Showing posts with label Islamic Deception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic Deception. Show all posts
Thursday, June 15, 2023
Monday, February 17, 2020
Female Genital Mutilation and Islamic Social Norms
I realize there are Muslims that have adopted Western norms
particularly in Western nations. Nonetheless, unless a Westernized Muslim is willing
to condemn Quranic, Hadith, Sira or Shariah practices that are contrary to
Western Culture, Western norms and Western Laws (and from my perspective – U.S.
Constitutional Law) those Muslims are underserving of the benefits of residing
in the West.
Yeah I know - Multiculturalists
who care little of the traditions the West has provided are beginning to experience
their blood boiling. I live in America thus I am not Leftist Multicultural
thought and speech laws – at least not subject for now. Americans keep voting American Constitutional Laws for American Courts.
JRH 2/17/20
Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit, check
& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:
OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently
been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after
criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing
Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions.
Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I
choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely.
Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are
banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT
CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in
pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to
groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
****************************
Female Genital Mutilation and Islamic Social Norms
By Paul Sutliff
February 15, 2020
On January 30th of this year, a 12-year-old girl in Egypt died
as a result of her parents having Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) performed on
her. Egypt has had a law outlawing the practice since 2008. The parents have
been charged. This law was written to protect females because Islamic
social norms permit and encourage this practice.
According to Ian Askew, World Health
Organization Director for the Department of Reproductive Health and Research:
FGM describes all procedures that
involve the partial or total removal of external genitalia or other injury to
the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. It has no health
benefits.
More than 200 million girls and
women alive today are living with FGM and many are at risk of suffering the
associated negative health consequences as a result.
These include death, severe
bleeding and problems urinating. Longer-term consequences range from
cysts and infections to complications in childbirth and increased risk of
newborn deaths.
FGM is a grave violation of the
human rights of girls and women.
Another term used for FGM is female circumcision. Some
countries prefer the term FGC, as it is seen as “more
neutral.” (The “C” being a reference to “cutting.”) This “more neutral” term allows their
medical personnel to package FGM into the “birth package.” Ebony Ridell Bamber, the head of
advocacy and policy at Orchid Project, a UK-based NGO working towards ending
FGM, states that. "It really contributes to legitimizing and
entrenching the practice even further."
In Islam, legitimization comes when shariah, Islamic law,
endorses and promotes a practice. Under shariah, female circumcision is
required of Muslim females. This is documented in Reliance of the Traveller:
e4.3 Circumcision is
obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing
the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of
the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A:
Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while
Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)"
Islamic scholars have been found
using this piece to declare to non-Muslims that shariah does not agree with
FGM, going so far as to claim it is unIslamic if carried out to the extreme and
totally removing the clitoris:
Female circumcision, known pejoratively in its extreme form
as female genital mutilation or cutting, is not prescribed in the Quran and
there are no authentic prophetic traditions recommending the practice.
The basis in Islamic law is that it is not permissible to cause bodily
harm and any such practice of female circumcision proven to be harmful would be
unlawful.
This is very deceptive. Let’s look at what the
abbreviations mean in the above section of shariah:
A: ... comment by Sheikh 'Abd
al-Wakil Durubi
Ar. Arabic
n: ... remark by the
translator
O: ... excerpt from the commentary
of Sheikh 'Umar Barakat
Taking the commentary of the translator out, the passage now
reads:
e4. 3 Circumcision is
obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing
the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar.
Bazr) of the clitoris.
Many other hadiths also back up the obligation for FGM under
Shariah. For example:
·
Jami` at-Tirmidhi Vol. 1
Book 1 #109
Aishah narrated that: the Prophet
said: "When the circumcised meets the circumcised then Ghusl [full-body
ritual purification] is required."
Yahya related to me from Malik
from Ibn Shihab from Said ibn al- Musayyab that Umar ibn al-Khattab and Uthman
ibn Affan and A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant
him peace, used to say, "When the circumcised part touches the circumcised
part, ghusl is obligatory."
·
Sahih al-Bukhari 6599, 6600
Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger
said, "No child is born but has the Islamic Faith, but its parents turn it
into a Jew or a Christian. It is as you help the animals give birth.
Do you find among their offspring a mutilated one before you mutilate
them yourself.”
To say that FGM only happens in third-world countries
ignores the sad and sorry truth that several countries have passed laws
forbidding this cruelty to their children. Egypt passed a law against FGM in 2008 and was
amended in 2016. But by 2015, a “government survey discovered that 87% of
Egyptian women and girls aged between 15 and 49 have been mutilated, or as the
Egyptian government put it, “circumcised.”
February 6th was the International Day of Zero
Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation. This annual day of awareness was commemorated this year by the German news source DW.com’s article, “Female genital mutilation feels 'like living in a dead body'
by Shadia Abdelmoneim, which describes how a midwife performed FGM on her
without her consent after the birth of her third child in Sudan:
It led to a lengthy period of shock
thereafter where she found it difficult to trust anybody, but Shadia also
vividly recalls the moment she realized what had happened.
"I wanted to go to the toilet,
but something wasn't right. I couldn't walk and was in considerable pain.
When I saw what she had done, I was shocked. She'd cut everything
open and then sewn it closed. I had no idea what to do.”
Shadia, already fighting against
female genital mutilation and for women's rights as an activist in Sudan, was
in her mid 30s at the time. She started living in a constant state of
fear for her three daughters; she could barely let them out of her sight.
"How could women do something
like that to one another, how?" she asks, her eyes welling up with tears.
"Being circumcised is like living in a dead body.”
Dr. Cornelia Strunz, who works at the Desert Flower
Center, met Shadia when she came to the center for help, said Shadia needed
surgery to help her live with this mutilation. According to Dr. Strunz, there are many
possible problems that result from FGM.
Many women have problems emptying
their bladder after FGM. Menstrual blood can't drain properly. For
some, sex becomes practically impossible. Women can also develop fistulas
-- connections between two body parts which should not exist at all in normal
circumstances. One example would be a link between the vagina and rectum,
leading to them passing stools through the vagina. Obviously, that's not
very easy to live with.
Social norms that allow for FGM conflict with several social
norms of Western civilization. It denies a women’s rights to have control
over her own body, as it is a requirement under shariah. It destroys a
woman’s ability to enjoy partaking in sexual activity when the woman
marries. This makes the act a duty and not a pleasure. The act itself
violates the Hippocratic Oath “to do no harm.” In countries where FGM is
banned, parents/guardians who have this done to their own daughters are denying
the validity of laws made by men.
++++++++++++++++++
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently
been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after
criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing
Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions.
Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I
choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely.
Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are
banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT
CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in
pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to
groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
______________________
Paul Sutliff is a
federally recognized expert on Civilization Jihad. His blog can be found at https://paulsutliff.blogspot.com/. You can request him as a speaker at http://paulsutliff.com. Paul’s books are on
Amazon.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Addressing ‘mohammedbasha’ Comment Promoting Islam
John R. Houk
© November 13, 2019
Photo capture of
website exposing Origins of Islamic Culture. CLICK HERE then scroll to bottom of
page to click image info.
At my SlantRight 2.0 blog I have comments
set for moderation ONLY. The reason most comment are of a spam advertising nature
– some product oriented and some just vulgar porn. Along that same line I typically
IGNORE off the bat when a comment is authored by “Anonymous”. Once in a while out
of the corner of my eye I might an “Anonymous” commenter with a valid comment
to a post – that person would get lucky and get added as a comment. BUT that
would be few and far between and especially RARE.
Here is the reason for going over comment practices on the SlantRight
2.0 blog. I actually got a comment to moderate from an individual
self-identified as “mohammedbasha”. If you go to mohammedbasha’s Blogger profile page
the info on identity is quite pseudonymous yet quite obviously the image of a
Muslim Apologist. In case you are unaware, like American Dems Muslim Apologists
at worst outright lie or at best so brainwashed by their religious leaders are
sadly deceived to believe infamous actions are good for humanity. Here is a
copy and paste of mohammedbasha’s Blogger profile page:
My blogs
Contact me
On Blogger since October 2019
About me
Industry: Religion
Occupation: Consultant
Since mohammedbasha was good enough to not post “anonymous”
I first examined the post being commented on which is “Where do You
Stand: Keramer vs Johnston?” posted on 11/4/17. The purpose of that post hopefully
summed up in these excerpts:
On 11/2 I vented a bit about the
hypocrisy of the Mainstream Media (MSM) reporting like wimps on the Islamic
terrorist attack by Sayfullo Saipov in Manhattan. Saipov killed eight and injured many others
on Halloween for Allah, Muhammad and ISIS.
I shared the blog post on the G+
Community Boycott!🚫CNN, MSNBC & LIBERAL MEDIA (among
other Communities and Groups). Two Community commenters had an interesting
enough dialogue that I have decided to cross post most of it as a standalone
post. The dialogue was between “ron
keramer” and “Christina
Johnston”.
You can definitely read the ire I had with Muslims acting on
Islamic revered writing in the embedded links in the first paragraph. Unfortunately
G+ Communities as a social platform no longer exist ergo you cannot read those
sources. The next paragraph of “Where do You Stand: Keramer vs Johnston?”
clarifies the existence of the hypocrisy that Muslim Apologists and Multicultural
Leftists hold against the critics of Islam:
The title of the post is “I Am
Islamorgizo not Islamophobic”. The context of the post is being weary of
the MSM insisting anyone that is critical of Islam is an Islamophobic racist.
So, I found a Greek word that connotates a fixed anger akin to settled
opposition. That Greek word is orgízō. Just as Multiculturalists and
Islamic Apologists hooked “Islam” with the Greek derivative for “phobia” to
form Islamophobe, I connected Islam with orgízō to create Islamorgizo –
a settled angry opposition to Islam. Then I explained the reason why Islam
deserves settled angry opposition not only for its revered writings justifying
violence against non-Muslims, but also to show contrasting Quran and the Bible
that Islam is specifically an Antichrist religion. Incidentally, Islam is the
ONLY non-Christian religion that specifically denies the centrality of the
Christian faith. You’ll have to read “I Am Islamorgizo not Islamophobic”
for the details.
Sadly, to my knowledge, the term “Islamorgizo” has
never caught on to counter calling critics of Islam Islamophobes. Allow me to
reiterate that I do not have an irrational fear Islam but I have an angry
opposition for what Islam stands for in that socio-political religion’s obsessed
violent hatred of all things non-Islamic with the specific labelling of the “People
of the Book” (meaning the Holy Bible) as the people who have
twisted the so-called original revered writings (meaning the Quran that never existed in any form prior to the
recollections of Muhammad’s fellow pillagers, rapists and slavers put their leader’s sayings to pen and paper) – Interesting
afterthought: “The Myth: Muhammad Would
Never Approve of Rape – DEBUNKED”) of Islam’s Allah.
Never Approve of Rape – DEBUNKED”) of Islam’s Allah.
With all the above embedded links a non-Muslim – especially a
Jew and Christian – should be concerned with the socio-political religion known
as Islam, below is the brief comment (not approved to be posted to “Where do You Stand: Keramer vs Johnston?”)
by mohammedbash:
Misconceptions About Islam is a website that misrepresents
by misleading readers about what Islam’s revered writings stipulate AND what
history records. Here’s an excerpt example:
Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) Founded Islam?
It’s been Misconceptions About
Islam and misunderstood by many that Islam was founded by Prophet Muhammed
around 1400 years ago in the middle of Arabia. But the truth is advent of Islam
dated since origin of Adam, who was the first human being to worship the one
and only God. Prophets who came later were also Muslims and propagated Allah is
the true creator with no companions or children. A true Muslim submits self to
the true God and accept Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) as his final messenger. [Blog
Editor: A demonic lie if communicated by Quran, it was only by the lips of Muhammed
later recorded into writing by a follower (or followers) of Muhammed into
writing after the false prophet’s death in 632 AD (or CE for secular minded
scholars).]
Allah; the God for Muslims Only?
The Real Meaning of the word Allah
is “One True God” in Arabic. It also refers to the one who created heavens,
earth, sea, mountain and everything that stays in the universe. Even Arabic
speaking Jews & Christians refer God with the name of Allah. So essentially
our faith/belief is up on one and only powerful God though cited with multiple
names (Allah, Yahweh or God the Father)
Blog Editor: I am convinced the Muslim faith are taught
and believe “Allah” means “One True God”. But that literally is not accurate.
From YourDictionary.com:
Allah: Islam – God
Origin of Allah
Arabic All?h from al,
the + il?h, god, akin to Classical Hebrew (language) eloah, God (citing:
Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fifth Edition Copyright © 2014 by
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)
Allah: God, especially in Islam.
