The Brave Feast
Christianity and Islam
by Ares Demertzis (Sept. 2007)
I have been warned by those who are supposed to be well versed in the subject of Tauromachia not to publish this essay, that it will prove an embarrassment and may result in discrediting future endeavors, however, given the indisputable fact that experts have feet of clay, I am of the opinion that one trusts authoritative opinion at ones injudicious peril; therefore I will not desist from its publication.
Mendacious educators, corrupt politicians, fraudulent scholars, unprincipled religious leaders, deceitful prosecutors, revisionist historians and masturbating judges on the bench (1) have all contributed to my thoughtfully considered cynicism. You are welcome to accompany me on my journey along a road less traveled, and are at liberty to disregard everything you encounter on the way. It makes no difference to me. Having said this, I must confess that I am aware of having been infected by that peculiar twentieth century cultural disease of the West that I so frequently criticize in others, possibly including some of those who labor at the vocations listed above: An unconcern to ridicule; an indifference to being appreciated.
Some time ago, my Mexican compadre, Cuitlahuac, dedicated a substantial number of his Sundays inviting me to observe the bullfights at the celebrated Plaza de Toros in
Cuitlahuac´s Dominical excursions proved to be significantly disquieting for me. Sitting in the Plaza de Toros, I was overcome by the insistent impression that I was not watching an event calculated to merely entertain, I was bearing witness to a religious act; something the animated spectators surrounding me appeared to ignore in their vocal appreciation of the occasion.
My compadre is an avid enthusiast of the Brave Feast that Ernest Hemingway reveled in and brought to the world’s attention. “Papa,” as Hemingway enjoyed being familiarly addressed, portrayed it as an heroic exhibition of courage, notwithstanding that it most likely originated as a ceremony born of fear. Prehistoric Man’s fear of the willful, inexplicable forces of nature and his own primitive, aggressive inner essence; the primeval fear of mysterious, consummate power that one either propitiated with sacrifice, or destroyed with superior magic. I believe that Tauromachia, as the ancient Greeks named the contest was conceived to assuage an uneasiness that irritated the subconscious much before the Minotaur of Knossus.
Bullfighting originated as a religious sacrifice, a mass of consolation, a ceremony to appease hostile, aggressive forces; an affirmation that power could be constrained. Man risked his life, and on occasion lost it, in a ritual combat designed to elicit the magic necessary for self preservation.
There appeared to be an appalling historical ignorance concerning the provenance and significance of contemporary bullfighting, apart from a universal consensus that the Brave Feast, as it is currently referred to, initially commenced in
I am Greek by birth, and therefore well versed in the Islamic conquest of the
During my investigation into the origins of the modern bullfight, which obviously involved a detailed scrutiny of Iberian culture, it appeared that fashionable historians willingly repudiated an unquestionable reality, and in so doing dishonored the memory of those millions, among them my forefathers at the other end of the Mediterranean, who were slain by an expansionist Islam as they vainly attempted to repudiate the harsh reality of the Muslim conquest and its attendant enslavement. I was appalled by the coordinated insistence to emphatically conceal historical fact.
The frequently repeated myth that history is written by the winner is a falsehood clothed in the fiction of what pretends to be an obvious, credible truth; in this case the fable is more than manifest to anyone taking the time for even a casual inquiry.
The conquest of the Iberian Peninsula by Islam began in 710 and continued as a brutal and pitiless faith based colonialist rule, except for a brief period of relative accommodation with the subjugated people, until the Muslim expulsion and the Moor’s last sigh as he gazed back on a forfeited
Contemporary, manipulative revisionist historians, whose conclusions are contradicted by irrefutable evidence, propagate the idyllic myth of an Islamic al-Andalus as a tolerant and peaceful society, coexisting in a multicultural, interfaith social order; indulgent and charitable, producing a Golden Age similar to the Italian Renaissance. However, the historic reality is that Islamic al-Andalus, notwithstanding the impressive undertakings in architecture and the contemplative reflection of gentle poetic verses (not including the copied Hellenic treatises regarding medicine, mathematics and astronomy, nor the Hindu numerical accomplishments), was neither tolerant nor peaceful, even during its apogee; it was a brutal society where intolerance and Muslim discrimination permanently humiliated the Dhimmi, (3) those conquered and unconverted infidels, without pity. All attempts to remove the cruel yoke imposed by a perverse and malevolent theocracy, whose tools were fear and intimidation were countered by massive group execution. (4)
To accept the current unhistorical strategy is to indulge in facile contradiction, for it strains credibility to imagine that a people living in a tolerant, non-violent, benevolent society would risk their lives by taking up arms to free themselves from freedom. We may need to question the currently accepted, politically correct compassion of Islam.
The Jewish philosopher Maimonides (rabbi Moses ben Maimon), known to the Arabs as Rambam, who is even today flaunted by Muslims as an example of the multicultural achievements made possible by an erroneously perceived inclusive Islam, had to flee with his family from intolerable persecution. In his own words, which betray the contemporary scholarly fiction: “…the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us…Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as much as they…” (5)
“It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam have begun to assert that their society in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesmen for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity.” (6)
Muslim organizations in the West have not expressed any disapproval of the discriminatory tenets of Islam, nor have they censured terrorism and Islamic jihad against unbelievers, notwithstanding their extremely vocal outrage at incidents they consider disrespectful to their religious reputation. This is curious, given that through the use of taquiyya and kitman, (7) each an acknowledged artifice that is given legitimacy in the noble Koran, Muslims are permitted to employ deception and trickery in propagating their faith. Yasser Arafat habitually engaged in saying one thing to gullible and ignorant infidels, which was understood in a different, Koranic context by Muslims. It could only be of benefit to the religion of Muhammad, lawfully ensconced in what his adherents consider valueless open-minded Occidental cultures, to express an insincere regret for the violence and bloodshed proliferating in the name of Islam.
It has been left to the mendacity of mainstream journalists, ideologically biased historians, and unaccountable academics in some of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning (where their employment is funded directly by sovereign Arab governments), to assume the role of supporters of Islam. It is a disgraceful testament to the corruption and dishonesty at present inherent in these fraudulent and self-indulgent organizations, and of those they selectively employ, that Islam continues unchallenged in its supremacist itinerary; it is due largely to their influence that a primitive incitement to violence formulated in the seventh century CE by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad evades a deserved condemnation.
These agenda driven purveyors of perilous falsehood are certainly aware of the existing brutal discrimination and sanctioned slaughter by Islam of the Copts in modern Egypt, the Maronites in contemporary Lebanon, the Zoroastrians in today’s Iran, the Christians in Iraq and Palestine, the Chaldeans, the Assyrians, the Mandeans, the Yazidis, and the Armenians; let me be clear, this is no more than a partial listing of present Islamic intolerance, and limited to Muslim atrocities in the Middle East.
If Sharia is representative of a charitable twenty first century Islam, what must have been the circumstances surrounding those conquered and unconverted people in the Iberian Peninsula from the eighth to the fifteenth century? Although Dhimmis were allowed to be tried in their own religious courts, perceived violations against Islam or Muslims were judged by Sharia; a formidable threat not to be underestimated.
Allow me to impose on the generosity of your time with what I consider to be a relevant digression: I have always been intrigued by those who profess to be appalled at ethnic cleansing, political tyranny, and mob savagery in distant parts of the world, and am always surprised by the eagerness they express for a military intervention to abate the carnage (Serbia, not the Sudan, immediately come to mind); Yet these very same individuals admit no compassion for equal misdeeds executed in Islamic countries (the gassed Kurds in Iraq); quite the contrary, they profess alarm when bellicose measures are undertaken against Muslims. Can it be that politics trump morality?
It is axiomatic of Americans that they are, as a general rule, ignorant of world history; I suspect this is a result of their short, two hundred something year existence as a nation, and its multicultural, heterogeneous composition.
I remember a memorable press conference with Donald Rumsfeld, the American Secretary of Defence, in which he articulated quintessential American judgment (I paraphrase): “Every time I go there (Serbia), they want to talk history; I just want the ethnic cleansing to stop!” American politicians, American media, and the American people are uncomfortable with complicated scenarios. They prefer their characters to wear either black or white hats in order to facilitate identification of the villain and the hero.
