Monday, February 15, 2010

New Ally in the War Against Al Qaeda?

28 January 2010

They have largely been ignored by the rest of the world, but some analysts say the U.S. might soon need to reach out to a little known indigenous group in Algeria known as the Kabyles, for help in the war against al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists who operate from the North African nation.

The Kabyles are part of the indigenous Berber peoples of North Africa and who in recent years have been pursuing self rule for the territory they call Kabylia within Algeria. A largely secular group of Muslims, the Kabyles support democracy, and like the U.S. they have been targeted by the Islamic terrorists who use Kabylia as a launching pad for their attacks. Their leaders maintain the Algerian government discriminates against them. Population estimates for the Kabyle people range between seven to ten million, with two million of them living mostly in France.

Walid Phares, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, and a Fox News terrorism analyst, says the Kabyles "are mostly secular and believe in democracy, and could become an efficient ally against the Jihadists." He says "al Qaeda and the Salafists have strong bases in Algeria, and the Kabyles resist them fiercely so we have a strategic interest in helping them, but without crumbling our good relations with the Algerian secular Government."

Some experts believe that strategy could be risky. Ronald E. Neumann, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Algeria from 1994-1997 believes that any U.S. intervention in internal Algerian politics would be a mistake. Neumann, who is President of the American Academy of Diplomacy in Washington, tells Fox News that U.S. "support would unquestionably threaten our relationship with Algeria", as the Algerians would view it "as a fundamental threat" to their country.

On its website, the State Department describes the U.S./Algeria relationship as a growing one, especially since 9/11 where "contacts in key areas of mutual concern, including law enforcement and counter-terrorism cooperation, have intensified." The State Department did not respond to questions regarding the U.S.’s position on the Kabyles.

Experts hope the Obama administration can strike a chord between its relations with the Algerian government and the Kabyle people, who have been pressing for some sort of autonomy ever since Algeria gained independence from France in 1962.

Walid Phares, who has also lectured on the Kabyles, says that the administration should not hesitate in supporting the rights of the Kabyles and accept their call for self rule "as a legitimate principle". Phares says "we need to maintain excellent relations with the Algerian Government, which is fighting al Qaeda. We can continue to support Algiers against al Qaeda while we are urging them to talk with the Kabyles, their own citizens: it will be in their own interest to do so."

"We are the only bastion of anti-Islamization on the continent", says Ferhat Mehenni the President of the Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylia (MAK), which is one of the three main Kabyle political parties, from his exile in France. He maintains that they have to contend with kidnappings and killings by Islamic extremists, including the Algerian arm of Al Qaeda, all of whom operate along the mountainous regions where the majority of Kabyles live. Mehenni tells Fox News that only last week a church was burned down by extremists and that he wants to work with the U.S. in efforts against al Qaeda, but will need its support for its peoples own freedom.

In 1992 Algeria was thrown into civil war following the election of an Islamic party. The military annulled the result, which led to a bloody civil war with Islamic terrorists which, according to the U.S. State Department, resulted in 150,000 deaths. In 2006 Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb, was formed and has adopted suicide bombings and kidnappings as part of its modus operandi. In 2007 it bombed the UN’s offices in Algiers which killed thirty people and the attacks have continued. The State Department continues to warn Americans about traveling to Algeria due to fears of terror attacks.

In what seems to be a sensitive topic, not just to the Obama administration, but also the Algerian government, the Algerian Ambassador to Washington did not respond to several requests that were directed to his office for an interview.

Meanwhile, Ferhat Mehenni is trying to get a meeting with Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and while the UN Secretary General has met with the likes of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad he wouldn’t meet with Mehenni who says he feels "betrayed" by the UN, but hopes a commitment of support from the Obama administration for the Kabyle fight for self rule, will lead to a strong partnership against the Islamic fundamentalists, saying that the Kabyles can be a "rampart" against them, and become a beacon for democracy in the area.

Phares, who describes the Kabyles as the "Indians of North Africa", believes the U.S. must always be "on the side of democratic values and fundamental rights" and that there should "not be any hesitations with regards the principle of supporting the rights of the Kabyles."

As to a change of policy by the administration regarding support of democratic movements in the region, Phares says, "because the administration is relying on the advice of experts representing the interests of the regimes and anti-democratic ideologies such as Jihadism and Pan Arabism, the administration was told and convinced that if the U.S. calls for freedom this would upset the Muslim world. The Administration was fooled because Muslims want freedom too.’’

January 28, 2010 - 9:54 AM by: Ben Evansky

Leave a comment

Discuss live in the forums

your comments:
New Ally in the War Against Al Qaeda?
11 February 2010, par Imazighen 1980
Let’s not make the same mistake the Kurds made in Iraq. America is only after its own interests in Algeria and if we (Kabyles or Berbers in general) help them against the Islamists then we will effectively have signed out own death certificate. After all, the US will leave and all the Islamo-Jihadists will flock to Kabylia to wage Jihad on the Berbers??!! Thanks, but no Thanks!!

The US is a country that has no scrupules (?) in its foreign policies, let’s not forget they are the biggest ally of the Wahhabi Terrorist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. As Berbers we have absolutely nothing to do with Arab in-fighting in Algeria between the Arab regime and the Arab-Islamists. I say let them finish each other off, and if the US wants to get involved then let them deal with Algerian Arabs since the Al-Qaeda in Algeria is essentially an Arab-Terrorist organisation facing the Algeria Government, which in turn is an Arab-Terrorist regime.

We want our own autonomy to govern our own land and to get a 50% share of the Algerian oil. Let the Algerian regime deal with its own creation - the Islamists, and any US involvement is a matter for these two to deal with.

answer this message

Saturday, February 13, 2010

More About the "Nice Moslem" and the "Good Moslem" -- are the one and the same?

This refers to Bill Warner's previously published Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim?

"Aghast" Scholarship
February 13, 2010
by Bill Warner

Claude Salhami was 'aghast' at a recent newsletter-Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim? He replied to the newsletter with his Scourge of 'Islam Experts', but he missed my point.
The point of the Nice Muslim newsletter is that the doctrine of Islam is inhuman, not that Muslims always practice the Islamic doctrine at all times. A Muslim can be a fine person in dealing with a kafir when they are not practicing Islam. A summary of the Nice Muslim argument is:
The Koran defines the kafir, a non-Muslim. A kafir is hated and plotted against by Allah. Kafirs can be killed, tortured, crucified, raped, insulted, enslaved and deceived. Kafir is the worst word in the human language. A kafir does not have any positive attributes.
There is no Golden Rule in Islamic ethics. The Koran repeats 12 times that a Muslim is not the friend of a kafir.
Mohammed repeatedly said that it is good to deceive the kafirs, if it advances Islam.
Mohammed destroyed each and every kafir neighbor. It is Islam's purpose to make all kafirs submit to Islam.
A Muslim can only be a true friend to a kafir by the use of the Golden Rule, a non-Islamic principle.
The conclusion is that there is no good in Islam for the kafir. Sure there are those 2.6% of the Koranic words that seem to be good, but in every case the so-called good verses are abrogated later.
Anyone who implements the doctrine of Islam is not the friend of a kafir. If they are actually a friend, it is because of the power of the Golden Rule, not Islam. There is no good in Islam for the kafir. Note that this result was reached without the use of a single verse of the Koran (no cherry picking), but uses the systemic nature of its kafir doctrine.
Mr. Salhami makes these points in his reply:
On many occasions Christians have acted badly and Muslims have acted well.
So? Christians and Muslims are people. You can prove anything you want by choosing the right member. He also has some remarks about Christianity. To which I reply: I only discuss Islam, not comparative religion.
There are good Muslims and bad Muslims and we should not confuse the two.
What is meant by 'good' Muslims? Do we judge by the Islam of Medina or by the Golden Rule? If we judge by Islam of Medina, then Osama bin Laden is a good Muslim. Of course, by the Golden Rule he is not so nice. Stay with the doctrine of Islam in judging Muslims. A good Muslim is one who follows Islamic doctrine, not one who is likable.
Mr. Salhami uses his personal experience with Muslims to learn about Islam.
This confuses cause and effect. Islam is the cause and Muslims are the effect. A nice Muslim does not prove a nice Islam. Learning from Muslims is Muslim-ology,a sociological personal endeavor. Learning about Islam from the Koran, Sira, Hadith and Sharia law is learning about Islam.
He criticizes my use of the coined term, kafir-Muslim.
I will grant him this criticism and thank him for it. A much better term is Golden-Rule Muslim. Muslims, like all humans, have an innate sense of the truth of the Golden Rule and use it at times. However, this is an un-Islamic act since Islam does not have a Golden Rule.
All of the nice Muslims Mr. Salhami meets in the Middle East will not teach him anything about the suffering of their kafir ancestors during the jihad invasion and the centuries of being dhimmis living under the horror of Sharia law. He won't learn how the native civilization has been annihilated and replaced with the civilization of Islam. They will not tell him about the murder of millions of innocent Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, animists and Hindus to create the Islamic civilization.
His nice Muslim friends will not instruct him in the vision, strategy and tactics of jihad to annihilate all kafir civilizations. Nor will his nice Muslim friends ever explain Islam's dualistic ethical system, with one set of ethics for kafirs and a different set of ethics for their Muslim brothers.
Mr. Salhami is aghast at the self-taught scholars in Islam. There is a good reason for their appearance. The university trained 'experts' are apologists for Islam. They are trained in denial and justification and produce the type of scholarship that allows the army to investigate Major Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood and never refer to Islam.
The 'experts' give us the history of Islamic conquest and imperialism and praise it as the glorious rise of Islam. The 'experts' teach courses in women's studies and ignore Sharia law and Mohammed's treatment of women. They lecture on slavery and never mention the Muslim wholesaler who sold the slaves to the white man on the wooden ship or the Islamic slave trade in North Africa, East Africa, Europe and India. The denial goes on and on as the 'experts' drive our university policy. Is there a course in any American university system that is critical of Islamic political ideology? Indeed, the 'experts' argue that such a course would be bigotry.
It is the media 'experts' that give us jihad at Mumbai, India and never mention Islam. It is the 'experts' that give us the Official Islam that Bush and Obama talk about. Nice stuff-Official Islam. Too bad it does not exist.
So, it is no wonder that when we have such dhimmified professors, university trained 'experts' and media that professionals from other fields start reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith to see for themselves what the ideology actually is that drives the contradictions between current events and what we are told.
When you understand that the entire doctrine of Islam is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith, you realize that Islam is simpler than the 'experts' told us. All three texts have been made readable today and any disciplined person can become well informed. The 'experts' have failed us, and we must teach ourselves.
It is easy to be an expert. Know Mohammed and the Koran (the book he brought about). If what you say agrees with the Koran or Mohammed, then you are right. If it does not agree with Mohammed, then it is wrong, no matter who you are.
Mr. Salhami, buckle your seatbelt and prepare to be aghast again. It is a war between the university-trained dhimmi 'experts' and the self-taught kafir scholars who stand on the doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. We will use critical thought on the doctrine and history of political Islam.
The 'experts' will talk about nice Muslims, criticize Christianity and the West, while not holding Muslims responsible for their ideology. Every Muslim must be held accountable for Islamic political doctrine and its bloody history.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political IslamPermalinkcopyright (c) CBSX, Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

How Many Times Do the Islamic Terrorists Have to Hit Us . . .

before we believe that the Islamic Jihadists are trying to kill as many of us as they can?

It’s Still Not Islamist Extremism?

By Supna Zaidi
Muslim World Today

It seems that every time there is an actual or attempted terrorist attack, the media goes into a tailspin, asking experts, pundits and politicians how such a thing could happen, and what we should do to prevent another incident in the future. Unfortunately, it is usually only a matter of time before another incident occurs, only to renew such empty commentary on TV yet again.

Sadly, the ineptitude illustrated by the latest terrorist effort by Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib in airline, airport, and immigration visa security policies reveals a systemic lack of resolve from the executive branch to the TSA and Homeland security to fight Islamist extremism. And without real resolve at the top, we shouldn’t expect much more than apathy from a domestic bag checker or consulate officer abroad.

Resolve requires believing there is a common enemy. Yet, current and past administrations deny that the Islamism, or political Islam behind the indoctrination of men like Muhammad Atta, Nidal Hasan, and now Umar Farouk Abdulmuttab. It is not Islam or a strain of Islam because we say so, but because the terrorists believe so. Empowered by Qurans, printed with militant anti-colonial commentaries from Muslim Brotherhood icons, or the anti-American and anti-western tirades of the South Asian Maulana Mawdudi’s version of Islam, Deobandism, Muslims are taught to interpret their social political ills through a lens of the most violent, separatist, and antiquated passages of Islam.

Yet, everyone, non-Muslim and Muslim alike on the airwaves seems confident in stating, "This isn’t Islam." Well, if it is not, where is the competing interpretation of the faith spreading globally to marginalize Islamic extremism. Oh, wait, the Saudi’s won’t fund that? Shocking.

That is because central to Islamist pr is deflection. By convincing everyone that all the craziness since 9/11 is strictly America’s fault, Islamists proceed to attack fellow Muslims with impunity.

The recent attack by Islamist extremists on a peaceful Muharram procession in Karachi by the minority Shiite community where over 40 were killed is but one illustration. A second glaring example is the democratic revolt in Iran, which has been labeled a western conspiracy and "un-Islamic" by the dictators in charge.

And where does the son of a wealthy banker like Mr. Abdulmutallab fit in? Well, as the college president of an Islamic society absorbed in rhetoric hostile to the West, or "at least in its interaction with the Muslim world," not very far. The Islamic Society, as the New York Times, notes, "provided comfort" to Abdulmutallib, posting YouTube videos revealing that the organization, "served in recent years as a forum for agitated debate about the "oppression" of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims by the United States and other Western countries."

Let’s not forget that oppression justifies legitimate jihad in the Islamic world. And where a man’s worldview is filtered by his faith, not a secular identity, its Muslim versus non-Muslim wherever he goes. This encourages boys like Abdulmutallib to reduce global politics to the world simply, and intentionally "out to get" Muslims, ignoring a myriad of factors that complicate that equation which would also make local elites and politicians accountable for the poor position of millions of Muslims worldwide.

Addressing Islamist indoctrination remains the most important and most ignored aspect of Islamist terrorism. While it continues to create boys like Abdulmutallib, immediate security concerns will remain.

But, instead of distributing body scanners, and any other technological innovations airports may need, the TSA will be forced to unduly debate the need for full body scanners because of privacy issues.

Television stations like CNN will repeatedly air terrorist affiliated CAIR messages imploring Americans not to ethnically profile, and our politicians will remain awkward when talking about Islamic extremism because, they themselves, apparently think Americans are intelligent enough to distinguish between Muslims engaged in a global political movement from ones who also want to live under democratic laws that protect women, ethnic and religious minorities under a regime that keeps religion out of politics.

By remaining reactive rather than proactive new innovative terrorist attacks will only grow. Richard Reid used his shoes to carry the same PETN powder Abdulmutallib carried in his underwear. So now, we take off our shoes when going through security and we debate body scanners. With everyone forgets that while we plug holes in security as the terrorists reveal them to us, they are searching for new ones for "next time."

(Supna Zaidi is assistant director of Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum and editor of Muslim World Today )

article reprinted from

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

India Under Attack - Via Bengal!


Read this exceptional article written by Dr Arun Shourie - THIS IS NOT MR. ADVANI SPEAKING.



Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.

Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine ["Palestinian" Arab occupied Israeli Territories] -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace.

Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.


In districts where there are over 40% Muslim population, there is anarchy and hardly any rule of law. It provides for terrorist breeding and recruiting ground as I have written in many earlier articles. Shockingly barbaric Islamic rules are carried out with impunity without recourse to Indian Penal Code, including beheadings (these are documented facts).


Muslims demand Urdu to be the 2nd official language of four subdivisions: At a time when the Left Front is trying to keep its minority votes intact, the minorities' organisations want the state government to declare Urdu as an official language in four subdivisions of Kolkata, Garden Reach, Asansol and Islampur.

To press for their demand, representatives of various Muslim organisations under the banner of Anjuman Taraqqui Urdu (Hindi) staged a demonstration at Rani Rashmini Road on Sunday.

At present along with Bengali, Nepali is also an official state language since 1961. The four subdivisions where Muslim organisations want Urdu to be declared as an official language have nearly 20 per cent Urdu speaking minority population.

