Fingers crossed: Islam, taqiyya, and the oath of citizenship

October 7, 2010

There was a good (in the sense of “informative while disturbing”) post at Power Line yesterday by John Hinderaker about the words spoken by convicted Times Square bomber Feisal Shahzad at his sentencing about Islam’s jihad against the West and his oath as an American citizen:

Much could be said of yesterday’s events, but I will note just two points. First, this exchange about Shahzad’s naturalization as an American citizen:

  • The judge cut him off at one point to ask if he had sworn allegiance to the U.S. when he became a citizen last year.
  • “I did swear, but I did not mean it,” Shahzad said.

I believe the Koran approves of such oath-taking with one’s fingers crossed.

(Emphasis added)

John’s right: the Qur’an does approve of such deception to protect oneself while in “infidel” lands. It’s called “taqiyya,” the religiously sanctioned deception of unbelievers. Raymond Ibrahim has written an article explaining taqiyya that should be must-reading:

Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one’s religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi’i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya—not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal—sometimes superior—to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

Yet if Muslims are exhorted to be truthful, how can deceit not only be prevalent but have divine sanction? What exactly is taqiyya? How is it justified by scholars and those who make use of it? How does it fit into a broader conception of Islam’s code of ethics, especially in relation to the non-Muslim? More to the point, what ramifications does the doctrine of taqiyya have for all interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims?

Ibrahim has written two other articles I commend to your attention: “Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood: A Study in Muslim Doctrine,” part one and part two. Not only does he discuss taqiyya, but also concepts we need to understand such as “loyalty and enmity” (who exactly Muslims can be friends with), and Da’wa (active proselytizing), one of only two reasons pious Muslims are allowed to live among infidels.  (The other is jihad.)

This is far from saying all Muslims are secret jihadists or want to implement sharia law (though the number of the latter is larger than apologists want to admit). But, with committed enemies who feel it is fine to lie and practice deceit in order to hide among the larger population that simply wants to lead a quiet life, we are engaging in a fight with one eye shut when we refuse to understand the doctrines by which they justify their actions.

And, until we (and, especially, those charged with protecting us) do acknowledge and understand these doctrines, we will keep on being surprised and puzzled again and again by declarations like Shazad’s.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


O where, o where, did my 17 Afghans go?

June 18, 2010

Call me crazy, but isn’t this a problem? Even kinda-sorta?

Alert Issued for 17 Afghan Military Members AWOL From U.S. Air Force Base

A nationwide alert has been issued for 17 members of the Afghan military who have gone AWOL from an Air Force base in Texas where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, FoxNews.com has learned.

The Afghan officers and enlisted men have security badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations, according to the lookout bulletin, “Afghan Military Deserters in CONUS [Continental U.S.],” issued by Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Dallas, and obtained by FoxNews.com.

The Afghans were attending the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. The DLI program teaches English to military pilot candidates and other air force prospects from foreign countries allied with the U.S.

“I can confirm that 17 have gone missing from the Defense Language Institute,” said Gary Emery, Chief of Public Affairs, 37th Training Wing, at Lackland AFB. “They disappeared over the course of the last two years, and none in the last three months.”

So, Muslim Afghans with military training and carrying valuable ID badges have just been going AWOL for two years? Umm… Jihad? Taqiyya? Shouldn’t we be a wee bit concerned?

Yes, but not quite in the way you think. From another part of the article:

A senior law enforcement official said Friday that the Afghans’ disappearance was more of an immigration violation than a security threat, saying there are no “strong indications to any terrorism nexus or impending threat.”

The official further said that an unspecified number of the 17 have been caught. “A number of these guys have already been located or accounted for by now,” the official said. “Some are in removal proceedings to be deported already. (Authorities) still need to locate the others, and that is why the bulletin went out.”

Okay, so some have been caught and they seem to have just been illegal immigrants, as opposed to jihadis. While FOX engaged in more than a bit of sensationalism in the headline quoted above, it doesn’t appear that this is some sort of mass jailbreak of jihadis with bombs strapped to their bellies, but something that happens often with a small fraction of the foreigners brought here for training and education.

Still, there are reasons to be concerned. Consider:

  • Because the captured Afghans had not committed acts of jihad terrorism does not mean they wouldn’t have, nor that those still out in the wild won’t. We must remember how Islamic doctrine enables the jihadist to dissimulate when in infidel lands to protect himself, conceal his real purpose, and justify his mission.
  • Those saying “there’s no real terrorism problem here” could be just as blinded by political correctness as those who failed to do anything about Major Nidal Hasan, the jihadist traitor who gunned down 14 people at Ft. Hood.
  • Even if these Afghans were not terrorists, even if they were just like “any other” illegal immigrant, the fact that we lost track of them and the restricted IDs they carried is another sign of our unwillingness to do what is necessary to guard against those who would pretend to be our allies. It’s another sign of how we are leaving ourselves inexcusably vulnerable.
  • Our complaisance in the shelter of our own vast power and our inability, even after 9/11, to conceive that “it could happen here” gives our enemies openings to attack us. Remember, on that day four jetliners were turned into deadly missiles by 15 Muslims armed only with boxcutters.

Thus the problem isn’t so much the 17 Afghans who have gone walkabout over the last couple of years (at least, I hope it won’t be much of a problem), as it is our apparent failure after nearly ten years of war with jihadist Muslims to take seriously the threat posed by those who are pretending to be our friends or at least be harmless. Because there is no magic device that can read the soul, we must be wary of those practicing taqiyya to insinuate themselves among us. And that means dropping the politically correct blinders and admitting that 17 missing Afghans with security IDs could be a serious problem.

Again, I am not saying all Muslims are terrorists; far from it. Most in the United States just want a peaceful life in a new land. But it is beyond dispute that the vast majority of terrorists active in the world today are Muslims who have chosen to obey the command of  Qur’an 9:111:

Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

They’re still trying to kill us, so let’s not make it easy for them.

(via Obi’s Sister)


Art therapy is a root cause of terrorism

December 28, 2009

First it’s finger paints, then it’s plastic explosives. When will the madness stop?

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an “art therapy rehabilitation program” and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

The real madness, of course, is in releasing committed jihadis who’ve been trained to fool their interrogators, believe deeply that they are fighting for Allah and will be rewarded in the afterlife for it (Qur’an 9:111), and understand the Islamic doctrine of taqiyyareligiously sanctioned lying.

Nope, instead we release them to Saudi Arabia, the country from which 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers came from and the home of the bin Laden family, where they can be deprogrammed by Islamic scholars (who practice the same Salafist brand of Islam as bin Laden) and healed by drawing unicorns and making ceramic ashtrays. What could go wrong?

Well….

This is a rare case when “I blame George W. Bush” actually has some meaning, since it was under President Bush that this misbegotten idea was hatched. And here’s a chance for President Obama to genuinely fix something by ending this stupid “release terrorists back to terrorist-supporting countries” program and keeping them locked up in Guantanamo, world opinion be damned.

Oh, and don’t move them to Illinois, either.

(via Gabriel Malor)

RELATED: The Weekly Standard says the ABC report was a bit off. Legal Insurrection provides some legal context for the release program and points out that Justice Scalia was prophetic in his dissent to the Boumediene case. Fausta is shocked that art therapy doesn’t cure jihadism.


Islamists in the UK government? What could go wrong?

December 16, 2009

For several years now, Great Britain has been trying to deal with the growing radicalism in its Muslim population by bringing into government moderate Muslims who can advise the Crown as to the best ways to “reach out” and counter Salafist influence. Trouble is, the “moderates” they keep recruiting aren’t so moderate. Islamist Watch gives us two of the latest examples:

Not Jolly Good: Islamists in the UK Government

Is there any degree of radicalism that disqualifies someone from holding a sensitive government post in the UK? Probably. But it would be difficult to tell based on two recent stories.

First, Treasury official Azad Ali has begun advising the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on combating Islamic extremism. Apparently his suspension earlier this year for blog entries steeped in — you guessed it — Islamic extremism presented no barrier to his joining the “community involvement” panel chaired by the CPS anti-terror chief. In addition to naming radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, the email pal of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, as “one of my favorite speakers and scholars”

And…

Second, there is Asim Hafeez, the new “head of intervention” at the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism of the Home Office, where he is charged with “divert[ing] fellow Muslims from the path of violence.” However, Hafeez has been described by a knowledgeable colleague as a “hardcore Salafi,” one who follows a puritanical form of Islam. According to Harry’s Place:

A number of Hafeez’s talks are available online which appear to not only back up [these] accusations but also to suggest that Hafeez might additionally be a hard-line Islamist who wishes to replace the British constitution with “the Quran and the Sunnah.”

Do read the whole thing.

This is only the latest example of how, through a blind devotion to unquestioning multiculturalism and political correctness, we tie one hand behind our backs in our fight with the jihadis. For fear of seeming intolerant or bigoted against all Muslims (and for fear of angering those on whom we depend for our crack oil), we don’t dare inquire into what the people we want to place in sensitive positions might really believe. We turn a blind eye to the very real ideology of violent jihad, Islamic supremacism, and antisemitism that runs throughout the Qur’an, the hadiths, the writings of later scholars to the present day – the core of Islam, not a radical heresy or misunderstanding. At times, as at Ft. Hood, this leads to fatal results.

Do I think there are no moderate Muslims? Far from it. There are plenty who reject the jihad imperative and just want to live quiet lives among their neighbors. But there is a disturbingly large fraction who have taken Islam’s aggressive message to heart and support both the cultural and the violent jihad, seeking Islam’s eventual victory over Western civilization. We do ourselves no favors -indeed, we harm our own cause and that of genuinely moderate Muslims – by refusing to face head-on the ideological and theological challenges posed by Salafist Islam.

Screening for Islamist sentiments should be a basic precaution, hurt feelings be damned.


Ft. Hood: Why did Major Hasan do it?

November 20, 2009

Almost from the moment the news broke of the massacre at Fort Hood by a Muslim soldier, the mainstream press has tried desperately to explain it as anything but an act of Islamic religious devotion. Time wondered if stress had caused the psychiatrist to snap. Even as evidence piled up that clearly showed an Islamist connection, CNN was asserting a ludicrous theory of vicarious post-traumatic stress disorder.

Bunk. The man who screamed “Allahu Akbar” while gunning down soldiers was committing an act of jihad as a devout Muslim. But, aside from the sheer horror of the atrocity itself, a lack of understanding of Islamic doctrine makes it difficult to comprehend how someone who had been given the best of everything by his colleagues in the Army could then turn on them. How could someone practicing what we’ve been told again and again is a “Religion of Peace” shoot down a pregnant woman in cold blood?

Raymond Ibrahim supplies some answers. In a two-part article at Pajamas Media, he explores the Islamic doctrines that provided the intellectual and spiritual framework for Hasan’s assault. In the series, he looks at

  • Wala’ wa Bara’, the doctrine of loyalty and enmity, which requires of the Muslim absolute loyalty to his Islamic brethren and hatred of all things un-Islamic, including people. This is crucial to understand.
  • Taqiyya, the doctrine of permissible lying and deception, pretending to be a friend and ally of unbelievers while hiding the enmity in your heart.
  • Jihad. War for the sake of Allah.
  • Sakina. The peace that comes over the mujaheddin as he enters battle with the infidel.  By all accounts, Major Hasan displayed it.
  • Da’wa. Islamic preaching and proselytization in order to bring people to Islam. One of the few reasons under sharia law it is permissible for a Muslim to live in non-Muslim lands.

(Part One and Part Two.)

I can’t emphasize enough that these articles are excellent introductions to what is an all-too obscure topic. We can’t hope to defeat the jihadist enemy unless we know how he thinks. Otherwise we’ll again be left fishing for lame excuses when the next attack occurs.

RECOMMENDED READING: Mr. Ibrahim is the editor of The al-Qaeda Reader, a collection of translated documents written by Osama bin Laden and his deputy psychotic mass-murderer in al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The first part collects essays aimed at other Muslims, marshaling arguments based on the Qur’an, the hadiths, and sharia rulings to justify their actions. The second collects propaganda aimed at Westerner, often very different from what they say when “speaking among themselves.” It’s dry, but I recommend it highly.


A Jihadi lied??

October 1, 2009

When he was released from detention at Guantanamo Bay, al Qaeda terrorist refugee Fahd Saleh Suleiman al Jutayli swore that he would never return to jihad. As part of his reform, he was repatriated in 2006 to Saudi Arabia (the heartland of Islam and the jihad against the West) for reeducation.

After which he promptly got himself killed in Yemen… while waging jihad for al Qaeda.

