The innovation of pledging allegiance to anyone other than the Caliph, and that there is a difference between fulfilling a pledge and fulfilling a promise.

The questioner : May Allah preserve you, our Shaykh. When the brothers cite such a chapter, when the brothers—meaning the brothers about whom the question is asked—speak on this, they say, for example, that they also rely on the generalities. Does your answer that you mentioned include their reliance on the pledge of allegiance and covenants using the general evidence regarding the fulfillment of covenants and the praise of those who fulfill their covenants? They cite these verses in this context. Is your first answer also an answer to this?

The Shaykh : This is what I said last, and I add now, after having clarified that they argue with the fulfillment of promises. Fulfilling promises is one thing, and contracting a pledge of allegiance to be fulfilled is another thing.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : The issue now is not that it is obligatory in a general sense to fulfill promises. This is a matter, as it is said, in which no two people differ and no two camels butt heads. Rather, the issue is the legitimacy of a pledge of allegiance other than the major pledge of allegiance, which must be fulfilled. We say: establish the throne, then inscribe it. Establish this pledge of allegiance, then make its fulfillment obligatory. But what is built upon falsehood is false. What is built upon what has no basis has no basis. As long as the practice of all the Muslims, and especially what concerns us and what we consider evidence corroborated by the Book and the Sunnah, as we mentioned more than once, the practice of the righteous predecessors was not established upon multiple pledges of allegiance such that it would be said that it is obligatory to fulfill every pledge. Then we reiterate the harms that result from declaring these pledges of allegiance disbelieving and making their fulfillment obligatory, namely the increase in taking means to divide the Muslims more than they are already divided. The ruling on means is like the ruling on ends. An end that cannot be reached, and which is prescribed only through a means, makes that means obligatory in the case, according to the scholars and those knowledgeable of the principles of jurisprudence. And the reverse is the reverse entirely. Every means that results in harm is itself harm. Therefore, the issue is not the obligation of fulfilling covenants and promises, but rather contracting a pledge of allegiance to which they attach the obligation of fulfilling it. This has no basis, and arguing by generality here does not benefit anything.

The questioner : This, our Shaykh, is an independent answer that you mentioned now. Even if we concede to them that the Salaf did that, that they performed pledges of allegiance, and so on, and the harms currently occurring in the... Ummah, this is an independent answer in itself. Because they, our Shaykh, argue by saying, for example, that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in the Fatwas, and meaning from the later scholars, like Imam al-Shawkani in Nail al-Awtar, that they analogized the authority in the city to the authority in travel.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : So Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: If the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) legislated authority for three who travel in the desert, for the cities and towns and thousands of people, then a fortiori, the same is the case. Al-Shawkani said the same thing. They cite such a place.

The Shaykh : But here something is refuted.

The questioner : Please.

The Shaykh : They did not link a pledge of allegiance to this authority. So we can separate the pledge of allegiance from the authority. We say that authority is obligatory, but we do not link a pledge of allegiance to it, and we do not make breaking it like breaking the major pledge of allegiance, and that general obedience is obligatory except in disobedience to Allah (Mighty and Majestic). We only make general obedience obligatory, but we do not make it such that if it is neglected... for example, these three who traveled, one of them did not obey his leader. There is no doubt that this is not praiseworthy, but it is not like not obeying the leader of the leader. Yes.

The questioner : They, in fact, when we speak to them about it, say that we do not consider it a great authority, but an authority of action, an authority of such and such. They use other expressions for it. But, our Shaykh, I wanted to say that arguing with the words ofThe Shaykh : Ibn Taymiyyah, first, when I returned to the Fatwas, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah spoke about the great authority, which is the pledge of allegiance to the supreme leader. He brought the evidence from the Qur'an and from the Sunnah and from this analogy. He was not speaking about such newly invented authorities that tore the body of the Ummah apart.

The Shaykh : There is no doubt.

The questioner : The second thing, if they argue by analogy in this place, why does the branch not take the ruling of the root? And the root in our case, meaning in travel, has no pledge of allegiance. We travel, we are a group, we do not pledge allegiance to the leader with us. We give him a covenant and a pledge, but you are our leader. So why, when they came to the city, did they make the covenant and did they make the pledge of allegiance? So this is also the third thing: the great authority is to unite the word of the Muslims, and these newly invented authorities divided the word of the Muslims.

The Shaykh : There is no doubt.

The questioner : The fourth thing, from the perspective of my consideration, how can one imagine several authorities within the city? Do they permit a caravan, if they are one hundred, to divide into ten, with ten leaders, and they travel in one direction, they set out together and they depart together? They do not permit this.

The Shaykh : Only a fool does this.

The questioner : Yes, and they are doing this now. Its analogy and its counterpart in the city is this situation. Its analogy and its counterpart in the city, our Shaykh, is this situation. So arguing with such a text of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is a burden placed upon him. But what do they cite? Sometimes in words, sometimes they say so-and-so from the Salaf pledged allegiance to his companions. So-and-so from the Salaf said, pledge allegiance to me on such and such. Ibn Taymiyyah said it is permissible for the student to covenant with his Shaykh, or the students with their Shaykh, to obey Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). When a person is unable to provide his evidence, or when he begins to speak with words other than those of the scholars, he clings to anything.

The Shaykh : He clings, even to the threads of the moon! Well done, well done.