by Raymond Ibrahim - Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2010 - http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war
Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one
hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the
other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks
around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith
built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion
of the law. Islam's dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal
its paradoxical nature: While the Qur'an is against believers deceiving
other believers—for "surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a
liar"
[1]—deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as
taqiyya, also has Qur'anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.
Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around
dissembling over one's religious identity when in fear of persecution.
Such has been the historical usage of
taqiyya among Shi'i
communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered
and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering
persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the
realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed
taqiyya—not
as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is
doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being
equal—sometimes superior—to other universal military virtues, such as
courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice. Yet if Muslims are exhorted to be
truthful, how can deceit not only be prevalent but have divine
sanction? What exactly is
taqiyya? How is it justified by
scholars and those who make use of it? How does it fit into a broader
conception of Islam's code of ethics, especially in relation to the
non-Muslim? More to the point, what ramifications does the doctrine of
taqiyya have for all interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims?
The Doctrine of Taqiyya
According to Shari'a—the body of
legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all
circumstances—deception is not only permitted in certain situations but
may be deemed obligatory in others. Contrary to early Christian
tradition, for instance, Muslims who were forced to choose between
recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign
apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie
in order to preserve themselves,
[2] based on Qur'anic verses forbidding Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.
[3]
This is the classic definition of the doctrine of
taqiyya. Based on an Arabic word denoting fear,
taqiyya
has long been understood, especially by Western academics, as something
to resort to in times of religious persecution and, for the most part,
used in this sense by minority Shi'i groups living among hostile Sunni
majorities.
[4] Taqiyya
allowed the Shi'a to dissemble their religious affiliation in front of
the Sunnis on a regular basis, not merely by keeping clandestine about
their own beliefs but by actively praying and behaving as if they were
Sunnis.
However, one of the few books devoted to the subject,
At-Taqiyya fi'l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam) makes it clear that
taqiyya
is not limited to Shi'a dissimulating in fear of persecution. Written
by Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American
University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the
book clearly demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of
taqiyya:
Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam.
Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go
so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[5]
Taqiyya is, therefore, not, as is often supposed, an
exclusively Shi'i phenomenon. Of course, as a minority group
interspersed among their Sunni enemies, the Shi'a have historically had
more reason to dissemble. Conversely, Sunni Islam rapidly dominated vast
empires from Spain to China. As a result, its followers were beholden
to no one, had nothing to apologize for, and had no need to hide from
the infidel nonbeliever (rare exceptions include Spain and Portugal
during the Reconquista when Sunnis did dissimulate over their religious
identity
[6]).
Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in
the place of the Shi'a: Now they are the minority surrounded by their
traditional enemies—Christian infidels—even if the latter, as opposed to
their Reconquista predecessors, rarely act on, let alone acknowledge,
this historic enmity. In short, Sunnis are currently experiencing the
general circumstances that made
taqiyya integral to Shi'ism although without the physical threat that had so necessitated it.
The Articulation of Taqiyya
Qur'anic verse 3:28 is often
seen as the primary verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims:
"Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and
allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no
relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them,
taking precautions."
[7]
Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of a standard and authoritative Qur'an commentary, explains verse 3:28 as follows:
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.[8]
Regarding Qur'an 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prime
authority on the Qur'an, writes, "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]."
[9]
Other prominent scholars, such as Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi 'd-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240), have extended
taqiyya
to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave like infidels and
worse—for example, by bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses,
offering false testimony, and even exposing the weaknesses of their
fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy—anything short of actually killing a
Muslim: "Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a
state of infidelity—even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire."
[10]
Deceit in Muhammad's Military Exploits
Muhammad—whose example as
the "most perfect human" is to be followed in every detail—took an
expedient view on lying. It is well known, for instance, that he
permitted lying in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling
parties, to placate one's wife, and in war.
[11]
According to one Arabic legal manual devoted to jihad as defined by the
four schools of law, "The ulema agree that deception during warfare is
legitimate … deception is a form of art in war."
[12] Moreover, according to Mukaram, this deception is classified as
taqiyya: "
Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible."
[13]
Several ulema believe deceit is integral to the waging of war: Ibn
al-'Arabi declares that "in the Hadith [sayings and actions of
Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its
need is more stressed than the need for courage." Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333)
writes, "War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged
by a holy warrior is a war of deception, not confrontation, due to the
latter's inherent danger, and the fact that one can attain victory
through treachery without harm [to oneself]." And Ibn Hajar (d. 1448)
counsels Muslims "to take great caution in war, while [publicly]
lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels."
[14]
This Muslim notion that war is deceit goes back to the Battle of the
Trench (627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several
non-Muslim tribes known as Al-Ahzab. One of the Ahzab, Na'im ibn Mas'ud,
went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad
discovered that the Ahzab were unaware of their co-tribalist's
conversion, he counseled Mas'ud to return and try to get the pagan
forces to abandon the siege. It was then that Muhammad memorably
declared, "For war is deceit." Mas'ud returned to the Ahzab without
their knowing that he had switched sides and intentionally began to give
his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to
instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly
distrusting each other, they disbanded, lifted the siege from the
Muslims, and saved Islam from destruction in an embryonic period.
[15]
Most recently, 9/11 accomplices, such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad,
rationalized their conspiratorial role in their defendant response by
evoking their prophet's assertion that "war is deceit."
A more compelling expression of the legitimacy of deceiving infidels is
the following anecdote. A poet, Ka'b ibn Ashraf, offended Muhammad,
prompting the latter to exclaim, "Who will kill this man who has hurt
God and his prophet?" A young Muslim named Muhammad ibn Maslama
volunteered on condition that in order to get close enough to Ka'b to
assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad
agreed.
Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka'b and began to denigrate Islam and Muhammad.
He carried on in this way till his disaffection became so convincing
that Ka'b took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn Maslama
appeared with another Muslim and, while Ka'b's guard was down, killed
him.
[16]
Muhammad said other things that cast deception in a positive light, such
as "God has commanded me to equivocate among the people just as he has
commanded me to establish [religious] obligations"; and "I have been
sent with obfuscation"; and "whoever lives his life in dissimulation
dies a martyr."
[17]
In short, the earliest historical records of Islam clearly attest to the prevalence of
taqiyya
as a form of Islamic warfare. Furthermore, early Muslims are often
depicted as lying their way out of binds—usually by denying or insulting
Islam or Muhammad—often to the approval of the latter, his only
criterion being that their intentions (
niya) be pure.
[18] During wars with Christians, whenever the latter were in authority, the practice of
taqiyya became even more integral. Mukaram states, "
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."
[19]
Taqiyya in Qur'anic Revelation
The Qur'an itself is further testimony to
taqiyya.
Since God is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he is by
default seen as the ultimate perpetrator of deceit—which is not
surprising since he is described in the Qur'an as the best
makar, that is, the best deceiver or schemer (e.g., 3:54, 8:30, 10:21).
While other scriptures contain contradictions, the Qur'an is the only
holy book whose commentators have evolved a doctrine to account for the
very visible shifts which occur from one injunction to another. No
careful reader will remain unaware of the many contradictory verses in
the Qur'an, most specifically the way in which peaceful and tolerant
verses lie almost side by side with violent and intolerant ones. The
ulema were initially baffled as to which verses to codify into the
Shari'a worldview—the one that states there is no coercion in religion
(2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims
till they either convert, or at least submit, to Islam (8:39, 9:5,
9:29). To get out of this quandary, the commentators developed the
doctrine of abrogation, which essentially maintains that verses revealed
later in Muhammad's career take precedence over earlier ones whenever
there is a discrepancy. In order to document which verses abrogated
which, a religious science devoted to the chronology of the Qur'an's
verses evolved (known as
an-Nasikh wa'l Mansukh, the abrogater and the abrogated).
But why the contradiction in the first place? The standard view is that
in the early years of Islam, since Muhammad and his community were far
outnumbered by their infidel competitors while living next to them in
Mecca, a message of peace and coexistence was in order. However, after
the Muslims migrated to Medina in 622 and grew in military strength,
verses inciting them to go on the offensive were slowly "revealed"—in
principle, sent down from God—always commensurate with Islam's growing
capabilities. In juridical texts, these are categorized in stages:
passivity vis-á-vis aggression; permission to fight back against
aggressors; commands to fight aggressors; commands to fight all
non-Muslims, whether the latter begin aggressions or not.
[20] Growing Muslim might is the only variable that explains this progressive change in policy.
Other scholars put a gloss on this by arguing that over a twenty-two
year period, the Qur'an was revealed piecemeal, from passive and
spiritual verses to legal prescriptions and injunctions to spread the
faith through jihad and conquest, simply to acclimate early Muslim
converts to the duties of Islam, lest they be discouraged at the outset
by the dramatic obligations that would appear in later verses.
[21] Verses revealed towards the end of Muhammad's career—such as, "Warfare is prescribed for you though you hate it"
[22]—would have been out of place when warfare was actually out of the question.
However interpreted, the standard view on Qur'anic abrogation concerning
war and peace verses is that when Muslims are weak and in a minority
position, they should preach and behave according to the ethos of the
Meccan verses (peace and tolerance); when strong, however, they should
go on the offensive on the basis of what is commanded in the Medinan
verses (war and conquest). The vicissitudes of Islamic history are a
testimony to this dichotomy, best captured by the popular Muslim notion,
based on a
hadith, that, if possible, jihad should be performed
by the hand (force), if not, then by the tongue (through preaching);
and, if that is not possible, then with the heart or one's intentions.
[23]
