Taqiyya تقية comes from the root word تقى (to fear) and وقى (to guard against). Its meaning connotes guarding oneself out of fear through whatever means, and - of course - in islamic jurisprudence becomes more complex. The accurate translation of the Taqiyya, would be dissimulation, which means to conceal one’s beliefs through displaying opposing views and actions. This differs from another concept known as Kitman, which is to conceal one’s beliefs through silence. However, they’re almost interchangeable entirely as many scholars like Shaykh al-Mufid describe them as the same. To conceal your beliefs differs from abandoning them, in the sense that when you conceal something you still hold onto that thing but keep it away from public display, while abandoning means to no longer associate oneself or affirm the correctness of that belief.
Al-Shaykh Murtadha al-Ansari (ra) defined taqiyya in his Risalat al-Taqiyya, (pg. 11):
والمراد هنا: التحفظ عن ضرر الغير بموافقته في قول أو فعل مخالف للحق
The meaning of (Taqiyya) is to protect oneself from harm caused by others by agreeing with them in word or action, even if it contradicts the truth.
The Salafi revivalist Rashid Raza simarily says in Tafsir al-Manar, (vol. 3, pg. 231):
التَّقِيَّةِ وَهِيَ مَا يُقَالُ أَوْ يُفْعَلُ مُخَالِفًا لِلْحَقِّ لِأَجَلِ توقِّي الضَّرَرِ
Taqiyyah is to say or act contrary to the truth in order to avoid any harm.
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani defined it in Fath al-Bari (vol. 22, pg. 280):
قُلْتُ: وَمَعْنَى التَّقِيّة الْحَذَرُ مِنْ إِظْهَارِ مَا فِي النَّفْسِ مِنْ مُعْتَقَدٍ وَغَيْرِهِ لِلْغَيرِ،
I say: The meaning of Taqiyyah is caution from disclosing what resides within a person, such as belief or otherwise, to others.
The clearest way to define Taqiyya in jurisprudence is: Concealing one’s religiosity, which may lead to expressions of irreligiosity, out of fear of harm. This is why Taqiyya is also similar to Taqwa (تقوى), as the shared root meaning (تقى) is to fear as mentioned earlier. It is permissible to practice this in situations where there is an overwhelming danger of loss of life or property, on the condition that no danger to the religion would occur thereby. In other words, Taqiyya may involve expressing sinful statements for the sake of protecting piety, such as one’s religion which may depend on him to publicly disassociate from it. In such scenarios, where no harm is brought to the religion, it is permissible thereby to practice Taqiyya. In other scenarios it may involve partaking in non-Islamic rituals, such as during the Catholic persecution of Muslims in Spain during the 15th century, where the Muslims were forced to outwardly practice Christianity such as baptizing themselves or otherwise be caught out and killed.
Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani identifies three different levels of Taqiyya in Shi’i jurisprudence, they are:
Obligatory Taqiyya: This is when the probability of intolerable harm befalling an individual is so high, and that the loss of life or property that befalls him would serve no benefit to society or the religion, then it becomes sinful for him to not practice Taqiyya as it is obligatory in said circumstance.
Recommended Taqiyya: This is when one fears that harm may befall him, and despite it not being of high magnitude, serves no significant purpose in enduring, and hence becomes recommended to practice Taqiyya.
Prohibited Taqiyya: Lastly, the scenario where Taqiyya to avoid enduring harm leads to corruption of religion or of communities, holds to be impermissible. Thereby, Taqiyya does not serve the religion nor the community, and rather only benefits one based on their own selfish pursuits. While this is still categorized as Taqiyya, as one fears harm to befall them, it is not permissible in this scenario.
Some jurists like Shaykh al-Ansari also mentions makruh (disliked) taqiyya, which is when the magnitude of harm befalling someone is tolerable, but endorsing it serves a purpose to either society or religion. In that case, it is better to be prevent taqiyya and endure the harm.
This is clear by many narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt (as), such as the following compiled by al-Shaykh Hurr al-’Amili from Wasa’il al-Shi’a, (vol. 11, pg. 469) [Al-Kafi]:
عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام في حديث إن المؤمن إذا أظهر الايمان ثم ظهر منه ما يدل على نقصه خرج مما وصف وأظهر وكان له ناقضا إلا أن يدعي أنه إنما عمل ذلك تقية، ومع ذلك ينظر فيه، فإن كان ليس مما يمكن أن تكون التقية في مثله لم يقبل منه ذلك، لان للتقية مواضع من أزالها عن مواضعها لم تستقم له وتفسير ما يتقى مثل أن يكون قوم سوء ظاهر حكمهم وفعلهم على غير حكم الحق وفعله، فكل شئ يعمل المؤمن بينهم لمكان التقية مما لا يؤدي إلى الفساد في الدين فإنه جائز.
Attributed to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (as): If a believer outwardly shows faith but then shows something indicating a deficiency, he departs from what he described and showed and it is considered nullified unless he claims that he did it out of taqiyya (dissimulation). Even with this claim, it should be examined; if it is something where taqiyya cannot be justified, it is not accepted from him. This is because taqiyya has specific contexts, and removing it from its proper contexts does not serve its purpose. The interpretation of what can be done under taqiyya is, for example, when there are evil people whose apparent rulings and actions are against the truth, any action the believer performs among them due to taqiyya, as long as it does not lead to corruption in the religion, is permissible.
In another authentic narration from al-Kafi we read:
عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ (عَلَيهِ السَّلام) قَالَ إِنَّمَا جُعِلَتِ التَّقِيَّةُ لِيُحْقَنَ بِهَا الدَّمُ فَإِذَا بَلَغَ الدَّمَ فَلَيْسَ تَقِيَّةٌ.
Imam al-Baqir (as) said: “Taqiyya was made to preserve blood, so when blood is involved, there is no taqiyya.”
Thus, Taqiyya’s application corresponds to the climate of the situation or era. For example, the Muslim’s practicing Taqiyya in the early advent of Mecca was obligatory as the religion would have been harmed had they not concealed their faiths. In other settings, such as big scholars with large followings, are not in the same situation to be able to issue verdicts to permit corruption for the sake of protecting themselves from harms way. In that scenario, it would be impermissible as they would be permitting and misleading large populations even if their hands were forced to such - it is better that endure the hardship. Note: This scenario was meant specifically in regards to legislating corruption, such as a scholar saying homosexuality is permissible because he was forced to by powerful politicians or he’d be tortured. This doesn’t negate a scholar’s ability to practice Taqiyya altogether. (Later we will elaborate on this)
As a side note, the only people to reject taqiyya as a doctrine were the khawarij. Al-Shahrastani in his famous book, al-Milal wa al-Nahal, (vol. 1, pg. 142) states:
والسادسة: ان التقية غير جائزة في قول ولا عمل
The sixth characteristic of the Khawarij is that they consider the act of Taqiyyah to be unlawful either verbally or practically.
Comentarios