Taqiya, Dissembling and Anti-Muslim Bigotry
Well, I have to hand it to Colin Powell. I may have had my misgivings on the man, but he has started a genuine national conversation about tolerance towards the Muslim community. The blogosphere has been on fire, lit by Powell's moving invocation of the fallen US soldier Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, Muslim American, buried in Arlington, to demonstrate the truly inherent evil in comparing Barack Obama to a Muslim, and it is to those of us who don't consider being called a Muslim an insult, but an honor.
Finally, truth spoken to power, finally, questions being asked, not sporadically or on occasion but continuously and forcefully, the very questions that should have been asked the very first time Obama was called a Muslim--what is wrong with being a Muslim. As Maureen Dowd put it today, "a gratifying 'have you at long last no sense of decency, Sir'. . . moment." One of the few people alive who could stir that conversation, and he did. Rush Limbaugh was entirely wrong that Powell's race had much to do with his endorsement, but it may have had something to do with his courage here. He knew what it was like to treat a man, a war hero, as less than his worth, and he didn't want to see it, in this country, again. Well kudos to him, the last time I was this inspired it was Obama's speech at the DNC in 2004.
But as with any uplifting conversation, the dregs churn up as well, and racist, bigoted Islamophobic nonsense gets the coverage it deserves, as a genuine threat to the wondrous diversity of this magnificent mosaic polyglot from the many one nation of ours. And one dreg which I have managed to see a few times the past day or two are some folks outside McCain rallies (who I'm sure John McCain would like to see disappear), who in their persistent insistence that Barack Obama is a Muslim, call upon the shari'a doctrine of taqiyya, and the outraged response of Muslim listeners to the accusations. And in this, there is some shari'a to be discussed.
As a Shi'i, I find the irony of Sunni Muslims being (legitimately, absolutely legitimately, I know whose side I am on, and it's not the Islamophobes) outraged by being accused of taqiyya a delicious irony, given that it is the same charge used by Sunni extremists against the Shi'a. In fact, it's far more common as a means of intra-Muslim (Sunni on Shi'i) bigotry than anything else. But irrespective of how it runs, whether by Sunni to Shi'i, or Islamophobe to Muslim, it more or less follows the same pattern.
Technically, taqiyya means dissembling, or obfuscation. When one's life is in danger, then one may dissemble to some extent to get himself out of it. The most common Quranic verse concerning this is verse 16:106, which indicates that whoever utters disbelief in God after accepting God "except when compelled" will suffer a grievous punishment, etc. And this is supposed to relate to a time when one of the Prophet's closest Companions, Ammar Bin Yasser, was compelled to curse the Prophet or deny the Faith or whatever in order to get himself released after captured in war, and the Prophet reportedly told him something to the effect of if they get you again, don't forget to curse me again.
Now while the bigots make much of this, on its own terms, it's not only benign, it's a fairly good approximation of American contract law, which I know a bit about, or so my students hope anyway. We just did a case where a party threatened not to complete its contract with the first party unless the first party gave it a second lucrative contract. The first party was well counseled, they promised the second contract, and finished their work on the first and didn't pay on the second. Precisely what a good lawyer would tell them to do (as well as keep a good record of the duress). Or the fishermen who went to Alaska and refused to perform once there and once it was impossible to get replacements. Again, the employer promised the additional money the men demanded and didn't pay it later. Precisely what you should do, precisely what any decent US lawyer would tell you to do. Both standard cases in US contract lore (Alaska Packers and Austin v. Loral, look them up). The idea is the same--you are not held to what you promise or what you say when forced. You may absolutely do what gets you through the duress, and then claim it back later. It's entirely permissible to so "dissemble" in US law.
But to be fair, and I never let Islam and Muslims get off with a whitewashed history on this blog, I think we should deal with our dirty laundry, that kind of doctrine, which really is not unique to Islam and it's wrong to suggest it is, can be susceptible to abuse, and has been in Islamic history. The reason is that (take my class and you will see this) there is no clear line between duress and just regular old influence, and so one can imagine relaxing the requirement of what constitutes "force" and end up essentially lying out of self interest. Though I will say most instances I can think of are more personal self interest (Shi'a who claim it was okay to drink in Saddam's time because it helped show one was secular and therefore not a threat) than anything else. Still, abuse is possible and the Shia have played with it and used it more than the Sunnis given the minority status, hence the abuse.
So we Shi'a will say, for example, we don't "insult" the Prophet's companions sabb, but we do clearly "curse" (la'na) them and that's clearly dissembling to insist there is no "insulting" going on. It also prevents the kind of intrafaith dialogue Islam needs. We aren't going to like the First and Second Caliphs no matter what anyone does, but we can talk about ways we can sort of deal with this difference with Sunnis without killing each other. I don't see the need to "insult" or "curse" anyone, particularly when it raises anger among other Muslims as this will, but I cannot in keeping with my own faith be asked to honor the first two caliphs, who according to the central tenets of my sect committed a central, grievous sin. Surely we can find some way mutually acceptable, even if grudging. The dissembling I fear prevents that.
But more important than who insults who, this abuse can be turned on its head too to result in something far more sinister. Consider the reverse of this, consider the one so concerned with abuse that they spin out a tale of the dissembling Muslim (or Shi'a), the lying Muslim (or Shi'a), the one with the religion where he can say or do anything just to trick the infidel. Well he's not only cunning, deceptive and heartless, but you just can't trust what he says. Nothing that he says then, can placate one. Don't trust him when he calls himself an American, don't trust him when he is the grandson of a Muslim and never learned Islam and has spent his entire life praying in Christian churches, don't trust him when he pays his taxes and denouces terrorism, don't trust him when he decries extremism on his blog, don't trust him when he joins the police, don't trust him when he lies buried in Arlington,having laid his life down for his country, the United States of America. He is dissembling, not for himself obviously, but to deceive you, to trick you so that later on, one day, his people will rise up and crush you.
And of course the most infuriating thing, whether from the Shi'i seeking to deny this when insisting he does not in fact, follow a separate Qur'an (we don't, I just let you in on our greatest secret above--on this, trust me, we don't follow a separate Book), or from the Muslim, when he says, in fact, he loves America is that no matter what he says or does, there is nothing he can do to refute the charge. Some jackass who can't tell if a page of Arabic is right side up or up side down is going to say "taqiyya" or "takya" is how he would say it, and no defense is possible, because the defense is itself dissembling. The denial, and the actions or statements made in furtherance thereof, is proof of the deception. It is precisely like the pernicious anti-Semitic Arab rumor that the Jews caused 9/11. That there is no evidence only helps prove the conspiracy. So you can't point out the lack of evidence, because that proves the conspiracy, and you can't admit the calumny being leveled against all Jews with this nonsense, so you're stuck, left without defense to baseless, infuriating charges.
So let's all take a page from this, and try to do a little more to take people at their word unless THEY (and not doctrine imposed on them) have given us a reason not to.
HAH
Finally, truth spoken to power, finally, questions being asked, not sporadically or on occasion but continuously and forcefully, the very questions that should have been asked the very first time Obama was called a Muslim--what is wrong with being a Muslim. As Maureen Dowd put it today, "a gratifying 'have you at long last no sense of decency, Sir'. . . moment." One of the few people alive who could stir that conversation, and he did. Rush Limbaugh was entirely wrong that Powell's race had much to do with his endorsement, but it may have had something to do with his courage here. He knew what it was like to treat a man, a war hero, as less than his worth, and he didn't want to see it, in this country, again. Well kudos to him, the last time I was this inspired it was Obama's speech at the DNC in 2004.
But as with any uplifting conversation, the dregs churn up as well, and racist, bigoted Islamophobic nonsense gets the coverage it deserves, as a genuine threat to the wondrous diversity of this magnificent mosaic polyglot from the many one nation of ours. And one dreg which I have managed to see a few times the past day or two are some folks outside McCain rallies (who I'm sure John McCain would like to see disappear), who in their persistent insistence that Barack Obama is a Muslim, call upon the shari'a doctrine of taqiyya, and the outraged response of Muslim listeners to the accusations. And in this, there is some shari'a to be discussed.
As a Shi'i, I find the irony of Sunni Muslims being (legitimately, absolutely legitimately, I know whose side I am on, and it's not the Islamophobes) outraged by being accused of taqiyya a delicious irony, given that it is the same charge used by Sunni extremists against the Shi'a. In fact, it's far more common as a means of intra-Muslim (Sunni on Shi'i) bigotry than anything else. But irrespective of how it runs, whether by Sunni to Shi'i, or Islamophobe to Muslim, it more or less follows the same pattern.
Technically, taqiyya means dissembling, or obfuscation. When one's life is in danger, then one may dissemble to some extent to get himself out of it. The most common Quranic verse concerning this is verse 16:106, which indicates that whoever utters disbelief in God after accepting God "except when compelled" will suffer a grievous punishment, etc. And this is supposed to relate to a time when one of the Prophet's closest Companions, Ammar Bin Yasser, was compelled to curse the Prophet or deny the Faith or whatever in order to get himself released after captured in war, and the Prophet reportedly told him something to the effect of if they get you again, don't forget to curse me again.
Now while the bigots make much of this, on its own terms, it's not only benign, it's a fairly good approximation of American contract law, which I know a bit about, or so my students hope anyway. We just did a case where a party threatened not to complete its contract with the first party unless the first party gave it a second lucrative contract. The first party was well counseled, they promised the second contract, and finished their work on the first and didn't pay on the second. Precisely what a good lawyer would tell them to do (as well as keep a good record of the duress). Or the fishermen who went to Alaska and refused to perform once there and once it was impossible to get replacements. Again, the employer promised the additional money the men demanded and didn't pay it later. Precisely what you should do, precisely what any decent US lawyer would tell you to do. Both standard cases in US contract lore (Alaska Packers and Austin v. Loral, look them up). The idea is the same--you are not held to what you promise or what you say when forced. You may absolutely do what gets you through the duress, and then claim it back later. It's entirely permissible to so "dissemble" in US law.
But to be fair, and I never let Islam and Muslims get off with a whitewashed history on this blog, I think we should deal with our dirty laundry, that kind of doctrine, which really is not unique to Islam and it's wrong to suggest it is, can be susceptible to abuse, and has been in Islamic history. The reason is that (take my class and you will see this) there is no clear line between duress and just regular old influence, and so one can imagine relaxing the requirement of what constitutes "force" and end up essentially lying out of self interest. Though I will say most instances I can think of are more personal self interest (Shi'a who claim it was okay to drink in Saddam's time because it helped show one was secular and therefore not a threat) than anything else. Still, abuse is possible and the Shia have played with it and used it more than the Sunnis given the minority status, hence the abuse.
So we Shi'a will say, for example, we don't "insult" the Prophet's companions sabb, but we do clearly "curse" (la'na) them and that's clearly dissembling to insist there is no "insulting" going on. It also prevents the kind of intrafaith dialogue Islam needs. We aren't going to like the First and Second Caliphs no matter what anyone does, but we can talk about ways we can sort of deal with this difference with Sunnis without killing each other. I don't see the need to "insult" or "curse" anyone, particularly when it raises anger among other Muslims as this will, but I cannot in keeping with my own faith be asked to honor the first two caliphs, who according to the central tenets of my sect committed a central, grievous sin. Surely we can find some way mutually acceptable, even if grudging. The dissembling I fear prevents that.
But more important than who insults who, this abuse can be turned on its head too to result in something far more sinister. Consider the reverse of this, consider the one so concerned with abuse that they spin out a tale of the dissembling Muslim (or Shi'a), the lying Muslim (or Shi'a), the one with the religion where he can say or do anything just to trick the infidel. Well he's not only cunning, deceptive and heartless, but you just can't trust what he says. Nothing that he says then, can placate one. Don't trust him when he calls himself an American, don't trust him when he is the grandson of a Muslim and never learned Islam and has spent his entire life praying in Christian churches, don't trust him when he pays his taxes and denouces terrorism, don't trust him when he decries extremism on his blog, don't trust him when he joins the police, don't trust him when he lies buried in Arlington,having laid his life down for his country, the United States of America. He is dissembling, not for himself obviously, but to deceive you, to trick you so that later on, one day, his people will rise up and crush you.
And of course the most infuriating thing, whether from the Shi'i seeking to deny this when insisting he does not in fact, follow a separate Qur'an (we don't, I just let you in on our greatest secret above--on this, trust me, we don't follow a separate Book), or from the Muslim, when he says, in fact, he loves America is that no matter what he says or does, there is nothing he can do to refute the charge. Some jackass who can't tell if a page of Arabic is right side up or up side down is going to say "taqiyya" or "takya" is how he would say it, and no defense is possible, because the defense is itself dissembling. The denial, and the actions or statements made in furtherance thereof, is proof of the deception. It is precisely like the pernicious anti-Semitic Arab rumor that the Jews caused 9/11. That there is no evidence only helps prove the conspiracy. So you can't point out the lack of evidence, because that proves the conspiracy, and you can't admit the calumny being leveled against all Jews with this nonsense, so you're stuck, left without defense to baseless, infuriating charges.
So let's all take a page from this, and try to do a little more to take people at their word unless THEY (and not doctrine imposed on them) have given us a reason not to.
HAH
I'll quote Ibn Taymiyyah: (for the most part)
It is not allowed to declare any Muslim an apostate for a sin he committed, or a mistake he made. Such as, an error related to differences surrounding issues of Ijtihad. Allah says in His noble book, “Forgive us our Lord. And to You is the final return.”
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah1 (May Allah have mercy upon him) said:2
The Ruling:
“It is not allowed to declare any Muslim an apostate for a sin he committed, or a mistake he made. Such as, an error related to differences surrounding issues of Ijtihad.3 Allah says in His noble book, “Forgive us our Lord. And to You is the final return.”4 It is related in the ((al-Sahih))5: that Allah (may He be exalted) answered this supplication and forgave the believers for any mistakes they committed.
