La eficacia legal de actos de taqiyya en la jurisprudencia imami: al-Risāla fi l-taqiyya de ‛Alī al-Karakī

The Imāmī Shī‛a are particularly associated with the doctrine of dissimulation ( taqiyya ). Generally speaking, Imāmi jurists allowed believers to act in contravention to the (true) Sharī‛a in circumstances of taqiyya . For these permitted transgressions there was no punishment, sinfulness or required repetition or compensation, provided the legal actors stayed within some stipulated boundaries. In the tenth/sixteenth century, the famous Arab jurist ‛Alī al-Karakī introduced an innovation in the Shī‛ī legal rules of taqiyya , devising a large category of taqiyya generated acts for which there may be no sin, but there was still a legal transgression, and hence the possible requirement to repeat or compensate for the acts’ commission. In this article I translate and provide an explanatory commentary on his “Treatise on Dissimulation”, and analyse some of the reactions to it in later Shī‛ī jurisprudence.

The Imami Shi‛a are particularly associated with the doctrine of dissimulation (taqiyya).Generally speaking, Imami jurists allowed believers to act in contravention to the (true) Shari‛a in circumstances of taqiyya.For these permitted transgressions there was no punishment, sinfulness or required repetition or compensation, provided the legal actors stayed within some stipulated boundaries.In the tenth/sixteenth century, the famous Arab jurist ,Ali al-Karaki introduced an innovation in the Shi‛i legal rules of taqiyya, devising a large category of taqiyya generated acts for which there may be no sin, but there was still a legal transgression, and hence the possible requirement to repeat or compensate for the acts' commission.In this article I translate and provide an explanatory commentary on his "Treatise on Dissimulation", and analyse some of the reactions to it in later Shi‛i jurisprudence.
subject to the requirements of the law (mukallaf) to act in a way at variance with the usual demands of the Shari‛a, when the circumstances demand. 1 It is, in a sense, a specific application of the theory of darura, "necessity", which is commonly recognised across the schools as permitting the transgression of a specific rule when adhering to it endangers the individual's life, or the life of his fellow Muslims, or the well-being of the Muslim community generally.There are restrictions and conditions, naturally, and there is much debate (equally naturally) over which actions are, and which are not permitted in particular circumstances.Dissimulation, though, is not itself forbidden.Where the Imamiyya are, perhaps, distinctive is in the positive encouragement of taqiyya as an element of piety. 2 For the other schools, it is a regrettable necessity; for the Imami theologians it forms part of the creedal package which comes with minority, oppressed status.Through taqiyya, the individual protects himself or the community, and this act of deliberate transgression of the law is in a sense, an act of service and dedication.The moral flavour of many of the statements of the Imams on taqiyya, for example, gives the impression that it is more than simply an expedient act in line with other dispensations permitted in the law when required by necessity (darura): it is an act of imitation of the Imams themselves, and therefore an act of piety.Some have linked this positive evaluation of taqiyya to a supposed esotericism in early Imami Shi‛ism.Taqiyya, under such a view, was a mechanism whereby the purity and exclusivity of the Shi‛i doctrine might be preserved, making it an expression of deliberate concealment rather than tactical dissimulation. 3 These distinctions deserve a separate treatment, and space does not permit their exploration here.It can be noted here, though, that in Imami juristic discourse on taqiyya, there is a recognition of dissimulation as necessary on occasions, but there is little or no evidence that this is due to the need to preserve a secret doctrine which must be kept pure from the world.At times, the early Imami writers appear to recognise much religious benefit from acting according to taqiyya and almost revel in the transgression of the law brought on by taqiyya. 4This contrast between theological and juristic texts is, perhaps, not surprising since jurists are rarely interested in esotericism (at least in their juristic writings).Instead, in legal terms, taqiyya is generally portrayed as no more than a praiseworthy, legitimate and regularly obligatory act which is an inevitable result of the hostility of the Sunnis towards the Shi‛a. 5 number of legal issues emerge from the permission to perform illegal acts out of taqiyya; the discussion of them has been extensive within the Imami tradition.In the interests of focussing the analysis here, I have selected one such issue (the legal efficacy of taqiyya generated acts), and in the coming pages, examine the innovative answer of the sixteenth century jurist, ,Ali b. al-Husayn al-Karaki (d.940/1534), to the problem.After presenting a translation and commentary upon his "Treatise on Dissimulation" (al-Risala fi l-taqiyya), I explore briefly why he argued in this manner, and the subsequent assessment within Imami jurisprudence (fiqh) of his theory of the division between scripturally and generally permitted taqiyya-acts.Further explorations of the development of the taqiyya doctrine with Imami jurisprudence will, I suspect, provide a richer picture of the precision with which the jurists processed taqiyya.Complex legal problems were posed by the permission (often outright encouragement) found within the akhbar corpus attributed to the Imams to violate the law under specific conditions. 6ne of the more debated issues concerns the status of the mukallaf's acts performed under taqiyya -are they legally effective or not?If a mukallaf is forced to pray in conformity with the Sunni ritual requirements or with Sunnis in order to prevent identification (and the probable resultant oppression -i.e.out of taqiyya), then is that prayer valid or must he repeat it (i‛ada) or make up for it (qada,) at some later point?Similarly, in non-ritual matters, the validity of a judge's ruling, working under taqiyya for an illegitimate ruler, might also be problematic.Does the rule have proper legal force? 7Need it be obeyed when taqiyya does not require it?For these specific problems, and for many others discussed in Imami works of fiqh, the validity of acts performed under taqiyya is subjected to detailed analysis.The general position, though with some intra-Shi‛i discussion and nuance, is that an action performed under taqiyya has legal validity.This validity is proven by the Imams' many exhortations to act out of taqiyya when necessary.The Imams would not, it is argued (or sometimes simply assumed), encourage the transgression of the law, and then demand compensatory and penitential actions for that transgression.Compensation and penitence are required when one has disobeyed the Imams, not when one has acted in accordance with their commands.It is this question with which al-Karaki is particularly concerned in his treatise, and the position he advocates is at variance with the general view that the permission to act out of taqiyya relieves the individual entirely from the legal effects of disobedience.One senses that al-Karaki is worried that taqiyya has become an excuse for legal laxity, and he wishes to establish a mechanism whereby taqiyya is restricted to actions which are proven and demonstrated.I consider about possible reasons for him arguing this way in my conclusions.

Al-Karaki and his Treatise on Dissimulation (al-Risala fi l-taqiyya)
,Ali b. al-Husayn al-Karaki, also referred to as al-Muhaqqiq al-Thani ("The Second Investigator") by Shi‛i jurists is one of the better studied figures in Imami intellectual history in the secondary literature. 8A full biography and assessment of his political is not necessary here, since that task has been already been presented on more than one occasion.It is sufficient to provide the outline of his life and scholarly career.He was born into a clerical family in Karak-Nuh in the Beka valley, then under Ottoman control.He studied with various scholars in his early years there, and on his travels first to Egypt, and then later to Najaf.He was to outstrip his teachers in terms of influence and notoriety when he entered the service of the first Safavid Shah Isma,il, probably in late 916/1510.9The chronicles record him as one of the major arab shi‛ite scholars who were invited to iran by Shah isma,il, and later by Shah Tahmasp, in order to inculcate the population with Twelver belief and practice.These scholars, mainly Lebanese ",amilis" (from Jabal ,amil), migrated to safavid iran from ottoman lands throughout the period, making a major contribution to the shi‛itization of the safavid state. 10here is some debate amongst commentators about how many amilis there were, and their level of influence, but al-Karaki and others certainly brought a level of external, orthodox shi‛i sanction to the safavids.in return, he received largesse from Shah isma,il, including funds for al-Karaki's seminary activities in najaf.after Shah isma,il's death in 930/1524, al-Karaki's close relationship with the safavid state continued under the successor Shah Tahmasp.al-Karaki occasionally held the position of Sadr (chief religious official) at the court, and schemed to get his opponents removed from office and his students and supporters appointed to positions of influence.The sanction he gave to the safavids was controversial.The literature on his relations with other shi‛i theologians, lawyers and philosophers is replete with tales of personal dislike and intellectual disagreement.his dispute with the najafbased scholar ibrahim al-Qatifi (d. after 951/1544) over the legality of land tax (kharaj) has been well documented by madelung and modarressi, 11 and his dispute with the philosopher and sometime safavid sadr ghiyath al-din al-dashtaki (d.948/1541) was clearly part intellectual, part personal. 12many of the disputes around al-Karaki were linked to his promotion of clerical authority during the occultation of the imam, and he was awarded the titles of "delegate of the imam" (na,ib alimam) and "seal of the Legal experts" (khatam al-mujtahidin) by Shah Tahmasp.although these were, obviously, honorific, they do represent a certain clerical aggrandisement.This close identification with the safavids is the characteristic most commonly associated with al-Karaki, which is particularly telling in a tradition where relations with ruling dynasties during the occultation of the Twelfth Imam (who is, theologically speaking, the only truly legitimate ruler) were legally problematic.His legal output, though, was quite impressive with jurisprudence being the primary discipline in which he wrote, composing Treatises, commentaries and legal manuals.His promotion of ijtihad as a method of deriving legal rules was in tune with the orthodox legal doctrine of the day, at least since the time of al-,Allama al-Hilli (d.726/1325).Al-Karaki died in Najaf in 940/1534 during the reign of Shah Tahmasp, and even his funeral was a controversial affair, with some major scholars absenting themselves.
Much of al-Karaki's voluminous output has been edited and published.The text translated and commented upon here is a short "Treatise on Dissimulation", forming part of a collection of treatises (rasa,il) edited by Muhammad al-Hasun andpublished in 1409/1988. 13 The single manuscript from which the edition was constructed is found in collection (majmu‛a) no.4933 in the ayatallah Mar,ashi Library in Qum, and was copied in 964/1556-57, a couple of decades after al-Karaki's death. 14There is no reason, as far as I can tell, to doubt its attribution to al-Karaki, though it might be said that its ideas differ in emphasis from those expressed in his Jami‛ al-Maqasid. 15In the translation below, I give my translation followed by a commentary of the translated passages.Like much fiqh writing, the expression of ideas is dense, and assumes a certain level of understanding of the readership.Each paragraph requires some background information and explication.Al-Karaki's innovative theory of the status of taqiyya generated acts was the subject of some comment by later jurists to which I turn in section 4.

Translation and Commentary
Treatise on taqiyya [1: Preamble] In the name of God, the merciful the beneficent, in whom I trust, thanks be to God as is required, and prayers be given to Muhammad and his family.
[2: Definitions] Know that taqiyya is permitted, and it may even be obligatory.The meaning of [taqiyya] is to manifest conformity, out of fear, with the people who oppose [us] in what they profess.The base in this meaning, before there was consensus, was that which became popular from the different statements of the Ahl al-Bayt (upon them be peace), and their actions.[3.Revelatory Evidence] [3.1]It has been said, concerning God's Word (may He be exalted) "The most noble of you is the pious of you (atqakum)" (Q49.13) that the meaning [of atqakum] here is "your actions by taqiyya".[3.2]From [Imam Ja,far] al-Sadiq (upon whom be peace) there is [the statement]: "taqiyya is my religion and that of my forefathers"; not to mention the statement of Amir al-Mu,minin [Imam ,Ali], "Concerning vilification: insult me, for I am pure and you are saved."[4.Categories of actions under taqiyya] [4.1]Once this has been iterated, then it is known that taqiyya could be in the area of ritual worship, or it could be in other areas of the social obligations.
[4.2]The action [performed under taqiyya] could be something specifically permitted, such as washing the two feet during ritual purity, or folding one's arms during prayer.Alternatively, it could be something not specifically permitted, rather taqiyya in relation to that action is derived from the previously issued general statements (‛umumat) and their like.
Karaki's definition of taqiyya might be considered overtly sectarian: "to manifest agreement, out of fear, with the people who oppose [us]  in what they profess" (izhar muwafaqat ahl al-khilaf fi ma yudinun bihi khawfan) [2].In Shi‛i fiqh works, the term ahl al-khilaf ("those who oppose", "the people of opposition") invariably refers to the Sunnis, and hence taqiyya is closely linked with the preservation of both self and sectarian identity.This meaning (murad) of taqiyya goes back, in its fundamental sense (al-asl) to the Imams themselves [3], and possibly even to the Qur'an (Q 49: 13 is cited and atqakum is linked to taqiyya).Of the many statements and actions of the Imams which establish taqiyya's permissible (and possible obligatory) nature, al-Karaki cites first a saying by Imam Ja,far al-Sadiq ([3.2] "taqiyya is my religion and that of my forefathers") and then, more decisively, a statement by Imam ,Ali in which he permits his followers to insult him outwardly if circumstances require it.
The legal processing of taqiyya in al-Karaki's thinking cuts across two distinct binary categories [4].First, there is a distinction between ritual duties (‛ibadat) and those of social interaction (mu‛amalat).Taqiyya may be required in either of these categories of duties, though for actions in each category, there are separate legal ramifications [4.1].Al-Qantara XXXIV 2, 2013, pp.415-438 ISSN 0211-3589 doi: 10.3989/alqantara.2013.015THE LEGAL EFFICACY OF TAQIyyA ACTS IN IMaMI JURISPRUDENCE Second, there is a distinction between acts specifically permitted under taqiyya within the revelatory texts, and those which come under a general permission to perform taqiyya when the need arises.Once again, there are distinct legal consequences for acts specified as permitted under taqiyya (ma,dhun fihi bi-khususihi and I shall call such specified actions "specified taqiyya acts") and to acts falling under what I shall call the "general taqiyya dispensation" [4.2].The distinction may actually be explained by the fact that the specified taqiyya acts are known to be permitted by an explicit text, whilst acts which fall under the general taqiyya dispensation need to be argued as such, and therefore stand on a less sure basis.
[5. Specified taqiyya actions] [5.1] Concerning that which is explicitly mentioned in a text, when one performs it as a permitted action, it is valid and sufficient (sahihan mujziyyan), whether the individual is free to act or not.With regard to the Law-giver, he establishes that action in place of what was previously commanded, on account of taqiyya.When this is done obediently, then all the individual elements [of the duty] are fulfilled.
[5.2]In accordance with this, there is no need to repeat [a specified action done under taqiyya], even if it becomes possible to perform the action without recourse to taqiyya before the allotted time has elapsed.I know of no dispute amongst [my] fellow [Shi‛a] on this matter.
Karaki initially discusses the second categorisation (specified permissions vs. the general dispensation).If there is a specific and explicit revelatory permission (normally from the Imams) to perform an act out of taqiyya, and the performance of this act contravenes the true law, then this taqiyya act is not only valid, but it also fully replaces the act which the individual would have performed had taqiyya not been necessary.One example given is prayer with folded arms (reading altakattuf fi-l-salat for al-katf fi l-salat), which, though normally prohibited, has been specifically permitted by the Imams under taqiyya.Al-Karaki means here that the individual believer, charged with obedience to the law (mukallaf) may perform specified taqiyya acts and know that in doing so he or she has fulfilled the law in its entirety.This is the case whether or not the individual was forced to perform the action.That is, the societal situation for the true believers may mean taqiyya is generally or regularly necessary, but an individual believer may not be forced to act out of taqiyya in every instance and at all times.In the latter case, he can, if he so wishes, act in accordance with the Shari,a.The important point about those cases where the Imams have given a specific and explicit permission to depart from the Shari,a is that in these specified taqiyya acts, the departure is as legal as obeying the true law (i.e. the prayer with folded alms is valid and legally efficacious), and in the cases where the specified taqiyya act is obligatory, it is a more complete obedience of the law than following the original, "true" non-taqiyya, ruling.The specified taqiyya act replaces (perhaps only temporarily) the actual Shari,a.The Lawgiver (i.e.God) "establishes that action (i.e. the one which the individual performs) in place of what was previously commanded, on account of taqiyya" [5.1].The performance of the specifically stipulated taqiyya action is, in truth, an act of obedience to a direct order of the Lawgiver, and therefore fulfils the requirements of the law in the same manner as the nontaqiyya action it replaces.In such cases, there is no need to compensate for a supposed transgression.If the action performed is in conformity with, say, Sunni (rather than Shi‛i) requirements, there is no need to re-perform the action in a private setting where taqiyya is not necessary, and there is no need to perform acts which "make up" for some failure to adhere to the law [5.2].Specifically permitted transgressions from the law, it would appear, are akin to other dispensatory acts permitted in law, such as performing the ritual ablution with sand in the absence of water (tayammum).They have the same legal efficiency as acts of obedience performed in non-taqiyya circumstances.
[6.The general taqiyya dispensation] Concerning those actions for which there is no explicit text, [these include] performing prayer in a direction other than the qibla, or performing ritual ablutions with date wine, or the disturbance to continuing [with one's ritual ablutions] because the moisture has dried as one sees some Sunnis doing, or marrying a wife even though there was an intervening period between the request and the acceptance.[In such circumstances] the individual must [perform such actions out of taqiyya] whenever necessity requires [him] to do so, in accordance with the [practice of the] Sunnis, outwardly manifesting conformity to them.This is like the simultaneous intention to perform circumambulation at the first [passing] of the [Ka,ba's Black] Stone when the first part of the limbs of one's body are alongside it.
Next, there is the general dispensation to act in contravention of the Shari‛a under taqiyya [6].Al-Karaki provides examples of actions which are not specifically mentioned as permissible by the Imams (i.e. they are not specified taqiyya actions as examined above), but are instead potentially justified on specific occasions due to the general dispensation to act out of taqiyya.The first two such instances he mentions are praying in a direction other than that of Mecca (salat ila ghayr alqibla) and performing the ritual purification with date-wine.Neither of these, it appears, are required in order to conform to the practice of the Sunnis, though one could, perhaps, concoct circumstances in which one or other of these actions might be required due to an evil ruler's capricious decrees.The next two examples, on the other hand, are instances of Sunni practice (or at least the practice of some Sunnis).These might plausibly require taqiyya generated actions, and relate to purity law and marriage, even though they have not been specified by the Imams.The first relates to water drying in the course of the performance of ritual ablutions.If, during ablutions, the worshipper breaks off from his ritual washing for some reason and returns to find that the water on his skin has dried, may he pick up from where he left off and resume the ablutions, or must he return to the start and perform the whole ritual wash?In technical terms, the question revolves around muwalat; that is, whether continued dampness is required for effective ritual purification.The Sunnis allowed a break in muwalat, and a resumption of the ablutions without a restart; the Imami Shi‛a, on the basis of explicit statements of the Imams, require continued dampness.For the Imamis, a repetition of the whole ablutions ab initio is necessary when muwalat is broken.The second example concerns a time lag between the offer and acceptance of the proposal of marriage.The Sunnis allow an interval, whilst for the Imamis the offer and acceptance must follow on from one another.In both cases, when taqiyya is required, the individual must act in accordance with the Sunni doctrine.However, if the person is able to act in a way which complies with the true, Imami law, then he is not obligated to act out of taqiyya in this instance, even if the societal situation of the believing community within the society is oppressive and requiring "day-to-day" acts of taqiyya as it were.
[7. Compensating for actions under the general taqiyya dispensation] [7.1]And when it is difficult, then if he is free not to do this action, it is not obligatory for him to do it; and if he is not free [i.e.compelled], then it suffices [when he does it].Then if it is possible to repeat [the action] within the allotted time period after performing it under taqiyya, then it is obligatory for him to do that as well.
[7.2]If the allotted time [for the performance of the action] has elapsed, then one must consider the evidence as to whether one must make up for it (wujub al-qada,).If [the evidence] is such that it is proven, then we are obligated to do it; if not, then [we are] not.This is because making up [for a missed action] is only obligatory when there is, in relation to the ritual duties, a new command.
Al- Qantara XXXIV 2, 2013, pp.415-438 ISSN 0211-3589 doi: 10.3989/alqantara.2013.015These two fundamental categories -actions which are specified as permitted and those which fall under the general taqiyya dispensationdiffer when applied to the issue of the individual's need to repeat the action (if possible), and furthermore whether the individual should "make up" (qada,) the missed duty at some subsequent point [7].Actions which are specifically mentioned as permissible under taqiyya in the revelatory corpus are viewed as sufficient (mujzi) fulfilments of the law.Actions covered by the general taqiyya dispensation however should be repeated after the first (taqiyya) performance, if the taqiyya conditions have lapsed and there is sufficient time [7.1].If they have not lapsed, and the time for proper performance passes (i.e. the prayer time passes without an opportunity to perform a Shari‛a compliant action), a further "make up" performance may be required [7.2].Al-Karaki stipulates that this requirement to "make up" a duty missed under taqiyya depends on the discovery of revelatory evidence (i.e. a dalil) which establishes qada, in this instance.Without the dalil, there is no requirement to perform qada,.
The distinction, then, between specified and non-specified taqiyya acts lies in the extent to which they can substitute for non-taqiyya acts.Taqiyya acts which are specifically mentioned by the Imams as permitted fully substitute for the non-taqiyya acts; acts which are covered by a general dispensation hold a lower status and do not fully substitute as they may require repetition and compensation.If time and circumstances allow, the usual (non-taqiyya) required duty is triggered and the individual is obligated to perform the "true" law.Furthermore, if there is evidence that the failure to perform a particular duty requires some sort of compensatory act outside of the stipulated time, then the individual must also perform this compensatory act (i.e.qada,).In short, the taqiyya acts covered by the general permission statements from the Imams fall significantly short of full compliance with the demands of the Lawgiver.When possible or required, they must be repeated or compensated, unlike specific taqiyya dispensations.
[8. Mu‛amalat and the general taqiyya dispensation] As for in the area of social duties, it is not permitted for one to have sexual intercourse in private when under taqiyya in a manner not permitted by the people of the truth; nor [is it permitted] to make use of wealth taken from a bondsman when taqiyya requires that one take it; nor [is it permitted] to marry a fifth wife when one has divorced the fourth wife in accordance with the requirements of the "people of opposition" but not of the true school.In this area, one must have a text What is the significance of the distinction al-Karaki insistently draws here?It is, perhaps, a recognition on his part that the permission to perform taqiyya must not drift into an acceptance that the "true" law need not be obeyed.By restricting the circumstances under which taqiyya acts fully substitute for ideal performance, al-Karaki is resisting the notion that taqiyya conditions lead to permissiveness.He is also emphasising the imperfection of the taqiyya generated regulations.Taqiyya, he is reiterating, is a "less than ideal" circumstance in which the individual believer finds him or herself.It must not degenerate into an excuse for failure to adhere to the Shari‛a.
