Clarification of the weakness of the narration (It is not permissible for three who are in a desert of the earth except that they appoint one of them as their leader) and whether it is valid to cite it as evidence for the obligation of obedience in partisan leadership.

The questioner : May Allah reward you for the hadith.

The Shaykh : It was mentioned here in the newsletter that came to us from Algeria, among the proofs for establishing the Rightly Guided Caliphate, in which no two people differ and no two goats butt heads, they mentioned proofs, among which is their saying: "And Imam Ahmad narrated in al-Musnad from Abdullah ibn Amr that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: " to the end of what they said in commenting on this hadith. The purpose now is to draw attention to the weakness of this hadith in terms of its chain of narration. I had an incident with some members of the Tahrir Party while I was in Damascus, where one of their senior figures, who was known to be the deputy of Shaykh Taki al-Din al-Nabhani in his absence, called me on the phone one day while I was at work in the shop.The Shaykh : He asked me about this hadith, so I answered him that this hadith with this wording is weak, meaning with the wording to the end. But they brought a hadith before this from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who said: This is narrated in Sunan Abu Dawud and others, and it is established, but with the wording , so it is not established. And a call like this is a unique and singular call from a member of the Tahrir Party to me, and I was in Damascus at that time. It is known that I differ from them in their methodology and their call, because it is not based on the Book and the Sunnah first, but rather it is based on choosing what they consider to be the most beneficial and useful from the sayings of scholars, despite their differences. Then they do not concern themselves with correcting the creed and correcting behavior, and they explicitly state that the place for that is only after establishing the Muslim state. For this reason, I was always in intense discussion with them, and there was absolutely no phone contact between me and them at that time. So that man's questionThe questioner : about this hadith was a surprise to me, especially when I informed him that the hadith with this chain of narration is weak. I expressed my astonishment at this question, where I said to him: What prompted you to ask about this specific hadith when there is another authentic hadith that suffices you for this? It is the hadith we mentioned earlier that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: He answered me with what I know about them in general, but I did not know what disagreement had arisen among them. They have what I can say is a foreign philosophy in Islam: that the command in the Book or in the Sunnah does not directly imply obligation as a rule, but rather one looks at the circumstances and indicators surrounding the matter. If there is an indicator that implies the command is for obligation, then it is said to be obligatory, not because of the command itself, but because of the indicator. Otherwise, it is not possible to cite the mere command as evidence that the commanded matter is obligatory. My interlocutor, the one referred to, said: Because a disagreement occurred between Taki al-Din al-Nabhani himself and some of the administrative members, so he ordered them to obey him with blind obedience. And his argument was that the group is commanded in many hadiths to obey the one in authority, so he is a one in authority and must be obeyed. They refuted him with the rule they are confident in, that the command does not imply obligation. So why do you order us to obey you with this blind obedience? He argued with them using this hadith, which they consider an indicator to interpret the command as obligation, where he said: to the end. Therefore, my questioner wanted to know if this hadith with this wording is authentic or not. When I answered him that it is weak, he rejoiced greatly and returned to clinging to the rule that the command does not imply obligation. And the result of that was that a rift and disagreement occurred in the administrative council and with the party leader, Taki al-Din al-Hilali (may Allah have mercy on him). I learned this by phone. And now our brothers in Algeria are following the path of the Tahrir Party, arguing with weak hadiths and insisting that there must be a caliphate, even if it is from three people. And we say that the command of the Messenger (peace be upon him) in travel to appoint a leader over them is not disputed.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : But this is not as it is in the administration of the affairs of the Islamic state, that it is obligatory to impose the appointment of one person who stands up or is appointed for what? For the leadership and authority over the other Muslims. Rather, this is as we always and forever decide: it is sought through purification and education, by informing people of what Allah has revealed of legal rulings and educating them on that. And when they achieve these two basic conditions, the group will coalesce and they will find themselves compelled to appoint an emir over them. This emir is the one who must be obeyed after the conditions for accepting his leadership and obeying his orders have been provided.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : This is what is meant in the mind.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : And beware of that.

The questioner : Of course, these are articles from the articles of Ali Belhadj, of course.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : May Allah preserve you.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.