Chapter Five: Innovations in Taqiyyah introduced by Ibn Taymiyah

 

The instructions in the Quran and Sunnah are so clear that Nawasib can never claim that Taqiyyah is Haram in Islam. Despite this, the Nawasib close links with the Khariji cult who (as we previously mentioned) vehemently reject Taqiyyah, have forced them to muddy this Islamic belief due to their hatred for the Shi’a of Ahlulbayt (as). The result is these enemies of Allah devised an alternative ‘satanic plan’ to destroy the religion of Allah (swt) and introduced ‘INNOVATIONS’ in the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyyah and amend it according to their own whims and desires.

In this chapter and the next, we shall examine innovations in the understanding of Taqiyyah by two pathetic Nasibi scholars namely:

  • Ibn Taymiyah (Sheikh-ul-Islam of the Salafies)
  • Mufti Khalid Mahmood (The most well-known Mufti and Munazir [debater] of Sipah Sahaba, the followers of Deoband sect)

During the early centuries, the Nawasib flatly rejected the notion that there was an ‘order’ of Taqiyyah under the Islamic Sharia. Alhamdolillah, they were successfully refuted by the Shi’a Ulema, who presented clear Qur’anic verses as well as Ahadith of Rasul (s). Then came Ibn Taymiyah, who devised the following two conditions (innovations) into the Islamic Sharia:

  1. Taqiyyah can only be done in front of the Kuffar, not before a Muslim (even against tyrant Muslim Rulers)
  2. Whilst practising Taqiyyah, one cannot tell a ‘LIE’ but must remain silent.

In this chapter we will refute the Bidah (innovations) of Ibn Taymiyah with respect to the doctrine of Taqiyyah while the innovations of Mufti Khalid Mahmood will be refuted in subsequent chapters.

Ibn Taymiyah’s commentary on verse [3:28]

In the chapter where we cited Quranic proofs for the legitimacy of practicing Taqqiyah, we had discussed a verse, let us see the verse once again:

لاَّ يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاء مِن دُوْنِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللّهِ فِي شَيْءٍ إِلاَّ أَن تَتَّقُواْ مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللّهُ نَفْسَهُ وَإِلَى اللّهِ الْمَصِيرُ

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

Here is the commentary by Ibn Taymiyah:

The verse (3:28) is not only an exception but also a restricted exception. Not only is it forbidden to be used against Muslims but it prohibits lying to others. What it means is that if you oppose certain conduct and you are in a situation where condemnation would endanger Islam or the Muslim community you can keep silent but must avoid lying.
1. Ibn Taymiyah, Minhaj, Vol. 1 p. 213
2. Ibn Kathir, Tafseer of verse 3:28

In the above Fatwa, Ibn Taymiyah introduced two conditions (innovations) of the Islamic Sharia. He asserted that:

  1. Taqiyyah can only be exercised in the presence of Kafirs, it cannot be practiced before a cruel Muslim king.
  2. Whilst practicing Taqiyyah one can maintain silence, but must not lie.

 

Reply one

It is pure conjecture on the part of Ibn Taymiyah to suggest that lying is prohibited under Taqiyyah or that it can only be practiced against the Kuffar. There is not a single proof for these innovations from the sources of the Shari’ah. The reality is there is not a single:

  • verse of the Quran that prescribes these conditions;
  • saying or practice of Rasul (s), that stipulates these conditions;
  • not even a single Sahabi understood Taqiyyah along with these conditions (they practiced contrary to these conditions, as we will show shortly later on. Insha-Allah);
  • no Sunni scholar from the early centuries added these conditions in Taqiyyah.

We invite the Nasabis to prove the innovations of Ibn Taymiyah from the above 4 sources. Contrary to Ibn Taymiyah’s claim, all of these sources refute his assertion

Reply Two: The Qur’an refutes Ibn Taymiyah

[Yusufali 16:106] Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith – but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

As you see, the Qur’an states ‘uttering unbelief’ which does not mean keeping silence. Uttering means either saying or acting something in contrary to ones belief. What lie is bigger than uttering unbelief? The onus is on the Nawasib to show us these two conditions (innovations) of Ibn Taymiyah from the Quran.

Reply Three: The Sunnah of Rasul Allah (s) refutes Ibn Taymiyah

We have the following Hadith in Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 80:

Narrated ‘Aisha:
A man asked permission to enter upon Allah’s Apostle. The Prophet said, “Admit him. What an evil brother of his people or a son of his people.” But when the man entered, the Prophet spoke to him in a very polite manner. (And when that person left) I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! You had said what you had said, yet you spoke to him in a very polite manner?” The Prophet said, “O ‘Aisha! The worst people are those whom the people desert or leave in order to save themselves from their dirty language or from their transgression.”

The meaning here is that one is permitted to use diplomacy to get along with people. The above tradition was narrated when a person-sought permission to see the Holy Prophet (s) and prior to his asking permission the Prophet (s) said that he was not a good man, but he would still see him. The Prophet talked to the person with utmost respect, upon which Aisha inquired as to why the Prophet (s) talked to the person respectfully despite his ill character, upon which the above reply was rendered.

So, here Rasul Allah (s) himself practised Taqiyyah in front of the so called Sahaba (i.e. Muslims). Moreover, he also ‘ordered’ Aisha (and others) to practice Taqiyyah (i.e. Diplomacy) in such situations.

Again the onus is on the Nawasib to provide evidence from the Sunnah of Rasul Allah (s) for the conditions / innovations of Ibn Taymiyah. On our part we shall highlight the actions of some Sahaba, and prove how they practised Taqiyyah, by lying before Muslims.

Reply Four: Imam Hassan’s (as) words refute Ibn Taymiyah

Ibn Asakir records that Imam Hasan (as) once said:

“Pity on you! Taqiyyah is a door of exit for Muslims, whenever it is required and there is a fear of a dominant person then one should practice Taqqiyah and just say the opposite of whatever is in heart, in this manner, one is saved from being accountable before Allah”
Tahdeeb, Volume 1 page 168

While defining Taqiyyah, Imam Hassan (as) clearly stated to ‘say the opposite of whatever is in heart’ that comprehensively refutes the innovations introduced by Ibn Taymiyah according to which one cannot tell a lie in Taqiyyah.

Reply Five: Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi Vs Ibn Taymiyah

Similar to the words of Imam Hasan (as) we read above, Imam of Ahle Sunnah Fakhruddin al-Razi also stated the following while talking about Taqiyyah in his Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 4 page 170:

بل يجوز أيضاً أن يظهر الكلام الموهم للمحبة والموالاة ، ولكن بشرط أن يضمر خلافه

“Nay it is also permissible to say words which shows loyalty and love but on a condition to believe (in the heart) the opposite”

Reply Six: Talha and Zubair Vs. Ibn Taymiyah

Both Talha and Zubair administered the oath of allegiance (Bayya) on the hand of Maula Ali (as). Tragically, afterwards they broke the Bayya, fled to Makka and joined Aisha where they instigated a movement against Maula ‘Ali (as). Now, when the Shi’a object to their breaking the Bayya, and our labeling them Baghis, then do you know how Nawasib (particularly the Nawasib belonging to Sipah Sahaba) defend Talha and Zubair? They assert that Talha and Zubair were compelled to make bayya, but they did not do it with their hearts, so they cannot be deemed rebels. Just look at the book ‘Barat-e-Uthman’ which has been published on the website of Sipah Sahaba:
http://www.kr-hcy.com

The first ones, who gave the oath of allegiance at the hands of Ali (after the murder of Uthman), were the killers of Uthman. Then some of Ahle-Madina (natives of city Madina) gave oath of allegiance at their own will, and some of them gave it under the pressure of Uthman’s killers. So, when Hadhrat Talha and Zubair came to Makka after escaping from Madina and started collecting army against Ali, then someone asked them: “Both of you have already given oath of allegiance at the hands of Ali”. Upon this, they replied: “We gave oath of allegiance in a state that swords were hanging over our necks”.
Baraat Uthman, Page 50, by Zafar Ahmad Uthmani

[Note: This is incorrect. According to authentic traditions, Talha and Zubair were the first who gave Bayya upon the hands of Maula Ali (as) willingly, while hoping that they also get some share in power. But when they saw no favor by Maula Ali (as), then they turned against him and ran away to Makka. And when in Makka people asked them about their oaths, it was then that they fabricated this excuse in order to defend themselves]

Need we to comment any more?

Why don’t Nawasib apply the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyah on Talha and Zubair (and all those Ahle-Madina, who gave Bayya to Ali ‘under the pressure’ of Uthman’s killers)? If the Nawasib still claim that Taqiyyah of Talha and Zubair was justified, then they have to tell us:

  1. do the Nawasib think that Maula Ali (as) was (naudobillah) a Kaffir?
  2. lying is one thing. What about lying after administering an oath of allegiance, pledging fealty to the Caliph?

Why didn’t Ibn Taymiyah pass his Fatwa against Talha and Zubair and deem them hypocrites (Munafiqeen) before declaring Shias as Munafiq for practising Taqiyyah before cruel Muslim Kings? Or is it that Ibn Taymiyah thought that (nauda’billah) Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was a kafir ruler? Ibn Taymiyah had attested that in Taqiyyah, one can maintain silence but cannot lie, whilst his beloved Sahabah Talha and Zubair lied before Maula Ali (as) having giving their pledge of loyalty to him.

Reply Seven: Why did Umar practice Taqiyyah before his subjects – were they kaafir?

We read in Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, vol 9, p212: {Between Traditions 9.281 and 9.282}:

(21) CHAPTER. If a judge has to witness in favor of a litigant when he is a judge or he had it before he became a judge (can he pass a judgment in his favor accordingly or should he refer the case to another judge before whom he would bear witness?). And the judge Shuraih said to a person who sought his witness, “Go to the ruler so that I may bear witness(before him) for you.” And ‘Ikrima said, “Umar said to ‘Abdur-Rahman bin ‘Auf, ‘If I saw a man committing illegal sexual intercourse or theft, and you were the ruler (what would you do)?. ‘Abdur-Rahman said, ‘I would regard your witness as equal to the witness of any other man among the Muslims. ‘Umar said, ‘You have said the truth.’ ‘Umar added: If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that ‘Umar has added to the Quran extra (verses), I would have written the Verse al-Rajm (stoning to death of married adulterers) with my own hands.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9 pages 212-213

These filthy Nawasib attack the Shias for practicing Taqiyyah in the presence of Muslims. We say that this is permissible if it means protecting oneself from hardship. The Nasibi shall no doubt reject such a notion, so we present this reference before them. Why was Umar the brave Khalifa practicing Taqiyyah? Not only does this reference demonstrate that Umar ascribed to Tahreef of the Qur’an, he also practiced Taqiyyah by not putting things right stating: ‘If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that ‘Umar has added to the Quran extra (verses)’.

This reference points to the fact that Umar had a kufr belief and was seeking to hide this from the people by practising Taqiyya. If the Nawasib claim that the Shi’a practice Taqiyya as and when they feel like, it has nothing to do with fear, then could they kindly explain why their khalifa was practising Taqiyya from the people? What fear would the powerful khalifa have, that would force him to practice Taqiyyah, or would the Nawasib deem it a ‘calculated deception’?

The comments recorded by Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti are relevant to read which we read in Al Itqan fi Uloom al Quran (Urdu), Volume 2, page 67 (published by Idara e Islamiya, Lahore):

“About the statement of Umar i.e “If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that ‘Umar has added to the Qur’an extra verses, I would have written the Verse al-Rajm with my own hands” Abu Bakar Razi has written in his book ‘Al Burhan’: ‘The literal words of this statement prove that it is permissible [Jaiz] to write down those words in the Quran, and it was the fear of people which stopped Umar from this writing this in the Mushaf and sometimes it happens that obstacles appear between permissible things and since the writing the verse of stoning was permissible hence it is obvious that its recitation is also proven.”
Al Itqan (Urdu), Volume 2, page 67

Reply Eight: Was Muawiyah a Kafir Ruler? [Ibn Taymiyah vs. Muawiyah]

We read in Sahih al Bukhari (English translation) Volume 4 hadith number 434 that:

Ibn ‘Umar said, “I went to Hafsa while water was dribbling from her twined braids. I said, ‘The condition of the people is as you see, and no authority has been given to me.

‘Hafsa said, (to me), ‘Go to them, and as they (i.e. the people) are waiting for you, and I am afraid your absence from them will produce division amongst them.’ ” So Hafsa did not leave Ibn ‘Umar till we went to them. When the people differed, Muawiya addressed the people saying, “If anybody wants to say anything in this matter of the Caliphate, he should show up and not conceal himself, for we are more rightful to be a Caliph than he and his father.” On that, Habib bin Masalama said (to Ibn ‘Umar), “Why don’t you reply to him (i.e. Muawiya)?” ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “I untied my garment that was going round my back and legs while I was sitting and was about to say, ‘He who fought against you and against your father for the sake of Islam, is more rightful to be a Caliph,’ but I was afraid that my statement might produce differences amongst the people and cause bloodshed, and my statement might be interpreted not as I intended. (So I kept quiet) remembering what Allah has prepared in the Gardens of Paradise (for those who are patient and prefer the Hereafter to this worldly life).” Habib said, “You did what kept you safe and secure (i.e. you were wise in doing so).”

So we see here:

  • Mu’awiya proclaimed his superior claim to the Khilafat.
  • Ibn Umar disagreed and wished to highlight the truth openly before the people.
  • Ibn Umar chose not to challenge the claim as he was “afraid that my statement might produce differences amongst the people and cause bloodshed”
  • Habib commented to Ibn Umar “You did what kept you safe and secure (i.e. you were wise in doing so).”

Ibn Umar’s silence to prevent bloodshed and Habib’s confirmation that he had adopted this stance to protect himself is clear proof that Ibn Umar was practicing Taqiyyah. Would the najis Nawasib belonging to Sipah-e-Sahaba now declare Muawiyah a Kaffir ruler?

There is another incident wherein the followers of Imam Hasan (as) suggested that he adopt Taqiyyah before Mawiyah:

Hasan said: “Be informed that Mu’awiya has called us to such a treaty that is neither honorable nor is based on justice. If you are ready for death then we will reject this offer, and answer the matter with our swords and leave the matter with Allah. If you like life then we can accept it. Upon saying this, the calls from all around were ‘Taqiyyah, Taqiyyah’ when the people left Hasan, he made peace”.
Siyar Alam Nubla, Volume 3 page 269

Reply Nine: Sahabi Hudhaifah performed Taqiyyah before Uthman

In the following incident recorded by Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah in Al-Musanaf, Volume 6 page 474, we learn that a Sahabi practiced Taqiyyah before another ruler Sahabi by telling a lie and this shall also be a sufficient proof to water down the Biddah introduced by Ibn Taymiyah:

دخل بن مسعود وحذيفة على عثمان فقال عثمان لحذيفة بلغني أنك قلت كذا وكذا قال لا والله ما قلته فلما خرج قال له عبد الله ما لك فلم تقوله ما سمعتك تقول قال إني اشتري ديني بعضه ببعض مخافة أن يذهب كله

Ibn Masud and Hudaifah entered on Uthman. Uthman said to Hudhaifah: ‘I have been informed that you said such and such thing’. Hudaifah replied: ‘By Allah I didn’t say that’. When they left, Abdullah (ibn Masud) said to him (Hudaifah): ‘Why didn’t you say to him what I had heard you saying about him?’ Hudhaifah replied: ‘I protected my Deen so that I don’t lose it’.

Relevantly we read that Imam Sarkhasi has stated in Al-Mabsut, Volume 24 page 46:

وقد كان حذيفة رضى الله عنه ممن يستعمل التقية

“Hudhaifa (ra) was amongst those that practiced Taqiyyah”

Reply Ten: Imam Zuhri Vs Ibn Taymiyah

Modern day Sunni scholar Professor Dr. Tahir ul Qadri in his book ‘The Ghadir Declaration’ page 78 records this tradition from Ibne Athir in Asadul Ghabah fi Marifat as-Sahaba, Volume 1 pages 572-573:

It is narrated by the Zuhri that Ibn junayd ibn amr bin mozir said “I heard the prophet said whose deliberately lied about me will go to hell straightaway. I have heard myself or may I grow deaf in both ears. the prophet returned from hajutal widah and addresses the people,. He said while holding Ali’s hand; one who has me as his guardian has Him (Ali) as his guardian. O’Allah befriend him who befriends him (Ali) and be his enemy who is his (Ali’s) enemy.

Ubaidullah said: I said to Zuhri; dont say these things in Syria, otherwise you will hear so much against Ali that your ears will get soar. (in reply) Zuhri said; By God! there are so many qualities of Ali that are save with me that if I wrote them, I may be murdered.
The Ghadir Declaration, page 78 Hadith 49

Comment

Imam Zuhri was practicing Taqiyyah for whom? Christians / Jews? Clearly not, why would they kill him if he narrated the virtues of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)? Clearly, Zuhri’s silence was because he feared the Nawasib of Syria, here is a major Sunni scholar practicing Taqiyyah before Muslims. So was Zuhri a kaafir?

Reply Eleven: Imam Bukhari Vs Ibn Taymiyah

Sunni scholar Mufti Ghulam Rasool (d. October 2010) of Daar-ul-Uloom Qadriyah Jilaniyah, London tried his best to defend his Imam Bukhari whilst addressing the criticism of Abu Zahra that Imam Bukhari did not take Hadith from Imam Sadiq (as), he states as follows:

It was not just Imam Sadiq (as) that Imam Bukhari refrained from taking Hadith from, he did not take any from four of the pure Ahlulbayt Imams who existed during his lifetime, namely:
The eighth Imam Ali Raza (as) (d. 208 H), this was that Imam that at one time in Nisahbur had more than twenty thousand scholars who benefited from listening to and sought permission to narrate Hadith, attendees included high ranking Muhadatheen such as Hafiz Abu Zurai Razi (d.264 H), Hafiz Muhammad Aslam Tusi (d.242 H) Ishaq bin Rahwiyah (d.264 H) etc.
The ninth Imam, Imam Taqi (as) (d. 220 H)
The tenth Imam, Imam Naqi (as) (d.245 H)
The eleventh Imam, Imam Hasan Askari (as) (d.260 H)

Imam Bukhari lived during the times of these four Imams yet did not take narrations from them. Imam Bukhari’s esteemed book Sahih Bukhari is empty with Hadith from the Ahlulbayt Imams, even though Hadith was something of Ahlulbayt’s own house house of the Prophet and there is a well known saying ‘No one knows the going on inside a house than the people of that house’.

Imam Bukhari should have narrated Hadith from the Imams from the Ahlulbayt of the Prophet since they were the source of Hadith. We cannot say that Imam Bukhari did this due to hatred, rather we say that it was due to difficulties that he did not narrate from the Ahlul bayt Imams. Muhammad bin Ismaeel Bukhari (d.256 H) was alive during the Abbaside era, when he compiled Sahih Bukhari, he stated: ‘In Sahih Bukhari the Hadeeth compiled are Sahih and the Sahih Hadiths that I left are much more in number’. Abdul Haleem Jundi said: ‘Imam Bukhari was indicating that the Hadith that he had omitted were those in the honour of Ali and the Ahlul bayt. Imam Bukhari could not incorporate them in his Sahih Bukhari due to the occupation and hostility by Abbaside reign [Jafar al-Sadiq, p234 by al-Jundi”
Subeh Sadiq fi Fadhail Imam Jafar Sadiq, pages 195-196

If Mufti’s assertion is correct then we have to accept that Imam Bukhari adopted a policy of self censorship, suppressing narrations from the Ahl’ul bayt Imams (as) through fear of his rulers, in other words he was forced into adopting Taqiyyah.

Reply Twelve: Imam Shaybi and Imam Hasan Basri vs. Ibn Taymiyah

The learned Mufti then sites further examples of Taqiyyah on the next two pages:

It’s obvious that during both the Ummayad and Abbaside Caliphates the Ahlulbayt of Prophet and their followers were subjected to injustice and harm. The one who used to have some association with Ahlulbayt or took hadeeth from them used to become a target. That is why Qadhi Shaybi (d. 104H) said:

“What have we attained from the family of Ali, if we disclose our love for them we will be killed, if we bear enmity we will go to Hell.” This was the stance of the Iraqi Hadeeth scholar Shaybi, and he was a judge during the Marwani reign who was saying that those that disclosed their love for the Ahlulbayt of the Prophet, the government of the time would kill them and if you had hatred of the family of Ali then you would go to Hell for not having Iman. Whenever Imam Hasan Basri (d.110H) would narrate a ruling or saying of Ali, he never mentioned Ali’s name due to the fear of Ummayad and Marwani rulers, rather he sued to say: ‘Abu Zainab (Ali’s title) said…’ He was asked why he didn’t mention Ali’s name but used his title Abu Zainab when narrating the tradition to which he replied: ‘I did not wish to be killed’ [Imam Jafar Sadiq, p332].
Subeh Sadiq fi Fadhail Imam Jafar Sadiq, pages 197-198

On the basis of the comments of Mufti Ghulam Rasul the supporters of Ibn Taymiyah need to explain why these two scholars of hadeeth were hiding the merits of the Ahl’ul bayt (as)? Was the State being run by Jews? Were the Abbasides and Ummawis Jews posing as Muslims? Certainly not, they were tyrannical Muslim rulers. State opposition to Imam Ali (as) and his descendants forced the Hadeeth scholars to hide the excellences of the Ahlulbayt (as) on account of a fear of being murdered. In other words they were practicing Taqiyyah h. This was Taqiyyahon account of the hostile circumstances that they faced, and is further evidenced by another Sunni source that records the similar testimony of Hasan Basri:

وقال يونس بن عبيد سألت الحسن قلت يا أبا سعيد إنك تقول قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وإنك لم تدركه فقال يا ابن أخي لقد سألتني عن شيء ما سألني عنه أحد قبلك ولولا منزلتك مني ما أخبرتك إني في زمان كما ترى وكان في زمن الحجاج كل شيء سمعتني أقوله قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فهو عن علي بن أبي طالب غير أني في زمان لا أستطيع أن أذكر عليا

Yunus bin Ubayd said: ‘That I asked Hasan Basri: ‘O Abu Saeed, in your narrations you state ‘Prophet said’ despite the fact that you was not alive during that era’. He replied: ‘O nephew, you have asked such a question that if I did not consider who you are, I would not have replied. The fact is you need to look at the era in which I live, under Hajjaj. Those Hadith wherein I say ‘the Prophet said’ was through Ali, but the problem was during that time I could not say the name of Ali’’.
Tadrib al-Rawi, Volume 1 page 204

When the name of Ali bin Abi Talib could not even be publicly mentioned how could their excellences have been conveyed to the people? It is evident that those that loved Ali, or knew of Hadith wherein he was in the chain of narrators, would suppress his name, fearing retribution if the truth came out, in other words the people practised Taqqiyah. Hasan Basri was faced with such a ground reality and accordingly hid the name of Ali (as) as his source of narration. Now we ask our readers there are only two ways in which we can interpret Hasan Basri’s suppression of the truth, he either practised Taqqiyah or was a weak liar. We leave it to our readers to decide on which approach they feel is applicable to this esteemed figure that is to quote Shaykh Abd-al Hay al-Laknawi:

“One of the greatest of the followers”
Rijjal Narrators of Muwatta al Imam Muhammad, page 68

Reply Thirteen: Ibrahim bin Muhajir and Ibrahim bin Nakhai vs. Ibn Taymiyah

Imam Ibn Hazm in his authority work al-Muhala, Volume 7 page 103 on the authority of Mansur bin Muammar:

نا أحمد بن محمد الطلمنكى نا ابن مفرج نا ابراهيم بن أحمد بن فراس نا محمد ابن على بن زيد الصائغ نا سعيد بن منصور نا هشيم نا منصور – هو ابن المعتمر – قال: حج الحسن البصري وحججت معه في ذلك العام فلما قدمنا مكة جاء رجل إلى الحسن فقال: يا أبا سعيد انى رجل بعيد الشقة من أهل خراسان وانى قدمت مهلا بالحج فقال له الحسن: اجعلها عمرة وأحل فانكر ذلك الناس على الحسن وشاع قوله بمكة فاتى عطاء بن ابى رباح فذكر ذلك له فقال: صدق الشيخ، ولكنا نفرق (1) ان نتكلم بذلك

“Hasan Basri performed the Hajj and I accompanied him that year, when we got to Makka, an individual approached Basri and said: ‘Abu Said, I am a resident of Khurusan and my continual return here is difficult, when I have arrived with the Ihram (clothing) for Hajj’. Hasan Basr said ‘alter it into Umrah that will hence free you from the Ihram’. The people did not tolerate the edict of Hasan Basri but it spread, when Ata ibn Abi Rabah was asked about it he said: ‘The Shaykh so spoke the truth, but we would not say this through fear”

We learn from this narration that:

  • Basri gave an edict based on facts that had been presented to him.
  • The edict gained notoriety amongst the people
  • The students of Basri whilst concurring with the opinion of their master, chose not to publicly endorse on account of the repercussions that would flow thereof

Now the fear here is not from the Head of state or his officials, the fear was based on the fact that the ordinary people opposed this opinion. Ibn Tamiyah had opined that Taqiyyah cannot be practiced before one’s fellow Muslims, and yet here we learn that the students of Imam Hasan Basri practiced Taqiyyah in that they suppressed a fatwa of their master from their fellow Muslims, that they knew to be correct on the premise that if they publicly endorsed it, the consequences would be harmful to them.

Reply Fourteen: Ibrahim bin Muhajir and Ibrahim bin Nakhai vs. Ibn Taymiyah

We read in the esteemed Hanafi book of Fiqh, Fatawa Qazi Khan:

“It is narrated that Ibrahim Nakhai and Ibrahim bin Muhajir Makki used to talk during (Friday) sermon. When objection was placed before Ibrahim Nakhai for this, he said: ‘We have come from our homes after offering Zuhur prayers and have come to perform Friday prayer under Taqqiyah”
Fatawa Qazi Khan, Kita al-Salaat, chapter: Friday Prayers, page 215 (published in Calcutta, 1825)

Allah (swt) has revealed an entire verse the Jumah prayers in the Quran. The verse stipulates the importance of attending prayers on this day. These prayers have to be performed in congregation behind an Imam. A requirement is that the believer listens to the sermon that precedes the Salat that is counted as a part of the Salat. Despite this reality we have two prominent men from amongst the Tabieen offering their Zuhr prayers at home and then joining other worshippers for Friday prayers. Upon entry in the mosque they gave no credence to the sermon and would converse with one another, disrespecting the sanctity of the mosque and the Friday prayer ceremony. When challenged they made it clear that their participation in this worship should in no way be taken as their acceptance of the Salat offered therein. They openly declared that they were conducting themselves in this deceptive way on account of Taqiyyah . Now our question is what were they afraid of? Were they afraid that their fellow Muslims would disown them? Clearly not, they were compelled to attend, that means that there was a fear of retribution from the Sunni State of the time that forced them to be seen in the State mosque offering Friday prayers. They made it clear that they were under compulsion to attend the Friday prayers, and their mixing with the worshippers and being seen in the Friday prayers was so as to create an impression that they were supporters of the State. They were creating this impression of harmony by adopting Taqiyyah .

Ibn Taymiya insists that Taqiyyahcan only be done before the Kuffar, can his spiritual sons kindly elaborate on which Kuffar kings forced them to practice Taqiyyahin this scenario? Were they living under a non Muslim rulership, that was forcing them to partake in kuffar rituals in a temple? Certainly not, they were living under a Sunni Islamic State, and yet they felt the need to practice Taqiyyahwhen attending a mosque and offering Friday prayers! Rather than keep this Taqiyyaha secret, when their conduct was challenged rather than hide their beliefs they disclosed the fact that they were practising Taqiyyah . If one adopts Ibn Taymiyya’s argument then these two individual rather than be counted as amongst the pious Salaf, should be condemned as major sinning hypocrites! Should the Salafis accordingly rule that both men were hypocrites that possessed a weak iman? Clearly not, all this was to protect themselves from harm, their external disposition wherein they appeared to endorse the State led prayers was a sham, their real beliefs were hidden in their hearts, and tgeir actual prayers were being offered at home. Now both of these individuals are were Salaf living under a tyrannical Sunni regime, and practised Taqiyyahaccordingly. If the situation for pious Sunnis under the Ummayads / Abbasides was such that the Tabieen were forced to take drastic action and practice Taqiyyah , the risk of harm for the Shia of Ali (as) would have been considerably greater. If they accordingly (like these two Salaf) practised Taqiyyah , and hid their beliefs from the State why the objection if the Shia did likewise and indeed do so now, when living in a hostile environment?

Reply Fifteen: Abu Huraira vs. Ibn Taymiyah

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 3, Number 121:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
I have memorized two kinds of knowledge from Allah’s Apostle . I have propagated one of them to you and if I propagated the second, then my pharynx (throat) would be cut (i.e. killed).

Could the spiritual inheritors of Ibn Taymiyah’s legacy kindly clarify explain what prevented Abu Hurarira from boldly cascading the knowledge that he acquired? What prevented him from remaining silent? Why was he fearful of being murdered? Was the prolific hadeeth narrator living amongst the kufar following the death of the Prophet (s). Of course not! On the contrary from his taking the Sahahada after the battle of khaibar up until his death, history attests to the fact that he always remained resident in the Muslim territories. Applying these comments to these facts, it becomes clear to us that he was suppressing information, due to his fear of being killed by the tyrannical regimes of the time. Such suppression is Taqiyyah in all but name. Those that deem Taqiyyah hypocrisy need to take a good long look at this testimony of Abu Hurraira contained in their most esteemed book after the Quran!

Reply Sixteen: Imam Shafiyee vs. Ibn Taymiyah

We see that one of the esteemed Imams of Ahle Sunnah namely Imam Shafiyee not only deemed it permissible to practice Taqiyyah before Muslims but himself practised it and this shall suffice to silence the followers of Ibn Taymiyah al-Nasibi, according to whom Taqiyyah can only be performed before the Kuffar. Towing the same line of Ibn Taymiyah, Imam Abu Hayan Andlasi and Imam Fakhruddin Razi recorded the following but made it clear that Imam Shafiyee did not believe in this innovation:

وظاهر الآية يدل على أنها مع الكفار الغالبين ، إلا أن مذهب الشافعي : أن الحالة بين المسلمين إذا شاكلت الحال بين المشركين جازت التقية محاماة عن النفس ، وهي جائزة لصون النفس والمال

“The appearance of the verse demonstrates that Taqiyyah is only permissible with the powerful disbelievers, except the madhab of Shafiyee (ra) that allows Taqiyyah (with Muslims) for self protection, in cases wherein the situation amongst the Muslims becomes similar to the situation between the Muslims and disbelievers, it is lawful for the protection of one’s self and money”.
Tafseer Bahar al-Muheet, Volume 3 page 191
Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 4 page 170

We likewise read in Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran, Volume 2 page 140 by Nizamuddin Nisaburi:

أن الشافعي جوز التقية بين المسلمين كما جوزها بين الكافر

“Shaffiyee allowed Taqyyiah with Muslims as he allowed it with Kafirs”

Now in Sawaiq al-Muhriqa we read that Imam Shafiyee used to hide his love for Ahlulbayt (as) from the Nasibi ancestors of Sipah-e-Sahaba and Ansar.org in order to remain safe from them. Imam Shafiyee expressed this in the following manner:

وما زال كتما منك حتى كأنني … برد جواب السائلين لأعجم
وأكتم ودي مع صفاء مودتى … لتسلم من قول الوشاة وأسلم

“Still I hide from you…as I am unable to answer those who do questioning
I hide my love although its pure love…to avoid you and avoid myself from the statements of the denouncers”

Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, Volume 2 page 388

Reply Seventeen: Imam Abu Hanifa vs. Ibn Taymiyah

We read in Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 13 page 387:

سفيان بن وكيع قال جاء عمر بن حماد بن أبي حنيفة فجلس إلينا فقال سمعت أبي حماد يقول بعث بن أبي ليلى إلى أبي حنيفة فسأله عن القرآن فقال مخلوق فقال تتوب والا أقدمت عليك قال فتابعه فقال القرآن كلام الله قال فدار به في الخلق يخبرهم انه قد تاب من قوله القرآن مخلوق فقال أبي فقلت لأبي حنيفة كيف صرت إلى هذا وتابعته قال يا بني خفت أن يقدم علي فأعطيته التقية

Sufiyan bin Waki narrated: ‘Umar bin Hammad bin Abu Hainfa came to us and said: ‘I heard from my father that Ibn Abi Liala asked some question to my father as to whether the Quran is created. He replied: ‘Yes it is’. Ibn Abi Laila said: ‘Perform Tauba otherwise I will take measures against you’. Abu Hainfa complied and said: ‘The Quran is Allah’s statement’. Ibn Abi Laila made Abu Hainfa march amongst the public and made him profess that he was repentant over his belief that the Quran was created. Thus my father (Hammad) asked Abu Hainfa: ‘Why did you comply with him?’ Abu Hainfa replied: ‘My son, I feared that he might adopt measures against me, I hence replied under Taqiyyah’.

We read in Tafseer Kashaf:

“Those from amongst you that are unjust cannot be my Khalifas, not will the designation of Imamate reach them, rather the promise of Imamate can only be bestowed on that individual that is just and is aloof from being an oppressor. The scholars have said that this proves that a transgressor does not have the eligibility to attain Imamate, and why should such person be worthy of Imamate, as his decisions are not legitimate, his testimony is not accepted and it is not obligatory to follow him, his reports are not reliable, such a person cannot even be the Imam of payers. Thus, Abu Hanifa used to issue hidden verdicts to aid Zaid bin Ali (ra), and would say that it is a duty to aid him financially and it was a duty to stand along with him against the thief who has acquired power via force and falsely gave himself the title of Imam or Khalifa such as Dawaqini etc.…on one occasion a woman said to Abu Hanifa: ‘You had advised my son to fight alongside Ibrahim and Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hasan, to the point he was eventually killed’. Imam Abu Hanifa said: ‘I wish that I had been substituted with him [such exalted has been his status].’ Similarly about Mansur and his followers, Imam Abu Hanifa used to say: “Even if they had planned to build a mosque, and wanted me to count its blocks, still I would not do that’
Tafseer Kashaf, Volume 1 page 93

How can anyone raise objection to Taqqiyah when it was practised so blatantly by Abu Hanifa on of the four Fiqh Imams? Four things are evident from this text:

  1. Whilst publicly supporting the Khalifa, in private he hated him and supported Zaid in his efforts to over throw him.
  2. When Abu Hanifa gave a secret Fatwa to supporting Zaid, he himself didn’t aid him, such edicts were either haraam or it was a legitimate usage of Taqqiyah
  3. Mansur was the Head of State, his name was recited in the sermons, despite his physical control of the reigns of state, apparently Abu Hanifa still deemed his leadership to be legitimate while passed edicts to launch rebellion against him side by side. If Abu Hanifa remains an esteemed Imam despite this clear practice of Taqqiyah , then no criticism should be levelled at the Shia if they reacted likewise (publicly) in the face of persecution.
  4. Whilst Abu Hanifa ordered a boy to fight alongside Ibrahim and Muhammad against the head of state, who was martyred in the process yet Abu Hanifa did not personally join his ranks but just wished to attain the status attained by the boy, in fact, apparently voiced his support for the ruler of the time. This means that Abu Hanifa was either a hypocrite telling others to follow what he said, not what he did, or was practising Taqqiyah.

Ibn Taymiyah insists that Taqiyyah can only be practised before non Muslims, so was Caliph Mansur a non Muslim? If he was not, why was he issuing secret edicts to support the overthrow of Mansur via Zaid bin Ali? If Ibn Taymiya logic is to be followed, rather than regard Abu Hanifa as an Imam of Fiqh, he should be deemed a sinner on account of his deceptive fatwa!

Reply Eighteen: Imam Yahyah bin Moin (d. 233 H) practiced Taqiyyah before Muslim tyrants

The innovations introduced by Ibn Taymiyah in the belief of Taqiyyah i.e. it cannot be practiced before Muslims, can be refuted from the fact that one of the pioneer and revered Sunni Imams that resided in Baghdad namely Yahyah bin Moin (d. 233 H) not only believed in the legitimacy of practicing Taqiyyah practiced it to protect himself from the tyrants of Bani Umayah. Imam Dhahabi records:

وكان يحيى رحمه الله من أئمة السنة، فخاف من سطوة الدولة، وأجاب تقية

Yahya may Allah’s mercy be upon him, was from Sunni Imams, he was scared from the oppressions of the government therefore he answered in Taqiyyah.
Siayr alam an-Nubla, Volume 11 page 87

Reply Nineteen: Imam Sa’dwiyah (d. 225 H) practiced Taqiyyah before Muslim rulers

Here we have an example of a reliable Sunni Imam namely Saeed bin Sulaiman al-Dhahabi popularly known as Imam Sa’dwiyah, who practiced Taqiyyah during the time of the Abbasides. Before citing it let us first reveal the lofty status enjoyed by Imam Sa’dwiyah in Ahle sunnah eyes. Imam Dhahabi called him ‘Hafiz Musnad’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p398) and also as ‘Hafiz Thabt Imam’ (Siar alam alnubala, v10 p481), while Imam Ibn Abi Hatim said: ‘Thiqah, trustable’ (Al-Jarah wa al-Tadil, v4 p26), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Hafiz, from superiors of tenth generation’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p355). Now let us quote Imam Jamaluddin Al-Mizzi who in his authority work Tahdeeb al-Kamal records:

قال أحمد بن علي وكان سعدويه من أهل السنة وامتحن فأجاب في المحنة –يعني تقية

Ahmad bin Ali said: ‘Sa’dwiyah was from Ahlul Sunnah and he was examined during the affliction therefore he answered in Taqiyyah’
Tahdeeb al-Kamal, Volume 10 page 487 Biography 2291

Reply Twenty: Shah Waliullah vs Ibn Taymiyah

Shaykh Muhammad Ikram in his famous book “Moj-e-Kauthar” page 63 (published by Idara Thaqafat al-Islamiyah, Lahore) notes:

On one occasion a scholar called Muhammad Fakhir Allahabadi arrived at Delhi. During a prayer at Jam’e Masjid, he recited ‘Ameen’ loudly. That was the first time that had happened in Dehli which the people could not bear this and when they surrounded him, he said: ‘This is pointless, go and summon the biggest scholar in this city’. People took him to Hujutullah Shah Waliyullah. When the issue was asked to him, he said: ‘According to Hadith, saying ‘Ameen’ loudly is proven’. On hearing that, the crowd began to disperse to the point that only Mualana Muhammad Fakhir and Shah Waliullah remained. Maulana Fakhir asked: ‘When will you open up (reveal yourself)?’. Shah replied: ‘Had I opened up, who would have saved you today?’

Comment

One can see that the Shah wouldn’t offer salat openly before the people through taqiyya.

Reply Twenty One: Maulana Sayyid Nazeer Husayn vs Ibn Taymiyah

Shaykh Muhammad Ikram in ‘Moj-e-Kauthar’ has referred to Sayyid Nazeer Husayn as the Crown of the Wahabi scholars, then on page 29, he records a letter of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, wherein Sir Syed referred to Sayyid Nazeer Husayn in the following words:

“He would not perform Rafa Yadayn in Salat, but he would regard it as Sunnah-e-Huda. I said ‘It is unfortunate that an act you believe to be good, yet do not practise it because of the people.’ He (Maulan Nazeer Husayn) visited me, when I said this, he got up and went to the Jamia Masjid for Asr prayers, he began to read Rafa Yadayn from that time, people opposed him but the truth shall always remain the truth”.

Comment

This is clear evidence that this Wahabi was also practicing Taqiyyah. It is interesting that we have a number of examples wherein the revered personalities of Ahle Sunnah practiced Taqiyyah yet these people would not admit to the legitimacy of Taqiyyah. That is why a Shia scholar Shaykh Muhammad Hasan Salahudeen in his book “Islami Tahreek Qur’an aur Sunnat ki Roshni main” [Islamic movement in the light of Quran and Sunnah] page 83 referred to such scholars as following:

“What is surprising is that some current movements are opposed to the practice of Taqiyyah on the basis of ideology, religion and history but on a practical basis they happily embrace Taqiyya.”

Reply Twenty Two: Maulana Abdul Aziz vs Ibn Taymiyah

We shall now present a modern day example of Taqiyyah practiced by one of the lovers of Ibn Taymiyyah. In 2007 the Pakistani forces in Islamabad mounted a siege of the Red Mosque to uproot Nasibi extremists that were hiding within it and co-ordintaing all manners of fitnah in and around the immediate locality in the name of Islam. As days passed, the siege became more violent through the exchange of gun fire. One of the main scholars in charge of the Madrassa sought to flee from the violence by dressing in a Burka!

The leader of a radical mosque besieged by Pakistani security forces in Islamabad has been caught trying to escape wearing a woman’s burka.
Security forces seized Maulana Abdul Aziz as he tried to leave the Red Mosque amid a crowd of women…
Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, described how Abdul Aziz tried to escape wearing the all-enveloping dress worn by Muslim women.
“The maulana came out of the mosque with a group of girls wearing a burka and carrying a handbag. The girls protested when he was stopped. But officers were suspicious and after a search, Maulana Abdul Aziz was identified and arrested,” he told the BBC.
Another security official told AFP that the cleric had been picked out because of his “unusual demeanour”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6270626.stm(Cached)

Comment

In Islam it is Haram for a man to dress like a woman and vice versa, so why did Maualana Abdul Aziz do this? There can only be two options:

  • Option One: he was either a transvestite and this was his normal attire
  • Option Two: he was seeking to protect his life by dressing as a woman, in other words he was practicing Taqiyya

Tell us Nawasib, which option do you wish to choose? Whilst there is little background information to suggest that Maula Abdul Aziz was a closet transvestite, the safer option would be to believe that he was practicing Taqiyyah. This then causes a major headache for the Nawasib, after all Ibn Taymiyah stated one cannot practice Taqiyyah before Muslims – so how should we judge this Nasibi Mullah? This Deobandi Mullah went to the extreme length of dressing as a woman (in Taqiyyah) to save his life. Despite this we have never seen the Nawasib residing in the country criticize the Taqiyyah of Maulana Abdul Aziz. If the Deobandies have no problems with their Mullahs dressing as women in Taqiyyah, what right do they have to attack the Shi’a doctrine of Taqiyyah?

Reply Twenty Three: Ibn Abu Mulaika vs Ibn Taymiyah

We read in Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3426:

Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. ‘Amr came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me.

Take a good look at this Hadith, wherein Ayesha stated that the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) was that a person that has attained puberty can suckle a woman as a mechanism to make her his mahram. Ibn Abi Mulaika was aware of this Hadeeth that had reached him via Ayesha through al Qasim b. Muhammad and yet he denied the Muslims the opportunity to act on it for two years, by hiding this knowledge on account of fear. Ibn Taymiya insists that Taqiyyahcannot be practised before the Kuffar, and yet we have no evidence of Ibn Abi Mulaika living amongst the kuffar, moreover if he was, why would they care about such a Hadeeth? The fact of the matter is he was hiding this Hadeeth from his fellow Muslims (that would be counted as from amongst the Salaf) on account of Taqiyyah. Is it not a serious matter that he was seeking to block an access way to knowledge? What was this fear that caused him to suppress this Hadeeth from his brethren? It could only be a fear of reprisals from those who would (God Forbid) might deem the notion of a pubescent man suckling a woman abhorrent, and not something the Prophet (s) would endorse! It was this fear that caused him to adopt Taqiyyah from his fellow Muslims. If this is unacceptable hypocrisy then what will be Ibn Taymiya’s Fatawa on this prominent Hadeeth narrator? Was he a serious sinner whose actions constituted hypocrisy?

Reply Twenty Four: Ibn Taymiyah vs Ibn Taymiyah [Ibn Taymiyah himself practiced Taqiyyah before Muslims]

After giving a number of replies refuting the innovations introduced by Ibn Taymiyah on the belief of Taqiyyah viz, it cannot be practiced before Muslims and one cannot tell a lie while practicing it, let us now expose the hypocrisy of Ibn Taymiyah himself.

The background of the incident is that Ibn Taymiah was incarcerated by a Sunni judge on account of his absurd beliefs. The Sunni scholars decided to talk to him and determine whether ot not he had changed his mind. Faced with this questioning, Ibn Taymiah who was Hanbali practiced Taqqiyah and pretended to be Shafiyee and Ashari before the concerned people to get released. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records:

ثم اجتمعوا في ثاني عشرة وقرروا الصفي الهندي يبحث معه ثم أخروه وقدموا الكمال الزملكاني ثم انفصل الأمر على أنه شهد على نفسه أنه شافعي المعتقد

They gathered in the 12th and decided to choose Safi al-Hindi to debate him (Ibn Taymiyah), but then they sent Kamal al-Zamalekani. Therefore he (Ibn Taymiyah) claimed to be a Shafiyee.
Al-Durar al-Kamina, Volume 1 page 46

We all know that Ibn Taymiyah was a Hanbali but he found himself in an adverse situation, he practiced Taqqiyah and decalred himself to be a Shafiyee. We also read that he once declared himself to be Ash’ari:

ولم يزل ابن تيمية في الجب إلى أن شفع فيه مهنا أمير آل فضل فأخرج في ربيع الأول في الثالث وعشرين منه وأحضر إلى القلعة ووقع البحث مع بعض الفقهاء فكتب عليه محضر بأنه قال أنا أشعري

Ibn Taymiyah remained in the jail till the prince Mehana al-Fadel intercede for him. In the 23th of Rabee al-Awal he (Ibn Taymiyah) was brought to the fort and debated with some scholars then they wrote a report that he (Ibn Taymiyah) admitted to be Ash’ari.
Al-Durar al-Kamina, Volume 1 page 47

The fact that Ibn Taymiyah practiced Taqiyyah before Muslims and lied proves that his actual motive behind issuing such a Fatwa was to misguide Muslims and create unnecessary tensions amongst the

 

Shia Pen Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our new publications.
Shia Pen uses the "Google Groups" system for its newsletters. Subcribe Now →