When Legal Conservatism Renders Salafi-Jihadis Lenient: The Intra-Salafi Debate about Being a Naturalized Citizen of an Infidel Country

Salafi-jihadis have a reputation of being conservative in the application of Islamic law and stringent in their legal rulings, whereas their traditional counterparts, the Salafi-taqlidis, are known to be less conservative and more lenient. Interestingly, in discussing the permissibility of becoming a naturalized citizen in an infidel country, a matter with serious ramifications under the doctrine of al-walāʼ wal-barāʼ, Salafi-jihadis and Salafi-taqlidis swap roles. While Salafi-jihadis adopt a lenient position, and allow Muslims to become naturalized citizens of infidel countries, Salafi-taqlidis prohibit Muslims from doing so. The current study outlines the Salafi debate about the lawfulness of obtaining citizenship in a non-Islamic country and reveals the curious twist that accounts for the unusual role-reversal on this matter between Salafi-jihadis and Salafi-taqlidis. This paper demonstrates that the Salafi-jihadis’ unyielding conservatism in defining which countries qualify as “truly” Muslim regimes and which do not, results in a lenient approach to naturalization. Conversely, the Salafi-taqlidis’ more flexible approach to defining which countries are “truly” Muslim results in their surprising prohibition against naturalization.