Al-Walaa Wal Baraa---Allegiance And Aversion Based On Values, Part 1

In preparation for the discussions I hope to begin in August, I've been asking the audience to reflect on what values they're taking with them into "the lands of the living." However, I haven't given any concrete examples of why I believe this is important. I also haven't mentioned any of the angles I want people to consider in reference to their values. I hope to rectify that omission with this post.

Next month, I would like to have a series of conversations about what we draw close to (and why), and what we distance ourselves from (and why). These two factors determine the course (and sometimes the duration) of our lives! In terms of Islam, the concept is called in Arabic: al-walaa wal baraa.

For this series, let's work from the specific out to the general. In this post, let's first look at some specific incidents and I'll review them in light of considerations that are part of my particular faith tradition.

I. Preliminary Matters: Why I'm Using Traditional Terminology

For this conversation, I'm going to mostly use traditional terms to describe certain concepts. When discussing matters of faith, I try to stick as close to possible to the terminology used in the Quran, and by traditional religious scholars. I believe that it's dangerous to deviate from the clearly-defined, known earlier terms.

Let me give a secular example. "Messence" magazine has started doing an apparently yearly feature on what it calls "Do-Right Men." Well, the more this was discussed on various blogs, the more people realized that there didn't seem to be any real criteria to being referred to as a "Do-Right Man." From their interviews, these men did NOT sound as if they were ultimately looking for wives. Nor did they even sound as if they were looking for "serious" relationships. Some of these men apparently already had girlfriends.

But yet Messence was encouraging Black women to celebrate and respond to these men as if these men were eligible bachelors. I realized that Messence had done yet another "bait and switch" on its readers. It was encouraging Black women to respond to these men as if they met the criteria of being eligible bachelors (men who are called such because they are interested in and eligible for marriage), when these men never verbally signed-on to the "eligible bachelor" package.

With this verbal bait and switch, Messence was encouraging its readers to pin eligible bachelor hopes onto men who were just looking for a good time (some of whom were already hooked-up to somebody else). This sort of "bait and switch" is often what happens when we get away from traditional, known terminology and start using new terms.

People are then free to define these new terms however they wish. Such as so-called Do-Right Man versus what it takes to be an Eligible Bachelor. So, this Messence example is one reason why I believe that it's safest to stick with the already clearly-defined and known terminology when discussing certain things.

II. Preliminary Matters: Glossary

Fiqh: Muslim jurisprudence. The science which deals with the observance of rituals, the principles of the Five Pillars [the fundamental tenets or requirements of Islam which are accepted as such unequivocally by all branches], and social legislation. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, pg. 126, 132.

Al-Walaa Wal Baraa: "Al-walaa means loyalty and al-baraa means disownment. In the context of Islaam al-walaa is loyalty to Allaah and whatever He is pleased with as well as friendship and closeness to the believers, whereas al-baraa is freeing oneself from that which is displeasing to Allaah and disowning the disbelievers." Al-Walaa' wal-Baraa, pg. 3 Shaykh Saalih bin Fawzaan al Fawzaan.

The point is for Muslims to draw close to that which is pleasing to God, and to distance themselves away from that which is displeasing to God. Unfortunately, extremists tend to reduce the concept of al-walaa wal baraa down to "loving and hating for the sake of God." {shudder}

Since I'm speaking to a mixed audience of Muslims, non-Muslims, believers and non-believers, let me put this specific concept into a more general context: I believe that it's essential that we draw close to that which supports our deepest values; and that we distance ourselves away from that which is opposed to our deepest values.

A large part of the reason why the African-American collective is in a state of free fall is because most of us don't have any clear values. Those of us who do have values generally fail to integrate these values into the fabric of our everyday lives. Such people only pull their values out for "special occasions."

Most African-Americans are not grounded in anything at all.

Our lack of basic, firm grounding is also the reason why we are so easily deceived and pulled off course.

III. Preliminary Matters: The Fiqh of Balances

"When interests conflict, an interest of a lower status is sacrificed for the sake of a higher interest, and an interest of a private nature is sacrificed for the sake of a common interest; and the owner of the private interest is to be compensated for his loss. Also in cases of conflicting interests, a temporary interest is forsaken in favour of a long term or permanent interest; a superficial interest is disregarded for the sake of a real interest, and a definite interest is given precedence over a doubtful interest." Priorities of The Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, by Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, pg. 48.

"If evils conflict, and some of them are indispensable, then one should choose the lesser of the two evils and the smaller of the two harms. Muslim jurists have prescribed that harm should be eliminated as much as possible. A harm should not be eliminated with a harm of the same nature or with a greater harm. A minor harm should be tolerated if such tolerance would make it possible to avoid a major harm; and a specific harm should be tolerated if it alleviates a general harm.

. . . If interests and evils conflict, they should be examined carefully in terms of their size, effect and duration. A slight evil should be forgiven for the sake of realising a major interest. A temporary evil should be forgiven for the sake of realising a long term or permanent interest. Even a great evil should be accepted if its elimination would lead to a greater evil. In normal conditions, the avoidance of evil should come before the realizing of interest." Priorities of The Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, by Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, pg. 49.

A word about weighing evils: It's extremely dangerous. Especially for confused people. Confused people like most African-Americans who are NOT firmly rooted or grounded in any clear values whatsoever. I've made the following comment on other blogs:

"What people don't seem to comprehend is that by presuming to weigh evil, you are putting your hands on it. The taint rubs off and seeps into your skin. It's dangerous to try to weigh evil. Evil must be fought, NOT measured! I believe this is why those people who have settled for so-called "lesser" evils get so angry with people who refuse to compromise their principles. They are usually angrier with the non-compromisers than they are with the so-called "lesser" evil. They are envious of how the non-compromiser stayed clean of the "lesser" evil they compromised with."

There are many times when we have to try to weigh evils and harms in assessing various situations and how we will react to them. However, we must always keep in mind the dangers involved in this process. We must continuously check back with our various touchstones---our scriptures and anything else that we use to guide our actions.

When we don't continuously refer back to our touchstones---or even worse, don't have any touchstones to check---we set ourselves up to be played and to do great harm to our own interests.

This sort of self-inflicted damage to our own interests is the general behavior pattern for most African-Americans. We don't react to events based on clear, firm values. We react based on emotions.

Let's examine some recent events in light of the above concepts. Keep in mind that I'm talking about examining situations based on values. I'm NOT talking about what specific legal concepts (such as due process, etc.) require various officials to do in a particular scenario. Legal codes do NOT necessarily reflect the ETHICS of a situation. Many of us lose sight of that.

[For clarity, I'll add that I support ideas such as "the rule of law," "due process," etc. That's why I started doing defense work. But that's not what I'm talking about here---I'm talking about values. So, let's keep that separate for this conversation.]

IV. The Prof. Henry Gates Incident

Is this a matter of public or private interest? Matters of public interest usually involve concerns greater than avenging a single wronged person. Let's first look to see how the purported "victim" in this situation, Prof. Henry Gates, is treating the matter. This should give us an idea as to what the person directly affected by the situation feels that it's about.

If this was about a principled stand against injustice, one would expect Prof. Gates and his supporters to be critical of everybody involved in the injustice. That's not happening here. The only person that Prof. Gates and Cheerleaders seem critical of is the White, male police officer who arrested him. Not the White female neighbor who made the call to the police department. One might expect her to recognize her own neighbor during the afternoon when the sun was shining. Not the Black male police officer who was present during the arrest. One might expect a Black officer to refrain from aiding and abetting racist police misconduct against other Black people.

Here's part of a comment I made at another blog [Acts of Faith in Love and Life; it's on my sidebar]:

"Another irritant is that we never address the fact that there are often Black police officers present during this type of misconduct. On what basis do we focus ALL of our rage on the White officers present?

I tend to be angrier with Black officers who collaborate with racists. Historically, AAs protested to get more AAs hired as police, and THIS is what some of them do?

IIRC, I saw a Black-looking officer in the foreground of a video still picture of Prof. Gates being arrested. Well, who was that colored boy in uniform? Are any of the outraged AA voices talking about that particular individual? Is there a local Black police officers' league? If so, is this group talking about/to that individual? Are any of these outraged AAs talking to the local Black police group about that person (if such a local group exists)?

The presence of Black-skinned officers during racist police misconduct incidents is not rare. This sort of thing raises the question of whether or not it makes sense for AAs to continue to clamor to have Black-skinned police officers. Maybe we need to find some other criteria to use for lobbying for various people to get hired. Skin color alone is obviously not it.

. . . Faith, yes, from talking to relatives who are in law enforcement there IS what I'll call a "Serpico Effect": Any cop who is not down with the program (be it racist, or simply corrupt) can find themselves without back-up if/when their life is in danger at work.

From what I've been told, this isn't always the case. But it happens enough to keep most people in check.

However, going along with the program is no guarantee of safety at work for Black officers. Even if they 'go along to get along' with racist coworkers, Black officers are still much more liable to be shot BY OTHER OFFICERS when working in plainclothes or undercover. Despite police protestations that everybody's "blue," a BM is a BM is a BM to racist Whites. And if they mess up and shoot a BM who turns out to have a badge...oh well, ooops.

I've heard similar "Serpico Effect" tales from several WW I've known who are in law enforcement.

On a non-life-threatening level, similar career pressures often apply to Black prosecutors---the Christopher Darden Gambit---where they dig a Black prosecutor out of the basement office to be a Black face prosecuting high-profile AAs.

But all of this brings into question one's personal integrity and how cheaply one is willing to sell oneself.

My refusal to be used like that is one of several reasons why I quit my first job as prosecutor after about a year; and it didn't take long for me to see "what time it was" at that office. The crazy/dishonest/racist officers quickly learned that they could NOT trust me to blindly buy into whatever they wrote in their police reports. They also knew that they couldn't "joke" about "testi-lying" in my presence. Unfortunately, there are PLENTY of colored prosecutors that entertain that mess.

Nobody is REQUIRED to keep a job where the work environment demands that you collaborate with evil. Most jobs are not the Mafia---you CAN quit. You can look for another job that doesn't require you to be an accomplice to evil. And I don't believe people who claim that it took them many years to figure out what was going on at their job. NO! They knew. They just didn't care until something happened and they were exposed as the ultra-cheap prostitutes that they are."

Prof. Gates is responding to this incident as if it's about some personal grudge against White, male authority figures. That lets me know that this is primarily a private interest that does not require public intervention from others. Prof. Gates can seek redress through a lawsuit or an administrative complaint against the officer.

What's the size, effect and duration of the harm(s) involved? Is somebody seriously wounded or dead as a result of wrongdoing? From my earlier comment:

"Another irritant is wondering how long will it take for AAs (of all economic classes) to get it through our heads that it's NOT a good idea to have a direct confrontation with racist police out in "the world." By yourself. Where it's their word against yours. Where they could shoot you dead and be done with it.

Why is it that so many of us (who should know better) have not considered how critical it is to keep our heads in such circumstances? Why is it that so many of us (especially so-called "prominent" Black folks) haven't thought through what they're going to do when something like that happens?

Whatever the possible strategies might be in such circumstances, trying to fuss at armed police...by yourself...with their word against yours...is NOT the move to make.

Prof. Gates was blessed that they didn't just put a bullet hole in his head. And lay a "drop gun" (or something else metallic) beside his dead body. These things do happen. And most of us know this. When faced with these situations, why do so many of us still respond as if we don't know this?"

Prof. Gates could have been killed. He wasn't. Prof. Gates could have been beaten. He wasn't. He was blessed that the only injury was to his pride. It could have been much, MUCH worse. Serious injuries and/or fatalities weigh in favor of making the matter one of public interest that requires public intervention.

Serious injuries and fatalities can also weigh heavily against someone who was otherwise a victim in the particular incident. Victims whose inappropriate behavior or bad choices cause death or serious injuries to themselves or others lose much of their entitlement to support from others.