Origin of Allah
Arabic allāh al- the
'ilāh god ℵl
(citing: THE AMERICAN HERITAGE® DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,
FIFTH EDITION by the Editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries. Copyright ©
2016, 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)
Of more interest on “Allah” from webpage entitled, The pagan origin of the word, "Allah":
…
The pre-Islamic origin of
"Allah"
1.
There is absolutely no question that Allah was worshipped by the pagan
Arabs as one of many polytheistic gods.
2.
Allah was worshipped in the Kabah at Mecca before Muhammad was born.
Muhammad merely proclaimed a god the Meccans were already familiar with. The
pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one
they already worshipped.
3.
Many scholars say "Allah" is derived from a compound Arabic
word, AL + ILAH = Allah. "Ilah" in Arabic is "God" and
"Al" in Arabic is a definite article like our word "the".
So from an English equivalent "Allah" comes from "The +
God". Others, like Arthur Jeffery say, "The common theory is that it
is formed from ilah, the common word for a god, and the article al-; thus
al-ilah, the god," becomes Allah, "God." This theory, however,
is untenable. In fact, the name is one of the words borrowed into the language
in pre-Islamic times from Aramaic." (Islam: Muhammad and His Religion,
Arthur Jeffery, 1958, p 85)
4.
Although "Allah" has become known as the proper name for the
Muslim god, Allah is not a name, but a descriptor that means literally,
"the god". All pagan cultures have these generic terms that refer to
their "top god" as "the god". In comparison to the perfect
monotheism of Judaism and Christianity, "Allah" was originally no
more a proper name for the Muslim God, than the word Hebrew "elohim"
(god) or Greek "theos" (god) are proper names of the one true God of
the Bible. "Jehovah" is the only revealed proper name for the
"Elohim" of the Old Testament ( Ex 3:13; 6:3) and "Jesus"
is the only revealed proper name of "Theos" in the New Testament.
(Acts 4:12) Islam has no proper name for their god, but merely transformed, by
universal use and confusion, the generic Allah into a proper name. So although
today, Muslims use "Allah" as a proper name, it was never used this
way originally. Allah, therefore is equivalent to "elohim" and
"ho theos" but not "Jehovah" or "Jesus". Allah is
not the name of the nameless Muslim God. However Muslims will claim that Allah
is the name of God that corresponds to Jehovah. Both the Father and the Son are
called "ho theos" (The God). Jesus is called "The God" many
times in the New Testament: John 20:28; Heb 1:8. An important conclusion from
this, is that the mere fact that "Allah" is equivalent to
"elohim" and "ho theos" does not mean they are directly
corresponded. It certainly doesn't prove Allah is the same as the God of the
Old or New Testament. It does not prove that Muslim's worship the same God as
Christians. If this correspondence proved the Muslim god was the same as the
Christian God, then because pagan religions also have generics that correspond
to "the god" (Allah), this correspondence would also prove that Allah
is the same god as the Buddhist god, for Buddhists also refer to their god as
"the god".
What scholars say about the
origin of the word "Allah":
1.
It is not related that the Black Stone was connected with any special
god. In the Ka'ba was the statue of the god Hubal who might be called the god
of Mecca and of the Ka'ba. Caetani gives great prominence to the connection
between the Ka'ba and Hubal. Besides him, however, al-Lat, al-`Uzza, and
al-Manat were worshipped and are mentioned in the Kur'an; Hubal is never
mentioned there. What position Allah held beside these is not exactly known.
The Islamic tradition has certainly elevated him at the expense of other
deities. It may be considered certain that the Black Stone was not the only
idol in or at the Ka'ba. The Makam Ibrahim was of course a sacred stone from
very early times. Its name has not been handed down. Beside it several idols
are mentioned, among them the 360 statues. (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill,
1987, Islam, p. 587-591)
2.
"The verses of the Qur'an make it clear that the very name Allah
existed in the Jahiliyya or pre-Islamic Arabia. Certain pagan tribes believed
in a god whom they called 'Allah' and whom they believed to be the creator of
heaven and earth and holder of the highest rank in the hierarchy of the gods.
It is well known that the Quraish as well as other tribes believed in Allah,
whom they designated as the 'Lord of the House' (i.e., of the Ka'ba)...It is
therefore clear that the Qur'anic conception of Allah is not entirely
new." (A Guide to the Contents of the Qur'an,
Faruq Sherif, (Reading, 1995), pgs. 21-22., Muslim)
3.
According to al-Masudi (Murudj, iv. 47), certain people have regarded
the Ka'ba as a temple devoted to the sun, the moon and the five planets. The
36o idols placed round the Ka'ba also point in this direction. It can therefore
hardly be denied that traces exist of an astral symbolism. At the same time one
can safely say that there can be no question of any general conception on these
lines. The cult at the Ka'ba was in the heathen period syncretic as is usual in
heathenism. (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill,
1987, Islam, p. 587-591)
4.
The name Allah, as the Qur'an itself is witness, was well known in
pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not
infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Arabia. The
common theory is that it is formed from ilah, the common word for a god, and
the article al-; thus al-ilah, the god," becomes Allah, "God."
This theory, however, is untenable. In fact, the name is one of the words
borrowed into the language in pre-Islamic times from Aramaic. (Islam: Muhammad and His Religion,
Arthur Jeffery, 1958, p 85)
5.
"If a Muslim says, "Your God and our God is the same,"
either he does not understand who Allah and Christ really are, or he
intentionally glosses over the deep-rooted differences." (Who Is Allah In Islam?, Abd-Al
Masih, Light of Life, 1985, p. 36.)
6.
Now there dwelt in Mecca a god called Allah. He was the provider, the
most powerful of all the local deities, the one to whom every Meccan turned in
time of need. But, for all his power, Allah was a remote god. At the time of
Muhammad, however, he was on the ascendancy. He had replaced the moon god as
lord of the Kaaba although still relegated to an inferior position below
various tribal idols and three powerful goddesses: al-Manat, goddess of fate,
al-Lat, mother of the gods, and al-Uzza, the planet Venus. (Islam and the Arabs, Rom Landau,
1958 p 11-21)
… AND MORE with a total of 66 refutations
about the origins of “Allah” - The pagan
origin of the word, "Allah"; Written by Brother Andrew; The
Interactive Bible.
At this point I appreciate the Muslim Apologist going by mohammedbasha
chose not to comment anonymously. But pointing to a website misleading about
the reality of Islam’s animus toward non-Muslims needed to be addressed in a
stand-alone post. AND THERE YOU HAVE IT.
JRH 11/13/19
Your generosity is always appreciated:
Blog Editor: Rather than
capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post
and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship
tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false
accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat
censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you
belong to.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Islamic Theo-Political Lying
John R. Houk
© May 1, 2016
Nick Snyder, Sr. had an interesting comment to Jim Kouri’s
post “GOWDY TO OBAMA: START PROTECTING AMERICANS
FROM CRIMINAL ALIENS”
found at LinkedIn’s Group – Return of the Republic. Nick is actually responding to an
observation commented by Bev
Farrar:
Didn't Obama use the Bible when Roberts gave the oath of office
incorrectly and then go into a private room to take the oath again. I've often
wondered if his hand was on the Bible this time or some other book.
Nick’s thoughts on
Obama’s oath of Office:
Nick
("Old Nikko") Snyder, Sr. The answer Bev is...
The islamic practice of "Muruna" -- using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings.
Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims show no discernible signs when they are being deceitful because there is no feeling of guilt. In their minds they are doing exactly what Allah wants them to do to advance Islam.
Obama was simply being a "good muslim" when taking his oath, no matter which book he wore his oath upon.
This is not to be confused with Takiyya or Tawriya... which are respectively: dissimulation and concealing.
There is also Kitman, which is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth.
All in all, Obama [piss be upon him] has used all of these - and to good effect on most American Sheeple. They have accepted, and believe his lies in any and all forms.
The rest of us see him for what and who he is... and what danger he represents to this nation.
I’ve known about
Taqiyya and Kitman for some time now. The Islamic transliterations of Tawriya
and Muruna are new to me. So I thought I’d do a little Googling on the four
Muslim terms which all have to do with fashion or another of lying or deception
in Islam. Thus this post will not really be at all original but an old fashion
copy and paste exercise to make Americans and Westerners aware of the practices
institutionalized in Islamic theo-political ideology to spread their cult
across the globe to the detriment of free people everywhere.
I am taking four
websites from different post years not necessarily in order. I’m going to begin
with the terms I am most unfamiliar with – Muruna and Tawriya. Then follow that
with the two terms I am familiar with – Kitman and Taqiyya. (Take note there are various transliterations
from Arabic to English and that is the reason one may see different spellings
for the same word.)
