Islamonweb

Islam does not categorically prohibit Muslims from permanently residing in a country governed by non-Muslims. Nor does it make establishing Islamic political rule in every country of residence an individual obligation. Classical jurists discussed these questions under the subjects of hijrah (migration), dār al-Islām and dār al-ḥarb, protection of religion, and the responsibilities of Muslim communities.

The well-established position, particularly in the Shāfiʿī and Ḥanbalī schools, permits residence under non-Muslim rule when Muslims can practise their religion and are reasonably secure in their faith. Such residence is not necessarily a concession restricted to situations of necessity.

We will explain the issue in detail given its importance and sensitivity.

Does Islam Require Muslims to Migrate from Non-Muslim Lands?

Allah says:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَالُوا فِيمَ كُنْتُمْ ۖ قَالُوا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ ۚ قَالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللَّهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوا فِيهَا

"Indeed, those whom the angels take while they have wronged themselves—the angels will ask, 'What was your condition?' They will reply, 'We were oppressed in the land.' The angels will say, 'Was Allah's earth not spacious enough for you to emigrate?'" (Al-Nisāʾ 4:97)

The following verses (4:98–99) exempt those who are genuinely unable to migrate.

Classical scholars understood these verses as establishing an obligation to migrate when a Muslim is unable to practise Islam and can reasonably move somewhere safer. However, the obligation does not apply indiscriminately to everyone living outside Muslim political authority.

Imām al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204 AH) states in al-Umm:

ودلت سنة رسول الله ﷺ على أن فرض الهجرة على من أطاقها إنما هو على من فتن عن دينه بالبلد الذي يسلم بها

"The Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ indicates that obligatory migration applies to those who are subjected to religious persecution in the land where they have embraced Islam."

He supports this position by noting that the Prophet ﷺ permitted some Muslims, including al-ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, to remain in Makkah before its conquest because they did not fear persecution.

(Al-Umm, 4:169–170, chapter on obligatory migration.)

Imām al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH), in Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn (10:282), explains:

وَإِنْ كَانَ يَقْدِرُ عَلَى إِظْهَارِ الدِّينِ ... وَلَمْ يَخَفْ فِتْنَةً فِي دِينِهِ، لَمْ تَجِبِ الْهِجْرَةُ، لَكِنْ تُسْتَحَبُّ

"If he can openly practise his religion and does not fear religious persecution, migration is not obligatory, although it is recommended."

Similarly, Ibn Qudāmah (d. 620 AH), in the Ḥanbalī work al-Mughnī (9:236–237), distinguishes three categories: those obliged to migrate because they cannot practise their religion, those excused because they cannot migrate, and those for whom migration is recommended but not obligatory because they can freely practise their faith.

Significantly, the first Hijrah in Islamic history was not to a Muslim-ruled territory or a land dominated by Muslims, but to Abyssinia, a Christian kingdom ruled by the Negus (al-Najāshī), whom the Prophet ﷺ recognised as a just ruler under whose protection Muslims could live safely and practise their faith.

These facts show that the obligation of migration is connected to religious freedom, security, and individual circumstances, not simply to whether the ruler is Muslim.

Can Non-Muslim Lands Become a Permanent Homeland?

Classical jurisprudence contains important precedents supporting continued residence in a non-Muslim-governed territory.

Imām al-Māwardī (d. 450 AH), as cited by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī in Fatḥ al-Bārī (7:229), held that when Muslims could openly practise Islam in a non-Muslim land, remaining there could be preferable to migration because of the religious benefit arising from their presence.

An especially relevant ruling comes from the Shāfiʿī jurist Shihāb al-Dīn al-Ramlī (d. 957 AH).

In Fatāwā al-Ramlī (4:52–54), he was asked about Muslims living in Aragon, Spain, under a Christian ruler. They possessed mosques, observed Ramadan and practised their religion openly. The question was whether they were sinful for continuing to live in their homeland.

Al-Ramlī answered that migration was not obligatory because they could practise their faith openly. Under the circumstances described, he even considered continued residence preferable to preserve the Muslim community and its religious presence. This ruling establishes that permanent residence under non-Muslim sovereignty is neither prohibited nor blameworthy.

The Ḥanafī jurist al-Kāsānī (d. 587 AH), in Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ (7:130–131), records the differences between Abū Ḥanīfah and his two principal students concerning when an Islamic territory becomes dār al-ḥarb. Abū Ḥanīfah attached considerable importance to security and the continuation of established protection.

Some Mālikī jurists adopted a stricter position. Al-Wansharīsī (d. 914 AH), in Asnā al-Matājir, strongly argued for migration from territories conquered by Christian powers in medieval Iberia. His discussion arose in the context of conquest and serious concerns about the survival of Muslim religious life.

