The Refutation Of The Doubts Concerning Baiyah And Imaarah

The Refutation of the Doubts Concerning Bay’ah and Imaarah

At-Tibyān Publications 2


Translators’ Forward ........................................................................................... 7
The Refutation of a Doubt Concerning Leadership ........................................ 9
Author’s Introduction ................................................................................... 10
The Refutation Upon the Words of Mr. ‘Alī Ibn Hasan: .......................... 12
The Refutation of the First Objection: ......................................................... 13
Point Of Notice: Who are “The Victorious Party” (At-Tā’ifah Al-
Mansūrah)?....................................................................................................... 40
Point Of Notice: Is “The Saved Sect” (Al-Firqat An-Nājiyah) (the same as)
“The Victorious Party” (At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah)? .................................... 43
Point Of Notice: Concerning the Most Important Obligations of At-
Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah in This Era.................................................................... 46
Issue: What Is The Stance Concerning The Numerous Groups (Jamā’āt)
Working For Islām? ........................................................................................ 53
The Refutation of the Fourth Objection ...................................................... 66
Point Of Notice: The Difference Between the Arbitrator (Hakam) and the
Judge (Qādhī) is From Several Points: ......................................................... 74
Issue: Covenants of Obedience Amongst the Muslims................................ 89
Firstly: The Legitimacy of This Covenant (‘Ahd) In the Sharī’ah: ............ 94
Secondly: The Benefit and Objective of This Covenant (‘Ahd):............. 119
The First Objective: To affirm (i.e. emphasize) that which is already
made obligatory (Wājib) originally by the Sharī’ah. ............................ 119
And the Second Objective: For a person to adhere to what he has
made obligatory upon himself, from that which the Sharī’ah did not
originally obligate upon him.................................................................. 123
The Summary: .......................................................................................... 129
Thirdly: Is It Permissible to Appoint a Time Limit Upon the Covenant
(‘Ahd)? ............................................................................................................ 132
Fourthly: Is It Obligatory to Write These Covenants or To Have
Witnesses Upon Them?............................................................................... 135
A Point of Benefit: Intensifying the seriousness of the covenants and
promises (At-Taghlīth): ............................................................................ 137
Fifthly: Is It Allowed to Call This Covenant a “Bay’ah”? ....................... 139
Sixthly: What Is the Difference Between These Bay’ahs, And the Bay’ah
of the Imām? .................................................................................................. 145
Seventhly: The Ruling Upon the One Who Breaks the Covenant (‘Ahd)
......................................................................................................................... 160
Eighthly: The Refutation Upon A Doubt Concerning the Covenants.. 176
Refutation upon another doubt: ................................................................ 206



At-Tibyān Publications Releases..................................................................... 214



Translators’ Forward

Verily, all praise is due to Allāh, and may the Peace and Blessings
of Allāh be upon His last Messenger, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdillāh;
the Seal of the Prophets. To Proceed:

This small treatise was extracted and compiled from two chapters
of the book “Al-‘Umdah Fī I'dād Al-‘Uddah Lil-Jihādi Fī Sabīlillāhi
Ta’āla” 1 by Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qādir Ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azīz, may Allāh, the
Most High, free him from prison. We have selected this section for
translation 2 and distribution, in light of the current conditions of
chaos and division, which has resulted from our nation’s lack of
organization, coupled with the plotting of the enemies of Islām, in
the absence of general authority and leadership. Also, it is directed
to the youth of the Islamic nation (Ummah) who are burdened with
the task of taking up and carrying the flag in defense of their
Religion (Dīn) and to salvage the fleeting leadership and
commitment to reform, from within the Islamic groups and
organizations.

We have also selected these portions of the book because they offer
a rather decisive and encompassing refutation upon many of the
points, which are used to diminish the importance of having

1 Trans. Note: “The Pillar Concerning Making Ready the Preparation for Jihād
in the Path of Allāh, the Most High.” The first section was from the end of the
third chapter, which was called “The Refutation of the Doubts Concerning
Leadership” and the second section was from the fifth chapter, which was called
“The Oath of the Military Training Camp – Issue: Covenants of Obedience Amongst the
Muslims”. The fifth chapter picks up where the Shaykh left off at the end of the
third chapter. Therein, he adds further clarification to the matters regarding the
Pledge of Allegiance (Al-Bay’ah) as well as additional points related to the
refutation he made at the end of the third chapter. So although these two sections
were not originally side-by-side in the original book, “Al-‘Umdah”, they
compliment one another and blend together quite seamlessly, due to their
relationship in terms of content and subject matter. We have given this book the
name of the end of the third chapter as it encompasses the theme of both
chapters.
2 Trans. Note: Please bear in mind that these two sections are from a much larger

volume of work and some references alluded to, by the author, are from other
sections of the main work “Al-‘Umdah”, and are therefore unavailable.



leaderships in the Islamic groups and organizations. So the Shaykh
(may Allāh free him) corrects these misconceptions and clarifies the
correct Islamic position regarding the leadership in the absence of a
general Khalīfah or Sultān of the Muslims. And this treatise offers
somewhat of an exposition upon the movement of negligence and
carelessness, which attempts to disguise itself within the Noble
Salafiyyah (movement), as well as one of its figureheads. And may
Allāh, the Most High, preserve this nation (Ummah) from the
desires of the heretics and the poison of the treacherous.

As the author points out, there are many groups who are
committed to the establishment of the Islamic state, which will rule
according to the Laws of the Sharī’ah, under the authority of a
general Khalīfah; yet so few of these groups have modeled
themselves upon this ideal in terms of leadership, authority and
judgment. So how can we hope to become established as an entire
nation (Ummah) upon these matters while we are unable to do so
within even the smallest of groups?!

As for the actual translation, we have attempted to be as precise
with the terminology and grammar as possible, while at the same
time, remaining fluid within the confines of English sentence
structures. However, at times the author refers to some of the
vowel points and accents upon the Arabic letters in his explanation
of words, which are dependent upon their Arabic definitions. In
these instances, we have just used the transliteration of the sounds,
as there can be neither translation nor English equivalencies for
such passages.

We have also added several explanatory footnotes intended to offer
further clarity to some of the points raised by the author. Our
footnotes are prefaced with “Trans. Note:” in order to differentiate
our own from those of the Shaykh. We ask Allāh to accept this small
effort from us and to bring some clarifications regarding the issues
of doubt and confusion surrounding this topic in general.

And all Praise is due to Allāh, the Lord of all the Worlds.



‫ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺒﻬﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﻣﺎﺭﺓ‬
The Refutation of a Doubt
Concerning Leadership



Author’s Introduction

‫ﹺﺑﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣِﻴﻢ‬
‫ْ ﹺ ﱠِ ﱠ ْ َ ﹺ ﱠ ﹺ‬
I have read a book entitled “Al-Bay’ah Bayn As-Sunnah Wal-Bid’ah
‘Ind Al-Jamā’āt Al-Islāmiyyah”, 3 by Mr. ‘Alī Ibn Hasan Ibn ‘Alī Ibn
‘Abdil-Hamīd (Al-Halabī), published by “Al-Maktabah Al-
Islāmiyyah”, in ‘Ammān, Jordan, 1406 H. And he wrote this book in
order to refute one of the Islamic groups, demonstrating how the
issue of the Pledge of Allegiance (Al-Bay’ah), with them, is an
innovation (Bid’ah). However, the author was incorrect and was not
granted a successful achievement (Tawfīq) throughout the majority
of the book. And I will mention the refutation of him, concerning
the Pledge of Allegiance (Al-Bay’ah), within my forthcoming
discussion concerning “The Oath of the Military Training Camp”,
In Shā’ Allāh, due to its appropriateness in that place. And it would
have been more appropriate for the author to select a different
point - or points - for the corruptness (fasād) of this group (Jamā’ah),
in order to refute it. And how many are there!?

However, here I will refute his objection to the basic principle of
leadership (Imārah), within this group and the likes of it, because of
the way this ties in with what I mentioned from the obligation
(Wujūb) of having leadership upon any Islamic gathering, which
congregates for any benefit, such as in the passed summary. The
author stated on page 38-39, from his book,

“The Fifth Doubt: If the leadership during traveling is obligatory,
due to his statement, “If three are in travel, then they should select one
of them as an Amīr” 4 - then wouldn’t leadership for a Da’wah which

3 Trans. Note: “The Pledge of Allegiance Between the Sunnah and Innovation
amongst the Islamic Groups”
4 Trans. Note: The entire Hadīth is narrated by Abū Dāwūd in his “Sunan”, with

two narrations as follows:



intends to return the Religion of Allāh to the land – be even more
obligatory, and the covenant (‘Ahd) and the Pledge of Allegiance
(Bay’ah), for obedience, be even more befitting? And the answer is
from six angles:

1. The leadership for traveling has a clear authentic text, as for this
leadership there is no text for it. And the analogy (Qiyās) is far
fetched, due to the absence of the cause for this ruling (‘Illah). And
it would not be except for a Mujtahid, 5 as the Scholars of
Fundamentals (Usūliyyūn) have stated.

2. The leadership of traveling concludes when it (i.e. the journey)
concludes, as opposed to the “unusual leaderships”, which are of
total obedience.

3. The leadership of travel is all-beneficial, whereas the other
“unusual leaderships” divide and corrupt, so this analogy (Qiyās) is
clearly false!!

4. If a people agree amongst themselves in establishing the Islāmic
penalties (Al-Hudūd) upon the drinker of intoxicants and the
fornicator, and such; then would this be acceptable? It is false
according to the consensus (Ijmā’) of the nation (Ummah), both,
those who support us and those who oppose us - so this is an
analogy (Qiyās) which nullifies the earlier analogy (Qiyās).

1. From Abū Sa’īd Al-Khudrī, that the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “If
three go out in travel, then they should select one of them as an Amīr.” [“Sunan Abū
Dāwūd” (2,608)]
2. And from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “If
three are in travel, then they should select one of them as an Amīr.” [“Sunan Abī
Dāwūd” (2,609)] And Shaykh Al-Albānī, may Allāh be merciful to him, said
“Hasan Sahīh” for both narrations. [Look to “Sahīh Sunan Abī Dāwūd” (2/2,272,
2,273), publication “Maktab At-Tarbiyah Al-‘Arabī Li’Duwal Al-Khalīj”, Riyādh 1409
H.]
5 Trans. Note: “Mujtahid”; the one qualified to perform deductive reasoning

(Ijtihād) and relate specific texts, by way of analogy (Qiyās) or other methods
approved in Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), to issues, which do not have specific,
clearly-stated rulings, within Islamic law.



5. The leadership of traveling is restricted to particular matters. So
it is for organization (only), not for As-Sam’ Wat-Tā’ah (listening
and obeying) in their fullest.

6. As for it being a covenant (‘Ahd); this was not from the
methodology (Manhaj) of the Righteous Predecessors (As-Salaf As-
Sālih), may the pleasure of Allāh (Most High) be upon them.
Rather, their position was absolutely in opposition to that…” – end
of the words of Mr. ‘Alī Ibn Hasan.

The Refutation Upon the Words of Mr. ‘Alī Ibn Hasan:

Number (2): “The leadership of traveling concludes when it (i.e.
the journey) concludes…” - is an argument against the author,
because the ongoing group is more deserving of leadership, in
order to regulate its circumstances, as opposed to the incidental
temporary group, such as the group of traveling.

Number (3): “The leadership of travel is all-beneficial, as
opposed to other than it…” - are words, which he did not
substantiate with any Sharī’ah-based evidence, and that is what is
obligatory to refer to during a dispute. So from this, it is a
statement that is rejected upon him, and a generalization which has
no basis in the (Islamic) Legislation. And it is his statement that the
other leaderships divide and corrupt. (So) we request a Sharī’ah-
based evidence, not from the current affairs (Wāqi’).

Number (5): “The leadership of traveling is restricted to
particular matters. So it is for organization (only), not for As-Sam’
Wat-Tā’ah (listening and obeying) in their fullest” - And this is
like the one which preceded it; words which he did not substantiate
with any Sharī’ah-based evidence. And it is known that listening
and obeying is from the necessities of any leadership, whether
small or large. And the (Arabic) language (itself) indicates that: “So



the Amīr is the one with the command, and he commanded and
commands others – with the ‘Dhumm’…” 6

As for the author restricting it (i.e. authority) to organization only;
this is a restriction from him, without any Sharī’ah-based evidence.
Then, he did not clarify what he meant by “organization”. So if he
meant – as it comes to mind – that the responsibility of the Amīr of
traveling, is that he would specify for those who are with him,
what they must do on the first day from arrangements and then the
second day, and likewise… then we say to the author, that
following the Amīr – if they do what he arranged for them – then by
doing that, they have listened to him and obeyed. So the issue
returns to this: that Imārah necessitates listening and obeying.

Number (6): “As for it being a covenant (‘Ahd)…” – we will refute
him in the fourth chapter, In Shā’ Allāh, within the discussion about:
“The Oath of the Military Training Camp”.

Then to proceed, we will refute below, upon the first and the fourth
of his aforementioned rebuttals.

The Refutation of the First Objection:

The author stated that “…the leadership of traveling has a clear
text, as opposed to the leadership of the groups, and Qiyās is not
to be made between the second and the first, due to the absence
of the cause for the ruling (‘Illah), and the analogy (Qiyās) would
not be (allowed) except for a Mujtahid…” – his words have
concluded.

And the refutation against him will be from several angles, so I will
state them generally and then explain them:

6“Mukhtār As-Sihāh”, by Ar-Rāzī
Trans Note: The point here is that the word Amīr is related to the word Imārah.
And if Amīr is the one who orders, then it is obvious that the point of ordering is
for it to be listened to and obeyed.



The First: That the leaderships of the groups are not dependant
upon the Hadīth of the leadership of traveling only. Rather, there
are additional evidences.

The Second: That the analogy (Qiyās) between the leadership of the
groups upon the leadership of traveling is a correct analogy (Qiyās),
due to the common reason for the ruling (‘Illah).

The Third: That this analogy (Qiyās) was mentioned by more than
a (single) Mujtahid.

As for the first; and it is that there are other evidences proving the
Legislation (Shar’iyyah) for the leadership of the groups:

The reason for the formation of these groups, which were referred
to by the author, is the absence of the Islamic Governance and the
absence of a (general) Imām of the Muslims. So if a group of
Muslims were to come together, in the likes of these circumstances,
in order to establish the obligations (Wājibāt) of the Religion – and
this is obligatory in and of itself – then it would be obligatory
(Wājib) upon this group to select someone, from amongst them, in
authority over them.

A. Due to His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻳَﺎ ﹶﺃﱡﻳﻬَﺎ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﺁﻣُﻮﺍ ﹶﺃﻃِﻴ ُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﹶﺃﻃِﻴ ُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺮ ُﻮﻝ ﻭﹸﻭﻟِﻲ ﺍﹾﻟﺄﻣﺮ ﻣﻨﻜﻢ‬
ْ ‫ﹶ ْ ﹺ ِْ ﹸ‬ ‫ﻌ ﱠ َ َ ﻌ ﱠﺳ ﹶ َﺃ‬ ‫َ َﻨ‬
O you who believe! Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger, and
those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. 7

And His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭﹶﻟﻮ ﺭ ﱡﻭﻩ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﺍﻟﺮ ُﻮﻝ ﻭﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﹸﻭﻟِﻲ ﺍﹾﻟﺄﻣﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﹶﻟﻌﻠﻤﻪُ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ َﻳﺴﺘﻨﺒ ﹸﻮَﻧﻪ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ‬
ْ ُ ْ ِ ُ ‫َ ْ َ ْ ﹺﻄ‬ َ َِ ْ ُ ِْ ‫ﹶ ْ ﹺ‬ ‫ﱠﺳ ﹺ َ ﺃ‬ ُ ‫َ ْ َﺩ‬
…and if only they had referred it to the Messenger or to those
charged with authority amongst them, the proper investigators
would have understood it from them (directly)… 8

7 An-Nisā’, 59



So it is a must for the people to have authorities (leaders), who
bring together their divisions, take charge of their affairs, and
organize their activities, by the evidence of indication (Dalālat Al-
Ishārah) in these two Verses. And it is not allowed for the Muslims
to remain under the authority of the disbelieving (kāfir) rulers as
long as they are capable to do that, as I mentioned under (the
chapter) “The Conditions for Leadership”, that there is no Wilāyah
(authority) for a disbeliever (kāfir) over a Muslim.

And everyone who is followed, from the authority (Sultān) or the
scholars (‘Ulamā’) or the leaders (Umarā’) of these groups or other
than them, then he is included in this Verse, as Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn
Taymiyyah said, “And everyone who is followed; then he is from
the ‫‘ ﹸﻭﻟِﻲ ﺍﹾﻟﺄﻣﺮ‬those charged with authority,’ and it is upon every one of
‫ﹶْﹺ‬ ‫ﺃ‬
them to order with that which Allāh ordered, and to forbid that
which He forbade. And it is obligatory upon everyone who is
under his authority, to obey him in obedience to Allāh, and not to
obey him in disobedience against Allāh.” 9

B. So if one of the groups is established for the cause of Jihād in the
Path of Allāh, then there is no reason for us to seek refuge in the
analogy (Qiyās) of the leadership of travel, as long as we have a
specific text in the matter. This is because analogy (Qiyās) is
deductive reasoning (Ijtihād) and there is no deductive reasoning
(Ijtihād) in the presence of a text. And the intended text, is the
Hadīth of the Battle of Mu’tah and the companions’ selection of
Khālid Ibn Al-Walīd (may Allāh be pleased with him) as their Amīr,
as I mentioned in the fourth matter, within this chapter, so review
it. And here are (some of) the statements of the scholars (‘Ulamā’) in
the comprehension (Fiqh) of this Hadīth:

Ibn Hajar said, “And in it, is the permissibility of choosing an Amīr,
during war, without him being appointed as an Amīr – in other
words – without a specific command from the Imām. At-Tahāwī
said, ‘This is a fundamental, which extracted from it is that it is

8 An-Nisā’, 83
9 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (28/170)



upon the Muslims, to put forward a man, if the Imām is absent, to
take his place until he returns.” 10 And Ibn Hajar also said, “Ibn Al-
Munīr said, ‘It is understood from the Hadīth of this chapter, that
whoever is identified for authority, in times when it is not possible
to return to the Imām, that the authority remains to that individual
according to the Sharī’ah, and it is obligatory (Wājib) to obey him as
a ruling.’ This is what he stated and it is not hidden that this is
when those present agree upon him.” 11

And Ibn Qudāmah Al-Hanbalī said, “So if the Imām does not exist,
then the Jihād is not delayed, because its benefit is lost by delaying
it, and if spoils (Ghanīmah) are captured, then its people distribute it
according to the (Islamic) Legislation (Ash-Shar’). Al-Qādhī said,
‘And the distribution of the slave-girls is delayed until an Imām
emerges due to the protection of chastity. So if the Imām sends an
army and appoints for them an Amīr, then he is killed or dies, then
it the army should put one from amongst them as an Amīr, just as
the companions of the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬did in the army of
Mu’tah, when their Amīrs whom the Prophet ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
appointed were killed, they put as an Amīr over them, Khālid Ibn
Al-Walīd (may Allāh be pleased with him). So this (news) reached
the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬and he was pleased with their decision
and approved their opinion and named Khālid, on that day, ‘The
Sword of Allāh’ (Sayf-Allāh).”12

And this Hadīth, and that which is narrated from its comprehension
(Fiqh), is a text in the area of dispute in this issue. And it clarifies
the obligation of leadership upon the groups which are working for
the Religion and Jihād. And there is no need for us to use the
analogy (Qiyās) upon the Hadīth of the leadership of traveling,
despite the correctness of this analogy (Qiyās), as I will mention, In
Shā’ Allāh Ta’āla.

10 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (7/513)
11 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (6/180)
12 “Al-Mughnī Wash-Sharh Al-Kabīr” (10/374)



And someone might say that the Hadīth of Mu’tah cannot be used
for our condition nowadays because, in Mu’tah, the Imām – the
Prophet ‫( – ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬existed but) was absent. Then when they
returned to him, he approved their action. But today, there is no
Imām whatsoever, so the leadership of these groups is not correct
due to the non-existence of an Imām. Yet, we affirm the correctness
of what we have concluded, from the using of this Hadīth as
evidence. This is because the common reason for the ruling (‘Illah)
between both these situations is the formation of a group of the
Muslims for a common activity, which is Jihād, while being isolated
from the Imām, whether the Imām is (merely) absent or non-
existent. This is because, in both situations, he is absent from their
activities. And what is attained from (studying) the life of the
Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬at that time, was his approval of their action
(The Sunnah of Approval); and this (approval) is a Legislation
(Tashrī’), which is not attained from anyone after him ‫,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
whether he is an Imām or other than that. And we direct the one
who says this saying to the words of Ibn Al-Munīr, which have
passed, as he said, “…in times when it is not possible to return to
the Imām…” And this inability includes both the absence of the
Imām or his non-existence. And the words of Ibn Qudāmah are
even clearer, as he said, “So if the Imām does not exist, then the
Jihād is not delayed…”

And the result of the statement of this person (who stipulates the
presence or existence of an Imām), is that the Jihād in Afghanistan 13
or the likes of it, is not allowed and is false, because the groups and
parties, which are fighting, are not Sharī’ah-based, due to the
invalidity of their leadership. And this implies that whoever went
forth to this Jihād under these leaderships; then he is sinful and that
it is upon the Muslims to stand with their hands bound, while they
watch their homes, women and wealth being seized, until an Imām
descends upon them from the sky. So would any Muslim say this?
Or would anyone who possesses the least bit of intellect say this?

Trans. Note: The Shaykh is referring here to the Jihād in Afghanistan against the
13

Russians and the Communists, not the time of the Tālibān, as this book was
written before the emergence of the Tālibān.



And whoever has any trace of this doubt left in him, then the next
evidence will remove it, In Shā’ Allāh Ta’āla.

C. From Jābir Ibn ‘Abdillāh, may Allāh be pleased with him, who
said, “I heard the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬saying, ‘There will not cease to
be a group from my nation (Ummah), fighting upon the Truth, dominant,
until the Day of Resurrection.’ He said, ‘Then ‘Īsā Ibn Maryam ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬will descend, and their Amīr will say, ‘Come lead our prayer.’ So he
will say, ‘No. Verily, you are Amīrs upon one another; an honour
from Allāh for this nation (Ummah).’” 14

So this is a clear, unambiguous text from the Prophet ‫,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
which clarifies (the following):

1. The eternality and remaining of “The Victorious Party” (At-
Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah), which fights upon the Truth, until the
descending of ‘Īsā, ‫ ,ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬and the sending of the Pleasant Wind
(Ar-Rīh At-Tayyibah), which takes the souls of all the Believers. 15

14 Narrated by Muslim in “Kitāb Al-Īmān” (2/193)
Trans Note: Also narrated by Ahmad with a similar phrasing.
15 (From) the Hadīth of ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Amr and ‘Uqbah Ibn ‘Āmir – narrated by

Muslim in the end of “Kitāb Al-Imārah” (13/68)
Trans. Note: The Hadīth in its entirety is as follows:

From ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn Shumāsah Al-Mahrī who said, “I was with Maslamah
Ibn Mukhallad, and with him was ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Amr Ibn Al-‘Ās. Then
‘Abdullāh said, ‘The Hour will not come except upon the worst of creation. They
are worse than the people of Jāhiliyyah. They will not supplicate to Allāh for
anything except that He rejects it upon them.’ So while they were like that,
‘Uqbah Ibn ‘Āmir came in and Maslamah said to him, ‘O ‘Uqbah, listen to what
‘Abdullāh says.’ So ‘Uqbah said, ‘He is more knowledgeable, but I have heard
the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬say, ‘There will not cease to be a group from
my Ummah, fighting upon the Command of Allāh. They will overpower their
enemies and will be unharmed by those who oppose them until the Hour arrives on
them, while they are upon that.’ So ‘Abdullāh said, ‘Correct. Then Allāh will send
a wind, with the scent of musk and its feeling is the feeling of silk and it will not
leave a soul, which has the weight of a seed of Īmān in his heart, except that it
takes it. Then the worst of the people will remain and upon them the Hour will
arrive.’”



2. The correctness and the legitimacy in the (Islamic) Legislation
(Shar’iyyah) of the leadership upon this party (Tā’ifah), upon the
tongue of our Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬as he said, “…then their Amīr
will say…” and upon the tongue of ‘Īsā, ‫“ ,ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬Verily, you are
Amīrs upon one another…” and this – in other words, the
correctness of leaderships – should not be held only upon the last
of this party (Tā’ifah) at the time of the descending of ‘Īsā, ‫,ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬
and not prior to that, from the earlier eras. This is because, the
attributing of an Amīr to the party (Tā’ifah): “…their Amīr…”, while
clarifying the description of this party (Tā’ifah) as being continuous:
“There will not cease to be… their Amīr,” - So if it is affirmed that
there will be times when the Muslims do not have a Greater Imām
(Khilāfah) and the correctness and eternality of the leadership of The
Victorious Party (At-Tā’ifah Mansūrah) is affirmed, then the
leadership upon this party (Tā’ifah), in times where there is no
Imām, is correct, In Shā’ Allāh.

3. The way in which this leadership is placed upon this party
(Tā’ifah) by selecting one of them in authority upon the rest of them:
“Verily, you are Amīrs upon one another; an honour from Allāh for
this nation (Ummah).” So this is from that which Allāh has
honoured the Muslims with. And this complies completely with the
action of the companions (Sahābah) on the Day of Mu’tah and it
indicates that this action – the Muslims placing one of them in
authority upon them – is not limited to the time of the Prophet ‫ﺻﻠﻰ‬
‫ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬due to the continuation of this ruling until the descending
of ‘Īsā, ‫.ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬

D. His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﺃَﹶﻟﻢ َﺗﺮ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﺍﹾﻟﻤﻠﺈ ﻣﻦ َﺑﻨﹺﻲ ﹺﺇﺳﺮَﺍﺋِﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ َﺑﻌﺪ ُﻮﺳَﻰ ﹺﺇﺫ ﻗﹶﺎﹸﻮﺍ ِﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﹶﻟ ُ ُ ﺍْﺑﻌﺚ ﹶﻟﻨَﺎ ﻣﻠﻜﹰﺎ‬
ِ َ ‫ﹾ ﻟ َ ﹺ ﱟ ﻬﻢ َ ﹾ‬ ‫ْ ﹶ ِ ْ ِْ ﻣ‬ ْ ِ ‫َ ﹶﹺ‬ َ ْ
‫ُﻧﻘﹶﺎِﺗﻞ ﻓِﻲ ﺳﺒﹺﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﹶﺎﻝ ﻫﻞ ﻋﺴﻴﺘﻢ ﹺﺇﻥ ﹸﺘﺐ ﻋﻠﻴ ﹸ ُ ﺍﹾﻟﻘﺘَﺎﻝ ﹶﺃﱠﺎ ُﺗﻘﹶﺎِﺗ ﹸﻮﺍ ﻗﹶﺎﹸﻮﺍ ﻭﻣَﺎ ﹶﻟﻨَﺎ‬
َ ‫َ ﹺ ﱠ ِ ﹶ َ ﹾ َ َ ُْ ْ ﹾ ﻛِ َ َ ﹶ ْﻜﻢ ِ ﹸ ﻟ ﻠ ﻟ‬ ‫ﹾ‬
‫ﹶﺃﱠﺎ ُﻧﻘﹶﺎِﺗﻞ ﻓِﻲ ﺳﺒﹺﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﻗﺪ ﹸﺃﺧﺮﺟﻨَﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳَﺎﺭﻧَﺎ ﻭﹶﺃْﺑﻨَﺎِﺋﻨَﺎ ﻓﻠ ﱠﺎ ﹸﺘﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢُ ﺍﹾﻟﻘﺘَﺎﻝ َﺗﻮﱠﻟﻮْﺍ‬
َ ‫ﹶ ﹶﻤ ﻛِ َ َ ﹶ ْ ﹺ ِ ﹸ‬ َ ‫َ ﹺ ﱠ ِ َﹶ ْ ْ ﹺ ْ ِ ْ ِ ﹺ‬ ‫ﹶ‬ ‫ﻟ‬
‫ﹺﺇﱠﺎ ﻗﻠِﻴﻠﹰﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻭَﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠِﻴ ٌ ﺑﹺﺎﻟ ﱠﺎِﻟﻤﲔ‬
َ ِ ‫ﻟ ﹶ ِْ ُ ْ ﱠ ُ َ ﻢ ﻈ‬



Have you not thought about the group from the Children of
Isrā’īl after (the time of) Mūsā (Moses)? When they said to a
Prophet of theirs, “Appoint for us a king and we will fight in the
Path of Allāh.” He said, "Would you then refrain from fighting, if
fighting was prescribed for you?" They said, "Why should we not
fight in the Path of Allāh while we have been driven out of our
homes and our children (families have been taken as captives)?"
But when fighting was ordained upon them, they turned away,
all except a few of them. And Allāh is All-Aware of the Thālimīn
(wrong-doers). 16

And this Verse – in my opinion – is from the clearest evidences
upon the obligation (Wujūb) of the leadership for the purpose of
Jihād, because this was a defeated nation (Ummah), expelled from its
homes, which desired Jihād. So they began by requesting a leader,
beneath which, they would fight under his authority. So Allāh, the
Powerful, the Mighty, sent for them Tālūt, as a King. And this was
an approval from Allāh, the Powerful, the Mighty, of the
correctness of their request. And this is our condition today.
Muslims who are weak and have no supremacy (‘Izzah), except by
Jihād, as in the Hadīth of Al-‘Īnah. And from the necessities of Jihād is
the choosing of an Amīr. As for the method of choosing him in this
time, it would be from the agreement of the group (Jamā’ah) upon
him like in the Hadīth of the Battle of Mu’tah, and the Hadīth of Jābir
Ibn ‘Abdillāh (may Allāh be pleased with him) which has passed:
“Verily, you are Amīrs upon one another; an honour from Allāh for this
nation (Ummah).”

E. The Imām of the Two Sacred Mosques (Al-Haramayn), Al-
Juwaynī, said, “And if the people do not come across anyone,
whom they are satisfied with, to take charge of their affairs - then it
is impossible that they would be ordered to refrain from that which
they are able to do of repelling the corruption (fasād), because if
they refrain from that which is possible, then the corruption (fasād)
grows to cover the countries and mankind…” – until his saying –
“… and some of the scholars (‘Ulamā’) have stated that if a
(particular) era is lacking a governor (Sultān), then it is the

16 Al-Baqarah, 246



responsibility upon the intelligent ones in each city, along with the
residents of every village; to put forward the people of vision and
intelligence along with the people of intellect and strong-
mindedness, who they will obey in their directives and orders and
avoid that which they forbid and prohibit. Because, if they do not
do so, they will hesitate in the performance of the duties and they
will differ when the issues arise.” 17

And when the Tartars advanced to battle Ash-Shām, and the
governor (Sultān) was delayed in the defense of Ash-Shām, Shaykh
Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah traveled to him in Egypt to prompt him to
support Ash-Shām. And he said to the Sultān and his aides, ‘If you
turn away from Ash-Shām and its defense, we will choose for it a
Sultān who will encompass it and protect it and seize it during time
when security is present.’ And he remained there until the armies
were deployed to Ash-Shām, then he said to them, ‘Even if you
were not the rulers (Hukkām) of Ash-Shām nor its Kings, yet its
people sought your support, then it would be obligatory (Wājib)
upon you to support them. So how about when you are its rulers
and Sultāns and they are your flock and you are responsible for
them?!’ And he continued to increase their anxiety and guaranteed
them the victory in this attack, so they went out to Ash-Shām. Then
when the armies reached Ash-Shām, the people became extremely
happy after they had despaired over themselves, their families and
their wealth.” 18

I say: So Al-Juwaynī and Ibn Taymiyyah agreed that if a country is
lacking a Sultān, the people themselves put forward someone for
them to obey his declarations and commands. And this also applies
to the responsibility of every group (Jamā’ah) or party (Tā’ifah),
which has agreed to establish the matters of the Religion, in the
absence of the Imām of the Muslims.

17 “Ghiyāth Al-Umam” (Pg. 387-388), published by 1401 H. with the Hadīth
verification (Tahqīq) of Dr. ‘Abdul-‘Athīm Ad-Dīb
18 “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah”, by Ibn Kathīr, “The Events in the Year 700 H.”

(14/15)



And as for the Second Point, and this is that the analogy (Qiyās)
between the leaderships of the groups, upon the leaderships of
traveling - this is a correct Qiyās, due to a common reason for the
ruling (‘Illah).

So we say that Qiyās is the affirming of a ruling (Hukm), like the
ruling (Hukm) of the basis (Asl) in the branch (Fara’), with a
common reason for the ruling (‘Illah). 19 And the basis (Asl) is the
incident which the ruling (Hukm) was narrated, through a Sharī’ah-
based text, and the branch (Fara’) is that which there is no Sharī’ah-
based text narrated in its ruling (Hukm) and the reason for its ruling
(‘Illah) is the apparent clause (Wasf), with the appropriate criteria,
which is extended upon that which the ruling (Hukm) of the basis
(Asl) was founded. And with the affirmation of this clause (Wasf)
within the branch (Fara’), then upon it is affirmed like that of the
ruling (Hukm) of the basis (Asl). 20

And with respect to our topic, the basis (Asl) for which there is a
text in its ruling (Hukm) is the joining of three people in travel. And
the ruling (Hukm) is that it is an obligation (Wujūb) (to set up a)
leadership (it is an obligation to choose one of them as an authority

19 “Sharh At-Talwīh ‘Alā At-Tawdhīh” (2/52), by At-Taftāzānī
20 Trans. Note: It is extremely difficult to convey the meaning of these types of
passages, which contain so much jurisprudence and terminology etc., while
remaining precise to the meaning of the Arabic words. What is meant by the
author’s words above, is this: In order to make a correct analogy (Qiyās) between
the ruling in a particular matter, which has a clear text for it (i.e. the basis or Asl),
and another issue, which is an extension of that matter (i.e. a branch or Fara'),
then these two matters must have a shared or common reason for their ruling
(i.e. cause or ‘Illah). In this way, if a matter, which does not have a specific text
regarding its ruling, shares a common element for that ruling within another
issue, which does have a specific ruling in the Sharī’ah, then this ruling is also
applied to that matter. For example, if we look to the issue of speaking
disrespectfully to one’s parents in His, the Most High’s statement: “And that you
be dutiful to your parents. If one of them or both of them attain old age in
your life, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor shout at them but address
them in terms of honour.” (Al-Isrā’: 23) Based on this, we can say that hitting
one’s parents is also prohibited, due to the common reason for ruling which is
present, which is the harm. Therefore they take the same ruling (Hukm) of
prohibition.



over them). And the branch (Fara’) is the leadership of the groups.
So, is the reason for the ruling (‘Illah), in the ruling of the basis (Asl)
present within its branch (Fara’), so that the same ruling (Hukm) is
affirmed for it, or not? So the investigation is now: What is the
reason for the ruling (‘Illah) in the leadership of traveling? And that
is what the author (i.e. ‘Alī Al-Halabī) did not mention.

And the truth is that the reason for the ruling (‘Illah) is confirmed
by a text in the same Hadīth, yet it requires verification of the
reason, due to the multiple clauses (Awsāf) for which the ruling
(Hukm) is based upon, within the Hadīth. So we must specify which
of these clauses is the one which affects the ruling (Hukm).

And the clauses, for which the ruling was based upon in the Hadīth
of the leadership for travel, are two: traveling, and the coming
together of three people for a common purpose.

So if we confirm, with the text, that the leadership for traveling is
not obligatory (Wājib) upon those who are less than three, such as
the traveling of two people, then the clause, which affects the ruling
(Hukm) would be its number – the three – and not the traveling.
This is because of the presence of the clause (Wasf) of traveling in
the traveling of two people, yet there is a difference in the ruling
(Hukm); that being the obligation (Wujūb) of leadership. So if the
traveling (itself) were the reason for the ruling (‘Illah), then the
ruling of leadership would (also) be obligatory (Wājib) for the
traveling of two people. So from that, we see that the ruling –
regarding leadership – is based upon the number – three as a
minimum – and not upon the traveling.

So what are the texts, in which there is the traveling of less than
three persons, wherein the leadership was not obligatory (Wājib)?

We say: From them is that which Al-Bukhārī narrated in “Kitāb Al-
Jihād”: “Chapter: The Traveling of Two – From Mālik Ibn Al-
Huwayrith who said, ‘I departed from the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬so
he said to us; to me and my companion, ‘Pronounce the call for prayer
(Al-Athān) and pronounce the time of prayer (Al-Iqāmah) and the eldest



of you two should lead the both of you in prayer.’” 21 So this Hadīth; in it
was found the clause (Wasf) of traveling, but the clause of the
number – that being three – was not found. And the ruling (Hukm)
of leadership was (also) not found in it. In other words, the
Messenger ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬did not order either of them as an Amīr and
did not leave this up to them - and it is not allowed to delay
clarification beyond the necessary time. So this indicates that the
leadership, as a ruling (i.e. it being obligatory), is based upon the
number – three persons as a minimum – and not based on the
traveling.

And from that which indicates that the leadership is linked to the
number and not the traveling, is the statement of the Prophet ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬to Abū Tharr (may Allāh be pleased with him), “O Abū
Tharr, I see that you are weak and I love for you what I love for myself. Do
not be placed as an Amīr over two (people) and do not take responsibility
for the wealth of an orphan.” 22 So the statement of the Prophet ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫“ ,ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Do not be placed as an Amīr over two (people)...” indicates that
the leadership is obligatory (Wājib) upon the three or greater than
that. So this strengthens (the opinion) that the obligation of the
leadership, in the Hadīth of traveling, is linked to the number and
not to the traveling. He ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “If you are three in travel,
then select as an Amīr…” So leadership is not an obligation except
upon (a group of) three or more. And this is strengthened – the
relationship of leadership with the number; the least of which is
three – with what was narrated by Al-Bukhārī from Usāmah Ibn
Zayd (may Allāh be pleased with him, who said), “And I am not
the one who would say to a man, after he was an Amīr upon (even)
two men, ‘You are good,’ after I heard the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬say, ‘A man will be brought and thrown into the Fire and ground
up, like a donkey grinds his molars, so the people of the Fire will walk
around him and say, ‘O so-and-so, didn’t you used to command the good

21 Hadīth #2,848
22 Narrated by Muslim



and forbid the evil?’ So he will say, ‘I used to command the good but not
do it (myself) and I used to forbid the evil and then do it (myself).’’ 23

And Usāmah (may Allāh be pleased with him) used to negate with
this, the accusations against him, of cozying up (to the Sultān), as it
comes in the explanation of the Hadīth. 24 And the evidence (Shāhid)
from his words, is his statement, “… say to a man, after he was an
Amīr upon (even) two men…” he demonstrated the least (number)
for which leadership is obligatory (Wājib), and that is three; an Amīr
and two followers. Just like the language strengthens what we have
arrived at in conclusion, from the link of leadership with the
number and not the traveling, as Ar-Rāghib Al-Asfahānī has stated,
“It is said, ‘Amira Al-Qawm’ with a Hamzah, Maftūha, and a Mīm,
Maksūrah and a Rā, Maftūha: ‘They have become many,’ and that is
because, the people; when they become many, then they become
those of an Amīr, because they must have a leader to lead them.
And for this (reason), the poet said, ‘It is not befitting for a people
to be in chaos, without a chief for them.” 25

From what has preceded, we reach two realities:

The First: That having a leadership during traveling is not
obligatory (Wājib) upon less then three. So it is not obligatory upon
the traveling of two. Thus, leadership, therefore, is linked to the
number and not to the travel.

The Second: The minimum number, upon which leadership is
obligatory, is three, due to the Hadīth of Abū Tharr (may Allāh be
pleased with him), “…do not be placed as an Amīr over two (people)…”
and due to the Hadīth of Usāmah Ibn Zayd (may Allāh be pleased
with him), “… to a man, after he was an Amīr upon (even) two men…”
And this number is the same one which was mentioned in the
Hadīth of the leadership of traveling.

23 Hadīth #7,098
24 Refer to “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/51-52).
25 Refer to “Al-Mufradāt Fī’Gharīb Al-Qur’ān”, by Ar-Rāghib, below the word

“Amir”.



So this leadership is linked to the number and not to the traveling
and this is the clarification of its cause.

Then, if we conclude that the reason for the ruling (‘Illah) is the
number – in other words, the coming together of three (or more)
people upon a purpose which unites them – then verily, this reason
for the ruling (‘Illah) is affirmed, without a doubt, in the rest of the
groups (as well). So the analogy (Qiyās) regarding the leadership of
the groups can be made upon the leadership of traveling.

So if it is asked, “What is the wisdom (Hikmah) behind mentioning
traveling in the Hadīth?” Then we say, “The travelers are cut off, in
their journey, from the eyes of the Imām or the authority of the city
which controls the affairs of the residents. Therefore, it is obligatory
(Wājib) upon the travelers to select an Amīr from amongst
themselves, who will control their affairs. So being cut off from the
eyes of the Imām – during traveling or other than that – is from the
(things which) calls to raise an Amīr. And this could be a second
reason (‘Illah), for the ruling (Hukm) if only this were not met with a
problem, due to the presence of the (same) clause (Wasf) of being
cut off from the eyes of the Imām, in the traveling of two, with the
absence of the ruling (Hukm) for the obligation of leadership. 26 And
in any case, this clause – that of being cut off from the eyes of the
Imām, due to his non-existence nowadays – (this clause) is present
with respect to the contemporary Islamic groups; (so this clause is
from that) which increases the emphasis for the obligation of
leadership upon them.

And the Third Point, that this analogy (Qiyās) has been approved
by more than a (single) Mujtahid as I mentioned in the beginning

26 Trans. Note: The point of the author is that we could say that being cut off
from the eyes and authority of the Imām during travel would be a second reason
for the ruling (‘Illah) – but, that if this were true, then two people traveling would
also be cut off, yet it is established that it is not necessary for them to select an
Amīr. So this could not be the single reason for this leadership, because if this
were the case, then we would have to say that two people who are traveling
must select one of them as the Amīr. However, this aspect could be one of the
benefits for the reason, along with the minimum number of three, as mentioned
in the aforementioned Ahādīth.



of this chapter, the matter of leadership being obligatory (Wājib).
And this was indicated by:

1. Imām Ash-Shawkānī said, when he used the Hadīth of the
leadership of traveling as an evidence for the obligation of
establishing the authority of judgment (Qadhā’) and the leadership
and other things. And he did not mention in this chapter any
Hadīth other than it. And he made the analogy (Qiyās) for these
authorities, upon the leadership of traveling. So he said, after
mentioning the narrations of the Hadīth of the leadership of
traveling, “… and in it, there is evidence that it is legislated for
every amount, which has reached three or more, to select one of
them as an Amīr upon them, because in that, there is protection
from disputes, which lead to separation. So without selecting an
Amīr, each person follows his own opinion and does that which
complies with his desire, so they destroy themselves. But with the
selection of an Amīr, the differences decrease and the words unite.
So if this is legislated for three, who are in the wilderness of the
Earth, or traveling - then its legislation for a number greater than
that, who live in the cities and villages – and who are in need of
protection from wrongdoing, and judgments between their
disagreements – is more deserving and more befitting. And in that,
there is an evidence for the saying of those who said, ‘It is
obligatory (Wājib) upon the Muslims to raise leaders, authorities,
and rulers.” 27

So he mentioned that the ruling – the obligation of leadership – is
tied to the number, as he said, “… it is legislated for every amount,
which has reached three or more, to select one of them as an Amīr
upon them…” And Ash-Shawkānī mentioned that this is an
obligation upon the residents (i.e. non-travelers) from the point of
indicating the more (in need) by mentioning the least (in need).

2. And also, I mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, the using
of the Hadīth of the leadership of traveling, by Ibn Taymiyyah as an
evidence for the obligation of leadership in all the other types of

27 “Nayl Al-Awtār” (9/157)



gatherings. So he is stating with that, that the reason for the ruling
(Illah) of leadership is the gathering. And he has mentioned this in
more than one place in his Fatāwā, as he said in the essay “Al-
Hisbah”, “… and all of the Children of Ādam; their benefits are not
attained in this worldly life (Dunyā) nor in the Hereafter (Ākhirah),
except by coming together, collective efforts and giving (mutual)
support. So the collective efforts and the support are to gain
benefits, and (also) the support is to repel the harms. And due to
this, it is said that mankind is urban-oriented by nature. So when
they come together, they will certainly perform activities, and seek
benefits through them, and (there will be) matters, which they will
avoid due to what they contain of harm. And they will be obedient
to he who commands these goals and forbids these harms. So it is a
must for the Children of Ādam to have obedience to a commander
and a forbidder…” – until he said – “… and for this reason, the
Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬ordered his nation (Ummah) to take
‘guardians of the authority’ over them. And he ordered the
guardians of the order to return the trusts to their owners and that
if they judge between the people, to judge with justice. And he
ordered them to obey the guardians of the order, in the obedience
of Allāh, the Most High, as in “Sunan Abī Dāwūd”, from Abū Sa’īd
(may Allāh be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, ‘If three go out in travel, then they should select one of them
as an Amīr.’ And also in his “Sunan”, from Abū Hurayrah (may
Allāh be pleased with him) is similar to that. And in the “Musnad”
of Imām Ahmad from ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Amr (may Allāh be pleased
with him) that the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, ‘It is not permissible for
three, who are in the wilderness of the Earth, except that they select one of
them as an Amīr.’ So if he made it obligatory upon the smallest of
groups and the briefest of gatherings, to select one of them as an
Amīr, then this is an indication that this is obligatory for that which
is greater than it.” 28

And he (may Allāh be merciful to him) said in the essay “As-Siyāsah
Ash-Shar’iyyah”, “It is obligatory to know that the ‘guardianship of

28 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (28/62-65)



the affairs’ of the people, is from the greatest obligations (Wajibāt)
in the Religion; furthermore, there is no establishment of the
Religion nor the worldly life (Dunyā) without it. This is because the
benefits and interests (Maslahah) of the Children of Ādam are not
achieved except through the coming together for the needs of one
another - and it is a must for them to have, in this uniting, a chief,
to the extent that the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, ‘If three go out in
travel, then they should select one of them as an Amīr.’ – narrated by
Abū Dāwūd from the Hadīth of Abū Sa’īd and Abū Hurayrah, may
Allāh be pleased with them.

And Imām Ahmad narrated in “Al-Musnad” from ‘Abdullāh Ibn
‘Amr, may Allāh be pleased with him, that the Prophet ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
said, ‘It is not permissible for three, who are in the wilderness of the
Earth, except that they select one of them as an Amīr over them.’ So he
‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬made it obligatory (Wājib) to select one as an Amīr, in
the small group departing for travel - implying by that, all the other
types of gatherings. And because Allāh, the Most High, obligated
commanding the good and forbidding the evil, and this is not
achieved except with strength and leadership. And like that, is the
rest of what He obligated from Jihād and justice and establishing
the Hajj and the Friday prayers and the A’yād (celebrations) and the
defense of the oppressed and establishing the Islamic penalties (Al-
Hudūd) - these are not achieved except with strength and
leadership.” 29

I say: So look to the statement of Shaykh Al-Islām, “… implying by
that, all the other types of gatherings.” And he repeated this in the
remaining passages. So he is clearly stating that leadership is for
the coming together of the gatherings and not for the ‘traveling’
itself.

And these are two Mujtahids – Ibn Taymiyyah and Ash-Shawkānī –
in which there is no disagreement, among the Muslims, concerning
their qualification as Imāms, and their status in knowledge. They
both clearly stated that the reason for this ruling (‘Illah) for the




leadership, is the gathering. And they both made the analogy
(Qiyās) for the leadership of the rest of the types of gatherings upon
the leadership of traveling, and that this was from the point of
‘indicating the more (in need) by mentioning the least (in need)’.
And adding to what has preceded, is that this Hadīth is narrated by
Abū Dāwūd in “Kitāb Al-Jihād”, within his “Sunan”, and this (the
fact that it is narrated in Kitāb Al-Jihād) contains an indication for
that which we have concluded.

And with this, we would have completed the three points from the
refutation of the first of the objections of the author of the book “Al-
Bay’ah” (i.e. ‘Alī Al-Halabī).

A Point of Benefit: Concerning the Obligation of (Being Part of a)
Group (Jamā’ah) to Support the Religion in this Era.

I mentioned in the beginning of my discussion regarding the
refutation of this doubt related to leadership; a statement that I
would like to substantiate with evidence. And this is my statement:
“… verily in the absence of the Islamic Governance and the Khilāfah,
if a group of Muslims were to come together in order to establish
the obligations (Wājibāt) of the Religion – then this is obligatory in
and of itself…”

And the clarification of this is that the Sharī’ah-based obligations
such as Jihād and commanding the good and forbidding the evil
and the likes of that; no evidence has been established to indicate
that these (responsibilities) fall off of the Muslims due to the non-
existence of the Imām. Rather, Ibn Qudāmah has pointed this out as
he stated, “So if the Imām does not exist, then the Jihād is not
delayed…” And these obligations are like what Ibn Taymiyyah said
in his aforementioned discussion: “… this is not achieved except with
the strength and the leadership.” I say: And from the strength is the
group (Jamā’ah). He, the Most High, said:

‫ﻭَﺍﻋﺘﺼ ُﻮﺍ ﹺﺑﺤﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺟﻤِﻴﻌًﺎ ﻭﻟﹶﺎ َﺗﻔﺮ ﹸﻮﺍ‬
‫َ ﹶ ﱠﻗ‬ َ ِ ‫َْ ِﻤ َ ْ ﹺ ﱠ‬



And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allāh (i.e. this
Qur’ān), and be not divided among yourselves… 30

And He, the Most High, said:

‫ﻭﻟﹶﺎ َﺗﻨَﺎﺯ ُﻮﺍ ﻓﺘﻔﺸﻠﹸﻮﺍ ﻭَﺗﺬﻫﺐ ﺭ ُ ﹸﻢ‬
ْ ‫َ َﻋ ﹶَ ﹾ َ َ ﹾ َ َ ﹺﳛﻜ‬
…and do not dispute (with one another) lest you lose courage and
your strength departs… 31

And the command for the group (Jamā’ah) has been clearly narrated
in the statement of the Messenger of Allāh ‫“ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬And I
order you with five (orders), which Allāh has ordered me with; the Group
(Al-Jamā’ah), the Listening and Obeying (As-Sam’ Wat-Tā’ah), the
Migration (Al-Hijrah) and Al-Jihād.” 32

Yet despite that, some have taken the opinion that the coming
together of Muslims in a group (Jamā’ah), in order to establish the
obligations (Wājibāt) of the Religion, in this era – as there is no Imām
for the Muslims – is not obligatory. Instead, (they say) the
obligation is seclusion and that the individual should be concerned
with himself. And this saying leads to the uprooting of Islām and its
people. And they have a doubt (Shubhah) in this saying of theirs, as
they have used as evidence, the Marfū’ Hadīth of Huthayfah Ibn Al-
Yamān (may Allāh be pleased with him), “But, if they have no
group (Jamā’ah) and no leader (Imām)?’ He ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “Then
avoid all those sects (Al-Firaq)…” 33

30 Āl-Imrān, 103
31 Al-Anfāl, 46
32 Narrated by Ahmad and At-Tirmithī, who authenticated it from Al-Hārith Al-

Ash’arī. Trans. Note: Declared “Hasan” by Ibn Kathīr in his Tafsīr (1/87), and
“Hasan Gharīb” by Al-Baghawī in “Sharh As-Sunnah” (5/304). Other narrations
wherein the order of the five things are switched were declared “Sahīh” by Ibn
Al-Qayyim in “I’lām Al-Muwaqqi’īn” (1/208), Al-Albānī in “Sahīh At-Tirmithī”
(2,298), and in “Sahīh At-Targhīb Wat-Tarhīb” (552), and Al-Wādi’ī declared it
“Sahīh” on the conditions of Muslim in “Al-Jāmi’ As-Sahīh” (6/265).
33 Agreed Upon (i.e. Narrated by Al-Bukhārī and Muslim)



I say: And the Hadīth is precisely as follows, from Huthayfah Ibn
Al-Yamān (may Allāh be pleased with him) who said, “The people
used to ask the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬about the good,
and I used to ask him about the evil, due to my fear that it might
reach me.’

“So I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, verily we were in Ignorance
(Jāhiliyyah) and evil and then Allāh came to us with this goodness
(Khayr). So after this goodness, will there be any evil (Sharr)? He
said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘And is there, after that evil, any goodness?’ He
said, ‘Yes, and in it is a Dakhan.’ 34 I said, ‘And what is its Dakhan
(impurity)?’ He said, ‘There will be some people who will lead (people)
according to principles other than my tradition. You will see their actions
and disapprove of them.’

“I said, ‘So is there, after that goodness (Khayr), any (further) evil
(Sharr)?’ He said, ‘Yes. Callers at the gates of Hell. Whosoever answers
them (i.e. their call) to it, they will throw him into it.’

“I said, ‘O Messenger of Allāh, describe them to us.’ He said, ‘They
are from our skin (i.e. race) and they speak with our tongues (i.e.
language).’

“I said, ‘Then what do you order me, if that reaches me?’ He said,
‘Adhere to the group (Jamā’ah) of the Muslims, and their Imām.’

“I said, ‘But, if they have no group (Jamā’ah) and no Imām?’ He said,
‘Then avoid all those sects (Al-Firaq), even if you have to bite the trunk of
a tree, until death reaches you while you are upon that.’” 35

And the refutation upon their doubt (Shubhah) is from two angles:

The First Point: As it is clear from the text of the Hadīth, that the
sects, which the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬ordered the avoidance (I’tizāl)

34 Trans. Note: Dakhan: literally a pure color blemished with a touch of yellow.
As it is used in this text, it means some good, which is impure due to its being
mixed with some evil.
35 Agreed Upon (i.e. Narrated by Al-Bukhārī and Muslim)



of, are the sects of misguidance which were mentioned in his
statement, “Callers at the gates of Hell…” and this is indicated by:

A. The label of indication (Ism Al-Ishārah); “… those…”, (Tilk)
refers to something mentioned prior to it in the text.
B. The ‫( ﺍ‬Alif) and the ‫( ﻝ‬Lam) in “… Al-Firaq…” is for ‘Ahd 36 and it
indicates something which was previously mentioned (and)
established in the mind (of he who hears it). And it is not correct (to
say) that it could be for the entire category (i.e. all sects), otherwise
“The Saved Sect” (Al-Firqat An-Nājiyah) would also be entered into
“…those sects…”, and this is false according to consensus (Ijmā’).
And from this, you see that the phrasing, “…Al-Firaq…” – whose
avoidance (I’tizāl) has been ordered – even if (we were to say that)
it was a phrasing of generality (Sīghat ‘Umūm); it is from the general
(i.e. all sects), which is intended as specific (i.e. all sects of
astrayness). So the sects which were referred to; they are the astray
sects and none other, as it is narrated in another narration of the
same Hadīth: “… then the callers of astrayness will emerge…” –
narrated by Ahmad and Abū Dāwūd and its chain is Hasan. 37

The Second Point: And it is what we have constantly been
reminding about, which is that the Sharī’ah-based rulings are not
derived from a single text, unless there is no other. Rather, they are
taken from all of the evidences concerning that issue by reconciling
between them through limitation or restriction (of their meanings)
or by abrogation or other than that, from the methods of
reconciling the evidences. And in this issue, we say that the
avoidance (I’tizāl), which was narrated in his ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬saying,
“… then avoid those sects…” if we say, for the sake of argument, that

36 Trans. Note: The ‫ ﺍ‬and ‫ ل‬of ‘Ahdiyyah is when they indicate a specific thing
which is being mentioned, and they are not indicating generality in the phrasing.
Like in English, if we say “The houses,” - it can be general meaning the buildings
which people live in, or it can be specific houses that are being refered to.
‘Ahdiyyah is the second example.
37 Trans. Note: Al-Albānī declared it “Hasan” in “Sahīh Al-Jāmi’” (2,995), and he

said: “Its chain is Hasan, its men are trustworthy,” in “Mishkāt Al-Masābīh” (5,323)
and he mentioned it in “As-Silsilat As-Sahīhah” (1,791), all with very similar
phrasings.



it is upon its generality – despite the fact that it is from the general
which is intended as specific – then we say that it is limited as well,
by many texts. From them is the Hadīth of “The Saved Sect” (Al-
Firqat An-Nājiyah) and from them, is the Hadīth of “The Victorious
Party” (At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah).

i. As for the Hadīth of “The Saved Sect” (Al-Firqat An-Nājiyah), he ‫ﺻﻠﻰ‬
‫ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬has stated, “Verily, this nation (Ummah) will divide into
seventy-three sects in desires. All of them are in the Fire except one, and
that is the group (Jamā’ah).” – narrated by Ibn Abī ‘Āsim from
Mu’āwiyah (may Allāh be pleased with him), and Al-Albānī
authenticated it. 38 And in another narration, “The Saved One” (An-
Nājiyah) is, “… that which I and my companions are upon today” from
‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Amr (may Allāh be pleased with them). And this is
a Hasan Hadīth, along with other (narrations) than this, due to its
witnesses. 39 So his ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬saying –in the Hadīth of Huthayfah
(may Allāh be pleased with him) –“Callers at the gates of Hell….”; it
is the same as his ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬saying, in the Hadīth of the sects, “…
all of them are in the Fire…” Then he made an exception, as he ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “…except for one…” and this one – and it is the “Saved
One” (An-Nājiyah) – is a limitation for the generality of the
avoidance (I’tizāl) which was commanded. In other words, avoid
the astray sects and adhere to “The Saved Sect” (Al-Firqat An-
Nājiyah), whose methodology (Manhaj) is, “… that which I and my
companions are upon today.” And it is also the Group (Jamā’ah)
because, “Al-Jamā’ah (The Group) is whatever complies with the
Truth, even if you are alone.” 40 And the clarification of the

38 “Kitāb As-Sunnah” (2), by Ibn Abī ‘Āsim.
39 Trans Note: “… its witnesses…” (Shawāhid), refers to the substantiation of
other narrations of this Hadīth, which add to its strength and raise its status to
Hasan, although this particular narration contains some weakness. This Hadīth
was declared “Mahfūth” (preserved) by Ibn Hajar in “Lisān Al-Mīzān” (8/97), and
Ibn Taymiyyah called it “Mash’hūr” (renown) in “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (24/171),
with the extra phrasing “…Whoever is upon that which I and my companions are
upon today.”
40 Narrated by Ibn ‘Asākir, with an authentic (Sahīh) chain, from Ibn Masūd, may

Allāh be pleased with him, Mawqūf.



methodology (Manhaj) for “The Saved Sect” (Al-Firqat An-Nājiyah),
will be presented in the topic: “The Fundamental Principles of
Holding Steadfast to the Book and Sunnah”, within “The Faith-
Oriented Preparation”, In Shā’ Allāh Ta’āla.

ii. And as for the Hadīth of “The Victorious Party” (At-Tā’ifah Al-
Mansūrah), the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “There will not
cease to be a party (Tā’ifah) from my nation (Ummah), establishing the
order of Allāh. They are unharmed by those who betray them or oppose
them, until the Decision of Allāh arrives and they are dominant over the
people.” 41 – narrated by Muslim from Mu’āwiyah (may Allāh be
pleased with him). 42

And he ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “And this Religion (Dīn) will never cease to
be established; a faction (‘Isābah) from the Muslims will fight upon it until
the Hour arrives.” – narrated by Muslim from Jābir Ibn Samurah. 43

And it is a famous Hadīth; furthermore, it is oft-narrated
(Mutawātir) 44 as Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allāh be merciful to him)
mentioned in “‘Iqtidhā’ As-Sirāt Al-Mustaqīm”. It has been narrated
on the authority of fifteen companions (Sahābah) and it was
narrated by the authors of The Six Books (Al-Kutub As-Sittah) 45 and
the Ma’ājam 46 and the Masānīd 47 and in the books of the Sunnah

Trans. Note: “…Mawqūf…” literally, “…stopped…”, meaning that the chain of
this Hadīth is Mawqūf (stopped) at Ibn Masūd and does not reach to the
Messenger of Allāh ‫.ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
41 Trans. Note: Also narrated by Ahmad with the phrasing “… until the Decision

of Allāh ,Glorious is He…”
42 Trans. Note: The original manuscript said “May Allāh be pleased with them”
43 Trans. Note: Also narrated by Ahmad.
44 Trans. Note: Mutawātir: Oft-narrated; meaning that its authenticity cannot be

questioned due to how many people narrated the exact same Hadīth as it would
have been impossible for all these people to lie or mistakenly agree on the wrong
words.
45 Trans. Note: Al-Kutub As-Sittah: The Six Books; those being Sahīh Al-Bukhārī,

Sahīh Muslim, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Sunan An-Nasā’ī, Sunan At-Tirmithī and Sunan
Ibn Mājah.
46 Trans. Note: Ma’ājam: Plural of Mu’jam: the collections of Hadīth, which are

arranged and categorized according to the Shaykhs who passed them onto the
compilers of the collection. (Ex. “Al-Mu’jam Al-Kabīr Lit-Tabarānī”)



and the remaining books of the Righteous Predecessors (As-Salaf
As-Sālih), may Allāh be pleased with all of them.

