In the twentieth century, communist ideology spread across the world on a large scale. Under this ideology, human society was divided into two classes: the working class and the bourgeois class.
The word bourgeois is a French term. In its original sense, it referred to the middle class. However, under the influence of Marxist philosophy, it became a derogatory term. According to this ideology, society was divided into two classes: the working class, regarded in every respect as an innocent class, and the bourgeois class, which, in Marxist thought, was synonymous with the capitalist class and, according to Marx, was the root of all social and economic evils.
Something similar happened with the word kafir. Initially, the word kafir had a simple meaning. In lexical terms, kafir means one who denies. Over time, however, the word kafir became a derogatory term. In the present age, from an ideological perspective, this has probably become the most contentious issue between Muslims and non-Muslims that Muslims face today. An example will clarify this matter.
Famous Urdu poet Mohammad Iqbal’s family was originally a Brahmin family. Later, they converted to Islam. Referring to this fact, Iqbal said in one of his verses:
Mara ba-negar keh dar Hindustan digar nami bini
Brahmanzada ramz-ashna-e-Room o Tabriz ast
Do not see India only through old stereotypes. Even a Brahmin’s son can be deeply familiar with the intellectual traditions of Rome and Tabriz.
In this couplet, the word brahman-zada does not sound offensive to the listener. In terms of its original, literal meaning, brahman-zada and kafir-zada are similar expressions. However, if Iqbal’s verse were changed and the word brahman-zada were replaced with kafir-zada, readers would strongly object.
This reaction would not be because the meaning of the verse had changed, but because the emotional and social value of the word has changed. The word brahman is generally heard as a neutral or descriptive term, whereas the word kafir, through historical and social usage, has come to be understood as insulting and demeaning. Therefore, even though the two words may appear similar in a literal sense, they do not carry the same tone or impact in real usage.
The communist-bourgeois division in the twentieth century alienated the non-communist world from communists. The same situation has now arisen with Muslims. From the Muslim side, the division between believer and kafir has made the non-Muslim world resentful of Muslims. As a result, people like Ashok Singhal and Pravin Togadia have begun demanding that Islam be reviewed and that the word kafir be removed from the Islamic vocabulary. They argue that unless Islam is reformed, Muslims and non-Muslims cannot live together in a balanced way.
However, experience shows that this issue is not confined to extreme figures of other faiths. It has now become a challenge for Muslims themselves. In today’s modern society, Muslims and non-Muslims live together. In such conditions, educated Muslims generally feel that they cannot live in a balanced way in a shared society while holding on to the conventional concept of kafir. Consciously or unconsciously, they begin to feel that Islam has lost its relevance in the present age. They do not understand how, with such an Islam, they can live with dignity in today’s society.
I frequently meet a highly educated Muslim in Delhi. He says that although he was born into a Muslim family, he no longer has faith in Islam. He says that his religion is democracy. According to him, Islam divides humanity into two unequal classes—believers and kafirs—whereas democracy gives equal status to all human beings. He once told me that when a child is born in his home, he will not have the adhan recited into the child’s ear; instead, he will invite a professor who will say into the child’s ear: democracy, democracy, democracy.
The reality is that the issue of kafir is not only a problem for non-Muslims. In modern society, it has become, on a large scale, a problem for Muslims themselves. There is a need to understand this issue in depth and to clarify its correct meaning, so that Islam may appear to people as a religion relevant to the times, and so that both Muslims and non-Muslims can live in a balanced way with others in modern society. A thorough study shows that this entire matter is based on misunderstanding. In the conventional view, it is assumed that kafir and non-Muslim are synonymous terms. All those who are not Muslims are considered kafirs. This is undoubtedly a wrong notion. The truth is that the word kafir is not synonymous with non-Muslim.
Muslims and the Wider Society
From the perspective of the Shariah, a Muslim holds the position of a Da‘i, while a non-Muslim holds the position of a Mad‘u. This relationship requires that the Da‘i always maintain a balanced relationship with the Mad‘u. It is said that a trader should always be customer-friendly. In the same way, the formula for a Da‘i should be that he is always Mad‘u-friendly.
