Explanation of the second doubt, which is the Battle of Ain Jalut in their fighting of the Tartars, where Sayf al-Din Qutuz appointed himself to the emirate, and the response to it.

The questioner : They cite the Battle of Ain Jalut against the Tartars as evidence, saying that this happened while the great scholars, such as al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam and others, were present. In fact, the Muslim commander in this battle, Sayf al-Din Qutuz, had appointed himself as the sultan of Egypt.

The Shaykh : I do not remember how the incident occurred. Do you, or anyone else, have details of it? Do you have anything here, Professor? Do you remember anything?

The questioner : By Allah, what I remember is...

The Shaykh : When did this happen?

The questioner : It happened in the year 658 AH.

The Shaykh : Well, is this not a case of dire necessity permitting the prohibited?
Al-Halabi : O Shaykh, here there was a deposition.

The Shaykh : What?
Al-Halabi : There was a deposition and the establishment of an imamate. This is a matter discussed in the books of Islamic political jurisprudence: the deposition of al-Mansur and his replacement by one who became sultan. This is a matter that differs, and Allah knows best. They say, “Our Shaykh, one who takes authority by force has authority, not that he imposed himself on the people in this way; it was a deposition.”

The Shaykh : Excuse me, I want to visualize the incident and connect it to the question to see how they understand it.
Al-Halabi : Let me read to you, my Shaykh, a part of the biography of Qutuz, just a few lines.

The Shaykh : No problem, but this is connected to his question.
Al-Halabi : Of course it is connected, because he says that he appointed himself for the sake of jihad. His statement is that, even though the matter is not so; he deposed al-Mansur and took his place, becoming sultan. Therefore, his pledge of allegiance is obligatory.

The Shaykh : Well, this is related to the issue that one who rebels against the pledged caliph from among the Muslims, this rebellion is not permissible from the legal standpoint. However, in order to preserve the blood of Muslims, one does not rebel against this rebel. As long as he is following the rulings of Allah and the Shari'ah of Allah, and as long as he raises the banner of jihad in the path of Allah, then the Muslims must obey him. What is the connection between this and the previous discussion? This also indicates that the group are woodcutters and gatherers, collecting matters from here and there, thinking they are evidence for them, when they are not evidence for them, nor even doubts for them.

The questioner : There is an objection, which appears to be the objection of Shaykh Ali Hasan regarding the establishment of hudud. He says...The Shaykh : Ali says: If people agree among themselves to establish hudud, it is invalid by the consensus of the Ummah. He says: Rather, it is permissible for people to refer to a qualified judge by their consent, unlike the judge of the imam, whose rulings are binding on them. The evidence is what Abu Shurayh narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him: He said, “My people, when they differ in a matter, come to me and I judge between them, and both parties are pleased with me.” He said: He said, “Shurayh.” He said: Al-Nasa'i narrated it, and the story of ‘Umar’s referral.

The Shaykh : Stop for a moment, my brother. Before a person cites evidence for a case, it must be visualized well. Is the issue referring to a specific person in a situation where there are people in the open desert, with no ruler and no established system? Or is the discussion taking place with the existence of a ruler and an established system, and a ruler who rules? I am not saying now that he rules by what Allah has revealed, because the reality is that there is a mixed ruling today, but there is a ruler who rules, some of it in accordance with the Shari'ah and some of it contrary to the Shari'ah. We are asking now: Is the point of disagreement between these people and the brother you mentioned that it is permissible to establish a person who establishes hudud under that ruling system and without the permission of that ruler? Or without the existence of such a ruler? Is there a detail for this issue? The answer is no. Well, if we ask: What is the connection of this evidence to the case where there is a ruler whose ruling we say is contrary to the Shari'ah in many of its rulings? If a man appoints himself to judge between people on his own, as we said earlier regarding the leader of the so-called group, who appointed himself and began to apply the legal rulings, what will this ruler, who is an individual from among his people, do with this man? Will he give him room to establish the legal hudud?

The questioner : Of course not.

The Shaykh : Of course not. If the matter is not in the form we are now discussing, where an individual rules and applies the legal hudud under the system of a tyrannical, arrogant ruler—describe him as you wish—but we know necessarily that he cannot establish the legal hudud. Our reality, unfortunately, is clearer than what you are saying. If you saw a man cursing Allah and His Messenger, you cannot hit him with your stick or your hand, because the ruler does not support the legal ruling here, nor does he defend the legal rulings. What about a man who intentionally and deliberately killed a Muslim? This one who appointed himself to judgment comes and takes him and kills him. What will he do with him? The fitnah will increase. I think, and this is the man who is responding to him, and praise be to Allah, he can clarify what he has from what I mentioned or what I did not mention. Do you have anything?
Al-Halabi : Make the news certain, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. These people, my brother, have no knowledge; they do not distinguish between one situation and another. If there were a group, as I mentioned earlier, in the open desert, with no sultan and no ruler, then the ruling of Abu al-Hukm applies here. He was given this kunya because he was obeyed in his people; he was obeyed in his people. There was no one to oppose him when he ruled with a ruling, and no great fitnah and corruption in the land resulting from his ruling. The legal principle teaches us that a Muslim is sometimes compelled to contradict the legal ruling in order to repel the greater harm with the lesser harm... Did Abu al-Hukm, after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) asked him this question and he answered with what he had, judge between people and rule between people? I think you distinguish with us between the ruling and the execution of the ruling. For example, I rule that so-and-so, as long as he committed zina and is married, must be stoned to death. This is a ruling, and a ruling in accordance with the Shari'ah. But do I have the right to execute this ruling legally? Do I have the right to execute this ruling, or does the one entrusted with executing the rulings do it? Therefore, in all eras of Islam, the one known as a mufti and the one known as a judge: the judge has his jurisdiction, and the mufti has his jurisdiction. It is similar to the police chief; the police chief executes the ruling that comes to him from the ruler, but he is not a ruler; he is an executor. Therefore, the confusion between rulings is a great calamity. Did Abu al-Hukm, in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), judge between people without the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) appointing him to judge between people and to execute what he ruled between them? The answer is no. So this hadith has no connection to the subject at all.