Is Conquering Non-Muslim Lands Permissible?

Answered by Shaykh Irshaad Sedick

Question

Is it allowed for a Muslim ruler to conquer a non-Muslim land? Someone heard that a true caliph might do this, and history shows that many lands were taken, including Constantinople, Sicily, Spain, southern France, Egypt, and Persia.

Why were these places conquered? Were they considered threats? Do some hadith, like those about the conquest of Constantinople, allow a ruler to attack? Or are Muslims only allowed to defend themselves?

Answer

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful and Compassionate. May Allah ease our difficulties and guide us to what pleases Him. Amin.

No. In the Sacred Law, fighting answers aggression, the breaking of treaties, and the forcible barriers that powers place between people and a free hearing of the message.

It never answers a person’s refusal to believe, and having the means to attack has never been a reason to attack.

Allah Most High prescribes both the cause and its limit: “Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.” [Quran 2:190; Khattab, The Clear Quran]

Your message contains three questions, and each has a different answer. One is about Islamic law, one is about history, and one is about what a hadith can prove.

Regarding the law, classical texts on warfare discuss a legitimate ruler who leads a functioning state, and they set conditions at every stage. Appointing qualified leaders is a communal duty, but their role is to keep order, ensure justice, and protect the religion, not to gain territory.

Even if a ruler has the power, using warfare to establish authority is not required. [Mawardi, al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya wa al-Wilayat al-Diniyya]

Physical struggle must be reviewed by qualified traditional scholars and leaders. This means that no individual, group, or movement today can take on this responsibility alone.

These conditions are important and must be followed.

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) told every commander: “Fight, but do not embezzle the spoils, do not break faith, do not mutilate, and do not kill a child. When you meet your enemy among the idolaters, call them to three things; whichever of them they answer you with, accept it from them and hold off from them…” [Muslim]

Before fighting, there is a call, which the schools discuss at length, and fighting must stop as soon as the terms are accepted. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) also said, “O people, do not wish to meet the enemy, and ask Allah for well-being.” [Bukhari; Muslim]

He also forbade killing women and children. [Bukhari; Muslim] Treaties must always be honored: “If the enemy is inclined towards peace, make peace with them…” [Quran 8:61]

If someone only looks at the permission to fight and ignores these rules, they misunderstand the law. This is the reading your brother has been handed.

As for history, numerous empires came into being and expanded, one of them being the early Muslim state. Not all the actions of all armies were in accordance with Sacred Law. Being honest about history does not damage the faith.

The greatest error is to confuse what states have done with what the religion teaches. Some of the campaigns were responses to aggression or broken treaties; others were driven by political relations between empires, and some were simply cases of ordinary expansion.

None of these situations justifies attacking people simply because they are not Muslim. The Quran states this clearly: “Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood.” [Quran 2:256]

It is not true faith to force people to believe, and historians point out that forced conversions were, in fact, very rare.

About the hadith: A narration that predicts the conquest of Constantinople or praises the army that achieves it is describing what will happen and the reward for it. It does not give permission for action.

Prophecy and legal rulings are different things, and no jurist allows something just because it was predicted. It is this misunderstanding, not the reports themselves, that needs to be addressed.

Muslims are not limited to only defending themselves in every situation, but nothing in that permits what you were asked about: no ruler is allowed to attack just because he has the power. Islam aims for truth, peace, and justice for everyone. Any struggle must have these goals to be considered legitimate. And Allah knows best.

I hope this answer is helpful, and I pray that Allah guides us all.

[Shaykh] Irshaad Sedick
Checked and Approved by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani

Shaykh Irshaad Sedick was raised in South Africa in a traditional Muslim family. He graduated from Dar al-Ulum al-Arabiyyah al-Islamiyyah in Strand, Western Cape, under the guidance of the late world-renowned scholar Shaykh Taha Karaan (Allah have mercy on him), where he taught.

Shaykh Irshaad received Ijaza from many luminaries of the Islamic world, including Shaykh Taha Karaan, Shaykh Muhammad Awama, Shaykh Muhammad Hasan Hitu, and Mawlana Abdul Hafeez Makki, among others.

He is the author of the text “The Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal: A Hujjah or not?” He has been the Director of the Discover Islam Centre, and for six years, he has been the Khatib of Masjid Ar-Rashideen, Mowbray, Cape Town.

Shaykh Irshaad has fifteen years of teaching experience at some of the leading Islamic institutes in Cape Town). He is currently building an Islamic podcast, education, and media platform called ‘Isnad Academy’ and has completed his Master’s degree in the study of Islam at the University of Johannesburg. He has a keen interest in healthy Prophetic living and fitness.