The question that should be asked before you ask or direct other questions is one I want to ask through the lines of the message you mention, a paragraph of which is:

The questioner : The question that should be asked before you ask or direct other questions is one I want to ask through the lines of the message you mention, a paragraph of which is: "And the leader of that group believes that the Somali people are not inviolable in their blood, and that he, this leader of course, has pledged to Allah to shed much blood until they stand firm upon the law of Allah. And the young men believe that such a prince must be obeyed and that disobeying him is forbidden. So on this basis they rush to carry out what he orders them to do." We want our Shaykh, may Allah bless him, to answer us specifically about this paragraph, and what is the ruling on obeying this prince, and is it permissible to obey him in such a matter where he has pledged to Allah to shed this much blood until they stand firm upon the law of Allah, knowing that the Somali people are not inviolable in their blood as he claims, and Allah Mighty and Majestic wills otherwise? We ask you to answer this question, and may Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : I say: Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. In light of what I heard regarding the details of the situation in Somalia, concerning the disagreement among the Islamic groups after the disbeliever ruler was defeated, who first did not rule by what Allah revealed, and second, who changed much of the law of Allah, what I understand from this statement I heard and recorded on this tape, whose answer you are hearing, is that there is no obligatory obedience for such a leader as mentioned, because he was not pledged allegiance to by a general pledge from the Muslims, at least in that land, the land of Somalia. Rather, he was pledged allegiance to by a party that follows him, and they follow him without insight, contrary to the saying of Allah Blessed and Exalted is He: The statement of this leader that the blood of the Somalis is not inviolable is a serious and very serious boldness in making the blood of Muslims lawful without right, because the matter is not in his hand to appoint himself as a ruler over the land of Somalia, just because some naive young men were deceived by the one chosen by the general Muslim population. I mean the general population, not even the common people or the ignorant, and perhaps the open sinners, but rather the elite of the Muslim scholars who know whom they choose to be a ruler who rules between them by what Allah revealed. This leader mentioned does not have a pledge in the necks of those who pledged to him, let alone those who opposed him and did not pledge to him, because he is one of the Khawarij who rebelled against the Islamic groups. It would only be correct to say, if it were permissible to say, that a people among the Muslim peoples are not inviolable in their blood, only if they rebel against the Muslim ruler, the Muslim ruler who was pledged allegiance to by the Muslims in the detail I mentioned earlier. As for this leader mentioned in the question, he was not pledged allegiance to except by a small group and a faction of naive people, so he does not have a pledge from these people, let alone from the other Muslims. Therefore, we do not advise the other Muslims not to be deceived by him, but I advise him himself not to claim for himself what has not been given to him from the Book of his Lord and the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). We hope that the Somalis will all gather and unite on a common word, which is ruling by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and upon the methodology of the righteous Salaf. I hope they will all agree on this to pledge allegiance to whom they choose, not a party choice or a tribal choice, but a scholarly choice, because the one chosen to be a ruler there must meet the conditions of the Muslim ruler, the first of which is that he be a Muslim holding fast to the Book and the Sunnah, the second is that he be knowledgeable of the Book and the Sunnah, and the third, which may not be available in such a country or elsewhere, is that he be an Arab Qurashi, based on his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): and his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): I do not believe there is anyone there who meets all these conditions. If we overlook the third condition, which is Qurashi descent, the first two conditions are necessary: that he be a righteous, pious Muslim, and that he be knowledgeable of the Book and the Sunnah, and upon the methodology claimed in the question raised earlier, and upon the methodology of the righteous Salaf. I do not think at all that a man who understands the Book and the Sunnah and is upon the methodology of the righteous Salaf would be bold enough to say, just because some naive people pledged to him, that the blood of the Somalis is not what did he say? protected.

The questioner : Not inviolable.

The Shaykh : Not protected, meaning that he has the right to kill from them those who did not pledge to him. So he appointed himself a prince and imposed the pledge on his followers, and based on this pledge which has no basis, he considered those who do not pledge to him to be rebels. And then the noble verse comes: So he considers these people rebels against whom? Against this person who was not pledged allegiance to by a general pledge, but only by a specific pledge. And these pledges, if I may express it, are in my opinion among the causes of the division of the Muslims and among the causes of their weakness and the control of the enemy over their land and their countries, because as it is said:
"And every hand claims a connection to Layla *** And Layla does not approve of that for them"
All of them claim from these parties that they are pledged by whom? By their followers. And there is another party pledged by whom? By their followers. And so on. So all these pledges increase the fire and increase the intensity of the fitnah. It is enough for the Muslims this division that has occurred among them due to their distance from the methodology of the Book and the Sunnah. It is enough for them this division, so it is not permissible for them to increase the division by organizing the separation and making it into blocks and parties that fight each other and attack each other. This is what I am able to answer regarding the question raised earlier.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : And may He bless you.