Towards Political Engagement

Clarification of the Shubuhat of Abu Ibrahim and Ibn Adam

Recently people have accused others of tampering with the Islamic heritage. It was even suggested by someone defending Islamism that Dr Abdul Kareem Zaydan implied that there was no real difference of opinion about the definition of Dar al-Islam. Those belonging to this minor faction of Islamists hold the view that any laws not synchronised with their view of definitive Shariah injunctions would immediately be Kufr and therefore turn the land to Dar ul-Kufr/Harb. I would just like to demonstrate how in the view of the Shaykh it is quite the opposite. I would also like to demonstrate that the allegations of misquotations are unfounded and, in fact, are the same references and quotations used by the Dr, Shaykh Abdul Kareem Zaydan himself.


Clarification of the statements of Shaykh Dr Abdul Kareem Zaydan

Shaykh Dr Abdul Kareem Zaydan states the following:

Sarakhsi in Sharhu Siyar ul-Kabir, “Dar ul-Islam is the name for the place which is under the hand of the Muslims (taht yad ul-muslimeen), and the signs which show this are that Muslims are secure therein (wa alaamat zalik an-yaman fihi al-muslimoon)” [Sharuh Siyar al-Kabeer volume 3 page 81]

The Zaydi Aimmah in their explanation of the Zaydi Matn (text of Muslim law (Fiqh)) of Imam Ahmad ibn Murtada al-Hadawi state, “Dar al-Islam is that land in which the symbols of Islam are present by the strength of the Muslims and their protection, and nothing else is manifest except with the protection and security of the Muslims.” (Dar al-Islam hiya alati tazhar fiha sha’a’ir ul-Islam bi quwwat il-Muslimin wa mana’tihim, wa laa yazhar fiha ghairuha illa bi il-zimmati wa al-amaani min al muslimin) [Sharh al-Azhaar page 571].

The Shaykh Dr Abdul Kareem Zaydan states that this essentially means that the Shawka (the strength/power) belongs to the Muslims, in his notes on page 16 of Ahkam al-Zimmi’in wa al-Musta'minin.

He continues quoting, “the respected Abdul Wahhab Khallaf states, ‘this is the land in which the rulings of Islam are implemented and the safety of the people in it is by the safety of Muslims, whether they are Muslims or Zimmi’s’” (Hiya dar allati tajri alaiha ahkam ul-Islam wa ya'man man fiha bi-aman il-muslimin, sawa’an akanu muslimein aw zimi’in). He references this back to his text, Siyasat ul-Shariah of the respected Dr Abdul Wahhab Khallaf, page 6. He also states that this is the view of the Ibadites also and refers to Sharh Nayl, volume 10, page 405.

The Shaykh continues and makes a point that has been used by certain people to imply the opposite of what he says, “in reality there is no difference between the two definitions, because the land which is under the hands [i.e. the authority] of the Muslims, will apply the rulings of Islam. This is because the Muslims wouldn’t live their lives (la yajra’ouna) with other than these rulings. It is obvious therefore, that those who describe it as the place where ‘Islamic rulings are applied’, that safety would naturally accrue in such a place.”

“The quintessential criterion (shart ul-Jawhari) to consider a land Dar al-Islam, is that it is governed from the perspective of the Muslims, under their authority and their sovereignty. From that perspective the Islamic rulings will become manifest. It is not a condition that there are Muslims residing their as long as it is under their authority. It is in this respect Imam Rafi’i says, “it is not a condition of Dar al-Islam that there are Muslims residing therein, rather it suffices that it is under the hand of the leader and he is Muslim” (Laisa min sharti Dar il-Islam an-yakuna fiha muslimun, bal yakfi kawnaha tahta yad il-Imam wa Islamihi) [Fat’h al-Aziz volume 8 page 13.]

The Shaykh elaborates further, “the Islamic lands are all considered one land though they may have different rulers…”

So the Shaykh is saying that wherever the symbols of Islam are manifest and the Muslims can live by Islam in safety, this is Dar ul-Islam, without consideration to the different definitions mentioned as they amount to the same thing. Either the Muslims are in authority, and therefore they can live by Islam and the Sha’air of Islam are manifest, or Muslims are safe and therefore, they can practice their faith and live by the rulings of Islam.

He goes on to make this point clear by stating, “the people of Islam, whether they are Muslim or Zimmi, their property and their persons are safeguarded and protected; the Muslims because they are Muslims, and the Zimmi’s because of their covenant [of safety]. They are all safe by the safety of Islam (fahum jami’un aminun bi aman il-Islam) i.e. by the safety sanctioned by the Shariah because of the fact that the Muslims are Muslim and the non-Muslims have made a contract of safety by being Zimmi.”

To eliminate any further doubts, in the footnotes of the discussion concerning the two types of land the Shaykh explains, “some of the Fuqaha (jurists) mention Dar al-Ahd (land of treaty) when discussing the two types of Dar’s (Dar ul-Harb and Dar ul-Islam). But in reality it is Dar ul-Islam.” [He references this to Ahkam al-Sultaniyah of Imam Mawardi pages 101, 133 and 166]

A further illustration of this is how Muslims could practice their Deen and the fact that they integrated in such a society with whom they had signed a treaty and made a covenant of peace, in the time of the Messenger (saw)in the Treaty (Sulh) of Hudaybiyah;

Observations on the Treaty of Hudaybiyah

Imam al-Nawawi makes the following observations regarding the treaty of Hudaybiyah that was concluded by the Messenger (saw) with the leadership of Quraish in Makkah:

"The Ulema state: The Maslaha (Interest/Goodness) that was achieved by the conclusion of this treaty, manifest clear results/fruits. Many manifest benefits where achieved through it, which eventually lead to the conquest of Mecca and the embracing of Islam by all of its people, and the people entering into Islam in their droves. This is because before the treaty they did not mix and mingle with the Muslims, and the salient features of the Prophet (sal-Allah alaihi wa-sallam) had not been manifest to them, neither had they been around those who knew of these details.

After the treaty of Hudaybiyah had been concluded, the Muslims freely interacted amongst them; they went to Medina and the Muslims went to Mecca, and mingled amongst its people, their friends and those who were sincere in their intents towards them. They heard about the true status of the Prophet and explained it with its detail and qualities; his manifest miracles; the clear signs of his Prophethood; the splendor of his lifestyle and beauty of his way; and many were guided greatly, and their souls inclined towards faith until many of them raced towards Islam before the conquest of Mecca, and they embraced Islam between the conquest of Mecca and the treaty of Hudaybiyah.

It created an inclination towards Islam in all of the other people, such that on the day of the conquest all of the people embraced Islam. The Arabs from other than the Quraish, including from the Bedouin tribes, who had delayed their embracing of Islam, in anticipation of the Quraish embracing Islam; all became Muslim when the Quraish became Muslim. Allah ta'ala says, "When the Help from Allah comes, you will see the people enter Islam in their droves!" [Surah al-Nasr: 1]"

Sahih Muslim Bi-Shar'h al-Imam Muhiy ul-deen al-Nawawi - al-Minhaj shar'h Sahih Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj Parts 11 &12 Bab (chapter) Sul'h HudayBiyah (Treaty of Hudaybiyah) page 352

Statements on Dar ul-Harb

Dar al Harb is the land which there is no authority for the Muslims. This is the why the Zaydiyah say, “And know that Dar al-Harb is that land where the power (Shawka) is with the people of Kufr and there is no safety for the Muslims over such a land.” (wa a’lam anna Dar al-Harbi hiyah allati shawkatuhu li-ahl il-kufr wa la zimmatin min al-muslimina alaihim) [Sharuh al-Azhar volume 4, page 551].

He also mentions the view of the respected Shaykh Abdul Wahhab Khallaf, who states that in Dar al-Harb the rulings of Islam are not implemented because the rulers are not Muslims, and the Ibadites hold this view also. [Siyasat ul-Shariah by Abdul Wahhab Khallaf page 69 for the ibadites see Sharuh Nayl volume 10 page 390 – it states Dar al-Harb is that land which the affair lies with the Mushrik (polytheists) and the rulings of Shirk are applied (Dar ul-Harb hiya dar ullati amruha li il-mushrik yajri fiha ahkam ul-shirkiyah]

He also mentions that there are also two definitions and explains that there is no real difference in these definitions. He says, “The people of Dar al-Harb are Harbiyun (at a potential state of conflict). And the Harbi has no ‘Ismat’ (safety and protection) for neither himself nor property from the people of Islam. Because Ismah in the Shariah of Islam occurs through one of the two ways: Faith in Islam (Iman) or safety (Aman); and the Harbi has neither of the two.”

He then discusses;

When does Dar al-Islam become Dar al-Harb?

“The Ahnaf and the Zaydia say: Dar al-Harb becomes Dar al-Islam by the appearance of the Islamic rulings in it (tasiru Dar ul-Harb, Dar al-Islam bi-Izhar ahkam il-Islam fiha) [Shams ul-Aimmah al-Sarkhasi in Sharuh Siyar ul-Kabir volume 4 page 302, 320, 323 Imam al-Kasani in Bada’I Sana’I volume 5, page 130, fatawa Hindiyah volume 2 page 232 and sharuh al-Azhar volume 2 page 572].

And that Dar al-Islam becomes Dar al-Harb when three conditions are met:

1. The appearance of the rulings of Kufr in the land
2. It is annexed to Dar al-Harb such that it is no longer any land from the Muslim lands adjoined to it
3. There does not remain a single Muslim or Zimmi safe by the safety of the Muslims

(Imam Kasani volume 7 page 130 and Fatawa Hindiyah volume 2 page 232)

And according to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad and the Zaydia Dar al-Islam becomes Dar al-Harb by the appearance of the rulings of Kufr therein.”

This may warrant a further explanation, as laws not being synchronised with the Shariah has become synonymous in a certain minority faction with the Hukm of Kufr, when in fact the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali schools at least do not consider this to be the case.

The Rulers

To explain the meaning according to the Hanafi school let us quote from the foremost Hanafi scholar in Hadith exegesis, on the specific Hadith pertaining to the meaning of Kufr in the ruler; Badr ul-Din Abu Muhammad ibn Mahmud ibn Ahmad al-Ayni, from what is considered one of the best text of legal exegesis of Imam Bukhari’s Sahih collection of Hadith; Umadat al-Qari Shar’h Sahih al-Bukhari.

Badr ul-Din al-Ayni states regarding the Hadith as found in the Sahih of Imam Bukhari,

“and not dispute the Amr (command) or its people, unless you see manifest Kufr, of which you have indisputable proof from Allah”

al-Ayni comments thus “do not dispute with the people in authority, nor their authority, nor contradict them, unless you see from them a verified Munkar (violation of Shariah) that you know from the principles of Islam then you should condemn it (Inkar). Al-Daudi [the Maliki Faqih] said,” what the Ulema are upon regarding the unjust rulers (Umara al-Jawr) if you are able to depose them without (creation of trouble) Fitna nor Zulm (oppression) then you are obliged to do so, if this can not be done then you are obliged to be patient”. He goes on further, “If the ruler becomes a tyrant after being just people disputed regarding rebellion against him, what is correct is that it is forbidden unless he becomes an unbeliever (illa an-yakfur).”

He also states, commenting on the Hadith “whosoever sees in his Amir something that he dislikes, let him be patient. For no one separates from the Sultan (authority) even by a small hand span except that he dies the death of Jahilliyah.” Al-Ayni comments, “meaning let him be with that matter which he hates and not move away from obeying him, because in this there would bloodshed, and tribulation unless he becomes an unbeliever, and manifests what contradicts the Dawa to Islam, for there is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the Creator. And in this there is Dalil (evidence) that verily the Sultan is not removed by Fisq (trangression) or Zulm (oppression) and it is not permitted to dispute their authority due to these matters.” (Umdat ul-Qari Sharuh Sahih al-Bukhari volume 24, pages 224 to 226 chapter on the Prophet’s saying; “You will see matters that you will reject…” Dar ul-Kutub ul-Ilmiyah)

The translator and lawyer, Nuh Ha Mim Keller in, ‘Reliance of the Traveller’ explains the meaning of hukm al-Kufr/Shirk as not merely contradicting the Hukm Shari which may well be injustice, but not Kufr; but rather as meaning Kufr itself.

He quotes the Shaykh Nuh Ali Salman as stating regarding alteration of the law (Taghyir ul-Shara'); “alteration being of two types, one of which consists of his (the rulers) changing the law by legislating something which contravenes it, while believing in the validity of the provisions of the sacred law (an yamur bima yukhalifu bihi il-shara' mu’taqidu sihhati ma warada fi il-shara'), this being an injustice that does not permit rebellion against him (wa haza zulmun la yabihu ul-khuruja alaihi), while the other consists of imposing rulings that contravene the provisions of the religion while believing in the validity of the rulings he has imposed, this being unbelief (Kufr).” Note the contents of the text have been attested to by al-Azhar, and other independent Ulema like Shaykh Abdul Wakil al-Durubi who have all attested to its consonance with the view of Ahl al-Sunnah and they have certified the text its notes and translation. (This can be found at the beginning of the publication)

This is also why the Ulema of Islam state that when the Muslim ruler enacts a law that requires a Muslim to undertake a prohibited act (Haram), then this should be disobeyed, and those laws which are in accordance with Islam should be obeyed. Imam al-Nawawi states in the chapter, Bab wujub taa’ati il-Umara' fi ghayri ma'siyah wa tahrimuha fil-ma’siyah ‘The obligation of obedience to the rulers and its prohibition in disobedience to Allah’: “the Ulema have agreed (Ijma) that it is obligatory in other than Ma'siyah (disobedience to Allah), in this matter Qadi Iyad (the Maliki jurists, Judge and exegete of Hadith) has transmitted an Ijma (consensus of opinion amongst jurists) upon this matter ” (Sharuh Sahih Muslim parts 11/12 page 426)

Imam al-Nawawi continues regarding the Hadith of Kufr Buwah quoted above:

“The meaning is Kufr Zahir (explicit disbelief), and what is intended here is Ma’aasiyy, and the meaning of ‘of which you have evidence from Allah’ is that you certainly know this from God’s religion. So the meaning of the Hadith is, ‘do not dispute with the people in authority, nor their authority, nor contradict them, unless you see from them a verified Munkar (violation of Shariah) that you know from the principles of Islam, when you see this you should condemn it and speak the truth wherever you may be. As for rebellion against them or fighting against them, this is Haram (prohibited) by the consensus of the Muslims even if they transgress (Fisq), or are tyrants (Thalimeen)…He is not removed for transgression (Fisq), tyranny (Thulm) or suspending their civil rights (huqooq)” (al-Nawawi, al-Imam, Shah Sahih Muslim, v. 11-12, p.432-3)

Al-Nawawi in the same discussion states that this would only done to remove a Kafir and this would only be obligatory on those who have the ability, and he quotes Qadi Iyad as stating this is the case and that there is an Ijma on this.

Ironically one of the persons trying to disprove this has used statements of Ulema, which actually state the opposite of what they are saying. To quote:

“Ibn Abbas (ra) on this verse stated that anybody who denies a definitive judgment of Allah (swt) contained in the Shariah is a Kafir. He went on to say that anyone who says that the ruling of Allah (swt) does not have to be established or the ruling of man is better than the ruling of Allah (swt) or the rules of man are just as good as the ruling of Allah (swt) is a Kafir. He also said that the one who does not deny Allah's (swt) ruling, but believes that it is allowed to judge by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed, he is also a Kafir because he is denying that the right of judgement is solely for Allah (swt). This is the case even if he says that the judgement of Allah (swt) is better than the judgement implemented by man.

Ibn al-Qayyim said, "The correct view is that judging according to something other than that which Allah has revealed includes both major and minor Kufr, depending on the position of the judge. If he believes that it is obligatory to judge according to what Allah has revealed in this case, but he turns away from that out of disobedience, whilst acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment, then this is lesser Kufr. But if he believes that it is not obligatory and that the choice is his even though he is certain that this is the ruling of Allah, then this is major Kufr.” (Ibn al-Qayyim, "Madaarij as-Saalikeen", Volume 1 page 336-337)

Ibn Abeel-'Izz said, "Judging by other than what Allah has revealed could be Kufr that expels one from the religion and could be a sin either a major sin or a minor one and it could be a symbolic Kufr or minor Kufr based on the two sayings and this all depends on the situation of the judge: So if he believes that judging by what Allah has revealed is not obligatory or that he has the option in this or if he dishonours it while being certain that it is the Judgement of Allah then this is major Kufr and if he believes in the obligation of judging by what Allah has revealed in this instance but turns away from it while recognizing that he deserves to be punished then he is a sinner and is to be referred to as a disbeliever symbolically or upon minor disbelief" (Sharh Al-Tahawiyah page324)

Ibn Taymiyyah said, "Undoubtedly, whoever does not believe that it is obligatory to judeg according to that which Allah has revealed to His Messenger is a Kafir, and whoever thinks it is permissible to judeg among people according to his own opinions, turning away and not following which Allah has revealed is also a Kafir...So in matters which are common to the Ummah as a whole, it is not permissible to rule or judge according to anything except the Quran and Sunnah. No one has the right to make the people follow the words of a scholar or Amir or Shaykh or king. Whoever believes that he can judge between people according to any such thing, and does not judge between them according to revelation is a Kafir." (Minhaj as-Sunnah, 5/pp.130-132)”

Muslim lands are certainly Dar ul-Islam for the Shaykh

The above is with regards the meaning of Hukm al-Kufr and also the prohibition of removing a ruler through force (khuruj) as long as he is a Muslim. To return to the main discussion pertaining to defining Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, we can continue to see clearly the point of view of Dr Abdul Kareem Zaydan, as he continues the discussion and his explicit judgement that all the Muslim lands today are Dar al-Islam.

Just in case there is any doubt the Sheykh, then continues to pose the question “hal tasir Dar aul-Islami Dar al-Harbi iza astawlat alaiha dawlatun kafira? Does Dar al-Islam become Dar al-Harb when a non-Muslim state comes to power over it?”

He explains that this isn’t even a new matter of Fiqh and jurisprudence as it has occurred before and resolved before.

Shaykh Zaydan writes under this sub-heading; “This issue was raised before to Imam al-Isbeejabi [The Hanafi faqih of the 7th century, Baha ul-Din Muhammad in Ahmad al-Isbeejabi} after the invasion of the tartars in the Islamic lands and there occupation and rule over parts of it.” He explains the position of the Imam of the Mazhab of Abu Hanifah thus: “the fact that the 'illah (reason) remains means that the judgement on the land remains; and we had judged without any dispute that these lands before the occupation of the Tartars were from Dar al-Islam, and after the occupation of these lands there remained the symbols of Islam (Sha’a’ir al-Islam) like the Azan, the Juma, the congregational prayers, and others, so it remains Dar al-Islam. Imam Hilwani [this is the famous Hanafi scholar of the 5th century Hijri, Abdul Aziz bin Ahmad bin Nasr bin Saleh, known as Shams al-Aimmah al-Hilwani al-Bukhari) said: “that Dar al-Islam becomes Dar al-Harb (with the above three conditions) when all three conditions exist it becomes Dar al-Islam (fa iza wujidat ul-sharaitu kulluhaa saarat Dar al-Islam) and when the indications conflict or only some conditions exist, then the original judgement of what the lands were remains (wa inda ta’arud ul-dalail aw sharait fa-innahu yabqi ma kana ala ma kana) ” Imam al-Hilwani does not stop there but makes the point, “is it not noted that Dar al-Harb becomes Dar al-Islam solely by the enacting of the Islamic rulings therein (ijra ahkam il-Islam fiha) by Ijma (consensus)?”. (Ijra’at al-qadayah the Shaykh’s Ustaz Muhammad Farj Sanhouri pages 39 and 40)

In order to further illustrate this point I would like to add here the words of Abu Hanifah as Shams al-Aimmah al-Sarakhsi/Sarkhasi states in his master piece al-Mabsut page 93 Kitab al-Siyar, bab al-Murtadin volume 5 of the Dar al-Fikr version

"For Abu Hanifah rahimuhullah ta'ala: Verily their Dar (Dar al-Islam) becomes Dar al-Harb when three condition are met: first of them, that they are surrounded with no Muslim land between them and the enemy land; two there remains not a Muslim secure with their security nor even a Zimmi secure by their security; third and the dominance of the rulings of shirk in this land... by the occurrence of all three conditions (bi-istijmaa shara'it al-thalatha)"

"..this land in principle remains Dar al-Islam as long as there remains within it a Muslim or Zimmi, and a remnant from the remnant of the original land (i.e. Dar al-Islam) then that judgement remains [i.e. that it remains Dar al-Islam]."

Using the above criterion the Hanafi Imam Shaykh Muhammad al-Hamid in his Rudud ala Aabatiil wa Rasa’il Shaykh Muhammad al-Hamid, concluded that India still remained Dar ul-Islam (volume 2 page 267-279). This is also the view of translator of ‘Reliance of the Traveller’ Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller and his Shuyukh, like Nuh Ali Salman. (Reliance of the traveler pages 946 -947)

To return to Shaykh Abdul Karim Zaydan, he continues “What we conclude from the opinion of the two Imams al-Isbajibi and al-Hilwani, Dar al-Islam does not become Dar al-Harb merely by the occupation of non-Muslim states as long as some of the Islamic rulings are enacted.” Is this a strong opinion? He states “the position of these two Imams is the preponderant view (Rajih al-Nazr) due to the basis of their derivation.” So what about some of the Islamic lands today which are occupied today? Shaykh Zaydan states “they are considered to be from Dar al-Islam because some of the rulings of Islam are enacted therein such as the Ahkam of Nikah (marriage) and other than it in matters of personal law. And also due to the fact the symbols of Islam (sha’a’ir al-Islam) are present”

The shaykh quotes further to substantiate this position in his notes to the above discussion, “what is meant by Dar al-Islam is that land that is under the rule of Muslims or ruled by other than them but the symbols of Islam are present, some of them, or most of them” (Wisayah fi fiqh al-Islami page 336 by Ustadh Muhammad Sallam Madkur). (It is slightly concerning that one of the writers actually quotes "Ahkam al-Ahwaal al-Shaksiyyah li-Muslimeen fi al-Gharb", by Dr Salim al-Rafi'i which states the same point above and even places the Arabic in his article yet claims the exact opposite.) To translate from the quotation found in the piece;

“This is because the Islamic lands do not become Dar ul-Harb merely by the domination of the enemy over them, rather by the removal of the insignia of Islam (sha’air) from them; as long as the insignia of Islam are present or the majority of them, the land does not become Dar ul-Harb”

Conclusion

It should be abundantly clear to all therefore, the errors of those who have erred greatly vis-à-vis Shaykh Abdul Kareem Zaydan and others who have misunderstood the views and Mazahib of the Ulema regarding the defining of Dar al-Islam and the Muslim lands being so. The Ikhtilaf (difference) of those that differ is noted but not considered (Ghayr Mutabar) amongst our Ulema, and those that differ with them are duty bound to accept this point of view as valid, if not the correct point of view and the opinion of the Ulema past and present; everyone is duty bound to accept this.

It would be appropriate to briefly mention here that the position of Imam al-Mawardi, the existence of which certain persons initially denied in writing, only to then write that it was a misquotation or a misunderstanding; is actually completely in line with the other Ulema today.

The author of the piece fails to recognize that the quotation whilst being in a secondary source is actually that of the great hadith master, Qadi and Usuli, Imam Shawkani! Also Imam Shawkani actually understands and disagrees with the perspective presented (something which is contrary to the assertion that is made by others that this is a definitive and agreed upon discussion with everyone agreeing with the perspective of the authors when in fact the claim is only made to the opposite by Shaykh Zaydan (i.e. everyone agrees the Muslim lands would be Dar ul-Islam [one which some dispute], which isn’t entirely accurate. It would be sufficient to transcribe the quotation form the article itself.

""Lo! as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves, (the angels) will ask: In what were ye engaged? They will say: We were oppressed in the land. (The angels) will say: Was not Allah’s earth spacious that ye could have migrated therein? As for such, their habitation will be hell, an evil journey’s end." (Quran 4:97) ...If one is able to manifest their din in any kufr land then that land thereby becomes by it a Dar Islam. So residence there is preferable than journeying away from it in the hope others may embrace Islam. And it is apparent that this view conflicts with the ahadith (narrations) in the chapter of al-Qadiya prohibiting residence in the Dar al-Kufr."

(Imam al-Shawkani, "Nayl al-Awtar", Vol 4, Book 8, Dar al-Fikr, 2000, pg. 24).

In fact f we take the understanding of Imam Shawkani, it is also clear that he understands Dar ul-Islam in his own words as being any land which Muslims rule. To quote again from the article, which cites the Imam as follows;

al-Shawkani (sic: Zaidi [this mazhab attribution, as he may have been in origin but was not Zaidi but it is what was stated in the article]) said, “When we speak about a Dar (dominion) by whoever’s word being dominant, we mean if the command and prohibition is for the Muslims, in a way that no one from the Kuffar becomes dominant with his Kufr except by what is granted him from Islam, then that is considered Dar ul-Islam”

(al-Shawkani, "al-Sayl Jaraar alaa hadaiq al-azhaar", Vol. 4 pp. 571-572)

Imam Shawkani then elaborates in explicit terms that the meaning of kufr and kufr buwah (clear cut Kufr) is that the ruler becoming a non-Muslim in a manner that is in his words clear like the clarity of the sun (ka-wudooh ul-shams), in the same text and also in Dararayn ul-Muduyah and in Nayl ul-Awtar (this will be elaborated further in a forth coming article inshallah, but it suffices to say here that his position was the same as Imam al-Nawawi, Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Badr ul-Din al-Ayni (as mentioned above)).

To return to the shafi’iyah and the position of Imam al-Bujayrimi (a source of Shafi’i fiqh today particularly his commentary on the great Khatib Shirbini’s Iqna); was mentioned previously:

He maintains that Dàr al-Islàm for the Shàfi'ï's can be a place where Muslims reside even if there are non-Muslims present, and further, even if non-Muslims were granted the right by Muslims to govern over it.

"On Dàr al-Islàm: meaning, that Muslims reside there, even if there were Ahl al-Zimma (non Muslims of the covenant) present, or it was conquered by Muslims who then agreed that non- Muslims would govern over it (Wa Aqarraha bi Yad il-Kuffàr), or they were living there and were expelled by the disbelievers from it."

"...And the Shàfi'ï's said: it (Dàr al-Islàm) is the entire land where Islamic rulings (Ahkàm al- Islàm) appear, and it is intended by the phrase 'appearance of the Islamic rulings', every one of its rulings; or Muslims live there even if there were Ahl al-Zimma (non-Muslims of the covenant) present with them; or it was conquered by Muslims who then agreed that non-Muslims would govern over it (Wa Aqarraha bi Yad il-Kuffàr); or they were living there and were expelled by the disbelievers from it.

This should hopefully clarify the Shubuhaat (apparent misconceptions) regarding the above discussion and where if any mistakes in quotations lay.

By Rashad Ali