Another deceptive Islamic doctrine: Tawriya

Richard Wiig's picture
Submitted by Richard Wiig on Wed, 2012-02-29 01:42

"Perhaps you have heard of taqiyya, the Muslim doctrine that allows lying in certain circumstances, primarily when Muslim minorities live under infidel authority. Now meet tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances..."

( categories: )


Jules Troy's picture

Way to go girls!

Better Video

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Marcus -- The best women's rights video for the Muslim peoples might feature a hot Muslim female tauting: "Hey, Muzzie man! Treat women as equals -- or go fuck a camel!" It could end with a picture of a dirty, disgusting camel juxtaposed to a seductive, Islamic minx, with a written caption underneath: "The choice is yours."

Exiled Iranian women pose nude for video in protest

Marcus's picture

Finally, the type of protest I can get behind!

'My body, my choice': Exiled Iranian women pose nude for video in protest against sexual oppression in their native country

A group of Iranian women have stripped off for a new video in a protest against sexual oppression in their native country.
The ladies, who are living in exile in Europe, pose naked in front of the camera as they each deliver a defiant message.

Their slogans include 'I believe in the equality of women and men' and 'my thoughts, my body, my choice'.

Defiant: One of the exiled Iranian ladies poses naked for a video calling for more sexual freedoms for women in her native country

They have produced the video in the hope of boosting sales of the Nude Photo Revolutionary Calendar, which has been released today to coincide with International Women's Day.

The calendar has been dedicated to an Egyptian activist who posted a full-length photo of herself on her blog last year in a stand against sexual discrimination in Islam.

The move by 20-year-old university student, Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, sparked outrage in the Middle East and she was bombarded by thousands of insults, with some denouncing her as a 'prostitute'.

Ostracised: The Iranian women are showing their support for Aliaa Magda Elmahdy (left), who sparked outrage in the Midle East after posting this nude picture of herself on her blog, and Golshifteh Farahani (right), an actress who has been banished from Iran because she posed for this picture in a French news magazine


Jmaurone's picture

Hadn't heard that, thanks.

Oh, wow.

Cornell's picture

That's unfortunate.

Do you mean the offence taking or...

Marcus's picture

...the Juden raus story?

At any rate I got it from a series of BBC radio interviews in the 1990's called "McCartney on McCartney" where he talks about nearly every single and album in the back catalogue.

You see, the confusion started when they decided to white-wash the shop window of their Apple building with the words painted in black, "Hey Jude!" as a promotion for their new song.

That was when a local Jewish man told McCartney that this was a painful memory for him evocative of the slogans they painted in white-washed windows during the second world war.


Jmaurone's picture

...was considered offensive (although that's not what it means in the song) because it evokes memories of the NAZIs saying "Hei Juden raus!"

Just curious, what's your source for this?

Hey Jude...

Marcus's picture

...was considered offensive (although that's not what it means in the song) because it evokes memories of the NAZIs saying "Hei Juden raus!"

"Or are you being

Leonid's picture

"Or are you being ironic?"

And what you think? BTW, why the word "Jew" or "Jude" or "Yahud" should be offensive to Jews? It's offensive only to anti-Semites.

Apparently he did...

Marcus's picture

"McCartney delivered a memorable performance to 40,000 fans in Tel Aviv's Hayarkon Park, forty-three years after the Israeli government banned a Beatles concert in 1965 over fears of corrupting the country's youth. Featuring McCartney and his long-time band—guitarists Brian Ray and Rusty Anderson, keyboardist Paul "Wix" Wickens and drummer Abe Laboriel Jr., the historic show brought a welcome sense of unity to the troubled region, despite the extremist threats leading up to the event."

Here is Macca!


Richard Goode's picture

...I looked at the March 2012 at the top of the page.

Easy mistake to make!

So this happened when, 2008?

The concert still went ahead, I suppose.

Yes, 2008. I don't know if the concert went ahead or not.

Goode God...

Marcus's picture

...I looked at the March 2012 at the top of the page.

So this happened when, 2008?

The concert still went ahead, I suppose.


Richard Goode's picture

For example, say a friend asks you, "Did this happen recently?" You know it happened a few years ago, but you would prefer your friend to believe that it's breaking news. So you say "Yes, this is incredibly recent news, no wonder I hadn't got wind of it yet."—but you keep in mind a different timescale, viz., geological time.

Thanks for that Joe....

Marcus's picture

Then this is incredibly recent news, no wonder I hadn't got wind of it yet.

Good on Macca!

I haven't always agreed with all his views, such as his pro-vegetarianism, but this time he is spot on!

Ideologically speaking he was always far more sound than Lennon, that's for sure.

By the way, did anyone see his fly-on-the-wall 911 concert documentary film last year?

It was very good. It took ten years to make for some reason, but was worth the wait.


Jules Troy's picture

Ya if we speak up against them we are racist or promoters of religious hartred.


Go figure.


Cornell's picture

"The sacrifice operatives will be waiting for him."

WTF, indeed.


Jmaurone's picture

Are you people talking about, re "Hey, Jude?"

Jeezus fricking a google search...

But it could only be offensive...

Marcus's picture Jews, Leonid, not Muslims.

Or are you being ironic?

Is it screwed up

Cornell's picture

That I find that funny?

It sounds like that to the

Leonid's picture

It sounds like that to the Jihadist ear and , my, it IS offensive. Jude is a Jew in German.

Leonid, why is that...

Marcus's picture

...offensive to Muslims?

Anyway, Hey Jude was never "Hey Jew" - but there was a silly suspicion about it.

McCartney didn't even know what "Jude" meant, other than a girl's name.

It was originally called "Hey Jules" after Lennon's son Julian, but McCartney didn't want to draw attention to his parent's marital troubles at that time.

"Why? For writing Hey Jude? I

Leonid's picture

"Why? For writing Hey Jude? I don't get it."

It originally was " Hey Jew, don't let me down"

Beatle Paul McCartney (death threats from Muslims)

Marcus's picture

Why? For writing Hey Jude? I don't get it.

I live in canada

Jules Troy's picture

I plan on creating some rather interesting digital art portraying the "truths of Islamic peace". I am sure I will be either censored and or threatened.  Jihadists beware im crazier and much better trained than you are.


Cornell's picture

That's pure evil, alright.

(To any Muslims reading this -- I'm armed and dangerous. Come and get it.)

traeh | March 4, 2012 7:50 AM

Richard Wiig's picture

traeh | March 4, 2012 7:50 AM | Reply

Here's a very incomplete list of organizations or people self-censoring, or hiring bodyguards, or going into hiding, or taking other precautions, and sometimes getting killed or wounded after receiving death threats and violence from Muslims following the example of Muhammad, who said there would be no punishment for murdering someone who had insulted him.

Audience in Lecture Hall, Queen Mary College, London (man goes to front of hall, films audience, announces he will track down anyone who says a negative word of Muhammad. The lecture -- on Islamic law -- is canceled.)

Monty Python comedian (self-censors in fear of Muslims)

Yale University Press (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Metropolitan Museum of Art (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

National Archives of Canada (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

French newspaper (after being firebombed for printing a cartoon of Muhammad, the next day the paper prints that cartoon again, and more! Bravo!)

Hollywood (self-censors by canceling a movie project about Jews in Malmo, Sweden, after learning of frequent Muslim threats and acts of violence against Jews in Malmo);

Talk-show host David Letterman (At Al Qaeda website a frequent commenter calls on Muslims to cut out Letterman's tongue and kill him.)

Paris Dipersico, author (beaten by two Muslim men for writing things "against Islam," such as "Islam is a religion of 'peace', and Muslims will kill you to prove it.")

Director of the museum in the Hague, Wim van Krimpen (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

UK religious studies teacher Gary Smith (Muslims hit him over the head with an iron bar, fracturing his skull, hemmorhaging his brain, breaking his jaw, and slashing his face, for not teaching Islam as they deem appropriate)

Norwegian politicians (Iraqi-born cleric Mullah Krekar threatens politicians with death if he's deported from Norway).

