Is The Bay’ah (Pledge Of Allegiance) To Muslim Rulers Based On Them Ruling With A Mixture Of Secular Laws & Shariah (Islamic) Laws Valid Or Is It A Condition For The Bay’ah To Be Valid, That The Muslim Ruler Has To Rule By Shariah Laws Only?

The takfires of this era have spread much confusion surrounding the issue of bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) in Islam. The bay’ah is (pledge of allegiance) given to the Muslim ruler of an Islamic state. It is a shariah contract between the one who swears allegiance, the rest of the citizens of that state and the one to whom allegiance is sworn (the Muslim ruler of that state).

The bay’ah is given by the decision makers i.e., the scholars and people of virtue and status. Once they give their allegiance to him, his position of leadership is confirmed, and the common folk do not have to give allegiance to him themselves, rather they have to obey him so long as that does not entail disobedience towards Allah.

Imam Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Saheeh Muslim: With regard to bay’ah (oath of allegiance): the scholars are agreed that in order for it to be valid it is not essential for all the people or all the decision makers to give their bay’ah. Rather, if bay’ah is given by those scholars and people of virtue and status who are present, that is sufficient. It is not obligatory for each person to come to the leader and put his hand in his and give his oath of allegiance to him. Rather what is required of each individual is to submit to him and not go against him or rebel against him. 

Al-Maaziri said: With regard to bay’ah being given to the leader of the Muslims, it is sufficient for the decision makers to give him their bay’ah. It is not essential for each individual Muslim to come to him and put his hand in his, rather it is sufficient to commit oneself to obeying him and submitting to him by not going against him or rebel against him. Quoted from Fath al-Baari. 

In al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah it says (9/278): The selection by the decision makers of the ruler and their swearing allegiance to him (bay’ah) is the basis of his taking that position. The decision makers (ahl al-hill wa’l-‘aqd) are the scholars and people of wisdom and high status, whose knowledge is accompanied by other essential conditions: trustworthiness, good character and wisdom.

The takfires claim that the Muslim rulers of this time are all illegitimate rulers because they belief the bay’ah given to the Muslim rulers of today is not valid. The reason they claim the bay’ah is invalid is because this bay’ah was based on them ruling by a mixture of secular democratic laws (which are kufr) and Islamic shariah laws.

This is said by the takfires in an attempted to justify protests, demonstrations, publicly criticizing and slandering the Muslim rulers and even armed rebellions against these rulers, as illegitimate rulers have no right to rule or by listened to and obeyed.

This claim of theirs is false because the bay’ah to these rulers or any other ruler has nothing to do with whether they rule by a mixture of secular democratic laws (which are kufr) and Islamic shariah laws or any system the ruler wish to rule by. The bay’ah is about the decision makers (i.e. the scholars and people of virtue and status) giving their individual pledge of allegiance to hear and obey the Muslim ruler, their pledge counts for every individual subject of that state that they will hear and obey the ruler.

The bay’ah is not about what the system of law the ruler chooses to rule by, as long as ruling by this system of law (what ever it is) does not make the ruler a disbeliever because the bay’ah can not be given to a disbeliever.

In the Two Saheehs (authentic) Books of Hadeeth (i.e. Al-Bukhari and Muslim) that Ubadah Ibn Al-Samit said: The Messenger of Allah called us and we took the oath of allegiance to him. Among the injunctions he made binding upon us was: Listening and obedience (to the ruler) in pleasure and displeasure, in adversity and prosperity, even when somebody is given preference over us, and without disputing the delegation of powers to a man duly invested with them (Obedience shall be accorded to him in all circumstances) except when you have clear signs of his disbelief  in Allah (major kufr (disbelief) in beliefs, so he exits Islam) – signs that could be used as a conscientious justification (for non-compliance with his orders). This is the narration of Muslim.

When the Prophet accepted Bay’ah from his Sahaba (Companions), he made sure that they would not fight over leadership with their rulers, unless you notice them committing absolute Kufr (disbelief which makes him leave Islam) for which there is a proof from Allah. (Saheeh Bukhari – Book of Fitan)

Imam Al-Nawawi said “Al-Qaadi said, ‘The scholars are unanimously agreed that a kaafir should not be appointed as ruler, and that if the ruler becomes a kaafir, he must be deposed. Sharh Muslim (12/229).”’ 

Ruling by other than Allahs law in general is minor kufr (kufr of action which does not expel the doer from Islam). However it can reach the level of major kufr (kufr of belief) if the doer thinks the this law that is not Allahs law is better, the same, it is halaal to rule by this law or more suitable for this time than the shariah. However this type of belief has to be proven form the statement of the ruler as the tongue is voice of the heart. Meaning through someone’s speech they will testify to the beliefs in their heart, other wise their beliefs can never be really known. As actions can be done for main reasons but the only way to know why some did that action and their beliefs concerning that action is through their speech.

Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih al-Uthaymeen stated in regards ruling by other than Allahs law “Allah has described those who do not rule by what Allaah has revealed with three descriptions: “Whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then they are the disbelievers [kaafiroon].” “Whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then they are the oppressors [dhaalimoon]” “Whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then they are the sinners [faasiqoon].”  

The People of Knowledge have differed concerning this. So it is opined that these descriptions in fact describe one and the same thing because the kaafir is a dhaalim due to the saying of Allah,

“And the disbelievers are the oppressors.” [al-Baqarah (2): 254] [Similarly the kaafir] is a faasiq due to the saying of Allah, “As for the sinners then their abode will be the Fire.” [as-Sajdah (32): 20]

It is also opined that these are distinct descriptions and that they are [applied] in accordance to the situation: So [one] becomes a kaafir in three circumstances, when he believes that it is permissible to rule by other than what Allah has revealed. The evidence for this lies in the saying of Allah, “So is it the rule of Jaahiliyyah (ignorance) that they seek?” [al-Maidah (5): 50]. Everything that opposes the rule of Allah constitutes the rule of Jaahiliyyah. [Also the evidence for this] is the definitive consensus that it is not allowed to rule by other then what Allah has revealed.

(The three situations one becomes a kaafir due to ruling by other than Allahs law.) 

  1. Therefore the one who considers it lawful and permissible to rule by other then what Allah has revealed has contradicted this definitive consensus and such a person is a kaafir and an apostate. This (is similar to the case of one) who, considers fornication or alcohol to be permissible or considers bread or milk to be unlawful.
  2. When he believes that ruling by other then what Allah revealed is equivalent (equal) to ruling by the rule of Allah.
  3. When he believes that ruling by other then what Allah revealed is better than ruling by what Allah has revealed. The evidence for this lies in the saying of Allah, “And who is better than Allah in judgment for a people who have certainty?” [al-Maidah (5): 50] So this verse states that the ruling of Allah is the best of rulings as is further proven by the saying of Allah, endorsing this, “Is Allah not the best of judges?” [at-Teen (95): 8]. So when Allah is the best of the judges in ruling and He is the most just of the rulers then whosoever claims that the rule of other than Allah is equivalent or better than the rule of Allah is a kaafir because he has denied the Quran.

(The situations one rules by other than Allahs law but they are still Muslim but are sinful.)

  1. (One) becomes a dhalim (oppressor). When he believes that ruling by what Allah has revealed is the best of judgments and the most beneficial for the servants and the lands and that it is obligatory to apply it. However hatred and jealousy (of his subjects) lead him to rule by other than what Allah revealed over his subjects – such a person is a dhaalim.  
  2. (One) becomes a faasiq (sinner). When he follows his own desires, for example he rules in favour of a person due to being bribed by him, or due to his being a close relative or friend, or [because the ruler] seeks the fulfillment of a need from his comrades or the likes. This along with the belief that the rule of Allah is the ideal and it is obligatory to follow it – such a person is a faasiq. Even though he is also a dhaalim, describing him as a faasiq is more befitting.” Taken from Al-Qawl al-Mufeed `ala Kitaab at-Tawheed’ [2/263-269] 

In regards to ruling by other than Allahs law Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah in Madaarij us-Saalikeen, vol.1, pp.336 said: “…What is correct (concerning the Islamic ruling on the ruler/person who rules by other than Allahs law) is: that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed goes between the two types of kufr, minor or major depending on the condition of the ruler (or judge).

  •  If he believes in the obligation of ruling by what Allah has revealed in this situation yet averts from ruling by it, along with his admittance that he deserves punishment for this, and then this is minor kufr.
  • Yet if he believes that ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is not an obligation or that he has a choice in ruling by it, while accepting that it is the rule of Allah, then this is major kufr.  
  • If he (the ruler) is ignorant or errors: then he is mistaken and takes the ruling of those who fall into error (being a free from sin and not a kaafir due to ignorance)…” 

The reason why the bay’ah is not about what system of law the ruler chooses to rule by as long as ruling by this legal system does not make him a disbeliever is because, the system of law the ruler chooses to rule by is between him and his lord. No one can make the ruler rule by anything he does not want to because he is the ultimate authority in the sate. The subjects can only advise the ruler on the correct system to rule by (the shariah), how to rule but they can not make him rule completely by the shariah if does not wish to.

Therefore ruling by Allahs law completely or partially (like the Muslim rulers of today do) is the sole responsibility of the Muslim ruler, Allah given him alone this responsibility.  So for instance the rulers of today who will have to bear the responsibility for their minor kufr due not ruling by Allahs law alone in this world and the next.

The prophet said, “If the ruler orders people with righteousness and rules justly, then he will be rewarded for that, and if he does the opposite, he will be responsible for that (not ruling by Allahs law so the ruler was unable to rule justly and therefore he did not order his subjects towards righteousness).” Recoded by Bukhari. 

