| rdfs:comment | - The two requirements for a country to be part of Dar al-Islam were, according to the founder of this concept, Abu Hanifa, the following: 1.
* That Muslims must be able to enjoy peace and security with and within this country. 2.
* That Islamic countries have common frontiers with other Muslim countries. If the former does not apply, then physical means (such as Jihad) can be used to correct the situation. And, in the latter case, individuals are required to do hijra to countries where they can practice their religion.
|
| abstract | - The two requirements for a country to be part of Dar al-Islam were, according to the founder of this concept, Abu Hanifa, the following: 1.
* That Muslims must be able to enjoy peace and security with and within this country. 2.
* That Islamic countries have common frontiers with other Muslim countries. If the former does not apply, then physical means (such as Jihad) can be used to correct the situation. And, in the latter case, individuals are required to do hijra to countries where they can practice their religion. Muslims must have ‘peace and security’ within their states. In order to ‘secure peace’, all non-Muslim religions must be banned, stamped out or dhimmi-ed. In order to insure ‘security’, Islamic states must increase the power of the military. What the heck! In the cases of Pakistan and Iran, what they really need for ‘security’ is a good old-fashioned (but effective) nuclear bomb. ‘Security’ will be guaranteed, them omnipresent Islamic scholars say, ‘if India and Israel are wiped out’. And who would begrudge a Islamic state the simple desire for ‘security and peace’? The second requirement ((1) above) has led critics to note a problem. If Muslims, in a specific country, not only require their own state to be Islamic in order ‘to be able to enjoy peace and security within [their] country’, but also require that the countries on the ‘common frontiers’ to be Muslim as well, then, yes, you guessed it, that seems a damn good reason for a good dose of Jihad against such non-Islamic ‘frontier’ countries. Whoops! India is a ‘frontier country’ of Pakistan. Israel is a ‘frontier country’of Allah knows how many Islamic countries. What about the ‘frontier countries’ of Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, etc.? Is Spain a kind of ‘frontier country’ of those North African Islamic states (even if there is a bit of water in between)? Muslim scholars maintain that ‘the labelling of a country or place as being a part of Dar al-Islam revolves around the question of religious security’. This means that ‘if a Muslim practices Islam freely in his place of abode, despite the fact that the place happens to be secular or un-Islamic, then he will be considered as living in the Dar al-Islam.’ The only problem with this is that in order for ‘a Muslim to practice Islam freely’ he will need a complete system of sharia, halal meat, plenty of mosques, the banning of all symbols of ‘Western decadence’, etc. in order to bring about the ‘freedom, peace and security he requires’. So the ‘secular or un-Islamic states or areas in which these Muslims live should bloody well get their acts together and start Islamising society in order to give Muslims the peace, freedom and security they require to practice the Religion of Peace’ (as a member of the Muslim Association of Britain put it).
|
