We looked briefly last week at the area of international relations within the Islamic perspective, and considered the concept that divides the world into a land of Islam, or Dar Al-Islam and a land of war, or Dar Al-Harb. We pointed out that it was formulated by scholars in opposition to the Roman concept which divided the world into three, one for the Romans, one for their cousins the Latin, and one for the rest of mankind, who could be subjugated to any ill treatment by the first two. We asked at the end two questions: 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 see how the breathtaking advancement in field of media and communications has made our world more like a small village. Is it acceptable, then, to look at the world around us through that concept which was suitable to the conditions prevailing at the time, although our conditions are drastically different?
Besides, the present world situation has made the whole world closer to what some scholars used to call the land of treaty, or Dar Al-Ahd. Is it reasonable, then, for any scholar to continue to operate the old division and its rulings, grouping the world into two or three classes?
The view which contemporary scholarship supports considers the old division to have had its day and become no longer suitable. Contemporary scholarship should look at international relations in their present situation to determine which aspects are permissible under Islam and which are not. This exercise can only be based on what serves the interests of the Muslim community and what works against such interests. By doing so, we will be emulating what our predecessors had done in looking at international relations prevailing in their day.
This view has no bearing on the question of the continuity of jihad as long as human life. Jihad and its field are totally different from that of peaceful relations. These are two different areas, each having its own rulings and relevant texts in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. None of these texts was the basis of dividing the world into the land of Islam, or Dar Al-Islam and a land of war, or Dar Al-Harb. The basis of this division was the interests of the Muslim community, pure and simple.
Hence we say that contemporary scholarship should look at the same basis: i.e. where the clear interests of the Muslim community lie and what serves them best. This should be the cornerstone of new scholarship on the type of relations a Muslim community could have with other communities. It is simply inconceivable that contemporary juristic scholarship should remain within a straitjacket derived from past views that no longer fulfil the objectives set by scholars who deduced it, particularly when the causes leading to it are no longer in existence.
The whole world today, from our point of view, may be treated on the same basis. It all belongs to that third type of “land of treaty or peace”. The rules of Islam apply to Muslims whether they live in a land with a Muslim majority or they form a minority or they are merely a number of individuals living in an area with an overwhelming non-Muslim majority.
No one may accept or apply a ruling that says that some practical aspects of Islam need not apply to individuals who live in an area where Muslims are not in majority. Such a ruling undermines the religion of Islam through discarding some aspects of it. In the Qur’an, God denounces the Jews for believing in some portions of their book and disbelieving in others. Nor is it lawful for a Muslim living in a non-Muslim country to consider that the property of non-Muslims in his area are permissible to take in any way on the basis that he lives in a land of war.
If a person thinks that way, it is not permissible for him to live in such an area, because whatever leads to something unlawful is itself unlawful. A Muslim is required to fulfill every pledge he makes. He is given leave to enter such a country provided that he does not violate its laws and regulations. Thus, he either fulfills his pledges and honors his commitment or he must leave. It is not lawful for him to consider permissible what God has forbidden or to forbid what God has made lawful.
I have seen some Muslim youths in certain western countries who find nothing wrong with resorting to every trick in order to use public transport, or telephone lines, or parking places and similar public services without paying for such use.
I have also learnt that some refugees who sought asylum in such countries under the pretext of being persecuted in their own Muslim countries use different addresses to register themselves with different local authorities. Thus, they are able to receive the allowance the government grants to political refugees as many times as the number of addresses they supply to defraud local authorities. They feel they are clever to pull off such a trick.
All such tricks boil down to making unlawful gains which are not permissible in Islam. Nothing can make such gains lawful. The perpetrator is guilty of a clear offense that cannot be dismissed. To claim that they are permissible because the host country is part of the land of war is clearly false and cannot be accepted by man or God.
If we do away with the division of the world into the land of Islam, or Dar Al-Islam and a land of war, or Dar Al-Harb through a new scholarly ruling, the prohibition of such shameful actions will be seen as an implementation of clear texts. For Islam expressly forbids unlawful gains. It requires that we only take our money from lawful sources and spend it only on what is lawful.
Such young people, and those who give them such faulty rulings, should be more God-fearing. The One who has established what is lawful and what is forbidden does not lose sight of anything. He sees all and is aware of all tricks.
All scholars agree that neither a sentence by a judge nor a ruling by a scholar can make lawful what God has forbidden.