The Messenger of Allah said, “Hear and obey, for they will bear responsibility for that entrusted to them (ruling by Allahs law), and you for that entrusted to you (hearing and obeying the ruler)”. Recorded by Muslim

Where as the bay’ah is concerned with the responsibility Allah has placed upon the subjects, their responsibility which Allah hold to account for in this world and the next is to do with how quick and how often did they hear and obey the Muslim ruler. This is why the prophet said in the above hadeeth, “Hear and obey, for they will bear responsibility for that entrusted to them (ruling by Allahs law), and you (for will bear responsibility for) that entrusted to you (how often you heard and obeyed the Muslim ruler)”. Recorded by Muslim

The responsibility entrusted to the subjects is to hear and obey the ruler as this his is the right the bay’ah has given to the Muslim ruler over his subjects. This right has to hear and obey the Muslim ruler has to be fulfilled as the prophet said, “… fulfil the rights you owe to others and to ask Allah for what is owed to you.” Recorded by Bukhari and Muslim.

Shaykh Uthaymeen said: the Prophet ordered us that we should hear and obey (the Muslim ruler), even if we find it hard upon us, and even if our backs are beaten, and our wealth is confiscated. 

Al-Maaziri said: With regard to bay’ah being given to the leader of the Muslims, it is sufficient for the decision makers to give him their bay’ah… (And) it is sufficient (for each individual subject) to commit oneself to obeying him and submitting to him by not going against him or rebel against him. Quoted from Fath al-Baari. 

Imam Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Saheeh Muslim: With regard to bay’ah (oath of allegiance): …It is not obligatory for each person to come to the leader and put his hand in his and give his oath of allegiance to him. Rather what is required of each individual is to submit to him and not go against him or rebel against him

Shaykh Bin Baz said: it is obligatory upon the subjects to obey their ruler in Ma’ruf (that which is judged as good, beneficial, or fitting by Islamic law and Muslims of sound intellect). It is authentically reported in many hadeeths that it is obligatory to obey the ruler, even if he oppresses or wrongs people unless he commits a plain act of Kufr (minor kufr), for revolt will result in rampant corruption and serious consequences that may exceed his wrong and oppression.

As the subject’s responsibility is to hear and obey the rulers they must hear and obey them in what the like and what they dislike. Thus the takfiree belief that the bay’ah given to the Muslim rulers of today is not valid because this bay’ah was based on them ruling with mixture of secular democratic laws (which are kufr) and Islamic shariah laws is false.

The bay’ah to the Muslim ruler concerns the subjects upholding to the best of their ability the responsibility Allah has given to them regarding hearing and obeying the Muslim ruler in what they like and what they dislike. The bay’ah has no concern or connection to the system of law the Muslim ruler rules with unless it can be proved the system he rules by makes him a disbeliever.

In al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (9/274) Ibn Khuldoon in his Muqaddimah explains what the bay’ah means and is concerned with. In it Ibn Khuldoon said: 

(The meaning) (The) Bay’ah or allegiance: (is) a pledge to obey;

  • (After he explained what the bay’ah concern (is about)); it is as if the one who swears allegiance is promising his ruler that he will accept his authority with regard to his own affairs and the affairs of the Muslims,
  • and he will not dispute with him with regard to any of that,
  • And he will obey him in any duties that he assigns to him (as long s they are not haraam), whether at times of ease or at times of hardship.

Above Ibn Khuldoon makes it clear that the bay’ah is sole connected to and concerning obedience to the Muslim ruler through accepting his authority, not disputing with him about his authority and doing anything the ruler would like his subjects to do whether it in ease times and or in hard times.  He did not mention anything to do with the bay’ah being concerned with the Muslim rulers system of rule.

Therefore it is clear that the bay’ah is about hearing and obeying the Muslim ruler in what his subjects like and what they dislike and has nothing do with the rulers system of rule as that is his responsibility alone.

But if the Muslim rulers of today or the future rule with a mixture of secular democratic laws (which are kufr) and Islamic shariah laws this ruling system is corrupt evil and against the shariah. So the subjects being Muslim should hate this system which they are forced to live by.

But as the rulers of today have not yet become kaafirs for doing this (they have committed major sin and minor kufr) then the bay’ah (which is concerning hearing and obeying and not about how the ruler rules as this is responsibility and choice whether to rule with justice and the shariah or to rule by injustice and kufr laws which make him a major sinner), necessitates that we hear and obey them in this even though we dislike and hate this system of shariah and kufr laws.

The Messenger of Allah said, “You must hear and obey (the Muslim ruler) both in your hardship and your ease and with regard to what pleases you and what you dislike and even if you do not get your due”. Recorded by Muslim

However what is meant by hearing and obeying them in regards to this system of shariah and kufr laws which the rulers of today rule by, is that the subjects hear and obey him in regards to the shariah laws as this halaal and the laws which are not from the shariah but are based on his ijtihad but do not contradict the shariah laws.

The reason the subjects must hear and obey the Muslim rulers in these things is because these are things that the subjects must love, as this is obedience to the shariah laws and laws that do not contradict the shariah. The Prophet said, ‘‘The person must obey in whatever he loves…”Recorded by Bukhari

However the subjects must not obey the Muslim ruler in the kufr laws include in the ruling system of shariah and kufr laws. Because this is haram as it involves disobedience to Allah, because obeying this law is obeying a command by the ruler to do a wrong (haram). If the subjects are forced to obey this kufr law and have no choice due to the rulers oppression being so great or because the kufr and shariah laws are mixed together in such a way that just to survive (not to die i.e. work etc to get money, food, clothing, water and shelter) then it is not haraam for the subjects to follow this law in that particular case.

The Prophet said, “A Muslim man must hear and obey (the Muslim ruler)…(but) if he is commanded to do a wrong action, he should not hear or obey“. Recorded by Bukhari and Muslim

The Prophet said, ‘‘The person must obey (the Muslim ruler)…(but) if he is commanded to disobey Allah, then he should not listen, not should he obey.’’  Recorded by Bukhari

Therefore as the bay’ah is concerned with the responsibility Allah has placed upon the subjects to hear and obey the Muslim ruler, the bay’ah to the Muslim rulers of today is not invalid due to the rulers ruling by a mixture of secular democratic laws (which are kufr) and Islamic shariah laws. As the subjects took this bay’ah based upon them hearing and obeying the ruler in what they like (the Islamic shariah laws he rules by) and to obey him on what he dislikes (secular democratic laws he rules by).

Also the subjects have been commanded to disobey the Muslim rulers when they command the subjects to disobey Allah by doing a wrong (haraam) action. The Muslim rulers command their subject’s by issuing laws.

In regards to the rulers the wrong action is the rulers wanting their subjects to obey the secular laws, so in this the subjects should disobey the ruler and must not follow these laws. But if the subjects are forced to obey these secular laws then they have no sin upon them as they had no choice in the matter.

When the ruler rules by secular laws and either forces the subjects to follow that law or gives the subjects a choice in the matter (i.e. to follow the secular law or the shariah law in a certain issues), then the subjects must dislike this law. However disliking the secular laws a Muslim ruler rules by does not mean the bay’ah to him is in valid, because when the subjects see the ruler ruling by other than Allahs law, they our command to have patient with the ruler. They are not commanded that as soon as the ruler does something they dislike that his bay’ah is invalid.

The Messenger of Allah said, “Anyone who dislikes something from his leader should be patient…”Recorded by Bukhari and Muslim

The Messenger of Allah to Abu Dharr al Ghifaaree, “Have patience, even if he (ruler) is an Abyssinian slave.” Reported by, Muslim. The prophet said ‘Abyssinian slave’ not to be raciest or because he was raciest. He only said this because in his time the hardest thing for the Arabs to handle would have been being ruled by a non-Arab or a slave. 

The prophet also said to the Ansaar (the Muslims who lived in Medina by the other Muslim came from Mecca and the surrounding areas) when talking about having patient with rulers, “Have patience until you meet me at the pool (this is the pool that Allah will give to the prophet for the Muslims to drink from on the day of resurrection).” Reported by Bukhari

Also when the Muslim ruler rules by secular laws and has therefore committed an open act of disobedience to Allah the subjects are commanded to have patient but to also condemn this act. By hating these rules based on secular laws in their heart and they must not praise these laws unless they are forced too.

The prophet said, “Whoever finds that the governor (meaning governor of a province inside a Muslim state but not overall ruler or ruler of a state (like the rulers of today) or the  caliph) appointed over them indulges in an act of disobedience to Allah, they should condemn the governor’s act, but should not withdraw themselves from his obedience…” Saheeh Muslim 

This condemnation does not take place through protests, demonstrations; sit inns etc or violent revolts. These actins involve the subjects making a decision to no longer obey the Muslim ruler in anything he commands (good or bad) while at the same time they try to remove him from power. All of these actions are haraam as they involve open disobedience to the Muslim ruler. The prophet Mohammed in the above hadeeth has command us to condemn these acts but he still told we have to do this and still obey the ruler.

Additionally this condemnation does not take place on TV stations, in the newspapers, in the masjids on the minbar, in the street or at rallies and demonstrations. These actions are haraam as they involve publicly backbiting the ruler and sometimes they involve slandering the ruler. Backbiting in public or in private is haram. Plus these actions contradict the prophet’s advice of sincerely advising the leaders of the Muslims (the Muslim ruler).

 The prophet said, “The Deen is Naseehah (Sincerity/Advice).”We (The companions) said: “For who?” The Prophet said: “For Allaah, His book, His messenger, the leaders of the Muslims and their common folk.” (Muslim)

Imam An-Nawawi said “Sincerity to the Leaders is to help them upon the truth. To obey them in it, to order them with it, to remind and advise them with kindness and gentleness, to remind them of that which they are heedless and neglectful of, to help them fulfil those rights of the Muslims that have not reached them yet. Not to rebel against them and to enamour the hearts of the people with obedience to them.”

Imam al-Khattaabee said “From sincerity to them is Prayer behind them, Jihad along with them, to give the zakat (charity) to them, and not to rebel against them with the sword when injustice or bad treatment appears from them. And that they are not praised with false praises, and that duaa (supplication) is made for their righteousness. All of this is based upon the fact that what is meant by the leader of the Muslims is the Caliph, and other than him from the administrators who take charge of the affairs of the Muslims.”

Sincerely advising the leaders of the Muslims (the Muslim ruler) is done in secret. The prophet said, “Whoever wants to advise a sultaan (leader/ruler) with a matter, do not do it outwardly but let him take him by the hand and go into seclusion with him. If he accepts it from him then that (is good) and if not then he (the adviser) has fulfilled that which was upon him (to do).” Musnad of Ahmad, as-Sunnah of Ibn Abee Aa’sim, authenticated by Albaanee.  

Based on this hadeeth it is haraam to condemn the ruler in public or private this condemnation should only b between you, the ruler and Allah.  Advising the ruler could also involve other private ways such as: the person could write a letter, give the letter to someone (only this person) who may be able to give it to the ruler directly, email his office, phone his office or tell someone (only this person) who may be able to advise him your advice in the hope it will get to the ruler (due necessity) or any other private non public way.

So when the takfires claim that the bay’ah given to the Muslim ruler is not valid because the Muslim ruler rules with a mixture of secular democratic laws and Islamic shariah laws is incorrect.  Because the subjects have to still obey the ruler in what he rules by that is from the shariah or does not contradict it.

If the Muslim ruler rules by the secular laws then the subject have patient with this as they dislike it, they have to condemn it (hate the rulers action I their heart and not praises his action) and they have to advice him sincerely in a private manner (how they advise the ruler privately is up to the individual) however they do not obey those laws unless forced by him or it is a necessity.

The takfires further claim the Muslim rulers of this time are all illegitimate rulers because the bay’ah was given to the Muslim rulers of today, who do not rule by Allahs law in everything only in some things. The takfires claim for any bay’ah to a Muslim ruler to be correct the condition is the Muslim ruler must totally implement the shariah law.

But it is not a condition for the bay’ah to be correct that ruler has to rule by Allahs law only as the takfires claim.

Allah said “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad) and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority (the rulers)…” (Surah Al-Nisa’, 4: 59) Allah says obey those who are in authority referring to the Muslim rulers who are in authority over their subject’s daily life. Allah says obey them, this obedience is due to the rulers through the bay’ah to hear and obey them.

Thus if it was a condition for the bay’ah to be correct that Muslim ruler has to rule by Allahs law only, Allah would have prohibited making bay’ah to a ruler who rules by other than Allahs law (unless it makes him a disbeliever) or at least indicated it was haraam to do so. Allah says “…He (Allah) has explained to you what He has made haram for you…” (6:119), therefore if it was a condition or haram to give the bay’ah to a ruler who rules by other than Allahs law but has not reached the level of major kufr (disbelief) Allah would have said (or indicated that) it in the Quran.

The Muslim ruler like the rulers of today who rule with a mixture of secular democratic laws and Islamic shariah laws but have not yet become kaafirs (disbelievers) due to their minor kufr (kufr of action, which is a major sin) then Allah never prohibited bay’ah to this type of rule in the Quran until he rules only by the shariah, Allah said “O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad) and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority (the rulers)…” (Surah Al-Nisa’, 4: 59)

As Allah has not mentioned this condition or prohibition in the Quran if it is truly a condition or prohibited as the takfires claim to give the bay’ah to a ruler who rules by other than Allahs law than it must be in prophets Sunnah.

Unfortunately for the takfires there is no mention of this in the Sunnah. If it was a condition for the bay’ah to the Muslim ruler to be correct that the ruler would have to rule by Allahs law only the prophet would have told us.

The reason the prophet would have told us about this condition is because the prophet told his ummah about all haram things and bay’ah to a ruler who does not rule by the Quran and Sunnah would be haram if it was a condition for the bay’ah to the Muslim ruler to be correct that the ruler would have to rule by Allahs law only. All the prophets including the prophet Mohammed always disclosed what is best for their ummahs and warned from what is evil for their ummahs.

The prophet said, “Never was a prophet before me, but he disclosed to his people what he knew to be best for them, and warned them of what he knew to be evil for them.” Recorder by Muslim.

Plus if it was if it was a condition for the bay’ah to the Muslim ruler to be correct that the ruler would have to rule by Allahs law only. The prophet would have told us as he always told his ummah about the thing which would bring them closer to paradise and further from the hell.  

The prophet said, “There is nothing that would bring you closer to Jannah (Gardens of Paradise) and farther from the Fire (hell) but it has been clarified [by me] to you.” Recorded by Ahmad and others; authenticated by al-Albaanee and others. 

