Lying Kitman Taqiyya

[BeccaRachel]

For discussion. Lying is permitted.



Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman)





Question:

Are Muslims permitted to lie?



Summary Answer:

Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences."

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.



The Qur'an:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.





From the Hadith:



Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).



Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.



Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."



Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."



Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.



From Islamic Law:



Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "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... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...



"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.







Additional Notes:



Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:



Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.



Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."



Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.



Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.



At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).



Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).



Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.



Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.



The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'



The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.



The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.



Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.





TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page



© 2006 - 2011 TheReligionofPeace.com. All rights reserved.

[spot]

There was a similar discussion in England during the 1860s, also stirred by religious bigotry attempting to engender prejudice. A rather vile Church of England clergyman, Charles Kingsley, who wrote pernicious morally improving allegorical children's novels, assaulted John Henry Newman, a convert to Roman Catholicism, claiming "Father Newman informs us that truth for its own sake need not, and on the whole ought not to be, a virtue with the Roman clergy". Father Newman emerged from the encounter a great deal more creditably than his accuser, though it's quite true he considered a lie the most appropriate response in certain situations. As do I, if it comes to that.

Where, precisely, is your problem with the concept?

The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprisingThe same, surely, is true if you consider the Bible.

Google shows that you or people like you have spread this hate-post onto 95 forums so far. I suggest that says a lot more about you than your post does about Islam. The phrase "get a life" springs to mind.

[Scrat]

I'd like to point out many aspects of this article not only applies to all religious doctrines but to all of us as individuals. I myself in some circumstances have been and will be deceitful although I am not proud of it. Many animals do it also.

[BeccaRachel]

Scrat;1360841 wrote: I'd like to point out many aspects of this article not only applies to all religious doctrines but to all of us as individuals. I myself in some circumstances have been and will be deceitful although I am not proud of it. Many animals do it also.


If lying is permitted for Christians, please show me the chapter and verse. The Bible clearly states thou shalt not bear false witness. The opposite holds true for the Qur'an. [Kitman and Taqiyya]

[spot]

BeccaRachel;1360861 wrote: If lying is permitted for Christians, please show me the chapter and verse. The Bible clearly states thou shalt not bear false witness. The opposite holds true for the Qur'an. [Kitman and Taqiyya]


If a prophet is deceived into giving a message, it is because I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet. Or is God a poor role-model?

Practically everything said of Sarah and Abraham's visits to royalty start with the pair of them deceiving their host for personal advantage about Sarah's marital status. Did God not commend them for their deception? God certainly sided with the pair and against those who were misled into taking Sarah into their harem as Foreign Novelty of the Month, I'd call that pretty collusive on God's part. The con only works if God comes in with a big stick at the end of the play.

Charles Kingsley was a loathed and detested prig, you know. The only reason you're divving around the Internet posting this guff is in order to pour disrespect and scorn on a faith you don't share. That's pretty Kingsleyish in my book. Faith, unlike intolerance, deserves respect.

[Ahso!]

BeccaRachel;1360861 wrote: If lying is permitted for Christians, please show me the chapter and verse. The Bible clearly states thou shalt not bear false witness. The opposite holds true for the Qur'an. [Kitman and Taqiyya]Matthew 10:16

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

[spot]

The Koran's quite keen on people telling the truth, regardless of the propaganda in the opening post. Where you get a phrase like "They would destroy their own souls, for Allah knows that they are certainly lying" I take it that Allah's unerring recognition of a lie leads to the destruction of the soul of the liar. Of course, the OP isn't interested in a balanced view so that quote doesn't get a look-in. The liars in that instance are lying to get out of a wearisome obligation.

The day that the Hour of Judgment is established, on that day will the dealers in falsehood perish. On the Day of Judgments they will be called to account for their falsehoods. Falsehood is, by its nature, bound to perish. That's all from the Koran too, oddly enough.

Rather nicely, there's a verse just about the disreputable acid-drip segregation being conducted by BeccaRachel: "They attribute to Allah what they find hateful, and their tongues assert the falsehood that all good things are from themselves: without doubt for them is the Fire, and they will be the first to be hastened into it". Go for it Allah, I'll get the popcorn.

The thread starts, if you remember, "For discussion. Lying is permitted". Well of course it is. There are times when lying is a moral imperative, just as there are times when it's morally indefensible. It depends on the moment and the lie. The Bible says otherwise? Then, accepting for the sake of argument that the Bible says otherwise, the Bible's quite clearly in error. Or are you claiming there's no circumstance where a lie is permitted?

Here we go - this is what I was looking for, I knew I'd bookmarked it somewhere. It's the discussion of Jacob and the Blessing I had in mind.