Does Islam Oblige Muslims to Establish Islamic Governance Wherever They Live?

Classical Sunni jurisprudence regards political leadership and the protection of religion as important collective responsibilities. However, the classical obligation to establish an imamate must be distinguished from the circumstances of Muslims living as citizens of countries governed by non-Muslims, particularly modern constitutional democracies where people of different religions share political authority, citizenship rights and public responsibilities.

Imām al-Māwardī (d. 450 AH) writes in al-Aḥkām al-Sulṭāniyyah:

الإمامة موضوعة لخلافة النبوة في حراسة الدين وسياسة الدنيا

"The imamate is established to succeed the Prophetic office in safeguarding religion and administering worldly affairs."

He regards establishing the imamate as a collective obligation (farḍ kifāyah). Nevertheless, this classical doctrine concerns the organisation and political leadership of the Muslim community. It does not, by itself, establish an obligation upon Muslim minorities living under an existing constitutional government to replace that government with an Islamic political system.

To understand this distinction, two important concepts in Islamic jurisprudence deserve consideration: dār al-ṣulḥ and the binding nature of political covenants.

Dār al-Ṣulḥ: The Classical Recognition of Peaceful Political Arrangements

Classical jurists did not always divide the world into only dār al-Islām (territory under Islamic rule) and dār al-ḥarb (territory of war). They also recognised dār al-ṣulḥ (دار الصلح), or dār al-ʿahd (دار العهد), referring to territories governed through agreements of peace and mutual obligations.

In al-Aḥkām al-Sulṭāniyyah, while discussing territories whose inhabitants had concluded peace agreements with Muslim authorities, al-Māwardī distinguishes arrangements in which the inhabitants retained political control and ownership. He states:

ولا تصير أرضهم دار إسلام وتكون دار عهد

"Their territory does not become part of dār al-Islām; rather, it remains dār al-ʿahd."

(Al-Aḥkām al-Sulṭāniyyah, chapter on the distribution of fayʾ and spoils, p. 176 in the cited edition.)

This is an important juristic recognition that peaceful political relationships with non-Muslim authorities can exist without transferring their territories to Islamic sovereignty.

Historically, dār al-ṣulḥ referred to formal agreements between political authorities, often with particular conditions concerning security, tribute and territorial administration. Therefore, modern constitutional democracies cannot be classified automatically as dār al-ṣulḥ in precisely the same technical sense.

Nevertheless, the underlying principles of peaceful coexistence, mutual security, recognition of political agreements and fulfilment of obligations provide a significant foundation for contemporary Islamic discussions of citizenship and pluralistic governance.

Constitutional Citizenship as a Binding Covenant

In a modern constitutional democracy, the relationship between the state and its citizens is fundamentally different from the historical relationship between an Islamic state and a foreign territory.

Citizens from different religious communities participate in a shared constitutional order that establishes their rights, duties, and political institutions. The constitution functions as a common legal framework governing their coexistence.

From an Islamic jurisprudential perspective, this arrangement can be understood through the principles of ʿahd (covenant), ʿaqd (contract) and mīthāq (solemn agreement).

Allah commands:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَوْفُوا بِالْعُقُودِ

"O believers! Honour your obligations." (Al-Māʾidah 5:1)

Similarly:

وَأَوْفُوا بِالْعَهْدِ ۖ إِنَّ الْعَهْدَ كَانَ مَسْئُولًا

"Honour your pledges, for you will surely be accountable for them." (Al-Isrāʾ 17:34)

The Qur’an further emphasises the importance of honouring agreements even when religious solidarity is involved:

وَإِنِ اسْتَنْصَرُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَعَلَيْكُمُ النَّصْرُ إِلَّا عَلَىٰ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ

"If they seek your help in matters of faith, you are obliged to help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty." (Al-Anfāl 8:72)

Imām al-Qurṭubī (d. 671 AH), commenting on this verse, explains:

فلا تنصروهم عليهم، ولا تنقضوا العهد حتى تتم مدته

"Do not support them against those people, and do not violate the covenant until its term has expired."

(Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, commentary on 8:72.)

Although this verse originally addresses political and military relations, it clearly demonstrates the weight that Islamic law attaches to recognised agreements, even when those agreements involve non-Muslim communities.

The Prophet ﷺ himself concluded the Treaty of al-Ḥudaybiyyah with the Quraysh, accepting negotiated terms for the sake of peace. The detailed account is recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (2731–2732).

These precedents establish that honouring legitimate agreements with non-Muslims is not merely political convenience but an Islamic ethical and legal responsibility.

Accordingly, where Muslims and non-Muslims share citizenship under an agreed constitutional framework, Muslims are bound to respect its lawful obligations, just as they are entitled to the rights and protections it guarantees. Such a covenant also provides a legitimate framework for seeking reforms and defending rights through established political and legal processes.

Contemporary Juristic Recognition of Citizenship

This understanding has received explicit recognition from contemporary Islamic jurisprudential institutions.

The International Islamic Fiqh Academy, in Resolution No. 155 (17/4), adopted at its seventeenth session in Amman in June 2006, addressed the relationship between Islamic religious commitments and citizenship in non-Muslim countries.

The Academy stated:

ليس هناك مانع شرعي من إسهام المسلمين في غير الدول الإسلامية في الأنشطة الاجتماعية، أو السياسية، أو الاقتصادية التي لا تتعارض مع الثوابت المتقدمة ولا سيما إذا اقتضت المواطنة ذلك، شريطة ألا تهدد هويتهم وشخصيتهم الإسلامية.

"There is no Sharīʿah objection to Muslims in non-Islamic countries participating in social, political or economic activities that do not conflict with established Islamic principles, particularly when citizenship requires such participation, provided their Islamic identity is not endangered."

The Academy thus explicitly recognises the legitimacy of political participation and civic responsibilities in countries governed outside the framework of Islamic political rule.

Similarly, the European Council for Fatwa and Research, in Resolution No. 61 (1/16), adopted in 2006, discussed the classical division into dār al-Islām, dār al-ḥarb and dār al-ʿahd. It explained that these classifications developed within particular historical circumstances and that contemporary Muslim citizens living in religiously plural societies must fulfil their obligations under the covenant of citizenship.

Application to India and Other Constitutional Democracies

India provides an important example of this discussion.

The Indian Constitution establishes a secular democratic republic in which citizens of different religions possess a common political identity and participate in constitutional institutions.

Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and religious practice, subject to the constitutional limitations specified in that provision. Article 26 protects certain rights of religious denominations, while Articles 29 and 30 recognise cultural and educational rights, including religious minorities' rights to establish and administer educational institutions.

These constitutional provisions establish a legal framework through which Muslims can practise their religion, maintain educational and religious institutions, participate in public affairs and seek protection of their rights.

The constitutional arrangement may consequently be understood, by contemporary juristic analogy, as a civic covenant among citizens and the state. It is not a treaty negotiated separately between each religious community, but a shared framework through which their rights and responsibilities are legally recognised.

In such circumstances, Muslims are not religiously obliged to establish Islamic law as the governing law of the state or to replace its constitutional institutions merely because the political system is not based on Sharīʿah.

They remain responsible for practising Islam in their personal and communal lives, preserving their religious identity and fulfilling the obligations of their faith. At the same time, they can recognise the legitimacy of constitutional procedures for public decision-making and the rights of fellow citizens who follow other religions.

Islamic commitments concerning justice, protection of life, religious freedom and public welfare can be pursued through legitimate civic and political participation. Where religious rights are threatened or violated, Muslims have legitimate grounds to seek remedies through courts, public advocacy and other lawful means.

Justice and Peaceful Coexistence

The Qur’an establishes a broader ethical principle governing relations with people of other religions:

لَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُمْ مِنْ دِيَارِكُمْ أَنْ تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

"Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are just." (Al-Mumtaḥanah 60:8)

Thus, Islam recognises justice, peaceful coexistence and the fulfilment of covenants as essential responsibilities.

The religious obligation of Muslims living in a constitutional democracy is not to undermine the shared political order merely because it is secular, but to maintain their faith, honour their civic commitments, protect their legitimate rights and contribute to a just and peaceful society.

This understanding preserves both their Islamic identity and their responsibilities as citizens of a common homeland.

What Are the Collective Responsibilities of Muslims?

Permissibility of residence does not mean that Muslims have no responsibilities towards their religious community.

Allah says:

وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتُ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍ يَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ

"The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong." (Al-Tawbah 9:71)

Muslims therefore have responsibilities to assist one another and maintain religious life. Depending on circumstances and their capacities, these include:

• Religious institutions: Maintaining mosques, Islamic educational institutions, qualified scholarship and opportunities for learning and practising Islam.
• Community welfare: Organising zakāt, charity, awqāf, assistance to disadvantaged families and other forms of social support.
• Collective representation: Establishing lawful religious, educational, charitable and civic organisations to protect community interests and address grievances.
• Civic participation: Using legitimate constitutional and democratic avenues to seek justice, defend religious freedom, and contribute to the common good.
• Relations with wider society: Cooperating with fellow citizens irrespective of religion, upholding justice and fulfilling lawful agreements.

These activities are important means of fulfilling Islamic ethical and communal duties. However, the Qur’anic obligation of mutual support does not prescribe one particular political party, organisation or strategy as mandatory for all Muslims.

Political participation may be beneficial or necessary in particular circumstances to protect rights, but the means must remain lawful, just and peaceful.

Preserving the Faith of Future Generations

Protecting children's religious upbringing is a particularly important responsibility, regardless of the country in which a family lives.

Allah says:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قُوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَأَهْلِيكُمْ نَارًا

"O believers! Protect yourselves and your families from a Fire." (Al-Taḥrīm 66:6)

The Prophet ﷺ said:

كُلُّكُمْ رَاعٍ وَكُلُّكُمْ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ

"Every one of you is a guardian, and every one of you is responsible for those under his care."

(Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 893; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 1829)

Parents must therefore make reasonable efforts to provide their children with Islamic education, religious guidance, sound moral upbringing and opportunities to participate in a supportive Muslim community.

This responsibility does not require social isolation or hostility towards people of other religions. Rather, it calls for a confident religious identity accompanied by knowledge, good character and respect for others.

If a family's circumstances seriously threaten its ability to preserve its faith, it must take appropriate steps to address those dangers. In extreme cases, migration may become necessary if religious obligations cannot otherwise be fulfilled and safe migration is possible.

However, the mere existence of different religious beliefs and lifestyles within a society does not automatically make residence there impermissible.

Conclusion

Classical Islamic jurisprudence distinguishes between residence where Muslims can safely practise their religion and circumstances in which their faith is seriously endangered.

The Shāfiʿī and Ḥanbalī traditions, among others, provide clear grounds for permitting residence under non-Muslim rule without requiring necessity as the sole justification. Other jurists took more restrictive positions, particularly in historically specific circumstances.

Therefore, Muslims may regard a country such as India as their permanent home without considering themselves religiously obliged to establish Islamic political rule there.

At the same time, permanent residence carries serious religious responsibilities, including preserving Islamic faith and education, supporting community institutions, fulfilling family obligations, promoting justice and protecting religious freedoms through legitimate means.

Faithfulness to Islam and responsible citizenship in one's homeland are not inherently contradictory. What matters is the ability to uphold one's religious obligations while fulfilling the duties of justice, peaceful coexistence and public responsibility.

Allah knows best.

Classical Islamic Sources

1. Al-Shāfiʿī, Muḥammad ibn Idrīs. Al-Umm (الأم), vol. 4, pp. 169–170, Farḍ al-Hijrah.
2. Al-Nawawī, Yaḥyā ibn Sharaf. Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn (روضة الطالبين وعمدة المفتين), vol. 10, p. 282.
3. Ibn Qudāmah, ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad. Al-Mughnī (المغني), vol. 9, pp. 236–237, Faṣl fī al-Hijrah.
4. Al-Ramlī, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn Ḥamzah. Fatāwā al-Ramlī (فتاوى الرملي), vol. 4, pp. 52–54, Islamic Library edition.
5. Al-Kāsānī, Abū Bakr ibn Masʿūd. Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ fī Tartīb al-Sharāʾiʿ (بدائع الصنائع في ترتيب الشرائع), vol. 7, pp. 130–131.
6. Al-Māwardī, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad. Al-Aḥkām al-Sulṭāniyyah (الأحكام السلطانية), pp. 5–6, chapter on the Imamate.
7. Al-Māwardī, Al-Aḥkām al-Sulṭāniyyah, pp. 175–176, chapter on the distribution of fayʾ and spoils, concerning dār al-ʿahd.
8. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī. Fatḥ al-Bārī bi-Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (فتح الباري), vol. 7, p. 229, Dār al-Maʿrifah edition.
9. Al-Wansharīsī, Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā. Asnā al-Matājir wa Bayān Aḥkām man Ghuliba ʿalā Waṭanihi al-Naṣārā (أسنى المتاجر وبيان أحكام من غلب على وطنه النصارى), pp. 5–6, 24–25, ed. Ḥusayn Muʾnis, Maktabat al-Thaqāfah al-Dīniyyah, 1986.
10. Al-Qurṭubī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān (الجامع لأحكام القرآن), commentary on Sūrah al-Anfāl 8:72. Page varies by edition.

Contemporary Islamic Jurisprudential Resolutions

11. International Islamic Fiqh Academy (IIFA). Resolution No. 155 (17/4): Reconciling Adherence to Islamic Fundamentals with the Requirements of Citizenship for Muslims Outside Islamic Countries. 17th Session, Amman, Jordan, 24–28 June 2006.
12. European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR). Resolution No. 61 (1/16): Muslims as Citizens and Residents in Europe (المسلمون مواطنون ومقيمون في أوروبا). 16th Session, Istanbul, Türkiye, 3–9 July 2006.