Although these assertions have been throughly dismantled by not only the reporter who covered the story, who was quick to point out that the crimes of the "violent settlers' movement", such as Yigal Amir's assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin in 1995, are "almost universally condemned by Jewish leadership," but also by Catholic League president Bill Donohue, it's worth repeating for good measure. As Donohue put it,

[T]here has not been a single abortionist killed in the U.S. since 1998. When there were killings in the mid-1990s, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, chairman of the Pro-Life Activities of the bishops’ conference, said that such shootings make ‘a mockery of everything we stand for.’ When there were two killings at Massachusetts abortion clinics, Cardinal Bernard Law not only denounced them, he ordered a moratorium on sidewalk protest vigils outside abortion clinics in Boston. Cardinal John O’Connor’s response in New York was profound: ‘If anyone has an urge to kill an abortionist, kill me instead.’

Not only has there never been a statement so profound by such a prominent Islamic leader, even watered-down, softer condemnations by Islamic leaders deserve scrutiny.

There are two issues that must be understood by non-Muslims when weighing the sincerity and seriousness of Muslim statements of peaceful co-exitance, pluralism and tolerance. First and foremost is the Islamic doctrine of dissimulation, or taqiyya. Taqiyya has its roots in Shi'ism, yet the basic principle is rooted in the overall Islamic jurisprudence.

Islamic tradition attributes the tone of certain Qur'anic verses to the political standing of Muhammad at the time they were revealed. For instance, in Mecca, he was powerless over the pagans, and thus the verses are pleading and tolerant. Muhammad just wants to be accepted and to save the idolators' souls from an eternity of dreadful punishment for worshipping idols and associating partners with the one true god. Lacking the power to neither defend himself nor subdue the Meccans by force, he could only threaten them with the supposed wrath of the one and only god, Allah; he had no means to threaten them otherwise.

After the hijrah, when Muhammad leaves Mecca to establish his power base in Yathrib (pre-Islamic Medina), he begins to influence and accumulate followers based on his military prowess, part of which was achieved by having a successful surprise attack on a Meccan caravan excused by a revelation from Allah (Q2.217). The tone of the verses switch to violence as a means for self defense (Q2.190).

As Muhammad accumulated victories and the spoils that inevitably followed, he soon realized that this was a far more effective method of gaining power than begging the Mushrikûn to accept that he was the final chain in a line of prophets that extended all the way back to Adam. Thus the verses become hateful and vicious and bloodthirsty; almost without exception, the peaceful verses are revealed while Muhammad was in Mecca, while violent verses were revealed in Medina. Even the no compulsion in religion verse (Q2.256) was revealed just after Muhammad arrived in Medina, and was abrogated several times over, most notably by the entire 9th surah.

Though the word Taqiyya is never specifically used in the Qur'an, its basis is found in verse 3.28, and we see the roots of modern dissimulation in these examples, even though they differ greatly with the original Shi'ite usage, which was to guard Shi'ites from Sunni persecution. If Islam is weak, offer peace until Islam becomes superior, then sever the bonds of friendship or diplomacy and bring the sword without leniency to those who refuse to submit. Never offer friendship to disbelievers (Q5.51), unless it be a facade while in your hearts you curse them.

History has borne this out time and time again. Anytime Islamic powers gained superiority over non-Muslims, they've attacked them, or subdued them with threats of attack where only extortion and submission to Islamic law could save them from the sword. Gestures of peace and reconciliation from Muslims are merely tactics to lull the enemies of Islam to sleep, while the ummah regroups and re-gathers its strength. Such gestures on the behalf of infidels are seen as a sign of weakness. Recall events at the height of the intifada: when Israel took the offensive and started to crush Palestinian jihadists, the Palestinians cried for peace; when Israel pulled back, the jihadists went back on the offensive. And on and on. The withdrawal from Gaza by the IDF was followed by an almost immediate rocket attack by HAMAS.

Unfortunately for the so-called moderate Muslim, to subscribe to Islamic belief is to become the proverbial boy who cried wolf to anyone learned in Islamic jurisprudence and history. Blindly accepting peaceful gestures by Muslims would be like letting a violent killer out of jail without so much as a parole hearing.

The deceptiveness of Islamic dissimulation is aided by the complexities of not only the Arabic language but also the stretching of meanings when taken in an Islamic context. The best example of this is the word jihad, which in pure Arabic derives from the verb jahada, meaning "he strove"; thus the word in simple terms means "struggle". In an Islamic context, the word of course takes on a greatly expanded meaning.

In particular, questions must be asked of Muslims as to their definition of vague terms such as "innocent", "murder" and "terrorism". This may seem nonsensical to those unfamiliar with the double meanings of Islamic terminology, but to those who have understanding the issue is paramount. To illustrate, I refer to a discussion I had with a Muslim in which I asked him if he had any Jewish or Christian friends. The conundrum created by this question was inescapable, as he himself recognized: "If I say 'yes', then I'm a munafiq, right? If I say 'no', then my values are 'incompatible' with the west, right?"