The takfires should note that if the divine revelation (Quran and Sunnah) was silent about something, this means it is permissible and people are free to practice it unless someone can bring a proof that it is haram. So if in the divine revelation it is found that making bay’ah is obligatory, the subjects have t make it. If like you (oh takfires) claim it is a condition for the bay’ah to the Muslim ruler to be correct that the ruler would have to rule by Allahs law only, then if the divine revelation was silent concerning this condition then it is permissible to give the bay’ah to the ruler without this condition.                  

The prophet said “What Allah has made lawful in His Book is halal and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favour. So accept from Allah His favour, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, “And thy Lord is not forgetful.” (19:64), this hadeeth was reported by al-Hakim classified as saheeh and quoted by al-Bazzar.

In a supporting narration for the hadeeth above the prophet said, “The halal is that which Allah has made lawful in His Book and the haram is that which He has forbidden, and that concerning which He is silent He has permitted as a favour to you.” Reported by al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah.

Thus, it is favour to this ummah that he allowed us to make the bay’ah to the Muslim ruler who rules by other than Allahs law when it does not make him a disbeliever.

The reason for this favour is that there would be a period of rule by un-Islamic rulers in this ummah. Firstly biting kings (meaning not upon the way of the prophet or four rightly guided khalifahs rulership) and after that there would be oppressive kingship (meaning they do not rule by Allahs law due to there oppression as oppressive rule is not in line with ruling by the shariah).

The prophet said, “Prophethood will be amongst you for as long as Allah wills, then Allah will raise it up when He wills, then there will be Khilaafah upon the way of Prophethood, then Allah will raise it up when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship, then oppressive Kingship, then Khilaafah upon the way of the Prophethood.” Decleared saheeh by Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee

If Allah had not favoured this ummah by allowing the subjects to make the bay’ah to the Muslim ruler who rules by other than Allahs law when it does not make him a disbeliever, then in the reign of biting kings oppressive kingships there would be much fitnah (tribulation and troubles). As this would have lead to many wars, deaths and division in the ummah.

So Allah and his messenger have kept silent over this issue of making bay’ah to the Muslim ruler who rules by other than Allahs law when it does not make him a disbeliever out of there mercy for this ummah.

The Prophet also said, “Allah…He has prohibited certain things, so do not do them; and He has kept silent concerning other things out of mercy for you and not because of forgetfulness, so do not ask questions concerning them.” Reported by Darqutni and classified as hasan by Imam al-Nawawi.

In fact in the Sunnah the prophet indicates what is important concerning the bay’ah is that the subjects obey the ruler as much as he can. Unlike today when the subjects (the takfires) try to make as reason as possible to not hear and obey the rulers due to their unfair and unjust oppression.

The prophet said, “Whoever gives his oath of allegiance (bay’ah) to a leader and gives him his hand and his heart (submit to his ruling him both outwardly as well as inwardly unless they go against the shariah), let him obey him as much as he can…” Narrated by Muslim, 1844

Also the Prophet indicated that this ummah must listen and obey the Muslim ruler even if he does not follow the prophet’s guidance and does not follow his Sunnah in ruling by the shariah (i.e. he rules by other than Allahs law) and by being a just ruler.

The prophet said, “There will be after me leaders who do not follow my guidance and do not follow my Sunnah, and there will be among them men whose hearts are like those of Satan in the body of a human being”. And Hudhaifa (bin al-Yaman) asked the Prophet, ‘What we should do at that time if we reach it?’ He said, ‘listen and obey the ruler, even if he lashed your back (unjustly) and took your money (unjustly)”. Recorded by Muslim.

From this hadeeth it is very clear that it is not a condition for a Muslim ruler to rule by Allahs law for the bay’ah to be valid, because if it was the prophet Mohammed would not have commanded his ummah to listen to and obey  Muslim rulers: 

  1.  who do not follow the prophets guidance,
  2. do not follow his Sunnah,
  3. lash your back unjustly,
  4. take your money unjustly
  5. And have hearts like those of Satan when it comes to ruling by the shariah and being a just ruler (i.e. they are unjust rulers who rule by other than Allahs law).

In conclusion the takfires claim that the bay’ah to the Muslim rulers of today is invalid because this bay’ah was based on them ruling by a mixture of secular democratic laws (which are kufr) and Islamic shariah laws and their claim that for any bay’ah to be correct the Muslim ruler must rule only by Allahs law has been proven to a false claim.

Also if/when takfires claim that the bay’ah to the Muslim rulers of today is invalid because this bay’ah was based on them ruling by a mixture of secular democratic laws and Islamic shariah laws and their claim that for any bay’ah to be correct the Muslim ruler must rule only by Allahs law. Then they should know it easy to say this but the question is can they prove from the Quran and sunnah that this type of bay’ah is haram or that it is a condition for the bay’ah to be  correct that the ruler has to only rule by Islamic law.

