Talk:Divisions of the world in Islam

Ibn Taymiyyah

Ibn Taymiyyah has even contradicted the classical view since he did not call Mardin dar ul-harb because muslims could live there free. So I see his mentioning politically motivated since he is the favourite scholar of the jihadis. We should delete this.

Ali Gomaa & al-Quaradawi

I removed [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] from al-Qaradawi quote. As far as I know Ali Gomaa & al-Quardawai this isn't what he meant by Dar Al-Harb. The concept of continues jihad against the non-Muslim world doesn't exist in Modern Islam. Now Dar al-Hard is used to describe countries which are in a state of war with a Muslim country. Also Islam forbid killing an unarmed person. That's of course as far as I know--Mustafaahmedhussien (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

The division this article talks about is not found in Islam (based on quran and hadiths). This division is not accepted among the majority of Muslims nor majority of Muslims ever heard of it. This concept of division was created by some. If there was an article written for every concept one small group of people might hold, this wikipedia will go bankrupt for providing space.Tarikur (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is an educational resourse and is a starting point for looking for further information. The article should not be deleted but it should be made clear in the introductory paragraphs that the divisions in Islam are a concept, but of which are based on Qur'an and Sunnah, which is plainly evident upon inspection. Mainly, the concept of the world being divided into two camps, that of the believers (Muslims or Mumin) and that of the unbelievers. (Kuffar).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Warrington Thomas (talk • contribs)

I agree. This article depends upon political POV in regards to what Islam should be and how the muslims should behave. Faro0485 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. These divisions exist, but as an independent article don't make much sense- it should be under Islam, or the World of Islam, but not under this title. Divonbriesen (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This notion is mentioned in Islamic sources and widely discussed by classical Muslim scholarship.

It is recorded by Ibn Sa'd in an authentic chain (isnad) on the authority of Salamah bin Nufayl al-Hadrami who narrates from Jubayr bin Nufayr, who narrates from al-Walid bin Abd al Rahman al-Jarashi, who narrates from Muhammad bin Muhajir al-Ansari, who narrates from of al-Walīd bin Muslim, that the Prophet (saw) said: "The centre of Dar al-Islam is in Sham." (Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, 1997, Vol. 7, pp. 427–428) أَلاَ إِنَّ عُقْرَ دَارِ الإسلام الشَّامُ "The worthiest of the believers' abode (land) is as-Sham" (Tabarani) Al-Sham is the Levant region incorporating Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Ref: https://www.islamiqate.com/3338/did-the-prophet-saw-use-the-terms-dar-al-islam-or-dar-al-harb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.96.136 (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Article should not be automatic redirect from Dar al-Islam

Dar al-Islam is a muslim organization in New Mexico, USA- there should be a disambiguation page prior to this one. There is no easy way to link to that site, and to the Tanzanian city Darussalam with a redirect from Dar al-Islam directly to here - since the name changes.

2 parts

As far as I understand the issue, basing on the Qur'an the Islamic faith generally divides the world into 2 parts: (1) dar al-Islam (dwelling of Islam) and (2) dar al-harb (dwelling of the sword, war). This vision is common, as far as I understand, to all branches of Islam, although for natural reasons, it is endorsed more thoroughly among the militant Islamists, in particular the Wahhabi division of Islam, which is predominant in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States (Bin-Laden belongs to this school), and the Shi'ite islam practiced in Iran (and endorsed by its proxy Hizballah). Naturally, this view is also shared by the fundamentalist organizations (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) in the Palestinian Authority (and indeed to an extent, by any Muslim close enough to the religion). It takes only to attend to Arafat's own words comparing his Oslo Accords with the peace Muhammad made (and unilaterally broke) with the Kuraish tribe to understand the deep religious motives in the Arab hate towards Jews and Israel. --Uriyan (from Talk:Anti-Semitism)

This (above)is an overly simplistic analysis. As far as Palestinians, there are many organizations which have nothing to do with Islam fighting Israeli rule. "Arab's religious motives" must be a joke. What about Palestinian Christians and Druze. Indeed, secular Palestinian organizations had more support until the intifada when Islamic organizations came to the forefront. You can't honestly be criticizing Arabs for fighting western imperialism in the form of "Israel" and in turn using that to prove the hostility of Dar-al-Islam to Dar-al-Harb. Fkh82 20:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone can, check "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom. He has a discussion on this and references to more discussion on the subject --InfectiousAdm (also affects other subjects: dar al-Harb)

I think this article has been vandalized (compare December 2005 version to January 2006). World has the right to see Islam in its true light.

dar al-sulh

Can anyone clarify the status of dar al-sulh (House of Treaty)? I believe it was coined before Ottoman times, so may predate dar al-ahd. Any info?

86.133.23.227 13:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Divisions of the world in Islam

Moved the page to new title to encompass all the sub-divisions of the world in Islamic perspective.--CltFn 11:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Article

• "Classification of Lands in the Islamic Law and Its Technical Terms." A. N. Poliak. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 57, No. 1. (Jan., 1940), pp. 50-62.

That article is useful... also for talking about sulh. For anyone who has access. We also might want to change the name of this article to something more accepted. gren グレン 14:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There are far too many specialized terms in this article with neither links or explanations. For a non-Arab speaking non-Muslim it is virtually impossible to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.67.183 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wtf?

Why does this article not make clear that it's talking about the days of the caliphates, not modern Islam? It seems to imply that Islamic governments are officially at war with the entire rest of the world. Is this a 1911 Britannica copy-paste, or something? <eleland/talkedits> 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has no basis for Muslims. This is written within a modern political context, with an Orientalist Western perspective on Islam. This article is not objective at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.201.188 (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Source

Hi people, I'm planning on making a few changes in this article. Would it be OK if I used a German Source? It's a book by Yasar Nuri Ozturk. --يس (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the silence as a "yes"... --يس (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Dar al-Islam

I have edited the mistakes made in the paragraph:

• First of all, Dar al-Islam literally means "House/Abode of Islam; Dar as-Salam means "House/Abode of Peace".
• Secondly, the term Dar al-Islam does not appear in the narrations of the prophet at all. The cited narration does not include that term and also does not have a reference - just like the other citation. That's why I have removed both of them.
• The two requirements for a country to be part of the Dar al-Islam are according to the founder of this concept, Abu Hanifa, the following two:

1. The Muslims must be able to enjoy peace and security with and within this country.
2. It has common frontiers with some Muslim countries.

• The following sentence also does not have any reference: "Some modern Muslim scholars maintain that the labeling of a country or place as dar al-Islam or dar al-harb revolves around the question of religious security. This means that if a Muslim practices Islam freely in his place of abode, then he will be considered as living in a dar al-Islam, even if he happens to live in a secular or non-Islamic country. Traditional definitions tend to focus on which religion holds ultimate authority." It is obvious, that it is from here, so I cited it correctly.
• I also added the following:

Today, most Islamic scholars agree upon a classification into three. These three categories are:

1. Dar Al-Islam: The abode of Islam; the Muslim nation.
2. Dar Al-Harb: The abode of war; those that have declared war against the Muslim nation.
3. Dar Al-‘Ahd: The abode of covenant; the countries that have diplomatic agreements and covenants with Muslim nations.

--يس (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points! I would like to see this article expanded beyond solely political divisions and incorporate historical concepts such as the seven climes and regions such as the Land of the Gog and Magog. A historical map illustrating such concepts would also be pertinent.Jemiljan (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dar al-Harb

In accordance to the edits made in dar al-Islam, I also edited this passage. --يس (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really problematic, somehow one of the most problematic and dangerous ideas of "Dar-el Harb" does not explained here, with "miraculously" all the links explaining it also not working. Wikipedia is far from being objective here- this notion of "Dar el Harb" is one of the most clear explanations to many of the Muslims activity and fights around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.156.199 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

This article badly needs a lead section to summarise (at least) what "divisions of the world" means in this context. I don't have the expertise to write one, so I've tagged instead. Also, I moved the text that was above the table of contents - such a disclaimer should be in a separate section, not prefacing the whole article. The section name I used ("Scriptural references") is probably entirely wrong for an Islam related article, but I'm going to plead ignorance on that one as well - please rename it to something more appropriate. Orpheus (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Gomaa / Qardawi revisited

I previously removed the passages sourced to MEMRI about these two individuals. MEMRI itself isn't really a reliable source (neither is egypt-facts.org for that matter), and if it's citing another source then we should insert the original into the article. Another aspect is that these are two solitary opinions of the same skew, whereas there is little indication given as to the singificance or prevalence of this view, or the general view held by authorities as a whole. So there is an issue of potential undue weight being granted to one perspective. Qardawi and Gomma themselves aren't really big names in this field, you won't find them being cited in any academic discourse of the topic. On the basis of sourcing and balance, then, I intend to remove these two passages until reliable sources can be found which also assert the significance of these opinions in standard legal discourse. And I'm also re-removing the "Islamic" epithet, as the term is more a legal categorisation coined by jurists, as opposed to being coined by Islamic texts themselves. Regards, ITAQALLAH 23:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Abu Hanifa and origin

Does anyone have any reliable secondary source attributing the origin of the term to Abu Hanifa? -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 14:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

This is an awfully long and significant article for only five sources. Can somebody dig up some more? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Dar ul Harb

I am removing the line `Dar ul Harb is a "house" or "abode" of war because this is a land of potential conquest, whose denizens are not to be allowed to live in peace until they submit to Islamic law and by implication embrace Islamic peace.` This line has no credeble reference is is taken directly taken from site which is full of bigotry and anti-Islamic articles.

Arabic words are either masculine or feminine ...

... does anybody know whether dār [دار] is masculine / feminine? --79.251.122.24 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary is your friend. (Apparently it was originally feminine in Classical Arabic but has evolved to take masculine usage…?) —Wiki Wikardo 18:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Divisions of the world in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206011857/http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1119503544498

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Dar al-Kufr - House of Unbelief?

In Kwame Appiah's book The Lies That Bind he refers to the traditional division being into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr, the latter being the House of Unbelief. He makes no mention of Dar al-Harb. Does anyone know anything about Da al-Kufr? Is it an old concept with more legitmate claim to being the name for non-Muslim lands than Dar al-Harb, or is this a fringe idea? If its known but a minority interpretation, it could be included. If its totally fringe then it should not. He cites a book called War and Peace in the Law of Islam by Majid Khadduri, however when I check the reference on page 52 of that book on Google Books, it mentions Dar al-Harb and makes no mentioin of Dar al-Kufr! LastDodo (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

OP blocked sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kowal2701, Kuffaar, one or both of you may want to revert or try to achieve consensus over this revert. I don't have enough knowledge about whether Azam is a reliable source.-Ganeemath (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC) I don't either Kowal2701 (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC) The source @Kuffaar used doesn't even mention terrorising the Kafirs... until only Muslims or those who submit to Islam remain. It's SYNTH at best and POV pushing at worse. — 🧀The Cheesedealer talk 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @The Cheesedealer and Kowal2701: The source says, "Offensive Jihad: Where the Kuffar are not gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard the borders and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the Enemies of Allah. It is the duty of the Imam to assemble and send out an Army unit into the land of War once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army, he is in sin. And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of Jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The Scholars of the principles of religion have also said, "Jihad is Da'wah with a force and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam." Defensive Jihad: This is expelling the Kuffar from our land and it is Fard Ayn, a compulsory duty upon all.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC) What is the best way to condense that and add it to this article?-Ganeemath (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @The Cheesedealer: At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Removal_of_sourced_content you have typed, "I'm very sorry, silly me did misread it.", so please propose and add a better sentence to this article.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC) I think first we should discuss if it is WP:DUE or not, then discuss if it belongs to the lede or not, then discuss if it should be attributed. I believe - if fellow users think it is due - that it should be something like "According to the Yusuf Azzam, Muslims are supposed to launch an offensive on a yearly basis against non-Muslim lands" "According to the Yusuf Azzam, in the absence of any attack by non-Muslims, a portion of Muslims should be kept to guard borders and to launch yearly offensive campaign toward non-Muslim lands for deterrence" TBH, I don't think it's due since Yusuf Azzam is not generally regarded as a scholar (even his wikipedia article doesn't portray him as such AFAIK) thus I don't see his opinion being relevant among the multitude of opinions regarding this matter by prominent scholars across the Islamic history. But if y'all do, I strongly oppose it being in the lede without attribution. — 🧀The Cheesedealer talk 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC) @The Cheesedealer: I don't think you clicked and read the source provided by Kuffaar. Abdullah Azzam is quoting from some other source, he is not the author of that text (if you click and open the source and then on Section 1, at the bottom, you can read the sources used by Abdulla Azzam).-Ganeemath (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC) One more sentence can be added: According to M. M. Ayoub, "Jihad may be regarded as a sixth fundamental obligation (faridah) incumbent on every Muslim when social and religious reform is gravely hampered or the community's integrity is threatened. In a situation where the entire Muslim ummah is in danger, jihad becomes an absolute obligation (fard 'ayn). Otherwise it is a limited obligation (fard kifayah), incumbent upon those who are directly involved. These rules apply to armed struggle, or the jihad of the sword."- Ganeemath (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Many others have also written the same thing as Azzam and Ayoub - read this, this and this.-Ganeemath (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC) @Kowal2701, Kuffaar, IntGrah, ActivelyDisinterested, and The Cheesedealer: I have added sources/references for this sentence - It is a sin to not send an army of Muslims to terrorise the Kuffar, once or twice a year until only Muslims or those who submit to Islam remain, in offensive jihad; expelling Kuffar from Muslim lands is defensive jihad.-Ganeemath (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Ganeemath (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC) ActivelyDisinterested, you are the only experienced editor among the people pinged (all of you have responded or objected to this earlier), so please let us know what all sources can be used (others can also comment).-Ganeemath (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Above, I have quoted what Abdullah Azzam and M.M.Ayoub have written, in full, for all to read.-Ganeemath (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC) @Ganeemath, it isn't a case of whether your statement has been said by other people before. This looks like a distinction between theory and practice, and a case of POV pushing. Frankly, this is an extremist view, as what is being conveyed is essentially "Muslims ought to terrorise non-Muslims, and expel them from their lands". This is not what the majority of Muslims do in practice, and by including this sentence in this article, it promotes the idea that this is what they should do. It does not belong in the article, regardless of the degree of truth it bears. IntGrah (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia says that we can add a sentence if it is backed by reliable sources. I have provided 25 of them. Even if we use just the first two sources, it should be enough or else we must start the dispute resolution process. The link you posted has this text, Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else." We can therefore, add that Modern Muslims do not follow this after the sentence added originally by Kuffaar. -Ganeemath (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC) The comically large amount of sources doesn't mean all of them are necessarily reliable, nor does it make it WP:DUE. Also, very few of those sources actually deal with the specific statement proposed; they are just articles around the topic. Also, Abdullah Azzam is not a reliable source. Neither is MEMRI. To quote the Wikipedia article: Critics describe MEMRI as a strongly pro-Israel advocacy group that, in spite of describing itself as being "independent" and "non-partisan" in nature, aims to portray the Arab world and the Muslim world in a negative light by producing and disseminating incomplete or inaccurate translations of the original versions of the media reports that it re-publishes. It has also been accused of selectively focusing on the views of Islamic extremists while de-emphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions. Even if you are able to reduce the sources to a select few independent, reliable sources, it does not belong in the lede. It would have to be reworded to clearly state that this is a WP:FRINGE theory. But first and foremost, a consensus must be reached other whether to include it in the first place. WP:Islam has already been notified here, which is a preferable route to seek further input. IntGrah (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC) I may have some experience of Wikipedia, but this isn't a subject I have expert knowledge of. Two things jump out at me from a general perspective. Usually if someone has 25 references it's because they don't have a single strong sources to back up their content. WP:OVERCITE has some good advice about such situations. The other is that the language used and POV aren't very encyclopedic. The issue is that even if true (again not my area of expertise) stating it in this way doesn't provide any context. This is obviously not seen as true, or at least not something carried out, in the modern world. I wouldn't support the addition in it's current form. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC) @Kowal2701, Kuffaar, IntGrah, ActivelyDisinterested, The Cheesedealer, and Rasnaboy: I propose adding this: According to their interpretation of the hadith, Abdullah Azzam and Mahmoud M. Ayoub have written that it is a sin to not send an army of Muslims to terrorise the Kuffar, once or twice a year, until only Muslims or those who submit to Islam remain, in offensive jihad; expelling Kuffar from Muslim lands is defensive jihad. However, Sayyid Qutb in his book, "Milestones" claims that Muslims have given this up. What do you say?-Ganeemath (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Your two sentences present the two views as approximately equal, which is against WP:FRINGE. Also, isn't Qutb's point the fact that "Muslims have given this up, but they really ought to start doing this stuff again"? There is a HUGE bias here. IntGrah (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC) If you are shooting down all my proposals, maybe you should propose something.-Ganeemath (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC) References

Proposed changes to lede

@88.240.93.246 I reverted because of a few things:

• The Quran is considered a primary source and shouldn't be the only source used to support such statements. Do you have a source from a Muslim scholar instead?
• "accordingly, the whole world should be governed by Islam": this is already covered in a previous sentence: "is believed to be the rightful law for humankind"
• Was there an issue with the Khadduri citation?
• Grammar, although this shouldn't be an issue going forward

Would you like to clarify your intentions? IntGrah (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

firstly: i will post from scholars then, also why is it not good to cite from scripture in this case which is talking about islamic law which is based on it

secondly: i did not that but user unspoken passion did,

third: i only clarified on the subject, i believe that writing this before the world imposed to war or establishing sovereignty would give the reader the illusion that islamic world is in an eternal war against everyone which is not true, and also the word eliminate is not true at all because in islamic law it is not permissible to attack any civilian, as is clarified in these two sources

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/war-islam-and-the-sanctity-of-life-non-aggression-in-the-islamic-code-of-combat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_military_jurisprudence#:~:text=The%20Hanafi%2C%20Hanbali%20and%20Maliki,%2C%20crops%2C%20livestock%20and%20farmlands.

also khadduri account is not necessarily required because otherwise there would not be a need for this page and all of it content would be dar al islam.

forth:alright, and also to calrify i was trying to make this page as unbiased as possible, again i would not accuse anyone, but i believe this page became biased through not citing sources by the pervious editor before us two, 88.240.93.246 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@88.240.93.246

• See WP:ISLAMOR. Primary sources can be interepreted differently. As far as I know, dar al-Harb and dar al-Islam is not a concept from the Quran. In general, scripture is not a good source for supporting points on Wikipedia.
• My point was that, there is already a sentence saying roughly the same thing that you added.
• Ok, it can be changed, provided the sourcing is good. I assume this is the main change you were wanting?
• I was referring to the grammar, not bias, but okay.

You've restored your version again… it has lots of grammatical mistakes and I did ask to discuss it here. IntGrah (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

ok i will also add secondry sources

Also those two sentences were not added by me but okay i will remove those

And yes i wanted unbiasness and no misinformation or censor

I'm sorry english is not my first language so i might have grammical errors, i apologize and please correct any mistake thank you 88.240.93.246 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)