بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
A Wahhabi contributor mentiond:
Taqqiyah means to pretend by doing or saying exactly the opposite of what you believe or feel
Not a correct definition. It does not necessarily have to be in exact opposite, though it might be so in some cases. al-Taqiyya is primarily concealing the belief. You might want to refresh your memory by reading my original article in which I mentioned the definition of al-Taqiyya as
"Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings,opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury."
e.g. to pretend to be nice while cursing the person in the heart without a present danger (al-Kafi fi alFrua’, Vol. 3, pp. 188-9).
Again you are scrupulously quoting from a 33-page booklet written by "Saeed Ismaeel". The minimum amount of decency requires you to mention this since you did not directly looked up the above tradition. I doubt even Saeed Ismaeel (your mentor) has also touched al-Kafi. He got them from the books of "Ihsan Ilahi Zahir”and "Muhammad Manzoor Nomani", etc. I have read the books of these individuals from cover to cover. What I have found was malicious misquotations or quoting the traditions out of context. Sometimes they do not even bother themselves to quote the tradition (even partially) similar to above.
We do not have any authentic tradition which sates you may apply al-Taqiyya without present or future danger. If you think otherwise, please quote a tradition which explicitly states the above. These are all interpretation of your mentors from the traditions. No tradition explicitly states as such.
The danger might be present of later in time. Also the danger might be for oneself our for another person related to you. As such, the Imam may conceal some information from his own followers, if he knows that if they do that they will be trapped into the hand of officials.
In fact, I have seen some Wahhabis, to mock Shi’a in the concept of Taqiyya, refer to a tradition in Usul Kafi and partially quote it out of context in order to misrepresent the concept of Taqiyya for the Sunni brothers. The correct translation of the tradition that they refer to, is as follows:
Usul Kafi, Tradition #195:
Zurarah said: I asked Abu Ja’far (as) a question, for which the Imam gave me an answer. Afterwards another person came to the Imam and asked him the same question but Imam gave him a different answer.
Again, a third person came and asked Imam the same question to which Imam gave an answer which was still different from mine and the second person. When the two had left, I asked "O son of Prophet, two of your followers from Iraq asked you a question and you gave them two different answers.”Hearing this, the Imam replied, "O Zurarah, these different answers are in our own interests and they contribute to the stability of both (me and my followers). (In such severe moments) if all of you present a unite stand, it will enable the people (opponents and rulers) to verify the allegiance of yours to us and this will endanger and shorten the life of you (Shi’ites) as well as the life of ours."
I have seen these Wahhabis that they quote the first part of the tradition and drop the explanation of Imam to show that Imam applied al-Taqiyya two his own followers with no reason. From the tradition, it is not clear what exactly the question of those followers was. However the clarification of the Imam at the end implies that the question was related to some social and political actions which were planted by the ruler of the time in order to identify and trap the Shi’ites. This is exactly what al-Taqiyya is used for. Note that the Imam is emphasizing that he is preserving the life of his followers as well as the Ahlul-Bayt.
Another example is explained by another tradition where the Imam attended the funeral prayer of one of the officials who was a hypocrite form Umayad Government, in order to fool the authorities which would cause to decrease the prosecution of Ahlul-Bayt and their followers. These kinds of diplomacies were widely used even by Prophet (S) himself.
Have you ever thought why Prophet applied al-Taqiyya and did not disclose his mission for the first three years of his prophethood? It was because, if he have done that, Islam would have been destroyed from the very beginning.
The specific purpose of Taqqiyah is the "preservation of Islam and the Shii school of thought; if the people had not resorted to it, our school of thought would have been destroyed"
If the Prophet applied al-Taqiyya for the first three years of his prophethood, and concealed his mission, then why not Shi’a do that to escape the prosecutions of so-called Islamic governors? Was the Prophet a coward? Or he wanted to preserve Islam from being destroyed?
Also let me give you another example from another prophet who concealed his belief. Qur’an states that: Moses (as) with the order of Allah, assigned Haroon (as) as his successor (Caliph) and left his people to him, to go to Miqaat (appointment with Allah) for a total of forty days. After leaving of Moses, all his companions (except very few) turned against Haroon, and were deceived by Sameri, and became worshipers of a golden calf. (See Qur’an 7:142, 20:90-97, 20:83-88).
When Moses (as) came back from Miqaat he was very angry since Allah had informed him that his community went astray during his absence. Moses came and started questioning his brother Haroon, that why he did not take action to prevent this corruption. Qur’an states that Haroon replied:
"(O’ Moses) people did oppress me and they were about to kill me.”(Qur’an 7:150).
If you believe in Haroon as a true prophet of God, you do not allow yourself to call him coward. Or do you think that Aaron was a Shi’a? In fact, he was a Shi’a (follower) of Prophet Moses (as). It was his duty to save his life, though it appears that Wahhabis think he should have killed himself.
As Ibn Taymiyyah said, the verse 3:28 about Taqiyyah is applicable in the case of a non-believer only under special cases, e.g., a Muslim cannot apply it against a Muslim.
A so-called Muslim who prosecute an innocent person, is not any better than a non-Muslim. If you look around the world, from Saudi Arabia, to Iraq, to Afghanistan,... the majority of those who prosecute Muslims call themselves Muslims too. If you look at the History also, they majority of Muslim rulers who called themselves Muslims and Khalifa, were oppressors and tyrant (like Umayad and Abbasid Caliphs). Are you suggesting that we should not safeguard our lives from those tyrants who label themselves as Muslims?
Moreover, by his above saying, Ibn Taymiyyah did not accept Sahih Muslim as authentic, or else Ibn Taymiyyah has rejected the testimony of Prophet (S). Even the Prophet (S) himself practiced al-Taqiyya in a manner of diplomacy that served to advance good relations among the people.
The tradition from Sahih Muslim which I mentioned in my article talks about Muslims. In the case that there is a dispute between two Muslims to such extent that it is considered as an eminent danger, and if nothing else works, it is permitted to twist the words in order to make the reconciliation. You see, there always exists a requirement of an eminent DANGER for al-Taqiyya. For instance, the danger of divorce for a Muslim couple who have a dispute. The commentary of the tradition talks about Muslims too.
Verse 16:106 is applicable only when a Muslim faces a situation smilar to a situation of the great Companion Ammar when he had to choose between dying under torture like his parents or pretending to be an unbeliever hy tongue These cases are not the basic rule but only exceptions
This a basic rule, otherwise Allah would not have mentioned it in Qur’an in a number of verses.
Could you ever trust a Muslim if this were the case?
If a Muslim is not in danger he should not apply al-Taqiyya, the same way that I do not apply al-Taqiyya behind this terminal. But if I were in a country like Saudi Arabia, then I would have practiced it.
If a person considers that Iying about Allah, His Prophet (pbuh) and the Muslims to serve his biased and misguided goals as an essential part of his bliefs, can we trust him? Surely not. But who said so?
The verse (3:28) is not only an exception but also a restricted exception. Not only is it forbidden to be used against Muslims but it also does not give permission to lie to others. What it means is that if you oppose certain behaviors and you are in a situation where condemnation would endanger Islam or Muslim community you can keep silent but you must avoid Iying. (ibn Taymiyah, Minhaj, Vol. p. 213 and ibn Kathir, Tafseer).
Again, the saying of your "clergymen”such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir is clearly in contradiction with Qur’an where Allah stated:
"Any one who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except under compulsion while his heart remaining firm in faith... (Qur’an 16:106)
As you see, Qur’an states "uttering unbelief". This does not mean keeping silent. Uttering means either saying or acting something in contrary to belief. What lie is bigger than uttering unbelief?
Also, if the most authentic Sunni collections of Hadith such as Sahih al- Bukhari and Sahih Muslim advocate al-Taqiyya, then why do Wahhabis insist to the contrary? Is this not a sign of pure hypocrisy by itself?