Explanation of the words of Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding what he quoted: "

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) said, in what he quoted from 'Ubadah ibn al-Samit (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: They pledged allegiance to him to listen and obey, meaning: to the one whom Allah has appointed as authority, because Allah the Exalted said: We have previously explained who the people of authority are, and we mentioned that they are two groups: the scholars and the rulers. All of them are those in authority, but the scholars are those in authority regarding knowledge and explanation, while the rulers are those in authority regarding execution and power. He says: And excluded from this is disobedience to Allah Mighty and Majestic, so no one pledges allegiance to it, because there is no obedience to a created being in disobedience to the Creator. For this reason, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said when he took over the caliphate: So if the one in authority orders a sin from among the sins, it is not permissible for anyone to listen to him or obey him, because the King of Kings is the Lord of the worlds, Mighty and Majestic, and it is not possible to disobey the Lord of the worlds in order to obey one who is a slave and a created being, because everyone other than Allah is a slave to Allah Mighty and Majestic. So how does a person prioritize their obedience over the obedience of Allah? Thus, excluded from his statement: is what the texts indicate, namely that there is no obedience to a created being in disobedience to the Creator. And his statement: means whether we are in financial hardship or in financial ease, it is obligatory upon us all, our rich and our poor, to obey our rulers and listen to them. Likewise, in our times of comfort and our times of distress, meaning whether we are averse to it because they ordered what we do not like or do not want, or we are eager for it because they ordered what suits us and agrees with us. The important thing is that we listen and obey in every state, except for what was excluded as mentioned previously. He said: 'Athrah means taking precedence over us, meaning if the rulers take precedence over the subjects with wealth or other things by which they make their lives comfortable and deprive those over whom Allah has placed them, then it is obligatory upon us to listen and obey. We do not say: “You have eaten the wealth, you have corrupted it, you have squandered it, so we will not obey you.” No, we say: “We hear and obey Allah, the Lord of the worlds, even if you take precedence over us, and even if we do not dwell except in huts and do not spread except the shabby of bedding, while you dwell in palaces and enjoy the best of bedding. This does not concern us, because all of this is the adornment of this world, and you will depart from it or it will depart from you, either this or that. As for us, it is obligatory upon us to listen and obey, even if we find among the rulers one who takes precedence over us. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said in another hadith: And his oppression will be requited on the Day of Resurrection from your good deeds. If anything remains of your good deeds, otherwise, it will be taken from the bad deeds of those he oppressed and placed upon him, and then he will be thrown into the Fire, may Allah protect us from it. The matter is regulated and perfected; nothing is lost upon Allah. Then he said: Meaning, we do not dispute with the rulers regarding the authority Allah has placed over us in order to take the leadership from them, for this dispute causes much evil, great trials, and division among the Muslims. Nothing has destroyed the Muslim community except this, except disputing authority with its rightful people. From the time of 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) to this day, nothing has corrupted the people except disputing authority with its rightful people.
He said: Three conditions. If we see this and the three conditions are met, then at that time we dispute authority with its rightful people and try to remove them from the position of authority. But the conditions are three: that you see, so knowledge is necessary. Mere suspicion does not permit rebellion against the imams. We must know, and we must know disbelief. Disbelief means not open sinfulness. No matter how much the rulers commit open sin, it is not permissible to rebel against them, even if they drink intoxicants, even if they commit unlawful sexual intercourse, even if they oppress the people, it is not permissible to rebel against them. But if we see explicit disbelief, and his statement: this means explicit, and 'bawah' is the clear and apparent. So as for what is open to figurative interpretation, it is not permissible to rebel against them. Meaning, if we suppose that they did something we see as disbelief, but there is a possibility that it is not disbelief, then it is not permissible to dispute with them or rebel against them and take over what they hold. But if it is explicit and clear, such as: if a ruler from among the rulers said to his people that intoxicants are lawful, that intoxicants are lawful, drink whatever you want, and that sodomy is lawful, commit sodomy with whomever you want, and that unlawful sexual intercourse is lawful, commit unlawful sexual intercourse with whomever you want, this is explicit disbelief with no doubt. This is obligatory upon the subjects to remove by every means, even by killing, because this is explicit disbelief. The third condition: Meaning: we have decisive evidence that this is disbelief. If the evidence is weak in its establishment or weak in its indication, then it is not permissible to rebel against them, because rebellion involves much great evil and great harms. So these, if you wish, call them three conditions, and if you wish, call them four. These are four conditions, let us make them four to be clearer. Now, if we see this, dispute is not permissible until we have the ability to remove him. If we do not have the ability, then dispute is not permissible, because perhaps if we dispute and we do not have the ability, he will eliminate the remaining righteous ones and his control will be established. And these conditions are conditions for permissibility or for obligation, the obligation of rebelling against the imam, the one in authority, but with the condition that we have the ability. If there is no ability, then rebellion is not permissible, because this is throwing oneself into destruction. What is the benefit if we rebel against this ruler in whom we saw explicit disbelief, in whom we have clear proof from Allah, and we did not go out to him except with a kitchen knife, while he has tanks and machine guns? What is the benefit? No benefit. This means that we rebel to kill ourselves. Yes, we may resort to every ruse to eliminate him and his rule. This is good, with the four conditions mentioned by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): And Allah grants success.
The reader: The author (may Allah have mercy on him) quoted: “From 'Ubadah ibn al-Samit (may Allah be pleased with him), who said:

We pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to listen and obey in ease and hardship, in times of prosperity and adversity, and when we are deprived of our rights, and that we will not dispute authority with its rightful people, except that you see clear disbelief for which you have proof from Allah the Exalted, and that we speak the truth wherever we are, fearing no reproach from any one in the matter of Allah

بايعنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على السمع والطاعة في العسر واليسر والمنشط والمكره وعلى أثرة علينا وعلى أن لا ننازع الأمر أهله، إلا أن تروا كفرًا بواحًا عندكم من الله تعالى فيه برهان وعلى أن نقول بالحق أينما كنا لا نخاف في الله لومة لائم

Agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim” .