{"title":"An Unbeliever Can Rule Dār al-Islām: Ḥanafī Law in the Wake of the Mongol Invasion","authors":"Edith X. Chen","doi":"10.1163/15685195-bja10039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPrior to the Mongol invasion of Iran in the 7th/13th century, Ḥanafī jurists had adopted two definitions of Islamic lands (dār al-islām): according to a “lenient” definition attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa, an unbelieving ruler may rule over dār al-islām, and according to a “strict” definition attributed to Abū Yūsuf and al-Shaybānī, he may not. As the Mongols overran Central Asia and Iran, later Ḥanafīs began to favor the lenient definition so that lands under non-Muslim occupation might retain the status of dār al-islām as long as Muslims had security and the freedom to worship. In this article, I evaluate the assumptions about Mongol rule that underpin the lenient definition. Persian historians such as Waṣṣāf and Shabānkāraʾī report that the Mongols permitted self-rule, and Muslims were adjudicated in their own courts according to Islamic law. Local histories support the claim that Islamic life can continue under occupation by nonbelievers.","PeriodicalId":55965,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law and Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Islamic Law and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-bja10039","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Prior to the Mongol invasion of Iran in the 7th/13th century, Ḥanafī jurists had adopted two definitions of Islamic lands (dār al-islām): according to a “lenient” definition attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa, an unbelieving ruler may rule over dār al-islām, and according to a “strict” definition attributed to Abū Yūsuf and al-Shaybānī, he may not. As the Mongols overran Central Asia and Iran, later Ḥanafīs began to favor the lenient definition so that lands under non-Muslim occupation might retain the status of dār al-islām as long as Muslims had security and the freedom to worship. In this article, I evaluate the assumptions about Mongol rule that underpin the lenient definition. Persian historians such as Waṣṣāf and Shabānkāraʾī report that the Mongols permitted self-rule, and Muslims were adjudicated in their own courts according to Islamic law. Local histories support the claim that Islamic life can continue under occupation by nonbelievers.
期刊介绍:
Islamic Law and Society provides a forum for research in the field of classical and modern Islamic law, in Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Celebrating its sixteenth birthday in 2009, Islamic Law and Society has established itself as an invaluable resource for the subject both in the private collections of scholars and practitioners as well as in the major research libraries of the world. Islamic Law and Society encourages discussion on all branches of Islamic law, with a view to promoting an understanding of Islamic law, in both theory and practice, from its emergence until modern times and from juridical, historical and social-scientific perspectives. Islamic Law and Society offers you an easy way to stay on top of your discipline.