Chapter Six: Innovations in Taqiyyah introduced by Mufti Khalid Mahmood


As we stated earlier, when the legitimacy of practicing Taqiyyah was proven before the Nawasib from the Quran and Sunnah, the Nawasib then had no other choice but to devise innovations on Taqqiyah due to their hatred for the Shias of Ahlulbayt (as). In the last chapter, we mentioned and refuted the innovations by Ibn Taymiyah. Unfortunately, the Nasibi Fitna yet again resurrected itself, equipped with several ‘different’ innovations and the final mutation has come from the mouth of Mufti Khalid Mahmood from Sipah Sahaba (Deoband). His approach was to compile all of these innovations. His book has been published online at the Sipah Sahaba’s web site It is based on an alleged debate with a Shi’a scholar. During the debate, he developed the following innovations and claims:

  • Taqiyyah is only allowed for ordinary members of the Muslim Ummah. It cannot be practiced by people appointed by Allah (swt) e.g. Prophets and Messengers. [He wanted to prove that Taqiyyah was Haram for Maula Ali (as), as according to Shi'a aqeedah, he (as) was appointed by Allah (swt)]
  • Even in the case of ordinary Muslims, Allah (swt) has only given the ‘permission’ to practice Taqiyyah, and that this cannot be construed as an ‘order’. He claims that those, who practice Taqiyyah, possess a lower level of iman.[While in the Madhab of the Ahle Bayt, it is compulsory to do Taqiyyah in order to protect the interests of the community and Islam].
  • Not a single Prophet/Imam (including Prophet Muhammad) ever practiced Taqiyyah. [While it's a matter of history and according to Madhab of Ahlulbayt, Rasul Allah (s) and Maula Ali (as) and other Imams (as) themselves practiced Taqiyyah].

All these innovations are recorded in Mufti Khalid Mahmood’s book that cites the alleged ‘debate’ between Mufti Khalid Mahmood (of Sipah Sahaba in Cape Town, South Africa) and a Shia scholar whom Khalid calls ‘Hussaini Sahib’ . We don’t have any resources to authenticate this alleged debate, but doubt it ever occurred. Sipah Sahaba’s website has claimed that the Shi’a debater namely ‘Hussaini Sahib’ was an Ayatullah, yet during the alleged debate we see that ‘Hussaini Sahib’ was unaware of the simple fact the the book Tahdib ul Ahkam is among Kutb Arba’a (i.e. the four books of Ahadith, that are most famous amongst Shi’as).

The innovations and ‘historical facts’ that Mufti claimed during this debate are fascinating. Mufti Khalid collated the various innovations that had already been introduced by Nawasib in previous centuries. So, let’s begin with Allah’s help.

What is actual Shi’a doctrine of Taqiyyah?

During the debate, Mufti Khalid made a lot of false accusations about the Shi’a view of Taqiyyah. He didn’t even know what’ the actual Shi’a doctrine of Taqiyyah was. In fact, for centuries, Nawasib have made it their mission to disseminate false propaganda against the Shi’a of Maula Ali bin Abi Talib (as), namely they deem Taqiyya deception and lying before others.

So, it is necessary at this point that we offer our actual point of view about Taqiyyah which is in line with all the Ahadith. People can only criticize our position when they know what our position is, not the position that is presented by the followers of Mu’awiyah. For us, Taqiyyah means “diplomacy” i.e. taking different steps according to the different situations, and we must be sure that these steps are the best in order to save the interest of the community and Islam. Shaykh Muhammad Ridha al-Mudhaffar in his book, “Aqa’id al-Imamiyah,” wrote that:

Rules of Taqiyyah
Taqiyya should conform to specific rules vis-a-vis the situation wherein eminent danger is present; these rules, listed in many books of Fiqh (Jurisprudence), along with the severity of the danger determine the validity, or lack of, al-Taqiyya itself.

Taqiyyah should be abandoned in certain Conditions
It is not mandatory to practice it (al-Taqiyya) at all times; on the contrary, it is permissible, and sometimes necessary, to abandon it (al-Taqiyya) altogether; as in the case where revealing the truth will further the cause of the religion, and provide a direct service to Islam; and (when the revealing of the truth is such that it constitutes) a jihad (striving) for (Islam’s) sake; (verily,) in such a situation, wealth and life should be forsaken.

Abandoning Taqiyyah becomes obligatory, when innocent people are killed
Furthermore, Taqiyya is prohibited in instances wherein the killing of innocent people and the spread of corruption will result; and in cases wherein the marring of the religion will result, and/or a significant harm will befall the Muslims, either by leading them astray or corrupting and oppressing them.

Abandoning Taqiyyah becomes obligatory when one can spread the message of Islam
Either way, al-Taqiyya, as the Shi’a uphold it, does not make of the Shi’a a secret cooperative that seeks to destroy and corrupt, as the enemies (of the Shi’a) wish to present them; (these critics launch their verbal attacks) without really heeding the subject (of Taqiyya); and (without even) laboring to understand our own opinion on the matter (of al-Taqiyya). Nor does it (al-Taqiyya) mandate that the religion and its injunctions become a secret of secrets that cannot be disclosed to those who do not subscribe to its teachings.

How so, when the books of the Imamiyah (the Shi’a) that deal with the (subjects of) Fiqh, Kalam, and beliefs are in abundant supply, and have exceeded the limits (of publications) expected from any nation professing its beliefs.”

Now, if the Shi’a Aqida of Taqiyyah is clear, we can move to Mufti’s innovations.

Mufti Khalid’s claim that Taqiyyah is Haram for divinely appointed people (prophets and Imams)

Mufti Khalid’s states that there are two types of people:

  1. ‘Steadfast people’, who are directly appointed by Allah like prophets. And Allah has made it Haram upon them to practice Taqiyyah.
  2. ‘Permitted people, which are ordinary people and Allah gave permission to these people to practice Taqiyyah in need.
    For the above division, Mufti Khalid presented the following verse of Quran as proof:
الَّذِينَ يُبَلِّغُونَ رِسَالَاتِ اللَّهِ وَيَخْشَوْنَهُ وَلَا يَخْشَوْنَ أَحَدًا إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ حَسِيبًا

[Yusufali 33:39] (It is the practice of those) who preach the Messages of Allah, and fear Him, and fear none but Allah.

He claimed that since Prophets and Imams have no fear that’s why they don’t practice Taqiyyah. Please see the following image from his book “Taqiyyah Na Kijiye” (Don’t practice Taqiyyah).
Taqiyyah Na Kijey, page 23
Taqiyyah Na Kijey, page 24

[Note: From the above division of people into two groups, Mufti Khalid wants to criticize Maula Ali (as) and our other Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) querying how they practiced Taqiyyah if they were really appointed by Allah (swt)]

But there are so many flaws in Mufti Khalid’s claim. Let’s examine them one by one.

Maula Ali (as) vs. ‘Fear of life’

The literal minds of the pathetic Nawasib never understood the Islamic concept of Taqiyyah. They understand only one thing, that Shi’a practice Taqiyyah on account of fear of their lives. But there is a whole philosophy behind this, which Nawasib can never discover due to their disease of literalism. There is a huge difference between the following two cases:

  1. Fearing ones life, when one loves this world. Such a person literally fears every tyrant, who can take away his life.
  2. Fearing ones life, for the sake of Allah. That means to save ones life, rather than foolishly giving it away since this brings no benefit to Islam. Such a person only fears Allah in the real sense and is not afraid of tyrant Kings/Rulers.

We believe that Maula Ali (as) never practiced Taqiyyah due to a fear of Umar Ibn Khattab or all those who fled battlefields. No, certainly not. But he practiced Taqiyyah, when it was not in the interest of Islam to start fighting to get his ‘right’ back. (We will discuss this it in detail in next chapter. Insha-Allah).

Not a single ‘Momin’ is allowed to have a ‘fear of life’ in the literal sense

Similarly, our belief is this that not even a single believer (Momin) is allowed to practice Taqiyyah due to fear of his life in literal sense. It is Haram. i.e. we practice Taqiyyah, when our lives are in danger, while we believe that our lives are “Ammanah” of Allah (swt), who doesn’t want us to foolishly lose our lives. It is like SUICIDE, which is Haram. But Allah (swt) orders us that in situations, where giving away one’s life serves no benefit to Islam and endangers a Muslim’s life and property, then it’s obligatory to hide the truth or to a lie and in this regard, the story of the people of Kahf which we mentioned earlier best proves this.

And this was the practice and order of Rasul Allah (s) and as well as of other Prophets.

Musa (as) also feared for his life for the sake of Allah’s religion

If Nasabis still deny it and abuse us for fearing for our lives, then we shall show them the example of Hadhrat Musa (as) from the Quran. It’s the same type of fear of life that Hadhrat Musa (as) felt against the Magicians of Firoon. Quran says:

قَالَ بَلْ أَلْقُوا فَإِذَا حِبَالُهُمْ وَعِصِيُّهُمْ يُخَيَّلُ إِلَيْهِ مِن سِحْرِهِمْ أَنَّهَا تَسْعَى
فَأَوْجَسَ فِي نَفْسِهِ خِيفَةً مُّوسَى
قُلْنَا لَا تَخَفْ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ الْأَعْلَى

[Yusufali 20:66-68] He said, “Nay, throw ye first!” Then behold their ropes and their rods-so it seemed to him on account of their magic – began to be in lively motion! So Moses conceived in his mind a (sort of) fear. We said: “Fear not! for thou hast indeed the upper hand.

Now prophet Musa (as)’s fear was not because of their magic which could have cost his beloved life, but it was because he feared that his death would bring a great loss to the interests of Allah’s religion. Unfortunately, the literal minds of Nawasib are unable to understand the differences between literal and figurative expressions. We will make this point more clear later on. But at this moment, we want to ask Mufti Khalid and his Nasibi followers belonging to Sipah Sahabah, the following questions:

Do you really want to take above statement in a ‘literal sense’ and conclude that Musa (as) really stepped back for the fear of his beloved life?

  1. If your answer is ‘Yes’, then how can you defend your claim that no Prophet of Allah has ever feared anything else other than Allah and that’s why Taqiyyah was Haram upon them?
  2. And if you say that Musa (as) stepped back only in order to save the interest of Islam, then how can you still criticize the Shias of Ahlulbayt (as) who also do the same for the sake of religion’s interests?
    Mufti Sahib cannot play double standards i.e. to make something Halal in Sharia for Prophets, but Haram for Shias of Ahlulbayt (as) when they practice the same thing.

Now let’s turn towards some critique of Mufti Khalid’s claim.

First Critique

The above interpretation advanced by Mufti Khalid by dividing the believers (Momineen) into two groups is pure conjecture. Our Holy Prophet (s) never understood the above verse in this way and never divided the people into such categories. If Mufti Khalid is true in his claim, then he or his Nasibi adherents must show us any such tradition from the Holy Prophet (s). In fact, the Shi’a Alim throughout the alleged debate demanded such a tradition, but Mufti Khalid was unable to present it.

Second Critique

We would like to ask Sipah Sahaba:

Why did Mufti Khalid take only one part of Quran (which suits to his ideas), and neglect/conceal other part of that Quran go against his conjecture?

Let us present the other verses of the Quran that Mufti Khalid has tactically neglected. Allah (swt) says in the Quran that not only prophets, but also the “Awliya Allah” have no fear.

أَلا إِنَّ أَوْلِيَاء اللّهِ لاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

[Pickthal 10:62] Lo! verily the friends of Allah are (those) on whom fear (cometh) not, nor do they grieve?

Can Mufti Khalid tell us why he neglected this Quranic verse and failed to include the Awliya Allah among the ‘steadfast people’?

Note: Mufti Khalid later claims that Ammar Yasir (r) practiced Taqiyyah, because he was an ordinary person and did not come within the remit of “steadfast people”. But the verse of the Quran is clear that Awliya Allah also have no fear.

The motive behind the Nasibi’s selective application of the verse

It is due to the reason that one such alleged ‘Wali Allah’ of Nawasib was weeping for the fear of his life in the cave of Thawr. Need we to tell you more about this alleged Wali Allah? It’s the same alleged Wali Allah who fled from the battle field of Uhud along with many more such alleged ‘Awliya Allah’ and Allah revealed the following verse:

إِذْ تُصْعِدُونَ وَلاَ تَلْوُونَ عَلَى أحَدٍ وَالرَّسُولُ يَدْعُوكُمْ فِي أُخْرَاكُمْ فَأَثَابَكُمْ غُمَّاً بِغَمٍّ لِّكَيْلاَ تَحْزَنُواْ عَلَى مَا فَاتَكُمْ وَلاَ مَا أَصَابَكُمْ وَاللّهُ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ

[Yusufali 3:153] Behold! ye were climbing up the high ground, without even casting a side glance at any one, and the Messenger in your rear was calling you back.

The texts of history testify that in Uhud the vast bulk of the Sahaba fled the battlefield leaving Holy Prophet (s) wounded. Umar was of those that abandoned Holy Prophet (s) and sat dejected declaring that there was no need to fight as Holy Prophet (s) was dead. See:
1. Siratun Nabi, by Allamah Shibli Numani, English translation by M.Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, Volume 2 page 66-67 (Kazi Publications, Lahore – First edition)
2. The History of al Tabari, Volume 6 page 122 – English translation by M.V.MacDonald (State University of New York Press)

Similarly ‘Uthman fled so far that Rasul (s) mocked him stating ‘the distance you fled was far’. He returned to Rasul (s) after three days (The History of al Tabari, Volume 6 page 127).

Although Allah forgave the people for fleeing from Uhud, nevertheless He took a promise from people that they will never flee again from battlefield and never let Rasul (s) alone there.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ زَحْفاً فَلاَ تُوَلُّوهُمُ الأَدْبَارَ
وَمَن يُوَلِّهِمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ دُبُرَهُ إِلاَّ مُتَحَرِّفاً لِّقِتَالٍ أَوْ مُتَحَيِّزاً إِلَى فِئَةٍ فَقَدْ بَاء بِغَضَبٍ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَمَأْوَاهُ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ

[Yusufali 8:15-16] O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day – unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!

But what happened? Did these alleged Awliya Allah keep their promise? No, they again fled away for the fear of their lives at Hunain (in 9th Hijri), leaving Rasul (s) again alone.

لَقَدْ نَصَرَكُمُ اللّهُ فِي مَوَاطِنَ كَثِيرَةٍ وَيَوْمَ حُنَيْنٍ إِذْ أَعْجَبَتْكُمْ كَثْرَتُكُمْ فَلَمْ تُغْنِ عَنكُمْ شَيْئًا وَضَاقَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الأَرْضُ بِمَا رَحُبَتْ ثُمَّ وَلَّيْتُم مُّدْبِرِينَ

[Yusufali 9:25] Assuredly Allah did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat.

The books of Ahle Sunnah clearly state that in the battle of Hunayn, in which ten thousand companions (including all those who had done bay’ah under the tree) had participated, all of them fled away except four who remained steadfast, three of them were from the Prophet’s clan, Banu Hashim (‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib and Abu Sufyan ibn al Harith ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib) and one from another clan (‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud).”
Tarikh al Khamis, vol 2. p. 113 As Sirah al Halabiyah. vol. 3. p 255

Let’s also see the testimony of Abu Qatada about Hunain, which is noted by Imam Bukhari in his Sahih:

Narrated Abu Qatada:

We set out in the company of Allah’s Apostle on the day (of the battle) of Hunain. When we faced the enemy, the Muslims retreated and I saw a pagan throwing himself over a Muslim. I turned around and came upon him from behind and hit him on the shoulder with the sword He (i.e. the pagan) came towards me and seized me so violently that I felt as if it were death itself, but death overtook him and he released me. I followed ‘Umar bin Al Khattab and asked (him), “What is wrong with the people (fleeing)?” He replied, “This is the Will of Allah,”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 370

For the centuries we are asking Nawasib to tell us if their Hero Umar Ibn Khattab received a revelation from Allah (swt) for his statement i.e. “It is the order of Allah” and up till now Nawasib haven’t replied us that from where Umar came to know the order of Allah for fleeing.

Indeed, such fear of your lives and saving them by running from battlefields never came under the definition of Taqiyyah by Maula Ali (as). By Allah, the Taqiyyah of Maula Ali (as) never included this fleeing from battlefields, on account of fear of his life. But our Maula was one, who claimed that he didn’t fear if ‘death’ attacks him, or he attacks ‘death’.

Third Critique

Can Mufti Khalid tell us why he neglected the following verse and excluded the Momineen from group of ‘steadfast people’?

وَأَنَّا لَمَّا سَمِعْنَا الْهُدَى آمَنَّا بِهِ فَمَن يُؤْمِن بِرَبِّهِ فَلَا يَخَافُ بَخْسًا وَلَا رَهَقًا

[Yusufali 72:13] ‘And as for us, since we have listened to the Guidance, we have accepted it: and any who believes in his Lord has no fear, either of a short (account) or of any injustice.

In fact, the hero personalities of Nawasib ran so many times from battlefields that they had to deny the above clear verse of Quran and to say that one can still be a Momin if one is coward and fears for his life.

Need we to comment any more?

Did any Prophet ever practice Taqiyyah?

On page 49 of this book, Mufti Khalid Mahmood challenges Shi’a to show him if any other Prophet ever practiced Taqiyyah.
Taqiyyah Na Kijey, page 49

It is very strange that the Nasibi is rejecting the notion that Rasul Allah (s) or other prophets practised Taqiyyah, while it is reported in Bukhari, Muslim and each and every Sunni book on the life of Prophet Muhammad (s), that Rasul Allah (s) practiced Taqiyyah. In fact, Islam started via the practice of Taqiyyah.

So, on the request of Mufti Khalid, we are notifying him and all other Nasabis when our Rasul (s) and other prophets practised Taqiyyah.

Reply One – Prophet Muhammad (s) practiced Taqiyyah during the first three years of his mission and he preached secretly

This is a fact that can be found in all and all the classical works of Ahle Sunnah/Shi’a or non Muslim Scholars. For example, Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records:

Ibn Abbas said: ‘The messenger of Allah (pbuh) remained concealed for years, showed nothing of what Allah revealed on Him, till Allah revealed {Therefore declare openly what you are bidden}which means show your matter in Makka because Allah perished those who mock at you and mock at Quran, and they were five persons.
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 5 page 100 Surah 15 Verse 94

Although the revelations had already begun onto Holy Prophet (s) but concerns from certain people made him to remain conceal for few years. If that was not Taqqiyah then what was it?

Reply Two – Rasulullah (s) practiced Taqiyya before the newly converted Sahaba

We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Knowledge Volume 1, Book 3, Number 128:
Narrated Aswad:

Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, “Aisha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Ka’ba?” I replied, “She told me that once the Prophet said, ‘O ‘Aisha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka’ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit.” Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.


Was it incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to redesign the Ka’aba, yes or no? If it was not then why did Rasulullah (s) say “Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka’ba and would have made two doors in it”. If it was compulsory then why did Rasulullah (s) fail to carry out this religious duty on account of his fear of the reaction by the newly converted Sahaba? If this silence is not proof of taqiyya then what is?

In his commentary of the above hadith (destruction of the Ka’aba) Allamah Badrudeen A’ini in his commentary of Sahih Bukhari Umdatul Qari, Volume 2 page 204, makes an interesting comment:

قال ابن بطال فيه أنه قد يترك يسير من الأمر بالمعروف إذا خشي منه أن يكون سببا لفتنة قوم ينكرونه

Ibn Batal said: It is possible to abandon ‘enjoining the good’ if there is a fear of fitna from the people who would deny it.

In other words this Sunni scholar is saying that one can practice Taqiyya / remain silent on an order, if such an order incites Fitnah. The tradition in Sahih Bukhari clearly demonstrates that Rasulullah (s) preferred practicing taqiyya to implementing an act that would cause opposition from the Sahaba.

Reply Three – Nasibi themselves claim that Ibrahim (as) practiced Taqiyyah and told a lie

It is interesting that Nasabis themselves have been claiming since centuries that Hadhrat Ibrahim (as) practiced Taqiyyah and told a lie several times. Let us quote from Nasibi beloved Tafsir of Ibn Kathir:

How Ibrahim broke the Idols
Then Ibrahim swore an oath, which some of his people heard, to plot against their idols, i.e., to break them and destroy them after they had gone away and turned their backs, when they went out to their festival. They had a festival which they would go out to celebrate. Abu Ishaq reported from Abu Al-Ahwas from `Abdullah [Ibn Mas`ud], “When the people of Ibrahim went out to celebrate their festival, they passed by him and said, `O Ibrahim, are you not coming out with us’ He said, `I am sick.’ [While he was not actually sick]‘ It was only the day before that he had said,

(And by Allah, I shall plot a plan for your idols after you have gone away and turned your backs.) and some of the people had heard him.

(So he broke them to pieces,) means, he smashed them all, except for the biggest idol. This is like the Ayah,

(Then he turned upon them, striking (them) with (his) right hand) [37:93].

(that they might turn to it. ) It was said that he put a hammer in the hands of the biggest idol so that the people would think that it had become jealous on its own account and objected to these smaller idols being worshipped alongside it, so it had broken them.

(They said: “Who has done this to our gods He must indeed be one of the wrongdoers.”) When they came back and saw what Ibrahim had done to their idols, humiliating them and lowering their status, proving that they were not divine and that those who worshipped them were fools,

(They said: “Who has done this to our gods He must indeed be one of the wrongdoers.”) because of this action of his.

(They said: “We heard a young man talking against them, who is called Ibrahim.”) Those who had heard him swearing to plot against them said, we heard a young man talking about them, and they said that he was called Ibrahim.

(They said: “Then bring him before the eyes of the people…”) meaning, in front of a large audience so that all the people could be present. This was Ibrahim’s ultimate purpose, so that he could tell this great gathering about the extent of their ignorance and how foolish they were to worship idols which could not defend themselves from harm or help themselves, so how could they ask them for help

(They said: “Are you the one who has done this to our gods, O Ibrahim” He said: “Nay, this one, the biggest of them did it…”) referring to the one he had left alone and had not broken.
Tafseer of Ibn Kathir

We hope that Mufti Sahib is now able to see when Prophets practiced Taqiyyah. We invite him to exclude Ibrahim (as) also from the list of “steadfast people” as he did in the case of Ammar Yasir (ra.). Let’s see if Mufti Sahib takes this challenge or not. Moreover, let us remind our readers about the Fatwa (Bida’a) of Ibn Taymiyah, where he claimed that in Taqiyyah one can remain silent but cannot tell a lie. It’s a challenge to supporters of Ibn Taymiyah to try to apply his Fatwa against Hadhrat Ibrahim (as), if they are indeed “truthful”.

Nawasib even deem it permissible to send their wives to other tyrants, when they fear for their their lives

On the one hand, Mufti Sahib claims that Prophets (as) feared none except Allah (swt) and they never practiced Taqiyyah and on the other hand, the beloved hero of Mufti Sahib, Abu Huraira, claims that prophets feared so much of their lives that they even used to declare their own ‘wives’ as ‘sisters’ so as to save their lives. Even worse, the beloved narrator of Nawasib is claiming that prophets of Allah (swt) even used to send their ‘wives’ to tyrant Kings, fearing for their lives. (Naudobillah). The following Nasibi tradition is reported by Abu Huraira, and is authenticated by both Hadith Masters, Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim.

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) never told a lie but only thrice: two times for the sake of Allah (for example, his words):” I am sick,” and his words:” But it was the big one amongst them which has done that” and because of Sara (his wife). He had come in a land inhabited by haughty and cruel men along with Sara. She was very good-looking amongst the people, so he said to her: If these were to know that you are my wife they would snatch you away from me, so if they ask you tell that you are my sister and in fact you are my sister in Islam, and I do not know of any other Muslim in this land besides I and you. And when they entered that land the tyrants came to see her and said to him (the king): ‘there comes to your land a woman, whom you alone deserve to possess, so he (the kings sent someone (towards her) and she was brought and Ibrahim (peace be upon him) stood in preyer, and when she visited him (the tyrant king came) he could help but stretch his hand towards her and his hand was tied up. He said: Supplicate Allah so that He may release my hand and I will do no harm to you. She did that and the man repeated (the same highhandedness) and his hand was again tied up more tightly than on the first occasion and he said to her like that and she again did that (supplicated), but he repeated (the same highhandedness and his hands were tied up more tightly than on the previous occasion). He then again said: Supplicate your Lord so that He may set my hand free; by. Allah I shall do no harm to you. She did and his hand was freed. Then he called the person who had brought her and said to him: You have brought to me the satan and you have not brought to me a human being, so turn them out from my land, and he gave Hajira as a gift to her. She returned (along with Hajira) and when Ibrahim (peace be upon him) saw her, he said: How have you returned? She said: With full safety (have I returned). Allah held the hand of that debauch and he gave me a maid-servant. Abu Huraira said: O sons of the rain of the sky, she is your mother.
Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5848

Reply Four – Prophet Musa (as) practiced Taqiyyah for a number of years

We read in the Holy Quran that Firon accused Musa (as) for being amongst the Kafireen (disbelievers) yet Musa (as) did not negate it and the Sunni scholars have commented that it was not the case since Musa (as) had been leading life among them in Taqiyyah. We read in Quran:

[Shakir 26:18-19] (Firon) said: Did we not bring you up as a child among us, and you tarried among us for (many) years of your life? And you did (that) deed of yours which you did, and you are one of the ungrateful.

Most relevantly, Imam Fakhruddin Razi states:

وقد افترى عليه أو جهل أمره لأنه كان (يعاشرهم) بالتقية فإن الكفر غير جائز على الأنبياء قبل النبوة

He (Firon) slandered or misunderstood His (as) matter, because he (as) was living amongst them under Taqiyyah, surely kufr is not possible to be committed by prophets.
Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 11 page 467

Imam Nafasi records:

وهذا افتراء منه عليه لأنه معصوم من الكفر وكان يعايشهم بالتقية

“This was a slander, because He (as) is infallible from Kufr, He was living with them under Taqiyyah”
Tafseer Nafsi, Volume 3 page 182

We read in Tafseer Baydhawi that Firon accused Musa (as) of being one of the disbelievers because:

فإنه عليه الصلاة والسلام كان يعايشهم بالتقية

“He (as) was living with them under Taqiyyah”
Tafseer Baydhawi, Volume 1 page 234

Also see:

Tafseer Gharaib al Quran, Volume 6 page 76
Tafseer Kashaf, Volume 1 page 877

Reply Five – The Ahle Sunnah Ulema have acknowledged a that fear of tyranny entitles prophets to indulge in Kufr (i.e. practice Taqiyya)

We read in Sharh Aqaid Nafsi, page 98 wherein Allamah Sa’dudeen Taftazani wrote a commentary of the Aqaid of Najeemudeen Umar bin Muhammad Nafsi, in his discussion on the perfection of prophets, he states:

“It’s prohibited to attribute minor and great sins to prophets, it is permitted for prophets to recite kufr in a state of Taqiyya”.

In his commentary of the comments of Nafsi, page 43, Taftazani states:

“Some have disallowed [the notion] that Prophets can practice taqiyya, Faadhil Khyaal asked [rhetorically] how can such individuals practice taqiyya when they have to remove fear? In some circumstances this is the order of Allah (swt)”.

We have cited the opinion of the Shamsudeen Ahmed bin Musa Khyaal that it is permissible for Prophets to indulge in open kufr in a state of Taqiyya.

Reply Six – According to Ahle Sunnah Prophet Ibrahim (as) recited Kufr in a state of Taqiyyah

When at night Ibrahim (as) saw the stars and said: ‘This is my lord’ (6:76), Imam Fakhruddin Razi under its commentary records:

“He peace be upon him was ordered to do Dawah for Allah, his status was of one who is forced to say kufr and it is known that when someone is forced it is permissible to say kufr, Allah almighty said ‘{not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith}’ if it is permissible to say kufr for saving one person, surely it is worthier to say kufr to save a group of rational people”.
Tafseer Kabeer, volume 6 page 347

Reply Seven – According to Ahle Sunnah a Prophet can commit kufr (in a state of Taqiyya) by prostrating to other than Allah under duress

Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 6 page 402:

When the Coptic informed that Musa killed a man, Pharaoh issued an order: ‘Find Musa and kill him as he has murdered one of our people’. The people who were searching for Musa said: ‘Let us search for him in the streets because Musa is not good at recognizing the streets.’ When Musa was in the street a man came and told Musa- ‘The Chiefs are taking counsel together about thee, to slay thee: so get thee away, for I do give thee sincere advice…He therefore got away therefrom, looking about, in a state of fear. He prayed O my Lord! save me from people given to wrong-doing.’ When he was in the streets. An angel came to him riding on a horse with a spear. When Musa saw him, He came forward and prostrated to him. The (angel) said: ‘Do not prostrate to me, but follow me’. Hence, he followed him and he directed him to Midian.
Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 6 page 402 Surah 28 Verses 20-21

Why did Ammar Yasir Taqiyyah and not his parents?

Taqiyyah Na Kijey, page 23
Taqiyyah Na Kijey, page 24
Taqiyyah Na Kijey, page 25

In these pages, Nasibi Mufti claims that Ammar Yasir possessed a lower level of Iman in comparison to his parents, because he practiced taqiyyah whilst his parents didn’t and became the first Shaheed (martyrs) of Islam. During the debate, he has repeated this question, “If Taqiyyah becomes obligatory during times of need, then why didn’t Ammar Yasir’s parents practice it?”


What can we say about the level of intelligence of Nawasib! At that point of time the Quran was being revealed and there was no explicit order present in Quran as what to do in such situation. Hence the people had no divine law informing them of how to respond to such a scenario. Ammar Yasir (ra) was the first individual that said bad words under duress in an adverse situation, and subsequently approached the Holy Prophet (s) to ascertain the Islamic ruling (Hukm) for such situations to which Rasul (s) ordered him to do the same if he was confronted with the same situation again. It was only after this, that the Quranic verse was revealed, permitting the practice of Taqiyyah under duress.

Mufti Sahib once again adopted conjecture and claimed that action of Ammar’s parents was better and they were amongst the “steadfast people”, whilst Ammar (ra) was less fearful of Allah and hence had a lower level of iman.

It is indeed unfortunate that these nefarious Nawasib are prepared to insult a prominent Sahabi of Rasulullah (s), to attain the objective of defaming the Shias of Ahlulbayt (as). One can only imagine the number of fatwas that would have rebounded against us had we suggested that their their Imams such as Mu’awiya had a lower level of Iman. Worthy of note is the complete lack of Qur’anic / Hadith evidence to back his attack on Ammar’s faith. The simplest means to attack such false Qiyas is to cite the words of Rasulullah (s) on the Iman of Ammar. We read this hadith in Sunan ibn Majah Volume 1 page 82, Chapter on the Excellences of Ammar ibn Yasir as narrated by Ibn Hani:

Ammar has been brimmed with Eman (faith) up to the uppermost of bones (i.e. elbows, shoulders and ankles).

Rasulullah (s) graded the Iman of Ammar to be of such a high level it covers every part of his anatomy i.e. it is complete, and yet this Nasabi Mullah has sought to grade Ammar’s Iman as that of a low level. Whose words should we give greater credence to Rasul Allah (s) or to this Nasibi Mullah?

Reply Eight -The Taqqiyah of Prophet Shemon

We read in Tafseer Abu Sauood, Volume 7 page 162:

وكان شمعون يدخل معهم على الصنم فيصلي ويتضرع وهم يحسبون انه منهم

”Shimoon used to enter with them on the idol and pray and invocate and they thought that he was one of them”

Mufti Khalid Mahmood insists that Prophets are prohibited from practising Taqiyyah so how will he respond to this reference? Prophet Shemon (as) was so engulfed in Taqiyyah that he even (as per this Sunni reference) partook in idol worship to convince his people that he was one of them! Can there be any more extreme form of Taqiyyah than portraying yourself as a mushrik? If a Prophets status is in no way lowered by his practicing such an extreme form of Taqiyyah, why is it objectionable if the Shia hide their beliefs, when living in hostile conditions?

Reply Nine – Prophet Yaqub (as) told Prophet Yusuf to adopt Taqiyyah by keeping his dream a secret from his brothers and he did so accordingly

Mufti Mahmood is of the opinion that those that are divinely appointed by Allah (swt) are prohibited from practising Taqiyyah, what explanation will he offer for this verse? Not only does Prophet Yusuf (as) practise Taqiyyah, he does so upon the order of his father who is also a Prophet. In his Tasfir, Ibn Kathir provides this commentary of the said verse:

Allah narrates the reply Ya`qub gave his son Yusuf when he narrated to him the vision that he saw, which indicated that his brothers would be under his authority. They would be subjugated to Yusuf’s authority to such an extent that they would prostrate before him in respect, honor and appreciation. Ya`qub feared that if Yusuf narrated his vision to any of his brothers, they would envy him and conspire evil plots against him. This is why Ya`qub said to Yusuf:
(Relate not your vision to your brothers, lest they should arrange a plot against you.)
This Ayah means, “They might arrange a plot against you that causes your demise.” In the Sunnah, there is a confirmed Hadith that states.

Allah (swt) has evidenced in his glorious book that when a Prophet (s) fears becoming the victim of the evil machinations of others, he is permitted to adopt Taqiyyah. In this regards we have one Prophet ordering it, and the other acting upon it.

Did Rasul Allah (s) discourage Taqiyyah [Permission vs. Order]?

Nawasib enjoy introducing new things into Islamic Sharia so provide the opportunity to produce false allegations against the Shi’a of Ahlulbayt (as). Take the example of Mufti Khalid Mahmood’s who asserts that:

  • whilst Rasul Allah (s) ‘permitted’ Taqiyyah, he never ‘ordered’ it and always discouraged it.
  • even in scenarios when Taqiyyah is ‘permitted’ one that abstains from it, becomes amongst the ‘steadfast people’ and attains greater rewards. He suggests that the parents of Ammar Yasir attained greater ‘rewards’ than him because Ammar practiced Taqiyyah whilst they did not.


Our Reply

This is a blatant Bida’a (innovation), introduced excusively by Mufti Khalid Mahmood, with the absence of any saying wherein Prophet Muhammad (s) discouraged people from practising Taqiyyah during times of need. In Madhab of the Ahl’ulbayt (as), there there are different situations for Taqiyyah:

  • A situation, when it becomes ‘obligatory to practice’ Taqiyyah.
  • A situation, in which it becomes ‘obligatory to abandon’ Taqiyyah

An example of the first type of situation has been described by Imam al-Ghazzali in his book popular book “Ihya Uloom al-Din”:

أن عصمة دم المسلم واجبة. فمهما كان في الصدق سفك دم امرئ مسلم قد اختفى من ظالم فالكذب فيه واجب

Safeguarding of a Muslim’s life is a mandatory obligation that should be observed; and that LYING is permissible when the shedding of a Muslim’s blood is at stake.
Ihya Uloom al-Din, Volume 2 page 332

Similarly, Ammar Yasir (ra) approached the Holy Prophet (s), to know of the Islamic ruling for one’s actions in such situations, to which the Holy Prophet (s) ‘ordered’ him to do the same again (i.e. to practice Taqiyyah and even use abusive language towards the Prophet (s) and Allah, if he is forced to do so).

If abstaining from Taqiyyah in such a situation was a ‘more virtouous act’ then the Holy Prophet (s)would have made it clear to Ammar (ra) that the stance adopted by his parents was more virtuous. The reality is he (s) did not rather than discouraging him from practising Taqiyyah, he encouraged and ordered him to do it again if was exposed to a similar situation.

Another incident of Taqiyyah

Similarly, a Sahabi Hajaj Ibn ‘Aalat sought to take his wealth from Makka, by directing abusive language towards Rasul Allah (s). Sunni scholars have records the incident in this manner:

After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet (s) was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: “O Prophet of Allah: I have in Makka some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?” The Prophet (s) excused him and said: “Say whatever you have to say.”
1. al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v2, p763
2. Musnad Ahmad, v3, p138
3. Al-Musanaf, by abdulrazaq, v5, p466
4. Al-Sunnan al-kubra, by Bayhaqi, v9, p151
5. Sunnan Kubra, by Nisai, v5, p194
6. Musnad Abi Yala, v6, p194
7. Sahih ibn Habban, v10, p390
8. Mu’ajam Kabir, by Tabarani, v3, p220
9. Tarikh Dimashq, v12, p102

Can Mufti Sahib tell us that why Rasul Allah (s) didn’t discourage him to adopt Taqiyyah in this case? Rather than discourage him, Rasul Allah (s) encouraged him by permitting to say whatever the Kuffar wanted him to say.

In the case of Hadhrat Ammar (ra), Mufti Sahib offered a lame excuse that he was weeping and Rasul (s) wanted to comfort his heart, and refrained from telling him the complete truth. We would be interested to know what excuse the Mufti of Nawasib or his pathetic followers have in this case?

Deeming something Halal in Sharia Haram

We have already mentioned that Taqiyyah is only permitted in extreme cases, when one fears for his life. Mufti needs to recognize that not only is Taqiyyah allowed in extreme cases when one ‘fears for life’, but can also (as we cited previously) be used to take back the wealth from tyrant Kings. [Please see the traditon of Hajaj Ibn Aalat above].

Imam Fakhruddin Razi states in the Tafseer of verse Qur’an, Volume 3 pages 28-29 likewise comments:

“Fifth Rule: Taqiyyah is allowed for the protection of life. The question is whether it is allowed for the protection of property; possibly that too may is permissible, because the Prophet (saw) has said: `The sanctity of a-Muslim’s property is like the sanctity of his blood’; and he (s) also said: `Whoever is killed in defence of his property, is a martyr’. This is also because man depends immensely on his property; if water is sold at an exorbitant rate, wudhu’ does not remain wajib and one may pray with tayammum to avoid that small loss of property; so why should this principle not be applied here? And Allah knows best”.

Rather than follow his own conjectures, Mufti Sahib must follow the complete Sunnah of Rasul Allah (s). When we examine history, we find that Shi’a scholars were always busy defining the different conditions for practicing Taqiyyah according to the Sharia, while Nasibi scholars were busy concocting all manner of innovations pertaining to Taqiyyah and deeming the Halal of Islamic Sharia Haram, simply to get the opportunity to criticize the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as).

Uthman Ibn Affan vs. Mufti Sahib

The Mufti of Nawasib has tried to prove that he is true follower of Uthman Ibn Affan. He adopted the same style of conjecture (Qiyyas), that Uthman Ibn Affan used i.e. ‘abandoning the regulations of Sharia in cases of hardships is a virtuous act’. If the ‘permissibility theory’ proposed by Mufti Khalid Mahmood al-Nasibi pertaining to Taqiyyah is indeed correct, then what would the Mufti and his Nasibi adherents say in case of the permissibility of Qasar prayers when one is on a journey? Does he also deem it preferable to offer the complete Prayer during a journey? We don’t know what Mufti Sahib would answer, but allow us look at the same style of Qiyyas, that was adopted by Uthman Ibn Affan:

Narrated ‘Abdur Rahman bin Yazid:
We offered a four Rakat prayer at Mina behind Ibn ‘Affan . ‘Abdullah bin Masud was informed about it. He said sadly, “Truly to Allah we belong and truly to Him we shall return.” And added, “I prayed two Rakat with Allah’s Apostle at Mina and similarly with Abu Bakr and with ‘Umar (during their caliphates).” He further said, “May I be lucky enough to have two of the four Rakat accepted (by Allah).”

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 20, Number 190

Mufti Sahib must know that conjecture in such cases fail and are Haram. Does he know the status of Prophethood? This status demands one to convey the message and remove any ambiguity since a matter shall become guidance to millions.

The ‘permissibility theory’ when one is starving to death

In Islam, one is allowed to eat Haram things if one is at risk of starving to death. Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti in his book, “al-Ashbah Wa al-Naza’ir,” affirms that…

“it is acceptable (for a Muslim) to eat the meat of a dead animal at a time of great hunger (starvation to the extent that the stomach is devoid of all food); and to losen a bite of food (for fear of choking to death) by alcohol; and to utter words of unbelief; and if one is living in an environment where evil and corruption are the pervasive norm, and permissible things (Halal) are the exception and a rarity, then one can utilize whatever is available to fulfill his needs.”

Can Mufti and his Nasibi adherents tell us, which person is the virtuous one:

  1. A person who takes advantage of this permission, and eats Haram things in order to save his life.
  2. A person that abandons this ‘permission’ and due to hunger and thirst starves to death.

According to the ‘permissibility theory’ proposed by Mufti Khalid Mahmood, the more virtuous act would be starving to death rather than eating/drinking Haram things! We don’t think we need to comment any more here. Allah (swt) says in the Quran:

(Quran 5:87) O’ those who believe, do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like transgressors.

It is indeed amazing that these Nawasib who claim to love and protect the memory of the Sahaba have the audacity to degrade the Iman of Ammar Yasir (ra) to a second level on the basis of their conjecture.

The migration issue raised by Mufti Khalid Mahmoood

On page 39 and 40, Mufti Khalid Mahmood presented the following verse of Quran:
Taqiyyah Na Kijey, page 39
Taqiyyah Na Kijey, page 40

[Yusufali 4:97] When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls, they say: “In what (plight) Were ye?” They reply: “Weak and oppressed Were we in the earth.” They say: “Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?” Such men will find their abode in Hell,- What an evil refuge!

From this verse, Mufti Khalid Mahmood concluded that if someone dies in state of Taqiyyah, then his abode is Hell, their excuse that they were weak and oppressed on the earth will not benefit them, since Allah (swt) ordered them to migrate in such a case.

He then applies this verse to Maula Ali (as) and the other infallible ones (as) and questions why they adopted Taqiyyah and didn’t migrate from Madina during the Caliphate of the first three caliphs, Bani Ummayah and Bani Abbas.

Our Reply

The deceitful author cited the verse out of context to mould his hypothesis, while neglecting all other Quranic verses and Ahadith that provide more details about the situations wherein Taqiyyah can be practiced.

The above verse was revealed for the hypocrites (Munafiqeen) and their excuses for co-operating with Kuffar (infidels) during wars i.e. they came along with Kuffar during the battle of Badr to fight the Muslims, when previously the order came from Allah (swt) to migrate from Makkah in order to strengthen the Muslims in Madina.

In any case, the Nawasib need to look at the verse more closely. It begins: “Indeed, those whom the Angels take while they are oppressing their own souls.” This verse, from then on makes no reference to believers, since a believer is not oppressing himself through sin and corrupt behavior. The verse is exposing hypocrites that chose to live amongst the polytheists, and when asked at the time of death why they chose to live amongst polytheists instead of believers, they offer the lame excuse that they were oppressed ‘when they were actually not’ but rather oppressed themselves through disbelief and hypocrisy.

There are two points, that must not be ignored about the above verse if one wants to arrive at the correct conclusion.

  1. This verse is not dealing with Muslims, who are living in an Islamic state, but with hypocrites who are living among polytheists.
  2. This verse is not dealing with Taqiyyah, whilst according to Shi’a Fiqh, it is Haram to kill or cause any damage to any Muslim brother in the state of Taqiyyah.

According to Shi’a Fiqh, in such situations:

  • One must either abandon Taqiyyah and refuse to follow the commands of tyrant Kings ( and even be killed for this).
  • Or he must migrate to another land.

Let’s see what Ibn Kathir wrote in the commentary of above verse:

(Verily, as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves).” Ad-Dahhak stated that this Ayah was revealed about some hypocrites who did not join the Messenger of Allah but remained in Makkah and went out with the idolaters for the battle of Badr. They were killed among those who were killed. Thus, this honorable Ayah was revealed about those who resided among the idolaters [and supported them in killing Muslims during wars, instead of migrating to Madina].
Tafseer of Ibn Kathir

If the fact has become clear to our readers that this verse refers to a particular situation, in which one is forbidden to practice Taqiyyah, then we can move forward and see another verse of the Quran, that informs us of some believers, who didn’t migrate and practiced Taqiyyah in Makka (but were not forced to kill other Muslims).

Verse of Quran about Momineen who lived under Taqiyyah in Makkah

During the treaty of Hudabiyyah, there were several Muslims who were living under Taqiyyah in Makkah and were unknown to others. This was a time when Muslims had sufficient power in Madinah and the Kufar were incapable of attacking Muslims. People wanted Rasul Allah (s) to attack Makka, but he refused to issue such a directive. Umar bin Khattab was so incensed that he protested to the Holy Prophet (saw), and in later days he said:

I did not entertain any doubt about the prophethood of the Holy Prophet since I accepted Islam except on that day of Hudaibiyah.
1. Musanaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 5 page 332
2. Sahih ibn Haban, Volume 11 page 224
3. Al-Mujam al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 20 page 14
4. Zaad al-Maad by Ibn Qayim, Volume 3 page 257

Replying to that group, Allah explains one of the reasons for that treaty and why war was avoided at that time:

[Pickthal 48:25] These it was who disbelieved and debarred you from the Inviolable Place of Worship, and debarred the offering from reaching its goal. And if it had not been for believing men and believing women, whom ye know not – lest ye should tread them under foot and thus incur guilt for them unknowingly; that Allah might bring into His mercy whom He will – If (the believers and the disbelievers) had been clearly separated We verily had punished those of them who disbelieved with painful punishment.

Our readers will see that Allah (swt) didn’t consider those ‘believing men and women’ as evil-doers, nor promised dreadful punishment for them after their death, on the contrary, Allah (swt) said that if Muslims would do it, they would incur guilt for them unknowingly.

Therefore, this verse clearly shows that the innovation (Bidah) of Mufti Khalid Mahmood according to which ‘Allah promised dreadful punishment for those who dies under Taqiyyah’ is contrary to the Holy Quran. Mufti Sahib has taken the verse of ‘evil doers’ out of context.

According to Nasibi fiqh, one cannot fight or migrate when living under a tyrant Muslim ruler

It is very strange that Mufti Khalid Mahmood claimed such a thing (i.e. it not allowed to do Taqiyyah whole of his life), while according to Nasibi fiqh, one is ORDERED to adopt Taqiyyah before a Muslim ruler that establishes Salat for life, even if he prohibits you from offering Hajj, paying Zakat, is a drunkard or kills innocent people [like the drunkard Yazid did in Karbala and then in Madina during the incident of Hara]. One is not allowed to fight such a tyrant, but must remain silent (like the great Sahaba of Nawasib did by not fighting against Yazid). Please bare in mind the difference between the “permission” for not raising swords and an “order” for not doing so. We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4570:

It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Umm Salama (wife of the Holy Prophet) that he said: Amirs will be appointed over you, and you will find them doing good as well as bad deeds. One who hates their bad deeds is absolved from blame. One who disapproves of their bad deeds is (also) safe (so far as Divine wrath is concerned). But one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them (is doomed). People asked: Messenger of Allah, shouldn’t we fight against them? He replied: No, as long as they say their prayer.

In light of this Sunni tradition we would like to ask Mufti Khalid Mahmood and his Nasibi adherents:

How can you criticize Maula Ali (as), when according to your own fiqh, one is ‘ordered’ not to raise the sword before a tyrant Muslim ruler? If you still want to criticize Maula Ali (as) for not raising sword against early Khulafa, then can you firstly prove that the early caliphs abandoned Salat (prayers)?

Were the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) ever compelled to kill other Muslims?

As previously mentioned, there are some conditions that make it ‘obligatory’ to abandon Taqiyyah, for example if you are compelled to cause damage to innocent people and you are being compelled to do it out of fear of your own life. Maula Ali (as) and other Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) never faced such situation under the tyrant Caliphs of Bani Ummayah and Bani Abbas. It was therefore never ‘obligatory’ upon them to migrate for the same reason.

Taqiyyah of the Imams (as) vs. Migration

As we have mentioned, the Islamic concept of Taqiyyah means ‘choosing the best option’, that benefits Islam, and that is why Maula Ali (as) and the other Imams (as) were able to serve and benefit Islam in a much better way by staying amongst the Muslims, rather than migrating to non Muslim lands. The Imams couldn’t migrate to the land of infidels and abandon the Muslims. Many of the Imams spent many years helping the Muslims and educating them. Despite the differences with the Sheikhain, Maula Ali (as) was always there whenever Islam was confronted with adverse times, that even forced Umar to testify:

“Had there been not Abul Hassan (Maula Ali), I would have been perished”

This fact has even been attested by Wahabi scholar Abu’l Hasan Nadwi who stated in his work, “The life of Caliph Ali”, page 202:

“Umar was often exacerbated if Ali was not available to solve an entangled problem. He often used to say: ‘Umar would have been ruined if Ali was not there”
Taken from Izalatul Khifa by Shah Waliyullah Volume 2 page 268 (on the authority of Abu Umar related from Saeed al Musayyib)

Similarly, the fifth and sixth Imams (as), established schools and had thousands of students. All of the Imams educated the Muslims. They had other duties to perform, they had to improve the ummah and revive it, and most importantly, the Imams (as) could not migrate while they had to lead their Shi’as. There was a whole ‘wikalah system’ for collecting Khums and then distributing it amongst the needy. Even those Imams (as), who were under the strict control of tyrant governments, successfully administered the system of guidance and khums through their representatives. We cannot go into details here for what the Imams (as) did for Ummah as it would require several volumes, so please refer to books on their Biographies.

Yusuf (as) in the court of Kafir Firawn vs. Maula Ali (as) during the reign of the three Caliphs

Taqiyyah means diplomacy, and Prophet Yusuf (as) in the court of the Kafir Firawn, adopted the best option under those circumstances, in order to serve the interests of Islam. Nawasib also accept that Yusuf (as) chose that option that best served the Deen of Allah (swt). Curiously, when it comes to Maula Ali (as), the same Nawasib question why he didn’t migrats and assert it was Haram for him to adopt the method of Yusuf (as)! Double standards and hypocrisy!

Some of the Imams (as) spent vast portions of their lives under house arrest and government control

Some of Nawasib criticize our Imams (as) who spent mush of their lives under house arrest and government control. They ask:

  1. how did they benefit Islam
  2. why didn’t they migrate?

Even these Imams (as) ran the affairs through their representatives. They would answer their questions through letters and other methods. In this way the Shi’a Muhadditheen were able to collect many Ahadith from these Imams (as). We mentioned earlier, that there are several Ahadith which show that:

  • the people were able to send the right of “Prophet’s near kin” (i.e. Khums) to the Imams (as) via these representatives.
  • this Khums money was then cascaded by the Imams (as) to the poor and needy people were helped by the Imams (as)

All of the Imams (as) living under house arrest, were by definition weak and oppressed. They were subjected to such intense surveillance that it was impossible for them to migrate. Even Allah (swt) excused such people in the Quran from migrating. The following verse is the next verse of “evil doers” cited by Khalid Mahmoood in which Allah threatened those hypocrites, who had not migrated and fought against Muslims.

إِلاَّ الْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاء وَالْوِلْدَانِ لاَ يَسْتَطِيعُونَ حِيلَةً وَلاَ يَهْتَدُونَ سَبِيلاً

[Yusufali 4:98] Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed – men, women, and children – who have no means in their power, nor (a guide-post) to their way.

In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is written under the commentry of this verse that:

“Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu An-Nu`man said that Hammad bin Zayd said that Ayyub narrated that Ibn Abi Mulaykah said that Ibn `Abbas commented on the verse, (Except the weak ones among men), “I and my mother were among those (weak ones) whom Allah excused.”
Tafseer of Ibn Kathir

Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) Vs. common Shias

As compared to the Imams of Ahlublayt (as), common Shi’as had the opportunity to move freely, thus the Imams of Ahlublayt (as) encouraged them to migrate, even to Kuffar lands where they could practice their religion freely. This was the reason for Islam’s view on at-ta’arrub ba’d al-hijra as reflected in many ahadith. At-ta’arrub ba’d al-hijra means leaving an environment where you could follow Islam and moving to a place where you maybe prone to not following Islam. Such a thing is counted as a major sin. Abu Basir says that he heard Imam as-Sadiq (a.s.) saying:

“The major sins are seven: killing a person intentionally; associating someone or something with the Almighty Allah (shirk); wrongfully accusing a married woman of adultery; Knowingly dealing in usury; running away from the battle-field in jihad; at-ta’arrub ba’d al-hijra; causing distress to one’s parents [by encroaching on their rights]; and wrongfully acquiring the property of the orphan.” Then he said, “At-ta’arrub and shirk are one and the same [in severity].”
Usool al-Kafi, Volume 2 page 281

We also read that:

Hammad al-Samandri narrates that he asked Imam as-Sadiq (a.s.), “I visit the cities of polytheism [i.e., of the polytheists]; and there are some among us who say that ‘if you die over there, you will be raised [in the Hereafter] along with them.’” The Imam asked me, “O Hammad, when you are over there do you talk about our affair [i.e., our truth] and call [people] to it?” I replied, “Yes.” The Imam asked me, “When you are in these cities, the cities of Islam, do you talk about our affair and call [people] to it?” I replied, “No.” The Imam said, “If you die over there [in the land of the non-Muslims], you will be raised as an ummah by yourself, and there will be light in front of you!”
Wasa’il al Shia, Volume 15 page 101

The migration of Sadaat to different lands in order to get rid of tyrant rulers

We find the history related to the migration of Syeds, mostly in the texts of Wali Allah’s (Saints) in books like Tadhkiratul Makhdoom Jahaniya, Tadhkiratul Awliya, Safeenatul Awliya and other like-topic books. Mainly, during the Abbasid reign, it was very difficult for the Syeds to live in Iran and other Arab world, where there were literal orders to shoot them on sight. The Imams (as) themselves were specially protected or exempt from the shoot on sight order, due to the political reasons of the kingdom. This can be very well explained from the incidents of the time of Imam Raza (as) and the king of the time.

The Sada’at, migrated to South Russian states and India at the time. The descendants of Imam al-Hadi al-Naqvi(as), migrated to Bokhara (now in Uzbekistan). Many descendants of Imam Raza (as), the Rizvis went to the border areas of Kashmir and India specifically to the city of Kareeri. The descendants of Imam Ja’afar (as), the Jafferis migrated to India, to the area which is now in Pakistan called Muhammadi Pur Madina, it is in the district of Gujrat. The descendants of Imam Zaynul Abedeen (as), the Zaidis also migrated to India originally to the areas of Lucknow and Hyderabad. Nearly all stayed at their new places, apart from Naqvis who were in Bukhara. After the great occultation of Imam Mahdi (as), the situation got worst for the Syeds in the Arab, Iranian and now Southern Russian states, which was under Iranian government.

All the Naqvi Sad’at fleeing the killings had to migrate to India, to the area now in Pakistan called Uch. It is on the border of Sindh and Punjab. But, from there many then migrated back to Bukhara, some went to Neshapur in Iran (near Mashad), and also Afghanistan.

This migration out of India was in the mission of Tableegh (preaching). The situation at the time was slightly better for them to travel back in to the Iranian estates.


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 →