John R. Houk
© May 31, 2017
I am on the World Truth Summit email list managed by Elsa Schieder. Elsa sent a fascinating newsletter about the Islamic doctrine of Walaa wal Baraa. I can only guess on how to pronounce this phrase which I presume is Arabic. According to Elsa and WestInDanger.com (linked to by Elsa) the phrase essentially translates to “Islamic Apartheid”.
In the interest of fair and balance, here is what a pro-Islamic explanation of Walaa wal Baraa:
al-Walaa` wal-Baraa` as Revealed in Surat aal-‘Imraan
The legal meaning of Al-Wala’ (love, support, help, follow, etc.) is to totally agree with the sayings, deeds and beliefs which please Allah and the persons whom He likes.
In an age where truth is presented as falsehood, righteousness is translated to rebelliance and the preserving of ones land and dignity is called terrorism, there will naturally arise many confusions about the pillars of Iman and the facts of Islam. … Al-Wala’u wa Al-Bara’ is the creed that guides all the actions and sayings of a Muslim and it is by its practice and application that the ranks of the believers vary. It is imperative that this creed be unambiguous to the Muslim’s mentality in order that it manifests and materialises correctly in his actions.
The General Meaning of the Ayah
Allah (s.w.t.) forbids His Believers from exhibiting any form of Muwalat to the disbelievers. This includes the manifestation of love and compassion to strengthen the ties with them or to regard them as companions and friends because of their kinship or acquaintance. The Believer can not be an ally of Allah’s enemies and it is impossible for a person to combine the love of Allah (s.w.t.) and the love of his enemies because this is a combination of opposites; therefore, he who loves Allah, must also hate His enemies.
It is forbidden upon the Muslim to give Muwalat to the disbelievers and forsake the believers. There is no association or relationship whatsoever between Iman and Kufur. The preceding noble Ayat forewarns us from Muwalat Al-Kafireen and alerts us to the consequences of such an action, with one exception being in extreme necessity when one must avoid or protect oneself from the harm or injury inflicted upon by disbelievers by presenting an outer appearance that belies what one conceals inside. This is known as Taqiyyah, and it is only permitted under such circumstances.
And here is an excerpt from a critic of Islam but makes an effort at neutrality.
Al Walaa’ wal Barraa’ refers to loyalty and disownment for the sake of Allah, or in other words, love or hate. The doctrine of al-Wala’ Wal Bara’ is the real image for the actual practice of this faith. It has a tremendous significance in the mind of the Muslim, as much as the greatness and significance of the faith. It is a matter of belief and disbelief,
O You who believe! Do not take your fathers or your brothers as protectors if they prefer disbelief to faith. Whoever among you takes them for protectors will only be wrongdoers. Say, If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kinsmen, the wealth which you have acquired, the commerce in which you fear a decline, or the houses you love – if these are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving hard and fighting in His cause, then wait until Allah brings about His Decision (torment). Allah does not guide those who are Al- Faasiqun.
– Surah Tawbah: 23-24
The legal meaning of Al-Wala’ (love, support, help, follow, etc.) is to totally agree with the sayings, deeds and beliefs which please Allah and the persons whom He likes. Al-Bara’ (despise, desert, keep innocent of, etc.) is the complete opposite of Al-Wala’ and it is to disagree with everything that Allah hates and condemns. Hence, there are four issues related to the belief in Al-Wala’u wa Al-Bara’, those being: the sayings, the deeds, the beliefs and the individual persons. Some of the things that pleases Allah (s.w.t.) are the saying of Dhikr, the deed of Jihad, the belief in His Oneness and the love of the believing person. Backbiting, fornication, Shirk and disbelief are some of the things that are hated by Allah (s.w.t.) and must also be hated by the Believer.
Al-Bara’ in Arabic language means Severance: severance is to leave off something; it is to walk away from something or to distance oneself from it. “Barii” means to heed a warning and so excuse oneself from something; to be free of obligation.
Alliance has a technical meaning as well. In this sense it means to help, to love, to honour, to respect something, and to stand next to like minded people both outwardly and inwardly. Allah has said: “Allah is the Wali’ of those who believe. He brings them out of darkness into light. But as for those who disbelieve, their Awliya’ (allies) are Taghut, they bring them out of light into darkness”. To become allied to the disbelievers means to draw near to them, to show devotion to them in word and deed and intention.
For severance, it too has a technical sense; that is, to take heed of a warning, to disassociate oneself from something, to avoiding it totally and showing enmity towards it. … You Can READ ENTIRETY (Al Walaa’ wal Barraa’; By Asra; Islamic Terminology; 9/11/11)
I am going to make leap and sense that many do not know the origin of the word “Apartheid”. Many may have only read the word in connection to the Antisemitic concept that Israel perpetuates an Apartheid practice toward the Arabs who falsely call themselves Palestinians.
The reality is the Apartheid practice originated in South Africa when the White minority (Afrikaner) ruled the nation and treated the majority Black Africans as second-class citizens. Those days ended long ago in South Africa.
Here is an excerpt from GoHistoryGo.com pertaining Apartheid:
Life Under Apartheid
In 1910, the South African (British) colonies of Cape, Natal, Transvaal and the Orange Free State were united under the flag of the Union of South Africa. Afrikaners (the descendants of the original Dutch settlers) retained a voice in the new government and began working hard to deny black South Africans any rights in the new government. New laws supporting racial segregation, known as apartheid (apartness) in Afrikaans, prevented black South Africans from holding certain jobs, attending certain schools, and even limited where they could live, shop, and travel and eventually stripped them of their very citizenship.
In 1948, apartheid became official policy when the Afrikaners gained a majority in parliament. Under apartheid South Africans were divided into four racial groups: Whites, Asians, Coloureds, and Blacks. The whites were descendants of the European settlers. Asians were anyone who came from Asia, most often from the British colony of India or China. Coloureds were people of mixed racial backgrounds. Blacks were those who belonged to one of South Africa’s indigenous tribes.
As you might have guessed, whites were at the top and received the best opportunities for jobs, education, and housing. The Asian and Coloureds had fewer rights than the whites, but more than the blacks. They lived in segregated neighborhoods and attended segregated schools. The blacks were at the bottom of the social ladder and not only had to live in poor segregated areas and attend poor segregated schools, but also received the worst health care and jobs.
Even though segregation existed before 1948, it became even stricter after the National Party came to power. The areas in which non-whites could leave shrank. The urban areas became designated for “whites only” residences and businesses. Under the Group Areas Act of 1950, Asians and Coloureds lived in segregated neighborhoods.
You can imagine that Islamic Apartheid is the practice of Muslims relegating minority religions to discriminatory second-class citizens which is a horrible life under Islamic Supremacist Sharia Law.
A Muslim Apologist would deny the imagery of Islamic Apartheid and push the love concept deceptively leaving out treating the non-Muslim as a dirty Kafir.
Al Walaa wal Baraa – the end of Islam?
By Elsa Schieder
Sent May 29, 2017 10:52 AM
Sent from World Truth Summit
I’m writing to you today because a friend is convinced that, if only people knew about al Walaa wal Baraa, that would be the end of Islam.
Is the Islamic doctrine of al Walaa wal Baraa the same as garlic to a vampire? Will it make Islam wither, if waved in front of Islam? Will it at least make non-Islamic people recoil from Islam?
In other words, is al Walaa wal Baraa the stake that will go through the heart of Islam, leaving Islam crumpled and shriveling?
Is it the nail that hammers shut Islam’s coffin?
Is this the magic bullet that dispatches Islam forever and ever?
So many people have been searching for such a magic bullet. In fact, so many people have believed, once they learned even a small part of the truth about Islam, that this information must quickly alert people to the danger of Islam. They’ve had to learn how hard it is to get the information out, and how extremely hard it is to get people to hear.
All the same, yes, there are ways that al Walaa wal Baraa is like garlic to a vampire. The vampire backs away from garlic.
It makes sense that Islam backs away from having non-Islamics familiar with al Walaa wal Baraa. It is used to claiming there is Islamophobia everywhere.
Al Walaa wal Baraa. The briefest definition: Islamic apartheid. We’ve all heard of Israeli apartheid – which is non-existent. Islamic apartheid, al Walaa wal Baraa, is an essential Islamic doctrine.
A child’s game comes to mind: I’m the king of the castle – you’re the dirty rascal. Al Walaa wal Baraa declares Islamics to be permanently the kings of the castle and claims everyone else is permanently a dirty rascal (dirty kafir) unless they convert to Islam.
With al Walaa wal Baraa, Islam is left without its strongest defenses in the West: the victim card, the you-done-me-wrong card, the it’s-the-evil-West card, the it’s-the-vile-Islamophobes card. The focus does an about turn: the spotlight goes to Islam’s moral code, with al Walaa wal Baraa caught center stage. No veils.
That may be why most of us haven’t heard of it, while we’ve almost all heard of hijab, Quran, jihad, niqab, burka, caliphate. Almost certainly, Islam does not want us to see it.
That brings us to: Islam’s moral code is its Achilles’ heel. From Islamic apartheid, to the supposed inferiority of women, to the acceptance of sex slaves, to the denigration of all non-Islamics as kafir, and on – here is Islam’s Achilles’ heel. Ken Roberts, the friend who wants everyone to know about al Walaa wal Baraa, holds this belief. So do I.
The strongest argument against slavery – the moral one. The strongest argument for equal rights for women and men – the moral one. For animal rights – the moral one.
And here, Islam loses on each and every issue.
How to use al Walaa wal Baraa? If there is any reference to Islamophobia, any word about the wonders of Islam or about Islam as a religion of peace, just bring out the garlic – mention al Walaa wal Baraa – that most horrible of things, according to Western ideology – a doctrine of apartheid, Islamic apartheid.
For much more on al Walaa wal Baraa – several definitions, plus a gripping graphic you can use to spread the word:
For even more on al Walaa wal Baraa, including eminent Islamic scholars from throughout the centuries:
Does it work, to mention al Walaa was Baraa? Let me know.
I wouldn’t expect instant success. There’s one jihad massacre after another, and masses of non-Islamics pile up teddy bears and flowers, stay away from any exploration of how the atrocity might be linked to Islamic ideology.
Drip, drip, drip. Spreading awareness of al Walaa wal Baraa may be yet another drip of truth about Islam seeping into non-Islamics. Or maybe we have actually found the nail that hammers shut Islam’s coffin.
One thing I know: Islam’s greatest weakness is its morality: for instance, it lacks the Golden Rule, a part of every other major world religion.
As always, all the best to all who care and dare,
- Yes, it’s been a long time. Sometimes life takes over!! Good to be back.PPS. You’re welcome to post any of this on Facebook, Twitter, etc:
Also I’ve posted on Facebook. To see the post, and maybe share it:
PPPS. More from my friend, Ken Roberts, on how to show the moral deficiency of Islam:
If we ask Christian clergy, ‘Should Christians love non-Christians?’, the clergy will answer, ‘Yes, they should.’ If we ask them, ‘Should Christians love sinners who don’t believe in God?’ the clergy will answer, ‘Yes, they should.’ If we ask them, ‘Should Christians even love the worst sinners?’ the clergy will answer, ‘Yes, even the worst of sinners.’
We all know: Love thy neighbor as thyself. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
If you turn to Islamic literature and ask: ‘Should Islamics love kafirs?’ the answer is very different. The answer is an utter no. The Quran, Hadiths, canonical commentaries and modern scholars of different theological schools all agree. There is no wiggle room for the mullahs to hornswoggle out of the clear answer: ‘No, an Islamic HATES the kafir FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH. If not, the Islamic doesn’t go to Islamic paradise. Instead, the Islamic who LOVES kafirs will go straight to Islamic hell because he is considered a kafir for loving kafirs.’
Using a MORAL ARGUMENT proves Islam is supremacist and anything but loving.
This is extra important because, all over the West, a well-financed campaign is on, promoting the psychobabble word, ‘Islamophobia’.
This is actually psychological PROJECTION of Islam’s very real KAFIROPHOBIA (also known as al Walaa wal Baraa). Al Walaa wal Baraa is an official Islamic doctrine of hostility and apartheid.
There is no group that promotes ‘Islamophobia’ and no psychiatric association recognizes this purported illness, but Al Walaa wal Baraa is a compulsory and essential doctrine of Islam, required for admission into Islamic paradise. Clearly, the anti-Islamophobia campaign is nothing but an attempt to impose anti-human-rights Sharia blasphemy law and its draconian punishments over the Western world.
Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, is for concentrating force on the enemy’s weakest points and then defeating each small target one by one. It is easy to defeat Islamics using FGM or wife-beating, for instance.
It takes a very in-depth knowledge of Islamic primary sources and historic commentaries and modern authorities to defeat them on a more complicated issue, because they will use taqiyya, kitman and tawriya to evade you. But even there, they lose. The writings of the PhDs of Al Azhar and other universities who study Islam for a lifetime know Islam and show it for what it is conclusively.
I have acquired in-depth knowledge of K.4.23-24 (rape of married captives) and can now prove conclusively that 1) it is Islamic, 2) it is the correct interpretation, 3) it is the historical practice of Islam, 4) it is 3 crimes against humanity, 5) it is condemned by UN Security Council Res. 1820, and 6) crimes against humanity would not be decreed by a real deity, therefore Islam must be false and Islamics may leave it with confidence.
At this point you have exhausted Islamics, and they stop debating. Such a debate can take several days.
But you see my point: when we stay with Islam’s MORALITY, Islam invariably loses.
Walaa wal Baraa & Kafir
John R. Houk
© May 31, 2017
In the future I’ll be cross posting the WestInDanger.com article on Walaa wal Baraa, but if you are anxious to read it go HERE.
Al Walaa wal Baraa – the end of Islam?
ELSA, TRUTH SLEUTH:
MY JOURNEY INTO ISLAM
It could be about, how I came to find the wonder of Islam.
The words that come into my mind: The Heart of Darkness, the title of a novel by Joseph Conrad.
What I mean is that I found so many things I did not expect, so many things I could not admire. I would have loved to find a religion of peace. I did not. I feel as if I slowly stepped into a cave, slowly found lights, and had to recoil from what I found.
In one corner, the corpses of 600-900 dead Jews, murdered by Mohammed. The story isn’t one I found in early versions of his story that I came across. But it’s right there, hinted at in the Qu’ran, and spelled out in detail in the Sira and Hadiths (very revered Islamic religious texts). The story is right there.
Where is my aim?
It also aims for the head – facts and figures.
I am also aiming for the heart – for the part of people that loves, cares, has empathy – that cannot accept rape as good, cannot accept beating women as good, cannot accept slavery as good, cannot accept the slaughter of innocents as good.
So I am also different from David.
I want, rather than to kill, to awaken, to reach the heart, to touch the heart – which would break the spell of the false sense of superiority.
And now the image comes back to me. It isn’t David versus Goliath. There are others with me. And it isn’t Goliath that we’re aiming at. The aim is at something small. A book. The contents are there for all to see.
The goal isn’t book burning. The goal is showing the content, airing it out for all to see.
Look, this is here.
Harder, in many ways, than killing one nasty Goliath.
“There is none so blind
as him who will not see”
And that then is the question:
How to make visible what is so clearly visible?
That is the challenge.
Maybe others feel as I did – that to dare to explore is to enter a dusty, musty, unwelcoming cave.