Allah (swt) said:

Ya’qub and Sahl recite it as (taqiyyah) which is the recitation of Al-Hasan and Mujahid, while the rest (recite it) as (tuqat). It is said in Al-Qamus Al-Muheet: ‘(At-tawqiyya) is (al-kalau) and protection. I do (taqa) something and I did (taqa) it and do (taqi) it (taqa) and he (taqi) it (tiqa) like (kisa) is I feared it.’ This text in the ayah specifies its subject and this linguistic meaning of the word (taqiyyah) specifies what this word means in this ayah in meaning since no Shari’ah meaning was established for it. So it specifies interpreting it with its linguistic meaning. Upon this basis alone is the ayah understood in its generality and details. As for what came in the ahadith of the circumstances of its revelation, if authenticated, guides to the details of what came in the ayah but would not change its subject neither the meaning of its sentences according to the language and Shar’a. The subject of the ayah is clear in its sentence which is believers befriending the disbelievers i.e. treating them as friends. The text is:

If the ayah or ahadith came about a specific subject, then it is specific to this subject and does not include anything else. The issue is the issue of believers befriending disbelievers for which came the ayah decisively prohibiting it. Nor is this the only ayah upon this subject; there have come numerous ayahs like Allah’s statement:

And Allah’s statement:

And His (swt) statement:

And His (swt) statement

And His statement:

The subject is the subject of believers befriending disbelievers and the rest of the ayah is detailing the subject. This is because Allah (swt) prohibited the believers from taking the disbelievers as friends, and linked this prohibition with a definite decisiveness that the one who does that and takes the disbelievers as friends then Allah is absolved from him. The he excluded from this decisive prohibition one situation which is the believer fearing harm from the disbeliever, wherein it is allowed for him to befriend the disbelievers to prevent this harm. This is if the Muslim were under the disbelievers’ authority defeated in his affair i.e. the fear of the disbeliever permits his befriending. If the fear disappears then the befriending is forbidden. Accordingly the situation is not displaying befriending and hiding something else, but the issue is excluding the situation of the believer’s fear of the disbeliever when the Muslim is defeated in his affair from the generality of forbidding his befriending him. The meaning of the ayah is the decisive prohibition for the believers from taking the disbelievers as friends for them, and that they seek their assistance and depend upon them, and that they befriend them and there be love between them. So it forbade the believers from befriending disbelievers instead of believers then excluded one situation from this, which is in the situation where there exists fear from them when they are under their authority. Then it is allowed to display love for them and to befriend them to prevent their evil and harm. That is, it is allowed to take them as i.e. friends in the situation where there exists fear from them when they are under their rule. Apart from that, it is absolutely not allowed. This is for the disbelievers only in relation with the believers as the ayah was revealed in the affair of the believers who had relations friendship with the polytheists in Makkah. It prohibited those in Madinah from befriending the polytheists in Makkah and it prohibited all believers but excluded from that the believers who were in Makkah who were defeated in their affair. So it excluded them due to the existence of fear of the harm of the disbelievers near to them. This is the subject of the ayah and this is its meaning, and this is the Shari’ah rule deduced from it which is the forbidding of the believers befriending the disbelievers in all types of befriending, for support, friendship, assistance etc as the word (awliya) came general in the ayah covering all its meanings, and the permission of befriending them in the situation of fearing them i.e. fearing their violence and harm when the disbelievers are victorious over Muslims and the Muslims are defeated in their affair exactly like the situation of the Muslims in Makkah with the polytheists. There does not exist any other meaning in the ayah nor any rule other than this rule deducted from it. As for what some say that “taqiyyah” is that a Muslim displays opposite to what is hidden before any person from whom he fears harm or fears his knowing his reality and what is in his soul whether that person is a disbeliever or believer, this statement is pure error. The ayah does not indicate anything of this since the meaning of: “Except if you fear from them (tuqat)” i.e. except if you fear from them something to be frightened of as the meaning of “atqaytu” something “taqiyyah” is I feared it, and (tuqat) and (taqiyyah) are of one meaning. This is excluded from the prohibition of believers befriending disbelievers instead of believers so it is specific to what is excluded of it.

