Twice Weekly Violence In The Quran Revealed
 
Sura in Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
 
This sura shows the untruth of the doctrine of eternal torment that many false religion clerics use to insight violence against others and to scare their subjects into subjection.  This sura makes one think of sura (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."  Often used for the self same unrighteous purposes.
 
The New Testament, though it mentions Hell, is surprisingly vague on
the subject.  The result of which has divided believers over the
issue.  Some adamantly claim that there is indeed a Hell where
sinners are tormented eternally, while others claim that a loving God
would never think of such a concept.
 
The NT was written at a time when the concept of Hell was still in a
state of transition.  This has resulted in a certain amount of
vagueness that has actually worked out well for the faithful.  A hard
line position either way would have settled the matter once and for
all, but how could a position, if it were spelled out precisely,
utilize the believer's faith?  Faith has always enabled the believer
to discover and embrace the concept that he is seeking.
 
A statement declaring that the first Christians, "did" or "did not",
believe in a literal Hell is an over simplification of the matter.
There were many different strands of thought on the subject.  These
varied from the Sadducee position where the dead are indeed dead and
there is no resurrection, to the OT concept of "rephaim" which were
not "souls" in the Platonic sense but rather shadows or ghosts, to
the full fledge Persian/Greek soul concept found in NT apocrypha. 
The punishments ranged from; humiliation of powerful men in a common
death, to temporary refining of the soul by fire, to punishment of
sinners for all eternity.
 
It is probably safe to say that by the middle of the second century
AD the Christian concept of Hell had fully evolved.  Many of the
supporting concepts were present, but they were so underdeveloped in
Hebrew thought that such a conclusion was not possible before that
time. 
 
The Apocalypse of Peter, written in the second century AD (probably
in the first half) provides some of the most vivid descriptions of
the torment in Hell to be found in any of the Jewish/Christian works:
 
20. And over against that place I saw another, squalid, and it was
the place of punishment; and those who were punished there and the
punishing angels had their raiment dark like the air of the place. 
21. And there were certain there hanging by the tongue: and these
were the blasphemers of the way of righteousness; and under them lay
fire, burning and punishing them. 22. And there was a great lake,
full of flaming mire, in which were certain men that pervert
righteousness, and tormenting angels afflicted them.  23. And there
were also others, women, hanged by their hair over that mire that
bubbled up: and these were they who adorned themselves for adultery;
and the men who mingled with them in the defilement of adultery, were
hanging by the feet and their heads in that mire. And I said: I did
not believe that I should come into this place.
 
The narrative goes on to describe the torment of various sinners
(murderers, those who cause abortion, those who persecuted the
righteous, blasphemers, false witnesses, the rich etc.). 
 
The Apocalypse was not only very popular it was often treated as a
genuine work of Peter; even the very scholarly Clement respectfully
quoted it. (See: http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/apoc/apcpete.htm). 
 
The Apocalypse is also mentioned in the Muratorian Canon with the
interesting note that some would not read it in the Church. 
(http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian.html) Its
graphic description of Hell probably prevented it from gaining
acceptance into the Canon.
 
Even though the Apocalypse of Peter is virtually unknown by most
Christians today, it probably shaped the Christian concept of Hell
more than any of the other books in the Canon.
 
It is likely that the first Christians held at least some of the very
same concepts about the afterlife that were present in literature
before and after the first century.  This is especially evident when
the very same concepts present in non-canonical literature are also
found in Christian literature.
 
The following concepts were current during the first century.
 
1. Rewards and Punishments in Hades await Man in the afterlife.
2. At death Abraham would receive the faithful in the section called
Paradise.
3. Sinners would be tormented in a separate section of Hades
4. There was no crossing over to the other section(s).
 
The references that follow should be sufficient to establish the fact
that many of the ideas found in the NT clearly reflect many of the
ideas that were in Hebrew thought during the first centuries.  [source - retrieved from  Darrell  on  /  /2014]
 

Twice Weekly Violence In The Quran Revealed
 
 
Sura in Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." 
 
The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter.  These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah.  Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers, such as the Boston Marathon boomers, the London underground railroad boomers, etc.
 
Now here is an article that will aid your understanding of the evil ways of the Islam cult in keeping with Sura 4:74 and Sura 4:76 ("Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…").  Many In Islam Are Inbreed With Hate and a Love For Violence By Their Religious Leaders:
 
INTRODUCTION:
 
Let’s face it, only do we routinely hear of members of only one religion becoming suicide bombers to kill others because they have been obviously inbreed with a lust for violence, greed, and hate of others in direct contradiction to what Jesus (Yeshua) said in the inspired word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, at Luke 10:25-27, “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.” (Authorized King James Bible; AV). Also, at James 2:8, “Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:” (AV).
 
The inspired word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, clearly shows that Almighty God (YHWH) does not consider one race and/or ethnic group superior to another and this is clearly shown at Acts 10:34-35, “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. Yet many discriminate against others on these false basis – really though, there are only two types of persons in Almighty God’s (YHWH’s) sight – bad and good.
 
EARLY TRAINING FOR VIOLENCE:
 
Many in Islam are NOT TO BE TRUSTED due to some of their religious leaders inbreeding them with their personal agenda of a lust for violence, greed, and hate from infancy.   These selfsame people fail to realize that most of mankind is being mislead by the religious leaders of evil false religions and/or egotistical men who believe what they say takes precedence over the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible. In addition, it is not what either the Bible or the Bible knockoff the Qur'an or other so called holy book actually say, but how religious leaders be they priest and/or imams or muftis or what ever teach the people is the interpretation of what is written either in the Bible or the bible knockoff the Qur'an that matters and governs actions. It matters not what the Bible and/or the Bible knockoff really say. Therefore, it is the religion at fault, irregardless of what their particular holy book, be it the Bible or the Bible knockoff the Qur'an may say. Neither in so called Christianity or in Islam are most individuals actions really governed in any way by what their particular holy book really says, but they are governed by the interpretation of their religious leaders. Thus, knowing this reality, one would be either just plain stupid and/or dumb to even bother looking at a particular religion's holy book and expect the members would conform to it. Take the Rig Vede and find me for example a Hindu actually conforming to it instead of the interpretation given to it by his religious leaders, like looking for a needle in the haystack per K.S. Lal, India's greatest historian.
 
Reality being that many Muslim religious leaders train children from infancy up to be haters and to love violence.  A good example is the evil training of the religious leaders of the Red Mosque in Pakistan.
The Imam of the Red Mosque in Pakistan and many other clergy of Islam train their youths from infancy to be lovers of violence and hatters.  Time World had this to say with respect the religious leaders at the Red Mosque, “Nearly two years after the arrest of Abdul Aziz on multiple charges of inciting violence against the state of Pakistan, the firebrand cleric of Islamabad's radical Red Mosque has returned to the pulpit with a promise that he will continue with his struggle to establish Shari'a, or Islamic law, throughout the country.”  [source - retrieved from  http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1892254,00.html  on 10 /14/2012]
 
So what can you expect of a religion many of whose religious leaders preach violence and educate the children to be violent?   Violence.
 
Unfortunately, Abudul Aziz is NOT the exception among Muslim religious leaders.  We are all aware of the evil religious Sheik Osama bin Ladin and how he got young men to carry out his evil plans to destroy the World Trade Center (WTC), and murder over 3,000 innocent individuals.
 
And here is an account with respect this early evil training and how it breeds into youths a love for violence and hate of an 8 year old girl,
“Islamic child abuse: Muslim 8-year-old girl calls on Islamic youth to back jihad in Australia.
 
This is what Muslim children are weaned on ..... blood. And this is Australia, not Gaza. So is yesterday's violent action by Muslims in Sydney so surprising? Madrassas in the West must be monitored. This is not a controversial proposal; it is essential.
 
