Islamic Dissembling

"You Can't Handle the Truth"

We suspect that the Commentariat in the West is perpetually gulled by disciples of Islam.  What regularly occurs is that media and commentators take Islamic representations at face value.  They never question the veracity of what is being said.  Take, for example, the killing of women, children, and innocents by suicide bombers.  What do leading Islamic propagandists say about such atrocities?

Take, for example, Sayyid Tantawi, Grand Imam of al-Azhar in Cairo, seen as the highest spiritual authority by most Sunni Muslims around the world.  When addressing Western audiences, Tantawi has regularly condemned suicide bombings and terrorist attacks as "un-Islamic".  For example, in 1998, following the attacks upon embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Tantawi opined:

Any explosion that leads to the death of innocent women and children is a criminal act, carried out only by people who are base, cowards, and traitors, because a rational man with just a bit of respect and manliness, refrains from such operations altogether.  [Cited by Patrick Sookhdeo, Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam. (McLean, VA: Isaac Publishing, 2007), p. 206.]

This sort of stuff cheers up the Western Commentariat no end.  It says, "See.  Radical Islam is not endorsed by true and faithful Islamic teachers and leaders."  Fair enough.
  After all, this was not an isolated aberration by Tantawi--whom, we repeat is regarded as the highest spiritual authority in Sunni Islam, which is by far and away the dominant Islamic sect.  Tantawi has repeatedly asserted that shari'a law forbids any form of terrorism.

[Shari'a] rejects all attempts on human life, and in the name of shari'a we condemn all attacks upon civilians, whatever their community or state responsible for such attacks.   [Ibid. p. 207]

He repeated these views in 2002 at a Cairo conference, in 2003 at an international conference for Islamic scholars in Kuala Lumpur, in a 2004 interview with an Italian daily newspaper, in which he alleged that suicide bombers were not motivated by religion, but were pursuing "atrocious objectives" not acceptable to Islam. [Ibid.]  But, at the same time, when addressing different audiences, Tantawi has endorsed suicide bombings, claiming they were legal under Shari'a law.

In 2002 he went further, declaring at a reception for the leader of the Arab Democratic Party of Israel, Abd-Wahhab Darawsheh, that suicide operations and the killing is Israeli civilians, even women and children, were permitted and should be intensified.  He stated that "every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law.  [Ibid., p. 207,8.]

What is going on here?  Is this most revered Sunni authority mad, or a liar?  How can an Islamic leader speak out of both sides of his mouth?  Easy.  It all depends upon to whom he is speaking, and who will hear his words.  According to traditional Islamic doctrine, follows of the Prophet are entitled to lie to outsiders either to save themselves or advance the cause of Islam.  Since Jihad is perpetual war to the end of time, and since in war, subterfuge is justified, Muslims lying to pagans, unbelievers, and infidels can be considered a duty.

In classical Islam, it is permitted to lie under particular circumstances.  The doctrine of permitted lying is called taqiyya. It is supposedly only permitted for emergencies, but it has become the norm of public behaviour whenever there is a conflict between faith and expediency.  The doctrine, says Sookhdeo, is supported in the Qur'an, the hadith, and various commentaries upon the same.  One hadith supports lying in three situations: to one's wife, in war, and for the purposes of reconciliation.  A hadith, one recalls, is a recitation of a saying attributed to Muhammad.

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "Lying is allowed in only three cases: falsehood spoken by a man to his wife to please her, falsehood in war, and falsehood to put things right between people. Al-Tirmidhi Number 5033: Narrated by Asma', daughter of Yazid. [Sookhdeo, p. 197.]

Given the doctrine of taqiyya, what are we to make of all those "moderate" Islamic voices?   How many are really just covering up and dissembling, as would a spy in hostile territory?  Some Islamic spokespeople are quite candid about the matter:

On the Panorama programme Dr Taj Hargey, Chairman of the Muslim Education Centre, Oxford explained that Muslims have different discourses for different audiences--one for inner Muslim audiences and the other for the external public domain.  Those in the public domain, including journalists, simply do not get to hear the inner discourse which is limited to Muslim-only circles.

We have one vocabulary in private and we have another vocabulary for the public domain and that's why you don't hear it because you're the public domain.

Discussing the Islamic Foundation is Leicester, UK, Dr Hargey highlighted its double message:

This Foundation has done some sterling work in many ways.  But I think it has a double message.  It has a public persona and it's got a private persona, and the public persona talks about bridge building, talks about interfaith relations, talks about integration and so forth.  But the real inner core is quite a different message. It's intolerant, it's rigid, it's exclusive.  So I think we have a schizophrenic movement here.  [Ibid., p. 203f.]

Sookhdeo cites many other instances of this kind of deliberate duplicity, particularly when Islamic commentators are facing non-Islamic audiences.  The bottom line is this: when pagans and infidels press Islamic believers to deny or affirm something, the Islamic devotee is entitled to deceive, gull and lie. So Muhammad taught.