Is Falsehood and Deception Permitted in War?

In various narrations, it has been related that the Holy Prophet(sa) would say:

Meaning, “War is but deception.”

The meaning which is inferred by this is that God-forbid, the Holy Prophet(sa) permitted the use of deception in war. Although, in the first place, the words do not mean that it is permissible to employ deception in war. Rather, the only meaning which is implied here is that “War is in itself a kind of deception.” In other words, with regards to the outcome of war, there can be no definitive statement as to what shall happen. That is to say, that there are so many varying factors which affect the outcome of war, that irrespective of the course of events, a statement cannot be passed with respect to its outcome. This meaning is supported by the fact that this narration has been related in a Ḥadīth in two ways.1 In one narration, the words are that the Holy Prophet(sa) said:

“War is but deception.”

In the second narration the words are:

“The Holy Prophet(sa) has named war as being deceit.”

When both of these narrations are combined, the definitive outcome which is derived is that the Holy Prophet(sa) did not condone the use of deception in war, rather, he meant that war is in itself a thing which deceives a person. However, if one insists upon translating this to mean that deception is permitted in war, even still, most surely, at this instance, the word ‘deception’ infers strategies and tactics of war, and falsehood and betrayal are not implied at all. The reason being that in this instance, the word infers manoeuvres and strategies of war, not falsehood and deception. Hence, the meaning is that it is not prohibited to catch the enemy off-guard and apprehend or subdue them by means of some strategy or tactic; and there can be different forms of this manoeuvring. For example, it is established by authentic narrations that when the Holy Prophet(sa) would set out on a campaign, he would generally not disclose his final destination. At times, even if he intended to travel south, at the start of his journey, he would head towards the north, and would then divert towards the south. Then, if someone would inquire of him as to where he had come from, instead of mentioning Madīnah, he would name a close or far off location where he had previously setup camp, or he would employ some other lawful strategy of war. To the same affect, as the Holy Qur’an has indicated, at times, in order to throw off their enemy, the Companions would begin to retreat from the field of battle; and when the enemy would least expect it, and when its ranks would become disarranged, they would launch a sudden attack. All of these are examples of which has been deemed lawful in a state of war, and is considered to be permissible even today. However, to deal with falsehood and treachery is something which Islām has very strictly forbidden. As such, the Holy Prophet(sa) would say, “In Islām, after associating partners with God and usurping the rights of parents, the third greatest sin is speaking a lie.”2 Furthermore, he would state that belief and cowardice can come together at one place; similarly, belief and miserliness can also come together at one place, but belief and falsehood can never come together at one place.3 Then, with regards to deception and treachery, he remarked, “A person who commits treachery shall be subjected to the severe wrath of Allāh on the day of resurrection.”4 Hence, the kind of which has been permitted in war is not actual deception or falsehood, rather, it infers the use of such tactics of war, which are employed to catch the enemy off-guard and defeat it. In some instances, this may seem to apparently resemble falsehood and deception, but in actuality it is not so. As such, the following Ḥadīth confirms our stance:

“Ummi Kulthūm bint ‘Aqabah(ra) relates, ‘There are only three instances where I have found the Holy Prophet(sa) to permit the use of such statements, which do not actually constitute falsehood, but ordinary people may construe them as such. Firstly, war; secondly, when reconciling between two people who are at conflict with one another; thirdly, when a husband or wife say something, which is intended to please or gratify the other.’”5

This Ḥadīth leaves no room for doubt in the fact that the kind of which is permitted in war, does not imply falsehood and deception. Rather, what is inferred are such things, which must be employed at times, as tactics of war, and which are considered to be lawful in every nation and in every religion.

After mentioning the account of Ka‘b bin Ashraf, Ibni Hishām has recorded the narration that after the execution of Ka‘b, the Holy Prophet(sa) instructed the Companions that now they should slay any Jew they were able to apprehend. Hence, one Companion by the name of Maḥīṣah, attacked a Jew and killed him. The same narration has been related in Abū Dāwūd as well.6 The source of both these narrations is Ibni Isḥāq. In light of the ‘Science of Narration,’ this narration is weak and unreliable, because Ibni Hishām has recorded it without a chain of narration, and the chain of narrators, which has been provided by Abū Dāwūd is weak and incomplete. In this chain of narrators, Ibni Isḥāq states that he heard this incident from a freed slave of Zaid bin Thābit(ra), and that anonymous slave heard this incident from an unknown daughter of Maḥīṣah, and that daughter had heard this incident from her father. Now any individual can understand that a narration of this type, where two narrators are absolutely anonymous and unknown, cannot be acceptable in the least. Moreover, even if a person contemplates in terms of Dirāyat, this tale does not hold true, because the general practice of the Holy Prophet(sa) categorically refutes the notion that he would ever issue forth such a general order. Furthermore, if this was a general order, then definitely as a result, there should have been numerous killings of this sort. However, narrations have only reported a single case, which substantiates that this was not a general order. Then, when it is established in light of authentic narrations that the very next day a new treaty was settled with the Jews,7 in such a case, it cannot be accepted at all that a command of this nature would have been issued. Furthermore, if such an incident had actually occurred, the Jews would have surely raised a huge hue and cry. However, no historical account demonstrates that any such complaint was lodged by the Jews. Hence, in terms of both Riwāyat and Dirāyat, this tale proves to be false. If this narration can be taken to possess any truth at all then only inasmuch that when an outcry broke out in Madīnah after the execution of Ka‘b bin Ashraf, and the Jewish people became enraged, perceiving a threat from the Jews, the Holy Prophet(sa) may have told the Companions that in self-defence, they were permitted to slay any such Jew who posed a threat and attacked them. However, it seems as if this atmosphere existed for only a few hours, because the very next day, a new treaty was settled with the Jews and a state of peace and security was brought about once again. 8

There is a slight difference of opinion with regards to the date of the execution of Ka‘b bin Ashraf. Ibni Sa’d has stated that it occurred in Rabī‘ul- Awwal 3 A.H. However, Ibni Hishām has placed it after the Sariyyah of Zaid bin Ḥārithah(ra), which is confirmed to have taken place in Jamādiyul-Ākhirah. At this instance, I have maintained the order adopted by Ibni Hishām.