Legal lessons from the hadith:
Having completed our examination of the hadith’s authenticity and refuted the claim that it is defective due to interpolation, I shall now quote for the esteemed reader what al-Nawawi—may Allah have mercy on him—said in his commentary on the hadith:
“Al-Qadi said: There is no disagreement concerning the permissibility of lying in these situations. They differed, however, as to what is meant by the lying that is permitted in them. One group held that it is unrestricted, allowing one to say whatever serves the interest in these circumstances. They maintained that blameworthy lying is that which causes harm, and cited as evidence Abraham’s words, peace be upon him: ‘Rather, this largest one of them did it’; ‘Indeed, I am ill’; and his words, ‘She is my sister’; as well as the caller of Joseph’s words, peace be upon him: ‘O caravan, you are surely thieves.’
They said: There is likewise no disagreement that, if an oppressor intended to kill a man who was concealed with someone, he would be obliged to lie by saying that he did not know where he was.
Others, including al-Tabari, said: Lying is not permissible under any circumstances whatsoever. They said that what has been reported concerning its permissibility in such cases refers instead to equivocation and indirect wording, not to outright lying. For example, a man may promise his wife that he will treat her well and clothe her in such-and-such, while inwardly intending: ‘If Allah decrees that I am able to do so.’
In short, he uses words with more than one possible meaning, from which the listener understands what will please him. When seeking reconciliation, he may convey pleasant words from one party to the other, and likewise from the latter to the former, while employing equivocation. The same applies in war: he may tell his enemy, ‘Your greatest leader has died,’ while intending one of their leaders from bygone times; or, ‘Tomorrow reinforcements will come to us,’ intending food and the like. All of this is permissible indirect wording. They interpreted the accounts of Abraham and Joseph, and similar reports, in this light. And Allah knows best.”
I say: It is clear to anyone of insight that the view of the first group is the weightier one and more consonant with the apparent meaning of these hadiths. The interpretation adopted by the other group—namely, construing them as referring to indirect wording—is plainly far-fetched, especially in the case of lying in war.
For its permissibility is too clear to require proof. Therefore, al-Hafiz said in al-Fath (6/119): “Al-Nawawi said: The apparent meaning is that actual lying is permitted in the three cases, though indirect wording is preferable. Ibn al-‘Arabi said: Lying in war is among the exceptions permitted by textual evidence, out of consideration for the Muslims because of their need for it; reason has no place in this matter. Were the prohibition of lying based on reason, it would not—