Al-Walāʾ Wa-L-Barāʾ: How A Moral Principle Was Turned into A Radical Islamist Doctrine and Why Islam Rejects That Turn
By New Age Islam Special correspondent
8 January 2026
Al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ was never meant to divide humanity into enemies. It was meant to orient believers toward truth and justice. Radical Islamists transformed it into an ideology of separation by stripping it of context, ethics, and humility. In doing so, they betrayed the Qur’an, the Prophet, and classical Sunni scholarship.
Islam does not call Muslims to withdraw from the world. It calls them to act morally within it. True walāʾ is loyalty to justice. True barāʾ is freedom from oppression. Anything else is ideology masquerading as faith.
Major points:
In Arabic, walāʾ comes from the root w-l-y, which conveys closeness, care, protection, friendship, and moral support. It does not automatically imply political allegiance or blind loyalty. The same root is used in the Qur’an to describe God’s closeness to believers, neighbours’ obligations toward one another, and ethical responsibility.
Radical Islamists read this as an instruction to reject all non-Muslims. Classical exegetes did not. They understood it as a statement about ultimate moral allegiance, not every day human relations.
Modern radical Islamists transformed al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ into a binary ideology: total loyalty versus total hostility. This transformation did not occur in classical Islam. It emerged in the twentieth century, shaped by colonial trauma, political failure, and reactionary theology.
The Prophet Muhammad’s conduct is the strongest refutation of radical walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ. He lived in constant interaction with non-Muslims, trusting them, trading with them, and forming treaties.
But Islam does not offer empowerment through hatred. It offers dignity through ethics.
Among the many Islamic concepts reinterpreted and weaponised by radical Islamist movements, al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ occupies a central and troubling position. In extremist discourse, it is presented as a foundational doctrine that allegedly defines who Muslims must love, whom they must hate, and how they must relate to the rest of the world. According to this reading, true faith demands total loyalty to Muslims alone and complete rejection—emotional, social, and political—of non-Muslims.
From this interpretation flows a rigid worldview: Muslims must isolate themselves from wider society, reject friendship and cooperation with non-Muslims, and view pluralistic life as a betrayal of faith. In its most extreme forms, this logic has justified violence, takfīr (excommunication of other Muslims), and terrorism.
Yet this understanding of al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ is neither Qur’anic nor classical. It is a modern ideological reconstruction, shaped by political grievance, identity anxiety, and absolutist thinking. Classical Sunni Islam, the Qur’an, and the life of the Prophet Muhammad present a very different moral vision—one grounded in ethics, justice, and coexistence rather than hostility and separation.
To understand how radical Islamists arrived at their position, and why it must be rejected, we need to trace the concept carefully: its linguistic meaning, its Qur’anic usage, its classical interpretation, its modern ideological transformation, and finally its contemporary refutation.
The Linguistic and Moral Meaning of Walāʾ and Barāʾ
In Arabic, walāʾ comes from the root w-l-y, which conveys closeness, care, protection, friendship, and moral support. It does not automatically imply political allegiance or blind loyalty. The same root is used in the Qur’an to describe God’s closeness to believers, neighbours’ obligations toward one another, and ethical responsibility.
Barāʾ comes from the root b-r-ʾ, meaning freedom, innocence, or dissociation. In the Qur’an, it most often refers to dissociation from falsehood or injustice, not hatred of people.
In classical Islam, these concepts functioned primarily as moral orientations: loyalty to truth and justice, and freedom from oppression and idolatry. They were not developed as a totalising social or political doctrine.
Al-Walāʾ wa-l-Barāʾ in the Qur’an: Ethics, Not Ideology
The Qur’an speaks repeatedly about loyalty, but it ties loyalty to God, justice, and righteousness, not to communal hostility.
One of the most cited verses on walāʾ states:
إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا
“Your ally is only God, His Messenger, and those who believe.” (Qur’an 5:55)
Radical Islamists read this as an instruction to reject all non-Muslims. Classical exegetes did not. They understood it as a statement about ultimate moral allegiance, not every day human relations.
Similarly, dissociation in the Qur’an often refers to freedom from false worship:
إِنَّنِي بَرَاءٌ مِمَّا تَعْبُدُونَ
“Indeed, I am free from what you worship.” (Qur’an 43:26)
This is Prophet Abraham rejecting idolatry—not declaring permanent enmity toward non-believers.
The Qur’an repeatedly emphasises moral universality:
وَقُولُوا لِلنَّاسِ حُسْنًا
“Speak good to people.” (Qur’an 2:83)
Not “to Muslims,” but to people.
And most decisively:
لَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ… أَنْ تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ
“God does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who do not fight you because of religion.” (Qur’an 60:8)
This verse directly contradicts extremist readings. Kindness (birr) and justice (qist) toward non-Muslims are not compromises of faith; they are Qur’anic commands.
How Radical Islamists Rebuilt the Concept
Modern radical Islamists transformed al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ into a binary ideology: total loyalty versus total hostility. This transformation did not occur in classical Islam. It emerged in the twentieth century, shaped by colonial trauma, political failure, and reactionary theology.
Extremist writers argue that Muslims must show walāʾ only to Muslims and barāʾ toward all non-Muslims, regardless of context. They frame everyday coexistence as religious betrayal and civic participation as ideological apostasy.
A central verse used is:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ أَوْلِيَاءَ
“O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as allies.” (Qur’an 5:51)
Radicals treat this as a universal ban on friendship and cooperation. Classical scholars did not.
Classical Sunni Interpretation: Context and Restraint
Classical exegetes such as Imam al-Tabari and Imam ibn Kathir interpreted Qur’an 5:51 in specific political and military contexts, not as a blanket social command.
Ibn Kathir explained that the verse addressed situations where alliances endangered the Muslim community during conflict. It was never understood as a prohibition on kindness, friendship, or peaceful coexistence.
Imam al-Qurtubi wrote that wilāyah in this verse refers to political guardianship and hostile alliance, not normal human relations.
What Classical Scholars Actually Said
Imam Abu Hanifa, whose school shaped South Asian Islam, permitted Muslims to live peacefully under non-Muslim rule, engage in trade, and maintain social relations. If al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ demanded isolation, his jurisprudence would be impossible.
Imam al-Ghazali warned against confusing faith with arrogance:
“The sign of true knowledge is humility, not hatred of creation.”
For al-Ghazali, moral corruption begins when religious identity becomes a source of pride rather than responsibility.
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, often misused by radicals, explicitly stated:
“Justice is obligatory toward everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim, and oppression is forbidden even against an unbeliever.”
This statement alone demolishes extremist readings of barāʾ as hostility.
The Prophet Muhammad’s Life as the Ultimate Refutation
The Prophet Muhammad’s conduct is the strongest refutation of radical walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ. He lived in constant interaction with non-Muslims, trusting them, trading with them, and forming treaties.
The Constitution of Madinah recognised Jews as part of the political community. This civic inclusion contradicts the idea that loyalty requires separation.
The Prophet said:
مَنْ آذَى ذِمِّيًّا فَقَدْ آذَانِي
“Whoever harms a protected non-Muslim has harmed me.”
This Hadith turns ethical treatment of non-Muslims into a religious obligation.
He also stood up when a Jewish funeral passed by and said:
“Was he not a human soul?”
Such actions are impossible to reconcile with extremist doctrines.
How Radical Walāʾ wa-l-Barāʾ Produces Violence
When barāʾ becomes hostility, several dangerous outcomes follow.
First, social alienation. Muslims are discouraged from engaging with society, creating isolation and resentment.
Second, takfīr. Muslims who cooperate with non-Muslims are declared apostates. This logic was central to ISIS’s violence against other Muslims.
Third, normalisation of brutality. Once humanity is divided into loyalists and enemies, ethical restraint collapses.
None of this comes from Islam’s moral tradition. It comes from ideological absolutism.
Moderate Sunni Understanding: Ethics Over Identity
Mainstream Sunni scholarship understands al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ as loyalty to faith and ethics, not hostility to people.
Loyalty means commitment to justice, honesty, and compassion. Dissociation means rejecting injustice, cruelty, and falsehood—regardless of who commits them.
The Qur’an commands:
كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَىٰ أَنفُسِكُمْ
“Stand firmly for justice, even against yourselves.” (Qur’an 4:135)
Justice, not identity, defines loyalty.
Al-Walāʾ wa-l-Barāʾ in the Indian Context
In India, radical interpretations of al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ are particularly destructive. Indian Muslims have lived for centuries within a plural civilisation, sharing culture, language, and public life with non-Muslims.
Sufi traditions shaped Indian Islam, emphasising compassion, coexistence, and ethical universality. Shrines were shared spaces; social life was intertwined.
Radical ideology imported from conflict zones treats this history as deviation. It frames coexistence as betrayal and pluralism as weakness. This not only contradicts Islam but endangers Muslim communities by isolating them socially and politically.
Islam in India survived and flourished because it rejected ideological separation.
The appeal lies in simplicity. Walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ becomes an easy moral map: us versus them, loyalty versus betrayal. For young people facing identity crises, this certainty feels empowering.
But Islam does not offer empowerment through hatred. It offers dignity through ethics.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Walāʾ as Moral Commitment
Al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ was never meant to divide humanity into enemies. It was meant to orient believers toward truth and justice.
Radical Islamists transformed it into an ideology of separation by stripping it of context, ethics, and humility. In doing so, they betrayed the Qur’an, the Prophet, and classical Sunni scholarship.
Islam does not call Muslims to withdraw from the world.
It calls them to act morally within it.
True walāʾ is loyalty to justice.
True barāʾ is freedom from oppression.
Anything else is ideology masquerading as faith.
...
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism