Mawali in Islam

[Toramana]

Mawali or mawālá (Arabic: موالي) is a term in Classical Arabic used to address Muslim non-Arabs.
The term gained prominence in the centuries following the early Arab Muslim conquests in the 7th century, as many non-Arabs such as Persians, Egyptians, and Turks converted to Islam. These converts were treated as second class citizens by the ruling Arab elite - they continued to pay the tax required of nonbelievers and were excluded from government and the military until the end of the Umayyad Caliphate.[1] Therefore, many of them were drawn to the anti-Ummayyad activities of the Kaysanites Shia.
Under the Abbasid rulers of the 9th century, the mawālī comprised an important part of the army. The fragmentation of the Abbasid around 900 took place with the mawālī rise to power, the Saffarid Dynasty and Ghaznavids in Greater Iran, and the Qarmatians in the Arabian Peninsula. Together, the rise to power of these ethnic groups restricted the power of the Abbasid caliph into Baghdad.
The Word

• Mawālī موالي / master, slaves or servers
• Al-Mawālī الموالي / slaves or servers
• Al-Mawlá المولى / god (one of Names of God in the Arabic language)

In India, the term is also used in a derogatory way to refer to someone who is uncivilized. aka "Riff-raff"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawali

[Toramana]

Islam offered a means by which Arabs could be united in a single movement that transcended clan and class divisions. The new religion was fiercely monotheistic. It offered Arabs a religion that was distinctly their own, free of the influences of outside civilizations. The umma the undivided community of believers made political unity possible, provided a single source of authority, and directed the military culture of the bedouin outward against unbelievers. Islam also helped to close the rift between the wealthy and poor Arabic clans. The well-to-do were enjoined to take responsibility for the weak and the poor. The zakat a tax to support the poor was a responsibility of the faithful. Islamic law, drawn from the Quran and the life of the prophet, regulated all aspects of Islamic society.

http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bo...e-content.html

[Wrayun]

Toramana,

The source for Mawali on the wiki page is a single link that doesn't shed much light on the origins of the term. The article seems to be a POV of the author. I agree that it is used as a derogatory term, though whether it is "Islamic" or was intended to be derogatory is open to discussion. Many terms, are made insulting and derogatory within the context it is used under a society. For example, Hindu, is a derogatory term, it is for most people in Pakistan, so is the word khanzir, or surwar i.e. pig. But these words within their original context are not.

As for your second link:

Islam offered a means by which Arabs could be united in a single movement that transcended clan and class divisions. The new religion was fiercely monotheistic. It offered Arabs a religion that was distinctly their own, free of the influences of outside civilizations.

I disagree, Islam is not distinctly unique to Arabs, nor was it their own. Islam is part of the Abrahamic faith, with roots amongst Israelis, Hebrews and Jews. This is why when Mohammad first started to preach, his staunchest opponents were the Arabs. More than the Christians and the Jews of Arabia, because they already related to the material he was preaching, unlike the Arabs to most Islam was completely alien.

This is what the Quran has to say about the Arabs:

The bedouins are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be in ignorance of the limits (Allah's Commandments and His Legal Laws, etc.) which Allah has revealed to His Messenger. And Allah is All-Knower, All-Wise. 9:97

And among the bedouins are some who consider what they spend as a loss and await for you turns of misfortune. Upon them will be a misfortune of evil. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. 9:98

I understand why you feel the need to associate Islam to "foreigners", and "outsiders", but that can backfire when it comes to your own personal thinking and ideologies i.e. secularism/atheism etc. which are also foreign. It is then best to argue using logical and practical means instead of ad hominems and classical fallacies.

[Toramana]

Finally, the coalition of forces that overthrew the Umayyads was
strengthened by the support of the mawali who were weary of being second-class
citizens in the Muslim world. They saw the Abbasids as champions of a policy
of active conversion and their admission as full members of the Islamic
community. Of all the major transformations that were marked by the Abbasids'
rise to power, the last was the most significant for the development of
Islamic civilization. From the religion of a small, Arab warrior elite, Islam
became a cosmopolitan and genuinely universal faith with tens of millions of
adherents from Spain to the Philippine islands.

http://history-world.org/islam12.htm

[Toramana]

What would you say of the following Ahadiths from Al-Muttaki?

-Arabs are Arabs’ equals. Mawalis are equals of Mawalis. O Arabs those among you who marry Mawalis are considered to have committed a punishable offense
Muttaki

- Arab, marry your equal, never marry Negroes for fear of corrupting your offspring. For Negroes are a crooked race, and their issue will be crooked and disabled.
Muttaki


-Before war is fought and won against the Turks (Agog and Magog) with small eyes, red cheeks whose faces are of hardened skin like shields, the Day of Judgment will tarry.
Bukhari K. Cihad, Muslim K. Fian

[Toramana]

Mawali

The Mawali (or mawala) (Arabic,موالي) are non-Arab Muslims, who converted to Islam in the lands conquered by the Arabs. The Mawali were initially a second class in Arabian society beneath the Arab conquerors. Ironically, the term means "companion" or "equal." The position of the Mawali improved under the Abbasid dynasty in the 9th century AD, the Mawali made up an important part of the mercenary army. The fragmentation of the Abbasid Caliphate coincided with, or was caused by the rise of Mawalis to power. The Saffarids took power in eastern Iran, the Ghaznavids in Sind, and the Qarmatians in the Arabian Peninsula. The rise of these ethnic rulers forced the retreat of the Abbasid Caliph to Baghdad around 900 AD. This made it possible to preserve local ethnic identity within the Muslim empire, which ceased to be an Arab empire.

http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-Eas...dia/mawali.htm

[Wrayun]

Toramana,

Let's understand what these words mean.

Mawala means either a servant or a master. Mawali means a client. The status of Mawali was given to those non-Arabs who settled midst the Arabs as clients, just like we have Hamsaya. In that respect Hamsaya are never allowed to govern, are not allowed to marry local women, are not allowed to carry weapons, and in some cases are not even allowed to own businesses. From that we understand that this is due to the tribal culture which is based on linage and inheritance, where politics enforces this standards. They don't stem from genuine disgust for non-Arabs or non-Pukhtoons based on their race, gender or profession. Though yes, in some instances they overlap each other, and such a status can be used to spread prejudiced.

As for Al-Muttaki "hadiths", is he quoting the Prophet, or the Quran? If neither, then his statements have no substance in reference to Islam or Islamic teachings. The statements refers to his own bigot mind, or of that he is quoting.

The reference to Turks and their features is racial, but not discriminatory. I don't see any indication of that. The author is describing physical characteristics of the Turks i.e. small eyes, red cheeks, and faces with hardened skin. The Ajooj and Majooj reference is not of the original author, rather of the interpretor.

[Toramana]

The Mawali (or mawala) (Arabic,موالي) are non-Arab Muslims, who converted to Islam in the lands conquered by the Arabs.

[Wrayun]

The Mawali were initially a second class in Arabian society beneath the Arab conquerors. Ironically, the term means "companion" or "equal."

What does Hamsaya mean? Same thing and same status no?

Besides, it begs to question how is that reflective of Islam or Islamic teaching.

[Toramana]

The later claim of Islamic writers that there are no genealogies in Islam and that all Muslims are equal cannot be found in the Quran and cannot be supported from the Medinan Constitution. The very fact that according to the Quran Muhammed learned from revelations that God created tribes and chieftens is a strong indication that the tribal structure, of which genealogies, at least, and perhaps confederates, clients, and slaves, were an essential part, was by the very nature of Muhammed’s understanding of society included in his version of the ummah (Muslim community).
Muhammed and his early and latter followers took for granted the existence of Muslim slaves, and there seems to be no indication either in the Quran or in the Medinan Constitution that a halif (confederate) or a mawla (client) upon becoming a Muslim was considered a full member of a tribe or clan with the same privileges and rights as the blood-members. Had this been the case one would have expected some clear statement on the matter either in the Quran or in the Constitution, especially since such a practise would undoubtedly have created some confusion in Medina where bloodwite exacted for mawali (clients) "was only half that for full members".

The general impression one gets is that Muhammed was not interested in altering the internal structure of the tribes. Rather in his capacity as prophet he was concerned with the religious content of tribal life and the relationship of tribes to each other under the direct rule of God. Thus it is not surprising to find in the Medinan Constitution those restrictions upon the mawali which latter made it impossible for the non-Arab Muslim mawla to transfer his allegience from one tribe or clan to another without the permission of the group whose mawla he was. According to the Constitution, "A believer does not take as confederate (halif) the client (mawla) of a believer without his (the latter’s) consent [12]". In view of the possibility that this passage seems to be speaking of a promotion in status from that of mawla to that of halif, we would very well be confronted here by the regularization of the movements of Muslim mawali who may have already created a problem in Medina similar to that of later times. In any case even in the Medinan period the improvement in the status of the mawali, like that of slaves, was obviously not automatic, since the original master could veto the move.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.14.e...n_of_medin.htm

[Wrayun]

^Thanks for quoting orientalists and orthodox Christian clergy men, who neither give any backup references or proofs to their own accounts from Islamic or Muslim sources.

[Toramana]

^Thanks for quoting orientalists and orthodox Christian clergy men, who neither give any backup references or proofs to their own accounts from Islamic or Muslim sources.

Now that you have run out of arguments, you have resorted to the same tactic i.e., putting up the orientalist excuse....The status of Mawalis has been defined in the constitution of Madina, which proves their existance as well as their second-class status....

In the constitution, it is clearly stated a Mawla cannot change his status (i.e., become a client/servent/slave of another Arab clan) until his master agrees. Is not this slavery?

But I know Muslims have dead conscience and would justify it on one or another pretext.

Hadrat Sulaiman Farsi was a Mawla

[Wrayun]

Now that you have run out of arguments, you have resorted to the same tactic i.e., putting up the orientalist excuse....The status of Mawalis has been defined in the constitution of Madina, which proves their existance as well as their second-class status....

In the constitution, it is clearly stated a Mawla cannot change his status (i.e., become a client/servent/slave of another Arab clan) until his master agrees. Is not this slavery?

But I know Muslims have dead conscience and would justify it on one or another pretext.

Hadrat Sulaiman Farsi was a Mawla

I haven't run out of arguments, just don't see any reasoning in addressing copy/pastes from Orientalist sites. I can do the same. At least I have an argument to say.

You are using fallacies to further a supposed racist or discriminatory agenda of Islam, though you are using political references rather religious scripture. Not even Muslim references but those of their foes who are of course, "fair and balanced". Particularly the ones with their own colorful history when it comes to discrimination. Therefore my assertion is warranted.


ps, Abu Hanifa was a Mawla.