What is the ruling on the pledge of allegiance to rulers and its absence, and its relationship to rebellion?

The questioner : The first question, Shaykh, is about the issue of the pledge of allegiance? That is, many of our scholars see the obligation of the existing ruler in our country. And some of the brothers have adopted the view of his lack of right to the pledge. Of course, behind this lack of right to the pledge is, for example, the call to rebel against this ruler or the call to declare him a disbeliever, but this ruler is not fit for the pledge because the conditions were not met in him. Some of our scholars derive from your lack of pledge to this ruler that you see rebellion against him, and thus they label this person as a Khariji, and this is very, very widespread among us. So, is the pledge to the existing rulers now, in whom the conditions were not met? The conditions for their pledge were not met, of the same kind as the pledge to the Islamic groups present in the arena?

The Shaykh : My opinion is that there is no pledge to any ruler unless he is pledged to by the Muslim community in the Islamic world, not in one country, or in one region.
This is the pledge to the Caliph who is chosen by the people of knowledge, virtue, righteousness, and piety, and not by the general public who include the righteous and the wicked, as is the case now with what they call parliaments, or they translated this foreign word into the National Assembly. So the National Assembly is not represented by the ignorant, the ignorant, and the open sinners, but by the people of knowledge, virtue, and righteousness. And such a council, unfortunately, does not exist today in the Islamic world. Therefore, there is no pledge. But it is necessary to add to this negation that the prohibition they derived, or the obligation they imposed on the one who sees no pledge, means that he permits rebellion against this or that ruler who was not pledged to. We say here that rebellion against the ruler is not contingent upon, nor linked to, the pledge or its absence.
That is because there is no necessary connection between the negative and the positive. I mean, a man may be pledged to with a legitimate pledge, and yet rebellion against him is permissible. He was pledged to with a legitimate pledge, and yet rebellion against him is permissible when? When we see clear disbelief, as came in the hadith . The pledge does not imply rebellion, and conversely, the absence of a pledge does not imply the permissibility of rebellion. So there is no connection between the two matters, negatively or positively. So I say now that, as far as I know, there is no government among the Arab governments in the Islamic world that has been pledged to with a legitimate pledge, except with you, as some people of knowledge say, as you report.
So is it permissible for these peoples to rebel against these rulers on the pretext that they were not pledged to? Those who derive the obligation of the pledge, because they say if he was not pledged to, it means that rebellion is permissible. So the meaning of their words is that it is permissible for these peoples who live in Arab countries, under governments that the peoples have not pledged to, to rebel against these governments. And I believe that those same people who derived rebellion from the absence of a pledge do not permit rebellion in other Arab countries, and this is my belief. Rebellion and its absence are not contingent upon the pledge, negatively or positively. That is, it does not mean that if a Caliph exists and we say he was pledged to with a legitimate pledge, but he displayed clear disbelief, that it is not permissible to rebel against him. This is what is reported by knowledge. Likewise, the exact opposite: if there is a Muslim ruler who rules by part of the Book and does not rule by the rest, I do not say he rules by part of the Book and disbelieves in the rest, no, he rules by part of the Book and does not rule by the rest. So he was not pledged to, and this does not mean that rebellion is permissible. Because rebellion against rulers, whatever their status, let us suppose they are rebels, and they rebelled against the legitimate Caliph, by force, with swords, with gunpowder, with weapons, and they seized power and ruled among the people, it is not permissible to rebel against this rebel. All of this is to preserve the blood of Muslims. If the explanation for the obligation of the pledge is that if he was not pledged to, it means that rebellion is permissible, there is no necessary connection. I say now, with all frankness, unless the scholars of the Muslims in the Islamic countries gather to pledge to a person who deserves the pledge, there is no pledge. Nevertheless, I say it is not permissible to rebel against these rulers, because behind that is what we see now in Palestine. Palestine is ruled by the Jews, and is there anything more wicked than the Jews? Nevertheless, we say the blood of Muslims is wasted like this, encouraged by the heedless, and I may sometimes say the ignorant. These are our youth, and these are the mujahideen with stones, and so on. If the situation continues in this way, the Palestinian people will perish, and the Palestinian state will remain a mouthful for the Jews, contrary to what these people who encourage want, and then they do not support with weapons, or men, or money, and so on. So it is not permissible, my brother, to link the pledge with rebellion. The pledge may be legitimate and rebellion obligatory when the legitimate cause exists. And the pledge may not exist and rebellion not permissible because the legitimate cause does not exist. The legitimate cause is clear disbelief. Even I say, has clear disbelief appeared in some countries, like Tunisia, for example, and recently Algeria? Is rebellion permissible, and what have they prepared for it?