It is commonly said that Muslims must follow the law of the land (with 'land' referring to dar al-kuffar and dar al-harb) but it is also well known that laws in the west regularly contradict each other and things that are generally regarded as normal are by some technicality illegal but are almost never - if ever - actually enforced.

The question remains that if we are to uphold our agreement with the kafir governments, is our agreement to conform to the literal law as written or as it is commonly understood? Furthermore how should we confront laws that are inherently contradictory in nature?

The government of the UK has published the following article that may be useful in understanding the issue: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/when-laws-become-too-complex/when-laws-become-too-complex

  • 1
    I'd assume this is answered here.
    – Medi1Saif
    Commented Oct 25, 2020 at 19:55
  • My question is a little different, I'm more concerned with the question of what the agreement we are bound to is based on the opinion that we are bound to the laws of the kuffar by residing in their lands, this is independent of the question of whether or not this is a correct opinion @Medi1Saif
    – 0x777C
    Commented Oct 25, 2020 at 20:34
  • Basically a Muslim is asked to leave a land in which he cannot practice his religion be aware that the prophet condemned people who die in a land of kufr because they preferred living there so leaving a Muslim country for dar al-Kufr without a necessity is rather discouraged.
    – Medi1Saif
    Commented Oct 25, 2020 at 20:38
  • @Medi1Saif I am aware of that, I live here because I was born here and I dislike living here, whether I will be able to relocate elsewhere remains to be seen
    – 0x777C
    Commented Oct 25, 2020 at 20:41


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .