Interesting and extremely relevant opinion piece.

Still I must say ... I find no great comfort in reading about the seemingly huge dilemma Muslims living in modern, democratic countries find them selves in! 

I plan to share these articles on a couple of Australian Muslim forums (I have visited in my past quest to understand Islam) ... in the hope that some good may come of it.  

...................


Quote:

Islamic Australia? What place is there for sacred law in a secular land? Mohamad Abdalla ABC Religion and Ethics 10 May 2013 Australia - an abode of Islam, unbelief or war? How then can the various abodes coined by classical jurists apply to modern, democratic countries (like Australia) where Muslims are considered equal citizens, enjoy the right to practice their faith safely and without being coerced into suppressing or abandoning their faith? In proposing their answers, contemporary scholars, like their predecessors, differed. Shaykh Faysal Mawlawi (advisor of the Sunni High Court in Beirut) labels secular, democratic nations as dar al-da'wa, best translated as abode of invitation to Islam or even, of "Islamic proselytism." It is interesting that Mawlawcarefully chooses this label, perhaps because, as Andrew March argues:     "Da'wa has long served a number of purposes for shari'a minded scholars, from justifying long-term residence in non-Muslim lands to the suspension of jihad. But embedded in contemporary discussions of da'wa is a subtle reformulation of basic attitudes towards non-Muslims' welfare and moral personality." Prominent contemporary scholars Abd al-Qadir 'Awda, Muhammad Abu Zahra and more recently Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi have argued that secular, democratic nations are best regarded as dar al-'ahd ("abode of covenant"). This was recently supported by a 2012 fatwa issued by the International Union for Muslim Scholars regarding the Russian Republic of Dagestan, whose majority population are Muslims of diverse ethnic backgrounds. The fatwa declared that, "based on present-day realities countries that have embassies or enjoy diplomatic relations with Muslim countries fall within the realm of dar al-'ahd." This label is also significant because of its legal Shari'a implications, for it justifies the prohibition of breaching covenants while living in non-Muslim countries, prohibition of treachery and the need to uphold the law of the land. The Dagestan fatwa also declared that "the jurists agree that a territory or nation in which Muslims reside, wherein the rituals and rules of Islam are practiced, and Muslims enjoy religious freedom, cannot be considered an abode of war. Rather it is an abode of Islam or dar al-salam ("abode of peace"), even if such a country is dominated by a non-Islamic state." The Republic of Dagestan was thus labelled an "abode of peace," even though it is not governed by Shari'a law and is less democratic than Australia. On the other hand, due to the religious freedoms afforded to Muslims in non-Muslims countries, the Moroccan scholar Abd al-Aziz ibn al-Siddiq argues that "Europe and America [and by extension Australia], by virtue of this fact, have become Islamic countries fulfilling all the Islamic characteristics by which a resident living here becomes the resident of an Islamic country in accordance with the terminology of the legal scholars of Islam." While this view contradicts the majority view stipulated above, it is consistent with Al-Shawkani's view that a country that is not under Muslim jurisdiction is considered dar al-Islam "as long as a Muslim can reside there in safety and freely fulfil his religious obligations." Based on the same logic, at the occasion of a congress of the Union of Islamic Organisations in France (UOIF) in 1989, the Tunisian intellectual Rached al-Ghannouchi declared that France should be considered an abode of Islam (dar al-Islam) and not an abode of covenant (dar al-'ahd). Despite the fact that Australia fulfils many of the higher objectives of Shari'a, to consider it "Islamic" or an abode of Islam is problematic for two main reasons: this view contradicts the majority view of Muslim jurists; and Australia is a secular democracy, a form of government that is not affiliated with any religious identity. Section 116 of Australia's Constitution separates religious and civil authority and prohibits the Commonwealth from enacting laws establishing any religion or enforcing religious observance, or prohibiting freedom of religious practice:     "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/05/10/3756163.htm

Continued ...

Quote:

This is a type of government unknown to classical Muslim jurists, and has no historical precedent in any Islamic legal school of thought. As a democracy, no particular religious law prevails or is advocated. For that reason, and the fact that Islamic laws do not prevail, Australia cannot be labelled "Islamic." But nor can Australia be labelled an "abode of war" because it is not a "territory of war" that is aggressive against its Muslim citizens. And based on the aforementioned juristic views Australia does not - strictly speaking - fit within the definition of the "abode of unbelief" because it provides Muslims safe and free practice of their faith despite the fact that it is not governed by Shari'a laws. This is perhaps why Al-Turayri, professor of theology at Imam University in Riyadh, argues that secular, democratic countries are best described as dar al-sulh ("abode of truce/armistice or peace and reconciliation"), denoting - in its classical definition - a "non-Muslim territory that has concluded an armistice with a Muslim government, agreeing to protect Muslims and their clients in that territory and often including an agreement to pay (or receive) tribute." However, while Australia is bound by its constitution to protect all of its citizens, including minority religious communities such as the Muslims, it has not concluded an armistice with a Muslim government nor does it pay or receive a tribute. This label, therefore, is partially accurate but fails to encompass the political reality of Australia. The array of views offered by contemporary Muslim scholars is further evidence that labelling of abodes is subjective and heavily influenced by context. Interestingly, though, none of the leading contemporary scholars labelled western, democratic nations such as Australia negatively (as abodes of war or unbelief). Instead, the labelling was positive (abode of Islam, peace or covenant), if we can call it that. At best, Australia fulfils - to some limited extent - the conditions of an abode of covenant, even though this is the result of its own constitution and not some treaty with a Muslim nation. There is no doubt that it also fulfils the conditions of an abode of peace and not war. Regardless of what label one gives to Australia, the fact remains that it is a secular democracy and is not "Islamic." To what extent, then, are Muslims obliged to follow the Shari'a in a secular, democratic country?

The remaining parts of the article  ... entitled "What is the Shari'a?" ...  "The division of territories into "abodes"" ...  "The limited obligation to follow Shari'a in Australia" ...  "The obligation to follow the law of the land" can be found here ...
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/05/10/3756163.htm

....................


Some other relevant ABC Religion and Ethics articles by a different author -  Aftab Malik ...

"Familiar problems in Lakemba: Reflections of a British Muslim"
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/07/16/3803980.htm

"Truth, beauty, mercy: Reflections on Islam in Australia from a British Muslim"
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/08/05/3818249.htm

"The heart of the matter: Extremism, the media and the faith of Muslims in Sydney"
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/08/29/3836721.htm
.