We recently came face-to-face with the lies of a low-level Christian missionary on the voice channel Paltalk with regard to the so-called “abrogration” of Qur’an, 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion…”). When this author took the microphone and attempted to address the claims which has no basis in Qur’anic tafsir (commentary), he was shouted down by the same Christian missionary who accused this author of committing taqiyyah, which is exclusively a Shia belief.
Unfortunately for the missionary, the author in question is a Sunni Muslim and hence could not be committing taqiyyah as per the missionary’s claims.
Hence our purpose in writing this article is two-fold: what exactly did Ibn Kathir say with regard to the issue of taqiyyah? What is Sunni Islam’s position on this exclusively Shia doctrine? And what is the deal with the so-called “abrogation” of Qur’an, 2:256, which the Christian missionary claims is no longer “valid” in Islam?
We seek to answer these questions, insha’Allah.
The Deal With Taqiyyah: What Did Ibn Kathir Really Say?
The Christian missionary had referred to Qur’an 3:28 and relied on his copy of Ibn Kathir’s commentary
We, therefore, reproduce the whole commentary here as follows.
{28. Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way, unless you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself, and to Allah is the final return.}
The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers
Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He said,
{And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way}
meaning, whoever commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him.
Similarly, Allah said,
{0 you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them}
until,
{And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the straight path.} [60:1]
Allah said,
{0 you who believe! Take not for friends disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?} [4: 144]and,
{0 you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them.} [5:51
Allah said, after mentioning the fact that the faithful believers gave their support to the faithful believers among the Muhajirin, Ansar and Bedouins,
{And those Who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you do not behave the same, there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption.} [8:73]
Allah said next,
{unless you indeed fear a danger from them.}
meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” Allah said,
{And Allah warns you against Himself.}
meaning, He warns you against His anger and the severe torment He prepared for those who give their support to His enemies, and those who have enmity with His friends….
ibid.
Note the bold sentences in the above quote. If someone is threatening to kill you and is only willing to let you go if you say or do the things he demands, then in such a dire circumstances, a person is permitted to say what needs to be said to save his/her life. That is all there is to it.
Consider the example of the American journalist Jill Carrol who was recently released in Iraq by militants. While still in Iraq, she appeared on television praising the militants who kidnapped her and murdered her translator. Later, once she was released and returned to America, she said that she was demanded to say those types of things, or else her life would have been in danger. Can anyone blame her for doing that and for saying the things she said in Iraq?
Likewise, Ibn Kathir explains that in such a situation, where you are being threatened with violence and you are not strong enough to defend yourself, a person may say certain things so that the aggressor would not harm him/her. Ibn Kathir does not state anywhere that you can just lie “for fun” or whenever you want to. Nor is this act specifically named as a “doctrine” called taqiyyah.
In the Qur’an we also read (16:106):
“Whoever disbelieved in Allah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a great torment.” (Yusuf Ali)
Ibn Kathir has this to say in the abridged commentary:
{except one who was forced while his heart is at peace with the faith}
This is an exception in the case of one who utters statements of disbelief and verbally agrees with the Mushrikin because he is forced to do so by the beatings and abuse to which he is subjected, but his heart refuses to accept what he is saying, and he is, in reality at peace with his faith in Allah and His Messenger(P).
The scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation, or to refuse, as Bilal did when they were inflicting all sorts of torture on him, even placing a huge rock on his chest in the intense heat and telling him to admit others as partners with Allah. He refused, saying, “Alone, Alone.” And he said, “By Allah, if I knew any word more annoying to you than this, I would say it.” May Allah be pleased with him.
Similarly, when the Liar Musaylimah asked Habib bin Zayd Al-Ansari, “Do you hear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Yes.” Then Musaylimah asked, “Do you bear witness that I am the messenger of Allah?” Habib said, “I do not hear you.” Musaylimah kept cutting him, piece by piece, but he remained steadfast insisting on his words.
It is better and preferable for the Muslim to remain steadfast In his religion, even if that leads to him being killed, as was mentioned by Al-Hafiz lbn ‘Asakir in his biography of ‘Abdullah bin Hudhih Al-Sahmi, one of the Companions….
ibid., Vol. 5, p. 530.
And so, according to Ibn Kathir, if someone is being compelled and forced, then they can do and say certain things — even pretend to renounce Islam — in order to save their lives, although it is preferable they face the torture and stick to Islam.
The Qur’an clearly speaks against lying and acts of deception in numerous passages and in Islam lying is absolutely wrong and condemned.
“Woe to every wicked liar.” (Qur’an, 45:7)
Allah will say: “This is the Day when the truthfulness of the truthful will benefit them. They will have Gardens with rivers flowing under them, remaining in them timelessly, forever and ever. Allah is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. That is a Great Victory.” (Qur’an, 5:119)
“Anyone who commits an error or an evil action, and then ascribes it to someone innocent, bears the weight of slander and clear wrongdoing.” (Qur’an, 4:112)
They are people who listen to lies and consume ill-gotten gains. If they come to you, you can either judge between them or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they cannot harm you in any way. But if you do judge, judge between them justly. Allah loves the just. (Qur’an, 5:42)
Why, when you heard it, did you not, as male and female believers, instinctively think good thoughts and say: “This is obviously a lie?” Why did they not produce four witnesses to it? Since they did not bring four witnesses, in Allah’s sight they are liars. Were it not for Allah’s favor to you and His mercy, both in this world and the Hereafter, a terrible punishment would have afflicted you for your plunging headlong into it [slander]. You were bandying it about on your tongues, your mouths uttering something about which you had no knowledge. You considered it to be a trivial matter, but in Allah’s sight, it is immense. Why, when you heard it, did you not say: “We have no business speaking about this. Glory be to You! This is a terrible slander!”? (Qur’an, 24:12-16)
O you who believe! If a deviator brings you a report, scrutinize it carefully in case you attack people in ignorance and so come to greatly regret what you have done. (Qur’an, 49:6)
Do not say about what your lying tongues describe: “This is lawful and this is forbidden,” inventing lies against Allah. Those who invent lies against Allah are not successful. (Qur’an, 16:116)
Who could do greater wrong than those who lie about Allah and deny the truth when it comes to them? Do the unbelievers not have a dwelling place in Hell? (Qur’an, 39:32)
On the Day of Rising you will see those who lied against Allah with their faces blackened. Do not the arrogant have a dwelling place in Hell? (Qur’an, 39:60)
Say: “People who invent lies against Allah will not be successful.” (Qur’an, 10:69)
Look how they invent lies against Allah. That suffices as an outright sin. (Qur’an, 4:50)
Hence what the missionary has claimed about the concept of taqiyyah in Islam is a false lie and goes against the spirit of the Qur’an. One can also see the numerous statements by the Prophet(P) against lying and liars, as well as the statements of Muslim scholars against lying and liars.
Qur’an 2:256: Where is the Abrogation?
Now we come to the gist of the whole issue, namely the so-called “abrogation” of Qur’an 2:256. The Christian missionary cited Ibn Kathir’s commentary to this verse in order to “prove” that this verse was “abrogated” according to Ibn Kathir. However, Ibn Kathir does not say in the abridged commentary that this verse has been abrogated, which is contrary to the missionary claim on Paltalk.
We cite the relevant passage as follows.
No Compulsion in Religion
Allah said,
{There is no compulsion in religion}, meaning, “Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear. and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.”
It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn ‘Abbas said [that before Islam], “When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated [from Al-Madinah], some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, “We will not abandon our children.” Allah revealed,
{There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path}
Abu Daud and An-Nasa’i also recorded this hadith.
As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah(T) said to a man,
{“Embrace Islam.” The man said, “I dislike it.” The Prophet(P) said, “Even if you dislike it.”}
First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet(P). However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet(P) did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet(P) merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet(P) said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, ?for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.’
ibid., pp. 30-31
The following points are to be noted in order to understand the above passage by Ibn Kathir:
- 1. According to Ibn Kathir, the verse is a general statement.
2. Ibn Kathir states that no one is to be forced to become a Muslim. It is a person’s choice to accept or reject Islam.
3. Ibn Kathir does not state anywhere in this commentary that this passage has been “abrogated.”
Therefore there is no basis in the missionary claim that this verse was “abrogated” according to Ibn Kathir.
What About the “Christian Taqiyyah“?
While Islam does not have any notion of a taqiyyah except in the minds of those who whale about it, in Christianity we find an interesting example of how one can resort to taqiyyah. Namely, the example of Paul of Tarsus, who was not only a scheming imposter, but a hypocrite and a false prophet. Such is the taqiyyah resorted to by this man that he said thus:
“But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless being crafty, I caught you with guile.” (2 Corinthians 12:16)
Now here is a person who openly admits that he uses guile (understood as deception or lying) in order to spread his message. Is this the kind of man that the Christian missionaries expect us to follow?
Another passage clearly displays the flip-flop mentality of this Great Deceiver from Tarsus:
“To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law — though not being myself under the law — that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law — not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ — that I might win those outside the law.” (I Corinthians 9:20)
Geza Vermes, a former Christian who is one of the leading scholars in historical Jesus research today, says:
“He [Paul] could also be calculating and ready to compromise: ‘To the Jews I became as a Jew…to those under the law I became as one under the law…To those outside the law I became as one outside the law…I have become all things to all men‘…Or in short, ‘I try to please all men in everything I do’ (I Cor. 10:33).”
Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus (Penguin Books, 2000), p. 66. Italics are by Vermes.
Paul’s deceptive methodology of “winning” converts resulted in him being viewed as an opportunist by the Jews:
“His goal is not self-gratification but the interests of the gospel, and in particular the desire to ‘win’ converts. Like a demagogue who enslaves himself to the populace to compaign for their rights, Paul has deliberately renounced rights and demeaned himself to advance the cause of the gospel (v. 19). His self-sacrifice is first illustrated by the chief characteristic of his mission, his cross-cultural adaptability (vv. 20-1). Among the Jews he could live like a Jew; that is, among the law-observant he observes the law, although not considering himself utterly bound to it (v. 20). The purpose is to win Jews for the gospel; for, although his call was ‘to the Gentiles’ (Rom 1:5), Paul still associated with Jews, as his synagogue visits testifies (2 Cor 11:24). Similarly, for Gentiles ‘outside the law’ Paul lived in a Gentile fashion, although in truth not lawless before God, but under full obligation to Christ (v. 21, ‘under Christ’s law’; no code of teaching is here envisaged). Again the purpose is to win Gentiles, the task in which Paul was so successful, though at the cost of his reputation among most fellow Jews, who took his adaptability to be merely opportunism (Gal 1:10).”
John Barton, John Muddiman (eds.), The Oxford Bible Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 1123
Now here is a person who can be rightfully charged with the practice of a Christian taqiyyah. Such a lying, sinful person is not worthy to be considered as a follower of Jesus(P), much less an apostle. Only a product of Satan will resort to such lies and trickery to spread their message.
For more information, please see Lying In Christianity.
Conclusions
We have cited from Ibn Kathir and showed how his commentary was misused by a low-level missionary who whales about taqiyyah and abrogation and yet ended up citing texts which do not support his claims. Hence we are obliged to ask, from where did he get his poppycock stories from? One wonders why was this person wailing about taqiyyah and a so-called “abrogation” when neither one existed in the passages we have cited above.
It is obvious that this rabid missionary has no idea on what he was talking about and was just whaling for some sort of argument in order to smear Muslims with and tarnish their claims. In logical fallacy circles, this is called poisoning the well and an ad hominem attack. Perhaps the Christian missionary should return to his Logic 101 classes to learn the finer points of debating instead of resorting to wailing about taqiyyah or cutting his opponent off from the microphone when his opponent is speaking.
And only God knows best. 
Cite This As:
Leave a Reply