Dogs in Shariah

In the name of God; Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

I was walking in the park and a Muslim man became quite distressed by a dog that wanted to play.  Whilst I understand the man's concern for religious cleanliness, I think perhaps if he was more aware of the facts he may be less inclined to overreact and avoid the ill feeling with the non-Muslim dog owners.

Please note all mention below relating to cleanliness are in terms of ritual purity for prayer.  Dirt, unhygenic or harmful substances and ritual impurity are separate things. Something we may consider dirty, such as soil is ritually pure and acceptable to pray in, whilst something hygenic like wine or sterile like urine is unacceptable to pray in and considered impure.  Ritual purity is part of the acts of worship (ibadat) and beyond reason.

Dogs are Man's Best Friend

The most famous tale of a dog in the Qur'an is in the chapter of the cave (18, Surah al Kahf) where a loyal dog guards some companions who, trying to escape corruption and persecution, by a miracle sleep for one hundred years safely in a cave until the tyrants had passed:

{[Prophet], do you find the Companions in the Cave and al-Raqim so wondrous, among all Our other signs? When the young men sought refuge in the cave and said, ‘Our Lord, grant us Your mercy, and find us a good way out of our ordeal,’ We sealed their ears [with sleep] in the cave for years. Then We woke them so that We could make clear which of the two parties was better able to work out how long they had been there.} [18:9-12]

Al-Raqim in this verse has been interpreted as either the name of the mountain in which the cave was situated, the name of their dog, or an inscription bearing their names.

The famous Qur'anic exegete al Qurtubi (d. 1273 CE) in the commentary of 2:38 says:  Wahb ibn Munabbih said: "When Adam descended to Earth, Iblis (the devil) said to the wild animals: 'This is your enemy, so destroy him.'  They gathered and elected the dog as their leader, saying: 'You are the boldest of us.' When Adam saw that, he was confused.  Gabriel came to him and said: 'Stroke the dog's head.'  He did so.  When the animals saw that the dog was friendly to Adam, they scattered.  The dog sought security and Adam gave it to him and he remained with him and his sons from then on."

Dogs are generally seen in a positive regard as loyal animals, and it is well known that they were kept by the companions as guard dogs.

Dog's cleanliness

Abu Hurayrah has narrated a number of hadith concerning the washing of utensils licked by a dog.  In one narration The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "the utensil licked by a dog is to be washed three times," [Dar'qutni].  In another: “The cleansing of the utensil belonging to one of you, after it has been licked by a dog, is to wash it seven times, using soil for cleaning the first time.” [Muslim]

The Hanafi's went with the first hadith; to quote Al Hidayah: "Its tongue has contact with the water and not the utensil, thus, if the utensil has become impure the water must be more so.  This tradition conveys impurity and the number of washings."  They interpret the second hadith of seven washes as that: "issued earlier in Islam" i.e. abrogated.

The Shafi'i's went with the second hadith in terms of washes and agree that a dog's saliva is impure (See Reliance of the Traveller).  They went as far as saying the whole dog is impure since its impurity comes from inside the animal.  The Hanafi's disagree here and say that it is only the saliva as the hair, nails, skin etc that come off a dog are pure along with all other animals.

The Malik's disagree and argues that the above hadiths are of recommendation and so the dog is entirely pure.  The reason is that it seems to contradict the verse concerning lawful food, which states:  {[This includes] what you have taught your birds and beasts of prey to catch} [5:4].  If the dog's saliva really were impure then the prey would also become impure as it touches it.  They also argued that the number stipulate of three or seven is excessive as it is sufficient to remove impurity with washing something once, thus are a recommended act of worship only (see Bidayat al Mujtahid).

Owning a Dog

The Muslims have viewed dogs as working animals, the modern concept of pets was not familiar to the early Muslim community.  Most scholars have ruled it impermissible - a minority more leniently say disliked - to have a dog except as a working animal owing to the hadiths:

The Prophet (peace be upon him said): “Whoever acquires a dog, with the exception of a dog for hunting, or guarding sheep, or protecting the harvest, then a large portion of his reward will be diminished every day.” [Bukhari]

the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “The angels do not enter a house that has a dog or a picture.” [Bukhari]

The Shafi’i's say: "It is permissible to keep a dog for hunting, agriculture, or herding without disagreement ... There are two positions ... concerning keeping them to protect homes and neighbourhoods and the most correct one is permissibility."  The Hanafi's agree, al Hidayah says: "Having a dog is prohibitively disliked (makruh tahriman).  However, there is no harm in acquiring a hunting dog, or a guard dog to protect one’s sheep or property."

