Taqiyyah: The Islamic Principle of Holy Deception

To explain the Arabic word TAQIYAH, Hughes Dictionary of Islam says, “Literally it means “Guarding oneself”. (It’s a) Shi’ah doctrine. A pious fraud whereby a Shi’ah Muslim believes he is justified in either smoothing down or in denying the peculiarities of his religious belief, in order to save himself from religious persecutions. A Shi’ah can, therefore, pass himself off as a Sunni to escape persecution.”

---

“The Shi’ah traditionalists relate that certain persons inquired of the Imam Sadiq if the Prophet had ever practiced taqiyyah or “religious dissimulations”, and the Imam replied:”Not after this verse was sent down to the Prophet, namely Surah v71: ‘O thou Apostle! Publish the whole of what has been revealed to those from thy Lord; if thou do it not, thou, thou hast not preached His message, and God will not defend thee from the wicked men; for God guides not the unbelieving people. When the Most High became surety for the Prophet against harm, then he no longerdissimulated, although before this revelation appeared he had occasionally done so.”[1]

Commenting on the Islamic practice of taqiyyah, noted scholar Babu Susilan writes: “Under the Islamic concept of Al-Takkeya, it is legitimate for Muslims to lie, cheat, murder, deceive and violate non-Muslims. According to Takkeya, Muslims are sanctioned to communicate with fake sincerity. In reality, they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. It is clear that Islam permits the Muslims to lie anytime, anywhere to promote the cause of Islam."

To narrate how a law-abiding non-Muslim society is harmed by this dirty concept of Islamic taqiyyay, he writes, “The concept of Al-Takeyya (lying) for the cause of Islam bears gross implications for freedom loving, law abiding non-Muslims. Muslims can negate any agreement, cheat, deceive, lie, and absolve from any permanent commitment. When a Muslim says "Islam is peace", watch out. When a Muslim shout "Allah loves you", he mean "Allah hates you" unless you are a Muslim.”

He adds: "There are many incidences in the life of Mohammed where he often lied and instructed his followers to do the same. A good example is the assassination of Kaab Ibn Ashrf, a member of the Jewish tribe, Banu al-Nudair. Mohammed ordered his assassination by deception, lying and tricks. Mohammed also ordered the murder of Shaalan by deception and lying. Islamic history is replete with incidents of murder and assassination by deception”.[2]

In his article, The principle of Al-Takeyya, the author says, “The Arabic word, “Takeyya”, means “to prevent,” or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya 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 life threatening. Islamic scholars believe that Muslims can even deny the faith publicly, declaring them non-Muslims, for saving their lives, if they do not mean it in their hearts, following the Quranic verse (3:28):

“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: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.). But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah."

So, in simple words, taqiyyah is an example of Islamic style of deception, originated in the Koran, which Muslims profusely use to deceive and fool the non-Muslims. This manifests to what degree, Islam permits a Muslim to indulge in lying and cheating the infidels.

Two Faces of Koran

It is now well-known that the Muslims play many tricks and tell even dark lies to deceive and fool the infidels, such as they say that Islam means peace, kafir means an atheist, jihad means war between good and evil forces inside a man and so on. They also deceive the kafirs in another ingenious way. There are some verses of Koran, which, on the surface, appear to be tolerant and innocent. For example:

1. “Allah does not love the oppressors” (3.140),
2. “Allah has prepared painful punishments for the oppressors” (14.22),
3. “Allah does not love them who creates indiscipline” (5.64),
4. “Allah does not like jealousy and aggressiveness” (57.23),
5. “Allah loves patience and forgiveness” (42.43),
6. “Your religion (is dear) to you and my religion (is dear) to me” (109.6),
7. “The Prophet has no other duty but to propagate the message of Allah” (5.99) and so on and so forth.

When these verses are uttered before the infidels, many of them, out of ignorance, think and admit that the Koran has a tolerant, humane and innocent message. In this context, it is very important to mention that before a non-Muslim audience, the Muslim speakers make frequent use of the verse “Your religion to you and my religion to me”, to pretend that, Islam is basically a very tolerant religion.

The Koran contains over 6 thousands verses (ayahs) divided into 114 chapters (suras). All these verses of the Koran can be broadly divided into two categories: 1) Makki verses, and 2) Madini verses. The early verses revealed to Muhammad when he was staying at Mecca, are called Makki verses; those, revealed after his migration to Medina, are called Madini verses. Before his migration (hijrat) to Medina, the Prophet was a humble servant of Allah and a good husband of his only wife Khadija, without enjoying any economic, political or military power. And Allah, in consonance with the situation, revealed tolerant and innocent verses alone.

But after his migration to Medina, the Prophet became the administrator, the chief of the army and the judiciary of Medina. In other words, he became the sole and supreme dictator of Medina. After acquiring so much of power, the idea of spreading Islam by the sword came to his mind, and he invented the doctrine of jihad. It may be recalled that so long the Prophet was in Mecca, Allah forbade war for the Muslims. But after the hijrat, Allah could make the right sense of Muhammad's might and, duly, made fighting obligatory for every able Muslim. From that time on, Allah began revealing violent verses of jihad, such as “There is nothing in the sight of Allah which may be equated to jihad.” (9.19) and “No equal are those believers who sit at home (except those who are old and disabled) and those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in the cause of Allah” (4.95). “That is because they (who sit back at home) suffer neither thirst, nor fatigue, nor hunger in the cause of Allah. …Nor they raise the anger of the disbelievers or inflict any injury (killing, robbing or taking captive) upon enemy” (9.20). “Anyone whose feet get covered with dust in Allah’s cause will be forbidden from the hell-fire” (Bukhari 4.66).

Allah rebuked those, who sit back at home for their cowardice, and threatened them with cruel punishments, as the Koran says: “If you march not forth (for jihad), I will punish you with painful torment and will replace you with other people” (9.39). It is needless to say that these verses of violence and bloodshed have inspired Muslims, from the days of Muhammad itself, to massacre the kafirs en masse by launching jihad against them with the final goal of establishing an empire of Islam over the whole world. It should also be noted here that, this change of modus operandi of Muhammad/Allah for the spread of Islam officialized the Islamic principle of taqiyyah and has been in force ever since.

Taqiyyah to convert the infidels of Medina

After migrating to Medina, Muhammad/Allah initially held back from revealing the Madini verses or kept them concealed amongst his Meccan disciples and used the Makki verses to attract the infidels of Medina to Islam. But as soon as the Muslim population grew into a sizable amount and Muhammad could form a criminal gang with his uncle Hamza, his cousins and other loyal Muslim hooligans, the Makki verses were thrown out and the newly-revealed Madini verses were used to inspire his gang to engage in violence and terror. Especially after the victory in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad started to convert the infidels of Medina by threat and violence.

With Allah's reveled verses to strike terror into the hearts of the infidels, Muhammad, in compliance, assassinated poets Kaab bin Asraf, poet Abu Afak and poetess Asma, drove the Jews of Beni Kanuika and massacred 800 Jews of Beni Koraiza. So, taqiyyah, or deceiving the infidels, with the Makki verses of the Koran for conversion, lost its importance and jihad or violence came to the fore.

But the practice of taqiyyah in still alive and the Muslims are playing the same trick even today. Whenever the Muslim preachers talk about Islam in a civilized forum, they, to hide the bloody face of Islam, always utter the Makki verses of the Koran, knowing full well that most of those Makki verses were abrogated (elnasekh wal mansoukh, i.e. cancelled and replaced) by violent and bloody passages that were revealed after Muhammad’s migration to Medina.

In this context, it should be pointed out here that, after the September 11 attacks, many television channels broadcast interviews with Muslim reporters, intellectuals and religious leaders and the people of the print-media. In all such cases, to fool the kafirs, Muslim journalists, clerics and political leaders quoted Makki verses alone from the Koran, especially the verse "Your religion to you and my religion to me." (109:6)

In a country where Muslims are still a minority, they always make use of the Makki verses, but as soon as they gain majority or become strong in muscle power, they turn to the Madini verses for launching a jihad. For example, in India, when the Muslims come to Hindu populated areas, they never utter a Madini verse. But the same Muslims in their Muslim-dominated areas propagate Madini verses from mosques with loud-speakers to scare away the minority Hindus of that locality. Thus, under unfavorable situations, Muslims make use of the principle taqiyyah by projecting the Makki verses and keeping bloody weapons concealed; and in a favourable situation, they switch over to the Madani verses and unsheathe swords.

Origin of Taqiyyah

In order to understand the Islamic mind and the policy of taqiyyah, one has to understand the preliminaries of the Arab Bedouin Tribal culture in which Islam was born. Starting his prophetic career in a culture based upon tribalism and the hard nomadic values of tribal warfare, Muhammad started raiding neighbouring non-Muslim communities, taking over their women and children as slaves and concubines, their possessions, their stock and their grazing lands, and killing their men with the exception of those, who would accept Islam.

The Arabs, mainly illiterate but cunning, were also extremely proud and arrogant, especially the men. The masculine Arab culture placed a very high value on ‘honour and shame’ associated with his place in the social order of his family, his tribal group, or his society. It was extremely important that he must not suffer ‘a loss of face’. The importance of honour and status is so important that it often justified ‘honour killings’ within the family, a tradition which Islamic societies still nurture and value. Blood feuds and vendettas were, and still are, maintained for generations to defend the honour of long-dead ancestors. Mohammed himself ordered the vengeful murder of all those who mocked or satirized him, as he was an Arab and the potential loss of face was unacceptable.

“Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honour and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wit and cunning for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honour on their own account and vice versa for the opponents. If honour so demands it, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.”[3]

Thus, by skilful manipulations, dissimulation, deceiving, lying, confounding or deflection of accusations, it is possible to foil or block or fend off an attack or accusation, and thus turn a humiliation into a positive outcome and the save one’s face or life. This same skill, then a part of the tribal Bedouin Arab life, has been adopted into the Islamic way of life in the defence and protection of Islam. This skill is known as ‘Taqiyya’ and greatly enhances the capabilities of Muslims to defend and promote Islam. This skill, Taqiyya, comes so naturally to Muslims that they are not even aware that they are using it to communicate dissimulate Islamic information to the less informed. It is a part of their way of life since childhood. This trait can also be observed in many other cultures especially in the East.