So here is a party (Tā’ifah) which establishes the matters of the
Religion (Dīn), fighting for it; it is promised with victory and
dominance and given glad tidings that it will not be harmed by
those who oppose it, nor by those who betray it; it is (always)
present without any break, from the time of the Messenger of Allāh
‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬until the last of it fights the Dajjāl (The False Messiah)
alongside ‘Īsā, ‫ – ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬So would the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬order
the Muslims to avoid this party (Tā’ifah), which establishes the
matters of the Religion (Dīn)? And due to that, we say that if his ‫ﺻﻠﻰ‬
‫ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬saying, “Then avoid all those sects (Al-Firaq)…”, were to be
held upon its generality, then it becomes restricted by this Hadīth,
just as it is restricted by the Hadīth of “The Saved Sect” (Al-Firqat
An-Nājiyah). So if the people separate into sects – in the absence of
the Imām – then the Muslim should look to which sect follows the
methodology (Manhaj) of “The Saved Sect”, and which fulfils the
trusts for carrying this Religion (Dīn) and performs Jihād upon that.
(And if they find such a sect), then they should adhere to it,
especially when the texts which were narrated regarding “The
Battling Alongside the Sinful Amīr”, have indicated that the Jihād is
constant and will never cease. And Ibn Qudāmah said, “So if the
Imām does not exist, then the Jihād is not delayed …” So how
could Jihād be performed without a group (Jamā’ah)?

Yes, Ibn Hajar did say, in the explanation of the Hadīth: “Then avoid
all those sects (Al-Firaq)…”, “And in the Hadīth, it contains that
whenever there is no Imām for the people, and thus the people
break into different parties (Ahzāb) - then he should not follow
anyone in the sects and avoid them all, if possible, due to a fear that
he might fall into evil.” 48

47 Trans. Note: Masānīd, plural of Musnad: the collections of Hadīth, which are

arranged and categorized according to the Sahābah who narrated them; usually
alphabetically or in order of the earliest in Islām or according to the nobility of
lineage. (Ex. “Musnad Imām Ahmad” or “Musnad Abī Ya’alā Al-Mūsālī”)
48 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/37)



But, as I have stated previously, the Hadīth of “The Victorious
Party” (At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah) limits many of the Hadīths of the
trials (Fitan). And an example of that is what Ibn Hajar mentioned
in the chapter: “The Changing of the Times, Until Idols are
Worshipped”. He said, “Ibn Battāl said, ‘This Hadīth, and the likes
of it; they are not intended to suggest that the Religion ends
completely, in all of the places of the Earth, until there is nothing
left of it. Because it is confirmed that Islām remains until the (final)
Hour arrives. But yes, it will become weak and return to being
strange as it had began …’ Then he mentioned the Hadīth, ‘There
will not cease to be a party (Tā’ifah) from my nation (Ummah) fighting
upon the Truth…’ – the Hadīth. He said, “So a restriction upon the
other narrations becomes clear in this Hadīth.” 49

And due to that, I say that the Hadīth of “The Victorious Party” (At-
Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah), is a limitation upon the Hadīth of, “Then avoid
all those sects (Al-Firaq)…” And it is also possible to say that the
(commandment of) avoidance (I’tizāl), in the Hadīth, is dependant
upon two conditions, being: (1) the absence of the group (Jamā’ah)
and (2) the absence of the Imām – “And if they have no group
(Jamā’ah) and no Imām?” – “...then avoid…” And that if the Imām is
absent, but the group (Jamā’ah) is to be found, then the
(commandment of) avoidance (I’tizāl) is nullified, because it is
dependant upon two conditions, and not (only) one condition.
However, this derivation is not quite proper, because that which is
meant by the group (Jamā’ah) in the Hadīth of Huthayfah, is the
group (Jamā’ah) of the Muslims which is under the obedience of (i.e.
is loyal to) the Imām – “Adhere to the group (Jamā’ah) of the Muslims,
and their Imām.” And if the Imām is absent, then the group, in this
definition, (Jamā’ah) would also have to be absent by necessity. So
this derivation isn’t proper, and the saying that the Hadīth of “The
Victorious Party” (At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah), is a limitation upon the
Hadīth of Huthayfah is more befitting than it. 50

49 Refer to “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/76-77), and he mentioned similar to it in (13/19).
50 Trans. Note: The point of the author here is that it might be said that as long as
there is still a group (Jamā’ah) present, then the two conditions, “…no group
(Jamā’ah) and no Imām”, in the command of avoidance, “…avoid those sects…”
would not be held, because there is only one condition present (i.e. the absence of



So the point of the earlier discussion is that the Muslim is ordered
to follow the Truth, and he is ordered to follow the Imām of the
Muslims, when he is to be found: “Adhere to the group (Jamā’ah) of
the Muslims, and their Imām” And he must obey him in that which is
obedience to Allāh and he must not obey him in the disobedience
of Allāh. So if there is no Imām for the Muslims, then the Muslim is
still ordered to follow the Truth, and the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬has
clarified that there will not cease to be a party (Tā’ifah) from his
nation (Ummah) upon the Truth. So in the absence of the Imām, it is
obligatory (Wājib) upon the Muslim to adhere to this party (Tā’ifah),
which establishes the Religion (Dīn) with Knowledge (‘Ilm) and
Invitation (Da’wah) and Jihād. And Allāh, the Most High, has stated:

‫ﻭَﺍﱠﺗﺒﻊ ﺳﺒﹺﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﹶﺃﻧَﺎﺏ ﹺﺇﹶﻟﻲ‬
‫ﹺْ َ ﹶَْ َ ﱠ‬
“…and follow the path of him who turns to Me…” 51

Ibn Al-Qayyim (may Allāh be merciful to him), said, “And how
great is that which Abū Muhammad ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn Isma’īl –
who was known as Abū Shāmah – said in the book “Al-Hawādith
Wal-Bida’”, ‘Wherever the order to adhere to the group (Jamā’ah) is
found, then what is meant by it, is adhering to the Truth and its followers,
even if those who adhere to it are few and those who oppose it are many.’
This is because the Truth is what the original group (Jamā’ah) was
upon in the time of the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬and his Companions.
And there is no (need to go) looking at the great numbers of the
People of Innovation (Bid’ah) who came after them. ‘Amr Ibn
Maymūn Al-Awdī (may Allāh be pleased with him) said, ‘I was a

the Imām). However, when we look at the actual text of the Hadīth of Huthayfah,
we can see that the word “group” (Jamā’ah), refers to the group of the Muslims,
which is loyal and obedient to the Imām. And this is indicated by his ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
saying, “Adhere to the group (Jamā’ah) of the Muslims, and their Imām.” So this
would mean that the group (Jamā’ah) being referred to, could not exist in the
absence of this Imām because there would be no Imām for them to be loyal and
obedient to. And in this way, this explanation would not be correct. Therefore,
the conclusion that the Hadīth of “The Victorious Party” (At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah)
is a limitation upon the Hadīth of Huthayfah, is more fitting and a better
reconciliation between these various texts.
51 Luqmān, 15



companion of Mu’āth in Yemen. So I did not leave him until I
buried him in the soil of Ash-Shām. Then after him, I was a
companion of the Afqah (most knowledgeable) of the people;
‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas’ūd (may Allāh be pleased with him). So I heard
him saying, “(Obligatory) upon you is (adhering to) the group
(Jamā’ah), because the Hand of Allāh is upon the group (Jamā’ah).”
Then one day I heard him saying, ‘There will be placed upon you
authorities who delay the prayer beyond its time. So pray the
prayer in its time, then that will be the compulsory (Fardh), and
pray with them as it will be superogatory (Nāfilah) for you.” He
said, “I said, ‘O Companion of Muhammad, I do not know what it
is that you narrate to me.’ He (i.e. Ibn Mas’ūd) said, ‘And what is
that?’ I said, ‘You order me with the group (Jamā’ah) and encourage
me concerning that, and then you say, ‘Pray the payer alone as it is
the compulsory (Fardh) and pray with the group (Jamā’ah), while it
is superogatory (Nāfilah)?’ He said, ‘O ‘Amr Ibn Maymūn, I used to
consider you from the most knowledgeable people of this village.
Do you know what the group (Jamā’ah) is?’ I said, ‘No.’ He said,
‘Verily, the majority of the group (Jamā’ah) are those who have left
the group (Jamā’ah). Al-Jamā’ah (The Group) is whatever complies
with the Truth, even if you are alone.’ And according to one
narration, ‘… so he slapped my thigh and said, ‘Woe to you! Verily,
the majority of the people have left the Jamā’ah, and verily, the
Jamā’ah is what complies with the obedience to Allāh, Glorious is
He.’ And Nu’aym Ibn Hammād said, ‘… meaning that if the
Jamā’ah becomes corrupt, then (obligatory) upon you is what the
group (Jamā’ah) was upon prior to its corruption, even if you are
alone, because verily, you are the Jamā’ah at that time.’ Mentioned
by Al-Bayhaqī and others.” 52

Point of Notice: Review the meanings of the word “Al-Jamā’ah” in
general within the fourth chapter, page 149. 53

52 “Ighāthat Al-Lahfān Min Masāyid Ash-Shaytān” (Pg. 82-83), by Ibn Al-Qayyim,

published by “Dār Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah”, 1407 H.
53 Trans. Note: This reference, like others in this chapter and the one that follows

it, are examples of the Shaykh referring to other parts of the book that have not
been translated yet.



Point Of Notice: Who are “The Victorious Party” (At-
Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah)?

Most of the predecessors (As-Salaf) took (the opinion) that “The
Victorious Party” (At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah) were the scholars
(‘Ulamā’) and the People of Hadīth (Ahlul-Hadīth), as Al-Bukhārī and
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal have stated. But his ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬saying, “…
this Religion (Dīn), established, fighting upon it…” is a problem
for them, and other than that from the narrations which clearly
mention that the fighting (Al-Qitāl) is from the unique
(characteristics) of this party (Tā’ifah), like the narration of Jābir Ibn
‘Abdillāh, ‘Imrān Ibn Husayn, Yazīd Ibn Al-Asamm from
Mu’awiyah and ‘Uqbah Ibn ‘Āmir, may Allāh be pleased with them
all. So it is not possible to restrict the Tā’ifah to the ‘Ulamā’ only.
Rather, they (i.e. the Tā’ifah) are the People of Knowledge and Jihād.
And due to this, An-Nawawī mentioned the sayings of Al-Bukhārī
and Ahmad and others, then he said, “And it could be that this
Tā’ifah is spread out amongst the different types of Believers. From
them are brave warriors (Muqātilūn), and from them are jurists
(Fuqahā’), and from them are the Scholars of Hadīth (Muhaddithūn)
and from them are those who distance themselves from the matters
of this worldly life due to intense worship (Zuhhād) and
commanders of good and forbidders of evil. And from them are
people of other forms of good - and it is not necessary for them to
be altogether, rather they could be spread out in different areas of
the Earth.” 54

And like wise, Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allāh be
merciful to him) in his Fatāwā – concerning fighting the Tartars,
who declared the two testimonies of faith (Ash-Shahādatayn), yet
governed by other than the Sharī’ah of Islām – he said that the
People of Jihād are from the most deserving ones for being included
in At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah, as he said, “As for the Tā’ifah in Ash-
Shām and Egypt and the likes of them - then they are, in this time,
the ones who fight (Muqātilūn) for the Religion (Dīn) of Islām. And
they are from the most deserving ones for being included in At-

54 “Sahīh Muslim Bi-Sharh An-Nawawī” (13/67)



Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah, which the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬mentioned in
his statement, in the authentic and frequently narrated
(Mustafīdhah) Ahādīth, from him, ‘There will not cease to be a Tā’ifah
from my Ummah, dominant upon the Truth. They are not harmed by
those who oppose them nor those who betray them, until the (final) Hour
arrives.’ And in a narration from Muslim, ‘The People of the West, will
not cease.’ 55 ” 56

And there is no doubt that the ‘Ulamā’ who work (for the Religion),
are the first people entered into this Tā’ifah and then the rest of the
people from the Mujāhidīn and the others follow them.

And what lead the Predecessors (As-Salaf) to the saying that the
Tā’ifah is the ‘Ulamā’, was that the Jihād was something about which
there was no disagreement among the Muslims, and the fortified
borders were fully equipped with soldiers and armies, facing the
states of warfare (Diyār Al-Harb) and the things that would pierce
the Religion the most in their times were the innovations and the
great heresies - and the knights of this battle arena are the ‘Ulamā’.

As for us today, we are in need of the efforts of the ‘Ulamā’ and the
Mujāhidīn; each in their respective battle arena, as the Religion
cannot be established with knowledge alone, nor with Jihād alone –
Rather, with both of them together. As He, the Most High, said in
the Verse of “The Iron” (Al-Hadīd):

55 Trans. Note: From Sa’d Ibn Abī Waqqās, may Allāh be pleased with him. An-
Nawawī said in his Sharh of this Hadīth: “’Alī Ibn Al-Madīnī said: ‘The meaning
of ‘The People of the West (Al-Gharb)…’ is the Arabs, and what is meant by ‘…the
West (Al-Gharb)…’ is the Dalū (A type of container made from animal hide that is
used to remove water from wells) due to it being specific to them most of the
time.’ And others said: What is meant by it is the West of the Earth. And Mu’āth
said: They are in Ash-Shām. And it has come in a Hadīth that the last of them are
at Bayt Al-Maqdis. And it is said that they are the People of Ash-Shām and what
is beyond it. Al-Qādhī said: And it is said that what is meant by the People of Al-
Gharb is the People of Severity and Steadfastness, and the Gharb of everything is
its limit.” End of An-Nawawī’s words.



‫ﹶﻟﻘﺪ ﹶﺃﺭﺳﻠﻨَﺎ ﺭﺳﻠﻨَﺎ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﺒﻴﻨَﺎﺕ ﻭﹶﺃْﻧﺰﹾﻟﻨَﺎ ﻣﻌ ُ ُ ﺍﹾﻟﻜﺘَﺎﺏ ﻭَﺍﹾﻟﻤِﻴﺰﺍﻥ ِﻟﻴ ﹸﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﱠﺎﺱ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﻘﺴﻂ‬
ِ ْ ِ ُ ‫َ ﹶ َﻘ َ ﻨ‬ َ ِ ‫ﹶ ْ ْ َ ﹾ ُ ُ ﹶ َﱢ ِ َ َ َ َﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻭﹶﺃْﻧﺰﹾﻟﻨَﺎ ﺍﹾﻟﺤﺪِﻳﺪ ﻓِﻴﻪ َﺑﺄ ٌ ﺷﺪِﻳ ٌ ﻭﻣﻨَﺎﻓ ُ ﻟِﻠﱠﺎﺱ ﻭِﻟﻴﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ َﻳﻨ ُ ُ ُ ﻭ ُ ُﻠ ُ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﻐﻴﺐ‬
‫َ َ ِ ﹾﺱ َ ﺪ َ َ ِﻊ ﻨ ﹺ َ َ ْ ﹶ َ ﱠ ُ َ ْ ْﺼﺮﻩ َﺭﺳ ﹶﻪ َ ْ ﹺ‬ َ َ
‫ﱠ ﱠَ ﹶ ﹺ ﱞ َ ﺰ‬
ٌ ‫ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﻮﻱ ﻋﺰﹺﻳ‬
Indeed We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and We
revealed the Book with them, and the Balance (justice) that
mankind may keep up justice. And We brought forth Iron
wherein is mighty power (in matters of war), as well as (many)
benefits for mankind. And that Allāh may test who it is that will
help Him (His Religion), and His Messengers in the unseen.
Verily, Allāh is All-Strong, All-Mighty. 57

And Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said, “And the Religion will
not be established except with the Book, the Balance, and the Iron.
The Book to guide with it, and Iron to support it. As He, the Most
High, said: “Indeed We have sent Our Messengers…” – the Verse.
So the Book; with it the knowledge and the Religion are
established. And the Balance; with it the rights in monetary
contracts and collections are established. And the Iron; with it the
penalties of law (Al-Hudūd) are established.” 58 And he also said,
“And the swords of the Muslims give victory to this Legislation -
which is the Book and the Sunnah, as Jābir Ibn ‘Abdillāh (may Allāh
be pleased with him) said, ‘The Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
ordered us to strike with this – meaning the sword – whosoever
leaves from this – meaning the Mus’haf.” 59 And he also said,
“Because verily, that which establishes the Religion, is the Guiding
Book and the Victory-Giving Iron, as Allāh, the Most High,
mentioned.” 60 And many other places, in the different sections (in
his Fatāwā).

I say: And due to that, it is possible to say that At-Tā’ifah Al-
Mansūrah is the Tā’ifah which performs Jihād, (and) which follows
the straight, Sharī’ah-based methodology (Manhaj); the

57 Trans. Note: Al-Hadīd, 25
58 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” ( 35/36)



methodology (Manhaj) of Ahl As-Sunnah Wal-Jamā’ah. And I will
mention the outlines of this methodology (Manhaj), In Shā’ Allāh
Ta’āla within the issue of “The Fundamental Principles of Holding
Steadfast to the Book and Sunnah.”

Point Of Notice: Is “The Saved Sect” (Al-Firqat An-
Nājiyah) (the same as) “The Victorious Party” (At-
Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah)?

It is narrated in most of the books of creed (‘Aqīdah), that “The
Saved Sect” (Al-Firqat An-Nājiyah) Ahl As-Sunnah Wal-Jamā’ah is
(the same as) “The Victorious Party” (At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah). For
example, look to the last chapter in “Al-‘Aqīdah Al-Wāsitiyyah”, by
Ibn Taymiyyah and also the introduction to the book “Ma’ārij Al-
Qubūl”, by Hāfith Al-Hakamī, and other than those.

But that which seems to be the most correct opinion, in my view, is
that Al-Firqah and At-Tā’ifah are not interchangeable; and that At-
Tā’ifah is a part of Al-Firqah. So At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah is that part,
or those few, who carry out giving victory to the Religion (Dīn), by
Knowledge and Jihād from amongst Al-Firqat An-Nājiyah, which is
upon the correct methodology (Manhaj) and belief (I‘tiqād). And
branching out from that, we also say, that the Mujaddid 61 is one of
the individuals from At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah, who carried out the
most important obligations of the Religion in his time, upon the
saying of the majority, that the Mujaddid is one person. 62

And my evidence for this is what follows:

Trans. Note: Mujāddid: Reformer, reviver etc.
61

Trans. Note: The issue of the Mujaddid is referring to the Hadīth narrated from
62

Abū Hurayrah (may Allāh be pleased with him) from the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ‬
‫ ,ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬that he said: “Verily Allāh will send for this nation (Ummah), at the head of
every hundred years, one who will revive for it its Religion.” Narrated by Abū Dāwūd.
As-Sakhāwī mentioned that’s its chain is authentic and its men are all
trustworthy, in “Al-Maqāsid Al-Hasanah” (149), and Al-Albānī authenticated in
“Sahīh Abī Dāwūd” (3,606), “As-Silsilah As-Sahīhah” (599), and in “Sahīh Al-Jāmi’”
(1,874), with the extra phrasing “Ta’āla”, as well as other places in his books.



1. Allāh, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻓﻠﻮﻟﹶﺎ َﻧﻔﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻓﺮﻗﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻃﹶﺎِﺋﻔﺔ ِﻟﻴﺘﻔﻘﻬُﻮﺍ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟ ﱢﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺪ ﹺ‬ ‫ﹶ ﹶ ْ ﹶ َ ِ ْ ﹸ ﱢ ِ ْ ﹶ ٍ ِ ْ ُ ْ ﹶ ﹲ ََ ﹶ ﱠ‬
So if only from every group (Firqah) of them, a party (Tā’ifah) went
forth, that they may get instructions in the Religion… 63

So this Verse differentiated between the “Firqah” and the “Tā’ifah”,
and it showed that the Tā’ifah is a part of the Firqah, and that it is
that part of the Firqah, which establishes the knowledge and the
Jihād, like in the Tafsīr of this Verse. 64

2. The knowledge and the Jihād; and they are the most important
descriptions of At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah. And the basis (Asl) of their
legislation is that they are communal obligations “Furūdh Kifāyah”,
which is that this duty becomes obligatory upon some (to fulfill)
but not all of the sons of the Ummah, to carry out. And these ones,
from the nation (Ummah), who are carrying out (attaining)
knowledge and Jihād, they are At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah.

3. And the saying of the Imāms of Hadīth, such as Al-Bukhārī and
Ahmad, that: “The Tā’ifah is the People of Hadīth (Ahl Al-Hadīth) or
the People of Knowledge,” like Al-Bukhārī entitled a chapter on
this in “Kitāb Al-I’tisām”, from his Sahīh, leaves the impression of
this difference, because not everyone who is from Ahl As-Sunnah
(Al-Firqat An-Nājiyah) is from the People of Hadīth (Ahl Al-Hadīth).
As for what An-Nawawī narrated concerning the Tā’ifah, “Ahmad
Ibn Hanbal said, ‘If they are not the People of Hadīth (Ahl Al-
Hadīth), then I do know who they are.’ Al-Qādhī ‘Iyādh said,
‘Ahmad only meant by this, Ahl As-Sunnah Wal-Jamā’ah and those
who believe the school of thought (Math’hab) of the People of
Hadīth (Ahl Al-Hadīth).” So the saying of Al-Qādhī ‘Iyādh that the
People of Hadīth – in other words, all of Ahl As-Sunnah – is not
correct, unless we say that he meant those who follow them. And
this is what he indicated with his saying, “… and those who believe
the school of thought (Math’hab) of the People of Hadīth (Ahl Al-

63 At-Tawbah, 122
64 Refer to Ibn Kathīr



Hadīth).” Because the general people should be followers of their
‘Ulamā’, as the ‘Ulamā’ are from the People of the Authority, who
were mentioned in His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﹶﺃﻃِﻴ ُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﹶﺃﻃِﻴ ُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺮ ُﻮﻝ ﻭﹸﻭﻟِﻲ ﺍﹾﻟﺄﻣﺮ ﻣﻨﻜﻢ‬
ْ ‫ﹶ ْ ﹺ ِْ ﹸ‬ ‫ﻌ ﱠ َ َ ﻌ ﱠﺳ ﹶ َﺃ‬
Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger, and those of you (Muslims)
who are in authority. 65

And (what is) clearer than that, is His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭﹶﻟﻮ ﺭ ﱡﻭﻩ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﺍﻟﺮ ُﻮﻝ ﻭﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﹸﻭﻟِﻲ ﺍﹾﻟﺄﻣﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﹶﻟﻌﻠﻤﻪُ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ َﻳﺴﺘﻨﺒ ﹸﻮَﻧﻪ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ‬
ْ ُ ْ ِ ُ ‫َ ْ َ ْ ﹺﻄ‬ َ َِ ْ ُ ِْ ‫ﹶ ْ ﹺ‬ ‫ﱠﺳ ﹺ َ ﺃ‬ ُ ‫َ ْ َﺩ‬
…and if only they had referred it to the Messenger or to Ulī Al-
Amr (those charged with authority) among them, the proper
investigators would have understood it from them (directly). 66

So in this Verse, Allāh, the Most High, labeled the ‘Ulamā’ – “the
proper investigators” – He labeled them as People of the Authority
(Ulī Al-Amr); and this is a text, which demonstrated that the ‘Ulamā’
are the People of the Authority. And in it (also), is an indication of
the obligation of increasing their (ranks), as this indication is also
narrated in the Hadīth of the seizing of the knowledge. 67 So the
common people are followers of the ‘Ulamā’. He, the Most High,
said:

‫َﻳﻮﻡ َﻧﺪ ُﻮﺍ ﻛﻞ ﹸﺃﻧَﺎﺱ ﹺﺑﺈﻣَﺎﻣﻬﻢ‬
ْ ‫ْ َ ْﻋ ﹸ ﱠ ﹴ ﹺ ِ ﹺ‬
(And remember) the Day when We shall call together all human
beings with their (respective) Imām… 68

65 An-Nisā’, 59
66 An-Nisā’, 83
67 Trans. Note: Referring to the Hadīth narrated by Al-Bukhārī, Muslim, At-

Tirmithī, Ibn Mājah and Ahmad, on the authority of ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Amr, who
said, “I heard the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬say, ‘Verily, Allāh does not
remove the knowledge by taking it from the slaves. Rather, He removes the knowledge by
removing the 'Ulamā’. So when there are no scholars left, the people will take ignorant
leaders. So they are questioned (about certain matters) and they rule without knowledge;
so they go astray and they cause others to go astray.”
68 Al-Isrā’, 71



And Ahl As-Sunnah Wal-Jamā’ah are followers of their ‘Ulamā’, who
are the Tā’ifah who take the place of the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬in the
nation (Ummah). So if it is said that Ahl As-Sunnah (a.k.a. Al-Firqat
An-Nājiyah) are At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah, then this is only acceptable
if the intended meaning is that Ahl As-Sunnah are followers of At-
Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah.. Otherwise, At-Tā’ifah is more specific then Al-
Firqah, and Allāh, the Most High, knows best.

And the point from this is for each Muslim to strive to be from this
At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah, which is established in aiding the Religion
through Knowledge (‘Ilm), Invitation (Da’wah) and Jihād. He, the
Most High, said:

‫ﻭﻓِﻲ ﺫِﻟﻚ ﻓﻠﻴﺘﻨَﺎﻓﺲ ﺍﹾﻟﻤُﺘﻨَﺎﻓ ُﻮﻥ‬
‫َ ﹶ َ ﹶ ﹾ َ َ ﹶ ﹺ َ ِﺴ ﹶ‬
… and for this, let (all) those who want to strive, strive … 69

I say: And despite that, the Tā’ifah could be the entire Firqah, and
that is at the end of time, when the Believers will be isolated in
Ash-Shām, and upon them ‘Īsā ibn Maryam ‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬descends to
fight the Dajjāl, as is in the authentic Ahādīth. And concerning this,
there are narrations, which mention that At-Tā’ifah will be in Ash-
Shām or Bayt Al-Maqdis (Palestine)70; and that this is in regards to
the last members of this Tā’ifah completely. However, prior to that
from the (various) eras, the Tā’ifah can be in Ash-Shām or other
than it. 71 And Allāh, the Most High, knows best.

Point Of Notice: Concerning the Most Important
Obligations of At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah in This Era.

This, and from the greatest obligations of At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah, in
this time, is Jihād against the apostate rulers (Al-Hukkām Al-

69 Al-Mutaffifīn, 26
70 The Hadīth of Abū Umāmah, may Allāh be pleased with him.
71 And look to the words of the author of the book “Fat’h Al-Majīd Sharh Kitāb At-

Tawhīd”, “The Explanation of the Hadīth of At-Tā’ifah”, (Pg. 278-279), publication
“Ansār As-Sunnah”.



Murtaddīn), who alter the Sharī’ah of Allāh; who govern over the
Muslims with man-made laws of kufr. As Ibn Kathīr said, in the
Tafsīr of His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﹶﺃﻓﺤُﻜﻢ ﺍﹾﻟﺠَﺎﻫﻠﻴﺔ َﻳﺒ ُﻮﻥ ﻭﻣﻦ ﹶﺃﺣﺴ ُ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺣﻜﻤًﺎ ِﻟﻘﻮﻡ ُﻮﻗُﻮﻥ‬
‫ِ ِﱠ ِ ْﻐ ﹶ َ َ ْ ْ َﻦ ِ َ ﱠ ِ ُ ﹾ ﹶ ْ ﹴ ﻳ ِﻨ ﹶ‬ َ‫ﹶ ﹾ‬
Do they then seek the judgment of Jāhiliyyah (the Days of
Ignorance)? And who is better in judgment than Allāh for a
people who have firm Faith? 72

“He, the Most High, objects to those who leave the Judgment
(Hukm) of Allāh, which is based upon all goodness and which
forbids all evil, and then goes to other than it, of opinions and
desires and terminologies that have been fabricated by mankind,
without any basis in the Sharī’ah of Allāh…” – until his saying – “…
So whosoever from them (i.e. the rulers) does that, then he is a
disbeliever (kāfir), it is obligatory (Wājib) to fight against him until
he returns to the Judgment (Hukm) of Allāh and His Messenger, so
he does not place as law, anything besides it, in anything small or
great.” 73

And many of the contemporary ‘Ulamā’ have commented upon the
aforementioned words of Ibn Kathīr, clarifying that this is the
condition of the rulers (Hukkām) who rule the Muslims with man-
made laws today.

As Shaykh Ahmad Shākir (may Allāh be merciful to him) said, “Is it
permissible, with this, in the Legislation of Allāh, for the Muslims
to rule in their countries with a legislation which is taken from the
legislation of the pagan, atheist Europe? Furthermore, a legislation
which is full of desires and opinions of falsehood (Bātil), which they
change and replace whenever they want, (and) he who fabricates it
does not care whether it complies with the Legislation of Islām or
opposes it?!” – until his saying – “… Verily, the issue of these man-
made laws is clear like the clarity of the sun. It is clear disbelief

72 Al-Mā’idah, 50 Trans. Note: In the original manuscript it erroneously says Al-
Mā’idah, 5.
73 “Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr” (2/67)



(kufr bawwāh) and there is nothing hidden about it nor any
equivocation, and there is no excuse for anyone who attributes
themselves to Islām, whoever they may be, to act according to them
or to submit to them or to approve of them.” 74

And Al-‘Allāmah Muhammad Hāmid Al-Fiqī (may Allāh be
merciful to him) said, commenting upon the words of Ibn Kathīr
(may Allāh be merciful to him), “And the like this, or worse than it,
is he who takes laws from the words of the Europeans, which he
seeks judgments from, in matters blood, the private parts (i.e.
marriage etc.) and money, and he puts that ahead of what he
knows from the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Messenger ‫ﺻﻠﻰ‬
‫ .ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬So he, without doubt, is a disbelieving apostate (kāfir
murtadd) if he remains upon it and does not return to judging with
what Allāh revealed. And no name that he labels himself will
benefit him, nor any action, of the apparent actions of prayer
(Salāt), fasting (Siyām), pilgrimage (Hajj), and such…” 75

And the Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ibrahīm Āl Ash-Shaykh (may
Allāh be merciful to him) the former Muftī of Saudi (Arabia), said
that the ruling by other than what Allāh revealed is major disbelief
(kufr Akbār), which takes one outside the Millah (Religion), in six
categories, the fifth of them describes the countries of the Muslims
nowadays with a precise description. And he said, concerning it:

“And it is its greatest and its most encompassing and most
apparently opposing to the (Islāmic) Legislation and stubbornness
in the face of its Laws and insulting to Allāh and His Messenger
and opposing to the courts of the Sharī’ah, in development,
equipping, plotting, establishing, branching, forming, ruling,
forcing, sources and references. So just like the Sharī’ah courts have
derived sources, the source of them all being the Book of Allāh and
the Sunnah of His Messenger ‫ .ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻢ‬Then these courts have

74 “’Umdat At-Tafsīr Mukhtasir Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr” (4/173-174), by Imām Ahmad
Shākir, published by “Dār Al-Ma’ārif”.
75 “Kitāb Fat’h Al-Majīd Sharh Kitāb At-Tawhīd”, from the commentary (Pg. 396),

published by “Ansār As-Sunnah Al-Muhammadiyyah”.



references, which are laws that have been assembled from different
legislations and many laws, such as the French and American laws,
and the English laws and other than them from the laws, and from
the schools of thought (Mathāhib) of some of the innovators and
those who attribute themselves to the Sharī’ah and such.

So these courts are now fully operational with open doors in many
of the settlements of Islām; people entering them in groups after
groups, their rulers judge between them with that which opposes
the Sunnah and the Book, with the system of that law, and they
impose that upon them and approve it for them and enforce it
upon them… So what disbelief (kufr) is beyond this disbelief (kufr)?!
And what nullification of the testimony (Shahādah) of “Muhammad
is the Messenger of Allāh”, is beyond this nullification?!” 76

So these are the sayings of some of the People of Knowledge
concerning those rulers. And for the details (Tafsīl) in this subject
there is another place.

As for the obligation (Wājib) upon the Muslims with respect to
those apostate rulers (Al-Hukkām Al-Murtaddīn), then it is like what
Al-Qādhī ‘Iyādh (may Allāh be merciful to him) stated, “So if
disbelief (kufr) and altering the Legislation or innovation (Bid’ah)
come upon him, then he is expelled from the authority and the
(obligation to) obey him drops, and it becomes obligatory (Wājib)
upon the Muslims to stand up against him and to remove him and
to set up a Just Imām, if that is possible for them. And if that is not
possible except for a group, then it is obligatory (Wājib) upon them
to remove the disbeliever (kāfir), and it is not obligatory in the case
of the innovator (mubtadi’), unless they are certain that they are able
to do so. And if they are unable, then the standing up (against him)
is not obligatory (Wājib), and the Muslim must perform emigration
(Hijrah) away from his land, to other than it, and must flee with his
Religion.” 77

76 “Risālat Tahkīm Al-Qawānīn”
77 “Sahīh Muslim Bi’Sharh An-Nawawī”, “The Book of Imārah”, (12/229)



This, and I have previously mentioned the statement of Shaykh Al-
Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, “… in a time when it (i.e. Jihād) is absent due
to incapability, preparing (Isti’dād) for Jihād is obligatory (Wājib) by
gathering strength and steeds of war. (This is) because (of the
Principle of Fiqh which states) if something is necessary in order to
fulfill an obligation (Wājib), then that (also) becomes an obligation
(Wājib) itself.” 78 And due to His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭﹶﺃﻋ ﱡﻭﺍ ﹶﻟﻬﻢ ﻣَﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﻌﺘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﹸﻮﺓ‬
ٍ ‫َ ِﺪ ُ ْ ْ َ ﹶ ْ ُ ْ ِ ْ ﻗ ﱠ‬
And make ready against them all you can of power…79

So preparing for Jihād against those apostates is from the most
obligatory obligations upon the Muslims nowadays. Especially due
to the fact that there is no state worthy of emigrating to and the
emigration (Hijrah) is not (even) possible for most of the Muslims,
due to their individual circumstances and the circumstances of
their states and their (countries’) regimes.

This is what there is concerning the greatest obligations of At-
Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah in this era.

And this issue – being the kufr of the rulers (Hukkām) who rule by
other than the Sharī’ah of Islām – and the obligation of making Jihād
against them; in my opinion, resembles – in its danger – the event
of apostasy after the Prophet ‫’ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻢ‬s death. This is because
this issue threatens large groups of the Muslims, along with their
sons, with full apostasy, if these circumstances are left upon their
course, of corruption and the spreading of corruption from those
rulers and their altering of the Sharī’ah and the Creed, and their
spreading of indecency amongst the Muslims. And if the
Companions (Sahābah), may Allāh be please with them, were alive
today, then their most important activities would be Jihād against
those rulers. And the trial (fitnah) of this matter has surpassed the

79 Al-Anfāl, 60



trial (fitnah) of the issue of “creation of the Qur’ān” by multiple
times. 80

And I do not seen anyone from those who are attributed to the
Sharī’ah-based knowledge, in this time of ours, speaking about this
matter; neither rejecting (it) nor inciting the Muslims for Jihād, I
cannot see anyone in this condition except that Allāh meets him
with fury. He, the Most High, said:

‫ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ َﻳﻜﺘ ُﻮﻥ ﻣَﺎ ﹶﺃْﻧﺰﹾﻟﻨَﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﹾﻟﺒﻴﻨَﺎﺕ ﻭَﺍﹾﻟﻬﺪَﻯ ﻣﻦ َﺑﻌﺪ ﻣَﺎ َﺑﻴﱠﺎﻩ ﻟِﻠﱠﺎﺱ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﹾﻟﻜﺘَﺎﺏ‬
‫ِ ﹺ‬ ‫َ ِ َ َﱢ ِ ُ ِ ْ ْ ِ ﱠﻨ ُ ﻨ ﹺ‬ ‫َ ﹾُﻤ ﹶ‬ ‫ﱠ‬
‫ﹸﻭﹶﻟﺌﻚ َﻳﻠﻌُ ُ ُ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭَﻳﻠﻌُ ُ ُ ﺍﻟ ﱠﺎﻋُﻮﻥ ﹺﺇﱠﺎ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﺗَﺎُﻮﺍ ﻭﹶﺃﺻﻠﺤُﻮﺍ ﻭَﺑﻴُﻮﺍ ﻓﹸﻭﹶﻟﺌﻚ ﹶﺃُﻮﺏ‬
ُ ‫َ ﱠﻨ ﹶﺄ ِ َ ﺗ‬ ‫َ ﺑ َ ْﹶ‬ ‫ﺃ ِ َ ﹾ َﻨﻬﻢ ﱠ ُ َ ﹾ َﻨﻬﻢ ﻠ ِﻨ ﹶ ﻟ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﻭﹶﺃﻧَﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ ﱠﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺣِﻴﻢ‬
ُ ‫َ ﹶ ْ ﹺ ْ َ ﱠﻮ ُ ﱠ‬
Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance
which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the
people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allāh and cursed
by the cursers. Except those who repent and do righteous deeds,
and openly declare (the Truth which they concealed). Then those,
I will accept their repentance. And I am the One Who accepts
repentance, the Most Merciful. 81

And the scholar (‘Ālim) is required, by the Sharī’ah, to clarify the
Truth in these circumstances before he is asked, due to His, the
Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻗﻞ َﺗﻌَﺎﹶﻟﻮْﺍ ﹶﺃْﺗ ﹸ ﻣَﺎ ﺣﺮﻡ ﺭﱡﺑﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ‬
ْ ‫ﻞ َ ﱠ َ َ ﹸ ْ َﹶْ ﹸ‬ ‫ﹸﹾ‬
Say: “Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited you
from.” 82

80 Trans. Note: Referring to the fitnah of the Jahmiyyah sect, who denied that the

Qur’ān was the Speech of Allāh, due to their denial of Allāh’s Attribute of
Speech. During their reign, several notable scholars were tortured and
imprisoned due to their refusal to submit to this innovated concept. Among them
was Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, may Allāh have mercy upon him.
81 Al-Baqarah, 159-160
82 Al-An’am, 151



So the scholar (‘Ālim) is required to call the people, saying,
“Come…” so that he can make the Truth known to them (and
differentiate it) from the falsehood. Al-Qurtubī said in its Tafsīr,
“And like this, it is obligatory upon those who came after him ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ ,ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻢ‬from the scholars (‘Ulamā’), to convey to the people and
clarify to them, that which Allāh has forbidden upon them from
that which He has made permissible. Allāh, the Most High, said:

ُ ‫ﹶﻟُﺒﻴُﻨ ُ ﻟِﻠﱠﺎﺱ ﻭﻻ َﺗﻜﺘ ُﻮَﻧ‬
‫ﺘَﱢﻨﱠﻪ ﻨ ﹺ َ ﹶ ﹾُﻤ ﻪ‬
You are to clarify it to mankind and not hide it.83 ” 84

I say: And it is not allowed to delay the clarification beyond the
time of need. But if the scholar (‘Ālim) says, “I fear the people,”
then verily, Allāh, the Most High, said:

‫ﹶﺃَﺗﺨﺸﻮَﻧﻬُﻢ ﻓﹶﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﹶﺃﺣﻖ ﹶﺃﻥ َﺗﺨﺸﻮﻩ ﹺﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺘﻢ ﻣُﺆﻣﻨﲔ‬
َ ‫ْ َ ْ ْ ﱠ ُ َ ﱡ ﹾ ْ َ ْ ُ ﹾ ﹸ ُْ ْ ْ ِ ﹺ‬
Do you fear them? Allāh has more right that you should fear
Him, if you are Believers. 85

This is concerning those, from the ‘Ulamā’, who remain silent
(about the rulers); so what about those who cozy-up (to the rulers)?
And what about those who are pleased (with the rulers)? And what
about those who assist (the rulers)!?

Allāh, the Most High, said:

‫ﻭﻣﻦ َﻳﺘﻮﱠﻟﻬُﻢ ﻣﻨﻜﻢ ﻓﺈﱠﻧ ُ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ‬
ْ ُ ْ ِ ‫َ َ ْ َ َ ْ ِ ْ ﹸ ْ ﹶﹺ ﻪ‬
And if any amongst you takes them as Awliyā’ (allies), then
surely he is one of them. 86

83 Trans. Note: Āl-‘Imrān, 187
84 Vol. 7/131
85 At-Tawbah, 13
86 Al-Mā’idah, 51



Issue: What Is The Stance Concerning The Numerous
Groups (Jamā’āt) Working For Islām?

If the obligation (Wājib) in this time, is to act in a group to support
the Religion (Dīn), and not seclusion, then what is the position
concerning numerous groups? And with whom should the Muslim
work with? I have been asked this question more than once and I
will affirm my answer herein, for the general benefit. I say: The
most obligatory, of the Sharī’ah-based obligations, is Jihād in the
Path of Allāh, the Most High, in order to give victory to the
Religion (Dīn) of Allāh, Glorified is He, and to rescue the nation
(Ummah) from humiliation and disgrace and to establish the Islāmic
Khilāfah; that obligation (Farīdhah) which all of the Muslims are
sinful as long as it is absent (except those who are actively working
to establish it), due to the statement of the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫“ ,ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻢ‬Whoever dies while he does not have a Bay’ah upon his neck - he
dies a death of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic Ignorance).” 87 And what is
meant is the “Pledge of Allegiance” (Bay’ah) to the Imām, and none
else. 88 And the discussion concerning Jihād will come with some
explanation within the matter of “Fundamental Concepts
Regarding Al-Jihād”, 89 In Shā’ Allāh. This is the Truth and the
obligation (Wājib), whose time is limited, and any group (Jamā’ah),
which does not work in this path, (then) it is in error and
negligent, even if it establishes some of the other obligations of
the Religion (Dīn). 90

So the obligation (Wājib) upon the Muslim is to support the group
(Jamā’ah), which makes Jihād in the Path of Allāh. As for the other
groups (Jamā’āt), there is no harm in assisting them, with two
conditions: The first, that he does not take this assistance as an

87 Narrated by Muslim from Ibn ‘Umar, may Allāh be pleased with them.
88 Look to Pg. 160 of this treatise. Trans. Note: This is referring to the original
book, which is not fully translated.
89 Trans. Note: This chapter has been translated into English by At-Tibyān

Publications and is available on their website.
90 Look to the sixth obstacle of Ash-Shaytān, and that is “The Preoccupation of

the Slaves, in Activities, Which are Less Important”, (Pg. 13), which was
extracted from “Madārij As-Sālikīn” (1/222-226).



reason to remain sitting (away) from the obligatory Jihād; And the
second of the two- that his assistance of the other groups (Jamā’āt),
does not interfere with his Jihād-oriented activities and that he is
constant in his advising them concerning the obligation (Wājib) of
Jihād. He, the Most High, said:

‫ﻭَﺗﻌَﺎﻭُﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﹶﻰ ﺍﹾﻟﺒﺮ ﻭَﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮَﻯ ﻭﻟﹶﺎ َﺗﻌَﺎﻭُﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﹶﻰ ﺍﹾﻟﺈﹾﺛﻢ ﻭَﺍﹾﻟﻌﺪﻭَﺍﻥ‬
ِ ْ ُ ‫َ َﻧ َ ﹺ ﱢ ﱠ ﹾ َ َﻧ َ ﹺ ﹺ‬
And help you one another in Al-Birr and At-Taqwā (virtue,
righteousness and piety); but do not help one another in sin and
transgression. 91

And the groups (Jamā’āt), which do not work for Jihād, there is no
problem for them to be numerous 92 unless some of them are
harmed by the others. As for the groups (Jamā’āt) that work in Jihād,
it is unlawful (Harām) for them to be numerous, because Jihād is not
established except with force and strength, and being numerous
(i.e. separate groups) detracts from force.

And the saying regarding the disapproval of having numerous
groups (Jamā’āt) – even its forbiddance – has many evidences. From
them, is His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭَﺍﻋﺘﺼ ُﻮﺍ ﹺﺑﺤﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺟﻤِﻴﻌًﺎ ﻭﻟﹶﺎ َﺗﻔﺮ ﹸﻮﺍ‬
‫َ ﹶ ﱠﻗ‬ َ ِ ‫َْ ِﻤ َ ْ ﹺ ﱠ‬
And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allāh (i.e. this
Qur'ān), and be not divided among yourselves. 93

And His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭﻟﹶﺎ َﺗ ﹸﻮُﻮﺍ ﻛﹶﺎﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ َﺗﻔﺮ ﹸﻮﺍ ﻭَﺍﺧﺘﻠ ﹸﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ َﺑﻌﺪ ﻣَﺎ ﺟَﺎﺀ ُﻢ ﺍﹾﻟﺒﻴﻨَﺎﺕ‬
ُ ‫َﻫ ُ َﱢ‬ ِ ْ ْ ِ ‫َْ ﹶﻔ‬ ‫َ ﹶ ﱠﻗ‬ ‫َ ﻜﻧ‬
‫َﺃ ِ َ ُ ْ َ ﺏ َ ﻢ‬
ٌ ‫ﻭﹸﻭﹶﻟﺌﻚ ﹶﻟﻬﻢ ﻋﺬﹶﺍ ٌ ﻋﻈِﻴ‬

91 Trans. Note: Al-Mā’idah, 2
92 Refer to (Pg. 139). Trans. Note: This is referring to the original book, which is
not fully translated.
93 Āl-‘Imrān, 103



And be not as those who divided and differed among themselves
after the Clear Proofs had come to them. And it is they for whom
there is an Awful Torment. 94

And the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “There is to be no
Dharar and no Dhirār.” 95 – narrated by Ad-Dāraqutnī from Abū
Sa’īd (may Allāh be pleased with him). 96 And Al-Hākim narrated it
from him and added, “Whosoever harms, Allāh will harm him. And
whosoever oppresses, Allāh will oppress him.” 97

I say: This Hadīth has been disagreed upon, concerning the ruling
upon it (i.e. authenticity). And it is narrated from a number of the
companions (Sahābah). Az-Zayla’ī mentioned it’s (various) paths
but did not judge upon it. 98 However, from those who judged
upon it, some of them said that it is not authentic as Musnad, 99

94 Āl-‘Imrān, 105
95 Trans. Note: The literal translation of “Dharar and Dhirār” is “damage and
damage” or “harm and harm”. Due to this the scholars differed on what was
exactly meant by this. It has come in “Al-Muntaqā Sharh Muwatta’ Mālik”, that the
possible meanings are as follows:
1- That it was a confirmation of the forbiddance of damage and harm.
2- That “There is to be no Dharar…” means that it isn’t upon anyone to be patient
upon someone else’s harm, “… and no Dhirār,” is that it is not allowed for that
person to harm the other with anything other than that.
3- That Dharar is something you benefit from and others are harmed by, while
Dhirār is that which harms others and you yourself have no benefit in.
4- That Dharar is one person harming another, while Dhirār is two people, each
harming the other simultaneously.
96 Trans. Note: Also narrated by Ibn Mājah and Ahmad on the authority of

‘Ubādah Ibn As-Sāmit and ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Abbās and by Mālik on the authority
of ‘Amr Ibn Yahya Al-Māzinī from his father.
97 Trans. Note: Also narrated by At-Tirmithī, Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Mājah and

Ahmad from Abū Sirmah (may Allāh be pleased with him) with very similar
phrasings. Ibn Taymiyyah declared one of the phrasings “Hasan” in “Bayān Ad-
Dalīl” (608), and Al-Albānī declared it “Hasan” in “Sahīh At-Tirmithī” (1,584),
“Sahīh Abī Dāwūd” (3,091) and “Sahīh Ibn Mājah” (1,897), as well as other places in
his books.
98 “Nasb Ar-Rāyah” (4/384-386)
99 Trans. Note: “Musnad” (i.e. linked, connected etc.) Here, he means that some

did not consider the chain of narration to be intact and linked all the way to the
Prophet ‫.ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻢ‬



rather that it is only Mursal, as it was narrated by Mālik from Yahya
Al-Māzinī as Mursal. 100 And from those who said this was Abū
‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr. And from them were those who said that it
is a Hasan Hadīth, due to its various paths, which strengthen one
another. This was stated by Ibn As-Salāh, An-Nawawī and Ibn
Rajab. 101 And Al-Hākim said that it is Sahīh upon the conditions of
Muslim, and Al-Albānī rejected this upon him. Then Shaykh Al-
Albānī authenticated it, due to its numerous paths and pointed to
what Al-Munāwī narrated in “Faydh Al-Qadīr”, from An-Nawawī
and from Al-Hāfith Al-‘Ala’ī. 102 I say: So what harm is greater upon
the Muslims and more encompassing than them being divided?
And if the Muslims are separated among dozens of groups, then
how can they gather strength and force for themselves, with which
they can confront their enemies? And the force of Islām is not
formed except with the Īmān-Based Allegiance, by the Muslims
allying themselves to one another and their unification. Just as Al-
Mawla (i.e. Allāh), Jalla Wa ‘Alā, said:

‫ﻭَﺍﹾﻟﻤﺆﻣُﻮﻥ َﺍﹾﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨَﺎ ُ َﺑﻌ ُ ُﻢ ﹶﺃﻭِﻟﻴَﺎﺀ َﺑﻌﺾ َﻳﺄﻣ ُﻭﻥ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﻤﻌ ُﻭﻑ ﻭَﻳﻨﻬﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﹾﻟ ُﻨﻜﺮ‬
‫ُ ْ ِﻨ ﹶ ﻭ ُ ْ ِ ﺕ ْﻀﻬ ْ ْ ُ ْ ﹴ ﹾ ُﺮ ﹶ َ ْﺮ ِ َ ْ َ ْ ﹶ َ ﹺ ﻤ ْ ﹶ ﹺ‬
‫ﻭﻳُﻘِﻴ ُﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﹶﺎﺓ ﻭُﻳﺆُﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺰﻛﹶﺎﺓ ﻭﻳُﻄِﻴ ُﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺭ ُﻮﹶﻟ ُ ﹸﻭﹶﻟﺌﻚ ﺳﻴﺮﺣ ُ ُ ُ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ‬
ُ ‫َ ﻤ ﹶ ﱠ ﹶ َ ْﺗ ﹶ ﱠ ﹶ َ ﻌ ﹶ ﱠ َ َ َﺳ ﻪ ﺃ ِ َ ََ ْ َﻤﻬﻢ ﱠ‬
‫ﱠ ﱠَ َ ﺰ َ ﻢ‬
ٌ ‫ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﺰﹺﻳ ٌ ﺣﻜِﻴ‬
The Believers, men and women, are Awliyā' (helpers, supporters,
friends, protectors) of one another, they enjoin (on the people)
Al-Ma'rūf (i.e. Islāmic Monotheism and all that Islām orders one
to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism and
disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islām has forbidden); they
perform As-Salāt and they give Az-Zakāt, and they obey Allāh

100 Trans. Note: “Mursal” (i.e. disconnected, unattached etc.) Here, he means that
some considered the chain of this narration to be disconnected between the one
who narrated it from the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻢ‬with no link between them in the
chain. This usually occurs when someone from the succeeding generation to the
Companions (i.e. the Tabi’īn) narrates something directly from the Prophet ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻢ‬without mentioning the Companion (Sahābī) whom he learned it from.
101 “Jami’ Al-‘Ulūm Wal-Hikam” (Pg. 266)
102 “Irwā’ Al-Ghalīl Takhrīj Ahādīth Manār As-Sabīl” (3/408-414), Hadīth #896

Trans. Note: Declared “Hasan” by An-Nawawī in “Al-Arba’ūn An-Nawawiyyah”
(32), “Bustān Al-‘Ārifīn” (35), and “Al-Athkār” (502).



and His Messenger. Those are the ones whom Allāh will have
His Mercy on. Surely Allāh is All-Mighty, All-Wise. 103

And consider this Verse. You will find that Allāh placed the
Commanding of the Good and the Forbidding of the Evil, ahead of
establishing the prayer (As-Salāt) and the alms-giving (Az-Zakāt),
even though these two are from the five pillars of Islām. Most likely,
the delicate treasure behind this is that it is possible for the prayer
(As-Salāt) and the alms-giving (Az-Zakāt) to be established by the
Muslim individually or with a small group, whereas Commanding
the Good and Forbidding the Evil requires strength and force,
which is not achieved except through allegiance and alliance from
the Believers towards one another. And when the Verse began by
mentioning the allegiance of the Believers, it was befitting that the
Commanding and Forbidding precede the prayer (As-Salāt) and the
alms-giving (Az-Zakāt), in order to emphasize the importance of
allegiance in establishing the Commanding and the Forbidding.
And this is similar to His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭَﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﻛﻔ ُﻭﺍ َﺑﻌ ُ ُﻢ ﹶﺃﻭِﻟﻴَﺎﺀ َﺑﻌﺾ ﹺﺇﱠﻟﺎ َﺗﻔﻌ ﹸﻮﻩ َﺗﻜﻦ ﻓﺘﻨﺔ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﹾﻟﺄﺭﺽ ﻭﻓﺴَﺎ ٌ ﻛﺒﲑ‬
ٌ ‫ﹶ ْ ﹺ َ ﹶ ﺩ ﹶﹺ‬ ‫َ ﹶ ﹶﺮ ْ ﻀ ﻬ ْ ْ ُ ْ ﹴ ﹾ َ ﻠ ُ ﹸ ْ ِ ْ َ ﹲ‬
And those who disbelieve are allies to one another, (and) if you
do not do so (become allies as one united block), there will be
fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism, etc.) on earth, and a great
corruption. 104

In other words, if the Believers do not ally themselves with one
another, as the disbelievers do, there will be a great trial (fitnah) and
corruption (fasād). And that is because the disbelievers (kāfirīn) are
united; facing the Believers individually. So they kill them and
torture them and put them through trials (fitan) regarding their
Religion (Dīn). And they raise the laws of disbelief (kufr), so what
trial (fitnah) and corruption (fasād), is greater then this? And Allāh,
the Most High, has said:

103 At-Tawbah, 71
104 Al-Anfāl, 73



ُ ‫ﻭﹶﻟﻮﻻ ﺩﻓ ُ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﱠﺎﺱ َﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ ﹺﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﱠﻟﻔﺴﺪﺕ ﺍﻷﺭ‬
‫َ ْ ﹶ َ ﹾﻊ ﹼ ِ ﻨ َ ْ َ ُ ْ َ ْ ﹴ ﹶ َ َ ِ َ ْﺽ‬
And if Allāh did not check one set of people by means of another,
the Earth would indeed be full of corruption. 105

So how can the strength, which is a necessity in order to repel the
disbelievers (kāfirīn) and their corruption (fasād), come to the
Muslims while the Muslims are divided? So there is no doubt that
the Muslims – because of their divisions – are responsible for a
great deal of this corruption (fasād). And Allāh, the Most High, has
said:

‫ﻭﻣَﺎ ﹶﺃﺻَﺎَﺑﻜﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼِﻴﺒﺔ ﻓﺒﻤَﺎ ﻛﺴﺒﺖ ﹶﺃْﻳﺪِﻳﻜﻢ‬
ْ ‫ﹸ ْ ِ ْ ُ َ ٍ ﹶﹺ ﹶ َ َ ْ ﹸ‬ َ
And whatever of misfortune befalls you, it is because of what
your hands have earned. 106

So what is to be done, if they (i.e. the Jihād groups) are numerous?
That which I see – and Allāh, the Most High, knows best – is that
the newer groups (Jamā’āt) should join the oldest group (Jamā’ah).
Likewise, the obligation upon the Muslim is to work with the
oldest Jamā’ah from those working for Jihād. And the Pledge of
Allegiance (Bay’ah) given to any newer Jamā’ah is void (Bātil), even
if it was ignorant of the presence of the older Jamā’ah. And my
evidence for this, is the Hadīth of Abū Hurayrah (may Allāh be
pleased with him), Marfū’ 107: “The Children of Isrā’īl used to be ruled
and guided by their Prophets. Whenever a Prophet died, another Prophet
succeeded him. And verily, there is no Prophet after me, and there will be
successors (Khulafā’) who will become many.” They asked, “Then what

105 Al-Baqarah, 251
106 Ash-Shūrā, 30
107 Trans. Note: The term “Marfū’”, lit. “raised up”, refers to those narrations,

which are raised up to the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬whether they are an
action or a statement, and whether they are narrated with intact chains or not. It
is also not a condition for it to be attributed to the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬by the
Companion, according to the majority of the scholars, while Al-Khatīb said that
Companion must attribute it to the Prophet ‫ .ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Look to “Al-Bā’ith Al-
Hathīth Sharh Ikhtisār ‘Ulūm Al-Hadīth” (Pg. 43). Published by, ”Dār Al-Kutub Al-
‘Ilmiyyah” Beirut.



do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Fulfill the (rights of the) Pledge of
Allegiance (Bay’ah) of the earliest then the (second) earliest, and give them
their right (of allegiance etc.), because Allāh will ask them about what He
made them responsible for.” 108 And I have used this Hadīth as
evidence for what I have said, because the cause of the disapproval
of having numerous leaders is the (same) cause for our disapproval
of numerous groups (Jamā’āt) - and that is the preservation of the
unity of the Muslims. And he ‫ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻢ‬has clarified this cause,
in more than one Hadīth. From them are those which Muslim
narrated from ‘Arjafah, as Marfū’: “There will be trials and (more)
trials. So whoever wishes to divide the matter of this nation (Ummah),
while it is together; then strike him with the sword, no matter who he is.”
109 And he also narrated from him, as Marfū’: “Whoever comes to you,

while your matter is together upon one man, desiring to sow dissension or
divide your Jamā’ah - then kill him.” And Muslim narrated from Abū
Sa’īd Al-Khudrī (may Allāh be pleased with him), Marfū’: “If two
Khalīfahs are given the Pledge of Allegiance (Al-Bay’ah), then kill the
latter of the two.” So look to these Hadīths, which order the killing of
the latter. And An-Nawawī said, ‘If his evil is not repelled except
by killing him, then he is killed, even if he is superior to the first
Khalīfah, because the emergence of the superior does not nullify the
contracted Pledge of Allegiance (Bay’ah) of the inferior.” 110 And the
killing of the other Khalīfah; on its outward appearance (Thāhir), it is
a harm and mischief because it is the killing of a person who
combines the full descriptions by which he would deserve the
status of Khilāfah. However, the order to carry this out is narrated to
repel a greater harm, which is the division of the word (opinion) of
the Muslims, which clarifies to you the great status of this Sharī’ah-
based benefit (Maslahah), which is the preservation of the unity of
the Muslims. And this is one of the practical examples, (which
engages) many of the Principles of Jurisprudence (Fiqh). From them
are the principle: “The Specific Harm is Tolerated to Repel the

108 Agreed upon

Trans. Note: Al-Bukhārī and Muslim. This Hadīth was also narrated by Ahmad,
and this phrasing is a mix between the three narrations.
109 Trans. Note: Also narrated by Ahmad with this phrasing. Other similar

phrasings also narrated by An-Nasā’ī, Abū Dāwūd and Ahmad.
110 Al-Māwardī’s “Al-Ahkām As-Sultāniyyah” (Pg. 8)



General Harm,” and the principle: “The More Severe Harm is
Removed by the Lesser Harm,” and the principle: “When Two
Harms Conflict, the Greater of the Two is Prevented by
Committing the Lesser,” and the principle: “The Lesser of the Two
Evils is Chosen.” 111

An-Nawawī said in the explanation of the aforementioned Hadīth
of Abū Hurayrah (may Allāh be pleased with him), “… and there
will be successors (Khulafā’) who will become many.” They asked,
“Then what do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Fulfill the (rights of
the) Pledge of Allegiance (Bay’ah) of the earliest then the (second)
earliest…” He (i.e. An-Nawawī) said, “And in this Hadīth is a clear
miracle of the Messenger of Allāh ‫ .ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬And the meaning of
this Hadīth is that if a Khalīfah is given the Pledge of Allegiance
(Bay’ah), after a Khalīfah (the original), then the Bay’ah of the first
remains intact (Sahīh), and the fulfillment of it is obligatory (Wājib)
and the Bay’ah of the second is void (Bātil), and the fulfillment of it
is unlawful (Harām). And it is unlawful (Harām) upon him to
request it. And it is the same if they contracted the second, knowing
about the former contract (‘Aqd), or even if they were ignorant (of
it). And it is the same if they are in two countries or one country, or
if one of the Khalīfahs is in the separated country of the Imām and
the other is in another. This is the correct (opinion), which our
companions (i.e. the Shāfi’īs) and the majority of the scholars
(‘Ulamā’) are upon. And it was said, ‘The Bay’ah would be for he
who it was contracted to within the country of the Imām.’ And it
was said, ‘Straws are drawn between them.’ And these are both
false and the scholars (‘Ulamā’) have agreed that it is not
permissible to have two Khalīfahs in one era, whether the Dār Al-
Islām (Land of Islām) has expanded widely or not.” 112

And Al-Māwardī said in (his book entitled) “Al-Ahkām As-
Sultāniyyah”, Pg. 9, “And the correct (opinion) in that, is that the
(authority) of Leadership (Imāmah) belongs to the earliest of them

111 “Sharh Al-Qawā’id Al-Fiqhiyyah”, by Shaykh Ahmad Az-Zarqā: Rule #25-28,
publication 1403 H.
112 “Sahīh Muslim Bi’Sharh An-Nawawī” (12/221-222)



who has been given the Pledge of Allegiance (Bay’ah) and was
contracted.”

And Abū Ya’lā said in (his book, also entitled) “Al-Ahkām As-
Sultāniyyah”, Pg. 25, “And if the contract is for each of them
separately, then it is to be investigated. Then if the earlier of the
two becomes known, the contract of the second one becomes void.”

Due to this, I arrived at the disapproval of the numerous groups
(Jamā’āt) because of what it causes of dividing the unity of the
Muslims and killing their abilities and making them into parties
and spreading enmity and hatred between them. And if we add the
plotting of the enemies of Islām on top of this, then all of the
ingredients for failure are complete for the Muslims. And this is the
current state of affairs (Al-Wāqi’), in reality.

And perhaps the noble reader has noticed that I did not state the
disapproval of numerous groups, due to analogy (Qiyās) upon
having multiple Khalīfahs. This is because the analogy (Qiyās) is
incorrect here, because the description of the Khalīfah is non-
existent with regards to the Amīrs of the groups. And this
description is the looking to the general benefits of the Muslims
and this is for the Khalīfah and none other than him. And because of
this, I did not clearly state an analogy (Qiyās), due to the
incompleteness of the reason for the ruling (‘Illah). However, I have
used as an evidence, this Hadīth: “Fulfill the (rights of the) Pledge of
Allegiance (Bay’ah) of the earliest then the (second) earliest…” from the
point of considering the aims of the Sharī’ah – in other words, the
aims of the Legislator (i.e. Allāh), in this ruling. And that is what is
obligatory to bear in mind, while deriving rules for that which
there is no text related. And the aim of the Legislator (i.e. Allāh) in
the disapproval of multiple Khalīfahs, is to safeguard of the unity of
the nation (Ummah), and this is (also) what we have used as
evidence for stating the disapproval of multiple groups and from
the obligation of the newer joining the older, due to the harms that
result from being numerous, which are not hidden from anyone.
And Ash-Shātibī (may Allāh be merciful to him) said, “The looking
to the results of actions is something that is taken into account and



sought out in the Legislation, whether the actions are in compliance
or opposition – in other words, permitted or forbidden. And that is
that the Mujtahid does not judge upon a single action from the
actions, which comes from the Mukallifīn (those considered
responsible in the Sharī’ah), whether it is in committing (that action)
or refraining from it, until he investigates what the result of that
action would be.” And he (may Allāh be merciful to him) brought
the evidences that indicate that the results are to be considered in
the basis (Asl) of legislation. 113

And what I mentioned previously concerning what to do when
there are multiple groups, from the obligation of the subsequent
joining the previous and the newer to the older; I see that this
should be a basis (Asl) which is acted upon. And it is not correct to
consider other descriptions such as quantity (of people) or more
knowledge, because these are unfixed descriptions. For example,
the large party (Tā’ifah), it is possible that another Tā’ifah will come
after it, which is larger in number. And the Tā’ifah which has some
‘Ulamā’ in it; it is possible that there would be another one like it or
one that will come after it (with more knowledgeable scholars). So
these are unfixed descriptions and the rule in the Sharī’ah is to come
with that which can be restricted and is precise. And from here, we
say that what is considered is the seniority, as this is a description
which can be restricted and is precise and it (i.e. this rule) complies
with regards to “earliness and rushing”, as in His, the Most High’s,
statement:

‫ﻟﹶﺎ َﻳﺴﺘﻮﹺﻱ ﻣِﻨ ﹸﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﹶﻧﻔﻖ ﻣِﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﹾﻟﻔﺘﺢ ﻭﻗﹶﺎَﺗﻞ ﺃﹸﻭﹶﻟﺌﻚ ﹶﺃﻋﻈ ُ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﺃﹶﻧﻔ ﹸﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻜ ﱠ ْ ﹶ َ ﹶ ْ ﹺ ﹶ ْ ﹺ َ ﹶ ْ ِ َ ْ ﹶﻢ َ َ َ ﹰ ﱢ َ َ ﹶﻘ‬ َْ
‫ﻣِﻦ َﺑﻌ ُ ﻭﻗﹶﺎَﺗﻠﻮﺍ‬
‫ْﺪ َ ﹸ‬
Not equal among you are those who spent and fought before the
Conquest (of Makkah) (with those among you who did so later).
Such are higher in degree than those who spent and fought
afterwards. 114

113 “Al-Muwāfaqāt Fī Usūl Ash-Sharī’ah” (4/194-198), publication “Dār Al-Ma’rifah”
114 Al-Hadīd, 10



(With the condition that) the earlier (group) is upon correct
Sharī’ah-based principles (Usūl) 115 and that it is truthful in its
implementation; and if it is disputed as to which was earliest, then
it an arbitrator is to be appointed (to settle the dispute). And this
helps close the door of becoming parties and multiple (groups),
which weakens the force of the Muslims. And it is impossible that
the Sharī’ah would not have a ruling for the likes of this calamity,
while He, the Most High, said:

‫ﻓﺈﹺﻥ َﺗﻨَﺎﺯﻋﺘﻢ ﻓِﻲ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻓﺮ ﱡﻭﻩ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭَﺍﻟﺮ ُﻮﻝ‬
‫ﹼ ِ ﱠﺳ ﹺ‬ ُ ‫َ ْ ُ ْ َ ْ ٍ ﹶ ُﺩ‬ ‫ﹶ‬
Then if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, then refer it
to Allāh and His Messenger. 116

And this is a general phrasing, which encompasses everything that
is disagreed upon.

This is what I see concerning the issue of having multiple groups
within one country specifically. However, if there are multiple
countries, then there is an opening for multiple working groups
according to the number of these countries. And An-Nawawī has
stated regarding the description of At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah, “… and
it is not necessary for them to be altogether, rather they could be
spread out in different areas of the Earth.” 117 And if the groups are
multiplied according to the number of countries, then a group takes
over a country, and from it emerges an Imām for the Muslims, then
it is obligatory (Wājib) upon all the remaining groups to enter
under his authority and to migrate (Hijrah) to him, in order to
support him and strengthen his authority. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said,
“And whoever overpowers them with the sword, until he becomes
the Khalīfah and is called ‘Amīr Al-Mu’minīn’ - then it is not
permissible for anyone who believes in Allāh and the Last Day, to
pass the night without recognizing him as an Imām.” 118 And this

115 Review the issue of “The Principles of Holding Steadfast to the Book and
the Sunnah” within “The Īmān-Based Preparation”.
116 An-Nisā’, 59
117 “Sahīh Muslim Bi’Sharh An-Nawawī” (13/67)
118 Refer to “Al-Ahkām As-Sultāniyyah” (Pg. 23), by Abū Ya’lā.



(saying) which Imām Ahmad said, Ibn Al-Battāl narrated consensus
(Ijmā’) upon it. 119

I say: So it is not correct to have multiple groups within one
country; however, it is possible to have multiple ones in accordance
with the number of countries, even though unity would be more
befitting. But if conditions make this impossible, then there is
nothing less than these groups in different counties cooperating in
matters of experience (Khibrah) and preparation (I’dād). And also, if
a group has found it impossible to make changes within its
country, then it is upon it to perform the emigration (Hijrah) 120, and
it must migrate to assist its brothers in the country which it is
assumed that Islāmic change would be successful in. (That is,)
unless the Amīr of this strong party (Tā’ifah) orders the weak Tā’ifah
to remain in its country for a correct Sharī’ah-based reason, such as
Da’wah or the likes of this, just as the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬ordered
Abū Tharr (may Allāh be pleased with him) with that. 121 And if a
group takes over any country, and raises up an Imām from the
Muslims, then it is obligatory (Wājib) upon them all to perform
migration (Hijrah) to him, and to support him and obey him. This is
what I see, and Allāh knows best what is correct.

And from what is not necessary to mention, is that the earliest,
which is to be joined; its stipulation is that it is upon the Truth,
holding steadfast to the Sharī’ah; acting upon it and performing
Jihād to make it dominant above all other religions. And not
included in this, are the groups which play with the Legislation of
Allāh, such as those who strive for the ruling of Islām by means of
the shirk of Democracy and the secularist parliaments and the likes
of those, which many have fallen into in the name of “Da’wah to
Islām”. So they have gone astray and lead astray many of the
people and they followed the footsteps of Satan (Ash-Shaytān). And
he (i.e. Shaytān)…

119 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/7)
120 As stated by Al-Qādhī ‘Iyādh; “Sahīh Muslims Bi’Sharh’ An-Nawawī” (2/229).
121 Narrated by Al-Bukhārī (3,861).



‫َﻳﻌ ُ ُﻢ ﻭُﻳﻤﱢﻴﻬﻢ ﻭﻣَﺎ َﻳﻌ ُ ُﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﹶﺎﻥ ﹺﺇﻻ ﻏ ُﻭﺭًﺍ‬
‫ِﺪﻫ ْ َ َﻨ ﹺ ْ َ ِﺪﻫ ْ ﱠ ْ ﹸ ﱠ ﹸﺮ‬
… makes promises to them, and arouses in them false desires;
and Shaytān does not promise them but deceptions. 122

So they destroyed the ability of thousands of young men by
making them impoverished unto and submissive towards the
Tawāghīt 123 rulers, in contradiction to what the Legislation
necessitates, of the obligation of fighting against them. So what
astrayness is beyond this?

122An-Nisā’, 120
123Trans. Note: Tawāghīt: plural of “Tāghūt”; which refers to everything that is
worshipped other than Allāh. In this above context, the author is using this word
to refer to the rulers who legislate laws, which oppose the Islamic Sharī’ah and
then rule with these laws between the people.

Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said, “The meaning of ‘Tāghūt’ comes from the
one who performs ‘Tughyān’ and this means going outside the established
borders (i.e. exceeding his limits) and it is thulm (wrong doing) and rebellion. So
the one who is worshiped instead of Allāh and he doesn’t hate it, then he is a
Tāghūt. And for this reason the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻠﻢ‬called the idols “Tawāghīt”
(plural of Tāghūt) in the Sahīh Hadīth in which he said, ‘Tawāghīt will follow the
people who worship the Tawāghīt.’ The person who is obeyed in disobedience of
Allāh or the person who is obeyed in following other than the guidance of the
Dīn of truth; in either case, if what he orders mankind is in opposition to Allāh’s
orders, then he is a Tāghūt. For this reason, we call the people who rule by other
than what Allāh revealed, a ‘Tāghūt.’ And Pharaoh and the people of ‘Ād, were
Tughāt (plural past tense).” [“Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (28/200)]

And Ibn Al-Qayyim said, “The term ‘Tāghūt’ refers to all things in which the
slave (i.e. human) exceeds his limits whether it takes the form of someone who is
worshiped or obeyed. So a Tāghūt refers to all people who rule by other than
what Allāh or His Messenger rules. This would also apply in the case that the
people worship him besides Allāh or they follow him without sight from Allāh
or they obey him when they aren’t sure if they are obeying Allāh. So these are the
Tawāghīt of the world; and if you look at them and see the condition of the
people with them, you will see that most of them have switched from
worshipping Allāh to worshipping the Tāghūt - from ruling by what Allāh and
His Messenger ruled, to the ruling of the Tāghūt, and from obeying Him and His
Messenger to obeying the Tāghūt and following him.” [“ I’lām Al-Muwaqqi’īn”
(Pg. 50)]



And this is what has to do with the refutation of the first objection
of the author of the book “Al-Bay’ah Bayn As-Sunnah Wal-Bid’ah”,
with respect to the leadership (Imārah) of the Islāmic groups, and it
is the first of his objections. And I have made clear in my refutation
of him, that there are other texts, which affirm the correctness and
obligation of this leadership (Imārah) and that its analogy (Qiyās)
upon the leadership of traveling is a correct analogy (Qiyās). And it
was mentioned by more than a single Mujtahid; for example, Ibn
Taymiyyah and Ash-Shawkānī. And I also made clear that it is
obligatory (Wājib) for these groups to establish the matters of the
Religion, especially in the absence of the (general) leadership
(Imāmah) and the Islāmic Khalīfah. And I have discussed some of
what I see beneficial for the Muslims. And all praise is due to the
Lord of the Worlds.

And in what follows, is the refutation upon the fourth of his
objections:

The Refutation of the Fourth Objection

The Fourth Objection: And that is the statement of Mr. ‘Alī Ibn
Hasan, “If a people agree amongst themselves in establishing the
Islāmic penalties (Al-Hudūd)…” – until his statement – “…it is
false according to the consensus (Ijmā’) of the nation (Ummah)…”

And I say in the refutation against him, if a people agree amongst
themselves to establish the Sharī’ah-based laws, then their situation
could not be except from one of two possible situations.

The first would be that they are within a country where a Muslim
Imām rules it and the laws of the Sharī’ah are established within it.

And the second is that they are in a country that does not have a
Muslim Imām, nor does the Sharī’ah rule it.

And in the first condition, in the Land of Islām, where the Laws of
the Sharī’ah dominate it and a Muslim Imām rules it, and the judges



appointed by the Imām take responsibility for the ruling among the
people within it; I say that even in this condition, it is allowed for
the people to take their judgments to a man who is worthy of
judgment, if they agree to, as opposed to the judge (Qādhī) of the
Imām, and his judgments (i.e. the judge they select) are held upon
them (i.e. those who sought the judgment). And this is what was
approved by the master jurists, as follows:

• Ibn Dhuwayyān said in “Sharh Ad-Dalīl”, “ ‘So if two or more
people take a judgment to a person who is worthy of judgment, his
ruling is applied in everything that the ruling of he whom the Imām
or his deputy puts in charge, would be applied.’ Due to the Hadīth
of Abū Shurayh (may Allāh be pleased with him) and in it, there is
that he stated, ‘O Messenger of Allāh, if my people disagree
concerning something, they come to me, and I judge between them,
and both parties are pleased.’ He said, ‘How beautiful this is!’ –
Narrated by An-Nisā’ī. ‘And ‘Umar and Ubay sought judgment
from Zayd Ibn Thābit (may Allāh be pleased with them); and
‘Uthmān and Talhah took judgment to Jubayr Ibn Mut’im (may
Allāh be pleased with them). And none of them were judges.’” – He
said in the Matn (original text) – “And the disagreement is
removed, and it is not allowed for anyone to nullify it if he has
arrived at the truth.” – He said in the Sharh (explanation) – “…
because whoever is permitted to judge; then it (i.e. his verdict) is
implemented as the judge of the Imām.” 124

And the Hadīth of Abū Shurayh was authenticated by Shaykh Al-
Albānī. 125

124 “Manār As-Sabīl Sharh Ad-Dalīl” (2/459), published by “Al-Maktab Al-Islāmī”,
1404 H.
125 “Irwā’ Al-Ghalīl” (8/2,615)

Trans. Note: Also authenticated by him in “Sahīh Abī Dāwūd” (4,145), “Sahīh An-
Nasā’ī” (4,980) and other places, and Al-Wādi’ī declared it “Hasan” in “Al-Jāmi’
As-Sahīh” (5/319, 6/162), and other places in that book, as well as “As-Sahīh Al-
Musnad” (1,197).



• And Ibn Qudāmah explained this issue in his book “Al-Kāfī” 126
and his book “Al-Mughnī Wash-Sharh Al-Kabīr”.127 And here are his
words from “Al-Mughnī”: “Chapter: And if two men seek judgment
(Tahākum) from someone whom they both select him as an
arbitrator, and they are both satisfied with him, and he is from
those worthy of arbitration - then he can judge between them, and
this is permitted and his judgment (Hukm) is implemented upon
them. And this was stated by Abū Hanīfah, and Ash-Shafi’ī has
two statements (attributed to him); the first being that his judgment
(Hukm) is not held upon them unless both (parties) are satisfied,
because his judgment emerged from their being content with him
and being content could not be until after knowing his judgment
(Hukm).

But we have what Abū Shurayh (may Allāh be pleased with him)
narrated; that the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said to him,
‘Verily Allāh is ‘Al-Hakam’, so why have you taken the Kunyah (i.e.
calling oneself ‘Abū so-and-so’) of Abū Al-Hakam (Father of Al-Hakam)?’
He said, ‘Verily, if my people dispute in some matter, they come to
me. So I judge between them and then both parties are satisfied
with me.’ He said, ‘How good is this? So who is your eldest child?’ He
said, ‘Shurayh.’ He said, ‘Then you are Abū Shurayh.’ – Narrated by
An-Nisā’ī.

And it is narrated from the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬that he said,
‘Whoever judges between two, who are satisfied with him, and then he is
unjust between them, then he is cursed!’128 And if his judgment (Hukm)
were not held upon them, then he would not have been indignated
(i.e. the curse would not have been on him). And because ‘Umar
and Ubay took judgments to Shurayh (may Allāh be pleased with
them), before he appointed him in an official position of authority.
And ‘Uthmān and Talhah took judgments to Jubayr Ibn Mut’im
(may Allāh be please with them) even though they were not judges.

126Refer to Vol. 4/436, published by “Al-Maktab Al-Islāmī”, 1402 H.
127Vol. 11/483-484
128 Trans. Note: Refer to “At-Talkhīs” (4/185) of Ar-Rāfi’ī, and also Ibn

Qudāmah’s “Al-Mughnī” (11/484).



So if it is said, “But ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān were both Imāms, so if they
leave judgment up to a man, then he becomes a judge (Qādhī),” we
would reply, ‘Nothing is narrated from them besides them
accepting his arbitration specifically, and this (alone) does not make
him a judge (Qādhī). And that which he mentioned is nullified by
the fact that if he is satisfied with the action of the one whom he
entrusted this responsibility to, because he is bound by it, before
(even) knowing it. If this is confirmed, then it is not allowed (for the
Imām) to veto his judgment (Hukm), in that which the judgment of
the one who has authority cannot be nullified. 129 And this was
stated by Ash-Shāfi’ī. And Abū Hanīfah said, ‘The ruler (Hākim)
can nullify it if it contradicts his opinion, because this is a contract
which belongs to the ruler (Hākim). So he owns its veto just as the
temporarily suspended contract (Mawqūf ‘Aqd) in his regards.’

But we have (as evidence, the fact) that this is a valid, binding
ruling (i.e. the verdict issued by the arbitrator), so it is not allowed
to veto it (merely) because it contradicts his (i.e. the ruler’s)
opinion, as (is in the case of) the judgment (Hukm) of he who has an
official position. And that which they (i.e. the Hanafīs) mentioned,
is incorrect, because his judgment (Hukm) is binding upon the two
plaintiffs, so how can it be temporarily suspended (Mawqūf)? And
if it were like that, then he would own its veto, even if it did not
contradict his opinion, and we do not agree with the temporary
suspension of contracts.

If this is established, then it is allowed for each of the plaintiffs to
turn back from appointing him as an arbitrator before he begins
judging, because it is not established except with him being
satisfied (with that individual as an arbitrator). So this resembles if
he (i.e. a plaintiff) had changed his mind regarding entrusting the
responsibility (i.e. of judgment) prior to conducting (the procedure
of judging). And if he (i.e. a plaintiff) changed his mind after the
commencement, then there are two points of view: The first of the
two; it is permitted for him because the ruling was not completed

129Trans. Note: Meaning that anything in which the Imām is not allowed to veto
the ruling of an official judge, the unofficial judge, or arbitrator is equal in that
regards, in this opinion being mentioned.



so this resembles the condition prior to the commencement (of the
verdict). And the second; it is not permitted for him because this
would lead to each of the two turning back from the Hakam
(arbitrator) when he sees something that he does not agree with,
therefore the intended objective (i.e. a judgment) becomes nullified.

Lesson: Al-Qādhī (‘Iyādh) said, ‘And the verdict (Hukm), of he who
they select as a judge, is to be carried out in all affairs, except for
four: marriage, oaths of condemnation,130 ‘falsely accusing a chaste
woman of Zinā’, and Qisās [i.e. equity in retribution (i.e. an eye-for-
an-eye etc.)], and because these laws have an (added) trait over
others. So the Imām is specified to investigate it (i.e. these matters)
and his deputy can take his place.’

And Abul-Khattāb said, ‘What is apparent from the words of
Ahmad is that his (i.e. the selected arbitrator’s) verdict (Hukm) is to
be carried out on them (i.e. all these matters), and for the
companions of Ash-Shāfi’ī, there are two opinions similar to these
two. And if this arbitrator writes to any of the judges (Qudhāt) of
the Muslims, (informing him) of what he judged, then he (the
judge) must accept this (declaration) and carry out his writing,
because he is a judge who implements the laws. So he must accept
his writing just as (he would) from the judge of the Imām.’ ” – this
concludes the words of Ibn Qudāmah from “Al-Mughnī”

• And Ibn Qudāmah also said in “Al-Kāfī”, “And our companions
have disagreed concerning that in which seeking arbitration is
permissible. As Abul-Khattāb said, ‘What is apparent from the
words of Ahmad, is that it is allowed to select a judge in
everything, which two plaintiffs ask for a verdict in, due to the
Qiyās (analogy) with the judge (Qādhī) of the Imām.’ And Al-Qādhī

130 Trans. Note: As in the words of Allāh, the Most High:

‫ﻭَﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ َﻳﺮ ُﻮﻥ ﹶﺃﺯﻭَﺍﺟﻬﻢ ﻭﹶﻟﻢ َﻳ ﹸﻦ ﱠﻟﻬﻢ ُﻬ َﺍﺀ ﹺﺇﱠﺎ ﺃﹶﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻓﺸﻬَﺎﺩﺓ ﹶﺃﺣﺪﻫﻢ ﹶﺃﺭَﺑ ُ ﺷﻬَﺎﺩَﺍﺕ ﺑﹺﺎﻟﻠﻪ‬
ِ‫ٍ ﱠ‬ َ ‫َ ْﻣ ﹶ ْ َ ُ ْ َ ْ ﻜ ُ ْ ﺷ َﺪ ﻟ ﹸ ُ ُ ْ ﹶ َ َ ﹸ َ ِ ِ ْ ْ ﻊ‬
‫ﹺﺇﱠﻧ ُ ﹶﻟﻤﻦ ﺍﻟ ﱠﺎﺩﻗﲔ‬
َ ِِ ‫ﻪ ِ َ ﺼ‬
And for those who accuse their wives, but have no witnesses except
themselves, let the testimony of one of them be four oaths by Allāh that he is
one of those who speak the truth. (An-Nūr, 6)



(‘Iyādh) said, ‘It is permissible for him to arbitrate only in (disputes
regarding) wealth. As for marriage and Qisās (i.e. equity in
retribution) and the penalty for ‘falsely accusing a chaste woman of
Zinā’ – then arbitration is not permissible in these affairs, because
these are based upon precaution. So the ruling (Hukm) of the judge
of the Imām (in these matters) is required, just as in the Hudūd (i.e.
penalties of punishment).” 131

I say: And the saying of Ibn Al-Munthir, which will be presented, is
similar to the saying of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, which is that seeking
arbitration is permissible in all forms of disputes. And he (i.e. Ibn
Al-Munthir) narrated a consensus (Ijmā’) upon that. And the saying
of the author of “Manār As-Sabīl” has passed, concerning the
judgment (Hukm) of the arbitrator being carried out in everything
that the judgment of the judge (Qādhī) of the Imām is carried out in,
and he did not mention any difference of opinion upon that. So this
indicates that this is the most correct opinion with the Hanbalīs.

• And the story of ‘Umar and the Bedouin taking judgment to
Shurayh, which was mentioned by Ibn Qudāmah; Ibn Al-Qayyim
narrated it in “I’lām Al-Muwaqqi’īn”. 132 He said, “ ‘Alī Ibn Al-Ja’d
said, ‘Shu’bah informed us from Sayār, from Ash-Sha’bī, who said,
‘‘Umar took a horse from a man in good condition and over-loaded
it and it became lame. So the man disputed with him, so ‘Umar
said, ‘Put between myself and you, a man (to judge this matter for
us).’ So the man said, ‘I am satisfied with Shurayh Al-‘Irāqī.’ So
Shurayh said, ‘You took it from him in good condition and healthy,
so you are indebted to him until you return it in good condition
and it was healthy.’ He said, ‘This seemed to impress him (i.e.
‘Umar), so he sent him forth as a judge (Qādhī) and said, ‘Whatever
is clear to you from the Book of Allāh, then do not question it. Then
if it is not clear from the Book of Allāh, then from the Sunnah. Then
if you do not find it in the Sunnah, then perform Ijtihād with your
opinion.”

131 “Al-Kāfī” (4/436), by Ibn Qudāmah, published by “Al-Maktab Al-Islāmī”.
132 Vol. 1/85



• Imām Al-Haramayn Al-Juwaynī said, “And the saying of Ash-
Shāfi’ī (may Allāh be merciful to him) differs concerning he who
puts a Mujtahid as an arbitrator in a time when the Imām has
already established the Laws of the Muslims. Is the verdict (Hukm)
of the arbitrator (Muhakkam) carried out? One of his two sayings is
– and this is what is apparent from the School of Thought
(Math’hab) of Abū Hanīfah (may Allāh be merciful to him) – is that
his verdict (Hukm) is carried out in that which the verdict (Hukm) of
the judge (Qādhī) - who is appointed by the command of the Imām -
is carried out in. And this saying is based upon analogy (Qiyās). I
do not see the need to lengthen the discussion of its reason.” 133

• And as for that which the author (i.e. ‘Alī Al-Halabī), claimed
regarding the falsehood of seeking judgment from other than the
judge (Qādhī) by consensus (Ijmā’) of the Ummah; it is rejected upon
him. Rather, Al-Imām Abū Bakr Ibn Al-Munthir mentioned in his
book “Al-Ijmā’”, the opposite of what the author has stated. As he
said, “Ijmā’ #254: And they have consensus (Ijmā’) upon (the
validity) if a judge other than the Qādhī makes a judgment, it is
permitted as long as it is from what is permitted.” 134 And the
meaning of his saying, “… judge other than the Qādhī…” – in other
words, a judge who has not been appointed by the Imām, in other
words, other than the judge of the Imām. And his saying, “… as
long as it is from what is permitted,” – in other words, if what this
Qādhī judged with is from that which is permitted in the Sharī’ah.
And Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah has said, “And the “Qādhī” is a
name for everyone who judges between two (plaintiffs) and rules
between them, whether he is a Khalīfah or Sultān or a deputy (Nā’ib)
or governor (Wālī) or if he is set up to rule with the Legislation or
his deputy, or even he who judges between the children in
calligraphy, if they choose. Like this, the Companions of the
Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬have mentioned, and this is clear.”
135

133 “Al-Ghiyāthī” (Pg. 389), 2nd edition, with the ‘Tahqīq ’ (i.e. verification) of Dr.
‘Abdul-‘Athīm Ad-Dīb, 1401 H.
134 “Kitāb Al-Ijmā’” (Pg. 75), published by “Dār Taybah”, 1402 H.



• And from the evidences for the permissibility of arbitration and
the implementation of the judgments of other than the Imām and
his judges, is that if the Bughāt 136 conquer a country and rule it
with the Legislation and they collect money from it according to the
Legislation, then these judgments of theirs are implemented and
the Just Imām must not nullify them if he conquers this country
(afterwards). As Ibn Qudāmah has stated, “And if the people of
unlawful rebellion (Baghy) set up a judge (Qādhī), who is worthy of
judgment, then the ruling upon him is the ruling upon the People
of Justice. His judgments are implemented in that which the
judgments of the People of Justice are implemented in, and rejected
from them what is rejected…” 137 And Ibn Qudāmah also said,
“And if they (i.e. the Bughāt) conquer a country and they establish
the Hudūd in it and they take the Zakāt and the Jizyah and the Kharāj
(land tax) - then this is to be taken into account, because ‘Alī did
not redo what the people of Al-Basrah had set up and collected.
And Ibn ‘Umar used to pay his Zakāt to the collector of Najdah Al-
Harūrī138 …”139 And this is what was approved by Al-Juwaynī also.
140

So these are the evidences for the permissibility of the people
seeking judgment from a person, who is worthy of judgment (i.e.
issuing verdicts), if they are satisfied (with him), as opposed to the
judge (Qādhī) of the Imām within the Islāmic State (Dār Al-Islām), in
which there is an Imām for the Muslims, who rules them and the
Islāmic Sharī’ah is over them. And Abū Bakr Ibn Al-Munthir
mentioned consensus (Ijmā’) upon the permissibility of this,
contrary to what the author of the book “Al-Bay’ah”, claimed of a
consensus (Ijmā’) upon its falsehood.

136 Trans. Note: Bughāt are those who unlawfully rebel against the rightful
Muslim government.
137 “Al-Mughnī Wash-Sharh Al-Kabīr” (10/70)
138 Trans. Note: Najdah Al-Harūrī: He is Ibn ‘Amr, the Hanafī, the Khārijī. Al-

Harūrī is from the town Harūrā’, in Al-Kūfah. Look to “Tuhfat Al-Ahwathī Sharh
Jāmi’ At-Tirmithī” (1,477). And in “’Awn Al-Ma’būd” (2,589), Al-Abādī mentioned
that he was the leader of the Khawārij.
139 “Al-Kāfī” (4/152)
140 “Al-Ghiyathī” (Pg. 374)



Point Of Notice: The Difference Between the Arbitrator
(Hakam) 141 and the Judge (Qādhī) is From Several
Points:

1. The arbitrator (Hakam) does not require to be appointed into
authority by the Imām of that era; as opposed to the judge (Qādhī),
who is not authorized into responsibility, except from the Imām.

2. The arbitrator (Hakam) does not judge between two people,
unless they are satisfied (with him), and they seek his judgment
voluntarily; as opposed to the judge (Qādhī) of the Imām, who
judges between the plaintiffs whether they are satisfied or not. And
it is his right to compel them to be present at the council of
judgment, even if they do not volunteer, as long as the subpoena
has reached them.

3. The arbitrator (Hakam) does not have the full right to
investigations into cases nor granting the continuance, because the
full right to investigation and granting the continuance means that
he is a person of authority; however, this is for the judge (Qādhī)
who is appointed into authority by the Imām.

Yet, the arbitrator (Hakam) and the judge (Qādhī) are equal with
respect to their obligation of possessing the (necessary) stipulations
of judgment (Qadhā’). And their ruling (Hukm) is to be held upon
the plaintiffs (equally), except that the judge (Qādhī) has the ability
to enforce his ruling (Hukm) through the police, whereas the
arbitrator (Hakam) might not have this enforcement when
necessary. This is what concerns the first condition in this matter
(i.e. the scenario where an arbitrator is selected by two plaintiffs to
rule in their dispute, within a state governed by the Islāmic Sharī’ah,
while there are judges, who have already been established by the
Muslim Imām.)

141Trans Note: The word “Hakam” (lit. arbitrator, mediator) is used in this
section to refer to the one who is selected by two plaintiffs for judgment as
opposed to his usage of “Qādhī” (lit. judge, adjudicator), which refers to a judge
who was appointed by the Imām.



As for the second condition; that being when the Muslims do not
have an Imām who rules them, nor a Sharī’ah-based court to seek
judgment from – this is the condition of most of the Muslims today.
So I do not (merely) say that it is permitted for them, rather I say that
it is obligatory (Wājib) upon them to refer to whoever is worthy of
Sharī’ah-based judgment from amongst them, to judge between
them with the Legislation of Allāh. Then if they do not find anyone
who is worthy of judgment, then they should choose the (next)
most worthy and then the next most worthy. And it is Harām
(unlawful, illegal, forbidden) for them to seek judgment from the
man-made laws of disbelief (kufr).

And the evidence upon the correctness of this is all of which I
mentioned in the first condition, especially the words of the Shaykh
Ibn Dhuwayyān in his book “Manār As-Sabīl” and the words of Ibn
Qudāmah in “Al-Mughnī”. And on top of this:

• Al-Qādhī Abū Ya’lā said, “And if the people of a country are
void of a judge (Qādhī), then they must agree upon the adherence to
a (chosen) judge (Qādhī) over them. So we look; if the Imām is
present, then this selection is void (Bātil), and if he is absent, then
this is valid and his judgments (Ahkām) are held upon them. But if a
new Imām arrives after his judgments, then his judgment is not
continued, except with his (i.e. the Imām’s) permission, and what
has already passed from his ruling is not nullified. And Ahmad
(may Allāh be merciful to him) has stated that when two people
take him as their judge, then his ruling (Hukm) is to be held upon
them.” 142

And the evidence of support comes from his statement that if the
Imām is absent, then it is valid for the people to setup a judge
(Qādhī) for themselves. As for his statement, ‘if the Imām is present,
then this slection is void (Bātil)’ - this does not invalidate what we
have arrived at in the first condition. Because appointing judges
(Qudhāt) is from the rights of the Imām, and what we have

142 “Al-Ahkām As-Sultāniyyah” (Pg. 73)



mentioned in the first condition, is taking judgment to an arbitrator
(Hakam), it (is) not (about) appointing a judge (Qādhī). And I have
mentioned the points of difference between an arbitrator (Hakam)
and a judge (Qādhī) above.

• And Imām Al-Haramayn Al-Juwaynī discussed this matter
somewhat elaborately, as he said, “And the time has come for me
to propose a hypothetical (example) concerning an era, which is
lacking of people in charge, who are strict - and it lacks someone
who is worthy of leadership (Imāmah)…” – until his saying – “As
for what the people are able to perform on their own; but the
proper etiquette necessitates that they seek the council of the
People of Authority and refer to the important (individuals) of the
era. (Examples include) the establishment of the Friday prayers (Al-
Jumu’ah) and leading the troops to Jihād and providing the equity in
punishment [Al-Qisās (i.e. an-eye-for-an-eye etc.)] with respect to
life and limb [i.e. wounds and injuries (from assaults etc)]. Then the
people must take responsibility during times of the absence (of
proper authority)…” – until his saying – “And if the people do not
come across anyone, whom they are satisfied with, to take charge
of their affairs - then it is impossible that they would be ordered to
refrain from that which they are able to do of repelling the
corruption (fasād), because if they refrain from that which is
possible, then the corruption (fasād) grows to cover the countries
and mankind…” – until his saying – “… and some of the scholars
(‘Ulamā’) have stated that if a (particular) era is lacking a governor
(Sultān), then it is the responsibility upon the intelligent ones in
each city, along with the residents of every village; to put forward
the people of vision and intelligence, along with the people of
intellect and strong-mindedness, who they will obey in their
directives and orders and avoid that which they forbid and
prohibit. Because, if they do not do so, they will hesitate in the
performance of the duties and they will differ when the issues
arise…” – until his saying – “Then every command, which the
Imām issues in matters, which are left up to the Imāms (are to be
settled by the Imāms). But if the era is lacking an Imām and lacking a
Sultān of courage, ability and knowledge - then the matters are left
up to the scholars (‘Ulamā’) and then it becomes a duty upon the



people, from all their classes (of society), to refer to their scholars
(‘Ulamā’) and to comply in all of the matters of authority, according
to (the best of) their opinions. Then if they do that, they have been
guided to the Straight Path, and the scholars (‘Ulamā’) of the
countries have become the authorities over mankind. Then, if it is
difficult for them to join together beneath one (scholar), then the
people of every area and district should follow their scholar (‘Ālim).
And if the scholars (‘Ulamā’) are numerous within one district, then
the most knowledgeable one amongst them is the one to be
followed. And suppose they are equal – although their being equal
would be quite rare and does not ordinarily occur – but if they
were to agree, then issuing an opinion from all of them, with all
their contradicting demands and schools of thought (Mathāhib),
would be impossible. So the (correct) way would be for them (i.e.
the scholars) to agree on putting only one of them forward. But if
they disagree and refuse and the matter develops into
disagreements and disputes, then the thing to do, in my opinion, in
order to end the disputes, would be a draw (i.e. drawing straws
etc.). Then whoever’s straw is drawn, then he is put forward.” 143

• Then Al-Juwaynī said that if an era is lacking of scholars
(‘Ulamā’) who are qualified to perform deductive reasoning
(Mujtahidīn144), and no one remains except the narrators (i.e. those
who have simply memorized the opinions) of the schools of
thought (Mathāhib) of the Imāms - he said, “Verily, the jurist (Faqīh),
which we have described; it is permitted for the seeker of a
religious verdict (Fatwā), to take him in the place of a Mujtahid
Imām, who has been elevated to the highest status during this
interim process.” 145

• And what was mentioned by Al-Juwaynī, concerning the
narrators of the schools of jurisprudence (Mathāhib) taking the place
of issuing a religious verdict (Fatwā), in the era that is lacking of

143 “Ghiyāth Al-Umam” (Pg. 385-391), published by 1401 H. with the Hadīth

verification (Tahqīq) of Dr. ‘Abdul-‘Athīm Ad-Dīb
144 Trans. Note: Mujtahidīn: plural of Mujtahid
145 “Al-Ghiyāthī” (Pg. 427), 2nd edition, with the Tahqīq (i.e. verification) of Dr.

‘Abdul-‘Athīm Ad-Dīb, 1401 H.



Mujtahidīn, was approved by Ibn Al-Qayyim, as he stated, “If the
man learns and reads a book or more, from the books of
jurisprudence (Fiqh), and with that, he is still lacking of the
knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah and the narrations of the
predecessors (As-Salaf), and the (ability of) extracting (evidences)
and the (ability of) selection of the most correct opinion (Tarjīh) -
then is it permitted to follow his religious verdict (Fatwā)? The
people have four sayings concerning this: (1) absolute
permissibility, (2) absolute impermissibility, (3) permissibility in
the absence of the Mujtahid, while not being permitted in his
presence, and (4) permissibility if he has researched the sayings of
those upon whose sayings he is basing the verdict (Fatwā) which he
is issuing, while not being permitted if he has not researched
(them).

And that which is correct is that this (matter) has a detailed
explanation, which is: If it is possible for the questioner to reach a
scholar (‘Ālim) to guide him to the path, then it is not permitted for
him to seek a Fatwā from the likes of this person. And it is not
permitted for this person to set himself up for (issuing) the Fatwā,
in the presence of this scholar (‘Ālim). Yet, if there is no one besides
him, in his county or his region – to the extent that the seeker of the
Fatwā cannot find anyone else to ask, other than him – then there is
no doubt that his referring to this person would be more befitting
than for him to perform this action without knowledge, or to
remain confused in his bewilderment, indecisive in his blindness
and his ignorance (about what to do). Rather, this (i.e. asking the
likes of this person) is all he is able to do from his piety, with which
he has been ordered. 146 And similar to this would be if the Sultān
could not find anyone to entrust the judgment to, other than a
judge who lacks the necessary conditions of judgment. He must not
leave the country without a judge and he must entrust this
responsibility to whosoever is closest to deserving.” 147

146 Trans. Note: Referring to Allāh’s statement,

‫ﻓﹶﺎﱠﺗ ﹸﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣَﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﻌﺘﻢ‬
ْ ُْ ‫ْ َ ﹶ‬ َ‫ﻘ ﱠ‬
So fear Allāh as much as you can [At-Taghābun: 16]
147 “I’lām Al-Muwaqqi’īn” (4/196-197)



So these are the statements of the predecessors (As-Salaf),
concerning when the era is lacking of the Greater Imām, that it is
obligatory (Wājib) upon the people of every country and region to
seek judgment from the People of Knowledge from them, from
amongst the Mujtahidīn. And if they are non-existent, then they
must take the judgment to the most deserving and then to the next
most deserving. And the address of Allāh concerning establishing
of the Laws (Ahkām) is addressed to the nation (Ummah) as a whole.
He, the Most High, said:

‫ﻭَﺍﻟ ﱠﺎﺭﻕ ﻭَﺍﻟ ﱠﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﻓﹶﺎﻗﻄ ُﻮﺍ ﹶﺃْﻳﺪَﻳﻬﻤَﺎ‬
ُ ِ ‫ﺴ ﹺ ُ ﺴ ﹺ ﹶ ﹸ ﹾ ﹶﻌ‬
And the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands… 148


‫ﺍﻟ ﱠﺍﹺﻧﻴ ﹸ ﻭَﺍﻟ ﱠﺍﻧﹺﻲ ﻓﹶﺎﺟﻠ ُﻭﺍ‬
‫ْ ِﺪ‬ ‫ﺰ َﺔ ﺰ‬
The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog
(them)… 149

And such. And the Imām is a deputy of the Ummah in the
implementation of these, just as in the authentic Hadīth, “Verily, the
Imām is only a shield (i.e. shelter or protector).” 150 And also, relating to
this, “The Greater Imām is a shepherd over the people, and he is
responsible for his flock.” 151 So if the Imām is missing, then the
address returns back upon the entire Ummah. So then the people
must put forward whosoever they can take judgment to, from those
who are worthy of this. And Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said, “It is a must
for the people to have a ruler (Hākim). Should it be that the rights of

149 An-Nūr, 2
150 Trans. Note: Narrated by Al-Bukhārī, Muslim, An-Nasā’ī, Abū Dāwūd and

Ahmad, all on the authority of Abū Hurayrah (may Allāh be pleased with him)
with similar phrasings. Refer to “Sahīh Al-Jāmi’” of Al-Albānī, (2,321).
151 Trans. Note: Similar narrations narrated by Al-Bukhārī, Muslim (1,829), At-

Tirmithī, Abū Dāwūd and Ahmad on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allāh be
pleased with him), that resemble what the Shaykh mentioned, without the word
“…the greater…”



the people are lost?!” Abū Ya’lā mentioned this in “Al-Ahkām As-
Sultāniyyah”. 152 And this is because setting up the judges is from
the communal obligations (Fardh Kifāyah) 153 in order to preserve
justice. However, if this is not established by (at least) some, then
everyone is sinful. He, the Most High, said:

‫ﻳَﺎ ﹶﺃﱡﻳﻬَﺎ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﺁﻣُﻮﺍ ﹸﻮُﻮﺍ ﻗ ﱠﺍﻣﲔ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﻘﺴﻂ‬
ِ ْ ِ َ ِ ‫َ َﻨ ﻛ ﻧ ﹶﻮ‬
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice… 154


‫ﹶﻟﻘﺪ ﹶﺃﺭﺳﻠﻨَﺎ ﺭﺳﻠﻨَﺎ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﺒﻴﻨَﺎﺕ ﻭﹶﺃْﻧﺰﹾﻟﻨَﺎ ﻣﻌ ُﻢ ﺍﹾﻟﻜﺘَﺎﺏ ﻭَﺍﹾﻟﻤِﻴﺰَﺍﻥ ِﻟﻴ ﹸﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﱠﺎﺱ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﻘﺴﻂ‬
ِ ْ ِ ُ ‫ﹶ َﻘ َ ﻨ‬ َ ِ ْ ‫ﹶ ْ ْ َ ﹾ ُ ُ ﹶ َﱢ ِ َ َ َ َﻬ‬
Indeed We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and We
revealed the Book with them, and the Balance (justice) that
mankind may keep up justice. 155

And Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allāh be merciful to him)
pointed out this meaning with the clearest of indications, (saying
that) the nation (Ummah) as a whole has been addressed the Laws
(Ahkām) and the Islāmic penalties (Al-Hudūd). And the Sultān, who
has the authority, is required to establish them. Yet, if the Sultān is
non-existent, and it is possible to establish them – provided that
establishing them will not bring a greater evil in comparison to the
great evil resulting from not establishing them - then this is what is
obligatory (Wājib). As he (may Allāh be merciful to him) said,
“Allāh addressed the Believers with the Islāmic penalties (Al-
Hudūd) and the rights (Al-Huqūq), with an unrestricted address.
Such as His, the Most High’s, saying: “And the male thief and the
female thief, cut off their hands…” 156 And He, the Most High,

152 Pg. 24 & 71
153 Trans. Note: “Fardh Kifāyah” (i.e. communal obligations) are those duties,
which are obligatory upon the general masses of the Muslims to fulfill. If a
portion of the Muslims fulfills them, then none are held sinful. However, if these
duties are not fulfilled by some of the Muslims, then all of them are held sinful
for their failure to perform them.
154 An-Nisā’, 135
155 Al-Hadīd, 25



said: “The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual
intercourse, flog (them)…” 157 And His statement: “And those who
accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog
them…” 158 And like that, is His statement: “…and do not accept
their testimony ever…” 159 However, it is known that whoever is
addressed with the (performance of an) action; he must be able to
perform it, and it is not obligatory (Wājib) on those who are
incapable. And it is known that this is an obligation upon the
community (Fardh ‘Alā Al-Kifāyah) and it is like Jihād. Rather, it is a
type of Jihād. So His statement: “Fighting is ordained for you…” 160
and His statement: “And fight in the Path of Allāh…” 161 and His
statement: “If you march not forth, He will punish you…” 162 And
the likes of these are obligations upon the community (Fardh ‘Alā
Al-Kifāyah) for those who are able. So ‘the ability’ (in regards to
establishing the penalties) is the Sutlān (i.e. authority) - so for this
reason, it is obligatory (Wājib) upon the person of Sultān (i.e.
authority), and his deputies, to establish the Islāmic penalties (Al-
Hudūd).

And the Sunnah is that the Muslims are to have one Imām, while the
rest are his deputies. And if, for the sake of argument, the nation
(Ummah) leaves this Sunnah, due to sinfulness of some of them, and
the inability of the rest, or such - which results in it having
numerous Imāms, then it is obligatory (Wājib) upon each Imām to
establish the Islāmic penalties (Al-Hudūd) and to fulfill all the rights.
And for this reason, the scholars (‘Ulamā’) have stated that the
rulings (Ahkām) of the people of unlawful rebellion (Baghy) are to
be implemented in whatever the rulings (Ahkām) of the People of
Justice are implemented in. And also, if they share in the leadership
(Imārah) and evolve into parties (Ahzāb), then it would be obligatory
(Wājib) upon every party (Hizb) to establish that (i.e. Al-Hudūd)
upon the people who obey them. So this is when the Amīrs have

157 An-Nūr, 2
158 Trans. Note: An-Nūr, 4
159 Trans. Note: An-Nūr, 4
160 Trans. Note: Al-Baqarah, 216
161 Trans. Note: Al-Baqarah, 190 & 244
162 Trans. Note: At-Tawbah, 39



become divided and are numerous. And likewise, (even) if they do
not become divided, but their obedience to the chief Amīr, is not
absolute obedience, then even if his ability to make that binding
upon them disappears, their responsibility of establishing it (i.e. Al-
Hudūd) does not disappear. Rather, it remains (obligatory) upon
them (i.e. those people who are away from his authority) to
establish it. And likewise, suppose some of the Amīrs are unable to
establish the Hudūd and the rights, or they do not fulfill them; then
it would still be compulsory (Fardh) upon whoever is able.

And the saying of he who says, “The Hudūd are not established
except by the Sultān and his deputies, if they are able to (do so) -
and do so with justice - just as the jurists say: ‘The command is for
the ruler (Hākim),” – verily, this is only for the just and the able one.
So if he neglects the wealth of the orphans or (becomes) unable to
maintain it, then it is not obligatory (Wājib) to surrender it (i.e. the
Hudūd) to him, if it is possible to preserve it without him. And
likewise is the Amīr, if he neglects the Hudūd or is unable to
implement them, then it is not obligatory (Wājib) to entrust it (i.e.
the Hudūd) to him when it is possible to establish them without
him. And the basic rule (Asl) is that these obligations (Wājibāt) are
to be established upon the best possible performance. So whenever
it is possible to establish them with one leader, then two (leaders)
are unnecessary. And whenever it is not established with a
multiple, and without a Sultān, then they (i.e. the Hudūd) are to be
established as long as their establishment does not create an evil
(fasād) which would be greater than the loss of it (i.e. the Hudūd).
(This is) because they (i.e. the Hudūd) are from the category (Bāb) of
Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Evil. So if in
establishing it (i.e. the Hudūd) there is an evil (fasād) which would
be worse upon the People of Authority and the population, than
the loss of it (i.e. the Hudūd); then that which is less worse should
not be repelled (in exchange for that which is worse). And Allāh
knows best.” 163

163 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (34/175-176)



So these are the Sharī’ah-based evidences and the sayings of the
scholars (‘Ulamā’) of the Ummah, which confirm the validity of
people taking the judgment to other than the judge (Qādhī) of the
Imām, from those who are worthy of judgment, in an era where the
Imām is present. And Ibn Al-Munthir narrated consensus (Ijmā’)
upon the validity of this. And here are their statements, which
confirm the validity – rather, the obligation (Wujūb) – for the people
to agree among themselves to establish the judgments (Ahkām),
when this is possible for them, in an era where the Imām is absent,
and that they should select a judge, who is worthy of the Sharī’ah-
based judgment between them. (And this position is given in
priority,) to the most deserving and then to the next most
deserving. And with this, there is a full and sufficient refutation
and negation of what was mentioned by the author of the book “Al-
Bay’ah Bayn As-Sunnah Wal-Bid’ah”.

And the obligation (Wājib), upon the author (i.e. ‘Alī Al-Halabī) and
the rest of those involved with the Islāmic Da’wah, is to call the
Muslims to this, not preventing them from it. So for the Muslims to
take the judgment to a scholar (‘Ālim) from amongst them, is
obligatory (Wājib) upon them, as long as they are able to do so. And
this is better for them in this life and the Hereafter than to taking
the judgment to the Tawāghīt and to their laws of (kufr), which most
of the Muslims have taken shade under - consuming each other’s
wealth, money, and property through falsehood, and blood and
private parts being made permissible (i.e. violated)…

And it is not permitted for anyone who is called to take the
judgment to the (Islāmic) Legislation, to turn away from it. He, the
Most High, said:

‫ﻭﹺﺇﺫﹶﺍ ﻗِﻴﻞ ﹶﻟﻬﻢ َﺗﻌَﺎﹶﻟﻮْﺍ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﻣَﺎ ﺃﹶﻧﺰﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﺍﻟﺮ ُﻮﻝ ﺭﹶﺃْﻳﺖ ﺍﹾﻟﻤﻨَﺎﻓﻘﲔ‬
َ ِ ِ ُ َ َ ‫ﱠﺳ ﹺ‬ َ ُ‫َ ﹶ ﱠ‬ ُْ ‫ﹶ‬ َ
‫َﻳﺼ ﱡﻭﻥ ﻋﻨﻚ ﺻ ُﻭﺩًﺍ‬
‫ُﺪ ﹶ َ ْ َ ُﺪ‬



And when it is said to them: “Come to what Allāh has sent down
and to the Messenger,” you see the hypocrites turn away from
you with aversion. 164


‫ﻭﹺﺇﺫﹶﺍ ﺩ ُﻮﺍ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺭ ُﻮِﻟﻪ ِﻟﻴﺤﻜﹸﻢ َﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﹺﺇﺫﹶﺍ ﻓﺮﹺﻳ ٌ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﺮ ُﻮﻥ ﻭﹺﺇﻥ َﻳﻜﻦ ﹶﻟﻬﻢ‬
ْ ُ ْ ‫ﱠ ِ َ َﺳ ِ َ ْ َ َْ ُ ْ ﹶ ﻖ ِ ْ ُ ْ ُ ْ ﹺﺿ ﹶ َ ﹾ ﹸ‬ ‫َ ُﻋ‬
‫ﺍﹾﻟﺤﻖ َﻳﺄُﻮﺍ ﹺﺇﹶﻟﻴﻪ ﻣُﺬﻋﻨﲔ ﹶﺃﻓِﻲ ﻗ ﹸﻮﹺﺑﻬﻢ ﻣﺮﺽ ﹶﺃﻡ ﺍﺭﺗَﺎُﻮﺍ ﹶﺃﻡ َﻳﺨَﺎ ﹸﻮﻥ ﹶﺃﻥ َﻳﺤِﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ‬
ْ ‫َ ﱠ ُ َﹶْ ﹺ‬ ‫َ ﱡ ﹾﺗ ْ ِ ﹾ ِﹺ َ ﹸﻠ ﹺ ْ َ َ ٌ ْ ْ ﺑ ْ ﻓ ﹶ ﹾ‬
‫ﻭﺭ ُﻮﹸﻟﻪ َﺑﻞ ﺃﹸﻭﹶﻟﺌﻚ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟ ﱠﺎِﻟ ُﻮﻥ ﹺﺇﱠﻧﻤَﺎ ﻛﹶﺎﻥ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﹾﻟﻤُﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﹺﺇﺫﹶﺍ ﺩ ُﻮﺍ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺭ ُﻮِﻟﻪ‬
ِ ‫ﱠ ِ َ َﺳ‬ ‫ﹶ ﹶ ْ ﹶ ْ ِﹺ َ ُﻋ‬ ‫َ َﺳ ُ ﹾ ْ ِ َ ُ ْ ﻈ ﻤ ﹶ‬
‫ِﻟﻴﺤﻜﹸﻢ َﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﹶﺃﻥ َﻳ ﹸﻮﹸﻮﺍ ﺳﻤﻌﻨَﺎ ﻭﹶﺃﻃﻌﻨَﺎ ﻭﺃﹸﻭﹶﻟﺌﻚ ﻫﻢ ﺍﹾﻟﻤﻔﻠ ُﻮﻥ‬
‫َ ْ َ َْ ُ ْ ﹾ ﻘ ﻟ َ ِ ْ َ ﹶ ْ َ ْ ِ َ ُ ْ ُ ﹾ ِﺤ ﹶ‬
And when they are called to Allāh (i.e. His Words, the Qur'ān)
and His Messenger, to judge between them, lo! a party of them
refuse (to come) and turn away. But if the right is with them, they
come to him willingly with submission. Is there a disease in their
hearts? Or do they doubt or fear lest Allāh and His Messenger
should wrong them in judgment? Nay, it is they themselves who
are the Thālimūn (polytheists, hypocrites and wrong-doers, etc.).
The only saying of the faithful Believers, when they are called to
Allāh (i.e. His Words, the Qur’ān) and His Messenger, to judge
between them, is that they say: “We hear and we obey.” And such
are the prosperous ones (who will live forever in Paradise). 165

So the Muslims taking the judgment to the Sharī’ah, far away from
the courts of disbelief (kufr), is obligatory (Wājib) upon them. And
we call the people to that with force, whenever that is possible. And
if they are unable (to do so), concerning the (Islāmic) penalties (Al-
Hudūd), then let it be in the money (transactions) and so on. And all
of this enters beneath the fear of Allah, which is within the slave’s
ability. And it enters beneath the rule of jurisprudence (Fiqh): “the
easy matter does not fall, due to the difficult matter”. And ‘Izz Ad-Dīn
Ibn ‘Abdis-Salām phrased it like this: “Verily, whoever is held
obligated for something of the acts of worship, and he is able to
perform part of it, and unable to perform part of it, then he must

164 An-Nisā’, 61
165 Nūr, 48-51



perform what he is able to. And what he is unable to perform, falls
off of him.” 166 And this rule is taken from His, the Most High’s,
statement:

‫ﻓﹶﺎﱠﺗ ﹸﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣَﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﻌﺘﻢ‬
ْ ُْ ‫ﻘ ﱠ َ ْ َ ﹶ‬
So fear Allāh as much as you can… 167

And from the statement of the Messenger of Allāh ‫,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
“And whatever I order you with; then perform from it as much as you are
able.” 168 And from what enters beneath “the ability”, is the
distribution of the Zakāt, even if the rulers abolish it, and the
payment of the blood-money and the compensation for the wounds
and expiations and the forbiddance of interest (ribā), even if the
courts of kufr do not rule with these. And from what is tied into this
(subject), is being conscious of the value of loans and termed
purchases. And this is because the value of paper money greatly
fluctuates over time. So the obligation (Wājib) is to make one of the
two currencies, which are recognized in the Sharī’ah – gold and
silver – as the basis in these transactions. So for example, if a man
loans you one thousand Līrahs 169 today - and presently a gram of
gold costs one hundred Līrahs - then you have borrowed (the
equivalent of) ten grams (of gold). So if the term of the loan is one
year, and after one year a gram of gold costs two hundred Līrahs,
and you return the one thousand Līrahs to him, then you have
(only) repaid him for five grams (of gold) and you have wronged
him with a horrible transgression. And the obligation (Wājib) upon
you would be to repay him two thousand Līrahs. And opposite to
this, is when the value of the Līrah has increased - then you should
repay him less than the original thousand just as in the former

166 “Qawā’id Al-Ahkām” (2/6 & 19)
167 At-Taghābun, 16
168 Agreed upon (i.e. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim)

Trans. Note: Also narrated by Ibn Mājah and Ahmad, and this specific phrasing
is Ahmad’s. Al- Bukhārī and Muslim narrated it with other very similar
phrasings, all from Abū Hurayrah, may Allāh be pleased with him.
169 Trans. Note: The Līrah or Lira is the name of a currency used in some

countries, including Turkey, Lebanon, Malta, and Italy before switching to the
Euro.



calculation. And this is not from interest (ribā) whatsoever. Rather,
it is returning to the currency which is considered in the (Islāmic)
Legislation, because these paper notes have no consideration in
(Islāmic) Legislation, except through their value in calculation to
gold or silver. And this is what every Muslim does when giving the
Zakāt of his wealth and the Zakāt of his inventory of trade. And it
should not be understood, from my aforementioned statement, the
permissibility of interest (ribā), upon this paper money, from the
banks, with the argument that it (i.e. the interest) merely repays the
loss of value, because this is interest (ribā), the pillars of which are
complete, (and) of which the amount of profit has been previously
determined, (and) it is Harām; (absolutely) Harām. And what has
passed, from the consideration of the value, does not enter into the
entrustments (i.e. what someone gives you to watch over) as these
are returned just as they were. And the Shaykh Ahmad Az-Zarqā,
has pointed to this issue in his book “Al-Qawā’id Al-Fiqhiyyah”,
beneath the rule: “There is to be no Dharar and no Dhirār.” 170 and
he attributed this opinion to Al-Qādhī Abū Yūsuf. 171 And this is
what I used to – and continue to – advise my Muslim brothers. And
it seems to me that Allāh, the Most High, will not bless the Muslims
with an Islāmic government unless they seek judgment from the
(Islāmic) Legislation, as much as possible within the current
conditions. Then if they exert themselves in this, then hopefully
Allāh, the Most High, will fulfill His promise. As He, the Most
High, said:

‫ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻻ ُﻐﻴ ُ ﻣَﺎ ﹺﺑﻘﻮﻡ ﺣﱠﻰ ُﻐﻴ ُﻭﺍ ﻣَﺎ ﹺﺑﺄﹶﻧ ﹸﺴﻬﻢ‬
ْ ‫ﻔ ِﹺ‬ ‫ﱠ ﱠ َ ﻳ َﱢﺮ ﹶ ْ ﹴ َﺘ ﻳ َﱢﺮ‬
Verily, Allāh will not change the condition of a people until they
(themselves) change their condition. 172

And in the Muslim’s taking their judgments to the (Islāmic)
Legislation, in this era, there is another benefit. And it is keeping
this Sharī’ah alive, contrary to what the Tawāghīt desire from the

170 Trans. Note: Refer to footnote #112 above.
171 “Sharh Al-Qawā’id” (Pg. 121)
172 Ar-Ra’d, 11



death of the Sharī’ah and its carriers. And all of this paves the way
for the Islāmic governance.

Verily, these Tāghūtī laws are major disbelief (kufr akbar), which
takes the one who placed them, the one who governs with them,
and the one who seeks judgments from them due to satisfaction
and willingness – outside the Religion (Millah) of Islām. And it is
one of the worst objectionable things. And the weakest of Īmān –
and that is the objection (Inkār) of the heart (of the evil) –
necessitates for the Muslims to boycott these laws, their courts, and
their judges and to disassociate (Barā’ah) from them, and to refrain
from studying them in the Faculties of Rights, which teach the laws
of kufr. And as for the objection (Inkār) upon the tongue; then from
that are these very words (i.e. books of this nature etc.). And as for
the objection (Inkār) of the hand against these laws of kufr, and
against those who act upon them and protect them, then it is the
main topic of this treatise. And that is the military training. And
this is what called us to digress into the refutation upon the author
of the book (i.e. ‘Alī Al-Halabī) “Al-Bay’ah”, due to the relationship
of all the topics with one another. Wal-Hamdu Lillāh Rabbil-‘Ālamīn.



‫ﻗﺴَﻢ ﻣﻌﺴﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﻳﺐ‬
‫ﹶ‬

‫ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ: ﻋـﻬـﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺑــﻴـﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴـﻠﻤـﻴـﻦ‬



The Oath of the Military
Training Camp
Issue: Covenants of Obedience Amongst
the Muslims
The reason that I included this subject within this treatise is because
of the misunderstandings which surround it, as there are some who
consider the covenants and the pledges of allegiance (Al-Bay’ah)
among the Muslims – upon performing the acts of obedience –
obligatory (Wājib), and there are those consider it an innovation
(Bid’ah). So for this reason, I thought that this should be researched
in some detail, to remove the confusion surrounding it.

And the proper saying, in my opinion – and Allāh is the Most
Knowledgeable of that which is correct – is that the covenants
among the Muslims, to perform the acts of obedience, are
permissible. And included in this: is the oath (Qasam) of the
military training camp (Mu’askar) and the covenants (‘Uhūd), or the
pledges of allegiance (Al-Bay’ah), of the groups (Jamā’āt) which are
working for Islām and Jihād. So if the one who is overseeing the
work, sees fit not to enter anyone into this effort, except after he
takes from them covenants and promises (Mawāthīq), concerning
specific matters – as long as they are not disobedience (against
Allāh, i.e. sins) – then it is allowed for him to do so.

And based upon what I mentioned in the third chapter of this
treatise, “Al-Imārah”,173 that these leaderships upon the groups
working for Islām and Jihād are legislated and obligatory (Wājib);
and included in this is the leadership of the military training camp,
as this leadership obligates:

173Trans. Note: Referring to “The Refutation of the Doubts Concerning
Leadership”, which preceded this section.



Firstly, upon the Amīr: To attend to the matters of the camp and to
the affairs of its members, according to the (Islāmic) Legislation.

Secondly, upon the members: To listen to and obey (As-Sam’ Wat-
Tā’ah) the Amīr in matters, when they are eager and when they are
reluctant, in hard times and easy times – as much as they are
capable of – in other than disobedience (against Allāh, i.e. sins).

And these obligations upon each, the Amīr and the members, are
obligatory (Wājib) according to the (Islāmic) Legislation to begin
with; even if they have not undertaken the oath (Qasam) upon that,
or entered into the covenant (‘Ahd) upon that, as long as they have
accepted to remain in this military camp and the leadership of its
Amīr. Then if they undertake an oath (Qasam) and covenant (‘Ahd)
upon that, then this is a reinforcement of what was obligatory upon
them by the (Islāmic) Legislation to begin with, which is the
obedience towards the People of Authority. So the basis (Asl) of the
obligation for what has preceded, is the Book and the Sunnah, and
not the oath, which does not increase the obligation except by way
of reinforcement.

• He, the Most High, said:

‫ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ َﻳﺄ ُ ُ ﹸﻢ ﺃﹶﻥ ُﺆ ﱡﻭﹾﺍ ﺍﻷﻣَﺎﻧَﺎﺕ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﹶﺃﻫﻠﻬَﺎ ﻭﹺﺇﺫﹶﺍ ﺣﻜﻤُﻢ َﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﱠﺎﺱ ﺃﹶﻥ َﺗﺤﻜ ُﻮﹾﺍ‬
‫ْ ﹸﻤ‬ ‫ْ ِ َ َ ﹶ ْﺘ ْ َ ﻨ ﹺ‬ ِ َ ‫ﱠ ﹼ َ ﹾﻣﺮﻛ ْ ﺗ ﺩ‬
‫ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﹺﻧﻌ ﱠﺎ َﻳﻌﻈ ﹸﻢ ﹺﺑﻪ ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻛﹶﺎﻥ ﺳﻤِﻴﻌًﺎ َﺑﺼﲑًﺍ‬
ِ َ ‫َ ْ ﹺ ﱠ ﹼ َ ِﻤ ِ ﹸﻜ ِ ﱠ ﹼ َ ﹶ‬
Verily! Allāh commands that you should render back the trusts to
those to whom they are due; and that when you judge between
the people, you judge with justice. Verily, how excellent is the
teaching, which He (Allāh) gives you! Truly, Allāh is Ever All-
Hearer, All-Seer. 174

This is an order to the rulers (Hukkām) and the People of Authority,
to render back (i.e. fulfill) the trusts – including guardianship and
wealth – to its people, according to the (Islāmic) Legislation and

174 Trans. Note: An-Nisā’, 58



govern the flock with Justice. Then He, the Most High, said,
addressing the flock:

‫ﻳَﺎ ﹶﺃﱡﻳﻬَﺎ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﺁﻣُﻮﹾﺍ ﹶﺃﻃِﻴ ُﻮﹾﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﹶﺃﻃِﻴ ُﻮﹾﺍ ﺍﻟﺮ ُﻮﻝ ﻭﹸﺃﻭﻟِﻲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻣِﻨﻜﻢ ﻓﺈﹺﻥ َﺗﻨَﺎﺯﻋﺘﻢ ﻓِﻲ‬
ْ ُْ َ ‫ﻌ ﹼ َ َ ﻌ ﱠﺳ ﹶ َ ْ َ ْ ﹺ ﹸ ْ ﹶ‬ ‫َ َﻨ‬
‫ﺷﻲﺀ ﻓﺮ ﱡﻭﻩ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭَﺍﻟﺮ ُﻮﻝ ﺇﹺﻥ ﹸﻨﺘﻢ ُﺗﺆﻣُﻮﻥ ﺑﹺﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﻭَﺍﹾﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫ﹼ ِ ﱠﺳ ﹺ ﻛ ُ ْ ْ ِﻨ ﹶ ﹼ ِ َ ْ ﹺ ِ ﹺ‬ ُ ‫َ ْ ٍ ﹶ ُﺩ‬
‫ﺫِﻟﻚ ﺧﻴ ٌ ﻭﹶﺃﺣﺴﻦُ َﺗﺄﻭﻳﻼ‬
‫ﹶ َ َ ْﺮ َ ْ َ ﹾ ﹺ ﹰ‬
O you who believe! Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger, and
those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. Then if you differ
in anything, then refer it to Allāh and His Messenger, if you
believe in Allāh and the Last Day. That is better and more
suitable for final determination. 175

And look to its explanation in the beginning of “The Book of
Judgments”, in “Fat’h Al-Bārī”. 176 And Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn
Taymiyyah (may Allāh be merciful to him) authored his treatise
“As-Siyāsah Ash-Shar’iyyah Fī Islāh Ar-Rā’ī War-Ra’iyyah” in the
explanation of these two Verses, in order to clarify the obligations
(Wājibāt) of the shepherd and the flock.

• And in the Sunnah, the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said,
“Whoever obeys me, then he has obeyed Allāh, and whoever disobeys me,
then he has disobeyed Allāh. And whoever obeys the Amīr, then he has
obeyed me and whoever disobeys the Amīr, then he has disobeyed me.” –
Narrated by Muslim. And the phrasing of Al-Bukhārī has, “… my
Amīr…” instead of “… the Amīr…” 177 And “… the Amīr…” being
mentioned here, includes the Greater Imām (i.e. the Khalīfah) as well
as the Amīr who is put in charge by the Imām. 178 And (this also
applies to) the Amīr, whom the people have agreed to him being in
charge, in the absence of the Imām - like what happened in the
Battle of Mut’ah and likewise in the Hadīth of the leadership of
traveling, as he ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬entrusted the responsibility of

175 An-Nisā’, 58-59
176 Vol. 13/111-112
177 Trans. Note: Also narrated by An-Nasā’ī, Ibn Mājah and Ahmad, all from Abū

Hurayrah, with similar phrasings.
178 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/122)



selecting an Amīr, to the people: “If you are three in travel, then select
one of you as an Amīr.” Yet, despite the fact that this Amīr is not put
in charge by the Imām, the Legislator (i.e. Allāh) still called him an
Amīr, as ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattāb (may Allāh be pleased with him) –
the narrator of the Hadīth – said, “That is an Amīr, whom the
Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬has put in charge.” 179

And the point of what has passed is that the Amīr of the military
camp (Mu’askar) is a Sharī’ah-recognized Amīr, and he is from the
People of the Authority, in his circle of expertise.

And in clarifying that the obedience to the “People of the
Authority” is obligatory (Wājib) – even if individuals did not give
them a covenant (‘Ahd) upon that – Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah
(may Allāh be merciful to him) said:

“And that which Allāh and His Messenger have commanded,
concerning the obedience to the ‘People of Authority’, and sincere
conduct towards them - it is obligatory (Wājib) upon the person,
even if he does not give them a covenant (‘Ahd) upon that, and
even if he did not swear a reinforcing oath to them. This is just
like the five prayers are obligatory (Wājib) upon him, and the alms-
giving (Zakāt), and the fasting (Siyām), and the pilgrimage (Hajj) to
the (Sacred) House (i.e. the Ka’bah), and other than that, from what
Allāh and His Messenger have commanded of the acts of
obedience. Then if he swears upon that (i.e. to be obedient), then
that is a reinforcement and a reaffirmation of what Allāh and His
Messenger have ordered regarding obedience to the People of
Authority and sincere conduct towards them. So the one who
undertakes an oath upon these matters, it is not permissible (Halāl)
for him to perform anything in opposition to what he took the oath
upon, whether he swore by Allāh, or other such oaths which the
Muslims swear by. This is because, that which Allāh obligated of
the obedience to the ‘People of Authority’ and sincere conduct

Narrated by Al-Bazzār, with an authentic chain.
179

Trans. Note: Also authenticated by Ash-Shawkānī in “Nayl Al-Awtār” (9/157),
and by Al-Albānī in “Sahīh Ibn Khuzaymah” (2,541).



towards them; this is obligatory (Wājib), even if he did not
undertake an oath upon it. So what about if he did take an oath
upon that?! And that which Allāh and His Messenger have forbade,
regarding disobeying them and cheating them; this is unlawful
(Harām), even if he did not make an oath (Hilf) regarding that.” –
until his statement – “And due to this (reason), whoever takes an
oath upon that which Allāh and His Messenger have ordered
regarding obedience to the ‘People of Authority’ and sincere
conduct towards them, or the prayers (Salāt) or the alms-giving
(Zakāt), or the fasting of Ramadhān, or rendering back (i.e. fulfilling)
the trusts, and (performing) justice and the likes of that; it is not
allowed for anyone to issue him a religious verdict (Fatwā) for him
to contradict that which he undertook the oath upon, nor the
breaking of that which he swore upon. And (likewise), it is not
permissible for him to request a religious verdict (Fatwā) regarding
(breaking) that. And whoever does issue a Fatwā to the likes of
them, (allowing them) to contradict what they undertook the oath
upon and to break that which they swore upon - then he is
fabricating a lie upon Allāh and he is issuing a Fatwā in other than
the Religion of Islām. Rather, even if he were to issue a Fatwā to an
individual from the general public to do that which contradicts that
which he undertook an oath upon, (such as) fulfilling the contract
of sale, or marriage, or rental (transactions), or such, of those
contracts which are obligatory (Wājib) for him to fulfill, which are
obligatory upon him to fulfill even if he did not undertake an oath
upon them; so if he does take an oath upon that, then it is more
reinforced. So whoever gives a Fatwā to the likes of this one,
concerning the permissibility of breaking these contracts, and
breaking that which he undertook an oath upon, then he is
fabricating a lie upon Allāh. And he is issuing a Fatwā in other than
the Religion of Islām! So how about if that is concerning the
contracts towards the ‘People of Authority’, which are from the
greatest contracts which Allāh has ordered to be fulfilled?!” 180




This is concerning the clarification that obedience towards the
‘People of Authority’ is obligatory (Wājib), even if the individuals
did not give an oath to them upon that.
So if the Amīr wants to take a covenant (‘Ahd) and an oath (Qasam)
upon his followers, then the research (Bah’th) in this topic contains
several issues. And they are:

- Its legality in the Sharī’ah,
- Its benefit, Is it allowed to be time-limited,
- Is it allowed to call this covenant (‘Ahd) a “Pledge of Allegiance”
(Bay’ah)?
- What is the difference between it and the Pledge of Allegiance
(Bay’ah) to the Khalīfah?
- And what is the ruling (Hukm) upon breaking this covenant
(‘Ahd)?

And I am going to follow these issues with the refutation of a doubt
(Shubhah), which was mentioned by the author of the book “Al-
Bay’ah Bayn As-Sunnah Wal-Bid’ah”, In Shā’ Allāh Ta’āla.

Firstly: The Legitimacy of This Covenant (‘Ahd) In the
Sharī’ah:

Definitions:

• Al-Qasam (the oath): And that is Al-Yamīn (the vow) – Ar-Rāghib
said: “He took an oath (Aqsam), means he swore (Halaf) [solemn
promise to do something or solemn declaration that something is
true]. And its origin comes from Al-Qasāmah, and they are the
oaths, which were taken by the guardians (Awliyā’) of the murder
victim. Then it became a name for every swear (Hilf). He, the Most
High, said:

‫ﻭﹶﺃﻗﺴ ُﻮﹾﺍ ﺑﹺﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﺟﻬﺪ ﹶﺃْﻳﻤَﺎﹺﻧﻬﻢ‬
ْ‫ﹺ‬ َ ْ َ ِ ‫َ ﹾ َﻤ ﹼ‬



And they swear (Qasam) by Allāh their strongest oaths… 181

• Al-‘Ahd (the covenant): Ar-Rāghib said, “Al-‘Ahd is the
maintenance of and adherence to something, time after time. And
the promise, whose adherence was compulsory, was called an ‘Ahd.

‫ﻭﹶﺃﻭ ﹸﻮﹾﺍ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﹾﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﻛﹶﺎﻥ ﻣﺴ ُﻭﻻ‬
‫َ ْﻓ َ ْ ِ ﱠ َ ْ َ ﹶ َ ْ ﺆ ﹰ‬
And fulfill (every) covenant (‘Ahd). Verily, the covenant (‘Ahd)
will be questioned about. 182

In other words, fulfill (it) by maintaining the vows.”

• Al-Mīthāq (the promise): Ar-Rāghib said, “I tied it (Awthaqtuhu) (is
the same as) I tightened it (Shadadtuhu).” And he said, “Al-Mīthāq is
a contract (‘Aqd), which is reinforced through a vow (Yamīn) and a
covenant (‘Ahd). He, the Most High, said:

‫ﻭﹺﺇﺫ ﹶﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣِﻴﺜﹶﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻴﻴﻦ‬
َ ْ ‫َ ﹾ َ ﹶ ﹼ ُ َ ﱠﹺﱢ‬
And (remember) when Allāh took the promise (Mīthāq) of the
Prophets … 183

“And ‘Al-Mawthiq’ is a noun, which is derived from it. He, the Most
High, said:

‫ﺣﱠﻰ ُﺗﺆُﻮﻥ ﻣﻮِﺛﻘﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ‬
ِ ‫َﺘ ْﺗ ِ َ ْ ﱢ َ ﹼ‬
… until you swear a solemn promise (Mawthiqan) to me by
Allāh…

… till His statement:

‫ﻣﻮِﺛﻘﻬُﻢ‬
ْ ‫َْ ﹶ‬

181 Trans. Note: As in Verses An-Nahl, 38 and An-Nūr, 53
182 Trans. Note: As in Verse Al-Isrā, 34
183 Trans. Note: As in Verse Āl-‘Imrān, 81



…their solemn promise (Mawthiqahum)… 184 [This concludes the
definitions from Ar-Rāghib] 185

And from a Sharī’ah-based point of view, we say that the covenants,
upon the performance of the duties of obedience (to Allāh),
amongst the Muslims are permissible due to the following
evidences:

1. He, the Most High, said:

‫ﻭﹶﺃﻭ ﹸﻮﹾﺍ ﹺﺑﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﹺﺇﺫﹶﺍ ﻋَﺎﻫَﺪﱡﺗﻢ ﻭﻻ ﺗَﻨﻘ ُﻮﹾﺍ ﺍﻷْﻳﻤَﺎﻥ َﺑﻌﺪ َﺗﻮﻛِﻴﺪﻫَﺎ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺟﻌﻠُ ُ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ‬
َ ‫ْ َ ﹶ ﹸ ﻀ َ ﹶ ْ َ ْ ِ َ ﹶ ْ َ َ ﹾﺘ ﻢ ﹼ‬ ِ ‫َ ْﻓ َ ْ ِ ﹼ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﻛﻔِﻴﻼ ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ َﻳﻌﻠ ُ ﻣَﺎ َﺗﻔﻌ ﹸﻮﻥ . ﻭﻻ َﺗ ﹸﻮُﻮﹾﺍ ﻛﹶﺎﱠﻟﺘِﻲ َﻧﻘﻀﺖ ﻏﺰﹶﻟﻬَﺎ ﻣِﻦ َﺑﻌﺪ ﹸﻮﺓ‬
ٍ‫ْ ِ ﻗ ﱠ‬ ْ‫ﹶ َ ْ ﹶ‬ ‫َ ﹶ ْ ﹸ ْ ﹶ ﹰ ﱠ ﹼ َ ْ ﹶﻢ ﹾ َﻠ ﹶ َ ﹶ ﻜ ﻧ‬
‫ﺃﹶﻧﻜﹶﺎﺛﹰﺎ َﺗﺘﺨ ﹸﻭﻥ ﹶﺃْﻳﻤَﺎَﻧﻜﻢ ﺩﺧﻼ َﺑﻴﻨﻜﻢ ﺃﹶﻥ َﺗ ﹸﻮﻥ ﹸﺃﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ ﹶﺃﺭﺑَﻰ ﻣﻦ ﹸﻣﺔ ﹺﺇﱠﻧﻤَﺎ َﻳﺒ ﹸﻮﻛﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ‬
ُ ‫ْﻠ ﹸ ُ ﹼ‬ ٍ ‫ﹸ ْ َ َ ﹰ َْ ﹸ ْ ﻜ ﹶ ﱠ ﹲ ِ َ ْ ِ ْ ﺃ ﱠ‬ ‫ﱠ ِﺬ ﹶ‬
‫ﹺﺑﻪ ﻭﹶﻟﻴُﺒﻴﻨﻦ ﹶﻟﻜﻢ َﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﹾﻟﻘﻴَﺎﻣﺔ ﻣَﺎ ﹸﻨﺘﻢ ﻓِﻴﻪ َﺗﺨﺘﻠ ﹸﻮﻥ‬
‫ِ َ َﱢَ ﱠ ﹸ ْ ْ َ ِ َ ِ ﻛ ُ ْ ِ َْ ِﻔ ﹶ‬
And fulfill the Covenant (‘Ahd) of Allāh when you have
covenanted, and break not the oaths after you have confirmed
them, and indeed you have appointed Allāh your surety. Verily!
Allāh knows what you do. And be not like she who undoes the
thread, which she has spun after it has become strong, by taking
your oaths as a means of deception among yourselves, lest a
nation may be more numerous than another nation. Allāh only
tests you by this. And on the Day of Resurrection, He will
certainly make clear to you that wherein you used to differ. 186

And in the Days of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic days of ignorance), a man
or a tribe would enter into alliance with another tribe. So if he
found one stronger than it, he would break the covenant (‘Ahd) of
the first and make an alliance with the second one, and so on. So
Al-Mawla (i.e. Allāh) ordered them to fulfill their covenants and
warned them about breaking them, and gave them the similitude of
the woman who used to spin yarn until when it became tightened,

184 Trans. Note: As in Verse Yūsuf, 66
185 Refer to “Al-Mufradāt Fī Gharīb Al-Qur’ān”, by Ar-Rāghib Al-Asfahānī.
186 An-Nahl, 91-92



she would untie it and it is a similitude used to illustrate stupidity
and foolishness.

And Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, mentioned this Verse while
discussing the covenants between the students and their teachers,
who train them for fighting, and that it is not allowed for the
student to break the covenant (‘Ahd) of his teacher and to enter into
a covenant (‘Ahd) with another. As he said, “The one who moves
from the first to the second is a rebellious one (Baghī) and a breaker
of his covenant (‘Ahd) and a non-fulfiller of his contract (‘Aqd). And
this is also unlawful (Harām), and the sin of this one is greater than
the sin of the one who did not commit the likes of his deed. Rather,
the likes of this one; if he moves to other than his teacher and gives
him a pledge (Hilf), then he has committed a Harām (act) so this
would be like the (eating) dead meat of a pig (i.e. doubly offensive).
This is because he did not fulfill the covenant (‘Ahd) of Allāh and
His Messenger, nor the covenant (‘Ahd) of the first (teacher); rather
he is at the level of the one who plays, (the one) who does not have
any covenant (‘Ahd) nor religion (Dīn) nor commitment! And in the
Days of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic days of ignorance) a man used to
give a pledge (Hilf) to a tribe, then if he found one stronger than it,
he would break the covenant (‘Ahd) of the former and give the
pledge (Hilf) to the second. And he (i.e. the one who breaks his
covenant) resembles the condition of those ones, so Allāh, the Most
High, revealed: “And break not the oaths after you have
confirmed them, and indeed you have appointed Allāh your
surety. Verily! Allāh knows what you do. And be not like she
who undoes the thread, which she has spun after it has become
strong” – the Verse…” – until he said – “… And whoever has a
pledge (Hilf) with an individual to ally himself with those who are
loyal to that person, and to be hostile against those who are hostile
against him - then he is from the same category of the Tartars –
those who are “Mujāhidīn” in the Path of the Shaytān – and the likes
of this one are not from the Mujāhidīn in the Path of Allāh, the Most
High, nor from the Army of the Muslims. And it is not allowed
from the likes of them to be in the Military of the Muslims; rather
they are from the military of the Shaytān. But it is good if he
mentions to his student, ‘Upon you is the covenant (‘Ahd) of Allāh



and His Mīthāq, and that you ally yourself with those who ally
themselves with Allāh and His Messenger, and that you take as
enemies, those who take Allāh and His Messenger as enemies. And
you must assist each other in (matters of) Righteousness (Birr) and
Piety (Taqwā) and do not cooperate in sin and transgression. And if
the Truth (Haqq) is with me, then support the Truth (Haqq). And if I
am upon falsehood (Bātil), then do not support falsehood (Bātil).’ So
whoever complies with this, then he is from amongst the Mujāhidīn
in the Path of Allāh, the Most High; those who desire for the
Religion (Dīn) to be completely for Allāh, and for Allāh’s Word to
be supreme.” 187


‫ﻳَﺎ ﹶﺃﱡﻳﻬَﺎ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﺁﻣُﻮﹾﺍ ﹶﺃﻭ ﹸﻮﹾﺍ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﻌ ﹸﻮﺩ‬
ِ ‫َ َﻨ ْﻓ ُﻘ‬
O you who believe! Fulfill the contracts. 188

Al-Qurtubī said, within its Tafsīr, “Az-Zujāj said, ‘The meaning is
fulfill the contract (‘Aqd) of Allāh, which is upon you, and your
contracts among one another. And all of this returns to the opinion
of generality, and that is the truth in this matter. He ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
said, “The Believers are with their stipulations [i.e. stick to their words,
fulfill them].” 189 And he said, “Every stipulation, which is not in the
Book of Allāh, is false - even if it is one hundred stipulations.” 190 So he
clarified that the stipulation - or the contract (‘Aqd) - which is
obligatory to fulfill, is that which complies with the Book of Allāh;
in other words, the Religion (Dīn) of Allāh. So, if that which

187 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (28/19-21)
189 Trans. Note: From ‘Amr Ibn ‘Awf Al-Muzanī (may Allāh be pleased with

him). This Hadīth was declared “Extremely flimsy (Wāhin Bi-Mirrah)” by Ibn Al-
Mulqin in “Al-Badr Al-Munīr” (6/687); and “Dha’īf” by Ibn Hajar in “Talkhīs Al-
Habīr” and he declared another longer phrasing to be “Flimsy (Wāh)” (3/980).
190 Trans. Note: This specific phrasing was narrated by Ibn Mājah, from ‘Ā’ishah

(may Allāh be pleased with her), and was declared “Sahīh” by Al-Albānī in
“Sahīh Ibn Mājah” (2,059), and other similar phrasings were declared “Confirmed
(Thābit)” by Ibn Hazm in “Al-Muhallā” (8/118) and Ash-Shawkānī in “As-Sayl Al-
Jarrār” (2/269).



opposes it (i.e. the Religion) is found therein, then it is rejected. Just
as he ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, ‘Whoever performs a deed, which is not in
accordance with our affair (this Religion) - then it is rejected.’ 191 ”

3. And many Verses were narrated with the commandment to
fulfill the covenants and clarifying that this is the description of the
Believers:


‫ﱠﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﹾﻟﺒﺮ ﺃﹶﻥ ُﺗﻮﱡﻮﹾﺍ ﻭ ُﻮﻫﻜﻢ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﹾﻟﻤﺸﺮﻕ ﻭَﺍﹾﻟﻤﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﹶﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﹾﻟﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺁﻣﻦ ﺑﹺﺎﻟﻠﻪ‬
ِ ‫ْ َ ﹺ ﱠ َﻟ ُﺟ َ ﹸ ْ َِ ﹶ َ ْ ﹺ ﹺ َ ْ ﹺ ﹺ َ ِ ﱠ ﹺ ﱠ َ ْ َ َ ﹼ‬
It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness etc.) that you turn your faces
towards east or west (in prayers); but Al-Birr is the one who
believes in Allāh…

– until His, the Most High’s statement:

‫ﻭَﺍﹾﻟ ُﻮ ﹸﻮﻥ ﹺﺑﻌﻬﺪﻫﻢ ﹺﺇﺫﹶﺍ ﻋَﺎﻫ ُﻭﹾﺍ‬
‫َﺪ‬ ْ َِِْ ‫ﻤ ﻓ ﹶ‬
…and who fulfill their covenant (‘Ahd) when they make it… 192


And fulfill (every) covenant. Verily, the covenant (‘Ahd) will be
questioned about. 193

And opposite (to this), it is narrated that breaking the covenants is
from the descriptions of the hypocrites. And regarding it, there is a
strong promise of punishment:


191 Trans. Note: Narrated by Muslim and Ahmad, from ‘Ā’ishah, may Allāh be
pleased with her.
192 Al-Baqarah, 177
193 Al-Isrā’, 34



‫ﻭﻣﺎ ُﻳﻀﻞ ﹺﺑﻪ ﹺﺇﻻ ﺍﹾﻟﻔﹶﺎﺳﻘﲔ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﻳَﻨﻘ ُﻮﻥ ﻋﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣِﻦ َﺑﻌﺪ ﻣِﻴﺜﹶﺎﻗﻪ ﻭَﻳﻘﻄ ُﻮﻥ ﻣَﺎ ﹶﺃﻣﺮ‬
َ َ ‫ْ ِ ِ ِ َ ﹾ ﹶﻌ ﹶ‬ ِ ‫َ ﹸﻀ ﹶ َ ْ َ ﱠ‬ َ ِِ ‫ََ ِ ﱡ ِ ﱠ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﹺﺑﻪ ﺃﹶﻥ ُﻮﺻﻞ ﻭُﻳﻔﺴ ُﻭﻥ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﹸﻭﻟﹶـﺌﻚ ﻫﻢ ﺍﹾﻟﺨَﺎﺳ ُﻭﻥ‬
‫ِﺮ ﹶ‬ ُُ َ ِ ‫َْ ﹺ ﺃ‬ ‫ﱠ ُ ِ ﻳ َ ﹶ َ ﹾ ِﺪ ﹶ‬
And He misleads thereby only those who are Al-fāsiqīn. Those
who break Allāh’s Covenant (‘Ahd) after its ratification, and sever
what Allāh has commanded to be joined, and do mischief in the
land: it is they who are the losers. 194


‫ﻭَﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﻳَﻨﻘ ُﻮﻥ ﻋﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣِﻦ َﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻴﺜﹶﺎﻗﻪ ﻭَﻳﻘﻄ ُﻮﻥ ﻣَﺂ ﹶﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﹺﺑﻪ ﺃﹶﻥ ُﻮﺻﻞ‬
‫ﻳ َﹶ‬ ِ ُ‫َ َ ﹼ‬ ‫ْ ِ ِ ِ ِ َ ﹾ ﹶﻌ ﹶ‬ ِ ‫َ ﹸﻀ ﹶ َ ْ َ ﹼ‬
‫ﻭُﻳﻔﺴ ُﻭﻥ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺃﹸﻭﹶﻟﺌﻚ ﹶﻟ ُ ُ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨ ﹸ ﻭﹶﻟ ُﻢ ُﻮﺀ ﺍﻟ ﱠﺍﺭ‬
‫َ ْ ﹺ ْ ِ َ ﻬﻢ ﱠ َْﺔ َ ﻬ ْ ﺳ ُ ﺪ ﹺ‬ ‫َ ﹾ ِﺪ ﹶ‬
And those who break the Covenant (‘Ahd) of Allāh, after its
ratification, and sever that which Allāh has commanded to be
joined, and do mischief in the land, for them is the curse and for
them is the unhappy (evil) home (i.e. Hell). 195

And the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “(There are) four
things, which whoever possesses them within him, then he is a pure
hypocrite (Munāfiq) and whoever has part of them within him, then there
is a part of hypocrisy (Nifāq) in him, until he leaves it. (These are): when
he is entrusted, he violates it (i.e. the trust). And when he speaks, he lies.
And when he undertakes a covenant (‘Ahd), he breaks it. And when he
disputes, he acts in an offensive, insulting manner.” – Narrated by Al-
Bukhārī from ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Amr, may Allāh be pleased with
them. 196

And there is no doubt that the covenants, which were mentioned in
the aforementioned evidences, are inclusive of the covenants
among the people upon obedience, due to the following evidence:

194 Al-Baqarah, 26-27
195 Ar-Ra’d, 25
196 Trans. Note: Also narrated by Muslim, At-Tirmithī, Abū Dāwūd and Ahmad

with similar phrasings, all from ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Amr, may Allāh be pleased with
them.



4. Allāh, the Most High’s, statement about Ya’qūb, ‫:ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬

ُ ‫ﻗﹶﺎﻝ ﹶﻟﻦ ﹸﺭﺳﻠ ُ ﻣﻌ ﹸﻢ ﺣﱠﻰ ُﺗﺆُﻮﻥ ﻣﻮِﺛﻘﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﹶﻟﺘﺄُﻨﻨﹺﻲ ﹺﺑﻪ ﹺﺇﻻ ﺃﹶﻥ ُﻳﺤَﺎﻁ ﹺﺑﻜﻢ ﻓﻠ ﱠﺎ ﺁَﺗﻮ‬
‫ﹶ ﹸ ْ ﹶ ﹶﻤ ْﻩ‬ ‫ﹶ ْ ﺃ ْ ِ ﹶﻪ َ َﻜ ْ َﺘ ْﺗ ِ َ ْ ﱢ َ ﹼ ِ َ ﹾﺗﱠ ِ ﱠ‬
‫ﻘ ﹸ َ ﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻮِﺛﻘﻬُﻢ ﻗﹶﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﹶﻰ ﻣَﺎ َﻧ ﹸﻮﻝ ﻭﻛِﻴ ﹲ‬
َ ُ‫َ ْ ﹶ ْ ﹶ ﹼ‬
He (Ya’qūb) said: “I will not send him with you until you swear a
solemn promise (Mawthiq) from Allāh, that you will bring him
back to me unless you are yourselves surrounded (by enemies,
etc.),” And when they had sworn their solemn oath to him, he
said: “Allāh is the Witness over what we have said.” 197

So when Yūsuf, ‫ ,ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬requested from his brothers to bring him
one of their brothers from their (same) father, their father would
not entrust them with that and he rejected sending him with them,
until they gave him a promise (Mīthāq). And this promise in the
interactions among the people; Allāh labeled it: “…promise
(Mawthiq) from Allāh…” and to clarify the weight of these
promises, their eldest said – when Yūsuf, ‫ – ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬detained his
brother:

‫ﻗﹶﺎﻝ ﻛﺒ ُ ُﻢ ﹶﺃﹶﻟﻢ َﺗﻌﻠ ُﻮﹾﺍ ﹶﺃﻥ ﹶﺃﺑَﺎﻛﻢ ﻗﺪ ﹶﺃﺧﺬ ﻋﻠﻴ ﹸﻢ ﻣﻮِﺛﻘﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﻣِﻦ ﻗﺒ ﹸ ﻣَﺎ ﻓ ﱠﻃﺘﻢ‬
ْ ُ ‫ﹶ ﹶﹺﲑﻫ ْ ْ ْ ﹶﻤ ﱠ ﹸ ْ ﹶ ْ َ ﹶ َ ﹶ ْﻜ ﱠ ْ ﱢ َ ﹼ ِ َ ﹶ ْﻞ ﹶﺮ‬
‫ﻓِﻲ ُﻮ ُﻒ ﻓﻠﻦ ﹶﺃْﺑﺮﺡ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺣﺘﻰ َﻳﺄﺫﻥ ﻟِﻲ ﹶﺃﺑﹺﻲ ﹶﺃﻭ َﻳﺤ ﹸﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻟِﻲ ﻭ ُﻮ ﺧﻴ ُ ﺍﹾﻟﺤَﺎﻛﻤﲔ‬
َ ِِ ‫ْ ْﻜ َ ﹼ ُ َﻫ َ َ ْﺮ‬ ‫ﻳ ﺳ َ ﹶ ﹶ ْ َ َ َ ْ َ َﱠ َ ﹾ ﹶ ﹶ‬
The eldest among them said: “Know you not that your father did
take a promise (Mawthiqan) from you from Allāh, and before this
you did fail in your duty with Yūsuf? Therefore I will not leave
this land until my father permits me, or Allāh decides my case
(by releasing Yūsuf’s brother) and He is the Best of the judges. 198
199

197 Yūsuf, 66
198 Yūsuf, 80
199 Trans. Note: The point of the author here is to illustrate how seriously and

severe this promise (Mīthāq) was upon Ya’qūb’s eldest son, such that he was not
willing to break it and preferred instead to remain alone in this foreign land until
either his father allowed him to return or until he could bring back Benjamin
(their brother). And how many of us nowadays are willing to hold this
steadfastness to our pledges, covenants and promises?



5. Allāh, the Most High’s statement, concerning the condition
(Shart), which Al-Khidhr took from Mūsā, ‫ ,ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬in order to
accompany him, as well as the condition, which Mūsā, ‫,ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬
placed upon himself:

As for the condition of Al-Khidhr, it is in His, the Most High’s
statement:

‫ﻗﹶﺎﻝ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﱠﺗﺒﻌﺘﻨﹺﻲ ﻓﻠﹶﺎ َﺗﺴﺄﹾﻟﻨﹺﻲ ﻋَﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺣﱠﻰ ﹸﺣﺪﺙ ﹶﻟﻚ ﻣﻨ ُ ﺫﻛﺮًﺍ‬
‫َ ْ ٍ َﺘ ﺃ ْ ِ ﹶ َ ِ ْﻪ ِ ﹾ‬ ‫ﹶ ﹶﹺ ِ َ َْ ﹶ ْ ﹶ‬
He (Khidhr) said: “Then, if you follow me, ask me not about
anything till I myself mention it to you.” 200

And as for the condition, which Mūsā placed upon himself, it is in
His, the Most High’s statement:

‫ﻗﹶﺎﻝ ﺇﹺﻥ ﺳﺄﹾﻟُﻚ ﻋَﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ َﺑﻌﺪﻫَﺎ ﻓﻠﹶﺎ ُﺗﺼَﺎﺣﺒﻨﹺﻲ ﻗﺪ َﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﻣِﻦ ﱠﻟﺪﱢﻲ ﻋﺬﺭًﺍ‬
‫ُﻧ ُ ﹾ‬ َ ْ ‫ِْ ﹶ ْ ﹶ‬ ‫َ ٍْ ْ َ ﹶ‬ َ ‫ﹶ َﹶ ﺘ‬
He (Mūsā) said: “If I ask you about anything after this, keep me
not in your company, you have received an excuse from me.” 201

And Al-Bukhārī (may Allāh be merciful to him) entered a chapter
about this issue within “The Book of Conditions” from his “Sahīh”.
And it is: “Chapter: The Conditions Among the People Through
Statements.” And he narrated within it, the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās,
from Ubay Ibn Ka’b (may Allāh be pleased with them both) from
the Prophet ‫ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬concerning the story of Mūsā with Al-
Khidhr, ‫“ .ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬The first (violation) was (due to) forgetfulness, and
the second (promise) became a condition (upon him) and the third
(violation) was intentional.” 202

Ibn Hajar said, “And he indicated the condition with his statement,
‘If I ask you anything after this, keep me not in your company,’ as
well as the (subsequent) compliance of Mūsā upon that (condition),
and they did not write that (condition), nor did they bring anyone

200 Al-Kahf, 70
201 Al-Kahf, 76
202 Hadīth #2,728



as a witness. And in it there is evidence for acting upon that which
the condition indicates, because Al-Khidhr said to Mūsā, when he
broke the condition, ‘This is the parting between me and you.’
And Mūsā did not object to that, may peace be upon them both.” 203

So these aforementioned evidences clarify the permissibility of the
covenants (Uhūd) and the promises (Mawāthīq) and the conditions
(Shurūt) among the people, upon obedience. And I will add
clarification to this with some of what is narrated from the
Companions (Sahābah) and the Pious Predecessors (Salaf As-Sālih),
concerning the covenants and promises:

6. From it, is what Al-Bukhārī narrated within “The Book of
Merits”: “Chapter: The Islām of Abū Tharr Al-Ghifārī.” From Ibn
‘Abbās, that Abū Tharr – when (news that a) Prophet ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
was sent (by Allāh) reached him – he came to Makkah. So ‘Alī saw
him and new he was a stranger (i.e. a foreigner), so ‘Alī said to him,
‘Will you not tell me what brought you here?’ Abū Tharr said, ‘If
you give me a covenant (‘Ahd) and a promise (Mīthāq), that you will
guide me (to what I seek), then I will.’ So he did and Abū Tharr
informed him. ‘Alī replied, ‘Verily, he (i.e. the Prophet) is true and
he is the Messenger of Allāh ‫402 ”.ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬

7. And also, there is what Al-Bukhārī narrated, as well, in “The
Book of the Virtues of the Companions (Sahābah)”: “Chapter: The
Event of the Pledge of Allegiance (Al-Bay’ah) and the Agreement
Upon ‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Affān.” And in that chapter, was (the incident
of) ‘Umar (may Allāh be pleased with him) leaving the Khilāfah
after him, to the six (selected) members of the consultation (Ash-
Shūrā). So three declined (to be the Khalīfah) until ‘Abdur-Rahmān
Ibn ‘Awf, ‘Uthmān and ‘Alī remained. ‘Amr Ibn Maymūn, the
narrator of the Hadīth, said, ‘So ‘Abdur-Rahmān said, “Now which
of you two is willing to give up his right of candidacy so that we
may give it to him, and Allāh and Islām will be upon him (as

“Fat’h Al-Bārī” (5/326)
203

Refer to Hadīth #3,861. Trans. Note: Also narrated by Muslim with a similar
204

phrasing.



witnesses), that he will look to who is better in his self.’ So both the
two Shaykhs (i.e. ‘Uthmān and ‘Alī) remained silent. So ‘Abdur-
Rahmān said, ‘Do you both leave this matter to me, and Allāh is
upon me (as a witness), that I will not choose except the better one
from you.’ They both said, ‘Yes.’ So he (‘Abdur-Rahmān) took the
hand of one of them (i.e. ‘Alī) and said, ‘You have the relation of
the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬and one of the earliest
Muslims as you know well. So Allāh is upon you (as a witness) to
promise that if I select you as a ruler you will do justice, and if I
select ‘Uthmān as a ruler you will listen and obey.’ Then he took
the other (i.e. ‘Uthmān) aside and said the same to him. Then when
he (‘Abdur-Rahmān) secured (their agreement to) this covenant
(‘Ahd), he said, ‘O ‘Uthmān, raise your hand.’ So he (i.e. ‘Abdur-
Rahmān) gave him (i.e. ‘Uthmān) the Pledge of Allegiance, and
then ‘Alī gave him the Pledge of Allegiance and then all of the
people of the house entered and gave him the Pledge of Allegiance
(Al-Bay’ah).” 205

And the testimony from what has passed, is the approval of the
Companions (Sahābah) and their acting upon the covenants and
promises which were amongst them, as in the event of Abū Tharr,
which contains a covenant (‘Ahd) and promise (Mīthāq) between
‘Alī and him. And also from the event of the Pledge of Allegiance
(Al-Bay’ah) of ‘Uthmān, there is a covenant (‘Ahd) and promise
(Mīthāq) that ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn ‘Awf took from ‘Uthmān and
‘Alī, may Allāh be pleased with them all.

And a group of the Companions (Sahābah) used the term “Bay’ah”
for these covenants and promises. So from that:

8. That which was done by ‘Ikrimah Ibn Abī Jahl on the Day of
Yarmūk; Ibn Kathīr said, “And Sayf Ibn ‘Umar mentioned, from Abī
‘Uthmān Al-Ghassānī, from his father, who said, ‘ ‘Ikrimah Ibn Abī
Jahl said, on the Day of Yarmūk, ‘I fought against the Messenger of
Allāh ‫( ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬before entering Islām) on (many) occasions, and
I would flee from you today?!’ Then he called out, ‘Who will give

205 Hadīth #2,700



the Pledge of Allegiance (Al-Bay’ah) for Death?!’ So his uncle, Al-
Hārith Ibn Hishām and Dhirār Ibn Al-Azwar (gave the Bay’ah)
along with four hundred of the Muslims and their knights (Fursān).
So they fought in the front ranks of Khālid (Ibn Walīd) until they
were all wounded, while some of them were killed, including
Dhirār Ibn Al-Azwar, may Allāh be pleased with them. And Al-
Wāqidī, and others, mentioned that when they fell down from
injuries, they asked to drink water – and when it was brought to
one of them, he would see another (injured man), and he would
say, “Give him the water,” – and when it was offered to him, he
would see another (injured man), and he would say, “Give him the
water,”; So each one of them refused to drink the water to give it to
the other brother, until all of them died, and none had drunk the
water. May Allāh be well pleased with them all.” 206

And Ibn Kathīr said, “Sayf Ibn ‘Umar said, with his chain of
narration (Isnād) from his teachers, ‘They said that in that assembly
– the army of the Muslims at Yarmūk – were one thousand men
from the Companions (Sahābah), and from them, were one hundred
from the People of Badr.” 207

So this was a Pledge of Allegiance (Bay’ah) between a man, who
was not the Amīr of the army, and a group of soldiers, upon an act
of obedience; and he was ‘Ikrimah, the great companion (Sahābī).
And from those who gave Bay’ah to him (likewise) were great
companions (Sahābah). And this took place in the presence of
Khālid; the Amīr of these soldiers. And just as Ibn Kathīr narrated
that one thousand of the Companions (Sahābah) were present
during this event, there was no mention of any objection from any
of them in response to this action of ‘Ikrimah. So the taking place of
this kind of Bay’ah, in the presence of a group such as this one (i.e.
the Companions), is evidence for their approval of it.

9. And at Siffīn, during the battle between ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib and
Mu’āwiyah Ibn Abī Sufyān, may Allāh be pleased with them both,
in the front lines of ‘Alī’s army – the people of ‘Irāq – was Qays Ibn

206 “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (7/11-12)
207 “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (7/9)



Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubādah (may Allāh be pleased with them both). And At-
Tabarī narrated with an authentic chain from Yūnus Ibn Zayd from
Az-Zuhrī, who said, “‘Alī placed Qays Ibn Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubādah at the
head of the people of ‘Irāq. And they were forty-thousand (in
number), and they gave him Bay’ah for Death.” 208

And what was said regarding the Bay’ah of ‘Ikrimah, is also to be
said about the Bay’ah of Qays (may Allāh be pleased with them
both). And neither of them were the general Amīr of the soldiers,
nor the Khalīfah of the Muslims, rather (he was merely) an Amīr of a
division (Tā’ifah) of the army.

My intention from all that has preceded, is to clarify that the
covenants (‘Uhūd) and promises (Mawāthīq) – and these can be
called “Bay’ah” – amongst the Muslims, are allowed upon the
performance of obedience. And I mentioned what took place
between the Prophet of Allāh, Ya’qūb ‫ ,ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬and his sons, and
what took place between Mūsā and Al-Khidhr. And I mentioned
what covenants occurred between the Companions (Sahābah),
during the life of the Prophet ‫ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬and what occurred
among them after his death, without any objection from any of
them, which makes us include this (i.e. it’s permissibility) beneath
the list of the consensus (Ijmā’) of the Companions (Sahābah), such
as the promise (Mīthāq) which ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn ‘Awf took from
‘Uthmān and ‘Alī as well as the Bay’ah of ‘Ikrimah and Qays Ibn
Sa’d, may Allāh be pleased with them. And I also narrated what
Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned, regarding the legality of
the covenants between the teachers and their students and the
obligation of fulfilling them, as long as they are upon the
performance of acts of obedience (Tā’āt). And he (may Allāh be
merciful to him) (even) mentioned a phrasing of this covenant
(‘Ahd) by way of example.

And all of this is for the clarification of the legality of these
covenants.

208 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/63)



Point of Notice: Someone might say, “Your aforementioned words,
concerning the legality of these covenants among the Muslims,
upon the performance of the acts of obedience, is contradicted by
the Hadīth of the Prophet ‫“ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬There is no pledge (Hilf) in
Islām.”

The answer: There is no contradiction between the two, In Shā’
Allāh Ta’āla. Rather, the Hadīth, “There is no pledge (Hilf) in Islām,” is
in-and-of-itself, a strong argument in support of what I mentioned
regarding the legality of the covenants among the Muslims upon
the performance of the acts of obedience.

Ar-Rāghib said, “Al-Hilf is the covenant between the people; and
the formation of a pledge (Al-Muhālafah) means the formation of a
covenant (Al-Mu’āhadah, i.e. agreement, pact) and it is made in
order for it to be adhered to because of the pact.” And he said,
“And Al-Hilf (the pledge); its root is based in Al-Yamīn (the vow)
that each person would take from the other for Al-‘Ahd (the
covenant). And then (it later) was used to mean any vow (Yamīn).”
209

As for the Hadīths in which “Al-Hilf” is narrated; they are the Hadīth
of Jubayr, in the negation of the pledge (Hilf) and the Hadīth of
Anas in the affirmation of it:

1. From Jubayr Ibn Mut’im that the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “There is no pledge (Hilf) in Islām; and any pledge (Hilf) which
existed in the Days of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic days of Ignorance) - Islām
did not increase it at all except in rigorousness.” 210
2. From ‘Āsim Al-Ahwal, who said, “I said to Anas, ‘Has it
reached you that the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, ‘There is no pledge
(Hilf) in Al-Islām?’ So Anas Ibn Mālik said, ‘The Prophet ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬

209 Refer to “Al-Mufradāt Fī Gharīb Al-Qur’ān”, by Ar-Rāghib Al-Asfahānī: the
topic “Hilf”.
210 Narrated by Muslim in “The Book of Virtues: Chapter of the Forming of

Brotherhood by the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Among the Companions,” may Allāh
be pleased with them.



