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 thi