A former Guantanamo detainee has reportedly been killed in a shootout between the Yemeni Army and Houthi rebels in northern Yemen. The former detainee, Fahd Saleh Suleiman al Jutayli, was captured in Pakistan after fleeing the Tora Bora Mountains in 2001. He was repatriated to his native Saudi Arabia in May 2006.

According to the Yemen Post, two other former Gitmo detainees – Yusuf al Shehri and Othman al Ghamdi – called their families to tell them Jutayli had been killed in the fighting and asked them to inform Jutayli’s family.

Earlier this year, the Saudi government included all three of these former Guantanamo detainees – Jutayli, Shehri, and Ghamdi – on a list of the Kingdom’s 85 most wanted terrorists. After being released from Guantanamo, the three graduated from Saudi Arabia’s rehabilitation program and joined eight other former Gitmo detainees in fleeing south to Yemen. All eleven joined al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The escape of the eleven former Gitmo detainees from Saudi Arabia was reportedly organized by still other Gitmo veterans. Writing in the May 2009 issue of the CTC Sentinel, Dr. Christopher Boucek, an associate in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that Saudi officials found their disappearance “was well-coordinated in advance.” Their escape “was allegedly coordinated with other non-Saudi former Guantanamo detainees who have been repatriated to other countries, indicating that returnees have maintained ties from Guantanamo,” Boucek reported.

(Emphases added)

His escape may not have been all that difficult to arrange: remember that Saudi Arabia is one of the ideological and financial fountainheads for the modern jihadist movement, and was the origin of 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers. Al Jutayli himself was called to jihad by an instructor at a Saudi university:

According to documents produced at Guantanamo, US intelligence officials found that Jutayli was recruited by the notorious Saudi Sheikh Ha Al Uqla to wage jihad in “Kashmir, Pakistan or Chechnya.” Jutayli “joined the Taliban after receiving a Fatwa from Sheik Ha Al Uqla at the Immam Muhammad Bin Saud College in Burayda, Saudi Arabia.”

Sheikh Uqla, “who issued fatwahs and encouraged people to fight jihad against Christians and Jews” and condoned the September 11 attacks, allegedly facilitated Jutayli’s trip to Afghanistan in 2001.

In Afghanistan, Jutayli trained with al Qaeda before being captured by US forces. As al Qaeda is a religious movement, his training surely included religious indoctrination in Salafist Islam. Part of this instruction surely included the doctrine of taqiyya, or permissible lying:

{A} problem concerning law and order {with respect to Muslims in dar al-harb} arises from an ancient Islamic legal principle — that of taqiyya, a word the root meaning of which is “to remain faithful” but which in effect means “dissimulation.” It has full Quranic authority (3:28 and 16:106) and allows the Muslim to conform outwardly to the requirements of unislamic or non-Islamic government, while inwardly “remaining faithful” to whatever he conceives to be proper Islam, while waiting for the tide to turn. (Hiskett,Some to Mecca Turn to Pray, 101.)

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269; Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”

(Emphasis added)

“Dar al-harb” means “House of War,” that is, that portion of the world not governed by Islam and under sharia law. The whole essay at the above link is worth reading.

But, back to the fruitcake psychopath honored martyr, Mr. Jutayli, what were the interrogators at Guantanamo (or those above them) thinking when they released him back to Saudi Arabia? Did they honestly think he had reformed or been deprogrammed, that he was telling the truth when he said he would not return to jihad? If so, they’re woefully ignorant or dismissive of Islamic doctrine and its hold over the jihadi. Or was this a case of cynicism in action: “He’s a minor player. Let the Saudis take care of him?” That would have meant ignoring both the role of Saudi Arabia itself in supporting jihad and the spiritual rejuvenation a committed Salafist would feel upon returning to the Land of the Two Holy Places – it would be a reward for his practice of taqiyya.

Al Jutayli’s case is just one of many concerning terrorists held at Guantanamo who return to jihad on their release, regardless of any promises they made or assurances they gave. They are soldiers in a holy war, fighting that war is their religious duty, and deceiving the enemy is a praiseworthy act of devotion. There may be reasons to release one or another detained jihadi, but don’t be surprised when they turn up again, rifle in hand.

LINKS: More from Fausta.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,164 other followers