Talk:Taqiyya/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Changes by HafizHanif

user:HafizHanif, you have removed sourced and relevant information. It should be noted that taqiyya as a concept has never been used by Sunni jurisprudence, from what I have researched. The concept of "taqiyya" is itself an essential doctrine amongst Shias, but not Sunnis. You should not confuse ideas of 'concealment' with 'taqiyya.' Not all forms of concealment are taqiyya. Similarly, concealment has been practiced by Jews, but you wouldn't call it taqiyya. Similarly, the concealment practiced by some Sunnis, is not taqiyya. Also your removal of the fact that Ahmad ibn Hanbal refused to break down upon torture, is indicative of a bias. Xtremedood (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Xtremedood, I simply undid your deletions to the prior editor. You stated in one of your deletions that a particular author of a source was not Sunni and thus his citation was not sufficient. Is this not bias? The literature is very clear, without the semantics you are raising, that both Sunni and Shia branches have what is defined as taqiyya in their doctrine. Perhaps we should send this to arbitration and also have a lock put on this article, it is exhausting having to revert and undo the deletions and vandalism by people who cannot see past their opinions or their leanings. Let me guess: you identify as a Sunni Muslim, correct? ( rhetorical question ) HafizHanif (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

user:HafizHanif,You accused me of the following "You stated in one of your deletions that a particular author of a source was not Sunni and thus his citation was not sufficient." This is totally incorrect and you have no basis for such a accusation. It seems that you did not read the source.

I removed the following passage from the "Sunni View" [1] section "Sunnis believe that it is allowed to deny faith under compulsion, threat, and fear of death, as long as the heart remains firm in faith". No where in the source indicated does it justify this statement. The source on page 73 reads in regards to concealment, that it is regarding Shi'ite beliefs, however, the author then goes on to quote a translated passage of the Quran in which he deduces that concealment (not specifically taqiyya) is permissible for Sunnis. This is the authors interpretation. No where does he state that all Sunnis believe in his interpretation and no where does he indicate that all forms of concealment are taqiyya.

As I have mentioned previously, in Sunni jurisprudence the term and concept of "taqiyya" is not utilized for conceilment. Can you show me a single school of Sunni law (i.e. Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, and Hanbali) that have utilized the terminology and doctrine of 'taqiyya'? As I have stated previously, concealment can be found in various religions, including Judaism (who have been persecuted in Europe) and Christianity (during the first few centuries of Christianity when they were heavily persecuted by the Romans). However, the terminology and doctrine of 'taqiyya' is unique to Shias. If you want to include Sunnis, then the title of the article should be changed from "taqiya" to "concealment of religious beliefs" or something like that and other religions like Judaism and Chrisitanity should be included. Since the article is about 'taqiya' it is not relevant for Sunnis. Xtremedood (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood, to your rebuttal regarding my incorrect statement ( not an accusation as you stated, unless accusations are pointing to the obvious actions of others which all can see for themselves ), here is the evidence that anyone can see for themselves at the time and date shown:

04:01, 13 December 2015‎ Xtremedood (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,007 bytes) (-377)‎ . . (not what the source states. Source makes a reference to a translation of a Quran verse and author interprets it. Author is not a Sunni from what I assume.)

As to not finding the exact phrasing, terms or words in any given source, the work of an editor is to summarize in their own words the breadth of a reference. One could also quote certain portions in a reference to clarify a point made or highlight something.

As to semantics, are you offended that a term originating within the Shia school is defining what a Sunni does if threatened? How about sharing or researching the Arabic term Sunnis use when they justify a lie, or immorality or what this article is describing? The citations show that indeed such a notion exists, so either clarify the term in the Sunni school of thought or vacate your argument.

I don't see a need to address your reaching into the past and other religions to justify what this article is illuminating regarding lying or "dissimulation" as justifiable when no such doctrine exists in the preceding religious doctrines. Peace be with you. Go in peace. --HafizHanif (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

user:HafizHanif, your statements speak for themselves as what they really are. No where did not edit summary justify what you said, nor did the author in his source state that he speaks for all Sunnis. Also the passage in question does not justify the sentence, therefore it should be removed or a better source stating this should be added. I am looking for what is sound and truthful, it is not a matter of what is offensive of not. As far as what is evident, the terminology and doctrine of 'taqiyya' is limited to Shias. Other practices of concealment can, however, be found in other faiths, including Judaism, Islam (Sunni), and Christianity. Would you call the practice of Crypto-Christianity and the doctrines surrounding it as 'taqiyya'? Probably not. Xtremedood (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

user:143.176.216.29, your repeated revisions and lack of justifications for such revisions is contrary to bringing about meaningful discourse on the subject. Feel free to discuss here why you think that Sunni should be included, even though there is no such term in Sunni jurisprudence called 'taqiya' from what I have researched. Xtremedood (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Your own research is irrelevant. As explained earlier to you by other users, the given reliable sources mention the use of Taqiya in Sunnism. Please stop disrupting the project. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me where in the source it states that the term and doctrine of 'taqiya' has been used by Sunnis? Also, concealment does not automatically refer to taqiya. Xtremedood (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood, this link holds 14 references regarding taqiyya in Sunni thought, written by Sunnis of the past. The term's Arabic similar words are included. Dissimulation is an English term for the Arabic 'taqiyya.' The references in this wiki article on taqiyya are sufficient and explore the doctrine according to Sunni thought. You may disagree, but the centuries of Sunni / Islamic writers disagree with you. Wiki editors are to provide what is evident, not their biased dislikes or disagreements. --HafizHanif (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:HafizHanifThe link is of al-islam.org, which is a militantly Shia website. It is not reliable and its sources are often aimed at countering and maintaining a bias against Sunnis. You are also missing the point. No where is there a reference that 'taqiya' as a term and doctrine has ever been used by Sunni jurists. Let me repeat, concealment does not automatically mean taqiyya. Otherwise, Crypto-Judaism and Crypto-Christianity should be included to this article. Taqiyya as a term and doctrine is limited to Shia thought. Whether or not something looks similar to taqiya does not mean it is taqiyya. In my opinion Crypto-Christianity looks similar to taqiyya, but should it be included in the article? I doubt you would think so. Xtremedood (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood, the website was simply to reference reality, not to be used in the article. Perhaps a misunderstanding in cognition.

What is dissimulation in the Sunni thought? Does the Sunni branch have a term for concealment, or lying under duress, etc.? If so, I encourage you to source that term with relevant information and put this debate to rest. --HafizHanif (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:HafizHanif, I think a new article should be made called "Crypto-Sunni Islam" or something like that which includes this content and which deals with such issues. Or all of the "crypto" articles could be merged together to make things easier. As far as the idea of concealment is concerned it has been practiced by some Sunnis, such as some Sunni Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula during the inquisition (Moriscos). I could not, however, find a term for this in Sunni jurisprudence. The Shia's have a more formalized practice, however, which is why they have a term for it. Xtremedood (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood, I encourage you to see those references at that website I linked recently. They are properly cited. The term "taqiyya" seems to be derived from two other terms. The doctrine allowing dissimulation was first developed by the Shias as you've stated, yes. But eventually Sunni jurists have adopted the idea. The issue as to whether the term is "taqiyya" in Sunni thought is a minor issue, and can be seen as a fallacious position.

As to "crypto" anything regarding other religions, I see that effort as a means to justify further the doctrine of taqiyya, but you'd have to find mainstream doctrines in Judaism and Christianity where dissimulation is taught. It would be interesting to find these, for I don't believe they exist outside of Islamic ideology seeing the world through the lens of the Quran, Hadith and Sunna message despite the lack of such a teaching in Judaism or Christianity themselves.--HafizHanif (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

User:HafizHanif, No where in the sources does it indicate that Sunnis have utilized the terminology and doctrine of 'taqiyya'. Mainstream Sunni Muslims do not support the idea of taqiyya, nor is it justified according to the Quran and Sunnah, according to the Sunni jurists I have come across. Nor has there been any transferring of Shia concepts of jurisprudence to Sunni jurists in regards to taqiya, as you have implicitly said. You may interpret certain scripture in a certain way, but this would constitute original research and it is not allowed on WP. A lot of Islamophobic websites have dedicated a lot of time to misinterpret and misrepresent Islamic texts, and go at great lengths to promote a negative perspective on Islam, while neglecting the complexities involved in the jurisprudence of the religion.

Judaism has a strong tradition of concealment, which may be justified from the Old Testament and Talmud, due to the immense persecutions they faced by the hands of Christians for many centuries. Christianity also had a strong tradition, primarily, during the persecutions of Christians by the Roman Empire. Similarly, when Sunni Muslims were persecuted, they also may have utilized forms of concealment. As we can read from the following source [2], it states "The marranos were crypto-Jews, hidden believers in the Torah who agreed to convert to Christianity- but only publicly. In the privacy of their homes they remained loyal to the Jewish faith."

Similarly, various groups, such as the Salafis have criticized the terminology and doctrine of taqiya as being a bida. See here [3], it states "Unlike the Salafis who consider taqiyya (expedient dissimulation) as an innovation (bid'a), "which they condemned as mere human interpretation.". Clearly you have no foot to stand on to justify such a proposition to make a definitive statement on Sunni Islam, when in reality the term was not used by Sunni jurists, from what I have researched. Xtremedood (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood, here is the very first reference and summary from the website you have issue with, but proper citations trump dubious websites or authors of duplicitous websites. A factual source is a factual source:

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al- Ma’athoor,”narrates Ibn Abbas’, the most renowned and trusted narrator of tradition in the sight of the Sunnis, opinion regarding al-Taqiyya in the Qur’anic verse: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, (they) shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution ("tat-taqooh"), that ye may guard yourselves ("tooqatan") from them....(3:28)”that Ibn Abbas said:

"al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only; he who has been coerced into saying that which angers Allah (SWT), and his heart is comfortable (i.e., his TRUE faith has not been shaken.), then (saying that which he has been coerced to say) will not harm him (at all); (because) al- Taqiyya is with the tongue only, (not the heart)."

Note: The two words "tat-taqooh”and "tooqatan,”as mentioned in the Arabic Qur’an, are BOTH from the same root of "al-Taqiyya.”

Note Also: The "heart” as referred to above and in later occurrences refers to the center of faith in an individual’s existence. It is mentioned many times in the Qur’an.

''

There are 12 or more references. Perhaps I should include these to expand the taqiyya article under the Sunni subheading. --HafizHanif (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

User:HafizHanif, you are repeating yourself. You are quoting exactly what is from the al-islam.org site, which is not reliable. You already posted the link previously. al-islam.org is a militantly pro-Shia and anti-Sunni website. al-islam.org, is simply trying to present theological arguments against Sunnis, and therefore it violates WP:NPOV. Also, the above reference is taken from here [4], in which Jalal al-Din as-Suyuti does not use the term 'taqiyya', rather the writers of al-islam.org interpret what he is saying to refer to what they deem as 'taqiyya'. Also, I could not find any proof that Ibn Abbas ever used the term "taqiyya" from what is presented. No source is given for the alleged statement. It is well known that the doctrine of taqiyya originates long after Ibn Abbas. This seems to be a strong attempt to divert the issue. You have not shown any proof that Sunni jurists have ever utilized the term or doctrine of 'taqiyya.'

You seem to fail to understand that the doctrine developed by Shia jurists, as stated here [5] "In the aftermath of numerous defeats and tragic events in the history of early Shi'ism, the principle of taqiyya, precautionary concealment or dissimulation of one's true religious identity and beliefs under adverse circumstances that endangered one's life or property, was articulated by the imams of the Imami Shi'is." Clearly the doctrine stems from later. The terminology was also used exclusively by Shias. Xtremedood (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood, yes dood, I am repeating myself because I don't think you comprehend or understand the difference between a reference and a website. We're done, dood. Peace be with you... go in peace. --HafizHanif (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

User:HafizHanif, failure to properly provide for counter arguments and reliance on personal attacks does nothing to bolster effective dialogue on the matter. Failure to understand that potentially mistranslated texts from a biased website does not suffice as a source for WP. Also, failure to address the strong academic sources posted may reflect an unwillingness to accept the facts. Xtremedood (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood, this is getting even more ridiculous. I am saying this exchange is ridiculous, not you. Saying "I don't think you understand" is an opinion. "I don't think" is prefacing my opinion. But you think it is a personal attack. How can I reconcile with your interpretation of my words? Judging references by a website you don't like... what is that called? The references are kosher, they speak to what is presented. You can go ahead and see if that website manipulates or twists the reference to fit their bias by reading the references and looking them up yourself, but you don't seem to care to find out. Rejecting the site despite accurate sources is illogical. Your desire not to even look is illogical. I'm not calling you illogical, but your desire to call foul despite accurate references being present. As to the counterargument: I won the counterargument day one. Other editors before I even began editing this article have provided the evidence of taqiyya in Sunni doctrine, but you don't want to accept that Arabic term in place of dissimulation, or the allowance to lie under duress that the Sunni doctrine allows for, why? It seems to offend you or you have issue with that word because the Shias used that word first or some other unfounded reason. I'm sorry. Take up your grievance with those who have developed Sunni doctrines and those pesky scholars who have published about it, not me. The term is derived as the root from two other words found in the Quran. Your issue would then be with the Quran, it seems. And since it is believed that an angel of God taught Muhammad the Quran, then you should be asking why Muhammad would say God allows people to lie with their lips while curse them in their hearts. Your issue then is with Muhammad, not me. I hope I have clarified where the real issue can be found, for it doesn't seem to be with me or anyone who has clearly shown where and how taqiyya is both in Sunni and Shia thought.--HafizHanif (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ has the most honest and honourable life ever and taught honesty and honour to his followers. No angel taught him and he taught the world right morals. The holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did not do as you said. You attacking my religion is indicative of your Islamophobic stance. As I have stated and as I have stuck with the topic, no such term exists within Sunni jurisprudence and taqiyya is limited to Shia jurisprudence. This is proven by various sources. Concealment, however, has been practiced by various religions and according to various Sunni scholars it may be used to save your life if under immense persecution. Concealment, however, does not equal taqiyya. I could not find the doctrine of 'taqiyya' in the Quran. It appears to be a Shia interpretation of scripture. Interpretation of scriptures vary. What you are doing, however, constitutes original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. Xtremedood (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:143.176.216.29, Not all forms of religious concealment are taqiyya. As I have previously mentioned in the Changes by HafizHanif section. Jews have practiced religious concealment or dissimulation, but would you refer to it as taqiyya? Probably not. Similarly, Christians have also done the same. The terminology and doctrine of 'taqiyya' is however limited to Shia jurisprudence and thought. It is not found in any of the major schools of Sunni jurisprudence that I have come across (i.e. Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali). Similarly, various groups, such as the Salafis have criticized the terminology and doctrine of taqiya as being a bida. See here [6], it states "Unlike the Salafis who consider taqiyya (expedient dissimulation) as an innovation (bid'a), "which they condemned as mere human interpretation.". As we can see that taqiyya has been heavily criticized by non-Shias. Similarly, in this source [7] it states "In the aftermath of numerous defeats and tragic events in the history of early Shi'ism, the principle of taqiyya, precautionary concealment or dissimulation of one's true religious identity and beliefs under adverse circumstances that endangered one's life or property, was articulated by the imams of the Imami Shi'is." Clearly the doctrine stems from Shia jurisprudence. The terminology was also used exclusively by Shias. Xtremedood (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Jews and Christians do not practice Islam. Your personal interpretation of jurisprudence, is not relevant for the article. There is already a section of Sunni views in the article, but this could be expanded to include the word bid'a if you'd like. The book you are quoting only claims that the term originated from Shi'ism, it does not adress the practice or semantics. I'll quote the currently used source: “Sunni authors sometimes avoid use of the term taqiyya itself, perhaps because of its association with Shi'ism in particular...”[8]. This entire paper is available online, please read it.143.176.216.29 (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood, your writings reveal you being a fan of a man, and beholden to a particular point of view ( centric view )... but sadly, not the fan of the truth when it conflicts with your preconceived notions. Your argument over a word, while failing to see clearly how that word's definition is also present in Sunni doctrine, is evidence enough that you currently cannot see past your bias in order to reason. Even a third party has pointed this reality out to you but yet you insist. - HafizHanif (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you both please stop with the personal attacks? It does not matter who started them. Opinions really don't help when we need reliable sources. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did suggest several days ago to dood to use the term understood in Sunni thought, which you've mentioned as bid'a. - HafizHanif (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: There are several Sunni Faqihs who accept it including Shafi'i and Hasan al-Basri [9].--Seyyed(t-c) 12:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: Let me quote just two sentences from the book which you quoted and lets put this to rest. These sentences are right on the page you quoted. The debate is kinda stale seeing that this matter had already been decided in many debates previously.

1. HOWEVER FOR THE SHI'IAH AL-TAQIYYAH HAS A DIFFERENT APPLICATION
2. FOR MAINSTREAM SCHOLARS THE BELIEF IN AL TAQIYYAH IS HYPOCRITICAL

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The following quote from the same book is also relevant:

For the Khawarij, the dogma of dissimulation (taqiyyah) in words or action is illegal. This theological stance is counter to the Shi`i views [...]. The Shi'i dogma of taqiyyah is also rejected by mainstream Sunni exegetes, non-mainstream Mu'tazilah, Ash'ari, Sufi Sunni exegetes, as well as by the non-mainstream Ibadi exegetes.

Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wiqi55 and FreeatlastChitchat: I agree with you, however I thought the article cover these issues. You can add more information for clarification, if you find it necessary.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Do reliable sources show that Taqiya is an exclusive term?

Several reliable sources show that religious dissimulation (concealing the truth) is practised in both Sunni and Shia Islam. For this concept, the term Taqiya is used in literature[10]. Are there any reliable sources that show the term Taqiya should not be used for concealment by Sunnis? 143.176.216.29 (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I would firstly advise you to refrain from edit warring to include your POV into an article. On to the Rfc then. Well first of all the source is not all that "reliable" for global sunni perspective. Secondly, there is no Islamic scholar who tells us that this is used by sunnis. thirdly, even the source you cited has dedicated almost 70% of the article to saying that there is no Taqiyya in sunni Islam, while the other 30% says that "this and that fatwa", may be interpreted to mean taqiyya". So it is just an opinion of a non notable guy. nothing more. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The question is not if you oppose. The question is if there are reliable sources that show the term should not be used for Sunni dissimulation. Can you cite any? There is more than one source in the article that shows dissimulation is not exclusive to Shia Islam. If you want a religous discussion, then join the two authors in the section above. I would strongly advise you to refrain from POV-pushing, there is no consensus for the changes made by xtremedood. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Question - Are you proposing that a specific change be made, or do you have specific wording in mind? As it's more difficult to prove a negative, it might be easier to show that that it is used in Sunni tradition. If not, perhaps a discussion of ikrāh might still be warranted, as the author of that paper points to, if more RS can be found echoing that sentiment. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the question is a semantic one. I'm looking for neutral reliable sources that show the term should not be used for Sunnism. Current sources in the article show that dissimulation is rather universal in all branches of Islam. I do think it would be best to remove the words shia and sunni from the lead text though. This change would result in the opening line being: Taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah), literally "fear, caution",[1]is a form of religious dissimulation. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed with FreeatlastChitchat, I think. That editor's principal point could be summed up differently: The burden of proof lies the other way than the direction 143.176.216.29 would like: Per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, we require reliable sources that term does apply to Sunni Islam, and we do not appear to have that, just a lone external interpretation that the definition could maybe be stretched that far even if it's not actually used that way. There is no need to "cite any ... reliable sources that show the term should not be used for Sunni dissimulation". That's the fallacy of roving a negative. Can you cite any sources that I'm not really Zorkonn the Space God, Lord of the Entire Multiverse? Evidence generally exists for specific propositions, and sometimes against certain specific propositions, but it cannot exist against all propositions one could come up with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No we have over four sources in the article. I only used a single article from a notable university on the talkpage, because this one is easily accesible. The lead text clearly states that the term was originated by Shi'ism and this is supported by sources. Per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, we require reliable sources that proof a form of Taqiya is practiced in Sunni Islam. We have those sources as well and they are being discussed further down the article. We also have reliable sources that show Sunnis are avoiding the use of this word. If you claim these reliable sources are not credible, you should present reliable sources to proof they are wrong. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We do not need "reliable sources that proof [sic] a form of Taqiya is practiced in Sunni Islam" unless we state exactly that. We need sources that support what we actually state, and we need to adjust what we state to match what the sources state. If multiple reliable sources apply this term to Sunni Islam in certain ways, we should document that/those specific usage[s], and if necessary how they differ from how the term is applied to/within Shi'a Islam. Whether the term originated in one or the other is irrelevant. I washed my hair with shampoo this morning, and that did not originate as an English word, but it would be nonsensical to say that I didn't really use shampoo, on the basis that what I used is not an herbal extract from India which is what the original term meant. Anyway, I'm neutral with regard to whether the sources at hand adequately do or do not support our article linking this term with both major branches of Islam, and this is not a topic I'm deeply informed about or interested in. My observation is, rather, that the entire question is being approached incorrectly. Our article's own text has to document who uses this term in what way(s), without offering any opinion (obvious or latent) about whether the usage is "correct" or not. What I'm seeing a lot of here is PoV insistence than the term can or cannot be applied, based primarily on how Shi'a uses the term within its own context, which is not the question that's relevant here. And "If you claim these reliable sources are not credible, you should present reliable sources to proof [sic] they are wrong" is a fundamental misunderstanding of what we're doing here and how WP works. If reliable sources disagree, we document this conflict in the article, we don't fight about which sources we like better and then choose to represent one view but not the other. FreeatlastChitchat has challenged the reliability of at least one of your sources. You should probably address that, to that editor, since it directly impinges upon what you want to include/exclude on the basis of what sources, instead of arguing further with me about how to source properly. I don't feel the latter is an argument you'll do well in, and it will probably just inspire further critical examination of the sources you want to rely on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There are two kinds of "Taqiya". The first kind is to protect the believer against the threat as Ammar ibn Yasir denied the prophet while he was tortured by pagans. Both Shias and Sunnis have reported this issue, however, there are different interpretations.[11] Shias consider it as "Taqiya". There are several Sunni Faqihs who accept it including Shafi'i and Hasan al-Basri [12]. The other kind of Taqiya relates to "Islamic esotericism". This kind of Taqiya is common between Shias and Sunni Sufis. This does not necessarily relate to the protection against danger but kitman (concealment) of the esorteric aspect of the religion from those who can not understand it. You can find a lot of examples for this issue in the Sufi literature. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Commentaccording to wilfred Madlung On taqiyyah, we could say that all islamic sects-both shia and Sunni- believe in permission of Taqiyyah in its special circumstances. This belief is more related to universal judgment on Taqiyyah. seehere--m,sharaf (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This article is one of great importance and crucial to an outsider's understanding. It is also quite valuable for those who identify with the religion, for it would allow critical objectivity. The doctrinal allowance of dissimulation ( a term synonymous with: pretense, dissembling, deceit, dishonesty, duplicity, lying, guile, subterfuge, feigning, shamming, faking, bluff, bluffing, posturing, hypocrisy ) in a popular and state infused religion is so valuable to understanding Islam both historically and as a matter of psychological significance. What was interesting was the argument made by the recent challenger to this article when they stated both Judaism and Christianity had a similar allowance, citing instances when men lied to save themselves. Although it can be logically concluded that a man would lie to save himself from sure death, no such notion, let alone the teaching in primary, secondary, or doctrinal writings, either popular or fringe, can be concluded for such an allowance in Judaism nor Christianity, and perhaps other world religions.

Suggestion This article should be protected from future ad hoc edits once this issue is resolved. Am I the only one who finds it frustrating having to undo unnecessary edits over and over again ( many articles I frequent, not just this one )? -- HafizHanif (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: I oppose your suggestion on protection of the page. The talk page does not show serious edit war.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Sa.vakilian, you don't see the 27 sections in this talk page regarding the argument that Sunnis don't use the term taqiya or something related?? There are 27 sections which go back and forth, a new one being opened when the latest objector brings up the same argument. The latest one is named after me! Are you, by any chance, expressing taqiya in your opposition to my suggestion? lolol, oi vey. - HafizHanif (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, I just oppose the protection of the page and see no reason for it.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion We should put this in the FAQ that Sunni's Do NOT practice this. Almost 2 dozen debates have proven this. Just consider the logical explanation. The term Taqiyya is used exclusively by Shi'ites; they were being persecuted so they had to lie in order to stay alive. Extenuating circumstances warranted that lying be given the go ahead or else they would have been wiped out. This is an article about that SPECIFIC term. Sunni's never had this sort of permission, for they never faced persecution on such a scale because Shi'ites did not come into power that much. So saying that sunni's practice this is highly ridiculous. Akin to saying that the general population of Europe was targeted during holocaust. It was only the Semitic population that was targeted during holocaust.Similarly only Shi'ites were being killed, and only the shi'ites were told that lying is ok. We have discussed this same thing over and over again. I am amazed we are wasting time on this time sink anon IP again. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Please refrain from whataboutism, IP-Bias or other personal attacks and learn from the past.
First of all, literature shows that dissimulation and lying are not considered to be the same thing. Secondly, there are too many reliable sources that show Sunnis are allowed to use religious dissimulation. You are the only one who seems to have a problem with this. The article should remain neutral and not include the original research of what may or may not be a single user. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat I added information based on the reliable source. We can discuss about the source. But, we can censor wikipedia because some people don't like to add information to the article. I will accept your edit if you provide reliable sources which clearly says Sunnis Faqihs do not accept Taqiyyah as a religious issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Credibility of Article Taqiyya

The material present as on 07th July, 2014 in the contents of Article Taqiyya does not reflect the true sense of known followers of doctrine of Taqiyya.

Article Taqiyya seems to be esoteric. Either the contents were removed/deleted or critics discouraged the writers to avoid further editing. The credibility of this article cannot be established until unless it is acceptable to the mainstream (twelver shia) of this doctrine. This article does not contain book references written by religious interpretators. Most of the ISBN books referred in this article, may be comments but does not qualify as source for reference to explain the doctrine of Taqiyya. Nannadeem (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Nannadeem

• Some Shias, though, advance taqiyya as a form of jihad, a sort of fighting against their adversaries.[19] - (Main page ref as on 17-01-2016)
• Many Shias today deny that taqiyya has any significance in their religion.[23]

Above two points are synthesis by the book writers. Can any one provide similar quote or reference from any religious scholar (concerned) of current two centuries. Nannadeem (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Taqiya discussion for anti-Muslim definitions (polemicist)

On the basis of sound, taqiya is phonetically correlated to taqwa and both have similar roout from “Viqaya” or ittaqa” (Ref: P-188 or page 6/35 [13]) & [14] + [15]; and objectively deals to denote “fear and avoidance”. Under this fear concealment of a truth is not an abandonment of that truth (Ref: (i) Page-368 of Chapter-1 of Tuhfa-e-Ithna Ashariyah By Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlvi (2) Page-84, Anwar-ul-Lughah, by Wahid-uz-Zaman Khan – Banglore edition); rather it is camouflage being the natural inheritance and the natural demand and relates to special circumstance, for example wine is prohibited but in case of life saving as a medicine its use is obligatory. If one assesses innate human tendencies, one has to admit that everyone has a natural disposition to defend him/herself. In most of the countries, weapon (pistol or guns) are licensed to citizen for use at time of self defense and not for killing anyone. However, weapons are provided to army personnel not only for their own defense but also for killing. Thus weapons remain the same but their application and subject differ according to situation. Similarly taqiya is for self defense not for gain. It does not relate to any greed it simply a natural camouflage for protection. Further taqiya covers individual concealment for safety of his/her life and belongings. As soon as concept of gain on account of greed is involved the philosophy of taqiya is demised.

A careful consideration will show that the taqiyah is not peculiar to Shia Muslims alone, relatively, it is a natural demand. Defense mechanisms are natural and creator has bestowed the application of this mechanism for safety or self defence. God has not left the human unprotected and by taqiya such as the ability to use one’s tongue to escape persecution is indeed a supreme example of defense. Thus (1) Historically, vide Genesis 12:10 here [16] and rationally there is no application of taqiya for causing personal loss or damange to reputation and no diplomacy to be used in place of cheating, it is mere a self protection being the natural inheritance. (2) Belief against faith in heart but declaration of belief in words. This is Nifaq (hypocricy). Correct belief of faith by heart but declaration of disbelief in words is the simplest defination of taqiya. No diplomacy is covered under taqiya except concealing truth or belief without causing loss to opponent as practice by Prophet Ibrahim vide Quranic Verses from 58 to 63 of Chapter-21 [17]. Points (1) & (2) of this para are proposed to be incorporated in the lead section. Nannadeem (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nannadeem: Thank for your comment. You are right. Can you please clarify which part of the text you want to improve and what your suggestion is.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Seyyed Thanks. Just after "it nevertheless is one of the key terms used by recent anti-Muslim polemicists" and before start of Etymology Section. Proposed insertion:

(1) Historically, vide Genesis 12:10, and rationally there is no application of taqiya for causing personal loss or damage to reputation and; no diplomacy in place of cheating, it is mere a self protection being the natural inheritance. (2) Belief against faith in heart but declaration of belief in words is Nifaq (hypocricy). Correct belief of faith by heart but declaration of disbelief in words is the simplest definition of taqiya. No diplomacy is covered under taqiya except concealing truth or belief without causing loss to opponent as practiced by Prophet Ibrahim (ref:21:58-68 Quran).

Grammar/English may be changed or improved. Nannadeem (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but quoting Genesis 12: 10+ as a means to legitimize lying, or to argue that somehow God allowed Abraham to lie in order to save himself or his wife or property, is such a bogus argument and example of poor deductive reasoning. What is exemplified there is that Abraham lied due to fear. To somehow use that as a basis to rationalize lying or moralize it as "good" in a Muslim context, or Muslim theology, or "taqiya" or whatever other justification, is absolute nonsense. Just because Abraham's lying wasn't condemned doesn't mean it was applauded, or allowed or justified. No where is such an argument found in Genesis or elsewhere.

Going further with reason; Abraham's choice to lie can be him faltering in faith, and possibly doubting God's promise of making him into a great nation ( the fear that his wife would be taken from him ), but I think the point is made in what I've written so far. Rationalizing taqiya as "admissible" because Abraham lied to avoid trouble is shameful and a twisting of reality and history, for again, no where is lying justified or allowed in Jewish theology. Leave this article, which is about Muslim theology and specifically the teaching of taqiya, stand on its own merits, without reaching beyond the primary sources of the Quran and completing hadiths / tafsir in rationalizing the allowance to lie. HafizHanif (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@HafizHanif thank for your discussion. First of all, I clarify my POV that life of Prophets is a precedent for our guide (only guide). Once acknowledged infallible, rationally there seems no question of impeachment if human option is opted by any Prophet for guide of human beings. However, whenever I quote like examples I seek pardon in my heart. My simple purpose is to provide constructive source and observations of my brothers in faith like you is much more precious.

Anti-Muslim polemicists + different URLs e.g. [18] promoting that Muslims apply, interalia, taqiya for purpose of advancing Islam. You will notice that promotion and safety are not alike. What should we put (SOURCE) here for evaluation of general readers who have questions in their mind about taqiya application? Nannadeem (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nannadeem:, peace be with you, my friend. Answering your question: only what is relevant to the Muslim thought process and theology ( Muslim sources and Islamic jurisprudence ) should be found in this article. I must clarify that the belief that prophets lived infallible lives is alone a Muslim ideology. This is not understood from Scripture in Jewish and Christian theology, and Scripture itself mentions the sins of the prophets, or the prophets themselves confess their shortcomings. If this article is going to go further into Muslim theology and editors desire attempting to make external references ( Gen 12 ), then the difference between the faiths should be clarified regarding lying. The law of Moses states "thou shall not lie," and this law is continued in the Injil / Gospel message. Peace be with you. --HafizHanif (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no allowance, teaching, caveat or justification for lying in both Jewish and Christian theology. Neither is there evidence in the Scripture, no matter how interpreted, to allow any person to lie. Lying is believed to be a sin ( missing the mark of perfection ), regardless of the circumstances. The logical and carnal argument stands as proof that men will do and say anything under duress to save themselves and stay safe, but there is no such allowance to deviate from the truth in Jewish and Christian theology. Denying God or that which the individual believes and professes is the very test of faith. Justifying any type of sin ( in this case lying ) to save oneself is not taught in Jewish and Christian theology as an allowance from God. It is quite the opposite. Evidence showing a bible character lying to save themselves shouldn't be interpreted as an allowance or some other misinterpretation; the law is clear and the warnings for disobedience are even clearer.

Leviticus 19: 11 You shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

Psalms 119: 163 I hate and abhor lying: but your law do I love.

Proverbs 12: 22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Proverbs 13: 5 A righteous man hates lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and comes to shame.

Proverbs 14: 5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.

Proverbs 17: 7 Excellent speech becomes not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince.

John 8: 44 You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of lies.

Ephesians 4: 29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth...

1 Timothy 4: 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

James 1: 26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.

Peace be with you, my friend. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Contemporary debate edit war

This material [19] had been added and removed five times. The last two additions dropped the external YouTube link [20] but there are definitely still problems with the material. "For those in the West, taqiyya is used to..." is sourced to various Quran verses. It does not explain what "For those in the West" means, and I'm sure the Quran verses don't make any such distinction. This is confusing and poorly sourced. Quran verses themselves do not support any statement about contemporary interpretation of taqiyya, in the West or elsewhere.

The rest of the paragraph is completely unsourced and appears to be OR/opinion. Deception is also permitted when it is a white lie. According to whom? Considering all of this, it may be that technically Islamic scholars are correct to try to say that the use of taqiyya is an inaccurate and inflationary use of the word, but Raymond Ibrahim is correct in his consideration of taqiyya by his definition. is full of weasel wording ("may be", "technically", "try to", "by his definition") and ends with the editor's opinion stated as fact. It's not clear who is responsible for It is a complicated subject that is counter intuitive to those with Western values. Is this an unsourced claim about what Raymond Ibrahim says, or is this editorializing by the Wikipedia editor? Meters (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Audeamus42: Please discuss here before reinserting. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)