Not completely. IIRC, a religious Jew may not commit idolatry, forbidden sex, or murder at risk of death.
Correct, of course - see Daniel or Maccabees.
Regards,
Shodan
The most common definition I’ve seen in academic works is precautionary dissimulation, which pretty well defines it.
The thing to remember is that there are often references these days on blogs and whatnot implying it is a universal Muslim practice and is used to deceive non-Muslims, historically it is not. It is very heavily Shi’a in formulation and elaboration, adopted as a way of avoiding Sunni persecution at a time when the Muslim governments in existence were almost entirely Sunni and Shi’a populations were very small minorities. It was also thoroughly tied up with notions of apolitical quietism - Twelver populations in particular were to keep their heads down and their beliefs as private as possible.
Shi’a scholars ( feeling defensive ) and conservative Islamophobes ( feeling offensive ) both have made strenuous efforts to find favorable Sunni passages in hadith and individual instances of Sunni use. However when it comes down to it Sunni authorities have traditionally used the idea as a rhetorical hammer against Shi’ites, basically accusing Shi’a of being hypocrites ( for denying their faith ) and habitual liars due to the heavy practice of taqiyya.
Beyond that it is also somewhat particular to Twelver ( Ithna’ashari ) and Sevener ( Isma’ili ) Shi’ism. Fiver ( Zaydi ) Shi’ism, rejects the notion altogether, along with a number of other “typical” Shi’a beliefs, for reasons of aggressive militancy. The notion also came under attack by some modernist Iranian reformers like Mirza Aqa Khan Kermani writing in the late 19th century, who regarded it as an outdated concept.
So generally speaking the notion that this is a normative bit of theology in the Muslim world used primarily to deceive Christians and other non-Muslims is mistaken. For the most part it is a Shi’a notion and was used overwhelmingly to escape persecution by other Muslims. While it is not impossible that some very forward-thinking Sunni radicals ( and most radicals aren’t very forward-thinking ) have begun adopting and adapting taqiyya as a formal theory as a way of expanding some half-assed jihad against the West, in general it is a concept that Sunni traditionalists would sneer at.
Interestingly Maimonides argued that one could reasonably pretend to be a Muslim to escape persecution, as Muslims were fellow monotheists. But one should not pretend to be a Christian even if at threat of death, because in his mind Christians weren’t, quite ( the problem of Trinitarianism ).
Or Option D.
Please reply in the other thread with the proof that what I said is incorrect. I’m open to learning and saying I was wrong. Are you?
I was under the impression, and Wikipedia somewhat concurs but doesn’t strongly support, that this was okay for Shia to do but not Sunni. ISTR that fundamentalist Sunni used it as a talking point against Shiites. At any rate, it seems to be more widely accepted by them, but is it common among Sunni is the question? Most of the terrorists are Sunni, but I wouldn’t put it past the guys on these boards to not know the difference.
Already done by someone else before I got there. Unless you’ve got a different definition of “nuttiness” than me, Indonesia is managing to avoid being Saudi Arabia quite well. Sure, they’ve got some religion-derived laws but then so does the US, subsequent court cases notwithstanding.
Turkey is predominantly Muslim too, isn’t it ? I know Morocco is, and as far as I know they don’t cut off the hands off thieves & unbelievers there either. Algeria has its troubles, but it’s not a theocracy quite yet. Egypt is far from perfect democracy-wise, and their legal system does seem to be required not to go directly against the Koran (per Wikipedia) but they don’t seem to be all “Shariah law for everyone !!1” either. Continuing the Wiki tour, Lebanon and Jordan look to be quite all right. Tunisia is not so fortunate, but it’s a garden variety repressive state, not a religious one - in fact, per Wiki still, while Islam is the state religion on paper, Islamic extremists seem to be on the oppressed side there. Same goes for Libya - it’s a shithole, but not really a fundie shithole.
I debated whether to include Turkey, but Turkey is complicated - there is a delicate political balance between secular and Islamist parties and the military who also seem awfully keen to take over, set against a backdrop of a 99% Muslim country with a strong secular government set out by Ataturk. They are Muslim but extremely dedicated to ensuring that they remain constitutionally secular, even if it means pissing off the religious every now and then (see the recent headscarf ban kerfuffle). Sharia ain’t getting a toehold.
But I digress. This thread is about Islam condoning lying for X purposes. Is there anything left to say about that?
Ah, so a country that allows stoning for adultery isn’t nutty. Got it. Uh, what would you consider nutty? Just so I’m not wasting my time here.
First of all, it’s not “a country” but one province in the country, second of all it caused outrage even within that province of that country and it was never going to be enforced, and finally it seems to be quite a sly political move rather than nutty. Cite:
Some Ismalis historically took the notion pretty far and offensively, as I recall - the so-called sect of “hashishin” or Assassins.
Though it should be pointed out, they were considered pretty unusual by the vast majority of Muslims of their day (most of whom were their enemies). Also, that most of what we think we know about them was written by these same enemies.
I’m not sure I consider the Assassins to be Moslem.
Well, that’s different. I always understood them to be a militant group of Ismailis. On what basis would they not be Muslims?
They don’t take sugar in their porridge.
I’m not sure how they would not be.
If considered from the perspective of the religion they practiced, they were clearly Muslim. If considered from the perspective of their origins and early actions, I would guess that they would still be identified as Muslim, given that they primarily acted, (at first), to sway the balances of power among Muslim by targetiung Shi’a leaders.
I suppose that one could consider the anti-Shi’a campaigns and the later attacks on Crusaders and other Muslims to be more political in nature, thus moving their motivation away from theology into politics, but they still would be identified as Muslim.
-
As you undoubtedly know, this fallacy is the self-sealing argument.
-
St Peter denied Christ three times before the cock crowed, so denying Christ is not an unforgivable sin. Affirming Christ on pain of death does seem to be the fast track to sainthood for those church denominations that recognize sainthood.
-
Lying to save a life, even your own, goes back as far as Abraham telling Pharoah that Sarah was his sister not his wife. The Story of Abram's "Sister" -- Genesis 12:10-20, 20:1-18, 26:6-12 (All True Bible Stories for Children)
-
Muslims are supposed to respect other People’s of the Book, which unequivocally includes Jews and Christians.
-
This nonsense about lying to non-Muslims is in fact the exact sort of self-sealing lie that these Christians are accusing Muslims of making, and in fact bearing false witness.
The funny thing is, and this goes for all such conspiracy theories : if hypothetically Muslims were indeed under strict injunction to lie to non-Muslims about Islam and its nature, especially about anything that would paint Islam in a bad light ; and if all purportedly moderate Muslims & apostates should in fact be assumed to be bloodthirsty terrorist-lovers engaged in planet-wide trolling… how could the non-Muslims [del]making this shit up[/del]denouncing this practice hear about it in the first place ?
From Jesus’ true representatives on Earth! Graham, Osteen, Phelps, Roberts, who show us the way to walk in the footsteps of the Prince of Peace. Poor guy. Nailed to a tree, downhill ever since.
That is correct.
As far as the OP’s question goes. A muslim is allowed to pretend to be non-muslim if he is under duress (ex:threat of death). This has its origins in the beginning of Islam where muslim converts where threatened with death if they did not renounce their new faith. Some died refusing, those who didn’t were forgiven by the prophet.