Is tawriya or “creative” lying unique to Sharia law or do other organized religions permit it? Does Judaism or Christianity have anything similar in the old or new testament?
I look forward to your feedback
davidmich
Are you sure you’re not thinking of taqiyya, which is a Shi’ite doctrine which says that it’s ok for somebody to deny they’re a Muslim or Shia to save their life? Tawirya is a principle of rhetoric in Arabic which means using a term with two meanings, leading somebody to think you mean the first when you mean the second, as well as a method of Quranic interpretation that says that anthropomorphic terms for God are meant to symbolize divine concepts; so that, for instance, if the Quran says “God sits on His judgement seat”, (for instance), it doesn’t mean that there’s an actual seat where God is actually sitting…it means that God judges mankind. Neither are principles of Sharia, though. The one is a principle of rhetoric, and the other a principle of Quranic interpretation…and not even really a popular one nowadays. If I remember correctly, it’s associated with the Mu’tazila.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do. cite. The gist is that the truth may be withheld from those not entitled to it (i.e. non-witnesses). It is called “theocratic war,” though I’ve heard other terms used for rhetorical strategies that I, personally, would consider lying. They, of course, do not consider it lying.
I am not a practitioner, but I have current and former JWs as relatives. The former JWs have confirmed the existence of this policy, and the current ones certainly lie, though they haven’t admitted it or explained their motivations.
The idea of mental reservation or equivocation, which is associated with the Jesuits, would seem to be a similar concept.
Captain Amazing. I was reading this article…
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/tawriya-islamic-doctrine-of-‘creative-lying’/
"Perhaps you have heard of taqiyya, the Muslim doctrine that allows lying in certain circumstances, primarily when Muslim minorities live under infidel authority. Now meet tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is true to him. "
Other articles by Raymond Ibrahim. Just from 2014.
Christians ‘Crucified Again’ for Refusing Islam
‘Sex Jihad’ Fatwa Permits Incest in Syria
Muslim Brotherhood Member Rapes Boy for Supporting Anti-Brotherhood Revolution
Muslim Cleric Urges Homeless Women to Become Sex-Slaves
Why ‘Moderate Islam’ Is an Oxymoron
Allah’s Sword of Terror
Why Are Christians the World’s Most Persecuted Group?
Coptic Christian Children Kidnapped and Killed for Cash
I suggest that he has an agenda and may not be the most trustworthy explainer of Islamic doctrine.
Thank you Exapno Mapcase. I wasn’t aware of those articles.
davidmich
Is Islam more complex and sophisticated than Christianity? Is that what troubles the Christians most about it, causing them to paint it atavistic and barbaric, instead of trying to understand it? Would better concord relieve pressure on the two, allowing progress toward less confusion and conflict, or is religion in general merely a tool for manipulating people (“these are not the droids you are looking for”)?
All lying is creative since you have to invent an alternate reality.
It sounds very similar to the concept of truthiness widely practiced by the so-called “conservative christians” of the American right. Once you strip away the veneer of religiosity, fundamentalists are pretty much the same everywhere.
SS
I couldn’t find a wiki definition in English. Here it is in German:
Der arabische Begriff tawriya (auch: tauriya, تورية; auch Îhâm, arabisch ايهام) bedeutet „Täuschung“, „Verheimlichung“; „zweideutige Anspielung/Andeutung“ und „Doppelsinnwitz“.
„Täuschung“, „Verheimlichung“ “zweideutige Anspielung” „Doppelsinnwitz…“deception”, “concealment” , “ambiguous innuendo”, “double entendre”
Perhaps someone can find a reliable link with an English definition.
davidmich
Taking advantage of ambiguity in meaning in order to make a literally true but practically deceptive statement is sometimes permitted in Roman Catholicism and is often called a “wide mental reservation” or an “equivocation”. Generally, it can only be done in order to achieve an honorable end, such as protecting the innocent. If it is done for a selfish purpose such as evading the consequences of sin or committing (moral) fraud, it’s a sin.
A classic example of this is telling the Nazis at your front door that, “There are no Jews here”, intending to mean that there are no Jews in the area of your front door when you know damn well that there are some Jews hiding in your basement. Because, you know, your basement doesn’t have to count as “here”, even if most people would assume that “here” in that context means “my house”. When Nazis assume, they make an ass out of Herr Fuehrer.
I’ve known one or two people who have said that anyone who has to lie is just being lazy. The idea being that you can say something that is completly true, but that is misleading. An example:
A fisherman, returning at the end of the day, is asked: “Catch anything?”
He replies, mildly disgruntled: “Nothing longer than fourteen inches.”
Notice that he hasn’t actually claimed to have caught anything under fourteen inches either.
Another example:
A coordinator of an interest group has sent out a request for a volunteer to write a quarterly newsletter. Many people volunteer. She sends out an email announcing the name of the person who will be writing the newsletter and includes, “I’d like to thank everyone who volunteered after X did. I appreciate your offers and I’m sure that each of you would have done a great job.”
If I hadn’t been X, I would never have learned that there were also people who had volunteered before I did, and that she’d waited a day to see if I’d be one of the volunteers. Her announcement forestalled any discussion of anyone’s writing abilities by implying, while not specifically stating, that she’d accepted the first volunteer.
Neither of these examples were church sanctioned. But I would very much doubt that the majority of religious groups would preach against implying statements without speaking to the intent of those statements. If you are implying something in order to take advantage of someone or to make them feel bad, that would be a very different thing than implying something in order to smooth things socially or to protect someone.
Reminds me of the old college prank where they posted on the only day that student board elections were being held, some seniors posted a sign that said “Juniors and Seniors may vote today in Room XXX” or something along those lines. It’s not a lie, but it sure does seem to imply that Freshmen and Sophomores have to wait until a different day to vote!
David, I was probably 150 words into the article and realized the author was being deceitful. It’s very easy to pick apart. I don’t think you can trust this guy.
Cite? Comparison of citations here does not conform with what sounds like your fundamental confidence. The circumstances when lying is tolerated are crucial to any person’s morality, and analysis of those circumstances and the ramifications of those decisions on yourself and others is part of everyone’s makeup.
I assume even yours. What’s your “veneer,” besides triumphant secularism and the image of unalterable clarity with regard to the worldview of the entire planet of people who say they are “religious?”
But what if they were lying when they did so? :eek:
Virtually everyone of every (and no) religion has told lies at some point. People who consider themselves devout Christians undoubtedly tell lies. Afterward, they either feel guilty for their sin or they find some kind of justification or rationalization for their dishonesty.
Popes, bishops, priests, rabbis and imams have lied numerous times. Some have surely told themselves that their lies weren’t truly immoral because they meant well, or because they end result would be beneficial. That goes without saying. The question is whether Islam, Christianity or any other religion has an official doctrine that states lying is perfectly moral and acceptable.
You can easily find passages in Jewish and Christian scripture in which people tell lies (Peter, for instance, denied knowing Jesus), but I don’t think you’ll find any passages in which we’re told, “Go ahead and lie to Goyim/pagans/heathens- there’s nothing wrong with that.” Nor will you find anything in the Catholic Catechism that says “It’s just fine to lie, as long as there’s a good reason for it.”
There have certainly been Jesuit theologians who’ve twisted themselves into knots trying to find some kind of justifications for all kinds of sins, but even those guys would never have said, “It’s okay to lie.” Rather, they’d have come up with long-winded treatises explaining why a given lie wasn’t REALLY a lie.
Christians can be liars like anyone else, but even Christian liars will acknowledge in the abstract that lying is a sin.
The question is whether a much-discussed doctrine in sharia DOES explicitly state that Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels. I’m not nearly enough of an authority on Islam to say… but neither are most of the people insisting that the Koran DOES endorse lying.
DOES the Koran actually say what the anti-Islamists say it does?
Well, what would *you *say when the altar boy asks if the raiments make his ass look fat?