The Shaykh requested the evidence of the group that the authority is not a condition for jihad.

The Shaykh : Now I will mention the doubts or the evidence, in their claim, by which they refuted us, where they assumed that we deny jihad absolutely and that we make the condition of authority for it, whereas we distinguish between one type of jihad and another. Let us look at the evidence.

The questioner : There is no jihad without an imam.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The doubt is: There is no jihad without an imam.

The Shaykh : And now we have said that we affirm jihad without an imam, but we say that the jihad which, for example, we assume there is a ruling of a disbeliever explicitly, this is permissible by the text of the hadith that came in your question. Now, does this rising up against this disbeliever with explicit disbelief not require preparation? Is this a point of disagreement between one Muslim and another? No. Now they say, where is the group of jihad? Where are their preparations that enable them to rise up against the ruler who disbelieves with explicit disbelief? Where is this? And where is the disagreement they claim that the authority is obligatory? We say that the jihad intended for rising up, this must have an authority, but this alone is not sufficient. Does it not require moral preparation and material preparation? Starting from the saying of He Blessed and Exalted is He: So this address, unfortunately, is not realized in an Islamic land. Therefore, we say that this is necessary for it. Did those who called themselves the group of jihad fulfill this obligation?

The questioner : They did not do anything.

The Shaykh : Now, if they are establishing a disagreement, and there is no disagreement.