State Senator Greg Ball (receives suspicious package with greeting "Asa Lamu Laikum Dead Man Walking," (the first part of which is Arabic for "peace be upon you") ;

2010 Tennessee candidate for Congress Lou Ann Zelenik (death threats from Muslims);

Barrister Tom Zreika (seeks police protection after non-stop phone threats from Muslims);

Japanese translator of Rushdie, Hitoshi Igarashi (murdered);

Norwiegan translator of Rushdie, William Nygaard (shot);

Italian translator of Rushdie, Ettore Capriolo (knifed);

French singer Veronique Sanson (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Artist Molly Norris (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats, changed name, went into hiding);

The producers of South Park (self-censor in response to Muslim death threats);

Journalist Lawrence O'Donnell (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Cartoonist Lars Vilks (house firebombed);

Philosopher Robert Redeker (in hiding, under government protection);

Filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (murdered);

Author and former member of Dutch parliament Hirsi Ali (full-time bodyguards);

Author Salman Rushdie (in hiding, under UK govt. protection);

Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten (bodyguards hired);

And again Jyllands Posten (five jihadists discovered planning to shoot as many people as possible);

Atheist Sabri Husibi (death threats from Muslims);

Lyricist Javed Akhtar (death threats from Muslims);

Cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (almost killed by a Muslim with an axe);

Director of the film 2012; the comedian Penn Jillette; the British potter Grayson Perry (all three self-censor in response to Muslim death threats);

Lawyer Majed Moughni (death threat from Muslim);

Author Taslima Nasreen (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Disc jockey/musician Jakub Rene Kosik (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Coptic Orthodox priest Zakaria Botros (Al Qaeda bounty of $60 million on his head);

Pop star Deeyah (hires extra bodyguards);

Politician Shiria Khatun (forced by Muslim threats to her children to dress in a "less Western" manner);

Christian minister Dr. Peter Hammond (death threat from Muslim);

Actor Omar Sharif (Muslims call for his murder);

Artist Sooreh Hera (self-censors in response to Muslim threats and forced into hiding);

Artist Sarah Maple (gallery workers threatened, gallery window smashed, 24-hour police protection);

Beatle Paul McCartney (death threats from Muslims);

150 Austrian Coptic Christians (Austrian interior ministry found jihadist list targeting each of them for violent attack);

100+ Canadian-Arab Christians (each one targeted on an Al Qaeda website);

Volvo and Ikea (threatened by terrorist group);

UK Muslim scientist Usama Hasan (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Islam expert Robert Spencer gets a death threat; and another death threat; and another death threat; and yet anoth...well, you get the idea.

Robert Spencer continues to speak out, but countless others are self-censoring in response to the climate of intimidation. The lights are going out. The growth of Islam means the death of civil liberties. It's time to resist.

Well said.

Cornell's picture

I stand corrected.

What 'makes' them want to, is

Richard Wiig's picture

What 'makes' them want to, is the root. Their deception isn't in order to kill. The purpose is to advance Islam. Those who are killing are simply going out and doing it. No deception involved; just good old-fashioned upfront murder in the cause of their religion.

Yeah, but see, the root of

Cornell's picture

Yeah, but see, the root of that problem is the fact that these people want to kill innocent people -- not that they're willing to lie in order to do it.

My guess is that most Muslims

Richard Wiig's picture

My guess is that most Muslims would have never heard of this doctrine. The point, really, is that any jihadist who does know of it, will use it. I guess Turkey under Attaturk was an example of Islam coexisting alongside other worldviews without oppressing them, but only because it was itself suppressed.


Cornell's picture

Yeah, it's warped and childish -- no doubt.

But like I said before, I am actually willing to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt on this one. Can you say you've never lied and felt justified in doing so?

This is basically a loophole that allows them to do exactly that.

Now, it's pointless and reveals an excruciatingly warped sense of morality based on a disembodied moral imperative, but that's organized religion for you.

A New Aspect of, and Insight into, the Philosophy of Islam

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

If the concept and institution of "tawriya" -- as described by Raymond Ibrahim's article above -- is widely practiced in the Muslim world, then Islam has hit a new moral low. Who knew this was even possible? This ghastly and unspeakable "tawriya" business strikes me as a kind of "super-takiya".

I'm deeply grateful to Richard Wiig for teaching me something new about Islam!

But anyone who claims that this doctrine of blatant dishonesty somehow permits the Muslim to maintain his honesty and integrity is grossly misinformed or even crazy. This Islamic practice, as outlined above, constitutes fraud of the most egregious and childish sort. The only thing worse, maybe, would be if Islam allowed you to lie so long as you have your fingers crossed -- a common practice I've observed among 5-year-olds. Or perhaps if Islam allowed and compelled you to brazenly lie so long as you mentally cross your fingers.

If I'm understanding this correctly, then this means you can never trust a Muslim, no matter what he's saying. Lying seems to be permitted 100% of the time. Outrageous lying is evidently philosophically allowed at all times under all circumstances, and it's still somehow considered to be truth-telling by Islam's wanton and childish standards.


It is amazing to me to what

Cornell's picture

It is amazing to me to what extent a substantial portion of the Muslim population has managed to dismantle free speech. Europe needs to start standing up for itself, or else it will become absorbed by Islam. I believe it is possible for Islam to coexist with other world views, but only if the legal system makes it absolutely clear that they will not tolerate blatant violations of other peoples' rights. It's frightening how much violence and tyranny they've allowed Islamists to get away with.

Can We Talk About This: the riskiest show of the year?

Marcus's picture

Another Satanic Verses?

Can We Talk About This: the riskiest show of the year?

We talk to Lloyd Newson, the man behind a provocative new production about Islamic extremism, at the National Theatre

"It has already been at Warwick Arts Centre – and was briefly in Leeds, too – but a major test will be with London audiences. Most of those Newson represents on stage, following his eight-month research period, bring a UK-domestic slant to the issue. We see leftist journalist Medhi Hasan shown engaging in a sparring dance with the historian Timothy Garton Ash at an Orwell Prize debate. And Maajid Nawaz, head of the progressive Quilliam Foundation, bops about, going head-to-head with Anjem Choudary of the now banned Islam4UK on Newsnight – refereed by a typically bemused Jeremy Paxman. Christopher Hitchens, Martin Amis, Shirley Williams and Salman Rushdie also crop up, the dancers adopting a variety of arresting positions as physical correlatives to their sometimes blunt, sometimes contorted utterances, as does the late Ray Honeyford, whose remarks about the failures of integration in education notoriously cost him his job as a Bradford head teacher in 1986.

It was the silence that descended when he tried to broach the subject of Islamic attitudes to homosexuality with his own left-liberal friends that got Newson, 54, thinking about self-censorship and the moral relativism of multiculturalism. “A lot of my liberal friends are very happy to criticise Catholicism, Christianity and Judaism but when it comes to Islam, it feels as though all the same principles are disregarded,” he says. When he aired the result of an international Gallup poll that suggested zero per cent of British Muslims thought homosexuality was acceptable, “Many friends of mine said: ‘You have to be careful about being Islamophobic.’ I’d say, ‘Hold on – I’m quoting a statistic. Why is the first thing you gasp at not that statistic but that I may be Islamophobic for raising it?’ 

“A lot of Muslims might be irritated by me as a white atheist making a piece about this sensitive subject,” he continues, “but this is a reputable company and we’ve always dealt with difficult issues. We have a range of voices here – we give space to Islamists too. We are thorough and detailed – whether people like the work or not is another matter. I’ve often spoken about things that dance doesn’t address. It happens this time to be about Islam, multiculturalism and freedom of speech. Are we saying we can’t talk about these things? I feel this is a fundamental question at the moment.”

He admits to having lost several friends through making the work. “It has been difficult.” Does he feel brave? No, he says. For him, this is just the latest step in his company’s mission to use the techniques of dance in a relevant way: “When I was doing ballet class I remember looking out of the window and thinking, ‘How can I get that world or what I read about in the papers into the studio?’ That was often not the concern of other choreographers. What does an arabesque mean? Nothing! Most of the time it’s as simple as showing off – that’s not to say that some dance pieces don’t create a huge visceral response, but often for me they can be very generalised and not very articulate.”

Even when we meet, he’s still researching the topic, preparing for a platform discussion at the National. What the future holds for him, he can’t say – his interest in speech, anathema to dance purists, means he may reach a point, he says, “Where I will go, ‘No more movement, it’s time to direct plays’.” For the moemnt, he’s just looking forward to the day when he can wake in the morning once again and think, “What can I read now that has nothing to do with Islam?”

Correction: I did call it

Cornell's picture


I did call it lying, my mistake. I shouldn't have called it that, because "lying," epistemologically is more specific than "dishonesty." Ethically, however, there is no difference. And this is an ethical, not epitemological discussion.

I was not commenting on your

Cornell's picture

I was not commenting on your statement, I was commenting on the post. Your defensive posture is wholly unnecessary.

And, in fact, I didn't say it was "lying." I was saying that it was "dishonest." Lying is a subset of dishonesty; i.e., if you are lying, then you are dishonest, but being dishonest does not necessarilly entail lying.

That having been said, I will posit that if you say something which is literally true with the intent to deceive, then that is ethically equivalent to lying. However, I am actually willing to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt, here. Non-Muslims lie all the time, if they feel it is justified. Muslims probably feel that they need this little rule in order to lie when they feel that they have to.

I'm just saying, if you shouldn't lie, then saying something which is literally true with the intent to deceive is not justifiable, because it is ethically equivalent to lying. If lying is justifiable, then you shouldn't have to appeal to a loophole to do so.

That's my whole point.

Well, if that's the case,

Cornell's picture

Well, if that's the case, then I'm not being unfair to Muslims. I am strongly disagreeing with an ethical doctrine which some Muslims, apparently, hold to.

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir, but let me further explain my position.

If you intend to deceive someone with what you say, then you are engaging in an act of deception -- regardless of whether or not a certain interpretation of what you are saying is literally true. And if you have a valid ethical reason to want to deceive someone, then you should not have to appeal to some religious loophole to do so.


Richard Goode's picture

I think, Richard, is implying an unfairness towards Muslims. I think that's what he's saying, but I'm not sure.

Very good! Where most others here would proceed on the basis of an incorrect and unstated assumption, you do not.

I'm not implying that you're unfair to Muslims. (Tawriya is by no means exclusive to Islam.)

My point is that someone who speaks the literal truth qua literal truth should not be accused of lying.

"That" refers to the Islamic

Cornell's picture

"That" refers to the Islamic doctrine which is the subject of this post.


Richard Goode's picture

In your sentence

That is, of course, highly dishonest.

what does 'that' refer to?

(See how I listen responsibility and seek to resolve your ambiguity.)

I think, Richard, is implying

Richard Wiig's picture

I think, Richard, is implying an unfairness towards Muslims. I think that's what he's saying, but I'm not sure.


Cornell's picture


What's that?

Richard Goode's picture

That is, of course, highly dishonest.

What's that?

(See how I listen responsibility and do not assume that the speaker meant something other than what he said.)

That is, of course, highly

Cornell's picture

That is, of course, highly dishonest. If you say something with the intent to decieve, then that is lying, regardless of whether what you are saying is literally true or not.

If you feel morally compelled to lie, you shouldn't have to appeal to some rule that lets you. Just goes to show how organized religion tends to warp morality.

Insert whatever is the

Richard Wiig's picture

Insert whatever is the appropriate word then. I merely posted this because I thought it was worth taking note of. I know I bang on about Islam a bit, but it is something that, in my opinion, shouldn't be forgotten.

"techniques for maintaining moral integrity"

Richard Goode's picture

There is no such thing as a technique for maintaining moral integrity.

Likewise, in that they are

Richard Wiig's picture

Likewise, in that they are both techniques for maintaining moral integrity while deceiving, perhaps. The only responsibility worth considering is that of the good jihadist, and in doing so it maligns no one.

Sounds like a practice of

Leonid's picture

Sounds like a practice of taking meaning out of context and using the ambiguity of language . For examples one doesn't need to read Muslim authors-one can find such a doublespeak in any newspaper editorial. But observe that tawriya could work in both directions. Suppose I say " Mohammed is a camel-fucker" and before they lynch me I explain " wait a moment, I meant Mohammed, the next door neighbor."

I want you to listen to me

Richard Goode's picture

For example, if someone declares "I don't have a penny in my pocket," most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies. Likewise, say a friend asks you, "Do you know where Mike is?" You do, but prefer not to divulge. So you say "No, I don't know"—but you keep in mind another Mike, whose whereabouts you really do not know.

Likewise? The two examples are entirely dissimilar. Most listeners will assume all manner of things that they are not entitled to assume. It is the speaker's responsibility to say what they mean and to mean what they say. It is the listener's responsibility not to assume that the speaker meant something other than what they said. Someone who speaks the literal truth should not be accused of lying.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.