Ask Dr. Fadel

MAT member and Islamic scholar Dr. Mohammad Fadel is here to answer your questions about Islam. Dr. Fadel, born in Egypt and raised in Augusta, Georgia, received his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from the University of Chicago where he wrote his dissertation on legal process in medieval Islamic law. He has been an instructor of Arabic at the University of Virginia, Middlebury College, and Notre Dame University and has published several papers on Islamic law.

Please submit your questions to him at mhf10282@yahoo.com.

Can Muslims be friends with non-Muslims? It is my understanding that there is a verse in the Qur'an that says Muslims should not take non-Muslims as friends.

Words, both nouns and verbs, derived from the root wa-la-ya are ubiquitous in the Qur’an. Words with the root wa-la-ya include nouns such as mawla (pl. mawali), wali (pl. awliya’), and verbs such as waliya, walla, and tawalla. The casual reader, however, can easily misinterpret the sense of these words in the Qur’an if she fails to pay close attention to the general linguistic context, for this root is a famous example of what Arab lexicographers referred to as addad, i.e., words that have two meanings, its primary meaning as well as its opposite. Thus, mawla can be used both to mean master, e.g., “anta mawlana fa-insurna ‘ala al-qawmi al-kafirin (You, (O God!) are our Master, so aid us against the disbelieving folk!”, al-Baqara, 2:286, and servant/dependent, e.g., “fi-in lam ta‘lamu aba’ahum fa-ikhwanukum fi-l-dini wa mawalikum (so if you know not their fathers, they are [nevertheless] your brothers in religion and your wards),” al-Ahzab, 33:5.

Another word derived from this root that presents interpretive difficulties is the word wali. Literally, it means “close,” and thus the Islamic term for saint is “wali allah,” which literally means “close to God,” or “friend of God.” Likewise, the Qur’an uses the term wali to mean, among other things, patron, e.g., “allahu waliyyu alladhina amanu (God is the patron of those who believe).” Al-Baqara, 2:257.

Proper understanding of this multivalent term, wali, is critical for anyone who wishes to understand the Qur’an’s perspective on inter-religious communal relations. Thus, the Qur’an prohibits Muslims from taking disbelievers as “patrons” exclusively of Muslims, e.g., al-Nisa’, 4:139 and 144. Furthermore, the Qur’an prohibits Muslims from taking Christians and Jews as “patrons”, “for they are the patrons of one another, and whosoever of you [Muslims] takes them as patrons, he is of them.” Al-Ma’ida, 5:51. Similarly, the Qur’an forbids Muslims from taking as “patrons those disbelievers who take your religion as an [occasion for] mockery and jest.” Al-Ma’ida, 5:56. Unfortunately, some translators of the Qur’an have inaccurately translated the word wali in these and other verses to mean “friend,” implying that Muslims cannot have friends from outside their faith. Indeed, one often hears some Muslims interpreting these verses to mean precisely that.

This reading of wali, however, is mistaken. Sensitivity to the Qur’anic use of this term reveals that the more accurate rendering is that of “patron,” as used above. The political/legal content of this term is clear from the verse in which God says “As for those who are killed unjustly, we have given his wali authority [to seek justice], so let him not be excessive in killing.” Al-Isra’, 17:33. Here, wali obviously means the deceased’s next of kin who is given legal standing to pursue the murderer. To understand it as friend would simply be absurd.

While it would not be absurd to read the use of wali in the previous verses as “friend” if the verses are read in isolation, when these verses are read along with other Qur’anic verses dealing with Muslims’ relationships with non-Muslims, it is obvious that the political/legal meaning of the word is the one intended. Two verses make this particularly clear. First, God allowed Muslim men to marry Christian and Jewish women. Al-Ma’ida, 5:5. Because Muslims are allowed to marry Christians and Jews, a fortiori Muslims can be “friends” with Christians and Jews. More generally, God said, “God forbids you not from dealing justly and lovingly with those who have not fought you on account of your religion or expelled you from your homes. He prohibits you from taking as patrons only those who waged war against you on account of your religion, expelled you from your homes, and aided one another to expel you. Whosoever takes them as patrons are certainly wrongdoers.” Al-Mumtahina, 60:8-9. (Emphasis added). Thus, so long as non-Muslims maintain peaceful relations with Muslims, Muslims are certainly not prohibited from reciprocating those feelings. Indeed, they are permitted to interact with them not only on the basis of justice, but also deal with them on the higher level of birr, the same term that the Qur’an uses to describe the duty of children to their parents. Moreover, this last verse makes clear that Muslims are only prohibited from having friendly relations with those who wage war against them on account of their religion, and commit against them other types of outrages, including, expulsion from their homes.

Thus, the verses of the Qur’an which prohibit Muslims from taking Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims as “patrons” must be interpreted in light of the last two verses of al-Mumtahina, and thus mean that a Muslim should not take these groups as “patrons,” i.e., political protectors, where these non-Muslim groups are engaged in hostile acts, e.g., religious persecution, against Muslims. Where non-Muslims maintain peaceful and friendly relations with Muslims, however, these verses simply do not apply. That this was also the understanding of medieval Muslim theologians is confirmed by the rule, accepted by a majority of jurists, that non-Muslims could exercise political power (wilaya) over Muslims so long as in so doing they were merely implementing the commands of Islamic law. This type of authority was known in Islamic law as wilaya tanfidhiyya, which corresponds roughly to modern notions of executive authority, i.e., the right and duty to enforce the law.

And God knows best.

How do you justify in Allah's name the justice meted out by sharia?

