Thursday, December 31, 2015

Re-post: The Glazov Gang-Kai Chen's Escape From China's Tyranny. (hosted by Jamie Glazov, PhD)

To view this interview with Kai Chen, one of the world`s foremost basketball athlete superstars, translator and author, kindly click on the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afjz_OFNsiI

WikiIslam: Muslim Statistics

To explore this 24-page series of fully referenced statistics on topics ranging from Honor Violence to Terrorism, kindly click on the link below:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Islamisk økonomi: Hvilken betydning har den?

http://da.danielpipes.org/4978/islamisk-okonomi-hvilken-betydning-har-den

About DanielPipes.org - Dr. Daniel Pipes

http://www.danielpipes.org/about.php

About DanielPipes.org

Table of Contents

Statistical Overview

DanielPipes.org received about 10,000 unique visitors a month from its opening in December 2000 until 9/11. After 9/11, the number of visitors jumped to about 50,000 a month. The readership has continued to grow and has reached over 300,000 unique visitors a month. The number of page views per month increased from about 50,000 to over a million. In all, the site has received 70 million page visits. (Source: internal tracking.)
The largest number of readers comes from the United States, followed by Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, India, Germany, Israel, France, the Netherlands, and the United Arab Emirates. At the other end of the spectrum, a single visitor has come from each of Reunion, the Falkland Islands, the Central African Republic, and something called the "French Southern Territories." Three visitors from Antarctica have dropped by. Readers from 236 countries and domains have visited the website. (Source: ExtremeTracking.com)
The website peaked in February 2006 with the 15,273rd largest readership on the World Wide Web. (Source: Alexa.com)
The site is linked to by nearly 300,000 other pages (with the most readers coming from WorldNetDaily.com FrontPageMag.com, and LittleGreenFootballs.com).
The site has been found through the search of 220,000 different words. The most common of them are, in descending order, "Islam/Muslim/Islamic," "sex," "Obama," "jihad," "Arab," "war," "America," "Israel," and "Saudi."(Source: ExtremeTracking.com)
The articles on Barack Obama's having been raised a Muslim, listed at "Bibliography – My Writings on Barack Obama's Early Years as a Muslim." have an aggregate readership of nearly 1,000,000. Interestingly, they had on the order of 50 times more readers in 2008 than in 2012.
The number of readers at one time on the site usually ranges between 30 and 100. The highest number at one time was 450, in May 2003.
Most-read pages (source: internal tracking) include:
One curiosity: Although Mr. Pipes rarely writes about sex, this subject dominates the readership totals in all three of his formats: articles ("Arabian Sex Tourism"), blogs ("Strange Sex Stories from the Muslim World"), and comments ("Arab Sex"). In addition, the nearly 11,000 readers' comments at "Advice to Non-Muslim Women against Marrying Muslim Men" are by far the largest in number. It appears that sex really does sell.
The blog amounted to 1,200,000 words as of July 2012.

Special Pages

DanielPipes.org contains several pages that do not fit the general rubrics and are worth pointing out:
Bibliographies: A handy way to sort out the multiple articles on a single topic (conspiracy theories, women's coverings, Obama's connections to Islam, liberal vs. conservative views of Israel, etc.) at DanielPipes.org.
Getting to Know the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): Written in response to CAIR's attacks on Daniel Pipes, this page features a bibliography of some important articles about the organization and a link to Mr. Pipes' detailed response to a document it has widely circulated, "Who Is Daniel Pipes?"
Predictions by Daniel Pipes: 1983-2012: Mr. Pipes argues that the study of history is the best preparation to anticipate the future – and he frequently makes predictions. This page collects some of the more prominent of those forecasts.
Writings by Topic: Look up the contents of DanielPipes.org via some 70 topics listed here.

Search Engines

There are three different ways to search for contents on DanielPipes.org.
  1. Use any search engine, such as http://www.google.com/, to access the entire contents of the website.
  2. Use the search engine at the top right of any page on DanielPipes.org to access specifically the writings by Daniel Pipes (that is, the comments are excluded from this search).
  3. Use the search engine following the text of a weblog entry to show only a certain person's comments or comments from a specific date.

Languages Other Than English

The site contains over 11,000 translations of Mr. Pipes' writings into 36 languages. Of these, 15 have their own homepages. Here are the URLs of those language sites, their inauguration dates, and the average monthly unique visitors (source: internal tracking).
Arabichttp://ar.DanielPipes.orgJuly 20063300
Chinese (simpl.)http://zh-hans.DanielPipes.orgJune 2007N/A
Danishhttp://da.DanielPipes.orgMay 20052,200
Dutchhttp://nl.DanielPipes.orgJune 2007N/A
Frenchhttp://fr.DanielPipes.orgApril 200412,350
Germanhttp://de.DanielPipes.orgMay 20037,000
Hebrewhttp://he.DanielPipes.orgMarch 20041,650
Hindihttp://hi.DanielPipes.orgNovember 2005700
Italianhttp/:/it.DanielPipes.orgJanuary 20045,400
Polishhttp://pl.DanielPipes.orgJuly 20043,750
Portuguesehttp://pt.DanielPipes.orgJuly 20052,100
Romanianhttp://ro.DanielPipes.orgDecember 2006550
Russianhttp://ru.DanielPipes.orgJune 20051,350
Spanishhttp://es.DanielPipes.orgJanuary 20048,100
Swedishhttp://sv.DanielPipes.orgJune 20051,250
Please note: Translators for other languages are encouraged to contact Mr. Pipes about their availability.
For a list of articles by the number of languages translated into, click here.

iPhone Application

DanielPipes.org (and all of the Middle East Forum's four websites) can be turned into apps on the iPhone.
To do so requires four steps:
  1. Press Safari on the iPhone;
  2. Go to any one of the sites: DanielPipes,Middle East ForumCampus Watch,Islamist Watch, or Legal Project;
  3. Press + at the bottom of the page;
  4. Press "Add to Home Screen."

The Weblog

The weblog (or blog) at DanielPipes.org was started in February 2003 and took full shape by mid-2003. The goal of the weblog is provide a way for Mr. Pipes, the author of twelve books and a weekly columnist, to do several things:
This weblog has two main features that make it distinct from other blogs.
  • Many entries contain updates. These are either reports on how something came out or further information on the same topic. In certain cases, the many updates amount to an on-going log on a topic, for example "Is Prince Charles a Convert to Islam?" and "Conspiracy Theories Keep Polio Alive." That said, Mr. Pipes he has written about a thousand weblog entries and lets some expire, so as not to be overwhelmed with the task of updating.
  • Entries are dated by when something happens rather than when the entry was written. This has the advantage of directing the reader to when an event takes place.
Mr. Pipes sees the weblog as a fast way to comment on many topics. He therefore frequently quotes and paraphrases his sources. Those sources may contain errors, which he does not take responsibility for. .
Out of 41,000 weblogs monitored by DayPop.com (and out of an estimated 10 million weblogs in all), DanielPipes.org has ranked 271st highest in terms of the number of links from other weblogs and as high as 110th highest in terms of over-all readership. (Source: DayPop.com)
Inevitably, some links go dead over time and links no longer can be accessed. We do not attempt to fix these for the work would be overwhelming.

Reader Comments

A comments section on Daniel Pipes' articles was opened in April 2002 and over 190,000 comments by readers have been posted, or about 40 a day. About 60 percent come from the United States, with the next largest number from Canada, the United Kingdom, India, and Australia.
The comments section intends to offer an opportunity for readers from many vantage points to express their views and interact among themselves and with Mr. Pipes. Mr. Pipes reads all the comments and on occasion responds to them, usually to specific questions. The most noteworthy comments, mostly judged by adding new information, are listed at "Outstanding Reader Comments."
The largest number of readers' comments, over 12,000 of them, are posted at "Advice to Non-Muslim Women against Marrying Muslim Men", a unique self-help page that has taken on a life of its own. (Click herehereherehereherehere and here for testimonials to its utility.) The article with the next highest number is 2,000, "How the West Could Lose."
Requests to alter or delete already-posted comments: The website regularly receives requests of this nature. Our policy is not to alter or delete the comments themselves, for they are part of the record. Instead, we offer a choice: (1) abbreviating part of the commentator's name so as to render it less visible to search engines or (2) adding a statement how the comment author has reconsidered and now sees things differently. If you wish to take either step, send the URL of your comment tocomments@danielpipes.org with a suggested change to your name or a text to add to the comment.
Comments are moderated, meaning that an editor vets them before posting. This text accompanies each comment submission:
Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see theGuidelines for Reader Comments.
On occasion, offending sections of comments are deleted and the remainder posted. In such cases, the editors exclude what they find unacceptable and replace it with ellipses (...) to indicate editing has taken place. In brief, the editors of DanielPipes.org and Mr. Pipes do their best to permit wide-ranging views while maintaining standards of civility and intelligence.
About one in ten comments do not get posted because of objectionable contents.
The Danish cartoon controversy of February 2006 somewhat changed the rules, for this issue heightened emotions and rhetoric concerning free speech, religion, insults, and blasphemy. The cartoon issue prompted the editors to permit a wider range of impassioned statements so as to reflect the tone of the debate. For further comments on the legitimate scope of the current debate, see "Talking Freely about the Enemy." Also see the response at "islam is like nazism because ....."
For an attempt at "gotcha" by monitoring comments on a website, and Mr. Pipes' response, see thediscussion of CAIR and Robert Spencer.
In an October 2013 ruling against Christians in Malaysia being able to refer to God as Allah, Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mohd Zawawi Salleh referred at length to a comment on this website byBrutus Balan. For the text of his decision, see "Grounds of judgment by Judge Datuk Mohd Zawawi Salleh." This is ironic, given that Mr. Pipes argues against Allah as an exclusively Islamic word and in favor of its generic meaning as God.

