The Taqiyya Libel Against Muslims - updated 5/21/12

Sheila Musaji

Posted May 21, 2012      •Permalink      • Printer-Friendly Version
Bookmark and Share

The Taqiyya Libel Against Muslims

by Sheila Musaji

It has become prevalent in Islamophobic circles to misrepresent the Arabic term taqiyya.  For example, one recent article “informed” readers that:

Taqiyya literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.” It is also used as a disinformation tactic to confuse or bamboozle kafirs or non-believers.

Note that the actual definition is in quotation marks while the rest of the paragraph (which I have highlighted) is something added to the meaning by someone who wishes to distort the term.

Here is a definition from the Islamic Dictionary

Dissimulation - to conceal, partially conceal or disguise one’s true feelings, beliefs or information when there is threat of death or serious harm and when there is a threat of great evil.

And from Encyclopedia Britannica

taqiyyah, in Islam, the practice of concealing one’s belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury. Derived from the Arabic word waqa (“to shield oneself”), taqiyyah defies easy translation. English renderings such as “precautionary dissimulation” or “prudent fear” partly convey the term’s meaning of self-protection in the face of danger to oneself or, by extension and depending upon the circumstances, to one’s fellow Muslims. Thus, taqiyyah may be used for either the protection of an individual or the protection of a community. Moreover, it is not used or even interpreted in the same way by every sect of Islam. Taqiyyah has been employed by the Shīʿites, the largest minority sect of Islam, because of their historical persecution and political defeats not only by non-Muslims but also at the hands of the majority Sunni sect.  ...  Neither the Qurʾān nor the Hadith decrees points of doctrine or prescribes guidelines for behaviour when using taqiyyah. The circumstances in which it may be used and the extent to which it is obligatory have been widely disputed by Islamic scholars. According to scholarly and judicial consensus, it is not justified by the threat of flogging, temporary imprisonment, or other relatively tolerable punishments. The danger to the believer must be unavoidable. Also, while taqiyyah may involve disguising or suppressing one’s religious identity, it is not a license for a shallow profession of faith. Oaths taken with mental reservation, for example, are justified on the basis that God accepts what one believes inwardly. Consideration of community rather than private welfare is stressed in most cases.

Some Islamophobic writers like Robert Spencer regularly refer to this term as if it gives all Muslims a pass to lie to non-Muslims whenever they wish. Spencer even sees Prophet Muhammad’s statement quoted in a hadith that “war is deceit” as somehow proving that taqiyya is acceptable.  Strange reasoning as this is a principle taught from Sun Tzu to military classes at West Point and Annapolis.  If Spencer thinks that anyone thinks that it would be a good idea in time of war to provide any information requested accurately to your enemy, then it is good that he didn’t choose the military as a career.

Loonwatch has published an article titled Taqiyya:// The Ultimate Intellectual Cop-out which has a passage discussing this particular “war is deceit” statement:

This statement comes from the Battle of the Trench. After the siege of the city of Medina had lasted for almost 30 days, and the Muslims were in dire straits.  The Prophet Muhammad asked a man named Nuaym ibn Masud to break the deadly siege somehow.  Nuaym said he could do this but that “this requires me to lie.”

Let’s stop here. Why did he ask this permission from the Prophet Muhammad if, according to Spencer, lying to non-believers is standard practice? Because, as noted above, the principle in Islam is honesty. The Prophet gave him specific permission to lie saying, “War is deceit.”

This is the context of the Prophet’s statement, “War is deceit.” Spencer, however, claims that this phrase, “War is deceit,” gives Muslims carte blance to lie to all non-Muslims all the time. Logically, it is pure rubbish.

Yet, when one thinks of it, is not good policy to deceive one’s enemy during war? Is it not good strategy to decieve the enemy in order to defeat him? What is wrong with saying, “War is deceit”? Yet, are there others that have said the same thing?

Of course!

In fact, “War is deceit” is one of the oldest military principles in history. It is found in none other than The Art of War by Sun Tzu, a Chinese strategist from the Sixth Century B.C. This book is the oldest military treatise in the world. In Part I, principle No. 18 says:

All warfare is based on deception.

Was Sun Tzu advocating Taqiyya? Is this something to be condemned, as Spencer condemns the Prophet?

How about the Trojan Horse, a story from one of the oldest poems in Western Civilization?

Still seeking to gain entrance into Troy, clever Odysseus (some say with the aid of Athena) ordered a large wooden horse to be built. Its insides were to be hollow so that soldiers could hide within it.

Once the statue had been built by the artist Epeius, a number of the Greek warriors, along with Odysseus, climbed inside. The rest of the Greek fleet sailed away, so as to deceive the Trojans.

One man, Sinon, was left behind. When the Trojans came to marvel at the huge creation, Sinon pretended to be angry with the Greeks, stating that they had deserted him. He assured the Trojans that the wooden horse was safe and would bring luck to the Trojans.

Only two people, Laocoon and Cassandra, spoke out against the horse, but they were ignored. The Trojans celebrated what they thought was their victory, and dragged the wooden horse into Troy.

That night, after most of Troy was asleep or in a drunken stupor, Sinon let the Greek warriors out from the horse, and they slaughtered the Trojans.

Were the Greeks also practicing Taqiyya? Why doesn’t Spencer condemn the Greeks, the Fathers of Western Civilization, for practicing deceit in times of war?

Not only did Sun Tzu write of deception in warfare, but Italian Renaissance thinker Niccolo Machiavelli wrote:

Though fraud in other activities may be detestable, in the management of war it is laudable and glorious, and he who overcomes the enemy by fraud is as much to be praised as he who does by force.

How about more recent times? During World War II, there was a military operation called “Operation Fortitude.” It was a disinformation campaign to deceive the Germans about the Normandy invasion:

“Fortitude” was the codename given to the decoy (or disinformation) mission mounted by the Allies to deceive the Germans about the date and above all the place of the landings. The latter were convinced that the British and American attack would come in the Pas-de-Calais area and it was important not to disillusion them. They therefore had to be made to think that a whole group of armies was present in Kent, opposite the Pas-de-Calais.

To deceive the German observation planes, which their antiaircraft defences did their best to avoid, the local estuaries, creeks and harbours were crammed with dummy landing craft, made out of bits and bobs. A giant oil pumping head for PLUTO (made from papier mâché) was erected near Dover, while large numbers of inflatable rubber tanks were positioned in the fields. Plywood vehicles and guns lined the roadsides. At night, convoys of lorries ‑ always the same ones – drove back and forth across the region. For the benefit of the Germans, a team of technicians maintained constant radio traffic between totally fictitious units.

Fortitude succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Long after June 6th, Hitler remained convinced that the Normandy Landings were a diversionary tactic to induce him to move his troops away from the Pas-de-Calais, so that a decisive attack could then be launched there. He therefore kept his best units in readiness there, until the end of July, desperately scanning an empty horizon, while the fate of the war was being decided in Normandy.

Dr. Joseph Caddell, Lecturer on Military History at North Carolina State University, wrote in 2004:

Deception in warfare is probably as old as armed conflict itself. The logic of confusing an adversary is obvious, and the rewards can be realized very quickly.

On the website of the Air University, the military education system for the United States Air Force, there is a list of numerous books, documents, and periodicals that chronicle deception in WW I and WW II. Here is just some of the examples of the books written about deception in warfare:

Barros, James and Gregor, James. Double Deception: Stalin, Hitler, and the Invasion of Russia. DeKalb, IL, Northern Illinois University Press, 1995. 307 p.
Book call no.: 940.532247 B277d

Basic Deception and the Normandy Invasion. New York, Garland, 1989. 1 vol.
Book call no.: 940.5485 C873 v.15

Breuer, William B. Hoodwinking Hitler: The Normandy Deception. Westport, CT, Praeger, 1993. 263 p.
Book call no.: 940.54 B846h

Breuer, William B. The Secret War with Germany: Deception, Espionage, and Dirty Tricks 1939-1945. Novato, CA, 1988. 318 p.
Book call no.: 940.5485 B846s

As is quite clear, deception during times of warfare is not only standard procedure, but is a laudable and necessary tactic. Our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan use deception every single day to try to defeat the enemy. They would be blameworthy if they did not do so. Why doesn’t Robert Spencer condemn Sun Tzu, or the Greeks, or Allied Forces in WW II, or the U.S. Air Force for advocating deception in warfare? After all, all of these people also believe, as the Prophet Muhammad did, that “war is deceit.”

Robert Spencer’s claim that “war is deceit” to impugn the Prophet Muhammad and Islam is another case of Spenceritis. It is logical rubbish, and makes a mockery of the claim that Robert Spencer is any sort of “scholar” about Islam.


Taqiyya actually refers to a controversial minority doctrine or dispensation that allows for an individual to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.  Even those who believe that taqiyyah is possible under such circumstances place severe limits on the possibility and see it as an option that represents “the lesser of two evils”.  The possibility of using taqiyya even in a situation where your life is endangered is not accepted by all scholars or schools of law. 

As Hussein Ibish has pointed out in a very worthwhile article:

“It is becoming increasingly common in American political commentary as Islamophobic rhetoric has developed as a genre of the “paranoid style” of American politics, to hear or read that Islam encourages Muslims to lie to nonbelievers, and that therefore no one of Muslim heritage should be believed, particularly when they adopt moderate or constructive stances. This is, of course, immediately familiar to anyone with a familiarity with Western anti-Semitism, which has always held that Jews are religiously authorized to lie to, steal from or even kill Christians and other non-Jews. Like most forms of contemporary American Islamophobic rhetoric, this calumny about generalized and religiously sanctioned systematic dishonesty has been transferred wholesale from Jews to Muslims. The idea that the doctrine of “taqiyya” constitutes a carte blanche for all Muslims to lie to all non-Muslims is at the heart of this slander.”

Although the term taqiyya is used by the Shi’a, in Sunni jurisprudence, this term is not used.  “Protecting one’s belief during extreme or exigent circumstances is called idtirar (إضطرار), which translates to “being forced” or “being coerced”, and this word is not specific to concealing the faith. Sunnis believe that it is allowed to deny faith under compulsion, threat, or fear of injury, as long as the heart remains firm in faith,[21] but they also greatly disagree with some of the Shi’a points of view.[which?] While one is allowed to consume prohibited or haraam food to protect one’s life under the jurisprudence of idtirar,[22] some Sunni sources emphasize the fact that a person who prefers to proclaim their faith in the face of death will have a greater reward than they who deny their faith to save their lives. For example, in the Sunni commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari, known as the Fath al-Bari, it is stated that:[23]” Source:  Wikipedia

What does the Qur’an actually say about lying and telling the truth?

“And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).  (Qur’an, 2:42)”

“If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, Let the trustee (Faithfully) discharge His trust, and let him fear his Lord. Conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it,- His heart is tainted with sin. And God Knoweth all that ye do.  (Qur’an, 2:283)”

“O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or poor: For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (Of your hearts), lest ye Swerve, and if ye Distort (justice) or decline To do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do.  (Qur’an, 4:135)”

“But if anyone earns A fault or a sin And throws it on to one That is innocent, He carries (on himself) (Both) a falsehood And a flagrant sin.  (Qur’an, 4:112)”

“...Help ye one another In righteousness and piety, But help ye not one another In sin and rancour: Fear Allah: for Allah Is strict in punishment.  (Qur’an, 5:2)”

“O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For Allah, as witnesses To fair dealing, and let not The hatred of others To you make you swerve To wrong and depart from Justice. Be just: that is Next to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do.  (Qur’an, 5:8)”

“O you who believe, you shall reverence GOD, and be among the truthful.”  (Qur’an 9:119)

“Allah commands justice, the doing Of good, and liberality to kith And kin, and He forbids All shameful deeds, and injustice And rebellion: He instructs you, That ye may receive admonition.  (Qur’an, 16:90)”

“It is only those who believe not in the Ayah (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah, who fabricate falsehood, and it is they who are liars.” (Qur’an 16:105)

“The submitting men, the submitting women, the believing men, the believing women, the obedient men, the obedient women, the truthful men, the truthful women, the steadfast men, the steadfast women, the reverent men, the reverent women, the charitable men, the charitable women, the fasting men, the fasting women, the chaste men, the chaste women, and the men who commemorate GOD frequently, and the commemorating women; GOD has prepared for them forgiveness and a great recompense.” (Qur’an 33:35)

“Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies.” (Qur’an 40:28)

“Woe to each sinful dealer in Falsehoods:  (Qur’an, 45:7)”

“Oh prophet! Accept the pledges of the believing women, when they come to take their oaths of allegiance to you. Provided, they pledge that they would not join any partners with Allah, would not steal, commit adultery or kill their children, and would not indulge in slander, and would not concoct lies on their own. Also, that they would not disobey you in what is right. Seek forgiveness for them from Allah! Certainly Allah is the most Forgiving and the most Merciful.  (Qur’an, 60:12)”

What do the hadith say?

“Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell.” 

Abdullah bin Mas`ud (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet (PBUH) said, “Truth leads to piety and piety leads to Jannah. A man persists in speaking the truth till he is enrolled with Allah as a truthful. Falsehood leads to vice and vice leads to the Fire (Hell), and a person persists on telling lies until he is enrolled as a liar”.’

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “The signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when he is entrusted with something, he betrays that trust.” (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 33; Muslim, 59)

Hasan bin `Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) said: I remember (these words) from Messenger of Allah (PBUH): “Give up what is doubtful to you for that which is not doubtful; for truth is peace of mind and falsehood is doubt”.  [At-Tirmidhi].

Hakim bin Hizam (May Allah be pleased with him) reported that: Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “Both parties in a business transaction have a right to annul it so long as they have not separated; and if they tell the truth and make everything clear to each other (i.e., the seller and the buyer speak the truth, the seller with regard to what is purchased, and the buyer with regard to the money) they will be blessed in their transaction, but if they conceal anything and lie, the blessing on their transaction will be eliminated.’‘
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Another misrepresentative article points to some verses in the Qur’an that talk about what a believer should do to make up for a false oath:

” Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.” Surah 5:89

“Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.” Surah 2:225

“Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” Surah 16: 106

And, the author finds the following meaning in these verses:  “These and similar passages from the Quran clearly reveal that Muslims’ unintentional lies are forgivable and that even their intentional lies can be absolved by performing extra duties. It is also clear that if forced to do so, Muslims can lie while under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts.”

This is really nonsense.  If a Catholic tells a lie, they can go to confession and the priest will assign a penance for the wrong they have done which does not mean that the Catholic Church is allowing Catholics to lie, or that Catholics cannot be trusted because they can atone for doing something wrong.

The Qur’an is realistic about human nature and the fact that we will stumble and fall, and provides opportunities for us to do penance for our mistakes.

The Christian position

I would point out to those who are determined to continually paint Islam as so wholly other as to be unintelligible to “civilized” people that discussions about whether or not it is ever permissable to lie, and the concept of the lesser of two evils have been discussed by Christian scholars over the centuries, and they too have come to varying opinions.  In a discussion about moral absolutism on a Christian theology site the following argument is given:

“This position is probably the easiest to explain. When confronted with a moral dilemma, such as the midwives lying to protect the children or Rahab lying to protect the spies (see Joshua 2:1), what we must do is simply choose the lesser of two evils. In these two instances lying is the lesser sin than failing to protect the life of your neighbor. In these situations what we must do is admit that we had done wrong, repent, and ask God for forgiveness. In both of these situations God praised the women, not for their lying, but for their faith and doing the best they could in such a tough situation.”

In Catholicism there is a controversial doctrine called “mental reservation”. 

As Rev. Frank Julian Gelli points out in an article regarding Geert Wilder’s use of the “taqiyya slander”

“Third, Christians too have accused each other of harbouring and fostering their own perverse taqiya teachings. Are acquainted with that formidable Frenchman, Blaise Pascal? The man who wrote the celebrated Provincial Letters? Pascal was a Jansenist, a stern, austere kind of Roman Catholic. Taking a dislike to the Jesuits – also devout and learned Catholics – he penned a sulphurous book. Imaginary conversations with Jesuit theologians. He accused Jesuits of teachings almost all the sins in the book. Especially of defending lying. And the breaking of oaths and solemn promises. Under the guise of unworthy tricks like equivocation and mental reservation. ‘It is the intention that stamps the moral quality of an action’ he makes his Jesuit say. So, “after saying in an audible voice ‘I swear I did not do this’ you may add inwardly ‘today’...Now this you must admit is telling the truth” Pascal’s straw man smugly affirms.

The Jesuits were indignant. They protested, they wrote back, they preached, they argued, they refuted. Even the anti-Catholic Voltaire said that Pascal had unfairly attributed to the Society of Jesus the extravagant opinions of a few writers. He had tarred all those excellent and holy priests over with the same brush. To no effect. Pascal’s satire was too much fun to be written off. His vitriol stuck.

Mr Wilders, does it all ring a bell? Aren’t you too perhaps, in your infinitely lower and jejune manner and status, doing a hatchet job on millions of ordinary, sincere and truth-telling Muslims? Besmirching their religion? I wonder.”

Catholic Answers has the following entry:

  Q:“ Is it lying if you said something, discovered that it was wrong, then took it back? Is it still a sin?” 

A: By definition, lying involves intentional deceit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines a lie as follows: “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving” (CCC 2482) and “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error” (CCC 2483).  Since you thought you were speaking the truth and then, after discovering your error, you corrected yourself, you are not guilty of lying. There is no sin in this.

Q:  “ Is it always a sin to lie? For example, what if the Gestapo asked me if I had seen any Jews? Does the Church teach that I should tell the Nazi officer the truth even if it will result in suffering and death?” 

