Talk:Taqiyya

Older discussions can be found in the Talk archive at Talk:Taqiyya/Archive 1.

Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and note the following guideline: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article."

Christian "deception" to save Jewish lives

Personally, I do not know what Taqiyya means. I believe that "deception" may be used to save a life when a fellow human being is in imminent danger. However, deception should never be used to protect a religion, whatever that religion may be. A religion must be able to stand scrutiny on its own. Religions contain faith in the unseen (God, justice, angels, resurrection, etc). Nevertheless Man has always desired faith to give him hope in, what many perceive as, a fallen world. Faith is rarely accepted because it was proven (even rejected when attempted), only when it is experienced.

Here is an example of righteous "deception":

During the Holocaust, the Nazis searched households to find Jews. There were Christians (such as the Ten-Booms in the Netherlands, that purposely deceived the Nazis. they hid Jews in their homes, because they were merciful.

When human life itself is in danger from injustice and oppressive rule, then life must be protected - especially when it involves eliminating a people, whoever the people may be.

It would be of extreme interest to me if there were any Muslims who hid Jews from oppressors or murderers. 03:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)03:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)98.218.117.222 (talk)Fred E.

The talk pages are not meant to be a debate about the subject of the article, but rather to discuss improvements to the article. We're not supposed to be talking about whether Taqiyya (or Islam) is good or bad, but rather what the article on Taqiyya is lacking or how the article can be improved. If you have reliable sources for your claims and they are relevant, then be bold and add those claims to the article. Vivaldi (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia mentions several Muslims recognized for saving Jews during the Holocaust, see here Category:Muslim Righteous Among the Nations. Although frankly I see no connection between this topic and taqiyya doctrine. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think 98's question was whether the Muslim concept can be stretched from "concealing your religion to save yourself" to "concealing another person's religion to save him". If that's how he meant it, then it's not a debate about the subject. He's wondering whether the scope of the article includes the practice of "saving others".

Perhaps a more general topic would be deception in religion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Taqiya in debates

I deleted an entire section about Muslims "accused of using Taqiya in debates". The section was unclear.

If we are referring to political leaders lying merely to gain advantage - as in propaganda statements and PR campaigns - then the term surely does not apply. The accusation would simply be that they were lying.

On the other hand, if such a leader were caught lying (or simply accused of it), and he himself invoked the principle of taqiya, that ought to go in the article.

The general subject of whether politicians ever (gasp, choke) lie when making public statements is beyond the scope of this article. But in the US at least - with its relatively high degree of accountability, politicians are right down there with lawyers and used care salesmen in terms of generally reliability and honesty. Perhaps in other places where standards of accountability are lower, things are worse. But that would have to be documented; I don't add speculation to articles: I take it out. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So you think that the section should be removed because the term "taqiyya" clearly does not apply in the situations in which Western pundits have used it? That's basically the counterargument made by some of the pundits cited in this section, but it's not Wikipedia's job to decide which side in a political argument is right, let alone to ignore an issue entirely because we've decided that one side is obviously wrong. The accusations you're dismissing deserve to be mentioned in Wikipedia because they've been made and responded to by high-profile political commentators. This isn't an argument made solely by a lunatic fringe that can be ignored. The article's "scope" should be defined by the contexts in which taqiyya is used and discussed in the real world. These political arguments are probably the context in which "taqiyya" is most familiar to Western readers; a lot more could probably be written about it than this short section.Prezbo (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Taqiyya limited to Shia ONLY

I added researched and source cited information that was deleted by someone in minutes.

This is what I added:

Copy/pasted copyright violation redacted. As mentioned below, content can be found at http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war Fat&Happy (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This MEF (Middle Eastern Forum) is an Islamaphobic, venomous site, completely opposed to Islam. That is the source of the above info. They would not tell the truth about Islam if they were PAID to do so!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeucePrez (talk • contribs) 19:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.40.254 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Other than the above being a particularly stilted view on Taqiyya, it is copy pasted from http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war. This is a copyright violation. Stile4aly (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The information contained in that book is in contravention of the Wikipedia approved point of view in this article, and as such, is prohibited. Please do not post information which contradicts the dominant point of view. 11:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.230.12.199 (talk)

There is no "Wikipedia approved point of view", and as this is a verifiable definition of the word, it needs to be added to the article to ensure WP:NPOV. I agreed with the removal of a wholesale quotation from another website, but I'm adding the neutrality tag until this can be dealt with. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy has been debunked here http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/taqiyya-the-ultimate-intellectual-cop-out/ and here http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/the_taqiyya_libel_against_muslims/ Patel.masoodkhan (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not seeing this comment before.

http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/15/silencing-spencer-taqiyya-and-kitman-are-part-of-judeo-christian-belief/ is much better than the first of your cites, since it addresses the war/jihad exception and discusses various Islamic doctrines against (e.g.) betraying oaths of citizenship or visa status. Regardless, the article as it stands remains misinformed about Sunni exceptions to truth-telling and omits a voluble controversy it would be better to discuss and debunk than gloss over.

Readded tag. -LlywelynII 11:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Spencer is not reliable. Do you have any other reliable sources for the above claims ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would add that Raymond Ibrahim's article was criticized on Jane's List. What's partcularly odd about this is that Daniel Pipes has in the past publicly stated that he doesn't subscribe the the "taqiyya meme" and agrees that it is only a shia practice. See his comment here. There are several other instances where I've seen him make similar statements in the past, which at one point were posted in this article, but are now buried in the archived. Perhaps he's since modified his views? At the same time, I think the article has avoids the topic of current discourse altogether prehaps a little too much. Sheila Musaji's article is an effective rebuttal.Jemiljan (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately Musaji's article is not reliable because it is unscholarly and has no editorial staff of any significance, whereas the MEQ is scholarly and has an editorial staff who are specialised in this field, and thus cannot be discarded as unreliable. Davidelah (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern use

Shouldnt there be some mention of how it is used by people critical of Islam? Im not sure how to go about this, especially since it is a hot issue. --Metallurgist (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I won't get into a debate about this, but just to point out past history in case you're unaware: I wrote a section about this, which User:Ed Poor removed a few months ago, and which you can find us arguing about farther up this talk page.Prezbo (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You couldve fought it more and an admin wouldve probably sided with you because theres no reason to delete it, since it IS a usage. That particular write-up may be a bit deficient, but maybe I could whip up something that gives a good history of its usage. Or that could be put back, or both (not meaning to offend your work). It definitely deserves a say if you ask me, because I have seen it used quite a bit.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do. At present this article presents a very one-sided view of the issue; taqiyya as religious deception is well documented, and must be in the article (and as a primary meaning of the term). I deleted a section on this not long ago because it appeared to be a copyvio (and had other issues) - not because of any inaccuracy of what it included. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 01:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the copyright issues, the source is not reliable. I've tried searching for this "Sami Mukaram" to whom the wall of text is attributed to and found nothing but the exact same claim: "Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam" being repeated on anti-Islam spam websites. Any paragraph added must cite reliable sources. Al-Andalusi (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Middle East Quarterly is a reliable source so that's an invalid objection. A copyvio OTOH is a valid objection. The material should be rewritten per WP policy and put back. 203.184.15.5 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Expert attention required

I have placed an {{Expert-subject}} template on this article.

The article and its talk page have become a virtual cauldron of dueling opinions, tafsirs and fatwas. To the average outsider trying to maintain a neutral point of view, it is difficult to distinguish mainstream from fringe Islamic viewpoints on the subject (not to mention outside views and accusations). Understanding that, like Judaism and most Christian sects, Islam is not monolithic, it should still be possible to assess the extent to which various views are generally accepted. Particularly needed is a verifiable description of the differences between Sunni and Shi'a views, with some attention to other categories such as Twelver, Sufism, Wahhabism or other movements which may have differences. Viewpoints casting taqiyya as a "license to lie" need to be addressed from mainstream, reliable sources as well.Fat&Happy (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work, first of all. I just added this page to a high-priority on WikiIslam (especially to Shias). I know that Muslims are a minority around here, and I see a lot of pressure to push bias POVs around. I've been spending around 10 hours a day, for a couple of months, just to protect certain pages from these bias changes. I'll try to get involved in some of the discussions here, based on my very limited time, hoping that someone shows-up soon to clean it up.

The term is actually not as strong as similar activities: like Russians and Israelis, using their women to sleep with Muslims to get informations out of them (I don't know what it's called). I'll just make sure that the term doesn't get overrated here, and that Sunnis (the majority) don't recognize Taqiyya. See you around, and let me know if there's an urgent matter you want me to get involved in. AdvertAdam ^talk 09:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Questionable sources

I am looking through the source right now, and there is no way this website meets Wikipedia's standards. That, and the fact that it goes against 99% of what scholarly sources state. The Scythian 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Based on the history of the article, I tend to agree with you about accuracy, but not about whether the source meets WP:RS. The problem, in both cases, is that I just don't know. I did not originate either of the two portions of content which you deleted, but have looked at the source (and another similar one with similar content), decided it looks reasonable – if possibly misinterpreted – and have reverted several attempts to delete it without explanation. I also placed an {{Expert-subject}} tag on the article, requesting review by someone from the Islam project, and added a brief explanation above. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If fact, the cited blog/page does not mention Taqiyya at all, or any equivalent Sunni concept. I cites a some Koranic versus, but no direct mention of the 14th century scholar, whom it cites. Whomever added this link and source, appears to have an agenda to tie in a Shia concept to Sunni Islam. I would argue that this is both fringe, and involves original research. Not to mention the credibility of the site itself. We definitely need to bring in a non-bias third party for commentary. The more, the better. The Scythian 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the passage the original editor was originally referring to was probably:

Allah said next,
[إِلاَ أَن تَتَّقُواْ مِنْهُمْ تُقَـةً]
(unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them." Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection." Allah said,
[وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللَّهُ نَفْسَهُ]

(I don't know if I got the language templates right, but it can be viewed in the original.)

This would assume that Tuqyah is an alternate transliteration of Taqiyya. To check further, the parent site is http://www.quraan.com/. The Tafsir of ibn Kathir is an actual set of books (available at Amazon), so the questions would seem to be 1) whether that is a reliable source; 2) whether the web site is an accurate transcription; and 3) if both the previous questions are answered "yes", what content can be added in reliance on the source without being original research. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys for the interruption. I'm trying to follow-up the open discussions, moreover, having a hard time to identify the topics, as some relate to others. I hope anyone can tell me of what edit are these two versus relating to.

Just a quick detail, as there's a bit difference between clarifying the Qur'an and Bible. The Qur'an has something called tafsir; which explains why each verse was revealed, the story behind it, and its meaning. I believe it's considered a primary source for one major reason: it explains one verse at a time, so the meaning can be misunderstood without reading the surrounding versus. I've seen editors misleading readers by using them, which is basically taking texture out of context. I can get you some reliable sources on a certain topic if you'd like. AdvertAdam ^talk 12:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow. This one required a bit of a memory & history search... There had been a rather prolonged mini edit war between a new editor and myself earlier in March, but reasonable discussion only began when The Scythian got involved on April 3, so the most relevant four edits would be here, here, here, and here. The specific issue was whether an online extract from the tafsir of ibn Kathir, without any added commentary, was a blog or a reliable secondary source; you have now added the third possibility of reliable (but not usable in Wikipedia) primary source. In any case, this specific discussion seems to have been amicably terminated – or possibly more accurately, tabled pending the arrival of someone better versed in the subject of Islamic beliefs – but as you can see elsewhere the larger question of sourcing remains. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The quotes of Ibn Kathir

The passage quoting Ibn Kathir's tafsir does not seem to match the actual link to it:

Ibn Kathir, a prominent authority writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's companion, al-Hassan, who said, "taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]."

I suggest that this be changed to match the source more accurately, to e.g.:

Ibn Kathir, a prominent authority writes, "except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's companions: Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them. Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]."

The old passage should at least provide another link to match the sentence "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidelah (talk • contribs) 14:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Taqiyya limited to Shia only?

The question whether Taqiyya is limited to Shia Islam can be understood in two ways: if there is a recognized doctrine of taqiyya in Sunni Islamic Law, or whether enough mainstream prominent Sunni scholars gives permision to such a degree of deception that it could be characterised as taqiyya from a Shia point of view.

I will try answer it in the second way.

The concept of deception (taqiyya) by Quranic sanctioning is usually based Qur'an 3:28 which says:

[Pickthall] Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.[1]

Some mainstream prominent Sunni authors of tafsīr (mufassir) explain the verse in this way:

Tabari (d. 923) If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[Emphasis added] [2][3]

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) ...except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].[Emphasis added] [4][5]

Suyuti (d. 1505) - unless you protect yourselves against them,[non-Muslims] as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts: this was before the hegemony of Islam and [the dispensation] applies to any individual residing in a land with no say in it. [Emphasis added] [6]Tafsir al-Jalalayn, p. 131.

These mainstream Sunni scholars seems to suggest that under certain circumstances a form af assumed friendly or un-islamic behavior is allowed for Sunnis who fear for their safety. These points of views should also be included in the article so as to get a broader picture of how scholars approach the subject of deception in Islam, at least from a Quranic sanctioned perspective. Davidelah (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To expand on whether this has been in some way incorporated into Sunni Islamic law we can examine an Islamic law manuel. In Reliance of the Traveler[7], in Book R, “Holding One’s Tongue,” one finds sections on “Lying” (r8.0) and “Permissible Lying,” (r8.2). These cite the iconic Islamic legal jurist Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali:

Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…[Emphasis added] [8][9] Davidelah (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To see a deeper explanation from an Islamic perspective about the Shi'ite doctrine of taqiyya and on whether this has any parallels in Sunni Islam here are links to A Shi'ite Encyclopedia, Version 2.0 October 1995, Revised January 2001, al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation part 1, 2 and 3 Davidelah (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Islam and Islamic law out of context?

The Quran disapproves of deceiving. It says, "Surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar."(40:28) Yet, Quranic verses and statements attributed to Muhammed in hadiths provide exceptions for the usual prohibitions on lying. For example, Reliance of the Traveler provides practical examples of where lying even to Muslims can be appropriate: "Giving directions to someone who wants to do wrong…" is one example, explaining that "It is not permissible to give directions and the like to someone intending to perpetrate a sin, because it is helping another to commit disobedience." Such disobedience, as understood under Islamic law, is defined as: "Giving directions to wrongdoers includes: (1) showing the way to policemen and tyrants when they are going to commit injustice and corruption."[10]

Reliance also shows quotes from Muhammed in which there are other grounds for lying (even to Muslims): "He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar." And "I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him (in smoothing over differences.)"[11]

To sum these findings up the Islamic law manuel writes: This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful. The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali. And then it quotes Ghazali as above.[12]

Is Reliance Of The Traveller reliable?

This is of course a classical manuel on Islamic law so it should be. The quotes from Abu Hamid Ghazali was probably added in the latest translation by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, but which was also given endorsements by various high profile figures and institutions as can be seen here. For example, Al-Azhar rights: We certify that this translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.

A quote from the "Sunni point of view" would be of Sami Makarem who is a professor on Islamic Thought. In his book Al Taqiyya fil Islam (Dissimulation in Islam), 2004, he writes:

Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream...Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[emphasis added]

Sami Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi 'l-Islam (London: Mu'assisat at-Turath ad-Druzi, 2004), p. 7, Raymond Ibrahim's translation[13] and page 10 Davidelah (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it goes back to Ibn Kathir once again. The first link you placed was to the "Middle East Forum," run by Daniel Pipes. Pipes is a noted Islamophobe, so perhaps a better source ought to be found? As for Ibn Kathir, it would appear he interpreted a notion of "Taqiyya", but is it a common place concept and usage by Sunnis both traditionally and in the modern world? I would like to see a scholarly publication, such as the Near East Studies department of a major university, lay this out. Using fringe sources, such as Daniel Pipes, would lead to highly biased inaccuracy, I believe. The Scythian 04:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The other two links is directly from Islamic websides based upon mainstream tafsir that helps muslims to understand their religion. I would argue that these should hold authority since the primary source of Islamic law is the Qur'an (i.e. the interpretation thereof), the others are the Sunnah (hadith and sira), qiyas (analogical reasoning) and ijma (consensus). As for the source of Tabari, the link will show that it is a book (Abu Ja'far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami' al-Bayan 'an ta'wil ayi'l-Qur'an al-Ma'ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari (Beirut: Dar Ihya' at-Turath al-'Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, Raymond Ibrahim's translation). To compliment this link a have added a new one[14] from an Islamic webside in Arabic that shows how Raymond Ibrahim's translation match the original in Arabic (auto-translated by Google to some degree).

As for the "Middle East Forum," I see no reason to assume that all the articles in there represent the views of Daniel Pipes, and this one was written by Raymond Ibrahim. Secondly, Daniel Pipes to my knowledge have not been declared as having an irrational view of Islam (in the critical way, e.i. Islamophobe) by any large amount of experts in the same field, his views on traditional Islam seems to me to be much in line with, for example, the prominent historian Bernard Lewis.

And as for more scholars to speak on this subject of taqiyya or deception in Islam, it seems to me this subject is a source of some tensions in current times. Because of this I would suggest that the article relies more, to a certain degree, on primary source material like the above sources. Davidelah (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the current contentiousness of the subject is a reason to avoid synthesis based on translations of primary sources rather than a reason to encourage it. Religious texts, and interpretations of them, fill entire rooms of libraries. By careful selection, they can be shown to support almost any view imaginable, as demonstrated here.

Since this article seems to be rather an orphan when it comes to being visited by subject-matter experts, perhaps the few interested editors need to reach out instead. It's beginning to look like a trip to WP:RSN is indicated for the various sources discussed above. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To adress the point about selecting primary sources to "support almost any view imaginable" I will point out that the Quran may be the primary source but the commetary on the Quran (tafsir) is designed to put the Quranic verses in context so to make them clearer. In case the commentaries should have been taken out of there own context I have provided the links to the respective sources to make this falsifiable.

To adress the point about making analogies (either true or false) between different religions, I think it is important to take religions on their own terms (for example by not making analogies or equivalence between religious texts, such as the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita or the Vinaya Pitaka). The Quran is supposed to be a book of guidance in Islam and, as mentioned, is the primary source of Sharia, which is the code of conduct and law in Islam that covers virtually every aspect of life and society. This is at least doctrinal how these things is supposed to work traditionally. The purpose of mentioning this is to give a frame to look through in a way that is more in line with how Islam and its aspects is to be understood. Davidelah (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not follow what you are saying here. Take a religion on it's own terms? There is an entire field of scholarly study called "comparative religion." The Koran is the primary religious text of Islam, but religious text is open to a huge degree of interpretation, exactly like the Bible is within Christianity. Islam is not one homogenous block. The notion of Sharia law, as you put it, and how and if it is implemented, has a huge degree of fluidly. It also has nothing to do with this article that I can see. Creating a frame to view this subject? Perhaps a frame by which you want people reading this article to view it. That is a form of bias. This article should be neutral. The Scythian 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, my concern here was simply that someone with another religious background could tend to think of religions in terms of his own (e.g. Christianity), as Fat&Happy, in a sort of way, seemed to me. That was all. Davidelah (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am an atheist. I think all religions are crap. Can't get more neutral than that. The Scythian 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can say that my background probably isn't that different, but I realise that all belief systems aren't the same none the less, and have different traditions, but this is my own neutral assesment. Davidelah (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipes is a very controversial[15] figure, and is in fact a source that is utilized by many Islamophobes[16], when trying to paint every aspect of a very diverse religion with one broad brush. Such as the case with Taqiyia. Better to find a more reasonable and reliable source, if we wish this article to be legit. His website included. After all, it is "his" website, and openly reflects his views. The argument here is not wither "Taqiyia" exists. It most certainly does. The question is what "aspects" of Islam recognize as actively use the concept. Shiaism clearly does, without exception. Shia Islam is hierarchical, so there is little debate that it widely held as a view by Shia Moslems. Sunni Islam? Well, that is not so simple. Trying to connect a Shia concept such as Taqiya with the diverse world of Sunni Islam, is like trying to connect Catholic canon law with the diverse world of Protestant Christianity. I am very skeptical of sources that do, for the simple reason that many are fringe and bias driven. If certain elements of Sunni Islam practice a similar concept by another name, that is one thing that might deserve minor note. I have yet to see a reliable source that actually shows a concept called Taqiya as a term for a practice utilized widely by and within Sunni Islam. The Scythian 00:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is still difficult to claim that the "Middle East Quarterly" even with Daniel Pipes as publisher reflects all his views or agreements but only that of Raymond Ibrahim's, but even if we take Ibrahim out of the equation there is still two (in addition to the one in arabic) Islamic websides which is not made by Daniel Pipes, so the relevancy of this is not that significant.

These tafsirs do not suggest there is a doctrine called Taqiyya in Sunni Islam, but only that a certain amount of deception is allowed (remember the Quran's place as a book of guidance in Islam). To expand on whether lying under certain circumstances is permissible in Sunni Islamic law, I have added a quote from an Islamic law manuel. [17] Davidelah (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But this is not the whether lying under certain circumstances is permissible in Sunni Islamic law article, it's the Taqiyya article, about a specific topic of Islamic doctrine, the accepted meanings of the doctrine and the groups that accept it. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I could not agree more. This new user appears to be on some kind of "fishing expedition" to include what amounts to a very biased view into an article that is simply defining a term and concept. The article is about Taqiya, and not about a similar Sunni concept of it, if it even exist. Even worse, trying to interpret religious texts, like he is doing, is clearly original research. The Scythian 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

About "trying to interpret religious texts" I would stress that the Tafsir and Islamic law manuel are interpretation of religious texts by Islamic authorities. To demonstrate that these are not just "original research" I have added an in-depth explanation of Taqiyya from a Shi'ite Encyclopedia which also, very much, touches on the Sunni point of view. al-Taqiyya/Dissimulation part 1, 2 and 3 Davidelah (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also agree, but the article does have a section about the "Sunni point of view," so it would at least be appropriate to quote some Sunni authorities also, who seems to touch on the issue. Davidelah (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes is the publisher. He chooses what gets "published." It is really that simple. No difficulty in understanding that. As for the websites, they are not scholarly sources. They are simple websites thrown up by god knows who. It reflects the personal view of the website's creator. It is akin to taking the website of a single Evangelical Baptist Church in Tennessee, and stating it is evidence of a of doctrinal logic in the Russian Orthodox Church. The Scythian 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added a couple of links to ibn Kathir and Al-Suyuti. I hope there is no doubt that these are accurate quotations. Davidelah (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added that the emphasis in the quotations is done by me, just to make it clear. Davidelah (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Are there other Sunni scholars who have addressed these parallels between the doctrine of taqiyya in Shia Islam and the permissibility of deception in Sunni Islam according to classical Sunni scholars? On an Islamic webside it quotes numerous Sunni scholars that answer this issue:

In al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 109, (Bombay edition), Sunni scholar Muhammad bin Aqeel Shaafiyee writes: I say our scholars agree on the fact that when needed, telling a lie is allowed, and this is Taqiyyah. But if we name this Taqiyyah, a lot of the scholars raise an objection, since Shi'as use this term. So the difference between Shi'a and Sunni is only the word difference.[emphasis added]

Shaykh Ahmed Fehmi Mesri in Hashia al-Mihal wa An-Nahal, Volume 1 page 195, published in Cairo, wrote: "Taqiyyah is allowed at times of fear, and Tabbara said that our companions say that in times of need, Taqiyyah is allowed; rather, in some cases to create an environment of unity, it can also be used. And all the narrations which are present speak for it."

Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, testified to the legitimacy of Taqiyyah: It should be known that Taqiyyah is permissible, proven from the Qur'an one such verse is 3:28 (see above). Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyya, page 337

Sunni scholar Abu Shakoor Saalmi in al-Tamheed fi Bayan al-Tauwheed, Chapter 1 pages 18 & 19 (Delhi) states: "Similarly, Kufr is the worst act. But when one is forced to commit it through a threat of murder then it is permissible to adopt Taqiyyah and recite the Kalima of kufr; and such a person should NOT be deemed a Kaffir. Verily, the Shari'a has deemed it a favorable act to recite Kalima of Kufr under Taqqiyah".[18]

More interpretations of Quran 3:28

Maududi (d. 1979): This means that it is lawful for a believer, helpless in the grip of the enemies of Islam and in imminent danger of severe wrong and persecution, to keep his faith concealed and to behave in such a manner as to create the impression that he is on the same side as his enemies. A person whose Muslim identity is discovered is permitted to adopt a friendly attitude owards the unbelievers in order to save his life. If he considers himself incapable of enduring the excesses to which he may be subjected, he may even state that he is not a believer.[19][emphasis added]

Mufti Muhammad Shafi (d. 1976; former Grand Mufti of Pakistan, from his Maariful Quran): ..the purpose is to stay safe from any possible harm coming through them. The words (“unless you have a fear of them”) appearing in this verse means that…friendship with disbelievers is not permissible except when you are in a situation where you want to defend yourself against them[20][emphasis added]

Shams Pirzada from his Dawat ul Quran: That is: If the faithful are trapped in the midst of th infidels and if they, as a mean of safeguard, take them as their friends for appearences sake, then there is nothing wrong in it; but here emphasised that we should fear Allah and not indulge in doing a thing which would harm the interests of the religion...[21][emphasis added] Davidelah (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of your sources are unreliable or primary sources, so please stop your original research to push your POV. Bring straight0forward reliable sources for your claims. Thank you AdvertAdam ^talk 12:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Adam, I find your objection to be double standard, you commented earlier in a discussion about secondary sources that no other source can override that of Ibn Kathir's commentary on the Qur'an and whatever does, is automatically invalid[22]. So now the objection is another to suit your POV? Davidelah (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should reread what I wrote there. We were talking about two sources that interfere each-other, so whatever is against Ibn Alkatheer, strictly, is invalid. Ibn Alkatheer is a tafsir, which means that it just gives the reason why each verse and chapter were revealed. It's a special term that is used by Muslims, so don't pretend that you know everything. The reason it can be misleading is because it explains one verse (or section) at a time, so it can be used as texture out of context like other primary sources. Again, if you don't want to respect my explanations, at least respect other users that said the same things on Jihad and your false ignored claims on ANI. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Davidlah, Adamrce will never accept any primary sources you add, 99% chance they will be reverted. Even though many primary sources are quotes from notable scholars or quotes from their books, if he cant remove it on the grounds they are unreliable (even though maudidi has been quoted on wikipedia all over the place), he will remove it on the grounds they are not backed up by secondary sources, even if you add secondary soruceds, it may still be removed. i urge you to participate in the admin incidents discussion i set up.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the article "How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War" reliable?

(This is a discussion that is continued from another section in discussion"Is Taqiyya limited to Shia only?")

This seems to be a minor issue but it has been brought up non the less. This article has 50 references and none of the other external articles have. It was written by Raymond Ibrahim who is very competent to speak about Islam. He is Middle Eastern by origin; he is fluent in Arabic (and studied in the Center of Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, where he got straight A’s); his M.A. thesis was about Islam; and he worked in the Near East section of Library of Congress. He is the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and is currently associate director of the Middle East Forum. He has served as a guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College in Washington, DC, and has testified before Congress on "extremist ideologies." As for the neutrality of the article I don't think that external links should all be of the current dominant perspective and there is also other external links that have a more "apologist" perspective (e.g. The Taqiyya Libel Against Muslims). As for Daniel Pipes being the publisher of the Middle East Quarterly where the article where published as in some way being a problem, because Daniel Pipes is accused of having an irrational critical view on Islam ("Islamophobia"), the first thing is, is that I have not seen any evidence that Pipes has been shown to be inaccurate, and the second is that what does that matter anyway? Some of the criticism has also been shown to come from questionable people [23][24]

(note: I appricaite discussion but this seems to be a very minor issue and also a discussion about persons and guilt by ascosiation rather than how mush grounded the views are) Davidelah (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Self-published blogs aren't reliable! AdvertAdam ^talk 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not a Self-published blog. Please do not make baseless accusations. The article in question is here. Davidelah (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue comes down to that fact that you are trying to inject the views of a highly controversial figure as mainstream thought on a very nuanced and particular subject, i.e that "Taqqyia" is a Sunni practice, as well as Shia. It is then not surprising the rather obscure and questionable sources you are using, in addition to your own personal interpretation of religious text. The Scythian 00:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume the "highly controversial" claim is for Daniel Pipes, that I don't think is relevant, here is some reasons to think why he should be taken seriously:

• Wall Street Journal. Pipes is “an authoritative commentator on the Middle East.”
• CBS Sunday Morning: he was “years ahead of the curve in identifying the threat of radical Islam.”
• Boston Globe: “If Pipes’s admonitions had been heeded, there might never have been a 9/11.”
• He has held two presidential positions in the U.S. government, testified before many congressional committees, and worked for five presidential campaigns.
• He is a prize-winning columnist, formerly for the New York Times Syndicate and now writing independently for many newspapers.

Here is the rest that would make this manifest. Davidelah (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He's not a known religious scholar, nor a Muslim, to be considered a strong source. Gosh, you already proved yourself wrong. He's continually talking about terrorists (whom call themselves Muslims), which basically do not represent the Muslim nation. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So what is your prove that the article "How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War" should be excluded? Davidelah (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Taqiyya is practiced by the Shias (10-20%), so how can a minority influence Islam, in general? Second, what you're referring to is actions that were made by radical terrorist, which don't represent Islam, either. Third, your lovely author has no credibility to announce, from his own opinion, new nonsense rules in Islam. You already said in your recent edits that the author is an "authoritative commentator" about the Middle-East, so please don't give him more credit than he deserves. I know you don't like my answers, but It's my duty to reply anyways (for certain extents). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This user thinks he know everything, and attacks any user that is against his theologies. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from your personal attack, which I will recommend you not to engage in, I don't think I have ever interpreted anything myself and allways source my objections. Davidelah (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't attacked you, so please correct your phrasing. I accused you of attacking others, which this ANI is the closest prove. Just try not to be too smart on the things you know nothing about, and we'll work together just find :). We have a long future together, hehe, just teasing you :p. Take care ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I will repeat my point about the reliability of the article since it doesn't seem to be shared by some other users, this article has 50 references and none of the other external articles have, so why is it deemed to be so unreliable that it cannot even be linked to? The other article by Sheila Musaji, would also balance it, so what's the problem? Btw Sheila Musaji in her very superficial explanation even contradicts herself in her article: Taqiyya actually refers to a controversial minority doctrine or dispensation that allows for an individual to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. But later she also comment on a Quranic interpretation that allows for concealing faith when forced to do so: This is really nonsense. If a Catholic tells a lie, they can go to confession and the priest will assign a penance for the wrong they have done which does not mean that the Catholic Church is allowing Catholics to lie, or that Catholics cannot be trusted because they can atone for doing something wrong. The Qur’an is realistic about human nature and the fact that we will stumble and fall, and provides opportunities for us to do penance for our mistakes. So is the Qur'an realistic about human nature or is there no dispensation that allows for an individual to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion? This article seems to be apologetic, but I wouldn't demand it be removed just because of that, its just an external link, but if the opposite side of the "apologetic" is removed then there is an imbalance. Davidelah (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The author of that article has an anti-Islam bias. See [25] and [26]. Also see: [27], in particular: "Muslims can behave like infidels – from bowing down and worshipping idols and crosses." I do not think this gentleman is very scholarly. Unflavoured (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see that the author of the article can be a little "sharp egded" to some in the way he writes, but is that really a reason to not be included in the external link section? Also the thing about "Muslims can behave like infidels – from bowing down and worshipping idols and crosses," was allegedly the interpretation of al- Qurtubi , al-Razi, and al-Arabi, so how can that be anti-Islam bias if that is an Islamic interpretation? Davidelah (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

He is not "sharp-edged," as much as "biased." Notice how he usually starts by acknowledging how Taqqiya is a Shiite doctrine, but then continuously refers to "Muslims Taqqiya this, Muslims Taqqiya that" instead of "Shiites Taqqiya this," etc etc. His tone is 100% negative, he has absolutely nothing good to say about Islam or Muslims whatsoever, even though he wrote plenty of articles. He does not come across as a reliable scholar, but more like a person with an agenda. Unflavoured (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Having looked through the article again (it's here btw) it relies on many reliable references, so pardon me for not agreeing. I personally don't see a problem in that he maybe is a critical scholar, because he is a scholar of Islam non the less. Davidelah (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

He picks and chooses his references. You can find plenty of references on the prohibition of lying, but he ignores them. You can find plenty of references on how Islam values truth and honesty, but he ignores them. You can find references where the Muslims majority sect (90%+) criticizes the minority sect for practising Taqqiyah, but he ignores it. And he is not a scholar of Islam. To be a little blunt ( pardon me, but it must be said ), he is a bigot. Take a look: [28]: In the last paragraph, he basically tells Muslims "If you do not like it, get out." But back to the article in question: It is biased. It amounts to libel. You can just condense it to: "All Muslims practice taqqiya, so do not trust them." The gentleman who wrote does not even pretend to be neutral on the issue. Unflavoured (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't pretend to be an expert on this issue (taqiyya and the prohibition of lying in Islam), all I can do is to read scholars of Islam, so I wouldn't necesarily begin to go into that discussion. But is this really enough to exclude it from the external link section? I would like to point out again that it is probably the most detailed and referenced article on this subject, so I'm still wondering on what basis we can discard it. Bigotry is after all based on a POV (and btw we should not confuse doctrines with people or race or the like). Davidelah (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

why does this fatwa on taqqiyah keep getting removed

this is a fatwa from a well known saudi scholar (the most pro-sunni country of them all) http://islamqa.com/en/ref/59879 yet everytime i add it to show taqqiyah is not just shia only. it gets removed

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden is the most famous scholar, but who follows him? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that islamqa.com is as reliable as Osama Bin Laden or what is your point? Davidelah (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a blog to me. Strict rules against that here on Wikipedia. The Scythian 16:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the site is claiming to be a blog, it says that "this site aims to provide intelligent, authoritative responses to anyones question about Islam," and the responses are handled by the authoritative Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid who is also author of many books about Islam. Davidelah (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My point was that Islamic laws are not solely based on scholars, so it doesn't mean people follow him because he says he's a scholar. Likewise, when Osama Bin Laden said that Jihad allows killing American innocents, no-one followed him (just his small recruited illiterates).

FYI, here is a tiny prove, [29][30], that the fatwa you gave is nonsense. As I said before, this is for your personal information (not a source for the article), as a try to keep you from posting similar questions that is totally against Islamic-related pages. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC).

Agreed. Funny thing is, one can simply go on Youtube, and watch Sunni Muslim clarics "bash" the Shia, exactly for the Shia doctrine of "Taqqyia." Do we include such "sources" here? Of course not. Unfortunately, we have certain editors trying to do exactly that, but from the reverse angle. The Scythian 23:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

whats your point in giving a link to the tafsir.com site, its not like it goes against the islamqa website. the link to tafsir.com u gave does not even say anything about friendship, only about kindness. the islamqa fatwa looks at friendship, and does mention "But if a Muslim treats them with kindness and gentleness in the hope that they will become Muslim and will believe, there is nothing wrong with that,", so islamqa and tafsir are not at odds with each other. what u gonna do now. find a website which will rebute islamqa???you dont understand what alternative view is, you just think alternative views are lies, so should not be on wiki--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

AdvertAdam, you keep screaming about context. the link you gave to tafsir.com gives a hadith which explains the context. this is hadith ""Qutaylah came visiting her daughter, Asma' bint Abi Bakr, with some gifts, such as Dibab, cheese and clarified (cooking) butter, and she was an idolatress at that time. Asma' refused to accept her mother's gifts and did not let her enter her house. `A'ishah asked the Prophet about his verdict and Allah sent down the Ayah," , so wouldnt you say the context is only to disbelieving mothers. or do u make exceptions of when to look at context and when not?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with God saying that he didn't warn you from who didn't attack your religion and didn't kick you out of your land. What does that relate to a mother, and why would a son lease to a mother. Anyways, the revealing of the Qur'an was based on true incidents where it gave a law to be used in-general. I suggest that you reread whatever you read. The section you repeated was an example using part of the verse. The first meaning is what the law itself is in-general. Why did you ignore that?

So, the first link was that God didn't forbid you from being with non-believers that didn't attack your religion in public and didn't kick you out of your land/house. The next says that he only warns believers from the following: "It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out that Allah forbids you to befriend them". So when it's an opposite verse, then it relates to the same meaning, friending and befriending.

Calling it alternative view is extremely bias. There is alternative views in articles, thoughts, not laws. It's like you're saying that one law says murder is a felony and another says that Murder is a misdemeanor. It doesn't make sense. The tafsir was for your personal information. What's important is the source you put that no-one follows. Why? because it's nonsense. Then, you wouldn't find nonbelievers feel comfortable living in great Muslim countries, like Malaysia and Emirates. All I'm trying to do is show you that you have no knowledge on what you're trying to edit, to actually save myself some time. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

I'm afraid that your objection to this fatwa does not really address the issue of its authenticity or authoritaty. Ibn Kathir is also quite clear about actual friendship[31]. Davidelah (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Read this article to understand friendship in Islam. I've told you a million times that a tafsir is based on verse-by-verse explanation; you have to read the reason and timing of the revealed verse, its incidence, and who does it relate to. I've been showing you some strong primary sources, thinking that you'll adjust your mind and erase your theologies; but I guess, I'm just wasting my time. So, just keep our discussions official from now-on, as we've gotta figure-out a way to deal with each-other. I swear that I haven't done a single fruitful contribution since the time I saw you around, so let's get over-it. Even admins couldn't give us advice on how to deal with each-other.

Listen David & Misconception, we've been debating in many Islamic articles because of your unawareness of Islam and its principles. I've sent you Wikipedia's policy of bias edits tons of times with no progress. Please save your-time and mine by investing five minutes to read the Islamic Manual of Style, especially its RS section. Again, keep it official from now-on, as I won't explain anything further. Let us stick with policies, as I see no other options. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You are here again not addressing the issue of the fatwas authenticity or authoritaty. And the explanation that the tafsir I linked to has its own restricted context, is just a claim you haven't proved. Ibn Kathir explains in other tafsirs how restricted the context is, for example here. Are there different interpretations? Sure, but Ibn Kathir's interpretation is also one of them. It is ironic that Adam is blaming others for been unaware of Islam and its principles when he is it not trying to explain but just making unproved claims. I don't think this method is in line with policy. Davidelah (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@AdamRce, The website you gave support Al-Ghazali's ideas. here are some idea's of al-ghazali, on jihad (i doubt you will allow them on wiki), you are a very selective person when it comes to islam

“ ...[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e. razzias or raids) at least once a year ... one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them. ... If a person of the ahl al-kitab [i.e. People of the Book] is enslaved, his marriage is revoked. ... One may cut down their trees. ... One must destroy their useless books. The Mujahid may take as booty whatever they decide ... they may steal as much food as they need...

... [T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle ... Jews, Christians, and Majins must pay the jizya ... on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protuberant bone beneath his ear [i.e. the mandible]. ... They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells ... their houses may not be higher than the Muslim's, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They have to wear [an identifying] patch, even women, and even in the [public] baths ... [dhimmis] must hold their tongue..
Islam Research Foundation, Al-Ghazali on Jihad

”

I guess your argument would be. "why are you mentioning jihad, its got nothing to do with this article", my point is to show to you and everyone, how much of a selective person you are. you reject the authority of some schoalrs, but accept the authority of others. like how you are rejecting the authority of the scholar on islamqa.

you are not on wikipedia to "truly" improve the website. you are here to promote the "truth",and reject the "lies", on the grounds that it is "nonsense" (like you said above).

read What is the truth? article, when you have the time. you are a defender of the truth, usually "defenders of truths" are one of the quickest, to get banned from wikipedia (i say this based on what admins have told me). You might accuse me of being a rejector of the truth, but i am not the one who deletes alternate views from wikipedia, just because i disagree with it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to look for a solutions here. Stop you accusations and re-read policies carefully. You ignore WP:BIAS and WP:MOSISLAM. Are you considering Fjordman a credible editor by taking texture out-of-context? Jihad discussions are on its page, and I'm still waiting for other editors to give their opinions there. I think editors here know how to open your sources and decide for themselves its credibility. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please continue to fill my talk page with warnings.After all, wikipedia does say that to win an argument you MUST fill another persons talk page up with warnings , that'll teach em. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@Davidelah, dont you understand. we can never allow the views of that scholar from Islamqa to be put on wikipedia, (despite him having his own TV shows, and having his own website and publishig many books). To put his views on wikipedia is Bias. Ask Adamrce/AdvertAdam, he is an expert of NPOV, and decides what should and should not be on wikipedia. The hell with this!!! i cant be bothered argueing with AdvertAdam anymore, he is a defender of the truth, and an expert on NPOV and expert at arguing. Its impossible to beat him, because the "truth always prevails", and the views on that scholar from islamqa are "nonsense",according to AdamRce, we wouldn't want lies to be on wikipedia now, would we? (/sarcasm)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this behavior, Misconceptions2. I read your very useful, and incredibly funny, links above to those Wiki project pages. Btw I have just received another warning from this user, and in my view he has gotten further out of line. It will probably be necersary to contact an admin, but I don't know how that works. Perhaps you know some instruction pages on this topic? Davidelah (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You two are funny. Biased, but amusing. As for contacting an admin, be my guest. Generally though, one asks for an independent third opinion[32], firstly. The Scythian 23:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, gosh. Actually, anyone can realize that my contributions fell from strictly-Articles to strictly-Talkpages because of these two users. I know they're amusing and make me laugh every-night, but I have no time anymore to seriously contribute (it's all wasted). Btw, a claim on me from three users was opened 11 days ago and was totally ignored by admins. If anyone wants to dispute on me further, you can still use that same ANI because it's still open. I think enough opinions were shared here, but additional reviews are always welcomed. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for giving some guidelines, that is allways appreciated. As for the biased part, I would like to disagree. Davidelah (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Adam, from the first discussion that you had with me, you started to make claims based on sources that did not make those claims. It was no wonder that it became endless. If you were a little more compromising from your POV, perhaps our dicussions would naturally lead to a conclusion, but right now I would doubt that this would chance, I'm sorry to say. Davidelah (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Taqqiyah, as it is NOW practised, is a Shiite-exclusive doctrine. All major Sunni schools agree that lying is strictly forbidden, except when it can save someone's life. Misconception2, Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid is not notable enough to have his own article on Wikipedia. And furthermore, the fatwa you linked is not about taqiyya. Even if it was, you cannot take the fringe view and include it, when the majority view is so clearly against it. Unflavoured (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid shows that there are some differing opinions, but in any case, it is not strictly forbidden to lie. Permissible lying is not limited to saving someone's life. Davidelah (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we consider Terry Jones' view on Quran to represent Christianity ?! Ok, and similarly, we do not take Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid's views as representing Sunnis. The guy is not notable. Also, the source you linked states: "I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A: in smoothing over differences)." This is not Taqqiyah. Unflavoured (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that is not Taqqiyah, but I just wanted to clarify your assertion about the Sunni schools. Davidelah (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I hope you understand that Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid does NOT represent any Sunni school. Unflavoured (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In my view, I think if we should quote someone, it would be the scholar Sami Makarem who wrote a book about this, Al Taqiyya fil Islam (Dissimulation in Islam), in 2004 where he discusses Islam's, as a whole, stance on it. I don't know what the normal approach is, but the article is a little short, so quoting one person is maybe too much if we should present different perspectives within Sunni Islam. Davidelah (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sami is not even Muslim, never mind Sunni. I have no problem with him being quoted, as long as it is made clear that he is Druze, and neither Muslim nor Sunni. Perhaps a new section should be started for this, since this section is now too long, and discusses too many things. Unflavoured (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will try to carefully write some more in this article and maybe get Makarem's opinion in also. Davidelah (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to Unflavoured, after a quick review of Wikipedia and Google, I don't see the justification for including Makarem's opinions. Exactly who, other than Sami Makarem, considers Sami Makarem a notable scholar, let alone an expert on Islamic beliefs? Oh, right, he had a book published on his interpretations of Taqiyya by that academic publishing powerhouse the Druze Heritage Foundation. That's the best source we can come up with? Fat&Happy (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

In Wikipedia, a source is a source. If it is verifiable, then it can be included. If you have a better source, or proof that source X is not reliable, you take it out or replace it. As I mentioned earlier, I have no problem including Sami, as long as it is made clear that he is Druze, and neither Muslim nor Sunni. If you have a better source, or if you feel that he is not reliable, then you can make that argument. Unflavoured (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit: We still do not know what quote is going to be added. Unflavoured (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fat&Happy, and the article isn't big enough to put an unnotable person's opinion. Due weight has to be considered. Btw, Taqiyya is more like hiding than lying (like Shias practicing Sunni Islam in Sunni communities is not against their faith; it's just avoiding their additional practices), but we still need to stick to Shias' traditions. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There are many books e.g reliance of the traveller,and al-tabari's tafsir, which mention taqqiyah. however wikipedia does not allow primary sources. also davidelah, my advice to you is not to waste to much effort in adding content to this article. it will get remvoed within 2 months anyway, and you have to start a new argument with some new person. why not make an article called "Taqqiyah in Sunni Islam", and add a section of those who are "for taqqiyah", and "against it"

Furthermore, i have not seen the word taqqiyah used often in sunni literature. i have however seen the word "deception" and "decieve" used by many sunni scholars, in the context of war, all related to the hadith "war is deception"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Two Sunni sections ?!

There is a "Sunni uses" section, and directly below it is a "Sunni POV" section. Is this really necessary ?! Why not merge the uses under the Sunni POV ?! Unflavoured (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't have any objection to that. I just thought that the "Historical examples" section would refer to all sects' uses, and the Sunni POV section would refer this sects' theological approach. Davidelah (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks weird, having two Sunni sections one directly after the other. Just merge them both into one section. There is not really much point in having two sections. Unflavoured (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about some edits

This was reverted because there was no discussion about it:

Because at that time the jurists agreed that Muslims were not permitted to live in the lands of non-Muslims, Dar al-Harb, by submitting themselves to infidels instead of Islam and had to emigrate if unable to take up Jihad (holy war). It was better returning to Muslim lands, Dar al-Islam, to take up the fight there (page 18, 42 and 129). Al-Wahrani allowed for an inner jihad instead, by taqiyya.

So is this supported by the source or are there other issues? Constructive input, and sincere debate is welcome and encouraged. - Davidelah (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you're copying sources from other Wikipedia projects, so can you please link the English Google Books instead of a foreign language, in the future.

Regarding your quotation, I think that this article is about Taqiyya,, not one sample of its practice; so please keep that in-mind. These details are not-needed, as the section is already explained enough. Also, the content is misleading, as it's explaining a singular/regional POV while the article doesn't explain others'. Please keep WP:DUE in mind, too. Thanks. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the section is about one example of its regional practice, just read the heading. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by foreign language, the book is in English sir.

And am I copying sources from other Wikipedia projects? News to me. Davidelah (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wherever you get your sources from, they're from multilingual sites. Yes, the books are in English, but you've searched for them in different languages (English, Spanish, Danish, Dutch Google, which I'm sure you don't know all those languages). It's just a note. I'm not contradicting anything, but it would be nicer to search for your source in the English Google instead; if you want to link it on the English Wiki.

