Friday, February 13, 2009

Forthcoming written testimony to be presented to the CIA2/MOSSAD Congress....

Elie Hobeika: He who sows to the Spirit, will from the Spirit reap eternal life...

Our Lebanese heroes who gave their lives on the altars of the nation also taught us that he who has faith in the nation, in liberty, and in the rights of its citizens will defend them with absolute vigor and most honorable dedication, and will not fear any threats, threat of oppression, the loss of position or property, or the disappearance of "Thyself" in a Fiery Syrian/Israeli Car BOMB, with CIA's Blessing, aiding and abetting, since 1996, when he adamantly refused to play Ball again...and our government was complicit, RIP.

As we, in the Middle East, are affected by the outcome of the American elections due to the next administration's prospective Middle East policy, I looked into both candidates and their Middle East programs and stances, only to find more selective "engagement" but only based on rhetoric, in a futile attempt at forging selective groups of fake alliances, rogue operations, ethnic cleansing, intelligence stove-piping, bamboozling, honeypot traps, and destructive economic policies, debt, unemployment and more radicalization to come...

I directed my attention to "change" rhetoric by the democratic candidate. At the strategic level, I did not find any significance of this promised change, rather it is just about changing republicans from the White House and keep things as they are or as they were before the republicans. In other words, going backward not forward as usually expected from democrats and their persistent inaction.

If so, this fallacious change means disaster for the Middle East. It actually means going back to the post-Cold War Middle East, which means keeping totalitarian and authoritarian regimes enjoying a stable situation of authoritarianism and non-democracy in the Middle East, while the region's peoples or most of them are suffering from repression, poverty and absent rights and freedoms.

This situation will definitely lead to a disastrous and seriously dangerous region to the whole world. It will result in a region constitutes a storehouse of violence and terror with a sustainable source of terrorists.

It is really strange and sorrowful how Democrats showed that they did not understand anything from 9/11 and the whole wave of terrorism in the world since then. This is quite obvious to me when I find nothing in their Middle East agenda but going backward with the region to the pre-9/11 era, especially with their initiatives toward totalitarian rough regimes and entities like the Hashemite regime of Jordan and the minority Alawite thuggish sect of the Assad's Baath regime in Syria, a core group mafia of the first order within the Siamese twins CIA/MOSSAD.... while the democratic candidate is looking forward to sit with them, and negotiate a permanent strategic alliance with Iran, and more of the same policies for the rest of the Arab and Moslem Worlds. By the way, those are dying to see Democrats in the White House ....
So, while we, the Middle East democrats and liberals, are seeking and championing change in our region, the U.S. Democrats are seeking and advocating regression in this region. This would be a very painful and disastrous mistake.

Finally, a so-called "change" in the United States inflicting regression in such a vital region is not a change; it is a fallacy.

Let us go for change in the Middle East not regression that no one can take anymore....

Meanwhile, and in full preparation for more false flag attacks worldwide...:

Editor’s note: Substantial portions of the following essay make up
part of Mr. Ibrahim’s forthcoming written testimony to be presented to
the CIA2/MOSSAD Congress....

Today, in a time of wars and rumors of wars emanating from the Islamic
world — from the current conflict in Gaza, to the saber-rattling of
nuclear-armed Pakistan and soon-to-be Iran — the need for non-Muslims
to better understand Islam’s doctrines and objectives concerning war
and peace, and everything in between (treaties, diplomacy), has become
pressing. For instance, what does one make of the fact that, after
openly and vociferously making it clear time and time again that its
ultimate aspiration is to see Israel annihilated, Hamas also pursues
“peace treaties,” including various forms of concessions from Israel —
and more puzzling, receives them?

Before being in a position to answer such questions, one must first
appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of mainstream (Sunni)
Islam. Amazingly, for all the talk that Islam is constantly being
“misunderstood” or “misinterpreted” by “radicals,” the fact is, as
opposed to most other religions, Islam is a clearly defined faith
admitting of no ambiguity: indeed, according to Sharia (i.e., “Islam’s
way of life,” more commonly translated as “Islamic law”) every
conceivable human act is categorized as being either forbidden,
discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory. “Common sense”
or “universal opinion” has little to do with Islam’s notions of right
and wrong. All that matters is what Allah (via the Koran) and his
prophet Muhammad (through the hadith) have to say about any given
subject, and how Islam’s greatest theologians and jurists —
collectively known as the ulema, literally, the “ones who know” — have
articulated it.

Consider the concept of lying. According to Sharia, deception is not
only permitted in certain situations but is sometimes deemed
obligatory. For instance, and quite contrary to early Christian
tradition, not only are Muslims who must choose between either
recanting Islam or being put to death permitted to lie by pretending
to have apostatized; many jurists have decreed that, according to
Koran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie.

The doctrine of taqiyya

Much of this revolves around the pivotal doctrine of taqiyya, which is
often euphemized as “religious dissembling,” though in reality simply
connotes “Muslim deception vis-à-vis infidels.” According to the
authoritative Arabic text Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam, “Taqiyya [deception]
is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect
agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the
practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects
not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. … Taqiyya is very
prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era [p. 7; my
own translation].”

Some erroneously believe that taqiyya is an exclusively Shia doctrine:
as a minority group interspersed among their traditional enemies, the
much more numerous Sunnis, Shias have historically had more “reason”
to dissemble. Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today
find themselves in a similar situation, as they are now the minority
surrounded by their historic enemies — Christian infidels.

The primary Koranic verse sanctioning deception vis-à-vis non-Muslims
states: “Let believers [Muslims] not take for friends and allies
infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall
have no relationship left with Allah — unless you but guard yourselves
against them, taking precautions” (3:28; other verses referenced by
the ulema in support of taqiyya include 2:173, 2:185, 4:29, 16:106,
22:78, 40:28).

Al-Tabari’s (d. 923) famous tafsir (exegesis of the Koran) is a
standard and authoritative reference work in the entire Muslim world.
Regarding 3:28, he writes: “If you [Muslims] are under their
[infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them,
with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. … Allah
has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with
the infidels in place of believers — except when infidels are above
them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards

Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373, second in authority only to
Tabari) writes, “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels']
evil may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he
quotes Muhammad’s close companion, Abu Darda, who said, “Let us smile
to the face of some people [non-Muslims] while our hearts curse them”;
another companion, al-Hassan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till
the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].”

Other prominent ulema, such as al-Qurtubi, al-Razi, and al-Arabi, have
extended taqiyya to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave
like infidels — including by bowing down and worshiping idols and
crosses, offering false testimony, even exposing fellow Muslims’
weaknesses to the infidel enemy — anything short of actually killing a

Is this why the Muslim American sergeant Hasan Akbar attacked and
killed his fellow servicemen in Iraq in 2003? Had his pretense of
loyalty finally come up against a wall when he realized Muslims might
die at his hands? He had written in his diary: “I may not have killed
any Muslims, but being in the army is the same thing. I may have to
make a choice very soon on who to kill.”

War is deceit

None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad himself —
whose example as the “most perfect human” is to be tenaciously
followed — took an expedient view of lying. It is well known, for
instance, that Muhammad permitted lying in three situations: to
reconcile two or more quarreling parties, to one’s wife, and in war
(see Sahih Muslim B32N6303, deemed an “authentic” hadith).

As for our chief concern here — war — the following story from the
life of Muhammad reveals the centrality of deceit in war. During the
Battle of the Trench (627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers
against several non-Muslim tribes known as “the Confederates,” one of
these Confederates, Naim bin Masud, went to the Muslim camp and
converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered that the Confederates
were unaware of their co-tribalist’s conversion, he counseled Masud to
return and try somehow to get the Confederates to abandon the siege —
“For,” Muhammad assured him, “war is deceit.” Masud returned to the
Confederates without their knowing that he had “switched sides,” and
began giving his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to
great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until,
thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded, lifting the siege
from the Muslims, and thereby saving Islam in its embryonic period
(see Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam; also, Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, the earliest
biography of Muhammad).

More demonstrative of the legitimacy of deception vis-à-vis infidels
is the following anecdote. A poet, Kab bin al-Ashruf, offended
Muhammad by making derogatory verse concerning Muslim women. So
Muhammad exclaimed in front of his followers: “Who will kill this man
who has hurt Allah and his prophet?” A young Muslim named Muhammad bin
Maslama volunteered, but with the caveat that, in order to get close
enough to Kab to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet.
Muhammad agreed. Maslama traveled to Kab, began denigrating Islam and
Muhammad, carrying on this way till his disaffection became convincing
enough that Kab took him into his confidences. Soon thereafter,
Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Kab’s guard was down,
assaulted and killed him. Ibn Sa’ad’s version reports that they ran to
Muhammad with Kab’s head, to which the latter cried, “Allahu
Akbar!” (God is great!)

It also bears mentioning that the entire sequence of Koranic
revelations is a testimony to taqiyya; and since Allah is believed to
be the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the
perpetrator of deceit — which is not surprising since Allah himself is
described in the Koran as the best “deceiver” or “schemer” (3:54,
8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Koran
contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and
intolerant ones. The ulema were baffled as to which verses to codify
into Sharia’s worldview — the one, for instance, that states there is
no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to
fight all non-Muslims till they either convert, or at least submit, to
Islam (8:39, 9:5, 9:29)? To get out of this quandary, the ulema
developed the doctrine of abrogation (naskh, supported by Koran 2:106)
which essentially maintains that verses “revealed” later in Muhammad’s
career take precedence over the earlier ones, whenever there is a

But why the contradiction in the first place? The standard view has
been that, since in the early years of Islam, Muhammad and his
community were far outnumbered by the infidels and idolaters, a
message of peace and coexistence was in order (sound familiar?).
However, after he migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and
numbers, the violent and intolerant verses were “revealed,” inciting
Muslims to go on the offensive — now that they were capable of doing
so. According to this view, quite standard among the ulema, one can
only conclude that the peaceful Meccan verses were ultimately a ruse
to buy Islam time till it became sufficiently strong to implement its
“true” verses which demand conquest. Or, as traditionally understood
and implemented by Muslims themselves, when the latter are weak and in
a minority position, they should preach and behave according to the
Meccan verses (peace and tolerance); when strong, they should go on
the offensive, according to the Medinan verses (war and conquest). The
vicissitudes of Islamic history are a testimony to this dichotomy.

A Muslim colleague of mine once made this clear during a casual,
though revealing, conversation. After expounding to him all those
problematic doctrines that make it impossible for Muslims to
peacefully coexist with infidels — jihad, loyalty and enmity,
enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong — I pointedly asked him
how and why he, as a Muslim, did not uphold them. He kept
prevaricating, pointing to those other, abrogated verses of peace and
tolerance. Assuming he was totally oblivious of such arcane doctrines
as abrogation, I (rather triumphantly) began explaining to him the
distinction between Meccan (tolerant) and Medinan (intolerant) verses,
and how the latter abrogate the former. He simply smiled, saying, “I
know; but I’m currently living in Mecca” — that is, like his weak and
outnumbered prophet living among an infidel majority in Mecca, he too,
for survival’s sake, felt compelled to preach peace, tolerance, and
coexistence to the infidel majority of America....