DARU ‘L-HARB. دار الحرب
“The land of warfare.” According to the Dictionary Ghiyasu ‘l-Lughat Daru ‘l-harb is “a country belonging to the infidels which has not been subdued by Islam.” According to the Qamus, it is “a country in which peace has not been proclaimed between Muslims and unbelievers.
In the Fatawa Alamgiri, vol ii p. 854, it is written that a Daru ‘l-harb becomes a Daru ‘l-Islam on one condition, namely the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. The Imam Muhammad, in his book called the Ziyadah, says a Daru ‘l-Islam again becomes a Daru ‘l-harb, according to Abu Hanifah, on three conditions, namely (1) That the edicts of the unbelievers be promulgated, and the edicts of Islam be suppressed; (2) That country in question be adjoining a Daru ‘l-harb and no other Muslim country lie between them (that is, when the duty of Jihad or religious war becomes incumbent upon them, and they have not the power to carry it on). (3) That no protection (aman) remains for either a Muslim or a zimmi; viz. that amanu ‘l-awwal, or that first protection which was given them when the country was first conquered by Islam. The Imams Yusuf and Muhammad both say that when the edicts of unbelievers are promulgated in a country, it is sufficient to constitute it a Daru ‘l-harb.
In the Raddu ‘l-Mukhtur, vol iii p. 391, it is stated, “If the edicts of Islam remain in force, together when the edicts of the believers, then the country cannot be said to be a Daru ‘l-harb. The important question as to whether a country in the position of Hindustan may be considered a Daru ‘l-Islam or a Daru ‘l-harb has been fully discussed by Dr. W.W. Hunter of the Bengal Civil Service, in his work entitles Indian Musulmans which is the result of careful inquiry as to the necessary conditions of Jihad, or a Crescentade instituted at the time of the excitment which existed in India in 1870-71, in consequence of a Wahhabi conspiracy for the overthrow of Christian rule in that country. The whole matter, according to the Sunni Mussalmans, hinges upon the question of whether India is Daru ‘l-harb, “a land of warfare, or a Daru ‘l-Islam, “a land of Islam”.
The Muftis belonging to the Hanifi and Shafi’i sects at Makkah decided that, “as long as even some of the peculiar observances of Islam prevails in a country, it is Daru ‘l-Islam.”
The decision of the Mufti of the Maliki sect was very similar, being to the following effect. “A country does not become Dar ‘l-harb as soon as it passes into the hands of the infidels, but when all or most of the injunctions of Islam disappear therefrom.”
The law doctors of North India decided that, “the absence of protection and liberty to Musulmans is essential in a Jihad, or religious war, and also that there should be a probability of victory to the armies of Islam.”
The Shiah decision on the subject was as follows: “A Jihad is lawful only when the armies of Islam are led by the rightful Imam, when arms and ammunitions of war and experienced warriors are ready, when it is against the enemies of God, when he who makes war is in possession of his reason, and when he has secured the permission of his parents, and has sufficient money to meet the expenses of his journey.”
The Sunnis and Shi’ahs alike believe in the eventual triumph of Islam, when the whole world shall become followers of the Prophet of Arabia; but whilst the Sunnis are, of course, ready to undertake the accomplishment of this great end, “whenever there is a probability of victory of the Musulmans.” The Shi’ahs, true to the one great principle of their sect, must wait unitl the appearance of the rightful Imam. [JIHAD.]
“The land of warfare.” According to the Dictionary Ghiyasu ‘l-Lughat Daru ‘l-harb is “a country belonging to the infidels which has not been subdued by Islam.” According to the Qamus, it is “a country in which peace has not been proclaimed between Muslims and unbelievers.
In the Fatawa Alamgiri, vol ii p. 854, it is written that a Daru ‘l-harb becomes a Daru ‘l-Islam on one condition, namely the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. The Imam Muhammad, in his book called the Ziyadah, says a Daru ‘l-Islam again becomes a Daru ‘l-harb, according to Abu Hanifah, on three conditions, namely (1) That the edicts of the unbelievers be promulgated, and the edicts of Islam be suppressed; (2) That country in question be adjoining a Daru ‘l-harb and no other Muslim country lie between them (that is, when the duty of Jihad or religious war becomes incumbent upon them, and they have not the power to carry it on). (3) That no protection (aman) remains for either a Muslim or a zimmi; viz. that amanu ‘l-awwal, or that first protection which was given them when the country was first conquered by Islam. The Imams Yusuf and Muhammad both say that when the edicts of unbelievers are promulgated in a country, it is sufficient to constitute it a Daru ‘l-harb.
In the Raddu ‘l-Mukhtur, vol iii p. 391, it is stated, “If the edicts of Islam remain in force, together when the edicts of the believers, then the country cannot be said to be a Daru ‘l-harb. The important question as to whether a country in the position of Hindustan may be considered a Daru ‘l-Islam or a Daru ‘l-harb has been fully discussed by Dr. W.W. Hunter of the Bengal Civil Service, in his work entitles Indian Musulmans which is the result of careful inquiry as to the necessary conditions of Jihad, or a Crescentade instituted at the time of the excitment which existed in India in 1870-71, in consequence of a Wahhabi conspiracy for the overthrow of Christian rule in that country. The whole matter, according to the Sunni Mussalmans, hinges upon the question of whether India is Daru ‘l-harb, “a land of warfare, or a Daru ‘l-Islam, “a land of Islam”.
The Muftis belonging to the Hanifi and Shafi’i sects at Makkah decided that, “as long as even some of the peculiar observances of Islam prevails in a country, it is Daru ‘l-Islam.”
The decision of the Mufti of the Maliki sect was very similar, being to the following effect. “A country does not become Dar ‘l-harb as soon as it passes into the hands of the infidels, but when all or most of the injunctions of Islam disappear therefrom.”
The law doctors of North India decided that, “the absence of protection and liberty to Musulmans is essential in a Jihad, or religious war, and also that there should be a probability of victory to the armies of Islam.”
The Shiah decision on the subject was as follows: “A Jihad is lawful only when the armies of Islam are led by the rightful Imam, when arms and ammunitions of war and experienced warriors are ready, when it is against the enemies of God, when he who makes war is in possession of his reason, and when he has secured the permission of his parents, and has sufficient money to meet the expenses of his journey.”
The Sunnis and Shi’ahs alike believe in the eventual triumph of Islam, when the whole world shall become followers of the Prophet of Arabia; but whilst the Sunnis are, of course, ready to undertake the accomplishment of this great end, “whenever there is a probability of victory of the Musulmans.” The Shi’ahs, true to the one great principle of their sect, must wait unitl the appearance of the rightful Imam. [JIHAD.]
Based on Hughes, Dictionary of Islam
© 2025 All Rights Reserved