Click on
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/Title:
Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries
Author: Dr. Walid
Publication: BHARATIYA PRAGNA
Date: JUNE 2000 VOLUME 2 NUMBER 6
URL:
http://www.pragna.org/Art20615.html (apparently now a dead link)
This article by Dr. Walid, a top scholar at the Islamic University, exposes our so-called secular Indian Muslims. By the doctrine of Al-Taqiyah, Muslims dominate crime syndicates, increase population by massive Bangladeshi infiltration and make temporary alliances with Dalits, Christians, etc.
In the early years of the Islamic conquest of the Arabian peninsula and in the Fatah (Arab-Islamic invasion and conquest of the upper Middle East and the outside world), a Muslim concept was devised to achieve success against the enemy (non Muslims), Al-Taqiyah. Al-Taqiyah, 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 ...
According to Al-Taqiyah, Muslims were granted the Shar'iyee right (legitimacy) to infiltrate the Dar el-Harb (war zone), infiltrate the enemy's cities and forums and plant the seeds of discord and sedition. These agents were acting on behalf of the Muslim authority at war, and therefore were not considered as lying against or denouncing the tenants of Islam.
They were "legitimate" mujahedeen, whose mission was to undermine the enemy's resistance and level of mobilization. One of their major objectives was to cause a split among the enemy's camp while downplaying the issues related to Islam ("Oh, I am not religious." "Oh, that is not Islam, you are mistaken, there is so much misinformation." "Oh, it is in the interpretation." "Brother, Islam is all about peace and love and music just like in the 60s.") In many instances, they convinced their targeted audiences that Jihad is not aimed at them, that indigenous people are not targeted. Meanwhile the (allegedly) "un Islamic" Muslims continued their attacks on the target's property and life (e.g. Lashkar-e Toyiba, Mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden's
declaration of war against innocent American civilians).
They convinced many Jews that they will be protected from Christians, and they convinced many Christians that Jews were the mortal enemies, because they killed Issa (Jesus). They convinced the Aramaics, Copts, and Hebrews that the enemy is Greece, and signed peace agreements with the Bysantines Greeks at the expense of Maronite Aramaics, etc.
They convinced the knitted diversity of India to degrade into civil war by introduction of a variant Buddhist / mystical Islam (Sufism which is decried as "deviant Islam" used to ease the transition of new recruits from local communities) creating divisions (based on Muslim - Non Muslim) eventually fomenting unrest and chaos in the land to prepare it for waves of armed Invasion (Mohammad bin Qasim, Mahmud Ghaznavi, etc.).
Even today, India is bitterly divided and getting slowly Islamised as battle lines form between hordes of overzealous Muslims (armed and trained in madrasahs) and the more pacifist civilians of urban dwellings.
This Jihadic agency of subversion was one of the most fascinating and efficient arms of the conquest. In less than four decades, the Middle East fell to the Arab-Islamic rule [since Arab society was divided again between pagan and Muslim resulting in nephews and sons killing their uncles and fathers in cold blood] followed by North Africa and Central Asia [this was the era of hordes like tribal conquests where barbaric savages invaded pacifist civilians in towns of major civilizations; the same scenario replayed itself against the Arab-Islamic world with the Invasion of the Mongolian hordes].
Al-Taqiyah was a formidable weapon, used by the first dynasties and strategists. Today, scholars may identify it as deception. But the Jihadic deception was and still is more powerful than the James Bondian methods of Western classical intelligence tactics, for the simple reason that it has a civilizational, global dimension versus the narrow State interest of the regular Western subversive
methods.
Al-Taqiyah is still in use today (and is widely practised and acknowledged by the Shi'ite sect) but not necessarily State-organized. Arab-Islamic missionaries are slowly converting the disillusioned criminal classes of the Western world by feeding them a Western "moderate" version of Islam (at the same time denouncing the actions of Muslims in the rest of the world as Un Islamic e.g. Taliban, GIA & FIA [Armed Islamic Front] of Algeria, Hamas, Lashkar -e Toyiba, Bin Laden and company, etc.)
It is done to prevent the new converts from seeing the real face of Islam; at least until their faith or mental conditioning is strong enough to make them turn against their own country and people.
A good example is the growing influence of Islamists in the Americas. On the one hand, American embassies, trade facilities, soldiers and intelligence infrastructures are under attack (but denounced as un-Islamic for the benefit of the new American converts).