Americans generally want to model the world into their overwhelmingly successful image. At their peril they harbor the conceit that all people want to live in free and democratic societies. Actually, this is a fantasy born of an inherent moral generosity, intellectual ingenuity, and to be scrupulously honest, some disingenuous political machination. The truth of the matter is that it is false; to offer only one example: the formula may have worked in
Another pertinent, albeit rather personal aside: No atheists exist in Islam; those that profess to believe in no god are either crucified or beheaded. I should probably make clear to those reading this that I am an atheist, and as regards the previous arresting detail, it is at present of minor importance to me given that a Muslim dominated scenario threatening the continued physical attachment of my head to my torso is assumed to be a viable reality in the very distant future. It’s possible there is someone out there seething with a primitive rage for my audacity to express an opinion, and who is eager to slit my throat in retaliation. Take my advice; don’t do it. Why would you sacrifice your life for an unknown, insignificant blaspheming kafir when there are so many more prominent targets about? Salmon Rushdie, Ayaan Hrisi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Amir Taheri, Taslima Nasreen, Nonie Darwish, Irshad Manji, Robert Spencer. Just kidding. Just kidding, folks. It isn’t my intent to let loose the implacable Holy Warriors at your doorsteps.
I should also inform the reader in passing, that given my entrenched atheism, I prefer avoiding the defence of any religion; albeit I thoroughly enjoy participating in scholarly religious debate. There are those who insist that all three Abrahamic religions recognize the same God. This is an absurd statement articulated either out of ignorance or outright duplicity from those who would pursue a relativist argument. Allah may bear an insignificant relationship to a far less ruthless Yahweh, but there is definitely no resemblance to the Deity described in the New Testament. Unlike Islam, the murderous historical excesses of Christianity were not perpetrated by those adhering to the explicit exhortations of their holy book, as is the case with Islam, but rather in spite of it.
Those unreliable disseminators of questionable Islamic wisdom consider as superfluous and suspicious the interest of those who inquire regarding the veracity of their statements. In an effort to stifle legitimate scrutiny, they accuse those who question their commentary as xenophobic, chauvinistic, and most effective of all: racist (notwithstanding that Islam is not a race, but a political/religious movement). An explanation offered for the excrescence in Islamic apologia, has been the facile assertion that it represents a necessary protection of minority rights and constitutes the nation’s guaranteed verbal and legal respect for multicultural traditions that do not accommodate themselves to accepted Western standards of morality.
An opposing contention that I consider more truthful is that Muslim apologists are following the Marxist-Leninist guideline of prior Communist ideologues obsessed with the destruction of the nation-state as an individual entity, and energetically seeking its replacement by a single collective, and in their view, egalitarian world government. Among the most infamous doctrinaire public liars of the slaughterous Stalinist period were John Reed, a Harvard graduate, and Walter Duranty, a reporter for the New York Times and winner of the coveted Pulitzer Prize, who affirmed, as Islam also dictates, that “the final fate of such enemies (those who cannot accept the collective system) is death."
The initial form which the one world government adopts is considered immaterial by its proponents. As my Stalinist apologist friends of the nineteen fifties and sixties explained with uncommon patience: “Once a one world government is established (Communism at the time, or the Caliphate in the current political scenario), we can begin to deal with the anomalous excesses suffered as necessary collateral damage to its creation.” The United Nations is considered a step in the formation of a single world government, the European Union is believed to bring the collective ideology (it takes a village) even closer, as is the proposed North American Union of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
The internet has shattered the formidable monopoly on information heretofore held by an elitist media; information, as practically everyone currently concedes, is power. It was public access to suppressed facts and the disclosure of fabricated news, provided by and for the people, that facilitated the defeat of a presidential candidate, exposed the fraudulent bluff of a media icon and shamed a respected international news service for disseminating manipulated and deceptive reporting. Just as with Reed and Duranty, those individuals and institutions participating in similar deliberate fabrication and execrable obfuscation of objective reality will be exposed, denounced, and their names registered in history to provide for perpetual disgrace.
