Islamic law, or Fiqh, is rich with views and rulings outlining the position of scholars and schools of law on relations between Islamic society and non-Muslim communities. The corporate sum of such views and rulings forms what is known as “Islamic International Law”. This aspect has been tackled in numerous contemporary papers and studies, particularly since the new Islamic revival has gained momentum and started to influence different fields, including scholarly research in a wide range of specializations.
One of the more important issues that has faced researchers in this field of relations between Muslim and non-Muslim countries is that of dividing all countries into two classes: the land of Islam, or Dar Al-Islam, and the land of war, or Dar Al-Harb. Some scholars add a third class, which they call the land of treaty, or Dar Al-Ahd.
Driven by their enthusiasm, some scholars have spoken out on this division by scholars. Some of them have expressed the view that “the old juristic view of the world fails to appreciate its full multiplicity and richness, while contemporary revivalism takes a hostile attitude that makes it unable to understand the world or deal with it.” This view has been expressed by Dr. Radhwan Al-Sayyid in his paper on the “Emergence and Disappearance of the Land of Islam”, presented to a conference on international relations in Islam held at the University of Cairo in November 1997.
It is a fact that some contemporary advocates of Islam reiterate, without proper study, juristic concepts they read in books written by eminent scholars of the past. But they do not realize that such concepts have historical basis and particular circumstances that led to their development and implementation.
It is often the case that such advocates overlook an important scholarly fact that confirms that in such matters, theoretical study is based on practical needs more than it relies on religious statements. Hence, it changes in accordance with new circumstances and situations. To stick to an old view that is unsuitable to a new situation will lead only to a disservice to the interests of the Muslim community. This is a violation of the duty of scholars and the community at large to ensure and protect such interests.
A case in mind is that of the concept that divides the world into the land of Islam, or Dar Al-Islam, and the land of war, or Dar Al-Harb. This is a concept based on a situation where Muslims are a distinguished community living in their own geographical areas. Similarly, non-Muslims form distinguished communities living in their own areas. Relation between the two camps is one of strong hostility and continuous warfare. Hence, the non-Muslim areas were called the land of war.
This whole concept of Islamic law arose in response to the Roman concept that divided the world into three classes: the Roman world, the Latin world and the rest of mankind. The Romans were considered the masters of the entire world, while the Latin people were their cousins. The rest were given the status of slaves serving the other two. To subjugate them, all rights of man, property, time and place were violated. This was a racist division based on the myth of ethnic superiority. It led to committing barbaric crimes of great magnitude against other races and peoples.
Muslim scholars have formulated the concept of the land of Islam, or Dar Al-Islam, and the land of war, or Dar Al-Harb in response. But this concept is based on two elements: faith and practical realities. It forms the basis of legal rulings, none of which allows any form of aggression or arbitrarily relaxes the rules of Islamic law. This division does not accord any superiority to a particular community or race over the rest of mankind. Those who formulated it were keenly aware of the Qur’anic verse which states: “Mankind! We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Truly, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most genuinely God-fearing.” (49: 14) They were guided by the Prophet’s statement: “Mankind! You all belong to Adam, and Adam was created of clay. No privilege is given to an Arab over a non-Arab, or to a white man over a black man, except through piety.”
This Islamic concept served its purpose in the time when it was developed, and in subsequent generations, in a way that is clearly appreciated by those who have studied the Islamic legal code and books dealing with international law and international relations in Islam. These are mainly books of Islamic history. However, in its origins and development, it was a juristic concept that did not derive from a particular statement in the Qur’an or Hadith, but based on scholarly effort. The objective of such effort was to ensure what serves the interests of the Muslim community and prevent harm. This is an essential objective of Islamic law, as agreed by all scholars.
It is certainly not true to say, as some studies put it, that it shows the old juristic view of the world as failing to appreciate the full multiplicity and richness of the world. It recognized the fallacy of racial discrimination, and the appropriateness of distinguishing people in accordance with their religious faiths and their effects reflected by people’s practical behavior and piety.
Moreover, it did not initiate a new situation; it was simply a reaction to the attitude of the Byzantines, when the Muslims confronted them.
In the light of the above, is it necessary that Islamic law, in all subsequent periods, should retain this division and revert to it whenever a problem of international law arises? Is it not necessary that scholars in every generation should formulate fitting solutions to such problems in line with what fits their generation, ensuring that Muslim interests are served, and harm is prevented?
We will attempt to answer these questions next week, God willing.
