What is your opinion on some parties compelling their followers to pledge allegiance and obey the prince?

The questioner : The issue of leadership in da'wah is such that some groups, or even some Salafis, seek leadership and cite the hadith of the journey as evidence. They also compel those with them to accept leadership by saying, "The believers are bound by their conditions," and by analogy to vows, arguing that if a person makes a vow, he is bound by it, and so...?

The Shaykh : Excuse me, I did not understand the last one. What is it?

The questioner : The vow.

The Shaykh : What is the matter with the vow?

The questioner : That if a person commits to a vow, he must fulfill it. Similarly, if a person joins this group and submits to this prince, he must obey this prince by analogy to the vow, and also based on the saying: in sales and other matters. You will find that they appoint a prince, and this prince may not be one of their scholars or a scholar at all; he may simply be an organized and managing man, perhaps holding an ordinary job as an engineer, a doctor, or something else.

The Shaykh : The first thing that comes to my mind is to ask: who made this analogy? Is he a scholar or an ignorant person? It will be said that he is a scholar. Is he a scholar in the true, legal sense, or is he a follower of taqlid? He may not even be a scholar in terms of taqlid. This is one of the wonders of this time: those who do not know how to follow a scholar are engaging in ijtihad. Why? To implement rulings and mislead people in the name of what? Qiyas. Qiyas, my brothers, is the fourth proof, as you know, and it is not resorted to except out of dire necessity, except out of dire necessity, as Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said in some of his books, perhaps al-Risalah: "Qiyas is a necessity, so if there is no necessity, it is not prescribed to resort to qiyas." Now, these people cite such matters as I mentioned, including qiyas, to smooth over their reality which contradicts the Shari'ah and divides the Muslim community. As for one who is Salafi in creed and, naturally, knowledgeable about the Salafi da'wah based on the Book and the Sunnah and what our righteous predecessors were upon, he finds that these arguments are merely scattering dust in people's eyes so that they can say to people, "We have evidence from the Book and the Sunnah and correct qiyas." So we say: the Muslims followed the legal pledge of allegiance in the early era, and then, unfortunately, the Muslims later divided into small states resembling the small states existing now, perhaps fewer in number and wider in scope. None of these states followed the path of these groups and parties to justify this division that existed among the Islamic states at that time. This is because their scholars still possessed some knowledge. As for the new generation today and those who call for some kind of bloc and party, they do not have what those earlier people had of scholars. True scholars, at least scholars of a madhhab. These people do not have true scholars, nor scholars. Dr. al-Bouti did well in his error when he named himself and those like him scholars "in a figurative sense." This was, in reality, a slip of the tongue, but a shot from a non-shooter that hit the truth without intending it. There were, at that time, at least figurative scholars, meaning scholars of a madhhab. And there are no such rulings in the madhahabs that you mentioned just now, let alone in the fiqh derived from the Book and the Sunnah...
The recording material has ended.