There is, for al-Karaki, a distinction here between ritual acts of worship (‛ibadat) and the Shari‛a requirements of social interaction (mu‛amalat) [8].All of the above regulations relate to the ,ibadat.With regard to mu‛amalat, taqiyya requires one to behave in such a way that one outwardly conforms to the rules of the Sunnis.Once that has been achieved, the dispensation ends.So, al-Karaki states, it is not permitted to have sexual intercourse (in private, obviously) with a wife married under taqiyya in contravention of the real law of "the people of truth".It is not permitted to use the wealth which was illegally taken from a bondsman under taqiyya.If one divorces one's fourth wife according to the divorce rules of the Sunnis, one is not then permitted to take another wife because one is not yet, in truth, divorced from one's fourth wife.Unless there is a specific revelatory text in which the Imam stipulates that this or that action under taqiyya carries the same legal effect as a non-taqiyya act, then one has to treat the action as being entirely without true legal effect.Unless specified by the Imam, mu,amalat carried out under taqiyya according to the rules of the Sunnis have no legal effect.As in the domain of ritual worship, the circumstances of taqiyya do not, for al-Karaki, provide any grounds for a relaxation of the requirements of the law.
[9.The refutation of the view that there is no distinction between specified taqiyya acts and acts under the general taqiyya dispensation] It might be said that there is no difference between the two categories in that what is actually performed is legal and sufficient in every respect, but this is to be refuted.In our view, the Lawgiver requires acts of ritual worship in a specific manner, and arranges the effects in an area by it being in accordance with a specific manner.
There were those who clearly felt differently.Al-Karaki critiques those who do not distinguish between specific taqiyya dispensations provided by the Imams (i.e."specified taqiyya acts") and the general dispensation to act under taqiyya when circumstances demand [9].Such opponents argue that all taqiyya actions occupy the same position in that they are all permitted and therefore are all legally efficacious.Al-Karaki's arguments against this view depend on whether the action is an ‛ibada or a mu‛amala.With regard to the ‛ibada, he argues that the Lawgiver makes the act of ritual worship obligatory in a specific manner, and likewise stipulates its effects in a specific manner.Without these specific regulations, a ritual cannot be said to be sound or valid, and the duty to perform it has not been effectively discharged.Hence the general dispensation permitting taqiyya cannot be applied to acts of worship because the operations of acts of worship are essentially inscrutable and created by non-rational diktat.
[10.The Limits of the general taqiyya dispensation] [10.1]The unconditional [general] dispensation to [act out of] taqiyya does not require more than a simple outward manifestation of conformity [with the Sunnis], whether the thing which one does is that required [of the individual], or is an act of social interaction acknowledged by the Ahl al-Bayt (upon whom be peace).Any action in addition to this [outward manifestation of conformity] is not proven by the unconditional [general] taqiyya dispensation, by any of the various pieces of evidence.
[10.2]So we say: the one who argues that there is no difference between the two categories must say, then, that prayer in a direction other than the qibla, be it a little to the left or the south or even in the opposite direction of the qibla, when performed out of taqiyya is a sound prayer.In the same way [prayer] in the skin of a dog [is sound].If there is a disruption in the performance of [ritual ablutions], then it is also sound.It is permitted to have sexual intercourse with one whom one has married in accordance with their laws, or to marry a fifth wife when the divorce has been performed in accordance with their [legal opinions] because of the necessity of taqiyya, or to take the wealth of the guarantor, due to taqiyya, and to use it.
[10.3]And he must [also say] that there is no need to repeat [the act done under taqiyya], even if there remains time to perform the act of worship because what he has done [under taqiyya] is sufficient in legal terms.
[10.4]It is also necessary for him to say that there is no requirement that the individual be free in the second category, like the first.
[10.5]All of these deductions are invalid.
With regard to mu‛amalat, al-Karaki's argument is pragmatic.The general taqiyya dispensation from the Imams may be expressed in an unconditional manner (‛ala jihat al-itlaq), but it is limited to a permission to "outwardly manifest conformity" to the laws of the Sunnis Al-Qantara XXXIV 2, 2013, pp.415-438 ISSN 0211-3589 doi: 10.3989/alqantara.2013.015THE LEGAL EFFICACY OF TAQIyyA ACTS IN IMaMI JURISPRUDENCE [10.1].This may mean performing an action which is in conformity with the true law (i.e.something which the individual is already required to perform -mukallaf bihi), or it may mean something which is dubious or subjective, and therefore not required.However, when an action is carried out purely in order to give the impression of conformity (izhar al-muwafaqa), nothing more than that follows in terms of legal effect.If one allows acts permitted under the general taqiyya dispensation to have legal effect and to fulfil the law in the same way as non-taqiyya acts or acts specifically permitted by the Imams, then one would be committed to a series of ridiculous positions, al-Karaki says.One would be committed to the following strange views [10.2]: (1) the person who, under conditions of taqiyya, performs prayer with his back to the qibla has fulfilled his obligation to pray in the same manner as one who performs it correctly facing the qibla.(It should be remembered that al-Karaki had a well-documented dispute with Ghiyath al-Din al-Dashtaki over the direction of the prayer and was credited with changing the orientation of the qibla in some Iraqi and Iranian mosques).
(2) someone who, under taqiyya, prays wearing dog-skin (on which, see below) or after the ritual purification with a break in the continuity (the issue of muwalat mentioned above) has fulfilled the requirements of the law.
(3) sexual intercourse with a woman who is married according to the rules of the Sunnis, but not according to the true law, is permitted.
(4) marrying a fifth wife after divorcing one's fourth wife according to the divorce regulations of the Sunnis under taqiyya is permitted.
(5) making use of the wealth illegitimately taken from the bondsman under taqiyya is permitted.
For al-Karaki, the unacceptability of these positions speaks for itself.Furthermore, someone who makes no distinction between specifically permitted acts under taqiyya and the general taqiyya dispensation is committed to the view that an act which contravenes the law committed under taqiyya requires no repetition, even if there is time enough to perform the repetition.So in relation to case (i) above for example, it is argued that even if there is sufficient time for the individual to perform the prayer in the direction of the qibla and there is no fear of reprisal or oppression, he need not do so [10.3].
