I know of no difference on this. However, what happens when the case is inverted: A Muslim can practice his din better in the land of the non-Muslims?

SDW

It would appear that the Dr. has mixed two quotes together. Here’s the original:

وَبِالْجُمْلَةِ لَا خِلَافَ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ أَنَّ مَنْ كَانَ فِي دَارِ الْكُفْرِ وَقَدْ آمَنَ وَهُوَ عَاجِزٌ عَنْ الْهِجْرَةِ لَا يَجِبُ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ الشَّرَائِعِ مَا يَعْجِزُ عَنْهَا بَلْ الْوُجُوبُ بِحَسَبِ الْإِمْكَانِ وَكَذَلِكَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ حُكْمَهُ فَلَوْ لَمْ يَعْلَمْ أَنَّ الصَّلَاةَ وَاجِبَةٌ عَلَيْهِ وَبَقِيَ مُدَّةً لَمْ يُصَلِّ لَمْ يَجِبْ عَلَيْهِ الْقَضَاءُ فِي أَظْهَرِ قَوْلَيْ الْعُلَمَاءِ وَهَذَا مَذْهَبُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَأَهْلِ الظَّاهِرِ وَهُوَ أَحَدُ الْوَجْهَيْنِ فِي مَذْهَبِ أَحْمَد . وَكَذَلِكَ سَائِرُ الْوَاجِبَاتِ مِنْ صَوْمِ شَهْرِ رَمَضَانَ وَأَدَاءِ الزَّكَاةِ وَغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ . وَلَوْ لَمْ يَعْلَمْ تَحْرِيمَ الْخَمْرِ فَشَرِبَهَا لَمْ يُحَدَّ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَإِنَّمَا

from the Majm’o al-Fatawa as mentioned above.

Shukran for the heads up, dear brothers. As for hijra, I would lean towards the opinion that it must be reviewed in the light of the maqasid and the over all benefits to Muslims in the Hereafter and this life. I do not agree the simply quoting classical texts, born out of a time when the world was very different than it is today, especially in Political and Nation State issues, are going to have those answer entirely. As Sh. al-Qaradawi said, “If Ibn Taymiyyah were alive today, I would guess that he would change many of his opinions.”

SDW

Jazaak Allaahu khairan Imam. In that case, I must contend that the closing sentence by Dr. Sururi does not accurately convey the meaning carried by the quoted passage of Ibn Taymiyyah.

For anyone who refers back to the passage cited in Majmoo` al-Fataawa, it is clear that Ibn Taymiyyah is exclusively speaking in the context of someone who is unable to emigrate from the land of non-Muslims. Only in that scenario, one “is not obligated to perform what he does not have the ability to do because obligations are based on ability.”

As for the those who have the ability to migrate, this passage does not apply to them. It is agreed upon (as pointed out by Shaykh Abdullaah ibn Bayyah in Sinaa`atul Fatwa and elsewhere, and others) that if one is unable to practice one’s Deen in the land of non-Muslims (such as performing prayer, paying zakat, etc.), it is obligatory to emigrate to a place where one can practice one’s Deen freely and openly. As Allah says, “Was not land of Allah vast enough for you to migrate?” (Qur’an, 4:97).

And Allah knows best.

that is not Ibn taymiyyahs words, but the dr’s.

Dear Imaam, can you please share with us the original words of Ibn Taymiyyah in Arabic? I referred back to my copy of Majmu` al-Fataawa, and found the section that you have made a reference to, but I do not see the last sentence that you have quoted:

“In summary, there is no difference amongst the jurists that one who lives in the lands of the non-Muslims is not obligated to perform what he does not have the ability to do because obligations are based on ability.”

I am wondering if there might have been a typo, and that this sentence is not part of the larger quote from Ibn Taymiyyah, but instead a comment from Dr. Sururi?

Or perhaps there is something missing in my edition of the Fataawa?

Jazaak Allaahu khairan.