Hope of Israel Ministries (Ecclesia of YEHOVAH):

Knowing Five Arabic Words May Save Our Civilization from Islamic Takeover

Compiled by HOIM

Towards the beginning of last century, there was a rising interest among the Western scholars to investigate the origins of Islam and its founder, i.e., Prophet Muhammad. For this they had used highest standard of historical scholarship available at that time. Their aim was to collect authentic information about Muhammad and the rise of early Islam by carefully separating the facts from fictions. In some ways the research on Muhammad was inspired by a similar type of investigation of Christianity made famous by Albert Schweitzer’s famous work The Quest of the Historical Jesus.

All religions except Islam have their origins covered in mystery. Islam, as Renan used the famous phrase, “[Islam] was born in the full light of history” (The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, Warraq, 2000, p. 15), stands firm and clear in front of us. Unlike semi-mythological religious figures, for example, Buddha, Adi Shankara or Mahavira Jain; the founder of Islam is as well known to us as that of any other social reformer. Several thousand short stories about Muhammad were collected in Shahih Hadith.

Considering the above, though it appears to be comparatively easier to write an analytical history of Islam and its founder, but actually it is not so. As Spencer (The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, 2006, p.19) commented, “Most Western non-Muslims know virtually nothing about the Prophet of Islam,” but the question is, how many practicing Muslims know their Prophet well? Has an honest biography of Muhammad yet been written? There are enough pious and totally un-objective traditions of Muhammad preserved by the Muslim religious community, but what is lacking in these sources is honesty.

Even today, numerous works in Arabic and other Muslim majority languages appear each year which try to portray Muhammad as a holy man, a seer, visionary and miracle worker. But in reality these are far away from truth. The reason no Muslim can write an honest biography of their Prophet, is that the biography of Muhammad is a subject that is taboo and as Rodinson (The Arabs, 1981, p. 24) commented, “…is permitted only when written as apologetic and edifying literature.” Hence, objective historical research on Muhammad has long been severely handicapped both by the resistance of the Muslim societies to Western analysis of their sacred traditions and by the apologetic approaches of many Western scholars, who had compromised their investigation for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities.

But in recent time, thanks to both Western and ex-Muslim writers; a lot of scholarly work had been produced “which could offend certain readers.” With the help of these scholars, we can trace Muhammad’s fluctuation of thought year by year, his actions, his achievements, family life, abnormal sexual behavior, strength and weaknesses. If we compare our findings with that of modern development of psychological studies, the image of Muhammad that surfaces is far away from any holy religious figure but that of a person who was suffering from severe mental illness.

And if we probe further deep into the mystery of Allah and carefully make a distinction between superstition and science, we have hardly any doubt left that it was his mental illness and hallucinatory experience  in the cave at Hira which was solely responsible for creating Allah, the Quran, and Islam altogether.

So, with this in mind, let’s look at some words found in the Quran that endanger Western Civilization if not heeded.

In 539 BC, King Belshazzar of Babylon saw a dismembered hand-written four prophetic words on the wall. This "handwriting on the wall" was finally interpreted by the prophet Daniel as predicting the fall of the kingdom. He was right. Babylon fell to the Medes-Persians that very night.

Like the “handwriting on the wall” that Prophet Daniel had interpreted, there are five Arabic words, which could lead to submission of the entire world to Islam, if non-Muslims do not fully understand their meaning and implications. Those words are takiyya, tawriya, kitman, muruna, and hudna.

Each of these words describes a different style of deception used by Muslims when discussing Islam or their activities as Muslims. Muhammad famously said, “War is deceit” (Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 268). The Quran boasts that Allah is the “master of all scheming” (Surah 13:42) and that he is “profound in his machinations” (Surah 8:30). Western civilizations are not accustomed to dealing with people, who have developed deception into an art form. Knowledge is power, and the best way to combat the Islamist agenda is to say, “We are wise to your shenanigans. Knock it off!”

Taqiyya

Taqiyya is defined as dissimulation about ones Muslim identity. It comes from the verse in the Quran that says, “Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful -- he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah -- except in self-defense (illaa an-tattaqu minhum tuqah) (Surah 3:28). This “self-defense” justifies dissimulation. Islamic Sharia Law provides, “When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory” (Reliance of the Traveler, Para r8.2). Examples include lying to protect Islam or a Muslim.

When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the "the victims" -- victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and "outwitting" -- defense by offence.

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, a group of prominent Muslims wrote a letter to Americans saying that Islam is a tolerant religion that seeks to coexist with others.

But Bin Laden castigated them, saying:

“As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarised by the Most High’s Word: ‘We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us -- till you believe in Allah alone’ [Quran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility -- that is battle -- ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi -- a non-Muslim subject living as a “second-class” citizen in an Islamic state in accordance to Quran 9:29], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [a circumstance under which taqiyya applies]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity and hatred, directed from the Muslim to the infidel, is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.”

This was a clear instance of taqiyya, as Bin Laden is not only waging a physical jihad, but one of propaganda. Convincing the West that the current conflict is entirely its fault garners him and his cause more sympathy. Conversely, he also knows that if his Western audiences were to realize that, all real or imagined political grievances aside, according to the Islamic worldview, which bin Laden does accept, nothing short of their submission to Islam can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be compromised. As a result there is constant lying, “for war is deceit.”

If Bin Laden’s words and actions represent an individual case of taqiyya, they raise questions about Saudi Arabia’s recent initiatives for “dialogue”. Saudi Arabia closely follows Sharia Law. For instance, the Saudi government will not allow the construction of churches or synagogues on its land; Bibles are banned and burned. Christians engaged in any kind of missionary activity are arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed. Muslim converts to Christianity can be put to death in the kingdom.

Despite such limitations on religious freedom, the Saudis have been pushing for more dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. At an inter-faith conference in Madrid in July 2008, King Abdullah asserted: “Islam is a religion of moderation and tolerance, a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers of all religions.”

Days later, it was revealed that Saudi children’s textbooks still call Christians and Jews “infidels,” “hated enemies,” and “pigs and swine.” A multiple-choice test in a book for fourth-graders asks: “Who is a ‘true’ Muslim?” The correct answer is not the man who prays and fasts, but rather: “A man who worships God [allah] alone, loves the believers and hates the infidels.” These infidels are the same people the Saudis want dialogue with. This raises the question of whether, when Saudis call for dialogue, they are merely following Muhammad’s companion Abu Darda’s advice: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them”?

Muslims who closely observe Sharia Law, which splits the world into two perpetually warring halves, will always have a “divinely sanctioned” right to deceive, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39).

Tawriya

Tawriya is defined as "concealing," and it could be called “creative lying”. It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath. (Reliance of the Traveler, sections o19.1 and o19.5). How does this work? Suppose someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, because it is a supplication Muslims make to Allah seventeen times a day to keep them from the path of “those with whom God is angry” and “those who have lost their way.” A Muslim might respond, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians.” He is practicing tawriya, because while Surah 1 does not mention Jews and Christians by name, but he knows full-well that the words “those” refer to Jews and Christians.

These ruses are considered legitimate according to Sharia Law; it does not constitute "lying," which in Islam is otherwise forbidden, except in three cases: lying in war, lying to one's spouse, and lying in order to reconcile people. For these exceptions, Sharia permits Muslims to lie freely, without the strictures of tawriya, that is, without the need for creativity.

As for all other instances, in the words of Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid (based on scholarly consensus):

"Tawriya is permissible under two conditions: 1) that the words used fit the hidden meaning; 2) that it does not lead to an injustice" ("injustice" as defined by Islamic law, which mandates any number of things -- such as executing apostates, subjugating non-Muslims, pedophilia, amputating limbs for theft, stoning for alleged adultery, death for homosexuality, and so on -- that are by Western standards, considered total injustices). Otherwise, it is permissible for a Muslim even to swear when lying through tawriya."

