Al-Taqiya

Submitted by Yonason (United States), Jun 24, 2005 at 18:37

Does such a thing as "Moderate Islam" exist, as a clearly distinct counterpoint to "Radical Islam?" Or, is the "difference" a conceptual illusion, created by viewing the extremes of the same continuum as if they were independent entities?

As I've just discovered, and Dr. Pipes certainly must know, our enemies have their own very highly developed form of psy-ops, called "Al-Taqiya." "The word 'al-Taqiya' literally means: 'Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, 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.' " A one-word translation would be 'Dissimulation.' " (www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html)

There is also:

"Al-Taqiya, from the verb Ittaqu, means linguistically dodge the threat. Politically it means simulate whatever status you need in order to win the war against the enemy." (www.israelbehindthenews.com/Nov-10.htm#Taqiya)

and:

"According to Al-Taqiya, Muslims were granted the Shar'iya (legitimacy) to infiltrate the Dar el-Harb (war zone), infiltrate the enemy's cities and forums and plant the seeds of discord and sedition." (www.yahoodi.com/peace/islam.html#isjiha)

In order to catch a glimpse of one way Al-Taqiya works, we need only look at organizations like CAIR, and other apologists for Islamist terror, who use false claims of anti-Arab hate crimes to give the appearance of moral superiority. (Not to mention how CAIR maintains credibility, despite the criminal convictions of some of it's more prominent members for direct involvement in terrorist activity. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18000))

Other Islamic organizations of concern are: AMC, AMA, MPAC, ISNA, AMA. No doubt there are others.

In short, deception is so firmly ensconced in the tenets and practice of Islam, that even a naturally honorable man would succumb.

As D.S. Margoliouth says, in Muhammad and the rise of Islam:

"Of any moralising or demoralising effect that Muhammad's[sic] teaching had upon his followers we cannot say with precision. When he was at the head of the Robber community, it is probable that the demoralising influence began to be felt; it was then that men who had never broken an oath learnt that they might evade their obligations, and that men to whom the blood of their clan had been as their own, began to shed it with impunity in the "cause of god". And that lying and treachery in the cause of Islam received divine approval. It was then too that Moslems became distinguished by the obscenity of their language. It was then too, that the coveting of goods and wives possessed by Non-muslims was avowed without discouragement from the Prophet...." (www.yahoodi.com/peace/muhammad.html#whatef)

And, when you consider the personality traits for which this, and the violent aspects of Islam, have been selecting for during the last 13 centuries, it is no stretch to understand the behavior of the 9/11 attackers and their many apologists.

A Non-Muslim with such character trait is defined clinically under DSM-IV as Antisocial Personality Disorder:

*Glibness/superficial charm
*Grandiose sense of self-worth
*Need for stimulation, with a proneness to boredom
*Pathological lying
*Conning and manipulating behaviors
*No sense of remorse or guilt
*A very shallow emotional affect - they display emotions they don't really feel
*A lack of empathy for others "

posted on 10/26/2004 12:46:49 PM PDT by DTA (Proud Pajamista) at (www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1257159/posts)

So, although I would partially agree with Mr. Gerecht that holding out hope for "moderate Islam" is at best problematic and caution is advised, his solution of defaulting to "radical Islam" seems to be on the order of a "psychotic break."

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".