A little note on taqiyyah

[Adil]

Interesting post written by a shia on another board. Confirms a lot of dodgy shia beliefs as being legitimate in shiaism rather than being "takfiri lies" and confirms taqiyyah.

It seems in the Shia world, there's a persistent concern about doing Tabarra in public. In fact, some Shias even take it as far as saying that we ought not even to do so in private, for any fear whatsoever that this will reach the ears of some Sunni and offend them.

The way this is justified, is that, apparently, anywhere in the world Tabarra is practiced, in every context, no matter what, if it is done publicly, it contributes to the killing of Shias around the world. So every time a Shia expresses his theological feelings publicly, this directly causally influences violence against Shia Muslims in Karachi, Iraq, etc etc.

In fact, it is said instead, that we ought to in fact unite with Sunnis. We ought not to express sensitive points of our theology in public. We are, in fact, to please them and ensure that they view Shias in an absolutely positive light. For what end? Apparently, this unity results in an end in geopolitical conflicts in Palestine and Yemen and Pakistan, and, Shia-Sunni unity as well will bring out the rise of the Imam (atfs).

On the other hand, of course, there's a camp that says, we ought to curse and insult all of the innovators! It doesn't matter the context, nor the situation, nor from person to person, or time and place, just curse Sunnis, insult them. For them, if you do not do this, you are neglecting a large pillar of our faith, and you are watering our religion down.

Obviously. There's some room for nuance and common sense here.

1 - First and foremost, the main concern regarding taqiyyah, is secrecy. But is it any secret, what our theology says in any way? Anyone with ill intent, can simply go on the internet, and search up hundreds of opinions, on tahrif of the Quran from Shia scholars, whether the companions all apostated, statements of Khomeini calling Aisha and Talha and Zubair as worse than dogs and pigs (even though he stops short of calling them najis - his justification being that they revolted against Imam Ali not out of hatred of the religion, but out of personal malice and greed). In fact, none of this is a secret. Such statements are littered everywhere in our books.

Even western scholars like Etan Kohlberg have become privy to this fact that Shias don't have a favorable view of the companions, and have written whole books and papers on this fact. There's whole academic treatises surrounding Shia beliefs in tahrif, and all sorts of unfavorable beliefs to Sunnis. It's available everywhere, English, Arabic, and even German to anyone with ill intent.

So there is, in fact, no secret. No secret- no taqiyyah.

2 - Every single classical Sunni scholar, especially the four Maddhabs, has released fatwas stating that, we, Rafidhi Shia (i.e. those who believe Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman have erred and are not upon guidance- so every single Shia), are all kuffar and some have outright stated that we are wajib al qatl.

If they takfir us so readily, why should there be any backlash or anger if we do the same?

3 - There is even a theological component, of ones individual beliefs about guidance, that people act on, that can justify expressing our beliefs openly in this way. If the reason for this so-called "taqiyyah" is to soften the pallet for people to come to Shia Islam somehow, then one ought to pay careful attention to narrations in Al Kafi which state things like:

"Abu Ali al-Ash%u2018ari has narrated from Muhammad ibn %u2018Abd al-Jabbar from Safwan ibn Yahya from Muhammad ibn Marwan from Fudayl ibn Yasar the following. "I asked abu %u2018Abdallah (a.s.), %u2018Can we invite people to this faith?%u2019" The Imam Said, "No, do not invite them, O Fudayl. When Allah wants good for a servant of His, He orders an angel, to grab him by his neck and then enters him in this faith compelled or willing." (AK v.1)

Of course, perhaps this particular narration someone may find issue with, but it does not negate three whole chapters in Volume Two, which speak of the same issue, that one's belief is determined, in some way, by forces in some part beyond their control (i.e. one's "clay" that they are made from).

If that is the case, then whether we curse or not, whoever is destined to come to Shiaism will come to Shiaism! So what's the point of hiding our belief? Just do as you do normally and Allah will give whoever some tawfiq to come to the truth.

Let's say even if someone were completely wrong about this, but was acting on this belief by being open with their views about the Sahaba and cursing openly. Would it still not be a matter of their own ijtihad and reasoned belief from our own books? If so, why would that be an issue over which we should takfir and damn and denounce someone over for cursing openly? Why would we choose to prefer the views and sensitivities of Sunnis, who would readily leave us at the drop of a hat, over a fellow Shia trying to act on what he believes to be the truth?

4 - A small note about Yasser Habib, because I know close-minded people will think I'm here to defend him. My point in this post isn't to defend Yasser Habib. My point is, people's criticisms are misdirected. If you really hate the person, don't criticize him on this front that he has bursted Iran's safe-space bubble of controlled propaganda (and yes it really is propaganda if you examine the tablighi circles and their methods as headed by Usama Abdulghani in the West). If you want to criticize Habib, critique him on the far more serious issue that he's takfired and insulted many of our great Ulema, such as Khomeini, Khamenei, Shaheed Sadr, Sistani, etc. etc. I have nothing to do with such behavior, and it's unbecoming of a Shia to takfir and insult a fellow mu'min in this way.

5 - Where is the causal connection between ones open discussion about our theology, and openly practicing Tabarra here in the West, in English speaking countries and violence against Shias?

Take for example, Pakistan and Shia violence there. The main one who spearheaded the rise of Shia violence in Pakistan was General Zia- and his funding of Deobandi madressas. All sorts of anti-Shia groups such as Sipahe Sahaba (formerly known as ASS (amusingly, that's not even a joke, look it up)), sprung up. Why? Because Pakistan, under Zia, was under a growing Islamization- i.e. that a sort of State orthodox/orthopraxy was being established in Pakistan.

This political charade is the whole reason for groups like Lashkar e Jhangvi and ASS. It's got nothing to do with cursing. In those situations, real taqiyyah needs to be practiced, not this half-watered down version of Taqiyyah we think is Taqiyyah here in the west. Shias need to hide their identity as Shias as a whole.

My shaheed uncle was killed by Sipahe Sahaba in 2013. They didn't kill him because of Yasser Habib or Hassan Allahyari or what have you. They killed him because he was an increasingly influential Shia in the area at the time.

In fact, killings of Shias in Pakistan have almost nothing to do with cursing in America or the UK. They take actual issue with our majalis, and juloos, and the alams we use. They take issue with cursing and open Tabarra that takes place within their bubble of information in their particular locality and what is available for them in Pakistan. These terrorists will kill Shias with or without cursing. It makes no difference to them.

If you really want to know where this violence really comes from- then take a second to look at the fact that it was America who put General Zia in power through Operation Fair Play, in response to none other than the Iranian Revolution. Bhutto was a direct military supporter of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (which was, mind you, a direct result of the Iranian Revolution). America, fearing this, knew exactly what they were doing by putting Zia in power.

Now you tell me who is "breaching taqiyyah" more? Iran? Or some random guy in London or San Diego county making 'Speakers Corner' idiots angry?

Ironically, I'd even go as far as saying, IslamicPulse's taqiyyah emboldens groups like Sunni Defense, because they work that much harder to expose and show us Shias what they actually believe from our books.

But for that matter, these internet arguments in the West and random internet forums and discord platforms have nothing to do with some Baluchi guy shooting Shias.

My point in all this is that this whole taqiyyah game is extremely hypocritical and misplaced. It's a red herring. We're focused on so many of the wrong things here.

Instead of focusing on successfully defeating and refuting groups like TSD, we're focused on hiding our beliefs like cowards? We're focused on uniting with these people? We're focused on denying and rejecting our beliefs? If someone comes to us saying Kulayni (ra) believed in tahrif we start melting down and crying and denying, simply for the fact that it doesn't sound good to Sunnis! Why are we so concerned about their favor in the first place!?

6 - This whole time I've been addressing the side that is favoring taqiyyah. But obviously, close-minded people will think that I am advocating for insulting and takfiring and cursing openly and making vulgar jokes and comments towards Sunnis.

Nothing I have said has indicated, or hinted to this in any way. In fact, I'd say, that those who are rude, and offensive about sensitive topics such as the Fatimiyyah and Fadak, are completely in the wrong.

It's one thing to be honest, and it's a completely different thing to be rude and offensive. Saying the truth about our beliefs is not offensive. Calling Umar a faggot and making comments like "ew you're a najis Umari" are offensive. There is a big difference.

Even with honesty, there needs to be nuance. You don't open a conversation with a Sunni right off the bat on discussions like tahrif and Aisha this and Umar that. If you're going to discuss with a Sunni, you ought to establish repoire with them, begin on preliminary discussions, such as- what are our standards of evidence? What's our epistemology here? Do we accept weaker reports? Strong reports? Why? What sources are we discussing from? How do we know these sources are correct? Etc. Etc.

There's room to be academic, honest, and open. But I see far too many people take taqiyyah too far and attempt to censor even this sort of discussion, and on the other hand, I see far too many people discussing and debating without any sense of tact or common sense.

People jump straight headlong into "so by the way did you know Umar was a kaafir and he's going to Hell" without even any preliminary discussion, and then get angry and call Sunnis stupid for not accepting clear arguments. What kind of academic dishonesty is this?

7 - I'll conclude on this note. My point in making this post isn't to villify one group or another. My point is to address what I'm seeing as having taken "taqiyyah" too far. In fact, far enough to the point that even calm, academic discussions, which are honest about our beliefs are met with denial and censorship. And while I disagree with the opposite camp which takes takfir and maligning too far, I haven't addressed them simply for the fact that on this platform, it seems the first camp is far more vocal and prevalent.

My main point is, we shouldn't sit here and water down our beliefs. We shouldn't shy away from discussions. We shouldn't hide as Shias here in the West, because we've been given the privilege of being protected from violence and the privilege that our words don't reach very far.

If we believe Umar is going to Hell- say it with our chests! If we believe Kulayni believed in tahrif, just own up to it! If we think the Sahaba apostated, just say it! If we think Umar killed Fatima- make it known! Say these things honestly and respectfully, but don't shy away from it just to make Sunnis happy. Please.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ByShiasForNonShias/comments/kk3eb3/a_little_note_on_taqiyyah/

[Rationalist]

Wow! This guy is amazing. It takes a lot of guts to come out and speak like him.