CHAPTER 6

Shari’a on Citizenship and Political

Participation in a “Non-Muslim” Country

Introduction
The issue of civic participation among Muslims in the West encapsulates a
broad spectrum of perspectives among scholars and individuals, reflecting
the diversity of experiences and beliefs within Muslim communities.
From fervently advocating for active engagement in political processes
to expressing reservations or even discouragement towards such activi-
ties, the discourse surrounding Muslim civic engagement is diverse and
complex (Jamal 2005: 524; Cesari 2006; March 2009a; El Fadl 1994a;
1994b). These varying viewpoints are shaped by a myriad of factors,
including religious interpretation, cultural upbringing, and socio-political
contexts (Yilmaz 2002; 2003; 2005; 2023; 2024).
Examining the patterns of political behaviour among Muslim commu-
nities in America reveals the profound influence of ethnic and cultural
backgrounds. Arab Muslim communities, for instance, often exhibit
higher levels of participation and engagement within mosques compared
to their South Asian or African-American counterparts, illustrating the
nuanced dynamics at play within different segments of the Muslim
population (Jamal 2005: 524; Cesari 2006).
The political engagement of Arab Americans in the aftermath of the 9/
11 terrorist attacks underscores the complex motivations driving Muslim
involvement in Western political life. Beyond the imperative to combat

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 145

Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024
I. Yilmaz and D. P. Sokolova-Shipoli, Muslim Legal Pluralism
in the West, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4260-8_6
146 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

negative stereotypes and improve public perception, many Arab Amer-

icans perceive greater political engagement as a means to advocate for
issues of significance to their communities, particularly regarding Amer-
ican policies in the Middle East, such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
(Jamal 2005: 535; Cesari 2010).
On the other hand, the vast majority of respondents to a research study
conducted in Australia, 92.2%, perceive interactions with non-Muslims as
“normal and good.” Only a small percentage, 5.7%, believe that engaging
with non-Muslims should primarily be for proselytizing purposes, while
very few respondents expressed views suggesting that engaging with non-
Muslims is discouraged or forbidden in Islam. These findings challenge
notions propagated by some Wahhabi and Salafi interpretations, which
advocate for loyalty to Muslims and disavowal of non-Muslims. Instead,
the survey suggests that Muslim Australians overwhelmingly reject the
idea that engaging with non-Muslims contradicts Islamic teachings (Rane
et al. 2020).
Renowned Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan passionately advocates for
robust Muslim participation in various spheres of Western society, empha-
sizing the importance of societal integration in fulfilling the essence
of Islam (Ramadan 1999: 134). However, this perspective encounters
challenges from within the Muslim community, where differing view-
points—ranging from moderate to puritanical—highlight the complexity
of navigating civic participation in Western democracies.
This chapter aims to explore the dynamic intersection of civic engage-
ment, political participation, and the evolving Muslim identity within
Western societies, shedding light on the factors influencing Muslim polit-
ical behaviour and advocating for inclusive dialogue to foster cohesive
civic participation.

Democracy
It is true that there are groups, both among Muslims and non-Muslims,
who believe that Islam and democracy are not compatible. They argue
that democratic values and human rights contradict Islamic beliefs and
values. Democracy, being a concept developed in the West with a focus
on individual rights, is opposed by some Muslim groups as an incom-
patible system. Similarly, some non-Muslims also perceive democracy as
conflicting with their own values. The ongoing debate extends beyond
the question of whether democracy can be replicated in Muslim-majority
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 147

countries. Moderate and puritan Muslim leaders, experts, and scholars

engage in theological discussions regarding the permissibility for Muslims
to live in a democratic government, particularly in the West. Among the
topics debated is whether Muslims should be granted collective rights,
including the option to choose their own set of laws in order to live in a
particular state. The theological aspect of this debate often centres around
the question of whether Muslims can live according to human-made laws
rather than the laws of God (El-Fadl 2007: 180–182). This debate some-
times overlooks the human dimension of Shari’a, an oversight shared by
some non-Muslims who criticize Shari’a and by Muslims who defend the
“laws of God” against human laws.
Differentiating between moderates and puritans is not always straight-
forward, even for El-Fadl, who introduced this categorization. Moderates
are often perceived as Muslims who favour democracy, human rights, and
Western values. However, this is not always the case. Moderates do value
the positive aspects of the West, unlike others who tend to view everything
Western as inherently negative. For instance, Rafa al-Tahtawi, an Egyptian
moderate scholar who visited Paris in the early twentieth century, admired
the cleanliness, organization, and beauty of the city. He was impressed by
the diligence, punctuality, productivity, and education of the Parisians. He
praised these qualities and, like any Muslim scholar, considered them to
be Islamic values. In his view, the achievements of Parisians were, in fact,
Islamic values, leading to a debate about whether other religions possess
these values. However, in Tahtawi’s Egypt, people were not known for
their diligence, education, productivity, or punctuality, and the cities were
not well-organized, clean, or beautiful. Tahtawi famously remarked after
his trip, “In Paris, I saw Islam but there were no Muslims, but in Egypt,
I see Muslims but there is no Islam” (El-Fadl 2007: 176).
Moderate Muslim scholars generally argue that although democracy
and human rights may be Western inventions, this does not mean that
Muslims cannot live in democracies or uphold human rights. They
disagree with those, both Muslims and non-Muslims, who claim that
non-Westerners are incapable of living in democracies and that democ-
racy is incompatible with Islam. On the contrary, they contend that both
democracy and human rights are rooted in Islamic theology and law. They
further argue that oppression is a grave offence against both God and
fellow humans, citing the Qur’an, which describes oppression as corrup-
tion and an offence against the Almighty because humans possess inherent
dignity (El-Fadl 2007: 183). Moreover, moderates refer to certain verses
148 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

of the Qur’an that argue Muslims who accept to live under despotism
become complacent, submit to the oppressor, and act unjustly towards
themselves, causing harm (El-Fadl 2007: 184).
Moderate Muslim scholars often cite Qur’anic verses and traditions
from the Prophet’s time to argue that liberty is an inherent right granted
to every individual. They emphasize that God has created humans as free
beings and question who has the right to oppress people when God has
given them freedom. According to them, freedom is necessary for the
sincerity of one’s submission to God. If individuals are forced into reli-
gious practices without the freedom to choose, the sincerity of their belief
is compromised. The Qur’an calls for the worship of God alone, and if
humans are elevated above one another, oppression becomes the result.
The view that Islam and democracy are incompatible has been
promoted by some extremist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, but rejected
by others like the Muslim Brotherhood. In the Islam in Australia survey,
over 80% of respondents agreed that Islam is mostly or completely
compatible with democracy. Additionally, there is strong support among
Muslim Australians for key principles of democracy such as freedom of
religion, equality under the law, human rights, and the rule of law. These
findings indicate a strong rejection of the idea that Islam and democracy
cannot coexist (Rane et al. 2020).
The concept of haqq (right) is also commonly invoked by scholars who
argue for the compatibility of Islam with democracy. In Islamic law, both
God and humans have their respective rights. The rights of God are ulti-
mately measured on the Day of Judgment by God Himself, while the
rights of individuals need to be safeguarded by humans in this world.
Justice is a central pillar of Islam and signifies the presence of God.
While only God can deliver perfect justice, it is the responsibility of
humans to strive for the best form of justice in this world. Many Islamic
scholars consider justice as an obligation, with some even suggesting that
a just non-Muslim is superior to an unjust Muslim in the eyes of God.
Thus, justice should be a fundamental element of the ideal political system
for Muslims, with a balance between rights and duties for individuals,
access to power and institutions, and the promotion of justice, combating
injustice, and protecting people from oppression.
The notion of Shura, or consultation, is also frequently discussed by
moderate scholars in relation to democracy. Shura is seen as a method by
which Muslims should conduct their affairs and make decisions. It empha-
sizes interaction, debate, and finding the best way to govern through
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 149

collective decision-making. This concept of Shura is considered by some,

including Mawlana Abul Kalam Azad and Muhammad Iqbal, as a clear
reflection of democracy.
Historical examples are often referenced to support the argument that
Islam is compatible with democracy. The Prophet of Islam drafted the
constitution of Medina, which outlined the duties, obligations, and rights
of Muslims and non-Muslims in the Islamic state. This early form of a
constitution is used to argue that a legitimate system of governance in
Islam can be constitutional. Additionally, the second caliph, Umar, estab-
lished a representative body called the People Who Loosen and Bind,
which comprised different communities of the Islamic state and had the
power to make binding decisions enforced by everyone.
Consensus, or ijma, is another aspect considered in discussions about
the compatibility of Islam and democracy. Moderate scholars define ijma
as the existence of a single majority, which parallels the unity of will of
the majority in democracy. It is seen as a form of consultation that results
in decisions on specific issues. These scholars often argue that the will
of the majority is important but should be constrained by constitutional
boundaries.
Independent reasoning, or ijtihad, is also seen as essential in Islamic
law (Yilmaz 2019; 2020). Some argue that ijtihad is more feasible in a
democratic type of government compared to other forms, as democracy
allows for critical problem-solving within the Muslim community.
Regarding sovereignty, Muslims generally agree that the ultimate
sovereign is God. However, they differ in their understanding of the
sovereignty granted to humans by God to manage their affairs. While
God has the authority to punish or reward in the Hereafter, humans
have been given the responsibility to make decisions concerning human
laws, governance, and human relations based on the best knowledge they
possess. Moderates argue that humans are sovereign in making human
laws and legislation, while affairs with God are left to God. Critics may
view this perspective as secular, as it distinguishes between human and
divine domains.
The label of moderate Muslim scholars is broad and encompasses
various viewpoints, some of which may conflict with each other. Some
scholars accept the laws in the Qur’an as constitutional laws that should
not be altered, while others argue that only certain parts of Shari’a law
should be adopted, primarily as a moral and ethical guide. There are
also scholars who advocate for a legislature that can pass any laws not
150 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

in conflict with basic moral standards inspired by the Shari’a, with a

supreme court having veto powers over inconsistent legislation. These
approaches generally reject theocratic governments and wide enforcement
of divine laws, emphasizing the importance of allowing humans to make
decisions. They argue that institutions or individuals should not inter-
cept the relationship between humans and God, as God speaks directly
to humans. Authoritarianism, where the state assumes the role of God, is
seen as the most godless society, as associating someone with God (shirk)
is considered the greatest sin in Islam.
Self-identified pious Muslims often oppose regimes that claim to be
Islamic but may not necessarily act in accordance with Islamic princi-
ples. Islamist parties that win elections in Muslim-majority countries often
face opposition from the Muslim population, leading to their eventual
decline with a few exceptions (Yilmaz 2009; 2016; 2021; 2022). Democ-
racy in countries with large Muslim populations does not necessarily need
to be identical to Western democracy. Rather, it can be a self-developed
Islamic democracy based on principles such as Shura, Ijma, and Ijtihad.
Scholars argue that democracy is even required for the practice of Tawhid
(oneness of God), as it allows people to choose and ultimately choose
God. Moderate Muslim scholars emphasize the compatibility of Islam
and democracy by highlighting concepts such as consensus, indepen-
dent reasoning, sovereignty, and the rejection of theocratic governments.
They propose the development of an Islamic democracy rooted in Islamic
principles, tailored to the specific context of Muslim-majority countries.
Puritans, in contrast to moderate Muslim scholars, reject democracy as
a Western invention and consider it unacceptable for Muslims. They advo-
cate for the re-establishment of the caliphate as the only legitimate form
of governance in Islam. However, it should be noted that throughout
history, different caliphs adopted varying types of government, imple-
menting different policies and institutions. Therefore, it is inaccurate to
assume that there was a singular caliphate model that all caliphs followed.
While puritans recognize the institution of Shura and often consider
it the preferred form of government, they provide limited explanation
about its specifics. They advocate for a system where there is a single ruler
who applies the laws of God. This ruler is expected to possess qualities of
justice, piety, and benevolence. Although consultation with a shura body
is mentioned, the ruler is not subjected to checks and accountability. The
puritans argue that the ruler’s decisions are final and correct.
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 151

In the puritan perspective, the government should enforce religious

practices such as prayer, fasting, mosque attendance, and the veiling of
women, as they consider divine law to be just. They view existing states
as illegitimate because they implement Western laws and government
systems, and therefore advocate for their overthrow.
Tariq Ramadan advocates for Muslims to actively engage in non-
Muslim countries as a means of fulfilling their duty to diminish injustice
and contribute to solving societal problems. He believes that democracies
can be achieved through the full participation of citizens. Ramadan cites
the example of the Prophet Yusuf, who held a position of political respon-
sibility under the rule of Pharaoh, carrying out his duties with dignity,
morality, and faithfulness. Ramadan argues that Muslims can draw inspi-
ration from this historical example, demonstrating that responsibility and
active participation can be seen as morally and religiously obligated. He
also points to the example of American Muslims who are actively involved
in civic and political life at both institutional and grassroots levels.
While the majority often views an Islamic legal system as a threat
to liberal and democratic values, Ramadan suggests that Shari’a can
contribute to the conception of moral citizenship. He argues that Shari’a
can be a tool for Muslims to deepen their engagement with Western
societies, building strong civic and social bonds based on a shared
commitment to humanity, social justice, and human rights.
Contrary to the perception of Shari’a as a threat in the West, Ramadan
believes that it can actually enhance the citizenship of Muslims in non-
Muslim countries. He argues that religious practice and adherence to
Shari’a principles can positively contribute to the active participation of
Muslims in democratic spheres and their loyalty to the legal rules of their
host states.

