taqiyya, kitman, al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh, deception, Abrogator and the Abrogated, Quran, Sura, Islam,

October 16, 2010

Of course, individual Muslims may genuinely regard their religion as “peaceful” — but only insofar as they are ignorant of its true teachings, or in the sense of the Egyptian theorist Sayyid Qutb, who posited in his Islam and Universal Peace that true peace would prevail in the world just as soon as Islam had conquered it.
A telling point is that, while Muslims who present their religion as peaceful abound throughout dar al-harb, they are nearly non-existent in dar al-Islam.  A Muslim apostate once suggested to me a litmus test for Westerners who believe that Islam is a religion of “peace” and “tolerance”: try making that point on a street corner in Ramallah, or Riyadh, or Islamabad, or anywhere in the Muslim world.  He assured me you wouldn’t live five minutes.
{A} problem concerning law and order {with respect to Muslims in dar al-harb} arises from an ancient Islamic legal principle — that of taqiyya, a word the root meaning of which is “to remain faithful” but which in effect means “dissimulation.”  It has full Qur’anic authority (3:28 and 16:106) and allows the Muslim to conform outwardly to the requirements of unislamic or non-Islamic government, while inwardly “remaining faithful” to whatever he conceives to be proper Islam, while waiting for the tide to turn.(Hiskett, Some to Mecca Turn to Pray, 101.)
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269; Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”
Historically, examples of taqiyya include permission to renounce Islam itself in order to save one’s neck or ingratiate oneself with an enemy.
It is not hard to see that the implications of taqiyya are insidious in the extreme: they essentially render negotiated settlement — and, indeed, all veracious communication between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb — impossible.  It should not, however, be surprising that a party to a war should seek to mislead the other about its means and intentions.
Jihad Watch‘s own Hugh Fitzgerald sums up taqiyya and kitman, a related form of deception.
Muslim deception can be viewed
as a slightly less than noble means
to the glorious end of
Islamic hegemony under Shari’a,
which is seen as good for
both Muslims and non-Muslims.
In this sense, lying in the service
of altruism is permissible.
In a recent example,
Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri
publicly recounted a story
where a Muslim lied and misled a Jew
into converting to Islam,
calling it a “beautiful trick.”

“Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam, but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers.

A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.”  An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse — “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” {2:256}
But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been canceled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses.
In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims.

“Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest.  One example may suffice.  When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.”
When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.”
In times when the greater strength of dar al-harb necessitates that the jihad take an indirect approach, the natural attitude of a Muslim to the infidel world must be one of deception and omission.
Revealing frankly the ultimate goal of dar al-Islam to conquer and plunder dar al-harb when the latter holds the military trump cards would be strategic idiocy.
Fortunately for the jihadists, most infidels do not understand how one is to read the Quran, nor do they trouble themselves to find out what Muhammad actually did and taught, which makes it easy to give the impression through selective quotations and omissions that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Any infidel who wants to believe such fiction will happily persist in his mistake having been cited a handful of Meccan verses and told that Muhammad was a man of great piety and charity.  Digging only slightly deeper is sufficient to dispel the falsehood.

Read an extensive article by Islam Watch entitled, Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah.

Return to the Table of Contents of Islam 101

See a Glossary Of Islamic Terms for definitions.Islam 101 was written by Gregory M. Davis, author of Religion of Peace?: Islam’s War Against the World, and the producer/director of Islam: What the West Needs to Know.

Would any legal system in the world believe?:


Sura 2:106: “None of our revelations (verses) do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar. Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things?”


…would in anyway cancel out any of this?

“Bukhari (52:177) – 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.” Bukhari (52:256)


Deception. Disinformation. Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tak-e-ya) http://xrl.us/taqiyya : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one’s convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions… Taqiyya and kitman or ‘holy hypocrisy‘ has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: ‘he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.’ The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational. During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the ‘holy water’. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the ‘mujahadeen ‘ to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: ‘the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy’. According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty. Like many Islamic concepts taqiyya and kitman were formed within the context of the Arab-Islamic matrix of tribalism, expansionary warfare and conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split ‘the enemy’. A favored tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death.”

Jews and Israel must face the facts that the Koran and the Sunna (the actions and words of Mohammed) are filled with invectives against the Jews. At first the words were complimentary, but when the Jews of Medina rejected Mohammed as a prophet they were all enslaved, exiled, murdered and robbed — all acts of jihad. These were not historical acts, but perfect examples of Islamic action towards Jews — models prescribed for Muslims to follow up to the present time. To illustrate the severity of this predicament, statistically speaking, in the Koran of Medina 10.6% of the text is devoted to Jew hatred, whereas, only 6.8% of Mein Kampf is devoted to Jew hatred.

Does the Qu’ran contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text (as are nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Qur’an.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. This proclivity toward violence – and Muhammad’s own martial legacy – has left a trail of blood and tears across world history. –thereligionofpeace.com

The Qur’an

Qur’an (2:191-193)“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of “persecution” (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until “religion is for Allah.” The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.
Qur’an (2:244)“Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”
Qur’an (2:216)“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.
Qur’an (3:56)“As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Qur’an (3:151)“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Qur’an (4:74)“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.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
Qur’an (4:76)“Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Qur’an (4:89)“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Qur’an (4:95)“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” This passage not only criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, but it also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Qur’an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).
Qur’an (4:104)“And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Pursuing an injured and retreating enemy is not an act of self-defense.
Qur’an (5:33)“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Qur’an (8:12)“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Qur’an (8:15)“O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”
Qur’an (8:39)“And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah” From the historical context we know that the “persecution” spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah.”
Qur’an (8:57)“If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”
Qur’an (8:59-60)“And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”
Qur’an (9:5)“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.
Qur’an (9:14)“Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace…”
Qur’an (9:20)“Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The “striving” spoken of here is Jihad.
Qur’an (9:29)“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Qur’an (9:30)“And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Qur’an (9:38-39)“O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Qur’an (9:41)“Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Qur’an (9:73)“O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today’s devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Qur’an (9:88)“But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”
Qur’an (9:111)“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.”
Qur’an (9:123)“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”
Qur’an (21:44)“We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”
Qur’an (25:52)“Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur’an).” “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Qur’an (47:4)“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,”
Qur’an (47:35)“Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”
Qur’an (48:17)“There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?
Qur’an (48:29)“Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.
Qur’an (61:4)“Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way” Religion of Peace, indeed!
Qur’an (61:10-12)“O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity.” This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Qur’an (66:9)“O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.


From the Hadith

Bukhari (52:177)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.”
Bukhari (52:256)The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.
Bukhari (52:220)Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’
Abu Dawud (14:2526)The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527)The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149)“Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”
Muslim (20:4645)“…He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!”
Muslim (20:4696)“the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'”
Muslim (19:4321-4323) – Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: “They are of them (meaning the enemy).”
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.” Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.
Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us” The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 – Lest anyone think that cutting off someone’s head while screaming ‘Allah Akbar!’ is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.
Ibn Ishaq: 992 – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” Muhammad’s instructions to his men prior to a military raid.


SOURCE:
thereligionofpeace.com

just needed to repost this so it is accessible. you never know when you will need this general info on the Quran and Hadith.
other texts of interest on Islam

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/25320
^”Taqiyya”, and “Kitman”, lying to further Islam for Allah?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes
^Koran defined Jihad?

http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/
Jihad.
^History of Islam, and the Jihad of 270 million (or more) innocent people (kafir).

http://www.iheu.org/node/1539
^Islamic slave trade; still going strong after 1,300 years.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/003-wife-beating.htm
^Koran approved wife beating.

-There is nothing religious about a 56 year old man marrying a 6 year old, and forcing himself on the same girl when she turns 9. This is the work of a sick man with no chance of redemption. – This is the most sickening thing of all Mohamed’s deeds.
http://www.islam-watch.org/Amarkhan/pedophilia-in-islam/pedophilia-islam.htm
There is pedophilia in the Quran, Hadith, Islamic Fatwas…

-I don’t see anything universally acceptable about this.

http://www.politicalislam.com/principles/pages/five-principles/
Political Islam.

… “Istishhad” suicide bombings???

15 hours ago

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/10397/sec_id/10397
^Why the Koran says some things are both legal, and illegal at the same time. Kafir, non-Muslims have different status. Not to mention the whole pigs/apes = Jews thing.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/wafa-sultan-speaks.html
^Women’s rights, a perspective from a former Muslim woman, Wafa Sultan.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/photo/2009/11/terrorism-thats-personal.html
This, as far as I know, is not allowed by any Islamic text, or Sharia law. But when women have so few rights it is a slippery slope, and without many witnesses to backup the woman’s story there is little capability of justice. – these photographs are NOT for people with a light stomach.


“Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day…. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! (Sura 9:5,29,41).

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes

” Sura 9:5, (called “the verse of the sword”) supercedes most of the previous verses regarding jihad. Some believe it supercedes as many as 111 previous verses. In spite of this general agreement, many today quote the previous replaced verses in order to validate their perception of Islam being a peaceful religion. Thus modern, liberal Muslim leaders, especially here in the west, are teaching what could be called “the Islam of Mecca” with its emphasis on non violence and tolerance. At the same time, “the Islam of Medina,” with its more aggressive, totalitarian nature is what is being practiced and taught by orthodox, fundamentalist Muslims in most parts of the Muslim world. “

“Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)”

“3:85 “Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers” “Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day…. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! (Sura 9:5,29,41).”

“Mohammed said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196).”


Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.-Crime and Criminals quote by Thomas Mann

Always error on the side of protecting yourself from Islam.


“al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh – When speaking with people of Christianized/Western societies, Muslim activists deliberately hide a major Islamic doctrine called “al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh” (the Abrogator and the Abrogated). This simply means that in situations wherein verses contradict one another, the early verses are overridden by the latter verses. The chronological timing in which a verse was written determines its authority to establish policies within Islam. Non-Muslims cannot afford to be ignorant about the full implications of the Abrogator and the Abrogated Doctrine (al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh). When Islamic spokesmen say that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Quran does not support such things as human rights infractions, gender bias and terrorism, they are lying. This means that the Western politicians and liberal journalists, who continually spout that Islam is a noble religion of peace, are in reality propagating a deception that they have been deceived into parroting.” “THE LAW OF ABROGATION: [According to the Quran itself (Sura 2:106, 13:39 and 16:103) God sometimes substitutes a “better” verse or passage for one previously given, thus superceding the first one.” Sura 2:106: “None of our revelations (verses) do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar. Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things?”; Sura 13:39: “God doth blot out or confirm what he pleaseth. With Him is the Mother of the Book.”; Sura 16:101: “When we substitute one revelation for another, – and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), – they say, ‘Thou are but a forger’ but most of them understand not.” Although all Muslim scholars believe that God replaced some earlier verses by substituting later verses, there is a great difference of opinion among them as to which verses supercede which verses. Nevertheless, most are agreed that Sura 9:5, (called “the verse of the sword”) supercedes most of the previous verses regarding jihad. Some believe it supercedes as many as 111 previous verses. In spite of this general agreement, many today quote the previous replaced verses in order to validate their perception of Islam being a peaceful religion. Thus modern, liberal Muslim leaders, especially here in the west, are teaching what could be called “the Islam of Mecca” with its emphasis on non violence and tolerance. At the same time, “the Islam of Medina,” with its more aggressive, totalitarian nature is what is being practiced and taught by orthodox, fundamentalist Muslims in most parts of the Muslim world.] http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml “In an attempt to polish Islam’s image, Muslim activists usually quote verses from the Quran that were written in the early days of the Islamic movement while Mohammed lived in Mecca. Those passages make Islam appear loving and harmless because they call for love, peace and patience. Such is a deception. The activists fail to tell gullible people that such verses, though still in the Quran, were nullified, abrogated, rendered void by later passages that incite killing, decapitations, maiming, terrorism and religious intolerance. The latter verses were penned while Mohammed’s headquarters was based in Medina. When speaking with people of Christianized/Western societies, Muslim activists deliberately hide a major Islamic doctrine called “al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh” (the Abrogator and the Abrogated). This simply means that in situations wherein verses contradict one another, the early verses are overridden by the latter verses. The chronological timing in which a verse was written determines its authority to establish policies within Islam. Non-Muslims cannot afford to be ignorant about the full implications of the Abrogator and the Abrogated Doctrine (al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh). When Islamic spokesmen say that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Quran does not support such things as human rights infractions, gender bias and terrorism, they are lying. This means that the Western politicians and liberal journalists, who continually spout that Islam is a noble religion of peace, are in reality propagating a deception that they have been deceived into parroting. This presents problems for naïve people who are not familiar with Islam and the Quran. They don’t know that the surahs/chapters of the Quran are not arranged in chorological order in regard to the timing in which they were written. Therefore an activist who is out to deceive them can turn to various places throughout the Quran and read verses that sound peaceful, tolerant, reasonable and loving. The impression is that the entire Quran promotes peace, love, equality and tolerance for all. That is far from the truth. Most Muslims fully understand that the few Quranic verses that seemingly promote equality, peace and justice are more often than not overridden/ nullified by later verses that validate such things as terrorism and legalistic restrictions on routine human and women’s rights. THE DOCTRINE OF THE ABROGATOR AND THE ABROGATED IN THE QURAN (Al Nasikh Wal Mansoukh) This doctrine is based on two verses that Allah allegedly instructed Mohammed to put into the Quran. “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” Surah 2: 106 “When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.” Surah 16:101 The documentation for the information that I am offering in this piece is found in one of Islam’s classical reference books in the Arabic language. It is titled “al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh” (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) and was authored by the revered Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr. The book goes through every Surah (chapter) in the Quran and cites in great detail every verse that was cancelled-out/overridden by particular verses that were written later. The author noted that out of 114 Surahs (chapters) of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that were not affected by this concept. The implications are very revealing. It means that those who would be inclined to accept the Quran as reliable can take only 43 chapters of the Quran at face value. The majority of its chapters cannot be taken at face value. The cancelled verses are mixed in with the authoritative verses and only schooled Islamist know which is which. The following are English translation excerpts from the reference book’s original Arabic THREE KINDS OF ABROGATION: 1) Verses in which both the wording and application were abrogated/nullified. There is an example of this found in a narration by Ans Ibn Abdel Malik. He said that during the life of Mohammed, they used to read a Surah that was equal in size to that of Surah 9 (the repentance). He further stated that he only remembered one verse from that Surah/chapter. – “If the son of Adam has two valleys of gold he would covet to have a third one, if he has three he would covet to have a fourth one. Nothing would fill the belly of the son of Adam except dirt, and Allah would accept the repentance of those who repent.” Another example is the narration of Ibn Abdullah Ibn Massoud. He said that Mohammed recited a verse for him that he memorized and wrote in his Quran. When he checked his Quran the following day, he discovered that the verse had disappeared. Mohammed explained what had happened to ibn Massoud. He told him that the verse had been lifted during the previous day. 2) Verses in which the wording was abrogated (nullified) but the application was not. These are verses wherein the wording was nullified, but the inferences/possible applications of those words remained intact. There is an example of this form in a narration about Omar Ibn Al Khattab. He said, “If I didn’t hate that people would say we added to the Quran which was not part of it, I would have insisted in including the verse of stoning. By God we have recited it by the Apostle of God.” 3) Verses in which the application was abrogated (nullified), but the wording was not. These are verses wherein the wording remained the same, but the authority to consider such in the formation of Islamic polices were nullified There are sixty-three Surahs/chapters in the Quran that mention such things as praying in the direction of Jerusalem, regulations about fasting and the forgiveness that is available to polytheists FOUR DEGREES OF ABROGATION 1. Surahs that were not influenced by applications of the doctrine of the Abrogator and the Abrogated. (43 Surahs) Surahs 1, 12, 36, 49, 55, 57, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107,109, 108, 110, 112, 113, and 114 2. Surahs that maintained the authority of the Abrogator, but their original wording was not abrogated/nullified.(6 Surahs) Surahs 48, 59, 63, 64, 65, and 87 3. Surahs that had their wording abrogated/nullified, but maintained their authority for applications. (40 Surahs) Surahs 6, 7 10, 11, 13, 15 16 17, 18, 20, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 54, 60, 68, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 86, 80, 88, and 109 4. Surahs that have had both their authority for applications and their wording abrogated. (24 Surahs) Surahs 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 40, 42, 51, 52, 56, 58, 73, 103, and 108 THE VERSE OF THE SWORD The verse that Abrogated (nullified) the Peace Verses. An example of the abrogation: There are 124 versus that call for tolerance and patience that have been cancelled and replaced by one, single verse. This verse is called the verse of the sword: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)…..” Surah 9:5 Verses that support the verse of the Sword 1) “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of believers” (Surah 9:14). 2) “O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque” (Surah 9:28). 3) “The Jews call ‘Uzayr a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” (Surah 9:30). 4) “O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell – an evil refuge indeed” (Surah 9:73). 5) “O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Surah 9:123). Some of the verses abrogated by the verse of the Sword: 1) “Those who believe (in the Qua’an), and the Christians and the Sabians – any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (Surah 2:62). 2) “Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become manifest unto them: but forgive and overlook, till Allah accomplish his purpose” (Surah 2:109). 3) “But because of their breach of their Covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the Message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them – barring a few – ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind” (Surah 5:13). 4) “Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But proclaim (to them) this (truth): that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts: it will find for itself no protector or intercessor except Allah: if it offered every ransom, (or reparation), none will be accepted: such is (the end of) those who deliver themselves to ruin by their own acts: they will have for drink (only) boiling water, and for punishment, one most grievous: for they persisted in rejecting Allah” (Surah 6:70). 5) “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah” (Surah 8:61) 6) “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury); but say, ‘We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; our God and your God is One; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)” (Surah 29:46). 7) “And remember We took a covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): worship none but Allah” (Surah 2:83). 8) “Say: Will ye dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that we are sincere (in our faith) in Him?” (Surah 2:139) 9) “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors” (Surah 2:190) 10) “But fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there” (Surah 2:191) 11) “But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful” (Surah 2:192). 12) “But there is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256). 13) “So if they dispute with thee, say: ‘I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me,’ And say to the People of the Book and so to those who are unlearned: ‘do ye (also) submit yourself? If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message” (Surah 3:20). 14) “Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourself from them” (Surah 3:28). 15) “Those men – Allah knows what is in their hearts; so keep clear of them, but admonish them, and speak to them a word to reach their souls” (Surah 4:63) . 16) “He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: but if any turn away, we have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds)” (Surah 4:80). 17) “But Allah records their nightly (plots): so keep clear of them, and put thy trust in Allah” (Surah 4:81). 18) “Then fight in Allah’s cause – thou art held responsible only for thyself” (Surah 4:84). 19) “Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore, if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of ) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them)” (Surah 4:90). 20) “O ye who believe! Violate not the sanctity of the Symbols of Allah, nor of the Sacred Month” (Surah 5:2). Other verses that were abrogated by the verse of the sword: Surah 5: 99 Surah 6: 66; 104; 106- 108; 112; 135; 158 Surah 7:183; 199 Surah 10: 41, 46, 99, 108, 109 Surah 11: 121 Surah 13: 40 Surah 15: 3, 85, 88, 94 Surah 16: 82, 125, 127 Surah 17: 54 Surah 19: 84 Surah 20: 130, 135 Surah 22: 68 Surah 23: 54, 96 Surah 24: 54 Surah 28: 55 Surah 30: 60 Surah 32: 30 Surah 33:48 Surah 34: 25 Surah 39: 15 Surah 41: 34 Surah 42: 6, 15, 48 Surah 43: 83, 89 Surah 44: 59 Surah 45: 14 Surah 46: 35 Surah 50: 39 Surah 52: 48 Surah 53: 29 Surah 58: 8-9, 11 Surah 73: 10 Surah 76: 8 Surah 86: 17 Surah 88: 22- 24 Surah 109: 6 One cannot help but wonder; why was there a need for changes in the Quran, if it really contained God’s words? If Allah is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing, why would he need to revise and correct himself so often?”

