Introduction — Kitman: The Religious Technique of Concealment
When a religion legitimizes lying or concealing the truth in order to protect itself, it is not merely self-defense; it develops into a religious art of deception. In Islam, one such concept is Kitman (كتمان).
This article explores the definition of Kitman, its validation in the Qur’an and Hadith, and examples from history and modern times to show how speaking half-truths has become a strategic tool in Islamic politics.
1. Definition of Kitman — Concealing Half of the Truth
Arabic Root: كتمان (Kitman) — to hide, to conceal, not to disclose.
As explained by scholars such as Ibn Kathir:
“Kitman is to conceal part of the truth, especially when revealing it would cause harm to Islam or Muslims.”
In other words: Kitman = deliberately withholding part of the truth in order to protect Islam or Muslims.
2. Kitman and Taqiyya — What’s the Difference?
- Taqiyya: Telling outright lies or disguising one’s identity — usually for personal safety. Strongly referenced in the Shia tradition.
- Kitman: Withholding half-truths or remaining silent — often for collective, institutional, or political strategy. Found in both Sunni and Shia traditions.
Purpose-based difference:
- Taqiyya = personal survival
- Kitman = collective/political protection
3. Qur’an and Hadith Recognition of Kitman — References
- Qur’an 3:28 advises believers not to take unbelievers as allies “except as a precaution to protect yourselves” — which some scholars interpret as a warrant for Taqiyya/Kitman.
- Al-Ghazali, the famous philosopher, openly admitted: “A Muslim may lie or conceal the truth if it benefits Islam.”
(Ref: Ihya Ulum al-Din)
This shows that both scripture and classical writers did not forbid concealment or deceit under certain conditions.
4. The Indian Context — Public Discourse and Half-Truths
India has the third-largest Muslim population in the world — about 172 million (14.2%) according to the 2011 Census. The majority are Sunni Hanafi, representing Islamic teachings in mosques, madrasas, and political platforms.
In public discourse about “religious harmony,” one verse is repeatedly quoted: Qur’an 5:32. Yet the very next verse, 5:33, is almost always ignored or suppressed.
This selective quoting is exactly what we call Kitman — showing only the part of the truth that suits the occasion.
5. Verse 5:32 — A Symbol of Peace or a Contextual Command?
Qur’an 5:32 (Surah al-Maidah) says:
“Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul … it is as if he has killed all of mankind.”
This verse is often displayed as a symbol of peace. Muslim leaders and preachers frequently cite it to prove that Islam condemns murder.
But important points to note:
- The verse is clearly addressed to “Bani Israel” (the Jews) — not Muslims.
- Its logic and wording closely resemble pre-existing Jewish law (Talmud, Mishnah).
Questions that arise:
- If this was a command given to the Jews, why do Muslims repeatedly quote it for themselves?
- Is this not a strategy of presenting a half-truth — an act of Kitman?
6. Verse 5:33 — The Very Next Verse with Harsh Punishments
The very next verse, Qur’an 5:33, says:
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread corruption on earth is that they be killed, or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.”
Here the punishments are explicit:
- Death
- Crucifixion
- Amputation of limbs
- Exile
Questions:
- If 5:32 is presented as a peace-message, why is 5:33 consistently hidden from public discourse?
- Is this suppression not itself Kitman?
- If 5:33 is universal, does it mean that political dissent or opposition can be considered “waging war against Allah and His Messenger”?
7. Classical Tafsir and Fiqh Perspectives
- Ibn Kathir (Tafsir Ibn Kathir): Interprets 5:33 as defining Muharibah (waging war against Allah and His Messenger), which includes bandits, rebels, and those who disobey the Prophet.
- Tafsir al-Jalalayn: States this verse is the basis of certain Hudud punishments in Shariah.
- Fiqh (Hanafi, Shafi’i schools): Interpret fasad fil-ardh (corruption on earth) so broadly that even political opposition or rebellion can fall under it.
These traditional interpretations laid the foundation for harsh punishments in modern Sharia-based legal systems.
8. Modern Applications — Living Examples
Even today, several Islamic states apply 5:33 in their laws:
- Iran: Protesters and dissenters are executed under charges of muharibah and fasad fil-ardh (examples include recent cases like Mohsen Shekari, Majidreza Rahnavard, 2022).
- Saudi Arabia: Political dissidents face execution under accusations of “rebellion/corruption” (e.g., Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, executed in 2016).
- Pakistan: Blasphemy and other sensitive issues are often equated with “war against the Prophet,” leading to harsh punishments.
These examples reveal how 5:33 continues to shape societies and legal systems.
9. Kitman in Modern Context — Public Face vs. Private Intent
- Outward messaging: In the West and in pluralistic societies, Muslim leaders often say — “Islam is a religion of peace” — quoting 5:32.
- Inner message/strategy: In Islamist literature, the real focus is on restoring Khilafah and enforcing Sharia.
Examples:
- Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb-ut-Tahrir writings — explicitly state Khilafah as the goal.
- Brotherhood’s US trial document (2008): “Our job is to destroy Western civilization from within using their own laws.”
➡ If this is not Kitman, then what is?
In India too:
- Public discourse: “Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb” (syncretic culture).
- Inner messaging: “Preparation for Ghazwa-e-Hind” (Islamic conquest of India).
Public peace, private prepping.
10. Instead of Conclusion — Questions for You
- Are preachers in India quoting 5:32 while suppressing 5:33? Is that not Kitman?
- Do Indian Muslims know the full context of these verses?
- If they do, why is only the “peaceful half-truth” presented publicly?
- In democratic and pluralistic India, is there a hidden desire or strategy to gradually introduce such laws?
11. Kitman — Not a Background of Peace, but a Cloak of Half-Truths
Kitman teaches: “As long as the other side believes your words, never reveal the full truth.”
It is not merely a communication tactic — it strangles transparency and betrays trust in the name of faith.
Final lines:
- “Kitman is the silence that suffocates truth.”
- “A religion that permits half-truths can never be the representative of complete truth.”
Next Article Preview:
Article 2: Verse 5:33 and Muharibah — Punishment for Disobeying the Messenger
📢 Did you find this article useful?
🙏 Support our work by clicking here.