Islam's Stark Division of the World
Testing Samuel Huntingdon's 'Islam has Bloody Borders' Claim
In 2014 a photograph appeared of a building in an area under the control of the Islamic State (ISIS). On it, the following statement was spray-painted: “The Khilafah (Caliphate) will not have borders, only fronts!”. This succinctly captures the venerable Islamic idea that the world is divided into two abodes “The Land of Islam” (Dar al-Islam) and “The Land of the Sword” (Dar al-Harb).
These phrases are not directly found in the Qur’an itself, but the basic idea behind them is certainly present within Islam’s holy text. The Qur’an is chock-full of exhortations for believers not to befriend, or ally with, unbelievers. Believers are instructed to fight and subdue unbelievers – as we have seen. This leaves the obvious question: What are Muslims to make of jurisdictions that have not been brought into a state of subjugation? The answer of the hadiths is clear – they are not to live in perpetual peace with them but should, instead, seek to bring them under the sway of Islam.
The very stark “Land of Islam/Land of the Sword” division of the world is the result of this basic idea and has been taken from a variety of authoritative Islamic texts. As such, it exerts a powerful influence on the way in which many Muslims view the world. The Reliance of the Traveler, the revered manual of Islamic jurisprudence, renders ‘Dar al-Harb “enemy lands” and enjoins Muslim rulers bordering such lands to do their utmost to extend the sway of Islam by any means possible, including, of course, armed conflict.
The main point of the “House of Islam/House of the Sword” division is the fact that those in Muslim lands should never be content to live in perpetual peace with countries and territories bordering them. Temporary truces may be entered, but The Reliance of the Traveler makes it clear that Muslim rulers and individuals living in territories bordering that of unbelievers should strive hard to extend the geographical spread of Islam and that permanent peace is not an option. Hence, the ISIS graffiti stating that there can only ever be “fronts” and not borders can be seen as reflecting a firmly established part of orthodox Islamic doctrine.
Is the “House of Islam/House of the Sword” division an antiquated curiosity from the history of Islamic jurisprudence? Certainly not. A simple look at an atlas will clearly demonstrate that it is a perilous thing to be living in a country dominated by unbelievers bordering a state dominated by Muslims. As Samuel Huntington famously pointed out in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, “Islam has bloody borders”. As might be expected, Huntington, one of the most prominent political scientists of the modern era, was roundly criticized for this statement. He responded to his critics by saying: “I made that judgment on the basis of a casual survey of intercivilizational conflicts. Quantitative evidence from every disinterested source conclusively demonstrates its validity”.
Huntington is surely correct. Only the most scrupulous ignoring of the evidence can bring one to a point of denying that adherence to the Muslim faith is a major driver of bloody conflicts all over the world. The following is a very brief rundown (focusing mostly on current conflicts) of areas where Islam borders territories dominated by followers of other religions or ideologies and the resulting conflicts: