Kila uongo ni haramu kwa hakika kutokana na andiko dhahiri la Qur'ani, na katazo lake ni miongoni mwa hukumu zinazojulikana katika dini kwa lazima, bila tofauti kati ya kuwa ni kwa manufaa ya Waislamu au maslahi ya dini au kinyume na hayo. Matini zimekuja zikilikataza kwa ujumla, kwa ukamilifu na bila sababu. Allah (SWT) amesema:

All lying is definitely haram due to a definite Qur’anic text, and its prohibition is among the rules known from the deen by necessity, without distinction as to whether it is for the benefit of Muslims or the interests of the deen or opposite to that. The texts came forbidding it generally, absolutely and without reasoning. Allah (swt) said:

Na Allah (SWT) akasema:

And Allah (swt) said:

Uamuzi huu, ukamilifu wake na ujumla wake, hauwezi kufanyiwa hoja, kuwekewa mipaka wala kubainishwa isipokuwa kwa maandishi mengine, na hakuna nafasi kwa akili isipokuwa kuelewa maandishi tu na si zaidi. Hakuja katika Sahih maandishi yoyote yanayotoa sababu au kuweka mipaka, iwe katika Kitabu au Sunnah. Kuhusu kubainisha maandishi, kuna maandishi yaliyotoka kuhusu jambo hilo yaliyotoa kutoka katika katazo la uongo mambo maalum ambayo peke yake ndiyo yalibainishwa; haifai kuyapita kwa namna yoyote ile. Hakuna kilichotolewa katika katazo la uongo isipokuwa kile kilichobainishwa kwa ushahidi katika hadithi zilizotajwa, nako ni: hali ya vita, kwa mwanamke, na kupatanisha baina ya watu wawili kutokana na maandishi kuhusu hayo. Ahmad, Muslim na Abu Dawud wamesimulia kutoka kwa Umm Kulthum bint ‘Uqbah, aliyesema:

This decision, its absoluteness and generality cannot be reasoned, restricted or specified except by another text, and there is no entry for the mind except to understand the text and nothing else. There did not come in the Sahih any text which gives any reasoning or restriction, whether in the Book or Sunnah. As for specifying the text, there came a text regarding it which excluded from the forbidding of lying specific things which alone were specified; it is not allowed to exceed them in any case whatsoever. Nothing is excluded from the forbidding of lying except what was specified by evidence of the mentioned in the ahadith namely: the situation of war, to the woman and reconciling between two due to the text about them. Ahmad, Muslim and Abu Dawud narrated from Umm Kulthum bint ‘Uqbah who said:

Kutoka kwa Asma bint Yazid aliyesema: Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema:

From Asma bint Yazid who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

Hawa watatu ni miongoni mwa wale waliotengwa na katazo la kusema uongo kwa mujibu wa hadithi sahihi, kwa hiyo uongo hauruhusiwi katika jambo jingine lolote, kwa kuwa hakuna kitu kilichotengwa na ujumla wa maandiko isipokuwa kile ambacho dalili imekibainisha pekee. Maneno "katika vita" yaliyokuja katika hadithi yana maana moja tu wala si zaidi, nayo ni hali ya vita halisi inayoendelea katika mambo ya vita, kwa hiyo uongo hauruhusiwi kabisa isipokuwa katika hali ya vita. Kuhusu yale yaliyothibitishwa kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ

These three are of those excluded from the forbidding of lying by an authentic text, so lying is not allowed in other than that as nothing is excluded from the generality of the text except what the evidence specifies alone. The word “in war” which came in the hadith has only one meaning and no more which is the situation of active war in the matter of war, so lying is absolutely not allowed except in the situation of war. As for what is authenticated from the Prophet (saw)

Maana yake ni kwamba alipokusudia jambo hakulionyesha. Kwa mfano, alipokusudia kupigana upande wa mashariki, alikuwa akiuliza kuhusu jambo upande wa magharibi, ili yule aliyemsikia na kumwona afikiri kwamba amekusudia upande wa magharibi. Kuhusu kusema waziwazi kwamba amekusudia magharibi ilhali nia yake halisi ilikuwa mashariki, hilo halikuwahi kutokea. Kwa hiyo hii si kutoa habari kinyume na uhalisia, bali ilikuwa tawriyya (maneno yenye maana mbili). Zaidi ya hayo, inaingia katika vita vya moja kwa moja, na suala la vita, kwa kuwa ni kwenda uwanjani kupigana na adui moja kwa moja, hivyo ni hila iliyokuja katika kauli yake ﷺ:

The meaning is that when he intended a matter he would not show it, such as when he intended to fight towards the direction of the east he would ask about a matter in the direction of the west so that the one who heard and saw him would think that he intended the direction of the west. As for his saying clearly of his intending the west whereas his (true) intention was the east, this never occurred. So this is not informing contrary to the reality but was rather double- entendre (tawriyya). Moreover, it enters into active war, and the matter of war, since it is going to the battlefield to fight the enemy actively so it is deceit which came in his (saw) statement:

Kuhusu yale yaliyosimuliwa na Jabir kwamba Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema:

As for what was narrated by Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

Hali hii pia ilikuwa katika hali ya vita. Hata kama maneno ya hadithi yanasema kwamba maneno aliyoyasema Muhammad bin Maslamah yalikuwa ya kweli, si ya uongo, kwa kuwa yalikuwa ni kauli ya kukwepa tu, lakini Muhammad bin Maslamah aliomba ruhusa ya kusema kila kitu, na ruhusa hiyo ilimpa. Basi ndani yake kuna ruhusa ya kusema uongo wazi na uongo wa kimafumbo, na inaingia katika hali ya vita. Kuhusu yale aliyoyasimulia Ahmad na An-Nasai kutoka kisa cha Al-Hajjaj bin ‘Ilat alipoomba ruhusa ya kusema juu yake chochote alichotaka kwa manufaa yake, katika kuokoa mali yake kutoka kwa watu wa Makka: Nabii ﷺ alimpa ruhusa hiyo, naye akawaambia watu wa Makka kwamba Khaybar imewashinda Waislamu. Hili pia linaingia katika hali ya vita, kwa kuwa watu wa Makka walikuwa katika hali ya vita halisi dhidi ya Waislamu. Al-Hajjaj bin ‘Ilat alikuwa miongoni mwa Waislamu, naye alikuwa akienda kwa makafiri maadui waliokuwa katika hali ya vita halisi, hivyo kusema uongo dhidi yao kulikuwa kumeruhusiwa. Ruhusa ya kusema uongo haikomei uwanjani wa vita wala kwa wapiganaji pekee; bali inaruhusiwa kwa Waislamu kusema uongo dhidi ya maadui zao, makafiri, ikiwa wako katika hali ya vita halisi nao. Kuhusu kile kilichotolewa na At-Tabarani katika Al-Awsat:

This was also in the situation of war. Even if the words of the hadith state that the words which Muhammad bin Maslamah said were true, not false, as it was only allusion but Muhammad bin Maslamah asked permission to say everything and it was permitted to him. So it enters within it the permission to lie explicitly and metaphorically, and it enters into the situation of war. As for what Ahmad and An-Nisai narrated from the tale of Al-Hajjaj bin ‘Ilat in his seeking permission to say about him whatever he wished for his benefit in rescuing his property from the people of Makkah. The Prophet (saw) gave him permission and he informed the people of Makkah that Khayber had defeated the Muslims; this also enters into the situation of war because the people of Makkah were in a situation of active war with the Muslims. Al-Hajjaj bin ‘Ilat was from the Muslims and he was going to the enemy disbelievers who were in the situation of active war, so lying was allowed against them. The permission of lying is not restricted to the battlefield nor to fighters; rather it is allowed for the Muslims to lie against their enemies, the disbelievers, if they are in the situation of active war with them. As for was extracted by At-Tabarani in Al-Awsat:

Nimefanya tafsiri hapa, lakini naona maandishi ya asili hayajakamilika: umeandika "This is in Al-Bazzar with the words:" pekee, bila matini yenyewe. Tafadhali nakili na ubandike maneno ya hadithi au maandishi unayotaka nitafsiri kutoka Al-Bazzar, nami nitayatafsiri kwa Kiswahili.

This is in Al-Bazzar with the words:

Ilisemwa katika Majma' Al-Zawaid: Katika mnyororo wake (wa wapokezi) yumo Rushdayn na Abdurrahman bin Ziyad bin An'am, na wote wawili ni dhaifu, kwa hiyo ni hadithi dhaifu ambayo inakataliwa na haitumiki kama ushahidi. Hivyo haifai kuwa dalili.

It was said in Majmu’ Al-Zawaid: In its chain is Rushdayn and Abdurrahman bin Ziyad bin An’am, and both are weak so it is a weak hadith which is rejected and not used as a proof. So it is not suitable as evidence.

Kwa hiyo basi, uwongo wote ni haramu na hairuhusiwi isipokuwa katika mambo matatu: vitani, kupatanisha watu, na hadithi ya mwanamume kwa mkewe na hadithi ya mwanamke kwa mumewe. Kila kingine ni haramu bila shaka, kwa kuwa katazo la uwongo lilikuja kwa ujumla katika Qur'ani likihusisha uwongo wote. Kisha hadithi ikaja kulibainisha katika mambo mengine yasiyokuwa vitani, kupatanisha watu, na hadithi ya mwanamume kwa mkewe na hadithi ya mwanamke kwa mumewe. Ikayatoa mambo haya matatu katika katazo hilo, hivyo ni hayo pekee yanayoruhusiwa, na kila kingine ni haramu. Hasa kwa kuwa hadithi ilizuia ruhusa hiyo kwa mambo matatu tu, na ikasema:

Accordingly all lying is haram and not allowed except in three (matters): in war, reconciling between people, and the story of the man to his wife and the story of the woman to her husband. Everything else is definitely haram as the forbiddance of lying came generally in the Qur’an covering all lying, then the hadith came specifying it in other than war, reconciling between people, and the story of the man to his wife and the story of the woman to her husband. It excluded these three from the forbidding so they alone are allowed and everything else is haram. Particularly since the hadith restricted the permissibility to three and said:

Na

And

Hii inamaanisha kwamba kila kitu kingine ni haramu. Hadithi zote zilizokuja ziko katika hali ya vita vya kweli; hadithi zote nyingine zaidi yake ni dhaifu na hazitumiki kama ushahidi (s)

Etc. This restriction means all other is haram. All the ahadith which came are in the situation of active war; all ahadith other than them are weak and are not used as proof (s)

Kuhusu taqiyya/tawriya (kuficha maana kwa kutumia neno lenye maana mbili) katika mambo yasiyo ya vita: ikiwa msikilizaji anaelewa neno kinyume na ukweli, yaani neno halionyeshi ukweli bali kitu kingine kwa lugha au kwa matumizi ya kitaalamu baina ya msemaji na msikilizaji, basi hiyo ni uongo ambao hairuhusiwi. Kwa mfano, kundi fulani likitoa maana ya kitaalamu kwa neno, kisha likalisema kwa mtu asiyejua maana hiyo ya kitaalamu, au ikiwa ni maana ya kitaalamu kwa msemaji lakini msikilizaji hajui, yote haya ni uongo usioruhusiwa. Hata kama ni tawriya kwa upande wa msemaji, lakini msikilizaji anaelewa kutoka kwa neno kinyume na ukweli, basi haihesabiwi kuwa aina ya tawriya na hairuhusiwi. Kwa upande mwingine, pale ambapo msikilizaji anaelewa kutoka kwa neno ukweli pamoja na kitu kingine, hii ni katika aina za balagha (ufasaha wa lugha). Ni kweli wala si uongo, kama vile watu wanavyomwambia mwenye jicho lenye kuhama: "Laiti macho yake mawili yangekuwa sawa," maneno ambayo yanafaa kuwa dua kwa ajili yake au dhidi yake. Tawriya ni kwamba neno lina maana mbili, moja iliyo karibu na nyingine iliyo mbali; msemaji anakusudia maana iliyo mbali, na msikilizaji anaelewa maana iliyo karibu. Katika hali hii, ingawa msikilizaji anaelewa kinyume na alichokusudia msemaji, hata hivyo haelewi kinyume na ukweli unaoonyeshwa na sentensi. Mtume ﷺ alitumia tawriya. Katika Sahih al-Bukhari, Anas bin Malik (ra) amesema:

As for dissimulation/double entendre in other than war, if the listener understands it contrary to the reality such as where the word does not indicate the reality and something else linguistically or in technical usage generally with the speaker and listener, it is lying which is not allowed. Such as where a specific group gives a technical definition for a word and then say it to someone who does not know this technical definition or where it is a technical definition for a speaker but the listener does not know it, all of this is lying which is not allowed. Even if it were dissimulation/double entendre by the speaker but the listener understands from the word the opposite to the reality, so it is not considered from the type of double entendre (tawriyya) and is not allowed. As for where it is understood from the word is the reality and something else, this is from the species of eloquence (balagha). It is truth and not lying like their saying to the squint eyed: ‘If only both his eyes were equal’, it is suitable as an invocation for or against him. Dissimulation is that the word has two meanings, one which is near and the other remote; the speaker intends the remote meaning while the listener understands (it as) the near meaning. In this situation, even though the listener understands contrary to what the speaker intends nevertheless he does not understand contrary to the reality indicated by the sentence. The Prophet (saw) used dissimulation. In Sahih Al-Bukhari that Anas bin Malik (ra) said: