The issue of Al Wala'a wal Bara'a

oceanclub

Over on politics.ie I'm in a discussion with a guy called Liam Egan, who is a convert to Islam and fairly prominent in Irish Islam - for example, he runs the Irish Hijab Campaign.

He made an odd remark that any Muslim who sat down with me (I'm a non-Muslim) could not be a proper Muslim. In fact, he actually said that for a Muslim to be friends with a non-Muslim is like being friends with "with junkies, prostitutes or drunkards". He went on to say that Muslims are forbidden to be friends because of something called "the issue of Al Wala'a wal Bara'a".

Does anyone know what he means? He sent me a link but I could not make head not tail of it.

P.

wes

Not a clue. First, I have ever heard of such a thing.

Also, what he is saying isn't practically possible, not to mention profoundly bigoted and counter productive.

Hobbes

Closest I can find to what you mentioned is this...

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=e&Id=85132&Option=FatwaId

Which doesn't really make sense. So found this as well.

http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/fnmuslim1.htm

Seems to go into better detail.

oceanclub

Hobbes wrote: »

Which doesn't really make sense. So found this as well.

http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/fnmuslim1.htm

Seems to go into better detail.

It seems pretty clear:

On one hand, Islam commands us not to love and befriend non-Muslims, whilst many other texts and the practices of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his companions (Allah be pleased with them) indicate that one should treat non-Muslims in the most respectful and amicable of ways.

Is this, for want of a better phrase, a mainstream Muslim belief?

P.

Hobbes

oceanclub wrote: »

Is this, for want of a better phrase, a mainstream Muslim belief?

sound bites are great. You did in fact read the whole page? It details it exactly.

As I understand it from the page, being intimate with non-muslims is not allowed, but otherwise there is nothing wrong with having non-muslim friends or dealing with non-muslims. But INAM.

oceanclub

Hobbes wrote: »

sound bites are great. You did in fact read the whole page? It details it exactly.

As I understand it from the page, being intimate with non-muslims is not allowed, but otherwise there is nothing wrong with having non-muslim friends or dealing with non-muslims. But INAM.

Yes, I did. It says this about friendship:

1) Muwalat or Mawadda: This means to have close and intimate relationship and deep love and affection from one’s heart.

This kind of relationship is reserved only for Muslims; hence it will not be permitted for a Muslim to have this type of friendship with non-Muslims. The verses of the Qur’an prohibiting Muslims from having intimate and close friendship with non-Muslims, especially the first verse of Surah al-Mumtahina, is regarding this kind of relationship.

2) Mudarat: This means to express friendship and love only outwardly without having love for them and their beliefs internally. It is a mere outward expression of the first stage (muwalat), hence it entails being pleasant, friendly, polite and kind towards non-Muslims. It involves expressing good manners, courtesy and good behaviour towards fellow human beings. This kind of relationship with non-Muslims is permitted, as it is reserved for all human beings, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

This says that only falso, or surface expressions of friendship and love are permitted to non-Muslims, and that actual deep friendships are only permitted with Muslims.

Am I reading this incorrectly?

P.

Lemming

oceanclub wrote: »

Liam Egan

There's your problem right there.

Regardless of faith (he could worship cheese as a deity for all I care) the man is a bonafide card-carrying muppet who likes to blame everything and everyone for perceived slights and not getting his own way. I'd take whatever he says with a pinch of salt. The man appears incapable of being moderate and reasoned in his opinions, nor unwilling to think them through.

oceanclub

Lemming wrote: »

There's your problem right there.

Regardless of faith (he could worship cheese as a deity for all I care) the man is a bonafide card-carrying muppet who likes to blame everything and everyone for perceived slights and not getting his own way. I'd take whatever he says with a pinch of salt. The man appears incapable of being moderate and reasoned in his opinions, nor unwilling to think them through.

Do you know what his background is? I presume he's native Irish judging by his birth name but I have no idea how long he has converted and how he has managed to achieve such a notable status. As well as the Irish Hijab Campaign, he has set up an Irish branch of MPAC UK, so obviously some people do take him very seriously.

I found him annoying to talk to at first (he's both crass and amazingly evasive), but after a while I just began to pity him; he talks about only meeting his family on his terms, and say he has no non-Muslim friends (which means that he either didn't have any friends before he converted or that he dumped them).

P.

Hobbes

oceanclub wrote: »

Am I reading this incorrectly?

I would say you are reading it correctly and normally applies to most religions. After all to someone of another faith not yours, you are basically going to hell.

wes

oceanclub wrote: »

Do you know what his background is? I presume he's native Irish judging by his birth name but I have no idea how long he has converted and how he has managed to achieve such a notable status. As well as the Irish Hijab Campaign, he has set up an Irish branch of MPAC UK, so obviously some people do take him very seriously.

