Has any considerable change occurred in the viewpoint of the contemporaries regarding Taqiyyah (subterfuge) which could be worth documentation? Or has it not changed from what we have mentioned regarding their predecessors and from what features in their reliable books?
One of their contemporary scholars has said:
إن الأمر قد تغير… وإنه لا تقية اليوم عند الشيعة… لأن الشيعة إنما التزمت بالتقية بسبب الظلم والواقع عليها في العصور البائدة، أما وقد ارتفع الظلم فلا تقية ولا كذب ولانفاق، بل صدق وصراحة ووضوح
Things have changed… There is no Taqiyyah today according to the Shia… Because the Shia only practiced Taqiyyah due to the oppression which was met out on them in the previous centuries. As for today, when oppression is alleviated, there is no Taqiyyah, lying or hypocrisy. Rather there should be truthfulness, transparency, and clarity.
Muhammad Jawwad al Mugniyah says the following:
إن التقية كانت عند الشيعة حيث كان العهد البائد عهد الضغط والطغيان، أما اليوم حيث لا تعرض للظلم في الجهر بالتشيع فقد أصبحت التقية خبر ما كان
Taqiyyah according to the Shia was practiced due to the past era being pervaded by suppression and oppression. As for today, when there is no fear of oppression in openly proclaiming Shi’ism, Taqiyyah has become a phenomenon of the past.
He also says:
قال لي بعض أساتذة الفلاسفة في مصر: أنتم الشيعة تقولون بالتقية… فقلت له: لعن الله من أحوجنا إليها. اذهب الآن أنى شئت من بلاد الشيعة فلا تجد للقية عينا ولا أثرا، ولو كانت دينا ومذهبا في كل حال لحافظوا عليها محافظتهم على تعليم الدين ومبادئ الشريعة
One of the teachers of philosophy in Egypt said to me, “You Shia believe in Taqiyyah…” so I said to him, “May Allah curse those who compelled us to deploy it. Go now to wherever you want in the lands of the Shia and you will not find any existence or effect of Taqiyyah. Had it been a religious practice they would have safeguarded it just as they safeguarded the other teachings of Din and principles of Shari’ah.”
Similar are the views of their other contemporary scholars who are described as Maraji’ (authorities) and Ayat (signs of Allah); they all aver that Taqiyyah is only deployed at the time of need, i.e. when fear of death, loss of wealth, and desecration of honour is impending. They also say that this is not specific to the Shia, but it only became the distinctive characteristic of the Shia due to them repeatedly being victims of oppression.
So, is what these scholars say fact? Or is Taqiyyah being practiced to defend Taqiyyah, and to conceal their dogma as long as their reality can potentially be divulged and their dogma exposed before the Muslims? Let us delve into the reality of the matter and investigate the veracity of their claims…
Even if we agree with them that Taqiyyah has completely vanished from their circles and that the Shia no more have any secret to conceal and any belief wherein the need for Taqiyyah exists, and as a result they openly proclaim whatever they believe before the Muslims with clarity and transparency. We will still say that the effects of Taqiyyah have not come to an end, and that their scholars still practice Taqiyyah to some extent regarding some of their traditions. This is the biggest problem and the gravest sickness which cannot be easily picked up by those who are unaware of their classical works.
To elaborate, this problem represents itself in the fact that the practice of Taqiyyah has made it virtually impossible for the Shia to benefit from those narrations in their classical works which are in harmony with what the Muslims believe and which oppose their anomalous views and doctrines… This is so because you will not find a single stance of the Shia in which they have parted with the Muslims but that you will find some narrations in their legacy which contradict it. The manner in which a Shia scholar deals with these narrations (which go against his anomalies and agree with what the Muslims believe) is that he asserts that they were said by the Imam by way of Taqiyyah.
Their contemporary scholars have not differed at all with this approach of their early scholars. You will, therefore, find that one of their core principles, as is established in their early works and contemporary works, is taking the view which opposes the commonality, i.e. the Ahlus Sunnah. They apply this principle when they find contradictory narrations in their books by asserting that the narrations which are in agreement with the Ahlus Sunnah are to be understood in light of Taqiyyah.
Considering the fact that their narrations are contradictory and that on every topic of belief and practice there are narrations which are in harmony with what the Muslims have, we will realise the gravity of the belief of Taqiyyah and its evil consequences in keeping the Muslims disunited. We do not claim that there are contradictions in narrations, rather it is a reality which their scholars concede. To the extent that al Tusi has acknowledged that there is barely a narration which is not contradicted by another.
This is the acknowledgement of al Tusi who is the author of two of their four canonical works in hadith and two of their four classical works on transmitter biographies.
In all those narrations wherein there is contradiction, al Tusi could not muster any answer which could save him and his Shia friends save the answer (that all those narrations which are in harmony with the Muslim-majority and against their anomalies) that they were said by way of Taqiyyah. This is clearly observable in many examples in his books al Tahdhib and al Istibsar.
From the above it is clear that Taqiyyah is deployed in order to refute established narrations, find an opening for extremism; and keep disunity in the Ummah. How can it then be claimed that Taqiyyah no more exists today when the scholars inevitably practice upon it when discarding narrations?
Furthermore, just as the doctrine of Taqiyyah became an obstacle from the Shia benefitting from those narrations of their legacy which are in conformance with the majority of the Muslims, it likewise prevented the voice of any intelligent and balanced person rising among them from having any impact or benefit.
Probably those who invented this belief wanted that the Shia to always remain such that they find it difficult to reform and realise the truth. This is not just a theoretical statement which is not supported by reality, rather the reality of the Shia attests to this. For example, the greatest blasphemy of the Shia and its most contentious issue is the erroneous belief of omission and interpolation taking place in the Qur’an; a belief that has permeated their dogma and found its place in their major books. When scholars amongst the Shia, like al Murtada, Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, and al Tabarsi disproved it and asserted that the Shia dogma has nothing to do with it, their later scholars like Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri and al Nuri al Tabarsi interpreted their denial as Taqiyyah.
Considering the fact that they deploy Taqiyyah all the time in order to supress the truth and nullify it, can it then be claimed that it has ended in the Shia dogma? Likewise, when their scholar al Tusi started to write his exegesis and endeavoured therein to evade the esoteric interpretive tendency of the Batiniyyah and inclined towards benefitting from the reports of the Salaf (pious predecessors), their scholars interpreted his enterprise as Taqiyyah.
As you have noticed, this belief has become a destructive measure which the extremist Shia deploy in order to keep the Shia within the confines of extremism and at variance with the Muslim majority or with Islam itself. Can it still be claimed that the era of Taqiyyah has ended when its poisonous effects have permeated the very core of the dogma and destroyed it from within?
If in this age where Kufr is reigning supreme and the might of the Muslims has dwindled, the Shia aver that there is no need for Taqiyyah, then in which age did the Shia really hold on to the principle of Taqiyyah? They consider the era of the three Khulafa’ and the golden age of Islam to be the era of Taqiyyah. This implies that they consider the condition of the Muslims in our times to have improved from what it was during the reign of the rightful Khulafa’. Hence their scholar al Mufid asserts that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu lived in the era of the three Khulafa’ with Taqiyyah and displaying outward agreement; he draws a parable and says that his condition at that time was like the condition of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam when he was amidst the polytheists in Makkah before migration. This implies that he considers the Sahabah who were alive during the Khilafah Rashidah (righteous reign) equal to the polytheists by whose side Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lived in Makkah. Thus the relationship of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu with them was like the relationship of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with the polytheists.
The conclusion is thus the following: the time in which the might of the Muslims is dwindling is the time of the glory of the Shia and their freedom, because their religion is different from the religion of the Sahabah (the generation which received its Din directly from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, regarding whose time Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave testimony of goodness, and the with whom Allah was pleased and who was pleased with Allah) their era according to this cult which has distanced its people from the straight path was the era of Taqiyyah and their generation a generation of disbelief. When these devious cults were gripped by confusion due to the many actions and sayings of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu opposing their views and ideas during his own reign, they found no other solution but to consider the era of his reign an era of Taqiyyah as well. Their scholar Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri, who is described as ‘the authoritative master and the reliable pillar’, says the following:
ولما جلس أمير المؤمنين رضي الله عنه لم يتمكن من إظهار ذلك القرآن وإخفاء هذا لما فيه من إظهار الشيعة على من سبقه، كما لم يقدر على النهي عن صلاة الضحى، وكما لم يقدر على إجراء متعة النساء، وكما لم يقدر على عزل شريح عن القضاء ومعاوية عن الإمارة
And when Amir al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu sat he was unable to bring to the fore that Qur’an and hide this one due to it entailing the victory of the Shia upon those who preceded them. He likewise did not manage to ban the forenoon prayer, officially instate Mut’ah with women, and dismiss Shurayh from presiding over the judiciary, and Muawiyah from leadership.
This is how they distort those facts which allude the true religion of ‘Ali by claiming that they were all based on Taqiyyah. Was there really any need for practicing Taqiyyah at that time, especially when the issue at hand was pertaining to the very basis of this Din, the Qur’an? And was there any need for practicing Taqiyyah during the mighty days of Islam and the Muslims? Again, how can it then be claimed that the era of Taqiyyah has ended when the dogma of the Shia is based upon it and when the scholars of the Shia are steering the ship of Shi’ism to ruination with the flag of Taqiyyah.
Furthermore, the one who ponders over their texts will learn that Taqiyyah is not only a measure deployed at the time of need. Rather it is abused and misused to lie, deceive, make the permissible impermissible and vice versa. So much so that their narrations state that the Imams would practice it in gatherings where there would be no one to fear and where there would be not the slightest reason for it permissibility, as has passed already.
Hence, Taqiyyah still continues to leave its effects upon the Shia dogma; it was deployed in the past not due to any necessity, but intentionally and happily; it was deployed in a purely Shia environment; and owing to it the Qur’an was explained in unprecedented ways, so much so that the Imam would interpret one verse of the Qur’an in three different ways in one gathering, each one different from the next, and that is all considered to be due to Taqiyyah, despite it being impossible to perceive that Taqiyyah was needed when interpreting the Qur’an during the mighty days of Islam and the Muslims. The conclusion is clear: Taqiyyah was not deployed at the time of need only, nor has its effects ended in the Shia dogma.
This is further emphasised by their contemporary scholar Muhammad Sadiq al Ruhani, also known as al Ayah al ‘Udhma (the greatest sign). He categorises Taqiyyah into four types (suggesting that there are other reasons other than necessity to practice Taqiyyah):
التقية الخوفية، والتقية الإكراهية، والتقية الكتمانية، والتقية المداراتية
Taqiyyah due to fear, due to coercion, with the intent of concealing, and with the intent of affability.
Hence these people who claim that the Shia only practice Taqiyyah at the time of need, their claim is only true regarding Taqiyyah due to fear and Taqiyyah due to coercion. But it is not true regarding Taqiyyah with the intent of concealing and Taqiyyah with the intent of affability. This suggests that Taqiyyah is still deployed according to the Shia; for its scope is wider than just necessity and fear. They have used Taqiyyah as a pretext to make lying, deceiving, and fabricating permissible, as will be illustrated ahead.
Having said all of this, in the authoritative books of the Shia there are narrations which emphasise that, unless the Mahdi emerges, under no circumstances will it be permissible to give up Taqiyyah; the one who abandons it during the era of occultation is equal to a discarder of salah, rather a person who discards it, according to them, has parted with the dogma of the Imamiyyah.
How can Mughniyah then claim that the era of Taqiyyah has ended? Is he unaware of the reality of his dogma?
Their reliable books document the following narration:
فمن ترك التقية قبل خروج قائمنا فليس منا
He who leaves Taqiyyah before the emergence of our Imam is not from amongst us.
Similarly, their senior scholar and Ayat in this age Muhammad Baqir al Sadr asserts that their narrations, in their abundance, have reached the extent of being widely transmitted and even the extent of Tawatur (such diffuse transmission as cannot be rejected). He motivates that leaving Taqiyyah before the emergence would:
إلى بطء وجود العدد الكافي من المخلصين الممحصين، الذين يشكل وجودهم أحد الشرائط الأساسية للظهور
Lead to impeding the realisation of a sufficient amount of sincere and purified individuals whose existence represents one of the conditions for the emergence (of the Mahdi).
Their narrations also equate Taqiyyah to nine tenths of Din and they also class a person who does not practice Taqiyyah as one bereft of iman, without any exception of any time.
The question is: Is Mughniyah and the other scholars of the Shia unaware of all these realities owing to which they claim that the era of Taqiyyah has ended and that Taqiyyah is not part of their religion? I believe that after reading the aforementioned texts of the Shia you will reach the same conclusion that professor Mahmud al Mal Allah reached:
إن قول معنية: انتهى عهد التقية اليوم عند الشيعة إنما هو تقية على تقية
The statement of Mughniyah that the era of Taqiyyah has ended today according to the Shia is merely practicing Taqiyyah upon Taqiyyah.
Likewise in al Wafi, which is a compilation of the four early canonical works of the Shia, the following texts appears:
يعني لا تظهروا للناس ما نكتمه عنهم ولا تقولوا لهم إن سرنا غير موافق لعلانيتنا، وإنا نكتم عنهم غير ما نظهر لهم، ونظهر غير ما نكتم. فإن ذلك مفوت لمصلحة التقية التي بها بقاؤنا وبقاء أمرنا. بل كونوا على ما نحن عليه قائلين ما نقول، صامتين عما نصمت موافقين لنا غير مخالفين عن أمرنا
I.e. Do not disclose before people what we hide from them. Our secret is not in harmony with our external. For what we hide from them is different from what we reveal to them and what we reveal to them is different from what we hide from them. Doing otherwise is losing the benefit of Taqiyyah upon which is based our existence and the existence of the Shia. Thus remain on what we are, say what we say, remain silent where we remain silent, agree with us and do not oppose us in our matter.
It is as though he is saying, in the style of Mughniyah, ‘Don’t say to the people that the era of Taqiyyah still remains and that our internal is different from our external; for that will destroy the benefit of Taqiyyah.’
Realistically, should we expect Mughniyah to say that Taqiyyah is still practiced and we deal with you according to its demands, especially when he is talking to the professors of philosophy in Egypt? What he has stated is in accordance with what his dogma demands, i.e. concealing the matter of Taqiyyah itself.
A person who reads the contemporary books of the Shia, deliberates over them, and compares them (with other material on the same topic) will reach the conclusion that Taqiyyah still continues to be practiced. We have already studied examples of how the Shia reject their fundamental beliefs like that of Raj’ah; and how they deny the existence of texts which exist in dozens of their books, as we seen in the case of ‘Abdul Hussain al Najafi who emphatically denies the existence of any narration or text which suggests that interpolation and omission took place in the Qur’an.
In fact at times one Shia scholar will contradict himself due to him making statements based on the demands of Taqiyyah as per the situation and the people being addressed. For example, Mughniyah himself, despite claiming that the era of Taqiyyah has ended, claims that the Shia do not denigrate the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in his exegesis al Kashif but then he denigrates senior Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in his book Fi Zilal Nahj al Balaghah, as has passed already. Likewise he claims in his book Ma’ al Shia al Imamiyyah that Imamah is not one of the fundamentals of Islam, rather it is a principle of the Shia dogma. And thus the one who denies it but believes in the oneness of Allah, the prophethood of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the afterlife is a Muslim although not a Shia. But in another book al Shia wa al Tashayyu’ he says the following regarding their festival of Ghadir:
إن احتفالنا بهذا اليوم هو احتفال بالقرآن الكريم، وسنة النبي العظيم بالذات، احتفال بالإسلام ويوم الإسلام… إن النهي عن يوم الغدير تعبير ثان عن النهي بالأخذ بالكتاب والسنة وتعاليم الإسلام ومبادئه.
Celebrating this day is like celebrating the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the great Nabi. It is celebrating Islam and the day of Islam. Rejecting the day of Ghadir is in other words preventing people from practicing upon the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the teachings of Islam and its principles.
He then presents as evidence the statement of their contemporary scholar ‘Abdullah al ‘Alayili which is:
إن عيد الغدير جزء من الإسلام فمن أنكره فقد أنكر الإسلام بالذات
The festival of Ghadir is part of Islam, whoever rejects it has rejected Islam itself.
By comparing both his statements the reality becomes clear. In the first statement he claims that the one who rejects Imamah is a Muslim and in the second statement he asserts that the one who rejects the festival of Ghadir, which is an innovation for which there is no evidence in the Qur’an, rejects Islam itself. Is there any other plausible interpretation for this contradiction besides Taqiyyah?
But which of the two statements really represents the Shia dogma? The second statement without any doubt represents what appears in their classical works. And probably what he has said therein is actually the actual stance which came to the fore due to his deep emotions and sentimental link to the innovated festival.
Furthermore, the Shia libraries have published many books in order to propagate Shi’ism amongst the Ahlus Sunnah. The person who reads them will probably reach the conclusion that the authors are one of two people: either a heretic whose goal is to misguide the servants of Allah with lying and deception, or a Shia who in the name of Taqiyyah considers everything to be permissible. The common phenomenon which permeates all these books is the excessive usage of Taqiyyah. And that is why, despite the element of lying being glaring in them, I have not come across any criticism rising from the Shia circles.
The most glaring example of this is the book al Muraja’at of ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din al Musawi. The proselytisers of Shi’ism have lent a lot of credence to this book; they have used it as one of their most effective tools to mislead people, or in other words, to mislead their followers and the Shia. Simply because the Ahlus Sunnah, more specifically the scholars among them have no knowledge whatsoever of these books which are printed and published by the publishing houses of the Shia.
The importance they accord to this book and their immense infatuation over it have increased to such an extent that it has been published more than a hundred times, as is claimed by some of the Shia.
In its misleading nature and deceptive approach this book is probably like Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli’s book which was debunked and refuted by Ibn Taymiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu in his Minhaj al Sunnah. Hopefully Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will provide the means to expose the book in question in a similar manner by way of a dedicated study, but hereunder I allude to some aspects thereof:
The book is basically about the correspondence which took place between the leading scholar of al Azhar, Sheikh Salim al Bishri who, as this Rafidi alleges, represents the Ahlus Sunnah and defends their dogma, and ‘Abdul Hussain who represents the Shia and defends their dogma. The correspondence ends with the acknowledgment of the Sheikh of al Azhar that the Sunni dogma is wrong and the Shia dogma is valid and correct. It is without any doubt a cunning ploy of the Shia and a contrived correspondence aimed at propagating the Shi’ism.
For a person who knows the dogma of the Shia and has recourse to their books, this style is no surprise. There is nothing new in it, it is an old approach which the Shia have always used; an approach wherein they wrote books containing the demerits of the Sahabah and the invalidity of the Sunni creed, amongst other things, and attributed them to prominent scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah.
Hence al Shawkani, in his book, al Fawa’id al Majmu’ah has established a chapter with the title al Nusakh al Mawdu’ah (fabricated books). After enlisting them he concludes that most of them have been contrived by the Shia clergy and that their followers still possess them.
Similarly, the author of al Tuhfah al Ithnay ‘Ashariyyah has also alluded to this approach, and as an example has referred to the book Sirr al ‘Alamin (a book which they falsely attributed to Imam Muhammad al Ghazali and filled with erroneous ideas). In the introduction of the book they allege that he bequeathed that it be kept a secret and it be preserved. They also allege that he said that whatever is in this book is his belief and whatever is elsewhere is due to flattery and compromise.
I have seen that in some of their contemporary works they draw evidence from this fabricated book against the Ahlus Sunnah.
This book has likewise been published several times.
Regarding this particular book, professor ‘Abdul Rahman al Badawi has mentioned that three orientalists, viz. Goldzhier, Bouygues, and Macdonald, considered it a fabrication against al Ghazali. He concurs with them and also concludes that the book is a complete fabrication and in substantiation thereof he says that on p. 82 of the book al Ghazali allegedly says:
أنشدني المعري لنفسه وأنا شاب في صحبته يوسف بن على شيخ الإسلام
Al Ma’arri himself rendered his poetry before me when I was still a youngster in the company of Sheikh al Islam Yusuf ibn ‘Ali.
Whereas al Ma’arri passed away in 448 A.H. and al Ghazali was born in 450 A.H. Hence it was impossible for al Ma’arri to have rendered his poetry before al Ghazali.
The purpose for opening this chapter of the past is to allude to the fact that the book al Muraja’at is just another book in the same tradition; it is a link in the insidious conspiracies which have their roots deep in history, carried out by the Shia in order not to lose their followers and to create discord in the Ummah and spread Shi’ism amongst the Muslims.
Nonetheless, I return to al Muraja’at to briefly point out some of the signs which suggest that the book is a fabrication.
Firstly, one of the strongest indications that the book is a fabrication is that the style of the letters which are documented therein, which represent the views of two scholars who are different in their ideology, knowledge, social setup; is one and the same. There is no difference whatsoever in them. This clearly shows that the fabricator of these letters is one person and that is ‘Abdul Hussain.
Secondly, the leading scholar of al Azhar had acquired such a prominent position due to his knowledge and eruditeness and not due to just obtaining a job. But in this book he is portrayed as a junior or an amateur student whose duty is to acknowledge everything that was said by this Rafidi and at times even praise him for every line that he wrote. Notwithstanding that at times his answers consisted of such esoteric interpretations of Qur’anic verses which have no link with them whatsoever and the deviance whereof can be picked up by beginners in the path of knowledge amidst the Ahlus Sunnah, nay even by their laity. And even though at times they contained authentication of forged narrations and emphasis upon one of their blasphemous beliefs. This Rafidi has documented that the Sheikh of al Azhar conceded the authenticity and diffuse transmission of many narrations which are weak according to the scholars of hadith and some even complete fabrications. Their weak or forged status is not unknown even to beginners, let alone the Sheikh of al Azhar who was the incumbent of a position which was only obtainable by someone who had saturated himself with knowledge and was well-versed in all the Islamic sciences. Not only that, but this Rafidi has depicted the Sheikh of al Azhar as so inadequate in his knowledge as to not even know the references for narrations in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah, not the books of the Shia, owing to which he would ask this Rafidi to point them out to him.
Could the Sheikh of al Azhar really be so ignorant? Could he be so incapable in maintaining a polemical discussion despite having access to libraries? Would he really give this Shia scholar the trouble to help him when he could easily seek the assistance of the scholars of al Azhar and its students? And since when did this Rafidi become a reliable transmitter of hadith according to the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah?
Thirdly, his book emerged without any authorisation; there is nothing is his book which suggests that those alleged letters are credible; not even a picture of some of them despite them amounting to a hundred and twelve letters in total, fifty six being written by the Sheikh of al Azhar.
All these alleged letters were written by hand, so why did he not produce one letter at least which would prove his claims, especially when in them was contained a very pivotal issue like that of the Sheikh of al Azhar giving up the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah and taking up the creed of the Shia and converting from the truth to falsehood. His inability to prove any evidence in this regard reveals that his book is a forgery and that the letters attributed to Sheikh Salim are lies. It actually extirpates the discussion from its very roots.
All these claims are only from one side, from this Rafidi alone; Sheikh Salim is not known to have said anything that alludes to this correspondence. Likewise there is not a shred evidence to be found during his lifetime that proves the validity of the claims of this Rafidi. And thus he only dared to publish the book twenty years after the demise of Sheikh Salim al Bishri.
Due to his inability to substantiate his claims with any evidence, and due to him forging letters which supposedly mimicked the style of al Bishri and not being able to produce a picture of the letters in his original writing, he was compelled to expose himself in the introduction by saying:
وأنا لا أدعي أن هذه الصحف تقتصر على النصوص التي تألفت يومئذ بيننا، ولا أن شيئا من ألفاظ هذه المراجعات خطه غير قلمي
I do not claim that these pages strictly contain the texts which were exchanged between us, nor that some of the contents of these letters were written by a pen other than mine.
If these letters were not written by anyone else’s pen then why is he accusing the Sheikh of al Azhar of writing this evil?
He has further exposed himself with the following sentence:
إنه زاد في هذه الرسائل ما يقتضيه المقام والنصح والإرشاد
He has added in these letters things which the situation demands and also advice and directives.
This is another confession that he has attributed to the Sheikh of al Azhar things which he has not said; and he deems his lies against him to be fine under the pretext of advice according to the need of the situation; exactly the reason for which Taqiyyah is practiced.
As long as it remains a well-known fact that the Shia lie against Allah, His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Ahlul Bayt it should not come across as a surprise if they lie against others besides them.
This book represents one form of Taqiyyah in our times.
There are many other examples. And the lies which are spoken in the name of Taqiyyah are of various types which require a dedicated study.
This style of forgery has its dangers. The Shia have frequently deployed it in their works and it has become one of the offshoots of Taqiyyah. Al Suwaidi thus mentions that many books were attributed to the Ahlus Sunnah in this manner, and only people who are acquainted with the style of the dialogue of the Ahlus Sunnah will detect their falsity.
Lastly, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala at times reveals the truth upon the tongue of the Shia. Hence one of their contemporary scholars has revealed the reality by conceding that the book of Sulaim ibn Qais and other books are forgeries (i.e. falsely attributed to their alleged authors), but for noble purposes. As though suggesting that such fabrication is permissible as long as the purpose behind at is valid and ‘noble’.
We are not going to delve further into this topic, due to limitations, and because this chapter is dedicated to the contemporary Shia.
Although the Shia, as represented by some of their scholars, claim that Taqiyyah no more exists, but they still continue to practice Taqiyyah, not with the Ahlus Sunnah, but with their own followers. For surely amongst the contemporary scholars there are some who practice Taqiyyah with their followers, i.e. they express that which they do not believe.
This is not merely a claim, but a reality which is backed by their confessions. Three of their senior scholars hesitated in announcing a flaw in a secondary issue of Fiqh due to the fear of their followers. They would thus secretly give fatwas against it and would assert the contrary in front of their close associates.
What is interesting in this regard is that Muhammad Jawwad Mughniyah was the one who discovered this, notwithstanding that he is from amongst those who claim that Taqiyyah has come to an end. He says:
أحدث القول بنجاسة أهل الكتاب مشكلة اجتماعية للشيعة، وأوقعهم في ضيق وشدة وبخاصة إذا سافروا إلي بلد مسيحي كالمغرب، أو كان فيه مسيحيون كلبنان… وقد عاصرت ثلاثة مراجع كبار من أهل الفتيا والتقليد: الأول: كان في النجف الأشرف وهو الشيخ محمد رضا آل ياسين، والثاني في قم وهو السيد صدر الدين الصدر، والثالث، في لبنان وهو السيد محسن الأمين، وقد أفتوا جميعا بالطهارة، وأسروا بذلك إلى من يتقون به، ولم يعلنوا خوفا من المهوشين، على أن ياسين كان أجرأ الجميع وأنا على يقين بأن كثيرا من فقهاء اليوم والأمس يقولون بالطهارة، ولكنهم يخشون أهل الجهل والله أحق أن يخشوه
The view that the people of the book are impure has created a social problem for the Shia and has placed them in difficulty and under constrains, especially when they travel to a Christian country like Spain, or to a place where Christians are found like Lebanon. I accompanied three scholars who hold prominent positions in issuing fatwas and whose views are followed: the first is from the noble Najf, Sheikh Muhammad Rida Al Yasin, the second is: al Sayed Sadr al Din al Sadr from Qum, and the third is al Sayed Muhsin al Amin from Lebanon. They all issued the fatwa of purity and they covertly conveyed it to those who they trusted; but they did not openly proclaim it due to fearing the instigators. Yasin was nonetheless the bravest of them. And I am fairly convinced that many of the jurists of the present and the past held the view of purity, but they feared the ignorant people whereas Allah is more deserving of being feared.
Mughniyah also mentions in his exegesis al Kashif that their supreme scholar al Khu’i likewise secretively imparted his view to those who trusted him.
Likewise, Kazim al Kifa’i also acknowledges that their leader al Ghita’ issued the fatwa of purity and informed only his associates of it because he feared that the minds of the laity will not be able to withstand it.
Commenting upon this professor ‘Ali al Salus says, “This is how knowledge is forsaken and lies are attributed to Islam, i.e. when people are entrusted with knowledge but they waste it and distort it due to fearing the people and not fearing Allah.”
Adding to that, I would say that one of the many reasons for which the Shia scholars consider (and as a result practice Taqiyyah with) their ignorant followers is that these people are the source of their sustenance which they unrightfully receive from them in the name of Khums.
If this is the stance of five of their leading scholars in the present age regarding a secondary issue which they know for sure is wrong, how can it then be expected from them to entertain even the prospect of revisiting their primary issues.
From all of this it is clear that the Shia will never give up Taqiyyah and they will continue practicing it till the emergence of their Mahdi, as is emphasised in their narrations and endorsed by their actions, even though their use thereof decreases and increases as per the conditions and demands, i.e. their practice of Taqiyyah considerably decreases whenever they assume authority and rule a dynasty. This becomes evidently clear when comparing the writings of the scholars of the Safawid Dynasty (like the views of al Majlisi in Bihar al Anwar, Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri in al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah, al Bahrani in Tafsir al Burhan, amongst others) with those of their predecessors who were writing under an established Islamic Khilafah; for you will find at the end of each of the latters’ texts the directive to keep it concealed and hidden, to the extent that even the issue of Imamah was secretively circulated in the initial stages.
In conclusion, these are but a few views of their contemporary scholars and their beliefs which outline their theological boundaries which they abide by in the present age. I did not delve into beliefs wherein nothing new has developed or no new claims have been made, because as longs as the contemporaries and the ancients remain linked in deriving doctrine from the same classical books there is no hope of any change taking place for the better.
From the various discussions above, it is clear that the contemporaries have surpassed their predecessors, because they inherited the end-result of lies and fabrications which have incessantly continued throughout the ages and considered that to be their reliable sources. They facilitated publishing houses to spread these books. The weakness of the Muslims was one of the causes of their enthusiasm and the widespread ignorance of the Ahlus Sunnah and their weakness were part of the reasons for people being impacted by them and being ensnared in their deviance.
 Mughniyah: al Shia fi al Mizan p. 52, 345; Ahlul Bayt p. 66-67.
 Al Shia fi al Mizan p. 52.
 For more details refer to: Muhammad Hussain Al Kashif al Ghita’: Asl al Shia p. 150-153; ‘Abdul Hussain al Musawi: Ajwibah Musa Jar Allah p. 68-70; ‘Abdul Hussain al Rashati: Kashf al Ishtibah p. 130; Muhsin al Amin: al Shia bayn al Haqa’iq wa al Awham p. 185, onwards; al Qazwini: al Shia fi ‘Aqa’idihim wa Ahkamihim p. 346; Hashim al Hussaini: Dirasat fi al Hadith wa al Muhaddithin p. 326, onwards.
 Tahdhib al Ahkam 1/2.
 See: al Istibsar 1/60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, onwards.
 Gathering the scattered narrations from their books which oppose their anomalies (and which they interpret with Taqiyyah) is a very beneficial work in this era, and some scholars of India and Pakistan have started this initiative. See for example: ‘Abdul Sattar al Tonsawi: Manaqib al Khulafa’ al Arba’ah fi Mu’allfat al Shia. Probably the first person to start this was Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz in his book Tuhfah Ithnay ‘Ashariyyah.
 i.e. he sat upon the throne of Khilafah.
 This refers to the Qur’an which with their awaited absent Imam, as they allege. Refer to: https://mahajjah.com/do-the-shiah-circulate-among-themselves-secret-copies/#_ftnref5, onwards and https://mahajjah.com/evidence-for-the-occurrence-of-the-ghaybah/#_ftnref47
 Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri: al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah 2/362.
 Refer to the chapter of Taqiyyah in this book: https://mahajjah.com/chapter-three-taqiyyah-dissimulation/
 Muhammad Sadiq Ruhani: booklet regarding Taqiyyah, found included in the book al Amr bi al Ma’ruf wa al Nahy ‘an al Munkar p. 148-149.
 Al Tabarsi: A’lam al Wara p. 408; Ibn Babawayh: Ikmal al Din p. 210; al Hurr al ‘Amili: Wasa’il al Shia 11/465-466; Usul al Kafi 2/217.
 Tarikh al Ghaybah al Kubra p. 353.
 Ibid. 253-254.
 A contemporary Iraqi scholar who took up the task of combatting the conspiracies of the Shia in Iraq which they were executing under the pretext of ‘Islamic unity’. He done so by writing in the newspaper al Sijil and by writing booklets in this regard. One of his books is al Wahdah al Islamiyyah bayn al Akhdh wa al Radd.
 Majmu’ al Sunnah 1/111.
 Al Fayd al Kashani: al Wafi: Kitab al Hujjah: subchapter regarding Nawadir: 2/60.
 See Chapter 5 of this book
 Al Shia wa al Tashayyu’ p. 258.
 Ibid. p. 258. Al ‘Alayili had made this statement in a sermon which was broadcasted by the Lebanese radio station on the 18 of Dhi al Hijjah 1380 A.H. (see: ibid. p. 258).
 Mughniyah: al Khumaini Aqwaluhu wa af’aluhu p. 45.
 Al Fawa’id al Majmu’ah p. 425.
 Mukhtasar al Tuhfah al Ithnay ‘Ashariyyah p. 33; also see: al Suwaidi: Naqd ‘Aqa’id al Shia p. 25.
 See for example, the references cited in the book Kashf al Ishtibah of ‘Abdul Hussain al Rashati which was published in Tehran in 1368 A.H. by al Matba’ah al ‘Askariyyah.
 It was first printed in Mumbai in 1314 A.H., then in Cairo in 1324 A.H. and 1327 A.H. It was likewise published in Tehran (no mention of date). See ‘Abdul Rahman al Badawi: Mu’allafat al Ghazali p. 225.
 Mu’allafat al Ghazali p. 271.
 Ibid. p. 271. Surprisingly I found that al Dhahabi attributes the book to him Mizan al I’tidal 1/500. Probably he was unaware of the reality, or that a book with this title was written by al Ghazali but was later lost and the Shia thus took advantage of the name and compiled a book holding the same title and attributed to al Ghazali.
 See for example p. 62-73 in his book al Muraja’at.
 See for example p. 55-60 of al Muraja’at; also see al Bayyinat fi al Radd ‘ala Abatil al Muraja’at p. 45, onwards.
 See al Muraja’at p. 237.
 He passed away in 1335 A.H. (see al A’lam 3/180).
 See the introduction of al Muraja’at p. 27.
 Another example is the book Limadha Ikhtartu Mazhab al Shia (Why I Chose the Creed of the Shia). This book contains a fabricated story which alleges that one of the senior scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah Muhammad Mar’i al Antaki gave up the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah and embraced the creed of the Shia after ascertaining that the former is false and the latter is true. It is filled with forgeries, lies and accusations, as is the wont of the Shia when practicing Taqiyyah.
Can a person who is saturated with knowledge of Shari’ah ever believe in their erroneous belief of the Mahdi whose emergence the Shia are anticipating for more than eleven centuries; and can he ever believe in the fable of Raj’ah which according to the Shia entails that revenge will be taken from the beloveds of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his relatives in law, and some of his wives, the Mothers of the Believers; or will he ever believe in the blasphemy of Bada’?
No scholar will ever be beguiled into following such a creed. It is thus narrated from some of the Salaf that they feared the non-Arabs and the amateur would be ensnared in innovations. As for the one who possess deep knowledge of Shari’ah, he will never fall prey to the lies of the Shia (see the introduction of this book). Some scholars are thus reported to have said that the scholars of the Shia are one of two people: an ignoramus or a heretic (see: Minhaj al Sunnah 4/77).
This Shia who is known as al Antaki claims that he resides in Aleppo and presides over the position of the supreme judge in the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah, whereas none of the scholars of Aleppo have any acquaintance with him, as was told to me by a number of scholars, one among them being Sheikh ‘Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah.
 Al Suwaidi: Naqd ‘Aqa’id al Shia (manuscript) p. 25.
 Al Sha’rani: Ta’liqat ‘Ilmiyyah (‘ala al Kafi ma’ Sharh al Mazindarani) 2/373-374.
 This topic specifically requires and in-depth study, due to it being crucial on the one hand and revealing the true face of Shi’ism on the other hand.
 Despite them boasting that the door of Ijtihad is still open in the Shia dogma. If this is their condition in a secondary issue then how can it be hoped from them that they will revisit their primary issues wherein they have parted with the majority of the Muslims?
 Mughniyah: Fiqh al Imam Jafar al Sadiq p. 31-33.
 Mughniyah: al Kashif 6/18.
 This is documented by professor ‘Ali al Salus (see: Fiqh al Imamiyyah p. 81).
 ‘Ali al Salus: Fiqh al Imamiyyah p. 81 (footnote).Back to top