Home

Introduction

Since the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate, the Muslim community has faced the unique situation of the absence of a clearly defined political entity that represents the political unity of the Muslims and has an Islamic foundation in international relations. Alien forms of statehood were imposed from outside, creating secular nation-states where the basis of citizenship was allegiance to the nation, normally through ethnicity.

Many questions were raised in the aftermath of this political earthquake, and many previously accepted orthodoxies questioned, particularly in relation to Islamic political theory. Among the issues questioned has been the traditional Islamic theory of international relations which viewed the world as divided into two spheres – the abode of Islam and the abode of disbelief/ war, or dar al-Islam and dar al-kufr/ harb.

This issue has been discussed by Muslims in the West as well as internally, including academics and scholars, generally from the angle of trying to deal with what they may consider to be problematic, archaic and out of step with the current political reality. Amongst them are those who discussed the issue with desire to facilitate integration because it is felt the dar concept leads to ‘binary view’, or in another words an us or them mentality which impedes good relations with Western nations particularly after 9/11.

These views stem from the idea that the dar concept was a matter of geopolitical analysis instead of considering it to be a part of fiqh and Sharia and hence a requirement for the application of Sharia rules relating to international relations

Those who claim the concept is antiquated fail to appreciate the contexts the scholars were dealing with and hence dismiss the relevant bits and misquote parts not relevant. They also generally fail to appreciate how to approach the context we live in today – instead of looking at the texts dispassionately, they view them through the prism as being part of a defeated civilisation, and look to the proclaimed “universalisms” of the “International community” with the naivety of colonized minds.

For example, in his book Minority fiqh, Dr. Ramadan writes: “In our world it is no longer a matter of relations between two distinct “abodes”. It is rather a question of relations between human beings belonging and referring to different civilizations, religions, cultures and ethics. It is also a question of relations between citizens, in continuous interaction with the social, legal, economic or political framework, which structures and directs the space they live in. This complex process, which is a feature of globalization, over-rides the factors which previously made it possible to define the different “abodes”.”

As a result of this confused mentality and approach, much of the work on the issue of international relations and considerations of the dar paradigm ends up with clear contradictions – such as the application of dar al-Islam within Muslim world, despite it not fulfilling the conditions, and then conversely the view that the West is dar al-harb in some Islamic rulings when it is favourable to judge it as such (such as acceptance of interest, and the sale of alcohol being permitted according to some classical views), while considering the same location dar al-Islam in other rulings.

A Sharia Classification?

A few contemporary scholars, such as Dr. Salah al-din al-Sultan, claim that the traditional classifications of dar al-Islam and dar al-kufr are later juristic rather than Sharia definitions, with no basis in the primary texts. Therefore, it is not necessary to hold onto them, particularly at a time when they would appear to no longer have a practical manifestation as they may have done in the past.

In Islamic jurisprudence, ijtihad is defined as making the utmost effort to derive Sharia rulings from its sources. Any definition which is posited as a Sharia definition must also fulfil the same criteria of being the fruit of an ijtihad (as opposed to technical or specialist definitions from other fields). Accordingly, the traditional definitions of dar al-Islam and dar al-kufr would also be derived from Islamic sources to be considered Sharia definitions rather than simply descriptions of the reality.

The claim as promoted by Dr. al-Sultan has been widely dismissed, such as by Abdullah al-Judai and Dr. Uthman al-Juma. Though the pair represent two opposing views regarding the application of the terms in a contemporary context, they are in agreement that the definitions are derived from understanding of the Quran and Sunna rather than simply an attempt by scholars of previous times to describe their reality. In other words, the terms were prescriptive rather than descriptive.

Some of the evidences used include:

From Muslim:

قال رسول الله: ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ، وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، فَإِنْ أَبَوْا أَنْ يَتَحَوَّلُوا مِنْهَا، فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ يَكُونُونَ كَأَعْرَابِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، يَجْرِي عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ اللهِ الَّذِي يَجْرِي عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، وَلَا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ إِلَّا أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ،

The Messenger of Allah said – “then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of the Muhajirin and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirin. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers).

This evidence contains the strongest indication of the distinction – with the Prophet, peace be upon him, distinguishing between the rights and obligations of those in dar al-muhajirin (which would be dar al-Islam) and those outside of it.

From al-Tabarani’s al-mu‘jam al-Kabir

عَنْ سَلَمَةَ بْنِ نُفَيْلٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: عُقْرُ دَارِ الْإِسْلَامِ بِالشَّامِ

In this narration, the Prophet peace be upon him mentions that al-Sham is the heart of dar al-Islam, explicitly mentioning the term as used by the later jurists.

Other narrations where authenticity is disputed over include:

In al-Mawardi’s al-Hawi al-kabir, he mentions the following narration which he also uses as an evidence several times, indicating he considered it to be authentic (though it may not be recorded elsewhere):

قَالَ النَّبِيُّ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّم َ – مَنَعَتْ دَارُ الْإِسْلَامِ مَا فِيهَا، وَأَبَاحَتْ دَارُ الشرك ما فيها

Dar al-Islam and what is within it is prohibited (to take from – i.e. by force), whereas whatever is within dar al-shirk is permitted (to take from)

And the following mursal narration from Makhul as mentioned in several books of jurisprudence including al-mugni, al-mabsut and al-majmu:

رَوَى مَكْحُولٌ، عَنْ النَّبِيِّ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – أَنَّهُ قَالَ: لَا رِبَا بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَأَهْلِ الْحَرْبِ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ

The Prophet, peace be upon him, said “there is no interest (riba) between Muslims and the people of war in the territory/ abode of war (dar al-harb)

Also supporting the claim that the distinction is in fact an early Sharia classification rather than a later juristic definition is the usage of the phrase among the companions of the Prophet.

The most instructive example being that of Khalid bin al-Walid and his letter to the people of Hira, the text of which is found in al-Kharaj by Abu Yusuf, highlighting the distinction between dar al-hijra/ dar al-Islam and the rights of those who live within it, as opposed to those who live outside it, and making clear that the state was only responsible for the financial support of those within:

وَجَعَلْتُ لَهُمْ أَيُّمَا شَيْخٍ ضَعُفَ عَنِ الْعَمَلِ أَوْ أَصَابَتْهُ آفَةٌ مِنَ الآفَاتِ أَوْ كَانَ غَنِيا فَافْتَقَرَ وَصَارَ أَهْلُ دِينِهِ يَتَصَدَّقُونَ عَلَيْهِ طَرَحْتُ جِزْيَتَهُ وَعِيلَ مِنْ بَيْتِ مَالِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ. وَعِيَالُهُ مَا أَقَامَ بِدَارِ الْهِجْرَةِ وَدَارِ الإِسْلامِ؛ فَإِنْ خَرَجُوا إِلَى غَيْرِ دَارِ الْهِجْرَةِ وَدَارِ الإِسْلامِ؛ فَلَيْسَ عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ النَّفَقَةَ عَلَى عِيَالِهِمْ

In a separate narration of ibn Abbas, Mecca is described as dar Shirk while the Prophet resided there, prior to its conquest by the Muslims after the emigration to Medina to establish the Islamic state therein.

قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَبَا بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ كَانُوا مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ لِأَنَّهُمْ هَجَرُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ، وَكَانَ مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ مُهَاجِرُونَ لِأَنَّ الْمَدِينَةَ كَانَتْ دَارَ شِرْكٍ، فَجَاءُوا إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَيْلَةَ الْعَقَبَةِ

Therefore the claim that the terms were juristic definitions without a Sharia basis appears weak, and the existence of a solitary evidence would be sufficient as a basis for ijtihad.

Even if there was an absence of direct mention of the terms, there is ample evidence for the basis of such classifications. The existence of Islamic laws to be applied internally upon those under the authority of Islam, alongside the rules of jihad which detail the manner of arranging relations with those outside the authority of Islam serve as evidences that there is a distinction between the lands which fall under and outside Islamic authority. Any type of IR theory requires a differentiation between different authorities, their identification and relationships.

The evidences mentioned all indicate that there is a distinction between the land which falls under the authority of Muslims and is ruled by Islam (dar al-hijra, dar al-muhajirin, dar al-Islam – all with the same meaning), and the land which is not under the authority of Muslim and ruled by Islam (dar al-shirk, dar al-harb).

As a result, there is overwhelming agreement within Islamic scholarship upon this distinction historically, which has mainly only been challenged in the post-colonial era.

As for the apparent characteristics of this classification – such as the idea that dar al-Islam is where there is justice and safety which is the opposite to dar al-kufr, these are descriptions or outcomes of these territories and what is applied therein, and not conditions for their classification.

Islamic Scholarship and the Dar Paradigm

There are numerous definitions of what constitutes dar al-Islam and dar al-kufr found among classical scholarship. A number of contemporary writers have compiled statements of scholars regarding the dar classifications – among them Juda’i (al-taqsim al-mamura fi-l-fiqh al-islami), Dr. Muhammad Haikal (al jihad wa-l-qital fi-l-siyassa al-shara‘iyya) and Dr. Abdul Aziz al-Ahmadi (iktilaf al-darain wa aatharahu fi ahkam al-shariah al-Islamiyya). As they have been summarised in several other works it is unnecessary to detail all the views and expressions here. Instead, it is sufficient to mention a selection that are largely representative of the opinions found upon the issue.

Al-Kasani summarizes the views of the hanafi position (in Badai al-Sana‘i)  as there being no dispute over the division in essence, with agreement that dar al-Kufr becomes dar al-Islam through the dominance of Islamic rules therein. There is disagreement over when dar al-Islam becomes dar al-Kufr, with Imam Abu Hanafi mentioning three criteria (the emergence of non-Islamic laws, no Muslim or dhimmi resides therein with the same covenant of security they had previously, and that it is adjacent to dar al-kufr).

However, both Abu Yusuf and Muhammad state that the only condition is the emergence of non-Islamic laws.

لَا خِلَافَ بَيْنَ أَصْحَابِنَا فِي أَنَّ دَارَ الْكُفْرِ تَصِيرُ دَارَ إسْلَامٍ بِظُهُورِ أَحْكَامِ الْإِسْلَامِ فِيهَا وَاخْتَلَفُوا فِي دَارِ الْإِسْلَامِ، إنَّهَا بِمَاذَا تَصِيرُ دَارَ الْكُفْرِ؟ قَالَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ: إنَّهَا لَا تَصِيرُ دَارَ الْكُفْرِ إلَّا بِثَلَاثِ شَرَائِطَ، أَحَدُهَا: ظُهُورُ أَحْكَامِ الْكُفْرِ فِيهَا وَالثَّانِي: أَنْ تَكُونَ مُتَاخِمَةً لِدَارِ الْكُفْرِ وَالثَّالِثُ: أَنْ لَا يَبْقَى فِيهَا مُسْلِمٌ وَلَا ذِمِّيٌّ آمِنًا بِالْأَمَانِ الْأَوَّلِ، وَهُوَ أَمَانُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ.

وَقَالَ أَبُو يُوسُفَ وَمُحَمَّدٌ – رَحِمَهُمَا اللَّهُ: إنَّهَا تَصِيرُ دَارَ الْكُفْرِ بِظُهُورِ أَحْكَامِ الْكُفْرِ فِيهَا.

According to Juda’i, the early Maliki position as understood from the use of the terms dar al-Islam and dar al-harb in al-Mudawanna and elsewhere is that dar al-Islam  is the Islamic state that is ruled by the laws of Allah, whereas dar al-harb refers to anywhere else. As an example – the following from al-mudawanna refers to Mecca before hijra as dar al-harb:

، أَلَا تَرَى أَنَّ بِلَالًا أَسْلَمَ قَبْلَ مَوْلَاهُ فَاشْتَرَاهُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ فَأَعْتَقَهُ، وَكَانَتْ الدَّارُ يَوْمئِذٍ دَارَ الْحَرْبِ لِأَنَّ أَحْكَامَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ كَانَتْ ظَاهِرَةً يَوْمئِذٍ، فَلَوْ كَانَ إسْلَامُ بِلَالٍ أَسْقَطَ مُلْكَ سَيِّدِهِ عَنْهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ وَلَاؤُهُ لِأَبِي بَكْرٍ

The text makes it clear that the consideration of the classification of a land being dar al-Islam or dar al-harb is linked to the laws that preside therein.

According to Abdul Qahir al-Baghdadi (in usul al-din), dar al-Islam is anywhere that Islamic law dominates and the call to Islam can be made without obstacles, whereas dar al-Kufr is the opposite.

كل دار ظهرت فيها دعوة الإسلام من أهلها بلا خفير ولا مجير ولا بذل جزية، ونفذ فيها حكم المسلمين على أهل الذمة إن كان فيهم ذمي، ولم يقهر أهل البدعة فيها أهل السنة، فهي دار الإسلام…

وإذا كان الأمر على ضد ما ذكرناه في الدار فهي دار الكفر

In his al-ahkam al-sultaniyya Abu Ya‘la states that anywhere that the laws of Islam dominate rather than the laws of kufr is dar al-Islam, whereas if the opposite held true it would be considered dar al-kufr.

هي كل دار كانت الغلبة فيها لاحكام الاسلام دون الكفر فهي دار الإسلام

و كل دار كانت الغلبة فيها لاحكام الكفر دون احكام الاسلام  فهي دار الكفر

In effect, the views of the scholars traditionally can be summed up in the statement of ibn Qayyim, that the position of the jumhur is that dar al-Islam is the area that Muslims presided over ruling by the laws of Islam, and anywhere which is not run according to the laws of Islam cannot be considered a dar al-Islam even if it was adjacent to it.

الْجُمْهُورُ: دَارُ الْإِسْلَامِ هِيَ الَّتِي نَزَلَهَا الْمُسْلِمُونَ، وَجَرَتْ عَلَيْهَا أَحْكَامُ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَمَا لَمْ تَجْرِ عَلَيْهِ أَحْكَامُ الْإِسْلَامِ لَمْ يَكُنْ دَارَ إِسْلَامٍ، وَإِنْ لَاصَقَهَا، فَهَذِهِ الطَّائِفُ قَرِيبَةٌ إِلَى مَكَّةَ جِدًّا وَلَمْ تَصِرْ دَارَ إِسْلَامٍ بِفَتْحِ مَكَّةَ، وَكَذَلِكَ السَّاحِلُ.

Several contemporaries confirm this basic viewpoint. For example, according to Juda’i, the dominance of Islamic law and authority in the hands of the Muslims are the two characteristics that the majority of the scholars agreed upon in their definition of dar al-Islam, with dar al-kufr being the opposite. Abdul Wahab al-Khalaf states that a state which runs by the laws of Islam and whose security is in the hands of Muslims is considered dar al-Islam. Al-Ahmadi mentions that it is noticeable in all the definitions that scholars have taken into account authority and the domination of Islamic law into their definitions.

Authority as a Condition

There does exist a dissenting view in contemporary era – that dar al-Islam is anywhere that a Muslim was able to practise his religion openly irrespective of whether they had authority or not.

This opinion is also connected to the attribution to al-Mawardi that if a Muslim was capable of idthhar al-din in dar al-harb then it was forbidden to emigrate since his location was in fact dar al-Islam. This has been taken further by others such as Abdul Qadir Auda and Juda’i, who effectively state that anywhere a Muslim is able to practise his ibadat would be considered dar al-Islam.

Abdul Qadir Auda states that dar al-Islam is anywhere that Muslims were able to practise the rules of their religion openly, even if the authority was in the hands of non-Muslims.

دار الإسلام: تشمل دار الإسلام البلاد التي تظهر فيها أحكام الإسلام ، أو يستطيع سكانها المسلمون أن يظهروا فيها أحكام الإسلام ، فيدخل في دار الإسلام كل بلد سكانه كلهم أو أغلبهم مسلمون، وكل بلد يتسلط عليه المسلمون ويحكمونه ولو كانت غالبية السكان من غير المسلمين، ويدخل في دار الإسلام كل بلد يحكمه ويتسلط عليه غير المسلمين ما دام فيه سكان مسلمون  يظهرون أحكام الإسلام، أو لا يوجد لديهم ما يمنعهم من إظهار أحكام الإسلام.

As pointed out by al-Ahmadi, such a viewpoint is rejected since even if Muslims were able to practise elements of Islam in such a scenario, it would only be with the permission of the authority. Once such an authority saw anything it disliked or disapproved of from the Islamic practises of its Muslim citizens, it could prevent it as it chose. The reality within Europe is evidence of the correctness of this view, with the criminalization of issues ranging from the niqab and hijab to building mosques to support for the Syrian revolution.

It is also not possible to run a country by the laws of Islam unless Muslims had authority – the only aspects that would be permitted in non-Islamic countries would be linked to personal worship and civil matters such as marriage and divorce. Accordingly Al-Ahmadi states that the only way to ensure that Islamic rules dominate is for the authority to be in the hands of Muslims, and so the condition of authority is necessitated by the condition that dar al-Islam is that area where the Islamic law dominates.

Discussion of the View Attributed to al-Mawardi

Juda’i in particular mentions the viewpoint of al-Mawardi as a precedent for the opinion that if someone was able to live among non-Muslims in safety, and able to both practise the worship aspects of Islam and call others to it, then such a place could be considered to be a dar al-Islam.

There are a number of issues to note at this point.

Firstly, even accepting that the opinion of al-Mawardi is attributed and understood correctly, this would be considered a shaath (anomalous)view rather than one with any weight.

Secondly, the opinion of a scholar is not a proof in itself. Rather, it ought to be based upon an original source, in other words, it would have to be an ijtihad which could be compared to the ijtihad of the majority view. In this case, the opinion would appear to contradict the evidences used by the majority such as the narration mentioned in the previous section in Muslim.

Finally – the actual words of al-Mawardi appear to have been misunderstood if used as a precedent to suggest that living in the West today would be dar al-Islam in his view.

These points are raised by al-Mawardi in al-hawi al-kabir in respect to the question of emigration from dar al-harb to dar al-Islam. He mentions that if someone was able to establish themselves separately from the disbelievers within dar al-harb in abstinence (from kufr), and was capable of calling them to Islam and to fight them, then it would be impermissible for him to migrate as he was currently in a dar al-Islam and it was obligatory for him to try to call the disbelievers to Islam through discussion and fighting. This first categorization he mentions would fall under the majority viewpoint that dar al-Islam is the land that is under Muslim authority and the laws of Islam.

