Subterfuge in Islam/ Taqiya:-
It is the Muhammadan Muslim doctrine and practice, (Self Protection; Religious Dissimulation; Concealment; Disguise; Deception; Subterfuge) whereby it is considered acceptable to CONCEAL one's true ALLEGIANCE and even IDENTITY in the face of perceived adversity.
It was Muhammad who 1400 years ago, unilaterally declared TOTAL WAR against all those who do not believe as he did, the UNBELIEVERS. He asserted repeatedly, that the most important and fundamental ART of war is, DECEPTION.
The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of perceived imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.
The above definition must be clearly explained before any undertaking of this topic is to be continued.
First, the CONCEALMENT of one's beliefs does NOT mean an ABANDONMENT of these beliefs. The distinction between "concealment" and "abandonment" MUST be clearly understood.
Second, the word "beliefs" and/or "convictions" does NOT necessarily mean "religious" beliefs and/or convictions, Only.
Let us look at al-Taqiyya According to the Sunnis
Some Sunnis assert that al-Taqiyya is an act of pure hypocrisy that serves to conceal the truth and reveal that which is the exact opposite (of the truth). Furthermore, according to those Sunnis, al-Taqiyya constitutes a lack of faith and trust in Allah because the person who conceals his beliefs to spare himself from imminent danger is fearful of humans, when, in fact, he should be fearful of Allah only. As such, this person is a coward.
Sunni Sources in Support of al-Taqiyya
The following exposition - based upon only a FEW examples - will demonstrate the existence of al-Taqiyya in the Quran, Hadith, Muhammad's as well as his companions' custom.
As usual, Sunni books will be used to further the argument. This is in keeping with our commitment to reveal the TRUTH by showing that the Sunnis reject the Shia's arguments, while THEIR OWN books are replete (full) with the SAME ideologies that the Shia uphold! It is in similitude of the
"Kettle calling the Pot, BLACK"
Although some Wahhabis staunchly argue their aforementioned statements, and aggressively defame the Shia and refute their doctrines, they have failed to explain the validity of their argument vis-a-vis the existence of these SAME doctrines in their own books.
Those who think that they are the true protectors of the SUNNA of Muhammad and the only guardians of the Islamic Faith, how can they explain their own rejection of that which they are supposed to protect?
Rejecting al-Taqiyya is rejecting the Quran, as will be shown.
Reference 1:
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al- Ma'athoor," narrates Ibn Abbas - who is the MOST renowned and trusted narrator of tradition in the sight of the Sunnis - regarding his opinion of al-Taqiyyain the Quranic verse:
Ali Imran 3:28 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 that ye may guard yourselves from them (tattaqoo). But Allah cautions you [touqatan] (to remember) Himself for the final goal is to Allah.
that Ibn Abbas said:
"al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only; he who has been COERCED into saying that which angers Allah and his heart is comfortable (i.e., his TRUE faith has NOT been shaken.), then (saying that which he has been coerced to say) will NOT harm him (at all); (because) al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only, (NOT the heart)."
NOTES:
i) That the two words "tat-taqooh" and "tooqatan," as mentioned in the Arabic Quran, are BOTH from the same root of "al-Taqiyya"
ii) That the "heart" as referred to above and in later occurrences refers to the center of faith in an individual's existence. It is mentioned many times in the Quran.
Reference 2:
Ibn Abbas also commented on the above verse, as narrated in Sunan al-
Bayhaqi and al-Hakim's "Mustadrak", by saying:
"al-Taqiyya is the uttering of the tongue, while the heart is comfortable with faith."
Which means, that the tongue is permitted to utter ANYTHING in a time of need, as long as the heart is not affected; and one is still a BELIEVER.
Reference 3:
Abu Bakr al-Razi in his book, "Ahkam al-Quran," v2, p10, has explained
the aforementioned verse by affirming that al-Taqiyya should be used when one is afraid for life and/or limb.
In addition, he has narrated that Qutadah said with regards to the above verse:
"It is permissible to speak words of unbelief when al-Taqiyya is
mandatory."
Reference 4:
It has been narrated by Abd al-Razak, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim,
Ibn Mardawayh, al-Bayhaqi in his book "al- Dala-il," and it was corrected
by al-Hakim in his book "al- Mustadrak" that:
"The nonbelievers arrested `Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA) and (tortured him
until) he (RA) uttered foul words about the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and
praised their gods (idols); and when they released him (RA), he (RA)
went straight to the Prophet (PBUH&HF). The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said:
"Is there something on your mind?" `Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA) said: "Bad
(news)! They would not release me until I defamed you (PBUH&HF) and
praised their gods!" The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "How do you find
your heart to be?" `Ammar (RA) answered: "Comfortable with faith." So
the Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "Then if they come back for you, then do
the same thing all over again." Allah (SWT) at that moment revealed
the verse: "....except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in
faith...[16:106]"
NOTE:
The full verse that was quoted partially as part of the tradition above, is:
"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 Chastisement [16:106]."
Reference 5:
It is narrated in Sunan al-Bayhaqi that Ibn Abbas explained the above verse
"Any one who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief....[16:106]"
by saying:
"The meaning that Allah (SWT) is conveying is that he who utters
unbelief after having believed, shall deserve the Wrath of Allah (SWT)
and a terrible punishment. However, those who have been coerced, and
as such uttered with their tongues that which their hearts did not
confirm to escape persecution, have nothing to fear; for Allah (SWT)
holds His (SWT) servants responsible for that which their hearts have
ratified."
Reference 6:
Another explanation of the above verse is provided by Jalal al-Din al-
Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al- Tafsir al-Ma-athoor," vol.
2, p178; he says:
"Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Munzir, and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated
on the authority of Mujtahid (a man's name) that this verse was
revealed in relation to the following event: A group of people from
Mecca accepted Islam and professed their belief; as a result, the
companions in Medina wrote to them requesting that they emigrate
to Medina; for if they don't do so, they shall not be considered
as those who are among the believers. In compliance, the group left
Mecca, but were soon ambushed by the nonbelievers (Quraish) before
reaching their destination; they were coerced into disbelief, and they
professed it. As a result, the verse "...except under compulsion, his
heart remaining firm in faith [16:106]..." was revealed."
Reference 7:
Ibn Sa'd in his book, "al-Tabaqat al-Kubra," narrates on the authority of Ibn Sirin that:
The Prophet saw `Ammar Ibn Yasir crying, so he wiped off his tears, and said: "The nonbelievers arrested you and immersed you in water until you said such and such(i.e., bad-mouthing the Prophet and praising the pagan gods to escape persecution); if they come back, then say it again."
Reference 8:
It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that:
After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?"
The Prophet (PBUH&HF) excused him and said:
"Say whatever you have to say."
Reference 9:
It is narrated by al-Ghazzali in his book, "Ihya `Uloom al-Din," that:
Safeguarding of a Muslim's life is a mandatory obligation that should be observed; and that LYING is permissible when the shedding of a Muslim's blood is at stake.
Reference 10:
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Ashbah Wa al-Naza'ir", affirms
that:
"it is acceptable (for a Muslim) to eat the meat of a dead animal at a time of great hunger (starvation to the extent that the stomach is devoid of all food); and to loosen a bite of food (for fear of choking to death) by alcohol; and to utter words of unbelief; and if one is living in an environment where evil and corruption are the pervasive norm, and permissible things (Halal) are the exception and a rarity, then one can utilize whatever is available to fulfill his needs."
NOTE:
The reference to the consumption of a dead animal is meant to
illustrate that EVEN forbidden things become permissible in a time of need.
Reference 11:
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al-
Ma'athoor," v2, p176, narrates that:
Abd Ibn Hameed, on the authority of al-Hassan, said: "al-Taqiyya is permissible until the Day of Judgment."
Reference 12:
Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p102, that Abu al-Darda' said:
"(Verily) we smile for some people, while our hearts curse (those same people)."
Reference 13:
Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p81, that the Prophet (PBUH&HF)said:
"O `Aisha, the worst of people in the sight of Allah (SWT) are those that are avoided by others due to their extreme impudence."
NOTE:
The meaning here is that one is permitted to use diplomacy to get along with people. The above tradition was narrated when a person sought permission to see the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) and prior to his asking permission the Prophet (PBUH&HF) said that he was not a good man, but still I shall see him. The Prophet talked to the person with utmost respect, upon which Aisha inquired as to why did the Prophet (PBUH&HF) talk to the person with respect despite his character, upon which the above reply was rendered.
Reference 14:
Narrated in Sahih Muslim (English version), Chapter MLXXVII, v4, p1373,
Tradition #6303:
Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of 'Uqba b. Abu Mu'ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order tobring reconciliation between them).
The (Sunni) commentator of this volume of Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid
Siddiqi, provides the following commentary:
Telling of a lie is a grave sin but a Muslim is permitted to tell a lie in some exceptional cases, and this permission is given especially on three occasions: in case of battle for bringing reconciliation amongst the hostile Muslims and for bringing reconciliation between the husband and the wife. On the analogy [Qiyas] of these three cases, the scholars of Hadith have pointed out some other exemptions:
for saving the life and honor of innocent person from the highhandedness of tyrants and oppressors if one finds no other way to save them.
Notice that neither the above tradition nor the commentary are concerned
with dealing with non-Muslims only.
(Sahih Muslim Volume IV Chapter MLXXVII Tradition no. 6303 p1373
English only - Abdul Hamid Siddiqui)
3:28 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 that ye may guard yourselves from them (tattaqoo). But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself for the final goal is to Allah.
6: 119 Why should ye not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced when He hath explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you except under compulsion of necessity? But many do mislead (men) by their appetites unchecked by knowledge. Thy Lord knoweth best those who transgress
*** When the followers of Muhammad are in a weak position vis a vis UNBELIEVERS or even other SECTS of 'Islam' or threatened with death and cannot defend themselves, they are then allowed to do what is expedient to survive even if it meant breaking every prohibition in the Quran***
16: 106 Anyone 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.
This doctrine was promulgated because of the persecution perpetrated against the followers of Shia Islam at the hands of the Abbasid Dynasty. This is the concept of 'dodging the threat' which was developed to encourage and allow 'muslims' to use subterfuge to defeat their perceived enemies.
It allows them to become short or long term sleepers, to use subterfuge, misinformation, disinformation, plant seeds of discord and sedition and all other manners of lies to bring about the collapse of the entity under 'attack' so that the 'muslims' can take over with minimum opposition or losses. It saves them from having to become martyrs for their faith.
In today's terms for instance, they argue that:
Jihad is actually the 'struggle' of the spirit; that the 'extremists' are the aberration and not the norm;
that 'fundamentalists' do not represent 'true Islam';
that 'Islam' is a religion of 'peace' even though almost 90% of all of today's world conflicts are instigated and perpetrated by 'muslims;
that 'Islam' is a 'tolerant religion' when in fact all UNBELIEVERS are not allowed to publicly and freely express their religious beliefs anywhere in almost 50 'islamic' states in the world;
that 'Islam' is pro democratic when neither the women in 'islam' nor other 'non believers' are allowed even a semblance of freedoms or rights of the dignity of 'man' under the recognised and universal 'Human Rights Charter'..etc etc..
In the present day, just as they did in the past, Fundamentalist Muhammadan Muslims use this 'theological loophole' as a means of infiltration and subterfuge to absolve Muslim terrorists and members of suicide squads from looking like observant Muslims so as to be able to blend among the populace of the nations they are targeting and not cause suspicion or attention to be paid to them.
This process allows the Muhammadans - who are absolved of all wrong doing - to bend to foreign authority, and are even allowed to make terms with it for as long as they are weak until such time that they can overthrow or destroy it.
The principle of Taqiya allows the ignorant and unwary politician/statesman to fall into the deadly trap of trusting the words, the signiature or any form of agreement made with a 'muslim'. He neither realises nor conceives that all these procedures and agreements are totally meaningless since the signiatory to the agreement, the Muhammadan, has absolutely no intention of honouring them in the long term.
They are only means to an end; the END of the gullible non believer who signed them.
When dealing with a 'muslim' statesman or diplomat, the real issue is not what he says or means but actually what he intends to do 'in his heart', which is of course unfathomable.
Muhammad repeatedy asserted that DECEPTION is a strategy of waging WAR.
We in the Western democracies, and everywhere else in the world who are Unbelievers, are being Deceived, Subverted and slowly Destroyed from within and without by the followers of Muhammad because our leaders have not begun to COMPREHEND or UNDERSTAND those they are dealing with.
Notes on the current situation in today's world:
The situation in the world today borders on the UNREAL. Never before in history has one civilization allowed large numbers of those who come from an alien, and immutably hostile culture, to settle deep within that first civilization's borders.
Never before have the members of one civilization failed to investigate, and even willfully refuses to investigate, or to listen to those who warn about, the consequences for all non-Muslims of the belief-system of Muhammadan Islam.
In history, the phenomenon of the 'Barbarians at the Gates' is hardly new. Those barbarians lay siege; if they win, they enter in triumph. Should they lose, the advanced civilization survives.
But never before have the gates been opened, to an entering force that has not even been identified or understood.
Never before have the inhabitants of the by-now vulnerable city/state made efforts not to recognize, or realize, what they have done, and what they have undone.
The demographic intrusion and explosion shows no signs of diminishing.
The systematic building of mosques and madrasas, paid for mainly by Saudi Arabia, everywhere in the Western world - as well as ALL other non-Muslim countries in the world -, helps to make the conduct of Muhammadan Muslim life easier.
Western populations have been trained to make much of "celebrating diversity" and "promoting difference" and constructing, on a base of militant but unexamined pluralism, an edifice of legal rights and entitlements.
These rights, these entitlements, this militant pluralism are exploited by Muhammadan Muslims who DO NOT believe in pluralism. Nor do they accept the individual rights of conscience and of free speech, the legal equality of men and women, and of religious and racial minorities, recognized, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Their current claim to support pluralism is based on the need to protect, and increase the power of, the 'Muslim UMMA', or Community, within the West, until such time as that umma no longer needs to pretend to have any interest in Western pluralism and Western values.
"Taqiyya" is not needed by Muhammadans addressing purely Muhammadan Muslim audiences. While in the early days, the Shi'a were afraid of Sunni persecution, and therefore needed to practice "Taqiyya", today both Sunni and Shi'a, by and large, do not find that they need dissimulate about the nature of Muhammadan Islam for other 'Muslims'.
It is only when non-Muslims may overhear, and begin to understand, an intra-Muslim discussion, that the need to dissimulate is emphasized. Yassir Arafat could, with impunity, refer to the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya - when Muhammad DECEIVED and then BETRAYED the Quraysh - in speeches to fellow Arabs.
He was fortunate; no Westerners, or even Israelis, seemed to think that the significance of that repeated allusion to Muhammad's treaty with the Meccans in 628 A.D. needed to be examined. A treaty of convenience that Muhammad promptly BETRAYED the moment he had the power to do so.
Among those who see no need to practice "Taqiyya" when rousing fellow Muhammadans, but instead see the need to remind their listeners of the central tenets and teachings of Islam, are Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
Contrary to the Media, these creatures are NOT TERRORISTS. They are actually BELIEVERS who are only following the Quran and Muhamnmad's Sunna.
The canonical texts support their view of the need and duty for Jihad. And they receive a good deal of support, and admiration, all over the Muhammadan Muslim world. For they are not renegades, not unorthodox, not the promoters of a wild misinterpretation of 'Islam', they are ONLY following the FUNDAMENTALS of their faith.
In fact and in reality, their view of 'Islam' is exactly what Muhammad, Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Ghazali, Ibn Khaldun, and all the greatest Quranic commentators, muhaddithin, and scholars in the history of Islam, would have understood and shared.
Some Muhammadans believe that at the moment, 'Islam' is too weak, and therefore, for the sake of 'Islam' itself, the truth of its teachings should not be so clearly expressed, and acted upon.
It may be that Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri themselves will reach the same conclusion. That would not constitute an abandonment of Jihad, but rather a prudent relinquishing of terrorism as a weapon of Jihad, and greater emphasis on other, tactically more effective, weapons of Jihad, such as Da'wa (propaganda) and demographic increase.
The idea that "Jihad" is primarily a "spiritual struggle" would cause unrestrained laughter everywhere in the world's mosques and madrasas, for Muhammadans know that this definition is flatly contradicted by their texts and their entire history.
Yet, the same imam who gives a fiery speech about Jihad can show up at an Interfaith Rally and, with seemingly complete conviction, assure his Infidel audience that, of course, "Jihad" refers only to "a spiritual struggle." This kind of subterfuge and deception is second nature to the followers of Muhammad.
INFIDELS/UNBELIEVERS/KUFFAR, need to understand that however wary they may pride themselves on being, they are still, ILL prepared for the world of the Muhammadan East.
"War is deceit," Muhammad said, and those who regard him as al-insan al-kamil, the Most Perfect of Men, have become past masters at the art of deceit.
It is nearly impossible to find a Muhammadan who will admit to the full truth of what 'Islam' ACTUALLY teaches about INFIDELS/UNBELIEVERS/KUFFAR, though occasionally it happens.
Ex-Muslims are just as well-versed in the teachings of Islam as those who remain Muslims, for they do not suddenly cease to understand Islam when they leave the faith.
They remain the best sources of knowledge about what it means to grow up as a Muslim, in a Muslim society, surrounded by the attitudes toward Infidels that Islam engenders and promotes.
