Can someone help me understand this? (Earth, hell, blessing, religion)

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by ~Amin~

Its not the way your making it sound as if we cannot live amongst non
muslims.
I love to chat with you in futur.
peace.

It's just how i understand it when i read it. I never thought for a moment that it says a muslim cannot live amongst non muslims but if the non muslims are persecuting the muslims then it appears that this text says that they should go to a place where they can practice their religion peacefully.

[~Amin~]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

It's just how i understand it when i read it. I never thought for a moment that it says a muslim cannot live amongst non muslims but if the non muslims are persecuting the muslims then it appears that this text says that they should go to a place where they can practice their religion peacefully.

I hope my response clarified it a little.

[*Paul*]

Moududi may be a help:

The reference here is to those who stay behind along with the unbelievers, despite no genuine disability. They are satisfied with a life made up of a blend of Islamic and un-Islamic elements, even though they have had the chance to migrate to the Dar al-Islam and thus enjoy a full Islamic life. This is the wrong that they committed against themselves. What kept them satisfied with the mixture of Islamic and un-Islamic elements in their life was not any genuine disability but their love of ease and comfort, their excessive attachment to their kith and kin and to their properties and worldly interests. These concerns had exceeded reasonable limits and had even taken precedence over their concern for their religion (see also n. 116 above).
Those people who had willingly acquiesced to living under an un-Islamic order would be called to account by God and would be asked: If a certain territory was under the dominance of rebels against God, so that it had become impossible to follow His Law, why did you continue to live there? Why did you not migrate to a land where it was possible to follow the law of God?

It should be understood clearly that it is only permissible for a person who believes in the true religion enjoined by God to live under the dominance of an un-Islamic system on one of the following conditions. First, that the believer struggles to put an end to the hegemony of the un-Islamic system and to have it replaced by the Islamic system of life, as the Prophets and their early followers had done. Second, that he lacks the means to get out of his homeland and thus stays there, but does so with utmost disinclination and unhappiness.

According to him if you are not struggling to change the political system of the place to an Islamic one and you are not disabled then you should not be in the land living at ease at all but be fighting to change the system to an islamic one.

Some people have misunderstood the tradition which says: 'There is no hijrah after the conquest of Makka' (Bukhari, 'Sayd', 10; 'Jihad', 1, 27, 194; Tirmidhi, 'Siyar', 33; Nasa'i, 'Bay'ah', 15, etc. - Ed.) This tradition is specifically related to the people of Arabia of that time and does not embody a permanent injunction. At the time when the greater part of Arabia constituted the Domain of Unbelief (Dar al-Kufr) or the Domain of War (Dar al-Harb), and Islamic laws were being enforced only in Madina and its outskirts, the Muslims were emphatically directed to join and keep together. But when unbelief lost its strength and elan after the conquest of Makka, and almost the entire peninsula came under the dominance of Islam, the Prophet (peace be on him) declared that migration was no longer needed. This does not mean, however, that the duty to migrate was abolished for Muslims all over the world for all time to come regardless of the circumstances in which they lived.

What Moududi has said here confirms what i thought the text meant, he is the scholar after all.

[not4me]

As a start, i think the concept of dar al-Islam and dar al-harb should be clarified here:
As it will appear in the fatwa issued by Sheikh `Atiya Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, which reads as follows:

"In the book Bayan Lin-Nas [A Declaration for People], issued by Al Azhar, it’s clearly stated that the concept of categorizing countries as Dar Kufr and Dar Islam is a matter of ijtihad (independent judgment) made by learned scholars. There is no mention of this concept in either the Qur’an or the Sunnah.

Muslim scholars maintain that the labeling of a country or place as being an Islamic country or a non-Islamic one Dar al-Harb revolves around the question of religious security. This means that if a Muslim practices Islam freely in his place of abode despite that the place happens to be secular or un-Islamic, then he will be considered as living in a Dar Islam, meaning that he is not obliged to immigrate from that place.

The late Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah (may Allah bless his soul) mentioned two main scholarly opinions concerning this matter. He then chose the Imam Abu Hanifah’s opinion that the question revolves around the matter of security. That is if a Muslim is safe and secure in the place he lives, then the place is Dar Islam, and if not, then it is Dar al-Harb .

As for the migration:
The injunction of making Hijrah from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam is still pending and will remain so up to the Day of Judgment. However, is it an obligation or is it just a recommended act?

Scholars say: if a Muslim is afraid for his religion and ethics, or for his property, then it is a duty for him to immigrate, otherwise the immigration is merely a Sunnah for him. Yet scholars also point out that if a Muslim finds that by remaining in Dar al-Kufr he will be a source of help for Muslims in Dar al-Islam or will be helping the Muslims in Dar al-Kufr, by teaching them religion or propagating Islam itself by spreading its principles and answering questions about it, and correcting people’s misconceptions about it, then it is better for him to stay in that society, rather than leave it.
IslamOnline

Another question about Residing Permanently in a Non-Muslim Country
If a Muslim is able to maintain his/her religion as well as to preserve and protect himself/herself from injustice and oppression, then it is lawful for him/her to find such a safe refuge in a non-Muslim country. However, a Muslim must never live in a non-Muslim country while compromising or even discarding his/her Islamic identity, unless that individual is overpowered and has no other option.

I'd like to add that the concept of dar al harb and dar al Islam should be read in a historical context as this concept is not applicable in the current time.

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by not4me

As a start, i think the concept of dar al-Islam and dar al-harb should be clarified here:
As it will appear in the fatwa issued by Sheikh `Atiya Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, which reads as follows:

"In the book Bayan Lin-Nas [A Declaration for People], issued by Al Azhar, it’s clearly stated that the concept of categorizing countries as Dar Kufr and Dar Islam is a matter of ijtihad (independent judgment) made by learned scholars. There is no mention of this concept in either the Qur’an or the Sunnah.

Muslim scholars maintain that the labeling of a country or place as being an Islamic country or a non-Islamic one Dar al-Harb revolves around the question of religious security. This means that if a Muslim practices Islam freely in his place of abode despite that the place happens to be secular or un-Islamic, then he will be considered as living in a Dar Islam, meaning that he is not obliged to immigrate from that place.

The late Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah (may Allah bless his soul) mentioned two main scholarly opinions concerning this matter. He then chose the Imam Abu Hanifah’s opinion that the question revolves around the matter of security. That is if a Muslim is safe and secure in the place he lives, then the place is Dar Islam, and if not, then it is Dar al-Harb .

As for the migration:
The injunction of making Hijrah from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam is still pending and will remain so up to the Day of Judgment. However, is it an obligation or is it just a recommended act?

Scholars say: if a Muslim is afraid for his religion and ethics, or for his property, then it is a duty for him to immigrate, otherwise the immigration is merely a Sunnah for him. Yet scholars also point out that if a Muslim finds that by remaining in Dar al-Kufr he will be a source of help for Muslims in Dar al-Islam or will be helping the Muslims in Dar al-Kufr, by teaching them religion or propagating Islam itself by spreading its principles and answering questions about it, and correcting people’s misconceptions about it, then it is better for him to stay in that society, rather than leave it.
IslamOnline

Another question about Residing Permanently in a Non-Muslim Country
If a Muslim is able to maintain his/her religion as well as to preserve and protect himself/herself from injustice and oppression, then it is lawful for him/her to find such a safe refuge in a non-Muslim country. However, a Muslim must never live in a non-Muslim country while compromising or even discarding his/her Islamic identity, unless that individual is overpowered and has no other option.

I'd like to add that the concept of dar al harb and dar al Islam should be read in a historical context as this concept is not applicable in the current time.

Good post not 4 me.

[~Amin~]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

What Moududi has said here confirms what i thought the text meant, he is the scholar after all.

Dear paul whats your point.

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by ~Amin~

Dear paul whats your point.

MY point was that the scholar knows better what the text means than I do and probably what anyone else on here does.

[~Amin~]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

MY point was that the scholar knows better what the text means than I do and probably what anyone else on here does.

Im sorry plz forgive me
what are you trying to get at?

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by ~Amin~

Im sorry plz forgive me
what are you trying to get at?

We couldn't decide what the text meant between us so I quoted a scholar called Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi from his book "towards understanding the koran - Tafheem ul quran" assuming that you guys wouldn't assume to know more than he does on what this passage from the koran meant.
Was I wrong to do this?