Is it understood from your remarks on pledges of allegiance that such pledges are not permissible, especially since they increase the division among Muslims?

Al-Halabi: May Allah preserve you, our Shaykh, there is no doubt that [this] is sufficient for everyone who listens and is a witness, among those who seek the truth and pursue it. However, our problem today, as we mentioned, is with those who lie in wait. So there are two points of clarification; I am asking for details on them based on the answer you have graciously provided.
You mentioned in your noble answer the pledges of allegiance that increased the division among... It is clear from your words that these newly introduced pledges given to Islamic groups are not permissible. The evidence for their impermissibility, in addition to the general scriptural proofs, is the division and fragmentation they have caused among Muslims.

The Shaykh: Yes.
Al-Halabi: Is this what you intend and seek from that, our Shaykh?

The Shaykh: Of course, that is what we want. Because the pledge of allegiance, as we believe from the evidence mentioned earlier, is for a single Imam. However, there is no doubt that some of the independent jurists among the scholars of the Muslims have reasoned that if there are scattered rulers in the lands of Islam, and the circumstances do not allow for gathering these rulers to pledge allegiance to a single Imam among them, then in this case, and only out of dire necessity, it is possible to pledge allegiance to this Imam to support Islam, and not to fight each other as is the reality of the political parties. Note, however, a major difference: these groups do not constitute governments, but rather scattered parties, and I do not say in one state, but even in one country. Therefore, if dire necessities permit what is prohibited, where is the necessity in this clustering, party formation, and division?
Al-Halabi : What Allah willed!

The Shaykh: They differ completely, and perhaps in this lies the answer as well.