India is Dar-ul-Aman: ISIS Narratives of Darul Islam, Darul Kufr and Darul Harb are untenable

WordForPeace.com Edit Desk

Question: Explain the meanings and difference between the concepts thrown around by ISIS propagandists: Darul Tawheed, Darul Aman, Darul Ahad, Darul Kufr and Darul Harb. What laws pertain to Muslims living in each state?

 Answer:

The terms Dar-ul-Islam, Dar-ul-Kufr etc. have not been defined in any Qur’anic verse (aayah) or hadith of Rasulullah (Prophet PBUH). There isn’t a single Aayah or Hadith saying expressedly that the definition of Dar-ul-Islam is . . . and the definition of Dar-ul-Kufr is . . . These terms were derived by the Islamic jurists (fuqahaa) in the light of certain Aayaat and Ahaadith to tackle with the situations in their historical and political context. That being the case, there is some difference of opinion among the fuqahaa with regards to these terms.

Imaam Abu Hanifah (RA) defined Dar-ul-Islam as a ‘country in which Muslims enjoy security while non-Muslims live in fear’. Dar-ul-Kufr is the very opposite. It is a country in which non-Muslims enjoy security and Muslims live in fear.

Considering current political trends in the world, we could conclude that according to Imaam Abu Haneefah (RA), Dar-ul-Islam is a country that has a Muslim majority and which is run by Muslims even though they do not implement Islam or  Shariah law. However, most fuqahaa disagree with Imaam Abu Hanifah’s definition.

Imaam Abu Hanifah’s most prominent students, Imaam Abu Yusuf (RA) and Imaam Muhammad (RA) define Dar-ul-Islam as a country in which Sharia law is implemented.

Darul-Kufr is a country in which laws of the ‘kuffaar’ are implemented instead of the Shariah law, as viewed by the ISIS propagandists.

According to the interpretation of many Islamic jurists, Dar-ul-Harb is the same as Dar-ul-Kufr. However, because Dar-ul-Kufr is most often at war with Dar-ul-Islam, it is also called Dar-ul-Harb. (Harb means war.)

The earlier Islamic jurists (fuqahaa) only spoke of these two types of countries. However, because these definitions are not expressedly mentioned in Qu’aan and Hadith, latter-day fuqahaa added a third type of country based on circumstances that were not prevalent in the time of the earlier fuqahaa.

Although latter-day fuqaha do not mean that they lived in the past hundred or two hundred centuries. Among the earliest fuqahaa who discussed the concept of a third kind of Dar (Dar-ul-Aman i.e. abode of Peace) is Imaam Sarakhsi, a fourth generation hanafi scholar of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). Hence, he is latter-day in contrast to the early masters of fiqh like Imaam Abu Hanifah (RA) etc. This, the third type of country or state in Islamic theological view is Dar-ul-Aman.

Dar-ul-Aman is a non-Muslim country where the government allows Muslims to practice their religion without any fear. The concept of Dar-ul-Aman is based on the condition of Habshah (Abyssinia) and the Sahaabah (Prophet’s companions) who lived there during the time of first hijrah from Makka to Habsha.

In Dar-ul-Aman, the freedom Muslims enjoy in practising their religion is at governmental level. Hence, the status of Dar-ul-Aman will not be affected if the non-Muslim actors from other Faith’s or non-Muslim members of the public attack or persecute Muslims for practising their religion (provided such atrocities are not sanctioned by the government).

Having said that, it follows that most countries in the world presently could be classified as Dar-ul-Aman. Our country, too, is the largest democratic nation state and a secular country based on the Constitution which ensures completely freedom to profess, practice and preach a religious tradition. It has no state religion or official faith creed, but it guarantees religious freedom for everybody including Muslims and, irrefutably, Muslims in india practise Islam freely. Hence, going by this Islamic postulate, india is a Dar-ul-Aman in the purely theological view of the point.

Reference:

http://www.wordforpeace.com/india-is-dar-ul-aman-isis-narratives-of-darul-islam-darul-kufr-and-darul-harb-are-untenable/

No Theological Justification of Leaving Homeland as Dar al-Harb to join ISIS is tenable

WordForPeace.com

The medival terms of Dar ul-Islam, Dar ul-Kufr and Dar ul-Harb are now irrelevant and inapplicable due to the new world order and the international covenants, constitution, peace treaties and relations. These terms were applicable during third and fourth centuries A.H.

The extremists’ theological justification of Killing Non-Muslims in Non-Muslim Countries and Leaving Their Homelands as Abodes of War (Dar al-Harb) to join ISIS is Untenable and Unfounded. 

They are misinterpreting the concepts of Darul Harb (abode of war), Darul Kufr (abode of disbelief) and Darul Islam (abode of peace). 

Islamic Scholars mention these terms in their historical backround, but the contemporary fanatics misperceive them and consider every country where the Islamic Shariah is not enforced as Darul Harb (abode of war).

Thus, the fanatics believe that the people of these countries are not granted protection and that their lives and property are vulnerable and only may be protected by an Islamic battle (Ghazwa).

This can be refuted by clarifying that this classification made by Islamic jurists was not intended to exclude those Muslims living in non-Muslim lands from Islam. It is rather a classification that serves as a basis upon which rulings can be implemented, just like the classification of the globe into political territories.

The authentic Islamic position sets the criterion of whether a territory is the land where Muslims feel secure and safe to exercise their faith. Any such territory can be aptly counted as Darul Islam or An abode of Peace.

Imam Al-Kasani wrote:

“What is meant by designating the word “dar” (abode) with Islam and Kufr (disbelief) is not Islam and disbelief per se, but the state of security or insecurity. Moreover, the relative juristic rulings are not based on Islam itself or Kufr (in this case), but on the security or insecurity.” 

Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah states:

“This is the opinion held by the majority of scholars. It is crystal clear that Muslims jurists made their opinions according to Fiqh al-Ma’alat (Fiqh which considers the outcomes of actions).” Clearly, the practices of the extremist groups in the non-Muslim countries lead to accusing Islam of terrorism. Moreover, their actions are considered the most evil tools for defaming Islam in front of non-Muslims. If these groups are reasonable, they would realize that their actions work against Islam. They do not understand Muslim jurists’ views and, consequently, declare everyone residing in a non-Muslim country as a disbeliever.

In fact, Muslim jurists and scholars elaborated on the excellence of residing in non-Muslim countries since this may lead to guiding non-Muslims to Islam. Furthermore, the situation nowadays is very different as Muslims can freely perform their religious rituals. How do those people understand the hadith of the Prophet (PBUH):

“… and whosoever from my followers attacks other civilians (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his obligation towards them who have been given a pledge (of security), is not from me (i.e. is not my follower)”. 

[1] Ibn Qayyem Al-Jawziyyah, Ahkam Ahl Al-Dhimmah 2/873

[2] Al-Muhallah 12/126. Moustafa Hamzah, ‘Ann Thaqafat Al-Erhab – Qiraah Shari’ah p.233.

Source: http://www.azhar.eg/observer-en/dar-al-harb-abode-of-war