Chapter 34

Meaning: Dar al-Islam protects those residing within it regarding their lives and wealth... thus, it is not permissible to violate them except for a Shariah-based reason that mandates such permissibility. Conversely, Dar al-Shirk renders those residing within it subject to the permissibility of their lives and wealth... except for a Shariah-based barrier that mandates immunity (ismah). ¶

This is what has been narrated from the Prophetic Sunnah regarding the usage of this terminology. ¶

As for what has been reported from the Companions: It is stated in the peace treaty written by Khalid bin al-Walid for the people of al-Hirah: '...And I have decreed for them [i.e., the people of al-Hirah with whom the dhimmah contract was made] that any old man who has become weak, or has been afflicted by some calamity, or was wealthy and became poor, and the people of his religion began to give him charity, his jizya shall be lifted, and he and his family shall be supported from the Muslim public treasury, as long as he remains in Dar al-Hijrah and Dar al-Islam. If they move out to a place other than Dar al-Hijrah and Dar al-Islam, then the Muslims are not obligated to provide for their dependents...' (1). ¶

Dar al-Hijrah, meaning Medina al-Munawwara, where the Prophet (peace be upon him) established the Islamic State, was the first Dar al-Islam in Muslim history. The entire world outside Medina was Dar al-Kufr and Dar al-Harb. Thereafter, Dar al-Islam expanded through conquests and the addition of other regions until it encompassed three-quarters of the ancient world. Ibn Hazm states: 'Every place other than the city of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was a frontier, a land of war (Dar al-Harb), and a field for Jihad...' (2). ¶

It is clear from the aforementioned Hadith and the peace treaty of al-Hirah that the terms 'Dar al-Islam' and 'Dar al-Shirk'—or 'non-Dar al-Islam' in the expression of Khalid bin al-Walid—each denote a land with a specific status. Due to this specific status of the land, its rulings differ from others regarding the immunity or permissibility of its inhabitants (unless a Shariah-based barrier prevents immunity or permissibility), just as the rulings differ between the two realms regarding the granting of citizenship rights to the residents of one domain over the other. ¶

Subsequently, the jurists (Fuqaha) detailed the rulings concerning Dar al-Islam and its inhabitants, as well as the rulings of Dar al-Kufr. ¶

Regarding war, or Dar al-Kufr (the Abode of Disbelief) and its inhabitants, there exists a difference of opinion among scholars concerning those rulings, as is expounded in the books of Islamic Fiqh. Thus, the terminology of 'Dar al-Islam' and the terminology of 'Dar al-Harb' or 'Dar al-Kufr' became established to denote those rulings specific to each of these abodes. ¶

Hence, it is necessary to identify the specific quality that makes a territory a Dar al-Islam; if any part of this quality is missing, the territory is no longer Dar al-Islam, but rather Dar al-Harb or Dar al-Kufr and Shirk. ¶

■ The definition of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr. ¶

Classical and contemporary jurists and Islamic writers have addressed this issue. We will first present a summary of the opinions stated regarding this matter, and secondly, we will present that which we deem most accurate from among those opinions, along with the reasoning for that preference. ¶

However, we will not discuss all the opinions put forth on this subject, nor the defenses some have offered for their point of view or the school of thought they adopt in this regard, so as not to stray from the original topic that necessitated our addressing the issue of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr, which is: the obligation to defend Muslims in Dar al-Islam without conditions, and the obligation to defend Muslims outside of Dar al-Islam under specific conditions. ¶

First: Some opinions stated regarding the issue of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr. ¶

1 - It is stated in Bada'i al-Sana'i: 'There is no disagreement among our scholars that Dar al-Kufr becomes Dar al-Islam through the manifestation of the rulings of Islam therein. However, they disagreed regarding Dar al-Islam: by what does it become Dar al-Kufr? Abu Hanifa said: It does not become Dar al-Kufr except with three conditions: ¶

One: The manifestation of the rulings of disbelief therein. Second: That it is contiguous with Dar al-Kufr. Third: That there remains in it no Muslim or Dhimmi safe under the original security (aman), which is the security granted by the Muslims. ¶

Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on them, said: It becomes Dar al-Kufr simply by the manifestation of the rulings of disbelief therein.' ¶

2 - It is stated in Hashiyat Ibn Abidin on (Al-Durr al-Mukhtar Sharh Tanwir al-Absar): "His saying: 'Dar al-Islam does not become Dar al-Harb, etc.' means: if the people of war (Ahl al-Harb) conquer one of our lands, or the people of a city apostatize and gain control, and implement the laws of disbelief, or the Dhimmis break the covenant and take control of their territory—in each of these cases, it does not become Dar al-Harb unless these three conditions are met. The two disciples [i.e., Abu Yusuf and Muhammad] said it is on the condition of only one thing, which is: the manifestation of the laws of disbelief, and this is the qiyas (legal analogy)."(1) ¶

3 - Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra says: "Perhaps the fruit of the disagreement between the two opinions appears in our current era. According to the application of Imam Abu Hanifa's view, the Islamic regions from the far Maghrib to the plains of Turkestan and Pakistan remain Islamic lands; because although their inhabitants do not implement the laws of Islam, they live under the original security of Islam. Thus, the lands remain Islamic. ¶

By applying the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, and the jurists who agree with them, these Islamic regions would not be considered Dar al-Islam but rather Dar al-Harb; because the laws of Islam are not manifest or implemented in them." (2) ¶

4 - Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari discusses the view of the Ibadhiyya sect of the Khawarij regarding the issue of 'Dar' (abode), saying: "And they claimed that the Dar—meaning the territory of their opponents—is a Dar of Tawhid, except for the Sultan's army, for it is a Dar of Kufr (disbelief)."(3) ¶

5 - In his Fiqhi dictionary, Professor Sa'di Abu Jayb wrote about Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb: "Dar al-Harb according to the Shafi'is: The lands of the disbelievers who have no peace treaty with the Muslims."(4) ¶

"Dar al-Islam: According to the Shafi'is, it is every city built by Muslims, such as Baghdad and Basra, or those whose people embraced Islam while in possession of it, like Medina or Yemen, or those conquered by force, like Khaybar, Egypt, and the Sawad of Iraq, or those conquered by treaty, where the land belongs to us and the disbelievers therein pay the jizya." ¶

According to the Hanbalis: It is every city that Muslims established, such as Basra, or conquered, such as the cities of the Levant. ¶

6 - In the treatise 'Al-Saif al-Battar' by the scholar Abdullah bin Abd al-Bari bin Muhammad al-Ahdal [d. 1271 AH], it is stated: 'Regarding the ruling of a land seized by disbelievers from the lands of Islam, Ibn Hajar al-Makki stated in Al-Tuhfah and elsewhere that it remains under the ruling of Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam). Even if it appears to be Dar al-Harb (Abode of War) in form, it remains Dar al-Islam in legal status, based on the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: 'Islam is exalted and nothing can be exalted over it.' Therefore, as long as it is Dar al-Islam, it is an obligatory duty and a right for the people of Islam to liberate it from the hands of the disbelievers.' ¶

7 - It is stated in Mughni al-Muhtaj: 'If a person is able to maintain their faith and remain separate in Dar al-Harb, it becomes obligatory for them to remain there, because their location is legally Dar al-Islam. If they were to emigrate, it would become Dar al-Harb, and thus such emigration is forbidden.' ¶

8 - According to al-Shawkani: 'The criterion is the dominance of the Word (of Allah). If the commands and prohibitions in an abode are held by the people of Islam, such that the disbelievers therein cannot manifest their disbelief except by permission from the Muslims, then this is Dar al-Islam. The appearance of kufr (disbelief) characteristics therein does not harm its status, as these do not appear due to the strength or dominance of the disbelievers, as is observed with the Dhimmi (protected) Jews and Christians and the Mu'ahidin (covenanted people) residing in Islamic cities. If the matter is the opposite, then the abode is the opposite. Then he says: Know that delving into the classification of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufur is of very little benefit, because we have already explained regarding Dar al-Harb that the disbeliever's blood and property are permissible under all circumstances unless they have been granted asylum by the Muslims [i.e., whether they are in Dar al-Harb or Dar al-Islam], and that the property and blood of a Muslim are inviolable by virtue of Islam, in Dar al-Harb and elsewhere.' ¶

9 - Al-San'ani mentioned several opinions regarding the issue of Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Disbelief), which we summarize as follows: ¶

First Opinion: Dar al-Islam is that in which the two testimonies (Shahadatayn) and prayer are manifest, and in which no aspect of disbelief is apparent... except by way of protection (jiwar) and covenant (dhimma) from the Muslims. ¶

Second Opinion: Dar al-Islam is that in which the two testimonies and prayer are manifest, even if traits of disbelief appear therein without any protection (jiwar). ¶

Third Opinion: The determination of the Abode (dar) depends on dominance and power. If power lies with the disbelievers, whether by the sultan or the subjects, it is Dar al-Kufr. If power lies with the Muslims, it is Dar al-Islam. ¶

Fourth Opinion: The determination depends on the majority. If the majority are Muslims, it is Dar al-Islam. If the majority are disbelievers, it is Dar al-Kufr. ¶

Fifth Opinion: The ruling is based on the sultan [i.e., the one in authority, the ruler of the land]. If he is a disbeliever, the land is Dar al-Kufr, even if all the subjects are believers. And if he is a Muslim, the land is Dar al-Islam, even if all the subjects are disbelievers. - Then, Imam al-San'ani, when answering a question posed to him regarding the lands of (Aden) which were occupied by British colonizers (1), and in which they displayed the rulings of disbelief, establishes their status regarding whether they are Dar al-Kufr or Dar al-Islam. Imam al-San'ani states in this regard: 'The lands of Aden and India are Dar al-Islam; meaning, despite the manifestation of traits of disbelief therein and the dominance of the Europeans.' He then confirms this by saying: 'Aden and its surrounding areas, if the two testimonies and prayers are manifest therein, even if traits of disbelief appear therein without protection (2), it is Dar al-Islam. Otherwise [i.e., if the two testimonies and prayers are not manifest except with the protection and permission of the disbelievers], it is Dar al-Harb.' Al-San'ani also establishes in this context: 'When we know for certain... that the disbelievers have seized a city from the Islamic lands adjacent to them, gained dominance over it, and subjugated its people to the point that they are unable to openly express the word...' ¶

Except for the proximity of the disbelievers, it has become a Dar al-Harb, even if prayer is established therein. ¶

10 - Abd al-Qadir Awda states: "Dar al-Islam: It is the land in which the rulings of Islam are manifest, or whose Muslim inhabitants are able to manifest the rulings of Islam. Thus, Dar al-Islam includes every country whose population is entirely or mostly Muslim, and every country that Muslims have conquered and over which they rule, even if the majority of the population are non-Muslims. Dar al-Islam also includes every country ruled and dominated by non-Muslims as long as there are Muslim inhabitants who manifest the rulings of Islam, or if there is nothing preventing them from manifesting the rulings of Islam." ¶

11 - In 'Al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyya' by Sheikh Abd al-Wahhab Khallaf, it is stated: "Dar al-Islam: It is the abode where the rulings of Islam are enforced, and whoever is therein is secure by the protection (aman) of the Muslims, whether they are Muslims or Dhimmis. And Dar al-Harb: It is the abode where the rulings of Islam are not enforced, and whoever is therein is not secure by the protection of the Muslims." ¶

12 - Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani elaborated on what was mentioned in the book 'Al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyya' by Sheikh Khallaf, saying: "To consider an abode as Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr, one must look at two matters: first, rule by Islam; and second, security through the protection of the Muslims, meaning through their authority. If these two elements are present in an abode, it is Dar al-Islam, and it transforms from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam. However, if one of them is missing, it does not become Dar al-Islam. Similarly, if Dar al-Islam does not rule by the laws of Islam, it becomes Dar al-Kufr. Likewise, if it rules by Islam, but its security is not through the protection of the Muslims—that is, by their authority—but rather through the protection of the disbelievers—that is, by their authority—then it is also considered Dar al-Kufr." ¶

Sheikh al-Nabhani adopted the same position that Sheikh Abu Zahra had previously established regarding the classification of today’s Islamic countries as either Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Disbelief) or Dar al-Harb (Abode of War), based on the opinion of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. He states: 'Based on this, all Muslim countries today are Dar al-Kufr because they are not governed by Islam. Likewise, it remains Dar al-Kufr even if the kuffar (disbelievers) appoint a Muslim ruler who implements Islamic laws while remaining under their authority, and whose grant of security is contingent upon their security; it remains Dar al-Kufr.' ¶

13. Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli says: 'The criterion for distinguishing the status of a territory is the existence of authority and the implementation of laws. If it is Islamic, the territory is Dar al-Islam; if it is non-Islamic, the territory is Dar al-Harb.' ¶

14. Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti says: 'A land becomes Dar al-Islam when it enters into the authority and sovereignty of the Muslims, such that they are capable of manifesting their Islam and defending themselves against their enemies... He then says: ... The standard for naming a land Dar al-Islam is that the Muslims possess sovereignty over it, allowing a Muslim to publicly perform the rulings and rites of Islam. Furthermore, this attribute is not lost thereafter due to any transient incident of aggression, weakness, or the like... He then says: The implementation of general Shariah rulings is an obligation that falls upon those residing in Dar al-Islam, and it is not a prerequisite for designating the territory as Dar al-Islam.' ¶

15. Dr. Abdul Karim Zaidan says: 'Dar al-Islam, according to the jurists, comprises all countries governed by Muslims, where they implement the rulings of Islamic Shariah... It is possible for a territory to be Dar al-Islam even if it has no Muslim citizens, as long as its ruler is Muslim and implements Islamic laws. In this regard, the Shafi'i jurists state: 'It is not a condition for Dar al-Islam that it contains Muslims; rather, it suffices that it is under the control of the Imam (ruler) and that he is a Muslim.' Dr. Zaidan continues: 'It is noted regarding this statement that it does not include the condition of implementing Islamic laws for a territory to be considered Dar al-Islam.' ¶

Islam. The reason for this is that the implementation of the rulings of Islam is self-evident in the view of the jurists, as long as the territory (dar) is governed by a Muslim ruler, because the concern of Muslim rulers is the implementation of the Islamic Shariah. ¶

As for Dar al-Harb: it refers to all other lands where the rulings of Islam are not in effect, and which are not governed by Muslims... Then he says: A Dar al-Harb becomes a Dar al-Islam by the implementation of the rulings of Islam within it, and its inclusion under the political authority of Dar al-Islam... And it becomes a Dar al-Harb by the manifestation of the rulings of kufr (disbelief) within it, meaning: the implementation of laws other than those of Islam. This is what Imam Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, and the Zaydi jurists have explicitly stated.(1) ¶

I (the author) say: The aforementioned excerpts were a tour through the various opinions regarding the issue of 'Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr, or Dar al-Harb.' Perhaps we can perceive from them the secret of the bewilderment that afflicted Siddiq ibn Hasan al-Qannuji(2), the author of al-Rawdah al-Nadiyyah, regarding this issue, as he declares his distress in adopting a specific opinion on it and applying what he adopts to the Islamic lands that were occupied by the disbelievers during his era—namely, India—where they manifested the rulings of kufr. He says: ¶

"This issue is among the ambiguous matters (al-mushtabihat) for which the ruling has not become clear in a way that brings peace of mind... Therefore, you will see that I edited it in 'Hidayat al-Sa'il ila Adillat al-Masa'il,' tied to the Hanafi school, which indicates that the lands of India are Dar al-Islam. And I wrote it in another place according to the methodology of the Ahl al-Hadith, which indicates that they are Dar al-Kufr... And I did not decide definitively on either of them, and it is possible to say: There are two opinions on the issue, and both are strong and equal, although its being a Dar al-Kufr is more apparent, in view of the literal evidence..."(3) ¶

And finally... this is some of what has been said regarding Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr. In truth, some of what was said sheds light on this issue, while other parts cast shadows of obscurity upon it. We are not here to debate these opinions... but we have cited the previous excerpts regarding what... ¶

(1) Majmu'at Buhuth Fiqhiyyah: Dr. Abd al-Karim Zaydan: pp. 50-51. (2) Siddiq ibn Hasan al-Qannuji was born in 1248 AH, corresponding to 1832 AD, and died in 1307 AH, corresponding to 1890 AD (Al-'Ibrah... p. 3). (3) Al-'Ibrah fima Ja'a fi al-Ghazw wa al-Shahadah wa al-Hijrah: p. 238. ¶

We have discussed the issue of the 'dar' (abode) to encompass the various opinions presented on this subject, ensuring that the preference for one over the others is based on a consideration of several views that have contributed to the discourse. Therefore, let us now move to state the opinion we prefer in this matter, while clarifying the basis upon which we build this preference. ¶

Second: The preferred opinion regarding the issue of Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Disbelief) or Dar al-Harb (Abode of War). ¶

Dar al-Islam is a country where the system of government is the Islamic system. Simultaneously, its internal and external security must be in the hands of the Muslims who reside there. This means that the military force that maintains internal security and protects the country's borders from external enemies must be controlled by Muslims, such that if non-Muslims participate in it, their participation remains secondary, and the ultimate control remains with the Muslims. ¶

The necessity of these two conditions existing simultaneously—ruling by Islam and the presence of Islamic military power protecting the country and its people, both internally and externally—is derived from the reality of Mecca and the reality of Medina after the Hijrah. Before the Hijrah, Mecca and other lands in the world were undoubtedly Dar al-Kufr. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims migrated to Medina and established the Islamic State there, the first Dar al-Islam in Islamic history was created, while Mecca remained in its original state as Dar al-Kufr. ¶

From understanding the reality of Mecca and other lands, which were Dar al-Kufr, and the reality of Medina, which alone was Dar al-Islam—by grasping these two realities and the differences between them, we can deduce the foundations upon which a territory is classified as either Dar al-Kufr or Dar al-Islam. What was the reality of Mecca and other parts of the world? And what were the variables that occurred in the reality of Medina after Dar al-Islam was established there? It is clear that the reality in Mecca and elsewhere regarding Islam and the Muslims transformed to the exact opposite in Medina after the Hijrah. ¶

In Makkah and other places, Islam was not implemented at the state level. Although some of its rituals appeared—such as some Muslims occasionally praying in the shade of the Kaaba—this was not due to an inherent power of the Muslims to impose this ritual permanently. Rather, it was by permission of the disbelievers who held power, or through their reluctant silence; had they wished to suppress this matter, they could have done so. Furthermore, the Muslims were not secure in their own lives except to the extent that the disbelievers granted them protection—either through direct support, as was the case for some, or through silence; a silence broken by the cries of Muslims whenever the disbelievers chose to unleash the whips of persecution and torture. Many Muslims lived under constant oppression and perpetual threat. This was the reality of Makkah where Muslims lived: there was no dominance of Islam, and if any of its rituals appeared, it was by permission of the disbelievers; nor was there any security for the Muslims, and if security was obtained, it was under the protection of the disbelievers. What is said about the reality of Makkah applies to other places where Muslims existed, such as Abyssinia. The reality of Abyssinia, to which the Muslims migrated, was that there was no dominance of Islam at the state level. If any of its rituals appeared, it was by the permission of the non-Islamic power that held the reins of affairs in that land. Likewise, the security the Muslims enjoyed in Abyssinia was security provided by a non-Islamic power—that is, security through neighborly protection. However, when the Muslims migrated to Madinah, the reality changed. Islam became dominant at the state level and rose to a position of authority and governance through the inherent power of the Muslims. To the extent that in Madinah, if any ritual of kufr (disbelief) appeared, it did so only by the permission of the Muslims and under their covenant—within the legitimate Shariah limits, of course—which was the opposite of the situation in Makkah and elsewhere. Similarly, the security enjoyed by the Muslims in Madinah was a security based on the Islamic power that protected them both internally and externally, to the point that the security of the disbelievers in Madinah became a security granted by the Muslims through covenant and treaty, unlike the situation in Makkah and elsewhere. ¶

Thus, we understand from the differences between the reality of Makkah and other places before the Hijrah, and the reality of Madinah after the Hijrah, that there are two matters which, when found together, made Madinah a Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam). These are: First: The manifestation (Dhuhoor) of Islam (1), meaning that the ruling system in the land was the Islamic system. Second: The Muslims enjoying security that is based on their own inherent strength (self-reliance). ¶

In summary, the fact that Madinah, after the Prophet ﷺ migrated to it, was alone the Dar al-Islam, to the exclusion of all other parts of the earth, and that it was distinguished from all other lands in the world by the rule of Islam and the inherent security of the Muslims—this is sufficient evidence that no country becomes a Dar al-Islam, nor can it be described as such, except by the same means through which Madinah became a Dar al-Islam. And it did not become so except through these two conditions: The rule of Islam, and the inherent power of the Muslims—the power through which they are able to achieve two things: ¶

First: Imposing the rule of Islam over this abode. Second: Extending protection over it and providing security within it. ¶

As for the claim that a land can be described as Dar al-Islam if it is governed by Islam alone, even if the condition of inherent security is missing; or by the mere appearance of some Islamic rituals without the implementation of the entire Islamic law, as long as inherent security is available; or that the controlling power over the country is in the hands of the Muslims even if they do not govern by Islam—all these arguments contradict the reality of Madinah al-Munawwarah, which did not become a Dar al-Islam except through both matters combined: The rule of the entire Islamic law, and inherent Islamic security. ¶

This means that if one of these two matters is missing, the land is not a Dar al-Islam. Yes, it is incumbent upon the Muslims in occupied lands, or in lands where the military power is controlled by a group of its non-Muslim inhabitants, or by Muslims who refuse to establish [the rule of Islam]... ¶

(1) The meaning of manifestation (Dhuhoor): Dominance, authority, and rule (See: Al-Ibrah bima ja'a fi al-Ghazw wal-Shahadah wal-Hijrah, p. 236). ¶

Islam is the ruling system in these countries... in all these scenarios, it is obligatory for the Muslims in these lands that there be Muslim judges among them for their affairs, and that they manifest the rites of their religion, such as Jumu'ah, the two Eids, and the prayers, to the extent that they are able(1)... However, this does not mean that the land becomes Dar al-Islam because of this. ¶

This, and the established necessity of the implementation of Islam and the existence of security (aman) in the hands of the Muslims for a land to be considered Dar al-Islam, is what is understood from the words of the jurists who discussed this matter in detail. ¶

In 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary, there is a passage regarding this which we summarize, limiting it to the necessary portion for the sake of brevity. It states: 'If a contingent of Muslims enters Dar al-Harb... and descends upon one of their cities... then if they refuse Islam, and the Muslims invite them to pay the Jizyah, and they agree... but refuse to move from their homes, saying: "We will remain in our place and will not depart," and if the Muslims, when standing with them, are strong enough against the people of war (Ahl al-Harb) and can protect them from them, then there is no harm in the Amir declaring them Dhimmis, appointing a Muslim Amir over them to rule by the laws of Islam, and stationing with that Amir Muslims who are strong enough to remain with them in their land, because accepting the Dhimmah is obligatory. Allah Almighty said: "...until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued"(2)... By implementing the law upon them, they become Dhimmis, and their city becomes a city of Islam... for the land of Shirk becomes Dar al-Islam only by the implementation of the rulings of the Muslims within it, and the people of Shirk become Ahl al-Dhimmah by the implementation of the rulings of the Muslims upon them... If the Muslims leave a group of Muslims there who can only overpower the mushrik Ahl al-Harb if the Ahl al-Dhimmah assist them... then it is not appropriate for the Amir to do this for two reasons: First, this exposes the Muslims to destruction, for the Ahl al-Dhimmah are disbelievers, so it is not guaranteed that they will not betray them and kill them. ¶

And because if the Muslims are not able to implement the rulings of Islam except with the consent of the Ahl al-Dhimmah, then the Ahl al-Dhimmah are the ones implementing the rulings of the Muslims, and the rulings of the Muslims can only be implemented by Muslims'(3) ¶

This jurisprudential text establishes several points regarding our issue: ¶

1. Lands of kufr (disbelief) become Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) as soon as Islam is applied to them, even if the inhabitants are Ahl al-Dhimmah (protected non-Muslim subjects). This implies that a land must be subject to the Islamic system to become Dar al-Islam. Thus, if the disbelievers were to stipulate, for instance, that Islamic rulings should not be applied to them or their lands in order for them to become Dhimmah, and they surrender their lands on this basis to become part of Dar al-Islam, this condition would not be accepted. Consequently, they would not become Dhimmah, and their land would not become Dar al-Islam. This is because the verse of Jizya conditioned ending the state of war with the disbelievers—which implies the transformation of their land from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam—upon them paying the Jizya in a state of submission (wa hum saghirun); meaning that the Islamic ruling must be implemented upon them and their lands. As long as this condition is not met, those disbelievers remain Harbi (at war), and their land remains Dar al-Kufr and Dar al-Harb. ¶

2. Another point understood from the text we cited from 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary is that a condition for the Islamic ruling—when implemented over lands intended to be made Dar al-Islam—is that it must be backed by a force that enforces it, and this force must be the power of the Muslims, such that if the Dhimmah were to rebel against the Islamic rule, the Islamic force would be sufficient to subdue them. ¶

3. A third point understood from the text of 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary is that a condition for the security extended over lands intended to become Dar al-Islam is that the primary force providing this security to the inhabitants must be the power of the Muslims. If non-Muslims contribute to this force, they must be a secondary force subordinate to the primary force, not affecting the Muslims' capability to provide protection and enforce security if this secondary force were to withdraw its contribution or even rebel against the Muslims, because the Islamic force, in such a case, is capable of crushing or subduing it. ¶

In summary, we understand from the text of 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary that several conditions must be met, if we are to be precise, for a land to be correctly described as Dar al-Islam: - That the governance therein is Islamic governance. - That there exists a force that implements this Islamic governance. - That the force implementing the Islamic governance is the power of the Muslims. ¶

Conditions: 1. That there be established peace throughout the land. 2. That there be a power capable of providing this security. 3. That the power which establishes security in the land be the power of the Muslims, either independently or primarily. If any of these conditions are missing, it is not correct to describe the land as Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam). ¶

If we examine the Seerah (biography) of the Prophet ﷺ during the final stages of establishing Dar al-Islam in Medina until he founded the Islamic State, we see the validity of the text we quoted from 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary. ¶

- The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not migrate to Medina nor establish Dar al-Islam there until he had taken control of the power governing Medina, pursuant to the Second Pledge of Aqabah. Thus, through this power, he ensured the internal security of his city and the implementation of Islamic rule therein. ¶

- Furthermore, the people of the Second Pledge of Aqabah pledged to fight against those of all races—the red and the black—who might dare to attack Medina. By this power, he also ensured the external security of his city. ¶

- When he moved to Medina and established Dar al-Islam, he founded it solely upon the basis of ruling by Islam. Even regarding foreign relations and the settling of disputes arising between Dar al-Islam and the independent Jewish entities around Medina, the basis of judgment was the Islamic system represented by what Allah the Almighty or His Messenger ﷺ ordained. This is evidenced by the text in the Constitution of Medina (Sahifat al-Madinah): '...And whatever dispute or disagreement among those who subscribe to this document occurs, from which corruption is feared, then its reference shall be to Allah the Almighty and to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ...' ¶

With this, we conclude the first point regarding the issue of Dar al-Islam, and move on to the second point. ¶

Second point: Who are the Muslims affiliated with Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and those affiliated with Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Disbelief)? The answer is: The Muslims affiliated with Dar al-Islam are those who have adopted Dar al-Islam as their homeland to which they are attributed, and in which they reside permanently, even if it is permissible for them to travel outside it for any purpose, such as trade, medical treatment, visitation, recreation, or seeking knowledge, etc. Regardless of how long the period of absence from Dar al-Islam during this travel may be, as long as the affiliation with it remains intact, and as long as the traveler's stay in a place other than Dar al-Islam is temporary, no matter how long it lasts—provided they have not adopted another country as a permanent homeland whose citizenship they hold and to which they are affiliated. Similarly, Muslims who are affiliated with Dar al-Kufr are those who have adopted a place other than Dar al-Islam as their permanent homeland to which they are affiliated, even if they visit Dar al-Islam and then return to their countries, regardless of whether that visit is long or short. Furthermore, affiliation or lack of affiliation with Dar al-Islam is understood from the Hadith of Buraydah, in which it is stated: '...Invite them to Islam, and if they respond, accept it from them and withhold from them. Then invite them to migrate from their land to the land of the Muhajirin (Emigrants), and inform them that if they do so, they shall have the same rights and obligations as the Muhajirin. If they refuse to migrate from it, inform them that they will be like the desert-dwelling Muslims, upon whom Allah's ruling that applies to Muslims is applied, but they shall have no share in the ghanimah (spoils of war) or fay’ (booty) unless they perform jihad with the Muslims...' (Sahih Muslim: 1731). In this text, the Prophet (ﷺ) requested the people of Dar al-Kufr, if they embraced Islam, to move to the land of the Muhajirin—which was then Dar al-Islam—so that they could enjoy the pastoral/citizenship rights that those affiliated with this land enjoyed. However, he did not compel them to do so and explained to them that they would be deprived of those rights if they did not affiliate with Dar al-Islam by migrating to it and residing there permanently. Moreover, the companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used to travel from Medina, which was Dar al-Islam, to the lands of disbelief either for combat or for trade. Just as the Prophet (ﷺ) and his companions traveled to Mecca with the intention of Umrah, while it was still Dar al-Kufr, and they were unable to enter it and concluded... ¶

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ concluded the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with the Quraish, and in the following year, they traveled there—pursuant to that treaty—while it was still a Dar al-Kufr (Abode of Disbelief), and they stayed there for a few days. These travels, and this temporary residency in the Dar al-Kufr, did not sever their affiliation with the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam). ¶

From the aforementioned hadith of Buraydah, and the reality of the Muslims from the people of Medina—the Dar al-Islam—traveling to the Dar al-Kufr and residing there temporarily, we realize that Muslims are categorized into two groups: ¶

1. A group affiliated with the Dar al-Islam: These are those who have made the Dar al-Islam their homeland, even if they travel away from it and reside elsewhere temporarily. In modern terminology, they are called citizens of the Islamic state, enjoying Islamic citizenship or nationality. ¶

2. A group not affiliated with the Dar al-Islam: These are those who have made a place other than the Dar al-Islam their homeland, even if they travel to the Dar al-Islam for a temporary stay and then return to the countries they belong to. In modern terminology, they are referred to as citizens of the foreign states in which they live, and whose citizenship or nationality they hold. ¶

With this, we conclude the second point in this issue and move to the third point. ¶

Third Point: What is the ruling on defending the Dar al-Islam and the people of the Dar al-Islam? The answer is that the defense of the Dar al-Islam is mandatory against any aggression that threatens it. We have already provided evidence for the obligation to respond to aggression in general, and evidence for the obligation to respond to an attack on the Dar al-Islam specifically, and we have cited many texts from the jurists (fuqaha) in this regard. ¶

Likewise, it is mandatory to defend the people of the Dar al-Islam in accordance with the general texts concerning the defense of all Muslims, and the specific texts regarding the people of the Dar al-Islam, in the manner previously explained. ¶

It is worth noting that aggression against the people of the Dar al-Islam is established regardless of whether that aggression occurred while they were in the Dar al-Islam, or while they were outside the Dar al-Islam, such as if they were protected guests (musta'minin) in other states, having entered them for a temporary stay for any purpose, or if they were on the high seas. ¶

Or to the high reaches of the atmosphere where no one’s jurisdiction applies... Therefore, any place where aggression occurs against the Muslims of Dar al-Islam constitutes aggression that necessitates a response in this regard. ¶

Furthermore, in addition to the Shariah texts regarding the defense of the people of Dar al-Islam and their lands, the Prophet ﷺ included a special clause in the 'Sahifat al-Madinah' (Constitution of Medina) concerning the defense of the people of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Islam itself, and rising to support them and it against any aggression. It states in the Sahifah: '...and among them is mutual support against anyone who fights the people of this Sahifah... and among them is mutual support against anyone who attacks Yathrib' (1). ¶

Fourth Point: If Muslim countries are not Dar al-Islam from a technical Shariah perspective, what is the ruling on defending them and those who belong to them? ¶

In this point, we first establish some concepts, and we reiterate some of what has been previously established regarding the description deserving of the lands where Muslims live, depending on various considerations. This is to prevent any confusion arising from mixing these various lands and the stance that must be taken in the event of aggression against this or that Muslim country. These concepts are: ¶

1. Dar al-Islam: These are the lands that are governed by Islam, and their security is tied to the security of the Muslims, as mentioned previously. ¶

2. Dar al-Kufr: These are the lands that are not governed by Islam, even if their security is tied to the security of the Muslims. Or, they are governed by Islam, but their security is not tied to the security of the Muslims, or neither their governance nor their security is in the hands of Islam or the Muslims. This concept has also been previously established. ¶

3. Islamic countries that do not belong to Dar al-Islam: These are Dar al-Kufr from a technical Shariah perspective; they are those in which the condition of governance by Islam, or the condition of internal security, or both together, are missing. These lands are not called Dar al-Islam, but they are called Islamic countries. ¶

This applies if one of the two following conditions is met: ¶

First Condition: If, historically, the land was once under Muslim control or subject to Islamic governance, even if disbelievers later took possession of it, and all or most of its inhabitants became non-Muslims, such as Andalusia. The term 'Islamic lands' (Bilad al-Islamiyya) is applied to it based on what it once was and what it ought to be, because reclaiming it from the occupying disbelievers was an obligation (fard) upon the Muslims at the time the occupation occurred, and this Shariah ruling does not lapse for Muslims due to the passage of time. ¶

Second Condition: If all or the majority of the current inhabitants of the land are Muslims. In this case, the application of the term 'Islamic lands' is clear; it belongs to its inhabitants who reside there, all or most of whom are Muslims. ¶

Accordingly, Muslims in the world are: - Either affiliated with the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam), regardless of whether it exists today or not, due to differences in scholarly opinion on that matter. - Or affiliated with the Abode of Disbelief (Dar al-Kufur) from the lands of the disbelievers, i.e., non-Islamic lands. - Or affiliated with the Abode of Disbelief from among the Islamic lands. ¶

Our discussion addresses this last category of Muslims. That is: what is the ruling on defending those Muslims who belong to 'Islamic lands' that are not part of the Abode of Islam, and defending their Islamic lands? ¶

The answer is that these Islamic lands, even if they are termed 'Dar al-Kufur' in Islamic terminology regarding their system of governance or security, remain the property of the Muslims. The ruling regarding them is that they must be defended against any aggression committed against them by the disbelievers, whether it pertains to wealth, land, territory, or otherwise, because the textual evidences regarding the obligation to repel aggression are general. ¶

It encompasses all that is the right and property of the Muslims. Calling these lands 'Dar al-Kufr' (Abode of Disbelief) or 'Dar al-Harb' (Abode of War) in terminological terms does not exempt Muslims from the obligation of defending them. ¶

Furthermore, some Islamic thinkers believe that labeling Muslim lands as Dar al-Harb or Dar al-Kufr leads Muslims to absolve themselves of the responsibility of defending them against aggression, and also leads to the neglect of other duties. ¶

Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti says in this regard: "Which approach is more conducive to fulfilling the obligations of this religion upon our necks? - To say: These lands have become Dar al-Harb, so we find rest from every responsibility, and we do not burden ourselves with the duty of reclaiming land, repelling an enemy, performing the duty of Hisbah (enjoining good and forbidding evil), or gathering people for Jumu'ah (Friday prayer) or congregational prayer, or consulting on the affairs of Islam and the Muslims? ¶

Or to say: (As the Salaf unanimously agreed) that these lands remain Dar al-Islam! Because they once entered under the sovereignty and authority of the Muslims... and that we are, therefore, obligated to reclaim what the enemy has seized from them, such as Palestine and others, and to liberate those parts that have fallen under the dominion of colonialists and oppressors...?" (1) ¶

I say: Perhaps the distinction we have provided between Dar al-Islam, Dar al-Kufr (which refers to the lands of the disbelievers), and Dar al-Kufr (which refers to Muslim lands that have been labeled as such due to their systems or security situation)—perhaps this distinction between these categories of land answers the question raised in the words of Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti, dispels the fear he expressed, and relieves him of the concerns regarding the dangerous consequences he pointed out. For, as established earlier, it is mandatory to defend Muslim lands because they belong to the Muslims, even if they are labeled as Dar al-Kufr or Dar al-Harb. Likewise, it is incumbent upon the Muslims in these lands—as we also indicated earlier—to manifest the rituals of their religion to the best of their ability. (1) Hakadha Falnad'u ila al-Islam, Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti, p. 95. ¶

And that they should rise, as much as they are able, to fulfill the duties that Allah (mighty and majestic is He) has obligated upon them (1); among these obligatory duties is the defense of the Muslims and the lands of the Muslims. Whoever reads in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary such a jurisprudential text: 'The mere appearance of the rulings of shirk in a town, upon the victory of the people of war (ahl al-harb) over it, makes it a dar al-harb (abode of war)' (2). I say: Whoever reads this jurisprudential text and then envisions in their mind 'Palestine' or other similar examples of what they are reading, it cannot cross their mind that the jurist author of this statement intends by his words, or that it is permissible to understand from his words, that Muslims are exempt from defending 'Palestine' or other lands because they have become 'dar al-harb' as understood from this text, due to the appearance of the rulings of shirk therein and the victory of the people of war over it. ¶

Furthermore, he who says that it is mandatory for Muslims to fight the enemies in their original lands of disbelief and war, even though these enemies are the native inhabitants of those lands, and despite that, the Muslims must fight them in order to subject them to Muslim rule... does he not say, a fortiori, in light of this logic, that it is mandatory for Muslims to fight the enemies in the Islamic lands that were once dar al-Islam, and then became dar al-harb, in order to return them to Muslim rule? ¶

For as long as it is obligatory to fight the enemies while they are in their own lands, then fighting them in the Muslim lands which they have occupied, or wish to occupy, is more deserving and takes precedence. To state otherwise would mean that as the crime of the enemies increases, the obligation of the Muslims to act against them decreases, which is the opposite of obvious logic. I mean: the crime of the enemies in occupying the lands of the Muslims is more atrocious than them merely residing in their own lands, whether they are disbelievers or aggressive disbelievers. ¶