The "DPlist" Mailing Service

Associated with this website, Daniel Pipes sends out his writings, plus occasional other items about him or invitations to his events, some 2-3 mailings a week. Called "DPlist," it can be subscribed to at http://www.danielpipes.org/subscribe.php.
DPlist began in July 1999, in response to an e-mail campaign initiated against Mr. Pipes by the Council on American-Islamic Relations on publication of his article, "It Matters What Kind of Islam Prevails," so that he would have a list of people to respond to its calumnies. In fact, a request for support was made only one time, later in 1999. Since then, the list has grown substantially and in March 2007 exceeded 25,000 subscribers.
The mail service is also available in other languages. Each of these has a separate URL for signing up:
Arabic: http://ar.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
Danish: http://da.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
Dutch: http://nl.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
German: http://de.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
French: http://fr.danielpipes.org/subscribe.php
Hebrew: http://hi.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
Hindi: http://he.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
Italian: http://it.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
Polish: http://pl.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
Portuguese: http://pt.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
Romanian: http://ro.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
Russian: http://ru.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
Spanish: http://es.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
Swedish: http://sv.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
To help pay for the maintenance of DanielPipes.org, advertisements are occasionally sent to the DPlist recipients. To make the commercial quality clear, the word [Ad], in square brackets, begins the subject line. The sending of an advertisement implies only that it meets certain basic qualifications, and it does not imply endorsement of the product by Daniel Pipes.
Names of DPlist recipients are never sold to an outside party.

Posting Policies

Articles: Most articles from the pre-internet age, meaning roughly before 1996, are posted as they were submitted by Daniel Pipes for publication, not as edited and as they finally appeared. For the exact text of what appeared in print, please consult the original place of publication. Articles since then are posted as published, with the exception of some small silent corrections (typos, spelling mistakes, addition of material in square brackets).
Interviews: Interview transcripts, especially from television, tend to be done hastily and contain numerous mistakes (names, spelling, grammar); these are generally cleaned up before posting atDanielPipes.org.
Blogs: Weblogs are a dynamic medium with no cut-off date, no authoritative version, so these are continuously edited to ensure the highest quality texts.
Links: This website contains thousands of links to other pages on the Internet established over many years. Invariably, a proportion of those links eventually go dead. Much as Mr. Pipes would like to maintain their accuracy, time constraints mean that they are nearly always left in their original form.
Copyright Policy: We make every effort to respect copyrights. If you believe your copyright has been violated please contact us by postal mail at: Daniel Pipes, 1500 Walnut St., Suite 1050, Philadelphia, PA 19102.

Advertisements

For rate schedules either to place a banner on this website or to send an e-mail to its associated mailing list, please contact the webmaster at Webmaster@DanielPipes.org.
This blog includes advertisements arranged by Blogads, D&D Marketing Solutions, google.com, Tribal Fusion, and other agencies. Advertisers on the website have included:
Airlines: American, British, Brussels, Continental, Delta, El Al, Emirates, Etihad, France, JetBlue, KLM, Lufthansa, New Zealand, Southwest, Qantas, Turkish, United, US, Virgin America.
Automotive: Acura, Audi, Ford, General Motors, Hyundai, Jaguar, KIA, Land Rover, Mercedes-Benz, Michelin, Nissan, Scion, Suzuki, Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo.
Charity: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Nefesh B'Nefesh, Salvation Army, United Way.
Communications: AT&T, LG, Skype, Sprint, T-Mobile, United States Postal Service, UPS, Verizon, Virgin Mobile, Yellow Pages.
Consumer: Bacardi, Bosch, Bose, Burberry, Canon, Consumer Reports, Crate&Barrel, Disney, eBay, FedEx, Groupon, Ikea, Levi's, L'Occitane en Provence, L'Oreal, Lowe's, monster.com, Nike, Nikon, Procter & Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser, Tate & Lyle.
Cultural and educational: American Military University, Columbia University, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Liberty University, Library of America, Macquarie University, Metropolitan Opera, Northeastern University, Wharton School, Widener University, Xlibris.
Energy: BP, Citgo, ConEdison, ExxonMobil, Hess.
Financial: Aetna, Allstate Insurance, American Express, Barclay, Charles Schwab, Citibank, Citizens Bank, E*Trade, GE Money, H & R Block, Harris Bank, HSBC, Israel Bonds, JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, MetLife, PNC, Progressive Insurance, Prudential Insurance, State Farm, Visa, Zurich Insurance.
Food & drink: Coca-Cola, ConAgra Foods, Domino's Pizza, Dunkin' Donuts, General Mills, McDonald's, PepsiCo, Pizza Hut, Seagram's, Svedka Vodka, TGIF.
Government and political: AARP, Club for Growth, David Horowitz Freedom Center, FreedomWorks, Republican Party, Sierra Club, UNICEF, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Hotels: Aria Hotel, Best Western, Breakers, Crowne Plaza, Hilton, hotels.com, Hyatt, InterContinental, Kayak, La Quinta, Las Vegas Sands, Loews, Mandalay Bay, Mandarin Oriental, Marriott, Sheraton, St. Regis, Starwood Preferred Group, Taj, Westin.
Media: ABC Television, Ad Council, Comcast, DISH Network, Fairfax Media, MTV, National Geographic Channel, Netflix, News Corp., Newsmax, The New York Times, Simon & Schuster, Time-Warner, TV Guide, The Wall Street Journal.
Medical: Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Botox, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Dr. Scholl's, Humana, Pfizer.
Retailers: Amazon, Bottom Dollar, Gap, L.L. Bean, Macy's, Nordstrom, Petco, Pier 1 Imports, Radio Shack, Saks Fifth Avenue, Sears Roebuck, Staples, Sunglass Hut, Target, Walmart.
Technology: Adobe, America Online, Blackberry, Cisco, Dropbox, Google, Hewlett Packard, Kaspersky, Kyocera, Microsoft, Motorola, MySpace, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, SAP, Siemens, Sony, Toshiba, Western Digital, Yahoo!
Travel: American Automobile Association, Avis Rent a Car, Budget Rent a Car, Celebrity Cruises, Club Med, Expedia, Hertz, Kayak, Megabus, Royal Caribbean, Six Flag, Windstar Cruisess.
Tourism: Arizona, Bermuda, Branson, Chile, Florida, Maryland, New York State, North Carolina, Norway, Orlando, Pennsylvania, Scotland, Sea World San Diego, Toronto.
Transportation: Amtrak, Boeing, CSX, John Deere.
As is the case in a newspaper or on television, the appearance of an advertisement and on this site implies only that it meets certain basic qualifications, and specifically does not imply endorsement of the product by Daniel Pipes.

Piggybacked Articles

"Piggybacked articles" refers to those in which Mr. Pipes bases an article favorably on the work of another writer.

The Middle East Forum

Daniel Pipes is founder and president of the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based research institute. Although there is coordination between www.DanielPipes.org and the sites belonging to the Middle East Forum (www.MEForum.orgwww.Campus-Watch.orgwww.Islamist-Watch.org,www.Legal-Project.org), this site is the private, personal property of Daniel Pipes. It is registered in his name, it is owned by him, and it is legally not connected to the Middle East Forum.

Traffic Statistics

Pages Read per Month
Visitors per Month

Dr. Daniel Pipes: Uncovering Early Islam

Fem nyanser av mord - UR Play

För att se det här programmet, klicka vänligen på länken nedan:

http://urplay.se/Produkter/189599-UR-Samtiden-Vetenskapsfestivalen-2015-Fem-nyanser-av-mord

Finns det olika sätt att se på mord ur moralisk synpunkt? Kan mord rentav vara berättigat i vissa fall? Panelsamtal med Alva Stråge, Peter Andine, Thomas Nilsson, Tova Bennet, My Hyltegren. Moderator: Susanna Radovic. Inspelat den 18 april 2015. Arrangör: Internationella Vetenskapsfestivalen Göteborg.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Raymond Ibrahim: War and Peace - and Deceit - in Islam

http://www.meforum.org/about.php

About The Middle East Forum

Staff   |   Board of Governors   |   Internships & Employment   |   Press Releases   |   Photo Gallery
With roots going back to 1990, the Middle East Forum has been an independent tax-exempt 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization based in Philadelphia since 1994.

Mission

The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats.

The Forum sees the region — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, corruption, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, we urge bold measures to protect Americans and their allies.

In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with the great advances of anarchy.
At home, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, activists, and publishers; and works to improve Middle East studies.

Methods

The Middle East Forum realizes its goals through three main mechanisms:
  1. Intellectual: The Forum provides context, insights, and policy recommendations through theMiddle East Quarterly, staff writings, public lectures, radio and television appearances, and conference calls (see below for details).
  2. Operational: The Forum exerts an active influence through its projects, including Campus Watch, Islamist Watch, Legal Project, Washington Project, Apartheid Monitor, and Shillman/Ginsburg Writing Fellowship Program (see below for details).
  3. Philanthropic: The Forum annually distributes US$1.5 million in earmarked donations through its Education Fund, helping researchers, writers, investigators, and activists around the world.

Activities

Campus Speakers Bureau provides knowledgeable speakers capable of relating accurate and balanced information regarding the Middle East and Islam to American university students.

Campus Watch exposes the politicization and biases of Middle East studies in North American universities with the goal to improve them. Its research critiques the teaching and scholarship of academic specialists, bringing the content of their work to the attention of a broader audience.

Conference Calls offer leading analysts discussing topical Middle Eastern and Islamic issues every month. Participation is limited to MEF donors but summaries and audio recordings are posted at MEForum.org.

DanielPipes.org. The Forum's president, Daniel Pipes, maintains a website with over three thousand pages of his writings, television transcripts, testimony, and more. Since 2001, DanielPipes.org has received 60 million visits.

Islamist Watch. Arguing that violence is not the only, or even the best way to apply Shari'a law, Islamist Watch monitors and exposes the growing influence of non-violent radical Islamist groups in the West while empowering moderate Muslims.

Lectures. The Forum forwards a robust consideration of Middle East issues by sponsoring lecture series in New York and Philadelphia. Speakers include heads of state, ranking ministers, and leading journalists and scholars.

The Legal Project protects authors, researchers, and activists from (1) predatory lawsuits filed by Islamists who seek to stifle free discussion of Islam and related topics and (2) the imposition of laws to restrict public free speech of these topics. The Legal Project arranges for pro bono legal help, assists with litigation costs, develops expertise, and works with policymakers.

MEForum.org (this website) hosts a complete archive of Middle East Quarterly articles; articles by MEF staff; audio recordings and summary accounts of guest lectures and conference calls; and MEF alerts for Forum events, media appearances, and news releases.

Middle East Quarterly, published since 1994 and edited by Efraim Karsh, it is the only scholarly journal on the Middle East consistent with mainstream American views. Delivering timely analyses, cutting-edge information, and sound policy initiatives, it serves as a valuable resource for policymakers and opinion-shapers.

Public Outreach. Television and radio rely on Forum specialists, who appear on virtually all the major American over-the-air and cable news programs, plus stations around the globe. MEF staff also brief ranking officials of the U.S. government, testify before Congress, and conduct studies for executive branch agencies.

Research and Publications. Forum scholars produce a bi-weekly newspaper column which runs in the Jerusalem Post, write articles in magazines and journals, and publish books (most recently,Palestine BetrayedThe Al Qaeda Reader and Hamas vs. Fatah). Newspapers include the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Websites range from HuffingtonPost.com to NationalReview.com.
Shillman/Ginsburg Writing Fellowship Program, which provides timely analysis by specialists on the Middle East's most pressing problems, with an eye toward policy solutions.

Student Internship Program. The MEF devotes attention to offering hands-on experience to students in a range of research, editorial, and administrative tasks, with an emphasis on getting them into print. Among other careers, MEF interns have gone on to work as professional staff at the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, and as writers for the New Republic, Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal.

Volunteer Program. The Forum's Volunteer Program for professionals complements our student internship program. Distance and in-house volunteers—many with expertise and knowledge of the region—aid Forum staff with research, writing, proof reading, administration, and fundraising.

The Washington Project, directed by Steven J. Rosen, formerly of AIPAC, influences U.S. policy, particularly in regards to Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict, primarily through intensive in-person contacts in the capital.

The Middle East Forum has federal tax ID 23-774-9796. (View a copy of the IRS letter of determination.)

Opinions expressed by Middle East Forum staff and fellows, and by participants in MEF activities, do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum or its Board of Governors.
Please send all inquiries to info (at) meforum (dot) org

http://www.meforum.org/2066/war-and-peace-and-deceit-in-islam

War and Peace - and Deceit - in Islam

by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
February 12, 2009

Editor's note: Substantial portions of the following essay made up part of Mr. Ibrahim's written testimony that was presented to Congress on February 12, 2009

Today, in a time of wars and rumors of wars emanating from the Islamic world — from the current conflict in Gaza, to the saber-rattling of nuclear-armed Pakistan and soon-to-be Iran — the need for non-Muslims to better understand Islam's doctrines and objectives concerning war and peace, and everything in between (treaties, diplomacy), has become pressing. For instance, what does one make of the fact that, after openly and vociferously making it clear time and time again that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel annihilated, Hamas also pursues "peace treaties," including various forms of concessions from Israel — and more puzzling, receives them?

Before being in a position to answer such questions, one must first appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of mainstream (Sunni) Islam. Amazingly, for all the talk that Islam is constantly being "misunderstood" or "misinterpreted" by "radicals," the fact is, as opposed to most other religions, Islam is a clearly defined faith admitting of no ambiguity: indeed, according to Sharia (i.e., "Islam's way of life," more commonly translated as "Islamic law") every conceivable human act is categorized as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory. "Common sense" or "universal opinion" has little to do with Islam's notions of right and wrong. All that matters is what Allah (via the Koran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the hadith) have to say about any given subject, and how Islam's greatest theologians and jurists — collectively known as the ulema, literally, the "ones who know" — have articulated it.

Consider the concept of lying. According to Sharia, deception is not only permitted in certain situations but is sometimes deemed obligatory. For instance, and quite contrary to early Christian tradition, not only are Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatized; many jurists have decreed that, according to Koran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie.

The doctrine of taqiyya

Much of this revolves around the pivotal doctrine of taqiyya, which is often euphemized as "religious dissembling," though in reality simply connotes "Muslim deception vis-à-vis infidels." According to the authoritative Arabic text Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam, "Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era [p. 7; my own translation]."

Some erroneously believe that taqiyya is an exclusively Shia doctrine: as a minority group interspersed among their traditional enemies, the much more numerous Sunnis, Shias have historically had more "reason" to dissemble. Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in a similar situation, as they are now the minority surrounded by their historic enemies — Christian infidels.

The primary Koranic verse sanctioning deception vis-à-vis non-Muslims states: "Let believers [Muslims] not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions" (3:28; other verses referenced by the ulema in support of taqiyya include 2:173, 2:185, 4:29, 16:106, 22:78, 40:28).

Al-Tabari's (d. 923) famous tafsir (exegesis of the Koran) is a standard and authoritative reference work in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he writes: "If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. … Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them."

Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373, second in authority only to Tabari) writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's close companion, Abu Darda, who said, "Let us smile to the face of some people [non-Muslims] while our hearts curse them"; another companion, al-Hassan, said, "Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]."

Other prominent ulema, such as al-Qurtubi, al-Razi, and al-Arabi, have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave like infidels — including by bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, even exposing fellow Muslims' weaknesses to the infidel enemy — anything short of actually killing a Muslim.

Is this why the Muslim American sergeant Hasan Akbar attacked and killed his fellow servicemen in Iraq in 2003? Had his pretense of loyalty finally come up against a wall when he realized Muslims might die at his hands? He had written in his diary: "I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill."

War is deceit

None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad himself — whose example as the "most perfect human" is to be tenaciously followed — took an expedient view of lying. It is well known, for instance, that Muhammad permitted lying in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties, to one's wife, and in war (see Sahih Muslim B32N6303, deemed an "authentic" hadith).

As for our chief concern here — war — the following story from the life of Muhammad reveals the centrality of deceit in war. During the Battle of the Trench (627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes known as "the Confederates," one of these Confederates, Naim bin Masud, went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered that the Confederates were unaware of their co-tribalist's conversion, he counseled Masud to return and try somehow to get the Confederates to abandon the siege — "For," Muhammad assured him, "war is deceit." Masud returned to the Confederates without their knowing that he had "switched sides," and began giving his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded, lifting the siege from the Muslims, and thereby saving Islam in its embryonic period (see Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam; also, Ibn Ishaq's Sira, the earliest biography of Muhammad).

More demonstrative of the legitimacy of deception vis-à-vis infidels is the following anecdote. A poet,Kab bin al-Ashruf, offended Muhammad by making derogatory verse concerning Muslim women. So Muhammad exclaimed in front of his followers: "Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his prophet?" A young Muslim named Muhammad bin Maslama volunteered, but with the caveat that, in order to get close enough to Kab to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammadagreed. Maslama traveled to Kab, began denigrating Islam and Muhammad, carrying on this way till his disaffection became convincing enough that Kab took him into his confidences. Soon thereafter, Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Kab's guard was down, assaulted and killed him. Ibn Sa'ad's version reports that they ran to Muhammad with Kab's head, to which the latter cried, "Allahu Akbar!" (God is great!)

It also bears mentioning that the entire sequence of Koranic revelations is a testimony to taqiyya; and since Allah is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the perpetrator of deceit — which is not surprising since Allah himself is described in the Koran as the best "deceiver" or "schemer" (3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Koran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones. The ulema were baffled as to which verses to codify into Sharia's worldview — the one, for instance, that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims till they either convert, or at least submit, to Islam (8:39, 9:5, 9:29)? To get out of this quandary, the ulema developed the doctrine of abrogation (naskh, supported by Koran 2:106) which essentially maintains that verses "revealed" later in Muhammad's career take precedence over the earlier ones, whenever there is a contradiction.

But why the contradiction in the first place? The standard view has been that, since in the early years of Islam, Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels and idolaters, a message of peace and coexistence was in order (sound familiar?). However, after he migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the violent and intolerant verses were "revealed," inciting Muslims to go on the offensive — now that they were capable of doing so. 

According to this view, quite standard among the ulema, one can only conclude that the peaceful Meccan verses were ultimately a ruse to buy Islam time till it became sufficiently strong to implement its "true" verses which demand conquest. Or, as traditionally understood and implemented by Muslims themselves, when the latter are weak and in a minority position, they should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses (peace and tolerance); when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the Medinan verses (war and conquest). The vicissitudes of Islamic history are a testimony to this dichotomy.

A Muslim colleague of mine once made this clear during a casual, though revealing, conversation. After expounding to him all those problematic doctrines that make it impossible for Muslims to peacefully coexist with infidels — jihad, loyalty and enmityenjoining the right and forbidding the wrong — I pointedly asked him how and why he, as a Muslim, did not uphold them. He kept prevaricating, pointing to those other, abrogated verses of peace and tolerance. Assuming he was totally oblivious of such arcane doctrines as abrogation, I (rather triumphantly) began explaining to him the distinction between Meccan (tolerant) and Medinan (intolerant) verses, and how the latter abrogate the former. He simply smiled, saying, "I know; but I'm currently living in Mecca" — that is, like his weak and outnumbered prophet living among an infidel majority in Mecca, he too, for survival's sake, felt compelled to preach peace, tolerance, and coexistence to the infidel majority of America.

War is eternal

The fact that Islam legitimizes deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; as the saying goes, all's fair in love and war. Moreover, non-Muslim thinkers and philosophers, such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, all justified deceit in war. The crucial difference, however, is that, according to all four recognized schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity — until "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah" (Koran 8:39). In its entry on jihad, the definitiveEncyclopaedia of Islam simply states:
The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.
Moreover, going back to the doctrine of abrogation, the vast majority of the ulema agree that Koran 9:5, famously known as ayat al-saif — the "sword verse" — has abrogated some 124 of the more peaceful Meccan verses.

The obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam's dichotomized worldview that pits Dar al-Islam (the "realm of submission," i.e., the Islamic world), against Dar al-Harb (the "realm of war," i.e., the non-Islamic world) until the former subsumes the latter. Internationally renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) articulates this division thusly: "In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligationto convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups [specifically Christianity and Judaism] did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations."

This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca, ten years is, theoretically, the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels. Based on Muhammad's example of breaking the treaty after two years (by citing a Quraish infraction), the sole function of the "peace treaty" (orhudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before going on the offensive once more. Incidentally, according to a canonical hadith, Muhammad said, "If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath." The prophet further encouraged Muslims to do the same: "If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."
After negotiating a peace treaty criticized by Muslims as conceding too much to Israel, former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat, speaking to Muslims in a mosque and off the record, justified his actions by saying, "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca." In other words, like his prophet, the "moderate" Arafat was giving his word only to annul it once "something else better" came along — that is, once Palestinians became strong enough to renew the offensive.

Most recently, a new Islamic group associated with Hamas called Jaysh al-Umma (Islam's army)stated clearly, "Muslims all over the world are obliged to fight the Israelis and the infidels until only Islam rules the earth." Realizing their slip, they quickly clarified: "We say that the world will not live in peace as long as the blood of Muslims continues to be shed." Which is it — until Muslim blood stops being shed in Israel or "until only Islam rules the earth"?

These are all clear instances of Muslims feigning openness to the idea of peace simply in order to buy more time to build up their strength.

Here, then, is the problem: If Islam must be in a constant state of war with the non-Muslim world, which need not be physical, as the ulema have classified several non-violent forms of jihad, such as "jihad-of-the-pen" (propaganda) and "money-jihad" (economic); and if Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty, amiability, even affection to the infidel, simply to further their war efforts — what does one make of any Muslim overtures of peace, tolerance, or dialogue?

This is more obvious when one considers that, every single time Muslims "reach out" for "peace," it is always when they are in a weakened condition vis-à-vis infidels — that is, when they, not their non-Muslim competitors, benefit from the peace. This is the lesson of the last two centuries of Muslim-Western interaction, wherein the former have been militarily inferior and thus beholden to the latter.

One wonders if the reverse would hold true. If, for example, the Palestinians suddenly became stronger than Israel and could annihilate it, if Israel reached out for peace or concessions, would the (overwhelmingly Muslim) Palestinians grant it? In fact, the answer to this question is evident in all those countries where non-Muslim groups live as minorities among Muslim majorities: while living in constant social subjugation (according to Koran 9:29) they are also sporadically persecuted and killed — such as the Christian Copts of Egypt who, after merely assembling for prayer in a condemned factory, found 20,000 rioting Muslims surrounding them, screaming the Muslim war cry, "Allah Akbar," while throwing stones at them.

Reciprocal treatment or religious obligation?

Why did Osama bin Laden, who firmly believes in the division of the world into two entities — Islam and the rest — which must war until the former dominates the globe, attack the U.S.? The following anecdote sheds some light: after a group of prominent Muslims wrote a letter to Americans saying that Islam is a peaceful religion that wishes to coexist with others, seeking only to "live and let live," bin Laden, thinking no non-Muslim would see his letter, castigated them as follows:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We [Muslims] renounce you [non-Muslims]. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone" [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [i.e., taqiyya]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! … Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them (from The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).
It bears repeating that this hostile weltanschauung is well supported by mainstream Islam's schools of jurisprudence (i.e., there is nothing "radical" about it). When addressing Western audiences, however, bin Laden's tone drastically changes; he lists any number of "grievances" for fighting the West — from Palestinian oppression, to the Western exploitation of women and U.S. failure to sign the Kyoto protocol — never once alluding to fighting the U.S. simply because it is an infidel entity that must be subjugated. Indeed, he often initiates his messages to the West by saying, "Reciprocal treatment is part of justice" or "Peace to whoever follows guidance" — though he means something entirely different than what his Western audience thinks.

This is of course a clear instance of taqiyya, as bin Laden is not only waging a physical jihad, but one of propaganda. Convincing a secular West (whose epistemology does not allow for the notion of religious conquest) that the current conflict is entirely its fault only garners him and his cause more sympathy; conversely, he also knows that if Americans were to realize that, all political grievances aside — real or imagined — according to Islam's worldview, nothing short of their submission to Islam can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be quickly compromised. Yet the fact is al-Qaeda is motivated more by religious obligation than reciprocal treatment. Hence the constant need to lie, "for war," as their prophet asserted, "is deceit."

It should be added that, though the vast majority of the world's Muslims are not active terrorists, bin Laden's list of grievances against the West is paradigmatic of the average Muslim's grievances. However, if they are unaware that, according to Islam — not bin Laden — animosity towards infidels transcends time, space, and grievances, and that religious obligation commands the war continue till "all religion belongs to Allah," they are either ignorant of their own faith, or — taqiyya?

With friends like these …

Associated with Hamas, denounced by American politicians for "pursuing an extreme Islamist political agenda," its members arrested for terrorism-related charges — the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is another Muslim group which appears to be less than sincere to its non-Muslim audience; situated in the U.S., it is also much closer to home. When it comes to the issue of jihad, perpetual warfare, even doctrines such as taqiyya — indeed, all that has been delineated in this essay — CAIR has been at the forefront of not only denying their existence, but accusing of "Islamophobia" and threatening with lawsuits anyone alluding to them, thereby censoring any critical talk of Islam.

Could CAIR be taking lessons from the Muslim convert Masud, whom Muhammad urged to go and live among the Confederate infidels, solely in order to mislead and betray them, so that Islam might triumph?

The most obvious example of taqiyya, however, comes from an entire nation: Saudi Arabia. If any nation closely follows Sharia — including, but not limited to, the division of the world into two perpetually warring halves, Islam and infidelity — it is Saudi Arabia, a.k.a. America's "friend." According to Sharia, for instance, the Saudis will not allow the construction of a single church or synagogue on their land; Bibles are banned and burned; Christians engaged in any kind of missionary activity are arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed; Muslim converts to Christianity are put to death.

Yet for all that, in their attempt to portray Islam as a "tolerant" religion, a religion that, once again, merely seeks "peacefully coexist" with others, the Saudis have been pushing for more "dialogue"between Muslims and non-Muslims, specifically Christians and Jews (ironically, those two peoples who are currently much more powerful than Islam). Rather tellingly, however, Saudi Arabia refuses to host any of these conferences; after all, their prophet Muhammad's deathbed wish was to expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian peninsula; how to re-invite them now and talk of peace and tolerance? Moreover, surely the Saudis fear that a real "debate" — not just the perfunctory talk of "mutual understanding" that permeates these farces — might take place, once the non-Muslim participants discover that they are not free to practice their faiths on Saudi soil? The most recent interfaith conference was held in Madrid, where King Abdullah, despite all the aforementioned, asserted, "Islam is a religion of moderation and tolerance, a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers of all religions."

Mere days later, it was revealed that Saudi children's textbooks still call Christians and Jews "infidels," the "hated enemies," and "pigs and swine." A multiple choice test in a fourth-grade book asks Muslim children, "Who is a 'true' Muslim?" The correct answer is not the man who prays, fasts, etc., but rather, "A man worships God alone, loves the believers, and hates the infidels" — that is, those same people the Saudis want to "dialogue" with.

Clearly, then, when Saudis — or other Sharia-following Muslims — call for "dialogue" they are merely following the aforementioned advice of Muhammad's friend, Abu Darda: "Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them."

Implications

There is also a troubling philosophical — again, specifically epistemological — aspect to taqiyya. Anyone who truly believes that no less an authority than God justifies and, through his prophet's example, sometimes even encourages deception, will not experience any ethical qualms or dilemmas about lying. This is especially true if the human mind is indeed a tabula rasa shaped by environment and education: deception becomes second nature.

Consider the case of Ali Mohammad — bin Laden's "first trainer" and longtime al-Qaeda operative. Despite being entrenched in the highest echelons of the terror network, his confidence at dissemblingenabled him to become a CIA agent and FBI informant for years. People who knew him regarded him "with fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism." Indeed, this sentence sums it all: for a "zealous belief" in Islam's "tenets," which, as seen, legitimize deception, will certainly go a long way in creating "incredible self-confidence" when lying.

The bottom line is, any Muslim who closely observes Sharia law — and that is, incidentally, the definition of a Muslim, "one who submits to (the laws of) Allah" — laws that, among other bellicosities, clearly and unambiguously split the world into two perpetually warring halves — such a Muslim will always have a "divinely sanctioned" right to deceive, until "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah" (Koran 8:39). All Muslim overtures for peace, dialogue, or even temporary truces must be seen in this light.

Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.