Rape by deception case was really Deception by Media case [updated with Volkh Conspiracy Analysis]

October 7, 2010

 Here is what a twittering Blonde Republican with a picture of Sean Hannity wrote on her blog….

[update]…and she is trying to obscure the fact that this story was originally from her site. [check tweet]

here is her post: mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com

Lying for sex means jail time in Isreal
A Palestinian man is facing an 18 month jail sentence for ‘rape by deception’ for lying to a woman about being Jewish, single, and looking for a long term relationship. The woman claims that otherwise she wouldn’t have had sex with him- in an office building stairwell 30 minutes after they met! Really? [source]
Clearly this upstanding woman was taken advantage of… isn’t she lucky that the law in Israel protects her from these vicious lies? Ug.
Imagine if a similar law existed in the US… It would definitely change the dating scene across the country.
this is the worst and lowest story the AP has ever been accused of distorting. If this isn’t a wakeup call for women’s groups to start protecting Jews… I don’t know what is. I am not a feminist… and this is one of the reasons why. Where was the interest in this woman’s dignity? The attempt to turn this story into an equality issue is pathetic. Jews need their own Republic not only to protect themselves from the Holocaust, but to protect themselves from a system that orchestrates prejudice in the name of equality.

In July, this story became pretty big – here’s the AP version, but it was all over the media:

Lying for sex. It happens all the time.
Yet a married Palestinian man has been ordered jailed for 18 months for having sex with an Israeli woman after giving her the impression he too was Jewish, as well as single and interested in a relationship.
His conviction of “rape by deception” has drawn charges of racism and questions about whether courts should be delving into this fraught topic.
Saber Qashor, a 30-year-old father of two, says he was approached by the woman in September 2008 on a downtown Jerusalem street where he had parked his motorcycle, and introduced himself as “Dudu,” a common Israeli Jewish nickname.
Within half an hour they were having sex in a Jerusalem office building stairwell.
After nearly two months, he was arrested and told the woman had accused him of forcible rape. Last week, he was sentenced to prison and fined 10,000 shekels ($2,500) for “rape by deception,” an offense that may be unique to the Israeli legal code.
“This is a case where it is obviously not rape but fraud, and it smells of racism,” said historian and commentator Tom Segev. “It’s a real ugly example of how basic values in this country are deteriorating.

All of these articles were written based solely on the Arab man’s interview. The victim did not speak to the press. The conclusion was often simple: that Israelis are inherently racist and would never convict an alleged Jewish rapist under such circumstances. For example, Andrew Sullivan (via The Volokh Conspiracy)

But it’s the visceral emotional core of this that is so offensive. It’s about racism, religion and the risk of miscegenation. It’s about the deep disgust of some Israeli Jews toward Arabs, upheld by the courts. It’s a variant of the racial sexual panics of the Jim Crow South. 

