The Meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance According to the Scholars
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
His Eminence the Shaykh: It is established in the hadith that he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Whoever dies without having a pledge of allegiance to anyone in his neck, dies the death of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance”. It is known that in most Muslim lands today, this condition is not fulfilled, and that they do not have a pledge of allegiance in their necks.For many reasons, among them: There are political disturbances, coups, and the like. So how do the Muslims in those lands escape this sin and this warning? May Allah reward you with good.
What is known among the scholars: The pledge of allegiance does not require the satisfaction of every single person. Otherwise, it is known that in the lands there are people who are not satisfied with anyone being their ruler. But if the ruler subdues and controls, and authority becomes his, that is the completion of the pledge of allegiance. It is not permissible to rebel against him, except in one case which the Prophet (peace be upon him) excluded, and he said: “Except if you see clear disbelief for which you have proof from Allah”. He said: “Except if you see”. The seeing is either by the eye or by the heart. Seeing by the eye is visual, and by the heart is intellectual.Meaning: We do not act on suspicion, estimates, or possibilities. Rather, we must know with certainty, and we must see disbelief, not open sinfulness.For example: Even if the ruler is the most sinful of Allah’s servants, and he drinks intoxicants and commits other forbidden things, and he is an open sinner but has not left Islam; it is not permissible to rebel against him even if he commits open sin. Because the harm of rebelling against him is far greater than the harm of his sin, which is specific to him.
The third, he said: “Clear”. Clear means: explicit.And the open plain: It is the wide open space that has no trees, no paved road, and no mountain, but is clear for the view. The disbelief must be clear and apparent, such that no one doubts it.For example: For example, if he calls for abandoning the Shari'ah, or calls for abandoning the prayer, or the like of clear disbelief that does not admit of figurative interpretation. As for what admits of figurative interpretation, it is not permissible to rebel against him, even if we see it as disbelief and some people see it as not disbelief. It is not permissible for us to rebel against him, because this is not clear.
The fourth: “For which you have proof from Allah”. “Except if you see clear disbelief for which you have proof from Allah”. If we do not have proof, meaning: clear evidence, not just independent legal reasoning or analogical reasoning, but it is clear and evident that it is disbelief; at that time, rebellion is permissible.
But does the permissibility of rebellion mean it is permissible in all cases, or is it obligatory in all cases?Answer: No.
There must be the ability to confront this ruler in whom we have seen clear disbelief. As for rebelling against him with kitchen knives and cowhide sandals, while he has tanks and missiles, that is foolishness in intellect and misguidance in religion, because Allah did not obligate jihad on the Muslims when they were weak in Makkah. He did not say: “Go out against Quraysh while they are with them, and if they wished, they could assassinate their leaders and kill them.” But He did not command them to do this, nor did He permit it to them. Why? Because of the lack of ability.
And if the obligatory acts of worship due to Allah the Mighty and Majestic are dropped due to inability, how about this matter which will involve bloodshed?Meaning: Removing the ruler is not an easy matter, nor is it just a feather that you blow away and it goes. There must be fighting from you and fighting from him. And if he is killed, he has supporters. So the matter is not easy until we say with ease: We remove the ruler and we end him, and everything is finished.
So there must be ability. And the ability now is not in the hands of the peoples, as far as I know, and knowledge is with Allah the Mighty and Majestic. The peoples do not have the ability to remove such people in whom we see clear disbelief. Then, the conditions mentioned by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) are difficult conditions. Who verifies this ruler, for example? We know that he is a disbeliever with certainty. We see him as we see the sun before us. Then we know that the disbelief is clear and does not admit of figurative interpretation, and there is no slightest ambiguity in it. Then we have evidence from Allah and decisive proof. These are difficult conditions. As for just a person suspecting that the ruler is a disbeliever, that is not correct. It is not that he is a disbeliever. There must be the establishment of the argument. And you know that what harmed the Ummah from the first time it was harmed in the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs was nothing but false figurative interpretation and rebellion against the imam.
Why did the Khawarij rebel against 'Ali ibn Abi Talib?They said: Because he appointed someone other than the Qur'an as the judge.
At first, they were with him against the army of Mu'awiyah. And when he was satisfied with the truce and the referral to the Qur'an for judgment, they said: “You have now judged by the opinions of men and accepted the truce, so you are a disbeliever. We will fight you.”
So they turned against him with what? With figurative interpretation. Not everything that a person sees is the truth. You may see something as forbidden, or a sin, or disbelief, and another person does not see it that way. Do we not see that the one who abandons the prayer is a disbeliever? We see that without doubt.Others come and say: It is not disbelief.
And the one who says: It is not disbelief. The scholars are not people of desire. They are scholars, but this is what their independent legal reasoning led them to. If the scholars from the people of jurisprudence may see what is disbelief in the view of others as not disbelief, what can be said about the rulers, some of whom have as much ignorance as the common people?
So the important thing is that these are difficult and serious issues. And a person should not be swept away by emotion or agitation. Rather, it is obligatory that he looks with a careful, deliberate, and measured look, and looks at what follows from this action. The intention is not just for the person to cool the heat of his anger. The intention is to reform the people. Otherwise, the person is no doubt sometimes filled with jealousy and anger at what happened, or what happened from some of the rulers. But he sees that it is in the public benefit to treat this problem by another way other than agitation.
And as I told you: Some people think that this is a cause that necessitates pressuring the one in authority to do what this speaker sees as reform. But this is not appropriate in lands like ours.
What is known among the scholars: The pledge of allegiance does not require the satisfaction of every single person. Otherwise, it is known that in the lands there are people who are not satisfied with anyone being their ruler. But if the ruler subdues and controls, and authority becomes his, that is the completion of the pledge of allegiance. It is not permissible to rebel against him, except in one case which the Prophet (peace be upon him) excluded, and he said: “Except if you see clear disbelief for which you have proof from Allah”. He said: “Except if you see”. The seeing is either by the eye or by the heart. Seeing by the eye is visual, and by the heart is intellectual.Meaning: We do not act on suspicion, estimates, or possibilities. Rather, we must know with certainty, and we must see disbelief, not open sinfulness.For example: Even if the ruler is the most sinful of Allah’s servants, and he drinks intoxicants and commits other forbidden things, and he is an open sinner but has not left Islam; it is not permissible to rebel against him even if he commits open sin. Because the harm of rebelling against him is far greater than the harm of his sin, which is specific to him.
The third, he said: “Clear”. Clear means: explicit.And the open plain: It is the wide open space that has no trees, no paved road, and no mountain, but is clear for the view. The disbelief must be clear and apparent, such that no one doubts it.For example: For example, if he calls for abandoning the Shari'ah, or calls for abandoning the prayer, or the like of clear disbelief that does not admit of figurative interpretation. As for what admits of figurative interpretation, it is not permissible to rebel against him, even if we see it as disbelief and some people see it as not disbelief. It is not permissible for us to rebel against him, because this is not clear.
The fourth: “For which you have proof from Allah”. “Except if you see clear disbelief for which you have proof from Allah”. If we do not have proof, meaning: clear evidence, not just independent legal reasoning or analogical reasoning, but it is clear and evident that it is disbelief; at that time, rebellion is permissible.
But does the permissibility of rebellion mean it is permissible in all cases, or is it obligatory in all cases?Answer: No.
There must be the ability to confront this ruler in whom we have seen clear disbelief. As for rebelling against him with kitchen knives and cowhide sandals, while he has tanks and missiles, that is foolishness in intellect and misguidance in religion, because Allah did not obligate jihad on the Muslims when they were weak in Makkah. He did not say: “Go out against Quraysh while they are with them, and if they wished, they could assassinate their leaders and kill them.” But He did not command them to do this, nor did He permit it to them. Why? Because of the lack of ability.
And if the obligatory acts of worship due to Allah the Mighty and Majestic are dropped due to inability, how about this matter which will involve bloodshed?Meaning: Removing the ruler is not an easy matter, nor is it just a feather that you blow away and it goes. There must be fighting from you and fighting from him. And if he is killed, he has supporters. So the matter is not easy until we say with ease: We remove the ruler and we end him, and everything is finished.
So there must be ability. And the ability now is not in the hands of the peoples, as far as I know, and knowledge is with Allah the Mighty and Majestic. The peoples do not have the ability to remove such people in whom we see clear disbelief. Then, the conditions mentioned by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) are difficult conditions. Who verifies this ruler, for example? We know that he is a disbeliever with certainty. We see him as we see the sun before us. Then we know that the disbelief is clear and does not admit of figurative interpretation, and there is no slightest ambiguity in it. Then we have evidence from Allah and decisive proof. These are difficult conditions. As for just a person suspecting that the ruler is a disbeliever, that is not correct. It is not that he is a disbeliever. There must be the establishment of the argument. And you know that what harmed the Ummah from the first time it was harmed in the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs was nothing but false figurative interpretation and rebellion against the imam.
Why did the Khawarij rebel against 'Ali ibn Abi Talib?They said: Because he appointed someone other than the Qur'an as the judge.
At first, they were with him against the army of Mu'awiyah. And when he was satisfied with the truce and the referral to the Qur'an for judgment, they said: “You have now judged by the opinions of men and accepted the truce, so you are a disbeliever. We will fight you.”
So they turned against him with what? With figurative interpretation. Not everything that a person sees is the truth. You may see something as forbidden, or a sin, or disbelief, and another person does not see it that way. Do we not see that the one who abandons the prayer is a disbeliever? We see that without doubt.Others come and say: It is not disbelief.
And the one who says: It is not disbelief. The scholars are not people of desire. They are scholars, but this is what their independent legal reasoning led them to. If the scholars from the people of jurisprudence may see what is disbelief in the view of others as not disbelief, what can be said about the rulers, some of whom have as much ignorance as the common people?
So the important thing is that these are difficult and serious issues. And a person should not be swept away by emotion or agitation. Rather, it is obligatory that he looks with a careful, deliberate, and measured look, and looks at what follows from this action. The intention is not just for the person to cool the heat of his anger. The intention is to reform the people. Otherwise, the person is no doubt sometimes filled with jealousy and anger at what happened, or what happened from some of the rulers. But he sees that it is in the public benefit to treat this problem by another way other than agitation.
And as I told you: Some people think that this is a cause that necessitates pressuring the one in authority to do what this speaker sees as reform. But this is not appropriate in lands like ours.