I was over at VFR earlier scanning Auster's new articles when this one caught my attention. Certainly I was compelled to go over to FrontPage Mag. and read the entire interview with Mr. Tefft, so I did, and here's something intriguing that I found and thought I would share. At one point in the interview Tefft concludes his answer to an FP question in the following manner:
Tefft:
... But I'm an ex-spy, not a theologian -- from the spy-war aspect, the best thing the West can do in this war with Islam is to publicize and support morally and monetarily the apostates and ex-Muslims. They know the evils of Islam better than any outsider.
When I read this at first it sounded good and reasonable and made a lot of sense to me. Certainly a Muslim apostate/ex-Muslim who has renounced the religion of Islam would know much more than an outsider about the evils of, and inherent to Islam. And it cannot be bad, if Islam is so evil, for a Muslim to come to the light and renounce his faith in the religion of Mohammed, can it? Therefore we should publicize and fund these people, right? Then I came to my senses and recalled the Islamic principle of Taqiyya, or religious deception. In fact, earlier in the interview Tefft makes light of the practice of this principle in Islam when he states:
For a Muslim to pledge allegiance to a non-Muslim nation state would be either hypocritical or blasphemous -- something a true Muslim would not, or could not do. This is the case unless he was under a special jihadist dispensation from an Islamic cleric (as the 9/11 hijackers were) to infiltrate enemy territory and to act as the enemy does, in order to perform his mission. (italics added)
But further explanation of the principle, how it may be used and to what extent, may be found in Gregory M. Davis's excellent summation on the principles of Islam, Islam 101.
Mr. Davis writes:
Historically, examples of taqiyya include permission to renounce Islam itself in order to save one's neck or ingratiate oneself with an enemy. It is not hard to see that the implications of taqiyya are insidious in the extreme: they essentially render negotiated settlement -- and, indeed, all veracious communication between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb -- impossible. It should not, however, be surprising that a party to a war should seek to mislead the other about its means and intentions. Jihad Watch's own Hugh Fitzgerald sums up taqiyya and kitman, a related form of deception. (italics added)
So, what are we to conclude from this? Well, the conclusion I draw from it is that it would be virtually impossible to determine for sure whether you were dealing with a legitimate and sincere apostate/ex-Muslim given this principle of taqiyya in Islam to deceive the enemy in pursuit of victory over him. I mean, if the supposed apostate, working under the principle of taqiyya as described here is going to, in Tefft's words, "act as the enemy does," then he's going to dress like him, talk like him, groom himself like him, and most importantly rail against the evils and injustices of his true faith in accordance with his underlying purpose of accomplishing his mission, is he not?
So what is the answer to this dilemma? If we have no way of knowing who we're dealing with, friend or foe acting as friend, due to the deceitfulness authorized of his religion/former religion when we meet up with an "ex-Muslim"/"apostate," then what should be our approach to him? Is the answer not lying within the principles of separationism? Is it not to be skeptical of and distrust him to the point that we materially restrict his ability to harm us by his deceit, should he be operating under the principle of taqiyya or kitman -- the principle of deceiving his enemy in any way he can to accomplish his mission? Should we not thwart his mission before his mission ever gets underway?
Good questions...I would say that the best ways to judge the sincerity of apostates and ex-Muslims would be to watch what they do and say AND also watch carefully the Muslim reactions to them. By their deeds they will be known. To mitigate the possibility that an apostate or ex-Muslim was indeed acting under special dispensation to infiltrate the enemy's rank...you would never put them in a sensitive position where they could actually damage the West. How does one trust someone who has already proved himself a traitor?
ReplyDeleteBruce Tefft
Mr. Tefft has it just about right, I think. To be given any position of responsibility related to national security, or even taken seriously, a Muslim apostate would have to offer more than a verbal formula.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Cold War, both the Communists and anti-Communists used double agents. It's hard to doubt that it would occur to Muslim jihadists to use the same tactic, especially since our thrice-dopey political class seems determined to show how naive it is about Islam.
Mr. Tefft,
ReplyDeleteI'm honored that you took the time to address my questions here. And I agree, of course, with your answers. Indeed, how can one trust someone having already proven himself a traitor? That used to be just a common sense approach, but sometimes I wonder how much common sense (collectively) we have left these days.
If you happen to stop back by, I'd be interested in what you have to say regarding Paul Sperry's revelations concerning Muslim Spies and subversives infiltrating the FBI and other government agencies, law enforcement and otherwise. This having to do with your assertion above that "you would never put them in sensitive positions where they could harm us," of course.
Thanks again, and I hope everything goes well for you concerning the lawsuit. I'll certainly be monitoring the situation as it progresses (and probably writing about it from time to time.).
Rick, I agree. I guess we're just going to have to educate the dopes. If we don't, the Muslims will ... the hard way, and we'll have to deal with the fallout.
-TM
Great post, Terry. I had the Frontpage interview up since yesterday and was going to post on it, and I see you went and did a better job than I had in mind. You pose a great question, and I think you answer it well.
ReplyDelete-MT
Good post Mr. Morris.
ReplyDeleteThere are certain people that I just don't bother to talk to, aside from the minimum social courtesies when I happen to encounter them, because I know them for liars. When someone has proven to me that they cannot be trusted to tell the truth, I then have no way of judging whether anything they say is true, so why waste my time? I have better uses for my time than accommodating the bad habits of others. I will not spend my time enabling liars to continue to lie in my presence by putting myself to the task of determining which bits of our conversation are truthful and which bits are not. That's not productive or reasonable. If they are offended, so what? They put themselves in that position by choosing to lie.
In the case of taqiyya, when I know that there is an excellent possibility that I am being lied to, why should I continue the conversation? I'm sure there are those who would argue that I am throwing out the baby with the bath water by so doing, but I have no real choice in the matter. If there are honest converts, (and I'm sure that there are) they made their choices and they must take the consequences of those choices. One of which is to be taken for a liar because they chose to be part of a religion that allows and encourages such behavior. If they want to come out, the burden is on them to walk that path alone. Alone because how can they, knowing what they know, trust even other "converts" to be telling them the truth? Given the consequences of converting away from Islam, ( I believe that is an instant death penalty), that's a real consideration in trusting someone as well as a temptation. If you were the convert and trusted the wrong person/people, what would you do to prove you were only engaging in taqiyya if that was the only way to save your life? Thus even a genuine convert should not be put in a position where they can cause us harm.
My responsibility is to become informed and to make good decisions when safety issues are within my sphere of authority. If I cannot trust someone, I cannot put them in a position where their untrustworthiness poses a danger to myself or the rest of my community. If that hurts their feelings, that's too bad, it was their choice.