Direct Link to Latest News


Talmud & Shariah Law Compared

June 27, 2013

shariah.jpgSharia is the moral code and religious law of Islam. The Talmud plays the same role in Judaism.

Based on a study of Sharia Law and Talmud, John Kunkle concludes "Islam and Judaism are not religions, but political movements dressed up as religions."

(Editor's Note:
This provocative article reflects the conclusions of a study too long to post here. I have no knowledge of Sharia and
present this as an invitation for discussion.
In my view, the Illuminati agenda is to pit Christians against Muslims in order to consolidate
Jewish power.

by John Kunkle

The Arabic word Taqiyya means "deceit" or "dissimulation." Muslims are not supposed to lie to one another, but there are times when this is acceptable: According to Bukhari (vol. 3:857 page 533) "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." This also includes lying to your wife and lying in warfare. The Prophet himself said, 'War is deceit," Bukhari vol. 4:267 and 269.)

Lying to non-Muslims is another matter. In fact, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened. Especially if there is an objective to be achieved that is desirable for Islam, then it is permissible for Muslims to lie in order to achieve that objective.

The book of Islamic law, Reliance of the Traveler (or the 'Umdat al-Salik), states on pg. 746:
"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.  When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..."

Talmud.jpgThe Talmud declares that goyem (non-Jews) are animals. Therefore, it is not possible to lie to them or break a contract or steal their property because they are just animals and have no rights as a human being.

While the Shariah does not consider non Muslims to be animals, they do consider them second class citizens with lesser rights than non Muslims.

The earlier portions of the Koran, when the Prophet lived in Mecca and his group was a minority, are moderate, peaceful and tolerant. These earlier verses were cancelled when the Prophet completed the pilgrimage to Medina.

 When Muslims grew powerful, the replacement verses added later reflect harsh intolerance for non Muslims and advocate the use of violence to subjugate infidels and convert them to Islam.

Muslims will cite these earlier verses to non Muslims, and will ignore the more violent and rigorous verses. Muslims will not express their hostility to unbelievers openly. This is another form of Taqiyya.

Here is a quotation from the Koran:

"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 (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." (Q 3:28)

Ibn Kathir was an Islamic scholar who wrote one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Koran. This is what he said about Muslims pretending to befriend infidels:

"Unless you indeed fear a danger from them' meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly....'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 2, 141)

Not only may Muslims deceive non-believers, it is even legitimate for Muslims to behave in ways normally completely contrary to their faith. For instance, given such circumstances, a Muslim may drink alcohol, skip prayers and fasting during Ramadan, renounce belief in Allah and even pretend homage to a deity other than Allah, and utter insincere oaths. It is important to understand the concept of taqiyya so as not to be taken in by such tactics.

(Source: Clare M. Lopez, a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund, is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, and counter terrorism issues.)

The Talmud has very similar provisions with regard to how Jews may act around goyem. They may befriend them. They may lie and deceive them. They have no obligations to them, including saving their lives if they can.

The one difference between the laws of the Talmud and the laws of Shariah is that Shariah distinguishes between Muslims and non Muslims. It is a religious distinction, not a racial distinction.

The Talmud distinguishes between Jews and non-Jews (goyem). A Jew is someone who has a Jewish mother. The person is considered Jewish by race, even if he or she is not a practicing Jew. There are people who convert to Judaism. They are Jews by religion not race.


The common denominator of the Talmud and Shariah is that the end justifies the means. Fascism and Communism -- really any totalitarian regime -- believes the same thing.
In my view, these are not religions, but political movements dressed up as religions. The actions that these "holy books" advocate violate most moral or ethical codes, even those of the holy books that they are supposedly interpreting. In many cases, they are complete negations of the words and intent of their holy books.
To me, this is evidence of Satan's influence in the "interpretations." The answer of course is to go back to the original source -- the holy books themselves. But then that would not provide justification for those who wish to pursue temporal power as well as spiritual power, would it?
Because of the influence of the Illuminati, Western Society is in steep decline
in terms of intellectual and moral development. It is not a coincidence that our economic decline has followed our moral decline, much akin to the decline of all great empires including the Roman empire.
America in particular and Western civilization in general advanced dramatically with the advent of the printing press and public education. It inspired the whole industrial revolution. If it were up to those who follow "the ends justifies the means," we would still be uneducated serfs tilling the land of our feudal lords and living like they did in the Middle Ages, much as many Muslim nations do today.
If we don't halt this moral decline, we could find ourselves in the "Midnight of the Dark Ages" -- similar to the tenth century again.


John Kunkle is a CPA, with an MBA in Accounting and a BA in Economics from Claremont McKenna College. He is an autodidact. "I have never stopped learning from the time I graduated from graduate school. My self taught education is about 100 times that of my degrees (40 years of private education versus 20 years at the public education trough). My first love is history. However, my reading list includes theology, biographies, ethics, philosophy, and science, including science fiction among other subjects."

First Comment by Paul

To cite Clare Lopez as a source for this article destroys the article and the credibility of the author.  Clare Lopez is a former CIA agent who has been promoting the Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists.

David Livingstone: 

"I'm not knowledgeable to comment on the specifics listed here, but overall, the situation is not as he suggests. In my opinion, Islamic Law is the most sophisticated intellectual project of human history. Just the science itself that was developed to determine the authenticity of Hadith is remarkable. According to historian Joseph Schacht:

"Islamic law provides us with a remarkable example of the possibilities of legal thought and of human thought in general, and with a key to understanding the essence of one of the great world religions."

Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is a legitimate religious tradition. Despite certain corruptions, evil in their name is not attributable to them, but rather to Luciferianism, which often disguises itself as part of those traditions, as does the Kabbalah, the Jesuits, and various sects of Islam, such as some Sufi orders as well as Salafism and so on."

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Talmud & Shariah Law Compared "

Bob said (June 28, 2013):

Talmudism certainly is contrary to the teachings of Christ, as is Shariah. Little (if anything) in the Talmud can be found in the Old Testament for the obvious reason: the Talmud is not inspired of the Divine.

When the Talmud refers to Christ as the bastard son of Miriam hair braider, we know that other filth will be easily found. E.g., that the Son of God should be boiled in excrement, and so on.

Mohammed in South Africa said (June 28, 2013):

Taqiyya is a Shia concept where the Shia believe that the more they lie about
their true religious beliefs, the more reward they receive.

the majority of the muslims around the world are sunni
shia are the majority in Iran & Iraq only.

actually, most of us consider Shias not to be muslims at all since many of
their fundamental beliefs are against ours.
its like saying: a christian muslim-you cant be both
same with saying someone is a Shia muslim-they cant be both.

and according to us muslims, we are NOT permitted to lie about our beliefs
nevermind thinking its vituous to do so.

the part about being permitted to lie to prevent people from fighting &
creating unncessary animosity etc is true,
so is the bit about it being OK to lie to your wife and in warfare

Mr Kunkle has mixed up the beliefs of Sunni muslims & Shias
whether intentionally or not, i dont know

if he can make such a big, basic blunder, then how can he ever expect even non
muslims to take his article seriously?

then there is the issue of the origin of the Shia sect
it was founded/started by a JEW CALLED ABDULLAH BIN SABAH
no wonder the Shias & Zionist Jews have deceit in common.

Bob said (June 28, 2013):

I don't know about the Talmud but I am somewhat familiar with Sharia law. The author is quoting very dubious translations provided by the Clarion Fund, the pro-Zionist nut jobs that brought us other hilarious attempts at discrediting Islam such as the films 'Obsession', 'Iranium' and 'The Third Jihad'. Their advisory board contains such war mongering luminaries of blind hatred as Frank Gaffney and Daniel Pipes.
This authors ignorance of the subject goes too far in discrediting a system of law that has served mankind well for well on 1400 years, and is in fact the basis of English Common Law.
Sharia is based on applying the guiding principles of the Qur'an, the hadith(traditions), and the judgement of respected elders towards maintaining and preserving the community's religion, life, property, intellect, family, and honor, in that order. It is a methodology. Every community of believers was and is free to apply these principles locally in order to achieve balance and justice within the circumstances of their immediate environment. This led, inevitably to different, sometimes seemingly contradictory decisions. Some legal decisions even seemed downright silly or stupid, unless we know the circumstances which they were meant to address. A bizarre decision by some judge in a remote part of the world does not mean that this is Sharia Law but rather a community's attempt to arrive at a resolution of a particular array of circumstances. It's impossible to second guess every decision made in every part of the Muslim world because we don't know how it came about. Sharia is a methodology that permits a fairly wide range of interpretation, and local color and inspiration. And it is never absolute or final. It is always open to re-examination as new circumstances arise.

I highly recommend the book 'The Story of the Qur'an' by Dr Ingrid Mattson, a Canadian convert to Islam, if you are interested in understanding this subject.

Salman said (June 27, 2013):

Problems with this article.

1. Taqiya/Kitman are alien concepts never followed by mainstream Muslims (Sunnis). If Muslim-haters didn't mention this, I wouldn't have ever heard of it. Sunnis never use that rhetoric/terminology. Shi'ites do. This is a Shi'a practice which was used to camouflage their real beliefs and practices away from mainstream Muslims (Sunnis) because of the sometimes justified fear of persecution and other times for purposes of infiltration and subversion.

2. Shari'a has always been in a state of progress. It is not all set in stone. The principles may stay the same but it isn't

3. Hadeeths are sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad (but not verified and possibly mostly fabricated or sayings taken out of context by groups with vested interests generations and centuries after the death of the Prophet).

4. Umdat al-Salik is not the basis of Shari'a in any Islamic state - not Shi'a not Sunnah. The original Taliban (pre-9-11) never used it as a basis on anything!

5. Qur'anic translation is wrong and Ibn Kathir is a medieval Historian. Never been a classical scholar.

6. Islam doesn't say the end justifies the means, but some of their followers/practitioners may do that. I have never ever lied for the religion.

7. Islam is against feudalism. It had the ultimate social justice system in the past. Muslim countries like Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Malaysia have always been against feudalism. Some Muslim countries may have a feudal basis towards doing things but its not because of Islam - which is essentially egalitarian.

8. Too many more mistakes on this article.

I think I need to write a counter-article. The author is not being academically credible. His work can be construed as serious disinformation and may be gobbled up all in truth by gullible and ignorant people.

Hakeem said (June 27, 2013):

I'm a Muslim, and as I mentioned in the article I wrote back in February, after doing my own research I have concluded that every religion, including Islam, has been infiltrated.

Parts of shariah law and bukhari hadiths, as you mentioned, as well as misrepresentations in translations of the Quran are examples (I came to find out about certain bukhari hadiths after posting my article). Also, almost every country, if not all countries, has been infiltrated as well, which is why you have the so-called "Muslim" countries in the state they are in.

I would disagree, however, with John's claim that "Islam and Judaism aren't religions, but political movements dressed up as religions."

Religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam or Judaism, can be used by corrupt men fueled with lust for power and domination over others (when they distort the true teachings and guidance within religion) for political purposes which is the antithesis of God's commandments. To put all Muslims and Jews, and their respective religions in such generalities is unfair to the sincere followers of any religion who strive to be good people and follow God's commandments.

No sincere God-fearing Muslim or Jew would think of people outside his/her religion as inferior and treat them in a different way(lie, cheat and steal from) just because they follow a different faith. And "given the circumstances, a Muslim may drink alcohol...renounce belief, etc"

Maybe the Muslims who have been victims of hate crimes (simply for LOOKING like a Muslim) across the world because of the main stream media didn't get that memo, or perhaps they forgot to go to the liquor store after work to pose as a non-Muslim?!! Come on!....Don't get me wrong, there are corrupt people that will use God's name in vain - but are these people really God-conscious?.

Also, the verse of the Quran you mentioned was taken out of context. The following verse talks of what "disbelievers" God is referring to : "God does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of your homes : God loves the just. But God forbids you to take as allies those who have fought against you for your faith, driven you out of your homes,and helps others drives you out; any of you who take them as allies will truly be wrongdoers."(The Quran 60:8-9) So, for example, if an atheist fights a Christian for simply being a Christian, I guess that makes that Christian wrong for not being the atheists friend!
I found a good translation of the Quran if anyone wants to read it - I firmly believe the Quran is the only pure 100% truth in a world full of lies and deceptions. Although there are truths in them, I can't say the same for other religious texts, including bukhari and other hadiths.

Reading the Quran has made me a better, more enlightened person, and more understanding of other people's faiths. Far from the way this author portrays Muslims. But according to him I'm lying. So maybe this whole post was a waste of time?!! Do your own research and read the entire Quran yourself, then judge for yourself....

Anthiny Migchels said (June 27, 2013):

Henry, that's a bulls-eye, you posted today.

In the past ten years or so I've seen all the major religions' texts.

The Allah in many ways resembles the stern and harsh G-d of the OT. In fact: the Q'uran calls for the believers to read the Torah and accept it as from the same Source.

There is also the problem that the harsher text later in the Q'uran negate the previous texts. The Q'uran itself says that the later texts take precedence if there are contradictions.

Furthermore, the hadith and the shariah are very similar to the Talmud as being scripts 'of the Learned Elders'. It's the law of man, meaning they're rotten to the core.

Last: The essence of Christianity is that the Christ is within. The Word is the Light of men. (John 1:4). We can have direct communion with the Word and through Him we shall know our Father. We know the Word by negating self (the monkey mind). This basic narrative is very, very similar to Buddhism and particularly Taoism. It is also in Hinduism, where the God within is called the Atman. All these traditions also have in common that they see this human essence in all people. It is to every individual himself to pick up the gauntlet. But every individual can do it.

But it is not in the Torah and the Q'uran, which see a pure monotheism, where there is only a far away father God, who has 'chosen' his people.

Incidentally, the Protocols are also very clear (I think particularly in the last protocol) that they will only accept this far away God and do away with Christ. The Q'uran also does not deny Jesus, but it does deny the Christ, which is the essence, the Source. The One who made everything.

We don't want conflicts with Islam, many Islamists are good people, God fearing. We don't want more Islam bashing from Zionist and/or Imperialist forces.

But the article touches on many important points and all exoteric religions, including Christianity and Buddhism have severely compromised the more esoteric, real message that Jesus, but also the Buddha and Lao Tse left us with.

K said (June 27, 2013):

To use taqiyya to demonise Islam is unscholarly and unjust. How can an accountant talk to me about anything other than accounting. Its like getting my car fixed by a physician.

Taqiyya means "the principle of dissimulation of one's religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served publicly affirming them." (the concise encyclopedia of Islam, p450-451)

Paul in Corinthians 19, was using a strange tactic to convert people. So Paul who was not under the threat of harm(as taqiyya defines) and his concealment was in the avenue of evangelism rather than of self protection. Paul was concealing himself as a Jew (to convert Jews) as a gentile (to convert the weak).

Corinthians 9:19-22, NIV;
19: though I am free and belong to no one, i have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible
20:to the Jews i become like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law i became like one under the law (though i myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21: to those not having the law i became like one not having the law (though i am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so as to win those not having the law.
22: to the weak i became weak to win the weak.

Why do Christian islamophobes not concluding Paul's actions to mean all Christians can lie whilst evangelising folk?

Blatant lying or hypocrisy is very much different than taqiyya. It is a form of concealment used to avoid persecution, not to defend unjust actions.

"During times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" -George Orwell

JG said (June 27, 2013):

What is built upon " deceit" can achieve an earthly end but not a spiritual end.

Deceitful "fairy tales" that start wars are the most unjust and lethal. False flag terrorism which creates a fictitious culprit is a great crime against humanity and causes the death and injury to so many of the innocent.

If our religion tells us that death and destruction to innocent "God fearing" people is divinely ordained we must ask ourselves who our God is.

Christianity advocates loving one's enemy and does not advocate war with any people or nation. This is why the Christians in Rome refused to enlist in their armies.

When we abandon our true religion and it's doctrine and are led astray by "false interpretation" from leaders that have an earthly motive of gain and prosperity than we must ask what our religion is.

Today has ushered in a kind of "Age of Deception" where truth and Godliness are not "convenient" and are therefore in the process of being outlawed.

Unfortunately for all of us this is going to have a real bad ending.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at