To give a few examples of Taqiyya as an illustration, Muslims will deny that “terrorist suicide bombers killed innocent people” were Muslims who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers in New York. And they are right because Muslims do not approve of Suicide (Haram), so they could not have been Muslims) and wanton murder of innocent people (but Muslims do not consider non-Muslims as innocent. They are the enemy and so are legitimate targets.). So Muslims may safely say that they condemn any terrorist acts, because terrorists are not identifiable as Muslims. But Muslims knew that these were acts of Islamic Jihad, and thus were truthful in denying it was “an act of terrorism” by Muslims, because they were actually “acts of martyrdom” or Jihad not “terrorism.” (ref. 3)

---

[1] T P Hughes, The Dictionary of Islam, Rupa & Co., 2007

[2] TAKIYAH Islamic Concept of al Takkeya By Babu Suselan (2 Feb. 2009)

[3] http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm

The Prophets: Muhammad versus David Mitchell, David Koresh & Jim Jones

Sex and lies of prophets, from Muhammad to modern American prophets...

---

The common traits of amongst many prophets are desires of having power over their disciples, abusing those powers to their advantages and using those powers to have a lot of sex with different partners. American prophets Mitchell, Koresh and Jones were no different and shared these prophetic traits with Islamic Prophet Muhammad.

PROPHET DAVID MITCHEL

He was a prophet from Utah. Unfortunately his prophethood was short-lived and he ended up in prison only after a year in prophet service.

He announced his prophethood when he was in his 50s. Like Prophet Muhammad, before his prophethood, he had only one elderly wife “Wanda Barzee”. After becoming a prophet, his God ordered him to acquire young beautiful wives. While Prophet Muhammad carried this order of God very successfully and succeeded in capturing hundreds of young beautiful women, Prophet Mitchel succeeded only in capturing one pretty young girl, 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart, whom he kidnapped from her home. His attempt to capture another pretty young girl, who happened to be a younger cousin of Elizabeth, ended in failure as the home-alarm cut short his pursuit. He then decided to be contended with just one right hand possession and gave up looking for other women for the time being. Prophet Muhammad and Prophet Mitchell were both old, but very active sexually. Prophet Muhammad had sex with multiple captured women every day and prophet Mitchell had sex multiple times with the same captured woman every day. Here is Elizabeth's testimony in court about prophet Mitchell's sexual capability.

By JENNIFER DOBNER, Associated Press Writer –

SALT LAKE CITY – Taking the stand for the first time since she was snatched from her girlhood bedroom seven years ago, Elizabeth Smart testified Thursday that her captor raped her three or four times a day.

Like Prophet Muhammad, who enjoyed sex with underage Aisha, and not with 50+ years old wife Sauda, Prophet Mitchell also enjoyed sex with underaged Elizabeth and not with 50+ wife Barzee. Mitchell thought of dumping Barzee, ditto with Muhammad, who tried to dump Sauda.

Prophet Mitchell got his orders to have sex from his god in his divine manual “The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah”, while Prophet Muhammad got his orders from Allah in verse 33:50 of his divine manual “al-Qur’an”.

Asked by a prosecutor to describe Brian David Mitchell, the self-described prophet accused of holding captive for nine months, Smart replied: “Evil, wicked, manipulative, stinky, slimy, greedy, selfish, not spiritual, not religious, not close to God.”

Had any woman like Safia, Juwairia, Rehana or others like them, raped by Prophet Muhammad on the same night he had killed her husband, been asked to give their opinion about the Prophet of Islam, do you really believe that their answer would have been any different than Elizabeth Smart's regarding Mitchell. Take a guess.

PROPHET DAVID KORESH

Born Vernon Wayne Howell, he was the leader of a Branch Davidian religious cult, believing himself to be the final PROPHET. Howell had his name legally changed to David Koresh on May 15, 1990.

Prophet Muhammad’s first sex-encounter was with a much older woman, 40year-old Khadija, when he himself was only 25. Prophet Koresh also had his first sexual encounter when he was age 24 with a 76-year-old woman Lois Roden. There, it seems, is some connection between sex with old women and an urge to become a prophet afterwards. David Koresh announced his prophethood soon afterwards.

As with Prophet Muhammad and his only first wife Khadija, David initially had been teaching that monogamy was the only way to live. But after he announced his prophethood, he suddenly announced that polygamy was allowed for him. Like Prophet Muhammad took Aisha as his second wife when she was 6, Koresh slept with Karen Doyle, aged 14, in 1986. He claimed her as his second wife. Prophet Muhammad later on announced that he is allowed to have sex with anyone he wanted (Qur’an 33.50) and started his one-night stands with the wives of his disciples and captured women. Similarly in September 1986, Koresh began to preach that he was entitled to 140 wives, 60 women as his “queens” and 80 as concubines, which he based upon his interpretation of the Biblical Song of Solomon. Like Prophet Muhammad, Prophet Koresh also was crazy for underage women. Once Prophet Koresh was able to convince himself that it was God’s will that he was able to be free of guilt and have sex with as many young girls as he could get his hands on.

Former members of the cult also alleged that Koresh felt he could claim any of the females in the compound as his, the same way prophet Muhammad felt that he had a right to attack any village in Arabia and capture any woman he wanted for sex.

Like Prophet Muhammad took the wives of his young disciples after they got killed in his Jihadi raids and enjoyed them, Prophet Koresh would annul marriages of couples, who joined his cult, and then have exclusive sexual access to the new women.

PROPHET JIM JONES

James Warren “Jim” Jones (May 13, 1931 – November 18, 1978) was the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple, which is best known for the November 18, 1978 death of more than 900 Temple members in Jonestown, Guyana along with the deaths of five other people, including a US senator, at a nearby airstrip in Georgetown, Guyana.

Jones was born in Indiana and started the Temple in that state in the 1950s. He announced his prophethood in 1970 and started preaching that he was the reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha and Father Divine.

He had as much power over his disciples as Prophet Muhammad had over his. Jones’s disciples happily killed others (namely a US congressman and his associates, who went to Guyana to investigate) and themselves (900 of them committed suicide) at his order, so did Muhammad's disciples. They killed thousands at his order (Quraiza and many more massacres) and got killed themselves (as glorious martyrdom, which continues today as suicide bombings etc.).

Jones’s followers gladly suffered starvation by eating very little by his order, so did Muhammad’s followers who suffer thirst and hunger all day by fasting in Ramadan.

Prophet Jones punished the defectors from his cult by killing them. Many of those, who had left his cult, were found dead mysteriously. Punishment for leaving Prophet Muhammad’s cult is also death till date. Not only that, even criticizing him or his cult is punished by death.

Prophet Jones punished severely anybody, who questioned his prophethood

Once a disciple questioned his ability to create fried chicken from thin air by his divine powers. Prophet Jones was informed of this by one of his informers. He was so pissed off that he punished him by giving him herb concoction, which made him shit all day till he almost died. So did Prophet Muhammad by punishing his skeptics severely and often having them assassinated (Asma Bint Marwan, Kab Bin Ashraf, Ibn Afak , Ibn Rafi, etc).

One of the prophet’s new young wives, Al Shanba Bint Amar Bin Ghiffurya, told prophet Muhammad in his bed, when he was about to have sex with her for the first time, that he was a fake prophet since his most beloved son 2 year old Ibrahim died in spite of his day and night prayers to Allah for his health. Prophet Muhammad was pissed off so much that his excitement for sex vanished instantly He punished her by divorcing right away and kicked her out of his house… (Tabari, vol. 9, p.136)

Prophet Jones promised his disciples a utopia on a planet in the in sky after their suicide deaths. Prophet Muhammad promised his disciples perpetual erection and 72 virgins in Janna (heaven) after their martyrdom somewhere in the sky.

Prophet Jones staged miracles to prove his prophethood. He cured blindness, paralysis and other diseases, on stage with the assistance of fake paid imposters. Like they say, the bigger the lie the more believable it becomes. Prophet Muhammad’s made-up miracles were so big that it was impossible to stage them; so he just lied about them. Today his billion plus cult-members still believe that the angel, Jibraeel, flew billions of miles daily to deliver him instructions from Allah and that he rode a flying horse “Buraq” with the face of a beautiful women, to meet Allah in the sky and inspected hell and heaven.

While Prophet Jones banned sex among Temple members outside of marriage, he himself voraciously engaged in sexual relations with both male and female Temple members. Prophet Muhammad, while banned out-of-marriage sex for his disciples, he himself engaged in sexual relations with female members of the Muslim Umma. Some hadiths talk about his occasional “hanky panky” with male members also.

COMMENT

Modern American prophets raped, committed adultery, practiced pedophilia, lied to their disciples, cheated and abused them, and one of them had people assassinated. They are all despised by decent people. One of those losers is even rotting in prison.

It is ironic that the Islamic Prophet Muhammad did all of the above on a much larger scale, yet he is adored and worshiped by a billion plus of men and women, 1400 years after his demise.

————————————————-

References

Qur’an 33:50

O prophet, we made lawful for you your wives to whom you have paid their due dowry, or what you already have, as granted to you by GOD. Also lawful for you in marriage are the daughters of your father’s brothers, the daughters of your father’s sisters, the daughters of your mother’s brothers, the daughters of your mother’s sisters, who have emigrated with you. Also, if a believing woman gave herself to the prophet – by forfeiting the dowry – the prophet may marry her without a dowry, if he so wishes. However, her forfeiting of the dowry applies only to the prophet, and not to the other believers. We have already decreed their rights in regard to their spouses or what they already have. This is to spare you any embarrassment. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

Love Story: How Prophet Muhammad Fall in Love with Rayhana on the Day of Qurayza Massacre

Muhammad's love or lust for a sex-slave???

---

Introductory Background

I have previously published an article on how Muhammad and the early Muslims committed genocide upon the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayza in Medina. Historical narrations give us a number between 600 and 900 adult men, who were beheaded by Muhammad and his disciples. Muhammad himself took an active role in beheading some leading men of the tribe. You could say he was a 'hands-on' prophet! I titled my previous article 'In honor of Bani Qurayza' due to the fact that their demise was done by an evil Islamic act.