And His (swt) statement:

And His (swt) statement:

And His (swt) statement:

His (swt) statement:

Means that friendship is obliged with believers, and this is a prohibition from befriending disbelievers and assisting them against believers. And it is said (that it is) a prohibition of treating the disbelievers with kindness and friendliness. It is narrated from ibn Abbas: "friends" (awliya) is the plural of "friend (waliyy) who is the one who commands the one pleased with his action with assistance and support, and it occurs in two ways. Firstly, the designated supporter with support and the other who is the supported. So His (swt) statement:

Means their helpers and supporters by His support, and it is said that the believer is the friend of Allah i.e. one assisted by His support. His statement: ‘whoever does that’ means whoever takes disbelievers as friends instead of believers ‘then he is not of Allah in anything’ i.e. he is not from the friends of Allah (swt) and Allah (swt) is absolved of him, and it is said he is not from the friendship (wilayah) of Allah in anything. Then He excluded and said:

means except that if the disbelievers are victorious and the believers defeated so the believer fears them if he does not show his agreement with them or make good his companionship with them. At that time, it is allowed for him to show his affection for them with his tongue and compliance to them as a precaution (taqiyyah) from them and protection for himself without believing that. In this ayah there is an indication that taqiyyah is permitted in the deen when there is fear over oneself and our companions say it is permitted in all matter at times of necessity and often it becomes obligatory for the variety of kindness and reconciliation, but it is not permitted from the actions in killing a believer or what is known or he considers most probable that it is spoiling (istifsad) in the deen. Al-Mufid said that it is obligatory at times and becomes fard, and it is permitted at times and becomes recommended. And it is permitted at time without obligation and it becomes at times better than leaving it; and it could at times be better to leave it even though its performer is excused and forgiven over it by leaving the blame over it. Sheikh Abu Ja’far At-Tusi said that the apparent meaning of the narrations indicate that it is obligatory during fear of one’s life, and it has been narrated that a dispensation in allowing speaking clearly the truth thereupon. Al-Hasan narrated

Accordingly taqiyyah is a dispensation and speaking clearly the truth is a virtue” (At-Tabarsi’s speech ends).

Accordingly it is shown from the words of the two mufasireen, At-Tabari and At-Tabarsi, who are of two different schools of thought, their agreement upon explaining the meaning of the ayah as it came in that it is a prohibition for believers befriending disbelievers and excluding the situation of believers fearing the harm of the disbelievers from this prohibition. Look at the words of At Tabari: “except if you fear from them something to be feared (tuqat)’ (i.e.) except if you are in their authority and you fear them over your lives so you show them friendship with your tongues.” And look at the words of At-Tabarisi: “Then He excluded and said: ‘except if you fear from them something to be feared’ and the meaning is except if the disbelievers are victorious and believers defeated so the believer fears them if he does not show his agreement with them and does not make good his friendship with them. At that time it is allowed for him to show his love for them by his tongue and compliance to them as a precaution and in protection of his soul.” The two mufasireen agree that the subject is excluding the prohibition of believers befriending disbelievers and that it is limited to that. Except that At-Tabarisi followed upon that which is outside the subject and made the ayah an evidence that taqiyyah is permitted in the deen during for one’s life which is not present in the ayah since its subject is the prohibition of believers befriending disbelievers and excluding the situation of fear of the disbelievers when they defeat the Muslims in allowing their friendship in this situation. It is not taqiyyah in the deen nor is it specified to fear over life because the exclusion is general “except if you fear from them something to be feared” (i.e.) except if you fear from them what is to be feared from. Az-Zamakhshari said in Al Kashaf

