Please refer to the write-up of Mr. Vakily on B4 of October 8, where he repudiates Wikipedia for misunderstanding taquiyya, and also a letter in Standard Freeholder for distorting “a highly technical and nuanced issue…” Contrary to his convictions, I believe that anything from Divinity is simple and easy to understand. Surprisingly, in spite of repudiation, the author agrees with both the above sources when he admits that lies are permissible if Muslims are under persecution and treated unjustly. For him taquiyya “occupies, at most, a secondary place in Islamic law.” Disassociating taquiyya directly from his holy book, he adds that taquiyya is a permission, not recommendation, to protect one’s life in the situation of persecution and injustice,” and “is limited only to the times of war, or when Muslims are persecuted…” To me, persecution and injustice are also subjective. In other words, they also refer to personal feelings and opinions. For instance, jihad that is interpreted differently and also as spiritual warfare is eternal. In the light of the author’s definition, lies are eternally permissible to jihadist because jihad is eternal. Taquyya can be used also for conversions. After conversion there is another law to terrorize apostates that prescribes the penalty of beheading. The author talks of war that keeps changing form. It started with sticks and stones and now mothers and children are used as shields to bomb innocent population. War also wears the mask of the legal procedures, using loopholes in liberal democracies. Such exploitative battles are permissible under the roof of the explanation given by the author. Today, several Muslim nations are at war with one another. His explanation gives them complete freedom to practice taquiyya, particularly when the citizens of these nations are at war with the nations of the cross-- infidels. If I try to interpret the letters by Mr. Leonard, Voyteck Poykalski, Ralph MacDonald and others, the source of their fear is the possible lies of fake asylum seekers and those who find loopholes in liberal democracies to replace Western values with their own and to implement their laws which are based on fear. There have been attempts in Canada to implement them. I would invite the author to suggest alternative ideology that is not “technical and nuanced” and is includable in the curriculum of his school if he has not included taquyya as yet. Stephen Gill Cornwall