Good_Bye

The Arabic word, "Takeyya", means "to prevent," or guard against. The principle of Al-taqiyya (also called taqiah, Al-takeyya, Al-taqiyah, or kitman) conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-taqiyya is based on the following Quranic verse:

"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah Who is ~ Lucifer: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah Who is ~ Lucifer cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah Who is ~ Lucifer." Surah 3: 28

According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and even display false adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming Muslims. Under this concept of Taqiyya, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The devout are taught that in such circumstances the following actions are acceptable: Drinking wine and alcoholic beverages, abandoning prayers, skipping fasting during Ramadan, renouncing belief in Allah Who is ~ Lucifer and Muhammad, kneeling in homage to a deity other than Allah Who is ~ Lucifer, and uttering insincere oaths and covenants.

Al-taqiyya and dissimulation refer to the practice of Muslims blatantly lying to non-Muslims, but the principal goes beyond mere lying for propaganda purposes. In accordance with this license to deceive, during time of weakness the Qur’an allows Muslims to have both a declared agenda and a secret agenda. The theological principle of Taqiyya means hiding one's true beliefs and intentions to confuse ones adversaries and enable mujahedeen to operate freely amongst enemies. The word comes from a root meaning "to guard against, to keep (oneself)". From the verb Ittaqu, it means linguistically to 'dodge the threat'. In this vein, a Muslim, if necessary, may eat pork, drink alcohol, and even verbally deny the Islamic faith, as long as it is with the tongue only, and he does not "mean it in his heart". A believer is taught he can make any statement as long as the 'heart is comfortable'. If the end result of the lie is perceived by the Muslim to be good for Islam or useful to bringing someone to "submission" to Allah Who is ~ Lucifer, then any lie or act can be sanctioned. Indeed it is common practice for Muslims, especially leaders, to lie about any war or conflict involving Muslims vs. non-Muslims. Muslims reverting to deceptive tactics unashamedly do so with full knowledge they are adhering to Mohammed's words and example, so they operate without conscience believing they are absolved from any negative divine consequence. Even the Islamic God, Allah Who is ~ Lucifer himself, is described in the Qur’an in the most literal translation from Arabic as; "the best of deceivers." [Surah 8:30] Another English translation goes; "They schemed - but God also schemed. God is most profound in His machinations". So it appears that the deity Muslims worship is a God of deception, or at least to non-believers. This Sura relates that when non-believers deceived and schemed, planning evil against Muslims, that Allah Who is ~ Lucifer also schemed, and his deceptions were superior. If you can wrap your mind around the concept of a perfect lie, you can understand better the god Muslim worship.

In state-to-state relations Al-taqiyya political version is known as Kitman. Politically it means to project whatever image is necessary and advantageous in order to gain concessions from an adversary. The accepted principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in the sphere of international politics. The usual method of civilized diplomacy and negotiations might normally culminate in state treaties or other articles of agreement, but must be based on honesty, trust, and honored by both parties. But this principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam implies that true lasting negotiated settlements may not be possible, as Muslims today seem to be taking ever greater liberty in expanding the parameters and scope of circumstances under which they are permitted to lie or use deceptive tactics. Knowing this, can non-Muslims expect anything more than deception and double-speak from Muslim leaders? Will nation-to-nation treaties with Islamic states yield the hoped for peace and benefits to the non-Muslim participants to such agreements? Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind the implications of the principle of taqiyya, in that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have in their hearts the opposite agenda. In AD 628 – Muhammad ongoing military conquests were not going well, and so for tactical purposes he signed a treaty with the Meccan Quarish tribe. (The Al-Hudaybiyya agreement between the Muhammad and the Quarish was signed for a period of 10 years, which became, in Islamic tradition, the time limit for any agreement with non-Muslims). The Al-Hudaybiyya agreement was broken just 18 months later when Mohammed’s army advanced and conquered Mecca. Arafat’s signatures all had about the same value.

Have you noticed that every time Muslim groups find themselves in a losing position in conflicts they initiated, they immediately proclaim they are ready to suspend hostilities and begin negotiations? They suddenly become concerned with victims, saying "Peace" so often it becomes meaningless, yet Westerners fall for it every time. Muslims have an insidious habit of negotiating falsely, a tactic that is all too easy to pass off to ignorant Westerners longing for peace. Terrorists who rise up and kill (Saddam Hussein in his time, Yasser Arafat, Osama Bin Laden, the Janjaweed in Darfur, and now Iraqi terrorists Moqtada Sadr and al-Zarqawi) never stop or sue for peace when finding success. But when hit hard and causalities mount, they immediately plead for negotiations, only to start attacking again after resting and regrouping. In most prior wars involving nation states, Islamic countries howl for international intervention only when they start to lose battles they started. Nations need to start learning these rather transparent lessons of history. When they say they want to negotiate a fair ending to the conflict, it's a trick to call for a truce breather - called a "hudna". Perhaps it's forgivable for Western governments to make one or two mistakes in negotiations with Islamists, but when the same mistake is made time and again - then it is no longer mere error, its pure stupidity. Arafat frequently used this trick, relying upon the ignorance of the West. On May 10, 1994, 10 days after signing the First Gaza-Jericho agreement, Arafat spoke in English at a Johannesburg mosque explaining to his people why he was returning to the Peace table. He was unknowingly recorded to say; "This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraysh..." To his own people in Arabic, Arafat had often repeated this illusion to the Hudaibiya Treaty. Although obscure to us, Palestinians understood perfectly well what he meant. Under the promise of peaceful 'accommodation' or 'truce', Arafat had made and broken many agreements over time. When Arafat's terrorists were stalking around the streets of Amman, Jordan in the 1960s, he made 26 separate agreements with King Hussein, breaking every single one. He went too far when he put out a contract on the King's brother, wherein the King finally declared war in September 1970 and slaughtered 7,000 of Arafat's Terrorists. Palestinians call that purge "Black September", often naming Terror attacks after it. To Israel and Westerners, the Oslo accords were supposed to provide the foundation for peace, but to Islamists they were never more than a temporary "hudna" intended to be broken from the beginning. Even after violating one cease-file, when the situation on the ground proves too dangerous for them, it is all too easy to follow it with another truce. This kind of "Bait & Switch" tactic harks back to Mohammed when he made the previously mentioned treaty with the Quarish he could not conquer, while he gathered a much stronger Muslim army and broke it 1 ½ years later. Because of the difficulty he had subduing them, after they surrendered Mohammed had all 600 men from the city slaughtered, and sold the women and children into slavery. This tactic is a template still in use because Muslims have enjoyed so much success with it.

Knowing that truth is not popular in a nation poisoned by political correctness, these words:

The one and only creation of Arabs is Islam. And it is the obstacle between Muslims and humanity.

 A "pc" policy that must emotionally conditions it's subscribers to unconditionally accept THE demon, selected to motivate Mohammad's pack of roaming thief's, is a mistake! The times are too serious to indulge in the antics of "played-out political impressions"