Indeed. Unsurprisingly, the conversation turned into a convoluted web of nonsense about the differences between the English definition of "friend" and the shari'a definition. Further, I inquired whether he had positive opinions on polygamy ("good"), killing apostates ("good" (but not good for the apostate - some killer Muslim humor for you)), and persecuting non-Muslims ("Islam doesn't do that (see here, again)). The kicker was when I asked if he had negative opinions of freedom of speech, to which he answered, "Nope, just some types," and if he had a problem with freedom of religion, to which he responded, after avowing his support for executing apostates, "Nope, everyone has a mind to use, so use it."

This is all text book dissimulation: everything is a contradiction. Is free speech bad? No, only some types. Is freedom of religion bad? No, but executing people who choose to leave Islam is good.

In verse 5.51, the Arabic word translated to mean "friends, helpers, or protectors" is Auliyâ', plural of wali. The literal meaning is "one who is very near", which denotes friendship, but can also mean a legal guardian, or "favorite of God" (Q10.62). Logically, only those who submit to the will of Allah could be called his favorites, and thus this expands the meaning of the verse to mean "friends, equals, or superiors". Wali, he pointed out, did not have the same meaning as sadiq, which, he claimed, also means "friend", but in fact literally means "one who is truthful" (Q9.119). Again, in an Islamic context, it is impossible for a Christian or Jew to be a sadiq, because were they truthful they would accept that the Bible foretells the coming of Muhammad and accept him as their God's prophet and submit to God's religion - Islam.

Ask a Muslim to define innocent, or murder, such as described in the Islamophiles' darling verse, Q5.32, and, again, clarity is scarce. The first part of the verse reads,

Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind.

A cursory glance at this verse leaves one content with its supposed benign message, which is why Islamophiles love it so much; they never bother to examine its meaning or context. No one ever thinks to ask what it means to commit murder in an Islamic context, which by now I hope I've established is not a nonsensical question. Only slightly more pondered is what it means to "spread mischief in the land", or why, as cited in the following verse, should they actually bother to read it, the punishment for such a vague infraction is death, crucifixion, having an arm and a leg cut off on opposite sides, or expulsion from the land.

Murder in an English context is defined as the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought. Obviously the simple act of taking someone else's life does not automatically qualify as murder, since capital punishment represents the lawful killing of a person, and killing in self defense is done without malice aforethought. Killing apostates, for instance, does not fall under the category of murder, since it is mandatory according to the laws of shari'a (Baddala deenahu, faqtuluhu - if anyone changes his religion, kill him).

The Arabic term for "spreading mischief in the land" is Fasad fil-Ardh, whereas "fasad" means mischief or corruption. Ibn Kathir in his tafsir provides the following commentary on the meaning of mischief:

In his Tafsir, As-Suddi said that Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud commented,
(And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peacemakers.")

They are the hypocrites. As for,

("Do not make mischief on the earth"),

that is disbelief and acts of disobedience." Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah said that Allah's statement,

(And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth"),

means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth."

Also, Muzammil H. Siddiqi, the chairman of the Fiqh Counsil of North America, authors of the ridiculous "fatwah" condemning "terrorism", authored a sermon on al-fasad, perhaps unaware that his definition of it destroys the peaceful connotation of Q5.32. He says,

The Qur'anic term for corruption is al-Fasad. It means spoiling the order, disturbing the balance of justice by greed, self-interest, deception and double talk. The Qur'an has used this word about 50 times. Al-Fasad could be in morals, in values, in social system, in family system, in educational system, in economics, in politics or in human relations in general.

Al-Fasad appears when people follow their lusts and vain desires, when they try to twist the truth and distort the facts. Instead of following the Truth and the Guidance from their Lord and Creator, they ignore and turn away from His message.

"His message" is of course Islam, and thus anyone who disbelieves in Islam, follows their lusts and vain desires, or twists the truth and distorts the facts, is guilty of al-fasad and subject to the punishments outlined in Q5.33.

This highlights the essential need to ask for elaboration when Muslims condemn the killing of innocent human beings. Do they subscribe to the belief that those who disobey God are guilty of corruption and can/must be sentenced to death? Nobody thinks to ask such questions, and the jihadist in moderate's clothing is all too aware of this fact. The doctrine of Taqiyya provides religious justification for ambiguity, half-truths and outright lies; non-Muslims' lack of fluence in Arabic or understanding of Islamic terminology supplements their tactics. In light of these facts, can the kafir be blamed if he is reluctant to take Muslim condemnations of Muslim attrocities at face value, should they even bother to do so in the first place?