Al Mufid gives the following definition of Taqiyyah:
التقية كتمان الحق، و ستر الاعتقاد فيه، و كتمان المخالفين، و ترك مظاهرتهم بما يعقب ضررا في الدين أو الدنيا
Taqiyyah is concealing the truth, discreetly believing in it, not disclosing it in front of the opposition and not confronting them in a way which will bring about harm to person in worldly or religious matters.
Al Mufid defines Taqiyyah as concealing the truth out of fear from the opposition who are the Ahlus Sunnah, as is apparent from their frequent usage of the word ‘opposition’ for them. In other words, it is expressing the religion of the Ahlus Sunnah which they consider baseless and concealing the dogma of the Shia which they consider the truth. Based on this some scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah have asserted that the Shia are worse than the hypocrites, because the hypocrites inwardly know that the disbelief that they believe in is false but they express Islam out of fear. As for these people, they inwardly believe their dogma to be the truth and that it is in harmony with the ways of prophets and Imams.
Taqiyyah in Islam is practiced against the disbelievers. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوْا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً
Except when taking precaution against them in prudence.
Ibn Jarir al Tabari says:
التقية التي ذكرها الله في هذه الآية إنما هي تقية من الكفار لا من غيرهم
The Taqiyyah which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has mentioned in this verse is against the disbelievers, not anyone else.
That is why some scholars are of the opinion that it became impermissible to practice Taqiyyah after Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had made Islam victorious. Muaz ibn Jabal and Mujahid say:
كانت التقية في جدة الإسلام قبل قوة المسلمين، أما اليوم فقد أعز الله المسلمين أن يتقوا منهم تقاة
Taqiyyah was practiced in the initial stages of Islam before it had gained strength. As for today, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has given glory to Islam thus leaving no need for them to practice Taqiyyah.
But the Shia practice Taqiyyah with the Muslims, in general, and with the Ahlus Sunnah in specific. To the extent that they consider the golden era of Islam to be the era of Taqiyyah, as is asserted by al Mufid and as is easily understood from the many narrations which they attribute to the Imams. As they consider the Ahlus Sunnah worse than the Jews and the Christians in their disbelief due to the denier of Imamah according to them being worse than the denier of prophethood.
Taqiyyah is only permitted in situations of complete desperation. That is why Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has excluded it from the prohibition of befriending the disbelievers. He says:
لَا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ الْكَافِرِيْنَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُوْنِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ وَمَنْ يَّفْعَلْ ذٰلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللّٰهِ فِيْ شَيْءٍ إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوْا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللّٰهُ نَفْسَهُ وَإِلَى اللّٰه الْمَصِيْرُ
Let not believers take disbelievers as allies [i.e., supporters or protectors] rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing [i.e., no association] with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has prohibited us from befriending the disbelievers and has sounded a very serious warning for those who do so. He says:
وَمَنْ يَّفْعَلْ ذٰلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللّٰهِ فِيْ شَيْءٍ
Meaning a person who does that which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has prohibited in this regard has indeed freed himself of his relationship with Allah. Thereafter Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوْا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً
Meaning with the exception of the person who in some places and at sometimes fears their evil, for it is permissible for him to exercise Taqiyyah outwardly but not inwardly and intentionally.
Likewise the scholars all unanimously concur that Taqiyyah is only to be practiced in times of desperation. Ibn al Mundhir says:
أجمعوا علي أن من أكره علي الكفر حتي خشي علي نفسه القتل فكفر و قلبه مطمئن بالإيمان أنه لا يحكم عليه بالكفر
They have agreed that the ruling of disbelief will not be passed against a person who outwardly utters the words of disbelief when he is coerced in a way that he fears murder upon himself, as long as his heart in content upon iman.
However a person who sticks to the ideal at this juncture he is better. Ibn Battal says:
و أجمعوا علي أن من أكره علي الكفر واختار القتل أنه أعظم أجرا عند الله
They have agreed that a person who is coerced to utter the words of disbelief and chooses murder will attain more reward from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.
However the Taqiyyah that the Shia practice is very different. For it is not just a concession but it is one of the fundamentals of their dogma, like that of salah or even greater. Ibn Babawayh says:
اعتقادنا في التقية أنها واجبة من تركها بمنزلة من ترك الصلاة
Our belief regarding Taqiyyah is that it is compulsory. A person who leaves it is like a person who leaves salah.
Al Sadiq is reported to have said:
لو قلت أن تارك التقية كتارك الصلاة لكنت صادقا
If I were to say that the person who abandons Taqiyyah is like a person who abandons salah I would be speaking the truth.
They in fact attribute this to Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. They say that he said:
تارك التقية كتارك الصلاة
A person who abandons Taqiyyah is like a person who abandons salah.
They have further elevated it from just being a fundamental to being nine tenths of din. And taking it further, they assert that Taqiyyah itself is complete din; so a person who does not practice Taqiyyah has no din. The following narration appears in Usul al Kafi:
إن تسعة أعشار الدين في التقية ولا دين لمن لا تقية له
Jafar ibn Muhammad said, “Nine tenths of din are in Taqiyyah. And there is no din for a person who does not practice Taqiyyah.”
They have considered not practicing Taqiyyah a sin equivalent to ascribing partners with Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala which cannot be forgiven. Their narrations mention:
يغفر الله للمؤمن كل ذنب، يظهر منه في الدنيا والآخرة،ما خلا ذنبين:ترك التقية، وتضييع حقوق الإخوان
Allah will forgive every sin of a believer which he commits in this world and in the hereafter, besides two sins: forsaking Taqiyyah and not fulfilling the rights of the brothers.
Whereas Taqiyyah in Islam which is a din of striving and propagation cannot be the default decorum of a Muslim. Nor can it be one of the salient features of a Muslim society. Instead it is more a time-confined concession based on a person’s personal situation of desperation and the inability to migrate which later falls away with the passage of the period of coercion.
Conversely, according to the Shia perspective it is considered to be the very basis of their structure. Abu ‘Abdullah says:
إنكم علي دين من كتمه أعزه الله، و من أذاعه أذله الله
You are upon a din, whoever conceals it Allah will elevate him. And whoever propagates it Allah will disgrace him.
He is also reported to have said:
…أبي الله-عز و جل- لنا ولكم في دينه إلا التقية
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is not pleased for us in our din with anything else besides Taqiyyah.
So Taqiyyah according to them is a continuous practice which forms part of the social ethos of the community. Ibn Babawayh has mentioned the following in his book al I’tiqadat (which is also known as the Dogma of the Imamiyyah):
والتقية واجبة لا يجوز رفعها إلي أن يخرج القائم، فمن تركها قبل خروجه فقد خرج عن دين الله –تعالي- و عن دين الإمامية و خالف الله ورسوله والأئمة
Taqiyyah is compulsory; it is not permissible to abandon it till the emergence of the Mahdi. Whoever abandons it before his emergence has left the din of Allah and the creed of the Imamiyyah. He has likewise opposed Allah, his Rasul and the Imams.
Likewise the books of the Shia narrate the following from ‘Ali ibn Musa al Rida:
لا إيمان لمن لا تقية له، و إن أكرمكم عند الله أعملكم بالتقية فقيل له: يابن رسول الله إلي متي؟ قال: إلي يوم الوقت المعلوم وهو يوم خروج قائمنا فمن ترك التقية قبل خروج قائمنا فليس منا.
There is no faith for a person who does not practice Taqiyyah. And the most honourable among you is the one who practices Taqiyyah the most.
He was asked, “Till when, O son of Rasul Allah?”
He replied, “Till the day of the specified time, i.e. the day of the emergence of our Mahdi. Hence a person who abandons Taqiyyah before the emergence of the Mahdi is not from amongst us.”
Furthermore, Taqiyyah is inseparable from the Shia in all the Muslim lands. To the extent that they call the Dar al Islam, Muslim state, ‘the abode of Taqiyyah’. It is mentioned in their narrations that:
والتقية في دار التقية واجبة
And Taqiyyah in the Taqiyyah abode is compulsory.
They also call it the ‘abode of falsehood’. They say:
من كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر فلا يتكلم في دولة الباطل إلا بالتقية
That person who believes in Allah and the last day should not talk in the abode of falsehood but by way of Taqiyyah.
They also call it ‘the abode of the oppressors’. They say:
التقية فريضة واجبة علينا في دولة الظالمين، فمن تركها فقد خالف دين الإمامية و فارقه
Taqiyyah is mandatory upon us in the abode of the oppressors. Whoever does not practice it has opposed the din of the Imamiyyah and denounced it.
They also emphasise that the interactions between the Shia and the Ahlus Sunnah should be purely based on Taqiyyah. Al Hurr al ‘Amili has actually established a chapter by the title, Chapter regarding the interactions with the commonality (Ahlus Sunnah) being compulsory by way of Taqiyyah.
In this regard, they have attributed the following to Abu ‘Abdullah:
من صلي معهم في الصف الأول فكأنما صلي مع رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم في صف الأول
A person who reads salah with them in the first row is like a person who read salah with Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the first row.
من صلي خلف المنافقين بتقية كان كمن صلي خلف الأئمة
A person who performs salah behind the hypocrites by way of Taqiyyah is like a person who reads salah behind the Imams.
And the author of Kashf al Ghita’ says:
التقية إذا وجبت فمتي أتي بالعبادة علي خلافها بطلت، وقد ورد فيها الحث العظيم، و أنها من دين آل محمد وأن من لا تقية له لا إيمان له
Taqiyyah is compulsory. So when a person carries out a good deed without it, it is void of acceptance. There is a lot of encouragement regarding it in the narrations. Likewise it is mentioned that it is from the din of Muhammad and that there is no iman for a person who does not practice Taqiyyah.
Taking it a step ahead, Taqiyyah is compulsory even though there might not be a valid reason for it. Hence their narrations encourage a person to practice Taqiyyah even with those whom they feel safe so that by frequently practicing it, it becomes part of their disposition and nature. Which will then make it easier to practice it without any formalities with those who they sense a threat from and who they fear. Their books narrate:
عليكم بالتقية فإنه ليس منا من لم يجعلها شعاره ودثاره مع من يأمنه، لتكون سجيته مع من يحذره
You should firmly hold on to Taqiyyah. For that person who does not make it his inner and outer covering with those who he does not fear till it becomes his usual style of interaction with those who he fears, is not from us.
Taqiyyah, of course, when practiced in this manner is nothing but lies and hypocrisy through and through. And it is despised by people of sound disposition and upright character; it is not worth acceptance according to the people of intellect. The narrations of the Shia, therefore, induce them to live by it by trying to make it plausible. Hence they suggest that it is the ‘Ibadah (worship) of Allah, rather the most beloved of acts of worships to him. Al Kulayni narrates:
عن هشام الكندي قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله يقول: والله ما عبد الله بشيء أحب إليه من الخبء، فقلت : ما الخبء؟ قال: التقية
Hisham al Kindi says, “I heard Abu ‘Abdullah saying, ‘By Allah! Allah cannot be worshipped in any way which is more beloved to him than Khab.’
I asked him, ‘What is Khab?’
He said, ‘It is Taqiyyah.’”
The following narration similarly appears in al Kafi and other books:
عن محمد بن مروان عن أبي عبد الله رضي الله عنه قال: كان أبي عليه السلام يقول: و أي شيء أقر لعيني من التقية
Muhammad ibn Marwan narrates from Abu ‘Abdullah, “My father would often say, ‘Is there anything more soothing to my eyes than Taqiyyah.’”
Likewise another narration mentions:
ما خلق الله شيئا أقر لعين أبيك من التقية
Allah has not created anything more soothing to the eyes of your father than Taqiyyah.
These are the characteristics of Taqiyyah according to the Twelvers. The author of al Kafi has produced all the narrations in this regard under the chapters of Taqiyyah, Kitman (concealing), and Idha’ah (spreading).
And al Majlisi has produced a hundred and nine narrations in his Bihar in the chapter, Chapter regarding Taqiyyah and affability.
As to this exaggeration in the issue of Taqiyyah, it is the result of many reasons. Some being the following:
Firstly, the Shia consider the rule of the first three Khulafa’ to be illegitimate. They consider them and those who pledged allegiance to them disbelievers. Notwithstanding that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu pledged his allegiance to them, read salah behind them, fought alongside them, established marital relations with them, and received concubines as booty after their Jihads. And when he assumed rulership he treaded their path and did not make any changes to the institutions put in place by Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, as is attested to in the books of the Shia themselves. This extirpates the Shia dogma from its very roots. They thus endeavoured to find a way out of this apparent contradiction which poses a threat to them by inventing the doctrine of Taqiyyah.
Secondly, they claim that the Imams are infallible and that they are not overcome by heedlessness, mistakes or forgetfulness. This claim is in stark contrast with what is known about the Imams. To the extent that the traditions of the Shia conflict one another; so much so that there is not a single narration but that it is opposed by another, as is attested to by their scholar al Tusi.
This also violates the doctrine of infallibility. Hence they invented the idea of Taqiyyah in order to justify the apparent conflict and contradiction. The author of al Kafi narrates the following from Mansur ibn Hazim:
قلت لأبي عبد الله –عليه السلام- ما بالي أسألك عن المسألة فتجيبني فيها بالجواب، ثم يجيئك غيري فتجيبه فيها بجواب آخر؟ فقال: إنا نجيب الناس علي الزيادة والنقصان
I asked Abu ‘Abdullah, “Why is it that when I ask you a question you give me an answer and when someone else asks you the same questions you give him a different answer?”
He replied, “I answer to people with increase and decrease.”
The commentator of al Kafi comments on this narration:
أي زيادة حكم عند التقية، و نقصانه عند عدمها…ولم يكن ذلك مستندا إلي النسيان والجهل بل لعلمهم بأن اختلاف كلمتهم أصلح لهم، و أنفع لبقائهم إذ لو اتفقوا لعرفوا بالتشيع وصار ذلك سببا لقتلهم، وقتل الأئمة عليهم السلام
I.e. with increase when practicing Taqiyyah and with decrease when not practicing it. it was not because of forgetfulness or ignorance. Rather it was because they knew that their variant answers were better for them and more effective in their prolonged existence. For if they were to agree they would have become associated with Shi’ism which subsequently would be the cause of their murder and the murder of the Imams.
It is for this reason that Sulaiman ibn Jarir al Zaidi considered Taqiyyah to be a cover up for the differences and contradictions. Hence when they noticed the Imams giving different answers for the same question and at times the same answer for different questions, the Imams said to them:
إنما أجبنا بهذا للتقيه، ولنا أن نجيب بما أجبنا و كيف شئنا،لأن ذلك إلينا، و نحن نعلم بما يصلحكم، وما فيه بقاؤنا و بقاؤكم، و كف عدوكم عنا وعنكم،
We have given this answer on the basis of Taqiyyah. And we have the prerogative to answer however we want and with whatever we want. Because we have been given this authority. And we know what is more suited for you and what is more effective for our existence and yours and what will avert your enemy from us and from you.
He thus says:
قال:فمتي يظهر من هؤلاء علي كذب، ومتي يعرف لهم حق من باطل
So when will a person then come to know of any lie from them and how will he ever be able to differentiate between the truth and falsehood.
Thirdly, the doctrine of Taqiyyah was invented in order to facilitate the easy accomplishment of the agenda of the liars and in order to cloud the actual religion of the Ahlul Bayt. This is by giving the followers the impression that whatever they (the inventers of Taqiyyah) report from them is their actual religion and that whatever is well-known about them, or whatever they say and do in front of the general Muslims does not represent their actual religion due to them just doing that by way of Taqiyyah. Hence in this way it would become very easy for them to reject the verdicts of the Imams, manipulate them, and belie the truth which is narrated from them. Hence you will find that they reject the verdicts of Muhammad al Baqir and Jafar al Sadiq which they said in front of the people or which the reliable transmitters of Shari’ah transmit from them by merely alleging that they were practicing Taqiyyah because of the presence of a Sunni. And conversely, they accept the narrations which inveterate liars like Jabir al Ju’fi and his like narrate from them asserting that there was no one present because of who he had to practice Taqiyyah.
In this regard it is sufficient to note that Imam Zaid ibn ‘Ali who is a member of the Ahlul Bayt narrated from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he would wash his feet in Wudu’, as is narrated in the books of the Twelvers themselves. But Sheikh al Ta’ifah al Tusi refused to accept this narration and has no valid reason to reject it besides Taqiyyah. Hence he narrates the narration Zaid ibn ‘Ali narrates from his grandfather ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib in his book al Istibsar:
جلست أتوضا فأقبل رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم حين ابتدأت الوضوء –إلي أن قال – و غسلت قدمي، فقال لي يا علي خلل بين الأصبع لا تخلل بالنار
“I set to perform Wudu’ and when I started it Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam came.” Till he said, “And I washed my feet.”
So he told me, “O ‘Ali! Make Khilal of your toes (pass a wet hand through them) so that they are not afflicted with the fire of Jahannam.”
As you can see, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would wash his feet in Wudu’ and Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam pressed upon him to make Khilal of his toes, but the Shia oppose this Sunnah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his practice in this regard. They do not pay any attention to these narrations despite them appearing in their books and being narrated from their Imams. Their scholars do not want to burden themselves to investigate these narrations and study them due to their ever ready and universal answer of Taqiyyah. Therefore, Al Tusi, after citing it, says:
هذا خبر موافق للعامة (يعني أهل السنة) وقد ورد مورد التقية لأن المعلوم الذي لا يتخالج منه الشك من مذاهب أئمتنا عليهم السلام القول بالمسح علي الرجلين.
This narration is in harmony with the practice of the commonality (the Ahlus Sunnah). It was said by way of Taqiyyah. This is because it is undoubtedly the unanimous stance of all our Imams to make Masah of the feet (pass a wet hand over them).
He further says:
إن رواة هذا الخبر كلهم عامة ورجال الزيدية. وما يختصون به لا يعمل به
The narrators of this narration are all from the commonality (the Ahlus Sunnah) and the Zaidiyyah. And whatever they exclusively narrate is not worth practicing.
He likewise documents a narration of washing the feet from Abu ‘Abdullah Jafar al Sadiq and interprets it to be by way of Taqiyyah. 
Likewise he also interprets the narrations of Adhan which are not harmonious with their stance to have been said by way of Taqiyyah.
Similarly in issues of inheritance they assert that a woman will not inherit properties, houses and lands at all. And when they are confronted with a narration which is narrated from their Imams which opposes this, they say that it was said by way of Taqiyyah. Abu Ya’fur narrates that he asked Abu ‘Abdullah the following:
سألته عن الرجل هل يرث من دار امرأته أو أرضها من التربة شيئا؟ أو يكون في ذلك منزلة المرأة فلا يرث من ذلك شيئا؟ فقال: يرثها و ترثه من كل شيء ترك و تركت
I asked him regarding a man. Can he inherit a share from his wife’s house or her land, or is that specifically the ownership of the wife wherein the husband has no share?
He said, “He will inherit from her and she will inherit from him anything that he or she has left behind.”
Al Tusi whilst commenting on this narration says:
نحمله علي التقية، لأن جميع من خالفنا يخالف في هذه المسألة، و ليس يوافقنا عليها أحد من العامة، وما يجري هذا المجري يجوز التقية
We interpret this narration to be by way of Taqiyyah. Because all our opponents oppose us in this issue; no one is in harmony with us. And usually when this is the case in any issue it is permissible to practice Taqiyyah when mentioning it.
Regarding marriage as well, there are many narrations which prohibit Mut’ah (temporary marriages). It is narrated in their books that Zaid ibn ‘Ali narrates from his fathers who narrate from ‘Ali that Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited consuming the meat of donkeys and Mut’ah one the day of Khaybar.
Their scholar al Hurr al ‘Amili say the following about this narration:
أقول حمله الشيخ و غيره علي التقية يعني في الرواية، لأن إباحة المتعة من ضروريات مذهب الإمامية
Fourthly, the doctrine of Taqiyyah has been invented to keep the Shia aloof from the Muslims. Their narrations prove this. Hence their Imam Abu ‘Abdullah is reported to have said”
ما سمعت مني يشبه قول الناس فيه التقية، وما سمعت مني لا يشبه قول الناس فلا تقية فيه
Whatever you hear me say that is in accordance with the views of people is by way of Taqiyyah, and whatever you hear me say that does not resemble the views of the people is not by way of Taqiyyah.
This is a very grave stance, for it takes the Shia out of the fold of Islam and includes them in the rank of the heretics and apostates. This is because they have made the opposition of the Muslims their principles and that necessarily implies that they agree with the disbelievers and disagree with the believers. See to what extent the heretics of the past centuries have manipulated them.
One of the results of the doctrine of Taqiyyah is that the Shia have lost the true religion of their Imams due to them not being able to differentiate what was said by way of Taqiyyah and what was not. It likewise gave birth to a principle which is entirely based on extremism, i.e. whatever opposes the commonality entails guidance.
The author of al Hada’iq has conceded that very little of the actual religion of the Imams is known because of the practice of Taqiyyah. He says:
فلم يعلم من أحكام الدين علي اليقين إلا القليل لا متزاج أخباره بأخبار التقية، كما قد اعترف بذلك ثقة الإسلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني في جامعه الكافي حتي أنه تخطأ العمل بالترجيحات المروية عند تعارض الأخبار والتجأ إلي مجرد الرد والتسليم للأئمة الأبرار
From the rulings of din none but a few are known with certainty because of their reports being mixed with the reports of Taqiyyah. Thiqat al Islam al Kulayni has conceded this in his book al Kafi. To the extent that he considers practicing upon the narrations which are preferred over those which contradict them incorrect, and he resorts to merely submitting himself to the righteous Imams.
Furthermore, when it comes to the application of Taqiyyah, it is completely clear that it is not a concession for times of dire need and desperation. Hence the author of al Hada’iq also concedes the following:
يخالفون بين الأحكام و إن لم يحضرهم أحد من أولئك الأنام، فتراهم يجيبون في المسألة الواحدة بأجوبة متعددة، و إن لم يكن يها قائل من المخالفين
They give conflicting rulings even though none of those people (the Sunnis) are present. Hence you will find them giving various answers regarding one particular issue even when none of the opposition is present with them.
The examples which demonstrate this are copious.
Al Kulayni narrates the following:
عن موسي بن أشيم قال: كنت عند أبي عبد الله فسأله رجل عن آية من كتاب الله-عز وجل- فأخبره بها، ثم دخل عليه داخل فساله عن تلك الآية فأخبره بخلاف ما أخبر به الأول، قال: فدخلني من ذلك ما شاء الله حتي كأن قلبي يشرح بالسكاكين فقلت في نفسي: تركت أبا قتادة بالشام لا يخطيء في الواو و شبهه، وجئت إلي هذا يخطيء هذا الخطأ كله فبينا أنا كذلك إذ دخل عليه آخر فسأله عن تلك الآية فأخبره بخلاف ما أخبرني و أخبر صاحبي، فسكنت نفسي فعلمت أن ذلك منه تقية، قال: ثم التفت إلي فقال لي: يا ابن أشيم إن الله فوض إلي نبيه فقال: وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا فما فوض إلي رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم فقد فوضه إلينا
Musa ibn Ashyam says, “I was in the presence of Abu ‘Abdullah. One person asked him regarding a verse of the Qur’an. He informed him about it. Thereafter another person came and asked regarding the same and he gave an answer different to the one he gave the first person.”
He further says, “That which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala intended entered my heart and I felt as if my heart was being cut with knives. I said to myself, ‘I left Abu Qatadah in Syria who does not make a mistake in even a Waw (the alphabet و) and its likes and came to this person who makes such grave blunders. Whilst I was still grappling with this another person came and asked him regarding the same verse and he gave him an answer different to the answers he had given me and my friend. My heart was immediately at ease and I knew that he was answering by way of Taqiyyah. He then turned to me and said, “Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala gave his Nabi authority and said, ‘And whatever the Messenger has given you – take; and what he has forbidden you – refrain from’. So whatever authority he was given we are also given.’”
See how they attribute leading people astray with incorrect interpretations and the propagation of reprehensible interpretations of the Qur’an to Jafar. And then they still claim that din was his prerogative which he could temper with it as he desired. This is not Taqiyyah, this is rather heterodoxy and being an obstacle for others to enter the din of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Was there any need for Taqiyyah when interpreting the Qur’an in the best of eras and that also from a scholar of the Ahlul Bayt?
They also claim that their Imams would issue rulings of impermissible things being permissible and vice versa due to practicing Taqiyyah without any valid reason. Hence in al Kafi the following narrations appears:
عن أبان بن تغلب قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله يقول: كان أبي عليه السلام يفتي في زمن بني أمية أن ما قتل البازي والصقر فهو حلال وكان يتقيهم. وأنا لا أتقيهم وهو حرام ما قتل
Aban ibn Taghlib mentions that he heard Abu ‘Abdullah saying, “My father would in the era of the Umayyads issue the ruling that whatever is hunted with falcons and vultures is permissible to consume. He would issue this ruling by way of Taqiyyah. I do not fear them (and thus do not have to practice Taqiyyah) and thus I say that whatever they hunt is impermissible.”
One of the clearest evidences of the fact that Taqiyyah is not but blatant unjustified lies is the narration which al Kulayni narrates from Muhammad ibn Muslim. He says:
دخلت علي أبي عبد الله عليه السلام (جعفر الصادق) وعنده أبو حنيفة. فقلت له: جعلت فداك رأيت رؤيا عجيبة. فقال لي يا بن مسلم! هاتها إن العالم بها جالس وأومأ بيده إلي أبي حنيفة. ( فعرض الراوي الرؤيا علي أبي حنيفة فأجابه أبو حنيفة عليها- كما يزعمون) فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: أصبت والله يا أبا حنيفة. قال (الراوي) ثم خرج أبو حنيفة من عنده فقلت له: جعلت فداك إني كرهت تعبير هذا الناصب. فقال: يا بن مسلم! لا يسؤك الله فما يواطئ تعبيرهم تعبيرنا ولاتعبيرنا تعبيرهم وليس التعبير كما عبره. قال: فقلت له: جعلت فداك: فقولك: أصبت وتحلف عليه وهو مخطئ؟ قال نعم حلفت عليه أنه أصاب الخطأ.
I went to Abu ‘Abdullah and Abu Hanifah was present by him.
I asked him, “May I be sacrificed for thee. I have seen a very strange dream.”
He said to me, “O son of Muslim! Mention it for the knower of its interpretation is seated here.”
And he indicated towards Abu Hanifah. (Thereafter the narrator presents his dream to Abu Hanifah and he provides an answer, as they allege).
Thereupon Abu ‘Abdullah said, “O Abu Hanifah surely you answered accurately.”
The narrator says that subsequent to that Abu Hanifah left whereupon I said to the Imam, “May I be sacrificed for thee, I dislike the interpretation of this Nasib (enemy of the Ahlul Bayt).”
He responded, “O the son of Muslim! May Allah never make you witness evil. Our interpretations are never in harmony with theirs and their interpretations are never in harmony with ours. And the interpretation is not what he had said.”
So I said to him, “May I be sacrificed for thee. So then what was your statement ‘you answered accurately’ and your oath thereupon supposed to mean?”
He said, “Yes I took an oath and I meant that he was accurate in giving the wrong answer.”
A point worth noting: was there any valid reason to practice Taqiyyah in this context? And was Abu Hanifah a person of authority and governance that he was feared and owing to whose presence Taqiyyah had to be practiced? And was there any need to falsely praise him and take an oath thereupon and then dub him an enemy of the Ahlul Bayt and invalidate his answer after his departure? Can there be any other explanation for this besides deceiving and lying without any valid reason. We exonerate Jafar from this lie which is attributed to him and say that this is criticising and reviling Jafar by those very people who claim to be his diehard supporters.
Furthermore, according to the Shia the status of a person is ascertained by the amount of lies he speaks. So the more a person speaks lies the higher his status goes in the eyes of the Shia. Therefore, we find that Muhammad Baqir al Sadr lavishly praises Hussain ibn Ruh and says and that he very adequately carried out the task of the Babiyyah because:
كان مسلكه الالتزام بالتقية المضاعفة بنحو ملفت النظر بإظهار الإعتقاد بمذهب أهل السنة
His strategy was to exercise Taqiyyah abundantly in a way that he would give the impression that he is on the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah.
The following narration appears in the Ghaybah of al Tusi:
عن عبد الله بن غالب قال: ما رأيت من هو أعقل من أبي القاسم الحسين بن روح. ولعهدي به يوما في دار ابن يسار. وكان له محل عند السيد والمقتدر عظيم، وكانت العامة –أيضا- تعظمه… وعهدي به وقد تناظر اثنان، فزعم واحد أن أبا بكر أفضل الناس بعد رسول الله صلي الله عليه وآله وسلم ثم عمر ثم علي. وقال الآخر: بل علي أفضل من عمر. فزاد الكلام بينهما فقال أبو القاسم رضي الله عنه: الذي اجتمعت الصحابة عليه هو تقديم الصديق ثم بعده الفاروق ثم بعده عثمان ذو النورين ثم علي الوصي. وأصحاب الحديث علي ذلك وهو الصحيح عندنا. فبقي من حضر المجلس متعجبا من هذا القول وكاد العامة الحضور يرفعونه علي رؤوسهم وكثر الدعاء له والطعن علي من يرميه بالرفض. فوقع علي الضحك فلم أزل أتصبر وأمنع نفسي وأدس كمي في فمي. فخشيت أن أفتضح فوثبت عن المجلس ونظر إلي ففطن بي. فلما حصلت في منزلي فإذا الباب يطرق فخرجت مبادرا فإذا بأبي القاسم الحسين بن روح راكبا بغلته قد وافاني من المجلس قبل مضيه إلي داره. فقال لي: يا أبا عبد الله –أيدك الله- لم ضحكت؟ فأردت أن تهتف بي كأن الذي قلته عندك ليس بحق. فقلت كذلك هو عندي. فقال لي: اتق الله أيها الشيخ فإني لا أجعلك في حل تستعظم هذا القول مني. فقلت: يا سيدي! رجل يري بأنه صاحب الإمام ووكيله يقول ذلك القول لا يتعجب منه ويضحك من قوله هذا. فقال لي: لئن عدت لأهجرنك وودعني وانصرف
‘Abdullah ibn Ghalib mentions, “I did not see anyone more intelligent than Abu al Qasim al Hussain ibn Ruh. I recall that one day he was at the house of Ibn Yasar (he was a person who was well-respected; al Sayed and al Muqtadir and the masses would also respect him) and I recall that two people were debating. One claimed that Abu Bakr was the most virtuous after Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then ‘Umar, and then ‘Ali. And the other claimed that ‘Ali was more virtuous than ‘Umar. The discussion ensued for quite a while between them till eventually Abu al Qasim radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “The stance that the Sahabah agreed upon is giving preference to Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthman, the bearer of two lights, and then ‘Ali, the successor of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The scholars of hadith also concur on the same. And this is the correct stance according to us as well. This left all the people in the gathering astounded. The commonality in the gathering were almost about to pick him up on their heads and people made lots of supplication in his favour and criticised those who cursed him of being a Shia. So I felt the urge to laugh but I controlled myself and I put my sleeve in my mouth in order to prevent myself from laughing. I feared that I would become exposed and hence left the gathering. Al Hussain ibn Ruh saw me and understood what was happening.
When I subsequently reached home I heard a knock on the door. I immediately came out and it was Abu al Qasim al Hussain ibn Ruh mounted on his mule. He had come to visit me before going home.
He said to me, “O Abu ‘Abdullah, may Allah aid you, why did you laugh and intend to give the impression that what I had said is not the truth according to you?”
I said to him, “The matter is the same according to me.”
He then said, “Fear Allah, O person! For I do not give you the permission to consider this statement too grave to be said by me.”
I replied, “O my master! If a person who considers himself the representative and companion of the Imam makes such statements, then it is not strange that someone laughs at him.”
He said to me, “By your life, if you do that again in the future I will not interact with you.”
He then bid me farewell and went away.
Despite the length of this incident I cited it here to show how they deceive the Ahlus Sunnah, how they say with their tongues that which is not in their hearts and how they laugh amongst themselves at how they outwardly agree with the Ahlus Sunnah out of hypocrisy and lying. Sadly, the Shia mentality in our times still adheres to this hypocrisy.
They have many more narrations of this nature. If it was not for the limitedness of time I would have presented them all and subsequently analysed them. This topic requires an exclusive study which will expose the strategies of the Shia and their ploys.
The Shia have tried to substantiate their doctrine of Taqiyyah with the verses of Surah Al ‘Imran and Surah Nahl, etc. But their substantiation from both these verses is incorrect, as has become clear from the exposition of their conception of Taqiyyah in the previous pages. Hence the scholars have, after understanding the reality of the Shia, concluded that their Taqiyyah is nothing but lies and hypocrisy. This has already become clear to us from a text from the Shia sources which was cited previously.
So as you have seen, the Taqiyyah of the Shia is nothing but hypocrisy and lies. Despite that they consider it to be part of din, rather din itself. You have also realised that their situation is more akin to the hypocrites then it is to a coerced person who is coerced to say the words of disbelief whilst his heart is content upon iman.
Ibn Taymiyyah mentions the following regarding the difference between the Taqiyyah of hypocrisy and the Taqiyyah of Islam:
التقية… ليست بأن اكذب وأقول بلساني ما ليس في قلبي فإن هذا نفاق، ولكن أفعل ما أقدر عليه… فالمؤمن إذا كان بين الكفار والفجار لم يكن عليه أن يجاهدهم بيده مع عجزه. ولكن إن أمكنه بلسانه وإلا فبقلبه مع أنه لا يكذب ويقول بلسانه ما ليس في قلبه؛ إما أن يظهر دينه وإما أن يكتمه. وهو مع هذا لا يوافقهم علي ديهنهم كله. بل غايته أن يكون كمؤمن آل فرعون حيث لم يكن موافقا لهم علي جميع دينهم ولا كان يكذب ولا يقول بلسانه ما ليس في قلبه. بل كان يكتم إيمانه وكتمان الدين شيئ وإظهار الدين الباطل شيئ آخر. فهذا لم يبحه الله قط إلا لمن أكره بحيث أبيح له النطق بكلمة الكفر فيعذره الله في ذلك. المنافق الكذاب لا يعذر بحال. ثم إن المؤمن الذي يعيش بين الكفار مضطرا ويكتم إيمانه يعاملهم –بمقتضي الإيمان الذي يحمله- بصدق وأمانة ونصح وإرادة للخير بهم كما كان يوسف الصديق يشير في أهل مصر وكانوا كفارا… بخلاف الرافضي الذي لا يترك شرا يقدر عليه إلا فعله بمن خالفه.
Taqiyyah is not that I lie and say with my tongue that which is not in my heart; that is hypocrisy, but Taqiyyah is to do what I am capable of doing. Hence when a believer is amidst disbelievers and imposters, it is not his duty to combat them with his hand when being unable to do so. Rather it is his duty to combat them with his tongue, or else with his heart, but without lying and saying that which is not in his heart. That is he can either express his faith or conceal it, and when concealing it he will not agree with them completely in the practices of their faith. In essence, his condition should be akin to the condition of the believer of the family of Pharaoh who did not agree with them in every aspect of their creed, lie or say with his tongue that which was not in his heart. Rather he would conceal his faith. Therefore, concealing your faith is one thing and expressing a wrong faith is another. The latter was never permitted by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala but for a person who is coerced, for it is permissible for him to utter the words of disbelief. Allah will excuse such a person but he will not excuse a liar and a hypocrite.
Furthermore, a believer who has to desperately live among disbelievers and conceal his iman will, due to the dictates of his iman, deal with them with honesty, trustworthiness, well-wishing and goodness even though he does not agree with them in their faith. This was how Yusuf ‘alayh al Salam lived amidst the people of Egypt as an advisor even though they were disbelievers, as opposed to a Shia who is not willing to leave any stone unturned in causing harming to those who oppose him is his creed.
 The verb اِتَّقَي: means to exercise caution (Lisan al ‘Arab: under the root letters وقي). Ibn Hajar therefore says:
الحذر من إظهار ما في النفس من معتقد وغيره للغير
Taqiyyah is concealing that which is in the heart, i.e. beliefs and everything besides it. (Fath al Bari 12/314)
This means to hide the truth. And at times a person is compelled to say with his tongue that which is not in his heart. Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma says:
التقية باللسان والقلب مطمئن بالإيمان
Taqiyyah is with the tongue whilst the heart is still content upon iman.
And Abu al ‘Aliyah says:
التقية باللسان وليس بالعمل
Taqiyyah is linked with the tongue; it has nothing to do with practice. (Tafsir al Tabari, with the revision of Shakir 6/314-315; Fath al Bari 12/314).
So Taqiyyah in essence means expressing that which is contrary to what is in heart (See: Ibn Athir: al Nihayah 1/193). And majority of the Arabs use the word Tuqat instead of Taqiyyah. That is why in the Qur’an the verse of Surah Al ‘Imran: 28 also contains the word Tuqat. But to pronounce it as Taqiyyah is also correct, as asserted by al Farra’, for it does reads as Taqiyyah as well according to another dialect (see: al Farra’: Ma’ani al Qur’an p. 205; Tafsir al Tabari 6/317).
 Sharh ‘Aqa’id al Saduq (it is published jointly with Awa’il al Maqalat) p. 261.
 Ibn Taymiyyah: Risalah fi ‘Ilm al Zahir wa al Batin (as part of Majmu’ah al Rasa’il al Muniriyyah) 1/248.
 Surah Al ‘Imran: 28
 Tafsir al Tabari 6/316.
 Tafsir al Tabari 4/57; al Shawkani: Fath al Qadir 1/331.
 Surah Āl ‘Imran: 28.
 Tafsir Ibn Kathir 1/371. Refer to other Tafsirs also and see the commentary of the verses: Al ‘Imran: 28 and al Nahl: 106.
 Fath al Bari 12/314.
 Ibid: 12/317.
 Al I’tiqadat p. 114.
 Ibn Idris: al Sara’ir p. 479; Ibn Babawayh: Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih 2/80; Jami’ al Akhbar p. 110; al Hurr al ‘Amili: Wasa’il al Shia 7/94; Bihar al Anwar 75/412-414.
 Jami’ al Akhbar p. 110; Bihar al Anwar 75/412.
 Usul al Kafi 2/217; al Barqi: al Mahasin p. 259; al Hurr al ‘Amili: Wasa’il al Shia 11/460; Bihar al Anwar 75/423.
 Tafsir al Hassan al ‘Askari p. 130; Wasa’il al Shia 11/474; Bihar al Anwar 75/415.
 Usul al Kafi 1/222.
 Ibid. 2/218.
 Al I’tiqadat p. 114-115.
 It is as if they interpret the verse: إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِنْدَ اللهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ (al Hujurat: 13)
 Ibn Babawayh: Ikmal al Din p. 355; al Tabarsi: A’lam al Wara p. 408; Abu al Qasim al Razi: Kifayah al Athar p. 323; Wasa’il al Shia 11/465-466. Also see: Jami’ al Akhbar p. 110; Bihar al Anwar 75/412.
 Jami’ al Akhbar p. 110; Bihar al Anwar 75/411.
 Jami’ al Akhbar p. 110; Bihar al Anwar 75/412.
Bihar al Anwar 75/421.
 Wasa’il al Shia 11/470.
 Bihar al Anwar 75/421.
 Jami’ al Akhbar p. 110; Bihar al Anwar 75/412.
 Jafar al Najafi: Kashf al Ghita’ p. 61.
 Amali al Tusi 1/199; Wasa’il al Shia 11/466; Bihar al Anwar 75/395.
 Usul al Kafi 2/219. See also: Ibn Babawayh: Ma’ani al Akhbar p. 162; Wasa’il al Shia 11/462.
 Usul al Kafi 2/220.
 Ibn Babawayh: al Khisal p. 22; Jami’ al Akhbar p. 110; al Barqi: al Mahasin p. 258; Wasa’il al Shia 11/460-464; Bihar al Anwar 75/394.
 Usul al Kafi 2/217.
 Ibid. 2/221.
 Ibid. 2/369.
 Bihar al Anwar 75/393-443.
 Usul al Kafi 1/65.
 Al Mazindarani: Sharh Jami’ 2/397.
 Based on what their evil scholars narrate from them.
 Al Maqalat wa al Firaq p. 78; al Nawbakhti: Firaq al Shia p. 65-66.
 Al Istibsar 1/65-66.
 Al Istibsar 1/65-66.
 Ibid: 1/65.
 Ibid. 1/308. (For example: the narration which states that he should say الصلوة خير من النوم (Salah is better than sleep) in the Fajr Adhan.
 Al Istibsar: Chapter regarding a woman not inheriting anything of properties and houses: 4/151-155.
 Ibid: 4/154.
 Ibid. 4/155.
 Al Tusi: Tahdhib al Ahkam 2/184; al Istibsar 3/132; Wasa’il al Shia 7/441.
 When Sheikh is said in the Shia books al Tusi is meant.
 Wasa’il al Shia 7/441.
 Bihar al Anwar 2/252. (with reference to Tahdhib al Ahkam)
 See the arguments al Suwaidi presents in this regard against the Shia and their inability to answer him (Mu’tamar al Najaf p. 106).
 Refer back to the section of their stance regarding the consensus of the Ummah.
 Yusuf al Bahrani: al Hada’iq al Nadirah 1/5.
 Usul al Kafi 1/265-266.
 Furu’ al Kafi 8/292: Chapter regarding the hunted animals of falcons and vultures.
 Rawdah al Kafi 8/292.
 Tarikh al Ghaybah al Sughra p. 411.
 To take an oath with anyone other than Allah is from the Shari’ah of the representative and the infallible Imam and his Bab (door).
 Al Ghaybah p. 236-237.
 Muhammad Baqir al Sadr: Tarikh al Ghaybah al Sughra p. 385. Therein he makes mention of this story approving it and praising the strategy.
 See some of these narrations in: Bihar al Anwar 75/402, onwards.
 See al Shia fi al Mizan p. 49-50.
 Verse no. 28.
 Verse no. 106:
مَن كَفَرَ بِاللَّهِ مِن بَعْدِ إِيمَانِهِ إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِ
Whoever disbelieves in [i.e., denies] Allah after his belief…662 except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith.
 They try to prove their case by way of esoteric interpretations of the remaining verses. For example:
فَمَا اسْطَاعُوا أَن يَظْهَرُوهُ وَمَا اسْتَطَاعُوا لَهُ نَقْبًا
So they [i.e., Gog and Magog] were unable to pass over it, nor were they able [to effect] in it any penetration.
I.e. They were unable to penetrate it because of practicing Taqiyyah. And the verse:
فَإِذَا جَاءَ وَعْدُ رَبِّي جَعَلَهُ دَكَّاءَ
But when the promise of my Lord comes [i.e., approaches], He will make it level.
They aver that Taqiyyah will be raised subsequent to which Allah will take revenge from his enemies. (See: Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 2/351; al Burhan 2/486; Bihar al Anwar 5/168, etc.). There are many other verses as well. See: Fikrah al Taqrib p. 220-221.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/260.
 Ibid.Back to top