Dar Al Islam Quotes

Dar al Islam and the Dar al Harb, the House of Submission and the House of War.

Islamic legal rulings stipulate that a treaty cannot be forever, since it must be immediately void should the Muslims become capable of fighting them.” What these treaties did not imply was a permanent system in which the Islamic state would interact on equal terms with sovereign non-Muslim states: “The communities of the dar al-harb were regarded as being in a ‘state of nature,’ for they lacked legal competence to enter into intercourse with Islam on the basis of equality and reciprocity because they failed to conform to its ethical and legal standards.” Because in this view the domestic principles of an Islamic state were divinely ordained, non-Muslim political entities were illegitimate; they could never be accepted by Muslim states as truly equal counterparts. A peaceful world order depended on the ability to forge and expand a unitary Islamic entity, not on an equilibrium of competing parts.

This body of thought represents an almost total inversion of Westphalian world order. In the purist version of Islamism, the state cannot be the point of departure for an international system because states are secular, hence illegitimate; at best they may achieve a kind of provisional status en route to a religious entity on a larger scale. Noninterference in other countries’ domestic affairs cannot serve as a governing principle, because national loyalties represent deviations from the true faith and because jihadists have a duty to transform dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers. Purity, not stability, is the guiding principle of this conception of world order.

Now how does all this relate to Islamic jihad? Islam sees violence as a means of propagating the Muslim faith. Islam divides the world into two camps: the dar al-Islam (House of Submission) and the dar al-harb (House of War). The former are those lands which have been brought into submission to Islam; the latter are those nations which have not yet been brought into submission. This is how Islam actually views the world! By contrast, the conquest of Canaan represented God’s just judgement upon those peoples. The purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism! War was not being used as an instrument of propagating the Jewish faith. Moreover, the slaughter of the Canaanites represented an unusual historical circumstance, not a regular means of behavior. The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him. But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims. Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately. Moreover, in Islam God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even His own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in His dealing with mankind.

Here, the Prophet was born in a settled and stable province of a strong Roman Empire. Much as in our timeline, Islamic civilisation, the dar-al Islam, flourished, but under Roman protection. There were no centuries of inter-faith conflict in Europe – no crusades, for instance. Even in the pre-Christian days, the Romans were always pragmatic about local religions. To the Romans, Islam is a muscular sister creed of the Christianity that is their official state religion.

It is precisely Battuta's lack of interest in peoples outside Dar-al- Islam—the world of Islam—that testifies to Muslim dominance of medieval Asian trade. In the fourteenth century, Battuta could travel 74,000 miles through Morocco, East Africa, India, central Asia, Southeast Asia, and China and remain entirely within the Muslim cultural envelope, never having to interact in a meaningful manner with those outside it in order to survive, to travel, or even to make a living.

Umar's solution, imposing the hijab/curtain that hides women instead of changing attitudes and forcing "those in whose heart is a disease" to act differently, was going to overshadow Islam's dimension as a civilization, as a body of thought on the individual and his/her role in society. This body of thought made dar al-Islam (the land of Islam) at the outset a pioneering experiment in terms of individual freedom and democracy. But the hijab fell over Medina and cut short that brief burst of freedom. Paradoxically, 15 centuries later it was colonial power that would force the Muslim states to reopen the question of the rights of the individual and of women. All debates on democracy get tied up in the woman question and that piece of cloth that opponents of human rights today claim to be the very essence of Muslim identity.

Roughly 25 percent of humanity is Muslim. For every Jew, there are roughly one hundred twenty-five Muslims. Judaism is about 2500 years older than Islam, and yet it has not been able to attract nearly as many followers. If we construe religions as memeplexes (a collection of interconnected memes), to borrow Richard Dawkin's term, the Islamic memeplex has been extraordinarily more successful than its Jewish counterpart (from an epidemiological perspective, that is). Why is that? To answer this important question, we must look at the contents of the two respective memeplexes to examine why one is more "infectious" than the other. Let us explore the rules for converting into the two religions and apostatizing out of them. In Judaism, the religious process for conversion is onerous, requiring several years of commitment and an absence of ulterior motive. (For example, converting to Judaism because you are marrying a Jewish person is considered an ulterior motive). Not surprisingly, given the barriers to entry, relatively few people convert to Judaism. On the other hand, to convert to Islam simply requires that one proclaim openly the sentence, the shahada (the testimony): "There is no true god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." It does not require a sophisticated epidemiological model to predict which memeplex will spread more rapidly. Let us now suppose that one wishes to leave the religion. While the Old Testament does mention the death penalty for apostasy, it has seldom been applied throughout Jewish history, whereas to this day apostasy from Islam does lead to the death penalty in several Islamic countries. But perhaps the most important difference is that Judaism does not promote or encourage proselytizing, whereas it is a central religious obligation in Islam. According to Islam, the world is divided into dar al-hard (the house of war) and dar al-Islam (the house of Islam). Peace will arrive when the entire world is united under the flag of Allah. Hence, it is imperative to Islamize the nations within dar al-harb. There is only one Jewish country in the world, Israel, and it has a sizeable non-Jewish minority. But there are fifty-seven member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The pseudonymous apostate Ibn Warraq makes an important distinction: there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam. Millions of Muslims just want to get on with their lives, and there are--or were--remote corners of the world where, far from Mecca, Muslim practices reached accommodation with local customs. But all of the official schools of Islamic jurisprudence commend sharia and violent jihad. So a "moderate Muslim" can find no formal authority to support his moderation. And to be a "moderate Muslim" publicly means standing up to the leaders of your community, to men like Shaker Elsayed, leader of the Dar al Hijrah, one of America's largest mosques, who has told his core-ligionists in blunt terms: "The call to reform Islam is an alien call.

Philipp Töller hat Tobias Hachmanns Beitrag geteilt. 31. März um 16:37 · Tobias Hachmann Gestern um 16:02 · Rückmeldungen voll erwünscht, vor allem von meinem theologischen Diskussionspartner Philipp Töller ! Mal mein persönlicher Vorschlag für eine religiöse Wissensquelle, die verschiedene Religionen in all ihren Gemeinsamkeiten zusammenschließt und alle Glaubensansätze toleriert anstatt einseitig auszuschließen: Das Naturrecht von John Locke als religiöse Wissensquelle, die mal komplett unabhängig von irgendeiner spezifischen Religion, sondern absolut universell ist. Sie stellt für mich eine empirisch-erkenntnistheoretische Alternative zum Auswendig-Lernen von Gebeten oder Versen aus spezifischen Büchern wie der Bibel, dem Koran oder der Thora oder was auch immer dar. Ein absolutes religionsübergreifendes universelles Wissen über das gottgegebene Naturrecht ist generierbar indem man seinen Blick auf folgendes wendet: Gott hat die empirisch wahrnehmbare materielle Außenwelt der Schöpfung und die durch Selbstreflexion ebenfalls empirisch wahrnehmbare innere Konsitution des Menschen in einer Harmonie aufeinandender abgeglichen. Dabei gilt: Innere Konstitution ist definiert als ANGEBORENE Fähigkeiten, die der Mensch UNABHÄNGIG VON GESELLSCHAFTLICHER PRÄGUNG INSTINKTIV besitzt. Dazu zählen einerseits empathische Bedüfrnisse wie das nach Liebe, Luststreben, Streben nach Selbsterhaltung, andererseits aber auch vernunftgebundene Freiheitsfähigkeiten wie das gezielt gesteuerte motorische Bewegen nach Zwecksetzung des eigenen Willens und vor allem die damit zu verwirklichenden angeborenen Talente. Die Faktoren der Angeborenheit und der Unabhängigkeit von der Gesellschaft habe ich hier deswegen betont, weil sich gerade dadurch das Naturrecht auszeichnet: Es ist jedem gottgewollt angeboren wie das Recht auf Leben und nicht gesellschaftlich konstituiert bzw. abhängig von einem willkürlichen Gemeinwillen der Bevölkerung oder von Gesetzesvorschriften, die z. B. durch diktatorische Staaten sehr willkürlich festgelegt werden können. Es hängt nur ab von den nicht willkürlichen natürlichen Ausstattungen, über die alle Menschen objektiv betrachtet verfügen - und zwar komplett unabhängig von der historischen Epoche und dem sozialen Umfeld, in dem sie leben. Wenn nun Gott diese inneren natürlichen, angeborenen (also nicht gesellschaftlich anerzogenen) Wesenheiten/ Konsitutionen aller Menschen wie oben erwähnt in seiner vorausdenkenden und alles überblickenden Allwissenheit in Harmonie nach einem ewig gültigen Schöpferplan auf die Außenwelt abgeglichen hat, so entsteht daraus folgende Quelle des religiösen Wissenserwerbs: Gott hat den Menschen mit der naturgegebenen Vernunft so konzipiert, dass er (der Mensch) gezielt auf die Ressourcen der Außenwelt, die ihm umgibt - egal in welcher Gesellschaft er lebt - einwirken kann, um durch eigene Zweckverwirklichung persönliche Talente und Freiheit zu auszuleben. Religiösen Wissenserwerb generiert Locke dabei wie folgt: Aus dem zuletzt beschriebenen vom heiligen Schöpferplan eigentlich vorgesehenem Verhältnis zwischen Individuum und Außenwelt leitet Locke ab, dass nach Gottes Willen alle Menschen diese Freiheit der Fähigkeiten-Auslebung sich gegenseitig geben sollten. Seine Begründung dieser Deduktion: Wäre dem nicht so, hätte Gott nicht jedem einzelnen Menschen diese zielgsteuerte geistige Spontanität des eigenen Willens geschenkt, und er hätte die Welt nicht so konzipiert, dass (eigentlich) für alle Menschen genug Ressourcen zur Selbstverwirklichung da sind (da sein sollten). Doch Gott hat in der Tat alles so konzipiert und ursprünglich auf diese Weise die erwähnte Harmonie zwischen angeborener gesellschaftsunabhängiger Konstitution und äußerer Lebenswelt hergestellt... oder aus heutiger nicht-ursprünglicher Sicht gesprochen: Eine Harmonie, die eigentlich von uns wiederhergestellt werden sollte. Um diese Freiheitsfindung in Form des Vereinigens beider Harmonieseiten anzutreiben hat Gott - so

The violent injunctions of the Quran and the violent precedents set by Muhammad set the tone for the Islamic view of politics and of world history. Islamic scholarship divides the world into two spheres of influence, the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-harb). Islam means submission, and so the House of Islam includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, which is to say those nations ruled by Sharia law. The rest of the world, which has not accepted Sharia law and so is not in a state of submission, exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of Allah. It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to make war upon dar al-harb until such time that all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law. Islam's message to the non-Muslim world is the same now as it was in the time of Muhammad and throughout history: submit or be conquered. The only times since Muhammad when dar al-Islam was not actively at war with dar alharb were when the Muslim world was too weak or divided to make war effectively. But the lulls in the ongoing war that the House of Islam has declared against the House of War do not indicate a forsaking of jihad as a principle but reflect a change in strategic factors. It is acceptable for Muslim nations to declare hudna, or truce, at times when the infidel nations are too powerful for open warfare to make sense. Jihad is not a collective suicide pact even while "killing and being killed" (Sura 9:111) is encouraged on an individual level. For the past few hundred years, the Muslim world has been too politically fragmented and technologically inferior to pose a major threat to the West. But that is changing.

am from? Well, Islam—a larger, richer, and in most ways more sophisticated civilization that hems in the Christians of Europe to the east and the south—divides all the world into only three parts: their part, which is the dar al-Islam; the part with which they are friendly, which is the dar as-sulh, or House of Peace; and everything else, which is the dar al-harb, or House of War. The latter is, I’m sorry to say, a far more apt name than Christendom for the part of the world where most of the Christians live.

1)  In Europe, especially France, ethnic civil war will break out, with Islam for its banner. It has already begun in a diffuse but clear fashion, a war of internal conquest that aims quite simply at making our continent a new Muslim land (Dar al-Islam)[99] where people of European stock are called upon to become subject minorities and the populations that came from the South intend to become the majority. If the initiative succeeds, it will be a case of the pure and simple disappearance of European civilisation, which was born 3,500 years ago. 2)  On the world scale, we are going to witness a global Islamic offensive, on the European front (from France to the Balkans) and the African front, but also in Russia, Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent and the Far East. 3)  The American superpower can only decline, especially in the face of the formidable rise in Chinese power. Taking account of the atavistic militarism of the USA, a major confrontation between Americans and Chinese cannot be excluded. All the same, we can count on America’s clumsy militarism, which starts fires without ever succeeding in eliminating its designated enemies, to multiply hotbeds of war throughout the world.

What the Western world does not understand about Islam is that its adherents’ first and foremost identity is being a Muslim, without the limitations of national boundaries or allegiances. There is no such thing called Sunni dar al-Islam and Shiite dar al-Islam. There is only one dar al-Islam and then there is the rest of the world, dar al-harb, or the house of war. Sunnis and Shiites understand this basic distinction and easily set aside internal conflict to deal with an external power. That is to say, the Sunni-Shiite conflict is secondary only to the Muslim–non-Muslim conflict. According to one author, “One of the myths of modern Islamist terrorism is that Sunni and Shi’a do not get along; but when it comes to common enemies or objectives or using force to replicate the Iranian revolution in other localities, they work together quite frequently.”18 There is no better example of such a display of unity against the Western influence, the external power, than the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The doctrine of jihad against nonbelievers coupled with the model of the Iranian Revolution has been a strong impetus for both Sunni as well as Shiite jihadist organizations.19 Iran sees the United States and Israel as such grave, existential, external threats to Islam that thwarting and ultimately destroying both the United States and Israel are important enough to temporarily put aside theological differences with heretical Sunni organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, making these some of the scariest partnerships in the unholy alliance.

At first, the Muslim community, in its minority position, settles in a foreign land and practices Dar al-Sulh, meaning ‘momentary peace’. This happens because the infidel, in his blindness and naïvety, allows Islamic proselytism on his own soil, without requiring any reciprocity in Muslim lands. This is the stage that we are currently experiencing

Hinzu kommt, Sie haben das bestimmt gesehen, dass Kurt Westergaard* von Angela Merkel für seine Karikaturen gegen den Propheten persönlich ausgezeichnet und gelobt wurde. Shariah-rechtlich steht auf so eine Person die Todesstrafe. Dadurch stellt sich Ihre Regierung als Feind des Islam dar. *Dänischer Zeichner, dessen umstrittene Mohammed-Karikaturen 2005 von der dänischen Zeitung Jyllands-Posten veröffentlicht wurden

Peace in their mind is not between Muslims and infidels. Peace is when infidels live under the umbrella of Islam. The conquest brings peace in their minds. Theoretically there cannot be [peace] between Islamic State, the Caliphate state, and other infidel states. Eternal war should be between them. Peace can reign only when everybody comes under the umbrella of Islam.76 Accordingly, the people who live in dar al-harb and do not accept Sharia are not considered innocent and can be killed or subdued. The Western mind views suicide bombing as an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people. To the radical Muslim mind, however, Western victims of suicide bombings are not innocent because they have not surrendered to Sharia and Muslim rule. They are still part of the house of war (dar al-harb). As a result, they have not acquired protected status under Islam, and accordingly, they are morally complicit in their own destruction. So the distinction between combatant and noncombatant status, as defined by international law, has no meaning to the Islamic radical’s mind.

Islam divides the world into two parts: dar al-Islam (house of Islam), places where Sharia is the highest authority, and dar al-harb (house of war), places where Sharia is not the highest authority and must be brought within the fold of Islam.73 The distinction between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb proves that the Muslim ummah (community) is not limited by national boundaries or identities. Rather it is unified by Islam. That is why Muslim individuals from around the world leave their home countries to join ISIS and other terrorist groups to participate in jihad against the infidels. From the radical Muslim’s perspective, the jihad to transform dar al-harb into dar al-Islam does not end until the mission is fully accomplished.

Islam divides the world into two parts: dar al-Islam (house of Islam), places where Sharia is the highest authority, and dar al-harb (house of war), places where Sharia is not the highest authority and must be brought within the fold of Islam.73 The distinction between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb proves that the Muslim ummah (community) is not limited by national boundaries or identities. Rather it is unified by Islam. That is why Muslim individuals from around the world leave their home countries to join ISIS and other terrorist groups to participate in jihad against the infidels. From the radical Muslim’s perspective, the jihad to transform dar al-harb into dar al-Islam does not end until the mission is fully accomplished. Although most Islamic jurists agree that only the head of state or the caliph (head of the Islamic ummah) has the authority to wage a holy war (jihad),74 radical Muslims argue that when the head of the state fails to faithfully perform his duties (one of which is to proclaim Sharia everywhere), it becomes incumbent on individual Muslims (members of the ummah) to carry out Allah’s commands.75 Only Allah is the legislator, and the prophet and his successors are vicegerents who enforce his law. Hence, peace occurs only when everything is either subject to Allah’s law or, for temporary periods, when Muslims regroup and prepare for the next campaign. Until then, a constant state of war between the ummah and nonbelievers exists. Israeli author and scholar of Arabic literature Mordechai Kedar said: Peace in their mind is not between Muslims and infidels. Peace is when infidels live under the umbrella of Islam. The conquest brings peace in their minds. Theoretically there cannot be [peace] between Islamic State, the Caliphate state, and other infidel states. Eternal war should be between them. Peace can reign only when everybody comes under the umbrella of Islam.76 Accordingly, the people who live in dar al-harb and do not accept Sharia are not considered innocent and can be killed or subdued. The Western mind views suicide bombing as an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people. To the radical Muslim mind, however, Western victims of suicide bombings are not innocent because they have not surrendered to Sharia and Muslim rule. They are still part of the house of war (dar al-harb). As a result, they have not acquired protected status under Islam, and accordingly, they are morally complicit in their own destruction. So the distinction between combatant and noncombatant status, as defined by international law, has no meaning to the Islamic radical’s mind.

Markaz Dirasat al-Adab al-'Arabii wa-Dar al-Huda 2001; 16al-Suyuti, al-Rasa'il al-'ashar, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al- 'Ilmiya, 1409 AH/1989 CE, p. 54; 'Ali ibn Taj al-Din al-Sinjari, al-karam fii akhbar Makka wa'l-bayt wa-wulat