Fiqh Benefits | What’s the ruling on travelling to dār al-kufr and attaining their citizenships? 

 

 

 

The brother asks about residing in the lands of the kuffar to attain their citizenship.

Firstly, acquiring the citizenships of the kuffar is prohibited by default in all cases. Because what it means to acquire a citizenship is to comply with their systems, making tahakum to them, and submitting to their laws, and that you become an individual from amongst them.

It is not possible that a Muslim can become an individual from amongst the men of the kuffar, nor a soldier from amongst the soldiers of the kuffar. Because the condition that is to be known by ‘urf (traditions), is on the same level of a pronounced condition (for e.g. If you buy a car, by the ‘urf, it should have a steering wheel, even though you don’t have that condition in the contract).

It’s not a (pronounced) condition that the kafir stipulates you becoming a soldier from among their soldiers, but this is something well-known; the condition that is to be known by ‘urf (traditions) according to the fuqaha (scholars of fiqh) is on the same level of a pronounced condition.

So whenever you acquire their citizenship, then the laws of every land [you go too] would apply upon you, and the laws are mandated in all lands. For that reason, when citizenships initially came out, and some Muslims acquiring citizenships due to being subjected to severe harm, and [due to] the pressure from their rulers or the torture they would face. This issue was brought up around about 60 years ago, and no one at the time differed concerning its prohibition which is astonishing [compared to our times]. Rather, they differed upon whether he becomes a kafir or not, and they had two opinions regarding that:

1 – There are those who said he becomes an apostate; by merely acquiring the citizenship, he would become an apostate.

2 – And others said he does not become an apostate, because he is mukrah (under compulsion, fleeing torture, etc.), however he is sinful by that (as he shouldn’t have acquired it, but rather remained in their land temporarily, wallahu a’lam).

The dispute was concerning his kufr, and it was not surround the prohibition of attaining it. However, the dispute now has become surrounding whether it is prohibited, is it halal or haram? And in reality, looking at it from the perspective that he is mudtar (in serious need), the mudtar is not required to take citizenship.

Although, yes, if he was mudtar to take citizenship in the sense that if he does not take it, he will be sent back to his and where he will be tortured, then yes in this situation he will be mukrah. However, it is compulsory upon him to solidify in his heart not to make tahakum to them, to make takfir of them, and to proclaim bara’ah from them. And he will be included within the statement of Allah, the Exalted and Majestic:

إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِ

“Except for one who is forced while his heart is secure in faith.” [16:106]

As for the issue of travelling to the lands of the kuffar, the default basic principle concerning that is prohibition according to the scholars. Because Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, said:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنفُسِهِمْ قَالُوا فِيمَ كُنتُمْ ۖ قَالُوا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ ۚ قَالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللَّهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوا فِيهَا ۚ فَأُولَٰئِكَ مَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ ۖ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا

“Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves – [the angels] will say, ‘In what [condition] were you?’ They will say, ‘We were oppressed in the land.’ The angels will say, ‘Was not the earth of Allah spacious [enough] for you to emigrate therein?’ For those, their refuge is Hell – and evil it is as a destination.” [4:97]

So this is proof that whoever remains in the lands of the kuffar, and does not make hijrah while he is able to migrate, then he has fell into one of the major sins.

What is indicative of this is the hadith of Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said:

“Allah will not accept any good deed from a mushrik after having become a Muslim, until he leaves the mushrikin and joins the Muslims.”

And it is mentioned in the hadith of Isma’il ibn Abi Khalid, from Qays ibn Hazim , from Jarir ibn ‘Abdillah, that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said:

“I declare bara’ah from every Muslim who resides amongst the mushrikin.”

However, Imam al-Bukhari, Abu Hatim, Abu Zur’ah, at-Tirmidhi and ad-Daraqutni, declared that this report is mursal, and what is correct is that it is from the narration of:

Isma’il ibn Abi Khalid > from Qays ibn Hazim > from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).

And Qays ibn Hazim is mukhadram (someone who lived in the time of jahiliyyah and era of the Rasul but did not meet him to become a sahabi, but still accepted Islam). And his mursal narrations are from the strongest of marasil (mursal narrations), therefore this is included with the other proofs to prove the prohibition of travelling to the lands of the kuffar.

But if an individual had a need to travel to the land of the kuffar, such as for trade or treatment and so forth, he must take into account several matters:

1 – To display his din, by making bara’ah from them.

2 – That he is able to protect himself from fitnah. Therefore whoever is not able to protect himself from fitnah, then he is prohibited from travelling to their lands.

3 – That this is for a need.

4 – That his journey expires when his need is fulfilled.

As for those who travel to lands which might be called “Islamic states”. Most people today cannot differentiate between an Islamic state and a kafir state. So they call a land which does not rule by what Allah has revealed as an Islamic state, that even the Rafidi state, the state of Iran is called an “Islamic Republic”, because they do not differentiate between Islam, shirk, and kufr. They simply go by labels, and what the newspapers portray to them, that is what they go towards and mimic.

Thus if an individual travelled to some of these statements, and he went for an enjoyable time, he will find prohibitions and corrupt deeds, people going out dressed immodestly, and public adornments. He will see what gets exposed [from evil] and crimes, while he is unable to change anything, then it Is not permissible to travel in all cases in such a situation.

Consequently, the scholars have unanimously agreed that whoever sits in a place that has haram, it is compulsory upon him to condemn it with his hand or tongue. And if he is unable to do so, it is not sufficient that you rebuke it in your heart, you must leave the gathering if you have the ability to do so. And they have unanimously agreed that it is not permissible for you to travel to a place has haram, while you know that you will not be able to change it.

This person goes to a place and knows he will see haram, while being unable to change it, and knows with certainty that he will see haram, not just a high assumption, rather, he has yaqin that he will see haram, while he is unable to change it. So why would you go there?

You have no need or benefit, nor da’wah or ordaining good and forbidding munkar, nor did you go there to teach, nor did you go for helping anyone, rather you went there for an enjoyable time. He takes his family and children and makes them subjected to temptations and danger. The likes of these people are to be scolded and deterred from doing this, and ordered to preserve their din and ‘aqidah.

And if Imam Malik (رحمه الله) would say, if a person resides in an Islamic land, an Islamic state, an Islamic Khilafah, however in this particular land, many corruptions are found and he is unable to change it, and he is able to travel to another (Islamic) and which condemns corruption, then this is obligatory upon him!

Malik views that if someone is under a ruling of an Islamic Khilafah, and there are two (Islamic) lands, one of them is filled with corruption while you are unable to change that, and another land you go too wherein you are able to rebuke the corruption you see, Malik says it is an obligation upon to make hijrah.

So imagine if Malik heard about the issues of our times, a land of kufr, a land of prostitution, a land of despicable evil, a land of zandaqah, a land which promotes corruption and munkarat. The they give fatawa allowing travel there. These people are juhhal. He does not have firmly grounded knowledge, nor does he have din. In fact, he cannot even differentiate between Islam and kufr.

He would sit with the kuffar and does not see anything wrong with that, and at times, they would give precedence to the kuffar over the Muslims. These people are to be scolded severely, and not to be allowed to speak in such enormous matters.

– Answered by the Hāfidh, Shaykh al-‘Allāmah Sulaymān Ibn Nāsir al-‘Alwān (فك الله أسره).