The Maliki's say: “it is permissible to keep dogs for all beneficial purposes, and to ward off harm, even if it is not in the wilderness where thieves are feared."

Conclusion

Summarising the above we see that dogs are generally seen as problematic when wishing to pray either for ritual purity or for the more mystical reason of scaring away angels.  However, they are loyal and trusted animals that perform all manner of useful functions and for this reason are permissible to keep for a need.  Although it appears they should be kept outside or at least limit the rooms they go in (i.e. not the prayer room).  I might just add that here in the UK where people love their dogs it might be wise socially to take the most lenient position and remember the positive view Islam has of dogs, since the rabid dogs that various hadith show enmity toward (some infamously have 'jet black dog' or 'al kalb al aswad al bahim,' whilst other versions have 'the dog that bites indiscriminately' or 'al kalb al 'aqur,' see here) are not on these shores.  Also owning a rescue dog may be another reason for keeping one, since it has the beneficial purposes mentioned and is an act of charity.

And God know best

The Horsemeat Scandal

In the name of God; The Most Merciful, Most Compassionate,

The horse meat scandal has provoked much discussion, so much so that I was asked was horse meat halal?

Horses in the Qur'an

The Qur'an's comprehensive verses on livestock read:

{And livestock––He created them too. You derive warmth and other benefits from them: you get food from them; you find beauty in them when you bring them home to rest and when you drive them out to pasture. They carry your loads to lands you yourselves could not reach without great hardship––truly your Lord is kind and merciful––horses, mules, and donkeys for you to ride and use for show, and other things you know nothing about. God points out the right path, for some paths lead the wrong way: if He wished, He could guide you all.} [16:5-9]

The verse identifies the purpose of a horse as a riding animal and an adornment, whilst identifying cattle as a food source amongst other uses.  In such a comprehensive discussion of livestock prohibition of the horse, mule and donkey is implied as they are not mentioned as a type of food source.

Horses in the Sunnah

There are many narrations that either suggest prohibition of horse meat or permissibility, such as:

Khalid ibn al-Walid (God be pleased with him) narrates that: "the Messenger of God (God bless him & give him peace) forbade the meat of horses, mules and donkeys." [Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah]

Jabir (God be pleased with him) narrates: "The Prophet (God bless him & give him peace) prohibited the meat of domesticated donkey and he permitted the (eating of) horse meat on the day of Khaibar." [Bukhari and Muslim]

Scholarly views

Scholars have differed over the ruling of horse meat, but have generally considered it permissibility but with a preference to avoid it.

The foundational text Mukhtasar al Quduri, written by Abu'l Hassan al Quduri (d. 1036 CE) reads: "It is not permitted to eat the meat of the domestic donkey or [of] the mule, and it is disapproved to eat the meat of the horse according to Abu Hanifa, may God have mercy on him."

Both Abu Hanifa's students - who are considered his equals - Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash-Shaybani considered horse meat permissible.  From the other two schools Imam Malik agreed with Abu Hanifa and Imam Shafi'i agreed with the two students.

The argument to reconcile the evidences is that either the hadith prohibiting horsemeat are not of outright prohibition but of stressing that whilst permissible it is an abomination or that the hadith permitting horse meat abrogates the previous ruling.  Others argued that since there is no disagreement on the donkey and the horse is the same by analogy it too is prohibited, but owing to the clear contradiction of Jabir's narration during an extreme situation (the conflict at Khaibar) it is reduced to that of prohibitively disliked (makruh tahriman).

Conclusion

Providing horse meat is slaughtered according to Islamic Law - A Muslim, Jew or Christian mentions the name of God whilst slitting the throat (both jugular veins, windpipe and oesophagus) so that blood flows - then it is permissible to eat however it is religiously precautionary to avoid it.  Of course it is also scandalous in Islamic Law to be dishonest and call something beef when it has horse meat in it although it is not good etiquette to question or doubt the seller unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

And God knows best

Jihad and Terrorism

In the Name of God, The Most Merciful, Most Compassionate,

The fact that Jihad and Terrorism are seen as related by some requires a post because anyone who knows the difference, knows they are not remotely related.

Linguistic Meaning of Jihad

Jihad derives from the Arabic j-h-d, which means struggle or striving.  The translation as Holy War is misleading as the Arabic word for war is either harb or qital.  Jihad has many nuanced meanings - Muslim narrates thirteen different types - related to struggling, undergoing hardship and forbearing great difficulty.  The Prophet (peace be upon him) described the best jihad as: "a word of justice in the presence of an unjust ruler." [ibn Maja].  Another important jihad, is jihad an-nafs; when the Prophet (peace be upon him) returned from an expedition Jabir narrates that he said: "You have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." He was asked what the greater jihad was and he replied "The servant's struggle with his whims and passions." [Ihya, Grazali].  In fact, of the forty-one places j-h-d appears - in some form - in the Qur'an it only relates to war on ten occasions.  This specific type of jihad is known as jihad as-Saif (struggle of the sword).

Jihad of the Sword

The Muslim historian and father of sociology, Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), notes that man has always fought since his creation and identifies four types of war.  Of the unjust illegal wars, which he terms the wars of outrage and sedition (hurub baghy wa fitna), are wars caused by competing tribes and families and wars caused by hostility solely for the purpose of seizing property and wealth.  The others he terms the jihad and just (hurub jihad wa 'adl) which he includes jihad and dynastic wars to keep order subdue secedes and the rebellious. He distinguishes between the just war and jihad, although there is overlap (see below).  Whilst a just war might be for the benefit of the community politically, such as preserving public order; jihad is for the benefit of the community religiously.  In the same way that the 'greater jihad' struggles with the inward elements that try to destroy one's faith, the 'lesser jihad' struggles with the outward elements that try to destroy the faith.

Jihad as-Saif is not an objective of Islamic Law, but a means with the aim of removing the threat of war or hostility towards the religion, as Rumi (d. 1273 CE) poetically puts it: “Knowledge and wealth and office and rank and fortune are a mischief in the hands of the evil-natured. Therefore the Jihad was made obligatory on true believers for this purpose, namely, that they might take the spear-point from the hand of the madman.”

Jihad and the Just War

Sometimes Western minds familiar with Christianity find religious legislation for war as something strange. Islam's formation has two phases - Mekkah and Madinah - the earlier phase was similar to Jesus' misson and the later was not; more like that of the Prophet-King David (peace be upon them both).

During the early period in Mekkah the Muslims had suffered greatly during most of their 13 year stay as a minority, the Muslims were commanded to 'turn the other cheek' [Matt 5:39] very much as in the New Testament: {turn away from them and say, ‘Peace’: they will come to know.} [23:96] and {Tell the believers to forgive those who do not fear God’s days [of punishment] ––He will requite people for what they have done.} [45:14] among others.  It was in the latter Madinan phase once the first Islamic State was established that the permission to fight was revealed: {Those who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have been wronged– God has the power to help them – those who have been driven unjustly from their homes only for saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ If God did not repel some people by means of others, many monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, where God’s name is much invoked, would have been destroyed. God is sure to help those who help His cause– God is strong and mighty} [22:39-40].

The permission to fight came because innocent people were being persecuted due to an unjust tribal systems that preyed on the weak and for no other fault than religious difference.  Here Islam differs from Christianity, in that it was a political body during the lifetime of the founder and so has the ethics of war as part of its foundation.  Chrstianity when it became a political body after its founder developed its own ethics of war in the Just War theory (bellum iustum).  St Augustine of Hippo (d 430 CE) outlined three principles that must be included for a war to be just: a proclomation by a legitimate authority, a just cause such as repelling invaders, and the right intention so as to minimise damage and loss of life.  There are many parallels between these principles and a valid jihad (see J. Kelsay, Just War and Jihad).

Qur'anic objectives of Jihad as-Saif

Jihad as-Saif may be called by the khalif (Ruler of the Muslim faith) or a recognised ruler acting on his behalf to either repel aggressors, secure freedom for Muslims to practise Islam, save weak oppressed people from tyrannical leaders, bring peace between waring Muslim factions and to punish treachery.

