There is no disagreement among our scholars regarding the permissibility of dissimulation (taqiyya) in cases where harm is feared, and this has been affirmed by the Noble Qurʾān.
Allah (the Exalted) has stated: {Let not the believers take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. And whoever does so has nothing to do with Allah, unless it is a precaution against their tyranny. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the final return.} [Q3:28]
And He (the Glorified and Exalted) also said: {Whoever disbelieves in Allah after having believed—except one who is compelled while their hearts are firm in faith. But whoever opens his heart to disbelief, upon them is the wrath of Allah, and for them is a tremendous punishment.} [Q16:106]
The scholars among our companions have stated that dissimulation (taqiyya) is not permissible if it leads to the corruption of religion or the loss of truth. Hence, they mentioned that dissimulation is only permissible for the Imam (upon him be peace) in situations where the path to recognising the truth is not exclusively dependent on the Imam himself, and that the Imam does not engage in dissimulation without having already clarified to the Shiʿa that by which dissimulation can be distinguished from what is not dissimulation.
Shaykh al-Mufīd said: “I say that it (i.e. dissimulation) is permissible in all statements when there is necessity, and at times it may even become obligatory for the sake of divine grace (luṭf) and rectification. However, it is not permissible in actions such as the killing of believers, nor in matters that one knows, or assumes to be likely—to cause corruption in religion.” [1]
Sayyid al-Murtaḍā said: “As for his [2] statement: ‘If dissimulation is permitted for the Imams while you claim they are infallible, then it must also be permitted for the Messenger (peace be upon him and his progeny),’—then the difference between the two cases is clear. This is because the Messenger (peace be upon him and his progeny) is the pioneer of the religious laws and the one who initiates the conveyance of rulings that can only be known through him and his clarification. So if dissimulation were permitted for him, it would undermine the principle of removing all excuses for the legal agent (mukallaf), and people would be left without a path to know their legal interests, which—as we have explained—are not knowable except through him. The Imam, on the other hand, does not share this role; since he is the executor of the divine laws that are already known from sources other than himself, and knowledge of them and their correctness does not depend exclusively on his words. Thus, one who engages in dissimulation in certain rulings due to a compelling reason, does not obstruct the knowledge of the truth or access to it. Even though the Imam and the Prophet are equal in infallibility, it does not follow that dissimulation is equally impermissible for both—due to the distinction we have mentioned. This is since dissimulation was not deemed permissible to the Imam because of his infallibility, and infallibility itself neither necessitates nor negates the permissibility of dissimulation.
If it is said: ‘Is it not your belief that the Imam is a proof in religious matters? And might it not occur that the truth is only known through him and his statements when transmitters abandon the task of transmission, such that reports only reach us from those whose words do not establish proof? This would make the Imam’s role equal to that of the Prophet in the very matter you’ve used to distinguish between them.’
We say: ‘If the Imam’s situation becomes as you have described, and the proof is established solely through his words, then dissimulation is no longer permissible for him—just as it is impermissible for the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny).’” [3]
This, as you can see, clearly demonstrates the impermissibility of dissimulation (taqiyya) in matters that would lead to the loss of religion or the invalidation of the divine proof. However, a legitimate question arises: How can one distinguish between truth and dissimulation? This has indeed been clarified by the leading scholars of the sect.
Al-Sayyid al-Murtaḍā said: “If it is said: With your acceptance of the possibility of dissimulation (taqiyya) on the part of the Imam, how can one be certain of his doctrinal views and beliefs? And how can we discern between what he issues as a legal opinion (fatwā) out of dissimulation and otherwise?
We reply: [1] The first thing we say is that the Imam is not permitted to practice dissimulation in matters that cannot be known except through him, and for which there is no path to knowledge except through his word. Dissimulation is only permissible for him in matters already clarified through proofs and evidences, with clear significations established, so that his legal judgement in such cases would not obscure the path to truth or cause confusion.
[2] Then, he does not practice dissimulation in any matter except that he indicates this is the case—either through what accompanies his speech, precedes it, or follows it. Whoever examines all that has been reported from our Imams {peace be upon them} as dissimulation will find that it is not devoid of such indicators.
[3] Furthermore, dissimulation is only exercised in the presence of an enemy, not a loyal follower; from one suspected, not one trusted. Thus, whatever the Imams issue to their loyal followers, their Shiʿa, and sincere confidants outside contexts of fear, there is no doubt that it is not on the basis of dissimulation. But what they issue to an enemy, or are compelled to express in settings of fear, may indeed be dissimulation, just as it may not be.” [4]
Based on this consideration, the Imams (upon them be peace) taught their followers means by which they could uncover instances of dissimulation (taqiyya). As a result, the scholars among the Shiʿa were able to distinguish between what was said by way of dissimulation and otherwise. This discernment is attested to by numerous narrations that may be cited in evidence.
al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsī narrated via a muwaththaq chain to al-Ḥusayn b. Saʿīd: From Ṣafwān, from Ibn Bukayr, from Zurāra, from Ḥumrān, [who] said: “Abū ʿAbd Allāh (upon him be peace) said to me: ‘Indeed, in the Book of ʿAlī (upon him be peace) [it states]: ‘If they pray the Friday prayer at its time, then pray with them.’” Zurāra said: “I said to him: ‘This cannot be! He dissimulated from you! An enemy of God—and I am to follow him [in prayer]?!’ Ḥumrān said: ‘How could he have dissimulated from me when I had not asked him? He was the one who initiated and said: ‘In the Book of ʿAlī (upon him be peace) [it states]: ‘If they pray the Friday prayer at its time, then pray with them.’’ How could this be dissimulation (taqiyya) from him?!’ I said: ‘He dissimulated from you. This is not permissible.’ Until the matter was resolved when we gathered in the presence of Abū ʿAbd Allāh (upon him be peace), and Ḥumrān said to him: ‘May Allah set you aright. You narrated to me that hadith—that which you narrated to me—that in the Book of ʿAlī (upon him be peace) [it states]: ‘If they pray the Friday prayer at its time, then pray with them.’’’ So he said: ‘This is not possible. The enemy of God is corrupt (fāsiq). It is not appropriate for us to follow him, nor to pray with him.’ Then Abū ʿAbd Allāh (upon him be peace) said: ‘In the Book of ʿAlī (upon him be peace) [it states]: ‘If they pray the Friday prayer at its time, then pray with them. But do not rise from your place until you have prayed another two units.’ I said: ‘So I would have prayed four [units] for myself, not having followed him?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ He (i.e. Zurāra) said: ‘So I was silent, and my companion was silent, and we were content.’” [5]
And al-Kulaynī narrated: ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm, from his father, from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr; and Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā, from Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, from Jamīl b. Darrāj, from Salama b. Muḥriz, [who] said: “I said to Abū ʿAbd Allāh (upon him be peace): ‘An Armenian man died and appointed me as executor of his will.’ He said to me: ‘What do you mean by ‘Armenian’?’ I said: ‘A Nabataean from among the Nabataeans of the mountains. He died and appointed me executor over his estate and his daughter.’ He said to me: ‘Give her half.’” He (i.e. Salama) said: “I informed Zurāra of this, and he said to me: ‘He dissimulated from you. The wealth is only for her.’ So I entered upon him (i.e. the Imam) later and said: ‘May Allah set you aright. Our companions claimed that you dissimulated from me.’ He said: ‘No, by Allah, I did not dissimulate from you—but I dissimulated for you, lest you be held liable. [6] Has anyone else come to know of this?’ I said: ‘No.’ He said: ‘Then give her the remainder.’” [7]
It is for this reason the companions would strive to ensure that no-one from whom dissimulation (taqiyya) was warranted was present. al-Kulaynī narrated via a ṣaḥīḥ chain: A number of our companions, from Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, from ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥajjāl, from Aḥmad b. ʿUmar al-Ḥalabī, from Abū Baṣīr, who said: “I entered upon Abū ʿAbd Allāh (upon him be peace) and said: ‘May I be your ransom, I want to ask you about a question—is there anyone here who can hear my words?’”
He (i.e. Abū Baṣīr) said: “So Abū ʿAbd Allāh (upon him be peace) lifted a curtain between him and another room, looked inside, then said: ‘O Abā Muḥammad, ask whatever comes to mind.’
I said: ‘May I be your ransom, your Shiʿa say that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his progeny) taught ʿAlī (upon him be peace) a gate from which a thousand gates open…’” [8]
So note how Abū Baṣīr asked whether there was anyone who could hear him, and when he knew that no-one was present, he knew that the Imam would not engage in dissimulation (taqiyya) in his response. This is fitting, since the question pertained to the knowledge of the Imam (upon him be peace), which is of the kind in which dissimulation is likely to be practised.
The companions would pay close attention to the way the Imam responded, in order to discern instances of dissimulation (taqiyya). al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsī narrated narrated via a ṣaḥīḥ chain from al-Ḥusayn b. Saʿīd, from Ḥammād b. ʿĪsā, from Muʿāwiya b. Wahab, [who] said: “I said to Abū ʿAbd Allāh (upon him be peace): ‘Should I say ‘Āmīn’ when the Imam says, {not [the path] of those who have evoked [Your] anger nor of those who are astray}?’ He said: ‘They are the Jews and the Christians.’ But he gave no answer beyond that.” [9]
And al-Kulaynī narrated via a ṣaḥīḥ chain: ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm, from his father, from Ḥammād, from Ḥarīz, from Zurāra, who said: “I said to him: ‘Is there dissimulation (taqiyya) in wiping over the leather sandals [in wuḍūʾ]?’ He said: ‘There are three things in which I do not practise dissimulation before anyone in: Drinking intoxicants, wiping over leather sandals, and the mutʿa of Hajj.’”
Zurāra said: “But he did not say: ‘It is obligatory upon you not to practise dissimulation in these matters.’” [10]
And perhaps the reason for this is that these rulings are among those whose clarification was specifically assigned to the Imams (upon them be peace). So if the Imam (upon him be peace) were to practise dissimulation (taqiyya) in such matters, the truth concerning them would remain unknown. This understanding is supported by Zurāra’s statement at the end of the report, where he understood that the absence of dissimulation applies specifically to the Imam (upon him be peace), and the Imam did not prohibit the Shiʿa from practising dissimulation in these rulings.
Thus, it is concluded that the dissimulation (taqiyya) of the Imams (upon them be peace) does not lead to the loss of religion. First, because it was practised based on a legitimate religious justification. Second, because it was carried out according to specific conditions. Third, because the signs of dissimulation were explained. And fourth, because the Shiʿa were accustomed to distinguishing it. Hence, it is known that the dissimulation of the Imams (upon them be peace) does not entail the loss of the truth.
And all praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Worlds.
----------------------------------------------------------
[1] al-Mufīd, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. al-Nuʿmān. Awāʾil al-Maqālāt, pg. 118.
[2] That is, al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār b. Aḥmad al-Hamadhānī al-Muʿtazilī.
[3] al-Mūsawī, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn. al-Shāfī fī al-Imāma (Ed. al-Mawsūʿa), Vol. 4, pg. 413–414.
See also: al-Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. Talkhīṣ al-Shāfī, Vol. 3, pg. 87; al-Tibyān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, Vol. 4, pg. 165.
[4] al-Mūsawī, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn. al-Shāfī fī al-Imāma (Ed. al-Mawsūʿa), Vol. 4, pg. 417–418.
See also: al-Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. Talkhīṣ al-Shāfī, Vol. 3, pg. 89.
[5] al-Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, Vol. 3, pg. 28.
[6] al-Tahdhīb: “but rather, I spared you” (i.e. “abqaytu ʿalayk”).
[7] al-Kulaynī, Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb. al-Kāfī, Vol. 13, pg. 542, Hadith no. 13370.
And al-Ṭūsī also narrated it in Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, Vol. 9, pg. 277, via: Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, from Jamīl b. Darrāj, from Salama b. Muḥriz...
And al-Kulaynī also narrated it in al-Kāfī, Vol. 13, pg. 546, Hadith no. 13376: Ḥumayd b. Ziyād, from al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad al-Kindī, from Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan al-Mīthamī, from Abān b. ʿUthmān, from ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥriz, [who] said: “I asked Abū ʿAbd Allāh (upon him be peace) about a man who appointed me as executor and died leaving a daughter. He said: ‘Give the daughter half and leave half to the clients (mawālī).’ I returned and our companions said: ‘Nay by Allah, the clients (mawālī) have no share.’ So I returned to him the following year and said to him: ‘Our companions said that the clients (mawālī) have no share, and that you were dissimulated from me.’ He said: ‘No, by Allah, I did not practice dissimulate from you; but I feared that you would be held accountable for the [other] half. So if you are not afraid, then give the other half to the daughter—for indeed, Allah will repay you on her behalf.’”
And al-Ṭūsī also narrated it in Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, Vol. 9, pg. 279 via: al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. Samāʿa, from Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan al-Maythamī, from Abān b. ʿUthmān, from ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥriz...
Note: There seems to be an error in the second chain; what is apparent is that the name should be “Salama b. Muḥriz.”
[8] al-Kulaynī, Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb. al-Kāfī, Vol. 1, pg. 592, Hadith no. 637.
[9] al-Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, Vol. 2, pg. 75; al-Istibṣār, Vol. 1, pg. 319, ḥadīth no. 1188.
[10] al-Kulaynī, Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb. al-Kāfī, Vol. 5, pg. 101, Hadith no. 3954.
Also in Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, Vol. 1, pg. 362, Hadith no. 23 (without Zurāra’s comment): al-Ḥusayn b. Saʿīd, from Ḥammād, from Ḥarīz, from Zurāra.
Also in al-Ṣadūq’s al-Faqīh, Vol. 1, pg. 48 in disconnected (mursal) fashion.
