My very dear friend Beth sent the remaining two brain cells in my head to furiously rubbing against each other in order to create a spark by reminding me of the Islamic practice of taqqiya.

And the comments she refers to, I've seen them as well, I have no choice, they show up in my inbox now on a daily basis.

I first learned of taqqiya from Patrick al-Kafir. Here's his definition from his C&R lexicon:

taqiyya: Dissimulation; lying for the sake of ones religion; concealing ones true religious beliefs for strategic reasons. Taqiyya is a lie by commission, rather than by omission, as in kitman. The concept of al-taqiyya is one historically associated with Shia Islam. This is because Sunni Muslims, who believe that Shiites are heretics, would impel them to denounce their faith, thinking this would expose them as mushrikeen when they refused to. In response, the Shia would do so, but hold true to their faith in their hearts, thus preserving their faith and their lives. Taqiyya is now used by all Muslims as a means of deceiving infidels about Islam's aims, practices, and aspirations.

Let's revisit Beth, she's on to something here...

I’m tired of reading the same line in damn near every thread related to the cartoons, where the liars say Islam “respects all religions.” Exactly who do these people think they’re kidding? Maybe they can peddle that bunch of hogwash to the blind dhimmis on the Left, but that’s not flying here. As far as I’m concerned, ANYONE who claims that Islam “respects all religions” has showed their true colors–that they are exactly the kind of Islamofascist with whom the civilized world is at war.

...because, like I said, I've been on the receiving end of these comments.

So the question begs, is Islam tolerant of other religions? Another meme I've noticed is one that basically goes "Muslims don't defame the other prophets, like Jesus, and Moses, how dare you!"

The answer, of course, is no. Islam is not tolerant of other religions. Not only is Islam intolerant, it spits in the face of the very religion it claims to be the one true extension of. Jew hating aside, if Islam respects and doesn't defame the prophets that came before Mohammed, then how then do they rationalize the concept of taqqiya? Or the practice I noted in the post below, the muta'a?

Their hypocrisy is exposed by what was written in stone, thousands of years ago, and brought to the world by a prophet supposedly revered in Islam, Moses:

14 “You shall not commit adultery. (muta'a)

16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (al-taqqiya)

Then we proceed with the obvious:

13 “You shall not murder. (duh, applies to every other major, or minor for that matter, religion on Earth)

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.” (just who invaded Spain, anyway?)

For a group that proclaims religious superiority over the rest of us, you would think this would present a problem.

Nah.

F.E.T.E

Posted by: Vinnie at 08:56 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Outstanding catch, only in need of one addendum. God wrote down the ten commandments, is it blasphemy to reject the word of God? Breaking the individual commandments is bad in so far as they're concerned but what happens when they reject the commandments outright? I would make sure that those 72 virgins got a medical checkup if I were smart.

Posted by: Mike H. at February 06, 2006 09:14 PM (DGg0m)

2 I’m tired of reading the same line in damn near every thread related to the cartoons, where the liars say Islam “respects all religions.” What religion "respects all other religions?" Name one that respects any other religion, for that matter. The whole point of sectarianism is not that the sects "respect" one another, but that none is able to get such a stranglehold on the state that it can use the state's resources to crush the others. I'm not sure whether Islam is less tolerant, but suppose that depends on the sect of Islam we're talking about. I'm not sure how far one can get with this religion-bashing thing. But as a practical matter shouldn't we try to differentiate between sects that at least tolerate the idea of religious diversity and those that don't? Not that they "honor it" mind you. Just that they're willing to put up with it. But anyway, you guys are proving my point. There is large-scale willingness to just consign the entire Muslim world to the dust bin, because of the reaction against a few cartoons. Listen Muslims, can you just imagine what this would be like were any of your holy warriors successful enough to destroy an American city, or even a neighborhood? Still think it's a good idea to get the bomb? The only reason things don't look worse for you in the West is that your holy warriors just haven't been very successful. And for that you can thank Allah and George Bush, not to mention a few apostate Muslims.

Posted by: Demosophist at February 06, 2006 09:36 PM (GHzDS)

3 Demosophist, we're not consigning them to the dustbin, they're doing it all themselves. That post smacked of apologetics.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 06, 2006 10:15 PM (0yYS2)

4 Thank you for reminding me of this. I reread all of the Chronicles of Narnia, and you might be interested in reading "The Last Battle". It might take you a day, and you will be surprised by its common day relevance especially where taqiyya is concerned. C.S. Lewis knew this was coming and how it would come long before I was even born...

Posted by: RepJ at February 06, 2006 10:19 PM (ZKVg+)

5 Re #17: does that mean you can't covet your Kuwaiti neighbour's oil, cars, tvs, gold...

Posted by: Matthew at February 06, 2006 10:20 PM (/LA+Y)

6 Why don't you go over to Beth's site and debate it with her, Demosophist? I didn't write that, she did. But anyway, you guys are proving my point. There is large-scale willingness to just consign the entire Muslim world to the dust bin, because of the reaction against a few cartoons. Sorry, but I don't know how old you are, but I clearly remember Munich in 1972, the oil embargo of 1973, and the hostage crisis of 1979. My perspective on Islam goes alot farther back than just this current cartoon issue, Demosophist. Finally, it's not "religion bashing." It's "getting out the facts."

Posted by: Vinnie at February 06, 2006 10:20 PM (f289O)

7 abu hamza convicted by british court for incitement to murder! woohoo!

Posted by: ian uk at February 07, 2006 07:26 AM (GhCfc)

8 I'm going to do a little "religion bashing" here. This is just my own opinion, but Mohammed was just an egomaniac with control issues. And he was smart too. I mean "real" genious. He coupled his ability to imagine some pretty advanced ideas about the universe and mathematics (even though his math doesn't add up when disbursing inheritances among the family - and in other instances) with his own perversities and personality defects to create an unquestionable self-made existence. He proclaimed himself a prophet by playing on the superstitions that were prevalent at the time. He proceeded to destroy knowledge gained by others so that his Koran was the only word. The destruction of books, scrolls and other sources of knowledge were routinely destroyed by him and his followers for centuries after. And look at some of the most ridiculous proclamations he made: * Angels won't visit a house with a dog in it? * Jews were turned into rats? His proof? Rats don't drink camel's milk and neither did Jews. * The devil resides in your nose while you sleep? (there are many, many more) And this "word" is eternal and must never be questioned? And to this whole issue about not allowing any depiction of Mohammed; this was NOT Allah's word. This rule was made up by other men after Mohammed died. Funny how God's edicts always benefitted Mohammed over everyone else. Even his followers. He got the pick of women after their husband's were killed. He got a full fifth of all the booty from conquests. He claimed to speak for God yet, changed the rules regularly to suit himself, and after he died it was proclaimed that Muslims live their lives patterned after his. And there you have it.

Posted by: Oyster at February 07, 2006 07:37 AM (YudAC)

9

Posted by: ian uk at February 07, 2006 08:42 AM (GhCfc)

10 Actually, I have heard of one religion that is tolerant of all others. I is called something like the Church of Latter Day Messengers, or something like that. It seems that they believe all religions are based on messengers of hope and salvation, and are told at different times, in different places, to different people. They maintain it is just the same message and has been that way since the dawn of time. I seem to recall that they thought John Lennon was one of the last(est). Something about "love being all you need" and the "inability to purchase love". Their central tenent around which every thing revolves is the belief that 'War is a crime' (in other words 'peace') and that this is the revelation foreseen and foretold by Nostradamus, amongst others. I happened to overhear a conversation about it on the bus in from Yass (about 45 minutes out of Canberra) last Monday. It was a probably a crack-pot fringe sect. Rupert Murdoch has a farm out that way, if that means anything. Peace and Out Jack

Posted by: Jack Russell at February 10, 2006 12:21 AM (DCfOe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment