Talk:Taqiyya/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Discussion about some edits

This was reverted because there was no discussion about it:

Because at that time the jurists agreed that Muslims were not permitted to live in the lands of non-Muslims, Dar al-Harb, by submitting themselves to infidels instead of Islam and had to emigrate if unable to take up Jihad (holy war). It was better returning to Muslim lands, Dar al-Islam, to take up the fight there (page 18, 42 and 129). Al-Wahrani allowed for an inner jihad instead, by taqiyya.

So is this supported by the source or are there other issues? Constructive input, and sincere debate is welcome and encouraged. - Davidelah (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you're copying sources from other Wikipedia projects, so can you please link the English Google Books instead of a foreign language, in the future.

Regarding your quotation, I think that this article is about Taqiyya,, not one sample of its practice; so please keep that in-mind. These details are not-needed, as the section is already explained enough. Also, the content is misleading, as it's explaining a singular/regional POV while the article doesn't explain others'. Please keep WP:DUE in mind, too. Thanks. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the section is about one example of its regional practice, just read the heading. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by foreign language, the book is in English sir.

And am I copying sources from other Wikipedia projects? News to me. Davidelah (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wherever you get your sources from, they're from multilingual sites. Yes, the books are in English, but you've searched for them in different languages (English, Spanish, Danish, Dutch Google, which I'm sure you don't know all those languages). It's just a note. I'm not contradicting anything, but it would be nicer to search for your source in the English Google instead; if you want to link it on the English Wiki.

I'm talking about the weight of the whole article, not specifically this section. The section was previously fulfilled and understandable, so there's no reason to expand it that way. The added detail is misleading and unnecessary, according to my points above. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean by foreign language, I'll just correct that in a minor edit, no problem ;). The further explanation is informative and not misleading because it explains why some of Al-Wahrani's opinions (which is about the subject of the article) diverged from the majority of his fellow jurists. Davidelah (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix :)

Incorrect. I've read all the pages you referenced, and it never talks about general fatwa (as you claimed). It's all talking about specialized fatwas related to that incident. That's why I said it's misleading to make such a broad claim, while we should only be expanding that section. What you quoted is definitely not in the referenced "2008" edition! Can you explain where was that quote from? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific about what quote or fatwa you're referring to? The places the fatwa of Al-Wahrani is clearly mentioned in reference 3 and 18 by Devin Stewart. Davidelah (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please quote (here) where did this come from first: "majority of earlier Maliki Faqīhs". ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 17:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From reference 20: Miller, Kathryn A. (2008), Guardians of Islam: Religious Authority and Muslim Communities of Late Medieval Spain, New York: Columbia University Press, p. 114, ISBN 978-0-231-13612-9, retrieved 27 May 2011, "Unlike the majority of Maliki scholars before him, he openly embraced the idea of a Mudejar jihad that was bound to the notion of inner steadfastness under persecution..." Davidelah (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So, does that make such a claim as-general as you phrased it? Your quote is only talking about that incident. Then, what's the reason of the following sentence, if this was only talking about Al-Andalus?

I guess I have to slowly explain each point to you, as always... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 18:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If the opinion of the jurists was only limited to that incident I think it should only be rephrased rather than deleted, because it still explains the incidence. I think though that reading pg. 42 from above would suggest that this was not just a local problem, but also for "...the world of Islam..." to break from the traditional opinion.

I find your last comment inappropriate and, honestly, hypocritical... Davidelah (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Mihna details reverted

What is the reason for this edit: [1] ?! Unflavoured (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a question for me too. Her mentioned agreed in his edit summery, but I don't see any agreement. I'm going to be bold and revert it.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"16th century Spain" subsection title

This is in reference to Davidelah's inclusion of "Sunni Islam" in the title of the the "16th-century Spain" subsection, here and here. His reasoning was "it's about sunni islam". While it might seem that "Twelver Shi'a Islam" is an appropriate title for its section (since Taqiyya has a central place in Shi'a Islam and has been apparently backed by their mainstream scholars for their own reasons and conditions), I find a similar "Sunni Islam" title to be entirely misleading and questionable as Taqiyya doesn't hold the same place in Sunni jurisprudence as it does in Shi'a (in fact, all works listed under the further reading section are on Shi'a Islam and its branches). Moreover, it doesn't appear that Al-Wahrani's views represented his Maliki fiqh school, let alone Sunni Islam.

In short, this "jump" from Al-Wahrani to Sunni Islam is most likely an WP:OR (or WP:SYNTH to be specific) by Davidelah and I think the section needs a better title. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that if there is not mentioned anything about "Sunni" in the title, one would assume it's about Shia Islam again since Sunni Islam has its own section below (btw see discussion about this above "Two Sunni sections ?!"). I think though you make a point about idealism and practical examples, so how about "Sunni Muslims" in "16th-century Spain" instead? Davidelah (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Should not be a problem, since it is stated explicitly that the person who issued the fatwa is Maliki, and this is repeated when mentioning that this person went against the views of earlier Maliki scholars, so "Maliki" is explicitly stated twice. Right now, we have gone a step backwards in having two separate "Sunni" sections, one directly after the other. It just does not look good. Unflavoured (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the old structure was more appropriate since the historical example (in this case 16th-century Spain) was properly contextualized by presenting the mainstream views first (and for the reasons you and Davidelah pointed out earlier). So do we agree on restoring the section "Sixteenth century Spain" under "Sunni point of view" ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Restoring it to the earlier structure is fine by me. As long as it is "readable," meaning the structure is logical and flows properly from section to section. Unflavoured (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Unflavoured, regarding the sub-section's clear content. Titling it with Sunni-Islam is misleading, as it's not Sunni Islam in the 19th century, but an incident of a particular group of Sunnis in Spain.
Regarding its location, we can't put that under Sunni POV alone, according to WP:DUE. We'll need to bring tons of opposite incidents to balance it. Shia Islam is covered in the "Lead" and "Origin", while Sunni Islam is covered in its own section. Therefore, whatever is left are all historical examples, and should stay that way, IMO. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, we could just mention examples of Sunni Muslims being under the same conditions of Shia Muslims, maybe a region with a Sunni population that was under non-Sunni or non-Muslim rule for a long period of time, and where they were persecuted for their faith. So if you could find examples like Spain that would be great, but I don't think there are that many. Also, I wouldn't agree that the "Lead" and "Origin" is exclusively explaining Shia Islam, at least that's not what the sources says. I said I don't prefer where the example of 16th century Spain should be, although it maybe look better in the Sunni POV section. Davidelah (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting it under Sunni POV is inferring that it's a Sunni POV, which is just one incidence. Can you give me a reason why would you keep "Historical examples" for Shias only? It's simple, a historical example stays in a "historical example" section. Will that be hard for readers to realize? Especially if we phrase the intro like the other examples (starting with the group's faith). I'll try to work on it, if no-one did before the weekend. Thanks... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I added another example for Sunni Muslims. The source is reliable and directly refers to Sunni Muslims when it is talking about this incident. Now, the title must be a general title (Sunni Muslims)--Penom (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being rude, but you should never add additional content in-the-middle-of cited material, as that makes editors assume it's in the source. If you read the book you cited, you'll realize that the author (Virani) is a Shias apologist with a tone of attack on Sunni's refusal to identify tagiyya. Also, the author only claimed a "maybe" sourcing (Shia Imami Ismailia Association for Tanzania), so when were they a reliable source on Sunni's practices/history?

Btw, that's still considered "idtirar" not "taqiyya", as idtirar here is being forced to say something one-time in front of a killer (you know the story, if you read the book). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Virani is a PhD from Harvard university and a distinguished professor in Toronto University. His book is published by Oxford University. I can say that his book if not the most, is one of the most reliable sources among existing sources in this article.

We use his credibility when he makes a claim, and use his sources' credibility when he sources someone else. In this case, he's sourcing a political movement! Anyways, I just kept the link and removed your insertions. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Not sure about Dr. Virani background but whatever he is, I am sorry to see some editors here have so much prejudice about people with different religionsPenom (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what that supposed to mean, nor whom it's aiming toward... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Fath al-Bari quote

One bracket of the reference in the quote is out of place. I do not know how to fix this. Help please. Unflavoured (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Check it. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, smart. It did not occur to me that the ref can be put there. Thanks !! Unflavoured (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• The editor is still picking bits and pieces from the source, so I'll try to finish what the source really meant (trying not to make it too long). Please reword if you guys see necessary... Feel free to also remove whatever is not needed. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is very unclear. For example, this sentence: "In the Sunni view, an individual is not justified in taqiyya, nor bound emigration, in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death" is completely impossible to follow. I am not going to revert you, but may I suggest you self-revert for the moment and try to re-word what you are saying here on the talk page first ?! Thanks. Unflavoured (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to make it more modern. Btw, I actually saved this text from the Encyclopedia before your additions, so I'm not sure if it's still needed now.

• The story here says that he was one of the prophet's disciples, fearing that what he's doing is unacceptable. Do you think this is needed? "The reason behind this verse was Ammar Yasir's worry of being forced to worship idols and objurgate the Prophet."
• In certain circumstances, a Muslim have to migrate if he's threaten by death when practicing his faith openly, "since God's earth is wide".

• "In the Sunni view, an individual is not justified to practice taqiyya during incidents that don't cause death, like getting beaten or temporarily imprisoned. However, if death risks are involved, a steady martyrdom is considered a noble thing." ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this:

In the Sunni view, denying your faith under duress is "only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory". Al-Tabari comments on sura XVI, verse 108 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323, xxiv, 122): "If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, in order to escape his enemies, no blame falls on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe." This verse was revealed after Ammar Yasir was forced by the idolaters of Mecca to recant his faith and denounce the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. Al-Tabari explains that concealing one's faith is only justified if the person is in mortal danger, and even then martyrdom is considered a noble alternative. If threatened, it would be preferable for a Muslim to migrate to a more peaceful place where a person may practice their faith openly, "since God's earth is wide." Some Sunni sources put emphasis on the fact that a person who prefers to proclaim their faith in the face of death will ... etc etc

Perhaps this was what you wanted to say ?! I tried to condense it and make it more readable. Unflavoured (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks beautiful, thanks. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 22:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well! With deleting some key sentences and changing sequence of issues that are addressed in original sources, the current wording does not say what Prof. Virani and Encyclopedia of Islam really meant. I am going to do some edits to make our article more loyal to its references.--Penom (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that "loyalty" is the correct word here, as this mess was trying to correct the previous picky insertions. Please add your suggestions here first. Thanks ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to extract the essence of source in few sentences and I was going to add more information from Encyclopedia of Islam. But, unfortunately, changes after my edits, changed what the source meant. The same happened to Virani's source. Some key information were deleted to push this view that dissimulation does not exist in Sunni Islam at allPenom (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Some necessary changes

I am going to make some changes as follows:

1. There is no modern example of dissimulation in the article. I think I can find some examples related to Khomeini the Shia' leader of Iran.
2. Sunni View section and the section about dissimulation example should be merged.
3. A section for Kharijit views

Any comment?--Penom (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Seems good. Such an addition is needed.
2. Not all the content there are examples, so how can you merge it?
3. Seems interesting, as there should be many examples there too. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest a "Shia Islam view" and "Sunni Islam view" separation. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed--Penom (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Khomeini

Taqiyya is a particular type of dissimulation for a specific purpose. The source does not provide any evidence that Khomeini was practicing taqiyya. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Even on first sentence of the article is said "Taqiyya (alternate spellings taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah; meaning dissimulation[1])". Taqiyya in English means dissimulation. The source clearly states that khomeini practiced "Dissimulation". I do not see any reason for your revert--Penom (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Dissimulation" is an English definition of a religious practiced called Taqiyya. The source is only explaining political manipulation. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In order to justify the addition, one must make the jump from "a specific word in one language can be translated to a specific word in another language" to "any use of a word in one language imbues it with all the meaning of an equivalent word used to describe a specific religious concept in another language and culture". No source supports such a leap. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not very important thing and I do not spend much time on this edit. However, If you have some studies on 1979 Iranian Revolution you should be familiar with this famous example of dissimulation. If I have chance I will check some sources that are not available in Googlebook. Pretty sure that they call it a Taqyya example. even khomeini himself admitted that he practiced taqqyya before Islamic revoloution and did not reveal all his real intention before becoming the leader of Iran.--Penom (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we'll wait for the sources. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Large part of Sunni section deleted

