Answering Christianity Al uw vragen over het christendom beantwoord
Inhoudstafel :
– 1 Inleiding
– 2 Wat is Taqqiyah ?
– 2.1 Foute claim
– 2.2 Tafsir
– 2.3 Liegen in de Bijbel
– 3 Praktisch voorbeeld
– 4 Eindconclusie
1 Inleiding
Als je bekend bent met de Apologetische wereld, dan zal je als moslim snel botsen tegen het woord “Taqiyyah”. Voor je het weet zal je beschuldigd worden van het plegen van “Taqiyyah” door onwetende mensen, die niet eens kunnen vertellen wat het precies inhoudt wanneer je iets aan het vertellen bent wat volgens hen niet de ‘ware’ Islam is of wanneer je hen simpelweg weerlegd. Gezien het feit dat er een enorme onwetendheid hierover bestaat, hebben wij dus besloten om een artikel hierover te schrijven om het misverstand en onwetendheid op te klaren. Dit artikel zal dus dienen als een korte antwoord op ongefundeerd “Islamkritiek” door “Islamcritici”. Het artikel zal ook dienen als een verduidelijking voor Moslims en niet-Moslims, en het zal dienen als een hulpmiddel voor degenen die hiermee geconfronteerd worden.
2 Wat is Taqqiyah ?
Taqiyyah oftwel التقية in het Arabisch, betekent ‘vrees’ en/of ‘verdediging’. Het woord is afkomstig van de stam ‘Waw-Qaf-Ya’ en heeft volgende betekenissen “to protect, save, preserve, ward off, guard against evil and calamity, be secure, take as a shield, regard the duty.” Vrees voor wie/wat ? Verdediging voor wie/wat ? Vrees of verdediging voor diens leven. Taqiyyah is dan ook dat je mag liegen in een LEVENSBEDREIGENDE situatie. Je kan het vergelijken met de Joden in Nazi-Duitsland.
2.1 Foute claim
2 Voorbeeldjes :
1) “Jij bent een moslim en ik vertrouw jou niet. Jij mag liegen volgens de Islam. Zoek maar op wat Taqiyyah is.”
2) Als je iets zou vertellen wat volgens hen niet de ‘ware’ Islam zou zijn : “Jij liegt, waarom lieg je over jouw religie ? Dat is niet wat de Islam zegt. Jij praktiseert zeker Taqiyyah.”
Geloof het of niet. Dit is wat één van onze broeders heeft meegemaakt.
De claim is dan ook meestal dat een moslim(a) gewoon zomaar mag liegen over de Islam om een niet-Moslim te bekeren naar de Islam. Of dat een moslim(a) gewoon zomaar mag liegen ten voordele van de Islam. Dat is dus NIET het geval. Zoals eerder aangegeven gaat het om het liegen bij een LEVENSBEDREIGEND situatie. We zullen dan ook gaan kijken naar een aantal verzen en wat de klassieke geleerden -moge Allah genadig met hen zijn- hierover zeggen.
2.2 Tafaasir
Het gaat om volgende verzen : Surah Aali-‘Imraan (3) : Vers 28 en Surah An-Nahl (16) : Vers 106.
Surah Aali-‘Imraan (3) : Vers 28 Laten de gelovigen niet de ongelovigen in plaats van de gelovigen als beschermers nemen, en degene die dat doet heeft niets meer met Allah te maken, behalve wanneer jullie hen (de ongelovigen) angstig vrezen. En Allah waarschuwt jullie (voor) Zijn (bestraffing). En tot Allah is de terugkeer.
Surah An-Nahl (16) : Vers 106 Wie aan Allah ongelovig is na geloofd te hebben, behalve wie gedwongen is terwijl zijn hart in het geloof tot rust gekomen was, maar (voor) wie die zijn hart voor het ongeloof openstelde: voor hem is er de toorn van Allah en voor hem is er een geweldige bestraffing.
Tafsir van Ibn Kathir -rahimahullah- met betrekking tot Surah Aali-‘Imraan (3) : Vers 28. “(unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.”
