Thanks Aslam, but what about Taqiyya?
Lance on Nov 02 2006 at 3:39 pm | Filed under: Culture, Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, Lance's Page, Religion and theology
Abu Hamza al-Mujaher, the man who is at present the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq a few weeks before the anniversary of Sept.11th exhorted his supporters to kill at least one American in the next two weeks “using a sniper rifle, explosive or whatever the battle may require.” Via MEMRI I learned that Aslam Abdullah, the director of the Islamic Society of Nevada took exception to that, here are some excerpts:
Well, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, I am an American too. Count me as the one of those you have asked your supporters to kill. I am not alone, there are thousands of Muslims with me in Las Vegas,and many more millions in America, who are proud Americans and who are ready to face your challenge. You hide in your caves and behind the faces of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don’t show your faces and you have no guts to face Muslims. You thrive on the misery of thousands of Muslim youth and children who are victims of despotism, poverty and ignorance.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Many among us American Muslims have differences with our administration on domestic and foreign issues, just like many other Americans do. But the plurality of opinions does not mean that we deprive ourselves of the civility that God demands from us. America is our home and will always be our home. Its interests are ours, and its people are ours.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Don’t think that just because we share the same religion, we would show some sympathy to you. You are not of us. You don’t belong to the religion whose followers are trying to live a peaceful life for themselves and others serving the divine according to their understanding. In our understanding of faith, you appear as anti-divine and anti-human. We reject you now as we rejected you yesterday.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………We respect every human being simply because he or she is a creation of the divine, and you hate people based on their religion and ethnicity.
We support freedom and liberty and justice, and you promote bigotry, murder and strangulation.
You will never be able to find a sympathetic voice amidst us. Our differences with others will never lead us to do things that are fundamentally wrong in our faith, i. e. taking the lives of innocent people and killing others because they are different.
So on Sept. 11, when you will be hiding in your caves, we will be out in the streets paying tribute to those who you killed because you failed to see the beauty of life. We will condemn you once again the same way we have been doing ever since 9/11 because we are Muslim Americans.
I am one who is dissatisfied with the lack of vocal leadership amongst our Muslim citizens, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t much for us to be thankful for as well. I thank Aslam Abdullah.
Of course that leads to an issue that has come up a few times here. Taqiyya.
This has been put forward as an excuse to be suspicious of any Muslim whatever his words. Taqiyya is a doctrine in which Shi’a are allowed to hide their beliefs when amongst those who would harm them. Now this has been a doctrine typically used historically to allow Muslims to deny their faith in places such as Spain during the inquisition. Many dispute that the practice or belief is not widespread or that it is limited to such extreme situations. Some have claimed it to be a doctrinal call to lie when necessary and disguise the truth of what Islam is really about as we see in this series of comments. Omar here at A Second Hand Conjecture has even acknowledged that it may be an issue:
I daresay the capacity for abuse of the doctrine of Taqiyya exists and it could certainly be used to justify infiltration into non-Muslim groups. To a reasonable, rational person, I think the spirit behind the doctrine can be seen and the letter wouldn’t be stretched to the point of abuse. A Shiite terrorist fundamentalist, however, might conclude differently.
My question is, so what if that is true?
“So what! You mean you don’t see the implication of that? You don’t understand how it is impossible to trust Muslims because they may lie with the sanction of their faith.”
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I don’t buy the notion that Taqiyyah is what is being used to justify most lies we hear from Muslims, I would suggest they lie for the same reasons we all do, it is convenient, it works, etc. I find the idea that Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups may lie to achieve their aims pretty unexceptional. If they use Taqiyya as an excuse I cannot see how that should bother me any more than if they just did it with no excuse. The very act of terrorism or counter terrorism implies deception. Much of war or conflict is rooted in deception, so if Islam has a doctrine which can be twisted to justify such deception how is that any different than the justifications that everybody in a conflict uses to justify deception?
In fact, since a military conflict implies deception, especially guerrilla or terrorist based conflicts isn’t it almost comforting that we are facing an enemy with a faith which requires deception to be practiced under certain rules? That implies that deception is looked down upon, and requires a special dispensation. We are certainly under no such restriction. We think they are murderous scum who deserve to die however we can get them. I don’t see us asking some cleric if we have sufficient justification to send in a team of special forces dressed as Afghans and pretending to be Muslim. This is a red herring. Those we are fighting against are not to be feared because they may lie, but because of what they forthrightly claim to believe. Their lies are no more exceptional than the lies of those who are not Muslim. Hitler lied, Stalin lied, our Presidents lie (though I am in no way drawing any moral equivalence, in fact what makes these different people dissimilar is not their love of truth, but to what ends they strive.) Whether it is the hideous fascism of the Baathists or the religious totalitarianism of the Taliban, they have not been shy about telling us what they believe in, though like other governments and people they have been willing to lie to achieve their goals.
Let us welcome Aslam Abdullah’s words, because one reason we have not seen more public support for the fight against the terrorists is that when Muslims do speak up they are of coursed criticized by those who support, sympathize or are ambivalent about the terrorist elements while simultaneously told how little their words mean to us by many. That is unlikely to be encouraging.
For more I suggest reading this and this from Michael J Totten and this from Ali Eteraz.
Ali’s blog by the way is fantastic. So I leave you with a post he put up with the thoughts he recorded the afternoon of 9/11:
I can imagine how many people must be starting these sorts of journals tonight. The day’s events will be described in many ways, in many narratives, all across the world. Nowhere though, I believe, is the impact greater than here in the American-Muslim community (except of course those whom have lost loved ones). There is a feeling of anxious paranoia, resembling very much the feeling that the people of Vienna must have felt when they saw the Ottoman armies.
Unfortunately for us, there are no princes coming to our rescue. Even the stalwart political defense we have managed to erect will be torn down if it is realized that it is a Muslim group responsible for the perpetration. Airplanes leaving gaping holes! So many ideas went through my head; so many thoughts about how this country could improve its airplane security — perhaps installing a regimented force in each plane. So many thoughts. Who? Not why.
For the first time in my life I feel truly American. Vestiges of rebellious third world sentimentality are not erased but they have become much more rational. I feel an unbridgeable distance from those militants across the globe that I felt some sort of pity for. Once I thought even though their methods were disreputable they were simply misguided people trying to rectify the injustices of the world. No more. Now, having seen their vision of justice, I am appalled that I ever felt some sort of emotional, sentimental connection with them. So what if it was pity and not alliance? So what? It was connection, and I rue that. If I hate them now then I must hate the part of me that did not hate them before. I don’t understand. Do the quintessentially juridical expositions of our sacred (as is life) Shariah not leave a mark in their heart? Does not the generous and magnanimous character of our Prophet not ring in these people’s minds? They have lashed out like Nietzsche’s master moralists, but I see no nobility in their actions; no honor in their enunciation. I don’t know who did it; but I know.
I know that as I speak I am speaking in suppositions. I presuppose the fact that I know — or at least have an inkling — as to who is responsible for the gaping holes and deaths. Assumptions are now my only companions.
Yet, even justice is merely a compendium of assumptions, no? When the perpetrators are found, it will have to be assumed that those seeking retribution, these mighty compatriots of mine (again, how strange to call this country ‘mine’) have truly found the truth. Our — yes our — assignation of justice will assume that we — yes we — are correct in our retaliation; that we have uncovered all the clues.
Those who died were innocent.
But I don’t want to speak about innocence, for it seems that it can’t be known, simply apprehended from a distance. One could quite easily say that the death of each and every individual in those towers is due to the blackening of their respective innocence by the footprints of sin and debauchery (and the fundamentalists of all faiths will say this). Others, and no doubt someone will come along to say it, will claim that the ‘aggression of America’ is the reason this calamity struck; that America has been unleashed against the third world too long (a third world that too was mostly innocent). Again, I dare not speculate on innocence. I know it only as the girl that I passed by in the parking lot, looking for her keys, smiling because she knows she’s headed to see her beloved. I know it as a smile in a subway; that sort of innocence I can perceive — or perhaps — even that is an assumption.
Related Posts: Al Jazeera and the Washington Post…, Approaching Islam, The Washington Post CAIRS, Religion and Hypocrisy
Technorati Tags: Islam, Taqiyya, Al Qaeda, Shiite, Muslims, 9/11,
powered by performancing firefox
Sphere: Related Content
To a large extent I think you are correct, but it should still bother you that Taqiyya possibly provides a doctrine allowing such lies.
We know that Christians lie, but it goes against Christian doctrine. A true Christian who lies will have to feel some level of guilt. I’d presume that this would “show”. A doctrine that allows one to lie without such guilt is a useful tool for a lier.
A key aspect of Christian faith is that one should witness, even to those who would destroy you. Show courage walking into the lion’s den, etc. Looks like Islam prefers an “out”.
As an aside, human memories are not “real”, but are stored in the brain and are subject to modification or even complete invention.
Long ago I created a memory in a friend, by telling him a story several times. He later thought he witnessed it, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t. I did this by accident, but one could attempt to do so intentially.
One could formulate a lie and teach it to someone or even one’s self, I think. The powerful lie is the one you yourself believe.
Don,
I understand what you are saying, and certainly some Christians, especially in the early church held such a view of witness. However, the vast majority of Christians do feel that a lie to preserve their life is justified, and most priests and chaplains would argue that when the killers come knocking, lying about your beliefs would be justified. In fact both Jews and Christians did so in the face of the inquisition, as did many Muslims. It may not have been a formal doctrine, but such justifications are part of Christian teaching among many groups of Christians. Moreover my point wasn’t specifically to compare to other religions, since the greatest crimes of this century have not been perpetrated by the religious, but on secular grounds. The secular or weakly religious certainly feel justified in lying to achieve their aims and have elaborate theoretical justifications far more liberal in that matter than the Shia concept of Taqiyya.
The doctrinal “out” of course is only available to Shia and only in the face of extreme persecution, so for others the lie or deception is merely a lie or act of deceit, whether they claim a doctrinal basis or not. As far as I am aware Bin Laden and the other Sunni terror groups have not justified any of their deceptions as being based on Taqiyya, but rather as justified under the same kind of rationale as non Muslim terrorists and murderers have. So while I see your point, it doesn’t seem to be all that big a difference. Of course I am not suggesting you were saying otherwise, I just wanted to elaborate on the theme.
As for your second comment, how true. In fact I have a post I am planning sooner or later on that very issue.
In fact, St. Peter did so three times, as prophesied by Jesus, after Jesus was captured and was being prepared to be nailed to his tree.
I thank Aslam Abdullah.
As do I. May there be many more of him (and may they start getting themselves in front of microphones ASAP).
As far as taqiyyah goes, is there any evidence that Mr. Abdullah is a liar in general or happens to be lying in this instance? Has he been caught engaging in mendacity before? Is he saying something radically different in Arabic? If not, then I have no reason not to take him at his word.
In my experience, someone who wants (or needs) strongly enough to lie will do so, regardless of religion or lack thereof. If he can’t find a way to torque whatever his philosohical/scriptural belief system might be into authorizing (or at least forgiving/ignoring) the deceit, then he’ll simply blow off the system in that regard.
Are there any religions which either make a virtue of deception or absolutely and unequivocally forbid it under any circumstances?
Possibly rhetorical, Achillea, but I’ll take a shot. As far as I am aware, deception is not considered a virture by any currently practiced religion. The second part of the question is more complicated as we have to define what is meant by deception. Clearly in the Abrahamic model, the devout are told that falsehood constitutes a sin, or transgression against God or man, but there are certainly situational “outs.” In fact, the above example of Peter that Michael provided as well as Lance’s explanation of life during the Inquisition and the Reconquista are both illustrative of the value of life over absolute compliance with the letter of the law. The Talmud also contains examples of Rabbis or scholars counseling minor falsehood to avoid either hurt feelings or more serious injuries. On the other hand, the Buddhist concept of self-deception and the reality of what we perceive in the material world as well as Taoist views on this matter complicate the question. For example, I recently read an interesting debate on belief.net concerning whether a Buddhist should marry or not. The issues of attachment in the material world and the potential self-deception of “marriage” were both key points used by both sides. So, you have definitely raised a very interesting question, and I suspect that the closest we can get to a religious system absolutely opposed to falsehood would be Buddhism. The important thing to keep in mind here is that Buddhism’s concern is not necessarily with worldly “deceptions” (or lies, fabrications, etc.), but more importantly with self-deception. Hinduism also features an interesting take on this and we would do well to remember Mohandas Gandhi’s recommendation to the Jews of Europe : embrace who you are, surrender to passive resistance, and accept death at the hand of your persecutors (the Nazis) rather than commit falsehood or violence in order to preserve your life. That’s pretty absolute to me, although I don’t believe that Mr. Gandhi was considered an orthodox Hindu.