Muslim apologists repeatedly try to defend Muhammad and his companions from the charge of being mass-murderers vis-à-vis this genocide. The problem is: they lie to themselves. No matter how you look at the Bani Qurayza events, the ultimate responsibility of this gruesome genocide rests on the shoulders of Islam's evil prophet. Even if, in fact, Bani Qurayza leaders betrayed their treaty with Muhammad (a matter that is actually not supported by the historical narrations I have studied), why behead and kill all adult men of that tribe? The fact is: the hands of Muhammad and early Muslims are soaked with the innocent blood of the men of Bani Qurayza. Those men were buried en-masse under the market streets of today's Medina in Saudi Arabia. Their souls would continue to cry aloud for the humanity to condemn Muhammad and Muslim disciples for such a gruesome crime.

Historical evidence is available as to why Muhammad killed all adult men of Bani Qurayza. This evidence comes to us from the events that took place after this evil massacre. In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat (The Life of Muhammad translate by A. Guillaume, twenty first impression (2007), p. 466), we read the following:

Then the apostle divided their property, wives, and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. A horseman got three shares, two for the horse and one for his rider. A man without a horse got one share. On the day of Bani Qurayza there were thirty-six horses. It was the first booty on which lots were cast snd the fifth was taken. According to its precedent and what the apostle did the divisions were made, and it remained the custom for raids.

Then the apostle sent Sa'd bin Zayd Al-Ansari brother of bin Abdul Ashhal with some of the captive women of Bani Qurayza to Najd, and he sold them for horses and weapons.

The above quote is a clear evidence of the economic reasons for this horror genocide. Muhammad wanted booty, and they had an easy target in the Bani Qurayza tribe, the only remaining non-Muslim people in Medina at this point in time. It's all about the booty.

The Love Story

On the same page of Ibn Ishaq's biography quoted above, we read the following:

The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint 'Amr bin Khunafa, one of the women of B. 'Amr b. Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry her and put the veil on her, but she said: 'Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you.' So he left her. She had repugnance toward Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. So the apostle put her aside and felt some displeasure.

The quote in the Sirat continues to tell that she, Rayhana, eventually became a Muslim and Muhammad was happy for this. I doubt that the story of her becoming a Muslim is an Islamic historic lie. Muhammad had killed all her adult male relatives, and, justifiably, she showed repugnance towards Islam (I am sure to Muhammad, too). Would such a person become a Muslim and follow the person that killed all adult members of her extended family?

In any case, Rayhana made an honorable choice. She remained a sex-slave instead of becoming the wife of the mass-murderer, who committed a gruesome genocide and killed all adults in her tribe and family.

Some love stories were hard on the holy prophet. Methinks it was his penis that fell in love with Rayhana. He had an eye for good-looking young girls. He was around 58 years old and she a young 15-year-old girl. Talk about a sick old man!!

Additional Links on the Bani Qurayza story:

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1756

http://www.exmuslim.org/genocide%20of%20the%20bani%20qurayza.html

The Ground Zero Megalomaniac

‘Bridge builder’ Feisal Abdel Rauf of the Ground Zero mosque has been exposed not as a man of goodwill, but as a cunning and calculating stealth jihadist, who supports the creation of an Islamic State, ‘The Ummah’, right here in America.

Rauf gave an interview on June 20^th, 2006 in which he spoke of his game plan for achieving an Islamic State without borders, which in his mind has previously existed and should have continued to exist, if not for Western interference in the last century. To prove his point he gave the example of the existence of Greeks and other minorities in Egypt and Turkey, which he cited as a sign of Islamic tolerance and its refusal to establish a nation state with a border. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the Islamic state does not want defined borders that might restrain its ferocious appetite to expand and conquer the infidel ‘dar Al harb’ states, who like defined borders?

Imam Feisal Rauf interview

Let’s take a closer look at a few quotes from Rauf’s interview:

“9/11 was a watershed, was a major catalytic force in, in catalyzing the attention towards the issue of Islam, it’s presence in the West.”

Meaning that he sees 9/11 mainly as a major opportunity, a milestone in advancing Islam. In other words, he saw that the successful murder of 3,000 Americans is now facilitating the work of nice “moderate’ Imams like him in America.

“How America should really engage with them [Hamas]…Helping her [Madeline Albright] understand the role of religion. She supported a Jewish State in the Middle East; why not support an Islamic State?”

When Rauf learned that the interview is over, he opens up regarding his advocacy for Hamas and how he advised and influenced former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright with whom he claimed to have had constant contact. Rauf warns of the need to deal with Hamas lest we lose this organization to bad guys, like Syria or Iran, as if Hamas is not bad enough on its own. This is the same threat this ‘man of peace’ is warning America to never upset the Islamic street ‘or else’.

“We have designed our Cordoba Initiative to be designed, in other words, we have 5 major areas of our program. So we have foreign policy, is one area, you have communications is another area, you have education as the third area, for example, you have intra-Islamic issues is the fourth area, arts and culture is the fifth area.”

Why would Cordoba, which he claims to be "cultural center", have a "Foreign Policy" section that would develop "Strategy Action Plays"? What is he going to educate Americans of? Will he send Muslim coaches to American schools to teach sensitivity training to watch for the feelings of Muslims or might he demand to educate American kids how to pray to Allah?

“If the entertainment media, the news media, was broadcasted in print, describe and speak about the issues in a different way it can help change perceptions profoundly, because it’s the media, which helps shape perceptions to a great degree. So if we have strategic action plays, designed plays, in the area of foreign policy, in the area of healing the divide, and then you unpack and give up Israel. You then have to have your offensive coaching stuff, your offensive coach and defensive coach and your head coach, we have to have our Palestinian coach, etc.”

Rauf speaks here like a war strategist, who wants to use the media to shape perceptions to promote his strategic action plays in the area of foreign policy. Rauf and I both are of Egyptian origin and I think he is still dreaming of the good old days of the Egyptian media propaganda machine I lived under and participated in. Before moving to America I was a journalist and media censor in the Middle East News Agency. There is no other way to interpret what Rauf wants: to use the media the way the tyrants and dictators of the Middle East do; as a traditional Islamic tool of indoctrination, misinformation and propaganda. Watch how clever Rauf inserts words like “healing the divide” right before hitting us with “you unpack and give up Israel”.

“I am the head coach of this strategic initiative and the President of the United States, or the President of Malaysia, or the President of England, is like a player you want to bring in for particular plays. We look at it as American football, you want to gain yardage.”

Are we supposed to believe that these are normal words of a peaceful Sufi cleric? What is it that he wants to win in yardage, one yard at a time? These are clearly grandiose plans of a borderline delusional narcissist who admits he plans to manipulate US Foreign Policy, the president of the United States, the 'president' of England (someone please inform the Queen on that one!) whom he considers as just “players" in his grand scheme.

When he was asked whom does he considers the enemy, his answer was: “You have to make sure you are not pushed back, you have to make sure you have power on your side to be able to push the ball forward.”

Is this ‘community building’ or a war strategy?

Then Mr. Rauf spoke of his vision of the Islamic state:

“I don’t want a demographic Islamic State, it is not a part of our tradition and never was until recently.” He added “Egypt, Alexandria, had 400,000 Greeks” “We created the notion of demographic Nation State whereas before that they were all living together.”

Rauf has an illusion of an Islamic State that never was and never will be. For some reason I’m hearing John Lennon’s song ‘Imagine’ (there’s no countries… no borders etc).

Rauf’s true self, motives and objectives have been exposed in this interview. To him the hard Jihad of 9/11 was just a catalytic beginning that facilitated his form of stealth Jihad. Soften the American public with a huge explosive terror act that divides Americans and sends their heads spinning, then comes Rauf to save the day with his community bridge-building at Ground Zero. To him 9/11 was just a strategic move in an Islamic/Western chess game. With both violent and stealth jihad coordinating their efforts and by playing the old ‘good cop bad cop’ routine on the American psyche, Rauf aims at becoming the Muslim hero in America who will join those who want to break down America’s borders brick by brick until finally one day America is transformed into Sharia-compliant Islamic state.

Faisal Rauf is the typical double-faced Islamist who speaks from both sides of his mouth. Even his book has one ‘nice’ title in English to fool the West, while in Arabic it advocates Sharia from Ground Zero. While claiming that his mission is non-political, just community building, his interview not only exposed him but more importantly, exposed Islam’s goals and the fact that ‘moderate’ Islam works in perfect harmony and in conjunction with radical terrorists.

This man is dangerous, but what is more dangerous is our State Department who has been facilitating the agenda of a clearly megalomaniacal jihadist.

---

Nonie Darwish is the President FormerMuslimsUnited.org and the author of ‘Cruel and Usual Punishment’.

Imam Feisal and Prophet Muhammad: Peace Builders by the Sword

Muhammad went to Medina as a refugee and established the supremacy and rule of Islam through threats of violence, indeed, through mass eviction and slaughter of the Jews. Imam Feisal and his Muslim hordes also came to the West as refugees and are trying to take over through the same tactics.

---

Islam is a 'religion of peace'. Ask a Muslim: He/she will tell you that Islam brought true peace, equality, justice, human rights and liberty to mankind. Muhammad set the tone of this peaceable core of Islam through a charter of peace, the so-called Covenant of Medina, through which he established a peaceful cohesive state in Medina, where the rights of followers of all faiths were ensured. Extending this peaceful mission, he united the fractious and bickering uncivilized Bedouin tribes of Arabia, upon which was founded the world's greatest empire and civilization, within which people of all faiths lived in peace, harmony and equality. Not only Muslims, but also non-Muslim historians, often of the Marxist leaning, would tell you so. So says Ibn Warraq, albeit regrettably (Why I Am Not A Muslim, p. 198):

Open any modern introductory book on Islam and the chances are you will find that it begins by singing the praises of a people who conquered, in an incredibly short period, half the civilized world—of a people who established an empire that stretched from the banks of the Indus in the east to the shores of the Atlantic in the West. The volume will recount in positively glowing terms a time when Muslims ruled over a vast population of diverse peoples and cultures.

Indeed, Muhammad invited the people of Arabia, even the rulers of Persia, Byzantium and Egypt amongst others, to unite under this prophethood and leadership. And, to that end, he founded an imperial Islamic state in Arabia, which would be the launching pad for the expansion of Islamic rule to far corners of the world.

But how was this so-called unity and peace was achieved? Let us first look at the Covenant of Medina, allegedly Muhammad's first agreement of peace and pluralistic coexistence with infidels, namely Jews and Polytheists of the city.

One must bear in mind that this covenant was signed less than one year after Muhammad's immigration there as a refugee. This covenant was dictated by, or written out from, Allah and Muhammad. It puts Muhammad as the ruler of the city, without whose permission, no-one, Muslim or non-Muslim, could go to war; the Jews and Polytheists of Medina must not protect the Quryash of Mecca, whom Muhammad had resolved to put to the sword; life of Muslims must be avenged, but not of non-Muslims, killed by a Muslim. Within a year of coming to Medina, Muhammad was offering the native non-Muslims of the city of such terms, demanding complete submission and subjugation to his authority. If they failed, concluded the document: "Loyalty is a protection against treachery". that means, if the native non-Muslims didn't show submission to Muhammad with complete loyalty, treachery will be unleashed: that is, the covenant would be thrown away and they would be treacherously attacked.

This is the model Muhammad had set forth for Muslims to follow through eternity, and there is a complete resemblance between this and Imam Feisal's campaign to build the Ground Zero mosque; we will come to it later.

In like manner, Muhammad, when became increasingly powerful in men and swords, offered proposals to other communities and nations to submit to him with offer of peace and security of their life and property. Let us see what Muhammad wrote to the kings of Oman:

‘Embrace Islam and you shall be safe… If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy.’

That is, to be safe and keep your kingship, embrace Islam; else my forces would enter your backyard and wreak destruction upon you.

While writing for submission to Heraclius of Byzantium, the world's most powerful emperor, just fresh from defeating the Persians in Palestine, Muhammad couldn't be so threatening, in order to avoid an attack. So, he wrote to Heraclius in a somewhat mild language (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p. 655):

‘If you accept Islam you will be safe; if you accept Islam, Allah will give you double reward; if you turn back, the sin of the husbandmen will be upon you.'

That means, to be safe and rewarded, accept Islam; if not, you will be responsible for misguiding your people.

Here Muhammad couldn't threaten him with punishment by sending his forces to attack him, not at this point in time, when he was so weak.

Here is the "prince of peace" of Muslims, the message of whose peace-overtures was: To buy safety and security, the infidels must embrace Islam, submit to his leadership and prophethood, or else, the swords would be drawn.

Later on, we witness Caliph Omar using the same mode of peace-overtures. Demanding submission to Islam, he wrote to the Shah of Iran:

Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation. End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior. This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians. You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians. Submission is your only option.

Down to our time, Imam Feisal, the man behind of the Ground Zero mosque project, plus his Muslim horde in the West, including great intellectual Fareed Zakaria (see why), are trying to use the same template of action or modus operandi---in the context of time and reality, of course.

Imam Feisal has emerged as a champion builder of peace and harmony between Muslims and the infidels. In words, he shoots bombastic propaganda of building peace and tolerance, but, in substance, he sends out the message of drawing out the sword, if submission and subjugation to his Islamic agenda is not realized.

His latest agenda is building a giant mosque close to the Ground Zero of 9/11 attacks, as part of his so-called mission of building interfaith tolerance and peace between Islamic and the Western world, between Muslims and Westerners. His weird logic is that building such an elegant mosque at the 9/11 Ground Zero site would foster peace and harmony between Muslims and Western infidels, would help incline Muslims more toward peace, and blunt the messages of al-Qaeda-minded Muslims.

We may forget that almost every terrorist attacks and plots in the past decade in the West, from 9/11 to Fort Hood, have been linked to radicalization of the perpetrators in mosques, that, in Islamic countries, mosques and madrasas are breeding grounds for Islamic fanatics and terrorists.

In the mildest of sense, a mosque is symbol of Islam, a symbol of Islamization. More the mosque, the elegant the mosque, the greater is Islamization, the dominance of Islam in that place. In other words, a giant mosque at the Ground Zero would represent the rising dominance of Islam in the New York City---plain and simple.

Moreover, from Islam's inception, mosques have been built to declare political supremacy of Islam over other faiths. Muhammad started it in Arabia, by destroying the churches, synagogues and temples of non-Muslim communities, the Pagan's Ka'ba Temple turned into the Ka'ba Mosque being the shining example. Since then, every place Muslim have conquered, they have destroyed their most revered places of worship and built at their places giant mosques to declare Islam's political and religious supremacy over the conquered infidels. Moving on from Mecca, the most famous churches in Cordoba (Spain) and Istanbul, the most revered Jewish Temple of Jerusalem, to the greatest Hindu temple of Rama Mandir in Ayodhya—all have been taken over and desecrated or destroyed, and famous mosques have been built in their stead.

In that sense, mosques represent a symbol of terror and humiliation to non-Muslims. How can, then, a mosque at the Ground Zero foster tolerance and peace between Americans and Muslims?

Most importantly, the al-Qaeda terrorists, who brought down the World Trade Center at the Ground Zero, did so because they want to establish a global Islamic Caliphate by subjugating the infidels to Islamic dominance through intimidation and terror. The most desirable thing on earth they would dream to see is a mosque build at the prime places of infidel powers around the world. A mosque at the World Trade Center or the White House would be the most desirable, dreamable, thing they ever want to see being built. Imam Feisal's Ground Zero mosque would become a reality what the 9/11 attack terrorists, masterminds and their like-minded Islamic radicals could only dream. It's a dream come true for the al-Qaeda Jihadis.

One is left to wonder, then, how a "dream-comes-true" event for the Islamic militants would help blunt their mission to commit similar acts that made their dream comes true.

Weird as it may seem to infidels (except some leftist liberals), but most logical to Islamists like Feisal and Fareed Zakaria, what is interesting about this mosque-building campaign is: how they are trying to push it down the throat of Americans with veiled threats, like those of Muhammad, albeit with modern subtlety, understandably given the reality. He warned America on CNN that

Americans must remember that what we do is watched all over the world… Our national security, our personal security, is extremely important. But if you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.

In other words, if the Imam's expectation, nay better say his command, an Islamizing one, is not met, he threatened America with violence. Just as did Muhammad to the people of Medina and the kings of Oman, Byzantium, Persia and others: that is, accept what we want here at 9/11 Ground Zero; else, be prepared for the sword, i.e. violence from Muslims.

What is needed for true tolerance and peace building is blunting exactly this mode of Muslim thinking that has been in force from Muhammad down to Imam Feisal. And the result has been untold Muslim-to-infidel intolerance, violence and barbarism—history being the proof.

What is needed for true peace-building between Muslims and non-Muslims is to make Muslims in the Islamic world tolerate non-Muslims, give them religious freedom and equal rights; let them build houses of worship—churches, synagogues and temples freely in Muslim countries—which remains almost impossible even in highly moderate Islamic countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh. For true peace-building, there is a need to build churches, synagogues and temples in Mecca, Medina, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Maldives and other Islamic countries, freely and without fear.

Obviously Imam Feisal is not going to propose or lead such initiatives. He wants a giant, elegant mosque at the most sensitive place in America to declare the rise of Islam. For Muslim readers, he titled his book, written in reaction to the barbaric 9/11 attacks by Muslim terrorists, as A Call to Prayer from the WTC Rubble: Islamic Dawah from the Heart of America Post 911. Historically Muslim invaders, after barbaric attacks on infidel nations, built mosques at their most central, sensitive and revered places for the Islamic call to prayer, call to Islam, a.k.a. Dawah. His book, as it appears, represented his desire to implement that old modus operandi of Islamic invaders, by transforming the Ground Zero into a pulpit for Dawah, call to Islamic prayers. His campaign to build the Ground Zero mosque a decade later is his resolute attempt to realize that blueprint, that dream. And to achieve it in the face of mounting opposition from Americans, he is adopting Muhammad's tactic: that is, agree and submit to what we want or else the swords would be unsheathed, in this case, in the form of violence by Muslims against America.

Muhammad went to Medina as a refugee and established the supremacy and rule of Islam through threats of violence, indeed, through mass eviction and slaughter en masse of the Jews. Imam Feisal and his Muslim hordes also came to the West as refugees and are trying to take over through the same tactics.

Actions of Muhammad, the most perfect man and the best apostle of Allah, are examples for Muslims to emulate for eternity to live the perfect Muslim life. Feisal Abdul Rauf, a devout follower of Muhammad and an Imam at that, could only follow Muhammad, not do otherwise.

Imam Rauf Trying to Hold America Hostage to Demands of Radical Islamists

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is using veiled-threats of “Radical Jihadis” to subjugate America to Islam...

---

On the night of September 8, 2010 (CNN interview with Soledad O’Brien) the so-called moderate Imam Feisal A. Rauf was using veiled-threats of “Radical Jihadis” to subjugate American people, as he was seriously cautioning about the danger of American National Security!

Should America satisfy Islamic Terrorists for its own security?

Well that was exactly what suggested by Imam Rauf, the director of the so-called cultural center—the Ground Zero Mosque. Imam Rauf is using veiled-threats of radical Islamists (aka al-Qaeda jihadis) to get his way for building Cordoba House project, a Terrorist’s Victory Mosque, at right over the nose of Ground Zero, where the same radical Islamists unleashed the 9/11 tragedy.

Imam Rauf said:

“You must remember, Soledad, and Americans must remember, that what we do is watched all over the world, all over the world. And we are very engaged with the Muslim world, very engaged. And our security is really number one. Our national security, our personal security, is extremely important. But if you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.”

Humm!!! Does that sounds like words of a tolerance and peace building Imam? It sounds like dreadful threats from "Islamic radicals". Imam is using a lethal threat to subjugate America only to do what Radical Islamists like to do!

Isn’t America and entire West is fighting to destroy these Islamic jihadis?

Why then America should comply what violent Islamists would love to see?

Why Is Imam Rauf pressuring America to bow down to these Islamic terrorists?

Wouldn't that amount to satisfying those Islamic beasts by appeasement?

Is that what America did 60 years back to destroy German (Nazis) and Imperial Japanese?

For whom this so-called “moderate Imam Rauf” is working for?

Is he here to work for those radical jihadi Islamists for bargaining with the American infidels?

Is he the real stealth jihadist?

Islam is not just a religion, Islam is inherently a political ideology!

Imam Rauf said: “This Mosque issue has been deliberately politicized. This is very dangerous and tragic for two reasons. Reason number one is that it goes against the fundamental American principle of separation of church and state. This concept of separation of religion and politics or church and state has a wisdom behind it. And the purpose behind it is not to politicize religion. Because when you politicize religion, it is dangerous.”

Imam Rauf is bluffing and lying to all Westerners, who actually do not know that Islam is way of life and solidly embedded in politics of the land. Truth is, Islam is not just an ordinary religion like Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism, loaded with spiritual aspects of life only! Unlike any other world religion, Islam is inherently a pure political ideology only to expand Arab imperialism throughout the whole world. This is the biggest misunderstanding by the Westerners in general and American in particular. Islam is a so-called religion, imbedded a pure supremacist political ideology at its heart. Separation of state and Mosque is an absurd dream in Islam. Political Islam (Sharia law—made from Koran and Sunnha) is the backbone of the religion of Islam, and this draconian law, called Shariaat, is established firmly in many Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan etc, and many other Muslim nations are also practicing Sharia partially. Radical Islamsist in those countries are continuously fighting jihad to establish this draconian Sharia—medieval supremacists evil ideology.

Fact of the matter is Islam came with the whole package where jihad and politics were integral part. The Imam said: he was against politicizing any religion. I thought it was Imam Rauf, the charlatan, who was boastfully bragging that USA was a Sharia compliant country. Any so-called Sufi and apolitical individual has no business in delving into Sharia business or about Mosque. Sufi brand of Muslims do not need any mosque, because Sufi Muslims never pray in mosques; they only need a Shrine. Imam Rauf is no Sufi-Muslim by any means! It is the political Islamists (Radical Islamists), who are always concerned about establishing a mosque, wherever they go and always cherish about the draconian Sharia law.

Imam Rauf lied big-time with Soledad O’brien!

When Soledad O’BRIEN asked: “Did you reach out to 9/11 families before?” Imam Rauf said: “Yes” and then said not all families, but to as many as we could reach, especially those who are very concerned about this issue.” But right after this interview, in the CNN-AC360-show with Anderson Cooper, Rosaleen Tallon, Sister of a firefighter killed in 9/11 tragedy said:

“…that’s a lie; he never asked anybody amongst 9/11 families. Well, here Imam is saying, if this Mosque is not built then America will have to pay retribution? Why retribution? I can’t accept that. Why not built this Mega mosque in the Middle East, where people are extremely intolerant? They need to learn about tolerance not the New Yorkers or American! New Yorkers as well as Americans are all highly tolerant people. We are the most tolerant nation on Earth. Why we need to learn about so-called tolerance for?”

osaleen Tallon was so emotionally charged that she was almost crying in pain!

Who needs to learn about Tolerance?

I think, Rosaleen Tallon (CNN interview-AC360) brought a very crucial point here. Who needs to learn about tolerance? I also strongly believe, so would 100% of readers agree with Rosaleen Tallon, that Americans in general and New Yorkers in particular are not only tolerant people, they are in fact, super-tolerant and highly compassionate people on earth. On the other hand, those Islamic radicals and most so-called moderate Muslims in the Middle Eastern nations are highly intolerant and not so compassionate either. Middle Eastern nations are not only intolerant to non-Muslim minorities there, they are mortally intolerant among the various Muslims sects, too (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadya etc). Almost 90% Muslims in the whole world hate America most; they blame America for almost any bad things that happen under the sun. The very interesting as well as painful thing is: almost 80-90% Muslims in all third-world Muslim countries and at least 50% of Muslims living in the West never believed that 9/11 was done by Muslims. They all think it was some sort of inside job, or Western conspiracy of some sort. Imam Rauf’s buddy Dr. Faiz Khan and ilk also believe the same junk about ridiculous conspiracy theory about 9/11. Osama Bin Laden willfully and cheerfully admitted and openly bragged about 9/11 attacks no less than 7 times in his video clips. Muhammad Khalid Sheikh, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, also bragged how he had planned and conducted this dreadful act of terrorism. Yet, most Muslims still believe that 9/11 was a Western and Jewish conspiracy!

It is the radical Islamists (aka pure Muslims, who read Koran regularly and visit most mosques), who are committing heinous terrorism, killing tens of thousands of innocent people every day for the last 15 years. Even today, Islamic terrorists are killing people in the mosques, churches, and everywhere by their Islamic jihad. Should not our Imam Rauf consider building this mega-mosque (Cordoba House) in the Middle East (as Rosaleen Tallon Suggested) so that, Middle East people can learn tolerance? Is not it a mockery or even travesty that Imam Rauf considering to teach “tolerance” to those, who are champions of tolerance?

When Franklin Graham (Son of Famous Billy Graham) a prominent Christian leader was asked by CNN about Islam and peace, the following was his answer:

“The teaching of Islam is—to hate the Jew, to hate the Christian, to kill them. Their goal is world domination. And for the Muslim, peace means when all the other nations are subject to Islam. Then we are at peace. The world will be at peace when the entire world is under Islam. Well, I don’t agree with the teachings of Islam.” (END VIDEO CLIP)

The response by Imam Rauf was: “Islam does not preach that at all. And the Koran is quite specific. Koran says whoever believes in God in the last day shall be saved. It is a religion whose very name, Islam, comes from the word Shalom, which means 'peace'. It’s about establishing peace. We greet each other with peace be upon you, which the Jews do in greeting each other. It’s a religion based upon peace."

Yes, of course Islam all about peace!!! World is witnessing peace of Islam for the last 15 years everywhere! This Imam Rauf has defeated even the greatest historical champion liar by the name—Goebbels. Fact is: Islam is inherently an extremely violent and hateful religion. The Quran is replete with Allah’s clarion call to kill non-Muslims. Just click to this link, http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/TerrorManual.htm, in order to believe what I am telling.

Franklin Graham has spoken the truth about Islamic peace and nothing but the truth. He did not speak politically correct nonsense, like the most hypocritical politicians. Truth of the matter is: Islam is not at all a religion of peace; Islam means 'surrender' or 'be subjugate to the religion of Islam'. Only through surrenders to Islam, one enters the realm of peace! On another situation, Islam means peace only when Muslims are a small minority (example: Muslims in the Western); but when they get majority or even a considerable size, Islam means intolerance and violence to others. In that situation, Islam gets the divine mandate (Dictums of the Quran and hadiths) to invite, force, subjugate, and even to fight to convert other people to bring them under the fold of Islam. Only after that, Islam means peace! Graham is damn right about Islamic peace mania. Prudent question is: Why prophet Muhammad had to fight 78 bloody offensive battles if Islam was so peaceful religion? Readers please click here to learn about the real face of Islamic jihad: An Exegesis on 'Jihad in Islam'.

The Quran is loaded with coercing, harsh and hateful verses toward unbelievers. Islamic God (Allah) does not like or accept any other religions but Islam (verses on Allah's liking of Islam only: 3:85, 3:19, 48:7, 14, and 25:2); the Quran repeatedly curses non-Muslims (verses of curse: 3:61, 8:55, 2:191, 9:123, 3:28, 47:4); Allah asks not to take any unbelievers, Christians and Jews as friend (verses 4:140, 5:57, 18:106, 10:99, 8:55, 98:6) and so on. How any sane person can believe that Islam means peace? Readers can learn more about Islamic peace by reading this article: An Exegesis of Islamic Peace.

Who are the radical Muslims?

Radical Jihadi Muslims are the pure believers of the Quran and Sunnah (Prophetic traditions) and they are Muslims by the book and more radicalized (read: purified) than those, who are Muslims due to their birth in the Muslim parents only! Radical Muslims are engaged in “violent jihad” and innocent-looking Muslims, like Imam Feisal Rauf and the likes of him, and the practicing gullible Muslims—they all are engaged in “Stealth Jihad”. Both the radical jihadis and the so-called moderate Muslims, engaged in stealth Jihad, have the same end goal of bringing America under the fold of Islam. Truly, moderate Muslims do not exist; either good Muslims (i.e. radicals) or ignorant Muslims. Please remember: all Muslims may not be the terrorist, but as per the Koran, they all are.

Who is Imam Feisal A. Rauf?

Could Imam Feisal A. Rauf be a moderate Muslim? Answer is a BIG NO! An Imam is one, who has read and believes in the Quran and Sunnah (Prophetic traditions) in its entirety. The Quran and Sunnah are 100% anti-women, anti-non-Muslims, and intolerant and violent; hence, anybody who read the Quran and Sunnah can never be a moderate, period.

The real difference between Imam Anwar al- Awlaki and Imam Feisal Rauf is: Imam al-Awlaki engaged in "violent jihad" (like OBL’s al-Qaeda) and Imam Feisal is engaged in “Stealth Jihad”. But they both are fighting for the cause of Allah to bring America under the fold of Islam, the only religion accepted by Allah.

