CAIR, Prager, the Koran and oaths of office
CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) is demanding the Dennis Prager be removed from the governing board of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. CAIR is "outraged" over Prager's recent column that criticized newly elected Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison for wanting to sworn in with the Koran rather than the Bible. I understand why Prager said what he said, but he missed a very important element that makes his conclusion so much more valid. The Koran allows Moslems to lie to non-Moslems, therefore swearing on it is meaningless. (Prager also doesn't mention the Biblical prohibition of swearing which, in all honesty, seems to make swearing on the Bible, also fairly meaningless, as well, but I digress...)
From Israel National News...
In Islam, lying or omissions for the 'greater good', according to a strict or radical philosophy, is not only acceptable, it is holy and blessed work. It is called Al-Takeyya (or Al-Taqiyya) and is a strategy outlined in the Hadith and supported by various interpretations of some of the suras in the Koran. We have just seen it in action, and most people never even caught the whiff of mental ether the Islamists were pouring into the airways of the already comatose and choking non-Islamist world.
Al-Takeyya is a policy whereby a Muslim may lie, deceive or omit critical truths if it promotes the spreading of Islam and the conquest of the non-Muslim world. According to William P. Welty, Ph.D., Al-Takeyya/Taqiyya is:"The Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Falsehoods told to prevent denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned by the Qur'an, including lying under penalty of perjury in testimony before the United States Congress, lying or making distorted statements to the media such as claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and deceiving fellow Muslims when the one lying has deemed them to be apostates."(1)
And here is the definition from an Islam encyclopedia website:
"The word 'al-Taqiyya' literally means: 'Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies....'"(2)
So what exactly does it mean to swear on a book that says it's okay to lie?
Now, let's get back to CAIR's hypocrisy. They whine...
"No one who holds such bigoted, intolerant and divisive views should be in a policy-making position at a taxpayer-funded institution that seeks to educate Americans about the destructive impact hatred has had, and continues to have, on every society," CAIR wrote in its letter to the museum council's president, Fred Zeidman.
"As a presidential appointee, Prager's continued presence on the council would send a negative message to Muslims worldwide about America's commitment to religious tolerance," CAIR wrote.
Yet it's interesting that CAIR doesn't hold its own member and leaders to the same yard stick. From Anti-CAIR-net.org...
Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a “Ismail” Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia. He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan. Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed with CAIR
CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a terror-financing front group. Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR.
On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation, and a brother-in-law of Musa Abu Marzook , was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found Guilty.
CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam.
CAIR also pays for the very thing they claim Prager was doing...
Yesterday, at the invitation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), [University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School] held a forum at the National Press Club to expand on their allegations about the Israel lobby. Blurring the line between academics and activism, they accepted a button proclaiming "Fight the Israel Lobby" and won cheers from the Muslim group for their denunciation of Israel and its friends in the United States....
Walt seemed defensive about the charges of anti-Semitism. He cautioned that the Israel lobby "is not a cabal," that it is "not synonymous with American Jews" and that "there is nothing improper or illegitimate about its activities."
But Mearsheimer made no such distinctions as he used "Jewish activists," "major Jewish organizations" and the "Israel lobby" interchangeably. Clenching the lectern so tightly his knuckles whitened, Mearsheimer accused Israel of using the kidnapping of its soldiers by Hezbollah as a convenient excuse to attack Lebanon.
The Anti-Defamation League also points out that...
- CAIR wants Islam to take over the United States and the rest of the world. As reported by the San Ramon Valley Herald, CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
- The head of CAIR's Los Angeles office, Hussam Ayloush, routinely uses the term "zionazi" when referring to Israelis.
- CAIR co-hosted an event in May 1998 at which an Egyptian militant Islamic leader, Wagdi Ghunaym, called Jews the "descendants of the apes."
So CAIR needs to drop the stones until they move clear of the glass house they've built.
Okay, on why even the Bible isn't really appropriate for oaths....
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. — Matthew 5:33-37
Dennis Prager is Jewish, so I can see why he may not be all that familiar with the New Testament. Why more Christians aren't, though, is beyond me.
Posted by Danny Carlton at December 5, 2006 6:17 AM
I noticed you put the word "really" in between isn't and appropriate. People usually do that when they are very unsure of what they are saying, or being sarcastic, etc.. So, is it inappropriate or not to use the bible?
Your characterization of the term Al-Taqyiia is minimalist in scope and inaccurate. There is in fact much debate within Islam as to what this exactly means and when it is permissible.
In Islam, as is in all religions, it is impermissible to tell a falsehood. Al-Taqyiia, as far as my understanding goes as a Muslim, allows for people to say a falsehood for diplomacy and to save life. In extreme situations when one is being coerced or tortured, this would also apply according to most understandings.
It is not, as you suggest, commonly understood to mean "deceive thy enemy."
One Sunni commentator, Abdul Hamid
Siddiqi, provides the following commentary:
Telling of a lie is a grave sin but a Muslim is permitted to tell a lie in some exceptional cases, and this permission is given especially on three occasions: in case of battle for bringing reconciliation amongst the hostile Muslims and for bringing reconciliation between the husband and the wife. On the analogy [Qiyas] of these three cases, the scholars of Hadith have pointed out some other exemptions: for saving the life and honor of innocent person from the highhandedness of tyrants and oppressors if one finds no other way to save them.
Please visit this informative site if you wish to understand this concept more:
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html
My point is merely this: religious texts can be altered and interpreted to fit nearly any story or position desired. Read Deuteronomy and I'm sure you can justify some ridiculous things in the name of Christ. It is only when you understand the passage within the context of when and how it was written that you get a more accurate and responsible understanding of a text. This is the intelligent and responsible thing to do.
Please do a little more research the next time you wish to obfuscate my religion instead of selectively going to The Israel National News or Anti-CAIRnet.org for your information.
But, Ahmed, how can we know? Why wouldn't your explination itself be an attempt at Taqiyya? Also, the Israel National News quoted and referenced the very article you claim refutes it. I read it, and it seems to back up exactly what they claimed is an allowable practice.
Clark, I ambivalated because while the history of oaths tends to suggest it is a misunderstanding of the cause and effect relationship of the spoken word (that words can magically cause things to happen, even more so if a "powerful" object is used), some see an oath on the Bible as using the reverence and importance of the Bible demonsyrate their seriously. The problem there is, if that is the purpose, then it shouldn't be used by non-believers, since they obviously don't hold it as important.
Given Jesus' commands on oaths, I've always seen them as a pagan attempt at mimicing the "power" of Christianity, and therefore more of a mockery than serious (much like the secular trappings of religious holidays have become). But I don't want to imply that all CHristians who take oaths are intentionally belittling their faith. Some have pure motives, albeit myopic.
Mr. Lewis. I find it hipocritical of someone who embraces the democratic ideal of "free-speech" to not include the latest comment to your blog explaining my position and that of Islam. It does not suprise me though, especially because of your inability to provide a cogent response to the argument. You may be able to silence my moderate Muslim voice to your readers, but ultimately, the truth that you do not want unleashed - that of the actual moderate and peaceful ethos of Islam - can not be kept in isolation forever.
And perhaps it is worth considering that your blog would benefit from such lively debate. I for one was enjoying it.
And in case you had a change of heart, here was my post. At minimum, I hope you took something valuable from it:
Danny - if my "attempts" are an exercise of Al Taqiyya as you claim, would that not be a good thing for the world? Is it not reassuring to know that perhaps Islam does not allow its followers to be duplicitous (as many would like to believe it does), but rather encourages reconciliation and diplomacy?
Yes, you are correct in pointing out that the Israel National News quotes the exact source I implored people to check out. The author of the piece, Mr. Goodtree, references the site for a definition of Al-Taqiyya, however, he fails to quote it in full. He rather curiously stops his citation short, right before the following line:
"The above definition must be elaborated upon before any undertaking of this topic is to ensue. Although correct, the definition suffers from an apparent generalization, and lacks some fundamental details that should be construed"
Taken literally, Al- Taqqiya can mean just what is definitionally stated – to conceal intentions, beliefs and motives. Had Mr. Goodtree bothered to quote the Islamic encyclopedia he referenced in full, his readers would also understand that it is a concept that must be understood in context, and not literally. That is why I initially posted what I did – to fill in some of the "fundamental details" missing from the definition. Mr. Goodtree's lazy-man tactic of simply "looking up what it means" and offering a literalist understanding of Al-Taqqiya to advance his greater political arguments is no different that the strategy practice by the radical Islamists he deplores.
I would hope that you and any readers of this site would question and do a little personal research yourselves before simply believing what someone with a political agenda says about Islam. That includes people like Mr. Goodtree and radical Islamists alike who want you to understand Islam through an incomplete and limiting lens.
Ahmed, I am deluged with at least 100 spam comments daily. The script tosses comments willy-nilly so while many comments that would obviously be spam to you or me are treated as legitimate, many legitimate commetns are treated as spam. If you post a comment, then don't see it. Re-post it, but don't blame me because there are scum out there who like to flood blogs with spam, and idiots at six-apart who can;t seem to get the concept of writing a functional anti-spam feature for their publishing platforms
Now as to your comments...
You're not making sense. If you're lying then that would be good because it would show Islam doesn't allow lying. On what planet does that make sense?
Still doesn't address the problem that A. the concept is taught B. therefore we have no idea if subsequent "definitions" and "elaborations" aren't merely more "dissolution". That's the problem with allowing even a little deception, there's no way of knowing when it actually stops.
And your political agenda we can just ignore, right?