Ben Wyatt

One of the more interesting stories of the past couple of weeks involves the visit of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to the United States, and a series of speeches he gave primarily related to US-Iranian relations. Views range from 'Khatami is our best chance of finding a moderate, conciliatory voice in Iran' to 'This is the historical parallel of having Goering over to speak in 1938', and the funny thing is that these views are not mutually exclusive.

Khatami's methods come under the scrutiny of the New York Post, which accuses Khatami of a practice known as "taqiyah" that translated as dissimulation or obfuscation. Wikipedia define taqiyah using words that will not be on the SAT:

Taqiyya (التقية - 'fear, guard against')[1] is the dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.

"Conceal their faith?" This seems like a unique doctrine for a religion that appears to esteem martyrdom, so what gives?

If the 21st century has taught us anything, it's that Google knows all, and the first search result for "taqiyah" led me to al-islam.org, and their 'about us' page:

Our objectives are to digitize and present on the Internet quality Islamic resources, related to the history, law, practice, and society of the Islamic religion and the Muslim peoples, with particular emphasis on Twelver Shia Islamic school of thought.

This Twelver Shia school is the predominant Shi'a sect (also the school advocated by the governing Iranians, and a source of concern given certain apocalyptic beliefs, but that may deserve a separate post). The point is that we're getting a more inside story.

The entry speaking specifically to taqiyah was definitely an eybrow-raiser. The justification for the practice follows from the value Muslims place on human life. A situation where one is given a choice to renounce Islam or die is a situation where one is forced to choose the lesser of two evils, and human life is valued over a verbal commitment to Islam. Words do not make one an unbeliever:

If the flame of true Faith is lighting your heart, mere words of tongue cannot extinguish it at all. Those words of disbelief will be just like a dark cover to hide the light of your faith from the unbelievers, but they can have no adverse effect on the flame itself.

Christ felt differently:

14-16"Here's another way to put it: You're here to be light, bringing out the God-colors in the world. God is not a secret to be kept. We're going public with this, as public as a city on a hill. If I make you light-bearers, you don't think I'm going to hide you under a bucket, do you? I'm putting you on a light stand. Now that I've put you there on a hilltop, on a light stand—shine! Keep open house; be generous with your lives. By opening up to others, you'll prompt people to open up with God, this generous Father in heaven.

As much as I dislike The Message at times, it does sweet things with that piece of scripture. Also:

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

What about the hypocrisy inherent in an insincere renouncement of faith? Apparently, this is dependant on ones definition of hypocrisy, and to the advocate of taqiyah, falsely renouncing ones faith is the polar opposite. Theoretically, one can define a person's position in a 2x2 grid:

True Heart, True Words (open faith) | True Heart, False Words (taqiyah)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False Heart, True Words (hypocrisy) | False Heart, False Words (infidelity)

To the Muslim, those that lie in the top row are okay. Of course, the Christian holds a more exclusive view (only those in the top left cell are saved).

The site also gives instances of taqiyah, two of which interestingly come from the Bible. The first is the story of the Pharisees questioning Jesus about taxation. The second is an incident in Acts 23 where Paul seems to set the Pharisees and the Saducees against each other. In using these examples, the implication appears to be that in each case, the protagonist is lying or otherwise being duplicitous in order to avoid death. This is silly. In the case of taxation, Christ makes the very clear, albeit double-edged points that God deserves our everything and that we are to obey our earthly authorities. In Paul's case, his Pharasaic heritage and belief in the ressurection of the dead are indisputable.

What does this mean to you and me? Honestly, as much fun as it is to compile obscure info, not a lot unless you're looking to understand your Muslim friends (I think this particular issue speaks volumes about how the Muslim world views faith; they also have a unique spin on forced conversions). I suggest that this point of doctrine arose not only as a survival mechanism, but as a consequence of some attachemnt to this world. We are truly different in the philosophical cosequences of God's love, as shown by the multitudes that value(d) the gospel over their life on this world. Believe. Confess. Be the city on the hill.