A Critical Analysis of 'Real Islam'. Its People ... - Bukti dan Saksi

perceived by the Muslim to be good for Islam or useful to bringing someone to "submission" to Allah,
then pretty much 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 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 nonbelievers
deceived and schemed, planning evil against Muslims, that Allah 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 Muslim God.
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 Prophet 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 militant Arab 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. Arab 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