The following are excerpts from ” INTERFAITH DIALOGUE AND WHAT JESUS SAYS : Points for Christians to Ponder before Engaging in Interfaith Dialogues , a paper written by Matt Bonner, a friend and colleague of Dailyrollcall. To read the paper in its entirety click here Interfaith Dialogue and What Jesus Says Before participating in an Interfaith forum, one must understand the deceptive foundation on which it is built.
CONSIDER DIFFERING CODES OF ETHICS
Exploring the topics of dualistic ethics, Taqiyyah and Abrogation is critical to any discussion about Islam. Without clear understanding of these key concepts, it is impossible to grasp the reality of what we face when dialoguing with Muslims.
First, it is important to note that Islam denies the principle of the Golden Rule: the belief that all human beings are equal in value and should be treated the same. Love for the non-Muslim is simply not taught in their doctrine or in the Mosque. In fact, there are 25 verses in the Koran that discuss how Allah does not love kafirs (non-Muslims). There is not a single verse about compassion or love for the Kafir.
Islamic ethics are dualistic, which means there is one set of ethics for Muslims and another set for non-Muslims. Because of this dualistic worldview, there is no unified humanity, only a division between Muslims and Kafirs. In his book, Thirteen Lessons on Islam for Christians, Dr. Bill Warner writes, “The term human being has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and the kafir. In the ethical statements found in the Hadith, a Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill, or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive, or kill a kafir if it advances Islam.”
DUALISTIC ETHICS AND WORLDVIEW OF ISLAM
The dualistic worldview of Islam can also be explained by the way Islam divides the world into two realities: the Dar al-harb and the Dar al-Islam. The Dar al-harb is the house of war, the world of the sword, the infidel and perpetual war. Countries that are non-Muslim reside in the Dar al-harb. Dar al-Islam is the house of Islam, the land of Islam and peace. So here is where the truth of Islamic dualism really hits home: Peace on earth does not come until the entire world has been made Dar al-Islam. Read that sentence again.
This is an essential truth that all non-Muslims must understand. As a result of this worldview, Islam is under permanent jihad obligation to reduce the Dar al harb to non-existence. Consequently, pious Muslims have no allegiance to any country, state or government; they owe allegiance only to Mohammed’s original ideology. They salute no flag and wear no uniform. Syed Qutb, one of the most influential Islamic theologians and leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood of the 20th Century said, “A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.” It helps to understand that in Islamic teaching, all people will one day accept Islam or submit to its rule.
This also explains why Islam cannot recognize political borders or permanent peace treaties, and this precedent was set by Mohammed. He disregarded and nullified his ten year treaty with the Meccans (The Treaty of AlHudaybiyah) after only two years, going on to conquer Mecca in 630 AD. In fact, Yasser Arafat referred to this treaty numerous times after signing the Oslo Accords in 1993. He said it was the basis of his peace with Israel. (Brigitte Gabriel 37-38) Lastly, we must understand that any act of war against Dar Al Harb is morally and legally justified, and exempt from any ethical judgment—according to Ibin Taamiyah, a 14th century Muslim Jurist (Brigitte Gabriel-2).
The Koranic concept of Taqiyya (rooted in Suras 16:106; 3:28; 2:225; 5:89) is an essential concept of deception to understand. Taqiyya is “sacred deception” or “legitimate deception” and is simply a lie or deception that advances Islam. It is not considered a sin. Acting friendly and welcoming to neighbors, while harboring hatred or disgust in the heart, is an example of Taqiyya. It is a way of disguising true feelings. The foundation for Taqiyya is found in the Hadith:
I did not hear him (the Prophet Muhammad) permit untruth in anything people say except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him. (Sacred Hadith, Muslim)
“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives . . . it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible . . . and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.” (Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, renowned Islamic Jurist, quoted in Umdat al Salik, Sacred Islamic Law, Book R: Holding One’s Tongue, r8.2)
In his book, The Mosque Exposed, former Islamic Jurist Sam Solomon writes:
Fakharadin A’razi states that if a Muslim fears those unbelievers amongst whom he may be because of their excessive power and strength, then he needs to pledge loyalty and love outwardly on condition that he inwardly would object to what he himself is saying; in other words, he would be saying the opposite to all that he inwardly believed. (pp. 58-64)
The significance of this tool bears some discussion and begs the question: Why would we want to dialogue with people who are allowed, even encouraged, to lie and deceive us? Can we trust anything they say or even the very premise of the dialogues? The result of this centuries-old practice is that not only do non-Muslims get deceived, but Muslims lie to each other all the time with permission from their doctrines. It is worth noting here that what drives the conscience of the Islamic world is shame and honor, not truth and fiction. It is far more important to maintain the outward appearance of honor, than it is to be truthful. Do we really want to subject ourselves to a dialogue with those who not only see lying as permissible, but who do so to advance Islam?
Another key to Islamic deception is the legal concept of abrogation. Very simply, abrogation means that later verses of the Koran trump or overpower earlier verses. In other words, anything revealed to Mohammed chronologically later in the Koran, abrogates or overrules anything which came earlier. It is a way of allowing both to be true. In his book Thirteen Lessons on Islam for Christians, Dr. Bill Warner explains abrogation this way: Since Allah is perfect and the Koran is the exact words of Allah, then both contradictory verses are true. But the later verse is better or stronger than the earlier verse. This leads to dualistic logic where two contradictory facts can both be true.
Abrogation explains another reason Muslim clerics can cheerfully espouse the peaceful verses of the Koran. Inwardly, they know these verses have been abrogated, and they are counting on our ignorance and blind acceptance in the name of religious freedom. Abrogation comes from three verses in the Koran (Suras 17:106; 16:101; and 2:106) which state, “None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?”
Therefore, it is imperative that whenever a Muslim quotes a peaceful verse from the Koran, we ask him when it was revealed to Mohammed—in Mecca or in Medina? Then, kindly assure him that you understand the doctrinal practice of abrogation and that unfortunately, that verse has been abrogated by a stronger verse that came later.