Political Engagement and Participation

The issue of political engagement among Muslim immigrants in the West
has led to various viewpoints. One perspective, known as pan-Islamic
orientation, encourages Muslims to participate in political activities if
it benefits the Muslim ummah (AMJA 2007). However, it is often
suggested that Muslims seek advice from local Muslim scholars and
respect their guidance when it comes to voting. (AMJA 2007)
When it comes to Muslim women holding positions in political offices,
there are certain conditions outlined by some scholars. They state that
152 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

women can occupy such positions if they adhere to Islamic principles,

including guarding their chastity, observing hijab, maintaining proper
Islamic etiquette, refraining from beautifying themselves or speaking
publicly, and avoiding free mixing with men or being alone with them
(AMJA 2006).
In the context of elections, Muslim Americans have sought guidance
from online fatwa websites. Main Khalidi Al-Qudah from AMJA, residing
in Houston, Texas, stated that it is not only permissible but highly recom-
mended for Muslims worldwide to be politically aware and participate
in any positive changes in their country, including voting in presidential
elections. Salah Al-Sawy from the same organization echoed similar senti-
ments, emphasizing that Muslim participation in elections is encouraged
for the greater good of the community (AMJA 2008).
On the other hand, IslamQA.info (2006 2008) has issued several
fatwas cautioning against participating in elections and methods of
governance considered “man-made.“ However, an exception is made if
participation aims to prevent evil and corruption.
While other fatwa websites have abstained from the discussion on
Islam and democracy, IslamQA.info remains more forthcoming. Their
views on democracy are somewhat limited. For example, one scholar
from IslamQA.info denounces democracy as a “system that is contrary to
Islam” (IslamQA.info 2006). The scholar argues that democracies confer
a power of legislation to the people as opposed to the Shari’a. After
focusing on literal extractions of the Qur’an to substantiate God’s divine
authority over man-made laws, the scholar insists a democratic system
endangers core Islamic practices:

In these systems legislation has been promulgated allowing abortion, same-

sex marriage and usurious interest (riba); the rulings of sharee‘ah (Shari’a)
have been abolished; and fornication/adultery and the drinking of alcohol
are permitted. In fact, this system is at war with Islam and its followers.
(IslamQA.info 2006)

These varying opinions reflect the diversity within the Muslim commu-
nity regarding political engagement in Western countries. It is impor-
tant for individuals to seek guidance from trusted scholars and consult
reputable sources to navigate these complex issues. Muslim scholars and
political scientists have taken a broader methodological and contextual
approach when addressing the issue of political engagement in Western
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 153

countries. They have developed consultative forms of government and

argued that Western democracies align with core Islamic principles such
as religious freedom, constitutionalism, elections, and equal treatment
of citizens. This perspective highlights the compatibility between Islamic
values and the principles upheld by Western democratic systems (Hussain
2016: 365).

Human Rights
Islamic law recognizes the importance of human rights for both individ-
uals and minority groups. The Qur’an emphasizes the honour bestowed
upon all human beings, regardless of their background, stating that God
has honoured the children of Adam and provided them with provisions
and advantages. This verse (Qur’an 17:70) serves as a testimony to the
significance of human rights in Islam.
While there may be differing interpretations among Muslim scholars
regarding the granting of human rights to Muslims and non-Muslims,
another verse in the Qur’an (Qur’an 49:13) challenges such differentia-
tion. It highlights the common origin of humanity and the purpose of
recognizing and appreciating one another’s diversity. According to this
verse, the best among people in the sight of God is the most righteous,
regardless of their specific religious or ethnic background.
These verses, along with others in the Qur’an, serve as reminders and
warnings against the violation of human rights. Islamic law, drawing from
the Qur’an as its primary source, emphasizes the importance of upholding
and protecting the rights of all individuals and minority groups. It recog-
nizes their inherent dignity and affirms the principle of equal treatment
and respect for human rights within the Islamic framework. Some of these
verses are:

We reserve the abode of the Hereafter for those who do not seek exaltation
on earth, nor corruption. The ultimate victory belongs to the righteous.
(Qur’an 28:83)
O you who believe, do not place your opinion above that of God
and His messenger. You shall reverence God. God is Hearer, Omniscient.
(Qur’an 49:1)
Pharaoh turned into a tyrant on earth, and discriminated against some
people. He persecuted a helpless group of them, slaughtering their sons,
while sparing their daughters. He was indeed wicked. (Qur’an 28:4)
154 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

There is no compulsion in religion. (Qur’an: 2:256)

Your duty (O Prophet) is only the delivery of the message, and Ours
(God’s) is to call (people) to account. (Qur’an 13:40)
And you (O Prophet) are not one to compel them. (Qur’an 50:45)
We sent you no, but as Mercy for all creatures. (Qur’an 21:107)

As far as the Sunnah, the Prophetic tradition, is concerned, there are

many Prophetic sayings, hadith, that profess human rights for everyone,
but one of the most quoted is the Last Sermon of the prophet, where he
calls upon all people as “O People” instead of only Muslims, and he lays
down the rights and obligations of people towards each other (Saritoprak
2013; 2015).
The argument that the principles of Shari’a have an “organic relation-
ship” with the liberal values of the Western system can be understood in
the context of the impact of Western values on Muslims living in the West.
It is believed that exposure to liberal values and the principles of democ-
racy in Western societies can influence the interpretation and application
of Shari’a among Muslims. The Quran itself includes verses that reject
duress, corruption, and despotism, promoting the protection of human
rights and prohibiting oppressive rule.
One historical example of human rights can be found in the declaration
of Caliph Umar, who recognized the freedom of individuals as granted
by God. This demonstrates a recognition of individual freedoms within
an Islamic framework.
Despotism is seen as breeding hypocrisy and false religiosity. Some
argue that certain fatwas issued in Muslim states promoting blind obedi-
ence to despotic rulers may be tools used by those rulers to maintain
control. The differences in fatwas can be attributed to this context.
While some radical scholars may issue strict fatwas against democratic
values, claiming that they undermine Muslims’ obedience to God by
inciting revolutionary actions, other scholars argue that constitutionalism,
if aimed at establishing good governance and holding power accountable,
can be in harmony with Shari’a.

Citizenship
The concept of “transnational citizenship” refers to the situation where
Muslims hold citizenship in one country but also adhere to and follow the
laws and principles of another nation-state. This can create challenges of
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 155

loyalty and allegiance to the country of residence and citizenship. Some

Muslims who strictly follow fatwas that prioritize loyalty to Shari’a may
view obedience to the Western legal system as a form of disloyalty to God.
However, scholars like Tariq Ramadan argue that loyalty to the secular
legal system is not a betrayal since Islam and Western legal systems are
not inherently incompatible. According to Ramadan, there is a common
ground between Islam and Western values of human rights, equality, and
social justice, which can create inclusive public spaces. He emphasizes
the need for Muslims to shift from private spiritual reflection to active
engagement in civic and political relationships, fostering friendly inter-
actions with non-Muslims and promoting active citizenship in Western
countries.
Historical examples are also cited to support the idea of Muslims being
full citizens under non-Muslim governance. Sheikh Ali Gomaa highlights
the example of Muslims migrating to Abyssinia (modern-day Ethiopia)
during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. The Muslim minority in
Abyssinia was protected and granted rights and freedoms, demonstrating
a case of full citizenship under a non-Muslim government, with loyalty to
the laws of the country.
Islamic scholars, however, hold differing opinions on the issue of citi-
zenship for Muslims in non-Muslim countries. Those who object to
citizenship in non-Muslim countries raise concerns about preserving the
religion of their children, loyalty to a country that may engage in hostil-
ities against an Islamic state, and the dar al-Harb (abode of war) versus
dar al-Islam (abode of Islam) debate. On the other hand, proponents
of citizenship argue based on factors such as residence, da’wah (Islamic
outreach), and loyalty to the community.
In the context of American Muslims, questions often arise regarding
whether Muslims can take the oath of allegiance and become citizens
of the United States. While some answers may be straightforward and
affirm that Muslims can indeed take the oath of allegiance, many Muslim
scholars provide more nuanced explanations with certain exceptions. For
example, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA) states that
seeking citizenship in the US should not be solely for personal reasons
or interests but should be driven by a benefit or service to the Muslim
community or for da’wah purposes.
In summary, the issue of citizenship for Muslims in non-Muslim coun-
tries is a complex and debated topic among Islamic scholars, with different
perspectives based on considerations of loyalty, preservation of religious
156 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

identity, community needs, and the compatibility of Islamic principles

with the legal systems of the host countries.
The Australian oath of allegiance includes a declaration of loyalty to
the country, its democratic beliefs, respect for rights and liberties, and
adherence to its laws. Some Muslim scholars argue that by taking this
oath, Muslims are religiously bound to uphold and obey these principles,
making it permissible for them to take Australian citizenship.
Regarding the issue of practising their faith in a new country, it is
recommended for Muslims who are uncertain about their family’s ability
to practice Islam to consider returning to their country of origin. This is
seen as a way to ensure the preservation of their religious identity and the
ability to practice their faith freely.
Different fatwas provide guidance on taking foreign citizenship.
IslamQA.info, a conservative Salafi-based website, states that it is permis-
sible to seek foreign citizenship if a person’s life is in danger. However,
priority is given to seeking refuge in a safe Muslim country, and seeking
citizenship for worldly reasons is discouraged.
The question of Muslim participation in Western militaries, particularly
in conflicts involving other Muslims, is a contentious issue. Traditional-
leaning jurists argue that Muslims in non-Muslim countries should remain
neutral during military conflicts of their host countries, especially if the
conflicts involve other Muslims. Joining forces against fellow Muslims
may be viewed as a betrayal of the aman (safe conduct) granted by the
host country. However, there is an exception when a Muslim’s life is
threatened by other Muslims, allowing for self-defence.
Some scholars, like al-Qaradawi, issued fatwas allowing American
Muslims to participate in military operations after the 9/11 attacks, citing
the principle of allegiance to their countries of citizenship. The stance is
that Muslims can serve their country but should not engage in hostile
activities against other Muslims. However, not all scholars agree with this
viewpoint, and some argue that it is not permissible to serve in the mili-
tary of non-Muslim countries, as they are seen as constantly waging war
against Muslims and Islam.
In summary, the issue of Muslim participation in Western societies,
including taking oaths of allegiance, seeking citizenship, and serving in
the military, is a topic that elicits varied opinions among Muslim scholars.
Different fatwas provide different perspectives based on considerations
of religious obligation, loyalty, preservation of faith, and the perceived
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 157

nature of conflicts involving Muslims.1 But others argue that one can
serve as a physician, for example, because they do not participate in direct
combat.2 According to research conducted by Bleuer, in three different
military conflicts: Soviet military attacking in Afghanistan, American mili-
tary in Iraq, and Indian military in Kashmir, the Muslim minorities of
these countries decided to fight against Muslims due to their “citizenship
and above any potential complicating ties of Muslim solidarity” (2012:
492).
According to the ruling today, Muslims who migrate to other coun-
tries are expected to abide by the rules and laws of those countries. It
is emphasized that living in a country does not exempt individuals from
following its legal system, and Muslims are urged to refrain from engaging
in any illegal activities. When it comes to refugees and asylum seekers,
they are advised to present their case to the authorities and follow the
legal procedures for seeking protection.
Muslims who are granted citizenship in Western or non-Muslim coun-
tries are required to obey the laws of both the country of citizenship and
the Islamic laws. However, conflicts may arise if there are clashes between
the two legal systems. In such cases, Muslims are expected to navigate
these situations with wisdom and integrity.
It is important for Muslims living in non-Muslim countries to uphold
the principles of loyalty, honesty, and respect towards the host community.
Acts of treachery, betrayal, deceit, or fraud are strongly discouraged, and
Muslims are prohibited from violating the honour or property of non-
Muslims.
The concept of citizenship, referred to as “ahd” or agreement between
the citizen and the state, is highlighted by scholars like Zelic. This agree-
ment is seen as a form of protection for the citizen in exchange for their
loyalty to the laws and regulations of the host country.
Although some scholars might not agree on where Muslim should
migrate, they all agree that Muslims are allowed (some claim that they
are supposed) to migrate. And most of the discussions about citizenship
are given to and supported by lessons from the time of the Prophet. The
opposers of citizenships in non-Muslim countries claim that the only place
that can be justly ruled by the Shari’a is the territory of Islam: dar al-Islam.

1 https://IslamQA.info.info/en/3885.
2 Fatwa Center of America. http://askamufti.com/question-details.aspx?qstID=7004.
158 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

Whatever is outside of that territory is dar al-Harb, or the territory of war

(El Fadl 1994a: 141–142; March 2009b: 104). They use two Qur’anic
verses to back up their claims:

As for those whom the angels gather in that while in a state of sin against
themselves the Angels will ask: “God’s earth vast enough for you to
migrate within it?” they will have their refuge in hell and how evil is such
a destiny, except for those truly oppressed, those men, women and chil-
dren who cannot find any means and have not been shown the way. For
these there is hope that God will forgive them, for God is Forgiving and
Merciful. Anyone who migrates in the path of God will find in the Earth
many an abundant refuge. Whoever leaves his home in migration towards
God and his Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward with God is
guaranteed, for God is Forgiving and Merciful. (Qur’an 4:97-100)
Those who believed and migrated and struggled in the path of God
with their property and their soul and those who sheltered and supported
them, are friends and supporters of one another. Those who believed and
did not migrate, you have no duty of protection towards them until they
migrate. But if they seek your support in religion, you owe them this
support, except against a people with whom you have a treaty. God sees
all that you do. (Qur’an 8:72)

These scholars claim that Muslims have the obligation to migrate to

the Islamic state, Hijra, and they base their claim on the above verses
from the Qur’an and the following Hadith, as well as other similar ones:

The hijra will not come to an end until repentance comes to an end and
repentance will not come to an end until sun rises from its place of setting.
I am innocent of (I disown) any Muslim who lives with the polytheists,
for you will not be able to tell the two apart.
Do not live with and associate with the polytheists. Whosoever lives
with them and associates with them is like them.

The hijra will not come to an end as long as the enemy is fought.3
An old-time fatwa, about this issue, that is commonly used by a group
of Muslim scholars who oppose the citizenship of Muslims in a non-
Muslim country, is one by an Andalusian Maliki scholar, al-Wansharisi,
who says: “Hijra from the land of disbelief to the land of Islam is a duty

3 Quoted from March’s book “Islam and Liberal Citizenship: The Search for an
Overlapping Consensus” 105.
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 159

until the Day of Resurrection, as is hijra from lands of sin and those
tainted by injustice or sedition. (…) Except for those truly oppressed,
those man, women and children who cannot find any means and have
not been shown the way. For these there is hope that God will forgive
them, for God is Forgiving and Merciful.” He argues that under a non-
Muslim ruler one cannot perform the five pillars of Islam, and therefore
they cannot live there (March 2009b: 105–106).
A Hanafi jurist, al-Sarakhsi, advises Muslims not to have intercourse
with their wives when they are on trade journeys in non-Muslim lands,
because the child might be born in a non-Muslim state. Until nineteenth
century, this law was crucial in Hanafi jurisprudence (March 2009b: 106).
Sayyid Qutb also opposes citizenship of a foreign country:

Once there is a place on earth, any place, which belongs to Islam and
where one can feel secure declaring one’s faith and fulfilling one’s religious
duties, then one must migrate in order to live under the banner of Islam
and enjoy the sublime standard of life Islam affords. (Qutb 2001: 286)

The Saudi Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Religious

Guidance issued a call prohibiting Muslims from becoming citizens of
non-Muslim states based on the belief that these states do not have Islamic
law or Islamic political authority (March 2009b: 110). This viewpoint
reflects the perspective that Muslims should prioritize residing in countries
where Islamic law and governance are established.
Another argument against serving a foreign country is the concern
that it may strengthen that country, potentially leading to future aggres-
sion against Islamic states. Advocates of this argument highlight historical
examples, such as Muslims who remained in Mecca when the Prophet
Muhammad migrated, claiming that they reverted to paganism and
bolstered the Meccan army against the Prophet’s forces. They also argue
that paying taxes to a non-Muslim country contributes to its military
capabilities and dominance (March 2009b: 110–111).
Qutb, a prominent Islamic scholar, criticizes this behaviour as
hypocrisy, suggesting that declaring the Shahada (Islamic testimony of
faith) and then showing loyalty to a non-Muslim state contradicts one’s
professed beliefs (Qutb 2001: 264). This viewpoint highlights the tension
between loyalty to Islam and loyalty to a non-Muslim political authority.
Establishing friendship and close ties with Muslims is another problem
160 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

that these scholars bring up. They base their arguments on two main
Qur’anic verses:

Oh, you who believe! Do not take for your intimates other than your own
kind. They will continually cause you turmoil and love anything that will
distress you. Loathing has already come forth from their mouths and what
is concealed in their breasts is even greater. We have made the signs clear
to you if you will use your reason. (Qur’an. 3:118)
O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as friends for they
are friends to each other. And who becomes friends with them becomes
one of them. Verily God does not guide a wrongdoing people. (Qur’an.
5:51)

The opposers of foreign citizenship deal less with Islamic law and
solving the problems of the people. Instead, they are more concerned
with the political authority and how because it is not an Islamic political
authority, Muslims should not live there. Furthermore, a common argu-
ment they bring up is about raising children in a non-Muslim country,
risking their piety as Muslims. They claim there are temptations that
are permitted by their laws, but not by Islam. As such, Western land is
deemed sinful and because Muslims are a minority, they cannot change
the system, so they must leave (March 2009b: 112–113; Al-Qaradawi
2001: 25). There is a risk that the Muslim children will lose their reli-
gion and accept the moral and ethical conducts of the non-Muslims. The
freedom of choosing the religion is particularly problematic for them,
because this means that the Muslim children can choose to live as pious
Muslims or as non-Muslims (ECFR 1999: 25; March 2009b: 113; Nadwi
1983: 113–114). Alternatively, some of them suggest seclusion and not
interfering with non-Muslims in that country.
For Muslims, according to these scholars, a good Islamic life is not
only one of which a Muslim only worships God and commits no sins; a
Muslim is also obliged to revive the Islamic community and go to war for
Islam (March 2009b: 114). They base their claims on the verse 4:95 of
the Qur’an:

Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and
those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their
persons. God has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with
their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all has God
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 161

promised good, but those who strive, and fight has He distinguished above
those who sit (at home) by a special reward.

The ban on Muslims killing other Muslims, as stated in Quranic

verse 4:92–93 and similar verses, hadiths, and fatwas, is often cited by
scholars who oppose citizenship in non-Muslim countries. They argue
that Muslims should not be involved in killing fellow believers, and
intentionally slaying a believer is condemned with severe punishment.
This perspective suggests that Muslims may eventually be forced to
choose sides between their country of residence and Muslim states, and
they should prioritize supporting Muslims who are oppressed, killed, or
threatened anywhere in the world (Peters 1979: 90–94; March 2009b:
114–115).
The distinction between dar al-Harb (territory of war) and dar al-Islam
(territory of Islam) is another argument against allowing citizenship in
non-Muslim states. This debate is rooted in Islamic jurisprudence and has
various interpretations among scholars. Some argue that Muslims cannot
participate in wars that are not fought solely for the sake of God, even
if they are not fighting against Muslims but against non-Muslims. They
believe that such wars do not serve the purpose of God (Al-Shaybani
1966: 193; March 2009b: 122–123).
Others take a stricter view, asserting that any relationship between
Muslims and non-Muslims is inherently a state of war. They argue that
non-Muslims must either convert to Islam or submit to Muslim authority.
From this perspective, becoming a citizen of a non-Muslim state is not
considered an option (Crone 2004: 358–385; Khadduri 1955: 75 145;
March 2009b: 125; Tibi 2002: 176; Sachedina 1990: 44).
These arguments reflect differing interpretations and understandings
among scholars regarding the relationship between Muslims and non-
Muslim states, the obligations of Muslims, and the concept of loyalty in
the context of citizenship.
The scholars who advocate for Muslims in non-Muslim countries to
take citizenship in those countries emphasize the responsibility of Muslims
to be good citizens and positive examples, even in non-Muslim states.
They argue that Muslims should become citizens, fulfil their obligations,
and contribute positively to society.
To support their stance, these scholars also refer to the time of the
Prophet Muhammad. They claim that when the Prophet returned to
162 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

Mecca, migration (hijra) became a recommendation rather than an obliga-

tion. They quote Umar and Aisha, who allegedly stated that hijra ceased
with the death of the Prophet because it was meant to continue after
him. They argue that with the absence of an Islamic Caliphate, there
is no designated place for Muslims to make hijra (Al-Shaybani 1966:
187; Al-Qaradawi 2001: 38; March 2009b: 166). While hijra remains
recommended, the obligation to migrate has ceased.
These scholars also acknowledge the presence of democratic Western
countries where Muslims can live and freely practice their religion. They
argue that Muslims can manifest their faith, publicly practice Islamic
rituals, and fulfil their religious duties better in some Western countries
than in certain Muslim-majority countries (Al-Qaradawi 2001: 33–34;
March 2009b: 168–169; El Fadl 1994b: 159).
Their perspective highlights the potential benefits of Muslims living in
non-Muslim countries, as well as the evolving dynamics and circumstances
that shape the understanding of migration and citizenship in contempo-
rary times. Some codified fatwas about this issue exist in modern times
and after the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate:

If you do not take full care to safeguard your religious life and arrange
for the religious education and upbringing of your children and make sure
that your future generations remain true to Islam, then your living in this
country is a sin and you are in grave danger. For us Muslims it is permitted
to live only in a country where we can live with our distinctive qualities
and observe our duties. If it is not possible in this environment or you feel
you cannot carry your religious obligations, it is not possible for you to
stay. It is your duty to see that you live here distinctly as Muslims. You
should build your own society and ensure that your children will remain
Muslims after you. (Nadwi 1983: 113–114)

Hijra is not required for those who are able to practice their religion
(iqamat dinihi) free from seduction away from it; that is coerced aban-
donment of religion or the prohibition on performing religious duties.
This is akin to what A’isha is reported to have said in (the hadith
collection of) al-Bukhari when she was asked about hijra:

There is no hijra today. Before a believer fled with his religion to God
and His Messenger out of fear of temptation away from it, but today God
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 163

has made Islam manifest and a believer may worship his Lord wherever he
may be.4 (Shadid and van Koningsveld 1996: 87; March 2009b: 171)

Da’wa, which some explain as the promotion of Allah’s word, meaning

the religion of Islam, the Qur’an, and the Sunnah, is an obligation for
Muslims. Some argue that this means even the slightest manifestation
of good values and being a good example, whereas others contend that
hardcore promotion and explanation of Islamic is real da’wa. For this
reason, the scholars who promote citizenship in non-Muslim countries
claim that Muslims should be there and should promote Islam, even if
it means by example. Residing in those countries is a worship according
to this mentality, as Islam has always spread through trade routes and
through people showcasing Islam in their own life (March 2009b: 173;
Al-Qaradawi 2001: 33–34). Tariq Ramadan claimed that da’wa should
not be confused with conversion:

…must not be confused with either proselytism or efforts to convert: the

duty of the Muslims is to spread the Message and to take it known, no
more no less. Whether someone accepts Islam or not is not the Muslim’s
concern for the Inclination of every individual heart depends on God’s
will. The notion of da’wa is based on one principle which is the right of
every human being to make a choice based on knowledge and this is why
Muslims are asked to spread the knowledge of Islam among Muslims as
well as non-Muslims. (Ramadan 2015: 134)

Tariq Ramadan holds the view that da’wa (the act of inviting others to
Islam) is not an obligatory duty for Muslims. Instead, he argues that the
primary obligation for Muslims is the shahada, which is the testimony of
faith in the oneness of God. According to Ramadan, in the West, Muslims
have the freedom to openly bear witness to the belief in one God, and
thus the West becomes a place where Muslims can and should live as a
“space of testimony” or dar al-Shahada (Ramadan 2015: 150).
Additionally, the concept of loyalty is emphasized in the Qur’an, as
expressed in verses such as “Fulfil the Covenant of God when you have
entered into it and do not break your oath after you have affirmed them

4 The original source of this story is published in 1909 by Rashid Rida in his journal
“Al- Manar”. The issue concerning the Bosnian Muslims is published with title: Al-Hijra
wa-kuhum muslimi al-Busna fiha or Rashid Rida. 1970. al-Fatwa. Beirut: al-Kitab al-Jadid.
773–774.
164 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

for you have made God your guarantor and God knows all that you do”
(Qur’an 16:91) and “It is not righteousness to turn your faces towards
East or West, but rather righteousness is … to fulfil the contracts which
you make” (Qur’an 2:177). These verses highlight the importance of
fulfilling contractual obligations and being loyal to agreements. Muslims
living in a non-Muslim country have entered into a contract or agreement
with that country, and therefore they are obligated to protect it, abide by
the terms of the contract, and live according to its laws and regulations.
In summary, according to Ramadan’s perspective, da’wa is not an
obligatory duty for Muslims, and the primary obligation is to bear witness
to the oneness of God. He also emphasizes the importance of loyalty
to the contractual agreements made with non-Muslim countries, arguing
that Muslims should fulfil their obligations and live in accordance with
the laws of their host countries.
The discourse surrounding Shari’a and its interpretation within the
Muslim community often reflects a division between different Islamic
sects or schools of thought. Two prominent perspectives in this discourse
can be characterized as the strict interpretation of Shari’a, often associated
with Salafi sects, and the moderate interpretation, often associated with
Sufi sects. This division is not limited to these specific sects and may exist
among various other groups within the Muslim community (Adamson
2011: 816).
The differing interpretations of Shari’a, particularly regarding fiqh
al-aqalliyyat (jurisprudence for Muslim minorities), are significant in
understanding the diverse perspectives on political participation and citi-
zenship in non-Muslim countries. The Muslim community has observed
a distinction between the positivist or puritan conception and the natu-
ralist or moderate conception of political engagement in these countries
(Adamson 2011: 900).
For instance, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is an organi-
zation that engages in collective claims-making, lobbying, and interest
representation within the context of the liberal state. It operates on
behalf of British Muslims while participating in the institutions of the
liberal state. On the other hand, groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) adopt
an oppositional identity towards the liberal state, rejecting liberalism
and disengaging from institutionalized participation in British politics
(Adamson 2011: 900).
This division is reflected in the Muslim community itself, as individuals
align themselves with either puritan or moderate perspectives. An example
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 165

