Various forms of deception are permissible in Islam as specified in the Quran, consisting of four different types of deceit known as “Muruna,” “Taqiyya,” “Tawriya,” and “Kitman.” Such deceptive practices manifest in numerous ways, including in the agendas of many Islamic organizations and in Islamic media.
ABOUT THE PRACTICE OF “MURUNA”
Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or surroundings, believing that it is permissible to deceitfully behave in an un-Islamic manner if it serves the greater goal of advancing Islam.
View a video explaining the Islamic “Muruna” strategy:
Walid Shoebat, a former member of the PLO who has reformed and converted to Christianity, explains how the extremist Muslim Brotherhood organization makes use of the “Muruna” strategy by temporarily behaving in a moderate fashion to gain the trust of the West in order to ensure their long term strategy of subjugating the entire world with Sharia law. He cites as an example what has recently happened during Egypt’s so-called “secular revolution” which was actually a Brotherhood cover to implement Islamic extremism.
Shoebat explains that Sheikh Yusef Abdallah al-Qaradwi, who was involved in the overthrow of Egypt, had said, “.. to balance between good and evil, and if the good and evil conflict with each other we make priority as to when we put ahead evil for the sake of an interest, and determine when an evil deed is forgiven for the sake of an interest.” … In other words, al-Qaradwi has been rationalizing his doing evil things for the sake of so-called “good.”
ABOUT THE PRACTICE OF “TAQIYYA”
The information in this section is summarized from this article by Raymond Ibrahim:
The Quran is known for permitting Muslims to be deceptive in certain situations, including when reconciling two or more quarreling parties, when placating one’s spouse, and for gaining strategic advantage during war; however, in most other cases the Quran is opposed to Muslims deceiving other Muslims, but deception directed at non-Muslims is acceptable and is legally permissible, usually being known as “taqiyya.”
Taqiyya has historically been used by Islam as a defense against religious persecution or as a jihadist weapon against unbelievers, and in fact it is often depicted as being equal or superior to other military virtues such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.
According to Shari’a, which are the legal rulings which define how Muslims should behave in all circumstances, deception is permitted in many situations and it is even obligatory in others. For example, Muslims are permitted to lie and feign apostasy (abandoning one’s religion) rather then suffer persecution. Taqiyya is fundamental to Islam, essentially every sect agrees to it and practices it, and it is prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.
The following two paragraphs are authoritative Islamic commentaries concerning the matter:
“If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.” Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923)
“Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Another companion, simply known as Al-Hasan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].” (Ibn Kathir d. 1373)
Prominent Muslim Scholars such as Abu ‘Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi ‘d-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240), have extended taqiyya to allow Muslims to behave like infidels or worse— such as by worshiping idols, offering false testimony, and even exposing the weaknesses of their fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy— anything short of actually killing another Muslim: “Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity—even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.” (Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, pp. 30-7)
The earliest historical records of Islam show the prevalence of taqiyya as a form of Islamic warfare, where Muslims would lie their way out of binds by denying or insulting Islam or Muhammad at the approval of the latter. (Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, pp. 11-2) “Taqiyya was used as a way to fend off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to the raids [crusades] of the Franks and others.” (Ibid., pp. 41-2)
People of all religions are known to practice deception in war, but Islam will never stop thinking of itself as being at war until it conquers the entire Earth.
From the original article: “… Deception of the enemy during war is only common sense. The crucial difference in Islam, however, is that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur’an, ‘all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God.’ (Qur’an 8:39)”
EmileTyan states in his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaedia of Islam: “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily.”
In fact, all four schools of Sunni agree that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and the infidels refuse.”
Unprovoked Islamic expansionist Jihad is made acceptable in the eyes of many mainstream Muslims by their viewing it as an “altruistic endeavor,” where non-Muslims are thought of as “living in bondage” due to being deprived of the goodness that would exist by all humanity living in accordance with Islamic law.
Muhammad and Islam are well known for abruptly and brutally breaking war treaties in surprise attacks once the Muslim forces have regrouped for renewing their offensives. They justify this by believing (even without evidence) that if their opponents are about to break the treaty, they can preempt by breaking it first, and also Muslim leaders are allowed by certain Muslim schools to “abrogate” treaties for any reason that would be advantageous for Islam.
In modern days, militant Islamic leaders such as Osama bin Laden address their victims saying they are attacking due to specific “grievances” which they list, but they never mention the fact that the attacks are actually mostly due to their targets simply being non-Muslim infidel entities.
The Quran states: “We [Muslims] renounce you [non-Muslims]. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in God alone” (Qur’an 60:4)
Muslims who have a particularly zealous belief in Islam are more likely to not able to be detected as being deceitful due to the fact that they think of themselves as genuinely doing god’s work when lying.
The following are the closing paragraphs from the original article:
“… [M]ost Westerners continue to think that Muslim mores, laws, and ethical constraints are near identical to those of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Naively or arrogantly, today’s multiculturalist leaders project their own worldview onto Islamists, thinking a handshake and smiles across a cup of coffee, as well as numerous concessions, are enough to dismantle the power of God’s word and centuries of unchanging tradition. The fact remains: Right and wrong in Islam have little to do with universal standards but only with what Islam itself teaches—much of which is antithetical to Western norms.”
…
“… [I]f war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam ‘until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God.’ (Qur’an 8:39)”
ABOUT THE PRACTICE OF “TAWRIYA”
The information in this section has been summarized from this article by Raymond Ibrahim:
From the article: “… Now meet tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is true to him.”
Tawriya is a manner of “creative lying” by making use of “double-entendres,” where the speaker says something that means one thing while the listener thinks it means something else, during which the speaker’s words technically support the listener’s alternate meaning.
For example, if someone says “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” the listener would assume that the speaker means that he doesn’t have any money at all, but a speaker practicing tawriya might actually have other currency such as quarters or dollar bills. Another example would be someone asking “Where’s Mike?” with the person answering who doesn’t want to divulge Mike’s location by saying “I don’t know” while deceptively picturing a different Mike in his mind.
From the article: “All these are legitimate according to Sharia law and do not constitute ‘lying,’ which is otherwise forbidden in Islam, except in three cases: lying in war, lying to one’s spouse, and lying in order to reconcile people. For these, Sharia permits Muslims to lie freely, without the strictures of tawriya, that is, without the need for creativity.”
In all other cases, according to the words of Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid: “Tawriya is permissible under two conditions: 1) that the words used fit the hidden meaning; 2) that it does not lead to an injustice” (With the “injustice” defined by Sharia rather than Western standards).
Muhammad had said, “Allah has commanded me to equivocate [(meaning to use ambiguous language to conceal the truth)] among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation [(meaning to confuse or bewilder)]”; and “whoever lives his life in dissimulation [(meaning concealment of one’s thoughts, feelings, or character)] dies a martyr” (Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).
Many Muslim leaders are known for using tawriya, such as Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, who is the founder of one of Islam’s four schools of law in Saudi Arabia. Once when he was teaching a class, someone came knocking asking for one of his students, to whom bin Hanbal answered, “He’s not here. Why would he be here?”, while pointing to his hand, making the person falsely assume that the student wasn’t in the room.
Following is another example of tawriya: Imagine someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, but a Muslim practicing “tawriya” might reply, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians,” while knowing that despite the fact that it never technically mentions them by name, the word “those” in that passage is meant to refer to them nonetheless.
The same sort of deception would be used where someone would say “he’s not here” when someone comes asking for a person at the front door, with the speaker actually only meaning that the person isn’t in that particular room of the house.
From the article: “… As Sheikh al-Munajid puts it: ‘Tawriya is permissible if it is necessary or serves a Sharia interest.’ Consider the countless ‘Sharia interests’ that run directly counter to Western civilization and law, from empowering Islam to subjugating infidels. To realize these, Muslims, through tawriya, are given a blank check to lie—a check that surely comes in handy: not just in trivial occasions, like avoiding unwanted callers, but momentous ones, such as at high-level diplomatic meetings where major treaties are forged.”
ABOUT THE PRACTICE OF “KITMAN”
The information in this section has been summarized from this article by Louis Palme:
Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of a truth, for example if a Muslim were to say that Jihad refers to an “internal spiritual struggle” when actually only a few passages in the Quran refer to it that way.
Another common use of kitman is to quote peaceful passages from the Quran that actually have been “abrogated” by contradictory militant verses which have been written later and are required to take precedence. Here is an example:
(earlier) “There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256) Early Medina
(later abrogated) “Are they seeking a religion other than Allah’s, when every soul in the heavens and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?” (Surah 3:83) Later Medina
Another example:
(earlier) “Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged.” (Surah 22:39) Late Mecca
(later abrogated) “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” (Surah 9:5) Late Medina