Within the Da‘i, there should be goodwill and well-wishing for the Mad‘u. If these feelings exist in the Da‘i, he will never use words that create hatred in the heart of the Mad‘u against him. If he is a true Da‘i, he will not even think such things in his heart. The spirit of dawah is the killer of hatred. The heart of a Da‘i is a compassionate heart. In such a heart, nothing other than love and goodwill can grow.
In ancient times, when the Aryan people came to India, they called the local people mlechchha. Similarly, Christian scholars referred to Muslims in their books as infidels. Both mlechchha and infidel are derogatory terms. The person who uses these terms may feel pleased to say them, but the one about whom they are used strongly dislikes them. In this matter, the correct approach is to use words that carry no derogatory sense, but simply convey a factual description. Unfortunately, Muslim scholars failed to exercise caution in this matter. In their books and in translations of the Quran, they began to use the word infidel casually for kafir. For example, Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi (1892-1977), in his English translation of the Quran, translated Qul ya ayyuhal-kafirun as follows:
Say thou: O ye infidels! (109:1)
In reality, it is this type of carelessness on the part of Muslim scholars and leaders that has led to severe tension between Hindus and Muslims in India, and the effects continue to appear in various unpleasant forms.
The same mistake was also made by Urdu and Persian translators of the Quran. Many translations of the Quran have been published, but with the exception of one translator (Shah Abdul Qadir), all translators adopted a careless approach in this matter. Some translations of Qul ya ayyuhal-kafirun are reproduced here:
Shah Waliullah: Bago ae kafiraan
(Say, O infidels).
Shah Rafi‘uddin: Keh ae kafiro
(Say, O infidels).
Ashraf Ali Thanvi: Aap in kafiron se keh dijiye
(Tell them, O infidels).
Abul A‘la Maududi: Keh do ke ae kafiro
(Say, O infidels).
Amin Ahsan Islahi: Keh do, ae kafiro
(Say, O infidels).
Shah Abdul Qadir: Tu keh, ae munkiro
(So say, O deniers).
Most translators have rendered this Quranic verse in this way. Translating kafir in this verse in this manner is not correct. Even if, purely from a lexical point of view, it may not be incorrect, it is still an objectionable word for other communities. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid such a translation. Moreover, this is not merely a matter of translation. On the basis of such a translation, a mindset is formed, and this mindset finds expression in speech and writing. In this way, such a translation becomes a cause of negative mental conditioning for the entire community. This translation creates a “we and they” mindset, and such a divisive mindset is not correct from the dawah perspective.
As mentioned above, only one scholar translated these Quranic words correctly, and that was Shah Abdul Qadir Dehlavi. Shah Abdul Qadir’s Urdu translation is regarded by all scholars as highly authentic. He translated the relevant verses using the word munkar (denier).
In Chapter 109 of the Quran, the phrase Qul ya ayyuhal-kafirun (say, O deniers) appears. This style of address occurs only once in the entire Quran, in this single Chapter. The words kafir, kuffar, or kafirun appear many times in the Quran, but their use in the form of a specific address, such as ayyuhal-kafirun, does not occur anywhere else in the Quran.
According to the commentators, the al in al-kafirun is al-‘ahd. That is, it refers specifically to a particular group, not to every person outside the Muslim group. Some of the commentators’ statements are given below:
“Al-mukhatabuna kuffarun makhsusun qad ‘alima Allah annahum la yu’minun” (Tafsir al-Nasafi, Vol. 3, p. 687). That is, those addressed are specific deniers whom God knows will not believe.
“Wa ‘ana bil-kafirina qawman mu‘ayyanina la jami‘al-kafirin” (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Vol. 20, p. 226). That is, the reference here is to a specific group of deniers, not to all deniers.
“Khitaabun li-jama‘atin makhsusah” (Tafsir al-Mazhari, Vol. 10, p. 354). That is, this address is directed to a specific group.
Qul ya ayyuhal-kafirun is a specific form of address and cannot be used in a general sense. That is, Qul ya ayyuhal-kafirun refers permanently only to the early deniers of Quraysh who were contemporaries of the Prophet of Islam e and who, despite the prophetic completion of proof, refused to accept the Prophet’s message. People after the period of prophethood will be addressed with the words ayyuhal-insan (O human beings), not with the words ayyuhal-kafirun (O deniers). This mode of address will continue permanently until the Day of Judgment.
The Meaning of Kafir
In Arabic, kufr means denial, and kafir means one who denies. According to Islam, kafir denotes a character; it is not a collective label for any nation or community.
Kafir is an individual character rather than a group title for a specific race or community.
A kafir is one who denies (one who refuses to accept). Among the Urdu translations of the Quran, the most accurate is considered to be that of Shah Abdul Qadir Dehlavi. In his translation of the Quran, he rendered kafir as munkir (denier). This is the correct translation of the term. English translators of the Quran often translate kafir as unbeliever. This translation is not correct. Unbeliever means one who does not believe or does not hold a belief, whereas kafir does not merely mean a non-believer. Rather, it refers to a person who refuses to accept even after the truth has been fully conveyed.
In the earliest phase, when the initial verses of the Quran were revealed, the Prophet’s addressees were not described as disbelievers. Instead, neutral, human terms were used for them. For example, the Quran addresses the Prophet in these words:
“O Messenger, deliver whatever has been sent down to you by your Lord. If you do not do so, you will not have conveyed His message. God will defend you from mankind.” (5:67)
Look at this verse carefully. Here, the words used are “God will protect you from the people” (ya‘simuka mina’n-nas). The wording is not “God will protect you from the disbelievers” (min al-kafirin). This choice of words is significant.
Throughout the Quran, many verses indicate that, as a general principle, people are addressed using neutral, inclusive human terms. The word kafir is reserved for individuals whom God Himself has explicitly designated. The term kafir is therefore a divine declaration; it is not a label to be applied by human beings at their own discretion. This distinction makes it clear that assigning such terms is not a human prerogative but a matter determined solely by God.
The Difference Between an Act and the Doer
The first verse of Chapter 109 of the Quran states: “Say: O disbelievers” (109:1). In this verse, al-kafirun refers specifically to the rejecting Quraysh of ancient Makkah. Through these words, after the completion of the proof (itmam al-hujjah), a declaration was made regarding the Quraysh rejecters that, in God’s sight, they had become disbelievers.
In other places in the Quran, the words kufr and kafir are also used. For example, it is said: “Among you are those who disbelieve and among you are those who believe” (64:2). Likewise, it is said: “Among them were those who believed, and among them were those who disbelieved” (2:253).
In this second type of verse, what is mentioned is the act (kufr), not the actor in a fixed and identified sense. That is, it is stated that a certain action constitutes disbelief, or that one who commits such an act becomes a disbeliever in God’s sight. However, in these verses, no specific group is identified or named, nor is a definitive declaration made that a particular group, as such, is disbelieving.
From this distinction in the Quranic mode of expression, an important principle becomes clear. A caller may state that committing a particular act amounts to disbelief. However, no caller or scholar has the right to issue a specific verdict declaring that a particular group or a particular nation is disbelieving.
A parallel example helps to clarify this point. A hadith states: “Whoever deliberately abandons prayer has committed disbelief” (Al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat by al-Tabarani, Hadith No. 3348). Another hadith says: “Between a person and shirk and disbelief stands the abandonment of prayer” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 82).
From these reports, it is understood that if a Muslim deliberately and persistently abandons prayer, then, in the sight of the Shariah, he enters the category of disbelief. On the basis of these hadiths, it is entirely valid for a reformer to encourage Muslims in general toward prayer, using the language of exhortation and warning, and to mention the serious consequences associated with abandoning prayer.
However, it would be completely wrong for a reformer to compile a name-by-name list of Muslims who do not pray and then publicly declare that such-and-such individuals have become disbelievers because of abandoning prayer. This kind of specific declaration goes beyond what the Shariah permits.
In the same way, a caller or reformer may, on the basis of Quranic verses, explain which actions are such that committing them causes a person to fall into disbelief in the sight of God. However, it is beyond one’s legitimate limits to take the names of non-Muslim individuals or groups and announce that such-and-such non-Muslims are disbelievers.
In this matter, it is essential to maintain the distinction between the action and the actor. The right to make a specific declaration about the actor belongs to God alone. God exercised this right only once in history—regarding the ancient deniers of Quraysh—after the Prophet had completed the conclusive proof upon them directly. As for the rest of humanity, the final declaration will be made by God in the Hereafter. Our responsibility is only to convey the message. Declaring people to be disbelievers (kuffar) is not part of our mandate.
The Problem of Credit
The term kafir, or denier, involves two simultaneous roles: the person who presents a message and the person who rejects it. One of these roles may be called the inviter, and the other the invitee.
Being a kafir (denier) is an individual role; it is not a national or communal title for a group. For an entire group to be declared kafir is an extraordinary and extreme occurrence. It implies discrediting one party for their rejection while giving credit to the other for their outreach efforts. This matter of credit and discredit is not something that can be decided through a mere fatwa or public statement; it requires a process of highly serious and committed dawah work.
The standard model for such an invitational effort is the thirteen-year Makkan period of the Prophet of Islam e. When the Prophet of Islam e began his invitational work among the people of Makkah, his address began with the words Ya ayyuha al-insan. After addressing people as human beings for thirteen years, when they knowingly persisted in rejection, only then was this verse of the Quran revealed: Qul ya ayyuha al-kafirun. Even then, it was a direct divine proclamation, not a form of address initiated by the Prophet himself.
All disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims, and all the complaints that Muslims have against non-Muslims, are essentially national and material in nature. They are purely worldly conflicts of the same kind that also occur among non-Muslim groups themselves. Such disputes cannot be described as religious conflicts between kafir and Muslim. Rather, they should be understood as worldly disputes between two groups. If the aim is to establish conclusive proof against other nations, the first necessary condition is that Muslims should, on their own initiative, bring these worldly disputes to an end.
When Denial Is Established
When does it become definitively established that a person has become a denier—that his rejection of the truth has reached the level of certainty? The answer to this question is provided by the Quran itself.
It is well known that the revelation of the Quran began in Makkah in 610 CE. Through the Quran, the Prophet of Islam e conveyed the call to monotheism to the people of Makkah. Throughout this entire period of dawah, he never addressed his addressees by calling them disbelievers. In all the verses revealed during this phase, general human terms were used. He addressed them as members of his own people and conveyed God’s message to them on that basis.
The Prophet carried out this dawah in a manner that ensured the completion of proof in the fullest sense. He remained deeply sincere in his goodwill towards them. He bore their persecution with unilateral patience. He made no demands upon them. He never said or did anything that could create a material or worldly dispute between himself and them. At every stage, he acted as their well-wisher. Despite repeated harm and hardship, he continued to pray for them.
This demanding and patient process of dawah continued for thirteen years. Even after these thirteen years, the Prophet of Islam e did not, on his own, declare them disbelievers. Only then did a verse descend from God: “Say: O you who deny” (Quran 109:1).
This shows that only after thirteen years of dawah conducted at the prophetic level did the denial of the addressees become established as a fact in the sight of God. Only at that point was it declared with certainty that their rejection had reached the level of confirmed denial.
Before the completion of such a dawah process, it is not permissible to declare any individual or group to be deniers or disbelievers.
And if, even after a prophetic effort lasting thirteen years, this certainty could be declared only by God Himself, then for ordinary people, even a hundred and thirteen years would be insufficient to make such a definitive judgment.
The Term “Kufr”
During the Meccan period, certain verses were revealed regarding non-Muslims outside of Arabia. For instance, the beginning of the Quranic chapter 30 mentions the Romans (Christians), who had been temporarily defeated by the Persians. However, the verse does not say, “The kafirs (infidels) of Rome have been defeated.” Instead, it states: “The Romans have been defeated, in a nearby land.” (30:2-3). Similarly, chapter 105 mentions Abraha, the non-Muslim ruler of Yemen. Yet, the Quran does not refer to him as “the kafir ruler of Yemen”; rather, he is identified by the term Ashab al-Fil (The People of the Elephant).
While the terms kufr and kafir were used for those in ancient Makkah who actively rejected the message, this did not lead the early Muslims to label all non-Muslims as “kafirs” thereafter. For example, after the Migration (Hijrah), when the Prophet e and his companions arrived in Madinah, both Muslims and non-Muslims were living there. However, they did not address the local people with the title of kafir. In the first address the Prophet e delivered upon reaching Yathrib, he addressed the people as:
“O people (Ayyuhan-nas), protect yourselves from the Fire, even if it be by giving a piece of a date in charity.” (Seerah Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, p. 501)
In the same way, there were many non-Muslim tribes in the areas around Madinah and in the surrounding regions. Yet they, too, were not called Arab disbelievers or disbelieving tribes. Instead, they were addressed by their well-known names, such as the people of Thaqif, the people of Najran, and the people of Bahrain.
History shows that in the early period, when Muslims left Arabia and entered the lands of Asia and Africa, people belonging to different religions lived there. They did not resort to calling these non-Muslims “kafirs.” Instead, they addressed each group by their own chosen identity. Thus, the Christians of Syria were called Christians, the Jews of Palestine were called Jews, the Magians of Iran were called Magians (Majusi), and the Buddhists of Afghanistan were called Buddhists (Budhi), and so on.
This practice continued when early Muslims arrived in India. They referred to the local population as Hindus—which is the Arabic pronunciation of “Sindhu.” The famous scholar Al-Biruni (d. 1048 AD) traveled to India, learned Sanskrit, and wrote his renowned Arabic work Kitab al-Hind (The Book on India). Throughout the book, he refers to the non-Muslims of the region as Hindus, never as “the kafirs of India.”
For more than a thousand years, this practice remained in force. Even today, this custom largely continues in India, Pakistan, and the rest of the world. Muslims live in the United States and in various European countries, where they interact with non-Muslim communities. Yet they address everyone by the names those people have chosen for themselves; they do not call them kafirs or kuffar.
A Few Historical Examples
As stated above, the style of address found in Chapter al-Kafirun appears in the Quran only for the deniers of Makkah, and even then, only after thirteen years of the Prophet’s “completion of proof” (itmam al-hujjah). With the exception of the deniers of Makkah, no one else was addressed in such a specific manner.
When the Prophet of Islam e began his mission in Makkah, he did not address people in the early phase by saying, “Ya ayyuhal-kuffar” (O deniers). Instead, the Quran revealed this verse: “O man! What is it that lures you away from your bountiful Sustainer.”(82:6)
After the migration, a sentence in the Charter of Madinah stated: “For the Jews their religion, and for the Muslims their religion.” (Sirat Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, p. 503) It did not say: “For the deniers (kuffar) their religion.”
After the conquest of Makkah, when delegations of polytheist Arab tribes came to the Messenger of God e in Madinah for discussion, the manner of address remained the same. For example, when the people of Yemen arrived, he said: “The people of Yemen have come to you.” (Maghazi al-Waqidi, Vol. 2, p. 586), not “The kuffar of Yemen have come to you.”” Similarly, the letters of invitation sent to rulers followed this pattern. The letter to the Roman Emperor began: “From Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah to Heraclius, the Great of Rome” (Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah by Ibn Kathir, Vol. 6, p. 473). He did not write: “To Heraclius, the kafir of Rome.”
After the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet e addressed his companions, saying: “God has sent me as a mercy for the whole world, so convey it on my behalf; may God show mercy to you.” (Sirat Ibn Hisham, Vol. 2, p. 607) Here, too, he did not say he was sent for all the “deniers.”
During the caliphate of ‘Umar Faruq, when the companions entered Iran, reports indicate that one companion explained their purpose to the non-Muslim ruler by saying: “So that we may bring those human beings who so choose from the worship of human beings to the worship of God.” (Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol. 3, p. 520) They did not say: “So that we may bring the deniers (kuffar) from the worship of deniers to the worship of God.”
Consequently, when early Muslims spread into foreign lands, they never addressed people as kafir or kuffar. Instead, they addressed every community by its chosen name—Christians as Christians, Jews as Jews, Magians as Magians, Buddhists as Buddhists, and so on.
The designation of someone as a kafir becomes valid only when the “completion of proof” (itmam al hujjah) has been established. There is only one model for itmam al-hujjah: the thirteen-year period of the Prophet Muhammad’s e missionary struggle in Makkah. This thirteen-year process of conveying God’s message stands permanently as the definitive model for dawah and itmam al-hujjah. Moreover, even after itmam al-hujjah has occurred, the definitive declaration that someone is a disbeliever comes from God, not from the one who conveys God’s message.
The Example of Quraysh
In the year 570, the year of the birth of the Prophet of Islam, a major event took place. Abraha, the Christian ruler of Yemen, advanced toward Makkah with a large army. His intention was to demolish the Kabah. However, due to God’s special help, he did not succeed. The Quran refers to this historical event in Chapter number 105.
When the Quran began to be revealed to the Prophet of Islam in 610 CE, Chapter 106 was revealed during this early Makkan period. The translation of this chapter reads: For the security of the Quraysh: their security in their winter and summer journeys. So let them worship the Lord of this House, who provided them with food lest they go hungry and saved them from fear. (106:1-4). In this chapter, the people of Makkah are referred to only as Quraysh, not as kafir or “the kafir of Quraysh.”
The Prophet of Islam was a messenger of monotheism. When he began his mission in Makkah, he addressed people in the same manner for a continuous period of thirteen years, saying: O people of Quraysh! O human beings! O my people! Throughout this entire period of peaceful missionary activity, he never used the term “kafir.” Although all kinds of excesses were committed by the opposing side, his sense of goodwill toward them never diminished. Enduring their persecution with one-sided patience, he continued his peaceful missionary struggle. Finally, after thirteen years, Chapter 109 was revealed in the Quran. In it, for the first time, a declaration was made by God in these words: Qul ya ayyuha al-kafirun (109:1)—that is, “Say: O deniers.”
From this, it becomes clear that the word kafir (disbeliever) denotes a quality, not a community. Had disbeliever referred to a community, the Quran would have used the expression li-ilafi al-kuffar (for making the disbelievers familiar) instead of li-ilafi Quraysh (for making Quraysh familiar) in Chapter 106, verse 1. This distinction shows that the term kafir signifies the quality of denial rather than a communal or tribal identity.
Furthermore, determining whether this quality of denial exists in a person cannot be based on assumption; it must be grounded in actual experience. That experience is defined at the prophetic level: a missionary effort of the highest standard must continue for a sustained period—at least thirteen years. Without such a process, even during the time of the Prophet himself, it was not correct to describe anyone as a disbeliever.
Debate
During the period of British rule in the Indian subcontinent, a new and undesirable practice emerged among Muslims that came to be known as munazarah (debate). In place of religious outreach, a culture of polemical disputation developed between Hindus and Muslims. This shift created an imbalanced and adversarial atmosphere between the two communities. Muslim debaters began writing books against Hindus and publishing them under titles such as Kufr Tor (Break Disbelief). In response, Hindu debaters wrote books against Muslims, publishing them under titles such as Kufr Tor Ka Bhandha Phor (Expose the Conspiracy of Disbelief).
The method of Islam is outreach, grounded in well-wishing, compassion, and one-sided patience. Debate, by contrast, seeks to defeat the opposing party. The debater’s objective is to overpower the other side, and this leads to the use of aggressive language such as, “Run a bulldozer over them all.” Such rhetoric creates hatred and tension between groups, which in turn gives rise to various kinds of problems.
Dar al-Dawah
The terms Dar al-Kufr and Bilad al-Kuffar came into use during the Abbasid period. Prior to that, these expressions were not commonly used among Muslims. In my view, the introduction of these terms was incorrect. The sound position is that an Islamic country should be referred to as Dar al-Salam, while all other countries should be described as Dar al-Dawah. Every country other than Dar al-Salam falls under Dar al-Dawah, even if it may appear hostile to Muslims.
The Quran states, with reference to the Prophet of Islam e:
“And this is a Book which We have sent down, blessed and confirming what came before it, so that you may warn the Mother of Cities and those around it” (6:93).
In this verse, Umm al-Qura refers to Makkah. At the time of revelation, Makkah was under the control of non-Muslims, and even the Kabah had been turned into a center of idol worship. Yet the Quran does not describe Makkah as Dar al-Kufr or Madinat al-Kufr. Instead, it calls it Umm al-Qura and assigns the task of warning—that is, invitation (dawah).
From this, it can be inferred that regions under non-Muslim dominance are, in Islamic terminology, to be regarded as Dar al-Dawah or Dar al-Indhar. Therefore, using terms such as Dar al-Kufr or Bilad al-Kuffar for such places is not appropriate.
When a country is referred to in a geographical sense, it should be called by its commonly recognized name—for example, Sri Lanka as Sri Lanka and South Korea as South Korea. However, when a country is discussed in terms of the responsibility of Muslims, it should be described as Dar al-Dawah. The term Dar al-Dawah does not signify a geographical classification; rather, it expresses the responsibility of Muslims to convey God’s message. (Al-Risala, December 2003)
