhammad(saws), indicating that what is referred to here is lying about the religion. A Muslim who deliberately lies about Islam, would be considered an apostate(murtad), which is why many frequently say Allahu A’lam (Allah knows best),or “whatever I say that is true is from Allah, all mistakes are my own or the whispers of shaytan” to avoid this.
In addition, because the claim that Islam permits lying about the religion to further it is a fabrication, there is not a single instance in the life of the Prophet(as) in which he lied about Islam or allowed anyone else to do so.

Allahu A'lam

?

Allahu A'lam

Ah yes taqiyya, a concept neither you, all Islamophobes, nor the author of the article you linked to understands. The reality is that Islamophobes throw around the word “taqiyya” with little care for its actual meaning. It is simply sloppy rhetoric, with no real substantive value.

So i will suppose that if cries of "Islamophobia" by Muslims are intellectual cop outs, designed to silence all criticism of Islam, then cries of "taqiyya" are the ultimate intellectual cop outs of Islamophobes designed to silence rebuttals of Islamophobes.

i could write an entire treatise to refute Raymond Ibrahim, but i don't think that is necessary here, and i doubt many here would read it thoroughly.

To be sure, just as there are legitimate instances of Islamophobia, there are also legitimate instances of lazy Muslims crying "Islamophobia!". And just as there are legitimate instances of Muslim extremists employing their twisted understanding of taqiyya and kitman, there are many instances of Islamophobes crying "taqiyya" in order to silence Mainstream Muslims, and shove down our throats that the extremists' ideology and narrative is the "real Islam", firmly rooted in the Islamic tradition, texts, and teachings of Islam.

First off telling the truth is commanded in Islam, and honesty is highly praised. It's as if after learning some legitimate Arabic terms used in Islam such as jihad, shari'ah,taqiyya and kitman, you Islamophobes take your twisted or incomplete understanding of the terms and create a new buzz word. How about telling us the meanings of harb, qital, qatal, irhab, hirabah, fiqh, and/or idtirar instead, then get back to me?

You simply take the words of the extremists as truth. But wait..Aren’t all Muslims liars, engaged in taqiyya and active deception? Isn't lying part of our religion? How do you know the extremists aren't lying about Islam? When is a Muslim telling the truth? In short, who is practicing taqiyya, the mainstream Muslim-majority or the Muslim extremists and terrorists? After all, our narratives are diametrically opposed to each other, so it can’t be both groups.

Taqiyya involves the Islamic concept of religious dissimulation, not in fear of persecution, but when actually faced with extreme persecution, imminent death, torture and compulsion. Taqiyya is also defined as the practice of precautionary dissimulation practiced by followers of Shi'a Islam, whereby believers may conceal their Shi'a Muslim faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.

The term taqiyya (تقیه) is derived from the Arabic triliteral root waw-qaf-ya, denoting "piety, devotion, uprightness, and godliness, and it means the brightest star", It did not originate among Shi’a, though, but was expanded upon by them. Contrary to what Raymond Ibrahim claims, not only are taqiyya and kitman not a fundamental part of Islam, it is clear that it isn't necessarily taqiyya that is used as a form of deceit in times of war. The words for lie in Arabic are:

LIE إِفْك IFK
TO LIE كَذَبَ KAZABA

In no way does taqiyya involve active deceit. Stating that deceit is doctrinally grounded in Islam is disingenuous if not a downright lie.The first mistake in assuming that taqiyya is some essential part of Islam is the assumption that Shari'ah is the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances(this is fiqh).

Although taqiyya is a doctrine further developed in Shi’ism, exactly for the reason of persecution at the hands of the majority Sunnis, as we can see, it is also true that there is some justification for such a belief in Sunni canonical sources. Thus, renouncing Islam under duress, torture, and fear of imminent death, is the only application of taqiyya that exists in Sunni Islam, which 85% of Muslims follow. Virtually all Shi’a believe in a similar restriction of taqiyya. It is not permissible to lie about Islam.

As far as one of the few books devoted to the subject(which should give you a clue about its actual importance and application in Islam), "At-Taqiyya fi'l-Islam" (Dissimulation in Islam), the author of which, Sami Mukarem, is a Druze. The Druze are (in)famous for dissembling their religious beliefs, and as a mystical offshoot of Ismai'ilism, they are not even regarded as within the fold of Islam by most Muslims. All of your and the author's assertions about the fundamental importance and applicability of taqiyya among every "sect" in Islam is to be rejected. Most Muslims have never even heard of this doctrine until an Islamophobe brandishes it in a declaration of (faux) victory.

Any moral code worthy enough because it avoids fallacies and logical contradictions would allow for lying in certain circumstances. It's common sense that no moral code should command honesty without exception. It brings to mind the famous Nazi's at your door story. Or my own "Bin Laden at your door asking for Robert Spencer" comparison. Would you tell the truth and turn in Spencer, who is visiting you at your home? There is no need to touch on the fact that this type of allowance for lying in extreme situations is present in Christianity, Judaism, and even in atheistic or humanistic moral philosophy.

Furthermore Islam does not command that Muslims only be honest with Muslims, but lie to unbelievers. Nowhere will you find in any Quranic verse or Prophetic tradition that says lie to the“unbeliever”, lie to the “non-Muslim”, and/or lie to the “infidel”. Lying is permitted in war and under specific circumstances so is dissimulation. And that a war may be with non-Muslims is entirely incidental.

In fact, lying about the religion is considered more heinous than a regular lie, and constitutes an act of kufr; lying about the religion is forbidden. It is classified as a “lie against Allah and His Messenger”, and leads to Jahannum. There are many ayat and hadith warning about lying about Allah and Muhammad(saws), indicating that what is referred to here is lying about the religion. A Muslim who deliberately lies about Islam, would be considered an apostate(murtad), which is why many frequently say Allahu A’lam (Allah knows best),or “whatever I say that is true is from Allah, all mistakes are my own or the whispers of shaytan” to avoid this.
In addition, because the claim that Islam permits lying about the religion to further it is a fabrication, there is not a single instance in the life of the Prophet(as) in which he lied about Islam or allowed anyone else to do so.

Allahu A'lam

???????

Ah yes taqiyya, a concept neither you, all Islamophobes, nor the author of the article you linked to understands. The reality is that Islamophobes throw around the word “taqiyya” with little care for its actual meaning. It is simply sloppy rhetoric, with no real substantive value.

So i will suppose that if cries of "Islamophobia" by Muslims are intellectual cop outs, designed to silence all criticism of Islam, then cries of "taqiyya" are the ultimate intellectual cop outs of Islamophobes designed to silence rebuttals of Islamophobes.

i could write an entire treatise to refute Raymond Ibrahim, but i don't think that is necessary here, and i doubt many here would read it thoroughly.

To be sure, just as there are legitimate instances of Islamophobia, there are also legitimate instances of lazy Muslims crying "Islamophobia!". And just as there are legitimate instances of Muslim extremists employing their twisted understanding of taqiyya and kitman, there are many instances of Islamophobes crying "taqiyya" in order to silence Mainstream Muslims, and shove down our throats that the extremists' ideology and narrative is the "real Islam", firmly rooted in the Islamic tradition, texts, and teachings of Islam.

First off telling the truth is commanded in Islam, and honesty is highly praised. It's as if after learning some legitimate Arabic terms used in Islam such as jihad, shari'ah,taqiyya and kitman, you Islamophobes take your twisted or incomplete understanding of the terms and create a new buzz word. How about telling us the meanings of harb, qital, qatal, irhab, hirabah, fiqh, and/or idtirar instead, then get back to me?

You simply take the words of the extremists as truth. But wait..Aren’t all Muslims liars, engaged in taqiyya and active deception? Isn't lying part of our religion? How do you know the extremists aren't lying about Islam? When is a Muslim telling the truth? In short, who is practicing taqiyya, the mainstream Muslim-majority or the Muslim extremists and terrorists? After all, our narratives are diametrically opposed to each other, so it can’t be both groups.

Taqiyya involves the Islamic concept of religious dissimulation, not in fear of persecution, but when actually faced with extreme persecution, imminent death, torture and compulsion. Taqiyya is also defined as the practice of precautionary dissimulation practiced by followers of Shi'a Islam, whereby believers may conceal their Shi'a Muslim faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.