An interesting speculation I allow myself to indulge in every so often is the conceivable possibility of the internet metamorphosing our failing representative government into direct democracy. The result could very well be anarchy; the challenge deliciously persuasive. In this time of political upheaval and the attendant search for alternative systems of governance, the Europeans appear to have eschewed interest in a people driven electronic technology partnering with government, and opted for a regressive return to unelected and anonymous sovereigns in
In al-Andalus, after eight centuries of Dar-al-Harb, that eternal war of subjugation as mandated by the divine Koran against the infidel “wherever he may be found,” and in any country not yet converted to Islam, the Muslims were expulsed, their Jihad terminated, and the Dhimmi emancipated; Christianity prevailed, and the bells of churches so long silenced once again called to the faithful.
I consider it historically significant that after the defeat of Islam, bullfighting suddenly flourished throughout the
I submit for consideration the following theory that may prove interestingly polemical concerning what I regard as the overlooked religious implication of the Fiesta Brava, taking into consideration the obligatory doctrine of Islamic conquest that incorporates subjugation and humiliation, and utilizing the requisite and indispensable features of the Corrida that constitute its fundamental components.
I postulate the existence of religious/historical procedures in the Brave Feast that bear a direct and irrefutable relationship to the confrontation of Islam with Christianity; I propose that the Brave Feast is, in effect, an allegory whose significance goes beyond the immediately observable.
The Corrida is a highly ritualized event divided into three distinct parts, known as Tercios; three separate and individual Acts. The contestants include three Matadors and three Banderilleros. There are three perforations administered to the bull by the Picador’s lances and also two times three incisions by three sets of Banderillas. And there are three Participants in the performance: The Matador; The Bull; The Spectators. Three. A repetitive kabalistic number. Can the significance of this contest insinuate some, however vague, relationship to the Christian Trinity?
The haunting echo of a trumpet, the Clarin, initiates the presentation; this is the first act, called the Tercio de Varas. The bull charges out of tenebrous shadows into the brilliant, illuminating sunlight of the arena from the Toril, also known as “
Striding confidently to meet the adversary in what will be a precisely choreographed “Dance With Death,” the Matador/Torero, is impeccably costumed in what one could describe as religious vestments. He swirls and pirouettes in an ostentatious yet simultaneously solemn display of self-assurance, covered with sparkling, radiant sequins; his Traje de Luces, the “Suit of Lights,” are additionally hand embroidered with gold thread.
His first physical act is to employ a large, purple and gold cape in a wide, sweeping gesture meaningfully called “Veronica”; the Matador/Torero initiates the Sacramentum by passing the capote over the head of the bull, as Veronica passed her kerchief across the face of Christ on his way to
The Tercio de Banderillas, the second act, concerns itself with the millenarian, possibly pre-historic formal convention of preparing a victim for sacrifice. Enter the Picadores on horseback, on foot the Banderilleros.
The Picadores thrust their lances three times into the tendons of the bull’s neck to weaken the shoulder muscles, lowering the head to reduce the menace and facilitate the mortal thrust of the steel blade at the “Moment of Truth,” “
The bull is subsequently adorned with three sets of colorful banderillas whose sharp metal thorns puncture the flesh, secreting dark liquid streams of crimson, in imitation of the crown that pierced the head of the King of the Jews. The one to be sacrificed this day must be appropriately costumed and suffer equal indignities.
In the Faena, also known as the Tercio de Muleta, the third and final act, the large cape is replaced by a small red cloth with which the calculating process of exacting a relentless humiliation is initiated. This Tercio is the most anticipated, scrupulously examined and argued over by the aficionados. One could, without equivocation, conclude that it is the most noteworthy, most significant third of the Corrida. Its central theme is humiliation, notwithstanding it concludes with the ultimate destruction of the beast.
Humiliation. Why humiliation? What delight can result from the humiliation of an uncomprehending beast?
Perhaps the answer resides in Islam’s century’s long humiliation of the defeated Iberians as an inherent part of the religious dogma resolutely established in the Koran. I assume that as a consequence of those non-Muslims having suffered this Islamic depravity, that during the Fiesta Brava it was insufficient and inadequate as an instrument of vengeance to merely destroy the reviled dark power; there was an imperative to contemptuously belittle its broken disgrace. The Matador/Torero, taunts the beast incessantly, provoking its dishonor by compelling it to lower the head in submission. He insists the crescent horns follow his capricious demands, muzzle ignominiously scraping the sand in tight, confused circles.
The divine and righteous Koran demands of the faithful to Islam:
“The jizra shall be taken from them (unbelievers) with belittlement and humiliation. The Dhimmi shall come in person, walking, not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say: “Pay the jizya!” and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of his neck.” (8)
“Fight all those who believe not in Allah or in the last day, who do not regard as forbidden that which Allah and His prophet have forbidden, and those among the People of the Book who do not profess the True Religion. Make war against them until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued…in acknowledgment of Muslim superiority and are in a state of subjection.” (9)
Humiliation during the Brave Feast is accompanied by the exalted, triumphant shouts of the passionate Faithful.
“Olé! Olé!” An expression of jubilation with no known association.
Is it an unacceptable stretch of the imagination to consider that the exclamation centuries ago had been: “Allah! Allah!”? The current Hispanic lexicon contains many Arabic words that have over time been integrated into the Spanish vocabulary, among them the expression “ojala!” (pronounced “ohala”) which originates from the Arabic appeal or imploration to their Islamic deity: “Oh, Allah!”
If the Matador/Torero proves particularly adroit in humbling the conquered beast into abject acquiescence he is rewarded, in imitation of the Muslim practice toward the infidels in their midst, by being permitted to disfigure the animal; amputating an ear, or a tail, or both.
“I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.” (10)
”The punishment is…the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.” (11)
In this third and final Faena, the diminutive figure in the bullring, tenaciously resolved to endure in a hostile environment through wily cunning, ultimately vanquishes by deceit. Bewildered by its inability to isolate as a separate figure the man behind the baffling, insubstantial cloth, the formidable brute succumbs docilely to its annihilation. Man has disoriented the fury of an indomitable two ton beast. He has rendered an adversary impotent with a slight piece of fabric appropriately called the “engaño,” the deception; the necessary and indispensable means for conquest and survival.
Man destroys power through pretense. This is the purpose of the Islamic model of Taquiyya and Kitman; as the Prophet Muhammad declared: “War is deceit.” (12)
The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (allow you to lie)." (13)
Muhammad ibn Maslamah then went to some other companions of the Prophet and told them what he had undertaken to do. They included Abu Nailah, a foster brother of Kab ibn al-Ahsraf. They agreed to help him and he devised a plan to accomplish the mission. T hey went back to the Prophet to seek his approval since the plan involved enticing Kab from his fortress residence through some deception. The Prophet gave his consent on the principle that war involved deceit.
This final Faena ends with a symbolic and insolent manifestation of domination: the Matador/Torero summons the bull to charge with his face averted in sublime confidence of incipient victory. The Pase de Desprecio, the
In conclusion, I believe the historical/symbolic origins of this combat have been sublimated; the Fiesta Brava continues a mass appeal to millions who are unaware cognitively of their passions being metaphorically aroused beneath their threshold of conscious perception.
However, as noted at the beginning, you are under no obligation to agree with me.
(1) For those with short memories, the reference is meant to include, among so many others, Representative John Murtha, Professor Ward Churchill, Prosecutor Mike Nifong, and Judge Donald Thompson.
(2) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. Arab countries took exception, creating the competing Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) which provides an Islamic perspective on human rights based on Islamic Sharia Law.
Said Rajaie-Khorassani declared that the United Nations approved Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) could not be implemented by Muslims because it contradicted Islamic Sharia Law.
Article 19 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) states: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia."
Article 24 says: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia."
Article 25 asserts: "The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration."
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) has been criticized for excluding freedom of religion as a human right, and not endorsing equality between men and women.
Adama Deng, of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), an international human rights non-governmental organization (NGO), criticized The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) for introducing intolerable discrimination against non-Moslems and women, and revealing a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms.
Amnesty International reported: “Gross human rights violations took place throughout much of the Middle East and
(3) Conquered non-Islamic people are called Dhimmis. In return for being permitted to live and practice
their religion in an Islamic country they are required to pay a monetary tribute (Jizya) to the Muslim
government as stipulated in the Koran 9:29: “Fight all those who believe not in Allah or in the last day,
who do not regard as forbidden that which Allah and His prophet have forbidden, and those among the
People of the Book who do not profess the True Religion. Make war against them until they pay the
Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued…in acknowledgment of Muslim superiority
and are in a state of subjection.”
(4) Among the insurrections recorded in al-Andalus:
Hundreds were decapitated and /or crucified in accordance with Islamic law.
-Cordova rebelled in 805 which was followed by three days of massacre for the non-Muslim population.
In 818, 300 non-Muslims were crucified and 20,000 exiled.
From 1130 to 1232 the non-Muslim population was consistently massacred and the children of Jews
and Christians, as occurred frequently throughout Muslim history, were converted forcefully to Islam.
(5) In Islamic countries such as
The Dhimmi, even today in many Muslim countries, are permitted residence only under the following apartheid:
On pain of death, Dhimmis are forbidden to touch the Qu´ran, mock or criticize the Qu´ran, speak of the Prophet Muhammad in contemptuous terms, speak of the faith of Islam with irreverence, prosletyze among Muslims, do anything that would aid the enemies of Islam or their spies, or touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man can take a non-Muslim woman as one of his wives).
The Dhimmi´s oath is unacceptable in a Muslim court and he is not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim, The penalty for murder is execution, except when a Muslim murders a non-Muslim.
The Dhimmi must show respect to every Muslim. They must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings. They are not to dress like Muslims. They must wear a distinctive dress which shows their inferior status and separates them from Muslims. They must wear a distinctive habit with a special belt (zunnar) and put a cloth patch (ghiyar) in yellow for Jews and in blue for Christians (a precedent followed later in Nazi Germany). They are not to name themselves with Muslim names. They are not to ride on horses or camels, considered noble animals, but must satisfy themselves with donkeys or mules without benefit of saddle and bridle. They are to show public deference toward Muslims by always yielding to them on the road and always walking on the left (filthy) side of a Muslim. They are not to possess arms. They are not to wear signets or seals on their fingers. They are not to sell or drink liquor. They are not to propagate their customs and usages among the Muslims. They are not to bring their dead near the graveyards of the Muslims. They are not to observe their religious practices publicly or mourn their dead loudly, nor let their prayers or their lamentations, their bells, trumpets, or chants be heard in a Moslem city as that might offend a Muslim, nor are they to display their crucifixes or their pigs. They are not to build their houses in the neighborhood of Muslims. They are not to build any new places of worship. They are not to repair any old places of worship which have been destroyed by the Muslims. They are not allowed to build their synagogues or churches higher than the Moslems tallest buildings. They are not to prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship. They must entertain for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their homes and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill. They are not to harbor any hostility against Muslims, or give aid and comfort to hostile elements. They are not to prevent any one of them from being converted to Islam
(6) Bernard Lewis “The Jews in Islam.”
(7) Taquiyya and Kitman are twin tactics sanctioned by the Koran, with a subtle difference between each.
Taquiyya is a deliberate deception, a total lie to an infidel adversary for the promulgation of Islam, to
prevent denigration of Islam, or to protect oneself.
Kitman is defined as telling only part of the truth, maintaining a mental reservation to omit the rest.
As an example of Kitman, then a Muslim declares that Islam is a religion of peace he/she is not lying in
a strict interpretation of the term, for Muslims are to be merciful only among themselves.
Sura 48:29: “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the
disbelievers and merciful among themselves.
(8) Koran. Sura 9:29
(9) Koran 8:12
(10) Koran 9:29
(11) Koran 7:124
(12) Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269: Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "War is deceit."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4,Book 52, Number 267: The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and
there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after
him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'.
(13) Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271:
All Rights Reserved.
Registered Writer’s Guild.
Principio del formulario
To comment on this article please click here.
To help New English review continue to publish original and interesting articles such as this, please click here.
If you enjoyed this article by Ares Demertzis and want to read more of his work, please click here.
Join leaders of the American Middle Eastern community to endorse
Donald J. Trump
for President of the United States
and spend an evening with his foreign policy advisors featuring
Dr. Walid Phares
and other surprise campaign guests.
Monday October 17th
Omni Shoreham Hotel
2500 Calvert Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20008
cocktails at 6pm - dinner at 7pm
Business casual attire
$150 per person / $1500 per table
Sponsored by the American Mideast Coalition for Trump