What is the ruling on the young people's disparagement of the Senior Scholars Committee, and their claim that the committee speaks according to special circumstances and specific conditions that compel them to be diplomatic, and that they deny the pledge of allegiance?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah forgive you, O Shaykh.
There is, I mean, a matter that has begun to spread among many of the young people, which consists of two things: first, the issue of the pledge of allegiance to the ruler, and second, the disparagement of the Senior Scholars Committee, claiming that the committee speaks according to special circumstances and specific conditions.
And that our scholars have not spoken except according to insights and circumstances that compel them to be diplomatic, and other such explicit criticisms that we hear about the Senior Scholars Committee. So what is your guidance for these young people?
The Shaykh : Our guidance for these young people is to fear Allah the Mighty and Majestic in themselves and in their brothers from the youth of the awakening, and to know that whoever dies without a pledge of allegiance on his neck dies the death of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance.
And they should know that splitting the unity of the Muslims is among the greatest of what is wrong, and it leads to the greatest of harms. Then, if they are here in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, let them thank Allah for this blessing: the country is safe, and praise be to Allah, it is secure, and its provision comes abundantly from every direction. If chaos were to occur—may Allah prevent it—this security and this comfortable life would be gone, replaced by successive and intertwined trials and evils, the extent of which only Allah knows.
And let these young people ask their elders what the country was like before its unification and before its people found peace.
A person could not travel from one village to another without a weapon, and even then he was afraid, even in his bed when he slept. So I advise these young people not to remove this blessing through their reckless actions.
As for their disparagement of the Senior Scholars Committee, it is a disparagement based on a storm, and I do not say an emotion, though if you wish I will say an emotion, but it is a storm in reality. It arose from words they hear from some people that incite and agitate them, and they also hear them from one another, with some of them being incited by them.
The Senior Scholars Committee, and praise be to Allah, they are blamed for having permitted the state to seek the help of the disbelievers in the Gulf crisis. Some people spoke and said that this crisis was fabricated and that its purpose was the occupation of the country by the disbelievers, and the like of that. They drew maps and diagrams and distributed them among the young people. It became clear that this thing was wrong, that its error was complete, and it became clear, and praise be to Allah, of the prevention of the fitnah that those who wanted it from the rulers of Iraq intended. It also became clear, given the great weapons that Iraq possessed—how does one wonder how they acquired these weapons?—that there were bad intentions, and Allah knows them best.
So, praise be to Allah, the good is in what happened. They blame the Senior Scholars Committee for the last statement they issued regarding the formation of a Human Rights Committee concerning legal rights, regarding repelling injustice, or the like of that. In reality, the Senior Scholars Committee never deny helping the oppressed; rather, they support helping the oppressed and consider it a collective obligation that the Muslims must fulfill. If those who are sufficient do not fulfill it, it becomes obligatory for whoever is able. This is an established matter with no dispute. However, the committee denies that it should be in this form or with this characteristic, namely the formation of a committee to defend legal rights under the shadow of a legitimate government.
And it is known that forming committees in this manner under a legitimate government is not possible except with the permission of that government. Have you seen if a man found a village with no judge and said, "I want to be a judge in this country because there is no judge in the country and the people need judgment between them, so I will be a judge"? Does he have the right to do this? The answer is no, he does not have the right to appoint himself as a judge in this country under the shadow of a legitimate government except with the permission of that legitimate government, by the consensus of the scholars and the consensus of the Muslims.
Second, if he came to a village where there is no established committee for enjoining good and forbidding evil and said, "I want to be a committee that enjoins good and forbids evil under the shadow of an existing legitimate government," is this possible? It is not possible except with its permission.
Forming a group to preserve legal rights or defend the oppressed in this manner without the permission of the state is undoubtedly not lawful, and it is an usurpation of the authority of the ruler, and it leads to chaos. If this committee were to establish itself, people from the people of innovation would stand up and say, "We want to have a committee for ourselves." People from among the journalists, the secularists, and others would stand up and say, "We want to form a committee."
Then we ask: what is the standard for injustice? What is the standard for injustice? In every case between two litigants before a judge, one of them must claim that he is what? That he is oppressed. The meaning is that in every case where the judge rules with something, the one against whom the ruling is made says, "I am oppressed," and he turns to this committee. This results in chaos and confusion between the judges and the people.
Then, we do not feel safe that tomorrow the Christians, who are a minority in our country, and praise be to Allah, will say, "We have a right, because the legal right in the view of the world is not the legal right in the view of these brothers who formed the committee." We suspect that this committee considers the legal right to be what is based on the Shari'ah, meaning the revelation that came down upon Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). But the world does not understand this; they consider the legal right to be whatever has been legislated as a system or a divine law, so even systems and laws are legal in their view. So, for example, this Christian comes and says, "I have the right to establish a church," and the matter is raised to this committee. This committee does not see this as a right and considers it impossible to establish churches in the lands of the Muslims. But a committee built upon this committee, even if it is far in the future, will agree and say, "Yes, this is a legal right."
The people of innovation will come and say, "We have the right to declare our innovations, just as the people of the Sunnah have the right to declare their Sunnah. We are Muslims and they are Muslims. What is the difference between declaring our innovation and their declaring their Sunnah?" Then, they, meaning the brothers who appointed themselves to this position, some of them wrote down their telephone numbers and phone numbers.
So who can feel safe? People with malicious intent will come, wanting to disparage this nation, the Saudi nation, and every hour they will cry out, "I am oppressed in such and such, in a fabricated case," in order to increase the number of requests to this committee to help the oppressed. Thus, thousands of assumed and fabricated cases will be formed with them, when there is nothing, but for the sake of media defamation, whether international or internal.
Then we say: what is the necessity for forming this committee, when there are law offices in the country that are open with the permission of the state? Surely, are these not sufficient?
If you hear of the formation of this committee, you will say that at least a quarter of the Kingdom is oppressed, even though the Kingdom is estimated, I think, to be twelve million, and I say make it eight million, reducing it by a third.
If there are eight million people, and you want to prove a thousand cases in which there is confirmed injustice that was insisted upon and not attempted to be removed, you would not be able to find a way to do so. And a thousand cases out of eight million is nothing. But the one who hears the announcement of the committee says that a quarter of this Kingdom is oppressed with an oppression that requires the formation of committees to defend them.
Therefore, I say that the Senior Scholars Committee do not say that helping the oppressed is not lawful, nor that defending legal rights is not lawful. Rather, they consider this to be from the Shari'ah and a collective obligation. But forming a committee under the shadow of a legitimate government without consulting this government is the error, and it is what will open the door to great evil.
For this reason, Shaykh Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Jibrin withdrew from this committee and disavowed joining it, because he knew what would result from it in terms of issues or harms, whether near or far.
My advice to these people you mentioned is that they should fear Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and not die a pre-Islamic death, thereby meeting Allah (Mighty and Majestic) while still in their pre-Islamic state of ignorance. Rather, it is obligatory for them to return to the truth and believe that the ruler of the Muslims in this land has a valid, Shari'ah-compliant pledge of allegiance, which the people of authority and decision have pledged to him. It is well known that it is not a condition for the pledge of allegiance that every single person, including a child or an old woman in her bed, must pledge allegiance. If the people of authority and decision pledge allegiance, the pledge is established. Did Abu Bakrah pledge allegiance to him? Did not all the people in Makkah, Madinah, Ta'if, and other lands pledge allegiance to him? Only the people of authority and decision pledged allegiance to him. Likewise, with 'Uthman, the pledge was made by the six men of the council.
Likewise, with 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, it is not a condition for the pledge of allegiance that every single person must pledge allegiance. No one among the people has held this view. The people of authority and decision in this land have pledged allegiance to the ruler here in the land, so his pledge is established according to the Shari'ah. Whoever dies without his pledge of allegiance, his death is a pre-Islamic death. If these brothers have doubt about the matter, we are ready for them to come to us and we will discuss this matter with them, out of compassion for them and kindness to them, so that they do not die a pre-Islamic death and so that they do not cause a fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) in this land whose extent only Allah (Mighty and Majestic) knows. As for the Committee of Senior Scholars, I have now learned the reason for the statement they published. In reality, the statement became concise; the statement was concise because they did not wish to lengthen the speech and took only the essence. However, the reason for the prohibition is not that the scholars are opposing the support of the oppressed or opposing the defense of legal rights, but rather they are opposing the manner in which this thing occurred. Yes, that is right.
