Some understood from your words that you deny the establishment of legitimate pledges of allegiance that exist out of necessity and are limited to their scope

Al-Halabi: - Also - we say - our Shaykh - : It is, in fact, a response to another question that was in mind, which was mentioned and raised, but your answer - and praise be to Allah - is sufficient in its mention and clarification; since some understood from your words, and by “some” I mean those who lie in wait for our scholars and Shaykhs; I say: some of these people exploited your words in denying the pledge except for the comprehensive pledge, and the absence of a comprehensive Islamic state, to claim that you deny the establishment of partial pledges that you referred to, which are for a necessity that is measured by its extent. So he exploited that to criticize you and place your words out of context. But this good and sound statement from your eminence is sufficient for the issue entirely. It reminds me of a statement by the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah - may Allah have mercy on him - in volume thirty-four, on page one hundred seventy-five and page one hundred seventy-six; if you permit me - our Shaykh - to read it?

The Shaykh: Go ahead.
Al-Halabi: Yes, he says - may Allah have mercy on him - : “The Sunnah is that the Muslims have one Imam, and the others are his deputies. If it were stipulated that the Ummah departed from that due to the disobedience of some and the incapacity of the rest, or otherwise, and they had several Imams; then it would be obligatory for every Imam to establish the hudud (fixed punishments) and collect the rights.” This is also part of the speech you mentioned.
There is another statement - our professor - by “Siddiq Hasan Khan,” the scholar Siddiq Hasan Khan - may Allah have mercy on him - in “al-Rawdat al-Nadiyyah,” in part three, page seven hundred seventy-four; he says - after referring to the principle of the existence of a comprehensive Islamic state - : “As for after the spread of Islam and the expansion of its territory and the distance of its extremities; it is known that it has become the case that in every region or regions of authority there is an Imam or a Sultan, and in another region or regions likewise. And the command or prohibition of some does not extend to a region or regions other than those that returned to his authority; so there is no harm in the plurality of Imams and Sultans, and obedience is obligatory to each one of them after the pledge of allegiance for the people of the region in which his commands and prohibitions are implemented.” This also fully aligns with what you mentioned, and this statement will - with the permission of Allah - be a thorn in the eyes and throats of those who lie in wait, who want to stir up discord between the scholars of the Ummah and the people of the Sunnah, so may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh: May Allah guide them, and I say on this occasion that the words of the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah - may Allah have mercy on him - and the words of Siddiq Hasan Khan, and there are other examples from our noble Imams whose words align in distinguishing between what is the principle, which should be a general system for the entire Islamic world, however distant its regions, and what is necessitated by necessity - and necessity has its own rulings - . This is the speech of jurists and true mujtahids (scholars qualified to derive rulings) who know the distinction between the principle and what contradicts the principle due to a transient matter. It is exactly like this issue, which is based on the principle of observing maslahah (public benefit) and mafsadah (harm) and preferring the predominant one over the other. It is exactly like the obedience to the rebellious ruler who rebelled, transgressed, and overcame the legitimate ruler - this is also a transient matter, and it should be given its ruling. So these rebels, if they take control of the lands and eliminate the Muslim ruler who was pledged to, we do not say: we also go out against them and fight them, but rather we obey them - also - from the perspective of repelling the greater harm with the lesser harm. This is how we learned from the jurists, from their foundational principles and their applications. And what you recited just now of the words of the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Siddiq Hasan Khan, their speech stems from observing the principle and observing the transient necessity, and each has its own ruling.
The questioner : Yes, I do.