I'm talking about the weight of the whole article, not specifically this section. The section was previously fulfilled and understandable, so there's no reason to expand it that way. The added detail is misleading and unnecessary, according to my points above. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean by foreign language, I'll just correct that in a minor edit, no problem ;). The further explanation is informative and not misleading because it explains why some of Al-Wahrani's opinions (which is about the subject of the article) diverged from the majority of his fellow jurists. Davidelah (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix :)

Incorrect. I've read all the pages you referenced, and it never talks about general fatwa (as you claimed). It's all talking about specialized fatwas related to that incident. That's why I said it's misleading to make such a broad claim, while we should only be expanding that section. What you quoted is definitely not in the referenced "2008" edition! Can you explain where was that quote from? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific about what quote or fatwa you're referring to? The places the fatwa of Al-Wahrani is clearly mentioned in reference 3 and 18 by Devin Stewart. Davidelah (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please quote (here) where did this come from first: "majority of earlier Maliki Faqīhs". ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 17:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From reference 20: Miller, Kathryn A. (2008), Guardians of Islam: Religious Authority and Muslim Communities of Late Medieval Spain, New York: Columbia University Press, p. 114, ISBN 978-0-231-13612-9, retrieved 27 May 2011, "Unlike the majority of Maliki scholars before him, he openly embraced the idea of a Mudejar jihad that was bound to the notion of inner steadfastness under persecution..." Davidelah (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So, does that make such a claim as-general as you phrased it? Your quote is only talking about that incident. Then, what's the reason of the following sentence, if this was only talking about Al-Andalus?

I guess I have to slowly explain each point to you, as always... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 18:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If the opinion of the jurists was only limited to that incident I think it should only be rephrased rather than deleted, because it still explains the incidence. I think though that reading pg. 42 from above would suggest that this was not just a local problem, but also for "...the world of Islam..." to break from the traditional opinion.

I find your last comment inappropriate and, honestly, hypocritical... Davidelah (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"16th century Spain" subsection title

This is in reference to Davidelah's inclusion of "Sunni Islam" in the title of the the "16th-century Spain" subsection, here and here. His reasoning was "it's about sunni islam". While it might seem that "Twelver Shi'a Islam" is an appropriate title for its section (since Taqiyya has a central place in Shi'a Islam and has been apparently backed by their mainstream scholars for their own reasons and conditions), I find a similar "Sunni Islam" title to be entirely misleading and questionable as Taqiyya doesn't hold the same place in Sunni jurisprudence as it does in Shi'a (in fact, all works listed under the further reading section are on Shi'a Islam and its branches). Moreover, it doesn't appear that Al-Wahrani's views represented his Maliki fiqh school, let alone Sunni Islam.

In short, this "jump" from Al-Wahrani to Sunni Islam is most likely an WP:OR (or WP:SYNTH to be specific) by Davidelah and I think the section needs a better title. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that if there is not mentioned anything about "Sunni" in the title, one would assume it's about Shia Islam again since Sunni Islam has its own section below (btw see discussion about this above "Two Sunni sections ?!"). I think though you make a point about idealism and practical examples, so how about "Sunni Muslims" in "16th-century Spain" instead? Davidelah (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Should not be a problem, since it is stated explicitly that the person who issued the fatwa is Maliki, and this is repeated when mentioning that this person went against the views of earlier Maliki scholars, so "Maliki" is explicitly stated twice. Right now, we have gone a step backwards in having two separate "Sunni" sections, one directly after the other. It just does not look good. Unflavoured (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the old structure was more appropriate since the historical example (in this case 16th-century Spain) was properly contextualized by presenting the mainstream views first (and for the reasons you and Davidelah pointed out earlier). So do we agree on restoring the section "Sixteenth century Spain" under "Sunni point of view" ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Restoring it to the earlier structure is fine by me. As long as it is "readable," meaning the structure is logical and flows properly from section to section. Unflavoured (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Unflavoured, regarding the sub-section's clear content. Titling it with Sunni-Islam is misleading, as it's not Sunni Islam in the 19th century, but an incident of a particular group of Sunnis in Spain.
Regarding its location, we can't put that under Sunni POV alone, according to WP:DUE. We'll need to bring tons of opposite incidents to balance it. Shia Islam is covered in the "Lead" and "Origin", while Sunni Islam is covered in its own section. Therefore, whatever is left are all historical examples, and should stay that way, IMO. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, we could just mention examples of Sunni Muslims being under the same conditions of Shia Muslims, maybe a region with a Sunni population that was under non-Sunni or non-Muslim rule for a long period of time, and where they were persecuted for their faith. So if you could find examples like Spain that would be great, but I don't think there are that many. Also, I wouldn't agree that the "Lead" and "Origin" is exclusively explaining Shia Islam, at least that's not what the sources says. I said I don't prefer where the example of 16th century Spain should be, although it maybe look better in the Sunni POV section. Davidelah (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting it under Sunni POV is inferring that it's a Sunni POV, which is just one incidence. Can you give me a reason why would you keep "Historical examples" for Shias only? It's simple, a historical example stays in a "historical example" section. Will that be hard for readers to realize? Especially if we phrase the intro like the other examples (starting with the group's faith). I'll try to work on it, if no-one did before the weekend. Thanks... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I added another example for Sunni Muslims. The source is reliable and directly refers to Sunni Muslims when it is talking about this incident. Now, the title must be a general title (Sunni Muslims)--Penom (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being rude, but you should never add additional content in-the-middle-of cited material, as that makes editors assume it's in the source. If you read the book you cited, you'll realize that the author (Virani) is a Shias apologist with a tone of attack on Sunni's refusal to identify tagiyya. Also, the author only claimed a "maybe" sourcing (Shia Imami Ismailia Association for Tanzania), so when were they a reliable source on Sunni's practices/history?

Btw, that's still considered "idtirar" not "taqiyya", as idtirar here is being forced to say something one-time in front of a killer (you know the story, if you read the book). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Virani is a PhD from Harvard university and a distinguished professor in Toronto University. His book is published by Oxford University. I can say that his book if not the most, is one of the most reliable sources among existing sources in this article.

We use his credibility when he makes a claim, and use his sources' credibility when he sources someone else. In this case, he's sourcing a political movement! Anyways, I just kept the link and removed your insertions. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Not sure about Dr. Virani background but whatever he is, I am sorry to see some editors here have so much prejudice about people with different religionsPenom (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what that supposed to mean, nor whom it's aiming toward... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Mihna details reverted

What is the reason for this edit: [33] ?! Unflavoured (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a question for me too. Her mentioned agreed in his edit summery, but I don't see any agreement. I'm going to be bold and revert it.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Fath al-Bari quote

One bracket of the reference in the quote is out of place. I do not know how to fix this. Help please. Unflavoured (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Check it. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, smart. It did not occur to me that the ref can be put there. Thanks !! Unflavoured (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• The editor is still picking bits and pieces from the source, so I'll try to finish what the source really meant (trying not to make it too long). Please reword if you guys see necessary... Feel free to also remove whatever is not needed. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is very unclear. For example, this sentence: "In the Sunni view, an individual is not justified in taqiyya, nor bound emigration, in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death" is completely impossible to follow. I am not going to revert you, but may I suggest you self-revert for the moment and try to re-word what you are saying here on the talk page first ?! Thanks. Unflavoured (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to make it more modern. Btw, I actually saved this text from the Encyclopedia before your additions, so I'm not sure if it's still needed now.

• The story here says that he was one of the prophet's disciples, fearing that what he's doing is unacceptable. Do you think this is needed? "The reason behind this verse was Ammar Yasir's worry of being forced to worship idols and objurgate the Prophet."
• In certain circumstances, a Muslim have to migrate if he's threaten by death when practicing his faith openly, "since God's earth is wide".

• "In the Sunni view, an individual is not justified to practice taqiyya during incidents that don't cause death, like getting beaten or temporarily imprisoned. However, if death risks are involved, a steady martyrdom is considered a noble thing." ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this:

In the Sunni view, denying your faith under duress is "only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory". Al-Tabari comments on sura XVI, verse 108 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323, xxiv, 122): "If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, in order to escape his enemies, no blame falls on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe." This verse was revealed after Ammar Yasir was forced by the idolaters of Mecca to recant his faith and denounce the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. Al-Tabari explains that concealing one's faith is only justified if the person is in mortal danger, and even then martyrdom is considered a noble alternative. If threatened, it would be preferable for a Muslim to migrate to a more peaceful place where a person may practice their faith openly, "since God's earth is wide." Some Sunni sources put emphasis on the fact that a person who prefers to proclaim their faith in the face of death will ... etc etc

Perhaps this was what you wanted to say ?! I tried to condense it and make it more readable. Unflavoured (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks beautiful, thanks. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 22:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well! With deleting some key sentences and changing sequence of issues that are addressed in original sources, the current wording does not say what Prof. Virani and Encyclopedia of Islam really meant. I am going to do some edits to make our article more loyal to its references.--Penom (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that "loyalty" is the correct word here, as this mess was trying to correct the previous picky insertions. Please add your suggestions here first. Thanks ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to extract the essence of source in few sentences and I was going to add more information from Encyclopedia of Islam. But, unfortunately, changes after my edits, changed what the source meant. The same happened to Virani's source. Some key information were deleted to push this view that dissimulation does not exist in Sunni Islam at allPenom (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Some necessary changes

I am going to make some changes as follows:

1. There is no modern example of dissimulation in the article. I think I can find some examples related to Khomeini the Shia' leader of Iran.
2. Sunni View section and the section about dissimulation example should be merged.
3. A section for Kharijit views

Any comment?--Penom (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Seems good. Such an addition is needed.
2. Not all the content there are examples, so how can you merge it?
3. Seems interesting, as there should be many examples there too. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest a "Shia Islam view" and "Sunni Islam view" separation. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed--Penom (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Khomeini

Taqiyya is a particular type of dissimulation for a specific purpose. The source does not provide any evidence that Khomeini was practicing taqiyya. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Even on first sentence of the article is said "Taqiyya (alternate spellings taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah; meaning dissimulation[1])". Taqiyya in English means dissimulation. The source clearly states that khomeini practiced "Dissimulation". I do not see any reason for your revert--Penom (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Dissimulation" is an English definition of a religious practiced called Taqiyya. The source is only explaining political manipulation. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In order to justify the addition, one must make the jump from "a specific word in one language can be translated to a specific word in another language" to "any use of a word in one language imbues it with all the meaning of an equivalent word used to describe a specific religious concept in another language and culture". No source supports such a leap. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not very important thing and I do not spend much time on this edit. However, If you have some studies on 1979 Iranian Revolution you should be familiar with this famous example of dissimulation. If I have chance I will check some sources that are not available in Googlebook. Pretty sure that they call it a Taqyya example. even khomeini himself admitted that he practiced taqqyya before Islamic revoloution and did not reveal all his real intention before becoming the leader of Iran.--Penom (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we'll wait for the sources. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Large part of Sunni section deleted

Perhaps we should discuss condensing the section instead of flat out deleting 2/3 of it ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not a long Sunni section, the problem is in fact a very short and incomplete section for Shia section. Instead of deleting essential materials from Sunni section we should improve Shia section. Many issues in Shia' section is not addressed --Penom (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, and yet I also agree with the edit summary that was provided: Sunni section should not be bigger than Shiite section. This is a Shiite doctrine after all. Perhaps, while we wait for more details and info to expand the Shiite part, we can condense the Sunni part as a compromise ?! Unflavoured (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam has much larger section on Sunni view in its article. I do not agree to condense it. People who wish a larger section on Shia view, Instead of effort to slaughter the article just take some times and improve the Shia view section.--Penom (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So we are to ignore WP:Undue ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No! Improve the other sections! Sunii section is not Undue. It has a good coverage. On the other hand Shia section is too short. Instead of wasting editors time by this discussion we should improve the article--Penom (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But it is a case on undue weight. Editors have spent time giving examples of incidents where Sunni Muslims were forced to hide their beliefs, and the Sunni section is generally fleshed out and explained. On the other hand, the Shiite section has only one example, and is not as fleshed out, so the reader can easily conclude that taqqiyah is as much a part of Sunni Islam as it is of Shiite Islam, when this is not the case. I hope someone comes and adds more examples to the Shiite section, but who is going to do so ?! Anyway, the same editor who blanked out large parts of the Sunni section has done so a second time. Unflavoured (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I added one famous Shia' Taqiya example. Although the case was very famous Taqiya case the other editors removed it. I am going to add some new materials to Shia' section. Anyways, I am sorry for that user who does not do any constructive edits and just deletes sourced materials and write personal attacks in edit summariesPenom (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The second type of Taqiyya

There is second type of taqiyya which is not mentioned in the article. According Etan Cohlberg: There is a second type of Taqiyya which shall be called "dissimulation" which is use of word or actions tending to mislead one's opponents.

I was going to mention this type of Taqiyya but my edit was reverted. Adamrce previously asked me to provide a source that called this type of dissimulation "Taqiyya" and I did. Etan is wellknown orientalist and his view is valid. What now? --Penom (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My summary gave a broken link, but please study WP:SYNTH. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I know about WP:SYNT. The source clearly called its example dissimulation. After all here is English wikipedia. Do not expect that all English sources use Arabic word "Taqiyya". Right? The problem is that you are not familiar enough with the topic. Concealing idea to misliead the Islam enemies is another form of Taqiyya and must be mentioned with some example--Penom (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Original research and WP:SYNT in Sunni views section

Fath Bari quote does not contain any direct reference to Taqiya and adding it is WP:SYNT and OR. I am going to delete it.--Penom (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Some Sunni sources put emphasis on the fact that a person who prefers to proclaim their faith in the face of death will have a greater reward than they who deny their faith to save their lives. For example, in Fath al-Bari, the Sunni commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari, it is stated that:

أجمعوا على أن من أكره على الكفر واختار القتل أنه أعظم أجرا عند الله ممن اختار الرخصة ، وأما غير الكفر فإن أكره على أكل الخنزير وشرب الخمر مثلا فالفعل أولى

Which translates to:

There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license [to deny one's faith under duress], but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that [instead of choosing death].

Please do not delete it. Consider the following:

1- Sunnis do not practice taqqiya. But if a Sunni is being forced to do something against their will, then Al Bukhari (and the commentary, Fath al Bari) has a full chapter devoted to this, called "Kitab al Ikrah": "The Chapter about being forced." This is where the quote is taken from.

2- Idtirar, which the quote explains, is a related concept in Sunni Islam, which has similarities to Shiite taqiyyah, but it is also different.

3- We already have a sentence: "While one is allowed to consume prohibited or haraam food to protect one's life under the jurisprudence of idtirar, some Sunni sources put emphasis on the fact that a person who prefers to proclaim their faith in the face of death will have a greater reward than they who deny their faith to save their lives." This is exactly what the Fath-al-Bari quote is explaining.

4- I believe that your usage of the term "OR" and "SYNTH" is wrong in this instance. The quote is taken word for word: There is no research or synthesis being done.

5- If we removed everything that has no direct reference to taqiyya, the Sunni section will become empty. But this quote is from "Kitab al Ikrah," which is about being forced to deny your faith or do something that is against your beliefs. It is very relevant.

And please do not liberally add "citation needed" when the citation is provided, or add "original research" when none has taken place. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. The chapter is being about being forced? Right? But, the quote has no direcet reference to "Idtirar" or "Taqyya". right? Remember from OR policy:" if you use [a source] ... to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research"

Please remove it or replace it with a source that both directly refers to Idtirar or Taqyya--Penom (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you must have missed the part where the quote says: "...whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license [to deny one's faith under duress]..." and there is also another part of the quote that says: "...if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that..." These are both very explicit examples of "being forced." The chapter this quote is from is called: "The Chapter about being forced." There is a sentence in the article, and this quote is used as an example to back up that sentence. That sentence is: "While one is allowed to consume prohibited or haraam food to protect one's life under the jurisprudence of idtirar, some Sunni sources put emphasis on the fact that a person who prefers to proclaim their faith in the face of death will have a greater reward than they who deny their faith to save their lives." Thus, the quote pretty much backs up the sentence in the article word for word, supporting it fully, completely and explicitly.

At this point, I believe I have pretty much copied the whole paragraph for you. Again, I would like to ask you not to liberally label things with "original research" when no original research has taken place. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)