"Girl, 8, calls on Islamic youth to back jihad" Jared Owens, The Australian, September 17, 2012.
 
Eight-year-old Ruqaya speaks at the Khilafah Conference in Bankstown, Sydney. The Australian
 
AS Julia Gillard struggled to explain how Muslim children could be used to incite violence, eight-year-old Ruqaya yesterday fronted a congress of Islamic fundamendalists in Sydney to espouse her love for jihad. Addressing a 600-strong crowd at the Australian chapter of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Bankstown in the city's west, the young girl urged all Muslim youth to fight for the restoration of the Islamic caliphate, a single global government for all Muslims established under strict sharia law.
 
"My dear brothers and sisters in Islam, as the world gathers against the believers in Syria ... seeking to hijack our sincere and blessed uprisings, children in Sydney would like to send their message of hope and support to the Muslims of (Syria), especially to the children and mothers," she read from notes. "These uprisings have demonstrated that this umma (global Muslim community) is alive and well, her love is for jihad, she is unshackled herself from the fear which she held, and she yearns to once again live under the banner of (the Islamic state).
 
"Children as young as myself can be seen on the streets joining the uprisings, risking their lives to bring food, water and medicine to their wounded family members, some of them never returning to their mothers ... Nobody is too young," she said.
 
Ruqaya was the seventh of nine speakers at the "Muslims Rise" conference.
Organisers of the event invited the media to report on her address.
Julia Gillard yesterday expressed her horror at images showing Muslim children carrying inflammatory placards at a protest in Sydney on Saturday, including one that read "Behead all those who insult the Prophet".
 
Another sign at the protest read "Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell".
 
"I do not want to see in the hands of anyone, particularly children, offensive signs that call for the killing of others," the Prime Minister said.
"This is not the Australian way.  "We believe in freedom of religion and we believe that every religion should be treated with respect."
 
Hizb ut-Tahrir is an international political movement devoted to restoring a caliphate, the last of which collapsed in the 1920s.
The movement hopes Islamic fighters in Syria will replace the Assad regime with a caliph-led state that will eventually annex other Muslim countries and promote Islam in the West. [[world domination is their eventual goal.]]
 
The caliphate would also threaten Western nations with jihad if they did not prevent their citizens from defaming the Prophet Mohammed or Islam.
It would be established under the same constitution imposed under Mohammed, which could not be reformed.
 
Ruqaya said: "We must work hard to achieve victory. It is enough that your generation and your parents' generation were raised in the absence of the khilafa (caliphate). Do not allow my generation to be added to that list."
Khaled Sukkarieh, the chairman of the Islamic Council of NSW, said images of children at the protest shocked many in his community. "Someone put that (banner) in the hand of a child.
 
"That is a poor, innocent child. It is abhorrent and a very sad way of using children," Mr Sukkarieh said. [source - retrieved from  http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/islamic-child-abuse-muslim-8-year-old-girl-calls-on-islamic-youth-to-back-jihad-in-australia.html  (Sunday, September 16, 2012) on  19/14/2012]
 
Now the above article should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind with respect many Muslim religious leaders training youths from infancy – it says it all.
 
SOME EXAMPLES OF HATEFUL VIOLENCE RESULTING FROM EVIL TRAINING OF YOUTH:
 
Now let’s look at how hateful and lustful for violence many in Islam are due to their training by their religious leaders:
 
“Are Somali Militants Behind the Uganda Blasts that Left 64 Dead?, Time, [source - retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599200312000 on 7/12/2010]
 
If, as expected, it turns out to have been Somali Islamic militants who carried out a twin suicide bombing in the Ugandan capital Kampala on Sunday night - killing 64, many as they watched the World Cup final - that will be lethal confirmation of the group's long-threatened ambitions to spread their terror beyond Somalia's borders.
 
Simultaneous explosions tore through crowds watching the Spain-Netherlands game at a rugby club, where 49 people died, and hit patrons at an Ethiopian restaurant, where 15 were killed. A spokesman for the Ugandan government said vests and body parts at the scenes indicated the work of suicide bombers. The U.S. embassy in Kampala confirmed that one American was among the dead at the restaurant. A church group from Pennsylvania were inside at the time, according to Associated Press, and several Americans were among the scores of wounded. (See pictures of the front lines in the war on the Taliban.)
 
Kampala's police chief, Kale Kaihura, said he suspected Somalia's extremist al Shabaab group were behind the bombings. While al Shabaab is a fragmented organization, and no one leader speaks for all its factions, Sheikh Mohammed Ali, spokesman for al Shabaab in Kismayo, the main city in al Shabaab's heartland in southern Somalia, tells TIME: "This is the work of mujahedin. We were happy with those guys who did that, God will reward them." Ali did not confirm that al Shabaab was responsible for the attacks, but he did say the bombings were in response to calls in the region for a stronger international force to intervene in Somalia's ongoing civil war, he said. "Ethiopia and Uganda and Burundi and Kenya are our number one enemies," he continued. "They have surrounded us and they are planning to attack Somali soil. We assure them that we shall attack them on their soil." He added the group had previously planned an attack on Entebbe airport, outside Kampala, but "unfortunately last year it was unsuccessful."
 
Al Shabaab's involvement in Sunday's attacks seems likely. Last year, al Shabaab announced its alliance to al-Qaeda. The group repeatedly threatens death to Americans, Ugandans and Burundians, who make up the bulk of the African Union peacekeeping force in Mogadishu, and Ethiopians, who invaded Somalia in 2006. No other group in East Africa has the capacity to carry out such an attack - and at the start of the World Cup, al Shabaab threatened to execute anyone caught watching broadcasts of the tournament in Mogadishu, which it deemed frivolous Western entertainment. "Al Shabaab has telegraphed their intention to do something like this, and people have been anticipating something of this order for a while," said one Western intelligence operative. (See pictures of a Jihadist's journey.)
 
Islamic militants have operated in Somalia for as long as the Taliban has in Afghanistan, and there are broad similarities between the two. Both sets of militants offer the imposition of strict Sharia law as the solution to countries beset by lawlessness and feuding warlords. Both also welcome al-Qaeda as a guest in their countries and allowed the group to set up bases from which to launch attacks on the U.S., including the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 - which killed more than 200 - and 9/11.
 
The al Shabaab group, however, is a more recent phenomenon. It was originally the armed wing of a group calling itself the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), which briefly ruled Somalia in 2006. The ICU included moderate and extremist members, and after the extremists declared a jihad against its Ethiopian neighbor, Ethiopia invaded in late 2006, toppling the ICU and helping install in Mogadishu the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), Somalia's internationally recognized government which, until then, had largely existed only in exile. Al Shabaab became the primary resistance force in Somalia and the Ethiopians eventually withdrew in 2009 after fighting a bloody insurgency against its soldiers. Since then, lawlessness has prevailed across Somalia, and a deadly stalemate holds in Mogadishu, as al Shabaab and other Islamic groups battle African Union peacekeepers and the TFG. (See more on Somalia.)
 
Al Shabaab has also become ever more extreme, regularly using suicide bombers. Western intelligence operatives and diplomats in the region add that this is related to the group's increasingly international makeup - leadership and strategy is now in the hands of foreign militants, particularly veterans of Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and ethnic Somalis from the U.S. - and ambitions. In October 2008, the group killed around 30 people in a series of bomb blasts in Somaliland. Last September, the U.S. shut down its embassy in Pretoria and three other consulates in South Africa after intercepting a phone call from an al Shabaab figure in Mogadishu to supporters in Cape Town in which an attack on the U.S. in South Africa was discussed.
 
So what of the international response? Ethiopia's invasion, which after initial success quickly became a bloody quagmire, cautions against a repeat. Until now, the U.S. has confined itself to attacks against individual leaders of al Shabaab, using missiles fired from battle ships offshore or drones and, once, attack helicopters. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, however, proposes far tougher action and, according to Western intelligence operatives, has readied an invasion plan.
 
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said the U.S. was prepared to provide any necessary assistance to Uganda. President Barack Obama was "deeply saddened by the loss of life resulting from these deplorable and cowardly attacks," he said. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added: "The United States stands with Uganda. We ... will work with them to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice." Somali President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed condemned the "evil and ugly nature of the perpetrators" and added: "Neither the region nor the international community will tolerate the spread of insecurity."
 
However, it could be that al Shabaab is trying to provoke just such an escalation. "It's a risky move on the part of al Shabaab because it most likely will precipitate some kind of a fairly firm response from Museveni - if [Uganda responds] in a robust way, this could be a very significant blow to al Shabaab's military capacity," says E.J. Hogendoorn, Horn of Africa analyst with the International Crisis Group. "But if they respond in an indiscriminate manner, it could actually galvanize a Somali response against AMISOM [the African Union peacekeeping force] and play into the hands of the al Shabaab." (See more on the rise of extremism in Somalia.)
 
A Western intelligence operative adds that al Shabaab will be hoping for a "disproportionate response." The primary challenges of Somalia, he says, are to create a stable political center and to fight a counter-insurgency against al Shabaab. A stronger display of foreign force - what the analyst calls "going kinetic" - would be a "misreading."
- With reporting by Nick Wadhams / Nairobi “
 

Twice Weekly Violence In The Quran Revealed
 
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." 
 
Muslim authorities claim that pursuing an injured and retreating enemy is an act of self defense, but is this really so?  No! 
 
Self-defense, a Biblical view.  The Bibles' view of self defense depends a lot on the circumstances surrounding the situation.  First, it shows we should seek peace at all times with our fellow man and not return insult for insult.  The Apostle Peter shows that we should seek peace with all and always be ready to give an answer to all, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 16 ¶ Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.  17  For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing." (1 Peter 3:15-17 AV)
 
And Jesus Christ (Yeshua) clearly showed he was no pacifist and the Bible shows he will lead God's (Yahweh - JHWH) at the end-times; however, he stated, " But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44 AV).  Here he plainly shows we should love our enemies.  With respect insults, he showed, " And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also." (Luke 6:29 AV); this clearly showed we must do all within our power to maintain peace with others including enduring insults and other abuses without reacting in a violent way.  In other words, we must always keep our temper in check and often this is quite difficult to do.
 
Often instead of a kind inquiring question or comment you will be confronted by individuals with harsh demands or words.  For example, when dealing with a person that 'blows-up' in a road rage incident over a wrong or perceived wrong, the individuals words are quite harsh and threatening and the natural tendency is to answer them in kind.  This, however, should not be done as the situation could easily escalate into a violent confrontation.  It is imperative that one take all steps to avoid a violent confrontation and failure to do so could lead to blood shed.  There are many other situations that can arise that can lead to similar confrontations.  The genuine follower will do all in his power to defuse such situations and this includes absorbing insults rather than also making them in retaliation as it takes too to make a fight.  If violence can not be avoided, one may need to use the necessary force to protect him/her self which will be dealt with later.
 
Another situation that may arise is that someone in authority will want you to fight for him/her or his cause.  Here the genuine Christian must remember he is a follower of Jesus Christ (Yeshua) and his father Almighty God (YHWH).  Long ago when Jesus Christ (Yeshua) was on earth he was questioned on whether to pay tax by his enemies ot entrap him, but he answered, "But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?  19  Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.  20  And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?  21  They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:18-21 AV).  Here he showed we should render the governments things to the government, but God's things to God.  Since the lives of genuine Christians belong to God and not to man, we should give them in his service not mans.  Therefore, when governments and others seek to have us put our lives into dangerous situations for them; we must remember our lives belong to God and not to them.  We must, " Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it." (1 Peter 3:11 AV), " Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it." (Psalms 34:14 AV).  These scriptures clearly show it is our obligation if we are genuine Christians to seek peace and pursue it; therefore, we would not become a party or get involved with the wars of men and their other violence.  We should remain neutral, remembering our lives belong to God and not to man.  Of course this is up everyone's conscience, and each must make his/her own decision whether to obey God or man, " Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29 AV).
 
Clearly we are to make every effort to steer clear of situations that could result in violent confrontations as shown by Jesus Christ (Yeshua), "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.  23  Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24  Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.  25  Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." (Matthew 5:21-25 AV).  Some of the situations and possibilities that could lead to violent confrontations and bloodguilt have already been dealt with, and the scriptures are clear on the matter, " Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness." (Psalms 51:14 AV).  We must work hard at maintaining a good consciousness, " And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men." (Acts 24:16 AV).  We must maintain a good conscience no matter how the militaristic minds and violence prone minds of this world may criticize us as genuine Christians.  In his sermon on the mount Jesus Christ (Yeshua) clearly showed we should do on to others as we would want them to do onto us, the 'Golder Rule;' however, he went further and showed we should at all times love peace and pursue it, "Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.  37  But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.  38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.  40  And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.  41  And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.  42  Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.  43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.  44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45  That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:36-41 AV).
 
Unfortunately, try as we might to avoid violent situations where we may need to defend ourselves, sometimes these situations may occur through no fault of our own.  The Bible does recognize very limited situations where killing of a fellow man may be justified and one will not incur bloodguilt.  In the case of a thief breaking in during the night whom the householder kills while defending his house, there results no bloodguilt upon the householder, "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.  3  If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." (Exodus 22:2-3 AV).  This scripture clearly shows the right to even kill a thief who comes at night since he can not be readily identified and also might be with weapon to kill the householder; however, if by day the thief could be easily identified and also whether he had a weapon and planned to use it.   Moffatt's translation makes this even more clear, "If a thief is caught breaking into a house and struck so that he dies, the householder is not quilty; but if it was after dawn, the householder is guilty."  Therefore if a householder delivers a fatal blow at night to a thief and it is reasonable under the circumstances no bloodguilt is incurred; whereas, killing the thief, unless he had a weapon and showed inclination to use it, during the day would be going too far and bloodguilt would be incurred. 
 
Clearly, genuine Christians must not take the law into their own hands, and return an injury to others.  However wen can postulate from Exodus 22:2-3 that if a householder was justified in striking a thief at night and would not incur bloodquilt, he/she would likewise have the right to defend his life or those of his/her loved ones and if this resulted in having to kill another who was actively intent on killing one or his loved ones and there was no other way of stopping him/her this would be reasonable under the circumstances.  Killing one just to save property is not reasonable as revealed at, " For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26 AV), since what material item could be of equal value to a life?

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"  
 
Now some in Islam when questioned on this Sura try and claim it is spiritual struggle, but any reasonable reading of it would clearly show this is not the case.  Members of Islam are well known for trying to mislead others and even have a word for telling lies with this view in mind, ‘taqiyya,’ which exposes their evil duplicity.  Let’s look at details on this wicked word.
 
Taqiyya
 
INTRODUCTION:
 
What is lying? It is the opposite of truth. It involves saying something false in some medium of expression to a person who is entitled to know the truth and doing so with the intent to deceive or to injure him/her and/or another person. It need not be verbal. It can be written or implied by action.
In the Bible, the Old Testament, the two ancient Hebrew verbs most often translated as lying or having that meaning are 'sha-gar' as used in Leviticus 19:11, ""You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another." (Revised Standard Version; RSV); and at Leviticus 19:12, "And you shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD." (RSV); and at Psalms 44:17, "All this has come upon us, though we have not forgotten thee, or been false to thy covenant." (RSV); and at Isaiah 57:4, "Of whom are you making sport? Against whom do you open your mouth wide and put out your tongue? Are you not children of transgression, the offspring of deceit," (RSV); which means to deal or act falsely, and the noun form is rendered lie, deception, falsehood. The other verb is 'ka-zav' as used at Proverbs 14:5, "A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies." (RSV); which means speaking something which is untrue. Some translations do not always render these two verbs with 'lying' but use other words implying the same thing as can be seen above with the quotes from the Revised Standard Version.
 
