No, there is no "taqiyya" doctrine that lets all Muslims lie for the good of the faith

RWs seem to constantly invoke it – "Who cares what the MB in Egypt says they’re going to do?! They really want an Egyptian theocracy and a pan-Islamic Caliphate! You can’t believe anything they saytaqiyya!"

There is such thing as Taqiyya. It is a Shi’a Islamic term for “concealing one’s faith in dangerous circumstances,” which is only common sense if you think about it. Sunni Muslims see things differently:

Practically all Muslims in Egypt and North Africa are Sunni. Needless to say, attributing taqiyya thinking to them is like charging all those Mormon and JW and Baptist missionaries with plotting to bring us all under the rule of the Pope of Rome.

Excellent post.

Thank you.

Here’s what it’s about, I think: Taqiyya is a Shi’ite thing. Muslims are supposed to proclaim their faith and never hide it. But the Shi’ites were the underdogs for much of Islamic history, and sometimes and in some places had to profess their beliefs underground, as it were; taqiyya told them it was all right to do so, if proclaiming Shi’a doctrine publicly would get them in trouble. That is all. Nothing about “Lie to those Sunni dogs so we can undermine them in secret from within!”, which is something like what RWs seem to think it means.

The concept – and the intra-Islamic controversy over it – really should not be all that hard for Westerners to understand. Christianity has faced similar problems in its history – from the start, in fact. It was an illegal, underground religion and Christians could hardly admit it publicly. Some even made the required public sacrifice to Rome or Caesar, just to get the magistrate off their backs. And even after Christianity was legalized, Christians were divided by the Donatist Controversy (If a priest, under state pressure, committed the mortal sins of apostasy and idolatry, were his sacraments still valid? The question was decided in the affirmative – a priest in a state of mortal sin remains a priest and can administer valid communions, absolutions, marriages, etc. Which has a reassuring relevance to contemporary Catholics, on which I will not here comment further.)

Isn’t this Idtirar thing the same as the Jewish precept that if threatened with death or what not it’s okay to pretend to covert, etc? I seem to recall reading something about htis precept in Judiac law (re Jews in Europe).

Is this equivocal?

No, it was much shorter.

Taqiyya means pillow. End of discussion.

A good OP that will have no effect at all on our resident Islamophobes, because they’ll simply assume the OP is “taquiyya.”

I’ve actually heard in person some wingnut state that the Mormons, JWs, et al, are actually plots of the Roman pontiff.

Sound like a Jack Chick plot (in one of his comix he blamed Islam on the RCC).

Just remember: If Jack Chick believes something, no matter how outrageous . . . he can’t be the only one.

Nope. The word تقية *taqīyah *is derived from the Arabic verbal root W-Q-Y, meaning ‘protect’. It literally means protecting oneself from danger. The word you’re thinking of is تكية *takyah *or takiyah, which is Persian for ‘pillow, support’. The former uses the letter ق qāf and the latter uses the letter ك kāf.

The word takyah in Arabic is only used in the extended metaphorical sense of a religious institution run by Sufis, providing retreat space or social services.

Carry on with the discussion.

Interesting. Thanks. But the point is made, I had never heard of the term until recently and I can bet you that most people who are muslims will have no idea what it is or means and urdu speakers will simply say in a puzzled tone “a pillow”?

I must say it is amusing, informative and at times exasperating to be told about some concept or law or tradition about Islam from a non muslim westerner often times using a technical term I have never heard off, for instance “dhimmi”.

No doubt it is amusing, informative and at time exasperating to Communists to hear RWs misattribute the phrase “useful idiot” to Lenin, and so on. (As they so often do even after correction, IME.) This is an enterprise in which intellectual honesty has no home.

As anyone reading George Orwell and other communists, however misattributed that is, the phrase sticks because it was at that time a quite accurate description of at least Stalinist approaches to Western hard-left sympathisers. Communists crying over such is rather crocodile tears for me.

But now the RW uses it for practically anything, calling non-socialist Obama supporters, or anyone who doesn’t hate Muslims, etc., “useful idiots” of the bugbear in question; and they still keep attributing it to Lenin.

Oh, and Orwell was no Communist and had a lot of things to say about Communists. He always called himself a Socialist (with a capital “S” despite non-identification with any particular socialist party – convention of his time and place, I suppose).

Yes I know, I made a mistake in editing (it should have read and ex-communists).

He was not an ex-Communist either.

Orwell’s politics are a hijack. Go open a new thread.

[ /Modding ]

People lie often. Muslim or not. I don’t need to attribute any particularly Muslim doctrine to anyone to question whether a group in politics might not be on the up-and-up. I’ve noticed in past discussions (not necessarily on this forum) that questioning the veracity of any statement regarding Islam is often met with a similar response as the OP, accusing me of believing in the “taqqiya” thing, which I have never accused anyone of using.

No—because in Urdu the letters qāf and kāf are pronounced differently, even though they aren’t in Hindi or other Indo-Aryan languages. I learned to speak Urdu from Dakhni dialect speakers. I don’t use Dakhni myself, but I noticed that they make a stronger differentiation between the two sounds than in standard Urdu.

I must differ, considering how in Islam one’s learning is given more importance than one’s ethnicity. There are other matters given as much importance as learning, such as belief and praxis. But still–“Westerners”? There are lots of Westerners who are Muslim, and lots more who are learned in Islamic studies ‘n’ stuff. I bet it would be taken as offensive if a Westerner said how amusing and exasperating for them it is when Desis learn knowledge of Western origin, like computer science, better than most Westerners. I guess I just can’t see knowledge of objectively falsifiable facts as dependent on ethnicity or even faith, but rather this kind of knowledge is open and in theory equally accessible to all. There are ways of knowing dependent on the experience of belonging to a particular group. But this instance isn’t one of them.

P.S. the Arabic word for pillow is wisādah.