REDEFINING THE ABODE OF PEACE

Towards an Islam in which the traditional categories of 'Abode of Peace' and 'Abode of War' are reinterpreted so that an 'Abode of Peace' is understood as any jurisdiction in which Muslims are free and safe to practise all the essentials of their religion.

The legitimacy of an Islam that is settled and at home in the West depends first and foremost upon a reinterpretation of the old distinctions of 'Abode of Peace' and 'Abode of War'. In the Middle Ages these terms were not problematic. They indicated geographical realities. The Abode of Peace were those lands under Muslim control and the Abode of War were those lands not under Muslim control. The idea of large communities of Muslims living and worshipping as free citizens in Christian Europe was utterly inconceivable.

In the post-Caliphate period, however, these geographical certainties no longer hold. In a globalized world there are no longer such neat divisions between distinct religious worlds. The notions of 'Abode of Peace' and 'Abode of War' are in urgent need of review in order to bring them into line with the glaring realities of our times. This indeed is one of the most urgent tasks that contemporary Islam faces.

In the modern era there have been various attempts to reclassify modern secular Western states as 'Abode of Safety' or 'Abode of Truce'. Such innovations are unnecessary. We merely need to understand 'Abode of Peace' as any jurisdiction in which Muslims are free and safe to live as Muslims and to practise Islam. This includes secular Western democracies.

The 'Abode of War' on the other hand is any jurisdiction in which Muslims are not safe to live as Muslims and to practise Islam.

In the contemporary world these categories do not necessarily correspond to so-called Islamic and non-Islamic states. It is entirely possible for Muslims to be refugees from so-called Muslim lands and to find freedom in ostensibly Christian (or, more accurately, post-Christian) lands.

Extremists regard Muslims who migrate to the West as sinners because, by their interpretation, only lands ruled by Muslims and enforcing Sharia Law are counted as 'Abode of Peace'. This is an antiquated and narrow point of view that denies all the realities of the modern globalized world. It is a failure to come to terms with the demise of the temporal Caliphate and the end of a territorial "Islamic world".

Muslims have a religious duty to seek to live where they can be Muslims and a duty to live under law. This is the obligation of "hijra" (migration). The Prophet Muhammad - may peace be upon him - left his home and turned away from his tribesmen and moved to Yathrib (Medina) to escape persecution and find freedom to practise Islam under law. Earlier than that, groups of Muslim emigrants were sent off to distant lands in search of a safe haven. If Muslims are faced with persecution, or they live under lawlessness, their duty is to migrate rather than to abandon their religion.

In today's world, this obligation may take Muslims to Western lands where religious tolerance and the rule of law prevails. Thus can Western lands be an 'Abode of Peace' for Muslims. It is necessary to reinterpret this concept. There is no reason for Muslims living in the West to feel an obligation to migrate to a so-called "Islamic" state so long as they are free to be Muslims in the West.

This wider view of what 'Abode of Peace' means is diametrically opposed to such regressive enterprises as Taliban Afghanistan. The Wahabi-inspired Taliban constructed what they regarded as the only "true" Islamic state in Afghanistan in the 1990s and invited Muslims from throughout the world to emigrate there to live in "God's commonwealth." But, in fact, the Taliban had only created a profane idol, a monstrous parody of medieval Islam. This ill-fated experiment in political Islamism underlines the importance of rethinking the entire idea of 'Abode of Peace'. Instead of the Taliban's narrow interpretations of Islam, it is important to broaden the scope of these Islamic ideas. This must involve a new approach to the old territorial categories.

* * *

The "free practise of Islam" can be defined by reference to the Five Pillars of the faith. For a land to be counted as 'Abode of Peace' Muslims must be free to practrise the five essential pillars of the faith, along with those things which are implicit in the Five Pillars. The right to build and own mosques is implicit in the prayer (salat) pillar, for example.

In the Abode of Peace Muslims can openly profess their faith and creed without fear of persecution or ridicule. This includes the Shahadah and the Six Articles which define orthodox belief. Implicit in this pillar is the right to die and be buried in Islam. Also the right to have a distinctive identity which Muslims are free to impart to their children as well as the right to preach the faith and to make converts to Islam.

In the Abode of Peace Muslims can practise distinctive forms of Muslim worship in freedom, both publicly and privately. They have the right to congregate for salat at the appointed times, including for the communal prayer on Friday and on the two Eid feasts and on other occasions.

In the Abode of Peace Muslims are free to practise the fast of Ramadan. They are free to observe their own calendar and festivals and to have their own food laws.

In the Abode of Peace Muslims are free to practise the zakat. They are free to function as a community. They are free to conduct their own social services and to look after their own. They are free to have their own financial life and control of their own property along with the free disposal of wealth.

In the Abode of Peace Muslims have freedom to go on pilgrimage to Mecca. Implicit in this is the freedom to meet and converse with other Muslims as a global community. This means that one cannot deny a Muslim the right to be part of, and feel themselves to be part of, the Muslim Ummah - the right to associate with the wider Muslim Ummah. A government cannot cut off and isolate the Muslims under its control from the wider Ummah.

Implicit in all of these is the right of every Muslim to practise their faith according to their own conscience and their own understanding.

* * *

THE QUESTION OF APOSTASY

A further issue raised here is the question of apostasy. In classical times the 'Abode of Peace' was a territorial entity and one's religion was identical with one's citizenship and legal identity. Apostasy was quite reasonably regarded as treachery and treason and the penalty for it was death. Modern Western states do the same. Traitors - at least in war time - are subject to the death penalty. Treachery and treason are regarded as very serious crimes.

But in the post-Caliphate era the 'Abode of Peace' is not a simple territorial entity neatly contrasting "Christendom". Religion is not the measure of citizenship. Apostacy is not the same as treason. It is therefore entirely inappropriate to retain the notion that apostacy is a crime, and certainly not one deserving death.

Instead, the religious tolerance found in the modern West allows the spirit of tolerance inherent in Islam to come to the fore. "There is no compulsion in religion!" says Allah in the Holy Koran.

At the same time, there is a spiritual truth in the claim that one can never renounce Islam once one has accepted it. Islam is the last of religions and its embrace is eternal. If a Muslim becomes a Christian, for example, it can be quite legitimately said that they remain a Muslim and will be judged as a Muslim on the Day of Reckoning - but that is a matter for their own conscience, not a matter for criminal prosecution or the death penalty.

Redefining the 'Abode of Peace' is the central theme of this website. The vision of a modern, relevant Islam for the West offered here has the redefinition of the idea of 'Abode of Peace' at its core. This is the first and most important item of reform.

Site Map