Israel – Don’t listen to your critics – Keep going till you reach a Goal!
Keep it up in the Gaza Strip till you cut off the Hamas Dragon’s Head
A Truce gives Hamas Ancient Islamic Hudna Media a lying Advantage
I Hope Israeli Forces Will Destroy All Terrorist Units In The Gaza Strip
Media Muslims swear Hamas is not using their kids as human Shields
But They are allowed to lie to Infidels by Muhammad’s Koran Dictates
The Islamic Jihad Is the Heart of Islamic Terror and Spirit of Antichrist!
To understand the Muslim media lying, worldwide deceptions, tactical guile, and lack of compassion, PLEASE READ the following THREE excerpts:
July 25, 2014
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Excerpt 1 – YNet News
Destroying Hamas is only way to peace
Op-ed: Israel must advance agreement with Palestinian Authority while eradicating – rather than weakening – Islamic organization in Gaza.
Sever Plocker
July 23, 2014
The Israeli political left says that an agreement and compromise with the Palestinian Authority will destroy Hamas. In my opinion, it’s quite the opposite: Destroying the Hamas regime is a condition for a compromise agreement with the Palestinians.
It’s not a sufficient condition – there are many other conditions and moves (for example, freezing settlement construction instead of releasing Hamas terrorists) – but it is a necessary condition.
Israel can make Hamas collapse, but Israel doesn’t want it to collapse and has even declared so in advance. From this we can conclude that the existence of a “weakened” Hamas serves all kinds of interests, matches all kinds of outlooks, both personal and ideological, makes the political compromise unachievable and intensifies the suspiciousness and dissention.
Millions of Israelis are rightfully asking themselves: If all the Palestinians are like Hamas, how can we agree to withdraw from even one more kilometer? And the conclusion is: Let’s settle, let’s annex and let’s forget about the dreams.
Some believe Hamas is suffering from a youth revolt syndrome and is acting like an adolescent hooligan. The more it grows up, the more it will calm down, become domesticated, become tamed and make rational decisions. Rational, meaning decisions Israel would like it to make.
I see it as a false hope stemming from a deep misunderstanding of the reasons for Hamas’ existence as a fanatic Islamist military organization.
It’s not that Hamas is operating aimlessly. Its aim is to make the lives of both the Israelis and the Palestinians miserable and to increase the hatred between them up to the point of no return.
The big wave of terror attacks carried out by Hamas began shortly after the Oslo Accords, about 20 years ago, and was quite successful as far as the organization was concerned. Hundreds of Israelis were killed, the public lived in fear, radicalization spread and grew stronger, Israel’s prime minister was murdered and the realization of the agreement ran aground.
Since that wave of terror, our governments have sent the IDF on several operations aimed at weakening Hamas rather than, God forbid, eradicating it.
After every operation we hear that Hamas has been weakened, so much that it can now fire rockets at all parts of Israel and dig a network of tunnels which make the border fences look like a joke. It’s better not to think about what its current “weakening” will lead to.
Hamas’ big day – and Israel’s big missed opportunity – arrived when it took over the Gaza Strip. The takeover put Israel in danger and gave us a recognized international right to intervene and prevent the border area from turning into a terror compound.
But the Israeli government openly avoided that. It even avoided helping the Palestinian Authority, Gaza’s legitimate landlord. Why should we care that the Palestinians are fighting each other? It doesn’t concern us.
According to that same perception which has not changed since then, Israel doesn’t have to worry about who controls Gaza, but only about the type of weapons in Gaza. As if weapons fire on their own.
Accepting Hamas’ takeover of Gaza was a first-class strategic mistake. It got us entangled in every possible trouble, starting with Gaza turning into a rocket arsenal to the decision to impose an economic and environmental siege on the Strip, a siege which affected a poor and helpless population and is perceived in the world as a horrible crime. Even worse than the rockets. Hamas used the siege to justify its acts of war, including the latest one.
The Israeli government eventually began letting go of the siege, secretly, gradually, at an extent which wasn’t enough to create an economic perspective for Gaza’s residents. According to a public opinion poll conducted recently, Hamas has become much less popular than Fatah in Gaza. This is the motive and the explanation for its recent actions.
There is a fear that in the post-Hamas era, worse and more dangerous jihad forces will rise to power among the Palestinian public. They may indeed rise to power, but only if we fail to do anything to advance an agreement with the Palestinian Authority while eradicating the Hamas rule.
Except 2 – DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis
A “humanitarian” ceasefire would give Hamas time to find answers for Israeli Chariot-4’s Windbreaker armor
July 24, 2014
Thursday, July 24, the 17th day of the IDF’s Gaza operation, Israeli ministers were discussing a possible “humanitarian ceasefire” in IDF-Hamas hostilities, which could last up to five days. According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, it is Hamas which, behind its tough stance, is keen on a pause – and not just out of sudden concern for Gaza’s civilians. Its tacticians are desperate to only IDF unit with this armor.
Hamas has tried to stop these tanks with two kinds of advanced guided anti-tank missiles, the Russian Kornet-E, and the 9M113 Konkurs. But Windbreaker repels them and blows them all up.Wednesday July 23 the IDF deliberately placed brigade commander Col. Sa’ar Tzur, one of the outstanding commanders in Operation Protective Edge, before TV cameras, while standing in front of a Chariot-4 tank.
He spoke at length about the brigade’s unstoppable performance under anti-tank missile fire. Those missiles are blown up without penetrating the tanks’ armor, he said, and are powerless to slow their advance.
Hamas has found no answer for the Active Trophy defense system, any more than it has for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense batteries, which keep Israeli civilian populations safe from its rockets. Both systems are home-made, developed by Rafael advanced armed systems industries.
Hamas is not giving up, which is why it is holding out against a long ceasefire, but aiming for just enough time to come up with new stratagems, DEBKAfile’s military sources say.
This was the message conveyed in the statement Hamas leader Khaled Meshal made Wednesday July 23 in Qatar: He rejected a long-term ceasefire, but left the door open for a “humanitarian” pause.
While its forces have taken serious punishment, most of Hamas’ underground command and military infrastructure is still far from knocked out. But if the Israeli military decides to go for a decisive coup against those core facilities – defined by the Israeli security cabinet’s euphemism of “expanding the operation” – Hamas chiefs expect it to be spearheaded by a fleet of Chariot-4 tanks hurtling towards them behind the protection of their impenetrable “Windbreakers.”
To maintain any kind of draw with the IDF, Hamas stands in urgent need of two resources: 1) Technology for neutralizing the Windbreaker; and 2) Missiles able to pierce it.
While Khaled Meshal haggles with ceasefire brokers in Qatar, his agents are known to have appealed urgently to Tehran to find the weapons they need and deliver them at top speed to the Gaza Strip – possibly from Libya by the Iranian-terrorists’ arms smuggling route through Egypt.
A reference to this appeal was made in a comment by a senior military intelligence official Wednesday, when he disclosed that Iran had promised to rebuild Hamas’ military machine, including its rocket production and launch systems. Hamas and Tehran also broached the problem of the Chariot-4 armor. Both fully understood that unless it can be solved, Hamas may have no way of defending its high command and arsenal in their elaborately furnished underground bunkers.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has all these facts to hand, fed by a steady stream of intelligence from US informants in and over the battlefield. His efforts for a ceasefire are based on his perception that Israel has so far not managed to inflict a clear defeat on Hamas and needs to expand its operation to tip the scales.
He calculates that if Israel launches its final thrust, which has not yet been approved, it will not accept a ceasefire before achieving its goal, and this may take at least a week to ten days.
But if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon hold off on Israel’s decisive attack, then negotiations can start for a truce of some kind, while both sides size up their respective situations and decide whether or not it is to their advantage.
Excerpt 3 from Islam and jihad
The principle of al-Taqiyya
“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”– Abu Hammid Ghazali
“Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” – Hadith 5.59.369
The principle and uses of skillful lying
The root word “taqiyya” means to protect against or conceal. As you might gather from the quotes above, the principle of al-Taqiyya is the Islamic justification for lying and deceiving. Al-Taqiyya is drawn explicitly from the words of Muhammad, and from the examples he and his successors set.
The Qur’an and other Islamic books condone lying, but they also praise truth-telling. Assuming for the moment these contradictory exhortations intend some salient point (a true assumption considering the principle in question), and assuming one principle hasn’t abrogated the other, approved lying must have a context. That is exactly what Islamic scholars say is the case.
Situations or purposes for which Islamic scholars collectively judge it to be permissible to lie include the following: to reconcile arguments, to settle family disputes, to settle arguments specifically with wives or women, to safeguard one’s “innocent” life (i.e., not for criminals on trial), to protect the lives of other Muslims, to defend one’s honor, to succeed in jihad or combat, and to spread the practice of Islam.
With the admission that Muslims may lie under many circumstances, trusting a Muslim involves a higher than average degree of risk. We’ll get into that later, but recognize that statements like the following only affirm that impression:
“It is not mandatory to practice it (al-Taqiyya) at all times; on the contrary, it is permissible, and sometimes necessary, to abandon it (al-Taqiyya) altogether; as in the case where revealing the truth will further the cause of the religion, and provide a direct service to Islam;”- al-Shaykh Muhammad Ridha al-Mudhaffar
In other words, ‘You don’t have to lie all the time; it’s okay, and even useful, to sometimes tell the truth’.
Not exactly a Sermon on the Mount-caliber message.
At what point is it permissible to start lying?
One point of contention between different Islamic sects is the stress point at which certain situations merit lying. It seems all Islamic sects agree that deception is good if it’s done to promote Islam. Yet concerning lesser matters, interpretations vary.
The Shi’a sect, for example, boasts of requiring a certain threshold of adversity before lying is justified. One Shi’a writer puts it “that Taqiyya must be practiced only when there is a definite danger which cannot be avoided and against which there is no hope of a successful struggle and victory.”
The Shi’a writer contrasts the Wahhabi threshold as being not nearly as high. Perhaps the Sunni threshold is included among the higher ones, at least in terms of not denying the faith, as Wikipedia records:
Sunnis believe that God decides when someone is going to die. Therefore, they believe it is wrong to deny the faith in order to escape torture or death. By contrast, the Shi’a and some Sunnis believe that life is a gift from God and should be preserved…preservation of life takes precedence over anything else…
The web site al-Islam.org adds this Iranian perspective on when al-Taqiyya can and cannot be invoked:
Imam Khomeini in his book, “Islamic Government,” also presents his view on al-Taqiyya. He believes that al-Taqiyya is permitted only when one’s life is jeopardized. Whereas in cases wherein the religion of Allah, Islam, is in danger, it is not permitted even if it leads to one’s death;
A curious trend emerges after reading enough of these Islamic interfaith discussions. Groups which have the most lenient threshold for al-Taqiyya, i.e., would be the quickest to lie, seem to be the ones that are more tolerant of non-Muslims. They also appear more willing to work with the West. The Sunni-based organization CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) might be an example of such a group.
However, Islamic groups or sects with the strictest thresholds, i.e., are least quick to condone lying, are the more intolerant and western-hating practitioners of Islam. Shia-dominant Iran might be of an example of this. Their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the last string of Ayatollahs have certainly not been the kind of persons one has had to goad, “Tell me what you really think.”
It all begs the question, “In dealing with Islam, should we feel more comfortable dealing with… A.) Those most-likely-to-lie-to-us groups or persons who say they want to be our friends, or … B.) Those most-likely-to-tell-us-the-truth groups or persons who say they want us wiped off the face of the earth?”Answer that question well and maybe you should run for President.
The practice of hudna
Hudna is an Arabic term that technically translates into “calm” or “truce”, as in a truce struck between two warring nations. But a hudna is not just any truce or ceasefire. A hudna is a “tactical truce” that has it’s beginnings with Muhammad:
In the year 628 AD, when surmising that his [Mohammed’s] forces were too weak to overcome the rival Kuraysh tribes, the Prophet Mohammed concluded a ten-year truce accord with the Kuraysh. This agreement became known as the Hudaybiyya Accord, after the place where it was signed. Yet, less than two years later, having consolidated their power, the Muslim forces attacked the Kuraysh tribes and defeated them, allowing Mohammed to conquer the city of Mecca.
Since that time, the term Hudna has been understood by Muslims as a tactical cease-fire that is intended only to allow a shift the balance of power. Once the balance of power has shifted, and the groundwork has been laid for a Muslim victory, the truce can then be broken.
Hudna is the battlefield or political application of al-Taqiyya. It’s purpose is to give the illusion of desiring peace while actively masking a rethinking, regrouping, or rearming when faced with a superior opponent. The above citation was from EmbassyofIsrael.org, obviously experienced in the typical course of Islamic ceasefires. Here is one from Omdurman.org on the same subject affirming a kind of deception that is fundamental to Islam:
What is being touted as a ‘cease-fire’ is something called a ‘hudna.’ A hudna [also known as a hudibiyya or khudaibiya] is a tactical cease-fire that allows the Arabs to rebuild their terrorist infrastructure in order to be more effective when the “cease-fire” is called off.
The awful short of it all
The acceptance among Muslims that lying is permissible, encouraged, sometimes obligatory, and diversely applied, means one should be more cautious than usual when considering to trust them. I know that’s a horrible blanket charge to make against any group of people. It’s only tempered by the fact that all Muslims cannot agree on when and at what point one should start lying.
How do we know which set of “lying circumstances” are acceptable to any given Muslim we may be speaking with? We could ask, but could we believe their answer?
Consider the beginnings of Islam when a spiritual being is said to have confronted Muhammad in a dark cave. In that blackness, the being extolled the virtues of that which would become Islam. Muslims say that a lie to further Islam is acceptable, so by that reasoning there is no guarantee that the being didn’t lie to Muhammad. It furthered Islam, did it not? If one can tell lies to further Islam, then there is no basis for believing anything good you’re told about the religion. I’m not saying there’s nothing good about it, I’m just pointing out the impossibility of trusting a system that openly embraces lying and falsehood as key doctrines.
A consensus view among Muslims today, as much as there is one, is that all the world is a legitimate battlefield upon which Islam should compete and win out as the dominate worldview. No problem – most ideologies compete for dominance like that. But in this battlefield context, the doctrine of al-Taqiyya is justifiable in virtually every situation, and at least radical Muslims exercise it in exactly that way.
Muslims may not all agree when to invoke al-Taqiyya, but they cannot deny that the whole world is an ideological field of battle. What ideology can claim to be moral AND declare the whole world combatants to whom they can unashamedly lie? Answer: Islam.
These doctrines of strategic lying and deception, al-Taqiyya and hudna, showcase the dangerous nature of Islam as much as does the wife beating, honor killing, beheading, and other such practices that the religion embraces. The only thing positive about the doctrines is that they are so integral to the Qur’an and practice of Islam that they cannot be hidden. We know about them, and now knowing we can and should take them into account. Weigh very cautiously what Muslims and Muslim nations are telling us and trying to get us to believe, especially in regard to so-called peace treaties and treaties concerning nuclear weapons.
Hadrat Ali said that in the battlefield one could not observe the highest standard of truth as a Muslim has been exhorted to do in matters of religion. For example in the battlefield one has to hide facts and outwit the enemy. – al-Islam.org, Hadith Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, ft. #1446
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.