Al-Mawardi mentions a second classification which would be the case of someone able to abstain and separate themselves in dar al-harb, but did not have the capacity to call others to Islam through discussion and fighting. In such a case, he was still prohibited from emigration because through his separation his abode would be considered a dar Islam. In such a scenario he was not obligated to call others to Islam or fight against them.

Most pertinently in respect to al-Mawardi’s views of what actually makes an abode a dar Islam, the third classification he talks about is the one who is able to abstain in dar al-Islam, but was unable to separate himself (and by greater reasoning, therefore unable to call others to Islam or fight them). In this case, al-Mawardi does not consider it to be obligatory for him to stay because his abode was NOT considered to be a dar Islam.

أَحَدُهَا: أَنْ يَقْدِرَ عَلَى الِامْتِنَاعِ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ بِالِاعْتِزَالِ وَيَقْدِرَ عَلَى الدُّعَاءِ وَالْقِتَالِ فَهَذَا يَجِبُ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يُقِيمَ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ، لِأَنَّهَا صَارَتْ بِإِسْلَامِهِ وَاعْتِزَالِهِ دَارَ الْإِسْلَامِ وَيَجِبُ عَلَيْهِ دُعَاءُ الْمُشْرِكِينَ إِلَى الْإِسْلَامِ بِمَا اسْتَطَاعَ مِنْ نُصْرَتِهِ بِجِدَالٍ أَوْ قِتَالٍ

وَالْقِسْمُ الثَّانِي: أَنْ يَقْدِرَ عَلَى الِامْتِنَاعِ وَالِاعْتِزَالِ وَلَا يَقْدِرَ عَلَى الدُّعَاءِ وَالْقِتَالِ فَهَذَا يَجِبُ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يُقِيمَ وَلَا يُهَاجِرَ، لِأَنَّ دَارَهُ قَدْ صَارَتْ بِاعْتِزَالِهِ دَارَ إِسْلَامٍ، وَإِنْ هَاجَرَ عَنْهَا عَادَتْ دَارَ حَرْبٍ، وَلَا يَجِبُ عَلَيْهِ الدُّعَاءُ وَالْقِتَالُ لِعَجْزِهِ عَنْهَا

وَالْقِسْمُ الثَّالِثُ: أَنْ يَقْدِرَ عَلَى الِامْتِنَاعِ وَلَا يَقْدِرَ عَلَى الِاعْتِزَالِ وَلَا عَلَى الدُّعَاءِ وَالْقِتَالِ، فَهَذَا لَا يَجِبُ عَلَيْهِ الْمَقَامُ، لِأَنَّهُ لَمْ تَصِرْ دَارُهُ دَارَ إِسْلَامٍ وَلَا تَجِبُ عَلَيْهِ الْهِجْرَةُ، لِأَنَّهُ يَقْدِرُ عَلَى الِامْتِنَاعِ

It appears that the view of al-Mawardi as stated in al-Hawi al-Kabir is that when a Muslim is unable to separate himself from dar al-harb within dar al-harb, but is able to prevent himself from participation in kufr, or in other words has the ability to live according to the laws of Islam applied fully upon himself and those with him from the Muslim community, then he may emigrate to dar al-Islam.

Meanwhile, if he was able to separate and protect himself, applying the laws of Islam then his abode would be considered a dar Islam as both characteristics (security in the hands of the Muslims and application of the laws of Islam) was fulfilled.

Al-Mawardi mentions a final two categories; the fourth being those who were unable to abstain and capable of emigration were obligated to emigrate. As for the fifth category – those who were unable to abstain or emigrate, in which case they could defend themselves by giving the appearance of disbelief, while believing in Islam and applying its laws upon himself.

وَالْقِسْمُ الرَّابِعُ: أَنْ لَا يَقْدِرَ عَلَى الِامْتِنَاعِ وَيَقْدِرَ عَلَى الْهِجْرَةِ، فَوَاجِبٌ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يُهَاجِرَ وَهُوَ عَاصٍ إِنْ أَقَامَ، وَفِي مِثْلِهِ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّم َ -: أَنَا بَرِئٌ مِنْ كُلِّ مُسْلِمٍ مَعَ مُشْرِكٍ قِيلَ: وَلِمَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ لَا تُرَاءَى نَارَاهُمَا وَمَعْنَاهُ: لَا يَتَّفِقُ رَأْيَاهُمَا

وَالْقِسْمُ الْخَامِسُ: أَنْ لَا يَقْدِرَ عَلَى الِامْتِنَاعِ وَيَضْعُفَ عَنِ الْهِجْرَةِ فَتَسْقُطَ عَنْهُ الْهِجْرَةِ، لِعَجْزِهِ، وَيَجُوزُ أَنْ يَدْفَعَ عَنْ نَفْسِهِ بِإِظْهَارِ الْكُفْرِ، وَيَكُونَ مُسْلِمًا بِاعْتِقَادِ الْإِسْلَامِ وَالْتِزَامِ أَحْكَامِهِ، وَلَا يَجُوزُ لِمَنْ قَدَرَ عَلَى الْهِجْرَةِ أَنْ يَتَظَاهَرَ بِالْكُفْرِ لِأَنَّهُ غَيْرُ مُضْطَرٍّ وَالْعَاجِزُ عَنِ الْهِجْرَةِ مُضْطَرٌّ،

The expression of others such as al-Nawawi in his al-majmu‘a or ibn Hajr in his fath, when they state that al-Mawardi said that if someone was able to make their deen apparent (idthar al-din) in non-Muslim lands, that would mean they were in dar al-Islam has to be understood in context.  The concept of idthar al-din must either correlate to that which al-Mawardi mentions explicitly – security and separation, or is unreflective of his position.

وقال الماوردى: إذا قدر على اظهار الدين في بلد من بلاد الكفر فقد صارت البلدة دار اسلام فالاقامة فيها أفضل من الرحلة عنها لما يترجى من دخول غيره في الاسلام، ولا يخفى ما في هذا الرأى من المصادمة لاحاديث الباب القاضية

With respect to the viewpoint of Juda’i, he appears to miss the point that al-Mawardi makes regarding separating himself from the society, and interprets is as merely being mutamayyiz bi dinihi, which is at best a doubtful interpretation of al-Mawardi’s viewpoint as expressed in al-hawi.

In conclusion, even if al-Mawardi’s view could be interpreted in a manner that suggested the ability to practise the personal worship aspects of Islam in any location was enough to consider that location dar al-Islam, this is a shaath view that contradicts the evidences used in relation to the classifications discussed. There is nothing among the Sharia evidences or opinions of the scholars that suggests that dominance of the laws of Islam is limited to purely personal aspects, with no regard for other societal, judicial, criminal and international relation laws.

Common Discussions

There are a number of reoccurring issues, confusions and misconceptions linked to the classification of the world into dar al-Islam and dar al-kufr. These include the number of classifications, taking the meanings of the classifications literally, conflation between classifications and rules related to issues as various as emigration, interest and fighting and the practicality of adopting such a classification in the contemporary era.

Just Two Classifications?

It should be understood that the two main categories of dar al-Islam and dar al-kufr can also include several other named classifications that fall under their respective rubric.

Within dar al-Islam, there is the category of dar al-baghi – meaning those who rebelled. This would be any land where the laws of Islam were implemented under the authority of Muslims, but those in authority would have rebelled against the Imam. The land remains part of dar al-Islam, fulfilling its two criteria, but may be referred to in this manner to distinguish the differing nature of authority in place at the time.

With respect to lands outside of dar al-Islam, they are sometimes referred to as dar al-kufr, dar al-harb or dar al-ahd.

Dar al-kufr and dar al-harb are commonly used interchangeably.

Dar al-Ahd on the other hand is often mentioned as a third category – those states which the Muslims have a peace agreement with. This view is attributed to Imam Shafi, though Dr. Juma explains that this is a misconception and that the Imam’s view has been misinterpreted out of context.

On examination, it would appear to be more accurate to classify dar al-ahd as within the broader category of dar al-kufr rather than as an independent third category. The reason for this is that the definition of dar al-kufr is any land where the laws of kufr are dominant or the authority is in the hands of non-Muslims; which is consistent with dar al-ahd. So rather than dar al-ahd being a third distinct independent category, it falls under the general classification of dar al-kufr and is simply an identifier of the fact that there is some form of treaty between it and dar al-Islam.

There are several other conventions also used – such as dar al-daw‘a, dar al-istijaba, dar al-hudna, dar al-hijra and so on. What is important with each of these is the meaning behind the terms. If they correlate to land where the laws of Islam are applied and the authority is in the hands of the Muslims, then they would be dar al-Islam (such as dar al-istijaba and dar al-hijra). Otherwise they fall under dar al-kufr (such as dar shirk, dar al-hudna, dar al-daw‘a).

Takfir, War and Naming Conventions

A common misconception is that by labelling a location dar al-kufr means that those who live there are non-Muslims. Similarly, labelling somewhere dar al-harb means that there has to be a war with Muslims there.

These are superficial contentions that fail to recognise the meanings behind the classifications used.

The appellation of kufr or islam to the dar is not in relation to its inhabitants, but in relation to the authority and its nature, as mentioned by al-Kasani.

فَإِذَا ظَهَرَ أَحْكَامُ الْكُفْرِ فِي دَارٍ فَقَدْ صَارَتْ دَارَ كُفْرٍ فَصَحَّتْ الْإِضَافَةُ، وَلِهَذَا صَارَتْ الدَّارُ دَارَ الْإِسْلَامِ بِظُهُورِ أَحْكَامِ الْإِسْلَامِ فِيهَا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَرِيطَةٍ أُخْرَى، فَكَذَا تَصِيرُ دَارَ الْكُفْرِ بِظُهُورِ أَحْكَامِ الْكُفْرِ فِيهَا وَاَللَّهُ – سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى – أَعْلَمُ.

Abdul Rahman al-Sa‘adi states in his fatawa that a land is considered to be dar kufr is the laws are un-Islamic, even if many of the inhabitants were Muslims, while dar al-Islam is the place which is ruled by the Muslims and Islamic laws are applied with their influence, even if the majority of its inhabitants were not Muslim.

فتصير إذا كانت الأحكام للكفار: دار كفر، ولو كان بها كثير من المسلمين
ودار الإسلام: هي التي يحكمها المسلمون، وتجري فيها الأحكام الإسلامية ويكون النفوذ فيها للمسلمين ولو كان جمهور أهلها كفاراً

As for the confusion with dar al-harb, historically the majority of scholars used dar al-harb interchangeably to mean dar al-kufr. This does not mean that there was literally war between the two sides, but rather it was used in the metaphorical sense given that there is the potential for war between the two. In other words, dar al-harb is the area that could potentially be a target of military jihad.

Therefore there is a differentiation made between those who are actually at war with dar al-Islam and those who may at some point be at war with dar al-Islam. In the same manner, an individual from dar al-harb may be classified as a harbi from a legalistic perspective, but may not practically at war with the Muslims at that time.

As mentioned by Dr. Qaradawi – the classification of somewhere as dar al-harb does not mean an actual war taking place, but the potential of war. Similar statements have been made by several others including Juda’i and Dar al-iftaa al-Masriyya.

For example, Mecca during the time of the Prophet there before emigration is mentioned as dar al-harb in al-Muduwanna, making it clear that it is meant interchangeably with what is referred to as dar al-kufr.

Fighting in Dar al-Harb

There exists claims that Muslims residing in the West can attack targets there due to it being dar al-harb in reality, rather than simply from a legalistic point of view. The justification is related to the issue of consideration that countries such as Britain and the United States are active participants in wars against Muslims whether previously in Iraq or currently in Afghanistan, and are therefore dar al-harb fi‘lan. Other countries such as Austria, Sweden and Brazil would conversely be dar al-harb hukman with no effect due to the assumed benevolence of their foreign policy vis-à-vis Muslims.

As a reaction, it could be considered by some in the West to try to eliminate these categories in order to remove justification for attacks. Aside from being a misplaced effort due it being foreign policy grievances that are driving reactionary activities rather than Islamic justifications, it also misunderstands the Islamic jurisprudence on the issue.

According to Islamic scholarship such as the extensive details on Amana in al-Sarkhasi’s sharh al-siyar al-kabir, when entering a country on the basis of an explicit security agreement (ie. a visa in contemporary terms) or an implicit security agreement (such as living among people normally, and participating in daily life such as buying and selling, or anything else that is considered by custom to mean you are living there as part of society), it would not be permissible to undertake anything which broke such a covenant.

This would apply even if those people were at war with other Muslims. Any action to support the other Muslims being attacked would have to be preceded with an open renunciation of the implicit or explicit covenant before any subsequent attack, as mentioned by Imam Shafi in al-Umm.

 وَإِذَا دَخَلَ جَمَاعَةٌ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ دَارَ الْحَرْبِ بِأَمَانٍ فَسَبَى أَهْلُ الْحَرْبِ قَوْمًا مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِلْمُسْتَأْمَنَيْنِ قِتَالُ أَهْلِ الْحَرْبِ عَنْهُمْ حَتَّى يَنْبِذُوا إلَيْهِمْ فَإِذَا نَبَذُوا إلَيْهِمْ فَحَذَّرُوهُمْ وَانْقَطَعَ الْأَمَانُ بَيْنَهُمْ كَانَ لَهُمْ قِتَالُهُمْ فَأَمَّا مَا كَانُوا فِي مُدَّةِ الْأَمَانِ فَلَيْسَ لَهُمْ قِتَالُهُمْ.

Contracts and Interest in dar al-harb

One of the areas that has been utilised by many in the field of what is termed “minority fiqh” has been the position of the Hanafi school that wealth in dar al-harb can be taken by any form of contract that the non-Muslim may be content with. This position has been used by both the European Fiqh Council and the Dar al-iftaa al-masriyya; the first with respect to taking interest based mortgages in the West to purchase houses, and the second with respect to the permission of selling pork, alcohol and other forbidden products in dar al-harb.

The European Fiqh Council references the hanafi school, as well as a number of other individuals including some hanabila based upon a narration from Sh. Ahmad bin Hanbal permitting interest based transactions outside of dar al-Islam.

هو ما ذهب إليه أبو حنيفة وصاحبه محمد بن الحسن الشيباني، وهو المُفْتَى به في المذهب الحنفي. وكذلك سفيان الثوري وإبراهيم النخعي، وهو رواية عن أحمد بن حنبل، ورجحها ابن تيمية – فيما ذكره بعض الحنابلة-: من جواز التعامل بالربا وغيره من العقود الفاسدة، بين المسلمين وغيرهم في غير دار الإسلام

The fatwa from Dar al-Iftaa used the same reliance upon the position of the Hanafi school, quoting Imam Muhammad statement that if a Muslim enters dar al-harb with security, then there is no problem for him to take the wealth of the harbi in any way that they are pleased with.

The justification for this position is briefly outlined in al-mabsut and elsewhere – based upon the narration of Makhul  as well as the actions of Abbas in Mecca.

ذُكِرَ عَنْ مَكْحُولٍ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – قَالَ: «لَا رِبَا بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَبَيْنَ أَهْلِ دَارِ الْحَرْبِ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ» ، وَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ مُرْسَلًا فَمَكْحُولٌ فَقِيهٌ ثِقَةٌ، وَالْمُرْسَلُ مِنْ مِثْلِهِ مَقْبُولٌ، وَهُوَ دَلِيلٌ لِأَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَمُحَمَّدٍ – رَحِمَهُمَا اللَّهُ – فِي جَوَازِ بَيْعِ الْمُسْلِمِ الدِّرْهَمَ بِالدِّرْهَمَيْنِ مِنْ الْحَرْبِيِّ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ،، وَعِنْدَ أَبِي يُوسُفِ وَالشَّافِعِيِّ – رَحِمَهُمَا اللَّهُ – لَا يَجُوزُ، وَكَذَلِكَ لَوْ بَاعَهُمْ مَيْتَةً، أَوْ قَامَرَهُمْ، وَأَخَذَ مِنْهُمْ مَالًا بِالْقِمَارِ، فَذَلِكَ الْمَالُ طَيِّبٌ لَهُ عِنْدَ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَمُحَمَّدٍ – رَحِمَهُمَا اللَّهُ – خِلَافًا لِأَبِي يُوسُفَ وَالشَّافِعِيِّ – رَحِمَهُمَا اللَّهُ

There have been a number of objections raised to both fatwa, including:

Though the two fatwa appear similar, there is a fundamental contradiction between the two. While the European fatwa permits paying interest, the Dar al-Masriyya fatwa explicitly talks about taking wealth and not paying more wealth to those in dar al-harb. This is in line with the words found in the hanafi texts dealing with the issue. It appears that the reversal of roles is unprecedented.
The attribution to the hanabila and Ahmad bin Hanbal appears inaccurate; according to ibn Qayyim in al-bada‘i al-fawaid the permission to deal in interest is only with respect to those whom there is no security with – meaning it would not apply in the scenarios envisaged by either fatwa. Additionally, in books such al-mugni of ibn Qudama these positions are not mentioned and dealing in interest is considered haram without restriction.

في تحريم الربا بين المسلم والحربي الذي لا أمان بينهما روايتين منصوصتين

The opinion is mainly based upon the narration of Makhul alone which is mursal and so not considered as evidence by some.

The majority of scholars disagreed with this minority position, and stated that the difference between the dar did not necessitate any difference in obligations and prohibitions. The view of the Shafi, Maliki and most of the Hanbali schools is that the same rules apply whether in dar al-Islam or al-kufr. (Shihab al-Din al-Zanjani)

اخْتِلَاف الدَّاريْنِ أَعنِي دَار الْإِسْلَام وَدَار الْحَرْب لَا يُوجب تبَاين الْأَحْكَام عِنْد الشَّافِعِي رض وأحتج فِي ذَلِك بِأَن الدّور والأماكن والرباع لَا حكم لَهَا لدار الْبَغي وَدَار الْعدْل وَإِنَّمَا الحكم لله تَعَالَى ودعوة الْإِسْلَام عَامَّة على الْكفَّار سَوَاء أكانوا فِي أماكنهم أَو فِي غَيرهَا وَقَالَ أَبُو حنيفَة رض إختلاف الدَّاريْنِ يُوجب تبَاين الْأَحْكَام

The generality of evidences prohibiting interest and the absence of evidence that restricts/ specifies the generality. The same applies to other contracts such as buying and selling alcohol etc. which have several evidences indicating the prohibition of dealing in haram goods while there are no evidences to suggest exceptions are made for location.

The juristic principle that all people are addressed by the Sharia rules, whether Muslim or not.

For the afore mentioned reasons the minority position is considered weak in its original form as represented by the Dar al-Masriyya fatwa. As for the European Fiqh Council ruling, it appears to not even correlate to the minority position as there seems no precedence for surrending extra wealth through interest to non-Muslims in dar al-harb, as opposed as taking their wealth. Additionally, their justification for preference of the hanafi position was not based upon evidential considerations, but rather logical and benefit driven (such as strengthening position of Muslims in the West and so on).

For further detail – Ibn Qudama in al-mugni outlines the majority position and the problem with the minority view as follows:

فَصْلٌ: وَيَحْرُمُ الرِّبَا فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ، كَتَحْرِيمِهِ فِي دَارِ الْإِسْلَامِ. وَبِهِ قَالَ مَالِكٌ، وَالْأَوْزَاعِيُّ، وَأَبُو يُوسُفَ، وَالشَّافِعِيُّ، وَإِسْحَاقُ. وَقَالَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ: لَا يَجْرِي الرِّبَا بَيْنَ مُسْلِمٍ وَحَرْبِيٍّ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ.

وَعَنْهُ فِي مُسْلِمَيْنِ أَسْلَمَا فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ، لَا رِبَا بَيْنَهُمَا. لِمَا رَوَى مَكْحُولٌ، عَنْ النَّبِيِّ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – أَنَّهُ قَالَ: «لَا رِبَا بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَأَهْلِ الْحَرْبِ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ» . وَلِأَنَّ أَمْوَالَهُمْ مُبَاحَةُ، وَإِنَّمَا حَظَرَهَا الْأَمَانُ فِي دَارِ الْإِسْلَامِ، فَمَا لَمْ يَكُنْ كَذَلِكَ كَانَ مُبَاحًا. وَلَنَا، قَوْلُ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى: {وَحَرَّمَ الرِّبَا} [البقرة: 275] . وَقَوْلُهُ: {الَّذِينَ يَأْكُلُونَ الرِّبَا لا يَقُومُونَ إِلا كَمَا يَقُومُ الَّذِي يَتَخَبَّطُهُ الشَّيْطَانُ مِنَ الْمَسِّ}

وَقَالَ تَعَالَى: {يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَذَرُوا مَا بَقِيَ مِنَ الرِّبَا} [البقرة: 278] . وَعُمُومُ الْأَخْبَارِ يَقْتَضِي تَحْرِيمَ التَّفَاضُلِ. وَقَوْلُهُ: «مَنْ زَادَ أَوْ ازْدَادَ فَقَدْ أَرْبَى» . عَامٌّ، وَكَذَلِكَ سَائِرُ الْأَحَادِيثِ. وَلِأَنَّ مَا كَانَ مُحَرَّمًا فِي دَارِ الْإِسْلَامِ كَانَ مُحَرَّمًا فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ، كَالرِّبَا بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَخَبَرُهُمْ مُرْسَلٌ لَا نَعْرِفُ صِحَّتَهُ، وَيَحْتَمِلُ أَنَّهُ أَرَادَ النَّهْيَ عَنْ ذَلِكَ، وَلَا يَجُوزُ تَرْكُ مَا وَرَدَ تَحْرِيمِهِ الْقُرْآنُ، وَتَظَاهَرَتْ بِهِ السُّنَّةُ، وَانْعَقَدَ الْإِجْمَاعُ عَلَى تَحْرِيمِهِ، بِخَبَرِ مَجْهُولٍ، لَمْ يَرِدْ فِي صَحِيحٍ، وَلَا مُسْنَدٍ، وَلَا كِتَابٍ مَوْثُوقٍ بِهِ، وَهُوَ مَعَ ذَلِكَ مُرْسَلٌ مُحْتَمِلٌ. وَيَحْتَمِلُ أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِقَوْلِهِ: (لَا رِبَا. النَّهْيُ عَنْ الرِّبَا، كَقَوْلِهِ: {فَلا رَفَثَ وَلا فُسُوقَ وَلا جِدَالَ فِي الْحَجِّ} [البقرة: 197] ، وَمَا ذَكَرُوهُ مِنْ الْإِبَاحَةِ مُنْتَقِضٌ بِالْحَرْبِيِّ إذَا دَخَلَ دَارَ الْإِسْلَامِ، فَإِنْ مَالَهُ مُبَاحٌ، إلَّا فِيمَا حَظَرَهُ الْأَمَانُ، وَيُمْكِنُ حَمْلُهُ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ عَلَى هَيْئَةِ التَّفَاضُلِ، وَهُوَ مُحَرَّمٌ بِالْإِجْمَاعِ، فَكَذَا هَاهُنَا

Emigration from dar al-harb

Much of the discussion around relations with dar al-harb has traditionally focused upon the idea of emigration, following the example of the Prophet peace be upon him and his emigration from Mecca to Medina.

It is beyond the scope of this short piece to discuss this issue in any detail – one extensive academic article on the subject in English is Khaled Abou el-Fadl’s article “Islamic Law and Muslim Minorities: The Juristic Discourse on Muslim Minorities from theSecond/Eighth to the Eleventh/Seventeenth Centuries”.

The most strict views regarding travel and residence in non-Muslim lands were articulated by scholars of the Maliki school. Ibn Rushd in al-Muqadamat mentions that Imam Malik considered it gravely disliked to travel to dar al-kufr for the sake of trade, due to the traveller being subject to un-Islamic laws while there. Anyone who embraced Islam outside of dar al-Islam was obligated to emigrate.

كره مالك – رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ – الخروج إلى بلاد الحرب للتجارة في البر والبحر كراهية شديدة، قال في سماع ابن القاسم وقد سئل عن ذلك، فقال: قد جعل الله لكل نفس أجلا تبلغه ورزقا ينفذه، وهو تجرَى عليه أحكامهم فلا أرى ذلك. وأصل الكراهية لذلك، أن الله تعالى أوجب الهجرة على من أسلم ببلاد الكفر، إلى بلاد المسلمين حيث تجرى عليه أحكامهم؛ فقال تعالى: {وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَلَمْ يُهَاجِرُوا مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ وَلايَتِهِمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ حَتَّى يُهَاجِرُوا}

This position is exemplified by al-Wansharisi in the 15th century addressing issues concerning Muslims remaining in the now occupied Iberian peninsula. His fatawa recorded in al-mi‘yar represent the position of the Maliki school – residence in dar al-kufr was forbidden for anyone capable of moving due to the undesirability of living under un-Islamic law.  And according to Ali al-‘Adawi in Hashiya al Kifaya al-Talib al-Rabbani, if a people became Muslim, emigration would become obligatory upon them if they were subject to un-Islamic laws.

وَلَوْ أَسْلَمَ قَوْمٌ كُفَّارٌ فَإِنْ كَانُوا حَيْثُ تَنَالُهُمْ أَحْكَامُ الْكُفَّارِ وَجَبَ عَلَيْهِمْ أَنْ يَرْتَحِلُوا، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَرْتَحِلُوا فَهُمْ عَاصُونَ لِلَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ، وَإِسْلَامُهُمْ صَحِيحٌ؛ لِأَنَّ الْهِجْرَةَ إنَّمَا كَانَتْ مِنْ شُرُوطِ صِحَّةِ الْإِسْلَامِ قَبْلَ فَتْحِ مَكَّةَ؛ لِقَوْلِهِ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: «لَا هِجْرَةَ بَعْدَ الْفَتْحِ» وَكَانَتْ فِي أَوَّلِ الْإِسْلَامِ لَا يَتِمُّ إسْلَامُ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ حَتَّى يَرْتَحِلَ إلَى الْمَدِينَةِ فَلَمَّا فَتَحَ مَكَّةَ قَالَ: «لَا هِجْرَةَ بَعْدَ الْفَتْحِ»

Imam Shafi on the other hand was more permissive, and considered that as long as one was able to observe Islamic practise without fear of being oppressed they would not be obliged to emigrate to dar al-Islam.

(قَالَ الشَّافِعِيُّ) : وَدَلَّتْ سُنَّةُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – عَلَى أَنَّ فَرْضَ الْهِجْرَةِ عَلَى مَنْ أَطَاقَهَا إنَّمَا هُوَ عَلَى مَنْ فُتِنَ عَنْ دِينِهِ بِالْبَلَدِ الَّذِي يُسْلِمُ بِهَا؛ لِأَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – أَذِنَ لِقَوْمٍ بِمَكَّةَ أَنْ يُقِيمُوا بِهَا بَعْدَ إسْلَامِهِمْ مِنْهُمْ الْعَبَّاسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ وَغَيْرُهُ إذْ لَمْ يَخَافُوا الْفِتْنَةَ «وَكَانَ يَأْمُرُ جُيُوشَهُ أَنْ يَقُولُوا لِمَنْ أَسْلَمَ إنْ هَاجَرْتُمْ فَلَكُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ، وَإِنْ أَقَمْتُمْ فَأَنْتُمْ كَأَعْرَابٍ وَلَيْسَ يُخَيِّرُهُمْ إلَّا فِيمَا يَحِلُّ لَهُمْ»

The narration of Muslim alluded to by Imam Shafi strengthens the view that emigration is obligatory upon those who are unable to protect themselves and their belief while living in dar al-kufr

A further complication in the current situation is where could a Muslim make emigration to, since the basis of emigration as intended in these discussions is emigration to dar al-Islam. As mentioned by Faizal Mawlawi, it is not possible to classify the modern era Muslim states as dar al-Islam due to the lack of the implementation of Islam therein, meaning that there exists no target location for such an emigration. Many Muslims have been forced to emigrate from their homelands in the Muslim world to other non-Muslim countries due to security considerations and restrictions often due to political activities calling for the establishment of Islam.

Given such circumstance, any emigration necessitated today would simply be for the sake of security and ability to observe one’s belief in accordance with the verse (al-Nisa 97), or as mentioned by al-Wanshirisi in his fatwa – move to the place with the least sin.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَالُوا فِيمَ كُنْتُمْ قَالُوا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الأَرْضِ قَالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللَّهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوا فِيهَا فَأُولَئِكَ مَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا

Practicality of the Classification

As just mentioned, among the objections raised by Faisal Mawlawi against usage of the dar classification in his book Al-Usus al-Shar’iyyah lil-‘Alaqat Bayn al-Muslimin wa-Ghayr al-Muslimin is that it is not possible to call anywhere dar al-Islam today. Therefore we need to change the definitions; Mawlawi offers the concept of a new classification he terms as dar al-daw‘a. He relates dar al-daw‘a to the time of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in Mecca.

In response, it should be noted that companions such as ibn Abbas and early scholars referred to Mecca before conquest as dar shirk or dar al-harb. If the classification as derived from the sources through ijtihad was applied upon the reality of Mecca before conquest, it would fall under dar al-kufr/ harb/ shirk as it was not under the authority of Muslims and applying Islamic law. Therefore the analogy that Mawlawi makes is inapplicable in this case.

Secondly, the absence of dar al-Islam does not invalidate the dar classification. All it means is that dar al-Islam is not in existence. In other words, the world is currently considered to be dar al-kufr in its entirety, even if that may be a difficult reality to accept.

The concepts of dar al-Islam and dar al-kufr conflict with the contemporary world order established post World War 1, but it is beyond the discussion here to debate modern notions of citizenship. It is sufficient to note that there is neither a normative precedence nor an evidential basis to suggest that the nation state is an acceptable form of statehood in Islam. As for the claim made by a few that the world today is more like a single community, and does not reflect the reality as understood by the jurists when talking about dar al-Islam and dar al-kufr, this viewpoint is fundamentally flawed both from the perspective of political reality and understanding of Islam. Finally, the dar classification is normative. If in the contemporary era we find that there is no dar al-Islam then the first issue ought to be how to establish one, given that it holds a central place in the state relations for Muslims and Islam. In the absence of dar al-Islam, Islam has no voice in international politics on a state level. The history of the past century attests to the devastating practical implications of this.