In any event, serious injuries or fatalities didn't happen here, thank God.

Is dealing with this particular incident going to damage a long-term or permanent interest? Let's examine this point in terms of the Black people who were calling for Pres. Obama to speak out about the Prof. Gates Incident. Let's look at what this means in terms of our long-term interests as African-Americans. From my earlier comments at Faith's blog:

"Yep. As I've stated before, this 'racism is officially over because there's a Black president' meme is part of the price tag of having the Obama-ssiah in the White House. One of MANY, somewhat-hidden price tags that AAs have ignored while enjoying our Obama-ssiah-induced-delirium.

. . . Yes, there's going to be various forms of blowback for our Pavlovian, knee-jerk whining about this incident. Blowback that we haven't bothered to consider, much less calculate.

For just one example, the Obama-ssiah has chosen to expend a bit of his "non-threatening Black male" currency with Whites over the Skip Gates Affair. The President (who has to maintain favor with Whites) is NOT going to readily do this again...if EVER again. His statement about the Skip Gates Affair is the only bone he's going to throw to AAs for a LONG time. It might be the ONLY bone he throws us throughout his term.

Since Pres. Obama has only budgeted about 1, maybe 2, "bones" specifically for AA concerns, did we really want to spend one of these bones/crumbs of Presidential attention on Skip Gates? It's one thing if we had decided that the Skip Gates Affair was worthy of using up our 1 scrap of attention/input from the first Black President. But, we didn't make that calculation. Even worse, we're not even aware that this sort of calculation is being made by the Obama-ssiah!

We're too silly to comprehend that Pres. Obama's statements about Skip Gates means that when the next 'Katrina'-type thing happens disproportionately to AAs, then he will feel that he CAN'T afford to respond to our concerns.

In terms of the next 'Katrina' to hit AAs, Pres. Obama is going to respond with the same empty platitudes that Bush used. He will do this because he already spent that 'I'm going to anger White folks' chip on the Skip Gates Affair."

Just based on this one angle, it was NOT a good thing (in terms of our long-term collective interests) that Pres. Obama commented on the Prof. Henry Gates Incident. That's not even factoring in the damage that's done by Pres. Obama saying something, and then diluting or retracting his statements. It's usually better to say and do nothing than to say and do something weak.

Many of us enjoy "sticking it to" White men, or wealthy Black folks, or whatever targets we choose. Or we enjoy giving knee-jerk support to the poor and other people that we've decided are "underdogs." I'm not immune to those considerations. It was a large part of why I enjoyed the political career of former Congressman Gus Savage. He had a real talent for making local, racist Whites VERY angry. It's part of why I've been deeply amused by many of the public statements of a local (White) Catholic priest, Father Michael Pfleiger. Father Pfleiger has a similar talent for infuriating racist Whites. So, I can relate to indulging in these sorts of pleasures. However, NOT at the expense of other, more serious considerations.

I can think of some other angles of analysis about the Prof. Gates Incident (important questions like reciprocity---does Prof. Gates have any personal history of speaking out against injustice, etc.), but you get the point.

V. The Chanequa Campbell Incident at Harvard

We talked about this during some earlier conversations. http://muslimbushido.blogspot.com/2009/05/reality-check-african-americans-still.html and http://muslimbushido.blogspot.com/2009/06/postscript-to-racial-discipline.html I won't repeat my detailed thoughts about that situation. But you can run through the partial checklist of considerations that influenced my thoughts about that situation.

Is this a matter of public or private interest?

What's the size, effect and duration of the harm(s) involved? Is somebody seriously wounded or dead as a result of wrongdoing?

Is dealing with this particular incident going to damage a long-term or permanent interest?

You might draw conclusions that are the opposite of mine! *Smile* That doesn't bother or concern me. What does concern me is the widespread African-American mental habit of making knee-jerk, emotion-based responses to anything and everything.

VI. Summary

I would like you to reflect on your deepest-held values.

Where did you get them?

What are they based on?

Do you frequently refer back to your touchstones---your scriptures and anything else that you use to guide your actions?