Taken From

Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaah.Com

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?

By Abdul Kareem Ibn Ozzie

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).
 1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 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-Nawawee 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 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 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.
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 (may Allah be pleased with both of them)
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.