In fact the entire premise was first developed by the Rand Corporation and the US Pentagon in conjunction with the MI6 to enlist media savy Muslims, particularly westerners, who could rally some modernists scholars who pose as traditoinalist to opiate the Muslims of the west into quietism as western nations attempt a recolonization of the Muslim world. A simple perusal of the Qur'anic verses regarding the obligation of hijra, their commentaries along with the subsequent legal rulings regarding sulhi, amaan, jizya, mu`ahida would easily debunct the entire premise of the argument. It builds its argument on a false pretext of a distorted understanding of 'contract'. The reality is that in Islam a contract is only valid if the contract is initially permissible. For example, if I were to follow the argument that would obligate a person to adhere to a contract which was initially forbidden in the first place. It would imply that if a person contracted a marriage contract with his sister that he wold herefore be obligated to adhere to the contract simply because he made the agreement! This is an illusion! There is not a single proof in Islam that [1] it was lawful for a muslim to immigrate and accept citizenship in a land governed by non Muslims in the first place; [2] even if this 'contract' were legal and binding, Islamic jurisrupence is unanimous regarding a non Muslim land which willfully invades a Muslim land, that any and all contractual agreements between Muslims and that land is invalidated automatically. The entire premise of the argument is based upon a modernist LIE rapped in the turban of 'tradition'.