Extract from:
Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited on Behalf of the Royal Netherlands Academy by H.A.R. Gibb e J. H. Kramers, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1974

Transliteration was modified for the reasons explained in
Ignazio Guidi e David Santillana - Prefazione al Mukhtasar di Khalîl ibn Ishâq

p. 89

JIHÂD (A.), holy war. The spread of Islâm by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. It narrowly escaped being a sixth rukn, or fundamental duty, and is indeed still so regarded by the descendants of the Khârijîs. This position was reached gradually but quickly. In the Meccan Sûras of the Qur’ân patience under attack is taught; no other attitude was possible. But at Madîna the right to repel attack appears, and gradually it became a prescribed duty to fight against and subdue the hostile Meccans. Whether Muhammad himself recognized that his position implied steady and unprovoked war against the unbelieving world until it was subdued to Islâm may be in doubt. Traditions are explicit on the point; but the Qur'ânic passages speak always of the unbelievers who are to be subdued as dangerous or faithless. Still, the story of his writing to the powers around him shows that such a universal position was implicit in his mind, and it certainly developed immediately after his death, when the Muslim armies advanced out of Arabia. It is now a fard `ala 'l-kifâya, a duty in general on all male, free, adult Muslims, sane in mind and body and having means enough to reach the Muslim army, yet not a duty necessarily incumbent on every individual but sufficiently performed when done by a certain number. So it must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islâm. It must be controlled or headed by a Muslim sovereign or Imâm. As the Imâm of the Shi`is is now invisible, they cannot have a jihâd until he reappears. Further, the requirement will be met if such a sovereign makes an expedition once a year, or, even, in the later view, if be makes annual preparation for one. The people against whom the jihâd is directed must first be invited to embrace Islâm. On refusal they have another choice. They may submit to Muslim rule, become dhimmîs [q.v.] and pay jizya and kharâj [q.v.] or fight. In the first case, their lives, families and property are assured to them, but they have a definitely inferior status, with no technical citizenship and a standing only as protected wards. If they fight, they and their families may be enslaved and all their property seized as booty, four-fifths of which goes to the conquering army. If they embrace Islâm, and it is open to them to do so even when the armies are face to face, they become part of the Muslim community with all its rights and duties. Apostates must be put to death. But if a Muslim country is invaded by unbelievers, the Imâm may issue a general summons calling all Muslims there to arms, and as the danger grows so may the width of the summons until the whole Muslim world is involved. A Muslim who dies fighting in the Path of Allâh (fî sabîl Allâh) is a martyr (shadîd) and is assured of Paradise and of peculiar privileges there. Such a death was, in the early generations, regarded as the peculiar crown of a pious life. It is still, on occasions, a strong incitement, but when Islâm ceased to conquer it lost its supreme value. Even yet, however, any war between Muslims and non-Muslims must be a jihâd with its incitements and rewards. Of course, such modern movements as the so-called Mu`tazilî in India and the Young Turk in Turkey reject this and endeavour to explain away its basis; but the Muslim masses still follow the unanimous voice of the canon lawyers. Islâm must be completely made over before the doctrine of jihâd can be eliminated. See also the art. DÂR AL-HARB, DÂR AL-ISLÂM and DÂR AL-SULH. The latter seems to be a mediating position which failed.

p. 68

DÂR AL-HARB. In Muslim constitutional law the world is divided into dâr al-harb and dâr al-Islâm. "Abode of Islâm" is that which is already under Muslim rule; "Abode of War" is that which is not, but which, actually or potentially, is a seat of war for Muslims until by conquest it is turned into “Abode of Islâm". For an anomalous and disputed exception", see DÂR AL-SULH. Thus to turn dâr al-harb into dâr al-Islâm is the object of jihâd [q.v.], and, theoretically, the Muslim state is in a constant state of warfare with the non-Muslim world. But practically that is now impossible. The rulers of Islâm are not in a position to keep up a constant warfare contra mundum. To meet this situation the early, and logical position has had to yield. Land once Abode of Islâm does not become Abode of War, except on three conditions: (i.) that the legal decisions of unbelievers are regarded and those of Islâm are not; (ii.) that the country immediately adjoins an Abode of War, no Muslim country coming between; (iii.) that there is no longer protection for Muslims and their non-Muslim dhimmîs [see DHIMMA]. Of these, the first is the most important, and some have even held that so long as a single legal decision (hukm) of Islâm is observed and maintained, a country cannot become dâr al-harb. The Dictionary of Technical Terms (p. 466), having a regard for the situation in India, sums up: "This country is an abode of Islâm and of Muslims although it belongs to the accursed ones and the authority externally belongs to these Satans". Practically, of course, no rebellion under such circumstances would be legal unless it has a good prospect of success and were led by a Muslim sovereign. These conditions being fulfilled, unbelieving control of an Abode of Islâm is an illegal absurdity. When a Muslim country does become a dâr al-harb, it is the duty of all Muslims to withdraw from it, and a wife who refuses to accompany her husband in this, is ipso facto divorced.

p. 69

DÂR AL-ISLÂM. An "abode of Islâm" is a country where the ordinances of Islâm are established and which is under the rule of a Muslim sovereign. Its inhabitants are Muslims and also non-Muslims who have submitted to Muslim control and who, under certain restrictions and without the possibility of full citizenship, are guaranteed their lives and property by the Muslim state [see DHIMMA]. They must belong to a People of Scripture (ahl al-kitâb) and may not be idolaters.

p. 69

DÂR AL-SULH. Besides dâr al-harb and dâr al-Islâm [q.v.], some schools of canon law recognize the existence of a third division, dâr al-sulh, or al `ahd, which is not under Muslim rule, yet is in tributary relationship to Islâm - sulhan, "by agreement”, being generally used in canon law as the opposite of  `anwatan "by force”. The two historical examples of such a status, and the origin, apparently, of the whole conception, are Najrân and Nubia. With the Christian population of Najrân Muhammad himself entered on treaty relationships, guaranteeing their safety and laying on them a certain tribute, regarded by some afterwards as kharâj and by others as jizya [q.v.] (cf. on the whole story Balâdhurî, Futûh, ed. de Goeje p. 63 sq.; Sprenger, Leben Mohammads, iii. 502 sq.). In the course of events, and because of their position within Arabia, this protection for the people of Najrân amounted to very little. The case of Nubia was somewhat different. By their skill with the bow the Nubians were able to hold off the Muslim attack and to maintain their independence for centuries. In consequence, `Abd Allâh b. Sa`d entered into treaty (`ahd) with them, not requiring the head-tax (jizya) but only a certain tribute in slaves. Others, however, evidently disliking the implication that there could be any territory in a status of neither Islâm nor war, and therefore outside of Muslim conquest, maintained that this was not really a sulh or `ahd but only a truce (hudna) and an arrangement for an exchange of commodities (Balâdhurî, Futûh, ed. de Goeje, p. 236 sq.; Weil, Gesch. d. Chalifen, i. 16 sq.; Lane-Poole [following Maqrîzî], Hist. of Egypt, p. 21 sq.; Torrey [transl. from Ibn `Abd al-Hakam], in Yale Bibl. and Sem. Studies, p. 307 sq.). This conception in some vague form was probably also the basis on which treaty relations with Christian states were accepted as possible; the presents sent by such states would then be regarded as kharâj. The constitutional situation on the matter is thus formally laid down by Mâwardî. All territories, into the control of which, in different degrees of directness, Muslims come, fall into three divisions: (i.) those taken by force of arms; (ii.) those taken without fighting after the flight of their previous owners; (iii.) those taken by treaty (sulh). The last divides again into two, according as the title to the soil is (a) vested in the Muslim people as a waqf, or (b) remains with the original owners. In the first case the original owners can remain in actual possession, becoming dhimmîs [q.v.], and paying kharâj and jizya and the land becoming dâr al-Islâm [q.v.]. In the second case, (b), the terms of the treaty are that the owners retain their lands and pay a kharâj from their produce; that this kharâj is regarded as a jizya which falls away when they embrace Islâm; that their country is neither dâr al-Islâm nor dâr al-harb [q.v.] but dâr al-sulh (otherwise called dâr al-`ahd); and that their lands are absolutely their own to sell or pledge. When these pass to a Muslim, kharâj can no longer be collected. This condition of the owners holds so long as they observe the requirements of the treaty, and the jizya cannot be collected from them as they are not in a dâr al-Islâm. Abû Hanîfa, however, held that by the treaty their country had become a dâr al-Islâm and they were dhimmîs and should pay the jizya. As to what was the situation, if they broke the treaty after entering into it, there was dispute between the schools. Al-Shâfi`î held that if their territory was then conquered, it came into the category (i. above) of territory taken by force; and if it was not conquered, it became a dâr al-harb. Abû Hanîfa, however, held that if there was a Muslim in their territory, or if a Muslim country came between their territory and a dâr al-harb, then their territory was a dâr al-Islâm and they were rebel, (bughât). If neither of these conditions held, then it was a dâr al-harb. But others maintained that it was a dâr al-harb in both cases (Mâwardî, Ahkâm al-sultânîva, ed. Cairo 1208, p. 131 sq.). But that this situation was anomalous and ambiguous, appears plainly. Mâwardî himself, when reckoning the lands of Islâm (bilâd al-Islâm), includes among them this dâr al-sulh (ibid., p. 150 and 164), and Balâdhurî, when dealing with the rules of kharâj, makes no mention of this distinction.

Italian Translation