How is the pledge of allegiance to be made in our current time, given the disturbances and political coups in the lands of the Muslims?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Your Eminence, it is established in the hadith from him (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: And it is known that in most of the lands of the Muslims today, this matter is not realized, and that they do not have a pledge of allegiance upon their necks for many reasons, including political disturbances and coups, among others. So how do the Muslims in those lands escape from this sin and this warning? May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : It is known among the people of knowledge that the pledge of allegiance does not require the satisfaction of every single person. It is also known that in the lands, there are people who are not satisfied with any person being their ruler. However, if the ruler subdues and controls, and power becomes his, then this is the completion of the pledge of allegiance. It is not permissible to rebel against him except in one case, which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) excluded, and he said:Sahih al-Bukhari 7055, 7056:
He said: And the seeing is either by the eye or by the heart. Seeing by the eye is visual, and by the heart is intellectual. This means that we do not act on suspicion, estimates, or probabilities, but rather we must know with certainty, and we must see disbelief, not open sinfulness. For example, if the ruler is the most sinful of Allah’s servants, drinking intoxicants and other forbidden things, and he is an open sinner but has not exited Islam, then it is not permissible to rebel against him even if he commits open sin, because the harm of rebelling against him is far greater than the harm of his sin, which is specific to him.
The third: He said:: "Bawah" means explicit. The "bawah" land is the wide one that has no trees, no grass, and no mountains, but is clear for viewing. It is necessary that the disbelief be explicit and apparent, such that no one doubts it. For example, if he calls for abandoning the Shari'ah, or calls for abandoning the prayer, or similar clear disbelief that does not admit of figurative interpretation. As for what admits of figurative interpretation, it is not permissible to rebel against him, even if we see it as disbelief and some people see it as not disbelief, because this is not explicit.
The fourth: We have from Allah therein a proof,Sahih al-Bukhari 7055, 7056. If we do not have a proof, meaning a clear evidence, and it is not merely independent legal reasoning or analogical reasoning, but it is clear and evident that it is disbelief, then at that time it is permissible to rebel.
But does the permissibility of rebellion mean that it is permissible in every case, or is it obligatory in every case?
No, there must be the ability to confront this ruler in whom we have seen explicit disbelief. There must be ability. As for rebelling against him with kitchen knives and cattle knives while he has tanks and missiles, that is foolishness in intellect and misguidance in religion! Because Allah did not obligate jihad upon the Muslims when they were weak in Makkah. He did not say, "Go out against Quraysh while they are with them, and if they wished, they could assassinate their leaders and kill them," but He did not command them to do this and did not permit it to them. Why?
The questioner : Due to the lack of ability.
The Shaykh : Due to the lack of ability. And if the obligatory acts of worship for Allah the Exalted and Majestic are dropped due to inability, how much more so for that which will involve blood? Removing the ruler is not an easy matter. It is not merely a feather that you blow on and it moves. There must be fighting, and if there is killing, there must be helpers. So the matter is not easy to the point that we say, "With ease we remove the ruler or we destroy him and everything ends." There must be ability. And the ability now is not in the hands of the peoples, as far as I know, and knowledge is with Allah the Exalted and Majestic. It is not in the hands of the peoples to have the ability to remove such people in whom we see explicit disbelief.
Then, the conditions mentioned by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) are difficult conditions. Who can verify that this ruler, for example, we know that he is a disbeliever with certainty, we see him as we see the sun before us, and then we know that the disbelief is explicit and does not admit of figurative interpretation or the slightest ambiguity, and then we have a proof from Allah, a decisive evidence? These are difficult conditions.
As for merely what a person suspects that the ruler is a disbeliever! It is not correct that he is a disbeliever. It is necessary to establish the argument. And you know that what harmed the Ummah from the first time it harmed them in the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs was nothing but the defective figurative interpretation. The defective figurative interpretation and rebelling against the Imam. Why did the Khawarij rebel against 'Ali ibn Abi Talib?
They said because he judged by other than the Qur'an. They were initially with him against the army of Mu'awiyah, and when he accepted the truce and the judgment by the Qur'an, they said: "Enough, you have now judged by the opinions of men and accepted the truce, so you are a disbeliever, and we will fight you now." So they turned against him. With what?
With figurative interpretation. And not everything that a person sees is the truth. You may see something as forbidden, or something of sin, or something as disbelief, while another does not see it so. Do we not see that the one who abandons the prayer is a disbeliever?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : We see that without doubt. But another comes and says: "This is not disbelief." And those who say it is not disbelief are scholars, meaning they are not people of desire. They are scholars, but this is what their independent legal reasoning led to. So if the scholars of jurisprudence may see what is disbelief in the view of others as not disbelief, what about the rulers, some of whom may have ignorance like that of the general people? So the important thing, my brothers, is that these matters are difficult and serious, and it is not befitting for a person to follow emotion or agitation. Rather, it is obligatory that he look with a careful, deliberate, and hesitant look, and look at what follows from this action. The intention is not merely for a person to cool the heat of his zeal, but the intention is to reform the creation. Otherwise, a person is certainly sometimes overcome by zeal and filled with anger at what has happened or is happening from some of the rulers, but he sees that it is in the public benefit to treat the problem by a way other than agitation. And as I told you: some people think that this is a reason that necessitates pressuring the one in authority to do what this speaker sees as reform. But this is not appropriate in lands like ours. Yes.
Whoever dies and does not have a pledge of allegiance to anyone upon his neck, dies the death of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance.
من مات وليس في عنقه لأحد بيعة مات ميتة جاهليّةThe Shaykh : It is known among the people of knowledge that the pledge of allegiance does not require the satisfaction of every single person. It is also known that in the lands, there are people who are not satisfied with any person being their ruler. However, if the ruler subdues and controls, and power becomes his, then this is the completion of the pledge of allegiance. It is not permissible to rebel against him except in one case, which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) excluded, and he said:
unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah
إلاّ أن تروا كفرا بواحا عندكم من الله فيه برهانHe said:
Except that you see
إلاّ أن ترواThe third: He said:
Clear.
بواحاThe fourth: We have from Allah therein a proof,
unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah
أن تروا كفرا بواحا عندكم من الله فيه برهانBut does the permissibility of rebellion mean that it is permissible in every case, or is it obligatory in every case?
No, there must be the ability to confront this ruler in whom we have seen explicit disbelief. There must be ability. As for rebelling against him with kitchen knives and cattle knives while he has tanks and missiles, that is foolishness in intellect and misguidance in religion! Because Allah did not obligate jihad upon the Muslims when they were weak in Makkah. He did not say, "Go out against Quraysh while they are with them, and if they wished, they could assassinate their leaders and kill them," but He did not command them to do this and did not permit it to them. Why?
The questioner : Due to the lack of ability.
The Shaykh : Due to the lack of ability. And if the obligatory acts of worship for Allah the Exalted and Majestic are dropped due to inability, how much more so for that which will involve blood? Removing the ruler is not an easy matter. It is not merely a feather that you blow on and it moves. There must be fighting, and if there is killing, there must be helpers. So the matter is not easy to the point that we say, "With ease we remove the ruler or we destroy him and everything ends." There must be ability. And the ability now is not in the hands of the peoples, as far as I know, and knowledge is with Allah the Exalted and Majestic. It is not in the hands of the peoples to have the ability to remove such people in whom we see explicit disbelief.
Then, the conditions mentioned by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) are difficult conditions. Who can verify that this ruler, for example, we know that he is a disbeliever with certainty, we see him as we see the sun before us, and then we know that the disbelief is explicit and does not admit of figurative interpretation or the slightest ambiguity, and then we have a proof from Allah, a decisive evidence? These are difficult conditions.
As for merely what a person suspects that the ruler is a disbeliever! It is not correct that he is a disbeliever. It is necessary to establish the argument. And you know that what harmed the Ummah from the first time it harmed them in the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs was nothing but the defective figurative interpretation. The defective figurative interpretation and rebelling against the Imam. Why did the Khawarij rebel against 'Ali ibn Abi Talib?
They said because he judged by other than the Qur'an. They were initially with him against the army of Mu'awiyah, and when he accepted the truce and the judgment by the Qur'an, they said: "Enough, you have now judged by the opinions of men and accepted the truce, so you are a disbeliever, and we will fight you now." So they turned against him. With what?
With figurative interpretation. And not everything that a person sees is the truth. You may see something as forbidden, or something of sin, or something as disbelief, while another does not see it so. Do we not see that the one who abandons the prayer is a disbeliever?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : We see that without doubt. But another comes and says: "This is not disbelief." And those who say it is not disbelief are scholars, meaning they are not people of desire. They are scholars, but this is what their independent legal reasoning led to. So if the scholars of jurisprudence may see what is disbelief in the view of others as not disbelief, what about the rulers, some of whom may have ignorance like that of the general people? So the important thing, my brothers, is that these matters are difficult and serious, and it is not befitting for a person to follow emotion or agitation. Rather, it is obligatory that he look with a careful, deliberate, and hesitant look, and look at what follows from this action. The intention is not merely for a person to cool the heat of his zeal, but the intention is to reform the creation. Otherwise, a person is certainly sometimes overcome by zeal and filled with anger at what has happened or is happening from some of the rulers, but he sees that it is in the public benefit to treat the problem by a way other than agitation. And as I told you: some people think that this is a reason that necessitates pressuring the one in authority to do what this speaker sees as reform. But this is not appropriate in lands like ours. Yes.