Sulh: Difference between revisions

In Quranic Arabic, ṣulḥ is used as a term signifying an agreement or settlement over a property dispute and retains this sense in later Islamic legal usage. In Bedouin customary law, it can signify a settlement of a tribal feud and in modern Arabic usage, it is applied to treaties, such as ṣulḥ Versailles (the Treaty of Versailles). <ref>Lewis, (1991), pg 78-80 </ref> In general, it reflects a sense of resolution of conflict through negotiation. The two parties select respected individuals to mediate the conflict, a truce (hudna) is declared, a settlement is reached that maintains the honor and status of both parties, and a public ritual takes place. Particularly important is the fact that the practice affirms bonds between groups and not just individuals. <ref>Irani, George Emile (2006). "Apologies and Reconciliation: Middle Eastern Rituals". Taking wrongs seriously: apologies and reconciliation. Stanford University Press. </ref> It averts a cycle of revenge. <ref>Gopin, Marc (2002). Holy war, holy peace: how religion can bring peace to the Middle East. Oxford University Press. </ref>

Ṣulḥ, in its sense of conflict mediation, has always been an important means of resolving disputes. In the Middle Ages, qadis could ratify an amicable settlement reached by litigants. <ref>Tillier, Mathieu (2016-12-30). "Arbitrage et conciliation aux premiers siècles de l'Islam : théories, pratiques et usages sociaux". Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée (in French) (140): vol 140, 27–52. doi:10.4000/remmm.9590. ISSN 0997-1327. </ref> It is still common in rural areas where governmental systems of justice have little force. <ref>Gopin, Marc (2002). Holy war, holy peace: how religion can bring peace to the Middle East. Oxford University Press. </ref>

In the early days of the Islamic Empire, ṣulḥ, in the sense of "treaty" or "armistice," typically meant that a region had "surrendered on terms" or similarly during the Ottoman retreat it preceded a region's independence. Typically, it signified an area that was ruled and administered by its local political structure but acknowledged itself as a subject through the payment of tribute. <ref>Lewis, (1991), pg 78-80</ref>

Dār aṣ-Ṣulḥ, was then seen as non-Muslim territory that had concluded an armistice with Muslims, and had agreed to protect Muslims and their clients and interests within its borders. Often this implied a tributary situation, however modern writings also include friendly countries in Dār aṣ-Ṣulḥ. By no means was this particular division, however, recognized by all Muslim jurists, and due to historical changes these concepts have little significance today. <ref>Esposito, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Oxford University Press, 2003, ISBN 0-19-512559-2, pg 62-62 </ref>