Munajid, for example, cites a man who swears to Allah that he can only sleep under a roof (saqf); when the man is caught sleeping atop a roof, he exonerates himself by saying "by roof, I meant the open sky." This is legitimate. "After all," Munajid adds, "Quran 21:32 refers to the sky as a roof [saqf]."

Another example would be when a Muslim responds to your greeting of “Merry Christmas!” He might say, “I wish you the best.” In your mind, you think he has returned a Christmas greeting. In actuality, he has expressed his wish for you to convert to Islam; he wishes the best for you which, in his view, is becoming a Muslim.

Following their prophet's example, many leading Muslim figures have used tawriya, such as Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, founder of one of Islam's four schools of law, practiced in Saudi Arabia. Once when he was holding class, someone came knocking, asking for one of the students. Imam Ahmed answered, "He's not here, what would he be doing here?" -- all the time pointing at his hand, as if to say "he's not in my hand." Obviously the caller, who could not see Ahmed, assumed the student was simply not there.

As with most Muslim practices, tawriya is traced to Islam’s prophet. After insisting Muslims “need” tawriya because it “saves them from lying,” and thus sinning, Sheikh Uthman al-Khamis adds that Muhammad often used it. Indeed, Muhammad is recorded saying “Allah has commanded me to equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation”; and “whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr” (Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).

Kitman

A kitman is a deliberate act of concealing part of the truth -- often by omission -- to protect a person, group, or cause from harm. It is distinct from taqiyya, which involves outright lying or disguising one’s identity for personal safety, whereas kitman focuses on withholding information or speaking in half-truths for collective or political strategy.

Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth. The most common example of this is when a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle. He is not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” as witnesses are sworn to do in U.S. courts. Often, kitman results in a gross distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 (27%) could be considered “internal” with no object as the target of the struggle based on the context of the surah.

A politician might use kitman to avoid answering a direct question about a controversial policy. Instead of stating their true position, they might give a vague or partially true answer, leaving room for interpretation. This can be done to avoid public backlash or to buy time for further discussion.

A CEO might use kitman in a business deal by withholding certain details about a project’s risks or limitations, presenting only the positive aspects to gain an advantage over a competitor.

In all these cases, kitman involves withholding or distorting part of the truth to achieve a strategic goal -- whether it’s protecting a religious cause, avoiding political fallout, or securing a business advantage.

Another common form of kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant, contradictory verse. Here is an example:

“There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256 -- Early Medina).

“Are they seeking a religion other than Allah’s, when every soul in the heavens and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?” (Surah 3:83 -- Later Medina).

Another example:

“Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged” (Surah 22:39 -- Late Mecca).

“When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them” (Surah 9:5 -- Late Medina).

Muruna

Muruna is essentially a pragmatic and strategic tool within Islamic jurisprudence, allowing temporary suspension of prohibitions to achieve broader religious, social, or political goals. Examples range from personal behavior adjustments in secular societies to sanctioned temporary marriages and strategic deception in political or conflict scenarios.

Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Surah 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.” Thus, Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard and place their trust in their Muslim counterpart.

At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. Nothing is more valuable these days to the Islamists than a blue-eyed Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.

Another common way of using muruna is for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim or to behave like a non-Muslim so their true agenda will not be suspected. The 9/11 hijackers visited strip clubs and bars during their off-times while taking classes in the U.S. to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House. Many Americans believe Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, married Jewish Congressman Anthony Weiner at least in part to burnish her security credentials so she could infiltrate the highest levels of the Administration.

Few Westerners are familiar with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood revival of the doctrine of muruna, which literally means “stealth” or “flexibility.” It is far worse than taqiyya, since it sanctions all prohibitions that block Muslim interests, even blasphemous ones.

Muruna was designed to catapult and advance Sharia Law by using Western means. If one thinks that Sharia, with its harsh code, is problematic enough, how about the elimination of the kinder, gentler laws? Muruna is literally accomplished by permitting behavior normally so eschewed by Sharia that Westerners logically assume a more moderate version of Islam when such prohibitions are suddenly permitted. Westerners’ eyes are, in fact, deceiving them. Muruna is about going to great lengths to gain interests through a much deeper level of deception while simultaneously lowering the guard and gaining the support of the infidels.

Hudna

In the labyrinth of Middle Eastern diplomacy, few concepts are as misunderstood -- or as potentially consequential -- as the Islamic notion of hudna. Derived from the Arabic word for "calm" or "quiet", a hudna is often simplistically translated as a ceasefire or truce. However, as tensions in the region continue to simmer, a deeper understanding of this concept becomes increasingly important for policymakers and diplomats alike.

The roots of hudna can be traced back to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in 628 CE, a pivotal agreement between the prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. This treaty, intended to last ten years, allowed Muslims to perform pilgrimage to Mecca and established a truce between the two parties. However, the peace was short-lived; within two years, Muhammad's forces conquered Mecca, citing violations of the agreement.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar, an Israeli scholar of Arab culture at Bar-Ilan University, argues that this historical precedent continues to shape Islamic jurisprudence and diplomatic strategy today. According to Kedar, the hudna is not viewed as a path to permanent peace, but rather as a tactical maneuver to be employed when Muslims find themselves in a position of weakness.

"If you, the Muslim, are weak and the infidel is too strong, you can give him a temporary peace," Kedar explains. "The second thing is, if the infidel falls asleep on guard, you can do whatever you like to him, even within the time of the temporary peace, because this is what Muhammad did."

This interpretation suggests that a hudna is less a genuine peace offering and more a strategic pause -- a time for regrouping and strengthening one's position. It's a perspective that casts a shadow over contemporary peace negotiations in the region, raising questions about the long-term viability of agreements based on this concept.

The implications extend beyond mere semantics. In an era where the West often seeks permanent resolutions to conflicts, the concept of hudna introduces a fundamentally different approach to peace -- one that is inherently temporary and conditional. This lack of understanding can lead to misaligned expectations and failed negotiations.

Moreover, the concept of hudna is intertwined with the broader Islamic notion of jihad, which Kedar describes as not merely a military struggle, but a multifaceted effort encompassing economic, educational, and even media-based strategies to advance Islamic interests.

As the Middle East continues to be a crucible of global geopolitics, understanding concepts like hudna becomes increasingly important. Western diplomats and policymakers must grapple with a paradigm that views peace not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end -- a tactical tool in a broader strategic landscape.

In the chess game of Middle Eastern diplomacy, understanding the true nature of hudna may well be the key to avoiding perpetual stalemate. For those seeking lasting peace in the region, it's a concept that cannot be ignored -- or misunderstood.

The implications of these highly-honed tactics of deception could be enormous for unassuming Western societies. Twenty years ago, psychologist Paul Ekman wrote an insightful book, Telling Lies, which demonstrated that people give off recognizable clues when they are practicing deceit. Their consciences cause them, involuntarily, to sweat or raise their voices or make other recognizable gestures. However, Dr. Ekman’s research was exclusively with people from Western cultures. Muslims, on the other hand, show no discernible signs when they are being deceitful because there is no feeling of guilt. In their minds they are doing exactly what Allah wants them to do to advance Islam. Because any Western person who has raised children knows almost intuitively when someone is lying, so they assume they can do that in all cases. Unfortunately, those same Western people can be easily duped by Islamic deceit because there are no tell-tale signs in the deceiver.

Hopefully, this article will be a wake-up call to the unsuspecting infidels. Trust but verify was an old American strategy in dealing with potentially hostile parties -- do not trust and verify is the way to go in dealing with Islamists.