A:  The Catechism of the Catholic Church’s treatment on lying can be found in paragraphs 2475–2487. In a separate treatment of the subject that falls under the heading “Respect for the Truth” (2488–2492) the Catechism states:  The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. … This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it. Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. … No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it. (CCC 2488–2489). 

This means there can be cases in which it is morally licit to reserve the truth. Avoiding giving the location of people in danger of being murdered would be one such case. A person in such a situation should try to avoid directly lying, if possible; however, fear for the safety of innocents and the unjust external pressure brought to bear on him could mitigate against culpability should he inadvertently cross the line to lying.

The Divine Life Christian site has an entry Can we lie to save lives? which includes the following:

The answer is that telling an untruth in such a situation is not a lie, and therefore it can be moral to be deceptive in such situations. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines a “lie” in the following way:

To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who as the right to know the truth. (CCC 2483)

So there are three conditions that have to be in place to make a statement a lie:

(1) “Speak or act against the truth”: In other words, the words or actions have to be not true.

(2) “In order to lead into error”: A misspoken word or erroneous statement said in ignorance is not a lie.

(3) “someone who as the right to know the truth”: Here is the key component for the situation we are discussing: does a Nazi guard or Planned Parenthood employee who plans to kill an innocent life have the right to the truth? Of course not.

So we cannot “lie” to save a life, but we can tell an untruth if necessary, but in doing so, that is not a lie.

An article on lying on another Christian site includes the following in a section on “graded absolutism”

Both Luther and Paher could be classified theologically as “graded absolutists.” A graded absolutist believes that there are many moral absolutes taught in the Bible and that they sometimes conflict. He believes there are higher moral laws taught in the Bible and when moral laws conflict, one is under obligation to follow the higher law. Therefore, according to those who hold this position, lying is sometimes right because showing mercy to the innocent is a greater moral duty than telling the truth to the guilty. For instance, while listening to a religious radio station, I heard a denominational preacher teaching a lesson on the need to lie under certain circumstances. Like Paher, he used the story of Rahab the harlot to substantiate his teaching. This shows earthly wisdom on the part of these teachers, because even among those who know that the Bible condemns lying, the truth of what Rahab did (viz., she lied), and the fact she is mentioned in a positive manner in the New Testament, has caused some perplexity among God’s people (cf. Hebrews 12:31 and James 2:25).

And, this statement by Paul of Tarsus is certainly relevant:  “...And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law, that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.” (1 Corinthians 9:20-23)

The Jewish position

The Jewish Law site has an article Should Moral Individuals Ever Lie? Insights from Jewish Law which includes these statements

There are four important Talmudic texts that deal with the issue of permissible deceptions. The first is the following (Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 65b).

Rabbi Ille’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon: It is permitted for a person to deviate from the truth in the interest of peace, as it says (Genesis 50: 16-17): “Your father [Jacob] commanded before his death, saying: So shall you say to Joseph, ‘O Please forgive the offense of your brothers and their sin for they have treated you so wickedly.’”

Rabbi Nathan said it is a commandment [to deviate from the truth in the interest of peace], as it says (I Samuel 16:2): “And Samuel said, ‘How can I go? If Saul hears of it, he will kill me.’”

At the Academy of Rabbi Yishmael it was taught: Great is the cause of peace, seeing that for its sake, even the Holy One, blessed be He, changed the truth, for at first it is written (Genesis 18:12), ‘My lord [i.e., husband Abraham] is old, while afterward it is written (18:13), “And I am old.” ...

This article discusses in great deal many Biblical passages, and many Rabbinical commentaries on lying in various circumstances, and closes with:

This paper demonstrates that Jewish law does not take an absolutist approach to prevaricating and, indeed, will obligate the individual to lie in various circumstances, for instance, lying to save a life or to bring peace. This, by no means, makes light of the seriousness of lying. The Talmud is replete with statements that stress the importance of truth-telling and remarks that “the seal of God is emeth [truth]” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 55a); “God hates one who speaks one thing with his mouth and another thing in his heart” (Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 113b); “Whoever breaks his word is regarded as though he has worshipped idols” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 92a); and “liars will not receive the Divine Presence (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 42a).” The extreme importance of honesty is appropriately summed up by the Talmudic belief that the first question a person is asked in the hereafter at the final judgment is (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a): “Have you been honest in your dealings?” Despite all this, the Talmud recognizes that there are situations where one may be untruthful.



Doctrine of mental reservation
Muslims, Islamists, Islamophobes and the doctrine of “taqiyya”, Hussein Ibish
Silencing Spencer: Taqiyya and Kitman are part of Judeo-Christian Belief, Danios

Jeremiah lied:  Jeremiah 38:27-28