[spot]

BeccaRachel;1360861 wrote: The Bible clearly states thou shalt not bear false witness.In the interest of transparency and so as not to imply by omission something which isn't actually true, would you like to disclose your own religious affiliation? Or does lying by omission not qualify as false witness. I have a strong suspicion that "if lying is permitted for Christians, please show me the chapter and verse" is deceptive.

I'll go first - I'm a Methodist which (where I come from) brings me membership of a society within the Church of England communion, a representative part of the Catholic Church (though ecumenically dissociated from the Church of Rome). It entitles me to put "Christian" on forms which request a religious affiliation.

Your turn.

[Scrat]

Just my 2 cents, I'm a born again semi practicing Pagan. I don't slaughter animals or any of those things but dancing around a fire with pretty nude women is very appealing to me. :sneaky:

All people lie Becca, the bible is filled with all kinds of deceit as is the Koran Gahdaffis Green book, The Book of Mormon pick any you choose. Thanx for catching the fast balls Spot and Ahso. I have read the bible and the Koran both decades ago but I am not a scholar.

[BeccaRachel]

Let's see if I got this right.

When someone doesn't like a subject or is ignorant of it, they: A) Change the subject, B) Attack the messenger. C) Confirm why some boards fail.

You got 3/3. Well done.

[spot]

So you're not a prejudiced Israeli trying to stir up worldwide hatred against Muslims then. That's good - I mean, you'd not lie about that by failing to disclose it so as to imply otherwise, after all. If you had been I might have mentioned my abhorrence of apartheid and Bantustans. But by all means carry on and actually discuss the issues further, they were answered in detail earlier: The Koran expresses Allah's disapproval of those who lie. Christian, Muslim and Jewish theologians all say lying is justified in various circumstances, basing their arguments on their sacred texts. God lies in the Old Testament. The positions of all three monotheistic religions is so close that non-monotheists would find it difficult to detect any practical difference. What bit of that is irrelevant? What bit is inaccurate?

The error is in retaining the archaic monotheist notion that there's a conscious all-powerful external God interacting with the world, while pretending those attributes are remotely consistent with goodness. It's time all reasonable people stood up and agreed it's an impossible combination for all meaningful uses of the word 'good'.

[BeccaRachel]

3/3 going strong.

Let's try this. There are over 97,000 google returns for Kitman and Taqiyya (the role of deception in Islam), do you have a better link to post to explain it or will you continue to deny it exists because it makes you nervous?

Let's try that. Baby steps.

[spot]

BeccaRachel;1361148 wrote: 3/3 going strong.

Let's try this. There are over 97,000 google returns for Kitman and Taqiyya (the role of deception in Islam), do you have a better link to post to explain it or will you continue to deny it exists because it makes you nervous?

Let's try that. Baby steps.


I haven't denied it exists. It's a so-what moment, I said the same commendation of lying in specified circumstances exists in all three monotheist religions and gave references. Anyone can focus on embarrassing aspects of a given religious heritage; the Talmud's recognition of sin-free child rape must be equally hard to live with in some quarters, given the extent to which it's been written out of modern editions.

I notice you have write-only tendencies BeccaRachel, you don't respond to anyone's points and discuss, you just write to generate reactions. I don't mind, leaving a record of your technique is the most valuable aspect of continuing the thread.

Your aggression toward Islam in the opening post of the thread is, I suggest, born out of fear and a justified sense of guilt. The only way to put both behind you is to purge all the apartheid aspects from Israel's Constitution and legal system. There can be no two-State future, that would merely perpetuate the current injustices. Perhaps you could write to your Prime Minister recommending the removal of religious/heritage discrimination from Israel's statutes and administrative practices, or will you deny it exists because it makes you nervous? Let's try that. Baby steps.

[BeccaRachel]

I really thought you'd come up with a link. However, there's no other way to describe that lying is not only permitted but encouraged in the Qur'an.

Instead, you invoke A,B,C again. Tiresome.

[spot]

BeccaRachel;1361416 wrote: Instead, you invoke A,B,C again. Tiresome.It has the advantage that it's not opinion, it's straightforward logic based on stated facts.

lying is not only permitted but encouraged in the Qur'an. And in the Christian tradition. And in the Jewish tradition. Generalising it as a monotheist stance is reasonable.

[BeccaRachel]

spot;1361419 wrote: It has the advantage that it's not opinion, it's straightforward logic based on stated facts.


This is the A,B,C I refer to, from my previous post:

"When someone doesn't like a subject or is ignorant of it, they: A) Change the subject, B) Attack the messenger. C) Confirm why some boards fail."

[spot]

BeccaRachel;1361421 wrote: This is the A,B,C I refer to, from my previous post:

"When someone doesn't like a subject or is ignorant of it, they: A) Change the subject, B) Attack the messenger. C) Confirm why some boards fail."


Would you like to respond to my points instead of displaying your poor manners?

[BeccaRachel]

spot;1361423 wrote: Would you like to respond to my points instead of displaying your poor manners?


I've described your poor manners. A,B,C.

[spot]

BeccaRachel;1361426 wrote: I've described your poor manners. A,B,C.


If you pick exclusively on Islam for your derogatory observations, while refusing to discuss your own country's discriminatory constitution and laws, I claim you're merely attempting to stir up hatred rather than hold a reasonable discussion and consequently your opening sentence "For discussion" is a fraud. Your refusal to comment on any of the information I've added to the thread just highlights the observation. The thread's what counts in the end, people will read it and form their own opinion on your shoddy tactic. I hope you find it backfires.

[BeccaRachel]

spot;1361419 wrote: It has the advantage that it's not opinion, it's straightforward logic based on stated facts.

And in the Christian tradition.


Since you insist on changing the subject, let me correct you. Lying is forbidden in the Christian faith. Have you ever heard of the 9th Commandment? Have you ever read Rev. 21:8?

[BeccaRachel]

spot;1361428 wrote: If you pick exclusively on Islam for your derogatory observations, while refusing to discuss your own country's discriminatory constitution and laws, I claim you're merely attempting to stir up hatred rather than hold a reasonable discussion and consequently your opening sentence "For discussion" is a fraud. Your refusal to comment on any of the information I've added to the thread just highlights the observation. The thread's what counts in the end, people will read it and form their own opinion on your shoddy tactic. I hope you find it backfires.


I'm sure I'm not the first to inform you that you don't have the backfire power. All you have is A,B,C.

"When someone doesn't like a subject or is ignorant of it, they: A) Change the subject, B) Attack the messenger, C) Confirm why some boards fail."

[spot]

BeccaRachel;1361429 wrote: Since you insist on changing the subject, let me correct you. Lying is forbidden in the Christian faith. Have you ever heard of the 9th Commandment? Have you ever read Rev. 21:8?


I can see you didn't bother to look at my links then. I'm not surprised, mind. You didn't come here to discuss the issues, after all.

[BeccaRachel]

spot;1361433 wrote: I can see you didn't bother to look at my links then. I'm not surprised, mind. You didn't come here to discuss the issues, after all.


Why would I look at your links? They had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to enable your A,B,C posting style.

[spot]

BeccaRachel;1361442 wrote: Why would I look at your links? They had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to enable your A,B,C posting style.


The opening post starts "For discussion. Lying is permitted" and my links demonstrated the moral acceptance of lying both within Christianity and Judaism as well as within Islam. If you prefer that I summarise the links into the thread instead of merely linking to the reference material I'll happily do that. You can't possibly claim the material's not relevant to "For discussion. Lying is permitted", it obviously is. Neither can you claim it's off topic.

[BeccaRachel]

spot;1361446 wrote: The opening post starts "For discussion. Lying is permitted" and my links demonstrated the moral acceptance of lying both within Christianity and Judaism as well as within Islam. If you prefer that I summarise the links into the thread instead of merely linking to the reference material I'll happily do that. You can't possibly claim the material's not relevant to "For discussion. Lying is permitted", it obviously is. Neither can you claim it's off topic.


I get it. You changed the subject. I've already noted it as A. You never came up with a better link, as I asked, just chose to derail the thread.

But that's not the only thing you've done. Shall I refresh you on B and C?

[spot]

BeccaRachel;1361451 wrote: I get it. You changed the subject. I've already noted it as A. You never came up with a better link, as I asked, just chose to derail the thread.

But that's not the only thing you've done. Shall I refresh you on B and C?




By all means. I'd be grateful if you also gave some reasoning to "You changed the subject" since I've repeatedly and, I think, convincingly denied doing so. My equating all three monotheistic religions on the matter of the morality of lying is central to your original post. I raised, for instance, the example of Abraham and the example of Jacob, not to mention the example of God himself, as serial self-confessed liars who are nevertheless considered righteous. Christian and Jewish theologians are adamant that lying is, in certain instances, an obligation.

[BeccaRachel]

spot;1361453 wrote: By all means. I'd be grateful if you also gave some reasoning to "You changed the subject" since I've repeatedly and, I think, convincingly denied doing so. My equating all three monotheistic religions on the matter of the morality of lying is central to your original post. I raised, for instance, the example of Abraham and the example of Jacob, not to mention the example of God himself, as serial self-confessed liars who are nevertheless considered righteous. Christian and Jewish theologians are adamant that lying is, in certain instances, an obligation.


I think I've just solved your problem. This thread wasn't about "all three."

[BeccaRachel]

spot;1361453 wrote: By all means.


B and C "refresher":

B) Attack the messenger, C) Confirm why some boards fail.

[spot]

BeccaRachel;1361455 wrote: I think I've just solved your problem. This thread wasn't about "all three."

