The Islamic concept of "Walaa wal Baraa" -- Loyalty and Hostiity, or, because the forms of these are so extreme, one might call them "Hatred and Love" -- reflects the worldview which puts all Muslims on one side, all Infidels on the other, and insists that a state of permanent war, though not necessarily of warfare, must forever exist between the two. The Hostility-Hatred is for the Infidels, for the Unbelievers, all those who reject Islam, and the Loyalty- Love is for the Fellow Believers only, the members of the Umma, to whom, and to Islam, sole loyalty must be owed by the good Muslim.
Many Muslim websites discuss this, and it goes hard with the occasional Muslim who suggests, for example, that sometimes the Kuffar (the Unbelievers) are not always to be regarded with such hatred, or fooled with outward smiles, and inward contempt.
• Walaa wal Baraa
October 26th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Aaisyah was right! Even if we don’t know all of Allah’s will, we know what He has told us. What do you think walaa wal baraa is? Something made up? A mistake of Ibrahim (alayhi salam)?
Bunch of coffee shop Muslims you all are. And yes, maybe Indonesia was hit because of the hijabs not being worn, among other sins. An Indonesian himself told me that’s why it was hit. Gulf Coast African told us that New Orleans was hit because of its corruption, so was Mississippi. Turks themselves Turkey was hit because they were so sinful. This is a pattern, so why are you all closing your eyes to it?
The Islam of many of you is a joke, even if Allah decides mine was a joke on Judgment Day, that’s why I didn’t greet you all with “salam alaykum”. You’re not careful to avoid negating your shahada, and if you negate a condition of it, you negate it. One of those conditions is walaa wal baraa. And that means you don’t feel sorry for the kuffar when Allah punishes them. Even if you feel like giving them charity, you don’t feel sorry for them, and you really shouldn’t give them charity and help from a position of weakness, it only reinforces them against Islam. They’ll only conclude that you’re doing PR work because you want to undo the damage of 9/11. Now, when you seize power and authority in the land and Islam has the upper hand, mercy goes a long way to impress them into Islam. Otherwise, this weak Islam you (Umar Lee, Tariq Nelson, and Abu Sinan, and your fans) promote only makes the kuffar happy with their kufr and not impressed with Islam as the true revelation from Allah. I see a lot of potential for good in you and I see you misusing it to make the wrong powers happy. Sorry, guys, Sameer Khan was right and you all were wrong. Look up the evidences and you’ll see. If you want to impress kuffar with kindness, get the upper hand for the Shariah first.
• Walaa wal Baraa
October 26th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Here’s how he supported what he said below. Now, how do you all support your positions of loving the kuffar while hating the most serious of Muslims?
……
1. Hanifan - October 25, 2007
I think its permissible to be happy at the punishment that befalls the disbelievers.
Allah says:
“But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They [Angels] said: “Fear not: We have been sent against the people of Lut.”. And his wife [Sara, wife of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh)] was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.” [Hud:70-71]
Scholars say, Sara laughed when she heard of the punishment that was about to befall the people of Lut. She was happy. However at the same token, prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) was pleading for the people of Lut:
“When fear had passed from (the mind of) Abraham and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with us for Lut’s people. For Abraham was, without doubt, forbearing (of faults), compassionate, and given to look to Allah. ” Hud:74-75.
It seems both options are permissible.
2. inshallahshaheed - October 26, 2007
To Hanifan -
Yes that is correct, however the Shaykh, Abu ‘Aasim Muhammad al-Maqdisi argues in his brilliant treatise “Millat Ibraaheem” that this pleading for the nation (Qawm) of Loot (’alayhis salaam) by Ibraaheem (’alayhis salaam) was originally for the nation (Qawm) of Loot, but when the Angels said,
“Verily, we are going to destroy the people of this [Loot’s]
town…” (29:31)
Ibraaheem (’alayhis salaam) then changed his pleading to the believers amongst Loot’s nation, especially for Loot himself, and this change of pleading was when Ibraaheem said (as was recorded by Allah),
He (Ibraaheem) said: “But there is Loot in it.” They said: “We know better who is there, we will verily save him [Loot] and his family…” (29:32)
And the Shaykh uses the tafaseer of Ibn Katheer (2/594), and at-Tabari’s narration from Sa’eed ibn Jubayr (15/403) to support this argument.
He also then argues that even if this wasn’t true, then the notion that the Prophets - because of their mercy - to wish for the guidance of their people before their imminent destruction is understood. However, the point shouldn’t be forgotten regarding the Prophets and that is, “And they (i.e. the Prophets) were the ones who were not sent in the first place, except to show their open enmity and disavowal towards the polytheism (Shirk) and its people.”
As for America and its people, then they are much worse in comparison to the nation of Loot (’alayhis salaam); in fact, there is no comparison considering that there are cases of rape every 3 minutes (or so) and all the other horrendous statistics.
