Talk:Taqiyya/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Plagerized

Many sentences were plagerized from http://answering-islam.org.uk/Index/T/taqiya.html Someone familiar with this topic should make it NPOV. --WikiHound 22:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Funny you claim to be on a mission to rid wiki of plagiarism but the only article you chose to do that was this one. Even more amazing, the only part of the article that you removed was Sunni opinion about Taqiyya. Strange, huh? OneGuy 23:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is even funnier is that this is the only article that I have caught because this was the FIRST article that I edited. The following references to the Sunni opinion are still in the article because they were not plagerized from the site. Hence all the references to the Sunnis have not been removed.

Some Sunnis assert that Taqiyya is an act of hypocrisy that serves to conceal the truth. According to them, Taqiyya constitutes a lack of faith and trust in God because the person who conceals his beliefs to spare himself from danger is fearful of humans, when he should be fearful of God only.

The practice was a method of self-preservation for the Shi'as who historically were the minority and persecuted by Sunni Muslims. Sunnis would sometimes force Shi'as to curse the House of Ali - believing that no devout Shi'a could commit such an act.

Many Sunnis criticize Ammar for his actions or question the reliability of the story.

--WikiHound 03:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you did remove these sections. I put them back OneGuy 04:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the lines that were plagerized from the Answering Islam site;s version of Taqiyya article from the Shi'ite Encyclopedia. However the version is different from the current version of this articleat http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/ TheOne if you want to add these two lines back then please use the authorotative text from the Shi'ite encyclopedia. Also instead of copying and pating please reword.--WikiHound 05:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are going to remove two lines because those two lines are similar to answering-Islam site? Wow! that makes real sense. In any case, even the two lines that you removed are not exact copy of the answering-Islam. OneGuy 05:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sunni belief in Taqiyya

As I understand it, Sunni also believe in using taqiyya in "the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs when one fears for one's life, the lives of one's family members, or for the preservation of the faith"...I believe that some Sunni (and perhaps others) accuse Shi'ites (in my opinion, unfairly) of misusing taqiyya, rather than claiming that taqiyys is an act of hypocrisy, or whatever. Some claim that Shi'ites use taqiyya not just "when one fears for one's life, etc etc", but also when it gains them some worldly advantage, and perhaps some other (imagined) unsavory ends. Albenali 19:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we should remove the claim that "Some Sunnis believe" this. I can't find any evidence for it, and it appears like Shi'ite propaganda of Sunnis. Sunnis also believe in legitimate Taqiyya. Look at this Sunni fatwa mr100percent 10:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the concept of "taqiyya" is not a popular one among Muslims as it is mostly referenced from anti-Islamic websites. Growing up as a Muslim I only heard of this term after 9/11 on anti-Islamic websites --Sunni

Actually Sunnis hardly ever use this at all (only some fringe groups), and it is not used in the manner described by Shi'as either. This article needs a lot more work - added NPOV tag in the meantime. MrOakes (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Use by Islamophobics

I think this article should include a section about how the doctrine of Taqiyya has been mis-used by Islamophobics and other people, for example, terrorist groups such as Takfiris that have a vested interest in misinterpreting this teaching to suit their beliefs.

"Islamophobics" is a very charged derogatory term usually used on anyone who is anything but 100% pro-Islam. I do not think that throwing "phobic" terms around assists the debate.

Well the Islamophobes have succeeded in writing an "Islamofascism" article. They exist and they have misused the term. It's very easy to "refute" someone by telling them they're actually lying.

Am Islamophobe is one who has an irrational fear of Islam. As we all know, to our cost, there are realistic reasons to be frightened of the Islamist agenda which are absolutely rational.

Also, islamophobia negates the very definition of the word. A phobia, as defined by the dictionary, is an irrational fear of an object, situation, or activity; islam being none of the above. There was literally a muslim conference held to put the fallacy of a word into the mainstream in order to deflect any reasonable vitriol of islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.233.94 (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgeaz (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Use by Islamists

I would be interested to note if Taqiyya is used by Islamic terrorists to justify lying.

I would be interested to know if there are any Islamic scholars that teach that Taqiyya is acceptable for use by any Islamic nation in dealing with the West (i.e. United Nations, etc.) or for instance is it acceptable for Islamists to use taqiyya in order to make Islam "look better" (such as by islamic apologist organizations such as CAIR).

I have read that tape recordings exist of secret sermons by Fethullah Gulan, a Turkish Islamist now living in exile, addressing his supporters within the Turkish government. In them he tells these politicans to put on a deceptive face of diplomacy and cooperation when dealing with opponents, while always working to undermine the structure, waiting for the day when the Turkey would fall to Islamism. Meowy 19:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, taqiyya is not used by Islamic terrorists to justify lying. No, Islamist use Taqiyya. Most of them don't know what it is to begin with. There is no concept of taqiyya in Islam. It was developed by Shiite in the 9th century in order to protect themselves from the ruling Sunni. Tarikur 18:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, now PM of Turkey, stated once a poem, “Democracy is like a train, we shall get out when we arrive at the station we want... the Belivers are our Soldiers... minaretts our canons ” At that time he went into prison for that and had to resign as mayor of Istanbul. You may call this way of thinking taqiyya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.137.216 (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tarikur, if an islamist believes that Islam is under attack - which btw is exactly what they all belive, then he will use it. Just like he belives that violence is allowed because in his point of view he only defends Islam and the Ummah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.137.216 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Machiavellian?

The whole concept of taqiyya is very Machiavellian (i.e. the ends justifies the means).

What if any relationship does this teaching have on Machiavelli? Did the teaching of this concept influence Machiavelli and his written works (primarily Il Principe, 1513, The Prince)?

I don't think is is Machiavellian. The difference is, that Machiavelli justifies deprieving others of their rights in the course of reaching some goal while in taqiyya one defends one's own security without deprieving anyone else of his rights.

where are the links to critics?

This page takes taqiyya at face value. The whole issue of criticism is that taqiyya is mis-used/abused/really used to lie when it's convenient for the purpose of "crushing the infidel dogs", or somesuch.

I only see one link to "a Christian site".

Where are the links to Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch?

Daniel Pipes? Bat Y'eor? Ayan Hirsi Ali?

I wonder if they have really never been added, or were just unpopular enough to be removed.

• Maybe that's because the interpretations and conclusions of such critics range and vary a great deal, and are hardly uniform? Then again, that would make an excellent sub topic within a section on criticism of the practice. To be fair, it would also be good to demonstrate that what some of the critics are quick to proclaim as a universal, you might be shocked to learn that other prominents critics are not agreements with those views at all. Admittedly, Robert Spencer and Abdullah al-'Araby, in particular are fond of promoting that taqiyya is somehow intrinsic within all forms of Islam. Here are some samples of statements from al'Araby and Spencer:

[1] [2] [3]

On the other hand, if you read closely, Daniel Pipes is VERY conspicuous in maintaining that he NEVER accuses people of practicing Taqiyya. Instead he pretty consitently asserts it to be an inherently Shia' practice. Frankly, given the prevailing popularity of th term among self-proclaimed "Islamo-critics", I wonder if we aren't a little overdue for a good, lengthy, nuanced, multi-faceted debate on the topic.

Note Pipes lengthy rebuttals to posters to his site proclaiming the "truth" about Taqiyya:

[4]

"I do not agree with much in this posting. Three corrections are needed, in particular:

1. Taqiya is a Shi`i practice, not a Sunni one.

2. It concerns hiding one's Shi`i affiliation, pretending to be a Sunni.

3. It is done only under stress.

Here, for example is a passage of mine from "The Alawi Capture of Power in Syria - article by Daniel Pipes," published in 1989, on the subject of one Shi`i group, the `Alawis (or Nusayris):

[5]

like other sects of Shi'i origins, 'Alawis practice taqiya (religious dissimulation). This might mean, for example, praying side-by-side with Sunni Muslims but silently cursing the Sunni caliphs. The apostate 'Alawi, Sulayman Efendi al-Adhani, recounted having been sworn to dissimulate about his religion's mysteries. An 'Alawi saying explains the sentiment behind taqiya: "We are the body and other sects are but clothing. However a man dresses does not change him. So we remain always Nusayris, even though we externally adopt the practices of our neighbors. Whoever does not dissimulate is a fool, for no intelligent person goes naked in the market." Another 'Alawi phrase expresses this sentiment succinctly: "Dissimulation is our righteous war!" (al-kitman jihadna).

A British traveler observed in 1697 that the 'Alawis are of a strange and singular character. For 'tis their principle to adhere to no certain religion; but camelion-like, they put on the colour of religion, whatever it be, which is reflected upon them from the persons with whom they happen to converse.... No body was ever able to discover what shape or standard their consciences are really of. All that is certain concerning them is, that they make much and good wine, and are great drinkers.

A hundred and fifty years later, Benjamin Disraeli described the 'Alawis in a conversation in the novel Tancred:

"Are they Moslemin?" "It is very easy to say what they are not, and that is about the extent of any knowledge we have of them; they are not Moslemin, they are not Christian, they are not Druzes, and they are not Jews, and certainly they are not Guebres [Zoroastrians]."

Sulayman Efendi al-Adhani explained this flexibility from within:

They take on the outward practices of all sects. If they meet [Sunni] Muslims, they swear to them and say, "We are like you, we fast and we pray." But they fast improperly. If they enter a mosque with Muslims, they do not recite any of the prayers; instead, they lower and raise their bodies like the Muslims, while cursing Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and other [major figures of the Sunni tradition]. Taqiya permitted 'Alawis to blow with the wind. When France ruled, they portrayed themselves as lost Christians. When Pan-Arabism was in favor, they became fervent Arabs. Over 10,000 'Alawis living in Damascus pretended to be Sunnis in the years before Asad came to power, only revealing their true identities when this became politically useful. During Asad's presidency, concerted efforts were made to portray the 'Alawis as Twelver Shi'is.">

Pipes has reiterated his views in others posts.

"Taqiyya is a Shi`i concept for self-preservation and is not an all-purpose justification of falsehood."

[6]

"I don't think I have ever accused anyone of taqiya. It is a specific and technical term, applicable to religion, not politics; and to Shi`is, not Sunnis."

[7]

The link he posted in the above comment is now dead, but it linked to this site:

[8] Jemiljan 07:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sunni view

In the subsection "Sunni view" do I read a modern author about the legitimacy of lie, under certain circumstances. I don't think this is neither a "sunni concept" nor an "islamic" one. Furthermore, I don't know, what it has to do in this article. This article is about "taqiyya" (wariness, secracy when denying one's own faith in order to safe his life) and not "kadhib" (lie). Or does this author use the term "taqiyya" for that, he describes? -- Arne List 12:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation

Now, my translation of the Arabic word "taqiyya" was changed into fear, guard against. But in my dictionary (Arabic - German, in this case) stands: Vorsichtigkeit (wariness) and Geheimhaltung (secracy), and this is exactly, what it means: wariness in the case, where one is in danger of life because of being a muslim. This means secracy and denying, to be a muslim, as quoted in Qur'an 16:106 (but a very seldom exception and not practised today, as far as I know. Or are there any muslims who deny, that they are muslims?). Ofcourse, this also means fear in that situation and guard against persecution and death, but it is not the meaning of the word "taqiyya" selv. -- Arne List 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition: I am self a muslim. I have learned, that it is not necessary to underline it without any reason. So I don't write it in my user profile, because, I don't want to be judged after my religion. I needn't to demonstrate it by any occasion! BUT: When being asked "Are you a muslim?", i have the duty to tell the truth: "Yes I am, alhamdu lillah". If i won't, it would be against Islam. So, the concept of "taqiyya" (to say "no" in that case), is a sin in my view. We rather have to endure the negative consequences of the creed and move away from such a danger. Any other muslims here, who say the same? -- Arne List 12:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I comment, not as a Muslim but as a small student of Arabic? Firstly, I thank the anonymous editor who moved my comments here from the body of the article, and I apologize for putting them there. I was trying to communicate with the author. Secondly, and I'll transliterate all the Arabic, which comes out of Wortabet-Porter's dictionary, taqayya تقية is a derivative of teqey تقى , which itself is a derivative of weqey, وقى. Now weqey is the "guard against", the most general verb, that appears at the head of the main entry. From "guard against" you easily come to specifically religious "wariness", so to speak: teqey, "piety", or "God-fearingness" as we say in English religious tradition: my amateur grasp of Arabic tells me this "t" adds pointedness or directedness to the guarding-against. Mohammed uses teqey over and over again, not as much as emen, "belief", but maybe half as much. From "piety" to taqayya, then, you are further refining "God-fearingness", are you not? The analogy of so-called Jesuitical casuistry is instructive. What good does proclaiming your faith do if the only result is that you die at the hands of a bigot? As for just saying that taqayya means "dissimulation", well, Arabic has plenty of words for "lying", such as kedheb and fitrinChrisrushlau 04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Jewish use

As a Jewish scholar who understands Taqiyya to be a purely Islamic concept, I too am unsure of both the relevance *and accuracy* of this section. There is a concept under Jewish law - 'Pikuach Nefesh' which is based on the concept that human life takes precedence over all else. For example, everybody knows pig-meat is not kosher and thus its consumption forbidden under Jewish law. If one were starving to death however, and the only food source was pig-meat, not only would a Jewish person be permitted to eat it, they would be compelled to, by 'Pikuach Nefesh'. It is *not* however by any means a licence to lie, deceive, cheat etc. as Taqiyya appears to be. Comments that Judaism and Islam share common roots are also frequently misunderstood and their use here misguided. Finally, as to the source of this information, one "Diana Steigerwald", forgive my cynicism but an obscure academic of religious studies simply doesn't cut it as a reliable source for this type of thing. Ask a Rabbi. Seriously.

What is this section doing here? It isn't about taqiyya, and if it's necessary to draw parallels with similar concepts in other religions, this doesn't seem like the best way of doing it. Palmiro | Talk 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the section does not belong to this article. Pecher ^Talk 19:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? --Striver 19:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not about taqiyya. Pecher ^Talk 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing that it is about something unrelated? --Striver 09:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the section doesn't belong in the article, Judaism is very linked to Islam, they claim the same prophets, both perform circumsion and a number of beleifs are held in common with Jews. This is one of the more controversial ideas and there shouldn't be anything wrong with mentioning the use of this hundreds of years before Islam by a people who are closely related to Ihsmaelites. It is in no way unrelated except that it mentions Jews...but hey, so does the Battle of Khaybar, we can't just remove the Jews from that section can we?--xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 09:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, taqiyya is a purely Islamic concept; whatever Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism have to say on certain issues is completely irrelevant. Pecher ^Talk 16:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This section is unwarranted, as any assertion that the Islamic tradition is related to Jewish religious laws constitutes WP:OR, unless substantiated by authoritative, contemporary sources. This is also true for the Druse section. Inferring on Maimonides is OR too when done by wikipedians - he's a primary source here. --tickle me 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Diana Steigerwald,Religious Studies, California State University: "Maimonides's [or Mosheh ben Maimon] father was a Rabbi and a judge of the rabbinical court and he decided to establish his residence for a time in Fez. He wrote an epistle encouraging the Jews to hold fast to their faith and to practice taqiyya (dissimulating their faith in periods of danger). The taqiyya is commonly practiced by minorities in Islam such as Shî‘ites and Sûfîs. The father of Maimonides comforted the Jews who were forced to outwardly profess Islam by assuring them that their real faith was the genuine belief concealed within their hearts." See [here] --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your source is saying: "The taqiyya is commonly practiced by minorities in Islam such as Shî‘ites and Sûfîs." This has nothing to do with Judaism; Maimonides encouraged Jews to use an Islamic, not Jewish, practice in order to survive. Pecher ^Talk 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That segment of the writing was an anaylisis by Diana on the following as quoted by Maimonides. Maimonides didn't say it was taqiyyah, contemporary academics did:

"The overall purpose of the Law is twofold: to promote the welfare of the body and to promote the welfare of the soul. The welfare of the soul is achieved inasmuch as sound views are implanted in the minds of people, to the extent they are capable of grasping them. For this reason, certain ideas are stated directly while others are expressed through symbols, since it is not within the natural capacity of common people to grasp the latter class of truths directly." --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's your original research that this piece of writing is about religious dissimulation; of all the examples of original research I've ever seen, this one is among the least logical. Pecher ^Talk 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that this article is about taqiyyah, it is only a passing remark on the first part of Maimonides' quote by the academic. It has nothing to do with original research and I made no such claims. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is itself deceptive. As Abdullah al-Araby writes [[9]] "unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged."

This concept (al Taqiyyah) forms part of the very core of cultural Islam. As al-Araby writes (reference above), "Most Muslims are familiar with the principles of Islam that will justify lying in situations where they sense the need to do so," and "It is also clear that if forced to do so, Muslims can lie while under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts."

According to Warner McKenzie [[10]] "The word "Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims."

Another reference, "Taqiyya and kitman: Role of Deception in Islamic terrorism" [[11]]

While many of the above articles are written by ex-Muslims or appear on anti-Islamist sites, they are all based on the Quran and hadiths, and the fundamental principle that every Muslim should strive for perfection in his faith; following in the words and deeds of the Prophet.

There is no similar concept in either Judaism or Christianity. See, for instance, the Jewish concept of Geneivat Da'at "The Prohibition Against Deception in Today's World" [[12]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeaz (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Alawite use

The Alwai sect in Syria and Lebanon practice taqiyya to the same extent, if not more, as the Druze. --83.72.194.208 21:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

But the alawi are just an offshoot of Shi'aism if I'm not mistaken? xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

They're as independent as a religion as the Druze are. Both are Shia offshoots. --83.72.194.208 04:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case I guess it should be mentioned (I wasn't aware that the druze were also an offshoot). But even so, it should be mentioned in a way that says something to the effect that they were both Shi'a offshoots, because the beleif is probably than derived from their "source" so to speak and wasn't individually recreated by each particular off-shoot. xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 08:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's common practice among pretty much all religious minorities anyway. It's a natural reaction to persecution.

Politics?

Will someone post a source so we all don't assume you're turning this article into religiously bigoted blog. If you can find an article by a shia religious authority, ya know , someone with the title of ayatollah before their name, then i think it passes the smell test. If not then refrain from posting neo-con dribble.

Casuistry

This practice has similarities with casuistry, which was used by Jesuit missionaries during the Counter reformation in the face of protestant persecution. I see there was an argument above about including similar practices amongst the Jews. Should the article have a para drawing this comparison as well?--Shtove 15:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-Muslims perceptions

I would like to see a section added to this article to state non-muslims perceptions of Taqiyya. Since this very topic is about legtimate lying by Muslims, how can we trust that the contributions by Muslims about their faith in this open forum aren't employing this tactic? I was asked by someone what Taqiyya is and this is the answer I came up with (in context of current global events)

Taquyeh is an allowance Allah grants to Muslims to lie. If a Muslim is being endangered in some way and their giving honest answers to some question puts them into more risk, Allah permits them to lie in order to protect themselves. The problem with this is that Muslims view the fact that someone is not muslim as an obligation to get the Non-Muslim to either 1) convert, 2) become a dhimmi or 3) be killed. (Given that the Muslims are in control and if they aren't in control, they are to eventually control it) Refusal of the Non-Muslim to conform to this is viewed as an offense against the Muslim and thus since the Muslim now views himself as being under attack can cite self-defense as an excuse to lie. So these lies are used when dealing with Non-Muslim in order to give the Muslim an advantage in his ultimate goal of global sharia.

This article presents a general outline of this tactic through history. I wish the URL was less sensational. http://www.geocities.com/bharatvarsha1947/January_2003/destroykafirs.htm

See my comments above in the related "Criticism" section. The views you've posted, while very popular, are hardly endorsed by all critics of Islam, much less all Muslims. I would advise paying close attention to Daniel Pipes and contrasting his statements with those of Spencer and al 'Araby et al... Suffice it to say, being an educated consumer on this particular issue is sorey lacking at the moment.Jemiljan 07:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition

The definition section needs work. Right now, it only has one subsection. Another subsection should be created, or the subheading should be done away with. The actual definition is at the head of the article, so the definition section should probably be renamed. The "knight of faith" paragraph is ungrammatical and seemingly unnecessary for a definition; it looks more like criticism, but rather abstruse for the uninitiated reader. The sentence about AWOL makes no sense to me. I don't want to make these edits myself because I know rather little about the subject and cannot formulate a good replacement. But I do know that as it is now, it's not good. --68.41.122.213 19:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Firstly, I thank the anonymous editor who moved my comments here from the body of the article, and I apologize for putting them there. I was trying to communicate with the author. Secondly, I refined my comments about translating taqayya and moved them up to the "translation" section's "talk" location, where I hope the original author, Arne List, will notice them. I deleted the rest of my original comment moved here from the article.Chrisrushlau 05:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (added to main article, 17:20, 22 April 2007 User:Chrisrushlau, moved here) 159.105.46.32 18:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a real problem with the header definition of Taqiyya ("literally means: 'concealing ...."). Now ignoring the selection of the quote from this particular source (why this one, why not another one, is this THE definitive source on Islam?) whilst this text is quoted accurately, the same source also goes on to say "The above definition must be elaborated upon before any undertaking of this topic is to ensue", and concludes, "With the above in mind, it becomes evident that a better, and more accurate definition of "al-Taqiyya" is "diplomacy." As it stands it seems to me the opening para's do kind of emphasise the "taqiyya means muslims lie" narrative that those people most concerned with taqiyya (primarily american conservatives) perpetuate. Whilst dissimulation does not mean lying, it is how most people interpret it. Leaving the remainder of the source quote out of the header seems to me to misrepresent the original source. [unregistered user, 19/01/08] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.1.6 (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Some misconceptions=

Taqiyya is not Islamic at all. There is no mention of Taqiyya in early Islam. There is no reliable Hadiths or Quran to support Taqiyya. The concept of Taqiyya was developed somewhere in 9th century by Shiite to lie and decieve in order to protect themselves from persecution and killing by the ruling Sunni. Tarikur 18:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This Whole Article is an Example of Taqqiya

This whole article obfuscates the essence of Taqqiya: to lie to the infidel.

Anything above or beyond is obfuscation.

By the way, what is wrong with this paragraph:

Misuse and Abuse

Taqiyya also is abused by Jihadists and Islamic hegemonists against non-Muslims. When interacting with the infidel, a Muslim Jihadist can obfuscate his intentions so that the infidel is less suspecting of the jihadism and hegemony encroaching upon him or her. In short, taqiyya is abused to allow wholesale lies to the non-Muslim.

67.87.92.56 (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You might like to read my links to Daniel Pipes above in the criticism section, BEFORE you jump to such conclusions?Jemiljan (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing the comments of others in talk pages is in poor taste. If you disagree, say so. --OneTopJob6 (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Function of Taqiyya in non-Muslim nations

People opposed to Islam's presence in the west often suggest that Taqiyya allows (or even requires) that Muslims pretend to be more peaceful and patriotic than they are, in order to help Islam infiltrate these countries. Schemes such as having Schools of Islamic Studies within UK universities funded by Iran's Government could be affected by this apparent form of double-speak. I find it amazing that this article is so pro-Taqiyya, even opening with a barely relevant link to the persecution of a group of Muslims by another....--MartinUK (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Taqiyya is only allowed in cases of turture or life threatening situations, it is a part of the human instinct and anyone regardless of religion or the lack thereof practices it. Consciously or unconsciously. I don't think you need to be having nightmares over Iran, as far as i remember, Iranians in the UK are quite the calm, highly educated citizens and are commonly not driven to kill disbelievers, or preach such things. I agree, the article needs some NPOV polishing, most of the views expressed in the article are from Salafite literature, who consider Shiites infidels. --Paradoxic (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The article should include a section on the non-Muslim perception of taqiya as license to "lie to the infidel in order to spread Islam" as someone just told me. It seems to be a very popular misconception and it should be mentioned. I think it would also be good if links to articles on similar concepts in other religions (I think Judaism and Buddhism accept something equivalent to Islam's taqiya). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5