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.
(TO BE CONTINUED: Next section – Islamic Scholarship and the Dar Paradigm)