:)Like I said, then. Partisan propaganda rather than discussion.

[BeccaRachel]

spot;1361462 wrote: Like I said, then. Partisan propaganda rather than discussion.


As I said , you choose to attack the messenger and change the subject. Why not discuss the topic at hand OR back off? You're most unfriendly.

[gmc]

You do know the christian bible is a piece of propoganda foisted on the world by the early catholioc church - to use it as your means of determining the morailty or otherwise of lying is ever so slightly ironic. The koran is also a carefully edited treatise designed to control thefaithful and prevent them thinking for themselves. The main thing they have in common is teaching that the faith they represent is the one and only one and all else has to be at best tolerated but ideally destroyed when the opportunity presents itself.

Keep to our faith and keep it to yourselves, if only you would the world would be a better place.

[BeccaRachel]

gmc;1362145 wrote: You do know the christian bible is a piece of propoganda foisted on the world by the early catholioc church - to use it as your means of determining the morailty or otherwise of lying is ever so slightly ironic. The koran is also a carefully edited treatise designed to control thefaithful and prevent them thinking for themselves. The main thing they have in common is teaching that the faith they represent is the one and only one and all else has to be at best tolerated but ideally destroyed when the opportunity presents itself.

Keep to our faith and keep it to yourselves, if only you would the world would be a better place.


I don't know who you're replying to, gmc, but what are your thoughts on Kitman and Taqiyya?

[gmc]

posted by BeccaRachel

I don't know who you're replying to, gmc, but what are your thoughts on Kitman and Taqiyya?


The opening post. Holy hypocrisy is hardly unique to islam even JC dissembled on occasion. If god cannot lie and there is only one god then why is he lying through religion? If god made all things he must also have made the lies so presumably the lies have a holy purpose. Why do you question god's will?

[BeccaRachel]

gmc;1362170 wrote: posted by BeccaRachel



The opening post. Holy hypocrisy is hardly unique to islam even JC dissembled on occasion. If god cannot lie and there is only one god then why is he lying through religion? If god made all things he must also have made the lies so presumably the lies have a holy purpose. Why do you question god's will?


haah , are you spot? ABC:yh_alien2

[gmc]

BeccaRachel;1362189 wrote: haah , are you spot? ABC:yh_alien2


No I'm younger and better looking. Reason is the enemy of faith and that's why monotheistic religions and the fundamentalists followers are such a bane on civil society. Their unreasoning faith allows no room for tolerance and letting others live lives as they choose. All they can do when faced with logic and dissent is stamp their foot and sulk.

When someone doesn't like a subject or is ignorant of it, they: A) Change the subject, B) Attack the messenger. C) Confirm why some boards fai


I havn't tried to change the subject, attacked the messenger - presumably you mean yourself - it's an anonymopus board No one knows who you really are. Boards fail when people object to discussons they find boring and act as spoilers or indeed can't understabnd that the whole point of a discussion board is to disagree with one another. If it bothers you don't bring up subjects unless you can stand the fact your point of view is not the only one. To claim the bibnle as the i=unaltered word of god is not something that stands up to much examination.

[littleCJelkton]

I see we are still fighting with these I said, he said, she said, they said, he wrote, what god said bigots. Do they storm every forum or is FG a magnet for them, and where did they get this notion that the tatic of (( making a clear bias statement claim it is right and you are all wrong because my god says I am right and you don't discus the facts because you a.) don't believe in god b.)don't understand the word of god like I do or c.) you don't talk to god I doo.)) works?

[gmc]

littleCJelkton;1362216 wrote: I see we are still fighting with these I said, he said, she said, they said, he wrote, what god said bigots. Do they storm every forum or is FG a magnet for them, and where did they get this notion that the tatic of (( making a clear bias statement claim it is right and you are all wrong because my god says I am right and you don't discus the facts because you a.) don't believe in god b.)don't understand the word of god like I do or c.) you don't talk to god I doo.)) works?


Because it works. Most intelligent tolerant people are quite happy to let people live life as they choose and avoid conflict where possible, to them proselytizing is an intellectual activity to the religious it is a god given duty to some it becomes a god given duty and right to impose their will. When all else fails there is always fear and terror and you donl;t have to look very far to find countless examples from history t see what I mean. . It's a form of bullying, when you give up and leave them to it they think they have won the argument. It's also a sign of insecurity, if you truly believe then what other people think doesn't matter and you don't need to try and browbeat them in to agreeing with you, you can discuss things rather than shout down those who disagree. Fundamentalists get their kicks working up a good hate against the infidel, you can't reason with them because if faith requires the suspension of reason.

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Martin Luther

As a humanitarian it is not in my nature to give up though. Who knows they might see the light and see their bigotry as the blight on their happiness it really is. Let them throw the dummy out the pram eventually they might learn to walk and get it themselves.