Karaki has little time for this position.He has already argued that when the Imams specifically permit an action under taqiyya, then it does not matter in any particular instance whether the individual is compelled to perform the action or not.The Imams' explicit permission makes that action as legally effective as the "true" law -indeed, because the Imam has ordered it, it becomes the true law.However, acts committed under the general taqiyya dispensation enjoy no such privilege.For those actions, permission to contravene the Shari,a only occurs when there is compulsion from the "oppressors", and the requirement to repeat or compensate for failure to perform remains.Now, the person who makes no distinction between specified taqiyya acts and the general taqiyya dispensation is effectively saying that there is no compulsion condition for non-specified acts as there is for specified acts.The result is a dangerously lax attitude towards the contravention of the law, allowing many more instances of transgression under taqiyya because there is no requirement that the individual be compelled in this or that particular instance to obey the law.Once again, al-Karaki appears extremely concerned that the fact of taqiyya should not be used as a license for flagrant transgression of the law.The only occasions when the law may be transgressed without legal consequence (or rather with the legal consequences of fulfilment), even under taqiyya, are when the Imams have specified that a particular act normally forbidden is now permitted.
[10.5] "All of these deductions are invalid" (jami‛ al-lawazim batila) al-Karaki states, thereby expressing a reductio ad absurdum argument against those who would want to dissolve the distinction between Imamspecified taqiyya acts and the general taqiyya dispensation.
[11.The view that praying in dog skin in taqiyya is valid] [11.1]There has been a dispute about covering oneself in dog skin.[11.2]It is claimed that the individual, if he is not able to remove it because of taqiyya or time restrictions, and he prays in it, then the prayer is valid and suffices [in legal terms].And the argument here is based on taqiyya, for wearing a covering is not an unconditional condition of [valid] prayer, rather it is a general condition.
[11.3]It is argued that there is a consensus on the validity of the prayer and that [the duty] is accomplished by it.
In the final section al-Karaki discusses in some detail an issue which highlights the problematic elements of the view he is attacking [11].If someone prays, in circumstances of taqiyya, in dog skin (i.e. an impure garment), is that salat a valid prayer?Some opponents have tried to argue that it is, and in doing so, al-Karaki alleges, they have attempted to use a specific permission from the Imams for a situation of taqiyya as the basis for a broader legal argument.Al-Karaki, as we have seen, wishes to keep the Imams' taqiyya permission specific to the particular case they are addressing, and he resists making them generalizable.The opponents argue that since the Imams allowed prayer in inappropriate attire whilst in a state of taqiyya, being appropriately covered up (satr) cannot be an absolute condition of a valid prayer [11.2].That is, the Imams' taqiyya-based permission to pray in inappropriate clothing demonstrates that a valid prayer can occur without the worshipper being properly dressed, and therefore proper attire cannot be an absolute condition (shart mutlaq).The garment (its presence or absence) during taqiyya would appear unimportant, and so, it follows that a garment made of an impure substance (such as dog skin) should not invalidate prayer whilst in a state of taqiyya.The unnamed proponent of this view further argues that there is a consensus (ijma‛) that such a prayer will be both valid and a proper discharge of one's ritual duties under the Shari‛a [11.3].The argument here appears as a corollary of the view that taqiyya suspends much of the usual legal order, and that this suspension was supported and promoted by the Imams.The view that prayer in dog skin under taqiyya is both permitted and valid accords the Imams' general taqiyya dispensation the power to suspend established patterns of legal reasoning.
[12.The reply to this view] [12.1]The answer to this is that being covered in a specified garment in its [particular] place is a condition of prayer [being valid] by consensus, due to the command which demonstrates it to be obligatory by His words, "Take your adornment [at every mosque]" (Q7.31), as well as numerous other [passages].
[12.2]The Lawgiver, though, has permitted prayer without a covering and in an impure garment, or in silk for the man but in circumstances specific [to each exception].And hence, [it is true that] covering oneself is not an unconditional condition.
[12.3]However, it is not permitted to bring together these circumstances and their like together [into a single class of exceptions], as they emerge from the texts [as individual exceptions].
[12.4]The general statement, when it is particularised, remains a proof for what remains [uncovered by the exception], just as the unconditional statement does, when it is subject to restriction.[12.5]As for the claim that there is a consensus on this, then proving this requires the presentation of the opinions of the jurists on this topic, and [demonstrating that] they all agree with what he claims, and where might he get this from?Karaki replies that there is a consensus that the revelatory sources require a person to be covered for prayer [12.1].The proponent is correct in that proper attire is not an absolute condition, for the Lawgiver has permitted prayer (and made the prayer valid) to someone uncovered, or in an impure garment, or in silk (for men).However, al-Karaki argues, each of these permitted departures from the general rule is specific to the particular set of circumstances.Al-Karaki's opponent appears to be arguing that the various exceptions to the general rule outlined by the Imams can be brought together in a single category, and hence can be employed equally in each of the exceptional circumstances (one of which is taqiyya).For al-Karaki, however, each exception to the norm is made by the Imam for a restricted and specific circumstance."When a general statement is made particular [on one occasion], it is still a [general] proof for the others; and the same with an unconditional statement which is restricted" on a particular occasion by the Lawgiver/Imams.
For al-Karaki, once again, one must distinguish between actions which are permitted under taqiyya under the general dispensation, and actions which are permitted and legally valid.For the latter category, a specific "permitting" text is needed.For prayer in dog skin to be permitted and legally valid in circumstances of taqiyya, one requires a text from the Lawgiver specifying this to be the case.That the Imams may have permitted prayer in inappropriate clothes in non-taqiyya circumstances does not mean this exception can be transferred to taqiyya circumstances.Each exception to the general rule is specific and non-generalizable.Finally, al-Karaki dismisses the claim of consensus on the validity of prayer under taqiyya in dog skin as simply lacking in evidence.
[13.The possible support from Shahid I's al-Alfiyya and its rebuttal] [13.1]Perhaps it is said that it is proven by the well-known passage from the well known introduction of our Shaykh on the prayer, known as the Alfiyya: "and in the same way with the rest of the conditions, such that it is valid for the one who fails to fulfil them to make them up, except for the one who fails to fulfil the requirement of ritual purity."[13.2]The answer [to this] is that this passage, if it were a proof which would aid him, does not indicate what he seeks because the skin of a dog is one of the things which prevents a valid prayer (min mawani‛ al-salat).
[13.3]The passage simply indicates that [prayer] is permitted without the [fulfilment of] the condition.It does not indicate that there is a barrier [to valid prayer] by some aspects or other.
[13.4]As has come in the report with the defective chain from Abu ,Umayr from al-Sadiq: "Do not pray in any skin of carrion, not even the sandal tie".[13.5]And the repetition of these [sentiments] in the early sources creates a prohibition in areas of ritual worship which indicate that [prayer in dog skin garments] is defective prayer.[13.6]This is an indication of the meaning [of the reports] concerning the disputed question which is sufficient for one who views it fairly.
The person arguing for the validity of prayer in dog skin returns with an argument based on a citation from al-Alfiyya, a famous work on the ritual of prayer by Shahid I [13.1].In the short passage cited, Shahid I states that the person who fails to carry out certain elements of prayer correctly may make amends (i.e.perform qada, according to a set formulae) for those failed elements only; the prayer itself remains valid.The only exception to this is if the element he failed to carry out was ritually purity (i.e. he prayed in an impure state).For that person, it is not that he has performed the prayer incorrectly, but that he has not really performed prayer at all since a state of ritual purity is a prerequisite for valid prayer.The implied argument here is that wearing dog skin is an example of incorrect performance of a valid prayer rather than performance of an invalid prayer.The failure of correct performance is, one assumes, relatively minor, and therefore dispensed with under the pressure of taqiyya.Al-Karaki replies that this citation will not, in fact, help his opponents' argument because wearing the skin of any carrion beast (jild al-mayta) is something which the Imams stated explicitly as invalidating the whole prayer (min mawani‛ al-salat) [13.2].After a citation of a report from Imam Ja,far al-Sadiq to this effect [13.4], the treatise ends, rather abruptly and without any concluding formalities.

Reaction to al-Karaki's Treatise on Dissimulation
Al-Karaki, then, divided taqiyya-generated actions into two categories: (i) specified taqiyya acts and (ii) acts performed under the general taqiyya dispensation.The legal consequences of type (i) and type (ii) acts are distinct in that the former do not require an immediate compulsion (i.e. the mukallaf could still, without immediate risk, perform the actions -that is, he has an element of agency -manduha) and they do not require repetition or compensation.Actions in the latter category require an element of immediate compulsion, and also require repeti-tion (and possibly compensation) if they are performed.Whilst the former are exceptions to the law (actions rendered permitted under the specific circumstances of taqiyya), the latter are contraventions of the law which though not sinful (in the sense of requiring repentance) are, nonetheless actual transgressions (and hence requiring repetition or compensation).Al-Karaki's theory, then, is a modification of what was the mainstream Imami position that actions performed under taqiyya are all (be they specified by the Imams or not) acts of obedience to the Imams' many exhortations to dissimulate when necessary: under such a scheme, generally speaking, no repetition or compensatory actions were necessary for obedience to the Imams' commands.
Al-Karaki's division was not, generally, accepted by subsequent Imami jurists, though it took some time before his ideas were addressed directly.His stature as a Safavid jurist may have prevented detailed rebuttal during the Safavid period, for whilst there are juristic accounts of taqiyya, none employ this division to my knowledge and none argue against it.Perhaps it was simply ignored, or more likely, jurists did not wish to argue against it directly.The first explicit rebuttal I have located came from the famous Akhbari scholar Yusuf b.Ahmad al-Bahrani (d.1186/1772), who devotes a few pages to the question in his al-Hada,iq al-nadira. 16In the section on the validity of purification rituals, al-Bahrani discusses whether a ritual purification (wudu,) performed in taqiyya and not in accordance with the stipulated rules of the Imami sect, is sufficient for a valid prayer.Al-Bahrani elevates this specific discussion to the general discussion addressed in al-Karaki's treatise, concluding that al-Karaki's distinction between specified and general permission is invalid.Al-Bahrani accepts that there is no explicit text or indicator which establishes (or refutes) the distinction drawn by al-Karaki.What the akhbar of the Imams do indicate, though, is that there was a general exhortation from the Imams to mix and pray with the Sunnis, even though they may oppose and oppress the Shi,a.Such exhortations would indicate the validity (sihha) of the actions performed in obedience to the order, and this validity does not depend on whether the Imams have, on another occasion, explicitly mentioned an action as permitted under taqiyya or not.Stipulating a need to repeat an action (i‛ada) if taqiyya is lifted before the end of the 16 Al-Bahrani, al-Hada,iq al-nadira, v. 2, pp. 316-318. Al-Qantara XXXIV 2, 2013, pp. 415-438 ISSN 0211-3589 doi: 10.3989/alqantara.2013.015THE LEGAL EFFICACY OF TAQIyyA ACTS IN IMaMI JURISPRUDENCE allotted time requires, al-Bahrani states, an indicator.The exhortations establish the action's full validity as the assumed status of the action, and establishing the need to repeat the action requires a dalil."Repeating the action when there is no indicator has no point" (fa-i‛adatuhu ma‛a ‛adam al-dalil la wajh laha). 17 similar response was offered by al-Shaykh Murtada al-Ansari (d.1281/1864), in his "Treatise on Dissimulation" (al-Risala fi l-Taqiyya), a work which requires a separate treatment.18 In terms of al-Ansari's rejection of al-Karaki's view, the most problematic element is the idea that there are acts for which there is no text (nass) specifying them to be permitted under taqiyya.Al-Ansari relies on the established distinction between the actual rules (al-ahkam al-waqi‛iyya), and the rules which come into force when the actual rule is unavailable, unknown or unenforceable in a particular instance (the apparent rules: alahkam al-zahiriyya).For al-Ansari, actions under taqiyya operate under zahiri rules because the actual law has to be suspended due to the force of circumstances.The texts which make taqiyya acts obligatory on particular occasions establish the individual obligatory nature of each act one might perform.When the Imams mention a particular act they do so not to stipulate that particular act and not others (in a waqi‛i manner), but simply to indicate that such an act (i.e.washing rather than wiping ones feet, or wiping over the socks rather than wiping over the feet) can be performed in place of the correct act.So, for example: If we determine that taqiyya causes [the believer] to perform the prayer [in a particular way], and that [obedience] is not achieved by neglecting to perform the prayer [in this way], then this aforementioned prayer become individually obligatory on account of the taqiyya surrounding it.This [prayer] is an act of individual obedience to the obligation to perform taqiyya, not to the broader obligation to perform prayer in the true [non-taqiyya] manner. 19is individual obligation to act in accordance with taqiyya may or may not specify the precise actions which the believer should perform, but it does make that action obligatory individually and specifically.The individual who performs it has fulfilled the law.For al-Ansari, the taqiyya circumstances cast doubt on the applicability of the usual ("proper", waqi‛i) obligation in this instance, and the apparent (zahiri) ruling takes over and constitutes full obedience to the law.The situation is not, therefore, so different from the one who follows (muqallid) the ruling of a mujtahid which turns out to be at variance with the "true" law.The muqallid has fulfilled the law by following the mujtahid's zahiri ruling.
Amongst the more positive (or perhaps more accurately, less negative) assessments of al-Karaki's theory are Muhammad Jawad al-,amili (d.1226/1811), who describes al-Karaki's theory in detail and considers it worthy of consideration (ta,ammul) -not a ringing endorsement perhaps, but less negative than many of his contemporaries.More recently, ayatallah Ruhallah al-Khumayni expressed support for al-Karaki's division within his own theory of taqiyya.This is not the place to describe al-Khumayni's theory in detail, but his view of al-Karaki's division is positive: As for matters such as ritual purification and the like, then you already know that the obvious [message] from most of the general statements on taqiyya [from the Imams] and their unqualified statements, is that the one who acts out of taqiyya has fulfilled the essence of what was commanded, and his command to fulfil it has been satisfied by him performing it in this way.With regard to the things demanded by the law itself, it is clear.However, with regard to other matters, such as the ritual purification and washing, then there is some uncertainty as to whether that is included in the indicators, and whether they are distinct from the things demanded by the law.To perform prayer with a purification of this or that sort which has been forced upon the individual is permitted and allowed.However, after taqiyya has been removed, then it is not permitted to perform a prayer with that ritual purification or washing which was done out of taqiyya. 20less a ritual washing has been specifically mentioned as permitted under taqiyya by the Imams, al-Khumayni argues, it has no legal efficacy.It does not make the individual ritually ready for prayer in the same way as a properly conducted ritual purification, because it does not have continuance beyond the prayer performed.For it to have continuance, the Imams must have explicitly mentioned it as being equivalent to the proper ritual purification.The duty to perform prayer is fulfilled (and here al-Khumayni differs, perhaps from al-Karaki) but the prerequisites to prayer (such as wudu,) are not fulfilled without ex-plicit designation from the Imams.Al-Khumayni expresses amazement (al-‛ajab) that al-Ansari rejects al-Karaki's distinction.Indeed, Khumayni's whole theory of taqiyya can be seen as a critique of al-Ansari's influential al-Risala fi l-taqiyya.

Conclusions
Al-Karaki's modification of the mainstream Imami position can plausibly be linked to his adoption of senior office within the Safavid state. 19With the emergence of a Safavid Shi,i state, the need to act out of taqiyya was, in al-Karaki's view, reduced, and the carte blanche approach to taqiyya of previous Imami jurists sat uneasily with this new socio-political reality.There was, with the Safavids, no need to act out of taqiyya, unless one remained within Ottoman lands, and al-Karaki encouraged his students (and perhaps many ordinary Shi‛a also) to migrate to Safavid Iran.His position on taqiyya, with the division of acts into specifically and generally permitted (and the legal consequences which flowed from that), was clearly designed to reduce the ritual and legal attractiveness of taqiyya.Many acts which were previously allowed to continue without legal penalty or inconvenience created, under al-Karaki's theory, the need for repetition and possibly compensation (qada,, "making up").Taqiyya could no longer be used as an excuse for imperfect adherence to the law unless the act was specified as such by the Imams themselves.Al-Karaki's innovative division was probably the result of his assessment that the need for taqiyya had greatly reduced with the advent of a fuqaha,-approved Shi,i state during the occultation.
It is possible that al-Khumayni's general approval of al-Karaki's division is attributed to similar assessments of state legitimacy during the occultation.That is, a state which is (minimally) legitimate and Shi,i, though not led by the Imam is possible during the occultation: the Safavids for al-Karaki, and the (future) Islamic government as outlined in al-Khumayni's Hukumat-e Islami.Though one is monarchical and the other avowedly republican makes little difference and produces the same theoretical legal circumstances, and the theory of taqiyya 19 Newman, "The Myth of the Clerical Migration to Safawid Iran".-Qantara XXXIV 2, 2013, pp.415-438 ISSN 0211-3589 doi: 10.3989/alqantara.2013.015

Al
Al-Qantara XXXIV 2, 2013, pp.415-438 ISSN 0211-3589 doi: 10.3989/alqantara.2013.015THE LEGAL EFFICACY OF TAQIyyA ACTS IN IMaMI JURISPRUDENCE which specifies that one can perform this specific action.If this [text] is found, the first rule [demonstrating legal efficacy] is proven, and if it is not found, then it is not [proven].