The Khawarij
Thus, the heretical khawarij, who the Prophet (sa) ordered to be killed, were eventually put to death by the Leader of the Believers, Ali in Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), and the scholars from the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and their students (tabi’in) agreed (with Sayidna Ali) on this issue. However, Ali ibn Abi Talib, S’ad ibn Abi Waqas and others form the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) did not declare the khawarij as apostates, and even though they exercised capital punishment on them, they still considered them as Muslims. For that reason Ali (and the others) did move towards killing the khawarij until they had committed mass murder and ravaged the wealth of the Muslim community.”6 Thus, they were killed, not because they were considered apostates, but because of their rebellion against the state and the carnage that took place because of them.7
The Reason
Thus, if this was the case of those who’s misguidance had been firmly established by the texts and scholarly consensus and still (even after that) they were not declared as apostates (by the Companions and their students), then what (do we say) of those (groups) from the Muslim who differ regarding issues in which arriving at an exact truth is very difficult?8 Therefore, it is not allowable for any of these groups (those who differ on such issues) to declare each other as apostates, nor to declare the spilling of the others blood, or the taking of the others property, permissible even if the innovation (of one of the parties) is clearly established. And, most of the time, both parties are ignorant regarding what they differ over.”9
We ask Allah to for His assistance, mercy and to unite our hearts.
Couldn't fit the footnotes. If you want them contact me through prof. Hamoudi.
Mostly from Majmo’ al-fatawa 3:272-288
Reply to this
I would like to make a note regarding the "Cursing" Issue, and i want to set the record right, for the sake of God and Truth.
As you know, my father has lived half of his life in Kazimiya, Baghdad (The 3rd of 4 Holy cities to Shia in Iraq), and the other half having direct connections to that city and its people. That is a rough total of 60 years of field experience, give or take. Just so you know, he has a B.Sc. in Economics, but is reasonably relegious.
He assured me that he had never ever heard or seen or read anything which cursed anyone of the 1st Century AH characters except the Umayyads. And this dates back to times when Shia religious practice had a wider margin of freedom and discipline (i.e. before 1968).
The only exception he read, was a booklet brought from Iran by someone who went to visit Meshhed, Iran, another holy Shia city. The text says "Curse the 1st one who committed injustice against Ahl-ul-Bayt, the 2nd, the 3rd, the 4th, and the 5th Yazid."
To be honest he was shocked to read such text, and it was the first time he saw it ever. He thought that it was an absurd text. My two uncles, hardly 10th grade graduates thought that it was an absurd text too!
Some Shia clergymen, mainly motivated by ignorant mass, give the mass what it wants in order not to lose their profits or power. This is not necessarily the case in Iran because i haven't been there till now, but that's the case in post-2003 Iraq. The Sayyid says that if you didn't vote to this Shia religious party then you'd go to Hell, or you'd be an infidel, or at least a Nasibi!
So in that case, it's not the religion that controls the people, but it's the people controlling the religion.
Also, i tend, with all due respect, to commend (moderate) Sunnis a thousand times more than i would commend (moderate) Shiites. Sunnis name their children Ali, Hasan, Hussein, Haider, Jaafar, etc... and they respect the Imams and Ahl-ul-Bayt, and they mention Imams Ali, Hasan & Hussein & Fatima (PBUH) in every Friday sermon and dua. No one of them denies the vital role Imam Ali had during the era of the first 3 Caliphs. Sunni Imam Shafii said great poems about Ahl-ul-Bayt. While on the other side, Shiites simply don't do the same, and try their best to find things that would be "bothersome" to a billion Muslim Sunni people.
I think that Islam asks us to be wise, and to use our minds properly; and that contradicts, as it seems to a dude who doesn't know much about the depths of Shaira like my humble self; however, i really really cannot find the use of having this 1400 years old feud over who should've sat on the Islamic throne, and even worse, to have people being killed nowadays for that!
That is something that is universes away from what the Imams (or even the Sahaba) taught us; no?!
I am so sorry for the extremely long comment, but i deeply thank you for accepting it.
Reply to this
I always accept your comments Z and appreciate them greatly.
Just one thing. The Ziyarat of Imam Hussein on the Day of Ashura in the Du'a Mafatih Al Janan I have before me (a central book of invocations for the Shi'a for those who don't know--not you Z! but not all are familiar with the Shi'a) contains the phrase you mentioned, quoting
God curse the first, and the second, and the third and the fourth. God curse Yazeed the son of Mu'awiyah fifth.
I take the first four to be Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and then Muawiayh and this to be a form of dissembling taqiya, in the sense that it's clearly designed to obfuscate, given that the fourth caliph was the universally beloved Ali. And I'd say growing up Shi'i I never really grasped the distinction between Omar and Mu'awiyah really,and I was in the US, with many Sunni classmates and friends. That's not to say the cursing is an obsession, but that at least in my circles it was very much there. But this was all post 1968 I do admit that freely. I'm not that old!
HAH
Reply to this