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

[Quahom1]

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

It matters not (in my opinion) what the enemy did in the past, but rather, what the "righteous" does in the present, to that "enemy". If we do unto others as they do unto us, then the vicsious cycle of hatred and violence never ends. Life is not a "game" to by toyed with. Be straight up, express intentions (sometimes as a warning, and hope for peaceful resolution), and then act.

In the story of Jericho, Joshua (the hebrew general), was open about his intentions. His soldiers made camp around the city walls, while the people of Jericho laughed at the pitiful army before them.

Then Joshua ordered his troops to march around the city walls, in perfect cadence, for seven days, all the while looking the enemy square in the eye. No deception here. Joshua made it clear the city would fall, and his men would see to it, right there in plain sight. He also gave the city time to consider what was about to happen.

They ignored him, and/or grew tired of the spectacle in front of their city. Yet Joshua's troops marched on, in perfect cadence. And on the seventh day, they sounded their trumpets, and the walls...FELL! Like dirt from an avalanche. Magic? Supernatural intervention? More like use of the laws of physics, and an honest, open intention. No deception. No need for deception. And no quarter given to the city.

But there was no Taqiyya.

 

[Netti-Netti]

. No deception. No need for deception. ...(T)there was no Taqiyya.

During the second World War, Pope Pius XII had fake baptismal certificates made up for Jews and Serbs in order to protect them. If you insist on denying the possibility of situation ethics guided by compassion, then this action on the part of the Pope would appear to be reprehensible - a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.

There many many such "violations" and all of them involved lying to the enemy.

No sane person would say that you must be truthful to your enemies during warfare.

I don't know about sane/insane. But it is easy to imagine where it would be unethical to be truthful under certain circumstances.

 

[farhan]

It matters not (in my opinion) what the enemy did in the past, but rather, what the "righteous" does in the present, to that "enemy". If we do unto others as they do unto us, then the vicsious cycle of hatred and violence never ends. Life is not a "game" to by toyed with. Be straight up, express intentions (sometimes as a warning, and hope for peaceful resolution), and then act.

.

I guess dialogue didnt explain this verse.

There is no such thing happening in 9:3. In 9:1 its saying that Muslims don't have to follow their part of the treaty (that was already broken by the Meccans). 9:2 is saying that Meccans have 4 months to move around. 9:3 says that this is a proclamation from God & his Prophet.

Things were evident for the Mecans that once their people were killed, Muslims will attack Mecca. Otherwise Muslims wouldnt have any credibility left in the eyes of their allies. The Meccan leader Abu-Sufian went to Medina to renew the treaty & from the remarks of Muslims there, it was evident to him that there is no peace treaty left, & neither are muslims interested in signing something new. He obviously would have told Meccans about it.

Before war Muhammad had send Abbas as envoy to Abu-Sufian, saying that they dont want bloodshed. So it would be better if Meccans dropped their weapons. Abu-Sufian converted to Islam & allowed Muhammad to enter Mecca without a fight.

I dont see any Takiya here. Where do you?

 

[farhan]

5:32 is another verse that she didnt talk about. This verse doesnt say anything about killing anybody, so whosoever quotes it , has the right to quote the verse completely, without mentioning any killing. Its 5:33 that talks about Hiraba. Infact what you are doing here is kitman itself. Since the next verse says,"except those who repent before you overpower them". Which is another juristic issue.

Anyways, here is the definition of Hiraba from Ma'ariful Quran

1. What does 'fighting' (Muharubah) against Allah and His Messenger
and spreading disorder in the earth mean, and to whom does this
apply? The word, Muharabah is derived from Harb and intrinsically
means to wrest or snatch away. In Arabic usage, it is used against
Salrn which means peace and security. Thus, we can see that, the
sense of Harb (fight) is the spreading of disorder. It is obvious that
rare incidents of theft or killing and plundering do not cause public
Peace to be disturbed. In fact, this happens only when a powerful and
group stands up to carry out acts of robbery, killing and
plundering. Therefore, according to Muslim jurists, the punishment
in this verse is meant for a group or an individual who
robs people and breaks the law of the land by the force of arms. This
will not include those who indulge in common individual crimes such
as thieves and pick-pockets.

2. The second point worth noticing in this verse is that
Muharba(fighting) of the criminals is said to be against Allah and
His Messenger, though the confrontation or fighting waged by robbers
and rebels is apparently against human beings. The reason is that a
powerful group when it elects to break the Law given by Allah and His
blessed Messenger with force, it is really at war with the government,
even though they are obviously carrying out their aggression against
common human beings. But, when the government itself is Islamic, a
government which subscribes to and enforces the Law of Allah and His
Messenger, this act of 'fighting' (Muhrabah) will invariably be regarded
as being 'against' Allah and His Messenger.

In short, the punishment mentioned in the first verse (33) applies to
robbers and rebels who ruin public peace by attacking with armed
group force and break the law of the land openly. As obvious, this
could appear in many forms. So, everything from aggression against
property and honour to killing and bloodshed is included within its
sense. It is from here that we find out the difference between Muqatalah
and Muhiirabah. Muqatalah refers to a bloody fight, though with
actual killing or without, and though property is also looted as an adjunct.
The word, Muharubah is used in the sense of spreading disorder
by employing force and causing the destruction of public peace and
safety. Therefore, this word is particularly used to denote high-handed
and group-led intrusion into anything relating to the life, property and
honour of people which is called highway looting, robbery and rebellion.

 

[Quahom1]

During the second World War, Pope Pius XII had fake baptismal certificates made up for Jews and Serbs in order to protect them. If you insist on denying the possibility of situation ethics guided by compassion, then this action on the part of the Pope would appear to be reprehensible - a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.

There many many such "violations" and all of them involved lying to the enemy.


I don't know about sane/insane. But it is easy to imagine where it would be unethical to be truthful under certain circumstances.

Perhaps you aught to read the entirety of the the thread before you jump. As I previously stated, things get complicated.

 

[Quahom1]

I suppose the bringing up the "gender" of the poster was pertenant? She, was doing just fine explaining things. She, brought Abdillah into the picture to help (perhaps for me to see it from a male perspective).

Can we start again here? Only, gender of the orator does not matter...I want to know both sides, all sides of the issue. And I don't want others inhibitited from contributing their thoughts.

That, just wouldn't be fair and equitable...agreed?

 

[farhan]

I suppose the bringing up the "gender" of the poster was pertenant? She, was doing just fine explaining things. She, brought Abdillah into the picture to help (perhaps for me to see it from a male perspective).

What makes you say that?

Can we start again here? Only, gender of the orator does not matter...I want to know both sides, all sides of the issue. And I don't want others inhibitited from contributing their thoughts.

That, just wouldn't be fair and equitable...agreed

As you wish

 

[dailogue is the best]

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.

It matters not (in my opinion) what the enemy did in the past, but rather, what the "righteous" does in the present, to that "enemy". If we do unto others as they do unto us, then the vicsious cycle of hatred and violence never ends. Life is not a "game" to by toyed with. Be straight up, express intentions (sometimes as a warning, and hope for peaceful resolution), and then act.

After explaining the verses you stated, we can make a conclusion that taqqiya and kitman dont have the meaning you gave to them. That is to say, their purpose isnt deception at all.

Since here we discuss religions and what they come with, I hope I have given you clear idea about the reality of "taqqiya" and kitman, and how some people misplace them with deception and hypocracy.

Your above questions actually need a lot of analysis, and they may draw us far from what Islam says. The concern in this forum to explain Islam's teachings. What some Muslims are doing, and how their deeds are related to Islam is another topic.