Tuesday, May 05, 2015

A Taxonomy of Taqiyya

http://sanantoniobars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/worm-bar-logo-250x250.jpg

Recently on Jihad Watch comments, a Muslim commenter (fatuously calling himself "Galen Muhammad") tried to school the regulars there on the Islamic concept of taqiyya (deception):

"Arabic (not Islamic) words, like taqiyya have been redefined by Islamaphobes [sic] to mean “lying to spread Islam” — a non-existing concept in Islam."

As I wrote at the time:

Galen Muhammad is technically correct about taqiyya—but it’s a distinction effectively without a difference. So, yes, we can say that taqiyya is deceit not directly to “spread Islam”—but rather to defend Islam against “enemies”. And what are these “enemies” doing that needs to be “defended” against? Why, those enemies are preventing Muslims from spreading Islam! Thus once again we see, here in encapsulated form, the reverse bully formula of Islam: Muslims aggress; the non-Muslim defends himself from the Muslim; the Muslim labels the non-Muslim’s defensive action as an “offense” against Islam which must be defended against. In our current era, this is playing out in an elaborately complex and diverse way, involving the mass migration of Muslims into the Camp of the Enemy (the Dar-al-Harb which in this context = the West), coupled with the Islamic precept that any individual or society that refuses to submit to Allah and His Prophet is, ipso facto, committing a casus belli (a declaration of war) against Islam—against which, again, in the Orwellian, Bizarro World, Allah-in-Wonderland logic of Islamic fanaticism, Muslims must “defend” themselves against to protect Islam.

* * * * *

But taqiyya isn't the only style of deceit in Islamic culture.  Not too long ago I stumbled on a handy list at the "Islam Exposed" blog—a veritable taxonomy of taqiyya—on a site I'd never seen before (I encourage the reader to go there, as they have reference citations for these terms):

Taqiyya (Shia) or Muda’rat (Sunni): tactical deceit for the purposes of spreading Islam.

Kitman: deceit by omission.

Tawriya: deceit by ambiguity.

Taysir: deceit through facilitation (not having to observe all the tenets of Sharia).

Darura: deceit through necessity (to engage in something “Haram” or forbidden).

And my favorite:

Muruna: the temporary suspension of Sharia in order that Muslim immigrants appear “moderate.”

* * * * *

As I wrote when I first heard of just one of these (tawriya, from a Raymond Ibrahim article on Jihad Watch), back in 2012:

Oh great, another term for us Infidels to learn from the linguistic jungle of the lexicon of Satan’s pedagogy of his minions. Everytime I learn a new Islamic term I feel the frisson of having uncovered a rock to glimpse yet another fleeting wriggle of some infernal venomous insect; or in a drunken funk chanced upon the toxic worm at the bottom of a bottle of taqiyya—er, I mean, tequila.

This tawriya seems to be not a separate type of deceit from taqiyya, but a categorical distinction: i.e., taqiyya is the category of the virtue and pragmatic efficacy of deceit in general, which may be crudely simplistic or artfully clever; while tawriya would be the methodology of how to do it — or at least one methodology. It resembles clever sophistry, whereas there are cruder ways to lie, as they used to say, “baldly”.

For example, if someone declares “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him -- though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies.

The cruder, balder, more blatant form of lying about this would be to say simply, “I have no money”, meanwhile one’s pockets are bulging with 100-dollar bills. Many Muslims have shown themselves to be fully capable of doing this cruder form, and fully willing to do so -- and why not, when there are so many gullible Guilty White Westerns around them anxiously willing to give a Brown Person the benefit of the doubt?

The difference between the cruder form and the more artful form of tawriya would be the difference between what has been colorfully rendered as “lying through your teeth”, and the cleverer, more devilish (if not positively Satanic) form where the tongue becomes a cunning linguist of a snake to perform a perverse and abusive fellatio on its more or less unwilling victim (depending on his gullible naivety and desperation to believe in the wiles of the Moderate Muslim...).

* * * * *

I’d thought about kitman too when I first read Ibrahim’s essay mentioned above. There might be, in the Muslim mind and culture, a subtle difference between kitman and tawriya.

We have to remember that Islamic law over the centuries has generated innumerable fanatics who are not barbarians but who are afflicted with an extreme form of OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) in this, and other respects, in cultivating a jungle of semantic layers and distinctions concerning nearly everything in life—from bathroom hygiene, to dietary rules, to the circumstances of “lawful” killing, to the methods of beheading, to the complex determination of who is an enemy to be hated and/or killed, to the complexities of when and where it’s okay and not okay to have incestual sex; etc. etc. ad Islamonauseam.

I.e., Muslim clerics and scholars are not brute barbarians, but dangerous fanatics afflicted with various psychological disorders such as OCD, ADD, autism, idiot savantism, schizophrenia, sociopathy, psychopathy, pneumopathy, etc. We could partially explain this with the prevalence of incest in Islamic culture, over time breeding people with mental disorders; but that somehow doesn’t fully explain the phenomenon to me. Something darker, and deeper than mere biology and biochemistry, is going on in this regard.

A glimpse of this serpentine jungle of obsessive fanaticism I just stumbled upon, when Googling “kitman tawriya” (most of the few results were to Ibrahim’s essay here and on Frontpage) and finding a snippet of a scholarly article on Islamic history (the typographical problems were in the original):

…lying, such techniques of speech (kitman, ta’rıd, ilghaz, tawriya, ta’miya, ¯ ¯ ¯ Ë™ talbıs etc…)

You see, that list not only distinguishes “kitman” from “tawriya”, it also alludes to other distinct forms—ta’rid, ilghaz, ta’miya, and a fourth term for which the software program, unable to render the symbols, apparently had to provide dashes, probably because it was in Arabic script.

Of course, the more important and broader lesson to be learned here is that our fight against Muslims should not depend upon learning the thousands of details of the jungle of terms which their psychosis has over centuries cultivated; but rather to pronounce the whole sordid enterprise Islam as a deadly madness whose believers and enablers have to be stopped from endangering our societies. When we have time in between our far more important and multifarious efforts at stopping Muslims from endangering our societies—and certainly after we have succeeded with a measure of success—then it would be appropriate to spend (or waste) one’s time palpating the throbbing, pulsating complex of intestines manifesting the disease of Islam in all its amazing diversity.

* * * * *

And finally, as a postscript, I would call the reader's attention to this Google search page, where may be found a few old articles on Jihad Watch about the amusing-if-it-weren’t-so-deadly phenomenon in Islamic culture of “taqiyya about taqiyya”.

9 comments:

Egghead said...

Yes, we must NEVER blame biology; for, if we do, then the bleeding heart PCMC crowd will contend that the West cannot hold Muslims responsible for their (clearly evil) actions....

For the PCMC crowd, is all always about taking away free will so that PCMC pet groups may be absolved from continuing sinning....

Egghead said...

My censor hates when I comment about Islamic brainwashing....

Egghead said...

My censor erases comments even after they have been published on your site!

1WorldTrip said...

Calling myself Galen Muhammad because THAT'S MY NAME, YOU SIMPLETON!!

There were no "Islamic sects" during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and, therefore, no sectarianism. This all occurred AFTER his time and is therefore not written of in the Holy Qur'an or the Hadith. .

Any so-called Islamic scholar that tries or has tried to connect this Post-Muhammad, social construct to Islam is doing himself or herself, Islam and all Muslims a disservice and is helardly scholarly....at least in that respect.

1WorldTrip said...

In'▪ fi ▪ del: one who does not believe in God.

It DOESN'T mean "one who does believe in Islam".

That's what you get using words without knowing their true meaning.

1WorldTrip said...

In'▪ fi ▪ del: one who does not believe in God.

It DOESN'T mean "one who does believe in Islam".

That's what you get using words without knowing their true meaning.

1WorldTrip said...

I also specifically stated that taqiyya was a social construct wherein Shia Muslims, in an effort to conceal their sect (in predominantly Sunni Muslim areas, they were being persecuted), they would not reveal their sect.

That, in full, is taqiyya. There's no other definition for this practice! Period. End of story.

Since only Shia Muslims were implementing this practice, most Sunni Muslims know nothing about it! Shia Muslims living outside of the Middle East don't even practice this.

THAT'S how I define the word taqiyya that you Islamaphobes always redefine.

1WorldTrip said...

It's a sad commentary, but Deperado appears to be so twisted to think that God and the devil are the same. They are not.

What other excuse is there for him (or her) thinking that Muslims (i.e., those who submit their will to do the will of God/Allah) have ANY connection to or would heed the evil whisperings of Shaytan, our open enemy.

1WorldTrip said...

It's a sad commentary, but Deperado appears to be so twisted to think that God and the devil are the same. They are not.

What other excuse is there for him (or her) thinking that Muslims (i.e., those who submit their will to do the will of God/Allah) have ANY connection to or would heed the evil whisperings of Shaytan, our open enemy.