This is a case of sounding off on something you know not of. Taqiya is NOT just a translation into arabic, but an important concept and injunction of Islam. One doesn't have to use it as a silly justification for preemption, but it is quite provincial to assume that another culture and religion doesn't have its unique features -- this happens to be one of them

our leaders mostly claim to believe in the Bible, including the Rapture...

The idea of the "Rapture" is not in the Christian or Hebrew Bible. Not trying to be a theological overlord, just trying to correct right-wing Christians decades-long success in convincing the secular media that their insane theology is rooted in any kind of ancient tradition.

While the Rapture is not in the Hebrew bible, it is one interpretation of the mess of allegory and imagery in the Book of Revelation. So, depending on how you interpret that acid trip of a chapter, it is "in" the Christian bible.

As for the post itself. I firmly believe that no matter what set of statements the Iranian's issued, the wingnuts would selectively pick and decide which were true and which were lies in order to support their pre-determined conclusion in favor of preemptive bombing. Thus, the analysis of Taqiya is nothing more than an ambiguous psuedo-science used to justify a pre-determined conclusion, is not analytical at all, and the mere existence of it heavily suggests that the conclusions drawn from such analysis are false.

When you must invent a new logic that ALWAYS leads to the conclusion you want, then that logic is probably flawed. The invention of such logic only serves to highlight how wrong the conclusion is for a correctly drawn conclusion would not require the invention of a new logic.

Huh. Isn't Straussian neoconservatism built on the Noble Lie - what you tell the proles ("Saddam has WMD!") so they'll support what you actually want to do (steal foreign oil, establish feudalism domestically)? Strange Perfectly characteristic of them to project their sins on their political bogeymen.

"This is a case of sounding off on something you know not of. Taqiya is NOT just a translation into arabic, but an important concept and injunction of Islam."

Absolute crap. Taqiya isn't part of Sunni Islam, and is fairly limited as to when and who can do it in Shi'ism.

However, bearing Taqiya and the elaborate Iranian equiette/one-upmanship known as ta'arouf makes understanding Iranian pronouncments and behaviour pretty much fucking impossible. Read "the Ayatollah begs to differ" for an insight into this. In this light, Ahmendinejad's bizaare holocaust denial conference was a head-fake to get Germany (and by extension the West) to loudly insist that they had carried out genocide, which in turn (as the holocaust was virtually unknown in Iran) weakened westernizing factions in Iran.

Ta'arouf also means that journalists interviewing "the man on the street" who tell them in private how much they admire America (which then is interpreted by neocons as a sign that Iranians would welcome invasion^H^H^H^H liberation), are talking out of their hats. Ta'arouf *requires* that the Iranians praise the west to a western journalist, whether or not that's what they actually believe.

Near as I can tell, "Taquiya" is just Arabic for "Lying for Jesus" -- a pernicious form of antinomianism that corrupts democracy, perverts the community of nations, and makes it impossible to rely on the truthfulness of certain types of believers.

Another western parallel to Taqiya can be found in the Catholic doctrine of "equivocation."

Reformation-era Jesuits and other Catholics developed elaborate justifications that permitted them to essentially deny their beliefs when questioned by Protestant authorities. The notion of "equivocation" then, naturally enough, became part of Protestant anti-Catholic imagery (Catholics are slippery equivocators; they can't be trusted).

It is at least a little bit interesting that Shi'ite Islam has a doctrinal structure regarding deception of outsiders. But it's hardly unique in that regard.

Leo: also, it's worth noting that concepts like "equivocation" and "taqiya" are only needed by cultures with a pretty strong taboo against lying in general. They answer the question, "is it permissible to lie in order to avoid persecution?" Most of us would just say "yes" without much hesitation. But some people feel it necessary to come up with more clear rules to separate that from the absolutely unacceptable act of lying in other circumstances.

Latinist: Good point.