Introduction

Read here about True (Koranic) Muslims attacking Worldly (non-Koranic) Muslims. 

Muslims need to see that they are victims of a theocratic murdering cult!

On February 16, 2012, Judge Nancy Edmunds of Federal District Court in Detroit sentenced Abdulmutallab to four consecutive life sentences plus 50 years.[11][144][145] He shouted, “Allahu akbar” five times during his sentencing, and said that Muslims were “proud to kill in the name of God, and that is what God told us to do in the Quran.”[146]

Koran (non-abrogated) Sura 9 The Immunity

 (Detail with References see 1-6-7-7 Sura 9 )

.1 (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
.2 So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.
.3 And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
.4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
.5 So when the sacred months have passed away,* then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate (extortion), leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

* {The three successive forbidden months mentioned by Muhammad (months in which battles are forbidden) are Dhu al-Qi'dah, Dhu al-Hijjah, and Muharram, months 11, 12, and 1. The single forbidden month is Rajab, month 7. These months were considered forbidden both within the new Islamic calendar and within the old pagan Meccan calendar, although whether they maintained their "forbidden" status after the conquest of Mecca has been disputed among Islamic scholars.}

Are Muslims permitted to lie?

TheReligionofPeace.com
Guide to Understanding Islam

What does the
Religion of Peace
Teach About...

Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman)

Question:

Are Muslims permitted 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 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.


Additional Notes:

 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."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover.  The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace.  This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war).  Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace.  Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe.  The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this.  When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise.  However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance.  (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions.  Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims.  From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic.  Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad.  This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met."  Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization."  In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas.  At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty.  In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest.  When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well).  Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
 

TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page

© 2006 - 2013 TheReligionofPeace.com. All rights reserved.


Introduction

A series of massacres in Hakkari in the years 1843 and 1846 of Assyrians were carried out by the Kurdish emirs of Bohtan and Hakkari, Bedr Khan Bey and Nurallah. The massacres resulted in the killing of more than 10,000 Assyrians and the captivity of thousands of others.[1]

Background

Ottoman affairs1843-1846

The Ottoman Empire had been significantly weakened by the 19th century, which resulted in the loss of central control over Upper Mesopotamia and Kurdistan. It seemed as if the Empire was on the brink of collapse when Muhammad Ali revolted in Egypt and took control of Syria. It was then that Kurdish Emirs found an opportunity to assert their independence. Among them was Ibrahim Pasha, a Kurdish Emir whose dominion included a region extending from Diyarbakir to Aleppo, and who fought alongside Muhammad Ali against the Ottomans and their allies from the Arab Shammar tribe in Jazira.[2] Despite the failure of Muhammad Pasha in his Syrian campaign, the events showed the vulnerability of the Ottomans and encouraged Kurdish aghas to try and increase their control in the region.[3]

This period witnessed an increase of British influence as well, apparently fearing another French attempt similar to Napoleon's Egyptian campaign. The British appointed Hormuzd Rassam, an ethnic Assyrian archaeologist from Mosul and brother-in-law of Britain's ambassador in the city, as a delegate to extend British influence to the areas of the independent Assyrian tribes.[4] British and American Protestant missionaries, such as Justin Perkins and Asahel Grant, started visiting the area in the same period. They generally showed great sympathy to the Assyrian Christians.[5] The Kurds however were wary of them, and Assyrians hospitality towards the foreigners only increased their suspicion.[6] The "hostile intention of the Kurds towards the Assyrians "was well known to British officials".[7] On 27 January 1842, Canning wrote to the foreign secretary, Lord Aberdeen, informing him that the Nestorians of Kurdistan have been subdued by a Kurdish Bey" acting in concert with the Ottomans.[7]

Kurdish internal conflicts1843-1846

War broke out in Hakkari in 1839 between Nurallah, brother of the former Emir, who governed from Bash Qal'a, and Suleyman his nephew whose capital was in Gullamerk. The Assyrians were also split in their allegiances, according to their distribution. Most of them, including the Patriarch of the Church of the East Shimun XVII Abraham, supported Suleyman as the rightful successor to his father.[8]

The conflict turned into a massacre when Nurallah defeated his opponent and retaliated by attacking Assyrian villages and the Patriarchate of Qodshanis in 1841. This led to a permanent rift in relations between the Kurds and Christians in general. However, not all Assyrian allied themselves with the Patriarch, some took advantage of his weakness to join Nurallah.[5]

The region descended into another war after a disagreement between Ottoman Vali of Mosul, Mohammed Pasha, and the Kurdish Agha Ismael Pasha of Amadiya. The latter resorted to Nurallah of Hakkari and Badr Khan, the ambitious emir of Buhtan. The three formed an alliance and called Assyrians to join them. The Patriarch however refused to do so after receiving promises from Mosul to protect them in case of the Kurds decided to retaliate again. War between the Kurds and Ottomans broke out in summer 1842.[9] The next months were particularly calm in Hakkari with the Kurds busy with the war in Mosul, and missionary Asahel Grant commenced building a large religious school in the Christian town of Ashitha and provided it with Syriac books and scriptures from Mosul in September 1842.[10] The Kurdish campaign ended the same month with failure, and Assyrians were blamed for refusing to intervene in the war. Rumours spread that Grant built a castle to be used against the Kurds, and Nurallah protested to the vali of Erzurum. In addition, Ibrahim Pasha of Mosul was also alarmed by the rumours and the increased missionary activities in the region. He described in a letter to the Porte how Grant and the Christians built a huge building containing 200 rooms at least.[10]

1843 massacre1843-1846

In early 1843 Nurallah sent for a meeting with the Patriarch and the latter apologized using the weather, his religious duties, and the presence of a guest, the British missionary George Badger, as a pretence. It seemed that the Patriarch made his decision after being convinced by Badger to distrust the Kurds and to request assistance from the English or the Porte if the Kurds were to attack.[11] Once Badger left, Nurallah renewed his alliance with the Badr Khan and Ismail Pasha, and requested permission from the Ottoman Vali of Mosul to subjugate the Christians.[11]

In July 1843 the Kurdish alliance, led by Badr Khan attacked the Assyrians in Hakkari, destroyed their villages and killed many of them. Hormuzd Rassam tried using his influence with the Vali of Baghdad Najib Pasha to pressure Badr Khan for the release of prisoners which included close relatives of the Patriarch of the Church of the East who had in the meantime taken refuge in Mosul.[4][12] His attempts only led to the release of about 150, one of whom was the sister of the Patriarch, while the rest were distributed as war booty between Kurdish and Turkish Agha's and Mullahs.[13]

On 3 August, the Kurdish forces had succeeded in "subduing the tribes and it was reported that 'still the slaughter is not yet ended, and several who have attempted to flee have been murdered...'". Then the invaders had turned "against the district of Tiyari, where they had succeeded in occupying the villages and indulged in the cruelest acts against its people". Even "those who had not opposed the Kurdish invasion had been treated in the same way as the fighters." The patriarch's mother's body was chopped into four pieces. Many women and young children "were taken captive to be sold as slaves."[7] On 21 August 1843, the British consul Abbott reported on "the role of the Persian Kurds" in the massacres of Assyrian and Nestorian tribes. The "prime agitator for the attack from the Persian frontier was the 'Shaik'" of the Kurds of Bradost". The Kurdish tribes were "marching in large numbers directly to the Assyrian provinces."[7]

It was reported that the "killing and destruction continued apace. Corpses lay everywhere. The surviving men and women were forced to carry unbearable loads of booty for very long distances, while being lashed all along the way until they fell from torture and exhaustion". Ross wrote, '[T]hey were tortured in an awful manner to force them to expose what they call hidden treasures, while others were killing them just for entertainment and as sport and games'. The tribes "were all but encircled and left with no safe route to escape" the slaughter. Those that tried to flee had to take a route that passed through the hostile Kurds of Berwar. One group after another was caught and slaughtered "while trying to escape".[7] It is estimated by contemporary sources that the victims of the assault of 1843 numbered ten thousand, but according to Adoona, that figure "cannot represent the total victims of the attack".[7]

1846 massacre1843-1846

Another massacre was inflicted by Badr Khan in 1846. This massacre received international attention through western press; it also woke European politicians and public opinion to the plight of Ottoman Christians. This led the European countries to pressure the Porte to intervene and stop the massacres.[1] An Ottoman army was sent to the region in 1847, and clashed with the Kurds in several battles that ended with the arrest of both Badr Khan and Nurallah, and their exile in 1850.[14]

Aftermath1843-1846

More than 10,000 Assyrians perished during the massacres. The Kurdish massacres were a precursor to the later Ottoman incursions which ended both the semi-independent status which the Assyrian tribes enjoyed in the mountainous areas, and that which the Kurds had as well. The Ottomans saw the communal conflict as an opportunity to overthrow the last semi-independent Kurdish Emirates in 1847, establishing direct control of the entire region.[1]

Due to the massacres of 1843-1846 committed by the troops of the Kurdish leader Bedr Khan Beg against the independent Assyrian tribes, "the long-Iasting existence of the Assyrian people as an independent body" was ended.[15]

See also1843-1846

References1843-1846

  1. ^ a b c Gaunt & Beṯ-Şawoce 2006, p. 32
  2. ^ Gaunt & Beṯ- Şawoce 2006, p. 30
  3. ^ Gaunt & Beṯ- Şawoce 2006, p. 31
  4. ^ a b Aboona 2008, p. 218
  5. ^ a b Joseph 2008, p. 75
  6. ^ Joseph 2008, p. 76
  7. ^ a b c d e f Aboona 2008, p. 199-212
  8. ^ Joseph 2008, p. 74
  9. ^ Joseph 2008, p. 78
  10. ^ a b Joseph 2008, p. 79
  11. ^ a b Joseph 2008, p. 82
  12. ^ It was reported that the "Kurdish leader Bedr Khan had invaded the country of the Christian tribes, bent on destroying them through a campaign of terror, in which large numbers had been killed and others taken captive to be sold as slaves." Aboona, 2008, p. 199-212
  13. ^ Aboona 2008, p. 219
  14. ^ Joseph 2008, p. 85
  15. ^ Aboona 2008, p. 284

Literature1843-1846

Coordinates: 37°30′N 43°42′E / 37.5°N 43.7°E / 37.5; 43.7 (massacres location)