‫ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬made a pledge (Hilf) between Quraysh and the Ansār in my
home [Dār (i.e. city of Madīnah)].” – Agreed upon. And Muslim
narrated it via three paths: the path of the Shaykh of Al-Bukhārī,
Muhammad Ibn As-Sabbāh, and from the path of Abū Bakr Ibn Abī
Shaybah, and from the path of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdillāh Ibn
Numayr. And Muslim narrated it within the aforementioned
chapter, and Al-Bukhārī narrated it within the “Chapter: The
Development of Brotherhood and Al-Hilf”, within “The Book of
Etiquette”. And it has come in the narration of Abū Dāwūd from
the narration of Sufyān Ibn ‘Uyaynah from ‘Āsim, who said, “I
heard Anas Ibn Mālik saying, ‘There was a pledge (Hilf) made…”
and then he mentioned it with the word “… Muhājirīn…” instead of
“… Quraysh…” So it was said to him, “Did he not say, ‘There is no
pledge (Hilf) in Al-Islām’? He said, ‘He made a pledge (Hilf)…” and
then he mentioned it similarly and did so two or three times more.”
211

And since the outward appearance of the Ahādīth seems
contradictory, the reconciliation between them (is as follows):

i) Ibn Al-Athīr said, “Topic: ‘Al-Hilf’: Regarding it there is – ‘He ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬made a Hilf between (the tribe of) Quraysh and the Helpers
(Ansār),’ and in another Hadīth, Anas (may Allāh be pleased with
him) said, ‘He ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬made a Hilf between the Emigrants
(Muhājirīn) and the Helpers (Ansār) in our home [Dār (i.e. city of
Madīnah)] twice.’ In other words, he made brotherhood between
them and formed a covenant (‘Ahd).

And in another Hadīth, ‘There is no Hilf in Islām.’ The origin of ‘Al-
Hilf’ is to form a contract (‘Aqd) and a covenant (‘Ahd) upon
cooperation, assistance, and agreement. So whatever of that existed
during the Days of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic days of Ignorance), upon
chaos and fighting among the tribes and the raids - then those are
the ones about which the forbiddance was narrated in Islām, in his
statement, ‘There is no Hilf in Islām’; And whatever from it existed in

211 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (10/501-502)



the Days of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic days of Ignorance) upon
supporting the oppressed and maintaining the ties of kinship, such
as the Pledge of the Good-doers (Hilf Al-Mutayyibīn) 212 and
whatever resembles it, then that is what he ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬pointed to
with his saying: ‘And any Hilf, which was in Jāhiliyyah, then Islām did
not increase it except in rigorousness,’ intending the formation of
contracts (‘Uqūd) upon goodness and the support of Truth. And in
this way, the two Hadīths are reconciled. And this is the Hilf, which
Islām necessitates. But the ones which are to be abandoned, are
those that contradict the ruling (Hukm) of Islām. And it has also
been claimed that the formation of a pledge (Al-Muhālafah) only
existed before the Fat’h [Conquest of Makkah] and that his saying,
‘There is no Hilf in Islām,’ was said at the time of the Conquest, so it
was an abrogator [Nāsikh] (of its previous permissibility).” 213

I say: Here, Ibn Al-Athīr mentioned how to reconcile these two
Hadīths. He said, “And in this way, the two Hadīths are reconciled.”
Then he mentioned the possibility of abrogation with a phrase
which indicates weakness, as he said, “And it has also been claimed
that the formation of a pledge (Al-Muhālafah) only existed before
the Fat’h [Conquest of Makkah]…” – until his saying– “… so it was
an abrogator.” And it is correct for this abrogation to be mentioned
with a phrase of weakness, due to the following:

212Trans. Note: “Hilf Al-Mutayyibīn”: This was a covenant which took place in
Jāhiliyyah, when the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬was a child. From ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn
‘Awf (may Allāh be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allāh, ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said: “When I was a boy, I witnessed the Hilf Al-Mutayyibīn with my uncles, so
I do not wish that I would have Humr An-Ni’am, lest I would break it.” Narrated by
Imām Ahmad. Ibn Hajar said within his Sharh of he Hadīth of Anas: “The Hilf Al-
Mutayyibīn was a while before the sending (of the Prophet ‫ ,)ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Ibn
Is’hāq and others mentioned it. And a group from Quraysh came together, then
they formed a covenant (‘Aqd) upon supporting the oppressed and being just
between the people and the likes of that from the characteristics of goodness.
And that continued until after the sending (of the Prophet ‫ ”.)ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Imām
Ahmad Shākir declared two phrasings of this Hadīth as “Sahīh” in “Musnad
Ahmad”, 3/121, 136). Shaykh Al-Albānī also declared them “Sahīh” in “Sahīh Al-
Jāmi’” (3,717) “Sahīh Al-Adab Al-Mufrad” (441).
213 Refer to “An-Nihāyah Fī Gharīb Al-Hadīth” (1/424-425), by Ibn Al-Athīr.



Because the abrogation (Naskh) is not arrived at through a
possibility, and this is because the abrogation implies the
abolishment of one of the two texts, which are in contradiction with
one another, which prevents acting upon it (i.e. the earlier text).
And the abolishment (Ta’tīl) of an evidence of the Sharī’ah cannot
be declared merely due to a possibility, especially without being
certain of the dates (in which each of the texts was narrated).

And also because the abrogation is not arrived at through
deductive reasoning (Ijtihād), except when it is impossible to
reconcile the two contradictory texts. And in this case (of these two
Hadīths on the Hilf), reconciliation is possible and was pointed out,
as Ibn Al-Athīr stated. And the statements of An-Nawawī and Ibn
Hajar will be presented soon, In Shā’ Allāh.

As for the objection to the claim of abrogation, it is sufficient for
you to see the objection of Anas towards ‘Āsim Al-Ahwal,
concerning his understanding of the forbiddance of the Hilf. And
this is a clear text from the Companion (Sahābī), after the death of
the Messenger ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬and the end of the (revealing of the)
Divine Legislation, in which he affirms the Hilf and the formation
of a pledge (Muhālafah). And Anas reaffirmed his statement (by
mentioning) that this formation of a pledge (Muhālafah) took place,
two or three times, as in the narration of Abū Dāwūd.

It is therefore understood from this, that the pledge (Hilf), which is
forbidden is one thing, and the pledge (Hilf) which is affirmed is
another thing. This is because Anas did not say to ‘Āsim that the
Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬did not utter this Hadīth, rather he only
mentioned to him the type of this pledge which the Prophet ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬formed between his Companions (Sahābah). So regarding the
formation of a pledge (Muhālafah); from it is that which forbidden,
and from it is that which is permitted. And the description of each
of them is like what Ibn Al-Athīr mentioned beforehand and like
what will be presented in the words of An-Nawawī and Ibn Hajar,



In Shā’ Allāh. And the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās will be presented in the
Tafsīr of His, the Most High’s, saying:

‫ﻭَﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﻋﻘﺪﺕ ﹶﺃْﻳﻤَﺎُﻧﻜﻢ‬
ْ‫ﹸ‬ ْ َ ‫َ َﹶ‬
To those also with whom you have made a pledge… 214

And you will see that the possibility of an abrogation was not even
mentioned by An-Nawawī, nor by Ibn Hajar.

ii) Ibn Hajar said, “The response of Anas included the objection to the
beginning of the Hadīth because in it, there is a negation of the Hilf.
And there is affirmation of it in what he said there. And
reconciliation is possible (because) that which was negated was the
pledges they used to make during the Days of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic
days of Ignorance) upon supporting the ally (Halīf), even if he is an
oppressor (Thālim), and taking vengeance from the tribe in the
event that one of them is murdered, as well as from inheritance and
things like that. Yet the affirmed form (of pledge) includes all other
types besides that, from supporting the oppressed and establishing
the commands of the Religion (Dīn), and the likes of that of the
beloved things in the Sharī’ah, such as companionship, mutual
affection, and the preservation of the covenant (‘Ahd). And the
Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās has passed concerning the abrogation of the
inheritance between the contracted people (Muta’āqidīn). And Ad-
Dāwūdī mentioned that they used to always leave one-sixth (of
inheritance) to the carrier of the pledge (Halīf), then it became
abrogated…” – until he said – “… An-Nawawī said, ‘What was
negated was the Hilf of inheritance and that which the (Islāmic)
Legislation prevents; as for the forming of a pledge (Muhālafah)
upon the obedience of Allāh and supporting the oppressed, and
brotherhood for (the sake of) Allāh - then this is a matter that is
encouraged.” 215

iii) And An-Nawawī said, “Al-Qādhī said, ‘At-Tabarī said, ‘It is not
permissible to make the Hilf today, nor the inheriting based upon it

214 An-Nisā’, 33
215 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (10/502)



and the formation of brotherhood (upon it), because that which was
mentioned in the Hadīth; all of that is abrogated due to His, the
Most High’s, statement: “But kindred by blood are nearer to one
another (regarding inheritance in the decree ordained by
Allāh)…” [Al-Anfāl, 75]. And Al-Hasan said, ‘The inheritance used
to be by the pledge (Al-Hilf) but then it became abrogated by the
‘Verse of Inheritance’ (i.e. the aforementioned Verse).’ I say: As for
inheritance (by the pledge), it is desirable to oppose it according to
the all of the scholars. But as for formation of brotherhood upon
Islām, and the formation of a pledge (Muhālafah) upon obedience of
Allāh, the Most High, and to support and assist each other in
righteousness (Birr) and piety (Taqwā) and establishing the Truth;
then this remains and is not abrogated. And this is the meaning of
his statement in these Hadīths: ‘And any pledge (Hilf), which was in
Jāhiliyyah, then Islām did not increase it except in rigorousness.’ And as
for his statement, ‘There is no Hilf in Islām,’ then what is meant by it
is the pledge of inheritance and the pledge upon that which the
(Islāmic) Legislation prohibited. And Allāh knows best.” 216

I say: So these are the sayings of Ibn Hajar and An-Nawawī
concerning the reconciliation between the two Hadīths, which
clarifies that the negated pledge (Hilf), is the pledge (Hilf) of
inheritance and that which the (Islāmic) Legislation has forbidden;
And it is the Hadīth of Jubayr Ibn Mut’im. And (they also clarified)
that the affirmed pledge (Hilf) is that which is in the Hadīth of Anas
– which is the formation of a pledge (Muhālafah) upon the
obedience of Allāh, the Most High, and assisting each other for the
Religion (Dīn), and working together in righteousness (Birr) and
piety (Taqwā), and establishing the Truth. And these words support
what I said beforehand regarding the legitimacy of having a
covenant between the Muslims, upon the performance of the acts of
obedience.

iv) What was narrated in the Tafsīr of His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭَﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﻋﻘﺪﺕ ﹶﺃْﻳﻤَﺎُﻧﻜﻢ ﻓﹶﺂُﻮﻫﻢ َﻧﺼِﻴﺒﻬﻢ‬
ْ َُ ْ ُ ‫ﹸ ْ ﺗ‬ ْ َ ‫َ َﹶ‬
216 “Sahīh Muslim Bi’Sharh An-Nawawī” (16/81-82)



To those also with whom you have made a pledge (brotherhood),
give them their due portion (by Wasiyyah, wills, etc.)… 217

It has come in the words of An-Nawawī that the negated pledge
(Hilf) (which is narrated in the Hadīth of), “There is no Hilf in Islām,”
- this (prohibition) includes the Hilf of inheritance. And in the
words of Ibn Hajar, he said, “And the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās has
preceded concerning the abrogation of the inheritance between the
contracted people (Muta’āqidīn).”

And in this issue – of the abrogation of inheritance between those
who have formed a pledge (Hilf) [with each other] – has been
narrated in the following Verses:

The Verse from An-Nisā’: His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭِﻟ ﹸﻞ ﺟﻌﻠﻨَﺎ ﻣﻮَﺍِﻟﻲ ﻣ ﱠﺎ َﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﹾﻟﻮَﺍِﻟﺪَﺍﻥ ﻭَﺍﻷﻗﺮُﻮﻥ ﻭَﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﻋﻘﺪﺕ ﹶﺃْﻳﻤَﺎُﻧﻜﻢ ﻓﹶﺂُﻮﻫﻢ‬
ُْ ‫ﹸْ ﺗ‬ ْ َ ‫َ َﹶ‬ ‫ِ َ ﹾ َﺑ ﹶ‬ َ َ ‫َ ﻜ ﱟ َ َ ﹾ َ َ ِﻤ‬
‫َﻧﺼِﻴﺒﻬﻢ ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻛﹶﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﹶﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺷﻬﹺﻴﺪًﺍ‬
َ ٍْ َ ‫َ ُ ْ ﱠ ﹼَ ﹶ َ ﹸ ﱢ‬
And to everyone, We have appointed heirs of that (property) left
by parents and relatives. To those also with whom you have
made a pledge, give them their due portion (by Wasiyyah, wills,
etc.). Truly, Allāh is Ever a Witness over all things. 218

The Verse from Al-Anfāl: His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭﹸﺃﻭﹸﻮﹾﺍ ﺍﻷﺭﺣَﺎﻡ َﺑﻌ ُ ُﻢ ﹶﺃﻭﻟﹶﻰ ﹺﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﻓِﻲ ﻛﺘَﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ‬
ِ ‫َ ْﻟ َ ْ ﹺ ْ ﻀ ﻬ ْ ْ َ ْ ﹴ ِ ﹺ ﹼ‬
And blood relations among each other have closer personal ties
(regarding inheritance), in the Decree of Allāh 219

The Verse from Al-Ahzāb: His, the Most High’s, statement:

217 An-Nisā’, 33
218 An-Nisā’, 33
219 Al-Anfāl, 75



‫ﻭﹸﺃﻭﹸﻮ ﺍﹾﻟﺄﺭﺣَﺎﻡ َﺑﻌ ُ ُﻢ ﹶﺃﻭﻟﹶﻰ ﹺﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﻓِﻲ ﻛﺘَﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﹾﻟﻤُﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﻭَﺍﹾﻟﻤﻬَﺎﺟﺮﹺﻳﻦ ﹺﺇﱠﺎ ﺃﹶﻥ‬
‫ِ ﹺ ﱠ ِ ِ َ ْ ِﹺ َ ُ ﹺ َ ﻟ‬ ‫َ ْﻟ ﹶ ْ ﹺ ْ ﻀ ﻬ ْ ْ َ ْ ﹴ‬
‫َﺗﻔﻌ ﹸﻮﺍ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﹶﺃﻭِﻟﻴَﺎِﺋ ﹸﻢ ﻣﻌ ُﻭﻓﹰﺎ‬
‫ْ ﻜ ﱠ ْﺮ‬ ‫ﹾ َﻠ‬
(regarding inheritance), in the Decree of Allāh, than (the
brotherhood of) the Believers and the Muhajirīn (emigrants from
Makkah), except that you do kindness to your allies. 220

I say: The Tafsīr of these Verses should be reviewed from the
famous Tafsīrs such as At-Tabarī, Al-Qurtubī and Ibn Kathīr. And I
will summarize herein for you, that which relates to our subject;
that being the abrogation of inheritance from the pledge (Hilf). So I
say:

During the Days of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic period of Ignorance), two
men would form a pledge (Hilf) to support each other and to inherit
from one another. And in the beginning of Islām, and even until
after the Emigration (Hijrah), the Emigrant (Muhājir) would inherit
from the Helper (Ansārī), due to the brotherhood that the Prophet
‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬formed between them. So the one to whom the pledge
was given would receive all of the inheritance after the death of the
one to whom he pledged, instead of the blood relatives (Raham) of
the deceased. So the abrogation of this came in two stages.

The first: with His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭِﻟ ﹸﻞ ﺟﻌﻠﻨَﺎ ﻣﻮَﺍِﻟﻲ‬
َ َ ‫َ ﻜ ﱟ ََﹾ‬
And to everyone, We have appointed heirs…

- until His statement:

‫ﻭَﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﻋﻘﺪﺕ ﹶﺃْﻳﻤَﺎُﻧﻜﻢ ﻓﹶﺂُﻮﻫﻢ َﻧﺼِﻴﺒﻬﻢ‬
ْ َُ ْ ُ ‫ﹸ ْ ﺗ‬ ْ َ ‫َ َﹶ‬
… those also with whom you have made a pledge, give them their
due portion.

220 Al-Ahzāb, 6



So this Verse made the inheritance to be shared between the blood
relatives (Raham) of the deceased –

‫ﻭِﻟ ﹸﻞ ﺟﻌﻠﻨَﺎ ﻣﻮَﺍِﻟﻲ‬
َ َ ‫َ ﻜ ﱟ ََﹾ‬
And to everyone, We have appointed heirs…

- with the one who was pledged (Halīf)–

‫ﻭَﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﻋﻘﺪﺕ ﹶﺃْﻳﻤَﺎُﻧﻜﻢ‬
ْ‫ﹸ‬ ْ َ ‫َ َﹶ‬
… those also with whom you have made a pledge…

And the one who was pledged (Halīf) came to receive one-sixth of
what remained (of the inheritance) as opposed to all of what
remained.

The second: With His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭﹸﺃﻭﹸﻮ ﺍﹾﻟﺄﺭﺣَﺎﻡ َﺑﻌ ُ ُﻢ ﹶﺃﻭﻟﹶﻰ ﹺﺑﺒﻌﺾ‬
‫َ ْﻟ ﹶ ْ ﹺ ْ ﻀ ﻬ ْ ْ َ ْ ﹴ‬
(regarding inheritance)…

This Verse abrogated the inheritance of the one who was pledged
(Halīf) completely and no share of what remained was granted to
him. However, it was still possible to bequeath (some inheritance)
to him. And despite the abrogation of inheritance, the right of
support for the one who was pledged (Halīf) remained intact, as the
saying of Ibn ‘Abbās will come.

And this clarifies to you the negated pledge (Hilf) - and from it is
the abrogation of the inheritance by pledge - as well as clarifiying
to you the affirmed pledge (Hilf) - which is the support (and
assistance).

And I will mention, in that which follows, the statements of the
leaders of the scholars (‘Ulamā’), concerning that which I have
mentioned beforehand. And from the best of what was said about



this matter, is what Ibn Hajar collected regarding this. As Al-
Bukhārī narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allāh be pleased with them
both), who said:

“And to everyone, We have appointed heirs…” – (meaning) the
inheritors. “Those also with whom you have made a pledge…” –
‘When the Emigrants (Muhājirīn) came to Madīnah, the Emigrant
(Muhājir) would inherit from the Helper (Ansārī), instead of the
blood relatives (Raham), due to the brotherhood that the Prophet
‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬made between them. So when: “And to everyone, We
have appointed heirs…” was revealed, this became abrogated.
Then Allāh said: “Those also with whom you have made a
pledge…” of support, assistance, and advice (would remain), and
the inheritance was gone [i.e. was abrogated], yet he could still
bequeath to him.” 221

Ibn Hajar said, “His statement: “Those also with whom you have
made a pledge…” – ‘When the Emigrants (Muhājirīn) came to
Madīnah, the Emigrant (Muhājir) would inherit from the Helper
(Ansārī), instead of the blood relatives (Raham), due to the
brotherhood…’ This was how Ibn ‘Abbās understood it and that
this (Verse) was for those to whom the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬had
formed the brotherhood between. And he also understood it more
generally than that as At-Tabarī narrated from him that he said, ‘A
man would make a pledge (Hilf) with a man to whom he had no
blood relation, for one of them would inherit from the other. Later,
that was abrogated.’ And from the path of Sa’īd Ibn Jubayr, he said,
‘A man would make a contract (‘Aqd) with another man, then he
would inherit from him. And Abū Bakr made a contract (‘Aqd) with
his freed slave so he inherited from him. His (i.e. Ibn ‘Abbās’s)
statement ‘So when the Verse: “And to everyone, We have
appointed heirs…” was revealed, it (i.e. this inheritance) was
abrogated.’ This is how it came in this narration; that the abrogator
(Nāsikh) of the inheritance of the one who was pledged (Halīf) was
this Verse. And At-Tabarī narrated from the path of ‘Alī Ibn Abī
Talhah from Ibn ‘Abbās, saying, ‘A man used to form a contract

221 Refer to Hadīth #4,580 within “The Book of Tafsīr”.



(‘Aqd) with another man. So if he died, the other one would inherit
from him. So Allāh, Glorious is He, revealed: “And blood relations
among each other have closer personal ties (regarding
inheritance), in the Decree of Allāh, than (the brotherhood of) the
Believers and the Muhajirīn (emigrants from Makkah), except
that you do kindness to your allies.” He (i.e. Ibn ‘Abbās) said,
‘Allāh is saying ‘… unless you bequeath for the allies to whom you
have formed contracts (‘Uqūd) with.’ And from the path of
Qatādah: ‘That a man would form a contract (‘Aqd) with a man in
the Days of Jāhiliyyah, then say, ‘My blood is your blood, you shall
inherit from me and I shall inherit from you.’ So when Islām came,
they were ordered to grant them their share of the inheritance; that
being one-sixth. Later this became abrogated by the (Verse of)
inheritance. So He said: ‘And blood relations among each other
have closer personal ties …’ And likewise, from several paths,
from a group of the scholars (‘Ulamā’) - and this is the (opinion
considered most) reliable.

And it is also possible that this abrogation took place two times (i.e.
in two stages). The first, when the contractor (Mu’āqid) would
inherit (from the deceased), instead of the family (of the deceased)
inheriting. So when (the Verse): “And to everyone…” was revealed
– which is the Verse of this chapter – then they all (i.e. the Mu’āqid
and the family members) collectively inherited (from the deceased).
And upon this (understanding), the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās should be
held. Then the Verse in Al-Ahzāb abrogated that, and the
inheritance became restricted to the family; yet, support and
assistance and such, still remained for the contractor (Mu’āqid). And
upon this (understanding), the remaining narrations (Āthār) should
be understood. And Ibn ‘Abbās implied this (meaning) in his
Hadīth as well; however, he did not mention the second abrogator.
Yet it must be there, 222 and Allāh knows best.’

His (i.e. Ibn ‘Abbās’s) statement, ‘Then Allāh said: “Those also
with whom you have made a pledge…” of support, assistance, and

222Trans. Note: Meaning the fact that Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allāh be pleased with
them both), alluded to the second stage of abrogation, means that there must be a
second Āyah with which the abrogation could have taken place.



advice (would remain), and the inheritance was gone [i.e. was
abrogated], yet he could still bequeath to him.’ This is what was
presented in it yet something was missing from it, which At-Tabarī
mentioned in his narration from Abū Kurayb from Abū Usāmah
with his chain of narration (Isnād). And its phrasing was, ‘Then He
said: ‘Those also with whom you have made a pledge, give them
their due portion.’ – of support, etc…” 223 [End of the words of Ibn
Hajar]

And Shaykh Ahmad Shākir endorsed these words of Ibn Hajar,
which is that the abrogation of the inheriting of the one who was
pledged (Halīf) took place twice (in two stages). He said, “This is a
great and splendid evaluation (Tahqīq) from Al-Hāfith Ibn Hajar.
And the second abrogator – in other words: “And blood relations
among each other have closer personal ties…” – Ibn ‘Abbās also
mentioned this in the other two narrations from At-Tabarī, which
both indicate that the first narration - the narration of Al-Bukhārī –
was shortened (Ikhtisār)…” – until Ahmad Shākir said – “… And
the meaning of the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās would be what comes
through the reconciliation of his (various) narrations, that His
statement: “Those also with whom you have made a pledge, give
them their due portion.” – meaning their share of the inheritance
(i.e. one-sixth). Then the Verse from Al-Ahzāb came: “And blood
relations among each other have closer personal ties (regarding
inheritance), in the Decree of Allāh, than (the brotherhood of) the
Believers and the Muhajirīn (emigrants from Makkah), except
that you do kindness to your allies.” So the inheritance was gone
(i.e. was abrogated), but what remained was being generous to
them in the form of bequeaths, and support, aiding and sincere
conduct. And that is the ‘kindness’ that was left after the
inheritance was gone (i.e. abrogated).” 224

And the summary from all that which has preceded, is that there is
no contradiction between the Hadīth, “There is no Hilf in Islām,” and
the Hadīth of Anas, “The Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬made a pledge (Hilf)

223 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (8/247-249)
224 “‘Umdat At-Tafsīr Mukhtasar Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr” (3/163)



between Quraysh and the Ansār…” So that which is negated is the
Hilf of inheritance and the formation of pledges (Muhālafah) upon
that which the (Islāmic) Legislation forbids; whereas that which has
been affirmed, is the formation of pledges (Muhālafah) upon the
performance of the obligations (Wājibāt) of the Religion. And this is
the reconciliation between these two Hadīths, which was chosen by
An-Nawawī, Ibn Hajar and Ibn Al-Athīr. 225 And since his
statement, “There is no Hilf…” was an Indefinite Noun Being Used
in the Context of a Negation, 226 which is from the phrases of
generality - then we say that the Hadīth of Anas specifies
(Mukhassis) this generalization. And Allāh knows best.

And all of this clarifies the legitimacy of the covenants among the
Muslims upon the performance of the acts of obedeince.

Secondly: The Benefit and Objective of This Covenant
(‘Ahd):

The objective of the covenant that a person places upon himself
cannot be except in the case of either one or two scenarios, or both:

The First Objective: To affirm (i.e. emphasize) that which is
already made obligatory (Wājib) originally by the Sharī’ah.

So in the example which we are discussing - that being the military
training camp – Allāh and His Messenger ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬have
commanded (us to wage) Jihād in the Path of Allāh, and to obey to
the ‘People of Authority’, and to protect confidential information,

225 Trans. Note: This was also the opinion of Ibn Al-Qayyim, as can be found in
“Ta’līqāt Ibn Al-Qayyim ‘Alā Sunan Abī Dāwūd”, as well as Al-Abādī, in “’Awn Al-
Ma’būd Sharh Sunan Abī Dāwūd” Al-Abādī also attributed the opinion of the
negation being for the things that were forbidden to Al-Qastalānī in his Sharh of
“Sahīh Al-Bukhārī” This is all found under Hadīths (2,536) and (2,537).
226 Trans. Note: The phrase “Indefinite Noun Being Used in the Context of a

Negation,” is our translation of “Nakirah Fī Sīyāq An-Nafī”, which is in the
terminology of the Principles of Islāmic Jurisprudence (Usūl Al-Fiqh) and Arabic
grammar.



and to fulfill the trusts, and have sincere conduct towards the
Muslims, and to be kind to them. So these matters are obligatory
(Wājib) originally by Islām, whether or not a person forms a
covenant (‘Ahd) to adhere to them. So then, if he does form a
covenant to adhere to them, and undertakes an oath (Qasam) upon
that - then these matters would become obligatory in two ways.
The first of the two: their obligation by Islām to begin with. The
second of the two: the covenant and the oath upon adhering to them.
So the benefit of the covenant in these matters would be the
emphasis of that which was obligatory (Wājib) in the (Islāmic)
Legislation to begin with.

And concerning this, Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allāh be
merciful to him) said, “And that which Allāh and His Messenger
have commanded, concerning the obedience to the ‘People of
Authority’, and sincere conduct towards them - it is obligatory
(Wājib) upon the person, even if he does not give them a covenant
(‘Ahd) upon that, and even if he did not swear a reinforcing oath
to them. This is just like the five prayers are obligatory (Wājib)
upon him, and the alms-giving (Zakāt), and the fasting (Siyām), and
the pilgrimage (Hajj) to the (Sacred) House (i.e. the Ka’bah), and
other than that, from what Allāh and His Messenger have
commanded of the acts of obedience. Then if he swears upon that
(i.e. to be obedient), then that is 227 a reinforcement and a
reaffirmation of what Allāh and His Messenger have ordered
regarding obedience to the People of Authority and sincere conduct
towards them. So the one who undertakes an oath upon these
matters, it is not permissible (Halāl) for him to perform anything in
opposition to what he took the oath upon, whether he swore by
Allāh, or other such oaths which the Muslims swear by. This is
because, that which Allāh obligated of the obedience to the ‘People
of Authority’ and sincere conduct towards them; this is obligatory
(Wājib), even if he did not undertake an oath upon it. So what about
if he did take an oath upon that?! And that which Allāh and His
Messenger have forbade, regarding disobeying them and cheating

227Trans. Note: In the original Arabic book, there is a misprint, with the Arabic
words for: “…then that is…”, missing, and since this quote was used earlier in
the book with the full sentence, we included it here for it to be complete.



them; this is unlawful (Harām), even if he did not make an oath
(Hilf) regarding that.” 228

I say: And an example of this is the Hadīth of the Pledge of
Allegiance (Bay’ah) of the Companion, Jarīr Ibn ‘Abdillāh Al-Bajalī
(may Allāh be pleased with him) to the Prophet ‫ .ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Jarīr
said, “I came to the Prophet ‫( ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬and) I said, ‘I give you
Bay’ah upon Islām.’ So he added a condition upon me, ‘And with the
sincere conduct (Nus’h) towards every Muslim.’ So I gave him Bay’ah
upon this.” 229

And in another phrasing, Jarīr said, “I gave Bay’ah to the Messenger
of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬upon establishing the prayer (Salāt) and
paying the alms (Zakāt) and having sincere conduct (Nus’h)
towards every Muslim.” 230

So the origin of making the Pledge of Allegiance (Bay’ah) upon
Islām, which encompasses the prayer (Salāt) and the alms (Zakāt)
due to the Hadīth, “Islām is founded upon five…” 231 and likewise
sincere conduct is from Islām, due to the Hadīth, “The Religion (Dīn)
is sincere conduct (Nasīhah)…” 232 – so if sincere conduct is
mentioned, for example, as a separate condition for the Bay’ah, then
this increases the emphasis upon sincere conduct, because in this

229 Narrated by Al-Bukhārī (58).
230 Narrated by Al-Bukhārī (57).

Trans. Note: Also narrated by Muslim, An-Nasā’ī, At-Tirmithī, Ad-Dārimī and
Ahmad. Some of them are with extra phrasings.
231 Trans. Note: The full text of the Hadīth is narrated by Al-Bukhārī and Muslim

and others on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allāh be pleased with them) who
said, “The Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, ‘Islām is founded upon five
(pillars): the testimony that there is none worthy of being worshipped except Allāh and
that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allāh, establishing the prayer (Salāt), paying the
alms (Zakāt), Pilgrimage (Hajj) and fasting (the month of) Ramadhān.”
232 Trans. Note: The full text of the Hadīth is narrated by Imām Muslim on the

authority of Tamīm Ad-Dārī, may Allāh be pleased with him, who said, “The
Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, ‘The religion (Dīn) is sincere conduct
(Nasīhah).’ It was asked, ‘To whom?’ He said, ‘To Allāh and His Book, and His
Messenger, and to the leaders of the Muslims and their common folk.’”



case it would be obligatory for two reasons. The first of the two,
because it is from the obligations of Islām, which has been given
Bay’ah upon [i.e. as in the part of that Hadīth, ‘I give you Bay’ah upon
Islām.’]. The second of the two, due to the Bay’ah being given upon
that as a separate condition within the contract (‘Aqd) of the Bay’ah
[i.e. as in the part of the Hadīth, “So he added a condition upon me,
‘And with the sincere conduct (Nus’h) towards every Muslim.’”]. So it is
obligatory (Wājib) in the (Islāmic) Legislation, and also due to the
covenant (‘Ahd) upon it.

And concerning the wisdom in stipulating these conditions for the
Bay’ah of the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬upon some of the Muslims –
despite their already being from the obligations of the Religion
even if they were not made as stipulations – Ibn Hajar said, “And
what is intended by ‘Al-Bay’ah’ was to give Bay’ah upon Islām. And
the first thing that the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬would stipulate as a
condition, after Tawhīd, was establishing the prayer (Salāt), because
it is the head of all bodily worship; then the payment of the alms
(Zakāt), because it is the head all of the financial worship. Then he
would teach every people what they were in greatest need of
(learning). Therefore, he took Bay’ah from Jarīr upon sincere
conduct (Nasīhah) because he was the leader of his people.
Therefore, he guided him towards educating them, by
commanding him to have sincere conduct towards them. And he
took Bay’ah from the delegation of ‘Abd-Qays upon giving Al-
Khumus [i.e. one-fifth share of the war booty for charity], due to the
fact that they were a people of warfare against the infidels (kuffār)
of Mudhar who bordered them.” 233

And Al-Qurtubī said, “The Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬used to take the
Bay’ah from his Companions based upon what they were in
greatest need of renewing or reaffirmation upon a matter. So due to
that, their phrasings differed.” 234

233 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (2/7)
234 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (1/139)



This concerns the clarification that the covenant (‘Ahd), or Pledge of
Allegiance (Bay’ah), upon an act of obedience which is already
obligatory (Wājib) in Islām, increases the obligation of this
obedience by emphasis. And this is the first objective of the
covenant (‘Ahd).

And the Second Objective: For a person to adhere to what he has
made obligatory upon himself, from that which the Sharī’ah did
not originally obligate upon him.

An example of that is the personal vow (Nathr). 235 The (Islāmic)
Legislation did not obligate this originally; however, if the slave
obligates this upon himself by making a personal vow (Nathr) to
Allāh that if such-and-such occurs to him, then he will do such-
and-such - then it has become obligatory upon him to fulfill this
personal vow (Nathr), because Allāh, the Most High, ordered the
fulfillment of the Nathr:

‫ُﻮ ﹸﻮﻥ ﺑﹺﺎﻟﻨﺬﺭ‬
‫ﻳ ﻓ ﹶ ﱠ ﹾﹺ‬
They (are those who) fulfill (their) vows…236

Even though Allāh originally did not obligate this personal vow
(Nathr) upon the people.

Another example is the sale of the permissible items. So if you have
a particular piece of merchandise, the (Islāmic) Legislation has not
ordered you to sell it. And if you want to sell it, then it (i.e. the
Shar’) does not obligate you to sell it to a particular individual. And
if you do sell it to a particular individual, it (i.e. the Shar’) has not
ordered you to sell if for a particular price or to sell it at a particular
time. But if you place a covenant (‘Ahd) upon yourself, to sell this
product to a specific individual, at a specific time, for a specific

235 Trans. Note: A ‘Nathr ’ is a personal vow between the slave and his Lord,
which a person takes upon himself to adhere to and abide by. For example, if a
man were to undertake a vow (Nathr) to accomplish something or to abstain
from something, then this would be binding upon him to adhere to, even though
originally this might not have been binding upon him in the Sharī’ah.
236 Al-Insān, 7



price, then all of this has become obligatory (Wājib) upon you
because of the covenant (‘Ahd) which you have put upon yourself,
due to His, the Most High’s, statement:


So as for the likes of this sale, it was not obligatory in the (Islāmic)
Legislation originally, rather it was only obligated due to the
covenant (‘Ahd), because Allāh ordered the fulfillment of the
covenant (‘Ahd). But if it weren’t for this covenant, then this sale
would not be obligatory upon you. Allāh, the Most High, said:

‫ﻳَﺎ ﹶﺃﱡﻳﻬَﺎ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﺁﻣُﻮﹾﺍ ﹶﺃﻭ ﹸﻮﹾﺍ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﻌ ﹸﻮﺩ‬
ِ ‫َ َﻨ ْﻓ ُﻘ‬
O you who believe! Fulfill (all) the contracts. 238

said concerning the clarification of what is obligatory originally
from the (Islāmic) Legislation, and that which becomes obligatory
through the covenant, “And the things which Allāh has made
obligatory upon the slave; He might have obligated it originally,
such as His obligation of Faith (Īmān) and Tawhīd upon every
person. And He might have obligated it because the slave obligated
it upon himself. And if it weren’t for that (i.e. the slave’s making it
obligatory upon himself), then Allāh would not have obligated it,
such as the fulfillment of the personal vow (Nathr) upon the
recommended deeds (Al-Mustahabbāt), and also what he places
upon himself from the permissible contracts (‘Uqūd), such as sales,
marriage, divorce and the likes of that, as they were not (originally)
obligatory (Wājib). And Allāh might have obligated these for both
reasons, such as the Pledge of Allegiance (Bay’ah) of the Messenger
upon listening and obeying (As-Sam’ Wat-Tā’ah) him. And

237 Al-Isrā, 34



similarly, the Bay’ah to the leaders of the Muslims, and 239 like the
contracts between the people upon the performance of that which
Allāh and His Messenger have commanded.” 240

And he said elsewhere, explaining the same issue, “And the basic
rule of the contracts (‘Uqūd) is that nothing is binding upon the
person except what he obligated upon himself or by the Legislator
(i.e. Allāh) making it binding upon him. So as for what he obligates
upon himself, then that is what he formed the covenant (‘Ahd)
upon. Therefore, he cannot break the covenant and he cannot cheat
regarding it. And that which the Legislator ordered him with - then
it is from that which Allāh obligated upon him to fulfill, even if he
did not obligate it upon himself. Just as He obligated upon him to
maintain what Allāh commanded to be maintained, of Faith (Īmān)
in the Books and the Messengers, and the ties of kinship. And for
this reason, Allāh mentions this (matter) in His Book as well as the
other (matters), as in His statement: “Those who fulfill the
Covenant of Allāh and break not the Mīthāq (bond, treaty,
covenant). And those who maintain that which Allāh has
commanded to be maintained…” 241 So that which Allāh
commanded to be maintained; it has been made binding by Allāh.
And that which the person forms a covenant upon; then he has
made it binding upon himself, so it is obligatory upon him to fulfill
the covenant (‘Ahd) of Allāh and not to break the promise (Mīthāq)
as long as that is not in opposition to the Book of Allāh…” 242

And based upon what has preceded, it is possible for the covenant
(‘Ahd) between the Amīr and the members, to be based upon
matters that are originally obligatory in the (Islāmic) Legislation in

239 Trans. Note: In the Arabic print of the book, it says: “And similarly, the Bay’ah
to the leaders of the Muslims, like the contracts…” But in “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā”,
the word “… and…” is present, so it was added here, as it was a clear misprint. It
also shows the permissibility of forming covenants upon the acts of obedience,
clearer than the misprinted sentence, as this contract was mentioned as a
separate type.
240 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (29/345-346)
241 Ar-Ra’d, 20-21
242 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (29/341-342)



order to emphasize them, such as Jihād, obedience to the Amīr, and
the protection of confidential information, and fulfilling the trusts,
and sincere conduct to the Muslims – as well as the matters that are
not originally obligatory in the (Islāmic) Legislation. And therefore
these members adhere to them based upon the covenant (‘Ahd),
such as the Amīr putting a condition upon them to perform specific
deeds, or not to leave the military training camp except at specified
and known times, or to set specific times for sleeping and waking
up and eating and training, and such stipulations, as long as they
are not acts of disobedience (against Allāh, i.e. sins).

And these stipulations, which are made as conditions within the
covenant (‘Ahd), form the structure and internal regulations of the
military camp; from them are stipulations which are originally
obligatory in Islām, which the covenant affirms; and from them are
stipulations which are not originally obligatory in Islām, but
becomes obligatory due to the covenant (‘Ahd).

And concerning the conditions of the covenants, Shaykh Al-Islām
Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allāh be merciful to him) said “And in the
Sunan from him, he said, ‘The Muslims are with their stipulations [i.e.
stick to their words, fulfill them], except a stipulation which permits
something unlawful (Harām), or prohibits something lawful (Halāl).’ 243
And every stipulation (in a covenant), which is between the tribes,
kings, elders (chiefs), and allies, and such - then they are upon this
ruling (i.e. that they are allowed as long as they do not permit
something unlawful or prohibit something lawful) according to the
agreement of the scholars (‘Ulamā’) of the Muslims.” 244

243 Trans. Note: From ‘Amr Ibn ‘Awf Al-Muzanī, and some from Abū Hurayrah
and Rāfi’ Ibn Khadīj, may Allāh be pleased with them. This Hadīth is narrated
with many different phrasings, and the scholars differed on the authenticity of
them. Ibn Al-Qayyim declared it “Sahīh” in “Al-Furūsiyyah”, (Pg. 164), with the
Halāl and Harām phrasing switched. Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that even though
each individual chain is weak, they strengthen each other. “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā”
(29/147). Ibn Al-Qaysarānī mentioned that two of its chains are weak and one is
“Nothing wrong with it (Lā Ba’s Bihi),” in “Thakhīrat Al-Huffāth” (4/2,463). There
are also other phrasings that have been declared authentic which are similar to
this, and this is not the place to go into its details.
244 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (11/89-90)



And he said elsewhere, “And in summary, all of what takes place
between the people of the stipulations (Shurūt), contracts (‘Uqūd)
and pledges (Muhālafah), concerning brotherhood or other than that
– all of it is referred back to the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His
Messenger. So every stipulation which complies with the Book and
the Sunnah, it is to be fulfilled, and ‘Whoever stipulates a condition,
which is not in the Book of Allāh, then it is false - even if it is one hundred
conditions. The Book of Allāh is more deserving, and His stipulation is
firmer.’ 245 So whenever a condition is in opposition to a condition
of Allāh or His Messenger, then it is false.

Similarly, concerning the terms of sales and endowments and gifts
and personal vows and the contracts of Bay’ah to the leaders and
the contracts of the Shaykhs (Mashāyikh) and the contracts of those
with whom they have formed (a bond of) brotherhood with and the
contracts of the people of lineage and the tribes and the likes of
that.” 246

I say: And in that which Shaykh Al-Islām said, there are some
challenging words. And it is that which was narrated in the Hadīth
of ‘Ā’ishah, in Marfū’ form, 247 “Whoever stipulates a condition, which
is not in the Book of Allāh, then it is false (Bātil).” So this would mean
that if the Amīr stipulated upon the members that they must not
leave the military camp except for once every two months, then this
would be false, because it is not in the Book of Allāh. But this is not

245 Trans. Note: Ibn Taymiyyah said that this Hadīth is “Mustafīdh (frequently
narrated)” from the Prophet ‫“ .ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (31/58). Ibn Hazm
also used it as evidence in “Al-Muhallā” (8/186), and he mentioned in the
introduction that he only uses authentic narrations as evidence. Also see footnote
#207.
246 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (35/97-98)
247 Trans. Note: The term “Marfū’”, lit. “raised up”, refers to those narrations,

which are raised up to the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬whether they are an
action or a statement, and whether they are narrated with intact chains or not. It
is also not a condition for it to be attributed to the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬by the
Companion, according to the majority of the scholars, while Al-Khatīb said that
Companion must attribute it to the Prophet ‫ .ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Look to “Al-Bā’ith Al-
Hathīth Sharh Ikhtisār ‘Ulūm Al-Hadīth” (Pg. 43). Published by, ”Dār Al-Kutub Al-
‘Ilmiyyah” Beirut.



the meaning; actually, the intended meaning is not that the term
must be specifically narrated within the Book and the Sunnah - rather,
the intended meaning is that this term must not be in opposition to
the Book and the Sunnah.

And Shaykh Al-Islām clarified this in order to repel any (possible)
misunderstanding of his aforementioned words. As he said, “So
whenever a stipulation is in opposition to a stipulation of Allāh or
His Messenger, then it is false,” And he clarified it elsewhere as he
(may Allāh be merciful to him) said, “And the principle is that the
origin concerning the terms is that they are valid and binding with
the exception of those, about which the evidence indicates its
contradiction (to the Book and the Sunnah). And it has been
claimed, ‘Rather, the origin concerning them is that they are invalid
except in the case where the evidence indicates their validity, due
to the Hadīth of ‘Ā’ishah.’ But the former one is the correct (view),
as the Book and the Sunnah have both indicated the fulfillment of
the contracts (‘Uqūd) and the covenants (Uhūd) and they have
condemned (those who commit) deception and violation (of
contracts in general) - and this applies when the stipulations do not
contradict the Book of Allāh and His condition. But if that which
has been stipulated is contradictory to the Book of Allāh and His
condition, then this stipulation is invalid (Bātil). And this is the
meaning of his saying, ‘Whoever stipulates a condition, which is not in
the Book of Allāh, then it is false - even if it is one hundred conditions. The
Book of Allāh is more deserving, and His stipulation is firmer.’

Because his saying, ‘Whoever stipulates a condition…’ in other words,
a stipulation – and his saying, ‘… which is not in the Book of Allāh …’
in other words, the stipulation is not in the Book of Allāh, so it is
not from that which Allāh has made permissible…” – until he (i.e.
Ibn Taymiyyah) said – “However, if the permissibility of this
condition and stipulation has not been specifically mentioned by
Allāh and instead He was silent about it, then it is not contradictory
to the Book of Allāh and His condition, such that it could be said,
‘The Book of Allāh is more deserving, and His terms are tighter.’ So His



saying, ‘Whoever stipulates a term, which is not in the Book of Allāh…’
means, in contradiction to the Book of Allāh.” 248

The Summary: The covenants between the Muslims are
permissible and they emphasize what was originally obligatory in
the (Islāmic) Legislation, or they (can also) obligate matters which
were not originally obligatory in the (Islāmic) Legislation - as long
as they do not contradict the (Islāmic) Legislation.

And Shaykh Al-Islām (may Allāh be merciful to him) mentioned a
statement that I wish to clarify. And this was his statement, which
was mentioned previously: “And that which Allāh obligated upon
the slave; He might have obligated it originally; such as His
obligation of Faith (Īmān) and Tawhīd upon every person. And He
might have obligated it because the slave obligated it upon himself.
And if it weren’t for that (i.e. the slave’s making it obligatory upon
himself), then Allāh would not have obligated it…” – until he said –
“And Allāh might have obligated these for both reasons, such as
the Pledge of Allegiance (Bay’ah) of the Messenger upon listening
and obeying (As-Sam’ Wat-Tā’ah) him. And similarly, the Bay’ah to
the leaders of the Muslims, and like the contracts between the
people upon the performance of that which Allāh and His
Messenger have commanded.” 249 So his statement, “And Allāh
might have obligated these for both reasons…” - in other words,
Allāh makes the matter obligatory upon the people due it being an
obligation within the (Islāmic) Legislation originally, and also due
to the contract (‘Aqd) between the people to perform it. And he
gave examples of this. And of them, was his saying, “…and like the
Allāh and His Messenger have commanded.” So this includes this
joining the military training camps and the Islāmic groups (Jamā’āt)
working for Islām. And these are the groups whose leadership
(Imārah) was objected to, beforehand, by the author of the book “Al-
Bay’ah Bayn As-Sunnah Wal-Bid’ah.” And I have refuted him in the
third chapter of this treatise, concerning his rejection of this

248 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (29/346-347)
249 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (29/345-346)



leadership (Imārah) and shortly, I will refute his rejection of the
Bay’ah, In Shā’ Allāh Ta’āla.

So these military camps and groups working to support the Truth
and to work for the sake of raising the Word of Allāh to be the
Highest, is obligatory for two reasons:

The first reason, due to the obligation of this within the (Islāmic)
Legislation originally, due to Allāh’s statement:

‫ﻭَﺗﻌَﺎﻭُﻮﹾﺍ ﻋﻠﹶﻰ ﺍﹾﻟﱪ ﻭَﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮَﻯ‬
‫ﱢ ﱠﹾ‬ َ ‫َ َﻧ‬
righteousness and piety)…250

And due to His, the Most High’s statement:

‫ﻭﹾﻟﺘ ﹸﻦ ﱢﻨﻜﻢ ﹸﺃﻣﺔ َﻳﺪ ُﻮﻥ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﺍﹾﻟﺨﻴﺮ ﻭَﻳﺄ ُ ُﻭﻥ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﻤﻌ ُﻭﻑ ﻭَﻳﻨﻬﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﹾﻟ ُﻨﻜﺮ‬
‫َ ْ ﹺ َ ﹾﻣﺮ ﹶ َ ْﺮ ِ َ ْ َ ْ ﹶ َ ﹺ ﻤ ﹶ ﹺ‬ ‫َ َﻜ ﻣ ﹸ ْ ﱠ ﹲ ْﻋ ﹶ‬
‫ﻭﹸﺃﻭﻟﹶـﺌﻚ ﻫﻢ ﺍﹾﻟﻤﻔﻠ ُﻮﻥ‬
‫َ ْ ِ َ ُ ُ ُ ﹾ ِﺤ ﹶ‬
Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is
good (Islām), enjoining Al-Ma'rūf (i.e. Islāmic Monotheism and
all that Islām orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar
(polytheism and disbelief and all that Islām has forbidden). And
it is they who are the successful. 251

And due to His, the Most High’s statement:

‫ُ ْ ِﻨ ﹶ ﻭ ُ ْ ِ ﺕ ْﻀﻬ ْ ْ ْ ﹴ ﹾ ُﺮ ﹶ َ ْﺮ ِ َ ْ َ ْ ﹶ َ ﹺ ﻤ ﹶ ﹺ‬
The Believers, men and women, are Awliyā' (helpers, supporters,
Al-Ma'rūf (i.e. Islāmic Monotheism and all that Islām orders one
to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism and
disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islām has forbidden)

251 Trans. Note: Āl-Imrān, 104



– until His statement:

‫ْ ِ َ ََ ْ َﻤﻬﻢ ﹼ ُ ﱠ ﹼ َ َ ﺰ َ ﻢ‬
ٌ ‫ﹸﺃﻭﻟﹶـﺌﻚ ﺳﻴﺮﺣ ُ ُ ُ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﺰﹺﻳ ٌ ﺣﻜِﻴ‬
… It is they whom Allāh will have His Mercy on. Surely, Allāh is
All-Mighty, All-Wise. 252

And the last Verse clarifies the importance of the allegiance
(Muwālāt) amongst the Believers in establishing the (obligation of
the) ‘Enjoinment of the Good and the Forbiddance of the Evil’. And
He – Glory be to Him – described them as being the successful
ones, and that He – Glory be to Him – will enter them into His
Mercy. And I mentioned earlier that the force, strength, and might
of Islām cannot be established, except by the Īmān-based Allegiance
and Alliance (Al-Walā’ Al-Īmānī), by the unity of the Believers and
their cooperation with each other to establish the obligations
(Wājibāt) of the Religion.

The second reason, for the obligation of these groups establishing
this, is their covenant (‘Ahd) and contract (‘Aqd) upon these duties,
and it (i.e. making the contract) is permissible. So their
establishment of these duties, such as the Da’wah, enjoining (the
good), forbidding (the evil), and Jihād – (all of this) is originally
obligatory by the (Islāmic) Legislation, and (an even more
emphasized) obligation (Wājib), due to the covenant (‘Ahd) upon it:


So it is obligatory (Wājib) due to both matters.

253 Trans. Note: Al-Isrā, 34



Thirdly: Is It Permissible to Appoint a Time Limit Upon
the Covenant (‘Ahd)?

And the answer is: Yes, it is permissible for the covenant (‘Ahd)
between the Muslims to be time-limited. So it is permitted to
conclude it at a fixed time, just as it is allowed for the covenant
(‘Ahd) to be based upon a specific deed or (to be stipulated) with a
specific stipulation.

So the specified time period – such as the Amīr taking a covenant
from the members of the military camp, that they must continue
with their training for a period of three months, for example – then
the obligation of commitment to this covenant upon the members
would conclude at the end of this time period. Then, if the benefit
(Maslahah) necessitates a longer time, then the Amīr should renew
the covenant.

And the specified deed – such as the Amīr taking a covenant from
the members to continue training upon a specific number of
weapons, whether the amount of time is long or short – then it is
not permissible for him to enter permissible training except with
another covenant. And if the time limit is unspecified (i.e.
unknown, undecided), and one of the members cannot remain in
the military camp for longer than two months, for example, then
this member can put forward a stipulation for himself, that if the
time period is longer than two months, then he has the right to
leave at that (time). And likewise, the Amīr (has the right) to either
accept this condition from the member, or to reject it. And the
acceptance or rejection of the condition, by the Amīr, must be based
on a valid point of general benefit (Maslahah) in the training (itself),
and for the rest of the members, and not based upon whims (Hawā)
and desires (Shahwah). And I mentioned (beforehand), in the issue
of consultation (Shūra), that the shepherd’s authority over the herd
is based (solely) upon the benefits (Maslahah).

And the evidence which shows that it is allowed for this covenant
to be time-limited, is the same as the evidences which I mentioned



in the matter of the legality of these covenants in the (Islāmic)
Legislation. Such as:

i) The covenant between Ya’qūb ‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬and his sons was based upon
a specific deed with a specific stipulation. And it was that he (i.e.
Ya’qūb) would send their brother with them, with the condition
that they undertake an oath (Qasam) that they will bring him back
to him, unless they themselves are surrounded. He, the Most High,
said:

‫ﻗﹶﺎﻝ ﹶﻟﻦ ﹸﺭﺳﻠ ُ ﻣﻌ ﹸﻢ ﺣﱠﻰ ُﺗﺆُﻮﻥ ﻣﻮِﺛﻘﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﹶﻟﺘﺄُﺗﻨﻨﹺﻲ ﹺﺑﻪ ﹺﺇﻻ ﺃﹶﻥ ُﻳﺤَﺎﻁ ﹺﺑ ﹸﻢ‬
ْ‫ﹶ ﻜ‬ ‫ﹶ ْ ﺃ ْ ِ ﹶﻪ َ َﻜ ْ َﺘ ْﺗ ِ َ ْ ﱢ َ ﹼ ِ َ ﹾ ﱠ ِ ﱠ‬
He (Ya'qūb) said: “I will not send him with you until you swear a
solemn promise (Mawthiq) from Allāh, that you will bring him
back to me unless you are yourselves surrounded (by enemies,
etc.).” 254

ii) And the covenants between Mūsā and Al-Khidhr, ‫ ,ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬were
upon a specific deed with specific stipulations. He, the Most High,
said concerning Al-Khidhr:

‫ﻗﹶﺎﻝ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﱠﺗﺒﻌﺘﻨﹺﻲ ﻓﻠﹶﺎ َﺗﺴﺄﹾﻟﻨﹺﻲ ﻋَﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺣﱠﻰ ﹸﺣﺪﺙ ﹶﻟﻚ ﻣﻨ ُ ﺫﻛﺮًﺍ‬
‫َ ْ ٍ َﺘ ﺃ ْ ِ ﹶ َ ِ ْﻪ ِ ﹾ‬ ‫ﹶ ﹶﹺ ِ َ َْ ﹶ ْ ﹶ‬
He (Al-Khidhr) said: “Then, if you follow me, ask me not about
anything till I myself mention it to you.” 255

And He, the Most High, said concerning what Mūsā stipulated
upon himself:

‫ﻗﹶﺎﻝ ﺇﹺﻥ ﺳﺄﹾﻟﺘُﻚ ﻋَﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ َﺑﻌﺪﻫَﺎ ﻓﻠﹶﺎ ُﺗﺼَﺎﺣﺒﻨﹺﻲ ﻗﺪ َﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﻣِﻦ ﱠﻟﺪﱢﻲ ﻋﺬﺭًﺍ‬
‫ُﻧ ُ ﹾ‬ َ ْ ‫ِْ ﹶ ْ ﹶ‬ ‫َ ٍْ ْ َ ﹶ‬ َ ‫ﹶ َﹶ‬
He (Mūsā) said: “If I ask you about anything after this, keep me
not in your company, you have received an excuse from me.” 256

254 Yūsuf, 66
255 Al-Kahf, 70
256 Al-Kahf, 76



iii) And the covenant between Abū Tharr and ‘Alī (may Allāh be
pleased with them both) was upon a specific deed and a specific
stipulation. And this was that ‘Alī would guide Abū Tharr to where
he requested if Abū Tharr would inform him of the reason he came
to Makkah.

iv) And the covenant, which ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn ‘Awf took upon
himself, in front of ‘Uthmān and ‘Alī. And it was that he would
select the better of the two of them. He said, “… and Allāh is upon
me (as a witness), that I will not choose except the better one from
you.’ Therefore, this covenant was stipulated with a specific deed,
which was his selection of one of them two, may Allāh be pleased
with them all.

So these are all examples of covenants (‘Uhūd) which expire with
(the completion of a) specific deed. And when that deed is
completed, the burden and obligation upon both [or one of the]
parties of the covenant, expire (i.e. the covenant is concluded).

And from the examples of covenants and contracts which expire
(when an appointed) time (is reached), are:

v) The contract (‘Aqd) between Mūsā and the righteous man in
Madyan (according to Al-Qurtubī, the most correct opinion is that
this man was the Prophet Shu’ayb, ‫ .)ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬It was termed with a
specified period of time, without specifying the deed. He, the Most
High, said:

‫ﻗﹶﺎﻝ ﹺﺇﱢﻲ ﹸﺃﺭﹺﻳﺪ ﹶﺃﻥ ﹸﻧﻜﺤﻚ ﹺﺇﺣﺪَﻯ ﺍْﺑﻨﺘﻲ ﻫَﺎَﺗﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﹶﻰ ﺃﹶﻥ َﺗﺄﺟﺮﻧﹺﻲ ﹶﺛﻤَﺎﹺﻧﻲ ﺣﺠﺞ ﻓﺈﻥ‬
‫َ ِ َ ﹴ ﹶﹺ ﹾ‬ َُ ‫ﹾ‬ َ ‫ََ ﱠ ْ ﹺ‬ ْ َ َ ِ ‫ُ ﹾﺃ‬ ‫ﹶ ﻧ‬
‫ﹶﺃْﺗﻤﻤﺖ ﻋﺸﺮًﺍ ﻓﻤﻦ ﻋِﻨﺪﻙ‬
َ ِ ْ ِ‫َْ َ َ ْ ﹶ‬
He said: “I intend to wed one of these two daughters of mine to
you, on the condition that you serve me for eight years, but if you
complete ten (years), then it will be (a favor) from you.”




‫ﻗﹶﺎﻝ ﺫِﻟﻚ َﺑﻴﻨﹺﻲ ﻭَﺑﻴﻨﻚ ﹶﺃﱠﻳﻤَﺎ ﺍﹾﻟﺄﺟﻠﻴﻦ ﻗﻀﻴ ُ ﻓﻠﹶﺎ ﻋﺪﻭَﺍﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ‬
‫ﹶ َ ﹶ ْ ﹺ ﹶ َ ْﺖ ﹶ ُ ْ ﹶ َ ﹶ ﱠ‬ َ َْ َ ْ َ ‫ﹶ ﹶ‬
He (Mūsā) said: “That is (settled) between me and you,
whichever of the two terms I fulfill, there will be no injustice to
me…” 257

And Al-Bukhārī (may Allāh be merciful to him) specified a chapter
for this (subject) within “The Book of Employment” and it is:
“Chapter: If an employee is hired, and the time period is told to
him, while the job is not, due to His statement: “I intend to wed
one of these two daughters of mine to you…” – until His
statement: “… and Allāh is Surety over what we say.” 258

So these are examples which clarify how it is allowed for the
covenants to be secured with a specific deed or with a specific time
limit.

Fourthly: Is It Obligatory to Write These Covenants or
To Have Witnesses Upon Them?

The basic rule concerning writing the contracts (‘Uqūd) and having
witnesses upon them is that it is recommended (Mandūb) and
permissible, as opposed to obligatory - except in cases where the
evidences indicate that having witnesses is from the conditions for
(the contract’s) validity, such as the contract (‘Aqd) of marriage, for
example. And this place is not long enough to list all the evidence
for that. And for this (reason), we will delve straight into our
original topic, which is the covenants between the Muslims upon
the (performance of) the acts of obedience. So we say that they are
valid even without writing (them), and without having witnesses -
but it is permissible to write (them) and to have witnesses upon
them.

i) Such as the covenant (‘Ahd) between Ya’qūb ‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬and his sons.

257 Al-Qasas, 27-28
258 Look to “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (4/444)



ii) And the covenant between Mūsā and Al-Khidhr, ‫ .ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬And Al-
Bukhārī (may Allāh be merciful to him) narrated it in “The Book of
Stipulations: Chapter – ‘The Stipulations Among the People
Through Statements.” And Ibn Hajar said in the explanation of the
Hadīth, “And He indicated the stipulation when he said, ‘If I ask
you anything after this, keep me not in your company…’ along
with Mūsā’s compliance with that (condition), yet they did not
write it, nor did they bring anyone to witness it.” 259

iii) And the covenant between Mūsā and the righteous man from
Madyan; He, the Most High, said:

‫ﻘ ﹸ َ ﻞ‬
‫ﺫِﻟﻚ َﺑﻴﻨﹺﻲ ﻭَﺑﻴﻨﻚ ﹶﺃﱠﻳﻤَﺎ ﺍﹾﻟﺄﺟﻠﻴﻦ ﻗﻀﻴ ُ ﻓﻠﹶﺎ ﻋﺪﻭَﺍﻥ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻭَﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﹶﻰ ﻣَﺎ َﻧ ﹸﻮﻝ ﻭﻛِﻴ ﹲ‬
َ ُ ‫ﹶ َ ﹶ ْ ﹺ ﹶ َ ْﺖ ﹶ ُ ْ ﹶ َ ﹶ ﱠ ﱠ‬ َ َْ َ ْ َ ‫ﹶ‬
“That is (settled) between me and you, whichever of the two
terms I fulfill, there will be no injustice to me, and Allāh is
Surety over what we say.” 260

Al-Qurtubī said, “ ‘… and Allāh is Surety over what we say…’ It is
said that this was from the words of Mūsā, and it is (also) said that
it was from the words of the father of the woman (i.e. the righteous
man from Madyan). So as for these two righteous men (may the
Blessing of Allāh be upon them both), Allāh was sufficient for them
both as a witness upon them, and they did not bring anyone from
the creation as a witness.” 261

I say: And this must not be used as evidence for the permissibility
of having no witnesses in the marriage (contract), because if this
was valid in the Legislation of those who came before us, then our
Legislation has come with what opposes that (i.e. the requirement
of witnesses for the validity of a marriage contract).

iv) And the covenant between Abū Tharr and ‘Alī, may Allāh be
pleased with them both; they neither wrote it, nor did they have
any witnesses upon it, and so on.

259 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (5/326)
260 Al-Qasas, 27-28
261 “Tafsīr Al-Qurtubī” (13/280)



A Point of Benefit: Intensifying the seriousness of the
covenants and promises (At-Taghlīth):

It is permissible to intensify the covenants and promises in gravity
and seriousness (At-Taghlīth) amongst the Muslims with the same
things that the “Vows of Witnesses in Judgments” 262 are intensified
in seriousness with – yet, this is not obligatory. And At-Taghlīth
(intensifying the magnitude) is done by a (1) phrasing, (2) time, or
(3) location; either by using one of them, or by using a combination
of two of them, or by using all three of them.

And the basis concerning At-Taghlīth (the intensification) is Allāh’s
statement:

‫ﻳﹺﺎ ﹶﺃﱡﻳﻬَﺎ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﺁﻣُﻮﹾﺍ ﺷﻬَﺎﺩ ﹸ َﺑﻴﻨﻜﻢ ﹺﺇﺫﹶﺍ ﺣﻀﺮ ﹶﺃﺣﺪ ﹸ ُ ﺍﹾﻟﻤﻮﺕ ﺣﲔ ﺍﹾﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ‬
ِ ‫َ َﻨ َ َﺓ ْﹺ ﹸ ْ َ َ َ َ َﻛﻢ َ ْ ُ ِ َ َ ِﱠ‬
O you who Believe! When death approaches any of you, and you
make a bequest, then take the testimony…


‫َﺗﺤﺒ ُﻮَﻧﻬﻤَﺎ ﻣِﻦ َﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻓﻴﻘﺴﻤَﺎﻥ ﺑﹺﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﹺﺇﻥ ﺍﺭَﺗﺒﺘﻢ‬
ْ ُْ ْ ‫ْ ِ ﱠ ﹶ ِ ﹶُ ﹾ ِ ِ ﹼ ِ ﹾ‬ ُ ‫ْ ﹺﺴ‬
Detain them both after As-Salāt (the prayer), (then) if you are in
doubt (about their truthfulness), let them both swear by Allāh…
263

i) So At-Taghlīth (intensifying the weight and enormity) through the
phrasing would be with the addition of the Names and Attributes
of the Lord, the Most High, within the oath. Such as, “By Allāh, the
One besides Whom there is none worthy of being worshipped, The
Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, Ar-Rahmān, Ar-Rahīm, At-
Tālib, Al-Ghālib, Adh-Dhār, An-Nāfi’ – He Who knows the betrayals

262 Trans. Note: “Vows of Witnesses in Judgments” are those oaths, which a
witness testifies with concerning an issue concerning himself or another. The
author goes on to explain this ahead, within this section.



of the eyes and all that the breasts conceal.” This has been narrated
from Ibn ‘Abbās, may Allāh be pleased with him. 264

ii) And At-Taghlīth (the intensification) through the time would be by
the oath being taken after the ‘Asr prayer, 265 due to His, the Most
High’s, statement:

‫َﺗﺤﺒ ُﻮَﻧﻬﻤَﺎ ﻣِﻦ َﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻓﻴﻘﺴﻤَﺎﻥ ﺑﹺﺎﻟﻠﻪ‬
ِ ‫ْ ِ ﱠ ﹶ ِ ﹶُ ﹾ ِ ِ ﹼ‬ ُ ‫ْ ﹺﺴ‬
Detain them both after As-Salāt (the prayer), (then) if you are in
doubt (about their truthfulness), let them both swear by Allāh…
266

And the majority of the scholars (‘Ulamā’) are upon (the opinion)
that “As-Salāt” in this Verse is Salāt Al-‘Asr. And this is narrated
clearly in the statement of the Messenger of Allāh ‫,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
“(There are) three types of people whom Allāh will not speak to…’ – until
his statement – “… and a man who sells something to (another) man,
after Al-‘Asr, and then he swears by Allāh that it was given to him for
such-and-such (a price,) so he (the customer) believes him and takes it,
although it was not truly given to him (the merchant) for that (price).” –
Narrated by Al-Bukhārī from Abū Hurayrah. 267 And Al-Bukhārī
also narrated from Abū Hurayrah, in Marfū’ form, “(There are) three
types of people whom Allāh will not speak to on the Day of
Resurrection…’ – until he said – ‘… and a man who swears an
untruthful vow (Yamīn) after Al-‘Asr, so that he can claim the wealth of a
Muslim individual.” 268

264 Trans. Note: This phrasing was mentioned in the book “Kash’shāf Al-Qinā’ ‘An
Matn Al-Iqnā’” in “The Book of Witnesses”, in the “Chapter of The Vows
Concerning the Claims”, without being attributed to anyone. Other similar
phrasings were narrated in other books of Fiqh also.
265 Trans. Note: Another time that the scholars have mention was between the

Athān and the Iqāmah. The reason for this was that it is a time when the Du’ā’ is
accepted, so it is hoped that it is also a time when a liar will be protected from his
lies. Look to “Kash’shāf Al-Qinā’ ‘An Matn Al-Iqnā’” in “The Book of Witnesses”,
in the “Chapter of The Vows Concerning the Claims”.
267 Hadīth #7,212
268 Refer to Hadīth #7,446. Trans. Note: Also narrated by Muslim, Ibn Mājah and

Ahmad with similar phrasings which have extra sentences in them.



iii) And At-Taghlīth (the intensification) through the location is
between the Rukn [Pillar (i.e. the corner of the Ka’bah)] and the
Maqām [Station (i.e. Station of Ibrāhīm in the Sacred Mosque near
the Ka’bah)] in Makkah, 269 or in Al-Quds (Jerusalem) at the Sakhrah
[Rock (i.e. the rock near Al-‘Aqsa Mosque where the Messenger of
Allāh ascended during Al-Isrā’ Wal-Mi’rāj)] 270 and at the Minbar
[Pulpit (i.e. where the Imām delivers his sermon)] in all the
countries, due to what was narrated by Mālik, Ash-Shafi’ī and
Ahmad, from Jābir, in Marfū’ form, “Whoever swears a sinful vow
(Yamīn) on this - my Minbar - then let him take his place in the Fire.”
And the analogy (Qiyās) was made with rest of the Minbars in all of
the Mosques and this Hadīth of Jābir was authenticated by Shaykh
Al-Albānī in “Irwā’ Al-Ghalīl”. 271

And the details of what has preceded (concerning these locations)
are to be found within the books of judgments (Al-Qadhā’) and
witnesses (Ash-Shahādāt) within the books of Fiqh.

Fifthly: Is It Allowed to Call This Covenant a “Bay’ah”?

Definition of Bay’ah:

269 Trans. Note: This is narrated from ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattāb (may Allāh be

pleased with him) that he took an oath from a man at this location. It is narrated
by Al-Bayhaqī in “As-Sunan Al-Kubrā” and he declared it “Mursal”, (10/176). It is
also narrated from Mu’āwiyah (may Allāh be pleased with him), as was
mentioned in “Al-Muhallā Bil-Āthār” in “The Book of Judgments,” and elsewhere.
270 Trans. Note: The evidence used for this is the Hadīth of Rāfi’ Ibn ‘Amr Al-

Muzanī (may Allāh be pleased with him), who said, “I heard the Messenger of
Allāh‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬saying: ‘Al-‘Ajwah and As-Sakhrah are from Al-Jannah.’”
Narrated by Ibn Mājah and Ahmad. As-Sindī said in his Sharh of this Hadīth in
his Sharh of “Sunan Ibn Mājah”, “As-Suyūtī said in “An-Nihāyah”: ‘He meant the
Sakhrah in Bayt Al-Maqdis.’ And in “Az-Zawā’id”: ‘Its chain is authentic, (and) its
men are trustworthy.’” Al-Albānī declared it “Dha’īf’ in “Sahīh Ibn Mājah” (695).
Al-‘Ajwah is a type of date from Madīnah.
271 Refer to Hadīth #2,697. Trans. Note: Also, another very similar phrasing was

declared “Sahīh” by Ibn Hibbān, as was mentioned in “Bulūgh Al-Marām” (422),
and “Sahīh or Hasan” by Ibn Al-Mulqin in “Tuhfat Al-Muhtāj”, (2/412). Similarly,
from Abū Hurayrah (may Allāh be pleased with him), declared “Hasan” by Al-
Bayhaqī in “As-Sunan As-Sughrā” (4/163).



Ibn Al-Athīr said, “Verily, “Al-Bay’ah” is a term describing the
formation of a contract (‘Aqd) and a covenant (‘Ahd) as if each of
them (i.e. the one pledging and the one to whom the pledge is
being given) had sold what he had from his companion and gave
him his sincere self, his obedience, and his heart.” 272

And Ar-Rāghib said, “And he gave “Bay’ah” to the Sultān when he
has to guarantee to give his obedience to him, with that which was
yielded to him. And this is called “Bay’ah” and “Mubāya’ah” 273.” 274

And Ibn Khaldūn said, “Know that the Bay’ah is the covenant
(‘Ahd) upon obedience (i.e. to obey), it is as if the one giving the
Bay’ah makes a covenant (‘Ahd) with his Amīr to surrendering to
him the (right of) looking into the affairs of his self and the affairs
of the Muslims, (and that) he will not dispute with him (i.e. the
Amīr) concerning any of that, and that he obeys him in that which
he (i.e. the Amīr) commands him, whether it is a pleasant order, or
a disliked order. And when they would give Bay’ah to the Amīr and
contract a covenant (‘Ahd) with him, they would put their hands in
his hand as an affirmation of the covenant (‘Ahd). So since that
resembles the action of the seller and the buyer, it was therefore
called ‘Bay’ah’, which is derived from the origin of ‫“ ﺑﺎﻉ‬Bā’a” (i.e.
sold) - and the Bay’ah became the shaking of hands. This is what it
indicates in the customary language (‘Urf Al-Lughah) and also
within the (Islāmic) Legislation. And this is the meaning found in
the Hadīth of the Bay’ah to the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬on the night of
Al-‘Aqabah and beneath the tree.” 275

I say: Therefore, the Bay’ah is a contract (‘Aqd) or a covenant (‘Ahd),
yet the majority of its usage became in reference to the giving of the
covenant (‘Ahd) to the Sultān, upon listening and obeying him (As-

272 Refer to “An-Nihāyah” (1/174), of Ibn Al-Athīr.
273 Trans. Note: The word ‘Bay’ah’ refers to the actual Pledge of Allegiance itself;
as for ‘Mubāya’ah’ it refers to the state of having entered into a Pledge of
Allegiance. So ‘Mubāya’ah’ is derived from ‘Bay’ah’ in this way.
274 Refer to “Al-Mufradāt Fi’Gharīb Al-Qur’ān”, by Ar-Rāghib Al-Asfahānī,

“Subject: ‘Bay’’.”
275 “Muqaddamah Ibn Khaldūn” (Pg. 209)



Sam’ Wat-Tā’ah), as long as the Sultān governs with the Book and
the Sunnah.

Ibn Hajar said, “And the basis of the Mubāya’ah to the Imām is that
he is given Bay’ah upon acting upon the Truth, and establishing the
Islāmic penalties (Al-Hudūd), and for Enjoining the Good and
Forbidding the Evil.” 276 And Al-Bukhārī narrated from ‘Abdullāh
Ibn ‘Umar that he wrote to ‘Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwān, giving him
Bay’ah: “… and I affirm for you the listening and obeying (As-Sam’
Wat-Tā’ah) upon that which is in accordance to the Sunnah of Allāh
and the Sunnah of His Messenger, as much as I am capable.” 277

So is it allowed to call the covenants among the people a
“Bay’ah”?

So the covenant (‘Ahd), which is taken by the Amīr of the military
camp, from the members, or the (the covenant which an) Amīr of a
group from the Islāmic groups takes from its individuals - Is it
permissible to call this a Bay’ah?

Those who allow this, adhere to the linguistic origin of (the word)
“Bay’ah” - which is the formation of a contract (‘Aqd) and a
covenant (‘Ahd).

And those who prevent this, adhere to the meaning which the
word is most commonly used for - which is the formation of a
covenant (‘Ahd) with a Sultān; (specifically) the (Greater) Imām of
the Muslims.

And what appears (to be most correct) is that the avoiding (the
usage of this term) is more befitting, in order to repel a confusion,
and this is what first enters one’s mind. 278 However, the historical

276 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/203)
277 Hadīth #7,272
278 Trans. Note: The intent of the author here is to suggest that between the two

opinions concerning the permissibility of calling the covenants between the
Muslims, upon the performance of the acts of obedience, as ‘Bay’ah’ - it can be
considered preferable to avoid using this term. Not because it is incorrect from a



accounts of the Companions (Sahābah) indicate that it is permissible
– in other words, the permissibility of labeling the covenant
between the Muslims, as a “Bay’ah” – and some examples of that
(are):

1. The calling by ‘Ikrimah Ibn Abī Jahl, to the people, to give him
Bay’ah for Death, on the Day of the Battle of Yarmūk. And I
mentioned the event within (the chapter): “The Legitimacy of This
Covenant (‘Ahd) In the Sharī’ah”, previously. 279 And it
demonstrates that ‘Ikrimah was not the Imām of the Muslims, nor
was he the Amīr of the army. And (this is further strengthened by
the fact) that his call to this Bay’ah took place in the presence of one
thousand Sahābah, and amongst them were one hundred from the
People of Badr - just as Ibn Kathīr narrated with his chain of
narration (Isnād) - and none of the Shahābah objected to him (i.e.
Ikrimah). So this indicates the permissibility of calling the
covenants between the Muslims, upon the performance of the acts
of obedience: “Bay’ah”.

2. The “Mubāya’ah” to Qays Ibn Sa’d, for Death, from forty-
thousand (men) in the front lines of the army of ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib
in (the Battle of) Siffīn. 280 And I mentioned it within: “The
Legitimacy of This Covenant (‘Ahd) In the Sharī’ah.” And about
this event, the same as what was said about the Bay’ah of ‘Ikrimah
should be said, and its chain of narration (Isnād) is authentic (Sahīh).

3. Al-Bukhārī narrated from ‘Abdullāh Ibn Zayd (may Allāh be
pleased with him), who said, “During the “Event of Al-Harrah”, a
man came to him and said ‘Verily, Ibn Hanthalah is taking Bay’ah
from the people for Death.’ So he said, “I will not give anyone

point of Islāmic terminology, but because the word is so often used to refer to the
Bay’ah of the Greater Imām or Khalīfah, and therefore the term might be
misconstrued and misunderstood by those who hear it, which would result in
even greater confusion concerning this topic in general. Yet the author re-affirms
the permissibility of calling this covenant a Bay’ah in the next paragraph, due to
the evidence he uses therein.
279 Also review “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (7/11-12)
280 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/63)



Bay’ah upon that (i.e. Death) after the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫182 ”.ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬

This story concerning the “Event of Al-Harrah”, which was a
known place in Madīnah in 63 H. when the people of Madīnah
removed Yazīd Ibn Mu’āwiyah (from power), due to the
transgressions which became widely known about him. So they
gave Bay’ah to ‘Abdullāh Ibn Hanthalah as an Amīr over the Ansār
and to ‘Abdullāh Ibn Mutī’ as an Amīr over Quraysh. And
‘Abdullāh Ibn Hanthalah was a Companion (Sahābī) and his father
was the Companion (Sahābī) Hanthalah, who was who was killed at
Uhud and washed by the Angels. So Ibn Hanthalah took Bay’ah
from the people upon fighting the army of Yazīd. And what
‘Abdullāh Ibn Zayd had objected to, was the description of this
Bay’ah – for death – yet he did not object to the basis of Mubāya’ah
itself. And from those who objected to the removal of Yazīd, was
‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Umar and ‘Alī Ibn Al-Husayn and Muhammad Ibn
Al-Hanifiyyah. However, those who made Bay’ah and rebelled
against Yazīd outnumbered those who refused, as Ibn Kathīr said,
“Al-Madā’inī narrated from a Shaykh from the people of Madīnah,
‘I asked Az-Zuhrī: How many were the dead on the Day of Al-
Harrah?’ He said ‘Seven hundred from the faces of the people of the
Muhājirīn and the Ansār, as well as the faces of those who were
loyal to them. And from those whom I did not recognize, of the free
and the slaves and others, numbered ten thousand.” 282

And more examples shall be presented concerning these Bay’ahs
and the explanation of the position of the Predecessors (Salaf)
towards the leaders of tyranny, in what follows.

And the intended goal from what has preceded, is that labeling the
covenants with “Bay’ah” was done in the era of the Companions
(Sahābah) with no objection from anyone - which makes it possible

281 Hadīth #2,959 in Kitāb Al-Jihād – “Chapter: Making Bay’ah During the War to

not Retreat”.
282 “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (8/321) and review that also in “Al-Bidāyah Wan-

Nihāyah” (8/217) and what follows it; and also “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (6/117-119) and
(13/68-71).



to include this issue in the consensuses (Ijmā’āt) of the Sahābah. As
for those who did object, then they did not object to the labeling
itself, rather they merely objected to a specific attribute of these
Bay’ahs. As ‘Abdullāh Ibn Zayd objected to the Bay’ah for Death,
and he stated that this was restricted to the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ‬
‫ ,ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬yet this exact statement of ‘Abdullāh Ibn Zayd is
challenged by the Bay’ah of ‘Ikrimah from those who were with
him, upon death, and likewise, Qays Ibn Sa’d. This is if we agree
that the Bay’ah of Ar-Ridhwān was for Death. 283 And likewise, the
objection of Ibn ‘Umar to the people of Madīnah was not because of
their usage of the term “Bay’ah”, rather it was due to their removal
of Yazīd after they had given him Bay’ah. 284 And due to that, he did
not object to Al-Hasan, the son of ‘Alī, when the people of Al-Kūfah
gave him Bay’ah because Al-Husayn (who was with him, and
amongst the people of Al-Kūfah) had refused to give Bay’ah to
Yazīd. So Ibn ‘Umar did not give Al-Husayn any further advice,
except that he should not go to Al-‘Irāq. 285 And likewise, Ibn
‘Abbās did (offer further advice) and he added, “But rather, go to
Yemen, because therein are fortresses and (defendable) mountain
passes and your father has a following there. So seclude yourself
and avoid the people and write to them and send your preachers to
them, because I am hopeful that if you do that, what you desire will
indeed happen.” 286

283 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (6/118)
284 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/68)

Trans. Note: The point of the author here is that in the example of Ibn ‘Umar
objecting to the Bay’ah from the people of Madīnah to Ibn Hanthalah, regarding
the removal of Yazīd, was not because he disapproved of the application of the
term “Bay’ah” upon this covenant. And it was not because he objected to people
giving Bay’ah generally – Rather, it was because the people of Madīnah already
had given Bay’ah to Yazīd, and he considered this covenant to be valid and intact.
So for this reason, he objected to their action. And what proves this is the fact
that later, when Al-Hasan took Bay’ah from the people in Al-Kūfah, (i.e. in Al-
‘Irāq), he (Ibn ‘Umar) did not object to it because those people, including Al-
Husayn, had not given Yazīd a Bay’ah previously. So his objection could not have
been upon their usage of the term “Bay’ah” itself, or with the action of giving
Bay’ah generally – rather, it was upon their attempt to remove Yazīd.



Sixthly: What Is the Difference Between These Bay’ahs,
And the Bay’ah of the Imām?

The differences are from various angles. I will mention the most
important ones.

1. The one pledging the Bay’ah: The Bay’ah to the Imām of the
Muslims is made by the “Ahl Al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd” 287 from the nation
(Ummah) or the former Khalīfah through a covenant (‘Ahd) from
him, unless someone conquers them by the sword. As for the
Bay’ahs between the people – their covenants – upon the
performance of the acts of obedience, these are not in need of this,
because it is for the laymen to form these covenants amongst
themselves, upon the performance of the acts of obedience.

2. The one to whom the Bay’ah is pledged: In the Bay’ah of the Imām
(Imāmah), he who the Bay’ah is pledged to, must posses all the
(necessary) conditions of governance (Imāmah). 288 And some of the
conditions could be excluded concerning the one who conquers by
force; however, the Bay’ahs of the people – their covenants upon the
performance of the acts of obedience – they are not held to these
same conditions, as it is for the laymen to form these covenants.

3. That which the Bay’ah is made upon: The Bay’ah of Imāmah puts
upon the Imām specific obligations - that in general, are the
establishment of the Sharī’ah within the Muslim nation. [And Al-
Māwardī explained (and separated) them into ten obligations. 289 ]
And this Bay’ah puts upon the nation to listen to and obey the Imām
and support him as long as his condition does not change. 290

287 Trans. Note: The term “People of Al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd” lit. “People of Authority
and Contract”, refers to the council that is in charge of the selection of the
Khalīfah and who enters him into this role on behalf of the nation (Ummah). This
term is used fairly frequently throughout the treatise, so we’ve defined it here so
that we can just use the term from this point forward without any further
explanation.
288 Refer to “Al-Ahkām As-Sultāniyyah” (Pg. 7), of Al-Māwardī.
289 Pg. 15-16
290 Refer to “Al-Ahkām As-Sultāniyyah” (Pg. 17), of Al-Māwardī.



However, the Bay’ahs of the people – their covenants – then it is
(allowed) for them to form these covenants upon performing any
duty from the various acts of obedience, without restriction, such as
Jihād, Da’wah, and the Enjoining of the Good and the Forbidding of
the Evil, and assisting the anxious and helping the oppressed. Even
removing an obstacle from the pathway - it is permissible for them
to make a covenant upon that, because it is a branch from the
branches of Faith (Īmān).

4. The obligation and the duty: The Bay’ah to the Imām of the
Muslims is obligatory (Wājib) upon every Muslim, due to the Hadīth
of the Prophet ‫ …“ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬and there will be successors (Khulafā’)
who will become many.” They asked, “Then what do you order us (to
do)?” He said, “Fulfill the (rights of the) Pledge of Allegiance (Bay’ah) of
the earliest then the (second) earliest…” – Agreed upon, from Abū
Hurayrah. So he ordered the fulfillment of the Bay’ah to them, and
condemned the one who does not give Bay’ah, in his ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
saying, “Whoever dies while he does not have a Bay’ah upon his neck - he
dies a death of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic Ignorance).” – narrated by
Muslim, from Ibn ‘Umar. And he ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “Adhere to the
group (Jamā’ah) of the Muslims, and their Imām.” – Agreed upon, from
Huthayfah. And Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said, “And whoever
overpowers them with the sword, until he becomes the Khalīfah and
is called ‘Amīr Al-Mu’minīn’ - then it is not permissible for anyone
who believes in Allāh and the Last Day, to pass the night without
recognizing him as an Imām upon him, whether he (i.e. the Khalīfah)
is a righteous man (Birr) or a wicked man (Fājir), because he is Amīr
Al-Mu’minīn.” 291 To the extent that this issue started to be
mentioned within the books of the Belief of Ahl As-Sunnah.

However, the Bay’ahs between the people – their covenants, upon
the performance of the acts of obedience – they are not obligatory,
except upon those who enter into them willingly. So it is obligatory
upon him due to the covenant, which he puts upon himself, such as
when two form a covenant to memorize the Qur’ān, or a portion of
it. This is because memorizing the Qur’ān is not individually

291 Refer to “Al-Ahkām As-Sultāniyyah” (Pg. 20, 23), of Abū Ya’lā.



compulsory (Fardh ‘Ayn). In other words, it is not obligatory (Wājib)
upon each and every Muslim; however, if a person forms a
covenant (‘Ahd) upon that, then it becomes obligatory upon him.

So in summary, the Bay’ah of the Imām of the Muslims is originally
obligatory (Wājib) to begin with in the (Islāmic) Legislation; but as
for the Bay’ahs amongst the people – their covenants – then they are
obligatory through the covenant of those who hold them upon
themselves (i.e. entered into it). As its explanation has preceded,
concerning that which is obligatory from the (Islāmic) Legislation
and that which is obligatory by the covenant, and that which is
obligatory because of both.

And the Bay’ah of the Imām of the Muslims is obligatory upon every
Muslim: “Adhere to the group (Jamā’ah) of the Muslims, and their
Imām.” But the Bay’ahs of the people – their covenants – they are not
obligatory upon every Muslim, rather upon he who holds it upon
himself (i.e. entered into it).

And here is an issue, which must be addressed, and I have
explained it before. And it is that Jihād in the Path of Allāh is
currently individually compulsory (Fardh ‘Ayn) on almost every
Muslim, so it is originally obligatory (Wājib) within the (Islāmic)
Legislation to begin with. Then if the Muslim finds a group which
is performing Jihād in the Path of Allāh, then it is obligatory upon
him to adhere to it. Then if these groups are numerous within one
country, then it is as I have mentioned previously, that the earliest
one of these groups – and which are upon the Truth - is the most
deserving to be adhered to. And if the groups are abundant in
many countries, then he must look to the one which is confronting
the greatest threats, and about which there is a strong assumption
that it might prevail - then he must support this group.

5. The time period: The Bay’ah to the Imām is unending and is not
severed unless the Imām dies or something comes upon him which
obligates his removal, such as a deficiency in Religion (Dīn) or a



deficiency in body. 292 As for the Bay’ahs of the people – their
covenants – then I have previously mentioned that it is permissible
for them to be time-limited. So it is allowed for them to choose the
length of time, unlike the Bay’ah of the Imām.

6. Being numerous: It is not valid to make the contract (‘Aqd) of
governance (Imāmah) to two Imāms over the Muslims. And the
Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬has stated, “Fulfill the (rights of the)
Pledge of Allegiance (Bay’ah) of the earliest then the (second) earliest…” –
Agreed upon, from Abū Hurayrah. And he ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “If
two Khalīfahs are given the Pledge of Allegiance (Al-Bay’ah), then kill the
latter of the two.” – narrated by Muslim, from Abū Sa’īd Al-Khudrī.
So it is invalid to have numerous Imāms, and it is not valid for the
Muslims to give two Bay’ahs to two Imāms.

As for the Bay’ahs of the people – their covenants – they are allowed
to be numerous as long as that which the Bay’ah is based upon, is
able to be numerous. So it is permissible for an individual to form a
covenant with an assembly, upon memorizing the Qur’ān, and it is
allowed for the same individual to form a covenant with another
assembly upon memorizing the Hadīth of the Prophet ‫.ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
It is even allowed for him to form a covenant (‘Ahd) with more than
one group upon memorizing the Hadīth if a group from them is
intending to memorize from Al-Bukhārī and the other from
Muslim, and so on, as long as it is within his ability to fulfill all of
that. As for that which it is not possible to be numerous, and it is
Al-Jihād, as I mentioned previously, then it is not valid for him to
form a covenant with more than one party (Tā’ifah), and it is not
correct for the groups that are working for Jihād to be numerous,
because the Jihād cannot established except with force, which is
only the fruit of unity and mutual loyalty (Muwālāt):

‫ُ ْ ِﻨ ﹶ ﻭ ُ ْ ِ ﺕ ْﻀﻬ ْ ْ ْ ﹴ ﹾ ُﺮ ﹶ َ ْﺮ ِ َ ْ َ ْ ﹶ َ ﹺ ﻤ ﹶ ﹺ‬

Look to “The Causes for Removal”, in “Al-Ahkām As-Sultāniyyah”, by Al-
292

Māwardī



The Believers, men and women, are Awliyā’ (helpers, supporters,
Al-Ma’rūf (i.e. Islāmic Monotheism and all that Islām orders one
to do), and they forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism
and disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islām has forbidden). 293

And being numerous negates the mutual loyalty (Muwālāt) and it
even leads to the loss of this force:

‫ﻭﻻ َﺗﻨَﺎﺯ ُﻮﹾﺍ ﻓﺘﻔﺸ ﹸﻮﹾﺍ ﻭَﺗﺬﻫﺐ ﺭ ُ ﹸﻢ ﻭَﺍﺻﺒ ُﻭﹾﺍ‬
‫َ ﹶ َﻋ ﹶَ ﹾ َﻠ َ ﹾ َ َ ﹺﳛﻜ ْ ْﹺﺮ‬
… and do not dispute (with one another) lest you lose courage
and your strength departs, and be patient. 294

Likewise, being numerous leads to the harming of every group
towards the others, due to the collision of strategies and plans, and
the absence of coordination and organization. As one party (Tā’ifah)
might perform an armed operation, which could lead the enemy to
strike another party, which is not ready for confrontation. And the
Sharī’ah-based rule is: “The Harm is to be Removed.” 295 And all of
these are from the evils of being numerous (i.e. groups not uniting).

This, and I have mentioned previously, the remedy for this disease
in the end of the third chapter of this treatise.

7. The Hadīths of Bay’ah: The Hadīths, in which the Bay’ah is
mentioned, are all to be held – with the exception of the Bay’ahs that
took place between the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬and his Companions –

294 Trans. Note: Al-Anfāl, 46
295 Trans. Note: “The Harm is to be Removed” is our translation of “Adh-Dharar

Yuzāl”, which is the rule in Islāmic Jurisprudence (Fiqh), that states that any
action, which is taken for reform should not result in a greater harm. Although
there are some who, due to negligence, have taken this rule to outright prevent
any military operations against the enemies of Islām, Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qādir, may
Allāh free him, has incorporated this rule within the considerations of these
operations so that they do not result in a greater burden on the Believers. And
may Allāh give victory to his Religion and support those Mujāhidīn who strive
with their wealth and their lives in the Path of Allāh, the Most High.



upon the Bay’ah of the Imām of the Muslims; the Khalīfah or the Amīr
Al-Mu’minīn or the Sultān. And this has been affirmed for us by
Istiqrā’ 296 in what we have researched. And it is not correct to hold
these Hadīths under any condition, upon the covenants of the
groups (Jamā’āt), even if they call their covenants “Bay’ahs”, and
this is permissible, as I mentioned previously.

And the Hadīths which have been narrated with the mentioning of
“Bay’ah”, were either restricted to the Bay’ah of the Imām, or in
unrestricted terms without mentioning the Imām. So that which is
obligatory, is to apply the absolute (phrasing) upon the restricted
(phrasing), especially if the ruling and the reason [for the ruling
(Sabab)] are one, according to the (opinion of the) majority of the
People of Knowledge.

And from the Hadīths where the Bay’ah has been narrated, being
restricted to the Imām, are:

• The statement of the Prophet ‫ …“ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬and there will be
successors (Khulafā’) who will become many.” They asked, “Then what
do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Fulfill the (rights of the) Pledge of
Allegiance (Bay’ah) of the earliest then the (second) earliest.” – Agreed
upon, from Abū Hurayrah.

• The statement of the Prophet ‫“ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬If two Khalīfahs are given
the Pledge of Allegiance (Al-Bay’ah), then kill the latter of the two.”
Narrated by Muslim from Abū Sa’īd.

• The statement of the Prophet ‫“ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Whoever pledges Bay’ah
to an Imām, giving him the contract of his hand and the fruit of his heart,
then he must obey him to the best of his ability. Then if another comes and

296 Trans. Note: Istiqrā’ (i.e. widespread investigation), meaning that when we

investigate all the various narrations, in which this term is generally used, we see
that the context refers to the Bay’ah of the Imām of the Muslims. This of course
does not include the narrations cited earlier, such as the Athar of ‘Ikrimah and
Qays Ibn Sa’d, etc. in which it is clear that the Bay’ah being called to was a Bay’ah
upon fighting etc. And this will be clarified shortly, In Shā’ Allāh.



disputes with him (i.e. the Imām), then strike the neck of the other.” –
narrated by Muslim, from ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Amr.

As for the Hadīths in which the Bay’ah was narrated in unrestricted
terms - then the most important of them is the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar,
from the Prophet ‫“ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Whoever dies while he does not have a
Bay’ah upon his neck - he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic
Ignorance).” – narrated by Muslim. And that which caused us to
declare that this Bay’ah refers to the Bay’ah to the Imām of the
Muslims, even though it was phrased in unrestricted terms, is the
Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās, in Marfū’ form, “Whoever hates something from
his Amīr, then he should be patient, because whoever departs (the distance
of) one hand-span away from the Sultān, then he dies a death of
Jāhiliyyah.” – narrated by Al-Bukhārī. And departing from the
Sultān, is striving to break his Bay’ah. 297 So the cause (Sabab) in the
two Hadīths – i.e. the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar and the Hadīth of Ibn
‘Abbās – is one, and that is the departure from the Bay’ah of the
Sultān, or avoiding giving Bay’ah to him after the people have
agreed upon him. And the ruling in both Hadīths is the same, and it
is the death of Jāhiliyyah for the one who does that, and the
clarification of its meaning will be come soon. So it is obligatory,
due to that, to hold the unrestricted – i.e. the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar –
upon the restricted – i.e. the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās. And (we must
conclude) that the intended Bay’ah in the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar, is the
Bay’ah of the Imām, if he exists, because the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās
mentioned that this was the ruling of the one who rebels against
the Sultān. So this necessitates the presence of a Sultān who could
be rebelled against (in the first place).

I say: And due to that, Ibn Hajar narrated the previous Hadīth of
Ibn ‘Umar in the explanation of the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās, which
was referred to, so the Sharh (explanation) may be reviewed. 298

And I wanted to clarify this, because some of the groups (Jamā’āt),
which are established nowadays, use this Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar to

297 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/7)
298 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/6-7)



call the people to give Bay’ah to their Amīr. And they say to the one
being invited, “Whoever dies while he does not have a Bay’ah upon his
neck - he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic Ignorance),” frightening
him with this Hadīth. But the matter is not like that, as I explained,
because the “Bay’ah” in the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar, is the Bay’ah to the
Imām of the Muslims. And it is not to be applied upon other than
this direction, because this is an alteration of the texts, like the
action of the Jews. He, the Most High, said:

‫ُﻳﺤﺮ ﹸﻮﻥ ﺍﹾﻟﻜﻠﻢ ﻋَﻦ ﻣﻮَﺍﺿﻌﻪ‬
ِ ِ ِ ‫َ ﱢﻓ ﹶ ﹶ ِ َ ﱠ‬
They alter the words from their (right) places… 299


‫ُﻳﺤﺮ ﹸﻮﻥ ﺍﹾﻟﻜﻠﻢ ﻣِﻦ َﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻮَﺍﺿﻌﻪ‬
ِِِ َ ِ ْ َ ِ ‫َ ﱢﻓ ﹶ ﹶ‬
They alter the words after they were placed in their (right)
places… 300

And the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “You shall follow the
traditions of those who came before you, hand-span by hand-span and
arm-length by arm-length, to such a degree, if they were to enter the hole
of a lizard, you too would follow them.” We asked, ‘O Messenger of
Allāh, (do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?’ He said, ‘Then
who else?” – Agreed upon, from Abū Sa’īd Al-Khudrī.

So, does my aforementioned discussion, which was that the
“Bay’ah” in the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar is regarding the Bay’ah to the
Khalīfah, imply lifting the sin off of the Muslims, as they currently
have no Khalīfah? I say: No, on the contrary. This Hadīth – in my
opinion – is one of the strongest evidences for the obligation upon
the Muslims to strive to establish a Khalīfah for them. And this
cannot be achieved except through Jihād in most cases. And
furthermore, in my view – and Allāh is the Most Knowledgeable of
what is the Truth – is that every Muslim who dies now (in our

299 An-Nisā, 46 & Al-Mā’idah, 13



time), while there is no Khalīfah for the Muslims; he is sinful, and
the condemnation which was narrated in the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar,
applies upon him: “… he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah.” In other words,
he dies upon sin, and not upon kufr - and its elucidation will come –
(so he dies upon Jāhiliyyah) unless he was from those who strove for
this cause, even if he did not accomplish the goal of establishing the
Islāmic State and the setting up of a Khalīfah. (And this is the
exception) due to Allāh’s statement:

‫ﻭﻣَﻦ َﻳﺨﺮﺝ ﻣِﻦ َﺑﻴﺘﻪ ﻣﻬَﺎﺟﺮًﺍ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺭ ُﻮِﻟﻪ ﹸﺛﻢ ُﻳﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﺍﹾﻟﻤﻮﺕ‬
ُ ْ َ ُ ‫ﹼ ِ َ َﺳ ِ ﱠ ْ ﹺ ﹾ‬ ‫ْ ُ ْ ِْ ِ ُ ﹺ‬ َ
‫ﻓﻘﺪ ﻭﻗﻊ ﹶﺃﺟ ُ ُ ﻋَﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ‬
ِ‫ﹼ‬ ‫ﹶ ﹶ ْ َ ﹶ َ ْﺮﻩ‬
And whosoever leaves his home as an emigrant unto Allāh and
His Messenger, and then death overtakes him, his reward is then
surely incumbent upon Allāh. 301

Or if he was incapable of striving for this cause, yet his intention
was sincerely truthful in seeking it, (then he would be excused),
due to the Hadīth that has previously been mentioned regarding the
people who are excused. The Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said,
during a battle, “Verily, in Madīnah, there are men who, you do not
travel any journey, nor cross any valley, except that they are sharing in
your reward, however illness has held them back.” – narrated by
Muslim, from Jābir. And its explanation has passed within the
second chapter.

And that which has preceded does not contradict the Hadīth, “But,
if they have no group (Jamā’ah) and no leader (Imām)?’ He said,
“Then avoid all those sects (Al-Firaq)…” – Agreed upon, from
Huthayfah. As I have explained earlier, that the Hadīth of The
Victorious Party (At-Tā’ifah Al-Mansūrah) restricts the generality of
this avoidance (I’tizāl), as I mentioned at the end of the third
chapter. Especially since the texts have indicated that there is a
“Rightly-Guided Khilāfah” approaching, In Shā’ Allāh Ta’āla, so it is
obligatory (Wājib) to strive for that. And from these texts, is the
Hadīth from Abū Hurayrah, in Marfū’ form, “How will you be when

301 An-Nisā’, 100



Ibn Maryam will descend among you while your Imām is from
yourselves?” – Agreed upon.

And the Hadīths are oft-narrated (Mutawātir), concerning the
emergence of the Khalīfah, “Al-Mahdī”, and it is said that he is the
Imām that ‘Īsā ‫ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬will pray behind. 302 And also from them is
the Hadīth of Huthayfah Ibn Al-Yamān, in Marfū’ form, “The
Prophethood will remain among you for as long as Allāh wills…” – the
Hadīth, and it will be presented in full, soon. And there are Hadīths
which indicate that the Mahdī will emerge upon the death of the
Khalīfah – the Hadīth of Umm Salamah, narrated by Ahmad and
Abū Dāwūd. 303 Therefore, there is a Khilāfah before the emergence
of the Mahdī. So these texts, along with that which is indicated by
the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar, “Whoever dies while he does not have a Bay’ah
upon his neck…” causes us to declare that it is obligatory to strive for
the establishment of the Khilāfah, with the knowledge that the
Bay’ahs of the Islāmic groups (Jamā’āt) now, do not remove this sin,
as there are some who have gone to (the opinion) that if he were to
(merely) give Bay’ah to an Amīr of any group (Jamā’ah), that the sin
would be removed from him, meaning the sin which was
mentioned in the Hadīth, “Whoever dies while he does not have a Bay’ah
upon his neck…” So the Bay’ah in this Hadīth is the Bay’ah of the
Great Imām and its clarification has passed – and the sin is not
removed from the Muslims, except by (striving utmost for)
establishing this Imām - and Allāh, the Most High, knows best.

8. The ruling upon he who violates it: In other words- Is the ruling
upon the one who breaks the Bay’ah of the Imām of the Muslims, the
same as the ruling upon the one who does not fulfill his covenant
(‘Ahd) with an group (Tā’ifah) or with a man from the Muslims?

The clarification of this issue will come in the following topic, In
Shā’ Allāh Ta’āla.

302 Refer to “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (6/494), and the book “Al-Ithā’ah Limā Kāna Wa Yakūnu
Bayna Yaday As-Sā’ah”, by Siddīq Hasan Al-Qanūjī (Pg. 123-124) and the book
“An-Nihāyah” or “Al-Fitan Wal-Malāhim”(1/27), by Ibn Kathīr.
303 Refer to “Al-Ithā’ah” (Pg. 128) and “An-Nihāyah” (1/29).



Point of Benefit: And concerning what I mentioned above, that
there is a “Rightly-Guided Khilāfah” forthcoming, In Shā’ Allāh
Ta’āla – I will mention what Shaykh (Nāsir Ad-Dīn) Al-Albānī
mentioned in the introduction to the book “Al-Hukm Al-Jadīrah Bil-
Ithā’ah Min Qawl An-Nabī, ‫‘ :ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Bu’ithtu Bis-Sayfī Bayna
Yaday As-Sā’ah’” 304 by Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbalī, published by “Dār
Marjān”.

He said, “The Future is For Islām”: “Allāh, Glorified is He, said:

‫ُﻮ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻱ ﹶﺃﺭﺳﻞ ﺭ ُﻮﹶﻟ ُ ﺑﹺﺎﹾﻟﻬﺪَﻯ ﻭﺩِﻳﻦ ﺍﹾﻟﺤﻖ ِﻟُﻈﻬﺮ ُ ﻋﻠﹶﻰ ﺍﻟ ﱢﻳﻦ ﹸﻠﻪ ﻭﹶﻟﻮ ﻛﺮﻩ‬
َ ‫ْ َ ﹶ َﺳ ﻪ ُ َ ﹺ َ ﱢ ﻴ ﹾ ﹺ َﻩ َ ﺪ ﹺ ﻛ ﱢ ِ َ ْ ﹶ ﹺ‬ َ‫ﻫ‬
‫ﺍﹾﻟﻤﺸﺮ ﹸﻮﻥ‬
‫ُ ْ ﹺﻛ ﹶ‬
It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the
Religion of Truth (Islām), to make it superior over all religions
even though the mushrikūn (polytheists) hate (it). 305

So this noble Verse gives us glad tidings that the future is for Islām
with its supremacy, dominance, and sovereignty above all other
religions. And some people might assume that this occurred during
the Prophet’s time and in the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs
(Al-Khulafā’ Ar-Rāshidīn) and in the time of the pious kings. Yet it is
not like that, because what occurred was only a portion of this
Truthful Promise, just as the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬indicated to with
his statement:

1. The Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “The night and day will
not depart until (the idols of) Al-Lāt and Al-‘Uzzā are worshiped.” So
‘Ā’ishah said, ‘O Messenger of Allāh, I thought that when Allāh,
Glorified is He, revealed: It is He Who has sent His Messenger
with guidance and the Religion of Truth (Islām), to make it
superior over all religions… that this had ended.’ So he ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, ‘This will be for as long as Allāh, Glorified is He, wills. Then He

304 Trans. Note: Which means: “The Verdict Which Deserves Mentioning, from
the Statement of the Prophet, Peace and Blessings be upon him, ‘I Was Sent With
the Sword Between the Hands of the Hour.’”



will send a pleasant wind (Rīhan Tayyibah) and it will cause the death of
everyone who possesses even the weight of a mustard seed of Īmān in his
heart. So (only) those, in whom there is no goodness, will remain and they
will return to the religion of their forefathers.” – Narrated by Muslim,
with his chain of narration from ‘Ā’ishah.

And other Hadīths have been narrated, which clarify the degree of
the spreading of Islām and the extent of its reach, so that there
would be no doubt left that the future is for Islām, by the
permission of Allāh and His granted success. And now I will
mention what I can from these Hadīths, in hopes that it will be a
means for raising the determinations of those working for Islām,
and a clarifying argument (Hujjah) against those who despair, who
solely depend on others without taking any action:

2. The Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “Verily, Allāh gathered up
the Earth for me. So I saw its East and its West, and verily, my nation
will have its dominion attain (all) of what was laid out for me.” 306

3. The Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “This matter (i.e. Islām)
will arrive at wherever the night and day arrive. And Allāh will not leave
a clay house nor a house made from hides covered in fur, except that Allāh
will enter this Religion into it with the glory of the noble one or the
humiliation of the dishonored one; glory by which Allāh gives glory to
Islām, or humiliation by which Allāh humiliates kufr.” – Narrated by a
group, which I mentioned in “Tah’thīr As-Sājid”.307 And that which
there is no doubt about, is that for this spreading to arrive, it is
necessary for the Muslims to revive their morale, wealth, and
weapons, so that they will be able to overpower of the forces of kufr
and transgression. And this is what is given glad tidings about, by
the Hadīth:

4. From Abū Qubayl, who said, “We were at (the home of) ‘Abdullāh
Ibn ‘Amr Ibn Al-‘Ās, and he was asked which of the two cities

306 The Hadīth – narrated by Muslim, Abū Dāwūd and At-Tirmithī, from
Thawbān.
307 Pg. 121



would be conquered first, Constantinople or Rome. So ‘Abdullāh
called for a sealed trunk. So he removed a parchment from it. So
‘Abdullāh said, ‘While we were around the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ‬
‫ ,ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬writing (his Hadīths), the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
was asked, ‘Which of the two cities would be conquered first?
Constantinople or Rome?’ So the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
said, ‘The city of Heraclius will be conquered first.’ In other words,
Constantinople.” – Narrated by Ahmad and Ad-Dārimī, and it was
authenticated by Al-Hākim, and Ath-Thahabī agreed, and it is as
they said. And “Rūmiyah” [(Rome) in the Hadīth] refers to “Roma”,
as in “Mu’jam Al-Buldān”, which is the capital of modern-day Italy.
And the first conquest took place upon the hand of Muhammad Al-
Fātih Al-‘Uthmānī, as it is well known. 308 And that occurred more

308Trans. Note: These words from Al-Albānī must be explained, due to him
being mistaken in regards to this matter. Firstly, the matter is that the Hadīths
regarding the Conquest of Constantinople are of two types, a) Hadīths which
mention the virtue of the first ones who attack (Ghazw) this city; and b) Hadīths
which mention the virtue of the one at whose hand this city is conquered. And in
reality, none of the two types of Hadīths are applicable upon Muhammad Al-
Fātih Al-‘Uthmānī. And this becomes clear from:

1) In Al-Bukhārī, the Book of Jihād, Chapter of the Campaign of the Sea – from
Umm Harām Bint Malhān (may Allāh be pleased with her) that she heard the
Prophet (saw) saying, “The first army from my Ummah which will attack the City
of Caesar (Heraclius), they will be forgiven.” So I (i.e. Umm Harām) said, “Am I
amongst them, O Messenger of Allāh?” He replied, “No.” Al-Hāfith Ibn Hajar
commented that the “City of Caesar (Heraclius)” mentioned here, is
Constantinople.

Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allāh have mercy upon him) said, “And
according to consensus (Ijmā’), the first army which attacked it (Constantinople)
was under the command of Yazīd ibn Mu’āwiyah, and some of the Companions
were under his leadership as well, and amongst them was Abū Ayyūb Al-
Ansārī.” [Refer to the beginning of the third volume of Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā, when
he was asked, “Is Yazīd ibn Mu’āwiyah to be cursed, or not?”].

2) In Muslim, in the Book of Tribulations, from Abū Hurayrah (may Allāh be
pleased with him), that the Prophet said, “You have heard about a city, one side
of which is in the land and the other side is in the sea (i.e. Constantinople). They
said: “Yes, O Messenger of Allāh!” Thereupon he said: “The Last Hour would
not come unless seventy thousand persons from the Children of Is’hāq [the



than eight hundred years after the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬informed
(us) about its conquest. And the second conquest will take place, by
the permission of Allāh, the Most High, and it is a must. And you
shall certainly know the Truth of it after a while.

And there is also no doubt that the occurrence of this second
conquest – the conquest of Rome – means the return of the
“Rightly-Guided Khilāfah” to the Muslim Nation, and this is from
what we are given glad tidings of, in his statement, in the Hadīth:

5. The Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “The Prophethood will
remain among you as long as Allāh wishes it to remain, then Allāh (Most
High) will remove it. Then there will be a Khilāfah upon the Methodology
of the Prophethood as long as Allāh wishes it to remain, then Allāh (Most
High) will remove it when He wishes to remove it. Then there will be
distressful kingships which will remain as long as Allāh wishes them to

father of Ya’qūb, i.e. Isrā’īl] would attack it. When they would land there, they
will neither fight with weapons nor will they shower arrows, but they will only
say: “None has the right to be worshipped except Allāh, and Allāh is the Greatest!” -
and that one side of the city will fall. {Thawr (one of the narrators) said: I think
that he said: The part by the side of the ocean.} Then they would say for the
second time: “None has the right to be worshipped except Allāh, and Allāh is the
Greatest!” – and then the second side will also fall, and they would say: “None has
the right to be worshipped except Allāh, and Allāh is the Greatest!”- And the gates will
be opened for them and they would enter therein and they would begin
collecting spoils of war – then, while they are distributing them amongst
themselves, a noise would be heard and it would be said: “Verily, the Dajjāl has
come.” And thus they would leave everything there and would turn to him.”

And if the seeker of the truth looks at this Hadīth about the Conquest of
Constantinople, he will clearly see that the Dajjāl will come soon afterwards,
while the spoils of war are still being distributed – and this did not happen after
Muhammad Al-Fātih conquered Constantine, nor has it happened till this day of
ours today. So to claim that the Prophesized Conquest of Constantinople was
fulfilled by Muhammad Al-Fātih Al-‘Uthmānī – as Shaykh Al-Albānī has claimed
– then this is an erroneous conclusion which is not in harmony with the Hadīths
on the topic. And amongst those who stated that the Prophesized Conquest of
Constantinople was not fulfilled by Muhammad Al-Fātih, is Shaykh Ahmad
Shākir, Shaykh Abū Basīr, Shaykh ‘Abdullāh As-Sa’d, and many others. And Allāh
knows best.



remain, then Allāh (Most High) will remove them when He wishes to
remove them. Then there will be tyrannical kingships which will remain
as long as Allāh wishes them to remain, then Allāh (Most High) will
remove them when He wishes to remove them. Then there will be a
Khilāfah upon the Methodology of the Prophethood.” (Then he remained
silent.) Huthayfah mentioned it in Marfū’ form, and Al-Hāfith Al-
‘Irāqī narrated it from the path of Ahmad and said, “This is an
authentic Hadīth.” 309

This, and from the glad tidings about the return of strength and
power to the Muslims and their harvesting the Earth - a harvesting
that will assist in reaching the goal, and it notifies that they have a
brilliant future, even in terms of economy and agriculture, is:

6. The Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “The Hour will not be
established until the land of the ‘Arabs returns to being pastures and
rivers.” – Narrated by Muslim, Ahmad and Al-Hākim, from the
Hadīth of Abū Hurayrah.

And the glad tidings from this Hadīth have already begun to take
place in some areas within the Arabian Peninsula, due to what
Allāh has showered upon it from resources, blessings, and
(agricultural) watering equipment, which extracts an abundance of
water from beneath the desert ground. This, and from that which
must be known at this point, is that Prophet’s statement, “There will
not come upon you a time, except that which comes after it, is worse than
it, until you meet your Lord.” – Narrated by Al-Bukhārī in “Al-Fitan”,
from the Hadīth of Anas, in Marfū’ form. So this Hadīth must be
understood in the light of the aforementioned Hadīths, as well as
others, such as the Hadīths of Al-Mahdī and the descending of ‘Īsā,
‫ , ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬because they indicate that this Hadīth is not upon its
generality, rather it is from the general which has been restricted.
So it is not allowed to let the people understand it upon its

309Trans. Note: Refer to “Mahajjat Al-Qurb” (Pg. 175) of Al-Hāfith Al-‘Irāqī. Also
refer to Al-Albānī’s “As-Silsilah As-Sahīhah” (5), and his notes on “Mishkāt Al-
Masābīh” (5,306), where he graded it as “Hasan”.



generality, because they will fall into the despair which is not
befitting for the Believer to carry:

‫ﹺﺇﱠﻧ ُ ﻻ َﻳﻴﺄ ُ ﻣِﻦ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﹺﺇﻻ ﺍﹾﻟﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﹾﻟﻜﹶﺎﻓ ُﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻪ ﹶ ْ ﹶ ﺱ ﱠ ْ ﹺ ﹼ ِ ﱠ ﹶ ْ ُ ِﺮ ﹶ‬
Certainly no one despairs of Allāh’s Mercy, except the people
who disbelieve. 310

I ask Allāh to make us from the true Believers in Him…

– Muhammad Nāsir Ad-Dīn Al-Albānī 311

I say: And this is the last of what we will mention concerning the
difference between the Bay’ahs of the groups and the Bay’ah of the
Imām of the Muslims.

Seventhly: The Ruling Upon the One Who Breaks the
Covenant (‘Ahd)

Breaking the covenant – whatever it is – is a major sin (Kabīrah)
from amongst the major sins (Al-Kabā’ir), due to the Divine Threat
of Punishment narrated regarding that. And from those narrations,
are:


‫ﻭَﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﻳَﻨﻘ ُﻮﻥ ﻋﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣِﻦ َﺑﻌﺪ ﻣِﻴﺜﹶﺎﻗﻪ ﻭَﻳﻘﻄ ُﻮﻥ ﻣَﺂ ﹶﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﹺﺑﻪ ﺃﹶﻥ ُﻮﺻﻞ‬
‫ﻳ َﹶ‬ ِ ُ‫َ َ ﹼ‬ ‫ْ ِ ِ ِ َ ﹾ ﹶﻌ ﹶ‬ ِ ‫َ ﹸﻀ ﹶ َ ْ َ ﹼ‬
‫ﻭُﻳﻔﺴ ُﻭﻥ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺃﹸﻭﹶﻟﺌﻚ ﹶﻟ ُ ُ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﻨ ﹸ ﻭﹶﻟ ُﻢ ُﻮﺀ ﺍﻟ ﱠﺍﺭ‬
‫َ ْ ﹺ ْ ِ َ ﻬﻢ ﱠ َْﺔ َ ﻬ ْ ﺳ ُ ﺪ ﹺ‬ ‫َ ﹾ ِﺪ ﹶ‬
And those who break the covenant of Allāh, after its ratification,
and sever that which Allāh has commanded to be joined (i.e. they
sever the bond of kinship and are not good to their relatives), and
work mischief in the land, on them is the curse (i.e. they will be

Trans. Note: Yūsuf, 87
310
311From the introduction to the book “Al-Hukm Al-Jadīrah Bil-Ithā’ah Min Qawl
An-Nabī, Sallallāhu ‘Alayhī Wa-Sallam: ‘Bu’ithtu Bis-Sayfī Bayna Yaday As-
Sā’ah’”, by Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbalī, published by “Dār Al-Marjān”.



far away from Allāh's Mercy); And for them is the unhappy (evil)
home (i.e. Hell). 312

2. His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻳَﺎ ﹶﺃﱡﻳﻬَﺎ ﺍﱠﻟﺬِﻳﻦ ﺁﻣُﻮﺍ ِﻟﻢ َﺗ ﹸﻮﹸﻮﻥ ﻣَﺎ ﻟﹶﺎ َﺗﻔﻌ ﹸﻮﻥ ﻛُﺮ ﻣﻘﺘًﺎ ﻋِﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺃﹶﻥ َﺗ ﹸﻮﹸﻮﺍ ﻣَﺎ ﻟﹶﺎ َﺗﻔﻌ ﹸﻮﻥ‬
‫ﹾ َﻠ ﹶ‬ ‫ﹾ َﻠ ﹶ ﹶﺒ َ َ ﹾ َ ﱠ ِ ﻘ ﻟ‬ ‫َ َ َﻨ َ ﻘ ﻟ ﹶ‬
O you who believe! Why do you say that which you do not do?
Most hateful it is with Allah that you say that which you do not
do. 313

So whoever forms a covenant (‘Ahd) and does not fulfill (it), then he
is from those who say that which they do not do.

3. The Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “(There are) four
things, which whoever possesses them within him, then he is a pure
hypocrite (Munāfiq) and whoever has part of them within him, then there
is a part of hypocrisy (Nifāq) in him, until he leaves it. (These are): when
he is entrusted, he violates it (i.e. the trust). And when he speaks, he lies.
And when he undertakes a covenant (‘Ahd), he breaks it. And when he
disputes, he acts in an offensive, insulting manner.” 314

And Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbalī said, in the explanation of this Hadīth,
“And the treachery (Ghadr) is Harām in every covenant between the
Muslim and someone else, even if the one who was covenanted
with (Mu’āhad) is a disbeliever (kāfir). And due to this, there is, in
the Hadīth of ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Amr, from the Prophet ‫,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
‘Whoever kills someone who has a covenant (Mu’āhad) unjustly, he will
not smell the fragrance of Paradise, although its fragrance can be found
(i.e. smelled) from a distance of forty years.’ – Narrated by Al-Bukhārī.
And Allāh, the Most High, ordered in His Book, the fulfillment of
the covenants of the mushrikīn, as long as they (also) remain
(fulfilling) upon their covenants, while not breaking anything from

312 Ar-Ra’d, 25
313 Trans. Note: As-Saff, 2-3
314 Trans. Note: Also narrated by Muslim, At-Tirmithī, Abū Dāwūd and Ahmad

with similar phrasings, all from ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Amr, may Allāh be pleased with
them.



them. As for the covenants of the Muslims amongst themselves –
fulfilling them is even more binding, and breaking them is an even
greater sin. And from the greatest of them, is the covenant of the
Imām with those who follow him and are satisfied with him (as
their Imām). And in the two “Sahīhs”, from Abū Hurayrah, from the
Prophet ‫ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬who said, ‘(There are) three types of people whom
Allāh will not speak to on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify
them, and they shall have a painful torment…’ Then he mentioned
from them, ‘… a man who gives Bay’ah to an Imām; he does not give him
Bay’ah except for some worldly gain (Dunyā). So if he (i.e. the Imām)
gives him what he desires, he fulfills it (i.e. the Bay’ah), otherwise, he does
not fulfill it.’ And included in the covenants, which must be fulfilled
and about which the treachery (Ghadr) is Harām in, are all the
contracts (‘Uqūd) of the Muslims amongst themselves, if they
approved of them, from business transactions, marriages and other
than these from the contracts which are bound, which are
obligatory to fulfill; And likewise, (it is forbidden to break the
covenant) from that which is obligatory to fulfill to Him, Glorified
is He, from that which the slave forms a covenant upon with his
Lord, of the vow (Nathr) to do something (if something happens or
is done), and the likes of it.” 315

The aforementioned words cover all covenants, and from them is
the Bay’ah to the Imām of the Muslims, except that breaking this
Bay’ah has a specific Divine Threat of Punishment narrated
concerning it, due to its great danger. Just as Ibn Rajab said in his
aforementioned words, “As for the covenants of the Muslims
amongst themselves – fulfilling them is even more binding, and
breaking them is an even greater sin. And from the greatest of
them, is the covenant of the Imām with those who follow him and
are satisfied with him (as their Imām).”

And Imām Al-Bukhārī (may Allāh be merciful to him) specified
several chapters in his “Sahīh” concerning that which relates to the
fulfillment of the covenants and the sin of the breaker (of the
covenant) and the disloyal. I shall mention them generally and I

315 “Jāmi’ Al-‘Ulūm Wal-Hikam” (Pg. 376-377)



advise the brother reader to review them in the “Sahīh”, as well as
its explanation, because they contain great benefits.

A. From them, is in “The Book of Witnesses” – “Chapter: Those Who
Are Ordered to Fulfill the Promise (Wa’d).” - “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (5/289)

B. And in “The Book of Jizyah and Delaying the Hostilities” –
“Chapter: The Virtues of Fulfilling the Covenants” and “Chapter:
What Has Been Warned Against, Concerning Treachery” and
“Chapter: The Sin of the One Who Forms a Covenant and Then
Betrays It” and “Chapter: The Sin of the One Who Betrays a
Righteous Person (Birr) or (Even) a Wicked Person (Fājir).” - “Fat’h
Al-Bārī” (6/276 – 283)

C. And in “The Book of Oaths and Vows” – “Chapter: The Covenant
of Allāh, Glorified is He.” - “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (11/544); and “Chapter:
The Statement of Allāh, Glorified is He: Verily, those who
purchase a small gain at the cost of Allāh’s Covenant and their
oaths…” - “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (11/577)

However, as for the specific Divine Threat of Punishment which is
narrated concerning the breaking of the Bay’ah of the Imām of the
Muslims, then from that, is:

The Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar, in Marfū’ form, “Whoever dies while he does
not have a Bay’ah upon his neck - he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic
Ignorance).” – narrated by Muslim.

The Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās, in Marfū’ form, “Whoever hates something
from his Amīr, then he should be patient, because whoever departs (the
distance of) one hand-span away from the Sultān, then he dies a death of
Jāhiliyyah.” – Agreed upon.

And in another narration from Ibn ‘Abbās, also in Marfū’ form,
“Whoever sees something from his Amīr, which he hates, then he should
be patient with him - because whoever leaves the Jamā’ah, (even) one
hand-span, and then dies, (does not do so) except that he dies a death of
Jāhiliyyah.” – Agreed upon.



Ibn Hajar said, in the explanation of this Hadīth, “His statement,
‘Whoever hates something from his Amīr, then he should be patient…’; he
added in the second narration, ‘…with him…’. His statement, ‘…
because whoever departs away from the Sultān…’, in other words, from
the obedience of the Sultān. In the narration of Muslim, it was
worded, ‘… because whoever departs away from the Sultān…’ And in
the second narration, ‘… whoever leaves the Jamā’ah…’ and his
statement, ‘… one hand-span…’ [Shibran] with the Kasrah on the first
(letter) and the Sukūn on the second (letter). And this is tantamount
to the disobedience to the Sultān and waging war against him. Ibn
Abī Hamzah said, ‘The “leaving”, means striving to break the
contract (‘Aqd) of Bay’ah which had taken place with that Amīr,
even (if the violation is) of the most minute detail. So he described
it with the amount of the hand-span, because doing that (i.e.
departing from the Sultān/leaving the Jamā’ah), leads to bloodshed
without a just cause.’ His statement, ‘… he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah.’
and in the other narration, ‘… and then dies, (does not do so) except
that he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah.’ And in a narration of Muslim, ‘…
then his death is a death of Jāhiliyyah.’ And with him (i.e. Muslim),
from the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar, which he narrated in Marfū’ form, ‘…
whoever withdraws one hand from obedience, he will meet Allāh while
having no argument (Hujjah) in his favor; and whoever dies while he does
not have a Bay’ah upon his neck - he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah.’ Al-
Karamānī said, ‘And the exception here, takes the meaning of an
objection based upon an enquiry, 316 in other words, no one leaves
the Jamā’ah except that this happens to him. Or it could be that the
phrase ‘… does not…’ was omitted (from the phrasing). So it is to

316Trans Note: “An objection in the form of an enquiry,” is our translation of
“Istifhām Inkārī”, which refers to a form of rhetorical question one might ask to
make a point about how bad something is and to therefore object to it. For
example, in English someone might say, “You’re not actually considering doing
that, are you?” This phrase does not necessarily mean that the questioner does
not know the answer; rather it is a question that one might ask to make the point
that this particular course of action (whatever it is) is inadvisable. Likewise, a
person might say, “Are you kidding?” knowing that the person, to whom he is
speaking, is quite serious. However, he phrases this as a rhetorical question in
order to emphasize the point that he does not approve of what has been
suggested. In this case, it is as if the author is suggesting that the Hadīth implies,
“Would anyone leave the Jamā’ah unless he were in a state of Jāhiliyyah?”



be assumed that it is in its proper place (when understanding it). 317
Or it could be that the phrase ‘… except that…’ is an extraneous
wording or that it is a conjunction, according to the opinion of the
people of Al-Kūfah, and what is intended by ‘… a death [Mītah] of
Jāhiliyyah,’ which has a Kasrah on the Mīm, refers to the state of
death – like the death of the People of Jāhiliyyah – upon
misguidance, while not having an Imām that they obey - because
they used to be ignorant of that. But it does not mean that he dies as
a disbeliever (kāfir), rather he dies as a disobedient sinner (‘Āsī).
And it could be that the resemblance is outward, and that it means
that he dies a death like the death of a person of Jāhiliyyah, even if
he did not die as a Person of Jāhiliyyah. Or it could be that that was
narrated in order to avoid and steer people clear of it and that its
apparent meaning (i.e. death upon Jāhiliyyah) was not intended. But
what supports (the opinion) that what is intended is the actual
resemblance is his saying in the other Hadīth, ‘Whoever leaves the
Jamā’ah, (even) one hand-span, then it is as if he removed the noose of
Islām from his neck.’ – Narrated by At-Tirmithī, Ibn Kuzaymah and
Ibn Hibbān, and it was authenticated from the Hadīth of Al-Hārith
Ibn Al-Hārith Al-Ash’arī.” 318

317 Trans Note: “Assumed that it is in its proper place,” is our translation of
“Muqaddarah”, which refers to instances in grammar whereby certain words are
omitted from a phrase, yet the meaning is understood. For example, in English
someone might say to another, ‘Morning,’ as a greeting. It is understood that this
person is actually saying, “Good morning,” or “Good morning to you.” So even
though certain additional words were absent from this phrase, its meaning is
understood in the context of the dialogue.
318 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/6-7)

Trans. Note: As for this specific phrasing, Ash-Shawkānī mentioned that in it
there is Julayd Ibn Da’laj, and he has been spoken about, and Ibn Hajar
mentioned the same thing, except from Ibn ‘Abbās instead of Al-Hārith, and he
said Khulayd instead of Julayd. Despite this, there are many similar phrasings
that have been authenticated, such as, “Whoever leaves the Jamā’ah, the amount of a
hand-span, then he has removed the noose of Islām from his neck.” From Abū Tharr Al-
Ghifārī (may Allāh be pleased with him). Authenticated by Ibn Al-Mulqin in “Al-
Badr Al-Munīr” (8/527). And a similar, longer phrasing authenticated by Ibn Al-
Qayyim in “I’lām Al-Muwaqqi’īn” (1/208), and another phrasing in “Al-
Furūsiyyah” (Pg. 269).



So these are some of the texts narrated about the sin of the one who
breaks the Bay’ah of the Imām of the Muslims. And the meaning of
“… he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah,”- in other words, upon sin, as Ibn
Hajar said, “But it does not mean that he dies as a disbeliever
(kāfir), rather he dies as a disobedient sinner (‘Āsī).” And that is
because “Al-Jāhiliyyah” is a homonym [a word which carries
multiple meanings], which could refer to more than one meaning.
As it could refer to the sins, just like in the Prophet ‫’ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬s
statement to Abū Tharr, “Verily, you are a man with Jāhiliyyah in
you.” And Al-Bukhārī narrated this Hadīth within “The Book of
Īmān” from his Sahīh, in the “Chapter: The Sins are From the Traits
of Jāhiliyyah And the One Who Commits Them Does Not Disbelieve
Except Through Shirk.” And the meaning of “Jāhiliyyah” could be
kufr like in the Hadīth of Huthayfah, “Verily, we were in Ignorance
(Jāhiliyyah) and evil and then Allāh came to us with this goodness
(Khayr), which we are (presently) upon …” – Agreed upon, and the
phrasing is that of Muslim. And there must be an indicator from
within the same text or an external text, which would clarify the
intended meaning of the homonym. But this is not the space to
digress into the details of that.

Point of Notice: It was reported in a narration of the
aforementioned Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās; “… because whoever departs
(the distance of) one hand-span away from the Sultān, then he dies a death
of Jāhiliyyah.” And in the other narration, “… because whoever leaves
the Jamā’ah, (even) one hand-span, and then dies, (does not do so) except
that he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah.” So the meaning of the word
“Jamā’ah” in the second narration, is that Jamā’ah of the Muslims
which obeys the Sultān, and its intended meaning is not just any
Jamā’ah. And that which brings us to this conclusion, is two matters:

The first: The obligation of holding the unrestricted, in the second
narration, “… the Jamā’ah…” upon the restricted, in the first
narration, “… the Sultān…” And that is due to the sharing of the
same ruling and cause 319 in both narrations. So the intended

Trans. Note: The ruling, being mentioned in each Hadīth is that the one who
319

commits this action dies a death of Jāhiliyyah. The cause, being mentioned in each
Hadīth is the splitting/rebelling/departing from the Imām or the Jamā’ah. What



meaning by the (word) “Jamā’ah”, is the uniting of the people upon
the (recognition and obedience) of the Sultān. And this is what is
understood from the explanation of Ibn Hajar, concerning the
Hadīth, which has preceded. And this understanding is supported
by the Hadīths of ‘Arjafah, which are in Muslim, regarding the one
who rebels against the Imām of the Muslims. As the Messenger of
Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬described him as sowing dissension amongst the
Muslims and dividing their Jamā’ah. And this means that the
rebellion against the Sultān is a rebellion against the Jamā’ah of the
Muslims.

From ‘Arjafah, that the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “There
will be trials and (more) trials. So whoever wishes to divide the matter of
this nation (Ummah), while it is together; then strike him with the sword,
no matter who he is.” And clearer than this is the following narration
from ‘Arjafah as well, that he heard the Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬saying, “Whoever comes to you, while your matter is together
upon one man, desiring to sow dissension or divide your Jamā’ah - then
kill him.” – Narrated by Muslim.

The second: The Lām in “Al-Jamā’ah” (i.e. The Jamā’ah) is for Al-
‘Ahdiyyah, and not for the entire category (Al-Jins) 320 . In other
words, this Divine Threat of Punishment in the Hadīth is
concerning the one who rebels against a specific Jamā’ah, and not
just any Jamā’ah. So what is the indicator, which was narrated in the
phrasing of the Hadīth, which strengthens this (opinion)? It is the
Prophet ‫’ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬s statement, “Whoever sees something from his
Amīr, which he hates, then he should be patient…” - the attribution of
“Amīr” to the pronoun (i.e. “his” Amīr), while the Prophet ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬is addressing the general population of the Muslims, means
that he (i.e. this “Amīr”) is the Amīr of the Jamā’ah of the Muslims.

this means is that the fact that each Hadīth is mentioning the exact same ruling,
regarding the exact same cause, which is the action that brought on this ruling,
makes us more sure and more willing to hold the unrestrictedness of one Hadīth
upon the restrictedness of the other Hadīth.
320 Trans. Note: For a brief explanation of this linguistic rule, refer footnote #53.



And he is the Sultān, as the Prophet labeled him in the first
narration. So the Jamā’ah which is intended (in the Hadīth) is the
Jamā’ah of the Muslims, which is obedient to the Sultān, as in the
Hadīth of Huthayfah, “Adhere to the group (Jamā’ah) of the Muslims,
and their Imām.” – Agreed upon.

And from the clearest texts about this issue, is the Hadīth of Abū
Hurayrah, in Marfū’ form, “Whoever departs from the obedience and
leaves the Jamā’ah, and then dies - he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah.” –
Narrated by Muslim. As-San’ānī said, “‘… from the obedience…’ in
other words, the obedience of the Khalīfah, upon whom the
(Muslims) have united. And he said, ‘… and leaves the Jamā’ah…’ in
other words, leaves the Jamā’ah, which agreed upon the obedience
of an Imām with whom their affairs were organized, and their word
became unified upon, and who safeguarded them from their
enemy.” 321

And by making this note, I hope that no group (Jamā’ah) from
amongst the Islāmic groups (Jamā’āt) would use – as is
commonplace in reality – this Hadīth in an improper place, such
that it would (be used to) portray a person who leaves it (i.e. that
particular Jamā’ah) dying a death of Jāhiliyyah. They say to the one
who leaves them rightfully or mistakenly, “You left the Jamā’ah,
while the Messenger ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said: … whoever leaves the Jamā’ah,
(even) one hand-span, and then dies, (does not do so) except that he dies a
death of Jāhiliyyah.” So this is placing the texts in an improper place
(i.e. context). And the “Jamā’ah” in this Hadīth is the Jamā’ah of the
Muslims who are obedient to a Sharī’ah-based Sultān, and not just
any Jamā’ah - as its clarification has preceded. It is true that Ibn Al-
Athīr (may Allāh be merciful to him) held the meaning of “… the
Jamā’ah…” upon its general meaning, as he considered the Lām in it,
to refer to the general category (Jins). So it is correct at this time (i.e.
context) to hold it upon any Jamā’ah, as he (may Allāh be merciful
to him) said, “‘Whoever leaves the Jamā’ah, then his death is (one of)
Jāhiliyyah.’ This refers to every Jamā’ah that has formed a contract
(‘Aqd) that complies with the Book and the Sunnah. So it is not

321 “Subul As-Salām” (3/1,228), “Chapter: Fighting the People of Rebellion.”



allowed for anyone to leave them in that contract (‘Aqd). Then if he
opposes them in that, he is deserving of the Divine Threat of
Punishment. And the meaning of his statement, ‘…his death is (one
of) Jāhiliyyah.’ In other words, he dies upon that which the People of
Jāhiliyyah died upon, of misguidance and ignorance.” 322

But the matter is not as he (may Allāh be merciful to him) said,
which was that this specific Divine Threat of Punishment is held
upon anyone who leaves any Jamā’ah which has united together to
perform an act of obedience. Rather, what is correct, In Shā’ Allāh
Ta’āla, is what I have established above, which is that the “Jamā’ah”
in this Hadīth is the Jamā’ah of the Muslims – who are obedient to
the Sultān – and no other (Jamā’ah). But this does not mean that
whoever breaks his covenant (‘Ahd) with a Jamā’ah which is upon
the Truth, is not deserving of anything from the Divine Threat of
Punishment. Rather, what is correct is that the condemnation and
Divine Threat of Punishment, which has been narrated generally
about the breaking of covenants, is held upon him, as I mentioned
in the beginning of this subject.

And the groups who apply this Hadīth upon themselves: some of
them have misinterpreted one word from the Hadīth, and some of
them have misinterpreted two words.

So those who misinterpreted one word from it, they misinterpreted
the word “Al-Jamā’ah” in that it means any Jamā’ah. And based
upon that, it would include their Jamā’ah; so whoever opposes
them, the Divine Threat of Punishment which was mentioned, is
held upon him. And the refutation of this has already preceded.

And as for the ones who misinterpreted two words - they (not only)
misinterpreted the word “Al-Jamā’ah”, as has passed, (but also) they
misinterpreted the word “Jāhiliyyah”. So they say that its meaning is
disbelief (kufr). And due to that, they issue a ‘declaration of
disbelief’ (Takfīr) upon those who oppose their Jamā’ah, as well as
the permissibility of spilling their blood. So they consider

322 “An-Nihāyah Fī Gharīb Al-Hadīth” (3/439), Subject: “Farraq”



themselves as “The Jamā’ah of the Muslims,” and that whosoever
opposes them, he becomes an apostate (murtadd) - and fighting
against the apostate is prioritized ahead of fighting against the
original disbeliever (Al-Kāfir Al-Aslī). And this is the creed of the
Khawārij, which is indeed the creed of some of the groups; So they
permit (killing and plundering from) those who oppose them, due
to their “apostasy”, according to them, that which they don’t
permit (the killing and plundering) from the original disbeliever
(Al-Kāfir Al-Aslī). Just as the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said about them;
“They kill the People of Islām, and let go of the People of the Idols.” 323

And the truth is that their mistake came as a result of their holding
a homonym upon only one of its (possible) meanings, without a
clarifying indicator (to restrict it to only one meaning), because the
word “Jāhiliyyah” could refer to disbelief (kufr), like in the Hadīth of
Huthayfah, “Verily, we were in ignorance (Jāhiliyyah) and evil and
then Allāh came to us with this goodness (Khayr), which we are
(presently) upon…” 324. So the meaning of “Jāhiliyyah” in the Hadīth
of Huthayfah, is the disbelief (kufr) prior to Islām. And the same
word can mean acts of disobedience (i.e. sins), like in the statement
of the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬to Abū Tharr, “Verily, you are a man with
Jāhiliyyah in you.” – Narrated by Al-Bukhārī. And Abū Tharr was
who he was (i.e. a Noble Companion), may Allāh be pleased with
him. So there must be an indicator, either from the text itself or
from other than it, which clarifies which of the two or more
meanings is intended by the word.

And in the Hadīth (meaning), “Whoever leaves the Jamā’ah, then dies,
he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah”, we said that this “Jamā’ah” is the one
which is obedient to the Sultān. And we say that the “Jāhiliyyah”

323 Refer to “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (3/355).

Trans. Note: Refer to “Thilāl Al-Jannah Takhrīj As-Sunnah” (910) by Ibn Abī ‘Āsim,
classified as “Sahīh” by Shaykh Nāsir Al-Albānī. Also narrated similarly by Al-
Bukhārī in “Kitāb Al-Anbiyā’” (3,166). Also narrated by Muslim, An-Nasā’ī, Abū
Dāwūd and Ahmad. All from Abū Sa’īd Al-Khudrī, may Alāh be pleased with
him.
324 Agreed upon, and the phrasing is that of Muslim.



here means disobedience (i.e. sins), and it does not mean the
disbelief (kufr), as it has passed in Ibn Hajar’s explanation of it.

And we have another evidence, and it is that the Bughāt (i.e. the
rebels against the proper Muslim authority) rebel against the
obedience to the Imām, yet Allāh called them Believers, as He, the
Most High, said:

‫ﻭﺇﹺﻥ ﻃﹶﺎِﺋﻔﺘَﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﹾﻟﻤُﺆﻣﻨﲔ ﺍﻗﺘﺘ ﹸﻮﺍ ﻓﺄﺻﻠﺤُﻮﺍ َﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤَﺎ ﻓﺈﹺﻥ َﺑﻐﺖ ﹺﺇﺣﺪَﺍﻫﻤَﺎ ﻋﻠﹶﻰ ﺍﹾﻟﺄﺧﺮَﻯ‬
ْ ‫َْ ُ ﹶ َ ْ ْ ُ َ ﹸ‬ ِ ْ ‫ﹶ ِ ِ َ ْ ِﹺ َ ﹾََﻠ ﹶﹶ‬ َ
‫ﻓﻘﹶﺎِﺗ ﹸﻮﺍ ﺍﱠﻟﺘِﻲ َﺗﺒﻐﻲ ﺣﱠﻰ َﺗﻔِﻲﺀ ﹺﺇﻟﹶﻰ ﹶﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ‬
ِ‫ْ ﹺ ﱠ‬ َ ‫ْ ِ َﺘ‬ ‫ﹶ ﻠ‬
And if two parties among the Believers fall to fighting, then
make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against
the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels
till it complies with the Command of Allāh…


‫ﹺﺇﱠﻧﻤَﺎ ﺍﹾﻟﻤﺆﻣُﻮﻥ ﹺﺇﺧﻮﺓ‬
‫ُ ْ ِﻨ ﹶ ْ َ ﹲ‬
Verily, the Believers are nothing else than brothers. 325

So Allāh labeled them “Believers” despite their rebellion and
fighting. So they rebelled against the Jamā’ah of the Muslims, yet
they did not commit kufr.

And we have a third evidence, and it is that Ibn ‘Umar – the
narrator of the Hadīth, “Whoever dies while he does not have a Bay’ah
upon his neck - he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah.” Ibn Hajar mentioned, in
the explanation of the Hadīth (describing) the Bay’ah of Ibn ‘Umar to
‘Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwān, saying, “And ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Umar, at
that time, used to refuse giving Bay’ah to either Ibn Az-Zubayr or
‘Abdul-Malik, just as he used to refuse to give Bay’ah to either ‘Alī
or Mu’āwiyah. Then he (finally) gave Bay’ah to Mu’āwiyah when he
formed the Sulh with Al-Hasan, the son of ‘Alī, and the people
united upon him. And he gave Bay’ah to Yazīd, after the death of
Mu’āwiyah, due to the uniting of the people upon him. Then (in

325 Al-Hujurāt, 9-10



this same way) he refused to give Bay’ah to anyone during the
times of dispute, until Ibn Az-Zubayr was killed and the kingship
went completely to ‘Abdul-Malik. So he (finally) gave Bay’ah to him
at that time.” 326

I say: And despite this stance of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allāh be pleased
with him) – even though the majority of the Companions (Sahābah),
the Tābi’īn and Ahl As-Sunnah went to (the opinion of) the
obligation of supporting the rightful (authority) and fighting
against the rebel – while not attributing errors to anyone of the
Companions (Sahābah), from those who left the fighting against the
rebels (Bughāt), due to them applying their best deductive
reasoning (Ijtihād) in this stance of theirs. And the details of this
have passed at the end of the third chapter. Yet, the proof (Shāhid)
from the action of Ibn ‘Umar – since he was the narrator of the
Hadīth, “Whoever dies while he does not have a Bay’ah upon his neck…”
– is that if the “Jāhiliyyah” actually meant disbelief (kufr), there
would be no room for him except to give Bay’ah to whichever of the
two was the closest to the Truth - but he had a Ta’wīl (interpretation
justifying) his leaving of the Bay’ah. And the (Ta’wīl which he had
justifying his leaving the Bay’ah) was (that there was) disagreement
of the people (about Ibn Az-Zubayr and ‘Abdul-Malik).

So this, among other things, indicates that the “Jāhiliyyah” in the
Hadīth “Whoever leaves the Jamā’ah…” - means disobedience (i.e.
sins), and not disbelief (kufr) as some of the groups (Jamā’āt) have
taken to that (opinion).

And there are those who issue the ‘declaration of disbelief’ (Takfīr)
upon the one who opposed their Jamā’ah, due to misinterpretation
of the Hadīth of Ibn Mas’ūd, which is in Marfū’ form, “The blood of a
Muslim person is not permissible (Halāl) except in one of three
(scenarios); the fornicator who has been married, and a soul for a soul (i.e.
retaliatory execution), and the one who abandons his Religion (Dīn), the
leaver of the Jamā’ah.” – Agreed upon. And the invalid interpretation
is that they made “… the one who abandons his Religion…” into a trait

326 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/195)



of “… the leaver of the Jamā’ah,” along with their assumption that
their Jamā’ah is the “Jamā’ah of the Muslims”. So (according to them),
the one who leaves them (i.e. their Jamā’ah) would be the one who
abandons his Religion.

But what is correct is that “… the leaver of the Jamā’ah…” is a trait of
“…the one who abandons his Religion…” and not the other way
around. And that is because whoever has become an apostate from
his Religion, then he has left the Jamā’ah through his leaving of the
bond which unites him with the Muslims – that being the bond of
Islām and Īmān. And this was what Ibn Hajar mentioned in the
explanation of the Hadīth of Ibn Mas’ūd, “The blood of a Muslim
person is not permitted…” Ibn Hajar said, “And what is meant by the
Jamā’ah, is the Jamā’ah of the Muslims. In other words, he leaves
them or abandons them by committing apostasy. So it is a
description of the abandoner or the leaver, not a separate
description, otherwise the categories (in the Hadīth) would have
been four (instead of three).” 327

I say: And due to that, it can be said that everyone who leaves his
Religion (Dīn) – the murtadd – then he is (also) an abandoner of the
Jamā’ah; yet not everyone who leaves the Jamā’ah is an abandoner of
his Religion (Dīn) – like the rebel (Baghī). And other narrations of
the same Hadīth have been reported without the mentioning of the
phrase “…the Jamā’ah,” such as the narration of At-Tirmithī, from
‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Affān (may Allāh be pleased with him), “The blood of
a Muslim person is not permissible (Halāl) except in one of three
(scenarios); a man who disbelieves after his Islām, or who fornicates after
his protection (i.e. his marriage), or kills a soul without a soul (i.e. while
not being a retaliatory execution).” 328 So this narration clarifies that
what was intended in the first narration is the apostate.

327“Fat’h Al-Bārī” (12/201-202)
328Trans. Note: Narrated by At-Tirmithī with a similar phrasing, as well as An-
Nasā’ī, and Abū Dāwūd with similar phrasings without mention of the Jamā’ah.
Also, similarly by Ahmad, from ‘Ā’ishah (may Allāh be pleased with her). Many
of these narrations were authenticated, look to “Al-Muhallā” by Ibn Hazm
(11/100) and (11/303). “Al-Badr Al-Munīr” by Ibn Al-Mulqin, (8/344). And also
the Tahqīq of “Musnad Ahmad” by Ahmad Shākir (1/216) and (1/247), as well as
other places within it.



A Follow Up Point: It must not be understood from my
aforementioned words, that when the phrase “Al-Jamā’ah” is
narrated in any Hadīth, that it necessarily refers to the Jamā’ah of the
Muslims who are obedient to the Khalīfah - for verily, the issue is
not like that. This is because “Al-Jamā’ah” is a homonym, which is
used with multiple meanings, the meaning of which becomes
known through indicators from the same text or from other texts.
And due to that, the meaning of “Al-Jamā’ah” in some Hadīths is
held upon (the meaning of) the “Jamā’ah of the Muslims who are
obedient to the Sultān”, due to the indicator which is present, and it
is obligatory - whenever the ruling (Hukm) and the reason (Sabab)
are the same in both (texts) - to hold the unrestricted (phrasing)
upon the restricted (phrasing). However, “Al-Jamā’ah” has other
meanings, (and) here is not the place for going into its detailed
explanation; however, there is no harm in pointing to its (possible)
meanings in a general manner.

Ar-Rāghib Al-Asfahānī said, “Jama’a (to unite): ‘gathering’ is to
bring together something by moving one of its parts closer to
another. It is said, ‘I put it together (Jama’atuhu), so it was
assembled…” – until he said – “… and Majmū’ (a gathering) can be
called a Jam’ (union), and Jamī’ (collection), and Jamā’ah (group).” 329

And the “Al-Jamā’ah”, in this phrasing, has not been narrated in the
Qur’ān - and is only narrated in the Hadīth, with two meanings:

The First: The linguistic meaning of the word; in other words, the
gathering, which is opposite of division, and it is used for two or
more, or three or more, (based) upon difference between the
Scholars of Fundamentals (Usūliyyīn) and the Scholars of Grammar
(Nahwiyyīn). And (an example) of this usage, is the statement of the
Prophet ‫“ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬Salāt Al-Jamā’ah (prayer made in congregation)
is superior to the Salāt of an individual by twenty-seven levels (i.e.
times).” – Agreed upon. So what is intended by “Al-Jamā’ah”, is the

329 “Al-Mufradāt”, by Ar-Rāghib



number; and Al-Bukhārī said, “Two or more is a Jamā’ah”, and this
was narrated in Marfū’ form. 330

The Second: The technical meaning of the word; and one of two
things is intended by it, and they are (presented) in order of their
importance:

a) “Al-Jamā’ah”, meaning the Truth and Religion as in the Hadīth of
the (astray) sects, “All of them are in the Fire except one, and that is the
group (Jamā’ah).” and the explanation has preceded. So “Al-Jamā’ah”
here is the Truth, and the most deserving people of this
(description) is the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬and his Companions. And
due to that, in the other narration of this Hadīth, (there is), “… that
which I and my Companions are upon.” And from here, Ibn Mas’ūd
said, “Al-Jamā’ah (The Group) is whatever complies with the Truth,
even if you are alone.” And “Al-Jamā’ah” is also narrated in the
meaning of the Followers of the Religion of Islām, as in the Hadīth,
“… and the one who abandons his Religion (Dīn), the leaver of the
Jamā’ah.” And it is also narrated with the meaning of the People of
Knowledge and the “People of Al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd”.

b) “Al-Jamā’ah” with the meaning of the Jamā’ah of the Muslims who
are obedient to the Sultān, as in the Hadīth, “Whoever sees something
from his Amīr, which he hates, then he should be patient with him -
because whoever leaves the Jamā’ah, (even) one hand-span, and then dies,
(does not do so) except that he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah.” – Agreed
upon.

330Look to “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (2/142)
Trans. Note: This is narrated by Ibn Mājah from Abū Mūsa Al-Ash’arī (may
Allāh be pleased with him). It was declared at least “Dha’īf”, as was indicated by
the author when he said “… Ruwiya…”, as this is used generally when
mentioning a weak narration. It was rejected by Ibn Hazm in “Usūl Al-Akhām”
(1/421), Al-Bayhaqī in “As-Sunan Al-Kubra” (3/69), Ibn Al-Qaysarānī in
“Thakhīrat Al-Huffāth” (1/233), An-Nawawī in “Al-Khulāsah” (2/674) and in “Al-
Majmū’ Sharh Al-Muhath’thab” (4/196) - all with almost exactly the same
phrasings, and some from other Sahābah besides Abū Mūsa Al-Ash’arī, may
Allāh be pleased with them all.



And due to these two terminological meanings, it is obligatory
(Wājib) upon the Muslim to follow the Truth at all times. And if
there is a Sultān for the Muslims, it is obligatory (Wājib) to follow
him - so he is to be obeyed in (whatever is) the Truth and
disobeyed in (whatever is) falsehood. And for this reason we have
arranged the two terminological meanings this way, as the Truth is
put first and is more deserving. And if there is no Sultān - like in
our present era - the Jamā’ah with the first meaning – the Truth and
its People – remains obligatory to follow, as it has preceded in the
third chapter.

And follow the phrasing of “Al-Jamā’ah” in the Hadīths; you will
find it possible to refer all of them back to the meanings of: “The
Number”, “The Truth” or “The Jamā’ah of the Muslims”. As for the
contemporary Islāmic groups, then from them are those whose
portion of these meanings is only (fulfilled) in terms of “The
Numbers”, and from them are those who are to be included into
“Al-Jamā’ah” with the meaning of “The Truth”, at varying levels.

Eighthly: The Refutation Upon A Doubt Concerning the
Covenants

I mentioned at the end of the third chapter of this treatise, the
refutation upon the doubts concerning the leadership of the Islāmic
groups, as it was objected to by Mr. ‘Alī Ibn Hasan Ibn ‘Abdil-
Hamīd – the author of the book “Al-Bay’ah Bayn As-Sunnah Wal-
Bid’ah”. And here I will refute, with the Assistance of Allāh, the
Most High, his objection upon the Bay’ah which these groups take
from their followers, as he objected to the legitimacy of these
Bay’ahs in the Sharī’ah, and he considered them from the Bid’ahs
(innovations). And by doing that, he wanted to refute a specific
group which uses the Bay’ah and As-Sam’ Wat-Tā’ah, to subjugate its
followers and to protect its leaders. However, I say that the Bay’ah
is valid and As-Sam’ Wat-Tā’ah is valid; and the misuse of what is
correct should not cause us to object against it - Rather, the
obligation is to object against its misuse.



And we will mention, in what follows, some of what he stated
concerning his objection to these Bay’ahs - and then I will make a
refutation upon him, In Shā’ Allāh Ta’āla:

The author claimed on (Pg. 22), “And from that which affirms the
illegitimacy of these unusual Bay’ahs, which are in excess to the
Bay’ah of Amīr Al-Mu’minīn – even in his absence – is that the
scholars (‘Ulamā’) (may Allāh, the Most High, be merciful upon
them) clearly stated that a condition for the Bay’ah, is that the
People of Al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd must come together and form the
contract (‘Aqd) of the governance (Imāmah) to someone who fulfills
all of its conditions.”

And he claimed on (Pg. 23), “From what has passed, we know two
important things: 1- The Bay’ah is for no other than Amīr Al-
Mu’minīn exclusively. 2- And the obedience is a product of the
Bay’ah, which is for him alone, exclusively. So based upon this, all
the Bay’ahs which are made to any person who is not an Imām (i.e.
Khalīfah), are invalid– whatever type they are – whether they are in
the presence of the Imām or in his absence, or to one (person) or
more.” And he claimed in the footnotes of the same page, “So the
obligation upon the one who has been deceived by the likes of
these innovated Bay’ahs, is to abandon them and cancel them,
because they are false, (and he must do this) out of devotion and
adherence to his Religion.”

And he claimed on (Pg. 32), “Verily, the rest of the words of the
earlier People of Knowledge and Jurisprudence (Fiqh) was
concerning the Bay’ah of the Muslim Khalīfah, and none of them – in
what I have come across – spoke about these unusual Bay’ahs which
are given to other than the Imām of the Muslims. And whoever
claims (anything) contrary to that, then it is upon him to bring
evidence!!”

And he claimed on (Pg. 33), “Where were the Predecessors (Salaf) of
this nation with respect to the likes of these unusual Bay’ahs? And
is it possible for us to attain anything good, through our intellects
and our desires, which we assume was missed by the righteous



ones of this Ummah, from the Salaf, and the Imāms (may Allāh, the
Most High’s pleasure be upon them all)? And the Chosen Prophet,
may the salutations of Allāh and His Peace be upon him, spoke the
Truth: ‘Whoever innovates in this matter of ours, that which is not from
it - then it is rejected.’ So the likes of these unusual Bay’ahs – the likes
of which are not mentioned in either a Text of the Qur’ān, nor in a
Prophetic Hadīth, nor in an action from the Righteous Predecessors
(As-Salaf As-Sālih) – (so these) are considered an innovation (Bid’ah)
and a newly-invented matter (Muhdathah).”

And he said on (Pg. 36), “And that which Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn
Taymiyyah (may Allāh, the Most High, be merciful to him) pointed
to in ‘Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā’ (28/18), that if their intention with this
pact (Ittifāq), affiliation, and Bay’ah, is to help (one another) upon
Righteousness (Birr) and Piety (Taqwā), then Allāh and His
Messenger have (already) commanded this, to him and others (as
well), (even) without (the presence of) that pact (Ittifāq). And if the
intention is to work together in sin and transgression, then this has
been forbidden by Allāh and His Messenger. So whatever is
intended by this from goodness, then in the Command of Allāh and
His Messenger is all goodness, and it is not in need of this pact (i.e.
covenant). And whatever is intended with this from evil, then
Allāh and His Messenger have forbidden it.”

And the author claimed on (Pg. 37), in his mentioning of Shaykh Al-
Islām Ibn Taymiyyah’s (may Allāh be merciful to him) statement,
“It is not (permissible) for anyone to form a covenant (‘Ahd) upon
anyone, (agreeing) that he (the follower) will comply with
whatever he (the leader) desires. and to ally himself with those who
ally themselves with him, and to take as enemies whoever takes
him as an enemy. Rather, whoever does this, then he is from the
type of Genghis Khan and the likes of him; those who take whoever
complies with them as a supportive friend, and those who oppose
them as a rebellious enemy.”

And the author stated on (Pg. 39-40), “As for it being a covenant
(‘Ahd), then this was not in the methodology (Manhaj) of the
Righteous Predecessors (As-Salaf As-Sālih) - may the pleasure of



Allāh, the Most High, be upon them. Rather, their situation was
completely contrary to that, as Abū Nu’aym Al-Hāfith Al-Asbahānī
narrated in “Hilyat Al-Awliyā’” (2/204) with its authentic chain, to
Mutarrif Ibn ‘Abdillāh Ibn Ash-Shikh’khīr, who said, ‘We used to
approach Zayd Ibn Sawhān and he used to say, ‘O Slaves of Allāh,
be honorable and upright because the path of the slaves to Allāh is
only through two practices: fear and hope.’ So I approached him
one day, and they had written a scroll and they had placed words
similar to what follows, “Allāh is our Lord and Muhammad is our
Prophet and the Qur’ān is our Imām. And whosoever is with us, then we
are (with him) and we help him; and whosoever contradicts us, then our
hand is against him… and we are… and we are…” So the scroll was
presented to them, man-by-man, then they would ask, ‘Do you
agree, O so-and-so?’ until they approached me, then they said, ‘Do
you accept, O young boy?’ I said, ‘No.’ They said, ‘Do not rush the
young boy. What do you say, O young boy?’ He said, ‘I said,
‘Verily, Allāh has taken a covenant (‘Ahd) upon me in His Book, so
I will never make a new covenant (‘Ahd), besides the one which
Allāh took!’ He said, ‘So all of the people retracted from it, and
none of them accepted it.’ He said, ‘I said to Mutarrif, ‘How many
were you?’ He said, ‘Approximately thirty men.’

So look - may Allāh be merciful to you - to their state and to the
conditions of their hearts, in accepting the Truth and adhering to it,
and to their rejection of any matter – even if its appearance was
justice and truthfulness – if it was not narrated in its precise
manner, in the Book of Allāh, Glory be to Him, or confirmed in the
Sunnah of His Messenger ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬or if it is something that
divides of the nation (Ummah), even if it is something small!”

Then the author concluded his book with an “advice” to the callers
(Du’āt), saying on (Pg. 41), “Verily, this research – despite its
simplicity – can be an opportunity for the callers (Du’āt) to take
become aware, after having been heedless, and to awaken after
slumber, and for them to avoid approaching any action or saying,
except after knowledge, clarification, awareness and confirmation.”



This is a summary of what was written by Mr. ‘Alī Ibn Hasan, and
he elongated something which did not require elongation, and yet
he came with other than the truth. And he did not establish
anything, nor did he even clarify anything, even though he took it
upon himself (to do so) in the beginning of his book (Pg. 5), and as
he advised others to do in the end of his book (Pg. 41).

And the reality is that what I have mentioned in this chapter
regarding these issues, beginning with the legitimacy of the
covenant in the (Islāmic) Legislation, till the ruling upon the one
who breaks it – (the truth is that) therein is a sufficient refutation
upon the words of the author of the book “Al-Bay’ah Bayn As-
Sunnah Wal-Bid’ah”. Yet despite that, I will summarize what has
passed, in a number of points:

Firstly: That the leadership (Imārah) of the Islāmic groups, which
have been established to work collectively upon Righteousness
(Birr) and Piety (Taqwā) - they are valid, Sharī’ah-based leaderships,
and the explanation of this has passed in the third chapter, along
with the refutation upon the doubt of the author concerning
leadership (Imārah).

Secondly: If the legitimacy of this leadership is confirmed, then it
becomes obligatory upon all those who accept them (i.e. to be
under these leaderships) to listen and obey the Amīr, in whatever
is not a disobedience (to Allāh), even if he did not form a
covenant with him upon that, because this is obligatory (Wājib)
originally in the (Islāmic) Legislation, (even) without a covenant
(‘Ahd). And the clarification of this has passed in the beginning of
this section. And I mentioned there, the words of Shaykh Al-Islām
Ibn Taymiyyah, concerning the obligation of obeying the “People of
Authority”, even if the person did not form a covenant (‘Ahd) or a
vow with them (Hilf) - so review there the quote from “Majmū’ Al-
Fatāwā”. 331 And I also mentioned – from before – his statement
that: “… those of you (Muslims) who are in authority …”, this is
inclusive of everyone who is followed. He said, “And everyone

331 Vol. 35/9-11



who is followed - then he is from the People of Authority…” 332
And included in this, are the Amīrs of the groups which have been
alluded to.

Thirdly: I mentioned within the issue: “The Benefit and Objective of
This Covenant (‘Ahd)”, which is the second (issue) in this section,
that the covenant (‘Ahd) contains two benefits; the first being the
reaffirmation of that which was originally obligated in the (Islāmic)
Legislation, which is the obedience to the “People of Authority”
and assisting them upon the Truth and conducting oneself
sincerely towards them, and other than that, from what Allāh and
His Messenger ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬have commanded; and the second, was
the adhering to extra stipulations which the (Islāmic) Legislation
did not originally obligated, and which only become obligatory
(Wājib) due to the (obligation of) fulfilling the covenant (‘Ahd), as
long as they do not contradict the Book and the Sunnah. And I
mentioned there, the words of Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, in
this matter, quoting from “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” 333. And from the
instances where Shaykh Al-Islām clearly stated that it is obligatory
(Wājib) upon the slave for both reasons, is his statement, “… like
the contracts between the people upon the performance of that
which Allāh and His Messenger have commanded.” 334 And this
phrase, specifically, is completely applicable to the groups which
we are discussing. So if a group (Jamā’ah) is established with the
goal of giving victory to the Religion (Dīn), then it is obligatory
(Wājib) upon every Muslim to cooperate with this group (Jamā’ah),
whether he forms a covenant (‘Ahd) with it or does not form a
covenant (‘Ahd) - because this (i.e. support) is originally obligatory
(Wājib) in the (Islāmic) Legislation to begin with anyways, due to
His, the Most High’s, statement:

‫ﻭَﺗﻌَﺎﻭُﻮﹾﺍ ﻋﻠﹶﻰ ﺍﹾﻟﱪ ﻭَﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮَﻯ‬
‫ﱢ ﱠﹾ‬ َ ‫َ َﻧ‬

332 Refer to “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (28/170).
333 Vol. 29/341-345

Trans. Note: In the Arabic print, it says “29/546”, but we changed it to “29/346”,
as this statement was quoted twice earlier with this page number.



righteousness and piety)…335

Then if he forms a covenant (‘Ahd) with it (i.e. the Jamā’ah), then this
obligation becomes reaffirmed, due to the obligation of fulfilling
the covenant (‘Ahd):

And fulfill (every) covenant. Verily, the covenant will be
questioned about. 336

And likewise, As-Sam’ Wat-Tā’ah (the listening and obeying) are
both obligatory (Wājib) upon every individual in the likes of these
groups, towards the “People of Authority” from amongst them,
whether or not he has formed a covenant (‘Ahd) upon this. So then,
if he forms a covenant (‘Ahd), the obligation is reaffirmed.

Fourthly: That the covenants among the Muslims, upon the
performance of the acts of obedience, are permissible. And that
which I mentioned in the issue of: “The Legitimacy of This Covenant
(‘Ahd) In the Sharī’ah”, is clear enough to not need to be repeated
here, as I mentioned the evidence for its harmony with the (Islāmic)
Legislation, from the Qur’ān, the Sunnah and the historical accounts
(Sīrah) of the Companions (Sahābah), may Allāh be pleased with
them.

Fifthly: It is permissible to label these covenants as “Bay’ahs”, as
I mentioned in the fifth issue from this section, which was: “Is It
Allowed to Call This Covenant a “Bay’ah?” (And I mentioned) that it is
possible to include this (permissibility) within the consensuses of
the Sahābah, due to the action of ‘Ikrimah on the Day of Yarmūk,
without any of the Sahābah objecting to him. Then the action of
Qays Ibn Sa’d at Siffīn, till the end of what I mentioned there, from
that which indicates the permissibility of this labeling. And with
that, the words of the Mr. ‘Alī Ibn Hasan collapse, on (Pg. 32), as he

336 Trans. Note: Al-Isrā’, 34



stated, “… and none of them – in what I have come across – spoke
about these unusual Bay’ahs.” And on (Pg. 33) as he said, “Where
were the Predecessors (Salaf) of this nation with respect to the likes
of these unusual Bay’ahs?” And note how I stated that the historical
accounts (Sīrah) of the Sahābah prove only the permissibility, and
not the obligation, of this labeling - and due to that, despite the
permissibility of labeling these covenants as “Bay’ahs”, I think that
the covenants of the groups, currently, should not be labeled (with
the term) “Bay’ah”, and instead it should be limited to being labeled
(with the term) “‘Ahd”, so that it will not be confused with the
Bay’ah of the Khalīfah. And (this should be done) so that this
generation of Muslims will be well-aware that they do not have “…
a Bay’ah upon their necks…” to the Imām of the Muslims, (and) so
(accordingly) they will strive for this affair (i.e. establishing a
Khilāfah).

And from the point of refuting the words of the author (Pg. 32-33,
39) and his statement that these Bay’ahs were not from the
methodology (Manhaj) of the Righteous Predecessors (As-Salaf As-
Sālih), I will mention, in what follows, some of the Bay’ahs which
took place between the Muslims, within the (first) Three Virtuous
Generations (Al-Qurūn Ath-Thalāthah) of this Ummah, so that the
Muslim will know that the covenant (‘Ahd), or the Pledge of
Allegiance (Bay’ah), upon the acts of obedience – at the head of which
are the obligations of Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Evil, and
Jihād – was an issue that was well known amongst the Righteous
Predecessors (As-Salaf As-Sālih), from the Companions (Sahābah)
and the Tābi’īn, and those who came after them. And from that:

1. The Bay’ah For Death given to the Companion ‘Ikrimah Ibn Abī
Jahl (may Allāh be pleased with him) in front of the faces of four
hundred Muslims, on the Day of Yarmūk. And it was mentioned
and the commentary upon it has preceded earlier - and this is a
Bay’ah upon obedience. 337




2. The Bay’ah For Death given to the Companion Qays Ibn Sa’d
from forty thousand, on the Day of Siffīn. And was mentioned
earlier. 338

3. The Bay’ah of the people of Al-Kūfah to Al-Husayn Ibn ‘Alī Ibn
Abī Tālib, may Allāh be pleased with them both, in the year 61 H.
to rebel against the Khalīfah of the time, Yazīd Ibn Mu’āwiyah. And
Al-Husayn sent his paternal cousin, Muslim Ibn ‘Aqīl to take the
Bay’ah on his behalf. So eighteen thousand Muslims gave him
Bay’ah. 339

4. The Bay’ah of the people of Madīnah, to the Companion
‘Abdullāh Ibn Hanthalah, in the year 63 H. to rebel against Yazīd
Ibn Mu’āwiyah. So it became known as “The Event of Al-Harrah”,
and it has been mentioned previously. 340

5. The request from ‘Abdullāh Ibn Az-Zubayr, the Companion, for
the Bay’ah to be given to himself, after the death of Yazīd Ibn
Mu’āwiyah, and all of the (surrounding) regions gave him Bay’ah
except for Jordan and those who were in it from Banī Umayyah, and
at their head was Marwān Ibn Al-Hakam. So they gave Bay’ah to
Marwān and they waged war against the People of Ash-Shām, then
Egypt, then ‘Irāq, until the matter ended with the murder of Az-
Zubayr in the year 73 H. And Ibn Az-Zubayr was labeled “Amīr Al-
Mu’minīn” and his Khilāfah continued from the year 64 H. up until
73 H. 341

6. And Ibn Kathīr mentioned that the people of Damascus gave
Bay’ah to Adh-Dhahhāk Ibn Qays, when the Khalīfah of the time,
Mu’āwiyah Ibn Yazīd, died, in order for him to reconcile between
them and to establish their order until the people united upon an
Imām. 342

338 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/63)
339 Refer to “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (8/152) and what follows it.
340 “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah”(8/217); “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (6/118, 13/68)
341 “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/69 & 194) and “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (8/238) and what

comes after it.



7. And Ibn Kathīr mentioned in “The Events of the Year 64 H.”; he
said, “And in it, the group of the Shī’ah united upon Sulaymān Ibn
Sard…” – and he was a great Companion, as Ibn Kathīr stated – “…
in Al-Kūfah, and they made a promise (Wa’d) beneath a palm tree to
take vengeance on behalf of Al-Husayn Ibn ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib…” –
until he said – “… so they became united after a series of sermons
and admonitions, upon selecting Sulaymān Ibn Sard as Amīr over
them. So they formed a covenant (‘Ahd) and a contract (‘Aqd) and
they pledged beneath the palm tree.” 343 I say: The Shī’ah, at that
time had still not been labeled as “Ar-Rāfidhah”, 344 and they were
not labeled with that (term) until the time of Zayd Ibn ‘Alī, as it will
be mentioned.

8. The rebellion of ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn Al-Ash’ath against Al-Hajjāj
Ath-Thaqafī and then (later against) the Khalīfah, ‘Abdul-Malik Ibn
Marwān, (in the years) 81 – 82 H. And Ibn Al-Ash’ath was the head
of an army of Al-Hajjāj in Persia, but then he (began to) hate some
of his(i.e. Al-Hajjāj’s) deeds. Ibn Al-Ash’ath said to those who were
with him, “‘Remove the enemy of Allāh, Al-Hajjāj!’ – but he did not
mention the removal of ‘Abdul-Malik – ‘And give Bay’ah to your
Amīr, ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn Al-Ash’ath, because I make you
witnesses that I am the first (who will) remove Al-Hajjāj!’ So the
people said from all directions, ‘We shall remove the enemy of
Allāh, Al-Hajjāj!’ and they leaped to ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn Al-
Ash’ath. So they gave him Bay’ah in place of Al-Hajjāj, but they did
not mention the removal of ‘Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwān.” – until he
said – “So when they approached the midway point of their path,
they said, ‘Verily, our removal of Al-Hajjāj is a removal of Ibn
Marwān.’ So they removed both of them and renewed their Bay’ah
to Ibn Al-Ash’ath. So he took the Bay’ah from them upon the Book
of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Messenger and to remove the
leaders of misguidance, and to wage Jihād against the disbelievers

343“Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (8/247)
344Trans. Note: The point of the author here is to clarify that although this group
may have been called “Shī’ah”, which means “sect” or “division”, these were not
the Shī’ah, which later became known as the Rāfidhah; the accursed sect which
innovated shirk in the Religion and represents the greater majority of Shī’ah in
our time. And Allāh knows best.



(Mulhidīn).” 345 And Ibn Kathīr said, “And all of those who were
present in Al-Basrah, from the Jurists (Al-Fuqahā’), the Recitors [Al-
Qurā’ (i.e. Scholars)], the elders (Shuyūkh), and the young men
(Shabāb), agreed with him in removing them both.” 346 And Ibn
Kathīr said, “And the people began to gather around Ibn Al-
Ash’ath from every side, to the point where it was said that he had
with him, thirty-three thousand mounted soldiers and one hundred
and twenty thousand foot soldiers.” 347 And Ibn Kathīr said, “And
Ibn Al-Ash’ath entered Al-Kūfah, so its people gave him Bay’ah
upon the removal of Al-Hajjāj and ‘Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwān.” 348
And Ibn Kathīr said, “And the sum total from all those who joined
with Ibn Al-Ash’ath, was one hundred thousand fighters from
those who receive donations, and along with them was a similar
number of their masters.” 349 And Ibn Kathīr said, “And Ibn Al-
Ash’ath placed Jabalah Ibn Zahr (as a commander) over the
Battalion of Recitors (Al-Qurrā’) – the scholars (‘Ulamā’) – and
within them was Sa’īd Ibn Jubayr, ‘Āmir Ash-Sha’bī, ‘Abdur-
Rahmān Ibn Abī Layla and Kumayl Ibn Ziyād – who was a strong
and lethal (fighter) despite his old age – and Abul-Bakhtarī At-Tā’ī
and others.” 350 And from that which Ash-Sha’bī said was, “Fight
them upon their tyranny (Jawr), their humiliating of the weak and
their causing the death to the Salāt!” 351

9. The rebellion of Zayd Ibn ‘Alī Ibn Al-Husayn Ibn ‘Alī Ibn Abī
Tālib, in the year 121 H., against the Khalīfah of the time, Hishām
Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik. And Zayd is the one to whom the assembly
(Tā’ifah) of “Az-Zaydiyyah” from the Shī’ah attribute themselves to.
Ibn Kathīr said, “Forty thousand from the people of Al-Kūfah gave
him Bay’ah upon that.” 352




10. The rebellion of Yazīd Ibn Al-Walīd against his paternal cousin,
the Khalīfah of the time, Al-Walīd Ibn Yazīd Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik in the
year 126 H. Ibn Kathīr said, “And we have mentioned some of the
matter of Al-Walīd Ibn Yazīd and his lewdness, his shamelessness,
his corruption (fisq), and what was mentioned from his negligence
towards the Salāt and his taking lightly the matters of his Religion,
prior to his Khilāfah and after it (began), as he did not increase the
Khilāfah in anything except evil.” 353 So Yazīd Ibn Al-Walīd stood
up to remove him and the people gave him Bay’ah upon that, and
the armies grew around him, all of them giving him Bay’ah upon
the Khilāfah, and he sought after Al-Walīd Ibn Yazīd, then killed
him. 354

11. The Bay’ah of Mu’āwiyah Ibn ‘Abdillāh Ibn Ja’far Ibn Abī Tālib.
Ibn Kathīr said, “And in this year – 127 H. – Mu’āwiyah Ibn
‘Abdillāh emerged in Al-Kūfah and campaigned for himself and
went out to wage war against the Amīr of ‘Irāq, ‘Abdullāh Ibn
‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azīz. Then battles occurred between them, the
mentioning of which would be too lengthy.” 355

12. The establishment of the ‘Abbāsid (‘Abbāsiyyīn) state, from the
beginning of their campaign in the year 100 H. until the beginning
of the Khilāfah of As-Saffāh, their first Khalīfah, (in the year) 132 H.
Ibn Kathīr said, “In the year 118 H. – and in that year was the death
of ‘Alī Ibn ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Abbās – and many of the people had
given the Bay’ah of Khilāfah to his son, Muhammad, prior to the
death of ‘Alī, this (took place) several years prior to this year;
however, his authority did not become strong until he died. So
afterwards, his son, ‘Abdullāh Abul-’Abbās As-Saffāh, established
his authority, and the emergence (of his strength) came in the year
132 H.” 356

353 “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (10/8) Trans. Note: In the Arabic print, it only says

(Pg. 8), but we added the volume number, as is clear from the next footnote.



So here, the people gave the Bay’ah of Khilāfah to Muhammad Ibn
‘Alī Ibn ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Abbās, (despite) the presence of a (proper)
Sharī’ah-based Umayyid (Umawiyyah) Khilāfah, and when
Muhammad Ibn ‘Alī died in the year 125 H., he bequeathed (the
Khilāfah) after him, to his son, Ibrāhīm. 357 So Ibrāhīm wrote to Abū
Muslim Al-Khurāsānī in the year 129 H. to openly declare the
campaign, so the people came to Abū Muslim from all sides and his
army became larger. 358 Then Ibrāhīm was killed in the year 132 H.
and he bequeathed (the Khilāfah), after him, to his brother, Abul-
’Abbās As-Saffāh. 359 And this took place during the Khilāfah of
Marwān Ibn Muhammad, the last of the Khalīfahs of Banī Umayyah.
So Abul-’Abbās entered Al-Kūfah, and they gave Salām to him as
the Khalīfah, and (when) he ascended the pulpit (Minbar), the
people gave Bay’ah to him while he was on the pulpit (Minbar). 360
Then he deputized his uncle, ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Alī to fight the Khalīfah
Marwān Ibn Muhammad, until Marwān was killed and the Khilāfah
became settled with Abul-’Abbās As-Saffāh in the year 132 H. 361

And from that which is worthy of being mentioned, is that the
campaign of Banī Al-‘Abbās for their (desired) state continued for 32
or more years, during the Khilāfah of Banī Umayyah, and they would
take the Bay’ah from the people, despite the presence of a (proper)
Sharī’ah-based Umayyid Khilāfah.

And from that which is also worthy of being mentioned, is that
they would take the Bay’ah from the people to an unnamed person
and he was “The Approval From the Family of Muhammad ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ 263 ”.ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬And it meant whoever the Family of Muhammad approves
of and agrees upon. And that was to prevent division between the
‘Alawīs (‘Alawiyyah) and the ‘Abbāsids, so they would become
united against Banī Umayyah.

357 Vol. 10/5
358 Vol. 10/30
359 Vol. 10/38-39
360 Vol. 10/40
361 “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (9/321), and (10/5, 25, 30, 31, 39, 42)
362 Look to “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (10/31)



13. The Bay’ah of Abū Muhammad As-Sufyānī. Ibn Kathīr said, in
the year of 132H., “And the matter worsened for ‘Abdullāh Ibn
‘Alī, the uncle of the Khalīfah, As-Saffāh, and that was when the
people of Qansirrīn contacted the People of Homs and they called
out, and they united upon Abū Muhammad As-Sufyānī, and he
was Abū Muhammad ‘Abdullāh Ibn Yazīd Ibn Mu’āwiyah Ibn Abī
Sufyān. So they gave the Bay’ah of Khilāfah to him and
approximately forty thousand (men) stood up with him. And then,
‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Alī decided to (attack) them, so they met at the Field
of Al-Akhram. So they fought against the front lines of As-Sufyānī,
and its (commander) was Abul-Ward, and they fought a fierce
battle.” 363

14. The Bay’ah of ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ad-Dākhal, the Umayyid Khalīfah
in Al-Andalus (i.e. Spain), during the era of the ‘Abbāsids. Ibn
Kathīr said, (in the chapter for the year of) 138 H., “And in it (i.e.
138 H.) was the Khilāfah of Ad-Dākhal from Banī Umayyah, to Bilād
Al-Andalus (the Land of Spain). And he is ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn
Mu’āwiyah Ibn Hishām Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik Ibn Marwān… And he
had entered into Bilād Al-Maghrib (the Land of North Africa),
fleeing from ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Alī, so he emigrated with his
companions who fled with him, along with a people who used to
fight for patriotism-based loyalties towards the Yamānī and
Mudhar. So he quickly sent his servant to them, and he (i.e. the
servant) enticed them in his favor, so they gave him Bay’ah - so he
entered with them and then conquered Bilād Al-Andalus (the Land
of Spain). Then he overpowered it and took it from its deputy,
Yūsuf Ibn ‘Abdir-Rahmān Ibn Habīb Ibn Abī ‘Ubaydah Ibn ‘Uqbah
Ibn Nāfi’ Al-Fahrī, and killed him. And ‘Abdur-Rahmān resided in
Qurtubah (i.e. Cordova, Spain) and remained upon his Khilāfah in
those lands from this year until the year 172 H.” 364

15. The Bay’ah of Muhammad “An-Nafs Az-Zakiyyah” (lit. “The Pure
Soul”) and his rebellion against the ‘Abbāsid Khalīfah, Abū Ja’far
Al-Mansūr, in the year 145 H. Ibn Kathīr said, “Then the year 145
H. began and from what took place therein, were events such as the




emergence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdillāh Ibn Hasan (An-Nafs Az-
Zakiyyah) in Madīnah, and his brother, Ibrāhīm, in Al-Basrah.” 365
And Ibn Kathīr said, “And Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdillāh Ibn Hasan
woke up in the morning, and he had (now) become dominant over
Madīnah, and its people gave him their allegiance, so he prayed the
dawn prayer with the people and recited the Sūrah: ‘Verily, We
have given you a clear victory…’ [i.e. Sūrah Al-Fat’h] and this night
brought about the commencement of (the month of) Rajab of that
year, and Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdillāh addressed the people of
Madīnah on this day. And he spoke against Banī Al-’Abbās and he
mentioned things about them with which he criticized them. And
he informed them that he did not go to any land except that they
had given him Bay’ah upon As-Sam’ Wat-Tā’ah (listening and
obeying), so all of the people of Madīnah gave him Bay’ah, except
for a few.”

And Ibn Jarīr narrated from Imām Mālik that he issued a Fatwā
concerning (the obligation of) giving Bay’ah to him (i.e. Muhammad
An-Nafs Az-Zakiyyah). So it was said to him (i.e. Imām Mālik), ‘But
we have, upon our necks, a Bay’ah to Al-Mansūr.’ So he said,
‘Verily, you were only coerced (Mukrahīn), and there is no (valid)
Bay’ah from he who is coerced (Mukrah).’ So the people gave him
Bay’ah upon that, due to the saying of Mālik, and (thereafter) Mālik
remained in his home.” 366

And Ibn Kathīr said that Abū Ja’far Al-Mansūr, the Khalīfah, wrote
to him (Muhammad An-Nafs Az-Zakiyyah) saying, “So you have the
covenant (‘Ahd) of Allāh and His Promise (Mīthāq) and His
Protection and the protection of His Messenger, if you return to At-
Tā’ah (the obedience), then I shall offer you safety along with those
who followed you.” 367 And Ibn Kathīr said that when Al-Mansūr
sent his army to fight Muhammad, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdillāh
ascended the pulpit (Minbar), then he addressed the people and

365 Vol. 10/82
366 Vol. 10/83-84
367 Vol. 10/84-85



incited them upon Al-Jihād, and they were close to one hundred
thousand.” 368

16. The Bay’ah of Ibrāhīm Ibn ‘Abdillāh Ibn Hasan (the brother of
Muhammad An-Nafs Az-Zakiyyah). And he used to campaign
secretly on behalf of his brother. Then when his brother
(Muhammad An-Nafs Az-Zakiyyah) was killed in 145 H., he brought
forth a campaign to himself and arrived in Al-Basrah and crowds of
people gave Bay’ah to him, and the people began coming from
every direction to give him Bay’ah. And Al-Basrah, Al-Ahwāz, Persia
and the cities and the majority of the lands gave him their
allegiance. And he left Al-Basrah with one hundred thousand
warriors, heading for Al-Kūfah, to fight the army of the Khalīfah,
Abū Ja’far Al-Mansūr. 369

And Ibn Kathīr said about Muhammad and his brother Ibrāhīm,
“And it is said about a group of the scholars (‘Ulamā’) and the
Imāms, that they inclined towards the authority of both of them (as
the valid, proper authority).” 370 And from those who inclined
towards the authority of Muhammad, was Imām Mālik, in
Madīnah, as it has passed. And from those who inclined towards
the authority of Ibrāhīm, were Imām Abū Hanīfah, and Shu’bah Ibn
Al-Hajjāj and Hushaym, and both of the latter two are from the
Imāms of Hadīth.

17. The Bay’ah of Ahmad Ibn Nasr Al-Khuzā’ī in the year 231 H.
upon the Commanding of the Good and the Forbiddance of the
Evil in general; and later, he was given Bay’ah for the rebellion
(Khurūj) against the Khalīfah Al-Wāthiq, due to his transgression
(fisq) and his innovation (Bid’ah). Ibn Kathīr said, “Then the year
231 H. began, and in it was the killing of Ahmad Ibn Nasr Al-
Khuzā’ī, may Allāh be merciful to him and make his reward
generous.” – until his saying – “And the general public gave him
Bay’ah in the year 201 H. upon establishing the Commanding (of
the Good) and the Forbiddance (of the Evil), when the people of

368 Vol. 10/88 “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (10/82-90)



evil and obscenity became widespread during the absence of Al-
Ma’mūn from Baghdād, as was mentioned [i.e. by Ibn Kathīr earlier
in his history book]. And the (small) Marketplace of Nasr in
Baghdād was named after him. And this Ahmad Ibn Nasr was
from the People of Knowledge, justice, righteous deeds, and
exertion for goodness. And he was from the Imāms of the Sunnah,
commanding the good and forbidding the evil, and he was from
those who called to (the proper creed) that the Qur’ān is the Speech
of Allāh, sent down uncreated. Whereas Al-Wāthiq was from the
most extreme people upon the claim that the Qur’ān was created,
and he called to that night and day, relying on what his father
before him, and his uncle, Al-Ma’mūn, were upon, without any
evidence (Dalīl), nor proof (Burhān), nor argument (Hujjah), nor
clarification (Bayān), neither from the Sunnah nor the Qur’ān.

So Ahmad Ibn Nasr stood up, calling to Allāh and to the
Commanding of the Good and the Forbiddance of the Evil, and
called to the saying that the Qur’ān is the Speech of Allāh, sent
down uncreated – and he called the people towards many (such)
things. So a group of the people of Baghdād united upon him,
along with thousands of numbers of people. And two men were
committed to the spread the campaign to Ahmad Ibn Nasr, and
they were Abū Harūn As-Sirāj – and he used to call the Eastern
region, and another who was called Tālib – and he used to call the
Western region. So several thousands of people and many groups
united upon him. So when it was the month of Sha’bān (in) this
year, the Bay’ah was arranged to Ahmad Ibn Nasr Al-Khuzā’ī
secretly, upon the establishment of the Commanding of the Good
and the Forbidding of the Evil, and the rebellion against the Sultān,
due to his Bid’ah and his calling to the claim that the Qur’ān was
created and the sins (Ma’āsī) and lewdness (Fawāhish) and such
which he and his Amīrs and his entourage were upon.” 371

I say: Look, O honored reader, to these Bay’ahs that I have
mentioned and which thousands of people used to enter into and
which many of the Tābi’īn (Successors of the Companions) viewed




as good and entered into them, and which the two Imāms - Mālik
and Abū Hanīfah - incited the people upon. Then look to the words
of the author of the book “Al-Bay’ah Bayn As-Sunnah Wal-Bid’ah” as
he stated, “…and none of the (pious) predecessors – in what I have
come across – spoke about these unusual Bay’ahs.” And he said,
“Where were the Predecessors (Salaf) of this nation with respect to
the likes of these unusual Bay’ahs?” 372

And these Bay’ahs which I have just mentioned, from them are:

1. Bay’ahs upon Jihād and Istish’hād (martyrdom), such as the
Bay’ah of ‘Ikrimah Ibn Abī Jahl and Qays Ibn Sa’d, from those who
were with them, and they were both Companions - may Allāh be
pleased with them both.

2. Bay’ahs upon Commanding the Good and Forbidding the
Evil, such as the Bay’ah of the people of Madīnah, to their Amīrs,
during “The Event of Al-Harrah” and the Bay’ah of Sulaymān Ibn
Sard and the Bay’ah of Ahmad Ibn Nasr Al-Khuzā’ī.

3. Bay’ahs upon establishing the order of a party (Tā’ifah) of the
Muslims, until a Khalīfah has emerged, such as the Bay’ah of the
people of Damascus to Adh-Dhahhāk Ibn Qays.

4. Bay’ahs upon disputing the Khilāfah by rebelling against the
tyrannical leaders, such as the Bay’ahs of Al-Husayn Ibn ‘Alī,
‘Abdullāh Ibn Az-Zubayr, Ibn Al-Ash’ath, Zayd Ibn ‘Alī, Yazīd Ibn
Al-Walīd, Mu’āwiyah Ibn ‘Abdillāh Ibn Ja’far, the ‘Abbāsids, Abū
Muhammad As-Sufyānī, ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ad-Dākhal, Muhammad
An-Nafs Az-Zakiyyah and his brother, Ibrāhīm.

And the first three categories of these Bay’ahs were not Bay’ahs
upon Khilāfah, and these are the ones which the author of the book
“Al-Bay’ah” labeled as “… the unusual Bay’ahs…” and he denied
that they ever took place amongst the Predecessors (Salaf). As for
the fourth category, then they also are not Bay’ahs of Khilāfah –

372 Pg. 32 & 33



rather, they are Bay’ahs upon seeking the Khilāfah and upon
disputing with the Khalīfah of the time. And none of these Bay’ahs
are considered as the (true) Bay’ah of the Khilāfah, except by the
Khilāfah being consolidated by the one seeking it, and the majority
of the Muslims entering into this Bay’ah. As for prior to that, the
(true) Sharī’ah-based Bay’ah is the Bay’ah (which was given) to the
Khalīfah, who is being rebelled against at that time. And of those
rebels for whom the Khilāfah was consolidated (i.e. their rebellion
was successful), were ‘Abdullāh Ibn Az-Zubayr, Yazīd Ibn Al-
Walīd, the ‘Abbāsids and ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ad-Dākhal. So all of
their Bay’ahs are included under the label of “the unusual Bay’ahs”
before their consolidation of the Khilāfah, whether or not they were
able to consolidate the Khilāfah.

And a questioner might ask, “What is the ruling (Hukm) upon the
rebellion (Khurūj) of these rebels (Khārijīn) against these
Khalīfahs?”

I say: there is no disagreement regarding the obligation of rebelling
against the kāfir ruler - for all those who are able to do so. As for the
transgressing sinner (fāsiq) or the oppressor (thālim) – which is
actually the situation of the reality of the most of the Bay’ahs
mentioned above – there was a disagreement concerning it
amongst the Predecessors (Salaf) of the Ummah. So from them were
those who obligated (Wājib) it (i.e. rebellion), due to the generality
of the Hadīths concerning the Commanding of the Good and the
Forbidding of the Evil 373 ; and from them were those who forbade

373 Trans Note: Such as those narrated by Imām Muslim in his “Sahīh”:

a) From Ibn Mas’ūd, that the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said, “There was no
Prophet whom Allāh sent in a nation before me, except that he had Disciples and
Companions from his nation, who took his Sunnah and followed his command. Then
successors succeeded after them who said that which they did not practice, and practiced
that which they were not commanded to. So whoever makes Jihād against them with his
hand, then he is a Believer, and whoever makes Jihād against them with his tongue, then
he is a Believer, and whoever makes Jihād against them with his heart, then he is a
Believer - and beyond that there is not (the weight of) a mustard seed of Īmān.”



it (i.e. rebellion), due to the Hadīths (such as), “Whoever hates
something from his Amīr, then he should be patient…” So these Bay’ahs
mentioned above were based upon the application of the general
obligation of Commanding the Good and the Forbidding the Evil.

Then, after these tribulations, the opinion of the majority of Ahl As-
Sunnah Wal-Jamā’ah settled upon remaining patient with the
tyrannical leaders and preventing of rebellion against them. And
Imām An-Nawawī has mentioned this old difference of opinion and
what the opinion (eventually) settled upon, as he said, “Al-Qādhī
‘Iyādh said, ‘So if transgression (fisq) is perpetrated by the Khalīfah,
some of the scholars said that it is obligatory to remove him, unless
tribulation (fitnah) and war would result from that. And the
majority of Ahl As-Sunnah, from the jurists (Fuqahā’) and the Hadīth
specialists (Muhaddithīn) and the experts in theoretical debate
(Mutakallimīn), said that he should not be removed due to
transgression (fisq) or oppression (thulm) or the denial of rights, and
he is not be to removed nor it is allowed to rebel against him due to
that. Rather, it is obligatory (Wājib) to admonish him and cause him
to fear (Allāh’s punishment), due to the Hadīths which are narrated
about that.’ 374 Al-Qādhī said, ‘And Abū Bakr Ibn Mujāhid claimed

b) From Tāriq Ibn Shihāb, who said,”The first one who began giving the Khutbah on
the Day of ‘Eid before the prayer, was Marwān, so a man stood up to him and
said, ‘The Salāt is before the Khutbah.’ So he (Marwān) said, ‘That which was
there has been left.’ So Abū Sa’īd said, “As for this one, then he has fulfilled that
which is upon him. I heard the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬saying, ‘Whoever
from you sees something evil, then he should change it with his hand; then if he is unable,
then with his tongue, then if he is unable, then with his heart - and that is the weakest of
Īmān.’”

374 Trans. Note: Such as what Imām Al-Bukhārī narrated in his “Sahīh”:

a) From Usayyid Ibn Hudhayr, that a man came to the Prophet ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬then
said, “O Messenger of Allāh, you used so and so (as an authority), but you
haven’t used me?” He said, “After me you will see selfishness, so be patient until you
meet me.”

b) From ‘Abdullāh Ibn Mas’ūd, who said, “The Messenger of Allāh ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
said to us, “You will see after me, selfishness and (other) matters that you will hate.’



that there was a consensus of opinion (Ijmā’) upon this, and some of
them have rejected this upon him with the (evidence of the)
uprising of Al-Husayn, Ibn Az-Zubayr, the people of Madīnah
against Banī Umayyah, and with the uprising of a large group of the
Tābi’īn and the earliest (generations) along with Ibn Al-Ash’ath
against Al-Hajjāj. And the one who says this interprets his
statement “… and that we would not dispute the authority from its
people …” to be regarding the Just Leaders. And the argument of
the majority is that their uprising against Al-Hajjāj was not merely
due to transgression (fisq) – rather, it was when he changed things
from the (Islāmic) Legislation, and externalized some kufr (Thāhara
Min Al-Kufr).’ 375 Al-Qādhī said, ‘And it is said that this
disagreement was in the beginning, but afterwards, a consensus

They asked, ‘What do you order us to do, O Messenger of Allāh?’ He said, ‘Pay
their rights to them (to the rulers) and ask your rights from Allāh.’”

c) ‘Iyādh Ibn Ghanm who said, “The Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said,
‘Whoever has advice for the one with authority then he should take him by the hand and
take him into seclusion (and then advise him). Then if he accepts it, then he accepts it,
and if he rejects it, then he has fulfilled that which was (a duty) upon him.’” Reported
by Ibn Abī ‘Āsim, and Al-Albānī authenticated it in “Kitāb As-Sunnah” (1,098).

375Trans. Note: In keeping with the Hadīth from Junādah Ibn Abī Umayyah, who
said that ‘Ubādah Ibn As-Sāmit said, “The Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬called
us, so we gave Bay’ah to him. So from (the stipulations) which he took from us
was that we offer Bay’ah upon listening and obeying, during our eagerness or
reluctance and in our difficult times and in our easy times and favoring (the
commands) instead of our own (desires), and that we would not dispute the
authority from its people.’ He said, ‘Unless you see an open disbelief (Kufr), for
which you have an evidence from Allāh about it.’” The matter of Al-Hajjāj was
disagreed upon by the Predecessors (As-Salaf) as there were some of them who
considered him a disbeliever (kāfir), and others who did not. Abū Bakr Ibn Abī
Shaybah narrated in “Kitāb Al-Īmān” (Pg. 32), with an authentic chain from Ash-
Sha’bī, that he said, “I bear witness that he (Al-Hajjāj) is a believer in the Tāghūt
and a disbeliever in Allāh.” Also, from Tāwūs, with an authentic chain, that he
said, “It is strange from our brothers from the people of ‘Irāq that they say, ‘Al-
Hajjāj is a believer.” And Al-Hāfith Ibn Hajar mentioned in “Tahthīb At-Tahthīb”
(2/211), “And a group declared him as a disbeliever (Takfīr), and from them were
Sa’īd Ibn Jubayr, An-Nakh’ī, Mujāhid, ‘Āsim Ibn Abī An-Najūd, Ash-Sha’bī and
others.” And Allāh knows best.



(Ijmā’) was formed to prevent the rebellions against them. And
Allāh knows best.” 376

mentioned that being patient with the tyrannical leaders, and not
rebelling against them, is what the opinion of Ahl As-Sunnah settled
upon after old difference of opinion in this issue. 377

I say: And this issue began to be discussed within the beliefs of Ahl
As-Sunnah Wal-Jamā’ah as it is affirmed in the books of ‘Aqīdah
(creed) which are widespread. The author of “Al-‘Aqīdah At-
Tahāwiyyah” said, “And we do not allow the rebellion against our
leaders and the guardians of our affairs, even if they become
tyrannical, and we do not supplicate against them, and we do not
remove a (single) hand away from obeying them. And we view that
obeying them is a part of obedience to Allāh, Glorified is He, which
is an obligation (Farīdhah) as long as they do not order any sin, and
we supplicate for them for righteousness and recovery.” 378

And Ibn Hajar has narrated, from Ibn Battāl, consensus (Ijmā’) upon
this as well. And Ibn Hajar said, “And Ibn At-Tīn narrated from
Ad-Dāwūdī, who said, “The scholars are (united) regarding that
the oppressive [Muslim] rulers, if it is possible to remove them
without fitnah (war), then it is obligatory (Wājib); but if it involves
fitnah (war), then it is obligatory to be patient. And some scholars
view that it is not permissible to put a fāsiq (oppressor) into
rulership if he is as such from the beginning; but if he was put into
position while he was righteous, and then later committed
oppression - then the scholars have differed regarding revolting
against such a (fāsiq) ruler, but the correct opinion is that it is

376 “Sharh An-Nawawī Li-Sahīh Muslim” (2/229)
377 “Minhāj As-Sunnah” (2/241)
378 “Sharh Al-‘Aqīdah At-Tahāwiyyah” (Pg. 279), publication of “Al-Maktab Al-

Islāmī”, 1404 H.



forbidden (to rebel against him). But as for the ruler committing
kufr, then it is obligatory (Wājib).” 379

And despite this, Ibn Hazm took the opinion of the generality of
the Hadīths concerning the Commanding of the Good and the
Forbidding of the Evil, and that they abrogate the Hadīths which
order silence. 380 But he is refuted with the consensus (Ijmā’) that is
established concerning remaining patient with the tyrannical
(Muslim) leaders. And his claim of abrogation is in need of
knowledge of the dates (to determine which Hadīths came first).
And what is correct is the opinion of “the general and the specific”
and that the “specific” – and they are the Hadīths of being patient
with the tyrannical leaders – are put ahead of the “general” – and
they are the generality of the Hadīths that order the Commanding of
the Good and the Forbidding of the Evil, according to the rules
(derived from Islāmic) principles.

Sixthly: The author of the book “Al-Bay’ah Bayn As-Sunnah Wal-
Bid’ah” narrated broken words from Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn
Taymiyyah, as he extracted only that which supports his opinion,
which is that these covenants (‘Uhūd) are invalid innovations
(Bid’ah), and he left out the words of Shaykh Al-Islām which
contradict his opinion. And the author was not satisfied with
merely using that which he desired and leaving that which he
desired (to leave out) from the words of Ibn Taymiyyah. Rather, he
went beyond this, as the author altered the quote from Shaykh Al-
Islām, by omitting and adding, in order to give the reader the false
impression that Shaykh Al-Islām objected to the people forming
covenants (‘Uhūd) and their agreeing upon helping (one another) in
Righteousness (Birr) and Piety (Taqwā). And this distortion in
narrating the verdicts (Fatāwā) of the scholars (‘Ulamā’) is in no way
from a trustworthy (Amānah) knowledge (source).

379 Refer to “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (13/7-8). Trans. Note: See how the scholars of the Salaf
differentiated between revolting against a Muslim oppressor, and between a kāfir
Tāghūt ruler.
380 “Al-Muhallā” (9/362)



As the author narrated in (Pg. 36) of his book, some words of
Shaykh Al-Islām, from Volume 28, pg. 18, and he altered them by
omissions and additions, so that he could subjugate it to his
opinion. And Shaykh Al-Islām was speaking about the Ta’assub
(blind loyalty) of students towards their teachers by means of
‘tightening the middle’ 381 and such things - so he prohibited that.

Ibn Taymiyyah said, “So if the intention with this tightening
(Shadd) and affiliation is to help (one another) upon righteousness
(Birr)…” but the author wrote this sentence like this: “In that if their
intention with this pact (Ittifāq), affiliation, and Bay’ah, is to help (one
another) upon righteousness (Birr)…” And as you can see, the author
inserted the word “…Bay’ah…” within the words of Ibn
Taymiyyah, in order to support his opinion. So he attributed to Ibn
Taymiyyah (may Allāh be merciful to him) that which he did not
say. And likewise, (he also removed) the word “…tightening
(Shadd)…” and he put in its place the word “…agreement
(Ittifāq)…”.

And Ibn Taymiyyah said, “…then Allāh and His Messenger have
(already) commanded this, to him and others (as well) without this
tightening (Shadd)…” But the author wrote it like so: “…then Allāh
and His Messenger have (already) commanded this, to him and
others (as well) without this pact (Ittifāq)…” So the author omitted
the word “…tightening (Shadd)…” and added the word “…pact
(Ittifāq)…”.

Likewise, the author narrated on (Pg. 37) of his book, that Shaykh
Al-Islām (may Allāh be merciful to him) said, “It is not (permissible)
for anyone to form a covenant (‘Ahd) upon anyone, (agreeing) that
he (the follower) will comply with whatever he (the leader) desires.
and to ally himself with those who ally themselves with him, and
to take as enemies whoever takes him as an enemy. Rather,
whoever does this, then he is from the type of Genghis Khan and
the likes of him; those who take whoever complies with them as a

Trans. Note: An expression, which means to secure unconditional loyalties
381

and absolute allegiance.



supportive friend, and those who oppose them as a rebellious
enemy.” 382

And this narration also deceives the reader into thinking that
Shaykh Al-Islām objected to the people forming covenants (‘Uhūd)
upon acts of righteousness (Birr). But the truth is that the
aforementioned words of Shaykh Al-Islām were mentioned within
the presentation of his answer to a question, in which (the
following) came, “And is it for a novice to stand in the midst of a
group of teachers and learned people and say, ‘O group of
goodness, I ask Allāh, the Most High, and I ask you, to request
from so-and-so to accept me that I be to him a brother, or a
companion, or a servant, or a student, or the likes of that.’ And then
someone from the group stands up and takes the covenant (‘Ahd)
from him and stipulates upon him whatever he wants, and he
‘tightens his middle’ with a sash or something else. So is this action
allowed or not?” 383

So Shaykh Al-Islām answered by clarifying that which was not
allowed from this, and it is the ‘tightening of the middle’ and blind
loyalty to the teacher, in both Truth and falsehood, and that is what
the author of the book, “Al-Bay’ah” narrated. And likewise, Shaykh
Al-Islām clarified that which is allowed from this, and it is that the
covenant (‘Ahd) is allowed between the teacher and the student and
he (even) mentioned a (recommended) phrasing of this covenant
(‘Ahd), and it is what the author of the book “Al-Bay’ah” didn’t
mention. Because if he narrated this portion from the response of
Shaykh Al-Islām, it would have annihilated his book from its
foundation. And the People of Knowledge narrate that which is for
them and against them. Shaykh Al-Islām (may Allāh be merciful to
him) said about the covenant (‘Ahd) between the teacher and his
student, “But it is good if he mentions to his student, ‘Upon you is
the covenant (‘Ahd) of Allāh and His Mīthāq, and that you ally
yourself with those who ally themselves with Allāh and His
Messenger, and that you take as enemies, those who take Allāh and
His Messenger as enemies. And you must assist each other in

382 Vol. 28/16



(matters of) Righteousness (Birr) and Piety (Taqwā) and do not
cooperate in sin and transgression. And if the Truth (Haqq) is with
me, then support the Truth (Haqq). And if I am upon falsehood
(Bātil), then do not support falsehood (Bātil).’ So whoever complies
with this, then he is from amongst the Mujāhidīn in the Path of
Allāh, the Most High; those who desire for the Religion (Dīn) to be
completely for Allāh, and for Allāh’s Word to be supreme.” 384

And I had mentioned these words of his before, within, “The
Legitimacy of This Covenant (‘Ahd) In the Sharī’ah,” so review it there.

And here is a subtle benefit: And it is that the answer of Shaykh Al-
Islām concerning the permissibility of the covenant (‘Ahd) and the
prohibition of switching from one teacher to another without any
(legitimate) reason. And it (also) relates (specifically) to the military
training, as the question was about a teacher of archery and his
student. It was narrated within the question, “And if a man teaches
another man archery and swordsmanship or other than that from
the equipment of war and Jihād in the Path of Allāh, the Most High,
and he rejects his teachings and he switches to other than him (i.e.
to another teacher) – Is he sinful for that or not?” 385 So he (may
Allāh be merciful to him) responded with what has passed,
clarifying that which is allowed and that which is not allowed.

And Shaykh Al-Islām (may Allāh be merciful to him) mentioned in
multiple places, that which shows the permissibility of the
covenants (‘Uhūd) between the people, upon the acts of obedience.
And he clarified which stipulations are allowed and not allowed in
these covenants (‘Uhūd). And I have mentioned his discussion
about this matter in the topic: “The Benefit and Objective of this
Covenant (‘Ahd)”, especially his statement, “And the things which
Allāh has made obligatory upon the slave; He might have obligated
it originally, such as His obligation of Faith (Īmān) and Tawhīd upon
every person. And He might have obligated it because the slave
obligated it upon himself. And if it weren’t for that (i.e. the slave’s
making it obligatory upon himself), then Allāh would not have




obligated it, such as the fulfillment of the personal vow (Nathr)
upon the recommended deeds (Al-Mustahabbāt), and also what he
places upon himself from the permissible contracts (‘Uqūd), such as
sales, marriage, divorce and the likes of that, as they were not
(originally) obligatory (Wājib). And Allāh might have obligated
these for both reasons, such as the Pledge of Allegiance (Bay’ah) of
the Messenger upon listening and obeying (As-Sam’ Wat-Tā’ah)
him. And similarly, the Bay’ah to the leaders of the Muslims, and
like the contracts between the people upon the performance of that
which Allāh and His Messenger have commanded.” 386

So he (may Allāh be merciful to him) mentioned that, “… the
Allāh and His Messenger have commanded,” - it is obligatory
(Wājib) upon them to perform them, due to both matters; due to its
obligation within the (Islāmic) Legislation originally, and also due
to its obligation through the formation of contracts and covenants
upon them. So what words are clearer than these!?

And he mentioned in the stipulations that this applies to “… the
contracts of the Shaykhs and the contracts of those with whom they
have formed (a bond of) brotherhood,” 387 - and this has preceded.

Seventhly: And as for that which the author of the book “Al-
Bay’ah” narrated from Abū Nu’aym in “Al-Hilyah”, concerning
Mutarrif Ibn ‘Abdillāh rejecting the likes of those words which they
presented to him - then (it should be made known that) the words
which they wrote are indeed false and worthy of being rejected.
This is because they resemble that which Ibn Taymiyyah (may
Allāh be merciful to him) objected to, regarding the supporting
(each other) whether rightfully, or wrongfully. As they said, “And
whosoever is with us, then we are (with him) and we help him; and
whosoever contradicts us, then our hand is against him…” This is wrong
and false – Rather, it would have been proper for them to have
said, “And whoever is upon the Truth, we support (him), and
whoever contradicts the Truth, then our hand is against him.” So

386 “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” (29/345-346)



their stipulation contradicted the Book and the Sunnah, so it is not
allowed to form a covenant (‘Ahd) upon it.

But as for the author desiring to use the rejection of Mutarrif
against this covenant (‘Ahd), as an evidence for the invalidity of the
very basis of covenants between the people, then this does not hold
up after what I mentioned in “The Legitimacy of This Covenant (‘Ahd)
In the Sharī’ah”, of the evidences from the Book, the Sunnah and the
history (Sīrah) of the Companions (Sahābah). So how could an action
from one of the Tābi’īn (Successors to the Companions) – even if the
use of this as evidence was valid in the first place – stand up in the
face of these evidences?

And if the statement of a Companion (Sahābī) can be rejected if it
contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, then how about an action
from one of the Tābi’īn!? 388 And I have (already) mentioned that the
phrasing of the covenant which was presented to Mutarrif was
false (anyway), and it is possible to interpret his (i.e. Mutarrif’s)
rejection from this angle.

And it suffices us that the author of the book “Al-Bay’ah” did not
find any evidence from the Qur’ān, nor the Sunnah, nor the sayings
of the Companions (Sahābah), nor their history (Sīrah), to support
his opinion. So he sought refuge in one action from one of Tābi’īn,
which is subject to (various) interpretations (anyway). But this was
not sufficient for him, so he sought refuge by altering the words of
Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allāh be merciful to him), by omitting, adding
and concealing, in order to support his opinion.

And no one should understand from my aforementioned words
that I reject using the statements of the Tābi’īn as evidence. Rather, I
believe that they can be used as evidence, as long as they do not
contradict anything from the Book (Qur’ān), the Sunnah, or a
statement of a Companion, or another Tābi’ī. So how about when
the statement of Mutarrif, in this case, contradicts the evidences
which I mentioned in “The Legitimacy of This Covenant (‘Ahd) In the

Refer to “The Ruling Upon the Statements of the Companions”, in “I’lām Al-
388

Muwaqqi’īn”, by Ibn Al-Qayyim (4/118) and what follows it.



Sharī’ah”? This is if his words are understood as an objection to the
entire covenant absolutely (and not merely just a rejection of the
contents of the stipulations written to him).

And concerning the usage of the statements of the Tābi’īn (as
evidence), Ibn Al-Qayyim said, “The Predecessors (Salaf) disagreed
concerning that, as there were those who said, ‘It is obligatory
(Wājib) to follow the Tābi’ī in whatever he issues as a legal verdict
(Fatwā), as long as he is not contradicted by a Companion or
another Tābi’ī.’ And this was the opinion of some of the Hanbalīs
and the Shāfi’īs, as (Imām) Ash-Shāfi’ī (himself) clearly stated in one
instance, that he said something out of Taqlīd to ‘Attā’. And this
was (a sign of) the perfection of his knowledge and comprehension
(Fiqh) - may Allāh be pleased with him - as he did not find in the
issue, (anything) other than the statement of ‘Attā’. So his (i.e.
‘Attā’s) statement, according to him (Ash-Shāfi’ī), was the strongest
thing he found concerning this issue…” 389

I say: And concerning the issue of using the statement of a Tābi’ī as
evidence, there are other discussions, such as what to do when the
statements of (some of) the Tābi’īn differ (in an issue), and also
(what to do) when a statement of a Tābi’ī contradicts the juristic
analogy (Qiyās). So the books of principles (Usūl) should be
referred regarding this.

And there are other statements, which the author of the book “Al-
Bay’ah Bayn As-Sunnah Wal-Bid’ah” mentioned, which require a
refutation and a clarification of his errors in it - but I will turn away
from this, due to its irrelevance to our topic. And an example of this
was his claim on (Pg. 40) that the Predecessors (Salaf) rejected any
matter which was not narrated in its precise manner in the Book
and the Sunnah - and there is no doubt that this is a fabrication
upon the Predecessors (Salaf), as the majority of the Predecessors
(Salaf) recognized the consensus (Ijmā’) and the juristic analogy
(Qiyās) [as evidences], after the Book and the Sunnah. And this
statement of his, “in its precise manner (Bi-Kayfiyyatihi)” was not

389 “I’lām Al-Muwaqqi’īn” (4/156)



even claimed by the extremists of the Thāhirī 390 school of thought
(Math’hab), which many of the Predecessors considered to be an
innovation (Bid’ah). 391 And like his statement that the Bay’ah is void
if the People of Al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd do not come together and form the
contract of governance (Imāmah) to the one who fulfills all its
conditions. 392 And this statement, in its generalization, is a mistake,
because the contract of the People of Al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd is (merely)
one of the methods of forming the contract of governance (Imāmah).
Because there is (for example), the authority being handed down
from the previous Khalīfah, (called) “Al-Istikhlāf ” [lit. Succession].
And (then) there is (also) the taking over and the conquering; and
whoever takes over and is called “Amīr Al-Mu’minīn” - then it is not
allowed for anyone who believes in Allāh and the Last Day, to pass
the night and not recognize him as “Amīr Al-Mu’minīn”, as Ahmad
Ibn Hanbal said. 393

This is what concerns the refutation upon the doubts of the author
of the book “Al-Bay’ah Bayn As-Sunnah Wal-Bid’ah”. And I did not
refute them except to remove the deception which some might be
misled by, by reading the likes of that book, at a time when we are
in the greatest need for the contracts (Ta’āqud) and covenants
(Ta’āhud) amongst the Muslims, upon intensified promises for the
sake of giving victory to the Religion of Allāh and rescuing the
oppressed ones from the men, women and children, until there is
no more fitnah, and the Religion will all be for Allāh (in the whole
of the world) - as our Lord loves and is pleased with.

390 Trans. Note: The Thāhirī School (Al-Math’hab Ath-Thāhirī) was based upon the
notion that the texts of the Qur’ān and Sunnah must be interpreted literally in
every case, based upon its outward, apparent (Thāhir) meaning or implications.
From among their most famous scholars, was Ibn Hazm, may Allāh be merciful
to him.
391 Refer to “Al-‘Itisām” (1/71), by Ash-Shātibī, publication of 1402 H.
392 Pg. 22
393 Refer to “Al-Ahkām As-Sultāniyyah” (Pg. 20, 23), by Abū Ya’lā.



Refutation upon another doubt:

Shaykh Muqbil Ibn Hādī Al-Wādi’ī, (who is) from the Ahl As-
Sunnah in Yemen, mentioned in his book, “Al-Makhraj Min Al-
Fitnah” 394 within his refutation of the same group which the author
of the book “Al-Bay’ah” spoke about; Shaykh Muqbil said, “Is it
possible that the Bay’ah could be valid to an unknown (person),
when it is not known whether he is righteous or unrighteous, a
scholar or an ignorant, a Qurashī or a non-Qurashī, a courageous
man or a coward?!” 395

I say: So is it permissible for a Muslim to give Bay’ah to an Amīr, if
he does not know him specifically, nor his name?

The answer: Both authors of “Al-Ahkām As-Sultāniyyah” 396 agreed
upon the permissibility of this, and that it is not necessary for every
single Muslim to know the Imām specifically and by name; Rather,
it is only necessary for the People of Al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd, those, by
whom the argument (Hujjah) is established. And as for that which
is necessary upon the rest, then it is they should know that the
Khilāfah has been given to one who is worthy of it.

Al-Māwardī said, “Chapter: Then if the Khilāfah settles with the one
who takes charge if it, either by being assigned (i.e. appointed from
its former possessor, i.e. the former Khalīfah) or by selection (by the
People of Al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd), then it is upon the rest of the nation
(Ummah) to know that the Khilāfah was granted to one who was
worthy with his characteristics. And it is not necessary for them to
know him specifically or by identity, except for the People of
Selection, those by whom the argument (Hujjah) is established. And
with their Bay’ah, the contract (‘Aqd) of the Khilāfah is granted. And
Sulaymān Ibn Jarīr said, ‘It is obligatory (Wājib) upon all the people

394 Pg. 68, publication 1403 H.
395 And he repeated this in the footnote on Pg. 98.
396 Al-Māwardī and Abū Ya’lā



to know the Imām specifically and by name, just as it is upon them
to know Allāh and to know His Messenger.’ But what the majority
of the people are upon, is that the knowledge of the Imām is
necessary upon the rest of the people in general, not specifically,
397 and it is not upon every person to know him specifically and

by identity, except in those situations which require that, just like
the knowledge of the judges (Qudhāt) with whom the rulings are
made and the jurists (Fuqahā’) who issue legal verdicts (Fatāwā)
regarding the lawful (Halāl) and the unlawful (Harām). This is
necessary upon the public population in general, and not
specifically, except in those situations in which they (i.e. the
judges and jurists) are needed. And if it were a necessity upon
each and every individual of the Ummah to know the Imām
specifically and by identity, then it would be a necessity to perform
emigration (Hijrah) to him and it would not be allowed for the
distant (communities) to remain behind and this would lead to the
desertion of the lands, and goodness would depart and corruption
would return.” 398

And Abū Ya’lā said, “And it is not obligatory upon all the people to
know the Imām specifically and by name, except he who is from the
People of Selection, those by whom the argument is established,
and the contract (‘Aqd) of the Khilāfah is made.” 399

I say: And from the Bay’ahs which took place in this manner, I will
mention: The Bay’ah of ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azīz – and he was from
the Rightly-Guided Ones, and the Bay’ah of the campaign of the
‘Abbāsids; as what follows:

1. The Bay’ah of the Khilāfah to ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azīz, the Rightly-
Guided Khalīfah. The Khalīfah, ‘Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwān, delegated
authority to his two sons (to receive the Khilāfah) after him (i.e. his
death), 400 and then (afterwards), Al-Walīd came to power, and then

397 Trans. Note: Meaning that the general public as a body needs to know him,

but not every individual in this body needs to have this knowledge specifically.
398 Refer to “Al-Ahkām As-Sultāniyyah” (Pg. 15), by Al-Māwardī.
399 Refer to “Al-Ahkām As-Sultāniyyah” (Pg. 27), by Abū Ya’lā.



Sulaymān. And when Sulaymān was reached (by death), the great
Tābi’ī, Rajā’ Ibn Haywah, suggested to him that he hand over
authority to ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azīz. As-Suyūtī said, “He – Rajā’ –
said, ‘You should leave ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azīz behind you (as your
successor).’ He – Sulaymān – said, ‘I am afraid that my brothers
will not be pleased (with that).’ He said, ‘Put ‘Umar in charge and
after him, Yazīd Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik. And write a declaration and seal
it and call them to his Bay’ah (i.e. the one named in the declaration),
while it is still sealed.’ So he (i.e. Sulaymān) said, ‘I consent.’ ” 401

And Ibn Kathīr said that Sulaymān wrote, ‘In the Name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful. This is a declaration from ‘Abdullāh
Ibn Sulaymān Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik, for ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azīz. Verily,
I have appointed him with the Khilāfah after me, and after him,
Yazīd Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik. So listen to him, and obey him, fear Allāh
and do not dispute lest your enemy be tempted (to take advantage
of) you.’ And he sealed the letter and sent it to Ka’b Ibn Hāmid Al-
‘Abasī, the chief of police, and said to him, ‘Assemble the people of
my household, then order them to give Bay’ah upon what is in this
letter while it is sealed. Then whoever refuses, smite his neck.’ So
they assembled and some of the men from them entered and gave
Salām to Amīr Al-Mu’minīn. Then he said to them, ‘This letter is my
covenant to you, so listen and obey and give Bay’ah to the one
whom I have appointed (as Khalīfah) therein.’ So they gave Bay’ah
upon that, man-by-man.” – until Ibn Kathīr said – “Rajā’ Ibn
Haywah said, ‘So I turned him to face the Qiblah then he died, may
Allāh be merciful to him. Then I covered him with a green plush
(shroud) and I closed up (his quarters) behind him. And I sent (a
letter) to Ka’b Ibn Hāmid, so he gathered the people in the Masjid of
Dābiq. So I said, ‘Give Bay’ah to the one who is (named) in this
letter,’ So they said, ‘We have given Bay’ah.’ So I said, ‘Give Bay’ah a
second time.’ So they did so, then I said, ‘Rise for your companion,
as he has died,’ and then I read the letter to them.” 402

401 Refer to “Tārīkh Al-Khulafā’” (Pg. 226), by As-Suyūtī.



And Rajā’ Ibn Haywah, who suggested this to Sulaymān Ibn
‘Abdil-Malik, was a great Tābi’ī. 403 And Ibn Kathīr said, “And he
was a great Tābi’ī with great status, a trustworthy, virtuous, just,
truthful minister of the Khalīfahs of Banī Umayyah. And Mak’hūl
used to say, when asked, ‘Ask our Shaykh and our master, Rajā’ Ibn
Haywah.’ And more than one of the Imāms praised him and
declared him trustworthy in narrating.” 404

2. The Bay’ah of the campaign to establish the ‘Abbāsid state:

This campaign was started by Muhammad Ibn ‘Alī Ibn ‘Abdillāh
Ibn ‘Abbās, as I mentioned earlier. And they called people to their
Bay’ah. And the Bay’ah was for “The Approval From the Family of
Muhammad ‫ ,”ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬as so, without any specific identification
of the Amīr of this campaign. And this was intentional, due to the
keenness of the ‘Abbāsids in order to enlist the Shī’ah of the
‘Alawīs, to their campaign. And “the family of Muhammad”
includes both the ‘Alawīs and the ‘Abbāsids, so the one who was
given the Bay’ah, in this campaign, was an unknown individual to
the majority of those who gave Bay’ah, with the exception of the
chiefs and the major callers, who knew the person of this campaign
by name and specific identity. 405 And As-Suyūtī said,
“Muhammad, the Imām, sent a man to Khurāsān and ordered him
to call to ‘The Approval From The Family Of Muhammad ‫,’ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬
and that he should not name anyone (specifically). Then he sent
Abū Muslim Al-Khurāsānī and others, and wrote to the chiefs and
they accepted his letters.” 406

I say: So this is what we were able to (put together), concerning the
topic of whether it is allowed to give Bay’ah to an unknown. And
what becomes apparent from the aforementioned narrations, is that
it is permissible, as long as the People of Al-Hall Wal-‘Aqd know the
one who is being given the Bay’ah. And Allāh knows best.

403 Refer to “Al-Jarh Wat-Ta’dīl” by Ibn Abū Hātim (3/501).
405 Look to “Al-Bidāyah Wan-Nihāyah” (9/321) & (10/25, 30, 31, 39, 42, 45)
406 “Tārīkh Al-Khulafā’” (Pg. 257)



Also, Shaykh Muqbil mentioned words, which signify a forbiddance
of joining the Islāmic groups. He said in the same book, “Is Bay’ah to
them necessary? Then the answer is that it is not necessary because
it is a condition of the Imām that he be a Qurashī who is established.
And they constantly repeat the Hadīth, ‘Whoever dies while he does not
have a Bay’ah upon his neck - he dies a death of Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islāmic
Ignorance).’ This is (true) if there is an Imām, but if there is no Imām
and no satisfactory group (Jamā’ah), then the Messenger ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬said in the Hadīth of Huthayfah, ‘“But, if they have no group
(Jamā’ah) and no leader (Imām)?’’ ‘Then avoid all those sects (Al-
Firaq)…’ 407 And he repeated the attempt using the Hadīth of
Huthayfah as evidence on (Pg. 98) of the same book.

And the response to this is that I differentiated beforehand,
between the Bay’ah of the Imām of the Muslims, and the Bay’ahs of
the acts of obedience amongst the Muslims. As for his (attempt of)
using the Hadīth of Huthayfah as an evidence (to support his
claim), then his attempt is rejected by the Hadīth of “At-Tā’ifah Al-
Mansūrah” and I explained this previously. And (I explained) that
this Tā’ifah is the People of Knowledge and Jihād, and that
leadership (Imārah) is from the (continuous) characteristics of this
Tā’ifah, due to the Hadīth of Jābir Ibn ‘Abdillāh in Muslim - and its
presentation has preceded - and that this Tā’ifah will never be
absent in any era, until the last of them fights Al-Masīh Ad-Dajjāl
(The False Messiah). And due to that, it is not correct to restrict this
Tā’ifah to the People of Knowledge only, as An-Nawawī said, in his
supplementary additions to the statements of Al-Bukhārī and
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and others, may Allāh be pleased with them all.

Then the Shaykh invalidated his own words in multiple places, as
he said, in his aforementioned words, “… no satisfactory group
(Jamā’ah)…” But this means that the avoidance (I’tizāl) which is
narrated in the Hadīth of Huthayfah, is restricted by the presence of
the likes of this Satisfactory Group (Jamā’ah) [i.e. the Victorious
Party] - and this complies with the Hadīth of “At-Tā’ifah Al-
Mansūrah”, as I explained previously.

407 Pg. 68



And Shaykh Muqbil also said in his answer to the one who asked
him about giving Bay’ah to the groups, by saying, “As for (Bay’ah)
upon Listening and Obeying (As-Sam’ Wat-Tā’ah) - then no. But as
for you forming a covenant (‘Ahd) with them, and them forming a
covenant (‘Ahd) with you upon Da’wah to the Book of Allāh and the
Sunnah of His Messenger ‫ ,ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬then I do not see anything to
forbid that.” 408 And this formation of a covenant (Mu’āhadah) upon
the acts of obedience which he approved, invalidates his (earlier)
usage of the Hadīth of Huthayfah as evidence. Therefore, (he has
agreed that) the avoidance (I’tizāl) which was commanded, is not
unrestricted – rather, it is restricted, and that whenever a Muslim
finds a party (Tā’ifah) which is upon the Truth, then it is
(obligatory) upon him to adhere to it and to aid those who support
it. As for his objection to Listening and Obeying, he did not
mention any evidence for this, contradictory to what he advised the
Muslims with, in the end of his book where he said, “Number Five:
That you obligate yourself upon never acting (upon something)
except with an evidence from the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of
His Messenger ‫904 ”.ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬

And likewise, Shaykh Muqbil advised the Muslims to wage Jihād in
the Path of Allāh 410 - so we ask him: Is it allowed for the Jihād to be
established without a leadership (Imārah)? And can there (ever) be
leadership without the Listening and the Obeying? And I have
explained this issue in the third chapter of this treatise, specific to
leadership (Imārah).

And the Shaykh said (other) contradictory words, such as his
statement, “And in my view, the student of knowledge should not
be tied with any group (Jamā’ah). As for the Da’wah to the Book and
the Sunnah, then he should consider himself an individual from
amongst the individuals of every single group (Jamā’ah) which calls
to the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Messenger ‫ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬

408 Pg. 68
409 Pg. 98, from the same book



‫ 114 ”.ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬And the contradictions within the book are not something
hidden, as he forbade the student of knowledge from belonging to
a group, then he advised him to be in every group.

And he also said that he and his brothers, from the People of
Knowledge, called themselves “Ahl As-Sunnah”, in order to
differentiate themselves from others - then he clearly stated that
they are a group (Jamā’ah). He said, “As for ‘Ahl As-Sunnah’, then
they are a group (Jamā’ah) which held it upon themselves to act
upon the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allāh ‫ – ”… ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ‬until
his statement – “… and they have no president (for the group),
because they say, ‘Our president is the president of the state, as
long as he is a Muslim,’ and they do not have any Amīr, but rather,
they say, ‘We shall hold council concerning the steering of the
Da’wah and we shall be compliant and we shall not dispute.” 412
And the contradiction between his statement, “Our president…”
and his statement, “… and they do not have any Amīr,” is not
hidden. And also, the contradiction between his statement, “Our
president is the president of the state…” and his advice to the
questioner not to form a covenant (‘Ahd) with anyone upon
listening and obeying, is not hidden, because his acceptance of the
basic principle of presidency upon himself and upon those who are
with him, is (in and of itself) an approval of the Listening and
Obeying to this president. And the contradiction between his
statement, “Our president is the president of the state…” and his
statement, “… it is a condition of the Imām that he be a Qurashī who
is established…” - is not hidden. And (at the same time) we do not
reject his (i.e. Shaykh Muqbil’s) virtue and his efforts in spreading
the Sunnah.

And this was what was possible to be written about the topic of the
covenants (‘Uhūd) amongst the Muslims upon the acts of
obedience, which I entered beneath the chapter: “The Oath of the
Military Training Camp”, to clarify the legitimacy of this in the
Sharī’ah, along those issues which are related to it.




At-Tibyān Publications Releases

Books

• Millat Ibrāhīm
(Shaykh Abū Muhammad Al-Maqdisī)

• Fundamental Concepts Regarding Al-Jihād
(Shaykh Abdul-Qādir Ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azīz)

• The Evidences For The Ruling Regarding Alliance With The
Infidels (Imām Sulaymān Ibn ‘Abdillāh Ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-
Wahhāb)

• The Exposition Regarding the Disbelief of the One That Assists
the Americans (Shaykh Nāsir Ibn Hamad Al-Fahd)

• A Decisive Refutation of Salafi Publications - Two Volumes
(At-Tibyān Publications)

• Essay Regarding the Basic Rule of the Blood, Wealth and Honour
of the Disbelievers (At-Tibyān Publications)

• Verily, The Victory of Allāh Is Near
(Shaykh Sulaymān Ibn Nāsir Al-‘Ulwān)

• The People of the Ditch
(Shaykh Rifā‘ī Surūr)

• The Doubts Regarding the Ruling of Democracy In Islām

• The Islāmic Ruling on the Permissibility of Self-Sacrificial
Operations (At-Tibyān Publications)

• The Ruling Regarding Killing One’s Self to Protect Information



• Advice For the Seeker of Knowledge
(Shaykh Sultān Al-‘Utaybī)

• The Du’ā’ is the Weapon of the Believer

Articles

• The Clarification of What Occurred in America
(Shaykh Hamūd Ibn Uqlā Ash-Shu’aybī)

• The Tawhīd of Action
(Shaykh ‘Abdullāh ‘Azzām)

• The Path to the Land of the Battle
(Imām Yūsuf ibn Sālih Al-‘Uyayrī)

• Can Makkah become Dār Al-Harb?

• A Letter from the Imprisoned Shaykh Nāsir Al-Fahd
(Shaykh Nāsir Ibn Hamad Al-Fahd)

• We Are Ignorant Deviants!
(Shaykh Husayn Ibn Mahmūd)

• Verdict Regarding the Permissibility of Martyrdom Operations
(Shaykh Sulaymān Ibn Nāsir Al-‘Ulwān)

• Are the Tālibān from Ahl As-Sunnah?

• Mourning Over a Knightess: A Muslimah
(Louis ‘Atiyyatullāh)

• Was Prophet Sulaymān a Terrorist?
(Shaykh Dr. Muhammad Ibn Tarhūnī)



• Advice Regarding ‘Ubūdiyyah

• 39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihād
(Shaykh ‘Īsā Al-‘Awshin)

• From the Fruits of Jihād

Videos

• Such Are the Messengers Tested, and Then the Outcome Will Be
In Their Favour (Commander Abū Mus’ab Az-Zarqāwī)

• “And Incite the Believers”
(Video-taped lecture by Shaykh ‘Abdullāh Ar-Rashūd)

And many more to come, if Allāh permits…


The Refutation Of The Doubts Concerning Baiyah And Imaarah

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to The Refutation Of The Doubts Concerning Baiyah And Imaarah (20)

More from Light Upon Light (20)

The Refutation Of The Doubts Concerning Baiyah And Imaarah