Belgian Muslims Demand Ban on Easter Eggs

[Paparock]

Belgian Muslims Demand Ban on Easter Eggs

Muslims in Belgium are angry (yes, really!) about a ban on the radical Islamic symbol of domination over women, the hijab, for employees of the city of Antwerp.

So they’re demanding that the city also ban Christmas trees and East.

ANTWERP – “If headscarves are banned for employees who work at the desk at city services in order to guarantee neutrality of services, then we demand that no Christmas trees be set up in city buildings and that no Easter eggs be given out.” Antwerp trade union representative Badia Miri said this on Wednesday in the Gazet van Antwerpen.

Miri is one of the seven Muslim women who were forced to remove their headscarves if they wanted to continue working at the desk. Three of the seven staff members of the city of Antwerp who wore headscarves agreed to stop wearing one. Different positions - not involving contact with the public - were found for the others. No one was dismissed. There is still opposition to the dress code however, which came into effect in March. The seven Muslim women are now urging that “neutrality of service provision be actually enforced.”

“The Antwerp city government says that neutrality is endangered if staff wear a cross or headscarf,” says Miri. “But in our experience action has only been taken against the Muslim women. If the city government is really concerned about neutrality, then Christmas trees and Easter eggs should no longer be allowed at work. We are asking that a contact point be set up to report all violations of the dress code.”

Will the Belgium governemet bow before Muslims demands as they have on so many other occasions? After all those Christams Trees and Easter Eggs are so threatening and have caused so many serious injuries to Belgium Muslims and non-Muslims I'm sure the Belgium government will show proper submission to Islamic Muslim will. After all those Christians are always causing so many riots and causing trouble anyway.

[Cougar]

Not that eggs have anything to do with the real Christian Easter, but I would not hold my breath that Belgium will stand firm. Say good buy to Christmas trees.

You probably noticed that we read more and more of this kind of stories from Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia. 10 years ago the muslims never would have been that arrogant. Today they demand that the world observes their laws. This is only the beginning, but it will have a bad end unless we stop them now.

[loganinkosovo]

tIME FOR THE eASTER bUNNY TO GO hADJI hUNTING!

[karapuzo]

I realy don't get this all hijab issue. (in France and else where)
Whats wrong with them wearing the hijab?
I think its just hypocracy, what should we ban next?
Ban the wearing of a cross or a magen david on a necklace?
Ban the wearing of a kipa or a hasidic hat?

Tolerance is not just an empty word. Everyone should be allowed to wear whatever he/she desides to wear.

[Paparock]

Originally Posted by karapuzo

I realy don't get this all hijab issue. (in France and else where)
Whats wrong with them wearing the hijab?
I think its just hypocracy, what should we ban next?
Ban the wearing of a cross or a magen david on a necklace?
Ban the wearing of a kipa or a hasidic hat?

Tolerance is not just an empty word. Everyone should be allowed to wear whatever he/she desides to wear.

"What’s wrong with them wearing the hijab?" By asking the question in this manner you show typical Western thought. Let me try to explain an answer as written by Dr. Tawfik Hamid in his book "The Roots of Jihad". Born in Egypt to a secular Muslim family, Tawfik Hamid joined the extremist Islamic group Jamma'a Islameia, while he was a student in medical school. In his studies he was learning to heal, but in his thoughts, as he says, he "dreamed to die for Allah and to share in terrorist acts." His colleague in these formative days of the terror movement was Dr. Al Zawaheri, then an acquaintance with whom Tawfik used to pray, and now the number two person of Al Qaeda. Dr. Hamid holds degrees in Internal Medicine and Education.

“Many Westerners believe the Islamic scarf is merely a part of the traditional dress of Muslim women and a freedom of expression which should be respected. It might seem illogical to many Westerners, as they are from a culture so different they may have difficulty connecting religious dress to terrorism.”

“I will explain how the Islamic hejab, or head-scarf, is closely linked to terrorism – how it can lead to the creation of non-tolerant individuals, distort the minds of Muslim children, and ultimately produce terrorists.”

“The veil/Islamic scarf for Muslims today represents the sign of superiority over the Western world. Muslims, including myself when I was a strict follower of Islam, feel they are superior to non-Muslims, because the ladies of non-Muslims do not wear the Islamic scarf, or veil. This feeling of superiority stems from the fact that Muslim men can see the hair and parts of the body of Western ladies, while non-Muslims cannot see the hair of Muslim women! Don’t be surprised by this, as this is the typical way of thinking in the Bedouin culture, wherein it is a shame on the entire family if a man from another family would see the face, hair or body of one of their women…This might seem ridiculous to some readers, but unfortunately, it is the sad reality, which you will only be aware of if you are from the culture, since Muslims will most likely not admit it to you.”

