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.
(TO BE CONTINUED: Common contemporary discussions around the classifications and their implications)