What Is the Ruling on Residing in Non-Muslim Lands, and How Do We Reconcile the Hadith With the Migration to Abyssinia?

Secondly: The Hadith “I Am Free From Every Muslim Who Resides Among the Polytheists”

Thirdly: Why Did the Prophet ﷺ Instruct His Companions to Migrate to Abyssinia Although It Was a Non-Muslim Country? This is one of the most important issues raised in the question. Before the migration to Madinah, Makkah was under the authority of the polytheists, and the Muslims there were subjected to harm and persecution. The Islamic state in Madinah had not yet been established. When the persecution of the Companions رضي الله عنهم intensified, the Prophet ﷺ permitted them to migrate to Abyssinia. At that time, Abyssinia was ruled by the Negus, who was then a Christian. However, he was a just king who did not oppress those who sought refuge with him.

The point of evidence: The Prophet ﷺ permitted the Companions رضي الله عنهم to move from a country ruled by polytheists, where they were being persecuted because of their religion, to a country ruled by a non-Muslim king, where they could worship Allah and be safe regarding their religion. This indicates that the mere fact that a ruler is non-Muslim does not make moving to his country prohibited in every circumstance. Rather, necessity, need, and the safety of one's religion must be taken into consideration. Fourthly: How Do We Reconcile the Migration to Abyssinia With the Hadith Prohibiting Residence Among the Polytheists? These two matters can be reconciled in several ways. The first consideration: The difference in circumstances and situations. The Companions' رضي الله عنهم migration to Abyssinia was undertaken to protect their religion from persecution. It was not residence merely for luxury or worldly gain. As for the hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ declared himself free from those residing among the polytheists, it was stated in the context of warning against residence among them in a manner that exposes a Muslim to danger. The scholars discussed it alongside the rulings concerning obligatory migration. The second consideration: The migration to Abyssinia occurred before the establishment of the Islamic state in Madinah. At that time, the Companions رضي الله عنهم did not have an Islamic country to which they could migrate. Abyssinia was therefore a country where they could safeguard their religion. Later, when the Prophet ﷺ migrated to Madinah, migration to Madinah became obligatory in certain circumstances, until Allah granted the conquest of Makkah. However, it is not correct to claim that migration to Abyssinia was permissible and that its ruling was subsequently abrogated by an absolute prohibition of all residence in non-Muslim countries. Abrogation cannot be established merely because of a difference in time. Rather, it requires evidence, and it is possible to reconcile the religious texts by recognizing the differences in circumstances. The third consideration: Migration is not limited to moving from a non-Muslim country to a Muslim-majority country. The religious objective of obligatory migration is for a Muslim to move from a place where he cannot practice his religion to a place where he can, while observing the other relevant rulings and conditions. Shaykh Ibn Baz رحمه الله stated, when discussing the migration to Abyssinia, that the Muslims moved to a country where there was less harm and persecution because no Islamic country existed at that time to which they could migrate. He then explained that it is permissible, when needed, to move to a country where the harm is less severe if no better alternative is available.

Fifthly: When Does Migration Become Obligatory, and When Is Residence Permissible? Imam Ibn Qudamah رحمه الله mentioned in Al-Mughni, in the chapter concerning migration, that people fall into three categories regarding migration. The first category: Those upon whom migration is obligatory. This includes a person who is capable of migrating but cannot openly practice his religion or fulfill his religious obligations while residing among non-Muslims. The second category: Those upon whom migration is not obligatory because they are unable to migrate. This includes the weak, the sick, and those who cannot find a safe route for migration. It also includes those who are genuinely unable to relocate. The third category: Those for whom migration is recommended but not obligatory. This includes those who can openly practice their religion and fulfill their religious obligations while also having the ability to relocate. This classification demonstrates that the scholars did not assign the same ruling to everyone residing in non-Muslim countries. Important note: The fact that migration is not obligatory upon a Muslim in a particular situation does not mean that every reason for residing in that country is permissible. A person may be able to practice his religion, yet his travel or permanent settlement may still be impermissible according to some scholars because there is no valid need or because other trials and temptations are present. Sixthly: Conditions for Residing in Non-Muslim Countries According to the Scholars

These conditions become even more important in cases of long-term residence. The following conditions should also be added: - The ability to openly practice Islam, establish the prayer, and fulfill all other religious obligations. - Safety from trials that may affect one's religion and from apostasy. - The ability to raise children upon Islamic Aqeedah and protect them from causes of deviation. - Preserving one's Islamic identity and not assimilating into beliefs and customs that contradict the Shariah. - Limiting residence to the extent necessary when the justification for it is a temporary need. It is not sufficient for a Muslim merely to be able to pray and fast while neglecting his children's religion or exposing them to clear religious trials from which he cannot protect them. Seventhly: Examples of Circumstances in Which Residence May Be Permissible 1. Residing for the purpose of calling to Allah An example is a scholar or qualified student of knowledge who moves to a non-Muslim country to teach Muslims their Aqeedah and invite non-Muslims to Islam, while being able to openly practice his religion and remain safe from trials. Shaykh Ibn Baz رحمه الله permitted this under its relevant conditions. 2. Traveling for trade An example is a merchant who travels to purchase goods or conclude a business agreement and then returns to his country. This is less serious than permanent residence. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen رحمه الله distinguished between temporary travel for trade and long-term residence, while stipulating that one's religion must remain safe. However, Shaykh Ibn Baz رحمه الله took a stricter position regarding traveling for trade without possessing knowledge and insight that would protect a person from trials. Therefore, scholars do not agree on every form of this matter. 3. Traveling for medical treatment An example is a Muslim who requires surgery or necessary medical treatment that is unavailable in his own country or in an Islamic country that he can access. This is permissible when there is a genuine necessity or valid need, provided that the necessary means are taken to preserve one's religion. A patient facing necessity is not required to be a scholar capable of responding to every doubt. Rather, his circumstances must be considered, and whatever measures are possible should be taken to protect him. 4. Traveling for studies An example is a Muslim who needs to study an important specialization, such as medicine, engineering, or certain beneficial sciences, and cannot obtain that education in a suitable Muslim country. Those scholars who permit such travel do so subject to conditions, the most important being knowledge that enables a person to repel doubts, religious commitment that prevents him from following desires, and a genuine need for the specialization. 5. Fleeing persecution and fear for one's life and religion This is one of the clearest situations demonstrated by the migration of the Companions رضي الله عنهم to Abyssinia. If a Muslim is persecuted in a Muslim country or fears for his life or religion and cannot find a Muslim country to which he can migrate and where he can be safe, it is permissible for him to move to a non-Muslim country where he can safeguard himself and his religion. Shaykh Ibn Baz رحمه الله explicitly stated that it is permissible to move to a country of safety and well-being when a person cannot openly practice his religion and fears religious trials. There is an important point to mention here: If a Muslim subsequently finds an Islamic country where he can practice his religion and where he and his family will be safe, then if remaining in the non-Muslim country prevents him from practicing his religion, he must relocate if he is capable of doing so. However, if he can openly practice his religion and is safe from trials, it is not correct to declare that moving away is obligatory upon him in every circumstance. Rather, the reason for his residence, the rulings concerning migration, and the recognized benefits and harms must be considered. Eighthly: Is It Sufficient for a Muslim to Pray and Fast in Order to Be Considered Capable of Openly Practicing His Religion? The meaning of openly practicing one's religion should not be restricted merely to performing the prayer and fasting while neglecting the other religious obligations or being unable to protect one's Aqeedah.

Conclusion: The basic principle according to the scholars is that residence in non-Muslim countries without a valid need is prohibited, particularly when such residence exposes the Muslim or his family to trials affecting their religion. Migration becomes obligatory upon a person who cannot practice his religion and is capable of moving to a country where his religion will be safe. As for someone who is unable to migrate, he is excused. Residence in non-Muslim countries may be permissible due to a need or a legitimate religious benefit, such as calling to Allah, necessary studies, medical treatment, trade under its relevant conditions, or fleeing persecution, provided that the Muslim can practice his religion, remain safe from trials, and protect his family and children. As for the migration of the Companions رضي الله عنهم to Abyssinia, it does not contradict the religious texts concerning migration. This is because they moved, with the permission of the Prophet ﷺ, from a country where persecution and religious trials had become severe to a country where the Muslims could safeguard their religion. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that residence in non-Muslim countries is permissible without restriction, nor that it is prohibited in every circumstance. Rather, the ruling differs according to one's ability to practice his religion, safety from trials, the need for residence, and the possibility of migrating to a country that is better for one's religion. If migration becomes obligatory upon a Muslim and he is able to undertake it, it is not permissible for him to delay it without a valid excuse.