“The veil/Islamic scarf for Muslims today is a symbol of Islam and the superiority of Muslims. In their viewpoint, it is the main distinguishing feature between themselves and the ‘inferior’ non-Muslims.”

“The Islamic hejab is essentially a command only for ‘free women’ as Muslims consider them precious, thus they should not show their face or hair to others. According to traditional Islamic teaching, female slaves do not have any religious orders to wear the veil. In fact, many Islamic scholars consider that female slaves should only cover the area from the belly-button to the knee, since they consider female slaves as cheap and think it is acceptable for anyone to see their bodies.”

‘This feeling of the superiority of veiled Islamic women among Muslims instills in them the idea that others are inferior because their women don’t wear the veil. When the feeling of superiority is combined with the Quranic verses and Hadiths which justify killing non-Muslims, we have some of the seeds of terrorism in the Islamic world.”

This was but a small excerpt from but one source of a mountain of evidence if one is willing to research. I also have not addressed the identification or security issues.

The Roots of Jihad- an insider’s view of Islamic Violence, by Dr. Tawfik Hamid, ISBN: 0-9771021-2-2, Copyright 2005

[karapuzo]

You asume that the men force the women into wearing the hijab, which might not be the case, since a women can decide that on her own.
Also the feeling of supremacy is not illegal as far as I know.

IMHO the feeling of being humiliated, discriminated against and forced to do things against your will is much more likely be the cause of terrorist sentiment and acts.

Jewish Haridim might feel themself superior to gentiles and indid the Tora teaches that Jews are the chosen people and as such have preferential treatment from G-D. Haridim women also have to cover their hair by a scarf or a wig, btw.

[Paparock]

Karafuto, I assume nothing. I only quote the words from sources that know because they were part of Islam and Terrorist Organizations, from the Quran and Hadith. If you do not want to hear the truth or search for it yourself then your fate is in your own hands and you have no one to blame but yourself. Your words show either you speak out of a lack of knowledge of Islam or you practice the Islamic practice of "Kithman: Hiding the Truth" or "Taqiya: Foundation for Deception." Study to show yourself worthy. Do you know what these principals within Islam mean? If not look them up and study them.

[hworta]

When they come ot the west they either conform or leave.

[karapuzo]

Paparock,
What you say makes no sence.

Kithman and Taqiya are principles where a Muslim is hiding his faith in order not to be harmed by others.

I am most certainly not a Muslim (I am a secular jew) and so it clearly doesn't apply to me.

Regarding the women who wear the hijab - it also doesn't apply as them wearing the hijab clearly identifies them as Muslim and in no way hiding their faith.

In this particular case there are seven Muslim women working in Antwerp city services. Are you saying that those seven women are terrorists? How do you know what their motives are? Why do you think their motivation is from the same sources you are quoting?

What is the reason punks paint their hair purple? Its obviously to destroy western society as we know it, right?

No I say,
they all have their reasons, some like to be different, some think its cool and some are just not right in the head.

[Amsterdam]

I feel the original lines were taken out of context:

The Antwerp city government says that neutrality is endangered if staff wear a cross or headscarf," says Miri. "But in our experience action has only been taken against the Muslim women

So similar to what happened in France, is that they want all religious signs banned in Belgium, so that it is neutral, now it only seems to apply on the muslim women.

Since this topic changed into a hijaab - terror subject, I have to say that the connection between wearing a headscarf and having radical terror thoughts is marginal. The book you are quoting from contains a generalization, it is a personal experience. In Egypt indeed very few women in the '70 and beyond were wearing headscarf, when they were radicalizing as a group against the secular anti social and corrupt government (Assad), the headscarf and radical islamic (al-qutb facism) ideas became connected for those rebel groups in that time in that country.

One can not apply that to the whole world. Like Karapuzo says, there are many different reasons for women to wear that. Immigrants from Belgium come from poor families who were often religious, and have religious customs. They do not have radical terror thoughts. We are talking normal citizens here who want to be treated equal.
Labelling them this way, stigmatizes a whole group.

Puting things in context is important, because words without context, lose their meaning.

[Paparock]

Most Western thought focuses on the individual right whereas the Islam is not just a religion it is also a political philosophy as in Shria Law. Your first mistakes are to place any Muslim’s motivations as purely self centered as Muslims view themselves as slaves to Allah and to Islam.

The purpose of the “hijab” is separation or a means to show superiority in religious terms from non-Muslims. If one is to study Islam, its teachings clearly state the superiority of all Muslims over all other religious faiths and the “hijab” is on but one of those symbols of superiority.

Muhammad, himself taught that all non-Muslims must yield their way before their Muslim superiors. In order to under Muslims you must study their faith and “Kithman and Taqiya are principles where a Muslim is hiding his faith in order not to be harmed by others” means much more than just what you have stated as you just scratched the surface. I am not trying to say all Muslims are terrorists but what I am try to get you to understand that the foundation of Islam is based on terrorism out of Muhammad’s own mouth and to ascribe Western clothing equality to a Islamic symbol of superiority over all others is foolish and self-destructive. If you were aware of what the Muslims speak between each other about the issue you would be infuriated because they laugh at Western stupidity for letting them flaunt their superiority in front of you because they would never allow such in their religious homelands and they do not.

“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Noble Quran 9:29

Jizya literally means penalty. It is a protection tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic regimes, confirming their legal status. Mawdudi states that "the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty." Paying the Jizya is a symbol of humiliation and submission because Zimmis are not regarded as citizens of the Islamic state although they are, in most cases, natives to the country. So once your nation falls to Islam you must be humiliated and put into submission shown by paying a tax for your Muslim superiors to allow you to live under their control each year. How generous can they be?

Again you fail to understand how Muslim culture has trained their people to think since birth for so many generations. This thought process has been instilled in the religious schools, at home and in the Mosques for their entire lives that Islam and Shria Law are not an option, they are the only choice for all mankind.

The goal of Islam, when their numbers are sufficient is to initiate an Islamic state as they have in many nations. In some nations this has been through “Jihad war” or violent takeover however in others it has been via democratic vote. Once voted into power they institute Shria Law and do away with Democracy but the result is the same as the people become slaves to Allah and Islam. “Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State” http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/N...ims/rights.htm

You fail to understand that while you are not at war with Islam; Islam as a whole is at war with you. While that does not mean each and every Muslim is at war with you. That does mean the leaders of the religion and the Muslim world is. For the goal of is no God by Allah and until you grasp that you and all you hold are in jeopardy no matter where you are. The goal of Islam for the Jews is to kill them all to the last one. Muslims believe Allah transformed Jews into “monkeys and pigs” “cursed them” according to Muhammad. (Quran 5:70) They hardest of them view Jews as nothing more than animals and feel killing them is nothing more than killing a goat or a dog as I have heard from their mouths. Jews must also remember there was before the Nazi Holocaust an Arabian Holocaust in which Muhammad and Muslims either slaughtered or drove out every Jew from the Arabian Peninsula where once there were many large and thriving Jewish communities. Even in the Quran there is recorded where Jews surrendered to Muhammad’s attacks (where Muslims attacked first) only for the men to be slaughtered while the women and children were sold into slavery or turned into the personal sex slaves of their Muslim conquerors.

Muhammad and the Quran and thus Islam of which the “hajib” is a religious symbol of Muslim superiority teach very specifically that it is the Muslims duty to battle the Jews to the end of time.

Muhammad taught that the Muslims would fight the Jews until the Day of Resurrection. By this time, Muslims would have killed all the Jews but one. This one Jew would hide behind a rock, and the rock would say to the Muslims. “There is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.”

Translation of Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say.”O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

You view each incident as an individual isolated event while the Islamic/Muslim community and its leaders in each nation views them as part of an overall strategy or plan over time to change a society from the inside a rule and a law at a time. Do you want to live under Shria Law? Muslims in countries all over the world are demading it.

See: http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=2775 (Smoking Gun)
See: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/islam_test.htm (THE ISLAM TEST: MODERATES VS. TERRORISTS)

[Ultra Requete]

Yeah I got this quote from hadith in my sig; Good posts Paparock I Thought that hijab is only about the ownership of women; Islam is not religion but army where desertion is punishable by death; Hworta puted it best that if they decise to live inside our culture they shoud act according our customs and laws; unfortunetly western leftists has only contempt for our traditions so haw can we expect the respect from (hostile) resident aliens. Funny thing the muslims are not so keen on cultural neutralism when they are ruling mayority and christians (or ather kufirs) are 5-10% sunbjucated minority like in Egypt for ex.