Perhaps we should discuss condensing the section instead of flat out deleting 2/3 of it ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not a long Sunni section, the problem is in fact a very short and incomplete section for Shia section. Instead of deleting essential materials from Sunni section we should improve Shia section. Many issues in Shia' section is not addressed --Penom (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, and yet I also agree with the edit summary that was provided: Sunni section should not be bigger than Shiite section. This is a Shiite doctrine after all. Perhaps, while we wait for more details and info to expand the Shiite part, we can condense the Sunni part as a compromise ?! Unflavoured (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam has much larger section on Sunni view in its article. I do not agree to condense it. People who wish a larger section on Shia view, Instead of effort to slaughter the article just take some times and improve the Shia view section.--Penom (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So we are to ignore WP:Undue ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No! Improve the other sections! Sunii section is not Undue. It has a good coverage. On the other hand Shia section is too short. Instead of wasting editors time by this discussion we should improve the article--Penom (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But it is a case on undue weight. Editors have spent time giving examples of incidents where Sunni Muslims were forced to hide their beliefs, and the Sunni section is generally fleshed out and explained. On the other hand, the Shiite section has only one example, and is not as fleshed out, so the reader can easily conclude that taqqiyah is as much a part of Sunni Islam as it is of Shiite Islam, when this is not the case. I hope someone comes and adds more examples to the Shiite section, but who is going to do so ?! Anyway, the same editor who blanked out large parts of the Sunni section has done so a second time. Unflavoured (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I added one famous Shia' Taqiya example. Although the case was very famous Taqiya case the other editors removed it. I am going to add some new materials to Shia' section. Anyways, I am sorry for that user who does not do any constructive edits and just deletes sourced materials and write personal attacks in edit summariesPenom (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Original research and WP:SYNT in Sunni views section

Fath Bari quote does not contain any direct reference to Taqiya and adding it is WP:SYNT and OR. I am going to delete it.--Penom (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Some Sunni sources put emphasis on the fact that a person who prefers to proclaim their faith in the face of death will have a greater reward than they who deny their faith to save their lives. For example, in Fath al-Bari, the Sunni commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari, it is stated that:

أجمعوا على أن من أكره على الكفر واختار القتل أنه أعظم أجرا عند الله ممن اختار الرخصة ، وأما غير الكفر فإن أكره على أكل الخنزير وشرب الخمر مثلا فالفعل أولى

Which translates to:

There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license [to deny one's faith under duress], but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that [instead of choosing death].

Please do not delete it. Consider the following:

1- Sunnis do not practice taqqiya. But if a Sunni is being forced to do something against their will, then Al Bukhari (and the commentary, Fath al Bari) has a full chapter devoted to this, called "Kitab al Ikrah": "The Chapter about being forced." This is where the quote is taken from.

2- Idtirar, which the quote explains, is a related concept in Sunni Islam, which has similarities to Shiite taqiyyah, but it is also different.

3- We already have a sentence: "While one is allowed to consume prohibited or haraam food to protect one's life under the jurisprudence of idtirar, some Sunni sources put emphasis on the fact that a person who prefers to proclaim their faith in the face of death will have a greater reward than they who deny their faith to save their lives." This is exactly what the Fath-al-Bari quote is explaining.

4- I believe that your usage of the term "OR" and "SYNTH" is wrong in this instance. The quote is taken word for word: There is no research or synthesis being done.

5- If we removed everything that has no direct reference to taqiyya, the Sunni section will become empty. But this quote is from "Kitab al Ikrah," which is about being forced to deny your faith or do something that is against your beliefs. It is very relevant.

And please do not liberally add "citation needed" when the citation is provided, or add "original research" when none has taken place. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. The chapter is being about being forced? Right? But, the quote has no direcet reference to "Idtirar" or "Taqyya". right? Remember from OR policy:" if you use [a source] ... to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research"

Please remove it or replace it with a source that both directly refers to Idtirar or Taqyya--Penom (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you must have missed the part where the quote says: "...whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license [to deny one's faith under duress]..." and there is also another part of the quote that says: "...if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that..." These are both very explicit examples of "being forced." The chapter this quote is from is called: "The Chapter about being forced." There is a sentence in the article, and this quote is used as an example to back up that sentence. That sentence is: "While one is allowed to consume prohibited or haraam food to protect one's life under the jurisprudence of idtirar, some Sunni sources put emphasis on the fact that a person who prefers to proclaim their faith in the face of death will have a greater reward than they who deny their faith to save their lives." Thus, the quote pretty much backs up the sentence in the article word for word, supporting it fully, completely and explicitly.

At this point, I believe I have pretty much copied the whole paragraph for you. Again, I would like to ask you not to liberally label things with "original research" when no original research has taken place. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Taqiyya limited to Shia ONLY

I added researched and source cited information that was deleted by someone in minutes.

This is what I added:

Copy/pasted copyright violation redacted. As mentioned below, content can be found at http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war Fat&Happy (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This MEF (Middle Eastern Forum) is an Islamaphobic, venomous site, completely opposed to Islam. That is the source of the above info. They would not tell the truth about Islam if they were PAID to do so!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeucePrez (talk • contribs) 19:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.40.254 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Other than the above being a particularly stilted view on Taqiyya, it is copy pasted from http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war. This is a copyright violation. Stile4aly (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The information contained in that book is in contravention of the Wikipedia approved point of view in this article, and as such, is prohibited. Please do not post information which contradicts the dominant point of view. 11:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.230.12.199 (talk)

There is no "Wikipedia approved point of view", and as this is a verifiable definition of the word, it needs to be added to the article to ensure WP:NPOV. I agreed with the removal of a wholesale quotation from another website, but I'm adding the neutrality tag until this can be dealt with. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy has been debunked here http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/taqiyya-the-ultimate-intellectual-cop-out/ and here http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/the_taqiyya_libel_against_muslims/ Patel.masoodkhan (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not seeing this comment before.

http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/15/silencing-spencer-taqiyya-and-kitman-are-part-of-judeo-christian-belief/ is much better than the first of your cites, since it addresses the war/jihad exception and discusses various Islamic doctrines against (e.g.) betraying oaths of citizenship or visa status. Regardless, the article as it stands remains misinformed about Sunni exceptions to truth-telling and omits a voluble controversy it would be better to discuss and debunk than gloss over.

Readded tag. -LlywelynII 11:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Spencer is not reliable. Do you have any other reliable sources for the above claims ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would add that Raymond Ibrahim's article was criticized on Jane's List. What's particularly odd about this is that Daniel Pipes has in the past publicly stated that he doesn't subscribe the the "taqiyya meme" and agrees that it is only a Shia practice. See his comment here. There are several other instances where I've seen him make similar statements in the past, which at one point were posted in this article, but are now buried in the archived. Perhaps he's since modified his views? At the same time, I think the article has avoids the topic of current discourse altogether perhaps a little too much. Sheila Musaji's article is an effective rebuttal.Jemiljan (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately Musaji's article is not reliable because it is unscholarly and has no editorial staff of any significance, whereas the MEQ is scholarly and has an editorial staff who are specialised in this field, and thus cannot be discarded as unreliable. Davidelah (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

So? The criticism of Ibrahim's article by Jane's List would still apply, as he has simply found a more sympathetic forum to recycle the same argument as before, "scholarly" or not. The MEQ is comprised of a staff clearly made of little more than Daniel Pipes and a few of his buddies, which in my view makes it no more scholarly than Sheila Musaji and her buddies, only that Sheila isn't given over to making a pretense of "peer-review" the way that Pipes does. See [[2]]. It's a bit like claiming that The American Enterprise Institute is a scholarly, objective, reliable source on the history of the Democratic Party!Jemiljan (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Taqiya in debates

I deleted an entire section about Muslims "accused of using Taqiya in debates". The section was unclear.

If we are referring to political leaders lying merely to gain advantage - as in propaganda statements and PR campaigns - then the term surely does not apply. The accusation would simply be that they were lying.

On the other hand, if such a leader were caught lying (or simply accused of it), and he himself invoked the principle of taqiya, that ought to go in the article.

The general subject of whether politicians ever (gasp, choke) lie when making public statements is beyond the scope of this article. But in the US at least - with its relatively high degree of accountability, politicians are right down there with lawyers and used care salesmen in terms of generally reliability and honesty. Perhaps in other places where standards of accountability are lower, things are worse. But that would have to be documented; I don't add speculation to articles: I take it out. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So you think that the section should be removed because the term "taqiyya" clearly does not apply in the situations in which Western pundits have used it? That's basically the counterargument made by some of the pundits cited in this section, but it's not Wikipedia's job to decide which side in a political argument is right, let alone to ignore an issue entirely because we've decided that one side is obviously wrong. The accusations you're dismissing deserve to be mentioned in Wikipedia because they've been made and responded to by high-profile political commentators. This isn't an argument made solely by a lunatic fringe that can be ignored. The article's "scope" should be defined by the contexts in which taqiyya is used and discussed in the real world. These political arguments are probably the context in which "taqiyya" is most familiar to Western readers; a lot more could probably be written about it than this short section.Prezbo (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

just because non-Muslim politicians lie without taqiyya does not change the significance of Muslim politicians or activists lying as part of taqiyya practice. If an atheist goes postal he is called a spree killer but if a Muslim goes postal he is usually called Islamic militant and he himself would be probably call himself a warrior of jihad not a nut gone postal. So the specific type of political lie that is referred to as taqiyya is indeed culturally significant. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The second type of Taqiyya

There is second type of taqiyya which is not mentioned in the article. According Etan Cohlberg: There is a second type of Taqiyya which shall be called "dissimulation" which is use of word or actions tending to mislead one's opponents.

I was going to mention this type of Taqiyya but my edit was reverted. Adamrce previously asked me to provide a source that called this type of dissimulation "Taqiyya" and I did. Etan is wellknown orientalist and his view is valid. What now? --Penom (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My summary gave a broken link, but please study WP:SYNTH. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I know about WP:SYNT. The source clearly called its example dissimulation. After all here is English wikipedia. Do not expect that all English sources use Arabic word "Taqiyya". Right? The problem is that you are not familiar enough with the topic. Concealing idea to misliead the Islam enemies is another form of Taqiyya and must be mentioned with some example--Penom (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No such "second type of taqiyya" exists. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is "Taqiyya"

It does not give a discussion on its full meaning and completely glosses over some very pertinent information. Looking through past comments, it looks as if users discredit any and every source that would present a view different from their own. Therefore, it is clear that this is not a balanced article, but one very careful crafted to paint the practice in a positive light. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Specific, reliably sourced examples of widely accepted, scholarly views on the religious practice known as taqiyya that have been overlooked or eliminated? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that the article was lacking even a reference to the fact that there are strong opinions suggesting abuse of Al-taqqiya, so I added a 'criticisms' heading, as without even a reference to the fact of criticism, the article was looking seriously imbalanced. I recognize that some of the links that I posted are blog / blog-type, although as 'representative' of peoples' opinions they are in the top google results for a search for 'Al taqiyya' 108.225.150.169 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What is it you think is being "glossed over"? Do you perhaps refer to the conspiracy theory popular among some evangelical Christians that taqiyya means Muslims are allowed or even encouraged to lie at all times so long as it's "in the service of Islam"? 75.76.213.161 (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sunni's and Taqiyya

As many people below clearly showed that there is no such thing in Islam as Taqiyya. I wonder why the main page hasn't been updated? I object on this section "Some Sunni scholars chose to affirm Mamun's view that the Qur'an was created, in spite of their beliefs[5] though a notable exception" Reference #5 is not even a reference here. Are you just trying to shove done references to prove a false point? The reference author is discussed "Ismailis" which are not consider Sunni to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asd1815 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Generally, it's considered helpful to review the content of a source, not just the title, before denouncing it as irrelevant. Reading the page cited by reference 5 clearly shows specific mention of Sunni practices. 2600:1006:B11D:C285:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

To the unsigned comment above from Florida. The author of reference [5] is a known figure in Iran/Shia sect(sub-sect). The reference used is 300 pages long and it is not considered a reference for this subject at all. It contains the author's point of view of some historical events in which he had to explain his views on Taqiyya. Your assumption that I didn't read the source doesn't mean anything.

See Taqiyya and Sunnis http://islamqa.info/en/178975 --Asd1815 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"contemporary" section

The article was categorised as "Islam-related controversy", and the external link section had stuff on "taqiyya libel" etc., while the article content merely gave an account of the history of the concept in Islamic sectarianism. But it is true that the term is most frequently encountered today in the context of political Islam, especially in western countries where "dissimulation" would be aimed at the non-Muslim host society.

I tried to address this by introducing a new section, into which I have incorporated the articles formerly under "external links", naturally from both camps, i.e. Muslim apologists vs. critics of Islam. It turns out that this "new" aspect of taqiyya seems to have arisen from the 2004 book by Mukaram. It also appears to me that the debate is mostly fruitless because it focusses on the semantics of "taqiyya": apologists are right that in Sunni Islam at least, "taqiyya" is only permissible when threatened by death or extreme duress. This is because the Sunnis were the political authority against whom the Shi'a practice of "taqiyya" would be directed, so their interest was to minimize its permissibility. But this is just the word taqiyya. It turns out that the (Sunni) Hanafi school of jurisprudence has a well-developed science of deception, with an entire arsenal of practices, which is directly compared in aim and subtlety to taqiyya in the 1906 article I linked. The only thing is that the term "taqiyya" would not be used by Sunni Muslims, they would just use hijal. So it seems to me that a lot of this "controversy" is due to people objecting to Mukaram's perhaps unfortunate choice of "taqiyya" as a term for this entire topic. It is fair enough to complain about the term as a poor choice, but needless to say "we don't like your word" doesn't amount to a full refutation of Murakam's book, or the people who adopted his term. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There are several issues with your sections. I agree that this term is abused by western media, mainly, showing that Muslims have a hidden agenda, etc. To summarize your text as a reader, I would say your new section is simply Raymond Ibrahim opinion.

You are trying to convince the reader again that the Sunnis were the political authority (see the section above -- Virani, Shafique N. (2009)) therefore, they didn't need taqiyaa. But Shi'a practiced because they needed it. This is not a scientific statement. In order for something to be permissible or allowed (e.g. practiced), there has to be a source for it. i.e. It is either found in Quran or Hadith. There is no source for Taqiyya according to Sunnis that is why it is not used.

hiyal is derived from hilah and in Arabic it means "الحذق" http://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-en/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B0%D9%82/ Modern usage means deceive. Deception is not allowed in Islam (see previous section on Taqiyya on when a Muslim is allowed to lie or to deceive or to hide the truth). You can translate Prof. Muhammad Faqih book on Hiyal http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&prev=search&sl=ar&u=http://islamport.com/w/fqh/Web/1887/1.htm This answers pretty much any misconception you have.

Tawriya means to hide something. Check this out http://islamqa.info/en/27261

Muruna I don't know where you got this from can you give me a source? Muruna in Arabic means flexibility.

Kitman is from the verb katama which means to conceal. This has nothing to do with deception. It does NOT mean if somebody or a court asked you who is the killer you say "I don't know" when you in fact know. Kitman just means that you shouldn't reveal extra information relarted or unrelated to the subject when asked. For example, an overweight wife asks her husband if she looks beautiful. He replies: you look beautiful to me. He stated that she is overall beautiful (face, heart, voice, etc) even though he might not like a single aspect like her weight. He didn't want to hurt her feeling saying that everything is beautiful in her EXCEPT her weight. This is Kitman.

Finally, to end all of these debates read this article. Islam and Cheating http://islamqa.info/en/22845 Asd1815 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Lebanese scholar Sami Makarem published the monograph Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam ("Dissimulation in Islam"), arguing that the concept should be considered "mainstream" and ubiquitous in modern Islamic politics"

Sami Makarem is Durzi which is a sub-Ismali sect and that is a sub-Shia sect. It is not acceptable to reference a minority (whose views are against sunnis anyways) talking about mainstream Islam. If you have a reference quoting a known Muslim scholar then I would agree with you. Otherwise, the text you added is just a collection of text that agrees to what you are trying to convey. Asd1815 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"On the other hand, the practice of deceiving another party by reservatio mentalis and misleading statements when taking an oath, while not known as taqiyya but rather as ḥiyal"

This statement is not true. According to your logic, Islamic courts wouldn't exist because everyone will be practicing hiyal deception. However, it is a known fact that Islamic courts exist nowadays and people under oak say the truth regardless of the matter included Muslims or non-Muslims.

"Specific concepts of hijal include muruna (deception by feigned moderation), tawriya (deception by ambiguity) and kitman (deception by omission), which critics of political Islam suggest have been "revived" from the historical literature on Islamic jurisprudence for the application by Muslim immigrants in western countries to deceive their host societies about their aims.[41]"

This statement is beyond this article. However, I did reply to your statement above explaining the difference between each term you used.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Well, when given the choice to consult academic references and an anonymous guy "explaining" terms on a talkpage, I'll take the reference, but thanks.

First, I am not an anonymous guy. Second, I didn't "explain" like you claim! I provided you with reference(s) to a legitimate websites and books. I can provide more links but that is beyond the point. Asd1815 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this kind of argument,

"This statement is not true. According to your logic, Islamic courts wouldn't exist because everyone will be practicing hiyal deception."

I just finished compiling a writeup on hiyal, based on actual sources. This isn't "my logic", I am just being led by what I find in expert literature.

Unforetuantely, I don't think you are looking at "expert literature" at all. A person claiming that "Raymond Ibrahim" is an experts in Islamic Fiqh is obviously joking. Asd1815 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "Islamic courts wouldn't exist"? There is a centuries-old tradition of arguing about hiyal, beginning in the 9th century, and seamlessly stretching to the 1970s, and I did cite authorities arguing for and against it, based on academic sources discussing the topic (as oppose to cherry-picking what I would like to be true), so if you want to argue against "my logic" or "my statement", I guess you will be welcome to cite sources that I missed, in context, and build an argument from that instead of "explaining" stuff to me from a position of "authority" you seem to assume you have.

Obviously you lack proper scientific dialog. First, you call me anonymous. Second, you assume that I am cherry picking. Third, you accuse me of assuming authority. Stick to the point and reply to my arguments which are very clear. Asd1815 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that in the "contemporary debate", people have started to research this rich tradition of "legalistic trickery" in Islamic jurisprudence and write popular articles about it is hardly "beyond this article". I don't even have an opinion on which side is being more disingenious than the other, I am happy to just point people to claims and counter-claims. You will note that I did bother to do a comparatively deep literature search on the topic (the expert on the topic being Joseph Schacht), while your entire "argument" is propped up by a couple of weblinks to sites such as "islamqa.info". As long as its classics of Islamic studies vs. random weblinks, this isn't even a "discussion" in the sense of Wikipedia process. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This page is about Taqiyya not a list of legalistic trickery in islamic jurisprudence. According to your text Taqiyya is considered one of those trickeries, therefore, other trickeries like Hiyal should be discussed in their corresponding pages.

Obviously you have articulated your opinion in the text. A naive person won't notice but a person who knows a little about this subject can clearly see that you referenced a person who is not from mainstream Islam claiming that taqiyya is indeed part of mainstream Islam.

I didn't provide random weblinks. IslamQA is a legitimate website run by a known Islamic scholar. The other website islamport.com is the largest arabic e-library. I referenced a book on Hiyal written by a Professor at King Abdulaziz University Here the original link http://www.kau.edu.sa/Show_Res.aspx?Site_ID=372&Lng=EN&RN=819.

Finally, I don't see where you referenced Joseph Schacht? Even if you reference him, there were many Islamic Scholars who dismissed Joseph Schacht writings because he neglicted Hadith. Asd1815 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

History, Uses and Abuses of Taqiya

The beginnings of Taqiyya are seen in the Bible where Abraham is denying that Sarah (Sarai) was his wife to Pharaoh for fear of being killed. He suspected that the king was attracted to his wife and as a result of his statement the king actually takes Sarah to his harem. Once again in the Bible, we see Abraham denies the same to King Abimelech that Sarah was his wife as he feared being killed by the King and princes who were attracted to his wife. Both times he says that Sarah was his sister. Once again, we see that as a result of his statement, king Abilelech takes Sarah to his harem and from reports, keeps her there for a significant period of time, as his wife. Many say that Abraham was truthful because Sarah (Sarai) was his half sister, from the same father but from a different mother. (Genesis 20:2). Then Bible tells us that Isaac, Abraham’s son tells Abimelech that Rebekah was his sister and not his wife for fear of being killed. King and princes were desirous of Rebekah. Here we see patriarchs of monotheistic religions committing Taqiyya. For fear of life and for fear of their loved ones they hide facts from potential persecutors. (Genesis 26:7)

 -- The above is not condoned in the bible. Reported as history is not the same as condoned! God was very angry at Abraham for doing this! 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)119.13.236.29 (talk) 

One does not see any evidence or events reflecting Taqiyya in Jesus's life and narratives about him. And one does not see any Taqiyya in the life of Muhammad. No narratives of Taqiyya are present for either Jesus or Muhammad. (Quran 22:52)

In reality Taqiyya is a modern polemic against Muslims by well organised Islamophobic think tanks and organisations that serve anti-Muslim interests. To demonise Muslims in this regard allows them to dehumanise Muslims. (The undeniable overlap: right-wing Zionism and Islamophobia. H Aked. 29 September 2015). In reality, Taqiyya is a concept unknown in Islamic world. It is never practiced as no Muslim calls himself a non-Muslim in any Muslim country or for that matter even in a non-Muslims country. And if one accepts, albeit for argument sake only it's existence, then it is in theory for allowing someone to say that he's not a Shia when his life, family or property are at risk from persecutors of the Shia. It does not referred to in any Sunni Muslim doctrine or thought; and it may only be applicable when Shia Muslims are threatened with their lives or the lives of their family or destruction of their homes. Nowadays, it is used as an Islamophobic, anti-Muslim tool by the likes of anti-Muslim propagandist cliques like Horowitz, Pipes and Spencer et al, who have extended it in an hasbara like fashion to suggest that it means Muslims can or must lie in Christian communities (Anti-Muslim bigotry is being funded by the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd. E. Bulkin, D. Nevel on October 12, 2012). If that's the case and Muslims are threatened with their lives and lives of their families and they say that they are not Muslims then one may accept it's presence or validity. The fact is that nowhere has a single Muslim, under coercion in a Christian community, denied being a Muslim, to save his life! To suggest that it means a Muslim lies as part of a religious doctrine freely is anti-Muslim hate speech. It is a patently and purely hate preaching. It is primal Islamophobic hate. It is like saying that because Bible was used by South African apartheid whites to kill, maim and enslave blacks Bible is the manual of slavery and murder of blacks by white Christians. But, in reality, the Taqiyya talk says much more than that: it suggests that because a small group in Christianity committed holocaust against Jews in Europe, it is incumbent upon all Christians to be mass murderers or at least every Christian who claims to be Christian must be suspected of having genocidal urges. In Islamic populations across the world, the concept of Taqiyya is as elusive as the golden winged dragon sitting on a flying carpet eating hummus!

Druze and Muslim hating Christian and Islamophobic Jewish authors have written wildly about this, almost invisible, topic in Muslim life. Even if it is countenanced as a valid concept, it's source appears hundreds of years after the advent of Islam. Their aim of those who talk of Taqiyya is to create suspicion against and hate towards Muslims and Islam. To give credence to authors who are funded and published by Muslim-hating publishing houses and extremist Christian and rabidly Zionist financed groups, is to accept hate and spread hate. This concept is to promote hate that's contrived and deliberate. (Sami Makarem. Al Taqiya fil Islam; Raymond Ibrahim, Islam Translated, David Horowitz Freedom Centre)

Taqiyya, if it is a valid ecclesiastical thought in Shia doctrine, is directly brought in from the Christian Bible: from Peter 's Denial. Peter’s Denial is narrated in Mark, Mathew and Luke. Jesus predicted that before the sound of the crow next morning Peter would deny Jesus three times. Peter protests and says he'd rather die than disown Jesus. But when the time comes Peter, in fear of his life and frightened of persecution disowns Jesus three times at three different occasions. This is the example of Taqiyya, at the advent of Christianity, by the father of modern Christianity. The religious source is from Christianity and from the first seat of Catholic Church or actually in the advent of Christianity itself (John 18:15; Mark 14:69; Luke 22:54, The Holy Bible) Use only reliable sources, and in context. Random internet links can be quite dangerous, in terms of misuse of information. --92slim (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

86.187.65.228 (talk), please provide cited references when adding content. Original research (WP:OR) is not allowed per wikipedia standards. Your points are acknowledged but without proper scholarly source, it is your personal opinion... and this is an encyclopedia. Otherwise, your edits can be construed as vandalism and will be deleted, possibly escalating to moderation notification. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

the problem with the author of this main article is that this author seems to be so biased that he does not have the common sense of quoting other sources or critiquing the polemical use of this islamophobic concept, now used in mainstream muslim hating narrative driven by Hororowitz et al. the author keeps on deleting and undoing a balanced approach to Taqiya in his attempt to maintain an islamophobic and muslim hating stance.

The beginnings of Taqiyya are seen in the Bible where Abraham is denying that Sarah (Sarai) was his wife to Pharaoh for fear of being killed. He suspected that the king was attracted to his wife and as a result of his statement the king actually takes Sarah to his harem. Once again in the Bible, we see Abraham denies the same to King Abimelech that Sarah was his wife as he feared being killed by the King and princes who were attracted to his wife. Both times he says that Sarah was his sister. Once again, we see that as a result of his statement, king Abilelech takes Sarah to his harem and from reports, keeps her there for a significant period of time, as his wife. Many say that Abraham was truthful because Sarah (Sarai) was his half sister, from the same father but from a different mother. (Genesis 20:2). Then Bible tells us that Isaac, Abraham’s son tells Abimelech that Rebekah was his sister and not his wife for fear of being killed. King and princes were desirous of Rebekah. Here we see patriarchs of monotheistic religions committing Taqiyya. For fear of life and for fear of their loved ones they hide facts from potential persecutors. (Genesis 26:7)

One does not see any evidence or events reflecting Taqiyya in Jesus's life and narratives about him. And one does not see any Taqiyya in the life of Muhammad. No narratives of Taqiyya are present for either Jesus or Muhammad. (Quran 22:52)

In reality Taqiyya is a modern polemic against Muslims by well organised Islamophobic think tanks and organisations that serve anti-Muslim interests. To demonise Muslims in this regard allows them to dehumanise Muslims. (The undeniable overlap: right-wing Zionism and Islamophobia. H Aked. 29 September 2015). In reality, Taqiyya is a concept unknown in Islamic world. It is never practiced as no Muslim calls himself a non-Muslim in any Muslim country or for that matter even in a non-Muslims country. And if one accepts, albeit for argument sake only it's existence, then it is in theory for allowing someone to say that he's not a Shia when his life, family or property are at risk from persecutors of the Shia. It does not referred to in any Sunni Muslim doctrine or thought; and it may only be applicable when Shia Muslims are threatened with their lives or the lives of their family or destruction of their homes. Nowadays, it is used as an Islamophobic, anti-Muslim tool by the likes of anti-Muslim propagandist cliques like Horowitz, Pipes and Spencer et al, who have extended it in an hasbara like fashion to suggest that it means Muslims can or must lie in Christian communities (Anti-Muslim bigotry is being funded by the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd. E. Bulkin, D. Nevel on October 12, 2012). If that's the case and Muslims are threatened with their lives and lives of their families and they say that they are not Muslims then one may accept it's presence or validity. The fact is that nowhere has a single Muslim, under coercion in a Christian community, denied being a Muslim, to save his life! To suggest that it means a Muslim lies as part of a religious doctrine freely is anti-Muslim hate speech. It is a patently and purely hate preaching. It is primal Islamophobic hate. It is like saying that because Bible was used by South African apartheid whites to kill, maim and enslave blacks Bible is the manual of slavery and murder of blacks by white Christians. But, in reality, the Taqiyya talk says much more than that: it suggests that because a small group in Christianity committed holocaust against Jews in Europe, it is incumbent upon all Christians to be mass murderers or at least every Christian who claims to be Christian must be suspected of having genocidal urges. In Islamic populations across the world, the concept of Taqiyya is as elusive as the golden winged dragon sitting on a flying carpet eating hummus!

Druze and Muslim hating Christian and Islamophobic Jewish authors have written wildly about this, almost invisible, topic in Muslim life. Even if it is countenanced as a valid concept, it's source appears hundreds of years after the advent of Islam. Their aim of those who talk of Taqiyya is to create suspicion against and hate towards Muslims and Islam. To give credence to authors who are funded and published by Muslim-hating publishing houses and extremist Christian and rabidly Zionist financed groups, is to accept hate and spread hate. This concept is to promote hate that's contrived and deliberate. (Sami Makarem. Al Taqiya fil Islam; Raymond Ibrahim, Islam Translated, David Horowitz Freedom Centre)

Taqiyya, if it is a valid ecclesiastical thought in Shia doctrine, is directly brought in from the Christian Bible: from Peter 's Denial. Peter’s Denial is narrated in Mark, Mathew and Luke. Jesus predicted that before the sound of the crow next morning Peter would deny Jesus three times. Peter protests and says he'd rather die than disown Jesus. But when the time comes Peter, in fear of his life and frightened of persecution disowns Jesus three times at three different occasions. This is the example of Taqiyya, at the advent of Christianity, by the father of modern Christianity. The religious source is from Christianity and from the first seat of Catholic Church or actually in the advent of Christianity itself (John 18:15; Mark 14:69; Luke 22:54, The Holy Bible)

31.123.88.153 (talk), it is great you desire to expand the article. Please provide the scholarship regarding such inferences regarding Abraham and Peter, and they will stand the scrutiny between POV / original research vs cited scholarship and established allowance to lie in the old and new testaments. If you find cited references ( scholarship ) that speaks to Abraham lying and his lying supported by scholarship describing Jewish doctrine, please add that content. Same for Peter's denial and how that was somehow taught ( according to scholarship describing Christian doctrine ) as part of the Christian doctrine, and it shall stand. I understand and agree with your point that Abraham and Peter lied to save themselves, but please provide the scholarly citations which show lying to be part of the doctrine ( teachings ) of Jewish or Christian theology. Using the bible as references is using primary sources. I don't make these rules. All the talk about Zionism and such isn't much of an argument to break the Wikipedia rules or guidelines. You could also reference, to balance the article as you've mentioned it needs, scholarship denying Taqiyya exists or is taught as Muslim theology / doctrine. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your almost sir Humphrey like quotations in bureaucracy to make a valid refutation of your article almost impossible. Bible and Torah are clear in stating that Abraham and Issac committed Taqiya to save their lives and in that process allowed their wives to be admitted to other people's beds and harems. In the presence of main religious texts where patriarchs of religion are committing Taqiya, you are suggesting that unless it is supported by other followers of these prophets, it cannot be mentioned? That is almost laughable. why do i need to add other scholars' comments when prophets themselves and holy books, the sources of judaism and Christianity are making these statements! it is almost comical for you to even suggest that. Primary sources are excluded from wikipedia especially when we are talking of religious topics? you wish to exclude Moses and Issac from discussion about religion? in regards zionist funding, is that not a valid aspect that Taqiyia is being used ad nauseum as anti muslim hate project, more recently in the mainstream politics of the USA? do not add to your precious article if you wish it to be the what it is, your article, but please be aware that this is a biased, unbalanced, dangerous and dare i say a dishonest article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.123.88.153 (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

the main article is academically biased, intellectually bordering on dishonest and attributes anti muslim and anti shia sentiments without evidence onto the mass of muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.123.88.153 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

31.123.88.153 (talk), hmm, Sir Humphrey you labeled my appeal for you to follow wiki guidelines. Ok. Again, I did not write them and agree with you regarding citing the texts as they stand, but it isn't my call. I don't think it wise to pursue a debate as to certain characters in the bible allowing their wives to sleep with other men, but I'm curious to read the chapter and verse you are referring to. As to bible characters using Taqiyya; was the notion even in existence ( the term as seen through the purview of Islamic theology )? To call the faithless sin of lying "Taqiyya" is looking at ancient history through the lens of one's narrow, biased and centric perspective, right? Like saying the term "cool" was in vogue prior to that term ever meaning something is nice, hip and awesome, when "cool" was always in reference to temperature and climate. As to the issue at hand, aren't there citations from the Hadiths regarding Taqiyya and other Islamic and religious scholars available which elaborate and clarify this topic? Isn't this your effort? To clarify and correct what you perceive to be an injustice? I had personally edited the article prior to it being mentioned in the news recently. What is great about Wikipedia is that the history of edits is available. How about checking out the history before making accusations? How about performing an honest effort in providing the required qualifying resources to enlarge your argument? - HafizHanif (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

first of all, all statements are referenced. you should read the references in the Bible, The Torah and other articles mentioned, by established authors. so the repetition that i should reference my statements must stop as it is becoming a oft repeated fib. my statements are referenced. my opinions are logical conclusions that are intuitive or natural deductions from the quotes. it is like 1+1=2. secondly, i am doing exactly as you have set out in your 'article' on taqiya: expanding it and finding its source. if you wish to stop at a few hundred years after the advent of islam in terms of finding its practice, then thats your narrow and dare i say, inclinational, choice. As far as i am concerned, i am saying: to lie to save your life, as defined by your oft and ad nauseum quoted authors in the 'article' you wrote, is as far old and beyond Islam, Christianity and possibly judaism. in judaism it is called Moses' denial, in Christianity it is called Peter's denial and in shiaism it is called taqiya. you have mentioned 'to lie' in your references about Islam and Muslims, in particular. and so it should not be surprising for you to see me describe lies that are religiously told in Judaism and in Christianity, and the practice of lies to save one's life and the concept of doing it are the same. your analogy is not valid and mine it, if you read and compare. accusations are made on evidence available and the evidence available in your 'article' is attracting accusations of imbalance, bias and lack of awareness, and from your refusal to accept my or any other additions, a core inclination that warrants further examination. It is a tragedy that your 'article' has been quoted or appeared in press without any of our comments to bring balance to the muslim/islam depricatory tone and tenor of the piece. i think i am done with you and with this 'article'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.105.200.100 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

31.123.88.153 (talk), please peruse this article to properly cite and reference published materials: WP:USEPRIMARY.

As to evidence that men have lied to save themselves in the bible, is that what this article is about? Is not this article about Taqiyya as it is understood in Islam? As I've already asked: if you find a doctrinal allowing "lying" to save oneself written / cited somewhere regarding Jewish or Christian doctrine, please add it! You pointing to Abraham and Peter "lying" as Taqiyya is incorrect, imprudent and categorically wrong. They lied, and no where is their lie "allowed" or "okay" and later justified in theology or doctrine. If you know different, please cite the source and add it.

It is not "my" article. Looking through the history of this article will reveal what I have added.

You can make this personal, but that is foolish in my opinion. Simply find whichever scholarship material you believe projects the "tone and tenor" which you think is missing and post them! But make sure it is published and referenced material, per wiki guidelines.

Have you noticed the [Etymology and Quranic basis] section is directly quoting the doctrine derived from the Quran. Why don't you expand on that section or consider bringing some of that up to the intro to place what you consider "balanced and proper." This section I point to is already exploring the doctrinal justification of lying / dissimulation to save oneself. Is this not sufficiently defeating your argument?

Peace be with you. - HafizHanif (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)