The term taqiyya (تقیه) is derived from the Arabic triliteral root waw-qaf-ya, denoting "piety, devotion, uprightness, and godliness, and it means the brightest star", It did not originate among Shi’a, though, but was expanded upon by them. Contrary to what Raymond Ibrahim claims, not only are taqiyya and kitman not a fundamental part of Islam, it is clear that it isn't necessarily taqiyya that is used as a form of deceit in times of war. The words for lie in Arabic are:

LIE إِفْك IFK
TO LIE كَذَبَ KAZABA

In no way does taqiyya involve active deceit. Stating that deceit is doctrinally grounded in Islam is disingenuous if not a downright lie.The first mistake in assuming that taqiyya is some essential part of Islam is the assumption that Shari'ah is the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances(this is fiqh).

Although taqiyya is a doctrine further developed in Shi’ism, exactly for the reason of persecution at the hands of the majority Sunnis, as we can see, it is also true that there is some justification for such a belief in Sunni canonical sources. Thus, renouncing Islam under duress, torture, and fear of imminent death, is the only application of taqiyya that exists in Sunni Islam, which 85% of Muslims follow. Virtually all Shi’a believe in a similar restriction of taqiyya. It is not permissible to lie about Islam.

As far as one of the few books devoted to the subject(which should give you a clue about its actual importance and application in Islam), "At-Taqiyya fi'l-Islam" (Dissimulation in Islam), the author of which, Sami Mukarem, is a Druze. The Druze are (in)famous for dissembling their religious beliefs, and as a mystical offshoot of Ismai'ilism, they are not even regarded as within the fold of Islam by most Muslims. All of your and the author's assertions about the fundamental importance and applicability of taqiyya among every "sect" in Islam is to be rejected. Most Muslims have never even heard of this doctrine until an Islamophobe brandishes it in a declaration of (faux) victory.

Any moral code worthy enough because it avoids fallacies and logical contradictions would allow for lying in certain circumstances. It's common sense that no moral code should command honesty without exception. It brings to mind the famous Nazi's at your door story. Or my own "Bin Laden at your door asking for Robert Spencer" comparison. Would you tell the truth and turn in Spencer, who is visiting you at your home? There is no need to touch on the fact that this type of allowance for lying in extreme situations is present in Christianity, Judaism, and even in atheistic or humanistic moral philosophy.

Furthermore Islam does not command that Muslims only be honest with Muslims, but lie to unbelievers. Nowhere will you find in any Quranic verse or Prophetic tradition that says lie to the“unbeliever”, lie to the “non-Muslim”, and/or lie to the “infidel”. Lying is permitted in war and under specific circumstances so is dissimulation. And that a war may be with non-Muslims is entirely incidental.

In fact, lying about the religion is considered more heinous than a regular lie, and constitutes an act of kufr; lying about the religion is forbidden. It is classified as a “lie against Allah and His Messenger”, and leads to Jahannum. There are many ayat and hadith warning about lying about Allah and Muhammad(saws), indicating that what is referred to here is lying about the religion. A Muslim who deliberately lies about Islam, would be considered an apostate(murtad), which is why many frequently say Allahu A’lam (Allah knows best),or “whatever I say that is true is from Allah, all mistakes are my own or the whispers of shaytan” to avoid this.
In addition, because the claim that Islam permits lying about the religion to further it is a fabrication, there is not a single instance in the life of the Prophet(as) in which he lied about Islam or allowed anyone else to do so.

Allahu A'lam

OMG sorry for the posting the same thing 5 times!!1 it was not my intention to spam, it was due to computer problems.

Allahu A'lam

I decide to take a walk back through some old threads, and what do I find? A Mohammedan spin-doctor busy spin, spin, spinning and insulting various posters including myself.

The trouble is: we Westerners are starting to learn, from hard personal experience, everywhere that we encounter Muslims in our own lands or outside it, that ...Muslims lie - as continuously as breathing.

And given that they are permitted to lie to us about Islam, and to use every imaginable form of rhetoric to deceive, to obfuscate, to confuse, to bamboozle, why should we trust even one word that issues from their mouths?

http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

"How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War: Defeating Jihadist Terrorism," by fluent-in-Arabic Coptic-background scholar Raymond Ibrahim in the Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2010.

For the benefit of any future reader who may stumble in here, and may be confused by the flowery denials and obfuscations and misdirections of the Mohammedan al haqq, above, I am also going to also post a very interesting piece of personal testimony by an American who worked for a long time, attempting to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq.

"Friday April 28, 2006:

"Life in Iraq Part II, A Civilisation of Deception.

'Posted on The Autonomist web-site.

"If the Iran nuclear crisis seems like 'deja vu all over again" it's because it is.

"The United States, along with most of the world, stood in awe during the run-up to the Persian Gulf War, as Saddam Hussein seemed to make and break a dizzying array of promises and commitments with frightening speed and ease, right up until the moment we unleashed our tanks and his vaunted armies unleashed their white flags.

"The UN, Europe, and the Clinton Administration jumped for joy at every promise the lovely and talented Mr. Arafat spewed forth in support of the "Roadmap to Peace", until his unbroken streak of broken promises finally ended -- but only because he finally died.

"Now we have a similar scenario with Iran's "enthusiastic" leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (damn Muslim names -- let's just call him "Uncle Mah", shall we?) who makes more promises about "peaceful future intentions" than a convicted child molester up for parole. The only difference is, the child molester has a much better chance of keeping his promises to reform and rehabilitate -- and we all know how likely that is!

"So what is it about these blessed followers of the "Religion of Peace" that enables them to -- not bend, not spin, not obfuscate -- but flat-out LIE all the time?

"I'm no anthropologist, but the time I've spent in Iraq over the last couple of years has provided me with a big clue as to why these guys seem so able to look the world straight in the eye and lie as easily and frequently as they bend over and . . .well, pray.

"Survival of the Fittest

"Although I'm weak in anthropology, I did get an 'A' in biology years ago, and what I learned has given me insight into these strange organisms we call Middle Eastern Muslims. Every organism alive on the planet is good at something. Each has some sort of defense or capability or behavior that gave them an edge over other organisms of past eras and allowed them to evolve to overcome life's challenges and survive to this day.

"Rabbits are fast runners and fast breeders. Tigers are amazingly skilled hunting machines. Elephants are immensely tough and powerful. Monkeys are highly intelligent and adaptable. Frogs have poisonous skin.

"But Muslims, like the stick bug and the chameleon and the stone fish, have developed, to an amazing extent, the ability to deceive. And it is that ability that confounds their environmental competitors (you and me) the most.

"These types of organisms -- "lie-in-wait" predators -- must know the full range of behaviors of the organisms they wish to defeat, so as to position themselves correctly for the strike. They are not necessarily strong or powerful, so they must know what frightens, arouses, lures, relaxes, and weakens that which they intend to destroy. For the Muslim, the idea is to exploit our greatest vulnerability -- PC thinking.

"It is no accident that the Muslims chose to openly start attacking the West on their own turf in the '60s and '70s, right around the time when PC ideology in our culture was starting to pick up steam and cloud our collective judgment. Would Muslims have attacked New York while U.S. Grant was president? Or London while King George III was on the throne? How about the Paris riots during Napoleon's time? I don't think so.

"The Deceiver picked up on this latest dominant PC, therapeutic, Leftist strain in Western culture, and, patient and shrewd as he is, has successfully exploited it for the last few decades. The only time they seem to have paid any price was when the United States had good old-fashioned cowboys at the tiller -- Bush I and Bush II.

"They continue to try and deceive by maintaining their false cries of victimhood, blustering lies, and ridiculous charades, for they have internalized and mastered what Sun Tsu considered the most valuable tactic in warfare: Deception.

"They hone these deceptive traits by practicing on themselves, first and foremost, by perfecting the art that most Westerners would call "lying."

"But to them it's not really lying. To them, lying is simply the most effective means at their disposal for saving face, being clever, getting ahead, and trying to appear superior. Remember, deception is the Muslim's most developed trait; their secret weapon. Its constant exercise is not a matter of shame, it's a matter of pride.

"And they absolutely drool at the sight of an unsuspecting Westerner who waltzes into their midst, like the juicy beetle oblivious to the chameleon, with his Christian-based ideas of "Truth" and "honesty" and "ethics" and "integrity." From Alexander the Great to the 101st Airborne, the first thing the Arabs saw was not our frightening array of weapons, but the big "Tootsie Pop" signs stenciled on our foreheads.

"Agreements

"I never had cause to think about what a powerful concept "Agreement" is until I came to Iraq. Whether some friends agree to meet at a restaurant for lunch, or a supplier agrees to provide 10 truckloads of materials to a jobsite on a specific day, or lease papers are signed on a house, an Agreement gives all parties the incredible power to predict the future. Agreements provide us simple human creatures with the amazing ability to come together and create a shared vision about a future point in time. Then, together as agreed, we can organize and accomplish something towards that point in an otherwise chaotic world fraught with unpredictability.

"But in the Middle East {that is, in the *Muslim* Middle East - dda}, there is no such thing as an Agreement.

"Whether a verbal commitment or a look straight in the eye or firm handshake or even a written contract, these things here are worth next to nothing.

"Rather than organizing or finalizing anything, these acts merely serve as a continuation of the struggle by one party to screw the other party more than they plan on getting screwed themselves.

"Accomplishing a given task, taking pride in one's work, achieving competence, and even basic concepts of economic gain through mutual trade, take a far back seat to the massive satisfaction gained by getting something more out of someone else then they get from you.

"Here's how it works on a deal between a plumber and a homeowner, for example: The plumber will agree to re-pipe the homeowner's bathroom, and the homeowner will agree to pay a price for the service.

"But, the plumber knows from the beginning that the homeowner will come up with some excuse to hold out some payment at the end. And the homeowner knows from the beginning that the plumber is going to cut unimaginable corners and do less work with cheaper materials than what was agreed. Since both were correct in their assumptions, who is to blame? Is it "lying" when both parties correctly assume that the other is doing it?

"The Art of the Deal in Iraq is to figure out, not if someone will try and screw you, but how and when.

"The focus is always on not getting caught over a barrel by the other guy, and to try to get the other guy over that barrel, using deception, lies, misinformation, lies, misdeeds, lies, and finally, more lies.

"The Agreement, that poor casualty of the desert sands, is considered to be a first step, not a final arrival, on the long march to screwing the "other guy."

"A few days ago, I was called point blank and to my face a "thief" and a "liar" by an 85-year-old Iraqi from whom we are leasing a house. I wrote the lease agreement, including clearly stating the price for the first 6 months, and then a discount price for the second 6 months. These prices were based on verbal (read: painful) negotiations that had lasted for days. Once completed, I gave the lease contract to the gentleman, and he had it for 2 days. He contacted me a couple of times to change a few minor details, which I did. He then signed it, and I signed it, and then I sent it off to our offices in the US for payment processing.

"The day after we signed, the gentleman was beside himself and putting on all sorts of theatrics.

"With full-blown indignation, he said the price was too low, and "the person" who wrote that wretched lease was trying to trick him and was a thief and a liar!

"(He knew that "the person" was me, he just wouldn't say so to my face -- more on that below.)

"He was threatening to back out and we needed the place, so I bribed him with some AC units at the end of our term.

"Only in the Middle East can one be called a thief and a liar for conniving to make the terms of a contract clear, and then expecting those terms to be met after the contract is signed.

"Middle East Muslim "Honor"

"In addition to trying to screw each other, there is the opposite condition of trying to avoid embarrassment -- to "save face" or keep one's "honor" in front of each other.

"Under this cultural imperative the lies fly, efforts die, but the Muslim, forever, keeps his head held high.

"So, for example, when you are talking to a company president about delivery progress of a critical item by his company to a location, he's getting his information from his assistant, who is getting it from the field supervisor, who is getting it from the guy who is related to the guy who is friends with the guy who owns the trucking company, who gets it from the dispatcher, who gets it from the truck driver (who also happens to be the company president’s nephew, but that's another story).

"Each and every one of these guys, all the way through the chain, will lie to the guy above him when asked about the delay in shipment (and there IS a delay -- always). In order to save face, each will say whatever they think is good news, no matter how false and misleading it actually is.

" By the time you talk to the boss, who is also trying to save face with you, there is no relationship between what you are being told and what is really happening -- none.

"I had steel prefabricated buildings to construct at project sites throughout Iraq. They were to be ordered from a factory in Kuwait, fabricated, loaded, and trucked to sites in Iraq in 11 weeks.

"I inquired as to progress at least weekly. I was told when they were ordered, when manufacturing began, when they were completed, when the buildings were staged, when they were loaded onto trucks, and when the trucks were waiting at the Iraq border. Everything was communicated with exact details every step of the way.

The trucks were held up at the border for several days, then a week, then two weeks. Excuses abounded.

"I finally sent a Westerner down to the factory in Kuwait, only to find that the first step -- the order -- had not yet been placed.

"So why did the lies stop at the border?

"Because the final step was to deliver the buildings to a site in Iraq that had Westerners on it, so at that point everyone knew the truth would finally come out.

"I have the same story for drawings development, materials delivery, work crew subcontracting and mobilizations, security incidents, equipment delivery and basically every single step that involved only Arabs [i.e. Arab Muslims] when no Western direct oversight was possible.

"**For us, in order to operate effectively at all, everything must be assumed to be a complete pack of lies until a Westerner gets "eyes on" to give us the real, (and generally very bad), news** {my emphasis - dda}

"Lying is the only way a completely incompetent person who is trying to screw everyone can possibly retain any sense of dignity among others.

"Welcome to the [Muslim] Middle East.

"Why Not Just Do It Yourself?

"Direct oversight is the key, of course. But if I need to verify that the doorknobs are actually at the warehouse like I'm told, it costs me thousands of dollars in PSD services to go see for myself, and me and my team are all risking our lives in the process.

"And the Great Deceivers know it, and use the security conditions against Westerners here to maximum effect.

"I have projects out on the Syrian border in the Anbar province; a tough area.

"The area was deemed by the Government too dangerous to allow Westerners to stay at the sites, so the work was to be done by just Iraqi subcontractors, who were supposed to provide progress reports and photos. I was beside myself after two months of good progress reports, but not one photo.

"Naturally, I had to go see it for myself what was going on -- such is life when the Government is asking you every day where millions of dollars of taxpayer money has been going for months and you have not one verifiable answer.

"So I got out there under heavy escort, and naturally the work was way off schedule compared to the reports, which was expected. But to find that out, the cost to the project (your tax dollars at work) was about $35,000 in security escort costs, just for me to get to the truth beyond the giant force field of lies.

" I finally got the roughly 200 photos I needed. That's about $175.00 per digi-photo, for those keeping score at home.

"Of course, any of the Iraqi engineers on site could have taken the photos I had requested repeatedly and simply e-mailed them to me. But that would have caused his boss to lose some of his "honor" -- simply unacceptable.

"Good news means honor, bad news means dishonor, and accurate news is never seriously considered.

"Hurt Feelings

"The stories are endless (even more endless than the length of this post!) At first we were all offended at being lied to so much. But after a while, you stop taking it personally, and you just start giving credit where credit is due:

"**They can't build anything, can't manufacture anything, and can't fix anything that breaks. But at least they are good at one thing: lying their asses off all day, every day** {my emphasis - dda}.

"Think about this the next time "Uncle Mah" starts talking about using his nukes to provide electricity for starving farmers and poor school children.

"He's not lying; he's just trying to tell the PC West (our collective jugular), what it really wants to hear. He's a pleaser, and he's out to "please" you!

"After being in this snake pit for some time, I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone thinks that "diplomacy" or "negotiations" or "agreements" with any Middle Eastern leader {sic: any Middle Eastern *Muslim* leader - dda} during a crisis can possibly result in anything productive.

"They have no reservations -- none -- about lying about anything and everything.

"There words and agreements mean absolutely nothing. How far can negotiations really take you under such conditions?!

"Let's take a quiz:

"Q: Why are there no democracies in the Muslim Middle East?

"A: Democracies are based on the possibility of mutually held Agreements between people.

" Democracy is unsustainable in cultures where lying is acceptable and constant.

"Q: Why is every Muslim Middle Eastern country characterized by either rigid oppression or chaotic violence?

"A: The coercive use of violence is the only way to ensure Muslims in the Middle East will live up to any obligations, including basic social order and function.

"Middle East countries where chaos currently reigns, like Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, are merely examples of what Muslims are like without coercion.

"Q: How is it that intelligence gathering by Western powers, whether it is about the weapons capabilities of an entire nation, or the simple location of a lone thug, is so constantly stymied and duped in the Middle East?

"A: The job of intelligence gatherers is to determine the truth. I wouldn't take that job in the Middle East for all the money in Michael Moore's Halliburton stocks.

"Q: Have you ever seen anything that says "Made in Saudi Arabia"? What was the last thing invented or produced by Middle Eastern Muslims that helped advance humankind? Why are they so incompetent at virtually everything?

"A: Although some individuals with quality talents certainly exist here,

"it would be impossible to gather enough in one place to Agree to cooperate in any sort of complex or significant effort.

"The only time Muslims can stick together long enough to produce anything en masse, like nuclear missiles for "Uncle Mah," is under the threat of force.

"Q: Why is it that Muslim leaders can stare the world in the eye and lie through their teeth without even flinching?

"A: They're not lying, they are "negotiating" with people they assume to be complete suckers.

"Q: Are they right?

"A: Good question."

Al haqq, above, thinks *we're* suckers.

Sorry.

No-one's buying.

Islam is as Islam does...and Islam *is* as Islam says, in its 'sacred' texts and the example of its murderous warlord cult-leader, over and over and over.

I hear the flowery rhetoric of al-haqq, above, but what I see are the bodies of the children in the school in Beslan, and the bodies of the rabbi and his wife in Nariman House in Mumbai, and I see the smiler with the knife under the cloak.

'Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p102, Abu al-Darda' said:
"(Verily) we smile for some people, while our hearts curse (those same 
people)."

Nonie Darwish, apostate from Islam.

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=17069DA6-6C04-4E06-81C7-010C9F29AD55

A few excerpts.

"We regularly heard the cursing of non-Muslims from the pulpits of mosques.
As a young woman, I visited a Christian friend in Cairo during the Friday prayers, and we both heard the verbal attacks on Christians and Jews from the loudspeakers.

'We heard "May God destroy the infidels and the Jews, the enemies of God. We are not to befriend them or make treaties with them." We also heard the worshipers respond "Amen".

' I heard ‘cursing prayers’ all my life from the pulpits of mosques -- and believe it or not if you grow up with cursing prayers, it can feel and sound normal."

More:

"I was happy to return to the US on the evening of Sept. 10th. 2001. The next morning I saw the second airplane hit the twin towers, I knew ‘Jihad has come to America.’ Muhammad Attah was from Cairo, the same city I came from.

'I called several friends in Cairo, they were all in denial and said ‘How dare you say that Arabs did this? Don’t you know this is a Jewish conspiracy?'

'
These were not radicals, but ordinary Egyptians who otherwise are very nice people.

' I hung up the phone and felt alone and disconnected from my culture of origin. Once again, my people are accusing the Jewish people of something we know very well, we Arabs have done ourselves.

'In any religion this is considered a sin, but in the eyes of radical Islam, Jews do not deserve the truth, justice or mercy. The Jews that we describe in our mosques, Arab textbooks and media don't exist. We, Arabs are fighting an imaginary Jew of our own creation. Israel is not perfect; no society is; but the way the Jews and minorities are treated by my people is tragic and a disgrace."

More:

"Islamic Sharia law is a dictator’s dream handed to him by Allah."

And finally:

"On Arab TV, I once saw a Muslim preacher telling little children that lying is not allowed except under three conditions

"1- Lying to non-Muslims when it is in the best interest of Islam.

" 2- Lying to Muslims if it will end conflict between them.

"And 3rd: Lying to one’s wife to improve the relationship.

"Lying thus has become an obligation in international relationships, Muslim relationships and family relationships.

"Any wonder why Muslims were silent after 9/11? Those who expose the lying game are considered traitors.

"By allowing lying, Muslims have created a culture unable to distinguish between lies from truth; truth has become a convoluted game of saving face for the best interest of Islam."