Hi Momus,
Sorry about mislabeling the verse, I have been known to mislabel verses in the Bible as well, even in sermons. Yet more evidence of my fallibility.
I sometimes wonder how much context you are going to require? Why not back up to the beginning of the chapter and then give the historical context?
"A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- . Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. " (Quran, Suras 9:1-3)
The context of course is the declaration of Muhammad that the treaties and alliances that the Arabian tribes that had accepted Islam had entered into with tribes and peoples that had not, were now abrogated. The reason for doing this was in order to make it possible for these tribes to wage Jihad against their former allies (particularly in Mecca). In some cases this involved breaking historic links forged by marriage or even payment. These solemn vows were declared null and void. They are then told they can employ any strategem in waging war against those who do not believe, until they either cease resisting and are subjugated or become Muslims themselves.
Al Taqiyaa as a doctrine, is indeed more formally accepted by Shia, but as the Shia scholars have pointed out for Sunnis to say that they don't have a doctrine of dissimulation is to ignore their own scholars and history and more importantly the Quran and the Hadiths.
I would encourage you strongly, for instance, to actually read "The Reliance of the Traveller" which has long been one of the most oft quoted manuals of Islamic Law in the Sunni Community. Decent translations are now available in English via Amazon (although the translator avoids certain subjects that will appall Westerners, so for instance if you want Islamic law on Slavery you'll need to learn Arabic.)
Anyway, here are a few extracts from that text on the Sunni doctrine of "permissible lying":
"PERMISSIBLE LYING
r8.2 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, ``He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.''
This much is related by both Bukhari and Muslim, with Muslim's version recording that Umm Kulthum added, ``I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A:in smoothing over differences),''
[Seagoon note - this ^^^^ refers to a quote from the Hadiths regarding what Muhammad [him] said]
"This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful. The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, who says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. When for example one is concealing a muslim from an oppressor who asks where he is, it is obligatory to lie about his being hidden. Or when a person deposits an article with one for safekeeping and an oppressor wanting to appropriate it inquires about it, it is obligatory to lie about having concealed it, for if one informs him about the article and he then siezes it, one is financially liable(A: to the owner)to cover the article's cost. Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do so; it is not unlawful to lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying.
...
r10.3 Scholars say that there is no harm (def: p8.2( A: )) in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law that is more important than not misleading the person being addressed, or if there is a pressing need which could not otherwise be fulfilled except through lying."
[The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by NOAH HA MIM KELLER]
If you simply peruse the Sunni English Language Islamic centers on the Internet, you'll see how highly acclaimed this work is.
That's the pattern, the custom, and the religious teaching. Lying in the case of Holy War, especially when it is a lie to told to an infidel "oppressor" is permissible. Merely wanting to believe something else isn't going to change that.
Do you seriously believe that Osama is honestly offering this "truce"? Additionally, how do you explain AQ breaking their "agreement" to stop attacks in Al-Andalus if the Spaniards withdrew from Iraq?
- SEAGOON