Jihad maybe waged to protect the religion from foreign invaders:  {Fight in God’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits. Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them– this is what such disbelievers deserve– but if they stop, then God is most forgiving and merciful} [2:190-192]

Jihad may also be waged against those who: oppress Muslims for their beliefs, to secure their freedom to practise Islam, and show hostility in censoring da'wah (invitation to Islam): {Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to God. If they cease hostilities, there can be no [further] hostility, except towards aggressors.} [2:193] and {[Believers], fight them until there is no more persecution, and all worship is devoted to God alone: if they desist, then God sees all that they do} [8:39].  And in a similar way, it may be waged against oppressive regimes that persecute its inhabitants by arbitrary power and silencing those who speak out.  This is very similar to the concept of Humanitarian International Law: {Why should you not fight in God’s cause and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors! By Your grace, give us a protector and give us a helper!’?} [4:75]

Jihad may also be waged against those who bring disunity and discord.  Either those that have broken a covenant by way of punishment: {The worst creatures in the sight of God are those who reject Him and will not believe; who, whenever you [Prophet] make a treaty with them, break it, for they have no fear of God. If you meet them in battle, make a fearsome example of them to those who come after them, so that they may take heed.} [8:55-57] Or Muslim factions fighting amongst themselves: {If two groups of the believers fight, you [believers] should try to reconcile them; if one of them is [clearly] oppressing the other, fight the oppressors until they submit to God’s command, then make a just and even-handed reconciliation between the two of them: God loves those who are even-handed. The believers are brothers, so make peace between your two brothers and be mindful of God, so that you may be given mercy.} [49:9-10]

Qur'anic objectives of Jihad not condoned

Forced conversions are invalid in Islamic Law as it comes under coercion (ikrah), which invalidates any contract etc: {There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error} [2:256].  In addition the objective of Islam was never to make everyone Muslim, there are many explicit verses to this effect, such as: {Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you [Prophet] compel people to believe?} [10.99], [32:13], [11:118] and [64:2].  Muslims are to invite non Muslims to Islam, but they are free to refuse: {There truly is a message in this for the servants of God! It was only as a mercy that We sent you [Prophet] to all people. Say, ‘What is revealed to me is that your God is one God– will you submit to Him?’ But if they turn away, say, ‘I have proclaimed the message fairly to you all. I do not know whether the judgement you are promised is near or far} [21:106-109]

Jihad is not perpetual war as peace treaties may be negotiated: {But if they incline towards peace, you must also incline towards it, and put your trust in God} [8:61].  The Prophet (peace be upon him) negotiated cessation of hostilities with the Mekkan idolaters for ten years in the treaty of al Hudaybiyyah, which the Qur'an calls a manifest victory: {Truly We have opened up a path to clear triumph for you [Prophet], so that God may forgive you your past and future sins, complete His grace upon you, guide you to a straight path, and help you mightily} [48:1-3]

Misunderstandings

It is claimed that the verse 9:5 {When the [four] forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post; but if they turn [to God], maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way, for God is most forgiving and merciful.} known as the verse of the sword (ayat as-saif) abrogates (naskh) the previous rulings, discussed above.  From the context of the verse it is in reference to the to the Mekkan idolaters who broke a peace treaty specifically and not to non Muslims generally. As such Abu Hanifa and Imam Ahmad considered the verse void after the eradication of polytheism from the Arabian peninsula.  Confusion can also arise from the expression naskh.  Works by earlier scholars used this to refer to a verse that limited the meaning of others and not to overrule another as it is now understood (see: T. Usmani, An Approach to the Qur'anic Sciences).  Also if 9:5 were truly to supersede other verses, this would mean some 140 verses of the Qur'an were abrogated making most of the Qur'anic injunctions non-sensical.  Scholars differ as to which verses actually supersede others, Imam Suyuti (d. 1505 CE) identified twenty and Shah Waliullah Dehlawi (d. 1762 CE) only five, none of them have included this verse as one of them.

The hadith: "I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify there is no god except God" [Bukhari] also is used to propogate the idea of perpetual war.  The meaning of "people" in the above is confirmed by consensus (ijma) to refer to the same "mushrikin" (idolators) of 9:5 above, and so only applied to the Arab idolators (muskhriku l- 'arab) during the Prophet's life and the early years of the Rightly guided Caliphs and not even to any other non-Muslims.

Another verse often used erroneously is 9:29: {Fight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit}.  Again this verse is not general, but specific to the battle of Tabuk (see S. Usmani, Ma'ariful Qur'an) when the Muslim armies were facing an invading Byzantine army; the Muslims were worried about facing fellow worshippers of God and so this verse was revealed to reassure them of the Byzantine disbelief (see infidel).  Again it makes no sense in the way it is paraded by some to mean a perpetual war to all Christians and Jews as verse 3:113-114 clearly states that they are not all the same.  In addition there are many positive verses towards both Jews and Christians; 5:82 identifies Christians as the closest in love to Muslims. In clear contradiction to this erroneous view is the hadith narrated from Malik that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "leave the [Christian] Ethipopians in peace as long as they leave you alone."

Islamic texts were written not to be taken off the shelf, but as an 'aide memoire' for a scholar to teach from.  So if you pick up a common text such as Mukhtasar al Quduri and turn to the chapter Siyar (Campaigns) you read: "Fighting unbelievers is obligatory, even if they do not initiate against us."  This clearly can be taken the wrong way by the uneducated.  The author assumes you are reading this with a teacher and have a basic grounding in Islam first.  So the obligation he speaks of is not individual, but communal (fard kifayyah) such that if jihad is legitimately called against hostile unbelievers some people eligible must answer the call (see 9:22 and 2:216).  Likewise the reference to non initiated violence is describing that a jihad may be waged for humanitarian reasons etc (see above) and not just as a response to invasion.

Early Islamic conquests

The rapid expansion of the early Muslims has sometimes been described as Islam being 'spread by the sword.'  Such a description is grossly misleading; the notion that Islam was spread by forced conversions is historically inaccurate, since places like Syria and Egypt took more than five hundred years to become majority Muslim populations (see Oxford History of Islam).  Initial military success for the Muslims came as the unified Arabs fought with the surrounding hostile Byzantine and Persian empires, unlike the Ethipoians, that had tirelessly fought each other over the region for some five hundred years.  Interestingly whilst the Byzantines saw the Muslims as the daemons of the anti-Christ, the Christians from non Orthodox denominations that fleaed their Imperial persecution welcomed the Muslims as peace makers and saw them as the prophesied descendants of Ishmael to punish the Byzantines for their heresy (see H Goddard, History of Muslim-Christian relations).

After the administration of the 'Rightly Guided Caliphs' came the hugely unpopular Ummayads (658 - 750 CE).  They were the descendants of the Mekkan nobles, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) first fought, and ran the Muslim Empire in a similar fashion.  The tribal system required constant skirmishes for economic growth, making them the only government in Islamic history to have a foreign policy of perpetual war, for which they collapsed as a direct result (see Blankship, The End of the Jihad State).  The foremost Western non-Muslim interpreter of Islam Prof. Montgomery Watt (d. 2006) noted in his book Islamic Political Thought that these early skirmishes by the Ummayads had no interest in religion or conversion and so cannot be thought of as Jihad.  Therefore the rapid expansion of the Muslims' borders were not what was remarkable about Islamic history, because other dynasties such as the Mongols also enjoyed a similar rate of expansion, but rather the social cohesion which has continued until today.

Are modern Muslims violent?

Europol regularly produce official statistics of terrorism in Europe, in 2007 (the year of the 7/7 bombings, London) they identified that 0.4% of all terrorist activity in Europe was caused by people from a Muslim background, the largest by far - 88% - were political separatist groups like Defra and the IRA.  The Gallup international pole found that of the 7% of Muslims who thought the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified gave a political reason only and no reference to Islam, whilst the 93% that thought they were not justified most commonly gave the response that Islam prohibited such atrocities (see Esposito, The Future of Islam).  In April 2005 the Joint Intelligence Committee identified reasons for membership to terrorist organisations to be things like opposition to the war on Iraq, disaffection with community leaders and low socio-economic backgrounds.  These important statistics do not of course deny there is a problem, but they identify the problem as social and political rather than religious in nature.  Muslims are no more inclined to violence than any other human and have just the same concerns for economic well being and education for their children etc, which the Gallup report also shows.

Terrorism

The origins of modern militant movements stems from ideas first initiated by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (d. 1897) as a reaction to growing Western colonialist influences in the Middle East (see: N Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism).  Sayyid Qutub (d. 1966) took this further and - ignoring classical scholarship - re-invented Islamic ideas in a Lenninist violent revolutionary style; ideas he ironically studied in the US.  He infamously changed Islam into a religio-political movement and proposed the notion that jihad is a perpetual war between dar al Islam (abode of Islam) and the jahaliyyah (literally ignorant) in a perpetual abode of war (dar al harb).  Prof. K Ward in his book "Is Religion Dangerous?" Further explains the un-Islamic sources of Qutub's ideas and points out that whilst people can corrupt and use any ideology for their own personal gains the advantage religion has over say Marxism and Lenninism is that it has the tools to identify such concepts as immoral.


Suicide bombings are completely alien to Islamic history and are a reprehensible innovation (bi'dah) borrowed from the Sri Lankan Marxist group the Tamil Tigers.  The first suicide attack in the 'Muslim World' was committed on a bus in Jerusalem in 1994 and never in Iraq until the presence of US forces in 2003.  These suicide attacks fail on three counts: authority, method and target.  The authority for a legitimate jihad must come from the Khalif or a recognised government for which none have.  The method of suicide is a mortal sin (for the sane) in Islam and will result in perpetually repeating the act in hell for all eternity.  The targets by these bombers are non-combatants which are completely forbidden to kill.  Scholars identify that the only targets are those 'capable of hostility' (to quote al Hidayah), thus prohibiting non combatants such as women, children, the elderly, holy people like monks and priests, hermits, farmers, the blind and insane, the only exception being people on the battlefield armed and fighting. (See Sh. Affifi's excellent article for details here)

Dr Tahir ul Qadri in his Fatwa on Terrorism - a book stamped by Al Azhar (Islam's foremost University) - he likens the belief systems of these so called 'Jihadist' to that of the Khawarij, a group the majority of Muslim scholars throughout history have considered disbelievers (kuffar).  The Prophet (peace be upon him) described them as: "the worst of all creation" [Ahmed] and warned that they will come from the East be young foolish and brainwashed with shaven heads, unkempt beards and lower garments that come high up the leg (A remarkably accurate description! All found in Bukhari).  The Khawarij are considered disbelievers, as many of these 'Jihadist,' groups because they actually deny the unequivocal verse: {If anyone kills a person– unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land– it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind.} [5:32].  To murder someone is a grave sin, however one can still be a Muslim just a bad one, but to believe that Islam condones the murder of innocents, such that one will be rewarded in the afterlife is an act of disbelief because it is to deny Islam itself.  These terrorists - generally speaking - are not actually Muslim at all.

Conclusion

The topic is potentially endless and requires much historical, social as well as legal analysis, but the above should give a fairly sound basis for showing that those that think Islam is a violent religion looking for World domination are either ignorant or dishonest.  Of the dishonest sought, Robert Spencer, often makes arguments in an underhand manner, such as using terms from a bygone era as dar al Islam (abode of Islam) and darl al Harb (abode of war) to suggest a clash of civilisations without defining them, analysing whether such historically medieval terms are still applicable and ignoring other terms such as dar al Aman (abode of agreement) where safe conduct is assured.  Of this last term, dar al aman probably accounts for most of the modern World since the agreement of International Laws and the bill of Human Rights between nations, as Al Hidayah notes: "it is not lawful for him (one under agreement) to transgress against any of their wealth or their persons... Transgression after this amounts to treachery, and treachery is prohibited."  In addition Abu Hanifa is said to have defined dar al Islam as anywhere where prayer at the mosque for all five prayers can be performed without hindrance, which then makes the UK dar al Islam and places like Egypt and Syria not. Although this is not the only definition, it becomes clear that the discussion is more complex than some suggest.

Perhaps as a last thought in an amazing hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "There will come a tribulation during which one who sits will be better than one who stands, one who stands will be better than one who walks, and one who walks will be better than one who runs. Someone asked, What do you advise if someone enters my house to kill me? He said, 'Be like the better of the two sons of Adam (i.e. resign yourself).'" (Muslim, Tirmidhi.)

And God knows best

Further reading

Dr Ali Gomaa's (Grand Mufti of Egypt) article titled Jihad in Islam: Myths and Facts