Today, we are going to learn about Al-Takeyya and why treaties, truces, Hudnas, or ceasefires are never advisable when dealing with a Muslim nation.
(One note: The information I am presenting, while true, is copied from a Christian agenda site. I try to stay secular when criticizing Islam, but sometimes the information will stand on its own merits, regardless of the author’s prejudices.)
Lying and deceit in Islam
By Abdullah Al Araby
Like most religions, Islam in general, forbids lying. The Quran says, “Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies.” Surah 40:28. In the Hadith, Mohammed was also quoted as saying, “Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell.”
However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. The book “The spirit of Islam,” by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: “Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: ‘He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good.”
In exploring this puzzling duplicity within Islam, we will examine first some examples from recent and ancient Islamic history. These examples demonstrate that lying is a common policy amongst Islamic clerics and statesmen.
In June of 1967 Egypt was defeated by Israel and lost the Sinai Peninsula during the “Six Day War.” Subsequently, Egypt’s primary focus became to regain the lost territory. President Nasser, and then, President Sadat, adopted the motto: “No voice should rise over the voice of The Battle.” The soldiers that had been drafted in 1967 were kept in service and remained on high alert in the expectation that at any day “the battle” would ensue. Nonetheless, years pasted and Egypt’s people became disgruntle with the political hype and the “no peace, and no war” status. In 1972 Sadat proclaimed with finality that it was to be the year for the long anticipated battle. Throughout the year he swore, “I swear to you by my honor that this year will not pass by, before we launch The Battle.” People believed him because he was staking his reputation and honor through an oath. To everyone’s amazement the year passed without a single shot being fired. As a result many, inside and outside Egypt, began to dismiss him as a “hot air bluff”. This opinion was confirmed in the following year of 1973. He made no further mention of his oath about the battle. Many of the draftees were released and numerous officers were given vacation furloughs. Then without warning, in October of 1973, he launched the attack and what was known as the Yom Kippur war began.
As a military commander, Sadat was expected to use the element of surprise to trick the enemy. As a devout Muslim, Sadat was not the least bit concerned about his un-kept oath. He understood that the history and teachings of Islam would exempt him from spiritual accountability if he used lies as a foundation for a strategic military manoeuvre.
This point is proven by many incidences in the life of Mohammed. He often lied and instructed his followers to do the same. He rationalized that the prospect of success in missions to extend Islam’s influence overrode Allah’s initial prohibitions against lying. A good example of sanctioned lying is the account of the assassination of Kaab Ibn al-Ashrf, a member of the Jewish tribe, Banu al-Nudair. It had been reported that Kaab had shown support for the Quraishites in their battle against Mohammed. This was compounded by another report that infuriated Mohammed. It was alleged that Kaab had recited amorous poetry to Muslim women. Mohammed asked for volunteers to rid him of Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf. As Mohammed put it, Kaab had “Harmed Allah and His Apostle.” At that time Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf, and his tribe were strong, so it was not easy for a stranger to infiltrate and execute the task. A Muslim man by the name of Ibn Muslima, volunteered for the murderous project on the condition that Mohammed would allow him to lie. With Mohammed’s consent, Ibn Muslima, went to Kaab and told him fabricated stories that reflected discontent about Mohammed’s leadership. When he had gained Kaab’s trust he lured him away from his house one night and murdered him in a remote area under the cover of darkness.
The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya
Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.
In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then they negate what they formerly vowed.
The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam’s image and make it more attractive to prospective converts. They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the negative Islamic texts and teachings.
An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed’s ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers
In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts.
I recommend you peruse the site and read the whole article.
I plan on bringing more of the information presented there and at Faith Freedom International (link under Required Reading) to the forefront of my blog. I feel that the news stories of the day — especially those concerning the War on Terror, Israel and the Jordyptians — cannot be correctly understood when viewed through the rose colored glasses of Western society or Christian upbringing.
Any articles, ideas, or comments you may have would be greatly appreciated.