“Reconstruction of Concept of Ṣulḥ as Diplomatic Tool”

2013/03/18  Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf Üniversitesi Medeniyetler İttifakı Enstitüsünde Enstitü “Reconstruction of Concept of Ṣulḥ as Diplomatic Tool” Dr. Hassan Ko Nakata (Doshisha University) Introduction In this presentation, first we clarify that the term “ṣulḥ” has two different meanings in diplomatic context, and then we argue that both meanings of “ṣulḥ” are very useful for the contemporary Muslim ummah. 1. Definition of Ṣulḥ The most voluminous encyclopaedia of Islamic jurisprudence classify ṣulḥ into 5 kinds as bellow. أحدهما : الصّلح بين المسلمين والكفّار. والثّاني : الصّلح بين أهل العدل وأهل البغي . والثّالث : الصّلح بين الزّوجين إذا خيف الشّقاق بينهما ، أو خافت الزّوجة إعراض الزّوج عنها. والرّابع : الصّلح بين المتخاصمين في غير مال . كما في جنايات العمد. والخامس : الصّلح بين المتخاصمين في الأموال. (الموسوعة الفقهية) And it is said that the first kind of ṣulḥ is synonymous with ʽahd and hudnah, and Muslim jurists of the major 4 schools define hudnah or ṣulḥ in similar formula, for example. قال الحنفية: هي الصلح على ترك القتال مدة بمال أو بغير مال إذا رأى الإمام مصلحة في ذلك. (الموسوعة الفقهية) But this definition has a fatal defect because it does not cover one of the most important usages, i.e., ṣulḥ by which Muslims conquest the land of the Non-Muslims, Tanwīr al-Abṣār says, ما فتح عنوة وأقر أهله عليه أو صلحا خراجية. We can define ṣulḥ of this meaning as “reconciliation in which conditions of Muslim conquest of Non-Muslims’ land and its integration into dār al-islām are agreed by both sides in addition to payment of jizyah tax. This type of ṣulḥ is different from the first kind of ṣulḥ categorically. Dr.Muḥammad Khair Haylal pointed out that this first kind of ṣulḥ is not the above difined ṣulḥ, saying; هذا الصلح لا يقتضي دفع الجزية من قبل البلاد المحاربة ولا خضوعها للنظام الإسلامي ولا السماح للدعوة الإسلامية فيها بالانتشار والكف عن إيذاء المؤمنين بها من رعاياهم. (الجهاد والقتال في السياسة الشرعية, ج.3 ص.1493) So, we call the former ṣulḥ With “ṣulḥ of truce” and the later one “ṣulḥ of conquest”. 2. Dār al-Islam and Dār al-Ḥarb With “ṣulḥ of truce” Non-Muslims’ land remains dār al-ḥarb, while with “ṣulḥ of conquest” it becomes dār al-Islām. This differentiation is worth mentioning here because nowadays there are confusions of usage of ṣulḥ among Muslim scholars and intellectuals and some of them claim that there is the third category of dār, i.e., dār al-ṣulḥ,beside dār al-Islām and dār al-ḥarb ”, independent from these both dārs. But the truth is that there is only dār al-Islām into which Non-Muslims’ land is integrated by “ṣulḥ of conquest” and dār al-ḥarb, part of which has “ṣulḥ of truce” It seems that both of these concepts of ṣulḥ are useful for our ummah to adapt itself to the contemporary world, in which there is neither legitimate Islamic polity, i.e. khilāfah, nor Islamic territory which is governed by sharīʽah, dār Islām. Dr. Haykal defines the concept of dār al-Islām after citing Hanafi definition. دار الكفر تصير دار الإسلام بظهور أحكام الإسلام فيها واختلفوا في دار السلام أنها تصير دار الكفر؟ قال أبو حنيفة أنها تصير دار الكفر إلا بثلاث شرائط أحدها ظهور أحكام الكفر فيه والثاني أن متاخمة لدار الكفر والثالث أن لا يبقى فيها مسلم ولا ذمي آمنا بالأمان الأول وهو أمان المسلمين وقال أبو يوسف ومحمد رحمهما الله أنها تصير دار الكفر بظهور أحكام فيها. …دار اللإسلام هي البلاد التي يكون فيها هو النظام الإسلامي وفي نفس الوقت يكون الأمن الداخلي والخارجي فيها هو بيد المسلمين. (بضائع الصنائع,ج.7.ص.130),ج.1,ص.662-669. 3. Absence of Khilāfah and “Ṣulḥ of Truce” Ummah has neither Islamic political power, i.e., khilāfah, nor sharīʽah governed space, dār al-islām. And according to the majority of Muslim jurists, the contract of the “ṣulḥ of the truce” is the prerogative of the khalīfah (and his deputy) as only the khalīfah can conclude the pact of ṣulḥ and contract of dhimmah, however Hanafi jurists consider any Muslim group can conclude ṣulḥ if it is profitable for them without permission from the khalīfah. يرى جمهور الفقهاء أن يكون العاقد للهدنة هو الإمام أو نائبه. ... الرأى الثاني للحنفية وهو أنه لا يشترط إذن الإمام للموادعة فيجوز عقد الموادعة لفريق من المسلمين ... لأن المعول عليه وجود المصلحة في عقدها فحيث وجدت جازت. (الموسوعة الفقهية) Actually, there is hardly essential difference between the majority’s view on the ṣulḥ and the Hanafi’s one, because from the standpoint of Hanafi school, the contract of the ṣulḥ of the truce is jā’is, voidable, thus the khalīfah can cancel the ṣulḥ which is concluded by a certain group of Muslims if he finds benefit in its cancelation, thus the khalīfah is the final authority to confirm the ṣulḥ. وذهب الحنفية إلى أن عقد الهدنة غير لازم محتمل للنقض فللإمام نبذه إليهم فإن رأى الإمام أن في الموادعة خيرا للمسلمين فوادعهم ثم نظر فوجد أنها شر على المسلمين نبذ إليهم. (الموسوعة الفقهية) As for the ṣulḥ of truce, it is permissible to pay tribute to enemy states in case of weakness of Muslims. Thus nowadays local Muslim governments can conclude the pacts of ṣulḥ tentatively with neighboring countries to avoid the loss of the life and property of Muslims because of their weakness until the legitimate Islamic state, i.e., khilāfah, came into existence to examine these pacts whether to confirm or to cancel. 4. Khilāfah and “Ṣulḥ of Conquest” While the Islamically illegitimate local governments maintains mundane order of Muslims in the former dār al-Islām, Ummah should struggle for reestablish khilafah and dār al-Islām, but since all the Muslims’ lands have once become dār al-ḥarb, the new dār al-Islām should be rebuilt after clearance of the old dār al-Islām. Islamic jurisprudence classifies dār al-Islām into the land conquered by ‘unwah(war) and the land conqured by ṣulḥ (reconciliation). Nowadays it seems quite unlikely that the ummah would conquer the lands by war again. Therefore the coming new dār al-Islām will be based on ṣulḥ newly contracted. While building of a new church is no allowed in the land which is conquered by ‘unwah, it is permissible to build a new church if the ṣulḥ contains its permission. In the ‘unwah conquered land, many restrictions are imposed on Non-Muslims after the model of ṣulḥ of ‘Umar’s conquest of Jerusalem. For example, building of new church is not allowed in ‘unwah conquered land, but it is permitted if ṣulḥ of conquest is concluded on the condition that they may build a new church in their territory.(Ibn Qudāmah, al-Mughnī, vol., 13, pp.241-242) 5. Conclusion We believe that the khilāfah and the dār al-Islām are attractive not only to Muslims but also to Non-Muslims only if they are understood properly because they guarantee the true freedom and autonomy for the various ethnic and religious communities with justice. Thus, we can duly anticipate that many Non-Muslims dominating lands will be integrated to the new dār al-Islām under the coming khilāfah through voluntary conclusion of ṣulḥ of conquest. So, the ummah is responsible for preparing drafts of ṣulḥ which is not only in accordance with sharī‘ah, but acceptable to Non-Muslims who are accustomed to living in the illusion of the Western “human rights” and “democracy” for the sake of peaceful coexistence of the Muslim ummah and the outer world. And this task is an indispensable part of process of reestablishing the khilāfah and the dār al-Islām. (1) (1) As for the concept of “khilāfah”, see, Hassan Ko Nakata, "The deconstruction of Sunnite Theory of Caliphate: Spreading the Rule of Law on the Earth", Journal of the Interdisciplinary Study of Monotheistic Religions (JISMOR) 6 / March 2011, pp.67-86. (http://www.cismor.jp/en/publication/jismor/documents/nakata6E.pdf)

0 件のコメント: