¶ÙÄ€¸é AL-ḤA¸éµþ “the realm of war,” lands not under Islamic rule, a juridical term for certain non-Muslim territory, though often construed, especially by Western writers, as a geopolitical concept implying the necessity for perpetual, even if generally latent, warfare between the Muslim state and its non-Muslim neighbors (see, e.g., Lambton, p. 201).
Although the term is found in Hadith referring to Mecca before the conquest by the forces of the Prophet Moḥammad—for example, “I disown any Muslim who remains with the polytheists in dÄr al-ḥarb” (Ḥorr Ê¿Ä€melÄ«, VI, p. 76)—it was especially developed by the Hanafites, who defined the circumstances under which territory ruled by Muslims, dÄr al-EslÄm, might revert to being dÄr al-ḥarb. AbÅ« ḤanÄ«fa held that three conditions must obtain: implementation of laws other than those of Islam, contiguity to other lands ruled by non-Muslims, and loss of security by Muslims and á¸e³¾³¾Ä«s (non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state) inhabiting the territory (SaraḵsÄ«, V, pp. 1856-57). Later Hanafite jurists maintained that, as long as any ordinance of Islam remained in effect, territories lost to non-Muslim rule still counted as dÄr al-EslÄm; Muslims did not have to emigrate from such territories, and even nomination of Muslim judges and other dignitaries by the non-Muslim rulers, considered usurpers, was permitted (ḴonjÄ«, p. 396). Such views became particularly relevant to Persia after the Mongol conquest in the early 13th century. Similarly, any part of dÄr al-ḥarb might be transformed into dÄr al-EslÄm without military conquest, simply by the implementation of some laws of Islam. Abu’l-Ḥasan Ê¿AlÄ« MÄwardÄ« (d. 450/1058), for example, held that, if a Muslim was able to practice his religion openly, the place where he lived was dÄr al-EslÄm (NawawÄ«, p.10). The ShafiÊ¿ites, too, held that Muslim territory conquered by non-Muslims does not become dÄr al-ḥarb unless Muslims are prevented from making their devotions (ḴonjÄ«, p. 396). Detailed regulations were developed for commercial and diplomatic intercourse with lands belonging to dÄr al-ḥarb, as well as for the temporary residence in dÄr al-EslÄm of a ḥa°ù²úÄ«—literally “a subject of dÄr al-ḥarb” but effectively a foreigner (SaraḵsÄ«, passim).
The concept of dÄr al-ḥarb was not developed in any special way in ShiÊ¿ite jurisprudence. The term itself does not occur in traditions related to the imams, but only the equivalent arḠal-ḥarb (land of war; Ḥorr Ê¿Ä€melÄ«, VI, p. 78). Although the imams regarded the Umayyad and Ê¿Abbasid caliphs as usurpers, they permitted their followers to buy slaves captured on forays mounted into dÄr al-ḥarb under caliphal authority (ḤellÄ«, II, p. 59). ShiÊ¿ite jurists did, however, establish a third category of territory, dÄr al-Ä«mÄn (realm of faith), defined by prevailing acceptance of the imams among its people. Greater theoretical importance was given to the opposition between this realm and dÄr al-EslÄm than to that between dÄr al-EslÄm and dÄr al-ḥarb (MofÄ«d, pp. 70-71). With the occultation of the Twelfth Imam the authority under which ShiÊ¿ites might wage offensive Âá±ð³óÄå»å in dÄr al-ḥarb disappeared (Sachedina, p. 111).
The extreme and violent practices accompanying the emergence of the Safavid state led some Ottoman scholars to the view that Persia had become dÄr al-ḥarb, implying, among other things, the permissibility of enslaving subjects of the Safavid shahs (Eberhard, pp. 164, 173, 197, 215). On the other hand, Fażl-AllÄh ḴonjÄ«, a Persian Sunni refugee at the court of the Shaybanids in Bukhara, argued that “only a common and ignorant fool” would regard Persia as dÄr al-ḥarb and maintained that, despite Safavid rule, Persia was still part of dÄr al-EslÄm according to the criteria of both Hanafite and ShafiÊ¿ite jurisprudence: The ordinances of Imamite ShiÊ¿ism, recognized as a valid school of Islamic law, were in force in Safavid territory, despite the inability of the people to prevent such practices as cursing the first two caliphs (ḴonjÄ«, pp. 394-98). Although he approved the battles of his Uzbek hosts against the Safavids, he doubtless hoped thus to deter them from killing and enslaving the population of Khorasan.
