Episodios
-
Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), his use of negotiations as a stalling tactic while enabling Israeli strikes, and his public lies — such as claiming he would “wait two weeks” before deciding on a military response, only to covertly authorize action — raise not merely political or strategic concerns, but deep moral and theological questions about the very nature of leadership. This concern is amplified by the fact that his base includes many devout Christians who find his bravado motivational and empowering. In this piece, I examine the theological implications of his dishonesty through the lens of ʿilm al-kalām (Islamic theology), and his deceit in negotiations with Iran through the lens of classical Islamic law—particularly in the Mālikī tradition.
Prophetic Integrity An Inspiration
Prophethood has always held a central place in Islamic theological reflection. Prophets are not followed because of coercion or wealth, but because of their balanced teaching, ethical clarity, and the miracles that support their truth. Their leadership inspires. Of all their qualities, moral integrity—ṣidq (truthfulness)—was considered so foundational that classical theologians listed it among the essential beliefs every Muslim must hold about a prophet. This quality was not merely ethical; it was epistemological. The Prophet’s truthfulness is the guarantee of the truth of revelation. As Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī writes:
“If the source of information is corrupt, then what follows is invalid.” (al-Maṭālib al-ʿĀliyah)
Prophetic honesty, then, is not merely a virtue—it is a reflection of the ontological harmony between the Prophet and the Divine Will. His truth mirrors the covenant between him and God. And it was that truth that inspired, and it so clear, that it was logical. Al-Taftāzānī explains in Sharḥ al-ʿAqā’id:
“If it were possible for a prophet to lie, even once, then belief in revelation would collapse — hence ṣidq is rationally and textually obligatory.”
Treaties & Deceit
Muslim political theorists extended this principle—though to a lesser degree—to rulers and heads of state. A leader devoid of truthfulness is epistemically unfit: fundamentally unreliable as a source of knowledge, judgment, or legitimate authority. His mirror becomes blurred, reflecting not strength or courage, but weak faith and a severed connection to divine responsibility. As Imām Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī taught, divine obligation (taklīf) assumes that those in power speak truthfully. When a ruler severs the bond between language and reality, he collapses the moral framework that makes obedience meaningful. The Muʿtazilī scholar ʿAbd al-Jabbār similarly argued that obedience to a dishonest leader is tantamount to obedience to falsehood—an ethical contradiction and theological impossibility. Shāh Waliyyullāh al-Dihlawī captures this brilliantly in Ḥujjatullāh al-Bāligha:
“The Prophet’s amānah was not just personal but institutional, and imāms who come after must reflect it in justice, restraint, mercy, and dedication to the sharīʿah.”
Shari’ah & Sidq
This is not merely a theological matter. Classical Islamic law, especially within the Mālikī school, explicitly condemns ghadr (treachery)—even in war, and especially in the context of treaties. Al-Dardīr writes in al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr:
“Treachery is not permitted — even with disbelievers.” — 2/196
And more directly:
“Fulfilling the treaty is obligatory. If the Imām fears treachery from the enemy, he may not break the treaty until he openly nullifies it [on equal terms].” — 2/196
Breaking a treaty under the pretense of diplomacy, using negotiations to buy time for military aggression, or lying to the public while secretly escalating conflict—these are all classified as prohibited treachery in Islamic law. From this perspective, Trump’s conduct is not only a breach of political integrity, but a moral betrayal and legal transgression. In Islam, truth is not optional in leadership. Without it, both revelation and governance lose their claim to legitimacy. Sad, his most passionate supporters claim to do so in name of faith and integrity.
As we move forward in an increasingly unstable world, being known as a nation whose leaders lie will only further erode the trust required to heal a fractured global order. Trumping others is not the way of the Prophets. It is the opposite.
imam Suhaib Webb,
-
Recently, while appearing on Tucker Carlson, Ted Cruz, in defense of his blind support for Israel, committed one of the very distortions the Qur’an accuses Christians of: the manipulation of sacred texts. The Arabic word for Cruz’s act is taḥrīf, from the root ḥarf. Harf literally means “an edge”—to push something from the center to the margin. In this context, it implies twisting the meaning of a verse from its balanced center toward an extreme—for worldly gain.
The Qur’an describes people like Cruz:
“يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَوَاضِعِهِ”
“They distort the word from its rightful place.” (Qur’an 5:13)
For context: Cruz, when asked about his support for Israel, claimed that the Bible teaches God curses those who curse Israel—implying the modern state. This is a textbook example of the Qur’anic charge: interpretation for material or political gain. The verse he misquoted is Genesis 12:3, which reads in early Jewish translations:
“I will bless those who bless you, and he who curses you, I will curse; and in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”
A quick glance at early exegesis of the Bible shows how far Cruz’s distortion goes. Actually—let me take the gloves off. “Distortion” is too soft. What Cruz did, following the lead of other Christian Zionists, was falsification. He lied about God.
As I noted above, early biblical interpreters—Jewish and Christian—rejected Cruz’s reading.
Philo of Alexandria saw Abraham as a symbol of divine wisdom—not nationalism.
Targum Onkelos rendered the verse plainly, without political implications.
Paul said the true heir of Abraham is Christ, and the blessing is faith—not ethnicity (Gal. 3:16).
Church Fathers like Augustine interpreted Genesis 12:3 as a call to righteousness—not foreign policy.
None of them saw this as divine approval for a modern nation-state 2,000 years later.
Genesis 12:3 was a spiritual covenant—twisted today into a political slogan.
The irony? Cruz and Christian Zionists have elevated this fabrication into dogma.
If it were benign, it wouldn’t matter—people can believe what they want.
But today, it is this interpretation that allows them, in the name of faith, to dehumanize Palestinians and casually call for the bombing of Iran.
-
¿Faltan episodios?
-
A brief explanation of al-Muttaqi's work: "Clarifying The Paths to Allah." These sections focus on the methods and understandings of living a life of faith and devotion.
-
The Consensus on Marriage Between Muslim Women and Non-Muslim Men
The issue of whether Muslim women can marry non-Muslim men has been subject to debate in recent times. However, there has been a binding consensus among Islamic scholars since the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that such marriages are impermissible. This consensus is rooted in the understanding of Islamic law and the principles that govern marital relations. This view is grounded in various Quranic verses and Hadith, such as:
• “Do not marry polytheistic women until they believe” (Quran 2:221).
• “And do not marry the polytheistic men to your women until they believe” (Quran 2:221).
• “Then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four” (Quran 4:3), which implies that marriage should be within the bounds of faith.
The Role of Scholars and Usul al-Fiqh
To navigate complex issues like marriage and other contemporary challenges, it is crucial to rely on scholars well-versed in Usul al-Fiqh, the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. Usul al-Fiqh involves:
1. Determining What Constitutes Evidence: Not every claim can be supported as valid evidence in Sharia. As Imam Al-Baydawi stated, “Not everything can be an evidence in Sharia.”
2. Proper Utilization of Evidence: Knowing how to apply evidence correctly. “The principle in private parts is prohibition; if both permissibility and prohibition are encountered in a woman, prohibition prevails” (Imam al-Suyuti).
3. Scholarly Qualifications: Ensuring that those who engage in Islamic legal discussions have the necessary academic and practical training. “The conditions of the person who can engage in Islamic law must be met” (Imam Al-Baydawi).
Refuting Modern Arguments for Permissibility
Some modern scholars argue that there is no explicit evidence in the Quran and Sunnah against marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim men, thereby claiming such marriages are permissible. This argument relies on the principle of Istishab, which presumes continuity unless there is evidence to the contrary. However, this principle is misapplied in this context.
Understanding Istishab and Its Application
Istishab means assuming that a ruling continues to apply unless there is clear evidence to change it. In the context of marriage, the default state is that marital relations are haram without a valid marriage contract (nikah). This principle places the burden of proof on those claiming permissibility. They must provide clear evidence from the Quran and Sunnah to justify their stance.
• Imam al-Shafi’i: “All private parts are prohibited for everyone under all circumstances, except when allowed by marriage or ownership.”
• Principle of Istishab: “Seeking evidence to prove a point without evidence is rejected.”
Legal Foundations in Islamic Marriage
1. Presumption of Prohibition: The foundational state of marital relations is one of prohibition unless there is a valid contract.
• Imam al-Shafi’i: “The foundational relationship between non-marital people is that they are not allowed to have a physical relationship.”
2. Burden of Proof: It is not sufficient to claim permissibility without evidence. The absence of explicit prohibition does not automatically translate to permissibility.
• Imam al-Qarafi al-Maliki: “The foundation of sexual relations, the default of other people’s property, and the default of other people’s wealth is haram unless there is an aqid.”
Conclusion: Adherence to Traditional Scholarship
In conclusion, the long-standing consensus against marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim men is well-founded in Islamic jurisprudence. Scholars trained in Usul al-Fiqh provide the necessary framework to understand and navigate such issues. Young Muslims are encouraged to invest their time in learning their faith deeply, adhering to traditional scholarship, and understanding the principles that guide Islamic law.
By focusing on these principles and maintaining a strong educational foundation, Muslims can ensure that their practices align with the core teachings of Islam and continue to uphold the integrity of their religious traditions.
- Mostrar más
