Anthropology of Islam: Pluralism in Islam

Anthropology of Islam:

Pluralism in Islam

Muhammad Isma'eel 'Abdulhaqq 

The idea of pluralism in Islam centers on three main issues: syncretism in religious practice, the intrinsic ability of Islam to adapt to the various cultures it comes in contact with, and religious freedom for religious minorities in Muslim-majority societies. It also seems that marginalized Muslim groups in the so-called Islamic societies or nations are so marginalized and relegated to the periphery by the perceived “orthodox establishment” to maintain a sort of political stability. As long as the government and the ‘ulama(religious scholars) who support them don’t interfere too much with the religious affairs of these peripheral cultural groups their governance is tolerated or approved or regarded indifferently. There is no incentive to rebellion. And the Muslim governments are content to concentrate on administrative tasks as long as those on the periphery at least make an outward show of maintaining orthodox practices(orthopraxy). Yet and still there have been numerous instances of abusive governmental regimes and authoritarianism.

Socially, the idea of a pluralistic, inclusive Islam as found in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, or regions such as East Africa, is a contentious issue. Syncretistic practices are usually roundly condemned by what I call the “orthodox establishment”. In nations that are secular, as in the majority of the Muslim world, this orthodox establishment consists of the ‘ulama. Usually in these governments, which are usual very repressive, totalitarian, or seen as proxies for Western governments, religion only becomes a concern when individuals, groups or movements threaten the governments political power. Egypt is a perfect example of this type. In theocratic or monarchical forms of government, the ‘ulama are either co-opted or allied with the State to form this “orthodox establishment”. Iran and Saudi Arabia represent this type. Syncretism in religious practice refers to the inclusion of elements into the religion of Islam that are either borrowed from or influenced by non-Muslim society. It also includes situations where Islam is overlain pre-existing cultures. Usually this is referred to by the orthodox establishment as bid’ah, innovation in religious practice and kufr, deviation in correct religious belief,.

These societies have existed among the Muslims since the time of the final Messenger of Islam, Muhammad(saws). Some of these practices include saint worship, certain faith healing practices, sorcery and witchcraft, astrology, and spirit possession. It can also include celebrating non-Muslim religious holidays such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, New Year’s and birthdays. Curiously, Female Genital Mutilation(FGM), honor killing, even stoning to death as a punishment for adultery and death penalty for apostasy also qualify as syncretistic practices or bid’ah, yet the critics of Islam and many traditional Muslims and Muslim extremists regard these practices as Islamic.

Islam has the intrinsic ability to adapt to the various cultures it comes in contact with. This maybe why one speaks of a Euro-Islam, a Western Islam, or an American Islam. Many scholars have suggested that there are many types of Islam, religious expressions that are unique because of the way the existing sociocultural milieu shapes Islamic experience. However, I have posited elsewhere that there can only be one Islam, especially when we understand the difference between content and container, essence and form. There is an interdependent reaction between Islam and pre-existing cultures. Both act on an affect each other, creating unique., local Islamic experience. Both those who believe that there are multiple versions of Islam and those that claim there is only one authentic Islam have difficulty reconciling their ideas with the Islamic concept that all Prophets of Islam, from Adam to Nuh to Ibrahim to Musa to Isa,(as) to Muhammad(saws) were Muslims. How does one believe that all prophets were Muslim if the form that Islam took as a result of the Revelations each Prophet received and the teachings they expounded was different in each case?

And how does one reconcile the idea of multiple Islams with the other Islamic concept that Islam was in fact the religion that all Prophets taught? In an intellectual climate that accepts multiple interpretations of Islam it is possible to validate the extremist interpretation of Islam as legitimately Islamic, it seems. Often we hear pundits talk about the need to “reform” Islam by expunging extremist interpretations of it. Yet, in the mainstream mind, these are not legitimate Islamic interpretations at all. One possible answer is that Islam is inherently pluralistic, even as certain “interpretations” fall outside the possible range of legitimate Islamic expression. Inclusive and pluralistic does not mean that all expressions and interpretations are Islamic.

The issue of religious freedom for religious minorities in Muslim-majority societies is the most contentious and possibly most important of the issues related to pluralism in Islam. Theologically Islam is in fact exclusivistic. This cannot be denied. However the real question of concern is the idea of religious freedom for non-Muslims in an Islamic state. When looking at the state of Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority nations it is evident that they are treated poorly, regarded a second-class citizens, discriminated against, even persecuted in some cases. We see this happening to Christians and Jews in Iraq and Egypt and other countries of the Muslim world. It happens to Buddhists in Afghanistan, Parsis(Zoroastrians) and Baha’is in Iran, and Ahmadiyya and Hindus in Pakistan and Kashmir. Many critics of Islam look at these realities on the ground and studies of history and conclude that Islam is inherently and uniquely intolerant of religious minorities.

Opinions among Mainstream Muslims range from denunciation of this behavior as unIslamic to outright denial of these realities. What does the Qur’an, the Muslim Holy Book say? The oft repeated Quranic verse describing religious tolerance that is rejected by Islamophobes by utilizing the idea of an-nasik wa’l mansukh is only the beginning: There is no compulsion in Religion… [Qur’an 2:256] Critics of Islam contend that all of the so-called” peace verses” found in the Qur’an are cancelled out, effectively abrogated by its “sword verses” or “war verses”. We will analyze the legitimacy of the Law of Abrogation in Islam in full detail in another article. But it will be briefly stated that the criticism amounts to a belief that certain verses in the Qur’an are no longer applicable, that Allah has replaced them. All of this flies in the face of actual Muslim belief, even among extremists. Muslims do not believe that the peace verses are no longer the word of Allah or do not belong in the Qur’an any longer. To get a clearer picture of the Quranic vision of religious tolerance and liberty I can list numerous verses and their tafsir. “

We have shown him the way, he may be thankful or unthankful” [Qur’an 76:3]

“The Truth is from your Lord, so let him who wishes believe and let him who wishes disbelieve” [Qur’an 18:29]

“Indeed there have come to you clear proofs from your Lord; whoever will therefore see, it is for the good of his own soul, and whoever will disbelieve, it shall be against himself” [Qur’an 6:105]
 But the actual verse that lays down the broad principles of religious freedom is:

“And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then there should be no more hostility except against the oppressors” [Qur’an 2:193]

Critics of Islam and extremists hone in on the phrase “and religion is only for Allah” and conclude that fighting must continue until Islam is dominant. Yet in light of the most primary method of Quranic interpretation(ta’wil), Qur’an explains Qur’an, we will see that not only does this verse completely defeat the idea of perpetual warfare in Islam, it defeats the idea that religious war in Islam is for the purpose of spreading Islam. In fact it shows that any religious war in Islam is only to prevent or fight religious persecution. Jihad is not “holy war”, as the Islamophobes contend. It also clearly shows, when coupled with verses 39- 40 of Surah 22, Islam allows religious liberty and does not countenance religious compulsion.

“Permission to fight is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is able to assist them- Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is all. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps Him. Surely Allah is Strong, Mighty” [Qur’an 22:39-40].

 As we can see Muslims are supposed to not only protect themselves from religious persecution but also protect other religious communities from harm from those who would persecute them on account of religion. The phrase “and religion is only for Allah” means that no one is to be persecuted on account of their religious beliefs and everyone is at liberty to hold whatever belief they wish. We can now conclude three things in light of this information: syncretism in religious practice is condemned as bid’ah in Islam, Islam has the intrinsic ability to adapt to the various cultures it comes in contact with, and religious freedom for religious minorities in Muslim-majority societies, though not realized in most Muslim-Majority countries, is guaranteed by Allah through the Qur’an. Each of these ideas will be explored further in future articles.

IslamophobiaTV

IslamophobiaTV

As-salamu Alaykum,

Bismillah. Alhamdulillah wasalatu wa sallam 'ala Rasulillah

I am writing you today to introduce you to an ambitious project and I would like to mobilize the entire Muslim ummah, insha'Allah, to make this a success. We need your help and this letter's purpose is to marshal the support, any kind of support of the Muslims(and non-Muslims), to get this project off the ground. The idea is to create an Islamic TV station/channel here in the West whose primary mission is to combat Islamophobia through the various means and angles at our disposal.

If you read some of the things I have written on my blogs you will see that I personally believe that Islamophobia can be countered on three fronts:1. Presenting authentic Islamic information 2. Presenting a human face to Islam countering the attempts to demonize and dehumanize all Muslims. After all I say that the first step in curing the disease of Islamophobia is to get to know a Muslim personally.3. Exposing the unabashed evil and evil strategies and tactics of those who whom we rightly label as Islamophobes. This endeavor will m Islamophobia TV the first Islamic station of its kind here in the West, Insha'Allah.

The basic idea is to have a running documentary of Islamophobia wherever it is found. We will be primarily focusing on the West, which includes the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia. It also includes Latin America(the Caribbean, Central America and South America). There is also Islamophobia in places like Israel, which we all know, but there is Islamophobia in places like Eritrea, Russia, and Nigeria, which we may not all be familiar with. I would like to address and document it all Insha'Allah!

The project right now is in Phase One so please check it out as the site is up and running. we also have a Youtube page

http://islamophobiatv.wordpress.com, which is moving to:

http://islamophobiatv.org

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Islamophobia-TV/178990555489628?ref=ts

http://www.youtube.com/user/IslamophobiaTV

Twitter: @IslamophobiaTV

We are also on vimeo: http://www.vimeo.com/ and, dailymotion[both just added:search IslamophobiaTV]

http://www.dailymotion.com/IslamophobiaTV

Let me now describe the phases to you:

Phase One

In phase one I hope to find as many videos related to Islamophobia on the web as possible, This could range from Islamophobic events or rallies, or even speeches.

A few Islamophobes have spoken at my university. It could also include video recorded debates with Islamophobes. This gave me the idea to post speeches from anti-Islamophobes and various Islamic scholars and intellectuals that refute the nonsense of the Islamophbes .

Part two of Phase One will include videos that we upload ourselves. In this part I would like to focus on recorded interfaith events, Muslim events such as Qur'an graduations and recitations, Ramadan events, short documentaries as well as interviews with ordinary Muslims, Imams, and Islamic scholars The sky is the limit!

So I am hoping people will scour the net like I have for these videos and send them to me as well as make your own videos and send them to me. Also if anyone would like to be part of the "staff" please email me as soon as possible and I will add you as a user on the site, that way you can go to the dashboard yourself and add videos and upload your own and write blurbs for each video. We moderate all comments on the website, so there will have to be some type of "shura" system in place so that someone does not go off on their own and censor comments simply because they don't like the comment. There is a responsibility that will come with gaining access control to the site as one of the moderators, users and admins(henceforth called the "staff"). However one thing I will not be flexible on is this: absolutely no links to any anti-Islamic websites are allowed, even if they are posted just to refute them. You can post the content and where it is coming from without providing a link.

So right now I am looking for investors, writers, producers, journalists, interviewers, videographers, camera men/women, hosts, prominent Muslims(scholars, intellectuals), a street team, marketers, tech people, artists, website developers, and just anybody who can dedicate time to promote the project as well as find relevant videos.
To Recap:

1. To find as many videos where Islamophobes give talks, speeches, are present at rallies, protests, and are involved in debates. Then we would find writers to write informative articles about the videos and the Islamophobes in question, and post them to the site.

2. Find as many videos as possible of anti-Loons, Muslim and Non-Muslim, where they give talks, speeches, are present at rallies, protests, and are involved in debates with the 'phobes and write about it. We would post these videos to the site.

3. Find as many journalists, and even ordinary non-journalists, as possible, to attend these types of events, record them so we could upload the videos and then get writers to write about it.

So this way we could make a running, continuous video documentary of Islamophobia in the U.S. and around the world.

Phase Two

I would like to go from a blog format and YouTube/Facebook social media format to a webmagazine/internet newsmagazine type format  page with the goal of becoming a satellite streaming channel like HudaTV. In this phase we will not abandon the social media aspect, but the hope is to convert the blog into a website that will become the Official website of IslamophobiaTV. If you are familiar with Al-Jazeera, they have an official website and TV station. That is the eventual goal of converting the blog into a regular website..

In this phase we will continue as before but we will need to add many more elements to create a variety to capture a wider audience of Muslims and non-Muslims. This is where investors and donations will play a big part. Get your masjids involved! "My masjid" already has a radio show on AM radio and I hope to include it in the project and expand it in some way. Nothing like this exists in the West so we will be the trendsetters insha'Allah.

Here are my ideas for the type of programming for this project. If you have any more ideas, suggestions, comments, or even criticisms, please email me. I know that this is an ambitious project, but if we can get a large chunk of the Muslim community to help, Insha'Allah, it will be a success!

Religious Programs- We can have scholars answer questions live or sent in, geared toward clearing up common misconceptions about Islam. This could have to do with fatawas in an "Ask the Mufti" style or just plain answering other questions that dispel myths about Islam in an "Ask The Imam" or "Ask the Scholar" style .

Also, if any of the scholars/imams teach religious classes they could record them and upload them or Islamic University Online or Madinah Institute can transfer their lectures to the site as programming. Religious programming can include Qur'an recitation and the likes.

Debates- As well as posting recorded debates between Muslims and non-Muslims, we could also set up on-site or in-studio debates between prominent Islamophobes and qualified Muslims.

Talk Shows- Talk shows can be of any type, but the many goal is to keep it halal and showcase the ordinary lives of Muslims as they face the challenges of Islamophobia and living as a Muslim in the West.

Keynote Speeches- We can invite various speakers, Muslims and non-Muslims, to speak on a prearranged topic related to Islamophobia and record it.

Research Presentations- we can invite scholars to present their research on topic related to Islamophobia, as a lecture or speech.

Lectures- On any Islamic topic, does not have to be Islamophobia related.

News Shows- News shows are very important to countering the "police-blotter" driven narrative that presents Muslims as either terrorists, submissive, oppressed women, or tries to present ghuluw(extremism) as normative Islam. We also want to counter the other media tendency of presenting "Liberal/Progressive/ Modernist" Muslims as mainstream Islam or "Moderate Muslims. I have no intention of excluding them since they are also Muslims and are victims of Islamophobia, some by virtue of Looking "Arab", "Middle-Eastern", or Muslim. However there is no need to be politically correct and present the Muslims the West feels most comfortable with or who are seen as the most acceptable type of Muslim. We want to show Islam in all its diversity without sacrificing correct 'aqeeda and daw'ah.

Discussion Panels- I think this type of show speaks for itself by name so I will not discuss it there. But i am willing to take any suggestions as I am for any of the proposed programming. I am very focused on finding hosts for this genre of programming, so if  you think you qualify or know someone who might, please let me know.

Documentaries and Docudramas- I saw a documentary called "American Ramadan" a few years back. You can Youtube it to get an idea of what I am looking for in a quality, halal film.

Movies- Keep it halal. Again we are not trying to be mainstream, we are the alternate source that counters corporate and government controlled-media that invariably shows Muslims in some sort of negative light, whether it be as extremists or assimilationists.

Sit-Coms- "Little Mosque on the Prairie" is a show that comes to mind for this genre. We can try to get Zarqa Nawaz to allow us to show episodes on the site and channel in the beginning before we get ambitious enough to produce or shop for producers who are creating these type of "Muslim Cosby Shows".

Drama- Same goes for this genre. I have yet run into a drams show exclusively about Islam, though. Anyone know please alert me to it.

Other Video- Situation on the Street- I had an idea where Muslims could go around their respective cities and interview on camera non-Muslims and Muslims to get their opinions about Islam, Muslims, and Islamophobia.

Interfaith Events- find a way to record all of your masjid's or Islamic organizations' interfaith events and upload the video.

Live Book Reviews- We could do a show where people review, deconstruct, critique, and discuss any book on Islam, especially if the book is Islamophobic in content. Robert Spencer's "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" comes to mind.

Comedy- There are many ahadith about laughing and smiling too much, as it weakens the qalb and our iman. But the Prophet(saws) used to tell jokes. Halal jokes. And with the situations that Muslims are facing in the West, being able to laugh is good medicine. And Muslims are some of the funniest people I know, even when it's dark, cynical, sarcastic humor. I think a halal Muslim comedy show would be great

Phase Three

This is the phase where we become a full fledged TV station with a an official website and the goal of establishing offices in cities around the world. Some of us do not like to think that far ahead, but as you can see, I am a planner, so I want this goal to be in the back of everyone's mind as we take on this project and embark on what I think is a worthwhile journey.

Anyone interested in the project or who can direct me to someone who would be useful please email me ASAP. Forward this to anyone you think will be interested.

abuhanifah34@gmail.com

May Allah Guide us to success. Ameen.

Barak Allahu Feek
Waslam

Muhammad Sameel  'Abd al-Haqq

Anthropology of Islam: The Impact of Colonialism on Contemporary Islamic Experience

Anthropology of Islam: The Impact of Colonialism on Contemporary Islamic Experience

Muhammad Sameel ‘Abd al-Haqq

Introduction

           

Many modern Muslim social movements and developments can be seen as reaction not only to emerging modernity, but also as reactions to challenges brought about by European colonialism. The period extending from the beginning of the 13^th century to the late 19^th century has had a major impact on these emergent and emerging social movements and social trends in the Muslim world. Some cynical western observers, during the period extending from the end of the 19^th century to present day, almost believed that Islam, as a world political force and military power was breathing its last breath. The religion itself was soon to follow, powerless in the face of the Western advance, colonialism, neo-colonialism, modernization, westernization and globalization all factors of that imminent decline. Other skeptics and concerned Muslims began expressing, through writing and speeches, the seemingly inevitable transformation of Islam into something more palatable to most Westerners, a “domesticated Islam” ; an Islam devoid of its menacing, destructive potential to bring down Western civilization.

           

 Instead Muslim social movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood, reformist movements such as the Salafiyya, Wahhabi, Neo-Khwarijite and Taliban-style movements abound. Without degenerating into terrorism apologetics or blindly accepting the Western anti-Islamic narratives that not only mislabel extremist groups, but misidentify their motives, we can ask why do these movements arise and abound. Why the resistance? Why does another group inevitably arise when one is destroyed? What exactly are they resisting? Some Muslim societies, especially those in the West, began to reinterpret Islam as a result of what was perceived as a threat to Islam, the Muslim way of life, and Muslim control of historically Muslim-majority lands. Others began to fear a sociocultural, if not spiritual incursion on the part of the West that would eventually lead, it was feared, to an Islam unrecognizable to the faithful.

            

 As a result, direct and indirect challenges to this perceived threat have risen and continue to rise the world over. Reactions include attempts at formulating or reformulating an alternative to the “western way of life”, one that met the challenges of globalization and modernization in a post-colonial environment. This of course was done to maintain Islamic traditions, or so the reformers believed, in the context of “creating” or articulating an Islam more compatible with “western ideas such as democracy, human rights within the context of the nation-state, the global village, and modern scientific developments. 

Yet other reactionary movements saw these movements as traitorous, displaying an inordinate love for all things Western. This love, they accused, manifested itself in the belief that the Muslim world must incorporate or copy certain Western elements in order to remain relevant in the modern world. The ideas and achievements of the Western world seemed to be the frame of reference for all these Muslim reform groups. Indeed terrorist movements are seen as a relatively modern development in Islam.

           

The results of these reactionary developments, in hindsight probably, were inevitable. Violent conflicts continue to escalate without a viable solution in sight. Movements that began as non-violent,  intellectual activity, increasingly began to resort to violence to realize poorly articulated goals. Religio-spiritual confusion arose among Muslims who believed that Islam must be triumphant, so the cultural, political, and military ascendancy and supremacy of the West was seen as a failure of Muslims to follow Islam correctly. Muslim reformers, later to be called revivalists, began an attempt to purge from Islam all of the unIslamic elements that accrued over the centuries. We will attempt to analyze these movements as well as certain sociocultural trends that arose in the Muslim world as a direct result of colonialism.

Towards a Definition of Islam

Towards a Definition of Islam

Muhammad Sameel ‘Abd al-Haqq

Introduction

Islam has been variously translated by both Muslims and non Muslims alike. Some detractors of Islam have gone so far as to suggest that Islam is not a religion at all, but a “political ideology masquerading as a religion". From the outset though, in terms of relevance, we need to understand that how Muslims themselves define Islam yields the most accurate meanings. With this in mind we can begin to discuss the various approaches to defining Islam, based in part on the varied approaches to define religion itself. In the academic arena, these approaches are:

                                  
1. Theological
2. Typological
3. Historical
4. Philological
5. Literary Criticism
6. Anthropological
7. Cultural                                     
8. Sociological                                         
9. Marxist
10. Psychological
11. Phenomenological
12. Philosophical
13. Feminist
14. Modernist
15. Post modernist

We will discuss each of these approaches and their conclusions and efficacy in yielding a viable definition of Islam. To begin we will link a decidedly theological definition with its etymological and linguistic considerations.

First and foremost, theologically, Islam is Din and Iman. Din is best understood in relation to its antinomian, dunya, as anthropologist Gabriele Marranci contends. Dunya is usually translated as “world”, but it also connotes “profane” or “mundane”, therefore, “secular”. So Din carries the meaning “spirituality” or “spiritual experience”, rendering Islam primarily an experiential religion by definition, even though belief and doctrine are eminently important. What many Westerners regard as “religion”, can properly be understood really as ibadat and aqeeda in Islam. Ibadat refers to acts of worship, which includes, but is not limited to, ritual. Aqeeda is a word that simultaneously means belief, creed, and theology. As a result of the compartmentalizing of religion into a separate, private sphere of life in secular Western societies it has became difficult for many, Islamophobe or not, to understand just exactly how Islam can be regarded as a religion. This is not just a matter of a culturalist ethnocentrism resulting from Western views on separation of church and state. It also translates into a disdain for a religion that deals with every aspect of human life. Indeed Muslims declare that Islam is a “total way of life”, while Western detractors call it “totalitarian”. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

As anthropologist Daniel Varisco contends, haters of everything Islam disparage Islam or lack the ability to understand Islam quite simply because of a possible hubris, since Muslims are seen as not “enlightened” enough to relegate their religion into irrelevance through secular reform in the same way the West has. So quite simply when asked what is Islam, one can reply Islam is three things at once, even if the answer does not encompass all that is Islam. Islam is: Din, Iman, and tradition. Din, although suggesting a primarily experiential understanding of Islam, encompasses ibadat, aqeeda, and tazkiya (spirituality). Iman must be understood as “Faith”, and by tradition it is meant discursive tradition. If discourse is understood as a formal, ordered, extended expression of thought, then discursive should be understood to mean proceeding from topic to topic in a coherent manner.

The Language of Islam

  Another way to understand the meaning of Islam is to approach it from a somewhat (crude) linguistic analysis. The role of language, translations, and definitions is one of the major factors in shaping Western public perception and discourse on Islam. Quite often what occurs when words are translated from one language to another that doesn’t contain the same precise concepts is distortion. Many are opposed to the Muslim idea that it is necessary to read and understand the Qur’an in Arabic to fully understand it. Yet just from an analysis of the word Islam, we can see how meaning can be altered. Advocating learning Islam from Muslims is what we are doing here.

Many translate the word islam as either peace or submission, depending on their ideological loyalties.  But does either definition convey the true meaning of the word as embodied in the Qur’an through the Arabic language? I would argue that something indeed is lost in translation. In English the word submission directly connotes a sense of coercion. In reality the Arabic word istislam means surrender or more properly submission, so why is Islam translated as such as well. Is it simply because they share the same root?

In order to be a Muslim, one must accept Islam free of force or coercion. This is where the relational aspect is lost in translation. The word submission in English implies coercion on the part of one human to another. But in Islam the same word used to denote submission, when translated into English, refers to submitting one’s will to Allah. In Islam, there is a rejection of submitting one’s will to another human being over submitting to Allah.There is no word conveying this concept in English, so the same word, “submission” is used to mean both submitting to God and submitting to man.

The main issue with translating the word islam centers on the fact that there is no linguistically derived relationship between the English word “submission” and the English word“peace,” unlike in in Arabic where islam and salam (peace) and istislam( submission) are all derived from the same root word “SLM” (to be in peace). This is an etymological relationship that should never be lost in translation, yet it is, as commonly held notions of the meaning of islam attest. Islam means “to freely submit one’s will to God’s, in pursuit of divine peace,” according to Ahmed Rehab. A simpler version that carries the same meaning is, as Professor Tariq Ramadan proposes, “to enter into God’s peace”. We can then propose a modified definition of Islam, along linguistic and etymological considerations. Islam is freely submitting one’s will to the Will of Allah. This submission is what brings one into a state of Peace. In this way the ideas of islam meaning Submission and islam meaning Peace are reconciled. So now we have two different but complementary definitions of Islam, based on theological understandings.

Moderate Muslims and Pluralism

Moderate Muslims and Pluralism

Muhammad Sameel ‘Abd al-Haqq

Many critics of Islam claim that Islam is not pluralistic. But what exactly does that word mean? Here is an example of non-Muslims controlling and defining the "debate on Islam", as well as defining the terms of reference that I think applies also to the case of "pluralism in Islam". In the anti-Islamic climate we find ourselves in today, you will find many Muslims clamoring to convince non-Muslims that they are moderates.

In the post 9/11 climate we also find many Muslims feeling compelled to choose between seemingly irreconcilable identities. Muslims feel compelled to choose between affirming a Western and Islamic identity or a "moderate Muslim" over a "radical Muslim" identity. But what exactly is a "Moderate Muslim"? For a Westerner, many times a moderate Muslim is defined by the degree to which Muslims reject the parts of Islam that they (the non Muslims) may find unpalatable or unacceptable. This, I am sure we can see, has nothing to do with actual moderation.

A non-Muslim may ask you "do you reject jihad and Shari'ah?, and use your response to determine whether you are a "moderate Muslim". Likewise, in the same vein of non-Muslims defining the terms of debate with reference to Islam, it is often stated that Islam is a very intolerant faith, the opposite of pluralistic. Islam is seen as inherently intolerant, religiously, socially, culturally, and politically . And it is claimed that we will see this intrinsic intolerance manifest itself wherever we find Muslim societies, especially in Muslim-majority nations.

What I have tried to do is give an introduction to the subject of pluralism in Islam from an Islamic perspective. The three main issues I have identified and briefly explained are syncretism in religious practice, the ability of Islam to adapt to pre-existing cultures, and the treatment of non Muslim minorities in Islam and Muslim-majority polities.

Syncretism refers to adding religious practices into Islam from non-Muslims. Both practices seen as bid'ah and acts that are considered kufr fall into the category of syncretism. Some of these practices include saint worship, certain faith healing practices, sorcery and witchcraft, astrology, spirit possession, Female Genital Mutilation(FGM), and honor killing. It can also include celebrating non-Muslim religious holidays such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, New Year’s and birthdays. Muslims do not believe stoning to death as a punishment for adultery and death penalty for apostasy qualify, even though these practices are not found in the Qur'an.

I introduced the concept of “orthodox establishment” to show that the idea of syncretistic practice is rejected by Muslims. So in essence, theologically speaking, Islam is not pluralistic at all. But those belonging to other religions shouldn't see this as a problem. All religions have tried to maintain a sort of integrity, an orthodoxy. So why is Islam singled out for being theologically "intolerant"? Something else is going on here.

Socially, 'ulama as well as governments tolerate syncretistic, peripheral communities as long as they make an outward show of maintaining orthodox practices(orthopraxy). This is done to maintain a sort of political stability. As long as the government and the ‘ulama (religious scholars) who support them don’t interfere too much with the affairs of peripheral cultural groups their governance is tolerated, approved, or regarded indifferently. There is no incentive to rebellion. This does not deny that there have been numerous instances of abusive governmental regimes and authoritarianism.

Culturally, Islam has the intrinsic ability to adapt to the various cultures it comes in contact with. This has led many scholars to suggest that there are many types of Islam, religious expressions that are unique because of the way the existing sociocultural milieu shapes Islamic experience. El-Zein says that there are many Islams. However, Akbar Ahmed contends, and I agree, there is one Islam but many Muslim societies. Inclusive and pluralistic does not mean that all expressions and interpretations are legitimately Islamic.

The issue of religious freedom for religious minorities in Muslim-majority societies is the most important of the issues related to pluralism in Islam. The real question of concern is the idea of religious freedom for non-Muslims in an Islamic state. When looking at the state of Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority nations it is evident that they are treated poorly, regarded as second-class citizens, discriminated against, even persecuted in some cases. We see this happening to Christians and Jews in Iraq and Egypt and other countries of the Muslim world. It happens to Buddhists in Afghanistan, Parsis (Zoroastrians) and Baha’is in Iran, and Ahmadiyya and Hindus in Pakistan and Kashmir.

Many critics of Islam look at these realities on the ground and studies of history and conclude that Islam is inherently and uniquely intolerant of religious minorities. Opinions among Mainstream Muslims range from denunciation of this behavior as unIslamic to outright denial of these realities. I listed several quotes from the Qur'an that prove that Islam supports respect and fair treatment for religious minorities. Islam also rejects religious coercion and religious persecution, thus advocates religious liberty. This is more than just "tolerance" and exemplifies the Islamic concept of pluralism. However most Muslims do have the desire to see Islam as the dominant religion in the world, which is normal for any true believer of any religion.

As my conclusion I state:

"As we can see Muslims are supposed to not only protect themselves from religious persecution but also protect other religious communities from harm from those who would persecute them on account of religion. The phrase “and religion is only for Allah” means that no one is to be persecuted on account of their religious beliefs and everyone is at liberty to hold whatever belief they wish."

We can now conclude three things in light of this information: 1.syncretism in religious practice is condemned as bid’ah and kufr in Islam, 2. Islam has the intrinsic ability to adapt to the various cultures it comes in contact with, and 3. religious freedom for religious minorities in Muslim-majority societies, though not realized in most Muslim-Majority countries, is guaranteed by Allah through the Qur’an. So Islam is theologically "intolerant"; socially, culturally and religiously tolerant. The question I have deliberately avoided addressing is "Is Islam politically intolerant?” That deserves its own treatment, so I avoided giving it cursory attention here.

Allahu A'lam

Taqiyya and Lying in Islam

 Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam
Muhammad Sameel  'Abd al-Haqq
 Taqiyya, a concept all Islamophobes, including the author of the article "How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War:Defeating Jihadist Terrorism, Raymond Ibrahim, hardly understand. The reality is that Islamophobes throw around the word “taqiyya” with little care for its actual meaning.  It is simply sloppy rhetoric, with no real substantive value. So i will suppose if cries of "Islamophobia" by Muslims are intellectual cop outs, designed to silence all criticism of Islam, then cries of "taqiyya" are the ultimate intellectual cop outs of Islamophobes designed to silence rebuttals of Islamophobes.  To be sure, just as there are legitimate instances of Islamophobia, there are also legitimate instances of lazy Muslims crying "Islamophobia!". And just as there legitimate instances of Muslim extremists employing their twisted understanding of taqiyya and kitman, there are many instances of Islamophobes crying "taqiyya" in order to silence Mainstream Muslims, and shove down our throats that the extremists' ideology and narrative is the "real Islam", firmly rooted in the Islamic tradition, texts, and teachings of Islam.

First off telling the truth is commanded in Islam, and honesty is highly praised. It's as if after learning some legitimate Arabic terms used in Islam such as jihad, shari'ah,taqiyya and kitman, Islamophobes take their twisted or incomplete understanding of the terms and create a new buzz word. How about telling us the meanings of harb, qital, qatal, irhab, hirabah, fiqh, and/or idtirar instead?

Islamophobes simply take the words of the extremists as truth. But wait..Aren’t all Muslims liars, engaged in taqiyya and  active deception? Isn't lying part of our religion? How do you know the extremists aren't lying about Islam? When is a Muslim telling the truth? In short, who is practicing taqiyya, the mainstream Muslim-majority or the Muslim extremists and terrorists? After all, our narratives are diametrically opposed to each other, so it can’t be both groups.

From the Qur'an:

“And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).  (Qur’an, 2:42)”

“If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, Let the trustee (Faithfully) discharge His trust, and let him fear his Lord. Conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it,- His heart is tainted with sin. And God Knoweth all that ye do.  (Qur’an, 2:283)”

 “O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or poor: For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (Of your hearts), lest ye Swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline To do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do.  (Qur’an, 4:135)”

 “But if anyone earns A fault or a sin And throws it on to one That is innocent, He carries (on himself) (Both) a falsehood And a flagrant sin.  (Qur’an, 4:112)”

 “...Help ye one another In righteousness and piety, But help ye not one another In sin and rancor: Fear Allah: for Allah Is strict in punishment.  (Qur’an, 5:2)”

 “O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For Allah, as witnesses To fair dealing, and let not The hatred of others To you make you swerve To wrong and depart from Justice. Be just: that is Next to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do.  (Qur’an, 5:8)”

“O you who believe, you shall reverence Allah, and be among the truthful.”  (Qur’an 9:119)

 “Allah commands justice, the doing Of good, and liberality to kith And kin, and He forbids All shameful deeds, and injustice And rebellion: He instructs you, That ye may receive admonition.  (Qur’an, 16:90)”

“It is only those who believe not in the Ayah (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah, who fabricate falsehood, and it is they who are liars.” (Qur’an 16:105)

 “The submitting men, the submitting women, the believing men, the believing women, the obedient men, the obedient women, the truthful men, the truthful women, the steadfast men, the steadfast women, the reverent men, the reverent women, the charitable men, the charitable women, the fasting men, the fasting women, the chaste men, the chaste women, and the men who commemorate GOD frequently, and the commemorating women; GOD has prepared for them forgiveness and a great recompense.” (Qur’an 33:35)

“Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies.” (Qur’an 40:28)

“Woe to each sinful dealer in Falsehoods:  (Qur’an, 45:7)”

 “Oh prophet! Accept the pledges of the believing women, when they come to take their oaths of allegiance to you. Provided, they pledge that they would not join any partners with Allah, would not steal, commit adultery or kill their children, and would not indulge in slander, and would not concoct lies on their own. Also, that they would not disobey you in what is right. Seek forgiveness for them from Allah! Certainly Allah is the most Forgiving and the most Merciful.  (Qur’an, 60:12)”

If you are going to make a claim of abrogation, i hope you have fun finding the abrogating verse(s) that says, to the effect, "lying is permissible".

From the Hadith:

"Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell.”

Abdullah bin Mas`udPBUH) said, “Truth leads to piety and piety leads to Jannah. A man persists in speaking the truth till he is enrolled with Allah as a truthful. Falsehood leads to vice and vice leads to the Fire (Hell), and a person persists on telling lies until he is enrolled as a liar”.’

or an alternative rendering,

"It is obligatory for you to tell the truth, for truth leads to virtue and virtue leads to Paradise, and the man who continues to speak the truth and endeavors to tell the truth is eventually recorded as truthful with Allah, and beware of telling of a lie for telling of a lie leads to obscenity and obscenity leads to Hell-Fire, and the person who keeps telling lies and endeavors to tell a lie is recorded as a liar with Allah.”

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “The signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when he is entrusted with something, he betrays that trust.” (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 33; Muslim, 59)

Hasan bin `Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) said: I remember (these words) from Messenger of Allah (PBUH): “Give up what is doubtful to you for that which is not doubtful; for truth is peace of mind and falsehood is doubt”.  [At-Tirmidhi].

Hakim bin Hizam (May Allah be pleased with him) reported that: Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “Both parties in a business transaction have a right to annul it so long as they have not separated; and if they tell the truth and make everything clear to each other (i.e., the seller and the buyer speak the truth, the seller with regard to what is purchased, and the buyer with regard to the money) they will be blessed in their transaction, but if they conceal anything and lie, the blessing on their transaction will be eliminated.’‘

[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

The concept  of taqiyya, as usually understood, comes from this verse, along with a few others:

“Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” [Surah 16: 106]

Taqiyya involves the Islamic concept of religious dissimulation, not in fear of persecution, but when actually faced with extreme persecution, imminent death, torture and compulsion. Taqiyya is also defined as the practice of precautionary dissimulation practiced by followers of Shi'a Islam, whereby believers may conceal their Shi'a Muslim faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.

The term taqiyya (تقیه)  is derived from the Arabic triliteral root waw-qaf-ya, denoting "piety, devotion, uprightness, and godliness, and it means the brightest star", It did not originate among Shi’a, though, but was expanded upon by them. It revolves around the aforementioned Quranic verse. Contrary to what Raymond Ibrahim claims, not only are taqiyya and kitman not a fundamental part of Islam, it is clear that it isn't necessarily  taqiyya that is used as a form of deceit in times of war. The words for lie in Arabic are:

LIE      إِفْك        IFK

TO LIE           كَذَبَ       KAZABA

In no way does taqiyya involve active deceit. Stating that deceit is doctrinally grounded in Islam is disingenuous. And it is never depicted as superior to such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice in war. In fact, anyone who knows anything about Islam knows that these things, especially shahadat(martyrdom/self-sacrifice) are praised, whereas deceit is only regarded as sometimes a necessity, not something eminently praiseworthy.

The first mistake in assuming that taqiyya is some essential part of Islam is the assumption that Shari'ah is the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances( this is fiqh). Jurists have decreed that Muslims are permitted to lie in order to preserve themselves based on Qur'anic verses forbidding Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths indeed, yet if anyone bothered to read the tafsir surrounding the revelation of the verse in question(Surah 16: 106), one would be familiar with the stories of Bilal, Soumayya and her husband Yasir.

If we read “Azbab ul-Nuzul” (The Reasons for Revelation), we find the context of this verse:

Said Ibn ‘Abbas said: “This verse was revealed about Ammar ibn Yasir. The idolaters had taken him away along with his father Yasir, his mother Sumayyah, [etc.]…and tortured them. As for Sumayyah, she was tied up between two camels and stabbed with a spear in her female organ…[and] killed. Her husband Yasir was also killed…As for ‘Ammar, he was coerced to let them hear what they wanted to hear [i.e. renunciation of Islam]. God’s Messenger was told that Ammar has renounced faith, but he said: ‘Never, Ammar is filled with faith from his head to his toes; faith is admixed with his flesh and blood!’ Ammar then went to see God’s Messenger, crying.  God’s Messenger used his hands to wipe Ammar’s tears, and said: ‘If they return to you, let them hear again what you told them’. Then Almighty God revealed this verse [16:1o6].”

Also, Mujahid said: “This verse was revealed about some Meccans who accepted faith [i.e. Islam]… The Quraysh caught up with them…and coerced them to renounce their faith. It is about them that this verse was revealed.”

Although taqiyya is a doctrine further developed in Shi’ism, exactly for the reason of persecution at the hands of the majority Sunnis, as we can see, it is also true that there is some justification for such a belief in Sunni canonical sources. Thus, renouncing Islam under duress, torture, and fear of imminent death, is the only application of taqiyya that exists in Sunni Islam, which 85% of Muslims follow.  Virtually all Shi’ites believe in a similar restriction of taqiyya. It is not permissible to lie about Islam.

As far as one of the few books devoted to the subject(which should give you a clue about its actual importance and application in Islam), "At-Taqiyya fi'l-Islam" (Dissimulation in Islam), the author Sami Mukarem, is a Druze. The Druze are famous for dissembling their religious beliefs, and as a mystical offshoot of Ismai'ilism, they are not even regarded as within the fold of Islam by most Muslims. All of the author’s assertions about the fundamental importance and applicability of taqiyya among every "sect" in Islam is to be rejected. Most Muslims have never even heard of this doctrine until an Islamophobe brandishes it in a declaration of (faux) victory.

The claim that Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in the place of the Shi'a is sheer nonsense. Though many Islamophobes would like to persecute us, thankfully(Alhamdulillah), we have not yet reached the stage of the severe persecution the Shi'a faced from some Sunnis.

Qur'anic verse 3:28 is often seen by Islamophobes as another primary verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims. But it is their translations that allows them this deceptive idea. Translations such as this:

"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."

Here is better translation, with the Arabic transliteration:

[Qur'an 3:28]Let not the believers take the kafireen for awliya rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allah -- except that you guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully. And Allah cautions you against His retribution. And to Allah is the eventual coming.

La yattakhithi almu/minoona alkafireena awliyaa min dooni almu/mineena waman yafAAal thalika falaysa mina Allahi fee shay-in illa an tattaqoo minhum tuqatan wayuhaththirukumu Allahu nafsahu wa-ila Allahi almaseeru

Although  many translators translate "awliya" as friends, anyone more familiar with Arabic knows that this word is not properly translated as friend only, but as "protector, "saint", and friend”. The verse conveys  two of these connotations at once, and the inclusion of the words, "rather than the believers", makes it clear that this verse is not about deceiving "infidels".  More importantly kafir does not signify all non Muslims/nonbelievers, but only those who cover up (the (truth). A closer analysis of verse 3:28 gives another, totally different, picture.  While many  extremist Muslims believe it is forbidden to become friends with non-Muslims, mainstream Muslims believe the term awliya does not properly translate to “friends.”  Rather, the Arabic term awliya refers to a specific type of friendship, an unequal friendship.  And in the context of the verse in question, it refers to two things:

 1.to a relationship where a Muslim is receiving protection from the non-Muslim; in particular, the Muslim is at the mercy of the non-Muslim.  A better translation of the word awliya would be “protecting friends”, or simply “patrons.”

2. It is also clear that war is also the context, not normal relations.

The prohibition of taking disbelievers as awliya is repeated in verse 60:1, where Allah says:

O you who believe, do not take My enemies–who are your enemies as well–as your awliya–offering them your love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have on the contrary driven out the Prophet and yourselves from your homes, simply because you believe in your Lord God!  (Quran, 60:1).

This verse makes the context and the meaning of awliya, especially in its quranic usage, much clearer. A  few lines down it is even clarified that Allah is only talking about those disbelievers who oppress the Muslims by fighting them for their faith and driving the Muslims out of their homes:

 As for those disbelievers who do not fight against you on account of your faith, and who do not expel you from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and equity, for verily God loves the equitable!  God only forbids you from taking as awliya (protecting friends) those who fight you for your faith, and who drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out.  Those who seek their protection are indeed wrongdoers.  (Quran, 60:8-9)

Even if we accept that the only possible definition of awliya is “friends”, the Quranic verse would only prohibit taking those disbelievers as friends who oppress the Muslims; not all non-Muslims.

And  Danios from Loonwatch writes:

“Furthermore, 3:28 was revealed in a certain context: the Prophet Muhammad had begun preaching his new religion in Mecca, his birthplace.  The pagans of Mecca oppressed and tortured his followers.  As has been discussed earlier, the Prophet Muhammad gave permission to some of the weaker and more vulnerable converts to pretend to renounce their faith in order to avoid being tortured and killed.  (This developed into the Shi’ite doctrine of taqiyya.)  Eventually, the persecution reached such a level that the Prophet ordered his followers to flee to the city of Yathrib (Medina), an event that came to be known as the Hijra (Emigration).  However, some of the early Muslims were too weak to travel and/or were prevented from leaving by the pagans of Mecca.  It was these that were permitted to use “taqiyya” to save their lives.

The pagans of Mecca threatened to destroy the city-state of Medina, and with it the religion of Islam.  They established a network of spies in Medina, by reaching out to some of the non-Muslims of Medina as well as some of the Muslims weak in faith.  The looming threat of a pagan conquest of Medina caused many of the weaker willed Muslims to lose their faith in the Prophet; many of them sought the protection of the Meccan pagans.   It was these Muslims that the Quran was calling out in verse 3:28 and 60:1, urging the Muslims not to “take the disbelievers (i.e. the pagans plotting to overthrow Medina) for awliya (protecting friends) rather than believers (the Prophet and the defenders of Medina).”The words “except by way of precaution when you fear them” was referring to those Muslims left behind in Mecca, reassuring them that they were not to be faulted for trying to save their lives (from torture and death) by using “taqiyya.”  However, a key point here is that the Muslims of Mecca were commanded to flee to Medina, and whoever did not do so was considered sinful, except those physically incapable of doing so.  The Quran says:

    When the angels collect the souls of those who die in sin against themselves (because they did not emigrate from Mecca), the angels will ask: “What was wrong with you?”  The people will answer: “We were too weak on earth.”  The angels will say: “Was God’s earth not spacious enough for you to migrate to some other place?”  For such the goal is Hell, what an evil refuge!  Except those who are truly weak and prevented by the oppressors, those men, women, and children who have no means in their power to emigrate.  For these, there is hope that God will forgive them: for God blots out sins and forgives again and again.  He who forsakes his home in the Cause of God finds the earth wide and spacious, with many places of refuge.  Should he die as a refugee from his home, his reward from God is sure.  God is Most Forgiving and Most Merciful.  (Quran, 4:97-100)

Clearly, it is not appropriate to analogize the circumstance in verse 3:28 to the situation of Muslim-Americans today.  Unlike the Muslims of pagan Mecca who were tortured and killed if they professed their faith in Islam, Muslim-Americans have freedom of religion.  The state will not kill Muslim-Americans for being Muslim.  Yes, if Muslim-Americans are ever rounded up and sent to concentration camps, as some of the Islamophobes so desire, then in that situation a Muslim-American could use taqiyya to deny that he is a Muslim.  But what relevance is taqiyya when their lives are not at stake?  Even the verse that Spencer himself quotes, verse 3:28, says “except by way of precaution when you fear them.”  Do Muslim-Americans fear for their lives?  Spencer doesn’t even believe that Islamophobia is real, let alone the idea that Muslim-Americans fear for their lives due to their profession of faith, so how does this verse apply at all?

It would only apply to a situation such as the Inquisition in Spain.  And even in this case, the first option would not be taqiyya.  Rather, the Muslims would be commanded to emigrate to another place, such as to the Muslim majority world, wherein they could freely practice their religion.  Any Muslim who willingly stayed behind in Spain and pretended to become Christian might be considered sinful (and therefore deserving of Hell!).  God would only forgive those Muslims who were physically incapable of leaving Spain, due to handicap or prevention by the Spanish authorities.  Therefore, we see that taqiyya is a last case option, and only when there is no other choice.  Even if a Muslim-American felt like there was a  possibility he could be tortured or threatened with death for his faith, in the United States, he would still have the option of migrating to another country.  Taqiyya would simply not be an option, and anyone who resorted to that would be considered sinful and Hell-bound.”

Citing Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923)is merely citing medieval opinion while ignoring context and modern Islamic scholarly opinion. Declaring him "author of a standard and authoritative Qur'an commentary" is more rhetoric designed to fool the reader. at-Tabari does not create Islamic doctrine. Same goes for ibn Kathir, Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73)and Muhyi 'd-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240).No 'alim, fuqaha, or mufti  or any Muslim has that prerogative. Any Muslim who declares "Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity—even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire", is obviously wrong, as taqiyya is only permitted under duress! Decrying that 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, ignores, again, that taqiyya can only be employed under duress.

While acknowledging that deception of the enemy during war is only common sense, Ibrahim goes on to elaborate another lie that involves the idea “that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair. In fact, the statement “ all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence 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” is a gross misrepresentation, as all schools of Sunni jurisprudence consist of individuals, the majority of whom don’t hold this view. An appeal to this merely ignores the contemporary situation where a cut and dry adherence to a madhabb is not the prevailing circumstance while also disregarding the circumstances that lead to such a view of jihad by some medieval jurists. Dar al-Islam  and dar al-Harb is a medieval concept, and many scholars argue that anywhere one is able to practice Islam freely, free from persecution is Dar al-Islam . At the very least Ibrahim ignores that this dichotomous division was:

1. Not something found in the Qur’an, but elucidated by jurists, and

2. This is not the only way the medieval Islamic scholars have “divided the world”.

Moreover there is no obligation to convert everybody to Islam  by force and neither is

Robert Spencer agrees with Ibrahim and wants to convince the public that Islamic law allows for and even encourages lying “if it fosters the growth of Islam” and that  moderate Muslims are “stealth jihadists”, who are simply using deception to further our faith. Any moral code worthy enough because it avoids fallacies and logical contradictions would allow for lying in certain circumstances. It's common sense that no moral code should command honesty without exception. It brings to mind the famous Nazi's at your door story. Or my own "Bin Laden at your door asking for Robert Spencer" comparison. Would you tell the truth and turn in Spencer, who is visiting you at your home? There is no need to touch on the fact that this type of allowance for lying in extreme situations is present in Christianity, Judaism, and even in atheistic or humanistic moral philosophy.

According to ahadith, in Islam, the Prophet Muhammad(saws) allowed for three (and only three) exceptions to the rule of honesty :

Lying is NOT permitted except in three cases: (1) a man’s speaking to his wife to make her happy; (2) lying at times of war; (3) and lying in order to reconcile between people.

Lying in order to reconcile people(s), is based on Islam’s emphasis on peace and a saying of the Prophet(as):

"He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."

But obviously what we are most concerned with here, primarily, is the idea of war, and how extremists believe Muslims are at war with non-Muslims by virtue of them being non Muslims; and Islamophobes believe the extremists. And how lying to "unbelievers" or "infidels" becomes perpetually permissible by this standard. Prophet Muhammad’s(saws) statement that “war is deceit/deception” has led to a basis for promulgation of this taqiyya-linked idea of the permissibility of lying to all non-believers as standard practice. Yet as the following story shows deception is only permitted in war; war defined as "open hostilities, that both sides acknowledge  that they are at war with each other", as per Islamic law, and/or armed conflict:

During the Battle of the Trench, the Confederates, led by the Meccans, were threatening to use their overwhelming numbers to destroy Islamic city-state, Medina.  They lay siege to the city. Nuaym ibn Masud was instructed by the Prophet Muhammad(saws)to break the deadly siege. Nuaym said he could do this, but that “this requires me to lie.” The Prophet(as) replied “war is deception.” And so Nuaym went to the various factions making up the Confederates and convinced them of the supposed disloyalty of their own allies.  This sowed discord and disunity in the enemy ranks, which the Muslims capitalized on to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

As you can find here:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/silencing-spencer-taqiyya-and-kitman-are-part-of-judeo-christian-belief/#comments

along with a thorough refutation of Spencer's ideas about taqiyya, which also addresses all the falsehoods/points of the article by Ibrahim, there is also this statement:

The ultraconservative Islamic website, Islam-qa.com, explains the difference between deceit/deception and treachery:

 [Question:] Does Islam permit deception in war? Is this considered to be betrayal and treachery?

[Answer:] Praise be to Allaah.

Allaah has forbidden treachery and has condemned those who do it. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“They are those with whom you made a covenant, but they break their covenant every time and they do not fear Allaah” [al-Anfaal  8:56]

And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“Every betrayer will have a banner on the Day of Resurrection, by which he will be known.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6966; Muslim, 1736)

Al-Bukhaari narrated that Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: ‘The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘There are four characteristics, whoever has them all is a pure hypocrite: when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise he breaks it; when he is entrusted with something he betrays that trust; and when he argues, he speaks in an obscene manner. Whoever has one of these traits has a trait of hypocrisy until he gives it up.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3878; Muslim, 58)

    And it was narrated that Maalik said: “I heard that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas said: ‘There is no people who betrays their covenant but Allaah gives their enemies power over them.” (al-Muwatta’, Baab ma jaa’a fi’l-wafa’ bi’l-‘ahd)

Yet despite this condemnation of betrayal, Islam allows deception in war in order to attain victory. Al-Nawawi said: “The scholars are agreed that it is permissible to deceive the kuffaar [infidels] in war in any way possible, except if that would mean breaking the terms of a treaty or trust, in which case it is not permitted.”

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “War is deceit.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3029; Muslim, 58).  One of the most dangerous elements of deceit is taking the enemy by surprise and catching them unawares before they can get ready to fight. When the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) wanted to head for Makkah in order to conquer it, he ordered the Muslims to get ready without telling anyone of his intention until after they had set out for Makkah, and after taking all precautions to prevent news of that reaching the mushrikeen. And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to send out many raiding parties, and he would tell them to travel by night and conceal themselves by day so that they could catch the enemy unawares.

Although it is permissible to use deception in war, we say that Islam has attained a high standard of ethics with regard to the use of these tricks in war. Among the most prominent examples of that are the following:

 ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab wrote to the commander of an army that he had sent out: “I have heard that some men among you look for kaafirs, then when they run to hide in difficult mountainous terrain they say, ‘Do not be afraid,’ then when they catch up with them they kill them. By the one in whose hand is my soul, if I hear that anyone has done that I will chop off his head.”

 It was narrated that Abu Muslimah said: “ ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab said: ‘By the One in Whose hand is my soul, if any one of you were to point to the sky [i.e., a gesture to imply that he will not harm him] to make a mushrik come down to him and then kill him, I would kill him for that.’”

Islam has forbidden treachery, and treachery is not one of the kinds of tricks and deception that are permitted in war. This Islamic sharee’ah makes a distinction between the kinds of deceit that are permitted and that which involves treachery and breaks treaties. See al-‘Allaaqaat al-Khaarijiyyah fi Dawlat al-Khilaafah, 197. Islam Q&A Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid”

Furthermore Islam does not command that Muslims only be honest with Muslims, but lie to unbelievers. Nowhere will you find in any Quranic verse or Prophetic tradition that says lie to the“unbeliever”, lie to the “non-Muslim”, and/or lie to the “infidel”. Lying is permitted in war, and under specific circumstances, and that the war may be with non-Muslims is entirely incidental.

As for Muslims deceiving non Muslims when they are minorities in Western countries:

“ Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.” Surah 5:89

“Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.” Surah 2:225

Danios, whom Spencer refuses to debate, writes "According to Islamic law, the status of citizenship is considered a trust.  It cannot be violated.  Therefore, it would be impermissible for a Muslim-American to violate his American citizenship.  As such, it would be completely forbidden in Islam for a Muslim-American to plot against the United States of America.  Such a person would be resurrected on the Day of Judgment with the Banner of Treachery, according to Islamic theology.

According to Islamic law, when a person enters a non-Muslim country using a visa, by doing so he enters into a covenant of peace with them.  It thereby becomes forbidden for such a person to plot against them, and their wealth, lives, and property are considered sacrosanct.  As the classical Islamic jurist Imam Shafi’i opined: “If he is safe from them, they should be safe from him.”  In other words, a Muslim may not plot against the non-Muslims who allowed him to enter their country.  During the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, a man named Mughira bin Shuba converted to Islam while living in the lands of the non-Muslims.  Upon his conversion, Mughira killed the men while they were caught unaware, and ran off with their wealth.  When Mughira fled to the lands of Islam with this wealth, the Prophet Muhammad rejected his action, calling it “treachery.”  The Prophet said: “The wealth…is obtained through treachery, and we have no need of it.” 

The ultraconservative Islamic website Islam-qa.com says:

 When a Muslim enters a kaafir country, it is as if he entering into a peaceful agreement with them – which is the visa which is given to him to enable him to enter their country – so if he takes their wealth unlawfully, then he is breaking that agreement, in addition to being a thief.

The wealth that he steals from them is haraam. It was narrated that al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah kept company with some people during the Jaahiliyyah. He killed them and took their wealth, then he came and entered Islam. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “As for your Islam, I accept it, and as for the wealth, I have nothing to do with it.” According to a report narrated by Abu Dawood, “As for your Islam, we accept it, and as for the wealth it is obtained through treachery, and we have no need of it.”

    (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2583; Abu Dawood, 2765; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2403)

    Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said:

    The phrase “and as for the wealth, I have nothing to do with it” means, I will not touch it because it was obtained through treachery. What we learn from this is that it is not permissible to take the wealth of the kuffaar [non-Muslims] by treachery when they have trusted you and granted you safety, because when people accompany one another (when travelling), they do so on the basis of mutual trust, and that trust should not be betrayed, whether the other person is a Muslim or a kaafir…

    Fath al-Baari, 5/341

    Al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: When a Muslim enters dar al-harb (the non-Muslim lands) on peaceful terms, and finds himself in position to take something of their wealth, it is not permissible for him to take it, whether it is a little or a lot, because if he is safe from them, they should be safe from him…

    Al-Sarkhasi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: It is not right for a Muslim who is on peaceful terms with them to betray them, because betrayal is haraam. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Every betrayer will have a banner by his backside on the Day of Resurrection, by which his betrayal will be known.”

    If he betrays them and steals their wealth, and brings it to the Muslim lands, it is not right for a Muslim to buy from him if he knows about that, because he has obtained it in an evil manner, and buying from him is encouraging him in that, which it is not right for the Muslim to do. The basic principle in this matter is the hadeeth of al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah (may Allaah be pleased with him), when he killed his companions and brought their wealth to Madeenah and became Muslim, and asked the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to take the khums of his wealth, and he said, “As for your Islam, we accept it, and as for the wealth it is obtained through treachery, and we have no need of it.” Al-Mabsoot, 10/96

Al-Sarkhasi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: It is not right for a Muslim who is on peaceful terms with them to betray them, because betrayal is haraam. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Every betrayer will have a banner by his backside on the Day of Resurrection, by which his betrayal will be known.” If he betrays them and steals their wealth, and brings it to the Muslim lands, it is not right for a Muslim to buy from him if he knows about that, because he has obtained it in an evil manner, and buying from him is encouraging him in that, which it is not right for the Muslim to do. The basic principle in this matter is the hadeeth of al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah (may Allaah be pleased with him), when he killed his companions and brought their wealth to Madeenah and became Muslim, and asked the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to take the khums of his wealth, and he said, “As for your Islam, we accept it, and as for the wealth it is obtained through treachery, and we have no need of it.” Al-Mabsoot, 10/96"

And if you know anything about fiqh al-aqalliyyat you would know it is very clear that Islam does not permit Muslims living in the West to engage in treachery against their fellow citizens, or against the state. In fact, lying about the religion is considered more heinous than a regular lie, and constitutes an act of kufr;  lying about the religion is forbidden.  It is classified as a “lie against Allah and His Messenger”, and leads to Jahannum. There are many ahadith warning about lying about Allah and Muhammad(saws), indicating that what is referred to here is lying about the religion. A  Muslim who deliberately lies about Islam, would be considered an apostate(murtad), which is why many frequently  say Allahu A’lam (Allah knows best),or “whatever I say that is true is from Allah, all mistakes are my own or the whispers of shaytan” to avoid this. In addition the claim that Islam permits lying about the religion to further it is a fabrication. There is not a single instance in the life of the Prophet (as) in which he lied about Islam or allowed anyone else to do so.

Allahu A’lam