Muruna
Islam Watch – 7/31/12 04:02
Muruna means
using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. The
justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation
of Surah 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be
forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.” Thus, Muslims may
forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better
command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their
Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard and place their
trust in their Muslim counterpart.
At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a
chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off
their beards, wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with
non-Muslims. Nothing is more valuable these days to the Islamists than a
blue-eyed Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.
Another common way of using muruna is for a Muslim to
marry a non-Muslim or to behave like a non-Muslim so their true agenda will not
be suspected. The 9/11 hijackers visited strip clubs and bars during …
FaithFreedom.org – 3/20/13
“Flexibility”.
Means blending in with the enemy or the
surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat
bizarre interpretation of Surah 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or
cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.” Thus,
Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are
pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can
deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their
guard. At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes
colours – to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off their beards,
wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with
non-Muslims. …
Muruna is perhaps the biggest deception practiced by Muslims, as it
allows them to be “flexible” regarding the commands of their faith in
order to properly blend in with the society around them. Muruna permits
Muslims to shave their beards, wear Western clothing, listen to Western music,
and even drink alcohol.
All of these deceptions go against specific commandments, as well as the
overarching commandment against lying itself, that are found in the
Koran. But they are allowed so long as their use
contributes to a greater goal or serves a greater commandment within the
Koran, like spreading Islam among the infidels.
Americans who hold in high regard the founding principles and ideals
of our country need to learn these terms, and …
ClashDaily.com – 4/1/15
Muruna is using “flexibility” to blend in with the
enemy or the surroundings. Based upon: Surah 2:106, which says, “If
we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better
one or similar.” Therefore, Muslims have permission to “forget” some of the
commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims
striving to advance Islam, therefore, can diverge from their Islamic laws in
order to cause non-Muslims to drop their guard and place their trust in their
Muslim counterpart (this has been extremely successful in the West).
Illustration: Muslims
practice Muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to
avoid detection. They will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western
clothing, or drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. And Western converts
are a great tool…there’s nothing more useful to Islamists than a blue-eyed,
blonde-haired Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.
…
Should we really be surprised about Islam’s deceit when the Quran boasts
about Allah being the “master of machinations” (Sura 13:42), and “proficient at
his scheming” (Sura 8:30)?
This can prove to be one of the most valuable lessons we learn …
Tawriya
Islam Watch
Tawriya is
defined as concealing, and it could be called “creative lying”. It is OK to
break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of
the oath. (Reliance of the Traveler, sections o19.1 and o19.5) …
FaithFreedom.org
Deliberate ambiguity.
What this means is that it is OK to break the
intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath. (see
Reliance of the Traveler, sections o19.1 and o19.5) …
Thus, as we can see, Muslims are empowered to
lie, tell half-truths and dissemble about Islam and its doctrines (provided
their “heart is comfortable with faith”) if doing so will give Islam an
advantage – such as “defending” Islam/Mohammed, denying its/his more unpleasant
attributes, or – as in the case above – giving a positive “spin” to Islam to
make it more palatable to a non-Muslim audience.
This is why, to make any study of Islam, or to
stand a chance of holding a valid opinion, it is vital to go back
to the original documents.
But here, too, lies a problem. According to Islam, only the Arabic Koran
is really the Quran itself – that is …
Conservative Tribune
Tawriya allows Muslims to “creatively lie” by being purposely ambiguous
about the real meaning of what they are saying.
ClashDaily.com
Tawriya is defined as camouflage, and it’s also
referred to as “creative lying”. Based upon (Reliance of the
Traveller, sections o19.1 and o19.5) “It is acceptable to break the intent
of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath.”
Illustration: Suppose
someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, because
it is a request Muslims make to Allah 17 times a day to keep them from the path
of “those with whom God is angry” and “those who have lost their way”. A Muslim
might respond, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians.” He is
practicing Tawriya, because while Surah 1 does not mention Jews and
Christians by name, he clearly knows that the words “those” refer to Jews and
Christians.
Kitman
Islam Watch
Kitman is
characterized by someone telling only part of the truth. The most common
example of this is when a Muslim says that jihad really refers
to an internal, spiritual struggle. He is not telling “the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses are sworn to do in U.S. courts.
Often, kitman results in a gross distortion of the truth. In
the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its derivatives 59
times. Of those, only 16 (27%) could be considered “internal” with no object as
the target of the struggle based on the context of the surah.
Another common form of kitman is to quote only the few
peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later
abrogated by a more militant, contradictory verse. Here is an example:
“There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256) Early
Medina
FaithFreedom.org
This is Taqiyya’s “little brother”. Kitman is
just providing incomplete information.
A widely used example of kitman is when
Muslims say:
“whoever slays a soul, it is as though he
slew all men” to show how highly Islam values human life (!).
However, put these verse fragments together
with the start of the verse and the part omitted from the middle and the
meaning changes:
“For this reason did We prescribe to the
children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it
be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he
slew all men”. (K5:32)
Now we can clearly see that this statement refers to the
Jews alone (the people most reviled by Islam) and so
does not apply to Muslims at all. Further …
Conservative Tribune
Kitman is a term that means Muslims are permitted to tell half-truths, or
partial truths, while concealing the greater whole truth. Discussion of
“jihad” as being only an “inner” or “spiritual” struggle is an example of
Kitman, as technically it is true that jihad refers to a spiritual struggle,
but conceals the very real physical struggle that is also encompassed by jihad.
ClashDaily.com
Kitman is characterized by someone telling
only part of the truth.
Illustration: When
a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle, he
is telling half the truth. Often, Kitman results in a glaring
distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its
derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 could be considered “internal” with no
object as the target of the struggle based on the framework of the Surah.
Another common form of Kitman is to quote only the few
peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was
later abrogated by a more militant, conflicting verse.
NOTE: It must be understood that there are two categories of Quranic
verses: Pre-Medina (Meccan) and Post-Medina (Medinan). The Meccan or peaceful
verses were written when Muhammed was trying to persuade followers in Mecca,
from the Pagans, Jews and Christians. The Medinan verses were written after
Muhammed was rejected as prophet by Jews and Christians. These are the violent
verses which replaced the peaceful ones.
Here are examples that …
Here are examples that …
Taqiyya
Islam Watch
Takiyya is
defined as dissimulation about ones Muslim identity. It comes from the verse in
the Quran that says, “Let believers not make friends with infidels in
preference to the faithful – he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah –
except in self-defense (illaa an-tattaqu minhum tuqah) (Surah
3:28). This “self-defense” justifies dissimulation. Islamic Sharia Law
provides, “When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling
the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is
permissible, and lying isobligatory if the goal is obligatory.” (Reliance
of the Traveler, Para r8.2) Examples include lying to protect Islam or a
Muslim.
FaithFreedom.org
Strictly, Taqiyya is a Shi’a doctrine, but
Sunni Islam has its equivalent “Muda’rat”. For some reason, in the West (at
least amongst non-Muslims), the doctrine is more widely known as Taqiyya.
“This is
the Islamic practice of “precautionary dissimulation” [i.e. lying] whereby
believers may conceal their Muslim faith when under threat, persecution or
compulsion.” (Oxford Dictionary of Islam).
“The word “al-Taqiyya” literally means:
“Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions [not just religious],
ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of
eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from
physical and/or mental injury.”” (Abdul Hamid Siddiqui)
Comment: Thus, if you think
you may be in danger physically or mentally at some point in the future from
telling the truth, you are allowed to lie.
“al-Taqiyya is the uttering of the tongue,
while the heart is comfortable with faith.” (Ibn Abbas) Comment:
What this means is that you can say something “un-Islamic”, or lie, provided
you retain Islamic belief.
Hadith: Muslim #6303: Reported
Umm Kulthum she heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as
saying: A liar is not one who tries …
Conservative Tribune
Taqiyya allows Muslims to lie and/or conceal their true faith, feelings,
thoughts, plans, and character, for the purpose of protecting themselves.
It is fully based on the Koran and is agreed to and practiced by all major
sects of Islam.
“When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the
truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying
is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.” (Reliance of the Traveler,
Para r8.2)
ClashDaily.com
Taqiyya is defined as concealment about ones
Muslim identity. Based upon (Surah 3:28) “Let believers
not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful– he that does has
nothing to hope for from Allah– except in self-defense (illaa an-tattaqu
minhum tuqah).” “Self-defense” is justification for concealment. Also
based upon Islamic Sharia Law (Reliance of the Traveler, Para r8.2),
“When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth,
it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is
obligatory if the goal is obligatory.”
Illustration: This
would include lying to protect Islam or Muslims.
JRH 5/1/16
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)