can be seen in the criticism by some Australian Muslims of the Australian

Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) for inviting then Prime Minister
John Howard. The debate on the Muslim Village website highlighted the
binary divide within the Muslim community, with one participant refer-
ring to “peace-loving moderate Muslims” and perceiving certain Muslim
organizations as politically gullible (Bahfen 2008: 101–102).
However, not all Muslims align themselves with institutionalized
Islamic organizations. There are individuals without any institutional affil-
iation who hold diverse perspectives on Shari’a. For example, Khan (2015:
32) discusses the split among American Muslims between isolationist
Muslims and democratic Muslims. Isolationist Muslims tend to isolate
themselves from political participation, driven by concerns about anti-
Islamic sentiments and fears of assimilation. On the other hand, demo-
cratic Muslims are politically engaged and active, hoping to contribute to
American society (Khan 2015).
These divisions within the Muslim community reflect the complex and
nature of the discourse on Shari’a and political participation, with varying
interpretations and approaches among different sects, organizations, and
individuals.
The discourse surrounding Shari’a and its interpretation within the
Muslim community often reflects a division between different Islamic
sects or schools of thought. Two prominent perspectives in this discourse
can be characterized as the strict interpretation of Shari’a, often associated
with Salafi sects, and the moderate interpretation, often associated with
Sufi sects. This division is not limited to these specific sects and may exist
among various other groups within the Muslim community (Adamson
2011: 816).
The differing interpretations of Shari’a, particularly regarding fiqh
al-aqalliyyat (jurisprudence for Muslim minorities), are significant in
understanding the diverse perspectives on political participation and citi-
zenship in non-Muslim countries. The Muslim community has observed
a distinction between the positivist or puritan conception and the natu-
ralist or moderate conception of political engagement in these countries
(Adamson 2011: 900).
For instance, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is an organi-
zation that engages in collective claims-making, lobbying, and interest
representation within the context of the liberal state. It operates on
behalf of British Muslims while participating in the institutions of the
liberal state. On the other hand, groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) adopt
166 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

an oppositional identity towards the liberal state, rejecting liberalism

and disengaging from institutionalized participation in British politics
(Adamson 2011: 900).
This division is reflected in the Muslim community itself, as individuals
align themselves with either puritan or moderate perspectives. An example
can be seen in the criticism by some Australian Muslims of the Australian
Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) for inviting then Prime Minister
John Howard. The debate on the Muslim Village website highlighted the
binary divide within the Muslim community, with one participant refer-
ring to “peace-loving moderate Muslims” and perceiving certain Muslim
organizations as politically gullible (Bahfen 2008: 101–102).
However, not all Muslims align themselves with institutionalized
Islamic organizations. There are individuals without any institutional affil-
iation who hold diverse perspectives on Shari’a. For example, Khan (2015:
32) discusses the split among American Muslims between isolationist
Muslims and democratic Muslims. Isolationist Muslims tend to isolate
themselves from political participation, driven by concerns about anti-
Islamic sentiments and fears of assimilation. On the other hand, demo-
cratic Muslims are politically engaged and active, hoping to contribute to
American society (Khan 2015).
These divisions within the Muslim community reflect the complex and
nature of the discourse on Shari’a and political participation, with varying
interpretations and approaches among different sects, organizations, and
individuals. Indeed, there are debates and differing interpretations within
the Wasati and Salafi sects regarding certain practices and obligations. One
such area of debate revolves around the celebration of non-Muslim holi-
days. Salafis strictly forbid Muslims from participating in or celebrating
non-Muslim holidays, while Wasatis hold the belief that Muslims can
participate in the celebration of Christmas as a means of proselytizing
and building bridges with the wider community (2012: 432).
Another point of contention is mortgages. Wasatis consider the permis-
sibility of mortgages based on the principle of baja (need) and emphasize
the importance of considering the hardship and necessity of the indi-
vidual. They may allow Muslims to engage in mortgages in certain
circumstances. On the other hand, Salafis take a stricter stance and cate-
gorically deny any allowance for mortgages, adhering to a puritanical
interpretation of Shari’a (2012: 448).
When it comes to military service, Wasatis allow Muslims to combat
alongside non-Muslims against non-Muslim adversaries, especially in cases
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 167

where citizenship obligations are involved. However, they stress the

importance of not fighting against Muslims and strive to be exempted
from or avoid killing Muslims during war. Salafis, on the other hand,
oppose the idea of Muslims fighting alongside non-Muslims under any
circumstances (2012: 452).
In summary, Wasatis tend to adopt a more flexible approach, allowing
for the adaptation of certain religious laws to promote integration into the
society they live in. They endorse a pragmatic application of Shari’a that
takes into account the needs and circumstances of Muslim minorities. On
the contrary, Salafis advocate for a strict and uncompromising adherence
to religious laws, promoting segregation from non-Muslims (2012: 456).
These differences in approach reflect the contrasting viewpoints within
the Muslim community regarding engagement with non-Muslim societies
and the interpretation of religious obligations.

Conclusion
The compatibility of the Shari’a legal system with Western secular systems
is a topic of ongoing debate between Western politicians, Muslim scholars,
and within Muslim communities themselves. Different perspectives exist
regarding the perceived incompatibility, with some viewing it as an
inherent clash between the two systems, others attributing it to prejudice
against Muslim communities in Western societies, and still others high-
lighting the influence of certain superficial interpretations of Shari’a that
lead to exclusionary behaviour among some Muslims.
While Shari’a allows Muslims to migrate and live in non-Muslim coun-
tries, the strict interpretation of Shari’a rules by certain puritanical jurists
can significantly impact the perspectives and way of life of Muslim minori-
ties. This can contribute to the divergence of opinions and behavioural
patterns among Muslims, with some adopting isolationist tendencies and
others actively engaging as citizens in their respective societies.
The Muslim community itself is not homogeneous, and there are
diverse interpretations and understandings of Shari’a and its application.
This internal debate within the Muslim society often results in diver-
gent views on specific rules and practices, which can lead to distinct
behavioural patterns among those who identify as puritanical or moderate,
and between those who adopt isolationist or active citizenship tendencies.
168 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

References
“What does Islam say about illegal immigration?,” Assembly of Muslims Jurists
of America 28 January 2007. http://www.amjaonline.org/fatwa-2581/info.
Accessed 27 July 2017.
“Working in the US army,” Assembly of Muslims Jurists of America 2008–04–07.
http://www.amjaonline.org/fatwa-21571/info. Accessed 25 July 2017.
Adamson, Fiona B. 2011. “Engaging or Contesting the Liberal State? ‘Mus-
lim’ as a Politicised Identity Category in Europe.” Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies 37.6: 899–915.
al-Qaradawi Yusuf. 2001. Fi fiqh al-aqalliyyat al-muslima. Cairo: Dar al-Shuruq.
al-Shaybani, Abu’Abd Allah. 1966. “The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani’s
Siyar. Translated by Majid Khadduri.”
Bahfen, Nasya Yadi. 2008. “Online Islamic Identity and Community in Australia
and Three Neighbouring Countries.” PhD diss.
Bleuer, Christian. 2012. “Muslim Soldiers in Non-Muslim Militaries at War in
Muslim Lands: The Soviet, American and Indian experience.” Journal of
Muslim Minority Affairs 32.4: 492–506.
Cesari, Jocelyne. 2006. “Securitization and Religious Divides in Europe: Muslims
in Western Europe after 9/11: Why the Term Islamophobia is More a Predica-
ment than an Explanation.” Paris: Challenge. http://www.libertysecurity.
org/article1167.html. Accessed 15 April 2011.
Cesari, Jocelyne. 2010. “Muslims in the West After 9/11: Religion, Law and
Politics.”
Crone, Patricia. 2004. God’s Rule: Government and Islam. New York: Columbia
University Press.
El Fadl, Khaled Abou. 1994a. “Islamic Law and Muslim Minorities: The Juristic
Discourse on Muslim Minorities from the Second/eighth to the Eleventh/
seventeenth Centuries.” Islamic Law and Society 1.2: 141–187.
El Fadl, Khaled Abou. 1994b. “Legal Debates on Muslim Minorities: Between
Rejection and Accommodation.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 127–162.
El Fadl, Khaled Abou. 2007. The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the
Extremists. New York: HarperOne.
European Council for Fatwa and Research. 1999. Fatawa al-majmu’a al-
ula. Cairo: Islamic Publishing
Hussain, Shahrul. 2016. “Ribā-Based Mortgages in Dār al-Harb: An Issue of
Modernist Application of Fiqh al-Aqalliyāt for Muslim Minorities.” Journal
of Muslim Minority Affairs 36.3: 364–382.
Jamal, Amaney. 2005. “The Political Participation and Engagement of Muslim
Americans: Mosque Involvement and Group Consciousness.” American
Politics Research 33.4: 521–544.
Khadduri, Majid. 1955. War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press.
 6 SHARI’A ON CITIZENSHIP AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION … 169

Khan, MA Muqtedar. 2015. “Political Muslims in America: From Islamism to

Exceptionalism.” Middle East Policy 22.1: 32–40.
March, Andrew F. 2009a. “Sources of Moral Obligation to non-Muslims in
the Jurisprudence of Muslim Minorities(Fiqh al-aqalliyyāt) Discourse.” Islamic
Law and Society 16.1: 34–94.
March, Andrew F. 2009b. Islam and Liberal Citizenship: The Search for an
Overlapping Consensus. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nadwi, Syed Abul Hasan Ali. 1983. Muslims in the West: The Message and
Mission. Leicester, UK: The Islamic Foundation.
Peters R. 1979. “Colonialism: The Doctrine of Jihad in Modern Islam.” The
Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
Qutb, Sayyid. 2001. “In the Shade of the Qur’an, trans. and ed.” Adil Salahi
and Ashur Shamis. Leicester: The Islamic Foundation.
Ramadan, Tariq. 1999. To Be a European Muslim. UK: Islamic Foundation.
Ramadan, Tariq. 2015. “The Paris Attackers Hijacked Islam but there is no war
between Islam and the West.” The Guardian 127–146.
Rane, Halim, Adis Duderija, Riyad H. Rahimullah, Paul Mitchell, Jessica
Mamone, and Shane Satterley. 2020. “Islam in Australia: A National Survey
of Muslim Australian Citizens and Permanent Residents.” Religions 11 (8):
Article No. 419. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11080419.
Sachedina, Abdulaziz. 1990. “The Development of Jihad in Islamic Revelation
and History.” In Cross, Crescent and Sword: The Justification and Limitation
of war in Western and Islamic Tradition, edited by James Turner Johnson and
John Kelsay. London: Greenwood.
Saritoprak, Zeki. 2013. “The Universal Message of the Prophet Muhammad.”
Islam.ru. March 16. http://islam.ru/en/content/story/universal-message-
prophet-muhammad. Lat accessed 6 May 2016.
Saritoprak, Zeki. 2015. “Migration, Feelings of Belonging to a Land, and the
Universality of Islam.” Islam and Citizenship Education, 45–54. Springer
VS, Wiesbaden.
Shadid, Wasif AR, and P. Sj van Koningsveld. 1996. Political Participation and
Identities of Muslims in Non-Muslim States. Belgium: Peeters Publishers.
Tibi, Bassam. 2002. “War and Peace in Islam.” In Islamic Political Ethics, edited
by Sohail Hashmi. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Yilmaz, I. 2002. The challenge of post-modern legality and Muslim legal
pluralism in England. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 28, No.
2, pp. 343–354.
Yilmaz, I. 2003. Muslim Alternative Dispute Resolution and Neo-Ijtihad in
England. Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol. 2, No.
1, Dec. 2003, pp. 1–24.
Yilmaz, I. 2005. Inter-Madhhab Surfing, Neo-Ijtihad, and Faith-Based Move-
ment Leaders. In Peri Bearman, Rudolph Peters and Frank E. Vogel (eds) The
170 I. YILMAZ AND D. P. SOKOLOVA-SHIPOLI

Islamic School of Law: Evolution, Devolution and Progress, Harvard University

Press. 191–206.
Yilmaz, I. 2009. “Muslim Democrats in Turkey and Egypt: Participatory Politics
as a catalyst.” Insight Turkey, 93–112.
Yilmaz, I. 2016. Muslim Laws, Politics and Society in Modern Nation States:
Dynamic Legal Pluralisms in England, Turkey and Pakistan. Reprint. London
and New York: Routledge.
Yilmaz, I. 2019. Nation Building, Islamic Law and Unofficial Legal Pluralism:
the Cases of Turkey and Pakistan. In Norbert Oberauer, Yvonne Prief, Ulrike
Qubaja (eds) Legal Legal Pluralism in Muslim Contexts, pp. 109–138. Leiden,
The Netherlands: Brill.
Yilmaz, I. 2020. Muslims, Sacred Texts, and Laws in the Modern World. In:
Woodward M., Lukens-Bull R. (eds) Handbook of Contemporary Islam and
Muslim Lives, 1–18. Cham: Springer.
Yilmaz, I. 2021. Creating the Desired Citizens: State, Islam and Ideology in
Turkey. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Yilmaz, I. 2022. Authoritarianism, Informal Law, and Legal Hybridity: The
Islamisation of the State in Turkey. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yilmaz, I. 2023. Islam in the Anglosphere: Perspectives of Young Muslims in
Australia, the UK and the USA. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yilmaz, I. 2024. Sharia as Informal Law: Lived Experiences of Young Muslims in
Western Societies. London and New York: Routledge.