Is one to be blamed for having pledged allegiance to this ruler?

The Shaykh : ... From what has preceded, we can answer part of what is in the question, which is: Is one to be blamed for pledging allegiance to that ruler? The answer becomes clear from what has preceded. First, if that ruler was pledged allegiance to by the general body of Muslims, meaning the people of their consultation, even within the limits of what is said: "There is no good except in what exists," and understanding the intended meaning of this phrase, then there is no blame on the one who pledges allegiance to this ruler. Rather, the blame falls on the one who lags behind. However, I emphasize that this pledge of allegiance, where there is no blame on the one who pledges and blame on the one who lags behind, is the pledge that the people of authority and decision among the Muslims as a whole agree upon, not in one country only, but in the lands of Islam. Otherwise, the pledge of allegiance will be multiplied, the rulers will be multiplied, and chaos will occur among the Islamic states until the matter reaches the point where some of them fight each other, as is the complete reality in the partisan groups. Every group has a leader, and every group pledges allegiance to its leader. When that happens, schism, separation, turning away, and mutual hatred occur, as is observed today. These groupings and these parties are, in reality, miniature governments. We imagine that if governments were established there, with rulers at their heads, all of whom were pledged allegiance to by the people of that region or that area, without a doubt the calamity would be greater than the calamity of the multiplication of parties and the pledging of allegiance to the heads of these parties. Therefore, we say that the one who pledges allegiance under that condition is the one who is correct, and the one who lags behind is the one who has left the community. The community is not this term that came in many authentic hadiths that command holding fast to it, such as the hadith, for example, of the difference and the saved sect, in which it is stated that one of its characteristics is the community, and one of its characteristics is what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his noble Companions were upon. And of that is, for example, his saying (peace and blessings be upon him and his family): So the intended meaning is those who pledged a lawful pledge of allegiance. And the lawful pledge of allegiance is not municipal, nor regional, but rather Islamic. Yes. As for his coercive obedience, I did not understand what is intended by this coercive obedience. Can it be clarified so that I can think about the answer after the intended meaning becomes clear?

The questioner : It is as ifThe questioner : He says that the one who intends by coercive obedience is that he is not satisfied with this pledge of allegiance, so he is compelled to it by compulsion, and he is forced into it by force.

The Shaykh : The one who pledged?

The questioner : The one who pledged.

The Shaykh : I do not believe that there is, I mean, a necessity for the pledge of allegiance. If it is found, then the known rule is: "Necessities permit the prohibited." And it is also known that this is not absolute; rather, necessities are estimated by their amount. As for what came at the end of the question regarding the statementThe questioner : about: Is it permissible to rebel against him or not? This issue differs from the previous one. It has occurred in Islam...

The questioner : Excuse me, my Shaykh, it is not so. Rather, he says at the end, in addition to what preceded, with the belief in his coercive obedience and the impermissibility of rebelling against him. This is the one who obeyed him coercively; he sees that it is not permissible to rebel against him, and he sees that he is a Muslim ruler if the conditions are present in him.

The Shaykh : I did not start the answer. If you had been patient, you would have received the answer.

The questioner : Excuse me.

The Shaykh : We say that any ruler today, in my belief, is not a ruler who was pledged allegiance to with a lawful pledge of allegiance. Why? Because the Muslims did not agree upon this pledge of allegiance; rather, it is municipal and regional. This is my belief. Second: I say that any ruler today among the rulers of the Muslims from whom open disbelief has not appeared, it is not permissible to rebel against him, even if he was not pledged allegiance to with the conditions mentioned earlier. So we say: Any Muslim ruler today who has not declared open, explicit disbelief, it is not permissible for a group of Muslims to rebel against him. This is because it has occurred in Islamic history that many rebels rebelled against the pledged rulers, and then when their rule became established with their rebellion and aggression, the scholars of the Muslims did not permit rebelling against them. And all of this is from the perspective of preserving the blood of Muslims from being shed in such a wasteful manner.
Rather, I say today: Even if there is a Muslim ruler, geographically speaking, or if he is, I mean, a geographically Muslim ruler or in the testimony of people, this is my personal opinion that it is not permissible to rebel against him except with many and very many conditions. The first of them is that the Muslims have prepared themselves to rebel against him, and this has a detailed study. I think it is mentioned in some tapes regarding what we refer to with two concise words: purification and training. When the Muslims gather in a certain country or region on purification and training, and of the training is acting upon all the texts they were commanded by, in the Book and the Sunnah, and of that is the saying of Allah the Exalted: to the end of the verse. So when we find such a group that has established itself upon applying purified Islam and was trained on this purified Islam, and has prepared the spiritual and material means, then we say it is permissible to rebel against this ruler who has declared open disbelief. But also with conditions, which is warning him, and not doing what? Treacherous dealing with him, in a way called revolutions or military coups or the like. So this also, in my belief and in what I understand from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), we do not permit it except with this condition. And I believe that in what occurred of revolutions by some Islamic groups in some Islamic lands, starting with the group of Juhayman in the Makkah Haram, and the group of Takfir and Hijrah in Egypt, and the group of the Syrian, what is his name?

The questioner : Marwan al-Hadid

The Shaykh : Marwan al-Hadid, yes. And now in Algeria as well, we say that this is not permissible, because they, as Allah the Exalted said: We have a long discussion regarding the Algerians; perhaps there are some recordings preserved. If the end of this question is that we do not permit rebellion at all in this time, because of what will follow from it in terms of the shedding of the blood of Muslims without any notable benefit, but rather with harms that spread and whose effects appear in Islamic societies, the first of which is the setback of the Salafi call in the Hijaz lands due to this revolution carried out by that known as Juhayman. And with that, my answer to this question ends.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And you as well.