Before the CNN interview with Soledad O’Brien, Imam Rauf was interviewed by Hind Bashandy for Radio Hurytna in Egypt. The charlatan Imam’s double talk exposed him as a clear apologist of Islamic terrorism as you can see in the following conversation. Hind asked the Imam, “Why Muslims hate America, and I ask the opposite question, why do Americans see us as terrorists or suspicious or they see that we are all Bin-Ladens”. Rauf replied, “The main thing to every nation is national security. When there is a threat, the most important issue is national security, especially to the public. We also in the Muslim world, if anything happens in every country like what happened in Germany or any Muslim country, also in Egypt or any Muslim country like Saudi Arabia for example, it would be important to them of course. If something happens in Egypt for example the Copts or with religious minorities who have the same faith as the Christians in America, it makes them care, they are of the same faith. What happens from terrorist actions, it causes a national security threat, a threat to them as a community of Americans and Christians. The same with us, when Palestinians are under pressure or attacked we care as Arabs, we feel that we care, we feel attacked as Arabs and Muslims. This is natural. To any community. If something happened to the Bashandy family, aren't you a Bashandi Hind? [Hind smiles]”

Feisal Abdul Rauf has not convinced anybody that he is moderate, peace-loving. In his interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, his sly oratory indicated he was slinkier than a cunning fox. He is no sheep, rather a coyote in a sheep’s clothing. The Imam brought the bogeyman of radical jihadists in his argument against moving the Ground Zero Mosque.

Imam Feisal in his 2001 Sixty Minutes interview said bluntly, the USA was partly or in some case directly responsible for the 9-11 attack. Readers can listen to him in this link:

Did he show any indication that he deviated from his past thinking? Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is out and out a dishonest person. And, of course, he is anything but a moderate Muslim.

Finally, Western people must not forget for a moment that all Imams of mosques, those who attend mosques regularly, those who do believe that Koran is the word of God, those who pray 5 times a day, those who are the students of madrasshas—are all radical muslims by the book. Therefore, Imam Rauf is, of course, a radical Muslim. In fact, he is the most dangerous radical Muslim, who is acting like a so-called moderate Muslim, although he is a coyote inside the sheep’s skin.

America must not forget that a mosque near the Ground Zero will be a symbolic Islamic Victory Flag, hoisted over the rubbles of American Icon, the World Trade Center (WTC), brought down by Islamic radicals. This mosque will be the victory mosque for those al-Qaeda Jihadis, who destroyed the WTC in 9/11 attacks. This Mosque will stand as the “middle finger” to the shameful American infidels.

Finally let me conclude my essay by this quotation below: “It would be naïve to ignore Islam's deep thread of intolerance toward unbelievers.”— Andrew Sullivan.

Invitation to ex-Muslims: Join 'Former Muslims United'

The U.S.-based Former Muslims United foundation is inviting ex-Muslims from all over the world to join the organization. The foundation was initiated by ex-Muslims like Ibn Warraq, Nonie Darwish, Amil Imani and Muhammad Asghar et al. If united under this organization, it may become a spearhead for the ex-Muslim movement.

A Look into the Psychology of Dictators

The behaviour of dictators like Ahmadinejad, Ghadafi, Idi Amin et al., is not solely a funny subject for people, a witty personage for media, and a caricature for satirists. There behaviour has the potential of causing catastrophe for a whole nation. They represent an Islamic, authoritarian or even totalitarian regime, which is morally bankrupt and, thus, they can commit any wrongdoing without any moral scruples.

While many psychopaths are incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals and penal institutions, it has been recognised that a few of them were clever enough to enter the history of mankind, creating catastrophes. All these misfits need to rule is an insane ideology or belief system, through which, they surround themselves with mad people, devoted followers and blind killers, who are equally clueless about what it means to be a feeling human being.

Psychopath as Leaders

Though it was in the nineteenth century that doctors began to elucidate the nature of that disturbing category of human beings that we now call psychopaths, history shows that they have always been with us. A mad leader can be mad about an ideology, religion or cult, as Hitler is a symbol of Nazism, Stalin of irreparably degraded communism, and Khomeini of actualized political Islam. Megalomania is a common character for any dictator. It's no wonder that we had Hitler as 'Führer', Nero who exalted himself to a god, Stalin who became father of the Russians. All of them used their intelligence in the service of their immoral drives (belief, aggression, power). They use lofty words and emotional speech 'an easy thing for a fairly intelligent psychopath', but there is no substance in them. Being fairly bright, they learn how to imitate emotional expressions, suggestive of some higher emotions (compassion, sympathy, sociability, patriotism and morality), through which they fool the grassroots. However, they hardly fool any intellectual observer, because they ring hollow as there is no truth and authenticity in their words. Their fraudulent but emotional speeches distinguish them from sane leaders.

Fear

It is nothing new or surprising, a dictator in uniform or suit, also in a robe and turban, would never abandon the idea that he is above all. He would consider himself a God's handpicked leader. Therefore, lasting compromises with him are impossible and, thus, he would refuse to allow other ideas to cramp his authority. The guiding principles and policies they use are based on fear. Fear has always been used to silence people and groups in a population. Fear is widespread in all dictatorial systems. Fear is a powerful motivator in enforcing tolerance, obedience, and making people submit to authority, it is a pillar of religious and totalitarian systems. Fear from god or State has always been tangibly present in all totalitarian, religious, and cult systems, such as Italy under Mussolini, Nazi Germany under Hitler, China under Mao, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Iran under the Islamic regime. The threat of punishment, torture and being killed is widely dispersed enough to cause fear. Fear has systematically been spread by state and religious institutions throughout history.

The psychopathic Signs

According to psychologists, dictators are the individuals whose narcissism is so extreme and grandiose that they exist in a kind of splendid isolation in which the creation of the grandiose self takes precedence over legal, moral or interpersonal commitments. While the psychopath gives no real affection, he is quite capable of inspiring affection of sometimes fanatical degree in others. Indeed, he has no genuine human qualities, but opportunistically adapts himself to any situation. This is not a normal type of behavior we need to adjust ourselves to, but purely an opportunistic trick.

Psychopaths have no human feelings

Psychopaths have no feeling of guilt or remorse no matter what happens. A good example is the famous Khomeini's response when he was asked about his feeling in his flight to Iran after 15 years in exile, when he surprised a whole nation by saying: 'I have no feeling on my return to Iran!' His spontaneous, unscripted and unadvised reaction to a simple obvious question that would require him to express either empathy or caring and compassion for others, including the millions of his followers waiting enthusiastically for his arrival, shows his real side and his lack of human feelings. Although this little statement in itself was very revealing, it was not seriously taken in consideration at the time. Khomeini's fumbling with statements and phraseology was not a proof that he was merely unintelligent in the conventional sense, but also showed a typical apathy, no sense of concern for his people.

Psychopathic dictators are not alone

It seems that a dictator is often a product of a whole system. So, a mad dictator is not alone in the arena, his mad followers and supporters are the most reliable helps for him. A dictator would not win without his followers' help. A dictator's subordinate has to be a devoted followers and blindly obedient. Without them Khomeini, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. would not succeed in forming their dictatorship and sacrificing millions of lives. Devotees are there to cheer, identify, arrest, torture, and kill innumerable individuals as a sign of their loyalty to their leader. In other words, the more devoted they are, the more dictatorial the leader will be, and the more cold-blooded. Even though some of the devoted followers can be the future pathetic victims of the beloved leader, some remain so mesmerised that their last words before execution can be 'Heil Hitler!' or 'Long live Stalin!' Hitler's and Stalin's purges of his communist comrades showed that depth of devotion. In reality, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were not born despotic, but became, at least for a period, heroes of people. People, especially powerless and politically underdeveloped members, rally around their 'heroes', seeing in them both a reflection of themselves and a promise of a 'victory' that would release their fears and frustrations, and avenge their sorry and hopeless fate. Of course what they do not realise is that their leaders would not care about people's fate. To such fanatical leaders, people are an echo chamber for their words and cannon fodder for their beliefs.

Religious leaders

Normally, political or cult leaders have an outstanding ability to charm and win over followers. They are good at rhetoric and present plausible solutions for any problem. They beguile and seduce through certain logic, but this is not the case for all leaders. Khomeini did not have such an intellectual ability. He was not even able to properly speak Farsi. His success at garnering attention was due to a fatal lack of honesty; many doubted his credentials but did not dare to say so. This is another odd subject to see how a character like Khomeini could seduce his followers. Even later, when Khomeini learnt to answer questions on advice of his advisors who reminded him to be sensitive, he could hardly express his sympathy for his people. Amazingly, this lack of emotion was rarely a problem for his followers. The devotees never expected Khomeini to be assimilated to their genuine problems or even to their Iranian identity.

Islamic leadership

All religions share, to one degree or another, a denial of the modern and civilised world. All 'true' believers subscribe to a belief in delightful ideals of their archaic thoughts. Religious fanatics believe in a selective class of elite believers (Mullahs /priests /rabbis etc.). They eliminate the possibility of any critical thought. While all these aspects are true for most religions, they are particularly flagrant in Islam and practiced in its political form. The Islamic regime as a recent example of a political Islam characterises the dark period of the Inquisition in a time that the civilised world had already many centuries far from the effects of the Inquisition. However, the difference between these two archaic systems is the danger of religious ideology, which not only is found in mentalities as before but also in methodologies of Islamism. Islam as today practiced, denies the civilised world and forces an unhealthy backwardness of society. In its paranoid and naive fashion, it develops its own perverse ideology of a new 'Dar-al-Islam' (territory of Islam), pushing the methods of divine violence into an extreme and dangerous level of a jihadist strategy.

When a dictator is enthroned

It is in the realm of politics that the psychopath is at his worst. While seemingly in full possession of his political ability, the psychopathic leader demonstrates an inability to comprehend the meaning and significance of his own faults. This is why he never tries to remedy the faults; instead he punishes critics. The psychopath dictator is often astounded to find that people are upset by his exploits, as acknowledged by some enthroned despots. Although he knows intellectually what punishment is decreed for certain crimes, when caught for the same crimes, he puts up elaborate rationalisations and defences, and seems surprised when he is actually punished, as seen in Saddam's process.

Dictator's followers

Our psychopathic dictator needs obedient followers. Such devotees are free of remorse. They can be under rare circumstances a national hero, war hero, symbol of pride, but mostly are traitors to their people. Some will ultimately find out that they can lose the head if they desert the camp of leadership; otherwise they remain symbols of shame. If a psychopathic follower becomes a hero of the system, who is very rarely acceptable for his fellow country people, then his 'bravery' helps him to win the affection of his fellow followers, but he knows that people one day do not accord him a status of hero; he can be disillusioned by his subsequent comprehension, as shown by many deserters of totalitarian regimes including many ex-Islamists or ex-collaborators of the Islamic regime.