Other examples here.
Now, Ha’aretz (in Hebrew only) found the victim, and her story is completely different.
Elizabeth at MidEast Youth translates and summarizes the belated Ha’aretz investigation; here is her summary:

Last week, Haaretz daily published a long expose on the matter (my full translation below), revealing what was behind the plea agreement. The report shows, that the victim, B., was raped by her father since she was six-years-old, and was later forced into prostitution by him. At the time of the rape, B. was staying in a women’s shelter after another sexual assault by her father. According to B.’s testimony, first revealed in the Haaretz report, after Kashur claimed that he was a Jewish bachelor, he enticed her to come into a stairwell in a Jerusalem building, where he brutally raped her. B. was left bleeding, beaten up and half naked by Kashur.
Following the rape, B. was hospitalized in a mental institution, where she was investigated by the police. The Prosecutor’s office decided to charge Kashur with rape and sexual assault based on B.’s testimony and other evidence. When B. later appeared in Court to give her testimony, which was confused and contradictory at times, she was confronted by the Defense attorney with her past occupation as a prostitute and her father’s abuse and rape from an early age. The court appearance left B. severely traumatized. When the Defense learned that B. previously filed 14 complaints against her father and other men for sexual assault, it asked to cross-examine B. once again about the past complaints, while focusing on a number of them that didn’t result in an indictment and convictions due to contradictions in her story. The Defense planned to use B.’s past complaints to shatter her credibility. Wanting to avoid another traumatizing event, the Prosecution formulated a plea bargain with the Defense that reduced the charges to “rape by deception”. Essentially, using the threat of once again subjecting a vulnerable rape victim to a traumatizing interrogation, the Defense was able to reach a plea agreement with greatly reduced charges, which didn’t correspond with the facts of the incident.
The Israeli media has failed to thoroughly investigate this matter, resulting in widespread victimization of a rapist and mockery of the “gullible” woman. B. was victimized and abused by her surrounding from an early age, and unfortunately, the Israeli and foreign media, pundits and the blogosphere, victimized her once again.

Not only was the victim’s pain minimized, but the entire case was looked upon in opinion pieces and blog posts as yet another example of Israeli racism against Arabs, when in fact it was nothing of the sort.
Will we see retractions? Not very likely.

the prosecution were stupid. Rape by Deception is still Rape. Right? Regardless this is the ugliest story of media abuse on Jews that I have ever heard. The deception however was not that he was a Muslim. The deception was that he led her into a place where she was vulnerable and forced her to have sex.  Where were our good friends in the GOP with pictures on twitter with Sean Hannity? Too busy harassing Debbie Schlussel I suppose
noahdavidsimon’s posterous

here is the Volkh Analysis.  I have not finished digesting his opinion myself: 

In late July, I blogged about the Kashur case, in which a defendant was sentenced for “rape by fraud”: According to the stipulated facts in court — the decision was based on a guilty plea — Kashur had sex with a woman with her consent, but she consented because he told her he was a Jewish bachelor; in reality, he was a married Palestinian. (For more on the claimed non-stipulated facts, see David Bernstein’s later post.)
I wasn’t quite satisfied, though, with just reading press accounts, so I asked the UCLA Law Library to have the case translated for me; and then I learned that the case seemed to rest on a past precedent (which didn’t involve a lie about ethnicity), so I asked the library to have that case translated for me as well. That’s now basically done, so I thought I’d pass along an edited version of the two cases — the earlier precedent (Saliman, translated by Elinor Eizdi) and Kashur itself, translated by Ariel Strauss; thanks also to Justin Hellman and Jack Gindi for helping me review the edited translations.
Note that under American law, sex for which consent is procured by a lie is generally a crime only (1) when the fraud relates to the nature of the act (i.e., the defendant claimed he was a doctor who was going to medically examine the woman’s genitals, or perhaps even administer a medical cure by having sex with her), or (2) in some states, when the defendant impersonated the woman’s husband. There was a proposal last year in Massachusetts that would have generally criminalized rape by fraud, and I blogged about it here; but to my knowledge it didn’t go anywhere. And while a few American rape statutes might already criminalize sex procured through false statements (or provide as to crimes generally that “assent does not constitute consent if … [i]t is induced by force, duress, or deception”), I know of no cases applying those statutes in the typical lying-to-get-sex case. State v. Tizard, 897 S.W.2d 732 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. 1994) holds that Tennessee law rejects the distinction between “fraud in the inducement” and “fraud in the fact,” which is what has prevented rape prosecutions in cases such as the Israeli one; the facts of Tizard, though, are rather different — the defendant was lying about the supposed medical reason of the sexual act (there, the defendant’s masturbation of the victim, though the analysis would be the same for intercourse) rather than about the defendant’s identity.
Here then are my edits of the translations of the Israeli cases:
Saliman v. State, Israel Supreme Court (2008)
[Defendant approached several women claiming to be a Housing Department official who could help them get an apartment if they had sex with him; and he did indeed have sex with some of them. He was convicted of several counts of forcible rape, but one of the charges was that one of the women, R.G., consented but only because of his lies. The court upheld the rape by fraud conviction, reasoning thus: –ed.]

[T]he Appellant approached R.G. while she was at the market in Natanya. The Appellant told her that she looked familiar, that he was the chairman of a highest committee in the Housing Department, and identified himself as Yaron. The Appellant asked her whether she owned a house or whether she rented. R.G. responded that she had been renting for 15 years and taking care of six children.
The Appellant claimed that she is entitled to an apartment and offered to see an apartment with her. R.G. drove with the Appellant to Ramat Poleg where the Appellant pointed at a cottage and told her that this is her house, but since he does not have the keys to the cottage, he offered her coffee in a friend’s apartment. The Appellant took R.G. to his room and as they entered, locked the door and told her that the house he just showed her will be hers within three months.
At a certain point, the Appellant started caressing R.G.’s neck and back, and when she inquired as to his actions, he told her that he wanted her to be with him, that it would be good for her and that he would help her with the house. R.G. took his hand off, wished to leave and asked him to open the door. At that point, the Appellant told her that she would receive the promised cottage and because of that, R.G. agreed to have sexual relations with him[, which they did]….
Section 345 of the Criminal Law [now reads] …

“(a) One who has intercourse with a woman

(1) without her freely given consent through the use of force, physical injury, other pressure triggers, or a threat to use one of the above against her or someone else

(2) with her consent that was given through the use of fraud as to the nature of the actor or the essence of the act

(3) when the woman is a minor, less than 14 years of age, even though she has consented

(4) when the woman is unconscious, or is unable to consent [or]

(5) when the woman is mentally or emotionally ill, if she had not given her consent but for her illness.

Is thus a rapist, and the sentence is 16 years in prison.…” …

Section 414 of the Criminal Law states that fraud is “a claim of a past, present or future fact that is communicated by writing, speaking, or behavior and which the person who is claiming this knows that it to be false or does not believe it to be true.” …
Fraud as to the Essence of the Act
In cases where the conviction was based on fraud as to the essence of the act, a sexual act was performed under the pretense of a professional treatment. There are many examples. In In re Tayeb, the Appellant, a physical therapist, treated a young Australian woman and under the pretense of treatment performed an indecent act. This Court convicted the Appellant of rape pursuant to section 345(a)(4) and sodomy …, in addition to his conviction of an indecent act to which consent was fraudulently obtained. In re Avivi dealt with a painter who invited women to pose for him, in return for payment and under the pretense that touching them was an integral part of his artistic work, performed sexual acts against them. The Appellant was convicted of rape by fraud as to the essence of the act and indecent act…. In State of Israel v. Dr. Bogdan Dekel, a gynecologist raped and performed indecent acts against several patients during gynecological examinations. In Pelah v. State of Israel a clinical psychologist was convicted among other things of indecent acts and sodomy by fraud after performing sexual acts against several patients under the pretence that those acts were part of the treatment.
Finally, the subject in Peloni v. State of Israel was a sheikh who was believed to have healing powers, which also extended to sexual problems. The Complainant, a young Bedouin woman came to him with her husband to ask for his advice. Among some of the “medical instruments” he used were holding her breasts, putting his hand on her genitals, raping and sodomizing her and inserting his genitals into her mouth. The Appellant was convicted of rape pursuant to section 345(a)(2), attempted rape, indecent act and sexual attack.
Fraud as to the Nature of the Actor
The District Court’s verdict focused on rape as to the nature of the actor…. [D]efining the offense … is not simple …, and there is a danger of a slippery slope: Will it be considered rape every time a man lies to a woman concerning a detail which she considers of essence and because of it she decides to have intercourse with him? For example, a woman who does not wish to date any man older than 35 years old is approached on a dating site by a man who identifies himself as 32 years old. After she has intercourse with him, she incidentally finds out that he is 40 years old; is that rape? After all, this is an important detail in her eyes.
And what about a man who lies about his education to a woman for whom academics is at the top of the list and who wishes to date an academic or one with a specific profession (doctor, engineer), and if the woman knew that the man does not meet this criterion she would not even have considered having sexual relations with him? We can think of numerous examples, but reality exceeds all imagination, especially in our world where many acquaintances start virtually, which is a fruitful ground for submitting incorrect information …. At the end of the day we are faced with the question, where do we draw the line? When does a “white lie” part of “legitimate courting” become “fraud” denying one of freely giving their consent?
Courts have not dealt much with rape by fraud as to the essence of the actor, and there are not many which have convicted defendants of this offense…. In State of Israel v. Mehadakar the defendant contacted young women, through the internet, presenting himself as a 17–22 year old man (while in reality he was 30 years old) and had intercourse with them. Based on his own admission, the defendant was convicted of rape pursuant to section 345(a)(2) in one of the cases and of fraudulently receiving a benefit in the others as part of a plea bargain.
Reviewing the ruling, it seems that there are cases, which could have been included within the category of “rape by fraud,” yet the complaint and the conviction were of fraudulently receiving a benefit. In Denino v. State of Israel, a married man presented himself to the Complainant as divorced and added that he was waiting to receive certain documents from France so that he could remarry. During one of their meetings, the man first forcibly had intercourse with the Complainant and with her consent the second time. The Supreme Court judges were divided as to whether they should convict the Appellant of fraudulently receiving a benefit, pursuant to section 2 of the Criminal Law. One of the Judges felt that intercourse should not be considered a benefit in this context, yet, Judge Ben Porat and Judge Shamgar thought that the conviction was justified and denied the appeal. Judge Shamgar stated:
“… [A] woman deserves [to have the power] to decide whether she wants to have a relationship with a married man, a father, or whether she does not want to get impregnated by such a man; and the man does not have the power to determine whether to hide the facts from her that could influence her decision ….”
In Elishabi v. State of Israel, the subject was a married Bedouin man and a father to two children who presented himself to a 16 year old girl as a Jewish bachelor. The two started seeing each other and the Appellant promised to marry her at the end of the school year. The two had intercourse and the girl got pregnant. As part of his act of impersonation, he attended the Seder [a Passover ritual dinner –ed.] at her house and even read from the Hagada [the Passover religious text –ed.], as well as came to pay his respects when the girl’s grandfather passed away. The Appellant was convicted of fraudulently receiving a benefit and impersonation.
Finally, in Ben Avraham v. State of Israel, a man systematically presented himself to women using different identities — a doctor, a pilot, a wealthy man — while characterizing various houses and vehicles as belonging to his family and him. The Appellant was convicted of fraudulently receiving a benefit after it concluded that the women had intercourse with him because of his deception. The Court noted: “… [P]art of courtship [is that] people tend to exaggerate in order to impress the other, and the judicial system should not enforce norms as to what should be the moral way to act or ‘courtship rules.’ Yet, where the lies take a different form, and become depravity aimed at ‘hunting women’ whether they be innocent or not, and the line demarking what’s allowed and what’s not has been crossed, what’s moral becomes the law and the enforcing systems need to intervene.” …
The ruling did not discuss this much, and the cases we have reviewed do not sufficiently provide us with clear guidelines as to when we have a case involving rape by fraud …. Thus, we are faced with the question: in what cases has sex by fraud taken place? What kind of lies and concealed facts are enough to transform “legitimate courtship” into a criminal offense? What does a man have to reveal when he is developing a relationship that will lead to intercourse? Does he have to present the complete picture?
Such a discussion took place in State of Israel v. Hen Alkobi, where a young woman initiated romantic relationships with several women, identifying herself as a man. The girl was convicted, based on her own admission, of impersonation. It was noted that: “when an individual has an intimated relationship with another without revealing to him/her the genetic/physical makeup, it shall be considered deceit as to the nature of the actor … when a romantic/erotic relationship is developed between two individuals, the sexual, biological identity of each is an essential element of their relationship. Under these circumstances, concealing one’s sexual identity is considered unfair, misleading as to a relevant fact, which is at the basis of their relationship and deceptive as to the essence of the act and the nature of the actor. If the Court will not intervene, it will be leaving the victims exposed and vulnerable to deception as opposed to not disturbing romance.”
Dr. D. Pogez discussed these issues in [an article] and suggested that the specific fraud related offenses be eliminated as well as the offense relating to intercourse pursuant to a promise of marriage but instead giving full power to the consent component as one given freely and consciously. According to her approach:
“True protection of sexual freedom can only take place on a individual basis, even though justice will be individualized and change depending on the case, exactly as fraud would have a different effect on each person. Thus, we should not limit this to a certain set of situations where fraud would invalidate consent, but rather have a general principle, flexible, where fraud which led to the consent would [cause the consent to be treated as invalid] — even though there are situation where we may assume that consent would be frequently invalidated, such as fraudulently representing that one is single while he is married[.] Protecting a woman’s freedom requires recognizing that there are certain facts that, if [the woman is mistaken as to them], would negate her ability to choose.” …
In [another] article, A. Gross accepts this approach, yet doubts whether [it] should grant protection where the victim discriminates or is a racist; in these situations, protection of women comes at the cost of hurting the defendants….
[But one could respond to Pogez’s approach by arguing] that the implication is that every time a woman has intercourse with a man, and one detail about him is inaccurate, her consent would be invalidated; furthermore, would we want every sexual interaction between the sexes to be with the support of the criminal code?
And what would happen to romance? Some will argue that the beginning of relationships between men and women are commonly full of a scheme of “white lies,” exaggerated descriptions of reality, part of an attempt to be liked and part of the “courtship landscape.” Do we want this gray area between a man and a woman to be at the control of the criminal code? …
The Court In re Alkobi stated: “Indeed, there is not always a clear line between false presentation and intentionally misleading the partner, that reaches a level of a criminal offense, and one that does not. For example, the Israeli legislators chose to ban misrepresentation by enacting section 346(b), criminally sanctioning an individual who had intercourse with a woman pursuant to a false promise of marriage while pretending to be single when he is in fact married. On the other hand, not every time one does not disclose information, tells a ‘white lie,’ exaggerates, or misstates a detail while courting will consent be invalidated to the extent that the individual will be charged with rape and impersonation, and the courts as well as legislators should be careful criminalizing sexual behavior. The partner’s consent is dependent on cultural and social standards. As time passed and acceptable sexual behavior and morals change, these issues might change as well.” …
It is difficult to make every interaction between two individuals that contains a “moral fault” be resolved in the context of criminal law. The Criminal Code is not a tool to be used to enforce moral norms, even if there is great overlap between moral and criminal wrongs, and sometimes the appropriate way to resolve an issue should be through the civil court system.
[Yet t]here should clearly be a line that we would not be willing to let people pass, beyond which protected values would be damaged and, if the court does not intervene, victims would be left unprotected…. This is not exaggerated paternalism but protection of the human dignity, of the woman’s autonomy over her body and sexual freedom, as the fraud is what harms the autonomy, and besides forbidding rape, the criminal prohibition is meant to prevent the fraud. At times arguing that this is exaggerated paternalism can mislead and paradoxically, in the name of free choice, deny it, and hurt victims in need of protection….
As was mentioned, Dr. Pogez suggested a test to the question of what is considered sex by fraud. I personally think that this test is too broad, and can include minor statements, even if they are important from the perspective of the partner, as a basis for a rape conviction. There is also some difficulty with the test that respondent has suggested (whether “under the circumstances, the woman’s ‘consent’ does not fulfill her free will due to the fraud”) – the test is not simple since ‘free will’ may be stretched into a whim. However, we should recognize the legislator’s will that the woman’s intimacy and her free autonomy be best realized, especially when the issue is rape.
It seems to me that the answer to the question of the limits and meaning of rape by fraud, can first be found in the meaning of the word “essence.” We will start with the dictionary [definitions, which are] … that essence is the “aggregation of all determinative qualities of an individual, identity,” and identity is defined as the “aggregation of all qualities special to a specific individual or a group of people[,” or that essence is “]the determination of who is a person or body that did or is doing a certain action, that filled or is filling a certain position, etc., identity or the determination of his identity.” …
[T]he principal thing is the aggregation of the essence of an individual — the total qualities that determine who he is. In general, we should distinguish between cases where a man does not say the truth regarding a certain detail about his identity, such as his age or occupation, and cases where he creates a fictitious character and an elaborate “cover story.” It seems that in cases such as the latter, differences in degree become differences in kind….
A possible test could focus on the idea of whether the individual does not tell the truth as to characteristics that are critical in the eyes of a reasonable woman and were the reason for why the woman had intercourse with him. This test will allow rape convictions in clear cases of such fraud, and along with that, screen out borderline cases where the characteristics that a certain woman saw are those that fraud representing them is not to considered rape. Similarly, [the test will allow punishment in cases where] there was no chance in the eyes of a reasonable man that a woman would agree to have intercourse with such a man under “normal” circumstances had she known his true identity ….
Indeed, … it is a hard task to design a test that would clearly show us what cases have reached a level of rape by fraud, and it is impossible for us to include all the possible cases and variations. Yet, the standard we suggested, identifying the possibility a reasonable woman would have intercourse with this man had he not fabricated this “essence,” would allow us to examine every case and the circumstances surrounding it, and the concrete facts will determine the outcome. We do not to ask ourselves whether all those borderline cases are considered rape by fraud, but when we are faced with an appropriate case — even though we will not rely on “I know it when I see it,” as said by Judge Stewart when asked what obscenity is (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964); see also Station Film v. the Film and Play Critics Association) — we will rule as needed, as such we will do in the case before us.
Furthermore, … I do not believe we should address this as part of a discussion of fraudulently receiving a benefit…. [W]e cannot include cases where at issue is property and wealth along with intercourse at the same time we are discussing a fraudulently receiving a benefit, especially when the legislature has established a special category for intimate offenses meant to protect the freedom of autonomy over a woman’s body, freedom and more than anything her respect as a human being….
Conclusion, Ruling
The case before us clearly falls within the sex by fraud category. The Appellant presented himself as a high official in the Housing Department and as one who could easily help them get an apartment so that they he would have intercourse with him. Many times he succeeded and other times he did not. He used their problems; [victim] R.G. would not have … [had] sexual relations with him but for the chance to fulfill her wish and get her own apartment….
[Agreed to by all three judges.] [The defendant was sentenced to 10 years in prison plus 2 years on probation, but it’s not clear how much of this was premised on the forcible rape convictions and how much on the rape-by-fraud conviction.]

