Posted on 10/24/2003 9:17:07 PM PDT by tomball
BTW, it is Free Republic, NOT Freep. And the term Middle East should have been capitalized, which you should have known full well from your vast studies and intelligence briefings.
And you have been "fighting terrorism" and "working with our allies to help them fight terrorism" as much as I have been dating Selma Hayek this past week. What a load of BS. Get lost, asshole.
PS: What was all this business of you being "on vacation"?
Nonetheless, good to see you back on the Forum.
I suggest you follow your own advice. She is right and you are wrong. The practice of lying in the cause of the faith of Islam is called al-taqiyah, and the fact that you are ignorant of it, while claiming to have "studied" Islam "in depth", suggests that you are either a victim of it, or that you are a liar. For the moment, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
He who disbelieves in Allah after his belief in Him, (is the liar) except he who is compelled while his heart remains steadfast with the faith (has nothing worry). But who opens his breast for infidelity; on these is wrath of Allah, and for them is a great torment.
--Qur’an, Surah 16 (an‑Nahl), verse 100
This verse of the Qur’an refers to the incident when 'Ammar bin Yasir (May Allah be pleased with both) had to utter some words against Islam to save himself from the Quraishite infidels.
The Qur'an clearly allows hiding one 's true faith when one is in danger of one's life. This rule is called taqiyah.
Question 1: What is the meaning of "Taqiyah"?
Answer: Its literal meaning is to safeguard; to defend; to fear; piety (because it saves one from the displeasure of Allah).
Question 2: What is its significance in Islamic terminology?
Answer: In Islamic terminology it means "to save life, honour. or property (either one's own or of other believers) by hiding one's belief or religion".
I imagine the rule would apply in a lesser way to a Muslim who hides his jihad sympathies.
http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/shia_education/shia/12.htm
Among followers of the different schools of Islam, Shi'ites are well known for their practice of taqiyah. In case of danger they dissimulate their religion and hide their particular religious and ritual practices from their opponents.
The sources upon which the Shi'ites base themselves in this question include the following verse of the Holy Quran: "Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them [tattaqu minhum. from the same root as taqiyah], taking (as it were) security [tuqatan. again from the same root as taqiyah]. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying" (III, 28). As is clear from this sacred verse, God, the,Most Exalted, forbids with the utmost emphasis wilayah (meaning in this case friend- ship and amity to the extent that it affects one's life) with un- believers and orders man to be wary and have fear in such a situation.
In another place He says, "Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief-save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with Faith-but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom" (Quran, XVI, 106). As mentioned in both Sunni and Shi'ite sources this verse was revealed concerning `Ammar ibn Yasir. After the migration (hijrah) of the Prophet the infidels of Mecca imprisoned some of the Muslims of that city and tortured them, forcing them to leave Islam and to return to their former religion of idolatry. Included in this group who were tortured were Ammar and his father and mother. Ammar's parents refused to turn away from Islam and died under torture. But Ammar. in order to escape torture and death, outwardly left Islam and accepted idol worship, thereby escaping from danger. Having become free, he left Mecca secretly for Medina. In Medina he went before the Holy Prophet-upon whom be blessings and peace--and in a state of penitence and distress concerning what he had done asked the Prophet if by acting as he did he had fallen outside the sacred precinct of religion. The Prophet said that his duty was what he had accomplished. The above verse was then revealed.
The two verses cited above were revealed concerning particular cases but their meaning is such that they embrace all situations in which the outward expression of doctrinal belief and religious practice might bring about a dangerous situation. Besides these verses, there exist many traditions from the members of the Household of the Prophet ordering taqiyah when there is fear of danger.
Some have criticized Shi'ism by saying that to employ the practice of taqiyah in religion is opposed to the virtues of courage and bravery. The least amount of thought about this accusation will bring to light its invalidity, for taqiyah must be practiced in a situation where man faces a danger which he cannot resist and against which he cannot fight. Resistance to such a danger and failure to practice taqiyah in such circumstances shows rashness and foolhardiness. not courage and bravery. The qualities of courage and bravery can be applied only when there is at least the possibility of success in man's efforts. But before a definite or probable danger against which there is no possibility of victory throwing oneself before a cannon that is being fired or lying down on the tracks before an onrushing train-any action of this kind is nothing but a form of madness contrary to logic and common sense. Therefore, we can summarize by saying that taqiyah must be practiced only when there is a definite danger which cannot be avoided and against which there is no hope of a successful strug gle and victory.
