Deceit can take on many forms, and Muslims are far from limited in applying them. As time has gone on, a good portion of people who have become more wily towards Islam have become at least somewhat aware of taqiyya, covered in Part 1. However, a particularly tricky Muslim, if confronted and put on the spot, may tell you they aren’t committing taqiyya.
Indeed, as covered previously, some Muslims will still try to define taqiyya as something essential to their safety, and will give you the excuse of it supposedly being used in situations dangerous for the faithful (though, again, if you read Part 1, you’ll know this is a lie).
Along comes tawriya. To translate that into English, this generally means “concealment.” Though, perhaps the term double-entendre fits it even better. That is, a word or a phrase open to two separate interpretations. In the context of doctrine, this is to say one thing, and to mean another.
For instance, say a Muslim owed someone money, and that person, seeing them on the street, asked for the debt to be paid. The Muslim could tell them “but I don’t have that kind of money”. The person will naturally assume the Muslim is too destitute to pay the debt back. In reality, the Muslim could have meant “but I don’t have that kind of money on me,” meaning that they had more than enough money stashed somewhere else, but just not on their person at the time. This is tawriya. In their mind, they didn’t tell any lies, they just told a version of the truth, thereby, they are completely square with Allah as lying is “supposed” to be forbidden in Islam. That is, unless it’s within warfare, lying to one’s spouse, or lying to reconcile people, i.e, your fellow Muslims.
For other instances, this is where tawriya comes into play, as “creative lying”, which in their minds, doesn’t violate the above rules. According to the founder of the popular IslamQA website Muhammad Al-Munajjid, so long as the words can fit a hidden meaning and the act of lying does not lead to an injustice as defined by Sharia, you’re free to use tawriya as much as you see fit. The hypothetical limitations (few as they are) on taqiyya no longer apply here.
An important thing to note, however, regarding the first rule, is that words fitting the “hidden meaning” aren’t exactly obeying Western conventions of the double-entendre. This isn’t a case where, if you’re smart enough you can suddenly figure out the actual meaning, because in many cases, the tawriya will utilize a hidden meaning based on the Arabic language, or Islamic doctrine, meaning there’s absolutely zero chance of a foreign mind ever figuring the concealed information out.
Muhammad Al-Munajjid uses a specific example for this, that is, a man who swears he can only sleep if he has a roof above his head. When caught sleeping on top of a roof, the man responds by saying Quran 21:32 calls the sky a “roof”, so technically he wasn’t lying. Another sheikh (in a now deleted video but still referenced video) instructed Muslims that, if ever they were wished a happy holiday and that holiday wasn’t an Islamic one, that a Muslim can respond “I wish you the best.” And this is fine, because by tawriya, what “wish you the best” actually means is, that the Muslim hopes the person will find Islam. This particular instance riled up the Christians wishing everyone a Merry Christmas, though, that isn’t exactly worth much considering Christians have historically acted a similar way.
All said, tawriya, like its brother taqiyya, finds its roots in the oft-degenerate behavior of the Prophet himself. Muslims, by Muslim confession, “need” tawriya, as it saves them from the “sin of lying.” Muhammad himself once said that “Allah has commanded me to equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish obligations (Sharia Law).” If the translation here isn’t plainly apparent for you, equivocate simply means using ambiguous language as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself. He also stated that he “had been sent with obfuscation” and that “whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr.” Again, if this word is unfamiliar to you, it means the concealment of one’s true thoughts and feelings.
If you wish to go further into the territory of the absolutely stupid and unbelievable applications, know tawriya can also apply to really any awkward situation a Muslim finds themselves in. For instance, breaking wudu. For context, wudu refers to ritual cleanliness, that is, the washing you must perform to be proper for prayer and worship. If you’ve read other articles, you’ll know this is generally limited to rinsing one’s face and that supposed Muslim hygiene is one massive taqqiya campaign in and of itself, but wudu can also refer to other aspects of one’s cleanliness.
As an example, women break wudu if they’re experiencing their period, or experience any sort of discharge downstairs (strangely, the discharge is considered “pure” if it’s the end result of intercourse). Men can also break wudu if they pass wind or self-defecate whilst praying, with the exception that, if they’re unsure if they have or not, and there was no obvious smell or sound, they may continue assuming they’re still pure.
As disgusting as all this is, a point is being made here. Muhammad, in one of the Hadith (specifically, the Sunan Abu Dawud collection) stated that “If you ever pass gas or soil yourselves during prayer (thus, breaking wudu), hold your nose and leave.” Yes, you are reading this right. You’re allowed to pretend you weren’t the culprit and just leave, blaming the smell on someone else. After all, the person leaving the room looking disgusted is surely not the guilty party. It’s every man for himself.
In the age of the internet, when Muslims can go online and ask whoever they deem an authority on Islamic matters, tawriya has really only been bent further and further. Even for the pettiest things, like receiving a phonecall from an undesired caller, tawriya lets someone else answer on your behalf and simply say you aren’t there without it being “sinful.” On their own, these white lies seem otherwise harmless, and this sort of behavior generally occurs regardless of culture. However, only Muslims really claim they’re otherwise above such behavior, when in reality, they’re like everyone else and usually far worse.
Returning to Al-Munajiid, tawriya, in his eyes, is wholesale acceptable so long as any action is in the interest of Sharia.
This brings us to the next term, known as kitman. Kitman and tawriya are sometimes thought of somewhat interchangeably, as both can refer to the act of concealing something. This is not entirely correct, however, as kitman less refers to the concept of creative lying, and more the act of lying by virtue of omission. Though a more obscure term than taqiyya, kitman is in extremely widespread use. Technically speaking, even Christians use this on the regular.
To give an example, imagine a Muslim told you that Islam says killing is wrong, and their proof is Surah 5:32. Imagine then they show you the verse and it reads like this.
“Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul… it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.”
In reality, they’ve heavily condensed the verse and have left out crucial details. Someone who is oblivious of the Quran may not know the difference, unless they look it up themselves. The actual verse is this:
مِنۡ أَجۡلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبۡنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِيٓ إِسۡرَـٰٓءِيلَ أَنَّهُۥ مَن قَتَلَ نَفۡسَۢا بِغَيۡرِ نَفۡسٍ أَوۡ فَسَادٖ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيعٗا وَمَنۡ أَحۡيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَآ أَحۡيَا ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيعٗاۚ وَلَقَدۡ جَآءَتۡهُمۡ رُسُلُنَا بِٱلۡبَيِّنَٰتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرٗا مِّنۡهُم بَعۡدَ ذَٰلِكَ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ لَمُسۡرِفُونَBecause of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption/mischief in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.
Quran 5:32
Suddenly the reality of the verse is far more apparent. Now Islam is allowed to kill anyone who commits poorly defined “mischief”, which, if you know the Quran, boils down to the mere act of simply not being a Muslim or speaking against Islam to any capacity.
To give another Quranic example, and referring back to earlier ideas, kitman can also come in the form of showing someone a specific verse that is either abrogated or contradicted by a later verse.
For instance, say a Muslim wants to tell you that the Quran says that nobody is going to be forced to convert to Islam, and their proof is Surah 2:256:
“There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.”
Contextually, this was during Muhammad’s early days of proselytizing in Medina, when he had no choice but to have this approach. Let’s look at a verse from later when the power started to shift into Muhammad’s hands, thus abrogating this previous verse. Surah 3:83:
أَفَغَيۡرَ دِينِ ٱللَّهِ يَبۡغُونَ وَلَهُۥٓ أَسۡلَمَ مَن فِي ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ طَوۡعٗا وَكَرۡهٗا وَإِلَيۡهِ يُرۡجَعُونَDo they seek anything other than submission to Allah? Everyone in the heavens and earth submits to Him, willingly or unwillingly; they will all be returned to Him.
Qu’ran 3:83
Suddenly, everyone and everything will either convert on their own accord or by force, by the implication here. Fact is, to lie about the contents of the Quran to make it seem more peaceful than it is by cherry picking specific verses is to commit kitman. It’s done knowingly and with intent.
One of the more commonplace acts of kitman is, somewhat ironically, lying about the nature of what certain terms in Islam actually truly mean. You can, as a matter of fact, commit kitman regarding kitman. I’ve seen some instances where kitman is defined by very mundane things, like a painter not wanting to show anyone his masterpiece before it’s complete. Or, a rich Muslim having money and committing kitman by not paying his share of zakat, his charity, and is such, committing kitman by omitting the details of this wealth.
There’s also kitman with regards to the term jihad, which a lot of Muslims will try to claim doesn’t refer to some sort of holy war or crusade of conversion. Rather, it supposedly refers to some sort of internal struggle. One’s own personal jihad to be a better Muslim. They’ll say this, of course, and people who don’t know any better will buy it. Of course the actual truth is that in the dozens of times jihad or any term like it is used in the Quran, a very, very small percentage could be construed to even remotely mean something internal. Again, to take part in kitman is to engage in knowing deception, and to lie by omission.
Lastly, there is muruna. This is perhaps the least known of the deception tactics. Generally, it’s taken to mean “flexibility.” This can refer to the phenomenon of people who don’t necessarily act or look Muslim, but still spread the word of Islam. This has become a problem particularly recently on both sides of the political spectrum, with Islam spreading its tendrils through the Left trying to garb itself in feminism, or even the Right, with Islam trying to advertise itself as the supposed answer to the West’s grapple with “wokeness” or whatever people wish to call it.
For an example, imagine an impressionable young man looking to fit in somewhere, feeling out of place and looking for answers society hasn’t been giving him. He goes online, and he sees a rich, musclebound influencer with fast cars, millions of dollars, surrounded by women, everything he could want and more. He may engage in appealing (yet sinful, by Islam’s doctrine) lifestyles. However, he constantly talks up Islam as the reason for his success, and the answer to all life’s problems. The way this hypothetical individual is at odds with Islam is irrelevant. This is muruna, this is a flexibility that allows Islam to blend in and spread to different audiences, particularly a Western one.
It’s the same principle as a predator in nature camouflaging itself so it may get closer to its prey. Certain Muslims are willing to forego certain aspects of their personal Islam if it makes their intended conversion demographic more susceptible.
If you’re seeing a pattern here, you would be correct. In a sense, this is similar to a modern day abrogation, that is, if there is a more effective command, it is the one that will be taken. Despite Islam enforcing its Sharia to the extent it does, it will inevitably disobey even itself if it means acting within its own best interest. The endgame is total world domination. If you’re making the mother of all omelets, so to speak, in their eyes, you can’t fret over every egg.
Muslims may, in defiance of certain pieces of doctrine, even marry non-Muslims if it furthers their ultimate agenda. This too, is technically muruna. Across the Western world, you will even see female Muslim politicians, not wearing hijabs, wearing makeup, having drinks at parties, and so forth, and yet still promoting causes that forward the very brand of Islam that would punish them if it got the chance.
To give a specific example, take Huma Abedin, who, for a time, was Hillary Clinton’s top campaign aide. She was married to former (and highly disgraced) Jewish congressman Anthony Weiner, not to mention another high profile relationship with actor Bradley Cooper and an engagement to Alexander Soros, one of the five children of George Soros. To look at, one would not necessarily assume this woman was a Muslim, in terms of fashion choices or lifestyle.
However, before her run as campaign aide, Huma Abedin was an editor at a Saudi journal (the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs) which claims the way Western women dressed after the women’s liberation movement “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” More-or-less, blaming women if they get raped. It also made various other claims against gay couples and single parents, while writing off domestic violence against women as nothing more than frustrated men who don’t deserve to be prosecuted for their crimes. Who was the editor in chief? Her mother.
( Sourced from: https://nypost.com/2016/08/21/huma-abedin-worked-at-a-radical-muslim-journal-for-10-years/ )
Worse yet, multiple Republican members of congress issued a letter to the State Department Inspector General in 2012. Why? Alleged “immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations”, namely the Muslim Brotherhood.
Whether this allegation is true or false, it remains a fact her mother, at the very least, is a proponent of Sharia Law. And yet, Huma, who was utterly unapologetic for her mother’s writing, lead Hillary’s 2016 platform which almost entirely focused on pop feminism.
Once again, this is muruna. It’s putting aside Islam in order to blend in to those around you, or possibly even infiltrating to high positions of power, all to ultimately further the agenda of Islam.
Wilful Muslim deception comes in a multitude of forms. The only way to truly be immune to their wiles is to know and understand the variety of ways in which deceive.
Arcadia
English