There is, I mean, a matter that has begun to spread among many of the young people, which consists of two things: first, the issue of the pledge of allegiance to the ruler, and second, the disparagement of the Senior Scholars Committee, claiming that the committee speaks according to special circumstances and specific conditions.
And that our scholars have not spoken except according to insights and circumstances that compel them to be diplomatic, and other such explicit criticisms that we hear about the Senior Scholars Committee. So what is your guidance for these young people?
The Shaykh : Our guidance for these young people is to fear Allah the Mighty and Majestic in themselves and in their brothers from the youth of the awakening, and to know that whoever dies without a pledge of allegiance on his neck dies the death of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance.
And they should know that splitting the unity of the Muslims is among the greatest of what is wrong, and it leads to the greatest of harms. Then, if they are here in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, let them thank Allah for this blessing: the country is safe, and praise be to Allah, it is secure, and its provision comes abundantly from every direction. If chaos were to occur—may Allah prevent it—this security and this comfortable life would be gone, replaced by successive and intertwined trials and evils, the extent of which only Allah knows.
And let these young people ask their elders what the country was like before its unification and before its people found peace.
A person could not travel from one village to another without a weapon, and even then he was afraid, even in his bed when he slept. So I advise these young people not to remove this blessing through their reckless actions.
As for their disparagement of the Senior Scholars Committee, it is a disparagement based on a storm, and I do not say an emotion, though if you wish I will say an emotion, but it is a storm in reality. It arose from words they hear from some people that incite and agitate them, and they also hear them from one another, with some of them being incited by them.
The Senior Scholars Committee, and praise be to Allah, they are blamed for having permitted the state to seek the help of the disbelievers in the Gulf crisis. Some people spoke and said that this crisis was fabricated and that its purpose was the occupation of the country by the disbelievers, and the like of that. They drew maps and diagrams and distributed them among the young people. It became clear that this thing was wrong, that its error was complete, and it became clear, and praise be to Allah, of the prevention of the fitnah that those who wanted it from the rulers of Iraq intended. It also became clear, given the great weapons that Iraq possessed—how does one wonder how they acquired these weapons?—that there were bad intentions, and Allah knows them best.
So, praise be to Allah, the good is in what happened. They blame the Senior Scholars Committee for the last statement they issued regarding the formation of a Human Rights Committee concerning legal rights, regarding repelling injustice, or the like of that. In reality, the Senior Scholars Committee never deny helping the oppressed; rather, they support helping the oppressed and consider it a collective obligation that the Muslims must fulfill. If those who are sufficient do not fulfill it, it becomes obligatory for whoever is able. This is an established matter with no dispute. However, the committee denies that it should be in this form or with this characteristic, namely the formation of a committee to defend legal rights under the shadow of a legitimate government.
And it is known that forming committees in this manner under a legitimate government is not possible except with the permission of that government. Have you seen if a man found a village with no judge and said, "I want to be a judge in this country because there is no judge in the country and the people need judgment between them, so I will be a judge"? Does he have the right to do this? The answer is no, he does not have the right to appoint himself as a judge in this country under the shadow of a legitimate government except with the permission of that legitimate government, by the consensus of the scholars and the consensus of the Muslims.
Second, if he came to a village where there is no established committee for enjoining good and forbidding evil and said, "I want to be a committee that enjoins good and forbids evil under the shadow of an existing legitimate government," is this possible? It is not possible except with its permission.
Forming a group to preserve legal rights or defend the oppressed in this manner without the permission of the state is undoubtedly not lawful, and it is an usurpation of the authority of the ruler, and it leads to chaos. If this committee were to establish itself, people from the people of innovation would stand up and say, "We want to have a committee for ourselves." People from among the journalists, the secularists, and others would stand up and say, "We want to form a committee."
Then we ask: what is the standard for injustice? What is the standard for injustice? In every case between two litigants before a judge, one of them must claim that he is what? That he is oppressed. The meaning is that in every case where the judge rules with something, the one against whom the ruling is made says, "I am oppressed," and he turns to this committee. This results in chaos and confusion between the judges and the people.
Then, we do not feel safe that tomorrow the Christians, who are a minority in our country, and praise be to Allah, will say, "We have a right, because the legal right in the view of the world is not the legal right in the view of these brothers who formed the committee." We suspect that this committee considers the legal right to be what is based on the Shari'ah, meaning the revelation that came down upon Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). But the world does not understand this; they consider the legal right to be whatever has been legislated as a system or a divine law, so even systems and laws are legal in their view. So, for example, this Christian comes and says, "I have the right to establish a church," and the matter is raised to this committee. This committee does not see this as a right and considers it impossible to establish churches in the lands of the Muslims. But a committee built upon this committee, even if it is far in the future, will agree and say, "Yes, this is a legal right."
The people of innovation will come and say, "We have the right to declare our innovations, just as the people of the Sunnah have the right to declare their Sunnah. We are Muslims and they are Muslims. What is the difference between declaring our innovation and their declaring their Sunnah?" Then, they, meaning the brothers who appointed themselves to this position, some of them wrote down their telephone numbers and phone numbers.
So who can feel safe? People with malicious intent will come, wanting to disparage this nation, the Saudi nation, and every hour they will cry out, "I am oppressed in such and such, in a fabricated case," in order to increase the number of requests to this committee to help the oppressed. Thus, thousands of assumed and fabricated cases will be formed with them, when there is nothing, but for the sake of media defamation, whether international or internal.
Then we say: what is the necessity for forming this committee, when there are law offices in the country that are open with the permission of the state? Surely, are these not sufficient?
If you hear of the formation of this committee, you will say that at least a quarter of the Kingdom is oppressed, even though the Kingdom is estimated, I think, to be twelve million, and I say make it eight million, reducing it by a third.
If there are eight million people, and you want to prove a thousand cases in which there is confirmed injustice that was insisted upon and not attempted to be removed, you would not be able to find a way to do so. And a thousand cases out of eight million is nothing. But the one who hears the announcement of the committee says that a quarter of this Kingdom is oppressed with an oppression that requires the formation of committees to defend them.
Therefore, I say that the Senior Scholars Committee do not say that helping the oppressed is not lawful, nor that defending legal rights is not lawful. Rather, they consider this to be from the Shari'ah and a collective obligation. But forming a committee under the shadow of a legitimate government without consulting this government is the error, and it is what will open the door to great evil.
For this reason, Shaykh Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Jibrin withdrew from this committee and disavowed joining it, because he knew what would result from it in terms of issues or harms, whether near or far.
My advice to these people you mentioned is that they should fear Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and not die a pre-Islamic death, thereby meeting Allah (Mighty and Majestic) while still in their pre-Islamic state of ignorance. Rather, it is obligatory for them to return to the truth and believe that the ruler of the Muslims in this land has a valid, Shari'ah-compliant pledge of allegiance, which the people of authority and decision have pledged to him. It is well known that it is not a condition for the pledge of allegiance that every single person, including a child or an old woman in her bed, must pledge allegiance. If the people of authority and decision pledge allegiance, the pledge is established. Did Abu Bakrah pledge allegiance to him? Did not all the people in Makkah, Madinah, Ta'if, and other lands pledge allegiance to him? Only the people of authority and decision pledged allegiance to him. Likewise, with 'Uthman, the pledge was made by the six men of the council.
Likewise, with 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, it is not a condition for the pledge of allegiance that every single person must pledge allegiance. No one among the people has held this view. The people of authority and decision in this land have pledged allegiance to the ruler here in the land, so his pledge is established according to the Shari'ah. Whoever dies without his pledge of allegiance, his death is a pre-Islamic death. If these brothers have doubt about the matter, we are ready for them to come to us and we will discuss this matter with them, out of compassion for them and kindness to them, so that they do not die a pre-Islamic death and so that they do not cause a fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) in this land whose extent only Allah (Mighty and Majestic) knows. As for the Committee of Senior Scholars, I have now learned the reason for the statement they published. In reality, the statement became concise; the statement was concise because they did not wish to lengthen the speech and took only the essence. However, the reason for the prohibition is not that the scholars are opposing the support of the oppressed or opposing the defense of legal rights, but rather they are opposing the manner in which this thing occurred. Yes, that is right.