The session has just started. Please feel free to join us with your questions.
After the session has ended, you can view the whole dialogue by clicking Recent Sessions, or the archive.
For feedback and suggestions, please e-mail us at EngLivedialogue@islamonline.net.
Yours,
Islamonline Live Dialogue Editing Desk…
Name
Huseyin
-
Profession
research assistant
Question
Today, Presidents or kings of almost all Muslim countries are controlled by non-Muslim countries, and without the permission of non-Muslims all the means of development are non-available. If any Muslim country are to gain power, they are destroyed. Taking into account these and other realities, do you think Muslims have any chance of fighting ýn the same way as non-Muslims do? Should not Muslims fight for their high values like morality, honor of their women in Iraq, honor of Islam, honor of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), the right to living in better conditions and the right to enjoying the resources of their own countries? If we can not have the means to fight in the same way as non-Muslims, should not we fight? All the ways of development are hindered. While democracy is proposed and dictated to some countries, Some non-democratic Muslim countries are supported since they are doing everything non-Muslims want.
Answer
Thank you for raising such an important question.
First of all, your description of the control of non-Muslim countries over Muslim ones is overrated. Secondly, blaming others is not the solution nor is it an Islamic concept. Allah Almighty taught Muslims upon the end of the Battle of Uhud to think of what happened as being "from yourselves" (Aal-`imran 3: 165)
So we should start with blaming ourselves and trying to solve the internal problems, as the external problems are like the symptoms of a disease and not the disease itself. As Malik Ibn Nabi put it, "the acceptance of colonialism opens the doors to it, the same way dead ideas open the gate to deadly ones."
Also, Allah Almighty teaches us that He "will not change the situation of a people until they change themselves." (Ar-Ra`d 13: 11)
Name
Ajmalulddin
- Ireland
Profession
Question
Are non-Muslims living in Muslim countries subject to paying jizya nowadays and why?
Answer
No, they are not subject to paying jizya, because religion is no longer the foundation of citizenship as in the old empires, but geography is now the foundation.
Secondly, we should never look at the system of jizya even in the old application as something discriminatory because while Muslims were obliged to pay the zakah as a religious duty the non-Muslims were subject to paying the jizya, which is a non-religious tribute.
Name
M Fathi
-
Profession
Question
Many people do not know much about this categorization of Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb. Could you enlighten us on what does this classification mean, what is its historical context, and most importantly, what is the Islamic stand on this categorization, I mean is it a genuine inherent in Islam that it is of a permanent nature, and not open to any question, or is it merely an ijtihadi view by some scholars and therefore can be revisited and re-thought by contemporary Muslim scholars.
Answer
First of all, we should know that this categorization is not mentioned in the Qur'an or in the Sunnah. However, it is just an attempt from some Muslim scholars to conceptualize the world they were living it, a world that lacked international law to govern nations and language of force was the norm. Therefore, we are not religiously obliged to accept this categorization as it is part of history and not revelation.
Secondly, even among the early jurists who used this terminology there was a difference in the definition and application. For example, some jurists defined dar al-Islam as a nation with a majority of Muslim population, while others defined it as any place where Muslims are protected and given freedom to practice their faith. According to the Hanafi school of fiqh, security and freedom of worship is what makes one land Islamic or not. Al-Kasani is his book Bada'i` As-sana'i` said: "The view of Abu Haneefa is based on the assumption that the criterion in the land of Islam/land of disbelief division is not belief and disbelief, but rather it is security and insecurity (from oppression)."
The great Shafi`i scholar Al-Mawardi went further and said: "wherever the Muslim can worship Allah openly, the land he is living in is an Islamic land (dar Islam)"
This view of al-Mawardi seems to be applicable to our world today, and based on this we can say that 99% of the countries today are part of the abode of Islam.
Name
Hadal
- Mauritania
Profession
Jusnalist
Question
Well, Do you think that the abode of Islam could be applicable in the age of pluralism?
Answer
The great Muslim scholar of Nigeria Usman Dan Fodio was asked whether Nigeria of his time was an abode of Islam or dar kufr (abode of disbelief). He said "it is not a land of Islam nor a land of disbelief, it is Dar Takhleet (a land of confusion or mixture)."
This great scholar realized that in the 19th century the world has become so complicated that the old categorization has become too simplistic.
If we add to this the fact that "About one third of the estimated 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today are living as religious and political minorities in non-Muslim societies" (The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World 3/120, 1995), we will come to the conclusion that the categorization of dar al-Islam and dar al-harb is no longer applicable or even desirable. I even have my own doubt that it was applicable in the past because the Muslim society was never purely Islamic, but it always had non-Muslim minorities from the people of the Book and other faiths. This pattern has been established by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) himself when he accepted the Jews of Madina, the Christians of Najran and the Magians of Hajar as part of the Muslim society without giving up their own faiths.
Name
Qum
-
Profession
Question
Is the definition of Dar Al-Harb and Dar Al-Islam still applicable?
Answer
Please refer to previous questions.
Name
Hamid
-
Profession
Question
I have a question about countries whose governments are at war with Muslims but their peoples are not necessarily involved in these wars, how Muslims should deal with such nations? Some Muslims maintain that these countries and their respective peoples are Dar Harb or abode of war and uses this as a pretext for bombing and targeting the innocent people though the most blame lay on the governments. What is your comment.
Answer
In the old time, they used to say, "People follow the religion of their kings," but in the world of liberalism and pluralism this statement is no longer acceptable. Now people oppose their leaders categorically and voice their opposition out loud, so it is not fair to blame those people for the decisions and wrongdoings of their own leaders. For example, the statement of bin Laden that "all Americans, military and civilians, are legitimate targets of attacks because America has launched a war against Muslim countries," has no basis neither in Islamic jurisprudence nor in war ethics.
Before starting this session today, I was reading an article about the unprecedented decline of popularity of both Bush and Blair. So by what sense I should hold the two societies, the American and the British, the responsibility of the wrong decisions taken by those two leaders?
Name
MFR
-
Profession
Question
The problematic issue of dar al-Islam & dar al-Harb takes us to an important point, namely why do some Muslim scholars restrict themselves to certain principles that were not stipulated by the Qur'an or Sunnah, but rather ijtihadi principles that have been intended to respond to some temporary issues. I understand that principles established definitely by the Qur'an and Sunnah are not open to question. But do you not see that restricting oneself to irrelevant ijtihadi rulings is very harmful to Islam?
Answer
This is a very good point. One of the serious challenges of religious thought is to distinguish clearly between tradition and religion, between divine principles and man-made terminologies. The issue of these terms is a good example here; they were not mentioned by the Qur'an or the Sunnah of the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and therefore the Muslim mind should not stick to these terminologies, especially if we take into consideration that we live in a completely different world, with different system and context. We are only obliged to follow revelation and not historical categorization.
Name
Eman
-
Profession
Question
Is it fair to put all the western countries in one basket and consider them the abode of war?
Answer
Definitely, it is not fair. I believe that none of the western countries today can be considered an abode of war according to the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. I would consider Yugoslavia in the midst of 1990s as an abode of war where genocide of Muslims was the norm. But this is an exceptional judgment of a particular time (1990s) and place (Yugoslavia). As for the other western countries, they are to be put in the category of those countries that Al-Kasani and Al-Mawardi spoke about (please refer to question of M Fathi).
Name
Hasan
-
Profession
Question
Could any changes be made to the classifications of Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb in terms of adding more categories, say for example; the abode of peace, the abode of treaty.. etc
Answer
The abode of treaty is not a new terminology because it is mentioned in the ancient fiqh. The abode of treaty includes all nations that hold diplomatic relations and peace treaties with Muslims as in the case of most of the countries nowadays. Some contemporary Muslim jurists and intellectuals suggest new terms such as
- Dar Ash-shahada suggested by Dr. Tariq Ramadan which means any country where Muslims can preach Islam freely.
- Ummat Ad-Da`wah suggested by Dr. Taha Jabir Al-`Alawani which means that the whole world is a potential Islamic land
Name
SSS
-
Profession
Question
Now Muslims are controlled, invaded, and humiliated by non-Muslim countries. You say we should not attack the western peoples because they are innocent. but they actually participate, at least implicitly, by voting for such tyrant administrations. and what are the other alternatives to attacking these countries? Nothing!
Answer
Voting for a leader is a judgment of a particular situation and not prediction of the future. To vote for a leader does not mean that you agree with all what he is going to do because no body knows what the future will bring about. Islam is against the concept of collective guilt. Allah Almighty says: "No soul should be blamed for the faults committed by another." (Al-Israa' 17: 15)
Islam is also against wars of extermination that are meant for targeting all people. Just read this message from the Prophet and his successors for military leaders: "Do not betray, be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut palm trees or fruitful trees. Don't slay a sheep, a cow or a camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in monasteries, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for."
Name
Laro
-
Profession
Bussiness tycon
Question
What is your opinion regarding the applicability of abode of war and abode of peace, in view of the fact that the war is launched against many Muslim countries such as Iraq, Darfur crisis in Sudan. Please comment fully on it mentioning the Shari`ah position and what is expected of Muslims.
Answer
Basically speaking, if people of any Muslim country are invaded by a foreign enemy or oppressed by their own leaders they have the full right to defend themselves against aggression. But in the world of interdependence we are living in today if this happened it does not make all Muslims at war with all non-Muslims. Each case should be judged according to the circumstances of specific Muslim groups and countries without generalization or simplification and without dragging Muslims into endless wars.
Name
Mariam
-
Profession
Graduate Student
Question
Do you not think it is time to update our concept of dar al-harb and dar al-Islam. Muslims live in "the abode of war" in great numbers now, and Muslim countries are friends with non-Muslim countries. Can't we just refer to these two terms as Muslim and non-Muslim countries?
In addition, what makes a country a Muslim country, the population or the government. There are many regimes that have a population of majority Muslims but the governments are connected to the military or secular?
Answer
This is a good point because the deep secularization of Muslim political elite and the oppressive way adopted by some Muslim leaders in dealing with religious values and groups raises many questions about the validity and applicability of the term “abode of Islam” to Muslim countries today. Therefore, we need to emphasize the view of Al-Mawardi that the bottom line is freedom and security for practicing Islamic worship and principles and not population. If we apply the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, some of Muslim countries today would not fall under the category of Abode of Islam.
