Sunday, 3 April 2011

Truth about Taqiyyah (Takiya, Taqiyya)

There is a constant stream of Islamophobes (haters) carping on about how Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims whilst appealing to something called “taqiyyah” (also spelled, “takiya” and “taqiyya”)

Rather than relying on shoddy hate sites/Christian missionaries to educate us about taqiyyah we shall rely on SCHOLARLY authority – largely in the form of R. Strothmann’s relevant section in “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam” (by H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers)  and Cyril Glasse’s Concise Encyclopedia of Islam

What is “Taqiyyah”, “Takiya”, “Taqiyya”?

 
This term is spelt variously; “taqiyyah”, “takiya” or “taqiyya”.

“Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury.” [1]

“Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”).” [2]

So, taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is concerning dissimulation due to force – i.e. when an individual is forced to conceal.

Sadly, Islamophobes and Christian missionaries – in order to obtain an unchecked platform and/or demonise Muslims – have misapplied this term in their exaggerated claims of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers”.

At what level of force is Takiya (Taqiyyah, Taqiya) justified?

“But an individual is not justified in takiya nor bound to hidjra [emigration] if the compulsion remains within the endurable limits, as in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death” [1]

So, this make a mockery of the Islamophobes’ general suggestions of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers” as even under threat of imprisonment and flogging Muslims are not justified in takiya. The level of force which justifies oneself in takiya is that of an unbearable level.

Takiya (taqiyya, taqiyyah) and the type of lies…

One may ask, what type of “disguise” is allowed under takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya)?

Let’s be clear about takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.” [2]

So takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) is not used to convert folk to Islam nor is it used in Islamic text books or anything of such a nature. It is simply a form of concealment used to avoid persecution!

For further clarity, we are not talking about general, everyday fibs here, thus the ethical question of dishonesty is bypassed:

“The ethical question whether such forced lies are nevertheless lies, such a forced denial of the faith nevertheless a denial, is not put at all by one “who conceal himself” as he is not in a state of confidence which would be broken by lies or denial.” [1]

Sadly, our Islamophobic counterparts attempt to convince the gullible that takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) allows Muslims to lie (or conceal) about aspects of their faith (Islam) as well as lie in general.

Recently, Islamophobes were accusing Senator Keith Ellison of taqiyyah. Try learning what taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is before accusing folk of it, you may just look less silly if you take this advice on board!!!

Famous case of Taqiyyah (Taqiyya, Takiya)

A common example of takiya (taqiyyah, taqiya) involves a Muslim (Ammar B. Yasir, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, p) being forced to worship idols and insult the Prophet of Islam. [1] [3]

The level of force the polytheists applied on Ammar bin Yasir can be imagined by Amr bin Maymoon’s statement, “The polytheists tortured Ammar with fire. [3]

“Abu Ubaydah bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir said: The polytheists seized Ammar and they did not let him off until he was forced to insult the Messenger of Allah and say good things about their deities [3]

Ammar bin Yasir told Prophet Muhammad (p) of what he was forced to say.

“The Prophet (p) said: “Say it again if they ask (i.e. force) you to do so”.” [3]

So, in order to avoid such torture the Prophet allowed Ammar bin Yasir to use “taqiyya”

If Jesus (p) had done the same, our Christian friends would have lauded it as an act of piety and mercy. Instead we see Islamophobes exaggerating this form of concealment in order to demonise Muslims. It’s a crazy old world!

Taqiyyah and the Shi’ites (Shia)

"It is, however, associated most closely with the Shi’ites who practiced taqiyyah systematically and widely during periods of Sunni domination to hide their beliefs from Sunni Muslims. "[2]

Obviously, if these Shi’ites felt they would have been persecuted for publicly announcing their shia beliefs, one can understand why they concealed (used taqiyya) their beliefs.

Is taqiyyah allowed in the Quran?

Our Islamophobic friends jump up and down in joy whilst proclaiming taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya) is allowed in the Quran. Let’s analyse (via scholarship) the two Verses they cite.

Quran 16:106 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom. [Pikthal translation of the Quran 16:106]

The reason for this verse is unanimously said to have been the case of Ammar b. Yasir, whose conscience was set at rest by this revelation when he was worried about his forced worshipping of idols and objurgation of the Prophet. [1]

The story of Ammar bin Yassir is relayed earlier in the article (see above).

Tabari says on Sura 16:106 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323 sqq.24.122): If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, to escape his enemies, no blame falls him on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe [1]

The Quran’s (16:106) allowance of uttering disbelief whilst under extreme force is hardly justification for the outrageous smears the Islamophobes propagate.

Quran 3:28 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. [Pikthal translation of the Quran 3:28]

This Verse instructs Muslims to not take the unbelievers as patrons over the believers but does allow for this in the case of fear. Tuqatan is used here (a verbal noun of taqiyyah). Tafsir Jalalayn explains:

“unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts” [Tafsir Jalalayn – 3:28]

It is hardly something Islamophobes can latch onto as evidence for their demonization of Muslims as this Verse allows concealment (taqiyyah, taqiyya, takiya) in the case of fear (i.e. to avoid persecution). We are essentially back to where we started as initially stated on taqiyyah:

Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury. [1]

Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”). [2]

Taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgement

Ibn Kathir, a prominent authority writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's companion, al-Hassan, who said, "taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

Islamophobes make a big deal out of Muslims believing taqiyya (taqiyyah, takiya) is acceptable to this very day and beyond. So what? There is NO issue here whatsoever.

Think about it, if, in the future, an extreme Christian/Hindu/Islamophobe put a gun to a Muslim’s head and asked him to denounce Islam in order to preserve his life would you really have qualms in the fact the Muslim would be allowed (according to Islam) to do so in order to protect his life?

Abraham (p) and taqiyyah

In the Biblical account of Abraham, Sarah and Pharaoh we notice Abraham (and Sarah) concealed the fact Sarah was his wife as he feared death:

When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live.
Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.” [Genesis 12:12-13 NIV]

Where are the Christian Islamophobes to demonise Abraham, Sarah and the Bible? Nowhere!

Why are people not exaggerating this to mean the Bible allows Jews and Christians to lie to non-believers just as they do against Muslims in the case of taqiyyah? The answer is hypocrisy as Islamophobes work an anti-Muslim agenda assiduously whilst refraining from using the same absurd modes of exaggeration/deception against Christians and Jews!

The “Apostle” Paul and taqiyyah?

Paul, in Corinthians 19, was using a strange tactic to convert people. So strictly speaking, Paul did not practice taqiyya as he was not under threat of harm and his “concealment” was in the avenue of evangelism rather than that of self-protection. Paul was concealing himself as a Jew (to convert Jews), as a gentile (to convert gentiles) and as the weak (to convert the weak).

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. [Corinthians 9:19-22, NIV]

Of course, Christian apologists would extend explanation towards Paul’s strange actions in order to exonerate him of the allegation of deception but you can see why there is a potential cause for concern here – especially in the light of the numerous deceptive episodes involving Christian missionaries ever since Paul’s strange actions.

Why are our Christian Islamophobes not concluding Paul’s actions to mean all Christians can lie whilst evangelising folk?

I have caught Christian missionaries, on numerous occasions, lying to convert folk to Christianity. If you want to exegete this New Testament account to mean Christians are allowed to use deception whilst evangelising you will have a stronger case than that of the Islamophobes’ exaggerations on Muslim allowance of taqiyyah (concealment due to fear).

Lying about the Prophet Muhammad (p)

Islamophobes, in an attempt to obtain an unchecked platform, do suggest Muslims misinform (“use taqiyya”) about the Prophet Muhammad (p). This is an utter absurdity as it is a grave sin for a Muslim to misinform about the Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet stated:

Whoever lies about me intentionally shall take a place for himself in hell (al-Adhkar (y102), 510-12) [4]

In fact, presenting misinformation about the Prophet (p) was considered an extreme offense amongst early Muslim communities:

Habib ibn ar-Rabi’ said that it is disbelief to alter his [Prophet Muhammad’s] description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent. [5]

So much for the Islamophobes claims of “Muslims using taqiyyah” regarding Prophet Muhammad (p).

Conclusion

Taqiyyah (taqiya, takiya) is not something to be writing home about. To use this practice to brandish Muslims as untrustworthy (or to demonise them) is unscholarly and unjust.

If you do encounter an anti-Muslim bigot on the internet crying “taqiyya” (there are plenty about), please do send him/her away educated.

There are a number of Islamophobes who do make cash and political inroads out of demonising Muslims with all this exaggeration concerning taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) amongst other absurd claims concerning Muslims. These folk do influence other folk on the internet to propagate these misconceptions – thus it is our job to present the truth to counter the many anti-Muslims deceptions out there.

"During times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" - George Orwell

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

References

[1] Article by R. Strothmann, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, Fourth impression, 1995, E.J. Brill Leiden. New York. Koln p. 561 - 562

[2] The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, Revised Edition, Cyril Glasse, Stacey International, 2001, p450-451.

[3] Men and Women around the Messenger, Sa’d Yusuf Abu ‘Aziz, Translated by Suleman Fulani, Darussalam, 2009, p. 286-287

[4] Reliance of the Traveller, Translated by Nuh Hamim Keller – Amana Publications, 2008, r8.0, p 747

[5] Muhammad, Messenger of Allah – Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press, 2004, p. 387

53 comments:

1moremuslim said...

The problem is that the Christians mock Muslims about Takyah, in the theoretical level, but they practiced it during the persecution of the Church, known as the Traditors ( Those who handed over)

Dearborn News said...

Michigan's war against the Constitutional rights of Christians has reached its peak.

In every state in this country, with one exception, a police officer cannot seize a person or her property without probable cause (a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime).

[Image]Today, Judge Michael J. Callahan ruled that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to Christians in the state of Michigan. If a Christian visits Michigan, she may be detained, seized, arrested, and thrown in jail based on no evidence whatsoever.

At last year's Arab Festival in Dearborn, Corporal Brian Kapanowski approached Negeen Mayel and ordered her to turn off her video camera. Since Negeen hadn't been accused of committing any crime, she was under no legal obligation to obey his order (and, let's face it, he was only ordering her to stop filming so she wouldn't catch our unlawful arrests on tape). When Negeen didn't immediately turn off her camera, and instead asked why she was being questioned, Corporal Kapanowski grabbed her, seized her camera (which police then kept for more than three weeks), dragged her out of the tent, arrested her, threw her in jail, and charged her with two crimes.

Obviously, in any court that honors the Constitutional rights of citizens, Kapanowski would be in trouble. It turns out, however, that Dearborn courts have as much contempt for the Constitution as Dearborn police. Before the trial even began, Dearborn Judge Mark Somers ruled that Corporal Kapanowski had probable cause to arrest Negeen, even though she hadn't been accused of any criminal activity.

Do not miss the implications of this ruling. According to Judge Somers, in the City of Dearborn, police have probable cause to arrest Christians, even if the Christians haven't been accused of a crime. This means that any Dearborn police officer may arrest any Christian, simply because he feels like it.

Since we realized we weren't going to get justice in Dearborn, we were hopeful that the appeals court would have more respect for our fundamental rights as American citizens. Our hopes were dashed today when Judge Callahan ruled that police may indeed arrest a Christian who hasn't been accused of a crime.

Amazingly, people act like we're crazy when we say that Dearborn is being influenced by Sharia. But the facts speak for themselves. Christians are rapidly becoming second-class citizens in Michigan, and anyone who speaks up is quickly labeled an "Islamophobe." The saddest part of this is that non-Muslims are the ones who are doing the difficult work of destroying the Constitution. Mayor John O'Reilly, City Prosecutors William "Sharia Bill" DeBiasi and Debra Walling, Corporal Kapanowski, Sergeant Mrowka, Chief Haddad, Judge Somers, and now Judge Callahan are all trying desperately to undermine the U.S. Constitution.

And practically no one seems to care.

Many Dearborn residents are offended when people say that Sharia is taking hold in their city. But until the City of Dearborn starts showing some degree of respect for the rights of non-Muslims, until Christians are free to discuss their faith without being arrested, until the Fourth Amendment actually protects teenage girls from illegal search and seizure, the accusations are going to continue.

Anonymous said...

Paul was concealing himself as a Jew (to convert Jews), as a gentile (to convert gentiles) and as the weak (to convert the weak).

Why do you guys try SO HARD to make Christianity into Islam? Nobody in our religion goes around concealing anything, we dig, we write books, we investigate the scriptures day and night, we carbon date every scrap of material we unearth. while the Islamic saudi government wont let anyone dig in northern arabia! why is that? concealment of true intention is a fact of Islam.

Paul did not "conceal" anything, did you notice the words BECAME BECAME BECAME? He ADOPTED their way of life in order to have a hearing with them. He did not lie and say he was something he wasnt in order so they would accept him in their midsts! - thats all Muhammads taqiyya in Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369, to kill his enemies. They knew who Paul was before he adopted their customs. Sorry but this is not Muhammads book!

Of course, Christian apologists would extend explanation towards Paul’s strange actions in order to exonerate him of the allegation of deception

Yahya this is a warning, You will be punished for your wicked and fully cognitive eisegesis into the Word of God. It would be better for you to be ignorant. Paul is talking about respect - not your taqiyya concealment and "the end justifies the means" deception approach. This respect happens every single day in america when Christians walk around in this secular country and preach to people. Real Christians do no involve politik into their spiritualism like Muslims have to, we have the Law written on our Hearts. You have been warned. Peace.

For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. 1 Thes 2:3

Anonymous said...

Doktor James White on Fudging His Teaching Assignments by Peter Lumpkins
FINAL UPDATE (I hope): Facebook and Twitter is chattering about James White's reluctance to correct the public record that he does not teach at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. If White does not perceive how his never-ending crusade against other's credibility is definitively marred by his own apparent lack of concern for forthrightness, then little hope exists his apologetic ministry will have any meaningful future. Some are already suggesting a letter-writing campaign to officials of James White's future speaking engagements to alert them that James White is not being candid about his academic career. I personally have no plans to join those who do. Nonetheless, I feel the same frustration as do they, and perhaps even more, because White parades around the country allowing the public to think he is a Southern Baptist seminary professor.

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/03/doktor-james-white-on-fudging-his-teaching-assignments-by-peter-lumpkins.html

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya
Dude, I told you not to eat the worm when you drink your Taqiyya.

This article is a PRIME EXAMPLE OF TAQIYYA. I'm actually sharing the link out to Christians to educate them on how Muslims use Taqiyya to deceive

sam1528 said...

mark14:66:71

66 While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by.

67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.

“You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus,” she said.

68 But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,” he said, and went out into the entryway.[g]

69 When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, “This fellow is one of them.” 70 Again he denied it.

After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.”

71 He began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know this man you’re talking about.”

*****************

Was peter practicing takiyya??

Radical Moderate said...

Sam1528
Demonstrating your reading comprehension problem I see.

72. Immediately the rooster crowed the second time.[h] Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice[i] you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

He never denied him again, going to his death. See that is the difference Muslims, we go to our deaths proclaiming our faith. You Muslims lie and deny yours.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

Was peter lying to the servant girl per mark14:66-71??

Yes or No??

Why are you trying to change the topic to 'going to your death proclaiming your faith'? BTW do you christians proclaim 'I believe in the trinity' just before you die?? This is interesting ....

Michigan Raider said...

While Sunnis agree that it is allowed to conceal the faith to protect their lives, they greatly differ with the Shi'a point of view. There is no such terminology as taqiyya in Sunni jurisprudence. Protecting one's belief during extreme or exigent circumstances is called "idtirar" (إضطرار) and this word is not specific to concealing the faith. For example, one is allowed to consume prohibited or haraam food to protect one's life under the jurisprudence of idtirar. However, in no way does this suggest that this is used as a means to promote the religion. In Sunni theological framework, announcing the truth and being witness for it has great significance. Prominent personalities who announced the truth and went through the hardship for announcing truth are highly revered among Sunnis.[10]

Michigan Raider said...

Luther defended "a good hearty lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian Church, a lie in case of necessity, a useful lie." Such lies, he said, "would not be against God."

Radical Moderate said...

Sam1528

You said...

"Was peter lying to the servant girl per mark14:66-71??"

Wow demonstrating that reading comprehension problem again. I think it is obvious to anyone that
Yes he was lying, and it was to his shame not to his credit. He stood up big and bold, and said "NO Lord I will not let this happen to you, I will die first" etc... etc...

But Christ told him "you will deny me"

And it cut him to he heart, this was not something he was commanded to do, or allowed to do, it was what he was going to do in spite of his previous declaration.

We are not commanded or allowed to lie to sacrifice our faith to save our lives. And that is something you Muslims don't seem to have or understand. It is because you have no faith, because you have no god, because you have no heart of flesh, just a big black stone.

ergun said...

#2 UPDATE: The Fallout Continues on James White Fudging His Teaching Experience by Peter Lumpkins
I recorded Bethany House publisher's change in James White's author profile April 1st. Unfortunately, for White, it was not an "April fools" prank. Even more surprising to me is, Scott Oakland's change in wording on his website introduction pertaining to James White's academic profile. Recall, Mr. Oakland was the very reason I brought up White's possible fudging on his academic accomplishments in the first place >>>
Those who observed the comment threads will obviously recall Scott Oakland's non-negotiable position in which he vigorously argued his assertions were correct describing James White's teaching association with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. Originally, Scott wrote on his website:
"We will discuss the importance of apologetics with Dr. James R. White, director of Alpha & Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization. Dr. White received his D.Min in Apologetics at Columbia Evangelical Seminary, teaches Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and serves as an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church in Phoenix, AZ..." (//link, embolden added for emphasis)
When I (and others) challenged Scott Oakland's assertion implying that James White teaches at Golden Gate, he vigorously protested
Read more

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/04/2-update-the-fallout-continues-on-james-white-fudging-his-teaching-experience-by-peter-lumpkins.html#more

Anonymous said...

RM what you say about church fathers liars?????????????

pwnd on here and pwnd on pt!!!!

And, no greater evidence could be produced than the testimony of church fathers themselves. By their own admissions, they show themselves to be destitute of honesty.

Lactantius, a Christian apologist of the 4th century, wrote: "Among those who seek power and gain from religion, there will never be wanting an inclination to forge and lie for it." Quoted by C. Middleton, Misc. Works of Conyers Middleton, D.D., vol. 3, p. 51 (1752)

Gregory of Nazanzius, a 4th century church father and bishop of Caesarea, wrote to St. Jerome: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire." Quoted by C. Volney, The Ruins, p. 177 (1872).

Angustine of Hippo, the greatest figure in Christian antiquity, wrote: "It is lawful, then, to him that discusses, disputes and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates of things temporal pertaining to religion or piety, to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed." Augustine, On Lying, c. 19

Eusebius, a 4th century Bishop and ecclesiastical historian, wrote that he unscrupulously suppressed all that would be a disgrace to early Christianity. Ecclesiastical History, vol. 8, c.21.

Edward Gibbon confirms this. He writes: "The gravest of all the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that would tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgement will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict observation of the other." E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, c. 16 (1883).

None other than Paul of Tarsus admits of trickery (2 Cor. 12.16), imposture (1 Cor. 9.19-20), and deception. He wrote: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" Romans 3.7 (King James Version)

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/269966/pkrause.html#Post269966

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

From you '..I think it is obvious to anyone that Yes he was lying..'

TQ for your admission (see ... its not difficult to be honest).

Bottom line is that biblical peter lied. Probably to escape the attention of the guard as he was associated with biblical jesus , mark14:54 '..Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire..'.

Well well , isn't that takiyya?

Paul took 'takiyya' to a new level as pointed out by bro Yahya in 1Corinthians9:19-22. He relied upon takiyya for proselytisation.

The catholic church perfected it and gave it a fancy name - 'doctrine of mental reservation'

doctrine of mental reservation

'..I believe, as at present advised, that when one is asked by murderers bent on taking the life of someone hiding in the house whether he is in, no answer should be given; and if this betrays him, his death will be imputable to the murderers, not to the other's silence. Or he may use an equivocal expression, and say 'He is not at home,' or something like that. And this can be defended by a great number of instances found in the Old Testament. Or he may say simply that he is not there, and if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, nor will he sin. Nor is St. Augustine really opposed to any of these methods..'

Oops .... got you there ...

Radical Moderate said...

Sam1528

you said... "Oops .... got you there ..."

yeah you sure did. Thats why your a Muslim and I'm a Christian.

Anonymous said...

Michigan Raider,

Luther defended "a good hearty lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian Church, a lie in case of necessity, a useful lie." Such lies, he said, "would not be against God."

Luther did not say that. Either learn German or stop copy pasting quotes from islamo/catholic forums. Or actually learn something and do your own research. BTW we dont follow Luther, we follow Christ.

Yahya Snow said...

Radical Moderate

So you've linked it to your FB in the hope your buddies may help you out.

Look, RadicalModerate, you keep coming off second best in these discussions because of what you are working with (Christian apologetics).

On the other tread, were you seriously suggesting you were using dishonest maths as a "test" - after being busted?

Radical Moderate, move over to the winning side - you will certainly not come off second best...

Radical Moderate, are you claiming Peter and Abraham to be sinners?

Be careful with what you say about Abraham as your Bible warns against cursing Abraham.

And what about Paul?

What about Jesus, he allowed people to believe he was Elijah, John the batist...without correcting them ACCORDING to your Gospel accounts. YES, I know the Gospels are unreliable but this is what you folk base your beliefs upon so we shall use them for purposes of argument...

Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another..

Radical Moderate said...

Anonymous Muslim said...

"Lactantius, a Christian apologist of the 4th century, wrote: "Among those who seek power and gain from religion, there will never be wanting an inclination to forge and lie for it." Quoted by C. Middleton, Misc. Works of Conyers Middleton, D.D., vol. 3, p. 51 (1752)"

Yes I agree with Lactantius, I agree with him 100 percent. People who wish to get POWER and GAIN from religion will lie and forge for it. Your prophet is proof positive that Lancantius was correct.

Really man do you even comprehend what is being said in that quote?

As far as your other quotes I'm sure some of them are taken way out of context, I'm sure some are even fabricated, and I 'm sure that some of them are accurate. However that does not change the fact that Christians are no were commanded to lie even if it is to save our lives.

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow

You said...

"So you've linked it to your FB in the hope your buddies may help you out."

No I linked to it to show Christians how Muslims corrupt the text of God's holy word, to suit their agenda. I mean really does your obvious mis reading of the text actually work on anyone who reads and understands the bible, or are you just posturing for the Muslims on this blog.

BTW we all got a big laugh out of it.

You also said...
"On the other tread, were you seriously suggesting you were using dishonest maths as a "test" - after being busted?"

First it is MATH, not maths, second it is not my website, I copied and pasted from the website that someone else posted. Third I have tested Sam1528 with other websites, where I quote something from it, but the argument against what I quote is in the next paragraph. He failed each and every time.

Fourth, SAM1528 has a serious reading comprehension problem. How he could copy and paste something I wrote and then say "I'm glad you agree with me" when agreeing with him was the opposite of what I wrote.

Finally he sends you down a rabbit hole chasing down something then when confronted he responds "you right I was deceptive I did that to get you to admit..." well what he wanted me to admit was my argument in the first place.

So with all that I have no intention of going over the MATH, to prove Sam1528 has once again failed to read and comprehend.

You also said...
"Radical Moderate, move over to the winning side - you will certainly not come off second best..."

LOL, OK CHARLIE SHEEN.

You also said...
"Radical Moderate, are you claiming Peter and Abraham to be sinners?"

YES, that is what the bible teaches, we are all sinners, all have fallen short. Abraham had faith which was accredited to him as RIGHTEOUSNESS, it was his faith that made him righteous, not anything he did.

Peter failed, he denied him, oh man when I read that even now just thinking of that, he denied him. He walked and ate with him he saw first hand what he could do, he heard first hand the power of his words. Peter's confession, Christ called the ROCK that he will build his church on. He stood up and said he will never deny him, and in that hour, he did it three times, the last time he called down curses on himself. And then he heard the rooster crow, and he knew then at that moment and he broke down and wept at his failure as a man before the living GOD.

You also said...

"What about Jesus, he allowed people to believe he was Elijah, John the batist...without correcting them ACCORDING to your Gospel accounts. YES, I know the Gospels are unreliable but this is what you folk base your beliefs upon so we shall use them for purposes of argument..."

And the Taqiyyah just continues.

Really man does this work on anyone that has read the bible and understands it?

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

From you '..I copied and pasted from the website that someone else posted. Third I have tested Sam1528 with other websites,..'

Yeah yeah , you have been thoroughly busted with your dodgy maths. Your 2 excuses
(1) copied it from someone else
(2) its a test

The least you could do is to check the figures so that you will not look stupid. As for the so called 'test' , you should know better , its a dodgy excuse for your dodgy maths (note : I write it as maths not math).

Keep bringing up the pathetic excuses. It is a reflection of the 'holy spirit' in you.

Anonymous said...

Too funny...the type of Muslim commenters that follow Yahya's blog are even more illogical and amusing than the SnowMan himself.

Always good for a laugh around here...

WhatsYourDeal said...

Yahya,

I went to a wedding between two shia muslims in Dearborn. Wow. The lebanese women there were quite beautiful. There was more cleavage there than an Orange County beach in July.

Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528 and Yahya Snow. PART 1

Sam1528 said...

"Yeah yeah , you have been thoroughly busted with your dodgy maths. Your 2 excuses
(1) copied it from someone else
(2) its a test"


This is a prime example. I will copy what I wrote so you all can see.


I wrote "Third I have tested Sam1528 with other websites, where I quote something from it, but the argument against what I quote is in the next paragraph. He failed each and every time."

Now put this together with the fact that I NEVER said that what I copied from the website was a TEST. I said very clearly in my response to Abdul that there were other websites that I posted for him as a Test which he never picked up on.

I wrote to Abdul on another post...

"You remember when I posted that link, and I said it was a test. Well thats no joke i did the same to him a few times to see if he would catch it. And he never ever did. LOL."

When I wrote "that website", it is refering to a previous interaction I had with Abdul where I posted a website, where I made a argument in regards to domesticating camels. it was clear to Abdul since I was responding to Abdul not to Sam1528.

However notice what I wrote next "I did the same thing to him A FEW TIMES".

"A FEW TIMES" clearly I am not refering to the website with the Math on the number of Hebrews during the exodus.

Also when I did copy and paste that information I was responding to YAHYA SNOW. As I clearly stated in the two part response.

"@Yahya Snow PART 1" and again
"@Yahya Snow part 2"

So let's wrap this up.

I respond to Yahya Snow in two parts by copying and pasting from a website. Notice I was not responding to or even mentioned Sam1528.

I then respond to Abdul, commenting on a website that I copied from in a response to HIM on a completely different topic. I then write that I did the same thing to SAM1528 a FEW TIMES.

This clear information get's in Sam1528's mind, get's all jumbled up and he comes to the conclusion that I copied that information to test SAM1528. How he came to that conclusion I will never know.

I then clearfy my statements on this thread by writing...
"Third I have tested Sam1528 with other websites,"

Again the information enters Sam1528's brain. Chemicals are released, neurons fire, connections are made. But its obvious the wrong chemicals, the wrong neurons and the wrong connections. Because what he spits out is...

"(2) its a test"

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528 and Yahya Snow. PART 1

Sam1528 said...

"Yeah yeah , you have been thoroughly busted with your dodgy maths. Your 2 excuses
(1) copied it from someone else
(2) its a test"


This is a prime example. I will copy what I wrote so you all can see.


I wrote "Third I have tested Sam1528 with other websites, where I quote something from it, but the argument against what I quote is in the next paragraph. He failed each and every time."

Now put this together with the fact that I NEVER said that what I copied from the website was a TEST. I said very clearly in my response to Abdul that there were other websites that I posted for him as a Test which he never picked up on.

I wrote to Abdul on another post...

"You remember when I posted that link, and I said it was a test. Well thats no joke i did the same to him a few times to see if he would catch it. And he never ever did. LOL."

When I wrote "that website", it is refering to a previous interaction I had with Abdul where I posted a website, where I made a argument in regards to domesticating camels. it was clear to Abdul since I was responding to Abdul not to Sam1528.

However notice what I wrote next "I did the same thing to him A FEW TIMES".

"A FEW TIMES" clearly I am not refering to the website with the Math on the number of Hebrews during the exodus.

Also when I did copy and paste that information I was responding to YAHYA SNOW. As I clearly stated in the two part response.

"@Yahya Snow PART 1" and again
"@Yahya Snow part 2"

So let's wrap this up.

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528 and Yahya Snow... Part 2, Wrapping it all Up.

So lets wrap this up.

I respond to Yahya Snow in two parts by copying and pasting from a website. Notice I was not responding to or even mentioned Sam1528.

I then respond to Abdul, commenting on a website that I copied from in a response to HIM on a completely different topic. I then write that I did the same thing to SAM1528 a FEW TIMES.

This clear information get's in Sam1528's mind, get's all jumbled up and he comes to the conclusion that I copied that information to test SAM1528. How he came to that conclusion I will never know.

I then clearfy my statements on this thread by writing...
"Third I have tested Sam1528 with other websites,"

Again the information enters Sam1528's brain. Chemicals are released, neurons fire, connections are made. But its obvious the wrong chemicals, the wrong neurons and the wrong connections. Because what he spits out is...

"(2) its a test"

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528 and Yahya Snow. Part 3, Final Conclusion.

As anyone can see, Sam1528 gets things all confused and jumbled up. Put that with the fact that he has said he is "deceptive" in his arguments, and the fact that he contineoulsy gives a argument and then for some reason says that his argument has nothing to do with what we are arguing.

I will give you another example...

In a previous interaction on a parable in Luke about the 10 mina's. He selectivly quotes from John Gills comentary and says "John Gill says this is about Jesus second comming.

I then go to John Gills commentary and post his comments in there context and entirity, where he writes very clearly that the Parable in Luke has been partially fulfilled with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. This makes sense since John Gill is a partial preterest.

What does Sam1528 respond with? He says words to the effect of "Why are you bringing up John Gill, since the parable is about the second coming of Jesus."

I could say to Sam1528 that the sky is blue. He would respond with "thanks for admitting that the sky is red"

Since Sam1528 has clearly demonstrated that he has a problem comprehending simple and plain English. What makes you think he can comprehend something slightly more difficult like base 10 arithmetic?

I have no desire to take the time to go through the math, to prove once again that Sam1528 has a problem. I'm sure if I did Sam1528 would respond with something like "Why are you talking about MATHS, when this is about the Exodus"

So I have said what I have said and I will speak no more of this, and only respond to Sam1528 from time to time just for laugh.

Thank you for playing.

Yahya Snow said...

@whatsyourdeal

I'm not shia.

In any case, what were you doing looking? Is that not adultery of the heart?

I really don't understand the use of other people's irreligious behaviour to goad others of the same faith...

May Allah guide us all. Ameen.

Yahya Snow said...

@Radical

OK, if you want to state you used shoddy maths (yes, "maths" is a valid word) to "test" folk.

OK.

Whatever...

Did you offer an answer to the problem aside from the "answer" which was a "test"?

You do operate in a strange way.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate

From you '..Third I have tested Sam1528 with other websites, where I quote something from it, but the argument against what I quote is in the next paragraph. He failed each and every time."..'

'damage control'!! - 'damage control'!!

The excuses you have so far
(1) copied it from someone else
(2) its a test
(3) tested sam1528 with other websites
(4) john gill's commentary
(5) I am in for the laugh

Ha ha , you are going left - right - center - top - bottom. However until now you cannot explain your dodgy maths (note I write it as maths not math).

Its evident that you don't understand what you posted. If you want to lie , the least you can do is to try to make it appear realistic.

Posting dodgy maths / numbers trying to make the biblical account of exodus 'real' is so easily exposed. Must be the holy spirit in you - 'takiyya' - you know 2cor12:16 except that you did not catch anyone.

WhatsYourDeal said...

Yahya,

What is wrong with admiring the beauty of God's creation? I think women are the most beautiful of his creation.

Ali said...

@whatsyourdeal

you do realise its that type of attitude that has the West leading in harassment of women?

Anonymous said...

Hi there,

Thanks for sharing the link - but unfortunately it seems to be down? Does anybody here at thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com have a mirror or another source?


Thanks,
Oliver

WhatsYourDeal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WhatsYourDeal said...

@ Ali

I would remind you that the prophet Solomon wrote this in Song of Solomon 4:5.

Your breasts are like two fawns,
like twin fawns of a gazelle
that browse among the lilies.

I am merely following his example by admiring the beauty of the lebanese shia women in Dearborn.

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow
WOW I guess the reading comprehension problem that Sam1528 has, is contagious.

OK THIS IS A TEST.

You wrote...
"OK, if you want to state you used shoddy maths (yes, "maths" is a valid word) to "test" folk."

Can you show me, where I ever stated that, implied that, or even suggested that?

Yahya in my world the a clear sky is BLUE, what color is it in your world?

WhatsYourDeal said...

@ radical

What are your thoughts on my comments?

Radical Moderate said...

@Ali, and other Muslims in regards to Whatsyourdeal.

The nick Whatsyourdeal, posted on David Woods blog regarding Shia woman dresing like FILTHY KAFFIR WOMAN. Using this to argue againsst David Wood that there is no Sharia law in Dearborn since if there was these woman would of been arrested, and publicly flogged.

So I don't know if he is a Muslim or not.

However I find this interesting. Lets say he was a Muslim. And as a Muslim he woke up and had a sincere desire to do good, and reject evil. He prayed, went to the bathroom the Islamic way etc...

So since he set out to do good, and he did evil by looking at womans cleavage, would that sin count against him?

WhatsYourDeal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WhatsYourDeal said...

Wow Radical. You think women who wear low cut blouses are filthy. I know your scriptures say women should dress modest, but you think they are filthy if they dress attractive? Wow.

WhatsYourDeal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WhatsYourDeal said...

@ radical,

I am not a muslim.

Yahya Snow said...

@whatsyourdeal

Are you Christian?

If you are a Christian, I would like to tell you - depsite all the liberalism out there in churches - this attitude of yours is deemed sinful according to Christian source material.

And if you have no religion, let me make a point without drawing upon religious texts...

Look, would your spouse like you "admiring" the beauty of other women?

Yes/no?

Peace

Yahya Snow said...

@Radical...


Eh?

What then was your PURPOSE behind the shoddy maths you presented?

You are confusing me.

WhatsYourDeal said...

@yahya

I am not married. So your question you posed to me doesn't make sense. How is it sinful to point out that the lebanese women in Dearborn are beautiful? I showed you how Solomon did that in the scriptures. Was he sinful?

Yahya Snow said...

@Whatsyourdeal,

Pointing out someody's beauty can be done in two ways - an innocent way and a not so innocent way.

You know your intentions.

As for the Song of Solomon, the Bible is unreliable - to attribute such to Solomon (p) would be unfair due to the nature of the Bible.

Also, just because the author of that portion of the Song behaves in such a way does not mean you and I must immitate him.

What next, are you going to start using parts from the "book of Ezekiel"?

Think about it.

If you are a Christian I owuld like to invite you to Islam.

Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow

You said...

"You are confusing me."

As easy as that is, I can not take credit for someone else's work.

Allah confused you long before you even created this blog. The only thing I did was just find you in your confused state.

Ali said...

@ whatsyourdeal

again, its that type of attitude AND those biblical scriptures that lead the west in sexual harassment of women. women don't like unwanted attention no matter how they dress.

minoria said...

About Paul:the article cited:

"19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. "[1 Corinthians 9:19-22, NIV]

He says he is bound by God's law=Christ's law

And we know by Christ's law he meant:Love your neighbor as yourself.
Read Romans 13:8-10 and Galat 5:14.He says the LAW is that,in other words the GOLDEN RULE.
So 1 COR 9 just refers to being respectful to others.

WhatsYourDeal said...

@ Ali

Why do you disapprove of the way Lebanese Shia Women dress in Dearborn? They are Muslims too. They can worship Allah anyway they feel fit. Not everybody has to interpret Islam like you.

WhatsYourDeal said...

@Ali

http://english.bayynat.org.lb/QA/qa.aspx?id=86

Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah said it is ok for women to masturbate. He was the top Shia cleric in Lebanon. Your thoughts?

Anonymous said...

I think Yahya Snow is WhatsYourDeal.

BTW, your arguments sound familiar. Are you sure you're not an infamous someone who was previously banned from this blog (under a new name, of course)?

Even his speech sounds like Yahya,

"LOL David you are hilarious."

LOL you were acquitted. You did not want to be acquitted David. You wanted to be a pseudo martyr David.

Who else is obsessed with david and repeats his name a hundred times while typing?