Обсуждение:Преданность

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān / Loyalty

Being true to anyone to whom one owes fidelity. The idea or concept of “loyalty” occurs discursively in the Qurʾān and is dispersed under a variety of rubrics. Even though there is no single term that specifically deals with the theme of “loyalty,” it nevertheless features in the discussions and exegesis of a number of verses (see exegesis of the qurʾān: classical and medieval ). The concept is most frequently encountered in relation to “pacts of mutual assistance” ( muwālā, see contracts and alliances; breaking trusts and contracts) and other formations of the Arabic root w-l-y, whose basic meaning is “friend/ally” ( walī, see friends and friendship ). In an eschatological context (see eschatology ), on the day of judgment (see last judgment ), those who are consigned to hell (q.v.; see also reward and punishment ) are said to have no “bosom” or “close” — i.e. “loyal” — friend (ḥamīm, e.g. q 69:35; ṣadīq, q 26:101) or intercessor (see intercession ). ¶ The notions conveyed by terms like “friend,” “close” and “ally” normally, however, occur as adjectives in the Qurʾān and are therefore not exact equivalents of the English noun, “loyalty.”

Loyalty is not explicitly defined in the commentaries but it is frequently described and illustrated contextually. Two kinds of loyalty are discernable from various Qurʾān passages: (1) corporate loyalty that demands a commitment to the community of faith (q.v.; see also community and society in the qurʾān ) and (2) individual loyalty displayed towards fellow Muslims as well as to non-Muslims, a phenomenon that is more ambiguous and complex (see ethics and the qurʾān ). Corporate loyalty is framed by those passages of the Qurʾān that regulate the relationship between believers and unbelievers as well as those verses that define the covenantal relationship between the Muslim and God (see belief and unbelief; covenant). The qurʾānic narrative unmistakably implies that inter-human conduct — irrespective of whether it occurs within the confessional community of Muslims or with outsiders — is largely contingent on the relationship between humans and God.

This theistic dimension casts its shadow on the themes of loyalty and friendship. Thus, the believers who fulfill God's will are clearly identified with God's cause and his people (see path or way ). Any partisanship and association with those who reject God's will shall have castigatory consequences depending on the extent to which such links are offensive to God and the cause of righteousness on earth. Showing affection or displaying dislike to any human being ought to be exclusively for the sake of God (al- ḥubb lillāh wa-l-bughḍ lillāh), a phrase frequently cited by commentators as a saying attributed to the Prophet (see ḥadīth and the qurʾān ). Thus, the God of the Qurʾān mediates the most intimate bonds of friendship, confidence, privacy and loyalty (see trust and patience). ¶

Explicit traces of Islam's founding history (see history and the qurʾān; occasions of revelation) are evident in qurʾānic narratives (q.v.) and norms that structure the notions of friendship and loyalty. The qurʾānic narrative reflects the vagaries of the intense inter-communal relationships between believers on the one hand, and polytheists, Jews and Christians on the other, as the nascent community of believers became a sizeable political entity in Medina (q.v.; see also jews and judaism; christians and christianity; polytheism and atheism). Initially, qurʾānic pronouncements meticulously regulate the political relationships, but the moralizing discourse that colors these identities gradually grows and intensifies (see politics and the qurʾān; religious pluralism and the qurʾān).

Prior to the normative influence of Islam (q.v.) in Arabia, alliances customarily were based on grounds of kinship (q.v.; nasab) while military and political strength depended on one's choice of political friends or allies (walī, pl. awliyāʾ, see pre-islamic arabia and the qurʾān ). The increasing hostilities between the Muslims and their Meccan opponents, exacerbated by the support of the Medinan Jews for Muḥammad's enemies (q.v.) correlate directly with the Qurʾān's prohibition and restriction of corporate loyalty and mutual help pacts ( muwālā) between Muslims and non-Muslims (see opposition to muḥammad ). Verses in seven different passages repeatedly stress the fact that believers ought not to take unbelievers as their allies ( q 3:28; 4:89, 139, 144; cf. 5:51, 57, 80-1). ¶

In one instance even the People of the Book (q.v.; Jews and Christians in this case), towards whom the Qurʾān generally shows deference, are deplored as potential partners in alliance since they are alleged to have loyalties with each other and they are suspected of harboring vengeful enmity towards the Muslim community ( q 5:51). In fact, the rhetoric becomes so intense that the verse even goes on to assert that those Muslims who transgress this prohibition and form such alliances are deemed to “be part of them,” namely one of the Jews or Christians, a severe rejection that equates the identity of the offender with the ideological “other.” The Qurʾān specifically prohibits loyalty treaties with non-Muslim parties when the latter are favored “in preference to believers” (min dūni l- muʾminīn, q 3:28). In other words, if alliances with non-believers turn out to harm the interests of fellow Muslims then they are outlawed as a matter of principle. Only expediency ( taqiyya, see dissimulation ) permits the continuation of loyalty treaties with unbelievers, especially if breaking such treaties would pose a genuine threat to the welfare and safety of Muslims.

Nevertheless, the Qurʾān does permit Muslims to show kindness as well as to exhibit virtuous conduct and justice to those non-Muslims who are not engaged in active hostility towards them ( q 60:8-9). While this passage has general implications, and could easily be viewed as also sanctioning corporate loyalty across religious boundaries, many commentators only permit its interpretation as reference to individual and private loyalty. Again, such relationships are subject to the caveat that they do not harm the general welfare of Muslims. q 58:22 also reinforces the theme of individual loyalty found in q 60:8-9. It, however, forcefully plays off loyalties based on kinship against loyalties based on faith. ¶ q 58:22 deems it unimaginable that one can show “love” (q.v.) to someone who is related by blood and kinship ties but who contests and disputes the divine message and prophecy (see prophets and prophethood ). The inference is clear: bonds of faith outweigh loyalties based on family and kinship ties. Even though he is said to have lied three times (cf. Gilliot, Trois mensonges), the prophet Abraham (q.v.; Ibrāhīm) is cast as the paragon of loyalty toward the divine as in q 53:37. Abraham's willingness to fulfill (waffā) his commitments to God, including his readiness to sacrifice (q.v.) his son (cf. q 37:99-111) and his disavowal of his father's idolatry (cf. q 6:74-84; see idolatry and idolaters ), turns him into God's loyal friend ( q 4:125; see ḥanīf ). In q 2:40 the Children of Israel (q.v.) are reminded of their duty to fulfill their part of the covenant (wa-awfū bi- ʿahdī ūfi bi-ʿahdikum) as a sign of loyalty to God. Fulfillment ( īfāʾ) of promises, contracts and agreements are crucial supplements to the Qurʾān's covenant-based worldview (see oaths ). There is also an isomorphic relationship between secular and cosmological loyalties because it is presumed that one who has a sound creed (see creeds ) would also be better equipped ethically to fulfill worldly commitments and contractual obligations.

Some pre-modern and modern exegetes (see exegesis of the qurʾān: early modern and contemporary ) are confronted by two major interpretative questions with regard to the exegesis of loyalty. Firstly, controversy exists about whether q 60:8-9, which permits relations with non-hostile unbelievers, is abrogated by the later revelation of q 9:5 (known as the “verse of the sword”; see abrogation; fighting). The latter abrogates all agreements and treaties that Muḥammad had with non-Muslim political entities and fosters an uncompromising hostility towards all unbelievers. ¶ Secondly, if q 60:8-9 is not abrogated, then does it sanction the tolerance of personal and individual loyalty across religious boundaries as opposed to the prohibition of corporate loyalty of a political nature?

The Persian exegete al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) argues that q 3:28 decisively prohibits believers from taking unbelievers ( kuffār) as their “helpers ( aʿwān), protectors ( anṣār) and partisans ( ẓāhirīn).” Taking non-Muslims as protectors in preference to believers, he adds, is tantamount to affirming their religion, thereby strengthening the false beliefs of the enemy against those of the Muslims (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, iii, 228). Even though believers are admonished not to make pacts that favor unbelievers in “preference to fellow believers,” most exegetes deem it acceptable to maintain strategic loyalties for the purpose of survival. In the view of a number of commentators, the struggle of belief against unbelief is a permanent one and thus there is an — albeit implicit — general rule that prohibits loyalty pacts. Therefore, al-Ṭabarī views the act of a Muslim displaying loyalty to non-Muslims to be an extremely displeasing and a hostile act against God, his Prophet and the believers at large. And any Muslim who shows loyalty to Jews and Christians, he goes on to say, has “declared war on the people of faith” (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, vi, 276).

Interestingly, the Shīʿī exegete al-Ṭabarsī (d. ca. 552/1157; see shīʿism and the qurʾān ) understands the Qurʾān's prohibition against alliances and friendships with non-Muslims to be for reasons of power. Seeking alliances and loyalty pacts with non-Muslims is tantamount to seeking a position of invincibility with those whose faith is unacceptable to God. Such alliances undermine the believers' faith in God and affect God's estimation of their belief (Ṭabarsī, Majmaʿ, v, 261). ¶ The terms “ Jews” and “Christians” generically represent all classes of unbelievers, towards whom hostility is obligatory and thus friendship and loyalty with them is, implicitly, outlawed (Ṭabarsī, Majmaʿ, vi, 119). Al-Ṭabarsī treats unbelief in an almost undifferentiated manner, because he maintains that all non-Muslims have “a single hand against the Muslims.” He also believes that the summons to show virtuous and equitable treatment of non-Muslims in q 60:8-9 was abrogated by the “verse of the sword.” He concedes, though, that q 60:8-9 allowed some Muslims during the Prophet's time to interact with their non-Muslim relatives who did not actively show hostility to Muslims. This specific verse permits loyalty affiliations with non-Muslims with whom Muslims have treaties, says al-Ṭabarsī, citing a general consensus that permits the demonstration of kindness to persons deemed to be subjects of the “territory of war” (q.v.; dār al-ḥarb).

The Andalusian exegete al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272) declares with unequivocal finality that unbelievers, Jews as well as those Muslims who espouse heretical tendencies (see heresy ), cannot be treated as friends and relied upon as loyal intimates (Jāmiʿ, iv, 178). He believes that q 3:118 strictly forbade believers to take as loyal confidants ( biṭāna) a person from another religion. “Every person,” he adds, “who is contrary to your way of life( madhhab) and religion ( dīn), [surely] there is no need for you to converse with him.” He goes so far as to say that appointing “protected persons” ( ahl al-dhimma) as agents in transactions or as clerks and secretaries in government is not permissible. In his jeremiad he rails against the “ignorant and stupid governors and princes” of his day who had ignored the Qurʾān's teachings on these matters (Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ, iv, 179). ¶ Al-Qurṭubī's vehemence stems from the prohibition found in q 5:51 that severs loyalty pacts ( muwālā) with unbelievers, a command he claims will remain in force “till the day of judgment” (Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ, vi, 217). He went so far as to disallow the employment of non-Muslims even in instances that might be beneficial to the religion of Islam (Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ, v, 416). Al-Qurṭubī's antipathy for alliances and interactions with non-Muslims was most likely fuelled by the common perception among the Muslim religious classes of his day that the rulers of his native Andalusia had capitulated to Christian political influences and had endangered the suzerainty of Islam in the Iberian peninsula.

For the modern revivalist commentator Sayyid Quṭb (d. 1966), the verses examined above suggest the impossibility of inter-religious political co-existence. For him, the Qurʾān mandates the “total isolation” of Muslims from other ideological communities (Quṭb, Ẓilāl, ii, 907). Employing a qurʾānic idiom, Quṭb says that Muslims are the only group that can legitimately be called “the party of God” ( ḥizāb Allāh) as a model for universal moral rectitude (see parties and factions ). Among worldviews, he attributes this separatist understanding as unique to Islam, for it necessarily and inevitably anticipates an ideological confrontation with the anti-Islamic mores and norms of non-Muslim societies at large. This separatist imperative, in his view, makes it impossible for Muslims to give political loyalty to any other ideological group since doing so would be tantamount to apostasy (q.v.). Islam's tolerance for the People of the Book should not be confused with an endorsement of loyalty pacts. ¶ Quṭb argues that modern history — especially the history of colonialism, and the creation of the state of Israel that resulted in the dispossession and expulsion of the Palestinians from their native land — was achieved as a result of a hostile Christian and Jewish collusion. He saw this as conclusive proof that loyalty to such religious communities could be nothing but an anathema to Muslim sensibilities ( Quṭb, Ẓilāl, ii, 907-17; id., Maʿālim, passim).

In his commentary on q 60:8-9, Quṭb retreats from his earlier position, which was absolutely against loyalty pacts across religious boundaries. Here he concedes that God permits “mutual friendly relations” ( mawadda) on an individual level towards those non-Muslims who do not show aggression towards Muslims. While reiterating the ban on loyalty pacts, he implicitly concedes that pacts may be possible with friendly non-Muslim entities (Quṭb, Ẓilāl, vi [xxviii], 3544). His rhetoric becomes conciliatory by arguing that Islam is a dogma ( ʿaqīda) of love and it has no interest in conflict if there is no hostility directed at Muslims.

The Pakistani ideologue S. Abū Aʿlā Maudūdī (d. 1979) interprets the verses that deal with loyalty pacts in a functional manner. For him they serve as a reminder to Muslims not to become instruments in the service of enemies who, in the end, will undermine their existential interests. While Maudūdī's tone, unlike that of Quṭb, is subdued, he also argues that the Qurʾān prohibits friendship with hostile non-Muslims and taking them into confidence, while recommending kind and just treatment for those non-Muslims who do not demonstrate active enmity towards Muslims (Maudūdī, Message, ii, 19). Muḥammad Asad (d. 1992), the Austrian-born convert and Qurʾān commentator, states that the verses prohibiting loyalty pacts with non-Muslims cover both political and moral alliances. ¶ His interpretation is that those who deny the truth of the divine message are precluded from being real friends to believers in a corporate sense, while not ruling out friendship between individuals of different religions (Asad, Message, 252-3, n. 82). The Qurʾān, however, permits corporate loyalty pacts with those non-Muslims who are well disposed towards them (Asad, Message, 155, n. 73).

From this brief and select sample of exegetical materials it becomes apparent that the notion of loyalty is framed within the evolving narrative of the Qurʾān's discourses on the construction of the Muslim individual and corporate “self” in the mirror of the non-Muslim “other.” Genuine loyalty can only occur among those who are ideologically of one's own kind, according to some Muslim exegetes. Most early commentators follow a strict chronological hermeneutic. One sees therefore an initial tolerance for loyalty based on kinship being gradually supplanted by a loyalty based on faith as the pax-Islamica grows in Arabia. Corporate inter-faith loyalty, in turn, can only occur under certain limited conditions, while there is some leeway for Muslims to maintain individual loyalties across the boundaries of faith. Theism and bonds of faith ultimately mediate loyalty. Loyalty to a fellow-believer reinforces one's belief in a common God which, in turn, creates a notion of community that transcends kinship and ethnicity.

---

Primary

M. Asad, The message of the Qurʾān, Gibraltar 1980

S. Abū Aʿlā Maudūdī, The meaning of the Qurʾān, trans. M. Akbar, ed. A.A. Kamal, Lahore 1985

Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ

S. Quṭb, Maʿālim fī l-ṭarīq, Cairo 1980

id., Ẓilāl, 30 vols. in 6, Beirut 19773

Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, Cairo 19683

Ṭabarsī, Majmaʿ

Secondary

C. Gilliot, Les trois mensonges d'Abraham dans la tradition interprétante musulmane, in ios 17 (1997), 37-87

J.D. McAuliffe, Christians in the Qurʾān and tafsīr, in J. Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim perceptions of other religions. A historical survey, New York 1999, 105-21 (esp. 110-12)

R. Mottahedeh, Loyalty and leadership in an early Islamic society, Princeton 1980

Cite this page

Moosa, Ebrahim, “Loyalty”, in: Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, General Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Georgetown University, Washington DC. Consulted online on 07 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-3922_q3_EQSIM_00267>

3/237-242