Bodyguard: Arafat Didn’t Mean It When He Condemned Terror Against Civilians

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.


In things that everyone knew, but it’s nice to have on video anyway, comes this interview with an Arafat bodyguard that should put the rest the myth, that no one believed since 2002 anyway, that Arafat had ever abandoned terrorism.

As Palestinian Authority president, Yasser Arafat’s public condemnations of terror attacks against Israeli civilians were lies born of Egyptian pressure, his ex-bodyguard revealed last week

In an interview with BBC Arabic, translated by MEMRI, Muhammad Al-Daya conceded that Arafat “would condemn the bombing in his own special way, saying: ‘I am against the killing of civilians.’ But that wasn’t true.”

If he were against it, he wouldn’t do it.

The denouncements were not issued of Arafat’s own volition, Al-Daya explained, but were rather the result of badgering by the then-Egyptian president.

“This would happen due to pressure, especially by President Hosni Mubarak,” he said. “Mubarak would call Arafat and say to him: ‘Denounce it, or they will screw you.’ Arafat would say to Mubarak: ‘Mr. President, we have martyrs. The [Israelis] have destroyed us. They have massacred us.’ But Mubarak would say to him: ‘Denounce it, or they will screw you.’”

Which is to say that neither Mubarak nor Arafat genuinely opposed terrorism.

These lies were in no way opposed to Islamic law, Al-Daya continued.

“Islam allows you to lie in three cases: In order to reconcile two people,” he said. “If your wife is ugly, you are allowed to tell her she is the most beautiful woman alive. The third case is politics. You are allowed to lie in politics.”

Now you know what negotiations with any Muslim country are worth. Nothing.

  • bigfred41

    Correct me if I’m wrong: there is a Sura where Mohammed wants a rival dead. He tells a subordinate to go visit the rival, flatter him and become friendly, then murder him in private when the rival has let down his guard.

    The subordinate asks if it is okay to lie in such a way. Mohammed says, “of course”. Effective tactic, yes – just like the mafia. But it’s not suitable for the founder of a religion.

    • Softly Bob

      Yes. You’re right and the lying is called taqiyya or kitman, depending on what type of lie.
      Actually, it’s not a Sura but it’s in the Hadiths somewhere

      • bigfred41

        Thanks for the correction, I’d jumbled hadith (story of his adventures) with Sura (chapter of Koran).

        • CaoMoo

          it’s already all jumbled anyway can’t make it any worse. I mean Organised from longest to shortest chapters or vice versa who the hell does that?

    • wileyvet

      From Robert Spencer’s “The Truth About Muhammad” After the Battle of Badr, a Jewish poet, Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf composed verses of an insulting nature about Muslim women. Incensed, Muhammad asks, ” Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” A follower, named Muhammad bin Maslama answered “Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him?” Muhammad (the prophet) answered yes, to wit the volunteer made a request: “Then allow me to say a (false) thing ( i.e. to deceive Ka’b). The Prophet of Islam again took the path of expediency over moral absolutes: “You may say it”. The deed was done after gaining the poet’s trust through deception by falsehood. Mr. Spencer references Ibn Ishaq, the biographer of Muhammad, and the Hadith of al-Bukhari.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    that Arafat had ever abandoned terrorism.

    For the record, Arafat was not a terrorist!

    Terrorism is universal in that it is perpetrated by all societies and cultures, is always and only violent, and usually perpetrated against non-combatants for all kinds of various political causes and reasons. Jihad, on the other hand, is specifically and only holy fighting in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme and involves any and all means of combat that are both violent and non-violent, as it is also a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in the world in one form or another.

    Thus, whether you know it or not, all Muslims in the world are also jihadists in one form or another, either violent jihadists, as in AQ, (luckily only a tiny minority), or non-violent jihadists, as in CAIR and their supporters, (the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world).

    For instance, the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn were all terrorists that perpetrated terrorism for different and various political causes. While Arafat, on the other hand, was a jihad leader in the Islamic totalitarian world’s jihad (holy war) being waged against all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. His primary theater of operations was against the Jewish infidels in Israel, but earlier in his career he did order the murders of American infidels in Khartoum, which included an American Ambassador.

    Nonetheless, Arafat was not a terrorist, as he was a jihadist instead fighting a holy war (jihad), per the dictates of Islam, in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world, and as such he used both violent and non-violent means of jihad at his disposal.

