Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Ibrahim in Stonegate Institute: "Tawriya: New Islamic Doctrine Permits 'Creative Lying'"

Middle East ForumMiddle East Forum

Promoting American Interests

Facebook Twitter RSS Join Mailing List

Follow the Middle East Forum

MEF Home | Research & Writings | Middle East Quarterly | MEF @ Facebook | MEF @ Twitter | Donate

Please take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area.

Tawriya: New Islamic Doctrine Permits 'Creative Lying'

by Raymond Ibrahim
Stonegate Institute
February 28, 2012

Be the first of your friends to like this.

Perhaps you have heard of taqiyya, the Muslim doctrine that allows lying in certain circumstances, primarily when Muslim minorities live under infidel authority. Now meet tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is true to him. (Though tawriya is technically not "new"—as shall be seen, it has been part of Islamic law and tradition for centuries—it is certainly new to most non-Muslims, hence the need for this exposition and the word "new" in the title.)

The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya as, "hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy; equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion." Conjugates of the trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Quran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).

As a doctrine, "double-entendre" best describes tawriya's function. According to past and present Muslim scholars (several documented below), tawriya is when a speaker says something that means one thing to the listener, though the speaker means something else, and his words technically support this alternate meaning.

For example, if someone declares "I don't have a penny in my pocket," most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies. Likewise, say a friend asks you, "Do you know where Mike is?" You do, but prefer not to divulge. So you say "No, I don't know"—but you keep in mind another Mike, whose whereabouts you really do not know.

All these are legitimate according to Sharia law and do not constitute "lying," which is otherwise forbidden in Islam, except in three cases: lying in war, lying to one's spouse, and lying in order to reconcile people. For these, Sharia permits Muslims to lie freely, without the strictures of tawriya, that is, without the need for creativity.

As for all other instances, in the words of Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid (based on scholarly consensus): "Tawriya is permissible under two conditions: 1) that the words used fit the hidden meaning; 2) that it does not lead to an injustice" ("injustice" as defined by Sharia, of course, not Western standards). Otherwise, it is permissible even for a Muslim to swear when lying through tawriya. Munajid, for example, cites a man who swears to Allah that he can only sleep under a roof (saqf); when the man is caught sleeping atop a roof, he exonerates himself by saying "by roof, I meant the open sky." This is legitimate. "After all," Munajid adds, "Quran 21:32 refers to the sky as a roof [saqf]."

Here is a recent example of tawriya in action: Because it is a "great sin" for Muslims to acknowledge Christmas, this sheikh counsels Muslims to tell Christians, "I wish you the best," whereby the latter might "understand it to mean you're wishing them best in terms of their [Christmas] celebration." But—here the wily sheikh giggles as he explains—"by saying I wish you the best, you mean in your heart I wish you become a Muslim."

As with most Muslim practices, tawriya is traced to Islam's prophet. After insisting Muslims "need" tawriya because it "saves them from lying," and thus sinning, Sheikh Uthman al-Khamis adds that Muhammad often used it. Indeed, Muhammad is recorded saying "Allah has commanded me to equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations"; and "I have been sent with obfuscation"; and "whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr" (Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu'assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).

More specifically, in a canonical hadith, Muhammad said: "If any of you ever pass gas or soil yourselves during prayers [breaking wudu], hold your nose and leave" (Sunan Abu Dawud): Holding one's nose and leaving implies smelling something offensive—which is true—though people will think it was someone else who committed the offense.

Following their prophet's example, many leading Muslim figures have used tawriya, such as Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, founder of one of Islam's four schools of law, practiced in Saudi Arabia. Once when he was conducting class, someone came knocking, asking for one of his students. Imam Ahmed answered, "He's not here, what would he be doing here?"—all the time pointing at his hand, as if to say "he's not in my hand." The caller, who could not see Ahmed, assumed the student was simply not there.

Also, Sufyan al-Thawri, another important Muslim thinker, was once brought to Caliph Mahdi who refused to let him leave, until Thawri swore to return. As he was going out, Thawri left his sandals by the door. After a while, he returned, took his sandals and left for good. When the caliph asked about him, he was told that, yes, Thawri had sworn to come back—and, indeed, he had come back: only to take his sandals and leave.

Lest it seem tawriya is limited to a few colorful anecdotes more befitting the Arabian Nights than the religious law (Sharia) of a billion people, here are some more modern Muslim authorities—Sheikh Muhammad Hassan, the famous cleric who says Islam forbids Muslims from smiling to infidels, except when advantageous, and Dr. Abdullah Shakir—justifying it. They both give the example of someone knocking on your door, you do not wish to see them, so a relative answers the door saying, "He's not here," and by "here" they mean the immediate room, which is true, since you will be hiding in another room.

Likewise, on the popular Islam Web, where Muslims submit questions and Islamic authorities respond with a fatwa, a girl poses her moral dilemma: her father has explicitly told her that, whenever the phone rings, she is to answer saying "he's not here." The fatwa solves her problem: she is free to lie, but when she says "he's not here," she must mean he is not in the same room, or not directly in front of her.

Of course, while all the sheikhs give examples that are innocuous and amount to "white" lies, tawriya can clearly be used to commit terrible, "black" lies, especially where the adversarial non-Muslim infidel is concerned. As Sheikh al-Munajid puts it: "Tawriya is permissible if it is necessary or serves a Sharia interest." Consider the countless "Sharia interests" that run directly counter to Western civilization and law, from empowering Islam to subjugating infidels. To realize these, Muslims, through tawriya, are given a blank check to lie—a check that surely comes in handy: not just in trivial occasions, like avoiding unwanted callers, but momentous ones, such as at high-level diplomatic meetings where major treaties are forged.

Note: The purpose of this essay was to document and describe the doctrine of tawriya. Future writings will analyze its full significance—from what it means for a Muslim to believe the Supreme Being advocates such lying, to how tawriya is liable to suppress one's conscience to the point of passing a lie detector test—as well as compare and contrast it with the practices of other religions, and more.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum

Related Topics: Islamic law (Shari'a) | Raymond Ibrahim This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to

The Middle East Forum

Striking Iran and the Myth of Regional War

Striking Iran and the Myth of Regional War

Posted by Bio ↓ on Feb 29th, 2012 Comments ↓

In 2007, Israeli Air Force jets crossed into Syria and destroyed an Iranian-backed nuclear reactor. The operation had the backing of the United States and employed intelligence derived from an Iranian defector. There was no regional war afterward. Not even an exchange of fire at the Israeli-Syrian border.

In 1981, Israel struck deep inside Iraq, destroying Saddam’s Osirak reactor. The attack was universally condemned at the United Nations and even by Israel’s allies. Had Saddam used it as the basis for a war, Israel would have had no international support at all. But again no war followed.

Today, Iran and opponents of any attack on its nuclear program hold up the specter of a regional war that will drag in the United States, devastate the region and drive up oil prices. This is the only card in their deck until the mullahs have their own bomb, and it’s an effective card to play. But is any of that a serious risk?

Let’s start by looking at the current state of the Iranian regime. The regime is wildly unpopular at home. It had to use its Revolutionary Guard corps to violently suppress protests against the regime, it does not trust its own military and without troops loyal to it close to home, the regime would be gone faster than you can say Nicolai Ceausescu. (If you have trouble saying that, substitute the fallen dictator of your choice.)

Iran has repeatedly attacked American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; its terrorists have attacked Israel and Jews around the world, but those attacks amount to terrorism and guerrilla warfare mostly carried out by secondary actors. It’s quite different from committing to a major conflict, which will give the regime a choice between either keeping its loyalist Revolutionary Guard at home and sending unreliable conventional troops off to fight and possibly turn on it, or sending off its trusted troops and leaving its leaders naked to the people’s wrath.

Another option is more terrorist attacks, which are already being carried out anyway. And as their recent attacks showed, Shiite terrorists aren’t all that much better than the Sunni kind. Their latest round of attacks mostly ended with dead terrorists killed by their own bombs. And it is only common sense that a regime this violent and stupid can no more be allowed to have nuclear weapons than Corcoran State Prison should allow Charles Manson to build his own flamethrower.

The only card in the Iranian deck is a naval conflict. The last time it tried one of those, the result was a decisive defeat for Iran, but that was back in the late ’80s. The Persian Gulf is vital to Iran’s assertion of power over the region. It has invested in developing its navy and a strategy that will allow it to take on greater powers.

This scenario is only plausible if we assume that Iran will begin a conflict that it is bound to lose in order to avenge the loss of a nuclear program that it no longer has.

There are two possible attack scenarios. First, Israel carries out a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear program. This is the most likely scenario under the Obama administration, which has made it clear that it wants a conflict with Syria, but will not back any Israeli attack on Iran. Second, in a very unlikely scenario the administration, for some reason, changes its mind and decides to take out Iran’s nuclear program.

In the first and likeliest scenario, Iran would have to begin a war with the United States over an attack carried out by Israel. A war that it’s bound to lose. Like the lunatic with the lug nuts, the folks in Tehran are crazy, but they’re not stupid. If they were going to begin a war with the United States over something Israel did, they had plenty of opportunities with Stuxnet and the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.

Page: 1 2»


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

Fallout Continues over Burned Korans, President's Apology

Israeli Victim of Palestinian Stoning Attack Tells Her Story

VIDEO: Colonel Ralph Peters shares that yesterday was an ABSOLUTE LOW POINT when White House spokesman Carney blamed President Bush for this week’s pr

Eye on Iran: U.S. Says UN Data Show Iran Is Working Toward Building Bomb

For continuing coverage follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.

Top Stories

Bloomberg: "Iran missed an opportunity last week to begin clearing up what can 'only plausibly' be called a nuclear-bomb program, said Laura Kennedy, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament. International Atomic Energy Agency information 'can only plausibly be described as building blocks for a nuclear-weapons program,' Kennedy said today in remarks directed toward Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi. 'Just last week, Iran missed an opportunity to cooperate with the IAEA during the visit to Iran of the IAEA deputy director general for safeguards.' Both she and Salehi attended a meeting at the Conference on Disarmament today in Geneva. Countries are trying to negotiate a new accord to restrict production of atomic-weapon material."

NYT: "American officials who have assessed the likely Iranian responses to any attack by Israel on its nuclear program believe that Iran would retaliate by launching missiles on Israel and terrorist-style attacks on United States civilian and military personnel overseas. While a missile retaliation against Israel would be virtually certain, according to these assessments, Iran would also be likely to try to calibrate its response against American targets so as not to give the United States a rationale for taking military action that could permanently cripple Tehran's nuclear program. 'The Iranians have been pretty good masters of escalation control,' said Gen. James E. Cartwright, now retired, who as the top officer at Strategic Command and as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff participated in war games involving both deterrence and retaliation on potential adversaries like Iran. The Iranian targets, General Cartwright and other American analysts believe, would include petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, and American troops in Afghanistan, where Iran has been accused of shipping explosives to local insurgent forces."

FT: "The Obama administration will face its first test of resolve over new sanctions on Iran from Wednesday when it has to decide whether to place penalties on banks involved in Iranian imports that do not include oil. Lawmakers involved in drawing up the new sanctions law, which passed the Senate by a highly unusual 100-0 vote, say that the administration's response will demonstrate how serious it is about stepping up the pressure on Iran and could play a role in whether Israel decides to launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Under the sanctions bill that was passed at the end of last year, the administration must decide by the end of June whether to impose sanctions on banks that do business with the Iranian central bank to process oil imports. However the law also calls on the administration to impose sanctions on those private banks conducting 'significant' non-oil business with the Iranian central bank by the end of February."

Fiat Banner

Nuclear Program

"The U.S. and its European allies share fears that Iran might be seeking the capacity to make atomic arms as it forges ahead with its nuclear program. But they differ on whether it is actively working on such weapons, reflecting the difficulties of penetrating Tehran's wall of secrecy. Comments by U.S. intelligence officials indicate that Washington still thinks the Islamic Republic stopped such secret work nine years ago. But Britain, France and Germany disagree, even though their officials are keen to show that they and the United States speak with one voice on the concerns that Iran may want to produce nuclear arms. Such divergence could mean trouble for the West's strategy to keep Iran nuclear weapons-free."

Reuters: "Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Tuesday that talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany over Tehran's disputed nuclear programme may resume in April. 'Latest in April, I guess there will be a meeting in about a month's time. If they prefer to hold it in Turkey we will always host it,' Davutoglu said in an interview with the state-run TRT Haber television, adding he would speak to his Iranian counterpart next week."

AP: "Iran opened a key space facility to visiting journalists for the first time Wednesday in an apparent effort to show its willingness to allow glimpses at sensitive technology even as Tehran and U.N. inspectors trade accusations about access to nuclear sites and experts. The press tour of the Alborz Space Center, about 40 miles (70 kilometers) west of Tehran, also sought to showcase Iran's advances in aerospace sciences less than a month after it announced another satellite was launched into orbit. Iran's ambitious space program has raised concerns in the West because of possible military applications. The same rocket technology used to send satellites into orbit - including the Feb. 3 launch of the domestically made Navid, or Gospel - can also be retooled to create intercontinental warheads."

AP: "For one 55-year-old professor, what started out as an overseas trip to the doctor has become part of the shadowy U.S. struggle with Iran. The arrest in Los Angeles in December of Seyed Mojtaba Atarodi, a U.S.-educated electrical engineer who teaches at a leading Iranian university, comes as the U.S. uses export controls to try to restrict Iran's acquisition of U.S. technology, including for its military and nuclear programs. But the Atarodi case bears another hallmark of the long-running U.S.-Iran conflict: It's cloaked in secrecy. U.S. officials won't discuss the case or confirm that Atarodi has been charged. He has appeared in federal district court in San Francisco at least twice, but both proceedings were closed."


WSJ: "European Union sanctions are impeding the shipment of oil to Asia from Iran, in a threat to Tehran's hopes to find new buyers for its top export. Some Asian shippers say they have stopped sailing to Iran, and Japan's largest tanker-fleet owner said it is assessing whether it will do the same, because of difficulty maintaining insurance coverage by associations that are subject to EU laws. Bengt Hermelin, chief executive of Singapore-based tanker company Samco Shipholding Pte., said Tuesday that the impact of sanctions on insuring ships 'will prevent owners, including Samco, from calling Iran.' ... The International Group of P&I Clubs, which pools resources for tanker insurance clubs for 90% of global oil tonnage and is dominant in Asia, is based in London and subject to EU laws. Tighter U.S. banking sanctions also have the potential to affect insurance programs, because they are carried out in U.S. dollars."

Reuters: "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday pledged to aggressively implement new U.S. sanctions on Iran but noted that some allies such as Japan face 'unique situations' as they seek to reduce Iranian oil imports. President Barack Obama on December 31 signed into law the harshest in a series of U.S. sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear program, targeting foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank or other blacklisted Iranian financial entities. The new U.S. sanctions have set off a scramble among countries with significant Iranian oil imports to voluntarily reduce such purchases so they would be exempted from the penalties."

Bloomberg: "Iran will accept payments from trading partners in gold in addition to dollars and other currencies, central bank Governor Mahmoud Bahmani said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. Any nation can pay in its own currency, and Iran has already accepted goods as payment from China and India, the central bank said, according to IRNA. Iran will accept gold from any country, Bahmani said, according to the news agency. The European Union and U.S. have imposed sanctions to protest Iran's nuclear program, restricting trade and financial transactions."

WSJ: "The U.S. Treasury Department disrupted a Dubai-based banking operation that Washington believes had become Tehran's primary conduit for evading international sanctions and processing its oil sales, according to people briefed on the operation. The effort was particularly sensitive because the targeted institution in the United Arab Emirates is partly owned by the local government of Dubai, a close U.S. ally. The chairman of the bank, called the Noor Islamic Bank, is the son of Dubai's ruler. In mid-December, Noor agreed to close off what the people briefed on the operation characterized as Iran's single-largest channel for repatriating foreign-currency oil receipts-facilitating as much as 60% of Iran's foreign oil sales by late last year, they estimated."

AFP: "Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Tuesday he was optimistic that talks with the international community over its controversial atomic activities would go ahead. 'We expect the dialogue that has started will continue,' Salehi told reporters after giving a speech to the UN Conference on Disarmament in which he repeated Iran's stance that it considers nuclear weapons a 'great sin'. His comments came after the International Atomic Energy Agency said last week it had 'major differences' with Iran after two fruitless visits probing suspected nuclear weapons work. The IAEA trip had been seen as having an impact on the possible resumption of talks between Iran and the so-called P5+1 powers -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany -- which broke down 13 months ago."

Domestic Politics

WSJ: "Iran's government is goading citizens to vote and warning them not to protest the results of parliamentary elections on Friday, as the turnout emerges as a test of the regime's legitimacy. Many ordinary Iranians and now-outlawed reformist political parties say they will boycott the vote to protest the status quo. Risking reprisals, student activists from eight major universities issued a statement on Tuesday saying the election is a 'staged circus' by the regime. The opposition Green Movement said that it, too, would avoid the polls because it says the process isn't democratic."

Opinion & Analysis

Martin Indyk in IHT: "As the Obama administration ramps up the sanctions pressure on Iran to accept meaningful curbs on its nuclear program, it is following a strategy of coercive diplomacy that has a fundamental design flaw. Consequently, President Obama is in danger of achieving the opposite of his intention: Iran may well decide that rather than negotiate a compromise, its best choice is actually to cross the nuclear weapons threshold, with fateful consequences for all. Obama's premise is that only by bringing the Iranian regime to its knees, through sanctions on its central bank and concerted efforts to reduce its oil exports, will it give up on its nuclear-weapons aspirations. The fact that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has now himself labeled the sanctions 'crippling,' and that Iran's nuclear negotiators announced last week that they were ready to come back to the table, have been taken as evidence that the president's strategy is working. That judgment is at best premature, at worst wishful thinking. Iran has not slowed its production of enriched uranium. On the contrary, the regime announced earlier this month it was building an additional enrichment plant with more efficient centrifuges. Nor has it cooperated with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, who wrongly assumed that the announcement of a decision to come back to the table would result in a greater Iranian willingness to address their concerns. Defenders of the current strategy will explain Iran's continued defiance as a necessary prelude to concessions. More likely, what we are seeing are the reflexive reactions of a regime that believes its back is to the wall. The worst thing the Iranian supreme leader could do in such circumstances is show weakness, especially if he fears that his internal opposition could exploit it to challenge his regime from within. And if he looks around his neighborhood he can see evidence that submitting his nuclear program to international controls could invite military intervention to topple him. That's what happened to both Saddam Hussein and Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. On the other hand, the North Korean leadership's defiant determination to develop nuclear weapons seems to have protected it from intervention. If the supreme leader has indeed reached the conclusion that defiance is the best way to ensure the survival of his regime, then we have entered a vicious circle... The only way out of the vicious circle is for Khamenei to understand that Obama is not seeking his overthrow - that behind the negotiating door lies a path to Iran's peaceful use of nuclear power and not a corridor to the gallows. But how, while pursuing sanctions designed to cut Iran's economic jugular, can Obama credibly signal this to Khamenei without opening himself up to the charge of weakness?"

Victor Davis Hanson in NRO: "In the past 40 years, the United States has intervened to go after autocrats in Afghanistan, Grenada, Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Somalia, and Serbia. We have attacked by air, by land, and by a combination of both. In the post-Vietnam, post-Cold War era, are there any rules to guide us about any action envisioned against Syria or Iran - patterns known equally to our enemies? 1. The target cannot have nuclear weapons. Strongmen in Pakistan and North Korea by virtue of their nukes are exempt from American reaction (unlike Syria or, at present, Iran) - unless they directly threaten our existence or that of our allies. With the end of the Cold War, many rogue states lost the Soviet nuclear umbrella and are still scrambling to acquire their own nuclear weapons to ensure them deterrence, especially against the United States, which has not yet invaded a nuclear nation. 2. We do not attack large countries. About 30 million or so - roughly the population of Iraq or Afghanistan - is the upper limit. That criterion suggests that we will not ourselves seek regime change in Iran (population: 65 million) through force - a different case from punitive bombing or preemptive air attacks on its nuclear facilities... Based on these rules, we can make two general observations about Syria and Iran. In Syria, the U.S., on proper humanitarian grounds, could easily intervene through air power alone - without either congressional or U.N. sanction - to so weaken the non-nuclear Assad regime that, as happened in Serbia and Libya, it would surely and quickly implode. That said, we probably will not, given that such action would offend China and Russia, would not ensure quiet or stability in the aftermath, be soon criticized by those pundits who originally urged us to go in, and in six months be either unappreciated or overtly criticized by nations that had initially demanded that we do something to stop the slaughter. As far as Iran goes, based on past precedents, there is zero chance that the United States would ever intervene to change the government, either on the ground or by an extended bombing campaign - and only a slight chance we will preempt by bombing suspected Iranian nuclear facilities."

Eye on Iran is a periodic news summary from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Eye on Iran is not intended as a comprehensive media clips summary but rather a selection of media elements with discreet analysis in a PDA friendly format. For more information please email

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons. UANI is an issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of nuclear weapons.

2-29-12: GITMO detainees get new $750,000 soccer field (Plus: Mosques of NJ – a Case of Short Memory Syndrome)

Should NYPD wait until the terrorists bent on attacking New York City cross over the George Washington Bridge before they start to investigate or gather intelligence?

Mosques of New Jersey - a Case of Short Memory Syndrome

by Patrick Dunleavy

Click below to comment on this issue.


2012 Fund Raising Campaign publishes over 50 Contributing Editors whose expertise and experience on various topics is both valuable and costly. FSM also publishes a wealth of information you can use to join the fight to keep our families and our nation safe and sovereign. To help us carry these and other operating expenses, we ask that you be as generous as you possibly can during our 2012 Fund Raising Campaign. We need your tax-deductible support now more than ever! Just go here and fill out the form. You'll be able to charge a tax-deductible donation on your credit card or to send us a check - and please remember, every little bit helps!

Read Contributing Editor J. Christian Adams' SHOCKING new book! Buy it here



 1. VIDEO: Guantanamo detainees get new $750,000 soccer field, compliments of the U.S. Taxpayers!
2. VIDEO: Colonel Ralph Peters shares that yesterday was an ABSOLUTE LOW POINT when White House spokesman Carney blamed President Bush for this week's problems with the Koran burnings
3. VIDEO: Does AG Eric Holder lose his cool during House hearing when asked about Fast and Furious?
4. VIDEO: Secretary Sebelius: Obamacare Not the Cause of Drop in Employer-Based Health Care
5. SHOCKING VIDEO: Israeli Victim of Palestinian Stoning Attack Tells Her Story
6. VIDEO: What ABC, CBS and NBC Ignored: States File Suit Against Obama's HHS Mandate
7. VIDEO: Georgetown co-ed: Please pay for us to have sex ... We're going broke buying birth control
8. VIDEO: ‘It Is Not, Per Se, a Tax': Does Secretary Sebelius Contradict the Administration's Legal Defense of Obamacare?
9. Is President Obama in a Secret Nuclear Deal with Iran?
10. VIDEO: Defense Secretary Panetta: U.S. Debt Will ‘Hurt This Country's Security'

The Insanity of Raising Taxes before Spending Is Cut

Frank Hill

Should you willingly send more money to 535 elected officials in Washington who have zero capacity to: read, write, add, subtract, balance or compromise? Or would that be the pure definition of insanity?

More on Religion in the Presidential Primaries and Elections of 2012

Norman Simms

When politicians seeking public office make their own faith a factor, then the nature of the religion they believe in and the kind of behavior it entails become matters of inquiry, discussion and challenge.

The Idiot Cousin Theory of Government

Daniel Greenfield

If the left seizes control, their system will collapse because no one will understand why everyone has to listen to inspirational stories about Caesar Chavez. The bad news is that by then it will be too late to rebuild the country into a workable place to live.

The Russians and American Progressives: Together Again

Cliff Kincaid

What American in his right mind would respect the party whose big shots appear on The Russia Today (RT), a Moscow-funded propaganda channel?

Today's Hot Topics

We choose, you peruse.

Lower Than Pond Scum

Alan Caruba

Is spending $14 million on the production of pond scum as a fuel the same con game as selling "carbon credits" to avoid the hoax of "global warming"?

How Is Citizenship Determined Around the World?

Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman

Civil libertarians may not like how, around the globe, the determination of citizenship is evolving, but the conditions of the world today require it, lest all of our liberties be lost.

"I've Got Another Five Years Coming Up"

Immigration News Update

President Obama spoke with confidence about his future at the White House saying, "I've got another five years coming up," when asked why he hasn't passed immigration reform in the three and a half years he's been in office.

Click here to sign up for FSM's e-mail updates!