[Paparock]

Muhammad teaches:

The word "War is deceit" appear 3 time(s) in 3 hadith(s) in Bukhari translation.
(1) Narrated Abu Huraira: 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'. (Book #52, Hadith #267)

(2) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit". (Book #52, Hadith #268)

(3) Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "War is deceit." (Book #52, Hadith #269)


Islamic Prophet Muhammad: 'War is deceit'

Muhammad told his followers that "War is deceit," a directive not missed by his contemporary followers who contine to put his words into practice with increasing industriousness (with a lot of help from the mainstream media). Robert Spencer addresses the use of Muhammad's directives by his follower's, in offering his take on some current events related to Islamic deceit (read lies and deceptions).

Walid Phares has written on the Islamists' practice of deceit and deception in his "The Muslim Method Of Conquest", which is known as al-Taqiya. And there's probably no better practitioners of taqiya than Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and CAIR...

Example of “War is deceit” from 2006.

Spencer: War is deceit
My take on some current events from today's FrontPage (news links in the original):

“War is deceit,” said the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, and some of his contemporary followers have been putting his words into practice with increasing industry lately:

* While international opprobrium focuses again on Israel for a supposedly errant rocket attack last Friday that killed eight Palestinians on a Gaza beach, it has become increasingly apparent that the victims were actually killed by Hamas explosives.

Palestinian Media Watch reports that “Palestinian Authority TV has been repeatedly broadcasting a falsified video clip of the events surrounding the deaths of seven family members on the Gaza beach on Friday. In an attempt to blame Israel's navy for the deaths, PA TV took unrelated video of an Israeli missile boat firing at Gaza earlier in the day and edited them into the scenes, creating the impression [of] Israeli responsibility….The video of the Israeli navy was unrelated to the deaths, having been filmed earlier in the day and had already released to the media and to the internet by the Israeli army at 4:00 PM, an hour prior to the deaths….t should be noted that not only is the video falsified, but the beach scene clearly backs the Israeli contention that the deaths were not caused by an Israeli shell. Any Israeli shell would have left a giant crater and spread sand over the entire area, as well as on the victims. There is no crater and the beach scene is not disturbed in a way that indicates an Israeli shell could have landed nearby.”


All this recalls Muhammad Al-Dura, the twelve-year-old Palestinian boy who became an international symbol of alleged Israeli oppression when footage of his being shot by Israeli soldiers circulated around the world in 2000. However, it has become increasingly clear that the event was not what most of the world thought it was, and may have been staged outright by Palestinian propagandists – who do their work very well.

In Canada, some of the jihad terror plot suspects arrested last week have claimed that they are being tortured in jail. David Kolinsky, attorney for one of them, Zakaria Amara, claims: “He is being held in a concrete room, approximately 11 feet by 6 feet. A concrete door. There is no window in the room. There is a small slit that is opened when meals are placed in his room. The light is on 24 hours a day and actually as early as 30 years ago, the federal court trial division of Canada had noted and had accepted expert testimony that this type of treatment is known to cause depression and suicide and has held that this type of treatment is, in fact, cruel and unusual punishment, contrary to the Bill of Rights.”

Even worse, “My client when he was being searched by a guard, was pinned into the ground. He had the guard’s finger drilled into his cheek and the guard flicked him quite hard in the eye. He told me on Friday, his thumbs are still numb from plastic restraints placed on his wrists at the time and he has not received proper medical attention in that respect...My client advised that as he was being searched, he was touched on the ribs and he is ticklish, and he giggled a bit and the guard held him on the ground and drilled his fingers in the cheek and said, ‘is this funny?’”

The farfetched quality of claims that Canadian officials are torturing anyone is compounded by these passages from an Al-Qaeda manual captured a few years ago: “1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge. 2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison….4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge. [These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]...6. During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison.”

Are the Canadian suspects following the Al-Qaeda playbook? It should not be dismissed out of hand as a possibility – certainly they were following Al-Qaeda’s ideology and methodology when they planned their attacks.

* Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali, who a few years ago lived in Phoenix with Hani Hanjour, the jihadist who piloted American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, went to New Zealand – where he was, until late May, taking flight training. He has now been expelled from the country and is back in Saudi Arabia, where he will, of course, find abundant opportunities to continue his jihad adventures.