Harriet Brand

Dear Harriet,
As a general matter, Islamic law is based on the notion that God is supreme over all, and while He, may He be glorified, may demand things of us, we can demand nothing of Him. Nevertheless, out of His infinite mercy, His commands are in accord with what benefits human beings. Nonetheless, some of His commands are done purely for the sake of testing us: will we be faithful to His command, or will we succumb to our lusts? Submitting to what is known to be God's command is at the heart of being a Muslim, even if faithful execution of that command brings with it grave hardship. If you are a Christian or a Jew, you certainly know that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son . . . If you believe in a transcendent, all-powerful God, you know that He commands certain things merely to test our faithfulness: that is the bottom line when it comes to religious justification.

> people accused of adultury are buried in a pit and
> stoned to death,

Actually, to be convicted of adultery in Islamic law, there must be four male witnesses to the act of penetration. That is the only acceptable evidence for such a punishment (other than confession). Accusation of adultery, followed by failure to produce four eye witnesess leads to automatic punishment for slander.

> or
> pickpockets have their hands amputated?

In Islamic law, a thief who steals property exceeding a certain value is subject to having his hand amputated. This is based upon an express verse in the Quran, although the nature of the property addressed (it must be sufficiently protected) and the amount are certainly a matter requiring human judgment. The main point of this stern punishment is to communicate the gravity of the sin of theft, not to amputate hands. Islamic law has very high standards of proof that are not easily satisfied. Finally, Muslim rulers have often refrained from applying this punishment when circumstances, such as poverty, force people into crime.

One final point: with regards to certain crimes, such as adultery and theft, for which God has provided mandatory punishments, Islam views these punishments as acts of penance, and thus are vehicles to cleanse the sin itself. For that reason, I know of no instance in which the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, applied one of these punishments against a recalicitrant person.

> How do you justify a religion that pledges that infidels should be killed?

There is nothing in Islam that states any such thing. Muslims have always lived with non-Muslims, whether Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others. This is evidenced by the fact that even countries with large Muslim populations have remnants of pre-islamic religions. If Islam commanded Muslims to kill non-Muslims, these religions would not have survived in the Muslim world.
Peace,
Mohammad Fadel

Islamic law condemns someone to death for changing their faith. How can you and others declare your faith to be peaceful?

Thank you, Lee Schulz

Thank you for your question. As you probably know, Islam lacks a church-like hierarchy, and accordingly, any answer I, or anyone else for that matter, give should not be taken as **the** Islamic position. With that caveat, I will proceed.

It is certainly true that the vast majority of Islamic legal scholars in the middle ages prescribed the death penalty for apostates, after an appropriate period for the defendant to repent. This was not, however, a universal position, as an early (and quite respected and important authority, Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, argued that an apostate has the rest of his natural life to repent. More importantly, the origin of the crime of apostasy is political/military treason, not freedom of conscience.

Early works of Islamic law make this clear. Almost inevitably, questions of apostasy are raised in the context of a Muslim "defecting" and joining the ranks of the enemy. This should not be too surprising given the religious nature of polities in that day and age. In today's world, polities are not religion-based, but based on citizenship, and accordingly, the original logic behind the rules of apostasy have lost their force. For that reason, many, but not all, contemporary Muslim thinkers reject the notion that apostasy should be a capital offense. Of course, that does not mean that, in times of crisis, demagogues cannot abuse obsolete rules to wreak havoc.

We should also keep in mind that Muslim societies are hardly alone in criminalizing heterodoxy: Christian societies have done so for quite a long time, and in many jurisdictions where Christianity is the numerically prevailing religion, blasphemy against the Church remains a political crime, at least in theory, e.g., Great Britain. Likewise, demagogues in other societies, including Christian societies, often whip up popular frenzy against minority groups at tremendous costs to those minorities, the Holocaust of Eurpean Jewry and the ethnic cleansing and other horrors visited upon Yugoslav Muslims serving as prime examples in our recent history.

Unfortunately, no religious group is immune from religious hatred. We therefore should work harder to spread the universal teachings of religion rather than to whip up communal sentiment and hatred. As the Quran says, 2:148 (Surat Baqara, the Cow): "To each [religious community] we have given a direction which it follows, so compete [all together] in [the performance of] good deeds. Wheresoever you may be, God shall certainly gather you all [for Divine Judgment]. God certainly has power over all things."

In another verse of the Quran in which God addresses inter-communal religious relations, He says "To each of you We have given a law and a path, and had God willed, He would have made you a single [religious] community. Instead, [He provided a multiplicity of religions] that He may try [all of] you in that which He gave you. Therefore, compete [all together] in the [performance] of good deeds. To God all of you shall return, and then He shall inform you of the truth regarding your differences." 5:48 (al-Ma`ida, The Repast).

I hope this answer is helpful.

Peace,
Mohammad Fadel

Greetings, I have been reading the Holy Qu'ran. I find most of if quite agreeable, but some of it rather confusing. Many Western Muslims are stating how the place of women in Islam is equal with men (as I believe women should be, being a Mother's son, brother to a sister and father to a lovely and extremely bright daughter). Yet, I find verses encouraging the beating of disobedient women, verses encouraging polygamy and verses clearly stating that man as an authority is superior to women.

The spiritual equality of men and women is obvious from the Quranic text, yet in some *rules* the Quran makes gender-based distinctions. From a theological point of view, however, the issue is obedience to God, not to other human beings.

On the other hand, as a matter of law and human convention, nothing in Islam prohibits Muslims or human beings from going beyond the *minimum* required by God for a decent society, e.g., polygamy. While it is permitted in the Quran, it is not considered a favored practice, and in Islamic law, women were permitted -- and routinely did -- limit this right by terms in their marriage contract. Similarly, Islamic law does not endorse a husband's use of force to discipline his wife: while in theory it is permissible in certain circumstances, in practice, a husband who "beats" his wife will almost certainly be deemed a wife-abuser.

I hope this helps.