The reason the takfires can not prove their stance is because bay’ah to the Muslim ruler is halaal, so foundation in this matter is that a Muslim can make bay’ah to a Muslim ruler no matter what ruling system he rules with. Therefore if he ruler rules with a mixture of shariah and any other law then it is halaal to make bay’ah to him unless it is proven to be haram.

Haram (the prohibited or unlawful) is that which the Law-Giver has absolutely prohibited; anyone who engages in it is liable to incur the punishment of Allah in the Hereafter as well as a legal punishment in this world.

Nothing is haram except what is prohibited by a sound and explicit verse of the Quran or a clear authentic and explicit hadeeth of the Prophet Muhammad.

If the hadeeth is not authentic or if the hadeeth or verse of Quran is not explicit in stating the prohibition, the original principle of permissibility applies, which is to make bay’ah is approved of in the Quran and authentic Sunnah, so therefore this allowance can not be removed by something unauthentic or unclear.

There is NO CLEAR CUT EXPLICITY VERSE OR AUTHENTIC HADEETH STATING THE PROBHIBITION of giving the bay’ah to ruler who rules with a mixture of Islamic law and non-Islamic law can be found.

Also there is NO CLEAR CUT EXPLICITY VERSE OR AUTHENTIC HADEETH STATING THAT THE CONDITION FOR BAY’AH TO BE CORRECT IS THAT THE RULER MUST RULE ONLY BY ALLAHS LAW.

So then it must be concluded that the divine revelation (Quran and Sunnah) was silent about this matter, Allah being silent over this issue is a favour to this ummah

The Prophet also said, “Allah…He has prohibited certain things, so do not do them; and He has kept silent concerning other things out of mercy for you and not because of forgetfulness, so do not ask questions concerning them.” Reported by Darqutni and classified as hasan by Imam al-Nawawi.

Some of the takfires have realised there is no CLEAR CUT EXPLICITY VERSE OR AUTHENTIC HADEETH STATING THE PROBHIBITION of  GIVEING THE BAY’AH TO A RULER, WHO RULES WITH A MIXTURE OF ALLAHS LAWS & OTHER THAN ALLAHS LAW. So they argue that there is a general prohibition on this issue.

So these takfires think this general prohibition on this issue makes it HARAM TO GIVE THE BAY’AH TO A RULER, WHO RULES WITH A MIXTURE OF ALLAHS LAWS & OTHER THAN ALLAHS LAW, but what they do not understand is that there is also a general allowance on this issue.

The general prohibition on this issue is it is haraam to rule by KUFR (RULING BY OTHER THAN ALLAHS LAW IN EVERY SITUANTION), so it is haraam to give the bay’ah to this type of ruler.

The general allowance on this issue is that it is halaal to rule by Islamic law only, thus it is also halaal to give the bay’ah to this ruler.

So it be could argued that there is a  general allowance on this issue which therefore makes it HALAAL TO GIVE THE BAY’AH TO A RULER, WHO RULES WITH A MIXTURE OF ALLAHS LAWS & OTHER THAN ALLAHS LAW.

This is why they those who claim it is haram must bring A CLEAR CUT EXPLICITY VERSE OR AUTHENTIC HADEETH STATING THE PROBHIBITION of  GIVEING THE BAY’AH TO A RULER, WHO RULES WITH A MIXTURE OF ALLAHS LAWS & OTHER THAN ALLAHS LAW.

Also the general prohibition on this issue is, that it is haram to rule by KUFR (RULING BY OTHER THAN ALLAHS LAW IN EVERY SITUANTION), so it is haraam to give the bay’ah to this type of ruler. But this general prohibition has nothing to do with giving bay’ah to THE MUSLIM RULER, WHO RULES WITH A MIXTURE OF ALLAHS LAWS & OTHER THAN ALLAHS LAW and this is what is halaal.

If the ruling on bay’ah to the ruler who rules by Islam or bay’ah to the ruler who RULES WITH KUFR (i.e. no shariah at all) has been made very clear in the shariah with clear cut verses and authentic hadeeth. THEN IF IT IS HARAM TO GIVE THE BAY’AH TO A RULER WHO RULES WITH A MIXTURE OF ALLAHS LAW & OTHER THAN ALLAHS LAW THERE MUST BE A CLEAR CUT EXPLICITY VERSE OR AUTHENTIC HADEETH STATING THIS PROBHIBITION.

Those Muslims from the takfires or those who have been influenced by them and therefore do not give their bay’ah to the Muslim rulers of today or state that they took back their bay’ah, then they fall under the threat mentioned in the following hadeeths.

In the Saheeh Muslim on the authority of ‘Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn Al-‘As that “One who withdraws his hand from obedience (to the ruler) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to a ruler) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jaahiliyyah (the time before the prophet Mohammed’s prophet hood in which the idol worshiping Arabs lived was is known as Jaahiliyyah).” Saheeh Muslim

The prophet said, “One who defected from obedience (to the ruler) and separated from the main body of the Muslims, if he died in that state he would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jaahiliyyah (i.e. would not die as a Muslim). Saheeh Muslim

The prophet said, “When you are holding to (one single man as your leader), you should kill the person who seeks to undermine your solidarity or disrupt your unity (by not giving the bay’ah to the Muslim Ruler or taking it back with out a right to do so) whoever is he.

May Allah guide all the Muslims to success in this world and the hereafter. Ameen.

Side Points:

1. The Muslim Ruler Who Rules Only By Other Than Allahs Law

The Muslim can ruler who rules by the shariah laws only or the Muslim ruler rules with a mixture Islamic law and non-Islamic laws then this type of ruler can be and must be given the bay’ah to be heard and obeyed by his subjects.

However the Muslim ruler who rules by only other than Allahs law with no trace of the shariah in is legislation (which he refers judgement to) is NOT to be given the bay’ah. The reason for this is the Muslim ruler who only rules by other than Allahs law, has committed open major kufr and his system of rule would be classed as total kufr (like democracy of the USA and communism of China) Only ruling by (i.e. referring judgement to another law) is and indication that this ruler hates the laws of Islam other wise he would at least have some shariah laws. Hating Islam is major kufr of belief, which would this ruler a kaafir.

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan stated, “…that the one who abolishes the Shariah entirely (nihaa’iyyan) (means the Muslim ruler completely and totally effaces Islam and everything related to it, such that nothing of it remains, or is allowed to remain, and then brings another law to replace it totally, then that does not exist today), and puts another law in its place, that this is evidence (daleel) to show that he views the [secular] law to be better than the Shariah, and whoever holds this opinion, he is the one who is a kaafir [emphasis given]…”

The rulers of today do not rule by Islam or kufr they rule with a mixture of both so bay’ah can be given to them.

2. The Hadeeths Commanding Obedience To The Rulers Rather To The Over All Caliph Or Rulers Of Individual Muslim States Not Just The Caliph

Shaykh As-San’aani explained that this hadeeth refers not only to the caliph but also to separate rulers of individual states. He said in his explanation of the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah, raised to the Prophet (who is reported to have said), “One who defected from obedience (to the ruler) and separated from the main body of the Muslims, if he died in that state he would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jaahiliyyah (i.e. would not die as a Muslim). Saheeh Muslim, Book 20, # 4555, English Translation.

That the “obedience” is the obedience to the Khalifah upon whom there is agreement and it seems that what is intended is the khalifah (ruler) of any region from the regions, since people were not on agreement on a single khalifah over the entire Islamic lands since the Abbasid Rule. Rather each region became independent under a ruler running its affairs. And if we carry the hadeeth to apply only to one khalifah upon whom the Muslims are unanimous (agreed upon) then it’s (the hadeeths) benefit would be diminished. And that the saying (in the hadeeth) “and separated from the main body of the Muslims,” means: separated from the Jamaah who agreed upon an imam (any ruler of a particular region not specifically a overall khalifah of all the Muslim regions), under whom their body and affairs are organized, their word is united, and their protection from their enemy is achieved.

So it becomes clear that negating the validity of governorship on separate Muslim states leads to evil in the sense that its sets the stage for rebellion against the rulers, and this is forbidden in Islam even if the ruler is an oppressor as this contradicts the creed of Ahlus Sunnah. And Allah Knows Best.”

3. Question: Is Bay’ah Only Made To The Muslim Ruler

Answer By Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said, “Bay’ah only has to do with the leader of the Muslims; these various bay’ahs (given to other than the Muslim ruler) are innovated and they are among the causes of division. The Muslims who are living in one country or one kingdom should have one allegiance to one leader; it is not permissible to have several kinds of bay’ah.” al-Muntaqa min Fataawa al-Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, 1/367 

4. Question: How Is The Bay’ah (pledge Of Allegiance) Given To The Muslim Ruler

Answer: With regard to how the allegiance should be given to the leader, in the case of men it is done in word and in deed, namely with a handshake. In the case of women, it is done by word only. This is proven in the ahaadeeth which speak of how allegiance was given to the Messenger of Allah. 

For example, Aa’ishah said: “No, by Allaah, the hand of the Messenger of Allah never touched the hand of any (non-mahram) woman. Rather he would accept their allegiance (bay’ah) in words only.” Narrated by al-Bukhari, 5288; Muslim, 1866

Imam Al-Nawawi said in his Sharh (commentary), “This indicates that for women, allegiance is given in words only, without taking the hand of the leader, and for men it is done in words and by taking his hand. 

In al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (9/274) it says: Bay’ah or allegiance, as defined by Ibn Khuldoon in his Muqaddimah, When they swore allegiance to a ruler and made this pledge, they would put their hands in his as confirmation of the pledge. That is akin to what the seller and purchaser do, so bay’ah or allegiance was accompanied by a handshake.

Advertisements

About Abdul Kareem Ibn Ozzie

I am a revert trying to spread the sunnah inshallah.
This entry was posted in REFUTATIONS OF THE KHAWARIJ CREED and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s