Think you know everything about the problem with Islam?

Muslims are encouraged to lie

Summary Answer: Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences." There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

The Qur'an: Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie. Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves." Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers. Qur'an (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. Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths" Qur'an (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.

From the Hadith:



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 permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."



Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."



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 despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.



From Islamic Law:



Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...



"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are: Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true. Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

originally posted by: makemap


That is why they don't have much trouble adapting because they are supporting each other. The Chinese here are quite divided and following the government educational regulation. Think about it. Do Chinese go to mosques/churches? Hell no. They need Chinatown to maintain their culture. The government is causing too much interference on Chinatown. Also, Canadian Muslims speak mostly English fluently in Canada.

Chinese is all about preserving culture and language. In Canada it isn't really that preserved, freaking have a harder time too. In Canada, your forced to learn French, but not enough time to learn your own language. Also Chinatown is one of the main sources of tourism, therefore too busy working than teaching kids. You don't see Tourists going to Mosques.

The Chinese are divided because that is their culture. They have no manners or respect for one another or anyone else.

They "need" China town? That is why they come here and remain disrespectful and don't learn any manners. They don't have to, they just go to China town where everything is like China and they don't have to adapt.

I don't know what you mean by the government is causing too much interference in China town. Are you a China sympathiser or something. China has more control over China town than Canada does. I hope that is what you meant cause your right that needs to stop.

And Tourism??? Maybe in San Francisco. Here in Vancouver China Town and Crack land are pretty much the same nieghborhood, you can't tell them apart because crack heads and Chinese immigrants like to live in similar conditions.

Forced!! To learn our national language?? The outrage!!

a reply to: MALBOSIA

yeah you are right about that

Haistings and chinatown in van are right beside each other.

a reply to: AnuTyr

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are: Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true. Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

False.

Taqiyya & Kitman can only be used in a life and death situation.


& the verse you "quoted" is nothing to do with "mischief"...

It is about corruption & murder!
The only things punishable by murder.

& there is nothing undefined about it.




What you are doing is lying to unbelievers to defeat Islam...

A common tactic of reversal, born of the Zionists who twisted what Taqiyya & Kitman actually mean which has spread into the Islamophobic community!



You can search the definitions anywhere else but ReligionOfPeace.com for The Truth!!!

Or you can continue to lie about Islam!


Be prepared to be exposed every time I catch you doing it though!



Edit: Taqiyya is also a Shiite practice... & Neither actually appear in the Quran!

a reply to: AnuTyr

I had not heard those terms before. Looked it up on youtube and found some videos:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

But holy crap, don't ask to say Merry Christmas to native Brits in the UK:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Yeah i Still don't trust any of it.

And in the rational of the mind. Any enemy is an enemy. And you can lie to that enemy, Decieve them. Because this enemy threatens your life which allows such action.

even contradicting the quran would force a muslim to lie. Under the law.

I was just pulling quotes because i didn`t feel the need to write an essay about it.
But At least in Christianity, No one is permitted to lie.
It is a cardinal sin, Not something you can get around for life and death situations.

a reply to: AnuTyr

Not something you can get around for life and death situations.

I'm quite sure Jesus wouldn't mind!

Or is he not forgiving?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

i don`t particularly believe in Jesus. But in the book he does not tell one lie. And he tells others to not lie as well.

Jesus not ones tells people to decieve one another ( White lies - `For the betterment of all good`) A lie is a lie period.

And people who lie get they tongue burnt off and fed to hell hounds.

a reply to: AnuTyr

Personally I'm a believer in what's in the heart matters...

Not what comes out of the mouth!


I'm sure plenty of people religious and non-religious have all "lied" to save themselves or a family member from death...


I'm also sure they will not be judged for that, but for what their hearts intent was!

a reply to: markosity1973

It is great that this thread raises attention to the plight of the Rohingya people. Not many people are aware of the atrocities committed against them.

It saddens me that so many people are willing to blindly follow propaganda without questioning what they are learning. People think that IS represents Islam, but they fail to realise that Muslims are murdered by them every day for not believing in their ways. Sunni, Shia, it doesn't matter. IS murders them anyway. Try telling bigots that...it is pointless, they are stuck in their ways. They just point at IS and Saudi Arabia and scream Islam, without realising that there are many more Muslims who oppose the ideologies and laws as found in both entities.

The truth is that there are extremists and terrorists in every religion. This thread is a perfect example. Here we have Buddhism, a religion most consider peaceful, being abused by some for the purposes of terrorism. Just as there are Buddhist terrorists, there are also Christian terrorists and Islamic terrorists.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: dezertdog

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: markosity1973

The goal of Islam is world domination under Sharia.

Nuff said.

That sort of absolutism is what keeps human beings at each others throats.

The vast majority of people of all faiths, or no faith for that matter, just want to be left alone by the small minority of trouble makers in the world and live in peace.

I've been noticing this quite frequently lately on this very site. Nobody has an opinion anymore, everything is spoken in "absolutes". Absolute, absolutes. Locked and loaded. It's quite off-putting.

Absolutes can be challenged with facts if you disagree.

Don't complain, contribute

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: markosity1973
We've seen in the west how Islam is struggling to adapt to our way of life all too well,

I am not sure what part of the west you hail from but here in Canada the Muslims seem to be getting along just fine.

Correct me if I wrong, but Canada has not yet felt the sting of a terrorist attack on foreign soil?

Consider yourselves lucky in that respect.

originally posted by: dezertdog

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: markosity1973

The goal of Islam is world domination under Sharia.

Nuff said.

That sort of absolutism is what keeps human beings at each others throats.

The vast majority of people of all faiths, or no faith for that matter, just want to be left alone by the small minority of trouble makers in the world and live in peace.

Besides that being an appeal to numbers fallacy, I was speaking of Islam specifically. Which has as it's stated goal,world domination under Sharia.

Fact.

The fundamentalists and moderates do not differ on the goal, only the means to achieve it.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical


The fundamentalists and moderates do not differ on the goal, only the means to achieve it.

It's the moderates who share the same desire to live under Sharia law as the radicals and that is the terrifying part.

Sharia law is brutal and totalitarian in it's nature. You can forget a fair trial - if someone 'witnesses it' then it's enough to get you thrown off a building or beheaded or stoned. And when you are dead, they will all praise Allah because another sinner has been stopped.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
They do the same to the Tamil Tigers in Burma.



Also to the poster above...

"World domination under Sharia", is an oxymoron...

Sharia Law is for Muslims only...

But spreading fear is a classical attempt at deflection from the persecution in the OP.



Such a tolerant Christian.

It wasn't exactly "nuff said"...
It was actually "very little but predictably said".

I cant believe a post like this. Sure its for Muslims only......................And really folks like its been said, is it really a surprise that Muslims somewhere are getting hassled? Oh I suppose we should figure this to balance out the Muslim madness worldwide? Big deal. And yea tolerate radical Islam and suffer the consequences.

originally posted by: Logarock

I cant believe a post like this. Sure its for Muslims only......................And really folks like its been said, is it really a surprise that Muslims somewhere are getting hassled? Oh I suppose we should figure this to balance out the 3Muslim madness worldwide? Big deal. And yea tolerate radical Islam and suffer the consequences.

Here is an example from my own country of how Islam really is trying to gain a foot hold.

Under the previous godawful labour government where being PC and kind and fluffy to anything and everything was put above common sense, they allowed the debate of Sharia law to surface. Yes, we actually expected to have to hear the case of Islam and why they should be allowed to practise Sharia law in Australia.

This of course followed on with Immams then declaring that Australia would be an Islam nation within 50 years, that if a woman dresses provocatively it's her fault if she is sexually attacked because if you leave meat on the table and a cat eats it, is it the cat's fault for being a cat or your fault for leaving the meat there? Then we had the infamous YT vid by yet another immam on 'how to beat your wife'

A senior Muslim cleric in Australia has sparked a furore by comparing women who do not wear a headscarf to "uncovered meat", implying that they invited sexual assault.
Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali delivered his comments in a religious address on adultery to around 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, but they only came to the attention of the wider public when they were published in the Australian paper today.

Sheik Hilali was quoted as saying: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [the headdress worn by some Muslim women], no problem would have occurred."

Source



You give these people and inch and they will take 100 miles. They claim they need special rights and protections. I ask why would I want to give special rights to people who say rape is all a woman's fault and who teach their men it's okay to beat your wife as long as it is not to a bloody pulp?

The main reason it seems like a battle between Christianity and Islam is because if one denounces the atrocities committed by Muslims, many will swarm in and say that these same atrocities have been committed by Christians throughout the centuries. This is true, but this makes absolutely no difference, which I will explain shortly. So there is this pitting of one religion against the other. And then there is the fact that both are Abrahamic religions, and that Christianity is around 500 years older than Islam. Then of course the US is viewed as a Christian nation, and the US has been involved in wars in Muslim nations. So there are a few main reasons. Anyway, the atrocities committed in the name of any religion can be blamed upon the people following the religion as opposed to the religion itself, and this is where the problem lies: finding out who is responsible, the religion or the people following the religion.

Atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are not justified by the doctrine of Christianity itself, and therefore the fault lies not with the religious teachings but with the people committing the atrocities. One would be much more justified to say that Judaism teaches violence more-so than Christianity, because the Christian Old Testament is composed of Jewish texts. But Christianity has little relationship to the Old Testament because these Jewish writings are only included in the Bible to show how Jesus was the Messiah that was predicted in those texts. The Old Testament is not presented as a way to live by any means, because everything, aside from the 10 commandments of Moses, was superseded by the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said that people should forget all those old teachings, and follow the new path. That new path was peace, loving your neighbor, forgiveness, etc...He abhorred violence and taught against it. He would not even permit violence to save himself, when he was arrested and he staid Peter's hand and fixed the damage that was done. So Christian atrocities are the fault of men, not of Christianity.

But with Islam the teachings are much different. There is a difference between presenting historical accounts of violence, and calling anyone reading the texts to violence. The Quran contains both forms. Therefore because it calls modern followers of the faith to violence against non-believers in some places, the doctrine is to blame just as much as those committing the violence in the name of Islam, whereas with Christianity the violence is strictly the fault of certain individuals as opposed the religion itself. I said that one is more justified comparing Judaism and Islam because there is so much more violence in the Jewish texts than the Christian texts. Much of the violence in the Jewish texts is presented as historical accounts, as opposed to serving as a call to violence for modern believers. And there are not groups of Jewish terrorists, or Christian terrorists, on the same scale as Islamic terrorists. One has to ask themselves why this is the case. The answer is of course that the Quran actually does more to call modern readers/followers to violence against non-believers. I mean come on, it has the concept of jihad. This is not meant to mean a picnic.

I say that a terrorist is someone who commits violence or terrorizes other individuals because of some ideological, political, or religious difference. I maintain that because Islam teaches violence, it should not be protected to the same extent as other religions where religious freedom in general is concerned. Any religion that calls believers to violate the rights of those who do not practice the same religion has no place in a modern society or even world. Basic human rights include the right to choose your own religion. You cannot have people going out and killing others just because they practice a different religion. Therefore any group who would involve themselves in such atrocities should be stamped out. And because Islam is calling believers to violence, as opposed to the believers acting of their own accord, they see themselves as doing God's will. The only way to stop them is to stamp out these teachings. If Islam did not explicitly call believers to violence then we could focus on going after just those committing the violent acts, because it would be only their fault. But because Islam is calling believers to violence it stands to reason that Islam is the enemy. Many will say that there are peaceful Muslims, which is true. But these are the believers who are not explicitly following all of the teachings in the Quran. They are picking and choosing what teachings they follow and which they do not follow. And common sense tells them that killing other people simply because they believe something different is wrong. And they would be right. So you've got good people following a bad religion, but their good nature and common sense are enough to overcome the call to violence.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Well put Jiggy and you are right on the money and correct. I'm sick of hearing Islamic leaders say that these attacks have no place in Islam and don't represent it when it has everything to do Islam and has a historical factual basis attiributed to the Prophets actions or sayings !!. It's time MSM called out these so called spiritual leaders as liars then show them the evidence to prove it. They will soon crawl back into the hole they came from. It is also apparent that Western leaders have fallen for the same BS "doesn't represent Islam" and keep telling us so at every opportunity, though I suspect behind closed doors the opposite is said. But until the petro dollars runs out we will publicaly keep hearing it.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
The main reason it seems like a battle between Christianity and Islam is because if one denounces the atrocities committed by Muslims, many will swarm in and say that these same atrocities have been committed by Christians throughout the centuries. This is true, but this makes absolutely no difference, which I will explain shortly. So there is this pitting of one religion against the other. And then there is the fact that both are Abrahamic religions, and that Christianity is around 500 years older than Islam. Then of course the US is viewed as a Christian nation, and the US has been involved in wars in Muslim nations. So there are a few main reasons. Anyway, the atrocities committed in the name of any religion can be blamed upon the people following the religion as opposed to the religion itself, and this is where the problem lies: finding out who is responsible, the religion or the people following the religion.

Atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are not justified by the doctrine of Christianity itself, and therefore the fault lies not with the religious teachings but with the people committing the atrocities. One would be much more justified to say that Judaism teaches violence more-so than Christianity, because the Christian Old Testament is composed of Jewish texts. But Christianity has little relationship to the Old Testament because these Jewish writings are only included in the Bible to show how Jesus was the Messiah that was predicted in those texts. The Old Testament is not presented as a way to live by any means, because everything, aside from the 10 commandments of Moses, was superseded by the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said that people should forget all those old teachings, and follow the new path. That new path was peace, loving your neighbor, forgiveness, etc...He abhorred violence and taught against it. He would not even permit violence to save himself, when he was arrested and he staid Peter's hand and fixed the damage that was done. So Christian atrocities are the fault of men, not of Christianity.

But with Islam the teachings are much different. There is a difference between presenting historical accounts of violence, and calling anyone reading the texts to violence. The Quran contains both forms. Therefore because it calls modern followers of the faith to violence against non-believers in some places, the doctrine is to blame just as much as those committing the violence in the name of Islam, whereas with Christianity the violence is strictly the fault of certain individuals as opposed the religion itself. I said that one is more justified comparing Judaism and Islam because there is so much more violence in the Jewish texts than the Christian texts. Much of the violence in the Jewish texts is presented as historical accounts, as opposed to serving as a call to violence for modern believers. And there are not groups of Jewish terrorists, or Christian terrorists, on the same scale as Islamic terrorists. One has to ask themselves why this is the case. The answer is of course that the Quran actually does more to call modern readers/followers to violence against non-believers. I mean come on, it has the concept of jihad. This is not meant to mean a picnic.

I say that a terrorist is someone who commits violence or terrorizes other individuals because of some ideological, political, or religious difference. I maintain that because Islam teaches violence, it should not be protected to the same extent as other religions where religious freedom in general is concerned. Any religion that calls believers to violate the rights of those who do not practice the same religion has no place in a modern society or even world. Basic human rights include the right to choose your own religion. You cannot have people going out and killing others just because they practice a different religion. Therefore any group who would involve themselves in such atrocities should be stamped out. And because Islam is calling believers to violence, as opposed to the believers acting of their own accord, they see themselves as doing God's will. The only way to stop them is to stamp out these teachings. If Islam did not explicitly call believers to violence then we could focus on going after just those committing the violent acts, because it would be only their fault. But because Islam is calling believers to violence it stands to reason that Islam is the enemy. Many will say that there are peaceful Muslims, which is true. But these are the believers who are not explicitly following all of the teachings in the Quran. They are picking and choosing what teachings they follow and which they do not follow. And common sense tells them that killing other people simply because they believe something different is wrong. And they would be right. So you've got good people following a bad religion, but their good nature and common sense are enough to overcome the call to violence.

So are you trying to tell us that no christian priests or preachers quote from the old testament during their Sunday sermons???? Get real?

Fact. History shows that Christianity is the most violent religion on the planet. By the numbers more Muslims are killed by Christians and Jews than the other way around. This holds true for any day of the week for the past 200 years. The adherents to Christianity have killed and massacred millions of people all over the globe. Nearly wiped out the native Indians, Practically wiped the aboriginals of Australia, the French in Algeria, The Belgians in the Congo as well as the Germans, The Spanish in the Philippines, Italy in Libya the goddamned list goes on and on,,, the Crusades the goddamned list goes on and on,,, The Germans in southwest Africa,,lets not forget the 1.5 million Circassian Muslims killed by Russian orthodox peace loving Christians, the list goes on and on,,the holocaust, not to mention pogrom after pogrom by Christians against Jews, the Jews bombing Gaza over and over again and the even singing about killing Muslims children in their schools (really nice) the list goes on and on, oh the Bulgarian massacre of Muslims right after Ottoman times, do I have to keep on going.? The Salem witch trials, did I mention the million dead Muslims in Iraq?? How about the daily droning of Muslim girls and boys in Yemen and Pakistan( like every other day )... What the Fu@#in Fu#$ people.
Who are the terrorsts again????
And don't think that the list is done, cause it goes on and on.