Is 'Taqiya' a Religious License for Lies and Hypocrisy?

Taqiya; an Islamic term that allows Muslims to conceal their beliefs, remain silent, or even lie in times of distress. Thus, in situations of emergency and persecution, believers are permitted to practice hypocrisy and lie. This is something that Erfan Sabati, a religious researcher who himself follows the Baha'i faith, strongly criticizes. He sees the recognition of taqiya in the official religion of the country as a backing for normalizing individual and social hypocrisy, the spread of lies, and what he refers to as 'negative cleverness.' However, Soroush Dabagh, another researcher of religion and philosophy who is our guest this week, considers taqiya to have 'redemptive value' in a society like Iran and states that lying is permissible in certain cases. He believes that the general public does not concern themselves with 'virtue ethics' and should be able to live by 'survival ethics,' an approach that Mr. Sabati considers self-serving and unethical. If you have ever wondered whether to lie and conceal the truth or not; listen to this week's taboo. Mr. Sabati interprets the group that recommends taqiya in Shia Islam, and in some cases considers it obligatory, as hypocritical or at best a form of preventive duplicity; a kind of silence where silence may even be unethical. What is your view on this? I know you belong to this group of critics of taqiya. Erfan Sabati: Taqiya is the foundation of survival ethics, not virtue ethics or truth. If Socrates drinks from the cup of hemlock and reveals his words and speaks the truth, here Socrates adheres to virtue ethics, but if Socrates were to say that to save his life he would set aside the truth for at least a moment and practice taqiya or tawriya (expedient lying); he would have distanced himself from virtue ethics and essentially approached survival ethics. This, I believe, is the main flaw that can be attributed to taqiya. Taqiya encourages us towards survival ethics. Purely expedient ethics. We know that expediency is a personal matter and can vary with the number of individuals present, and these individuals also have different expediencies in various situations, let alone that different individuals have different expediencies. If a society wants to navigate solely based on expediency, the foundation of society can never be stable. A common collective sphere can be built around truth, but consensus cannot be reached around expediency, and this is why in Iranian society individuals can always set aside the truth in their personal lives to avoid losing their life, property, and honor. In other words, taqiya turns believers and religious individuals into traders in the market of maximization; maximizing profit and minimizing; minimizing loss. Consider that a believer is willing to lie about their religious belief, for example, whether they are Muslim or Shia; well, if you deny your faith, you can deny any other truth in your life. Very well. I think this summarizes your critical view of the discussion on taqiya in Shia Islam, which you mentioned, now regarding survival ethics, expediency, and utility, all of which are variable. Let’s see how Mr. Dabagh, who is present in our program as a researcher of religions and a religious intellectual, explains the meaning and roots of taqiya in Shia Islam and why we see such a method in religion that exists and is utilized, Mr. Dabagh? Soroush Dabagh: You see, in Islamic narratives that have emerged and remained since the early centuries, it is said, 'Conceal from others with whom you associate, conceal your thoughts and beliefs, and do not let others know about your wealth and possessions.' In societies where there is no stability and many matters depend on the will and authority of the ruler and his entourage, if someone becomes angry with you, today you are respected, and tomorrow you may be executed; one of the things that has what modern people call 'redemptive value.' Hafez in the eighth century AH said, 'Go forth, for the passage of safety is narrow.' The passage of safety has been narrow. Even Hafez, who is the master of ambiguity, still advises the audience to be cautious. Well, he must have seen the era of Amir Mobariz al-Din; a muhtasib who insisted on enforcing Sharia laws. And then you look at the history of Islam in past centuries. Some philosophers and mystics were killed; Ain al-Qudat Hamadani was executed, and Suhrawardi died of hunger by the order of the jurists of Aleppo, and he was essentially killed. I want to say that in this context, one of the things that has a function in the human realm, in your terms, is practicing taqiya and in my terms, self-restraint or a kind of concealing something that a person believes in. Contrary to what our friend refers to as virtue ethics, I think most societies actually do not operate on virtue ethics. You cannot demand excessive sacrifice from humans. If we consider the pyramid of ethical actors in a society, the base of this pyramid is formed by the majority of citizens in all societies, and it can be framed based on utilitarian ethics. That is, gaining profit and benefit and preventing harm. Most people calculate this way. Their ethics are framed from this perspective. Well, in this ethics, a lot of self-sacrifice cannot be demanded from people. Of course, society is never devoid of these individuals. In the same pyramid I mentioned, there is a higher level where fewer actors occupy that space, and that is the duty-based ethics pyramid, and then at the top of the pyramid is virtue ethics. There, the elites are those who are willing to pay a price for what they believe in or their conduct and ideology, but this cannot be turned into a rule. Were there not Jews in the twentieth century who went to the gas chambers in droves? Well, some of them rightly concealed their Jewish identity to save their lives and managed to escape. You cannot blame those Jews who fled Europe and settled in North America for not standing up and, for example, fighting against the Nazi army. Or in the current situation in our country, many people whisper things here and there but are not willing to say them publicly because the costs are too high. Well, let’s return to Mr. Sabati. Mr. Sabati, you heard Mr. Dabagh's remarks. He says, yes, virtue ethics is very valuable, but you cannot expect sacrifice from everyone, and there is also a point that seems acceptable. I want to know what your response is to this specific case? Sabati: Please. The modern world is based on transparency, but in Islamic culture, transparency is actually frowned upon. This distinction between appearance and essence is very clear in Islam. Anything that is valuable must remain hidden from view. That is why Islamic culture opposes transparency. Hallaj, who was executed, was said to have 'committed the crime of revealing secrets.' In the prevailing Islamic culture and the lived culture of people, you are a criminal and your head is on the line [if you reveal secrets]. Well, this religiosity that is always seeking concealment and disguise (in covering and hiding the truth) does not lead to living ethically. That is, you separate between the goal and the means. You say I have a good goal, and for this goal, which is to preserve my life, property, or honor, I can use a bad means which is lying. Interestingly, the person who is regarded as a master of ethics in the Islamic world, namely Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk, was actually himself a victim of taqiya. In the preface of his book, he says, 'There was no choice, to save my soul, I wrote a preface that was in accordance with their nature. In summary, I practiced taqiya and concealed and wrote something I did not believe in.' You have written a book on ethics and the beginning of the book is against ethics and in complete contradiction with ethics and truth. If we look at communist societies, those who managed to break the communist system, for example, in the Solidarity movement in Poland, were those who endured imprisonment, torture, and unemployment for their ideals and stood firm for their cause and brought the Solidarity movement to victory. In fact, the point is this: until you pay a price, you do not gain something valuable. Georg Simmel said a century ago, 'We measure the value of something in the eyes of each person by the amount of cost they are willing to pay for it.' Not only from Poland and Chile and Franco's Spain but also from our own Iran, where they are indeed followers of a religion, they are average people, not elites; these Baha'is. For them, taqiya is actually one of the prohibitions of their religion. Interestingly, many of these Baha'is who were executed after the Islamic Republic were told, and there is evidence of this, that you just need to publicly denounce this misguided sect in the official newspapers of the country - Kayhan and Ettelaat at that time - and not only will you not be killed, but your property will also be returned to you. This simple farmer who was in Yazd, that ordinary person in Mazandaran, that simple Baha'i in Tabriz and Urmia who was not a philosophy professor. Simply because they were taught from childhood in their religious teachings that 'be a disbeliever but do not be deceitful,' they gave their lives and did not agree to sign a declaration of disavowal. They were not philosophers. Mr. Dabagh, you heard Mr. Sabati's points. Among other things, he mentioned lying. It has been said that taqiya is related to when your life is in danger. You also pointed out. Although taqiya even relates to financial harm and to financial danger, which does not seem very spiritual. However, the fact that you conceal or deny your belief is a kind of legitimate permission for lying, and how can a devout believer be allowed to lie? Dabagh: This interpretation that they refer to regarding Mansur Hallaj and others, there is a confusion here. Many people do not have a contradiction between their inner and outer selves religiously. You see, practical-minded believers, most ordinary believers do not have a secret that they think they need to reveal to create tension. Let us remember that most believers in Iranian society or in other Islamic societies do not have a problem; their public and private selves are the same... Mr. Dabagh, I apologize. I just need to remind you that the issue here is not believers. The issue is whether such a thing and such an option exists for believers or not. The discussion is not about believers. Dabagh: Yes, I understand. I want to say that the example of Sufis and philosophers is different. Please note that they spoke unconventional words. I return to the point about lying that [you raised]. My understanding is that no. Which of the ethical principles are inviolable that lying is inviolable? Do we not have an ethical principle that is not violated in certain contexts? People make some commitments with A and Z, make promises, but it depends on the circumstances that some of these ethical principles are violated. The famous example that comes from ancient Greece is that if someone comes to your house with a dagger and asks for someone who is hiding in your house. Well, to say 'yes' is not ethical. I want to say that lying in certain cases - not that I should generalize it - is a justifiable matter. The example that was given about Baha'is, I and people like me who fully defend the rights of Baha'is. At the same time, some of these Baha'is did not choose the arrangement and left the country and came to this side of the globe and are engaged in studying and activities and trade and so on. Can they also be blamed for not standing? I think the story should not be viewed as sectarian or religious. Spinoza, one of my favorite philosophers, when he said unconventional things, one of the rabbis of the synagogue who was a friend of his father called him and said come and say these things for us, well, Spinoza did not agree and was excommunicated. But if Spinoza had accepted this, could he have been blamed? I do not have such an understanding, but this person was not an ordinary person. Sabati: I gave examples from other countries and previously communist societies to say that ordinary people who were workers participated in the Solidarity movement and were willing to pay the price. The discussion that Dr. Dabagh is making is very interesting to me. Throughout, he speaks in a way that seems to look down on the average people. This is the same thing that exists in Islamic culture, which allows you to lie from the beginning. The discussion that jurists have is that you can lie, and this is based on your expediency. The example of Baha'is that Dr. Dabagh mentioned, who left Iran, they did not lie, did not practice taqiya, they went to Turkey or Pakistan as refugees. No lie was told here. To Dr. Dabagh's point, they were average people, but they did not lie. Ultimately, they changed their place of residence. But the point is that in Islamic Iranian society, even the elites are engaged in taqiya and hypocrisy. You see, a famous actor comes to the opening ceremony of the 32nd Fajr Film Festival and praises two actors from the Shah's time, and the attendees cheer him on, and social media users share his remarks thousands of times, and it creates a stir. Two days later, he comes in an interview with the country's news agencies and apologizes for the misunderstandings of his remarks to the festival officials, and two weeks later, he goes to Qom and there he says we have been mourners for Imam Hussein since childhood. That is, you can drink alcohol and also mourn. In fact, the elites are also tainted by taqiya.