Talk:Taqiyya/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sunni view about Taqiyyah

@HyperGaruda, MezzoMezzo, Mhhossein, Toddy1, Human10.0, and FreeatlastChitchat: Following our good cooperation for improving the lead of Ali, I think we can solve controversy about this issue as well. I ask those who are participated in the former discussions in this talk page including @AdventurousSquirrel, SMcCandlish, HafizHanif, Xtremedood, and Wiqi55: to join us.

First, are there major Sunni Faqihs who accept Taqiyyah? Under which circumstances have they accepted it? According to one reliable source which I found there are several Sunni Faqihs who accept it including Shafi'i and Hasan al-Basri [1].

Second, how should we explain Sunnis' view in the article which show their ideas as well as their different approach towards the issue?

My suggestion: "This practice was emphasized in Shi'a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion.[3][4] There are a few Sunni Faqihs who accept it including Shafi'i and Hasan al-Basri.[5] However, in Sunni view, denying faith under duress is viewed only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory."

Thank for your participation.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate being asked to contribute in further exploring the term and application to Islamic jurisprudence and overall theology.

A suggestion of mine, and something I could do, would be to also include the places where the term or root word terms appear in context ( or what scholars have written about them ) in order to show the development of the idea to dissimulate, conceal by way of deceit or giving into force and saying something untrue to save oneself... however one would like to put it. Perhaps the overall Sunni thought is that lying is by no means allowed ( thus showing interpretation varying widely regarding this idea despite what the Quran source(s) of the term / root term ), or as stated in one source mentioned herein, only due to special technical circumstances, perhaps more limiting than the Shia's perspective. --HafizHanif (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for including me in the discussion Seyyed. Regarding your suggestion, do you intend that to be in the lede?

Additional Sunni scholars who consider taqiyyah permissible (under certain circumstances) include: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, As-Suyuti, Al-Qurtubi, [Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ibrahim] Ibn al-Mundhir al-Nisaburi, [Ali ibn Khalaf] Ibn Battal, al-Shinqiti, Al-Munajjid and Mufti Ebrahim Desai.

Circumstances/rules of taqiyyah (acc. to source 1):

"According to Ahl as-Sunnah, in order for taqiyyah to be permissible, there should be fear of harm and the individual should not have any other means of avoiding harm except by resorting to taqiyyah. It is also stipulated that the harm that is feared should be of a type that is extremely hard to bear. The one who resorts to taqiyyah should also note that if he has any other option that does not involve committing a haraam action, then he must choose it. He should also note that he should not indulge in the concession to such an extent that it goes beyond the limits of taqiyyah to the level of negligence by committing haraam actions after achieving what is necessary [...] He should also pay attention to his intention, and have the intention that he is only doing something haraam out of necessity; he knows that it is haraam, but he is availing himself of the concession granted by Allah. If he does it, taking the matter lightly and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, then he will fall into sin."

Circumstances/rules of taqiyyah (acc. to source 2):

• Taqiyyah is only done when a person is amongst non-believers and he fears for his life or wealth. He may even utter words which show love/close friendship as long as his heart is clean of such beliefs.
• Taqiyyah is not permissible through actions which cause harm to others eg. killing, fornication, stealing, false testimony, circulate the secrets of the Muslims (usually at the time of war), etc.
• Taqiyyah is also permissible if one is threatened to be beaten (severely).
• Taqiyyah is only permissible if one actually fears some danger. If no danger is expected taqiyyah is impermissible.
• Taqiyyah should be used as a last resort.
• Taqiyyah is not permissible for gain of wealth, position, etc. (except in critical circumstances).

Note: I am unsure of how the concept and circumstances of taqiyyah permitted by Sunnism are different from those permitted by Shiism (needless to say that descriptions of the Shia concept of taqiyyah given by the cited Sunni websites are misrepresentations). Could someone shed light on that?

Since we're on the talk page, I'd like to talk about the first line in the Sunni view section. It states "Sunni jurisprudence does not use the term taqiyya" yet the source cited (i.e., this fatwa) goes on to quote multiple Sunni sources using the term (most prominently Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya) and I cannot find where the fatwa's text denies the use of the term in Sunni jurisprudence. Actually, it is the person who asked for the fatwa who states in his question that "In fatwa no. 101272, you said that [taqiyyah] is a term that is particular to the Shi‘ah." However fatwa no. 101272 does not say that taqiyyah is something particular to Shias, rather it (misrepresents the Shia view and then) states that that allegedly Shia concept of taqiyyah is contrary to Islam. —Human10.0 (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Note 2: The original Arabic version of Al-Munajjid's fatwa explicitly quotes Ibn Qayyim, Al-Qurtubi and Al-Tabari using the term 'taqiyyah' so I hope no one tries to argue (as others have argued in earlier sections) that the specific term hasn't been used by Sunni scholars while discussing the Sunni conception of taqiyyah. —Human10.0 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Note 3: The Arabic and English versions another fatwa quote Al-Shinqiti too using the term "taqiyyah" (in his book Adwā’ al-Bayān).

Circumstances/rules of taqiyyah (acc. to source 3):

"...in cases of fear and taqiyah it is permissible to make friends with [non-Muslims], as much as is essential to protect oneself against their evil. That is subject to the condition that one’s faith should not be affected by that friendship and the one who is [sic] behaves in that manner out of necessity is not one who behaves in that manner out of choice." —Human10.0 (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Thank you. Wonderful information!--Seyyed(t-c) 07:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Seyyed: Glad I could help. If I may, I feel the lede of the article could be improved. Some issues with the current lede are:

• The opening line of the article makes no mention of how taqiyyah is specifically the Islamic version of dissimulation, not a name for any religious dissimulation
• The second and fourth paragraphs seem to be repeating info about when Shias are allowed to use taqiyyah. That info could be merged.
• Since we have been able to identify a sizable number of Sunni scholars who approve of taqiyyah, I feel the list of their names should appear in the body of the article so as to not lengthen the lede.
• Specifically mentioning that taqiyyah is "not under all circumstances obligatory" in Sunnism may give the impression that it is obligatory in Shiism (Question: Is taqiyyah obligatory under certain circumstances in Shiism, or is it simply permissible?).
• The third paragraph mentions that taqiyyah was "developed to protect Shi'ites who were usually in the minority and under pressure from the majority Sunni Muslims." But reliable sources mention companions of Muhammad (e.g. Ammar bin Yasir) also practicing taqiyyah in certain circumstances, long before the Shia-Sunni schism occurred. How can these two facts be reconciled in the lede? (I feel it is important to mention in the lede that taqiyyah was practiced by some companions because that attests to its validity in Islam). —Human10.0 (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Seyyed: We have to add it to the related section in details per WP:MOS. Mhhossein (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Guys, thanks for inviting me to the discussion, but after what's been posted above I don't know what else I can add. Needless to say a good amount of research has already been shown; from what I understand, al-Ghazali considered taqiyah permissible under duress as well but it's been a few years since I last read any of his books so that could be researched later on. At this point, what's been found and suggested here is probably enough to amend the article and then further adjustments can be made later. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the information. This looks very promising, I'm switching to read-mode now :) 143.176.216.29 (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: I agree with most of your suggestions. Can you please write your proposal here. Then we can discuss about the details.

• Taqiyyah obligatory under certain circumstances in Shiism but not "under all circumstances obligatory" . Thus the sentence it not clear.
• Ammar's action and related Quran's verse shows that Taqiyyah is permissible under certain circumstance but the third paragraph tries to explain why it has become important and even necessary for Shia community.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: It seems you rely heavily on islamqa.info, who has the reputation of containing a lot of controversial content, you should perhaps try to get better sources. 20:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Nice try but islamqa.info is a reliable source on Sunnism that has been used in multiple wiki articles. If you feel what it states is controversial then that is your personal POV. In any other situation I would have said that you are free to prove how anything it has stated on the topic of taqiyya in Sunnism is wrong. However, since you have followed me to this page within minutes of disputing with me on another wiki page, I would request you stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. —Human10.0 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Sorry but Islamqa.info mostly bases its opinions in accordance with the contemporary salafi school of thought, and this site was banned in Saudi Arabia, furthermore it has a lot of controversial positions so one shouldn't label it as "a reliable source on Sunnism", see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/IslamQA.info#Controversial_Fatwas_and_Extremist_Religious_Beliefs

00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Salafis are Sunnis and they are especially strict ones who oppose a number of practices that they believe are bid'ah, so if even Salafis accept taqiyyah, doesn't that show that taqiyyah is a valid practice in Sunnism? Besides, there is no contrary evidence to suggest that what the website has stated about taqiyyah in Sunnism is wrong. Even if you ignore references to islamqa.info, the permissibility of taqiyyah is confirmed by other scholars and sources who Seyyed and I have referenced. Regarding the block, I would like to make a small clarification: The site wasn't blocked in Saudi Arabia because of any issue in its content but because the Saudi government didn't want anyone other than their Council of Senior Scholars to issue fatwas. The section that you linked to was composed entirely of WP:OR. Basically a user had compiled a list of fatwas he/she personally found controversial; no secondary source has corroborated their view. —Human10.0 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: That doesn't mean that some Salafis sometimes take stances against what madhab traditionalists have established, for instance the famous Salafi Nasirudin al-Albani made many controversial fatwas that were all contrary to what madhab traditionalists said; Should we then say that just because a certain person is a Salafi (allegedly strict, and opposing many practices) then his stance represents the mainstream current of sunnism? There's also another point that should be made, in the words of Jonathan A.C. Brown:

Because the Salafi approach to Islamic scholarship centers on bypassing centuries of consensus-building among scholars and instead approaches the Quran and hadiths anew, it can produce divergent results. A set of Moroccan brothers who have proven the most adept hadith scholars of our time. Ahmad b. al-Siddiq al-Ghumäri (d. 1960) and his younger siblings 'Abdalläh (d. 1993) and 'Abd al-Hayy (d. 1995), followed the Traditionalist Salafi methodology. They felt entitled to reverse centuries-old rulings on the authenticity of specific hadiths and arrived at legal rulings that broke with a1l four Sunni schools of law. 'Abd al-Hayy argued conclusively that none of the founders of the four Sunni schools of law had access to all the necessary hadiths and that it was thus entirely acceptable to reject their rulings on the basis of hadith evidence. 'Abdalläh al-GhumäIi repeatedly wrote that 'taqlid never comes to any good.⁹³ [...] Despite this similarity in approach to Traditionalist Salafis like al-Albani the Ghumäri brothers emerged with polar opposite positions. Salafis, both Modernist and Traditionalist, had consistently been deeply opposed to Sufism and intolerant of the Shiite veneration of Ali. The Ghumaris' analysis of the Quran, hadiths, and scholarty tradition, however has led them to embrace 'Ali as the best and most knowledgeable of all the Compamons (and in Ahmad's case, to declare Mu'äwiya an unbeliever) as well as to defend vehemently Sufi practices such as visiting graves and engaging in group liturgies not practiced during the time of the Prophet. (Hadith, Oneword publications, pp.259-60)

So one should be very careful when labeling every salafi's stance as representative of sunnism. However, in the case of islamqa.info, i would think -- and I know that many will disagree with me -- that it's perfectly valid to take their quotations of scholars and to incorporate them as references, i.e. for instance Ibn Taymiyya - Majmu' al-Fatawa 4/391 Quote: "lalalalal ..."

12:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: If you read closely, I said "if even Salafis accept taqiyyah [...]" meaning if even Salafis (in addition to all other types of Sunnis) accept taqiyyah then that is a further confirmatory sign that taqiyyah is a valid practice in Sunnism. The four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence are the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali schools. Of the scholars I listed who permit taqiyyah, Mufti Ebrahim Desai is a Hanafi; Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Battal and Al-Shinqiti were Maliki; Ibn Kathir, As-Suyuti and Ibn Mundhir al-Nisaburi were Shafi'i; Ibn Qayyim was a Hanbali and Al-Munajjid is a Hanbali who is part of the Salafi movement (Al-Tabari founded his own school of jurisprudence, i.e., the Jariri school, but that does not exist anymore). So in other words, scholars from all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence permit taqiyyah. This shows that the permissibility of taqiyya is "the mainstream current [view] of Sunnism."

I don't think Jonathan A.C. Brown's allegation that "the Salafi approach to Islamic scholarship centers on bypassing centuries of consensus-building among scholars" applies to the case of islamqa.info since the fatwas on the website frequently reference the consensus of classical Islamic scholars to argue for a particular position. I would also like to point out that even if the methodology the Ghumari brothers employed resembled that of Salafis (I am not sure of the authenticity of this statement of Brown's but even if we accept it to be true), the Ghumari brothers were not Salafis as you imply (when you mention the brothers and then state that we should hence be "careful when labeling every salafi's stance as representative of sunnism"). The wiki article on each of the brothers labels them as Sufis.

Regarding your statement "However, in the case of islamqa.info [...] incorporate them as references", if you really feel that way, why did you start this needless discussion? I had done what you claim to be okay with: I read quotations of scholars mentioned in fatwas on islamqa.info and then used the fatwas as references after their names. Did you not check out how I had used the website as a reference before making your criticism? Regarding your statement "and I know that many will disagree with me", no one up till now has disagreed with using the website as a reference for Sunni views nor should they. I seriously hope you would stop trying to give the impression that the website is subject of some reliability dispute or something. —Human10.0 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: "I said "if even Salafis accept taqiyyah [...]" meaning if even Salafis (in addition to all other types of Sunnis) accept taqiyyah then that is a further confirmatory sign that taqiyyah is a valid practice in Sunnism." Well as I said, just because (even) Salafis accept something then that doesn't mean it is accepted amongst all Sunnis, since basically scholars subscribing to the Salafi school of thought may reach completely opposite conclusions, such as the case of the Ghumari brothers, who were Salafis yet they adopted Sufism, contrary to al-Albani who spoke heavily against it (he has book specifically written on that).

Furthermore, the statement "... taqiya valid practice ..." is a bit ambiguous , since it is only mubah (permissible) not obligatory let alone to be recommended.

My objections were about the use of that website for things outside basic quotes of scholars.

21:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

One last comment: It should be stated that taqiyya for sunnis differ from the one of shi'it and that it is only allowed in extreme situations. 21:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I have already shown how authorities from all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence permit taqiyyah so the permissibility of taqiyyah in Sunnism is no longer debatable. The Ghumari brothers were not Salafis. Please bring a reliable source that says were Salafis and that they "adopted" Sufism later on. Calling a practice "valid" does not at all imply that it is obligatory, I do not know how you came to that strange conclusion.

The first criticism you made was that I was relying heavily on islamqa.info. Then you expressed that you would be okay with using scholars' quotations that were reported on islamqa.info as references. Now you claim that your "objections" (plural) were about use of the website for things outside quotations. Well CounterTime, out of the 11 islamqa.info citations I used, 9 are used to back up mentions of scholars' names (each of these scholars had a quote in the fatwa). The remaining 2 citations support the "Circumstances/rules of taqiyyah (acc. to χ)" statements where χ= "source 1" (i.e., Al-Munajjid) or "source 3" (quote from al-Shinqiti's Adwa' al-Bayan). That means your "objections" must be just one objection and that would be to the circumstances/rules of taqiyya as explained by "source 1" (i.e., Al-Munajjid). What circumstances/rules of taqiyyah has he described that you think are not part of Sunnism? What supporting evidence do you have?