Royal psychopaths

Another aspect of the thoughtlessness is the obliviousness of the psychopath to punishment. Not only does the threat of future punishment have no power to deter him, but actual punishment does not reform him. All historical experience and most psychiatrists consider such psychopaths untreatable. It is historically proved that there is no way to handle psychopaths when they possess political power. Tragically, as a nation, we will remain in the dark ages as long as some of our people keep choosing or tolerating psychopaths as their leaders.

Imam Feisal, a True Follower of the Prophet of Islam

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the resolute campaign for building a mosque at the 9/11 Ground Zero, is only following the footsteps of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. Find out why?

---

The construction of the Islamic Center on the Ground Zero is making headlines these days in USA. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf did not find any other place but Ground Zero for building a mosque. The choice of the place clearly shows his ulterior motive to create clash and chaos now and once it is built then continue the chaos and fight over the land in Ground Zero until the earth stops orbiting around the Sun. Dear readers, judge the acts of Imam Rauf by comparing with Prophet Muhammad and his companions. It is in the history that Muhammad and his companions claimed many holy and sensitive places of others as their own. The Kaaba in Mecca was a holy place of the idol worshiper Quraish. After the victory of Mecca, Muhammad made it the place of worship for Muslims. In his exile with his disciples, followers and many wives in Medina, he ordered his followers to pray facing Jerusalem. To establish a claim on Jerusalem, he made a story that included his prayer in a mosque during his stop over while he was flying to meet God with a God given space craft. Were there Muslims living in Jerusalem at that time? Albeit, no. Then how come there was a Mosque there for Muhammad to pray? If King David or King Solomon built a prayer place there, then it was a temple not a mosque because none of them were Muslims.

Actually, Caliph Omar built the Mosque there after conquering Jerusalem where the Jews have their holy place called Temple Mount. Creating chaos, irritating other religious people's feelings and sentiment and gradually claiming and capturing other religious places were the regular practices of the early Muslim invaders. There were no mosque in Jerusalem but Muhammad claimed praying there, later Caliph Omar built a mosque called Al Aqsa just right on a holy place of the Jews. Omar did not find any other place in the whole territory captured by him to build the Al Aqsa Mosque. See what Imam Feisal wants to do. In Ground Zero, the Islamic terrorists recited Koran while they attacked twin towers and killed thousands of people. Now, the Mosque has to be built here in Ground Zero and the Muslims will recite Koran and who knows with time they will claim the whole Ground Zero as their own.

Those who watched Imam Rauf’s interview in the recent interview with CNN's Soledad O'Brien, definitely observed about his innocent appeal for interfaith dialog and healing. Imam Rauf does not need to promote interfaith dialog here in United States. The opportunities are here to have open interfaith dialog. It would be wise for him to build Islamic Centers in Mecca and Medina for interfaith dialog because there are no such things there. There will be healing if Imam Rauf declares Bin Laden and his companions as apostates (kaffirs) for killing innocent people without raising questions on American foreign policies. Muhammad used to like interfaith dialog and discussions with Jews after he migrated to Medina to save his life from the Quraish. Medina charter, Hudaibia pacts are a few that Muhammad did but readers see what happened in Medina. There is not a single Jew left there. Other than Muslims no one can even enter into these cities. Such is the final outcome of medina charter! If one reads about Albert Einstein and follows him, then albeit he will gain some of his characteristics.

Imam Rauf is a true follower of Muhammad. No doubt, he is following the footsteps of Muhammad.

Turkey: Islamism's Consequences for the West

The "good times" between Turkey and the West seem to be over. As the Erdogan years in Turkey have attempted to turn Turkey from a once-secular country into a de facto Islamist country, the West and Turkey seem to be on a collision course, or at best, an impasse.

The questions now to ask include: What to do about an Erdogan-ruled Turkey that appears intent on reshaping the Middle East in its own Islamist and nationalist image and agenda; the response of America and the West (particularly NATO) if Turkey breaks diplomatic relations with Israel; and what how to adjust the US-Turkish relationship in light of Turkey's friendly relationships with the dictatorships of Iran and Sudan.

Also of paramount concern is how Turkey might react toward an autonomous Kurdistan in the north of Iraq. Turkey has constantly rattled its scimitar against the PKK guerillas, and crossed the border into northern Iraq under the guise of pursuing Kurdish guerillas. It has also talked about protecting the Turkmens, relatives of the Turks, who just so happen to live in the oil rich city of Kirkuk, a city contested by Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmens alike. Once America has withdrawn from Iraq, would America and NATO turn the other way to a possible Turkish occupation of Iraqi-controlled Kurdistan? Keeping silent about internal Turkish matters may be one thing, but a failing to respond to Turkey's foreign policy moves - especially military moves - could bring about an even further destabilized situation in the Middle East, affecting an already fractured Muslim world.

It is also possible -- especially in light of Europe's reluctance to admit Turkey into the European Union -- that Erdogan is just waiting for a West-NATO confrontation with Turkey: Erdogan might use such an incident to whip up Turkish passions -- both nationalist and religious -- and once again show himself as a Muslim leader willing and able to stand up to the West. Turkey would no doubt bring up Turkish "grievances" -- claims that it is just trying to right the supposed wrongs of the past, and claims that will encompass not only Turkey's national complaints, but those of the rest of the Muslim world (sans Kurdistan) towards the West.

The irony of Turkey and its relations with the West cannot be lost in light of the fact that Barack Obama started his "outreach" to the Muslim world last year while giving a speech in Turkey's parliament. If Obama's feckless response to Iran's brutal crackdown on demonstrators last year over the "re-election" of Ahmadinejad is any indicator, one should certainly not expect Obama to react any differently vis-à-vis Turkey and its Islamist agenda. This not only applies to Israel, in that it seems unlikely that the current American administration will come to the aid of Israel in its deteriorating relations with Turkey, but also to Kurdistan and the rest of the Muslim world. The apparent obsession on the part of Obama with "repairing" relations with the Muslim world, even at the expense of Muslims trying – and even dying – to break the shackles of their totalitarian regimes, may signal that America no longer has the will or desire to confront Middle Eastern dictators. If such a scenario plays out, a major void will have been created in a region of monumental strategic importance to the West – a void which countries like Russia, China, and Iran could seek to exploit and replace.

Although the one institution that could prevent Turkey from becoming an Islamic republic is the Turkish army, it remains a question if the army could -- or would -- act. If it did, how would the Turkish people, as well as the West, react to such a situation? A new Turkish coup would be the fifth one in fifty years, and could open the military to charges of interfering in the democratic process. No doubt, Erdogan and the AKP appear to be "using democracy in order to destroy democracy."

And as the referendum on reforms to Turkey's constitution passed overwhelmingly on September 12^th, with 58% of the vote, many critics say that this will only strengthen Erdogan and his AKP, further eroding the strength of the military and judiciary. Of course, Erdogan has said the opposite, and that the constitutional reforms will only strengthen Turkey's "democracy." However, Erdogan has already stated that a new constitution is needed, stoking further fears of an AKP Islamist takeover.

Erdogan's only real opposition is the CHP (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) otherwise known as the Republican People's Party. Ironically, this party was founded by Ataturk in 1923. Recently, it has been mired in a sex scandal forcing its leader, Deniz Baykal, to resign. It is currently led by Kemal Kilicdaroglu, a left-of-center politician.

At the end of the day, it appears that Turkey's last hope of staving off an Islamic Republic and a confrontation with the West is in the scheduled election of July 2011: voting Erdogan's party out. However, with Erdogan riding high after his constitutional referendum victory, this likelihood does noit, at present, appear to be likely.

A short background:

For close to ninety years now, the Republic of Turkey has been officially a secular state. The reforms implemented by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the 1920's, turned Turkey from an Islamic Sultanate/Caliphate into a modern Western-style secular state. When Ataturk overthrew the Sultanate under Mehmed (Mohammad) VI Vahideddin in 1922, he was signaling a global shift in Turkey's thinking, attitude, and way of life. (The Caliphate was abolished in 1924 when Abdul Mecid II, was forced into exile. Thus, the reign of the Ottomans, who had ruled Turkey, much of the Middle East, and a portion of Europe since the foundation of the empire in 1517, officially ended.)

Ataturk's reforms were so great – and stringent – that the term "Kemalism" is used to describe the tremendous transformation that Turkey went through from the age of the Ottomans to the age of the Kemalists. Ataturk was intent on reshaping Turkey; throwing off its Islamic past, and steering it toward the West. Among his major reforms were not only abolishing the Sultanate and Caliphate, and officially declaring the country a secular republic, but also, in 1928, banning of the fez and hijab, and replacing the Turko-Arabic script with that of the Latin alphabet. For a while, Ataturk was so intent on "de-Islamizing" Turkey, that he forbade the muezzin (prayer caller) from using Arabic when calling Muslims to prayer. As many know, Muslim prayers must be said in Arabic only; the banning of Arabic prayer was too much for the religious Muslims, and eventually even Ataturk had to relent and allow its reinstitution.

As the decades went by, Turkey weathered weak governments; army coups; right wing and left wing terrorism; and a host of other problems -- and, most notably, a Kurdish insurrection that continues to this day and has from time to time spilled over into Iraqi-administered Kurdistan.

In 1996, Necmettin Erbakan, leader of the Refah (Welfare Party), became Prime Minister; he was the first "post-Kemalist" prime minister who openly and unabashedly proclaimed his Islamist tendencies. After much controversy, the Turkish army -- the guardians of the secular state – diplomatically pushed Erbakan aside; and it appeared that Turkey had weathered its short term dalliance with an Islamic renaissance.

The situation, however, changed in the elections of 2002 when a new Islamist party – the Justice and Development Party – (Adaltet Kalkinma Partisi, or AKP) emerged with the largest number of seats in parliament. Its leader, the former mayor of Istanbul, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was a devoutly religious Muslim. Erdogan had been a follower of Erbakan; while still mayor of Istanbul in 1997, he was arrested for "religious incitement" due to a poem that he recited which hinted in part at a return to a militant brand of Islam:

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers."

Aside from the metaphors, it must have come as a shock to the secular authorities that the mayor of such a cosmopolitan city as Istanbul, would be as brash as to recite such a poem that no doubt was a strong hint of his views on religion and the state. Eventually, Erdogan was brought up on incitement charges in 1998, but served only 4 months of a ten month sentence.

After the debacle of Erbakan's rule, and Erdogan's own brush with the secular authorities, Erdogan became more subtle in his attempts to re-Islamize Turkey. After Refah was banned in 1998, he became instrumental in forming the AKP in 2001, which de-emphasized -- at least publicly -- its Islamist ambitions.

In the November 2002 national elections, the AKP won only about 34% of the vote, but emerged with the most elected representatives (363 out of 550) in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (the Turkish parliament). Because of Erdogan's prison sentence, he was not allowed to assume the role of prime minister; it went to his right-hand man, Abdullah Gul. Through parliamentary maneuvers, however, Gul and his allies were able to change the law so that Erdogan could become prime minister in March 2003. Erdogan assured his country – and the West – that he was committed to a secular government - although his chimerical nature was revealed in a New York Times article, in May 2003, in which he was quoted as saying, "Before anything else, I am a Muslim." In the same article, though, he stated that "A political party cannot have a religion. Only individuals can." At the very least, this shows an apparently conflicted opinion on religion and secularism. The article also related a very chilling comment about Erdogan's opinion of democracy when he was still Istanbul's mayor: "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off."

That same month, while America was planning "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, Washington asked permission from Turkey to allow U.S. forces to open a northern front against Iraq from Turkish territory. While Erdogan and Gul did not openly say no to the request, the Turkish parliament rejected it. Washington was stunned.

As the years passed, Erdogan continued to cultivate a moderate image in the West, while quietly espousing Islamist causes in Turkey -- most notably by appointing members of the judiciary and government ministers who were religious conservatives, and thereby changing the landscape of Turkey's secular foundations. Paradoxically, he appointed a supposedly avowed secularist as his new military chief of staff, Mehmet Ilker Basbug, in 2008; but on August 30^th, Basbug retired and was replaced by Land Forces Commander Isik Kosaner, who promised to uphold the secular character of Turkey.

Earlier this year, however, the Erdogan government had forty military officers arrested, claiming that they were planning to "destabilize" the government. Many critics saw this as another step in Erdogan's attempt to do away with the Kemalist republic and neutralize the once staunchly secularist military.

Erdogan's apparent "good cop/bad cop" approach extends also to his relations with Washington. While professing friendship for America and the West, in 2006, Erdogan was quite vocal in his approval of the notoriously and viciously anti-American and anti-Israeli movie "Valley of the Wolves." The movie portrayed American soldiers in Iraq as murderers, and included a Jewish doctor harvesting Iraqi organs for sale in Tel Aviv. Even Erdogan's wife, Emine (a conservative Muslim who is always seen wearing a traditional Turkish hijab) also chimed in about the movie, praising the actors, and stating that she was "so proud" of them. More recently a thirteen part – and virulently anti-Semitic -- series was aired on Turkish TV, entitled "Separation: Palestine in Love and War," which aired to rave reviews in parts of the Arab world as well as in Turkey. This series, despite Israeli protestations, led to a further poisoning of Turko-Israeli relations. Ironically, some Arabs decried the series as well, but not out of defense of Israel. Apparently, the reason was that the Turkish series showed the Palestinians as killing their daughters after having been raped by Israeli soldiers, something the Palestinians object to as defaming them.

Contrary to the myth among many Jews and others who see a good portion of Turks as at best indifferent to Israel and Jews, "Mein Kampf" reached the best sellers list in Turkey in 2005. The book was subsequently banned -- in part through German efforts -- but it probably should give the reader pause for concern if average Turks make "Mein Kampf" a best seller.

Meanwhile, internal recriminations continued to simmer in Turkey between the Kemalists and the Islamists, with new Turkish elections held in 2007. This time, the AKP received over 46% of the vote – almost 12% more than in 2002 -- and 341 seats. Ironically, while garnering an overall higher percentage of the vote than in the previous election, the AKP lost twelve seats, which went to other parties. A short time later, Abdullah Gul became president after three rounds of voting in the Turkish parliament, again causing controversy, with many Turks seeing Gul's election as another victory for the Islamists. Like Prime Minister Erdogan's wife, Gul's wife, Hayrunissa, also wears a headscarf -- which has now become a symbol of the clash between secularists and Islamists.

After the AKP's second victory, and Gul's ascension to the presidency shortly thereafter, Erdogan began to become more outspoken in his criticism of the West, and especially Israel, as was seen by his eruption against Israel's president, Shimon Peres, at a January 2009 meeting at Davos, Switzerland, when Erdogan launched into a vitriolic verbal assault against Israel, stating to the shocked Peres that "when it comes to killing, you know well how to kill," and then stormed off the stage. Unfortunately, like a true "dhimmi" [second-class citizen according to Sharia Law], Peres phoned Erdogan, apologizing to the prime minister if there might have been any misunderstanding regarding the verbal dispute between the two leaders in light of Israel's offensive against Hamas in 2008.

Turkish anti-Americanism began to increase as well. Even as President Obama was beginning his "apology tour" by visiting Turkey in April 2009, anti-American demonstrations were well underway, with demonstrators chanting slogans against both Obama and America. Much of the anti-American feeling had to do with the American invasion of Iraq and perceived American "atrocities;" and no doubt, the constant anti-American and anti-Israeli media barrage in the Turkish government-controlled press played a large role in the average Turk's opinion of both America and Israel.

After the uproar in June 2010 over the "activist flotilla," Turkey announced cancellation of military exercises with Israel, as well as the cancellation of military contracts between them. Turkey also recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv and strongly hinted at breaking diplomatic relations with Israel. Turkish officials have spoken of "Turkish honor" and "Turkish pride" regarding events vis-à-vis Israel, yet it appears that the terms "Israeli honor" and "Israeli pride" -- let alone "Israeli self-defense" -- are words that do not exist in the Turkish lexicon. Even a "moderate" Islamist as Fethullah Gullen, also no friend of Israel, criticized the Turkish led "flotilla" fiasco. Yet where is "Turkish pride" and "Turkish honor" when the tyrant from Tehran, Ahmadinejad, refused to visit Kemal Ataturk's mausoleum? At one time in Turkey, such a display of diplomatic arrogance and contempt for Ataturk would have been met with outrage by a secular Turkish government and military. Apparently, in today's Turkey, that is a thing of the past.

There is another telling sign in Turkish-Israeli relations of how far Turkey has veered from its one time alliance with Israel: Turkey's recent appointment of Hakan Fidan, as head of Turkey's National Intelligence Organization. It has been rumored that Fidan might have played a role in the flotilla incident, and might also have relations with the Islamist dominated IHH (Insan Hak ve Hurriyetleri ve Insani Yardim Vakfi (The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief), which orchestrated the Marmara flotilla.

Turkey's vitriolic statements and actions on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs by Prime Minister Erdogan has come as a shock. But while Erdogan still vehemently condemns Israelis as "murderers," and calls Israel a "festering boil in the Middle East," he hypocritically refuses to address the Armenian genocide, even though it was perpetrated under Ottoman rule close to a century ago. Further, while Erdogan supports his Muslim "brothers" in "Palestine," he continues in implacable hostility toward his own Kurdish Muslim minority, and especially towards a quasi-independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Apparently, "Islamic solidarity" is fine with Turkey, as long as the Kurds play no role in Turkish affairs other than to be subservient to Ankara's desires. One final aspect to ponder is: if Turkish officials call Israelis "murderers" and Israel a "festering boil in the Middle East" while still having relations with Israel, what will their rhetoric and actions be if and when they break relations completely with Israel? Perhaps, unlike the Islamic Republic of Iran which openly calls for Israel's destruction, Turkey may wish to foster a more "moderate Islamist" façade, and call for the repeal of United Nations Resolution 181 of November 22, 1947 which ultimately led to the establishment of modern day Israel. At present, this may seem unfathomable, if not absurd, but a short time ago, the notion of Turkey rejecting Kemalism and establishing itself on an Islamist path was also thought unfathomable.

As Turkey escalated its Israel-bashing barrage, it also courted the Arab world and Iran. This appears to be not only for political reasons, but for economic reasons as well. The Turkish budget deficit has swollen tremendously over the last few years, doubling in just the last year alone. Oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran will gladly aid Turkey economically, which will only increase their political and possibly religious influence as well. Meanwhile, Turkey also tried to patch up differences with Greece and Armenia, long time Eastern Christian foes. The Cyprus issue, however, will no doubt remain a continuing thorn in Greco-Turkish relations, not to mention Turkey's support of the Azeris over the Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

Further, there is the intractable dispute over Kurdistan. If ever an ethnic minority in the Middle East -- other than the Jews -- has been mistreated and betrayed, it is the Kurdish nation. From the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, to the first Gulf War and beyond, the Kurds have been victimized by Arabs, Persians, and Turks alike. All the while, the West has turned a blind eye. It is not unthinkable that after America's withdrawal from Iraq, Turkey will seek a pretense to occupy Iraqi Kurdistan under the guise of protecting their Turkmen "brothers" from Kurdish "aggression." Additionally, the northern city of Kirkuk is oil rich; control of it by Turkey would strengthen Turkey economically.

For now, Turkey, still a powerful member of NATO, and still presumably a friend of America, teeters between East and West. A "neo-Ottoman" Empire -- like a "neo-Czarist" Russia that appears in the making -- is something that America, the West, and Israel, should take seriously.

In the Middle East, the past is never forgotten and never forgiven. The future in the Middle East often consists of the merging of the present with the past. The West might therefore be well advised to prepare for the day that a once pro-Western secular Turkey no longer exists. The once "sick man of Europe" of the 18^th and 19^th centuries has now become the 21^st century "strongman of the Middle East." While the secularist Kemalist ship is sinking in the Straits of the Bosporus, the neo-Ottoman Islamist ship of Erdogan is docking at the port of Istanbul.

---

This article appeared in Hudson-NY website.