When PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, negotiated a “peace” treaty with Israel, he was criticized by other Muslims for conceding too much. Arafat responded with, what would be to the West, a cryptic response. “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca.”
This reference is to a peace treaty between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca in 628, in which Muhammad broke the treaty after 2 years, claiming a Quraish infraction. In justifying his actions, Muhammad said, “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and breach my oath.” (See, Sahih Bukhari V7B67N427).
This belief and actions are founded in the Quranic concept of “Taqiyya” – Deception. It is founded in the Quran and carried out under Sharia law. Under Sharia law, all human acts are categorized as either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended or obligatory. It is under sharia that in certain situations, “taqiyya’, or deception, is not only permitted but is required. This obligation is found in various provisions of the Quran – such as 4:29. This obligation is historical. During early Christian-Muslim battles, Muslims were forced to choose between recanting Islam or be put to death. It was interpreted by Islamic jurists that in such situations Muslims were obligated to lie to the infidels.
This concept of taqiyya has historically been practiced widely between Sunnis and Shia, even to current times. It is recognized and practiced by practically every Islamic sect (Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam). The concept and practice of taqiyya is equally prevalent in modern-day Islamic politics, as it is in religious practice, especially in dealing with non-believers (“Infidels”).
A primary Quranic verse – 3:28 – admonishes Muslims in actions with non-Muslims: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah – unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” It is this verse that is sometimes relied on justifying deception in dealings with non-believers. This interpretation is relied on by Al-Tabari (838-923 AD) and Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373). Their interpretation of this verse justifies a Muslim’s deception by their actions and words (to the infidels) but are cautioned to still “harbor inner animosity for them.” Thus, under the Quran (and Sharia), the concept of outward deception is not only condoned, but is required in situations with “Infidels” where Muslims are actually or perceived to be “under [infidels’] authority (or) fearing for yourselves.” A Muhammad companion, Abu Darda is quoted saying; “let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Such deception has also been recognized as legitimate Muslim practice by prominent Muslim “ulema” (a Muslim theologian or jurist).
It is this Deception that must be recognized as a fundamental principle and course of action in dealing with Iran and other Muslim countries – especially when dealing from a position of strength, or where Muslims believe they are “weak” or have a disadvantage. In such situations, deception is not only possible, it is required by the Quran. However, when Muslims are in a position of “strength,” they will utilize the (later) Quranic verses (“Medinan” verses) which instruct to be on the offensive (as currently is applied by ISIS).
Why is this tutorial important? Islamic jurisprudence legitimizes deceit and deception during war. According to the four recognized schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against Infidels will go on in perpetuity until, “all chaos ceases and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39). Jihad will exist as long as universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslims is only a provisional condition between nations and there can be no peace treaties – only truces – which cannot, in principle, exceed 10 years duration. However, even a truce of 10 years, can be broken when, as Muhammad himself said, a better deal exists, or situations change. The truce itself, can be deception, and any truce can be repudiated unilaterally if it be more profitable for Islam to resume its offensive course of conduct.
There are numerous historical examples of Islamic agreements (truces, agreements, treaties, etc.) that were unilaterally broken by the Islamic country/entity (Mid-East agreements, cease-fires with Hamas and PLO, Iran’s repeated violations of UN resolutions, etc.). For President Obama to naively believe that any agreement he “negotiates” will either be agreed to in good faith or will be adhered to is simply yet one more example of his fool-hardy foreign affairs policy. More dangerously, his failure to understand, recognize and act in accordance with Iran’s demonstrated Muslim theocratic principles of jihad and deception will assuredly result in the world (and especially Israel) being in grave danger. Iran is a principle actor and promoter of worldwide Islamic Jihad and caliphate, Middle East instability, nuclear destruction and Western collapse.
There is a reason why Iran is discussing a 10 year “agreement.” As stated above, it is the limit to which Islam is allowed to agree. The critical and curious question is, assuming he or his staff understands this Islamic principle (and Islamic beliefs about agreements with Infidels), why is Obama, as is reported, promoting a 10 year “term limit?” [Perhaps the same reason Obama refuses to allow Congress to pass on the efficacy of his “agreement?”] Obama appears to be ignoring clear and demonstrated Islamic principles of “war” and repeated Iranian history – especially regarding international nuclear controls. They are simply feigning “peace” and “cooperation” to bide time, and then, as Muhammad did, will break yet another agreement when it is more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.
As Bin Laden castigated moderate Muslims after 9/11, he quoted Muhammad’s words: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us – till you believe in Allah alone” (Quran 60:4). Deception is a political tool of Islam that Obama will assuredly “pay for” in history if he blindly goes down this current path. Unfortunately, Obama is risking not only his legacy but the very lives of many, many innocent “infidels.”
Kenneth Kopf, Esq. is an attorney that has been practicing international law for over 30 years, has authored numerous writings on various U.S. and international political subjects, was a candidate for U.S. Congress, and has served as a Russian linguist within the U.S. intelligence service.