Regarding your "one last comment," please explain what characteristics of the Shia version of taqiyyah are distinct from the Sunni version of taqiyyah? —Human10.0 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: I didn't debate whether Sunni authorities considered taqiya (as they defined it) to be permissible (mubah). The Ghumari brothers followed the Salafi methodology, they were salafis and sufis, see the Jonathan A.C. Brown ref I gave. I'm not objecting to your use of those sources (i.e. those quotations in the islamqa.info), was just making some comments with no repercussions on the "taqiyya acceptable in sunnism" claim. Regarding my last comment, see the quotations of Ibn Taymiyya and (if I'm not mistaken) Ibn Qayyim in islamqa.info webpage you referenced earlier. Regards. 00:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I think it is clear what was being done. Regarding Brown's quote, I do not think it says that the Ghumari brothers were Salafis and that they later adopted Sufism; rather it appears to say that they followed an approach to Islamic scholarship that was similar to a Salafi's but arrived at quite un-Salafi conclusions. Surely you could produce a different source that explicitly mentions that the brothers were Salafis who adopted Sufism later in life. Regarding your last comment, I would like to inform you that Ibn Taymiyya's description of the Shia concept of taqiyyah is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of the concept by him. I have stated so in my very first reply above as well. Please read up on the Shia concept of taqiyyah for better understanding. —Human10.0 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Seyyed: My suggestion:

Taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah; literally "fear, caution")^[ref] is a form of Islamic dissimulation or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.^[ref] This practice was emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents were permitted to conceal their religion when under threat of persecution or compulsion.^[refs] However, it is also permitted in Sunni Islam under certain circumstances.^[ref]

Taqiyya was initially practiced under duress by some of Muhammad's Companions.[ref] Later, it was developed to protect Shias[ref] who were usually in the minority and under pressure from the frequently hostile^{[ref:An Introduction to Shi'i Islam by Moojan Momen]} Sunni majority. Since the time of the mihna (persecution) under Al-Ma'mun in the 9th century, Shias have taken recourse to dissimulation while the politically dominant Sunnis rarely found it necessary to do so.^[ref] In some Shia denominations, taqiyya is permissible "in situations where there is overwhelming danger of loss of life or property and where no danger to religion would occur thereby."^{[ref:An Introduction to Shi'i Islam by Moojan Momen]} Taqiyya has also been politically legitimised, particularly among Twelver Shias, in order to maintain unity among Muslim and fraternity among the Shia clerics.^[refs]

Yarden Mariuma writes: "Taqiyya is an Islamic juridical term whose shifting meaning relates to when a Muslim is allowed, under Sharia law, to lie. A concept whose meaning has varied significantly among Islamic sects, scholars, countries, and political regimes, it nevertheless is one of the key terms used by recent anti-Muslim polemicists."^[ref]

Constructive criticism is welcomed. Thanks for explaining the importance of the third para though I was actually aiming for how we can incorporate the Ammar bin Yasir point without contradicting the rest of the paragraph. I have tried to incorporate it in my suggestion above. If taqiyyah is obligatory in Shiism in certain circumstances then I think that should be mentioned in the article.

I am also a bit confused by the references given for the statement that taqiyyah was developed to protect Shias. In the lede the reference given at the end of the relevant paragraph is The Ismailis in the Middle Ages by Shafique N. Virani but in the body of the article the reference given for the statement is An Introduction to Shi'i Islam by Moojan Momen. Could somebody verify if both or one of the sources support that statement? —Human10.0 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: You have a very basic misunderstanding, which is that you think that salafism and sufism are mutually exclusive. The fact of the matter is that one can adhere to a salafi methodology (which is equivalent to being a salafi) and be a sufi, as Dr. Brown says:

Because the Salafi approach to Islamic scholarship centers on bypassing centuries of consensus-building among scholars and instead approaches the Quran and hadiths anew, it can produce divergent results. A set of Moroccan brothers who have proven the most adept hadith scholars of our time. Ahmad b. al-Siddiq al-Ghumäri (d. 1960) and his younger siblings 'Abdalläh (d. 1993) and 'Abd al-Hayy (d. 1995), followed the Traditionalist Salafi methodology. [...] Despite this similarity in approach to Traditionalist Salafis like al-Albani the Ghumäri brothers emerged with polar opposite positions. Salafis, both Modernist and Traditionalist, had consistently been deeply opposed to Sufism and intolerant of the Shiite veneration of Ali. The Ghumaris' analysis of the Quran, hadiths, and scholarty tradition, however has led them to embrace 'Ali as the best and most knowledgeable of all the Compamons (and in Ahmad's case, to declare Mu'äwiya an unbeliever) as well as to defend vehemently Sufi practices such as visiting graves and engaging in group liturgies not practiced during the time of the Prophet. (Hadith, Oneword publications, pp.259-60)

This isn't a forum, so please stop using forum style like discussion like your opinion "Ibn Taymiyya's description of the Shia concept of taqiyyah is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of the concept by him", this isn't a forum discussion on taqiya.

17:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Human10.0 and CounterTime: Thank from both of you. Although, some part of the discussion was out of this topic and related to Salafism, I have learned a lot from it. However, I propose to move discussion on Salafism to the related article. It is not useful in this talk page.

Regarding the "Human10.0" suggestion these are my comments:

• Why have you used past tense for Shia Islam: This practice is emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their religion when under threat of persecution or compulsion.
• In the second paragraph, I think it is better to say from the frequently hostile Sunni Governments instead of "from the frequently hostile Sunni majority".
• Since the time of the mihna (persecution) I don't see any relation between "mihna" and Shia prosecution. As I know, Mihna was against Ahl al-Hadith.
• I think Yarden Mariuma is not correct. Permission of lying is not restricted to Taqiyyah. It is a well known phrase in Persian by Saadi Shirazi, Sunni scholar, that recommends lying to prohibit Fitnah.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: I requested a source that explicitly says that the brothers were Salafi. You have not been successful in providing one. Anyways, User:Seyyed is right, this unnecessary discussion is not useful in this talk page. I do not understand how what I've said is forum-like style of discussion. Since it has become evident that you do not possess adequate knowledge on the subject of taqiyya presently, I would request you to not hamper our attempt to improve this page with off-topic arguments about Salafism or incorrect insinuations about Shiism. That Ibn Taymiyya's description of the Shia concept of taqiyya is wrong is not an opinion, it is a fact. If you read up on the Shia concept of taqiyya, this will become evident.

@Seyyed: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Regarding your first point, you are correct, the present tense should be used. Regarding the second point, I feel "Sunni majority" is appropriate because that's the phrase that the source (Momen's book) has used and because Shias practice taqiyya even in Sunni-majority places where the government itself doesn't persecute Shias but the society is hostile towards them. Regarding the third point, the mihna sentence appears to be a sourced statement from Shafique N. Virani's The Ismailis in the Middle Ages (as can be seen in the current lede). If somebody possesses Virani's book, I would appreciate if they could share what it says about the mihna and taqiyya. Regarding your last point, what do you feel Mariuma should have said? Thanks again for your input. —Human10.0 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Hi. The Brown source stated that they followed the Salafi methodology, i.e. they were Salafis. Could you please show how the description of Ibn Taymiyya of the concept of taqiyya is factually incorrect? (i;e. "The Raafidis are the most ignorant and mendacious of sects, and the furthest removed from any knowledge of the texts or rational evidence. They regard taqiyyah as one of the basic principles of their religion, and they tell lies about Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet’s family), the extent of which is known only to Allah. They even narrated from Ja‘far as-Saadiq that he said: “Taqiyyah is my religion and the religion of my forefathers.” But taqiyyah is one of the signs of hypocrisy; in fact in their case, they say verbally that which is not in their hearts, and this is the essence of hypocrisy.") Furthermore please stop making accusations (please read WP:ACCUSE), in particular when these accusations are baseless, such as "you do not possess adequate knowledge on the subject". Regards. --CounterTime (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: This is my final suggestion:

Taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah; literally "fear, caution")^[ref] is a form of Islamic dissimulation or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.^[ref] This practice is emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their religion when under threat of persecution or compulsion.^[refs] However, it is also permitted in Sunni Islam under certain circumstances.^[ref] Taqiyya was initially practiced under duress by some of Muhammad's Companions.[ref] Later, it was developed to protect Shias[ref] who were usually in the minority and under pressure from the frequently hostile Sunni majority.^{[ref:An Introduction to Shi'i Islam by Moojan Momen]}

Mihna does not relate to Shia at all. The other sources show it clearly related to Sunnis.[2], [3] and [4]. Thus, if just one source provides such a strange claim we can neglect it based on WP:UNDUE.

We can add the view of those Sunni scholars who are against Taqiya, as well.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: It would be better to change the "frequently hostile Sunni majority" to "some frequently hostile Sunni groups" or something like that. --CounterTime (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well deliberations. I propose that in the last of lead section it should appropriately be clear that the: application relates to defense/defence and not for attack in any form. I think it is necessary for balancing the statement after citing the view point of anti-Muslim polemicists (I avoided new section for my proposal). Nannadeem (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nannadeem: Good idea. Please write your suggestion here. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: I substituted the lead by our proposal. Please add the references to it.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying the lede Seyyed. I have added the missing reference. I am perplexed by the "from the some [sic] frequently hostile Sunni groups" weasel wording though. I do not feel that the change in wording is justified as the source cited (Momen's book) explicitly uses the phrase "frequently hostile Sunni majority" and we are not permitted to soften the force of a sourced statement by using understatement nor are we allowed to interpret and analyze (only reliable sources, such as Momen, can do the latter). —Human10.0 (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: You are right. Be bold and correct it.--Seyyed(t-c) 00:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have made the relevant correction Seyyed. Thank you for your cooperation. I apologise for taking so long to reply, something came up in real life due to which I had to take a break from editing. I am content with the lede now but I feel the section about Sunnism's view of taqiyya is still unfinished business. I would appreciate if you & other users could give your suggestions as to what the section should mention, in what order, etc. —Human10.0 (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Wait a sec, how is that even WP:WEASEL?! Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. This definitely doesn't apply here as the statement only infers that a minority of Sunni groups are hostile to Shi'ites. Furthermore I think that your last assessment doesn't stand, as the statement in its current form violates WP:LABEL, labeling "most Sunnis" as quote-unquote "hostile". As such I think that you should delete it. 18:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

It is WP:WEASEL because (as I have explained before) the source for that statement (as well as the statement in the body of the article), i.e., Momen's book, explicitly uses the phrase "frequently hostile Sunni majority" and we are not permitted to soften the force of a sourced statement by using understatement (if you open the link, it will lead you to the wiki page "Weasel word" where this is mentioned in the lede) nor are we allowed to interpret and analyze (only reliable sources, such as Momen, can do the latter).

WP:LABEL does not apply in this case. The reliable source uses "frequently hostile" to describe the Sunni majority. We are to accurately portray the statement of the reliable source. I hope this clarifies things. —Human10.0 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: That's not weasel, please read WP:WEASEL, just because a statement X from source Y using a different wording Z, does not mean that Z should be changed. In fact, it isn't even a requirement to be met, i.e. to have exactly X.

WP:LABEL absolutely applies here, I see no difference between labels like "frequently hostile" and other labels mentioned in WP:LABEL. And as the page establishes, just because one RS used that wording does not mean it should be used, rather, "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution"

22:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

When you say "source Y using a different wording" you are incorrectly implying that some different wording exists (i.e., wording that implies only "some" Sunni "groups" were frequently hostile to Shias and led them to employ taqiyya). Which reliable source says that Shias employed taqiyya because of just "some" frequently hostile Sunni groups? Can you bring reliable sources that make such statement? What were the names of these Sunni groups that were: distinct from the Sunni majority, frequently hostile to Shias and caused them to adopt taqiyya?

Also, when you proposed that "frequently hostile Sunni majority" (a statement from a reliable source) should be changed to (I quote) "some frequently hostile Sunni groups or something like that" in your earlier comments (without giving any good reason for re-wording a reliable statement), it is clear to me that you were trying to soften the force of a sourced statement (I have already explained that this is not allowed as per WP:WEASEL). If I may be frank, this just seems like a case of a person trying to censor facts about his group (or a group that he admires) because he feels those facts are inconvenient, i.e., since you seem to be a Sunni, you are troubled by (seemingly unflattering) facts about Sunnis being mentioned on a widely accessible encyclopedia. I do not think Momen's wording or the wording of the current lede should be troubling (for Sunnis or anyone else) because if you read closely, the lede (and Momen) says "frequently hostile Sunni majority", that does not imply that the historical Sunni majority was continuously hostile to Shias (surely you cannot deny the historical hostility present between the two sects - Sunni and Shia). I do not think that simply you feeling that WP:LABEL applies here actually means that WP:LABEL applies here. You have not given any reasonable argument for us to think that your feeling is justified. You say "the page establishes, just because one RS used that wording does not mean it should be used" but I do not see that sentence anywhere on the page that opens by following the WP:LABEL link. Also, if we are to adopt the "some frequently hostile Sunni groups" wording that you proposed, you need to show that such a wording is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject."

Honestly speaking, at this point I would prefer if you seek arbitration regarding this issue. I primarily come to Wikipedia to contribute to the best of my abilities; you taking issue with me on multiple talk pages hinders me from my main focus of contributing to this website. Seriously, I request you to seek arbitration if you are still unsatisfied with the lede. That would be best for both of us: it would save us both time that could be better spent in other constructive things. —Human10.0 (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Okay, that's what I'll do. 18:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime and Human10.0: I suggest to both of you ti refer to "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future" by Vali Nasr.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: That's not the problem for now, the conflict is in regards to the wording in particular concerning a possible WP:LABEL violation. 16:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Thank you for the suggestion Seyyed. Is there anything in particular in the book that you think will be beneficial for user CounterTime & I in resolving the wording dispute? —Human10.0 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References

RFC for the statement 'frequently hostile Sunni majority' in the lede

The current lede of the article contains the qualitative statement, "Later, it [taqiya] was developed to protect Shias who were usually in the minority and under pressure from the frequently hostile Sunni majority."

This statement constitutes a violation of WP:LABEL, as it labels the majority of Sunnis as "frequently hostile". I propose to, either, change this statement to "some hostile Sunni groups", or delete it altogether.

18:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I agree, if you have reliable source for it.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not feel that the statement is a violation of WP:LABEL because I feel the statement is a fact which is supported by an objective reliable source, i.e., Moojan Momen's book An Introduction to Shi'i Islam (note that the source explicitly uses the wording "frequently hostile Sunni majority"). If there are reliable sources that state: only some Sunni groups were frequently hostile to Shias, were distinct from the Sunni majority and their specific hostility led Shias to adopt taqiyya, then I would not oppose an accurate change in wording (with citations being provided). In absence of such reliable sources, I think changing the current wording to the one you propose will be a violation of WP:WEASEL that prohibits softening the force of a sourced statement by using understatement. I also think deleting the the wording entirely would be highly nonconstructive as it would not explain who's fear or under who's pressure were Shias compelled to further develop taqiyya. —Human10.0 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: WP policies are strict on labels (see WP:LABEL), labeling the majority of Sunnis as "frequently hostile" is a clear violation of WP:LABEL policies, I can't see how you fail to see that.

18:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Let me explain, I feel this way because: the wording is from a reliable source, I know of no source that cites only "some frequently hostile Sunni groups" as the reason why Shias employed and/or developed taqiyya, historical hostility between Sunnis and Shias has existed, etc. In light of all these reasons I think the current statement in the lede is just a fact, not a value-laden label. —Human10.0 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Even the wording of a RS is subject to WP:LABEL, it may be a fact, but a greatly abused one ("frequently hostile ... majority"?).

19:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

So you're saying you are trying to employ understatement to soften the force of a fact supported by a reliable source? —Human10.0 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: I made no "softening", in fact I even proposed to "delete it [the statement] altogether." if no RS is found that mention the other wording.

21:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Can you provide a reliable source for your suggestion?--Seyyed(t-c) 01:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: That's not my problem, as my suggestion would entail a complete removal of that sentence in case no source is found that use that wording, since it constitutes a violation of WP:LABEL.

12:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

A controversial statement like that needs a reference and a quote to verify the accuracy of the statement. I added a Template:Request quotation tag. I also recommend including the name of the author of the opinion in the sentence to inform readers that the opinion may only be the view of one academic. Also, if this opinion is only held by one academic then it should not be in the lead because the lead is meant to summarize the entire article. Uncommon opinions about taqiya should probably not be in the lead because they will not give an accurate summary of the subject. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. The RFC bot has invited me here. I don't think that the term "frequently hostile" falls under WP:LABEL. The policy deals with value-laden terms (e.g., freedom fighter/terrorist) which imply praise or condemnation of something that can be described by a more neutral term (militant, insurgent, etc). In contrast, the term hostile is a relatively neutral way to describe sectarian strife. The point of contention seems to be not the term itself, but the quantifying generalization. We should reflect generalization found in RSs, and given the current sourcing I don't think we would be justified in changing it, and deleting it seems to be removing an important explanation for the significance of taqiyya among the Shia. The statement doesn't seem controversial to me, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by other RSs. In fact, it may be an issue of interpretation. The phrase does not state that the majority of Sunnis were hostile. It says that Shias frequently encountered hostility from Sunnis when the latter were the majority denomination.

However, I do see another problem with this sentence: it says that taqiyya was "developed to protect Shias". This is not what the source says: "Living as a minority among a frequently-hostile Sunni majority, the condition of most Shi'is until the rise of the Safavid dynasty, made such a doctrine important to Shi'is". The EI2 article on taqiyya says as much: "Tiqiyya is above all of special significance for the Shi'a. [...] The peculiar fate of the Shi'a, that of a suppressed minority with occasional open but not always unheroic rebellions, gave them even more than the Kharijites occasions and examples for extreme taqiyya and its very opposite." Eperoton (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Eperoton: I feel that if it isn't controversial, then it is at least ambiguous in its current wording, maybe you have any suggestion for a better wording? Regards.

19:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Please see my proposal. Eperoton (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: That's a lot better, good job. 20:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: You absolutely did propose a "softening" by asking 'majority' to be changed to 'some groups.' And I have literally given a link to the excerpt from Momen's book (i.e., a reliable source) where the exact phrase "frequently hostile Sunni majority" is used. I don't think you opened the link which I have repeatedly given.

@Waters.Justin: Thank you for contributing to this discussion. If you check out the body of the article (specifically the 'Twelver Shia view' section) the source for the wording ("frequently hostile Sunni majority") is given. Since one user has taken issue with the veracity of the presence of the wording in reliable sources, the relevant citation has been added, in line with WP:LEADCITE. Earlier, an inline citation was not provided for the wording in the lede because it didn't seem like something that would likely be challenged, given how well-known historical sectarian hostilities are, and because a citation for the statement using the wording was given in the body of the article. I don't feel the statement is actually controversial, it's just being made so by a single user (as Eperton points out, this may be an issue of interpretation).

@Eperoton: Thank you for your input, especially the discussion of what WP:LABEL actually deals with and for concisely explaining how the wording "frequently hostile Sunni majority" was nothing to be offended by (I tried to do the same in earlier sections). Regarding the problem with the wording "developed to protect Shias", two pages from Momen's book have been cited: pages 39 & 183. Perhaps the mention of 'development' of taqiyya by Shias appears on one page and the sentence "Living as a minority among a frequently-hostile Sunni majority [...] made such a doctrine important to Shi'is" appears on the other. This is just speculation on my part but I would appreciate if someone checks out the source to see if this is true before editing the statement "developed to protect Shias." —Human10.0 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: You are misunderstanding my position, I said that either that wording should be removed or changed if and only if another RS exists and mentions such ""soft"" wording (using your terminology).

But in any case, I'm pretty satisfied by the current wording as proposed by Eperoton (talk · contribs), it gets rid of any controversy or ambiguous wording.

If you're satisfied now then we can mark the conflict as resolved.

21:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Human10.0: You're right, development of the taqiyya doctrine is mentioned on the other cited page and this is conveyed in the body of the article, though there was synthesis in the way it was reflected in the lead: "The doctrine of taqiyya (religious dissimulation) was also developed at this time. It served to protect the followers of as-Sadiq at a time when al-Mansur was conducting a brutally repressive campaign against `Alids and their supporters." This doctrinal development within the Shia tradition is not the same as taqiyya itself, which was also developed in Sunni and Kharijite literature. Eperoton (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: You never expressed the "if and only if another RS exists and mentions such ""soft"" wording" part. Right at the beginning of this section you wanted the "frequently hostile Sunni majority" wording changed/gone because (you were quite clearly offended by it and) you felt it violated WP:LABEL. Later you expressed that even if it is a factual statement, it should be "softened." (see your comment timed at 19:22, 11 March 2016: "Even the wording of a RS is subject to WP:LABEL, it may be a fact, but a greatly abused one") But anyways, I don't want to drag this conversation further.

I am currently open to the rephrasing done by Eperton (unless a sound argument is presented against it). One possible issue is that the lede now does not mention who was persecuting Shias (Sunni Muslims? Christians? Some other non-Muslims?). Since Shias have mainly been persecuted by Sunnis, it should have at least been mentioned that taqiyya was primarily employed by Shias to avoid persecution by Sunnis. But I am willing to let this point go to settle the dispute.

I think you should wait a little until other users who contributed to the RFC have seen the current lede and are satisfied by it before marking the conflict as resolved.

@Eperoton: Thank you for verifying the development point from the source, I really appreciate it. Could you share the page number this sentence was on? And do you think the fact that Shias (and Sunnis and Kharijites) further developed their personal doctrines of taqiyya should be mentioned in the lede? —Human10.0 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: That's not correct, look at what I said in the beginning: "I propose to, either, change this statement to "some hostile Sunni groups", or delete it altogether.", I forgot to add that an RS was needed for any type of change to the wording. Yeah I think the issue is solved now, Regards,

22:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Human10.0: I've added more detail regarding the citations from Momen. I do think the treatment of doctrinal differences could be handled better, and not just in the lead, though for that one would need to cast the net wider than the EI2 article I've read so far. Eperoton (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we can reach agreement based on @Waters.Justin and Eperoton:'s suggestions.--Seyyed(t-c) 00:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

IslamQA on Sunni views

I don't have time at the moment to read the entire cited article from IslamQA, but I'm tagging the statement because it doesn't seem to be supported even by that source. Also, why are we citing a Q&A website, especially one that uses toxic sectarian verbiage, instead of the reliable Kuwait Encyclopedia of Fiqh which this article is largely based on? Eperoton (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've read the entire IslamQA fatwa (religious edict) before and you're right, the claim that 'Sunni jurisprudence doesn't use the term taqiyya' is not supported by the IslamQA source. It actually quotes Sunni books specifically using the term 'taqiyya' (check out the Arabic version of the fatwa) and I have pointed this out in an earlier section on this talk page. Regarding the use of IslamQA, it's not a simple Q&A website, it publishes fatwas and has been used as a source on multiple Islam-related wiki articles before. While it may be critical of Shiism, its statements regarding Sunnism's view of taqiyya are reliable and verifiable by the checking out the sources it cites within its fatwas. —Human10.0 (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree about reliability of this cite, but I think we can defer a general dispute on this point here by noting more specific problems with the statements currently sourced from it in this article. One of them is contradicted by the source. The other speaks about differences of opinion between Sunni and Shia, and I hope we can quickly agree that the site is not a RS for Shia views, and hence for such comparisons. I'll be bold and remove these statements. It would be great to fill out the discussion of Sunni views based on the Kuwait Encyclopedia of Fiqh or another uncontroversial RS. Eperoton (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have expressed in an earlier discussion that IslamQA is not the right source for the Shia view of taqiyya. However, I will not pretend that it isn't a reliable source for Sunni views the way POV-pushers do. Thanks for removing the statements that were misrepresenting what was being said by the IslamQA source. I am okay with editors using the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Fiqh, Encyclopedia of Islam, IslamQA.info, etc. for improving the Sunni view section. In case of non-English sources, WP:NONENG must be kept in mind. —Human10.0 (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

A Change in Taqiya, 1st and 2nd pharagraph

This practice is emphasized in Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their religion when under threat of persecution or compulsion.[3][8][9][10]

Taqiyya was initially practiced under duress by some of Muhammad's Companions.[11] Later, it became a permitted doctrine for all Muslims due to the extreme persecution and compulsion of the kafir to the Muslims at the early time of Muhammad saw. preach. This practice became more popular due to the attack and siege to the Muslims live outside the Islamic caliphate territory.

(Note: I change some of the words in the text because I think if both the sunni and shia allow this practice, then we either should join them both together, or give a more descriptive details about the different between both practices.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvi.gamer (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a good change. The current text is properly sourced, while your proposed modification is not. You may want to review the Wikipedia policies WP:V and WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Definition addition

The definition here reflects standard references on this topic, which are reasonably consistent in their definition (as is Brill's E. of the Quran [5]). Introducing alternative phrasing based on a passing comment in a chapter on another topic (modern Druze-Jewish relations) is WP:UNDUE. These additions are either redundant (near-synonyms in translation), sloppy (the overly vague terms "beliefs" and "crisis"), or simply incorrect (the author is saying that the Druze derived the practice from their Shia heritage, not that all other sects adopted it from the Shia). Eperoton (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I will just remove the parts that you have a problem with.Music314812813478 (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a problem with the Shiite origin too. First, the refs you added aren't RSs. There's a community consensus that Spencer isn't reliable, most recently expressed on the appropriate noticeboard. It looks like you're also citing Raymond Ibrahim (by the way, when citing books please specify a page number, and the author/title of the chapter if it's an edited volume, as discussed in WP:CITEHOW). Ibrahim has no scholarly stature and so he isn't reliable either. If an academic volume published by Springer commissioned his work, we could use it, but this particular volume is a collection of previously published essays compiled by retired generals, and as the preface makes clear, it's not a scholarly volume. Furthermore, the statement contradicts standard references on the subject, none of which suggest that Sunnis borrowed the notion or practice from the Shia. In fact, the cited peer-reviewed paper by Mariuma says that Shia scholars "increased the scope and importance of a pre-existing concept in Sunni law".

As for the translations, I don't even know why you're making the addition. The first sentence should be as little cluttered by non-essential information as possible. Arguably even the words "caution" and "prudence" were too close to each other to both be included there, but "carefulness" and "weariness" are plainly redundant. Eperoton (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)