Saturday, August 13, 2005

Taking Taqiyya to the Big Leagues

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows the concept of taqiyya. It’s Arabic, and basically it means “lie like a rug and make a fool of your opponent while you go ahead and do what you say you’re not doing.” It’s how Muslims negotiate and it has Mohammed’s blessing. Prevarication in the name of Islam is considered lawful and legal and even to be admired. How do you think Mohammed managed his initial victories and the capture of Medina via slaughter without setting up his victims first with an “agreement”?

So does this latest treachery by the Iranians surprise anyone except the useful idiots who sat at the negotiating table with them?—
     An Iranian foreign policy official has boasted that the regime bought extra time over its stalled negotiations with Europe to complete a uranium conversion plant.
In comments that will infuriate EU diplomats, Hosein Musavian said that Teheran took advantage of the nine months of talks, which collapsed last week, to finish work at its Isfahan enrichment facility.
Mr. Musavian fairly gloated over his smooth lies:
     Thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year in which we completed the [project] in Isfahan,” he told an Iranian television interviewer.
Mr Musavian also claimed that work on nuclear centrifuges at a plant at Natanz, which was kept secret until Iran’s exiled opposition revealed its existence in 2002, progressed during the negotiations.
“We needed six to 12 months to complete the work on the centrifuges,” said Mr Musavian, chairman of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council’s foreign policy committee. He made his remarks on August 4 - two days before Iran’s foreign ministry rejected the European Union offer of incentives to abandon its uranium enrichment programme.
The Telegraph noted that the United States was always pessimistic about the chances for success of the negotiations…
     Yesterday President George W Bush refused to rule out using military force to press Iran into giving up its nuclear programme, which Washington suspects is a front for weapons-making. “All options are on the table,” Mr Bush told Israeli television.
What do those Euro-duds need to convince them they are dealing with Muslims and that Muslims lie, lie, lie? And they hedge, prevaricate, stall and circumvent. It’s all legal, it’s all in the Koran.

What they can’t do in this country is beat around the Bush. George has their number. Let’s hope he’s willing to play it.


Lanny Nugen said...

I am sure this practice is the norm throughout history of mankind and it is not the sole property of Muslims. In different cultures, they have different terms but the practice is all the same. The problem is not about we don't know that they lie, but the problem is we don't trust the Western world knowing how to deal with Iran.

My opinion is the Western world just doesn't have any plan to deal with Iran except for the desire hoping Iran to be nice. And they wait and hope it will come true. That's it. As a matter of fact, we won't know which way it will come true. Regardless, Israel will be on a hot seat right now and I am sure a lot of people of Western world would sacrifice Israel for a crumb. They did that to the Jews in WW2 and guess what, their children still die fighting in WW2.

I don't think Israel will sit still and wait for events to come. Will they bomb Iran nuclear plants to pieces while we look away? This possibility becomes stronger and stronger everyday and the Mad Mullah has to calculate whether we will commit to back the Israelis up when the Mad Mullah decides to cross Iraq toward Israel. I am sure, the sicko MSM will send the Mad Mullah the signal of how to proceed and it will be the wrong signal as they have sent to OBL before.

To depart, I leave you with this thought. Man will not change unless being forced to change. We will be forced to change and the Muslim will be forced to change. And somehow, with enough historical precedences, I think this will come true. And when the MSM being lynched or the innocent Muslim being lynched, I know we are at the threshold, which we all try to avoid.

Dymphna said...

Lan Nguyen said...
I am sure this practice is the norm throughout history of mankind and it is not the sole property of Muslims.

No doubt about it; diplomacy is sometimes about lying. But diplomacy is a different order of prevarication and is not considered morally right by its practitioners, who have come up with the word 'pragmatism' to cover their deceptions. The deceptions are piecemeal and ad hoc.

Taqiyya and kitman are considered moral behavior in the war against the infidels. It was practiced by Mohammed in his treaty with Medina, a contract he betrayed when he finally had the numbers to carry it off.

For Islam, this is a religious war and it is total. Until the world is dar al-Islam, taqiyya and kitman are not only permissible but encouraged. Thus anyone who sits down to negotiate with a Muslim needs his head examined and his credentials taken away.

This is the latest, and pobably most glaring example of Europe's stupidity or mendacity. I don't know which because I don't know wht their motivation was. Whatever it was, the Iranians now have nuclear power and the other negotiaters have what, exactly?

These are dangerous people, maybe even more so than the No Koreans since the latter have the Chinese to keep them in check. Iran has the US and Israel. Israel will do what it has to in order to survive.

Dymphna said...

Still banging away at your old drums, you old sour hag?, said Yahoo.

Well, sweetie, what else can I bang on?...except when trolls like you pop up and I get to bang on there empty noggins.

Bong, BONG, BOOOONNNGGG...what a lovely hollow sound troll heads make. I'd better make sure I keep my drumsticks handy -- never can tell when you'll pop out from under that bridge.

Kisses to *you* Yahoo.

Always On Watch said...

Look out! If you tell about taqiyya, CAIR will be all over you, just as they're doing to Geoff Metcalf at WMAL Radio in D.C.

You're probably already aware of the story, but here's the link, just in case:

Always On Watch said...

Yes, human beings lie. But as far as I know, no other "holy" book besides the Koran promotes lying. And the Muslim way won't change until force is applied--a sad fact I've come to accept.

As for dealing with Iran, there's an old saying; "You don't know what you don't know."

Dymphna said...

Always on Watch--

What can CAIR do? Close down my blog account?? Issue a fatwa? I'm in line behind a whole lotta a4g at Point Five. That boy is aiming for a shaming from the Mullahs...and the Northern Virginiastan people are so much closer to the CAIR office, no??

CAIR is fascinating. It's good you're getting the info out there. Besides that turncoat, Volcker, no one deserves more scrutiny.

CAIR gets away with their stuff because no one raises objections. If people flooded the radio station with calls and got in touch with the advertisers things would change, wouldn't they?

Meanwhile, NPR continues its fifth column work.

Dymphna said...

LN said:

Man will not change unless being forced to change. We will be forced to change and the Muslim will be forced to change...

You left out a crucial ingredient: being led to change out of self-interest. I'm with Marx in that I believe we are at bottom economic beings. I think this is so because we are hard-wired for social interaction and that's what economics is. In fact, at its best it is free social interaction that has penalties and pay-offs and is, above all, fascinating.

More Sowell, Jude Wanniski, Hayek, von Mises, Gunnar Myrdal, Robert Mundell, and my personal fave, Bastiat. B. said -- and Bush quoted him in his conventon speech -- that "liberty is transformative."

To understand WWII it is necessary to understand the Depression. To understand the Depression it is necessary to understand the effect the Smoot-Hawley Act (a tariff passed by the more-than-usually ignorant US Congress)had on the world. And to really grasp that, you have to see how long Keynesian economics was the world view and how it damaged everyone while it tried to remedy the get a handle on Lord Keynes, you have to go back to the Versailles Treaty...

It is important to understand politics but a grasp of the nuts and bolts of economic philosophy is *crucial* to understanding politics or history -- or science, for that matter.

I agree with you about the vague Western hope that Iran will somehow "play nice." The fact that it hasn't, doesn't and sees no value in doing so doesn't stop them from wishing.

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride..."

gandalf said...

taqiyya is rampant in the UK, The MCB have got the UK government doing it for them

nb I have taken the liberty of posting a link to your site on my site, I hpoe you do not object to this.

Lanny Nugen said...


I didn't leave out anything. I leave it as a logical extension of thought: Forced by what? and why we have to change?

Self interest is nice term but the threshold of self-interest has to be overwhelming to move person to act. Besides, we have self interest in many things and which one should take priority over what ones in absence of life & death matter? Following this chain of thoughts, you can see that the unintended consequences are the one would surprise us the most and mostly the measure taken at that moment under the duress of time constrain is the worst one of all. My favorite words of that situation is "If people can foresee that happens rationally, then what makes you think it will prevent them doing the irrational thing?"

Now about the books and your "command" to "read Sowell, Jude Wanniski, Hayek, von Mises, Gunnar Myrdal, Robert Mundell, and my personal fave, Bastiat.

Out of those authors, I don't know anything about Gunnar Myrdal. I just don't run around to read any recommendation of books by anyone, otherwise I would read Noahm Chomsky's book as a recommendation by plenty of people. (I did read his books just out of curiosity when he was disected by Oliver Kamm). I only read certain subjects when it helps me to solve certain problems. It takes me quite a while to read Richard Dawkin's "The selfish gene" when gay is the issue of the day. And that opens the flood gate of all kinds of books about genetic and cognitive science.

I've read almost all of Sowell books printed before 2004, including his papers in Stanford Hoover Institute. Mises & Hayek are my favorites in economy. Karl Popper, Danniel Dennett and Steve Pinker are my favorites in logic, analytical and cognitive science. Richard Feynman is my technological hero and interestingly enough, only he & Karl Popper had the right idea about why we should support the South Vietnamese during that bitter war.

Wanniski? I notice that you like his book "The way the world works" and his favorite Republican, Democrat Daddy, Mommy thingies. I have that one too and I thought I like Wannski's idea too way back in 1996 when I used to frequent his website, the famous Talk Shop, with people like Don Luskin, Dick Fox. Somehow I could not passed more than 2 chapters of that book and I did bring up the issue in Talk Shop way back then. My conclusion is Wanniski using too much selective evidences to instill a common cause, or a single non-recurrent event as the main cause. I don't like that kind of premiss because it amounts to intellectual dishonesty. I no longer particpate in that forum at the early of 2004 and once in a while I do coming back to visit my old pals. Nevertheless, I have some respects for the old man even though I think his logic and his conjecture is stink. I wouldn't recommend his book to anyone at all.

The most interest of all, that through Wanniski website of the old days, pre 2001, I met the most intellectual people there. One of Robert Mundell's protege was there along with few other smarties. That can't be said today.

Lanny Nugen said...

I want to add that Wanniski's politic is stink too. If his conjecture is analytical and sound, I might have some respects for him on that front. Nope, his belief is overwhelming his conscience.

Dymphna said...


Wanniski's politics have gotten stranger and stranger over the years. To say they "stink" is probably an accurate assessment, especially when you take into account his weird defense of Louis Farrakhan. I've never understood that and simply presumed that like many smart men, he got led astray by his own intellect.

But I still like "The Way the World Works for several reasons: it is deliberately written at a high school reading level, it has a clear description of supply-side economics, and he successfully takes apart some of the pseudo-science about markets and how they work. In addition, he explains the Smoot-Hawley Act and its consequences. If there is any subject we Americans are more ignorant about than history, it might be economics.

I, too, used to go to his site. I only ever lurked there, to follow the conversation. Interesting, diverse group. And btw, Wanniski's prediction back then about the deflation was correct.

Like you, I quit devoting time there as it deteriorated. But that doesn't take away from his book for me, even while his political descriptions and prescriptions are increasingly bizarrre.

I like it when people recommend books to me. I go on Amazon, read the descriptions and recommendations and then decide if that's something I want to read. Sometimes what they recommend turns out to be just what I wanted and other times it's disappointing. Sometimes it's too elemental and sometimes over my head.

That's why I have a clickable book selection on my other blog. Books I've found useful or entertaining that I think others might like to know about.

At any rate, I wasn't "commanding" that you "run around" reading books on my say so. If it sounded that wasn't meant so. These are authors I like and I offered them as one might offer a cup of tea. No command intended.
But as Peter Drucker said, "communication is the act of the recipient" and so obviously you saw my suggestions as commands. We crossed wires there.

Yeah, the books on genetics and cognitive science *are* fascinating. I am enjoying The Agile Gene; his earlier work was something. But I also like books on the history and politics of science. What got researched and what didn't and how theories get proposed, developed and then ignored. I edited a book for a doctor in Vancouver who had a chapter called "The Bermuda Triangle of Medicine" in which he talked about all the various medical facts we've "known" and forgotten and then re-discovered.

There isn't any discipline, save higher mathematics, that isn't influenced by politics. And even the teaching of that can be suppressed -- just not permanently.

Yashmak said...

"Taqiyya and kitman are considered moral behavior in the war against the infidels."

Yeah, but once again, it's not the sole province of Islamic nations. Sun Tzu preached deceit as a valid diplomatic and military tool before Islam even existed, and his book is read by every business student, military mind, and politician in the world.

You can see blatant examples of this sort of behavior from secular western nations as well. You don't even have to look very hard.

Dymphna said...


We may have a word in English for taqiyya that connotes more than just lying. And we may have some stragesists who engage in such.

However your "tu quoque" argument doesn't stand up against the fact that it is not only permitted under Islam, it is encouraged and considered a moral duty. It's called "the end justifies the means" and most religions proscribe such thinking or behavior. It's the sign of a conscience with a bad case of arrested development. Somewhere around Stage 2 or 3 in Kohlberg's theory of the process of moral maturing.

That's why it's so abhorrent to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Just because there is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality in Western history (we all look sideways at Michiavelli and wonder if he was for real)does not take away from the ideal. NOWHERE in western religions will you find any version of taqiyya advocated.

The Ten Commandments pretty well sum up the prohibitions. Do you see any hint of kitman? taqiyya?

OTOH, do you see it in the stories in Scripture sometimes? You sure do, but you get to watch the consequences for such behavior to unfold.

"Tu quoque" isn't a valid argument in the case of these two characterological traits. They are repugnant. Islam is scary because it admires them and advocates their use.

I don't know how I can make the differences plainer than that. Any further conversation is akin to a marital argument where the wife says "where have you been for two days? I've been worried sick." To which he replies, "oh yeah? Well you burned the peas last month."

Like that.