This is the first I am hearing of this guy.

The Muslim community here is basically split along national lines (where people are from, or where there parents came from) more or less (from my experience). So there not so much a Muslim community as a Pakistani, Arab, Somalia community etc.

So you end up with a lot of different organisations, some religous, some based along national heritage etc.

From what your saying, he seems to have setup his own organisations, as opposed to heading any of the existing ones. So, I honestly don't know, how seriously people take him. It really depends on the membership he has.

oceanclub

Hobbes wrote: »

I would say you are reading it correctly and normally applies to most religions. After all to someone of another faith not yours, you are basically going to hell.

That simply is not true. If it is, please show me the Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist scripture which says that people of those religions should not be true friends with non-believers.

P.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Have a friend who's a Muslim and he was saying he's not supposed to be friends with non-muslims if he was to be completely by the book.

However, I've never seen it used by the BNP side in a "Islam is not compatible with the west" style debate so might not be true.

merrionsq

Seems like there's a lot of scope here for "holier than thou" types to prove how strict a Muslim they are by avoiding contact with non-Muslims.

ChocolateSauce

After reading that link, it seems to me the ultimate line is "Only if you must".

Nodin

Occassionally when people "Jump ship" they tend towards the extreme end and reading of their new religons views. Certainly thats been something I've noticed amongst converts from one Christian sect to another, and as we're all human, I'd imagine certain converts to Islam may react in much the same manner.

oceanclub

So is it a case that most Muslims simple ignore this rule, a la carte style, like Catholics and contraception?

P.

Hobbes

oceanclub wrote: »

That simply is not true. If it is, please show me the Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist scripture which says that people of those religions should not be true friends with non-believers.

P.

I didn't say not be friends. I said to other religions you are going to hell. If I don't accept Jesus into my heart then I am dammed to hell in christanity. I have met a Greek Orthodox (while in Greece) who basically said the same thing to me (was very civil about it).

Can't comment on the others but for devout religious people this would certainly be true, and unless they are trying to convert you will find they will not progress much further with you.

I don't believe Islam is alone in this.

oceanclub

Hobbes wrote: »

I didn't say not be friends. I said to other religions you are going to hell.

That has nothing to do with the friendship thing though. Unless the tenor of your argument is "all religions believe weird things", which as an atheist I can hardly disagree with.

If I don't accept Jesus into my heart then I am dammed to hell in christanity.

Well, there is no such thing as monolithic Christianity and, accordingly, the various strands all have different opinions on this issue; the following page I found has a good summary: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm. For example, 57% of Americans - which would include a lot of conservative Christians - think that "all good people will go to Heaven".

So my question on the issue of Muslim and non-Muslim friendship was similar; is this ruling an issue for all Muslims or, like Christians, do most choose to simply ignore it?

P.

Hobbes

oceanclub wrote: »

For example, 57% of Americans - which would include a lot of conservative Christians - think that "all good people will go to Heaven".

Proper poll here

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm

40% believe the other way. I am sure you will see similar figures elsewhere.

oceanclub

Hobbes wrote: »

Proper poll here

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm

40% believe the other way. I am sure you will see similar figures elsewhere.

*shrug* Whatever. It doesn't affect the point I'm making.

P.

Hobbes

oceanclub wrote: »

*shrug* Whatever. It doesn't affect the point I'm making.

P.

Well the point I thought you were making was Islam was out on its own in this regards.

I think you will find the same in regards to Muslims as to who should be friends with who.

oceanclub

Hobbes wrote: »

Well the point I thought you were making was Islam was out on its own in this regards.

I think you will find the same in regards to Muslims as to who should be friends with who.

So there are various strands of Islam, similar to different strands of Christianity, some choose to follow certain rules, and some ignore them?
In this case, Liam Egan follows a rule on Muslims/non-Muslim friendship that most Muslims ignore?

That's all I wanted to know really!

P.

JimiTime

Sorry, I'm unclear as to the answer here 'Should' a Muslim refrain from friendship with a non-muslim? Being civil and putting on a front etc is not my definition of friendship btw. Friendship is by its definition, an intimate relationship.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Kind of worrying none of the regular knowledgeble Muslims are posting on this thread

oceanclub

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Kind of worrying none of the regular knowledgeble Muslims are posting on this thread

I find it a bit odd too. I mean, is there anyone willing to state explicitly that this is a ruling they ignore?

P.

Lemming

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Kind of worrying none of the regular knowledgeble Muslims are posting on this thread

Indeed, the silence has been quite notable. But people can be busy and/or off doing things with no 'net access so it's hardly proof of some machiavellian plot.

oceanclub wrote: »

I find it a bit odd too. I mean, is there anyone willing to state explicitly that this is a ruling they ignore?

Technically I suppose you're not supposed to ignore any of your religion's teachings. I guess a more realistic phrasing of question would be is this a facet of Islamic teaching that has little emphasis placed upon it and is given lip-service by the general Islamic public.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Did a bit of googling. It appears Muslims are only forbidden from having non-muslim friends if those non-muslims are at war with Muslims

http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996016468

vibez

What a load of horse Sh!t......


Heres why:


-I have plenty of muslim friends.
-My sister is married to a practising muslim and we often have his whole family around for dinner etc
- Have you ever been to Eygpt or any other muslim country ? There very friendly.

I think alot of "True Muslims" would be angry with a statment like that.

Horse Sh!t

Thats my 2 cents .... :cool:

ChocolateSauce

vibez wrote: »

What a load of horse Sh!t......


Heres why:


-I have plenty of muslim friends.
-My sister is married to a practising muslim and we often have his whole family around for dinner etc
- Have you ever been to Eygpt or any other muslim country ? There very friendly.

I think alot of "True Muslims" would be angry with a statment like that.

Horse Sh!t

Thats my 2 cents .... :cool:

This is a question about the scholarly interpretation of the Koran, not about whether it is observed or not.

InFront

This is a compleax issue.

First of all, the awliyaa’ which you refer to OP, means something along the lines of 'overlords', or 'protectors' - those with whom one allies himself with for personal or community protection. It is forbidden for a Muslim to do this, to seek out Jews and Christians as protectors, not as friends per se.

There is a compulsion on Muslims, according to the holy Qur'an to treat those we co-exist with with qist (equity) and birr (the kind of loving relationship you should have with your parents!)

Personally, I do have friends and acquaintances who are not Muslims. But on the other hand, I like to have Muslim friends around me a lot, because I do think it's important for the discussion and example of my faith in practice.

But it isn't for any other significant theological reason laid down in the Qur'an.

AbuBakr

I love Allah Almighty (may he be glorified and exalted), so how can I love those who turn away from Him? Allah commands us: - Sura Al Ma'idah 5:51 (interpretation of meaning).

hivizman

Someone on another thread on this board mentioned the book by David Cook Understanding Jihad (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005). Cook discusses the doctrine of al-wala' wa-l-bara' on page 141:

One cannot understand radical Islam, let alone globalist radical Islam, until one comprehends the importance of the doctrine known as al-wala' wa-l-bara' (loyalty or fealty and disloyalty or disassociation). Basically, this is a polarizing doctrine by which radicals - and this idea is emphasized almost exclusively by radicals, so virtually any book or pamphlet on the subject will be written by radicals - maintain their control over what constitutes the definition of "Islam". Islam is defined according to this doctrine not only by the willingness to fight, but also by the polarities of love and hatred: love for anything or anybody defined as Islam or Muslim, and hatred for their opposites or opponents. In other words, anybody who demonstrates what radicals define as "love" for what is a non- or an anti-Muslim position, or associates closely (or sometimes in any way) with non-Muslims, must be a non-Muslim and is excluded, by definition, from the Muslim community.

It is self-evident that this doctrine is of crucial importance for radical Muslims, not only in their war with the outside world, but also in their attempts to gain spiritual prestige and power within the Muslim world. One of the principal reasons for the ineffectiveness of moderate or anti-radical Muslims is the power of the doctrine of al-wala' wa-l-bara' over even those Muslims who do not accept the radical Muslim vision of the present or the future. Al-wala' wa-l-bara' enables radical Muslimes to assert control over the definitions of who is and who is not a Muslim and it forces those who would wish to challenge that control into silence or into being categorized as "non-Muslims". Thus, it is not a question of whether a minority or a majority of Muslims support or oppose the actions and agenda of radical Islam or globalist radical Islam. It is impossible to know in many cases what Muslims really think or feel concerning a given operation. The crucial fact is that Muslims in the vast majority are unwilling to dissociate themselves publicly from radical Islam. This passivity is the work of the doctrine of al-wala' wa-l-bara'.

This is possibly an extreme view (Cook rejects the argument that jihad refers primarily to the inward struggle against one's own personal tendencies towards wrongdoing, an interpretation that is widely held), but it provides some context for the doctrine. However, there are materials available on-line that provide some support for Cook's analysis, for example:

http://salafiyyah-jadeedah.tripod.com/wala_wal_bara/3.htm

The doctrine is basically a version of "if you are not for us, then you are against us".