In this chapter the honourable author has provided very basic information about Taqiyya, without explaining its nomenclature and the places of its enactment. We shall address these issues in the following pages.

Literal meanings of Taqiyya were fear or fright. In its application - it meant concealing one’s religious views, due to fear of loss of life or reverence and then to say something that was against the true facts.

This was one of those complex issues for which our opponents had always ridiculed us, although it was a natural phenomenon, which was needed to protect any minority in a hostile environment, irrespective of its religious creed. If weak and fragile people had not used the mode of Taqiyya in aggressive societies, then they would have long perished from the scene.

How was it possible that Islam, which was a natural religion would ban the natural requirement of survival for a frail group of people. That is why the founder of Islam and its saviours had not only allowed its application but also stressed on its significance. Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) had said, “There was nothing dearer to me on this planet than the concept of Taqiyya.”

He had also said that there was no religion for a man, who refused to accept Taqiyya.

First Argument - Qur’anic Verse For Qualifying Taqiyya

It has been mentioned in Surah Al-Nahl:

مَن كَفَرَ بِاللَّهِ مِن بَعْدِ إِيمَانِهِ إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِ وَلَٰكِن مَّن شَرَحَ بِالْكُفْرِ صَدْرًا فَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

“He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief - on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement” (16:106).

Commentators of the Qur’an have agreed that this was the basic Qur’anic Verse in support of Taqiyya.

It was mentioned in Tafsir al-Baidhaavi and Tafsir al-Kashaf that once the infidels of Makkah had captured Ammar and his parents - Yasir and Sumayya. They were then forced to say a few words of infidelity. Ammar’s parents refused to obey the call so they were murdered in cold blood, but Ammar saved his life by obeying the infidels. Some people complained to the Prophet that Ammar had reverted to Kufr. The Prophet replied, “Don’t say this? Ammar is full of faith from head to toe and the faith has penetrated his flesh and blood.”

Meanwhile, Ammar reached the presence of the Prophet, who wiped his tears and said, “If infidels force you to reiterate those words again then you should repeat it without any fear.”

The above Verse was revealed to strengthen the faith of Muslims. Qadhi Baidhaavi wrote that this Verse was a licence to say unwanted things at a time of crisis for saving life.

Second Argument

It was clearly mentioned in Surah Ale Imran:

لَّا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَٰلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَيْءٍ إِلَّا أَن تَتَّقُوا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللَّهُ نَفْسَهُ وَإِلَى اللَّهِ الْمَصِيرُ

“Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah” (3:28).

This Verse provided an argument that under normal conditions the friendship with the infidels was prohibited, unless one was fearful for his life. This Verse used the phrase

إِلَّا أَن تَتَّقُوا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً

Illa an-tattaqu minhum tuqata (3:28), and the word Tuqata according to the seven dialects of the Qur’an was pronounced as Taqiyya by Qitada and Abu Rija. Qadhi Baidhaavi wrote in his commentary that was published from Egypt, “God has prohibited friendship, openly or discreetly with the infidels, except when you are anxious about your life.”

Similarly, in Tafsir al-Nishapuri, Taqiyya was considered acceptable for safeguarding your life and property.

Third Argument

God, while praising a virtuous individual from the household of the Pharaoh said:

وَقَالَ رَجُلٌ مُّؤْمِنٌ مِّنْ آلِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَكْتُمُ إِيمَانَهُ

“And a believing man of Pharaoh's people who hid his faith said...” (40:28).

Yaktumu Imanahu - a believer from the household of Pharaoh, who concealed his faith said, “God’s praise for the man, who concealed his faith, was a proof that under duress one was allowed to say words of disloyalty.”

Moreover, this statement belonged to the Shariah of Moses (‘a), and the absence of its abolition in the Shariah of Muhammad (S) was a proof that the application of Taqiyya was a universal code of conduct.

Allama Novi wrote in his commentary of Sahih Muslim: “Leading scholars of Islamic law are unanimous that if a man is hiding in the protection of a person and a murderer reaches there with intent to kill and asks the occupier of that house regarding the alleged person or he is holding in custody some money belonging to another person and a usurper reaches there and asks for the money, then it is essential for him to hide the truth from the would-be assassin or the usurper deliberately.”

In the light of these facts, situation regarding Taqiyya became abundantly clear that even if it was declared as a lie, it was acceptable under those circumstances.

Addressing Some Doubts On Taqiyya

Taqiyya could be considered as a form of hypocrisy, since in both of these approaches, the thoughts of heart and words of mouth are not congruent. Since hypocrisy was illicit, therefore Taqiyya could also be deemed illegitimate.

To answer this claim, we would say that this supposition was baseless, as there was huge difference between the two acts. In Taqiyya, faith was concealed and in Kufr it was explicit. And, in hypocrisy, the infidelity was concealed and truth was exhibited. When two of these were different realities, it was unrealistic to equate them. This equation was wrong even in the eyes of those who considered presumption as an acceptable tool in religious legal matters.

In the beginning when Islam was weak, Taqiyya could be permissible. Now the Muslims are powerful and strong, therefore, this command was now redundant and therefore, illegal. This doubt was also unfounded because the removal of an act from the statutory books was different from keeping a code that had not been used for sometimes.

It was true that there was no need for Taqiyya to be practiced after the victory of Makkah, but this statement that it had been withdrawn from the legislative was a lie against the Prophet. You could not prove the abrogation of a code, unless there was a clear Qur’anic statement to do so. God says:

مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it” (2:106).

Allama Suyuti wrote in his Tafsir al-Ittaqan, “On the removal of a directive, one can rely on the evidence of any companion of the Prophet if a Verse that had annulled is presented. It is also said that in regard to naskh (abrogation), we cannot rely on the collective judicial conjectures of the specialists, unless a clear Qur’anic verdict is not available.”

If Taqiyya was correct, why Imam Al-Husayn (‘a) did not avail it. He had allowed his entire household to be sacrificed in the name of God, instead of committing oath of allegiance to Yazid. This doubt was also created by not understanding the true perspective of Taqiyya.

Although it was quite simple for us to say that if Taqiyya was not permissible then Imam Ali (‘a), in the time of Shaikhain and Imam Al-Hasan (‘a), during the period of Mu’awiyah, would not have employed it. However, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, we have explained it fully.

One must understand that Taqiyya was not a compulsory matter as mentioned in the text of the author’s paper, but according to the findings of researchers it was subjected to five dictates. It was sometimes mandatory, unacceptable, good, unpleasant or just permissible. On this basis, we could say that Amir Al-Mu’minin ’s silence during the caliphates of Shaykhain, or facing the enemy in the battles of Jamal and Siffin, Imam Al-Hasan’s initial armed engagement with Mu’awiyah and later peace, Imam Al-Husayn’s jihad or Imam Zayn Al-’Abidin’s imprisonments, seclusion of Imam Al-Baqir and Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq’s from the politics of the state - were all designed to safeguard the religion of Islam, and in reality, there was no difference between these tactics of various Imams.

Reasons For Apparent Conflict In The Imam’s Behaviour

It would be quite easy to understand that a change in circumstance could lead to adjustment in the modes for achieving a target. At the time of death of the holy Prophet, Islam was surrounded by external and internal threats. If at this moment Imam Ali (‘a) had fought to reclaim his right, then the civil war would have wrecked Islam in its infancy in Medina.

Imam Ali (‘a) himself admitted the state of affairs at that time. He said: I realised that if I had not helped Islam with my silence then it would have created a rift in Islam that would be hurting me more than the loss of caliphate.”

He made it plain that silence under Taqiyya was more useful for Islam at that time for him. However, when he was openly elected, he then earned the right to redress the situation. Some mischief mongers tried to impede his work and then the state of affairs permitted him to raise his sword against them, which resulted in the battles of Jamal, Siffin and Nehrawan.

Similarly, after the death of Amir Al-Mu’minin, when Imam Al-Hasan (‘a) got the seat of authority, the governor of Syria started spreading his conspiracies and tried to eliminate Imam Al-Hasan from the scene by bribing the commanders of his army in a cunning way. The situation became so grave that Imam was ambushed amid mandatory prayer. All his belongings, including his prayer mat were looted and his thigh was severely injured.

On the other hand, when Mu’awiyah offered him a peace treaty on suitable terms, Imam Al-Hasan (‘a) accepted this offer to safeguard the lives of innocent Muslims and the continuity of Islam. Any fair-minded Muslim could not deny these established historical facts. Many honest Sunni scholars accepted this point of view that Imam Al-Hasan (‘a) always considered Mu’awiyah, a usurper and not a legitimate ruler.

Imam Al-Husayn’s Circumstances Were Different From His Elders

Imam Husayn’s state was totally different from his predecessors, because his adversary Yazid was a person who allowed the forbidden and disregarded the signs of Islam, while openly showing his contempt for the religion. Under these circumstances it was essential for Imam Al-Husayn to declare Jihad against such a regime, even according to the minimum standards laid down by Sunni thinkers.

Shah Waliullah Mohaddas Dehlavi wrote in Hujjatatul Balegha, “When a caliph denies any one of the religious essentials and moves towards Kufr, then it is necessary to wage war against him, and this battle is pure Jihad.”

Under such conditions Imam Al-Husayn could never think of Taqiyya, because it would license the destruction of Islam forever. Who could be better judge than Imam himself, when he said, “If the religion of Muhammad (S) can be saved with my murder then let the swords come and penetrate my body.”

Another crucial difference that existed between his predecessors and him was that they were offered reconciliation on several occasions by their protagonists, but for Imam Al-Husayn (‘a),

there was only one choice - surrender to Yazid or die. If he chose alliance with Yazid he had to forgo his faith. If he refused then he had to die. Imam Al-Husayn (‘a) followed the route suggested by the Shariah and did what was necessary to safeguard Islam