    However, because ignorant writers conflate what is really jihad as being terrorism, which is always and only violent, the public for the most part is completely oblivious to the astronomically far more prevalent forms of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad that is being employed against us every day, and it is these less violent forms of jihad being used against us every day, such as mass Muslim immigration to the infidel world, for instance, that in the long run is far more detrimental for us relative to the violent forms of jihad that is inevitably misconstrued as being terrorism.

    Thus, while the ignorant writers that inform us, the local, state, and federal governments, and the public at large are all transfixed on stopping terrorism and only terrorism, because jihad is stupidly conflated as being terrorism, the many varieties of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the infidel world, for instance, are manifesting every day totally without any opposition whatsoever. Now why isn’t this situation totally insane?

    • Gee

      Arafat was most certainly a terrorist – he killed far more Muslims (and did so on purpose) than he did any other group including Jews.
      No he was not motivated by religion but by power. He attempting to overthrow the Muslim governments of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria as well as Arab Lebanon.
      This was most certainly terrorism visited upon anybody that was not in favor of Arafat’s desires

      • ObamaYoMoma

        You are wrong on this one bud. Arafat was a jihadist leader. He may have duped a lot of infidels who didn’t know any better, but he was nonetheless a Jihadist. He fought primarily in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme.

        Furthermore, no one kills more Muslims than other Muslims. I mean that has been happening since the apostate wars which occurred shortly after the death of Muhammad. Indeed, AQ has killed more than its fair share.

        Moreover, those governments you say Arafat opposed in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, were/are all considered to be apostate governments. Thus, they are all ripe to be overthrown by righteous Muslims as we see is happening today.

        • Gee

          Arafat was even less religious than those governments – no you are quite wrong – hence the reason that Hamas hates Fatah as much as they hate us.
          Arafat’s religion was power and money

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Arafat was even less religious than those governments

            According to clueless infidels with most of them being Leftists. But to anyone paying close attention, Arafat was as devout as it gets.

            hence the reason that Hamas hates Fatah as much as they hate us.

            There hatred of Fatah stems from a difference in strategies. They both want and seek the same long-term result: To make Islam supreme in Israel and to render the Jewish infidels into harsh and degrading dhimmitude, but they disagree vehemently on the strategies. Sort of like the Saudis and AQ.

            Arafat’s religion was power and money

            Either you weren’t paying close enough attention or otherwise you have been unduly influenced by people that didn’t have a clue.

          • Gee

            Actually I have far better clue than you and others. I only spent 3 years of my life in Military Intelligence in the US Army – my speciality Middle East and am fully conversant of the beliefs and actions of Arafat and the rest of Fatah and their subservient terrorist groups.
            Arafat was never religious and used the appearance for his purposes – not the other way around. He used his uncle’s connection to enrich himself just as his uncle did as well

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Actually I have far better clue than you and others. I only spent 3 years of my life in Military Intelligence in the US Army – my speciality Middle East and am fully conversant of the beliefs and actions of Arafat and the rest of Fatah and their subservient terrorist groups.

            That explains it. Our military, like every other branch of our federal government, has been hijacked and co-opted by the Marxist Totalitarian Left, which also explains our wars on behalf of the Islamic totalitarian world beginning with the first Gulf War and extending all the way to the Libyan debacle. Not to mention that the Afghanistan and Iraq fiascos also inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history. Let’s also not over look the fact that Republicans primarily engineered both major strategic blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the Republican Party for the most part has also been hijacked and co-opted by the Marxist Totalitarian Left.

            Arafat was never religious and used the appearance for his purposes – not the other way around. He used his uncle’s connection to enrich himself just as his uncle did as well

            In other words, you just have admitted, like so many others as well, that you were duped. Indeed, jihad is holy war waged in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme, and unlike terrorism, which is always and only violent, jihadists employs any and all means of jihad at their disposal, which includes violence and non-violence by stealth and deception to overcome it’s adversaries, and like the vast overwhelming mass majority of infidels in the world today, you were duped. Indeed, actions when you thoroughly understand Islam and its underpinnings, speaks louder than words. So what else is new?

            Moreover, from some of your statements, you obviously view Islam as being a religion along the same lines as other religions. However, Islam is not a religion, it’s a very totalitarian ideology that masquerades as being a religion in order to dupe its intended victims. Now Muslims obviously believe Islam to be their religion, but Muslims are unqualified to determine what constitutes religion and what does not.

            Moreover, this post was supposed to be about the stupidity of conflating what is jihad as being terrorism. Hence, violent jihad is always conflated as being terrorism by ignorant writers, and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, (the same kind that deceived you), is inevitably for the most part ignored. For instance, mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage to the infidel world is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious strategic purpose of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest, yet it is manifesting throughout the world today totally without opposition, despite the fact that no matter where it is occurring, just like clock work the Muslim immigrants are flat out refusing to assimilate and integrate because to do so would be extremely blasphemous and blasphemy in Islam is a capital offense.

          • http://www.chaverimisrael.org Norbert Haag

            I fully support your statement. great answer to an obvious conspiracy theorist.

            Thanks.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I fully support your statement. great answer to an obvious conspiracy theorist.
            Thanks.

            So jihad which is a holy war in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme, and waging jihad which is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another, either through violence or via non-violence and through and stealth and deception, is according to you, a conspiracy theory? What turnip truck did you just fall off of?

          • Larry Larkin

            Check out Arafat’s relationship to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
            He was a master of taqiyya, simple as that.

      • Drakken

        Ole King Hussein of Jordan showed Arafat the error of his ways, and I really do hope that you Israeli’s take a page out of that playbook one of these days. Next time you have to invade that arab infested area where Arafats tomb is, blow it up will you?

        • Gee

          I sure I get the chance to do that

    • The March Hare

      Jihad may have been what he was doing, but terrorism was the tool he used to accomplish it. Saying it wasn’t terrorism, but was jihad is only using semantics. To what end I don’t know. When it comes to a discussion of this I am anti-semantic.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Hey…it’s not my fault you have been rendered blind through the farce of PC multiculturalism. Nevertheless, terrorism is always and only violent and perpetrated for various causes by all peoples and cultures. While, jihad, on the other hand, is always and only holy fighting in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme, and in stark contrast to terrorism, manifests via any and all means both violent and non-violent, but astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently. Indeed, it is the non-violent means of jihad, which is far more detrimental in the long-run, that you are obviously totally oblivious of. Oh well.

        • The March Hare

          “you have been rendered blind through the farce of PC multiculturalism.”

          So you are telling me I can’t have an opinion of my own that wasn’t planted by PC multiculturalism? I don’t give a damn what somebody else wants to define it as. I see it just as I stated it and not because somebody told me to think that.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I agree you did state it as you see it because you have been highly influenced by PC multiculturalism which is proliferated throughout our society. Thus, like all PC multiculturalists you draw a moral equivalence between what is jihad and terrorism where none exist. Nevertheless, I’m here to point out that you and so many others are not only wrong, but you have also in effect been rendered blind.

          • The March Hare

            Really? I was unaware I had ever met you. You should be able to make a living psychoanalyzing people over the internet. For several years I’ve read your posts and actually put stock into quite a bit of what you say, but now I know what a fake you are.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Really? I was unaware I had ever met you. You should be able to make a living psychoanalyzing people over the internet.

            My, my, my, you are emoting. Apparently, you have some very deep-seated leftwing tendencies. Nevertheless, I wasn’t psychoanalyzing you and I definitely never said you couldn’t have an opinion of your own, even though that opinion happens to suck.

            For several years I’ve read your posts and actually put stock into quite a bit of what you say, but now I know what a fake you are.

            Why do you think I give a crap about what an ignoramus like you thinks? Because I don’t crybaby!

    • http://www.chaverimisrael.org Norbert Haag

      Nice try. Arafat was the inventor of what we call terrorism today.

      While I give you that until Arafats PLO started blowing up air plans and killing to create fear in the hearts of the western population, terrorism was a term used for states (the terror of the french revolution was a first).

      But today we define terrorism as killing innocent citizens for the purpose of creating an atmosphere of fear and to make a media impact by doing so. Arafat was the inventor of this ugly new weapon against the west and, foremost, the Jews.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Nice try. Arafat was the inventor of what we call terrorism today.

        Yeah…I read that too and long before the 9/11 violent jihad attacks when I was like you, a complete and utter neophyte when it came to Islam, so, of course, I believed it too. However, today I’m not neither nearly so naive nor so totally ignorant of Islam as apparently you still are.

        By the way, your generalization and explanation of terrorism is truly pathetic and sucks to high heaven for the record.

  • UCSPanther

    Why oh why am I not surprised?

    Maybe it is because I always knew old Yasser was a two-faced rat.