The hadith sets up a dichotomy. Either a place is a dar al-Islam (house of Islam), or it is a dar al-harb (house of war). A place considered to be a house of Islam is a place where Muslims are in the majority. A house of war is where Muslims are in the minority.
In your opinion, is this a false dichotomy and an oversimplification? Can Muslims be safe in a place where they are not the majority, and are there times when they are not safe even though they are the majority?
Why do you think this dichotomy is expressed? Is it more of a statement meant to insinuate there will never be peace in the world unless Muslims are able to establish a government according to their religion? Or is it simply an observation that in the experiences of Muslims, they were never safe unless their community was the majority?
By
7 thoughts on “Dar al-Harb or Dar al-Islam?”
arutherford
I think that place that is Dar al-Islam can be considered as one that allows Muslims to practice freely without the risk or fear of blacklash. Unfortunatley, this freedom may not exist except in places where Muslims are the majority of the population. For example, although the United States boasts about having religious freedom, in many parts of the U.S. Muslims will more than likely face discimmination. Thus, for some people the United States is Dar al-Harb. I do think, however, that if Muslims all around the United States were allowed to practice freely without any backlash then it would be Dar al-Islam. Then again, I am not Muslim, so who am I to decide?
jneeh
I think “Dar al-Harb” and “Dar al-Islam” have more meaning to its definition of being the minority and majority in a country or a specific area. I also think that Muslims could be not safe in a place where they are the majority. An example for that would connect to the idea of being Sunni or Shia. Both Sunni and Shia fit under the religion Islam and they can be living in the same country, but their conflict can lead to them being unsafe in their own country (example Lebanon or Syria). So again, a Sunni Muslim that is living in the same country as a Shia Muslim (or vise versa) can not look at that country as “Dar al-Harb” just because they feel unsafe due to the Sunni/Shia conflict.
aodalton in reply to jneeh
That’s an interesting point because sometimes members of the “same” religious group will attack each other. For Muslims it is sometimes Sunni vs. Shia, and for Christians it was Catholics vs. Protestants during the Reformation.
I’m a little confused about your last sentence, though. If the Sunni and/or Shia are in violent conflict, wouldn’t that be considered Dar al-Harb even though both are Muslims?
stabakha
I believe that these two terms were expressed because of the way Islam is perceived in many countries. For example, I would most likely conclude that the United States views the Middle Eastern countries, which are Muslim majority, to be Dar-al Harb, due to all the violence that ABC and FOX news shows us on the daily. While Muslims living in those countries may view themselves as more likely to be Dar-al Islam. I also believe it may depend on the individual person. For example, a person who grew up in an Islamic household but views Islam as being oppressive may view Islam as Dar-al Harb. While a Muslim who was brought up believing Islam is their way of life may view Islam as Dar-al Islam.
jpuvogel
I don’t think this is an oversimplification. When it comes to people’s views on religion, I don’t think there really can be much of a grey area. Yes, people may accept certain aspects of Islam and be prejudiced towards others, but still that small piece of prejudice could prevent Muslims from practicing their religion in peace. I think it is a dichotomy that expresses that, whether they are the majority or minority, Muslims desire to practice their religion in its whole capacity (however the individual Muslim may view that) in a safe environment. I think everyone desires this and Muslims certainly have a right to feel this way. I don’t think they need to be the majority to be safe, but being a minority does pose a sort of power imbalance that welcomes discrimination.
acorrell
Dar-al-Islam and dar-al-harb I feel are perfectly explained and not overly simplified at all. If we went into more specific detail about what each should be and/ or represent, people would not be able to identify as either. In the end, practicing Muslims’ safety truly just depends, and there is no better way to describe that. It depends on their locations, where they live, who they are surrounded by in their community, their own personal beliefs, etc. Looking at it from an outsiders perspective also, one person could look at a country as dar-al-Islam, but another could look at it as dar-al-harb. There will never be an explicit answer, I feel, regardless if Muslims are the majority or not. Everyone, Muslim or not, will have differing views, and this means we will never have a solid answer.
ademaio
Muslim groups throughout history have not been safe when they are the majority. Although a Muslim majority may exist, differing views among the different sects of Islam can cause these and have caused different Muslim groups to fight with one another. This alone makes it clear that this is an oversimplification as we see brother fight brother, Muslim fight Muslim.