The exact extent of danger which would make permissible the practice of taqiyah has been debated among different mujtahids of Shi'ism. In our view, the practice of taqiyah is permitted if there is definite danger facing one's own life or the life of one's family, or the possibility of the loss of the honor and virtue of one's wife or of other female members of the family,or the danger of the loss of one's material belongings to such an extent as to cause complete destitution and prevent a man from being able to continue to support himself and his family. In any case, prudence and the avoidance of definite or probable danger which cannot be averted is a general law of logic accepted by all people and applied by men in all the different phases of their lives. From out of the Sunnah: Volume 8, Book 82, Number 829: Narrated Al-Mughira: Sa'd bin Ubada said, "If I found a man with my wife, I would kill him with the sharp side of my sword." When the Prophet heard that he said, "Do you wonder at Sa'd's sense of ghira (self-respect)? Verily, I have more sense of ghira than Sa'd, and Allah has more sense of ghira than I."
You are correct -- lying about Islam to somebody who you are trying to convert is pointless.
But lying about Islam to non-Muslims, when living among non-Muslims, for the purpose of deflecting the wrath of the non-Muslims against a minority Muslim community, is QUITE permissible.
If the truth about Islam were made known to every voter, every Muslim in the US would be deported within weeks, and the Muslims are well aware of that. Hence, they will dissemulate about the more aggressive and intolerant aspects of Islam to a Western audience
Obviously, this doesn't apply to criticism of non-muslims, in which there is no subtlety whatsoever.
But with internal criticism, that is correct. The "herd mentality" of the Ummah (community) is so pervasive, that it is hard for individual muslims to stand up and speak their conscience when it is "against the current." It also is why the Islamic world is a seething, directionless, irrational cauldron of passion.
Who does, then? Islam has no Vatican. Islam does not have any central authority that can proclaim what is or is not Islam. For the average Muslim, therefore, Islam is whatever the local Imam declares it to be, or whoever he recognises as HIS religious authority. Lots of Muslims seem to follow the radicals. Lots of Muslims seem to find Osama bin Laden very popular. To THOSE Muslims, Terrorism against "the infidel" IS a fundamental part of Islam. And given Mohammod's own bloody practices, who can truthfully say it isn't?
The problem, is that if you openly and publicly disagree with muslims, they interpret you as an enemy of muslims, therefore "defensive" jihad is in order which includes blowing you to smithereens. How do you account for the vile and imperialistic speech by a "mainstreamist" like Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed, head of the Organization of Islamic States. He is, arguably, the #1 "moderate" muslim in the world.
This style of prose is called argumentum ad hominem, and is usually an indication that the author no longer has anything of substance to support his argument (and FWIW, it is also inaccurate).
Al-Taqiya permits lying to deceive one's ememy.
Which, for a Mohammedan, is anyone who is not a Muslim (the Muslims divide the world into two realms; dar al-islam (the realm of Islam) and dar al-harb (the realm of war). Al-taqiyah allows lying to anyone of dar al-harb; because they consider anyone who is not muslim to be their enemy.
Just as war permits deception and deceit in all other cultures, Islam permits it in furtherence of one's defense
Religion is not war; and a religion based on deceit is a false religion. As such, Islam is not engaging in "defense"; if it were it's history would be dramatically different than the bloodshed, terrorism, etc. that is seen with its presence. Both their usage and your usage of language in the quote above show that you recognize Islam to be a form of warfare, and not really a "religion" at all.
In your first post to me you engaged in an emotional diatribe and acccused me of being "ignorant" witout ever questioning me about my point of view. You jumped to a conclusion (erroneously, I might add) and ranted on. Judging by most of your posts I presume you are above asking questions of others because you obviously know all there is to know and so why lower yourself. Judging from your increaingly emotional and unstable, tone, I expect that it is YOU who is in need of therapy.
BTW, my name isn't "Charlie", it's Thomas, Tom to my friends. As a senior manager in a divisionm of an $11B international business, I have been to 26 countries over 20 years. I enjoy tapping into the vast wealth of knowledge, experience, talent, and good will on Free Republic, especially when such contact prompts me to learn more about a particular subect.
If honest and reasonable conservative-oriented discussion is not your desire, perhaps you should go elsewhere where someone of your "quality" would be more readily accepted.
Finally, I would like to say that if you are earnest and you and I simply got off on the wrong foot, and you plan to hang out here and add to the value of the discussion, then I would hope we could avoid unnecessary wrangling and personal insults.
Agree completely.
PS: Any chance you can try to make your points without hurling insults. Jeeez Loueeez!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.