WHAT IS TAQIYYA AND HOW DOES IT EXCUSE LYING AND TREACHEROUS DEALING:
 
Let’s look at what the evil and treacherous practice of Taqiyya is:
 
<<”How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War, by Raymond Ibrahim
Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2010, [source - retrieved from  http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war  on 1/10/2010]
Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion of the law. Islam's dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal its paradoxical nature: While the Qur'an is against believers deceiving other believers—for "surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar"[1]—deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur'anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.
 
Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to the glorious end of Islamic hegemony under Shari'a, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims. In this sense, lying in the service of altruism is permissible. In a recent example, Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri publicly recounted a story where a Muslim lied and misled a Jew into converting to Islam, calling it a "beautiful trick."
 
Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one's religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi'i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya—not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal—sometimes superior—to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.
 
Yet if Muslims are exhorted to be truthful, how can deceit not only be prevalent but have divine sanction? What exactly is taqiyya? How is it justified by scholars and those who make use of it? How does it fit into a broader conception of Islam's code of ethics, especially in relation to the non-Muslim? More to the point, what ramifications does the doctrine of taqiyya have for all interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims?
 
The Doctrine of Taqiyya
According to Shari'a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—deception is not only permitted in certain situations but may be deemed obligatory in others. Contrary to early Christian tradition, for instance, Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves,[2] based on Qur'anic verses forbidding Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.[3]
 
This is the classic definition of the doctrine of taqiyya. Based on an Arabic word denoting fear, taqiyya has long been understood, especially by Western academics, as something to resort to in times of religious persecution and, for the most part, used in this sense by minority Shi'i groups living among hostile Sunni majorities.[4] Taqiyya allowed the Shi'a to dissemble their religious affiliation in front of the Sunnis on a regular basis, not merely by keeping clandestine about their own beliefs but by actively praying and behaving as if they were Sunnis.
 
However, one of the few books devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi'l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam) makes it clear that taqiyya is not limited to Shi'a dissimulating in fear of persecution. Written by Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book clearly demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya:
 
Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[5]
 
Taqiyya is, therefore, not, as is often supposed, an exclusively Shi'i phenomenon. Of course, as a minority group interspersed among their Sunni enemies, the Shi'a have historically had more reason to dissemble. Conversely, Sunni Islam rapidly dominated vast empires from Spain to China. As a result, its followers were beholden to no one, had nothing to apologize for, and had no need to hide from the infidel nonbeliever (rare exceptions include Spain and Portugal during the Reconquista when Sunnis did dissimulate over their religious identity[6]). Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in the place of the Shi'a: Now they are the minority surrounded by their traditional enemies—Christian infidels—even if the latter, as opposed to their Reconquista predecessors, rarely act on, let alone acknowledge, this historic enmity. In short, Sunnis are currently experiencing the general circumstances that made taqiyya integral to Shi'ism although without the physical threat that had so necessitated it.
 
The Articulation of Taqiyya
 
Qur'anic verse 3:28 is often seen as the primary verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims: "Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions."[7]
 
Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of a standard and authoritative Qur'an commentary, explains verse 3:28 as follows:
 
If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[8]
 
Regarding Qur'an 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prime authority on the Qur'an, writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's close companion Abu Darda, who said, "Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them." Another companion, simply known as Al-Hasan, said, "Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]."[9]
 
Other prominent scholars, such as Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi 'd-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240), have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave like infidels and worse—for example, by bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, and even exposing the weaknesses of their fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy—anything short of actually killing a Muslim: "Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity—even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire."[10]
 
Deceit in Muhammad's Military Exploits
 
Muhammad—whose example as the "most perfect human" is to be followed in every detail—took an expedient view on lying. It is well known, for instance, that he permitted lying in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties, to placate one's wife, and in war.[11] According to one Arabic legal manual devoted to jihad as defined by the four schools of law, "The ulema agree that deception during warfare is legitimate … deception is a form of art in war."[12] Moreover, according to Mukaram, this deception is classified as taqiyya: "Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible."[13]
 
Several ulema believe deceit is integral to the waging of war: Ibn al-'Arabi declares that "in the Hadith [sayings and actions of Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than the need for courage." Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333) writes, "War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged by a holy warrior is a war of deception, not confrontation, due to the latter's inherent danger, and the fact that one can attain victory through treachery without harm [to oneself]." And Ibn Hajar (d. 1448) counsels Muslims "to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels."[14]
 
This Muslim notion that war is deceit goes back to the Battle of the Trench (627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes known as Al-Ahzab. One of the Ahzab, Na'im ibn Mas'ud, went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered that the Ahzab were unaware of their co-tribalist's conversion, he counseled Mas'ud to return and try to get the pagan forces to abandon the siege. It was then that Muhammad memorably declared, "For war is deceit." Mas'ud returned to the Ahzab without their knowing that he had switched sides and intentionally began to give his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded, lifted the siege from the Muslims, and saved Islam from destruction in an embryonic period.[15] Most recently, 9/11 accomplices, such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, rationalized their conspiratorial role in their defendant response by evoking their prophet's assertion that "war is deceit."
 
A more compelling expression of the legitimacy of deceiving infidels is the following anecdote. A poet, Ka'b ibn Ashraf, offended Muhammad, prompting the latter to exclaim, "Who will kill this man who has hurt God and his prophet?" A young Muslim named Muhammad ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that in order to get close enough to Ka'b to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka'b and began to denigrate Islam and Muhammad. He carried on in this way till his disaffection became so convincing that Ka'b took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Ka'b's guard was down, killed him.[16]
 
Muhammad said other things that cast deception in a positive light, such as "God has commanded me to equivocate among the people just as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations"; and "I have been sent with obfuscation"; and "whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr."[17]
 
In short, the earliest historical records of Islam clearly attest to the prevalence of taqiyya as a form of Islamic warfare. Furthermore, early Muslims are often depicted as lying their way out of binds—usually by denying or insulting Islam or Muhammad—often to the approval of the latter, his only criterion being that their intentions (niya) be pure.[18] During wars with Christians, whenever the latter were in authority, the practice of taqiyya became even more integral. Mukaram states, "Taqiyya was used as a way to fend off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to the raids [crusades] of the Franks and others."[19]
 
Taqiyya in Qur'anic Revelation
 
The Qur'an itself is further testimony to taqiyya. Since God is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he is by default seen as the ultimate perpetrator of deceit—which is not surprising since he is described in the Qur'an as the best makar, that is, the best deceiver or schemer (e.g., 3:54, 8:30, 10:21).
 
While other scriptures contain contradictions, the Qur'an is the only holy book whose commentators have evolved a doctrine to account for the very visible shifts which occur from one injunction to another. No careful reader will remain unaware of the many contradictory verses in the Qur'an, most specifically the way in which peaceful and tolerant verses lie almost side by side with violent and intolerant ones. The ulema were initially baffled as to which verses to codify into the Shari'a worldview—the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims till they either convert, or at least submit, to Islam (8:39, 9:5, 9:29). To get out of this quandary, the commentators developed the doctrine of abrogation, which essentially maintains that verses revealed later in Muhammad's career take precedence over earlier ones whenever there is a discrepancy. In order to document which verses abrogated which, a religious science devoted to the chronology of the Qur'an's verses evolved (known as an-Nasikh wa'l Mansukh, the abrogater and the abrogated).
 
But why the contradiction in the first place? The standard view is that in the early years of Islam, since Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by their infidel competitors while living next to them in Mecca, a message of peace and coexistence was in order. However, after the Muslims migrated to Medina in 622 and grew in military strength, verses inciting them to go on the offensive were slowly "revealed"—in principle, sent down from God—always commensurate with Islam's growing capabilities. In juridical texts, these are categorized in stages: passivity vis-á-vis aggression; permission to fight back against aggressors; commands to fight aggressors; commands to fight all non-Muslims, whether the latter begin aggressions or not.[20] Growing Muslim might is the only variable that explains this progressive change in policy.
 
Other scholars put a gloss on this by arguing that over a twenty-two year period, the Qur'an was revealed piecemeal, from passive and spiritual verses to legal prescriptions and injunctions to spread the faith through jihad and conquest, simply to acclimate early Muslim converts to the duties of Islam, lest they be discouraged at the outset by the dramatic obligations that would appear in later verses.[21] Verses revealed towards the end of Muhammad's career—such as, "Warfare is prescribed for you though you hate it"[22]—would have been out of place when warfare was actually out of the question.
 
However interpreted, the standard view on Qur'anic abrogation concerning war and peace verses is that when Muslims are weak and in a minority position, they should preach and behave according to the ethos of the Meccan verses (peace and tolerance); when strong, however, they should go on the offensive on the basis of what is commanded in the Medinan verses (war and conquest). The vicissitudes of Islamic history are a testimony to this dichotomy, best captured by the popular Muslim notion, based on a hadith, that, if possible, jihad should be performed by the hand (force), if not, then by the tongue (through preaching); and, if that is not possible, then with the heart or one's intentions.[23]
 
War Is Eternal
 
That Islam legitimizes deceit during war is, of course, not all that astonishing; after all, as the Elizabethan writer John Lyly put it, "All's fair in love and war."[24] Other non-Muslim philosophers and strategists—such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes—justified deceit in warfare. Deception of the enemy during war is only common sense. The crucial difference in Islam, however, is that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur'an, "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[25] In his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Emile Tyan states: "The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily."[26]
 
Moreover, going back to the doctrine of abrogation, Muslim scholars such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) agree that Qur'an 9:5, known as ayat as-sayf or the sword verse, has abrogated some 124 of the more peaceful Meccan verses, including "every other verse in the Qur'an, which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the nonbelievers."[27] In fact, all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence agree that "jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and the infidels refuse."[28]
 
Obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam's dichotomized worldview that pits the realm of Islam against the realm of war. The first, dar al-Islam, is the "realm of submission," the world where Shari'a governs; the second, dar al-Harb (the realm of war), is the non-Islamic world. A struggle continues until the realm of Islam subsumes the non-Islamic world—a perpetual affair that continues to the present day. The renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) clearly articulates this division:
 
In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[29]
 
Finally and all evidence aside, lest it still appear unreasonable for a faith with over one billion adherents to obligate unprovoked warfare in its name, it is worth noting that the expansionist jihad is seen as an altruistic endeavor, not unlike the nineteenth century ideology of "the white man's burden." The logic is that the world, whether under democracy, socialism, communism, or any other system of governance, is inevitably living in bondage—a great sin, since the good of all humanity is found in living in accordance to God's law. In this context, Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to a glorious end—Islamic hegemony under Shari'a rule, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims.
 
This view has an ancient pedigree: Soon after the death of Muhammad (634), as the jihad fighters burst out of the Arabian peninsula, a soon-to-be conquered Persian commander asked the invading Muslims what they wanted. They memorably replied as follows:
 
God has sent us and brought us here so that we may free those who desire from servitude to earthly rulers and make them servants of God, that we may change their poverty into wealth and free them from the tyranny and chaos of [false] religions and bring them to the justice of Islam. He has sent us to bring his religion to all his creatures and call them to Islam. Whoever accepts it from us will be safe, and we shall leave him alone; but whoever refuses, we shall fight until we fulfill the promise of God.[30]
 
Fourteen hundred years later— in March 2009—Saudi legal expert Basem Alem publicly echoed this view:
 
As a member of the true religion, I have a greater right to invade [others] in order to impose a certain way of life [according to Shari'a], which history has proven to be the best and most just of all civilizations. This is the true meaning of offensive jihad. When we wage jihad, it is not in order to convert people to Islam, but in order to liberate them from the dark slavery in which they live.[31]
 
And it should go without saying that taqiyya in the service of altruism is permissible. For example, only recently, after publicly recounting a story where a Muslim tricked a Jew into converting to Islam—warning him that if he tried to abandon Islam, Muslims would kill him as an apostate—Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri called it a "beautiful trick."[32] After all, from an Islamic point of view, it was the Jew who, in the end, benefitted from the deception, which brought him to Islam.
 
Treaties and Truces
 
The perpetual nature of jihad is highlighted by the fact that, based on the 10-year treaty of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraysh opponents in Mecca, most jurists are agreed that ten years is the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels; once the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised. Based on Muhammad's example of breaking the treaty after two years (by claiming a Quraysh infraction), the sole function of the truce is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before renewing the offensive:[33] "By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for in Muslim legal theory, the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but warlike."[34] Hence "the fuqaha [jurists] are agreed that open-ended truces are illegitimate if Muslims have the strength to renew the war against them [non-Muslims]."[35]
 
Even though Shari'a mandates Muslims to abide by treaties, they have a way out, one open to abuse: If Muslims believe—even without solid evidence—that their opponents are about to break the treaty, they can preempt by breaking it first. Moreover, some Islamic schools of law, such as the Hanafi, assert that Muslim leaders may abrogate treaties merely if it seems advantageous for Islam.[36] This is reminiscent of the following canonical hadith: "If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."[37] And what is better, what is more altruistic, than to make God's word supreme by launching the jihad anew whenever possible? Traditionally, Muslim rulers held to a commitment to launch a jihad at least once every year. This ritual is most noted with the Ottoman sultans, who spent half their lives in the field.[38] So important was the duty of jihad that the sultans were not permitted to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca, an individual duty for each Muslim. Their leadership of the jihad allowed this communal duty to continue; without them, it would have fallen into desuetude.[39]
 
In short, the prerequisite for peace or reconciliation is Muslim advantage. This is made clear in an authoritative Sunni legal text, Umdat as-Salik, written by a fourteenth-century Egyptian scholar, Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri: "There must be some benefit [maslaha] served in making a truce other than the status quo: 'So do not be fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are uppermost [Qur'an 47:35].'"[40]
 
More recently, and of great significance for Western leaders advocating cooperation with Islamists, Yasser Arafat, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, addressed an assembly of Muslims in a mosque in Johannesburg where he justified his actions: "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca."[41] In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once "something better" came along—that is, once the Palestinians became strong enough to renew the offensive and continue on the road to Jerusalem. Elsewhere, Hudaybiya has appeared as a keyword for radical Islamists. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front had three training camps within the Camp Abu Bakar complex in the Philippines, one of which was named Camp Hudaybiya.[42]
 
Hostility Disguised As Grievance
 
In their statements directed at European or American audiences, Islamists maintain that the terrorism they direct against the West is merely reciprocal treatment for decades of Western and Israeli oppression. Yet in writings directed to their fellow Muslims, this animus is presented, not as a reaction to military or political provocation but as a product of religious obligation.
 
For instance, when addressing Western audiences, Osama bin Laden lists any number of grievances as motivating his war on the West—from the oppression of the Palestinians to the Western exploitation of women, and even U.S. failure to sign the environmental Kyoto protocol—all things intelligible from a Western perspective. Never once, however, does he justify Al-Qaeda's attacks on Western targets simply because non-Muslim countries are infidel entities that must be subjugated. Indeed, he often initiates his messages to the West by saying, "Reciprocal treatment is part of justice" or "Peace to whoever follows guidance"[43]—though he means something entirely different than what his Western listeners understand by words such as "peace," "justice," or "guidance."
 
It is when bin Laden speaks to fellow Muslims that the truth comes out. When a group of prominent Muslims wrote an open letter to the American people soon after the strikes of 9/11, saying that Islam seeks to peacefully coexist,[44] bin Laden wrote to castigate them:
 
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We [Muslims] renounce you [non-Muslims]. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in God alone" [Qur'an 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi, or protected minority], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! ... Such then is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.[45]
 
Mainstream Islam's four schools of jurisprudence lend their support to this hostile Weltanschauung by speaking of the infidel in similar terms. Bin Laden's addresses to the West with his talk of justice and peace are clear instances of taqiyya. He is not only waging a physical jihad but a propaganda war, that is, a war of deceit. If he can convince the West that the current conflict is entirely its fault, he garners greater sympathy for his cause. At the same time, he knows that if Americans were to realize that nothing short of their submission can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be quickly compromised. Hence the constant need to dissemble and to cite grievances, for, as bin Laden's prophet asserted, "War is deceit."
 
Implications
 
Taqiyya presents a range of ethical dilemmas. Anyone who truly believes that God justifies and, through his prophet's example, even encourages deception will not experience any ethical qualms over lying. Consider the case of 'Ali Mohammad, bin Laden's first "trainer" and long-time Al-Qaeda operative. An Egyptian, he was initially a member of Islamic Jihad and had served in the Egyptian army's military intelligence unit. After 1984, he worked for a time with the CIA in Germany. Though considered untrustworthy, he managed to get to California where he enlisted in the U.S. Army. It seems likely that he continued to work in some capacity for the CIA. He later trained jihadists in the United States and Afghanistan and was behind several terror attacks in Africa. People who knew him regarded him with "fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism."[46] Indeed, this sentence sums it all up: For a zealous belief in Islam's tenets, which legitimize deception in order to make God's word supreme, will certainly go a long way in creating "incredible self-confidence" when lying.[47]
 
Yet most Westerners continue to think that Muslim mores, laws, and ethical constraints are near identical to those of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Naively or arrogantly, today's multiculturalist leaders project their own worldview onto Islamists, thinking a handshake and smiles across a cup of coffee, as well as numerous concessions, are enough to dismantle the power of God's word and centuries of unchanging tradition. The fact remains: Right and wrong in Islam have little to do with universal standards but only with what Islam itself teaches—much of which is antithetical to Western norms.
 
It must, therefore, be accepted that, contrary to long-held academic assumptions, the doctrine of taqiyya goes far beyond Muslims engaging in religious dissimulation in the interest of self-preservation and encompasses deception of the infidel enemy in general. This phenomenon should provide a context for Shi'i Iran's zeal—taqiyya being especially second nature to Shi'ism—to acquire nuclear power while insisting that its motives are entirely peaceful.
 
Nor is taqiyya confined to overseas affairs. Walid Phares of the National Defense University has lamented that homegrown Islamists are operating unfettered on American soil due to their use of taqiyya: "Does our government know what this doctrine is all about and, more importantly, are authorities educating the body of our defense apparatus regarding this stealthy threat dormant among us?"[48] After the Fort Hood massacre, when Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-Muslim who exhibited numerous Islamist signs which were ignored, killed thirteen fellow servicemen and women, one is compelled to respond in the negative.
 
This, then, is the dilemma: Islamic law unambiguously splits the world into two perpetually warring halves—the Islamic world versus the non-Islamic—and holds it to be God's will for the former to subsume the latter. Yet if war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam "until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[49] Such deception will further be seen as a means to an altruistic end. Muslim overtures for peace, dialogue, or even temporary truces must be seen in this light, evoking the practical observations of philosopher James Lorimer, uttered over a century ago: "So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem."[50]
 
In closing, whereas it may be more appropriate to talk of "war and peace" as natural corollaries in a Western context, when discussing Islam, it is more accurate to talk of "war and deceit." For, from an Islamic point of view, times of peace—that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals—are times of feigned peace and pretense, in a word, taqiyya.
 
Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum.
 
[1] Qur'an 40:28.
[2] Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi, At-Tafsir al-Kabir (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiya, 2000), vol. 10, p. 98.
[3] Qur'an 2:195, 4:29.
[4] Paul E. Walker, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam in the Modern World, John Esposito, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), vol. 4, s.v. "Taqiyah," pp. 186-7; Ibn Babuyah, A Shi'ite Creed, A. A. A. Fyzee, trans. (London: n.p., 1942), pp. 110-2; Etan Kohlberg, "Some Imami-Shi'i Views on Taqiyya," Journal of the American Oriental Society, 95 (1975): 395-402.
[5] Sami Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi 'l-Islam (London: Mu'assisat at-Turath ad-Druzi, 2004), p. 7, author's translation.
[6] Devin Stewart, "Islam in Spain after the Reconquista," Emory University, p. 2, accessed Nov. 27, 2009.
[7] See also Quran 2:173, 2:185, 4:29, 16:106, 22:78, 40:28, verses cited by Muslim jurisprudents as legitimating taqiyya.
[8] Abu Ja'far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami' al-Bayan 'an ta'wil ayi'l-Qur'an al-Ma'ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari (Beirut: Dar Ihya' at-Turath al-'Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, author's translation.
[9] 'Imad ad-Din Isma'il Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 1, p. 350, author's translation.
[10] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi 'l-Islam, pp. 30-7.
[11] Imam Muslim, "Kitab al-Birr wa's-Salat, Bab Tahrim al-Kidhb wa Bayan al-Mubih Minhu," Sahih Muslim, rev. ed., Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, trans. (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2000).
[12] Ahmad Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi'l Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar, 2003), p. 304, author's translation.
[13] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi 'l-Islam, p. 32.
[14] Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 142-3.
[15] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi 'l-Islam, pp. 32-3.
[16] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 367-8.
[17] Shihab ad-Din Muhammad al-Alusi al-Baghdadi, Ruh al-Ma'ani fi Tafsir al-Qur'an al-'Azim wa' l-Saba' al-Mithani (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 2, p. 118, author's translation.
[18] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi 'l-Islam, pp. 11-2.
[19] Ibid., pp. 41-2.
[20] Ibn Qayyim, Tafsir, in Abd al-'Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil, At-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw' al-Kitab wa 's-Sunna (Riyahd: n.p., 2003), pp. 36-43.
[21] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi 'l-Islam, p. 20.
[22] Qur'an 2: 216.
[23] Yahya bin Sharaf ad-Din an-Nawawi, An-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths, p. 16, accessed Aug. 1, 2009.
[24] John Lyly, Euphues: The Anatomy of Wit (London, 1578), p. 236.
[25] Qur'an 8:39.
[26] Emile Tyan, The Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1960), vol. 2, s.v. "Djihad," pp. 538-40.
[27] David Bukay, "Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam," Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2007, pp. 3-11, f.n. 58; David S. Powers, "The Exegetical Genre nasikh al-Qur'an wa-mansukhuhu," in Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an, Andrew Rippin, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 130-1.
[28] Jalil, At-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw' al-Kitab wa ' s-Sunna, p. 7.
[29] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqadimmah. An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958), vol. 1, p. 473.
[30] Hugh Kennedy, The Great Arab Conquests (Philadelphia: Da Capo, 2007), p. 112.
[31] "Saudi Legal Expert Basem Alem: We Have the Right to Wage Offensive Jihad to Impose Our Way of Life," TV Monitor, clip 2108, Middle East Media Research Institute, trans., Mar. 26, 2009.
[32] "Egyptian Cleric Mahmoud Al-Masri Recommends Tricking Jews into Becoming Muslims," TV Monitor, clip 2268, Middle East Media Research Institute, trans., Aug. 10, 2009.
[33] Denis MacEoin, "Tactical Hudna and Islamist Intolerance," Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2008, pp. 39-48.
[34] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), p. 220.
[35] Ahmad Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi'l Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina, p. 461, author's translation.
[36] Ibid., p. 469.
[37] Muhammad al-Bukhari, "Judgements (Ahkaam)," Sahih al-Bukhari, book 89, M. Muhsin Khan, trans., accessed July 22, 2009.
[38] Michael Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice (Princeton: Woodstock Publishers, 2006), p. 148.
[39] Ahmed Akgündüz, "Why Did the Ottoman Sultans Not Make Hajj (Pilgrimage)?" accessed Nov. 9, 2009.
[40] Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Beltsville: Amana Publications, 1994), p. 605.
[41] Daniel Pipes, "Lessons from the Prophet Muhammad's Diplomacy," Middle East Quarterly, Sept. 1999, pp. 65-72.
[42] Arabinda Acharya, "Training in Terror," IDSS Commentaries, Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, May 2, 2003.
[43] "Does hypocrite have a past tense?" for clip of Osama bin Laden, accessed Aug. 1, 2009.
[44] Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Shahwan, et al, "Correspondence with Saudis: How We Can Coexist," AmericanValues.org, accessed July 28, 2009.
[45] Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43.
[46] Steven Emerson, "Osama bin Laden's Special Operations Man," Journal of Counterterrorism and Security International, Sept. 1, 1998.
[47] For lists of other infiltrators of U. S. organizations, see Daniel Pipes, "Islamists Penetrate Western Security," Mar. 9, 2008.
[48] Walid Phares, "North Carolina: Meet Taqiyya Jihad," International Analyst Network, July 30, 2009.
[49] Qur'an 8:39.
[50] James Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations: A Treatise of the Jural Relations of Separate Political Communities (Clark, N.J.: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2005), p. 124.”>>
 
WHO IS THE FATHER OF THE LIE?
 
 
Let's look at the Bible and uncover who is the originator of lying. Let's go to John 8:44, "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (RSV). What was the first lie to someone who had the right to know? Satan the Devil lied to Eve and ultimately brought death to all of mankind by it as shown at Genesis 3:1-5, "Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."" (RSV). This was the first lie and it was rooted in selfishness and in wrong desire. Satan wanted the worship and adoration that belonged to God (YHWH) and his lie was designed to divert the love and obedience of the first human pair to Satan, the liar. He had presented himself as a benefactor, an angel of light; but he was neither.
 
All MALICIOUS lies uttered since that time are likewise done for selfish and wrong motives and to wrongly harm and/or discredit others. People tell lies to escape deserved punishment, to profit at the expense of others, and to gain and/or maintain some advantages either material rewards and/or the praise of men.
 
The most serious lies have been the religious lies. Why so? Because they endanger the future life of individuals deceived by them. These lies are such beliefs and fables of men such as a charismatic leader having direct communication with a deity or ex-Cathedra communications with a deity; that Almighty God (YHWH) and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) are one and the same and/or co-equal and/or co-eternal, that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin, that religious leaders are superior to others, that God (YHWH) blesses one nation over another nation today in war time-the so called patriotism, making idols out of sports and/or movie heroes, etc. As Jesus (Yeshua) Christ said at Matthew 23:15-22, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. 16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, 'If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.' 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; 21 and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it; 22 and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it." (RSV). Their lie involved an exchange of God's (YHWH's) truth for the 'lie.' This deception or falsehood is idolatory, and can cause a person to become a practicer of what is degrading and vile as revealed by Romans 1:24-32, "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them." (RSV).
 
LIARS IN ACTION IN THE TIME OF JESUS (YESHUA):
 
The religious leaders in Judaism when Jesus (Yeshua) was on earth conducting his earthly ministry give a good example of what can happen when one substitutes a lie for the truth which he has abandoned. They became so deceitful and evil that they even schemed to get Jesus (Yeshua) put to death as recorded as a warning to us today at Matthew 12:14, "But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him, how to destroy him." (RSV); and at Matthew 27:1-2, "When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death; 2 and they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor." (RSV); and at Matthew 27:62-65, " Next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, "Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64 Therefore order the sepulchre to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away, and tell the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last fraud will be worse than the first." 65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can." (RSV); and at Mark 14:1, "It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him;" (RSV); and at Luke 20:19, "The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people; for they perceived that he had told this parable against them." (RSV).
 
HOWEVER, UNLIKE MEN, GOD (YHWH) CAN NOT LIE:
 
As shown at Numbers 23:19, God (YHWH) can not lie, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?" (RSV); and re-affirmed at Hebrews 6:13-18, "For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, 14 saying, "Surely I will bless you and multiply you." 15 And thus Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise. 16 Men indeed swear by a greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. 17 So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he interposed with an oath, 18 so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God should prove false, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us." (RSV).
 
In fact, God (YHWH) hates a 'false tongue' as testified to at Proverbs 6:16-19, "There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, 19 a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers." (RSV). We see a lot of these 'false tongues' today. Intolerant ones and religious bigots full of hate tell falsehoods against those we hate. We see this in political speeches, deceptive and false postings against others on the Internet and in pamphlets and other printed material; this is what God (YHWH) hates. This also applies to those giving false testimony to inflict damage and harm on others and malicious lying as testified to at Deuteronomy 19:15-21, " "A single witness shall not prevail against a man for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed; only on the evidence of two witnesses, or of three witnesses, shall a charge be sustained. 16 If a malicious witness rises against any man to accuse him of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days; 18 the judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. 20 And the rest shall hear, and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (RSV); and at Leviticus 6:2-7, " "If any one sins and commits a breach of faith against the LORD by deceiving his neighbor in a matter of deposit or security, or through robbery, or if he has oppressed his neighbor 3 or has found what was lost and lied about it, swearing falsely--in any of all the things which men do and sin therein, 4 when one has sinned and become guilty, he shall restore what he took by robbery, or what he got by oppression, or the deposit which was committed to him, or the lost thing which he found, 5 or anything about which he has sworn falsely; he shall restore it in full, and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs, on the day of his guilt offering. 6 And he shall bring to the priest his guilt offering to the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, valued by you at the price for a guilt offering; 7 and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things which one may do and thereby become guilty." (RSV); and at Leviticus 19:11-12, ""You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. 12 And you shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD." (RSV).
 
It is to be noted, God's (YHWH's) view of MALICIOUS lying has not changed. Those wishing to gain his approval must not engage in the practice of malicious lying as testified to at Psalms 5:6, "Thou destroyest those who speak lies; the LORD abhors bloodthirsty and deceitful men." (RSV); and at Proverbs 20:19, "He who goes about gossiping reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with one who speaks foolishly.' (RSV); and at Colossians 3:9, "Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices." (RSV); and at 1 Timothy 3:11, "Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices." (RSV); and at Revelation 21:8 & 27, "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." (RSV) & "But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life." (RSV); and at Revelation 22:15, "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood." (RSV).
 
