Posted on Jun 22, 2016
How does a Mulim's 'Jihadi Taqiyya' differ morally from a Christian's 'Military Deception'?
8.25K
40
38
1
1
0
Islam
Christianity
Mission Command
ISIS
Military Deception Planners Course
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
6
6
0
Taqiyya is derived from the Quran and Islamic doctrine.
Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way..
Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy."
Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.
Islam spread through military action after Muhammad began his raids and eventual conquest of Mecca, so it was never inherently peaceful.
In Christianity, there is no scriptural doctrine from the New Testament which permits lying of any kind or provides martial guidance of any kind. In fact, for several hundred years, Christians were conscientious objectors to military service. It would be quite a reach to claim the historical battles mentioned in the Old Testament (the first five books of which are the Jewish Torah) and claim they're the equivalent of taqiyya. It simply wouldn't be true. Violence on behalf of Christianity didn't occur until the lines of church and state had been blurred by Constantine's adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Pragmatic politicians seeking power then began warping the religion and its hierarchy for their own purposes.
Military deception is not Judeo-Christian in origin, but rather, a military construct devoid of connection to a particular religion or culture.
Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way..
Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy."
Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.
Islam spread through military action after Muhammad began his raids and eventual conquest of Mecca, so it was never inherently peaceful.
In Christianity, there is no scriptural doctrine from the New Testament which permits lying of any kind or provides martial guidance of any kind. In fact, for several hundred years, Christians were conscientious objectors to military service. It would be quite a reach to claim the historical battles mentioned in the Old Testament (the first five books of which are the Jewish Torah) and claim they're the equivalent of taqiyya. It simply wouldn't be true. Violence on behalf of Christianity didn't occur until the lines of church and state had been blurred by Constantine's adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Pragmatic politicians seeking power then began warping the religion and its hierarchy for their own purposes.
Military deception is not Judeo-Christian in origin, but rather, a military construct devoid of connection to a particular religion or culture.
(6)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
well Cpt Johnson the quran tells its believers to lie and deceive the infidels as well as kill the infidels all muslims are at the beck and call of the emom who can order them to commit murder, sabatoge, rape, and even suicide at any time and if they do not then their entire family is subject to being put to death therefore making every muslim a terrorist
(1)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
I don't at all believe that every Muslim is a terrorist, they have interpretations of the Quran that are just as diverse as our own denominational schisms within Christianity. While comparing Wahabbism to the KKK, which at its peak in 1920 was only 3.6% of the US population, doesn't statistically hold weight since 36.6% of Muslims in the Middle East believe that 9/11 was at least partially justified, it does draw a distinction of sorts. This distinction at least helps us understand that radical alternative interpretations do exist. We also need to understand that given the schisms within Islam, most Muslims are not supportive of al-Baghdadi as Caliph and Sunni Muslims are unsupportive of Iran's Ayatollah. They haven't been united under one banner since the first four Rashidun ("Rightly Guided") Caliphs. This is why Sunni Muslim violence and Shia Muslim violence is inherently different. Sunni Muslim terrorists (AQI, ISIS, Taliban) conduct attacks in decentralized manner. Shia Muslims terrorists (Iran) typically follow more centralized schemes at the behest of the Iranian govt.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Dave Beem
CPL Matthew Rudquist - Matt, you bring up a point that quite honestly nobody has answered fully yet, I think. YES, what Mohommed said later on in the Koran takes precedence over earlier statements.
HOWEVER, (comma..lol), since the Koran was supposed to be literal dictation from GOD to Mohammed, does that mean that GOD went "WHOOPS, I said that wrong, ok, Mohammed, this is what I REALLY meant?" That would, to me, and just about any analyst, be considered as god making a mistake, right? (because Islam as a whole takes the Koran as the LITERAL WORD OF GOD. The hadiths are considered Mohammed's "musings on life", or his own opinion). I have yet to find any Muslim scholar who can explain this to me, since none of them want to admit that either GOD or Mohammed made a mistake. (I even asked this question to an Imam in Saudi (Riyadh) during the first gulf war..(through a Saudi full bird colonel friend of mine who ran all the Riyadh military police). My colonel friend came back with the answer "that's a question we don't ask"...
If anyone has a better take or answer on this, feel free to post it here.
If anyone knows an AMERICAN IMAM, maybe you could post what HE says about this problem. Because essentially you could wind up with TWO versions of the Koran. One from when Mohammed was in Mecca and the other in Medina. (if you made one as the original and a separate Koran as the one that had the "takebacks" edited so the original statement wasn't there anymore, as it, according to Islamic scholars, doesn't apply since it was superceded by a different, newer statement on the same subject.)
HOWEVER, (comma..lol), since the Koran was supposed to be literal dictation from GOD to Mohammed, does that mean that GOD went "WHOOPS, I said that wrong, ok, Mohammed, this is what I REALLY meant?" That would, to me, and just about any analyst, be considered as god making a mistake, right? (because Islam as a whole takes the Koran as the LITERAL WORD OF GOD. The hadiths are considered Mohammed's "musings on life", or his own opinion). I have yet to find any Muslim scholar who can explain this to me, since none of them want to admit that either GOD or Mohammed made a mistake. (I even asked this question to an Imam in Saudi (Riyadh) during the first gulf war..(through a Saudi full bird colonel friend of mine who ran all the Riyadh military police). My colonel friend came back with the answer "that's a question we don't ask"...
If anyone has a better take or answer on this, feel free to post it here.
If anyone knows an AMERICAN IMAM, maybe you could post what HE says about this problem. Because essentially you could wind up with TWO versions of the Koran. One from when Mohammed was in Mecca and the other in Medina. (if you made one as the original and a separate Koran as the one that had the "takebacks" edited so the original statement wasn't there anymore, as it, according to Islamic scholars, doesn't apply since it was superceded by a different, newer statement on the same subject.)
(0)
(0)
TSgt Dave Beem
Ask the IMAM that services ISIS..I'd bet he'd have an answer! Honestly though, you might put that question to our own Muslim's in the services here. They'd probably have a reference or something, since I'm sure they asked the same question at one point or another, trying to figure out the justification that their fellow Muslims were using for their atrocities.
Or, maybe Mohammed just had a few too many beers that night and misquoted God while he was writing everything down for the day. He was a warlord, after all, which is something most Muslims downplay to the point of protesting when you say it. But the historical record is a lot better for a thousand years ago than it is for 2000. However, most of the jihadis simply use "sound bites" out of the Koran and don't even use the ENTIRE quote, so they warp the words to their own benefit (like any sound bite does).
However, I don't recall anything attributed to Jesus saying it was ok to blow up or kill other Christians (or jews, or anyone else) just to kill off a competing religion's adherents. (though I could be wrong, since part of the catholic confirmation ceremony has the priest saying "go forth as a soldier of Christ")
Mohammed did take a much more violent take on things when he left Mecca for Medina. (Some figure that he FLED persecution in Mecca or he was bodily tossed out of the city)
A few years later he came back with around 10,000 followers and captured Mecca, which really didn't put up a fight to begin with. Then, a few months after he returned to Medina (I think it was called the "Farewell Pilgrimage") he got sick and died. Personally I think Saliman did more for Islam conquering wise than Mohammed ever did.
Or, maybe Mohammed just had a few too many beers that night and misquoted God while he was writing everything down for the day. He was a warlord, after all, which is something most Muslims downplay to the point of protesting when you say it. But the historical record is a lot better for a thousand years ago than it is for 2000. However, most of the jihadis simply use "sound bites" out of the Koran and don't even use the ENTIRE quote, so they warp the words to their own benefit (like any sound bite does).
However, I don't recall anything attributed to Jesus saying it was ok to blow up or kill other Christians (or jews, or anyone else) just to kill off a competing religion's adherents. (though I could be wrong, since part of the catholic confirmation ceremony has the priest saying "go forth as a soldier of Christ")
Mohammed did take a much more violent take on things when he left Mecca for Medina. (Some figure that he FLED persecution in Mecca or he was bodily tossed out of the city)
A few years later he came back with around 10,000 followers and captured Mecca, which really didn't put up a fight to begin with. Then, a few months after he returned to Medina (I think it was called the "Farewell Pilgrimage") he got sick and died. Personally I think Saliman did more for Islam conquering wise than Mohammed ever did.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies" Winston Churchill.
(3)
(0)
MSgt Ken "Airsoldier" Collins-Hardy
Great spin Chip, and I'm afraid that we've not had a wartime statesman in our camp quite like Winston Churchill since Ronald Reagan. "All warfare is based upon deception." –Sun Tzu, The Art of War
(1)
(0)
MSgt Ken "Airsoldier" Collins-Hardy
Chip, thanks a million sharing the quote from Winston Churchill. I actually reshared it in an essay/response to CPT Jack Durish. Good stuff!
(0)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
MSgt Ken "Airsoldier" Collins-Hardy - 21 years as a COMSEC Weenie supporting the COMINT/SIGINT/ELINT/Counter-Intell Community. Involved with with OPDEC to Achieve OPSEC. It was my World for a long time.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Ken "Airsoldier" Collins-Hardy
Kudos Chip! I was anticipating that someone would address Communication Security (COMSEC), and I'm not surprised that you'd provide a 'blue-ribbon' response, to include Special Access Program (SAP) caveats.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Your question is flawed inasmuch as you can't reasonably compare a thing that exists with something that doesn't. The "ruse de guerre" is not a Christian tactic just because it was practiced by Christians. It would be like comparing Jesus and Mohammed, one a man of peace and the other a warlord.
(2)
(0)
MSgt Ken "Airsoldier" Collins-Hardy
CPT Durish, Thank you for your response. I deliberately added an apostrophe 's' to 'Christian' to form the possesive noun, 'Christian's—not an adjective—thererby nuetralizing your strawman argument that 'Christian Deception' isn't an existential counterbalance to 'Islamic Taqiyya' (Here: http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/apostrophe.html and https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman).
The term 'warlord' is a bit extreme to compare the Christ Jesus—although it may be appropriate for His 'second coming.' However, in the meantime and with requisite emotional intelligence, those with more moderate outlooks have acknowledged that He and the Prophet Mohamad (PBUH) were both (arguably) considered revolutionaries (Here: http://www.truth-out.org/originals/item/21679-the-historical-jesus-was-crucified-for-being-a-revolutionary and http://www.islaam.org/Revolutionary/Revolutionary.htm).
Deception is not entirely a pejorative. Using a sporting example, many NBA spectators have witnessed Christian competitors employ deception (or 'ruse de gurre') with such applause-worthy charisma that the NBA—once upon a time—adopted the brandname 'Showtime.' Namely speaking, one Earvin "Magic" Johnson cunningly executed the no-look pass, deceiving countless foes to drain baskets (Here: http://www.charismanews.com/us/41962-magic-johnson-talks-christianity-homosexual-son-and-gay-rights and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOMVCxjVtF4).
What's painfully obvious is that no matter how wisely used by Christianity to support her interest, ascribing the term 'deception' to her induces cognitive dissonance in her adherents that makes them cringe and characterize the compound as comtemptible. Herein lies a moral advantage for 'Islamic Taqiyya' that exploits an unsuspecting 'force multiplier' for Muhmmad's 'Ghazwat' and an undermining irony for Christ's 'Alpha and Omega.' It's unbelievable that 'Sacred Deception' lies nowhere between such universality (Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5TY5CPrzk and http://theholyislam.com).
In closing, as Islam boasts her 'Taqiyya,' how revolutionary—and symmetrical—it would be for Christianity to boasts her 'False Flags.' This symmetry stand to reason how the Christian Agnostic Winston Churchill resolved his cognitive dissonance by saying, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." (Here: http://hollowverse.com/winston-churchill/).
The term 'warlord' is a bit extreme to compare the Christ Jesus—although it may be appropriate for His 'second coming.' However, in the meantime and with requisite emotional intelligence, those with more moderate outlooks have acknowledged that He and the Prophet Mohamad (PBUH) were both (arguably) considered revolutionaries (Here: http://www.truth-out.org/originals/item/21679-the-historical-jesus-was-crucified-for-being-a-revolutionary and http://www.islaam.org/Revolutionary/Revolutionary.htm).
Deception is not entirely a pejorative. Using a sporting example, many NBA spectators have witnessed Christian competitors employ deception (or 'ruse de gurre') with such applause-worthy charisma that the NBA—once upon a time—adopted the brandname 'Showtime.' Namely speaking, one Earvin "Magic" Johnson cunningly executed the no-look pass, deceiving countless foes to drain baskets (Here: http://www.charismanews.com/us/41962-magic-johnson-talks-christianity-homosexual-son-and-gay-rights and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOMVCxjVtF4).
What's painfully obvious is that no matter how wisely used by Christianity to support her interest, ascribing the term 'deception' to her induces cognitive dissonance in her adherents that makes them cringe and characterize the compound as comtemptible. Herein lies a moral advantage for 'Islamic Taqiyya' that exploits an unsuspecting 'force multiplier' for Muhmmad's 'Ghazwat' and an undermining irony for Christ's 'Alpha and Omega.' It's unbelievable that 'Sacred Deception' lies nowhere between such universality (Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5TY5CPrzk and http://theholyislam.com).
In closing, as Islam boasts her 'Taqiyya,' how revolutionary—and symmetrical—it would be for Christianity to boasts her 'False Flags.' This symmetry stand to reason how the Christian Agnostic Winston Churchill resolved his cognitive dissonance by saying, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." (Here: http://hollowverse.com/winston-churchill/).
Apostrophe -- The Punctuation Guide
The apostrophe.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
MSgt Ken "Airsoldier" Collins-Hardy - You'd make a helluva lawyer (and I hope you take that respectfully -- I know there are those who would be insulted to be called a lawyer)
(1)
(0)
MSgt Ken "Airsoldier" Collins-Hardy
Thanks you, Sir. Nothing like a lil' verbal judo between veterans. I tend to research controversial subjects beforehand. Thay way I'm seeking alternative viewpoints on current defense news. Thanks for sparring with me, and have a good evening!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google