Relationships with Non-Muslims

Q: Some people believe that establishing relationships with non-Islamic parties is a concession over principles. What do you think of this?
A: The question of concession is related to the intellectual or executive (practical) aspect in a negative way. Actually, when we find that Muslims and seculars are working together in order to achieve some common objectives imposed by a specific period of time or specific circumstances; in such case, we do not see any concession for collaboration, coordination and alliance are setting from the presence of a mutual objective between the two parties. And the slogans of the said objective represent, even more, those of both parties. A typical illustration of this is the situation we are living today in confronting Israel or world arrogance whether in our countries or from our general Islamic positions. Under the prevailing circumstances, we might find that we are in agreement with some people with regard to the fight against world arrogance or the battle against Israel while still keeping our principles and while making no concession. That is, those people are seeking to attain the same goal we aspire to, sharing us the same slogan, which is destroying or weakening world arrogance and annihilating Israel.
Once again, I say that working hand in hand with those people does not involve any concession because it is just like sharing someone, with whom you disagree, a particular line or course of action that heads toward the same desired end.
Some people might claim that cooperating with this party or that, which does not adopt Islam as a religion or in contrast which abides by the rules of a line or pattern that is different from or opposing to Islam, represents an admission of the legitimacy of the latter as a political line or party. As a matter of fact, we do not believe so because when we examine the alliance or the collaboration between the various parties outside the scope of Islam, which differ from each other in terms of ideology, conditions, relations, backgrounds, as well as numerous details, we find that none of them acknowledges the legitimacy of the other in the intellectual and political meaning of legitimacy; however, they work and act with each other from the perspective of admitting each other’s actual existence. And admitting the actual existence does not mean admitting the legitimacy of ideology, relations or whatever because, in this respect, matters are viewed from the angle of facts.
Hence, we don’t see in collaborating with seculars, which aims at achieving a common and circumstantial goal, dealing with some affairs, serving some general slogans that happen to be ours as much as they are theirs, an admission of their legitimacy or a concession over ours. We rather regard it as an acknowledgment of their actual existence, exactly as you recognize the actual existence of a particular person with whom you meet on some specific objectives while you contradict in thoughts or ideology.
Therefore, there is no problem in principle with respect to this collaboration or alliance whenever the ultimate goal is mutual. However, Muslims must be aware and careful not to let others exploit them in order to attain what goes beyond the common goal and not to let them display their distinctive slogans that symbolize their own line because, in return, this might negatively affect the Islamic line. This particular point is more related to the tiny details of the frontline, allied or coordinated activities. So, when we examine this question in principle, we find that the origin of the alliance, collaboration or coordination involve no kind of intellectual or practical concession.

The Fundamentals of Treatment among Muslims

Q: What are the basics and fundamentals of the work or alliance between Islamic parties or between Islamic figures? Does a simple disagreement in viewpoints affect the justness or the immorality of the other party?

A: When we want to work together with other Muslims with whom we might be in disagreement as regards some detailed point of views but, at the same time, we fall in with on the basic principles, it is natural that we treat them as a Muslim treats another Muslim; that is, he is not allowed to insult or revile him, to calumniate or accuse him unjustly, to betray or disappoint him, or to make spiteful or slanderous comments about him while he is not present . Thus, we must act according to the positive as well as the negative Islamic moralities in this respect, which means that we should be aware of what should be done and what should not, what is lawful and what is not, while taking into consideration what represents an element of deviation in this party or that or what might represent a transgression that a certain party could detect in the other. Such issues must be studied according to the conflict of interests principle, meaning that the greatest and supreme Islamic interest might necessitate to weakening the position of this person or party even if it that means weakening his or its social status or so.
In such cases, the human being must adheres to Islamic laws and principles as to the general behavior or the unusual cases which are governed by the principle of conflict between good and evil, where he finds himself standing in front what is important and what is more important. So, if, based on those laws and principles even in their secondary consideration, a certain Muslim adopts a negative comportment with regard to another Muslim as a result of the most important predominating over the important; in such case, his justness does not cease to exist. On the other hand, if a Muslim deviates from Islamic laws and tries to make advantage of another Muslim’s absence in order to slander and traduce him, to affront or to accuse him falsely where the absence of the latter does not come under the exceptions of slander and there was no Islamic necessity imposing the carrying out of such thing, it would be natural then that such behavior imparts the human being with the quality of the immoral instead of the just person.
Hence, we should follow this mode of behavior in all our dealings with Muslims whether inside or outside the framework of parties activities and attitudes. We must treat them according to the ethics and moralities of Islam.

Q: öBut doesn’t this mean facing another problem here? Each party could find excuses to justify his negative behavior towards the other party being convinced with his own point of view which, naturally and definitely, differs from the other party’s standpoint who also could provide enough reasons to explain his own attitude. What is your comment on this?
A: In order to justify the behavior of this or that person, the human being must be based on the law and religious principles and not on his temperament or whims. In fact, the question of the important and the most important as to carrying out good or evil must be subjected to an objective study that examines the various aspects of the subject in accordance with their actual existence.
The real issue we are facing here sets from the emotive, temperamental, factional or grouping cases which perceive only the negative attitudes of the other party and refuse to look at good aspects; and this is something that has nothing to do with Islam because in his definition of fanaticism , as reported in the Traditions - , Imam Zain Al-Abidein (a.s) said: the fanaticism which turns a person into a sinner is when the latter considers the most evildoers of his people as better than the good doers of other people. Verily, fanaticism is not about a person loving his own people; it is rather about a man supporting his people in their oppression.

Q: Does a party have the authority to forbid one of its adherents from establishing a relationship with a person or a party with whom or which it is at variance?
A: Yes, if the commitment to the party is binding on the human being. As for his Islamic obligations or as for the existence of a supreme Islamic interest underneath this commitment, it is natural that he abides by the orders of the legitimate leadership if the party had a legitimate leadership. On this basis, if he was commanded to carry out some deeds which were related neither to enjoining a certain illicitness nor to forbidding a certain obligation or duty but on the contrary were lawful and preferable - that can be regarded as illicit according to the emergence of some secondary considerations -; then, he must fulfill and comply with them in conformity with his commitment to abide by the instructions issued by the legitimate leadership.

Q: Let me reverse the question. If the party orders me to meet some parties or persons with whom I disagree or I do not feel comfortable; should or shouldn’t I implement the instruction?
A: You ought to meet the said party if the order was issued by the legitimate leadership to which you have promised to obey and by the orders of which you have pledged to abide.

Yesterday’s enemy ,­ today’s friend

Q: What is the legal stance with regard to famous political sayings such as yesterday’s enemy could be today’s friend’ and how do they affect the evaluation of peoples behaviors and attitudes?
A: The question of enmity and friendship could be dealt with as a matter of principle when trying to assess a person’s attitudes and decide whether they are with or against another human being. An example on this could be the question of belief and unbelief; it goes without saying that unbelief is the enemy of belief and consequently antagonism arises between the disbeliever, being in the position of a disbeliever, and the believer, being in the position of a believer. So, what we have actually is an enmity of a line to a line, of a principle to a principle and not of a person to another person. Nevertheless, sometimes, the interest of belief necessitates that you establish a relationship. I am not implying here the friendship in the spiritual meaning of friendship with a disbeliever because by doing so you could serving the benefit of Islam and belief. Take for instance the relations established between an Islamic state and a disbelieving one. Such relations are founded and nourished because of the economic, cultural, scientific and technological exchanges that redound to the benefit of the state.
Hence, you might need to meet up with a disbelieving party who agrees with you on confronting another disbelieving party which could be far more dangerous on Islam and Muslims. Sometimes you might find yourself unable to fight a certain party on your own; in such case you could surely use the help of a specific party or person in order to put an end to its threat or danger. So, when you are facing a case where the greatest Islamic interest is at stake, you are allowed to be engaged with a certain party in a friendship with political, economic, or any other purpose.
What is unlawful in Islam is that you love and support those who resist God . Supporting and loving are based, in fact, on the depth of the spiritual openness vis-a-vis the other with all the characteristics of openness. Therefore, loving and supporting those who resist God (s.w.t) turns out to be openness to unbelief, a sort of carelessness towards the unbelief of this person or that and goes against what the following Glorious Quranic verse clearly expresses: {Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger} (58: 22). As a matter of fact, there is a difference between the love which sets from the deepness of feelings, faithfulness and loyalty and the fellowship, association and cooperation; a relationship that could be called friendship according to the political meaning of the issue. So, a person could be politically my enemy because he stands on my facing side which opposes, in reality, the supreme and highest Islamic interests; nonetheless, tomorrow, he could turn out to be my friend when circumstances and conditions oblige him to alter his stance from the old opposing one to the new opened one. Accordingly, there is no problem with regard to this particular point of the issue in this respect.

Q: Some states ask for private and confidential information about some operating Islamic movements under the claim of consolidating cooperation with it. Where can we set the boundaries of delivering information to such state in a way that we do not inflict the concerned movement with any damage or harm while preserving the atmosphere of intimacy and good relations.
A: The question you are asking here is considered one of those very specific matters; matters which you cannot enter into its particular and detailed elements. Actually, you must be able to notice and detect the traits or characteristics of the said state: can you trust it with your secrets or not? Does the fact of you opening up to it redound to the benefit or the harm of Islam? Accordingly, the same reasoning must be applied at the level of your movement. Decisions must be taken in the light of what represents the best interest of Islam and Muslims. A comparison or an assessment must be carried out between the interests of your movement and the interests of the State. The interests of this state; are they higher and more important then yours with relation to the Islamic reality or vice versa? Thus, the issue of delivering information must be studied in view of the necessity to deliver them. And if such necessity proves to be present; then you should look for the size of information that does not endanger the Islamic reality when delivered.
Q: How can we deal with the Islamic states that deal with our enemies?
A: Obviously, extreme carefulness and caution must be put forth in the relations with these states. The fact that these states have contacts or dealings with our enemies might actually turn our dealing with them into a great favor serving the benefits of our enemy. Carrying out relations with such states could strengthen their positions or status and reinforce their economy or security; something that could be exploited by our enemy who, in return, makes use of those advantages to strengthen its own position or status and reinforce its own economy or security. Therefore, we should deal with those states in compliance with what our binding and predominant interests impose making sure that the positive results of this relation exceed by far its negative ones. From this perspective, we find no problem in dealing with those states. Furthermore, it could be that we may deal with them even if our enemies found a way to take advantage of this dealing, in case that does not expose us to risks or dangers.

Q: Does an Islamic party enjoy, similarly to the state, the right to make contacts with whatever country or political entities it wishes to? Knowing that some opinions find this matter dubious and problematic taking into consideration that the capacities and abilities of the party are smaller than those of the state and less capable of facing those of a state especially if the latter was a big one?­
A: When a party or movement wishes to establish relations with a certain entity, it is very natural that it embarks on examining its step thoroughly. Does it have a chance to cooperate with this state without being absorbed by the latter (if the latter was not an Islamic state) and without being drawn to take part in its plans and negative attitudes and pretenses towards Islam? Let us assume that the said state was an Islamic one; this does not mean that no other problem could arise because there could be some cases of contrast or differentiation between the beliefs and activity of this party or movement and those of the state. In such case, the party or the movement might be obliged to melt in the state or to interact with it from a position of weakness; and that, in return, could harm the great causes it represents. So, such move needs to be studied comprehensively. And while sometimes you find that such relations could be useful and harmless; some other times, you might find that it is necessary not to establish such relations right from the start in order to preserve your position even if that resulted in losing some powers.
Thus, we remark that this question belongs to specific matters that have to do with the relations between a party and another state, whether it was an Islamic or a non-Islamic state. It is one of those questions that which you cannot treat but when studying its detailed features. In general, you could say that it falls under the general theme representing the best interest of Islam and Muslims and that moves in accordance with the way things are taking place in the real world with reference to the relations between parties or between organizations.

Q: What do you think about what is being proposed today with regard to the call advocating normalization between Islamic movements and non-Islamic regimes? Doesn’t that conflict with what we know about the Imams’ (a.s) attitudes regarding both the Umayyad as well as the Abbasid dynasties knowing that both of them had raised the slogan of Islam­?
A: normalization with regimes would signify opening up to them through legitimizing them which means that normalization leads to eliminating the rejection and the denunciation that each person has inwardly towards the unlawful rule. Actually, this is something forbidden largely and particularly because we should not legitimize any party that has no legitimacy. And that is what we clearly infer from what has been mentioned in the traditions reporting the Imams (a.s) who ordered people to rupture relations with the oppressors even to the extent of not providing them with camels for pilgrimage not because the act is unlawful in itself but because its results might turn out to be a spiritual openness to them; and that was mentioned in the conversation that went between Imam Mussa Al-Kazem (a.s) and Safwan al Gammal. So the Imam (a.s) addressed Safwan and said: Do you want them to stay until they pay you your money? Sure I do, replied Al Gammal. Then, Imam Mussa Al Kazem (a.s) said: Who wants them to stay is considered one of them and one of their supporters. Therefore, the human being must conclusively make up his mind and heart with respect to the illegitimacy of the illegitimate rule.
On the other hand, if justification for dealing with the above mentioned parties were set forth based on people’s general needs and on the surrounding facts which, sometimes, oblige the human being to deal, coexist and cooperate with the illegitimate ruling entity when it comes to mutual objectives and causes; such interaction becomes permissible when the doing of good or evil, related to the general Islamic reality, is being taken into consideration. It is the same situation as the truce announced, at any particular period or stage, by the people of wisdom or the legitimate rulers or leaders who deem necessary to freeze the state of war between legitimacy and illegitimacy.
Moreover, it is natural that this opinion remains under those flexible considerations which decide on the nature of an act differently according to the changes of the objective circumstances dominating the issue; meaning if it is a negative thing to do today, tomorrow, it could prove to be a positive thing. Hence, you cannot deliver a conclusive judgment refusing such kind of acts, nor can you give your absolute approval. In principle, as you are faced with such situation, your first reaction must be an emotional, intellectual as well as a realistic rejection so that the human being won’t sympathize with who has no legitimacy. However, when being subjected to some specific circumstances, the question must be considered carefully and then settled with regard to those objective factors and conditions.