The definition of dÄr al-ḥarb was also important in British India. In 1218/1803 the Indian theologian Shah Ê¿Abd-al-Ê¿AzÄ«z DehlavÄ« (1159-1240/1746-1824) issued his celebrated ´Ú²¹³Ù·ÉÄå (ruling) decreeing that India must be counted as dÄr al-ḥarb (DehlavÄ«, I, pp. 30-31). This ´Ú²¹³Ù·ÉÄå was not a call to revolt but was intended, rather, to resolve questions about the permissibility of holding slaves and the collection of interest on loans. Nevertheless, other Indian Muslims held that India was still dÄr al-EslÄm because Muslims were still free to worship and Islamic courts were still functioning, albeit under British supervision. In Bengal, however, leaders of the reformist Faraidi movement pronounced the Friday and festival prayers impermissible because of British rule, thus departing from the consensus of the Hanafite school (Khan, pp. 67-80).
In Persia since the Islamic Revolution of 1357 Š./1979 attempts to rework ShiÊ¿ite jurisprudence to accommodate concerns of modern life have led to reexamination of the concept of dÄr al-ḥarb. A member of the Majles (parliament), Ê¿AbbÄs-Ê¿AlÄ« Ê¿AmÄ«d ZanjÄnÄ«, has suggested that the overriding criterion for assigning a country to dÄr al-EslÄm or dÄr al-ḥarb is whether or not sovereignty is in the hands of Muslims dedicated to implementing Islamic law, though he concedes that countries where Islamic law is not fully implemented may still count as dÄr al-EslÄm if the majority of the population can be presumed to desire such full implementation (Ê¿AmÄ«d ZanjÄnÄ«, pp. 242-48). Another recent writer suggests that in the contemporary world dÄr al-ḥarb should be taken to mean those countries with which the Islamic state, that is, Persia, is in actual conflict, whether military, political, or propagandistic (ŻīÄʾī BÄ«gdelÄ«, p. 64).
Bibliography:
A. Abel, “DÄr al-Ḥarb,” EI2II, p. 126.
Ê¿A.-Ê¿A. Ê¿AmÄ«d ZanjÄnÄ«, Feqh-e sÄ«ÄsÄ« III, Tehran, 1367 Š./1988.
Shah Ê¿Abd-al-Ê¿AzÄ«z DehlavÄ«, FatÄwÄ«-ye Ê¿azÄ«zÄ«, Deoband, n.d.
E. Eberhard, Osmanische Polemik gegen die Safawiden im 16. Jahrhundert nach arabischen Handschriften, Freiburg, 1970.
JaÊ¿far b. Ḥasan Moḥaqqeq ḤellÄ«, ŠarÄÊ¿iʾ al-EslÄm, ed. Ê¿A. Moḥammad Ê¿AlÄ«, 4 vols., Najaf, 1389/1969.
Moḥammad b. Ḥasan Ḥorr Ê¿Ä€melÄ«, WasÄʾel al-ŠÄ«Ê¿a, ed. Ê¿A. RabbÄnÄ« ŠÄ«rÄzÄ«, VI, Tehran, 1385/1965.
M. Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Baltimore, Md., 1955, pp. 53, 155-57, 170-71.
M. A. Khan, History of the Faraidi Movement in Bengal, Karachi, 1965.
E. Kohlberg, “The Development of the Imami ShiÊ¿i Doctrine of Jihad,” ZDMG 126, 1976, pp. 64-86.
Fażl-AllÄh b. RÅ«zbehÄn ḴonjÄ«, SolÅ«k al-molÅ«k, ed. M. Ê¿A. Mowaḥḥed, Tehran, 1362 Š./1983.
A. K. S. Lambton, State and Government in Medieval Islam, Oxford, 1981.
Shaik MofÄ«d, AwÄʾel al-maqÄlÄt, ed. F. ZanjÄnÄ«, TabrÄ«z, 1371/1951.
MoḥyÄ«-al-DÄ«n YaḥyÄ NawawÄ«, KetÄb al-arbaÊ¿Ä«n al-nawawÄ«ya wa šarḥoh, ed. M.-R. ReżÄ, Cairo, n.d.
A. Özel, Eslam hukukunda ülke kavramı. Dârulislâm, Dârulharb, Istanbul, 1992.
R. Peters, Islam and Colonialism. The Doctrine of Jihad in Modern History, the Hague, 1979, pp. 11-12, 41, 45-52, 61-62.
A. A. Sachedina, The Just Ruler in Shiʿite Islam, Oxford, 1988.
Moḥammad b. Aḥmad SaraḵsÄ«, Šarḥ al-sÄ«ar al-kabÄ«r, ed. S. Monajjed, 5 vols., Cairo, 1971-72.
Moḥammad-Ê¿AlÄ« TahÄnawÄ«, KaššÄf eá¹£telÄḥÄt al-fonÅ«n, repr. Istanbul, 1984, I, p. 466.
M.-R. ŻīÄʾī BÄ«gdelÄ«, EslÄm wa ḥoqÅ«q-e bayn-al-melal, Tehran, 1366 Š./1987.
(Hamid Algar)
Originally Published: December 15, 1993
Last Updated: November 14, 2011
This article is available in print.
Vol. VI, Fasc. 6, pp. 668-669