Tafsir van Ibn Kathir -rahimahullah- met betrekking tot Surah An-Nahl (16) : Vers 106. “(except one who was forced while his heart is at peace with the faith) This is an exception in the case of one who utters statements of disbelief and verbally agrees with the Mushrikin because he is forced to do so by the beatings and abuse to which he is subjected, but his heart refuses to accept what he is saying, and he is, in reality, at peace with his faith in Allah and His Messenger . The scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation, or to refuse, as Bilal did when they were inflicting all sorts of torture on him, even placing a huge rock on his chest in the intense heat and telling him to admit others as partners with Allah. He refused, saying, “Alone, Alone.” And he said, “By Allah, if I knew any word more annoying to you than this, I would say it.” May Allah be pleased with him. Similarly, when the Liar Musaylimah asked Habib bin Zayd Al-Ansari, “Do you bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” He said, “Yes.” Then Musaylimah asked, “Do you bear witness that I am the messenger of Allah” Habib said, “I do not hear you.” Musaylimah kept cutting him, piece by piece, but he remained steadfast insisting on his words. It is better and preferable for the Muslim to remain steadfast in his religion, even if that leads to him being killed, as was mentioned by Al-Hafiz Ibn `Asakir in his biography of `Abdullah bin Hudhafah Al-Sahmi, one of the Companions. He said that he was taken prisoner by the Romans, who brought him to their king. The king said, “Become a Christian, and I will give you a share of my kingdom and my daughter in marriage.” `Abdullah said: “If you were to give me all that you possess and all that Arabs possess to make me give up the religion of Muhammad even for an instant, I would not do it.” The king said, “Then I will kill you.” `Abdullah said, “It is up to you.” The king gave orders that he should be crucified, and commanded his archers to shoot near his hands and feet while ordering him to become a Christian, but he still refused. Then the king gave orders that he should be brought down, and that a big vessel made of copper be brought and heated up. Then, while `Abdullah was watching, one of the Muslim prisoners was brought out and thrown into it, until all that was left of him was scorched bones. The king ordered him to become a Christian, but he still refused. Then he ordered that `Abdullah be thrown into the vessel, and he was brought back to the pulley to be thrown in. `Abdullah wept, and the king hoped that he would respond to him, so he called him, but `Abdullah said, “I only weep because I have only one soul with which to be thrown into this vessel at this moment for the sake of Allah; I wish that I had as many souls as there are hairs on my body with which I could undergo this torture for the sake of Allah.” According to some reports, the king imprisoned him and deprived him of food and drink for several days, then he sent him wine and pork, and he did not come near them. Then the king called him and asked him, “What stopped you from eating” `Abdullah said, “It is permissible for me ﴿under these circumstances﴾, but I did not want to give you the opportunity to gloat.” The king said to him, “Kiss my head and I will let you go.” `Abdullah said, “And will you release all the Muslim prisoners with me” The king said, “Yes.” So `Abdullah kissed his head and he released him and all the other Muslim prisoners he was holding. When he came back, `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, “Every Muslim should kiss the head of `Abdullah bin Hudhafah, and I will be the first to do so.” And he stood up and kissed his head. May Allah be pleased with them both.”
Tafsir van Al-Jalalayn -rahimahullah- met betrekking tot Surah Aali-‘Imraan (3) : Vers 28 “Let not the believers take the disbelievers as patrons, rather than, that is, instead of, the believers — for whoever does that, that is, [whoever] takes them as patrons, does not belong to, the religion of, God in anyway — unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts: this was before the hegemony of Islam and [the dispensation] applies to any individual residing in a land with no say in it. God warns you, He instills fear in you, of His Self, [warning] that He may be wrathful with you if you take them as patrons; and to God is the journey’s end, the return, and He will requite you.”
Tafsir van Al-Jalalayn -rahimahullah- met betrekking tot Surah An-Nahl (16) : Vers 101 “Whoever disbelieves in God after [having affirmed] his faith — except for him who is compelled, to pronounce [a statement of] unbelief and so pronounces it, while his heart is at rest in faith (man, ‘whoever’, is [either] a subject or a conditional, and so the predicate [of this subject], or the response [to this conditional], is [an implied] lahum wa‘īdun shadīd, ‘there is for them a severe threat [of chastisement]’; this is indicated by [the statement that follows]) — but he who opens up his breast to unbelief, that is, [he who] opens it up and expands it [with unbelief], meaning that his soul is content with it, upon such shall be wrath from God, and there is a great chastisement for them.”
2.3 Liegen in de Bijbel
1) 2 Koningen 6:18-20
“18 Terwijl het Syrische leger steeds dichterbij kwam, bad Elisa: “HERE, maak hen alstublieft blind.” En de HERE deed dat. 19 Elisa verliet de stad en zei tegen de Syrische soldaten: “U hebt de verkeerde weg gekozen. Dit is niet de stad die u zoekt. Volg mij maar, dan zal ik u naar de man brengen die u zoekt.” Hij leidde hen naar Samaria. 20 Daar aangekomen, bad Elisa: “HERE, open nu hun ogen en laat hen weer zien.” De HERE deed dat en zij ontdekten dat zij in Samaria waren, de hoofdstad van Israël.”
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary : 19-23. This is not the way, neither is this the city—This statement is so far true that, as he had now left the place of his residence, they would not have got him by that road. But the ambiguity of his language was purposely framed to deceive them; and yet the deception must be viewed in the light of a stratagem, which has always been deemed lawful in war.
Matthew Poole’s Commentary : This is not the way, neither is this the city, to wit, where you will find the man for whom you seek; which was very true, because he was now come out of the city; and if they had gone on in that way into the city, they had found that Elisha was gone thence. There is indeed some ambiguity in his speech, and an intention to deceive them, which hath ever been esteemed lawful in the state of war, as appears from the use of stratagems.
Pulpit Commentary : Verse 19. – And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city. ,This was clearly “an untruthful statement” (Keil) if not in the letter, yet in the intent. Elisha meant the Syrians to understand him to say, “This is not the way which ye ought to have taken if ye wanted to capture the Prophet Elisha, and this is not the city (Dothan) where you were told that he was to be found.” And so the Syrians understood him. In the morality of the time, and, indeed, in the morality of all times up to the present, it has been held to be justifiable to deceive a public enemy.
Benson Commentary : 2 Kings 6:19. Elisha said, This is not the way, &c. — Elisha does not speak this in answer to an inquiry made by the Syrians respecting the way to Dothan; if he had, his words would have contained a falsehood, from which they are clear, because he does not say, This is not the way to Dothan — This is not the city of Dothan: but he uses a feint or stratagem, (which has always been allowed in war,) and that against enemies who sought his life, from whom he was delivered only by a miracle, and whom, nevertheless, he afterward treated very humanely and kindly. Indeed, his expressions are ambiguous; but in that ambiguity he intended their benefit; and the very wonderful manner in which, unknown to themselves, he brought them into Samaria, and the generosity with which he treated them there, were sufficient to have given them high ideas of the God of Israel, whose prophet he was, and thereby to have brought them to the worship of the true God, which might have proved an infinite and everlasting blessing to them. I will bring you to the man whom you seek — And so he did, though not in such a manner as they expected and desired.
The Popular Commentary by Paul E. Kretzmann : v. 19. And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city, he prepared deliberately to mislead them
Er zijn nog talloze andere commentatoren. Bijvoorbeeld : Coke’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, David Guzik Commentary on the Bible, George Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, … Die allen ook vermelden dat er misleid werd/gelogen werd.
2) Exodus 1:15-21
“15 Daarenboven sprak de koning van Egypte tot de vroedvrouwen der Hebreïnnen, welker ener naam Sifra, en de naam der andere Pua was; 16 En zeide: Wanneer gij de Hebreïnnen in het baren helpt, en ziet haar op de stoelen; is het een zoon, zo doodt hem; maar is het een dochter, zo laat haar leven! 17 Doch de vroedvrouwen vreesden God, en deden niet, gelijk als de koning van Egypte tot haar gesproken had, maar zij behielden de knechtjes in het leven. 18 Toen riep de koning van Egypte de vroedvrouwen, en zeide tot haar: Waarom hebt gijlieden deze zaak gedaan, dat gij de knechtjes in het leven behouden hebt? 19 En de vroedvrouwen zeiden tot Farao: Omdat de Hebreïnnen niet zijn gelijk de Egyptische vrouwen; want zij zijn sterk; eer de vroedvrouw tot haar komt, zo hebben zij gebaard. 20 Daarom deed God aan de vroedvrouwen goed; en dat volk vermeerderde, en het werd zeer machtig. 21 En het geschiedde, dewijl de vroedvrouwen God vreesden, zo bouwde Hij haar huizen.”
Making Sense of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis To Revelation – Norman L. Geisler And Thomas Howe: Solution: There is little question that the midwives disobeyed Pharaoh by not murdering the newborn male children and lied to Pharaoh when they said they arrived too late to carry out his orders. Nonetheless, there is moral justification for what they did. First, the moral dilemma in which the midwives found themselves was unavoidable. Either they obeyed God’s higher law, or they obeyed lesser obligation of submitting to Pharaoh. Rather than commit deliberate infanticide against the children of their own people, the midwives chose to disobey Pharaoh’s orders. God commands us not to murder (Exodus. 20:13). The saving of innocent lives is a higher obligation than obedience to government. When the government commands us to murder innocent victims, we should not obey. God did not hold the midwives responsible-nor does He hold us responsible-for not following a lower obligation in order to obey a higher law (cf. Acts 4; Rev. 13). In the case of the midwives, the higher law was to the preservation of the lives of the newborn male children. Second, the text clearly states that God blessed them ‘because the midwives feared God’ (Exod. 1:21). It was their fear of God that led them to do what was necessary to save these innocent lives. Thus, their false statement to Pharaoh was an essential part of their effort to save lives. Third, their lying is comparable to their having disobeyed Pharaoh in order to save the lives of the innocent newborns. This is a case where the midwives had to choose between lying and being compelled to murder innocent babies. Here again the midwives chose to obey the higher moral law. Obedience to parents is part of the moral law (Cf. Eph. 6:1). But if a parent commanded his or child to kill a neighbour or worship an idol, the child should refuse. Jesus emphasized the need to follow higher moral law when He said, ‘He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me (Matt. 10:37)
The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Samuel – Bill T. Arnold: Take, for example, Shiphrah and Puah, the Hebrew midwives of Exodus 1:15-21. The Egyptian pharaoh tried to control Israelite population growth by demanding that the midwives in charge of Hebrew births kill the boys, allowing only the girls to live. But because the midwives were God-fearing women, they refused to obey the King and allowed the boys to live as well. When Pharaoh demanded to know why they did not obey him, they simply lied (1:19): ‘Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive’. In this case, the midwives were blessed for their actions. God rewarded them with families of their own because they feared him more than the Egyptian king and chose to risk lying rather than kill the newborn Hebrew boys. Likewise Rahab certainly told a lie to the king of Jericho to save the two Israelite spies (Josh. 2:4-6), and New Testament authors unanimously praise her actions as works of faith (Heb. 11:31; James 2:25). When we compare these disparate episodes, a certain biblical ethic begins to emerge, which is supported by our text in 1 Samuel 19. Rather than a monlothic prohibition against all lying and deception, the Bible offers general principle, modified with several exceptions. The general principle is most notably stated in the ninth commandment, which contains a statement against lying in a court of law (Ex. 20:16). Elsewhere the Bible generally disdains all falsehood (Prov. 11:3) and portrays Satan as the ‘father of lies’ (John 8:44; Eph. 4:25). But then we have exceptions such as the Hebrew midwives, who chose to embrace the guilt of deception in order to preserve the lives of the newborns. They unselfishly put themselves at risk before the Pharaoh rather than fulfil his gruesome orders. Jonathan and Michal seem to be in the same category as the Hebrew midwives and Rahab. These biblical characters choose the higher good and are willing to accept the consequences of their choices, even if it puts them at personal risk in order to help innocent person. Many Christian scholars through the centuries have agreed. Thomas Aquinas distinguished three classes of lies: Officious lies, or helpful lies of necessity; jocose lies, told in jest; and mischievous lies, or malicious lies told to harm another person or to save face personally. Only the third category constitutes sin in Aquinas’s view. I would agree with Aquinas, but I would also warn that the lie of necessity is only morally justified (even morally required?) under certain circumstances, such as rare situations where it is clear that innocent lives are at stake. In this biblical ethic, lying and deception are wrong and to be avoided. However, the actions of Jonathan and Michal, the Hebrew midwives, and others suggest there are times when believers should choose to accept the guilt of lying in order to accomplish a higher good, as they believe it to be defined by God. Thus, we recognize deception as always bad but sometimes desirable in extenuating circumstances.
3 Praktisch Voorbeeld
Een praktisch voorbeeld wat Taqiyyah is en waarin/waarvoor het gebruikt kan worden is als volgt :
Stel je eens voor dat je een Jood was die in Nazi-Duitsland leefde waarbij Joden geëxecuteerd en vervolgd werden omdat ze Joods waren. Stel dat er een soldaat al de huizen in jouw straat aan het afgaan is, opzoek naar Joden (om te vervolgen/executeren). En hij komt uiteindelijk bij jouw huis aan, en vraagt aan jullie of jullie Joods zijn. Je antwoordt met “nee” en hij loopt gewoon door. In zo’n geval is Taqiyyah van toepassing omdat dit een levensbedreigend situatie is. Antwoord je met “ja”, worden jij en jouw gezin geëxecuteerd. Een levensbedreigend situatie.
Net zoals “A Carpenter’s View of the Bible – PhD Charlie March” ook een interessante vermelding maakt in zijn commentaar omtrent Rachab haar leugen in Jozua 2.
A Carpenter’s View of the Bible – PhD Charlie March : A big deal has also been made about Rahab’s lying incident to the king’s men concerning the whereabouts of the spies, as if it would be a more righteous thing to honestly give them up to torture and a slow death. Criticism for the sin of Rahab’s lie is similar to when the Christian Corrie ten Boom lied to the Nazi SS about where the Jewish family was hiding behind a false wall in her house. Again, along with the sexual innuendo business, this is ridiculous. I am not justifying lying, but this is a matter of moral priority. In these few, extreme cases. Deception against evil may be necessary to save lives. A tough moral compromise may be necessary to preserve life.
Een ander praktisch voorbeeld is het feit dat David (vrede zij met hem) toen hij vreesde voor zijn leven dat hij zich gedroeg alsof hij krankzinnig was geworden.
1 Samuel 21 staat het volgende; 12 David hoorde dat en werd bang voor Achis. 13 Daarom deed hij alsof hij gek was. Hij vertrok zijn gezicht, krabde aan de poortdeuren en kwijlde in zijn baard. 14 Toen zei Achis tegen zijn dienaren: “Zien jullie dan niet dat die kerel gek is? 15 Waarom brengen jullie hem bij mij? Zijn er hier soms geen gekken genoeg, dat jullie deze gek bij me brengen om bij mij uit te razen? Moet zo iemand in mijn huis komen?”
4 Eindconclusie
Het komt er dus op neer dat de foute claim gewoonweg géén basis kent binnen de Islam, wat opzich zeker niet verassend is. We hebben gezien dat de klassieke commentatoren ook zeggen dat het toegestaan is om te liegen in een LEVENSBEDREIGENDE situatie, dat is dan ook wat “Taqiyyah” is. Een situatie waarin je dus vreest voor jouw leven. Dit baseren ze zich natuurlijk op de primaire bronnen binnen de Islamitische Theologie; De Qur’an en Sunnah. Een voorbeeld hiervan is, de Joden in Nazi-Duitsland. Onthoudt ook dat dit enkel toegestaan is in een levensbedreigend situatie, dat houdt dus ook in dat het zeker niet verplicht is om te volgen. Bepaalde geleerden zijn zelfs ook van mening dat het zelfs beter is om nog altijd de waarheid te zeggen. We hebben zelfs ook gezien dat men mag liegen onder bepaalde voorwaarden en omstandigheden volgens de Bijbel, zoals in 2 Koningen 6 (of Exodus 1). Dit geven zelfs bepaalde prominente commentatoren toe.