
Taqqiya: It is okay to lie for Islam
In his eagerness to
conclude a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear
program, U.S. President Barack Obama has knowingly or not, overlooked
what is known to Muslims as “taqiyya.”
According to the Middle East
Forum “The Quran allows Muslims to have a declared agenda, and a secret
agenda (Jihad, slaughter, and mayhem) during time of weakness, this is
called
Taqiyya.”
To put it in simpler words, it is the “art” of deception, or more correctly, of deceiving non-Muslim infidels.
While negotiations with the P5+1 are ongoing, last Monday (February
2, 2015) Iran’s military launched a satellite into space called Safir-e
Fajr. According to the Iranian Arabic-language Al-Alam TV, the Fajr
satellite was successfully placed 450 kilometers above earth. Iran’s
“moderate” President Rouhani proudly noted “Our scientists have entered a
new phase for conquering space. We will continue on this path.”
The
Iranian Defense Minister General Hossein Dehgan added that the
21-meter, 26 ton launcher named Safir–Fajr shows “the ability of Iran to
build satellite launchers.”
This new development should elevate the Obama administration’s
concerns, if not cause full-fledged alarm over the Islamic Republic
development of satellite technology that could have military purposes,
including the continued development of long-range ballistic missiles,
capable of carrying nuclear warheads that could reach American soil.
But in typical taqiyya form, Iran has denied having a military role for its space program and its nuclear program.
The Obama administration, instead, is concerned about the upcoming
address of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the U.S.
Congress and the American people. Netanyahu, the White House fears,
might reveal Iran’s deception, which might compel the administration to
re-think the current P5+1 negotiation with Iran, and perhaps justify the
Mark Kirk (R-IL)-Robert Menendez (D-NJ) bill to impose sanctions on
Iran. President Obama maintains now that he refuses to “set artificial
deadlines” to the negotiations with Iran, but he also conceded in a
press conference that “we are not going to have talks forever.” The
New York Times reported (May 19, 2009) that Obama told Netanyahu during his White House visit,
“We’re
not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for
inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear –and deploying – a
nuclear weapon.”
After two deadlines following the interim agreement have expired, and
a third will expire this summer, President Obama’s words sound rather
hollow. In his threat to veto the Kirk-Menendez bill, he sounds more
like Iran’s defense attorney than being committed to preventing Iran
from obtaining a nuclear bomb. All the while, Iran is proceeding with
spinning centrifuges.
According to the
Times of Israel (January 31, 2015) which quoted Israel
TV Channel 10,
the deal taking shape between Washington and Tehran “would allow Iran
to continue enriching uranium in over 7000 centrifuges. It quoted an
unnamed Jerusalem source saying “The terms of the deal would leave Iran
closer than was thought to nuclear weapons, mere months from producing
enough material for a bomb.” The same article suggested that the U.S.
has agreed to 80% of Iran’s demands.
The existential threat to Israel from a nuclear Iran has prompted PM
Netanyahu to accept Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address U.S.
Congress in early March. Netanyahu feels that he has no choice but to
speak out against the imminent deal with Iran. Sources close to
Netanyahu suggest that Netanyahu’s address will praise Obama’s efforts
rather than criticize him, and it will not be a partisan speech, or
focus too much on the proposed sanctions by the U.S. Congress. It would
simply address the dangers of the deal currently concocted between the
P5+1 and Iran. In his address to the U.S. Congress, Netanyahu should
chronicle Iran’s deception and taqiyya tactics in its efforts to acquire
nuclear weapons.
The Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance has chronicled Iran’s
deception on its nuclear program. In 2002, the dissident group, National
Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI) announced the location of two
nuclear sites in Iran; a nuclear fuel production facility in Natanz, and
heavy water facility in Arak. On September 12, 2003, the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency) Board of Governors Resolution
called on Iran to ensure no further failures to report, and demanded not
to introduce nuclear material into its pilot enrichment cascade in
Natanz.
September 24, 2005, Resolution: GOV/2005/87 finds that Iran’s many
failures and breaches of its obligation to comply with NPT Safeguards
Agreement , as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non-compliance in the
context of Article XII.C of the Agency’s (IAEA) Stature; finds also
that the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear activities has given
rise to…
On January 10, 2006, Iran broke the IAEA seal at Natanz. John Bolton,
U.S. ambassador to the UN reported that the “Iranians reverted to form
by breaking IAEA seal at the Natanz enrichment facility and resuming
‘research work.’” In its September, 2008 report, the IAEA said that the
document describes experimentation in connection with symmetrical
initiation of a hemispherical high explosive charge suitable for an
implosion type nuclear device.
The
New York Times reported (November 16, 2009) that the
“International inspectors who gained access to Iran’s newly revealed
underground nuclear enrichment plant voiced strong suspicions in a
report that Iran was concealing other atomic facilities.” Iran however,
will not allow inspectors access to military sites, nor will it allow
inspectors to interview key nuclear scientists.
On February 19, 2010, the
Washington Post revealed that U.N.
nuclear inspectors, citing evidence of an apparent ongoing effort by
Iran to obtain new technologies, publicly suggested for the first time
that Iran is actively seeking to develop a weapons capability. On August
30, 2012, the IAEA released a report showing a major expansion of
Iranian enrichment activities. The report said that Iran has more than
doubled the number of centrifuges at the underground facility at Fordow,
from 1,064 centrifuges in May to 2,140 centrifuges in August.
The
Chicago Tribune (November 7, 2014) quoted nuclear expert
David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security
as saying “…it will be difficult if not impossible for Western
inspectors to accomplish these goals without knowing exactly how far
Iran’s scientists have advanced in nuclear weapons research.” Albright
added, “If Iran gets a deal without disclosing the past military
dimensions of its program, it would continue to be able to say that
there was never any military nuclear program, and it was justified in
denying inspectors to military sites. That creates a dangerous
precedent: The Iranians could leverage that agreement to bar inspectors
from suspected nuclear sites in Iran, simply calling them military
sites.”
On November 25, 2009, President Obama seemed to have had much less
trust in Iran’s aims regarding its nuclear program. At a news conference
at the conclusion of a G-20 Pittsburgh, PA summit he stated, “Iran’s
action raised doubts about its promise to use nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes only.” This was said in the context of Iran’s
clandestinely building an underground plant (near Qom) to make nuclear
fuel that could be used to build a nuclear bomb. Asked about the use of
military force against Iran, Obama said, “I have always said that we do
not rule out any option when it comes to U.S. security interests.”
The Iranians have now
figured out that the Obama administration’s eagerness to strike a deal
with them overrides most other considerations. Their taqiyya tactics of
deceiving the IAEA and the P5+1, including the U.S. notwithstanding,
Tehran’s arrogant defiance in insisting that it will continue to build
up its nuclear program, as well as its space launchers, makes it clear
that the Obama administration might ultimately accept a nuclear Iran.