Lying in Certain Circumstances: Islam's Nuanced Ruling and the Bible's Own Examples
·8 min read·1794 words
The objection that Islam “permits lying” is raised by those who have neither Islamic jurisprudence nor the ability to derive rulings from opposing evidences — yet whose own scripture contains divine approval of lying in specific circumstances. Islam is a complete Sharia suitable for all of humanity, and for every situation there is a ruling. Every rule has an exception.
The Islamic Ruling: Lying Is Forbidden as the Default
The prohibition of lying is established in Islam by explicit Sharia evidence:
Abdullah ibn Mas’ud — Sahih (Agreed Upon) You must be truthful, for truthfulness leads to righteousness, and righteousness leads to Paradise. A man will continue to tell the truth and strive to tell the truth until he is recorded with Allah as truthful. And beware of lying, for lying leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hellfire. A man will continue to tell lies and strive to tell lies until he is recorded with Allah as a liar.
This is the foundational ruling: lying is forbidden, and truthfulness is obligatory. This is the default position in Islam, binding in transactions, testimony, and all ordinary circumstances of life.
The Exceptions: Three Circumstances Where Lying Is Permitted
Asma’ bint Yazid — Sunan Al-Tirmidhi | Narrated with multiple chains of transmission and one unified meaning Lying is not permissible except in three cases.
The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, informed us that lying is permissible in war, in reconciling disputes between people, and between a husband and wife. In some narrations it is also stated: “Ibrahim, peace be upon him, did not lie except three lies, all of which were to defy falsehood — so this lying is permissible.” This hadith was narrated with several chains of transmission converging on one meaning.
The Jurisprudential Principle: A Ruling for Every Situation
Islam has jurisprudence. It derives rulings. It deals with opposing situations. The question is one of basic rational sense:
Will you be honest with the enemy of Muslims so that it leads to the destruction of Muslims? Will you turn into a guide and a spy for them, revealing the secrets of your army? Isn’t war itself a trick? Will you go and speak only offensive truths when reconciling two disputing parties — whether individuals or a husband and wife — when harmony depends on a good word that soothes the heart, and estrangement results from an offensive word?
Honesty is binding and obligatory in the case of transactions and testimony. There is a ruling for every situation. Using honesty in opposing situations where it causes destruction is not a virtue — it is a kind of madness.
The Bible Also Has a Ruling for Every Situation
The critics do not realize that their own book also has different rulings for different situations, to some extent. The Bible commands truthfulness in its general rulings:
Exodus 23:1 (SVD) Do not accept a false report, and do not put your hand with the wicked to be a witness of injustice.
Proverbs 12:17 (SVD) He who speaks the truth shows righteousness, but a false witness shows deceit.
Proverbs 17:4 (SVD) An evildoer listens to wicked lips, and a liar gives ear to a corrupt tongue.
1 Timothy 6:20 (SVD) O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding profane and vain talk and the transgressions of falsely called knowledge.
John 8:44 (SVD) You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own source, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
These are the general rulings. But the Bible also contains cases where God not only permitted lying — He blessed it.
The Bible’s Own Divine Approval of Lying
The Hebrew Midwives Who Lied and Were Rewarded by God
Exodus 1:15–20 (SVD) And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah. (16) And he said, When you have brought the Hebrew women into labor and seen them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then kill him; but if it is a daughter, then let her live. (17) But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt had said to them, but saved the children alive. (18) And the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, Why have you done this thing and saved the children alive? (19) And the midwives said to Pharaoh, The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are strong and give birth before the midwife comes to them. (20) And God was good to the midwives; and the people increased and multiplied greatly.
Here the two Hebrew midwives lied out of fear of God. That is, God here approved their lie and obeying Him required it. And as a result of this lie — what did God, or Jehovah who is Jesus himself according to Christian theology, do to them? “God was good to the midwives.” God blessed the midwives. God blessed the Children of Israel, and their number increased, and from them came the Prophet of God, Moses. If the midwives had told the truth, Moses would have been killed, and Judaism would not have existed with Moses, the one who spoke to the Lord.
Paul’s Lies in the Book of Acts
The New Testament provides additional examples of lying under pressure — and Paul’s case is particularly striking because it involves him lying about his own identity to save his life.
Paul Claims Not to Know the High Priest
Acts 23:1–7 (SVD) And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, “Brothers, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day.” (2) And Ananias the high priest commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. (3) Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to judge me according to the law, and yet you command me to be struck contrary to the law?” (4) And those who stood by said, “Do you revile the high priest of God?” (5) And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was a high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” (6) And when Paul knew that one part of them were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am on trial.” (7) And when he had said this, a dispute arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
Paul claimed not to know the high priest. Yet his own earlier testimony contradicts this completely:
Acts 22:5 (SVD) As also the high priest and all the elders bear witness to me, from whom also I received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus to bring those who were there bound to Jerusalem to be punished.
The high priest and all the elders bear witness to Paul. He received letters from them personally. Yet moments later he claims not to know who the high priest is.
Paul’s Shifting Identities
The same Paul who claimed to be a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee:
Acts 23:6 (SVD) Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.
Also declared himself a Jew from Tarsus:
Acts 21:39 (SVD) Then Paul said, “I am a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. I beg you to allow me to speak to the people.”
Acts 22:3 (SVD) I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the law of our fathers. I was zealous for God, just as you all are this day.
Then, when he was about to be flogged, he declared himself a Roman citizen by birth:
Acts 22:25–28 (SVD) And when they had bound him with whips, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman and has not been convicted?” (26) And when the centurion heard of it, he went to the commander and told him. (27) The commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” And he said, “Yes.” (28) The commander answered, “As for me, with a large sum I purchased this citizenship.” So Paul said, “As for me, I was born in it.”
And yet — before any of this — the Roman commander had mistaken Paul for someone else entirely:
Acts 21:37–38 (SVD) And when Paul was about to enter the camp, he said to the commander, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek?” (38) Are you not that Egyptian who a while ago caused a revolt and led out into the wilderness four thousand men who were murderers?
Egyptian, Greek, Jewish Pharisee, Benjaminite, Roman citizen by birth — Paul presented a different identity to different audiences under pressure. If Paul had not told that commander he was a Greek speaker rather than the Egyptian rebel, he would have lied to his enemies — and if he had told the truth at every stage, they would have killed him. And if they had killed him, the current Christianity would never have existed, and there would not have been the fourteen letters of Paul that represent the majority of the New Testament and the overwhelming majority of current Christian belief.
Conclusion Islam’s permissibility of lying in war, in reconciliation between people, and between spouses is a carefully grounded jurisprudential ruling with a robust framework of principles, conditions, and evidences — not a license for general dishonesty. The default ruling in Islam is that lying is forbidden, as established by explicit hadith. The exceptions are specific, rational, and serve recognized interests. The critics of this ruling have neither jurisprudence nor the capacity to derive rulings — and their own scripture contains explicit divine approval of lying by the Hebrew midwives, which God rewarded with blessing, and repeated instances of Paul presenting shifting identities to survive. Every complete legal system has a ruling for every situation. Islam is that system.