12 Reasons to Leave Shiasm

[Ijtaba]

[Ahmad ibn Idris from Muhamad ibn ‘Abdul-Jabbar from al-Hassan ibn `Ali from Tha’alabah ibn Maymoun from Zurarah ibn A’ayun that he said: I asked Imam al-Baqir (as) a question so the Imam gave me the answer then another man came and asked the same question so the Imam gave him a different answer, then another one came and asked about it so the Imam gave him a completely different answer than both of us. when both men left I asked the Imam: “O son of Rassul Allah, two men from ‘Iraq and from your Shia came to ask you but you gave each of them different answers.” He replied: “O Zurarah, this is good for us so that we may remain safer because if you all agree on this then the people will believe in it and they would be guided to us but we will not remain for long.”

Later I said to his son al-Sadiq (as): “Your Shia always walk away from you with different opinions and answers” so he gave me the same reply as his father.]

source: al-Kafi 1/65.

al-Majlisi said: Muwaththaq like the Sahih.

al-Behbudi said: Sahih.

The example you have provided is irrelevant.

Hatib (not Habib) was pardoned due to his status.  It does not make what he did Halal. Treason is Haram in all cases. If you were to provide an example of the Prophet - peace be upon him - telling some of his students that treason is Halal, then telling others that treason is Haram, then you could make an argument out of that.

The example that I have provided clearly shows that the Imam taught his students false religious rulings, out of taqiyyah. Can you provide an example of the Prophet - peace be upon him - doing this?

There is difference between different opinions and answers and false religious rulings. In the narration you provided nowhere does it state that Imam taught his students false religious rulings.

As the narration does not give any information on what was the actual question being asked nor does it give information on the different answers given by the Imam (a.s) so can't say anything on this narration.

If you know about any hadiths where Imams (a.s) have given contradicting answers (i.e. ahadith mentioning the actual answers given) to their Shias for the same question (i.e. actual question asked) then please provide them so that I may look into them. And I did like to ask one more thing... was it Imams (a.s) practice (according to Shia hadiths) to give different answers for same question every-time or did Imams (a.s) do this (i.e. giving different answers for same question) sometimes according to Shia hadiths?

*By Actual Question I mean the ahadith states the question and similarly by Actual Answers I mean the ahadith states the answers given so that it may be clear what was being asked and what answers were given to know whether the answers did contradict one another.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Ijtaba:

I reject your assertion that the Imams would mislead people to protect certain of their followers.
There are so many fairy tales in your books about this so called companion of the Imams & that one who would debate openly & challenge the 'highest scholars from all the schools of thought' infront of the Umayyad & Abbassid caliphs in their palaces & courts.

- May I know the name of this so-called companion of the Imams?

- If this so-called companion of the Imams would debate openly & challenge the 'highest scholars from all the schools of thought' infront of the Umayyad & Abbassid caliphs in their palaces & courts... don't you think he would be putting the lives of the Imams in danger. I did like to know if the Imams of so-called companion gave him permission to go and openly challenge & debate because as far as I know Imams may not have allowed any of their Shia to openly challenge and debate infront of Ummayad & Abbassid caliphs.

Yet when we see the biographies of these men we see the Imams cursing them. Your people say they only cursed them to protect them.
So which is it? Were their beliefs kept secret & low key only for the true shia to know or were they the champion scholars & famous open debaters as shia claim?
Do you see the contradictions & the illogic?

Imams (a.s) cursed people for a reason. The reason for cursing a person is that the cursed person is enemy of Islam. It can also be that the cursed person has done some action which has caused lives of innocent people to be in danger. Lastly there may be exception i.e. the reason for curse is to protect the person's life. This exceptional reason should be supported by strong evidences i.e. there should exist narrations/ explicit sayings of Imams (a.s) where they would say that the cursed person is a true believer and the only reason he was cursed was to protect his life. If there does not exist such evidence then the cursed person is truly cursed in the eyes of the Imams and the curse was not to protect his life.

https://www.al-islam.org/hisham-ibn-hakam-muhammad-reza-atai

Hisham is one of the best scholars and authorities of Islam. He was famous for his knowledge and virtue among the learned men of his time. He was a genius and a gifted improviser and due to his good sense of taste and capability he used to be victorious over all of his rivals in debate and speech; the champion who was never defeated, the man whose tongue was sharper than a sword. Indeed, he is recognized as one of the greatest champions and the most distinguished supporters of Wilayah (trusteeship).

Hisham, who was never defeated in debates, was a universal champion and his fame spread every where. He was always victorious over his opponents in every debate. Every one was anxious to witness his debates.

Among his bold debates, there is a story which is quoted by Allamah Mohsen Amin as follows:
One day, Yahya ibn Khaled Barmaki, the minister, asked Hisham in the presence of the caliph Haroon al Rashid - Tell us, is it possible that a right cause happens to face opposition from two sides and that the beliefs of two persons who are quite different to each other (like two poles) may be right or that both of their opinions may be correct?.......

Another so called famous debate from the same source begins with:

The caliph and a huge number of speculative theologians gathered together and were waiting for Hisham ibn Hakam. Hisham suddenly entered the meeting. He paid respect to all the people present and did not pay any attention to Ja'far Barmaki. In the meantime, some one in the gathering asked him:.........

The fame of Hisham had spread everywhere and people used to come from every corner of the world in groups to listen and witness the fascinating debates.

So as you can see, the argument that the Imams cursed Hisham to protect him & keep his secret does not hold any weight.

That leaves the only explanation the Imams cursed him was due to his heresy.

Somebody better tell anthony joshua & klitscho who the champion of champions is.

[Hani]

Quick comment: True according to Shia prophets do not do Taqiyyah since prophets are the only source of religious knowledge in their times. Ironically, most Shia will quote verses about Ibrahim (as) doing Taqiyyah in the Qur'an to back-up their stance. Their Taqiyyah belief is refuted by highlighting the fact that according to them, the Imams were also the only source of religious knowledge in their times, in this sense no difference between Imams and prophets and thus the weak belief collapses.

I agree with you Hani. But I believe there are some circumstances where knowledge should not be revealed for either of two reasons:

01. Where the person (i.e. Imam or religious scholar) life is in danger.


02. For the benefit of the questioner.

Salam,

I am glad you agree with me that their excuse for allowing the Imams to do Taqiyyah is false. Knowing this, you should as Shia must hold one of two views:

1- Both prophets and Imams can do Taqiyyah.

2- neither prophets nor Imams can do Taqiyyah.

The typical Shia position states that prophets can't but Imams can, we both agreed this is false.

Now we have stories from prophets who spoke the truth in the face of tyrants and were protected by God or executed by their people. Ibrahim (as) was saved but Yahya (as) was executed. Banu Isra'il often killed prophets for speaking the truth but `Isa (as) was saved.

As you can see, there is no general rule. The Mu`tazillah attempted to make up a general rule and the Shia copied them. They both got in trouble as a result.

I believe that there is some detail to this situation. A prophet may do Taqiyyah in something simple, to save a life. However, a prophet cannot propagate false rulings nor blasphemous beliefs out of fear, this is unheard of and would lower the status of a prophet.

Shia Imams propagate what Shia themselves deem as blasphemous out of fear, they misguide with false rulings and incorrect `Aqidah.

On the other hand, we simple lay-folks were allowed in severe life threatening circumstances to save our lives by Taqiyyah, these are very limited circumstances and won't affect the guidance of the nation. Vast majority of people will never even be in such a situation. Yet, the Imam's misguidance does affect the nation's fate since they're viewed as icons and beacons of knowledge (at least the first six) and because they practiced it excessively.

What I'm trying to say is, the consequences of a regular person doing Taqiyyah in a severe circumstance to save his life is unlike a prophet/Imam that literally lived his entire life in Taqiyyah. You have 11 people that lived their entire lives in Taqiyyah (except Husayn) and were often propagating false rulings and beliefs, this is VERY abnormal. Even the top scholars such as Tusi/Saduq say that the conflicting narrations led many Shia to apostate (become Sunni). This excessive Taqiyyah! It's been abused.

As for the supposed 12th one, the man disappeared for 1,200 years out of Taqiyyah. Very majestic.

We regular Muslims say, this isn't Taqiyyah, it's simply due to the shrewd unreliable Kufans and the Qummies who wrote the Kufan Hadith. Our explanation guards the dignity of these 11 men and makes sense according to their biographies and Seerah.

Now the second point you raised, was Taqiyyah for the benefit of the questioner. The example you gave does not fit the situation but I understand your point. The Prophet (saw) advised his followers to not go way over people's heads in knowledge nor to confuse people with advanced topics if they're not ready. This is not Taqiyyah and it is isn't tied to fear, rather it's a type of Mudarat, in other words "Caring for a person's special condition." It doesn't relate to our discussion brother.

Twelvers created a mutated practice by mixing both concepts and called it Taqiyyah Mudaratiyyah, which allows them to lie in order to win a person's favor in a situation that poses no danger, but solely to benefit the sect and help convert Sunnies.

[GreatChineseFall]

If Ja'far as Sadiq for example confused the people so much, why is it that only the twelver shia picked up on this? Why didn't anyone else mention his inconsistencies? Do you really think they would call him as Sadiq, ie the Truthful One, if they found out that he gave different rulings every single time to different people?

[MuslimAnswers]

Salam,

I am glad you agree with me that their excuse for allowing the Imams to do Taqiyyah is false. Knowing this, you should as Shia must hold one of two views:

1- Both prophets and Imams can do Taqiyyah.

2- neither prophets nor Imams can do Taqiyyah.

The typical Shia position states that prophets can't but Imams can, we both agreed this is false.

Perhaps there can be a summary of the qualities Twelvers believe are necessary in the Imam? (As an analogous example, the Sunnis believe in the Prophets being Truthful, Sinless, Intelligent, etc.)

[Ijtaba]

I am glad you agree with me that their excuse for allowing the Imams to do Taqiyyah is false. Knowing this, you should as Shia must hold one of two views:

1- Both prophets and Imams can do Taqiyyah.

2- neither prophets nor Imams can do Taqiyyah.

The typical Shia position states that prophets can't but Imams can, we both agreed this is false.

I have a question according to Ahlul Sunnah do Prophets allow their followers to practice Taqiyyah when the lives of their followers are in danger?

Shia Imams propagate what Shia themselves deem as blasphemous out of fear, they misguide with false rulings and incorrect `Aqidah.

... Yet, the Imam's misguidance does affect the nation's fate since they're viewed as icons and beacons of knowledge (at least the first six) and because they practiced it excessively.

... You have 11 people that lived their entire lives in Taqiyyah (except Husayn) and were often propagating false rulings and beliefs, this is VERY abnormal.

Do you have any narration where Imams (a.s) are propagating false rulings and beliefs. If yes, then please do provide the narration so that I may look into that narration.

Now the second point you raised, was Taqiyyah for the benefit of the questioner.

I never said that the second point is Taqiyyah (neither the first point). By providing those two points I meant that there exists two situations/circumstances in which it is not beneficial to reveal knowledge.

[Hani]

I am glad you agree with me that their excuse for allowing the Imams to do Taqiyyah is false. Knowing this, you should as Shia must hold one of two views:

1- Both prophets and Imams can do Taqiyyah.

2- neither prophets nor Imams can do Taqiyyah.

The typical Shia position states that prophets can't but Imams can, we both agreed this is false.

I have a question according to Ahlul Sunnah do Prophets allow their followers to practice Taqiyyah when the lives of their followers are in danger?

Shia Imams propagate what Shia themselves deem as blasphemous out of fear, they misguide with false rulings and incorrect `Aqidah.

... Yet, the Imam's misguidance does affect the nation's fate since they're viewed as icons and beacons of knowledge (at least the first six) and because they practiced it excessively.

... You have 11 people that lived their entire lives in Taqiyyah (except Husayn) and were often propagating false rulings and beliefs, this is VERY abnormal.

Do you have any narration where Imams (a.s) are propagating false rulings and beliefs. If yes, then please do provide the narration so that I may look into that narration.

Now the second point you raised, was Taqiyyah for the benefit of the questioner.

I never said that the second point is Taqiyyah (neither the first point). By providing those two points I meant that there exists two situations/circumstances in which it is not beneficial to reveal knowledge.

The Prophet (saw) allowed `Ammar to do Taqiyyah when he was beaten by Quraysh. The Prophet (saw) greatly praised Bilal for not doing Taqiyyah and not submitting to the tyrants of Quraysh who tortured him in the desert.

The Taqiyyah narrations are plenty, I can recommend a book filled with them not just a few. Check Mukhtalaf al-Shia, Tahdhib al-Ahkam and Wasa'il al-Shia. They are loaded volumes of Taqiyyah and conflicting narrations.

[Ijtaba]

The Prophet (saw) allowed `Ammar to do Taqiyyah when he was beaten by Quraysh.

So it means that Prophet (s) did allow Taqiyyah.

The Taqiyyah narrations are plenty, I can recommend a book filled with them not just a few. Check Mukhtalaf al-Shia, Tahdhib al-Ahkam and Wasa'il al-Shia. They are loaded volumes of Taqiyyah and conflicting narrations.

If possible please provide one or two narrations (in Arabic with English translation) where Imams (a.s) are propagating false rulings and beliefs to their Shias.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

On a side note, how come the shia never accuse Amr ibn Yasir of being a coward & instead promote him as one of the real sahaba?

They pick faults with all other sahaba but why the double standards here?

[Ijtaba]

On a side note, how come the shia never accuse Amr ibn Yasir of being a coward & instead promote him as one of the real sahaba?

They pick faults with all other sahaba but why the double standards here?

We shias believe Hadhrat Ammar bin Yasir (r.a) to be Muttaqi and Pious Sahaba of Rasool-ULLAH (s).

01. Hadhrat Ammar bin Yasir (r.a) being protected from accursed Satan:

Sahih Bukhari.
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 507:

Narrated Alqama:
I went to Sham (and asked. "Who is here?"), The people said, "Abu Ad-Darda." Abu Darda said, "Is the person whom Allah has protected against Satan, (as Allah's Apostle said) amongst you". The subnarrator, Mughira said that the person who was given Allah's Refuge through the tongue of the Prophet was 'Ammar (bin Yasir).

02. Hadhrat Ammar bin Yasir (r.a) calling people towards ALLAH (SWT) bravely without fear of being killed or being brutally tortured:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 67:

Narrated 'Ikrima:
that Ibn 'Abbas told him and 'Ali bin 'Abdullah to go to Abu Said and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Said and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, "(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while 'Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet passed by 'Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, "May Allah be merciful to 'Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. 'Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire."

03. Sahaba praising Ammar bin Yasir (r.a) of being faultless:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 88, Number 223:

Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama:
I was sitting with Abu Mas'ud and Abu Musa and 'Ammar. Abu Mas'ud said (to 'Ammar), "There is none of your companions but, if I wish, I could find fault with him except with you. Since you joined the company of the Prophet I have never seen anything done by you more criticizable by me than your haste in this issue." 'Ammar said, O Abu Mas'ud ! I have never seen anything done by you or by this companion of yours (i.e., Abu Musa) more criticizable by me than your keeping away from this issue since the time you both joined the company of the Prophet." Then Abu Mas'ud who was a rich man, said (to his servant), "O boy! Bring two suits." Then he gave one to Abu Musa and the other to 'Ammar and said (to them), "Put on these suits before going for the Friday prayer.

[Abu Muhammad]

The Prophet (saw) allowed `Ammar to do Taqiyyah when he was beaten by Quraysh.

So it means that Prophet (s) did allow Taqiyyah.

I think you didn't get the point. Taqiyyah is ALLOWED in a situation that really posed danger to someone's life. However, if you remain telling the truth like what Bilal r.a. did, the reward is much higher than doing taqiyyah.

However, your imams did taqiyyah even for the smallest issues. Some examples where infallible Shia Imams practiced Taqiyyah in minor issues (quoted from https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/why-islamic-teachings-should-never-be-taken-from-shia-sources/):

1. Taqiyyah regarding the location, where Adam landed after coming down from the Heaven

This, as you will understand easily, is the most negligible issue which no one would have even cared if there was any difference of opinion. Now read a Shia narration:

عن أبي جعفر عليه الصلاة والسلام قال إن آدم ع نزل بالهند فبنى الله تعالى له البيت وأمره أن يأتيه فيطوف به أسبوعا فيأتي منى وعرفات ويقضي مناسكه كما أمر الله

It is narrated from Imam Baqir that Adam landed in India. Allah built a home for him and ordered him to do its Tawwaf every week. So he would come to Mina and Arafat and perform the rituals as he was ordered by Allah.

