Dar Al-Islam (Islamic Household) is the territory where the rules of Islam are implemented and whose security is upheld by Islam. Dar Al-Kufr (household of disbelief) is the territory where the rules of Kufr  are implemented or its security is by other than the security of Islam.

Linguistically �Dar� (household) is the place, the dwelling and the country. It also means the tribe. �Dar Al-Harb� (the warfare household) is the enemy's territory.

The household is considered an Islamic household if it met two criteria: 1- If it is ruled by the Islamic rule, with the rules of Islam implemented upon it. 2- If its security is upheld by the Muslims, i.e. by their authority. Evidence of this is reflected in the fact that the two terms of Islam�s Household and Kufr Household are Shari'ah terms adopted to refer respectively to the land that comes under the authority of Islam and to the land that is not under the authority of Islam. These two terms have been deduced from the collection of rules pertaining those who come under the authority of the Muslims and those who do not come under their authority.

Their evidence is reflected in the Hadith extracted by Muslim in his Sahih on the authority of Sulayman Ibnu Buraydah on that of his father who said: �The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ��Then invite them to move from their household to that of the Muhajireen (emigrants) and tell them that if they did so, they would enjoy the same rights and they would have the same duties as those of the Muhajireen.�  The opposite understanding of this Hadith means that if they did not move they would not have what the Muhajireen have, i.e. what those living in Dar-al-Islam have. This Hadith has outlined the differences in the rules pertaining those who move to the Muhajireen household and those who do not do so. The Muhajireen household was Dar-al-Islam and the rest was a Dar-al-Kufr. This is how the terms of Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Kufr or Dar-al-Harb were deduced. Hence, the qualification of the term Dar i.e. Household to the term Harb i.e. warfare, or Kufr, or Islam, is in fact a qualification of the rule and the authority. Dar-al-Harb or Dar-al-Kufr is the territory that comes under the authority of the people of war, even if in reality only, and Dar-al-Islam is the household that comes under the authority of the people of Islam. It becomes therefore clear that the precept in considering the household status should be subject to the authority of the people to whom the household is attributed; thus, it is an essential prerequisite.

The authority can only be established through two matters: 1- The management of people�s affairs by a specific host of thoughts. 2- The power that protects the subjects and executes the rules, i.e. the security. This is how the two conditions have come about; i.e. the implementation of the rules and the security being in the hands of the Muslims.

This is as far as the evidence of the two conditions is concerned. As for the implementation of the rules of Islam and the non implementation of the rules of Kufr, the evidence is derived from the Hadith of Auf Ibn Malik pertaining the �worst rulers�. To quote from the Hadith: �They asked: O Messenger of Allah, do we not challenge them with the sword? He said: No, as long as they continue to establish prayer amongst you.� It is also derived from the Hadith of Ubadah Ibn-us-Samit pertaining the Baya�a. To quote from the Hadith: ��.that we would not dispute the people in authority unless we witness a flagrant Kufr..� In the narration of Ahmed it says: .. �As long as they do not order you to perform a flagrant act of disbelief..�

These texts indicate that the rule by other than what Allah has revealed, such as the non establishment of the Deen�s pillars in the land, such as the ruler�s non abidance by the rule of Allah and such the ruler ordering what Allah (swt) has not ordered, necessitates the brandishing of the sword in the face of the ruler. This serves as evidence that the implementation of the rules of Islam is a prerequisite of Dar-al-Islam, otherwise, fighting and the brandishing of the sword becomes necessary.

As for the fact that the household�s security must be in the hands of the Muslims, this is deduced from the actions of the Messenger of Allah (saw). He (saw) used to order the conquest of any land that did not fall under his authority, and used to wage war against them, whether the inhabitants of those lands were Muslims or not; proof of this is that he (saw) has prohibited the killing of the Muslims living in such lands. In the narration of Bukhari on the authority of Humayd who said: �I heard Anas � say: �Whenever the Messenger of Allah (saw) wanted to conquer a place, he would wait until dawn, if he heard the Athan (call to prayer) he would refrain, and if he did not hear it, he would pray and then attack.� In the narration of Al-Tirmithi, it was reported on the authority of Ibnu Isam Al-Muzani, on that of his father, who had accompanied the Messenger of Allah (saw);  he said: �Whenever the Messenger of Allah (saw) dispatched a task force or an expedition, he used to say to them: �If you see a mosque, or if you hear a Muath�thin, do not kill anyone.� The Athan (call to prayer) and the mosque are part of Islam�s rituals; this indicates that the land inhabited by Muslims is not immune from  a conquest and a full scale war. This means that it would still be considered as Dar-al-Harb, i.e. Dar-al-Kufr; because although Islam�s rituals were manifest in that land, its security however was not upheld by the authority of the Messenger of Allah (saw), i.e. by the authority and the security of Islam. Consequently, such a land has always been considered as Dar-al-Kufr and it has been conquered just like any Dar-al-Harb. This is explained further by the fact that the rebels (Al-Bughat) would be subjected to a disciplinary fighting rather than a full scale war, despite their rebellion against the ruler, because their security in this case would still be in the hands of the Muslims; whereas if their security were in the hands of the Kuffar, they would be subjected to a full scale war. This means that if the security were in the hands of the Kuffar, this would not make the household in question a Dar-al-Islam, even if the Islamic rituals were manifest, for its security should also be by Islam.

The meaning of the term �The security of Islam� is that the land is made secure and safe by the authority of Islam, and the meaning of the term �The security of Kufr� is that the land is made secure and safe by the authority of Kufr. Security is the opposite of fear. Abu Dawood extracted on the authority of Mus�ab Ibnu Sa�ad on that of Sa�ad who said: �on the day of Makkah�s conquest, the Messenger of Allah (saw) gave his security to all people except four men and two women and he named them.�

This is the meaning of security, and to add it to Islam or to Kufr is in fact an addition to the authority that provides this security, because the security within the state is in fact in the authority. The security is domestic and foreign. The domestic security denotes that every single individual from among the subject should have his life, his honour and his wealth made safe. The foreign security denotes that all the states frontiers should be made safe by its own authority against any attack (and not any other).

Therefore, the fact that the household is Dar-Al-Kufr or Dar-Al-Islam is related to the reality of the household; this is so because Muslims are commanded to go to war i.e. to fight people until they profess that there is no god but Allah, or until they submit to the rules of Islam. If they submitted to the rules of Islam, they would no longer be fought even if they chose to remain Kuffar, and if they did not come under the rule of Islam they would be fought. Hence the reason for their fighting would be the fact that they are Kuffar and they do not respond to the Da�awah, and the reason for refraining from fighting them is their acceptance of the rule of Islam. So if they are ruled by Islam and they remain Kuffar, the reason for stopping the fight will have been vindicated, and the ending of the war will have become obligatory; which clearly indicates that ruling them by Islam is what transferred their land from Dar-al-Harb to a Dar-al-Islam. Thus the rule by Islam is upon which the continuity or the cessation of the war depends. This indicates that the description that determines the household as being a Kufr household or an Islamic household is the rule by Islam, and being a rule, i.e. an authority denotes that the domestic and foreign security is by it i.e. by the authority of Islam, otherwise, it looses its quality of being a rule.

Therefore, the rule by Islam and the security which is one of its prerequisites, are the two components which qualify the definition of the household as being Dar-al-Islam or Dar-al-Harb.

This is Dar-al-Islam; that is the territory which is ruled by the authority of Islam, upon which the rules of Islam are implemented and whose domestic and foreign security is upheld by the security of Islam. If these two conditions were not met, it would be considered a Dar-al-Kufr and the rules pertaining Dar-al-Kufr would apply, regardless of the fact that the inhabitants of the territory were Muslims or non Muslims.

Please (re)read the post.

Your question has nothing to do with the isse which has been presented in great length above.

Dar al-Kufr is referring to the land in relation to the non-implementaion of Islam and/or the authority not being in the hands of Muslims. Therefore, the whole world today is dar al-kufr inc Muslim lands.

Actually some Islamic scholars have noted that the simplisitic notion of Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Kufr is not appropiate for states which allow one to practice Islam. For instance a country like Canada cannot be considered part of Dar-ul-Kufr as Muslims are free to practice their religion within the state, the Soviet Union could be considered part of Dar-ul-Kufr as it rejected the notion of religion and banned public pratice. These scholars call the liberal states the Dar-ul-Social Contract.

The idea of us vs. them is more a radicalization of the religion by Wahhabi's and Qutbist extremists. Its very simple to divide the world into two, good vs. evil but its simply not that simple.

nico wrote: Actually some Islamic scholars have noted that the simplisitic notion of Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Kufr is not appropiate for states which allow one to practice Islam. For instance a country like Canada cannot be considered part of Dar-ul-Kufr as Muslims are free to practice their religion within the state, the Soviet Union could be considered part of Dar-ul-Kufr as it rejected the notion of religion and banned public pratice. These scholars call the liberal states the Dar-ul-Social Contract. The idea of us vs. them is more a radicalization of the religion by Wahhabi's and Qutbist extremists. Its very simple to divide the world into two, good vs. evil but its simply not that simple.

Bit of a shame you could not debate the Islamic evidences used by scholars of old from centuries ago which define dar al-Islam and dar al-kufr but chose to repeat the same rhetoric "wahabbi's", "Qutubi's" who all came well after this definitions had already existed from the time of Abu Hanifa, Shafi'i etc.

Unless you counter the classical juristic understandings and their supporting evidences with counter-evidences, Muslims will always see through this slogans innovated by the disbeleiving West to Attack Islam in a very cheap and shallow manner.

Exactly centuries ago, in the time when there was no religious freedom in the west, ofcourse muslims fought the west back then, with the label of them being dar al kufr, because a muslim could not live or call to his faith in those countries and was killed for being a muslim if he decided to live in those countries. So they were fought against just like the messenger of Allah and the faithful with him fought against the pagans who killed and tortured the muslims for their faith. Once the west implemented religious freedom it ment they would be left alone, most muslims stopped fighting right there, except some states who kept on fighting while using the faith for mere geographic-political reasons.

Your opinions abujamal and i am not saying this to offend you as one of  the childeren of Adam but rather to confront you as i see you: an angry person who chose to listen to certain people who wish more power through not the koran but interpretations of the koran and secondary sources which is ofcourse their own work. Your opinions are the results of the wahabi political blunder, in being so blind as to think they can use their self invented "islamic?"(no way) religion as way to gain world dominance through violence. It takes some really corrupted minds to be that blind as to not see "this will never work."

"54.42":    They rejected all Our communications, so We overtook them after the manner of a Mighty, Powerful One.

"54.43":    Are the unbelievers of yours better than theirs, or is there an exemption for you in the scriptures?

"54.44":    Or do they say: We are a host allied together to help eachother(in war)  "54.45":    Soon shall the hosts be routed, and they shall turn (their) backs. 54.46":    Nay, the hour is their promised time, and the hour shall be most grievous and bitter. "54.47":    Surely the guilty are in error and distress.

take care of your faith to Allah, mind yourself and better yourself in the eyes of Allah. Better yourself means strive for the mercy of Allah, not for the sake of anger and enemosity. Know that the basis of a (true) human being is that he is an enemy to no one. The example of Adam is that he was no enemy, but shaitaan chose to become his enemy. So a true human being does not seek to be an enemy of anyone.

The verses above are from Chapter the moon, the first verse of this chapter says:1. " "the hour" has come nearer and the moon has been split" -- In 1969 the first human beings landed on the moon and "split" (inshaqqa) the moon when they planted the flag on it's surface.--

2.But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "a continuous sourcery"

3.They took it as a lie and follow their own whims but every matter has its appointed time.

4.There have already come to them announcement wherein there is (enough) to check (them),

5.Mature wisdom! but Warning profits (them) not.

6.Therefore, turn away from them. The Day that the Caller will call (them) to a terrible affair.

The problem is really people choosing the words of men over the words of Allah(the koran).

nico wrote: Indeed, Wahhabism has demented the mind of the modern Muslim. So sad, to my knowledge the Kufr state is one who denies the Muslim the ability to pratice their religion openly, and Jihad can only be called if a Muslim if not allowed to practice their faith within x state. ....

Your knowledge is obviously not based on the classical juristic understanding of Islam and hence the absence of Shariah evidences.

Community wrote: Exactly centuries ago, in the time when there was no religious freedom in the west, ofcourse muslims fought the west back then, with the label of them being dar al kufr, because a muslim could not live or call to his faith in those countries and was killed for being a muslim if he decided to live in those countries. So they were fought against just like the messenger of Allah and the faithful with him fought against the pagans who killed and tortured the muslims for their faith. Once the west implemented religious freedom it ment they would be left alone, most muslims stopped fighting right there, except some states who kept on fighting while using the faith for mere geographic-political reasons.

The opinion of the classical scholars (Abu Hanfiah, Shaafi) etc was directly based on evidence which still you have not refuted whereas your drivel above is purely your opinion.

You guys have already lost the argument because firstly, Muslims will never take Islam from disbelievers and secondly, the arguments they bring are simply shallow sound-bites and are never backed by islamic evidences as not 1 single person has refuted the evidences and understanding from the original post......still waiting.

Your knowledge is obviously not based on the classical juristic understanding of Islam and hence the absence of Shariah evidences.

Shari'a is an invention of Ibn Hanlafi, it is not within the Qu'ran. Shari'a does not need to be imposed per se in order to have an Islamic state. Shari'a is logically speaking anti-thetical to the free will, and thus is against the very conception of Islam and Allah. The only law which was ever imposed on an Islamic state was the Treaty btwn the prophet Muhammed and the non-believers of Medina (who were Jews prior to the prophet). Classical fiqh's in Islam can are often contradictory, and largley today are impossible to relate to the modern world, as I have told many Muslim friends of mine a massive Ijtihad must take place to tailor Islam to 2005 not 1405 and all my Muslim friends agree.

You are so ignorant of the history of European thought it disgusts me, actually if you knew anything the begining of liberalism and secularism were not European inventions but were derieved from Islamic teachings in Spain. Liberalism is actually heavily influenced by Islam, but of course your blind hatred and ignorance of the West blinded you to this. The Social Contract is actually a Islamic idea that Muhammed had created back in Medina about 1200 years before Europe even made the term up. The only person here whom is limited is you, its to bad that Muslims don't respect their own legacy.

Fiqhs is not Islam, the Ulema is not Allah made the distinction. Don't confuse interpretation with divinity of the Qu'ran. Its seems you cannot make the distinction (the disease of Taqleed) you not I cannot see the legitimacy of Islam as the legitimacy of Islam stems from its ability to adapt and change and not stay in a stationary state of Taqleed.

Sentence makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the conversation.

Of course, you are Muslim rejectionist...you won't accept the reality. Wither away...I know Muslims who see their weakness and are actually trying to do something to stop it. And not blowing themselves up, but by understanding what their religion really means not that politicalization of Islam you seem to believe in.