On the other hand, the multiplying Islamic community (due to illegal immigration, paper marriages, religious visas granted to the religious men) attempts to pass itself off as "peace loving" and patriotic. In their own circles, the same community will liberally and violently denounce America, the West and its values (freedom, individualism, secularism, capitalism, scientific materialism, benign rehabilitation of criminals, prevention of cruelty against animals, women and gay rights).
One can easily detect Taqiyah in the two discourses used by Islamist strategists. On the one hand, one comprehensive Islamist theory is attempting to mobilize the Middle East, and sometimes Western Christian leaders and intellectuals, against "evil Jews".
They are forming alliances with everyone from Animal Rights' groups (to attack the Jewish tradition of slaughter which is ironically similar in cruelty to the Islamic way) to Far Right fundamentalists (to push for censorship of critiques of Islam and attack every forward thinking movement like women's rights and gay rights).
We see considerable success on that level. And on the other hand, another Islamist comprehensive theory is attempting - with success also - to mobilize the Jews against "evil and pagan Christians".
One can easily detect the sophisticated work of Taqiyah, for the strategic objective of Islamists is to destroy the foundations of the non Muslim civilizations, as a prelude to the defeat of an isolated Israel, India, United States of America, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc.
Taqiyah is not a unique phenomenon in history. Many strategists from all backgrounds implemented subversion. But the uniqueness of today's Taqiyah is its success within advanced and sophisticated societies. Taqiyah is winning massively because of the immense lack of knowledge among Western elites, both Jewish and Christian.
For interesting examples of Taqiyah methods, visit Christian discussion groups and forums and note the discourse of Islamist visitors aimed at undermining the Christian perception of Jews, and visit Jewish discussion groups and forums and note the subtle anti-Christian discourse of Islamist visitors. It is really informative and fascinating.
AND
Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad
By
Walid PharesIn the years that followed 9/11, two phenomena characterized the Western public's understanding of the terrorists' ideology. The first characteristic stemmed from the statements made by the jihadists themselves. More than ever, Islamist militants and jihadi cadres didn't waste any opportunity to declare, clarify, explain, and detail the meaning of their aqida (doctrine) and their intentions to apply Jihadism by all means possible. Unfortunately for them, though, those extremely violent means changed the international public opinion: the public now was convinced that there was an ideology of Jihadism, and that its adherents meant business worldwide.
From Ayman al Zawahiri in Arabic to Azzam al Amriki in American English, via all of the videotapes made by "martyrs" in Britain, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the public obtained all the evidence necessary. Against all the faulty academic literature of the 1990's, the statements by the jihadists themselves were very convincing.
The second phenomenon of help to the public was the surfacing of a new literature produced by alternative scholars, analysts, journalists, experts, and researchers who, from different backgrounds and countries, filled in some of the gaps is "jihadi studies." Producing books, articles, and blogs from Europe, India, the Middle East, and North America, a combination of Third World-born and Western-issued scholarship began to provide the "missing link" as to what Jihadism is all about. These factors came together to shift the debate from "Jihad is spiritual yoga" to "Why didn't we know it was something else as well?" And this triggered in response one of the last attempts to prevent jihad from being understood.
In the 1990's, apologist literature attempted to convince readers and audiences in the West that jihad was a "spiritual experience only, and not a menace." [1] That explanation has now been shattered by Bin Laden and Ahmedinijad. So in the post-9/11 age, a second strategy to delay public understanding of Jihadism and thereby gain time for its adherents to achieve their goals has evolved. It might be called the "good cop, bad cop" strategy. Over the past few years, a new story began to make inroads in Washington and the rest of the national defense apparatus. A group of academics and interest groups are circulating the idea that in reality jihad can develop in two forms: good jihad and bad jihad.
The practice of not using "Jihad" and "Jihadism" was lately defended by two academics at the National Defense University [2] who based their arguments on a study published by a Washington lobbyist, Jim Guirard.[3] On June 22, 2006, Jim Garamone, writing for the American Forces Press Service, published the study of Douglas Streusand and Harry Tunnel under the title "Loosly Interpreted Arabic terms can promote enemy ideology." Streusand told CNN that "Jihad is a term of great and positive import in Islam. It is commonly defined as striving or struggle, and can mean an internal or external struggle for faith." [4]
The article was posted under the title "Cultural Ignorance Leads to Misuse of Islamic Terms" by the US-based Islamist organization CAIR. [5] Since then the "concept" of deflecting attention away from the study of Jihadism has penetrated large segments of the defense newsletters and is omnipresent in Academia. More troubling though, is the fact that scholars who have seen the strategic threat of al Qaeda and Hezbollah have unfortunately fallen for the fallacy of the Hiraba. Professor Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics in Washington wrote recently that "Jihad has been hijacked" as he bases his argument on Jim Guirard's lobbying pieces.[6] Satisfied with this trend taking root in the Defense intelligentsia of America, Islamist intellectuals and activists are hurrying to support this new tactic.