According to the New Zealand Herald, “the Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali who wandered into the Manawatu Aero Club in March gave no suggestion of fundamentalism. The short, clean-cut Muslim told the club’s chief flying officer, Captain Ravindra Singh, he had obtained his private pilot’s licence in the US and spent several years there before returning to Saudi Arabia to work in his father’s textile business. He wanted to pass the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) exam so he could return home to train for his commercial pilot’s licence. He wore a baseball cap, smart shirts and baggy trousers and favoured burgers over halal food.”

This sort of thing really does fool Westerners who are ignorant of how jihadists interact with Western society: journalist Cathy Young asserts in the June issue of Reason magazine that the French Muslim rioters of last November were “by all indications…driven by resentment about unemployment, discrimination, and the generally marginalized status of ethnic minorities in France. In one news report, an 18-year-old rioter named Ahmed was quoted as saying, ‘You wear these clothes, with this color skin, and you’re automatically a target for police.’ He and his friends were not wearing traditional Muslim garb but polo shirts, sneakers, and T-shirts.” In fact, however, the rioters were shouting “Allahu akbar.” They attacked churches and synagogues. They attacked no mosques. But apparently Young would have us ignore all this because they were wearing polo shirts.

However, secular clothing is actually in accord with instructions in the captured Al-Qaeda manual to appear to be a secular, assimilated Muslim with no interest in religion. Speaking of ID documents, it says: “The photograph of the brother in these documents should be without a beard. It is preferable that the brother’s public photograph [on these documents] be also without a beard. If he already has one [document] showing a photograph with a beard, he should replace it.” And in renting an apartment, “It is preferable to rent these apartments using false names, appropriate cover, and non-Moslem appearance.” And in general: “Have a general appearance that does not indicate Islamic orientation (beard, toothpick, book, [long] shirt, small Koran)....Be careful not to mention the brothers’ common expressions or show their behaviors (special praying appearance, ‘may Allah reward you’, ‘peace be on you’ while arriving and departing, etc.)...Avoid visiting famous Islamic places (mosques, libraries, Islamic fairs, etc.).”

It sounds as if Ali may simply have been following the playbook. Does this mean that every Muslim in secular clothing is a secret jihadist? Of course not. But it does mean that no one should have taken Ali’s baseball cap and baggy trousers as any indication of his assimilation into Western society or acceptance of Western values

The possibility that someone may be lying all too seldom seems to enter into the calculations of government and military officials – at least in their public statements. When Colleen Graffy, the deputy assistant U.S. secretary of state for public diplomacy, opined that the recent prisoner suicides in the Guantanamo detention center were “good P.R. move to draw attention” and “a tactic to further the jihadi cause,” the Bush Administration immediately distanced itself from her remarks. Army General Bantz Craddock, however, noted that the suicides appeared to have been timed to influence the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Hamdan case, in which they will consider whether Gitmo detainees may enter challenges in federal courts. “This may be an attempt to influence the judicial proceedings in that perspective,” said Craddock. And Rear Admiral Harry Harris, Guantanamo’s camp commander, observed that the jihadist detainees “have no regard for human life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us.”

But doesn’t Islam forbid suicide? Suicide as an act of despair, yes. But the Qur’an exhorts Muslims: “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward” (4:74). Thus it is entirely possible that the Guantanamo suicides were not acts of despair brought on by American tortures, but acts of war chosen freely by pious Muslim mujahedin who were selling the life of this world for the other, in order to further the jihad

Would they really resort to a deception that cost them their very lives?

]Given their values and priorities, what would have prevented them from doing so?

Qur'an Contradiction: Should Muslims Accept Peace or Not? http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Contra/peace_or_not.html


Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman)

Question:
Are Muslims permitted to lie?

Summary Answer:
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should be truthful to each other.
[i]There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. One of those circumstances is to gain the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

The Qur'an:
Sura (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Sura (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Sura (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Sura (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"

Sura (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (52:271) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746) - "Lying is permissible when there is a legitimate desired end. And the legitimate desired end may be a personal one."

Additional Notes:

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed. (See Sura (9:3) - ("...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters...")

Another example is when Muhammad tricked the leader of an opposing tribe with whom he was not at war to leave his town on the pretext of meeting with him at Medina. Usayr ibn Zarim traveled with thirty men who were unarmed because of Muhammad's guarantee of safety. They were easily massacred by the prophet's Muslim assassins.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that most Muslims are quite honest.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.