State v. Kashur, Jerusalem District Court (2010)
[Press accounts suggested that the decision here was apparently the result of a plea bargain; M.Z. alleged that Kashur had forcibly raped her, but Kashur and the prosecution agreed to his pleading guilty to rape by fraud. Other press accounts suggested that Kashur never actually told M.Z. that he was Jewish, but just used a Jewish-sounding nickname. Nonetheless, the court’s account suggests that M.Z. ultimately testified that she did consent, but based on defendant’s fraudulent representation that he was a Jewish bachelor who was interested in a serious romantic relationship; and defendant apparently conceded as much in court. Here is the court’s account. –ed.]
The defendant was convicted, based on his confession to the facts in the amended indictment that were consolidated into the plea bargain after hearing the evidence presented by the accuser, of committing the offense of rape and lewd acts under section 345(a)(2) ….
According to the amended indictment, on the date of September 3, 2008 at 1:00pm, in the building on 12 Hillel Street in Jerusalem …, the defendant raped M.Z. [the accuser] … and committed against her lewd acts as detailed below.
The defendant, who is married, fraudulently represented himself to the accuser as a Jewish bachelor who … was interested in a serious romantic relationship. The defendant proposed that the accuser accompany him into the building and, on the basis of the false representation described, she agreed. The defendant ascended in the elevator with the accuser to the top floor of the building. In the elevator, the defendant groped the accuser, rubbed his penis against her body, lifted her shirt and bra and kissed her breasts. All this was done by the defendant with the consent of the accuser, which was achieved through deception by means of the false presentation.
When they arrived at the top floor of the building, the defendant removed the accuser’s pants and underwear and inserted his penis into her vagina until satisfaction. This too he did with consent of the accuser, who was convinced through fraud and deception to rely on the false representation described above. After the defendant had intercourse with the accuser and committed the lewd acts described, he exited the building and left her naked on the top floor of the building….
At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the prosecuting attorney stressed that the central fact that the defendant left the complainant naked on the top floor of the building illustrates the complex interaction between them that gave rise to this crime. However, the defendant emphasized that these actions were not performed by force.
Nevertheless, the defendant interfered with [M.Z.’s] ability to object by means of misrepresenting the facts of his personal situation — that he was single man interested in a serious relationship. Consequently, the defendant exploited the accuser’s desire for a deep emotional connection, for only on account of this did she agree to have intercourse with him. Therefore, the Probation Service report, with regard to mandatory elements, requests that the defendant be incarcerated for a significant period of time as compensation to the accuser….
There is no dispute that the defendant committed the crime of rape against the accuser, to this he confessed, and on the basis of this he was also convicted in court. It is clear to all, that the we are speaking of one of the most serious crimes in the criminal code, which carries a maximum penalty of extended incarceration and even a minimum prison term of 4 years…. However, before us is not a “classic” case of rape — a forceful one. And the complaint that was initially consolidated, which defined actual opposition by the accuser to the actions of the defendant, was amended in the course of proceedings, after hearing her testimony that clarified that [the defendant’s actions] were perpetrated with her consent but that [the consent] was acquired fraudulently in that she relied on his false representation. Specifically: had she not thought that the defendant was a Jewish bachelor who was interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated with him….
[As to sentencing], one must not forget that the crime of rape committed “on account of” false pretenses is what is being judged here…. I do not think that this is a situation in which to question the imposition of incarceration …. And not only for the maximum [suggested] by the defense in this regard — six months…. It is the obligation of the court to protect the public from sophisticated criminals with slick tongues and sweet lips, for with these tools they pillage innocent victims, imposing a price too heavy to bear — the sanctity of [the victims’] body and spirit. At a time when the basis of trust between people is weak, [and] all the more so when dealing with such intimate and sensitive matter, we are choosing fates. The court must stand forcefully and actively on the side of the victims to protect their interests. Otherwise, they will be exploited, manipulated, deceived, for the [mere] price of an acceptable, symbolic penalty.
It is impossible to know or understand fully how the accuser felt after the defendant exited the building and left her behind, naked, on the top floor…. In committing this [crime], the defendant demonstrated basic human insensitivity toward his victim, as though she was solely a means of satisfying his desires for himself, nothing more….
After deliberating on the considerations of the various punishments and weighing the unique attributes of this case, including the period of detention already served by the defendant — whether behind bars, or in the walls of his home (under electronic monitoring), including, as well, in the circumstances of this matter, those specific reasons that justify a lessening of his punishment — I advise my peers to impose on the defendant the following punishments based on the minimum penalties proscribed by law, most of which will be under suspended sentence, the delineation of which is as follows:
A…. [Eighteen] months in prison, less the days of his [prior] incarceration — October 5, 2008 to November 28, 2008.
B. Thirty months suspended sentence ….
C. Compensation to the accuser in the amount of 10,000 [shekels] to be paid in 10 equal monthly payments ….
[Agreed to by all three judges.]

Leave a Comment » | deception, Government Benefits, Media Rape, Rape by Deception | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon