"al-wal’a wa al-bara’" may explain this...
This morning, Hamza Aadil Malak, a representative from the Islamic Cultural Center of Villa Heights, a popular Mosque located in Northern California, ... made the following statement during his interview with Crane, “Though we condemn the actions of Omar Mateen and will continue to stand with the victims of this unexpected tragedy, we must also stand with the members of our community. The family (of Omar Mateen) are unfortunately victims to this tragedy by association and the support we provide will be unwavering during this difficult time.” At this time, additional members or leaders within the Muslim community have largely declined to comment on the donation.
Certainly one sympathises with those innocent family members and would want to offer assistance to them. There is a large question though over who among them really is innocent. The father was and likely still is a Taliban supporter. A known Radical in almost every sense of the word. The article states that the wife has absconded and that "It’s clear to authorities that Omar Mateen’s father Seddique Mateen, knows where Noor Salman is and has maintained contact with her since her disappearance on June 15th 2016."
It's also reported that Mateen turned over his share of his house to his sister and brother-in-law for $10 in April. While this may in some instances be a perfectly normal and legal practise, in hindsight, perhaps for an innocent family it might have raised a red flag. It seems not. Mateen's wife drove him to “case” Disney World and the Pulse nightclub. There is a good chance she will be prosecuted for not warning authorities about her husband's intentions to attack the Pulse.
Apart from the couple's small child, an outsider might wonder who it is that is innocent among the family.
It is also reported that he is being buried in an unmarked grave in the only Muslim-only cemetery in the area. At least it is unmarked. But why have him buried among Muslims in the only exclusively Muslim cemetery anyway? Why not bury him somewhere - anywhere - else? Some might see it as a missed opportunity to disown the perpetrator of the worst shooting mass murder in America's history and distance him from a Muslim community sick of the negative publicity.
However, instead of following my helpful suggestions the wider Muslim community, through various Muslim charities, formally donated a lot of money to Mateen's family yet none (that we know of) formally to the family or survivors of the massacre. Local Islamic authorities in Florida also decided that he should still be buried in the only cemetery dedicated to Muslims in the area even though the natural response of many would be to suggest that he be buried anywhere else as the Islamic community disowned him. Mateen's family are not helping authorities.
Why might these things have happened?
The Specter of Muslim Disloyalty in America
Islamist enmity for infidels, regularly manifested in the jihad, is by now moderately well known. Lesser known, however, but of equal concern, is the mandate for Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims and Islam — a loyalty that all too often translates into disloyalty to all things non-Muslim, including the American people and their government.
This dichotomy of loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels — which, incidentally, corresponds well with Islamic law’s division of the world into the abode of war (deserving of enmity) and the abode of Islam (deserving of loyalty) — is founded on a Muslim doctrine called wala’ wa bara’ (best translated as “loyalty and enmity”). I first encountered this doctrine while translating various Arabic documents for The Al Qaeda Reader. In fact, the longest and arguably most revealing document I included in that volume is titled “Loyalty and Enmity” (pgs.63-115), compiled by Aymen Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two.
I say “compiled” because most of the words are direct quotes from the Koran, the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and Islam’s jurists (i.e., this doctrine is not an “al-Qaeda” phenomenon but rather permeates the Islamic worldview). Those interested are urged to read the whole treatise. For our purposes, however, a few key scriptures must suffice:
Koran 5:51 warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them,” i.e., he becomes a non-believing “infidel,” the worst thing in Islam. According to authoritative Muslim exegete, al-Tabari, Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community.” Similar scriptures include Koran 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims — “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.”
Conversely, according to Muhammad, “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He neither oppresses him nor humiliates him nor looks down upon him…. All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in faith: his blood, his wealth, and his honor” — precisely those three things Islamic law singles out as not being vouchsafed to free infidels.
Nor is Muslim loyalty simply limited to the fear of killing fellow Muslims; rather, it is loyalty in the tribal sense. ... Thus, for helping convict five Muslims who were plotting to kill American soldiers in the Fort Dix terrorism trial, Mahmoud Omar has been ostracized by the Muslim community. Why? Because “in a twisted way…their [the terrorists’] actions are understandable in the Muslim community.” Omar adds, “For Muslims, we are all brothers, and I betrayed a brother”— echoing Muhammad’s injunction: “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim.”
Prominent American Muslim jurists have further proclaimed that “It is forbidden to work for the FBI or for U.S. security services because these harm Muslims.”
Indeed, the Koran’s primary justification for deception is in the context of loyalty: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” (Koran 3:28). Tabari explains this verse: “Only when you are in their [non-Muslims’] power, fearing for yourselves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, while harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelities, and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim.”
In other words, when necessary, Muslims are permitted to feign friendship and loyalty to non-Muslims, or, in the words of Abu Darda, a pious companion of Muhammad, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Nearly fourteen-hundred years after these faithless words were uttered, American Muslim Tarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, echoed them in boast: “I could be joking and smiling [with infidels] and then cutting their throats in the next second.”
So there is a strong doctrinal basis for not abandoning a Muslim even if they are guilty of the most heinous crimes – perhaps especially when the crimes are against non-Muslims.
Of interest too are the conclusions arising from such Islamic doctrines regarding burial. For example, according to popular Muslim websites:~
1) a Muslim may not be buried with non-Muslims; nor
2) a non-Muslim among Muslims;
3) no prayer may be offered for a dead non-Muslim relative;
4) for a Muslim, working at non-Muslim cemeteries is forbidden (haram); and
5) a Muslim cannot attend the funeral of even a close non-Muslim relative in a church.
Do visit each of those links to popular Islamic websites and read the whole entry under each - very interesting. Bear them in mind when we hear that Nelson has recently just got its own "Muslim only" section in the Council cemetery. In the light of such fatwas and beliefs, have things now gone beyond New Zealand being a welcoming culture to the point where the welcoming culture is sanctioning an attitude of division and superiority from a visiting group? Personally, I think that I am no different in death than any other person. At that point, if at no other time, we are all the same, regardless of race, social status or money. All, finally, equal in death as we are before God.
Again, do many Muslims disregard such fatwas? Of course. But the doctrines stand regardless of whether they are obeyed or ignored.
The doctrine of al-wal’a wa al-bara’ is a real and genuine part of Islamic teaching and is still very much alive and kicking - as might be seen from the treatment of Mateen and his family by the wider Muslim community. It represents a point where "universal" standards of right and wrong, of decency, of love and dignity are forced into submission for the sake of other members of a group that sees itself as separate and superior. This is not just. We have one standard for all because all are equal before God and the Law. At least that has been the case up to now.