As for the statement of At-Tabarisi: “Our companions said (it is) permitted in all matters during necessity” then what he quotes from Al-Mufid of its being obligatory or not obligatory to the last of what he mentioned is abstract speech of any evidence. The ayah does not indicate this in any way even according to At-Tabarisi’s own tafsir, nor did he come with any other evidence neither from the Book or Sunnah or Ijma’a of the Sahabah, hence it is rejected and falls from the rank of consideration. Nor is it said that if befriending disbelievers in the situation of fear of them is allowed then compliance with the unjust or transgressor ruler with power is of greater precedent. This is not said because that which is of greater precedent is the sense of the speech and this is not from it nor is their any extention of any connection with it. It is not like Allah’s statement:

Nor is it like Allah’s statement:

This is because the transgressor is not from the category of the disbeliever or from their class, and because the friendship prohibited in this ayah is befriending instead of the believers. The unjust and transgressor ruler with power is among the believers injustice occurring from him or the transgression covering him does not negate the description of iman from him. Hence this subject does not enter in the research of greater precedent, so accordingly the greater precedent does not come into it such that it is used as a witness.

Moreover the befriending of the unjust and transgressor ruler with power is allowed in the situation of security and the situation of fear equally because he is a believer and befriending believers is definitely allowed because the word “believers” in His statement: “instead of believers” is general covering all believers. There did not come any text prohibiting befriending the unjust or transgressor ruler or befriending transgressors and the wicked (fujjar); rather the texts are specific in prohibiting the befriending of disbelievers. More than that, the obedience to the unjust ruler is obliged in other than sin and jihad is obliged under his banner and it is allowed to pray behind the Imam in prayer if he is a transgressor which are of the greatest indication regarding permitting their friendship. What is prohibited is the pleasure with the injustice of the ruler and the transgression of the transgressor. Accordingly taqiyyah is rejected when it is a believer showing opposite to what he hides in front of powerful unjust or transgressor ruler or opponent in the opinion or similar, and doing it is haram as it is hypocrisy and all hypocrisy is forbidden.

Above all that, the accounting of the unjust ruler over his injustice is obligatory and it is not allowed to leave it for fear of the ruler over money or interests or harm, not is taqiyyah allowed therein. Announcing war against him if clear disbelief (kufr bawah) is seen from him after he was ruling by Islam is obligatory and it is haram to refrain from performing it. And commanding the good and forbidding the evil before the ruler or others from the people of transgression or injustice has been obliged by Allah (swt) upon the Muslims. This negates the view of taqiyyah and contradicts it completely as He (swt) decisively forbade keeping silent over the unjust ruler and the transgressor, whereas taqiyyah obliges silence over that at certain times and makes it recommended at other times and allows it at other times which contradicts the ayah of commanding good and forbidding evil and contradicts the authentic ahadith which came about rejecting upon the leaders and rulers if they are unjust or transgressors and the authentic ahadith which came regarding the obligation of accounting them over their actions an opposes the obligation of exposing the truth without taking into account, for the sake of Allah (swt), the complaint of a plaintiff. Accordingly, with regard to the taqiyyah of the unjust and transgressor ruler, or the strong usurper (mutasallit) among the wicked (fujjar) or the one opposing you in the opinion, there came ayat and authenticated ahadith texts contradicting that and encouraging the obligation of acting contrary to that, which emphasizes that it is haram, on top of its being hypocrisy which is not allowed for the Muslims.

Some mufasireen link it with the ayah: “except if you fear from them something to be feared” and deduce from it the entering of showing kufr and hiding iman in the category of friendship and making it to enter what they call (taqiyyah), with some deducing from it that friendship is allowed in the situation of fearing for one’s life only but not in other (situations). This is pure error because the ayah: “except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman” has a different situation and a different subject as its subject is apostasy from Islam in the situation where there exists fear of definite, confirmed killing not probable and the subject of the ayah: “except if you fear from them something to be feared” is prohibiting befriending disbelievers in all its types and excluding the permissibility of this befriending in the situation of there existing what is feared from whether it was fear over life, wealth, interest or any harm. It distinguishes between the two situations and two subjects such that one does not enter into the other nor are they linked with it due to the difference in situation and subject. When the Muslim is under the authority of disbelievers defeated over his matter before them, it is not permitted for him to apostatise from Islam as a show of compliance to them; rather it is obligatory upon him to emigrate if he is unable to perform the rules of his deen contrary to befriending them which is allowed. However if the Muslims fear over his life a confirmed death and he is forced upon kufr then it is permitted for him to show kufr and hide iman, and other than that it is not permitted because of the text of the ayah:

So the subject is the subject of kufr after iman i.e. the subject of apostasy from Islam, and the situation is the situation of fearing death. This is what the fuqaha term as alikrah almulji (compulsion of refuge) which is the only compulsion considered by the Shar’a in all situations in which the rule is lifted from the one compelled. The compulsion which the Shar’a excluded is the compulsion by refuge i.e. the situation of fearing definite death. This is strengthened in the ayah that was revealed about Muslims who apostatised fearing death. It was narrated that this ayah was revealed about Ammar bin Yasir. At-Tabari said: “Muhammad bin S’aad related to me and said: My paternal uncle related to me and said: My father related to me from his father from ibn Abbas that His statement: ‘Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman’ to the end of the ayah. This was because the polytheists struck Ammar bin Yasir and punished him then left him. So he returned to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and informed him about what he met with from Quraysh and what he said. So Allah (swt) revealed his mention of his excuse: ‘Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his iman’ until His statement ‘great punishment.’ Bashr related to us and said: Yazid related to us and said: Saeed related to us from Qatadah: ‘Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman’ and said: It was mentioned to us that it was revealed about Ammar bin Yasir whom Banu Al-Mughira captured and covered him in the well of Maymun and said: Disbelieve in Allah, so he followed them in that and his heart was compelled. So Allah (swt) revealed His statement: ‘except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman.’ And At-Tabari said: Ibn Abd al-‘Ala related to us and said: Muhammad bin Thawr related to us from Mu’ammar from Abdulkareem Al-Juzri from Abu Ubayd bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir who said:

These ahadith indicate that the circumstance of revelation of the ayah is the incident of Ammar and its subject is apostasy from Islam. The situation specific to it is the definite fear of killing which alone is sufficient to strengthen that it has no relationship with the ayah: “except if you fear from them something to be feared.” The ayah: “except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman” was revealed in Makkah on the subject of iman, and the ayah: “except if you fear from them something to be feared” is Madinan revealed on the subject of excluding the situation of fearing what is to be feared from the prohibition of believers befriending disbelievers. Accordingly this ayah is not applicable on that subject.

There remains the rule regarding the one threatened with confirmed killing: Is it more virtuous to show kufr and hide iman so as to be safe from death or is it better to persevere upon his iman even if it leads to death? The answer is that persevering to iman even if it leads to death is better because the permissibility of showing kufr is a dispensation and lifts difficulty, and preserving the iman is (‘azeemah) which is the principle therefore it is better. It is narrated

This is explicit in preferring the one who was patient and stuck to iman over the one who took the dispensation of Allah (swt) and showed kufr fearing for his life from a confirmed killing.

This is regarding the one from whom kufr is demanded. As for the one from whom is sought less than that like leaving the Islamic da’wah or performing a sin or something similar; permissibility is not taken from this ayah. Accordingly it is not said that if Allah permitted the Muslim to show kufr, then what is lesser than kufr is of greater precedent. This is not said because disobedience is not from the species of kufr, so it does not enter the research by greater precedent. Similarly an analogy between kufr and sin is not performed since there does not exist a reason until analogy occurs. However as for the one who fears for his life over confirmed killing and it is sought from him sin or doing less than kufr, it is permitted for him to do so to save his life and there is no sin upon him. This is due to his (saw) statement:

I.e. the blame and sin is lifted, and the rule is lifted, which means the permissibility of doing it. However (this is) only in one situation which is the situation of definite, confirmed killing which is what the fuqaha called alikrah almulji (compulsion by refuge) which is the only compulsion considered by the Shar’a in all conditions in which there is lifted from the one compelled like divorce, marriage, trade and other actions and contracts. His statement “and what is forced upon it” which is alikrah almulji (compulsion by refuge).