Quahom1: "Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers to defeat them"?

[dailogue is the best]

The passages are as follows:

"Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty." Sura 16:106

"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." Sura 3:28


According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him.
Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:

• Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
• Renounce belief in Allah.
• Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
• Utter insincere oaths.

Sura 16:106 - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Sura 3:28 - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."
Sura 40:28- A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Sura 2:225 - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"
Sura 66:22- "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true, such as Mohammad deceiving the Meccans to gain access to the city, in order to overtake it. Sura 9:3

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

I'm not saying that following one's faith is wrong, but I know I wouldn't be able to tell truth from falshood, spoken by one who can lie by God, to me, because I am not a believer in Islam.

v/r

Q

This is one of Quahom1 's response to a thread in the Christian forum. Since his post is related to Islam, I moved the post to here, so Quahom1 can get his ideas cleared if he cares.

Sorry, Quahom1, if I do it without your permission, but I feared that we may get away from the topic in that thread.

Dont hesitate to show your ideas, Quahom1. We are here to discuss, and look for the truth...to clear some ideas, and get cleared also.

 

[dailogue is the best]

By the way, Quahom1 's article is taken from the follwing site:

TheReligionofPeace - Islam: Taqiyya and the Truth

Unfortunately, the site is showing a lot of hatred to Islam.. It is clear that hatred is directing the site, and their news, not the sincere searching for the truth.., unfortuantely

We shouldnt make judgement unless we investigate. Is it right, Quahom1?

I thought the ideas are your owns, but since you posted them, so you believed in them, right? I hope you take the trouble to get cleared,Quahom1, for it is unfair for us to do unjustice to others, even by formulating wrong bad thinking about them..truth frees us. If you care, of course.

 

[Abdillah]

Taqiyya is not part of Islam, or Sunni Islam anyways. It is a doctrine exclusive to the Shia sect, a minority compromising less than ten percent of the worldwide Muslim population. The main group of Shias, known as the "twelvers" which is dominant in Iran and Iraq are considered outside the fold of Islam by the mainstream Ahlus Sunnah wa'l Jamaat (Sunni Muslims).

 

[Quahom1]

By the way, Quahom1 's article is taken from the follwing site:

TheReligionofPeace - Islam: Taqiyya and the Truth

Unfortunately, the site is showing a lot of hatred to Islam.. It is clear that hatred is directing the site, and their news, not the sincere searching for the truth.., unfortuantely

We shouldnt make judgement unless we investigate. Is it right, Quahom1?

I thought the ideas are your owns, but since you posted them, so you believed in them, right? I hope you take the trouble to get cleared,Quahom1, for it is unfair for us to do unjustice to others, even by formulating wrong bad thinking about them..truth frees us. If you care, of course.

Indeed, part of my post is taken from that site, simply because the passages I've read in my own Q'uran were already noted in one spot. The other part is my response to another member, as to what "passage" allows for lying. No deception on my part Dialogue as I was simply quoting scripture, and adding conjecture based on my life's personal experiences within the Muslim community (which could get very complicated to explain).

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

Taqiyya is not part of Islam, or Sunni Islam anyways. It is a doctrine exclusive to the Shia sect, a minority compromising less than ten percent of the worldwide Muslim population. The main group of Shias, known as the "twelvers" which is dominant in Iran and Iraq are considered outside the fold of Islam by the mainstream Ahlus Sunnah wa'l Jamaat (Sunni Muslims).

Thank your for your explanation. My experience has been with Sunni and Shia, but mostly Shia, as they are who I lived with.

On that note, I admit that the term "Taqiyya" is not used in Sura 9:3, yet the action pertaining to the term appears to be the same, and Mohammad did indeed overtake the Meccans, on a deception. At that point, there were no "sects" of Islam. There was just Mohammad (and Allah).

Please correct my error, if there is one.

You've addressed "Taqiyya". You have not addressed "Kitman". And I would like an explanation as to the "Q'uran" verses themselves, and why there would be a need for them to even be present...

Note: My original statement as Dialogue can attest to, is that the Muslim may lie to protect the Muslim heart (that is to remain true to Islam in intent, by what ever means necessary).

Thank you.

Dialogue...lol, a fine kettle of fish you've put me into...

Question: Of the men who initiated the finality of 9/11 in the US in 2001, 17 were "Sunni" from Saudi Arabia...? Were they not acting by way of Taqiyya prior to the last action? Again, correct my error, if there is one. Thank you.

 

[Abdillah]

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

On that note, I admit that the term "Taqiyya" is not used in Sura 9:3, yet the action pertaining to the term appears to be the same, and Mohammad did indeed overtake the Meccans, on a deception. At that point, there were no "sects" of Islam. There was just Mohammad (and Allah).

There is no "deception" in the ayah of the Quran which you have referenced. However, the Prophet (alaihi salatu wa salam) said: "war is deception", but this is an altogether different subject. No sane person would say that you must be truthful to your enemies during warfare. Deception and strategy must be used in order to win a war, where use of spies and secret attacks is common.

This has nothing to do with hiding or lying about your religious beliefs. Indeed the Prophet (alaihi salatu wa salam) said never to disavow your belief in the Oneness of Allah, even if you are being burned alive.

You've addressed "Taqiyya". You have not addressed "Kitman". And I would like an explanation as to the "Q'uran" verses themselves, and why there would be a need for them to even be present...
Note: My original statement as Dialogue can attest to, is that the Muslim may lie to protect the Muslim heart (that is to remain true to Islam in intent, by what ever means necessary).

Kitman means concealing, and like I already mentioned, the only type of legitimate "concealing" is during warfare when you must conceal important locations, strategies, etc., from the enemy. It has nothing to do with concealing your religious beliefs or lying about them. The latter type of "concealment" has no basis in Islam.

And all praise belongs to Allah!

 

[Quahom1]

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful



There is no "deception" in the ayah of the Quran which you have referenced. However, the Prophet (alaihi salatu wa salam) said: "war is deception", but this is an altogether different subject. No sane person would say that you must be truthful to your enemies during warfare. Deception and strategy must be used in order to win a war, where use of spies and secret attacks is common.

This has nothing to do with hiding or lying about your religious beliefs. Indeed the Prophet (alaihi salatu wa salam) said never to disavow your belief in the Oneness of Allah, even if you are being burned alive.



Kitman means concealing, and like I already mentioned, the only type of legitimate "concealing" is during warfare when you must conceal important locations, strategies, etc., from the enemy. It has nothing to do with concealing your religious beliefs or lying about them. The latter type of "concealment" has no basis in Islam.

And all praise belongs to Allah!

Thank you for your reply and explanations. Unfortunately (and you won't like it), the explanations are insufficient for my satisfaction. I expected details, since I took to task the efforts of gathering details to back my thoughts. Perhaps I ask too much.

But I digress. It is clear, I do not belong here.

God go with us all.

v/r

Q

 

[dailogue is the best]

Dialogue...lol, a fine kettle of fish you've put me into...

you are welcome,Quahom1.

Unfortunately (and you won't like it), the explanations are insufficient for my satisfaction. I expected details, since I took to task the efforts of gathering details to back my thoughts. Perhaps I ask too much.

But I digress. It is clear, I do not belong here.

God go with us all.

v/r

Q

Dont rush in, Quahom1. just be prepared for MORE details. you know fish takes time till it is fried

In fact, I am with you that what you v stated needs details, and more clarifications and explanations. And I prefer if we talk about the verses you v stated one after one, discussing their historical context fully. Then, we move to discuss taqqiya and kitman, and the origine of these words. And at the end, we can discuss your question about those responsible for 11/9 attacks so that we avoid sweping away from our topic. And also, by then, you may
yoursef make your own judgements.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

if deception is permitted in warfare what are non-Muslims to make of the Mullahs which advocate that Muslims view themselves in a continual state of struggle?

wouldn't that then mean that the state of warfare exists and thus the use of deception would be permissible?

metta,

~v

 

[dailogue is the best]

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Well, Quahom1, I will try to make things clearer..hope you follow me attentively. Let's discuss the verses one after one for deep understanding

1"Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty." Sura 16:106

Sura 16:106 - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

According to Yusuf Ali:" the exception refers to a case like that of Ammar whose father Yassir and his mother Sumayya, were subjected to unspeakable tortures for their belief in Islam, but never recanted. Ammar himself was of less mature faith, and age, and in a weak moment, suffering under tortures himself and his mind acted on by the sufferings of his parents, uttered a word constued as recantation, though his heart never wavered and he came back at once to the Prophet., who consoled him for his pain and confirmed his faith.There is no permission in this for weakness or dissembling under torture or persecution"

Conclusions:
1- Did Ammar choose by himself to say that word, or was he forced under unbearable torture and sufferings to utter the word of recantation?
Actually, it was a weakness moment wherein Ammar uttered the word to get rid of the unspeakable torture, including seeing both his parents killed in front of his eyes. You cant consider this a lie, which is normally said in a very deliberate manner

2- "except under compulsion" means that you dont have the right to utters Unbelief, unless it is a moment of weaknness under the torture, and the compulsion made on you.

The companions of the prophet really suffered at the begining of Islam from Meccan people, even though they bore all the trouble. They faced the challenges. Look at the following story of one of the Prophet's companions' suffering for the sake of their religion:

Bilal: The Sweet Caller to Islam - Reading Islam.com

1- He declared his faith.
2- He bore the severe pain
3-Why didnt he lie if it is permissible? His circumstances were really bad

 

[dailogue is the best]

"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." Sura 3:28


Sura 3:28 - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

This verse talks about the believers who were still in Mecca under the authority of the unbelievers there, While the believers in Meddina were prohibited to befriend the unbelievers in Mecca, who were severly and brutally attacking Islam and Muslims.

Any way, Quran explains itself. Here more understanding of this verse:


"[60:8] GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable.[60:9] GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors."

 

[dailogue is the best]

Sura 40:28- A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

the verse says:
" A believing man among Pharaoh's people, who was concealing his belief, said, "How can you kill a man just for saying, `My Lord is GOD,' and he has shown you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is a liar, that is his problem, and if he is truthful, you benefit from his promises. Surely, GOD does not guide any transgressor, liar."

Do you have, Quahom1, any idea about what Pharoah was doing to eveyone declared his/her faith?? He immediately killed him/ her. So, here did the believers choose by themselves to hide their faith? No, there were fear.

They concealed their faith out of fear, but eventhough, we find that believer in that verse defending the Prophet Moses(pbuh). How can we accuse such a beliver of being a liar?

 

[dailogue is the best]

Sura 2:225 - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts

I will give you examples of thoughtless oaths; for example, I am with a friend of mine at home, she presents me some sweets.After eating some, she says:" I swear by God, you will take this too", I spontaneously say:" I swear by God, I cant." These are examples of thoughtless oaths. They are made with no thought, and without intention. just slip of tongue. ARE THOSE LIES?

BUT,if you intent to lie to others (" but for the intention of your heart"), and you swear by God, then God will really call you to account.

 

[dailogue is the best]

Sura 66:22- "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

By the way, the number of this verse is 2, and not 22.

The Quran itself explains this verse in more details in another verse. Look at the following verse:

"And make not God's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for God is One Who hears and knows all things.(2:224)

Sometimes, we intent to stop doing something good like visiting a friend, or helping a neighbour, or... God gives us permission to expiate our oaths by an act of charity, hence we can get things better.

This has nothing to do with your understanding that you can give oaths to others, then betray them . No, this isnt acceptable. God says:

[16:91] You shall fulfill your covenant with GOD when you make such a covenant. You shall not violate the oaths after swearing (by God) to carry them out, for you have made GOD a guarantor for you. GOD knows everything you do.

[2:177] It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing.

 

[dailogue is the best]

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

The writer of that article wants to convince us that this is the truth, and he warns us that others may give us other interpretations, but that we shouldnt listen to them.

This isnt a reasonable way of searching of truth. We should listen to others, then we can make our judgement.

Do those verses really give us the green light to decieve others???? what do you think, Quahom1?

 

[Quahom1]

The writer of that article wants to convince us that this is the truth, and he warns us that others may give us other interpretations, but that we shouldnt listen to them.

This isnt a reasonable way of searching of truth. We should listen to others, then we can make our judgement.

Do those verses really give us the green light to decieve others???? what do you think, Quahom1?

Good points, all. It is a shame that those of other countries but of similar professed faith, do not share your view. However Abdillhah and you Dialogue, have pointed out to me the way things are supposed to be. For that, I am grateful. You took time to explain to me the message of your prophet and your God.

v/r

Q

 

[dailogue is the best]

Good points, all. It is a shame that those of other countries but of similar professed faith, do not share your view. However Abdillhah and you Dialogue, have pointed out to me the way things are supposed to be. For that, I am grateful. You took time to explain to me the message of your prophet and your God.

v/r

Q

Bush lied to the whole world when he declared that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Did he present Christian ethics? I m sure, he didnt. That's why it is so important to get knowledge from its source.

I m happy I ve succeded in making things clearer for you.( it was me who was in the kittle of fish because it took time and effort, especially English isnt my 1st language)

You said to me:" your God", and I say:" our God". We Muslims believe in the same God you and Jews believe in.

You are welcome, Quahom1.

 

[dailogue is the best]

You also own me another explanation about the treaty of Hudaybiyah.

Was the prophet Muhammed (pubh) the first who broke the 10 years treaty with Meccans? Did the Prophet really decieve them?

Actually, it was Mecca who first broke the treaty, by allowing an alien tribe to kill 23 men from an allien tribe to the Prophet, and hence Mecca broke the treaty. For more details, look into the following site:

Amr Khaled Official Website

 

[farhan]

Namaste all,

if deception is permitted in warfare what are non-Muslims to make of the Mullahs which advocate that Muslims view themselves in a continual state of struggle?

wouldn't that then mean that the state of warfare exists and thus the use of deception would be permissible?

metta,

~v

War is a subset of struggle, not all of it

 

[Quahom1]

War is a subset of struggle, not all of it

Indeed.