I was going through one of the threads and I’d like to clear out a misunderstanding regarding Taqiah. Taqiah refers to a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. From what I've read, Sunnis are completely against this and thus label Shias as liars. They claim Shias are allowed to lie. That is not at all true.
Taqiah cannot be classified as a lie. It is permissible.
According to the Holy Quran, chapter 36, Taqiah is permitted.
Prophet Isa (pbuh) sent two disciples to Antioch to preach his message. It is said that they were John and Jonah. Hearing the arrival of these disciples, the king, a staunch idolater, imprisoned these disciples. When Prophet Isa (phuh) heard about the fate of his disciples, he sent another disciple, Simon, who came to the place and pretended to belong to the king’s faith (i.e. adopted Taqiah) and gained sufficient influence over the king. He then helped free the imprisoned disciples and guided the king onto the right religion successfully.
The fact that Prophet Isa (pbuh) allowed his disciple to adopt Taqiah proves that Taqiah is permissible and it isn't a sin.
That isn't a proof in Islaam, evidence is from our book, al-Qur'aan and the Sunnah, to use something from the Israiliyaaat as a proof in Islaam needs clarification. So please produce something, a valid evidence from our sources please, give us an ayah or an authentic hadeeth clarifying this issue, thank you very much. I skimmed through chapter 36 and found no reference towards what you speak of,
According to the Holy Quran, chapter 36, Taqiah is permitted.
format_quote Originally Posted by Muwaahid
. I skimmed through chapter 36 and found no reference towards what you speak of,
Agreed.. Also I often see the term used by shiites, and often scared Muslims refer to that and the incident with 3ammar Ibn Yasir.. firstly we don't know what he was subjected to as he was just a step up from a slave and I think if he were a slave he'd have been better off because Abu Bakr or other noble Muslims would have set him free.. and as we had 3ammar RA we also had the likes of Khalid (RA) - so it is time to step up to the plate. Either be Muslim or don't be!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Taqiah
Bint-e-Adam liked this post
Agreed.. Also I often see the term used by shiites, and often scared Muslims refer to that and the incident with 3ammar Ibn Yasir.. firstly we don't know what he was subjected to as he was just a step up from a slave and I think if he were a slave he'd have been better off because Abu Bakr or other noble Muslims would have set him free.. and as we had 3ammar RA we also had the likes of Khalid (RA) - so it is time to step up to the plate. Either be Muslim or don't be!format_quote Originally Posted by Muwaahid
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks