Chapter 27: Dissimulation And Its Manifestations
Dissimulation, from the Latin dissimulatus - concealed or disguised - is the English word to describe behaviour that is intended to cloak a person's true feelings or thoughts from others. The Arabic for this - taqiyah - is derived from the word waqa - to protect.
It must be noted that those Muslims who vehemently oppose everything that differs from their own understanding of Islam are eager to disparage the Prophet's progeny, Ahl al-Bayt (‘a). They thus wilfully misinterpret this concept in order to accuse the followers of Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) of concealment of the truth and of being dishonest in the expression of their beliefs.
This chapter sets out to clarify the concept, starting with the Islamic law definition of dissimulation, 'Concealing creed or commitment from those likely to cause you great damage.'
To provide a simple example, the various schools of Islamic law - mathahib - have differing views regarding some details of prayer; for example, Shi’ah Muslims, those who follow the Ja’fari mathhab, are required to place their foreheads on the earth during prostration - an action not required by the other mathahib.
In circumstances in which a Shi’ah Muslim joins a Sunni congregation and fears being attacked by 'anti-Shi’ah' Muslims who see him place his forehead on a sun-dried clay tablet, should he/she invite attention by doing so, or seek 'protection' by acting in the same manner as the other members of the congregation?
There are two different aspects of this issue:
-
Permissibility to dissimulate under Islamic law.
-
Whether actions of dissimulation are valid, or need to be compensated for.
Permissibility To Dissimulate
From The Qur’an
"The believers should not take the infidels as their friends, rather than the believers, and whoever does that then nothing of Allah is his, except when you guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah warns you to be cautious of (disobeying) Him; and toward Allah is the destination." (Surah ‘Ali-Imran, 3:28).
“He who disbelieves in Allah after believing in Him; not he who has been compelled, while his heart is still content with the faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief, upon them shall rest wrath from Allah and for them shall be a great chastisement.” (Surah An-Nahl, 16:106).
The above ayah was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (S) when Makkan infidels tortured ‘Ammar Ibn Yaser in order to force him to utter what they construed to be a recantation of his Islamic belief. History evidences that ‘Ammar's faith was firm and that he did not forsake it.
However, when he went to the Prophet (S) ashamed of what he had been forced to articulate, the Prophet (S) not only consoled and reassured him that his faith had not been sullied, but counselled him to behave in a similar manner should he again find himself in similar circumstances.
Both the above ayat indicate that in times of danger it is permissible to conceal information, or even to deny one's faith. This is not a matter of hypocrisy or playing games with religion, but one of survival and of giving priority to the most important issue over other issues of lesser importance.
From Ahadith
-
Al-Kulayni narrates from Imam al-Sadiq (‘a) that his father used to say, 'Nothing is more pleasing to my eye than taqiyah. Taqiyah is a shield for believers.'
-
Al-Kulayni narrates from Imam al-Sadiq (‘a) that, 'Taqiyah is a shield for believers. Taqiyah is a caution for believers. Those who do not observe taqiyah do not have faith.'
-
Imam al-Sadiq (‘a) said,'Taqiyah constitutes nine-tenths of religion.'
-
Imam al-Sadiq (‘a) said that his father used to say, 'By Allah, there is nothing on earth more pleasing to me than taqiyah. Those who observe taqiyah will be elevated by Allah, and those who reject it will be rejected by Allah.'1
Discussion
From the above ayat and ahadith it is patent to Islamic jurisprudents that, in circumstances in which life may be threatened, shari’ah clearly condones dissimulation. However, Shaykh Murtada al-Ansari drew attention to situations in which dissimulation can be either obligatory or prohibited.
The example he cites for dissimulation being obligatory is self-defence. He points out that common sense dictates that in the defence of life, every means available must be employed - even those that are in normal circumstances considered to be criminal. The example he provides for dissimulation being prohibited is, if you are told you will be killed if you do not kill another. In such a situation shari’ah forbids people from taking action that they hope may save their own lives, for they have no basis or authority upon which to make a judgement on the relative value of lives.
In circumstances in which dissimulation is neither obligatory nor prohibited, the legal ruling that supports permissibility remains in force.
Are Dissimulated Acts Valid?
It is clear that the rulings that concern dissimulation are circumstantial and not absolute. In times when the unjust behaviour of dictatorial rulers leads to the maiming, torture or death of those whom they suspect might disagree with them, dissimulation seems to be the only solution. However, if we compare this to situations in which individuals are able to exercise their religious duties in an arguably freer atmosphere, one may conclude that there is no place for dissimulation.
So, do acts of worship performed with taqiyah have to be compensated for once safety is attained? Or, put in other words, can a normally unacceptable act of worship - undertaken due to threatening circumstances - be a valid replacement of an essential act?
The extraordinary rulings of the Prophet (S) or an error-free Imam (‘a) - instituted to meet specific circumstances - are as binding as normal and more general rulings. In the specific circumstances for which they were decreed, they are as incumbent as general rulings are in normal circumstances.
Thus, those who exercise taqiyah in threatened circumstances are deemed to have fulfilled their obligations and do not need to do anything further.
When, on the last day of Ramadan, the governor of Hirah once asked Imam al-Sadiq's (‘a) opinion about the need to fast on that day he (‘a) responded that it was entirely at the discretion of the leader of the community - 'if he fasts the population fasts, if he does not, they do not'.
The governor promptly ordered food to be served and Imam al-Sadiq (‘a) related that, 'I ate with him in spite of my knowing that it was the last day of Ramadan - for to break one day's fast and make up for it later is better than to be killed and in addition, being guilty of violating a Divine Rule (to observe taqiyah].'2
This hadith indicates the permissibility to exercise taqiyah, but that doing so does not relieve one from making up for a particular day's fast that one is in no doubt is required.
However, when authorities in Hijaz declare that a particular day is the ninth of Dhul Hijjah, it is incumbent on all pilgrims to regard that day as being the true day for the stay in ‘Arafat - even though they might be certain that it is the eighth of Dhul Hijjah. This rule may be supported by a hadith narrated by Abul Jarud who once asked Imam al-Baqir (‘a) about confusion over ‘Id al-Adha and was told, 'One must observe what the majority observe regarding fasting and pilgrimage.' The only objection to this hadith is that Abul Jarud is not considered to be a reliable narrator and that we may not base any deductions upon a weak hadith.
Consideration of the above hadith - in the context of taqiyah - clarifies that it is more important in the eye of 'The Legislator' that the Muslim nation be united in celebration of a single day such as ‘Id al-Adha - than for individuals to adhere to their own calculations.
However, there is a specific issue that can be a matter of debate between jurisprudents, namely for followers of Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) to join the congregational prayer of Ahl al-Sunnah.
In an authentic chain of narrators Shaykh Al-Saduq narrates that Imam al-Sadiq (‘a) said, 'Those who join the congregations of Ahl al-Sunnah are like those who pray behind the Holy Messenger of Allah in the first row.'3
Some jurists understand the above hadith within the context of taqiyah - when people fear that they will face great danger if they exhibit any difference from the majority. However, there are others who understand it to express the essential need for the Muslim nation to display solidarity, harmony and unity and to avoid disputes and rifts.
