In the public consciousness those concepts exist, what Orientalism, i.e. politically committed researchers publish about the East. According to this, there is Dar al-Islam, اإلسالم دار) home of Islam), where Muslims live and Dar al-Kufr, الكفر دار) home of disbelief), which is equal to Dar-alHarb, الحرب دار) home of war). With a very simple explanation this means that for Muslims all nonMuslims are unbelievers, so a war must be waged against them until they adopt Islam and become Dar al-Islam.
Well, then let's explain it.

Next to Dar al-Islam, there are other “homes” as well, that I have not mentioned so far, but neither did the “scientific” approach. Dar al-Salam, السالم دار) home of peace) is the first. It includes four homes.

1. Dar al-Islam, اإلسالم دار) home of Islam)
   
2. Dar al-Sulh, الصلح دار) home of those with whom peace is agreed)
   
3. Dar al-Ahd, العهد دار) home of those with whom there is any convention)
   
4. Dar al-Amn, االمن دار) home of those with whom the coexistence is simply safe)

They are subject to the following aya:

Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). (Quran 4:90)

Except: the exception refers to "seize them and slay them", the death penalty for repeated desertion. Even after such desertion, exemption is granted in two cases. - One is where the deserter took asylum with a tribe with whom there was a treaty of peace and amity. Presumably such a tribe (even though outside the pale of Islam) might be trusted to keep the man from fighting against the forces of Islam -in the modern phrase, to disarm him and render him harmless. - The second case for exemption is where the man from his own heart desires never to take up arms against Islam, though he does not wish to join the forces of Islam, to fight against a hostile tribe (perhaps his own) fighting against Islam. But he must make a real approach, giving guarantees of his sincerity.

These four categories are completely equivalent according to the jurisprudence of Sharia, as there is no violation of law in any place in terms of religious practice and judgment of human values. I emphasize that it does not matter what kind of religion is followed in these places and even secular, non-religious countries are involved to that group. So, none of them is Dar al-Harb. Even if there are “unbelievers” among them, there is no obligation waging war against them.

Dar al-Harb is category of countries that carry out aggression, so they attack from the outside. Then defense is necessary, in fact obligatory and this is one kind of Jihad out of many. However, war has rules as far as Sharia is concerned and that bind Muslims. Before comments come let me put it clear: I am talking about war, not crimes committed by terrorists, because they don't follow these rules. A child, a woman, an old man, a diplomat, a priest of any religion, a farmer, a businessman, i.e. civilians, cannot be attacked. No casualty or damage can be caused on shrines, sanctuaries, crops, trees, animals.

In the era of weapons implementing bacteria, viruses and radiation, it is strange to hear these rules when the majority of victims in a war today are civilians. Destroying infrastructure, food, water and life-sustaining logistics represents the priority. At the end of the day, only the soldier is left out of the events in today’s wars.
When one sees the many senseless bloodsheds even among Muslim countries, we take out incomprehensibly the books and laws which condemn and confront these terrible deeds.

We all, who are in Europe should be grateful to Allah for living in the territory of Dar al-Salam (home of peace).