CONCLUSION:
 
In fact, God (YHWH) allows those who prefer falsehood to believe in the lie rather than in the truth about his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ as shown by 2 Timothy 2:9-12, " the gospel for which I am suffering and wearing fetters like a criminal. But the word of God is not fettered. 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory. 11 The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; 12 if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;" (RSV). This principle has been illustrated many times in the scriptures as shown WHEN LYING PROPHETS ASSURED King Ahab of certain success in war as recorded at 1 Kings 22:1-38, "For three years Syria and Israel continued without war. 2 But in the third year Jehosh'aphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel. 3 And the king of Israel said to his servants, "Do you know that Ramoth-gilead belongs to us, and we keep quiet and do not take it out of the hand of the king of Syria?" 4 And he said to Jehosh'aphat, "Will you go with me to battle at Ramoth-gilead?" And Jehosh'aphat said to the king of Israel, "I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses." 5 And Jehosh'aphat said to the king of Israel, "Inquire first for the word of the LORD." 6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, "Shall I go to battle against Ramoth-gilead, or shall I forbear?" And they said, "Go up; for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king." 7 But Jehosh'aphat said, "Is there not here another prophet of the LORD of whom we may inquire?" 8 And the king of Israel said to Jehosh'aphat, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micai'ah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil." And Jehosh'aphat said, "Let not the king say so." 9 Then the king of Israel summoned an officer and said, "Bring quickly Micai'ah the son of Imlah." 10 Now the king of Israel and Jehosh'aphat the king of Judah were sitting on their thrones, arrayed in their robes, at the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Sama'ria; and all the prophets were prophesying before them. 11 And Zedeki'ah the son of Chena'anah made for himself horns of iron, and said, "Thus says the LORD, 'With these you shall push the Syrians until they are destroyed.'" 12 And all the prophets prophesied so, and said, "Go up to Ramoth-gilead and triumph; the LORD will give it into the hand of the king." 13 And the messenger who went to summon Micai'ah said to him, "Behold, the words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king; let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably." 14 But Micai'ah said, "As the LORD lives, what the LORD says to me, that I will speak."   15 And when he had come to the king, the king said to him, "Micai'ah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear?" And he answered him, "Go up and triumph; the LORD will give it into the hand of the king." 16 But the king said to him, "How many times shall I adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD?" 17 And he said, "I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd; and the LORD said, 'These have no master; let each return to his home in peace.'" 18 And the king of Israel said to Jehosh'aphat, "Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?" 19 And Micai'ah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; 20 and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.' 22 And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.' 23 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has spoken evil concerning you." 24 Then Zedeki'ah the son of Chena'anah came near and struck Micai'ah on the cheek, and said, "How did the Spirit of the LORD go from me to speak to you?" 25 And Micai'ah said, "Behold, you shall see on that day when you go into an inner chamber to hide yourself." 26 And the king of Israel said, "Seize Micai'ah, and take him back to Amon the governor of the city and to Jo'ash the king's son; 27 and say, 'Thus says the king, "Put this fellow in prison, and feed him with scant fare of bread and water, until I come in peace."'" 28 And Micai'ah said, "If you return in peace, the LORD has not spoken by me." And he said, "Hear, all you peoples!"  29 So the king of Israel and Jehosh'aphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead. 30 And the king of Israel said to Jehosh'aphat, "I will disguise myself and go into battle, but you wear your robes." And the king of Israel disguised himself and went into battle. 31 Now the king of Syria had commanded the thirty-two captains of his chariots, "Fight with neither small nor great, but only with the king of Israel." 32 And when the captains of the chariots saw Jehosh'aphat, they said, "It is surely the king of Israel." So they turned to fight against him; and Jehosh'aphat cried out. 33 And when the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, they turned back from pursuing him. 34 But a certain man drew his bow at a venture, and struck the king of Israel between the scale armor and the breastplate; therefore he said to the driver of his chariot, "Turn about, and carry me out of the battle, for I am wounded." 35 And the battle grew hot that day, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Syrians, until at evening he died; and the blood of the wound flowed into the bottom of the chariot. 36 And about sunset a cry went through the army, "Every man to his city, and every man to his country!" 37 So the king died, and was brought to Sama'ria; and they buried the king in Sama'ria. 38 And they washed the chariot by the pool of Sama'ria, and the dogs licked up his blood, and the harlots washed themselves in it, according to the word of the LORD which he had spoken." (RSV); and at 2 Chronicles 18:1-34, "Now Jehosh'aphat had great riches and honor; and he made a marriage alliance with Ahab. 2 After some years he went down to Ahab in Sama'ria. And Ahab killed an abundance of sheep and oxen for him and for the people who were with him, and induced him to go up against Ramoth-gilead. 3 Ahab king of Israel said to Jehosh'aphat king of Judah, "Will you go with me to Ramoth-gilead?" He answered him, "I am as you are, my people as your people. We will be with you in the war."   4 And Jehosh'aphat said to the king of Israel, "Inquire first for the word of the LORD." 5 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, four hundred men, and said to them, "Shall we go to battle against Ramoth-gilead, or shall I forbear?" And they said, "Go up; for God will give it into the hand of the king." 6 But Jehosh'aphat said, "Is there not here another prophet of the LORD of whom we may inquire?" 7 And the king of Israel said to Jehosh'aphat, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micai'ah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but always evil." And Jehosh'aphat said, "Let not the king say so." 8 Then the king of Israel summoned an officer and said, "Bring quickly Micai'ah the son of Imlah." 9 Now the king of Israel and Jehosh'aphat the king of Judah were sitting on their thrones, arrayed in their robes; and they were sitting at the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Sama'ria; and all the prophets were prophesying before them. 10 And Zedeki'ah the son of Chena'anah made for himself horns of iron, and said, "Thus says the LORD, 'With these you shall push the Syrians until they are destroyed.'" 11 And all the prophets prophesied so, and said, "Go up to Ramoth-gilead and triumph; the LORD will give it into the hand of the king." 12 And the messenger who went to summon Micai'ah said to him, "Behold, the words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king; let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably." 13 But Micai'ah said, "As the LORD lives, what my God says, that I will speak." 14 And when he had come to the king, the king said to him, "Micai'ah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?" And he answered, "Go up and triumph; they will be given into your hand." 15 But the king said to him, "How many times shall I adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD?" 16 And he said, "I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd; and the LORD said, 'These have no master; let each return to his home in peace.'" 17 And the king of Israel said to Jehosh'aphat, "Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?" 18 And Micai'ah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left; 19 and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. 20 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.' And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' 21 And he said, 'I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.' 22 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets; the LORD has spoken evil concerning you." 23 Then Zedeki'ah the son of Chena'anah came near and struck Micai'ah on the cheek, and said, "Which way did the Spirit of the LORD go from me to speak to you?" 24 And Micai'ah said, "Behold, you shall see on that day when you go into an inner chamber to hide yourself." 25 And the king of Israel said, "Seize Micai'ah, and take him back to Amon the governor of the city and to Jo'ash the king's son; 26 and say, 'Thus says the king, Put this fellow in prison, and feed him with scant fare of bread and water, until I return in peace.'" 27 And Micai'ah said, "If you return in peace, the LORD has not spoken by me." And he said, "Hear, all you peoples!"   28 So the king of Israel and Jehosh'aphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead. 29 And the king of Israel said to Jehosh'aphat, "I will disguise myself and go into battle, but you wear your robes." And the king of Israel disguised himself; and they went into battle. 30 Now the king of Syria had commanded the captains of his chariots, "Fight with neither small nor great, but only with the king of Israel." 31 And when the captains of the chariots saw Jehosh'aphat, they said, "It is the king of Israel." So they turned to fight against him; and Jehosh'aphat cried out, and the LORD helped him. God drew them away from him, 32 for when the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, they turned back from pursuing him. 33 But a certain man drew his bow at a venture, and struck the king of Israel between the scale armor and the breastplate; therefore he said to the driver of his chariot, "Turn about, and carry me out of the battle, for I am wounded." 34 And the battle grew hot that day, and the king of Israel propped himself up in his chariot facing the Syrians until evening; then at sunset he died" (RSV)..
 
As we can see, God (YHWH) revealed to Micaiah the facts, but allowed a spirit creature to become a deceptive spirit in the mouths of Ahab's prophets. They spoke, not the truth, but what Ahab wanted to hear. So as we can see from this lying to harm others in some way is always evil and wrong, but not telling the truth to those who are not entitled to know it is NOT necessarily wrong. However, making false accusations and lying to discredit and/or hurt is someway others is always wrong; as is lying to promote destructive myths and fables of men per 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God." (RSV).
 
Therefore, we can readily see that Taqiyya is a practice from none other than Satan the Devil and that any religion or group using it is from NONE OTHER THAN SATAN THE DEVIL.