Now read what Mulla Baqir Majlisi says regarding it:

بيان المشهور في أخبار أهل البيت ع أن نزول آدم ع كان على الصفا ونزول حواء على المروة وهذا الخبر وأمثاله يخالفها ويمكن حملها على التقية إذ المشهور بين العامة أن آدم ع هبط على جبل في سرنديب

The famous thing amongst the narrations of ahlel bayt is that Adam landed in Safa, and Hawa landed in Marwa. And this particular narration (regarding their landing in India) and the similar reports oppose such narrations, and it is possible that they are based on Taqiyyah as it is famous amongst the Sunnis that Adam (as) landed on a mountain in Sarandeep (i.e in Sri lanka).[Bihar ul Anwar, Vol. 11, p. 180]

Comment: If Imam is doing Taqiyyah even in this kind of issue, then what else could it be called other than ‘misguidance’?

2. Taqiyyah regarding, bading Salam upon the one who performs prayer

Like the previous case, this is also one of the very minor issues. Now read a Shia narration

الخصال، عن محمد بن علي ماجيلويه عن عمه محمد بن أبي القاسم عن هارون بن مسلم عن مسعدة بن صدقة عن الصادق عن أبيه قال لا تسلموا على المصلي لأن المصلي لا يستطيع أن يرد السلام لأن التسليم من المسلم تطوع والرد فريضة

Imam Sadiq said : Don’t bade Salam upon the one who is performing prayer, because he can’t reply the Salam, and because sending salaam from a Muslim is a voluntary issue and replying is obligatory.

Mulla Baqir Majlisi says regarding it:

بيان الظاهر أن النهي عن التسليم محمول على التقية

What is apparent is that the prohibition from bading Salam is based upon Taqiyyah.(Bihar ul Anwar, Vol. 81, 300).

3. Imam had to perform Taqiyyah even from the laymen amongst Shias.

Lets read another narration:

كا، [الكافي] الحسين بن محمد عن المعلى عن محمد بن جمهور عن يونس بن طلحة قال قلت للرضا ع إن الإمام لا يغسله إلا الإمام فقال أما تدرون من حضر يغسله قد حضره خير ممن غاب عنه الذين حضروا يوسف في الجب حين غاب عنه أبواه وأهل بيته

It is narrated from Yunus ibn Talha that he said  “Once I asked al-Rida, recipient of divine supreme covenant, ‘Is it true that only an Imam has the authority to wash the body of an Imam for burial?’ “The Imam asked, ‘Do you not know who came to wash his body for burial? The ones who were far more excellent than those who were absent during washing his body for burial, came to wash him for burial. They were those who came to Joseph in the well to help when his parents and family were absent from him (i.e Jibril and angels).’”

Mulla Baqir Majlisi says regarding it

بيان لعل الخبرين محمولان على التقية إما من أهل السنة أو من نواقص العقول من الشيعة

Perhaps these narrations are based on Taqiyyah, either from the Sunnis or from the laymen amongst the Shias.(Bihar ul Anwar, Vol. 27, p. 289).

4. Imam had to perform Taqiyyah from the extremist Shias in a simple issue.

We read in Bihar ul Anwar

ير، [بصائر الدرجات] أحمد بن محمد عن الأهوازي عن النضر عن يحيى الحلبي عن أيوب بن الحر عن أبي عبد الله ع أو عمن رواه عن أبي عبد الله قال قلنا الأئمة بعضهم أعلم من بعض قال نعم وعلمهم بالحلال والحرام وتفسير القرآن واحد

ير، [بصائر الدرجات] أحمد بن محمد عن الأهوازي عن ابن أبي عمير عن الحسين بن زياد عن أبي عبد الله ع مثله

ختص، [الإختصاص] عن محمد بن عيسى عن الحسن بن زياد مثله

Ayub ibn Hurr has narrated either from Imam Jafar or someone who narrated from him, that he (i.e the narrator) said : We say that some Imams are more knowledgeable from the others. Imam replied : Yes. And their knowledge about Halal and Haram, and Tafsir of Quran is similar.
Hussain ibn Ziyad has narrated a similar report from Imam Jafar.
Muhammad ibn Esa has narrated as similar report from Hasan ibn Ziyad.

Now lets read what Majlisi has to say regarding it:

ويحتمل أن يكون ذلك للتقية من غلاة الشيعة

It is possible that it is based on Taqiyyah from the extremist Shias.(Bihar ul Anwar, Vol. 25, p. 358)

Comment: So the Imam is making false statements because of the fear of not only Sunnis, but the laymen and extremist Shias as well.

5.  Imam had to make false statement even regarding the marriage of Umm Kulthum bint Ali.

We read in Mirat ul Uqool:

عن الشيخ محمد بن محمد بن النعمان أرفعه إلى عمر بن أذينة قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: إن الناس يحتجون علينا أن أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام زوج فلانا ابنته أم كلثوم، و كان عليه السلام متكئا فجلس و قال: أ تقبلون أن عليا أنكح فلانا ابنته؟ إن قوما يزعمون ذلك ما يهتدون إلى سواء السبيل و لا الرشاد ثم صفق بيده، و قال: سبحان الله أما كان أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام يقدر أن يحول بينه و بينها، كذبوا لم يكن ما قالوا، إن فلانا خطب إلى علي عليه السلام بنته أم كلثوم فأبى فقال للعباس: و الله لئن لم يزوجني لأنزعن منك السقاية و زمزم فأتى العباس عليا فكلمه فأبى عليه فألح العباس، فلما رأى أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام مشقة كلام الرجل على العباس و أنه سيفعل معه ما قال، أرسل إلى جنية من أهل نجران يهودية يقال لها صحيقة بنت حريرية فأمرها فتمثلت في مثال أم كلثوم، و حجبت الأبصار عن أم كلثوم بها و بعث بها إلى الرجل فلم تزل عنده حتى أنه استراب بها يوما فقال ما في الأرض أهل بيت أسحر من بني هاشم، ثم أراد أن يظهر للناس فقتل فحوت الميراث و انصرفت إلى نجران، و أظهر أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام أم كلثوم،

Umar ibn Uzaynah asked Imam Jafer Sadiq ‘People claim that ‘Ali married his daughter to such a person’. The Imam, who was until then sitting down, stood up and said angrily, “Whoever holds such a viewpoint is misled.” Subhanallah! Was Imam ‘Ali unable to free his daughter from their clutches? He could have stood between them and her to protect, they have fabricated a lie … (the whole story of Umm Kulthum being replaced by Jinn and the Jinn’s marriage to Umar thereforth)

Mulla Baqir Majlisi says regarding it:

أقول: لا منافاة بينه و بين سائر الأخبار الواردة في أنه زوجه أم كلثوم، لأنهم صلوات الله عليهم، كانوا يتقون من غلاة الشيعة، و كان هذا من الأسرار، و لم يكن أكثر أصحابهم قائلين لها، كذا ذكره الوالد العلامة قدس الله روحه

I say: There is no contradiction between this narration and the other narrations that he married his daughter Umm Kulthum, because the Imams would fear from the extremist Shias, and this is from the secrets, and because plenty of his companions didn’t believe in it, this is what Allamah has also mentioned.(Mirat ul Uqool, Vol. 21, p. 198)

[zaid_ibn_ali]

On a side note, how come the shia never accuse Amr ibn Yasir of being a coward & instead promote him as one of the real sahaba?

They pick faults with all other sahaba but why the double standards here?

We shias believe Hadhrat Ammar bin Yasir (r.a) to be Muttaqi and Pious Sahaba of Rasool-ULLAH (s).

01. Hadhrat Ammar bin Yasir (r.a) being protected from accursed Satan:

Sahih Bukhari.
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 507:

Narrated Alqama:
I went to Sham (and asked. "Who is here?"), The people said, "Abu Ad-Darda." Abu Darda said, "Is the person whom Allah has protected against Satan, (as Allah's Apostle said) amongst you". The subnarrator, Mughira said that the person who was given Allah's Refuge through the tongue of the Prophet was 'Ammar (bin Yasir).

02. Hadhrat Ammar bin Yasir (r.a) calling people towards ALLAH (SWT) bravely without fear of being killed or being brutally tortured:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 67:

Narrated 'Ikrima:
that Ibn 'Abbas told him and 'Ali bin 'Abdullah to go to Abu Said and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Said and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, "(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while 'Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet passed by 'Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, "May Allah be merciful to 'Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. 'Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire."

03. Sahaba praising Ammar bin Yasir (r.a) of being faultless:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 88, Number 223:

Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama:
I was sitting with Abu Mas'ud and Abu Musa and 'Ammar. Abu Mas'ud said (to 'Ammar), "There is none of your companions but, if I wish, I could find fault with him except with you. Since you joined the company of the Prophet I have never seen anything done by you more criticizable by me than your haste in this issue." 'Ammar said, O Abu Mas'ud ! I have never seen anything done by you or by this companion of yours (i.e., Abu Musa) more criticizable by me than your keeping away from this issue since the time you both joined the company of the Prophet." Then Abu Mas'ud who was a rich man, said (to his servant), "O boy! Bring two suits." Then he gave one to Abu Musa and the other to 'Ammar and said (to them), "Put on these suits before going for the Friday prayer.

All you did is mention the virtues of Amr ibn Yasir, which are well known.
You avoided answering my question.

Subhanallah if only you defended the rest of the sahaba by mentioning their many virtues over their very few shortcomings.

[Ijtaba]

I think you didn't get the point. Taqiyyah is ALLOWED in a situation that really posed danger to someone's life. However, if you remain telling the truth like what Bilal r.a. did, the reward is much higher than doing taqiyyah.

I agree Taqiyyah is only allowed when life is in danger.

However, your imams did taqiyyah even for the smallest issues. Some examples where infallible Shia Imams practiced Taqiyyah in minor issues (quoted from https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/why-islamic-teachings-should-never-be-taken-from-shia-sources/):

1. Taqiyyah regarding the location, where Adam landed after coming down from the Heaven

This, as you will understand easily, is the most negligible issue which no one would have even cared if there was any difference of opinion. Now read a Shia narration:

عن أبي جعفر عليه الصلاة والسلام قال إن آدم ع نزل بالهند فبنى الله تعالى له البيت وأمره أن يأتيه فيطوف به أسبوعا فيأتي منى وعرفات ويقضي مناسكه كما أمر الله

It is narrated from Imam Baqir that Adam landed in India. Allah built a home for him and ordered him to do its Tawwaf every week. So he would come to Mina and Arafat and perform the rituals as he was ordered by Allah.

Now read what Mulla Baqir Majlisi says regarding it:

بيان المشهور في أخبار أهل البيت ع أن نزول آدم ع كان على الصفا ونزول حواء على المروة وهذا الخبر وأمثاله يخالفها ويمكن حملها على التقية إذ المشهور بين العامة أن آدم ع هبط على جبل في سرنديب

The famous thing amongst the narrations of ahlel bayt is that Adam landed in Safa, and Hawa landed in Marwa. And this particular narration (regarding their landing in India) and the similar reports oppose such narrations, and it is possible that they are based on Taqiyyah as it is famous amongst the Sunnis that Adam (as) landed on a mountain in Sarandeep (i.e in Sri lanka).[Bihar ul Anwar, Vol. 11, p. 180]

Comment: If Imam is doing Taqiyyah even in this kind of issue, then what else could it be called other than ‘misguidance’?

Would believing Hadhrat Adam (a.s) landed in India not in Safa or vice versa lead me to hell?

2. Taqiyyah regarding, bading Salam upon the one who performs prayer

Like the previous case, this is also one of the very minor issues. Now read a Shia narration

الخصال، عن محمد بن علي ماجيلويه عن عمه محمد بن أبي القاسم عن هارون بن مسلم عن مسعدة بن صدقة عن الصادق عن أبيه قال لا تسلموا على المصلي لأن المصلي لا يستطيع أن يرد السلام لأن التسليم من المسلم تطوع والرد فريضة

Imam Sadiq said : Don’t bade Salam upon the one who is performing prayer, because he can’t reply the Salam, and because sending salaam from a Muslim is a voluntary issue and replying is obligatory.

Mulla Baqir Majlisi says regarding it:

بيان الظاهر أن النهي عن التسليم محمول على التقية

What is apparent is that the prohibition from bading Salam is based upon Taqiyyah.(Bihar ul Anwar, Vol. 81, 300).

Did Baqir Majlisi provide contradicting narration(s) or is it his own opinion?

3. Imam had to perform Taqiyyah even from the laymen amongst Shias.

Lets read another narration:

كا، [الكافي] الحسين بن محمد عن المعلى عن محمد بن جمهور عن يونس بن طلحة قال قلت للرضا ع إن الإمام لا يغسله إلا الإمام فقال أما تدرون من حضر يغسله قد حضره خير ممن غاب عنه الذين حضروا يوسف في الجب حين غاب عنه أبواه وأهل بيته

It is narrated from Yunus ibn Talha that he said  “Once I asked al-Rida, recipient of divine supreme covenant, ‘Is it true that only an Imam has the authority to wash the body of an Imam for burial?’ “The Imam asked, ‘Do you not know who came to wash his body for burial? The ones who were far more excellent than those who were absent during washing his body for burial, came to wash him for burial. They were those who came to Joseph in the well to help when his parents and family were absent from him (i.e Jibril and angels).’”

Mulla Baqir Majlisi says regarding it

بيان لعل الخبرين محمولان على التقية إما من أهل السنة أو من نواقص العقول من الشيعة

Perhaps these narrations are based on Taqiyyah, either from the Sunnis or from the laymen amongst the Shias.(Bihar ul Anwar, Vol. 27, p. 289).

Again is it Baqir Majlisi opinion or did he provide contradicting narration(s)?

In this narration it isn't clear who is being referred to as his body for burial and who are being referred to as excellent than those absent. The name of Hadhrat Jibrael (a.s) and Angels are not mentioned in the narration. If we believe that those being called excellent are Hadhrat Jibrael (a.s) and Angels then it would mean that Hadhrat Jibrael (a.s) and Angels are more excellent than Nabi Yaqub (a.s) which is not Shia belief I guess.

4. Imam had to perform Taqiyyah from the extremist Shias in a simple issue.

We read in Bihar ul Anwar

ير، [بصائر الدرجات] أحمد بن محمد عن الأهوازي عن النضر عن يحيى الحلبي عن أيوب بن الحر عن أبي عبد الله ع أو عمن رواه عن أبي عبد الله قال قلنا الأئمة بعضهم أعلم من بعض قال نعم وعلمهم بالحلال والحرام وتفسير القرآن واحد

ير، [بصائر الدرجات] أحمد بن محمد عن الأهوازي عن ابن أبي عمير عن الحسين بن زياد عن أبي عبد الله ع مثله

ختص، [الإختصاص] عن محمد بن عيسى عن الحسن بن زياد مثله

Ayub ibn Hurr has narrated either from Imam Jafar or someone who narrated from him, that he (i.e the narrator) said : We say that some Imams are more knowledgeable from the others. Imam replied : Yes. And their knowledge about Halal and Haram, and Tafsir of Quran is similar.
Hussain ibn Ziyad has narrated a similar report from Imam Jafar.
Muhammad ibn Esa has narrated as similar report from Hasan ibn Ziyad.

Now lets read what Majlisi has to say regarding it:

ويحتمل أن يكون ذلك للتقية من غلاة الشيعة

It is possible that it is based on Taqiyyah from the extremist Shias.(Bihar ul Anwar, Vol. 25, p. 358)

Comment: So the Imam is making false statements because of the fear of not only Sunnis, but the laymen and extremist Shias as well.

Is it opinion of Baqir Majlisi or are there narration(s) contradicting the above narration? Imam Ali (a.s), Imam Hassan (a.s) and Imam Hussain (a.s) are preferred over rest of 9 Imams (a.s)

5.  Imam had to make false statement even regarding the marriage of Umm Kulthum bint Ali.

We read in Mirat ul Uqool:

عن الشيخ محمد بن محمد بن النعمان أرفعه إلى عمر بن أذينة قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: إن الناس يحتجون علينا أن أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام زوج فلانا ابنته أم كلثوم، و كان عليه السلام متكئا فجلس و قال: أ تقبلون أن عليا أنكح فلانا ابنته؟ إن قوما يزعمون ذلك ما يهتدون إلى سواء السبيل و لا الرشاد ثم صفق بيده، و قال: سبحان الله أما كان أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام يقدر أن يحول بينه و بينها، كذبوا لم يكن ما قالوا، إن فلانا خطب إلى علي عليه السلام بنته أم كلثوم فأبى فقال للعباس: و الله لئن لم يزوجني لأنزعن منك السقاية و زمزم فأتى العباس عليا فكلمه فأبى عليه فألح العباس، فلما رأى أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام مشقة كلام الرجل على العباس و أنه سيفعل معه ما قال، أرسل إلى جنية من أهل نجران يهودية يقال لها صحيقة بنت حريرية فأمرها فتمثلت في مثال أم كلثوم، و حجبت الأبصار عن أم كلثوم بها و بعث بها إلى الرجل فلم تزل عنده حتى أنه استراب بها يوما فقال ما في الأرض أهل بيت أسحر من بني هاشم، ثم أراد أن يظهر للناس فقتل فحوت الميراث و انصرفت إلى نجران، و أظهر أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام أم كلثوم،

Umar ibn Uzaynah asked Imam Jafer Sadiq ‘People claim that ‘Ali married his daughter to such a person’. The Imam, who was until then sitting down, stood up and said angrily, “Whoever holds such a viewpoint is misled.” Subhanallah! Was Imam ‘Ali unable to free his daughter from their clutches? He could have stood between them and her to protect, they have fabricated a lie … (the whole story of Umm Kulthum being replaced by Jinn and the Jinn’s marriage to Umar thereforth)

Mulla Baqir Majlisi says regarding it:

أقول: لا منافاة بينه و بين سائر الأخبار الواردة في أنه زوجه أم كلثوم، لأنهم صلوات الله عليهم، كانوا يتقون من غلاة الشيعة، و كان هذا من الأسرار، و لم يكن أكثر أصحابهم قائلين لها، كذا ذكره الوالد العلامة قدس الله روحه

I say: There is no contradiction between this narration and the other narrations that he married his daughter Umm Kulthum, because the Imams would fear from the extremist Shias, and this is from the secrets, and because plenty of his companions didn’t believe in it, this is what Allamah has also mentioned.(Mirat ul Uqool, Vol. 21, p. 198)

Need to research into this topic. I am opening a new thread on this topic.

[Abu Muhammad]

Sister Ijtaba (thousand apology if you are a brother. Your name sounds feminine to me than masculine),

You missed the point again. The discussion is about taqiyyah and the permissibility of it during life threathening situations. In the above post of mine, why did the imam need to do taqiyyah on those smallest and non-life threatening issues?

[Ijtaba]

All you did is mention the virtues of Amr ibn Yasir, which are well known.
You avoided answering my question.

Prophet (s) did not criticize Hadhrat Ammar bin Yasir (r.a) for acting cowardly thus proving that Hadhrat Ammar (r.a) was not considered coward.

[Ijtaba]

Sister Ijtaba (thousand apology if you are a brother. Your name sounds feminine to me than masculine),

You missed the point again. The discussion is about taqiyyah and why did the imam need to do taqiyyah on those smallest and non-life threatening issues.

Does Mujtaba, Mustafa also sound feminine? Ijtaba is masculine name.

In your question lies the answer... why would Imams do taqiyyah on smallest and non-life threatening issues? Taqiyyah is never done in peaceful situation but always in life threatening situations.

[Abu Muhammad]

Sister Ijtaba (thousand apology if you are a brother. Your name sounds feminine to me than masculine),

Does Mujtaba, Mustafa also sound feminine? Ijtaba is masculine name.

Oh... sorry brother. Frankly speaking, coming from South East Asia, I've never heard that name before.

In your question lies the answer... why would Imams do taqiyyah on smallest and non-life threatening issues? Taqiyyah is never done in peaceful situation but always in life threatening situations.

You pretty much generalized the situation. Even the smallest of the issues were life threathening to the Imams.

[Hani]

Salam,

I have an old article on the site that goes into detail about Taqiyyah:
http://www.twelvershia.org/2014/05/29/taqiyya-the-other-face/

This should answer a lot of the questions you're asking here.

PS. The Shia books whose names I mentioned above have PLENTY of conflicting narrations from the Imams. There's almost a contradiction in every single chapter of Fiqh due to this.

I will copy a excerpt from my article but I suggest you read the whole thing as it demolishes what they believe is Taqiyyah:

6) Is wine pure or impure?
al-Khoei states this in al-Tanqeeh fi Sharh al-`Urwah al-Wusta, volume 3, book of Taharah, pg.83:
[The difference (of opinion) in this matter is from a group from the early scholars like al-Saduq and his Father in al-Resalah, and al-Ju`fi and al-`Ammani and a group of the late scholars such as al-Ardabilee and others who have went to the opinion that it(Wine) is pure, their difference in this comes from the difference in the narrations and this is because there was no consensus on the impurity of wine after a group from the biggest scholars like al-Saduq and al-Ardabilee and others decided that it was pure, also the holy book does not contain a proof of its impurity]

In al-Hada’eq al-Nadirah by al-Bahrani:
[What is narrated by Thiqat-ul-Islam in the SAHIH from `Ali bin Mehzayar that he said: I read in the book of `Abdullah bin Muhammad to abu al-Hassan (as): May I be a sacrifice for you, Zurarah narrated from abu Ja`far (as) and abu `Abdillah (as) regarding the wine when it stains a person’s clothes that there is no harm in praying in it because Allah prohibited drinking it only. and other than Zurarah narrated from abu `Abdullah (as) that if it stains your clothes then wash the stain unless you do not know where the stain is then wash all of your clothes, and if you pray while it is on your clothes then repeat your prayer. so which of the two sayings should I take? he (as) sent me: take the saying of abu `Abdullah (as).]

Here are some examples of what al-`Amili narrated in Wasa’el al-Shia in chapter 38 from the chapters of Najasat:
[What al-Hassan bin abi Sarah narrated in the SAHIH: I said to abu `Abdullah (as): If my clothes were stained with some wine, do I pray in them before washing them? he (as) said: No harm, the clothes do not get intoxicated.]

[What was narrated from `Abdullah bin Bukayr in the Muwaththaq: a man asked abu `Abdullah (as) about the intoxicant and the wine if they stain the clothes while we were there, he (as) said: No harm in it.]

[What was narrated by the great dignified reliable scholar `Abdullah bin Ja`far al-Humeiri in Qurb al-Isnad in the SAHIH from `Ali bin Ri’ab: I asked abu `Abdullah (as) about the intoxicating wine if it stains my clothes, do I wash it or pray in it? he (as) said: Pray in them…Allah (swt) only prohibited drinking it.]

[Ibn Babawieh narrated in the Mursal that: abu Ja`far (as) and abu `Abdullah (as) were asked: we buy clothes and they are stained by wine and the oil of the pigs, do we pray in them? he (as) said: Yes, no harm, Allah has only prohibited drinking and eating, he did not prohibit wearing and touching and praying in it.

al-Saduq narrated it in `Ilal al-Shara’e` with a SAHIH chain from Bukayr from al-Baqir (as), also from abu al-Sabbah and abu Sa`eed and al-Hassan al-Nabbal from al-Sadiq (as).]

[al-Sheikh narrated in the SAHIH from `Ali bin Ja`far from his brother Musa (as): that he was asked about a man who passes by rain water mixed with wine and it stains his clothes, does he pray in them before washing? He (as) said: “He does not wash his clothes or his feet and he prays in them and no harm.” He narrated it in Qurb al-Isnad.]

And finally al-Bahrani says on page 105:

[When you know all this, then you should (also) know that a group from the virtuous of the late scholars like al-Sayyed al-Sanad in al-Madarik and al-Fadil al-Khurasani in al-Thakheerah and al-Khawansari and others have chosen the opinion that it is pure, and declared that there was no consensus on this matter]

As you can see, these narrations are SAHIH and MUWATHTHAQ and reliable, but there’s a LOT of other SAHIH and MUWATHTHAQ narrations stating that it is impure and Najis, just like the first Sahih Hadith I quoted in which the Imam tell his companion to take the saying of abu `Abdullah (as), here’s what al-Khoei says in the same source stated above:

[There are plenty of narrations which makes it certain that some of them have come from the Imams (as) and there is no need to even discuss their chains, also they are clear and explicit in declaring that wine is IMPURE.

On the other hand there are lots of other narrations – including Sahih and Muwaththaq narrations – that explicitly prove the PURITY of wine, and when it comes to the amount of narrations they are more than those which declare it to be impure, and the claim that these narrations must have certainly come from the Imams (as) is not far from truth.]

So what do the Shia usually do in this case? They apply their corrupt methodology to see what what agrees with the Quran or what opposes Ahlul-Sunnah, al-Khoei says:

[And these are two opposing groups of narrations, so we must fix this matter by looking at what agree with al-Qur’an and disagrees with al-`Ammah(Sunnies)……And both of these factors are lost, as for the agreement with the Quran, we have previously stated that the book of Allah does not mention anything about the purity or impurity of wine, and as for disagreeing with al-`Ammah(Sunnies) this is not valid because each group of narrations agrees with them in a way and disagrees with them in another way.]

In other words they’re stuck as usual, since the Qur’an most of the time contains nothing about detailed matters of Fiqh, and since Ahlul-Sunnah have a valid difference of opinion on this matter.

[Hani]

I'll quote another quick thing from my long article, just so that you don't think I'm exaggerating, here's the Shia scholar  Ja`far al-Subhani in “al-Rasa’il al-Arba`ah” pg.201:

[When we read the two books (of Hadith): Wasael al-Shia and Mustadrak al-Wasael for example, we see that there is no chapter or Fiqhi section which is free from conflicting narrations, this has caused some of those who converted to the Imami Madhab to leave it.]

As you can see, they have conflicting narration in pretty much every chapter of Fiqh, unlike Ahlul-Sunnah where there rarely is any conflicts in the Prophet's (saw) Fiqh.

Brother Ijtaba, I guarantee you that if you read my long article sincerely, it is enough to drop the entire Twelver Madhab altogether. Taqiyyah is misguidance and a lie upon Ahlul-Bayt and Guidance is from God.

[Ijtaba]

I'll quote another quick thing from my long article, just so that you don't think I'm exaggerating, here's the Shia scholar  Ja`far al-Subhani in “al-Rasa’il al-Arba`ah” pg.201:

[When we read the two books (of Hadith): Wasael al-Shia and Mustadrak al-Wasael for example, we see that there is no chapter or Fiqhi section which is free from conflicting narrations, this has caused some of those who converted to the Imami Madhab to leave it.]

As you can see, they have conflicting narration in pretty much every chapter of Fiqh, unlike Ahlul-Sunnah where there rarely is any conflicts in the Prophet's (saw) Fiqh.

Brother Ijtaba, I guarantee you that if you read my long article sincerely, it is enough to drop the entire Twelver Madhab altogether. Taqiyyah is misguidance and a lie upon Ahlul-Bayt and Guidance is from God.

Thanks Hani for the article. I will read your article.

I have a question... were all conflicting narrations of Shia Imams due to Taqiyyah only or were there other reasons/factors besides Taqiyyah involved?