How do we respond to those who obligate people to take the pledge of allegiance and covenant to the leader of a group, citing the principle:

The questioner: Your Eminence, the jurisprudential principle is: "What is necessary for the completion of an obligatory act is itself obligatory."

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner: Some groups, or rather, the Islamic group specifically in Egypt, cite this verse regarding the covenant.

The Shaykh: This is not a verse, it is a principle.

The questioner: ... the principle.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner: Excuse me, the one specifically in the covenant that Shaykh 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman wrote, which states that establishing the religion is obligatory, and establishing the religion is not completed except by a group, therefore adhering to the group is obligatory.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner: So what is the response to this principle? Is this argument valid?

The Shaykh: This argument is both valid and invalid. It is valid because a group is necessary, but who is the group? The group is one that, first, is united upon the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). And this group today, unfortunately, does not exist as a group; it exists only as individuals. As a group, first, they know and recognize the correct Islam, and second, they are raised with a correct Islamic upbringing—this does not exist today as a group. As scattered individuals here and there on earth, they exist. Therefore, the argument using the principle as a general argument is valid, but its application is invalid.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Is the difference clear to you?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: All right.