The good holy war is when the right religious and political authorities declare it against the correct enemy and at the right time. The bad jihad, called also Hiraba, is the wrong war, declared by bad (and irresponsible) people against the wrong enemy (for the moment), and without an appropriate authorization by the "real" Muslim leadership. According to this thesis, those Muslims who wage a Hiraba, a wrong war, are called Mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for "spoilers." The advocates of this ruse recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the jihadists by that name and identifying the concept of Jihadism as the problem. In short, they argue that "jihad is good, but the Mufsidoon, the bad guys and the terrorists, spoiled the original legitimate sense."[7]
When researched, it turns out that this theory was produced by clerics of the Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood as a plan to prevent jihad and Jihadism from being considered by the West and the international community as an illegal and therefore forbidden activity. It was then forwarded to American- and Western-based interest groups to be spread within the Untied States, particularly within the defense and security apparatus. Such a deception further confuses U.S. national security perception of the enemy and plunges democracies back into the "black hole" of the 1990's. This last attempt to blur the vision of democracies can be exposed with knowledge of the jihadi terror strategies and tactics, one of which is known as Taqiya, the doctrine on deception and deflection. [8]
First, the argument of "good jihad" raises the question of how there can be a legitimate concept of religious war in the twenty-first century to start with. Jihad historically was as "good" as any other religious war over the last 2,000 years. If a "good jihad" is the one authorized by a caliph and directed under his auspices, then other world leaders also can wage a "good crusade" at will, as long as it is licensed by the proper authority. But in fact, all religious wars are proscribed by international law, period.
Second, the authors of this lobbyist-concocted theory claim that a wrong jihad is called a Hiraba. But in Arab Muslim history, a Hiraba (unauthorized warring) was when a group of warriors launched itself against the enemy without orders from the real commander. Obviously, this implies that a "genuine" war against a real enemy does exist and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this cunning explanation puts "spin" on jihad but leaves the core idea of jihadism completely intact. The "spoilers" depart from the plan, attack prematurely, and cause damage to the caliphate's long-terms plans. These Mufsidoon "fail" their commanders by unleashing a war of their own, instead of waiting for orders.
This scenario fits the relations of the global jihadists, who are the regimes and international groups slowly planning to gain power against the infidels and the "hotheaded" Osama bin Laden. Thus the promoters of this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahabis and the Muslim Brotherhood in their criticism of the "great leap forward" made by bin Laden. But by convincing Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real jihadists but some renegades, the advocates of this school would be causing the vision of Western defense to become blurred again so that more time could be gained by a larger, more powerful wave of Jihadism that is biding its time to strike when it chooses, under a coherent international leadership.
Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. This piece was adapted from his recently published book The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] See John Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? 3rd edition. (New York: Oxford University Press) 1999.
[2] May 23, 2006
[3] "Hiraba Versus Jihad," the American Muslim. August 2003.
[4] See Henry Shuster, "Words in War," CNN, October 19, 2006.
[5] Quoting the American Forces Press Service on June 29, 2006.
[6] Michael Waller. "Making Jihad Work for America." The Journal for International Security Affairs. Spring 2006
[7] (7) See James Fallows, "Declaring Victory," Atlantic Monthly (September 2006).
[8] (8) According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Taqiya: "spelled Taqiyah, Arabic Taqiyah ("self-protection"), in Islam, [is] the practice of concealing one's belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury to oneself or one's fellow Muslims. The Qu'ran allows Muslims to profess friendship with the unbelievers (3:28) and even outwardly to deny their faith (16:106), if doing so would save them from imminent danger," on the condition that their hearts remain attached to faith. Also see Larry Stirling, "On Taqiya' and ‘Fatwas,'" San Diego Source, September 25, 2006; also Walid Phares, "al-Taqiyah: The Muslim Method of Conquest," Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, December 1997.
Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/preventing_the_west_from_under.htmlat March 15, 2009 - 09:38:05 PM EDT