"If our demand is not met then its effect will be seen in the elections. There are more than 60 Assembly seats where minorities play significant role during elections," claimed a representative during the demonstration.


Always aimed at political class - vote share where minorities will swing the vote. And political class caves in.


Caving in as : West Bengal govt announces reservation for Muslims in govt jobs: "On a day when the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down job reservation for Muslims, the West Bengal government on Monday announced 10 per cent quota in employment for the community under the OBC category."


Posted by BENGAL UNDER ATTACK at 3:13 AM



Anonymous said...

Hey BUA,

Good that u have come bak to Bengal. It is indeed an alarming situation and now with this quota we are legitimizing all illegal migrants from Bangladesh to set up terror factories.The divergence between Gujarat and Bengal could not be starker.
February 8, 2010 8:00 PM

I want to clarify something here. When I am talking of Muslims in this article, I dont mean the kinds that are represented by APJ Abdul Kalam, AR Rahman (a convert), Aamir Khans of this world. And there are Pervez Hoodboy, Asma Jehangirs and Ahmed Rashids in plenty in pakistan too.Unfortunately I am talking of the vast majority of Muslims who live in ghettoized colonies and get easily influenced by rabid Maulanas. Incl some educated ones who are lost in their identity and see Islamic cause as a vision to their own confused life. And hence this forms more than 80% of the Muslims in the sub-continent and elsewhere. Many well meaning perhaps, but will support "quom" over nation building.Go and see where least taxes come from, go and see where least electricity bills are paid, which localities. Even Hindus are Christians are poor - but there is something called "pride in nation" and nationbuilding that is missing en masse in ordinary Muslims in India.
February 9, 2010 2:45 AM
Narottam said...
Don't know much, but you are going right.

Post a Comment


How to Stop Islam from Taking Over Your Country
Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures

How to Stop the Islamic Jihad


Hindus of Bangladesh
Bangladesh and the destruction of Hinduism and Buddhism

Bangladeshi Hindu - Representing Bengali, Indian & World Hindus, Religion, Temple, Blog, Hinduism, Issues & Rights

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Don't Believe Iran! Lies and Dissimulation are Part of Islam

The real reason Iran can't be trusted

By Mamoun Fandy

London – In the run-up to talks with Iran last month [October 2009], many in Europe and the United States asked whether Iran would, or even could, come clean on its nuclear activities.

Should the West trust Iranian promises? The short answer is "no." But the underlying question is "Why not?"

The answer lies in Iranian belief systems – notably the doctrine of taqiyya, a difficult concept for many non-Muslims to grasp. Taqiyya is the Shiite religious rationale for concealment or dissimulation in political or worldly affairs. At one level it means that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his regime can tell themselves that they are obliged by their faith not to tell the truth.

This doctrine has not been discussed much in the West, but it should be. How should the world deal with taqiyya in Shiite Islam in the context of Iran's nuclear file?

Can Iran be trusted?

In Iran, the teachings of Shiite Islam govern all aspects of society. And taqiyya – dissimulation and concealment – is one of the key elements of the Shiite faith. While many outsiders are surprised by Iran's concealment of its nuclear installations, those who study the Shiite faith and recognize the signs of taqiyya are not.

Many governments lie about strategic secrets, especially secrets about nuclear weapons. Witness Israel's concealment of its nuclear capabilities. And former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping counseled his country to "hide its brightness" – for strategic reasons.

Iran's approach to its nuclear ambitions, however, is a different form of deception and denial. Certainly states do not need a religious edict to lie or obfuscate. But it helps if a state has one already in place.

What can the West do?

Western negotiators must be mindful, not only of the technical side of Iran's nuclear program, but the historical evolution of taqiyya. Such context sheds critical light on the insecurities of the Iranian regime and that of the Shiite community at large.

Taqiyya doesn't mean the West should give up all negotiations with Iran, or that Iran can never be trusted. Tehran's concealment is a means to an end: It wants nuclear weapons to provide security for the clerical regime and the Shiite community. So long as Iran feels threatened, it will deceive. But if the West can ease Tehran's anxiety with strong assurances, then negotiations will be more truthful.

How a doctrine of deceit developed

Taqiyya requires the faithful to be deceitful at times of weakness. The history of Shiites in their conflict with Sunnis is a history of the downtrodden. They have been the underdogs in Islamic history, and have had to protect both their communities and their faith from being overrun by the more numerous Sunnis. Taqiyya emerged as a response.

Taqiyya offers a license to violate the strict rules of the faith in cases of extreme pressure or threat of extinction – something not unusual in Sunni-Shiite history. The doctrine allows dissimulation in the service of self-preservation, practiced by the faithful.

The teachings of Jafar al-Sadiq, the sixth Shiite imam, emphasise taqiyya as a political tool. "Befriend people on the surface, and keep your grudges and intentions hidden," he advised. He also defined the relationship between the Shiite and other Muslims: "[B]eing double-faced with one's own takes one outside the bounds of faith, but with others [with non-Shiites] is a form of worship."

The words of Shiite imams are viewed as having the authority of the prophet Muhammad, and they entail obligations. Taqiyya is one component of the faith, and the Shiites are instructed to practice it until the time the Mahdi returns. The Mahdi is the figure who, like the Messiah in Christianity, will return and spread justice on earth.

Until that moment occurs, the Shiite faithful are obliged to practice taqiyya in their dealings with other Muslims, as well as with non-Muslims.

Opposing value systems

While the policies of the West and of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are driven by the concept of transparency as a key doctrine of modernity and modern states, those who are negotiating with Iran must question the extent to which the Shiite regime in Tehran is driven by the concept of concealment. There are two different value systems at work here, making common ground exceedingly difficult to find.

Today the West may rightly be obsessed with nuclear installations in Iran, or the number of centrifuges it has, or even uranium-enrichment levels.

Last month, Iranian officials allowed IAEA officials to inspect a nuclear facility near the city of Qom. But they won't reveal everything: that would violate their faith. Shiites are obliged by their religious teachings to protect both the faith and the community until the return of the Mahdi. From Tehran's perspective, "nuclear" taqiyya is a must, because strategic nuclear weapons are the only means to protect the Shiite community in these modern times.

The West must understand that Iran's nuclear guile is a function of regime insecurities. And its insecurity is rooted in reality: Iran feels squeezed by the tens of thousands of US troops who brought regime change to its west, in Iraq, and to its east, in Afghanistan.

If Washington wants a breakthrough in its negotiations with Iran, it should make fewer threats and more assurances. Only when the Iranian regime feels safe will it negotiate in good faith.

Mamoun Fandy is the director of the Middle East program at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. He's also the author of the forthcoming book, "The Shia-Sunni Divide and the Coming Middle Eastern Cold War."

[Fri Nov 20, 4:00 am ET]

[ALSO SEE Can Moslems Be Trusted? "Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah"


Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries]

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

NOW . . .

If you have read this far, do you believe this quote from the foregoing Mahmoun Fandy article represents the way things are with Iran?

"If Washington wants a breakthrough in its negotiations with Iran, it should make fewer threats and more assurances. Only when the Iranian regime feels safe will it negotiate in good faith."

There is no sign of Iran "negotiating in good faith," given Obama's weakness in facing its nuclear ambitions.

How much "feeling safe" does the Iraninian regime need? Allowing it to go ahead with perfecting the nuclear weapons it desires so that it can nuke Israel off the face of the Earth?

Saturday, December 5, 2009


Fitna and the Kafir: Part One

By Kenneth Roberts

December 1, 2009

Why do cartoons constitute a capital crime in Islam? Why did writing 'The Satanic Verses' bring a death sentence and bounty upon Sir Salman Rushdie? Why does a military psychiatrist fire more than 100 rounds into an unarmed crowd he was trained to heal? Why do Muslims express violent anger concerning differences of religious opinion? The one-word answer to these questions is 'FITNA'.

Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse. The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.

Fitna is spotted by the mullahs who also pick the Islamic response to it. In response to the Danish cartoons, they instructed Muslims to riot. Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the paramount authority in Islam, demanded the closing of Jyllands Posten to prevent further fitna. Muslims studiously avoid the word fitna when talking to infidels.

What is fitna then?

The definition is surprisingly simple: Fitna is any disagreement with Mohammed. More precisely, Fitna is any islamicly-incorrect thought which is communicated to others in the public domain.

This definition fits all the confusing facts and makes sense of all the Islamic dualisms. Fitna is a thought crime. Fitna is a dualistic cocktail of blasphemy and treason.

As with almost everything in Islam, fitna is very hard to explain, because it is couched in Islamic dualism. Even Muslims have trouble explaining it, but they can identify it when they see it. And when they see it, they react violently.

There are two distinctly different classes of fitna: inter-Islamic fitna and infidel fitna. In relation to the evil infidels, fitna means 'tempting', 'enticing' or 'luring' another to disagree with Mohammed. Fitna comes from an old Arabic word that means removing the dross from pure metal. Pure Islam is held in check by fitna, so it must be purged.

In modern Islamic usage, fitna is used to describe ideas that cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community, …such things as openly disagreeing with the head of state of Egypt or Iran or with something found in Sharia law. When a professor at an Arab university quotes original research on the primary sources of Islam, he is immediately accused of fitna and his life is simultaneously threatened. Inter-Islamic fitna is what most Muslims understand when they think of the word 'fitna'.

Muslims cast a veil over 'kafir fitna'…the politically incorrect free speech of wicked infidels that justifies jihad and brings Allah's just punishment upon them.

Mohammed discovered a brilliant way to criminalize differences of opinion with himself. He called his invention 'fitna' and made it the worst crime in his new religion. Any utterance that tests Mohammed's method is a chargeable offence and a capital crime if it persists. The religious charge of blasphemy veils the serious political charge of treason against Mohammed.

Mohammed is Allah's vice-regent on earth. Not only does Mohammed define the truth, but he has a right to punish those who disagree. Moreover, Mohammed is both the constitution and the Islamic state. By disagreeing with Mohammed, you are calling him wrong, in error or worse yet a liar. That is slander and character assassination, but it is also the crime of treason against the Islamic Nation.

The Koran likes to say infidels are accusing Mohammed of being a liar, since that sounds more dramatic and culpable. The Koran commands the punishment of fitna after making it sound reprehensible. Anyone disagreeing with Mohammed in any way has become an enemy of the state who should be treated severely and with violence.

Private disagreements with Mohammed are acceptable, as long as they do not reach the eyes or ears of Muslims. However, public disagreement demands public Islamic punishment. 'Punishment' euphemistically means the death penalty, normatively by beheading.

In the Islamic religion, Mohammed is the only one who speaks for God. Disputing Mohammed's religious monopoly in public means disagreeing with God Himself…thus putting Allah to the test before Muslims. If Allah has lost face in public, his honor and control of the situation can only be restored by violence. To disagree publicly with Mohammed is to call Mohammed and Allah liars. Koran 29:63 - "Who does more harm than he who tells a lie against Allah?" No one! Anyone who suggests Allah or Mohammed are fakes is the worst criminal.

The Koran tells us that words disputing Mohammed/Allah are more criminal than the deed of murder. This does not make sense.

Obviously, something else is going on under the blanket of religion. That something is a political doctrine called 'supremacism'.

In art, an object is sometimes defined, not by positive use of color, but by negative space and the use of shadow. Fitna reveals Islam's key doctrine of Mohammed's supremacy veiled in shadow. Undermining Mohammed's authority does more harm than anything!

As far as Muslims are concerned, the fact that infidels have wrong thoughts in private is bad enough. The divine plan is for the whole world to agree openly that Mohammed is right. In the meantime, it is good for the infidels to be under Islamic control.

In normative Islam, the public utterance of disagreement with Mohammed is worthy of death. Practically, why is this so?

The death sentence is required for the sake of the political harm done to the Islamic chain of command and the readiness of Muslims as a solid fighting force (Koran 61:4).

Basically, all Muslims constitute one army of which Mohammed is the head. First and foremost, every Muslim male is a potential soldier…a holy warrior…a jihadist. If Islam is to go forward, the Muslim male needs to be emotionally, psychologically and mentally ready for jihad and the Islamic community needs to enthusiastically support jihad.

Jihad is Mohammed's method, the way Islam grows. Mohammed is the only expert on Islam. Anything that stands in the way of jihad is evil, satanic and treasonous! Satan and his followers need to be weakened and destroyed or at a minimum brought under the coercive control of the Islamic state. The Islamic army will be ready only if there is an absence of fitna, so fitna control means information control. Information control precedes jihad.

The tactic of information control was first demonstrated by Mohammed by assassinating his vocal critics, usually at night. Mohammed also gave his complete support to freelance assassins who murdered family members who criticized Mohammed at home…also usually at night. Disagreeing with Mohammed is not permissible if a Muslim is present or becomes aware of it. Mohammed used violence to stamp out the utterance of disagreement and he approved of others who did the same on their own initiative. Mohammed is the role model for all Muslims to emulate.

Assassination is the normative punishment for the crime of fitna. Killing a critic of Islam is a good deed, since it restores the honor of Allah/Mohammed and removes the threat of fitna from the community. Any Muslim is free to carry out the death sentence in the matter of fitna. In Sharia-dominated countries, no punishment will be given and the killer will be a hero. As well, the assassin is guaranteed entry to the highest rank in paradise.

Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the leading cleric of the four Sunni sects declared, 'Muslims are allowed to fight against them (critics), but only to the extent of making them aware that they should not become enemies of Islam.' Here we have the foremost Muslim in the world stating publicly that infidels should be 'fought' (treated violently) if they disagree with Mohammed. Since Tantawi speaks for 90% of Muslims, violence against critics of Islam remains an official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam. Sunnis number almost one billion.

Most Westerners believed Muslims were angered that Kurt Westergaard (the cartoonist who drew the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon) called Mohammed, or by extension, that he called all Muslims-violent! Westerners believed their message was: 'Don't say Islam is violent or we'll kill you!'

But Islamic violence is not the issue. Muslims know that Mohammed is violent and that he is their role model. They revel in it. It makes them feel strong and proud.

Jihad is holy violence. Violence is the way Allah removes fitna, removes the dross from pure Islam and removes the infidel scum from the earth which is owned by Mohammed. (Bukhari 4:52:220)

No! Muslims were angered that the Danish cartoonists disagreed with Mohammed, and said so in public. That was political fitna and a crime against honor.

The cartoonists disagreed that Mohammed's violent method is right and made fun of it. The cartoonists removed Mohammed's halo. As a consequence, Allah and Mohammed both lost face. If Allah/Mohammed said violence against the infidels is right… and the infidels laugh at Allah's Divine Command…the infidels obviously need to be taught a lesson. The infidels need to accept that Mohammed owns the earth and their position is one of political inferiority to Muslims. Islamic supremacism is Allah's divine plan and violence is Mohammed's method.

The infidels are to be brought under the control of the Islamic state in thought, word and deed and they are given no choice in submitting to it or not. Allah commanded violence so the infidels will be forced to receive the divine benefit of Islam…'even if the infidels are averse to it!' (Koran 9:33)"

Muslim logic is: The infidels do not understand. They are blinded by Satan. Muslims have to use violence to help the infidels. The infidels should be in terror of Allah and the coercive power of the Islamic Nation. It is for their own good. Allah is great! And has the ability to do all things. And Allah knows best!

That final phrase ends every Islamic verdict and the deeds of jihad follow. Further disagreement is impossible.

Throughout the West, the infidels did not understand! The purpose of the cartoon riots was not to reassert the lost human rights of Muslims under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but to proclaim the political supremacy of Muslims over the infidels and show the willingness of Muslims to support jihad and bring the infidels under their control. Put negatively, the purpose of the cartoon riots was to declare the inferiority of infidels, who should know their place and commit no more 'fitna'. That is…the infidels needed to learn not to disagree with Mohammed in public.

Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009


by Bill Warner

Bill Warner presents us, in his words, with "an exercise in fact-based rational thought." He quotes a fairly typical, politically correct, fair-minded Rabbi committed to ecumenicism and determined to think well of everyone. Warner quotes the letter that embodies that point of view, then proceeds to demonstrate that this image of Islam doesn't conform to reality. Defusing the hatred in the Koran because the Jewish and Christian Scriptures also -- in the Rabbi's words -- contain "bad material" doesn't anwer why Jews and Christians have moved on, but Muslims still stone people and behead them and cut off hands for trivial offenses.